FoundMyFitness - #094 Dr. Layne Norton on Building Muscle – Insights on Diet, Training, and Supplements

Episode Date: August 22, 2024

Get my exact protocols for boosting levels of brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF) and enhancing cognition Discover my premium podcast, The Aliquot Dr. Layne Norton is a Ph.D. in Nutritional Sciences, a professional bodybuilder, and a champion powerlifter. We discuss why most people aren't training too hard, when to go to failure, whether seed oils are "the" central cause of chronic disease, why having a slow metabolism isn't a credible reason for being overweight (for most), and the sustaining power of good habits. We also get into controversies around the carnivore diet, diet sodas, artificial sweeteners, intermittent fasting, and much more. Timestamps: (00:00) Introduction (04:48) Layne's coaching philosophy (14:39) Why to start tracking calories (for at least 3 days) (17:41) Why people lie to themselves about food intake (23:06) The profound benefits of small exercise doses (26:53) Why you should treat exercise like brushing your teeth (30:11) Benefits of resistance training for older individuals (33:51) Should you train to failure? (47:07) Why hard training & consistency trump exercise selection (56:46) Is lifting heavy necessary for building muscle? (57:54) Barbell vs. hack squats for preventing falls (1:00:10) Can lifting weights decrease low-back pain? (1:01:43) Injury prevention when resistance training (1:11:16) How exposure therapy can help you with injuries (1:15:04) Why pain doesn't always indicate tissue injury (1:18:17) Should you resistance train after a poor night of sleep? (1:21:57) Why menopause can cause weight gain (1:29:36) Why it's never too late to start lifting weights (1:32:05) Resistance training tips for older individuals with joint pain (1:36:18) Why total protein intake matters more than distribution (1:44:19) Layne's daily protein distribution (1:46:44) The shortcomings of nutrition studies (1:54:06) Is consuming more than 1.6 g/kg of protein beneficial? (1:55:33) Should you eat more protein in a calorie deficit? (1:56:43) Protein intake for endurance athletes (1:58:07) How much protein does Layne eat? (1:59:11) Are seed oils a predominant cause of chronic disease? (2:08:45) Does the carnivore diet increase heart disease risk? (2:14:16) Are heated seed oils more inflammatory? (2:20:33) Is there a "big food" industry conspiracy? (2:26:17) Are sugar-sweetened beverages uniquely deleterious? (2:30:17) Can diet soda help you lose weight? (2:34:20) Microbiome & cancer risks of diet soda (2:42:02) Is drinking 1 Diet Coke per day unhealthy? (2:44:24) Why Layne rarely takes a strong position on early science (2:49:04) Carnivore diet (3:01:52) Time-restricted eating (3:12:38) Layne's daily routine (3:16:55) Layne's diet and supplements (3:19:49) Creatine and hair loss (3:22:49) Rhodiola rosea & ashwagandha (3:25:54) Layne's tier 2 supplements Show notes are available by clicking here Watch this episode on YouTube  

Most people don't have a slow metabolism and aren't even close to training too hard. They don't even know what failure feels like because intensity is uncomfortable. That's one of the many lessons in our episode today featuring Dr. Lane Norton, who is a PhD scientist, professional bodybuilder, and a champion powerlifter that deadlips over 700 pounds. Dudes a beast. Lane and I sat down to discuss when to push to failure, whether seed oils are the real culprit behind chronic disease. the sustaining power of good habits and not being a perfectionist, not even when it comes to form, how he eats, trains, and his preferred supplement stack. We also talk about recovering from training

injury and then get into controversy such as those surrounding the carnivore diet, diet sodas, artificial sweeteners, intermittent fasting, and much more. We also discuss why to start tracking calories for at least three days, how the antidepressant effects of exercise compared to SSRIs, how one year of resistance training has lasting benefits three years later. Why everyone should train until failure at least once. Why hard training and consistency trump exercise selection. How lifting weights can actually decrease lower back pain. Why proper form isn't that important for injury prevention.

How exposure therapy can help you train through an injury. Why you should auto-regulate your training after a poor night's sleep. why it's never too late to start lifting weights, whether seed oils are the predominant cause of chronic disease or if it's just obesity, whether the carnivore diet is an LDL cholesterol catastrophe. Why high heat or repeated heating makes seed oils more damaging. Why diet soda helps many people lose weight and what are the microbiome risks? Whether aspartane from diet soda increases cancer risk. whether time-restricted eating has benefits independent of calorie intake, why everyone should

supplement with creatine, why Lane is very bullish on Ashwaganda, and so much more. In this episode, Lane and I talk about the cognitive benefits of physical activity, and a major player in this process is thought to be brain-derived neurotrophic factor, or BDNF. I've compiled scientifically plausible exercise and nutrition protocols that are incredibly likely to increase BDNF and enhance cognition. It is an easy-to-read guide called the Cognitive Enhancement Blueprint. Make sure you get this free guide at BDNF Protocols.com. Once again, that's BDNF Protocols.com. Also during this episode, we reference several key studies. If you're looking for more context supporting references, our show notes are really awesome. We've recently revamped them and they're

packed with valuable insights. They have graphs, charts, and more. So check those out at foundmyfitness.com forward slash episodes. And now please enjoy this episode with Dr. Lane Norton. Hey, everyone, I'm sitting here with Dr. Lane Norton, who needs no intro. He is a scientist. He's a PhD in nutrition. He is a fitness industry influencer. And he is also a natural professional bodybuilder, powerlifter.

He's an author, serial entrepreneur, The list goes on and on. And I'm super excited to be sitting here today with you, Lane. You and I, we've had interactions over the years on social media. And it's a long time coming that we get to sit down together, meet each other, have a discussion. I have a lot of respect for the things that you put out on social media, on YouTube, the way you look at the evidence. And really, in particular, your overall view of health and fitness.

and how practical of a view you take, evidence-based, and really just it's influenced me over the years. So I'll say that. So excited to have you here, Lane. Yeah, I'm excited to be here. And I think, you know, we had quite a few conversations off-camera about, you know, I didn't start out like 10,000-foot view. I started down as a biochemist in the weeds and thankfully just had a really great experience in graduate school where I had a PhD advisor who had the same background, BS in biochemistry, PhD nutrition. His name's

Don Lehman, a legend in protein metabolism. And he just did a really great job of like understanding the biochemical mechanisms, understanding how they fit together, but also understanding how did that look on a global level, what actually pans out in real life. And I just think I just got so lucky with that experience to be able to kind of like synergize those things, you know. You also have this very unique background because you are a professional powerlifter, bodybuilder, you have been for many years. You know, you're coaching people. You've coached thousands of people. In fact, I kind of wanted to start with, I'm interested in understanding like what are some of the common themes that you use in your coaching to help people be successful? And what are some of, I would say,

the misconceptions, the common misconceptions that you see you have to address in order for them to be successful? You know, I think if we zoom way out again, right? Like the people end up spending a lot of energy and time on stuff that just doesn't matter that much instead of just really focusing on the big rocks, the big boulders, right? And one of the things, one of my favorite quotes is the magic you're looking for is in the work you keep attempting to avoid, right? So, for example, I did a post about red light therapy the other day.

And the post was not, I didn't think it was negative towards red light therapy. It kind of said, hey, here's what it might do based on these research studies. Here's the limitations. But please keep in mind where this fits in the overall hierarchy of things. Like, this is a very small piece of a puzzle compared to sleep, proper nutrition, exercise. You know, and I think there can be so much start. floating around in the fitness ophosphere, is that a way of saying it, that you and I is having the background, we can pretty easily detangle like what the kind of hierarchy of stuff is, like

where the most important stuff is. But I think for the average person, they hear these things, they don't really know how to slot those things into order, you know? And I've found so many people like really have an issue of paralysis by analysis of I don't know where to start so I'm just not going to start. And so a lot of what I do with my coaching and less so now I do less one-on coaching now. I have a team of people who work for me is really just trying to like get people out of their own way in terms of just saying like, hey, you don't have to be perfect. We just need to get you to start doing stuff. And yeah, you're going to screw up. You're going to make mistakes. But we are going to learn from those mistakes. We are going to see where your stumbling blocks are. And we're going to

help remove those barriers to you being able to be consistent. Because at the end of the day, really, that is the big, like the biggest lever you have is consistency with nutrition and training. And we were talking yesterday on the phone. And I think a really good visual example was given by a guy on social me named Ben Carpenter, who's a dietitian, and he had a, he had two bowls of marbles. One was, I think, colored blue and one was colored green. And he said, if the blue bowl, I might mix up the colors. But if the blue bowl represents like highly processed junk food and the green bowl represents, you know, good, whole single ingredient foods, if somebody's diet is the, the bowl of all junk food,

and we take one marble. from the bowl of, you know, quote unquote, clean good foods and put it in the other bowl, does it change the overall diet? And everybody say no, right? Like one, if you eat like junk most times, but you have one healthy meal, it's going to do very little, right? So why do we think it goes the opposite direction where like you have one unhealthy meal? All of a sudden everything you've ever done, right? And so I try to get, I try to meet people where they're at and get their mindset out of perfectionism and just get it into execution.

I think that is the biggest stumbling block is we have a lot of people who just really are afraid to try and fail and just get into execution mode. And I think one of the most liberating things for me was that background. and being a competitor and failing a lot. It just got me over the like, oh, this is just part of it. Like, and as you know, like from doing a PhD, I'm sure you had plenty of stuff that just didn't work. You know, like the number of experiments I came home with tears in my eyes, because I couldn't even get the analysis to work. Like I spent probably a year and a half going through every step of our analysis of muscle protein synthesis

because I wasn't getting any data back, trying to figure out where is the king. in this chain. For those who aren't familiar, like muscle protein synthesis to do like 50 samples probably takes you a week to get actual data back because you're grinding tissue frozen liquid nitrogen and you've got to keep it under liquid nitrogen the whole time. Like doing just 20 samples of that probably takes four hours. Then you've got to homogenize the tissue. Then you've got to separate it. You've got to take it through various reactions so you can get protein bound amino acids versus intracellular amino acids because you need the precursor pool. And then you have got to take it through GCMS,

but you have to do several reactions before that because it's got to be detectable on the GCM. And so you go put all this work in. And then a week later you find out, yeah, didn't you actually do anything. Now we've got to go back to square one, right? And so probably did that for like 18 months. It was actually a lab maid of mine who kind of figured out where the kink was.

We had residual acid in the samples. But point being with all that, It was like, I never, if I wasn't willing to go in and fail repeatedly, I never would have gotten to the answer, you know. And I just think so many people are stuck in being so afraid to just go. And when I say fail, like, okay, you go out, you have a stressful day, you come home and you stuff your face with ice cream or something like that. Okay. Well, and I have a client I'm actually thinking of right now who was a hedge fan manager. And we started working together.

He was probably binge eating almost every day. And I, every time it happened, I said, okay, first of all, holding yourself accountable is good. Shaming yourself is not going to facilitate behavior change, okay? Because it makes you so sensitive to the behavior that any time you get close to it, you're just going to be black or white all or nothing. So, and then I said, okay, what's the antecedent to this? Okay, you have stressful day at work. You get home.

there's not foods readily available that would be more conducive to your goals. So I was like, okay, hey, man, you know, not everybody's like this, but I'm like, you have means meal prep service, right? Like, I'm not saying you have to eat these every meal, but like at least having them available. So if you're home, you're hungry, you have this available. And then he would end up night eating as well. So I said, okay, lock your door, your bedroom door on the inside so that when you're going out to the kitchen, have to unlock it and then put a little, like lock, put a little lock on the fridge or something like that or whatever you tend to get into. Of course, it's not going to keep you out. But a lot of

times those behaviors, a lot of people like to think that their behaviors are all choices and it's not. We're on autopilot for so many things. And just that moment of mindfulness of having to actually like enter in a code or something like that, sometimes that's a game changer for people. And I even said to him, hey, if you have a stressful day at work, when you're driving on your way home, say out loud, man, I just had a stressful day. This would be a situation where I'd be more likely to binge eat. Just identifying it is going to drastically reduce the risk that's going to happen. So over time, this guy over the course of year, I think he lost like 35, 40 pounds and he got to the point where he was binging maybe once every two or three weeks, but he would still get really

hard on himself about that two or three weeks, that interval. And I said, hey, man, like, look at how far you've come. Don't let perfection be the enemy of really good. Like this, if I showed you a snapshot of where you're at now versus where you were and I said, this is where you're going to be in nine months, my guess is you would have taken that all day, every day. You know what I mean? And I said, listen, everybody has something they struggle with. May not be binge eating. Some people struggle with, you know, alcohol moderation or gambling. or, you know, pick your poison, the likelihood that the inclination for just like the impulse for that to go away, very unlikely.

You're probably going to always deal with a little bit of that impulse. But learning tools to manage that, that's where it's at. And I think so many people are really hard on themselves. Not only do they, are they hard themselves about the behavior, but they're hard of themselves for even having the thought. You know? And so again, I really just try to meet people where they're at and try to just get them in an execution mode. One thing I do say to people is like, Rhonda, if I said to you, I want you to go become the best three-point shooter you can be. Okay. Now, you can't get any instruction. Can't even watch YouTube videos. But if all you did every single day for 10 years was go outside and shoot three-pointers for two hours, you're not going to the NBA, but I bet you'd be pretty darn good at three-pointers. You know what I mean? And just understanding.

that, you realize it is the mass action that makes the difference. And so I just try to remove those barriers for people to just go and start executing. What about this, you know, you're talking about eating like the whole foods versus the process and junk food and bad stuff. What about people that are coming to you that are, you know, there's so many different diets that are, you know, fad diets for weight loss. And, you know, like if someone does want to, they want to lose weight, they want to, they want you know, increase their lean body mass and maybe body recomposition. And I know we're going to talk

about training and stuff. But like what it, like do you, is there like a calorie amount that you sort of start with? Is it based on their body weight? Like, is that something? Or do you like think about the actual composition? Are they doing low carb? Are they doing high carb? Or low fat? Like what's your, how do you approach that? So the most important thing is calorie intake. Is it energy intake versus what you're expending, but how you get there is what's really important. You know, people, people can kind of conflate the, a physical law of, you know, thermodynamics with tracking calories. Those are not the same thing, right? Like, I can say, like, it's a rule. I don't think anybody disagree. If you want to save money, you got to earn more than you spend. But now, keeping a budget can help facilitate that, but you don't have

to keep a budget to save money. And just because you keep a budget doesn't mean you will save money, right? So I kind of relate, I try to get people to understand and separate those two things. But yes, calories is the most important thing. But what I try to do is one, figure out, okay, approximately what are they spending per day? And the best way, in my opinion, to do that is if they have been tracking, okay, what are you eating now? In general, what your body weight doing, right? Because if they're logging relatively accurately and their body weight's not changing, I mean, you can put whatever you want into a calorie calculator, but that is their maintenance calories.

That is their energy expenditure, right? And so I like to start there. And then if people haven't been doing that, one nice trick I like to do, as you know, when you monitor behavior, behavior changes. And we know this right even down to like photons, right? So I'll say, okay, if you don't know it, would you just do me a favor?

Just track for the next three days. I don't want to change anything. Don't change a single thing you're doing. In fact, if you're eating, junk food or if you're eating what you think is too much, that's great. Then we have a bigger shovel like your energy expenditure is higher than we thought. We have a big shovel to dig you out with, right? So please don't change anything. But what invariably happens is it's a very instructive experience for them because they'll start tracking and realize, oh man, I was eating a lot more than I

thought because I was having a bowl of ice cream that I was thinking was a serving and it was three. or, you know, I tell people, if you ever want to be disappointed, way out of, way out a serving of peanut butter, you know, if you want to be depressed. Or they do track accurately, or sorry, or they see what they're consuming and they change their behavior already because they're tracking, because they're monitoring, right? And, I mean, it's, if you look at studies, it's very consistent. People underreport their calorie intake by 30 to 50 percent. Yeah, there's a very classic study in 1992 in New England Journal of Medicine. They had people who self-reportedly were weight loss resistant. So these people claim that they were eating 1,200 calories a day.

They specifically wanted this population. And these are obese people. And they said they put them in metabolic ward. So they're tracking their energy expenditure in a metabolic chamber. And they know exactly what they're eating. And they even told them, like, we'll know if you're eating more than you say. And they also looked at lean mass, BMR, Total Energy Expenditure. So what was really interesting, this was one of the first studies that showed that obese people didn't have slow metabolisms.

And like at first, you know, the first few decades of us trying to deal with the obesity crisis was us like looking on the metabolism side. How do they must have slow metabolisms or we've got an increase metalloc rate. and now we know it's the appetite side that has a much stronger effect on body weight regulation. I mean, it's so funny when people say to me, well, I have a slow metabolism. That's why I want to take Ozypic. I'm like, well, if you have a slow metabolism, Ozympic's not going to help because it doesn't increase your metabolic rate.

It is a very powerful appetite suppressant. So in this study, they looked at BMR, total energy expenditure, and found that basically people's lean body mass explained about 70. to 80% of the variance in BMR and total energy expenditure. You can almost draw like a straight line through it. Can you explain that to people? Because I think it's important, right? And that was kind of a follow-up question.

It's like, well, where training comes into this picture, where muscle mass comes into this picture and why? Like how is that a really important, like, lever that you can pull to help people, like, body recomb to help people lose fat? Yeah. So lean mass, just be clear, lean mass and skeletal muscle mass, often. and get used interchangeably and they're not. Lean mass is a relatively good proxy for skeletal muscle mass,

but lean mass versus fat mass is a two compartment model, like for Dexa, for example, you'll get fat mass. So literally all fatty tissues will go into a bucket, and then everything else goes into a bucket. So we're talking bones, skin, undigested food, fluid, like all that kind of stuff. but in general, adipose is a relatively, it's not an inert tissue. We used to think it was an inert tissue.

We know that's not the case anymore. But it has a very low energy expenditure relative to other lean tissues. And actually, skeletal muscle doesn't have a super high energy expenditure for a lean tissue. It's actually one of the slowest, if not the slowest. Like liver and gut tissues have a much higher metabolic rate. But your skeletal muscle is your biggest overall. lean tissue, and I would argue your biggest organ. And so its effect, you know, having an extra 10 pounds of skeletal muscle, because it's so much, it does have a profound effect on, you know,

your energy expenditure overall. So when they looked in this study, when they standardized for lean mass, they saw basically no difference, no statistical difference in anybody's metabolic rates or their total daily energy expenditure. And when they tracked their intake, what they found was they reported 1,200 calories a day, but on average they were consuming about just over 1,800. And they also overreported their physical activity by 47%. Now, I think a lot of people will look at that and go, so that, when I present that data, a lot of people get really upset because no one likes being called a liar. I don't think people are lying. I don't think that's what it is. I think we look at ourselves with rolls colored

glasses and we look at serving sizes and we we tend to like just give ourselves a little more grace than we probably should right and even yesterday I did like a day of eating while I was traveling and I showed like I went out to lunch I got a salad grilled chicken you know I said I said can you put the dressing on the side put the cheese on the side right and I just used a little bit of cheese I use the dressing and but still like after I added the everything up. I'm like, there's over 30 grams of fat in the salad. A lot of you guys would have the salad and think, oh, this is low calorie, right? No, the salad was 600 calories, you know? And so if you think, and then look at, you know, take for example, like the cheesecake factory, you look

at the salads are well over a thousand calories. And so I think many people do think they're eating healthy and just don't really have a great understanding of how quickly energy can add up if you're not very mindful about it. So this study kind of put the cabosh. And it's been supported by a lot of follow-up studies as well, showing whether type 2 diabetic, obese, not obese, it basically boils down to lean mass, explains, like 78% of the variance in metabolic rate.

And then the rest of the variance in total energy expenditure is physical activity. Can I ask you a question about the lean mass? Let's say, assuming a lot of that is skeletal muscle as well, right? Sure. So what about the fact that your skeletal muscle is also a big sink for glucose? Yeah. How is that? Do you think you can, you can't really ignore that aspect as well, right?

I mean, in terms of the big picture you're talking about. No, no. I tell people like, exercise is one of the only things that you can do independent of weight loss that will improve all your health parameters, you know? And we, like in layman's lab, the amount of exercise you need to get massive benefits is such a small, like I got in trouble because I called it a disgustingly small amount, but it really is. Like there was a research study done looking at vigorous physical activity, not even continuous,

but just like throughout the day, cumulative, four minutes, vigorous activity per day, reduced cancer risk by, I believe, 20%. Okay? And then if you got it to 10 minutes, I think it was 30%, right? And so it's like, I'm sorry, you got four minutes, you know. And some people will say, well, it's a cohort study X, Y, Z. Yeah, but we have randomized control trials looking at very short bursts of exercise, seeing improvements in glucose metabolism, blood lipids, inflammation. And then now the cognitive stuff, too.

There was actually a recent randomized control trial where they took people with major, or men with major depressive disorder or general anxiety disorder. and they had them do two 25-minute sessions of resistance training a week. That's it. And it was for eight weeks, and the improvements in major depressive disorder and journal anxiety disorder, the effect size for major depressive disorder was 1.7. Now, for those who are familiar with effect sizes, 0.2 is a small effect size. 0.5 is a modest, and 0.8s, anything about 0.8 is considered large. 1.7 is massive. And SSRIs fall between like 0.3 to 0.8, like usually the best you see is about a 0.8, which again, I'll tell people, what I'm not saying is that we should just get rid of SSRIs and never be exercise. Because sometimes maybe somebody needs an SSRI just to get them out of bed so they'll actually go exercise. But like if we're looking at how powerful that lever is, it's amazing. And then you look at the effects on bone health. You look at, you look at the effects on bone health.

look at the effects on just like mental health cognition, even short-term exercise improves cognition. I think there was just a recent study showing that that even an acute bout of exercise can improve. I think it was memory formation. I could be wrong. And so I think, again, one of the limiters is I try to meet people where there are is like, hey, you see me train for two, three hours a day. But that's because I'm trying to be the strongest person in the world in my weight class.

You don't need to be doing that. Like just, even if you just go walk vigorously for 30 minutes in a day, you're killing it. You know, like, but of course I would recommend people resistance trained because I think there are so many benefits with that. And yeah, it just doesn't take that much. First of all, okay, I was what I say. You are, we are speaking the same language like the, all these intermittent, they're actually called the Vilpa Studies. And Marty Gabala was part of that. I had him on the podcast, talked about that research.

And it was, to me, it was just, it was amazing that they had these fitness trackers, like you said. And it was like, they went out and did these little short bursts of physical activity. And it had a profound effect, cumulative, right? I mean, so how easy is it to do like two minutes of like, you know, climbing, like sprinting up the stairs or whatever? I actually work out mostly for the brain benefits, by the way. Like, if I don't get some form of exercise, whether it's resistance training or doing some more cardio, like, I, I am not in a good space in my head. Like, I can, those colored, colored glasses are gone.

I can see the negative in a lot of things. Comparisons. I'm just in a bad mood. Like, it's, I am a very different person if I get exercise versus if I don't. And so it's like, for me, exercises, it's necessary. It is a part of my, I wake up on the, like, you know, like I brush my teeth. I have to do exercise. If it don't, then I'm, you know, not in a good position.

And so I think what I'd like to. point out in that is you have made it a habit as part of your lifestyle. That it's not, can I go exercise day? Do I have time for it? It's no, this is, this is on the top list of this is going to get done, right? Just like brushing your teeth, right? And I think one of the things that I really try to hone in on people is try to get away from something having to feel good to get you to do it. Okay? Like sometimes I love to train, but it doesn't feel. But it doesn't feel. feel good all the time. Like they're, last week when I was out in, or two weeks ago when I was out in L.A.

And I had long travel. I had missed a session because my, one of my podcasts ran really long. And so I was going to have to combine like a couple of sessions. And I hadn't slept well and all this kind of stuff. And I'm like sitting in the car like, come on, you can do this. You can do this. But for me, I just got very used to my feelings are going to fluctuate based on who knows what. And so I'm going to go in and do the things.

I know are conducive to me being in good health, regardless of how I feel about it. Because if you're waiting for it to feel good, I mean, feelings are like the wind. And if you're kind of basing how you act based on that, you're just floating around. I mean, do you feel motivated to brush your teeth? No, you do it because you know if you don't brush your teeth. They're going to go to crap, right? The same thing happens with your body if you don't exercise. And again, it doesn't have to be a bunch of exercise.

But speaking of the cognitive benefits, I mean, I was diagnosed at age six with ADHD. and honestly the more like as I look back just thinking about it now the more I got into exercising consistently the better my performance in school got and like even now even though I tell all the people you don't need to train for two or three hours I am such a hyperactive brain going a thousand miles an hour that if I didn't have that my best friend tells me all the time he's like dude I wouldn't want to see you if you couldn't train for two hours he's like I would not want to be around you you'd be intolerable, you know. So for me, I think, you know, they say the sport chooses the person,

not the other way around, right? I think maybe subconsciously there was some of that that I just, like, felt better overall and loved doing it, you know? But for people out there who are struggling with it, whatever, listen, whether it's CrossFit, powerlifting, bodybuilding, just going to the gym, doing machines, I don't care. like any of those are going to get you massive benefits relative to not doing anything. And actually there was another study that just got published.

I just covered it. They did a randomized control trial. I think it was in an Nordic country. I want to say Denmark. And they had people over age 65 do a year of either high intensity resistance training, meaning they were getting them within a few reps of failure on each set. moderate intensity, which was like body weight stuff, bands. They were staying further away from failure, but they were doing some resistance or no, no resistance training, but they were active.

Like I think the average step count per day was like 9,500 in this cohort, which is actually pretty high. So these were active older people. So they did that. And then they had follow up. They had follow up at one year and then four years late and then three years after that. So four years total. and they actually looked at people who stopped resistance training for the three years after. They still had a better strength, better lean mass, better cross-sectional area.

Those, like, yes, they had less than their peak after they've been doing it for a year, but it had this protective effect against age-related decline and sarcopena because the other two groups, The moderate group kind of probably wasn't statistically powered enough to pick out some of the differences, but they declined significantly. Of course, the group that wasn't doing exercise declined significantly. And even the group that did that one year of resistance training, four years after they started, had less visceral fat too. So it's like one of the things people ask me is, I'm this age, my tool to start. or I'm this, can I resistor trainer? I do this.

Everybody, if your spinal cord works, you can resistance train and it's good for you. And in fact, right across the street at University of Illinois where I did my PhD in the exercise phys department, they were doing a study in frail elderly, but basically we're talking about people who had trouble like kind of standing up, you know. And they started, their progressive overload was they started them sitting down to a high chair and doing reps with that. After, I think it was 12 or 16 weeks, I can't recall the specific details of the study.

They saw significant increases in lean mass, cross-sectional area, muscle quality, you know, it's imaged by an MRI. They got so much more functional. Some of them were able to squat down to like a chair like this and stand up or even lower. And so I think resistance training has gotten this bad rap because a lot of people view it as this like really

aesthetic, narcissistic thing because of bodybuilding. And yes, there is that component to it. But like, your body is so made to move against stuff that if you don't do that, you are drastically accelerating your aging and your cognitive decline as well. Like, it is, it is pretty scary to see how quickly people. And just look at the research on. people over age 65, if they fall and break something and go into the hospital, I don't know the exact statistic, but I think it's better than a 50% chance that they're dead within a year. Like, it's a pretty scary statistic. And there's the, the, as Stu Phillips likes to call the disability threshold, right, where it's like,

okay, then one of those things happens or, you know, then another one, they start out of and then. And then, right. And then it's like all of a sudden, they're not mobile anymore. You know, they're not independent anymore. And you're absolutely right. those things do add up. And I do want to, there were some people that had some questions about aging as well. And, you know, with everything you just said, obviously it's doing something is important

and sometimes not obsessing over the perfectionist type of program to do and all that. But I'm going to, I'm going to ask you some questions because people do ask these, these questions. You know, first and foremost, training for strength versus muscle mass. Is it, like, do you train differently? Like, is there a different type of, are there sets and the reps different? Do you think for training for mass versus strength? Yeah. So the two are interrelated.

All things being equal, if you have more contractile tissue, you'll be stronger, right? But strength is not just muscle mass. It's also neural drive. It is how many fibers can your motor nuance recruit? Like there's a lot of things go. It's technique. A lot of things go into it. And strength is a specific skill.

If we're talking about strength as assessed by a one rep maximum, right? So if you take untrained people into a lab and you have them like work up to say a squat max, right? What you'll find a lot of times is somebody will just smoke something. You go up 5KGs and they get stapled with it. And it's like, wait, well, what happened? because they don't they haven't practiced that skill and they don't know how to one they just don't how to grind a rep and be uncomfortable but two as you go higher to a one rep max you're recruiting more muscle fibers uh fibers tend to be recruited in order there's some challenge to this

research but they tend to be recruited order from smallest oxidative up to you know middling kind of hybrid fibers up to your glycolytic large right? And so if you do high reps with low weight, you'll still eventually recruit those larger muscle fibers as you get close to fatigue. But if you're doing a one rep max and it's a true one rep max, you're having to get everything you possibly can. Right. So it's a very specific skill. So when it comes to reps and sets for powerlifting, you do the number of sets you, let me go back. So let's talk about building muscle first because it'll help frame it better.

what seems to be important for building muscle is a few things. The first is mechanical tension and understanding that mechanical tension is cumulative throughout reps and sets. So when I say mechanical tension, I think a lot of people misinterpret that as it's got to be heavy. And I'm like, well, if you want max mechanical tension, just do the most eccentrically loaded exercise you can possibly do. That'll be the most mechanical tension for one rep. But it's really about what is. is the number of hard sets that you do.

And by hard sets, I mean proximity to failure. Now, the research seems to suggest for a muscular hypertrophy, you have to get within a few reps of failure to really maximize the response, but you probably don't need to go all the way to failure. And this is probably conflated by the fact that if you're all, always training to failure, especially compounds, your performance and the load you can use is going to drastically fall off. For example, if I did a 10-rep max set of squats, like my absolute best, I actually remember

the set, I did 530 for 10 reps, I think, something like that in squat. After it was done, I had to lay down for 15 minutes and I couldn't move, like physically could not move. If you asked me to do that again, I might have gotten, I don't know, two reps, something like that. And so if you're if you're doing that big compound movements like that, it's going to be hard for you to actually get a lot of effective sets in because it's so fatiguing. Now, isolation stuff a little bit different, single joint movements, a little bit different. You can kind of push those a little bit harder and actually probably should push those a little bit harder. One of the best

descriptions I heard was intensity is the medicine. So hard sets, close to failure, is the medicine. the number of hard sets, or the volume, we'll call it, is the dosage. So we have several meta-analyses now and meta-regressions kind of suggesting that there's kind of a dose response between number of hard sets you do and muscular growth. I mean, we've even seen it like specifically in the triceps. There was a regression by James Krieger that even up to like 27 to 45 hard sets per week, on triceps produce more muscle growth than I think like 15 to 25 sets per week, something like that. So now again, I want to couch that with you're going to get most of the benefit. If I am always looking at things like how can I be the most muscular strongest human being I can. But for the average person, if you just want to grow some muscle, you don't have to do that many sets.

But the point is, it does seem to be kind of a dose response. How do you know if so, I'm sorry, going, you know, for someone that may not know what their failure is, like how do you identify close to failure? Like what's? So, and that's actually where practically I think most people probably should train to failure at a certain point because otherwise it's really hard to determine what failure is. And actually there are studies on this. And on average, intermediate and beginner lifters underestimate their, their repetitions they can achieve by about five to six. So for example, in a study, they might have them say, like intraset, say on their eighth rep, how many do you think you have left? Two.

Okay. Then the next set, they actually, they yell at them. They blare music. They're like hyping them up. And they'll get 15 or they'll get, you know, yeah, 15, 16 reps, right? And so I think a lot of people, if they've never trained to failure, they viewed failure. they viewed failure as kind of like discomfort. And in fact, it's funny because I've had people say,

well, you, and I'm going to get into this about the strength stuff, I almost never trained a failure, especially on compounds, and say, well, you, I've had people say, you train like a wuss, you know, you stop. You know, I'm like, so, okay, so that, that set of 10 with 530 that took me out, honestly took me out for weeks after that, to be honest. You're saying if I stopped two reps short of the 10th rep, that that was an easy set. I can tell you

every single rep of that set was hard and felt uncomfortable. Okay? And so I think people, if they've never trained a failure, it probably is a useful experience to do

with a spotter, under conditions, like be smart, right? But I do think it is useful. Now, when it comes to bodybuilding and growing muscle, whether you train to failure or stop shy, similar effects. But you probably want to stop on compounds. And again,

I'm guessing based on some of these meta regressions, I could come out. I could be a little bit off, but I think I'll be pretty darn close. On compound lifts, big compound lifts, probably need to get within two to three reps of failure to get the maximum benefits. For isolation, probably one or two. But for powerlifting, this is where it gets quite different. And again, there are bodybuilders who train to failure in every set and are very strong. There are power lifters who are very strong who don't look super muscular. And so people will, there's actually like some people in the scientific community who will say like things like muscle mass doesn't matter for strength. I think very strongly that they're incorrect.

And there are people who will say, well, strength doesn't matter for hypertrophy. I think strongly that you're also probably incorrect. Okay. because all things being equal, let's take somebody who wants to grow muscle, all things being equal, if they are stronger, they can create more mechanical tension.

They can do the same reps with more weight. Okay, that's a bigger potential. Take somebody who's a power lifter. All things being equal, if they have more muscle mass, they will be stronger. And, you know, one of the things I tell people is,

well, if muscle mass doesn't matter for powerlifting, then I'm just going to lose 40 pounds, drop down to, you know, whatever weight class I need to hit world records. You know, like, no, it matters. Mass moves mass. But I think people, for example, me,

I held a world record squat for almost a year, hit 668 pounds in 2015 at IPF Worlds. And I don't, I've got good legs by most people's standards, but if you put me on a bodybuilding stage, I'll never have the best sets of leg on stage. And they'll see somebody who has really great legs who only squats 500 pounds. And the conclusion will be, okay, well, muscle mass doesn't matter for strength.

No, because that person, for them, because I don't know what their motor neuron recruitment is like. I don't know all that kind of stuff. But all things being equal, if they have less muscle, they'd be weaker. They have more muscle. They'd be stronger. Right. So same thing for me. Now, when it comes to strength, the pureststststress.

expression of strength is force, right? You have to produce force, and that's mass times acceleration. Actually, mass time's acceleration squared, I think. Um, physics people, please check me on that one. But there's a, there's a mass component and there's a speed component to it. So you can move a given load with the same force as you move a heavy load. You'll just move it faster, right? So now if it's heavy load, you can apply the same force, but it's going to move slower, right? So then we call this the strength velocity curve. So one of the things that my coach, Zach Robinson, really kind of pioneered talking about, and he came out of Mike Zortos's lab at FAU, was he said, you know, a lot of power lifters or people who are trying to build strength train with a lot of fatigue. You know, they're training

very close to failure. You know, they're doing heavy sets, and that is one thing that's very important for strength. If you want to get better at a one rep max, you have to be doing sets with, you know, heavy singles, doubles, triples because that is a specific skill set. You need that to, one, learn how to grind hard reps and two, just feel what heavy weight feels like and how to manage that under stress. So you need those sets. But then volume is also important for strength. There's quite a few studies that show that. But interestingly, he did a, I believe he did a metaraggression, looking at hypertrophy showing that proximity to failure kind of was linear associated with more hypertrophy. So the closer you got to failure, the more hypertrophy you got. The strength regression

didn't show that. It had no association with your proximity to failure. And so one of the things they said is with strength, you're always managing kind of expression with fatigue. So if you're training heavy a lot and going close to failure, you're doing, a very specific skill, but you're also inducing a lot of fatigue, which is going to reduce the amount of strength that you can express. Whereas the way we kind of train, or we trains me, is we'll, when I'm doing my compound, squat, bench, press, deadlift, I'll do one set or maybe two sets of a heavy single, double, triple, maybe four reps. And then we'll do backoffs that are much lighter, but we're doing multiple sets of them as fast as we can, like the speed of the

up as fast as we can. And they've actually shown that you get better strength results, not training to failure, compared to training to failure, but you do have to do some heavy sets relatively close to failure. And it's probably because, like I said, failure just, it induces a lot of fatigue, and that's going to mask how much strength you can actually express when they test it. So in general, this is kind of minutia that a lot of people don't. really need to worry about. I always tell people, you know, I'm 90% sure that you're not training

too hard. I'm almost sure of that, okay? There are people who do train too hard. There are people who over-trained themselves. There are people who put in so much fatigue that it's going to mask their results. But for the most part, most people, there's so many people I see online who think they're overtraining and I'll look at their training and I'll be like, like, no, no, you're not over training. And if you are, you're not sleeping well or your nutrition's crap or something like that. For people that are not power lifters or even professional bodybuilders, what are, you know, perhaps someone that you would approach your coaching business or something like that,

who are wanting to, you know, they're wanting to gain some mass and function and strength, everything, you know, not like a competitive level. But like, what would you say, like, how do you do exercise selection, like choosing a hack squad over a barbell squat or doing a bench press over dumbbells. And then also, like, are there certain, like, if you were to, like, are there like the top five exercises for like for each muscle group that you would consider? Okay, so this is where it's going to be a nice segue of us of talking about X's nose versus practicality, right?

So I realized within a couple years of coaching people, that, oh, the Xs and O's aren't really what matters. It's just getting people to do this consistently, right? And so it took me longer to realize that for training, but it still applies. And what I mean by that is when it comes to exercise selection, for example, if I was putting together a program for somebody and they weren't going to compete as a power lifter and they just wanted to grow some muscle, I probably wouldn't program barbell squats, only because it's a, you know, relatively high fatigue exercise compared to something like a hack squat, which is still a compound.

It requires less balance and learning. And the research shows very clearly now that machines produce as much hypertrophy as free weights. We used to have this like feeling that, oh, no, you got to you got to barbell squat and you got to, you know, do these big compounds. That's what builds mass. And, you know, we have the research to show that's not true. We have the practical examples to show it's not true because Phil Heath won seven Olympias. And I don't think I've ever seen the guy touch a free weight barbell. I'm sure he has.

But for the most part, he trained with machines and built one of the greatest physiques of all time. And people might say, well, those guys are on drugs. Yeah, but all of them are on drugs. So if we see similar results with different training styles, I mean, those sorts of things are equal, right? And so the research supports that. So, but here's where practical segues with that. So I trained very heavy with free weight movements. And for me, it was the best exercises for growing muscle.

And here's why. Because that other shit was boring to me. Like high reps with isolation stuff put me to sleep. But you load up a freeweight barbell back squat. Now all of a sudden I'm hyped up. I'm excited. I'm going to work hard. at it, I'm going to be consistent at it. And so for me, even though training like a power lifter

is not maybe how you draw up on paper somebody to be best for hypertrophy, for me it was, because it got me excited about training legs two, three times a week to get in all that volume I needed to actually build that muscle. And I had a client one time who loved CrossFit. He loved CrossFit. He's like, you know, I know it's not the best for building muscle. And I go, you know what, for you it might be. Because, like, dude, you told me when you try to do bodybuilding training that you hated it and you just stopped going to the gym. So we have to start with compliance first, right? Like, you can have the best program on paper, but if you're not actually going to go in and do it, like, it's not going to work, right?

And so I worry about, for the average person, what gets them excited to go? What, you know, exercises do they enjoy that they have low pain with, right? and what will they execute consistently? Because within that for growing muscle, the world is your oyster. Basically the things that matter, because I kind of got off track, but mechanical tension,

number of hard sets, and muscles at long lengths, meaning there does seem to be quite a bit of research that even when you equalize for proximity to failure, if you aren't taking a muscle to a long length under tension, you're probably not maximizing

the benefits of it. And so there's, if you look at research where they do partials of like the contracted, the more contracted partial of a lift. So for example, if you're doing a squat, so doing full range of motion versus a half squat, right? You get more hypertrophy doing the full squat. There's quite a few studies on this. But when they compare partials in a lengthen position, so say, if you're just doing the bottom part of a squat in a partial, which by the way sounds horrible, compared to a full range of motion, you see similar hypertrophy. So it appears that that putting tension on a muscle in a lengthened position is important. So those are kind of the three things I look at is, you know, mechanical tension, number of hard sets, training it at long muscle lengths.

within that, the world is pretty much your oyster as to how you do it. Now, I will say I was in the camp for a long time of this whole like, you can't grow like regional portions of muscle based on like how you do exercises. Well, that was one that bro science might have been right on. It looks like I was wrong on, right? Because there was actually, there was a study that just came out looking at, I think, leg press versus leg extensions. and they showed that leg extensions preferably activated the rectus femurus,

so kind of like the middle part of your quad. I think I got the muscle right. And then the leg press preferably grew the vastest lateralis. So you probably want to do both, right? Because there's some people out there. All you need is the compounds. You don't need to do any isolation. well, if you want to get the most out of your regional growth, it's probably good to mix it up.

And I think, again, something I changed my mind on about 10 years ago is very big on like daily undulating periodization, which is basically like you're changing up your rep schemes workout to workout, right? Like maybe if you're doing squats, you might do like day one sets of 10, day two, sets of seven, day three, sets of four, you know. And by one, two, three, I mean, just your squat days. And I thought that the research suggested that that was going to be better than just doing like straight sets or linear periodization. And it turns out it doesn't seem like it really matters. But what I will tell people is practically it might matter because people do well with variety. I mean, you know this about dopamine and variety, right?

And if you get a new workout, you get excited about it, right? Like, and I, it's funny. As a scientist, I have a hard time getting myself placeboed, which is actually really really, annoying because placebo is great. But even now, whenever my coach sends a new training block, there's a little bit of like, you know, I get a little bit excited. So I think variety is important because if you're just doing the same thing over and over, it's too easy to fall into, well, I do this weight for this many reps, for this many sets,

and you stop progressively overloading. Whereas when you change it up a little bit, now you have a little bit more motivation to kind of, you know, not settle into a normal routine. But that can go too far too. I see people like change their workout up every single session. And I'm like, you're not actually getting as many benefits as you could because you're not getting used to an exercise for a certain number of reps, which allows you to get stronger,

more mechanical tension, probably grow more muscle over time. So when it comes to people who aren't going to compete in bodybuilding, aren't going to compete in powerlifting, mostly what I look at is like, hey, do you know if there's exercise? exercises that you really like and have access to? Is there anything that gives you pain? Is there anything that you know motivates you more? Like I know some people are like, I love high reps. I love the

pump. I want to get cool. Let's do more high reps. Because again, when we look at equated sets in terms of proximity to failure when they compare low load training, and I think even down to like 40% of a one rep max versus high load training, they don't see differences in hypertrophy. Now, I could make a devil's advocate argument that perhaps those studies, you know, because a lot of these studies are eight to ten weeks, maybe over time somebody training with heavier loads might produce more hypertrophy because they'll get stronger. And so maybe by getting stronger, more mechanical tension. But, you know, I can't really say that now based on the research. But even if it was a difference, it'd be pretty darn small, which for practically for most people out there, I tell them, you know, if you're just training hard, You're getting 95% of the way there.

And I use this example because people will all the time send me videos of IFBB Pro bodybuilders training. Like, look at how they're training. This isn't science, but how can you explain this? I'm like, yeah, but they trained really hard for 20 years, like every day, right? And so that mass action is going to wash out a lot of these little differences. And most of the people who worry about these little differences are never going to actually get to express them because they just don't train hard enough. One of my favorite quotes was actually somebody said, you can't out science hard training. You've got to do the work if you want to get the results.

It also, you know, I've had this conversation to some, I mean, a little bit of this conversation with Stu Phillips and Brad Schoenfeld about, you know, training failure, lifting heavy and, you know, things that you've given some more details as well. But it's what's nice about it and what I like about it is there are a lot of people, a lot of older adults, women that have been scared of lifting because of the like, oh, no, I got to lift heavy and I'm going to injure myself. I'm, you know, I might bulk up too much. I mean, we can talk about that. But, like, it does give, you know, once I found out, it was like, you don't have to lift heavy.

You just put the effort in, fatigue yourself. You know, now I'm lifting heavier too. But, but, like, I started, like, to get into, like, even starting, that was my inn where it was like, you know, okay, like I don't have to like do this like scary thing, although now I love it and I'm like wanting to lift heavy. But being strong is fun. Anybody who can lift heavy, I'll tell you. If you can lift heavy and you don't have pain, it's fun. I haven't come across one person yet who doesn't like loading up a big squat for them hitting it and doesn't get excited.

I did want to ask you one follow up on the squat, hack squat versus like a barbell squat. Yeah. Now in terms of, you know, muscle growth. It's going to be similar. What about functional, like function, let's say an older adult, you know, getting up out of their chair, like being able to, like, avoid the fall? Do you think it's the same? It's hard to know because one, it depends on how we define functional, right? Like how we test it.

If we're talking about preventing falls, and that's a great point that you bring up because a lot of people get so focused on bone density, bones and we don't want to break bones. Well, if they didn't fall in the first place, you know, and by the way, the best thing you can do for bone density is lift weights. Like anything you can do nutritionally pales in comparison as to what lifting weights does for bone density is a massive effect on bone density. So what I would say is probably all things being equal, the free weight will probably be better. I'm not aware of any data that actually assesses this. But if we have 65-year-old woman who's never put a barbell on her back before, that's a big ask. Squads feel really weird if you've never done it before. seeing a well-executed squat now, like after having gone through it so much, and I'm sure you, too, you realize, wow, that's actually a very technical lift.

Like, that is a thing of beauty to do that well. And so I think a lot of times, if I really wanted to get somebody doing that, I'm probably going to start with them like doing like a goblet squat or something like that to a box or something that they can execute with relative confidence to start. Because if I just put them on a barbell squat, it's going to feel weird. Maybe their back hurts, you know, whatever. But, I mean, again, I look at that as I just want to get them back for more sessions. So if what they'll do is a hack squat or a leg press, hell yes. And then hopefully over time, you know, we can walk them into some more complex stuff. But I'm totally good with people.

And hey, if all they ever do is hack squats, they are still going to be eons better than somebody who's not doing anything at all, right? And even leg extensions, you know? So, yeah, don't let the enemy of good be perfection. And it's so funny, there's so many myths around lifting and heavy lifting and I don't want somebody. What I will say is most people, if you progressively load correctly, lifting weights is going to reduce their pain. Now, when you're older, you're going have pain. Okay. My dad is sedentary. I love my dad. He's one of the most wonderful human beings I've ever met. But he doesn't lift, right? He has sciatica. Okay. He has more back pain than I do. I squat over 600 pounds. I dead lift over 700 pounds. And yeah, I get some, some aches and pains here and there,

and I've dealt with some back issues. But you also got to keep in mind, when you're trying to be the strongest person in like your weight category in the entire world for your age, the amount of training dose I need to make progress is going to be almost right next to what is going to overtrain me and increase my wrist for acute injury. And so I've always got to walk that line very carefully. But in studies looking at lower back pain and lifting, they show it decreases lower back pain. Because one, you decrease your sensitivity to pain because you're progressively loading those tissues. One of the worst things you can do is to not load tissues because then they do get really sensitive to pain. And pain is a whole other, like, that's another rabbit hole. I went down that's,

there's so much woo around what causes pain, injury. We talked about this a little bit. But yeah, in general, if you lift weights when you get older, you'll still have some pain, but you'll be strong and less sensitive to that pain than somebody who doesn't. This kind of leads to some of the questions that I, that I was wanting to ask you about, you know, again, when I say, you are obviously an outlier. I mean, you're a professional power lifter, bodybuilder. But generally speaking, like, how do you or how do you coach people to as much as they can prevent, like, prevent getting injuries?

Like, or, I mean, lower your risk, I would say. Sure. Lower your risk of injuries. That's the proper way to say. Yeah. And then also, like warm ups, stretching. But then, again, once you have an injury, like, how do you push, like you were saying pain, like you get better with lifting?

So then how do you approach once you actually have an injury? Like what do you do? Or what do you coach people to do as well? So I'm not a pain expert, but I've talked to a lot of pain experts. I've read a lot of the literature. And I have my own personal experience as well that lines up with the literature. And I will say, man, this is something I really changed my mind on for a long period of time. The stuff I thought reduced pain and injury versus what actually did was so different in the research literature.

and honestly discovering the biocyco social model of pain was a game changer for me. Because after I set that squat world record, I went through like seven years of really bad back pain, hip pain that pretty much prevented me from competing. I wasn't able to get back to worlds until 2022 when I won because 2015, I just got a silver medal overall. And it was, so the things that are big levers for,

let's just take injury first. okay one big increases in volume in training volume and load when you aren't prepared for it so there's a lot of people out there who they'll get you know um let's do this challenge let's do this thing bad idea bad if you are drastically increasing your volume or your load that is one of the big risk factors for acute injury okay so when we say progressively load Like even my coach, if training is going well and I'm getting much stronger, we don't jump up load very fast. We're still only increasing, you know, five, 10 pounds a week because we know it's possible that I get stronger faster than my overall recovery can tolerate, right? So we're careful about how we increase load. putting the tissues in under stress progressively is a big injury reducing factor. So, and now I was actually watching a quarterback on Netflix, which followed a few different quarterbacks.

They're following Patrick Mahomes. And one of the things I did like that they were doing was the, his trainer was saying, you know, we put him in a lot of different positions under stress and load over time so that the first time his tissues deal with this is not in the middle of the game. And so a lot of people think, for example, like form is really important for injury prevention. There's not a lot of research that actually backs that up, to be honest. Like take round back deadlifting. There was a study, like I think it was a meta-analysis looking at rounded back deadlifting versus straight back deadlifting. degrees of flexion in the disc.

And I mean, everybody would think, okay, roundback deadlifting. It raises your risk of injury. And it didn't really. And you see some top power lifters deadlift with a round back, mostly rounded in the upper back. And so you go, how is that possible? And then even like knee cave, knee valgus on a squat, right? That's where your knees come in. One of my friends is probably the best female squatter in the world, drug-free.

she's squatted 496 pounds and 150 pounds body weight. Her name's Leobov-Wa. She's a French national champion. But her knees cave when she squats. But she's always done it that way, which means she started out doing that way when the load was light. Her tissues adapted to that, and it's not really a injury risk for her.

And actually, I used to deadlift with a straight back and found that when I was fatigued, my back would start to round, and that's when I would get injured and have pain. And about five years ago, I changed, I said, okay, let's try this whole tissue adaptation thing and just pull the way I pull when I'm fatigued, because if I'm training for powerlifting and trying to get stronger, I'm going to have to train under fatigue. I've had way less back pain, and I don't think I've had any acute injury. on deadlift. And so...

Because you progressively... Because I progressively loaded those tissues. Now, if you're... I think all things being equal, if you can deadlift straight back, do that, right? But I think the idea that we need this like perfect form to prevent injury, actually the research shows people who believe they need really good form are actually more likely to have pain and get injured than people who believe that they're resilient and strong. And actually, people who get injured.

Injuries, mindset is actually a big factor for recovery. People who believe that they are strong and resilient recover faster from injuries and have less pain than people who believe that they're fragile. And this gets into really the biopsychosocial model. So the other big levers for injury risk are psychological stress. That is a massive, massive lever for acute injury and overall pain. So if you look at fibromyalgia, chronic fatigue syndrome, in fact, a lot of autoimmune disorders are very tightly associated with psychological stress and psychiatric disorders,

IBS as well. And they show there's this really classical pain study. I think they did a skin pressure test. And they had people, they standardized the pressure. And they had people rate it zero to 100. Zero being absolutely no pain whatsoever, didn't feel anything. 100 being most painful thing they've ever felt. And the average was like, I think it was around a 50.

But the spread was four to 97. if I recall correctly. So for somebody, it didn't even hardly register. For another person, it was almost the most painful thing they'd ever experienced. So pain is not what we thought it was, which is your body's a bag of meat, hooked up to your brain. And if you poke the bag, cut the bag, burn the bag, cut the bag, your brain sends a signal and goes, owie. And now we know what happens in the mind affects the body, what happens in the body affects the mind. I mean, look at the going the opposite direction, look at the exercise studies on cognition, on depression,

So what happens in the body affects the mind and it goes the other way as well. So psychological stress, that by far is the single biggest thing I changed in my life that got me into a low enough pain state to actually get competitive again in powerlifting. And that started with getting better at stress management techniques, going to therapy, started doing hard work of setting boundaries with people in my life. and even left a very stressful relationship. And I'll never forget like this light bulb moment. And again, I'm not saying negative thing about this person. Like it was stressful for her too. It was just,

it was not a good match overall. It was a very toxic dynamic. And two weeks after leaving that relationship, I'm like, what is happening? Because I was physically noticeably stronger in the gym. And I was even sleeping a little bit less. And I really,

I kind of realized, wow, yeah, I'm not walking on eggshells all time. My body isn't like, I'm not like tensed up all the time. And this is backed up by the research that it's, there is a psychological, there is a physical toll that psychological stress takes. And so managing that has been huge. In fact, I joke with people that I have become much more zen, not because it improved the quality of my life. It improved by lifting. So I became even more Zen, which improved the quality of my life, which then had like a positive kind of effect on everything, right?

And the other thing is sleep. So sleep is a big, big lever for acute injury and for pain management. So there was a study in, I think, Army, where they looked at four hours of sleep a night versus eight hours of sleep a night. So people either had to get, or am I? Yeah, I think it was four,

versus eight. And I forget the duration. I think it was two or three months. And they found that people who were sleeping four hours a night had a 236% increased risk of acute injury versus people who slept eight hours a night. That's a massive difference. And people who sleep more have less pain. And you can just bundle it up all into that kind of like stress management. The long story is it is about your overall recovery status and psychological stress, your beliefs about pain, your sleep, all that stuff impacts it. Now, when you have an injury and you have pain, you know, we've all, not all, but a lot of us have gone to the doctor and they've been like, okay, that squat gave you an

awry, don't ever do those again. But you have to understand a lot of doctors, especially GPs, are not trained in modern pain science and they're thinking about liability. If you, they tell you know, you can go back in and squat again. You just need to like start off slow and manage your, manage your pain status accordingly. And if he flares up, you know, back off on your volume. Because if somebody goes back in and gets another owie, they go, well, that doctor told me to go squat.

I'm going to sue them now. Right. So a lot of doctors are thinking about just minimizing their risk for litigation. but there's something called exposure therapy, which was the other game changer for me. So to explain it, let's take it from like, I'm sure you've heard of exposure therapy for like psychology, right?

So for example, if I had a fear of spiders, if you just take me and stick me in a room with a bunch of spiders, that doesn't, that's not exposure therapy. That's like traumatic and it's going to make it worse, right? That's like if you have pain, and let's say, for example, I dealt with back pain that was triggered by me squatting below parallel and then having a fast and then accelerating

the lockout. Okay. So it was only at the top and it was after I squatted below parallel. So it was very specific pain. If I went in and tried to do heavy squats, it's just going to strengthen that pain while I'm pain sensitive. But what you probably should do is exposure therapy. So that heavy squat, that's like sticking me in a room with spiders, right?

It's traumatic. But if you wanted to manage somebody's fear of spiders, maybe you put them in a room with a spider that's under a glass case. And they just sit there with the spider. And then over time, they bring it closer. Over time, they take the case off. Over time, you get better at managing that. Pain is kind of the same way. So when I dealt with this, so I was dealing with that as well as hip pain that prevented me from really doing any kind of heavy squats.

And so I went in the gym one day after reading about exposure therapy. And I said, okay, is there a squat variation that I can do that's low enough pain that I can touch it without it getting worse? Because the research shows like if you're recovering from an injury, first off, you have to get the initial like high pain sensitivity under control. And so that may involve rest and just walking or active recovery. But once it's under control enough, you kind of want to. touch the pain without doing enough to make it worse. And the more you do this, the better you get it kind of knowing when to walk that line. And so I found, okay, I can't do a full squat with my normal velocity, but I can do a slow tempo squat to a pin that's about six inches above parallel

and then do a pause and do a controlled ascent. And I can do that in that, that, that, that, seems to be okay. So I started there. And every week, if I could, if my, if I felt okay, I'd take the pin down or I'd increase the weight or I'd increase the velocity. I pulled one of those levers or a few of them. And it wasn't linear. Like there were some weeks where I had to kind of just stay the same because I could feel that I was a little bit more pain sensitive. But after 16 weeks, I was back squatting below parallel with not no pain, but a manageable amount of pain. And then over time of managing that correctly, I got to no pain, right? And so that was such a big game changer for me. And it really made me think about, man, everybody

thinks if you got pain, it means there's like something wrong. You're going to make something worse. There's a tissue injury. And the research doesn't necessarily support that. Like, yes, tissue injuries tend to cause pain. But soft tissue tissue injuries heal within six to 12 months. If you're still having pain after that, it's because your brain has actually made a connection. And if you think about the purpose of pain, it's kind of a warning sign, right? It's signaling, hey, danger, danger. So I notice when I'll get pain is one, almost like clockwork, if I get stressed out about something, this happened a few weeks ago. I was overwhelmed. And here comes my back pain, just rearing its ugly head. And the trigger for that,

I've also found just learning that I don't have to stop doing what I'm doing. I just need to try and adjust it a little bit. So I had that a few weeks ago. So I'll go, okay, I'm going to stop above, just like right above parallel. I'm going to do a slow tempo and I'm going to slow down the ascent of my squat and I was able to keep squatting. And now it's been getting better. I anticipate within a few weeks I'll be kind of back to normal. And then again, before Nationals this year,

I was hitting a set of $590 for a triple on squats. And on the third rep, I felt my adductor like tweak. And I was supposed to do back-off sets after that. I loaded my sets for back-offs. And then I unloaded the entire bar. And I was like, I can't win Nationals today. And this is like six weeks out from Nationals. But I went over to a belt squat.

And I'm like, okay, can I get in a position here? If you ever used a belt squat, you can play around a lot more with like your foot position and whatnot. Can I get in a position? here where I can do a squat movement with, you know, not aggravating it. I could. And then I, again, I found that like below parallel was aggravating for that. So I did a pin squat above parallel the next time I was in. Some more belt squats. Within three weeks, I was back squatting below parallel with no pain. And again, I'm like, okay, pain, the idea that it's a tissue injury, maybe, but also maybe not. Sometimes it's your body trying to send you a signal saying,

hey, our volume's getting pretty high and we're not recovered enough. Like back off, back off. And so I've learned to kind of take pain more as a take it as it comes and not put so much judgment behind it. And it has made such an enormous difference in my training. And yeah, I just, long story short, The best explanation I heard, I think it was from Sean Mackie when he was on Huberman's podcast. I think he said pain is an experience and it's more like an emotion than it is what we would normally think of as like the old school brain connected to your body, that sort of thing. And so again, I've become big on what happens in the mind affects the body and what happens in the body affects the mind. You mentioned a couple of things.

I just want to ask you about one to sleep because, you know, there are many times when people, there are some people that get chronic, like four hours of sleep. They're stress, their work schedule. I don't, maybe they're like a new parent, whatever, you know. But, you know, generally speaking, like, let's say you are getting poor sleep because of something social or just an event. Like, it's not like a chronic, chronic thing forever, but like you even get a couple of poor nights of sleep.

that's what I think that really you need to make sure you really do focus on getting a workout. And I don't mean go and run a marathon, but go and like do a 20 minute interval or even 10 minute, whatever, something, you know. How do you, so you said sleep is important for lowering the risk of injury, generally speaking. And pain, yeah. And pain, yes. But like if you are not getting, if you're getting a poor night's sleep or a couple of four nights sleep, do you still think people should go and train or is the risk for, let's say, injury with, like, resistance training?

Is it going to be significantly higher? Or should you just go and lift some weights? So I think everyone should auto-regulate their training regardless of whatever happens. Okay. And so if you have a poor night's sleep and you come in and you're feeling like crap and it's not moving well, then reduce the load and adjust accordingly. but that set of squats, my best ever set of squats I hit that 5.30 for 10, that was after a night where I literally slept nothing. But I had the approach of, well, I'm going to go in and just see how it feels. And if it feels bad, I'll reduce my target load and we'll just manage it. And I felt a little shaky. I felt like, you know, I didn't feel great. But it was moving

for whatever reason. And I think what people need to realize is when we talk about, the risk of injury and sleep. It is, it's like that the bowl comparison I made, right? Like, if you've been sleeping great overall and you have one bad night of sleep, I very much doubt it raises your risk of injury. It's more about what you're doing. Just like if you've been sleeping like crap, sleeping great one night is not going to, oh, you're all recovered and everything's back to baseline. Like, no, that's not how that works. We know like sleep deficits are tough to make up, right? So I think it's fine to go train after a night of poor sleep, just auto-regulate, right? If you feel worse. And I tell this, I actually, I've had clients,

I've had to have them stop wearing wearables, like aura rings or watches or whatnot, because they end up noceboing themselves because, oh, my battery is low or like my body battery is low or my, my, uh, HRV is messed up or the, and it's like, okay, well, maybe that'll have an impact, but you could just go test the thing, you know, like you can just go do it. And so, and the same thing people, you know, talk about like, uh, for females, like we kind of discuss this a little bit like training for your cycle. There's really not a lot of evidence that you need to train differently for any phase of your cycle. But if you personally feel worse during a certain phase of your cycle or even a certain day, who cares if it's the cycle, if it's the sleep,

if it's the hormone, who cares what it is? Reduce your load. I like that term to auto regulate because it's really applicable to so many different situations like people that people are in. But since you brought up the women, there's also a whole class of women that are postmenopausal and, you know, some of them maybe perhaps haven't lifted weights before. They've noticed that even though they're eating the same, calorie-wise, that as they hit menopause, for some reason, they're getting a little more belly fat without necessarily taking in more calories. Like, you know, there's something that's happening that they're not, it's not the same.

Like, how do you approach that? Like, is it like, do they need to lift? Is that the secret sauce? Do they need to lift more if they are lifting and it's still kind of hard? Where the calories come to the picture as well. Again, like I said, even if they haven't really changed their calories, it just hit menopause and then, you know, they get that sort of belly fat accumulating easier.

So again, where X's and O's meets practicality. If you look at the mechanistic stuff of like BMR, total energy expenditure, you know, all the like hard metrics, they don't really change with menopause. So your BMR doesn't change. So I said total energy expenditure on average. But here's the thing. There's a lot of people who have sleep problems during menopause.

Stress goes up. You probably don't feel as good, right, as your hormones change. And so one of the big buckets for energy expenditure is actually subconscious or unconscious physical activity, like spontaneous physical activity. People don't realize this. So if we think about total energy expenditure, so calories out, right, everything you expend in the day. People equate that with metabolism. Well, metabolism is your BMR. That's basically the cost of keeping the lights on, right? Like, that's the cost to run your organs

when you're at rest. That is usually a pretty big chunk of your total energy expenditure. That's like 50 to 70% per day for most people. Then you have TEF, which is the amount of energy required to extract the energy out of food, that's usually a couple hundred calories per day. And then you have your physical activity, which people think about purely as exercise, but it's not. Physical activity can be broken up into two buckets, purposeful and non-purposeful, which exercise obviously falls into purposeful. Non-purposeful is also called neat non-exercise activity thermogenesis, which is actually really modifiable, really modifiable. And if you don't feel as good, you're probably not going to move as much without even realizing it. And so just looking at the research literature, not in menopausal

population, but let's take dieting, for example. So we know if you diet lose like 10% of your body weight, it can decrease your BMR, we call that metabolic adaptation, outside of what you would expect just based on the amount of mass you lose. So, It's about on average like 15% decline in BMR. But 10% weight loss can also induce a 4 to 500 calorie decrease in meat per day. Now, let's take what that looks like practically. All right. So I'm about 210 pounds.

And my BMR is about 2,000 calories a day. My total energy expenditure is about 3,400 calories a day. If I start doing a diet that's a 700 calorie deficit for me, so 2,700 calories per day on average, that's a good deficit. That's a healthy deficit. If I lose 10% of my body weight and my BMR declines by 20% or by 15%, that's 300 calories.

And if my meat goes down by 400 calories, that's 700 calories total. What was a deficit is actually now maintenance for me. And so I think a lot of people conflate calorie deficits don't work with, they don't understand that, well, maybe you thought,

you were in a calorie deficit or what should have been a calorie deficit, but if you didn't lose weight, you weren't in a calorie deficit, at least sustained over time. And so that can feel very attacking for people. But again, the reality is like you're in menopause, you're sleeping worse and people also, well, I'm still doing the same amount of exercise. Yeah, but if you're not spontaneously moving it unless. And I don't know what it is about neat. People view it as like a personal attack when I say physical activity. No, this might as well be BMR because you can't control it. Like your subconscious physical, now you can try to make up for it by doing more conscious physical activity. And also I want to be very clear. It's not like you lose 10% body weight and then

everything falls off a cliff. This is a very progressive thing over time, right? But you, knowing that, you can make up for it. So, for example, you can do more exercise or you can do more steps during the day, that sort of thing. But when it comes to menopause, I think, and there is some evidence that, like, if you get, if you get, like, really low in estrogen and you replace that, that can have an effect on energy expenditure, about 100 calories per day, something like that. And then there's obviously, there are hormones that do make a difference for energy expenditure, like thyroid hormone, right? I think if you're hypothyroid, it will reduce your BMR. But I think the biggest decline I've seen, like the biggest absolute max, I'm just.

seen the literature is like 25%, which is big as BMR, but it doesn't mean you can't get to calorie deficit. You're, you're not a perpetual motion machine that can create energy out of nothing. Like you have to, if you didn't lose weight or you didn't gain or you gained weight, your body didn't create those carbons out of nowhere. Like they came from something, right? And I think the disconnect between energy, calories, people go, well, calories aren't even real. You can't see them. it is referring to the potential energy contained in the chemical bonds of food that is captured throughout the course of metabolism. And so what I always say is like if you ingest carbons, your body does something with them,

and we can track that. And if you are gaining weight, your body is not creating carbons out of nothing. It has to get them from somewhere. So all that to say, to come back to the menopause, piece of it. It is the lifestyle changes that really make the difference, trying to double down on sleep, trying to double down on stress management, and also exercise. It may not feel good, but it is going to drastically help you. And I've gotten in trouble for some of these, for some of these say, again, people will hear that and say, you know, Lane's gaslighting

menopausal women. He's saying that it's their fault. No, I think that these changes can happen without you realizing it. And again, your subconscious decrease in physical activity, that's a big lever that can happen without you even realizing it or having any control over it. And again, people, it's why I'm almost so pedantic about terms because it makes a difference, as Jack Reacher says, details matter. And when you, so people will say, I'm going to take the stairs today, get my need up. That's not neat. That's exercise. because you're making a conscious decision to do it.

And so this reduction in energy from neat, it's not something you can control. So I'm not saying it's your fault. But there are things, lifestyle interventions you can do, to help correct for that. Do you think that a post-mental palsy woman that increases their volume of resistance training versus, let's say, you know, getting on a peloton and doing spin or, you know, endurance, like do you think there's a difference in in helping compensate for some of those changes in their physical activity that they're not thinking about because you're getting more muscle mass or does it? I mean, I'm always going to encourage people to lift weights in some form or fashion, right?

But again, it kind of goes back to like practicality. If they love spin and that's, they hate lifting weights. Well, spin's going to be better than nothing, right? But if I can get people to lift weights, definitely one of the lift weights. And, I mean, the research shows. relative to your starting lean mass, regardless of your age or sex, you can build the same amount of muscle. So what that means, people, just to put it practically, so there's studies showing that women build the same amount of men as a percentage of the starting lean mass. So what I mean by that is if your starting lean mass as a woman is 50 kilograms and my starting lean mass as a man is 70 kilograms, and we both resistance train, we both put on, let's say, 10% lean mass, the woman will gain,

five kilos, the man will gain seven. The man gained more absolute lean mass, but they both gained the same percentage of their starting lean mass. So the potential for growth is actually similar, again, as a percentage. And we actually see that even with like strength too, that women kind of as starting percentage of the one rep max gain similar strength as men. In fact, it might be a little bit better, to be honest. But that also could be that women have a lower baseline because they're not on a population level lifting weights as much. And so in elderly, we see that too as a percentage. Now, if you take somebody who's 70 years old and never lifted weights before, they're going to not have very much lean mass. But if they start, they'll still gain a similar amount as a percentage of

they're starting lean mass. Now, they're never going to get to the same peak that somebody who started when they're 20. But again, that's why I tell people, the best time to start lifting weights is right now. Like, if you have a spinal cord that works, start now.

It is the best time. And even if you're 50, 60, 70, it's still going to do what it does. And it's going to have massive benefits. It's never too late. What about, there's a lot of people that are older adults. So let's say they're 65 or older.

And maybe they are just starting out. And let's say they have joint issues. And I think you kind of address this with the pain, and I want to just confirm this. So, you know, for these people, let's say, that are older, they have joint issues. If they just start, like, with, like, lighter weights, just start, you know, with the, like, low exposure where they're just doing something and training and their muscles are adapting, their joints are adapting. Is that sort of the approach you would take with older adults? Yeah, I'd probably start with lighter weights and also start with, like, move. that don't cause them pain or cause them less pain, right?

Like trying to find stuff that, whether it's exercises, tempos, range of motion, like just getting it started. Because I know over time, as those tissues adapt, they're going to be able to do more and more complex movements. They're going to be able to push harder and harder. And that stuff's going to take care of itself. But if I'm just dogmatic about it, I'm like, no, you're going to squat. I, you know, put a barbell on somebody's back the first time they come in and they're 60 years old

and they have a horrible experience with it and it hurts. we're not going to come back, you know. So again, that's kind of where, like, meeting people where they are is really important. So, yeah, I'm going to try and find exercises that are low pain, that they enjoy, enjoy being relative. And then, again, like, even when people were starting out, like we talked about proximity to failure,

I'm not taking somebody who's older, close to failure the first time they lift weights. Like, no way. That's going to be, that's going to be weak. down the road. But just lifting something is going to have such a massive difference compared to doing nothing that it really almost doesn't matter what you do when you start as long as you start, as long as it's not like such a low load that there's no discomfort whatsoever. And so that's kind of how I'm going to start with people is just like, let's get them in, let's have them not hate it.

and then also see themselves get stronger pretty quickly, that is a really good motivator to get them to keep coming in, right? And so that's why, again, I don't want to change up exercises every week because I want to be able to say, oh, wow, I had 10 pounds from last time. I had two more reps, you know, and it was easier. And so I think practically you can take all the research we have on long muscle links and proximity, and you just throw that all at the window. first time you get somebody in, it is about getting them to come back for the next one. That is where

we got to start. And also like, setting appropriate expectations with people of, hey, you're going to notice you get stronger within a few weeks. You're going to notice this. But it's going to take time before you actually see a difference in your body. But within a few months, you're going to notice a difference in your functionality for sure. And so I think just like starting there with people is really important because like you said, for what you're going to. For what? whatever reason, people think either it's going to be a waste of time for the lift weights or they're just going to blow up into this massive bodybuilder. And I'm like, you know, when you get in a car, you don't worry about turning into an ass car driver, do you? Like, and as somebody drug free who spent 25 years their entire adult life trying to get as big and strong as possible in a T-shirt, I look like an athletic guy.

You know, I mean, I'm a big guy, but I don't look like some freak of nature, you know, know, and that's with me training consistently hard for 25 years. And I always tell people, hey, you know, if you're worried about like getting too big, if you start to get too big, you can just back off. It's not, this isn't rocket science. Like it's, like I said, I worry about people training not hard enough. I don't worry about them training too hard. Like that's, that is a pretty small subsection of people. Although we end up having selection bias because we're in this industry, which has a lot more people who do train too hard and, you know, get too restrictive with their diets compared to the average person, right?

So I think this is a good segue, too, for, you know, the other signal of increasing muscle mass that we talked a lot about the mechanical tension and the training, which is the biggest. Most important. Most important factor for not only just muscle mass and function, but like we're talking about brain overall health, bone density, just list goes on and on, right? Protein, right? I think it's interesting because I'll tell people I'm a PhD in nutrition and I'll be the first to tell you, training is way more important.

Yes. Way more important. Well, that's kind of, you know, I wanted to get your thoughts on, so I have had, you know, Stu Phillips and Luke Van Loon, Brett Schoenfeld. We've talked about protein requirements, you know, talking about getting the biggest bang for your buck with your training 1.6 grams per kilogram. body weight. I know you've talked about that as well. I kind of wanted to get your thoughts on like, what do you think about like earning your protein? Like, so there is this sort of focus

on protein intake right now. Like there's a lot of influencers talking about it. It's in the blogosphere, social media. And but like, does someone need to focus on their protein intake as much if they're just sitting around not exercising, not training? What do you? You can make an argument that's actually probably more important if you aren't training, but I would say like get training, right? What do you mean? Well, because if you don't have the training lever to preserve lean mass and get some metabolic benefits, protein doesn't do it nearly as much, but it does help.

And so, you know, but it's it is a small lever compared to actual resistance training. Does it help? let's say if you look at the in-hand studies and people on average, well, depending on their age, but like younger adults, let's say people that are like 40 and younger, they're getting on average about 1.5 grams per kilogram body weight. Now, older adults, more like 1.2, but that's their average consumption. So do you still think focusing on the protein knowing like what they're, I mean, I guess for older adults, but I'd love to hear what your take is? So that's kind of like the lab I came out of Don Lehman's lab, that was a big, big focus for us was older population.

And if you look in young populations, I mean, one of the studies you sent me on protein distribution showed no difference in 30-year-old women, which doesn't really surprise me, because when you're young, and even like 30 wouldn't be considered young, but young enough that you still have like the normal kind of translation initiation signaling. So the mTOR pathway. As you get older, above, I want to say the study,

I think it was out of Rennie or Wolfs Lab. I can't remember which one. This is like back in 2004. But they showed, not only do you get a decreased sensitivity of that pathway, you actually get like less, I think less protein,

less of the actual like mTOR and the machinery associated with protein synthesis. So you're, their research basically showed you could restore a normal response of muscle protein synthesis, but you have to consume proportionally more protein. So I think really... Are you talking about anabolic resistance in older adults? Yeah.

So I think when you're young, it still matters, but it matters less than when you get older. And the problem with that is it's kind of like going in both directions of older people, have a lower antibiotic sensitivity and they tend to consume less protein because it's more satiating. It's harder to chew in general

like if you're talking about animal proteins. And so people just kind of end up gravitating away from that. And that's also where you kind of start to see protein distribution probably matter a little bit more when you get into older age where if you're getting,

you know, three meals where you're stimulating muscle protein synthesis versus is, you know, just one big meal, which most people eat about 65% of their protein at dinner in America. And, well, what's the problem with that? Well, on a mechanistic level, there's not really a storage form for a protein like we have

for carbohydrate and fat. So fat, obviously, you can store as much as you need, naturopose. Carbohydrate, you've got liver glycogen, you've got muscle glycogen, limited, but still a storage form. I mean, protein, you have the free amino acid pool. but it's very, very, very small. It's not what I would consider a storage form or protein at all. And some people will say, well, you know, skeletal muscle is a storage form of protein.

That's like saying you build a house and it's a storage form of wood. Yeah, I guess you can tear the house down and get wood out of it, but that's not why you build the house, you know. And so because of that, there appears to be kind of a maximal, well, new study out of Van Lund's lab has kind of challenged this. but in terms of muscle protein synthesis, it appears that, you know, it kind of caps out at a certain level on a permeal basis. And so if you're older, let me back up,

for younger people, 10 grams of protein probably still does stimulate protein synthesis. But as you get older, you probably need closer to 20, 30, maybe even 40 grams, depending on your own lean mass and the source of protein that you're consuming. But, but,

But, you know, it really protein quality, distribution, that stuff matters more. The lower your protein intake is overall, the more you consume on a daily basis, the less all that other stuff matters. Your daily intake is by far the biggest lever to pull. And so what I'll tell people is like, hey, if you're, if for whatever reason you can only get it in one meal and you can still get enough total protein, I mean, I don't think it's ideal, but it's better than not getting enough total protein, right? And I think some of the problems with this research literature as well is when you're looking at protein synthesis, you're only looking at one side of the equation.

You're not looking at muscle protein degradation, which is really hard to measure. In fact, it's so hard to measure that protein researchers out there, please don't get too mad at me saying this because I was one of you. But we just kind of do this and we go la la la la la, la, we just kind of follow muscle protein synthesis because degrading. so hard to measure because if you're measuring synthesis, you're using an isotopic label, and you're just, you're looking at incorporation into the tissue versus the precursor pool, and then you have a very simple calculation that you can come up with a rate. With degradation, it's much more difficult because you're looking at the dilution of that label from amino acids flexing out of a tissue, much more difficult to measure.

And to my knowledge, it's almost impossible to measure synthesis, degradation, and it's very hard to measure those two at the same time. And it's hard to measure them when it's not in a steady state. So like if you add exercise, you add a meal, like now you're in a non-steady state, it's much more difficult to measure. So all that being said, there may be effects on muscle protein degradation that make it where, okay, this explains why, you know, protein distribution. is less important than we previously thought.

Because I was a big proponent of protein distribution, and I still think if you want to become the most muscular human you can possibly be, that getting multiple protein, high-quality protein feedings per day is probably superior to one or two. But do I think it makes a massive difference? No, I don't. What about, have you seen Luke Van Loon study the overnight, like, muscle protein synthesis giving protein before bed and stimulating while you're sleeping?

being you're like building a protein and I mean does that add something to I mean I tell people okay here's I'll tell you what I do okay so it's like this is the inject me with true serum what do I do because I want to do the best I can right because people ask about pre-training protein post-training protein doesn't need to be right after how's the timing here's what I'll tell people probably a good idea to have some protein when you wake up because you've been fasting for eight, 10 hours, and so muscle protein synthesis will be depressed. We do know that. It's also probably a good idea to have protein before you train because it helps with, we've

shown that protein before training helps with recovery and protein after training helps for recovery. But it's not this like, okay, you know, you don't need to be like having a protein shake right as you finish your last set and like downing it like, no. but it's probably a good idea to have a meal containing protein, a couple, you know, one to two hours before you lift or exercise. And it's probably a good idea to have it after you finish within a few hours. And so, yes, but your training will probably naturally fall between two meals like that anyway. You don't have to like accelerate one or the other. And the reality is if you're eating a meal an hour before you go train and you go train for an hour,

those amino acids are still in your system for four or five hours after you originally had them, maybe even longer, depending on the source. So I'll eat four protein-containing meals a day. I eat breakfast. Then I eat lunch. Usually I'll train in the middle of the afternoon because it's when I feel best. Then I'll eat dinner, you know, within a couple hours of finishing training. And then I'll eat a meal before bed because, again, I'm going to be going eight, ten hours without

consuming protein. And that's just kind of how I do it. Now, do I think, you know, again, I'm trying to be the most muscular person I can possibly be. If you're just somebody who wants to build a little bit of muscle, just focus on getting enough total protein per day. And if you can divide it up a little bit better, fantastic, right? But that's probably the last like three to five percent. And what do you think that total protein per day is? Yeah.

So this is where I'll tell you what the literature says and then I'll tell you if you injected me of a true serum what I really think. So literature says, you know, 1.6 to 2 grams per kilogram body weight. Most literature tops out around that 1.6 number. What I really think is I don't necessarily know if there's a top end of protein where you stop getting benefits. But I do think it just becomes so marginal that you can't pick it out. Because with protein synthesis, it's actually a really insensitive measure. Like you're dealing with looking, you are looking for small differences between small numbers. It is very. very difficult to pick out. And another, like, difficult thing to look at, especially when we're looking at lean mass and protein intake, is if you do an eight-week study, I mean, it's not like somebody builds so much more lean mass, even if they're resistance training versus somebody not. I mean, yeah, you build a few kilos, but it's not like this massive, huge difference. And so I think a lot of times we just don't, it's hard to do really long, randomized control trials. I always tell people when they say, why didn't they do it longer? Why weren't there

more subjects? Money, money, money. And also, I think people have this view that like there's this group of random people just sitting around waiting to be chosen for research studies and they're just like, don't have a life and they just do that for, no, no, research subjects are me, you, people watching. They're normal people. And guess what happens when you try to control aspects of their daily life? They drop out of studies. One of my favorites is when people go, why didn't they do it in bodybuilders? You know, bodybuilders say this. And I go, because you guys suck as test subjects.

Because let's say I want to do a protein study on bodybuilders. As soon as I randomize you guys to the low, you guys to low protein, you're all going to drop out. If I do a high volume versus low volume study and I randomize people in low volume, they're going to drop out. Like, it's almost impossible to do. Or you've got to pay people to do it. So anyways, if we look at some of the meta-regressions, if we look at the research on protein synthesis. And even stew did a study years ago of egg albumin intake, like five, 10, 20, and 40 grams of egg albumin protein. And the take home was that the 20 grams maximize the response. And it was

no different than 40 grams. Statistically, yes. But I think 40 grams was still 11% higher in rate of muscle protein synthesis. But I think there was like six people per group, which, again, when you're doing muscle protein synthesis in human, you are taking chunks of flesh out of people, you are having them lay around, getting infused with amino acids for five, six. Van Loon's recent study was like 12 hours. People were literally laying supine for 12 hours getting infusion. Who wants to sign up for that? Like, I'm not doing that, you know, plus getting multiple chunks of flesh taken out. So it's really hard to get high numbers to do this. You're bringing up a really, what I think,

is a really important point, Lane, because, and particularly coming from you, who you do really look a lot at randomized controlled trials and the meta-analysis and evidence. But the reality is, is that, you know, in many cases, they're almost, they can be set up to fail from the beginning because they're underpowered, like you said, and we have this obsession with statistical significance. I mean, we had to do something, right? But at the end of the day, as you said, it's like, well, there's a trend, 11%, maybe if we had 40 people instead of six, probably we'd see, you know, but then it comes down to then, okay, well, I like how you're speaking about it, where it's like, okay, well, this is what the evidence shows, this is my truth serum,

this is what I really think. And I think that's important too, because, you know, even people that are influencers that are interpreting studies, randomized control trials, we can be very harsh on the results. But at the end of the day, you know, these randomized control trials were designed for drugs where people don't have any of this in their system before the drug. This is a very black and white. Very black and white. We see this go up 50% because they're doing this drug, whatever, which is why whenever, you know,

people, when they do meta-analysis and nutrition and they're like, look, the quality of evidence was graded as low to moderate. I'm like, yeah, that's going to be every nutrition randomized control trial. Because one, you can't blind it effectively, right? Like it's, you can't, you can't blind it to the person. because they're going to know that they're eating less, like, say, animal protein products, right? But that doesn't mean that these are bad, right? It's just we have to understand the limitations of them.

And I think where I get really, like people know me for screaming, randomized control trials, really when I get like that is when somebody makes a claim and the randomized control trials actually show the opposite, that's when I'm like, come on, guys. You know what I mean? Like, you can't make that claim based on this because, okay, even if we don't necessarily believe these randomized control trials are perfect, they're going the opposite direction. So at minimum, you're, it doesn't have an effect and it probably has the opposite effect of what you're saying. It's like, I saw something the other day of like, I'm going to come back to your protein question,

but I saw something where it was like, don't take weight protein because it has NUE5GC and that's going to increase your inflammation. Okay, does weight protein have NUE5GC? Maybe, I guess, maybe, sure. possible. Is there a pathway where NUE5GC increases inflammation? Sure. But what happens when we actually give people away protein in randomized control trials? Oh, wait. It's either a neutral or positive effect on inflammation. So just because a pathway exists doesn't mean there's an outcome for it, right? But if there's an outcome, a pathway absolutely exists. But when you're dealing with outcomes, you're dealing with the summation of multiple, dozens, hundreds, maybe even thousands of biological pathways all summing up to that particular outcome.

And so, sure, I like to use this example of aspirin. We know aspirin's an anticoagulant, but it also activates pro-coagulant pathways as well. But the overall effect is it's an anticoagulant. So we have to be very careful. And that's, as you've seen, there's a lot of content out there now that it's, well, this thing is in this food and it's going to cause this. And it's like, I mean, I saw something about cruciferous vegetables, right? Like, don't eat those because they have isosyothanates.

and that's going to bind to iodine, that's going to lower your thyroid function, and that's going to cause your metabolic rate to drop, and you're going to gain weight. I'm like, wow, we kind of skipped over B, C, D, E, F, G, and went from A to Z, didn't we? And that's a pathway. That's a biochemical mechanism. Does it all exist and is it all, at least partially true? Yeah. But what happens in studies where we just have people eat more cruciferous vegetables?

It doesn't impact their thyroid function at all. It doesn't impact their metabolic rate. if anything, they lose more weight from satiety. So obviously we can say, okay, well, that pathway exists, but it's obviously not a dominant pathway or even something that really makes a difference based on dosage and all these other things. So bring it back to the protein question. You're familiar with an asymptope.

So I think the response to protein is probably asymptopic. So you're going to get, and if you look at Stu's paper of the egg album, you're almost starting to see it. It's this curve going up where your initial zero to 20 grams is a pretty steep climb, starting to kind of top out, but continues to go up. And so I think practically there was a meta-regression a few years ago that suggested up to 3.3 grams per kilogram of protein still has improved benefits, or sorry, still has benefits for muscle protein synthesis and lean mass.

But again, metoregressions aren't perfect because you're kind of like extrapolating all these numbers that are in different kind of heterogeneous studies and you're trying to come up with a dose response. But I think based on what I know about protein synthesis, also what we saw with Luke Van Loon's recent study of 100 grams of protein after exercise, I think there's enough kind of smoke to suggest that, okay, you probably don't ever truly max out the benefits of protein on animalism. But when you get up to that one point, or 2 gram for kilogram body weight, you're probably 98, 99% of the way there, right? And so the benefits going up more are so incremental, you're never going to be able to really pick

them out in a study. What about for people, two things. One, like endurance athletes, like really just training hard, like marathon runners. And then two, people that are in a caloric deficit, trying to lose body fat, and, like, does increasing their protein, I mean, I don't know above two, but above the 1.6 and maybe to the two. Like, are there situations where increasing that protein does make a difference in? Great question. And Eric Helms, a few years. I don't know if you're familiar with him, but he's a researcher and exercise science and nutrition in New Zealand. And he did a systematic review,

and I think it was a metoregression as well, showing that in a calorie deficit, possibly up to 3 grams per kilogram of lean mass, so different than body weight, right, but still higher than what we typically see, that up to, I think, 3.1 grams per kilogram of lean mass had improvements in lean mass retention during a calorie deficit. So, yes, there may be evidence that more protein is better than a calorie deficit. And for endurance athletes, you know, this is where the segue, of one of my favorite quotes is there are no solutions, there are only tradeoffs. What I mean by that is you see better recovery from exercise with more protein and endurance

athletes up to about that 1.6 grams per kilogram. I think I saw one study that up to 1.8 saw a benefit as well. But when do you get to the point of where practically now because you're consuming more protein, you're consuming less carbohydrates and fats, which are fueling your exercise. And so just performance start to drop off because of that. And so that's where that segue has to happen of, okay, we can keep packing more protein in here. And even for resistance training people, right? Okay, I might have some bodyholders who say, well, you know, one percent difference is a difference between winning the Olympia and finishing in the last place. So I'm going to eat a thousand grams of protein. But I'm pulling out like a fake example that doesn't exist. But what I would say is,

well, yeah, maybe you're getting a little bit more muscle protein synthesis, but your training is probably going to suck, right? Because you're not getting in carbohydrates, fats. You probably feel like crap. And so guess what? Training is the bigger lever. So you're better off taking some of that protein, allotting it towards carbohydrates and fats so that you actually feel fueled and can train hard

versus just continuing to try to pump more protein in. So for me, I consume, so I'm probably about, I'm 94, 95 kilos. I consume like 230, 240 grams of protein per day. So I'm like probably like two and a half grams around there, two and a half grams per kilo of body weight. And then my lean mass is probably high 80s. So probably 87, something like that.

So I'm right just under that like kind of three grams per kilogram of body weight. But again, like I'm concerned about like how to, I build the most muscle possible. I think for the vast majority of people, 1.6 grams per kilogram of body weight, which is like 0.7 grams per pound, perfectly appropriate. And you're going to get the vast majority of protein by doing that. But for those meatheads out there, if you want to consume more protein, I'd say consume as much as you like up to the point where you still feel like you're getting enough carbohydrates and fats to be properly fueled for your resistance training sessions. Okay, this is, I want to kind of shift gears and talk about some, some hot topics, I guess, in the fitness and health world. Yeah.

You know, I, starting with seed oils. And I do think that. This will be the most commented section of this podcast. Well, it's an interesting one. I avoid them. I try to mostly avoid them. I mean, at home, I, olive oil is what I use for cooking, for everything. But I also think they've been overly demonized in the fitness and health world.

And I know that many of our listeners that are listening, watching, have heard a lot of conflicting information about seedotles. But maybe you could start with just summarizing what seed oils are. And why are they such a controversial topic? Yeah. So seed oils are generally polyunsaturated fats, which means they have multiple double bonds. and versus monosaturated fats like olive oil, which is a single double bond, or saturated fat like, say, butter, animal fats typically saturated, you know, where you have no double bonds. And let me start with this. I don't think seed oils are innocuous from the perspective that in the last few decades, added oils are one of the biggest source of increased energy in the American diet.

And so I just want to set the stage appropriately as well, talking about levers. People will say, well, it can't just be the calories. Let me give you the data on calories right now. So if we people will say, no, it's 24. Calories have actually gone down in the American data. I've heard this argument. They're looking at self-reported data from people, which puts it at like 24, 2,500 calories day for Americans.

The more accurate way to look at it, it is you look at the food production, you look at food waste, and you look at food availability, and you can calculate approximately how many calories per capita people are consuming. Okay, that is objective data. That's not, well, yesterday, I think I had, like, I don't even remember what I had for, for, to eat yesterday. Like, I mean, I can look at my app and I know, but if you asked me to recall it offhand, like, God, I don't really know.

That data is over 3,500. calories a day on average per person. And the average person gets less than 20 minutes of physical activity per day. So yeah, I think like a big chunk of it is energy toxicity. Now, seed oils can contribute to that for sure because even right down to like, hey, you have a salad, what does it take for a chef just to, you know, put more oil on it? Or, you know, if you've ever had a dish, you know, I can approximately guesstimate like how much rice is on there, but how are you going to know how much oil somebody put in? Like, I mean, I guess it tastes a little bit slimyer in your mouth, but good luck quantifying that, right? And then I think also seed oils are probably a proxy for poor to overall

diet quality because they are in a lot of processed foods. So the question to me, there's two questions. Practically, are they contributing to the health crisis? Yes. But is it for the reason that they really anti-seed oil people claim. And what's interesting about this anti-seed oil movement is I've noticed it's kind of popped up out of the low-carb carnivore sphere. And I've seen this progression over the years, which at first, the kind of the low-carb, hardcore keto folks, where carbs are bad, just blanket carbs are bad. And then over time, that kind of shifted to, well, we think it's refined sugar is.

what's, you know, insulin. And then, I mean, we've had so many randomized control trials now and metanalysis that kind of show that, like, sugar isn't good for you, but if you're equating energy, like, I mean, I have several meta analysis to show that it doesn't affect inflammatory markers, doesn't affect glucose metabolism, as long as you're getting in the same total calories per day compared to other diets and substituting out different carbohydrate sources. So then it shifted to, and I think it coincides, with there's been a lot of low-carb people who also push for saturated fat to be healthy.

Because, again, I think this is like confirmation bias. We like animal protein. We want saturated fat to be good for us because then we can justify more animal protein. And hey, listen, I always find it funny when people accuse me of bias on this because my research was funded by the National Dairy Council, the Egg Nutrition Center, and the National cattleman's beef association. There is nobody with a stronger bias towards animal protein than me, right? And I can remember when I did a debate with a carnivore person one time I said, never in a million years, I think I'd be on a podcast divining the virtues of plants, you know.

So I'm not saying that there isn't some benefits to animal protein. Everything's tradeoffs. But if we look at the literature, if you say seed oils are uniquely deleterious to health, then you have to say saturated fat is uniquely deleterious to health. Because for every level of evidence for seedoles, there is stronger evidence for saturated fat to be deleterious on health. So mechanistically, we know saturated fat raises LDL cholesterol. We know LDL cholesterol penetrates the endothelium. We know LDL cholesterol is a causative risk factor for cardiovascular disease.

Now we can argue about particle size and all that kind of stuff. But we know, Regardless of particle size, LDL can penetrate the endothelium and cause damage. Okay, mechanism, right? And then people say, well, inflammation. Okay, well, if we look at the studies where they just have people eat more polyunsaturated fats, sometimes you see an increase in inflammation, sometimes you don't. But if we look at the studies where they're substituting polyunsaturated fats in place of saturated fats,

we see neutral or positive effects on inflammatory markers, blood glucose regulation, liver fat. In fact, one of the things I tell people is if you're worried about liver fat increase from fructose, you better be worried about saturated fat because they compared them straight up equating calories overfeeding fructose versus saturated fat. Saturated fat increased liver fat 70% more than fructose in a randomized control trial. So, again, all right, you want to make the argument that seed oils are bad for you. You have to make the argument that saturated fat is bad for you too. And usually it's kind of the opposite where they're trying to push that, you know, polyunsaturated fats are what's causing a lot of our health problems. When in reality, at every level of evidence, whether it's animal, mechanistic, human randomized control trials or epidemiological,

looking at polyunsaturated substitute or saturated substitute for polyunsaturated, it's either neutral or positive. I have yet to see one study where they really show the opposite. The one study that they'll cite is the Minnesota coronary experiment. And there's a, there was some strengths to that experiment. It was, they provided all the meals to participants and they did either, you know, they were controlling their intake, either high polyunsaturated fat diet or high saturated fat diet. And it was a randomized control trial for several years where they're looking at outcomes, like heart attacks and whatnot, which is great. Here's the downsides.

When they reanalyze that data with more modern statistics, they found that, I mean, really, there was no difference. But originally there was a claim that, okay, the polyunsaturated group was actually having more cardiac events than the other group. but here's the weaknesses of the study. One, this is back when hydrogenated oils and trans fats were very prevalent in the food supply, and those were considered polyunsaturated fats, and they were getting a lot of their polyunsaturated fats from that. This wasn't from canola oil. This wasn't from, you know, some of these other oil. This was from hydrogenated corn oil.

Literally probably some of the worst source of fat you can get. Like, you'll get no argument from me that trans fats are uniquely deleterious. serious to health. You'll get no argument there. As bad, probably worse than saturated fat. So that's one major weakness. The other one is, yes, they were controlling their calories when they're inpatient, but these people were in and out of these facilities because they were psychiatric facilities. So what did they do beforehand? What did they do after? What did they do in between? It wasn't controlled. And you also have to consider two years is a long time for randomized control. Actually, the overall study, I think, was five years, but the average length was two years of a person being in it.

And I think the average age was like late 40s. How many people have heart attacks, even bad health in their late 40s? It's a pretty low number. And so how many people are going to have heart attacks in a five-year time window? Probably pretty low. And if we think about like the mechanism, LDL cholesterol that we think is why, you know, saturated fat might be more a bigger risk. for heart disease. It is about lifetime exposure risk.

And this is something I changed my mind on. When I got to grad school, I was very much of the opinion, well, it's more about the particle size, it's more about LDL to HDL ratio. You know, I don't think LDL really matters that much. It's more about the overall. And then about 10 years later, here come all these Mendelian randomization studies, which basically look at people who naturally secrete more or less LDL looking at a lifetime exposure to LDL.

And that is what matters because a good example I like to use as investment. So Rhonda, if you and I do each invest the same amount of money in an investment and I invest in something that gets 7% and you invest in something that gets 8%. If we look two years later, you'll have a little bit more money, but statistically probably not, right? But if we look 40 years later, you're going to have a lot more money than me. And so just looking at a sliver of time, this is where, yes, randomized control trials are the the gold standard, but they also have limitations that we have to consider as well. And so these Mendelian randomization studies, I mean, when they came out, you look at the lifetime exposure, you can draw a straight line through it. I mean, you can literally draw a straight line through

amount of LDL exposure throughout the course of someone's life and the risk for heart disease. So to me, I had to change my opinion on that. Now, I think I'm making a little bit of a leap from saturated fat to LDL because there are some forms of saturated fat that don't raise LDL, like stearic acid doesn't appear to raise LDL. But overall, if you eat more saturated fat, you raise your LDL. We see this in the carnivore community. There's people like bragging about having LDL levels of 3, 4, 500 milligrams per decilator. And it's like, this is going to get people killed.

And I think where there gets to be a conflict here, I'll come back to CETA hole. Sorry, I know I'm kind of going down the rabbit hole, is people might do a carnivore diet, lose 30, 40 pounds. their blood glucose regulation gets better, their HDL gets better, but their LDL goes through the roof. The particle number. Yeah. And they go, but I'm so much healthier now. One, you don't feel heart disease until it's knocking on your door.

And two, you may on balance overall, yes, be healthier than you were before. but you are not as healthy as if you'd gotten all those benefits and also not raised your LDL. You would be healthier or having all those things and also your LDL lower. So that is, again, we have to be very careful. We're talking about independent risk factors. Can I interrupt for a second? Because you're talking about the Mendelian randomization studies, and I do want to talk about carnivore diets in a minute too. But I've heard a lot in that community, this, you know, these studies that are cited, low LDL is actually a, higher predictor of all-cause mortality and early death.

Yeah, after age 65, yeah. Right. But those studies that you were just talking about, to me, are the argument against that because they're showing people with, like, a natural P-CSK-9, like, when they're having a lower level of it and they have naturally just lower levels of LDL throughout their life, they have a lower all-cause mortality. They have a lower cardiovascular-related mortality. And so to me, it's like, well, you know, high.

the low LDL because they got sick or old or whatever is causing their LDL to drop, it's a correlation. That's a reverse causality issue, right? Like people who have higher LDL later in life when it's like your risk of dying is much more related to wasting problems, you know, people who have high LDL during cancer, you're looking at a proxy for just, they're not malnourished. And I very much doubt that if we actually looked at the raw numbers of LDL, I'm not familiar with it. But I doubt we're talking about elderly people with like 250 levels of LDL.

I bet we're talking about people who are LD of like looking at levels, you know, of 40 versus, you know, 100 or 90 where like getting so far down, it's because they're so malnourished and they're wasting, right? And you've got to be careful about picking out these transient levels of LDL because we know LDL transiently if you fast, your LDL can go up, you know, because you're getting more. e-flux out of the liver, but like that overall, over the course of time, it goes down. So, yeah, I think, again, a Mendelian randomization study, basically a lifetime randomized control trial. I mean, it is for that, the highest quality of evidence that we have. And people will say, well, there's pleiotropy, whatever. Okay, nothing's perfect.

But again, we have mechanism penetrates the endothelium. We have animal studies showing a dose. response. We have actually some human randomized control trials that do show an effect. And we have the cohort studies that show an effect when it's when it's long enough and they use appropriate covariates. So we have all those things lining up and we have the long-term randomized control trials. So I'm just like, I don't need, I don't know what other kind of evidence you need to like convince you. Like, there's just not any, like, I don't know what else we can give you, you know? And so again, with the seed oil thing, if you were looking at just, yes, it adds calories,

but is it independently increasing inflammation? Like if we're talking about actual polyunsaturated fats, like not trans fats. I mean, if you're overeating it, sure. But if you're replacing saturated fat with that, the evidence suggests it's neutral or positive. And so you're talking about. mechanism, well, those double bonds can oxidize and there can be X, Y, Z. Okay, but what happens when you just feed it to people? And then you're seat. Now, some people have said, and we talked about this, like heating and reheating. It's probably not even like one-time heating. It's probably

like multiple times heating. Depends on the smoke point, all that kind of stuff. But again, that's confounded by the fact that, okay, if you're heating and reheating, you're frying stuff. And fried food is a proxy for really poor diet quality. So again, is it the seed oils, they're frying it in, or is it the fact that these people just eat really poorly overall in these cohort studies who are eating a lot of fried foods? Certainly in the cohort studies. Yeah. So the seed oils, so far, the randomized controlled trial evidence doesn't suggest it increases

cardiovascular disease. Doesn't suggest it increases inflammatory biomarkers, at least in the randomized chicken. Yeah, not CRP or dial sics. Yeah. Now, the heated versus the non-heated, and this is where I kind of think seed oils can be bad and that it does have to do with what you said about cohort evidence is true, right? Because you're right. You can't know, are they just frying all this, like, terrible food? And there's, there's too many confounders, right? There's too many confounders. But there are very few, three or four

studies that have interestingly compared heating some seed oils. A lot of times it's safflower oil. Yeah. They'll heat it or even do repeated heating. Like once they did 20 and then did not and then made muffins, the same muffins, with either the, like, I thought it was a great study, you know, the, the 20 times heated oil versus just the cool, like not heated oil. And the heated oils did increase inflammatory markers, and they increased oxidized LDL. And so, and like I said, two few studies really comparing just non-heated with heated. Yeah. Because essentially, a lot of those randomites control trials showing no effect on inflammation with seed oils,

They were giving them pills that were, they weren't cooking the seed oil, right? They're just putting it in the pill. So I do think there's a strong possibility based on the very limited evidence so far that heated seed oils might cause more inflammation compared to consuming them, certainly in whole foods, but even just like putting it on a salad. Or I don't know. What are your thoughts? So it's kind of like if we look at the priority of what's important, that's some of the last stuff I'm worried about,

just because I'm like, again, most people are. eating over 3,500 calories a day, doing less than 20 minutes of physical activity, okay, let's get that under control first. And if you happen to be eating some seed oils while you're getting your calories down to, I don't know, 2,500 a day, not really that worried about it, right? But, you know, do I think it's a good idea to eat a lot of highly processed foods that have had seed oils that are heated and reheat? No, I don't think it's a good idea.

But I don't think we have options, too, right? What about avocado oil or olive oil? Do you think that maybe just getting one of those options? You know, there was one really big cohort meta-analysis that was done that kind of showed that mono-unsaturated didn't have as big of an effect as polyunsaturated as decreasing the risk of cardiovascular disease. That mono-intaturated was still positive and saturated was negative, but polyunsaturated was kind of better in a dose response. But, I mean, I think for the most part, if you're worried, use olive oil, use avocado. What about the phenol? Polyphenols and olive oil? There's some studies showing like random miscontrol trial showing a beneficial effect just from on cardiovascular disease, olive oil.

Yeah, I think olive oil specifically, there's some evidence that like it may have some unique benefits for cardiovascular disease and whatnot and like metabolic health overall. So but again, I kind of look at that and go, okay, well, it still has one double bond. That can be oxidized. That can be, you know, based on your mechanism for polyunsaturateds, right? Like, shouldn't olive oil still be worse than saturated as well? And you can't, like, they never make that argument, or at least not that I've seen, you know. So, yeah, I mean, I think, again, we agree. I might agree for a different reason in that I don't know if I've seen enough to really,

I think if you're heating and reheating, yes. Like, once you get to the point where we oxidize those double bonds, I mean, now you're, you know, who knows what's happening downstream of that. But I think it's probably, you know, people who are eating a lot of heated and reheated oils are just eating really crappy foods overall, you know? Like I'm not really worried about somebody who's, you know, they spray their pan with canola oil

and cook some eggs on it. Like, I just, I'm not worried about that. It's, you know, the person eating fries that have been refried in the same oil over the course of time. But then again, it's like, all right, well, Is it the oil or is it overall they're having a really poor quality overall diet? So I think for me, yes, I hold very much open the possibility that there could be some deleterious effects. But I think for most people, it's one of the reasons I say have guidelines, don't have rules, right?

Because if you say things like, I don't eat seed oils. Well, as a guideline, that might be okay because you're probably avoiding a lot of ultra-process hyper-processed hyper-passed. edible foods, fried foods. But when you're like, you know, cooking in a bunch of butter instead of like canola oil or olive oil or, well, I guess not olive oil. But like, you're kind of missing the point, you know? And so I just want people to be a little bit more sane with how they handle this. Unfortunately, I think a lot of this boils down to, there's a lot of conspiracy theories around

all this kind of stuff. I mean, I've been told I've been paid off by big pharma, by big food. You know, I'll name your list. I think at a fundamental level, people don't like the idea of responsibility, of personal responsibility in this. And it's much more palatable to kind of say, well, you know, the food industry did this to us because they put all these things in our food supply, and that's what made us all sick and, you know, X, Y, Z.

And there's all these, you know, nefarious backroom deals being, I tend to think that most stuff is much more practical than that, which is food companies want you to eat more stuff because they make more money and their shareholders get more profits. And that's good for business. And so if tomorrow people stood up and were like, we're not eating this process junk anymore and we want fresh fruits, vegetables and that's all they bought, guess what food companies would do? They would stop producing all that stuff. or they would focus on the other stuff, right?

And so I think a lot of people like the idea of having this nefarious, evil, bad guy in the food world. And I think it kind of takes, it feels nice for the ego because it takes that personal responsibility away. But then it's also very disempowering as well. And so what I'll tell people is, I want to empower you that you can make change. and it doesn't have to be like these crazy diets, you can make some really small changes and have huge benefits. Again, whatever gets you there,

whatever decreases your energy, whether it's low carb, intermittent fasting, tracking your calories, omitting certain food, fine, fine. Whatever gets you there. But I just don't see some of these narratives being super helpful overall

because it gets people focused on the wrong stuff. And it's just a very confusing overall narrative, right? Because you got for every camp that says this thing is bad, there's another camp saying it's the best thing ever, right? And so people like to think they make decisions based on logic. Most people make decisions based on emotion. And most people, debate is actually a really poor, it doesn't really do much. There's a small sliver of people. who will change their minds.

And I go back to this very classic study in politics, where they took a group of Democrats and a group of Republicans, and they showed both information that would either refute or support a preexisting belief that they already held. Same thing for both groups. What they found was it didn't matter Democrat-Republican, both things that, like, objectively refuted. Like, here is the hard evidence.

It shows that what you believe, believe is wrong. That was just as effective as proof that they were right as reinforcing their personal beliefs. So I tell people when I like debate this stuff online, I'm not doing it for the person I'm debating with. I have no doubt. I'm not going to, I'm not going to change their mind. I'm doing it for the small sliver of people who are open minded enough to think, hmm, maybe I was wrong about my opinion. So I just think so much of this stuff, these tribal wars and nutrition are so much based on emotion and kind of creating a bad guy to blame stuff on because we don't want to look in the mirror and see our own personal responsibility

in the role of this. And I say this for, I'll give one more comparison and I'll let you ask me another question. The news. Everyone says, you know, I hate the media. The media like gets people spun up and it's stressful and all this kind of yeah but you watch it you watch it you know what the media doesn't care if they put on good news or bad news the only thing they care about is your eyeballs that's all they care about if every single person in the united states stood up tomorrow and said i'm not watching this crap i'm not watching negative news anymore i promise you within six months the entire news cycle would change because they don't care they want your eyeballs that's it but we know negative news gets people more engaged because they got spun up, they get fired up, and emotion

sells. And it's the same thing with health advice. I'm sure you've seen people who talk about things that are dangerous or things that will increase risk of death. That gets more attention than talking about the stuff that helps, right? And when you consider also why it's hard to talk to some of these diet tribes, people who have ingrained this as part of their, well, one, their personality, but also their beliefs. When you bring them evidence to the contrary, what you're actually doing is assaulting their belief about their own mortality. Because if you are right, then they might be actually killing themselves faster. And most humans would rather endure cognitive dissonance than believe, oh, maybe I wasn't doing something that was good for me.

I mean, God, we've got people who will justify like chain smoking or, like, any other thing. Most people end up believing what they want to believe, what they wish to be true, regardless of the evidence. Well, let's talk about the other thing you mentioned that is definitely a hot topic, which is the refined trigger. Yeah. And I know you've dealt deeply into this topic. It's a lot of reading of the evidence.

It's something that you've talked about. I want to ask you if you view consuming refined sugar, particularly in the form of sugar sweetened beverages, you know, like something that's just liquid and sugar. Do you, if calories are the same, if people aren't over-consuming calories, do you think that's something that is still inner, not that harmful, or do you think perhaps there's a reason to say,

maybe we shouldn't drink sugar, sweeten beverage? Like, you know, I know you don't like to say that because then there's the whole psychology part, but there's diet sodas, right? I mean, so. Yeah, so there's certainly not good for you. I think, first off, I want to be clear, we're probably talking about a subset of the population that's really small, right, in terms of, okay, they drink sugar-sweetened beverages, but don't over-consume calories.

That's very small. If we look at the meta-analyses of substitution studies where they look at, okay, sugar-sweetened beverages and we don't control for intake, absolutely increases fat mass, makes metabolic health worse. 100%. No question about it. If they look at studies where they substitute isochlorically, they don't really see a difference on sugar-sweetened beverages or fructose-containing beverages, I think was one of the meta-analyses I looked at, which I guess, you know, could fall like fruit juices under that as well. So again. Substitute with what?

So they're looking at isocloric exchange. So in randomized control trials where they're having people either consuming, say, glucose versus a fructose-containing beverage. But they're both sugar. Right. So what about not consuming, just consuming water? Oh, okay. Good, good, good. Water versus any sugar. Like, it doesn't have to be glucose or fructose. Okay. So if we look at sugars versus, okay, sugars versus other form of carbohydrate. Okay. So substitution studies of other forms of carbohydrate. Well, I'm talking about a specific type of sugar without a food matrix, right? It's a liquid, 40 grams in a can. If you have two of those, it's 80, right? So I'm, I'm, I'm just saying like consuming a high sugar beverage with no food matrix, not like substituting a carbohydrate food because it's different. Right, right. I mean, again, and I believe one of the metanalysts I sent was, like, again, it's hard to get into it, but it was sugar, sweetened beverages when they control for calories.

They don't see some of these deleterious effects on inflammation or body weight or whatever. But again, I think that's probably a really small percentage of the population because most people don't go, they don't drink a Coke and go, well, that was 40 grams of sugar, so that means I'm not going to have a little cereal. I mean, they're just drinking it on top of whatever their normal diet is, right? So it's a very, very small percentage of population. Now, is it possible at a higher dose of, you know, several cans of this stuff a day? Could there be some uniquely deleterious effects? Sure. I mean, I hope it'll hold open that possibility. I think the issue is more so when you're consuming so much of it, whatever negative deleterious effects are probably lost in the wash of so much energy toxicity, right? Because you're getting so much negative effects from that. So, yeah, I hold up with the possibility it could be uniquely deleterious.

But, I mean, I would tell anybody, I mean, one of the first things I look for in people when we're working with them, it's like, all right, do you drink sugar, sweetened beverages? All right, let's cut those out, right? Now when we come to, you know, I know we've talked about artificially sweetened beverages. because people will say, and here's where, again, messaging can have unintended consequences. People will say, well, you don't want to have artificials or diet sodas because they're just as bad as regular sodas. And they come up with a bunch of different mechanisms to try to validate that. No, objectively not. Like in the human randomized control trials where they have people say either drink soda or use diet soda,

very consistently people lose weight. And like actually a pretty good amount of weight. There was a year-long randomized control trial, I think where people lost like seven and a half kilograms just by substituting diet soda for regular soda. And I mean, when I do content on this, I'll get people all the time comment. Like all I did was stop drinking rare soda

and substituted in diet soda and I lost 50 pounds, right? Now, but usually the next thing that people say is, well, why don't they just drink water? Okay, again, I'm trying to meet people where they're at. Okay, some people who have developed a habit, behavior, whatever it is of drinking a soda. Water's great. If I can drink water, fantastic. But you're going to have a hard time convincing me.

They're not better off being 15 pounds, 20 pounds, 50 pounds lighter by using diet soda compared to regular soda, right? and in several randomized control trials and meta-analyses now, where they compare substituting regular soda with either water or diet soda, they actually see diet soda produce more weight loss than water. Now, it's not because diet soda is a fat burner or anything like that. It's probably because people are seeking out that sweet taste somewhere else when they have water, right? They still lost weight with the water group. Like it wasn't, and it wasn't a big difference from the water and diet soda group.

But you can't really say, like you can make all the arguments you want about like brain signaling and whatever, but obviously it doesn't matter enough because these people are losing weight. And the other thing I've heard is, you know, well, it causes an insulin response. Okay. There's several meta-analyses now to show that that doesn't happen with any of the sweeteners that we know of. There was one study where they gave sucralose alone, sucralose plus carbohydrate or carbohydrate alone and saw sucralose plus carbohyth. carbohydrate caused a greater insulin response. But in my opinion, that study was not an appropriate control group because they were matching sweet taste between the sucralose plus carbohydrate group and the carbohydrate group.

Because I think their primary measure was actually like sweet taste in the brain looking at that. And then this other stuff was secondary measures. So they did the right thing by trying to match taste or sweetness level. But the problem is, I believe. I think they used sucrose for the carbohydrate-only group, and they use multidextrin for carbohydrate plus sucralose, because multidextrin is not as sweet as sucrose, but it has a much greater glycemic response than sucrose does.

And so I don't think you can really say it's like a, saying it's carbohydrate plus sucralose, no, it's multidextrin plus sucralose. And so if we look at the meta-analyses, they just don't support like any kind of insulin response. And what I would say is, okay, if you're getting a significant insulin response, why don't we have people just passing out left and right who are having diet sodas from hypoglycemia? Because if you're having increased insulin with no glucose coming in, your blood sugar is going to drop. Or the other explanation is, well, maybe if there is an increased insulin, there must also be a corresponding increase in glucagon to offset that,

which means all that stuff is going to be washed out since those two counteract each other. But again, there's no real data suggesting increases insulin. And then the other thing that gets tossed around is the gut microbiome, which I am interested in. Most of the studies show no effect, but sucralose in particular does appear to have an impact on the gut microbiome. I have Suzanne Def Koda came out of the same lab. that I did my PhD, and then she's a microbiome expert. I've talked to a few other experts and looked at the research data.

And my take was pretty similar to their take, which was, hey, we know the gut microbiome changes. We don't really, we only have a rough idea of what a good, bad, or neutral change is. And like, for example, in one of the studies looking at sucralose, they actually saw an increase in the proportion of a bacteria, and I'll probably butcher the name, a black, placadia coquitis, I want to say it is, something like that. You know how these Latin names are. But that species of bacteria is actually associated

with better insulin sensitivity, less fat mass, and better overall blood glucose regulation. And so, okay, well, I can kind of make the argument that maybe sucralose is a positive effect on overall health based on that. Now, I don't know, and I'm not ready to say anything like that.

My point being is we don't really know. Now, if you're worried, use something different than sucralose. I know you like stevia, you know, there's, aspartame is actually very safe. And people say, what about cancer? Okay. So here's the thing.

Again, negative news selection bias. You're much more likely to hear about a study where something causes cancer than has no effect. How often do you hear a study like X showed no effect on cancer? I can't think of like the last time I heard a study get propagated in the news about that. Like the null hypothesis just doesn't pop up that much. So 80% of the studies on Aspartame show no effect on cancer.

Like, I think something like 11% are like a possibly and 9% are a yes. You're talking about animal studies? But the ones in, it's all, the ones that say yes are all the ones in animals at high doses or, you know, you have some of these cohort studies where it kind of like pops up here and there. But for me to feel confident that something, for me to feel confident of something with cohort data, I want to see it like really consistently. Like fiber, very confident that fiber is good for health, cardiovascular disease, cancer, mortality, because I am not aware of a single study looking at fiber intake in a cohort that did not show protective effects and in a dose response manner.

So I'm pretty confident that data. But if you look at, like, for example, Aspartame in a study of the, you're familiar with the Nutra Sante cohort. It's a 100,000 person study out of France from like probably three, four, five years ago. And I think it was, I want to say it was a 20-year cohort. And they, one of the big headlines was

Aspartame increased the risk of cancer. So I went into the data and looked at it. So what the headline left out was from non-consumers of it to low, moderate cancer, consumers, it increased cancer by, I think, a relative risk of like 15%, which was significant. And then the high consumers were not significantly increased risk of cancer. The high consumers were like a relative risk increase of like a non-statistical like four or five percent.

I'm not aware of anything that's actually carcinogenic that is carcinogenic at a low level and then not at a high level. No, that doesn't make any sense. Right. And so I think, again, for me to be convinced by some of this stuff, it would need to be, it's just not consistent. And it's kind of like, I mean, I use this example too, carnivores. Now you're going to be happy. I'm going to make you more happy.

I'm not convinced that red meat is an independent risk factor for cancer because these studies are confounded by the fact that red meat typically is kind of a proxy for poor diet. because most people's sources of red meat in the American diet are fatty. They're processed. The studies looking at unprocessed red meat and cancer risk are all over the place. And when they control for diet quality, and there was a really, in my opinion, an elegant study, a cohort out of Canada. And I think it was by a research named Maximova, I want to say. Maximov, Maximov. Maximov.

Max something. and they looked at turtiles of unprocessed red meat intake and turtiles of fruit and vegetable intake. So you had, you know, low, medium, and high of each. At low intakes of fruit and vegetables, meat, red meat had a negative impact on cancer. At high intakes of fruits and vegetables and high intake of red meat, there was actually a protective effect of red meat on cancer. I think it was like a relative risk of 0.78. It's like a 22% relative risk reduction.

I can't remember if it was statistically different. But the point being, you're looking at overall diet quality. Because if you're eating a lot of unprocessed red meat and a lot of fruits and vegetables, you don't have much room for junk, right? So again, you don't see that stuff pop up consistently in the cohorts or in like the dose response that you would expect.

And again, I've kind of had this debate with people more on the plant-based side who have said, well, you know, shouldn't you, like, that's just showing that high fruit and vegetables can offset the negative effects of red meat. And I'm like, if something's an independent risk factor, it's going to raise the risk at every single level of everything else, right? So take LDL, for instance. Yes, if you have high HDL and low LDL and low inflammation, you have.

you have a lower risk than somebody who has high LDL and high inflammation and low HDL, right? But take inflammation. At low inflammation, high LDL with low inflammation still has a higher risk than low LDL at low inflammation. And at high inflammation, high LDL still increased risk above low LDL at both those levels. That is when we determine something as an independent risk factor. because independent of everything else, it raises the risk. And we just don't see that. So again, coming back to Aspartame, diet soda, wrapping this all together, I view diet soda as you have to be careful, like people demonizing it because what they think will happen, okay, well, people will just

drink water. No, people will just keep drinking soda. And so why not give them this tool that appears to really be a pretty big lever for not much cost. What about, okay, so non-nutriative sweeteners, there's definitely, you know, there's the artificial sweeteners, what you're talking about, the sucrose, the aspartame, saccharin, right? And there's the more natural ones, monk fruit, stevia. What I'm getting from you on, I just want to make sure it's clear is that people that are consuming these sugar-sweetened beverages, if they substitute them with like a diet soda, which has aspartame, isn't it right?

Usually aspartame. Some have sucralose. Okay. Go by gas, Sulfame K as well, like that sort of thing. Okay. Then it's clearly a benefit. Studies show it.

They're losing weight. I mean, you know. Getting more metabolically healthy. More metabolically healthy. Let's take about, let's talk about someone who doesn't drink sodas, like that are sugar sweetened, and they're lean,

and they kind of just, like, there's some people out there that, like, diet Coke a day. Like, not because they are getting off of their Coke habit, but because they, like, diet Coke. For whatever reason, maybe it's the caffeine. maybe something about the taste.

I don't know what it is, but those people exist. Sure. So, Diakoka Day, you know, what is that? Do you feel confident that you talked a lot about the aspartame data, and it definitely seems a little bit all over the place? Cancer does take, of course, decades to occur, and there's a cumulative damage, and dose may matter, maybe one a day, but, like, is there an uncertainty there that you might say, well, maybe we don't really know at the end of the day?

Or do you feel like one of days? Well, now I'm going to get meta on you and say, I don't believe anything for certain. Okay. All right. But I have data. I, you know, bet my life on, bet my leg on, bet my foot on, bet my toe on, you know. Would you drink a diet Coke today? Yeah.

I drink a Diet Coke a day. And I don't feel like you're increasing your mortality or cancer. I don't present it to my kids. My kids drink water because that's what they ask for. but I wouldn't feel worried about them having one diet soda a day. I mean, if we look at, you know, take aspartame, for example, by the way, I'm sure that comment's going to get me in trouble. If we take aspiratein for nothing worse than parent shaming.

We take aspartame, for example. I mean, we know what it's metabolized into. It's two amino acids, and it gets metabolized into phenylalanine and aspartate, and then methanol, whichever, right? Well, it's a very, very, like the amount of, diet soda you'd have to drink to get up to a level of methanol that would cause problems is you would die from electrolyte depletion first right from like basically drowning yourself and people say what about bioaccumulation well as far as i know methanol doesn't really do that

there's a way to process it out of your body unless you're consuming so much consistently that your body never starts getting rid of it you know just like ethanol there's a way to process it out of your body unless you're exceeding your body's rate of capacity to eliminate it so yeah For small, for like those levels of diet soda, I'm just not worried about it. I mean, again, one thing my professor really hammered home into my head is you can never be certain about anything. When people say there's proof, I don't think you're speaking scientifically because you can never really prove something in science. You can support hypotheses with data. You can disprove stuff.

You can have some things that there's so much overwhelming data. We just accept it as true. but, you know, we have had things that we have held very closely to we thought were true that ended up we were slightly off. You know, I will say like most of my things that I ended up changing my mind on, I never planted my flags super strong about it. Like even with protein distribution, even though it's a big protein distribution guy, I never said, oh, if you're like not distributing your protein, well, you can't make gains. You know, like I never said something like that.

And so I think actually. that was one of the major issues with COVID and the, the, the distrust in science is science is supposed to be a very behind the curtain thing, right? Like us scientists debate about stuff, we do studies in like 30 years after that. We come to a consensus and we go, we think this, right? And instead, everybody got to see the scientific process play out in real life, which was, well, this study says this and this study says this. And, well, that control wasn't appropriate with this here. and we were trying to sail the ship while we were trying to build the ship, you know, and I said right at the start, I said 20 years from now, we'll be able to look back and say,

we should have done this. But we couldn't. And unfortunately, it's led to like this really pervasive distrust in science. In fact, whenever I get into, you know, presenting people with evidence, what they end up defaulting to is, why I just don't trust science? Because it can just be, it's just be faked. It just be bought, you know. I'm like, that's, do studies get fake?

sure. That's much less that happens than just poor design and like or designs or P hacking or designs that are designed in such a way that it looks like you're testing two things, but you're not going to actually see a difference, you know. So very rarely, and I tell people this, almost without fail, when I see a study with a headline is something I don't agree with or is contrary to what I think the evidence says. When I go in and read the methods and I read the results,

99.9% of the time I go, oh, I see why they found what they found, right? And you have to remember, conclusions from studies are just an author's opinion. And you kind of alluded to this earlier, but people ask me, it kind of accused me of being in an ivory tower. Like, well, do you really need a PhD to read research studies?

And I'm like, no, I guess you could fit. figure it out, but I tell you what, you might as well go get a PhD by the time you had enough experience to actually do it well, because it is very difficult if you don't have the experience to understand these studies and the practical limitations of them as well. And I'll give you one more example. There was a study done looking at resistance training. It was in a certain circuit, and I knew the researcher, right? And he's giving this presentation. And it was a certain, like, order of exercises.

And I said, hey, Chad, why did you guys do them in that order? Is there something special about that? And he goes, oh, no, it was a 10 by 10 room. It was the only way we could get two people in at the same time by doing that order. So you realize, like, scientific studies are so limited. They are big, blunt instruments. And that's why I just don't get excited about, like, a couple studies anymore. I wait until there's a lot because I always hold open the idea that I could be wrong on some of this stuff.

you know, but again, I tell people I don't plant my flag real strong usually. And if I do, you probably should pay attention because I used to believe, again, that, like, diet sodas were bad for you. I used to believe that. I used to believe that LDL cholesterol wasn't a respective for heart disease. I used to believe that intermittent fasting was, you know, bad for muscle, that, like, you wouldn't be able to build much muscle on the intermittent. I've changed my opinion on all of these things.

you know, because I just saw enough data. But again, I was never super strong my flag on the front end. It was more like, I don't think LDL is a risk factor because of this, but, you know, like, it wasn't the LDL is actually good for you. And you should try to pump those numbers up. But I think people just fall into such black and white thinking. Like the carnivore diet. I definitely want to talk to you about that. You talked about it a little bit.

You know, it's kind of like the seed oil. thing, you know, where it's like you've taken it head on. And I like talking about, I really want to talk about it with you because I don't think people can accuse you as the anti-meat guy, clearly. I get accused of it. I get it from both sides. Vegans and carnivores hate me. Not all vegan. Well, that's ridiculous. Rational vegans like me. There's clearly a lot of people that experience benefits from going on a carnivore diet and all-meat diet. I also hear them say things like plants are bad for you. You mentioned that.

Fiber is bad for you. It's true on paper. Interesting. I'm trying to figure out what that's coming from. But, you know, what's your take on it, like in terms of, you know, why they're experiencing the benefits? You kind of talked a little bit about it. Why they're experiencing some of these benefits. Like autoimmune disease is a big one, right?

Their autoimmune issues kind of resolved. But like long term, for some people. Yeah. long term, you know, like we don't have. Do we have even data on this? No, there's no data. So there's a lot of belief in this based on how you feel, I guess, or perhaps some biomarkers. But, you know, plants are bad for you, fiber's bad for you. Like, what's your take? Clearly there's something going on. People are experiencing things that are real. So I am big on symmetrical application of logic. If you were going to use a certain line of logic, you have to apply it symmetrically.

can't just apply it asymmetrically, but asymmetrical application is usually what people do. What I mean by that is, let's take the plants are toxic thing, right? There are people out there who will say, well, broccoli has this compound in it, which is a carcinogen. I think I saw some physician doctor saying there's 76 known carcinogens in plants. And I'm like, if you extracted like the chemical composition out and like overphetamine high doses, Maybe. Okay. But what actually happens when people eat plants? Like if plants are trying to kill us, they're doing a really crappy job. Like they are failing miserably because people eat more plants didn't live longer. And so, okay, why are we not applying that towards compounds and meat? heterocyclic means eem iron, polyomatic hydrocarbons

NUE5GC. And when you bring that out there, carnivore I was debating, well, that's just hormesis. I'm like, well, how convenient that the compounds that might be carcinogenic are hormetic for the stuff you like, but the stuff you don't like to eat

is toxic. I'm like, but this is like the Olympic level mental gymnastics they have to do to convince themselves. Because again, they believe that they're actually doing something healthy for themselves. Now, I want to be very clear. Some people do carnivore and they get healthier. I'm not saying that can't happen. I am simply saying you would be even more healthy if you also included fiber in that, if you also included food and vegetables. Now, I think a lot of these people are people with undiagnosed IBS, people with gut issues, digestive issues, and what is carnivore?

It is an elimination diet. And so what happens when people who have gut and autoimmune disorders go on elimination diets? A lot of times, they feel better. Okay, but an elimination diet is meant so that you can then add back things and see what you tolerate versus not tolerate. Many people, I mean, FODMAP sensitivities, many people have FODMAP sensitities aren't even aware of it. So they cut out fruits and vegetables, which can be high in FodMaps, and, and they feel better. Okay. So then start adding them in one by one and see what you tolerate. And I think the other thing that can point out is there is a lot of selection bias that goes on here,

which is if you look at these carnivore groups because I've been in them, because I watch, there are only really people who are getting positive benefits are the ones that are the loudest. And the people who don't, they get like, gas. ass lit, bullied. They get accused of like sneaking in carbohydrates or plants. And the response is, we'll just add more, add more fats, add more animal fats, you know, if they're having problems with constipation or whatever it is. And it's funny, I was on a debate with Paul Saladino on Mark Bell's podcast years ago. And I think I just came across poorly on that podcast because one, I wasn't super familiar with his entire position. And I was so flabbergasted by it. It took me like

an hour to just recover and like get my wits back about me. And he pulled up this, his postulation at the time was fiber is toilet paper. Your body doesn't digest it. Like, why would you put that in you? Um, well, fiber isn't just like toilet paper. Like there's this thing called soluble fermentable fiber that actually is the main fuel for the gut microbiome. And of all the things we know that actually help with the gut microbiome, that's like the biggest lever is fermentable, soluble fiber. And that produces things like butyrate, propionate, which have positive metabolic health benefits in many randomized control trials. So that's one. But he pulls out this study that I'd never heard of before. And it was a study where people who had constipation

eliminated fiber and a lot of them reported improvement in their symptoms. So it's self-reported and there's no control group. I'm like, okay, but the meta-analyses show overall that fiber helps with like going to the bathroom with pooping. Like it helps. Okay, maybe some people feel better by eliminating it, right? Okay, I can, I can see a place for that. But again, it's not that carnivore has this magic, it's that you're taking things out of your diet that were probably aggravating you. They were aggravating your digestion, producing excess gas, you're having pain, bloating. And again, this is another one where people go, I was very inflamed. I'm like, yeah, what was your CRP? What was it? What's that? I'm like, well, that's what you used to measure

inflammation? Well, my gut hurt. I was bloated. No, no, no, that is localized inflammation in response to something going on there. That is not the same thing as the inflammation that raises the risk of heart disease and cancer and that sort of thing. So what I would say to people is, hey, if you want to eat like a meat-based diet, I still don't think it's a great idea, but like you don't have to have like four rib eyes a day. You can choose leaner cuts of meat. You can have fish, you know, and why not work in some fruits and vegetables? And if, if, you know, if, you're not, you know, and if, you have digestive problems with those, add them in one at a time and see which one doesn't give you digestive distress. And I think, unfortunately, this becomes so much like a religion for people

because they just, I don't know, I think a lot of them don't like eating vegetables. And so it becomes an excuse to not eat vegetables. You know, we believe what we want to believe. And again, the asymmetrical application of logic is very interesting to me. So there's, there's a lot of kind of advocates out there that say epidemiology is garbage. In fact, Paul Solidino had a video titled Epidemiology is Garbage. Like, okay. And then when he was on another podcast, he was citing epidemiology. And I'm like, whoa, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait.

So epidemiology is garbage, unless it's epidemiology that you agree with. But he's not alone in that. There's a lot of people who did that. And then here comes this, like, internet survey that was published by Harvard about people, I think it was in Harvard, but it was like a self-reported internet survey of people like reporting like certain things improving on carnivore diet. I'm like, wait, so 20-year cohort studies with appropriate co-variants are garbage, but a self-reported internet survey, that's high quality evidence. Okay.

I mean, again, it's like if you're going to apply a certain. type of logic. You have to be consistent with that. And again, what I'll say is, hey, I just laid out how I don't think red meat is an independent risk factor for cancer. I'm not convinced about that. Very unconvinced about that. But if red meat had the data that dietary fiber had about reducing the risk of cancer, heart disease, and mortality, you carnivores would lose your absolute minds. if anybody dared suggest that it wasn't good for you. And so it just very clearly points out the asymmetrical application of logic. And getting more into dietary fiber, it fulfills almost every single aspect of what I need to be considered strong evidence, which is we know the mechanisms, you know, in terms of insoluble fiber, decreases gut transit time, decreases the risk of dieticulitis, which probably is a risk factor for developing colon cancer.

at some point. There's some idea that by having less gut transit time, that the toxins that are in are digesta, that wind up in stool, that they have less time to interact with those intestinal cells. And so by getting rid of it faster, that reduces your risk of colorectal cancer. Sollable fiber, the effects on the gut microbiome,

the production of short chain fatty acids, and also the lowering of LDL cholesterol. So we have an improvement in glucose metabolism and insulin sensitivity. We have those. those mechanisms. Not to mention the micronutrients, vitamins and minerals that are co-ingest in those plants and fruits, yeah.

In the food matrix. And actually what's interesting is one of the first seminars I went to as a graduate student, there was a professor there talking about lycopene and tomatoes and all this kind of stuff. And at the end, we're asking questions. And he goes, you know what? You have a really hard time beating Mother Nature's Kitchen. And I really like what he said, which is, you know, whenever we try to extract these individual compounds out of food, we never, not never, rarely do we see the same beneficial effects as consuming the whole food itself.

To your point about the food matrix, right? So yeah, there's a, there's a pathway there. There's biochemical pathways there. We may not ever be able to like really pick them out in terms of priority of what it, but the, the thing to remember, and I tell this to people, every food you eat probably activates something positive and negative. The question is not whether there are things in it that will activate positive and negative pathways. And even that I get the hebi-jeebies about because, you know, a pathway is probably only negative if it's dysregulated because your body evolved to keep you alive. But it can activate good and bad things. The question is what is the overall outcome of that, right? Like we said, aspirin activates pro-coagulate,

anti-coagulate pathways, but the overall effect is anti-coagulation. Plants, fruits and vegetables. So both, any food may activate positive and negative pathways, but the question is, like, what's the overall effect, right? Because if we try to tease apart every individual biochemical pathway, it's going to be really hard to wrap that back together.

And again, with fiber, there's also a dose response. We see a dose response in these cohort studies. And again, if we do a forest plot of studies showing benefit or showing harm, literally every single study is on the side of benefit. So I just don't know how much more data you need. Just because fiber might, some sources of fiber might make your tummy hurt doesn't mean fiber is bad for you. I don't know how more else I can lay that out, you know?

I 100% agree that there's just an overwhelming amount of evidence that fiber is beneficial of plants, vegetables, fruits beneficial. There's randomized control trials. There's the observational data. I mean, you just, you can't ignore that. And I don't even like eating vegetables either. I just do it because I know it's good for me. Okay, we're running out of time.

I do, there's another topic I want to cover. I also want to ask you about personal routine, but the topic is something that you and I have probably butted head with, butted heads with a little bit, at least on social media in the past years ago. I don't know that's like been recent. And that has to do with time restricted eating. Okay. And, you know, a form of intermittent fasting. So my question to you is, well, first of all, I want to say this. Over the years, my view of certain benefits of what I think of time-restricted eating has changed as more data has come in.

And specifically referring to the fact that there are studies out there that have calculated if people are just in their free-living environment and they're naturally doing time-restricted eating and they actually are doing it, they do decrease their calorie intake. Correct. Between 200 to 500, depending on how short of a time when they're eating their food. And so if you don't consider the calories that they are restricting, the weight loss benefits seem to go away when you then consider the calories.

So in other words, if they aren't restricting calories, the time restricted effect on weight loss seems to go away. That's correct. Now, so I didn't always believe that, But as more data came out, I now say, okay, well, this seems to be real, for sure. There are a lot of types of time-restricted eating. There's like six-hour window you're eating in, eight-hour window. There's even 10 hours, which I don't think you're going to get a big difference if you're comparing 10 to 12.

But other effects of time-restricted eating, do you think, you know, there is a circadian component to time-restricted eating, right? There is a circading component. You are eating, you know, humans are diurnal creatures. We're eating within our time window when our circadian rhythm is more metabolically inclined to process glucose and fatty acids and everything, right? Do you think there is a possibility of a benefit of time restricted eating, like independent of calories? I think there's a possibility, but I think based on the research I've seen, if it does exist, it's probably pretty small. You know, you do, in some studies, I actually post about this, I think yesterday. You do in some studies see some of the more transient markers have an effect with like, especially like early time restricted eating versus like continuous feeding.

But you don't, at least to my knowledge, I haven't really seen one that like shows a difference like HBA1C or HOMAIR, those sorts of things. What you tend to see is like fasting blood glucose, fasting insulin, maybe a little bit lower in the early time restricted eating. which I think it's possible. It's possible that is a real effect. It is. I think it's also possible that, okay, well,

if they're early time restricted eating and they finish eating at like 1 p.m. And they're not eating until, you know, 8 a.m. the next day when they're doing a blood draw, whereas the person who is just regular eating eats right before bed

gets a blood draw the next day, I think it's possible that that might explain that small difference. Now, I could be wrong. And so there could be, there could be a small extra benefit to it. Blood pressure. Have you seen the blood pressure one?

I haven't seen the blood pressure one. That's the six-hour, I think it was Verdei from Chicago. Blood pressure was, it was that, again, calories were equated, so there was no weight loss. There was the fasting blood glucose, but the blood pressure was the thing that was the thing that was most interesting to me because it was like size effects that you get with anti-hypertensive treatment drugs, which was very interesting. And so that's something, I mean, there's, again, you're getting into the potential cardiometabolic effects. There needs to be more research, but I just wanted to see if you are, what your stance is. And I think, again, that would be one where I'm like, I'd like to see how the timing of the measurement affects it, right? So I would like to see, what I would like to see is somebody do a study just like that.

But when they do their final blood draw and blood pressure, they do the same length fasted from the day before, right? So that you're equating that fasting period before those things. because, again, I think, you know, blood pressure responds relatively acutely to a lot of different things. Stress, you know, if you just ate, you'll have a higher blood pressure due to solutes in your blood. So, you know, I think it's possible. And I hold open that possibility. I think what I tell people is like, practically, it's probably very little difference. And so I look at practically, is this something that you can implement your life and make a lifestyle?

If the answer is yes, by all means, it's a great tool, right? Like, it's a great tool. It's one of your only levers. The levers you have are dietary restriction, like low carb, low fat, plant base, whatever, calorie tracking restriction, right, where you're tracking stuff, or time restriction. Those are your three levers you can really pull in terms of you want to put things in the buckets, right? And you can combine them if you want to. But whatever gets you consistent, that is the biggest thing.

And so for some people, they love time restricted eating. You know, I've had people say like, hey, I eat this eight hour window, six hour window, I don't feel hungry, I'm good. And so I think where people, the messaging can get confusing again is like people say, well, there's some evidence that early time restrictive eating is better. Okay. But what happens if somebody is like not being adherent to that because they get hungry at night and then they end up binging at night because they're, well, I already screwed up my feeding window,

might as well just have whatever I want, right? And so I think the messaging, it's important to understand why these things work, right? And so we would both agree, okay, if there's a benefit, it's probably small. And the biggest lever is making sure you're just being consistently, you know, controlling that calorie intake. And so the benefit of time restricted eating is for many people, they don't have to track and they'll limit their calories that way. But I have met people who they use time restricted eating is basically an excuse to binge eat

during their feeding window. And for them, that's not going to work very well, right? And so the other thing that gets brought up a lot is kind of, you know, autophagy and then longevity. And so what I'll say is, yes, time restricted eating raises autophagy, but so does calorie restriction and so does exercise. Yeah, all true. And also with autophagy, I think, again, this is where it's like using terms as blanket good, bad.

I mean, atophagy is elevated in some cancers. It's elevated in some wasted diseases. I mean, we were talking about lysosomal protein degradation. essentially. And so, you know, I just try to remind people like thinking about stuff in black and white is probably not the way you want to do it. Right. Now, I think the issue with trying to understand something like autophagy is really you'd have to almost do studies looking at atophagy where you're equating like weekly calories, like if you want to get in the more extreme versions of fasting and then looking, okay, what is the overall in that effect? Because, all right, let's say you're doing

alternate day fasting, right, like a more extreme version of fasting. Absolutely. I have no doubt that on your day of fasting, your autophagy is going up. But then if we are equating calories, right, you're going to be eating much more on your feeding day than a person who's just eating the same amount of calories every single day is if we're equating apples to apples, right? And so when you're eating more, that tends to reduce autophagy. And so what's the overall net effect? Right. I don't know. I don't know the answer. But I would suspect, based on other things, I've seen that it's probably going to be really no difference, that it is a tool to control calories, and that would have with what affects autophagy. On longevity, I mean, really, there's

some animal studies. There's some in vitro stuff as well. I think, and even the calorie restriction stuff, I think I have a kind of a unique take on this because I've done animal research. So there's nothing I'm aware. I mean, there's a couple of rodent studies looking at time-restricted eating where they suggested a longevity benefit. I think rodent model is probably a poor model for longevity because rodents grow throughout the course of their life. You know, humans kind of peak at like around 20 and then they kind of stay level, I mean, obesity notwithstanding. And then they start to decline later in life. Very different growth curve from rodents.

Now, rodents are good models for other things like protein metabolism, decent model for glucose metabolism. But for longevity, I'm not convinced. Now, if we look at the monkey studies, the primate studies, we see the calorie restriction effects on primates, right? And so I think, but I'm not even convinced it's calorie restriction. And here's why. Because I know how these studies are done. Because when you're looking at lab animals, you just look at what they normally eat,

and then you cut 20, 30% out, and you go, that's calorie restriction. But I pulled up these studies and looked at the chart of these animals' weights. They don't like keep dropping. There's like maybe a little drop and then it just kind of plateaus, right? Like they don't really lose much weight, if at all. Animals tend to overeat in captivity. And when you look at the odds ratios of what obesity does for longevity, what I think is happening and what I think you're seeing is these animals just don't become obese and they don't gain excess amounts of body fat. And so calorie restriction, it's probably more, probably better put as it's just like preventing excess body fat, right?

Because, I mean, if you take that at face value, I mean, if you're truly in a calorie deficit, you'll die. Eventually you'll die, right? So I think a lot of this is literally can be boiled down to just don't become obese. don't have excess body fat. And you don't have to be super lean either. Like actually the mortality data suggests if you're super lean, that's probably not good either. There's some aspects of that that I tend to think that people who are very lean are probably extreme in other ways. And those aspects of their life probably contribute to the mortality rate.

But like 15, 20 percent body fat, if you're a male, appears to be, you know, a very protective effect for mortality compared to being, you know, 30, 40 percent body fat. And so again, I am very convinced that excess body fat is really bad for metabolic health, cardiovascular disease, cancer, and mortality. But how you get to a normal body weight or lean body weight, I think is way less important than actually just getting there. Got it. I think a lot of people are interested in what Lane's weekly routine is. like in terms of your, you know, the workout, your diet, supplement,

is there like a supplement that is, you know, in the fitness industry you think is like a no-brainer, like people should be taking? So I'd love to kind of end with your personal routine. Yeah, and full disclaimer, I own a supplement company, outward nutrition, and so I have some bias here, but I feel relatively, I tell people, I don't put anything in it that I wasn't using beforehand. Brandon wasn't pretty, felt pretty strong about. So routine-wise, it does vary because I travel a lot for things like this.

And I have my kids week on, week off, because I share custody, split custody. And so weeks I have the kids, you know, it's summer now, so it's a little bit different. But usually I'm up early, getting them ready for school, taking them to school, get back. Workday starts around 8.30. usually like, you know, I'll wake up. If I'm taking the kids to school, I'll just pound a protein shake or something like that just so I get some protein in. Hold me over. Take to school, get back, have some caffeine, whether it's coffee, energy drink, whatever.

Which, by the way, caffeine is the original like neutropic cognitive enhancer. Pretty consistent data on that. And then I'll start work, whether it's emails, recording content, reading research. A lot of actual my time is I look on social media for what people are talking about and see if it's something I want to talk about. I handle all my own social media. So that is a lot of what I do on a day-to-day basis. Posting, you know, I like to read the comments to see what people are talking about, other questions they have. And then usually like I'll have lunch and then I'll go train in the afternoon.

and that will last three hours, you know, depending on like I've got world championships coming up in 11 weeks in South Africa. And so, yeah, like my training time per week is like 12 to 15 hours. Like it's a lot of time. And so usually on weeks out of the kids, I try to train Monday through Friday and then take the weekends off so that I can just spend the time with the kids on the weekend. Is there a reason you train in the afternoon? Is it?

I just feel better. Okay. I just feel better. And usually if I haven't had to. great sleep. If I have some time to kind of wake up, I go better. But like, if I go early in the morning, I just notice that my performance isn't as good. And I like getting a few meals in before I go train. So, and then, like, once I finish training, I'll get back. I have a nanny who helps me with the kids. So she, like, I take the kids to school, but then she picks them up. My son is

on the spectrum. He's ASD. And so she takes him to ABA therapy. And then she, she'll put my daughter up. She'll do like homework with her and she'll do tutoring and whatnot. And then both kids will come back to my house at like five o'clock, which is about the time where I finished training and finished all my work. And then I'm dad for the evening, right? And then once they go to bed, I might like any emails I got to fire out or something like that. But mostly I'm just unwinding. I'll watch the sunset. I'll watch a TV show, whatever, right? Weeks that I don't have the kids. Usually if I travel, that's when I travel. Still try to train in the afternoon.

But obviously, like, it can be kind of walky, depending on how things go. And pardon me. Only I don't have the kids, if I'm in Tampa, usually I'm working a little bit longer in terms of I'll wake up a little bit later. I try not to wake up too much later because I don't want to get off. I've just noticed that being consistent at the time I wake up actually helps a lot, even if I get less sleep. But I'll wake up, I'll start work after breakfast, I'll get most of the way through my work, go train, get home, watch a sun, have dinner, watch a sunset, then I'll go do some more work and then usually like finish up the night watching a TV show or playing a video game or

just something to like de-plug my mind. What kind of meals do you eat? I mean, is it protein? Honestly, I usually back-cooked protein, so I cook a lot of chicken breast up just so I have quick, easy, accessible protein because carbs and fats are pretty easy, you know. But, you know, sources that you would expect, you know, for proteins, chicken breast, Greek yogurt, lean red meat, lean pork, fish, eggs, those sorts of sources of protein for carbohydrates.

Again, what you'd expect, fruits and vegetables, rice, oatmeal. One of my favorites is I love popcorn. that's like my treat because it actually is very high in fiber. People don't realize, especially if you air pop it or there are some brands who actually are really high in fiber and not super high in fat. I love that. So I'll have that. It's a great way to get in 10 grams of fiber.

And it takes you a long time to eat it, so it's very satiating as well. And then like I actually do use quite a few frozen meals. Again, I don't let the enemy of good be perfection. because, I mean, if I spend all my time cooking, it's just, or I'm hiring like a personal chef. I mean, that's a lot of expense. And so I do use some frozen meals that are higher in protein, higher in fiber. And usually at night I'll have like a small bowl of ice cream or maybe a cookie or something like that. And that's like my little treat that I enjoy.

Sometimes before training, if I'm like kind of rushing, I might have like some gummy bears or something like that just to give me some quick glucose. so I make sure that I've got something in circulation. But for the most part, you know, my diet's about what you'd expect. Supplement-wise, I mean, if I had to build my Mount Rushmore of supplements, it is very clearly three supplements. It is creatin monohydrate, caffeine, weight protein. The amount of research data on all three of those is enormous. And honestly, especially for creatin, I just can't see an argument at this point not to take it. because of the cognitive benefits,

there appear to be benefits on memory formation, even short term. There was a study that just came out showing like 30 plus grams of creatine at a sitting, actually acutely increased memory formation, which I was very surprised by. Depression. There was a study that showed that creatin helped a little bit with the symptoms of depression.

Again, cognition, possibly cognitive decline. And then, of course, all the lean mass, strength benefits, performance benefits that we talk about. And it's very, very safe. I mean, if you take creatine, you might see your creatin levels go up. It doesn't mean your kidneys are failing or anything like that. Again, there's so many long, randomized control trials looking directly at kidney function showing that creatin does not negatively impact kidney function.

The one thing that I hear pop up consistently now is, well, it causes hair lice. No, no. One study in 2009 showed that increased D.HT, okay, which is a metabolite of testosterone. it didn't show any changes in the precursor or the thing that comes after DHD. And so how is this happening, right? Like where is this happening? I mean, it must be directly affecting the enzyme that catalyzes the conversion if we believe this, right? But again, even if it was true, an increase in Dht is not the same thing as showing hair loss, right?

You're showing a surrogate marker. You're showing a mechanism. And it's never been replicated. and again very, to me, a suspect mechanism because you're not seeing either the precursor or whatever, you know, came after, I figure it what comes after D.HT. You're not seeing a difference in those. And so how is this effect happening? And more importantly, hair loss wasn't measured. They didn't measure hair loss.

Yeah. And so I tell people I'm like, you know, I'm just not worried about it. Again, it was 15 years ago. I would think by now if it was a legit thing. it would have come back. So that's like my tier one of supplements. What kind of dose for the creatine? Five grams a day.

Plenty for people. Three grams for small women, probably enough. Do you think it caused, does the water, is the water gain? So the water is all intracellular. It doesn't increase extracellular water. People who feel bloated on creatin, creatin can be a gut irritant for some people. So what I recommend is splitting the dose and taking it morning and night if you find

it's a gut irritant. but it doesn't increase like extracellular water. All the water that we see, it does increase total body water and intracellular water, which is a good thing. That actually makes you visually look better. Like if you're full with glycogen, for example,

your muscles look better. There's a reason bodybuilder's load carbohydrates before competition because you look more volumized. Your muscles look fuller. So, creatin, weight protein, I just take as needed to get my total protein intake. I don't think it's anything magical about weight protein. I think it's just a very high quality.

tasty, relatively inexpensive way to get in high quality protein. People are worried about an insulin response from protein powder. Are you like... Again, this is where it's important to have guidelines, not rules, right? Okay, well, let's look at the randomized control trials. Okay, yeah, it does seem to have an insulin response. It does.

But does insulin sensitivity get worse? No, if anything in the studies, it gets better. So, again, I'm not worried about an acute insulin rise, right? One of the things I'll tell people is, if we're going to worry about acute changes and stuff, you're not going to be able to eat anything because fat impedes flow media dilation after a meal. Carbohydrates raise blood glucose, which is, you know, blood glucose is toxic over time. And protein stimulates mTOR, which is involved in, you know, formation of cancer and some cancers.

Big difference between acute rises in these systems versus like long-term dysregulated signaling. Big difference. Then my tier two of supplements would be things like, I really like rodeoilis. over Rosaya as a cognitive enhancer, as an adaptogen. It improves time to fatigue and improves perception of fatigue and it appears to be pretty consistent. Mental fatigue? Yeah. So like even an exercise, like their perception of fatigue. But yes, it also, I think it's task completion is how they measured it. I could get that wrong. So if any experts are out there and want to correct me, please do. What dose? I recently got interested in this.

in rodeola rosetta and I ordered it and I have it. And it was because of the potential mental effect. So it depends on the standardization of the selugicides. The Rosavins and the silugicides, I think it's like you want like 3%. But the dose that's usually used for most people is like anywhere from I think like 100 to 600 milligrams. But if you go above that, they actually show like it actually starts to fall off. So there appears to be like an optimal curve. So like in our pre-workout, I believe we have 150 milligrams.

And so, or maybe 150 milligrams per scoop, I have to go back and look. But it's an amount that's kind of like right in that middle range to get the benefits. And anecdotally, I find it takes the edge off caffeine too. So like you don't have as like as much of a come down off caffeine. So I like that. Astroganda, very, I'm very bullish on Astroganda. there's a few meta analyses now showing improved lean mass, improved strength, improved sleep, better stress management. You know, there's been some worries about like, I think liver, some people said, or also like depression and mood.

I haven't seen it pop up in any of the randomized control trials. And so I just don't, I don't really, it's not something I worry about. That seems to be another adaptogen that kind of like helps really with stress management. And interestingly, none of the, it raises testosterone too, but not an amount that would, it doesn't raise the testosterone or lower cortisol enough to where it explains the changes in lean mass. So this could be like a matrix thing, again, where there's like acting on multiple pathways summing up to an outcome. Now, I am a little bit, it's in our, it's in our recovery product, but it's tier two because I just want to see more studies over a longer period of time. Like if you look at creatine, caffeine, weight protein, there are thousands of placebo-controlled trials showing the benefits to this across multiple labs over decades in different countries.

Very strong evidence. I just want to see more from things like Ashwaganda, Rodeola over a longer period of time before I would move that into a tier one, right? And the mechanism isn't really understood yet of Ashwaganda. And so I just want to see that flushed out a little bit more. right. And then there's things like Betane or Trimethylglycine, which may improve power output during exercise. You have things like beta alanine,

which if you're exercising like intense between 30 seconds and 10 minutes, that appears to have some benefits. Citraline may have some benefits, and at least if you're, at least if you're getting like six grams, uh, in terms of like fatigue resistance. So those,

those are some like, and then fish oil, melatonin, those things would kind of go into my tier two. Actually, melatonin has shown an increase in lean mass as well. Yeah, there's some studies now. Randomized control trial is showing an increase in lean mass. So some people might say it's improved sleep, is improving lean mass. But there's actually some evidence that it may act outside of the improved sleep.

I'm not sure the exact mechanism. So, again, I want to see more of that. It's a hormone. I mean, it changes 500 different genes. Right. So those are kind of my tier two. I'm sure I'm missing some stuff, you know. So multivitamin, probably go in there somewhere, you know.

Insurance. Yeah, yeah. I mean, just come make sure you're covering your bases, right? If you have a real hard time eating vegetables, you know, always tell people fruits and vegetables, whole foods are better, but if you need a fiber supplement, okay, fiber supplement, you know, you could take metamemusil and benafiber, so you're getting soluble and soluble, you know. Again, I think it's better to get a diverse array, but let's not let perfection be the enemy

of good, right? So if you need a fiber supplement, by all means. So those would kind of be like the thing that I'm having and stuff. And that's, you know, the supplements I sell. We sell a sleep supplement. There's other things in there. There's like a few other ingredients that have been shown to improve sleep. But melatonin is the big hammer in there.

And then there's a recovery supplement, which has creatine. It has aschwaganda. It has betane. You know, so some of the stuff I'm talking about. And then... What do you think of glucosamine and the... Yeah, I mean, I think that's probably in a tier two if you want. I think the evidence is...

I haven't looked into it super specifically. I think there's good evidence that it does a little bit is what I would tell people. It's a small effect, but it seems to have an effect. So if you're throwing a kitchen sink, I mean... Yeah, if you want to do that, that's fine. And, you know, other things that fall into like, people are like, what's tier three? I'm like, tier three is where it's, there's just not a lot of consistency in the data, right? You know, or you got stuff like, you know, ectosterone, which there's a couple studies out there that show, hey, an increase in lean mass in ectosterone.

And I'm like, doesn't stimulate protein synthesis, doesn't do anything to protein degradation. Where is this increasing lean mass coming from, right? So that HMB, probably something in tier three, you know, where like in specific populations, there might be a benefit, but for most people does nothing. So that's kind of how I categorize my supplements. But I really like, we only have four supplements in my entire line. You know, we have a pre-workout, we have a recovery, we have sleep, and we have weight protein. And our whole deal, we're probably going to come up with an electrolyte supplement as well.

But our whole deal is basically like the line is not going to do the work for you. You've got to do the work, which is why we call it outwork. And we're just going to help you be able to train a little bit harder. recover a little bit faster, but it's your training that's going to move the needle. Totally. Well, and you're going to help them get the information. People can find you. You have a YouTube channel, social media, book.

You want to call out everything. I mean, I'm sure a lot of people already know where to find you, but for those few that don't. Sure, yeah. I mean, you can find me on Instagram as biolane. That's kind of my digital business card. I'm on most platforms as biolane. But, yeah, I do everything. So, you know, we have one-on-one coaching.

If people are looking for that, we do coaching through a team. team biolane, which is a team of kind of like experts that I've handpicked to be one-on-one coaches. We've trained them in our methods. If you want to be a better coach, you want to learn how to do this stuff, want to learn methods and don't want to go back to school. I have a academy called Fet Coaching Academy with Professor Bill Campbell, where it really is like, it's over 600 pages of written material, but if you want to learn how to be the best coach to help people build muscle and lose fat, body composition, we synergize, resistance training, nutrition,

supplementation, and cardiovascular exercise around all that. And there's not really anything else out there that does that right now. So there's that. Then, you know, for people who can't afford one-on-one coaching, we developed my app, Carbon Diet Coach, which is $10 a month. And I basically wrote a algorithm that will essentially coach you, like do accountability coaching.

So if you're, you know, what you're doing, fat loss, you weigh in, you know, each day, we tell people, the more data points it has, the better. You weigh in each day and based on how you progress, the app will adjust your nutrition recommendations to make sure that you're going towards your goals. And it will even, like, give you some feedback messages like when you check in and whatnot to tell you what you're doing well or what you can improve on. So that's been really successful for us. A lot of people like that.

Because obviously, everybody can afford one-on-one coaching. But, you know, this thing does everything that my fitness pal does, except it actually like gives you feedback week to week and it adjust your nutrition as you progress. So it's a great option for people who can't afford one-on-one coaching. And then my supplement line outwork nutrition, got a couple self-published books. And then I also have a research review called reps where myself and my team of writers, we pick out five studies that are in like fitness and nutrition every month and we break them down in like a really practical way.

There's like there's some really good research reviews out there. But I found most of them were still like two hundred. highbrow, I really wanted to get something that was very, very practical. So reps is research explained with practical summaries. And so that's a great tool for people at $12.99 a month to like, like if you're confused about some of this research, we'll break it down for you, you know. And then I also have what's called a workout builder on my website, which is where people can go in and get, you know, kind of semi-customized programming for like $12.99 a month

as well. So I really tried to like from top to bottom like build out stuff to help people at every different level of their their fitness journey. A lot of options there for someone, for anyone. Yeah. Yeah. I got a lot of stuff going on. I tell people I'm like, I tell you one thing. I ain't boring. Well, that's for sure. I absolutely enjoyed having a conversation with Elaine. It's too bad that it had to be cut a little bit short. We could keep going for another couple hours. But I think that means we have to do this again. I would love to because... Anytime.

Yeah. And again, thanks again for coming on for everything you do. And I look forward to continuing following you and seeing what's up. And again, possibly around to you soon. That would be fun. Yeah, absolutely. Thanks for having me on. I really appreciate it.

It's a lot of fun to be able to do this stuff. A huge thank you to Dr. Lane Norton for coming out in person to have this discussion with me. And a big thank you to all of you for listening. You can learn more about Lane at Bain. Biolane.com or try his calorie tracking app at joincarbon.com. We also talked about fish oil in this episode. If you're wondering which fish oil brands are truly top quality, I've put together a free guide that highlights the most important factors to consider when choosing a fish oil supplement, along with a few brands that have passed rigorous third-party testing. This omega-3 supplementation guide

also covers optimal dosing, and it addresses common concerns. Download your free Omega-3 guide, at FMF Omega3 Guide.com. Once again, that's FMF Omega3 Guide.com. And lastly, if you have genetic data from a DNA testing service like 23 and Me or Ancestry DNA, check out our fitness genetic report, available at foundmyfitness.com forward slash genetics. This report zeros in on genes that have credible impact

on aspects of fitness. We break down the genetic impact of factors like endurance, VO2 Max Improvement, Muscle Fatigue, and Injury Susceptibility, all sided with actual peer-reviewed evidence. To get your free fitness report, head over to foundmyfitness.com forward slash genetics and scroll down to the basic free report section. Thank you all for listening. I appreciate your support and I'll talk to you soon.