The Dr. Hyman Show - The Truth About Seed Oils, Protein & What’s Actually Making Us Sick | Simon Hill

Episode Date: August 13, 2025

With so much conflicting health advice online, it’s no wonder people feel overwhelmed by food choices. Is saturated fat really the enemy? Are seed oils as harmful as some headlines claim? And how do we know what’s actually true?  In this episode of The Dr. Hyman Show, I sit down with nutrition researcher and author Simon Hill to make sense of the latest science and help you cut through the confusion. You can watch our full conversation on YouTube or listen wherever you get your podcasts. We discuss: • The real story behind seed oils, saturated fat, and inflammation—and what to do about it • What your lab work can tell you about your unique nutrition needs • How to spot nutrition misinformation and think critically about food trends • Why cutting back on ultra-processed foods may be more important than obsessing over any single nutrient In a world full of nutrition noise, this episode helps you tune into what really matters—science, and your own body. View Show Notes From This Episode Get Free Weekly Health Tips from Dr. Hyman https://drhyman.com/pages/picks? utm_campaign=shownotes&utm_medium=banner&utm_source=podcast Sign Up for Dr. Hyman’s Weekly Longevity Journal https://drhyman.com/pages/longevity?utm_campaign=shownotes&utm_medium=banner&utm_source=podcast Join the 10-Day Detox to Reset Your Health https://drhyman.com/pages/10-day-detox Join the Hyman Hive for Expert Support and Real Resultshttps://drhyman.com/pages/hyman-hive This episode is brought to you by Fatty15, Paleovalley, Function Health, AirDoctor, Timeline and Pique. Head to fatty15.com/hyman and use code HYMAN for 15% off your 90-day subscription Starter Kit. Get nutrient-dense, whole foods. Head to paleovalley.com/hyman for 15% off your first purchase. Join today at FunctionHealth.com/Mark and use code HYMAN100 to get $100 toward your membership. Get cleaner air. Right now, you can get up to $300 off at airdoctorpro.com/drhyman. Support essential mitochondrial health and save 10% on Mitopure. Visit timeline.com/drhyman to get 10% off today. Receive 20% off FOR LIFE + a free Starter Kit with a rechargeable frother and glass beaker at Piquelife com/Hyman.

Coming up on this episode of the Dr. Hyman Show. This whole debate about seed oils. Why is it such a boogeyman word? Where a lot of the confusion comes from is that... Simon Hill is a nutrition scientist and physiotherapist. Best known for cutting through wellness hype with science. And his mission? To help you make evidence-based choices to live better and longer.

Consumption of soybean oil has increased a thousand folds since 1900. When I look at the increase in chronic disease, to me, the most obvious explanation for that is not. increase in the consumption of seed oils it's an increase in the consumption of hyper-palatable ultra-processed foods the goal should be to create an environment where the convenient and affordable option just happens to be the healthy option as well the food industry doesn't want to hear that and so protein is the latest darling of the nutrition world and what do we know about protein you do not see a difference in muscle size or strength regardless of his animal or plant regardless of the two diets i asked you about protein we end up talking about string training well

think that's really important it's intentional summarize the bottom line for people like what should they do what should they be eating but what's really the problem is there's a good chance you've been hearing the buzz around fatty 15 an award-winning healthy aging supplement containing c15 i am here to tell you that the robust science behind fatty 15's health benefits means that it is here to stay that's good news for all of us with over 100 studies and 47 patents supporting c15's health benefits It's no wonder why more than 70% of Fatty 15 customers report benefits within 16 weeks. We're talking better lab results, more comfortable joints, and deeper sleep. Fatty 15 is a crucial part of my daily healthy aging routine.

If you want to give your body the essential fat it's missing, head to fatty15.com slash hymen and use code Hyman for 15% off your 90-day subscription starter kit today. We've all been there. You're on the go, starving, and your only options are ultra-processed. snacks made from GMO corn hydrogenated oils and sometimes even mole contaminated meat no thanks that's why I always keep paleo valleys 100% grass-fed beef sticks on hand these aren't your average meat sticks they're made from grass-fed and finished beef raised on regenerative American farms using

rotational grazing to restore soil health their fermented old world style a process that takes four times longer but delivers better flavor enhanced digestibility and supports gut health no sugar no gluten, no MSG, just organic spices, and nutrient-dense protein. These sticks come in five delicious flavors, original, jalapeno, summer sausage, garlic summer sausage, and terriaki, and they've already sold over 35 million sticks. So clearly, I'm not the only fan, whether you're traveling, packing a lunchbox, or need a quick protein hit between meetings, Paleo Valley's beef sticks are the cleanest,

most sustainable snack you can reach for. Try them now at paleovalley.com slash hymen and get 15% off your order today. Simon, welcome to the podcast. It's so good to have you here. Mark, thank you very much. It's been a little while coming in. It's a big honor to be with you. We've been talking about it. Yeah, you know, Simon, for those of you don't know him, is a very measured, deeply thoughtful, non-ideological, nutrition scientist. And there aren't very many of those around, which is my love him. And he also started his career as a physical therapist, studying muscle mass, and has a lot to say about nutrition, longevity.

how we age. And, you know, one of the things that, you know, we're going to talk about a lot of stuff today, but one of the things that's sort of this hot topic, and you recently done a couple of podcasts on it, but I want to talk about on the show is this whole debate about seed oils. And, you know, personally, I've been very focused on this for a long time because I was confused. And I wrote a, when I usually am confused about something, I read a book. I'm saying that. I'm upset with that. So I wanted to know more about fat because there was so much noise in the field. And so I wrote a book, I think 16, called Eat Fat, Get Thin.

And the idea was, you know, all our thinking about fat was wrong. And we villainized saturated fat and we've not really well understood the role of fats in our diet. We're supposed to be low fat. Is that really what should be doing? So there was the whole low fat craze that ended up causing a huge catastrophe. And so I sort of mapped out the whole historical context and the science. behind it. And I really wanted to understand this whole controversy about omega-6 oils, otherwise known as plant oils, otherwise known as seed oils. And with the whole MAHA movement,

it's become a lightning rod. And I'm like, well, wait a minute. You guys are talking about the wrong thing here. I mean, sugar. It's the sugar and the starch in our diet and the ultra-processed food. And that's a vehicle for carrying a lot of these refined plant oils or vegetable oils or I don't even know what you moved by vegetable oil because that's like, is it broccoli oil? No. It's usually seeds or beans, like soybean oil, corn, canola, safflower, sunflower, and all these oils that are used in industrial food, but also have been used throughout history, sesame oil, and cooking, and different cultures. And so I really dove into the literature, and I read every study, and I tried to figure

it out, and I looked at the methodologies. And I think, I'd like to sort of dive in at a high level with you, like, why do you think this becomes such a lightning rod topic? Why has everybody glommed on to it? And why is seed oil such a boogeyman word? Yeah, it's become a bit of the whipping boy. Yeah. And yeah, it's, I think you're trying to throw me under the bus here.

No, no, no, no. We're going to have a good conversation. I don't have all the answers, but I very want to dive into this. Yeah. As I start out, you're a thoughtful scientist to start. Yeah, why has this become, you know, a bit of the whipping boy, and I guess a target from Maha movement? You know, I think we're all looking for an explanation to why our populations are so unhealthy.

And deep down, we're experiencing people around us suffering unnecessarily. And so we are passionate about finding a reason for that, right? You and I and everyone else in this space is really about it's more than just trying to get people to be healthy. But why do we want to be healthy? We want to be healthy to increase our life fulfillment. And so we're about increasing fulfillment for people. And at the end of the day, we're all trying our best to look through the science and find out what is it that is increasing our risk of these chronic diseases, causing us to increase our body fatness levels over time and driving metabolic disease. So I think the intention piece is generally pretty good.

I think that where a lot of the confusion comes from is the context and missing some of the nuance in the research. So when I look at, you know, the increase in chronic disease over the last 50 or 70 years, to me, the most obvious explanation for that is not an increase in the consumption of vegetable oils or seed oils. It's an increase in the consumption of hyper palatable, ultra-processed foods. We used to call fast food and junk food. Right. Now it's called ultra-processed. Right. That drives increased energy consumption and a calorie surplus and weight gain. And from there, you get a whole lot of metabolic consequences. And if you pair that with being sedentary and you lose muscle mass and muscle quality,

well, now you're just spelling sort of metabolic disaster. Double whammy. The double whammy. And we're seeing that. And put very simply, that can be distilled into consuming too many calories and not moving enough. It's not that simple. It's not that simple. And I find what's interesting is double clicking on that and looking at all of those details.

But when it comes to, say, vegetable oils or just fat in general, the context piece that I'm pointing to that I think is often missed is when we're evaluating a food or nutrient in nutrition science to determine, is it increasing risk of some disease or is it neutral or reducing risk? We have to consider dose. We have to consider compared to what? Because very infrequently when you make food choices, does it happen in isolation? you usually remove something when you add something.

We have to also consider, particularly in this conversation of fats, because you mentioned saturated fat, saturated fat is an umbrella term, but as you know, there are many different types of saturated fat. There are many types of plant oils. Right, many types of plant oils. So when we're talking about, say, reducing saturated fats for polyunsaturated fats, what saturated fats are we talking about? Are we talking about butter?

Are we talking about cheese, yogurt? Are we talking about the saturated fats in red meat? Are we talking about steric acid, the most predominant saturated fat in chocolate or cacao that really doesn't seem to affect blood livids? And so I think, hopefully I'm painting a picture to the listeners that this context matters. And if you oversimplify it, what can happen is you can point to one study where it's like, oh, that reduction saturated fat didn't lead to a favorable outcome, but then this one did. And it starts to get very confusing, and it looks like the science all over the place.

It is, yeah. And the outcome of that, and I was in this position before I did a master's in nutrition science, what compelled me to go back to university was that I was confused by all of this stuff and the changing headlines. Imagine how the average person. Right. What I will say is that in academia, there is far less confusion. Although there is some disagreement among academics and scientists, they generally agree on 80, 90

percent of these big, big topics. And that's because they understand the context. And when you understand the context, these conflicting or seemingly conflicting results become explainable. And if I was to kind of just double click a little bit more, because I feel like you want to kind of hear my position on vegetable oils and seed oils, what do I find? I'll explain my thought process here. I just want to set the context for the audience just first, because when I began to look into this, I was like, okay, well, what's our evolutionary diet? And I I have a bias, which is that if we haven't been eating it for hundreds of thousands of years, maybe it's something we should take a look at.

If one component of our diet is increased dramatically, what is the effect from an evolutionary point of view and what our needs are? And, you know, when I began to look at this, in 1900, heart attacks were super rare. Like if you had a heart attack, everybody would rush in. But at that time, we were eating 40% of our effects. fats as butter, cream, whole milk, eggs, and heart attacks were almost unknown. And then at the same time, we started to refine these vegetable oils. We call them seed oils, whatever you want to call them, plant oils. And we developed Crisco, which was basically hydrogenated plant oils, trans fats, which really

was a problem. And then our consumption of soybean oil has increased 1,000-fold since 1900. And so I don't think, well, there's something that's increased that much. What was it doing the population and how do you fit in the context of all their knowledge we know? So it's like I had an initial bias around it. And there were some studies that were early done in the 70s that tried to answer these questions, the Minnesota Corner Experiment, the Sydney Heart trial, which were randomized control trials, which were really hard to do in nutrition where you, you know, randomized people,

different diets, and you follow them and you control them. And they seem to find that people who had the omega-6 diets actually did worse. Like in the Minnesota Corny experiment, the ones who had corn oil versus butter, even though their cholesterol dropped, LDL dropped by 30 points for every 30-point drop in cholesterol of LDL cholesterol, the risk of heart attack went up by 22%. Yeah. But it's kind of murky because when you kind of look below the surface, at that time they thought marjoram was fine.

group on Fleischman's corn margarine when I was a kid. And so the corn oil they used was margarine, which we know is deadly. Yeah. So they, like in those interventions, because I agree with you. I think I agree with you intuitively what you stated. Yeah. Also makes sense to me. But the data doesn't really bear it out.

Also make sense to me that as is this increase in this, this food group that we didn't consume. Yeah. We see an increase in cardiovascular mortality. Yeah. So that's worth, that's definitely worth questioning and researching. Because I agree with you. It makes sense.

It's like, hang on, let's, that's a red flag. Let's look into that. Those two studies, I think, at a high level, you know, in 1960s were really elegant studies for their time. There are some issues, at least from what I found, and I'm happy to walk through. There's a lot of issues with this. I'm happy to walk through, like, how I see them and why, why I don't look at those as evidence that reducing saturated fats for polyunsaturated fats doesn't improve cardiovascular risk

at a high level so Minnesota coronary experiment and that was an Ansel Keys study who a lot of people will be familiar. And they buried it. They buried that study and I met Joe Hiblin

who uncovered the data and actually reanalyzed the study because he found the son of one of the original researchers with Ansel Keys and he said this never was published it was funded by the NIH but it was never published.

You know what happened to your dad's data? He's like yeah, it's in the basement in his house somebody to get it. And so you then reanalyze it but it was problematic. Yeah, there was problems with it and I mean there's some different opposing views on that whether it was buried or whether it was incomplete. So 75% of the subjects appear to drop out in the first year.

So it may well have been to the research team. We're like, this is completely underpowered for us to even publish and understand like do we have a significant finding here or do we have enough power to detect the difference? And power in a study means are there enough people in the study to be able to prove a hypothesis one way or the other? And if you don't have enough people, it's not powered enough. And this was in the setting of a psychiatric ward. And so the way they had it set up was that, which is really a neat part of this study,

was that it was randomized. People didn't know what fat they were getting. So when they make the food in the kind of cafeteria setting, they can just give it to them without them knowing. And it's either coming from saturated fats or from margarine. And not only was there a huge dropout, but the participants were allowed to go out home and sometimes stay at home for multiple days. then come back. And so there's all these kind of little issues that we look at now and we're

like, oh, that probably wasn't controlled enough. And then Sydney Diet Heart study without going into too much details, pretty good study, but also, as you said, the intervention group was contained a margarine that we believe probably contained trans fats at the time, being in the 1960s, it was before trans fats were really reduced in the food supply. And what I would say is overall, there are other studies. When you put them into a meta-analysis, which is not perfect, right, because meta-analysis really depends on the quality of studies going in. But when you do that and when you look at the trials that are longest in duration with the least drop-out, with a good intervention that probably doesn't have this confounding

variable of trans fats, you do see a reduction in risk of cardiovascular events in these short-term kind of RCTs, and we're probably never going to have those kind of trials again. And in population studies, you also see the same. And then in population studies, you see a similar thing. And then further to that, if you go and look at population studies of, and you look at linoleic acid, which is the primary omega-6 fat in vegetable oils or seed oils, and about 40% of linoleic acid in America comes from soybean oil alone. And when you look at just dietary surveys, which are a starting point,

they're not perfect, they have issues, that when you look at that and you sort of You quantify how much linoleic acid are in people's diets. They have lower risk of coronary heart disease compared to people with higher amounts of linoleic acid compared to those with lower. You can go a step further. Some of these kind of more modern, more thorough observational studies also have biomarker, blood biomarker assays where they look at red blood cell content, like the function health test that looks at how much linoleic acid do you have in your red blood cells. And also, some of them have looked at how much linoleic acid you have in adipose tissue. And so that's like a step further. Instead of asking people what they ate, you can actually biopsy them or go to their blood test and see what it ate.

It's because that fat we don't make, the only way it ends up in your red blood cells or in your fat tissue is from consuming it. And you can then look and see, is there an association between higher fat stores, higher red blood cell linoleic acid and, risk of coronary heart disease, for example, or total mortality, dying of anything during whatever the follow-up period was. And you see again here, you see lower risk of coronary heart disease, lower risk of total mortality with higher levels in both red blood cell or adipose tissue. And so when you look at all of that evidence and then you look at the mechanisms, so what is probably the mechanism that would explain this? And I don't think it's all of it, But it is probably the LDL cholesterol reduction that you get with that, that swap, and then that's supported in and of itself through genetic Mendelian randomization studies, population studies, where you consistently see lower LDL cholesterol, you know, reduced risk of coronary heart disease. And so that's how I think about all of that. That said, do I think it's healthy to consume vegetable oils and seed oils within these ultra-processed foods? No. I think.

they're driving an excess of calorie consumption. They're okay to eat if you have a bottle in your kitchen, but not when you stick it in an ultra-processed food. And even in your kitchen, right? Do I think it's good to be having tablespoons and tablespoons of this stuff? No, it's super calorie dense. What I do think, though, is the consumption of vegetable oil at home,

like a tablespoon on vegetables, cooking them, is very different to having them in ultra-processed foods or deep-frying them and reheating them. Oh, yeah, that's the worst. Oh, my God. Yeah. So I think we can all agree. that we need to completely try and avoid those types of foods as much as possible.

But it is different to, again, cooking with some vegetable oil in your pan at home where you're not deep frying and reheating. And I think the other issue is, you know, it's like it's, you know, I often talk about like, you know, catho meat versus regeneratively raised meat and the differences and it's not the cow, it's the house. The same thing is true with the oils. It's like where they come from, what are you eating them with, what else are you not eating, what are you eating more of, what are eating less of.

And, you know, that sort of reminds me of this bigger context, is that the science, when you look at the science of essential fatty acids and fatty acid metabolism, omega-3s flow down a pathway that creates all these anti-inflammatory compounds in the body. Whereas L.A. or Linoleic acid, which we're talking about the omega-6, is go down a pathway that creates inflammatory molecules. So theoretically, these omega-6s should be inflammatory, but it all depends on context. And everybody needs an anti-inflammatory system and inflammatory system.

It's not that they're good or bad. It's just they have to be in balance. And the other big thing that's changed, aside from our dramatic drop in saturated fat content and our increase in these refined oils, is the difference in our omega-3 content. And omega-3s and the six ratios seem to be pretty important. When you look at the data at a high level and analyze it all, it seems as though a lot of

people who don't have the omega-3s, if they have a lot of these omega-6s, they get into trouble potentially. Whereas if you have a ratio that's two-to-one, one-to-one, four-to-one, five-to-one, it's okay. But most Americans are like 20-to-one of the omega-6 to omega-3s. And I think that's another big issue. We're all not eating wild food. We're not eating wild fish.

we're not getting omega-3 fatty acids, 90% of us are deficient in it. So you've got a really complex matrix of a problem that makes people think C-DLs are bad, but I don't think they necessarily are. Because all of that data that you presented there is that the fact says what you'll come across. It's how you explain those.

Yeah. So for me, I think the omega-3-6 ratio is generally a proxy of like overall diet quality. Usually the high of that ratio, the more ultra-processed foods. And like you said, not getting enough omega-3s. I don't actually think it's inherently the omega-6 that's causing the issue there. And I say that because there are clinical trials where you overfeed people omega-6s and

linoleic acid, and you measure the amount of arachidonic acid, which is the next omega-6 that's produces. Which is inflammatory. Yeah, and it doesn't go up. So the body seems to buffer it and hold it at a pretty steady state. So where I think, though, that this is an issue is that if you're not consuming enough direct DHA and EPA, right? Because these two pathways you mentioned, they share the enzymes. So if you have a whole lot of omega-6 running through that pathway and using a lot of these enzymes.

It's like trying to get it through a highway. It's a very narrow highway. And if you have a lot of one type of vehicles going through, you can't get another type. I don't get that. So if you're only consuming like plant-based omega-3s, ALA. Yeah. From flax, chia. You rely on the conversion to DHA and EPA. But if you have a lot of omega-6s in the diet, that conversion's even lower. And so this is where I think then people see increased inflammation. So I think I completely agree with you in terms of what you were putting forward there. And it sounds like we agree that a big part of that problem is under consumption of

omega-3s, particularly the direct DHA and EPA. whether you go out and eat fatty fish two or three times a week, which a lot of people don't. He's in sardines three times a week. I probably do. And or having a good DHA EPA supplement to make sure that you're getting enough of those long chain omega-3s. So at the end of the day, we've got this whole controversy. Seed oils are the boogeyman of 2025. You know, Secretary Kennedy's called them out, I think not correctly.

At the highest level, how would you kind of guide people on how to, understand this complexity between saturated fat is plant oils and omega-3 oils. Because those are the three buckets. And as you said earlier, they're not homogeneous. There's many types of saturated fat. There's many types of omega-6 fats. There's many types of omega-3 fats, right? So they're not like monolithic. But it's important to understand that overall diet matrix and complex that you're eating of these things determines the impact on your health, which is end of the day what we're talking about here. Yeah, it's the key. And then also your personal genetics. Oh, that, oh, that, yeah. That's very true. That's humbling as a doctor, because when you hear people say these

categorical things, and you go, well, wait a minute, I've seen thousands of people, and the same thing will cause one person's cholesterol to spike and another person's to drop like a stone. And, like, how do you explain that? It's genetics. Yeah, it's genetics. And it's also, again, that a lot of the time that the change doesn't occur in a vacuum. So I've mentioned off there to you that when I increased coconut oil in my diet, that I see my LDL cholesterol and APOB could go up a lot, 30% in fact, on my latest function test. That's because you're metabolically fit. And the swap that I made was olive oils, the oil that I cook with, the extra virgin olive oil. I was swapping that out and adding in coconut oil and then also some coconut yogurt. And so that swap soar reduction in mono-unsaturated

fats and increase in saturated fats, particularly loric acid in coconut foods. And so for me personally with my genetics and that swap, LDL cholesterol went up quite a bit. What I always say to people to keep this really simple is that like you mentioned earlier, in 1980s, there was a low fat recommendation. My review of the literature is that there was evidence that saturated fats were increasing in risk with coronary heart disease. But I think the messaging was not clear enough on what that meant at the growth. restore and at dinner time when you prepare a meal. And so what ended up happening was this low-fat

craze where people thought anything that was low-fat was healthy. And what was the swap that we really saw? We saw saturated fat foods, whether it's meat or butter, the cream, we saw those being reduced. And instead of people eating fatty fish, which are rich in polyunsaturated fats or nuts and seeds, even tofu or tempe, these types of foods, whole foods. The increase came from ultra-processed foods, which, yes, have unsaturated fats in them, a lot of them, but they're added refined sugars, lots of sodium. They're super seductive, hard to put down, and drives them. They're also very inflammatory.

So the swap matters. If you're going to reduce saturated fats in your diet, if you go then and eat those foods, I mean, there's a fair bit of compelling data. to say that you're just increasing your risk of disease in doing that. And I think we've seen that. Yeah. So what you eat instead is really important. And rather than like making this too complicated, let's just come back to a dietary pattern.

Why does a Mediterranean kind of diet, when across the literature or a Nordic-style dietary pattern? Ish olive oil and nuts and seeds. If you look at the research consistently, what disease do you want to look at, type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease dementia? people that eat that way are protected. And so what I would say is look at those dietary guidelines and then understand that you can modify that way of eating to be lower carb, it can be moderate carb, it can be high carb. What's working best for you, leaving you feeling best with the best blood work,

which is then where your personal genetics come into play. And then you can toggle around with it because one person might be able to consume a Mediterranean diet with a bit more saturated fat than the next. but that's really the starting point. And then for me, it's, it's, you test so you know where you're at. Yeah. Go and intervene. That's a dietary pattern.

There is very good evidence to support that way of eating. Retest and then tweak it as needed based on the feedback you get. This is the most valuable kind of data. We call it N of one data because when we're talking about all these studies that we've been chatting about randomized clinical trials, observational data, you know, they're kind of regression to them. In other words, it's like a race to the bottom and don't actually know what's going on for you. So you're putting a group of people and say you're going to behave like these people, but you may not be anything like them. And the best way to learn is test against yourself.

That's why when you did your own self-test, removing olive oil and adding coconut and then retesting your blood work with function, you can see that your numbers change. And that's what I encourage you to do is test, don't guess, and use your body as its own control group. Reproductive health and fertility is complicated. It's about more than just your hormones. It's about your nutrient status, a stress, toxic, exposures, and lots of more.

All these play a role. And these biomarkers often go unchecked until things arise. And that's why I proactively test key nutrients, including zinc, iron, and omega-3 fatty acids, heavy metals such as lead and mercury, stress markers like cortisol and DHS, and hormonal indicators like FSA, LH, Estradial, and hormone-binding globuline with every single patient who wants to take control of their reproductive health. And those are tests you're not getting when you go to your regular doctor.

And that's why we build function. It gives you access to over 160 lab tests, so you can get a complete view of your health. You can join now at functionhealth.com slash mark. And if you're one of the first thousand people to sign up, you can use the code Hyman 100 to get $100 off your membership. Don't settle for guesswork or trial and error when it comes to your reproductive health and fertility, test, no, and take control. You wouldn't drink dirty water, so why breathe unfiltered air? Indoor air can carry a wide range of invisible particles, like mold, allergens,

VOCs, smoke, and even airborne bacteria and viruses. And most of us are breathing it in all day without realizing it. That's why I use air doctor in my home. It's not just any air purifier. It's designed with ultra-heppa filtration to capture ultra-fine particles, including many pollutants and allergens. It also features a smart sensor that monitors your indoor air quality and adjust filtration automatically, all while staying whisper quiet. If you're dealing with wildfire smoke, seasonal allergies, or just want to feel more confident about the air in your home, this is a smart step toward a healthier environment.

And I've partnered with Air Doctor to give you an exclusive offer. Go to air doctorpro.com, D.R. Heimann, to save up to $300. That's A-I-R-D-O-C-T-O-R-P-R-R-H-M-A-N. Take control of your air. Breathe better. Live healthier. I would kind of emphasize, though, that that doesn't mean that the guidelines and all of the science is not helpful because it gives us, it's like a compass, it points us into a direction where we see what the typical result is and then having the humility to understand, well, as an individual, we're not always representative of the typical person. Like, where do we fall on that distribution?

And that's where it gets fun and interesting. You can play around with it and then you can factor in other things. Like, what are your goals? Is it just chronic disease prevention? Or are you an athlete? You're trying to build as much muscle as possible. And to me, that's what makes all this fun. But online, it seems to cause a lot of arguments.

It does. And beginning back to the omega-6s is, you know, whole foods that have them are good for you. Like nuts and seeds and, you know, beans, they're good for you, right? So it's when you kind of extract them through sort of science projects and concentrate them and mix them in with all kinds of other junk, which is essentially how we eat them. I mean, most people are not pouring soybean all over their food,

but it's 10% of our calories. It's because it's in all the ultra-processed food, and that's 60% of our calories. So that's the issue. Can I ask you a question? I'm interested in your opinion on this. So I think with the Kennedy administration, there's certainly a focus on seed oils.

Do you think, if you were to go out to the current food environment, maintain all the fast food all the ultra-processed foods but you could click your finger and all the seed oils and all those foods was changed to butter

or tallow but they were still hyper palatable high sodium high sugar foods would it make a difference to help a tangible difference it would probably

potentially would make it worse and here's why I think you know when you look at the impact of fats any kind of fat you know

when you have saturated fat or even polyunsatur fat and you consume them in the context of a high starch and sugar diet, which is what we'd have in America. We, you know, out of almost a pound a day per person of sugar and starch, flour, basically. That's what causes the problem. You end up, whether it's saturated fat, so saturated fat, like butter on your broccoli,

okay, butter on your bread, not okay, right? Because the carbohydrate content, and not all carbohydrates are bad because broccoli is carbohydrate, but starchy and sugary carbohydrates actually exacerbate the cardiovascular harm of these foods. And so because you raise insulin and because you're not just letting sugar in your cells, you're letting any kind of energy, free fatty acids, those just pour into your cells, particularly around your belly fat. And it's like the insulin just opens the gate and everything goes in. So when you're eating sugar and starch, you get this high insulin and then whatever fats you're eating,

it just becomes doubly bad for weight gain and for inflammation and for everything else. I think the guideline should say that we shouldn't have a limit on saturated fat as long as, one, we consume a balance of polyunsaturate fats with them, right? So it should be probably like a two to one ratio of polyunsaturate fats and saturated fats. And it should be really limited when it comes to refined starch and sugars. So you can't eat saturated fat if you're eating a diet high and starch and sugar because it creates a disaster. I've been interested by some of these relatively short. Short clinical trials, like 12-week studies, looking at feeding people a lot of saturated fat or polyunsaturated fats.

And these are in background diets of Western diets. So like you said, they're not amazing. But what's interesting to me is that when you dial up saturated fats, you seem to increase liver fat more than when you dial up polyunsaturated fats. Which, as we know, is like, often precedes this kind of fatty liver disease type 2 diabetes. But yeah, I was just interested in your view of, because it seems like the Kennedy administration seems to think that if you eliminate seed oils, the problem goes away. But I would argue that if 60% of calories are still coming from ultra-processed foods, that's the problem. We still have a problem. Yeah, it's like the ultra-processed food is the issue, whatever you're eating.

The food industry doesn't want to hear that. No, but they're going to, they're having to. I think, you know, I think it's like, what is that, Teddy Roosevelt? Well, this is a big stick, you know, thing. I think we're, I just read an article by Marty McCary and Mimittaz in the Wall Street Journal yesterday. And they were like, look, we convened, which the government can do. We brought these companies to table and we said, change, get the crap out of your food,

get the dyes out, et cetera, et cetera. And they're promising to do it. But if they don't, we've got a big stick, which is, you know, regulation of legislation. So you do it or else. And I think that's, that's actually probably a good move. because, you know, there's a lot of things that are going to interfere with regulation legislation because there's so many billions of dollars spent on food lobbying, agribing, and controlling the narrative.

And so I think we're an interesting moment. I think we're going to have some progress. And I think, you know, I've seen some of the early renditions of the dietary guidelines. And I think it's moving in the right direction, less dogmatic, more around dietary patterns, around whole foods, around getting rid of the ultra-processed foods, which no dietary. guidelines has ever said before, which is quite amazing. It's like you can only say eat more of, you can't see it less unless it's an ingredient because then that's easily easily manipulated.

If it's salt or sugar or fat, then you can dial up and down in the ultra-processed food and just make different styles of frankin food that aren't really food. Yeah, because it seems to me that like right now to be healthy in this country, it takes a lot of intentionality and a lot of discipline. Yeah. But the goal should be to create an environment where the convenient and affordable option just happens to be a healthy option as well. Yeah. That's going to take a little effort because we subsidize the crap and that's the problem. We make it artificially cheap and the Rockefeller Foundation came up with a report a few years ago called the true cost of food and they basically say for every dollar we spend on food at the checkout counter it costs $3 to society in terms of chronic disease and environmental degradation. You know, all the, we call externalities, they're not really externalities.

If you eat crap, you're going to get sick. It's not, we call it side effects if we don't like it in a drug, but it's not a side effect. It's just the effect we don't like. And so I think they're, the cat's out of the bag. People are awake now. People are talking about it. Politicians are talking about it. Congressmen, senators, you know, the White House, all the agencies.

It's kind of stunning to see I've been working at this for decades and I've been screaming about this forever. I mean, I wrote, you know, 15 years ago, almost in my book, The Bloodshare Association about the toxic triad of big food, big ag, and big pharma, and how they're, you know, co-opting our health and undermining, you know, the environment and everything you could possibly think of. And I wrote a book called Food Fix about this, and I'm coming out with the new version. It's updated called Food Fix uncensored.

Okay. About an updated kind of taking out what's happening. But this whole Omega-6 thing is sort of, I think, and the C-Dol thing got, kind of steam somehow and it's I think a little bit misguided I think you know for people listening that all the sciencey stuff that Simon I've been talking about the bottom line is try to eat your sources from whole foods don't get these oils in a processed food and have plenty of omega-3s and you'll be okay yeah do your lab work because if you're if you're super sensitive to saturated fat more than the next person and you get your lab work done and the lab work done and the lab

lab work includes APOB, which a lot of tests don't, but now you can get that, you can order that in some places. If it's high, then reducing saturated fat for more polyunsaturated fats for you as an individual might be even more meaningful. But only you will know that by doing the testing. That's right. There are now companies that do lipid genetics. I did mine because I have a genetic lipid disorder. I had most of my grandfather's brothers and sisters. I was like I think nine of them all had heart attacks or bypasses in their 50s. and he was a laborer, so he actually did a lot of physical activity and walked every night after dinner, so he didn't start to get it until he was later in his 70s, but they all were in their 50s. And so I have genetic lipid disorder that makes me hyperabsorbed cholesterol, that, you know, affects my triglycerides, that affects different biological parameters. So it's interesting to look at your genetics too.

And all right, so that's the bottom line, not so much the boogeyman, but, you know, one last point I want to talk about with this is what a lot of people talk about, which is the idea that they're processed in a way that's bad. So they're extracted from soybeans, for example, with hexane, which is a toxin. They're sprayed with glyphosate, round up. They're deodorized, they're bleached, and they're chemically highly altered, and they can be easily oxidized. And so this is kind of a theoretical reason they should be bad. But I haven't seen an updated to kind of prove that that's concerning. Or maybe we haven't actually learned about it yet.

The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence, right? True. So I agree with you in that I think all of those things are worth looking into. But what I would say is what should our current hypothesis be? And the way that I think about this is the food that we eat affects. a myriad of pathways in our body. We know that. It could affect blood pressure. It could affect blood lipids. It could affect oxidative stress. Could affect blood glucose control. And then thousands of others that we probably haven't even identified. And so we can speculate on individual

mechanisms. Like maybe this is oxidized or contains hexane and maybe that increases risk of something. What matters is the net effect of that food on all of the pathways. So all the different ways it's interacting when you consume it. And how do we measure that? Well, it's the end health outcome. Yeah. And when I look at the linoleic acid seed oil consumption data, again, coming back to red blood cell content and also adipose tissue, they have people with higher linoleic acid in their tissue have lower risk of heart disease, cancer mortality, and total mortality. So while there could be individual constituents in seed oil that are harmful, the net effect seems to be positive.

And that's what it seems like. Even despite my protests, it seems like that's true. And can I just say I not only empathize, I understand the logic behind, hey, look at how this is manufactured and what goes into it. I completely understand that. And all I'm saying is that what challenges me on that is looking at the data of these health outcomes. particularly at tissue levels, and I find that data really hard to argue with. So I can kind of, I can see all opinions and views and empathize with all of them here. Now I want to sort of zoom out another big topic because, you know, we went through the era of low fat.

Then recently we've gone through this era of keto and low carb. And there's only one macronutrient left. There's carbs, there's fat, and there's protein. And we're going to argue about all of them, aren't we? That's a community. So protein is the latest darling of the nutrition world. And now everywhere you go, you're like protein this, protein that, protein bars, protein shakes, protein sticks, protein. And it's like, wow, okay, somehow everybody's sticking protein everything.

Is that good, is that bad? And what do we know about protein and what should we be thinking about it? Because I think, you know, there's a whole conversation going on that we should be eating two or even three times sometimes what is. It's the RDA recommendation for protein. And there's controversy about whether plant protein is as good as animal protein and what that does to muscle as we age. And this is an area of expertise for you. So now we covered the CETO thing.

I want to kind of get into the protein thing. Yeah. And then dive right in. That's good. Difficult subjects, which is why I like talking to. Yeah. And these things are interconnected in some ways, which is what I realized. So I began my career as a physiotherapist.

And I was splitting my time up between working. I was very lucky to get a job working with professional athletes in Melbourne and Australia, but it was on the provision that I would also work out in a community center, a completely different demographic, less affluent, not on private health insurance, a lot of chronic disease, a lot of chronic back pain. And it didn't take long for me to notice that a lot of folks with chronic back pain who were also overweight were coming in with fatty liver disease, diabetes, They were under-muscled, and these things are very, very related.

If you're over-fat or underline or both, both. And what we're seeing is increasingly we're seeing both. We're seeing over-nutrition, and we see increased body fatness, coupled with sarcopenia, loss of muscle size and function and quality. I would say excess calories, not over-nutrition, because, you know, if you get nutrition, I think of it as food, and I often said this, but if you actually look up the definition of food in various, you know, places, it's somewhat worded differently. but the essence of it is food is something that supports the health and growth and development of an organism. And by definition, ultra-processed food technically isn't actually even food. So excess calories and still malnourished just in another way.

Yeah, and I'm very vitamin deficient. Right. So I was observing that these things are interconnected. And what we see is from the age of about 30 onwards, we see a reduction in muscle mass, about half to kind of 1% per year. And then by the age of 50, that can ramp up so you can be losing 1 to 2% of your muscle mass per year, right? So you could be losing 10, 14% of your muscle mass per decade after the age of 50. From age 50, you're losing more strength per year than you are muscle mass, which is also really important, strength and power.

And we can maybe come back to that. Yeah, because that only you'll understand the difference between muscle mass and strength and power. And there is an association, but you're actually losing more strength relative to the amount of muscle that you're losing as you age and power, which becomes really, really important when we look at risk of falls. Let's come back to that. Primarily, if we're trying to maintain and build muscle mass throughout our adult life and maintain the quality and function of that muscle mass, it comes down to the movement that we're doing or not doing and our nutrition, which is where protein becomes really important, among other things. Right. And from a,

a if we were to look at this this is like our society right now like what is driving a lot of the psychopenia I think protein is important to a degree the average protein intake is it about 1.2 grams per kilogram at the moment in in America which could be a little bit further optimized but what's really the problem is the sedentary lifestyle and the lack of the stimulus yeah if you don't use it you you lose it and I Unfortunately, what happens is that when you're not stimulating the muscle, the kind of motor units, the nerves that go into the muscle that innovate them, that allow us to contract, to control, they die off.

And so something that I think is often not appreciated is that as we're aging, we're not just losing muscle mass, but the quality, we're losing quality muscle. And we get a shift from type 2 kind of fast switch fibers. And the fast switch, fast switch means fast to fatigue. But we can produce power really quickly, produce force really quickly. A hundred year a dash. Right. And react really quickly.

Whereas the slow twitch are more slower to fatigue, more endurance kind of muscle fibers. And as we age, we get this reduction in the fast switch and relative increase in slow twitch. and that is what leads to us having less power and being more at risk of falls because when you fall and you have to catch yourself you have to produce force really quickly through the knee through the hip and this is critical and it comes back. Because they're just falling over like a building and the tree in the fore, boom, you know, like that's what kills people. In order for us to combat this and we see this, Mark, if you look at master's athletes,

there's some studies. I mean older athletes. Older athletes, right? So athletes that are in their 50s, 60, 70s, you know, sometimes at early 80s that have been physically active throughout their life, they can attenuate a lot of that muscle loss. So this is not just a normal part of aging, right? It is from living a sedentary lifestyle and not having that stimulus there. You know, I was, I was sick this year and I had back surgery and long story short,

I had an infection in my back. I was in bed for six weeks. I lost 20 pounds of muscle because I didn't have much fat on me to start with. That was about 10, 12% body fat. And I was scared because I was 65. And I didn't know if I could actually gain the weight back. But being very disciplined about my protein intake, the quality of the protein, and being in the gym every day with a physical therapist and trainer,

I gained back 25 pounds of muscle. And I was like, wow, at 65, like I'm sort of sure. shock because I was like, I'm just going to be a frail old man after this thing. And I was like, if you actually give the right inputs to the body, even when you're older. It wants to adapt. So what we understand is that the age-related muscle loss that we've kind of normalized in society because it's so pervasive and we see it, it's actually not normal. Yeah. And we can, we can intervene and we have a lot more say. And the earlier we intervene, the better. But it's also never too late, like you just said. But you know what's so crazy, Simon, is that,

I'm a doctor and I never learned how to evaluate sarcopenia. Then I went to work at Kenya Ranch in 1996 and they had a Dexon machine and it was the first time I'd seen actually a body composition scan or knew really what it was about or learned about it or understood the difference between visceral fat or belly fat and your butt fat or your android or gynequin fat levels and I was like seeing these things and I'm just sort of like, wow, this is like a black hole in medicine and there's some interesting now biological tests like blood work that you can get that helps indicate sarcopenia that are derivative calculations from other biomarkers. And so those are things going to be added to function. We just added Ezra,

which is a scanning company, and you can do an MRI body composition, which is extremely accurate. And you can find out what's going on. But you've got to measure your muscle mass and your body fat. Because if you don't have a good sense of what that is, you're kind of flying blind. And I think it's really motivating to measure and then to intervene and see these science-based interventions really work to see the improvement and know that you are moving in the right direction or if they're not working to know that you you get to iterate and change what you're doing. But the two most important things there to combat this loss of muscle function and quality is a, the training we're doing. So having resistance training in place and also ideally

having some type of power training like plyometric like box jumps or squat jumps or skater kind of lateral bounds, that type of movement. What else can we throw in there? We can throw in kind of broad jumps, burpees, if you can do them. And even if you can run, like earlier in life, sprinting is a great power movement, which will help you maintain, preserve, look after all of those fast switch motor units, which is really important. And then when it comes to our diet protein is super important.

And as you said, this has been heavily debated. So how much do we need? What source is best? And then I'd say kind of below those two is like, does the timing matter? And over the last 10 years, we've had an abundance of research that's helped us, I think, piece this together with much more confidence. Although, you know, in science, we always have to have a degree of humility and understand we don't know everything yet. So there still are some things to learn. But overall, when it comes to, and I've changed my view on this over the years,

but when it comes to the outcomes of muscle mass and strength, it looks like you want to be consuming at least 1.2 to 1.6 grams of protein per kilogram. And currently the RDA, which is 0.8, is low. And can you explain how they come up with that? What is 0.8? They do these nitrogen balance studies. and they were done a long, long time ago. But I'd say just at a very high level to explain

that those studies are more looking at a requirement of protein. Like preventing protein deficient? Not an optimization of protein. These are two different things. So how much you need to be a healthy 75-year-old versus how much you need so you don't get protein malnutrition, right? Which is not... Yeah, so I mentioned before that after the age of 50,

you could be losing 1 or 2% of your muscle mass per year. Yeah. Those studies done back in the day, they were not looking at how do you attenuate that? How do you slow that down? So I just want to make that abundantly clear. The research suggests that you need a little bit more protein than the RDA at 0.8 if you want to do that. Trust me when I say that I've tried a lot of supplements over the years, but there are just a few that I cannot travel without. And one of them is mitopure by timeline.

It contains urolithin A, a powerful compound that supports your mitochondria. the tiny power plants in your cells that drive energy, metabolism, and healthy aging. I take it as part of my young forever longevity shake. Why? Because it helps clear out old dysfunctional mitochondria and helps your body build new, more efficient ones. That means better energy, better muscle function, better brain health, all the things that start to slow down as we age. And now timeline has made it even easier to take with sugar-free strawberry gummies. Two a day gives you the full, clinically effective dose. They taste great and they're part of my daily routine. No skipping.

Timeline is offering my listeners a special discount. Just go to Timeline.com slash DR. Hyman and give your cells the support they deserve. As a functional medicine doctor, I know skin health is often a reflection of what's going on inside, like inflammation, gut issues, or oxidative stress. That's why I use and recommend Sun Goddess Macha from Peak because it works from the inside out. This isn't your average matcha. Sun Goddess Macha is a clean, organic, ceremonial grade matcha, rich in EGCG, one of the most powerful antioxidants for supporting skin clarity, gut health,

health and inflammation response. Since it's made from whole ground tea leaves, one cup is like drinking 10 cups of regular green tea. It's also shaded longer to increase L-theonine and chlorophyll, which help deliver calm, focused energy, and support natural detoxification. Peak only uses the highest quality ingredients so you get unmatched purity and peace of mind with every sip. Sun Goddess Machia is smooth, creamy, and has a naturally sweet, umami flavor. I drink it every morning, and it's become a foundational part of my skin and wellness routine. Peak also offers a powerful combination called the Radiant Skin Duo, Sun Goddess Macha, paired with their BT fountain drink for added skin benefits

and deeper cellular support. Right now, you'll get up to 20% off for life, plus a free frother and glass beaker at peaklife.com slash hymen. That's P-I-Q-U-E-Life.com slash hymen. Try it risk-free with their 90-day guarantee. Yeah, I mean, it's interesting to how much protein. out there was that yesterday I went to workout at equinox and I did a pretty hard workout and then I went down and they had a little smoothie bar and they had a weight protein smoothie with all this healthy stuff and it was like 54 grams of protein and I was like wow and then when I do my calculation based on the point eight it's I need 67 for the whole day so the question is how much should I be really getting at a 65 year old guy to not just not lose muscle but actually to build muscle and you're saying it's more like 1.2 to 1.6 or yeah when you look at there's a beautiful study you that looked at strength and protein intake at two different contexts.

So one was looking at as you dial up protein in the context of someone who's doing a resistance training. And then the other is if you dial up protein and they're sedentary, what happens to strength? What you see is increasing protein without resistance training? Doesn't do anything. Basically does nothing. Yeah, it's like putting the ingredients for soup in a pot but not having on the heat. Right.

So, and if you, like 80 or 90 percent, I think of the U.S. population. and not meeting the resistance training guidelines. So that's like the number one thing. I think that's generous. Yeah, that could be generous, but that's like the number one thing to address. Let's make that clear. And you mean resistance meaning strength training.

Yes. And ideally, I think in the, you know, there's a lot of debate around what's the best rep range. Personally, I think that that 8 to 12 rep range is a good rep range because it's not, the load's not too heavy where you increase risk of injury for people where the load's super heavy in that kind of four rep range, where you need to be a much more experienced lifter to avoid injury.

Also, at the 8 to 12, you get the added benefit of loading the skeleton. So you get the bone mineral density benefits that you don't get as much if you're doing a lightweight and doing 30 reps. So I do like the 8 to 12 as a general kind of heuristic, particularly for healthy age. I mean 8 to 12 to fatigue where like the 12th one, it's like you can't do one more. Yeah, and that's a great point. So it's you should be within an effective set. If you're doing 12 reps of a five-pound weight, that's not... Yeah, so an effective set of 8 to 12 would be that those last two reps are within failure.

You're getting a couple reps within failure, right? So if you were to continue the set, you would only be able to maybe lift it one or two more times and you'd be losing form. Yeah, right. Is a good way of kind of looking at that. And in terms of an intensity, you might describe that as like an 8 out of 10 in terms of intensity of 10 is all out, right? But in this study, the, if you look at the context of resistance training and strength as you dial up protein, most of the benefit is driven once you get to 1.2.

There is a little bit further getting going from 1.2 to 1.6 grams. It's kind of like squeezing the last few drops out of the towel, right? So in terms of our priorities, number one is have regular resistance training in place. Ideally, each muscle group in your body, the main muscle groups, you're getting at least 10 effective sets in a week in the way that we just described is a minimum kind of stimulus to promote strength and what are like three times a week yeah you could split that easily across three workouts and when I say muscle groups a simple way would be thinking of movement patterns so 10 10 kind of pushing which could be overhead or horizontal pushing 10 sets of pulling

in the two different planes yeah and then obviously lower body. You're going to have, you know, 10 sets of like some type of squatting pattern, 10 sets of some type of hinging pattern, like a deadlift, but over a week. And if you split that across three workouts with a personal trainer, you can split that up. And that's a, that's enough volume to promote muscle hypertrophy growth and also strength. And then depending on how much time you want to invest in this, you can build that up to 20 sets per muscle group if you have enough time. And you'll get some extra benefits. Well, I find interesting that I asked you about protein, we end up talking about string training.

I think that's really important. And it's intentional because we spend so much time talking about protein. And honestly, the studies show that existing protein intake is already at a level where people would be building and maintaining a lot of muscle if they just added the stimulus. Now we get into like the actual protein source and there's so much debate around the source of that, particularly animal versus plant protein, which is more anabolic. And this is where my views have changed a little bit over the years. And even in the last 12 months, there's been a couple of clinical trials, Hamilton Rochelle

out of Brazil and then Alastair Montaigne and his group with Benjamin Wall that have actually looked at comparing omnivorous diets to vegan diets where all of the protein comes from plants. And these are novel studies because most of the studies kind of 10, 15 years ago, just looked at the addition of like a pea protein versus way, but in the background of an omnivorous diet, which is not really helping us fully answer this question. So these diets are interesting because you look at a completely plant-based diet where all the protein comes from plants versus an omnivorous diet where about 60% of the proteins from animal. And in these two studies, they go for 10 and 12 weeks long, where they're doing resistance training in healthy adults,

and they put the protein intake at 1.6 grams per kilo or in an, Alice to Montaines, it was more about two grams per kilo, which is pretty high. You do not see a difference in muscle size or strength gains throughout that 10 to 12 week period. Regardless of animal or plant. Regardless of the two diets. And that, I definitely think that challenged a lot of the protein research world and a lot of the main researchers like Stuart Phillips came out and Alan Aragon changing their views on these things. And really the consensus view from that was that if protein is high enough. So not at the RDA. Point A, that's very low. Yeah, yeah. But if protein's high enough and you're up at this 1.6 grams per kilogram, then the subtle differences that

exist between the amino acid makeup of plant proteins and animal proteins doesn't seem to affect the health outcomes that we care about. So yes, we can drill down and look under a microscope at the difference between these proteins and come up with the digestibility score and all these things but when when you actually feed people these foods at a high protein intake and measure these outcomes that we care about there's no difference and that's what most people listening to this right now that's what they really care about is the strength and the hypertrophy it's not an amino acid score on paper when i started researching this because when i wrote my book young forever i started really looking at this and and i looked at this one large review by a group called

the protege study group, which looked at protein requirements and people over 60. Because when you're older, there's something called anabolic resistance, meaning you have to work harder to actually build muscle, and then you would have if you were 20. And that has to do with hormonal changes and other factors. And they said the recommendation was 1.5 to 2 grams per kilo. And they also said that that animal works better than plant. And they also said that you should have at least 25 to 40 grams per meal in order to hit that threshold of actually activating that are switching on muscles, protein synthesis or building muscle. Can you speak to that?

Because I think, you know, when I read it, I was like, oh, this seems like a bunch of experts who know what you're talking about. And it seems like a pretty well done review of the literature. The only two clinical trials that I'm aware of, and I look at this data all the time, closely so I don't believe there's any others that have looked at comparing plant protein to animal protein at those levels that you just mentioned, 1.5 to 2 grams and looking at muscle size and strength of the two studies that I mentioned

where they showed no difference. Where I think those conclusions in that paper are probably coming from are that when you look at feeding studies in the context of low protein diets, where total protein across the day is not where we would say is optimal. animal protein does seem to be superior and seems to be more anabolic

and probably because of the amino acid makeup. And that's where I think the digestible, indispensable amino acid score, the DS kind of scoring profile that's often used, that's where I think that that tool was really developed for parts of the world where there is food insecurity. And you may be getting all of your protein from one or two sources of food.

And when you're doing that in your, under-consuming protein, it's very hard to create an argument that plant protein is equal or superior to animal protein because the animal protein has a better amino acid complex if you're under-consuming protein, particularly from one food. That's kind of undeniable. But even as recent as this year, and Luke Van Loon published a study, who's a big protein researcher, and this study was funded by Beef Chekhov. So if anything, if anything they wanted animal protein.

funded by the industry. I don't necessarily think that that immediately means this is a bad study. I think Luke Van Loon does incredible studies in science and is a great scientist. But if anything, at least the hypothesis from this group was that animal protein should come out superior. And usually that's why the industry would like to support it. What they found, and this was in elderly, who, you know, again, as you mentioned, there is anabolic resistance. So we would think that if anyone is really going to benefit from animal protein over plant protein, and maybe you don't see it in healthy middle-aged adults,

but maybe it becomes more important as you get older. And this is where my view has changed a bit. They had protein intake at 1.1 to 1.2 grams per kilogram, and they were using elderly healthy adults that were active and looking at daily muscle protein synthesis rates and no significant difference between an omnivorous diet and a vegan diet, which kind of challenged their group's hypothesis.

Now, where I'll say the gap is, and we have to acknowledge this, that's a nine to 10 day study. The next step is to take elderly and run like the studies I mentioned before that go for 10, 12 weeks, maybe 16 weeks, and actually measure muscle size and function. So look at strength and these things that power, these things that we care about that we're talking about earlier, and just confirm that, okay, what we're seeing in terms of a mechanism, because I would be really contradicting myself to what I said earlier. Muscle protein synthesis is a mechanism, right? That's one mechanism. And we see in a nine to 10 days no difference. What's the actual effect on health outcome that we care about the net effect? And in order to assess that, you need a longer study.

Yeah, yeah. So that's a watch this space for me in terms of stay open-minded. It could be that there's no difference in elderly at 1.1 to 1.2 grams per kilo. It could be that there is. What was the forms of protein they were using? Because when you think about, you know, whole food protein, Right. A little pork on chicken breast has got about 120 calories, 30 grams of protein. But to get 30 grams of protein in beans, with like black beans or whatever, that's about 500 calories.

So you're having almost, you know, five times. A little less, but it's like 300 and something. Three, four, five times, whatever. It's still, it's a lot more calories. So in order to consume enough protein, are you consuming too many calories? And if you're not, does it mean the only way can get there is using concentrated plant proteins that are processed. I think a lot of these studies, and I think if you were to go out and look in like a plant-based community of people that are eating moderate-to-high protein, legumes like black beans and lentils are not a go-to source because of that reason.

There are sort of supplementary food on the side that offers some protein and some carbohydrates, but the more protein-dense kind of foods would be tofu, tempe, satan for people that can tolerate gluten, microprolete is like a big one that's now starting. to become very popular, which is they're actually not plant basis derived from fungi and is incredibly rich in protein and fiber and iron. So you'll start to see more of that. And that was actually used in the Alistamontaine trial. They used a fair bolus of that. And in the other one, the Hamilton Rochelle trial that I mentioned, the healthy adults, they, in the omnivorous group, they use weight protein to supplement their whole food. And in the vegan group, they used a soy

protein isolate to supplement their food but the same amount of of protein powder not but they didn't add extra amino acids or anything so they didn't do any fortification of lucene or anything like that which is interesting because you might hypothesize that you would need to do that yeah but what you're what we're seeing is that again once you're up to 1.1 to 1.2 at least in those short term studies and then 1.6 in those longer term studies that at those level that level of protein intake we're not seeing a difference between the anabolic kind of potential of the animal protein and the plant protein. Alan Aragon actually beautifully walked through this on Huberman show

like a few weeks ago. Oh, really? Yeah. And it's challenging. I get it. Like, Mark, I was one of the biggest meat eaters, honestly, that in my friendship group. I was the dude who was organizing all the steakhouse business. It's the only place I would ever want to eat.

And so I understand that because I think the strongest argument for animal protein over the last 10 or 15 years has been that it's better for muscle related outcomes because to be honest the research is looking at more chronic disease it tends to favor plant protein right because of you get the added bone

benefit of increasing fiber and phytochemicals and probably a healthier fat profile now we're in this position where I think it is challenging because a lot of our society loves to eat meat and that's fine I think meat can be part of a healthy diet

but also as scientists and people that want to be objective, we have to stay open-minded to what these studies are showing us. And like I said, I'm prepared to be wrong or to change my view if they do a 12-week study and show that people eating the animal protein, the elderly had better strength and hypertrophy. Those are all the studies I've seen. It typically shows the opposite. And so I would like to see those studies replicated because they're interesting.

thing, but then does it comport with all the other data? And I think when you're looking at any kind of scientific question, you've got to look at not just one study, but how does it fit in the context of the overall literature from basic science to observational data to randomize trials and, you know, what are the quality of the studies? What is the methodology? How are they power? I mean, it's complicated. Even as a doctor or scientist, like it's hard to figure these answers out. And we might even have the right studies to answer the question. That's the other problem and that that is where though that the longer term health outcome studies become really important because yes like the studies that you're referring to they they exist but what's the

background diet are they actually optimized their overall protein intake for the day or are they at a low protein intake where i think it's pretty established the animal protein is probably going to be superior in that context what's really interesting to me that i think also is changing the way I look at that protein is the distribution question. So I think for a long time... When you eat it throughout the day? Yeah, for a long time, it was thought that having, you know, 25, 30 grams and spacing it out into all these different meals throughout the day is definitely the superior

strategy. And at least what's being borne out in the data now, and one of those studies that I mentioned there, the Nicholas Bird study, not only compared it vegan to omnivorous, looking at muscle protein synthesis, but looked at two different distributions, uneven and even. So they looked at one where they had five meals across the day, even distribution, and then the other was uneven. So they only had 10% of protein at breakfast, 30% at lunch, and 60% of dinner. And the reason they did that is that that tends to reflect protein intake in America. And so they were like, they were interested in, okay, is there a difference between animal and plant, but also maybe there is a difference,

but you only see it in an uneven distribution. And they didn't see it. And in fact, across both groups, even comparing to the same group, there was no difference in daily muscle protein synthesis rates, even in an uneven distribution. And so I think if you were to get really into the weeds, distribution might matter, but it matters far less than the total amount of protein that you eat in a day. My understanding was that it mattered more

for those who were not adapted to strength training. So if your muscles are already sort of kind of on and you're used to string training and used to building muscle, that it doesn't matter as much when you distribute your protein. But if you're not, it matters more. Is that true? I haven't seen that, but I mean, it's interesting. I'd love to read about it if I'd send me a study.

That was some of the proteaged work, but it was fasting. Okay, so we need basically more protein, especially as we age than the RDA, which is how much you need to not become protein deficient, which is not really a big problem. you know, you can get there with plant proteins, but you need to have some type of supplementary protein that's concentrated because that's what worries me. Like you can get, you don't have to have weight protein if you're eating animals, right, in order to get enough protein. But do you have to eat a processed pea protein or a processed soy protein, which may have other consequences to get the adequate amount of protein? Or can you get it by eating beans and grains and nuts and

You could get it if you were eating enough tofu and tempe and satan and microproteen and these kind of some of these more novel types of plant-based or fungi-based protein. But I would say I think a lot of people that are eating an omnivorous diet are definitely supplementing with a weight protein. I think it's pretty common. And I don't necessarily think it's a bad, it's a bad choice even if it's a way protein or a P protein, if particularly now, if it's like NSF certified, you know that there's third party testing. It's tested for heavy metal contaminants. It's tested for banned substances

and what they say is in it on the label is actually in it. I think if you can go through that kind of process and find a protein that ticks those boxes, it can be a very convenient way for someone to increase their protein intake, particularly as people are aging off in their appetite goes down. So I don't want, I don't want to necessarily scare people from supplementing their diet with protein powder. But I think it needs to be, it's, it's complementing and supplementing a diet like we spoke about before. Yeah, yeah. Right. If you're eating an ultra-processed style diet for that's bad. And you're going out of your way to buy high-protein ultra-processed foods. Yeah. That's, that's, to me, that's not optimization. Even there's mostly protein bars. I look

And they go, ooh, that's like the most processed crap. I would never eat that. And to be honest, back to the coconut thing that I mentioned earlier. So I'm training for a marathon right now. And one of the, I don't know if consequences is the right word, but one of the realities of that is I have to increase my calorie consumption by quite a bit in order to fuel my training. And so one of those, the changes that I made was to add this coconut yogurt.

And the reason, and this shows like how all of us can be kind of fall victim to the high protein messaging. Yeah, yeah, yeah. The reason was I chose a high-protein coconut yoga, and I just didn't, that, and then cooking with coconut oil, I didn't realize how much saturated fats were coming along for the ride in that coconut yoga with the acerams of protein. Right. And so for me, that was not an optimal way to increase my protein content. It's interesting.

You know, I remember hearing a lecture when the Institute for Functional Medicine conferences 20 years ago and really stuck with me. and it was a researcher from the NIH who was studying soy because, you know, we were here, soy's bad, it's like estrogen, it's going to give you breasts and blah, blah, blah. And it does maybe cause cancer. And if you talk to most oncologists who take care of people with breast cancer, they tell people not eat soy foods, which is the stupidest thing I've ever heard.

They said, eat ice cream, but don't eat soy foods, you know. It's not actually like that. There's more like a regulator, like a sort of modulates hormone, not stimulates it. but what he said was really interesting was when they studied in animal models giving isolated soy protein which is what or was done in these protein studies versus whole soy foods they're profoundly different effects particularly on cancer and that the basically soybean protein that comes from you know as a byproduct of making

soybean oil is is kind of a waste product and it's turned into these soy protein shakes or soy protein bars or soy protein whatever and that that hydrolyzed soy protein is chemically different than soy protein and linked to these cancer outcomes in animal model. So that makes me a little worried about that. Yeah, you don't have to consume soy protein isolate. Way protein is also a bit of a waste product as well from the dairy industry. So they're kind of similar in that. Curds and Way. It's like, you know, Little Miss Muffet. It's a yogurt is the curds and the way is the little But you don't have to consume soy protein isolate. There are other forms of plant-based proteins.

And I think on the soy kind of cancer relationship, I mean, the guidelines now certainly are not telling people to avoid soy foods for preventing cancer or whether they have cancer. But they do say, and I think this is important for people to know, not to take soy isoflebone supplements, which have become. relatively popular. You'll find them all over the internet. So having that very isolated high dose of isoflavones, there is no evidence right now to recommend that for people. And it could be deleterious for someone who has cancer. So I think that's worth kind of differentiating. But soy whole foods

themselves, we see a neutral or a positive relationship for at least for risk of cancer. And You know, if you look at certain Asian cohort studies, they have a lower risk of breast cancer in the parts of the world where they consume the most whole soy foods. But I guess the point being there is like if you don't want to consume a soy protein isolate, there's all these other options now. Yeah. And come back to like, is it NSF certified, third party tested and just find a good one that doesn't have a lot of ingredients. Yeah. Fascinating. Well, you know, this has been such an incredible conversation.

I think, you know, you can tell from the listing of this that, The science is really hard to navigate through, even for people who spend their lives like you and I try to think about it and be honest about it because it's constantly shifting. And there's always a boogeyman and nutrition. And there's always the darling of nutrition. And right now, C-Daws are the boogeyman and protein is the darling. I mean, I cover, I think we cover those pretty well. I think hopefully you understand after listening to this, what is the bottom line. So maybe you kind of summarize the bottom line for people.

like what should they do what should they be eating and if you want to go home and and after listening this podcast you know do the right thing for you when it comes to fats and protein what would you tell people i would honestly start looking at the mediterranean dietary pattern or even the nordic diet like the danish dietary guidelines these are dietary patterns where the focus is on whole foods yeah there there there is a compared to a standard american diet there's less ultra-processed foods. There's more fiber. There's more omega-3s, fatty fish. There's more emphasis on dark leafy greens. And if you're going to consume grains, whole grains, nuts and seeds. And from there, now you have a basis. And like I said earlier, you can tweak that to suit your

needs. Are you an athlete and want to go higher carb? Or do you want to go more down the low carb direction and go higher fat. But the bias for the fats there is going to be from fatty fish and avocado and macadamies and nuts and seeds and olive oil. So you're going to have a lot of these mono-unsaturated and polyunsaturated fats. It's a little bit different to how you might see an animal-based diet online sometimes now. Within the context of that, be protein aware. You might want to, for a week, just log your food, which I don't think is about exercise because a lot of people are not really sure how much protein is in their food. at all and just see where you land, are you at least 1.2 grams per kilogram within that context

of that theme. And if you're doing that, you're ticking a lot of boxes. And I think sometimes we can go into all these rabbit holes and people get paralyzed and make no change. So I'd say start there. Get all of that in play. And it's not like Michael Pong. Eat food, not too much mostly plants. But it works. And here's the thing. And food, meaning. Real food. Real food. But Mark, it only works if we are consistent with it and imperfect. If we try and get this thing perfect and we go and do it for a couple weeks,

that's not going to make a dint in our chronic disease risk. So have some grace for yourself, right? Try and get as much of that into play as possible. Find a way that leaves you feeling good today. And you're achieving whatever goals it is you have supplement it, complement it with resistance training. we didn't even get into the other forms but the plyometric kind of power work aerobic training get all the other aspects of you know health in play like good relationships yeah pretty basic

stuff all these things that and anything that I've put forward I'm I'm of the view that if someone presents me with a good scientific argument they show me how they're thinking and it is more logical than the position that I've found myself in I will change so if there's something that I've stated that someone thinks, hang on, I disagree with that. If you show me your thinking, I'm going to take a look at that. Yeah. And I'm prepared to change my views. Yeah, fascinating.

Okay, so Dr. J. Batacharya calls you up, the head of the NIH right now, the National Institute of Health. He says, Simon, I know nutrition is a big question. What are the most important unanswered questions in nutrition today that we should spend the government's money figuring out? What would you tell them? I think we should spend the government's money figuring out how to change the food landscape, the environment. I think we actually know enough.

And we know enough. We don't know everything, but we know enough to help people get into their 50s, 60s and 70s without these sky high rates of chronic disease. And so I don't want the government to not act thinking that we need a whole lot more information. Sure, we need some funding to learn things on the periphery and get a little clearer here and there. But I would spend the money on understanding what is it going to take to create new environments. That's not an NIH question. That's more of a, well, actually, not really true because I've been talking to folks and the government, and there's a new initiative, which is the FDA and NIH initiative around regulatory science,

nutrition science, meaning what regulations and legislations require to actually fix food, America. That's where I'd be pouring the money. That's happening. That's happening. That's good. All right. It's good answer. It's good to chat with you as always. I hope everybody listening had a little bit of awakening around some of these very sticky, confusing and messy topics and hopefully brought some clarity to them and helped you navigate just how to eat in a way that's going to help you thrive instead of make you sick. So thanks, I mean. This is fun. I appreciate it. If you love this podcast, please share it with someone else you think would also enjoy it. You can find me on all social media channels at Dr. Mark Hyman.

Please reach out. I'd love to hear your comments and questions. Don't forget to rate, review, and subscribe to the Dr. Hyman show wherever you get your podcasts. And don't forget to check out my YouTube channel at Dr. Mark Hyman for video versions of this podcast and more. Thank you so much again for tuning in. We'll see you next time on the Dr. Hyman Show. This podcast is separate from my clinical practice at the Ultra Wellness Center, my work

at Cleveland Clinic and Function Health, where I am chief medical officer. This podcast represents my opinions and my guest's opinions. myself nor the podcast endorses the views or statements of my guests. This podcast is for educational purposes only and is not a substitute for professional care by a doctor or other qualified medical professional. This podcast is provided with the understanding that it does not constitute medical or other professional advice or services. If you're looking for help in your journey, please seek out a qualified medical practitioner.

And if you're looking for a functional medicine practitioner, visit my clinic, the ultra-wellness center at ultra-wellnesscenter.com and request to become a patient. It's important to have someone in your corner who is a trained, licensed health care practitioner and can help you make changes, especially when it comes to your health. This podcast is free as part of my mission to bring practical ways of improving health to the public, so I'd like to express gratitude to sponsors that made today's podcast possible. Thanks so much again for listening.