Invest Like the Best with Patrick O'Shaughnessy - Live EP.01 – Peter Attia, M.D. [Invest Like the Best]

Episode Date: March 27, 2018

This week’s episode was the first one that I’ve recorded live. It was the second dinner in what I expect to be a long series where I bring together 30 people from a variety of backgrounds to discuss an interesting and emerging topic, whether that be cryptocurrencies, health, cannabis investing, or some other compelling, emergent thing.  My guest, for the second time on the podcast, is Peter Attia, who has lead one of the more interesting careers I’ve ever come across and who is focused on understanding longevity, health span, and quality of life. We dive into many dimensions of health, scientific research, what we can and cannot learn from evolution and our ancestors, and the 7 primary modalities we should focus on when it comes to our health and well-being.  Excuse the lack of clear audio quality on some of the audience questions—the ones that are a little difficult to hear are fairly short and I felt it was better to include them for some context.  As have all of my conversations with Peter, this one has sparked countless subsequent conversations with my wife, my friends, and my colleagues on what is important and how we can change out behavior to improve our quality of life. My partner and sponsor at these events is Peter Tiboris of Strongpoint Wealth Advisors, who with me loves exploring these topics and understanding how they might affect our lives and out portfolios. Thanks to Peter for helping me realize this series in New York City. Now, please enjoy my live conversation with Peter Attia.  For more episodes go to InvestorFieldGuide.com/podcast. Sign up for the book club, where you’ll get a full investor curriculum and then 3-4 suggestions every month at InvestorFieldGuide.com/bookclub. Follow Patrick on Twitter at @patrick_oshag   Links Referenced Marvin HAGLER vs Tommy HEARNS: FULL FIGHT longevity chart Senescence Skin in the Game: Hidden Asymmetries in Daily Life    Show Notes 2:07 – (First Question) –  Peter’s career journey that led him to where he is today              2:31 – Marvin HAGLER vs Tommy HEARNS: FULL FIGHT  3:46 – How he thinks about longevity  4:37 – Peter’s longevity chart  6:31 – Four things most likely to kill you  7:47 – The quality of your life in the later part of your life  9:03 – Four ways he defines health span; cognition, physical dimension, sense of purpose and social support, capacity to cope with distress or distress tolerance.  10:56 – The problem with clinical studies in analyzing longevity and his mission to get from medicine 1.0 to 2.0 to 3.0 12:15 – Medicine 1.0 and major leaps in longevity 13:01 – Medicine 2.0 and clinical trials 14:52 – Medicine 3.0 and personalized medicine  16:22 – The playbook for living longer  19:26 - Senescence, the cells that are programmed to do bad things  22:17 – Understanding our evolutionary needs to learn what as individuals do to increase lifespan and quality of life as it pertains to food, sleep, and movement.  30:32 – Where evolution doesn’t offer insight into living a better life; mindfulness  33:27 – What are the changes that Peter has made that he’s been doing the longest and most recently             33:35 – Skin in the Game: Hidden Asymmetries in Daily Life  37:54 – Peter’s philosophy on mastery  40:13 – Audience Question: How does something who seemingly doesn’t take care of themselves seem to be in such good health? 38:38 - Audience Question: Peter’s favorite car to race and how it effects his health  51:19 – Audience Question: Is the key to life a minimalist lifestyle  53:54 – Audience Question: the role of the microbiome  Learn More For more episodes go to InvestorFieldGuide.com/podcast.  Sign up for the book club, where you’ll get a full investor curriculum and then 3-4 suggestions every month at InvestorFieldGuide.com/bookclub Follow Patrick on twitter at @patrick_oshag

Hello and welcome, everyone. I'm Patrick O'Shaughnessy, and this is Invest like the Best. This show is an open-ended exploration of markets, ideas, methods, stories, and of strategies that will help you better invest both your time and your money. You can learn more and stay up to date at investorfield guide.com. Patrick O'Shaughnessy is the CEO of O'Shaughnessy Asset Management. All opinions expressed by Patrick and podcast guests are solely their own opinions and do not reflect the opinion of O'Shaunsi asset management. This podcast is for informational purposes only and should not be relied upon as a basis for investment decisions. Clients of O'Shaughnessy asset management may maintain positions and the securities discussed in this podcast.

This week's episode was the first one that I've recorded live. It was the second dinner in what I expect to be a long series where I bring together 30 people from a variety of backgrounds to discuss an interesting and emerging topic, whether that be cryptocurrencies, health, cannabis investing, or some other compelling emergent thing. My guest for the second time on the podcast is Peter Attia, who has led one of the most interesting careers that I've come across and who is focused on understanding longevity, health span, and quality of life. We dive into many dimensions of health, scientific research, what we can and cannot learn from evolution and our ancestors, and the seven primary modalities we should focus on when it comes to our health and well-being. Excuse the lack of clear audio quality on some of the audience questions. The ones that are a little difficult to hear are fairly short, and I felt it was better to include them for

some context. As have all of my conversations with Peter, this one has sparked countless subsequent conversations with my wife, my friends, and my colleagues on what is important and how we can change our behavior to improve our quality of life. My partner and sponsor at these events is Peter Toboris of Strongpoint Wealth Advisors, who with me loves exploring these topics and understanding how they might affect our lives and our portfolios. Thanks to Peter for helping me realize this series in New York City.

Now, please enjoy my live conversation with Peter Atia. So my own journey in this is kind of, in retrospect, I can make it sound reasonable, but the reality is it's just totally accidental. So it starts because I grip as a boxer and all I wanted to do is be the next marvelous Marvin Hagler. I don't know if anybody remembers who that is, but greatest middleweight of all time. Actually, we're coming up on the 30th anniversary of Hagler-Herns, which if anybody wants an awesome eight minutes, you just go home, Netflix, Heggler-Herns, you won't be disappointed. Anyway, so I finished high school without any credits to go to college. My parents were super disappointed being immigrants to this country that had a kid that was going to be a professional boxer and get brain damage and not go to college. And then I had a total change of heart. Long story short, ended up deciding I wanted to be an aerospace engineer. So I went and studied mechanical engineering and applied math. And then three weeks before starting my PhD, had another change of heart, decided I wanted to do medicine. So then I did a postback year, applied to medical school, got into medical school, and then did my residency in surgery and then my fellowship in oncology. And then I had another change of heart, which was actually, I don't want to do this anymore. So I left medicine altogether after that 10-year stint. And what I really

wanted to do then was go back to doing something that had to do with mathematical modeling. So I went and joined McKinsey back in San Francisco because I also wanted to go back to the West Coast and did credit risk modeling. So even though I was recruited initially to do health care, when I got there, it was right when the Basel 2 Accord was starting to chap the asses of the banks. And they just basically kind of outsource to consulting firms and said, hey, help us understand asset value correlations. So to make a very long story short, like my path has been nonlinear and now I'm back in medicine, but when I think about how I think about longevity, I think about it through the lens of those different pieces of my life. So first as an engineer, I just think like engineers are beautiful

because they're not really concerned with how elegant a solution is. They just want the, they just want to come up with a plug or a solution. And many, things before we had advanced computer models, you just had to sort of figure it out empirically. Like you reverse engineer what that bridge has to be able to do. So long before we understood even the mechanics of this stuff, we could sort of figure out how to build something. You know, you start here and you want to end here and you bring it back together. So in many ways, the science of longevity and the art of longevity are basically an interdisciplinary of engineering and this idea of reverse engineering what you know you want.

So when we talk about longevity, we'll talk about what the desired outcome is, but then how do you back away from it? The reason I got so interested in what you were doing is was one specific chart, which shows not the investing chart that we're all used to that goes up into the right, where if it was a log scale, it would be a straight line, but a decline, sort of an exponentially declining curve with two important axes. So maybe you could describe what that chart is, and that will be a great way to get into all these little features. The x axis of that is lifespan, which is, that's the easier of the two to explain. It's simply the number of years you're alive. So that's largely what we would consider a digital function. It's zero or one. And when that graph crosses the x-axis, that is the end of your life.

The y-axis is much more subtle, and that's health span, which is how well you live. And that's an analog scale, meaning that can vary at any incremental level. Now, lifespan, again, just comes down to how long you live. But if you, again, start to reverse engineer that, what does it mean? Well, so let's unpack it in the simplest way possible. So if you want to live longer, you have to delay death. If you want to delay death, you have to reduce the probability of the events that are likely to end your life. You can actually unpack that actuarially quite easily.

If you make a couple of assumptions, it gets really easy. And for the types of patients I work with, it's actually a pretty easy assumption to make. So if you're 40 or older, which just allows me to look at a certain part of the actuarial table, if you don't smoke and you're not suicidal. So those are actually important assumptions to make at a societal level. Tragically, suicide is still, with the exception of one decade in life, it is always in the top 10 causes of death. But again, if you take that out and you don't smoke, there's kind of an 80% chance you're going to die from four things. So if we start with those four things, the reverse engineering approach says, how would you delay the probability of those things happening or outright reduce the probability of those things occurring? Those things being first and foremost cardiovascular and cerebrovascular disease, so heart attack and stroke.

The second one being cancer, of course, that's all forms of cancer. And I'm sure in a room this size, it would be impossible to not know somebody whose life hasn't been touched very closely by cancer. But to be clear, breast cancer, colon cancer, leukemia have pretty much nothing in common except for the fundamental underlying principle of cancer, which is cells that don't respond to cell signaling. But nevertheless, we lump cancer as one disease. The third would be neurodegenerative diseases, but the one that we all think about the most, and unfortunately the one that is growing the most rapidly is Alzheimer's disease, and then accidental deaths. And accidental deaths change dramatically in what they look like, depending on where you live and how old you are. Probably won't get into that stuff today.

But nevertheless, with one exception, we were just talking a little bit about strength training before. And if I impart like one piece of wisdom on a person, it's generally like lift weights and never stop lifting weights. It can be the difference between you breaking your hip when you're 75 and not breaking your hip when you're 75. And anyone in this room who knows somebody who's 75 and broke in a hip, it's almost invariably the decline of their life. So you can have a binary event. You can have a digital event that dramatically changes your life. So that curve sort of looks like this. And the other feature of that curve, in addition to the fact that it ultimately crosses the axis when you die,

The other feature of that curve that I think most people find even more upsetting is that you get into the last 50% of the quality of your life in the last decade. So that, again, speaks to the non-linearity of this. So if you live to be the average age of an American, which today is about 80 or 81, from ages 70 to 80, you will be at or below the 50th percent of your capacity. And so for many people, that is kind of an unacceptable issue because everyone in this, This room works really hard and cares a lot about, you know, the things that they're doing. But we also have this mindset of like, well, at the end is when we'll get to enjoy the fruits of those labors. But of course, it's also a little disappointing if you spend that last decade of your life and,

you know, your faculties aren't with you. You're physically not robust enough to do the things you want to do. For many patients, like what I actually do is just actually back out. What does it mean to be 78? How old will your kids be? How old will your grandkids be? And what is the implication? And it could be the difference between you being able to throw.

throw a football around with your grandson or being able to take a trip with your granddaughter or whatever. So that health span thing for many people is actually as important and sometimes more important than just living longer. What's most interesting to me is the research problem that this proposes because it's very hard to run studies on humans, certainly in sample sizes and in variations that allow us to reach interesting conclusions about those four causes of death or different parts of how you define health span. So maybe if you could classify what you mean as different dimensions of health span or quality of life. And then we'll discuss how you attack the problem of making those things better from a

research standpoint. So the four things that I use to define health span. And I don't think we have a mutually agreed upon definition within the sort of longevity community, what that is. And frankly, I don't even like the term longevity. Like I was on the phone with someone today who said, hey, I want to introduce you to somebody. How should I introduce you?

Can I say you're my longevity doctor? And I said, no, that sounds really bad. And generally, if I'm at a cocktail party and people ask me what I do, I'm either a race car driver or a veterinarian. Those are the only two things I'm willing to admit to. So that said, within the longevity space, there's not a uniform agreement. So I'll just give you sort of my definition. I think the four things that constitute health span is cognition. And again, that one's pretty easy to quantify because we can measure the three dimensions of cognition,

which are executive function processing speed and short term memory. The second one is, for lack of a better word, it's just kind of a physical dimension, which comes down to three things, the maintenance of muscle mass, functional movement and freedom from pain. And then the next two are the squishy ones. These soft squishy ones actually become kind of the important ones. One of them is sense of purpose and social support. And then the other one is capacity to cope with distress or what we call distress tolerance.

So I'm sure any of you can think easily about examples of people you know who are firing on all cylinders on sense of purpose, social support, you know, mind and body, but they can't cope with distress. Or similarly, people who can do all of those things, but they have no sense of purpose, social support. So the problem, so you raised a good point, Patrick, which is, do we have a clinical study that can just point to the answer, which is, okay, if you buy into the thesis that it would be better to live longer and live better than to not, or at least to have the optionality, I don't think that's a hard argument. The question is, what do you do? and this is where the problem comes.

So I'm working on a book right now, which I actually hate. I really hate writing this book. I'll probably finish it this year, but I might not. But nevertheless, one of the things I'm explaining in this book is this evolution of what I think is necessary from something I'm calling medicine 1.0 to medicine 2.0 to medicine 3.0. So medicine 1.0 is something none of us ever had to deal with, but that was basically the dominant form of medicine until this past century. And that was the not particularly scientific approach to medicine, but an approach that was based on observations, beliefs, bad humors, good humors, that kind of stuff. And there were actually some things that came out of that form of medicine that were valuable.

Probably the most important would have been the elucidation of germ theory, which really came out prior to medicine 2.0. To take a step back for a moment, there have really only been a handful of step function improvements in human longevity. And the first was sanitation. So the moment we were able to create sewers, I mean, we increased longevity by leaps and bounds. The second was germ theory. So the moment Lister realized, and I mean, Lister gets the credit for it, but there were many

people who played a role in that. But the moment we realized that there were microscopic things that existed. And, you know, if you wanted to cut somebody open, you couldn't just stick your dirty hand in there, even though it looked clean. I mean, huge increase in mortality. And then along with that, probably, antibiotics. But after that, most of the increases in longevity had been relatively modest. So notwithstanding that, medicine 2.0 came along with the development of the randomized control

trial. And with that came a tool that medicine could use to solve certain problems. So examples of problems where medicine 2.0 has been amazing is what do you do for someone who shows up in an ER having chest pain with ST changes on their EKG? And, you know, a troponin leak that looks like X, Y, and Z. Oh, well, we know the answer to that question. If they look like this, they get this treatment. If they look like this, they get this treatment. And then the follow-up is boom, boom, boom, boom. And we developed advanced life support and we've made a huge difference in preventing people from dying of, you know, heart disease. HIV is probably one of the most amazing examples of this as well. HIV was uniformly fatal

today for virtually any patient who is able to take the triple cocktail of highly outtribontor of HIV-oradventure atrial therapy. HIV can almost become a chronic disease. if I rattled off all of the success stories of Medicine 2.0, you'd realize they have a couple things in common. First of all, they are almost always things or problems that will afflict you relatively quickly. HIV, if untreated, is a very quick path to AIDS, which is a very quick path to death, a heart attack, an infection, you know, which antibiotic should you take if you have this type of infection? We're really good at knowing those things. There are also things that are amenable to clinical trials with randomization, which is the hallmark of being able to

answer these questions is you have to be able to take two groups or more of people, treat one of them with one treatment, treat one of them with another treatment in a randomized fashion, not just by observing them, and then measure the outcome. There are three other criteria that go into that framework, and unfortunately, longevity doesn't fit with any of them. So the first thing I say to patients, or anybody for that matter, is if you want to live longer and you are interested in taking the most scientifically rigorous path to getting there, you have to accept the fact that you will not get the answer definitively through any clinical trial or frankly any sum of clinical trials. So that's where we enter this idea of what I call medicine 3.0, which is you now have to take

an empirical, personalized probabilistic approach to it. Now, this term personalized medicine has no meaning. Let's just call a spade of spade. It's a beautiful buzzword that means nothing. Personalized medicine in its true form is something that I think you would all understand, but unfortunately, we can't offer it yet. The second one is this, I'd be a probabilistic medicine. So when I graduated from medical school, you take an oath. And the oath says, first, do no harm. And I think that's great, and it makes a ton of sense, but it's a very medicine 2.0 thing.

And frankly, even in medicine 2.0, it's violated every day. You can't give a patient an antibiotic without exposing them to risk. The real question is not what can you do that causes no harm. The real question is, how can you take a probabilistic approach to this? So if someone has a urinary tract infection, okay, it's not life-threatening at the moment. But if I don't treat it, what's the risk that it becomes pylonephritis that kills them? That's not a trivial number. Is there a risk of giving somebody syprofoxic or pick your favorite antibiotic?

Yeah, there is. But the real question is, what's the tradeoff that has to be made? So this idea of first do no harm, I actually think is never, you know, if we can't transcend that and we can't get to a point where we can risk weigh things and actually measure. I can finance. We talk about Ray Rock, right? Risk adjusted return on capital. You can't invest capital without taking risk. So it's amazing that people look at health and think, well, I just want to do something that has zero risk. It doesn't make sense that way. So what's the playbook look like? Well, what we just talked about was the objective. The objective is to live longer, live better. I'm sure someone will ask at least one question about what the tactics are. The tactics are, what do you do? And basically, there's only seven things to do.

I mean, seven macro things to do. You can fiddle with food and we can talk about that all day. Do you fast? Do you eat this? Do you dietary restrict? Calgary. What do you do? You can fiddle with food.

You can fiddle with exercise. You can fiddle with modulation of stress. You can fiddle with drugs, supplements, and hormones. That's kind of the playbook. And now each of those playbooks has an infinite set of things that you can do. But actually that's not that interesting. What's really interesting is what's the strategy. How do you apply those seven things to solve this problem?

And that to me is the science of longevity, which is imperfect. It's imperfect because we don't have what we just talked about. We don't have that experiment you just described. So what we have are three things, none of which are perfect, but we can use to triangulate. So Richard Feynman, anyone who's ever read my blog would know, like Richard Feynman is my hero. He's certainly one of like three of what I consider one of the most important people I've never met. he always talked about this notion of triangulation. And from an experimental physicist, or both theoretical and experimental physicists, to say the importance

of triangulation, how much more relevant is that in biology, which compared to physics is like the sloppiest thing on the face of the earth? So the first thing that we triangulate from is the data on centenarians. So people who live to be 100 or more, it represents about 0.4% of the population. It varies by location, but call it roughly that. And looking at Centinarians offers one huge advantage. They're humans. But thereafter, it's mostly disadvantages.

There's nothing experimental about it. It's all observational. And therefore, we can never infer truly cause and effect. We can talk a little bit if people are interested in what the most important insights are from Centenarians. The second pillar is looking at all non-humans. So everything that you can do the experiment in, because even though you can, You can't do the dream longevity experiment in humans. Can't take 20,000 babies that are born, randomize them into three groups, and follow them for 100 years.

It can't be done. But you can do that experiment in yeast, worms, flies, mice, even primates, dogs. You can do it in almost anything but a human. So there you have the advantage of actually being able to do an experiment, and therefore, through the principles of randomization, you can actually infer and distinguish cause. from effect, you just have the one drawback, which is that it's not the species of interest. And as much as many people care about their dogs, and we actually have a pretty good idea and how to make a dog live longer, we're always making a slight leap. The third pillar of science is to look at the molecular insights that we've learned over

the last 30 years with respect to longevity. So I don't know if anyone's ever heard the term senescence. What does that mean? But there are certain cells in our body that are basically programmed to do bad things. And it seems that the more we age, the more of these senescent cells we get and the more bad stuff that happens. But it turns out if you kill those senescent cells, you can turn an old mouse into a young mouse again. Some of you have probably or undoubtedly heard about things like paribiosis where you literally just take the blood from a young animal, give it to an old animal, the old animal becomes young again. Now, again, I think it's a long stretch to say that that will definitely work in humans.

And what's really interesting to me is the why. Because the problem with paribiosis is we don't know what the mechanism is. We have ideas, but we don't really know for sure. At the more fundamental level, there's this protein in the body called mTOR, the mechanistic target of rapamycin. It sits at the epicenter of basically how a cell ages. We now have a much better understanding of how that works, what drugs can tweak it, and more importantly, how even other things can tweak it.

Principles like autophagy, the Nobel Prize in Medicine and Physiology, the year before last, was awarded for the genetic elucidation of autophagy, which is the process by which under certain conditions, some of the cells in the body will auto digest themselves. So phagocytosis is to ingest, auto means self. So you'll basically take the bad cells in the body. They will self-prune. So underperforming assets go away. And then when you refeed, the overperforming assets take more of the allocation. Good way to think of it. So it's kind of the body's way of, you know, in finance, what do you guys call when you do that? You're sort of rebalancing a portfolio. Yeah, rebalancing.

Yeah, it's rebalancing in the body. So when you put the insights from those three distinct pillars together, that to me formulates a strategy, which is constantly evolving. As with each, honestly, every quarter, every month, I think we probably learn something new that changes our thinking. I mean, even in the past probably six weeks, I think we've gained newer insights into why time-restricted feeding could be beneficial. time restricted feeding, which is when you don't eat during certain periods of time.

So I'm sure many of you even do this, if certainly not I've heard of it, but someone who says, I'm not going to eat for 16 hours a day. I will only eat between, say, noon and 8 p.m. That's called time restricted feeding. While a study was just published in science about three weeks ago looking at baboons, which is that's about the apex of what you can do experiments in is in a baboon. And when you look at sort of the circadian rhythm of gene production, and when you look at what the benefits of time-restricted feeding are and in an animal like that down to other animals, wow, it's like we learned a new little thing about this stuff. And it's certainly, even in the context of our practice, has changed the way we sort of think about how you roll out some of those tactical levers.

One of the things that I found really frustrating is the personal experimentation side of this and how quickly it all changes. So five years ago, you read to do this. There's famous things like the Atkins diet, you know, eat a ton of protein, very little. carbs, but very little fat. Now you find that maybe a lot more fat is more appropriate. And it's this kind of moving target. And I'm curious from the individual level, as we all think about wanting, I think everyone universally would want to improve that curve, shift it up into the right with less area, right? So live longer. And in the years you live, live better. I struggle with how to approach this problem as a sort of layman. So a lot of what you're talking about is extremely interesting, but nuanced, complicated, ever changing. How does an individual that doesn't say have the benefit of someone to sort of hold their hand through this process.

Think about attacking this problem. Are there certain core principles that you feel you're never going to be 100% confident that they're a good idea? We had talked a lot about like dietary versus caloric restriction last time we talked. Are there certain things that seem like much higher probability that they're going to affect health span and then another layer maybe on top of that that we should experiment with but be less confident about or be more willing to change? That's the question I would get asked the most that I have the least good answer to.

So the way you phrased it at the end, Patrick, I think is the right way to think about it. So the way you phrased it at the outset, the short answer is, I don't have a goddamn clue. I really don't. I think there are some guiding principles that should just always be kept in the back of one's mind. The first guiding principle is sometimes evolution provides helpful context for what's probably best. Sometimes it does not. Let me give you two examples of a place where I think evolution offers a great insight. And again, why do I talk about this? Well, the environment we are now in, which is the environment that basically started when we figured out how to domesticate crops. That's effectively the big change in our evolution was the domestication of crops. That represents about 0.1% or less of our genetic makeup. So if you would at least humor me that we spent 99.9% of our time evolving in an environment that doesn't look,

one thing like the environment we live in today. So where is that helpful? Two things. Food and exercise. And I'll throw in sleep. We'll go with three things where evolution offers a pretty good insight. Let's start with exercise. Anybody here have kids, young kids, ever watch a three-year-old pick something up?

They all do it the same way. They're perfect little power lifters. It doesn't matter what they're picking up, a piece of paper or a block that weighs as much as they do. They will pick it up perfectly. They do not have an ounce of tightness in their hip flexors. They know how to engage their glutes. They are perfect little specimens. So the good news is we were all born that way.

The bad news is by the time you start sitting, so by the time you are about seven years old or six years old, you will lose that ability. And some people will lose it quicker than others, but for most adults, they can't squat. Now, you might say, well, dear, I don't really need to squat. But the point is, if you can't do that movement correctly, you're going to have, knee pain, you're going to have back pain, you're going to have neck pain, your body will start to fall apart. We did not sit. There was no such thing as a chair.

This thing, this position I'm in, my ancestors would have almost never been in this position. And they certainly wouldn't have been in this position eight hours a day, which many of us are. So keep in mind that as we think about how to physically exist, and again, I can't offer the prescription in one discussion. But the point here is movement matters. and the more we can revert to the movements we were basically evolving to do, the better we are. So you want to be strong in the positions of your ancestors.

With respect to sleep, now this is one where this could change if we live another million years. But as it stands today, the evidence is overwhelming that we require seven to nine hours of sleep. Now, nobody likes to hear that. And nobody wanted to hear that less than me. Let me be clear. When I was in residency, I was one of the lucky guys who didn't need to sleep very much. So I averaged four hours a night for five years. And I had a couple close calls where I almost killed myself.

One night I was driving home after being up for three straight days. I might have even talked about this in the podcast. If not, I talked about it on joccos for sure. And I was so tired when I was driving home, I just decided to pull over at Patterson Park, which is like kind of one of the nastiest places in Baltimore to take a nap in the park for just an hour. But of course, I slept for like six hours and I woke up with like IV syringes all over me and like rat bites on my arm. So for the most part, though, I was like, I'll sleep when I'm dead was sort of my approach. Now, if you think about that from an evolutionary perspective, sleep was not a great thing to have done if you were our ancestors.

Your ancestors had basically two purposes. Find food and procreate. But, you know, like they weren't really optimizing for much else. It was pretty much species specific. So to be unconscious for eight hours, and all evidence suggests that our ancestors slept on average about eight hours out of every 24. So to spend a third of your time unconscious, therefore not reproducing, not foraging for food, and frankly, not protecting yourself, strikes me as a hell of a tradeoff.

Why was it made? I could argue for hours on why it was made. I think sleep does many things that we're only starting to understand now. But the point is, if somebody could have out-evolved that, think of what a survival advantage that would have been. And yet, the best of our understanding, less than 0.1% of the population carry a gene that allows them to function optimally at four or five hours a night. So even though a lot of people think they have that gene, I certainly thought I had that

gene. We don't have that gene. The likelihood anybody in this room has that gene is pretty low. We all need to sleep. Now, it is possible that in another million years, a subset of people will evolve who don't need as much sleep because we have a different environment today. We have electricity. We have reasons, quote unquote, reasons to be awake longer. But I have a very hard time believing that in this current age and for the rest of our lives, sleep will not continue to be one of the most important

things we do. The third is food. We did not evolve in an environment where we were constantly fed. We evolved in an environment where we were basically in feast or famine. And as such, our body got really good at doing that. In fact, a lot of people say, Yeah, that fasting stuff, it's not for me. Like, I just can't do it. And it's like, yeah, I think you'd be surprised. If our ancestors couldn't not just thrive or not just survive, but actually thrive while fasted, none of us would be here.

You know, I have this one patient who like literally can't go more than four hours without eating. And like, she keeps insisting to me that it's essential for her life. And I was like, I am so glad you are not the person that we came from. It's like, none of us would be here, right? You had to be able to go days without eating and be mentally sharp, physically sharp, be able to perform. So I talked earlier about this thing called autophagy, which is this idea of the cells basically pruning off the bad guys, replenishing the good guys. There is no better way to do that than periodically fast.

Now, we could spend two hours talking about it and we should not about all the ways that one can fast. You can do it through caloric restriction, coloric restriction mimicry, time restricted feeding, a whole bunch of things. different things, but the notion that one can restrict themselves from food is good. And I had a hard time at this. I remember I grew up in a restaurant. You know, my parents were immigrants, so I like, I was in a restaurant quite a bit. And just because I was an athlete growing up, I was constantly eating. Like, I never knew what it meant to be hungry. I think I just sort of got hardwired in my head that being hungry is bad. And it was kind of a really interesting and liberating realization I had maybe seven years ago that was actually, it's really good to be hungry sometimes. It is physiologically

relevant. This is how I evolved. I evolved to actually do well in this environment to enhance my mental clarity and things like that. So I would say that those are three areas where evolution provides an interesting template. Now I'll give you one counter example. I think there's one area where evolution does not offer us any insight. And that is with respect to mindfulness. So our ancestors actually had the luxury of pretty much always being present. They were, whatever they were working, on was all they were working on. They probably, again, we'll never know this for certain, but they probably didn't spend a lot of time worrying about things that had happened a year earlier or things that they thought were going to happen a year from now or a month or a week from now.

And yet, if you actually do the experiment on yourself and ask yourself at any moment in time, how often are you present? The answer is almost never. I was talking with Pete earlier today and we're talking about kids. And one of the fun things about young kids is they actually still have the ability to be present pretty much all the time. I don't know when we lose that, but I think we lose it pretty young. I know that for me, learning to be present and mindful as a part of the strategy for maintaining sort of this ability to buffer distress is one of the most important things I do. And frankly, it's not something for which I have an evolutionary model to look to. I don't think our ancestors meditated. I don't think our ancestors went on retreats and did psychedelic drugs to

like enhance. They just didn't do that stuff. And then similarly, I don't think pharmacology is an example of how we can look to evolution. So it's not a very satisfying answer, Patrick, I apologize. But I think that's like one way to approach the problem. It's just know when evolution is going to point you in the right direction, know when it's not. And you can double click on each of those. Maybe just to give one example on the food thing, if your ancestors didn't eat it, I mean, the probability that it is good has to just be questioned.

There are lots of things our ancestors didn't eat that are good. But as a general rule, if it comes in a box, you've got to ask yourself a question. Why is it in a box? Why is it on a shelf? Why does it have these preservatives in it? That doesn't guarantee that it's bad. It just increases the probability that it's bad. Our ancestors, we have pretty good evidence, certainly based on some of the work that was done in the early part of the 20th century, that they had a natural affinity for highest nutrient density thing.

So the carnivorous, like the Maasai or the Inuit or the people who were mostly eating meat, they tended to gravitate towards organ meats exclusively. They would feed the muscle meat to their dogs, but they were eating the organ meats, much higher nutrient density. Whereas if you look at the more plant eating people, like the, you know, they sort of like the Katavans and the Okinawa and things like that, you know, they tended to gravitate more towards the darkest vegetables out there or the darkest fruits. They sort of inherently had this sense that the higher nutrient densities would be found in those things. So I think there is actually a lot of insight that comes from that. And it's not, you know, the level of minutia that I like to get into, which is, well, I want your average blood glucose to be this many milligrams per deciliter plus or minus this. And we personalize the nutrition to make it that.

But I think you could get like 80% of the benefit by sticking to this first principles approach. So I've got two more questions for you. And then we'll open it up for a couple audience questions. The first of which is inspired by the fact that I'm reading Nasim Taleb's newest book, Skin in the Game. And there's a great quote in there, which is an appropriate one for all portfolio. managers out there, which is don't tell me what you think. Just tell me what's in your portfolio. And there's two ways of thinking about this from your personal health portfolio perspective.

When you were, I think, you mentioned maybe 30 years old or something thereabouts, you started to struggle with metabolic syndrome, meaning you didn't look quite like you look today, quite a bit heavier, and have obviously changed that. So the two questions are first, in facilitating that change, what are the longest lasting things that you still do? Meaning what is the longest duration of a behavioral change that you still do? And then the The second question will be, what are the most recent changes? So it's another way of asking, like, what's at the frontier of your research that you've recently changed your mind on or are doing differently? Well, back then, you know, I was kind of an endurance athlete and so, and was still kind of

in the mindset of I just need as many carbohydrates as possible because carbohydrates is what replenish glycogen. Glycogen is what I'm depleting. And I was a swimmer mostly, but I was doing these very, very long swims in the ocean. Like marathon length swims. Yeah. Yeah. I think. It's absurd. I think the biggest change between the now and the then, the two biggest changes, I mean, it's going to sound like a cop-out excuse. I think there are really four big changes between me 10 years ago and today. So from a nutritional standpoint, I eat far less carbohydrates than I used to. And we could parse that out into which types of carbs and when I eat them and do I cycle them?

And the answer is all of the above. I did spend three straight years in a state of what's called nutritional ketosis, which is a very restrictive, very difficult thing to do, probably easier today than when I did it because there are more food products that cater to that. But at the time I did it, it was draconian. And I don't do that today, but I still eat far fewer carbohydrates than I used to. The second is exercise. I do not spend 28 hours a week doing endurance exercise anymore.

We were talking about it earlier today. I swim twice a week, but it's only – and I'm not blaming the fact that I swim 28 hours a week and the fact that I was pre-diabetic. But I just think I can, and I also don't want to spend 28 hours a week exercising anymore. So now, much greater focus on strength training. So the only thing that doesn't sacrifice is I always lift three days a week. So it doesn't matter if I'm in the middle of nowhere, I will find a place to lift weights. The second priority is I will find a place to do some sort of sprinting activity. So in New York, I ride my Peloton. In San Diego, I ride my Wahoo kicker. If I'm in the middle of nowhere, which I was in December for a couple weeks. I'll do wind sprints up a hill. But

like there's going to be some sort of short, intense activity. And I probably don't spend, I barely spend 10 hours a week exercising. So it's not like I'm an athlete anymore. I can't do anything. Like I'm not good at anything anymore. I can't, like I'm not that strong. I'm not that fast. I'm not that anything. But my sport is sort of life now. So I'm much more interested in not being hurt and making sure that whatever I do today, I can do for as long as possible. The third thing is sleep, which I kind of alluded to, I would say 10 years ago, even though I was long out of residency, I was still in the mindset of I'm going to work as late as I possibly can and then get up as early as possible to swim in the morning because I used to have to swim so many hours

a day. And I just don't do that anymore. I actually prioritize sleep to an almost absurd level. Last night, I was just coming from Texas. I was like dragging my ass. I was so tired. I had so much work to do today. And I, ordinarily, I would have stayed up till one in the morning getting it done. And at 8.30, I was like, you know what? I have not had great sleep in three nights. I am going to bed and I'm not setting my alarm until 6 o'clock. I'm going to sleep nine and a half hours. And then, you know, right now I'll get back into my seven and a half hour cycle. So I have just decided that at least empirically, it appears I can be more productive with less time if my head is in the game and I'm sleeping correctly. And then the fourth and final thing is if you told me even six years ago that I would

consider meditation to be one of the most important things in my life, I would say not a chance in hell. There is a greater chance I will take up backgammon, croquet, and like macromay than I would ever find meditation remotely interesting. And now I would argue it's as important as those other three things just in terms of my own sanity. So the last question before opening up is about mastery. So this transcends health. It gets into a lot of the other things that you've done. People today are obsessed with this kind of 80-20 equation where they want to know what the 20% of effort or exertion or investment or whatever it is that gets them 80% of the desired outcome. And when we first talk, one of my favorite parts of the conversation was how you look at things

exactly the opposite way. You're obsessed with the 80% that can get you that final 20%. So maybe just riff a little bit on how you think about mastery, why that part of the curve interests you more than the high return 2080 part. And then we'll leave it to the audience to ask some final questions. So I don't know why it's the case. It just has always been the case. So that's not to say it's right or wrong, but I do get great pleasure out of really trying to figure out how to get as good as possible at something. And I really, I think it's important when people hear the word mastery to understand that it is at the risk of sounding sort of cheesy. It is a journey. It is not a destination. One doesn't actually master pretty much anything.

When you talk to the true masters of their thing, they'll all tell you they're still learning. They're still incrementally tweaking. So, I mean, I think that's what attracted me to surgery in the first place, frankly, was surgery. I just, I like technical things. I like things that require physical dexterity. So surgery had that about it. Today, sort of outside of my professional life, archery and race car driving are sort of my obsessions because they have a physical component to them.

They're very specific and you can just get better and better and better and better at these things. So in many ways, I put those obsessions in the category of happiness. For me, just to be able to go out and shoot 50 shots around or get in the race car and drive for a couple of days, even to sit in my simulator every week with my coach, which I do. Most of the driving you do it is in a simulator, actually. And you look at a track like Lime Rock. Like it takes you 48 seconds to go around Lime Rock. How exciting can it be to go around that same track a thousand times? Turns out really freaking exciting because no two, you'll never do it perfectly.

You will never do that perfectly. So I don't know. I mean, I would just encourage people to explore mastery a little bit more. I think it's an underrated. I think the put the 80% of the effort into the last 20% is an underrated thing. Thanks for all that. And we'll take probably maybe three or four questions, something like that, and then go up and have dinner. Yeah, Josh.

Hi. Anthony Skyeroge. She's Skyward. So everything you're saying is amazing. I'm going to buy your book and listen to all your reviews. But then there's like somebody that exists that is the opposite of your whole. Like the antithesis of everything that you stand for. He sleeps like three hours a night.

He eats garbage. Literally out of the garbage can. He goes through mashed potatoes, fried chicken, burgers. Seems to have limitless energy is triggering the entire world 24 hours a day. and probably will continue to do this long after everyone in this room is almost an undead

like it's a huge old for me so how does everything that you've learned and seen and researched square with the idea that we have a 71 year old president who is living in the opposite way

and seems to be completely unfa by any of the limits of health, wellness, like, science, reason, like, what's the, like, is it, so is it genetics trumping all of the things that... But on. All right. Yeah. Yeah. So, so...

Like, that's not the big elephant in the room, right? So, look, I don't know, I don't know the Donald at all. I don't know anything about his genetics or any of that stuff. But to answer that question directly, absolutely, genetics can trump a lot. When you look at those centenarians, those 0.4% of the people who live to be 100 or longer, on average, they smoke twice as much, they eat worse, they exercise less. They don't do a single thing right. So if you win the genetic lottery, there's a great line, and I wish I didn't read it,

because now I can't plagiarize it, but it's so freaking good. The line is the single most important thing you can do to live longer is pick the right parents. and that is true. That still remains true to this day. It's totally actionable. Exactly. So absolutely. If you inherit the right amount of growth hormone receptor, the right amount of APOC3 and APOE2 and all those things, you can outlive, you'll outlive me all day long. And so what would it take for a normal person to actually be able to hijack the system? And it comes down to a couple of things. And it comes down to a couple of things. One is you need real-time feedback. So has anyone ever done the experiment where you put like a funny headset on that lags your speech by two seconds?

Anybody ever done that? Take a guess at how hard it is to speak, impossible, to put it bluntly. You couldn't utter one sentence with a two-second time lag in your speech. Real-time feedback is almost impossible to not change a behavior without. So when you think of the things we care about, all those seven-time, levers. Do any of them give you real-time feedback? Not a chance. So how could you shorten that cycle? And to me, that's the most interesting problem. So the thing that Patrick was referring to. I was just going to say, or philosophically change the whole idea. So instead of it being like delayed

gratification, just change what produces the gratification. So it's like falling in love with the process instead of working towards an outcome. Absolutely. And you can also look at outcomes that are short term that can correct your behavior. So the reason I do wear a glucose meter, even though they're typically only worn by people with diabetes, is I think it's really amazing. First of all, I eat so much better when I have my glucose meter in because the stupid thing is like a gamified every minute, every five seconds, it samples my glucose. I don't want to eat that piece of bread because I know what it's going to do to my glucose.

And I know what my metric is. I want my average glucose to be 85 milligrams per deciliter, plus or minus 10 milligrams per a leader. And I just, I'm obsessed with that. And that's my game. And that's, I'm going to play that game all day long. The second thing is I've been wearing this goofy looking thing. It's called an aura ring. And they're coming out with a second generation version this year that won't look as goofy. But I've been wearing this thing for two years. And I might have not worn it three nights in the last two years. But every day, the first thing I want to look at after I meditate, first thing is meditate. Second thing, I want to look at my sleep score from the night before and look at my

raw data. Again, gamifying these things makes it so much stickier to. do them. And I think we're only scratching the surface of what can be done. And we were talking about it earlier. I mean, do many people want to stick a three-eighths inch needle into their abdomen to measure their glucose? Probably not. But if that could be a patch, the size of a contact lens, that you take on and off every day that only has a 400 micron needle, oh, I think a lot of people would be willing to do that. And we're, you know, we're basically three or four years away from that technology. The second generation of this thing is going to put this thing to shame. So I don't know, that's the stuff I'm most excited about on a technology front is like, I think in 10 years, and maybe that's optimistic.

Who knows? I shouldn't assume I can predict anything. But at some point in our lifetime, I believe there will be a whole bunch of wearables that will do that. This is a great example of where evolution does not offer us a great insight into cardiovascular disease, cancer, or neurodegenerative disease. It really doesn't. And that's ultimately going to be the biggest problem. So I'll give you one example. It's very front in my mind because I was talking to a patient about it yesterday. Anyone ever heard of the Alzheimer's gene, APOE, or the APOE gene of which the A4 version is the Alzheimer's gene? So up until 200,000 years ago, you have two copies of every gene. So APOE, which is a gene that codes for the way the brain metabolizes cholesterol, exists in a two or three or a four.

So you have six combinations because you get two copies. So you can have a 22, two, two, three, three, 4-4. Up until 200,000 years ago, we only had the four. So everybody was 4-4. 200,000 years ago, the 3 came along. And then 50,000 years ago, the 2 came along. So now you have all of these things. Well, with each successive introduction of the 3, then the 2, we became less and less resistant to parasitic infections. So it turns out the APOE4 gene protects your brain from parasite infections, whereas the APOE2 does not. Of course, it turns out to be the exact opposite with respect to Alzheimer's disease. The APOE2s have a genetic protection from Alzheimer's disease.

The APOE4 is genetically predisposed to Alzheimer's disease. So there's an example of how evolution completely got it backwards, but through our lens, which is we want to live really long, and what's the probability I'm going to die of a parasitic infection? It's zip zero. You look at heart disease. That, to me, is probably one of the most vexing of all of these things because you have these, you know, different camps that view,

Like there are some groups that say you should never eat an animal product. Now, let me be really, really clear. This is not a political statement. There's not a social statement. This is just a scientific fact. In every single survey of human existence, to my knowledge, maybe something came up in the last year, there is not one example of a human species or subspecies of us that existed entirely free of animal products.

Now, there were many cultures that subsided mostly on plants. There were some that subsided exclusively on animal matter. But if you argue that an exclusively plant-based diet is the healthiest diet, you have to at least acknowledge that it's an experiment. Now, does it mean that that doesn't produce the best outcome? I don't know. I don't think it does. But the point is that's not something we can point to evolution.

So the people who want to, you know, if you're in the paleo vegan crowd, let's just put some faces on it, right? Paleo people would argue, well, our ancestors ate this way. And that's true. But the vegan people would argue, but your ancestors didn't have to not get heart disease or cancer or Alzheimer's disease because all they had to do is live long enough to reproduce. So both of those have a great argument. So I think you have to then say, you know what? At this level, the ancestral debate doesn't make sense. We have to now start to look at the molecular biology.

We have to now start to look at clinical trials and scrutinize them more and more critically. I'm going with my wife. Sorry, Phil. So that's your favorite car race? Why? And how does your health? Besides a lot. Thank you. That is that is that is the question like I want to answer more than any other question. Next week I am actually going up to Sonoma to race in what's called a pro-Mazda. So the pro-Mazda is a formula car. It's a formula car. So it's a thousand pounds dry weight. That's like about, you know, a quarter of the weight of your street car. And it has 275 horsepower and it can generate a downforce almost equivalent to its own weight. So that is a car that even in my car that's a car that even in my car. hands, meaning like someone who's like, you know, not great, I will be able to take that car

around Sonoma faster than Lewis Hamilton could take the world's fastest sports car around the track. Now that's a back to help. You know, people always say to me, that doesn't make sense that you would do that if you're interested in longevity. But the reality of it is I feel way more at risk driving on I-5 in California than I've ever felt in a race car. When you're in a race car, you're in a car that is built to go fast, that is built to survive a crash. I'm in a fire suit, a helmet. And the reality of it is,

you know, and I've crashed a million times, but nothing bad happens. These cars don't blow up and all the things. And also, the other thing is I'm in the most heightened sense of awareness in my life. There is nothing else that is on my mind. I'm not talking on the phone. I'm not daydreaming about nonsense. I'm not trying to figure out if the guy in front of, of me might break or might not break or what I'm going to have for dinner. So you're just like 100% dialed in. And I think the real challenge of being on the road and one of the things that I always tell people if they want a mental cue to like, if you could do one thing to live a little bit longer on the freeway, given that the freeway is where 50% of automotive mortality takes place in a freeway,

40% of automotive mortality takes place at an intersection. So if you can think of two things to reduce your risk of dying in a car, on the freeway, play the following game. Every time you get on the freeway, pretend one person who got on the freeway that day is trying to kill you. So they got up that morning with the explicit stated purpose of killing you. Now, here's the kicker. You won't know who it is. So if you don't know who it is, you've got to pay attention. And if you just take that approach, you'll spot them. They'll be the jerk off that's like texting and swerving into you or like slams on their brain. You know, they'll be that person. At the intersection, always look left. nine times out of ten the accident that's going to kill you is going to be a T-bone on the driver's side for someone who ran a red light so just look left before you go through an intersection so we'll do two more phil i'll make it up to you use the term minutia more than once in an discussion by the way amazing discussion love it we use the term minutia and on the other hand though and i'm a simple tip I'm a simple person in the other hand though

You mentioned movement, diet, rest, mindfulness. I would add relationships, the fifth for me. For my point of view, 85% of what we talked about today, was in those five things very simply, get more sleep. If you don't eat cereal in the box that is far off. General Mills is like. Philip Morris was 20 years ago. If you get a little more rest,

if you move your body, stretch your body, run a little bit, do the kettlebell a little bit. And if you play with your kids and get in that moment and be with them, maybe that's your next book.

Maybe that's, it's just a simple book. There's no next book. I'm sorry. But maybe that's the model. Maybe it's just a simple, it's a minimalist model that it doesn't have to worry about.

you know, whatever you were talking about, 8.5s or 84s or A3s, it's just dumbed down, but you get like 85%. I totally agree. I mean, that's effectively what Patrick was talking about. I mean, that to me is the 80-20 answer, which is I think you can get, now again, this is where the minutiae comes in. There are some people who will get 80% of the benefit out of 20% of the insights, and there are some who will not. That's the first thing to just acknowledge. The second thing is, there are some people who just want more alpha. So again, I'm going to bastardize this, I'm sure. It's only embarrassing to use a finance example in front of finance people.

Most people could invest in index funds at no cost and do pretty well. But there are money managers out there who charge two plus 20. I mean, hell, someone I was very close to was charging like 3 plus 30 and at 1.5 plus 50. And he's still in every year but one made his investors a ton of money. I think I know who that is. Yeah, you know who that is. So the bottom line is it comes down to how much alpha you want, how much risk you're willing to take.

But the approach that you outlined is the lowest risk, lowest cost way to at least match the market if not beat it. Last one. Please. I was wondering if you could talk a little bit about the golden microbiome because this is something that I believe we've only learned a lot about in the last 10 to 15 years. And it's kind of all-encompassing. The bacteria in your body actually has such an effect that I'm,

everything from diet to mood, your studies that show that your personality can actually change if your microbiome changes. So how does that fit into the work that you've found out of the patients that you've seen? Yeah, this is not going to be a satisfying answer. I think we are still, as you point out, really in the infancy of understanding this. Now, I'm lucky in that I'm really close friends with a guy named Larry Smar, who probably knows more about this topic than anybody. He's a professor at UCSD, who's actually a computer science professor, but through his own personal journey about 10 years ago became kind of the most knowledgeable guy about this thing. And Larry and I have the luxury of getting to sit down and have a meal every couple of months and talk about this.

There's a little bit of the drunk and the streetlight problem right now. The drunk in the street light right is you see this drunk guy standing below a street light and you're like, what are you looking for? And he's like, my keys. Did you drop them here? No, but this is where the light is. So it's a little bit of that sort of like everyone's thinking about it, talking about it and everyone loves to cite the incorrect stat, which is there are 10 times more bacteria in your body than total cells. It turns out that's not true. But even if it were true, that wouldn't necessarily, you know, it can be a fact and not a reason. At this point in time, and I would say the following, we actually do not yet understand even remotely the causal relationship between these changes. So is there any dispute that your diet changes your gut

bacteria? No dispute. I think that's been established in animal and human models now. You can, in fact, there are some people who can even, like there are some algorithms that can actually predict what you eat or if you fast or don't fast just based on the bacteria in your gut. We're getting really good at that. The question is, is it a cause or is it an effect? The only place where I see a causal way to manipulate the gut flora to impact health is through a very esoteric application called the treatment of C. diff colitis. So some of you have probably heard about this. So Clostridium difficile is a bacteria that exists.

in us naturally. And it exists, it plays very little role. It's sort of a, you know, subservient little dude that just hangs out. But in patients, typically in the hospital, who are being exposed to just crazy amounts of antibiotics, the antibiotics can kill enough of the other bacteria that this Clostridium difficile or C diff becomes dominant. If it becomes dominant, it wreaks havoc and it can kill you. And the treatment for that is really difficult until people figured out this great idea, which was, and it's going to sound a little gross, but why don't we take the stool from a normal person and transplanted into someone with C. diff colitis, do what's called a faecal transplant. And lo and behold, you save them immediately. You totally fix these people in days. So the FDA

has now actually approved this. It's the only FDA indication for fecal transplant. The question I find interesting is, what are the next applications for that? And I think there are some people who are at one end of the spectrum that say fecal transplant will cure every disease. In other words, you take the crap from someone who's totally healthy and you shove it in somebody who's not, and you'll fix everything. I think, again, at the risk of, like, getting into more detail than you want, I think that's total nonsense. And I don't see a shred of evidence to support that. But at the other end of the spectrum, you know, people who would say there is never going to be another application for fecal transplant. I don't think that's true. In fact, I have one patient in my practice who, me and another physician who both take care of him, and I defer to the other guy more because he's a sort of a functional medicine guy, but he's a really smart dude. I mean, we have a patient who's had a million sinus infections in his life. He has been on antibiotics his whole life. His gut is not normal. There's no denying it. He's just got so many issues that we can't pin down. And we're kind of, now we've been through every one of the, like we can make the bacteria in his gut look differently with different probiotics and buterate and it doesn't

fix the problem. So our last thought with this guy is, what a fecal transplant fix this guy. So I put this in the category of I'm really looking forward to seeing where. the story goes. I am super cautiously optimistic. I think there is an entire industry that is built around the analysis and treatment of these conditions that is like 99% crap. I have started to collect these people where if I'm feeling smart or accomplished, my ego's getting a little high, I just email them and ask them to lunch and hear about what they're doing. Peter is on that short list of people who's just unbelievably impressive in terms of the depth that they've gone to understand their field. Every time I get together, I just feel lucky to be able to listen to him and learn from him.

So, Peter, thank you so much for joining us. Hey, everyone. Patrick here again. To find more episodes of InvestorFieldguide.com forward slash podcast. If you're a book lover, you can also sign up for my book club at investorfieldguide.com forward slash book club. After you sign up, you'll receive a full investor curriculum right away and then three to four suggestions of new books every month. You can also follow me on Twitter, at Patrick underscore Oshag, OSHAG. If you enjoy the show, please leave a quick review for us on iTunes, which will help more people discover Invest Like the Best.

Thanks so much for listening.