Being critical of "mainstream media", "mainstream science" and "national, official health advice" is something everyday citizens are learning to do thanks to educational posts and podcasts such as yours. We can know instinctively what the Truth is when we assess our own progress on a low carb diet but we get a level of validation when scholars, such as yourselves, spell it out for us. Thank you so very much! -( Retired Nurse)
"The media is the message" by Marshall , McCluhan. It's the IT revolution. It's massively disruptive, culturally. It's empowering. Unfortunately it's culturally agnostic, with no barrier to entry, so it dispassionately empowers idiots and con men right alongside geniuses and altruistic educators. It conquers and divides .... those with the power of discrimination rise to the top and those without sink to the bottom with no in-between.
When mainstream scientists are trying to claim that men don’t have an advantage over women in sports, you know the field of science has lost all credibility.
As a keen follower of low carb, sometimes veering into keto, plus near daily use of fasting, typically 18:6, I can confirm that this is so easy to maintain indefinitely because of the lack of constant inconvenient hunger, presumably from the reduced fasting insulin, post prandial insulin hyper secretion, and effective leptin secretion. If this means that my steady normal weight, normal blood pressure, A1c etc has arisen from reduced energy intake, so what? I often study on the internet ‘reasons’ why low carb is wrong - it won’t work, the theory says so, because fat has 2.25x the calories that carbs have, so you will eat more calories; it does work, but only because it make you eat less because fat is more satiating than carbohydrate; it does work but the protein will destroy your kidneys and the red meat will give you bowel cancer and type 2 diabetes; it does work but all the saturated fat will raise your ldl and give you heart disease etc etc. Well, I am a retired GP, with 31 years of looking after all the diabetics in the practice, and in my last 5 years some of my patients with diabetes came to me for approval of following a low carb diet, which I gave with the usual caveats, and they all improved from the point of view of weight, BP, A1c, and lipid profile. Some were able to stop all their drugs, including their diabetic medication, and because they no longer satisfied the WHO criteria for diabetes, I had great pleasure in re-coding their notes ‘Diabetes resolved’
It is stunning how much really bad science is out there, and how easy it is for these studies to be heavily covered by the media. We need more sceptics publicly challenging these studies and the media outlets that blindly promote them. This video was AWESOME!!
As pointed out ad nauseam with big pharma studies It is absolutely important that third parties have access to the raw data Which in nearly all cases is hidden by the big pharma oligarchy Great job, Nico! 🙂
Nick! You are the man! That study was really troubling me. They lost me at muscle mass decreased for the LCD group but gained for the plant based group? Something didn't smell right. Thank you for taking that on. Will we see a Plant Chompers follow-up? Chris really waved the flag hard on that study. Thanks again man!
"Will we see a Plant Chompers follow-up?" I hope so. Chris and I are on good terms, and I think he's a thoughtful and open-minded individual. He has expressed interest in covering the DIETFITS reanalysis as well as, potentially, this study with Dr Adrian Soto Mota MD PhD. I'd like to see that happen. I am also hoping to have a podcast with Simon Hill (theproof) on LMHR sometime soon, as well as some other "secret" podcasts that I'm sure you will all enjoy.
@@justadude4826 Not assessed. For the outcome measure of interest (food intake and weight), I'd suspect it would partition with animal-based low carb over low fat plant based. Also note the ABKD in this study was actually rather plant heavy: snacks of nuts, entrees like broccoli Alfredo (broccoli with cheese sauce) etc.
🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation: 00:00 🔄 *Introduction to Obesity Models* - Two opposing models: Calories in, Calories out (Enerby balance model) and Carbohydrate Insulin model. - Explanation of the energy balance model and carbohydrate insulin model. 02:30 📉 *Initial Study Overview* - Overview of the 2021 metabolic study with 20 participants on low-fat plant-based and low-carb animal-based diets. - Critique of the study design, including the lack of a washout period and suboptimal design of the low-carb diet. - Presentation of the original narrative supporting the energy balance model. 05:03 🔄 *Diet Carryover Effects* - Introduction to the diet carryover effects observed in the study. - Massive effects of diet order on caloric intake and fat loss. - Statistical analysis using spiderweb plots to demonstrate the dominance of diet order in the study outcomes. 06:26 📊 *Biomarker Analysis* - Examination of biomarkers (beta hydroxy butyrate, respiratory quotient, and C peptide) to assess diet carryover effects. - Relationship between insulin release (C peptide) in the first phase and caloric intake/fat loss in the second phase. - Consistency with the carbohydrate insulin model and implications for the study's conclusions. 07:49 🔄 *Reinterpretation and Implications* - Reinterpretation of the study's findings, challenging the original conclusions. - Validation of the carbohydrate insulin model over the energy balance model. - Implications of the new interpretation for understanding the role of diet in obesity. Made with HARPA AI
I am so glad that you and (increasingly) others are doing this research. I see this analysis trend in so many articles by MDs trying to sell a product or service based on the presumption of authority when the published data states the opposite. Then this analysis is parroted ad nauseum until it becomes the common belief.
Exactly my thoughts. As a clinical/research scientist myself, I can't believe what the mainstream scientific community has become. The rot and corruption within the "healthcare" industry (including the pharmaceutical and publication industry) is so deeply rooted that I can't really see how this will change anytime soon. It's disheartening but knowing that there are people/channels like this one out there trying their best to present us with unbiased facts gives us hope.
Pretty much says what I already knew. You can make results skew your direction depending on how you massage the data. Trying to prove a theory is the wrong way to do it. Much better how you and Dave Feldman started with a hypothesis and tried to DISPROVE it. Great work, and I will continue to follow your research.
A third model is about satiation and tends to emphasise protein (you feel more satisfied by a given number of calories eaten as protein vs carbs) - and to a lesser extent healthy fats. Something of a subclass of ebm is the 'don't eat junk food' model (although it also is part of the cbm and protein-focused model too).
I think the low carb torch is doing great in your hands and you'll be able to take it all the way. You're going to be on the right side of history Nick! Keep it up.
I think a more likely cause of the difference is caloric density. Once someone adjusts to a less calorically dense diet, they will eat more when moving to a higher density diet. And once someone adjusts to a diet with higher calorie density, they will eat less when switching to a less calorically dense diet.
HOLY MACKERAL NICKMAN! I would like to add I saw recently (maybe on your channel) that 2 weeks is too short of time to see the benefits of LCD and at least 6 weeks is much more advisable to see results. Both models have their place and time and do overlap depending on individual goals and lifestyles. Example I eat mostly meat diet but felt horrible when I completely cut out carbs. I tried Vegan diet, and it was a complete nonstarter. I was as hungry the whole time as I was when I at the end of a 4 day fast. Have you considered seeing if you can work with Nick from physionic channel (you could be the two nicks). Your material studied is very similar.
Notice that when describing the high kevel of each, the cico model skips over any causal element for fat accumulation--it simply assumes it like we are a motor engine of some kind. Only the carb-insulin model addresses fat accumulation as first principle. They can't even hypothesise competently.
thats right. but one 1000 calories of potatoes will make you fatter then 1000 calories of pig fat -one raises insuline, the other doesnt. so counting calories ist stupid. @@cyberfunk3793
We hope for more studies to be developed with proper and fair balanced dietary intakes . Both devoid of sugars seed oils and highly processed foods, both sides otherwise healthy . And focus less on absolute weight loss and more on metabolic health markers , and body composition. i also think it’s important to focus on the three patterns of eating , “regular omnivorous” balanced macros, HFLC and HCLF but all otherwise devoid of ultra processed and junk foods . We will get there … eventually.
a real study would evaluate microbiomes, metabolic health markers, inflammatory levels, biological age, levels of plastics and toxins in bloodstream, and organ function. That will never happen.
LDL or overall outcomes? I have a hard time believing that calorie matched, overall health outcomes would be worse for something naturally occuring and not essentially manafactured@@cyberfunk3793
Always fascinating. The Covid mess has made me disbelieve all studies really as my eyes are now wide open as to who pays gets the results. I can appreciate Meta analysis and quite frankly, Anecdotes way more than any studies in any prestigious journal 🤓 Great presentation
Appreciate your videos. I've learned to question studies, ask who funded the study, and the researchers bias. I've noticed vegans love bashing meat with flawed research. I'm ketovore for life.
Thank you for what you and all those involved on your channel are doing. It gives us hope for a better future. I have been trying to comment in length on some of the most popular plant-based channels now and it can be quite difficult to break down studies to demonstrated their flaws to a non-scientific crowd. Don't give up whatever the challenges may be in the future. The work that people like you are doing will save lives and leave its mark for the generations to come.
Aha! I am seeing an important missing variable. Diet with respect to time. In my personal experimentation on myself, I am finding I do fine eating both carbs and high fat. The key is timing. I can eat carbs in the mornings as long as I will be burning some up during the day. My eating time window I keep between 2 and 6 hours, none of which get anywhere near the evening. Eating carbs does not turn off hunger, but eating protein and fat sure does. I am finding that I can tune my weight either up or down in very short order using this method and controlling quantities. It is not proving to be difficult for me. Again, the time of day and the timing of meals seems to be key to me.
if carry over effects are important, then what were the participants eating before the study? And how much weight should be given to any short nutritional study. Personally, at the age of 60, I have to work to keep my weight up on a low carb diet. Before I was slightly overweight. I am less hungry overall.
Yes. I think there were many of the opinion that the study design was problematic, esp considering lack of washout. However, this reanalysis shows just how massive the carryover was, enough to entirely invalidate the prior study. It highlights the dangers of these sorts of studies, importance of washout periods, esp in the consent of macronutrient crossover studies, and will hopefully inform future study design so similar misleading results are not produced (and at tax payer expense)
@@nicknorwitzPhDRight! I observed this design way too often. As if a metabolism could switch seamlessly in a few days. It took me months to get settled comfortably in low carb, high fat.
I tried it for 15 MONTHS!!!! effects came with leaving out unsaturated fats, general lower weight, and a couple of days eating absolutely nothing. it was very difficult, but i believed in the sience, since nothing else was working.
Given the studies on the effects of fructose and seed oils on the brain (admittedly on mice), I think both models are somewhat lacking. Interesting re-analysis though I find the study too short to matter anyway.
WOW. Great detective work! (The study designers didn't include a washout period ... adding another conspiracy theory to the long list I endorse in 2023?)
Well ok Nick, but there is sufficient evidence to support cico. Hall's study is not the one study that, if flawed, would destabilize the scientific consensus. Do Gardner's low fat / low carb study for example.
Exactly. Then there are other studies besides this one that also did 2 weeks washout period in between LC and LF periods (don't remember the study's name) showing similar results for both groups. Anytime you control for calories and protein , you get predictable results. Then there are studies like DIET FIT study where participants where participants had genetic testing done before going low carb and then increasing carbs to their preferred levels. This shown no benefit of LC nor LF for weight (and regardless of their genetic 'predisposition' for carbohydrate tolerance). This is an elegant study to represent real life conditions as well.
Hey Nick, There is a new European article released in Nature Medicine titled “Lipidome changes due to improved dietary fat quality inform cardiometabolic risk reduction and precision nutrition”. It pretends that eating saturated fats does increase your chances on getting a hart or cardiovascular disease with 32% and on developing diabetes type2 with 23%. I would like to get your analysis/opinion on this article. Thanks Thomas
Another prove that researchers will tell one thing, because that is the intended conclusion, while their data actually tells a different story. What they also never really consider is that it takes basically 4 weeks to get into any form of deeper ketosis on the diet. So they can only really start to compare after 4 weeks, best would be after 12 weeks. Good though that even a 2 week dietary change shows the differences. What I would say after his video though is that both models seem to be true there. Because if the subjects lower their actual calorie intake after the LCD their bodies still take up all the calories they consume, which is what the Energy Balance Model suggests. But since they consume less calories they store less fat then. But yes. I totally agree that hunger and appetite greatly depend on hormones and insulin levels and that of course is a huge driver of obesity. Also insulin is a signaller for cells to build storage. Ergo with less insulin the cells don't get signal to build up storage and thus you are not so hungry and thus you consume less calories.
Hello Nick, Many thanks for your great analyses of various topics. I always look forward to your straightforward discussion of complex topics and how you present these naturally and understandably. Would it be possible to compare the three models at some point in one of your or Dave's presentations? The three models being the energy balance model, the carbohydrate insulin model, and the lipid energy model. Many thanks & best wishes to you and your beloved ones!
Expectation bias influences perception in such studies. Another and profound problem with the study is the sample size. Twenty individuals is a very small sample. Sample size can have profound effects on statistical results, and smaller samples are going to consistently be less trustworthy. A discussion of the statistical tests used and the reasons for using them would be useful, as well as a discussion of sample power.
Plant eater here. I have been always very muscular and quite lean. Recently I lowered my energy output because I started spending 10h a day sitting in the office. I have had troubles lowering these extra 5 kgs (abs barely visible anymore). I will still look at the energy balance model for the answer simply because it is better understood and I know how body takes over your NEAT etc when in prolonged cal deficit. But let’s educate. How would you low carbers approach my situation right now? PS meat is a no go for me.
So would this suggest that insulin despite its short half life has some long term (spanning days and weeks) physiological effects on hunger signalling and satiety factors?
I’ve been OMAD first then low carb 90% of the time the last 6 years and have seen improvements in all metabolic measures but I can gain weight on KETO/carnivore due to persistent over eating.
Certainly. It’s called having a really good appetite. Never had to even consider such till my mid 30s. I’m no different than one of the 3 cats we have around here; the one that I have no idea how much he can eat, or just how fat he’d get because I’ve always had to cut him off. Amazing appetite and doesn’t care what marketing or anyone thinks about being fat. The other two cats don’t have such an appetite. I’m not like them.
7:51 Another anecdote here My BP was stuck at 160 after years on losartan On intermitted fasting, then one meal a day, with multiple single day and multi day fasts, LC/LF PLANT-BASED Mediterranean menu I lost 50 lb, 10 lb to go My BP dropped to 120 My cardiologist says it was the losartan I disagree 😂
@@mikafoxx2717 I appreciate your concern for my health, thank you 😄 On the Mediterranean diet, it's a very large menu, I don't feel limited at all I'm very close to achieving total metabolic health, just a couple more months
@@satxsatxsatxcan you please list an average day of eating, as that sounds extremely limited and I am struggling to figure out what you can actually eat besides only non starchy vegetables
This is amazing stuff. It's amazing to see that it isn't just the effects while on the diet that prove the case, but also the long term effects. And also, if the LF diet makes you eat more, that's also an L.
Thank you for explaining this study, Nick. In your opinion, why do the scientists who produced the study structure it the way they did (with carryover), and come to the conclusion they did? Is it intentional or just biased, poorly done with the results misunderstood?
This debate to show which diet is best seems to be a narrative to solve obesity and all other metabolic diseases caused by obesity without having to exercise. When one start eating a variety of healthy Whole Foods (whatever that is) and exercise as much as possible, the body fat melts away once you are In a calorie deficit and, for most people, all those metabolic diseases disappear. Keep doing this as a lifestyle and, you don’t have to bother about which diet is best. Of course, this requires people to take responsibility of their body and health
Small correction (with respect 🙏🏼)-those spider plots were HEPTA-gons (“seven sided”, aka less commonly SEPTA-gons) Love this [re]analysis! Excellent content as always 👍
Great analysis. Original study could also do more than 2 weeks. Give it 8 weeks and lets see he metabolic changes. Also, put a carnivore branch in the study.
I think I ran across this study by Kevin hall on Plant him pets site, Chris gushed over how he was not going to look at the study,but, then saw that it was done byKEVIN HALL! " Oh, says Chris , Kevin Hall is really good, so he read the paper"! In vegan speak ,that translates, oh, this is a vegan piece so lets glorify it to the max! Even tho I haves only been in this space three years,low carb, I could still see the very obvious flaw that you are pointing out! So, I posted on Plant champers to Chris that maybe he should check out the trouble his boy Kevin was embroiled in,( see what I did there? ) Chris acknowledged the post, but, I haven't seen any rebuttal.
Even though crude oil may contain more energy than rocket fuel, You need to refine crude oil to get rocket fuel which takes energy and produces by products that are often also very useful. The high carb, vegetarian and vegan diets all ignore this principle often deliberately. There are a lot of claims of meat causing cancer and fibre preventing cancer, these claims are often based on extremely dubious studies that are often conducted in a way that is designed to get the predetermined result. Funnily even these studies often fail to get the results they want and are commonly buried or burnt.
You and the paper you cite (which you coauthored) both mention a preprint by the original study group which I unfortunatly couldnt find. Could you maybe provide a source for that please?
Nick or now Dr Nick (well done ) any update on the reference to another larger study group being started in the company - from vlog by Dr Ken Berry about a year ago - " What the KETO Diet does to FAT Diabetics (Revealing New Research) " or did big pharma or big food close it down ?? great results with 10 interested in the larger group - thanks - merry Xmas and as we we say in Oz and a bloody bonza boxing day
You mean the cohort from this study: pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36144252/. Happy to report it got scaled up. May help Tro report on the larger cohort 2 year data next year
@@nicknorwitzPhD Thanks again Nick from Perth Western Australia - That first study showed great promise for companies to save on health plans plus better health for the workers - that Dr Berry show was the first time I saw you and was impressed with all of you for presentation - merry xmas, Its a hot summer here so we skip the hot dinner and opt for the cold ham, turkey, pork with seafood like smoked salmon, prawns and lobsters - doing it tough in the west
You should send this to Diet Doctor Andreas Eenfeldt as I remember that he used Kevin Hall study to justify his new "high satiety" diet with plenty of fiber, lean proteins and lower fat....! Not for me, I'll stick with keto high fat.
Yes, he did. As you probably know, I have been very disappointed in Hava and SPC. They lack sound science, their "methods" are opaque, their results are questionable, and they are overselling what they have as an evidence based solution when it's only an arbitrary internet calculator with pretty pictures.
Insulin is definitely a part of fat storage. However, the body is in better shape when getting all the essentials, and anyone on a typical western diet which is easily high carb and thus easily blocking fat pathways may not be getting enough essential fats. There is certainly an advantage in caloric numbers when fat adjusted to maintain or lower weight on carb restriction. But I believe getting the body and its mitochondria to adjust to whole food macros separating fats and carbs while getting all essentials has the health benefit, more than looking at calories.
The description of the two models doesn't akr any sense. Fat gain/loss is certainly due to calories. Bodybuilders adjust bodyfat at will by adjusting calories. A low carb diet can certainly help people intuitively eat the correct amount of calories, so they both seem to go hand in hand IMO.
We know that a vegan diet is objectively the best possible human diet. However, socially veganism can be stressful, so lesser diets occur. But the science is objectively settled.
MSM: A recent re-evaluation of the results of a landmark dietary study concluded that Coca Puffs and ice cream for breakfast will lead to weight loss. Also Elvis is alive and well and living on the dark side of the moon.
Go ahead. Weigh yourself/measure your waist circumference and fasting TG's. Clamp your exercise. Eat 2x your caloric requirements in low GI foods. Continue until a significant change in the measured variables occurs. Carry on until the trend change is established. Report back. Post before and after photos. I dare you!
@@blakecarterpiano Hi Blake, There are too many things wrong with Dr Norwitz's thesis to have an open discussion with you about it, let alone via YT comments. It's just sophistry anyway. Cut to the chase; take up my challenge.
I spent decades starving myself fat and sick on 1200 low fat,high fibre calories a day. Weighed and measured everything. Had an active job. Barely fit a size 18. Been on a human diet for 14 years now. So much healthier. No starvation involved. Size 6/8. Will never return to the low fat, semi vegan death diet.
2:00 How did they even consume that much fat vs protein? I'm doing LC / keto and it's much more balanced or probably even mostly protein (or body fat?). Even fat heavy products or usually 2:1 fat:protein but that diagram shows like 6:1-ish? Most meat is nearly pure protein and a lot of stuff is 1:1 or 1:2 fat:protein.
If you realize the professional troll Kevin Hall has since become in Twitter, you can tell he is a man who is 'economical with the truth', if you will.
He's claimed that a few times. IMHO, lots of bark... very little bite. We will see if Nature Medicine retracts this paper. As we have demonstrated, it was improperly designed, analyzed and the initial results were profoundly misleading.
@@nicknorwitzPhD Also, while the corrigendum is available for free online, your groups final "reply to CMS et al" is not. What do you make of their reply? Would you disregard the correlations you found with C peptide?
Tried to link you the article I first mentioned but YT took it down, but yes it was Hall lab, 17 participants over one month duration each isocaloric wash out period and then one month keto
Being critical of "mainstream media", "mainstream science" and "national, official health advice" is something everyday citizens are learning to do thanks to educational posts and podcasts such as yours. We can know instinctively what the Truth is when we assess our own progress on a low carb diet but we get a level of validation when scholars, such as yourselves, spell it out for us. Thank you so very much! -( Retired Nurse)
"The media is the message" by Marshall , McCluhan. It's the IT revolution. It's massively disruptive, culturally. It's empowering. Unfortunately it's culturally agnostic, with no barrier to entry, so it dispassionately empowers idiots and con men right alongside geniuses and altruistic educators. It conquers and divides .... those with the power of discrimination rise to the top and those without sink to the bottom with no in-between.
When mainstream scientists are trying to claim that men don’t have an advantage over women in sports, you know the field of science has lost all credibility.
As a keen follower of low carb, sometimes veering into keto, plus near daily use of fasting, typically 18:6, I can confirm that this is so easy to maintain indefinitely because of the lack of constant inconvenient hunger, presumably from the reduced fasting insulin, post prandial insulin hyper secretion, and effective leptin secretion. If this means that my steady normal weight, normal blood pressure, A1c etc has arisen from reduced energy intake, so what? I often study on the internet ‘reasons’ why low carb is wrong - it won’t work, the theory says so, because fat has 2.25x the calories that carbs have, so you will eat more calories; it does work, but only because it make you eat less because fat is more satiating than carbohydrate; it does work but the protein will destroy your kidneys and the red meat will give you bowel cancer and type 2 diabetes; it does work but all the saturated fat will raise your ldl and give you heart disease etc etc.
Well, I am a retired GP, with 31 years of looking after all the diabetics in the practice, and in my last 5 years some of my patients with diabetes came to me for approval of following a low carb diet, which I gave with the usual caveats, and they all improved from the point of view of weight, BP, A1c, and lipid profile. Some were able to stop all their drugs, including their diabetic medication, and because they no longer satisfied the WHO criteria for diabetes, I had great pleasure in re-coding their notes ‘Diabetes resolved’
It is stunning how much really bad science is out there, and how easy it is for these studies to be heavily covered by the media. We need more sceptics publicly challenging these studies and the media outlets that blindly promote them. This video was AWESOME!!
The science appears to be very good. It’s the analysis that is subject to motive in this case.
Thanks
As pointed out ad nauseam with big pharma studies
It is absolutely important that third parties have access to the raw data
Which in nearly all cases is hidden by the big pharma oligarchy
Great job, Nico! 🙂
... and it's amazing how little press coverage it gets when the original conclusions are proved incorrect.
@@masterchiefburgess
A lie goes around the world before the truth gets out of bed
Nick! You are the man! That study was really troubling me. They lost me at muscle mass decreased for the LCD group but gained for the plant based group? Something didn't smell right. Thank you for taking that on. Will we see a Plant Chompers follow-up? Chris really waved the flag hard on that study. Thanks again man!
"Will we see a Plant Chompers follow-up?" I hope so. Chris and I are on good terms, and I think he's a thoughtful and open-minded individual. He has expressed interest in covering the DIETFITS reanalysis as well as, potentially, this study with Dr Adrian Soto Mota MD PhD. I'd like to see that happen. I am also hoping to have a podcast with Simon Hill (theproof) on LMHR sometime soon, as well as some other "secret" podcasts that I'm sure you will all enjoy.
Great analysis ... the world needs more Nick Norwitz ... thanks.
I could do with a clone... would be handy for sure!
@@justadude4826 Not assessed. For the outcome measure of interest (food intake and weight), I'd suspect it would partition with animal-based low carb over low fat plant based. Also note the ABKD in this study was actually rather plant heavy: snacks of nuts, entrees like broccoli Alfredo (broccoli with cheese sauce) etc.
@@justadude4826 Not sure I got that. Are you surprised that I'm actually active in my comments and having an exchange with you?
🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation:
00:00 🔄 *Introduction to Obesity Models*
- Two opposing models: Calories in, Calories out (Enerby balance model) and Carbohydrate Insulin model.
- Explanation of the energy balance model and carbohydrate insulin model.
02:30 📉 *Initial Study Overview*
- Overview of the 2021 metabolic study with 20 participants on low-fat plant-based and low-carb animal-based diets.
- Critique of the study design, including the lack of a washout period and suboptimal design of the low-carb diet.
- Presentation of the original narrative supporting the energy balance model.
05:03 🔄 *Diet Carryover Effects*
- Introduction to the diet carryover effects observed in the study.
- Massive effects of diet order on caloric intake and fat loss.
- Statistical analysis using spiderweb plots to demonstrate the dominance of diet order in the study outcomes.
06:26 📊 *Biomarker Analysis*
- Examination of biomarkers (beta hydroxy butyrate, respiratory quotient, and C peptide) to assess diet carryover effects.
- Relationship between insulin release (C peptide) in the first phase and caloric intake/fat loss in the second phase.
- Consistency with the carbohydrate insulin model and implications for the study's conclusions.
07:49 🔄 *Reinterpretation and Implications*
- Reinterpretation of the study's findings, challenging the original conclusions.
- Validation of the carbohydrate insulin model over the energy balance model.
- Implications of the new interpretation for understanding the role of diet in obesity.
Made with HARPA AI
I am so glad that you and (increasingly) others are doing this research. I see this analysis trend in so many articles by MDs trying to sell a product or service based on the presumption of authority when the published data states the opposite. Then this analysis is parroted ad nauseum until it becomes the common belief.
Exactly my thoughts. As a clinical/research scientist myself, I can't believe what the mainstream scientific community has become. The rot and corruption within the "healthcare" industry (including the pharmaceutical and publication industry) is so deeply rooted that I can't really see how this will change anytime soon. It's disheartening but knowing that there are people/channels like this one out there trying their best to present us with unbiased facts gives us hope.
keep it going Nick. You mentioned it; two components to satisfy in every study: internal validity and reliability....
Pretty much says what I already knew. You can make results skew your direction depending on how you massage the data. Trying to prove a theory is the wrong way to do it. Much better how you and Dave Feldman started with a hypothesis and tried to DISPROVE it. Great work, and I will continue to follow your research.
A third model is about satiation and tends to emphasise protein (you feel more satisfied by a given number of calories eaten as protein vs carbs) - and to a lesser extent healthy fats. Something of a subclass of ebm is the 'don't eat junk food' model (although it also is part of the cbm and protein-focused model too).
I think the low carb torch is doing great in your hands and you'll be able to take it all the way. You're going to be on the right side of history Nick! Keep it up.
Thank you, this is an enlightening analysis. Makes one think about validity of many other "established" facts.
I think a more likely cause of the difference is caloric density. Once someone adjusts to a less calorically dense diet, they will eat more when moving to a higher density diet. And once someone adjusts to a diet with higher calorie density, they will eat less when switching to a less calorically dense diet.
As usual conformation bias, publication bias and I suspect funding bias all colluded to produce the desired outcome.
Incorrectly reporting poorly executed science? No way! 🤣
I know!!! Whodathunkit?????
HOLY MACKERAL NICKMAN! I would like to add I saw recently (maybe on your channel) that 2 weeks is too short of time to see the benefits of LCD and at least 6 weeks is much more advisable to see results. Both models have their place and time and do overlap depending on individual goals and lifestyles. Example I eat mostly meat diet but felt horrible when I completely cut out carbs. I tried Vegan diet, and it was a complete nonstarter. I was as hungry the whole time as I was when I at the end of a 4 day fast. Have you considered seeing if you can work with Nick from physionic channel (you could be the two nicks). Your material studied is very similar.
I recall Physionic covered the LMHR study. I left to Dave to reply, but I'd be open to appearing and conversing. Many appearances to be had!
@@nicknorwitzPhD To be honest, Physionic seems like a content farm to me. I'd be happy to be proven wrong, though.
y'all are a gift that keeps on giving! 👏👏
Notice that when describing the high kevel of each, the cico model skips over any causal element for fat accumulation--it simply assumes it like we are a motor engine of some kind. Only the carb-insulin model addresses fat accumulation as first principle. They can't even hypothesise competently.
what is there to hypothesise? Too many calories result in the excess being stored as fat. It's blatantly obvious.
I’m sure it’s accidental
Mmmhmm
people want the easy to understand answer, so they can have the easy to understand solution. you can spot it in many situations.
thats right. but one 1000 calories of potatoes will make you fatter then 1000 calories of pig fat -one raises insuline, the other doesnt. so counting calories ist stupid. @@cyberfunk3793
More Bacon please!!🥓🥓🥓
We hope for more studies to be developed with proper and fair balanced dietary intakes . Both devoid of sugars seed oils and highly processed foods, both sides otherwise healthy . And focus less on absolute weight loss and more on metabolic health markers , and body composition. i also think it’s important to focus on the three patterns of eating , “regular omnivorous” balanced macros, HFLC and HCLF but all otherwise devoid of ultra processed and junk foods . We will get there … eventually.
a real study would evaluate microbiomes, metabolic health markers, inflammatory levels, biological age, levels of plastics and toxins in bloodstream, and organ function. That will never happen.
Why avoid seed oils when everytime they are actually compared, they result in better outcomes than saturated fat?
@@cyberfunk3793u are bored, obviously
LDL or overall outcomes?
I have a hard time believing that calorie matched, overall health outcomes would be worse for something naturally occuring and not essentially manafactured@@cyberfunk3793
@@cyberfunk3793 ahh yes, "everytime": czcams.com/video/-xCr3mvFCHM/video.html
This is a terrific analysis of the data. Thank you.
Subscribed. This is the quality content the world needs.
Outstanding study! This is all so extraordinary. Thank you for your hard work.
Always fascinating. The Covid mess has made me disbelieve all studies really as my eyes are now wide open as to who pays gets the results. I can appreciate Meta analysis and quite frankly, Anecdotes way more than any studies in any prestigious journal 🤓 Great presentation
Appreciate your videos. I've learned to question studies, ask who funded the study, and the researchers bias. I've noticed vegans love bashing meat with flawed research. I'm ketovore for life.
Thank you for what you and all those involved on your channel are doing. It gives us hope for a better future. I have been trying to comment in length on some of the most popular plant-based channels now and it can be quite difficult to break down studies to demonstrated their flaws to a non-scientific crowd.
Don't give up whatever the challenges may be in the future. The work that people like you are doing will save lives and leave its mark for the generations to come.
You had me at "2 weeks"! 🤣🤣🤣
Aha! I am seeing an important missing variable. Diet with respect to time. In my personal experimentation on myself, I am finding I do fine eating both carbs and high fat. The key is timing. I can eat carbs in the mornings as long as I will be burning some up during the day. My eating time window I keep between 2 and 6 hours, none of which get anywhere near the evening. Eating carbs does not turn off hunger, but eating protein and fat sure does. I am finding that I can tune my weight either up or down in very short order using this method and controlling quantities. It is not proving to be difficult for me. Again, the time of day and the timing of meals seems to be key to me.
if carry over effects are important, then what were the participants eating before the study? And how much weight should be given to any short nutritional study.
Personally, at the age of 60, I have to work to keep my weight up on a low carb diet. Before I was slightly overweight. I am less hungry overall.
Men are fortunate
Older women, not so much
@@YeshuaKingMessiah My mate did not respond as quickly as me, but is making steady gains.
Two weeks , are you kidding me?🙄No wonder that the carry-over effects were significant.
Yes. I think there were many of the opinion that the study design was problematic, esp considering lack of washout. However, this reanalysis shows just how massive the carryover was, enough to entirely invalidate the prior study. It highlights the dangers of these sorts of studies, importance of washout periods, esp in the consent of macronutrient crossover studies, and will hopefully inform future study design so similar misleading results are not produced (and at tax payer expense)
@@nicknorwitzPhDRight! I observed this design way too often. As if a metabolism could switch seamlessly in a few days. It took me months to get settled comfortably in low carb, high fat.
I tried it for 15 MONTHS!!!! effects came with leaving out unsaturated fats, general lower weight, and a couple of days eating absolutely nothing. it was very difficult, but i believed in the sience, since nothing else was working.
Nice work. I agree and feel justified in my skepticism of modern "science."
Thanks for the deep digging, Nicholas!
I am so glad that you and others are doing this research. Incorrectly reporting poorly executed science? This video was AWESOME!!
I am sure glad I found you
Given the studies on the effects of fructose and seed oils on the brain (admittedly on mice), I think both models are somewhat lacking.
Interesting re-analysis though I find the study too short to matter anyway.
WOW. Great detective work! (The study designers didn't include a washout period ... adding another conspiracy theory to the long list I endorse in 2023?)
Great video. I cannot imagine this kind of presentation on a major television network anytime soon. Thank you Nicholas Norwitz. Thank you CZcams.
you are the man dave. I love how the experts are like "forget how you are feeling, just do what I tell you to"
Well ok Nick, but there is sufficient evidence to support cico. Hall's study is not the one study that, if flawed, would destabilize the scientific consensus. Do Gardner's low fat / low carb study for example.
Exactly.
Then there are other studies besides this one that also did 2 weeks washout period in between LC and LF periods (don't remember the study's name) showing similar results for both groups.
Anytime you control for calories and protein , you get predictable results.
Then there are studies like DIET FIT study where participants where participants had genetic testing done before going low carb and then increasing carbs to their preferred levels. This shown no benefit of LC nor LF for weight (and regardless of their genetic 'predisposition' for carbohydrate tolerance). This is an elegant study to represent real life conditions as well.
Well done Nick, this is exciting!
Hey Nick,
There is a new European article released in Nature Medicine titled “Lipidome changes due to improved dietary fat quality inform cardiometabolic risk reduction and precision nutrition”. It pretends that eating saturated fats does increase your chances on getting a hart or cardiovascular disease with 32% and on developing diabetes type2 with 23%. I would like to get your analysis/opinion on this article.
Thanks
Thomas
Like this idea of applying another conceptual theory to data previously interpreted against a competing framework.
Your presentation style rocks
Another prove that researchers will tell one thing, because that is the intended conclusion, while their data actually tells a different story. What they also never really consider is that it takes basically 4 weeks to get into any form of deeper ketosis on the diet. So they can only really start to compare after 4 weeks, best would be after 12 weeks. Good though that even a 2 week dietary change shows the differences.
What I would say after his video though is that both models seem to be true there. Because if the subjects lower their actual calorie intake after the LCD their bodies still take up all the calories they consume, which is what the Energy Balance Model suggests. But since they consume less calories they store less fat then.
But yes. I totally agree that hunger and appetite greatly depend on hormones and insulin levels and that of course is a huge driver of obesity. Also insulin is a signaller for cells to build storage. Ergo with less insulin the cells don't get signal to build up storage and thus you are not so hungry and thus you consume less calories.
Hello Nick,
Many thanks for your great analyses of various topics.
I always look forward to your straightforward discussion of complex topics and how you present these naturally and understandably.
Would it be possible to compare the three models at some point in one of your or Dave's presentations?
The three models being the energy balance model, the carbohydrate insulin model, and the lipid energy model.
Many thanks & best wishes to you and your beloved ones!
Thanks yet again - great video!
Expectation bias influences perception in such studies. Another and profound problem with the study is the sample size. Twenty individuals is a very small sample. Sample size can have profound effects on statistical results, and smaller samples are going to consistently be less trustworthy. A discussion of the statistical tests used and the reasons for using them would be useful, as well as a discussion of sample power.
Nick you are awesome!
thanks :) :)
Keep up the great work!
THIS MAKES SO MUCH SENSE 😂
Plant eater here. I have been always very muscular and quite lean. Recently I lowered my energy output because I started spending 10h a day sitting in the office. I have had troubles lowering these extra 5 kgs (abs barely visible anymore). I will still look at the energy balance model for the answer simply because it is better understood and I know how body takes over your NEAT etc when in prolonged cal deficit. But let’s educate. How would you low carbers approach my situation right now? PS meat is a no go for me.
So would this suggest that insulin despite its short half life has some long term (spanning days and weeks) physiological effects on hunger signalling and satiety factors?
I’ve been OMAD first then low carb 90% of the time the last 6 years and have seen improvements in all metabolic measures but I can gain weight on KETO/carnivore due to persistent over eating.
Certainly. It’s called having a really good appetite. Never had to even consider such till my mid 30s. I’m no different than one of the 3 cats we have around here; the one that I have no idea how much he can eat, or just how fat he’d get because I’ve always had to cut him off. Amazing appetite and doesn’t care what marketing or anyone thinks about being fat. The other two cats don’t have such an appetite. I’m not like them.
7:51 Another anecdote here
My BP was stuck at 160 after years on losartan
On intermitted fasting, then one meal a day, with multiple single day and multi day fasts, LC/LF PLANT-BASED Mediterranean menu
I lost 50 lb, 10 lb to go
My BP dropped to 120
My cardiologist says it was the losartan
I disagree 😂
@@satxsatxsatxlow carb and low fat.. Mediterranean plant based? Do you even eat anything? :P
@@mikafoxx2717
I appreciate your concern for my health, thank you 😄
On the Mediterranean diet, it's a very large menu, I don't feel limited at all
I'm very close to achieving total metabolic health, just a couple more months
@@satxsatxsatxcan you please list an average day of eating, as that sounds extremely limited and I am struggling to figure out what you can actually eat besides only non starchy vegetables
Thanks for the video.
Great video. I'm curious if you are going to make a video on the Stanford Medicine study conducted with twins.
This is amazing stuff. It's amazing to see that it isn't just the effects while on the diet that prove the case, but also the long term effects. And also, if the LF diet makes you eat more, that's also an L.
Nutrition research is complicated
Nutrition research is complicated... by conflict of interest
Thank you for explaining this study, Nick. In your opinion, why do the scientists who produced the study structure it the way they did (with carryover), and come to the conclusion they did? Is it intentional or just biased, poorly done with the results misunderstood?
This debate to show which diet is best seems to be a narrative to solve obesity and all other metabolic diseases caused by obesity without having to exercise.
When one start eating a variety of healthy Whole Foods (whatever that is) and exercise as much as possible, the body fat melts away once you are
In a calorie deficit and, for most people, all those metabolic diseases disappear. Keep doing this as a lifestyle and, you don’t have to bother about which diet is best. Of course, this requires people to take responsibility of their body and health
Small correction (with respect 🙏🏼)-those spider plots were HEPTA-gons (“seven sided”, aka less commonly SEPTA-gons)
Love this [re]analysis! Excellent content as always 👍
Great analysis. Original study could also do more than 2 weeks. Give it 8 weeks and lets see he metabolic changes. Also, put a carnivore branch in the study.
Thank you so much!
First! You go Nick!
But when the dietary patterns are continued long term, the results are null. LC doesn't maintain that effect
I think I ran across this study by Kevin hall on Plant him pets site, Chris gushed over how he was not going to look at the study,but, then saw that it was done byKEVIN HALL! " Oh, says Chris , Kevin Hall is really good, so he read the paper"! In vegan speak ,that translates, oh, this is a vegan piece so lets glorify it to the max! Even tho I haves only been in this space three years,low carb, I could still see the very obvious flaw that you are pointing out! So, I posted on Plant champers to Chris that maybe he should check out the trouble his boy Kevin was embroiled in,( see what I did there? ) Chris acknowledged the post, but, I haven't seen any rebuttal.
Great young scientist make me proud.
you don't even need vegetables or meat, just the Kempner rice and sugar diet will work effectively.
Even though crude oil may contain more energy than rocket fuel,
You need to refine crude oil to get rocket fuel which takes energy and produces by products that are often also very useful.
The high carb, vegetarian and vegan diets all ignore this principle often deliberately.
There are a lot of claims of meat causing cancer and fibre preventing cancer, these claims are often based on extremely dubious studies that are often conducted in a way that is designed to get the predetermined result. Funnily even these studies often fail to get the results they want and are commonly buried or burnt.
You and the paper you cite (which you coauthored) both mention a preprint by the original study group which I unfortunatly couldnt find. Could you maybe provide a source for that please?
Nick or now Dr Nick (well done ) any update on the reference to another larger study group being started in the company - from vlog by Dr Ken Berry about a year ago - " What the KETO Diet does to FAT Diabetics (Revealing New Research) " or did big pharma or big food close it down ?? great results with 10 interested in the larger group - thanks - merry Xmas and as we we say in Oz and a bloody bonza boxing day
You mean the cohort from this study: pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36144252/. Happy to report it got scaled up. May help Tro report on the larger cohort 2 year data next year
@@nicknorwitzPhD Thanks again Nick from Perth Western Australia - That first study showed great promise for companies to save on health plans plus better health for the workers - that Dr Berry show was the first time I saw you and was impressed with all of you for presentation - merry xmas, Its a hot summer here so we skip the hot dinner and opt for the cold ham, turkey, pork with seafood like smoked salmon, prawns and lobsters - doing it tough in the west
NICE Nick - 'hitting it out of the park"
Love the spiderweb plot!
love to see science being done.
If we as a society stopped shoving sugary and processed foods down our throats and exercised more, there would be way less obesity
Brilliant. When will cico go away
Put them in jail
+10,000 bonus points for knowing how to spell "lede"!!
Tbh... my senior author caught "lead" and corrected it for me. LOL!
You should send this to Diet Doctor Andreas Eenfeldt as I remember that he used Kevin Hall study to justify his new "high satiety" diet with plenty of fiber, lean proteins and lower fat....!
Not for me, I'll stick with keto high fat.
Yes, he did. As you probably know, I have been very disappointed in Hava and SPC. They lack sound science, their "methods" are opaque, their results are questionable, and they are overselling what they have as an evidence based solution when it's only an arbitrary internet calculator with pretty pictures.
Consider backing up your videos on alternative platforms just in case
Insulin is definitely a part of fat storage. However, the body is in better shape when getting all the essentials, and anyone on a typical western diet which is easily high carb and thus easily blocking fat pathways may not be getting enough essential fats. There is certainly an advantage in caloric numbers when fat adjusted to maintain or lower weight on carb restriction. But I believe getting the body and its mitochondria to adjust to whole food macros separating fats and carbs while getting all essentials has the health benefit, more than looking at calories.
The description of the two models doesn't akr any sense. Fat gain/loss is certainly due to calories. Bodybuilders adjust bodyfat at will by adjusting calories. A low carb diet can certainly help people intuitively eat the correct amount of calories, so they both seem to go hand in hand IMO.
We know that a vegan diet is objectively the best possible human diet.
However, socially veganism can be stressful, so lesser diets occur. But the science is objectively settled.
So this was a study deliberately designed to give the calories-in-calories-out zealots a hard-on.
Eat carnivore..best way
MSM: A recent re-evaluation of the results of a landmark dietary study concluded that Coca Puffs and ice cream for breakfast will lead to weight loss. Also Elvis is alive and well and living on the dark side of the moon.
Can't read. Use dark background next time. The display is not white paper.
This is cool 👊💙
Go ahead. Weigh yourself/measure your waist circumference and fasting TG's. Clamp your exercise. Eat 2x your caloric requirements in low GI foods. Continue until a significant change in the measured variables occurs. Carry on until the trend change is established. Report back. Post before and after photos. I dare you!
Did you not hear the part where it says that CIM falls under CICO?
@@blakecarterpiano Hi Blake, There are too many things wrong with Dr Norwitz's thesis to have an open discussion with you about it, let alone via YT comments. It's just sophistry anyway. Cut to the chase; take up my challenge.
@@blakecarterpiano P.S Have you ever seen a fat Biafran?
@@radagreene5087 Neither of your replies constitute an argument.
@@blakecarterpiano drive.google.com/file/d/1-DJlEAZBE7mzX7RbH0K_r_hgZoBkAKS6/view?usp=drive_link
we have all been brainwashed into thinking fat is bad, it is a very important food group, especially when doing carnivore or intermittent fasting.
Wow, just wow! So they knew it but hid it.
I spent decades starving myself fat and sick on 1200 low fat,high fibre calories a day. Weighed and measured everything. Had an active job. Barely fit a size 18.
Been on a human diet for 14 years now. So much healthier. No starvation involved. Size 6/8. Will never return to the low fat, semi vegan death diet.
Whoa!
2:00 How did they even consume that much fat vs protein? I'm doing LC / keto and it's much more balanced or probably even mostly protein (or body fat?). Even fat heavy products or usually 2:1 fat:protein but that diagram shows like 6:1-ish? Most meat is nearly pure protein and a lot of stuff is 1:1 or 1:2 fat:protein.
It's showing calories not grams, fat has 9 calories for every gram whereas protein and carbs have 4 calories per gram.
If you realize the professional troll Kevin Hall has since become in Twitter, you can tell he is a man who is 'economical with the truth', if you will.
If you will. Gold. 😀
The plant ideology strikes again
That's what happens when "doctor" Gregor gets his hands on study results before Mr Norwitz.
@@zamfirtoth6441If Gregor got his grubby paws on it that explains everything (don’t like that guy).
@@wheelofcheese100 He is a slimy guy
This is the KD Hall study that blew up NUSI and that he claimed killed the insulin model?
He's claimed that a few times. IMHO, lots of bark... very little bite. We will see if Nature Medicine retracts this paper. As we have demonstrated, it was improperly designed, analyzed and the initial results were profoundly misleading.
yezz. clear thinking, good analysis, good science, valid falsification.
Now we stay tuned what mr nightmare alias drlipid will sing on X LOOOL.
Congratulations
How do you reconcile the CIM with the 2016 isocaloric baseline vs keto study out of the same lab?
1:02 trying to understand this point, by this do you mean "increase energy uptake" as in an overall higher appetite?
Hall lab? Which. Adaptation takes time… pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33274750/
Do you know of any ward studies that have been funded enough to go for an appropriate duration?
@@nicknorwitzPhD Also, while the corrigendum is available for free online, your groups final "reply to CMS et al" is not. What do you make of their reply? Would you disregard the correlations you found with C peptide?
Tried to link you the article I first mentioned but YT took it down, but yes it was Hall lab, 17 participants over one month duration each isocaloric wash out period and then one month keto
What about the mass balance model?