this post was submitted on 11 Jun 2025
-1 points (44.4% liked)

> !carnivore@discuss.online

70 readers
1 users here now

This Community has moved to !carnivore@discuss.online.

founded 2 months ago
 

Bart Kay visits to explain why you should stop counting calories to lose weight / fat, what to do instead, the importance of hormones, and what "hyper carnivore" is.

summerizerSummary

In this comprehensive and engaging discussion, Bella—the “steak and butter gal”—interviews Professor Bart K, a former health science lecturer and carnivore diet advocate, about the controversial topic of calories and weight management. Bart shares his academic background and explains why traditional nutrition science, especially the calorie-focused models, can be misleading and potentially harmful. He highlights the inaccuracies in calorie counting and the calories-in-calories-out (CICO) theory, emphasizing the complexity of human metabolism and energy expenditure, particularly the variability of basal metabolic rate (BMR). Bart advocates for a “species-appropriate” carnivore diet that is predominantly based on animal products, particularly from ruminant animals, with minimal carbohydrate intake reflecting human evolutionary history.

Bart explains that food energy calculated using bomb calorimeters does not accurately represent how the human body processes nutrients, especially proteins, challenging conventional dietary science. He delves into hormonal impacts on metabolism, illustrating how low-fat, plant-based diets can disrupt estrogen production and menstrual cycles, whereas carnivore diets can restore hormonal balance and overall metabolic function. The conversation advances to discuss practical fat-loss strategies contrasting energy restriction through calorie limitation and intermittent fasting protocols.

Bart shares his own experience using the Steak and Butter priming protocol, a high-fat and protein abundant diet followed by fasting phases, resulting in significant fat loss despite high caloric intake pre-fast. He also touches on the physiological benefits of dry fasting under supervision, such as metabolic water production, autophagy, and tissue repair, while cautioning viewers to undertake such regimes responsibly. The video closes with an invitation for viewers to join the February Carniv Challenge community for support and further learning.

Highlights

  • 🔥 Calories-in-calories-out (CICO) is an oversimplified and often inaccurate model for weight loss.
  • 🥩 A hyper-carnivore diet (80%+ animal-based foods) supports hormonal balance and metabolic health.
  • ⚖️ Basal metabolic rate (BMR) is highly variable and adaptive, challenging calorie calculators.
  • 🔬 The bomb calorimeter method for measuring food energy doesn’t reflect human metabolism.
  • ⏳ Fasting—especially preceded by a nutritional priming phase—is an effective fat-loss strategy.
  • 💧 Dry fasting can stimulate fat burning and metabolic water production but requires careful supervision. -🧬 Modern agriculture has introduced disruptive carbohydrates and sugars, unlike ancestral diets. Key Insights

🔥 The Flaws of Calorie Counting and CICO Model: Bart stresses that while gross calorie deficits (e.g., cutting 1000+ calories a day) can lead to fat loss, moderate calorie restriction often fails due to the body’s adaptive lowering of BMR. This homeostatic mechanism defends the body’s fat stores, debunking the simplistic energy-in-energy-out narrative. The takeaway is that calorie counting alone is insufficient without considering metabolic adaptations.

🥩 Species-Appropriate Diets Restore Metabolic and Hormonal Health: The carnivore diet, dominantly animal-source foods rich in fats and proteins, supplies essential nutrients that support hormone synthesis, in particular estrogen derived from cholesterol. Bart’s testimony and scientific explanations link plant-based, low-fat diets with hormonal disruptions, reinforcing the evolutionary basis for carnivorous diets in humans.

⚖️ Basal Metabolic Rate is Not Static but Adaptive: Standard online calculators provide rough estimates that do not account for dynamic BMR, which can slow down with calorie restriction or speed up with increased food intake. This adaptability explains the common frustration of weight-loss plateaus and underscores the body’s smart, defensive regulation of energy expenditure.

🔬 Misinterpretation of Food Energy via Bomb Calorimeters: Calories listed on food labels are derived from burning food in a calorimeter, an entirely different process than human digestion and metabolism. The body metabolizes proteins, fats, and carbohydrates through complex biochemical pathways not captured by simple heat combustion, rendering calorie values more conceptual than exact. This undermines the argument that weight change is a matter of thermodynamic law applied rigidly to human bodies.

⏳ Efficacy of Priming plus Fasting Protocols: Bart’s personal experience with the Steak and Butter priming protocol—eating excessive calories and then transitioning into fasting—resulted in fat loss despite the increased caloric intake. This supports the concept that metabolic conditioning and hormonal regulation play dominant roles in fat loss, more than calorie counting alone.

💧 Potential Benefits and Risks of Dry Fasting: Dry fasting, meaning avoiding food and water, can accelerate fat metabolism by promoting metabolic water production. However, it is a stressor requiring expert supervision due to risks of dehydration. Beyond fat loss, dry fasting may trigger autophagy, stem cell release, and tissue repair, indicating profound cellular-level benefits.

🧬 Anthropological Perspective on Human Diet: Human ancestors consumed predominantly animal-based diets with limited, fibrous plant intake for hundreds of thousands of years. Recent agricultural advancements introduced high-starch, high-sugar crops that are poorly tolerated metabolically, likely contributing to modern health epidemics. Returning to a carnivore-focused diet is argued to be more aligned with human biology.

This video provides a scientifically grounded yet accessible critique of popular nutrition paradigms like calorie counting and low-fat dieting, while advocating for evolutionary-informed dietary approaches and metabolic flexibility strategies such as fasting and priming. It combines deep academic knowledge with personable explanation and sound practical advice for those interested in effective fat loss and metabolic health.

.

top 11 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] okwhateverdude@lemmy.world 4 points 2 months ago (1 children)

The Flaws of Calorie Counting and CICO Model: Bart stresses that while gross calorie deficits (e.g., cutting 1000+ calories a day) can lead to fat loss, moderate calorie restriction often fails due to the body’s adaptive lowering of BMR. This homeostatic mechanism defends the body’s fat stores, debunking the simplistic energy-in-energy-out narrative. The takeaway is that calorie counting alone is insufficient without considering metabolic adaptations.

I'll just point out that you can't escape the second law of thermodynamics. Failures in CICO are always a measurement issue either on the input or on the output. Your BMR won't dip more than 5-15% on a caloric restriction. On a 2000kcal TDEE, that's only 300kcal max. If you're cutting 500kcal a day, that is still a 200kcal deficit. Does moderate restriction fail because of this? Maybe if that person gets frustrated at the reduced rate of loss. But that's an expectation problem due to an output measurement issue. CICO is just sciencing your body and that means accounting for errors.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9036397/

[–] jet@hackertalks.com 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Ok. Whatever, dude:

The human body is not a closed thermodynamic system, CICO is factually true, if you account for all inputs and outputs, but its clinically not very helpful. If you do lower your daily calories by 1000, you will lose fat, Bart concedes that point in the interview.

Per Bart Kay's point the Carbohydate insulin model of obesity is far more clinically relevant. https://hackertalks.com/post/7617450

[–] okwhateverdude@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago (2 children)

CICO is factually true, if you account for all inputs and outputs, but its clinically not very helpful.

Can you explain further why this science isn't helpful clinically? Because of the study I linked specifically discusses a 25% reduction in energy intake and metabolic adjustment to the new lower EI within 12 months. Then further goes on to discuss the mechanics of why that is (reduction in body mass decreases your energy requirements, thus lowering your TDEE). Take a look at fig 1.

That doesn't sounds like 1000kcal deficits to me, but only 25%. Assuming 2000kcal TDEE, that's only 500kcal.

[–] jet@hackertalks.com 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_law_of_thermodynamics

In an externally isolated system, with internal changes, the sum of all forms of energy is constant.

Humans are not isolated closed systems.

For a thermodynamic process affecting a thermodynamic system without transfer of matter, the law distinguishes two principal forms of energy transfer, heat and thermodynamic work.

Humans love to transfer matter all the time, breathing, eating, peeing, and pooping are very popular.

However, going to your paper, yes energy restriction works, if you estimate everything correctly. It's not necessary on Carnivore, and on carnivore the approach will not reduce basal metabolic rate.

[–] okwhateverdude@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

on carnivore the approach will not reduce basal metabolic rate

Do you have some peer reviewed science that backs this claim? I'd be really interested in learning more.

[–] jet@hackertalks.com 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Not specifically for basal rate, there is alot of good papers on sports exercise performance (i.e. feed ketogenic runners perform very well after a 9 week fat adaption period.) Most of the Basal metabolic rate studies I know of on keto - are in the context of calorie restriction.

This case study is illustrative, however:

https://www.asep.org/asep/asep/JEPonlineOCTOBER2018_Stover.pdf

Effects of Increased Caloric Intake on Resting Metabolic Rate and Respiratory Quotient during a Ketogenic Diet: A Six-Month Case Study

So in this case study daily calories go up by 1,000 at 3 months, and BMR goes up as well.

This makes mechanistic sense - in a fed fat adapted state (keto or carnivore) there is no reason for BMR to decrease.

[–] voracitude@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

Do you know what "bioavailability" is? Paper and gasoline both have a lot of calories (which are measured how? Combustion, hence the examples) but if you consume either one I can guarantee you won't metabolise anywhere near the full calorie content. I'm not sure you want to lean into CICO like this, it's an oversimplification.

[–] okwhateverdude@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Yup, I'm aware that bioavailability is a thing. For people trying to gain weight, this is their primary problem. I know people who have had gastric bypass and they have all sorts of issues with nutrient absorption. But that ultimately doesn't change the methodology here. If you are tracking your intake and your output and notice a discrepancy between your prediction and your result (what the scale says), then you still have a measurement problem. It is still CICO and always will be CICO regardless of the modifications necessary to fully account for the differences between your prediction and measurement because physics.

Speaking of combustion, you are essentially a internal combustion engine with more moving parts. Your cellular processes all need fuel to operate. That fuel comes from eating. And it's expenditure is both autonomic and willful. It isn't an oversimplification. It is a broad generalization that applies very well regardless of the specifics of metabolism and has been demonstrated time and time again in study after study. Just leaf through all of the citations in the paper I linked. This paper was essentially a meta study, or study of studies. There is a massive body of research that backs this generalization.

[–] voracitude@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

You call it a generalisation and not an oversimplification, but it's absolutely both of those things. You discard the variability of bioabsorption as though it's nbd, but it can swing wildly between people and on different days even. The gut microbiome plays a big part in what a person eats and how completely it gets digested and absorbed, and how that person is thinking and feeling about what they're eating. Your feelings and mindset while you eat also affect your digestion. Hormonal balance has a big effect, and if it were as simple as CICO then the body wouldn't be able to extract more energy from lower calorie diets (metabolic adjustments) over time. "Calories in, calories out" is just part of the equation, a rule of thumb that isn't accurate enough for science which is why you keep getting told it isn't clinically helpful.

Finally:

Speaking of combustion, you are essentially a internal combustion engine with more moving parts

That's not just an oversimplification, it's incorrect. The differences are too vast to refute this in detail here and now, but if I had to list just one I'd say "engines aren't alive". Or maybe "engines don't do their own maintenance". Or maybe "engines don't have to grow or power a brain". I recommend asking a dietitian or biologist about why that statement is so flat-out wrong.

[–] jet@hackertalks.com 2 points 2 months ago

CICO is technically correct, but not clinically helpful... no really.

Consider a type 1 diabetic, zero insulin. If they don't dose insulin they can eat all the carbs they want and they wont gain any weight, this is a famous indicator of type 1 diabetes even.

Clinically we need to consider the MASS of the different types being ingested and how the endocrine system uses those different MASSES. Carbohydrates become glucose which drives insulin which drives adipose anabolism.

So yes, you can calorie restrict a group of people and you will see a effect, in both weight and basal metabolic rate... my 600 lbs life, and the biggest loser showed this to good effect... but its not clinically relevant, unless your in a prison camp or a lock-in metabolic ward most people can't maintain such a sharp deficit consistently - so at best they have periods of binging and purging - so they lose weight maybe, but they destroy their BMR (the biggest loser followup study)

For clinical relevance, ESPECIALLY on carnivore, which is what this community and post is about... you just control insulin and the endocrine system does the rest, no need to count calories at all. People are not hungry on carnivore, its sustainable... if they are underweight their body eats more, if they are overweight their body eats less... simple. Let the amazing homeostatic machine that is the human body work.

[–] jet@hackertalks.com 1 points 2 months ago

It's actually nice to see Bart Kay in a calm and professional presentation, his current online personality is a bit over the top.