Lose Belly Fat But Don't Eat These Common Foods

Hello Health Champions. How come there are so  many different opinions about the best foods  

to lose belly fat? And here's the strangest part.  How come the items on the list of best foods  

can also be on somebody else's list of worst  foods. That's why it's not enough to have a  

list. You have to understand why the food  items are on that list. So today I want to  

take a look at some of these popular items on  various lists and talk about why or why not  

they might help you lose belly fat. First we  have the claims that people make that they  

talk about foods as burning fat. These foods burn  fat well it's kind of the opposite. Eating food  

stores fat and some foods will store a lot  of fat and other foods will store less fat. 

But the time that you can burn fat is when you're  not eating. Throughout this video I'm going to go  

through 10 different errors in reasoning errors in  logic false physiology and simply false premises.  

And number one is that they're trying to make us  believe that there's some superfood that there's  

something in food that will help you burn fat and  magically just melt pounds away when in fact the  

way that you burn fat is if you eat something that  allows you to go longer between meals. Bananas was  

on several lists and on one particular one they  were talking about how it's full of potassium  

and therefore it helps you get rid of sodium. And  while there is a relationship between sodium and  

potassium in the body. They're kind of working  against each other this is certainly not the  

way to get rid of sodium or balanced minerals  in your body by force feeding yourself bananas.  

And what they were claiming though is that if you  can reduce sodium then you will reduce fluids in  

the body and thereby reduce belly swelling and get  a smaller belly. Well the problem here of course is  

you're only eliminating water and not fat so  they're basically confusing belly fat with fluid  

retention. The bigger problem here is that you're  also getting 20 grams of carbs in your average  

banana which will give you six grams of fructose  and six grams of glucose. And this fructose is  

what's the main cause of belly fat it causes fatty  liver it's very difficult for the liver to burn  

through in large quantities and glucose of course  will spike your blood sugar and trigger insulin.   

So does that mean bananas are a bad food that is  not what I'm saying but we have to understand who  

should eat a banana and when so if you have belly  fat then chances are you also have a fatty liver  

and then bananas are a terrible idea. However if  you are lean and insulin sensitive and physically  

active and maybe not so old then you can certainly  have a few bananas once in a while. But this  

list and this video is about people  who are trying to get rid of belly fat  

so then no bananas are just not a great idea. So  false premise number two is to confuse belly fat  

with fluid retention thinking that losing fluids  would actually do something about your belly fat.  

Next on their list was yogurt and they're saying  that yogurt has good bacteria so if you increase  

the good bacteria then that will help reduce the  bad bacteria. Bad bacteria causes bloating so again  

that has nothing to do with belly fat just like  previously they're confusing belly fat and in  

this case they confuse it with gas and bloating.  So while it is true that yogurt can have some  

good bacteria and it is beneficial while it has  nothing to do with belly fat it can be beneficial.  

The problem is most of these flavored yogurts  have very little good bacteria but they have  

tons of sugar that more than offset the beneficial  effect because the sugar feeds the bad bacteria. 

So if you're going to have yogurt then you want  to get whole, plain yogurt and you want to flavor  

it yourself. You put some, a couple of fresh  berries and you sweeten it with stevia or monk  

fruit. And then you want to make sure that you  try to find the most sour yogurt that you can  

find - plain, because the more sour it is the more  of the good bacteria it's going to have. It's sour  

because the bacteria ate the sugar and turned it  into lactic acid. So flawed argument number three  

is that they're confusing gas with belly fat.  Next they were making an argument for berries  

and they said berries are full of antioxidants  antioxidants will help deliver more oxygen to  

the muscles and therefore they assume you can make  more energy and your cardio workout will be easier  

and you can reveal your ab muscles. So what's the  problem here well antioxidants do not deliver  

more oxygen. Antioxidants the word should give  you a clue antioxidants they interfere they're  

opposing the action of oxygen. So if you're getting  these in the form of fruits and berries that's not  

a problem because antioxidants are necessary  in a balanced form. The body uses them to reduce  

oxidative stress and free radicals but more  isn't better and they certainly don't deliver  

oxygen to muscles. If you get large amounts through  synthetic supplements they will actually interfere  

with oxygen utilization in the body. Again I'm  not saying that berries would be a bad thing  

when it comes to fruits and berries then they are  actually the best they're much better than other  

fruit because they're very low in sugar they're  very flavorful, very concentrated nutrition and you  

can even have some of these on a low carbohydrate  diet in moderation. But again they will not help  

you burn belly fat so in addition to the factual  errors flawed premise number four is thinking  

that cardio workout will reverse a metabolic  problem. Belly fat is about insulin resistance  

and it's about liver and exercising a muscle will  not burn the fat specifically out of the liver.  

And no list is complete without complex carbs  It's almost like a mantra. We've heard it so many  

times. Oatmeal, brown rice, whole grain bread. They're  great for you. They're necessary. They help you lose  

weight. And they claim that it's usually because  that they have fiber and this fiber is filling  

and this fiber helps reduce insulin. Well this  is factual error number five that fiber does not  

lower insulin. Fiber is neutral to insulin it. It has  no effect on insulin. What they're trying to say is  

that a food with fiber is going to raise insulin  less than the same type of food without fiber.  

But that is not saying that fiber lowers insulin,  right. That's a flawed premise. That's a factual  

error. Foods don't lower insulin. Next they compare  it and they say that you know complex carbs these  

things are better than frosted flakes. You should  feed these things to your kids because they're  

better than frosted flakes. Well here's problem  number six comparing something doesn't make it  

good. That is saying that just because arsenic is  less poisonous than mercury then arsenic must be  

a health food. Frosted flakes being bad does not  make complex carb a good thing. There are many many  

better choices than that. I had to laugh when I  saw this one. Chocolate skim milk. They're saying  

a glass teams carbs with protein to build muscle.  Certainly not my favorite choice to build muscle.  

They're saying further it's low calorie and then  muscle burns calories so obviously this would be  

the perfect food to work out and build muscle and  then have those muscles burn calories. What they're  

failing to say is that it also has 27 grams of  sugar per 8 ounce serving or 240 milliliters.  

Now compare that to Coca-Cola the same  amount of Coca-Cola has 22 grams of sugar.  

So it seems like Coca-Cola would be the  healthier choice in this case. What they  

also failed to mention is that this sugar will  increase blood sugar which drives insulin and  

insulin is one of the contributors one of the main  causes of belly fat. And as if that wasn't enough  

sugar also contributes to fatty liver which is  at the root of belly fat and visceral fat. And of  

course they had to make it skim milk because the  fat would be the only thing that could slow down  

this insulin response. So the worst of all  combinations so flawed argument number seven is  

to argue about calories while you're adding tons  of sugar which makes the problem worse and causes  

a fatty liver. And a very popular argument is that  these foods contain something that has been shown  

to be beneficial. So black beans for example  contains fiber and this fiber goes down to the  

gut and the gut bacteria turns it into butyrate  they have found that isolated butyrate increases  

calorie burning in mice. And that might be a good  thing but it may or may not be offset by the fact  

that half a cup of beans also provide 19 grams of  carbohydrate which in a few minutes will turn into  

glucose. So it's not the worst form of carbohydrate  but this glucose before it is done and processed  

through the body it will trigger a large amount of  insulin. They make a similar argument for lentils  

they say they have fiber and these specifically  apparently help bacteria produce acetate which  

is another short chain fatty acid. Butyrate  and Acetate are both short chain fatty acids  

and they said this has been linked to reduced  appetite. And again that might be a good thing but  

half a cup contributes 15 grams of carbs that turn  into glucose. The problem argument number eight  

is that they fed these mice isolated butyrate  they didn't actually feed them the beans.  

We don't know what would have happened in the mice  if we fed them the carbohydrate along with it plus  

we don't know if there's any carry-over  between mice and humans in the case of butyrate.  

Furthermore they're kind of implying that  the beans and the lentils would be the only  

or the best way to get these items. Well  acetate is acetic acid you get that from  

vinegar so you could have the vinegar either  white vinegar or apple cider vinegar and you  

get this acetate without any carbs. And where do  you think butyrate comes from well the name is  

because it was first discovered in butter and  so that's where they called it butyrate. In fact  

in this household we often say could I have  some "butyr" with my broccoli. I'm not opposed to  

science but oftentimes we get just too much in our  heads and we pay so much attention to the details  

that we can't see the forest for the trees. So I  hope you're starting to see what it's not about  

that all these things that end up on the list they  claim things that are not important. It's not about  

the fiber or the acetate or the butyrate or the  carotenoids the flavonoids, pectin, phenylalanine.  

It's about the other things. And it's not about  whether it's better than frosted flakes and I  

swear to god i actually saw this one; russet potato  is better than donuts and cake. I'm not kidding.  

What it is about is how do these foods  affect your blood glucose in the moment  

and long term? How do they affect your insulin?  And more importantly - most importantly; how  

do these foods keep you full? How long can you go  between meals as a result of eating these foods?  

It is about calories in calories out. You  always have to produce a calorie deficit  

but the only easy way to create a calorie deficit  is to eat something that lets you go longer till  

the next meal. Otherwise you're always going to be  deprived. So the next question we're going to ask  

also is: Is this real food or are we just focusing  on the details the macros the micro molecules?  

Is it real food? Does it actually have some of  the things that I need to repair and replenish  

my body? Can I build a body with this food? Next one  I saw was that "research says" and they referred to  

a study. They said legumes are good for diabetics  because they help stabilize blood glucose.  

And they specifically looked in the study about  chickpeas and chickpeas are a legume. They are  

full of complex carb they're high in fiber and  they have a low glycemic index meaning they raise  

blood sugar relatively slowly. It included 19  people; mildly overweight no metabolic syndrome.  

Their weight was on average 161 pounds,  73 kilos. Waist was on average 35 inches,  

89 centimeters. Their average fasting glucose was  83 mg/dl or 4.6 millimoles,  

and their insulin on average was 7.8 and their  HOMA-IR 1.6 HOMA-IR is homeostatic model  

assessment of insulin resistant. It's a formula  they put some numbers in and an ideal number  

is 1.0. So these people had 1.6. So I'm telling you  this up front and then we're going to come back  

and look at this briefly. They divided the people  into three groups where one eight chickpeas one  

a toast and jam and one ate whole wheat. And  they figured it out so that these had the same  

amount of carbs and the same amount of calories.  They took measurements at certain intervals  

and at 120 minutes at two hours they measured  glucose levels, insulin levels and they calculated  

HOMA-IR. So the who people ate the chickpeas, the  glucose after two hours was 86 the toast and  

jam was 88 and the whole wheat was 88. So  after two hours they were roughly the same  

but their insulin levels were hugely different.  So the people who ate chickpeas had 9.5  

toast and jam had 20.9 and the whole wheat people  had 21. So this one was pretty low and these were  

very similar. Then they calculated the HOMA-IR based on this and it reflected the insulin so  

these chickpea people had 2.2 versus 4.7 and 4.9.   So huge differences. And keep in mind, normally when  

you calculate HOMA-IR you do it fasting so you  can't compare these numbers to a fasting level.  

These are just relative to each other. And when  we look a little closer at this and we see how  

the blood sugar varied at certain time intervals  we see that the people ate the chickpeas they all  

started on average at the same baseline and then  it rose a little bit by 60 minutes it was already  

down significantly and at 120 it was basically  back to baseline. And at 180 minutes it was a  

little bit lower than baseline slightly lower.  and when we compare that with the toast and jam  

And with the whole wheat we see that those curves  went very very close together with the whole wheat  

being a little worse in that it rose a little bit  higher and it went a little bit lower. And this is  

what i talk about very often that the more insulin  you stimulate the greater the rebound effect so  

people can actually be insulin resistant and  hypoglycemic at the same time. So it's not  

a good thing to start a little bit over 80  and end up at 70. Food should not have that  

effect on you so this looks like a slam dunk, right?  This study is clear as could be it's a total win  

for the chickpeas that must be a fantastic food  for diabetics. And I'm not saying that it is or  

that it isn't but does the study actually say  that and this is the flawed premise number nine  

that they're assuming that chickpeas are great but  all they're finding out is that chickpeas are better  

than toast and jam. That's what the study says  so yes you should not eat toast and jam but it  

doesn't tell us anything about chickpeas relative  to other foods. Let's come back to the study data  

and talk about flaw number 10. And this guy is  trying very hard to figure out what number 10 is.  

So it is that they're trying to find out about  how legumes are for diabetics. How do they affect  

insulin resistant people? But these people are not  very insulin resistant. These people are probably  

not even as unhealthy as average. They're mildly  overweight. They have excellent fasting glucose  

They're not fantastic on their fasting insulin,  but they're only very slightly insulin resistant.  

So their HOMA-IR is 1.6 compared to an ideal of  1.0 whereas a diabetic or someone is very insulin  

resistant could have glucose of 120, 130 and their  HOMA-IR would be something like an 8 or a 10. When  

I see people who come in with insulin resistance and stubborn weight, meaning they've tried a bunch  

of stuff they can't lose the belly fat, they're  going to have HOMA-IR's in the 8 to 10 range. Their  

insulin is not going to be 7 or 8. It's going  to be 20 something. So they're studying about  

insulin on a population that doesn't really have a  problem with insulin. And they're assuming that the  

conclusions the results are going to be applicable  on people who are insulin resistant. And next we  

also want to mention this is kind of flaw number  11 is that there's 19 people in here and then  

they average everything out. So what if there  were actually two out of these 19 people who were  

fairly insulin resistant and what if these two  people had absolutely no benefit or no difference  

from eating the chickpeas then their numbers would  still be included in the average and these people  

would have no benefit but the study would still  just show the average. So flaw number 11 would  

be that you're taking an average you're taking a  statistical average and you're assuming that it's  

going to apply to the individual. And that is never  the case you can never predict the individual case  

based on a statistical average. If you enjoyed  this video you're going to love that one and  

if you truly want to master health and understand  how the body really works, make sure you subscribe,  

hit that bell and turn on all the notifications  so you never miss a life-saving video.