Last week here at Burn the Fat Blog I wrote about one of the oldest debates in fitness: Which is best for fat loss –  cardio or weights?

My post also discussed the so-called interference effect – the concern that if you do both –  cardio and weights – it will get in the way of strength and muscle gains.

The good news was that unless you’re doing very high volumes of endurance training (especially lots of high impact running), research shows you can successfully combine cardio and weight training. In fact, for most people, doing both will give you the best overall results by far and on every level – fat loss, health, fitness, strength, and body composition.

After I stumbled onto a new research paper earlier this week, I wanted to circle back and stay on this same topic but look at it from a different perspective. Instead of asking whether people who want to gain muscle should also do cardio, let’s ask a different question:

Should People With Obesity Lift Weights?

The answer, according to a new review published  in the Journal of Sports Science and Medicine, is a resounding yes.

Researchers reviewed 23 randomized controlled trials involving 1,184 adults with both obesity and type 2 diabetes – a combination now commonly referred to in the medical literature as “diabesity.”

For years, many people with obesity have assumed the best prescription was simple: Diet. Do Cardio. Lose weight.

There’s nothing wrong with that approach. No one disputes that diet isn’t the #1 priority for fat loss.  And adding aerobic exercise on top of a good diet will increase fat loss along with giving tremendous health benefits.

The newest science has also confirmed that aerobic exercise is more effective than resistance training for improving fasting blood glucose and cardiorespiratory fitness.

The idea that doing cardio is better for cardio fitness than lifting should be obvious.  What many people overlook is that weight loss shouldn’t be the only goal.

When people lose weight – especially as they get older – they also risk losing muscle along with the fat. That’s where the resistance training comes in.

Compared to aerobic exercise alone, the research shows that resistance training is superior for preserving fat-free mass and improving body composition.

The idea that lifting is better for building muscle should also be obvious. But again, there’s a point that a lot of people overlook.

Muscle isn’t just something you should build because it makes you look more aesthetic and athletic. When you do resistance training, it actually helps you be more athletic. Lifting makes you stronger and more functional, helping you stay active and independent  as you get older.

Building muscle has great health benefits as well. It’s important to remember that muscle is one of the primary tissues involved in glucose disposal, making it especially important for people with insulin resistance and type 2 diabetes.

The bottom line: YES people living with obesity should do resistance training as well as cardio training.  In the recent study, the researchers wrote:

“Aerobic exercise and resistance training should not be viewed as mutually exclusive. Rather, both modalities should be combined or sequenced according to patient needs, feasibility, adherence potential, and therapeutic goals… This approach is particularly relevant in diabesity…”

Too often people think in terms of cardio versus weights. That’s the wrong mindset.

Each type of exercise brings something different to the table. Cardio is excellent for improving cardiovascular fitness, increasing endurance, and controlling blood sugar.

Resistance training helps preserve muscle, build strength, improve body composition, and maintain physical function – plus it also has health benefits including helping with managing blood sugar.

Why choose one when the benefits of doing both together are greater than doing either alone?

Does that mean everyone should do exactly the same amount of cardio and weight training? No – and this is where the nuance comes in.  Exercise should always be tailored to the individual. You need to customize your weights + cardio program.

If you’re training for a marathon, obviously you have to devote the bulk of your time to endurance training. But you don’t want to completely neglect strength training either. Some of the best endurance athletes do at least two and sometimes three brief lifting sessions per week – and they are better, and healthier athletes for it.

If someone is training for a powerlifting competition, obviously they need to prioritize the lifting. But they shouldn’t neglect cardio training either. Even if it’s  as simple as brisk walking, the health benefits are significant.

For the average person trying to lose body fat, improve metabolic health, reduce diabetes risk, and stay healthy for the long term, the evidence increasingly points in the same direction:

Don’t skip the weight training just because you’re carrying excess weight and your primary goal is weight loss. And don’t think of weight training and cardio as competing forms of exercise. Think of them as partners.

Simply adjust the balance based on your goals and priorities, but always remember, the smartest and most effective long-term training plan includes both types of training.

Since day one, the Burn the Fat, Feed the Muscle philosophy has always included resistance training and cardio training. Combined with the other 3 elements, this is the most powerful body transformation – AND health transformation – formula in the world:

1. Resistance training
2. Cardio training
3. Mental training
4. Nutrition
5. Social support

-Tom Venuto,
Author of Burn the Fat, Feed the Muscle
Founder of Burn the Fat Inner Circle

Scientific References
Badri Al-Mhanna S, et al, Comparative effectiveness of aerobic exercise versus resistance training on cardiometabolic health in patients with diabesity:  A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials, Journal of Sports Science and Medicine, 25: 637-655, 2026.

Cardio vs. weights for fat loss is one of the oldest debates in fitness. Which is better for losing body fat? A lot of people argue that doing both weights and cardio is ideal for fat loss. Is it true? If it is true, does that bring up another conundrum?:

There’s been a seemingly never-ending debate about whether combining cardio and weight training together kill your results. Specifically, will cardio zap your strength gains and make it harder to gain muscle?  If so, and your primary goal is strength and muscle gain, should you just lift and skip the cardio?

A recent study gave us some of the clearest answers to these questions yet because it was a “meta analysis” combining the findings of 31 different studies.

Research results spoiler:  When cardio and weight training are programmed properly, you can lose fat while maintaining muscle without major interference – as long as the amount of cardio isn’t excessive…

Which brings up a final question: how much cardio is excessive if you want to maximize fat loss while also keeping your hard earned muscle?

The Cardio Vs. Weights Study: Primary Purpose

The study was led by Kworweinski Lafontant from The University of Central Florida and the results were published in the Journal of the International Society For Sports Nutrition.

The researchers set out to compare how resistance training, aerobic training, and concurrent training affect body composition – specifically lean body mass and fat mass (not just body weight).

Obviously, we already know that resistance training builds muscle and cardio training burns fat. But the questions that are still debated and not completely answered include:

• Which type of exercise burns more fat, cardio or weights?
• What happens when you combine cardio and weights in the same training cycle? (Concurrent training).

How The Study Was Designed

Because this was a meta-analysis, it pooled data from 31 trials with a total of 1564 subjects. That’s a pretty good sample size.

A slight downside is that all these different studies used different training protocols. I mean, when we talk about “resistance training” or “cardio training” think about how many different types of programs there are.

This means we still may not be able to easily pin down one prescription for exercise type, frequency, and duration and call it the best.

However, with a study like this, we can “average things out: and then we get a pretty good idea of overall body composition results and what the range of ideal variables is for lifting and cardio.

The researchers did specify the definitions of each type of training in general:

Aerobic training (AT / cardio): The studies defined AT as continuous, whole-body rhythmic exercise at a moderate-to-vigorous intensity. Cardio was typically treadmill walking or jogging, stationary cycling, or running. Sessions lasted 20 to 45 minutes, and were performed 2 to 5 days per week depending on the trial. This was steady-state cardio, not HIIT or intervals.

Resistance training (RT): RT programs used traditional lifting routines designed to build muscle. That meant multi-joint exercises like presses, rows, and squats, usually performed in 2–4 sets of 8–12 repetitions, with normal rest intervals between sets.

Training frequency was typically 3–4 days per week with some studies involving as little as 2 sessions per week. Importantly, these were not circuit or metabolic-style sessions – the workouts were conventional strength and hypertrophy training.

Concurrent training (CT): CT combined both types of in the same training week. Some studies had participants do cardio and weights on the same day (either before or after each other), while others scheduled them on separate days. The researchers also compared short- vs long-duration programs and whether workloads were “matched” or not (equalized for training volume).

This distinction matters: the results of this meta apply specifically to steady-state cardio combined with standard resistance training. Different outcomes might be expected if, for example, circuit-style lifting (which blends strength and cardio) or HIIT protocols were used. (I’ve always said that circuit resistance training is kind of like “doing cardio with weights”).

Study Results

Resistance training: As expected, lifting weights increased lean body mass and was the superior choice for muscle gain compared to cardio. Fat loss, however, was modest when weights were performed alone.

Aerobic training: Cardio reduced fat mass more effectively than lifting alone, but provided little or no stimulus for building lean mass.

Concurrent training: Doing both cardio and weights produced greater fat loss than resistance training alone, while still promoting muscle retention or gain. In other words, averaging the results of over 30 studies, the feared “interference effect” did not emerge in these trials when cardio was performed in moderate amounts.

The Interference Effect: How Much Cardio Is Too Much?

One of the most common questions lifters ask is: “At what point does cardio start to eat into my gains?”

This study wasn’t designed to directly answer that – it was more about the effect of AT, RT, and CT on body composition. But looking at the training protocols, most involved 2–5 steady-state cardio sessions per week of 20–45 minutes. Within that range, interference with muscle growth wasn’t a problem.

Previous research found similar outcomes: 2 to 4 days per week at 20 to 40 minutes produced no interference (reducing resistance training performance or holding back muscle gains).

Based on this research combined with what I’ve observed in my own concurrent training and in the results of my clients, I think it’s safe to say that up to 4 to 5 cardio sessions of 40 to 45 minutes is not going to hurt your muscle gains.

Some researchers have suggested up to 150 minutes of steady state cardio per week as a safe cutoff. (That’s 30 minutes, 5 days a week).

Problems with interference are more likely when:

• Cardio volume climbs very high (e.g., 6–7 days per week, long durations, competitive endurance training).
• High-impact modalities like running dominate over lower-impact choices like cycling.
• Cardio is performed immediately before lifting, especially if the legs are pre-fatigued.

This matches my personal experience, and I’ll even go as far to say that I think 6 or 7 days a week of cardio for 30 to 45 minutes can be done concurrently with lifting with little to no interference as long as the cardio is low impact.

Having dabbled with endurance training (a couple half marathons), I can confirm that out of all the types of cardio you could do, running (high impact) produces the most interference. Leg day in the gym is a real drag when you’re running long distances on top of the lifting.

But back to the research and the implications for fat loss.

Practical Applications

This study confirmed that combining cardio and weights is superior than doing one or the other if you want to optimize muscle gain and fat loss.

It also showed that for fat loss, the type of cardio doesn’t matter if the calorie burn is equal. That means you can choose the exercise based on your personal preference.

Either way, if your primary goal is fat loss, use concurrent training with the cardio of your choice. This will maximize fat burning while still preserving or building muscle.

Obviously cardio like running will burn a lot more calories per minute than walking. But also keep in mind that high impact cardio like running is more likely to interfere with your lower body lifting sessions.

With low impact, low-intensity types of cardio like walking, you can do a even more volume with no fear of interference at all.

You could get away with just lifting and following a good calorie-restricted diet and lose fat, but that won’t maximize the rate of fat loss. Including some cardio is optimal. (And don’t forget you get health benefits as well, not just increased fat loss).

If your primary goal is muscle gain, then during a muscle gain phase keep doing cardio, but keep the cardio volume moderate and favor low-impact modes like cycling. Make progressive overload resistance training your top priority.

If your primary goal is fat loss, then during your fat loss phase, increase your cardio while keeping up your lifting, but be on the lookout for interference if you choose high impact cardio and or high volume cardio.

For lifters and fat-loss seekers, this study offers reassurance. You don’t need to choose between cardio and weights. In fact, combining both is the smartest approach if your goals are a leaner and more muscular physique.

More good news is that research confirms you can choose the type of cardio you enjoy. If the calorie burn is equal, there won’t be any difference in fat loss. And if you choose cardio you enjoy, you’re more likely to stick with it, and the better you stick with it, the better your fat loss.

I’ll talk more about concurrent training in upcoming blog posts, including my forays into running and long distance backpacking and how that impacted my lifting, along with even more research that focused specifically on concurrent aerobic and resistance training.

-Tom Venuto,
Author of Burn the Fat, Feed the Muscle
Author of Meal Prep For Fat Loss
Founder of Burn the Fat Inner Circle

Scientific References
Lafontant K et al, Comparison of concurrent, resistance, or aerobic training on body fat loss: A systematic review and meta-analysis, Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition, 22:1.

In a recent Burn the Fat Blog post, I wrote about new research suggesting that aerobic exercise can help keep your brain younger than your chronological age. If you missed it, read it here. The takeaway was simple: cardio isn’t just good for your heart – it’s good for your brain too.

For a “meathead” like me, that naturally raises another question: What about strength training? Can lifting weights also help protect your brain, preserve memory, and reduce the risk of cognitive decline?

According to a new study, the answer is yes. But before I show you what the research found, let me tell you why I’m writing about this.

How You Think About Training Can Change With Age

As someone about to turn 58, healthy aging is something I think about more than ever. I must say however, I’ve thought about muscle and age ever since I was a teenager and saw Albert Beckles in Muscle And Fitness magazine. He was the oldest man to ever win an IFBB pro bodybuilding contest at 61. He just recently passed away at 95.

I’ve also spent the past six years helping my now 89-year-old mom as her dementia has gradually progressed. The last two years have been pretty much 24-7 care. When you watch the effects of this disease up close, believe me, it changes the way you think about exercise (and diet, and lifestyle, and everything!)

But whether you’ve had to care for elderly parents or not, when you get past 50, and surely around 60, most people still start to think differently just from hitting those chronological milestones alone.

Do I still care about building and maintaining muscle, and looking like I lift? Of course. Even though I gave up the standing on stage posing stuff years ago, I’ll always identify as a bodybuilder. I think having bicep veins, seeing some abs, and still being able to bounce your pecs is cool.

Do I still care about being strong? Of course. But not so much in a “What’s your max bench press” sense. I gave up that lifting mentality years ago as well. Now I lift more for muscle and for functional strength, not maximal strength. I want to be strong enough to be 100% independent, and to do any physical activity I want to do, right up to my last day.

But at this point, I think equally or even more so about preserving a sharp memory and being able to think clearly. Will I still be able to write a blog post right up to my last day?

Fortunately, a growing body of research suggests resistance training benefits both your muscles and your brain.

A new study published in GeroScience adds to that evidence in a particularly fascinating way – It didn’t just measure improvements in memory. Researchers actually looked inside the brain using MRI scans to see what changed after six months of strength training.

The Weight Training For Your Brain Study

Researchers recruited 44 older adults (all over 55, average age 68) who had been diagnosed with mild cognitive impairment (MCI).

MCI is a condition where memory and thinking ability has declined more than expected with normal aging but not enough to be diagnosed as dementia. People with MCI have a significantly higher risk of developing dementia in the future.

Half the participants completed a supervised resistance training program for 24 weeks, while the other half continued their usual lifestyle without strength training.

The workouts were practical and realistic – they weren’t doing my bodybuilding competition-style lifting with 5 to 6 high-intensity sessions a week.

In this study, the older subjects trained just twice a week on non-consecutive days, performing ten machine exercises that worked all the major muscle groups. They did three sets of ten reps using challenging weights that were progressively increased as they became stronger.

Before and after the study, researchers evaluated memory with cognitive tests and they examined participants’ brains using MRI scans.

The Results: Physical And Cognitive Improvements

The results were impressive. Not surprisingly, the resistance training group got stronger – significantly. But that was only the physical side of things. They also improved their memory compared to where they started.

Maybe even more interesting, MRI scans showed that the strength-training group preserved the volume of two important brain regions – the hippocampus and the precuneus – while the control group experienced greater shrinkage in those same areas.

The hippocampus plays a critical role in learning and memory and is one of the earliest brain regions affected in Alzheimer’s disease. The precuneus is also involved in memory and other higher cognitive functions.

Why This Brain Health Research Matters

No single study proves that lifting weights prevents dementia. But this study adds to a convincing body of research suggesting that resistance training may help reduce the risk of cognitive decline and dementia as we age.

One reason I find this study compelling is that the researchers looked at both function and structure.

In other words, the researchers didn’t simply see better scores on memory tests. They saw what was going on inside the physical brain. These results gave us evidence that resistance training helps protect brain structures that are especially vulnerable during neurodegeneration.

This is exciting to me, and I hope it is to you too, because we’re no longer talking only about getting stronger or looking more muscular. We’re talking about building a stronger brain too.

How Does Strength Training Help The Brain?

Scientists are still doing research to more fully understand how resistance training improves brain health, but several mechanisms are likely involved.

Strength training improves insulin sensitivity and overall metabolic health, reduces chronic inflammation, improves blood flow, and stimulates the release of naturally occurring compounds produced by working muscles, such as myokines.

Strength training may also increase brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF), which helps brain cells survive, grow, and form new connections.

It’s unlikely that any one of these mechanisms explains all the benefits. More likely, they work together to support healthier brain aging.

Strengths of This Study

All research has limitations. In this case, it was a fairly small number of participants, plus everyone already had mild cognitive impairment to begin with rather than starting out cognitively healthy. Even so, this was a strong study.

Researchers used MRI scans instead of relying only on questionnaires or memory tests. They measured actual changes in brain anatomy, not simply changes in how people did on cognitive testing.

The resistance training program followed well-established strength-training guidelines and used progressive overload. It was a practical and realistic routine that any able-bodied older adult could do.

In addition, this wasn’t the only study on this subject. The results here were consistent with an already large and growing body of research.

That includes systematic reviews and meta-analyses which suggest that the weight of the evidence agrees that resistance training supports cognitive health and may help reduce the risk of dementia as we age.

Keep Lifting – For Your Body AND Your Brain

I’ve been saying for decades that resistance training is one of the best investments you can make in your long-term health. Forget about all the weird “biohacking” and “longevity” protocols you see on social media…

Lifting is the closest thing to the fountain of youth that we have.

Lifting builds muscle, preserves strength, protects bone density, improves function, and helps you stay active and independent throughout life.

And on top of all the physical benefits, now we have yet another reason to make it a priority.

If you’ve been struggling to stay consistent with your strength training, remember this as motivation. When you get those workouts done, you’re working toward much more than stronger muscles or a leaner physique. You’re investing in your long-term brain health.

Of course, resistance training isn’t the entire answer. As I talked about in my previous article, cardio has its own unique benefits for healthy brain aging and physical fitness.

The evidence today continues to suggest that the smartest long-term strategy isn’t choosing one or the other. It’s doing both – cardio training and resistance training – for both physical health and cognitive health.

Don’t let your body atrophy. Don’t let your brain atrophy either.  GO LIFT!!!!

–Tom Venuto,
Founder of Burn the Fat Inner Circle
The community for all-natural No BS Body Transformation

You’ve probably heard people with fit bodies say, “I’m 58 years old, but my biological age is more like 43.” That’s a good thing, because differences between biological and chronological age like that are legitimately possible, and my 58th b-day is right around the corner!

Researchers are now applying a similar idea to the brain. Using MRI scans and artificial intelligence, they can estimate whether a person’s brain appears younger or older than their actual chronological age. They’re calling it your estimated brain age.

A new randomized clinical trial strongly confirms earlier research that suggested regular aerobic exercise may help keep your brain younger than your chronological age. If you’ve ever wondered whether cardio is really necessary when you already lift weights and eat well, this study provides one more compelling reason not to skip it.

What the Researchers Did

Researchers recruited 130 healthy but relatively inactive adults between the ages of 26 and 58 and randomly assigned them to one of two groups. One group followed a supervised aerobic exercise program for 12 months, while the control group continued their usual lifestyle.

The exercise program wasn’t extreme. Participants worked toward the standard public health recommendation of 150 minutes of aerobic exercise per week—about 30 minutes a day, five days a week. Activities included brisk walking, jogging, cycling, rowing, elliptical training, and similar forms of aerobic exercise.

The workouts started at a moderate intensity and gradually progressed to moderate-to-vigorous intensity. Moderate intensity generally means you’re breathing harder than normal but can still carry on a conversation (think of a brisk walk or an easy bike ride). Vigorous exercise means your breathing becomes much heavier and carrying on a conversation becomes difficult, such as during running or fast cycling. Participants weren’t expected to perform all-out, exhausting workouts. The goal was consistent aerobic exercise performed week after week.

The researchers measured aerobic fitness using a laboratory treadmill test (VO₂peak), the gold standard for measuring cardiorespiratory fitness. They also measured brain age using MRI scans analyzed with machine learning.

What They Found

After one year, the exercise group showed an improvement in estimated brain age compared to the control group. On average, their brains appeared about 0.6 years younger, while the control group showed no meaningful improvement. (Imagine the improvement after multiple years of consistent cardio!) As you would expect, participants in the exercise group also significantly improved their aerobic fitness.

Researchers also observed that participants who were more aerobically fit at the start of the study tended to have younger-looking brains. While this doesn’t prove cause and effect (he fitter people may also have been eating better, sleeping better, avoiding alcohol, and practicing other healthy habits), it supports previous research linking better cardiorespiratory fitness with healthier brain aging.

That’s one reason this study is especially valuable. Instead of simply observing people, the researchers randomly assigned participants to either an exercise program or a control group. That makes it much more likely that the improvements in estimated brain age were caused by the exercise itself rather than by other healthy lifestyle habits.

Why 150 Minutes Per Week Matters

One thing I appreciated about this study was that the exercise prescription wasn’t unrealistic.

The participants aimed for 150 minutes of aerobic exercise per week, which is the same minimum recommendation endorsed by organizations such as the American Heart Association, the American College of Sports Medicine, and the U.S. Physical Activity Guidelines. That’s only about 30 minutes a day, five days a week.

Those same organizations also point out that additional aerobic exercise – up to about 300 minutes per week – may provide even greater health benefits. This particular study wasn’t designed to determine whether more exercise would produce even greater improvements in brain age, so we can’t answer that question yet. But it does suggest that meeting the standard recommendation is an excellent place to start.

How Might Cardio Help the Brain?

Scientists aren’t yet 100% certain exactly how aerobic exercise helps keep the brain healthy, but they have several good theories.

Regular aerobic exercise improves blood flow to the brain, supports healthier blood vessels, reduces chronic inflammation, improves insulin sensitivity and overall metabolic health, and may increase growth factors such as brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF), a naturally occurring protein that helps brain cells grow and form new connections.

Interestingly, the researchers examined several possible explanations – including improvements in aerobic fitness, body composition, blood pressure, and BDNF – but none completely explained the improvements in brain age. That doesn’t mean those factors aren’t important. It simply suggests the benefits are probably the result of multiple biological processes working together rather than one single mechanism.

Strengths of This Study

All research has potential limitations but this was a strong study because was a randomized controlled trial – the strongest design for testing cause and effect.

The intervention lasted a full year rather than a few weeks. The exercise program reflected realistic public health recommendations instead of an extreme training protocol. Finally, both aerobic fitness and brain age were measured objectively using laboratory testing and MRI scans rather than self-reported questionnaires. Perhaps most importantly, these findings agree with a growing body of previous research showing that aerobic exercise supports healthy brain aging.

It was a randomized controlled trial, which is the strongest study design for testing cause and effect. The intervention lasted an entire year rather than just a few weeks. The exercise program reflected realistic public health recommendations instead of an extreme training protocol. Finally, both aerobic fitness and brain age were measured objectively using laboratory testing and MRI scans rather than self-reported questionnaires.

Perhaps most importantly, these findings agree with a growing body of previous research suggesting that aerobic exercise supports healthy brain aging.

Keep Prioritizing Resistance Training, But Don’t Skip Your Cardio Training!

I’ve been saying for years that resistance training is one of the best investments you can make in your long-term health. It builds muscle, preserves strength, supports bone density, and helps you stay active and independent as you age.

But don’t make the mistake of treating cardio as optional.

This study adds to growing evidence suggesting that aerobic exercise provides unique benefits for your brain that strength training alone may not fully deliver.

If you’re already getting about 150 minutes of aerobic exercise each week, keep it up. If you’re not, think of this as one more reason to start. You don’t have to become a marathon runner. A brisk walk, cycling, rowing, swimming, hiking, or any activity that regularly gets your heart and lungs working may help your brain stay younger than your chronological age for years to come.

The bottom line? Don’t think of strength training and cardio as competing forms of exercise. They complement each other. Lift weights to preserve muscle, strength, bone density, and independence. Do aerobic exercise to strengthen your heart, improve your fitness, and quite possibly help keep your brain younger than your chronological age.

For healthy aging, the winning combination is both.

-Tom Venuto
Founder of Burn the Fat Inner Circle,
The community for all-natural No BS Body Transformation

Not a current member? Join us in the Burn the Fat Inner Circle Members Area HERE

Featured program of the week: The Burn The Fat Guide To Meal Prep For Fat Loss

Q: Hey Tom, I was wondering if you could talk about artificial sweeteners and dementia/Alzheimer’s. I know there is some new research out on artificial sweeteners and their impact on brain health in the last month or so (I have seen posts on social media) and I would like your input. I feel like you always bring a balanced perspective and sound interpretation of data.

A Personal Answer To A Personal Question

A: For decades, I’ve been seeing fear-mongering over artificial sweeteners. The sentiments have ranged from assuming it causes cancer, to disrupting gut health, to making you fat (seriously, people actually say that), and yes, now that they might be linked to cognitive decline.

It’s been a national pastime for some people to bash artificial sweeteners, it seems.

But based on decades of research and hundreds of studies, virtually all the fear mongering has turned out to be just that – fear mongering. Occasionally someone consumes a specific sweetener and has a reaction, like getting headaches, but the science shows that artificial sweeteners consumed in normal quantities causes no harm.

If you drink two six packs a day of diet soda, I’m not going to vouch for the safety of that, and obviously there is no nutritional “plus” value. But everyone needs to remember the basic premise of toxicology – it’s the dose that makes the poison.

With that said, when I hear that something that is widely consumed – and which I am consuming myself – is associated with dementia, I don’t say, “Oh the fear mongers are at it again,” I stop and really look into it.

Why? Because it’s personal. I’m currently in my sixth year as a caregiver for my 89-year old mom, who has late-stage dementia, and since she fell and broke her arm in the fall of 2024, I’ve been caregiver pretty much 24-7.

My aunt passed with dementia earlier this year. My uncle passed with dementia three years ago. Both of them lived long, full, productive lives – my uncle was 95, my aunt was 98 – and God bless them for that. But they faded at the end, and watching cognitive decline happen more than once, up close, changes the way you look at research like this.

So when someone asks me about dementia, I don’t dismiss it offhandedly. I go read the actual research. That’s exactly what I did here, and what I found is a perfect lesson in why internet headlines almost never tell the whole story.

Yes, There Is New Research – And Here’s What It Actually Says

The study behind a lot of the recent social media posts was published in September 2025 in Neurology, the journal of the American Academy of Neurology. It’s a legitimate peer-reviewed scientific publication. This wasn’t some fringe paper or blog article.

The study tracked 12,772 people over approximately eight years, measuring their consumption of seven different artificial sweeteners while testing memory, language, and thinking skills at multiple points throughout the study.

The headline finding: people who consumed the highest amounts of artificial sweeteners showed cognitive decline roughly equivalent to 1.6 additional years of brain aging compared to the lowest consumers. The six sweeteners associated with the decline were aspartame, saccharin, acesulfame-K, erythritol, sorbitol, and xylitol.

I understand why that generated alarm on social media. But here’s what almost no one reported…

What the Researchers Actually Found

Dr. Claudia Kimie Suemoto, the lead author of the study said: “The study is only observational – I cannot say to you that artificial sweeteners cause cognitive decline. We do know, however, that these sweeteners are associated with worse cognitive trajectories.”

The scientist who ran the study said it clearly: association, not causation. And as I’ll explain in a minute, that distinction is everything.

Correlation vs. Causation: Why So Many Health Headlines Get It Wrong

Every study linking artificial sweeteners to cognitive decline – including this one – has been what’s called an observational study. Researchers watched what groups of people ate and what happened to their health over time. No one was randomly assigned to consume artificial sweeteners or avoid them. That type of study, called a randomized controlled trial or RCT, is the gold standard for establishing cause and effect. For this question, no such trial exists.

Observational studies can show that two things happen together. They can’t tell you which one caused the other – or whether something else entirely caused both. This is the difference between correlation and causation, and it’s where most health scares go wrong.

Here’s a great illustration of how absurd this can get:

Go to Google and search “spurious correlations.” You’ll find a website full of charts showing that per capita cheese consumption correlates strongly with people dying by becoming tangled in their bedsheets. Or that the number of Nicolas Cage films released in a given year correlates with the number of drowning deaths in swimming pools.

These statistics are real. But the relationship is obviously nonsense. That’s what a correlation without causation looks like – and it’s more common in health research than most people realize.

The Diet Soda Example – Reverse Causation in Action

Here’s a real-world example that’s directly relevant to people in our Burn The at Inner Circle community and illustrates the problem perfectly.

For years, some researchers and a lot of “natural health” influencers claimed that diet soda makes you fat. Which is, when you think about it, completely absurd – diet soda has no calories. You can’t gain fat from something that contains no calories.

So how did this claim get traction? Observational studies showed that overweight people tend to drink more diet soda than lean people. And people who don’t understand the distinction between correlation and causation looked at that finding and concluded: diet soda causes weight gain.

But think about it for two seconds. Why do overweight people drink more diet soda? Because they’re overweight and they’re trying to cut calories. They’re switching from regular soda to diet soda specifically because they want to lose weight. The excess body fat came first. The diet soda consumption followed. The causation runs in the opposite direction from what the alarming headlines implied.

That’s called reverse causation. And my guess is that this is what’s happening in the artificial sweetener and dementia research as well.

Why This Matters for the Dementia Research

Ask yourself: who consumes the most artificial (non-caloric) sweeteners? The answer: People who are overweight and trying to cut calories. People who were diagnosed with diabetes or pre-diabetes and told by their doctor to reduce sugar. People managing metabolic conditions.

Now ask yourself: what are the strongest known risk factors for dementia and cognitive decline? Obesity, type 2 diabetes, insulin resistance, and cardiovascular disease are all near the top of the list.

So when an observational study finds that high artificial sweetener consumers show faster cognitive decline, the most obvious explanation isn’t that the sweeteners are damaging the brain. The most obvious explanation is that we’re looking at people who were already sick – and those underlying conditions drove both the diet product use and the cognitive decline.

The 2025 study tried to statistically control for factors like BMI, diabetes, and diet quality. The association persisted after those adjustments. But observational studies can never fully eliminate confounding. The researchers themselves listed “residual confounding from co-occurring health behaviors” as a limitation of their own work.

A Detail That Doesn’t Fit a Simple Causal Story

Here’s something almost no media outlet mentioned: the association between artificial sweeteners and cognitive decline was found only in people under 60. In people over 60, there was no significant effect.

If artificial sweeteners were directly damaging the brain in a way that leads to dementia, you’d expect the strongest effect in the people closest to dementia risk age – people in their 60s, 70s, and older. Finding the opposite is a major red flag that something else is driving these results.

The “Natural” Health Crowd Has Had It In for Artificial Sweeteners for Years

I want to say something that might sound blunt but I think needs to be said. Artificial sweeteners have been a favorite target of the alternative “natural health” community for decades, and this latest research will absolutely be weaponized by that crowd.

The word “artificial” alone is enough to make a lot of people lose their minds. “Natural is good. Artificial is bad.” That’s the assumption baked into most of these claims, and it’s a logical fallacy with a name: the naturalistic fallacy. The idea that something is safe simply because it’s natural, or dangerous simply because it isn’t, doesn’t hold up to five seconds of scrutiny.

Many natural things can harm or kill you – certain mushrooms, certain plants, certain molds. You could even die from drinking too much water (look up hyponatremia). Meanwhile, many artificial compounds consumed in small quantities have zero measurable ill effect on the human body. “Natural” and “safe” are not synonyms. “Artificial” and “dangerous” are not synonyms. The chemistry doesn’t care about your adjectives.

This doesn’t mean artificial sweeteners get a free pass on scrutiny. It means the scrutiny should be applied based on the actual evidence, not on the word “artificial” and not on the preferred narrative of influencers who have been pushing this angle for years regardless of what the research says.

By the way the most commonly used term for these sweeteners today in science and regulatory literature is “non-nutritive sweeteners.” But the fear mongers keep using the word “artificial.”

“Artificial” does a lot of emotional work that “non-nutritive” doesn’t. It triggers the naturalistic fallacy automatically – you don’t even have to make an argument, the word does it for you. It’s the same reason that crowd says “chemicals” as a pejorative when everything, including water and oxygen, is a chemical. The language is chosen to provoke a visceral reaction before the reader has engaged their critical thinking.

So Where Does This Leave Us?

Here’s my honest assessment: the research is real and worth knowing about, but the findings aren’t strong enough to justify alarm. What we have is an observational association that the study authors themselves say cannot establish cause and effect. We have no RCTs.

What we do have is a plausible alternative explanation in the form of reverse causation. And we have an odd age-specific finding that doesn’t fit cleanly with the idea of a direct causal mechanism.

Here’s what I think is the rational response to this research: interesting signal, keep an eye on it, don’t go crazy with panic.

Should You Stop Using Artificial Sweeteners?

If you use them in moderation – a packet of stevia in your coffee, the occasional diet beverage – the current evidence doesn’t support eliminating them. If you’re consuming them in very high amounts every single day across multiple products, this kind of research might be a reasonable nudge toward pulling back a bit. Not because it proves harm, but because moderation is generally a sensible policy when a signal exists.

Interestingly, the lead researcher herself said that it’s wise to limit consumption, ideally avoiding heavy daily use. That’s a reasonable, evidence-proportionate recommendation – and coming from the person who ran the study, it’s worth considering while not overreacting to it.

Focus Your Energy Where the Evidence Is Strongest

Given everything I’ve just shared – and given that dementia is something I think about with more than just professional interest – I want to end with what I think actually matters most.

If you’re genuinely concerned about your long-term brain health, your energy is best directed at the factors with the strongest evidence base.

• Regular aerobic exercise is probably the most powerful modifiable factor we know of. If you don’t believe me, go look it up yourself. I love lifting and I come from a bodybuilding background, but if you’re just lifting and not doing much cardio, then you’re not optimizing your brain health and reducing your risk of dementia.
• Sleep quality is a huge factor. You’ve heard about how good sleep hygiene supports fat loss (especially through hormone optimization and appetite control), but don’t forget that chronic sleep disruption is one of the clearest dementia risk factors in the literature.
• Controlling blood pressure and blood sugar also matter significantly.
• Staying socially connected is another big factor.
• Protect your hearing. This is a little known but surprisingly strong risk factor
• Don’t smoke; don’t drink in excess. If you drink, keep your intake low.
• Keep your brain engaged. Read a lot, play mentally stimulating games, do puzzles, or learn a new language. I just started learning German. (Well, I’m trying, lol – es ist nicht einfach!)

These are the levers that move the needle based on decades of research. Artificial sweetener consumption, even if there turns out to be a real effect, is a much smaller factor than any of the above.

The Bottom Line

Yes there is new research on this subject. It’s real. The association it found is worth monitoring. But association is not causation, the researchers said so themselves, and the history of the “artificial sweeteners are dangerous” narrative should make you appropriately skeptical of the loudest voices amplifying these findings on social media.

Read the research. Understand what kind of study it is. Know the difference between correlation and causation. And the next time you see a headline that makes you want to throw out everything in your pantry, ask yourself: is this what the study actually said, or is this what someone wanted me to think it said?

Almost always, it’s the latter.

-Tom Venuto
Founder of Burn the Fat Inner Circle,
The community f0r all-natural No BS Body Transformation

Not a current member? Join us in the Burn the Fat Inner Circle Members Area HERE

Featured p rogram of the week: The Guide To Meal Prep For Fat Loss

Scientific References

Gonçalves N et al. Association Between Consumption of Low- and No-Calorie Artificial Sweeteners and Cognitive Decline: An 8-Year Prospective Study, Neurology, 105(7), 2025.

If you’ve been wondering if you have a food noise problem and you’ve searched for a food noise questionnaire lately, you’re not alone.

And until very recently, nothing worth finding existed. There was no formal definition of food noise, no clinical criteria, and no validated way to measure it. That recently changed.

Researchers recently   published the first scientific definition of food noise along with a 29-item food noise test – the RAID-FN Inventory – built specifically to measure how much food noise someone is dealing with. Here’s the full breakdown.

Many who try to explain food noise get it confused with cravings (food noise is not the same).

Not their fault – until just recently, there was no formal definition of food noise and no way to measure it.

It was a phrase that exploded in popularity because people on GLP-1 meds kept describing the same experience – the sudden, almost eerie quiet in their head where constant food thoughts used to live – and “food noise” was the name that stuck.

But a name isn’t a definition, so researchers have now addressed that.

In 2025, a research team (Dhurandhar and colleagues) published the first formal definition of food noise in the journal Nutrition & Diabetes, along with something hardly anyone in the fitness and nutrition space has talked about yet:

A 29-item research questionnaire called the RAID-FN Inventory, built specifically to measure how much food noise someone is dealing with.

A caveat before you look at this questionnaire below: This is still not an official diagnostic test. The researchers themselves said there’s no validated cutoff score – nobody has yet established what counts as “a lot” versus “a little” food noise.

What this IS, is a window into exactly what scientists are now tracking when they study food noise. It’s the most detailed, research-grade look at this phenomenon that exists anywhere right now.

THE OFFICIAL DEFINITION

Here’s how the researchers define food noise:

“Persistent thoughts about food that are perceived by the individual as being unwanted and/or dysphoric and may cause harm to the individual, including social, mental, or physical problems.”

The researchers add that it’s not characterized by thoughts about food alone. A dysfunctional level of food noise is more similar to rumination than simple hunger or cravings.

Rumination is defined by the American Psychological Association as:

“Obsessional thinking involving excessive, repetitive thoughts or themes that interfere with other forms of mental activity.”

Cravings are something different and I’ll talk about that in upcoming articles.

For now let me say that a craving is a sudden desire for a specific food such as pizza, chocolate, chips, or ice cream. Cravings are mental, and often prompted by cues in the environment, so – unlike physical hunger – they usually fade, and often in a matter of minutes.

Food noise is something else – a near-constant background hum of food-related thinking that doesn’t shut off, regardless of whether you’re physically hungry or not.

THE NEW RAID-FN FOOD NOISE TEST

Researchers have now identified exactly what is being measured when we talk about food noise…

The full inventory has 29 items / questions.

As I read through the food noise test questionnaire, I noticed that that every item fell into one of four groups.  The researchers didn’t mention this, but I took the liberty of organizing them by category which is why the items aren’t in the original order they appeared in in the study.

I’m including the complete list of 29 items – not because it’s a test you pass or fail, but because seeing every one of the items is the best way to understand what this research is really getting at.

PREOCCUPATION – FOOD THOUGHTS SHOWING UP UNINVITED

FN01 – I think about food all the time, even when I am not hungry or eating.
FN03 – For me, thinking about what I want to eat is not typically related to being hungry.
FN06 – After driving by a good restaurant, it is hard to get the thought of foods I like from there out of my head.
FN09 – When food I am interested in is nearby, it is hard to concentrate on anything else until it is gone.
FN10 – It is frequently hard to focus on daily activities because I am thinking about food.
FN24 – I often have intrusive thoughts about food that are unexpected, hard to control, and unwanted.
FN25 – When I start thinking about food, I find it difficult to stop thinking about it.
FN28 – Even if I want to, I can’t stop thinking about food.
FN29 – When I push thoughts of food out of my mind, I can still feel them tickle the back of my mind.

PLANNING AND ANTICIPATION – FOOD THOUGHTS RUNNING AHEAD OF YOU

FN02 – When I am eating a meal, I am already thinking about what my next meal will be.
FN04 – If I know I will be eating a large meal in the future, I plan carefully and change what I eat before or after that meal.
FN05 – In between meals, I think about what I should eat next.
FN07 – I think about food at social gatherings for a long time leading up to the gathering, and after the gathering.
FN08 – Every day, I wonder if I have some of the foods I might want to eat later.
FN11 – I spend more time than I would like on planning what I am going to eat next.
FN26 – If I have been thinking about a specific food that I want for a while, I will make a special trip to go and get it.

MENTAL AND EMOTIONAL LOAD – THE COST OF MANAGING IT

FN12 – It takes a lot of mental effort to balance what I want to eat with what I should eat to be healthy.
FN13 – It is emotionally draining to balance what I want to eat with what I should eat to be healthy.
FN14 – Thinking about my food takes up too much mental energy.
FN20 – Thinking about food all of the time makes me happy.
FN21 – I would give anything to stop thinking about food.
FN22 – I often eat to get relief from thinking about food for a while.
FN23 – I hate that I always have food on my mind.
FN27 – During meals, I often have an argument with myself about whether I am done eating.

SELF-JUDGEMENT – HOW IT AFFECTS SELF-PERCEPTION

FN15 – I hide that I think about food so much, because I am worried that people will think less of me for it.
FN17 – I hate myself for not being able to control my thoughts about food.
FN18 – I know it is my fault that I think about food all the time.
FN19 – I would be able to stop thinking about food so much if I were a stronger person.
FN16 – I feel less than most other people because of how much I think about food. (Editor’s note: “less than” is a common expression meaning inferior to, or not as good as, other people.)

If you found yourself nodding your head and saying “yeah, that’s me” to a lot of the items on this questionnaire, especially that last section on self judgement, I want to point something out:

Food noise is not a character flaw. It’s not a willpower failure. The fact that researchers are now building clinical tools to study it is itself evidence that it’s a real physiological and psychological phenomenon – it’s not a personal failing. Self-blame doesn’t quiet a noisy brain. The right strategy does.

Among all the strategies to calm food noise, I believe that flexible dieting is one of the best.  I’ve written about it extensively on this blog and you can use the blog search feature to look up the numerous posts. You can also learn more about flexible meal planning at www.BurnTheFat.com

If going through the checklist made you realize you’re dealing with major food noise yourself and you want to do something about it without medication, I  put together a full breakdown of 8 all-natural strategies that go after food noise directly at Burn the Fat Inner Circle here: ==> 8 Ways to Reduce Food Noise Without Drugs (members only)

Keep your eyes out for upcoming blog posts about hunger management and craving control – the difference between hunger/cravings and food noise – plus solutions to beat cravings and minimize hunger.

Train hard and expect success!

Tom Venuto
Founder of Burn the Fat Inner Circle
The Community For All-Natural, No-BS Body Transformation

If you’ve spent any time in the weight loss world lately, you’ve almost certainly heard the term food noise.

People describe it as constant thoughts about food and an endless mental chatter about what to eat, when to eat, and how much to eat.

For some people, it feels like food is always on their mind.

The term has become especially popular since the rise of GLP-1 weight loss drugs. Many people who take these medications report that the “food noise” disappears almost overnight.

But that raises an interesting question: Is food noise actually real? Or is food noise simply a new label for something we’ve always known as hunger, cravings, temptation, or emotional eating?

The answer is yes, food noise is real. But the answer is more complicated than most people think.

To understand why, let me tell you about one of the most fascinating studies ever conducted on human hunger.

The Most Extreme Example Of Food Noise Ever Recorded

Years ago, I read a fascinating book called The Great Starvation Experiment by Todd Tucker. The book tells the story of the famous Minnesota Starvation Experiment conducted during World War II.

The study wasn’t designed to help people lose weight. Researchers wanted to understand what happened to people during prolonged starvation and how best to rehabilitate victims of famine in Europe after the war.

Thirty-six healthy young men volunteered for the experiment. These weren’t overweight dieters trying to get beach lean. They were healthy, normal-weight men who agreed to undergo six months of semi-starvation under carefully controlled conditions.

Why would anyone want to be semi-starved for six months? The reason is, these men were conscientious objectors. They agreed so they could contribute to the war effort in a non-combat role.

During the study, their calorie intake was cut by roughly in half while they continued to perform physical activity and manual labor (which made tolerating the calorie deficit twice as brutal). Over time, they lost an enormous amount of weight. On average, they lost about 25% of their body weight.

Dropping a quarter of your body weight might not seem unusual in the age of Ozempic. But keep in mind that many of these men started around a lean 150 pounds. That means they finished at a skeletal 112 pounds.

Their faces became gaunt. You could see their ribs. Their strength dropped. Their energy disappeared.

But the physical effects weren’t the most interesting part. It was the psychological effects that were truly shocking.

Many of the men became obsessed with food. They collected recipes, read cookbooks for entertainment, talked about food constantly, and spent hours discussing meals they wanted to eat after the study ended. The only thing they could think about was food.

They even lost interest in sex. Think about that for a minute. Food had become such a powerful biological priority that thoughts about eating crowded out one of the strongest human drives.

Today, we might describe what they experienced as the most extreme case of food noise ever recorded.

No one can look at the Minnesota experiment and claim that constant thoughts about food aren’t triggered under certain circumstances. The human brain clearly responds to severe food deprivation by increasing attention to food.

From an evolutionary perspective, that makes perfect sense. If your body fat is totally depleted and you are starving, your brain wants you to solve that problem quickly.

What Starvation Did To The Minds Of Healthy Men

One reason the Minnesota study is so fascinating is that it revealed how powerful the biological drive to eat can become.

These men weren’t weak. They weren’t lacking discipline. They weren’t addicted to ultra-processed foods. They weren’t scrolling food videos on social media all day. They weren’t surrounded by fast food restaurants everywhere they went.

They were simply hungry. Very hungry. Starving, literally.

The study reminds us that when energy deprivation becomes severe enough, thoughts about food can become almost impossible to ignore. In that sense, food noise is unquestionably real.

But here’s where things get interesting.

The men in Minnesota were genuinely starving. They had lost a tremendous amount of weight. They had almost no body fat left. Their bodies were desperately trying to survive.

So their obsession with food makes sense. And that raises an even bigger question.

If food noise is driven by deprivation and loss of body fat reserves, why do so many overweight people experience it too?

Three Different Types Of Food Noise?

At first glance, the Minnesota Starvation Experiment seems to explain food noise perfectly. Starve people long enough and they become obsessed with food. Case closed. Except there’s one problem.

Many people who report food noise aren’t starving. Some aren’t even dieting. In fact, in the popular conversations today, the people most often complaining about the food noise problem are overweight and eating enough calories to maintain their body weight.

The more I thought about this, the more I realized that when people talk about food noise, they may be describing similar experiences that arise from very different causes – and completely opposite ends of the spectrum.

The Starving Man

The Minnesota volunteers were experiencing something close to true starvation. Having lost a quarter of their body weight or even more, their bodies were desperately trying to conserve energy and restore lost weight.

These men weren’t imagining their hunger. Their obsession with food wasn’t a lack of willpower. It was a normal biological response to severe energy deprivation.

If your body believes survival is at stake, your brain is going to make food a priority. In this situation, food noise makes perfect sense. Your brain flips a switch that screams the message, “Find food now! Eat! Eat!”

The Obese Dieter

Now consider a very different situation. Imagine someone who is significantly overweight and starts a serious fat loss program.

This person may have plenty of body fat stored for energy. In fact, they may have dozens or even over a hundred of pounds of excess body fat. Yet many people in this situation also report increased hunger, stronger cravings, and more thoughts about food.

Why?

One reason is that the body doesn’t simply adjust hunger and appetite signals based on the amount of body fat you’re carrying. It also responds to changes in your calorie intake.

When your calories drop substantially, your body notices. Hormones shift. Appetite increases. The drive to eat gets stronger.

This isn’t the same situation as the Minnesota volunteers.

An obese dieter with substantial body fat reserves is not experiencing starvation in the same way as a man with visible ribs and almost no body fat left. But both situations involve some degree of energy deprivation, which may increase thoughts about food.

The situations are not identical, but they’re not completely unrelated either: calorie insufficiency leads to an increase in physical hunger and a cognitive fixation on food.

The Overweight Person Who Isn’t Dieting

This is the scenario that’s most perplexing.

Imagine someone who is overweight but not actively dieting. They’re not losing weight. They’re not restricting calories. They’re not starving. In fact, they’re consuming enough calories to maintain their current weight. they have lots of body fat in storage.

Yet they still think about food constantly.

They may be planning their next meal while eating their current one. They may find themselves drawn to snacks even when they aren’t physically hungry. They may describe food as taking up far too much mental space.

This is where the starvation or calorie restriction explanation starts to break down. Because now we have to ask a different question: If the person isn’t starving, what else could be driving all these thoughts about food?

The Modern Food Environment Is Unlike Anything Humans Evolved For

One possible explanation is that we live in a food environment unlike anything our ancestors experienced.

Think about how often you’re exposed to food cues during a typical day. Food advertisements. Restaurant signs. Television commercials. Social media videos. Convenience stores. Office snacks. Food delivery apps.

Even if you’re not hungry, you’re constantly being reminded that food is available. And not just food – highly palatable food. Ultra-processed food specifically engineered to be rewarding, convenient, and difficult to resist.

It’s hard to know exactly how much of modern food noise is driven by these cues in our modern environment, but it would be surprising if they weren’t playing a big role.

When Food Becomes Forbidden, It Becomes Even More Tempting

Over the years, I’ve become increasingly interested in the psychology of restriction.

Early in my bodybuilding career, I was one of those chicken-and-broccoli guys. My diets were incredibly strict. I viewed foods as either “good” or “bad” and there was a long list of banned foods.

Looking back, I can now see how that mindset only made the forbidden foods more psychologically attractive. The longer I resisted the banned foods, the stronger the wanting to have them became.

I was always disciplined enough to stick to a contest diet for 3 or even 4 months without deviating once. But I was also always counting down every day to that post-contest feast, where I ate everything in sight.

Psychologists have studied similar effects for decades. Harvard researcher Daniel Wegner called it “ironic rebound theory”: Tell yourself not to think about something and, ironically, it gets even harder to stop thinking about it.

Don’t think about pizza. Do not make a mental picture of pizza in your head right now. Whoops. You just visualized a tasty cheesy slice, didn’t you?

If you create long lists of foods that you can never eat, the result is food noise. And this kind of food noise is psychological, not physiological.

That’s one reason I eventually became such a strong advocate for flexible dieting. I found that when people stopped labeling foods as forbidden and started building flexibility into their meal plans, food became less emotionally charged.

Maybe not always, because as I mentioned, constant exposure to food can increase thoughts about eating. But not labelling foods as good or bad, forbidden or allowed helps a lot, and two decades of research backs that up.

Stress, Sleep, Habits, And Other Hidden Drivers

There are other possible contributors to food noise as well.

Poor sleep has been linked to increased hunger and appetite. Stress can increase cravings and make highly rewarding foods more appealing.

Habit may also play a role. If you’ve eaten a salty, fatty snack every night at 8 PM when you watch TV for years, your brain may start cuing you to eat that snack at 8 PM whether you’re hungry or not.

Over time, these learned associations can become incredibly powerful. This is another example of how thoughts about food may have little to do with calorie intake or how much body fat is in storage, and much more to do with routine, reward, and conditioning.

Not All Food Noise Is The Same

This may be the most important takeaway from our entire discussion.

A starving man with almost no body fat and an overweight person who is maintaining their weight may both experience food noise. Both may think about food constantly. Both may struggle with cravings. Both may describe an endless mental chatter about eating.

But it would be a mistake to assume the cause is the same.

One may be experiencing a powerful biological response to severe energy deprivation combined with the loss of almost all body fat. The other may be responding to food cues, habits, stress, restriction psychology, highly palatable foods, poor sleep, or some combination of factors.

The symptom may look similar, but the underlying cause may not be.

So, Is Food Noise Real?

Food noise is absolutely real.

The Minnesota Starvation Experiment settled that question 80 years ago. But even if you never heard of this study until now, just being around the dieting and fitness community today you hear enough first-hand accounts to know it’s true – or, you’ve experienced it yourself.

Food noise affects the average dieter who is simply in a calorie deficit for fat loss – not starving literally. The human brain clearly responds to food deprivation by increasing attention to food.

But that’s only part of the story.

Food noise isn’t one thing. Sometimes it’s biology. Sometimes it’s psychology interacting with the environment. Most often, it’s both.

The real question isn’t whether food noise exists. The real question is what’s driving it in your particular situation.

Unfortunately there’s nothing we can do about the physiology side of things. If your calories are slashed  to starvation levels, you’re going to be ravenous and thinking about food all day long, period.

But fortunately we do have control over much of the psychology and environment.  For example, on the psychology side, you can practice flexible dieting, not rigid dieting. Plus, you can partly control your environment, at least your home environment, and reduce your exposure to food cues.

There are many practical, evidence-based ways to reduce food noise naturally. In fact, I’ve put together an entire guide covering eight strategies that can help quiet the mental chatter about food, without relying on medication.

Inner Circle members can read that article here:
Cut The Food Noise: 8 Ways To Silence The Chatter Without Drugs

Not a member yet? Learn more about the Inner Circle here

-Tom Venuto
Founder of Burn the Fat Inner Circle
Author of Burn the Fat, Feed the Muscle

PS. Learn more about flexible dieting and flexible meal planning here: The Guide To Flexible Meal Planning For Fat Loss

---

About Tom Venuto
Tom Venuto is a natural bodybuilding and fat loss coach with 35 years of experience. He holds a degree in exercise science and has trained hundreds of clients in person and thousands online. He is also a recipe creator specializing in fat-burning, muscle-building cooking.

A former competitive bodybuilder, Tom is now a full-time evidence-based fitness writer, blogger, and author. His classic book Burn the Fat, Feed the Muscle is an international bestseller, first as an ebook and later as a hardcover and audiobook. He is also the author of Meal Prep For Fat Loss, a practical guide to smart shopping, batch cooking, and kitchen strategies that make healthy eating simple and sustainable.

Tom is also the founder of Burn the Fat Inner Circle, a fitness support community with more than 59,000 members worldwide since 2006.

Tom’s work has been featured in Men’s Fitness, Muscle & Fitness, Oprah Magazine and dozens of other major publications. He is best known for his no-BS, scientific approach to natural fat loss and muscle-building.

---

The inner cover flap of Brad Stulberg’s book, The Way of Excellence, says that it’s “The definitive book on excellence.”

Surprisingly, there aren’t that many books about excellence that use the word excellence.

Older books that do, such as Tom Peter’s Search For Excellence, were about corporate success. They profiled how businesses became successful.

Fewer are about personal excellence, which is what Stulberg’s book is about.

In his classic works, psychologist Abraham Maslow wrote about a similar concept – “actualizing your potential”.

Great books have been written about another related topic – mastery – including George Leonard and Robert Greene.

Excellence also overlaps with stoicism and the development of character.

Spiritual books talk about self-realization.

And the Greeks had a word for it – “arete” – defined as excellence or virtue; the highest moral, physical, and spiritual potential of a human being.

Among all the books that talk about excellence by that name or similar names, Stulberg’s book is unique in the genre.

I heard about him at first when I discovered the book he co-authored with Steve Magness – “Peak Performance.” (Not to be confused with the Charles Garfield classic on mental training for sports).

Peak Performance by Stulberg and Magness was very good, and I recommend it. There’s only one issue I think someone might have with that 2017 book: if they are well-read in the high performance and personal development field, much of the information may sound familiar since it appears repeatedly in other many other books.

By contrast, The Way Of Excellence (2026) is full of new and unique ideas, or fresh takes and perspectives on old ideas.

It avoids pushing hacks or hustle culture, and it’s not about perfectionism either. Stulberg says that excellence is about challenging yourself in worthwhile endeavors, focusing on what matters most, and expressing the unique qualities that make you what you are.

The advice is applicable to all types of endeavors from pushing yourself in the gym, to learning a musical instrument, managing a business, practicing medicine, creating art or honing any other craft.

Stulberg – and his former co-author and current podcast co-host Magness – both come from endurance training backgrounds, but after running injuries sidelined Stulberg, he took up powerlifting. That makes this a great read for fitness enthusiasts across the spectrum from long distance running to pumping iron.

The book is split into two parts. Part one lays out the foundations including the biology, psychology, and philosophy of excellence.

He first explains what excellence is. It’s when we are at our best. When we are:

Working without distraction at something that matters to us. Creating and contributing to the world. Engaging deeply with others. Sufficiently challenged. Using your unique skills. In a state of relaxed productivity. Giving something your all.

He emphasizes that excellence can be expressed in all areas of life – it’s not restricted to professional athletes and artists.

He also points out one of the great truths: We all have an innate drive for progress and growth, and this is why we feel so alive when we channel that drive into meaningful goals.

However, he explains that excellence is less of a destination or achievement of a goal, and more of an energizing process of growth and becoming. It’s an ongoing path.

Stulberg says that excellence combines mastery and mattering. Mastery is developing skills and making progress in activities you believe are worthwhile. Mattering is the sense that what you’re doing has significance. This combination leads to a life well lived and a sense of satisfaction.

I appreciated how Stulberg points out that lasting motivation is intrinsic. Giving a nod to Self-Determination theory, he explains how we thrive over the long haul when 3 needs are met: autonomy, competence, and belonging (social connection). Being intrinsically motivated also means that we engage in a practice for its own sake – because we enjoy it and it’s as satisfying or more satisfying than reaching any end point.

Part two of the book runs through 16 mindsets, habits, and practices of excellence. You’ll see some familiar topics here like goals, consistency, focus, discipline, patience, confidence, and community. But Brad brings unique insights and perspectives to all these topics rather than rehashing what everyone has already said.

Some of these principles are unique and not discussed by other authors, starting out for example with caring. You can have all the talent and knowledge in the world, but if you don’t care about what you’re doing it doesn’t matter. You must have a reverence and deep interest in your pursuit.

Another example is the chapter on gumption. That’s a word I never heard before in the study of excellence. He says it’s a forward inertia, a sense of progress and possibility a strong yet measured enthusiasm.

Some of the other topics in part two include trade-offs, renewal, routine, joy, and completion.

In this book, you will definitely hear new ideas on the pursuit of excellence, and new takes on old ideas. That’s a strength of this book – there’s a lot of originality.

What Stulberg did well, and why his book might really deserve the claim as the definitive guide to excellence, is that he tried to combine performance psychology, sustainable ambition, anti-burnout philosophy, eastern mindfulness, stoicism, and modern neuroscience all into one book with one cohesive theme.

Older books in this genre leaned more toward military-style discipline, hustle and grind mentality, achievement obsession, or just clichéd self-help advice. The Way of Excellence avoids those angles and is more about how to pursue personal greatness without becoming physical or mentally burned out. I think that is unique and very relevant in the 2020s.

In this book I learned new things, and was exposed to new ways of looking at ideas I was already familiar with. The book is conversational and easy to read – it’s not like those psychology books that have valuable information but are overly academic and a slog to finish. I flew through it in three sittings and then listened to the audiobook as well for repetition and reinforcement.

This is an easy 5/5 stars rating. Highly recommended for all my Burn the Fat Blog readers and Burn the Fat Inner Circle members to help you with your fitness journey and all your endeavors outside the gym as well.

The Way Of Excellence has been featured as a Burn the Fat Inner Circle Book Discussion Club Book Of The Month. Join us to chat about this book and about excellence and peak performance at the the link below.

CLICK HERE To Discuss this book in the Burn The Fat Inner Circle forums (members)

-Tom Venuto,
Author of Burn the Fat, Feed the Muscle
Founder of Burn the Fat Inner Circle

Cilantro lime rice is one of those recipes that sounds simple. After all, it’s just a side dish, but small prep and cooking details make a big difference.

After making stovetop cilantro lime rice countless times, I like my homemade version better than Chipotle’s.

This is restaurant-quality rice, but it’s different: It’s toasted,  has brighter lime flavor, much more herby cilantro, and a richer taste from cooking the rice in broth instead of water.

That bright lime flavor comes from the secret ingredient – limes. Yes, I know that’s not exactly a secret since lime is in the recipe name.

But I don’t just mean lime juice from a bottle. I’m talking about fresh lime zest that goes in the pot in addition to the fresh squeezed lime juice that goes in the rice after it’s cooked.

Why Fresh Lime Zest And Juice Makes This Rice Better

In case you’re unfamiliar, the zest is the peel (skin) of the lime. It’s also known as the rind. It’s the green stuff – just the outer later, not the whiter pith below which is more bitter.

I use a microplane zester and it works beautifully for zesting lemons and limes because of the razor sharp teeth which give you very fine, almost “airy” zest without getting into the pith. Regular zesters and graters give you larger strips of zest.

For this recipe, one large lime does the trick (or two small ones). After you’ve zested it, then you can juice the lime which you’ll add to the rice after it’s cooked.  If you don’t have a lime on hand, you could use bottled lime juice and skip the zest, but it won’t be the same without the fresh juice and zest of fresh lime.

Important note when you’re lime shopping: Limes come in different sizes. The small ones, called key limes, are just slightly larger than a golf ball. The larger ones are called Persian limes.

This matters because the small ones might give you only 1.5 to 2 tablespoons of juice (and less zest) while the large ones will give you close to 3 tablespoons of fresh squeezed juice (and plenty of zest, including enough to reserve and sprinkle on after cooking).

This also matters because key limes are more tart, which is why they are commonly used in key lime pies, marinades, and cocktails.  Persian limes have a milder flavor and are more versatile for everyday cooking, including being ideal for cilantro lime rice.

If you’re stuck with the small limes, no worries, but you’ll probably need two of them.

Why The Stovetop Method Makes Better Cilantro Lime Rice

There are two tricks to get restaurant quality cilantro lime rice – or even “better than Chipotle” cilantro lime rice at home.

One is to briefly toast the rice in a small amount of olive oil for a few minutes before adding the liquid. This is not a mandatory step. You could dump in the rice and liquid at the same time and you’re off to the races. However, toasting is the official Mexican / Spanish method.

The toasting of the rice does something extra: it triggers the Maillard reaction, creating nutty, rich flavor compounds. It may also help prevent rice that sticks together in clumps or gets gummy. (When toasted, this rice comes out slightly moist yet fluffy – never clumpy).

While toasting for 3 minutes as instructed below, stand over it and stir regularly so it doesn’t burn. The idea is to lightly toast it. When you see slightly browned spots on some of the rice grains, it’s done. If you over toast you may find yourself with crunchy rice – and no one wants that.

How To Make Cilantro Lime Rice With Fewer Calories (And Still Keep The Flavor)

One thing I don’t do is drown the rice in oil or butter. Most cilantro lime rice recipes will use at least two or even three tablespoons of oil. You don’t need that much. One tablespoon is plenty.

I almost always reduce the fats to save calories. I’ve earned the nickname “two teaspoon Tom” because I’m often stingy with oils, but I just can’t understand why people drown everything in oil. I do use one full tablespoon (three teaspoons) of olive oil for this recipe so there’s enough to toast the rice and reduce the chance of burning.

I don’t argue that the rice might taste even better with butter (or both olive oil and butter), but if you know me, then you know I’m a calorie-saving, macro-optimizing home cook, so I pass on butter and large amounts of oil.

Why Broth Makes Stovetop Rice Taste Better

Another taste enhancer is to use chicken (or vegetable) broth instead of water. You could use water, but then you’re going to need to add salt.

The broth adds savory depth and saltiness.  (Which is why you shouldn’t use sodium-free broth).

If you’re looking to keep the sodium in check, use a reduced sodium broth – some brands have reduced sodium broth – often 30% to 50% less sodium.

Seasonings And Oil For Restaurant-Style And Home Cooked Cilantro Lime Rice

People often ask about the ingredients and seasonings that Chipotle restaurants use because they want to copycat their recipes.

It looks like their cilantro lime rice recipe is fairly simple. They use fresh chopped cilantro, and of course the lime juice. Their website says they steam the rice (in a huge commercial rice cooker) with rice bran oil and bay leaves. I think it’s worth trying a bay leaf in a future batch, but I wasn’t trying to make an exact Chipotle copycat recipe.

Also, almost no home cook has rice bran oil on hand, so that’s why I didn’t use it in this recipe. I use olive oil.  You could use avocado oil or a neutral oil like canola if that’s what you have in your cupboard. I don’t like using ingredients for my public-shared recipes that are not common staples in the home.  That said, I’d be willing to give rice bran oil a try one day and see how  it tastes.

Another difference in my recipe is that I use garlic. (Because garlic is awesome). A couple of cloves is all it takes – this rice is supposed to taste like lime and cilantro, not be garlic-forward. The garlic is added as the rice is finishing toasting, a minute before you pour in the broth.

In my recipe, the seasoning starts with the chicken broth, which adds flavor and saltiness. When the rice is finished, after fluffing it and adding the lime juice and cilantro, taste test it. If it tastes flat you can add a pinch of salt.

Don’t over salt though – it shouldn’t taste salty. The salt, if you choose to use it, is simply meant to help make the citrus flavors pop. That’s one of the things salt does – it enhances flavors.

Rice Cooker Vs Stovetop Rice Cooking

I used to depend on the rice cooker almost exclusively because it’s so easy and I am inherently lazy, but now I use the stovetop method just as often if not more so. Always when I want gourmet-quality rice at home.

The stovetop cilantro lime rice cooking technique is simple: after toasting the rice for a few minutes and leaving the garlic in there a minute, add the broth and bring it up to a roiling boil. Then turn the heat all the way down to low, cover the rice and let it simmer for about 17 to 18 minutes or until it is cooked through and has absorbed almost all of the liquid.

For the stovetop, use a large pot, sauce pan, or dutch oven. You can get a good stainless steel pot for around 30 or 40 bucks, give or take. You probably already have one in your kitchen.

When I got serious about cooking, I splurged and invested in the cast iron 3.75 qt  Staub pot (French Oven). It has never turned out anything but a perfect pot of rice. Looks beautiful, cleans easily and will last a lifetime. The Rolls Royce of Rice cooking pots… the luxury “cheat code” for rice.

Tip: This recipe was tested with white basmati rice. It has great flavor and is a perfect match for this cilantro lime recipe. Regular long grain white rice is fine too if that’s what you have on hand, but cook time might be different. Brown rice is a completely different animal that requires a completely different set of instructions.

Cook Time For Stovetop Rice (With White Rice)

As it cooks, keep your rice covered, undisturbed for 17 to 18 minutes.  The white basmati is always done for me by 18 minutes, but depending on your stove, cookware, and type of rice, your cooking time might vary.

If it’s not ready at 17 or 18 minutes, give it a quick stir, cover and cook for 2 or 3 more minutes or so. You know it’s done when all the liquid has been absorbed, but the rice is still moist.

That’s when you take it off the heat and let it rest covered for about 5 more minutes.

During the resting period, residual heat continues cooking the rice grains, any remaining liquid finishes absorbing gently, the steam redistributes the moisture more evenly, and soften any remaining firm grains.

This helps prevent the rogue crunchy toasted rice grain syndrome as well as the crusty rice stuck to the bottom problem (because the direct burner heat is gone).

If you keep cooking on the burner instead of resting off the burner after the rice is almost done and the liquid is mostly absorbed, the bottom layer dries out, gets crusty, and sticks.

Sticking might be a sub-optimal cookware issue, but keeping the pot on direct burner heat too long is the biggest reason most people get a scorched bottom.

Finishing The Rice

After resting the rice, fluff it with a fork to make it more airy and separate the grains.

Lastly, add the lemon juice, the lime zest you reserved earlier, and the cilantro.

A few notes about the cilantro:

One: Make sure you chop it finely so it disperses well into the rice. If you want to garnish the top with whole leaves that’s fine, but that’s mostly for presentation.

Two: This recipe calls for half a cup of chopped cilantro. That might seem like a lot at first, but after you stir it into the rice you’ll see it’s really not. In fact, I’ve made this with up to 3/4 cup and it was cilantro-forward, but still not excessive – it really “disappears” into the rice.

Three: For years I plucked the leaves off the stem one at a time.  Then I discovered that the stems are not only edible, they are flavorful. So to save time and enhance flavor, simply cut off the long thick part of the bottom stem, and chop up the cilantro leaves and small tender stems together.

Serving Suggestions

This pairs perfectly with anything Mexican. An obvious pairing is cilantro lime chicken.

For quick and easy 5-minute chipotle chicken, chop chicken breasts or thighs into small pieces, season with chipotle chili powder and salt and cook it in a skillet.

Of course this also pairs with beans. Here’s another 5-minute shortcut: Drain a can of black beans, add a teaspoon of oil to a skillet, add the beans, and season with:

1/2 tsp garlic powder
1/4 tsp cumin
1/4 tsp oregano
Salt to taste
Chopped onion optional (especially if you’re going to top it with salsa)

You’ll be surprised how great this ultra simple and convenient black beans from a can recipe tastes.

Put the beans, rice, and chicken together for a great Southwest bowl.

And of course, you can wrap it all up in a burrito too:

Put the cilantro lime rice, beans, and chicken in a large tortilla, and don’t forget the salsa and it’s almost exactly like a Chipotle burrito but maybe even better (especially the money you save).

How Many Calories Are In Cilantro Lime Rice?

You need a pretty large calorie budget to swing three starchy carbs in one meal – the tortilla adds a lot of calories – but you don’t need a tortilla. You can make a quick bowl of the rice, beans, and chicken and then you’ll have a complete meal with a reasonable calorie count.

If my goal was fat loss, I’d opt for a small bowl of  the rice and the protein with a veggie (like bell peppers) or just salsa.  If my goal were building muscle mass, then I’d go for the extra carbs with the burrito, including beans (need those calories to make gains!)

I did some calculations. At Chipotle restaurant, their bowl with only rice, black beans, chicken and salsa has 545 calories with 45 grams of protein.

But watch out! Add the tortilla for the burrito and now you’re around 800 calories or more – and that’s with no guac or sour cream or chips.

You can make good decisions at restaurants if you’re calorie-aware, but on the other hand, if you cook at home, you’re in charge of the calories and macros.

My cilantro lime rice has only 199 calories per serving (about 3/4 cup).  That leaves you lots of room to add a lean protein and a vegetable for a complete meal that comes in around 400 to 500 calories. Cooking at home can save more than money – it can save you calories.

Meal Prep And Storage Tips

The way I often meal prep, I’ll cook a four-serving batch like this, eat one, then divide the remaining three servings into containers. That’s if I want lower calorie meals for fat loss.

If I were in maintenance mode, this entire batch of rice would likely only be three servings, not four. If I were in muscle gaining (calorie surplus) mode, this entire batch of rice would only be two servings! (It’s good to be lifting and bulking!)

At any rate, it’s easy to scale the servings of this recipe any way you want.

I use the Burn the Fat Meal Planner software to calculate exact portions for my calorie needs (available exclusively at Burn the Fat Inner Circle).

Once I’ve added a veggie and protein to my rice for a complete muscle-building meal and put the container in the refrigerator, I’ll typically eat it all within two or three days.

I prefer not to leave prepped food in the fridge more than a few days. It’s fresher that way, and rice especially seems to lose its moisture and simply doesn’t taste as good after sitting in the fridge for days.

I’ve actually never frozen rice, so I can’t answer the questions, “Can you freeze it and how long does it last in the freezer?” I’ll try in the future after I make another huge batch. If you beat me to it and freeze your cilantro lime rice then thaw and reheat, let me know how it turns out (post in the comments).

This Rice Is Quick And Easy, So Go Try It!

This recipe comes together quickly. I’ve listed the prep time as 5 minutes because that’s all it takes (or even less) to zest the lime and mince the garlic (pre-cooking prep).

The additional prep – chopping the cilantro and juicing the limes – is done while the rice is cooking, so it doesn’t add to the total time.

That means the total time, including resting the rice is less than 30 minutes.

Are you hungry yet?  If so go get cooking, and enjoy!

Tom Venuto,
Founder, Burn the Fat Inner Circle
Author, Burn the Fat, Feed the Muscle
Author, Flexible Meal Planning For Fat Loss

More Mexican Recipes:

High Protein Chicken Enchilada Bake

3-Ingredient Shredded Salsa Chicken

Cheesy Mexican Chicken And Rice Casserole (One Pot)

One Skillet Chicken Fajitas

To browse hundreds of Burn the Fat recipes, CLICK HERE (members only)

Not a Burn The Fat Inner Circle member yet? To learn more and get access to hundreds of recipes and the Burn the Fat Meal Planner And Recipe Creation Software, CLICK HERE

---

About Tom Venuto
Tom Venuto is a natural bodybuilding and fat loss expert. He is also a recipe creator specializing in fat-burning, muscle-building cooking. Tom is a former competitive bodybuilder and today works as a full-time fitness coach, writer, blogger, and author. In his spare time, he is an avid outdoor enthusiast, hiker and backpacker. His book, Burn The Fat, Feed The Muscle (BFFM) is an international bestseller, first as an ebook and now as a hardcover and audiobook. The Body Fat Solution, Tom’s book about emotional eating and long-term weight maintenance, was an Oprah Magazine and Men’s Fitness Magazine pick. Tom is also the founder of Burn The Fat Inner Circle – a fitness support community with over 56,000 members worldwide since 2006. Click here for membership details

---