 Calories in, calories out, aka CECO, is the conventional wisdom, you know, what is generally accepted behind weight loss, and it's the first thing pseudo-intellectuals jump to when discussing weight loss. Whether it's telling you, just count calories, bro. Make a healthy recipe that's just healthy because it's so low in calories. Bodybuilders and keto dieters trying to make cheat meals praising artificial sweeteners. Dude, it's low in calories. You gotta try this. CECO might help some people lose weight, but it will not make you healthy. The only way to be healthy is to optimize all lifestyle factors, and for diet, that involves restoring nutrient deficiencies and removing negative foods. Whatever you want for your appearance, physically, it will come once you become healthy. Don't focus on the goal, focus on how you're getting there. CECO is based around body input and output. Is your body's output, the metabolic rate, activity level exceeding the input, the amount of food you're consuming? And is that really correct? You know, we've seen carnivores improve their body composition without reducing calories, without losing your gaining weight. And we've seen vegans become skinny fat without increasing calories and maintaining their original weight. People even see people reduce their calories and they'll still gain weight or follow incredibly calorically restricted diets and still have difficulties. So there has to be more to it than calories in versus calories out. In the case of carnivore versus vegan diets in body composition, the absence of animal protein and cholesterol in favor of high carbohydrate estrogenic plant foods are two factors that have absolutely nothing to do with the caloric content of the food. Two factors that will greatly influence your ability to gain or lose weight, fat or muscle mass. CECO is debunked fairly easily on the basis that macronutrient composition in the diet matters just as much as calories. The protein, fat and carbohydrate ratios you're consuming are just as important if not more important than the calories. If it was macronutrients in, macronutrients out, MIMO instead of CECO, we would have a more difficult argument but we can still debunk that later. And keep in mind, I'm not discounting calories as an important component of diet but it's definitely overblown. It's something I've never counted or really seen as a priority. I've never done it myself, I've never recommended it with my clients. And by oversimplifying diets and calories, you're causing people to not think and address their underlying health issues. Comparison of energy restricted, very low carbohydrate and low fat diets on weight loss and body composition in overweight men and women. This study shows a clear benefit of a very low carbohydrate diet over a low fat diet for short term body weight and fat loss especially in men. A preferential loss of fat in the trunk region with a very low carbohydrate diet is novel and potentially clinically significant but requires further validation. These data provide additional support for the concept of metabolic advantage with diets representing extremes in macronutrient distribution. You have two factors when going low carb regardless of caloric restriction. An improvement in insulin resistance as well as a potential die off of negative gut flora. Also, I have to consider that those higher carbohydrate foods have more processed crap and chemicals in them that can further metabolic issues. Calorie intake in relation to body weight changes in the obese. So this study compares three diets, one being 90% fat, one being 90% protein and the final one being 90% carbohydrates, so each of the macronutrients basically on their own. When calorie intake was constant at 1000 per day, however, the rate of weight loss varied greatly on diets of different composition. It was most rapid with high fat diets. It was less rapid with high protein diets and weight could be managed for short periods of time on diets of 1000 calorie value given chiefly in the form of carbohydrate. At a level of 2000 calories per day, weight was maintained or increased in four out of five obese patients. In those same subjects, significant weight loss occurred when calorie intake was raised to 2600 per day provided this intake was given mainly in the form of fat and protein. As the rate of weight loss varied so markedly with the composition of the diets on a constant calorie intake, it is suggested that obese patients must alter their metabolism in response to the contents of their diets. The loss of water weight is from insulin levels reducing. So not only are they losing weight, they're addressing metabolic diseases, improving their hormonal status and you can't discount that the people on the high protein diet probably gained more lean body mass. So the fat loss should be magnified there. It's not just a matter of losing physical pounds. How much muscle are you putting on and how much muscle are you losing in something like the case of a vegan diet? This study shows that calories in versus calories out is incorrect because the person was eating 2000 calories with carbohydrates maintaining if not gaining weight but when the calories were increased to 2600 of fat and protein, they lost weight on more calories. Once this becomes accepted and common knowledge, people will start looking deeper into nutrition, vitamins, minerals, fatty acids, as well as negative aspects such as antibiotic residue and agrochemicals. To address each of these factors on an individual basis and explain why they are concerned to the average person usually falls on deaf ears. You know if the person cannot understand or seek the information in the first place, they typically won't care enough to take action as it's a step out of their comfort zone. Plus, a person usually believes that what they're doing is working just fine. Yeah, let's see if your PP works just fine after a year of estrogenic feedlot beef on the carnivore diet. A good analogy for this is someone following a grass-fed organic local carnivore diet versus a feedlot beef carnivore diet. The person on the feedlot beef diet is going to be getting so much more estrogen, omega-6 fatty acids, their testosterone will tank, various hormonal pathways will dysfunction, endoconibinoid system, and they tend to become insulin resistant and store weight around their guts. Simply due to the estrogenic agrochemicals like the herbicide atrazine found in feedlot meat. This is partially where keto dieters tend to still have signs of insulin resistance because they eat very low-quality foods that have those negative chemicals. The herbicide, the pesticide, insecticides, fungicides, and antibiotic metabolites in the food. Then, when you look at paleo dieters or higher quality carnivore dieters, people who focus on food quality, they tend to have more favorable body compositions. So hopefully this opens up the minds of some people that you shouldn't worry about calories too much. And if you guys do have any further questions, let me know down in the comments. If you guys could please drop a like on the video. And if you can share it on social media. If you do want to support me further, you know how to do so down in the description. Thanks again for joining me today guys. I'll see you for tomorrow's video.