Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

Go Home

Dr. Benjamin Bikman drops a truth bomb that shatters the “exercise fixes everything” myth: “You can’t out-exercise a bad diet.” In this 48-second clip, he shares a study on overweight type 2 diabetics: - Group 1: Vigorous, coached, high-intensity exercise multiple times a week - Group 2: Just a...

newstart_2024's profile picture

Camus

429,289 subscribers

47,416 views • 7 months ago •via X (Twitter)

Health & WellnessEducationScience & Technology
LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Comments

No comments available

Comments from the original post will appear here

Related Videos

I'm 8 minutes into a 'documentary' on Netlfix called "What the Health" where the documentary film maker is interviewing a doctor who says the following: Kip the documentary filmmaker: "What role does sugar play in causing diabetes? Dr. Neal Barnard, M.D.: "Driving me crazy. Diabetes is not and never was caused by eating a high carbohydrate diet, and it's not caused by eating sugar. The causes of diabetes is a diet that builds up the amount of **fat** into the blood. I'm talking about a typical meat-based, animal-based diet." Dr. Barnard then goes on to claim its a high ANIMAL FAT diet that causes insulin resistance. The animal fat blocks the intake of sugar or glucose into the blood vessels. Or something. Watch. He actually says this. And he's not the only one. Several MD's appear here claiming metabolic syndrome, diabetes and insulin resistance is caused by animal fat in the human diet. Sugar? Not a real problem. High carb diet? That's fine. You get fat and unhealthy from an animal-based diet. What do you think about what they said? Respond in the comments.
3:37

I'm 8 minutes into a 'documentary' on Netlfix called "What the Health" where the documentary film maker is interviewing a doctor who says the following: Kip the documentary filmmaker: "What role does sugar play in causing diabetes? Dr. Neal Barnard, M.D.: "Driving me crazy. Diabetes is not and never was caused by eating a high carbohydrate diet, and it's not caused by eating sugar. The causes of diabetes is a diet that builds up the amount of **fat** into the blood. I'm talking about a typical meat-based, animal-based diet." Dr. Barnard then goes on to claim its a high ANIMAL FAT diet that causes insulin resistance. The animal fat blocks the intake of sugar or glucose into the blood vessels. Or something. Watch. He actually says this. And he's not the only one. Several MD's appear here claiming metabolic syndrome, diabetes and insulin resistance is caused by animal fat in the human diet. Sugar? Not a real problem. High carb diet? That's fine. You get fat and unhealthy from an animal-based diet. What do you think about what they said? Respond in the comments.

Brian Cates - Political Columnist & Pundit

1,846,749 views • 2 years ago

Dr. Benjamin Bikman drops a practical bombshell on fasting: Skip dinner for the biggest metabolic wins — but most people can't because it's the family/social meal. In this 6:21 clip he explains: - Fasting through dinner objectively yields greater fat loss, insulin control, and metabolic benefits than skipping breakfast (per studies). - Evening is the "witching hour" for temptations — big lunch + modest dinner keeps insulin flatlining early, while skipping dinner risks overindulging and poor sleep. - Breakfast is the easiest skip: no family dynamic upset, busy mornings, Dad can still make crepes for the kids while sipping tea. - "You can't out-exercise a bad diet" — but you can massively improve insulin sensitivity by extending low-insulin windows (e.g., big lunch, light dinner, no late snacks). - Personal rule: Big protein/fat lunch, modest dinner — avoids the "one meal a day at dinner" trap that leads to overeating and failure. His takeaway: Do the fasting window that fits your real life — consistency beats perfection. Have you found skipping breakfast or dinner works better for you (energy, hunger, weight, sleep)? What's your go-to strategy?
6:21

Dr. Benjamin Bikman drops a practical bombshell on fasting: Skip dinner for the biggest metabolic wins — but most people can't because it's the family/social meal. In this 6:21 clip he explains: - Fasting through dinner objectively yields greater fat loss, insulin control, and metabolic benefits than skipping breakfast (per studies). - Evening is the "witching hour" for temptations — big lunch + modest dinner keeps insulin flatlining early, while skipping dinner risks overindulging and poor sleep. - Breakfast is the easiest skip: no family dynamic upset, busy mornings, Dad can still make crepes for the kids while sipping tea. - "You can't out-exercise a bad diet" — but you can massively improve insulin sensitivity by extending low-insulin windows (e.g., big lunch, light dinner, no late snacks). - Personal rule: Big protein/fat lunch, modest dinner — avoids the "one meal a day at dinner" trap that leads to overeating and failure. His takeaway: Do the fasting window that fits your real life — consistency beats perfection. Have you found skipping breakfast or dinner works better for you (energy, hunger, weight, sleep)? What's your go-to strategy?

Camus

33,352 views • 7 months ago

Want to live longer? Science says: Keep insulin LOW. Dr. Benjamin Bikman on the clearest signal in aging research: - Animal studies (rodents → insects): Lower insulin = longer life (decades of consistent proof) - Human evidence: Families with exceptional longevity ALL show higher insulin sensitivity (insulin works better → stays lower) - The longer insulin stays low, the longer life tends to be 54-sec clip — one of the strongest longevity levers we have 👇 Who’s actively keeping insulin low for a longer, stronger life? Low-carb, fasting, exercise, berberine, sleep… drop your top insulin hack below
0:54

Want to live longer? Science says: Keep insulin LOW. Dr. Benjamin Bikman on the clearest signal in aging research: - Animal studies (rodents → insects): Lower insulin = longer life (decades of consistent proof) - Human evidence: Families with exceptional longevity ALL show higher insulin sensitivity (insulin works better → stays lower) - The longer insulin stays low, the longer life tends to be 54-sec clip — one of the strongest longevity levers we have 👇 Who’s actively keeping insulin low for a longer, stronger life? Low-carb, fasting, exercise, berberine, sleep… drop your top insulin hack below

Camus

27,687 views • 8 months ago

Exercise is good for our bodies, but the reasons behind why and how are still being studied. “Basically, you will extend your life if you exercise,” Dr. Euan Ashley, a professor of genomics and cardiovascular medicine at Stanford University and chair of its Department of Medicine, told Horizons host William Brangham. Ashley is a part of a massive, decade-long multi-site investigation into how and why exercise changes our bodies at the molecular level. “It turns out that just a few minutes improvement in sleep, a few minutes of exercise a day and a little improvement in your diet can add a whole year of life to your life,” he said. Horizons from PBS News, dives into the science, health, technology and environmental issues making headlines each week. Visit the PBS News website to watch this week's episode.
2:07

Exercise is good for our bodies, but the reasons behind why and how are still being studied. “Basically, you will extend your life if you exercise,” Dr. Euan Ashley, a professor of genomics and cardiovascular medicine at Stanford University and chair of its Department of Medicine, told Horizons host William Brangham. Ashley is a part of a massive, decade-long multi-site investigation into how and why exercise changes our bodies at the molecular level. “It turns out that just a few minutes improvement in sleep, a few minutes of exercise a day and a little improvement in your diet can add a whole year of life to your life,” he said. Horizons from PBS News, dives into the science, health, technology and environmental issues making headlines each week. Visit the PBS News website to watch this week's episode.

PBS News

13,941 views • 7 months ago

“Peating is not a ‘thin diet’, there are ways you can hack it” It was that moment from Alannah on Down To Health that inspired me to write my fat loss guide. 🔗 Link : In Part 1 (nutrition), I break down all the metabolic hacks: the Randle cycle, strategic refeeds, carb cycling, strategic carb timing, optimizing glucose oxidation, and more. Part 2 will focus on training and daily habits : aligning exercise and lifestyle with metabolism. And in the final part, I’ll dive into the chemistry. Dark Peating.
0:50

“Peating is not a ‘thin diet’, there are ways you can hack it” It was that moment from Alannah on Down To Health that inspired me to write my fat loss guide. 🔗 Link : In Part 1 (nutrition), I break down all the metabolic hacks: the Randle cycle, strategic refeeds, carb cycling, strategic carb timing, optimizing glucose oxidation, and more. Part 2 will focus on training and daily habits : aligning exercise and lifestyle with metabolism. And in the final part, I’ll dive into the chemistry. Dark Peating.

Jamal Dinkoui (Al-Haidut)

13,819 views • 7 months ago

📹 esquire korea buy my self with #PARKJIHOON #박지훈 q. your strict diet for was a hot topic. do you have any diet tips? 🐰 but honestly, you guys don’t need to lose weight that drastically. for me, i had to lose weight quickly within 2 to 2 and a half months, so i pushed myself in a pretty extreme way. but for MAYs and everyone watching, is there really any need to go that far? pushing your body that hard, getting super sensitive, not even wanting to leave your room and stuff like that… honestly, that’s not a good way to diet. because for me, instead of ‘eat then exercise after,’ my mindset was rather ‘just don’t eat so you don’t need to exercise’. that was basically how i did it. but wow, anyway, i really hope you all diet in a healthy way
0:44

📹 esquire korea buy my self with #PARKJIHOON #박지훈 q. your strict diet for was a hot topic. do you have any diet tips? 🐰 but honestly, you guys don’t need to lose weight that drastically. for me, i had to lose weight quickly within 2 to 2 and a half months, so i pushed myself in a pretty extreme way. but for MAYs and everyone watching, is there really any need to go that far? pushing your body that hard, getting super sensitive, not even wanting to leave your room and stuff like that… honestly, that’s not a good way to diet. because for me, instead of ‘eat then exercise after,’ my mindset was rather ‘just don’t eat so you don’t need to exercise’. that was basically how i did it. but wow, anyway, i really hope you all diet in a healthy way

₍ᐢ • ᴗ -ᐢ₎♡༘

43,161 views • 4 months ago

Exercise IS THE LONGEVITY & LIFE BIOHACK So many people only think about exercise as a way to burn calories & look leaner, but exercise is SO much more than that Exercise lowers the risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) & cancer independent of weight loss (PMIDs: 21673488, 31758975, & 32741068) Exercise improves symptoms of depression with a MASSIVE effect size of 1.7 (for reference SSRIs have an ES of about 0.5) (PMID: 37429171) Exercise improves your brain’s sensitivity to satiety signals helping with appetite control (PMIDs: 36998025 & 30131457) Exercise improves insulin sensitivity independent of weight loss (PMID: 24454364) And the dosage required to get benefits is not big at all, in fact it’s ridiculously small. Just ~4 minutes of vigorous physical activity per day decreases the risk of getting cancer by ~20% (PMID: 37498576) & 50 minutes of resistance training per week was all that was needed to decrease the risk of depression in the previously cited study It doesn’t take hours per day. You may not have hours but you’ve got 4 MINUTES! Now is the time to drastically improve your life, physical, & mental health. Get after it 👊 From my convo with Dr. John Delony on his podcast
1:00

Exercise IS THE LONGEVITY & LIFE BIOHACK So many people only think about exercise as a way to burn calories & look leaner, but exercise is SO much more than that Exercise lowers the risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) & cancer independent of weight loss (PMIDs: 21673488, 31758975, & 32741068) Exercise improves symptoms of depression with a MASSIVE effect size of 1.7 (for reference SSRIs have an ES of about 0.5) (PMID: 37429171) Exercise improves your brain’s sensitivity to satiety signals helping with appetite control (PMIDs: 36998025 & 30131457) Exercise improves insulin sensitivity independent of weight loss (PMID: 24454364) And the dosage required to get benefits is not big at all, in fact it’s ridiculously small. Just ~4 minutes of vigorous physical activity per day decreases the risk of getting cancer by ~20% (PMID: 37498576) & 50 minutes of resistance training per week was all that was needed to decrease the risk of depression in the previously cited study It doesn’t take hours per day. You may not have hours but you’ve got 4 MINUTES! Now is the time to drastically improve your life, physical, & mental health. Get after it 👊 From my convo with Dr. John Delony on his podcast

Layne Norton, PhD

30,999 views • 1 year ago

Gary Brecka drops a bombshell: The diabetes industry is $110 billion a year. Think Big Pharma is rushing to cure it? He says if you wanted a diet to guarantee type 2 diabetes, just follow the American Diabetes Association guidelines. Their recommended breakfast for type 2 diabetics? - Glass of orange juice - Oatmeal with brown sugar & honey - Yogurt with fruit on bottom → 44 grams of sugar first thing in the morning. "That's an insulin dependency diet," he calls it. This 44-sec clip is a wake-up on how standard advice might keep people hooked on meds. Do you follow ADA recs or do your own thing for blood sugar? What's your go-to breakfast to stay stable?
0:44

Gary Brecka drops a bombshell: The diabetes industry is $110 billion a year. Think Big Pharma is rushing to cure it? He says if you wanted a diet to guarantee type 2 diabetes, just follow the American Diabetes Association guidelines. Their recommended breakfast for type 2 diabetics? - Glass of orange juice - Oatmeal with brown sugar & honey - Yogurt with fruit on bottom → 44 grams of sugar first thing in the morning. "That's an insulin dependency diet," he calls it. This 44-sec clip is a wake-up on how standard advice might keep people hooked on meds. Do you follow ADA recs or do your own thing for blood sugar? What's your go-to breakfast to stay stable?

Camus

70,368 views • 8 months ago

Last night Dr David Unwin was on mainstream news talking about the benefits of reducing carbs for those living with diabetes. The results he gets are amazing. I know it can be replicated by others because I copy what he does in my own clinical practice using David Oliver, Freshwell resources (which are free btw). As a result, in 2024 forty of my patients achieved remission too. The news report featured an endocrinologist Shivani Misra who, at the 4mins 27s timestamp in the video, said: "If someone does a low carb with higher fat what does that mean for their cholesterol and their cardiovascular disease risk? We don't know the answer to this" I'm here to tell you this is a false statement. The research has been done. Let me show you: In 2020 a meta analysis looking at the effects of low carb on CVD risk found: "For total cholesterol there was no significant change in the data corresponding to low-carbohydrate diets lasting 12–23 months and over 24 months" With regards LDL the meta analysis says: "For plasma LDL, as the forest map shows, that there was no significant difference between the low-carbohydrate diet group and the control group at 6–11 months, 12–23 months, and 24 months" All other factors improved (blood pressure, triglycerides, etc) The meta analysis concluded: "In conclusion, the overall effect of a low-carbohydrate diet on cardiovascular risk factors tended to be favorable at less than 6 months and 6–11 months, but after 2 years of a low-carbohydrate diet, there was no significant effect on cardiovascular risk factors" So short term: CVD risk factors are improved, long term, things don't get worse". This mirrors what I see in clinical practice and with myself having been low carb full time since the start of 2020 - all my CVD risk markers are in the normal range. Study source: The reporter also talks about low carb as a "restrictive diet". What's more restrictive: Giving up bagels, bread, sweets and other junk IN FAVOUR OF protein, vegetables etc Or Giving up solid food entirely for a 850kcal liquid diet for months? Despite the latter being far more restrictive it has been rolled out nationally by the NHS. Nothing wrong with this as it works but so does low carb. Why not give patients a choice? The reporter also says Dr Unwins results are just because of the support he provides. Whilst support matters (a lot), this is blatant misinformation. Plenty of studies show that reducing carbs is disproportionately better for those with diabetes than low fat. Here are some: In 2023 Novo Nordisk published a randomized controlled trial comparing low carb to low fat for diabetes. They found: 🩸 Low carb led to the greatest reduction in hba1c 💉 Only the low carb group reduced medications 📉 Low carb had the greatest reduction in triglycerides + higher HDL (LDL was similar) ⚖️ Low carb group lost more weight + more fat spontaneously despite eating more calories 🩸 Systolic blood pressure was lower for low carb The low carb group non significantly raises their LDL but 0.23mmol. The researchers said: "we consider the beneficial effects of low carb to outweigh the minor increase in LDL (0.23mmol) induced by the diet. This is supported by other studies" So low carb is better and CVD risk markers overall improved. Naturally, the study was hidden behind a Paywall. Link: I can hear the skeptics now: "But Mike, this is one study, it's not enough" Ok here's a meta analysis showing that hba1c is directly proportional to the carbs eaten: This meta analysis concluded:
6:38

Last night Dr David Unwin was on mainstream news talking about the benefits of reducing carbs for those living with diabetes. The results he gets are amazing. I know it can be replicated by others because I copy what he does in my own clinical practice using David Oliver, Freshwell resources (which are free btw). As a result, in 2024 forty of my patients achieved remission too. The news report featured an endocrinologist Shivani Misra who, at the 4mins 27s timestamp in the video, said: "If someone does a low carb with higher fat what does that mean for their cholesterol and their cardiovascular disease risk? We don't know the answer to this" I'm here to tell you this is a false statement. The research has been done. Let me show you: In 2020 a meta analysis looking at the effects of low carb on CVD risk found: "For total cholesterol there was no significant change in the data corresponding to low-carbohydrate diets lasting 12–23 months and over 24 months" With regards LDL the meta analysis says: "For plasma LDL, as the forest map shows, that there was no significant difference between the low-carbohydrate diet group and the control group at 6–11 months, 12–23 months, and 24 months" All other factors improved (blood pressure, triglycerides, etc) The meta analysis concluded: "In conclusion, the overall effect of a low-carbohydrate diet on cardiovascular risk factors tended to be favorable at less than 6 months and 6–11 months, but after 2 years of a low-carbohydrate diet, there was no significant effect on cardiovascular risk factors" So short term: CVD risk factors are improved, long term, things don't get worse". This mirrors what I see in clinical practice and with myself having been low carb full time since the start of 2020 - all my CVD risk markers are in the normal range. Study source: The reporter also talks about low carb as a "restrictive diet". What's more restrictive: Giving up bagels, bread, sweets and other junk IN FAVOUR OF protein, vegetables etc Or Giving up solid food entirely for a 850kcal liquid diet for months? Despite the latter being far more restrictive it has been rolled out nationally by the NHS. Nothing wrong with this as it works but so does low carb. Why not give patients a choice? The reporter also says Dr Unwins results are just because of the support he provides. Whilst support matters (a lot), this is blatant misinformation. Plenty of studies show that reducing carbs is disproportionately better for those with diabetes than low fat. Here are some: In 2023 Novo Nordisk published a randomized controlled trial comparing low carb to low fat for diabetes. They found: 🩸 Low carb led to the greatest reduction in hba1c 💉 Only the low carb group reduced medications 📉 Low carb had the greatest reduction in triglycerides + higher HDL (LDL was similar) ⚖️ Low carb group lost more weight + more fat spontaneously despite eating more calories 🩸 Systolic blood pressure was lower for low carb The low carb group non significantly raises their LDL but 0.23mmol. The researchers said: "we consider the beneficial effects of low carb to outweigh the minor increase in LDL (0.23mmol) induced by the diet. This is supported by other studies" So low carb is better and CVD risk markers overall improved. Naturally, the study was hidden behind a Paywall. Link: I can hear the skeptics now: "But Mike, this is one study, it's not enough" Ok here's a meta analysis showing that hba1c is directly proportional to the carbs eaten: This meta analysis concluded:

Mike - Low Carb Dietitian

17,028 views • 1 year ago

🚨New science DEBATE released on HIGH CARB vs KETO: What the new Tim Noakes vs Louise Burke debate actually shows 👇 American Journal of Clinical Nutrition just released it big debate between two of the biggest names in exercise performance asking one loaded question: does a low-carbohydrate diet impair endurance performance? On one side is Louise Burke, one of the most influential sports nutrition researchers in the world. Her argument: yes, low carb can impair performance? She is not saying every athlete must eat high-carb all the time. She is saying performance depends on the event, intensity, environment, training status, sex, and the athlete in front of you. Her biggest physiological point is fuel economy. Near an athlete’s oxidative ceiling (i.e., elite race pace), she argues that carbohydrate produces more usable energy per liter of oxygen than fat. So even if keto adaptation dramatically raises fat oxidation, that does not automatically mean better speed or power. Now I am skeptical of this point, since we have conducted Randomized Controlled Trails in both runners and ironman competitors and showed that athletes at 86% of their VO2max can utilize fat as the predominant fuel while on a very low carb diet and STILL maintain performance. On the other side, Tim Noakes argues: low carb does not necessarily impair performance when athletes are adapted long enough. He points out that many “keto hurts performance” studies are short, often under four weeks, and that several randomized trials lasting four to six weeks report similar performance between high-carb and low-carb groups. He also reframes fatigue. Instead of saying muscle glycogen is always the main limiter, he argues that during prolonged exercise, maintaining blood glucose, the small glucose pool is the most important. In our trial, 10 grams of carbohydrate per hour improved prolonged cycling performance after both diets. Noakes and Burke also did something really special: they developed a CONSENSUS article where they explored key points of AGREEMENT and DISAGREEMENT for future research. This is the coolest part and in my opinion was one of the verty unique aspect of these three studies My take is this: It is not "team high carb" versus "team keto." The weight of the evidence demonstrates that 1) BOTH high and low carb diets can work, and that 2) Carbohydrates during prolonged exercise are valuable...but 3) How this is applied depends on the individual athlete. What's your take?
2:58

🚨New science DEBATE released on HIGH CARB vs KETO: What the new Tim Noakes vs Louise Burke debate actually shows 👇 American Journal of Clinical Nutrition just released it big debate between two of the biggest names in exercise performance asking one loaded question: does a low-carbohydrate diet impair endurance performance? On one side is Louise Burke, one of the most influential sports nutrition researchers in the world. Her argument: yes, low carb can impair performance? She is not saying every athlete must eat high-carb all the time. She is saying performance depends on the event, intensity, environment, training status, sex, and the athlete in front of you. Her biggest physiological point is fuel economy. Near an athlete’s oxidative ceiling (i.e., elite race pace), she argues that carbohydrate produces more usable energy per liter of oxygen than fat. So even if keto adaptation dramatically raises fat oxidation, that does not automatically mean better speed or power. Now I am skeptical of this point, since we have conducted Randomized Controlled Trails in both runners and ironman competitors and showed that athletes at 86% of their VO2max can utilize fat as the predominant fuel while on a very low carb diet and STILL maintain performance. On the other side, Tim Noakes argues: low carb does not necessarily impair performance when athletes are adapted long enough. He points out that many “keto hurts performance” studies are short, often under four weeks, and that several randomized trials lasting four to six weeks report similar performance between high-carb and low-carb groups. He also reframes fatigue. Instead of saying muscle glycogen is always the main limiter, he argues that during prolonged exercise, maintaining blood glucose, the small glucose pool is the most important. In our trial, 10 grams of carbohydrate per hour improved prolonged cycling performance after both diets. Noakes and Burke also did something really special: they developed a CONSENSUS article where they explored key points of AGREEMENT and DISAGREEMENT for future research. This is the coolest part and in my opinion was one of the verty unique aspect of these three studies My take is this: It is not "team high carb" versus "team keto." The weight of the evidence demonstrates that 1) BOTH high and low carb diets can work, and that 2) Carbohydrates during prolonged exercise are valuable...but 3) How this is applied depends on the individual athlete. What's your take?

Andrew Koutnik, Ph.D.

15,181 views • 5 months ago

Here’s EVERYTHING you need to know about warm up sets: Most people are doing warm up sets ALL wrong and they’re costing themselves from an efficiency/effectiveness standpoint as a result Warm ups are designed to A) guard against injury B) prepare you for your working sets Warm up sets should NEVER be taken in close proximity to failure…most should see you leaving 6, 7, 8+ reps in reserve (the lone exception to this = sets performed for 1-2 reps @ ~90+ of your intended working weight) This is in STARK CONTRAST to working sets which should all end around 0-2 RIR You probably need about ~2 warm up sets before your first exercise or two depending on the specifics of your programming Here is an example of a typical warm up protocol: - a 5-10 minute brisk walk on the treadmill (optional) - 50% of your working weight on your first exercise for ~12 reps (mandatory) - 75% of your working weight on your first exercise for ~6 reps (mandatory) - 90% of your working weight on your first exercise for ~2 reps (optional) After you complete the working sets for your first exercise, you may want to repeat the last 3 steps prior to performing your next exercise IF it is an antagonist exercise (Ex: Lat Pull-Down after Sternal Pecs Machine Press OR Seated Leg Curls after Hack Squats) After that, you probably don’t need any additional warm up sets unless you are just using them as “primers” (sets to make sure your movement pattern / the machine settings / etc. are on point) - If doing a PUSH workout, I’m probably using 2-3 warm up sets before my first exercise only (assuming it’s a multi joint movement) - If doing a PULL workout, I’m probably using 2-3 warm up sets before my first exercise only (assuming it’s a multi joint movement) - If doing an UPPER workout, I’m probably using 2-3 warm up sets before my first exercise and 1-2 warm up sets before my second exercise (assuming they’re antagonist multi joint movements) - If doing an LOWER workout, I’m probably using 2-3 warm up sets before my first exercise and 1-2 warm up sets before my second exercise (assuming they’re antagonist multi joint movements) - If doing a FULL BODY workout, I’m probably using 2-3 warm up sets before my first exercise, 1-2 warm up sets before my second exercise, and may even 1-2 warm up sets before my third and fourth exercises as well (assuming they’re all multi joint movements — antagonist push/pull movements for both upper & lower) (As you can see, the major downside of FULL BODY workouts is often the excess warm up time needed — this is why they work best for beginners much of the time) General rule of thumb: If your first set of an exercise is NOT your best set of that exercise in terms of performance (assuming we equate RIR), you are NOT warming up properly You should see a fall off in performance as sets transpire on a given exercise…this is a feature, not a bug of productive/effective resistance exercise WHEN WARMED UP PROPERLY
1:03

Here’s EVERYTHING you need to know about warm up sets: Most people are doing warm up sets ALL wrong and they’re costing themselves from an efficiency/effectiveness standpoint as a result Warm ups are designed to A) guard against injury B) prepare you for your working sets Warm up sets should NEVER be taken in close proximity to failure…most should see you leaving 6, 7, 8+ reps in reserve (the lone exception to this = sets performed for 1-2 reps @ ~90+ of your intended working weight) This is in STARK CONTRAST to working sets which should all end around 0-2 RIR You probably need about ~2 warm up sets before your first exercise or two depending on the specifics of your programming Here is an example of a typical warm up protocol: - a 5-10 minute brisk walk on the treadmill (optional) - 50% of your working weight on your first exercise for ~12 reps (mandatory) - 75% of your working weight on your first exercise for ~6 reps (mandatory) - 90% of your working weight on your first exercise for ~2 reps (optional) After you complete the working sets for your first exercise, you may want to repeat the last 3 steps prior to performing your next exercise IF it is an antagonist exercise (Ex: Lat Pull-Down after Sternal Pecs Machine Press OR Seated Leg Curls after Hack Squats) After that, you probably don’t need any additional warm up sets unless you are just using them as “primers” (sets to make sure your movement pattern / the machine settings / etc. are on point) - If doing a PUSH workout, I’m probably using 2-3 warm up sets before my first exercise only (assuming it’s a multi joint movement) - If doing a PULL workout, I’m probably using 2-3 warm up sets before my first exercise only (assuming it’s a multi joint movement) - If doing an UPPER workout, I’m probably using 2-3 warm up sets before my first exercise and 1-2 warm up sets before my second exercise (assuming they’re antagonist multi joint movements) - If doing an LOWER workout, I’m probably using 2-3 warm up sets before my first exercise and 1-2 warm up sets before my second exercise (assuming they’re antagonist multi joint movements) - If doing a FULL BODY workout, I’m probably using 2-3 warm up sets before my first exercise, 1-2 warm up sets before my second exercise, and may even 1-2 warm up sets before my third and fourth exercises as well (assuming they’re all multi joint movements — antagonist push/pull movements for both upper & lower) (As you can see, the major downside of FULL BODY workouts is often the excess warm up time needed — this is why they work best for beginners much of the time) General rule of thumb: If your first set of an exercise is NOT your best set of that exercise in terms of performance (assuming we equate RIR), you are NOT warming up properly You should see a fall off in performance as sets transpire on a given exercise…this is a feature, not a bug of productive/effective resistance exercise WHEN WARMED UP PROPERLY

Dean Turner

27,729 views • 10 days ago

Here’s EVERYTHING you need to know about warm up sets: Most people are doing warm up sets ALL wrong and they’re costing themselves from an efficiency/effectiveness standpoint as a result Warm ups are designed to A) guard against injury B) prepare you for your working sets Warm up sets should NEVER be taken in close proximity to failure…most should see you leaving 6, 7, 8+ reps in reserve (the lone exception to this = sets performed for 1-2 reps @ ~90+ of your intended working weight) This is in STARK CONTRAST to working sets which should all end around 0-2 RIR You probably need about ~2 warm up sets before your first exercise or two depending on the specifics of your programming Here is an example of a typical warm up protocol: - a 5-10 minute brisk walk on the treadmill (optional) - 50% of your working weight on your first exercise for ~12 reps (mandatory) - 75% of your working weight on your first exercise for ~6 reps (mandatory) - 90% of your working weight on your first exercise for ~2 reps (optional) After you complete the working sets for your first exercise, you may want to repeat the last 3 steps prior to performing your next exercise IF it is an antagonist exercise (Ex: Lat Pull-Down after Sternal Pecs Machine Press OR Seated Leg Curls after Hack Squats) After that, you probably don’t need any additional warm up sets unless you are just using them as “primers” (sets to make sure your movement pattern / the machine settings / etc. are on point) - If doing a PUSH workout, I’m probably using 2-3 warm up sets before my first exercise only (assuming it’s a multi joint movement) - If doing a PULL workout, I’m probably using 2-3 warm up sets before my first exercise only (assuming it’s a multi joint movement) - If doing an UPPER workout, I’m probably using 2-3 warm up sets before my first exercise and 1-2 warm up sets before my second exercise (assuming they’re antagonist multi joint movements) - If doing an LOWER workout, I’m probably using 2-3 warm up sets before my first exercise and 1-2 warm up sets before my second exercise (assuming they’re antagonist multi joint movements) - If doing a FULL BODY workout, I’m probably using 2-3 warm up sets before my first exercise, 1-2 warm up sets before my second exercise, and may even 1-2 warm up sets before my third and fourth exercises as well (assuming they’re all multi joint movements — antagonist push/pull movements for both upper & lower) (As you can see, the major downside of FULL BODY workouts is often the excess warm up time needed — this is why they work best for beginners much of the time) General rule of thumb: If your first set of an exercise is NOT your best set of that exercise in terms of performance (assuming we equate RIR), you are NOT warming up properly You should see a fall off in performance as sets transpire on a given exercise…this is a feature, not a bug of productive/effective resistance exercise WHEN WARMED UP PROPERLY
1:03

Here’s EVERYTHING you need to know about warm up sets: Most people are doing warm up sets ALL wrong and they’re costing themselves from an efficiency/effectiveness standpoint as a result Warm ups are designed to A) guard against injury B) prepare you for your working sets Warm up sets should NEVER be taken in close proximity to failure…most should see you leaving 6, 7, 8+ reps in reserve (the lone exception to this = sets performed for 1-2 reps @ ~90+ of your intended working weight) This is in STARK CONTRAST to working sets which should all end around 0-2 RIR You probably need about ~2 warm up sets before your first exercise or two depending on the specifics of your programming Here is an example of a typical warm up protocol: - a 5-10 minute brisk walk on the treadmill (optional) - 50% of your working weight on your first exercise for ~12 reps (mandatory) - 75% of your working weight on your first exercise for ~6 reps (mandatory) - 90% of your working weight on your first exercise for ~2 reps (optional) After you complete the working sets for your first exercise, you may want to repeat the last 3 steps prior to performing your next exercise IF it is an antagonist exercise (Ex: Lat Pull-Down after Sternal Pecs Machine Press OR Seated Leg Curls after Hack Squats) After that, you probably don’t need any additional warm up sets unless you are just using them as “primers” (sets to make sure your movement pattern / the machine settings / etc. are on point) - If doing a PUSH workout, I’m probably using 2-3 warm up sets before my first exercise only (assuming it’s a multi joint movement) - If doing a PULL workout, I’m probably using 2-3 warm up sets before my first exercise only (assuming it’s a multi joint movement) - If doing an UPPER workout, I’m probably using 2-3 warm up sets before my first exercise and 1-2 warm up sets before my second exercise (assuming they’re antagonist multi joint movements) - If doing an LOWER workout, I’m probably using 2-3 warm up sets before my first exercise and 1-2 warm up sets before my second exercise (assuming they’re antagonist multi joint movements) - If doing a FULL BODY workout, I’m probably using 2-3 warm up sets before my first exercise, 1-2 warm up sets before my second exercise, and may even 1-2 warm up sets before my third and fourth exercises as well (assuming they’re all multi joint movements — antagonist push/pull movements for both upper & lower) (As you can see, the major downside of FULL BODY workouts is often the excess warm up time needed — this is why they work best for beginners much of the time) General rule of thumb: If your first set of an exercise is NOT your best set of that exercise in terms of performance (assuming we equate RIR), you are NOT warming up properly You should see a fall off in performance as sets transpire on a given exercise…this is a feature, not a bug of productive/effective resistance exercise WHEN WARMED UP PROPERLY

Dean Turner

52,493 views • 1 month ago

Most people never burn stored fat—not because they don't exercise enough, but because insulin never gets a real chance to drop. Dr. Benjamin Bikman explains why in this 2-minute clip: - The fastest way to improve insulin sensitivity? Lower insulin. - The fastest way to lower insulin? Stop eating (fasting). - When you eat dinner + late snack → insulin stays high for hours into the night. - Then a typical breakfast (bagel, cereal, toast, OJ) spikes it again before it ever reaches baseline. - Mid-morning snack, lunch, afternoon snack… insulin basically never comes down all day. - Result: constant fat-storage mode, worsening insulin resistance, zero fat-burning windows. Prolong the low-insulin period (skip breakfast, skip late snacks, or both) and you give your body hours of real fat-burning time—naturally. Simple shift. Massive metabolic difference. Have you noticed a difference when you give yourself a longer overnight fast (e.g., finish eating by 7 pm, eat again at noon)? What changed for your energy, hunger, or body comp?
2:00

Most people never burn stored fat—not because they don't exercise enough, but because insulin never gets a real chance to drop. Dr. Benjamin Bikman explains why in this 2-minute clip: - The fastest way to improve insulin sensitivity? Lower insulin. - The fastest way to lower insulin? Stop eating (fasting). - When you eat dinner + late snack → insulin stays high for hours into the night. - Then a typical breakfast (bagel, cereal, toast, OJ) spikes it again before it ever reaches baseline. - Mid-morning snack, lunch, afternoon snack… insulin basically never comes down all day. - Result: constant fat-storage mode, worsening insulin resistance, zero fat-burning windows. Prolong the low-insulin period (skip breakfast, skip late snacks, or both) and you give your body hours of real fat-burning time—naturally. Simple shift. Massive metabolic difference. Have you noticed a difference when you give yourself a longer overnight fast (e.g., finish eating by 7 pm, eat again at noon)? What changed for your energy, hunger, or body comp?

Camus

231,601 views • 7 months ago

Here’s EVERYTHING you need to know about warm up sets: Most people are doing warm up sets ALL wrong and they’re costing themselves from an efficiency/effectiveness standpoint as a result Warm ups are designed to A) guard against injury B) prepare you for your working sets Warm up sets should NEVER be taken in close proximity to failure…most should see you leaving 6, 7, 8+ reps in reserve (the lone exception to this = sets performed for 1-2 reps @ ~90+ of your intended working weight) This is in STARK CONTRAST to working sets which should all end around 0-2 RIR You probably need about ~2 warm up sets before your first exercise or two depending on the specifics of your programming Here is an example of a typical warm up protocol: - a 5-10 minute brisk walk on the treadmill (optional) - 50% of your working weight on your first exercise for ~12 reps (mandatory) - 75% of your working weight on your first exercise for ~6 reps (mandatory) - 90% of your working weight on your first exercise for ~2 reps (optional) After you complete the working sets for your first exercise, you may want to repeat the last 3 steps prior to performing your next exercise IF it is an antagonist exercise (Ex: Lat Pull-Down after Sternal Pecs Machine Press OR Seated Leg Curls after Hack Squats) After that, you probably don’t need any additional warm up sets unless you are just using them as “primers” (sets to make sure your movement pattern / the machine settings / etc. are on point) - If doing a PUSH workout, I’m probably using 2-3 warm up sets before my first exercise only (assuming it’s a multi joint movement) - If doing a PULL workout, I’m probably using 2-3 warm up sets before my first exercise only (assuming it’s a multi joint movement) - If doing an UPPER workout, I’m probably using 2-3 warm up sets before my first exercise and 1-2 warm up sets before my second exercise (assuming they’re antagonist multi joint movements) - If doing an LOWER workout, I’m probably using 2-3 warm up sets before my first exercise and 1-2 warm up sets before my second exercise (assuming they’re antagonist multi joint movements) - If doing a FULL BODY workout, I’m probably using 2-3 warm up sets before my first exercise, 1-2 warm up sets before my second exercise, and may even 1-2 warm up sets before my third and fourth exercises as well (assuming they’re all multi joint movements — antagonist push/pull movements for both upper & lower) (As you can see, the major downside of FULL BODY workouts is often the excess warm up time needed — this is why they work best for beginners much of the time) General rule of thumb: If your first set of an exercise is NOT your best set of that exercise in terms of performance (assuming we equate RIR), you are NOT warming up properly You should see a fall off in performance as sets transpire on a given exercise…this is a feature, not a bug of productive/effective resistance exercise WHEN WARMED UP PROPERLY
0:35

Here’s EVERYTHING you need to know about warm up sets: Most people are doing warm up sets ALL wrong and they’re costing themselves from an efficiency/effectiveness standpoint as a result Warm ups are designed to A) guard against injury B) prepare you for your working sets Warm up sets should NEVER be taken in close proximity to failure…most should see you leaving 6, 7, 8+ reps in reserve (the lone exception to this = sets performed for 1-2 reps @ ~90+ of your intended working weight) This is in STARK CONTRAST to working sets which should all end around 0-2 RIR You probably need about ~2 warm up sets before your first exercise or two depending on the specifics of your programming Here is an example of a typical warm up protocol: - a 5-10 minute brisk walk on the treadmill (optional) - 50% of your working weight on your first exercise for ~12 reps (mandatory) - 75% of your working weight on your first exercise for ~6 reps (mandatory) - 90% of your working weight on your first exercise for ~2 reps (optional) After you complete the working sets for your first exercise, you may want to repeat the last 3 steps prior to performing your next exercise IF it is an antagonist exercise (Ex: Lat Pull-Down after Sternal Pecs Machine Press OR Seated Leg Curls after Hack Squats) After that, you probably don’t need any additional warm up sets unless you are just using them as “primers” (sets to make sure your movement pattern / the machine settings / etc. are on point) - If doing a PUSH workout, I’m probably using 2-3 warm up sets before my first exercise only (assuming it’s a multi joint movement) - If doing a PULL workout, I’m probably using 2-3 warm up sets before my first exercise only (assuming it’s a multi joint movement) - If doing an UPPER workout, I’m probably using 2-3 warm up sets before my first exercise and 1-2 warm up sets before my second exercise (assuming they’re antagonist multi joint movements) - If doing an LOWER workout, I’m probably using 2-3 warm up sets before my first exercise and 1-2 warm up sets before my second exercise (assuming they’re antagonist multi joint movements) - If doing a FULL BODY workout, I’m probably using 2-3 warm up sets before my first exercise, 1-2 warm up sets before my second exercise, and may even 1-2 warm up sets before my third and fourth exercises as well (assuming they’re all multi joint movements — antagonist push/pull movements for both upper & lower) (As you can see, the major downside of FULL BODY workouts is often the excess warm up time needed — this is why they work best for beginners much of the time) General rule of thumb: If your first set of an exercise is NOT your best set of that exercise in terms of performance (assuming we equate RIR), you are NOT warming up properly You should see a fall off in performance as sets transpire on a given exercise…this is a feature, not a bug of productive/effective resistance exercise WHEN WARMED UP PROPERLY

Dean Turner

53,653 views • 7 months ago

No.1 Heart Surgeon: Cardio Is A Waste Of Time For Weight Loss! Dr Philip Ovadia (Heart Surgeon Dr. Philip Ovadia) is the surgeon who wants to keep you OFF his operating table. He’s also the man who could give you an extra 10 years on your life. 👀 episode covers - why you aren’t losing weight from exercise. - ketogenic diet: fad or fact? - the silent killing agent in processed food. - sugar: more addictive than heroin? - prevention beats medication every time. - carnivore diet: a wellness game changer? - the surprising killer affecting 1 in 4 people. - the foods that add years. - the key to metabolic health. - why cholesterol and fat are not necessarily the cause of heart disease DON’T MISS 👉🏽
1:31

No.1 Heart Surgeon: Cardio Is A Waste Of Time For Weight Loss! Dr Philip Ovadia (Heart Surgeon Dr. Philip Ovadia) is the surgeon who wants to keep you OFF his operating table. He’s also the man who could give you an extra 10 years on your life. 👀 episode covers - why you aren’t losing weight from exercise. - ketogenic diet: fad or fact? - the silent killing agent in processed food. - sugar: more addictive than heroin? - prevention beats medication every time. - carnivore diet: a wellness game changer? - the surprising killer affecting 1 in 4 people. - the foods that add years. - the key to metabolic health. - why cholesterol and fat are not necessarily the cause of heart disease DON’T MISS 👉🏽

Steven Bartlett

126,145 views • 3 years ago

Dr. Thomas Seyfried drops a bombshell: "Cancer is very preventable... we're doing everything we possibly can to induce it in our diet & lifestyle." He flips the script: Cancer isn't primarily genetic—it's a metabolic disease rooted in damaged mitochondria forcing cells to ferment glucose and glutamine for energy. Key points from the clip: - Higher blood sugar = faster tumor growth (his early research showed this clearly). - Cancer cells rely on glucose + glutamine (they have faulty mitochondria). - Solution? Restrict both fuels via low-carb/ketogenic diet + fasting → enter nutritional ketosis. - Healthy cells thrive on ketone bodies; tumors starve slowly, lose blood supply, and get dissolved by the body. Non-toxic management potential: Target metabolism instead of (or alongside) traditional treatments. (Backed by his decades of work, including case studies & animal models on restricted ketogenic approaches—though mainstream oncology debates it as adjunct, not cure-all.) Mind-blowing rethink: What if prevention starts with blood sugar control and ditching high-carb lifestyles? Have you explored keto/fasting for health reasons? Seen any personal changes—or know someone who's tried metabolic approaches? Share experiences respectfully below!
0:56

Dr. Thomas Seyfried drops a bombshell: "Cancer is very preventable... we're doing everything we possibly can to induce it in our diet & lifestyle." He flips the script: Cancer isn't primarily genetic—it's a metabolic disease rooted in damaged mitochondria forcing cells to ferment glucose and glutamine for energy. Key points from the clip: - Higher blood sugar = faster tumor growth (his early research showed this clearly). - Cancer cells rely on glucose + glutamine (they have faulty mitochondria). - Solution? Restrict both fuels via low-carb/ketogenic diet + fasting → enter nutritional ketosis. - Healthy cells thrive on ketone bodies; tumors starve slowly, lose blood supply, and get dissolved by the body. Non-toxic management potential: Target metabolism instead of (or alongside) traditional treatments. (Backed by his decades of work, including case studies & animal models on restricted ketogenic approaches—though mainstream oncology debates it as adjunct, not cure-all.) Mind-blowing rethink: What if prevention starts with blood sugar control and ditching high-carb lifestyles? Have you explored keto/fasting for health reasons? Seen any personal changes—or know someone who's tried metabolic approaches? Share experiences respectfully below!

Camus

66,135 views • 7 months ago

The current physical activity guidelines undervalue vigorous activity. Vigorous activity may be 4–9× more potent than moderate activity for reducing all-cause mortality, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and cancer risk. The exercise guidelines assume a 2:1 ratio between moderate- and vigorous-intensity activity: two minutes of moderate activity equals one minute of vigorous. That's why the recommendations are 150–300 minutes of moderate or 75–150 minutes of vigorous activity each week. But new data suggest that ratio is wrong. In this brand-new journal-club episode, Brady Holmer (Brady Holmer) and I unpack a groundbreaking study that should change how we think about activity for disease prevention. The research identified that 1 minute of vigorous activity is roughly equivalent to 4–9 minutes of moderate activity, and 53–94 minutes of light activity, for disease risk reduction. It also shows a clear dose-response for vigorous activity that’s much weaker for moderate activity and barely detectable for light activity. We also do a deep dive into why vigorous activity is so powerful, the underlying mechanisms, and discuss practical takeaways, including how even very brief bouts of vigorous movement (think “exercise snacks”) can produce meaningful health benefits. Timestamps are below. You can find links to the episode on YouTube, Apple Podcasts, and Spotify in the next post. Enjoy! Timestamps: 0:00 - Introduction 2:14 - The 1:2 rule for exercise 6:28 - What counts as vigorous? 8:48 - Where exercise guidelines fail 9:32 - Inside the wearable-based study design 15:24 - Vigorous activity—easier than you think? 18:01 - Avoiding healthy user bias 19:12 - A better way to measure exercise 20:58 - Is vigorous 4–10x better? 25:08 - One vigorous min vs. one-hour walk 27:15 - Are light activity's benefits capped? 29:03 - Is vigorous 5x better for your heart? 30:12 - Does zone 2 count as vigorous? 31:24 - Dose-response comparison 32:35 - Vigorous exercise & younger arteries 38:29 - Why aging hearts need intensity 41:22 - Can intensity preserve VO₂ max? 42:40 - Moderate exercise & VO₂ max limits 44:34 - Is vigorous 10x better for diabetes? 51:01 - Why intensity boosts mitochondria 56:11 - Does intense exercise kill tumor cells? 1:02:28 - Hormonal benefits 1:03:19 - Preventing falls with intensity 1:07:49 - Fighting inflammation 1:09:42 - High-intensity training & brain aging 1:11:14 - The 2:1 ratio is out the door 1:13:03 - Could vigorous exercise become a pill? 1:14:21 - Short bursts for longer life 1:18:28 - Can short bouts match full workouts? 1:22:39 - Do wearables undervalue vigorous bursts? 1:25:19 - Can micro-workouts replace the gym? 1:30:23 - Updating exercise guidelines 1:41:48 - Is light activity useless? 1:44:17 - Is vigorous exercise safe for seniors? 1:48:41 - Is HIIT harmful to female hormones? 1:54:18 - Balancing intensity & recovery (80/20 rule) 1:56:43 - Brady’s exercise routine 2:00:30 - Vigorous activity & kids’ brainpower 2:03:27 - Are we undervaluing vigorous exercise? 2:05:16 - Why chasing steps doesn't work
2:10:24

The current physical activity guidelines undervalue vigorous activity. Vigorous activity may be 4–9× more potent than moderate activity for reducing all-cause mortality, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and cancer risk. The exercise guidelines assume a 2:1 ratio between moderate- and vigorous-intensity activity: two minutes of moderate activity equals one minute of vigorous. That's why the recommendations are 150–300 minutes of moderate or 75–150 minutes of vigorous activity each week. But new data suggest that ratio is wrong. In this brand-new journal-club episode, Brady Holmer (Brady Holmer) and I unpack a groundbreaking study that should change how we think about activity for disease prevention. The research identified that 1 minute of vigorous activity is roughly equivalent to 4–9 minutes of moderate activity, and 53–94 minutes of light activity, for disease risk reduction. It also shows a clear dose-response for vigorous activity that’s much weaker for moderate activity and barely detectable for light activity. We also do a deep dive into why vigorous activity is so powerful, the underlying mechanisms, and discuss practical takeaways, including how even very brief bouts of vigorous movement (think “exercise snacks”) can produce meaningful health benefits. Timestamps are below. You can find links to the episode on YouTube, Apple Podcasts, and Spotify in the next post. Enjoy! Timestamps: 0:00 - Introduction 2:14 - The 1:2 rule for exercise 6:28 - What counts as vigorous? 8:48 - Where exercise guidelines fail 9:32 - Inside the wearable-based study design 15:24 - Vigorous activity—easier than you think? 18:01 - Avoiding healthy user bias 19:12 - A better way to measure exercise 20:58 - Is vigorous 4–10x better? 25:08 - One vigorous min vs. one-hour walk 27:15 - Are light activity's benefits capped? 29:03 - Is vigorous 5x better for your heart? 30:12 - Does zone 2 count as vigorous? 31:24 - Dose-response comparison 32:35 - Vigorous exercise & younger arteries 38:29 - Why aging hearts need intensity 41:22 - Can intensity preserve VO₂ max? 42:40 - Moderate exercise & VO₂ max limits 44:34 - Is vigorous 10x better for diabetes? 51:01 - Why intensity boosts mitochondria 56:11 - Does intense exercise kill tumor cells? 1:02:28 - Hormonal benefits 1:03:19 - Preventing falls with intensity 1:07:49 - Fighting inflammation 1:09:42 - High-intensity training & brain aging 1:11:14 - The 2:1 ratio is out the door 1:13:03 - Could vigorous exercise become a pill? 1:14:21 - Short bursts for longer life 1:18:28 - Can short bouts match full workouts? 1:22:39 - Do wearables undervalue vigorous bursts? 1:25:19 - Can micro-workouts replace the gym? 1:30:23 - Updating exercise guidelines 1:41:48 - Is light activity useless? 1:44:17 - Is vigorous exercise safe for seniors? 1:48:41 - Is HIIT harmful to female hormones? 1:54:18 - Balancing intensity & recovery (80/20 rule) 1:56:43 - Brady’s exercise routine 2:00:30 - Vigorous activity & kids’ brainpower 2:03:27 - Are we undervaluing vigorous exercise? 2:05:16 - Why chasing steps doesn't work

Dr. Rhonda Patrick

306,433 views • 9 months ago