The Kevin Bass Show

Link to WaPo opinion piece (no paywall) https://archive.ph/mR9iULink to Cochrane review on masking https://cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD006207.pub6/fullLinks to University of Minnesota commentaries https://cidrap.umn.edu/covid-19/commentary-wear-respirator-not-cloth-or-surgical-mask-protect-against-respiratory-viruseshttps://cidrap.umn.edu/covid-19/commentary-what-can-masks-do-part-2-what-makes-good-mask-study-and-why-most-failLink to fatally flawed CDC study https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7106e1.htm

From Andres's show notes:"Despite what we want to believe, cardiovascular disease does not only start once we are in our 50s and 60s. As we welcome Kevin Bass back to the Know Your Physio podcast, we hear his opinions on cholesterol, the medications to take, and opinions on collected long-term genetic studies. We don’t hold back on having a controversial conversation around starting the reduction of low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol in your mid to late 20s, the role of genetics in our predisposition to cardiovascular health issues, and how we need to look at things from an environmental, health, and nutrition perspective. Kevin tells us about his preferences and opinions on the different interventions for LDL cholesterol reduction and how he aims to (one day in the future) create a risk reduction calculator that will look at and create a risk-benefit profile. Plus, Kevin discusses his feelings toward Andrew Huberman, consulting medical professionals, and some signs of when it may be time to start looking at taking prescription cholesterol medication!Key Points From This Episode:People in the fitness industry who are pissing Kevin off.Different calculations people can do to determine their risk of cardiovascular disease.Interventions for LDL cholesterol (including prescription medication) and their side effects. A look at how to reduce LDL cholesterol.Kevin’s opinions on Andrew Huberman.Unpacking cardiovascular disease considering your genetics and potential preventative measures. Why Kevin believes people 25 and older can start cholesterol medication.Where Kevin gets the long-term genetic studies data from.Analyzing and interpreting data on cardiovascular disease to create a relative risk reduction.Why Kevin wants to create his own risk reduction calculator and risk-benefit profile.Signs people should start looking for when deciding to take cholesterol medication.Questions to potentially ask your doctor to help you identify your cardiovascular risk (and why they may be unlikely to prescribe).A look at the purpose and benefits of statins, metformin, and rapamycin.Links Mentioned in Today’s Episode:The Diet WarsKevin Bass on TwitterThe Kevin Bass Show YouTubeDebunking Andrew HubermanBiOptimizersAndrés PreschelKnow Your Physio Podcast"===Like, comment, subscribe.For more, find me at:PODCAST The Kevin Bass ShowYOUTUBE https://www.youtube.com/user/kbassphiladelphiaSUBREDDIT www.reddit.com/r/kevinbassWEBSITE http://thedietwars.comTWITTER https://twitter.com/kevinnbass/https://twitter.com/healthmisinfo/INSTAGRAM https://instagram.com/kevinnbass/TIKTOK https://tiktok.com/@kevinnbassAnd above all, please donate to support what I do:PATREON https://patreon.com/kevinnbass/DONATE https://thedietwars.com/support-me/

From Andres's show notes:"When it comes to nutritional science and social media it can be uniquely challenging to differentiate fact from hype. Here today, to help us unpack the topic of scientific influencers and misinformation is Kevin Bass, an MD and Ph.D. student, and founder of The Diet Wars, a site dedicated to upholding evidence-based nutritional research and exposing figures who spread nutritional and scientific misinformation online. We dig into how social media can incentivize the spread of misinformation, why these systems need to change, and take a closer look at the growing community of evidence-based nutritional science experts and influencers online. Tuning in, you’ll learn how to identify legitimate scientific influencers, and what red flags you should look out for when trying to avoid misinformation. Kevin also breaks down key areas of misinformation including how to combat sun damage, the so-called harms of seed oils, and how saunas can realistically benefit your health. Combating misinformation online is a huge challenge, but we can all find ways to better navigate the online space by thinking critically and by asking the right questions. Tune in for this important conversation on nutritional science, social media, and much more!Key Points From This Episode:Learn about the power of Magnesium Breakthrough by BioOptimizers.Introducing today’s guest, Kevin Bass.Kevin’s early encounters with medicine, misdiagnoses, and how it informs his perspective.How current systems incentivize misinformation in the nutrition space.The growing evidence-based community in nutritional science and on social media.What sets evidence-based nutritionists apart from their counterparts.Tips on how to discern which experts to follow online.The benefits and harms of sunscreen use, and suggested alternatives for sun protection.Some of the advantages of early morning sun exposure.An overview of general attitudes toward seed oils and what is based on fact versus emotion.The role of anti-nutrients in certain foods and how they can work synergistically with other elements to produce positive outcomes.Examples of how influencers misrepresent information to sell their products on social media.What regular blood work can teach you about your physiology and your risk factors.How using steroids as a health professional affects your credibility.An overview of saunas, their potential benefits and harms, and how to utilize them appropriately.The science behind cold exposure, weight loss, and building resilience.Links Mentioned in Today’s Episode:BiOptimizersThe Diet WarsKevin Bass on TwitterPublic Health Initiative Against MisinformationMagnesium BreakthroughRed Pen ReviewsLayne NortonPeter AttiaDr. Mark HymanRhonda PatrickThe Peter Attia Drive PodcastAndrés PreschelKnow Your Physio PodcastSupport the show"===Like, comment, subscribe.For more, find me at:PODCAST The Kevin Bass ShowYOUTUBE https://www.youtube.com/user/kbassphiladelphiaSUBREDDIT www.reddit.com/r/kevinbassWEBSITE http://thedietwars.comTWITTER https://twitter.com/kevinnbass/https://twitter.com/healthmisinfo/INSTAGRAM https://instagram.com/kevinnbass/TIKTOK https://tiktok.com/@kevinnbassAnd above all, please donate to support what I do:PATREON https://patreon.com/kevinnbass/DONATE https://thedietwars.com/support-me/

In this video, I talk with Kevin Folta about glyphosate, Roundup Ready, Monsanto, GMOs, biotech, and science communication. We talk about some of the current controversies in agricultural science and try to explain how they came to be.===Like, comment, subscribe.For more, find me at:PODCAST The Kevin Bass ShowYOUTUBE https://www.youtube.com/user/kbassphiladelphiaSUBREDDIT www.reddit.com/r/kevinbassWEBSITE http://thedietwars.comTWITTER https://twitter.com/kevinnbass/https://twitter.com/healthmisinfo/INSTAGRAM https://instagram.com/kevinnbass/TIKTOK https://tiktok.com/@kevinnbassAnd above all, please donate to support what I do:PATREON https://patreon.com/kevinnbass/DONATE https://thedietwars.com/support-me/

Does lifting weights automatically make someone healthier?Not so fast.One recent study showed that current and former power athletes (wrestlers, judo players, and powerlifters) have higher rates of metabolic dysfunction than non-athletes, despite a lower body fat percentage and, for active athletes, a smaller waist circumference (PMID 30148100). See figure in post.Being big and strong does not automatically make someone healthy. In fact, the opposite might be true.With our culture’s current obsession with muscularity, isn’t it important to know that muscularity might come at the price of health?Enter studies of the mortality rates of former athletes. Consistently and internationally, they show that endurance athletes have a marked longevity advantage, mixed athletes have a slightly lower longevity advantage, and power athletes have a much lower advantage, even in some cases dying slightly earlier than the general population (PMIDs 33368029, 23241272, 26301178, 28149523).One study published last year, meta-analyzing studies of more than 165,000 athletes showed that power athletes do not live any longer than the average person in the population. In contrast, former endurance athletes enjoyed a full 35% reduction in risk of death at all ages (PMID 33368029).A new paper even showed that longevity benefits were maximized at 1-2 hours of weight training per week, after which they declined precipitously and even increased above the average population at 3-4 hours per week. That’s right. The average gym bro lifting 3-4 hours per week had a higher risk of death at all ages than the potato chip bro playing Xbox. This was despite lower metabolic and diabetes risk, probably due to increased amounts of muscle mass (PMID 35228201).It’s true that weight training helps to stave off sarcopenia, an important cause of declining quality of life among the elderly. But the benefits of higher muscle mass can be gained without needing to become a bodybuilder. In fact, it might be more healthy to hit the treadmill more and the weights less.Learn more at THE KEVIN BASS SHOW.===Like, comment, subscribe.For more, find me at:PODCAST The Kevin Bass ShowYOUTUBE https://www.youtube.com/user/kbassphiladelphiaSUBREDDIT www.reddit.com/r/kevinbassWEBSITE http://thedietwars.comTWITTER https://twitter.com/kevinnbass/https://twitter.com/healthmisinfo/INSTAGRAM https://instagram.com/kevinnbass/TIKTOK https://tiktok.com/@kevinnbassAnd above all, please donate to support what I do:PATREON https://patreon.com/kevinnbass/DONATE https://thedietwars.com/support-me/===Like, comment, subscribe.For more, find me at:PODCAST The Kevin Bass ShowYOUTUBE https://www.youtube.com/user/kbassphiladelphiaSUBREDDIT www.reddit.com/r/kevinbassWEBSITE http://thedietwars.comTWITTER https://twitter.com/kevinnbass/https://twitter.com/healthmisinfo/INSTAGRAM https://instagram.com/kevinnbass/TIKTOK https://tiktok.com/@kevinnbassAnd above all, please donate to support what I do:PATREON https://patreon.com/kevinnbass/DONATE https://thedietwars.com/support-me/

Do seed oils cause inflammation? Are heated seed oils bad for you? Are seed oils part of a global conspiracy by agricultural and pharmaceutical companies to ruin our health and profit from it? Kevin confronts these questions head-on in this podcast.===Like, comment, subscribe.For more, find me at:PODCAST The Kevin Bass ShowYOUTUBE https://www.youtube.com/user/kbassphiladelphiaSUBREDDIT www.reddit.com/r/kevinbassWEBSITE http://thedietwars.comTWITTER https://twitter.com/kevinnbass/https://twitter.com/healthmisinfo/INSTAGRAM https://instagram.com/kevinnbass/TIKTOK https://tiktok.com/@kevinnbassAnd above all, please donate to support what I do:PATREON https://patreon.com/kevinnbass/DONATE https://thedietwars.com/support-me/

In this episode, I have more fun with Bart Kay talking about nutrition and health. My connection this time is better. We end by disagreeing about LDL cholesterol and cardiovascular disease, a subject we will take up further in the next discussion.===Like, comment, subscribe.For more, find me at:PODCAST The Kevin Bass ShowYOUTUBE https://www.youtube.com/user/kbassphiladelphiaSUBREDDIT www.reddit.com/r/kevinbassWEBSITE http://thedietwars.comTWITTER https://twitter.com/kevinnbass/https://twitter.com/healthmisinfo/INSTAGRAM https://instagram.com/kevinnbass/TIKTOK https://tiktok.com/@kevinnbassAnd above all, please donate to support what I do:PATREON https://patreon.com/kevinnbass/DONATE https://thedietwars.com/support-me/

In this podcast, I debunk Paul Mason's nutrition science book chapter in the book Clinical Sports Medicine by Brukner and Khan. Through a critique of just the introductory section, I show that it is not a work of science. If Paul would like to see further debunkings of the other sections (which in many cases are worse), please let me know and I would be happy to do further videos.===Like, comment, subscribe.For more, find me at:PODCAST The Kevin Bass ShowYOUTUBE https://www.youtube.com/user/kbassphiladelphiaSUBREDDIT www.reddit.com/r/kevinbassWEBSITE http://thedietwars.comTWITTER https://twitter.com/kevinnbass/https://twitter.com/healthmisinfo/INSTAGRAM https://instagram.com/kevinnbass/TIKTOK https://tiktok.com/@kevinnbassAnd above all, please donate to support what I do:PATREON https://patreon.com/kevinnbass/DONATE https://thedietwars.com/support-me/

In this discussion, Bart Kay and I talk about on the ethics, environmental effects, paleoanthropology, and nutrition science of meat consumption.===Like, comment, subscribe.For more, find me at:PODCAST The Kevin Bass ShowYOUTUBE https://www.youtube.com/user/kbassphiladelphiaSUBREDDIT www.reddit.com/r/kevinbassWEBSITE http://thedietwars.comTWITTER https://twitter.com/kevinnbass/https://twitter.com/healthmisinfo/INSTAGRAM https://instagram.com/kevinnbass/TIKTOK https://tiktok.com/@kevinnbassAnd above all, please donate to support what I do:PATREON https://patreon.com/kevinnbass/DONATE https://thedietwars.com/support-me/

In this episode, I talk about how Joe Rogan recently lashed out at the agricultural scientist Kevin Folta when Kevin discussed an alternative interpretation of the scientific data that was different than the one that Joe preferred and was familiar with.Following lockstep with Chris Kresser, an alternative health guru that has been deeply influential on Joe, Jhee has been misled to believe that all exposures to glyphosate are harmful, no matter how low the dose, and expresses anger and outrage that legitimate scientists disagree with him about this topic.I point out that Bruce Ames more than 30 years ago wrote a very influential paper called "Dietary pesticides (99.99% all natural)" (PMID: 2217210), where Ames pointed out that many natural pesticides present in plants already constitute a much higher exposure of "carcinogens" than synthetic pesticides.I also point out that regulatory agencies are nearly unanimous in agreeing that glyphosate is not carcinogenic, that glyphosate is much less toxic than many natural pesticides, and that the exposures to which consumers are subjected at thousands of times lower than the doses required for even mild biological effects.In other words:THE DOSE MAKES THE POISON.Finally, I defend Kevin Folta and point out that he defends glyphosate not because he is paid by corporations (he isn't), but because glyphosate has made agriculture more efficient and safer and has helped feed millions of people. I point out that misinformation about glyphosate and agriculture can lead to higher food prices and less ability for farmers to feed millions of people.===Like, comment, subscribe.For more, find me at:PODCAST The Kevin Bass ShowYOUTUBE https://www.youtube.com/user/kbassphiladelphiaSUBREDDIT www.reddit.com/r/kevinbassWEBSITE http://thedietwars.comTWITTER https://twitter.com/kevinnbass/https://twitter.com/healthmisinfo/INSTAGRAM https://instagram.com/kevinnbass/TIKTOK https://tiktok.com/@kevinnbassAnd above all, please donate to support what I do:PATREON https://patreon.com/kevinnbass/DONATE https://thedietwars.com/support-me/

Cult-like behavior among groups that promote various health interventions or lifestyle practices is the norm. Such groups NOT being cult-like is extremely rare. These groups, no matter what they promote, overhype benefits and underplay risks. They condescend to outsiders; they engage in dogmatic proclamations; and they are highly resistant to new information that might challenge their black-and-white narratives.In fact, criticism will often be interpreted as immoral, as encouraging people not to undergo the lifestyle practice or health intervention, and critics can risk a kind of quasi-religious “excommunication” from groups that have taken a strong public position on behalf of the intervention.This occurs for vitamin supplementation, cold exposure, sauna, diets, medicines, exercise regimens, sunscreens, psychedelics, and much more. It occurs for interventions with strong overall scientific consensus for their use, and for interventions with much weaker evidence.Two papers published in 2015 and 2017 explain part of this bias. In the 2015 paper (PMID 25531451), after looking at 37 research studies involving 27,323 patients it was shown that patients systematically underestimated harms and overestimated benefits. The paper concluded that “clinicians should discuss accurate and balanced information about intervention benefits and harms with patients, providing the opportunity to develop realistic expectations and make informed decisions.”The problem, however, was with the 2017 paper by the same group (PMID 28097303). This paper showed that the same phenomenon existed among clinicians: the very group that was supposed to provide guidance to patients themselves overestimated benefits and underestimated risks, just like patients.Cult-like behaviors reflect, to some degree, a systematic bias in the minds of most people when they think about health interventions. We should work hard to make people, both clinicians and patients, aware of this bias so that everyone can make and promote better decisions.Find the full episode on THE KEVIN BASS SHOW.===Like, comment, subscribe.For more, find me at:PODCAST The Kevin Bass ShowYOUTUBE https://www.youtube.com/user/kbassphiladelphiaSUBREDDIT www.reddit.com/r/kevinbassWEBSITE http://thedietwars.comTWITTER https://twitter.com/kevinnbass/https://twitter.com/healthmisinfo/INSTAGRAM https://instagram.com/kevinnbass/TIKTOK https://tiktok.com/@kevinnbassAnd above all, please donate to support what I do:PATREON https://patreon.com/kevinnbass/DONATE https://thedietwars.com/support-me/

In this episode, I look at press releases, posters, scientific publications, and @peterattiamd’s recent review of PR Lotion.I show that the press releases announcing research do not link to any credible peer-reviewed research, despite Momentous-funded research apparently taking place at four separate research institutions. I show that the one peer-reviewed paper on PR Lotion (this one not funded by Momentous) showed no buffering capacity in the blood, no increase in bicarbonate in the blood, and no exercise performance improvement. Meanwhile, oral sodium bicarbonate (baking soda) showed robust changes in blood pH and bicarbonate, consistent with the experimental research.The concept behind PR Lotion is that it would replicate the effects of oral sodium bicarbonate without the gastrointestinal effects, which prevent a minority of athletes from using sodium bicarbonate for the purpose of athlete performance. This would occur through direct absorption of bicarbonate through the skin.The lack of pH buffering capacity in the blood or change in bicarbonate calls into question whether the proposed mechanism of PR Lotion—absorption of bicarbonate into the bloodstream—could even conceivably drive changes in exercise performance, even if they were ever demonstrated. And if such performance improvements were demonstrated, it would be unclear how these might be achieved without systemic absorption of the sodium bicarbonate, since PR Lotion *is* topical sodium bicarbonate.I discuss Dr. Attia’s points, namely that positive findings were selectively highlighted, which may have been a statistical artifact. The rather harsh phrase characterizing this practice is called p-hacking. The fact that no peer-reviewed publications resulted from this research is suggestive that this is exactly what happened. After Dr. Attia’s critical post was published, many of the press releases and white papers were inexplicably removed from the Momentous website.I conclude that there is no peer-reviewed evidence to show that Momentous’s PR Lotion works and some peer-reviewed evidence that strongly suggests that it does not.===Like, comment, subscribe.For more, find me at:PODCAST The Kevin Bass ShowYOUTUBE https://www.youtube.com/user/kbassphiladelphiaSUBREDDIT www.reddit.com/r/kevinbassWEBSITE http://thedietwars.comTWITTER https://twitter.com/kevinnbass/https://twitter.com/healthmisinfo/INSTAGRAM https://instagram.com/kevinnbass/TIKTOK https://tiktok.com/@kevinnbassAnd above all, please donate to support what I do:PATREON https://patreon.com/kevinnbass/DONATE https://thedietwars.com/support-me/

When it comes to promoting resistance training for health, lifting bros want it both ways.They refuse to let anyone criticize any of their current lifting practices—despite an injury rate between 1-2 injuries per year for most strength sports [1]. They downplay increasing rates of body dysmorphia among men [2], eating disorders [3], and the psychological and physical risks associated with the lifestyles idolized by their communities [4-6].In the same breath, they extol the health benefits of resistance training, comparing it to medicines, listing endless benefits.Now imagine that there was a drug that produced 1-2 substantial injuries per year and did so for as long as the person took the drug.Imagine that some of these acute injuries would eventually culminate in lifelong, chronic injuries. That’s 10-20 acute injuries per decade and some chronic injuries.And that’s just on average.And that’s just injuries.Would many people forgo the drug, especially if it required a large amount of effort, every single week, to take? You bet ya.So what explains the contradictions here:Treating resistance training as if it were an extremely important tool for longevity, yet being extremely resistant to changing the culture around resistance training in order to reduce risk of harm and make it optimally healthy for the average person?The answer is pretty simple: lifting bros simply enjoy resistance training and positive messages about it. But they don’t want to question what they are doing or promoting to make their messages fully coherent. They promote good news about resistance training, claiming that they want everyone to engage with it, but they don’t want to do the actual work of making it more accessible to the person who finds the toxic bro culture off-puttingThis is not unlike the health communities that I have criticized in the past. In fact, it’s exactly the same phenomenon.For making resistance training more popular, the resistance community is its own worst enemy.PMIDs:[1] 27328853[2] 27930760[3] 34712596[4] 24494162[5] 31818274[6] 17506239===Like, comment, subscribe.For more, find me at:PODCAST The Kevin Bass ShowYOUTUBE https://www.youtube.com/user/kbassphiladelphiaSUBREDDIT www.reddit.com/r/kevinbassWEBSITE http://thedietwars.comTWITTER https://twitter.com/kevinnbass/https://twitter.com/healthmisinfo/INSTAGRAM https://instagram.com/kevinnbass/TIKTOK https://tiktok.com/@kevinnbassAnd above all, please donate to support what I do:PATREON https://patreon.com/kevinnbass/DONATE https://thedietwars.com/support-me/

Resistance training is frequently promoted online as if it has no risks or downsides.But this is mainly because promoting resistance training like this advances the careers of those who use this kind of messaging.It isn’t to benefit the their audiences. It’s to benefit the promoters.And those of us who have been in the lifting game for a while know better.Resistance training, while having important benefits to function especially later in life, increases the risks of a variety of health problems, including:Body dysmorphia;Disordered eating behaviors;Psychological and physical harms due to disordered eating behaviors (e.g., aggressive bulking and cutting);Joint damage and chronic injuries that undermine quality of life.I argue that, in fact, the excess promotion of the benefits of resistance training, and especially more extreme, toxic, “macho” forms of it, increases the risks and harms associated with resistance training.Indeed, the culture of machismo associated with resistance training online unnecessarily increases its health risks but makes it less accessible to the general population.I love resistance training and I love lifting weights and being big.But I would never promote something just because I love it.I think glossing over the dark underbelly of resistance training does our audiences a disservice—and actually makes resistance training potentially more dangerous than it needs to be.I believe that if we had a greater emphasis on promoting safe practices—rather than huge PRs, huge muscles, and the toxic ego-driven often associated with resistance training—we would benefit our audiences more.Those of us who are interested in the health benefits of resistance training should also be interested in the harms. That’s the only way we will minimize the harms and maximize the benefits.We need to put this goal above the goal of self-promotion.Come at me, bros.===Like, comment, subscribe.For more, find me at:PODCAST The Kevin Bass ShowYOUTUBE https://www.youtube.com/user/kbassphiladelphiaSUBREDDIT www.reddit.com/r/kevinbassWEBSITE http://thedietwars.comTWITTER https://twitter.com/kevinnbass/https://twitter.com/healthmisinfo/INSTAGRAM https://instagram.com/kevinnbass/TIKTOK https://tiktok.com/@kevinnbassAnd above all, please donate to support what I do:PATREON https://patreon.com/kevinnbass/DONATE https://thedietwars.com/support-me/

In this episode, I ask the question: which diet would produce more nutrient deficiencies.Using the nutrient calculator Chronometer, I am surprised to find that an all-whole wheat bagel diet actually produces fewer nutrient deficiencies than an all-ribeye diet.If one was forced to choose between eating only wheat or meat, and one was aiming at the most nutritious diet, the answer is clearly to eat only wheat.Even more surprisingly, a diet consisting of 43% calories from lentils, 43% from wheat, 9% from almonds and 5% from broccoli, carrots, and sardines produces an almost perfectly nutritious diet.So why are Paleomyths about meat being more nutrient-rich than plants so widespread, despite the actual story being much more complicated (to say the least)?My guess is that this is largely motivated by modernity anxiety. For all of human history, humans have idealized and romanticized simpler ways of life, as exemplified by our hunter-gatherer ancestors. We imagine our hunter-gatherer ancestors all ate large quantities of meat. It follows that we should eat meat. We therefore look for sciency-sounding reasons for this belief. Folks like Chris Kresser, Robb Wolf, and Mark Sisson all provide these sciency-sounding reasons. Because this is what we already believed anyway, and we are just looking for reasons to believe it, instead of critically evaluating what these bloggers write, immediately we think “ahhh so that’s why!” We are already primed to believe, not to question. And so we believe. Or at least, once upon a time, I did.The reality is that the role of plant foods in our ancestors’ diets is substantially more complicated than these writers let on. For instance, near-universal presence of wild grain/legume residues have been documented over the course of the Paleolithic, >100K years, i.e. ubiquitous presence of these foods during human evolutionary history.Suffice to say, every scientific field is more complicated and richer in controversy than we think at first. Often, we first access a scientific field via a popular writer who tells a good story and appeals to pre-existing beliefs to sell that story. Yet no matter if they are a New York Times bestseller or a famous columnist or respected by large popular audiences on the Internet, we should always be skeptical of the new things we learn, especially if they resonate with and make sense of what we already believe. Unless we are aware of and have critically assessed the relevant body of scientific literature, there is no way whether we are being sold a good yarn or something with strong basis in scientific fact. Until we know better, we need to proceed through life with the assumption that most of what we know is simply a “best guess” based upon “something that we heard that sounded credible”. Because that’s all it really is. My journey through nutrition science, especially with respect to grains, carbohydrates, meat, etc., has taught me that over and over again.===Like, comment, subscribe.For more, find me at:PODCAST The Kevin Bass ShowYOUTUBE https://www.youtube.com/user/kbassphiladelphiaSUBREDDIT www.reddit.com/r/kevinbassWEBSITE http://thedietwars.comTWITTER https://twitter.com/kevinnbass/https://twitter.com/healthmisinfo/INSTAGRAM https://instagram.com/kevinnbass/TIKTOK https://tiktok.com/@kevinnbassAnd above all, please donate to support what I do:PATREON https://patreon.com/kevinnbass/DONATE https://thedietwars.com/support-me/

This episode examines the purported connection between obesity and COVID outcomes.While obesity does somewhat worsen COVID outcomes, the impact is modest and dramatically overstated.These data have also been weaponized by antivaxxers and politicians for cynical ends.Many COVID-obesity narratives create a false dichotomy between vaccination and obesity, suggesting that what we really need is to fight obesity, not vaccinate.Let us look at the data.First, mild obesity confers only a very modest, almost undetectable increased risk of death, and severe obesity gives a risk comparable to being male or black. Even severe obesity is outshined by simply having 2-5 medical conditions, or being an organ transplant recipient (PMIDs: 32640463, 34197283).Now let's compare all of these to vaccination status. Obesity and vaccination are not even in the same ballpark. Obesity provides paltry additional risk compared to being unvaccinated (PMID 34529637).For completeness, let us compare all of these to age. We can see that not only does age dominate, but it dominates overwhelmingly.COVID deaths are driven by age first, unvaccinated status second, the presence of serious medical conditions third, and then by an equal mix of obesity and other risk factors like being black, being underweight, being male, etc.A common statistic bandied about: "80% of deaths/complications/etc. are in people with obesity!!!"Actually, the stat is: 78% of Americans hospitalized for COVID are overweight or obese.But here’s another stat: 74% of American adults are overweight or obese.In other words, the % of obese people in the hospital with serious Covid roughly matches the % of obese people in the US. Therefore you can’t point to the % of obese people and say it was caused by obesity, because the sick folks simply mirror the available population.Media outlets have pushed this statistic, despite it actually showing that obesity doesn’t have much of an impact on COVID, because it drives clicks and advertising revenue.Don’t let this trash colonize your mind.===Like, comment, subscribe.For more, find me at:PODCAST The Kevin Bass ShowYOUTUBE https://www.youtube.com/user/kbassphiladelphiaSUBREDDIT www.reddit.com/r/kevinbassWEBSITE http://thedietwars.comTWITTER https://twitter.com/kevinnbass/https://twitter.com/healthmisinfo/INSTAGRAM https://instagram.com/kevinnbass/TIKTOK https://tiktok.com/@kevinnbassAnd above all, please donate to support what I do:PATREON https://patreon.com/kevinnbass/DONATE https://thedietwars.com/support-me/

In this episode, I discuss facts and myths about Ancel Keys.If carbs are the cause of obesity, as they are for many (non-scientist) diet book authors, then someone is *responsible* for making us eat so many carbs.Ancel Keys provides a convenient enemy. He provides a unitary target, a sole cause, a single demon, one story.But how TRUE is this story? Let us review.First, it is claimed that Ancel Keys cherrypicked his Seven Country Study: he had access to the data for 22 countries but chose to include only 7.This is wrong. Keys selected 6 countries from publicly available data to show a relationship between saturated fat and heart disease. Two of his critics plotted an additional 16 countries showing the relationship was in fact weaker if these new countries were included, but still valid (PMID 33496369).In any case, this selection of 6 countries out of 22 predates the famous Seven Countries Study PMID (33496369).The SCS included only seven countries because only investigators from seven countries agreed to collaborate with Keys.Keys would have liked to have had more countries included. Indeed, it is claimed that Keys purposefully excluded France. However, France was invited: PMID 29121230.Keys has been accused of misanalyzing the data from Greece during Lent. This is also false. PMID 29121230.Indeed:1. Keys's work had limitations of which he was aware;2. We are right to be skeptical of the conclusions of that research in isolation;3. Yet Keys's research was carefully conducted, and with integrity.It is claimed that Keys ignored the relationship between sugar and heart disease, derailing Yudkin’s career.It is true that Keys was not gentle to Yudkin, but the data at the time did not favor Yudkin's hypothesis. PMID 33496369(It does not appear to us that the data favored either Keys or Yudkin's views.)Keys would later promote a dietary approach that went beyond saturated fat and blood cholesterol: the Mediterranean diet. PMID 33496369Finally, some of Keys’s major achievements (PMID 33496369).Conspiracy theories about Keys are propagated by diet book authors to try to control weak-minded followers.Don't fall for it.===Like, comment, subscribe.For more, find me at:PODCAST The Kevin Bass ShowYOUTUBE https://www.youtube.com/user/kbassphiladelphiaSUBREDDIT www.reddit.com/r/kevinbassWEBSITE http://thedietwars.comTWITTER https://twitter.com/kevinnbass/https://twitter.com/healthmisinfo/INSTAGRAM https://instagram.com/kevinnbass/TIKTOK https://tiktok.com/@kevinnbassAnd above all, please donate to support what I do:PATREON https://patreon.com/kevinnbass/DONATE https://thedietwars.com/support-me/

It is now widely accepted that eggs have no meaningful impact on blood cholesterol levels. Dietary cholesterol is said not to impact blood cholesterol.But is this true?The impact of eggs on dietary cholesterol—and health—really depends on background diet and genetics.Now, it’s true that the impact of dietary cholesterol on blood cholesterol is quite modest [1], and it only impacts about 20-30% of the population [2]. But, on the other hand, almost nobody knows whether they are in that 20-30%, so some caution might be warranted in those who are pursuing optimal health and find their LDL cholesterol levels a little high.In the context of unhealthy diets, eggs actually seem to produce benefit, since they replace less healthy foods.But in the context of healthier diets, eggs may be slightly harmful, by displacing healthier foods that have a lower impact on dietary cholesterol.Overall, the impact of eggs on health seems heterogeneous and may depend on the baseline diet: more healthy diets may seem more harm if eggs are incorporated, and vice versa [3,4].If LDL cholesterol is a little high, and diet quality is otherwise excellent, it might be advisable to try replacing the eggs with another source of protein that is lower in dietary cholesterol.Ideally, this should be done using a lipid test to look at before and after values of blood LDL cholesterol.PMIDs[1] 30596814[2] 24466502[3] 32132002[4] 35360933===Like, comment, subscribe.For more, find me at:PODCAST The Kevin Bass ShowYOUTUBE https://www.youtube.com/user/kbassphiladelphiaSUBREDDIT www.reddit.com/r/kevinbassWEBSITE http://thedietwars.comTWITTER https://twitter.com/kevinnbass/https://twitter.com/healthmisinfo/INSTAGRAM https://instagram.com/kevinnbass/TIKTOK https://tiktok.com/@kevinnbassAnd above all, please donate to support what I do:PATREON https://patreon.com/kevinnbass/DONATE https://thedietwars.com/support-me/

A study looking at people with genetic variants that mimic the effect of statins and PCSK9 inhibitors showed significantly worse cognition and brain area among those with the statin variants. This suggests that statins may negatively impact the brain (PMID 35953131).This suggests that important benefits to cerebrovascular disease may be counterbalanced by other negative effects on the brain by statins through other mechanisms.An important caveat to the study is that while these statin-mimicking variants are expressed everywhere in the body in people who have inherited them, different statins have a different degree of selectivity for the liver versus other tissues (such as the brain).Statins that are selective for the liver are called hydrophilic, while those that are nonspecific and inhibit HMGCR in all tissues (including the brain) are called lipophilic.This is because lipophilic statins freely travel across cell membranes, while hydrophilic statins need to be transported into liver cells using transporters (OATP1B1, OATP1B3, OATP2B1, BCRP, and MRP2) expressed only in the liver (PMID: 29051147).Interestingly, another recent study found that statin users with mild cognitive impairment using lipophilic statins had an increased risk of converting to dementia compared to non-users and users of hydrophilic statins (https://jnm.snmjournals.org/content/62/supplement_1/102).This same study found using FDG PET a decline in metabolism in several regions of the brain important for cognition in those using lipophilic statins but not non-users or users of hydrophilic statins.While no strong, gold standard evidence implicates lipophilic statins as harmful for brain health, given the wide availability of similarly priced alternatives, these findings might suggest that hydrophilic statins should be preferred to lipophilic ones whenever possible. The hydrophilic statins are pravastatin (Pravachol) and rosuvastatin (Crestor), while the lipophilic statins are fluvastatin (Lescol), lovastatin (Mevacor, Altoprev), simvastatin (Zocor), atorvastatin (Lipitor), and pitavastatin (Livalo).===Like, comment, subscribe.For more, find me at:PODCAST The Kevin Bass ShowYOUTUBE https://www.youtube.com/user/kbassphiladelphiaSUBREDDIT www.reddit.com/r/kevinbassWEBSITE http://thedietwars.comTWITTER https://twitter.com/kevinnbass/https://twitter.com/healthmisinfo/INSTAGRAM https://instagram.com/kevinnbass/TIKTOK https://tiktok.com/@kevinnbassAnd above all, please donate to support what I do:PATREON https://patreon.com/kevinnbass/DONATE https://thedietwars.com/support-me/

In this episode, I provide critical, science-based answers to the following questions:Don’t traditional clinical tests miss the glucose variability that can only be detected by CGM?Doesn’t high blood glucose predict heart disease, cancer, Alzheimer’s disease, etc.? So, this is a reason for non-diabetics to use continuous glucose monitoring (CGM), right?Doesn’t high blood glucose variability predict heart disease, cancer, Alzheimer’s disease, etc.?OK, but although we don’t know exactly what the cutoffs should be for blood glucose spikes, doesn’t simply reducing blood glucose provide a benefit?Wait, I thought that CGM simply helped people to eat in a healthier way? Lowering carbohydrate is not necessary right?But don’t responses to each particular food differ from person to person?Doesn’t reducing glucose spikes reduce hunger?But I feel that CGM benefits me personally. Are you saying I cannot use CGMWhat harm could there be from using CGM as a nondiabetic?I conclude that there is no evidence of benefit, no evidence for what CGM readings mean, and that the use of CGM to make nutritional choices could cause harm.===Like, comment, subscribe.For more, find me at:PODCAST The Kevin Bass ShowYOUTUBE https://www.youtube.com/user/kbassphiladelphiaSUBREDDIT www.reddit.com/r/kevinbassWEBSITE http://thedietwars.comTWITTER https://twitter.com/kevinnbass/https://twitter.com/healthmisinfo/INSTAGRAM https://instagram.com/kevinnbass/TIKTOK https://tiktok.com/@kevinnbassAnd above all, please donate to support what I do:PATREON https://patreon.com/kevinnbass/DONATE https://thedietwars.com/support-me/