Video yükleniyor...

Video Yüklenemedi

Ana Sayfaya Dön

Is Coke Zero worse than regular Coke? 🤔 Surprisingly… no. In fact, it’s way better. ✅ When diet sodas replace sugar-sweetened drinks, people lose weight and improve metabolic health. (PMID: 35285920) ❌ Claims about Coke Zero wrecking your gut or making you crave more? No human evidence supports that....

BioLayne's profile picture

Layne Norton, PhD

231,313 subscribers

55,572 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce •via X (Twitter)

Sağlık & İyilikBilim & TeknolojiEğitim
LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Yorum

Yorum bulunmuyor

Orijinal gönderinin yorumları burada görünecek

Benzer Videolar

Diet soda makes you fat because it has chemicals that your body doesn’t know how to ‘process’? 🤣 Actually diet soda sweetened with say aspartame is processed into aspartate and phenylalanine (2 amino acids found in every source of protein & in way higher amounts) and methanol 😱. Before yall get your panties in a twist, the amount of methanol produced by diet sodas relative to what would cause issues would mean you’d need to drink approx 20,000 12 oz cans of Diet Coke to cause problems. And no, methanol does not accumulate in the body & it is metabolized by the liver & excreted by the kidneys. You’d die of fluid toxicity before you’d ever even come close to the level of methanol needed to cause any issues from drinking diet soda 🤷🏼‍♂️ So yea, our body knows what to do with it. But her claim doesn’t even make sense. If the body didn’t know what to do with it, how would it get stored as fat? And WHAT would get stored as fat? Which ‘chemicals’ and HOW EXACTLY THROUGH WHAT MECHANISM? 🤣 Maybe she’d say they cause insulin release which makes you fat… only one problem with that… they conclusively DO NOT increase insulin (PMID: 36839408) And diet drinks do NOT make you fat. In fact, in the HUMAN. RANDOMIZED. CONTROLLED. TRIALS where they have people drink diet drinks in place of regular sugar sweetened beverages, people lose weight, & in several studies they actually lose more weight than people who substituted water 🤷🏼‍♂️ (PMIDs: 37794246, 37475684, 26708700, & 35285920) I’m not saying you should drink diet soda in place of water. What I’m saying is for many people, diet drinks help them stop drinking regular soda, which in turn helps them lose weight, & get healthier If we fear monger this useful tool, it confuses people & the unintended consequence is many people takeaway not that they will drink more water, but they should not drink diet soda so they might as well continue drinking regular soda since diet soda is portrayed as just as bad by these influencers Also no one tell this gal water has dihydrogen monoxide 🤣. I don’t know her name… y’all tag her 🤷🏼‍♂️ DATA>feelings
1:28

Diet soda makes you fat because it has chemicals that your body doesn’t know how to ‘process’? 🤣 Actually diet soda sweetened with say aspartame is processed into aspartate and phenylalanine (2 amino acids found in every source of protein & in way higher amounts) and methanol 😱. Before yall get your panties in a twist, the amount of methanol produced by diet sodas relative to what would cause issues would mean you’d need to drink approx 20,000 12 oz cans of Diet Coke to cause problems. And no, methanol does not accumulate in the body & it is metabolized by the liver & excreted by the kidneys. You’d die of fluid toxicity before you’d ever even come close to the level of methanol needed to cause any issues from drinking diet soda 🤷🏼‍♂️ So yea, our body knows what to do with it. But her claim doesn’t even make sense. If the body didn’t know what to do with it, how would it get stored as fat? And WHAT would get stored as fat? Which ‘chemicals’ and HOW EXACTLY THROUGH WHAT MECHANISM? 🤣 Maybe she’d say they cause insulin release which makes you fat… only one problem with that… they conclusively DO NOT increase insulin (PMID: 36839408) And diet drinks do NOT make you fat. In fact, in the HUMAN. RANDOMIZED. CONTROLLED. TRIALS where they have people drink diet drinks in place of regular sugar sweetened beverages, people lose weight, & in several studies they actually lose more weight than people who substituted water 🤷🏼‍♂️ (PMIDs: 37794246, 37475684, 26708700, & 35285920) I’m not saying you should drink diet soda in place of water. What I’m saying is for many people, diet drinks help them stop drinking regular soda, which in turn helps them lose weight, & get healthier If we fear monger this useful tool, it confuses people & the unintended consequence is many people takeaway not that they will drink more water, but they should not drink diet soda so they might as well continue drinking regular soda since diet soda is portrayed as just as bad by these influencers Also no one tell this gal water has dihydrogen monoxide 🤣. I don’t know her name… y’all tag her 🤷🏼‍♂️ DATA>feelings

Layne Norton, PhD

243,796 görüntüleme • 2 yıl önce

Dr. Rhonda Patrick drops a wild irony bomb on Diet Coke: You're ditching sugar to avoid insulin spikes and obesity... but aspartame (Diet Coke's main sweetener) reshapes your gut microbiome to favor bacteria that harvest glucose more efficiently — making you more prone to weight gain. Animal studies show causal links; human associative data backs it up. The very drink people use to "stay lean" can backfire by shifting gut bugs toward obesity-promoting patterns. One can occasionally? Probably fine. One (or more) a day? You're constantly nudging your microbiome in the wrong direction. The ultimate plot twist: Diet Coke might be sabotaging the exact goal it's marketed for. Ditch the aspartame or keep sipping? What's your take on artificial sweeteners?
1:04

Dr. Rhonda Patrick drops a wild irony bomb on Diet Coke: You're ditching sugar to avoid insulin spikes and obesity... but aspartame (Diet Coke's main sweetener) reshapes your gut microbiome to favor bacteria that harvest glucose more efficiently — making you more prone to weight gain. Animal studies show causal links; human associative data backs it up. The very drink people use to "stay lean" can backfire by shifting gut bugs toward obesity-promoting patterns. One can occasionally? Probably fine. One (or more) a day? You're constantly nudging your microbiome in the wrong direction. The ultimate plot twist: Diet Coke might be sabotaging the exact goal it's marketed for. Ditch the aspartame or keep sipping? What's your take on artificial sweeteners?

Camus

1,571,429 görüntüleme • 7 ay önce

Florida resident demands action against new SNAP Food Stamps restrictions “Somebody needs to do something about this. It's affecting everybody” She says she can no longer buy her ice cream with her EBT “No sodas. You can't get your coffee creamer. You can't even get ice cream. That's, you know, that's wrong. What am I gonna do? — that's wrong” Here’s a list of newly restricted items in Florida - Soda (including regular, diet, and zero-sugar varieties) - Any carbonated beverage flavored or sweetened with added sugar or artificial sweeteners (e.g., Coke, Pepsi, Sprite, Diet Coke, Dr Pepper, etc.) - Energy Drinks -Candy - Ultra-processed / Shelf-stable Prepared Desserts (e.g., packaged cookies, snack cakes, certain pastries, donuts, etc.) Coffee, tea, or substantially coffee/tea-based drinks; sports drinks like Gatorade are still eligible
0:27

Florida resident demands action against new SNAP Food Stamps restrictions “Somebody needs to do something about this. It's affecting everybody” She says she can no longer buy her ice cream with her EBT “No sodas. You can't get your coffee creamer. You can't even get ice cream. That's, you know, that's wrong. What am I gonna do? — that's wrong” Here’s a list of newly restricted items in Florida - Soda (including regular, diet, and zero-sugar varieties) - Any carbonated beverage flavored or sweetened with added sugar or artificial sweeteners (e.g., Coke, Pepsi, Sprite, Diet Coke, Dr Pepper, etc.) - Energy Drinks -Candy - Ultra-processed / Shelf-stable Prepared Desserts (e.g., packaged cookies, snack cakes, certain pastries, donuts, etc.) Coffee, tea, or substantially coffee/tea-based drinks; sports drinks like Gatorade are still eligible

Wall Street Apes

134,532 görüntüleme • 5 ay önce

Dr. William Li just ruined diet soda for me on Mel Robbins’ podcast. You’d think the zero-calorie versions would be the “safe” choice. Nope. He says they’re actually worse. Artificial sweeteners wipe out good gut bacteria, mess with your metabolism, and can lead to weight gain, even more than regular soda. Your gut microbiome basically revolts against these fake sweeteners. Something that seems harmless ends up derailing the very system that helps you burn fuel properly. We make these small “healthy” swaps every day thinking we’re doing ourselves a favor, but some of them might be working against us behind the scenes. Tiny habits can have surprisingly big consequences. I’ve definitely fallen for the “better than nothing” trap with drinks and snacks. This conversation was a solid reminder to question those autopilot choices more often. What’s one “healthy” swap you’ve been making that you’re now second-guessing?
1:17

Dr. William Li just ruined diet soda for me on Mel Robbins’ podcast. You’d think the zero-calorie versions would be the “safe” choice. Nope. He says they’re actually worse. Artificial sweeteners wipe out good gut bacteria, mess with your metabolism, and can lead to weight gain, even more than regular soda. Your gut microbiome basically revolts against these fake sweeteners. Something that seems harmless ends up derailing the very system that helps you burn fuel properly. We make these small “healthy” swaps every day thinking we’re doing ourselves a favor, but some of them might be working against us behind the scenes. Tiny habits can have surprisingly big consequences. I’ve definitely fallen for the “better than nothing” trap with drinks and snacks. This conversation was a solid reminder to question those autopilot choices more often. What’s one “healthy” swap you’ve been making that you’re now second-guessing?

Camus

17,440 görüntüleme • 4 ay önce

“Butter is called butter because of butyrate!” No, it’s not. @drstevengundry is wrong… AGAIN as per usual 1) Butter is not named after butyrate The word butter comes from the Greek boutyron (“cow cheese”). Butter did not get its name because of its butyrate content. 2) Butter contains very little butyrate Butter is only 3–4% butyric acid by weight of its fat, meaning you get very small amounts relative to the calories (mostly saturated fat). It is a terrible butyrate strategy compared to dietary fiber. 3) The butyrate your colon uses comes from FIBER – not butter This is the key point Gundry gets completely wrong. Your gut bacteria turn dietary fiber into short-chain fatty acids (SCFAs): acetate, propionate, butyrate. That’s where the vast majority of your colonic butyrate comes from. Verified human data: • Fiber fermentation by gut bacteria is the primary source of SCFAs, including butyrate. PMID: 38436734 • Butyrate is the preferred fuel of colonocytes and plays major roles in gut barrier function, inflammation, and colon health. PMID: 10736623 • SCFAs produced from fiber have protective roles in metabolic health and colon health. PMID: 31126110 • Higher dietary fiber → greater SCFA (including butyrate) production. PMID: 11427691 • Most U.S. adults do not meet recommended fiber intake. PMID: 36627816 4) Colon cancer isn’t rising because people “don’t eat butter.” There is zero evidence for that claim. If anything, low fiber intake (and therefore low SCFA production) is the real issue—since Americans chronically under-consume fiber. Bottom line: Butter is fine in moderation. But pretending it’s a colon-healing, cancer-preventing “butyrate superfood” is pseudoscience. If you actually want to increase butyrate production? Eat more fiber. Your colon will thank you.
2:14

“Butter is called butter because of butyrate!” No, it’s not. @drstevengundry is wrong… AGAIN as per usual 1) Butter is not named after butyrate The word butter comes from the Greek boutyron (“cow cheese”). Butter did not get its name because of its butyrate content. 2) Butter contains very little butyrate Butter is only 3–4% butyric acid by weight of its fat, meaning you get very small amounts relative to the calories (mostly saturated fat). It is a terrible butyrate strategy compared to dietary fiber. 3) The butyrate your colon uses comes from FIBER – not butter This is the key point Gundry gets completely wrong. Your gut bacteria turn dietary fiber into short-chain fatty acids (SCFAs): acetate, propionate, butyrate. That’s where the vast majority of your colonic butyrate comes from. Verified human data: • Fiber fermentation by gut bacteria is the primary source of SCFAs, including butyrate. PMID: 38436734 • Butyrate is the preferred fuel of colonocytes and plays major roles in gut barrier function, inflammation, and colon health. PMID: 10736623 • SCFAs produced from fiber have protective roles in metabolic health and colon health. PMID: 31126110 • Higher dietary fiber → greater SCFA (including butyrate) production. PMID: 11427691 • Most U.S. adults do not meet recommended fiber intake. PMID: 36627816 4) Colon cancer isn’t rising because people “don’t eat butter.” There is zero evidence for that claim. If anything, low fiber intake (and therefore low SCFA production) is the real issue—since Americans chronically under-consume fiber. Bottom line: Butter is fine in moderation. But pretending it’s a colon-healing, cancer-preventing “butyrate superfood” is pseudoscience. If you actually want to increase butyrate production? Eat more fiber. Your colon will thank you.

Layne Norton, PhD

33,321 görüntüleme • 10 ay önce

A real scientific study onto Coca-Cola found that Mexican Coke is a lie. It showed there is no real cane sugar “In 2010, a group of legit scientists get together to do a legitimate experiment for a legitimate science journal, and they want to test soft drinks including Coca-Cola. They want to know what sorts of sweetener are being used for each and how much of that sweetener is in each of them. So they gather a bunch of soft drinks including a Mexican Coca-Cola and an American Coca-Cola, and do all of their testing. What they find is that the Mexican Coca-Cola actually has no sucrose in it, meaning sugar. All they find in this is glucose and fructose, the elements that are used to build high fructose corn syrup. — They found no sugar. They only found the elements for high fructose corn syrup” Okay this sounds really crazy, so I looked into what’s actually happening Coke is highly acidic with phosphoric acid. Sucrose, which is cane sugar, hydrolyzes (breaks down) very quickly in acidic conditions into glucose + fructose By the time the bottle reaches you, especially after shipping, storage, and sitting on shelves, most or all of the sucrose has already inverted That’s why the study found almost zero intact sucrose Recent lab tests confirmed Mexican Coke starts with cane sugar but ends up with ~97% inverted by the time it’s tested So you are literally paying more for nothing So it’s technically not a lie, but it’s also incredibly misleading too
3:22

A real scientific study onto Coca-Cola found that Mexican Coke is a lie. It showed there is no real cane sugar “In 2010, a group of legit scientists get together to do a legitimate experiment for a legitimate science journal, and they want to test soft drinks including Coca-Cola. They want to know what sorts of sweetener are being used for each and how much of that sweetener is in each of them. So they gather a bunch of soft drinks including a Mexican Coca-Cola and an American Coca-Cola, and do all of their testing. What they find is that the Mexican Coca-Cola actually has no sucrose in it, meaning sugar. All they find in this is glucose and fructose, the elements that are used to build high fructose corn syrup. — They found no sugar. They only found the elements for high fructose corn syrup” Okay this sounds really crazy, so I looked into what’s actually happening Coke is highly acidic with phosphoric acid. Sucrose, which is cane sugar, hydrolyzes (breaks down) very quickly in acidic conditions into glucose + fructose By the time the bottle reaches you, especially after shipping, storage, and sitting on shelves, most or all of the sucrose has already inverted That’s why the study found almost zero intact sucrose Recent lab tests confirmed Mexican Coke starts with cane sugar but ends up with ~97% inverted by the time it’s tested So you are literally paying more for nothing So it’s technically not a lie, but it’s also incredibly misleading too

Wall Street Apes

214,319 görüntüleme • 4 ay önce

दुकानों से क्यों गायब हो रही है Diet Coke! Have you also noticed that Diet Coke or Coke Zero is suddenly disappearing from stores? 🤔 Thought it was just a stock issue? The real reason is much bigger! India is facing a major aluminium can shortage 🚨 Because production lines are slowing down due to LPG shortages, a key fuel used in manufacturing cans. And this isn’t just an India problem 🌍 The root cause goes all the way to the West Asia conflict, where attacks have disrupted major aluminium plants. The impact? Millions of tons of production affected and prices rising by up to 15%. India was already importing around 20% of its cans… and now that supply is also under pressure 😳 Which means peak summer demand + low supply = serious shortage ahead! Companies like Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, and Varun Beverages could all feel the impact. 👉 So next time you can’t find your favourite canned drink, it’s not just your local store, it’s a global supply chain crisis! 💬 Are you noticing this too? Tell us in the comments! Shipra Rana #DietCoke #Can #ViralNews
1:20

दुकानों से क्यों गायब हो रही है Diet Coke! Have you also noticed that Diet Coke or Coke Zero is suddenly disappearing from stores? 🤔 Thought it was just a stock issue? The real reason is much bigger! India is facing a major aluminium can shortage 🚨 Because production lines are slowing down due to LPG shortages, a key fuel used in manufacturing cans. And this isn’t just an India problem 🌍 The root cause goes all the way to the West Asia conflict, where attacks have disrupted major aluminium plants. The impact? Millions of tons of production affected and prices rising by up to 15%. India was already importing around 20% of its cans… and now that supply is also under pressure 😳 Which means peak summer demand + low supply = serious shortage ahead! Companies like Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, and Varun Beverages could all feel the impact. 👉 So next time you can’t find your favourite canned drink, it’s not just your local store, it’s a global supply chain crisis! 💬 Are you noticing this too? Tell us in the comments! Shipra Rana #DietCoke #Can #ViralNews

CNBC-AWAAZ

10,369 görüntüleme • 5 ay önce

💥The response to yesterday's paper has been UNREAL! My phone hasn't stopped buzzing. If you've been under a rock, here are some highlights in <90 sec 👇 🫀Most participants showed no or minimal progression of coronary plaque 🫀Neither ApoB nor LDL exposure predicted plaque progression 🫀But plaque predicted plaque progression What does this mean, in a phrase: "While this paper doesn't disprove the lipid heart hypothesis, it does help expose a major blindspot." There will be a LOT more coming soon... I promise you that... #Cholesterol #LDL #KetoDiet #ApoB #CAC #CCTA #LMHR #LEM #SaturatedFat #HeartHealth #MetabolicHealth cc Dave Feldman Dr Aseem Malhotra Joseph Everett (WIL) Jan Ellison Baszucki Metabolic Mind Also not, this is not a one off. There have been 10+ papers leading to this moment... and we are just getting warmed up... PMID: 40192608, Plaque Begets Plaque. ApoB does not: Longitudinal data from the KETO-CTA trial PMID: 39372369, Carbohydrate restriction-induced elevations in LDL-cholesterol and atherosclerosis: The KETO trial PMID: 38237807, Increased LDL cholesterol in adults with normal but not high body weight: a meta-analysis PMID: 35629964, The Lipid Energy Model: reimagining lipoprotein function in the context of carbohydrate-restricted diets PMID: 35106434, Elevated LDL-cholesterol with a carbohydrate-restricted diet: evidence for a “lean mass hyper-responder” phenotype
1:28

💥The response to yesterday's paper has been UNREAL! My phone hasn't stopped buzzing. If you've been under a rock, here are some highlights in <90 sec 👇 🫀Most participants showed no or minimal progression of coronary plaque 🫀Neither ApoB nor LDL exposure predicted plaque progression 🫀But plaque predicted plaque progression What does this mean, in a phrase: "While this paper doesn't disprove the lipid heart hypothesis, it does help expose a major blindspot." There will be a LOT more coming soon... I promise you that... #Cholesterol #LDL #KetoDiet #ApoB #CAC #CCTA #LMHR #LEM #SaturatedFat #HeartHealth #MetabolicHealth cc Dave Feldman Dr Aseem Malhotra Joseph Everett (WIL) Jan Ellison Baszucki Metabolic Mind Also not, this is not a one off. There have been 10+ papers leading to this moment... and we are just getting warmed up... PMID: 40192608, Plaque Begets Plaque. ApoB does not: Longitudinal data from the KETO-CTA trial PMID: 39372369, Carbohydrate restriction-induced elevations in LDL-cholesterol and atherosclerosis: The KETO trial PMID: 38237807, Increased LDL cholesterol in adults with normal but not high body weight: a meta-analysis PMID: 35629964, The Lipid Energy Model: reimagining lipoprotein function in the context of carbohydrate-restricted diets PMID: 35106434, Elevated LDL-cholesterol with a carbohydrate-restricted diet: evidence for a “lean mass hyper-responder” phenotype

Nick Norwitz MD PhD

46,105 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce

A small Coke at McDonald's costs $2.29. A large, more than double the size, costs $2.99 — seventy cents more for over 100% more soda. The actual syrup and cup cost McDonald's about a penny of that difference. MIT 14.01, Principles of Microeconomics, Lecture 2. Jonathan Gruber uses that pricing pattern to teach the single idea that quietly explains it: diminishing marginal utility. Your first sip of Coke on a hot day is worth a lot. Your fiftieth sip is worth almost nothing. You'll pay real money to go from zero Coke to some Coke. You won't pay nearly as much to go from some Coke to a lot of Coke — because you're not thirstier, you're just less thirsty than you were. McDonald's and Starbucks know this cold. Gruber walks through the actual math: a soda costs the company three or four cents to make. If they charge a penny more for the large and people still buy it, that's pure profit. Keep raising the large's price and, at some threshold, customers start downgrading back to the small — not because they can't afford it, but because the marginal cup of soda simply isn't worth that much to them anymore. Somewhere out there, an actual pricing team ran this exact experiment, penny by penny, until they found the number. He builds the whole framework from three assumptions most people have never seen written down, even though they use them every day: you always have an opinion between two options, your preferences don't contradict themselves in a loop, and more is always at least a little better than less. From just those three rules, he derives an entire mathematical map of what any person wants — the same tool an economist would use to model a soda purchase, a salary negotiation, or a decision between a better job in a boring city and a worse job somewhere you actually want to live. He calls it the "mom test": if you can't explain a concept from this lecture well enough to walk your non-economist mother through it, you don't actually understand it yet. MBA pricing consultants charge real money to explain why "upsize for 70 cents" works. It's the same idea a freshman economics class covers for free in the second week. The lecture is free. Noticing exactly where your own "worth it" turns into "not worth it" is the entire edge.
41:05

A small Coke at McDonald's costs $2.29. A large, more than double the size, costs $2.99 — seventy cents more for over 100% more soda. The actual syrup and cup cost McDonald's about a penny of that difference. MIT 14.01, Principles of Microeconomics, Lecture 2. Jonathan Gruber uses that pricing pattern to teach the single idea that quietly explains it: diminishing marginal utility. Your first sip of Coke on a hot day is worth a lot. Your fiftieth sip is worth almost nothing. You'll pay real money to go from zero Coke to some Coke. You won't pay nearly as much to go from some Coke to a lot of Coke — because you're not thirstier, you're just less thirsty than you were. McDonald's and Starbucks know this cold. Gruber walks through the actual math: a soda costs the company three or four cents to make. If they charge a penny more for the large and people still buy it, that's pure profit. Keep raising the large's price and, at some threshold, customers start downgrading back to the small — not because they can't afford it, but because the marginal cup of soda simply isn't worth that much to them anymore. Somewhere out there, an actual pricing team ran this exact experiment, penny by penny, until they found the number. He builds the whole framework from three assumptions most people have never seen written down, even though they use them every day: you always have an opinion between two options, your preferences don't contradict themselves in a loop, and more is always at least a little better than less. From just those three rules, he derives an entire mathematical map of what any person wants — the same tool an economist would use to model a soda purchase, a salary negotiation, or a decision between a better job in a boring city and a worse job somewhere you actually want to live. He calls it the "mom test": if you can't explain a concept from this lecture well enough to walk your non-economist mother through it, you don't actually understand it yet. MBA pricing consultants charge real money to explain why "upsize for 70 cents" works. It's the same idea a freshman economics class covers for free in the second week. The lecture is free. Noticing exactly where your own "worth it" turns into "not worth it" is the entire edge.

Beaver

497,426 görüntüleme • 1 ay önce

“Instant noodles cause cancer, kidney damage, fibroids…” You’ve probably seen this list online but here’s the truth your health actually needs 👇 Instant noodles don’t directly cause cancer, fibroids, kidney failure, or menstrual issues. BUT the way they’re made and the habits built around eating them can increase risks over time. Here’s what science does show: High sodium = hypertension risk Most instant noodles contain 1,500–2,000 mg of sodium per pack — almost your entire daily limit. Additives & preservatives Ingredients like TBHQ (tertiary-butylhydroquinone) and high MSG can cause inflammation in sensitive individuals and may impact gut health when consumed frequently. Ultra-processed = metabolic strain A diet high in ultra-processed foods is linked to: • obesity • insulin resistance • poor gut microbiome • chronic inflammation (PMID: 31268035) Low nutrients = mineral imbalance Instant noodles offer almost no protein, fiber, or micronutrients, leading to blood sugar swings, cravings, and hormonal disruption over time. Kidney & thyroid concerns → INDIRECT Excess sodium + chronic inflammation + poor nutrient intake = higher long-term risk for kidney stress and metabolic issues. So no, one bowl won’t hurt you. But a lifestyle built on ultra-processed foods absolutely can.
1:20

“Instant noodles cause cancer, kidney damage, fibroids…” You’ve probably seen this list online but here’s the truth your health actually needs 👇 Instant noodles don’t directly cause cancer, fibroids, kidney failure, or menstrual issues. BUT the way they’re made and the habits built around eating them can increase risks over time. Here’s what science does show: High sodium = hypertension risk Most instant noodles contain 1,500–2,000 mg of sodium per pack — almost your entire daily limit. Additives & preservatives Ingredients like TBHQ (tertiary-butylhydroquinone) and high MSG can cause inflammation in sensitive individuals and may impact gut health when consumed frequently. Ultra-processed = metabolic strain A diet high in ultra-processed foods is linked to: • obesity • insulin resistance • poor gut microbiome • chronic inflammation (PMID: 31268035) Low nutrients = mineral imbalance Instant noodles offer almost no protein, fiber, or micronutrients, leading to blood sugar swings, cravings, and hormonal disruption over time. Kidney & thyroid concerns → INDIRECT Excess sodium + chronic inflammation + poor nutrient intake = higher long-term risk for kidney stress and metabolic issues. So no, one bowl won’t hurt you. But a lifestyle built on ultra-processed foods absolutely can.

Cancer Care

14,723 görüntüleme • 10 ay önce

This is the MOST HEATED I’VE EVER BEEN ON A VIDEO 😤 “Calories in calories out doesn’t work for everyone!” YES IT F***ING DOES! STOP DISEMPOWERING PEOPLE! This segment on Oprah Winfrey made me absolutely heated. First off let’s get rid of this idea that calories in calories out doesn’t work for obese people. ABSOLUTE NONSENSE. When obese people eat in a calorie deficit THEY LOSE WEIGHT IN THE HUMAN RANDOMIZED CONTROL TRIALS (PMIDs: 28329121, 2407096, & 26775902) Obese people do NOT have slower metabolisms than lean people when equated for BMR (if anything they are slightly faster). This is true for women & men & those who are obese with & without Type 2 diabetes ) (PMID: 1556954, 18223609, & 26838741) Now I’m NOT saying obesity is all the fault of the individual. It is not. Research shows that women who are obese have a 50% greater rate of past sexual assault trauma (PMID: 17606550) Moreover if calories in calories out didn’t work how do you explain semiglutide results and GLP-1 mimetics? They do NOT increase metabolic rate. Their effect is on APPETITE! Telling someone that calories in vs calories out doesn’t work for them might make their ego feel better in the short term but you are DISEMPOWERING THESE PEOPLE! They hear this and think “even if I try it won’t work.” BULLSHIT. Weight loss in the long term is hard. But hard is NOT the same thing as impossible. Please explain people like Ethan Suplee who lost over 300 lbs and kept if off?! STOP with these doctors and psychologists talking about sh*t they have no clue about! It’s ABSURD!
1:27

This is the MOST HEATED I’VE EVER BEEN ON A VIDEO 😤 “Calories in calories out doesn’t work for everyone!” YES IT F***ING DOES! STOP DISEMPOWERING PEOPLE! This segment on Oprah Winfrey made me absolutely heated. First off let’s get rid of this idea that calories in calories out doesn’t work for obese people. ABSOLUTE NONSENSE. When obese people eat in a calorie deficit THEY LOSE WEIGHT IN THE HUMAN RANDOMIZED CONTROL TRIALS (PMIDs: 28329121, 2407096, & 26775902) Obese people do NOT have slower metabolisms than lean people when equated for BMR (if anything they are slightly faster). This is true for women & men & those who are obese with & without Type 2 diabetes ) (PMID: 1556954, 18223609, & 26838741) Now I’m NOT saying obesity is all the fault of the individual. It is not. Research shows that women who are obese have a 50% greater rate of past sexual assault trauma (PMID: 17606550) Moreover if calories in calories out didn’t work how do you explain semiglutide results and GLP-1 mimetics? They do NOT increase metabolic rate. Their effect is on APPETITE! Telling someone that calories in vs calories out doesn’t work for them might make their ego feel better in the short term but you are DISEMPOWERING THESE PEOPLE! They hear this and think “even if I try it won’t work.” BULLSHIT. Weight loss in the long term is hard. But hard is NOT the same thing as impossible. Please explain people like Ethan Suplee who lost over 300 lbs and kept if off?! STOP with these doctors and psychologists talking about sh*t they have no clue about! It’s ABSURD!

Layne Norton, PhD

237,059 görüntüleme • 2 yıl önce

Exercise IS THE LONGEVITY & LIFE BIOHACK So many people only think about exercise as a way to burn calories & look leaner, but exercise is SO much more than that Exercise lowers the risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) & cancer independent of weight loss (PMIDs: 21673488, 31758975, & 32741068) Exercise improves symptoms of depression with a MASSIVE effect size of 1.7 (for reference SSRIs have an ES of about 0.5) (PMID: 37429171) Exercise improves your brain’s sensitivity to satiety signals helping with appetite control (PMIDs: 36998025 & 30131457) Exercise improves insulin sensitivity independent of weight loss (PMID: 24454364) And the dosage required to get benefits is not big at all, in fact it’s ridiculously small. Just ~4 minutes of vigorous physical activity per day decreases the risk of getting cancer by ~20% (PMID: 37498576) & 50 minutes of resistance training per week was all that was needed to decrease the risk of depression in the previously cited study It doesn’t take hours per day. You may not have hours but you’ve got 4 MINUTES! Now is the time to drastically improve your life, physical, & mental health. Get after it 👊 From my convo with Dr. John Delony on his podcast
1:00

Exercise IS THE LONGEVITY & LIFE BIOHACK So many people only think about exercise as a way to burn calories & look leaner, but exercise is SO much more than that Exercise lowers the risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) & cancer independent of weight loss (PMIDs: 21673488, 31758975, & 32741068) Exercise improves symptoms of depression with a MASSIVE effect size of 1.7 (for reference SSRIs have an ES of about 0.5) (PMID: 37429171) Exercise improves your brain’s sensitivity to satiety signals helping with appetite control (PMIDs: 36998025 & 30131457) Exercise improves insulin sensitivity independent of weight loss (PMID: 24454364) And the dosage required to get benefits is not big at all, in fact it’s ridiculously small. Just ~4 minutes of vigorous physical activity per day decreases the risk of getting cancer by ~20% (PMID: 37498576) & 50 minutes of resistance training per week was all that was needed to decrease the risk of depression in the previously cited study It doesn’t take hours per day. You may not have hours but you’ve got 4 MINUTES! Now is the time to drastically improve your life, physical, & mental health. Get after it 👊 From my convo with Dr. John Delony on his podcast

Layne Norton, PhD

30,999 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce

Unpopular FACT: Artifical sweetners do NOT make you hungry You’ve probably heard some version of the following: "Artificial sweeteners make you hungry." "Sweet taste without calories confuses your brain." "They make you crave more sweets." You've probably heard some version of these claims before. The problem? The data keep refusing to cooperate. A new study, "Acute and prolonged effects of sweeteners and sweetness enhancers on postprandial appetite sensations, palatability, and ad libitum energy intake in humans," examined exactly this question If artificial sweeteners really increased hunger, cravings, or caused people to eat more later, this study should have found it. It didn't. Researchers found that consuming sweeteners and sweetness enhancers did not increase subsequent energy intake, did not meaningfully increase appetite, and did not lead participants to compensate by eating more later. In other words, the common claim that "sweet taste without calories tricks your brain into overeating" continues to lack support from actual human data. This is a great reminder that just because a mechanism sounds plausible doesn't mean it translates into real-world behavior. Humans aren't Petri dishes, and while people love inventing scary stories about artificial sweeteners, the totality of evidence continues to show that replacing sugar with low- or no-calorie sweeteners generally helps reduce calorie intake and can support fat loss. Your body isn't sitting there thinking: "Wait a second... that was sweet but not enough calories. Better order a large pizza." It doesn't work that way. This study showed people actually ate slightly less calories when consuming artificial sweeteners. This is in alignment with other studies demonstrating that artificial sweeteners decrease energy intake and reduce body fat in tightly controlled human RCTs (PMIDs: 40913681 & 39606579) As always, test hypotheses against data, not vibes.
1:04

Unpopular FACT: Artifical sweetners do NOT make you hungry You’ve probably heard some version of the following: "Artificial sweeteners make you hungry." "Sweet taste without calories confuses your brain." "They make you crave more sweets." You've probably heard some version of these claims before. The problem? The data keep refusing to cooperate. A new study, "Acute and prolonged effects of sweeteners and sweetness enhancers on postprandial appetite sensations, palatability, and ad libitum energy intake in humans," examined exactly this question If artificial sweeteners really increased hunger, cravings, or caused people to eat more later, this study should have found it. It didn't. Researchers found that consuming sweeteners and sweetness enhancers did not increase subsequent energy intake, did not meaningfully increase appetite, and did not lead participants to compensate by eating more later. In other words, the common claim that "sweet taste without calories tricks your brain into overeating" continues to lack support from actual human data. This is a great reminder that just because a mechanism sounds plausible doesn't mean it translates into real-world behavior. Humans aren't Petri dishes, and while people love inventing scary stories about artificial sweeteners, the totality of evidence continues to show that replacing sugar with low- or no-calorie sweeteners generally helps reduce calorie intake and can support fat loss. Your body isn't sitting there thinking: "Wait a second... that was sweet but not enough calories. Better order a large pizza." It doesn't work that way. This study showed people actually ate slightly less calories when consuming artificial sweeteners. This is in alignment with other studies demonstrating that artificial sweeteners decrease energy intake and reduce body fat in tightly controlled human RCTs (PMIDs: 40913681 & 39606579) As always, test hypotheses against data, not vibes.

Layne Norton, PhD

13,017 görüntüleme • 4 ay önce

No.1 Heart Surgeon: Cardio Is A Waste Of Time For Weight Loss! Dr Philip Ovadia (Heart Surgeon Dr. Philip Ovadia) is the surgeon who wants to keep you OFF his operating table. He’s also the man who could give you an extra 10 years on your life. 👀 episode covers - why you aren’t losing weight from exercise. - ketogenic diet: fad or fact? - the silent killing agent in processed food. - sugar: more addictive than heroin? - prevention beats medication every time. - carnivore diet: a wellness game changer? - the surprising killer affecting 1 in 4 people. - the foods that add years. - the key to metabolic health. - why cholesterol and fat are not necessarily the cause of heart disease DON’T MISS 👉🏽
1:31

No.1 Heart Surgeon: Cardio Is A Waste Of Time For Weight Loss! Dr Philip Ovadia (Heart Surgeon Dr. Philip Ovadia) is the surgeon who wants to keep you OFF his operating table. He’s also the man who could give you an extra 10 years on your life. 👀 episode covers - why you aren’t losing weight from exercise. - ketogenic diet: fad or fact? - the silent killing agent in processed food. - sugar: more addictive than heroin? - prevention beats medication every time. - carnivore diet: a wellness game changer? - the surprising killer affecting 1 in 4 people. - the foods that add years. - the key to metabolic health. - why cholesterol and fat are not necessarily the cause of heart disease DON’T MISS 👉🏽

Steven Bartlett

126,145 görüntüleme • 3 yıl önce

We all know excess sugar is harmful, but there is one ingredient which Indians consume daily which is even worse than sugar! . . . Maltodextrin. The glycemic Index (GI) for table sugar is 65 whereas maltodextrin is 110. The glycemic index (GI) measures how fast a particular food/drink spikes your blood sugar. So the higher the glycemic index, the bigger the blood sugar spike. The more shocking part is that maltodextrin isn’t technically counted as “added sugar” according to FSSAI. Many Indian packaged foods take advantage of this and claim to be “no added sugar” but they have maltodextrin in it. In fact, even baby products like Nestle Cerelac have maltodextrin. Maltodextrin is present in many ultra-processed foods (UPFs) and a diet high in ultra-processed foods is linked to weight-gain, insulin resistance, and type 2 diabetes. In this video, I have highlighted some products that have maltodextrin and how to avoid these products! Share if you found this useful.
1:13

We all know excess sugar is harmful, but there is one ingredient which Indians consume daily which is even worse than sugar! . . . Maltodextrin. The glycemic Index (GI) for table sugar is 65 whereas maltodextrin is 110. The glycemic index (GI) measures how fast a particular food/drink spikes your blood sugar. So the higher the glycemic index, the bigger the blood sugar spike. The more shocking part is that maltodextrin isn’t technically counted as “added sugar” according to FSSAI. Many Indian packaged foods take advantage of this and claim to be “no added sugar” but they have maltodextrin in it. In fact, even baby products like Nestle Cerelac have maltodextrin. Maltodextrin is present in many ultra-processed foods (UPFs) and a diet high in ultra-processed foods is linked to weight-gain, insulin resistance, and type 2 diabetes. In this video, I have highlighted some products that have maltodextrin and how to avoid these products! Share if you found this useful.

Revant Himatsingka “Food Pharmer”

157,335 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce