正在加载视频...

视频加载失败

返回首页

Dr. Mark Hyman shares a Harvard study that will make you rethink breakfast: Overweight teens ate the exact same calories — oatmeal, steel-cut oats, or omelet. Result? Oatmeal group: sky-high insulin, cortisol & adrenaline (like being chased by a tiger) → ate 81% more food later. Steel-cut oats: still...

newstart_2024's profile picture

Camus

446,151 subscribers

409,612 次观看 • 6 个月前 •via X (Twitter)

健康养生教育
LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 条评论

暂无评论

原始帖子的评论将显示在这里

相关视频

Is oatmeal really a healthy breakfast? Dr. Mark Hyman blew this up with a fascinating Harvard study. They gave overweight teens the exact same calories for breakfast: oatmeal, steel-cut oats, or an omelet. Then let them eat freely the rest of the day. The oatmeal group ate 81% more food than the omelet group. They also had much higher insulin, cortisol, and adrenaline — their bodies were basically in stress mode. Even the steel-cut oats group ate 50% more than the omelet group. High-carb breakfasts spike blood sugar and insulin, which drives hunger hormones (ghrelin) and crashes energy later. Protein + fat stabilizes blood sugar and keeps you full longer. This one really made me rethink my old habits. I used to default to oatmeal thinking it was the “healthy” choice. Turns out I was working against my body. What you eat first thing dramatically affects your hunger, energy, and cravings for the rest of the day. What’s your go-to breakfast these days — and has changing it made a difference in how you feel?
1:35

Is oatmeal really a healthy breakfast? Dr. Mark Hyman blew this up with a fascinating Harvard study. They gave overweight teens the exact same calories for breakfast: oatmeal, steel-cut oats, or an omelet. Then let them eat freely the rest of the day. The oatmeal group ate 81% more food than the omelet group. They also had much higher insulin, cortisol, and adrenaline — their bodies were basically in stress mode. Even the steel-cut oats group ate 50% more than the omelet group. High-carb breakfasts spike blood sugar and insulin, which drives hunger hormones (ghrelin) and crashes energy later. Protein + fat stabilizes blood sugar and keeps you full longer. This one really made me rethink my old habits. I used to default to oatmeal thinking it was the “healthy” choice. Turns out I was working against my body. What you eat first thing dramatically affects your hunger, energy, and cravings for the rest of the day. What’s your go-to breakfast these days — and has changing it made a difference in how you feel?

Camus

490,398 次观看 • 2 个月前

The first ultra processed food was Kellogg's cornflakes. They partnered with the United Fruit Company. They paid doctors to tell people bananas were a rich source of potassium, which they're not. And to say that the perfect meal to start your day was a bowl of cornflakes with a slice of banana. That's how the famous combo came about, and they went so far as to put a coupon for a bunch of bananas in every box of Kellogg's cornflakes. Cereal. No human being had a bowl of dry breakfast cereal prior to 1906. Cereal was invented by the Kellogg's brothers, and it was actually these companies that convinced people the healthiest way to start your morning was a bowl of cereal with milk. Also, oats are basically pure sugar. Oatmeal is good for one thing, and that's for fattening horses for the winter. What's better, orange juice or cereal? Neither. Before the nineteen twenties, nobody drank orange juice. People ate oranges instead. But in the nineteen twenties, Sunkist saw a business opportunity. They started marketing orange juice as a daily health drink, and they convinced people the healthiest way to start their day was a full glass of orange juice. Even doctors were recruited to push the benefits of vitamin c, and the public bought it. Remember, breakfast is break fast. Lots of human and animal studies have shown the longer you delay eating breakfast, the more ketones and weight loss you will achieve.
1:25

The first ultra processed food was Kellogg's cornflakes. They partnered with the United Fruit Company. They paid doctors to tell people bananas were a rich source of potassium, which they're not. And to say that the perfect meal to start your day was a bowl of cornflakes with a slice of banana. That's how the famous combo came about, and they went so far as to put a coupon for a bunch of bananas in every box of Kellogg's cornflakes. Cereal. No human being had a bowl of dry breakfast cereal prior to 1906. Cereal was invented by the Kellogg's brothers, and it was actually these companies that convinced people the healthiest way to start your morning was a bowl of cereal with milk. Also, oats are basically pure sugar. Oatmeal is good for one thing, and that's for fattening horses for the winter. What's better, orange juice or cereal? Neither. Before the nineteen twenties, nobody drank orange juice. People ate oranges instead. But in the nineteen twenties, Sunkist saw a business opportunity. They started marketing orange juice as a daily health drink, and they convinced people the healthiest way to start their day was a full glass of orange juice. Even doctors were recruited to push the benefits of vitamin c, and the public bought it. Remember, breakfast is break fast. Lots of human and animal studies have shown the longer you delay eating breakfast, the more ketones and weight loss you will achieve.

Camus

293,392 次观看 • 1 年前

You’ve been lied to about what “sugar” actually is your entire life. Watch this 53-second clip and try not to drop your phone Dr. Mark Hyman revealed: - The entire Glycemic Index (the scale that measures how fast food turns into blood sugar) sets plain white bread at 100. - Pure table sugar? Only 65. Meaning: a sandwich can spike your blood sugar HARDER and FASTER than spooning straight sugar. He explains it perfectly: “Below the neck, your body literally cannot tell the difference between a bowl of breakfast cereal and a bowl of table sugar… or a loaf of bread.” He then drops the wild (public record) story of how, years ago, the World Health Organization wanted to cut recommended sugar from 10 % to 5 % of calories — and a high-level U.S. official flew to Geneva threatening to pull hundreds of millions in funding if they did. The guidelines stayed at 10 %. 53 seconds that will change how you look at every aisle in the supermarket forever. Watch till the end — the last 10 seconds are the biggest jaw-drop. Which part shocked you the most? Tell me in the replies, I read every single one 👇
0:53

You’ve been lied to about what “sugar” actually is your entire life. Watch this 53-second clip and try not to drop your phone Dr. Mark Hyman revealed: - The entire Glycemic Index (the scale that measures how fast food turns into blood sugar) sets plain white bread at 100. - Pure table sugar? Only 65. Meaning: a sandwich can spike your blood sugar HARDER and FASTER than spooning straight sugar. He explains it perfectly: “Below the neck, your body literally cannot tell the difference between a bowl of breakfast cereal and a bowl of table sugar… or a loaf of bread.” He then drops the wild (public record) story of how, years ago, the World Health Organization wanted to cut recommended sugar from 10 % to 5 % of calories — and a high-level U.S. official flew to Geneva threatening to pull hundreds of millions in funding if they did. The guidelines stayed at 10 %. 53 seconds that will change how you look at every aisle in the supermarket forever. Watch till the end — the last 10 seconds are the biggest jaw-drop. Which part shocked you the most? Tell me in the replies, I read every single one 👇

Camus

127,185 次观看 • 7 个月前

5 Things Board Certified Cardiologist Dr Jack Wolfson Would NEVER Do: It Is Time Get Down To The Cold Hard facts Of How To Have Vibrant Health & Say NO To Imposters. Say Goodbye To Allopathic Medicine & Say Hello To Natural Health & Root Cause Healing. 1: Never tell people to avoid Eggs. Eggs are a multivitamin & phenomenally healthy. Cholesterol is healthy in every animal food. Don't believe the propaganda. ✳️If possible, find a source for local pastured eggs which contain the highest nutrition because the chickens lived their life outdoors eating an omnivore diet of worms & bugs & not fed soy & vegetarian feed in an enclosed unhealthy environment. Chickens are not vegetarian. 2: Never tell people to stop Coffee. Coffee is fantastic for Cardiovascular Health. Less AFib, less heart attacks, less strokes, people live longer. ✳️ Seek out organic water processed coffee beans, free of mold, for all of the heart healthy benefits of coffee if you feel great, renewed energy & focus, drinking a cup of coffee. Chlorogenic Acid in coffee prevents diabetes & cancer. 3: Never tell people to eat Oatmeal. Oatmeal is pure propaganda. Oatmeal is not for human consumption. It may not even be healthy for horses to consume. We do not need it & it's not part of our Ancestral Diet. ✳️ Oatmeal, though a better choice than doughnuts, is still pure starch which will spike your glucose & raise insulin, leading to a crash in a few hours. And oats are heavily chemically sprayed with Chlormequat, a chemical that severely disrupts male & female hormones. 4: Never tell people to eat Low Fat. Fat is super healthy. Never follow any low fat recommendations. 1970s propaganda. Most Medical Doctors have no idea about nutrition. ✳️ Incorporate Butter, Ghee, Tallow, Lard & Duck Fat into cooking & nutrient dense meals for vibrant thriving health & optimal brain function. Use 100% cold pressed unrefined coconut oil & avocado oil for salads & unheated recipes. (Remember 85% of grocery store oils are contaminated with seed oils) Know your oil origin! 5: Never tell people to see a traditional Doctor. Never see a Doctor who doesn't look for the cause. Always seek root cause healing & away from big pharma. ✳️ Allopathic medicine only dispenses medication, it was never intended to promote health or prevent disease. A low carbohydrate diet prioritizing nutrient dense animal foods, eliminating harmful seed oils & excess sugar, provides the best healthy cholesterol profile. Incorporate Butter, Ghee, Tallow, Lard & Duck Fat into cooking & nutrient dense meals for vibrant thriving health & optimal brain function. This approach keeps Triglycerides low & HDL high, which is one of the best Cardio Biomarkers for Cardiac health. TG/HDL ratio optimally should be 1.5 or less. 👇High Cholesterol Prevents Atherosclerosis👇 👇Low LDL Causes Cancer & Infections👇 👇The Higher Your LDL, The Longer You Live👇 Speaker: Dr. Jack Wolfson / Natural Heart Doctor Video: Valerie Anne Smith
1:51

5 Things Board Certified Cardiologist Dr Jack Wolfson Would NEVER Do: It Is Time Get Down To The Cold Hard facts Of How To Have Vibrant Health & Say NO To Imposters. Say Goodbye To Allopathic Medicine & Say Hello To Natural Health & Root Cause Healing. 1: Never tell people to avoid Eggs. Eggs are a multivitamin & phenomenally healthy. Cholesterol is healthy in every animal food. Don't believe the propaganda. ✳️If possible, find a source for local pastured eggs which contain the highest nutrition because the chickens lived their life outdoors eating an omnivore diet of worms & bugs & not fed soy & vegetarian feed in an enclosed unhealthy environment. Chickens are not vegetarian. 2: Never tell people to stop Coffee. Coffee is fantastic for Cardiovascular Health. Less AFib, less heart attacks, less strokes, people live longer. ✳️ Seek out organic water processed coffee beans, free of mold, for all of the heart healthy benefits of coffee if you feel great, renewed energy & focus, drinking a cup of coffee. Chlorogenic Acid in coffee prevents diabetes & cancer. 3: Never tell people to eat Oatmeal. Oatmeal is pure propaganda. Oatmeal is not for human consumption. It may not even be healthy for horses to consume. We do not need it & it's not part of our Ancestral Diet. ✳️ Oatmeal, though a better choice than doughnuts, is still pure starch which will spike your glucose & raise insulin, leading to a crash in a few hours. And oats are heavily chemically sprayed with Chlormequat, a chemical that severely disrupts male & female hormones. 4: Never tell people to eat Low Fat. Fat is super healthy. Never follow any low fat recommendations. 1970s propaganda. Most Medical Doctors have no idea about nutrition. ✳️ Incorporate Butter, Ghee, Tallow, Lard & Duck Fat into cooking & nutrient dense meals for vibrant thriving health & optimal brain function. Use 100% cold pressed unrefined coconut oil & avocado oil for salads & unheated recipes. (Remember 85% of grocery store oils are contaminated with seed oils) Know your oil origin! 5: Never tell people to see a traditional Doctor. Never see a Doctor who doesn't look for the cause. Always seek root cause healing & away from big pharma. ✳️ Allopathic medicine only dispenses medication, it was never intended to promote health or prevent disease. A low carbohydrate diet prioritizing nutrient dense animal foods, eliminating harmful seed oils & excess sugar, provides the best healthy cholesterol profile. Incorporate Butter, Ghee, Tallow, Lard & Duck Fat into cooking & nutrient dense meals for vibrant thriving health & optimal brain function. This approach keeps Triglycerides low & HDL high, which is one of the best Cardio Biomarkers for Cardiac health. TG/HDL ratio optimally should be 1.5 or less. 👇High Cholesterol Prevents Atherosclerosis👇 👇Low LDL Causes Cancer & Infections👇 👇The Higher Your LDL, The Longer You Live👇 Speaker: Dr. Jack Wolfson / Natural Heart Doctor Video: Valerie Anne Smith

Valerie Anne Smith

138,380 次观看 • 11 个月前

Do you need to worry about your food order to limit post meal glucose responses? 🤔 This idea of the importance of food order got popularized by Laura Menninger who has made a name for herself by fear mongering NORMAL post meal glucose excursions. She makes it seem like these short term excursions will cause long term harm First, there’s no evidence to support that short term glucose responses produce negative long term outcomes. In fact, based on her logic, you shouldn’t eat fat since fat intake impedes flow mediated dilation in the short term and FMD is a risk factor for heart disease. Also by her logic you can’t eat protein because protein acutely stimulates mTOR which is elevated in many cancers She cites the same short term study in support of food order (PMID: 26106234) & while it did show eating veggies & protein 1st produced less glucose & insulin area under the curve (AUC) if you actually READ the full text you can see they only measured out to 3 hours & while the starchy carb 1st group had a higher spike in glucose, it also was coming down at a greater rate & appeared to be approaching baseline faster than the group that ate protein & veggies 1st). I’m not convinced the AUC would have been different if they had measured out to 6 hours To that end, the same researcher who conducted the short term study conducted the first longer term (16 weeks)HUMAN randomized control trial examining the effect of the same food order on long term glycemic control & insulin sensitivity. Surprise surprise, the study showed no differences in glycemia or glucose tolerance by changing food order like she suggests (PMID: 37892527). HbA1c was slightly lower in veggie/pro 1st but it was not significant nor was it clinically relevant as it was a minuscule difference. There were no differences in ANY markers of glycemic assessed based on food order That said, it appears the people who ate veggies & protein 1st, may have eaten slightly less, & so modifying food order may still be useful to help control appetite but it doesn’t work for the reasons Laura Menningers promotes… it works because people are less hungry & eat less Energy balance wins again 🤷🏼‍♂️
1:29

Do you need to worry about your food order to limit post meal glucose responses? 🤔 This idea of the importance of food order got popularized by Laura Menninger who has made a name for herself by fear mongering NORMAL post meal glucose excursions. She makes it seem like these short term excursions will cause long term harm First, there’s no evidence to support that short term glucose responses produce negative long term outcomes. In fact, based on her logic, you shouldn’t eat fat since fat intake impedes flow mediated dilation in the short term and FMD is a risk factor for heart disease. Also by her logic you can’t eat protein because protein acutely stimulates mTOR which is elevated in many cancers She cites the same short term study in support of food order (PMID: 26106234) & while it did show eating veggies & protein 1st produced less glucose & insulin area under the curve (AUC) if you actually READ the full text you can see they only measured out to 3 hours & while the starchy carb 1st group had a higher spike in glucose, it also was coming down at a greater rate & appeared to be approaching baseline faster than the group that ate protein & veggies 1st). I’m not convinced the AUC would have been different if they had measured out to 6 hours To that end, the same researcher who conducted the short term study conducted the first longer term (16 weeks)HUMAN randomized control trial examining the effect of the same food order on long term glycemic control & insulin sensitivity. Surprise surprise, the study showed no differences in glycemia or glucose tolerance by changing food order like she suggests (PMID: 37892527). HbA1c was slightly lower in veggie/pro 1st but it was not significant nor was it clinically relevant as it was a minuscule difference. There were no differences in ANY markers of glycemic assessed based on food order That said, it appears the people who ate veggies & protein 1st, may have eaten slightly less, & so modifying food order may still be useful to help control appetite but it doesn’t work for the reasons Laura Menningers promotes… it works because people are less hungry & eat less Energy balance wins again 🤷🏼‍♂️

Layne Norton, PhD

34,082 次观看 • 2 年前

For fifty years the world's obesity advice has come down to one phrase. Eat less. Move more. A Harvard pediatric endocrinologist named David Ludwig spent twenty years showing it was the wrong answer. Ludwig directs the New Balance Foundation Obesity Prevention Center at Boston Children's Hospital. He is a professor at both Harvard Medical School and the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. He has spent his career treating the most obese children in New England. The standard playbook was not working. The kids cut calories. They tried harder. They came back heavier. So Ludwig started asking a different question. What if the calorie was not the lever. He built what he calls the carbohydrate-insulin model. Refined carbs spike your insulin. Insulin tells your body to store fat. After the spike your blood sugar crashes. Your body interprets the crash as starvation. You get hungry again. You eat. You store more fat. You crash again. It is a feedback loop. And the loop runs on the carbohydrate, not the calorie. In November 2018 his team published the result in the British Medical Journal. 164 adults. 12 percent body-weight loss on a run-in diet. Then randomly assigned to high-carb, moderate-carb, or low-carb at calorie levels designed to maintain their new weight. For twenty weeks straight. The low-carb group burned over 200 extra calories per day at the same body weight as the high-carb group. The effect was larger in participants with the highest insulin secretion. Read that again. Same body weight. Same maintenance calories. The low-carb body was running 200 calories per day hotter. That number ends every "a calorie is a calorie" debate the moment you read it. Ludwig is not a fringe figure. He is the most credentialed voice in nutrition science quietly dismantling the orthodoxy from the inside. His 2016 book Always Hungry has been on the New York Times bestseller list. His 2021 paper in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition formalized the model into a unified theory of obesity. The standard advice is not just wrong. It is the wrong question. Eat less and move more is what you say when you do not understand the disease. #NSNG #DavidLudwig #CarbInsulinModel #AlwaysHungry #LowCarb #Insulin #Obesity #HarvardMedicine
0:57

For fifty years the world's obesity advice has come down to one phrase. Eat less. Move more. A Harvard pediatric endocrinologist named David Ludwig spent twenty years showing it was the wrong answer. Ludwig directs the New Balance Foundation Obesity Prevention Center at Boston Children's Hospital. He is a professor at both Harvard Medical School and the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. He has spent his career treating the most obese children in New England. The standard playbook was not working. The kids cut calories. They tried harder. They came back heavier. So Ludwig started asking a different question. What if the calorie was not the lever. He built what he calls the carbohydrate-insulin model. Refined carbs spike your insulin. Insulin tells your body to store fat. After the spike your blood sugar crashes. Your body interprets the crash as starvation. You get hungry again. You eat. You store more fat. You crash again. It is a feedback loop. And the loop runs on the carbohydrate, not the calorie. In November 2018 his team published the result in the British Medical Journal. 164 adults. 12 percent body-weight loss on a run-in diet. Then randomly assigned to high-carb, moderate-carb, or low-carb at calorie levels designed to maintain their new weight. For twenty weeks straight. The low-carb group burned over 200 extra calories per day at the same body weight as the high-carb group. The effect was larger in participants with the highest insulin secretion. Read that again. Same body weight. Same maintenance calories. The low-carb body was running 200 calories per day hotter. That number ends every "a calorie is a calorie" debate the moment you read it. Ludwig is not a fringe figure. He is the most credentialed voice in nutrition science quietly dismantling the orthodoxy from the inside. His 2016 book Always Hungry has been on the New York Times bestseller list. His 2021 paper in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition formalized the model into a unified theory of obesity. The standard advice is not just wrong. It is the wrong question. Eat less and move more is what you say when you do not understand the disease. #NSNG #DavidLudwig #CarbInsulinModel #AlwaysHungry #LowCarb #Insulin #Obesity #HarvardMedicine

Vinnie Tortorich

11,404 次观看 • 1 个月前

What's the number one mistake that people make about satiety? Also, how can chicken breast and broccoli be high satiety per calorie (SPC), if people do not really feel full eating them? This may be the biggest misunderstanding that stops people from using satiety to lose weight and improve their metabolic health. As Ted ⚡️ Naiman shares in this clip, the fundamental misunderstanding is mixing up satiety with satiety per calorie. The best way to get a lot of satiety? Go to a buffet and eat a lot of everything you see. You'll get a lot of satiety, but at a cost of thousands and thousands of calories. Now, if you instead eat extremely high satiety per calorie foods, lets say egg whites and broccoli, you will likely not eat a lot of food. You'll probably end up eating quite few calories. So few, in fact, that you won't feel all that much satiety. In the latter case you ate super-high satiety per calorie foods, but very few calories. Therefore, the satiety you feel still isn't that high. Think of it like this. The higher the satiety per calorie number of the foods you eat, the fewer calories you're likely to end up eating. Period. However, the goal should not be to eat the very lowest number of calories you can. You can eat too little, and that won't make you feel your best. For example, eat only skinless chicken breast (76) and broccoli (89), and your average satiety per calorie may be 80. You'll eat very few calories and sure, you'll lose weight. But it will probably be fairly miserable. It's just too high, too effective. The goal should be to find a good balance for you. If you're looking for weight loss, that might be in the 50-70 range of average satiety per calorie. That's it for today. Don't mistake satiety and satiety per calorie. They are different ways of looking at things. Find the right balance for you. Not too high. Not too low. Just right. Or like we say in Sweden: Lagom. What's your favorite SPC range? More Try our Hava satiety app for free: Check the satiety score of any food: Visual guides:
3:52

What's the number one mistake that people make about satiety? Also, how can chicken breast and broccoli be high satiety per calorie (SPC), if people do not really feel full eating them? This may be the biggest misunderstanding that stops people from using satiety to lose weight and improve their metabolic health. As Ted ⚡️ Naiman shares in this clip, the fundamental misunderstanding is mixing up satiety with satiety per calorie. The best way to get a lot of satiety? Go to a buffet and eat a lot of everything you see. You'll get a lot of satiety, but at a cost of thousands and thousands of calories. Now, if you instead eat extremely high satiety per calorie foods, lets say egg whites and broccoli, you will likely not eat a lot of food. You'll probably end up eating quite few calories. So few, in fact, that you won't feel all that much satiety. In the latter case you ate super-high satiety per calorie foods, but very few calories. Therefore, the satiety you feel still isn't that high. Think of it like this. The higher the satiety per calorie number of the foods you eat, the fewer calories you're likely to end up eating. Period. However, the goal should not be to eat the very lowest number of calories you can. You can eat too little, and that won't make you feel your best. For example, eat only skinless chicken breast (76) and broccoli (89), and your average satiety per calorie may be 80. You'll eat very few calories and sure, you'll lose weight. But it will probably be fairly miserable. It's just too high, too effective. The goal should be to find a good balance for you. If you're looking for weight loss, that might be in the 50-70 range of average satiety per calorie. That's it for today. Don't mistake satiety and satiety per calorie. They are different ways of looking at things. Find the right balance for you. Not too high. Not too low. Just right. Or like we say in Sweden: Lagom. What's your favorite SPC range? More Try our Hava satiety app for free: Check the satiety score of any food: Visual guides:

Dr. E

24,528 次观看 • 2 年前

Nick Fuentes just recommended Ozempic to his 1M+ mostly Gen-Z fans, so now I need to rant. This is absolutely HORRIBLE advice. Ozempic and other GLP-1 drugs literally paralyze your stomach so you can't digest food properly, and in countless cases have led to gastroparesis, intestinal blockage, BLINDNESS, and a laundry list of other horrific side effects. NOBODY should be taking this poison. If you're struggling with weight loss, here's some actually useful advice that will make you healthier without destroying your body: EAT MORE FATTY RED MEAT. And any high-fat animal products, really. (Excluding dairy, which is a growth agent in nature and thus triggers addictive pathways in your brain). Beef, butter, bacon, and eggs. Those 4 are your best friend. Carbohydrates, even the "healthy ones" like salad, fruit, whole grains, etc. are NOT satiating your body; they're glorified sugar/fiber bulk that strain your digestion and make you fart/shit more, while giving you zero actual nutritional value as you are not a cow or rabbit with the specialized digestive system required to digest break these materials down. (More details on why plants in any quantity are unhealthy for humans in the thread to follow). The reason why an overweight person's body is stuck in the constant craving mode is, very simply, because they are protein/fat-deficient. (Carbohydrates are non-essential, Protein/Fat are essential). The carbohydrate industry is far bigger than the other two, however, so they've thrown a ton of money around to convince the world that DIETARY FAT is bad for you, and causes BODYFAT. This is completely backwards from reality. Dietary fat is what turns off your hunger signals, i.e. gets your body to the NOURISHMENT point where it no longer craves food, which is where weight loss happens. I can practically promise you right now: if you're on the heavy side and just eliminate all carbs (even fruit/salad) and start eating bacon/eggs for breakfast, and a couple pounds of steak or ground beef for dinner (again, with NO CARBS on the side of either of these meals), you will see the the easiest, most delicious weight loss progress of your life. And if you're really dedicated to making progress as fast as possible? Work your way toward eating a TON of steak for dinner, and making that your singular meal for the day. (One meal in a day sounds crazy to the carb-addicted mind, but trust me, that protein/fat combo has carrying power. I've done this one-meal-of-steak-per-day routine for years, it's easy once you're acclimated to it.) I've done tons of podcast episodes and blog posts on the weight loss topic in the past, featuring personal friends of mine who've lost HUNDREDS of pounds on the Carnivore (Zero Carb) Diet, when NOTHING else worked for them, from vegan, to paleo, to mediterranean, keto, and everything in between. I'll turn this post into a thread, and link some of the resources I've gotten the most positive feedback on below for you to explore. Take a look, and share with any friends you know who are struggling with weight! 🧵👇
0:51

Nick Fuentes just recommended Ozempic to his 1M+ mostly Gen-Z fans, so now I need to rant. This is absolutely HORRIBLE advice. Ozempic and other GLP-1 drugs literally paralyze your stomach so you can't digest food properly, and in countless cases have led to gastroparesis, intestinal blockage, BLINDNESS, and a laundry list of other horrific side effects. NOBODY should be taking this poison. If you're struggling with weight loss, here's some actually useful advice that will make you healthier without destroying your body: EAT MORE FATTY RED MEAT. And any high-fat animal products, really. (Excluding dairy, which is a growth agent in nature and thus triggers addictive pathways in your brain). Beef, butter, bacon, and eggs. Those 4 are your best friend. Carbohydrates, even the "healthy ones" like salad, fruit, whole grains, etc. are NOT satiating your body; they're glorified sugar/fiber bulk that strain your digestion and make you fart/shit more, while giving you zero actual nutritional value as you are not a cow or rabbit with the specialized digestive system required to digest break these materials down. (More details on why plants in any quantity are unhealthy for humans in the thread to follow). The reason why an overweight person's body is stuck in the constant craving mode is, very simply, because they are protein/fat-deficient. (Carbohydrates are non-essential, Protein/Fat are essential). The carbohydrate industry is far bigger than the other two, however, so they've thrown a ton of money around to convince the world that DIETARY FAT is bad for you, and causes BODYFAT. This is completely backwards from reality. Dietary fat is what turns off your hunger signals, i.e. gets your body to the NOURISHMENT point where it no longer craves food, which is where weight loss happens. I can practically promise you right now: if you're on the heavy side and just eliminate all carbs (even fruit/salad) and start eating bacon/eggs for breakfast, and a couple pounds of steak or ground beef for dinner (again, with NO CARBS on the side of either of these meals), you will see the the easiest, most delicious weight loss progress of your life. And if you're really dedicated to making progress as fast as possible? Work your way toward eating a TON of steak for dinner, and making that your singular meal for the day. (One meal in a day sounds crazy to the carb-addicted mind, but trust me, that protein/fat combo has carrying power. I've done this one-meal-of-steak-per-day routine for years, it's easy once you're acclimated to it.) I've done tons of podcast episodes and blog posts on the weight loss topic in the past, featuring personal friends of mine who've lost HUNDREDS of pounds on the Carnivore (Zero Carb) Diet, when NOTHING else worked for them, from vegan, to paleo, to mediterranean, keto, and everything in between. I'll turn this post into a thread, and link some of the resources I've gotten the most positive feedback on below for you to explore. Take a look, and share with any friends you know who are struggling with weight! 🧵👇

₿en Wehrman

15,674 次观看 • 1 个月前

The low-fat carnivore trend falsely claims to mimic an ancestral diet. This is wrong. ​Ancestors ate high-fat megafauna (mammoths); hunters today still target fat-rich animals (whales, seals, polar bears). Even Arctic fish are fat-rich. Larger animals, especially Arctic species hunted in the Ice Ages, naturally carry a higher percentage of body fat. Significant inter-abdominal fat is also found in the omentum, mesentery, and around the kidneys. Healthy animals simply have more fat than starving ones. ​Due to decades of processed food propaganda, people now discard nutritious subcutaneous and abdominal fat, consuming only lean muscle. Discarding this fat is not an ancestral practice. ​Avoiding animal fat sacrifices vital nutrients—DHA, EPA, Vitamins D3, K2, A, E, choline, cholesterol, and saturated fat—essential for neurological function and child brain development. ​Weight stalls often stem from a "dirty carnivore" diet (dairy, artificial sweeteners). When issues arise, people wrongly blame high fat, forgetting high-fat carnivore initially drove their health and weight loss. Switching to low-fat risks malnutrition and protein poisoning, which can result in weight loss, but at the expense of health. As health suffers, people blame long-term ketosis on the poor health effects, even though this is against all the best long-term peer-reviewed evidence (See my YouTube video "Is ketosis harmful?"l for more). Remember that your hormones like testosterone and estrogen are made out of cholesterol, and avoiding fat will make all hormones suffer. Eating carbs raises insulin and insulin resistance, which suppresses testosterone in men and estrogen in women. Fat is an essential nutrient, and is good for you. Don't avoid fat just because it's trendy and you don't want to give up dairy or sweets. That is good for you, so eat the damn fat. #carnivore #carnivorediet
13:23

The low-fat carnivore trend falsely claims to mimic an ancestral diet. This is wrong. ​Ancestors ate high-fat megafauna (mammoths); hunters today still target fat-rich animals (whales, seals, polar bears). Even Arctic fish are fat-rich. Larger animals, especially Arctic species hunted in the Ice Ages, naturally carry a higher percentage of body fat. Significant inter-abdominal fat is also found in the omentum, mesentery, and around the kidneys. Healthy animals simply have more fat than starving ones. ​Due to decades of processed food propaganda, people now discard nutritious subcutaneous and abdominal fat, consuming only lean muscle. Discarding this fat is not an ancestral practice. ​Avoiding animal fat sacrifices vital nutrients—DHA, EPA, Vitamins D3, K2, A, E, choline, cholesterol, and saturated fat—essential for neurological function and child brain development. ​Weight stalls often stem from a "dirty carnivore" diet (dairy, artificial sweeteners). When issues arise, people wrongly blame high fat, forgetting high-fat carnivore initially drove their health and weight loss. Switching to low-fat risks malnutrition and protein poisoning, which can result in weight loss, but at the expense of health. As health suffers, people blame long-term ketosis on the poor health effects, even though this is against all the best long-term peer-reviewed evidence (See my YouTube video "Is ketosis harmful?"l for more). Remember that your hormones like testosterone and estrogen are made out of cholesterol, and avoiding fat will make all hormones suffer. Eating carbs raises insulin and insulin resistance, which suppresses testosterone in men and estrogen in women. Fat is an essential nutrient, and is good for you. Don't avoid fat just because it's trendy and you don't want to give up dairy or sweets. That is good for you, so eat the damn fat. #carnivore #carnivorediet

Anthony Chaffee, MD

25,205 次观看 • 9 个月前

Many persons have shared this video with me. It has 11 million views on Instagram and 70K likes. Thats 70K people without critical thinking or lack of ability to fact check. Stay with me. This is a wild ride. I am not going into details of the person making the claim - because it is Deepak Chopra. Deepak Chopra is like turmeric-milk. You think milk becomes a "super-food" when turmeric enters the scene, but the fact is, turmeric is there just to waste your time. Same with Deepak Chopra. He is an 'embodiment of pseudoscience,' who, once upon a time was a physician, but now fully evolved into shell of "what was once a doctor" currently filled with mystic beliefs, white-washing Ayurveda, preaching transcendental meditation and quantum healing to prevent sickness. Sir Richard Dawkins called Chopra's claims "quantum jargon as plausible-sounding hocus pocus" and the scientific community has found that Chopra's treatments generally elicit nothing, because Chopra is a fraud who sells $350 meditation glasses to people who cant think for themselves. and Now the video. In it, a younger Deepak Chopra claims "with the power of the mind, one can change poison into nectar and nectar into poison." And he cites an actual scientific study to prove his claims. Only one little problem - that is not what the study concluded. As per Chopra, a study performed at the Ohio State University looked at a group of rabbits fed diet rich in cholesterol. One group showed high cholesterol, while the other showed lower levels of cholesterol. This was stunning, because all the rabbits were the same, they consumed same diet. So, what was different in the rabbit group that had lower cholesterol levels? Chopra says – it was happiness in those rabbits which led to better chemicals and chemical reaction in the brain that changed the cholesterol into a different pathway that did not hurt the heart. Why were they happy? Let us get into one of the most bizarrely misinterpreted study which led to what we now call as “The Rabbit Effect.” A type of rabbit, used in experiments, called the New Zealand white male rabbits, develop heart disease much like humans if fed a high-fat diet. So these rabbits are used to study effects of cholesterol in the heart using “diet experiments.” In 1978, Dr. Robert Nerem and his group fed a group of these rabbits high fat diet. At the end of the study, he measured the animals’ cholesterol, heart rates, and blood pressure. As expected, the cholesterol values were all high and virtually identical to one another. The rabbits had similar genes and ate the same diet. Now they all seemed destined for a heart attack or stroke. Only one aberrant problem. As the last step, Dr. Nerem needed to examine the rabbits’ tiny blood vessels to show cholesterol deposits there too. Looking through the microscope, he expected all the rabbits to show similar fatty deposits on the inside of their arteries. Instead, there was a huge variation in the fatty deposits between the animals. One group of rabbits had 60 percent fewer deposits than the other. What was happening? There was no clear biological explanation to this. They checked every little item they used in the experiment to see if that had caused changes. But every little thing was controlled and accounted for. Except one small thing. The researchers themselves. A Canadian postdoc named Murina Levesque had recently joined the lab. She was an unusually kind and caring individual. When it became apparent that all the animals with fewer fatty deposits were under Murina’s care, the team dug deeper. They noticed that Murina handled the animals differently. When she fed her rabbits, she talked to them, cuddled, and petted them. She did not throw the food at the little animals. She gave them food with love. So, prove this, the research group repeated the experiment, this time with tightly controlled conditions. They compared the little blood vessels of one group of rabbits cared for by Murina (food+love) to the arteries of another group of rabbits cared for in the standard way (only food). They found the same effect again. The paper was published in Science Magazine. This one: Social Environment as a Factor in Diet-Induced Atherosclerosis - So did the study prove that if you are happy, and the mind is free, poisonous substances can turn into nectar? - No, that was not what the study says. Remember – the study showed that high cholesterol levels in the blood was same in all rabbits who were on high fat diet. Only that the cholesterol deposits were lesser in the arteries of those who were fed with “kindness” – meaning who were less “stressed.” The study took the medical world on a wild ride because all the rabbit experiments would have to now look at how emotionally these animals were, to come to better conclusions from the interventions studied. So, a group of researchers specifically looked at “handling” and diet induced cholesterol deposits (atherosclerosis) in rabbits. They found that handling the animals did not have any effect on the atherosclerosis size inside the blood vessels and this was only roughly determined by the amount of cholesterol in food eaten. In the original “Rabbit Effect” study, the amount of food eaten between groups was not looked at. We now know that chronic stress leads to different behavioral patterns which also includes increased eating. Chronic life stress seems to be associated with a greater preference for energy- and nutrient-dense foods, namely those that are high in sugar and fat. Higher the stress, higher amount of food eaten, more the cholesterol and more importantly, more deposits inside the arteries which can be independent of cholesterol levels. How? One possible mechanism for this process is that chronic stress causes small blood vessel injury (endothelial damage), directly activating macrophages (an inflammatory cell), promoting foam cell formation, and generating the formation of atherosclerotic plaque inside small vessels. This mechanism involves numerous variables, including inflammation, signal pathways, lipid metabolism and endothelial function – and has nothing to do with cholesterol going to another pathway because of brain chemicals. Cholesterol is the body is metabolized through the same pathway whether you are happy, sad, or delirious. That is not what the rabbit study claimed or what it proved. It only made way for other studies to show that chronic stress could be an important factor that negatively impact heart and brain health which was independent of the food that you consume. Poison does not become nectar if you are happy and nectar does not become poison if you are sad. That is just Ayurvedic mumbo-jumbo from hocus-pocus self-help gurus who cite “Agni and the Digestive Fire” as the mechanism. “Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire” is more believable. If you take rat poison happily, you will still die. If you eat a banana while crying, you won’t die.
0:45

Many persons have shared this video with me. It has 11 million views on Instagram and 70K likes. Thats 70K people without critical thinking or lack of ability to fact check. Stay with me. This is a wild ride. I am not going into details of the person making the claim - because it is Deepak Chopra. Deepak Chopra is like turmeric-milk. You think milk becomes a "super-food" when turmeric enters the scene, but the fact is, turmeric is there just to waste your time. Same with Deepak Chopra. He is an 'embodiment of pseudoscience,' who, once upon a time was a physician, but now fully evolved into shell of "what was once a doctor" currently filled with mystic beliefs, white-washing Ayurveda, preaching transcendental meditation and quantum healing to prevent sickness. Sir Richard Dawkins called Chopra's claims "quantum jargon as plausible-sounding hocus pocus" and the scientific community has found that Chopra's treatments generally elicit nothing, because Chopra is a fraud who sells $350 meditation glasses to people who cant think for themselves. and Now the video. In it, a younger Deepak Chopra claims "with the power of the mind, one can change poison into nectar and nectar into poison." And he cites an actual scientific study to prove his claims. Only one little problem - that is not what the study concluded. As per Chopra, a study performed at the Ohio State University looked at a group of rabbits fed diet rich in cholesterol. One group showed high cholesterol, while the other showed lower levels of cholesterol. This was stunning, because all the rabbits were the same, they consumed same diet. So, what was different in the rabbit group that had lower cholesterol levels? Chopra says – it was happiness in those rabbits which led to better chemicals and chemical reaction in the brain that changed the cholesterol into a different pathway that did not hurt the heart. Why were they happy? Let us get into one of the most bizarrely misinterpreted study which led to what we now call as “The Rabbit Effect.” A type of rabbit, used in experiments, called the New Zealand white male rabbits, develop heart disease much like humans if fed a high-fat diet. So these rabbits are used to study effects of cholesterol in the heart using “diet experiments.” In 1978, Dr. Robert Nerem and his group fed a group of these rabbits high fat diet. At the end of the study, he measured the animals’ cholesterol, heart rates, and blood pressure. As expected, the cholesterol values were all high and virtually identical to one another. The rabbits had similar genes and ate the same diet. Now they all seemed destined for a heart attack or stroke. Only one aberrant problem. As the last step, Dr. Nerem needed to examine the rabbits’ tiny blood vessels to show cholesterol deposits there too. Looking through the microscope, he expected all the rabbits to show similar fatty deposits on the inside of their arteries. Instead, there was a huge variation in the fatty deposits between the animals. One group of rabbits had 60 percent fewer deposits than the other. What was happening? There was no clear biological explanation to this. They checked every little item they used in the experiment to see if that had caused changes. But every little thing was controlled and accounted for. Except one small thing. The researchers themselves. A Canadian postdoc named Murina Levesque had recently joined the lab. She was an unusually kind and caring individual. When it became apparent that all the animals with fewer fatty deposits were under Murina’s care, the team dug deeper. They noticed that Murina handled the animals differently. When she fed her rabbits, she talked to them, cuddled, and petted them. She did not throw the food at the little animals. She gave them food with love. So, prove this, the research group repeated the experiment, this time with tightly controlled conditions. They compared the little blood vessels of one group of rabbits cared for by Murina (food+love) to the arteries of another group of rabbits cared for in the standard way (only food). They found the same effect again. The paper was published in Science Magazine. This one: Social Environment as a Factor in Diet-Induced Atherosclerosis - So did the study prove that if you are happy, and the mind is free, poisonous substances can turn into nectar? - No, that was not what the study says. Remember – the study showed that high cholesterol levels in the blood was same in all rabbits who were on high fat diet. Only that the cholesterol deposits were lesser in the arteries of those who were fed with “kindness” – meaning who were less “stressed.” The study took the medical world on a wild ride because all the rabbit experiments would have to now look at how emotionally these animals were, to come to better conclusions from the interventions studied. So, a group of researchers specifically looked at “handling” and diet induced cholesterol deposits (atherosclerosis) in rabbits. They found that handling the animals did not have any effect on the atherosclerosis size inside the blood vessels and this was only roughly determined by the amount of cholesterol in food eaten. In the original “Rabbit Effect” study, the amount of food eaten between groups was not looked at. We now know that chronic stress leads to different behavioral patterns which also includes increased eating. Chronic life stress seems to be associated with a greater preference for energy- and nutrient-dense foods, namely those that are high in sugar and fat. Higher the stress, higher amount of food eaten, more the cholesterol and more importantly, more deposits inside the arteries which can be independent of cholesterol levels. How? One possible mechanism for this process is that chronic stress causes small blood vessel injury (endothelial damage), directly activating macrophages (an inflammatory cell), promoting foam cell formation, and generating the formation of atherosclerotic plaque inside small vessels. This mechanism involves numerous variables, including inflammation, signal pathways, lipid metabolism and endothelial function – and has nothing to do with cholesterol going to another pathway because of brain chemicals. Cholesterol is the body is metabolized through the same pathway whether you are happy, sad, or delirious. That is not what the rabbit study claimed or what it proved. It only made way for other studies to show that chronic stress could be an important factor that negatively impact heart and brain health which was independent of the food that you consume. Poison does not become nectar if you are happy and nectar does not become poison if you are sad. That is just Ayurvedic mumbo-jumbo from hocus-pocus self-help gurus who cite “Agni and the Digestive Fire” as the mechanism. “Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire” is more believable. If you take rat poison happily, you will still die. If you eat a banana while crying, you won’t die.

TheLiverDoc™

409,193 次观看 • 3 年前

"I don't think I could eat that much meat." THAT MUCH MEAT..... I've had this comment from friends when talking about carnivore. Just this week, I had two other friends who do carnivore have comments from their friends saying this exact thing. I once had a friend tell me that people probably don't think we eat a ton of meat every day, they just wonder how we could eat "only" meat every day. So, when I saw the comments my friends got on their carnivore posts, I followed along to see what people really think. What I found is that people actually do think we eat a lot of meat every single day. So, I'd like to clear up a couple things about carnivore: 1. Many of us don't "only eat meat." We eat a variety of animal-based foods. Red meat, chicken, seafood, pork, eggs. Dairy like plain yogurt, cheese, cottage cheese, kefir, etc. Some of us add coffee or tea. Some add avocado, kimchi, olives, or pickles to their meals. Some add herbs, or make tomato sauces for things like animal-based lasagna or pizza, etc. 2. We don't eat a huge slab of beef every day. People see some carnivores on social media eating 3lb tomahawk steaks and think we eat like that every day. We don't. Many of us eat less meat than we did before going carnivore. How? Because we're eating extremely nutrient-dense food and not loading our bellies with fiber and non-nutrient-dense foods. So our bodies are getting more nutrients and our appetites are much more satisfied. When our appetites are satisfied and our bodies are nourished, we actually eat less. Before going carnivore, I used to eat a diet that was heavy in plants and whole-food carbs. I'd add lean meats and low-fat dairy, whey protein powders and creatine, "health food" protein bars and shakes. Even with a diet heavy in plants with some lean meats, I still ate 1lb or more of meat daily. It was all chicken breasts, fish, canned tuna, and ground turkey. Every once in a great while, I'd grill a couple tri-tips or a steak. But it wasn't often. I'd wake up hungry and go to bed hungry. I ate all day long because I was constantly hungry, always had cravings, and my appetite never felt satisfied. My body lacked energy, I always felt bloated from all the vegetables, fiber, and carbs, and I never truly felt nourished. I increased my carb and calorie intake to see if it would help with my lack of energy, but it didn't. It made the bloating and sluggishness worse, I still didn't feel nourished, and I was still hungry. I would seriously have an extended stomach that was full, but my body would still feel hungry. I never understood it, until I went carnivore and fed my body truly nutrient-dense foods. Everything changed. The way I see food changed. On carnivore, I just follow my appetite and let my body decide when it's hungry. I don't force meals if I'm not hungry. So, I typically eat once a day. That one meal usually consists of around 8oz-12oz of beef with a few eggs. Sometimes, I eat twice a day. One meal usually has about 8oz-10oz of meat, the second meal usually has about 6oz. So, a total of 1lb for the day. Not only do I eat less than what I used to eat, but I spend a lot less money on food too. I've heard people question this way of eating a lot. They claim it's unsustainable or it lacks nutrients. They think we're eating, "That much meat." They don't understand that we're eating foods that have extremely bioavailable nutrients that the human body was actually designed to efficiently break down, absorb, and use. But, they can question and I'll keep sharing and answering. Until they try it for themselves, they won't understand the benefits we all have experienced with this way of eating. Our bodies aren't lacking nutrients. They're now actually getting nutrients. Big difference. **Here's a breakfast I sometimes make. Biscuits & gravy with eggs. Sausage gravy made with HWC and milk, no flour. Butter biscuits made with butter powder and duck eggs, no flour. Yum!
0:22

"I don't think I could eat that much meat." THAT MUCH MEAT..... I've had this comment from friends when talking about carnivore. Just this week, I had two other friends who do carnivore have comments from their friends saying this exact thing. I once had a friend tell me that people probably don't think we eat a ton of meat every day, they just wonder how we could eat "only" meat every day. So, when I saw the comments my friends got on their carnivore posts, I followed along to see what people really think. What I found is that people actually do think we eat a lot of meat every single day. So, I'd like to clear up a couple things about carnivore: 1. Many of us don't "only eat meat." We eat a variety of animal-based foods. Red meat, chicken, seafood, pork, eggs. Dairy like plain yogurt, cheese, cottage cheese, kefir, etc. Some of us add coffee or tea. Some add avocado, kimchi, olives, or pickles to their meals. Some add herbs, or make tomato sauces for things like animal-based lasagna or pizza, etc. 2. We don't eat a huge slab of beef every day. People see some carnivores on social media eating 3lb tomahawk steaks and think we eat like that every day. We don't. Many of us eat less meat than we did before going carnivore. How? Because we're eating extremely nutrient-dense food and not loading our bellies with fiber and non-nutrient-dense foods. So our bodies are getting more nutrients and our appetites are much more satisfied. When our appetites are satisfied and our bodies are nourished, we actually eat less. Before going carnivore, I used to eat a diet that was heavy in plants and whole-food carbs. I'd add lean meats and low-fat dairy, whey protein powders and creatine, "health food" protein bars and shakes. Even with a diet heavy in plants with some lean meats, I still ate 1lb or more of meat daily. It was all chicken breasts, fish, canned tuna, and ground turkey. Every once in a great while, I'd grill a couple tri-tips or a steak. But it wasn't often. I'd wake up hungry and go to bed hungry. I ate all day long because I was constantly hungry, always had cravings, and my appetite never felt satisfied. My body lacked energy, I always felt bloated from all the vegetables, fiber, and carbs, and I never truly felt nourished. I increased my carb and calorie intake to see if it would help with my lack of energy, but it didn't. It made the bloating and sluggishness worse, I still didn't feel nourished, and I was still hungry. I would seriously have an extended stomach that was full, but my body would still feel hungry. I never understood it, until I went carnivore and fed my body truly nutrient-dense foods. Everything changed. The way I see food changed. On carnivore, I just follow my appetite and let my body decide when it's hungry. I don't force meals if I'm not hungry. So, I typically eat once a day. That one meal usually consists of around 8oz-12oz of beef with a few eggs. Sometimes, I eat twice a day. One meal usually has about 8oz-10oz of meat, the second meal usually has about 6oz. So, a total of 1lb for the day. Not only do I eat less than what I used to eat, but I spend a lot less money on food too. I've heard people question this way of eating a lot. They claim it's unsustainable or it lacks nutrients. They think we're eating, "That much meat." They don't understand that we're eating foods that have extremely bioavailable nutrients that the human body was actually designed to efficiently break down, absorb, and use. But, they can question and I'll keep sharing and answering. Until they try it for themselves, they won't understand the benefits we all have experienced with this way of eating. Our bodies aren't lacking nutrients. They're now actually getting nutrients. Big difference. **Here's a breakfast I sometimes make. Biscuits & gravy with eggs. Sausage gravy made with HWC and milk, no flour. Butter biscuits made with butter powder and duck eggs, no flour. Yum!

The Carnivore RN

11,129 次观看 • 24 天前

Fitness Update: End of 3 months of Bulking. Starting a 3 month cut tomorrow, my last cut of 2026. I lost about 50 pounds from January 2025 till the end of March 2026 with a 13 month straight cut aided by Retatrutide and Tirzepatide. Counted calories and ran a deficit and lifted weights the whole time. My body needed a break and a reset from the stress of cutting for that long and constant downregulating of my metabolism. I decided to take April off and just do more calories and more lifting, and that turned into deciding to do May and June as well. So for 3 months straight I've been eating a lot more and lifting a LOT. I've gained about 5 pounds. Abs are not very visible anymore. But I've put on some muscle and strength as well and increased my base metabolic rate by several hundred calories. This is positioning me to be able to better be able to run a deficit again and continue into another cut with more energy and success possible. So this is me thicc boi mode ready to start a cut and get lean and mean. I'm sitting at ~195 right now and ~16-18% body fat. Goal of my cut is to get to the 180 or so range over the next 3 months and be in the 12-13% BF range, at which point I'll do a slow patient bulk through Oct-January and enjoy the fall and Holidays with lots of calories and strength training. Starting tomorrow I'm going to add 30-45 minutes of daily fasted zone 2 cardio first thing in the morning to burn an extra 150-300 cals. And I will drop my daily calorie allowance about 400 calories from what I've been eating the last few months. (2500-2800 down to 2200 to start, lowering later to 2100 and 2000 lowest if necessary to keep rate of loss where I want) This should get me the 1+ pound per week rate of loss I'm looking for. And I'll continue to prioritize lifting and protein as well to preserve the muscle mass I've built up and get as much of the loss to be fat as possible. I'm also going zero alcohol the whole cut as well. If I execute well, I'll be by far the fittest and leanest I've ever been at the end of September and I'm excited to see what that looks and feels like when I get there. Going from 70+ pounds overweight to building your dream physique isn't a quick process, people. Give yourself a couple of years to work on it systematically. It took you years to get out of shape, so you can take a couple years to get into great shape. But once you're there it's easier to stay there than it was to get there thankfully. The work continues. Let me know if you have any questions about anything. I'm documenting the whole process and will keep y'all up to speed. Open book. Building in public for accountability and hopefully to help others with their journey as well. 4th pic is me at my fattest in 2024. Embarrassing to post but necessary conext. I was in a sad, sad state you guys and heading towards diabetes and an early grave. If I can do this, you can do this!
0:20

Fitness Update: End of 3 months of Bulking. Starting a 3 month cut tomorrow, my last cut of 2026. I lost about 50 pounds from January 2025 till the end of March 2026 with a 13 month straight cut aided by Retatrutide and Tirzepatide. Counted calories and ran a deficit and lifted weights the whole time. My body needed a break and a reset from the stress of cutting for that long and constant downregulating of my metabolism. I decided to take April off and just do more calories and more lifting, and that turned into deciding to do May and June as well. So for 3 months straight I've been eating a lot more and lifting a LOT. I've gained about 5 pounds. Abs are not very visible anymore. But I've put on some muscle and strength as well and increased my base metabolic rate by several hundred calories. This is positioning me to be able to better be able to run a deficit again and continue into another cut with more energy and success possible. So this is me thicc boi mode ready to start a cut and get lean and mean. I'm sitting at ~195 right now and ~16-18% body fat. Goal of my cut is to get to the 180 or so range over the next 3 months and be in the 12-13% BF range, at which point I'll do a slow patient bulk through Oct-January and enjoy the fall and Holidays with lots of calories and strength training. Starting tomorrow I'm going to add 30-45 minutes of daily fasted zone 2 cardio first thing in the morning to burn an extra 150-300 cals. And I will drop my daily calorie allowance about 400 calories from what I've been eating the last few months. (2500-2800 down to 2200 to start, lowering later to 2100 and 2000 lowest if necessary to keep rate of loss where I want) This should get me the 1+ pound per week rate of loss I'm looking for. And I'll continue to prioritize lifting and protein as well to preserve the muscle mass I've built up and get as much of the loss to be fat as possible. I'm also going zero alcohol the whole cut as well. If I execute well, I'll be by far the fittest and leanest I've ever been at the end of September and I'm excited to see what that looks and feels like when I get there. Going from 70+ pounds overweight to building your dream physique isn't a quick process, people. Give yourself a couple of years to work on it systematically. It took you years to get out of shape, so you can take a couple years to get into great shape. But once you're there it's easier to stay there than it was to get there thankfully. The work continues. Let me know if you have any questions about anything. I'm documenting the whole process and will keep y'all up to speed. Open book. Building in public for accountability and hopefully to help others with their journey as well. 4th pic is me at my fattest in 2024. Embarrassing to post but necessary conext. I was in a sad, sad state you guys and heading towards diabetes and an early grave. If I can do this, you can do this!

Clint Fiore 🦬 DM for Biz Deals

75,761 次观看 • 21 天前

Beef Is 'Grass Fed' & 'Grain Fed'...Now We Have Beef That Is 'Candy Fed.' Factory Farms Are Feeding The Cattle SKITTLES. The USDA Gives 'Stamp Of Approval' To Feed Cattle Whatever Fattens Them Up The Fastest. Consuming Metabolically Unhealthy Beef Will Create Unhealthy Humans. Big Ag, like Cargill---& Big Food, like Hershey's & Mars Candy have teamed up to make more profit by promoting & 'upcycling' discarded candy to CAFO factory farm feedlots. Cargill considers it a 'win-win' as waste gets sold for profit & factory farms feed cattle metric tons of candy instead of purchasing traditional grain corn. Common Types of Candy & Food Products Fed to Cows: Chocolate including the wrappers Candy Bars Gummy Candies Hard Candy Marshmallows Ice Cream Sprinkles Froot Loops Donuts Cookies Powdered hot chocolate mix Empty, nutritionally void, chemical laden sugars are being foisted on cattle and their rumens, all in the name of the conventional food system’s four horsemen: bigger, fatter, faster, cheaper. What is even more shocking than the thought of cattle being fed a steady diet of empty, nutrient void candy castoffs (wrappers sometimes included!) is the number of people who actively, vociferously espouse feeding candy to cows. The arguments for feeding these factory seconds to cows are simple & short sighted. When faced with challenges (a drought) or opportunities (cheap candy) these conventional, CAFO conglomerates argue that calories & sugar from any source is good enough for your future meat. When overly-subsidized & misleadingly cheap row corn is even too pricey for the CAFOs to meet their bottom line, why be picky about where sugar comes from? Leftover, unsellable candy sugar is all that cows apparently need to put on weight. Feedlot farms defend this practice by stating, “Cattle can utilize gummy worms just the same way we can. They put on a lot of weight with those products because they’re high in sugar.” Well, if THAT is not the recipe for healthy food… wait, its not. Who among us would like a diet based mainly on these empty calories? Skittles, Gummy Bears & other junk foods are sold to farmers to provide cheap alternatives to purchasing corn or providing grass for livestock. It's not healthy to eat meat that’s been eating Skittles. Another argument, made by many of the candy-dispensing farmers, is that they are in fact doing us all a favor. Many farmers argue that diverting these truckloads of candy toward our future t-bones then keeps said truckloads out of our landfills. Feeding livestock a diet that is unnatural to them is not only unethical, it also produces meat that is extremely unhealthy. This industrial meat is full of hormones, antibiotics & pesticides, with more inflammatory omega-6 fats from seed oils in candy & ultra processed high fructose corn syrup & fewer anti-inflammatory omega-3 fats derived from a pastured diet. Simple carbs like wheat, corn, candy & GMO foods like processed is detrimental to our health. Controlled animal feeding operations use these exact foods to feed cows. They’re not good for you & they’re not good for livestock, either. Cows prefer to graze on plants grown in pastures. When they are fed candy, they suffer from acidosis & other gut issues, & need to be pumped full of antibiotics, vaccines & other medicines to fight infection, parasites & other diseases. Now more than ever, it is important to support our local farmers & ranchers who pasture raise their cattle & provide grass fed & finished nutrient dense beef. There are many great regenerative local farms & grass fed ranches providing beef & other animal sourced foods online for shipment to your door. No local source of healthy beef in your area?... Comment 'BEEF' in the replies or thru DM & I will send you a list of farms that I trust to provide quality beef with the highest nutrition. 👇Cargill & Hershey's Team Up To Feed Cows👇 👇American Cows Are Eating Skittles👇 👇Using Food Waste As Livestock Feed👇 Speaker: Cynthia Thurlow, NP Podcast: Apollo The Original
0:53

Beef Is 'Grass Fed' & 'Grain Fed'...Now We Have Beef That Is 'Candy Fed.' Factory Farms Are Feeding The Cattle SKITTLES. The USDA Gives 'Stamp Of Approval' To Feed Cattle Whatever Fattens Them Up The Fastest. Consuming Metabolically Unhealthy Beef Will Create Unhealthy Humans. Big Ag, like Cargill---& Big Food, like Hershey's & Mars Candy have teamed up to make more profit by promoting & 'upcycling' discarded candy to CAFO factory farm feedlots. Cargill considers it a 'win-win' as waste gets sold for profit & factory farms feed cattle metric tons of candy instead of purchasing traditional grain corn. Common Types of Candy & Food Products Fed to Cows: Chocolate including the wrappers Candy Bars Gummy Candies Hard Candy Marshmallows Ice Cream Sprinkles Froot Loops Donuts Cookies Powdered hot chocolate mix Empty, nutritionally void, chemical laden sugars are being foisted on cattle and their rumens, all in the name of the conventional food system’s four horsemen: bigger, fatter, faster, cheaper. What is even more shocking than the thought of cattle being fed a steady diet of empty, nutrient void candy castoffs (wrappers sometimes included!) is the number of people who actively, vociferously espouse feeding candy to cows. The arguments for feeding these factory seconds to cows are simple & short sighted. When faced with challenges (a drought) or opportunities (cheap candy) these conventional, CAFO conglomerates argue that calories & sugar from any source is good enough for your future meat. When overly-subsidized & misleadingly cheap row corn is even too pricey for the CAFOs to meet their bottom line, why be picky about where sugar comes from? Leftover, unsellable candy sugar is all that cows apparently need to put on weight. Feedlot farms defend this practice by stating, “Cattle can utilize gummy worms just the same way we can. They put on a lot of weight with those products because they’re high in sugar.” Well, if THAT is not the recipe for healthy food… wait, its not. Who among us would like a diet based mainly on these empty calories? Skittles, Gummy Bears & other junk foods are sold to farmers to provide cheap alternatives to purchasing corn or providing grass for livestock. It's not healthy to eat meat that’s been eating Skittles. Another argument, made by many of the candy-dispensing farmers, is that they are in fact doing us all a favor. Many farmers argue that diverting these truckloads of candy toward our future t-bones then keeps said truckloads out of our landfills. Feeding livestock a diet that is unnatural to them is not only unethical, it also produces meat that is extremely unhealthy. This industrial meat is full of hormones, antibiotics & pesticides, with more inflammatory omega-6 fats from seed oils in candy & ultra processed high fructose corn syrup & fewer anti-inflammatory omega-3 fats derived from a pastured diet. Simple carbs like wheat, corn, candy & GMO foods like processed is detrimental to our health. Controlled animal feeding operations use these exact foods to feed cows. They’re not good for you & they’re not good for livestock, either. Cows prefer to graze on plants grown in pastures. When they are fed candy, they suffer from acidosis & other gut issues, & need to be pumped full of antibiotics, vaccines & other medicines to fight infection, parasites & other diseases. Now more than ever, it is important to support our local farmers & ranchers who pasture raise their cattle & provide grass fed & finished nutrient dense beef. There are many great regenerative local farms & grass fed ranches providing beef & other animal sourced foods online for shipment to your door. No local source of healthy beef in your area?... Comment 'BEEF' in the replies or thru DM & I will send you a list of farms that I trust to provide quality beef with the highest nutrition. 👇Cargill & Hershey's Team Up To Feed Cows👇 👇American Cows Are Eating Skittles👇 👇Using Food Waste As Livestock Feed👇 Speaker: Cynthia Thurlow, NP Podcast: Apollo The Original

Valerie Anne Smith

149,700 次观看 • 11 个月前

Last night Dr David Unwin was on mainstream news talking about the benefits of reducing carbs for those living with diabetes. The results he gets are amazing. I know it can be replicated by others because I copy what he does in my own clinical practice using David Oliver, Freshwell resources (which are free btw). As a result, in 2024 forty of my patients achieved remission too. The news report featured an endocrinologist Shivani Misra who, at the 4mins 27s timestamp in the video, said: "If someone does a low carb with higher fat what does that mean for their cholesterol and their cardiovascular disease risk? We don't know the answer to this" I'm here to tell you this is a false statement. The research has been done. Let me show you: In 2020 a meta analysis looking at the effects of low carb on CVD risk found: "For total cholesterol there was no significant change in the data corresponding to low-carbohydrate diets lasting 12–23 months and over 24 months" With regards LDL the meta analysis says: "For plasma LDL, as the forest map shows, that there was no significant difference between the low-carbohydrate diet group and the control group at 6–11 months, 12–23 months, and 24 months" All other factors improved (blood pressure, triglycerides, etc) The meta analysis concluded: "In conclusion, the overall effect of a low-carbohydrate diet on cardiovascular risk factors tended to be favorable at less than 6 months and 6–11 months, but after 2 years of a low-carbohydrate diet, there was no significant effect on cardiovascular risk factors" So short term: CVD risk factors are improved, long term, things don't get worse". This mirrors what I see in clinical practice and with myself having been low carb full time since the start of 2020 - all my CVD risk markers are in the normal range. Study source: The reporter also talks about low carb as a "restrictive diet". What's more restrictive: Giving up bagels, bread, sweets and other junk IN FAVOUR OF protein, vegetables etc Or Giving up solid food entirely for a 850kcal liquid diet for months? Despite the latter being far more restrictive it has been rolled out nationally by the NHS. Nothing wrong with this as it works but so does low carb. Why not give patients a choice? The reporter also says Dr Unwins results are just because of the support he provides. Whilst support matters (a lot), this is blatant misinformation. Plenty of studies show that reducing carbs is disproportionately better for those with diabetes than low fat. Here are some: In 2023 Novo Nordisk published a randomized controlled trial comparing low carb to low fat for diabetes. They found: 🩸 Low carb led to the greatest reduction in hba1c 💉 Only the low carb group reduced medications 📉 Low carb had the greatest reduction in triglycerides + higher HDL (LDL was similar) ⚖️ Low carb group lost more weight + more fat spontaneously despite eating more calories 🩸 Systolic blood pressure was lower for low carb The low carb group non significantly raises their LDL but 0.23mmol. The researchers said: "we consider the beneficial effects of low carb to outweigh the minor increase in LDL (0.23mmol) induced by the diet. This is supported by other studies" So low carb is better and CVD risk markers overall improved. Naturally, the study was hidden behind a Paywall. Link: I can hear the skeptics now: "But Mike, this is one study, it's not enough" Ok here's a meta analysis showing that hba1c is directly proportional to the carbs eaten: This meta analysis concluded:
6:38

Last night Dr David Unwin was on mainstream news talking about the benefits of reducing carbs for those living with diabetes. The results he gets are amazing. I know it can be replicated by others because I copy what he does in my own clinical practice using David Oliver, Freshwell resources (which are free btw). As a result, in 2024 forty of my patients achieved remission too. The news report featured an endocrinologist Shivani Misra who, at the 4mins 27s timestamp in the video, said: "If someone does a low carb with higher fat what does that mean for their cholesterol and their cardiovascular disease risk? We don't know the answer to this" I'm here to tell you this is a false statement. The research has been done. Let me show you: In 2020 a meta analysis looking at the effects of low carb on CVD risk found: "For total cholesterol there was no significant change in the data corresponding to low-carbohydrate diets lasting 12–23 months and over 24 months" With regards LDL the meta analysis says: "For plasma LDL, as the forest map shows, that there was no significant difference between the low-carbohydrate diet group and the control group at 6–11 months, 12–23 months, and 24 months" All other factors improved (blood pressure, triglycerides, etc) The meta analysis concluded: "In conclusion, the overall effect of a low-carbohydrate diet on cardiovascular risk factors tended to be favorable at less than 6 months and 6–11 months, but after 2 years of a low-carbohydrate diet, there was no significant effect on cardiovascular risk factors" So short term: CVD risk factors are improved, long term, things don't get worse". This mirrors what I see in clinical practice and with myself having been low carb full time since the start of 2020 - all my CVD risk markers are in the normal range. Study source: The reporter also talks about low carb as a "restrictive diet". What's more restrictive: Giving up bagels, bread, sweets and other junk IN FAVOUR OF protein, vegetables etc Or Giving up solid food entirely for a 850kcal liquid diet for months? Despite the latter being far more restrictive it has been rolled out nationally by the NHS. Nothing wrong with this as it works but so does low carb. Why not give patients a choice? The reporter also says Dr Unwins results are just because of the support he provides. Whilst support matters (a lot), this is blatant misinformation. Plenty of studies show that reducing carbs is disproportionately better for those with diabetes than low fat. Here are some: In 2023 Novo Nordisk published a randomized controlled trial comparing low carb to low fat for diabetes. They found: 🩸 Low carb led to the greatest reduction in hba1c 💉 Only the low carb group reduced medications 📉 Low carb had the greatest reduction in triglycerides + higher HDL (LDL was similar) ⚖️ Low carb group lost more weight + more fat spontaneously despite eating more calories 🩸 Systolic blood pressure was lower for low carb The low carb group non significantly raises their LDL but 0.23mmol. The researchers said: "we consider the beneficial effects of low carb to outweigh the minor increase in LDL (0.23mmol) induced by the diet. This is supported by other studies" So low carb is better and CVD risk markers overall improved. Naturally, the study was hidden behind a Paywall. Link: I can hear the skeptics now: "But Mike, this is one study, it's not enough" Ok here's a meta analysis showing that hba1c is directly proportional to the carbs eaten: This meta analysis concluded:

Mike - Low Carb Dietitian

17,028 次观看 • 1 年前

Alex Hormozi revealed exactly what business to start if you are broke: 1. Every business idea comes from one of three sources, what Hormozi calls the three P's: pain you personally overcame, your profession, or your passion. There is no fourth category. 2. A pain-based business often starts with something you already solved for yourself. A woman managing lunch for nine kids built an entire organized system around it, and that system itself became the seed of a business. 3. A profession-based business comes from a specific skill you already get paid for. A registered dietitian who learned how to bill insurance during a brutal 12-hour, six-day workweek turned that narrow skill into teaching other dietitians, and now earns close to a million dollars a year with only 5,800 Instagram followers. 4. A passion-based business comes from what you cannot stop consuming in your free time. Hormozi's own obsession with fitness content eventually led coworkers to literally offer to fund his first gym because his passion was so obvious to everyone around him. 5. You do not need the perfect idea on the first try. Picking something, even a flawed version, starts the iteration process. He calls this finding your best bad idea, because a bad idea that keeps getting refined eventually becomes a good one. 6. Once you have your what, you choose your who from three groups: people like you, people you have already helped before, and underserved markets. Most successful businesses come from the first two. 7. Sara Blakely built Spanx by solving her own personal frustration with underwear. Mark Zuckerberg built Facebook by solving a problem inside his own dorm room. Personal problems scaled into billion-dollar businesses more often than people assume. 8. Hormozi's first ever dollar came from casually helping a woman at his gym with her food choices. After an hour and a half of conversation at a pizza shop, she handed him a $100 check without him ever naming a price. 9. Narrowing your audience using at least three specific traits, age, profession, and a specific pain or interest, makes your message land far more powerfully than vague targeting ever will. 10. Getting more specific does not shrink your income potential, it grows it. A generic time management PDF might sell for $19. The same idea narrowed down to outbound sales reps in the garden and power tools industry could sell for $10,000. 11. The narrower and more specific your niche, the fewer competitors you face. Hormozi describes this as having the only lifeboat in an ocean full of people struggling to stay afloat, which means you can charge whatever you want. 12. Every offer needs two halves: the good stuff your product delivers, and the bad stuff it helps people avoid. Motivation only comes from one of these two forces, gaining something wanted or escaping something hated. 13. Vague promises like "lose weight fast" stopped working decades ago. Specific pain points, like the exact sensation of your thighs chafing in the sun, bypass people's skepticism because the specificity proves you actually understand their problem. 14. If you are not the target customer yourself, interview real people using direct questions: what are you struggling with, how long have you struggled with it, what have you had to give up that you loved, and what have you had to start doing that you hated. 15. The entire offer collapses into one simple formula: I help to get a good outcome without a bad outcome. Hormozi's own example: "I help 45-year-old women who just had kids get back into their high school jeans without giving up time with their family." 16. A unique mechanism is the special process or system that makes your solution feel different from every competitor's, even if the underlying mechanics are similar. P90X built an empire on the concept of muscle confusion. Weight Watchers built theirs on a points system. 17. A unique mechanism does not need to be scientifically revolutionary. It simply needs to feel like the missing piece that makes everything else finally click into place for the person buying it. 18. The simplest way to get your first five customers requires no funnel and no ad spend. Greet someone, compliment something specific and genuine about them, insert your one-sentence offer, and ask if they know anyone who might benefit from it. 19. Repeat that outreach process for four hours a day or until you have contacted 100 people, whichever comes first. Consistency in this single action is what produces the first five paying customers, not perfect marketing or branding. Follow Brad if you want more content on business, mindset & life changing ideas.
24:42

Alex Hormozi revealed exactly what business to start if you are broke: 1. Every business idea comes from one of three sources, what Hormozi calls the three P's: pain you personally overcame, your profession, or your passion. There is no fourth category. 2. A pain-based business often starts with something you already solved for yourself. A woman managing lunch for nine kids built an entire organized system around it, and that system itself became the seed of a business. 3. A profession-based business comes from a specific skill you already get paid for. A registered dietitian who learned how to bill insurance during a brutal 12-hour, six-day workweek turned that narrow skill into teaching other dietitians, and now earns close to a million dollars a year with only 5,800 Instagram followers. 4. A passion-based business comes from what you cannot stop consuming in your free time. Hormozi's own obsession with fitness content eventually led coworkers to literally offer to fund his first gym because his passion was so obvious to everyone around him. 5. You do not need the perfect idea on the first try. Picking something, even a flawed version, starts the iteration process. He calls this finding your best bad idea, because a bad idea that keeps getting refined eventually becomes a good one. 6. Once you have your what, you choose your who from three groups: people like you, people you have already helped before, and underserved markets. Most successful businesses come from the first two. 7. Sara Blakely built Spanx by solving her own personal frustration with underwear. Mark Zuckerberg built Facebook by solving a problem inside his own dorm room. Personal problems scaled into billion-dollar businesses more often than people assume. 8. Hormozi's first ever dollar came from casually helping a woman at his gym with her food choices. After an hour and a half of conversation at a pizza shop, she handed him a $100 check without him ever naming a price. 9. Narrowing your audience using at least three specific traits, age, profession, and a specific pain or interest, makes your message land far more powerfully than vague targeting ever will. 10. Getting more specific does not shrink your income potential, it grows it. A generic time management PDF might sell for $19. The same idea narrowed down to outbound sales reps in the garden and power tools industry could sell for $10,000. 11. The narrower and more specific your niche, the fewer competitors you face. Hormozi describes this as having the only lifeboat in an ocean full of people struggling to stay afloat, which means you can charge whatever you want. 12. Every offer needs two halves: the good stuff your product delivers, and the bad stuff it helps people avoid. Motivation only comes from one of these two forces, gaining something wanted or escaping something hated. 13. Vague promises like "lose weight fast" stopped working decades ago. Specific pain points, like the exact sensation of your thighs chafing in the sun, bypass people's skepticism because the specificity proves you actually understand their problem. 14. If you are not the target customer yourself, interview real people using direct questions: what are you struggling with, how long have you struggled with it, what have you had to give up that you loved, and what have you had to start doing that you hated. 15. The entire offer collapses into one simple formula: I help to get a good outcome without a bad outcome. Hormozi's own example: "I help 45-year-old women who just had kids get back into their high school jeans without giving up time with their family." 16. A unique mechanism is the special process or system that makes your solution feel different from every competitor's, even if the underlying mechanics are similar. P90X built an empire on the concept of muscle confusion. Weight Watchers built theirs on a points system. 17. A unique mechanism does not need to be scientifically revolutionary. It simply needs to feel like the missing piece that makes everything else finally click into place for the person buying it. 18. The simplest way to get your first five customers requires no funnel and no ad spend. Greet someone, compliment something specific and genuine about them, insert your one-sentence offer, and ask if they know anyone who might benefit from it. 19. Repeat that outreach process for four hours a day or until you have contacted 100 people, whichever comes first. Consistency in this single action is what produces the first five paying customers, not perfect marketing or branding. Follow Brad if you want more content on business, mindset & life changing ideas.

Brad

57,326 次观看 • 18 天前