Dr. Yoni Freedhoff interviews Dr. Kevin Hall at #ICO2016 in Vancouver, 1 May 2016. First presentation of “definitive” NuSI (Gary Taubes) metabolic ward results. Conclusion: no metabolic advantage to ketogenic diet. Carb-Insulin theory of obesity falsified.

Dr. Yoni Freedhoff: http://www.weightymatters.ca/

Dr. Kevin Hall is the principal investigator for this NuSI-designed study:

NuSI is Gary Taubes’ non-profit Nutritional Science Initiative dedicated to study his “Alternative Hypothesis” of obesity (i.e., “carbs make you fat”).

Energy Balance Consortium


34 Replies to “NuSI Hall Study: No Ketogenic Advantage (ICO 2016)”

  1. oh a whole two month study that isnt even long enough to get keto adapted fully in alot of people.. this is bullshit science .. there are dozens of studies that show more weight loss on ketogenic diets vs low fat high carb.. dozens upon dozens

  2. When the people start a very-low carb diet (as the study: 5%) occur a dehydration and a glycogen loss that explain the total body weight loss (not really fat loss).

  3. It's a good thing the interviewer knew a lot about the subject and asked him some good questions. To me, the scientist seems very prejudiced against keto. I feel 1000 percent better on low carb or keto. I have as much energy as I need and I'm not hungry. I'd NEVER go back to low fat dieting.

  4. There have been thousands upon thousands of studies that have shown there is a metabolic advantage to keto diets. The problem with people (like Kevin), is they are fixated on the idea of energy expenditure. It has absolutely nothing to do with energy expenditure. Your body picks and chooses what to burn and when. It prioritizes glucose or glycogen first, but when that is absent from the system, by default it wants to burn fat (unless you aren't feeding enough protein).

    Your body is perfectly capable of burning ketones for energy for both your brain and everything else.

    What Kevin needs to understand is this isn't news. There have been so many studies over the past century on this that point to Taubes theory, while debunking any metabolic advantage pointed to carbs. You can't make it up, no matter how much people want to try.

  5. Actually, I do not understand why ketogenic diet should increase the energy usage. And during the first month they received a standard high carb diet and lost weight? Strange that the americans became so fat with this kind of diet. What exactly did they eat? My guess is that they cut out all the sugar and replaced it by starch. Already Dr. Lustig showed that replacing fructose by glucose while maintaining the same calories is showing significant weight loss in obese children. secondly, the ketonic diet is bringing back the feedback system that controls your appetite. People do not overeat any more that naturally reduces the energy intake without counting calories. People are normally not logged in a chamber with only food counted in calories for them. From my personal experience I can not say that I lost muscles, just the opposite. I gained a lot. What dramatically shrunk is the waist line. So the fatty liver reversed and the fat in the belly disappeared. This only gives a very much better silhouet. Specially important for me was to control the insulin resistance. That improved dramatically. So there is more about ketogenic diet. Maybe there is some more research necessary to fully understand the metabolism. Specially the role of fructose in all this needs more research. It is good that some people try to challenge "common theories" so these theories can be improved.

  6. I'm more interested in the other benefits to keto apart from weight/fat loss: mental clarity, near unlimited energy, reduced inflammation, becoming almost bonk proof, reduced hunger, fasting becomes easy, it's tasty as hell, improved recovery time between workouts, better focus, concentration and mental well-being. keto is fascinating

  7. I went on the linked given about the study and I cant seem to find any explanation on how appetite is being taking to account. If u forced patients on the keto diet food when they didn't have the appetite to eat I think that is bullshit, even vise versa for high carb diets. If anyone has a link to the full study that would be great, im dont feel like this study was well conducted.

  8. Wait… they picked high carb diet promoters to do a study, misrepresented the findings, and we are surprised?

    It can take 6 months for a fully adapted ketogenic state and the subjects were keto (supposedly) for 4 weeks?

    By the way, who recommends 80% fat for a ketogenic diet? Why would they deviate from the common 65% or LESS?

    Then they have an additional 500 calorie deficit outside of the chamber when this is well known to happen? Did they just forget? Negligent?

    The fat loss graph is flat for the first two weeks of keto, but then accelerates for the second two so his statement that fat loss slowed is nonsense, according to his OWN graph. Anyone could have told him the initial weight loss is mostly water and that it takes a few weeks for fat loss. The shortness of the study is suspect.

    I declare shenanigans.

  9. Carbohydrates raise insulin, this is not debatable. Carbohydrates are broken down into glucose, which insulin lowers.
    Is this doctor trying to say this is not true? If he is, he should have his degree taken away.
    All carbohydrates break down into glucose. Fact. The Earth revolves around the Sun. Fact.
    The sky is blue. Fact.
    Only a complete ignoramus believes that carbohydrates don't raise insulin.

  10. Hall said that there was as much as a 500 calorie per day higher energy expenditure for people in the metabolic ward but outside the metabolic chamber compared with inside the metabolic chamber. He's attributing it to people moving around more, which is activity energy expenditure. In a practical context of treating obesity, it might be better to focus on that large difference in energy expenditure instead of the temporary 100 calorie increase in resting energy expenditure.

    I'm aware that the intent of the study was to focus in REE but the unexpected large increase in (supposed) activity energy expenditure deserves attention. If Hall's numbers are what he thinks they are, that's a large energy difference that is dependent on living conditions (a metabolic chamber vs. a metabolic ward).

    There was a study done on constitutionally thin people where they were overfed about 600 calories per day and yet stayed the same weight or lost weight. REE couldn't account for it and the researchers attributed it to higher activity energy expenditure which would have been about 600 calories per day. It's a similar anomaly. The test subjects were instructed to not exercise or engage in activities such as walking any more than usual. It seems like a large amount of energy expended on twitching, swaying, fidgeting, standing, etc.

  11. Biomarkers can improve on ANY diet better than previously worse diet. A ketogenic diet forces calorie restriction. BUT, the body is not designed to be in ketogenesis long-term. It's a back-up energy metabolic response. That said, the KEY to carb control is FIBER. NOT cutting carbs. Carbs are naturally cut when we eat the RIGHT carbs higher in fiber. It's just that simple, yet there's still so much confusion. AND, the , ketogenic response in short-term may improve biomarkers, but I question the long-term effects on the liver and kidneys having to filter and detoxify the excess amines and protein and fat metabolic by-products. Fiber has NO such ill metabolic side-effects. It nourishes the digestive system, cleans out bad cholestero & naturally restricts calories through increased bulk.

  12. The problem with the design of the study is the disregard for hunger. It would be wrong to assume that 2000 kcal from fat is different than 2000 kcal from carbs in itself. The difference in a low-carb group is more likely that the body starts utilizing its own fat as a PART OF those 2000 kcal it needs – which explains why you can lose weight without being hungry as long as your insuline is down. But when you force feed the same amount of energy into both groups this effect is impossible.

  13. Eat a primarily plant based whole food diet. It works. There's mountains of evidence from all areas of science. If you really need to lose some weight then combine it with intermittent fasting. It's cheap, convenient, you can easily stick to it, and it's environmentally responsible. Why play games with insane diets like an 80% fat diet unless you're allergic to plants or you have epilepsy or you just like experimenting! I guarantee that the ketogenic diet is going to have some pretty unpleasant long term effects, like bone mass loss and who knows what else even if someone could stick to such a crazy eating regime.

  14. Appetite and satiety were not factored or measured? Sorry but the main reason why diets fail. When are the results for appetite and satiety be shown?

  15. Seems very clear that the conclusions are a bit flawed based on how short the study was.  This guy is a 'metabolic guru' yet he seems to be ignoring the time required to fully adapt the metabolism from one mechanism to a completely different mechanism. If the conclusion is 'no advantage' then how can they ignore more efficient oxygen utilization ? This is a HUGE advantage. Furthermore the other clear advantage is the rapid (and sustained) weight loss on keto after the adaptation period.  I love what NuSi is doing here but based on the conclusions vs the data I would call it biased to say the least.

  16. Of course his study participants did not lose weight, Dr Hall clamped their calories. That's not how the keto diet works at all. He was overfeeding them. I'm surprised that they did not throw up, being given a load of food that they did not want. On a keto diet you naturally eat less calories because your appetite fades; that's how you lose weight.

  17. Talk about clinically biased, of course people don't lose weight when they consume more fat/fuel than they burn. To lose weight one needs to eat a ketogenic diet high in hunger satiating protein & low in fat/fuel & let nature decide how much one wants to consume, obviously.

    Lipogenesis is a known metabolic process & not a "carbohydrate insulin hypothesis". But don't take my word for it, get a glucometer, eat some carbs & when you see your blood glucose level rise, then you know your body is producing insulin to deal with that excess glucose.

    Insulin does not force excess glucose into cells, because each cell only activates it's glucose receptor when it needs glucose & therefore cannot be force fed.

    Insulin simply supplies all the missing nutrients that the empty calorie/sugar molecule requires to transform that sugar molecule into a fat molecule, which is then transported by a lipoprotein to the nearest fat cell capable of accepting it. IF ones pancreas lacks sufficient nutrients to produce insulin, then insulin resistance / type 2 diabetes occurs.

    Excess glucose in the blood stream damages the inner lining of the arteries, causing cholesterol to form a scab over the injury to allow that injury to heal, causing atherosclerosis.

    To even attempt to publish such rubbish as scientific evidence only shows how desperate they are to keep everyone sick & only a brain dead vegan would accept such crap as scientific evidence, which vegans are infamous for doing, but to be fair, the poor misguided fools have nothing else to cling to.

    Here's a link to some real scientific evidence.

    A.K.A Adam Davies.

  18. This raises a couple of questions;
    – What was the body composition of the subjects? "Overweight stage one to obese" could mean quite muscular guys if defined by BMI, which would explain the quite big loss in weight after introducing ketogenic diet. We need to know more about the body composition of the subjects.
    – Which methods for lean mass measurements were used? They all come with errors in different ranges, but the biggest problem comes with the weight loss that accours after introducing ketogenic diet, which totally messes up the charts when using simpler two-component measuring methods. A loss of body mass by losing water and glycogen (non-fat mass) will immedeatly raise the body fat percentage without actually gaining any fat mass.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.