Breaking Points with Krystal and Saagar - 7/22/25: Cuomo Admits Why Zohran Won, AOC Flamed For Israel Vote, Tim Dillon Reveals JD Epstein Cope, MAHA Cane Sugar

Episode Date: July 22, 2025

Ryan and Saagar discuss Cuomo admits why he lost to Zohran, AOC flamed for Israel vote, Tim Dillon reveals JD Vance Epstein cope, Layne Norton destroys MAHA.   To become a Breaking Points Premium Member and watch/listen to the show AD FREE, uncut and 1 hour early visit: www.breakingpoints.comMerch Store: https://shop.breakingpoints.com/See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This is an iHeart Podcast. and conditions. 19 plus to wage your Ontario only, please gamble responsibly. If you have questions or concerns about gambling or someone close to you, please contact Connex Ontario at 1-866-531-2600 to speak to an advisor free of charge. BenMGM operates pursuant to an operating agreement with iGaming Ontario. Join iHeartRadio and Sarah Spain in celebrating the one year anniversary of iHeart Women's Sports. With powerful interviews and insider analysis, our shows have connected fans with the heart of women's sports in just one year. The network has launched 15 shows and built a community united by passion podcasts that amplify the voices of women in sports. Thank you for supporting I Heart Women's Sports and our founding sponsors,

Elf Beauty Capital One and Novartis. Just open the free I Heart app and searchHeart Women's Sports to listen now. In 2020, a group of young women found themselves in an AI-fuelled nightmare. Someone was posting photos. It was just me naked. Well, not me, but me with someone else's body parts. This is Levittown, a new podcast from iHeart Podcasts, Bloomberg, and Kaleidoscope, about the rise of deepfake pornography and the battle to stop it. Listen to Levittown on Bloomberg's Big Take podcast. Find it on the iHeart radio app, Apple podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Hey guys, Sagar and Crystal

here. Independent media just played a truly massive role in this election and we are so excited about what that means for the future of this show. This is the only place where you can find honest perspectives from the left and the right that simply does not exist anywhere else. So if that is something that's important to you, please go to breakingpoints.com, become a member today, and you'll get access to our full shows, unedited, ad free, and all put together for you

every morning in your inbox. We need your help to build the future of independent news media, and we hope to see you at breakingpoints.com. Andrew Cuomo in leaked audio has an analysis of why he lost to Zoran Mamdani, and it's kind of dead on. Let's listen to some of this.

All the polls had me up 15 points. And all the geniuses say, you know, you're up 15 points, you want to play it safe, you want to play it safe. And he was nowhere on the radar screen. We played it safe. I didn't engage him. I didn't debunk him enough. I wasn't aggressive enough, which is really ironic,

because all my life I'm too aggressive, I'm too combative, I'm too tough. There was an explosion of the under 30 vote. Under 30 white socialists who voted three, four, five times what anyone had ever seen. And that totally changed the numbers. The young people who came out, they were socialists and they were pro-Palestinian.

And I would wager that in that primary, more than 50% of the Jewish people were from Mandan. This socialist wave in the Democratic Party, this AOC Bernie Sanders going across the country, the no-kings, brought out a hundred hundreds of thousands of young people at rallies all across the country. Basically fueled by anti-Trump, but anti-Trump then fits with socialism benefits with pro-palestinian and he was the perfect vehicle for this under 30 wave of reform and a new reality oh so Cuomo it yeah quote it's all interesting but Cuomo, it's all interesting, but Cuomo acknowledging that more than 50% of Jewish voters in New

York voted for Mom Donnie is so striking because if you follow the mainstream media coverage of this election and the result, you would think that Jewish New Yorkers are now deeply under threat. That's right. Because of the election of Mamdani. That this is a scary situation that all Democrats need to condemn Mamdani and make sure that Jewish people in New York are safe from the scourge of the Mamdani movement. Yet the same people pushing that message understand that actually the reverse is true. Yes.

More than half of Jewish voters voted for Mamdani because they support him. They either didn't care about the infatata or whatever or they actually supported it and they were like yeah I'm Jewish but I don't really care as much about Israel. I think the way they're conducting themselves is ridiculous. This has been a hallmark of the pro-Palestinian movement especially on the left now for years at this point. You know who else acknowledged that?

In an interview with Hugh Hewitt, Donald Trump. Yes. He was like, Hugh, you know what? Lots of the people at these campus protests are young Jewish kids. Which we knew because we covered that. And he was like, yeah, there are some misguided kids. No, they're not outliers. He meant it as a negative because he was angry at the time at the Jewish vote because it

was polling Democratic. So he's angry. So he's like, oh, these kids. But when you acknowledge that fact, it just flips the entire thing on its head. Yes. Like, how can all of this be anti-Semitic if there are so many Jewish people participating in it? And yet, but the thing is, though, is that that audio directly contradicts the messaging then of the Cuomo campaign Which is all about oh, he's an anti-semite. He's ridiculous. And that's part of the reason that's basically what's animating his independent Run is a bunch of like rich Jewish right guess right-wing or centrist billion Republicans are upset about it

It's obvious These people are supporting Cuomo specifically to make sure that Mamdani doesn't win So he can both admit it, you know there in he can both admit it in terms of the of the audio but in terms of his public messaging him and Adams are united around the always anti-israel and It's uh, you know, he's anti-israel is an anti-, you know, he's anti-Israel, he's an anti-Semite, and that's why you shouldn't vote for him. That's part of what makes it so ridiculous, actually, because his analysis is absolutely correct.

I don't quite understand Cuomo's assessment that Mamdani came from nowhere. Right. Like, at least the last month of the campaign, it was clear that this was a close race. At the very least, it was gonna be close. And he did a terrible job, obviously. No, if he really couldn't see it coming, race at the very least it was gonna be close. He did a terrible job Obviously, no if he if he really couldn't see it coming even at the end. So what are you doing man?

What are these going on here incredible? So that's a fairly reasonable Autopsy yes, that's actually real from Cuomo right so and it valuable to him because he is Apparently planning to run in the general election. Who knows? With enough money, anything's possible. You know, Mom, Donnie can't like completely rest on the laurels of the nomination. But the National Democratic Party through the DNC is running its own autopsy of 2024. We can put up this New York Times element up on the screen. And according to reporting from the paper here, the researchers are telling people that they're speaking to that they are not going to look at the question of whether or not Biden should have run for reelection, the question of whether he should have dropped

out much sooner, the question of whether there should have been an open primary, the question of whether it should have been handed to Kamala Harris, or even the decisions that the Harris campaign made on what to run on. Yes. They're not going to look at that. How can you possibly have a real... Here's what's funny. The RNC then, after Romney's loss, was more honest in its autopsy than the DNC. That autopsy, by the way, was incredibly stupid.

The idea behind that autopsy was, we need to endorse amnesty. They're like, oh, Romney's meanness towards immigration is the reason that he lost. Right, self-deport. Yeah, self-deport and all that. That was too mean, and that's why we actually need a pro-open borders candidate.

And then in 2016, Donald Trump wins the election on a build the wall message, just to show you how dumb these autopsies are. But even that autopsy was more honest, at the very least, because it tried to be like, okay, what are some of the key decisions the Romney campaign made? Here, here, and here. Here's how we think that we should address it. They were totally wrong, obviously, in retrospect.

But here, they're not even going to look at it. They say the quote, the review is expected to, the review is not expected to review key decisions by the Harris campaign. Like framing the election as a choice between democracy and fascism. Refraining from hitting back after ads from Donald Trump's attack on Ms. Harris on transgender rights that have royal Democrats

in the months. How can you have any serious discussion? Like that means then that the real, and this sounds cringe as hell to say, that means that the real democratic autopsy is taking place on the podcast. It's not taking place in the mainstream media. They're not asking any uncomfortable questions except Biden's age, but they're not talking about the issues.

The issues are all being hashed out right now between Pod Save America and Crystal and all these other left podcasters who are trying to decide what the hell went wrong in the 2024 election, right? But that's the craziest part about this is then what is the purpose of the DNC at this point? Is it not to win an election? Apparently not. It's to protect the people who are in power.

Not even in power, who were in power, Ryan. You've got to explain where this comes from. How is this possible? What they are looking at, according to the times here and Jane club with Deputy DNC says it in the in the article here they're gonna look at where they spent their money and particularly where the super PAC the outside super PAC spent its money and Her argument is that what they're what they're finding is that the amount of money that they spent on TV ads is Way too much and they need to invest it in kind of

on the ground organizing and other things that aren't just broadcasting cable TV. Now, Super PAC's already pushing back saying, we actually didn't spend that much on TV. We spent a lot on digital, et cetera. So it's much more of a kind of mechanical argument around tactics rather than substance and strategy, which you could say in a proper party where you have factions competing for power within it, that the DNC ought to be a neutral platform and actually should just look at what tactics work and then leave the substance to the battle between AOC and Bernie on one hand, and Fetterman and Jumer and whoever else where.

And then once that contest is over and one party, one faction within the party is dominant, then here are the tactics we're gonna play out in a general election. That would be the best argument possibly for it. But they're also, they're just afraid that they're going to offend all of the powerful people who stood by and allowed these dumb things to happen. Because also,

you probably don't, in their defense, maybe you don't need an autopsy to be like, this was dumb. All of this was wrong. Okay. But putting it on paper actually is important because you need to, everything needs to be admitted to ourselves. Like we need to just say, guys, here's what went wrong. It was a disaster. Not doing the trans thing is interesting. Yeah. Well, okay. But even on the trans thing, right? Again, you don't have to, you just have to lay out a variety of views. Look at the polling. They're like, look, what went wrong here? Why didn't they push back against this view? Was it a mistake in 2019 for Kamala to give an interview and say that the feds should

fund gender transition surgeries? Yeah, I think it was. All right? Rahm Emanuel's going out there saying it is. Like maybe disagree with him, that's fine, but it should obviously be part of the debate. You should analyze that decision and say, to what extent was this messaging powerful? Just lay it out there. You don't even have to make a qualitative decision.

Look at it issue by issue, and then also look at the key decision of Biden's even run again, and say, obviously this was a disaster. Was this ever a winnable race? That's an open question. I actually, I'm not really sure if it ever was. It might've been lost from 2021 onwards with Biden's approval rating, but I don't know.

I mean, I tend to think that every election is technically winnable at any point. You know, it's just all about the, it's just all about the decisions that you make from there. Download the BenMGM Ontario app today. Visit BenMGM.com for terms and conditions. 19 plus to wage your Ontario only. Please gamble responsibly. If you have questions or concerns about gambling or someone close to you, please contact Connex Ontario at 1-866-531-2600

to speak to an advisor free of charge. BenMGM operates pursuant to an operating agreement with iGaming Ontario. The summer of 1993 was one of the best of my life. I'm journalist Jeff Perlman, and this is Rick Jervis. We were interns at the Nashville Tennessean, but the most unforgettable part, our roommate, Reggie Payne, from Oakley,

sports editor and aspiring rapper. And his stage name, Sexy Sweat. In 2020, I had a simple idea. Let's find Reggie. We searched everywhere, but Reggie was gone. In February 2020, Reggie. We searched everywhere, but Reggie was gone. In February 2020, Reggie was having a diabetic episode. His mom called 911. Police cuffed him face down.

He slipped into a coma and died. I'm like thanking you, but then I see my son's not moving. No headlines, no outrage, just silence. So we started digging and uncovered city officials bent on protecting their own. Listen to Finding Sexy Sweat on the iHeartRadio app, Apple podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. What would you do if one bad decision

forced you to choose between a maximum security prison or the most brutal boot camp designed to be hell on earth. Unfortunately for Mark Lombardo, this was the choice he faced. He said, you are a number, a New York state number, and we own you. Shock incarceration, also known as boot camps, are short-term, highly regimented correctional programs that mimic military basic training. These programs aim to provide a shock of prison life,

emphasizing strict discipline, physical training, hard labor, and rehabilitation programs. Mark had one chance to complete this program and had no idea of the hell awaiting him the next six months. The first night was so overwhelming, and you don't know who's next to you. And we didn't know what to expect in the morning.

Nobody tells you anything. Listen to Shock Incarceration on the iHeartRadio app, Apple podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. AOC is tangling again with the party's base, party's left, you can put a C3 here. So there was an amendment. So she writes here, and I'll give you the background. She writes here, Marjorie Taylor Greene's amendment does nothing to cut off offensive aid to Israel nor end the flow of munitions being used in Gaza. Of course, I voted against it. Here she's

referring to an amendment by Green that went after these kind of, yes, like that and these missile defense program that Israel uses. It got the votes of, I believe it was Rashida, Ilhan Omar, Summer Lee in Pittsburgh, and Al Green down in Texas. Those are the only four Democrats that voted against it. So there's a part at the bottom that's important where she says, I remain focused on cutting the flow of US munitions that are being used to perpetuate the genocide in Gaza. And then think about that last line that she said there. So let's put up C4 again.

So this is her kind of continuing to respond. She says, Google is free. If you're saying I voted for military funding, you are lying. Receipts attached. Drag me from my positions all you want, but lying about them doesn't make you part of the quote left.

If you believe neo-Nazis are welcome and operating in good faith, you can have them. Which is kind of a criticism there of Summer Lee and Rashida Tlaib and Yelena Omar for voting for the Green Amendment and kind of an argument that she would never vote for anything put forward by Green, no matter what. Setting all that aside, in her original statement, she says two things.

She says she voted against this because it was defensive in nature, and she also says that Israel is carrying out a genocide. And I think that's just such an impossible thing to square in in the same thought if if you do believe that Israel's carrying out a genocide any support for that is support for that genocide even if it's even if it's just these defensive weapons because also the main what are they using the defensive weapons for right Hamas is not Hamas is not actually firing rockets exact so it's just these defensive weapons, because also the main thing- What are they using the defensive weapons for?

Right, Hamas is not actually firing rockets at them anymore. So it's Yemen is shooting at them to try to get them to stop the genocide. And they have said, if you stop the war on Gaza, Yemen will stop firing missiles. And Iran responded to Israel after Israel attacked Iran. So the defensive weapons are so that Netanyahu can carry out another attack on Iran, which he told the Nalk boys he's going to do.

He said the war against Iran is not over. You just had the military chief there saying war against Iran is not over. They're going to try to take out all their ballistic missiles. So they need a replenishing of their defensive weapons to carry out the offensive action that they want to carry out the offensive action that they want to carry out against them they are killing people by the thousands in Yemen due to malnutrition and due to they've destroyed the airport there so people can't get medical evacuations so they can't get aid in they destroyed the ports so you

can't get fuel and aid in people are dying like crazy in Yemen and the the purpose of the defensive weapons is so that they can carry out those attacks on Yemen and on Iran. That's the part where I think it's just impossible to square those two positions. If you believe that that's what they're doing, then you can't support it, even with the defensive weapons. What's the bulletproof vest analogy? Oh, yeah. Can you say it?

Because I think this is very good. And I think it was Caitlin Johnson, the writer, responded to AOC, and that reply is getting a lot of attention, saying like, look, I don't support a school shooter, but I just purchased the bulletproof vest for them. Yeah, and again, it collapses on its own logic, because Israeli, the US defense umbrella in all forms, from

the Americans striking the Fordow facility or whatever in Iran, to us using guided missile destroyers to defend them, to our funding of the Iron Dome, enables Israeli offensive action. If Israel is forced to feel the consequences of its actions, it will fundamentally behave differently. Yes or no? So this is where- They would probably not attack Iran.

They would not attack Iran. Never, in a million years, they're gonna blow up an Iranian embassy in Damascus, they're gonna overthrow the Damascus government, they're gonna bomb Iran, they're gonna permanently occupy parts of Lebanon, Syria, with the West Bank, they're gonna permanently occupy parts of Lebanon, Syria, with the West Bank they're gonna murder Christian and Muslim residents with impunity.

They're gonna attack a Catholic church without the US. No, okay, no, no, no, no, no, never. And that's my point is that this is why the MTG amendment was courageous in that they were like, no, we're done. We're done with you. And from this point forward, you bear the consequences of your own actions. I thought that's what a lot of liberals agree with.

Or pay for it yourself. Yeah, or pay, yeah, hell yeah. You're a rich country guy, universal healthcare, you pay for it, okay? Cash and carry, just like we, we treated the British, didn't lend lease, 10 times worse than we treat the country of Israel. We bent them over a barrel,

and we said, gold on the premises, or fuck off. That's basically what we told Winston Churchill. Go read a book about it, okay? They complained a lot, actually. They're like, please, give us credit. We're like, no, it's not happening. You're gonna destroy the British Empire. Yeah, yeah, like, yeah, we know.

And we like, all right, exactly. And we did, we won. Yeah, we're not a social work organization here. Yeah, the point though is Yeah, yeah, like yeah, we know. And we like, all right, exactly. And we did, we won. Yeah, we're not a social work organization. Yeah, the point though is that, you know, there is a way to treat allies in a different way, even when you are selling them weapons. And you know, I don't even think we should do that at this point because of the way that they behave themselves.

But I mean, this entire thing is just a real window, Ryan, into her behavior and posturing, because I think she probably wants to run for Senate and she thinks that an anti-Israel vote like this would come back to bite her. But what's crazy to me is how do you square that in the Zoran Mamdani era? How do you square it when he got the most votes ever

and he didn't apologize for a damn thing? Stand your ground, believe in something. And she wouldn't get punished, I think she would actually get, believe in something. And she wouldn't get punished. I think she would actually get more press out of it. I don't get it. I don't even, I don't actually think that this is political calculation. I think this is.

What, she just believes this? I think this is, yeah. That she believes that the Iron Dome is protecting civilians and that therefore you gotta support the protection of civilians. Yeah, I think it's, I don't think it's, who knows, you know, none of us even know why we do the things of civilians. Yeah, I think it's, I don't think it's, who knows, you know, none of us even know why we do the things we do.

So like trying to analyze why somebody else is doing the things they're doing is futile. But I do think that it's genuine rather than cynical, which doesn't make it better. Yeah. All right, well, I don't know. It's completely missed it. And I gotta run. So Sagar's got to time the show. I'll do the. Well, I don't know. It's completely missed it.

And I got to run. So Sagar's got to time the show. I'll do the rest of the thing I got to do. Sagar's got this under control. I'm on it, brothers. Don't worry. All right. Thank you.

See you guys later. Virtual pound. I'll see you tomorrow. Yeah. Discover the exciting action of BenMGM Casino. Check out a wide variety of table games with a live dealer or enjoy over 3,000 games to choose from like Cash Eruption, UFC Gold Litz, make instant deposits or same day withdrawals. Download the BetMGM Ontario app today.

Visit betmgm.com for terms and conditions. 19 plus to wager Ontario only. Please gamble responsibly. If you have questions or concerns about gambling or someone close to you, please contact Connex Ontario at 1-866-531-2600 to speak to an advisor free of charge. BetMGM operates pursuant to an operating agreement with iGaming Ontario. A foot washed up, a shoe with some bones in it, they had no idea who it was.

Most everything was burned up pretty good from the fire that not a whole lot was salvageable. These are the coldest of cold cases, but everything is about to change. Every case that is a cold case that has DNA right now in a backlog will be identified in our lifetime. A small lab in Texas is cracking the code on DNA. Using new scientific tools, they're finding clues and evidence so tiny you might just miss it. He never thought he was going to get caught. And I just looked at my computer screen and I was just like, ah, gotcha. On America's Crime Lab, we'll learn about victims and survivors, and you'll meet the

team behind the scenes at Authram, the Houston lab that takes on the most hopeless cases to finally solve the unsolvable. Listen to America's Crime Lab on the iHeart radio app, Apple podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. The summer of 1993 was one of the best of my life. I'm journalist Jeff Perlman, and this is Rick Jervis. We were interns at the Nashville Tennessean, but the most unforgettable part? Our roommate, Reggie Payne, from Oakley, sports editor and aspiring rapper.

And his stage name? Sexy Sweat. In 2020, I had a simple idea. Let's find Reggie. We searched everywhere, but Reggie was gone. In February 2020, Reggie was having a diabetic episode. His mom called 911. Police cuffed him face down. He slipped into a coma and died. I'm like thanking you.

But then I see my son's not moving. No headlines, no outrage, just silence. So we started digging and uncovered city officials bent on protecting their own. Listen to Finding Sexy Sweat on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. All right. Turning now to Epstein, a story which I will handle myself, which of course, if any other time,

and I had to speak entirely on Epstein, I'd be happy to, but when you're sick, man, it's a tough thing. All right, let's go ahead and put this up there on the screen from Pam Bondi. So this is breaking news as of right now, and there's actually a lot to say here. This is a new statement from the Deputy Attorney General,d-Blanche.

The Department of Justice does not shy away from uncomfortable truths nor from the responsibility to pursue justice where the facts may lead. This joint statement by the DOJ and FBI of July 6th remains as accurate today as it was when it was written, namely that in the recent thorough review of the files maintained by the FBI in the Epstein case, no evidence was uncovered that could predicate an investigation against uncharged third parties, aka they are saying that there is no blackmail scheme, no conspiracy, no crimes that implicates anybody else. What they continue, President Trump has told us to release all credible evidence.

If Ghislaine Maxwell has information about anyone who has committed crimes against the victims, the FBI and the DOJ will hear what she has to say. Therefore, at the direction of the Attorney General, Pam Bondi, I have communicated with counsel from Ms. Maxwell to determine whether she'd be willing to speak with prosecutors from the department. I anticipate meeting with Ms. Maxwell in the coming days. Until now, no administration on behalf of the department

has inquired about her willingness to meet with the government. That changes now. Extraordinary things happening in that statement. First and foremost is this. The Deputy Attorney General, the number two at the Justice Department, will be meeting directly with Ghislaine Maxwell

and her legal team. That's number one. That almost never happens, just so you know. The Deputy Attorney General, literally the number two, is gonna be meeting with Ghislaine Maxwell. Number two, according to the Deputy Attorney General in that statement, he is saying, at no point has the government ever approached Ghislaine Maxwell

to say what do you know about third party individuals. Are you guys hearing that? So according to this statement, what they are saying is that Ghislaine Maxwell went to trial, right, obviously she lost there, she was prosecuted for human trafficking victims specifically to Jeffrey Epstein. Many, including myself, said that the charges were tailored in such a way to only implicate her and Epstein to put her in jail for the rest of her life so we can all just move on from it, and that at no point was there ever an opportunity for

some of the broader conspiracy to be able to come out. In this what they are saying though is that Maxwell was never given that opportunity to actually come forward. I want to continue, though, and this is part of the reason why we should all be a little bit skeptical, is unfortunately with Ghislaine Maxwell, she has a lot of incentive now at this point for us to be a little skeptical of what she has to say. Here's a statement from her attorney this morning. Quote, I can confirm that we are in discussions

with the government and that Ghislaine will always testify truthfully. We are grateful to President Trump for his commitment to uncovering the truth in this case. She also says before, remember she was seeking a pardon, quote, he's the ultimate deal maker, this is about Trump. I'm sure he'd agree that when the United States gives its word it should keep it.

With all the talk about who's being prosecuted and who isn't, it's especially unfair. Ghislaine Maxwell remains in prison based on a promise the US government made and broke. What she's referring to, guys, is according to her, what's so unjust, is remember that non-prosecution agreement that Epstein entered into in 2007? That covered the immunity for Epstein and for Ghislaine Maxwell, an unindicted co-conspirator in the case. Her position is that that illegal non-prosecution agreement, according to the court, because

it violated the victim's rights, then should have given her immunity for all time, and that the government broke its word by offering this sketchy deal to Epstein in the first place, just so we don't all think Ghislaine Maxwell is necessarily a hero. But here's the question, how much of this is real and how much of it is controlled? Can we really trust? Because let's imagine this scenario. Maxwell comes and meets with the government. The government says, okay, let's make a deal.

You know, let's, and a deal for what though? And to what purpose? Because at this point, I think, not just Trump, but a lot of other powerful people have a lot of incentive for Maxwell to say, I didn't know anything about anybody brought her powerful people. It was just me and Jeffrey. That actually is what you would want to say right now to get a sweetheart deal.

No, from the deputy attorney general, from the Trump administration, if you start implicating all kinds of quote third party individuals, then things get a little bit complicated. And then what the government can say is, look, we went to Ghislaine. We offered her a deal. She gave, she told us it was only her and Jeffrey. It's not a full fledged quote investigation because it doesn't follow any of the money. It doesn't look at any of the intelligence connections. The things that I've detailed now on this show and on other shows now for weeks, specifically

about Epstein, the sources of his wealth, Leslie Wexner, about Ehud Barak, Leon Black, what was going on with this $1.4 billion in suspicious activity reports coming in and out of Epstein-related accounts from four different financial institutions. So there is a high chance of a cover-up, actually, in the way that this is all being conducted, and possibly even on the way to a pardon, because at this point, if you're Ghislaine, and you're looking at the conduct of the Trump administration, would it really behoove you to implicate

a bunch of third party individuals, or would it be better for you at this point, it to say, actually it was just me and Jeffrey, everything else is just completely, everything else is a quote, conspiracy theory, my father was never a Mossad asset, even though he got a state funeral in Israel. And we can all just move on very carefully. So that's something very important to say.

There's a second very interesting clip here from Tim Dillon, who has revealed now to Alex Jones that he recently had dinner last week with JD Vance, the vice president of the United States, and that the vice president told Tim Dillon that all of the quote thousands of hours of footage was just personal pornography for Jeffrey Epstein's personal use and it didn't implicate anybody powerful. Here's what he had to say. The Trump administration have been heavily implicated. I'm not going to name names. And so you nailed it when you brought up Netanyahu.

So if you've got time here. I have to. We have all the time in the world. I just want to add when Bondi said we have 10,000 hours of video, she said we have 10,000 hours of video. I had dinner last week with the vice president. He told me that that was commercial pornography. They do not have videos of any powerful person in a compromising position. That's the party line that they're going with. If that's the case, why would Pam Bondi call it evidence? Why would she say it's evidence? She's not an idiot. She's the attorney general. Why would she say she has files on her desk if none of these implicated anybody?

It just feels like they're covering something for sure. So there you go. Now, according to Tim, who recently had dinner with the vice president, the vice president told him that actually it's just commercial footage and there's no footage of powerful individuals. Now, that's very interesting because that would actually presume that at the highest levels of the White House, they did review some of the quote Epstein files.

That's something that the president and his team have denied, remember. They're saying it was just by the FBI and the DOJ. So at some level, at the highest levels of our political leadership, they did review this stuff. And they're saying, hey, don't worry about it. All the footage actually was just commercial pornography for his own personal use.

It didn't implicate any higher level people. Doesn't fit necessarily at all, right, with the fact that there were hidden cameras found in the Virgin Islands and the New York residents and at many of these other places. Perhaps, you know, it's not sexual material, but what if it's blackmail material involving business deals

or involving intelligence operations? This is just what gets to the whole crux of the matter. According to Tim, he told the vice president if you don't release it all you're done and you're gonna look like you're implicated in a cover-up. So these two things just look very very sketchy if you ask me and perhaps there's some you know recognition there at the highest levels of the White House that they've actually are making a big mistake. But also at the same time, there is some very sketchy behavior in terms of the conduct of Republicans themselves, especially the congressional Republicans who are basically joining together

to make sure there's not a single vote on the House floor about the Epstein files. So let's remember that right now, Ro Khanna and Thomas Massie have a joint, I think it's a resolution or an amendment that would force, if voted on, would force the release of the Epstein files from Congress, would basically mandate the administration release any and all information that they currently have. Now let's put this up there on the screen. As Theo von has pointed out, why can't we put Ro Khanna and Thomas Massey-Bill for a vote up this week at Speaker Johnson at JD Vance, JD Vance of course, who appeared on Theo's show.

Now, Speaker Johnson, when asked about this, says that he will not allow a vote on the House floor ahead of the forthcoming August recess, effectively shutting down any potential vote on the Epstein files going forward because he wants to trust the government. Here's what he had to say. Here's what I would say about the Epstein files.

There is no daylight between the House Republicans, the House and the president on maximum transparency. He has said that he wants all the credible files related to Epstein to be released. He's asked the attorney general to request the grand jury files of the court. All of that is in process right now. My belief is we need the administration to have the space to do what it is doing. If further congressional action is necessary or appropriate, then we'll look at that. But I don't think we're at that point right now because we agree with the president. So no vote on this resolution?

No. No. Let's look at that very, very carefully. So he says specifically that he will shut down any vote on the Epstein files because he wants to quote, allow the administration the space to deal with. The space to deal with what? To release the files that you allegedly support? No. Or to not release all the files. Or to say that only it's the credible evidence or the, you know, the stuff that is pertinent. And these are all the terms and the definitions of things that matter when you're not actually committed to releasing all the stuff that is pertinent. And these are all the terms and the definitions of things that matter when you're not actually

committed to releasing all the information that you literally said that you would do if you were elected president. And that's really what gets it all down to it. And more importantly from this point forward, there's actually a piece of procedural news, which is totally crazy, is that right now the House of Representatives has effectively been shut down To make sure that there is no vote on the Epstein file. So let me kind of explain this So what has happened is that they are not allowing any? Quote rules, but they will not report a single rule this week for bills

They're shutting down the entire House floor for the week, just so they don't allow a vote on the Epstein files, to allow that bill and a vote for people to be able to come together and to vote specifically to release the files. That is the level to which the House Republicans have now moved to shut all this stuff down. That's crazy. So you have here the House Republicans coming together moved to shut all this stuff down. That's crazy.

So you have here the House Republicans coming together to protect the administration. You have the administration opening up these talks with Ghislaine Maxwell. We'll see what comes out of it. I mean, let's be honest, like it looks pretty sketchy and it looks in particular in the direction of if she were willing to say it didn't implicate anybody else,

that's kind of where I would, if I were her, that's how I'd want my pardon, isn't it? She's going to spend 20 years in jail. Otherwise, you've got apparently the vice president telling Tim Dillon that they reviewed the footage and it's just all commercial pornography, doesn't implicate anybody broader. But of course, they're ignoring all the financial documentation, all these other files and all these other things that they at the time said that a journalist should be willing to look into.

Remember, whenever they were on the campaign trail or whenever they held previous office. And then you have the current pressure from the government right now going after institutions that have reported here about the Trump-Epsom connection. Let's put this one up there finally then on the screen from the Wall Street Journal. The White House has actually removed the Wall Street Journal from Scotland press pool as Trump is set to travel there over the Epstein report. So again, it's kind of complicated and we've talked about it a little bit here. The White House press pool is like a select small group of journalists that travels with

the president. They go on Air Force One and you kind of work together and you send your reports to the rest of the press and you're kind of the representative of the global press, not necessarily of your own paper. Well, what they've done here is they've actually removed the Wall Street Journal White House reporters who had nothing to do with the story from the press pool over the Epstein story. Now, I mean, they've done this type of stuff before with the Associated Press and the whole Gulf of Mexico thing.

I think it's stupid, but it just goes to show the level of freak out from the Trump administration right now against the journal. I know Crystal and Emily talked about this yesterday, but you've got this weird meeting between JD Vance and the Murdoch family two days before the Epstein story comes out. Remember Trump himself said, Rupert said he would take care of it in his truth about the story around the letter that was eventually released. You've got all this Trump administration behavior now.

You've got the fact that they filed for what, $10 billion of defamation in court. I can't wait for that suit to go forward, by the way, because Trump said, I can't wait to get Rupert Murdoch under oath. I'm like, well, I can't wait to get Trump under oath about this story as well. I hope he fights it all the way to the end. I'm absolutely certain he'll win. Also, they should release the journal for journalistic purposes at this point, the bound book which allegedly had the letter in it, show everybody what it is.

But look, the handling on this, it continues to be incredibly strange, weird. The conduct of the US government right now just only points in the single of a coverup you can deduce for reasons for yourselves. So with all of that being said, let's turn now to Maha and my guest, Dr. Lane Norton, to talk about cane sugar coke and the seed oils debate. Discover the exciting action of BenMGM Casino. Check out a wide variety of table games with a live dealer,

or enjoy over 3,000 games to choose from like Cash Eruption, UFC Gold Blitz, Make instant deposits or same day withdrawals. Download the BedMGM Ontario app today. Visit BedMGM.com for terms and conditions. 19 plus to wage your Ontario only. Please gamble responsibly. If you have questions or concerns about gambling or someone close to you, please contact Connex Ontario at 1-866-531-2600 to speak to an advisor free of charge. Ben MGM operates pursuant to an operating agreement

with iGaming Ontario. The summer of 1993 was one of the best of my life. I'm journalist Jeff Perlman, and this is Rick Jervis. We were interns at the Nashville Tennessean, but the most unforgettable part, our roommate, Reggie Payne, from Oakley, sports editor and aspiring rapper. And his stage name? Sexy Sweat. In 2020, I had a simple idea. Let's find Reggie.

We searched everywhere, but Reggie was gone. In February 2020, Reggie was having a diabetic episode. His mom called 911. Police cuffed him face down. He slipped into a coma and died. I'm like thanking you. But then I see my son's not moving. No headlines, no outrage, just silence. So we started digging and uncovered city officials bent on protecting their own. Listen to Finding Sexy Sweat on the iHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you

get your podcasts. A foot washed up, a shoe with some bones in it. They had no idea who it was. Most everything was burned up pretty good from the fire that not a whole lot was salvageable. These are the coldest of cold cases, but everything is about to change. Every case that is a cold case that has DNA right now in a backlog will be identified in our lifetime. A small lab in Texas is cracking the code on DNA.

Using new scientific tools, they're finding clues in evidence so tiny you might just miss it. He never thought he was going to get caught. And I just looked at my computer screen, I was just like, ah, gotcha. On America's Crime Lab, we'll learn about victims and survivors. And you'll meet the team behind the scenes at Authram, the Houston lab that takes on the most hopeless cases, to finally solve the unsolvable. Listen to America's Crime Lab on the iHeart radio app,

Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Very excited now to be joined by my friend Dr. Lane Norton. He is, and I'm going to get his full bio correct, PhD in nutritional science, co-founder of the Carbon Diet Coach Nutrition Coaching app. A carbon, by the way, product that I use. And Lane, you and I go way back, but for our purposes here, what I wanted to have you on to show for is to break down all of this discussion that's bubbling up right now to the highest

levels of the U.S. Government around seed oil. So more recently, and cane sugar coke as well. So let's put this up here on the screen. This is the latest, quote, maja victory from Secretary of Health and Human Services, Secretary Kennedy, endorsing here Steak and Shake. He's saying, starting August 1st, Steak and Shake will offer Coca-Cola with real cane sugar in glass bottles.

America deserves the best. Their branding themselves make America healthy again, RFK Jr.'s signature slogan. They previously, this fast food chain, had replaced, quote, seed oils with beef tallow fries, presenting themselves as a healthier option. Now, since you are a PhD in nutrition science and you've given hours of content, you've reviewed all of the data, I just want you to break down at a nutritional science level whether this is a, quote, healthier option for people to be drinking cane sugar Coke as opposed to high fructose cone syrup Coke, having fries that are cooked in beef tallow versus having fries

that are cooked in seed oils? So you made a good point, which is, is it healthy compared to? Because that's really what we want to know. And first off, I want to say that I'm glad that people in US government are taking an interest in health and nutrition and promoting health, promoting behaviors. Unfortunately, I think people's personal biases are really getting in the way here. And this is something I think with RFK is going on is known as a naturalistic fallacy, which is if something occurs in nature, it must be better for us.

And in some cases, that's true. But in some cases, we have plenty of manmade things. I take whey protein, for example, which is an ultra processed food, but has been shown to reduce levels of inflammation, improve glucose control, improve, I even think, levels of liver fat, and basically metabolic health. So I think we got to be careful with lumping things into big categories. Now when it comes to replacing high fructose corn syrup sweetened beverages with cane sugar, again, the only reason I can think that people would think this is healthier is because cane

sugar is natural. Yeah. Biochemically, there is very little difference between cane sugar and high fructose corn syrup. Cane sugar is sucrose, and sucrose is 50% is a disaccharide, which is a glucose molecule linked to a fructose molecule. So 50-50. High fructose corn syrup is 55% fructose and 45% glucose. So if you're telling me that a 5% difference in fructose content is somehow going to change our nation's health, I would

say that you're basically putting your energy into stuff that is not going to make a darn bit of difference. And I'm looking at right now, dozens of randomized control trials in humans where when they substitute high fructose corn syrup in a one-to-one ratio with other sugars, there's zero outcomes that are different in terms of body weight, body fat, liver fat, metabolic health, insulin resistance because it's still sugar. And even if you want to go down that road, I mean, people make a big deal out of sugar. But the reality is our sugar intake has actually declined over the last 20 years while obesity has continued to rise.

And when you look at isocaloric, so when I say isocaloric, I mean in feeding trials, when they control total calories, but they substitute in other forms of carbohydrate for sugar. Again, you don't really see a difference in metabolic health outcomes or body weight or body fat. And there was even one randomized control trial that was very well controlled. They provided all the food to participants, and they looked at over 100 grams of sugar intake per day versus about 10. And same total calories, protein, carbohydrate, fat intake was still the same. And they found that both groups lost basically the exact

same amount of body fat and all their blood markers improved in both groups. Now, I'm not saying that eating sugar or high fructose corn syrup is a good idea because it is not satiating and people over consume it. And so, if you're gonna eat a lot of sugar, it's not like people drink a Coke and they go, well, that was 40 grams of carbohydrates, so I'm gonna skip pasta tonight. No, they just take it in on top

of whatever else they're eating. So I think the real damaging messaging here is that somehow, because you've substituted in cane sugar, you haven't reduced overall calories, that this is healthier. It's not. There is no evidence this is going to make an actual difference for people. And I think the uncomfortable truth, and I default to something called Occam's razor which basically the lay Interpretation is when all things are equal the simplest answer is usually true the average calorie intake in the United States of America is 3540 per day and the average physical activity is less than 20 minutes per day

And that is why we have a health crisis and people don't want to deal with that uncomfortable truth and the average physical activity is less than 20 minutes per day, and that is why we have a health crisis, and people don't want to deal with that uncomfortable truth and the responsibility and accountability that comes along with it. Right, and I think that's such an important point. And Lane, every time I try to bring attention to this, and to be clear, I agree with the message, make America healthier, Grant. I think it's great, but I'm told very often that cane sugar coke is better than drinking diet coke and that it's not about the calorie saga. It's all about the ingredients.

And so I would love for you to basically get into that because they are rejecting not only a message or a theory of thermodynamics, not the law of thermodynamics, not the theory about calories in and calories out. They're accepting a framework in which the, chemicals, the pesticides, the ingredients are themselves responsible for the health crisis that we find ourselves in America and not the, what is it that he said is the 3,400 calories per day that the average American intake? 3,500 plus. Okay.

I would love for you to please respond to that argument. In their framework, cane sugar coke is better than diet coke. Then they simply have not read the human randomized control trials. I mean, here's the argument against diet soda. Well, these compounds in it are carcinogenic. No, no, they're not. These are some of the most studied compounds in the history of mankind. Can you find rodent studies where they feed 10,000 times the dose of what you could ever get and they see weird things happen?

Yeah. Well, try feeding 10,000 times the dose of anything and see if weird things happen. Yeah, I'm not surprised that weird stuff happens. And the question is, I mean, I do this on my videos all the time. I'm like, if only we had human randomized control trials where they look, oh, wait, we do. So if we look at, if they tell people to drink diet soda in place of regular soda, what happens? And very consistently in the research literature, people lose significant amounts of body weight. There

was actually a very recent 52 week randomized control trial where they had people either drink soda or diet soda or water, I actually believe. And what they found was I think on average people lost about six and a half kilograms. Okay, so like 14 pounds in freedom units just by subbing in diet soda. And they actually lost a little bit more than the group that drank water. It wasn't a big difference, but it was a difference. Now, I'm not saying if you like drinking water, you don't have to drink diet. So that's not what I'm saying. And I'm not saying that diet soda has some sort of magical fat burner in it that makes it better than water.

But people who are used to drinking soda, if you replace that with either water or diet soda, what that says to me is the people drinking water probably were seeking out a sweet taste somewhere else because they weren't getting it from that. Whereas the group that was drinking diet soda, they felt more satiated because they satisfied that sweet taste. And then if we look in the meta-analyses, we basically see that diet soda, there was one looking at glycemic load because some of these people will say, well, diet sodas release insulin and et cetera, et cetera.

No, they don't. They don't. In fact, the conclusion of a recent meta-analysis of dozens of human randomized controlled trials, basically you said that diet soda basically had the same effects as water. And we do see, because people lose weight, not because of anything magic, but people's HbA1c goes down, which is a marker for insulin sensitivity. And then even going to the...

You brought up the seed oils thing too, and I do want to touch on that. Oh, we're going to get to that brought up the seed oils thing too, and I do want to touch on that. Oh, we're going to get to that. Don't worry. Yeah. Yeah. Oh, okay. Okay. Well, yeah. I mean, when you're looking at the diet soda stuff, people say it's carcinogenic. It's not over 80% of the research studies say

that it's not carcinogenic. And the 10% that say maybe, and the other 10% that say like, yes, it's always either weak epidemiology association data or it's in animal studies giving super high doses. And I'm even thinking about one epidemiology study from Spain. It was 100,000 people, got a lot of press about five years ago. And this is where the news will report certain headlines and either they don't understand science, they don't read the full paper, or they just don't care,

and they just want to get people scared. So this study showed that at no intake of aspartame, that was the reference group. Compared to the reference group, the group consuming a low or moderate amount of aspartame had a relative risk increase of just under 20% for cancer. Now when I say relative risk increase, I don't mean you go from a 5% absolute risk to a 25%. Relative risk increases means you go from 5% to 6% because 20% of 5% is 1%.

So I just want to frame that appropriately for people because they don't understand relative risk either. So a 20% relative risk increase. But why didn't they bring up the group that was the high group, like the high intakes of aspartame? Because the risk actually went down compared to the moderate or low group. Now please, I want anybody out there to let me know what is carcinogenic at a low dose, but not carcinogenic at a high dose. Somebody please explain that to me. And so again, these weak epidemiology studies,

I'm sorry, I just don't buy them and they're not supported by any real hard human data. This is very important. Now let's get to the seed oils thing. Again, I have watched this stuff run like a craze across the internet to the point where I have people in my own life who are explicitly going out of their way to quote, avoid seed oils.

I can live with that if it's an internet phenomenon. But now I'm watching the United States government. And I wanna be clear, it's not that I'm against making people healthy using government policy or whatever to try and encourage it. What I'm concerned about in this case is the Secretary of Health and Human Services saying this is a healthy meal, drinking cane sugar Coke, beef tallow fries,

and a cheeseburger. Or for example, lately, there is a new effort by the government, Lane, to get Lay's chips to replace seed oils with avocado oil. And that's the thing, is that it's a presumption that the seed oils and not the caloric density of this highly palatable Chip itself that people are eating is the problem I don't want it's like the fat-free craze of the 1990s right where people go to the grocery store

And they say oh, it's fat-free and but and that's why it's quote healthy well that created a permission structure For people to continue to up their caloric dose And I say this because I'm susceptible to it. Until I started looking at your content and others, I'm the person buying and reading the influencers and all this other stuff while struggling with my weight for over 20 years, right? And so you've looked at the data on the seed oils. Let's go ahead and put this up there on the screen.

And you look specifically at the data. Replacing seed oils with canola and, I'll let you read out the rest of these, with saturated fat. Tell us in detail here what the data shows us about replacing seed oils with saturated fat. Yeah.

So this is what's really important is if you're talking about adding something into the diet or removing something from the diet, the question, one of my favorite political commentators was Thomas Sowell. And I always liked one of the things he said is if somebody is making a claim, your first question should be compared to what? So okay, seed oils are bad compared to what? Because I agree, like one of the biggest sources of added calories over the last few decades is added oils. In that way, seed oils have contributed

to the obesity crisis because they're calorically dense. And they're in a lot of ultra processed foods and people cut them out and they say, well, I feel better. Well, you stopped eating junk food. It wasn't the seed oils. You lost weight. It wasn't the fact that you were not eating seed oils.

It was the fact that you stopped eating so many damn calories. Now, with the seed oil data specifically, if we replace in a one-to-one ratio with saturated fat, so at worst for seed oils, you get a neutral effect on metabolic health like liver fat, insulin sensitivity, inflammation, you get a neutral effect at worst. And a lot of studies show that replacing saturated fat with polyunsaturated fats from seed oils like canola oil improve inflammation, reduce liver fat, they improve insulin sensitivity, they improve endothelial function.

And then if we look at the long-term data, now this is cohort data, which is a form of epidemiology, but the reality is you can't do 30-year nutrition randomized control trials. It's just impossible to do. Nobody is going to stick to a diet for that long. Unfortunately, as I know as a coach, people just have really poor adherence. But if we look at the cohort data, if we look at people who consume more seed oils versus people who consume more saturated fat, what do we see when it comes to mortality, heart disease, and cancer? And what we see very consistently in the literature is people who consume seed oils or plant oils

in place of saturated fat live longer, they have lower rates of cardiovascular disease, and some studies show lower rates of cancer and some studies don't. So I'm not sure if that's a real effect. But certainly for heart disease and mortality, and again, this is one of those things. When the anti-seed oil people get in debates with me, the best studies they can cite are studies that so reducing saturated fat does not improve health outcomes. And I'm like, oh, wait, wait, wait, didn't we just move the goalpost though?

Because you're saying seed oils are bad. Now you're just saying, well, saturated fat isn't bad. But if you're going to argue that seed oils are bad, if you are going to make that argument, then you have to argue that saturated fat is bad for you because at every metric, it is either a neutral or worse effect by consuming more saturated fat in place of seed oils. So this idea that you're going to put beef tallow into fries, and that's going to make people healthier, it's absolute lunacy.

It's ridiculous. And I actually got invited to go on this Maha trip to Congress last year and I declined it. And the reason I declined it was because I knew this was gonna happen. What was gonna happen was they were gonna ban some random ingredients in food. Artificial food dye.

Nobody was. Yeah, food dye. Yeah, and nobody was gonna actually wanna deal with the reality, which is people eat too much and move too little because that is a very, very difficult problem to solve because it is multifaceted. It involves socioeconomic things. It involves the way our whole society is set up. And hey, to be fair, I don't know what the answer is.

I don't know what the answer is. But I think coddling people and lying to them and telling them, well, your fries, your ultra processed sources of refined sugar and fat are now fried in beef tallow rather than seed oils. Okay, now steak and shake is healthy. Like get out of here. Like it is absolute freaking, it is a distraction from the real problem. And quite frankly, you can tell it makes me sick

that this is getting so much play because it is literally going to do absolutely nothing other than make a few politicians feel good about themselves, pat themselves on the back, and Steak and Shake's gonna get some free press. That's what actually what I'm worried about is that Steak and Shake, there are a lot of good-meaning people

who trusted RFK Jr. or trust Ma or whatever, who they're gonna go and they're gonna get that Coke and they're gonna be like, this is healthier, babe. I'm telling you, you know? They said, make America healthy. It's been endorsed by the secretary for health and human services. People don't have all the time in the world to read your work or to listen to your videos or watch interviews.

They put their trust in this person. The president appointed him and he's using the full force right now, the US government, to basically prop this stuff up. I think that's the last thing I want to kind of get into you with about what the evidence points us in the direction. Because again, and it's not just about cancer. The core claim is that the art of I remember Fruit Loops, RFK, I think he was on our show and he's talking about Fruit Loops.

He's like in Canada, they don't have food dye, right? And I checked the macros and actually, they're basically the same. The macros in terms of the sugar for Froot Loops, so like the core proposition being put forward is that the problem with American Froot Loops is the fact that there's food dye in it, as opposed to all of this sugar, right? And that you're feeding this to your child for breakfast,

and whether that is a healthy choice or not. So then, it gives companies the easiest out in the world of like, oh sure, we'll put it in avocado oil, whatever. Yeah, maybe our marginal cost will go up, but then people will actually buy more of it because they think it's healthy. As opposed to what you just talked about here, it's all about this calories.

And that's really the final thing I'd like for you to get into is, I was talking with Andrew Huberman, our mutual friend, about how GOP-1 drugs kinda did prove the proposition of calories Calories in calories out right? It's like people take the GLP one drug Oh Zempik is what I'm referring to for the layperson and they stopped they stopped eating eating more They not only lost weight they got help all their biomarkers are trending in a much better direction Especially for people who are obese it didn't have anything to do with pesticide,

but I know a lot of people on Ozempic, they eat a ton of junk food. I went to Japan, one of the healthiest countries in the world, do you know how much deep fried food that they eat in seed oil? They're all skinny, they look pretty good and they live a long time, and a lot doesn't seem to have anything to do with seed oil,

has a lot to do with caloric intake. So that's the final thing I'd like to tee you up on. Yeah, I mean, I'm not saying that calories are the only thing that matter. I want to be very clear. There are some other things that matter. But in terms of the big rocks that you can pick up to put your focus into, it's the biggest thing that matters,

at least for metabolic health and losing weight. I mean, you want to talk about something being toxic. Too many calories are toxic because at a certain point, you only really have a few places to dispose of excess glucose and lipid. And that is in liver can store a little bit of glycogen and fat, muscle can store some glycogen and fat. Muscle can store some glycogen and fat. But your biggest depot is your adipose tissue. But your adipocytes, your fat cells, can only reach a certain size, about 100 microns in

diameter a piece, before they become essentially non-viable, where now you've run out of places to put it into, and now it starts backing up into the bloodstream and that's why you have elevated blood glucose, blood lipids in people who have type 2 diabetes and compromised insulin sensitivity. And so what are you going to do? You got to make space somewhere where your body can make more fat cells, but that it never does it at a rate that can catch up to the excess lipid and glucose that's in the bloodstream.

And so if you just exercise, just exercise. Okay, you don't even have to lose weight. But 16 weeks of resistance training in obese men with type two diabetes was shown to improve insulin sensitivity by 45%. Wow. Okay. We saw in some of our, in the lab I was in

in graduate school, lab of Don layman at University of Illinois he was doing a human randomized control trial in women and basically saw people's blood markers when they lost just Like 10 15 pounds they saw them start to resolve almost immediately You don't need to do a ton of exercise or lose a ton of weight to begin to get metabolically healthy. It will happen relatively quickly. That is your body's natural state.

And honestly, it takes pushing it past a really ridiculous point to get to where we are, but that's where we are. Because you can, not only in the 1950s, we had ultra processed foods, we had cakes, cookies, but you had to go to the bakery or you had to make it yourself. Now you don't even have to wait. You can just get on DoorDash, have somebody pick it up from the Circle K and bring it

to your house. So these are the problems we're dealing with. And you mentioned it. For 50 years, fat loss research focused on metabolism. How do we speed people's metabolism up? People who are obese, well, they got to have slow metabolisms. Or people with type 2 diabetes, they got to have slow metabolisms. Not only does the research not support that, people with type 2 diabetes or people who are obese have, if anything,

faster metabolisms than people who are lean, when they actually put them in a metabolic chamber and measure them. And oh, if calories don't matter, isn't it interesting when we put people in metabolic ward trials where they're basically in food jail and they have to eat what the researchers give them, they all lose weight. Wow, magic. Somehow, and then people will say, well, you can eat so low that your metabolism slows down and all this. Yeah, all these concentration camp photos of people who were obese because they didn't

eat enough. Come on, get out of here. This is all just an excuse for people to shirk personal responsibility because calories in, calories out, the thing people don't like about it is the inherent truth that there is personal responsibility in this. The GLP-1 memetics, as you mentioned, for 50 years we focused on metabolism. Then for the last 10 years, we focused on appetite. What happened?

I mean, the research data that's coming out now basically says these GLP-1s are stopping obesity in its tracks and reversing it. And in fact, food companies are actually really worried because people are consuming less calories now. So these GLP-1s, they don't increase metabolic rate. They don't do anything special. Well, they do something special other than they are the most powerful appetite suppressants known to man.

And if we look at the difference between obese people and lean people, it is not on the metabolism side. It is on the appetite side. It is on the appetite side. People who are obese or obese prone, they tend to get more of a reward from food. They tend to not have the same sensitivity to satiety signals as lean people. And they also tend to dissipate less energy through spontaneous movement compared to lean people. So just to explain what that is briefly, you have like a certain amount of movement you do without even thinking about it,

like fidgeting, like what I'm doing with my hands right now, this would be considered non-exercise activity, thermogenesis, postural movement. Those little bitty movements actually add up quite a bit over the course of a day. And we have seen very clear research going all the way back to the early 90s showing that people who are obese resistant phenotype essentially, that if they overeat, they actually tend to just spontaneously without realizing it or intentionally doing it, they spontaneously

increase their physical activity to compensate for it. Whereas people who are obese prone don't tend to do that. Got it. Lane, this is so, so helpful. Last word from you, where can people find your new podcast and all of your work? So you can find me as Biolane on all social media platforms. My website's biolane.com, and my new podcast is the Dr. Lane Norton podcast.

I hope you guys will go check it out. If you want no BS, straight shooting truth. I give it to it straight without much frills. He certainly does and that's why he is the goat of all of them. Thank you very much sir for joining us. We appreciate you man. That's right and he's ripped.

Thanks buddy. Ripped with no steroids, no drugs, all natural, the hard way and he actually tells people how to do it. It's not easy to say, it's not easy to do it, but you at least show us the way that it can be done. Thank you very much, sir, we appreciate you. Thanks, buddy. Thank you guys so much for watching, we appreciate you.

We will have a great show for everybody tomorrow with Counterpoints, and then we'll see you all then.. of women's sports. In just one year, the network has launched 15 shows and built a community united by passion. Podcasts that amplify the voices of women in sports. Thank you for supporting iHeart Women's Sports and our founding sponsors, Elf Beauty, Capital One, and Novartis. Just open the free iHeart app and search iHeart Women's Sports to listen now. In 2020, a group of young women found themselves in an AI-fueled nightmare. Someone was posting photos. It was just me naked.

Well, not me, but me with someone else's body parts. This is Levertown, a new podcast from iHeart Podcasts, Bloomberg, and Kaleidoscope about the rise of deepfake pornography and the battle to stop it. Listen to Levertown on Bloomberg's Big Take podcast. Find it on the iHeartRadio app, Apple podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Just like great shoes, great books take you places.

Through unforgettable love stories and into conversations with characters you'll never forget. I think any good romance, it gives me this feeling of like butterflies. I'm Danielle Robay and this is Bookmarked by Reese's Book Club, the new podcast from Hello Sunshine and iHeart Podcasts, where we dive into the stories that shape us on the page and off. Each week I'm joined by authors, celebs, book talk stars, and more for conversations

that will make you laugh, cry, and add way too many books to your TBR pile. Listen to Bookmarked by Reese's Book Club on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. This is an iHeart Podcast.