Calories are not a relevant concept ('there is no such thing as calories'); his system is based on high calorie intake, and people lose weight while eating sugar, juices, fats, potatoes and rice, because with 'zero insulin' no fat is formed (the passage continues: 'even if you drink oil, even if you swallow bags of sugar'). Elsewhere he says he drinks 6 litres of sugar-cane juice and eats baladi ghee, rice and potatoes every day.
Original statement
سعرات مش حاجه اسمها سعرات انا نظامي قايم على السعرات العاليه وبتخس تاكل سكر وبتخس تشرب عصاير وبتخس تاكل دهون وبتخس تاكل بطاطس ورز وبتخس اه ما فيش سعرات بقى باشا انا نضفت جهازك الهضمي زيرو انسولين زيرو انسولين يبقى زيرو كسبان او كسب ا ليبيدز او دهون يعني انت طول ما انت زيرو انسولين ما فيش تكوين دهون
verbatim according to source. Translation by the project; the Arabic wording is authoritative.
Translation
Calories are not a relevant concept ('there is no such thing as calories'); his system is based on high calorie intake, and people lose weight while eating sugar, juices, fats, potatoes and rice, because with 'zero insulin' no fat is formed (the passage continues: 'even if you drink oil, even if you swallow bags of sugar'). Elsewhere he says he drinks 6 litres of sugar-cane juice and eats baladi ghee, rice and potatoes every day.
Origin
- Source status
- Video transcript (own words)
- Attribution
- Elawady (machine transcript)
- Video
- Dr Diaa Al Awady د ضياء العوضي is live! مفيش حاجه سعرات مفيش حاجه اسمها نشويات (Open source)
- Published
- 7 August 2025
- Timestamp
- 0:18:21 (location in the original video’s automatic YouTube caption track; confirms where the words occur, not who speaks)
- Attribution uncertainty
- Archive transcript (YouTube CC or AI-generated); no timestamps; wording may contain speech-recognition errors; speaker turns are not marked, the excerpt was judged to be Elawady's own speech from context.
- Claimed mechanism
With 'zero insulin' (achieved by a 'clean' digestive system), no fat is formed regardless of energy intake.
- Claimed health effect
Weight loss despite high energy intake from sugar, juices, fats, potatoes and rice.
- Population concerned
Followers of the system, including people trying to lose weight.
- Geographic restriction by Elawady
none found
Diverging source versions
انا اثبتت لك ان ما فيش حاجه اسمها سعرات انا بشرب عصير 6 لتر عصير قصب في اليوم ها سعرات اكتر من كده ايه وباكل سمنه بلدي كل يوم وباكل رز وبطاطس كل يوم
I have proven to you that there is no such thing as calories: I drink 6 litres of sugar-cane juice a day - what more calories than that? - and I eat baladi ghee every day and rice and potatoes every day.
- Source status
- Video transcript (own words)
- Attribution
- Elawady (machine transcript)
- Video
- ارتفاع ضغط البطن والاضطراب الهرموني وظهور كل ماهو مناعي #ضياء_العوضي (Open source)
- Published
- 10 January 2026
- Timestamp
- 0:48:11 (location in the original video’s automatic YouTube caption track; confirms where the words occur, not who speaks)
- Attribution uncertainty
- Archive transcript (YouTube CC or AI-generated); no timestamps; wording may contain speech-recognition errors; speaker turns are not marked, the excerpt was judged to be Elawady's own speech from context.
السعرات السعرات يا نورا السعرات هحط جدول مرفق ب وصيتي بالسعرات المطلوبه في اليوم لكن هي اراوند 1200 يعني مش انت بنوته يا نورا صح بنوته صغنطوطه خلاص خليكي 1200 سعرات وحاولي تقللي
Calories, calories, Noura: I will attach a table with my advice on the required calories per day, but it is around 1,200 ... you are a little girl, right? So stay at 1,200 calories and try to reduce.
- Source status
- Video transcript (own words)
- Attribution
- Elawady (machine transcript)
- Video
- Dr Diaa Al Awady د ضياء العوضي is live! الدم -٢- تحليل الدهون (Open source)
- Published
- 17 August 2025
- Timestamp
- 0:04:00 (location in the original video’s automatic YouTube caption track; confirms where the words occur, not who speaks)
- Attribution uncertainty
- Archive transcript (YouTube CC or AI-generated); no timestamps; wording may contain speech-recognition errors; speaker turns are not marked, the excerpt was judged to be Elawady's own speech from context. Apparently contradictory remark ten days after e3z71BwgAmA; the tone (sincere advice or irony) cannot be determined from the transcript.
Scientific assessment
False – The statement contradicts the robust evidence.
Certainty of evidence: high – Further research is very unlikely to change the assessment.
1. What was claimed?
Calories do not matter; his high-calorie system makes people lose weight because insulin is 'zero', so no fat can be formed even with large amounts of sugar or oil.
2. What is demonstrably correct?
Calorie counting is not the only way to lose weight: the type of food strongly influences how much people eat. In an NIH inpatient trial, people ate about 508 kcal/day more and gained 0.9 kg in two weeks on an ultra-processed diet, versus losing 0.9 kg on an unprocessed diet (A-UPF-01). Energy expenditure is not simply additive: above moderate activity levels total expenditure plateaus at about 2,600 kcal/day (I-SYS-07). People who follow his system may lose weight if their total intake falls, for example through one meal a day or avoiding flour products and soft drinks.
3. What is wrong or exaggerated?
Weight loss requires a sustained energy deficit. In a metabolic-ward study at equal calories, cutting fat (which barely changed insulin) caused more body-fat loss (89 g/day) than cutting carbohydrate (53 g/day), even though carbohydrate restriction lowered insulin (I-INS-09); this directly contradicts 'insulin, not calories, decides fat'. In the 12-month DIETFITS trial, low-fat and low-carbohydrate diets produced similar weight loss (-5.3 vs -6.0 kg), with no interaction with insulin secretion (I-SYS-05). Time-restricted eating added no significant weight loss beyond calorie restriction (I-FAST-03). Insulin does not fall to zero in people with a working pancreas (see C-FAST-01).
4. What remains unclear?
How many followers actually lose weight on the system, and why, has not been studied. One later remark in a live stream recommends about 1,200 kcal/day to a viewer; whether this was meant seriously is unclear.
5. Which studies support it?
No study supports the claim as stated. A-UPF-01 shows that the type of food affects how much people eat, and I-SYS-07 that physiology constrains energy expenditure; both work within an energy-balance framework in which calories matter.
6. Which studies contradict it?
I-INS-09, I-SYS-05, I-FAST-03, I-FAST-02; A-UPF-01 (weight change tracked energy intake closely, r=0.8, with weight gain on +508 kcal/day and loss on the lower-intake diet, while total sugar intake was similar on both diets, 93.3 vs 96.6 g/day); I-SUG-03 (EFSA: excess energy intake leading to positive energy balance is the main mechanism by which sugars contribute to chronic metabolic disease; SSBs and fruit juices causally linked to obesity/T2DM with high/moderate certainty). I-SYS-07 measures and models expenditure in kcal/day within an energy-balance framework; constrained expenditure makes energy intake more, not less, important.
7. What applies to Germany and Europe?
European and German obesity guidance relies on reducing energy intake through dietary quality and behaviour; no guideline was fetched for this review.
8. What is known about Egypt?
Obesity and type 2 diabetes are common in Egypt; advice that sugar and fats can be eaten without limit is particularly risky in this setting.
9. What practical conclusion is appropriate?
The type of food influences how much people eat, but calories still count. Large amounts of sugar-cane juice, sugar, ghee, rice and potatoes provide a lot of energy, and weight gain occurs when intake exceeds expenditure.
Assessment details
- Rationale for certainty of evidence
Controlled metabolic-ward and randomised trials consistently show that body-fat change follows energy balance, and that lowering insulin without an energy deficit does not produce extra fat loss (I-INS-09); insulin is never 'zero' in people with a functioning pancreas.
- Source quality
Elawady's own words in an archive machine transcript (live stream); exact wording may contain recognition errors. One later remark (YI-QaTyMlnw) mentions a 1,200-kcal target; its intent is unclear.
- Regional transferability
Energy balance is physiological and applies universally.
- Individual exceptions
Weight change for a given intake varies between individuals (body size, activity, adaptive changes in energy expenditure, I-SYS-07), but no group is exempt from energy balance.
- Regional scope of the claim
- general (biological/medical)
- Last reviewed
- 25 October 2026 provisional
In plain language
Dr. Elawady said there is no such thing as calories and that people lose weight on his system while eating sugar, juice, fat, rice and potatoes, because their insulin is 'zero'. Careful studies in which every bite is measured show that body fat goes down only when people take in less energy than they use. Lowering insulin without eating less did not burn more fat. He is right that food type matters: people eat more when they eat highly processed food. But calories are not irrelevant.
Studies on this claim
Studies supporting the claim (0)
No studies in this group.
Studies contradicting or limiting the claim (7)
-
Low-fat vs low-carb in a metabolic ward
Hall KD et al.. Cell Metab 2015 · PMID 26278052 · DOI 10.1016/j.cmet.2015.07.021Randomised controlled trialindependent cross-checkfull text checkedCutting fat led to more fat loss than cutting carbs, even though cutting carbs lowered insulin more.
Does the study support the specific claim? No · Methodological quality: high · Certainty of evidence: see overall assessment of the claim
Original publication · Scientific details
Study explained simply
- What did the researchers want to find out?
Does carbohydrate restriction (lower insulin) cause more fat loss than fat restriction at equal calories?
- How was the study done?
Randomised crossover metabolic-ward study
- How many people, animals or samples were studied?
19 adults with obesity randomised (17 completed both diets)
- What was actually found?
Fat loss 89 g/day on reduced-fat vs 53 g/day on reduced-carbohydrate (463 g vs 245 g over 6 days), although only the low-carb diet lowered insulin (by 22%).
- How large was the observed effect?
+36 g/day with fat restriction
- What do the results mean in everyday life?
Calories matter; insulin is not the only driver.
- What are the study's limitations?
Only 6 days per diet; small sample; fat loss was a secondary outcome; long-term predictions come from a computer model; moderate (not very-low) carbohydrate restriction.
- What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?
Contradicts C-INS-01 ('insulin the only cause of fat').
- Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?
Physiology transferable.
- What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?
Long-term weight outcomes.
-
Low-fat and low-carb diets led to similar weight loss
Gardner CD et al.. JAMA 2018 · PMID 29466592 · DOI 10.1001/jama.2018.0245Randomised controlled trialindependent cross-checkabstract only checkedAfter a year, weight loss was 5.3 kg vs 6.0 kg - no real difference.
Does the study support the specific claim? Yes · Methodological quality: high · Certainty of evidence: see overall assessment of the claim
Original publication · Scientific details
Study explained simply
- What did the researchers want to find out?
Compare diets.
- How was the study done?
RCT.
- How many people, animals or samples were studied?
609.
- What was actually found?
No difference.
- How large was the observed effect?
0.7 kg.
- What do the results mean in everyday life?
Total diet quality and quantity matter more than fat share.
- What are the study's limitations?
Adherence.
- What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?
Supports 'fat is not the origin'.
- Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?
High.
- What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?
Long-term weight maintenance.
-
Time-restricted eating plus calorie restriction
Liu D et al.. N Engl J Med 2022 · PMID 35443107 · DOI 10.1056/NEJMoa2114833Randomised controlled trialindependent cross-checkabstract only checked★ key studyAdding an 8-hour eating window to calorie restriction did not significantly improve weight loss.
Does the study support the specific claim? Partly · Methodological quality: high · Certainty of evidence: see overall assessment of the claim
Original publication · Scientific details
Study explained simply
- What did the researchers want to find out?
Time-restricted eating plus calorie restriction vs calorie restriction alone
- How was the study done?
RCT, 12 months
- How many people, animals or samples were studied?
139; Adults with obesity
- What was actually found?
No significant added benefit.
- How large was the observed effect?
-1.8 kg (n.s.)
- What do the results mean in everyday life?
Calorie reduction is what matters.
- What are the study's limitations?
Single country
- What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?
- Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?
Chinese population; physiology transferable.
- What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?
Effects without calorie restriction.
-
Alternate-day fasting vs eating less every day
Trepanowski JF et al.. JAMA Intern Med 2017 · PMID 28459931 · DOI 10.1001/jamainternmed.2017.0936Randomised controlled trialindependent cross-checkfull text checked★ key studyBoth approaches gave similar weight loss after a year; fasting had more dropouts and higher LDL.
Does the study support the specific claim? Partly · Methodological quality: moderate · Certainty of evidence: see overall assessment of the claim
Original publication · Scientific details
Study explained simply
- What did the researchers want to find out?
Alternate-day fasting vs daily calorie restriction on weight and CV risk
- How was the study done?
Single-centre RCT, 1 year
- How many people, animals or samples were studied?
100; Metabolically healthy obese adults, mean BMI 34
- What was actually found?
No superiority.
- How large was the observed effect?
-6.0% vs -5.3% weight
- What do the results mean in everyday life?
Choose what one can sustain.
- What are the study's limitations?
Small; 38% of fasting group dropped out; mostly healthy women; fast days still included ~500 kcal; lead author wrote a book on this diet.
- What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?
- Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?
US; transferable.
- What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?
Long-term disease outcomes.
-
Ultra-processed vs unprocessed diet in hospital
Hall KD et al.. Cell Metab 2019 · PMID 31105044 · DOI 10.1016/j.cmet.2019.05.008Randomised controlled trialcited by the Tayebat archivefull text checked★ key studyPeople ate about 500 calories more per day and gained weight on ultra-processed food.
Does the study support the specific claim? Yes · Methodological quality: high · Certainty of evidence: see overall assessment of the claim
Original publication · Scientific details
Study explained simply
- What did the researchers want to find out?
Do ultra-processed foods affect energy intake?
- How was the study done?
Inpatient randomized crossover trial, 2 weeks per diet, ad libitum.
- How many people, animals or samples were studied?
20; Weight-stable adults, mean age 31, BMI 27
- What was actually found?
Energy intake +508 ± 106 kcal/day on UPF (p=0.0001); carbohydrate +280, fat +230 kcal/day; protein unchanged; weight +0.9 ± 0.3 kg (UPF) vs -0.9 ± 0.3 kg (unprocessed).
- How large was the observed effect?
+508 kcal/day; +0.9 kg vs -0.9 kg
- What do the results mean in everyday life?
Ultra-processed food can make people eat more.
- What are the study's limitations?
Only 20 people, 2 weeks per diet, in hospital conditions; no washout between diets; participants knew which diet they ate; the cause of the extra eating (e.g. energy-dense food, faster eating) is not clear.
- What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?
Core evidence for C-UPF-02.
- Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?
High.
- What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?
Long-term health outcomes.
-
EFSA: how much sugar is safe?
EFSA NDA Panel et al.. EFSA J 2022 · PMID 35251356 · DOI 10.2903/j.efsa.2022.7074Risk assessmentindependent cross-checkfull text checked★ key studyEFSA found no safe intake level and advises keeping added and free sugars as low as possible.
Does the study support the specific claim? No · Methodological quality: high · Certainty of evidence: see overall assessment of the claim
Original publication · Scientific details
Study explained simply
- What did the researchers want to find out?
Can a UL or safe level for dietary sugars be set?
- How was the study done?
Regulatory scientific opinion with systematic reviews.
- How many people, animals or samples were studied?
Not applicable; General population
- What was actually found?
Sugars are a well-established hazard for caries; RCTs on surrogate endpoints show causal positive relationship of added/free sugars with obesity and dyslipidaemia (moderate certainty), NAFLD and T2D (low), hypertension (very low); no safe level identified; intake of added and free sugars should be as low as possible in a nutritionally adequate diet.
- How large was the observed effect?
Not applicable
- What do the results mean in everyday life?
Applies to sugar, honey and syrups alike.
- What are the study's limitations?
Trials looked at markers (weight, liver fat, blood fats) rather than diseases; cohort studies mostly compared sugar with other calories at equal total energy; few data below 10% of energy.
- What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?
Contradicts C-SUG-01, C-SUG-05 (health relevance); supports C-SOD-01.
- Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?
Directly applicable in EU/Germany.
- What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?
It cannot name a safe daily amount of sugar; it does not show that sugar is harmful when it does not add extra calories, except for tooth decay.
-
Moving more does not burn proportionally more energy
Pontzer H et al.. Curr Biol 2016 · PMID 26832439 · DOI 10.1016/j.cub.2015.12.046Cross-sectional studyindependent cross-checkfull text checkedDaily energy use levels off at higher activity.
Does the study support the specific claim? No · Methodological quality: moderate · Certainty of evidence: see overall assessment of the claim
Original publication · Scientific details
Study explained simply
- What did the researchers want to find out?
Test energy expenditure models.
- How was the study done?
Doubly labelled water.
- How many people, animals or samples were studied?
332 adults aged 25-45 from Ghana, South Africa, Seychelles, Jamaica and the USA.
- What was actually found?
Energy expenditure rose with activity at low levels but levelled off at about 2,600 kcal/day above a moderate activity level; activity explained only about 7% of adjusted expenditure.
- How large was the observed effect?
Change point 230 CPM/d (95% CI 44-428); slope above it 0.21 +/- 0.35 (p=0.54).
- What do the results mean in everyday life?
Diet is central for weight.
- What are the study's limitations?
Cross-sectional; accelerometry imperfect; some RMR data missing.
- What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?
Contradicts inactivity-only explanation.
- Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?
Moderate.
- What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?
Long-term causation; that exercise does not matter for health or weight; that calories are irrelevant.
No study in this group is marked as key.
Studies with mixed or unclear results (0)
No studies in this group.
Regional context
Germany / EU
European and German obesity guidance relies on reducing energy intake through dietary quality and behaviour; no guideline was fetched for this review.
Egypt
Obesity and type 2 diabetes are common in Egypt; advice that sugar and fats can be eaten without limit is particularly risky in this setting.
What applies in my country?
General scientific assessment
False Food quality affects how much we eat, but the claim that calories do not exist and that unlimited sugar and fat cause weight loss is false.
The following areas of food safety are relevant to this statement:
- Additives and processing
Honey, sugar, sweets
Choose a country to see the checked information for it.
Limits: legal rules describe what is allowed, not what every single food contains. Measurement data come from samples and are meaningful only together with their method details.
Country of residence or purchase Compare with another country
References
- Calorie for Calorie, Dietary Fat Restriction Results in More Body Fat Loss than Carbohydrate Restriction in People with Obesity.. Hall KD et al.. Cell Metab 2015 · PMID 26278052 · DOI 10.1016/j.cmet.2015.07.021
- Effect of Low-Fat vs Low-Carbohydrate Diet on 12-Month Weight Loss in Overweight Adults and the Association With Genotype Pattern or Insulin Secretion: The DIETFITS Randomized Clinical Trial.. Gardner CD et al.. JAMA 2018 · PMID 29466592 · DOI 10.1001/jama.2018.0245
- Calorie Restriction with or without Time-Restricted Eating in Weight Loss.. Liu D et al.. N Engl J Med 2022 · PMID 35443107 · DOI 10.1056/NEJMoa2114833
- Effect of Alternate-Day Fasting on Weight Loss, Weight Maintenance, and Cardioprotection Among Metabolically Healthy Obese Adults: A Randomized Clinical Trial.. Trepanowski JF et al.. JAMA Intern Med 2017 · PMID 28459931 · DOI 10.1001/jamainternmed.2017.0936
- Ultra-Processed Diets Cause Excess Calorie Intake and Weight Gain: An Inpatient Randomized Controlled Trial of Ad Libitum Food Intake.. Hall KD et al.. Cell Metab 2019 · PMID 31105044 · DOI 10.1016/j.cmet.2019.05.008
- Tolerable upper intake level for dietary sugars.. EFSA NDA Panel et al.. EFSA J 2022 · PMID 35251356 · DOI 10.2903/j.efsa.2022.7074
- Constrained Total Energy Expenditure and Metabolic Adaptation to Physical Activity in Adult Humans.. Pontzer H et al.. Curr Biol 2016 · PMID 26832439 · DOI 10.1016/j.cub.2015.12.046