#410: Q&A: Sodium, Protein, Quackery Tactics & More!
In this episode Alan and Danny answer a variety of questions sent in from listeners.
[1:10 ] Gabriel - Is there any benefit to including SFAs and cholesterol in low quantities in our diets for healthspan?
[10:42 ] Luis Arrondo - Can I do 3 rather than 4 meals or more for protein absorption by increasing grams of protein? How many grams of protein can be absorbed at one sitting. Does taking in protein at night help more absorption of protein? If so, something slower, like milk over whey? Last, how much protein per kilo of weight to gain muscle via weightlifing?
[19:34 ] Heather Smith - Please could you go into the sodium needs of those with hypotension. Your podcast about normotension and hypertension was excellent, as was the section relating to athletes. I’d love to hear your thoughts on the sodium needs of a hypotensive person. Thank you!
[27:00 ] Judith Williams - I would find it really helpful if you could summarise what the evidence shows are the key dietary changes for long term weight loss.
[36:41 ] Dale Grant - Great podcast and episode as normal especially the quack asylum (big fan of this segment). Having listened to a few of these extreme people (quacks) on various platforms, I’ve noticed they also employ an aggressive falsify my opponents position tactic. Its almost as if they are aware of Karl Poppers falsification principle, but have misinterpreted it as falsify my "opponents" position instead of my own. Aside from the fact they falsely view the person they are having a debate with as their “opponent”, they miss the point that they should be trying to find evidence to falsify their own position, and thus get closer to a capital T Truth. On the other hand as Alan pointed out with Assem Mahlhotra, this may just be a reluctance to acknowledge evidence for other reasons (narcissism, us vs Them narrative, etc). Nowhere was this more apparent than when James Wilks (host of mass propaganda film game changers), sought to aggressively debate Chris Kresser on the Joe Rogan Podcast. Considering Wilks is a former cage fighter this wasn’t surprising. Unfortunately, this aggressive tactic does lead some people to conclude that Wilks has “won” the argument, because he has “won” the debate. Similar to most modern debates, it seems like you don’t have to win the debate intellectually with reason. Instead you just have to make it seem as if your more competent than your opponent. Do you agree these extreme people employ this tactic? and how do you think we could improve “scientific” debates (note inverted commas) in the public domain in the future?
[46:40 ] Dimitri - Should fruit consumption be moderated because of the sugar content? For example, a fig has 8g of sugar, can I eat 5-10 in one sitting or would that be detrimental to health?
[51:26 ] Rebecca Toutant - What is the evidence / practice behind integrative and functional nutrition?
[56:06 ] Duncan Clarke - This will be a strange question for you but I'll send it anyway. How could a cyclist specifically lose upper body muscle mass? For example a fit healthy athlete from another sport takes up cycling and they now have more arm/shoulder muscle than needed. The goal being to maximize the power to weight ratio for climbing.
[60:15 ] Gabriel - Do you foresee any public health issues related to the increasing popularity of plant based diets, where less careful individuals may face issues consuming certain nutrients harder to get from a plant based diet, such as preformed Vitamin A, choline, iron, protein etc?
[72:03 ] Ward Stanford - After re-listening to your podcast on weight maintenance over time I was wondering what information exists on the idea of establishing new body fat set points. It seems like merely existing at a lower bf% for a period of time may not be enough, but what are your thoughts on one's ability to truly create a lower set point where it becomes easier to maintain a lower body fat, and how long would you need to be at that lower bf% for it to become a "set point" Thank you!