Fork U with Dr. Terry Simpson

The Chorus of “Just Eat Less”Spend a few minutes on social media, and you will hear it. On Bill Maher's podcast the other day, I heard it. Two people who know less about GLP-1 drugs than almost anyone, opining about how GLP-1s are horrific.Bill Maher says, “Just eat less.”Jillian Michaels warns that GLP-1 medications are dangerous. Did she even graduate from college?Meanwhile, a rotating cast of gym bros, coaches, and influencers insists that anyone using these medications is taking the easy way out.At first glance, these seem like different voices. A comedian, a fitness personality, a group of online trainers.However, they are all saying the same thing.If you are overweight, this is your fault.If you need help, you are weak.If you use medication, you are cheating.That message travels well. It is simple. It fits into a tweet. It sounds like common sense. Science shows us that fat shaming doesn't work (reference).It is also wrong.Who Is Doing the Shaming—and WhyThe fitness industry has something to lose here, and that part is easy to understand. Entire businesses are built on the idea that weight loss is a matter of discipline. Follow the plan, buy the program, track the macros, and success will follow. If it doesn’t, the explanation is built in.You didn’t try hard enough.However, the criticism does not stop there.When someone like Bill Maher reduces obesity to “just eat less,” it is not about selling a diet plan. Instead, it reflects something else entirely. A kind of cultural impatience with complexity. A belief that if a problem can be described simply, it must also be solved simply.And when that belief meets a condition like obesity, the result is dismissal.If I don’t struggle with this, then it must not be real.If you do struggle, then you must be doing something wrong.That is not analysis.That is a failure of imagination.The Problem with Simple AnswersMedicine has a long history of being wrong in simple ways.We once believed ulcers were caused by stress alone. Then came Helicobacter pylori and antibiotic treatment. We once thought hypertension was simply a matter of salt intake and personality. Then we developed therapies that addressed the underlying physiology.Obesity has followed a similar path, except we have been slower to let go of the old explanation.“Eat less, move more” is not incorrect.It is incomplete.Because it ignores the system that determines how much you want to eat, how often you think about food, and how your body responds when you try to lose weight.The Part I Didn’t AdmitFor years, I saw the damage this thinking caused.I ran support groups for patients struggling with weight. I watched them come in carrying not just pounds, but shame. They believed they were weak, that they lacked discipline, that something about them was broken.We worked to change that.We talked about biology. About appetite regulation. About how the body defends weight. We tried to replace blame with understanding.And yet, I quietly held myself to a different standard.I didn’t blame my patients.I blamed myself.The Surgeon Who Thought He Could Outwork BiologyIf anyone should be able to power through something, it is a surgeon. That is the job. Endure long hours. Stay focused. Push through fatigue. Delay gratification.So I assumed I could do the same with weight.I tried diets. I cleaned things up. I ate vegetables, cut back on certain foods, and experimented with structure. And like many people, I saw results.At first.Weight loss is not the mystery.Weight maintenance is.Because over time, the same thing happened again and again. The body adapted. Hunger increased. Energy dipped. The system pushed back.And eventually, the weight returned.What the Data Shows (and Why It Matters)When you look beyond personal stories and examine long-term studies, the pattern becomes clear.In the Diabetes Prevention Program, participants lost weight early, then gradually regained some of it. In the Look AHEAD trial, an intensive lifestyle intervention produced initial success, but the gap narrowed over time.Observational data suggest that only a small percentage of people—often cited around 3 to 5 percent—maintain significant weight loss at five years.That number should change the conversation.Because it tells us this is not a widespread failure of discipline.It is a predictable outcome of a biological system.The Loop We Keep IgnoringWeight gain does not happen in isolation. It is part of a loop.Sleep worsens, which increases appetite. Movement becomes uncomfortable, so activity declines. Food becomes more rewarding, not less, because it offers relief.Then intake increases.Then the cycle repeats.And yet, into that loop, we continue to insert the same advice.Try harder.What Finally ChangedFor years, I thought I just needed to try harder myself.I was wrong.Today, I am down fifty pounds.Not because I discovered a better diet, but because something changed in the system itself.I started a GLP-1–based medication.The effect was immediate in w

Menopause, Hunger, and the Brain: Why It Feels DifferentMenopause changes more than temperature control. It reshapes how the brain handles hunger, fullness, and the quiet signals that guide eating. As a result, many women notice something unsettling. The same meals no longer satisfy. Hunger arrives sooner. Food feels louder.For years, we blamed metabolism. We told women their bodies were simply slowing down. While that explanation sounds scientific, it misses the most important part of the story.The brain has changed.A Pattern You Can’t IgnoreDuring my years performing weight loss surgery, about 80 percent of my patients were women. Over time, one pattern became impossible to overlook. When menopause or even perimenopause began, weight gain often followed.Some women had struggled with weight for years. Others had never given it much thought. Yet both groups described the same shift. They weren’t necessarily eating more. Instead, they felt hungrier, less satisfied, and more aware of food throughout the day.Meanwhile, the advice they received rarely evolved. Eat less. Move more. Try harder.However, that advice assumes the system regulating hunger still works the same way. In menopause, it doesn’t.Estrogen and the Appetite Control CenterTo understand what’s happening, we need to look at the hypothalamus. This small but powerful region of the brain regulates appetite, energy balance, and hormonal signaling. Under normal conditions, estrogen helps keep this system stable.Specifically, estrogen supports satiety signals and keeps hunger signals in check. In simple terms, it helps your brain recognize when you’ve had enough.As estrogen declines, that balance shifts. Hunger signals grow stronger. Fullness signals become less reliable. Consequently, the internal experience of eating begins to change.This shift explains why women often say, “I feel different around food,” even before their diet changes.Why Hunger Changes FirstInterestingly, appetite changes often appear before measurable increases in calorie intake. Women report thinking about food more often, feeling less satisfied after meals, and noticing hunger earlier in the day.At first glance, nothing looks different from the outside. Yet internally, the system has already shifted.Because of that, traditional advice falls short. Telling someone to eat less without addressing the change in signaling is like adjusting the thermostat while ignoring the wiring.More Than MetabolismAlthough metabolism does change with age, it does not fully explain the experience of menopause-related hunger. A slower metabolic rate might affect how calories are used, but it doesn’t explain why appetite feels louder or less controlled.Instead, the better explanation lies in the brain. The hypothalamus responds differently when estrogen levels fall. As a result, the signals that guide eating become less precise.In other words, this isn’t just about calories in and calories out. It’s about how the body decides when to eat—and when to stop.The Part We Should Have Addressed SoonerFor decades, menopause care focused on symptoms like hot flashes and bone health. Meanwhile, changes in appetite and weight were often attributed to lifestyle or willpower.Unfortunately, that approach overlooked a key fact. Estrogen plays a direct role in appetite regulation.Because of that, many women were told to push harder when their biology had already shifted. That message wasn’t just incomplete—it was unfair.Estrogen Replacement: A Broader RoleWhen clinicians discuss estrogen replacement, they often focus on symptom relief. However, estrogen also affects brain signaling related to hunger and satiety.In the right patient, hormone therapy may help restore some of that balance. It can improve how the brain responds to fullness and reduce the intensity of hunger signals.Importantly, hormone therapy does not inherently cause weight gain. That belief has persisted longer than the evidence supports.Still, therapy isn’t for everyone. Each patient requires an individualized discussion that considers risks, benefits, and goals.A New Layer: GLP-1 and Appetite ControlMore recently, GLP-1 receptor agonists have added another dimension to this conversation. These medications act on the same appetite centers in the brain, strengthening satiety and quieting hunger.Interestingly, estrogen appears to enhance the effectiveness of GLP-1 signaling. Therefore, menopause may not only reduce estrogen levels—it may also decrease the brain’s responsiveness to satiety cues.This interaction helps explain why some women experience such a dramatic shift in appetite during midlife.What Actually HelpsOnce you understand the biology, the approach changes.Rather than focusing solely on restriction, the goal becomes supporting satiety. Meals should include enough protein, fiber, and volume to sustain fullness. Additionally, sleep deserves attention, as poor sleep amplifies hunger signals. Medication reviews also matter, since some drugs can

The Madness of King Henry VIII—and What We Got Wrong About ObesityThe King We ForgotThere is a moment in history that most of us think we understand. King Henry VIII—large, immobile, temperamental—has become almost a caricature of excess. We picture a man who simply ate too much, moved too little, and paid the price. It is a tidy story. Unfortunately, it is also likely the wrong one.Before the 1530s, Henry was something very different. He was athletic, charismatic, and energetic. He hunted, he jousted, he played sports, and he carried himself like the Renaissance ideal—educated, capable, and physically impressive. His armor, still preserved today, tells that story clearly. Narrow waist. Broad chest. Built for motion.The Fall That Changed EverythingThen everything changes.In January of 1536, Henry was thrown from his horse during a jousting match. The horse fell on him. He was reportedly unconscious for hours. Not minutes—hours. Even by modern standards, that is a significant traumatic brain injury.Soon after, in May of that same year, Anne Boleyn was arrested and executed. She was accused not only of adultery but also of witchcraft. That detail matters. Prior to this period, Henry was not known for superstition. He was a rational thinker. Yet suddenly, accusations of witchcraft become part of the story. It is tempting to say this was political theater. It may have been. Still, the timing is difficult to ignore.Meanwhile, his body begins to change.The Story We Told OurselvesAt first, historians explained this in simple terms. He ate more. He exercised less. Calories in, calories out. That explanation sounds neat. It fits what we like to believe. Even so, the math does not hold up.To gain over 200 pounds, you need a massive and sustained excess of calories. A reduction in physical activity alone does not explain that. We measure activity in METS—metabolic equivalents—and even a dramatic drop in activity would not account for that level of weight gain. In other words, you cannot outrun the math.Yet every January, gyms fill with people who are told exactly that. Move more. Try harder. Burn it off. By February, most of those gyms are empty again. If exercise alone solved obesity, we would not still have the problem.The Organ in ChargeSo what did we miss?The answer sits deep in the brain, in a small but powerful structure called the hypothalamus. It regulates hunger, satiety, hormones, and stress. When it works, eating feels normal. You get hungry, you eat, you stop. No drama. No constant thinking.However, when the hypothalamus is disrupted—by injury, disease, or chronic metabolic stress—that quiet system becomes loud. Hunger no longer behaves like a signal. It becomes a drive.This is not theory. Modern medicine has a name for it: acquired hypothalamic obesity. After traumatic brain injury, some patients develop rapid weight gain, persistent hunger, and changes in impulse control. Studies show that nearly half of patients with significant brain injury gain weight over time. The strongest predictor is not inactivity. It is hyperphagia—an abnormal increase in appetite.In simpler terms, the problem is not how much people move. It is what their brain is telling them to do.What Patients Taught MeThat pattern feels familiar if you have ever sat with patients. I have. Years ago, working with former NFL players, we noticed something striking. The players who struggled most with weight often had long histories of concussions. Not all of them gained weight. Yet those who did described the same experience—something they had never felt before.Food noise.Not hunger. Noise. A constant suggestion that does not go away.At first, I understood that as a physician. Later, I understood it as a person.When the World Went QuietAbout twelve hours after my first injection of Zepbound, something changed. The world became quiet. For the first time, I realized how much of my thinking had been shaped by that background noise. It did not disappear dramatically. It simply stopped.Since then, I have lost fifty pounds. More interesting than the weight loss is what happens between doses. As the medication wears off, the noise returns—subtly at first. A thought here. A reminder there. Even my stress levels rise slightly, something I can see on my WHOOP device. Then, a few hours after the next injection, it quiets again.That experience changes how you see patients. It changes how you see history.Looking Back at HenryBecause now, when we look back at Henry, we are not just looking at excess. We are looking at a possible disruption of the system that regulates behavior itself.There are hints of this even in his own time. A French ambassador noted that Henry’s chronic leg pain troubled him often and that he compensated by eating and drinking more. Later reconstructions suggest large meals, heavy in meat, along with substantial alcohol intake. Those numbers are estimates, not precise measurements. Even so, the pattern is clear.Something was driving th

When Beef Becomes Belief: The Carnivore PriesthoodNutrition debates rarely begin with money. Yet money almost always explains how they spread.That fact explains much of the modern carnivore movement.At first glance, the carnivore diet appears to be a radical nutritional idea: eat beef, organs, and animal fat while avoiding vegetables, grains, legumes, and most fruits. Advocates often present the idea as a return to ancestral eating. According to the story, prehistoric humans thrived on meat, and modern illness appeared only after plants and processed foods entered the menu.However, once you look past the rhetoric, another pattern appears. The carnivore movement did not grow out of decades of clinical research. Instead, it grew out of a very modern ecosystem: social media, podcasts, influencer culture, and supplement companies.And once that ecosystem forms, the incentives become clear.First, someone declares that conventional nutrition science has misled the public. Next, they present a dramatically simple solution. Afterward, they build a community around that solution. Eventually, products appear—supplements, coaching programs, special meat boxes, laboratory panels, and branded lifestyle advice.In other words, the diet becomes the marketing engine.And beef becomes the sacrament.Why Simplicity SellsExtreme diets succeed for a reason. Complexity frustrates people, while simplicity reassures them.“Eat a balanced diet rich in vegetables, whole grains, legumes, fish, and moderate meat” may represent excellent advice supported by decades of research. Unfortunately, that advice does not travel well on social media.By contrast, statements such as “plants are poison” or “fiber is unnecessary” spread rapidly. Bold claims generate engagement. Engagement produces followers. Followers create revenue streams.Consequently, the carnivore diet does not function only as a nutritional recommendation. It functions as a brand.Once someone builds that brand, they must defend it.The Prophets: The Case of the Liver KingEvery belief system eventually develops its prophets, and the carnivore world found one in a man who called himself Liver King.He appeared online with an enormous beard, an even larger physique, and a simple message: modern men had grown weak because they had abandoned the practices of their prehistoric ancestors. According to his message, people should eat raw organs, train like cavemen, reject modern foods, and adopt “ancestral living.”Conveniently, the ancestral lifestyle also included supplements he sold through his company.The marketing proved effective. The image of a muscular barbarian rejecting modern science attracted millions of followers and produced a supplement business worth tens of millions of dollars.Unfortunately, the story collapsed in 2022 when leaked emails revealed the Liver King spent more than $10,000 per month on anabolic steroids and other performance-enhancing drugs. Shortly afterward, he admitted publicly what physicians suspected from the beginning.Raw liver did not build that physique.Pharmacology did.Nevertheless, the episode illustrates the economic logic of the carnivore movement. First comes the doctrine. Then comes the identity. Finally, come the products.The Theologians: Paul SaladinoMovements rarely survive on prophets alone. They also require theologians—people who explain the doctrine with intellectual confidence.Within the carnivore community, one of the most prominent interpreters has been Paul Saladino, a physician originally trained in psychiatry who later rebranded himself as Carnivore MD.For several years, his message remained uncompromising. Plants contained toxins. Vegetables acted as chemical weapons. Humans thrived best on meat, organs, and animal fat. His book The Carnivore Code argued that modern civilization misunderstood nutrition and that health required a return to meat-centered eating.However, the human body eventually entered the conversation.After spending years on a strict carnivore diet, Saladino described several physiological problems: poor sleep, heart palpitations, muscle cramps, and hormonal changes. Consequently, the diet evolved.Fruit appeared. Honey appeared. Raw dairy appeared.Today, the diet carries a new label—an “animal-based diet.” In practice, that means meat accompanied by carbohydrates from fruit and honey.In other words, the diet rediscovered sugar.This pattern appears frequently in nutrition movements. Early stages emphasize purity and certainty. Later stages quietly reintroduce flexibility when biology refuses to cooperate.Also, Paul is partners with Liver King.The Economic EngineThe economic component remains impossible to ignore.Carnivore influencers rarely restrict themselves to books and podcasts. Instead, they build supplement companies that sell freeze-dried organs, nutrient capsules, and other “ancestral” products. The marketing narrative follows a familiar path.Modern food supposedly lacks essential nutrients.Ancient diets suppose

The Minnesota Starvation Experiment: What Hunger Does to the Human MindEvery few years, someone announces the solution to weight loss.Eat less.Fast longer.Cut carbs.Cut fat.Cut something.Naturally, the advice usually comes with a tone of moral certainty. If you are hungry, the implication goes, you simply lack discipline.However, long before social media, diet influencers, and the phrase food noise entered the modern vocabulary, scientists ran an extraordinary experiment that revealed something profound about hunger.Rather than speculate about appetite, they studied it directly.In the middle of World War II, researchers deliberately starved healthy young men.The results changed how we understand hunger forever.Why the Experiment HappenedDuring World War II, much of Europe faced severe food shortages. Cities were bombed, farms disrupted, and supply chains shattered. Consequently, millions of civilians were suffering from malnutrition and starvation.Yet another problem quickly emerged. Refeeding starving populations turned out to be complicated. If nourishment returned too quickly, dangerous metabolic complications could occur. Doctors needed to understand not only starvation but also recovery from starvation.Therefore, the U.S. government supported research designed to answer a simple but critical question:What happens to the human body and mind when calories are severely restricted for long periods?The scientist leading that effort was Dr. Ancel Keys at the University of Minnesota.Today, Keys is often remembered for his later work on diet and heart disease. Nevertheless, his wartime research produced one of the most remarkable studies ever conducted in nutrition science.The results were eventually published in a monumental two-volume work titled:“The Biology of Human Starvation.”This massive text, published in 1950, remains one of the most detailed examinations of hunger ever written.KEYS, ANCEL, JOSEF BROŽEK, AUSTIN HENSCHEL, OLAF MICKELSEN, HENRY LONGSTREET TAYLOR, Ernst Simonson, Angie Sturgeon Skinner, et al. The Biology of Human Starvation: Volume I. University of Minnesota Press, 1950. https://doi.org/10.5749/j.ctv9b2tqv.The VolunteersTo conduct the study, Keys recruited 36 conscientious objectors.These men had refused military service during World War II for moral or religious reasons. Nonetheless, they still wanted to contribute to the war effort. Participating in this experiment became their way of helping.Importantly, the volunteers were healthy young men. They had normal body weight, good physical fitness, and no significant psychological problems. In other words, they were ideal research subjects.Furthermore, they understood the risks.They would experience months of severe caloric restriction.Even more remarkable, the experiment took place beneath the University of Minnesota football stadium, turning an athletic facility into one of the most important laboratories in nutrition history.The Structure of the ExperimentThe study unfolded in three distinct phases.First came the baseline period. For several months, the men ate normally, consuming approximately 3,200 calories per day. Researchers measured body weight, metabolism, and psychological health to establish a stable starting point.Next came the central part of the experiment: six months of semi-starvation.During this period, calorie intake dropped to roughly 1,500 calories per day. That number may sound familiar because many modern diet programs recommend similar intake levels.The food itself resembled wartime rations. Participants ate simple meals consisting primarily of potatoes, bread, macaroni, turnips, and small amounts of dairy.Although the men remained physically active, their energy intake was cut in half.Finally, the experiment concluded with a refeeding phase designed to observe how the body recovers after prolonged starvation.The Unexpected Psychological EffectsResearchers expected weight loss.What surprised them was the dramatic change in the men’s relationship with food.Gradually, the volunteers became completely preoccupied with eating.First, they began collecting recipes. Soon afterward, they spent hours reading cookbooks.Remember that this was long before television cooking shows or the Food Network. Nevertheless, these men read cookbooks the way other people read novels.Additionally, food became the center of conversation. Participants talked about meals constantly. They debated cooking techniques and discussed ingredients in remarkable detail.Meanwhile, eating itself changed dramatically.Many men developed elaborate food rituals. Some cut meals into tiny pieces to make them last longer. Others chewed gum continuously to quiet hunger. Still others drank large amounts of water or coffee simply to fill their stomachs.Eventually, several participants reported dreaming about food every night.At that point, hunger had completely dominated their mental landscape.When Hunger Changes PersonalityAlongside this intense food focus came

Meanwhile, in a LaboratoryIn 1990, researchers isolated a peptide from Gila monster venom. Two years later, work from the Bronx VA Medical Center described exendin-4, a molecule that resembled human GLP-1 but lasted far longer in circulation.Human GLP-1 survives only minutes before the body breaks it down. Exendin-4 resisted that breakdown. That difference changed everything.Soon afterward, the first GLP-1 receptor agonist reached patients under the brand name Byetta. At the time, physicians used it to treat diabetes. No one called it a weight-loss drug. No one predicted it would reshape obesity medicine.And yet, the foundation was already in place.While I Was OperatingAt the Phoenix Indian Medical Center, I performed weight loss surgery in a population with some of the highest rates of type 2 diabetes in the world. Researchers there studied metabolism intensely. The “thrifty gene” hypothesis gained traction in that environment. Scientists asked whether efficient energy storage, once protective in scarcity, became harmful in abundance.At the same time, I watched something remarkable in the operating room. After gastric bypass, patients’ blood sugars often improved within days, before meaningful weight loss occurred. Hormones were shifting. Physiology was driving outcomes.Meanwhile, GLP-1 drugs evolved.Researchers lengthened their half-lives. Chemists modified their structures so they bound albumin and stayed active for days rather than minutes. Clinical trials expanded. Safety data accumulated.Eventually, semaglutide showed average weight loss approaching fifteen percent of body weight in obesity trials. Then tirzepatide, now marketed as Zepbound for obesity, exceeded 20 percent weight reduction in higher-dose studies. In addition, cardiovascular outcome trials demonstrated reductions in major adverse cardiac events in high-risk patients.These were not cosmetic results. These were metabolic and cardiovascular outcomes.Food NoisePatients rarely talk about receptors. They talk about noise.Food noise.The constant internal dialogue about eating. The mental pull toward the pantry. The background chatter that never quite stops.GLP-1 receptors exist in appetite-regulating areas of the brain, including the hypothalamus and brainstem. These medications act through vagal signaling and through regions where the blood-brain barrier is more permissive. As a result, they modulate satiety and reward pathways.Consequently, many patients report something simple but profound: the noise quiets.Not disappears. Quiet.That distinction matters.Diet Culture PushbackPredictably, not everyone celebrates this shift.Diet culture thrives on the belief that weight reflects character. Some coaches insist the solution is fewer calories. Others argue for more beef, more butter, more fiber, or stricter discipline. Entire industries depend on the idea that trying harder solves everything.However, biology does not negotiate with virtue.Obesity is a chronic, relapsing, neurohormonal disease. No one worked harder at weight loss than many of my surgical patients. Likewise, I do not lack willpower. And I practice culinary medicine. Preaching and eating a Mediterranean diet.Nevertheless, effort alone does not silence dysregulated signaling.Calling GLP-1 therapy “cheating” misunderstands the science. These medications restore signaling. They amplify satiety. They reduce excess reward drive. They support physiology.That is treatment, not moral compromise.My Parallel UniverseWhen I began my career, I weighed about 185 pounds. Years later, hospital cafeterias, exhaustion, and irregular meals pushed me to 225. I understood obesity clinically. Then I understood it personally.In one version of my career, revision surgery remains the answer for weight regain. In this version, I reached for GLP-1 therapy instead.Today, I weigh what I weighed when Nixon was president.I am both surgeon and patient.And your reporter.A Necessary CautionGLP-1 medications carry risks as well as benefits. Nausea can occur. Gastric emptying slows. Gallbladder disease risk may increase, although obesity itself already raises that risk substantially. Physicians must monitor dosing carefully.Therefore, if you consider GLP-1 therapy, work with a trained physician who understands obesity medicine. Avoid quick online scripts. Seek supervision. Demand follow-up.Metabolic medicine deserves serious care.The Desert Was the BeginningI once thought Phoenix was punishment. The heat felt relentless. Even Satan might choose a cooler vacation. Only Canadians brave July—and who can blame them?However, what felt like exile turned out to be preparation.In that same desert, I learned surgery. Researchers debated the thrifty gene. A venomous lizard carried a peptide that would become the basis of modern metabolic therapy.I thought I had been sent to hell. But I found beauty in the desert, and by the time I left Arizona, I missed it terribly.Little did I know I was sent to the future in Arizona.

Protein Panic: How Much Do You Really Need?Everywhere you look, protein has become a competition.Scroll long enough and you will believe muscle disappears if you eat less than 150 grams a day. Meanwhile, influencers debate leucine thresholds like they’re trading baseball cards. As a result, ordinary meals now feel like math problems.However, biology does not require panic.Protein matters. Yet adequacy differs from excess. And importantly, most people eating real food already meet their needs.So let’s slow down.First, What Protein Actually DoesProtein builds and repairs tissue. In addition, amino acids support immune function and hormone signaling. Furthermore, specific amino acids such as leucine trigger muscle protein synthesis.Nevertheless, once you reach the effective leucine threshold in a meal, adding more protein does not multiply muscle growth. Instead, your body oxidizes the excess.Therefore, more does not always mean better.How Much Is Enough?For most healthy adults, about 0.8 grams per kilogram of body weight covers basic needs. Meanwhile, adults over 60 often benefit from 1.0 to 1.2 grams per kilogram to protect lean mass.Notably, that recommendation does not require heroic intake. In fact, a 75–80 kilogram adult typically lands between 60 and 90 grams per day.Consequently, many people hit those numbers without even trying.Here’s What I Actually DoI do not count protein. I never log grams. Moreover, I do not calculate leucine before breakfast.Instead, I eat normal meals.Most mornings, I have a shake. The recipe lives on terrysimpson.com. That shake provides roughly 25 grams of protein. Sometimes I add PB Fit. Occasionally, I include Greek yogurt. As a result, I increase protein slightly without thinking about it.Later, I eat three to five ounces of chicken breast with Louisiana hot sauce. That adds another 25 grams.Then at dinner, I often choose salmon and chickpeas. Together, they bring me to roughly 70–80 grams for the day.Importantly, I have lost 50 pounds and preserved muscle mass. I track muscle periodically. I see no decline.So what about leucine?High-quality animal protein contains about 8–10% leucine. Therefore, a 25-gram protein meal delivers about 2 grams of leucine. That amount typically triggers muscle protein synthesis.Thus, I hit the effective threshold at each meal without obsessing.Now Let’s Bring In GLP-1GLP-1 medications reduce appetite. Consequently, total intake drops. Because of that, protein intake can fall too.So yes, people using GLP-1 should pay attention. However, they do not need 180 grams per day. Instead, they need adequacy and resistance training.Lift something heavy. Spread protein across meals. Preserve lean mass.Simple.Here’s the Real DeficiencyProtein deficiency remains rare in the United States. By contrast, fiber deficiency remains common.According to the National Institutes of Health, most adults fail to meet recommended fiber intake levels. In fact, average intake falls far below the 25–38 grams per day recommended for adults.(Reference: NIH Office of Dietary Supplements – Fiber Fact Sheet)Meanwhile, high-protein diets often crowd out legumes, whole grains, and vegetables.So while people panic about protein, they quietly neglect fiber.And fiber feeds the microbiome. Fiber improves glycemic control. Fiber lowers LDL cholesterol.Protein builds muscle. Fiber protects metabolism.Both matter.Mediterranean Patterns Keep It BalancedMediterranean-style eating provides protein from fish, legumes, yogurt, and moderate poultry. At the same time, it supplies fiber from beans, vegetables, and whole grains.Therefore, protein arrives packaged with micronutrients and fermentable substrate.Unlike protein powders and bars, real food supports multiple systems at once.Consequently, longevity patterns emphasize diversity, not maximal single-nutrient intake.The TakeawayAdequate protein preserves muscle. Resistance training drives adaptation. Fiber protects metabolic health.So before you triple-scoop whey, pause.Ask yourself whether you lack protein — or whether you lack plants.Because protein matters.Panic does not.And once again, data beats dogma.

Why Traditional Mexican Food Is Healthy — and How America Got It WrongEvery time someone says Mexican food is unhealthy, I know exactly what they’re picturing.They aren’t picturing Mexico.They’re picturing an American taco: a hard shell or a fluffy white flour tortilla, fatty hamburger, sour cream, a thin smear of salsa that contributes almost nothing except salt, and a yellow substance legally allowed to be called cheese.After eating that, they naturally conclude Mexican food is the problem.That conclusion doesn’t come from biology. It comes from branding.Traditional Mexican food looks nothing like that. More importantly, it behaves nothing like that once it hits your body.So let’s slow down, take a breath, and do what we always do here—follow the evidence, not the vibes.First, Let’s Talk About the Taco America Put on TrialThe American taco stacks the deck against itself.It leads with saturated fat, piles on refined carbohydrates, and adds dairy on top of dairy. Meanwhile, it offers almost no fermentable fiber. The gut gets nothing to work with. Blood sugar spikes. Inflammation follows.That taco doesn’t help anyone.But here’s the key point: it isn’t Mexican food.It’s ultra-processed American convenience food wearing cultural drag.Now Let’s Look at a Real TacoBy contrast, a traditional taco starts very differently.It starts with a corn tortilla, not refined flour. Then it adds beans. After that, it layers vegetables, real salsa, and often cabbage. Finally, it finishes with avocado. Sometimes it includes fish. Sometimes it doesn’t. Either way, the structure holds.And structure matters.Because when you look at how that meal behaves biologically, it stops looking indulgent and starts looking smart.Corn Tortillas Aren’t the Villain — They’re the FoundationFirst of all, traditional corn tortillas come from nixtamalized corn. That process treats corn with lime, and no, that isn’t trivia.Instead, nixtamalization improves mineral absorption, improves protein quality, and preserves resistant starch.As a result, resistant starch passes through the small intestine untouched. Then it reaches the colon, where gut bacteria ferment it. Consequently, those bacteria produce short-chain fatty acids, especially butyrate.And here’s the important part: butyrate fuels the cells lining your colon. In addition it strengthens the gut barrier. It reduces inflammation. Finally, it improves metabolic signaling.So no, this isn’t a carb disaster. On the contrary, it’s colon nutrition.Beans Do the Heavy Lifting — And They Always HaveNext, add beans.At that point, the conversation usually derails, so let’s keep it grounded.A serving of beans delivers roughly ten grams of fiber. Not one kind — several kinds. Soluble fiber. Insoluble fiber. Resistant starch. Plus protein.Because of that, beans slow digestion. They flatten glucose curves. They improve satiety. Most importantly, they feed gut bacteria that matter.Specifically, bean fiber supports Akkermansia, a gut bacterium associated with better insulin sensitivity and a stronger gut barrier.In other words, beans don’t fill space. Instead, they build infrastructure.And yes, when you pair beans with rice, you get a complete amino acid profile. Humans figured that out centuries ago, long before protein powders and “ancestral” snack companies tried to monetize it.Now Let’s Deal With Refried Beans — Because This Is Where People PanicAt this point, someone inevitably says, “But what about refried beans?”So let’s clear that up.First, frijoles refritos does not mean “fried twice.” It means well-fried or thoroughly cooked. Traditionally, people cooked beans, then lightly cooked them again, often mashing them for texture.So yes — refried beans are traditional. Very traditional.Moreover, mashing beans does not remove fiber. Cooking beans does not turn them into sugar. Beans remain beans.So where did refried beans go wrong?Fat choice.Historically, many refried beans used lard. That made sense when calories were scarce and undernutrition threatened survival. However, in a modern context, large amounts of lard mean large amounts of saturated fat.Therefore, when refried beans swim in lard, then get buried under cheese, then land inside a refined flour tortilla, the problem isn’t the beans. The problem is the fat context.Fortunately, this problem has an easy fix.Use olive oil or another unsaturated fat. Add onions and garlic. Mash lightly, not into paste. Suddenly, refried beans snap right back into a Mediterranean-style pattern.And yes — some commercially available refried beans already do this. Look for short ingredient lists. Look for beans, oil, onion, garlic, salt. Skip the lard. Skip the mystery fats. Your gut will notice.Avocado Doesn’t Add Calories — It Unlocks NutritionThen comes avocado, which people love to blame for reasons that make no biological sense.Avocado provides about five grams of fiber and a meaningful amount of monounsaturated fat — the same fat family as olive oil.More importantly,

Why Fiber Fails to Impress—and Why That’s the PointFiber has a public relations problem. Unlike supplements or extreme diets, fiber does not promise instant transformation. Instead, it works slowly, predictably, and quietly. Because of that, people rarely notice it when it’s doing its job well. However, that very boredom is precisely why fiber matters.When fiber intake is adequate, digestion functions normally, blood sugar behaves more consistently, and bowel habits stay predictable. As a result, there is no drama to post on social media. Consequently, influencers move on. Meanwhile, the science stays exactly where it has been for decades: fiber lowers disease risk over time.That kind of quiet effectiveness may not sell products, but it saves lives.“Fiber Isn’t Essential”—Why That Argument Misses the MarkTechnically speaking, fiber is not an essential nutrient in the classic sense. In other words, there is no disease caused solely by a lack of fiber the way scurvy results from vitamin C deficiency. Because of this, critics often stop the conversation there.However, medicine does not ask only whether you survive. Instead, it asks whether your risk of chronic disease rises or falls over time. On that front, fiber consistently lowers the risk of colon cancer, improves glucose regulation, reduces constipation, and supports cardiovascular health. Therefore, while you can live without fiber, you do not age particularly well without it.Protein Gets the Spotlight While Fiber Does the WorkAt the same time, nutrition conversations fixate on protein. Protein goals dominate podcasts, social media, and supplement aisles. Yet, in practice, true protein deficiency in the United States is rare, even among bariatric surgery patients.In contrast, fiber deficiency is the norm. Roughly 92% of Americans fail to meet recommended fiber intake. As a result, constipation becomes common, long bathroom visits feel normal, and scrolling on a phone in the bathroom gets rebranded as “self-care.” Unfortunately, that normalization hides a real problem.A Personal Lesson From Oats, Gas, and a Scorched DeskYears ago, I learned a fiber lesson the hard way. After deciding to increase my fiber intake quickly, I started eating steel-cut oats every morning during a busy meeting week. At first, everything seemed fine. Soon, however, my digestive system made it clear that it had not been consulted in this decision.By the second day, bloating appeared. By the third day, office etiquette became questionable. Consequently, I lit a candle at my desk. Unfortunately, I turned my back, and papers caught fire. Although the flames were extinguished quickly, the scorch mark stayed for years.That stain served as a reminder: fiber works best when introduced gradually. Your gut adapts over time. Confidence without patience, on the other hand, leads to unnecessary consequences.Not All Fiber Works the Same WayUnderstanding fiber helps people stop fearing it. Soluble fiber, found in oats, barley, beans, lentils, psyllium, apples, and citrus, forms a gel in the gut. Because of this, it slows absorption, reduces glucose spikes, and lowers LDL cholesterol. Consequently, psyllium appears in clinical guidelines rather than influencer protocols.Meanwhile, insoluble fiber focuses on mechanics. It adds bulk, speeds transit, and improves regularity. Importantly, this matters even more for people using GLP-1 medications, where slowed digestion often leads to constipation. In that setting, fiber is not optional—it is foundational.Finally, fermentable fiber feeds gut bacteria. Beans, onions, garlic, asparagus, chicory root, and resistant starch nourish beneficial microbes. As these bacteria grow, they produce short-chain fatty acids, especially butyrate, which supports gut barrier function and immune regulation.No, Butter Is Not a Shortcut to ButyrateDespite what circulates online, butter does not meaningfully deliver butyrate to your colon. Although butter contains trace amounts of butyric acid, that fat is absorbed in the small intestine long before it reaches the colon. In contrast, the butyrate that protects colon health is produced by bacteria fermenting fiber directly in the colon.Therefore, if butter were an effective therapy, gastroenterologists would prescribe croissants. They do not.Supplements Help—but Food Still WinsFiber supplements can be useful. Psyllium and methylcellulose typically provide four to five grams of fiber, which helps people start. However, that amount represents only about ten percent of a reasonable daily target.Personally, I use Loam, which provides around twelve grams of mixed fiber in a smoothie. Nevertheless, supplements act as bridges, not destinations. Ultimately, food does the heavy lifting.IBS, FODMAPs, and Why We Avoid Diet CosplaySome people with IBS feel worse when fermentable fiber increases too quickly. Because fermentation produces gas, symptoms can flare initially. For that reason, clinicians use FODMAPs as a temporary elimination

Food Noise Isn’t Hunger — and Why Broccoli Never Fixed the BrainFood noise does not announce itself politely. Instead, it hums in the background, persistent and exhausting. For years, patients tried to describe it. Meanwhile, medicine largely ignored it. Recently, however, GLP-1 receptor agonists forced the conversation into the open.I did not understand food noise myself until it stopped.About twelve hours after my first GLP-1 injection, I stood in my kitchen waiting for baked salmon to finish cooking. Nothing dramatic happened. No emotional moment followed. Still, something felt different. The internal commentary was gone. The negotiations disappeared. For the first time, my brain felt quiet.At that moment, I finally understood what patients had been telling me for years. First, Define the Problem ClearlyFood noise is not hunger. Hunger serves a biological purpose. In contrast, food noise describes persistent, intrusive thoughts about food that occur regardless of energy needs. People experience rumination, preoccupation, cravings, and mental fatigue—even when they are physiologically full.Importantly, this phenomenon is now measurable. The Food Noise Questionnaire validates what patients already knew. Specifically, it assesses the frequency of food thoughts, difficulty controlling them, interference with daily activities, emotional distress, and craving intensity. In other words, food noise exists independently of willpower.Consequently, advice that targets hunger alone inevitably fails. Next, Address the Broccoli MythI eat vegetables. Nevertheless, I have never liked broccoli.Frankly, if broccoli is air-fried to the edge of carbonization, I will tolerate it. That concession, however, does not transform broccoli into a neurological intervention. Fiber increases fullness. Protein improves satiety. Vegetables slow digestion. None of those actions quiet the reward centers of the brain.Put simply, broccoli fills the stomach. Food noise lives elsewhere.Because of that distinction, the “just eat for satiety” argument collapses under scrutiny. Then, Follow the Science Where It LeadsFood noise arises from heightened food-cue reactivity. Visual cues, smells, availability, and anticipation activate reward pathways long before food reaches the stomach. Ultra-processed foods amplify this response. Their engineered combinations of refined carbohydrates, fats, salt, and flavor compounds reliably stimulate the mesolimbic dopamine system.As a result, ultra-processed foods increase wanting rather than liking.However—and this matters deeply—removing ultra-processed foods does not automatically restore normal appetite signaling. Once reward circuitry becomes dysregulated, dietary virtue alone cannot reset it. At that stage, telling someone to “just eat whole foods” resembles telling someone with tinnitus to “enjoy the silence.”Therefore, ultra-processed foods contribute to the problem, but they do not explain it entirely. Now, Enter GLP-1 Receptor AgonistsGLP-1 receptor agonists act centrally and peripherally. While many people fixate on gastric emptying, the central mechanisms explain the lived experience.In the hypothalamus, GLP-1 receptor agonists activate satiety-promoting POMC/CART neurons while inhibiting hunger-promoting NPY/AgRP neurons. This dual action reduces homeostatic hunger. Meanwhile, in the brainstem—particularly the nucleus tractus solitarius—GLP-1 signaling integrates gut-brain communication and sustains appetite suppression.More importantly, GLP-1 receptor agonists modulate reward circuitry. In regions such as the ventral tegmental area and nucleus accumbens, these agents dampen dopamine signaling. Consequently, food becomes less compelling rather than forbidden.Functional imaging studies confirm this effect. After GLP-1 treatment, brain responses to food cues decrease in the insula, amygdala, orbitofrontal cortex, and related regions. The brain still recognizes food. It simply stops obsessing.As a Result, Behavior Changes Without ForceOnce food noise quiets, people do not suddenly become disciplined saints. Instead, they become selective.In my own case, wine lost its appeal. I did not swear it off. I simply stopped wanting it. Eventually, I quit five wine clubs. When a glass tastes mediocre, I put it down and choose iced tea. That behavior reflects altered reward signaling, not moral growth.Similarly, food choices shift without struggle. People stop eating things merely because they are available. They stop drinking because something is poured. The absence of compulsion creates space for intentional eating.That distinction explains why GLP-1 therapy feels different from appetite suppression.Finally, Place Diet Back Where It BelongsThe Mediterranean diet improves health. I recommend it. I eat it. Still, it does not cure food noise.Diet supports metabolic health once interference disappears. GLP-1 therapy removes that interference. Together, they work better than either alone. Pretending otherwise leads

Whole Milk Is Back in SchoolsBut Hungry Kids Are Still the Real ProblemWhole milk is back in school cafeterias.As a result, a lot of people are celebrating. Some are calling it a victory for nutrition. Others are calling it common sense. Meanwhile, a few are even calling it a breakthrough.However, that excitement misses the point.Because the biggest problem facing kids in school today is not milk fat.Instead, the real problem is hunger.First, Let’s Start With the ObviousBefore we talk about milk, fat, or nutrients, we need to start with something very basic.Hungry kids do not learn well.In fact, hunger affects attention, memory, and behavior. As a result, students who do not eat enough struggle to focus. Over time, that struggle shows up as lower academic performance.Because of that, no change to milk will ever fix an empty stomach.Therefore, if we want better outcomes, we have to start with food access.Next, What Actually Changed With MilkDespite what many people believe, whole milk was not removed from schools in the past.Instead, schools continued to offer low-fat and fat-free milk.Importantly, those options provided the same essential nutrients:proteincalciumpotassiumiodinevitamin B12In addition, vitamin D was added through fortification, regardless of milk fat level.So, children did not lose vital nutrients.What they lost was milk fat.Now, Why Milk Fat Is Not EssentialMilk fat is made mostly of saturated fat.That matters because saturated fat is not an essential dietary nutrient.If the human body needs saturated fat, it can make it on its own. In other words, there is no requirement to eat it for normal growth or brain development.As a result, adding more saturated fat to a child’s diet is not necessary.Then, Let’s Talk About the BrainHere is where biology matters.The brain is built largely from polyunsaturated fats, not saturated fats.These polyunsaturated fats keep cell membranes flexible. Because of that flexibility, brain cells can signal, adapt, and learn.In contrast, saturated fat is rigid. It plays only a small structural role in membranes. If membranes contained too much saturated fat, they would become stiff. When that happens, signaling does not work well.For that reason, biology uses saturated fat sparingly.Therefore, less saturated fat in the diet of growing children is actually better for long-term brain and cardiovascular health.Meanwhile, What Kids Are Really MissingIf there is one nutrient that most children lack, it is fiber.Fiber supports gut health. In addition, it improves insulin sensitivity. Over time, it also reduces cardiovascular risk.Milk fat does none of those things.So, if nutrition is the concern, fiber deserves more attention than nostalgia for saturated fat.At the Same Time, Food Access Is ShrinkingWhile milk is being discussed, something else is happening quietly.Food assistance programs are being reduced.That matters because programs like SNAP do more than help families buy groceries. They also help children qualify for free school meals.When eligibility is reduced, fewer children qualify. As a result, schools receive less funding for lunch programs. Consequently, some schools serve fewer meals. In certain communities, programs disappear entirely.Therefore, the outcome is simple: fewer kids eat at school.In Contrast, Feeding Kids Actually WorksSome states have shown a different approach.When children receive meals consistently, attendance improves. At the same time, concentration improves. Over the long term, educational outcomes improve as well.This result has been seen repeatedly.Because of that, feeding kids is not charity. Instead, it is an investment in education, health, and future productivity.So, Let’s Put This TogetherWhole milk is fine.If families enjoy it, they can drink it. If schools offer it, that is acceptable.However, whole milk is not an innovation.Feeding children is.Ultimately, school meals should not be treated as a budget line to debate each year. Instead, they should be treated as part of what a functioning society does for its kids.One Reference on Brain Fat and Cell MembranesFor readers who want the science behind membrane fats and brain function, this review explains it clearly:Stillwell W, Wassall SR.Docosahexaenoic acid: membrane properties of a unique fatty acid.Chemistry and Physics of Lipids. 2003;126(1):1–27.This paper explains why polyunsaturated fats keep membranes flexible and why saturated fats play only limited roles.

When Influencers Replace Scientists, Everyone LosesEvery few years, nutrition gets a makeover.First comes a new graphic.Then comes a new slogan.Soon after, we hear claims that this time, someone finally figured it all out.Recently, that makeover arrived in the form of a “reverse food pyramid” and the cheerful phrase “Eat Real Food.” On the surface, that message sounds reasonable. In fact, many doctors have said the same thing for decades.However, the real problem isn’t the slogan.Instead, the problem lies in who is now shaping nutrition advice—and who is not.Yes, Some of the Advice Is RightTo be clear, let’s start with agreement.Eating real food helps health.Limiting added sugar makes sense.Reducing ultra-processed foods improves outcomes.Importantly, none of this is new.Doctors, dietitians, and public-health researchers have said these things for years. Because of that, when influencers now say, “See, we were right,” a serious issue appears.They didn’t discover this information.They copied it.The Real Risk Isn’t AgreementAt first glance, agreement sounds harmless.Nevertheless, agreement becomes dangerous when it turns into ownership.Once someone believes they have discovered basic nutrition truths, they often assume they can rewrite everything else. As a result, bad ideas slip in quietly, wrapped in confidence instead of evidence.That shift matters.Scientists and Influencers Are Not InterchangeableAt this point, we need to say something clearly.We cannot afford to replace scientists with influencers.Nutrition science didn’t come from podcasts or social media. Instead, it came from metabolic ward studies, long-term population research, and randomized trials. Moreover, real scientists accept uncertainty. They change their minds when the data changes.By contrast, influencer culture rewards certainty.Even worse, confidence often replaces humility.There is no “Mediterranean diet influencer community.”Likewise, there is no “DASH diet movement.”Those dietary patterns exist because scientists studied them, tested them, and measured outcomes over time.On the other hand, a loud low-carb and carnivore influencer ecosystem does exist. That ecosystem includes brands, supplements, coaching programs, and a strong contrarian identity. Because of that structure, influence—not evidence—often drives the message.Fiber Versus Saturated Fat: A Telltale SignIf you want to know whether someone understands nutrition science, ask a simple question:Which matters more—fiber or saturated fat?Influencers often say, “Fiber isn’t an essential nutrient.”Technically, that statement is true in the narrowest sense.However, context matters.Fiber supports a healthy gut microbiome.Additionally, fiber improves insulin sensitivity.Furthermore, fiber lowers cardiovascular risk.Finally, fiber supports colon health.Because fiber feeds beneficial gut bacteria, entire fields of microbiome research depend on it.Now compare that with saturated fat.Saturated fat is truly non-essential.Your body can make all it needs.No deficiency disease exists from avoiding it.Even more importantly, excess saturated fat raises LDL cholesterol and worsens artery health. Over time, that increases cardiovascular risk.So ask yourself this:Why dismiss fiber as optional while quietly promoting saturated fat?That choice reflects ideology, not biology.The Brain Doesn’t Care About TrendsHere’s another reality check.Your brain—the most important organ you own—relies heavily on polyunsaturated fats. These fats support cell membranes, nerve signaling, and blood flow.Ironically, these same fats often get labeled “seed oils” and dismissed.Meanwhile, saturated fat does not belong in high amounts in brain tissue. Worse still, saturated fat can clog the arteries that supply the brain.Biology does not respond to marketing.Physiology does not care about popularity.The “You’re On Your Own” ProblemAnother issue deserves attention.After influencers step into the spotlight and claim credit for old science, they often step away from responsibility. Then they tell the public to “figure it out.”That approach ignores reality.Many Americans live in food deserts.Even more rely on school meals.Lots of Americans work multiple jobs.Many lack time, money, or kitchens.Public health exists because willpower alone does not scale. Without system-level support, advice turns into abandonment.Agreement Does Not Equal ExpertiseRecently, debates around nutrition have highlighted this pattern clearly.Some influencers argue that because they agree with basic nutrition advice, they deserve authority over the rest of the science. Unfortunately, agreement does not grant expertise.Copying conclusions does not mean you earned them.Science rewards method, not confidence.The Bottom LineYes, eat real food.And clearly, limit added sugar.Most definitely, reduce ultra-processed foods.Doctors have said this for years.However, flipping a pyramid does not change biology.Likewise, sidelining scientists does not improve health.F

Ultra-Processed Food: Making Sense of the MadnessUltra-processed food has become the villain of modern nutrition.Scroll through social media, and you’ll hear that it’s poisoning us, wrecking our gut, and driving the obesity epidemic all by itself.At the same time, other voices dismiss the entire idea as fear-mongering.According to them, processing doesn’t matter at all.Neither extreme tells the full story.So instead of slogans, let’s talk about what ultra-processed food actually means, why people want to blame it, where the science is strong, and where it starts to drift into storytelling.Why We’re Looking for Something to BlameThe obesity epidemic is real.Rates have climbed for decades, and people understandably want answers.Human biology didn’t suddenly change in the 1980s.Willpower didn’t vanish overnight.Something in our environment shifted.Food is an obvious suspect.Because food changed, many people assume there must be a single culprit hiding in the ingredient list.That belief leads to bold claims.Some say Europe bans certain additives and therefore avoids obesity.In reality, obesity rates continue to rise across Europe as well.Others argue that specific ingredients damage the gut, letting in more calories or triggering metabolic chaos.Those ideas sound scientific, especially when they involve complex biology.However, when a problem is large and complicated, humans naturally want a cause that feels simple and controllable.Blaming one ingredient feels easier than confronting patterns of eating, stress, time pressure, and convenience.Biology, unfortunately, rarely offers cinematic villains.What “Ultra-Processed” Actually MeansTo understand the debate, definitions matter.Researchers use the NOVA classification system to describe food processing.NOVA does not rate healthfulness.Instead, it categorizes food by how manufacturers produce it.The system includes four groups.First come whole or minimally processed foods, such as vegetables, beans, eggs, and fish.Next are culinary ingredients like oil, sugar, salt, and flour.Then come processed foods, including bread, cheese, yogurt, and canned vegetables.Finally, NOVA defines ultra-processed foods as industrial formulations.These products often combine refined ingredients with additives, stabilizers, emulsifiers, and flavor systems that home cooks rarely use.Here’s the crucial point.Ultra-processed food is defined by how it is made, not by what it does in the body.That distinction often gets lost.As a result, soda and whole-grain bread can fall into the same category, even though they behave very differently nutritionally.Why Ingredient Blame Falls ShortAt this point, many discussions take a wrong turn.Instead of asking how people eat, the conversation focuses on what to ban.Ingredients become the enemy.Yet most claims about additives rely on animal studies using doses far higher than what humans consume.Human data remains limited and inconsistent.Meanwhile, the bigger picture often gets ignored.Ultra-processed food correlates with stress, long work hours, poor sleep, and limited time for cooking.Those factors influence eating behavior regardless of ingredients.When people feel rushed and overwhelmed, they don’t just eat differently.They eat faster, snack more often, and rely on foods that require little effort.That context matters.The Simple Question That Changed the ConversationInstead of chasing villains, one researcher asked a much simpler question.Do people eat more when food is ultra-processed, even when nutrition looks the same on paper?That question led to the most important experiment in this entire debate.What Kevin Hall Actually FoundAt the National Institutes of Health, Kevin Hall conducted a tightly controlled feeding study.Participants lived in a metabolic ward.Researchers controlled the environment, the meals, and the measurements.Each participant ate two diets.One diet consisted mostly of ultra-processed foods.The other relied on minimally processed foods.Importantly, researchers matched calories, protein, fat, carbohydrates, sugar, and salt.People could eat as much as they wanted.The result surprised almost everyone.On the ultra-processed diet, participants consumed about 500 extra calories per day.Yet, they didn’t report more hunger.They didn’t feel less full.However, they simply ate more.This finding matters because it avoids speculation.No ingredient theories appear here.No gut damage claims drive the conclusion.Ultra-processed food made it easier to eat more calories without noticing.Sometimes the most powerful answers are also the least dramatic.Why a Book Made This Go ViralThat study helped fuel widespread interest, including the success of Ultra-Processed People: The Science Behind Food That Isn't Food by Chris van Tulleken.Van Tulleken, a British physician, took a personal approach.He ate a diet dominated by ultra-processed foods and documented the effects.Weight gain followed.Hunger became harder to regulate.Energy and mood shifted.The

Willpower Is B.S.: Food Noise, Healthspan, and What Actually Changed My LifeFor decades, I started every New Year the same way.In January, I promised myself this would be the year.By February, I tried harder.Every spring, I adjusted the plan.And by summer or fall, the weight crept back.That cycle repeated not because I lacked knowledge, discipline, or effort. Instead, it repeated because I misunderstood biology — at least when it came to myself.This year is different.For the first time since Ronald Reagan was first elected, weight loss is not at the top of my New Year’s resolution list. Not because I stopped caring, but because I lost 45 pounds with the help of Zepbound over the last year. More importantly, however, I learned something that reshaped how I think about obesity, healthspan, and shame.Before anything else, let me be clear: this is not medical advice. This is a story. Anecdotes are not evidence, even when the anecdote is from a physician. Nevertheless, stories help us understand science when data alone fails to move us.And this story matters.I Had Willpower. That Wasn’t the Problem.For years, people told me — and millions of others — the same thing: move more and eat less. At first glance, that advice sounds logical. After all, calories matter. Energy balance matters.However, reality is more complicated.To begin with, I am a surgeon. Surgical training requires extraordinary willpower. Moreover, I’ve logged food meticulously, cooked Mediterranean-style meals, exercised consistently, and followed every evidence-based recommendation I’ve ever given patients.Meanwhile, Oprah has willpower. Olympic athletes have willpower. Yet obesity persists.Sure, willpower works briefly. In fact, go on a liquid protein diet, and the weight will fall off quickly. Unfortunately, the food noise remains. Eventually, biology wins. Always.In the same way you cannot positive-think your way out of hypertension, cholesterol, diabetes, cancer, or heart disease, you cannot willpower your way out of obesity. Obesity is a disease. It is not a moral failure.Ironically, I knew this intellectually. Nevertheless, I failed to apply it to myself. We have a name for that: cognitive dissonance.Food Noise Was the Missing ConceptThe real turning point did not come from reading another study. Instead, it came from listening to people I trusted.One colleague quietly lost weight on a GLP-1. Another friend told me something more striking: the food noise stopped. Alcohol lost its appeal. Smoking no longer called.That phrase — food noise — suddenly explained decades of struggle.To illustrate, think of sleeping near Lake Shore Drive in Chicago. At first, traffic noise dominates your awareness. Eventually, it fades into the background. Only when you leave the city do you realize how loud it was.Food noise works the same way.When GLP-1 therapy quieted that background signal, eating slowed naturally. Meals ended without effort. Desire changed without rules. Biology shifted.Notably, calories did not lower my stress. Calories did not improve my sleep. Calories did not stop snoring. Biology did.The Unexpected Early BenefitsInterestingly, weight loss was not the first change I noticed.Sleep improved almost immediately. Stress dropped dramatically. Commutes that once registered hours of physiologic stress now barely registered minutes. Appetite normalized. Eating slowed.These changes matter because sleep and stress directly affect inflammation, metabolic health, appetite signaling, and long-term disease risk. In other words, healthspan improved before the scale reflected anything meaningful.That observation alone reframed the entire experience.Why Support Groups Matter More Than Diet RulesAlong the way, something else happened.Friends noticed.Predictably, they asked the same question everyone asks: What diet is working? After I answered honestly, several started their own journeys.Soon enough, we formed an informal support group. People texted. Others called. Questions surfaced: Is this normal? Should I eat this? Does this feeling pass?Support did not mean coaching. Rather, support meant context. Shared experience reduced anxiety. Honest conversations prevented unnecessary panic.Not surprisingly, patterns emerged. People still loved great food. Wine interest decreased naturally. Travel did not end. Joy remained intact.Support mattered because isolation amplifies shame.Vitamins, Bowels, and the Things No One MentionsEqually important, practical realities surfaced.Eating less means needing micronutrients, not fewer of them. Unfortunately, some vitamins fail when appetite drops. In fact, the only time I vomited was after taking a vitamin on an empty stomach. That lesson mirrored decades of bariatric follow-up experience.For me, AG1 worked. No sponsorship exists here. Nevertheless, cost raises questions. With a background in culinary medicine, developing a better formulation makes sense. Thiamine deficiency, for example, causes devastating neurologic cons

Is Your Watch Predicting Your Death?What Biologic Age Really Means — and What It Doesn’tMy Whoop tells me I’m eight years older than I actually am.Naturally, that raises a question.Does that mean I’m going to die eight years sooner?Is my watch quietly chiseling a new date onto my tombstone?Fortunately, the answer is no.Still, confusion around biologic age has exploded.Wearables promise insight.Apps offer scores.Some even whisper about your future health, as if destiny lives on your wrist.So let’s slow this down and talk about what biologic age really is — and why it matters far less than you think.The Two Numbers and the DashEvery tombstone has two numbers.One marks when you were born.The other marks when you died.However, the most important part isn’t either number.It’s the dash in between.That dash represents your life.It reflects your health, mobility, independence, and curiosity.When we talk about longevity, we shouldn’t obsess over the second number.Instead, we should focus on making those two numbers far apart — and keeping the dash strong for as long as possible.That’s healthspan.Why Biologic Age Sounds Scarier Than It IsBiologic age is not a prophecy.It isn’t a death clock.It doesn’t predict how long you’ll live.Instead, biologic age is a model.It estimates how your body is functioning right now based on things like:resting heart rateheart-rate variabilitysleep duration and consistencyactivity and recovery patternssometimes weight or blood pressureDifferent devices use different inputs.As a result, they often give different answers.In other words, biologic age reflects recent stress and behavior, not your destiny.Think of it as feedback — not fate.Why Your Watch Isn’t Measuring “Real” AgingEarlier in the Fork U longevity series, we talked about telomeres.Those shorten slowly over decades, one cell division at a time.Your wearable isn’t tracking that.Instead, devices like Whoop measure physiology, not DNA.They detect how hard you’ve been living lately, not how much time you have left.A bad week of sleep, travel, stress, or alcohol can push your biologic age higher.A calm, consistent routine can bring it back down.That’s not aging.That’s load management.A Simple Experiment That Tells the Whole StoryHere’s a trick I tried.I told Whoop I was younger than I actually am.Guess what happened?Suddenly, my biological age dropped below my real age.That alone tells you everything.Whoop isn’t predicting where you’re going.It’s comparing how you’re doing relative to the age you told it you are.Once again, that’s feedback — not destiny.Why I Prefer WithingsI use multiple devices because, frankly, I’m a nerd.However, I tend to prefer Withings for one simple reason.They don’t try to scare you.Instead of telling you how old you “really” are, Withings focuses on things that actually improve your life today:blood pressure trendsbody weight and compositionheart rhythmsleep durationlong-term consistencyMore importantly, they ask better questions.Are you sleeping better?Is your blood pressure improving?Are your habits trending in the right direction?That’s medicine.Not numerology.And no — Withings didn’t pay me to say that.The Biggest Mistake People MakeMany people treat biologic age like a grade.Others see it as a moral judgment.When the number drops, they feel virtuous.When it rises, they panic.That framing misses the point.The only question that matters is this:Is it moving in the right direction over time?One bad week doesn’t define you.One good week doesn’t either.Trends matter.Moments don’t.What No Device Can Tell YouNo wearable can tell you:when you’ll diewhether you’ll get cancerif you’ll have a strokehow many years you have leftAnyone claiming otherwise is selling fear — or subscriptions.Technology can guide behavior.It cannot predict destiny.New Year’s Resolutions That Actually Improve HealthspanIf you want to improve your biologic age — and more importantly, your healthspan — start here:Sleep better and more consistently.Build and maintain muscle.Move your body every day.Eat a Mediterranean-style diet.Lower stress where you can.Spend time with people you enjoy.Do those things, and most metrics improve on their own.The Bottom LineYour watch is not your destiny.Chronological age is fixed.Healthspan is not.Biologic age is adjustable, responsive, and reversible.Use it as feedback.Ignore it as prophecy.And remember — the goal isn’t to beat time.The goal is to live well while time keeps moving.ReferencesLevine ME. Modeling the rate of senescence: Can estimated biological age predict mortality more accurately than chronological age? J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2013.Belsky DW, et al. Quantification of biological aging in young adults. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2015.Blackburn EH, Epel ES, Lin J. Human telomere biology: A contributory and interactive factor in aging, disease risks, and protection. Science. 2015.WHOOP Team. Understanding Recovery, HRV, and Physiological Load.Withings Health Institute. Longitudinal tracki

GLP-1 Drugs, the Mediterranean Diet, and the Science of Living LongerFor years, anti-aging has been hijacked by supplements, hacks, and promises that never hold up. Meanwhile, real science has quietly moved forward. Today, the most compelling anti-aging story does not come from a powder, a cold plunge, or a fasting app. Instead, it comes from metabolism.A class of medications called GLP-1 receptor agonists started as diabetes drugs. Over time, clinicians discovered something bigger. These medicines now play a major role in obesity treatment, and they produce effects that reach far beyond the scale. Because obesity shortens lifespan and damages nearly every organ system, it makes sense that drugs that treat obesity could also improve healthspan—the years you live with strength, clarity, and independence.However, weight loss alone does not explain what researchers are seeing. These drugs reduce inflammation, protect the heart, lower biological stress, and may even delay cognitive decline. Importantly, many of these effects occur independent of weight loss. That fact has forced scientists to ask a serious question: could GLP-1 drugs represent a new class of anti-aging medicine?Even longevity-focused clinicians, such as Peter Attia, have publicly discussed using GLP-1 drugs at lower doses in select patients—not for weight loss, but for metabolic health and long-term disease prevention.Why Metabolism Matters for AgingAging is not just about time. Instead, it reflects how well your body regulates key systems over decades. Blood sugar control, inflammation, oxidative stress, and cellular repair all shape how fast—or how slowly—you age.GLP-1 receptor agonists influence all these pathways. Originally designed to mimic a gut hormone that signals fullness, these drugs turned out to do much more. Research shows they lower systemic inflammation, improve mitochondrial function, and reduce oxidative stress. As a result, organs function better for longer.In simple terms, when metabolism runs smoothly, cells behave younger.Retatrutide and the Next Generation of GLP-1 DrugsNewer drugs have taken this concept even further. Retatrutide, a triple-agonist medication, targets three hormonal pathways simultaneously: GLP-1, GIP, and glucagon.In Phase 3 trials, participants lost nearly 29% of their body weight, or more than 70 pounds on average. Yet weight loss only tells part of the story. Retatrutide also lowered inflammation, improved blood pressure, improved lipid profiles, and reduced joint pain.Each hormone plays a role. GLP-1 reduces appetite and inflammation. GIP improves insulin sensitivity and nutrient handling. Glucagon increases energy expenditure and fat oxidation. Together, these pathways keep metabolism active, not slowing down during weight loss.That combination does more than shrink waistlines. It restores metabolic flexibility, which declines with age.Inflammation: The Engine of AgingFor decades, scientists blamed aging on simple wear and tear. Modern research tells a different story. Chronic, low-grade inflammation—often called inflammaging—drives many diseases of aging.Heart disease, stroke, arthritis, fatty liver disease, and cognitive decline all share this inflammatory background. In clinical trials, GLP-1 drugs reduced markers such as C-reactive protein, triglycerides, and blood pressure. These changes signal reduced biological aging risk, not just better lab numbers.When inflammation falls, fewer senescent cells accumulate. Blood vessels stay healthier. Organs function longer.Heart Disease and LongevityNothing ages a person faster than a heart attack. Because of that reality, cardiovascular protection matters deeply for longevity.Multiple cardiovascular outcome trials show that GLP-1 receptor agonists reduce major adverse cardiovascular events in people with type 2 diabetes and high cardiovascular risk. Across studies, researchers observed a 13% reduction in cardiovascular death and a 9% reduction in nonfatal heart attacks compared with other treatments.¹²The LEADER trial demonstrated that liraglutide reduced cardiovascular mortality by 22%.⁶ Similar benefits appeared with semaglutide, dulaglutide, and albiglutide.²⁷ Because of this evidence, the FDA approved several GLP-1 drugs for cardiovascular risk reduction in adults with diabetes and established heart disease.⁸These benefits do not come from glucose control alone. GLP-1 drugs lower blood pressure, reduce inflammation, improve endothelial function, decrease oxidative stress, and reduce RAAS activity.³⁴ At the cellular level, they protect heart muscle cells from multiple forms of cell death while enhancing autophagy and mitophagy.⁵Although GLP-1 drugs do not strongly reduce heart failure hospitalizations, meta-analyses suggest a modest benefit.³⁷ Most importantly, they safely reduce atherosclerotic risk. Preventing a heart attack remains one of the most powerful anti-aging interventions available.Dementia: Prevention, Not CureBrain health deserves carefu

The Holiday Party That Turned DeadlyIt started at a holiday party.Laughter, champagne, a toast — then a collapse.A fifty-two-year-old, active and healthy, suddenly lost consciousness.Paramedics did CPR and shocked her heart twice.She survived — barely.Doctors called it Holiday Heart Syndrome: an alcohol-triggered arrhythmia that can kill.​What Is Holiday Heart?Holiday Heart arises after binge or even moderate drinking, especially around celebrations. Alcohol irritates heart cells, disrupts electrolytes, and scrambles electrical signals, which can trigger atrial fibrillation — an erratic rhythm that raises the risk of clots, stroke, and sudden death. Even a single heavy night can set it off, and repeated use amplifies inflammation and structural damage long after the hangover fades.​Alcohol and Your HeartFor years, the “French paradox” suggested red wine protects the heart, but newer evidence points instead to lifestyle patterns rather than wine itself. Ethanol and its metabolite acetaldehyde directly injure heart muscle, disturb calcium handling, damage mitochondria, and can lead to Alcoholic Cardiomyopathy — an enlarged, weakened heart. Harm shows up even in relatively low intake, and improvement typically requires reducing or stopping alcohol.​Alcohol and CancerAlcohol is a proven carcinogen that promotes DNA damage, inflammation, oxidative stress, and hormonal shifts that favor tumor growth. At least seven cancers — including those of the mouth, throat, larynx, esophagus, liver, colon, and breast — are directly linked to alcohol, with risk beginning above zero and rising with each additional drink. Even up to one drink a day meaningfully increases breast cancer risk, and the combined use of alcohol and tobacco multiplies risk even further.​Blue Zones, Not Blue WineYou’ve probably heard this one:People in Sardinia or Ikaria drink wine every night and live to 100.What’s missing is the math.They sip 3 to 4 ounces — not a glass, not a typical American glass, but a tasting. The flight of wine.Their rustic wines are 10–11 percent alcohol, not the 16 percent bombs from Sonoma.And they don’t live long because of the wine.They live long because of everything else:walking hills, eating beans, taking naps, sleeping well, and belonging to a community.Their wine is cultural, not clinical.If you want their healthspan, copy their diet, movement, and purpose — not the nightly pour.Weight, Metabolism, and AgingAlcohol hijacks metabolism by forcing the liver to prioritize ethanol breakdown, pushing fat and sugar processing aside. Drinks can add substantial hidden calories, promote fatty liver, and stall fat loss, even when the rest of a diet looks reasonable.​Why “Detox” Fixes FailPopular “alcohol detox” supplements promise faster clearance or hangover prevention, but research points to ethanol itself and the inflammatory response as the main drivers of symptoms. Blocking acetaldehyde alone does not prevent mitochondrial damage, immune activation, or the residual effects that follow a night of heavy drinking.​The Longevity HypocrisyModern wellness culture often warns about “toxins” while normalizing regular drinking, even framing certain spirits or wines as health tools. Yet, when viewed through a longevity lens, alcohol stands out as one of the most potent, fully optional biological stressors in the modern lifestyle.​When You StopOnce drinking stops or drops sharply, the body begins to repair: blood pressure often falls within days, heart rhythm and sleep tend to improve within weeks, and liver fat can regress over subsequent months. Over years, cancer and cardiovascular risks decline, with former light-to-moderate drinkers gradually approaching the risk profile of people who never drank or who stopped earlier in life.​Bottom LineAlcohol is deeply woven into culture and celebration, but it is neither a health food nor a longevity strategy. For anyone serious about healthspan, cutting alcohol is one of the simplest, highest-impact levers available — a change your heart, DNA, and future self are strongly likely to benefit from.​ReferencesBerger D, De Aquino J P, Charness M E, et al. Common Alcohol-Related Concerns. NIAAA (2025).Rock C L, Thomson C, Gansler T, et al. American Cancer Society Guideline for Diet and Physical Activity for Cancer Prevention. CA Cancer J Clin. 2020; 70(4): 245-271. doi:10.3322/caac.21591.Jun S, Park H, Kim UJ, Choi EJ, Lee HA, Park B, Lee SY, Jee SH, Park H. Cancer risk based on alcohol consumption levels: a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis. Epidemiol Health. 2023;45:e2023092. doi: 10.4178/epih.e2023092. Epub 2023 Oct 16. PMID: 37905315; PMCID: PMC10867516.Rumgay H, Murphy N, Ferrari P, Soerjomataram I. Alcohol and Cancer: Epidemiology and Biological Mechanisms. Nutrients. 2021; 13(9): 3173. doi:10.3390/nu13093173.Gapstur S M, Mariosa D, Neamtiu L, et al. The IARC Perspective on the Effects of Policies on Reducing Alcohol Consumption. N Engl J Med. 2025; 392(17): 1752-1759. doi:1

Muscle is Medicine: Why Lifting Weights is Your Best Longevity Investment Clearly, your body changes as you age. I learned this lesson years ago when my son was three years old. We started him skiing, and he loved every minute of it. When he fell, he tumbled onto his behind, jumped right back up, and skied down the hill like nothing had happened. He was pure rubber and resilience.However, I was 53 years his senior that year. I did an inadvertent 360-degree twirl on the slopes myself. His mother saw me and immediately asked if I had broken my wrist, wondering when I could return to surgery. The difference between a flexible young body and an older body is critical. Consequently, I retired from skiing that season and now enjoy the lodge, where I write and make them great dinners.Indeed, your older body desperately needs work to stay flexible, strong, and balanced as time goes on. I have seen too many independent seniors lose everything after a simple fall in their own home. They go from living on their own to spending their last days in a care center, sometimes never leaving bed. This outcome is not healthspan. Instead, you want a fall to be like my son’s—just on your butt and back up. Sadly, too many fall and cannot get up. This isn't a commercial for a safety pendant, but a sincere plea for you to start working your muscles.Section 1: The Enemy is Muscle Loss (Sarcopenia)Specifically, we talk frequently about heart health and clear arteries in longevity. Those things are unquestionably crucial. Nevertheless, the biggest threat to functional independence as we age is a condition called sarcopenia. This is the medical term for age-related muscle loss.Unfortunately, we start losing about 3 to 8 percent of our muscle mass every decade after age 30. That loss accelerates quickly once you hit 70. This problem is not just about looking less toned; fundamentally, it is about losing the ability to stand up from a chair, carry groceries, or, most importantly, catch yourself when you trip. The falls that result are often catastrophic.Section 2: Big Things Help Small Things—The Cellular ConnectionAmazingly, resistance training is effective at the microscopic level, too. We have talked extensively about the tiny, complex mechanisms of the cell, but here is the key takeaway: small things benefit from big things.In fact, increasing muscle mass through training has direct, positive effects on two major microscopic drivers of aging: mitochondrial function and telomere health.To elaborate, when you challenge your muscles, you signal your cells to create more energy. This signal forces your mitochondria—the cellular powerhouses—to become both more numerous and more efficient. Better mitochondrial function equals more energy and less cellular stress.Moreover, studies show that resistance training actually increases the activity of the enzyme telomerase in some cells. Telomerase helps maintain the protective caps on your DNA called telomeres.Therefore, you don’t need to buy fancy, expensive supplements like NAD or telomere boosters. Picking up a dumbbell costs less money but yields more results. You gain muscular strength, better metabolism, stronger bones, and the cellular benefits all at once.Section 3: Muscle is Your Metabolic PowerhouseLet's consider how muscle mass influences your diet. Your muscle is actually your body’s largest organ for glucose disposal. Think of it like this: when you eat, your body releases glucose (sugar) into your bloodstream. Insulin then works to escort that glucose out of your blood and into your cells for energy. The vast majority of that glucose gets parked in your muscle cells.Clearly, if you have more muscle mass, you automatically have a bigger parking lot for that glucose.Consequently, more muscle means your body gains better insulin sensitivity. It becomes more efficient at regulating blood sugar. This effect is the absolute bedrock of preventing and managing Type 2 diabetes. Ultimately, resistance training is a powerful pharmaceutical intervention for your metabolic health.Section 4: Building an Iron SkeletonHowever, the benefits don't stop at the muscles. Let's talk about bone density, which is crucial for everyone, especially women. We know calcium and Vitamin D are important, yet they are only one part of the solution.Remember that bone is living tissue; it responds to stress. When you lift a weight—even if it is just your own body weight in a squat—the mechanical force signals to your bones that they must get stronger. This process is known as the Mechanostat principle. Conversely, without that heavy, high-intensity mechanical load, bone density naturally declines, leading to osteoporosis.In conclusion, if you only do low-impact cardio, you are helping your heart, but you are not sending the signal needed to maintain or increase bone mineral density. Specifically, you must load your bones to strengthen them.Section 5: The Importance of Balance and Quality CoachingBeyond

🧬 Telomeres and Time: Can We Really Rewind Aging?The Lowest Hemoglobin I’ve Ever SeenThe lowest hemoglobin I’ve ever seen belonged to a young woman who was still standing. Her blood count was one-fourth of normal. She was pale, short of breath, and strong enough to walk into the clinic.Doctors soon learned her bone marrow had stopped making new blood cells. The diagnosis was aplastic anemia — a true telomere disease.She survived thanks to her fitness, modern science, and a bone marrow transplant from a generous donor in Germany. Two years later, she’s in law school, healthy, and full of life.What Are Telomeres?Each cell in your body carries chromosomes — long strands of DNA. At the ends of those chromosomes sit telomeres, tiny caps that keep the DNA from unraveling, like plastic tips on shoelaces.Every time a cell divides, its telomeres shorten a little. When they get too short, the cell can no longer divide. Scientists call that stage cellular senescence — cellular retirement.In 2009, researchers Elizabeth Blackburn and Carol Greider won the Nobel Prize for discovering telomerase, an enzyme that can rebuild telomeres. Their discovery sparked dreams of reversing aging. But there’s a catch: cancer cells also use telomerase to live forever. Turning that enzyme on everywhere might turn back time — or turn on tumors.Why Everyone Talks About TelomeresTelomeres became the poster child for longevity marketing.Social media ads promise to “measure your biological age.” Supplement companies claim to “lengthen your telomeres” for hundreds of dollars a bottle.The problem? Telomere tests vary between labs. Results can change by 20 percent depending on the method. They show trends, not destiny.What’s Being StudiedReal scientists are studying how telomeres behave under different conditions.Danazol — a synthetic sex hormone that slows telomere loss in people with inherited marrow failure. It works but brings side effects, so it’s not an anti-aging trick.Henagliflozin — a diabetes drug that increased telomere length in one small study. Whether that helps humans live longer is still unknown.Aripiprazole — an antipsychotic that repaired telomeres in cells after oxidative stress. That’s a Petri dish result, not a prescription for youth.These drugs show that we can nudge biology, but they’re for disease, not for vanity.Vitamins and Compounds That Might HelpNutrients influence telomere health, too.Vitamin D supports telomerase. Long-term studies show it slows telomere shortening.Vitamins C and E help reduce chemical stress that wears telomeres down.Gamma-tocotrienol, a form of vitamin E, may reverse telomere loss — so far only in lab work.TA-65, from the Astragalus plant, may activate telomerase but carries risk. Turning on telomerase could also fuel cancer.Telomir 1 is experimental and not available outside research.None of these is proven to extend life. They’re promising ingredients, not miracles in a capsule.What Lifestyle Still Beats EverythingLifestyle matters more than any supplement.A large study at UCSF showed that people who ate a Mediterranean diet, exercised, and managed stress boosted telomerase activity within months.No powder required.Telomeres respond to care. They’re markers of how you live, not the cause of how long you live.Longer telomeres don’t guarantee longer life — they reflect how your body has handled time, inflammation, and stress.What Scientists Agree OnResearch tells a simple story:Telomeres shorten as cells divide.Stress, smoking, and inflammation speed that process.Healthy diets and regular movement slow it.Some medications affect telomere biology but aren’t for general use.We still don’t know if lengthening telomeres increases lifespan.So far, no pill or powder beats sleep, exercise, and plants on a plate.The Real TakeawayTelomeres aren’t countdown clocks. They’re mileage markers.Protect them by doing the basics well: eat plants and fish, move daily, sleep enough, manage stress, and don’t smoke.Simple. Sustainable. Supported by science.ReferencesCalado RT, Young NS. Telomere Diseases. N Engl J Med. 2009;361(24):2353-65. PMCID: PMC3401586Lai T-P, Wright WE, Shay JW. Techniques for Assessing Telomere Length. Nat Rev Genet. 2018;19(5):293-307. PMCID: PMC6380489Huang S et al. The Relationship Between Telomere Length and Aging-Related Diseases. Front Aging. 2025;6:1532. PMCID: PMC11882723Arsenis CA et al. Physical Activity and Telomere Length. Sports Med. 2017;47(3):503-512.Schellnegger T et al. Unlocking Longevity: The Role of Telomeres and Their Targeting. Front Aging Neurosci. 2024;16:1050353.

The Mitochondria Problem: Why These Tiny Powerhouses Shape How We AgeMany people suddenly talk about mitochondria. You hear them in political speeches, on podcasts, and across social media. RFK Jr said he can “see” kids with weak mitochondria just by watching them walk through an airport. Others claim special diets or powders can “fix” aging by supercharging these organelles.However, most of that chatter misses the actual science.This post breaks down what mitochondria do, why they matter for aging, and how you can keep them healthy. No hype. No detox teas. Just biology you can use.What Are Mitochondria?Every cell in your body contains tiny structures called mitochondria. They act like miniature cells living inside your larger cells. Each mitochondrion even has its own DNA.Mitochondria divide independently from your regular cells.They manage your energy, converting glucose to ATPFinally, mitochondria keep your organs working.You inherit all your mitochondria from your mother, which is why scientists use mitochondrial DNA to trace ancestry.How Did We Get Mitochondria? (A Very Old Story)About 1.5 billion years ago, a simple cell swallowed a bacterium and refused to digest it. Instead, they formed a partnership.The bacterium supplied energy.The host cell provided safety.That partnership became the mitochondrion. Every person alive today runs on that ancient deal.What Do Mitochondria Do All Day? Mitochondria take glucose from your food and convert it into ATP — the energy your body uses to move, think, heal, and grow. This process runs every second of your life.You cannot swallow ATP and get more energy. ATP supplements don’t work. Only your mitochondria make the usable fuel your body needs.Why Young Mitochondria Work So WellYoung mitochondria act like teenagers. They run fast, bounce back quickly, and handle stress with ease. Cells constantly recycle old mitochondria through a process called mitophagy. This system works beautifully in childhood.Fresh mitochondria power:strong musclessharp thinkingfast recoveryhealthy metabolismWhen mitophagy runs smoothly, you feel energetic and resilient.What Happens When Mitochondria AgeAging slows everything down. Mitochondria begin to leak more “exhaust,” build up mutations, and lose efficiency. Damaged ones don’t get removed as well, because mitophagy weakens with age.Unfortunately, mitochondria do something worse than slow down:They fuse with healthy mitochondria.Imagine pouring spoiled milk into a fresh gallon. The whole jug goes bad. Aging mitochondria do the same thing inside your cells. They spread dysfunction to the healthy ones.How Aging Mitochondria Cause TroubleAs mitochondria fail, they change how cells function. They send distress signals back to the nucleus that alter gene expression. These messages push cells toward inflammation, stress, and survival pathways that your body normally keeps quiet.Even more concerning, changes in mitochondrial shape — too much splitting (fission) and not enough merging (fusion) — appear in both aging and cancer. These shifts support tumor growth, help cancer cells spread, and make some treatments less effective.Aging mitochondria increase the risk of:brain fogmuscle fatigueslower recoveryheart strainmetabolic slowdowncancer-friendly environmentsMitochondria sit at the center of how we age.Why “Mitochondrial Booster” Supplements Miss the MarkPlenty of supplements promise to “repair” mitochondria. Many sound exciting:NAD boostersUrolithin Apeptidesantioxidant stacksHowever, evidence in actual humans remains limited.NAD boosters don’t show meaningful anti-aging benefits.Urolithin A can help with muscle endurance, but doesn’t reverse aging.Antioxidant megadoses may even interfere with exercise benefits.People want a miracle switch. We don’t have one.What Does Improve Mitochondrial HealthGood news: the basics still win. And they outperform supplements every time.1. Resistance TrainingYour muscles grow new mitochondria in response to lifting weights or doing body-weight exercises.2. Zone 2 ExerciseThis “comfortably challenging” aerobic zone trains your body to use oxygen better. You can talk, but you can’t sing.3. SleepYour body repairs mitochondrial damage at night. Poor sleep means poor repair.4. Mediterranean DietWhole foods, plants, nuts, fish, and olive oil protect mitochondria from inflammation and stress.5. Treating Metabolic Disease EarlyHigh blood sugar, high LDL, and high blood pressure destroy mitochondria faster than anything else.Why Diet Tribes Get Mitochondria WrongSome diet influencers insist that insulin resistance is the One True Cause of aging and that keto or carnivore diets fix it all. That was tested in high-quality metabolic ward studies.It failed.Low-carb diets did not outperform other diets when calories and protein were controlled. Fat loss was the same. Metabolism behaved the same. Insulin wasn’t the magic dial.Mediterranean-style eating continues to show the strongest data for longevity.Alcohol Ages Mi

Urolithin A: What It Is, How It Works, and Why Your Gut Decides EverythingBy Dr. Terry SimpsonMost people hear the name Urolithin A and think it belongs in a commercial about prostate health. It sounds like something a man named “Gary, 62,” would talk about while fishing. But Urolithin A has nothing to do with plumbing. Instead, it sits at the center of a new wave of longevity science focused on how our cells clean up old, broken parts.As we age, our mitochondria—the tiny power centers inside our cells—start to slow down. They build up damage and stop working well. Eventually, this pile-up makes us lose strength and energy. That’s where Urolithin A comes in. It helps switch back on a process called mitophagy, which is basically the cell’s recycling program for old mitochondria.Where Urolithin A Really Comes FromYou cannot eat Urolithin A directly. Instead, your body makes it when your gut bacteria break down special plant compounds called ellagitannins. These are found in foods like:pomegranateswalnutsberriesgreen tea (yes, really)Green tea is usually known for its catechins, but it also contains ellagitannins like strictinin. After you drink it, your gut bacteria break these tannins apart and create ellagic acid, which can later turn into Urolithin A.However, this only works if you have the right microbes. And here’s the surprising part:Most people do not.Studies show that only 12% to 40% of adults naturally produce Urolithin A from food. Everyone else makes little to none because their gut bacteria simply aren’t built for the job.How Your Gut Decides EverythingYour microbiome—the community of bacteria living in your digestive system—decides whether you make Urolithin A or not.People who produce Urolithin A usually have:more diverse gut microbesspecial bacteria like Enterocloster and Gordonibacterthe right genes inside those microbes to do the chemical conversionPeople who don’t produce it (called “metabotype zero”) lack those bacteria or the gene pathways needed. Eating more pomegranates or drinking more green tea does not fix this. No diet, including keto or Mediterranean, has been shown to turn a non-producer into a producer.This is why two people can eat the same food, and only one makes Urolithin A.What Urolithin A Does in HumansIn older adults, researchers have tested Urolithin A supplements for up to 4 months. These studies show several encouraging results:muscle endurance improvesinflammation markers decreasemitochondrial health markers look betterEven so, there are limits. Trials show no meaningful improvement in:walking distanceATP (cellular energy) productionoverall physical functionSo the biology looks better, but major clinical outcomes have not changed.What Happens in the Lab (But Not Yet in Humans)Scientists also study Urolithin A in senescent cells—cells that have stopped dividing but still cause inflammation. In the lab, Urolithin A can:reduce senescence markerscalm inflammatory signalsrestore mitophagyimprove oxidative stresseven strengthen circadian rhythms inside aging cellsAll of this sounds exciting. However, these findings are from cell culture, not humans. They give us clues, not guarantees.Food vs SupplementsYou cannot get Urolithin A directly from food. You only get the precursors, and only people with the right gut bacteria turn those precursors into Urolithin A.Supplements bypass the microbiome entirely and give everyone measurable Urolithin A, even non-producers.Foods that contain ellagitannins include:pomegranateswalnutsraspberriesblackberriessome teas, especially green teaBut none of these will raise Urolithin A levels if your gut bacteria cannot perform the conversion.Is Urolithin A Safe?Short-term human studies show that Urolithin A is safe and well-tolerated. Most people experience no side effects. When side effects do show up, they are usually mild digestive symptoms like bloating or softer stools.What we don’t know:long-term safetypregnancy or breastfeeding safetymulti-year useeffects in chronic diseaseIn other words, the short-term data look good, but the long-term story hasn’t been written yet.Should You Take It?Here is the simple answer:Urolithin A is biologically promising but clinically modest.It improves certain cellular markers and may boost muscle endurance in older adults.It does not reverse aging or change major health outcomes—not yet.Supplements make the most sense for:adults over 60people with early muscle lossindividuals who are non-producersthose wanting to support mitochondrial healthBut nothing replaces the basics:resistance trainingmovementeating wellsleepstress controlThat is still the foundation of a longer, healthier life.REFERENCES(For the blog — as provided)Kuerec AH, Lim XK, Khoo AL, et al. Targeting Aging With Urolithin A in Humans: A Systematic Review. Ageing Research Reviews. 2024;100:102406.Heilman J, Andreux P, Tran N, et al. Safety Assessment of Urolithin A… Food and Chemical Toxicology. 2017;108:289-297.Hasheminezhad SH, Boozari M, Iranshah

🧬 NAD: The Molecule of Life — and the HypeHow a lab coenzyme became the latest anti-aging obsessionWhat We Mean by Longevity and HealthspanWhen people talk about longevity, they usually mean how long we live.But healthspan — the years we live well — matters far more.That’s the time before disease steals our energy, mobility, and independence.Modern medicine has already doubled our lifespan in the last century.Now the goal is to extend the healthy part — without falling for pseudoscience along the way.When Marketing Meets MedicineLongevity has become a booming business.Some gurus, like Dr. Eric Topol, do real science.Others, like Peter Attia, sell access: $150 000 per patient for lab tests, a VO₂ max treadmill run, and a few “optimized” workouts.He’s also an investor in AG1 — the influencer’s green drink of choice.Andrew Huberman promotes similar ideas under studio lights bright enough to sterilize a petri dish.Both are clever, credentialed, and caught between data and drama.Then there’s Dr. David Sinclair, who helped discover how cells age — and then helped turn that discovery into a supplement empire.His company tried to patent NMN, an NAD precursor, as a drug.The FDA briefly removed NMN from the supplement market, sending Reddit into meltdown.It’s back now, but the episode showed how quickly science slides into sales.And finally, we have the shirtless salesmen:Paul Saladino, who went from carnivore crusader to “fruit influencer.”Liver King, whose real secret wasn’t liver — it was injectable.And Gary Brecka, who claims to predict your death date (for a fee).These are subscription services disguised as sages.What NAD Actually IsNicotinamide adenine dinucleotide (NAD⁺) is a molecule found in every living cell.It helps convert food into energy and repair DNA.As we age, NAD levels fall — metabolism slows and damage builds up.So scientists asked: If we raise NAD again, can we slow aging?In mice, the answer looks promising.NAD precursors like nicotinamide riboside (NR) and nicotinamide mononucleotide (NMN) increase average lifespan by 5–15 percent and improve energy, insulin sensitivity, and activity.That’s great for mice — but we don’t live in cages or eat lab chow.Can You Get NAD from Food?Not directly — but your body makes NAD from dietary precursors:tryptophan and niacin (vitamin B₃).You’ll find them in fish, poultry, beans, milk, and whole grains — basically, a Mediterranean-style diet.So before spending $90 on capsules, you can spend $9 at the farmers' market.What the Human Studies ShowHuman trials of NR or NMN (usually 500–2000 mg per day for 6–12 weeks) show they are safe and well-tolerated.They modestly raise NAD levels and sometimes improve lipid profiles and blood pressure.But the effects are small and inconsistent, especially in healthy adults.NAD precursors do not reverse aging.They don’t prevent heart attacks or extend lifespan in people — at least, not yet.NAD vs Statins: A Reality CheckMeta-analyses show NAD precursors, especially niacin, can lower LDL (“bad”) cholesterol by about 8–12 percent.That’s fine, but compare it to rosuvastatin (Crestor):DoseAverage LDL Reduction5 mg≈ 45 %10 mg≈ 52 %20 mg≈ 55 %40 mg≈ 63 %That’s the difference between “interesting biochemistry” and “fewer funerals.”So NAD may nudge your cholesterol; statins save lives.Who Might BenefitOlder adults with metabolic syndrome, prediabetes, or early neurodegenerative disease could see modest improvements in inflammation or blood lipids.Younger, healthier people mostly see lighter wallets.No serious drug interactions have been documented, though theoretical ones exist with some chemotherapy or DNA-repair drugs.As always, talk to your doctor before combining anything with prescription therapy.Food Before PharmaThe best way to support NAD and longevity is still food, sleep, and movement.A Mediterranean diet rich in legumes, vegetables, olive oil, and fish fuels NAD pathways naturally — and has proven benefits for heart and brain health.No influencer code required.A Note from the GalleyWe’ll explore all of this — diet, longevity, and a little wine science — on next summer’s Mediterranean Longevity Cruise.World-class physicians, scientists, and chefs will join me for ten days of evidence-based indulgence.It’ll cost less than a Peter Attia consult — and no one will force you to drink AG1.(For the record, I still do. It’s gentle on my stomach, but I’m hunting for less bougie vitamins.)The TakeawayBoosting NAD may someday help extend healthspan, but for now, the best evidence still supports:Eat Mediterranean-style food.Move daily.Sleep enough.Manage stress.See your doctor before your supplement dealer.That’s how you live longer and better — no silver bullet, just science and common sense.ReferencesEffects of NAD+ Precursor Supplementation on Glucose and Lipid Metabolism in Humans: A Meta-Analysis. Zhong O, Wang J, Tan Y, Lei X, Tang Z. Nutrition & Metabolism. 2022;19(1):20. doi:10.1186/s12986-022-00653-9.2 Niacin: An Old Lipid Dru

🎙 Celebrating 100 Episodes of Science, Sanity, and a Little SarcasmThis is it — our 100th episode of FORK U.Over the last hundred episodes, we’ve gone from goat-gland hucksters to the microbiome, from Kellogg’s enemas to cholesterol chemistry, and from Blue Zones to bird flu.Today, we look back — not just to celebrate the great scientists who shaped modern medicine, but to expose the modern influencers who sell that same science back to you in a bottle.Welcome to The FORK U Hall of Fame and Shame. 🧠 The Hall of Fame🩺 Dr. Ancel Keys — The Misunderstood ScientistDr. Ancel Keys didn’t make guesses — he made measurements.He and his team built one of the most detailed long-term studies in the history of medicine.They went village by village across seven countries.They collected what people ate, sent food samples back to labs, recorded EKGs, drew blood, and reviewed medical charts — not for a few months, but for decades.That’s what science looks like: patient, precise, persistent.Critics like Gary Taubes claim Keys “left out countries.”That’s false — and it only proves they never read his work.Keys studied cohorts of men within small villages, followed them carefully over the years to learn how diet and disease connected.Without today’s molecular tools, he still discovered the pattern that modern science later confirmed:ApoB — the protein attached to LDL cholesterol — is transported into the arterial wall, starting the process of atherosclerosis.Keys didn’t chase fame. He chased truth.His data became the foundation of preventive cardiology.If you want to honor him, drizzle olive oil instead of conspiracy.And a personal note — my thanks to Dr. Harry Blackburn, who worked with Keys and has kindly shared insights from those pioneering days.💉 Dr. Frederick Banting and Charles Best — The Children Who Woke UpIn 1922, Banting and Best discovered insulin.Before that, children with diabetes slipped into comas and died.After the first injections, they woke up.Their parents fed them well, but diet alone couldn’t save them.Good science did.It was one of medicine’s greatest moments — and still saves lives every day.🧬 Dr. Kanehiro Takaki — The First VitaminBefore anyone even knew the word vitamin, Japanese surgeon Dr. Kanehiro Takaki saw sailors dying from beriberi.Using early ideas of epidemiology, he realized the problem wasn’t infection but nutrition.He changed their diet — adding barley and vegetables — and the disease vanished.Takaki brought Japan into modern medicine.Even Dr. Charles Mayo admired him.Had he lived longer, he would likely have shared a Nobel Prize.🧫 Dr. Leonard Hayflick — The Original Longevity DoctorIn 1961, Dr. Leonard Hayflick discovered something remarkable:Human cells divide about fifty times, then stop — the Hayflick Limit.He proved aging isn’t mystical. It’s biological.Every division shortens a cell’s life clock until it retires.His research wasn’t about nutrition, but it changed everything about how we understand aging and regeneration.He was the first true longevity doctor — without supplements, slogans, or selfies.❤️ The DASH and Portfolio Diet TeamsThe DASH Diet — Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension — came from a dream team of researchers.Dr. Lawrence Appel at Johns Hopkins led the NIH trial.Drs. George Bray, Donna Ryan, and Catherine Champagne built the menu at Pennington Biomedical.Dr. Frank Sacks at Harvard analyzed the data.They showed that a diet rich in fruits, vegetables, and low-fat dairy could lower blood pressure without weight loss.Then came the Portfolio Diet, developed by Dr. David Jenkins and his team at the University of Toronto.They combined soy, nuts, soluble fiber, and plant sterols — lowering LDL cholesterol by up to 17 percent.That’s culinary medicine — research that feeds both the lab and the kitchen.And yet some influencers still say we need “more salt.”The DASH team proved the opposite — unless, of course, you’re selling $39 mango-flavored electrolytes on TikTok.🩻 Edinburgh — Where Surgery Became ScienceIf you ever visit Edinburgh, skip the castle and go straight to the Surgeons’ Hall Museum.Inside are the breakthroughs that transformed surgery:Lister’s antisepsis, Syme’s anatomy, and James Young Simpson’s chloroform.It was here that Arthur Conan Doyle, as a medical student, learned from Dr. Joseph Bell, the sharp observer who inspired Sherlock Holmes.From those halls, medicine shifted from superstition to study — from anecdote to anatomy.It’s where modern diagnosis began.And this month on TikTok, we’ll walk those halls together.🚫 The Hall of Shame🧬 Gary Brecka — The Biohacking HypemanEvery generation gets its snake-oil salesman; ours just live-streams.Gary Brecka calls himself a biologist who can predict your date of death — and change it for a price.He has no medical degree, just a bachelor’s in biology and a borrowed pair of scrubs.He never finished chiropractic school.He sells hydrogen-water bottles, claiming there are 1,400 studies — there aren’t.He says

Thanksgiving is more than a meal — it’s a worldwide celebration of gratitude built around foods that started here in the Americas. Corn, beans, potatoes, and turkey didn’t just feed a nation; they changed global cuisine. Today, we blend culinary history with medical sense to show how to enjoy the feast without the nap.🍁 A Holiday for the WorldOur Canadian friends already finished their celebration. For their Thanksgiving, I roasted a chicken with Swiss Chalet sauce — if you know, you know. Thank you, Canada, for giving us Tim Hortons, Swiss Chalet, and the perfect excuse for early gravy season.In the United States, we wait for the fourth Thursday in November to celebrate. And while Thanksgiving began as a survival story between settlers and Native Americans, it’s become a global holiday. Whether you’re in Edinburgh, London, or Los Angeles, if there’s a turkey on your table, you’re part of it.🦃 The Turkey TruthTurkey is a ridiculously large bird. Cooking one whole is like putting a cow in the oven and hoping all the parts turn out right — it just doesn’t work.That’s why I separate mine. The breast goes into a sous vide bath until juicy and tender, and the legs roast separately until golden brown. This approach keeps everyone happy and the meat perfectly cooked.Another reason to love turkey: it’s naturally low in saturated fat, especially compared to red meat. So, when prepared well, it’s one of the healthiest centerpieces for your table.🥖 Cornbread Stuffing — Cook It SafelyStuffing the bird might seem traditional, but it can also be dangerous. Baking bread inside raw poultry turns your dinner into a bacteria incubator. Instead, bake it separately.My favorite? Cornbread stuffing — a true dish of the Americas. Combine cornbread cubes, sautéed onions, celery, herbs, mushrooms, and broth. For extra flavor, crisp up some turkey skin like “poultry bacon” and crumble it on top.(You’ll find the full recipe at terrysimpson.com)🥔 Potatoes — From the Andes to Every PlateLong before Europeans knew what a potato was, Indigenous farmers in the Andes were cultivating hundreds of varieties. Those humble tubers crossed the ocean and reshaped diets from Dublin to Delhi. Yes, the Italians perfected Gnochi - and the Irish love of the potato brought many of our finest folks to the United States.At my table, I keep mashed potatoes simple — Yukon Golds, butter, olive oil, milk, salt, and pepper. No truffle oil. No mountain of bacon. Just creamy, honest comfort food.🥗 Green Beans and the Three SistersGreen beans are another gift from the Americas. Native farmers grew them with corn and squash — the Three Sisters that nourished generations. The beans climbed the corn stalks while enriching the soil — the original regenerative farming.In Culinary Medicine, we love beans for their fiber, plant protein, and heart-healthy nutrients.If you’re remaking the classic green bean casserole, skip the canned soup. Use fresh mushrooms, milk, and a touch of cornstarch. Or, sauté the beans in olive oil and garlic for a lighter, Mediterranean twist.(Full recipe posted at terrysimpson.com)🥣 Cowboy Caviar — A Smart StarterBefore the main event, try Cowboy Caviar — a colorful bean salad from the American Southwest. It’s bright, high in fiber, and helps you eat more slowly (and more sanely).Mix black beans, black-eyed peas, corn, peppers, red onion, avocado, olive oil, lime juice, and cilantro. Chill it and watch it vanish.🍷 The Truth About the Food ComaEveryone blames tryptophan, but the real reason for that post-Thanksgiving crash is carbs, alcohol, and portion size.When you load up on potatoes, rolls, and pie, your insulin spikes, helping tryptophan turn into melatonin — your sleep hormone. Add a glass (or three) of wine and you’re down for the count.To avoid it, eat slowly, take a short walk after dinner, and save dessert for later. Your pancreas will thank you.🍰 Dessert and a ConfessionI’m a surgeon, not a baker. So, I buy my pumpkin pie from Costco and serve it with vanilla ice cream. Sometimes, simplicity really is the secret ingredient.🔥 FORK U with Flavor — Coming Soon LiveWe’re launching a new live cooking show called FORK U with Flavor!Join me on TikTok (@drterrysimpson) and maybe Instagram (@drterrysimpsonmd) as we cook together, talk food science, and share a few laughs.Paid Substack subscribers at drsimpson.com get ingredient lists and recipes ahead of time so you can cook along live. Everyone else gets the replay links and recipes afterward.If you can’t watch me set off the occasional smoke alarm, you haven’t lived.❤️ A Final ThoughtWherever you live — America, Canada, or across the pond — Thanksgiving reminds us that food connects us all.Eat well. Be grateful. And remember, food isn’t just medicine — it’s connection, culture, and joy.Happy Thanksgiving from me, Dr. Terry Simpson, and the FORK U team.

When Vitamin D Isn’t Sunshine in a BottleVitamin D is sold as bottled sunshine. Social media says it boosts immunity, prevents cancer, and makes you live longer. But science says something very different — and megadoses pushed by influencers like Dr. Eric Berg can do more harm than good. Here’s what you need to know.☀️ The Sunshine Vitamin — and the Myth That FollowsVitamin D has been called the sunshine vitamin for over a century.We discovered it when children in industrial cities developed rickets — bones so soft they bent like rubber.The cure wasn’t pills. It was sunlight and milk fortified with Vitamin D.Today, that history is lost under a pile of influencer ads.Scroll through TikTok or YouTube, and you’ll see people claim Vitamin D cures everything — from fatigue to depression to cancer.One of the loudest voices is Dr. Eric Berg, who calls himself a “doctor.”Here’s the problem: he’s not a physician. He’s a chiropractor.And in California, chiropractors aren’t allowed to call themselves physicians. For good reason.Dr. Berg recommends doses of Vitamin D that are ten to twenty times higher than medical guidelines. That’s dangerous advice.Let’s look at what real science — not social media — tells us.🧬 What Vitamin D Actually DoesVitamin D isn’t really a vitamin. It’s a hormone that helps your body absorb calcium, strengthen bones, and regulate parts of your immune system.Most adults need 600 to 800 IU per day — not 10,000.If your level is low, your doctor may recommend a short course of higher doses, but chronic mega-dosing can lead to toxicity.So how much Vitamin D do you actually need?That depends on your sun exposure, skin color, diet, and where you live. People who live in northern climates or rarely go outside might need a supplement — but the rest of us get plenty from sunlight and food.📊 What the Research ShowsThe VITAL Trial, published in The New England Journal of Medicine (2019), followed over 25,000 people taking Vitamin D or a placebo.The result? No meaningful reduction in cancer, heart disease, or death.Other major studies say the same thing.If your Vitamin D levels are normal, taking more doesn’t improve health — it just makes your urine more expensive.There are benefits for people who are deficient, but that’s not most of us.A simple blood test can tell you if you truly need supplementation.⚠️ Too Much of a Good ThingVitamin D toxicity is not rare.Excess doses can cause calcium levels in your blood to spike, leading to nausea, confusion, kidney stones, and even heart rhythm problems.There is no benefit to megadoses of vitamin D (link)🍳 Real Food, Real SunshineHere’s the truth: you can get enough Vitamin D the way nature intended.Good sources include:Salmon, sardines, and tunaEggs and fortified milkMushroomsAnd, of course, sunlightTen to fifteen minutes of midday sun on your arms and legs a few times a week is usually enough.If you live in Alaska in January, sure — take a supplement.But for most of us, a walk outside beats a handful of pills.🧠 Why We Love PillsIt’s easy to see why Vitamin D is so popular.It promises health without effort.Pop a pill instead of taking a walk, eat poorly, but believe you’re fixing it — it’s the illusion of health without the habit of health.But biology isn’t fooled.Our bodies need balance, not shortcuts.Supplements can help fill a true gap — not when they replace good food and lifestyle.🩺 The TakeawayVitamin D is essential — just not magical.If you’re deficient, fix it.If you’re not, skip the megadoses and save your kidneys.And please — don’t take medical advice from a chiropractor on YouTube.The best way to get your Vitamin D?Eat well. Move more. Go outside.That’s the real sunshine therapy.🧾 ReferencesManson JE et al. Vitamin D Supplements and Prevention of Cancer and Cardiovascular Disease (VITAL Trial). NEJM 2019; 380:33–44.Bolland MJ et al. Effect of Vitamin D Supplementation on Mortality and Disease Outcomes. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2022; 10(2):120–130.Marcinowska-Suchowierska E et al. Toxic Effects of Vitamin D Overdose. Front Endocrinol. 2018; 9:550.Ataide FL, Carvalho Bastos LM, Vicente Matias MF, Skare TL, Freire de Carvalho J. Safety and effectiveness of vitamin D mega-dose: A systematic review. Clin Nutr ESPEN. 2021 Dec;46:115-120. doi: 10.1016/j.clnesp.2021.09.010. Epub 2021 Sep 25. PMID: 34857184.Institute of Medicine. Dietary Reference Intakes for Calcium and Vitamin D. National Academies Press, 2011.

Animal Protein and Cancer Risk: What the Science Really SaysRecently, Mark Hyman posted on X (formerly Twitter) that a new study suggests eating more animal protein might actually lower your risk of cancer. The study he pointed to came from the NHANES dataset—a U.S. survey of diet and health. It sounded reassuring, but it doesn’t line up with the bulk of the evidence. Here is the story about Animal protein and cancer risk:Let’s dig into what the science really shows.Red and Processed Meats: Where the Risk Is ClearIf you want the strongest evidence, look at red and processed meats. Large prospective cohort studies and systematic reviews consistently show that higher intake of these foods increases cancer risk. The effect is clearest for colorectal cancer, but we also see it in breast, endometrial, and even lung cancer.[1–6]How big is the risk? Recent meta-analyses and systematic reviews find relative risks (RRs) and hazard ratios (HRs) in the 1.10–1.30 range for the highest vs. lowest intakes. For example, a comprehensive meta-analysis reported that every 50–70 grams per day of red or processed meat increased colorectal cancer risk by 15–32% (HR 1.15–1.32).[3,5] Processed meat generally carries more risk than unprocessed red meat.[2–3,6]That’s why the American Cancer Society recommends limiting red and processed meats. Their advice is clear: swap them out for fish, poultry, or legumes when possible.[15]Fish: A Safer BetThe data on fish tells a different story. Multiple studies and meta-analyses find a modest reduction in colorectal cancer risk with higher fish intake (SRR 0.94, 95% CI 0.89–0.99).[7–8] In fact, adding 50 grams of fish per day reduces risk by about 4%.Pescatarian diets (no red meat, but including fish) show even more protection. Compared to meat-eaters, pescatarians had a 9% lower overall and colorectal cancer risk (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.86–0.96).[9]Poultry: Mostly NeutralChicken and turkey usually get lumped in with “animal protein.” But when you pull the data apart, poultry tells a different story. Most meta-analyses show a neutral or even slightly protective association with colorectal cancer (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.63–0.99 for white meat).[10–12]That said, a few studies hint at possible links with certain blood cancers, but those findings aren’t strong or consistent.[5,10] For most people, poultry is a much safer choice than red or processed meats.Dairy: A Mixed PictureDairy is tricky. On one hand, milk and calcium-rich foods are consistently linked to a lower risk of colorectal cancer (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.91–0.94).[4,13] On the other hand, high intake of milk or calcium may slightly increase the risk of prostate and endometrial cancers (RR 1.09–1.10).[13–14]No consistent associations are found for breast or ovarian cancer. Cheese intake in particular may even have protective effects, but results vary.Why the Confusion?So why did that NHANES study Mark Hyman highlighted find a small reduction in cancer mortality with higher animal protein? A few reasons:NHANES relies on a single dietary recall—one snapshot in time that may not reflect long-term habits.It doesn’t separate red and processed meat from healthier animal proteins like fish or poultry.Residual confounding (differences in lifestyle factors that aren’t fully accounted for) may skew the results.When you put NHANES side by side with larger, longer-term studies and meta-analyses, it looks like the outlier. The overwhelming weight of evidence shows that red and processed meats increase cancer risk, while fish, poultry, and some dairy products are safer or even protective in specific cases. Animal protein and cancer risk is positive.The Bottom LineProtein matters—but the source matters more.Red and processed meats: consistently linked to higher cancer riskFish: modestly protective, especially for colorectal cancerPoultry: generally neutral, sometimes protectiveDairy: lowers colorectal risk, but may raise prostate and endometrial cancer riskThe American Cancer Society sums it up well: limit red and processed meats, and lean into fish, poultry, beans, and plant-based proteins.[15]References[1] Rock CL, Thomson C, Gansler T, et al. CA Cancer J Clin. 2020;70(4):245-271.[2] Abid Z, Cross AJ, Sinha R. Am J Clin Nutr. 2014;100 Suppl 1:386S-93S.[3] Lippi G, Mattiuzzi C, Cervellin G. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2016;97:1-14.[4] Boada LD, Henríquez-Hernández LA, Luzardo OP. Food Chem Toxicol. 2016;92:236-244.[5] Diallo A, Deschasaux M, Latino-Martel P, et al. Int J Cancer. 2018;142(2):230-237.[6] Farvid MS, Sidahmed E, Spence ND, et al. Eur J Epidemiol. 2021;36(9):937-951.[7] Poorolajal J, Mohammadi Y, Fattahi-Darghlou M, et al. PLoS One. 2024;19(6):e0305994.[8] Vieira AR, Abar L, Chan DSM, et al. Ann Oncol. 2017;28(8):1788-1802.[9] Parra-Soto S, Ahumada D, Petermann-Rocha F, et al. BMC Med. 2022;20(1):79.[10] Nielsen TB, Würtz AML, Tjønneland A, et al. Br J Nutr. 2022;127(4):563-569.[11] Bonfiglio C, Tatoli R, Donghia R, et al. Nutrients. 2025;17(8):1370.[12]

When Green Tea Isn’t ChemotherapyIntroductionFood is powerful. Eating well lowers your risk of many diseases, including cancer. Yet food is not chemotherapy. Still, the idea that broccoli or green tea could replace cancer treatment is tempting. It feels safe, natural, and hopeful.However, cancer is not treated with vegetables or tea. Cancer is treated with medicine. Let’s break down what food can and cannot do when it comes to cancer.Broccoli and Cruciferous VegetablesBroccoli, cabbage, Brussels sprouts, and other cruciferous vegetables contain natural compounds like sulforaphane. In lab studies, these compounds slow cancer cell growth. That is promising.Furthermore, population studies show that people who regularly eat cruciferous vegetables often have a lower risk of colon, lung, and breast cancers. So, broccoli can help lower risk.But here is the key point: broccoli does not cure cancer. No oncologist prescribes broccoli as chemotherapy. Prevention is not the same as treatment.Green Tea and Its LimitsGreen tea is another food often linked to cancer prevention. It contains catechins, such as EGCG, which in test tubes can slow cancer cell growth. Some studies even suggest that people who drink green tea regularly may have slightly lower cancer rates.But again, that is prevention. Once cancer begins, drinking green tea will not stop it. And when taken as concentrated supplements, green tea extracts can actually harm the liver.So, green tea is a fine beverage. But it is not chemotherapy. Personally, I prefer black tea — green tea tastes a little too much like pond water for me.Scams and False HopeSadly, the gap between prevention and treatment is where scams thrive. You’ve probably heard of things like:Gerson Therapy: organic juices and coffee enemas, still promoted in Mexico. No evidence, high risk.Apricot pits and soursop: marketed as natural cures, but linked to toxicity.Ivermectin: useful for parasites, but not proven in cancer.Then there’s the Warburg effect. Otto Warburg correctly observed that cancer cells use sugar differently. But modern science has shown cancer is not a “sugar disease.” It is a DNA disease caused by mutations. Cancer cells can grow on sugar, ketones, and even vitamins. You cannot starve cancer with diet.What Medicine Has DoneNow, let’s talk about the real success stories.Chemotherapy in the past was harsh, like carpet bombing. Yet it saved lives. My brother Jimmy was diagnosed with stage 4 Hodgkin’s disease in 1969. Thanks to experimental chemotherapy and radiation, he lived 37 more years.Today, treatment is even better. We have:Targeted therapies that hit the exact mutation in a tumor.Immunotherapy drugs that unleash the body’s own defenses.Combination therapies that extend survival with fewer side effects.And vaccines are changing everything. The HPV vaccine prevents cervical, anal, and many oral cancers. It may even help lower melanoma risk. Researchers are now studying vaccines for brain cancers like glioblastoma and even for pancreatic cancer.No apricot pit will ever do that.Food Still MattersWe should not ignore food. A poor diet filled with ultra-processed foods and low in fiber increases cancer risk. In fact, the rise in colon cancer among younger adults is likely tied to diets low in fiber and high in processed foods.The Mediterranean diet, rich in fruits, vegetables, whole grains, olive oil, and legumes, does more than prevent cancer. The large EPIC studies show it also lowers the risk of cancer coming back after treatment. That makes it the best diet for cancer prevention and recurrence.So yes, food matters. Food empowers you. But food is not medicine. Food lowers risk. Medicine treats disease. Together, they protect us.ConclusionGreen tea and broccoli are healthy. The Mediterranean diet is the best prevention strategy we know. But once cancer develops, treatment is essential.Food isn’t chemotherapy. Medicine is. And that is something we should all be grateful for.ReferencesWorld Cancer Research Fund/American Institute for Cancer Research. Diet, Nutrition, Physical Activity and Cancer: a Global Perspective. Continuous Update Project Expert Report 2018.Buckland G, Agudo A, Luján L, Jakszyn P, Bueno-de-Mesquita HB, Palli D, Boeing H, Carneiro F, Krogh V, Sacerdote C, Tumino R, Panico S, Nesi G, Manjer J, Regnér S, Johansson I, Stenling R, Sanchez MJ, Dorronsoro M, Barricarte A, Navarro C, Quirós JR, Allen NE, Key TJ, Bingham S, Kaaks R, Overvad K, Jensen M, Olsen A, Tjønneland A, Peeters PH, Numans ME, Ocké MC, Clavel-Chapelon F, Morois S, Boutron-Ruault MC, Trichopoulou A, Lagiou P, Trichopoulos D, Lund E, Couto E, Boffeta P, Jenab M, Riboli E, Romaguera D, Mouw T, González CA. Adherence to a Mediterranean diet and risk of gastric adenocarcinoma within the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC) cohort study. Am J Clin Nutr. 2010 Feb;91(2):381-90. doi: 10.3945/ajcn.2009.28209. Epub 2009 Dec 9. PMID: 20007304.Jenkins DJA, et al. Green tea catech

Food Is Powerful, But It’s Not EnoughFood shapes our health. Eating beans, fruits, vegetables, and whole grains can lower the risk of diabetes and other chronic conditions. Yet food does not replace medicine. Clearly, diets high in ultra-processed foods make diabetes worse. And yes, eating better is the most empowering thing anyone can do.Still, some claim that modern food is the only reason we have chronic diseases like diabetes. They argue that if people only ate “real food,” there would be no need for medicine. History proves otherwise.The Story That Changed Everything: Dr. Banting and InsulinIn the early 1920s, Dr. Frederick Banting and Charles Best discovered insulin in Toronto. At the time, children with type 1 diabetes had no future. Families were told to put their kids on starvation diets, hoping to add a few months to their lives. Death was certain.Then came insulin. Doctors injected it into children already in comas. One by one, they woke up. They sat up, asked for food, and hugged their parents. What had been a hospital ward of silence turned into a place of joy.Insulin was the fastest-adopted drug in history. Banting became the youngest Nobel Prize winner at the time. That discovery did not come from food. It came from science and medicine.Two Types of DiabetesThere are two main types of diabetes.Type 1 diabetes happens when the pancreas loses all ability to make insulin. Without insulin, sugar cannot move into cells, and life cannot continue. That is why every person with type 1 diabetes needs insulin from the first day of diagnosis.Type 2 diabetes is different. In this case, the body still makes insulin, but the cells resist it. Over time, the pancreas wears out. That is why many people with type 2 eventually need insulin too. It is not failure. It is simply how the disease progresses.Food can help manage both types, but food alone is never enough.What Beans Can DoBeans are one of the best foods for blood sugar. They are full of soluble fiber, which slows down glucose absorption. They also provide plant protein and have a low glycemic index. That means they don’t spike blood sugar the way soda or white bread does.Research shows that eating beans regularly can lower hemoglobin A1c — the measure of long-term blood sugar — by about 0.3 to 0.5 percent. That is a real effect from food.Beans are also practical. They are inexpensive, found almost everywhere, and have been eaten by humans longer than almost any other protein source.Why Beans Aren’t MedicineNow let’s compare beans to metformin.Metformin is the first-line drug for type 2 diabetes. It lowers A1c by 1 to 2 percent. That’s two to four times more than beans. Metformin also lowers the risk of heart disease and has decades of safety data behind it.So while beans help, they are not metformin. If blood sugar is high, no amount of hummus or chili will bring it back to safe levels. Medicine is needed. Food lays the foundation, but medicine does the heavy lifting.The Best Diet for Diabetes: The Mediterranean PatternWhen it comes to diet, the evidence is clear. The Mediterranean diet is the best overall eating plan for diabetes.This diet includes:FruitsVegetablesOlive oilNutsLegumes (yes, beans!)Whole grainsNow, some people push back against whole grains. That may be because they grew up in the low-carb era, when grains were unfairly blamed for every health problem. But whole grains are healthy, especially for people with diabetes. They are far better for the body than bacon or butter.The Mediterranean diet does more than control blood sugar. It lowers cholesterol, reduces blood pressure, decreases inflammation, and protects the heart. And unlike fad diets, it is sustainable.Practical Ways to Add BeansAdding beans to meals is easy. Here are a few examples:Swap ground beef for black beans in chiliAdd lentils to soups or stewsRoast chickpeas for a crunchy snackUse hummus instead of cheese spreadToss peas into pasta, rice, or grain bowlsThese small swaps improve blood sugar, lower cholesterol, and keep you full. Combined with the Mediterranean diet, the benefits are even stronger.Don’t Fall for ScamsUnfortunately, scams are everywhere. Keto and carnivore diets claim to cure diabetes. While they may lower blood sugar in the short term, they raise saturated fat intake. That increases the risk of heart disease, which is the biggest threat to people with diabetes.And cinnamon? It makes oatmeal taste great, but cinnamon pills do not cure diabetes. The science simply doesn’t support it.The TakeawayFood matters. Food lowers risk. Food empowers people to take control. But food is not medicine.Food is food. Medicine is medicine. Together, they save lives.ReferencesBanting F, Best C. Discovery of insulin, 1921–1922.American Diabetes Association. Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes.Jenkins DJA, Kendall CWC, et al. “Effect of legumes on glycemic control and cardiovascular risk factors.” Arch Intern Med. 2012.Estruch R, Ros E, et al. “Primary prevention of cardi

When Salmon Isn’t a StentHeart disease was four times more deadly than it is today. In those days, we had no statins, no stents, and no bypass surgery. Food was the only weapon doctors had.Pharmacies in Rome and Greece even stocked extra virgin olive oil for patients with “hardening of the arteries.” Doctors sent people to pick up bottles, almost like prescriptions. Olive oil wasn’t curing clogged arteries, but it showed an early recognition that diet mattered.Then scientists noticed something bigger. In certain Mediterranean villages, people lived longer with far less heart disease. It wasn’t genetic. Relatives who moved to cities and switched to Western diets developed heart disease much earlier.Researchers didn’t stop there. They followed men in villages across Europe and the Mediterranean for decades. Some communities ate diets heavy in saturated fats. They developed clogged arteries and heart disease quickly. Other communities ate diets rich in fruits, vegetables, legumes, fish, nuts, and olive oil. They had much lower rates of heart disease. This pattern became the foundation of what we now call the Mediterranean Diet.At that time, diet gave us hope. But today, we know that food alone is not enough.Lyon Heart StudyThe Lyon Diet Heart Study proved how powerful diet could be. Conducted just as statins came onto the market, it showed that patients with heart attacks who switched to a Mediterranean-style diet had a 70% lower risk of another cardiac event. That meant fewer heart attacks and fewer deaths.Later, the PREDIMED trial confirmed these results. In high-risk adults, the Mediterranean Diet reduced major cardiovascular events by about 30%. That’s impressive, but it also raises a question: can people sustain it? Adherence usually means sticking with the diet about 70 percent of the time. That’s not perfect.Here’s a personal example. I have hypercholesterolemia and a strong family history of heart disease. I follow the Mediterranean Diet carefully. But even with strong adherence, my LDL cholesterol never dropped below 180. With two drugs — Zetia and Crestor — my LDL is now in the 40s. Food helps. Medicine saves.Atherosclerosis begins early in lifeThe PESA Heart Study showed why this matters. Researchers in Spain followed adults who felt perfectly healthy. Using advanced imaging, they found more than 60 percent already had plaque in their arteries. Atherosclerosis begins silently, and often decades before symptoms appear.The JUPITER trial with rosuvastatin (Crestor) proved what medicine can do. Statins reduced cardiovascular events by 44 percent, and the study had to stop early because the benefit was so strong.And then there’s Dean Ornish. His program is often called the “diet that reverses heart disease.” But it was never just a diet. His patients quit smoking, took statins, took blood pressure medications, and practiced yoga. Ornish proved that lifestyle matters — but it was food and medicine together that made the difference.Barbara O'Neill and Cayenne PepperMeanwhile, scammers still sell false hope. Barbara O’Neill, banned from giving health advice in Australia, charges thousands for seminars where she claims cayenne pepper “opens arteries.” That’s pure fiction. Cayenne is a spice, not a stent. She also claims cholesterol guidelines only exist to enrich drug companies. Yet my three-month supply of Crestor costs $2.36, while she profits thousands. The real con is clear.So here’s the truth: salmon is healthy, but it isn’t a stent. Olive oil helps, but it isn’t a statin. Food prevents disease. Medicine treats it. Together, food and medicine are unbeatable.Referencesde Lorgeril M, et al. Mediterranean diet, traditional risk factors, and the rate of cardiovascular complications after myocardial infarction: final report of the Lyon Diet Heart Study. Circulation. 1999;99(6):779–785. (click here)Estruch R, Ros E, Salas-Salvadó J, Covas MI, Corella D, Arós F, Gómez-Gracia E, Ruiz-Gutiérrez V, Fiol M, Lapetra J, Lamuela-Raventos RM, Serra-Majem L, Pintó X, Basora J, Muñoz MA, Sorlí JV, Martínez JA, Fitó M, Gea A, Hernán MA, Martínez-González MA; PREDIMED Study Investigators. Primary Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease with a Mediterranean Diet Supplemented with Extra-Virgin Olive Oil or Nuts. N Engl J Med. 2018 Jun 21;378(25):e34. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1800389. Epub 2018 Jun 13. PMID: 29897866.Fernández-Friera L, et al. Prevalence, vascular distribution, and multiterritorial extent of subclinical atherosclerosis in a middle-aged cohort: the PESA study. Circulation. 2015;131:2104–2115. (click here)Ridker PM, et al. Rosuvastatin to prevent vascular events in men and women with elevated C-reactive protein. N Engl J Med. 2008;359:2195–2207. (click here)Ornish D, et al. Intensive lifestyle changes for reversal of coronary heart disease. JAMA. 1998;280(23):2001–2007. (click here)Therapeutic Goods Administration, Australia. Prohibition order under section 42DV against Barbara O’Neill. 2019. (click here)

When Bananas Aren’t a Beta BlockerPeople love to believe that food can replace medicine. We talked about this in Episode One, where I explained that Hippocrates never said “let food be thy medicine.” Still, the myth endures.Food does matter. The right eating pattern can lower blood pressure. One of the best-studied is the DASH Diet—short for Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension. It is often called America’s version of the Mediterranean Diet. While the Mediterranean Diet was being mapped out for overall health, the DASH researchers asked a sharper question: what foods can lower blood pressure directly?Why DASH Is UniqueUnlike most nutrition studies, the original DASH trial provided all the food to participants. That meant researchers knew exactly what people ate, meal after meal. This is rare and expensive, but it gave them confidence in the results.The DASH diet emphasizes:Fruits and vegetables, especially potassium-rich foods like bananas, beans, and leafy greensWhole grainsLean proteins, like fish and poultryLow-fat dairyLess red meat, sweets, and sodiumBecause it combined several food groups, DASH worked quickly. Within two weeks, blood pressure dropped.What the Studies ShowThe results were consistent. People following DASH lowered their systolic blood pressure (the top number) by 8–11 mmHg and their diastolic pressure by 5–6 mmHg. That is about the same as one standard blood pressure pill.Even more important, DASH showed that sodium reduction matters. Those who cut sodium intake to 1,500–2,300 milligrams per day saw the greatest improvements. This shattered the myth that unlimited salt is safe. Too much sodium raises blood pressure, increases heart disease risk, and fuels strokes.The Role of ElectrolytesThis is where things get messy. Electrolytes, especially sodium, are necessary during prolonged exercise—typically more than 1–2 hours, in hot weather, or when sweating heavily. Under those conditions, sodium helps prevent hyponatremia, a dangerous drop in blood sodium levels.However, for most people exercising less than an hour, water is enough. Regular meals will replace lost sodium. Salty drinks or powders aren’t required. In fact, most commercial sports drinks don’t even contain enough sodium to match sweat losses in extreme events.The Salt Supplement ScamHere is where the grift appears. Shirtless salesmen on social media love to sell high-priced mango-flavored salt packets as “essential” electrolytes. They promise performance and recovery, but they may actually raise your blood pressure and put you at risk.Science says otherwise. Electrolyte supplementation should be individualized and used with caution. People at highest risk from unnecessary sodium loading include:Those with hypertension, heart failure, or kidney diseaseWomen, who are more prone to overhydration and hyponatremia due to smaller body size and lower sweat ratesOlder athletes or those with low body massRecreational athletes who follow outdated advice to “drink as much as possible”Even ultra-endurance athletes cannot rely on sodium supplements alone. If they drink more than they lose, sodium will not prevent hyponatremia and may make things worse. The best strategy is to drink to thirst and use salty foods or fluids only when truly needed.What a DASH Day Looks LikeHow can you follow DASH in real life? Here’s one sample day:Breakfast: Oatmeal with berries and a bananaSnack: A handful of unsalted nutsLunch: Black bean and vegetable salad with vinaigretteDinner: Grilled salmon with leafy greens and brown riceExtra: Low-fat yogurt or skim milkThis pattern supplies potassium, magnesium, calcium, and fiber—nutrients that relax blood vessels and lower pressure naturally. Notice what’s missing: salty snacks, processed food, and canned soups.Food and Medicine TogetherSo what does it all mean? The DASH Diet lowers blood pressure and improves overall health. But it does not replace medication. Blood pressure medicines—ACE inhibitors, ARBs, calcium channel blockers, diuretics—reduce systolic pressure by 20–40 mmHg. That is two or three times more than DASH.Food helps. Medicine saves. Together, they work best.The Bottom LineBananas, beans, and leafy greens are wonderful. Electrolyte supplements are rarely needed. Expensive salt powders sold by social media influencers are scams. And the DASH Diet? It’s real, it works, and it shows that food has power—just not enough to replace your beta blocker.

When Tofu Isn’t a StatinPeople love to say “food is medicine.” Some even claim Hippocrates himself said it. But here’s the thing: he didn’t. The phrase does not appear in any of his surviving writings. In fact, historians believe the line was created centuries later and then falsely attached to Hippocrates to give it weight.Still, the idea persists. Even the current head of HHS, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., has repeated the myth. And when RFK Jr. is your fact-checker, you know you’re in trouble.Now, as someone certified in Culinary Medicine, I believe food is incredibly powerful. Eating the right foods can prevent disease, improve health, and help you live longer. However, food alone rarely works as well as actual medicine. That is especially true when it comes to cholesterol.The Portfolio DietIn the early 2000s, Dr. David Jenkins and his team introduced what they called the Portfolio Diet. Instead of focusing on one “superfood,” the diet combines several cholesterol-lowering foods:Soy proteinNuts, like almondsViscous fibers from oats, barley, or psylliumPlant sterols from fortified foodsEach one has a small effect. But when you put them together, the benefits add up.Why does it work? Cholesterol gets secreted by your liver into bile, then travels into your gut. Normally, most of that cholesterol is reabsorbed into your bloodstream. But fiber and plant sterols bind to cholesterol and drag it out of your body. That’s why bowel movements are brown—bile is brown, and fiber helps carry it out. More fiber means you feed your gut bacteria and flush away cholesterol. It really is a win-win.What the Studies ShowThe Portfolio Diet has been tested in multiple clinical trials. In one JAMA study, people who followed the diet lowered their LDL cholesterol by about 13 to 14 percent over six months. That translated to a drop of about 24–26 mg/dL.Other studies show that people who stick with it can lower their LDL by 17 percent on average. Some who were especially diligent saw drops of more than 20 percent at one year. The Portfolio Diet also improves non-HDL cholesterol, apolipoprotein B, and long-term risk for heart disease.So yes—it works. In fact, the effect is similar to what you get from early statins like lovastatin.What It Looks Like in Real LifeThe science sounds great. But how do you actually eat this way? Here’s one example day:Breakfast: Oatmeal made with soy milkSnack: A handful of almonds (about 25–30 grams)Lunch: Lentil soup with whole-grain breadDinner: Tofu stir-fry with vegetables and barleyExtra: Two grams of plant sterols, often from fortified margarine spreadsThat daily pattern gives you soy protein, fiber, nuts, and plant sterols. But here’s the challenge: it takes careful planning to hit the right doses every day. It’s not impossible—but it is hard to sustain.How It Differs from the Mediterranean DietMany people confuse the Portfolio Diet with the Mediterranean Diet. Both are plant-forward, emphasize nuts, legumes, whole grains, and lower cardiovascular risk. However, the Mediterranean Diet is broader and easier to follow. It includes olive oil, fish, fruits, vegetables, and even moderate wine.The Portfolio Diet, on the other hand, is very prescriptive. You must hit specific amounts of soy protein, fiber, and sterols daily. Think of the Mediterranean Diet as the entire restaurant, while the Portfolio Diet is just one corner of the menu—focused squarely on cholesterol.What About Statins?Statins are still the gold standard. Modern statins like atorvastatin or rosuvastatin lower LDL cholesterol by 30 to 50 percent, far more than diet alone. More importantly, they reduce heart attacks and strokes by 25 to 40 percent.And there’s more. When you combine a statin with Zetia (ezetimibe), which blocks cholesterol absorption in the gut, you can see another 20 percent reduction in LDL. That’s essentially the pharmaceutical version of the Portfolio Diet. Together, statins plus Zetia can lower LDL cholesterol by 65 to 70 percent.The Bottom LineThe Portfolio Diet lowers cholesterol. The Mediterranean Diet improves heart health. Both are excellent for prevention and long-term wellness. But when your cholesterol is high or your risk is significant, medicine is usually necessary.The best approach is not “food or medicine.” It’s food and medicine. Eat Mediterranean, fold in Portfolio Diet elements, and—if your doctor recommends it—add a statin or Zetia.Because food lays the foundation. Medicine builds the house. And together, they keep the roof from caving in.REFS1. Portfolio Dietary Pattern and Cardiovascular Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Controlled Trials.Chiavaroli L, Nishi SK, Khan TA, et al.Progress in Cardiovascular Diseases. 2018 May - Jun;61(1):43-53. doi:10.1016/j.pcad.2018.05.004.2. Effect of a Dietary Portfolio of Cholesterol-Lowering Foods Given at 2 Levels of Intensity of Dietary Advice on Serum Lipids in Hyperlipidemia: A Randomized Controlled Trial.Jenkins DJ, Jones PJ, Lamarche B, et al.JA

Milk: Life, Death, and the ParadoxMilk has always been central to survival. When mothers died in childbirth—and this happened often before modern medicine—infants survived only if they had access to another nursing mother or wet nurse. When that wasn’t possible, families sometimes turned to the milk of other mammals.That discovery helped keep our species alive. However, milk’s role in human survival carried a hidden danger. While milk nourished infants, it also became a deadly carrier of disease.When Raw Milk Killed ThousandsDuring the 1800s, raw milk was anything but safe. In New York City, dairies kept cows next to distilleries, feeding them whiskey mash. The resulting milk was bluish and watery. To disguise it, producers added chalk and plaster. Parents unknowingly gave this milk to children. According to estimates, 8,000 infants die a year from contaminated milk in New York alone.Milk also spreads tuberculosis, diphtheria, scarlet fever, and typhoid. A simple glass of raw milk could kill.Louis Pasteur and the Germ TheoryThe turning point came with Louis Pasteur, a French chemist who proved microbes spoiled wine and beer. He developed the process of pasteurization: heating a liquid enough to kill pathogens without ruining flavor.His discovery revolutionized public health. Pasteur’s germ theory of disease proved that invisible microbes caused illness. Applied to milk, this meant heating could save lives. Pasteur’s work inspired sterilization in surgery, the discovery of TB bacteria, and eventually vaccines.The American Fight for Safe MilkIn the U.S., pediatrician Abraham Jacobi urged families to boil milk by the 1870s. Philanthropist Nathan Straus built pasteurized milk stations across New York. Mortality rates for children who drank Straus’s milk dropped by nearly 50%.Pasteurization was not flashy, but transformative. Alongside clean water and vaccines, it became one of the greatest advances in human health.Tragedy in Residential SchoolsIndigenous children in Canada’s residential schools were forced to drink raw milk from cows raised on pasture. The cows looked healthy, but many carried bovine tuberculosis. Children sickened and died. In some schools, mortality reached 30–60% in just five years. Hundreds of unmarked graves discovered in recent decades reveal the human toll.Even the cleanest farm or happiest cow can carry pathogens. You cannot see tuberculosis or E. coli in a glass of milk. Pasteurization is the only safeguard.Raw Milk in the Modern EraDespite history, raw milk has returned as a “wellness” trend. Politicians like RFK Jr. have promoted it, even doing raw milk “shots” with influencer Paul Saladino in the White House.But nostalgia doesn’t erase microbiology. Just weeks later, Florida saw 21 people sickened—including six children—by E. coli and Campylobacter from raw milk. Seven were hospitalized. Two developed life-threatening complications.If someone claims to support children, selling raw milk undermines that promise.Myths vs. FactsMyth: Raw milk has more nutrients. Fact: Pasteurization causes <10% vitamin loss. Proteins, calcium, and fats remain intact. Myth: Raw milk prevents asthma. Fact: Studies show lower allergy rates in farm kids, but due to the farm environment, not the milk. Myth: A clean farm means safe milk. Fact: Even pristine dairies can harbor invisible pathogens like TB, Salmonella, or Listeria. Myth: Pasteurization “ruins” milk. Fact: Pasteurized milk is nutritionally the same, only safer.Beyond Milk: Cheese and JuicePasteurization doesn’t stop with milk. Unpasteurized cheeses can carry Listeria, posing risks especially for pregnant women. Apple cider was once a source of E. coli outbreaks. After the FDA required pasteurization in the 1990s, those outbreaks plummeted.Heat treatment is one of the most powerful—and overlooked—public health tools.The Numbers That Changed EverythingIn 1900, infant mortality in Montreal was 27%. New York saw similar rates. Today, it’s less than 1%. That dramatic drop came from sanitation, vaccines, and pasteurization—not from supplements or nostalgic diets.So when someone says, “My grandfather drank raw milk his whole life and lived to 90,” the answer is simple. Visit the family graveyard. See how many of his siblings never made it out of childhood. That’s survival bias. Influencers profit from it. And in Saladino’s case, you wonder if he slept through microbiology class in the medical school where I once taught.The TakeawayMilk is life-giving, but unpasteurized milk has been deadly. Pasteur’s germ theory, Jacobi’s advocacy, Straus’s milk stations, and modern safety laws turned milk into a food we can trust.Pasteurization doesn’t diminish milk. It preserves life.ReferencesCDC – Raw Milk OutbreaksCIDRAP – Florida Outbreak, 2024ScienceDirect – Pasteurization & Infant MortalityTime Magazine – Raw Milk SafetyOur World in Data – Child Mortality

Protein Powders: What’s Real, What’s Hype, and Why It MattersProtein powders are everywhere. Walk into a gym, scroll through social media, or visit a health food store, and you’ll see tubs of whey, egg, pea, and soy protein. Add buzzwords like “isolate,” “hydrolysate,” and “grass-fed,” and suddenly these powders sound like liquid gold. But how much of this is science—and how much is hype?From Surgeons to ShakersSurgeons were among the first to use modular proteins. In the ICU, when patients couldn’t eat, we relied on early protein formulas. These weren’t the big plastic tubs you see at Costco. They were custom-made, extremely expensive, and delivered directly into the gut through a feeding tube. Proteins like albumin cost thousands of dollars and were carefully monitored.Over time, science moved forward. Modern protein powders have become more affordable and accessible. What once cost hospitals a fortune is now sold in shiny containers at gyms and supplement shops. That’s progress—although it also opened the door for plenty of marketing nonsense.The Egg Protein CrazeThe very first protein powders sold to the public in the 1950s were made from eggs. Hollywood stars promoted them as the secret to beauty and muscle. Soon, the “beautiful people” diet drifted into gyms, where bodybuilders grabbed onto the promise of sculpted muscles. Eventually, protein shakes became a middle-America trend.Today, gyms often make more profit selling supplements than memberships or training. That’s not nutrition—it’s salesmanship.Curds, Whey, and the Rise of Dairy ProteinRemember the nursery rhyme about “curds and whey”? That wasn’t just poetry. Cheese making separates milk into two parts: the solid curds and the liquid whey. For centuries, whey was a waste product. Farmers dumped it or fed it to pigs. Then researchers discovered that whey contained high-quality protein, packed with amino acids.Now, whey protein is the biggest player in the supplement industry. Isolates and hydrolysates are simply forms of whey with more processing. They’re not magic—they’re filtered versions of what used to be discarded.Beyond Cows: Other Sources of ProteinCows aren’t the only animals providing milk protein. Goats produce protein powders, too, often marketed as “easier to digest.” Then there’s pea protein, soy protein, and rice protein, sold to vegans and those with dairy allergies. These plant-based versions can be useful, but they aren’t inherently superior.Branched-chain amino acids (BCAAs) are another popular product. They sound impressive, but in reality, if you’re eating enough protein in your diet, you already have plenty of BCAAs. Extra scoops don’t turn into extra muscle.Why Surgeons Still Prescribe ThemHere’s the irony. While influencers push powders as miracle muscle builders, surgeons actually prescribe them for medical reasons. After weight-loss surgery, patients can’t eat large amounts of food, so modular proteins help meet nutritional needs. In ICU patients with short gut syndrome or severe illness, protein powders save lives.Doctors used them first—long before gyms turned them into cash cows. The difference? We used them based on data, not marketing hype.The Bottom LineProtein powders are tools, not miracles. They’re convenient, portable, and sometimes necessary. But they’re not a shortcut to health. If you eat enough protein from whole foods, you probably don’t need that expensive tub with the shiny label.The supplement industry thrives on hype. Science thrives on evidence. And if history has shown us anything, it’s that evidence always wins—eventually.ReferencesBoirie Y, Dangin M, Gachon P, Vasson M-P, Maubois J-L, Beaufrère B. Slow and fast dietary proteins differently modulate postprandial protein accretion. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 1997;94(26):14930–14935.Phillips SM, van Loon LJC. Dietary protein for athletes: From requirements to optimum adaptation. J Sports Sci. 2011;29(S1):S29–S38.Hoffman JR, Falvo MJ. Protein – which is best? J Sports Sci Med. 2004;3(3):118–130.Wolfe RR. Branched-chain amino acids and muscle protein synthesis in humans: myth or reality? J Int Soc Sports Nutr. 2017;14:30.Klek S. Modular enteral nutrition in critically ill patients. Nutrients. 2011;3(2):183–199.

Make America Healthy Again? Hyman’s Half-Truths ExposedMark Hyman loves a soundbite. One of his favorites is:“If doctors were trained in nutrition, we could prevent 90% of heart disease and type 2 diabetes.”It sounds inspiring. Unfortunately, it isn’t true.Nutrition Is Powerful — But It’s Not MagicI’m certified in culinary medicine, and I live the Mediterranean diet. Good nutrition matters. It lowers risk. It supports treatment. However, it cannot replace medicine for people with established disease.The DASH trial (Sacks et al., NEJM 2001) proved that eating more fruits and vegetables while cutting sodium lowers blood pressure by the same amount as one blood pressure pill. That’s great news for prevention. But for those with heart disease, diabetes, or kidney problems, nutrition alone can’t cure the condition.Before the year 1800, even if you survived childhood, your life expectancy was still in your 30s or 40s (Roser et al., Our World in Data). People then ate “organically,” free from dyes and microplastics. They also died young. Modern life expectancy came from clean water, vaccines, and medicine, not kale.Samoa and Tahiti: Diet Didn’t Save ThemSamoa in 2019 had a diet Instagram influencers dream about — fresh fish, fruit, and root vegetables. Then measles hit.Two infants had died in 2017 because nurses mixed the MMR vaccine incorrectly. The government suspended vaccinations for nearly a year, and coverage dropped to about 31%. Into that trust gap stepped anti-vaccine activists, including RFK Jr., spreading misinformation.By late 2019, Samoa had over 5,700 cases and 83 deaths — most in children under five — in a population of just 200,000. Schools closed. Public gatherings stopped. Unvaccinated homes had to hang red flags so mobile teams could find them. Only when vaccination resumed did the outbreak end (WHO, 2019).Tahiti’s story was similar. Beautiful diet. Fresh food. Yet measles still spread. The only thing that stopped it was vaccination, not nutrition.What Hyman Really Sells Mark Hyman is trained in family medicine. He co-directed Canyon Ranch’s health program, then founded the Cleveland Clinic’s Center for Functional Medicine — a role he no longer holds.His version of “functional medicine” isn’t recognized by the American Board of Medical Specialties. Chiropractors, dentists, and nurses can buy a certification and call themselves “doctor.” In California, only MDs and DOs can legally use the title “physician,” but in many states, the public gets fooled.Hyman now uses his Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) campaign to give his brand of pseudoscience legitimacy. My Crestor costs $2.36 for three months, and my doctor gets nothing for prescribing it. His supplements? Around $100 for the same time, straight into his pocket.Real Data Beats HypeThe Lyon Diet Heart Study (de Lorgeril et al., Circulation 1999) found that a Mediterranean diet reduced the risk of another heart attack by 72% in people who already had heart disease. But those patients were still taking statins, aspirin, and blood pressure meds. Diet complemented medicine; it didn’t replace it.The JUPITER trial (Ridker et al., NEJM 2008) showed that statins cut cardiovascular events by 44% in people with normal LDL but high CRP. No supplement stack or smoothie matches that.Why This Is PersonalMy dad had a heart attack at 55. Doctors told him not to expect another 20 years.Five years later, statins came out. He took them faithfully, along with his blood pressure medicine. He lived to 98 — independent, writing a memoir, and outliving his doctors. He ate reasonably well, but he always had a candy bowl nearby and drank plenty of coffee. Science kept him alive, not “perfect” eating.The Bottom LineNutrition is essential. Medicine is essential. The best results come when we combine them — evidence-based and free from supplement hype.When you hear Hyman claim that doctors just need nutrition training to prevent 90% of disease, remember Samoa. Remember Tahiti. And remember my dad.ReferencesSacks FM et al. Effects on Blood Pressure of Reduced Dietary Sodium and the Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension (DASH) Diet. N Engl J Med. 2001;344:3–10.de Lorgeril M et al. Mediterranean Diet, Traditional Risk Factors, and the Rate of Cardiovascular Complications After Myocardial Infarction. Circulation. 1999;99(6):779–785.Ridker PM et al. Rosuvastatin to Prevent Vascular Events in Men and Women with Elevated C-Reactive Protein. N Engl J Med. 2008;359:2195–2207.Roser M et al. Life Expectancy. Our World in Data. Accessed August 2025.World Health Organization. WHO and UNICEF join Samoa vaccination campaign. December 6, 2019.

Carter’s Little Liver Pills: The Original Detox Scam and Its Modern CousinsFor more than a century, people have searched for quick fixes to “cleanse” the liver. From old‑time laxatives to today’s wellness shots and hangover probiotics, the promise is the same: remove toxins, feel better, live longer. However, as science catches up with marketing claims, we learn a hard truth — most of these cleanses never did what they promised.The Sluggish Liver MythBack in the 1800s, doctors blamed nearly every health problem on a “sluggish liver.” Headaches, fatigue, irritability — even bad moods — were supposedly signs that the liver wasn’t “lively” enough.Enter Carter’s Little Liver Pills. These small tablets promised to fix “biliousness,” an old term for feeling miserable and out of sorts. The secret ingredient? Cascara sagrada, a plant‑based laxative. In short, the pills made people poop, and that temporary relief was sold as detoxification.Marketing Genius in a Pill BottleCarter’s advertising strategy worked brilliantly. Their message was simple: if you feel bad, it’s your liver’s fault — and their pills were the cure. The campaign was so successful that the phrase “more than Carter’s got pills” became American slang for “an absurd amount of something.”Sadly, that formula still works today. Many modern health products use the same playbook: invent a vague condition, blame it for everything, then sell the cure.Modern Detox Myths: Dose, ZBiotics, and the Olive Oil FlushFast‑forward to today and you’ll see similar claims everywhere. Dose for Your Liver, a wellness shot with milk thistle and turmeric, promises to “cleanse” the liver and support “500 daily functions.” While it cites studies showing reduced liver enzymes, those studies involved people who already had liver problems — not the average healthy person grabbing a detox shot after brunch.ZBiotics Pre‑Alcohol markets itself as a probiotic that breaks down acetaldehyde, a compound linked to hangovers. The truth is more complicated. Your liver clears almost all acetaldehyde on its own, while your gut bacteria handle less than five percent. Most hangover symptoms actually come from alcohol itself, dehydration, and inflammation — not a single molecule.Perhaps the most dramatic claim is the “liver flush” made from olive oil and lemon juice. Supporters insist that the green balls they pass in the toilet are gallstones. However, chemical tests show these “stones” are actually soap‑like clumps created when oil mixes with digestive fluids. Real gallstones are hard and form in the gallbladder; they do not dissolve overnight or pass easily. Even people without gallbladders “flush stones,” which proves the myth.What Actually Supports Liver HealthThe good news? You don’t need a cleanse. Your liver already detoxes naturally — 24 hours a day. Instead of chasing fads, focus on habits proven to protect it:Drink coffee (up to three cups daily): Linked to lower risk of fatty liver and cirrhosis.Eat polyphenol-rich foods like blueberries: These support liver health through antioxidants.Get fiber from beans, greens, and whole grains: Good for the gut‑liver connection.Exercise regularly: Even 150 minutes a week can reduce liver fat.Limit alcohol: No supplement erases binge drinking.Stay up to date on vaccines: Hepatitis A and B vaccines prevent major liver diseases.The Fall of Carter’s Pills — and the LessonBy the 1950s, science caught up to marketing. Constipation wasn’t liver failure, and the liver didn’t need “lively” pills. In 1959, the Federal Trade Commission forced Carter’s to drop the word “liver” from its name. Without that claim, sales collapsed.Despite Carter’s disappearance, the marketing tactics remain. Whether it’s a probiotic, a turmeric shot, or a trendy flush, the pitch is the same: you’re toxic, we have the cure. The reality? The cure was never needed.TakeawayHealth trends may change, but the hustle stays the same. Instead of falling for the next detox craze, choose evidence‑based habits — and remember that if something promises instant cleansing, it’s probably selling you something you don’t need.ReferencesHarvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health – Coffee and Liver Health (click here) National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases – GallstonesAmerican Liver Foundation – Myths and Facts About Liver HealthNational Library of Medicine – Milk Thistle in Liver DiseaseFederal Trade Commission Archives – Carter’s Little Liver Pills Case (1959)

Goat Glands, Chloroform, and the City That Saved Surgery(How Edinburgh dragged American medicine out of the Wild West) When we think about modern surgery, it’s easy to imagine it has always been clean, safe, and scientific. However, that could not be further from the truth. Surgery was more like a horror show just over 150 years ago. Patients faced unbearable pain, filthy instruments, and shocking guesswork.Today, we’ll explore how the Scottish city of Edinburgh transformed surgery — and how America, for far too long, ignored the science in favor of quick fixes and fast profits. Along the way, we’ll meet heroes like James Young Simpson and Joseph Lister, as well as villains like John R. Brinkley and Willard Bliss. We’ll also see why modern “wellness influencers” aren’t so different from the quacks of the past.Edinburgh: The Peak of Medical ScienceIn the 18th and 19th centuries, Edinburgh was the world’s medical capital. Students from across Europe and the American colonies traveled there to study anatomy, surgery, and the latest medical theories.Because of this, early American physicians like Benjamin Rush and John Morgan brought Edinburgh’s teachings home, helping to found the first U.S. medical school at the University of Pennsylvania. Harvard soon followed with a similar model.However, while a few elite schools adopted Scottish standards, most of America remained a medical free-for-all. Outside major cities, anyone could call themselves a doctor, and “miracle cures” were everywhere. This was the true “Wild West” of medicine — long before the cowboy era we usually imagine.James Young Simpson: Ending Pain in SurgeryNext, let’s fast-forward to the mid-1800s. At this time, one of the greatest problems in surgery was pain. Without anesthesia, operations had to be done quickly, often in less than a minute, and the suffering was unbearable.That changed in 1846, when ether anesthesia was first used in Boston. News of ether’s success quickly crossed the Atlantic. By the time the next ship arrived in Edinburgh, surgeons were already experimenting with it — and looking for something even better.Enter James Young Simpson, an obstetrician and, yes, one of my relatives. In 1847, Simpson discovered that chloroform worked better than ether and was easier to use. His famous breakthrough happened during a dinner party experiment, where he and his friends inhaled chloroform, passed out, and woke up amazed. Surgery would never be the same again.Joseph Lister: Stopping Deadly InfectionsSolving pain was one thing, but there was another huge problem: infection. After surgery, most patients didn’t die from the knife — they died from the germs they couldn’t see.This is where Joseph Lister changed history. Influenced by Louis Pasteur’s germ theory, Lister realized that microorganisms caused infection. He began using carbolic acid to clean wounds and sterilize instruments. While some of his colleagues mocked him, the results spoke for themselves: surgical death rates plummeted.Lister’s work eventually led to asepsis, the sterile environments we now take for granted in operating rooms.America Ignored the Science — and a President DiedUnfortunately, the United States was slow to adopt these life-saving ideas. A tragic example is the death of President James Garfield in 1881. After being shot, Garfield’s wound was not fatal. He should have survived.However, his doctor, Willard Bliss, refused to believe in germ theory or antiseptic techniques. Bliss and several others repeatedly probed Garfield’s wound with unwashed hands and unsterilized instruments. For seventy-nine days, the president suffered — not from the bullet, but from a massive infection. Bliss then billed the government $25,000 for his “services,” which would be roughly $750,000 today.The Wild West of Quackery: From Goat Glands to InstagramEven after American medicine improved — especially after the 1910 Flexner Report, which shut down low-quality medical schools — quackery never fully disappeared. It simply evolved.In the 1920s and ’30s, John R. Brinkley became famous for implanting goat testicles into men as a cure for impotence. He used radio to market his “miracle” to millions, proving that loud marketing could still beat good science.Sound familiar? Today’s hucksters may not use goat glands, but they use similar tactics. Some sell expensive stool tests and invent conditions like “leaky gut” to push costly supplements. Others, like the carnivore diet influencers, ignore decades of data on the Mediterranean diet and claim you should eat nothing but steak. They dismiss the science on cholesterol, flaunt their abs, offer life coaching, and sell overpriced “special salt” — even though salt is salt, and plain Pedialyte has been used safely in millions of rehydrations.Why Hucksters Don’t Advance SciencePeople sometimes wonder: If these charismatic figures turned their energy toward research, could they make real progress? The answer is no.First, most lack the deep scient

A Hole Lot of Nonsense: Surgery Before SciencePeople once drilled holes in skulls to cure madnessAnd in some cases… it actually helped. Well, if you consider madness what happens if you get a stroke from too much pressure in your brain from traumaThat’s the wild part.While visiting the Surgeons’ Hall Museum in Edinburgh, I saw ancient skulls with round holes cut into them—evidence of trepanation, one of the world’s oldest surgeries. Even more shocking? Many of those patients survived. Some healed so well that they lived for years.But let’s back up.What is trepanation?It’s the act of scraping or drilling a hole in your skull. Ancient people did it across continents—from South America to Europe.We don’t know exactly why. Some may have used it to relieve pressure after a head injury. Others might have believed it released evil spirits.Here’s the thing: it sometimes worked.Today, we know that pressure in the brain—from a bleed, swelling, or injury—can be deadly. Modern medicine sometimes calls for drilling a hole or even removing part of the skull to save a patient’s life.The ancients may have stumbled onto something real. Or they may have been guessing.That’s the danger when we mix luck with ritual. If one patient improves, people assume the treatment works—even if there’s no science behind it.Dr. Cotton and the colon cureJump ahead to the 1900s.Dr. Henry Cotton believed mental illness came from hidden infections in the body. So what did he do? He had his surgeons remove teeth, tonsils, stomachs, and colons—even when patients showed no symptoms.Many died. Most didn’t improve.Still, Cotton was praised in journals and trusted by major institutions. His confidence overshadowed the lack of results.It’s a painful reminder that being sure of yourself doesn’t make you right. Sounds like modern-day influencers - confidence beyond erudition.Today’s brain hacks: same pattern, better packagingRight now, people are terrified of dementia. That fear fuels a massive market for brain supplements. One of the biggest sellers? Lion’s Mane mushrooms.They’re in powders, coffees, and pricey pills. Some lab research suggests benefits, but actual human studies? Weak at best.Meanwhile, studies show that eating a Mediterranean or MIND-style diet can reduce your risk of dementia by up to 50%. But those diets don’t come in fancy bottles.Instead of focusing on real food, we chase the next shiny pill.And let’s talk about PRP…PRP stands for platelet-rich plasma. Some orthopedic surgeons spin down your blood, pull out platelets, and inject it back into sore joints. They claim it speeds healing.The truth? There’s little evidence that PRP works for most uses. But it’s expensive. And because it sounds high-tech, people trust it.The orthopedic surgeon gets the thousands of dollars for it because insurance won't cover it. They won't cover it because it isn't a researched treatment. But if your surgeon says here take this and you will recover faster - what to do?I should know—I co-authored one of the first papers on PRP for diabetic wounds, where it actually showed benefit.But that’s a far cry from injecting it into tennis elbows for cash.We’ve upgraded the tools. Not always the thinking.What history teaches usWhen I look around this museum, the lesson is clear:We’ve always wanted to help. But good intentions without good science can hurt people.Real medical progress comes from questioning our own assumptions. It comes from saying, “Let’s study this,” instead of, “Let’s just try it.” Whether it’s trepanning or turmeric, we need to ask:Does this really work—or are we just hoping it does?References:Barnes LL, Dhana K, Liu X, Carey VJ, Ventrelle J, Johnson K, Hollings CS, Bishop L, Laranjo N, Stubbs BJ, Reilly X, Agarwal P, Zhang S, Grodstein F, Tangney CC, Holland TM, Aggarwal NT, Arfanakis K, Morris MC, Sacks FM. Trial of the MIND Diet for Prevention of Cognitive Decline in Older Persons. N Engl J Med. 2023 Aug 17;389(7):602-611. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2302368. Epub 2023 Jul 18. PMID: 37466280; PMCID: PMC10513737. (click here for reference)Seitz, D. et al. (2022). “MIND Diet and Risk of Alzheimer’s Disease.” Nutritional Neuroscience.Simpson, T. (1991). “Platelet-derived Growth Factor and Wound Healing.” Journal of Diabetic Complications.Want to avoid brain fads? Start with whole foods, good sleep, and honest science. The hole in your head should stay in your museum tour, not in your health plan.

A Shocking Health Trend from the PastToday, you might see ads for detox teas, liver cleanses, and even hydrogen water. These products promise energy, better health, and a longer life.But strange health trends are nothing new.In the 1920s and 1930s, people paid good money to drink radioactive water. They believed it gave them energy, cured pain, and even helped them live longer. One brand, called Radithor, was sold as “perpetual sunshine in a bottle.”Yes—people drank water mixed with radium, the same element now used in cancer treatments and nuclear reactors.Why Did People Think It Worked?At first, radium looked like a miracle. It glowed in the dark, and doctors were just beginning to understand radiation. Companies saw a chance to make money. So they started selling radium in toothpaste, face cream, chocolate, and, yes, bottled water.One famous product, Radithor, was sold as a cure for everything from tiredness to “low manhood energy.”People believed it worked. Why? Because it came from science. It looked exciting. And it was easy to believe a glowing bottle held glowing health.Even doctors promoted it, just like some do with today’s wellness fads.Read more on Radithor from the Oak Ridge Associated UniversitiesMeet the Tragic Case of Eben ByersOne man named Eben Byers became the face of this trend. He was rich, well-known, and loved Radithor. He drank it every day—three bottles a day for years.For years, he said he felt great. But soon, the side effects started.His teeth fell out.Then his jaw crumbled.Finally, bones weakened and broke.Eventually, his body became so radioactive that they had to bury him in a lead coffin. It took years for this to take effect. But during the years he was drinking his deadly potion, he claimed improved health and vitality.This helped end Radithor, but the public didn’t learn the bigger lesson.Fast Forward to TodayEven though we know better, we still fall for bad science with a shiny label.Let’s look at a few modern examples:Gary Brekka sells hydrogen water as a health hack, even though there’s little proof it helps anyone.Döse Liver Cleanse is a product that doesn’t actually cleanse your liver.And of course, Goop keeps offering “natural” cures like jade eggs and bee-sting facials, with no solid research to back them up.These trends all follow the Radithor formula:Make a wild claimAdd buzzwords like “cleanse,” “cellular,” or “bioavailable”Skip the actual scienceSell it fast before the truth catches upWhat’s the Real Risk?Most modern products won’t melt your jaw. But they can waste your money, give false hope, or delay real care.Worse, they can make people distrust doctors and trust influencers instead.Just like Radithor, these products often look scientific, but they skip important steps—like peer review, clinical trials, and safety data.If you need a liver cleanse, your body already has one.It’s called your liver. And it works 24/7—no powdered beetroot or milk thistle needed.What Should You Do Instead?Instead of chasing magic drinks or secret pills:Eat whole foodsMove your body regularlySleep wellSee real medical professionalsAsk for evidence—not just storiesIf something sounds too good to be true, it probably is. Especially if it comes from someone selling supplements, not science.Final ThoughtWe like to believe we’re smarter than the past. But we still fall for the same trick, just with different packaging.So next time you see a glowing promise in a bottle, ask yourself:Is this progress… or just Radithor with better lighting?

Who Was Dr. Salisbury?First, let’s meet the man behind the meat.Dr. James Henry Salisbury was a doctor during the American Civil War. He worked hard to understand why so many soldiers got sick. He noticed that stomach problems like diarrhea and dysentery were everywhere in the army camps.Because of this, he believed the problem came from food. But instead of looking at germs, he blamed vegetables.That’s right—he thought vegetables caused disease. To children everywhere, he became a hero. To science? Not so much.What Did He Believe?Dr. Salisbury believed that vegetables and starchy foods rotted in the gut. He said they caused inflammation and sickness. He thought the best way to stop disease was to eat meat—and only meat.So, he created a special food: the Salisbury steak.This steak wasn’t fancy. He ground up lean beef, shaped it into a patty, and told people to eat it three times a day. With it, they could drink only hot water or black coffee.No fruit.Absolutely no sugar.No grains.And definitely no vegetables.Why Did It Seem to Work?At first, some people felt better on the Salisbury diet. But why?Here’s the real reason: it wasn’t the meat. It was the boiling.Back then, most water carried bacteria. That bacteria caused all kinds of sickness. When soldiers boiled coffee, they accidentally killed the germs in the water. When they ate fully cooked meat, they avoided raw, dirty food.So yes, people improved. But not because vegetables were bad.They got better because boiled water and cooked meat killed bacteria.What Did He Get Wrong?Now, let’s talk about what he missed.❌ He didn’t understand germs or bacteria❌ He thought fiber was dangerous❌ He blamed plants, even though they weren’t the problem❌ He didn’t test his ideas—he just believed themHe meant well, but he built a health plan on the wrong cause.Instead of fixing the real issue, he created a food myth that lasted for years.Why Does This Still Matter?Even though Dr. Salisbury lived over 150 years ago, his ideas are back—on TikTok.Some people today say meat is the only healthy food. They avoid fruits, grains, and vegetables. They blame plants for everything from bloating to brain fog.Sound familiar?They’re repeating Salisbury’s mistake. They’re trusting old beliefs instead of new science.What Science Says NowLet’s be clear. Science today tells a different story.✅ Vegetables help your gut, heart, and brain✅ Fiber feeds healthy gut bacteria✅ A variety of foods lowers your risk of disease❌ Eating only meat can cause nutrient problems and long-term risksInstead of eating like it’s 1863, you can follow a plan that supports your body and your taste buds.The best example? The Mediterranean diet—with healthy fats, lean protein, vegetables, fruits, and yes… even a little red wine.In SummaryDr. Salisbury had a strong idea—but he missed the mark.He didn’t know about bacteria. He thought vegetables were the enemy. He gave us Salisbury steak, but also gave us a lasting food myth.So next time someone says vegetables cause disease, just smile and say: “We’ve been down that road. It was dusty, undercooked, and came with black coffee.”

The Smoothie That Changed My Mornings (And the Appliances That Helped)Let’s talk about kitchen appliances.Yes, those gadgets sitting on your counter—or hiding in a cabinet—can either make your life easier... or drive you nuts. Today, I want to share how two small appliances completely changed my mornings. And no, I’m not paid to say any of this.It Started With the Air FryerFirst, let’s be honest: nothing has brought more people back into the kitchen than the air fryer. It’s fast, easy, and makes food crispy without all the oil. In fact, according to Consumer Reports, the air fryer has become one of the most popular kitchen tools in America in the last few years.¹This got me thinking—what other simple appliances could actually make healthy habits easier?My Complicated Coffee RoutineFor years, I had a fancy coffee routine. I ground my beans fresh. I did pour-overs. I used a timer and scale like I did chemistry. The coffee was great, but the process? Not so much.Then one day, I tried Nespresso. Just pop in a capsule, push a button, and you get a strong, rich espresso with foam on top. It was so easy that I started enjoying my mornings again.No, I’m not sponsored by Nespresso—I just like sharing what works.The Smoothie ProblemNext, let’s talk about smoothies.I have tons of smoothie recipes. I’ve written them, shared them, and even made videos about them. But honestly? I stopped making them for a long time.Why? Because of one thing: my Vitamix blender.Now, don’t get me wrong. It’s a powerful machine. It can crush anything. But it’s big. It’s loud. It has too many parts. Just getting it out of the cabinet felt like a workout. And cleaning it? Forget it.So even though I wanted to make smoothies, I kept skipping them. It was just easier to grab a banana and move on with my day.The Nutribullet FixThen everything changed.I bought a Nutribullet.It’s small, easy to use, and quick to clean. I keep it on the counter. It takes about 30 seconds to rinse after using. And because of that, I’ve started making smoothies again—almost every day.Just like that, a healthy habit became simple.And no—I’m not paid by Nutribullet either. But I believe in sharing the tools that actually help.My Favorite Morning SmoothieHere’s the one I make the most right now. It gives you a little caffeine, some protein, and tastes like a treat.☕️ Coffee Whey Protein SmoothieYou’ll need:1 cup cold-brewed coffee (or cooled Nespresso)1 scoop whey protein (vanilla or chocolate)½ banana½ cup almond milk or any milk1 tbsp peanut butter or almond butter (optional)1/2 cup of Greek YogurtDash of cinnamon or cocoa powderOptional extras:1–2 dates1 tsp chia or flax seeds¼ tsp vanilla extractDirections:Put everything in the blender. Blend until smooth. Pour and enjoy!The Big IdeaSometimes, the hardest part of a healthy habit isn’t the food—it’s the tool. If your blender is too much work, you won’t use it. If your coffee takes 20 minutes to make, you’ll skip breakfast.But with the right appliance? You remove the stress. And that makes the habit stick.Final ThoughtsIf you’re trying to eat better, start by making your kitchen easier to use. Keep the tools you love on the counter. Ditch the ones that frustrate you.And if you're changing your diet in a serious way? Talk to a registered dietitian and a board-certified doctor, not a chiropractor or some “wellness guru” who learned nutrition on YouTube.You can find more of my recipes at terrysimpson.com. And if you want more food science and fewer fads, check out my newsletter on Substack at tsimpson.substack.com.Until then, keep it simple, keep it smart, and keep the peanut butter chunky.—Reference:¹ Consumer Reports – “Why Air Fryers Are Still Flying Off the Shelves” (2023)

🥣 The Curious Case of Dr. Kellogg: Surgeon, Cereal, and a Whole Lot of EnemasWhen you think of Kellogg, you probably picture cereal—maybe a sweet bowl of Frosted Flakes or Corn Flakes. But the real story behind Kellogg is far weirder than breakfast. It starts with a doctor. A good one. A very strange one.Meet Dr. John Harvey KelloggDr. John Harvey Kellogg wasn’t just any doctor. He was a skilled surgeon, and even Dr. Charles Mayo—the founder of the Mayo Clinic—called him one of the best abdominal surgeons he had ever seen.But Kellogg didn’t become famous for his surgery skills. Instead, he became known for his obsession with health, diet, and—believe it or not—poop.The Sanitarium and the Celebrity PatientsKellogg ran the famous Battle Creek Sanitarium in Michigan. This health resort attracted celebrities like Thomas Edison, Henry Ford, and even Amelia Earhart. People came there to “cleanse” their bodies with special diets, exercise, sunlight, and—yes—daily enemas.He believed almost every illness started in the colon. His solution? Flush it out. Constantly. Sometimes, with yogurt. Sometimes, both ends. I wish I were kidding.Kellogg’s War on PleasureDr. Kellogg didn’t just worry about digestion. He also believed that pleasure—especially sexual pleasure—was dangerous. In fact, he thought masturbation caused everything from bad digestion to insanity.To fight back, he recommended boring, bland food. No spices. No excitement. Just plain meals that wouldn’t "stir the passions."That’s how Corn Flakes were born. Kellogg invented them as a food so bland, they might help people forget about sex altogether.Cereal Becomes a BusinessNow, here’s where things get interesting. Kellogg’s brother, W.K. Kellogg, thought those flakes had potential—but they needed flavor. So he added sugar and started selling them to the public.Dr. Kellogg was furious. He believed sugar was poison. The two brothers fought in court. W.K. won. And that’s why your breakfast cereal today is sweet and not designed to stop anyone’s libido.What Science Says TodayLet’s be clear: Dr. Kellogg got a lot of things wrong.You do not need daily enemas. Your colon cleans itself.Yogurt goes better in a bowl than through a tube.Masturbation doesn’t cause disease. It’s a normal, healthy part of being human.And your desire to eat or love has nothing to do with how spicy your dinner was.While Kellogg’s focus on exercise and plant-based diets was ahead of his time, his fear of pleasure and obsession with “cleansing” caused more harm than good.The Strange LegacyDr. Howard Markel, in his excellent book The Kelloggs: The Battling Brothers of Battle Creek, dives deep into their story. He shows how Dr. Kellogg's strict health beliefs turned into fads—and how his brother’s sweet-toothed success made cereal a worldwide business. Markel, Howard. The Kelloggs: The Battling Brothers of Battle Creek. Pantheon Books, 2017. Kellogg's ideas were extreme, but they still echo today. Whenever someone tells you to "detox," do a cleanse, or eat bland food to fix your hormones—they might not realize they’re following a 19th-century surgeon who really hated fun.Dr. Markel was a medical school classmate of mine, and his book is excellent.Final ThoughtDr. John Harvey Kellogg was a brilliant surgeon. But being smart doesn’t mean being right. And it definitely doesn’t mean you should give yourself a yogurt enema.So next time you reach for a box of cereal, remember: your breakfast has a backstory. And it’s weirder than you think.

What Is Ozempic or Zepbound, Really?You’ve probably heard about Ozempic or Zepbound. Maybe from a friend, a celebrity, or a TikTok ad. These are powerful medicines used to help people lose weight and manage diabetes. But what do they actually do?Ozempic is a GLP-1 receptor agonist—a type of drug that helps control hunger, improve blood sugar, and lower the risk of heart disease.But here's the big surprise: the real power of these drugs isn’t in your stomach—it’s in your brain.How It Works in the BrainGLP-1 medications like Ozempic work in two big ways:They help you feel full.They slow down how fast your stomach empties, so you stay full longer.They quiet the “food noise” in your brain.That’s the big one. These medicines reach areas in the brain like the hypothalamus and mesolimbic system (which includes parts like the nucleus accumbens and ventral tegmental area). These areas are responsible for cravings, rewards, and motivation to eat.When GLP-1 hits these areas, it reduces dopamine, the chemical that makes you want things like cake or chips. It also increases serotonin, which helps with mood and feeling satisfied after eating.This makes it easier to stop eating when you're full and harder to overeat just because food tastes good.📚 Reference: Mechanisms of GLP-1 receptor agonist–induced weight loss. Am J Med. 2024.What About “Natural GLP-1 Boosters”?You might see ads for supplements or foods that say they boost your “natural GLP-1.” Some are even called “natural Ozempic.”Here’s the truth:Your body makes GLP-1 naturally.Yes, fiber-rich foods help make more of it.But no, it does not stay in your system very long—only a few minutes.That means your natural GLP-1 never reaches your brain like Ozempic does.Synthetic GLP-1 drugs like semaglutide (Ozempic) are made to last for days. They stick around long enough to enter your brain and turn down cravings.So no—berberine, vinegar, or sea moss are not the same thing.📚 Reference: GLP-1 in brain health and food reward. Front Neurosci. 2022.Common Myths You Should IgnoreLet’s talk about a few common myths—and what science says instead:❌ “It’s a cheat code.”✅ It’s not cheating. It helps your brain stop screaming for food all the time.❌ “You’ll lose all your muscle.”✅ Not if you eat enough protein and move your body.❌ “You’ll gain it all back.”✅ Only if you stop all your healthy habits. GLP-1s are tools, not magic.❌ “It’s just for weight loss.”✅ These drugs also lower your risk of heart attacks, stroke, and even possibly dementia.📚 Reference: Semaglutide and cardiovascular outcomes. NEJM. 2023.Want to Supercharge Your Results? Go Mediterranean.People on GLP-1s who follow a Mediterranean-style diet lose more weight than those who don’t.Here’s why:Supports your gut health.Boosts your own natural GLP-1.Helps the medication work better.What’s in the Mediterranean diet?✅ Vegetables, beans, nuts, and whole grains✅ Olive oil instead of butter✅ Fish and lean proteins✅ Some fruit and red wine (in moderation)And yes—less fast food and fewer ultra-processed snacks.📚 Reference: Combining GLP-1s with dietary strategies. Nutrients. 2023.One Final Thing: Obesity Is a DiseaseSome people still think obesity is about willpower. It’s not.In 2013, the American Medical Association said obesity is a disease.It’s caused by a mix of genetics, hormones, environment, and brain chemistry.Telling someone to “just eat less” is like telling someone with asthma to “just breathe better.”📚 Reference: Obesity as a chronic disease. Endocr Rev. 2021.In SummaryGLP-1 medications like Ozempic are powerful tools—but they work best with the right support:✅ Use them with a healthy Mediterranean-style diet✅ Talk to your doctor and registered dietitian✅ Don’t fall for “natural GLP-1” scams✅ Understand: This is real medicine—not a trendAbout the AuthorThis article was written by Dr. Terry Simpson, a board-certified physician, surgeon, and food science expert.

Longevity Without the Grift: What Actually Helps You Age BetterEveryone wants to live longer. That’s why people are plunging into ice baths, sweating in infrared saunas, and rubbing beef tallow on their faces like it’s a miracle cream. Meanwhile, supplement companies make billions selling capsules that promise eternal youth.But here’s the thing: we don’t need to chase immortality. We need to focus on healthspan—the number of years we stay active, sharp, and independent. Living longer doesn’t mean much if you can’t enjoy it.Let’s break it down.The Problem With the Modern Longevity IndustryFor centuries, people have searched for the secret to living forever. From ancient pharaohs to modern influencers, the idea hasn’t changed much. Today’s gurus don’t wear robes. They wear lab coats on YouTube. They sell methylated vitamins, resveratrol, and supplements with science-sounding names like NMN.Some of these people—chiropractors, Instagram influencers, even some doctors like Mark Hyman—promise more than science can deliver. What they’re selling often looks more like modern snake oil than real medicine.Here’s a good rule of thumb: if a product claims to reverse aging and comes with a monthly subscription, it probably doesn’t work.What Actually Works: Boring, Science-Backed HabitsThankfully, there are simple steps you can take that do help.Sleep: Get 7–9 hours a night. This is when your brain clears out waste and resets.Exercise: Move your body. Walk, lift weights, and do balance work. It all adds up.Vaccinate: Shingles and COVID vaccines reduce your risk of dementia. Shingrix alone cuts it by 20%.Statins: The last 40 studies show that statins reduce dementia risk by up to 20%.  PMID 34871380 Eat Like You Mean It: The Mediterranean DietOne of the best-studied diets in the world is the Mediterranean diet. It’s not trendy, but it’s powerful. One large study showed that it can increase longevity by up to 9% if you stick with it. SourceHere’s how it works:Red Meat: Limit to 4 ounces a day. More than that raises your risk for cancer, heart disease, and type 2 diabetes. After 3 ounces, your body stops absorbing more iron anyway.Olive Oil: Use it instead of butter. It’s packed with healthy fats and polyphenols like oleocanthal.Whole Grains & Legumes: Beans and grains reduce obesity, diabetes, heart disease, and cancer. They’re even higher in fiber than most fruits and veggies.Fruits & Vegetables: Eat a variety. Colorful foods mean more antioxidants and polyphenols.Wine: One glass. That’s 5 ounces. And yes, you still get a full Mediterranean Diet point if you don’t drink at all.What Doesn’t Work (Even If It’s Trending)Let’s be honest. Some things are popular, but pointless—or even harmful.Drinking alcohol "for your health"Avoiding vaccinesIgnoring blood pressure and cholesterolTrusting wellness influencers with no scientific backgroundRemember: no supplement undoes bad habits. And no guru can out-hack the Hayflick Limit. That’s the scientific cap on how many times your cells can divide.The Real Way to Support Your CellsGurus love talking about NAD and mitochondria. And yes, NAD can help your cells work better—in a lab dish. But real-life results? Meh.Instead, support your cells with:MovementSleepA mostly plant-based dietNot eating around the clockIf NAD really worked, I’d give it all to my 15-year-old dog.Final ThoughtsWe can’t live forever. But we can live better.Skip the miracle pills. Stick to the basics: move, eat like a Mediterranean, treat your blood pressure, and get vaccinated. And while you're at it, maybe adopt a senior dog. They won't live forever, but they'll give you everything they have.Dr. Terry SimpsonBoard-Certified Surgeon & Longevity Myth BusterHost of the FORK U Podcast

Hi, I'm Dr. Terry Simpson, your chief medical explanationist. Welcome to another edition of FORK U—where we bust myths, make sense of the madness, and teach you a little about food and medicine.Today, let's explore how our food choices impact the environment and our health. We'll discuss lab-grown meat, grass-fed beef, and sustainable seafood.🍔 Lab-Grown Meat: The Future of Food?Imagine enjoying a burger that didn't require raising or slaughtering an animal. That's the idea behind lab-grown meat, also known as cultured meat. Scientists grow real animal cells in labs to create meat without the traditional farming process.The Spruce EatsVoxWhy consider lab-grown meat?Environmental Benefits: It could reduce greenhouse gas emissions by up to 96% and use 99% less land compared to traditional meat production. California Management Review+1University of Colorado Boulder+1Animal Welfare: No animals are harmed in the process.Health Potential: Lab-grown meat can be produced without antibiotics, reducing the risk of antibiotic resistance. California Management Review+1Wikipedia+1While it's not widely available yet, lab-grown meat is a promising step toward sustainable eating.🐄 Grass-Fed Beef: Is It Worth It?Grass-fed beef comes from cows that eat grass instead of grain. Some people choose it for potential health benefits and better animal welfare. Modern FarmerPros:More Omega-3s: Grass-fed beef has about three times more omega-3 fatty acids than grain-fed beef.Better Fat Ratio: It has a healthier balance of omega-6 to omega-3 fatty acids. Grass Roots Farmers' Cooperative+3Wikipedia+3Understanding Ag+3Cons:Taste Varies: Not all grass-fed beef tastes the same. The flavor depends on the pasture quality, and some might find it less tender.Reddit+8Vox+8Grass Roots Farmers' Cooperative+8Cost: It's often more expensive than grain-fed beef.While grass-fed beef has benefits, it's essential to consider taste preferences and budget.🐟 Sustainable Seafood: Making Smart ChoicesSeafood is a great source of protein and omega-3 fatty acids. However, overfishing and unsustainable practices harm our oceans. Seafood WatchTips for Choosing Sustainable Seafood:Use Guides: The Seafood Watch provides up-to-date recommendations on sustainable seafood choices.Seafood Watch+4Seafood Watch+4Seafood Watch+4Farmed Salmon: While some criticize farmed salmon, it's often a sustainable option. Farmed salmon get their pink color from astaxanthin, a natural compound also found in wild salmon's diet. Modern FarmerWild-Caught Options: Alaskan salmon is a delicious and sustainable choice, rich in omega-3s.By making informed seafood choices, we can enjoy tasty meals while protecting marine life.🛒 Final Thoughts: Small Changes, Big ImpactEating sustainably doesn't mean giving up your favorite foods. It's about making smarter choices:Try lab-grown meat when it becomes available. The Guardian+9Nature+9Vox+9Choose grass-fed beef if it fits your taste and budget.Opt for sustainable seafood using trusted guides. Seafood Watch+1Oceana+1Every small step contributes to a healthier planet and a better future.

The Fry Lie: How McDonald's Fries Got Worse—Not HealthierFor years, McDonald’s fries ruled the world. They were golden, crispy, salty, and delicious. People called them the best fries ever made. But then something changed. Around the 1990s, fans noticed the fries didn’t taste the same anymore.What happened?Let’s dive into the real story of why McDonald’s fries lost their magic—and how the changes didn’t make them healthier. In fact, for a while, they actually made them worse.Once Upon a Time… in Beef TallowBefore 1990, McDonald’s cooked their fries in a special mix: 7% cottonseed oil and 93% beef tallow. That’s a fancy way of saying animal fat. This gave the fries a rich, savory flavor you couldn’t find anywhere else.Why did they use beef fat? Because Ray Kroc, the man who built the McDonald’s empire, wanted fries to taste like the original McDonald brothers’ version. He nailed it.But not everyone loved the fat.Meet Phil Sokolof: The Fry CrusaderPhil Sokolof wasn’t a doctor. He wasn’t a scientist. But he was a wealthy businessman from Nebraska who had a heart attack. After that, he became a full-time food activist. Think of him like an early version of today’s online influencers—lots of passion, not much science.Sokolof spent millions on full-page newspaper ads. His messages sounded scary:“The Poisoning of America”“McDonald’s: Your Hamburger Has Too Much Fat”It worked. The public panicked. McDonald’s gave in.In 1990, the company switched from beef fat to 100% vegetable oil.Oops… Now with Trans FatsAt first, this seemed like a healthy change. But here’s what they didn’t tell you: the new vegetable oil was partially hydrogenated, meaning it was full of trans fats—the most dangerous kind of fat for your heart.Trans fats increase your bad cholesterol (LDL) and lower your good cholesterol (HDL). They raise your risk of heart disease way more than saturated fat.In trying to remove one bad fat, McDonald’s accidentally replaced it with something even worse. FDA, 2015.They finally banned trans fats in the U.S. in 2018—but for almost 20 years, those “healthier” fries actually hurt people’s hearts more than the original version ever did.Flavor Fail: Enter the Beef “Natural Flavor”Customers missed the old flavor. So what did McDonald’s do? They added “natural beef flavoring” to the vegetable oil. Yep, they removed the beef fat… and then added beef flavoring back in.This confused people. Some vegetarians and Hindus believed the fries were plant-based. They weren’t, leading to lawsuits and even more public confusion.In the United Kingdom, McDonald’s fries are really vegan. But in the United States, that natural beef flavor still makes them off-limits to some groups.The Steak 'n Shake Beef Tallow ComebackNow fast-forward to today. Steak 'n Shake announced they were bringing back beef tallow for their fries, just like McDonald’s used to. This move caught the attention of RFK Jr., a well-known figure in politics and food activism.He praised the change. But here’s the problem: RFK Jr. isn’t a doctor. He’s not a nutritionist. In fact, he’s never taken a college-level science course.RFK Jr has a long history of pushing food myths and anti-science messages, just like early activists who helped ruin McDonald’s fries in the first place.Let’s be clear: Beef tallow is not healthy. It’s packed with saturated fat and cholesterol, both of which increase the risk of heart disease. AHA, 2021.Taste nostalgic—but nostalgia won’t protect your arteries.So What’s the Lesson?The story of McDonald’s fries teaches us something important:👉 Because something is “natural” or “old-fashioned” doesn’t mean it’s healthy.👉 Just because someone is loud about food doesn’t mean they know science.👉 And just because something tastes good doesn’t mean it’s good for you.Before you trust anyone’s food advice, check their credentials. Are they a doctor? A registered dietitian? Or just a loud person with a lot of opinions?McDonald’s didn’t make their fries healthier in the ‘90s. They made them worse because they listened to fear instead of facts.Sources / ReferencesFDA. Final Determination Regarding Partially Hydrogenated Oils. 2015. FDA.govChu M, Noh E, Lee KG. Analysis of oxidation products and toxic compounds in edible and blended oil during the deep-frying of french fries. Food Sci Biotechnol. 2024 Jan 17;33(10):2275-2287. doi: 10.1007/s10068-023-01494-9. PMID: 39145121; PMCID: PMC11319563.Nestle, M. (2003). Food politics: how the food industry influences nutrition and health. University of California Press.