Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

Go Home

Intermittent Fasting Destroys Your Gains?! A new study (PMID: 40241374) on intermittent fasting (IF) out of Grant Tinsley, PhD lab in collaboration with other colleagues of mine on social media like Menno Henselmans & Andy Galpin, PhD looked to examine the effects of continuous meal feeding pattern (CMF) vs....

BioLayne's profile picture

Layne Norton, PhD

228,402 subscribers

53,232 views • 1 year ago •via X (Twitter)

Health & WellnessScience & TechnologyEducation
LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

11 Comments

Andy Galpin, PhD's profile picture
Andy Galpin, PhD1 year ago

@GrantTinsleyPhD @MennoHenselmans Thank you for sharing, Doc! The study was actually out of my lab, led by my incredible students Danny Blake, Cody Hamane, & Chelscie Pacheco - but Grant was an invaluable resource on this project, no doubt.

Mobile Scanner's profile picture
Mobile Scanner1 year ago

Scan any documents, convert images into text, PDF files, etc. 👍

Metabolic Uncle's profile picture
Metabolic Uncle1 year ago

@GrantTinsleyPhD @MennoHenselmans @DrAndyGalpin Science bros and their god of the gaps… as always… when it doesn’t fit the narrative…. let’s agree that they must have eaten less.

Wildfannorthwoods's profile picture
Wildfannorthwoods1 year ago

@GrantTinsleyPhD @MennoHenselmans @DrAndyGalpin Why come up with an excuse about the fat loss but think other evidence works- if the food and diet wasn’t monitored- doesn’t that influence the entire reliability of the study?

David J. Brown MD's profile picture
David J. Brown MD1 year ago

@GrantTinsleyPhD @MennoHenselmans @DrAndyGalpin Could it be that the group that did IF was not adapted to fasting? It takes time to fully adapt to that way of eating. Not sure 8 weeks answers the answer definitively.

TheGutFather's profile picture
TheGutFather1 year ago

@GrantTinsleyPhD @MennoHenselmans @DrAndyGalpin Any chance the non fasted group just had more energy to perform a squat better due to being fuelled? Perhaps a final assessment of strength gains with both groups fed would control for this

Dr Mark Imisides's profile picture
Dr Mark Imisides1 year ago

@GrantTinsleyPhD @MennoHenselmans @DrAndyGalpin Were the people doing IF fat-adapted (that is, in ketosis), or were they carbohydrate eaters? Makes a huge difference.

brittanybussemd's profile picture
brittanybussemd1 year ago

@GrantTinsleyPhD @MennoHenselmans @DrAndyGalpin were there any significant differences between the males and females in the breakdown or did they just look at overall?

Raahul's profile picture
Raahul1 year ago

@GrantTinsleyPhD @MennoHenselmans @DrAndyGalpin Im doing if m, 3 weeks in. I do eat (drink whey and banana shake) an hour before workout, almost down by6 kgs. Only thing i am doing more is steps 10k-12k, earlier it was 6k But i dont see any decrease in my lifts.

M.C.'s profile picture
M.C.1 year ago

@GrantTinsleyPhD @MennoHenselmans @DrAndyGalpin If the IF group ate less, that could explain both the lower fat gain and the lower strength gain.

SoulSpirit ✨'s profile picture
SoulSpirit ✨1 year ago

@GrantTinsleyPhD @MennoHenselmans @DrAndyGalpin Intermittent Fastest and @fastrlife thoughts?

Related Videos

Fasting is NOT Superior for Autophagy Autophagy has become the biggest buzzword in nutrition in the last 5 years & whenever I do videos or posts on intermittent fasting & why it is a useful tool for fat loss, but NOT superior to other calorie equated diets, people invariably say that ‘tHeSe StUdIeS dOn’T aCcOuNt FoR aUtoPhAgY!’ When I cite studies showing that normal calorie restriction gets the same benefits as calorie equated fasting diets, people often say that fasting gets you the benefits WITHOUT calorie restriction. Well, a very highly controlled study showed that this is NOT the case Well this study did (PMID: 34135111). They had people follow one of 3 diets: 1) Alternate day fasting without calorie restriction where they ate 200% of their maintenance calories on feeding days, & 0% the next day (200:0) & continued to alternate them throughout the course of the study 2) Alternate day fasting with 25% calorie restriction where they ate 150% of their maintenance calories on feeding days & 0% the next day (150:0) & continued to alternate those throughout the course of the study or 3) Continuous calorie restriction where they had people eat 75% of their maintenance calories every day for the duration of the study (75:75) Both the 150:0 & 75:75 diets reduced body weight to the same extent, but the 75:75 group lost slightly more fat mass & retained slightly more lean mass than the 150:0 fasting group. Both restricted groups lost more body fat & weight than the 200:0 group which did not lose weight or fat. Markers of autophagy were also equivalent between the 150:0 & 75:75 groups as well as other adipose tissue genes, gut hormones, and markers of cardiometabolic health This study demonstrates that it is the caloric restriction that drives these improvements in health & the changes in autophagy, NOT because fasting has some magical effect on autophagy that exists outside of the caloric restriction it imposes I am NOT saying fasting is bad. I’m not saying it’s not a useful tool or that you can’t lose fat with it. You can & it can be a great tool for many people… it’s just not magic like many proponents of fasting try to make it out to be Tired of the diet wars & not knowing how to make sense of all the contradictory information out there? Comment ‘FRAMEWORK’ and I’ll send you my simplified guide on how to lose fat & build muscle for FREE
5:30

Fasting is NOT Superior for Autophagy Autophagy has become the biggest buzzword in nutrition in the last 5 years & whenever I do videos or posts on intermittent fasting & why it is a useful tool for fat loss, but NOT superior to other calorie equated diets, people invariably say that ‘tHeSe StUdIeS dOn’T aCcOuNt FoR aUtoPhAgY!’ When I cite studies showing that normal calorie restriction gets the same benefits as calorie equated fasting diets, people often say that fasting gets you the benefits WITHOUT calorie restriction. Well, a very highly controlled study showed that this is NOT the case Well this study did (PMID: 34135111). They had people follow one of 3 diets: 1) Alternate day fasting without calorie restriction where they ate 200% of their maintenance calories on feeding days, & 0% the next day (200:0) & continued to alternate them throughout the course of the study 2) Alternate day fasting with 25% calorie restriction where they ate 150% of their maintenance calories on feeding days & 0% the next day (150:0) & continued to alternate those throughout the course of the study or 3) Continuous calorie restriction where they had people eat 75% of their maintenance calories every day for the duration of the study (75:75) Both the 150:0 & 75:75 diets reduced body weight to the same extent, but the 75:75 group lost slightly more fat mass & retained slightly more lean mass than the 150:0 fasting group. Both restricted groups lost more body fat & weight than the 200:0 group which did not lose weight or fat. Markers of autophagy were also equivalent between the 150:0 & 75:75 groups as well as other adipose tissue genes, gut hormones, and markers of cardiometabolic health This study demonstrates that it is the caloric restriction that drives these improvements in health & the changes in autophagy, NOT because fasting has some magical effect on autophagy that exists outside of the caloric restriction it imposes I am NOT saying fasting is bad. I’m not saying it’s not a useful tool or that you can’t lose fat with it. You can & it can be a great tool for many people… it’s just not magic like many proponents of fasting try to make it out to be Tired of the diet wars & not knowing how to make sense of all the contradictory information out there? Comment ‘FRAMEWORK’ and I’ll send you my simplified guide on how to lose fat & build muscle for FREE

Layne Norton, PhD

29,887 views • 1 year ago

Training to failure isn’t needed to max gains? Some people believe that you must take every set to failure in order to maximize muscle gains, but emerging literature suggests this may not be the case A new study examined training to failure vs stopping 1 to 2 reps shy of failure & found that the participants gained the same amount of muscle mass from both training styles There are several strengths to this study. First of all, they used a unilateral design where each participant was their own control by training one leg taking each set to failure and stopping 1-2 reps shy on the other. This helps negate any genetic induced differences since each person is acting as their own control Second, they matched training volumes to the participants previous volumes. This is a HUGE strength that is often overlooked in other studies Third, they used participants that were well trained (at least 3 years resistance training experience) Fourth, they had them all eat in a slight calorie surplus This adds to a growing body of literature demonstrating that training to absolute failure isn’t needed for gains & is likely counterproductive for optimal strength gains due to excess fatigue Interestingly, each group had no difference in total reps performed. That may seem strange when one group is going to failure but the other is stopping 1-2 reps shy. This can be explained by lower inter-set fatigue in the non failure group. For example if a failure group hits failure at 10 reps in set 1, they may only get 8 on the next set, and 6 on the next set. Whereas they might have been able to do 8 reps every set if they didn’t go to all out failure. As such, if you do train to failure I recommend only going to failure on your very last set of an exercise If you want to know how to implement this sort of programming make sure you check out the Biolayne Workoit Builder to get access to all my evidence based programs to help you get strong AF & build muscle 👊
1:27

Training to failure isn’t needed to max gains? Some people believe that you must take every set to failure in order to maximize muscle gains, but emerging literature suggests this may not be the case A new study examined training to failure vs stopping 1 to 2 reps shy of failure & found that the participants gained the same amount of muscle mass from both training styles There are several strengths to this study. First of all, they used a unilateral design where each participant was their own control by training one leg taking each set to failure and stopping 1-2 reps shy on the other. This helps negate any genetic induced differences since each person is acting as their own control Second, they matched training volumes to the participants previous volumes. This is a HUGE strength that is often overlooked in other studies Third, they used participants that were well trained (at least 3 years resistance training experience) Fourth, they had them all eat in a slight calorie surplus This adds to a growing body of literature demonstrating that training to absolute failure isn’t needed for gains & is likely counterproductive for optimal strength gains due to excess fatigue Interestingly, each group had no difference in total reps performed. That may seem strange when one group is going to failure but the other is stopping 1-2 reps shy. This can be explained by lower inter-set fatigue in the non failure group. For example if a failure group hits failure at 10 reps in set 1, they may only get 8 on the next set, and 6 on the next set. Whereas they might have been able to do 8 reps every set if they didn’t go to all out failure. As such, if you do train to failure I recommend only going to failure on your very last set of an exercise If you want to know how to implement this sort of programming make sure you check out the Biolayne Workoit Builder to get access to all my evidence based programs to help you get strong AF & build muscle 👊

Layne Norton, PhD

48,374 views • 2 years ago

Do you need to worry about your food order to limit post meal glucose responses? 🤔 This idea of the importance of food order got popularized by Laura Menninger who has made a name for herself by fear mongering NORMAL post meal glucose excursions. She makes it seem like these short term excursions will cause long term harm First, there’s no evidence to support that short term glucose responses produce negative long term outcomes. In fact, based on her logic, you shouldn’t eat fat since fat intake impedes flow mediated dilation in the short term and FMD is a risk factor for heart disease. Also by her logic you can’t eat protein because protein acutely stimulates mTOR which is elevated in many cancers She cites the same short term study in support of food order (PMID: 26106234) & while it did show eating veggies & protein 1st produced less glucose & insulin area under the curve (AUC) if you actually READ the full text you can see they only measured out to 3 hours & while the starchy carb 1st group had a higher spike in glucose, it also was coming down at a greater rate & appeared to be approaching baseline faster than the group that ate protein & veggies 1st). I’m not convinced the AUC would have been different if they had measured out to 6 hours To that end, the same researcher who conducted the short term study conducted the first longer term (16 weeks)HUMAN randomized control trial examining the effect of the same food order on long term glycemic control & insulin sensitivity. Surprise surprise, the study showed no differences in glycemia or glucose tolerance by changing food order like she suggests (PMID: 37892527). HbA1c was slightly lower in veggie/pro 1st but it was not significant nor was it clinically relevant as it was a minuscule difference. There were no differences in ANY markers of glycemic assessed based on food order That said, it appears the people who ate veggies & protein 1st, may have eaten slightly less, & so modifying food order may still be useful to help control appetite but it doesn’t work for the reasons Laura Menningers promotes… it works because people are less hungry & eat less Energy balance wins again 🤷🏼‍♂️
1:29

Do you need to worry about your food order to limit post meal glucose responses? 🤔 This idea of the importance of food order got popularized by Laura Menninger who has made a name for herself by fear mongering NORMAL post meal glucose excursions. She makes it seem like these short term excursions will cause long term harm First, there’s no evidence to support that short term glucose responses produce negative long term outcomes. In fact, based on her logic, you shouldn’t eat fat since fat intake impedes flow mediated dilation in the short term and FMD is a risk factor for heart disease. Also by her logic you can’t eat protein because protein acutely stimulates mTOR which is elevated in many cancers She cites the same short term study in support of food order (PMID: 26106234) & while it did show eating veggies & protein 1st produced less glucose & insulin area under the curve (AUC) if you actually READ the full text you can see they only measured out to 3 hours & while the starchy carb 1st group had a higher spike in glucose, it also was coming down at a greater rate & appeared to be approaching baseline faster than the group that ate protein & veggies 1st). I’m not convinced the AUC would have been different if they had measured out to 6 hours To that end, the same researcher who conducted the short term study conducted the first longer term (16 weeks)HUMAN randomized control trial examining the effect of the same food order on long term glycemic control & insulin sensitivity. Surprise surprise, the study showed no differences in glycemia or glucose tolerance by changing food order like she suggests (PMID: 37892527). HbA1c was slightly lower in veggie/pro 1st but it was not significant nor was it clinically relevant as it was a minuscule difference. There were no differences in ANY markers of glycemic assessed based on food order That said, it appears the people who ate veggies & protein 1st, may have eaten slightly less, & so modifying food order may still be useful to help control appetite but it doesn’t work for the reasons Laura Menningers promotes… it works because people are less hungry & eat less Energy balance wins again 🤷🏼‍♂️

Layne Norton, PhD

34,082 views • 2 years ago

Your Kids Don’t Eat too Many Calories… IT’S THE CARBS! This video is from Jason Whittrock where he is demonstrating that continuous glucose monitor shows a glucose increase in response to eating chicken nuggets In the least shocking news of 2025 thus far… they chicken nuggets increase blood glucose Big deal He claims kids aren’t eating too many calories, implying that it is the carbs that are the problem. He claims that kids aren’t eating too many calories because obesity affects poor families more, trying to imply that poor kids must eat less calories because they have less money… BUT WHAT DOES THE DATA ACTUALLY SAY????? Oh well look at that, poor families actually eat MORE calories compared to middle class & upper class families (PMIDs: 26809142, 27994148, & 31082447) OOPSIE! Guess he either didn’t bother to look up the actual research data or knew about it & didn’t care As for carbs causing obesity, this has been debunked many times over. In a large meta-analysis of controlled feeding studies that equated calories & protein but varied carbohydrate & fat intake, researchers found that people in high carb/low fat diets actually lost slightly MORE body fat than people following low carb high fat diets (about 16g more body fat loss per day… not a huge difference) PMID: 28193517. These results have even been demonstrated with huge differences in carb intake (over 300g per day vs. ketogenic diet) & insulin release (PMID: 27385608) While I agree with Jason that chicken nuggets probably aren’t the best nutritional choice, it’s not because they have breading, it’s because they tend to be high in calories overall. Sorry Jason, calories mattercise Makes You Smarter It seems like every day, new data is emerging demonstrating that the benefits of exercise extend far beyond the physical & go well into the mental space of the brain. Research has shown exercise can improve symptoms of depression, schizophrenia, bi-polar, & anxiety but more research is also demonstrating that exercise can enhance cognitive performance in healthy people This is highlighted by a new meta-analysis demonstrating that exercise of various forms improved academic performance in college students (PMID: 39310016). While the mechanisms behind the way this works still need to be further elucidated, we are starting to discover more & more that what happens in the body affects the mind & what happens in the mind affects the body. In the reverse direction, we see psychological stress associated with greater pain sensitivity, autoimmune disorders, cardiovascular disease, cancer, and all cause mortality (PMIDs: 31568044, 32983091, 18371552, 34830968, & 27407085) E]]] want to take care of your body, take care of your mind.]
3:15

Your Kids Don’t Eat too Many Calories… IT’S THE CARBS! This video is from Jason Whittrock where he is demonstrating that continuous glucose monitor shows a glucose increase in response to eating chicken nuggets In the least shocking news of 2025 thus far… they chicken nuggets increase blood glucose Big deal He claims kids aren’t eating too many calories, implying that it is the carbs that are the problem. He claims that kids aren’t eating too many calories because obesity affects poor families more, trying to imply that poor kids must eat less calories because they have less money… BUT WHAT DOES THE DATA ACTUALLY SAY????? Oh well look at that, poor families actually eat MORE calories compared to middle class & upper class families (PMIDs: 26809142, 27994148, & 31082447) OOPSIE! Guess he either didn’t bother to look up the actual research data or knew about it & didn’t care As for carbs causing obesity, this has been debunked many times over. In a large meta-analysis of controlled feeding studies that equated calories & protein but varied carbohydrate & fat intake, researchers found that people in high carb/low fat diets actually lost slightly MORE body fat than people following low carb high fat diets (about 16g more body fat loss per day… not a huge difference) PMID: 28193517. These results have even been demonstrated with huge differences in carb intake (over 300g per day vs. ketogenic diet) & insulin release (PMID: 27385608) While I agree with Jason that chicken nuggets probably aren’t the best nutritional choice, it’s not because they have breading, it’s because they tend to be high in calories overall. Sorry Jason, calories mattercise Makes You Smarter It seems like every day, new data is emerging demonstrating that the benefits of exercise extend far beyond the physical & go well into the mental space of the brain. Research has shown exercise can improve symptoms of depression, schizophrenia, bi-polar, & anxiety but more research is also demonstrating that exercise can enhance cognitive performance in healthy people This is highlighted by a new meta-analysis demonstrating that exercise of various forms improved academic performance in college students (PMID: 39310016). While the mechanisms behind the way this works still need to be further elucidated, we are starting to discover more & more that what happens in the body affects the mind & what happens in the mind affects the body. In the reverse direction, we see psychological stress associated with greater pain sensitivity, autoimmune disorders, cardiovascular disease, cancer, and all cause mortality (PMIDs: 31568044, 32983091, 18371552, 34830968, & 27407085) E]]] want to take care of your body, take care of your mind.]

Layne Norton, PhD

26,140 views • 1 year ago

Strength lost to old age primarily reflects a reversible decline in muscle quality, not just lost mass. If you're old (or have aging parents), that means strength can come back quickly — with the diligent application of effort. Even if you're ninety years old. I'll talk about two studies that illustrate this point... One study took frail, institutionalized adults aged 90 and older. The other took 85+ year olds that were still living independently. The findings? The participants in the first study increased their strength by an average of 174%, thigh muscle mass by 9%, and gait speed by 48% after just 8 weeks of high-intensity resistance training — essentially reversing their frailty and disability. (PMID: 2342214) In the second, the still independently living adults aged 85 and older increased their quadriceps muscle cross-sectional area by 11%, whole-body lean mass by 2%, and leg strength by 46% after just 12 weeks of resistance training. (PMID: 37875254) Some common themes that tend to contribute to the success of trials like these: • Progressive resistance training with adequate volume and resistance • Actually adhering to the prescribed training during the period (the studies excluded non-compliant participants) I think one of the takeaways is that the further you fall, in terms of functional loss attributable to old age, in some ways the better positioned you might be to pick back up — highlighting that it really is never too late. Moreover, when you think about the possibility of increasing your relative strength by such a large amount in very short time frames on the order of weeks — even if you can't reasonably expect to add much in terms of absolute muscle mass — you're talking about significant changes to quality of life. People no longer using canes, rising from chairs without having to use their arms. You get the picture. I think overall this should be highly encouraging to most people, no matter what your age. Episode throwback clip featuring Dr. Stuart Phillips (Stuart Phillips (he/him)) from Episode 76 of the FoundMyFitness Podcast:
3:17

Strength lost to old age primarily reflects a reversible decline in muscle quality, not just lost mass. If you're old (or have aging parents), that means strength can come back quickly — with the diligent application of effort. Even if you're ninety years old. I'll talk about two studies that illustrate this point... One study took frail, institutionalized adults aged 90 and older. The other took 85+ year olds that were still living independently. The findings? The participants in the first study increased their strength by an average of 174%, thigh muscle mass by 9%, and gait speed by 48% after just 8 weeks of high-intensity resistance training — essentially reversing their frailty and disability. (PMID: 2342214) In the second, the still independently living adults aged 85 and older increased their quadriceps muscle cross-sectional area by 11%, whole-body lean mass by 2%, and leg strength by 46% after just 12 weeks of resistance training. (PMID: 37875254) Some common themes that tend to contribute to the success of trials like these: • Progressive resistance training with adequate volume and resistance • Actually adhering to the prescribed training during the period (the studies excluded non-compliant participants) I think one of the takeaways is that the further you fall, in terms of functional loss attributable to old age, in some ways the better positioned you might be to pick back up — highlighting that it really is never too late. Moreover, when you think about the possibility of increasing your relative strength by such a large amount in very short time frames on the order of weeks — even if you can't reasonably expect to add much in terms of absolute muscle mass — you're talking about significant changes to quality of life. People no longer using canes, rising from chairs without having to use their arms. You get the picture. I think overall this should be highly encouraging to most people, no matter what your age. Episode throwback clip featuring Dr. Stuart Phillips (Stuart Phillips (he/him)) from Episode 76 of the FoundMyFitness Podcast:

Dr. Rhonda Patrick

135,275 views • 2 years ago

RFK Jr. just broke down to a college student that the claim “vaccines don’t cause autism” has never been proven. “The people who told you that have been lying to you.“ “In fact, only one vaccine has ever been studied, the MMR vaccine.” “The 20 doses of the seven vaccines that are given during the first year of life — the DTP, the Hib, the hepatitis B, the pneumococcal vaccines and the polio vaccines — have never been studied.” “Congress passed the 1986 Vaccine Act and said, you’ve got to study the DTP vaccine… That study has never been done.” “The only studies that were done were MMR studies, and they were all epidemiological studies… you can’t prove causation with an epidemiological study.” “In 2017, the Institute of Medicine looked at all of the MMR studies and they threw out all but four of them… and the four that were left were all epidemiological studies.” “None of them did what you would want to do if you actually wanted the answer, which is to compare health outcomes in a vaccinated group against health outcomes in an unvaccinated group.” “That’s what we need to do and those studies we’re doing now.”
1:52

RFK Jr. just broke down to a college student that the claim “vaccines don’t cause autism” has never been proven. “The people who told you that have been lying to you.“ “In fact, only one vaccine has ever been studied, the MMR vaccine.” “The 20 doses of the seven vaccines that are given during the first year of life — the DTP, the Hib, the hepatitis B, the pneumococcal vaccines and the polio vaccines — have never been studied.” “Congress passed the 1986 Vaccine Act and said, you’ve got to study the DTP vaccine… That study has never been done.” “The only studies that were done were MMR studies, and they were all epidemiological studies… you can’t prove causation with an epidemiological study.” “In 2017, the Institute of Medicine looked at all of the MMR studies and they threw out all but four of them… and the four that were left were all epidemiological studies.” “None of them did what you would want to do if you actually wanted the answer, which is to compare health outcomes in a vaccinated group against health outcomes in an unvaccinated group.” “That’s what we need to do and those studies we’re doing now.”

End Tribalism in Politics

1,037,238 views • 9 months ago

Many persons have shared this video with me. It has 11 million views on Instagram and 70K likes. Thats 70K people without critical thinking or lack of ability to fact check. Stay with me. This is a wild ride. I am not going into details of the person making the claim - because it is Deepak Chopra. Deepak Chopra is like turmeric-milk. You think milk becomes a "super-food" when turmeric enters the scene, but the fact is, turmeric is there just to waste your time. Same with Deepak Chopra. He is an 'embodiment of pseudoscience,' who, once upon a time was a physician, but now fully evolved into shell of "what was once a doctor" currently filled with mystic beliefs, white-washing Ayurveda, preaching transcendental meditation and quantum healing to prevent sickness. Sir Richard Dawkins called Chopra's claims "quantum jargon as plausible-sounding hocus pocus" and the scientific community has found that Chopra's treatments generally elicit nothing, because Chopra is a fraud who sells $350 meditation glasses to people who cant think for themselves. and Now the video. In it, a younger Deepak Chopra claims "with the power of the mind, one can change poison into nectar and nectar into poison." And he cites an actual scientific study to prove his claims. Only one little problem - that is not what the study concluded. As per Chopra, a study performed at the Ohio State University looked at a group of rabbits fed diet rich in cholesterol. One group showed high cholesterol, while the other showed lower levels of cholesterol. This was stunning, because all the rabbits were the same, they consumed same diet. So, what was different in the rabbit group that had lower cholesterol levels? Chopra says – it was happiness in those rabbits which led to better chemicals and chemical reaction in the brain that changed the cholesterol into a different pathway that did not hurt the heart. Why were they happy? Let us get into one of the most bizarrely misinterpreted study which led to what we now call as “The Rabbit Effect.” A type of rabbit, used in experiments, called the New Zealand white male rabbits, develop heart disease much like humans if fed a high-fat diet. So these rabbits are used to study effects of cholesterol in the heart using “diet experiments.” In 1978, Dr. Robert Nerem and his group fed a group of these rabbits high fat diet. At the end of the study, he measured the animals’ cholesterol, heart rates, and blood pressure. As expected, the cholesterol values were all high and virtually identical to one another. The rabbits had similar genes and ate the same diet. Now they all seemed destined for a heart attack or stroke. Only one aberrant problem. As the last step, Dr. Nerem needed to examine the rabbits’ tiny blood vessels to show cholesterol deposits there too. Looking through the microscope, he expected all the rabbits to show similar fatty deposits on the inside of their arteries. Instead, there was a huge variation in the fatty deposits between the animals. One group of rabbits had 60 percent fewer deposits than the other. What was happening? There was no clear biological explanation to this. They checked every little item they used in the experiment to see if that had caused changes. But every little thing was controlled and accounted for. Except one small thing. The researchers themselves. A Canadian postdoc named Murina Levesque had recently joined the lab. She was an unusually kind and caring individual. When it became apparent that all the animals with fewer fatty deposits were under Murina’s care, the team dug deeper. They noticed that Murina handled the animals differently. When she fed her rabbits, she talked to them, cuddled, and petted them. She did not throw the food at the little animals. She gave them food with love. So, prove this, the research group repeated the experiment, this time with tightly controlled conditions. They compared the little blood vessels of one group of rabbits cared for by Murina (food+love) to the arteries of another group of rabbits cared for in the standard way (only food). They found the same effect again. The paper was published in Science Magazine. This one: Social Environment as a Factor in Diet-Induced Atherosclerosis - So did the study prove that if you are happy, and the mind is free, poisonous substances can turn into nectar? - No, that was not what the study says. Remember – the study showed that high cholesterol levels in the blood was same in all rabbits who were on high fat diet. Only that the cholesterol deposits were lesser in the arteries of those who were fed with “kindness” – meaning who were less “stressed.” The study took the medical world on a wild ride because all the rabbit experiments would have to now look at how emotionally these animals were, to come to better conclusions from the interventions studied. So, a group of researchers specifically looked at “handling” and diet induced cholesterol deposits (atherosclerosis) in rabbits. They found that handling the animals did not have any effect on the atherosclerosis size inside the blood vessels and this was only roughly determined by the amount of cholesterol in food eaten. In the original “Rabbit Effect” study, the amount of food eaten between groups was not looked at. We now know that chronic stress leads to different behavioral patterns which also includes increased eating. Chronic life stress seems to be associated with a greater preference for energy- and nutrient-dense foods, namely those that are high in sugar and fat. Higher the stress, higher amount of food eaten, more the cholesterol and more importantly, more deposits inside the arteries which can be independent of cholesterol levels. How? One possible mechanism for this process is that chronic stress causes small blood vessel injury (endothelial damage), directly activating macrophages (an inflammatory cell), promoting foam cell formation, and generating the formation of atherosclerotic plaque inside small vessels. This mechanism involves numerous variables, including inflammation, signal pathways, lipid metabolism and endothelial function – and has nothing to do with cholesterol going to another pathway because of brain chemicals. Cholesterol is the body is metabolized through the same pathway whether you are happy, sad, or delirious. That is not what the rabbit study claimed or what it proved. It only made way for other studies to show that chronic stress could be an important factor that negatively impact heart and brain health which was independent of the food that you consume. Poison does not become nectar if you are happy and nectar does not become poison if you are sad. That is just Ayurvedic mumbo-jumbo from hocus-pocus self-help gurus who cite “Agni and the Digestive Fire” as the mechanism. “Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire” is more believable. If you take rat poison happily, you will still die. If you eat a banana while crying, you won’t die.
0:45

Many persons have shared this video with me. It has 11 million views on Instagram and 70K likes. Thats 70K people without critical thinking or lack of ability to fact check. Stay with me. This is a wild ride. I am not going into details of the person making the claim - because it is Deepak Chopra. Deepak Chopra is like turmeric-milk. You think milk becomes a "super-food" when turmeric enters the scene, but the fact is, turmeric is there just to waste your time. Same with Deepak Chopra. He is an 'embodiment of pseudoscience,' who, once upon a time was a physician, but now fully evolved into shell of "what was once a doctor" currently filled with mystic beliefs, white-washing Ayurveda, preaching transcendental meditation and quantum healing to prevent sickness. Sir Richard Dawkins called Chopra's claims "quantum jargon as plausible-sounding hocus pocus" and the scientific community has found that Chopra's treatments generally elicit nothing, because Chopra is a fraud who sells $350 meditation glasses to people who cant think for themselves. and Now the video. In it, a younger Deepak Chopra claims "with the power of the mind, one can change poison into nectar and nectar into poison." And he cites an actual scientific study to prove his claims. Only one little problem - that is not what the study concluded. As per Chopra, a study performed at the Ohio State University looked at a group of rabbits fed diet rich in cholesterol. One group showed high cholesterol, while the other showed lower levels of cholesterol. This was stunning, because all the rabbits were the same, they consumed same diet. So, what was different in the rabbit group that had lower cholesterol levels? Chopra says – it was happiness in those rabbits which led to better chemicals and chemical reaction in the brain that changed the cholesterol into a different pathway that did not hurt the heart. Why were they happy? Let us get into one of the most bizarrely misinterpreted study which led to what we now call as “The Rabbit Effect.” A type of rabbit, used in experiments, called the New Zealand white male rabbits, develop heart disease much like humans if fed a high-fat diet. So these rabbits are used to study effects of cholesterol in the heart using “diet experiments.” In 1978, Dr. Robert Nerem and his group fed a group of these rabbits high fat diet. At the end of the study, he measured the animals’ cholesterol, heart rates, and blood pressure. As expected, the cholesterol values were all high and virtually identical to one another. The rabbits had similar genes and ate the same diet. Now they all seemed destined for a heart attack or stroke. Only one aberrant problem. As the last step, Dr. Nerem needed to examine the rabbits’ tiny blood vessels to show cholesterol deposits there too. Looking through the microscope, he expected all the rabbits to show similar fatty deposits on the inside of their arteries. Instead, there was a huge variation in the fatty deposits between the animals. One group of rabbits had 60 percent fewer deposits than the other. What was happening? There was no clear biological explanation to this. They checked every little item they used in the experiment to see if that had caused changes. But every little thing was controlled and accounted for. Except one small thing. The researchers themselves. A Canadian postdoc named Murina Levesque had recently joined the lab. She was an unusually kind and caring individual. When it became apparent that all the animals with fewer fatty deposits were under Murina’s care, the team dug deeper. They noticed that Murina handled the animals differently. When she fed her rabbits, she talked to them, cuddled, and petted them. She did not throw the food at the little animals. She gave them food with love. So, prove this, the research group repeated the experiment, this time with tightly controlled conditions. They compared the little blood vessels of one group of rabbits cared for by Murina (food+love) to the arteries of another group of rabbits cared for in the standard way (only food). They found the same effect again. The paper was published in Science Magazine. This one: Social Environment as a Factor in Diet-Induced Atherosclerosis - So did the study prove that if you are happy, and the mind is free, poisonous substances can turn into nectar? - No, that was not what the study says. Remember – the study showed that high cholesterol levels in the blood was same in all rabbits who were on high fat diet. Only that the cholesterol deposits were lesser in the arteries of those who were fed with “kindness” – meaning who were less “stressed.” The study took the medical world on a wild ride because all the rabbit experiments would have to now look at how emotionally these animals were, to come to better conclusions from the interventions studied. So, a group of researchers specifically looked at “handling” and diet induced cholesterol deposits (atherosclerosis) in rabbits. They found that handling the animals did not have any effect on the atherosclerosis size inside the blood vessels and this was only roughly determined by the amount of cholesterol in food eaten. In the original “Rabbit Effect” study, the amount of food eaten between groups was not looked at. We now know that chronic stress leads to different behavioral patterns which also includes increased eating. Chronic life stress seems to be associated with a greater preference for energy- and nutrient-dense foods, namely those that are high in sugar and fat. Higher the stress, higher amount of food eaten, more the cholesterol and more importantly, more deposits inside the arteries which can be independent of cholesterol levels. How? One possible mechanism for this process is that chronic stress causes small blood vessel injury (endothelial damage), directly activating macrophages (an inflammatory cell), promoting foam cell formation, and generating the formation of atherosclerotic plaque inside small vessels. This mechanism involves numerous variables, including inflammation, signal pathways, lipid metabolism and endothelial function – and has nothing to do with cholesterol going to another pathway because of brain chemicals. Cholesterol is the body is metabolized through the same pathway whether you are happy, sad, or delirious. That is not what the rabbit study claimed or what it proved. It only made way for other studies to show that chronic stress could be an important factor that negatively impact heart and brain health which was independent of the food that you consume. Poison does not become nectar if you are happy and nectar does not become poison if you are sad. That is just Ayurvedic mumbo-jumbo from hocus-pocus self-help gurus who cite “Agni and the Digestive Fire” as the mechanism. “Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire” is more believable. If you take rat poison happily, you will still die. If you eat a banana while crying, you won’t die.

TheLiverDoc™

409,193 views • 3 years ago

"If people knew the truth they would not be taking this vaccine" RFK Jr on Pfizer's Clinical Trial data: "Your chance of dying of a heart attack [is] 500% greater than if you're unvaccinated" "people need to [understand this] criminal deception that has been imposed upon them". TRANSCRIPT: ROBERT F KENNEDY Jr: "The death rates from this vaccine, [there's] been more deaths in eight months [then in] all the billions of vaccines combined over the last 30 years.... from this one vaccine, 17,000 recorded deaths in the United States and we know the death rates [are] much higher than that, probably 40 times....the best math the best you know studies are showing that it's 40 times that.....so um you know the risks from the vaccine are [completely] untenable. "If people knew the truth they would not be taking this vaccine and then the benefits of the vaccine are apparently zero, or even sub zero after six months on the British data showing that the people who are vaccinated are actually more likely in many age categories to uh to get Covid and people who are unvaccinated uh which by the way was predicted" "We know that Pfizer knew this was going to happen because in their clinical trial [in] a six month clinical trial, was only six months, at the end of that period 20 people died in the vaccine group and only 14 in the placebo group.... of all cause mortality" "There were five heart attacks in the vaccine group and only one in the placebo group... so your chance of dying of a heart attack, from that vaccine according to their own studies, is 500% greater than if you're unvaccinated" "So they knew they were going to kill a lot of people and they did it anyway... and people need to be able to see those studies [and] understand the deception, this, you know criminal deception that has been imposed upon them"
1:52

"If people knew the truth they would not be taking this vaccine" RFK Jr on Pfizer's Clinical Trial data: "Your chance of dying of a heart attack [is] 500% greater than if you're unvaccinated" "people need to [understand this] criminal deception that has been imposed upon them". TRANSCRIPT: ROBERT F KENNEDY Jr: "The death rates from this vaccine, [there's] been more deaths in eight months [then in] all the billions of vaccines combined over the last 30 years.... from this one vaccine, 17,000 recorded deaths in the United States and we know the death rates [are] much higher than that, probably 40 times....the best math the best you know studies are showing that it's 40 times that.....so um you know the risks from the vaccine are [completely] untenable. "If people knew the truth they would not be taking this vaccine and then the benefits of the vaccine are apparently zero, or even sub zero after six months on the British data showing that the people who are vaccinated are actually more likely in many age categories to uh to get Covid and people who are unvaccinated uh which by the way was predicted" "We know that Pfizer knew this was going to happen because in their clinical trial [in] a six month clinical trial, was only six months, at the end of that period 20 people died in the vaccine group and only 14 in the placebo group.... of all cause mortality" "There were five heart attacks in the vaccine group and only one in the placebo group... so your chance of dying of a heart attack, from that vaccine according to their own studies, is 500% greater than if you're unvaccinated" "So they knew they were going to kill a lot of people and they did it anyway... and people need to be able to see those studies [and] understand the deception, this, you know criminal deception that has been imposed upon them"

Humanspective

69,939 views • 8 months ago

A groundbreaking study from 2001 found that 90% of patients were able to CURE their high blood pressure, not with pills but with fasting. The medical establishment didn’t celebrate the finding or put it into practice. Instead, they ignored it. “In this study, 174 consecutive patients with high blood pressure… normalized their blood pressure without the need for medication.” Dr. Alan Goldhamer, the lead author of that study, said he saw things that “were not supposed to be happening.” “I saw people with chronic diseases like high blood pressure resolving their hypertension, getting off the medications” with “medically supervised water-only fasting.” “Use of fasting helps the body do what it really does best, which is heal itself if you get out of the way.” STUDY: Medically supervised water-only fasting in the treatment of hypertension —> FULL INTERVIEW:
0:54

A groundbreaking study from 2001 found that 90% of patients were able to CURE their high blood pressure, not with pills but with fasting. The medical establishment didn’t celebrate the finding or put it into practice. Instead, they ignored it. “In this study, 174 consecutive patients with high blood pressure… normalized their blood pressure without the need for medication.” Dr. Alan Goldhamer, the lead author of that study, said he saw things that “were not supposed to be happening.” “I saw people with chronic diseases like high blood pressure resolving their hypertension, getting off the medications” with “medically supervised water-only fasting.” “Use of fasting helps the body do what it really does best, which is heal itself if you get out of the way.” STUDY: Medically supervised water-only fasting in the treatment of hypertension —> FULL INTERVIEW:

The Vigilant Fox 🦊

184,593 views • 4 months ago

Germany's Merz on the Board of Peace: I told Trump a few weeks ago that I would personally be ready to join a Board of Peace, if it were a body that, as originally planned, accompanies the peace process in Gaza — including now in the second phase, which unfortunately has not yet begun, with the disarmament of Hamas. In its current form, however, we cannot accept the governance structures for constitutional reasons in Germany. Nevertheless, we are prepared to explore other, new forms of cooperation with the United States if the aim is to find formats that bring us closer to peace in other regions of the world.
1:06

Germany's Merz on the Board of Peace: I told Trump a few weeks ago that I would personally be ready to join a Board of Peace, if it were a body that, as originally planned, accompanies the peace process in Gaza — including now in the second phase, which unfortunately has not yet begun, with the disarmament of Hamas. In its current form, however, we cannot accept the governance structures for constitutional reasons in Germany. Nevertheless, we are prepared to explore other, new forms of cooperation with the United States if the aim is to find formats that bring us closer to peace in other regions of the world.

Clash Report

786,346 views • 6 months ago

6 Things I’ve Changed My Mind On! 1BCAA Supplementation: My PhD research involved BCAAs. I used supplemental BCAAs for 15 years. My 1st supplement company sold a product with BCAA. I stopped recommending them because of evidence & my current company @outworknutritionofficial does not have a BCAA product because the evidence demonstrates it is not as anabolic as a comparable amount of BCAA from intact protein sources like Whey Protein (Marquez KN 2022) 2Fasted Cardio: I used to do & promote fasted cardio because it caused more fat oxidation during exercise, but fat oxidation is not the same thing as fat loss & the research showed NO DIFFERENCE in FAT LOSS when performing fed vs. fasted cardio (Hacket D & Hagstrom AD 2017) 3High intensity vs. low intensity cardio: I 1st recommended LI cardio then flipped to recommending HI cardio & finally settled on the fact there was no difference in fat loss when total work was equated between groups (PMID: 37927356) 4Meal Frequency: I used to eat 8 meals per day, a meal every 2 hours. The idea was to ‘stoke the metabolic furnace’ to cause more fat loss but this is not supported by research where calories are equated between low & high meal frequencies. One is not superior to the other (PMID: 19943985). 5LDL Cholesterol: When I got to graduate school I was convinced that it was the HDL:LDL ratio that mattered, not LDL itself. Then over time the long term research in humans very clearly demonstrated a linear increase in risk for lifetime exposure to LDL cholesterol (PMID: 23083789) 6Sugar/Fructose: When I got to school I was convinced that sugar, in particular fructose/high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) was uniquely fattening outside of the calories it contained. But the research very clearly does not support that. When fructose/HFCS/sugar is exchanged for other carbohydrates & calories are equated, there are no differences in fat loss or gain between diets (PMIDs: 22351714, 24642950, 9094871, & 31711109) Be open minded but not so open minded that your brain falls out From: The Dr. Layne Norton Podcast (coming soon)
1:44

6 Things I’ve Changed My Mind On! 1BCAA Supplementation: My PhD research involved BCAAs. I used supplemental BCAAs for 15 years. My 1st supplement company sold a product with BCAA. I stopped recommending them because of evidence & my current company @outworknutritionofficial does not have a BCAA product because the evidence demonstrates it is not as anabolic as a comparable amount of BCAA from intact protein sources like Whey Protein (Marquez KN 2022) 2Fasted Cardio: I used to do & promote fasted cardio because it caused more fat oxidation during exercise, but fat oxidation is not the same thing as fat loss & the research showed NO DIFFERENCE in FAT LOSS when performing fed vs. fasted cardio (Hacket D & Hagstrom AD 2017) 3High intensity vs. low intensity cardio: I 1st recommended LI cardio then flipped to recommending HI cardio & finally settled on the fact there was no difference in fat loss when total work was equated between groups (PMID: 37927356) 4Meal Frequency: I used to eat 8 meals per day, a meal every 2 hours. The idea was to ‘stoke the metabolic furnace’ to cause more fat loss but this is not supported by research where calories are equated between low & high meal frequencies. One is not superior to the other (PMID: 19943985). 5LDL Cholesterol: When I got to graduate school I was convinced that it was the HDL:LDL ratio that mattered, not LDL itself. Then over time the long term research in humans very clearly demonstrated a linear increase in risk for lifetime exposure to LDL cholesterol (PMID: 23083789) 6Sugar/Fructose: When I got to school I was convinced that sugar, in particular fructose/high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) was uniquely fattening outside of the calories it contained. But the research very clearly does not support that. When fructose/HFCS/sugar is exchanged for other carbohydrates & calories are equated, there are no differences in fat loss or gain between diets (PMIDs: 22351714, 24642950, 9094871, & 31711109) Be open minded but not so open minded that your brain falls out From: The Dr. Layne Norton Podcast (coming soon)

Layne Norton, PhD

44,655 views • 1 year ago

FDA Commissioner Marty Makary Says The FDA Is 'Now Revising' Saturated Fat Guidelines “Look, since Anel Keys in the 1960s decided to demonize saturated fat with a hypothesis that was supported with data that was incomplete and methodologically flawed in his Seven Country Study, the medical establishment started a robust debate in the New England Journal of Medicine among academics of theNational Academy. But that debate ended in the 1970s because there was group-think, the medical establishment locked arms and walked off a cliff together, insisting that the reason for heart disease in the United States was that people were not eating skim milk and no fat and low-fat foods, ignoring the roles of refined carbohydrates and so many other things that drive general body inflammation, which is the precursor of fat deposition in the arteries. Well, that dogma still lives large and you see remnants of it in the food guidelines that we are now revising. So, we're going to ensure that the new guidelines are based on science and not medical dogma.”
1:23

FDA Commissioner Marty Makary Says The FDA Is 'Now Revising' Saturated Fat Guidelines “Look, since Anel Keys in the 1960s decided to demonize saturated fat with a hypothesis that was supported with data that was incomplete and methodologically flawed in his Seven Country Study, the medical establishment started a robust debate in the New England Journal of Medicine among academics of theNational Academy. But that debate ended in the 1970s because there was group-think, the medical establishment locked arms and walked off a cliff together, insisting that the reason for heart disease in the United States was that people were not eating skim milk and no fat and low-fat foods, ignoring the roles of refined carbohydrates and so many other things that drive general body inflammation, which is the precursor of fat deposition in the arteries. Well, that dogma still lives large and you see remnants of it in the food guidelines that we are now revising. So, we're going to ensure that the new guidelines are based on science and not medical dogma.”

Meat Head

181,884 views • 1 year ago

ELON MUSK: “It needs to be sustainably multi-planetary, so not just visiting, but actually multi-planetary in the sense that if you have planetary redundancy, so if there were to be a catastrophe on one of the planets, the other planet would survive. Starship is capable of doing that for the first time in history, and no AI was used to create it.”
0:37

ELON MUSK: “It needs to be sustainably multi-planetary, so not just visiting, but actually multi-planetary in the sense that if you have planetary redundancy, so if there were to be a catastrophe on one of the planets, the other planet would survive. Starship is capable of doing that for the first time in history, and no AI was used to create it.”

Dima Zeniuk

5,481,631 views • 8 months ago

Fish oil is often discussed for its brain and mood benefits, but research shows it may also improve resting metabolic rate (RMR) and body composition. A 2015 study looked at 24 older women (66 years old), with half taking 3 grams per day of fish oil (2 g EPA, 1 g DHA) and the other half receiving olive oil as a placebo. Both groups were matched for calories. [PMCID: PMC4682991 | PMID: 26679702] After 12 weeks, the fish oil group saw: - 14% increase in resting metabolic rate - ~10% increase in energy expenditure during exercise - 19% higher fat oxidation at rest, 27% higher when active - 4% increase in lean mass (from 40.3 kg to 41.9 kg, a 1.6 kg absolute increase) Additionally: - VO2 max improved in the fish oil group (no change in placebo) - Resting heart rate dropped by ~3 bpm in the fish oil group (no change in placebo) - Metabolic rate increases held even when adjusting for body mass and lean mass This is just one of the many evidence-based strategies we discussed for improving metabolic performance.
1:53

Fish oil is often discussed for its brain and mood benefits, but research shows it may also improve resting metabolic rate (RMR) and body composition. A 2015 study looked at 24 older women (66 years old), with half taking 3 grams per day of fish oil (2 g EPA, 1 g DHA) and the other half receiving olive oil as a placebo. Both groups were matched for calories. [PMCID: PMC4682991 | PMID: 26679702] After 12 weeks, the fish oil group saw: - 14% increase in resting metabolic rate - ~10% increase in energy expenditure during exercise - 19% higher fat oxidation at rest, 27% higher when active - 4% increase in lean mass (from 40.3 kg to 41.9 kg, a 1.6 kg absolute increase) Additionally: - VO2 max improved in the fish oil group (no change in placebo) - Resting heart rate dropped by ~3 bpm in the fish oil group (no change in placebo) - Metabolic rate increases held even when adjusting for body mass and lean mass This is just one of the many evidence-based strategies we discussed for improving metabolic performance.

Andy Galpin, PhD

120,267 views • 1 year ago

FINALLY: ‘New CDC Work Group to Study Aluminum in Childhood Vaccines.’ The negative and oftentimes life-altering effects of aluminum on a developing brain cannot be understated. It is high time that CDC looked at the risks associated with injecting our children with “over 500 times” the “existing safety limit…in a single practitioner visit.” It is likely that the findings from this work group will reveal that aluminum in vaccines will be as scandalous, if not more, than the mercury/vaccine catastrophe. Brian Hooker, PhD
1:46

FINALLY: ‘New CDC Work Group to Study Aluminum in Childhood Vaccines.’ The negative and oftentimes life-altering effects of aluminum on a developing brain cannot be understated. It is high time that CDC looked at the risks associated with injecting our children with “over 500 times” the “existing safety limit…in a single practitioner visit.” It is likely that the findings from this work group will reveal that aluminum in vaccines will be as scandalous, if not more, than the mercury/vaccine catastrophe. Brian Hooker, PhD

Children’s Health Defense

15,217 views • 8 months ago

Muscle strength is arguably one of the most important predictors of healthspan and longevity—far more than muscle mass alone. Low muscle strength is associated with a 50% higher risk of early death. The good news is that strength can be regained at any age through resistance training, even in your 90s. One study showed that 90-year-old participants increased their strength by 174%, walking speed by 48%, and thigh muscle mass by 9% after just 8 weeks of high-intensity resistance training (PMID: 2342214). This highlights that age-related strength loss is primarily a reversible decline in muscle quality—not just lost muscle mass. But there’s another key piece: protein. For older adults, consuming about 1.6g/kg of body weight in protein daily has been shown to maximize gains in both muscle strength and mass. Combining resistance training with adequate protein intake is a game-changer for improving biological resilience, mobility, and overall quality of life as we age. I cover all this and more in Episode 97: The Science of Protein. It’s a must-watch for anyone looking to improve their health or help loved ones do the same. Watch Episode 97 now:
0:32

Muscle strength is arguably one of the most important predictors of healthspan and longevity—far more than muscle mass alone. Low muscle strength is associated with a 50% higher risk of early death. The good news is that strength can be regained at any age through resistance training, even in your 90s. One study showed that 90-year-old participants increased their strength by 174%, walking speed by 48%, and thigh muscle mass by 9% after just 8 weeks of high-intensity resistance training (PMID: 2342214). This highlights that age-related strength loss is primarily a reversible decline in muscle quality—not just lost muscle mass. But there’s another key piece: protein. For older adults, consuming about 1.6g/kg of body weight in protein daily has been shown to maximize gains in both muscle strength and mass. Combining resistance training with adequate protein intake is a game-changer for improving biological resilience, mobility, and overall quality of life as we age. I cover all this and more in Episode 97: The Science of Protein. It’s a must-watch for anyone looking to improve their health or help loved ones do the same. Watch Episode 97 now:

Dr. Rhonda Patrick

83,710 views • 1 year ago

“If people were to come in on Friday do you think that would improve this problem?” -Pat “I think if there was 20% more output there would be 20% more success… My point about this office is that Dave was talking, in my interpretation of it, about getting out of the lease of this office. So it’s like alarms are going off. If we’re in an office wide performance plan it would behoove us to, if not double down, do the extra 20%” -Rone
1:41

“If people were to come in on Friday do you think that would improve this problem?” -Pat “I think if there was 20% more output there would be 20% more success… My point about this office is that Dave was talking, in my interpretation of it, about getting out of the lease of this office. So it’s like alarms are going off. If we’re in an office wide performance plan it would behoove us to, if not double down, do the extra 20%” -Rone

Viva La Stool

1,562,285 views • 1 month ago

Elon Musk on Starship: "If there are historians in the future, they will look back at Starship and say it was one of the most profound things that ever happened. The degree to which a Starship is a revolutionary technology is not well understood in the world. It's the first time that there's been any rocket design where full and rapid reusability is possible. This is the first design where success is in the set of possible outcomes. There were a lot of performance improvements for v3 so it made sense to go to v3, there's like 10,000 different changes between v2 and v3. There just aren't very many things that are in the top 10 of the evolution of life. So if there were to be a catastrophe on one of the planets, the other planet would survive and no AI was used to create it."
2:50

Elon Musk on Starship: "If there are historians in the future, they will look back at Starship and say it was one of the most profound things that ever happened. The degree to which a Starship is a revolutionary technology is not well understood in the world. It's the first time that there's been any rocket design where full and rapid reusability is possible. This is the first design where success is in the set of possible outcomes. There were a lot of performance improvements for v3 so it made sense to go to v3, there's like 10,000 different changes between v2 and v3. There just aren't very many things that are in the top 10 of the evolution of life. So if there were to be a catastrophe on one of the planets, the other planet would survive and no AI was used to create it."

DogeDesigner

489,406 views • 8 months ago

LOCK THEM UP AND THROW AWAY THE KEY The brilliant Dr Jeyanthi Kunadhasan testifies before an Australian Senate Committee that in Pfizer’s own clinical trial there were more deaths in the vaccinated group than the placebo group. For the TGA to grant approve to a new drug which had more deaths in the treatment group than the placebo group is beyond inconceivable, it was criminally negligent. And their excuse for doing so, was the claim the guesswork that the deaths in the vaccinated group where not related to the vaccine - yet many of these were unexplained sudden deaths for which no autopsy was performed. So their excuse that the deaths in the vaccinated group where not related to the vaccine was made without any evidence - which was also criminally negligent. And now we have tens of thousands of excess dead Australians - exactly what the results of the Pfizer trial suggested would happen. So it’s beyond criminal negligence- it’s mass negligent homicide. And to think they forced Australians to inject this stuff, knowing full well that Pfizer’s trial indicated that increase your risk of death. Forget the Royal Commission, we need to go straight to Nuremberg 2.0
2:24

LOCK THEM UP AND THROW AWAY THE KEY The brilliant Dr Jeyanthi Kunadhasan testifies before an Australian Senate Committee that in Pfizer’s own clinical trial there were more deaths in the vaccinated group than the placebo group. For the TGA to grant approve to a new drug which had more deaths in the treatment group than the placebo group is beyond inconceivable, it was criminally negligent. And their excuse for doing so, was the claim the guesswork that the deaths in the vaccinated group where not related to the vaccine - yet many of these were unexplained sudden deaths for which no autopsy was performed. So their excuse that the deaths in the vaccinated group where not related to the vaccine was made without any evidence - which was also criminally negligent. And now we have tens of thousands of excess dead Australians - exactly what the results of the Pfizer trial suggested would happen. So it’s beyond criminal negligence- it’s mass negligent homicide. And to think they forced Australians to inject this stuff, knowing full well that Pfizer’s trial indicated that increase your risk of death. Forget the Royal Commission, we need to go straight to Nuremberg 2.0

Craig Kelly:🇦🇺Foundation for Economic Education

262,856 views • 2 years ago