Ryan and Saagar discuss Cuomo admits why he lost to Zohran, AOC flamed for Israel vote, Tim Dillon reveals JD Vance Epstein cope, Layne Norton destroys MAHA.
To become a Breaking Points Premium Member and watch/listen to the show AD FREE, uncut and 1 hour early visit: www.breakingpoints.com
Merch Store: https://shop.breakingpoints.com/
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Hey, guys, Saga and Crystal here.
Speaker 2 (00:01):
Independent media just played a truly massive role in this election,
and we are so excited about what that means for
the future of the show.
Speaker 3 (00:08):
This is the only place where you can find honest
perspectives from the left and the right that simply does
not exist anywhere else.
Speaker 2 (00:14):
So if that is something that's important to you, please
go to Breakingpoints dot com. Become a member today and
you'll access to our full shows, unedited, ad free, and
all put together for you every morning in your inbox.
Speaker 3 (00:25):
We need your help to build the future of independent
news media, and we hope to see you at Breakingpoints
dot com.
Speaker 4 (00:33):
Andrew Cuomo in linked audio has an analysis of why
he lost Ron Mom Donnie, and it's kind of dead on.
Let's listen to some of this.
Speaker 5 (00:43):
All the polls had me up fifteen points, and all
the geniuses say, you know, you're up fifteen points. You
want to play it safe, you want to play it safe,
and he was nowhere on the radar screen. We played
it safe. I didn't engage him, I didn't debunk him enough,
wasn't aggressive enough, which is really ironic because all my
(01:04):
life I'm too aggressive.
Speaker 6 (01:05):
I'm too combative. I'm too tough.
Speaker 5 (01:08):
There was an explosion of the under thirty vote. Under
thirty white socialists who voted three, four or five times
what anyone had ever seen, and that totally changed the
numbers young people who came out. They were socialists and
(01:32):
they were propalistan And I would wager that in that
primary more than fifty percent of the Jewish people would
from undone. This socialist wave in the Democratic Party, this
AOC Bernie Sanders going across the country. The No Kings
(01:56):
brought out, brought out hundreds of thousands of young people
at rallies all across the country, basically fueled by anti Trump.
But anti Trump then fits with socialism, that fits with
pro Palestinian and he was the perfect vehicle for this
(02:17):
under thirty wave of reform and a new reality.
Speaker 4 (02:23):
Oh so, Cuomo quoto, it's all interesting, But Cuomo acknowledging
that more than fifty percent of Jewish voters in New
York Yes voted from Mom Donnie is so striking because
if you follow the mainstream media coverage of this election
(02:44):
and the result, you would think that Jewish New Yorkers
are now deeply under threat because of the election of
Mom Donnie that this is this is a scary situation
that all Democrats need to condemn Mom and make sure
that Jewish people in New York are safe from the
(03:05):
scourge of the Mom Donnie movement. Yet the same people
pushing that message understand that actually the reverse is true. Yes,
fifth more than more than a half of Jewish voters
voted for Mom Donnie because they support him.
Speaker 1 (03:23):
They either he didn't care about the.
Speaker 3 (03:27):
Ort or whatever, or they actually supported it and they
were like, yeah, I'm Jewish, but I don't really care
as much about Israel. I think the way they're conducting
themselves is ridiculous. This has been a hallmark of the
pro Palestinian movement, especially on the left now for years
at this point, and.
Speaker 4 (03:46):
Who also acknowgs to that in an interview with Hugh
Hewett Donald Trump. Yes, he was like, Hugh, you know what, like,
lots of the people on these at these campus protests
are young Jewish.
Speaker 1 (03:55):
Kids, which we knew because he was like, yeah.
Speaker 4 (03:58):
There's some misguided kids. It's they're not outliers like it's you. Now,
he meant it as a negative because he was angry
at the time at the Jewish vote because it was
polling democratic, so he's angry. So he's like, oh, to
these kids, uh. But when you acknowledge that fact, it
just flips the entire thing on its head. Yes, like
(04:19):
how can how can all of this be anti Semitic
if there are so many Jewish people participating in it?
Speaker 1 (04:25):
And yeah.
Speaker 3 (04:25):
But the thing is, though, is that that audio directly
contradicts the messaging then of a Cuomo campaign, which is
all about, oh, he's an anti Semi. He's ridiculous, and
that's part of the reason. That's basically what's animating his
independent run is a bunch of like rich Jewish I
guess right wing or centrist billion Republicans are Republicans.
Speaker 1 (04:46):
It's true.
Speaker 3 (04:47):
It's obvious these people are supporting Coomo specifically to make
sure that Mamdani doesn't win. So he can both admit it,
you know there and he can both admit it in
terms of the uh of the audio, but in terms
of his public messaging, him and Adams are united around
the oh he's anti Israel, and it's you know, he's
(05:08):
anti Israeli's an anti Semi and that's why you shouldn't
vote for him. That's part of what makes it so
ridiculous because his analysis is absolutely correct.
Speaker 4 (05:15):
I don't quite understand Cuomo's assessment that mom Donnie came
from nowhere, Like the at least the last month of
the campaign, it was clear that this was a close race.
At the very least it was going to be close.
Speaker 1 (05:28):
And he did a terrible job, obviously if.
Speaker 4 (05:31):
He really couldn't see it coming even at the end,
it's like, what are you doing, man, this is going
on here. Incredible. So that's fairly reasonable autopsy that's actually
real from Cuomo. So and it valuable to him because
he is apparently planning to run in the general election.
Who knows there was enough money. Anything's possible, you know,
(05:54):
Mom Donnie can't like completely rest on the laurels of
the nomination. But thetional Democratic Party, through the DNC, is
running its own autopsy of twenty twenty four. We can
put up this New York Times Ellen up on the screen,
and according to reporting from the paper here, the researchers
(06:14):
are telling people that they're speaking to that they are
not going to look at the question of whether or
not Biden should have run for reelection, the question of
whether he should have dropped out much sooner, the question
of whether there should have been an open primary, the
question of whether it should have been handed to Kamala Harris,
or even the decisions that the Harris campaign made on
(06:36):
what to run on. Yes, they're not going to look
at that.
Speaker 3 (06:38):
How can you possibly have a real like, here's what's funny.
The RNC, then after Romney's loss, was more honest in
its autopsy than the DNC, and that autopsy, either way,
was incredibly stupid. The idea behind that autopsy was we
need to endorse amnesty. They're like, oh, Romney's meanness towards
immigration is the reason that he lost, right and self support, yeah.
Speaker 1 (07:00):
Self deport and all that.
Speaker 3 (07:01):
That was too mean and that's why we actually need
a pro open borders candidate. And then in twenty sixteen
the other way, Donald Trump wins the election on a
on a build the wall message, just to show you
how dumb these autopsies are. But even that autopsy was
more honest at the very least because it tried to
be like, Okay, what are some of the key decisions
the Romney campaign made here here and here here's how
we think that we should address it. They were totally
(07:22):
wrong obviously in retrospect. But here they're not even going
to look at it. Like they say the quote the
review is expected to the review is not. It's not
expected to review key decisions by the Harris campaign, like
framing the election is a choice between democracy and fascism.
Refraining from hitting back after ads from Donald Trumps to
attack miss Harris on transgender rights that have royal Democrats
(07:43):
in the month of how can you have any serious
discussion like that means then that the real Democrat This
sounds cringe as hell to say. That means that the
real democratic autopsy is taking place on the podcast. It's
not taking based in the mainstream media. Right, they're not
asking any uncomfortable questions except Biden's age, But they're not
talking about the issues. The issues are all being hashed
out right now between Podsave America and Crystal you know
(08:04):
and all these other like left podcasters who are trying
to decide what the hell went wrong in the twenty
twenty four election.
Speaker 1 (08:10):
Right.
Speaker 3 (08:10):
But that's the craziest part about this is then what
is the part What is the purpose of the DNC
at this point? Like is it not to win an election?
Apparently not it's to protect the people who are.
Speaker 1 (08:20):
In power, not even in power, who were in power, Ryan, Like,
you've got to explain, like where this comes from, how
is this possible?
Speaker 4 (08:26):
So what they are looking at, according to the Times
here and Jane Klebo, deputy DNC says it in the
article here, they're going to look at where they spent
their money, and particularly where the super pac, the outside
super pac spent its money. And her argument is that
what they're what they're finding is that the amount of
money that they spent on TV ads is way too
(08:47):
much and they need to invest it in kind of
on the ground organizing and other things that aren't just
broadcasting cable TV, and those super PACs already pushing back saying,
we actually didn't spend that much on TV. We spent
a lot on digital et cetera. So it's it's it's
much more of a kind of mechanical argument, like around
(09:08):
tactics rather than you know, substance strategy, which you could
say in a in a proper party where you have
factions competing for power within it that the DNC ought
to be a neutral platform and actually should just look
at what tactics work and then leave the substance to
the battle between AOC and Bernie on one hand, and
(09:29):
Fetterman and Jumor and whoever elsewhere, and then once that
contest is over and one party, one faction within the
party is dominant, then here the tactics we're going to
play play out in the in a general action. That
would be the best argument possibly for it. But they're
also they're just afraid that they're going to offend all
(09:52):
the powerful people who stood by and allowed these dumb
things to happen. Because also you probably don't in their defense.
Maybe you don't need an autopsy to be like, this
was dumb, all of this was wrong.
Speaker 3 (10:05):
Okay, but put it on Putting it on paper actually
is important because you need to everything needs to be
admitted to ourselves, like we need to just say, guys,
here's what went wrong.
Speaker 1 (10:13):
It was a disaster.
Speaker 4 (10:16):
Is interesting?
Speaker 3 (10:16):
Yeah, well okay, but even on the trans thing, right again,
you don't have to go You just have to lay
out a variety of views, look at the poll and
be like, look what went wrong here?
Speaker 1 (10:25):
Why didn't they push back against this view?
Speaker 3 (10:27):
Wasn't a mistake in twenty nineteen for Kamla to give
an interview and say that the FEDS should fund gender
transition surgeries.
Speaker 1 (10:33):
Yeah, I think it was all right.
Speaker 3 (10:34):
Rob Manual's going out there saying it is, like, maybe
you disagree with them, that's fine, but it should obviously
be part of the debate. You should analyze that decision
and say, to what extent was this mentioning powerful? Just
lay it out there. You don't even have to make
a qualitative decision. Look at it issue by issue, and
then also look at the key decision of Biden's even
run again and say, obviously this was a disaster. Was
(10:55):
this ever a winnable race? That's an open question. I
actually I'm not really sure if it ever was. It
might have been lost from twenty twenty one onwards with
Biden's approval rating, but I don't know. I mean, I
tend to think that every election is ten technically winnable,
right at any point. You know, it's just all about
the It's just all about the decisions that you make.
Speaker 4 (11:10):
From there, AOC is tangling again with the party's base.
Parties left. You can put up C three here. So
there was an amendment, So she writes here, and I'll
give you the background. She writes here, Marjorie Taylor Green's
amendment does nothing to cut off offensive aid to Israel
(11:30):
nor end the flow of munitions being used in Gaza.
Of course I voted against it. Here she's referring to
an amendment by Green that went after these kind of
yes like that, and you know these the missile defense
program that Israel uses. It got the votes of I
believe it was Rashida ilhan Omar Summerly in Pittsburgh and
(11:52):
Al Green down in Texas. Those are the only four
Democrats that voted against it. So there's a part at
the bottom that's important, where she says, I remain focused
on cutting the flow of US munitions that are being
used to perpetuate the genocide in Gaza. And then think
about that last line that she's said there, So let's
(12:13):
put up C four again. So this is her kind
of continuing to respond. She says, Google is free. If
you're saying I voted for military funding, you are lying
receipts attached, dragged me for my positions all you want,
but lying about them doesn't make you part of the
quote left. If you believe neo Nazis are welcome and
operating in good faith you can have them, which is
(12:34):
kind of a criticism there of Summer Lee and Rashida
Tali and the Elinomar for voting for a Green amendment,
and kind of an argument that she would never vote
for anything put forward by Green no matter what. Setting
all that aside, in her original statement, she says two things.
She says she's voted against this because it was defensive
(12:54):
in nature, and she also says that Israel is carrying
out a genocide. And I think that's just such an
impossible thing to square. In the same thought, if you
do believe that Israel's carrying out a genocide, any support
for that is support for that genocide, even if it's
(13:15):
even if it's just these defensive weapons, because.
Speaker 1 (13:17):
Also, what are they using the defensive weapons for?
Speaker 4 (13:19):
Hamas is not actually firing rockets exactly, So it's Yemen
is shooting at them to try to get them to
stop the genocide. Then they have said if you stop
the war on gods of Yemen will stop firing missiles,
and Iran responded to Israel after Israel attacked Iran. So
the defensive weapons are so that net Yaho can carry
out another attack on Iran, which he told the nut
(13:42):
boys he's going to do. He said, the war against
Iran is not over. You just had their military chief.
They're saying war against Iran is not over. They're going
to try to take out all their ballistic missiles, so
they need a replenishing of their defensive weapons to carry
out the offensive action that they want to carry out
against him. They are killing people by the thousands in
(14:03):
Yemen due to malnutrition and due to they've destroyed the
airport there so people can't get medical evacuations, so that
they can't get aid in. They destroyed the port so
you can't get fuel and aid in. People are dying
like crazy in Yemen. And the purpose of the defensive
weapons is so that they can carry out those attacks
on Yemen and on I run. That's the part where
(14:27):
I think it's very just it's just impossible to square
those two positions. If you believe that that's what they're doing,
then you can't support it, even with the defensive weapons.
Speaker 3 (14:36):
Because what's the bulletproof vest analogy? Oh yeah, some say
it because I think this is very good, So I.
Speaker 1 (14:40):
Think it was.
Speaker 4 (14:41):
Caitlin Johnson, the writer responded to AOC and that replies,
getting a lot of attention saying like, look, I don't
support a school shooter, but I just purchased the bulletproof
vest right for them.
Speaker 1 (14:55):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (14:56):
And again, let's it collapses on its own logic because Israeli,
the US defense umbrella in all forms, from the Americans
striking the Fodeau facility or whatever in Iran, to US
using guided missile destroyers to defend them, to our funding
of the Iron Dome, enables Israeli offensive action. If Israel
(15:18):
is forced to feel the consequences of its actions, it
will fundamentally behave differently, yes or no. So this is
this is where probably they would not attack never in
a million years. They're gonna blow up in Iranian embassy
in Damascus. They're gonna overthrow the Damascus government. They're gonna
bomb Iran. They're gonna permanently occupy parts of Lebanon, Syria,
(15:38):
the West Bank. They're gonna murder Christian and Muslims, uh,
you know, residence with impunity. They're going to attack a
Catholic church without the US. No, okay, no, no, no, no,
no never. And that's my point is that this is
why the MTG Amendment was courageous in that they were like, no,
we're done. We're done with you, and from this point
(15:59):
for you bear the consequences of your own actions.
Speaker 1 (16:04):
I thought, that's what a lot of liberals agree.
Speaker 4 (16:06):
Or pay for it yourself, yeah, or pay yeah, hell yeah.
Speaker 3 (16:09):
You're a rich country, got universal health care, you pay
for it, Okay, cash and carry, just like we we
treated the British and lend lease ten times worse.
Speaker 1 (16:18):
You know, we treat the country of Israel.
Speaker 3 (16:20):
We bent them over a barrel and we set gold
on the premises or fuck off. That's basically what we
told Winston Churchill. Go read a book about it. Okay,
they complained a lot. Actually, they're like, please.
Speaker 1 (16:32):
Give us credit.
Speaker 4 (16:32):
We're like, no, you're going to destroy the British Empire.
Speaker 3 (16:35):
Yeah yeah, like yeah, we know, and we like, all
right exactly, and we did.
Speaker 4 (16:39):
We won, but social work organization.
Speaker 1 (16:41):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (16:41):
The point though, is that you know, there is a
way to treat allies in a different way, even when
you are selling them weapons. And you know, I don't
even think we should do that at this point because
of the way that they behave themselves. But I mean,
this entire thing is just a real window Ryan into
her behavior and posturing because I think she probably wants
to run for Senate and she thinks that an a
(17:03):
quote anti Israel vote like this would come back.
Speaker 1 (17:05):
To bite her.
Speaker 3 (17:06):
But what's crazy to me is, how do you square
that in the Zoran Mom Donnie Era. How do you
square when he got the most votes ever and he
didn't apologize for a damn thing. Stand your ground, believe
in something, and it's and she'll she wouldn't get punished.
I think she would actually get more pressed out of it.
Speaker 1 (17:23):
I don't get it.
Speaker 4 (17:24):
I don't even I don't actually think that this is
political calculation. I think I think this is stupid that
she believes that the Iron Dome is protecting civilians and
that therefore you got to support the protection of civilians. Yeah,
I think it's I don't think it's I who knows.
You know, none of us even know why we do
the things we do, so like trying to analyze why
(17:44):
somebody else is doing the things they're doing, UH, is feudile.
But I I do think that it's genuine rather than cynical,
which doesn't make it better.
Speaker 1 (17:55):
Yeah, all right, well, I don't know.
Speaker 3 (17:58):
It's completely mistake and I got Soger, I'm the show.
Speaker 4 (18:01):
I'll do the resit ching. I gotta do Sager Scott
this under content.
Speaker 1 (18:04):
I'm on it, brother Stone work.
Speaker 4 (18:05):
All right, Thanks you guys later for tomorrow.
Speaker 3 (18:10):
All right, turning now to Epstein story, which I will
handle myself, which, of course, if any other time and
I had to speak entirely on Epstein, I'd be happy to.
Speaker 1 (18:18):
But when you're sick, man, it's a tough thing.
Speaker 3 (18:20):
All right, Let's go ahead and put this up there
on the screen from Pam Bondi. So this is breaking
news as of right now, and there's actually a lot
to say here. This is a new statement from the Deputy.
Speaker 1 (18:28):
Attorney General DoD Blanche.
Speaker 3 (18:30):
The Department of Justice does not shy away from uncomfortable
truths or from the responsibility to pursue justice where the
facts may lead. This joint statement by the DOJ and
FBI of July six remains as accurate today as it
was when it was written, namely that in the recent
third review of the files maintained by the FBI in
the Epstein case, no evidence was uncovered that could predicate
an investigation against uncharged third parties. AKA they are saying
(18:51):
that there is no blackmail scheme, no conspiracy, no crimes
that implicates anybody else. What they continue President Trump has
to is to release all credible evidence. If Gilainne Maxwell
has information about anyone who has committed crimes against the victims,
the FBI and the DOJ will hear what she has
to say. Therefore, at the direction of the Attorney General,
(19:12):
Pam BONDI I have communicated with counsel from Miss Maxwell
to determine whether she'd be willing to speak with prosecutors
from the department. I anticipate meeting with Miss Maxwell in
the coming days. Until now, no administration on behalf of
the department has inquired about her willingness to meet with
the government. That changes now. Extraordinary things happening in that statement.
(19:33):
First and foremost is this, the Deputy Attorney General, the
number two at the Justice Department, will be meeting directly
with Gilaine Maxwell and her legal team.
Speaker 1 (19:43):
That's number one. That almost never happens.
Speaker 3 (19:45):
Just so you know, the Deputy Attorney General, literally the
number two is going to be meeting with Glaine Maxwell,
number two. According to the Deputy Attorney General in that statement,
he is saying, at no point has the government ever
approached Gilainne Maxwell to say, what do you know about
third party individuals?
Speaker 1 (20:04):
Are you guys hearing that?
Speaker 3 (20:05):
So according to this statement, what they are saying is
that Glaine Maxwell went to trial, right obviously, she lost there.
She was prosecuted for human trafficking victims, specifically to Jeffrey Epstein.
Many including myself, said that the charges were tailored in
such a way to only implicate her and Epstein to
put her in jail for the rest of her life
so we can all just move on from it, and
that at no point was there ever an opportunity for
(20:25):
some of the broader conspiracy to be able to come
out in this What they are saying, though, is that
Maxwell was never given that opportunity to actually come forward.
I want to continue though, and this is part of
the reason why we should all be a little bit
skeptical is unfortunately with Glaine Maxwell, you know, she has
a lot of incentive now at this point and for
us to be able to a little skeptical of what
she has to say.
Speaker 1 (20:46):
Here's a statement from her attorney this morning.
Speaker 3 (20:48):
Quote, I can confirm that we are in discussions with
the government and that Glaine will always testify truthfully. We
are grateful to President Trump for his commitment to uncovering
the truth in this case. She also says before remember
she was seeking a pardon. Quote, He's the ultimate deal maker.
This is about Trump. I'm sure he'd agreed that when
the United States gives its word, it should keep it.
With all the talk about who's being prosecuted and who isn't,
(21:10):
it's especially unfair Gallaine Maxwell remains in prison based on
a promise the US government made and broke. What she's
referring to, guys, is, according to her, what's so unjust
is remember that non prosecution agreement that Epstein entered into
in two thousand and seven that covered the immunity for
Epstein and for Glaine Maxwell, an unindicted co conspirator in
(21:30):
the case. Her position is that that illegal non prosecution agreement,
according to the court, because it violated the victim's rights,
Ben should have given her immunity for all time, and
that the government broke its word by offering this sketchy
deal to Epstein in the first place. Just so we
don't all think Gallaine Maxwell is necessarily a hero. But
here's the question, how much of this is real? And
(21:52):
how much of it is controlled? Can we really you know,
trust because let's imagine this scenario.
Speaker 1 (21:58):
Maxwell comes and meets with the government.
Speaker 3 (22:00):
Government says, okay, let's make a deal, you know, let's
and a deal for what though, and to what purpose?
Because at this point, I think, not just Trump, but
a lot of other powerful people have a lot of
incentive for Maxwell to say I didn't know anything about
anybody broad or powerful people. It was just me and Jeffrey.
That actually is what you would want to say right
now to get a sweetheart deal no from the deputy
(22:21):
attorney general from the Trump administration. If you start implicating
all kinds of quote third party individuals, then things get
a little bit complicated. And then what the government can
say is, look, we went to Gleane, we offered her
a deal, she gave it. She told us it was
only her and Jeffrey. It's not a full fledged quote
investigation because it doesn't follow any of the money. It
doesn't look at any of the intelligence connections. The things
(22:42):
that I've detailed now on this show and on other
shows now for weeks, specifically about Epstein, the sources of
his wealth, Leslie Wexner, about Aloud Barrock, Leon Black, what
was going on with this one point? What four billion
in suspicious activity reports come in in and out of
Epstein related accounts from different financial institutions. So there is
(23:02):
a high chance of a cover up actually in the
way that this is all being conducted, and possibly even
on the way to a pardon.
Speaker 1 (23:08):
Because at this point, if you're.
Speaker 3 (23:09):
Glaine and you're looking at the conduct of the Trump administration,
you know, would it really behoove you to implicate implicate
a bunch of third party individuals, or would it be
better for you at this point it to say, actually,
it was just me and Jeffrey. Everything else is just
completely you know, everything else is a quote conspiracy theory.
My father was never a Mosad asset, even though we
(23:30):
got a state funeral in Israel, and we can all
just move on very carefully. So that's something very important
to say. There's a second, very interesting clip here from
Tim Dillon, who has revealed now to Alex Jones that
he recently had dinner last week with Jade Vance and
Vice President of the United States, and that the Vice
President told Tim Dillon that all of the quote thousands
of hours of footage was just personal pornography for Jeffrey
(23:55):
Epstein's personal use, and it didn't implicate anybody powerful. Here's
what he had to say.
Speaker 6 (24:00):
I'm administration, but heavily amplicated. I'm not going to name names.
And so you nailed it when you brought up net Yahoo.
Speaker 7 (24:07):
So so let me if you've got time here after
we have all the time in the world. I just
want to add, when Bondi said we have ten thousand
hours of video, she said, we have ten thousand hours
of video. I had dinner last week with the Vice president.
He told me that that was commercial pornography. They do
not have videos of any powerful person in a compromising position.
Speaker 1 (24:33):
That's the party line that they're going with.
Speaker 7 (24:36):
If that's the case, why would Pam Bondi call it evidence.
Why would she say it's evidence. She's not an idiot,
she's the attorney general. Why would she say she has
files on her desk? If none of these implicated anybody,
it just feels like they're they're covering something for sure.
Speaker 1 (25:00):
So there you go.
Speaker 8 (25:01):
Now.
Speaker 3 (25:01):
According to Tim who recently had dinner with the Vice president,
the vice president told him that actually it's just commercial footage,
and there's no footage of powerful individuals. Now, that's very
interesting because that would actually presume that at the highest
levels of the White House they did review some of
the quote Epstein files. That's something that the President and
his team have denied. Remember they're saying it was just
by the FBI and the DOJ. So at some level,
(25:23):
at the highest levels of our political leadership, they did
review this.
Speaker 1 (25:26):
Stuff, and they're saying, hey, don't worry about it. All.
Speaker 3 (25:28):
The footage actually was just commercial pornography for his own
personal use.
Speaker 1 (25:32):
It didn't implicate any higher level people.
Speaker 3 (25:35):
Doesn't fit necessarily at all, right, with the fact that
there were hidden cameras found in the Virgin Islands and
the New York residents and at many of these other places.
Perhaps you know it's not sexual material, but what if
it's blackmail material involving business deals, for involving intelligence operations.
This is just what gets to the whole crux of
the matter. According to Tim, he told the Vice President,
if you don't release it all, you're done, and you're
(25:55):
going to look like you're implicated in a cover up.
So these two things just look very, very very sketchy
if you ask me. And perhaps there's some recognition there
at the highest levels of the White House that they've
actually are making a big mistake. But also at the
same time, there is some very sketchy behavior in terms
of the conduct of Republicans themselves, especially the congressional Republicans,
(26:17):
who are basically joining together to make sure there's not
a single vote on the House floor about the Epstein files.
So let's remember right now, Rocanna and Rocanna and Thomas
Massey have a joint I think it's a resolution or
an amendment that would, for if voted on, would force
the release of the Epstein files from Congress, who basically
(26:39):
mandate the administration release any and all information that they
currently have.
Speaker 1 (26:43):
Now, let's put this up there on the screen.
Speaker 3 (26:44):
As THEO Vaughn has pointed out, why can't we put
Rocanna and Thomas Massey bill for a vote up this week?
At Speaker for Johnson at JD Vans JD Vancer Force,
who appeared on Theo's show. Now, Speaker Johnson, when asked
about this, says that he will not allow a vote
on the House floor ahead of the forthcoming August recess,
(27:06):
effectively shutting down any potential vote on the Epstein files
going forward because he wants to trust the government.
Speaker 1 (27:12):
Here's what he had to say.
Speaker 8 (27:13):
Here's what I would say about the Epstein files. There
is no daylight between the House, Republicans, the House, and
the President on maximum transparency. He has said that he
wants all the credible files related to Epstein to be released.
He's asked the Attorney General to request the grand jury
files of the court. All of that is in process
right now. My belief is we need the administration to
(27:34):
have the space to do what it is doing, and
if further congressional action is necessary or perfead, then we'll
look at that. But I don't think we're at that
point right now because we agree which president.
Speaker 1 (27:46):
Let's look at that very very carefully.
Speaker 3 (27:47):
So he says specifically that he will shut down any
vote on the Epstein files because he wants to quote
allow the administration the space to deal with the space
to deal with what to release the files that you
allegically support no, or to not release all the files,
or to say that only it's the credible evidence, or
you know, the stuff that is pertinent. And these are
all the terms and the definitions of things that matter
(28:10):
when you're not actually committed to releasing all the information
that you literally said that you would do if you
were elected president.
Speaker 1 (28:16):
And that's really what gets it all down to it.
Speaker 3 (28:19):
And more importantly, from this point forward, there's actually a
piece of procedural news which is totally crazy, is that
right now the House of Representatives has effectively been shut
down to make sure that there is no vote on
the Epstein files. So let me kind of explain this.
So what has happened is that they are not allowing any.
Speaker 1 (28:40):
Quote rules vote.
Speaker 3 (28:42):
They will not report a single rule this week for bills.
They're shutting down the entire House floor for the week
just so they don't allow a vote on the Epstein
files to allow that bill and a vote for people
to be able to come together and to vote specifically
to release the files. That is the level to which
(29:04):
the House Republicans have now moved to shut all this
stuff down.
Speaker 1 (29:08):
That's crazy.
Speaker 3 (29:09):
So you have here the House Republicans coming together to
protect the administration. You have the administration opening up these
talks with Glaane Maxwell.
Speaker 1 (29:16):
We'll see what comes out of it.
Speaker 3 (29:18):
I mean, let's be honest, like it looks pretty sketchy,
and it looks in particular in the direction of if
she were willing to say it didn't implicate anybody else.
That's kind of where I would if I were her.
That's how i'd want my pardon, isn't it. She's going
to spend twenty years in jail. Otherwise. You've got apparently
the Vice President telling Tim Dillon that they reviewed the
footage and it's just all commercial pornography, doesn't implicate anybody
(29:39):
brought her. But of course they're ignoring all the financial documentation,
all these other files and all these other things that
they at the time said that a journalist should be
willing to look into, remember whenever they were on the
campaign trail or whenever they held previous office. And then
you have the current pressure from the government right now
going after institutions that have reported here about the Trump
(30:00):
Epstein connection. Let's put this one up there finally, then
on the screen from the Wall Street Journal. The White
House has actually removed the Wall Street Journal from Scotland
press pool as Trump is set to travel there over
the Epstein report.
Speaker 1 (30:16):
So again, it's kind.
Speaker 3 (30:16):
Of complicated, and we've talked about it a little bit here.
The White House press pool is like a select small
group of journalists that travels with the president. They go
on Air Force one, and you kind of work together
and you send your reports to the rest of the press,
and you're kind of the representative of the global press,
not necessarily of your own paper. Well, what they've done
here is they've actually removed the Wall Street Journal White
House reporters who had nothing to do with the story
(30:37):
from the press pool over the Epstein story. Now, I mean,
they've done this type of stuff before with the Associated
Press and the whole Gulf of Mexico thing. I think
it's stupid, but it just goes to show the level
of freak out from the Trump administration right now against
the journal. I know Crystal and Emily talked about this yesterday,
but you've got this weird meeting between Jade Vance and
(30:59):
the Murder family two days before the Epstein story comes out.
Remember Trump himself said Rupert said he would take care
of it in his truth about the story around the
letter that was eventually released.
Speaker 1 (31:11):
You've got all this Trump administration behavior.
Speaker 3 (31:13):
Now you've got the fact that they filed for what
ten billion dollars of defamation in court. I can't wait
for that suit to go forward, By the way, because
you know, Trump said I can't wait to.
Speaker 1 (31:22):
Get Ruper Murdock under oath.
Speaker 3 (31:23):
I'm like, well, I can't wait to get Trump under
oath about the story as well. I hope he fights
it all the way to the end. I'm absolutely certain
he'll win.
Speaker 1 (31:30):
Well.
Speaker 3 (31:30):
Also, they should release the They should release the journal
for journalistic purposes at this point the bound book which
allegedly had the letter in it, show everybody what it is.
Speaker 1 (31:40):
But look the handling on this.
Speaker 3 (31:42):
It continues to be incredibly strange, weird. The conduct of
the US government right now just only points in the
single of a cover up you can deduce for reasons
for yourselves. So with all of that being said, let's
turn now to Maha and my guest, doctor Lane Norton,
to talk about sugar coke and the seed oils debate.
(32:05):
Very excited now to be joined by my friend doctor
Lane Norton. He is and I'm going to get his
full bio correct PhD and nutritional science co founder of
the Carbon Diet Coach Nutrition coaching app. A carbon by
the way, a product that I use and Lane, you
and I go way back, but for our purposes here,
what I wanted to have you on to the show
for is to break down all of this discussion that's
(32:27):
bubbling up right now to the highest levels of the
US government around seed oil so more recently and cane
sugar coke as well as let's put this up here
on the screen. This is the latest quote MAHA victory
from Secretary of Health and Human Services, Secretary of Kennedy
endorsing here Steak and Shake, who's saying start in August first,
Steak and Shake will offer Coca Cola with real cane
(32:47):
sugar in glass bottles.
Speaker 1 (32:49):
America deserves the best.
Speaker 3 (32:51):
They're branding themselves make America Healthy Again, RFK Junior's signature slogan.
They previously this fast food chain had replaced quote seed
oils with beef hallow fries, presenting themselves as a healthier option. Now,
since you are a PhD in nutrition science and you've
given hours of content, you've reviewed all of the data,
I just want you to break down at a nutritional
(33:11):
science level, whether this is a quote healthier option for
people to be drinking cane sugar coke as opposed to
high fructose con syrup coke, having fries that are cooked
in beef towel versus having fries that are cooked in
seed oils.
Speaker 6 (33:26):
So you made a.
Speaker 9 (33:28):
Good point, which is is it healthy compared to because
that's really what we want to know. And first off,
I want to say that I'm glad that people in
US government are taking an interest in health and nutrition
and promoting health promoting behaviors.
Speaker 6 (33:45):
Unfortunately, I think.
Speaker 9 (33:47):
People's personal biases are really getting in the way here,
and this is something I think with RFK is going on.
Is known as a naturalistic fallacy, which is, if something
occurs in nature, it must be better for us. And
in some cases that's true, but in some cases we
have plenty of man made things that take away protein.
Speaker 6 (34:05):
For example, which is an ultra processed.
Speaker 9 (34:08):
Food, but has been shown to reduce levels of inflammation,
improve glucose control, improve I even think levels of liver fat,
and basically metabolic health. So I think we got to
be careful with lumping things into big categories. Now, when
it comes to replacing high fructose corn syrup sweetened beverages
(34:29):
with cane sugar, again, the only reason I can think
that people would think this is healthier is because cane
sugar is natural Biochemically, there is very little difference between
cane sugar and high fructose corn syrup. Cane sugar is sucrose,
and sucrose is fifty percent is a disaccharide, which is
(34:50):
a glucose.
Speaker 6 (34:51):
Molecule linked to a fructose molecule.
Speaker 9 (34:53):
So fifty to fifty high fructose corn syrup is fifty
five percent fructose and forty five percent glucose. If you're
telling me that a five percent difference and fruit dose
content is somehow going to change our nation's health, I
would say that you're basically putting your energy into stuff
that is not going to make a darn bit of difference.
And I'm looking at right now dozens of randomized control
(35:19):
trials in humans where when they substitute high fructose corn
syrup in a one to one ratio with other sugars,
there's zero outcomes that are different in terms of body weight,
body fat, liver fat, metabolic health, insulin resistance, because.
Speaker 6 (35:38):
It's still sugar.
Speaker 9 (35:39):
And even if you want to go down that road,
I mean, people make a big deal out of sugar,
but the reality is our sugar intake has actually declined
over the last twenty years, while obesity has continued to rise.
And when you look at isocoloric. So when I say isocholoric,
I mean in feeding trials when they control total calories
(36:00):
but they substitute in other forms of carbohydrate for sugar. Again,
you don't really see a difference in metabolic health outcomes
or body weight or body fat. And there was even
one randomized control trial that was very well controlled. They
provided all the food to participants and they looked at
over one hundred grams of sugar intake per day versus
(36:21):
about ten and same total calories, protein, carbohydrate, fat intake
was still the same, and they found that both groups
lost basically the exact same amount of body fat and
all their blood markers improved in both groups. Now, I'm
not saying that eating sugar or high fructose corn strup
is a good idea because people it is not satiating,
(36:44):
and people over consume it, and so you know, if
you're gonna eat a lot of sugar, it's not like
people drink a coke and they go, well, that was
forty grams of carbohydrate, so I'm.
Speaker 6 (36:54):
Gonna skip posta tonight.
Speaker 9 (36:55):
No, they just take it in on top of whatever
else they're eating. So I think the real damage messaging
here is that somehow, because you've substituted in cane sugar,
you haven't reduced overall calories, that this is healthier.
Speaker 6 (37:08):
It's not.
Speaker 9 (37:09):
There's no there is no evidence this is going to
make an actual difference for people. And I think the
uncomfortable truth and I default to something called Aukham's razor,
which basically the lay interpretation is when all things are equal,
the simplest answer is usually true. The average calorie intake
in the United States of America is three thousand, five
(37:32):
hundred and forty per day, and the average physical activity
is less than twenty minutes per day, and that is
why we.
Speaker 6 (37:38):
Have a health crisis.
Speaker 9 (37:39):
And people don't want to deal with that uncomfortable truth
and the responsibility and accountability that comes along with.
Speaker 3 (37:45):
It, right, And I think that's such an important point
and lane every time I try to bring attention to this,
and to be clear, I agree with the message make
America healthier, grin, I think it's great. But I'm told
very often that cane sugar coke is better than drinking
diet coke, and that it's not about the calories saga,
it's a lot, It's all about the ingredients and so
(38:05):
I would love for you to basically get into that
because they are rejecting not only a message or a
theory of thermodynamic not the law of thermodynam it's not
theory about calories and calories out. They're accepting a framework
in which the quote chemicals, the pestified, pesticize, the ingredients
are themselves responsible for the health crisis that we find
(38:26):
ourselves in America, and not.
Speaker 1 (38:27):
The what is it? What is it?
Speaker 3 (38:28):
They said, it's the thirty four hundred calories per day
that the average American intake plus. Okay, I would love
for please respond to that argument. Why you know they're
in their framework cane sugar coke is better than diet coke.
Speaker 9 (38:43):
Then they simply have not read the human randomized control trials.
I mean, here's the argument against diet soda. Well, these
compounds in it are carcinogenic.
Speaker 6 (38:53):
No, no, they're not.
Speaker 9 (38:55):
These are some of the most studied compounds in the
history of mankind.
Speaker 6 (38:58):
Can you find rote studies.
Speaker 9 (39:00):
Where they feed ten thousand times.
Speaker 6 (39:03):
The dose of what you could ever get and they
see weird things happen?
Speaker 9 (39:07):
Yeah, Well, try feeding ten thousand times the dose of
anything and see if weird things happen. Yeah, I'm not
surprised that weird stuff happens. And the question is, I
mean I did this on my videos all the time.
I'm like, if only we had human randomized control trials
where they look, oh wait, we do so if we
look at if they tell people to drink diet soda
(39:30):
in place of regular soda, what happens, and very consistently
in the research literature, people lose significant amounts.
Speaker 6 (39:38):
Of body weight.
Speaker 9 (39:39):
There was actually a very recent fifty two week randomized
control trial where they.
Speaker 6 (39:44):
Had people either drink soda or diet.
Speaker 9 (39:48):
Soda or water, I actually believe, And what they found was,
I think on average, people lost about six and a
half kilograms Okay, so like fourteen pounds in freedom units
just by subbing in diet soda. And they actually lost
a little bit more than the group that drank water.
It wasn't a big difference, but it was a difference.
(40:11):
I'm not saying if you like drinking water, you don't
have to drink diet So it's not what I'm saying,
And I'm not saying that diet soda has some sort
of magical fat burner in it that makes.
Speaker 6 (40:19):
It burn to water.
Speaker 9 (40:19):
But people who are used to drinking soda, if you
replace that with either water or diet soda, what that
says to me is that people drinking water probably were
seeking out a sweet taste somewhere else because they weren't
getting it from that, Whereas the group that was drinking
diet soda, they felt more satiated because they satisfied that
sweet taste. And then if we look in the meta analyses,
(40:42):
we basically see that diet soda there was one looking
at glycemic load. Because some of these people will say, well,
diet sodas released insulin and etc.
Speaker 6 (40:51):
No they don't, they don't. In fact, the.
Speaker 9 (40:53):
Conclusion of a recent meta analysis of dozens of human
randomized control trials basically you said that diet so it
basically that the same effects as water.
Speaker 6 (41:02):
Okay, And we do see because people.
Speaker 9 (41:05):
Lose weight, not because of anything magic, but people's HbA
one C goes down, which is a marker for insulin sensitivity.
And then like even going to the you brought up
the seed oyls thing too, and I do want to
touch on that.
Speaker 1 (41:19):
Oh we're gonna get to that door.
Speaker 6 (41:20):
Yeah yeah, oh okay, okay, Well yeah.
Speaker 9 (41:22):
I mean when you look at the dietsade of stuff
people say it's carcinogenic, it's not. Over eighty percent of
the research studies say that it's not carcinogenic, and the
ten percent that say maybe, and the other ten percent
that say like yes, it's always either weak epidemiology association
data or it's it's in animal studies giving super high doses.
(41:47):
And I'm even thinking about one epidemiology study from Spain.
Speaker 6 (41:50):
It was one hundred thousand. People got a lot of
press about five years.
Speaker 9 (41:53):
Ago, and this is where the news will report certain
headlines and either they don't understand science and read the
full paper, or they just don't care and they just
want to get people scared. So this study showed that
at no intake of aspartame that was the reference group,
compared to the reference group, the group consuming a low
(42:15):
or moderate amount of aspertain had a relative risk increase
of just under twenty percent for cancer. Now, when I
say relative risk increase, I don't mean you go from
a five percent absolute risk to a twenty five percent.
Relative risk increases means you go from five to six percent,
because twenty percent of five percent is one percent.
Speaker 6 (42:33):
So I just want to I want to frame that.
Speaker 9 (42:35):
Appropriately for people, because they don't understand relative risk either.
Speaker 6 (42:39):
So a twenty percent relative risk increase, But what about
why didn't they bring up.
Speaker 9 (42:43):
The group that was the high group, like the high
intakes of aspartame, because the risk actually went down compared
to the moderate or low group. Now, please, I want
anybody out there to let me know what is carcinogenic
at a low dose but not carcinogenic and a high dose.
Somebody please explain that to me. And so again, these
(43:05):
weak epidemiology studies, I'm sorry, I just don't buy them.
And they're not supported by any real hard human data.
Speaker 1 (43:12):
This is very important. Now let's get to the seed
oils thing again.
Speaker 3 (43:14):
I have watched this stuff run like a craze across
the Internet to the point where I have people in
my own life who are explicitly going out of their
way to quote avoid seed oils.
Speaker 1 (43:25):
I can live with that if it's an internet phenomenon.
Speaker 3 (43:27):
But now I'm watching the United States government, and I
want to be clear, it's not that I'm against making
people healthy using government policy or whatever to try and
encourage it. What I'm concerned about in this case is
the Secretary of Health and Human Services saying this is
a healthy meal, drinking cane sugar coke, beef tallifries and
a cheeseburger. Or for example, lately there is a new
effort by the government lane to get laised chips to
(43:50):
replace seed oils with avocado oil. And that's the thing,
is that it's the presumption that the seed oils and
not the caloric density of this highly palatable chip itself
that people are eating, is the problem. I don't want.
It's like the fat free craze of the nineteen nineties,
right where people go to the grocery store and they say, oh,
it's fat free, and that's why it's quote healthy. Well,
(44:11):
that created a permission structure for people to continue to
up their caloric dose. And I say this because I'm
susceptible to it until I started looking at your content
and others. I'm the person buying and reading the influencers
and all this other stuff while struggling with my weight
for over twenty years. Right, and so you've looked at
the data on the seed oils. Let's go and put
this up there on the screen and you look specifically
(44:33):
at the data replacing seed oils with canola and I'll
let you read out the.
Speaker 1 (44:38):
Rest of these with saturated fat.
Speaker 3 (44:40):
Tell us in detail here what the data shows us
about replacing seed oils with saturated fat.
Speaker 6 (44:46):
Yeah.
Speaker 9 (44:47):
So this is what's really important, is if you're talking
about adding something into the diet or removing something from
the diet, the question. One of my favorite political commentators
was Thomas sol and I always liked one of the
things he said is if somebody is making a claim,
your first question should be compared to what, So, okay,
(45:07):
seed oils are.
Speaker 6 (45:08):
Bad, compared to what?
Speaker 9 (45:10):
Because I agree, like one of the biggest sources of
added calories over the last few decades is added oils.
In that way, seed oils have contributed to the obese
crisis because they're calorically dense and they're in a lot
of ultra processed foods and people cut them out and
they say, well I feel better. Well, you stopped eating
(45:30):
junk food. It wasn't the seed oils you lost weight.
It wasn't the fact that you were not eating seed oils.
It was the fact that you stopped eating so many
damn calories.
Speaker 6 (45:39):
Now, with the.
Speaker 9 (45:40):
Seed oil data, specifically, if we replace in a one
to one ratio with saturated.
Speaker 10 (45:45):
Fat, So at worst for seed oils you get a
neutral effect on metabolic health like liver fat, insulin sensitivity,
you get inflammation, You get a neutral effect at worst,
And a lot of studies show that replacing saturated fat
with polyunsaturated fats from seed oils like canola oil, improve inflammation,
(46:11):
reduce liver fat, they improve insulin sensitivity, they improve intothelial function.
Speaker 6 (46:18):
And then if we look at the.
Speaker 9 (46:19):
Long term data, Now this is cohort data, which is
a form of epidemiology, but the reality is you can't
do thirty year nutrition randomized control trials. It's just impossible
to do. Nobody is going to stick to a diet
for that long. Unfortunately, as I know as a coach,
people just have really poor adherents.
Speaker 6 (46:39):
But if we look at the cohort data.
Speaker 9 (46:43):
If we look at people who consume more seed oils
versus people who consume more saturated fat, what do we
see when it comes to mortality, heart disease, and cancer.
And what we see very consistently in the literature is
people who consume seed oils or plant oils in place
of saturated fat live longer. They have lower rates of
(47:05):
cardiovascar disease, and some studies show lower rates of cancer
and some studies don't, So I'm not sure if that's
a real effect, but certainly for heart disease and mortality.
And again, this is one of those things when the
anti seed oil people get in debates with me, the
best studies they can cite are studies that so reducing
(47:25):
saturated fat does.
Speaker 6 (47:27):
Not improve health outcomes.
Speaker 9 (47:29):
And I'm like, oh wait, wait, didn't we just move
the goalpost though, because you're saying seed walls are bad.
Now you're just saying, well, saturated fat isn't bad. But
if you're going to argue that seed dolls are bad,
if you are going to make that argument, then you have.
Speaker 6 (47:43):
To argue that saturated fat is bad for you, because
at every metric it is either a neutral or worse
effect by consuming more saturated fat in place of seedlls.
So this idea that you're.
Speaker 9 (47:55):
Going to put beef talo into fries and that's going
to make people healthier, it's absolute lunacy. It's ridiculous. And
I actually got invited to go on this Maha trip
to Congress last year and I declined it. And the
reason I declined it was because I knew this was
going to happen. What was going to happen was they
were going to ban some random ingredients in.
Speaker 1 (48:15):
Food, artificial food. Nobody was food dye.
Speaker 9 (48:18):
Yeah, and nobody was going to actually want to deal
with the reality, which is people eat too much and
move too little, because that is a very very difficult
problem to solve because it is multifaceted. It is it
involves socioeconomic things, it involves the way our whole society
is set up, and hey, to be fair, I don't
(48:41):
know what the answer is. I don't know what the
answer is, but I think coddling people and lying to
them and telling them, well, your fries, your ultra processed
sources of refined sugar and fat are now fried in
beef tallow rather than seed alls.
Speaker 6 (49:00):
Okay, now steak and shake is healthy. Like, get out
of here.
Speaker 9 (49:04):
Like it is an absolute freaking It is a distraction
from the real problem. And quite frankly, you can tell
it makes me sick that this is getting so much
played because it is literally going to do absolutely nothing
other than make a few politicians feel good about themselves,
pat themselves on the back, and Steak and shake's going
(49:26):
to get some free press.
Speaker 3 (49:27):
That's actually what I'm worried about is that steak and
shit people. There are a lot of good meeting people
who trusted RFK Junior or trust MA or whatever. They're
going to go and they're going to get that coke
and they're gonna be like, this is healthier, babe.
Speaker 1 (49:37):
I'm telling you.
Speaker 3 (49:38):
You know, they said make America Healthy has been endorsed
by this Secretary for Health and Human Services. People want
to have all the time in the world to read
your work or to listen to your videos or watch interview.
They put their trust in this person. The President appointed him,
and he's using the full force right now the US
government to basically prop the stuff up.
Speaker 1 (49:56):
And I think that's the last.
Speaker 3 (49:57):
Thing I want to kind of get into with about
what the evidence points us in the direction, because again,
and it's not just about cancer. The core claim is
that the artific I remember fruit loops RFK. I think
he was on our show and he's talking about fruit loops.
He's like, in Canada, they don't have food dye, right,
And I checked the macros and actually they're basically the
same the macros in terms of the sugar for fruit loops.
(50:20):
So like the core you know proposition being put forward
is that the problem with American fruit loops is the
fact that there's food dye in it as opposed to
all of this sugar, right, and that you're feeding this
to your child for breakfast, and whether that is a
healthy choice or not.
Speaker 1 (50:34):
So then it gives companies the easiest out.
Speaker 3 (50:36):
In the world of like, oh, sure we'll put it
in avocado oil whatever. Yeah, maybe our marginal cost will
go up, but then people will actually buy more of
it because they think it's healthy as opposed to what
you just talked about here, it's all about this calories.
And you know, that's really the final thing I'd write
for you to get into is I was talking with
Andrew Huberman, our mutual friend, about how gop one drugs
(50:59):
kind of did the proposition of calories, calories and calories
out right. It's like, people take the GLP one drug
ozembic is what I'm referring to for the lay person, and.
Speaker 1 (51:08):
They stopped, they stopped eating eating more.
Speaker 3 (51:11):
They not only lost weight, they got all their biomarkers
are trending in a much better direction, especially for people
who were obese.
Speaker 1 (51:18):
It didn't have anything to do with pesticide.
Speaker 3 (51:20):
But I know a lot of people on ozempic they
eat a ton of junk food. I went to Japan,
one of the healthiest countries in the world. Do you
know how much deep fried food that they eat in
seed oil? They're all skinny, they look pretty good, and
they live a long time, and a lot doesn't seem
to have anything to do with seed oil, has a
lot to do with coloric intake.
Speaker 1 (51:36):
So that's the final thing I'd like to tee you
up on.
Speaker 9 (51:39):
Yeah, I mean, it's the I'm not saying that calories
are the only thing that matter.
Speaker 6 (51:43):
I want to be very clear.
Speaker 9 (51:44):
There are some other things that matter, but in terms
of the big rocks that you can pick up to
put your focus into it, it's the biggest thing that
matters for at least for metabolic health and using weight.
I mean, you want to talk about something being toxic.
Too many calories are toxic because at a certain point
(52:07):
you exceed you only really have a few places to
dispose of excess glucose and lipid, and that is in
liver can store a little bit of glycogen and fat,
muscle can store some glycogen and fat, but your big,
biggest depot is your adipose tissue. But your adiposites, your
fat cells can only reach a certain size, about one
(52:28):
hundred microns in diameter apiece, before they become essentially non viable.
Where you now you've run out of places to put
it into, and now it starts backing up into the bloodstream.
And that's why you have elevated blood glucose, blood lipids
in people who have type two diabetes and compromise insulin sensitivity.
Speaker 6 (52:46):
And so what are you going to do?
Speaker 9 (52:48):
You've got to make space somewhere where your body can
make more fat cells, but that it never does it
at a rate that can catch up to the excess
lipid and glucose that's in the blood stream.
Speaker 6 (52:58):
And so uh, if you just.
Speaker 9 (53:00):
Exercise, just exercise, Okay, you don't even have to lose weight.
But sixteen weeks of resistance training in obese men with
type two diabetes was shown to improve insulin sensity by sensitivity.
Speaker 6 (53:12):
By forty five percent. Wow, Okay, we saw in some
of our in the lab.
Speaker 9 (53:17):
I was in a graduate school lab of Don Lahman
at University of Illinois. He was doing a human randomized
control trial in women and basically saw people's blood markers
when they lost just like ten to fifteen pounds. They
saw them start to resolve almost immediately. You don't need
to do a ton of exercise or lose a ton
(53:40):
of weight to begin to get metabolically healthy. It will
happen relatively quickly. That is your body's natural state. And honestly,
it takes pushing it past a really ridiculous point to
get to where we are.
Speaker 6 (53:53):
But that's where we are because.
Speaker 9 (53:55):
You can not only in the nineteen fifties we had
ultra process. We have cakes cookies, but you had to
go to the bakery you had, or you had to
make it yourself. Now you don't even have to wait.
You can just get on door dash, have somebody pick
it up from the circle k and bring it to
your house. So these are the problems we're dealing with,
and you mentioned it.
Speaker 6 (54:18):
For fifty years, fat loss research focused on metabolism. How
do we speed people people's metabolism up?
Speaker 9 (54:26):
And people who are obese, well, they got to have
slow metabolisms, or people with type two diabetes, they gotta
have slow metabolisms. Not only does the research not support
that people with type two diabetes or people who are
obese have, if anything, faster metabolisms than people who are
lean when they actually put them in a metal ball
(54:47):
chamber and measure them and oh is it if calories
don't matter. Isn't it interesting When we put people in
metabolic ward trials where they're basically in food jail and
they have to eat what the researchers.
Speaker 6 (54:57):
Give them, they all lose weight.
Speaker 9 (54:59):
Wow, somehow, you know, And then people will say, well,
you know, you can eat so low that your metabolism
slows down, and all this stuff. Yeah, all these concentration
camp photos of people who were obese because they didn't eat.
Speaker 6 (55:13):
Enough, Like, come on, get out of here.
Speaker 9 (55:15):
This is all just an excuse for people to shirk
personal responsibility because calories in, calories out. The thing people
don't like about it is the inherent truth that there
is personal responsibility in this and the GLP one mimetics,
as you mentioned, for fifty years we focused on metabolism,
(55:35):
and then for the last ten years we focused on appetite.
Speaker 6 (55:38):
And what happened.
Speaker 9 (55:40):
I mean, the research data that's coming out now basically
says these GLP ones are stopping obesity in its tracks
and reversing it. And in fact, food companies are actually
really worried because people are consuming less calories now. So
these GLP ones, they don't increase metabolic rate, they don't
do anything so spec well, they do something special other
(56:02):
than they are the most powerful appetite suppressants known to man.
And if we look at the difference between obese people
and lean people, it is not on the metabolism side,
it is on the appetite side.
Speaker 6 (56:17):
People who are obese are obese prone.
Speaker 9 (56:21):
They tend to get more of a reward from food,
They tend to not have the same sensitivity to satiety
signals as lean people, and they also tend to dissipate
less energy through spontaneous movement compared to lean people. So,
just to explain what that is briefly, you have like
a certain amount of movement you do without even thinking
(56:43):
about it, like fidgeting, like what I'm doing in my
hands right now. This would be considered non exercise activity, thermogenesis,
postural movement. Those little bitty movements actually add up quite
a bit over the course of a day. And we
have seen very clear research going all the way back
to the early nineties, showing that people who are obese
(57:03):
resistant phenotype essentially that if they overeat, they actually tend
to just spontaneously, without realizing it or intentionally doing it,
they spontaneously increase their physical activity to compensate for it,
whereas people who are obese prone don't tend.
Speaker 6 (57:18):
To do that.
Speaker 1 (57:19):
Got it, Lane, This is so so helpful.
Speaker 3 (57:21):
Last word from you at where can people find your
new podcast and all off your work so.
Speaker 9 (57:26):
You can find me as biolane on all social media platforms.
My website's biolane dot com and my new podcast is
the Doctor Lane Norton Podcast.
Speaker 6 (57:35):
I hope you guys will go check it out.
Speaker 9 (57:36):
If you want no bs, straight shooting truth, I give
it to it straight without much frills.
Speaker 3 (57:42):
He certainly does, and that's why he is the goat
of all of them. Thank you very much, sir for
joining us. We appreciate you.
Speaker 7 (57:47):
Man.
Speaker 1 (57:47):
That's right, and he's ripped.
Speaker 3 (57:49):
That's really ripped, with no steroids, no drugs, all natural,
the hard way, and he actually.
Speaker 1 (57:55):
Tells you people how to do it.
Speaker 3 (57:56):
It's not easy, not easy to say, it's not easy
to easy to do it, but you would at least
show us the way that it can be done.
Speaker 1 (58:01):
Thank you very much, sir. We appreciate you. Thanks Buddy,
Thank you guys so much for watching. We appreciate you.
Speaker 3 (58:06):
We will have a great show for everybody tomorrow with counterpoints,
and then we'll see you all then
Hey, guys, Saga and Crystal here.
Speaker 2 (00:01):
Independent media just played a truly massive role in this election,
and we are so excited about what that means for
the future of the show.
Speaker 3 (00:08):
This is the only place where you can find honest
perspectives from the left and the right that simply does
not exist anywhere else.
Speaker 2 (00:14):
So if that is something that's important to you, please
go to Breakingpoints dot com. Become a member today and
you'll access to our full shows, unedited, ad free, and
all put together for you every morning in your inbox.
Speaker 3 (00:25):
We need your help to build the future of independent
news media, and we hope to see you at Breakingpoints
dot com.
Speaker 4 (00:33):
Andrew Cuomo in linked audio has an analysis of why
he lost Ron Mom Donnie, and it's kind of dead on.
Let's listen to some of this.
Speaker 5 (00:43):
All the polls had me up fifteen points, and all
the geniuses say, you know, you're up fifteen points. You
want to play it safe, you want to play it safe,
and he was nowhere on the radar screen. We played
it safe. I didn't engage him, I didn't debunk him enough,
wasn't aggressive enough, which is really ironic because all my
(01:04):
life I'm too aggressive.
Speaker 6 (01:05):
I'm too combative. I'm too tough.
Speaker 5 (01:08):
There was an explosion of the under thirty vote. Under
thirty white socialists who voted three, four or five times
what anyone had ever seen, and that totally changed the
numbers young people who came out. They were socialists and
(01:32):
they were propalistan And I would wager that in that
primary more than fifty percent of the Jewish people would
from undone. This socialist wave in the Democratic Party, this
AOC Bernie Sanders going across the country. The No Kings
(01:56):
brought out, brought out hundreds of thousands of young people
at rallies all across the country, basically fueled by anti Trump.
But anti Trump then fits with socialism, that fits with
pro Palestinian and he was the perfect vehicle for this
(02:17):
under thirty wave of reform and a new reality.
Speaker 4 (02:23):
Oh so, Cuomo quoto, it's all interesting, But Cuomo acknowledging
that more than fifty percent of Jewish voters in New
York Yes voted from Mom Donnie is so striking because
if you follow the mainstream media coverage of this election
(02:44):
and the result, you would think that Jewish New Yorkers
are now deeply under threat because of the election of
Mom Donnie that this is this is a scary situation
that all Democrats need to condemn Mom and make sure
that Jewish people in New York are safe from the
(03:05):
scourge of the Mom Donnie movement. Yet the same people
pushing that message understand that actually the reverse is true. Yes,
fifth more than more than a half of Jewish voters
voted for Mom Donnie because they support him.
Speaker 1 (03:23):
They either he didn't care about the.
Speaker 3 (03:27):
Ort or whatever, or they actually supported it and they
were like, yeah, I'm Jewish, but I don't really care
as much about Israel. I think the way they're conducting
themselves is ridiculous. This has been a hallmark of the
pro Palestinian movement, especially on the left now for years
at this point, and.
Speaker 4 (03:46):
Who also acknowgs to that in an interview with Hugh
Hewett Donald Trump. Yes, he was like, Hugh, you know what, like,
lots of the people on these at these campus protests
are young Jewish.
Speaker 1 (03:55):
Kids, which we knew because he was like, yeah.
Speaker 4 (03:58):
There's some misguided kids. It's they're not outliers like it's you. Now,
he meant it as a negative because he was angry
at the time at the Jewish vote because it was
polling democratic, so he's angry. So he's like, oh, to
these kids, uh. But when you acknowledge that fact, it
just flips the entire thing on its head. Yes, like
(04:19):
how can how can all of this be anti Semitic
if there are so many Jewish people participating in it?
Speaker 1 (04:25):
And yeah.
Speaker 3 (04:25):
But the thing is, though, is that that audio directly
contradicts the messaging then of a Cuomo campaign, which is
all about, oh, he's an anti Semi. He's ridiculous, and
that's part of the reason. That's basically what's animating his
independent run is a bunch of like rich Jewish I
guess right wing or centrist billion Republicans are Republicans.
Speaker 1 (04:46):
It's true.
Speaker 3 (04:47):
It's obvious these people are supporting Coomo specifically to make
sure that Mamdani doesn't win. So he can both admit it,
you know there and he can both admit it in
terms of the uh of the audio, but in terms
of his public messaging, him and Adams are united around
the oh he's anti Israel, and it's you know, he's
(05:08):
anti Israeli's an anti Semi and that's why you shouldn't
vote for him. That's part of what makes it so
ridiculous because his analysis is absolutely correct.
Speaker 4 (05:15):
I don't quite understand Cuomo's assessment that mom Donnie came
from nowhere, Like the at least the last month of
the campaign, it was clear that this was a close race.
At the very least it was going to be close.
Speaker 1 (05:28):
And he did a terrible job, obviously if.
Speaker 4 (05:31):
He really couldn't see it coming even at the end,
it's like, what are you doing, man, this is going
on here. Incredible. So that's fairly reasonable autopsy that's actually
real from Cuomo. So and it valuable to him because
he is apparently planning to run in the general election.
Who knows there was enough money. Anything's possible, you know,
(05:54):
Mom Donnie can't like completely rest on the laurels of
the nomination. But thetional Democratic Party, through the DNC, is
running its own autopsy of twenty twenty four. We can
put up this New York Times Ellen up on the screen,
and according to reporting from the paper here, the researchers
(06:14):
are telling people that they're speaking to that they are
not going to look at the question of whether or
not Biden should have run for reelection, the question of
whether he should have dropped out much sooner, the question
of whether there should have been an open primary, the
question of whether it should have been handed to Kamala Harris,
or even the decisions that the Harris campaign made on
(06:36):
what to run on. Yes, they're not going to look
at that.
Speaker 3 (06:38):
How can you possibly have a real like, here's what's funny.
The RNC, then after Romney's loss, was more honest in
its autopsy than the DNC, and that autopsy, either way,
was incredibly stupid. The idea behind that autopsy was we
need to endorse amnesty. They're like, oh, Romney's meanness towards
immigration is the reason that he lost, right and self support, yeah.
Speaker 1 (07:00):
Self deport and all that.
Speaker 3 (07:01):
That was too mean and that's why we actually need
a pro open borders candidate. And then in twenty sixteen
the other way, Donald Trump wins the election on a
on a build the wall message, just to show you
how dumb these autopsies are. But even that autopsy was
more honest at the very least because it tried to
be like, Okay, what are some of the key decisions
the Romney campaign made here here and here here's how
we think that we should address it. They were totally
(07:22):
wrong obviously in retrospect. But here they're not even going
to look at it. Like they say the quote the
review is expected to the review is not. It's not
expected to review key decisions by the Harris campaign, like
framing the election is a choice between democracy and fascism.
Refraining from hitting back after ads from Donald Trumps to
attack miss Harris on transgender rights that have royal Democrats
(07:43):
in the month of how can you have any serious
discussion like that means then that the real Democrat This
sounds cringe as hell to say. That means that the
real democratic autopsy is taking place on the podcast. It's
not taking based in the mainstream media. Right, they're not
asking any uncomfortable questions except Biden's age, But they're not
talking about the issues. The issues are all being hashed
out right now between Podsave America and Crystal you know
(08:04):
and all these other like left podcasters who are trying
to decide what the hell went wrong in the twenty
twenty four election.
Speaker 1 (08:10):
Right.
Speaker 3 (08:10):
But that's the craziest part about this is then what
is the part What is the purpose of the DNC
at this point? Like is it not to win an election?
Apparently not it's to protect the people who are.
Speaker 1 (08:20):
In power, not even in power, who were in power, Ryan, Like,
you've got to explain, like where this comes from, how
is this possible?
Speaker 4 (08:26):
So what they are looking at, according to the Times
here and Jane Klebo, deputy DNC says it in the
article here, they're going to look at where they spent
their money, and particularly where the super pac, the outside
super pac spent its money. And her argument is that
what they're what they're finding is that the amount of
money that they spent on TV ads is way too
(08:47):
much and they need to invest it in kind of
on the ground organizing and other things that aren't just
broadcasting cable TV, and those super PACs already pushing back saying,
we actually didn't spend that much on TV. We spent
a lot on digital et cetera. So it's it's it's
much more of a kind of mechanical argument, like around
(09:08):
tactics rather than you know, substance strategy, which you could
say in a in a proper party where you have
factions competing for power within it that the DNC ought
to be a neutral platform and actually should just look
at what tactics work and then leave the substance to
the battle between AOC and Bernie on one hand, and
(09:29):
Fetterman and Jumor and whoever elsewhere, and then once that
contest is over and one party, one faction within the
party is dominant, then here the tactics we're going to
play play out in the in a general action. That
would be the best argument possibly for it. But they're
also they're just afraid that they're going to offend all
(09:52):
the powerful people who stood by and allowed these dumb
things to happen. Because also you probably don't in their defense.
Maybe you don't need an autopsy to be like, this
was dumb, all of this was wrong.
Speaker 3 (10:05):
Okay, but put it on Putting it on paper actually
is important because you need to everything needs to be
admitted to ourselves, like we need to just say, guys,
here's what went wrong.
Speaker 1 (10:13):
It was a disaster.
Speaker 4 (10:16):
Is interesting?
Speaker 3 (10:16):
Yeah, well okay, but even on the trans thing, right again,
you don't have to go You just have to lay
out a variety of views, look at the poll and
be like, look what went wrong here?
Speaker 1 (10:25):
Why didn't they push back against this view?
Speaker 3 (10:27):
Wasn't a mistake in twenty nineteen for Kamla to give
an interview and say that the FEDS should fund gender
transition surgeries.
Speaker 1 (10:33):
Yeah, I think it was all right.
Speaker 3 (10:34):
Rob Manual's going out there saying it is, like, maybe
you disagree with them, that's fine, but it should obviously
be part of the debate. You should analyze that decision
and say, to what extent was this mentioning powerful? Just
lay it out there. You don't even have to make
a qualitative decision. Look at it issue by issue, and
then also look at the key decision of Biden's even
run again and say, obviously this was a disaster. Was
(10:55):
this ever a winnable race? That's an open question. I
actually I'm not really sure if it ever was. It
might have been lost from twenty twenty one onwards with
Biden's approval rating, but I don't know. I mean, I
tend to think that every election is ten technically winnable,
right at any point. You know, it's just all about
the It's just all about the decisions that you make.
Speaker 4 (11:10):
From there, AOC is tangling again with the party's base.
Parties left. You can put up C three here. So
there was an amendment, So she writes here, and I'll
give you the background. She writes here, Marjorie Taylor Green's
amendment does nothing to cut off offensive aid to Israel
(11:30):
nor end the flow of munitions being used in Gaza.
Of course I voted against it. Here she's referring to
an amendment by Green that went after these kind of
yes like that, and you know these the missile defense
program that Israel uses. It got the votes of I
believe it was Rashida ilhan Omar Summerly in Pittsburgh and
(11:52):
Al Green down in Texas. Those are the only four
Democrats that voted against it. So there's a part at
the bottom that's important, where she says, I remain focused
on cutting the flow of US munitions that are being
used to perpetuate the genocide in Gaza. And then think
about that last line that she's said there, So let's
(12:13):
put up C four again. So this is her kind
of continuing to respond. She says, Google is free. If
you're saying I voted for military funding, you are lying
receipts attached, dragged me for my positions all you want,
but lying about them doesn't make you part of the
quote left. If you believe neo Nazis are welcome and
operating in good faith you can have them, which is
(12:34):
kind of a criticism there of Summer Lee and Rashida
Tali and the Elinomar for voting for a Green amendment,
and kind of an argument that she would never vote
for anything put forward by Green no matter what. Setting
all that aside, in her original statement, she says two things.
She says she's voted against this because it was defensive
(12:54):
in nature, and she also says that Israel is carrying
out a genocide. And I think that's just such an
impossible thing to square. In the same thought, if you
do believe that Israel's carrying out a genocide, any support
for that is support for that genocide, even if it's
(13:15):
even if it's just these defensive weapons, because.
Speaker 1 (13:17):
Also, what are they using the defensive weapons for?
Speaker 4 (13:19):
Hamas is not actually firing rockets exactly, So it's Yemen
is shooting at them to try to get them to
stop the genocide. Then they have said if you stop
the war on gods of Yemen will stop firing missiles,
and Iran responded to Israel after Israel attacked Iran. So
the defensive weapons are so that net Yaho can carry
out another attack on Iran, which he told the nut
(13:42):
boys he's going to do. He said, the war against
Iran is not over. You just had their military chief.
They're saying war against Iran is not over. They're going
to try to take out all their ballistic missiles, so
they need a replenishing of their defensive weapons to carry
out the offensive action that they want to carry out
against him. They are killing people by the thousands in
(14:03):
Yemen due to malnutrition and due to they've destroyed the
airport there so people can't get medical evacuations, so that
they can't get aid in. They destroyed the port so
you can't get fuel and aid in. People are dying
like crazy in Yemen. And the purpose of the defensive
weapons is so that they can carry out those attacks
on Yemen and on I run. That's the part where
(14:27):
I think it's very just it's just impossible to square
those two positions. If you believe that that's what they're doing,
then you can't support it, even with the defensive weapons.
Speaker 3 (14:36):
Because what's the bulletproof vest analogy? Oh yeah, some say
it because I think this is very good, So I.
Speaker 1 (14:40):
Think it was.
Speaker 4 (14:41):
Caitlin Johnson, the writer responded to AOC and that replies,
getting a lot of attention saying like, look, I don't
support a school shooter, but I just purchased the bulletproof
vest right for them.
Speaker 1 (14:55):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (14:56):
And again, let's it collapses on its own logic because Israeli,
the US defense umbrella in all forms, from the Americans
striking the Fodeau facility or whatever in Iran, to US
using guided missile destroyers to defend them, to our funding
of the Iron Dome, enables Israeli offensive action. If Israel
(15:18):
is forced to feel the consequences of its actions, it
will fundamentally behave differently, yes or no. So this is
this is where probably they would not attack never in
a million years. They're gonna blow up in Iranian embassy
in Damascus. They're gonna overthrow the Damascus government. They're gonna
bomb Iran. They're gonna permanently occupy parts of Lebanon, Syria,
(15:38):
the West Bank. They're gonna murder Christian and Muslims, uh,
you know, residence with impunity. They're going to attack a
Catholic church without the US. No, okay, no, no, no, no,
no never. And that's my point is that this is
why the MTG Amendment was courageous in that they were like, no,
we're done. We're done with you, and from this point
(15:59):
for you bear the consequences of your own actions.
Speaker 1 (16:04):
I thought, that's what a lot of liberals agree.
Speaker 4 (16:06):
Or pay for it yourself, yeah, or pay yeah, hell yeah.
Speaker 3 (16:09):
You're a rich country, got universal health care, you pay
for it, Okay, cash and carry, just like we we
treated the British and lend lease ten times worse.
Speaker 1 (16:18):
You know, we treat the country of Israel.
Speaker 3 (16:20):
We bent them over a barrel and we set gold
on the premises or fuck off. That's basically what we
told Winston Churchill. Go read a book about it. Okay,
they complained a lot. Actually, they're like, please.
Speaker 1 (16:32):
Give us credit.
Speaker 4 (16:32):
We're like, no, you're going to destroy the British Empire.
Speaker 3 (16:35):
Yeah yeah, like yeah, we know, and we like, all
right exactly, and we did.
Speaker 4 (16:39):
We won, but social work organization.
Speaker 1 (16:41):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (16:41):
The point though, is that you know, there is a
way to treat allies in a different way, even when
you are selling them weapons. And you know, I don't
even think we should do that at this point because
of the way that they behave themselves. But I mean,
this entire thing is just a real window Ryan into
her behavior and posturing because I think she probably wants
to run for Senate and she thinks that an a
(17:03):
quote anti Israel vote like this would come back.
Speaker 1 (17:05):
To bite her.
Speaker 3 (17:06):
But what's crazy to me is, how do you square
that in the Zoran Mom Donnie Era. How do you
square when he got the most votes ever and he
didn't apologize for a damn thing. Stand your ground, believe
in something, and it's and she'll she wouldn't get punished.
I think she would actually get more pressed out of it.
Speaker 1 (17:23):
I don't get it.
Speaker 4 (17:24):
I don't even I don't actually think that this is
political calculation. I think I think this is stupid that
she believes that the Iron Dome is protecting civilians and
that therefore you got to support the protection of civilians. Yeah,
I think it's I don't think it's I who knows.
You know, none of us even know why we do
the things we do, so like trying to analyze why
(17:44):
somebody else is doing the things they're doing, UH, is feudile.
But I I do think that it's genuine rather than cynical,
which doesn't make it better.
Speaker 1 (17:55):
Yeah, all right, well, I don't know.
Speaker 3 (17:58):
It's completely mistake and I got Soger, I'm the show.
Speaker 4 (18:01):
I'll do the resit ching. I gotta do Sager Scott
this under content.
Speaker 1 (18:04):
I'm on it, brother Stone work.
Speaker 4 (18:05):
All right, Thanks you guys later for tomorrow.
Speaker 3 (18:10):
All right, turning now to Epstein story, which I will
handle myself, which, of course, if any other time and
I had to speak entirely on Epstein, I'd be happy to.
Speaker 1 (18:18):
But when you're sick, man, it's a tough thing.
Speaker 3 (18:20):
All right, Let's go ahead and put this up there
on the screen from Pam Bondi. So this is breaking
news as of right now, and there's actually a lot
to say here. This is a new statement from the Deputy.
Speaker 1 (18:28):
Attorney General DoD Blanche.
Speaker 3 (18:30):
The Department of Justice does not shy away from uncomfortable
truths or from the responsibility to pursue justice where the
facts may lead. This joint statement by the DOJ and
FBI of July six remains as accurate today as it
was when it was written, namely that in the recent
third review of the files maintained by the FBI in
the Epstein case, no evidence was uncovered that could predicate
an investigation against uncharged third parties. AKA they are saying
(18:51):
that there is no blackmail scheme, no conspiracy, no crimes
that implicates anybody else. What they continue President Trump has
to is to release all credible evidence. If Gilainne Maxwell
has information about anyone who has committed crimes against the victims,
the FBI and the DOJ will hear what she has
to say. Therefore, at the direction of the Attorney General,
(19:12):
Pam BONDI I have communicated with counsel from Miss Maxwell
to determine whether she'd be willing to speak with prosecutors
from the department. I anticipate meeting with Miss Maxwell in
the coming days. Until now, no administration on behalf of
the department has inquired about her willingness to meet with
the government. That changes now. Extraordinary things happening in that statement.
(19:33):
First and foremost is this, the Deputy Attorney General, the
number two at the Justice Department, will be meeting directly
with Gilaine Maxwell and her legal team.
Speaker 1 (19:43):
That's number one. That almost never happens.
Speaker 3 (19:45):
Just so you know, the Deputy Attorney General, literally the
number two is going to be meeting with Glaine Maxwell,
number two. According to the Deputy Attorney General in that statement,
he is saying, at no point has the government ever
approached Gilainne Maxwell to say, what do you know about
third party individuals?
Speaker 1 (20:04):
Are you guys hearing that?
Speaker 3 (20:05):
So according to this statement, what they are saying is
that Glaine Maxwell went to trial, right obviously, she lost there.
She was prosecuted for human trafficking victims, specifically to Jeffrey Epstein.
Many including myself, said that the charges were tailored in
such a way to only implicate her and Epstein to
put her in jail for the rest of her life
so we can all just move on from it, and
that at no point was there ever an opportunity for
(20:25):
some of the broader conspiracy to be able to come
out in this What they are saying, though, is that
Maxwell was never given that opportunity to actually come forward.
I want to continue though, and this is part of
the reason why we should all be a little bit
skeptical is unfortunately with Glaine Maxwell, you know, she has
a lot of incentive now at this point and for
us to be able to a little skeptical of what
she has to say.
Speaker 1 (20:46):
Here's a statement from her attorney this morning.
Speaker 3 (20:48):
Quote, I can confirm that we are in discussions with
the government and that Glaine will always testify truthfully. We
are grateful to President Trump for his commitment to uncovering
the truth in this case. She also says before remember
she was seeking a pardon. Quote, He's the ultimate deal maker.
This is about Trump. I'm sure he'd agreed that when
the United States gives its word, it should keep it.
With all the talk about who's being prosecuted and who isn't,
(21:10):
it's especially unfair Gallaine Maxwell remains in prison based on
a promise the US government made and broke. What she's
referring to, guys, is, according to her, what's so unjust
is remember that non prosecution agreement that Epstein entered into
in two thousand and seven that covered the immunity for
Epstein and for Glaine Maxwell, an unindicted co conspirator in
(21:30):
the case. Her position is that that illegal non prosecution agreement,
according to the court, because it violated the victim's rights,
Ben should have given her immunity for all time, and
that the government broke its word by offering this sketchy
deal to Epstein in the first place. Just so we
don't all think Gallaine Maxwell is necessarily a hero. But
here's the question, how much of this is real? And
(21:52):
how much of it is controlled? Can we really you know,
trust because let's imagine this scenario.
Speaker 1 (21:58):
Maxwell comes and meets with the government.
Speaker 3 (22:00):
Government says, okay, let's make a deal, you know, let's
and a deal for what though, and to what purpose?
Because at this point, I think, not just Trump, but
a lot of other powerful people have a lot of
incentive for Maxwell to say I didn't know anything about
anybody broad or powerful people. It was just me and Jeffrey.
That actually is what you would want to say right
now to get a sweetheart deal no from the deputy
(22:21):
attorney general from the Trump administration. If you start implicating
all kinds of quote third party individuals, then things get
a little bit complicated. And then what the government can
say is, look, we went to Gleane, we offered her
a deal, she gave it. She told us it was
only her and Jeffrey. It's not a full fledged quote
investigation because it doesn't follow any of the money. It
doesn't look at any of the intelligence connections. The things
(22:42):
that I've detailed now on this show and on other
shows now for weeks, specifically about Epstein, the sources of
his wealth, Leslie Wexner, about Aloud Barrock, Leon Black, what
was going on with this one point? What four billion
in suspicious activity reports come in in and out of
Epstein related accounts from different financial institutions. So there is
(23:02):
a high chance of a cover up actually in the
way that this is all being conducted, and possibly even
on the way to a pardon.
Speaker 1 (23:08):
Because at this point, if you're.
Speaker 3 (23:09):
Glaine and you're looking at the conduct of the Trump administration,
you know, would it really behoove you to implicate implicate
a bunch of third party individuals, or would it be
better for you at this point it to say, actually,
it was just me and Jeffrey. Everything else is just
completely you know, everything else is a quote conspiracy theory.
My father was never a Mosad asset, even though we
(23:30):
got a state funeral in Israel, and we can all
just move on very carefully. So that's something very important
to say. There's a second, very interesting clip here from
Tim Dillon, who has revealed now to Alex Jones that
he recently had dinner last week with Jade Vance and
Vice President of the United States, and that the Vice
President told Tim Dillon that all of the quote thousands
of hours of footage was just personal pornography for Jeffrey
(23:55):
Epstein's personal use, and it didn't implicate anybody powerful. Here's
what he had to say.
Speaker 6 (24:00):
I'm administration, but heavily amplicated. I'm not going to name names.
And so you nailed it when you brought up net Yahoo.
Speaker 7 (24:07):
So so let me if you've got time here after
we have all the time in the world. I just
want to add, when Bondi said we have ten thousand
hours of video, she said, we have ten thousand hours
of video. I had dinner last week with the Vice president.
He told me that that was commercial pornography. They do
not have videos of any powerful person in a compromising position.
Speaker 1 (24:33):
That's the party line that they're going with.
Speaker 7 (24:36):
If that's the case, why would Pam Bondi call it evidence.
Why would she say it's evidence. She's not an idiot,
she's the attorney general. Why would she say she has
files on her desk? If none of these implicated anybody,
it just feels like they're they're covering something for sure.
Speaker 1 (25:00):
So there you go.
Speaker 8 (25:01):
Now.
Speaker 3 (25:01):
According to Tim who recently had dinner with the Vice president,
the vice president told him that actually it's just commercial footage,
and there's no footage of powerful individuals. Now, that's very
interesting because that would actually presume that at the highest
levels of the White House they did review some of
the quote Epstein files. That's something that the President and
his team have denied. Remember they're saying it was just
by the FBI and the DOJ. So at some level,
(25:23):
at the highest levels of our political leadership, they did
review this.
Speaker 1 (25:26):
Stuff, and they're saying, hey, don't worry about it. All.
Speaker 3 (25:28):
The footage actually was just commercial pornography for his own
personal use.
Speaker 1 (25:32):
It didn't implicate any higher level people.
Speaker 3 (25:35):
Doesn't fit necessarily at all, right, with the fact that
there were hidden cameras found in the Virgin Islands and
the New York residents and at many of these other places.
Perhaps you know it's not sexual material, but what if
it's blackmail material involving business deals, for involving intelligence operations.
This is just what gets to the whole crux of
the matter. According to Tim, he told the Vice President,
if you don't release it all, you're done, and you're
(25:55):
going to look like you're implicated in a cover up.
So these two things just look very, very very sketchy
if you ask me. And perhaps there's some recognition there
at the highest levels of the White House that they've
actually are making a big mistake. But also at the
same time, there is some very sketchy behavior in terms
of the conduct of Republicans themselves, especially the congressional Republicans,
(26:17):
who are basically joining together to make sure there's not
a single vote on the House floor about the Epstein files.
So let's remember right now, Rocanna and Rocanna and Thomas
Massey have a joint I think it's a resolution or
an amendment that would, for if voted on, would force
the release of the Epstein files from Congress, who basically
(26:39):
mandate the administration release any and all information that they
currently have.
Speaker 1 (26:43):
Now, let's put this up there on the screen.
Speaker 3 (26:44):
As THEO Vaughn has pointed out, why can't we put
Rocanna and Thomas Massey bill for a vote up this week?
At Speaker for Johnson at JD Vans JD Vancer Force,
who appeared on Theo's show. Now, Speaker Johnson, when asked
about this, says that he will not allow a vote
on the House floor ahead of the forthcoming August recess,
(27:06):
effectively shutting down any potential vote on the Epstein files
going forward because he wants to trust the government.
Speaker 1 (27:12):
Here's what he had to say.
Speaker 8 (27:13):
Here's what I would say about the Epstein files. There
is no daylight between the House, Republicans, the House, and
the President on maximum transparency. He has said that he
wants all the credible files related to Epstein to be released.
He's asked the Attorney General to request the grand jury
files of the court. All of that is in process
right now. My belief is we need the administration to
(27:34):
have the space to do what it is doing, and
if further congressional action is necessary or perfead, then we'll
look at that. But I don't think we're at that
point right now because we agree which president.
Speaker 1 (27:46):
Let's look at that very very carefully.
Speaker 3 (27:47):
So he says specifically that he will shut down any
vote on the Epstein files because he wants to quote
allow the administration the space to deal with the space
to deal with what to release the files that you
allegically support no, or to not release all the files,
or to say that only it's the credible evidence, or
you know, the stuff that is pertinent. And these are
all the terms and the definitions of things that matter
(28:10):
when you're not actually committed to releasing all the information
that you literally said that you would do if you
were elected president.
Speaker 1 (28:16):
And that's really what gets it all down to it.
Speaker 3 (28:19):
And more importantly, from this point forward, there's actually a
piece of procedural news which is totally crazy, is that
right now the House of Representatives has effectively been shut
down to make sure that there is no vote on
the Epstein files. So let me kind of explain this.
So what has happened is that they are not allowing any.
Speaker 1 (28:40):
Quote rules vote.
Speaker 3 (28:42):
They will not report a single rule this week for bills.
They're shutting down the entire House floor for the week
just so they don't allow a vote on the Epstein
files to allow that bill and a vote for people
to be able to come together and to vote specifically
to release the files. That is the level to which
(29:04):
the House Republicans have now moved to shut all this
stuff down.
Speaker 1 (29:08):
That's crazy.
Speaker 3 (29:09):
So you have here the House Republicans coming together to
protect the administration. You have the administration opening up these
talks with Glaane Maxwell.
Speaker 1 (29:16):
We'll see what comes out of it.
Speaker 3 (29:18):
I mean, let's be honest, like it looks pretty sketchy,
and it looks in particular in the direction of if
she were willing to say it didn't implicate anybody else.
That's kind of where I would if I were her.
That's how i'd want my pardon, isn't it. She's going
to spend twenty years in jail. Otherwise. You've got apparently
the Vice President telling Tim Dillon that they reviewed the
footage and it's just all commercial pornography, doesn't implicate anybody
(29:39):
brought her. But of course they're ignoring all the financial documentation,
all these other files and all these other things that
they at the time said that a journalist should be
willing to look into, remember whenever they were on the
campaign trail or whenever they held previous office. And then
you have the current pressure from the government right now
going after institutions that have reported here about the Trump
(30:00):
Epstein connection. Let's put this one up there finally, then
on the screen from the Wall Street Journal. The White
House has actually removed the Wall Street Journal from Scotland
press pool as Trump is set to travel there over
the Epstein report.
Speaker 1 (30:16):
So again, it's kind.
Speaker 3 (30:16):
Of complicated, and we've talked about it a little bit here.
The White House press pool is like a select small
group of journalists that travels with the president. They go
on Air Force one, and you kind of work together
and you send your reports to the rest of the press,
and you're kind of the representative of the global press,
not necessarily of your own paper. Well, what they've done
here is they've actually removed the Wall Street Journal White
House reporters who had nothing to do with the story
(30:37):
from the press pool over the Epstein story. Now, I mean,
they've done this type of stuff before with the Associated
Press and the whole Gulf of Mexico thing. I think
it's stupid, but it just goes to show the level
of freak out from the Trump administration right now against
the journal. I know Crystal and Emily talked about this yesterday,
but you've got this weird meeting between Jade Vance and
(30:59):
the Murder family two days before the Epstein story comes out.
Remember Trump himself said Rupert said he would take care
of it in his truth about the story around the
letter that was eventually released.
Speaker 1 (31:11):
You've got all this Trump administration behavior.
Speaker 3 (31:13):
Now you've got the fact that they filed for what
ten billion dollars of defamation in court. I can't wait
for that suit to go forward, By the way, because
you know, Trump said I can't wait to.
Speaker 1 (31:22):
Get Ruper Murdock under oath.
Speaker 3 (31:23):
I'm like, well, I can't wait to get Trump under
oath about the story as well. I hope he fights
it all the way to the end. I'm absolutely certain
he'll win.
Speaker 1 (31:30):
Well.
Speaker 3 (31:30):
Also, they should release the They should release the journal
for journalistic purposes at this point the bound book which
allegedly had the letter in it, show everybody what it is.
Speaker 1 (31:40):
But look the handling on this.
Speaker 3 (31:42):
It continues to be incredibly strange, weird. The conduct of
the US government right now just only points in the
single of a cover up you can deduce for reasons
for yourselves. So with all of that being said, let's
turn now to Maha and my guest, doctor Lane Norton,
to talk about sugar coke and the seed oils debate.
(32:05):
Very excited now to be joined by my friend doctor
Lane Norton. He is and I'm going to get his
full bio correct PhD and nutritional science co founder of
the Carbon Diet Coach Nutrition coaching app. A carbon by
the way, a product that I use and Lane, you
and I go way back, but for our purposes here,
what I wanted to have you on to the show
for is to break down all of this discussion that's
(32:27):
bubbling up right now to the highest levels of the
US government around seed oil so more recently and cane
sugar coke as well as let's put this up here
on the screen. This is the latest quote MAHA victory
from Secretary of Health and Human Services, Secretary of Kennedy
endorsing here Steak and Shake, who's saying start in August first,
Steak and Shake will offer Coca Cola with real cane
(32:47):
sugar in glass bottles.
Speaker 1 (32:49):
America deserves the best.
Speaker 3 (32:51):
They're branding themselves make America Healthy Again, RFK Junior's signature slogan.
They previously this fast food chain had replaced quote seed
oils with beef hallow fries, presenting themselves as a healthier option. Now,
since you are a PhD in nutrition science and you've
given hours of content, you've reviewed all of the data,
I just want you to break down at a nutritional
(33:11):
science level, whether this is a quote healthier option for
people to be drinking cane sugar coke as opposed to
high fructose con syrup coke, having fries that are cooked
in beef towel versus having fries that are cooked in
seed oils.
Speaker 6 (33:26):
So you made a.
Speaker 9 (33:28):
Good point, which is is it healthy compared to because
that's really what we want to know. And first off,
I want to say that I'm glad that people in
US government are taking an interest in health and nutrition
and promoting health promoting behaviors.
Speaker 6 (33:45):
Unfortunately, I think.
Speaker 9 (33:47):
People's personal biases are really getting in the way here,
and this is something I think with RFK is going on.
Is known as a naturalistic fallacy, which is, if something
occurs in nature, it must be better for us. And
in some cases that's true, but in some cases we
have plenty of man made things that take away protein.
Speaker 6 (34:05):
For example, which is an ultra processed.
Speaker 9 (34:08):
Food, but has been shown to reduce levels of inflammation,
improve glucose control, improve I even think levels of liver fat,
and basically metabolic health. So I think we got to
be careful with lumping things into big categories. Now, when
it comes to replacing high fructose corn syrup sweetened beverages
(34:29):
with cane sugar, again, the only reason I can think
that people would think this is healthier is because cane
sugar is natural Biochemically, there is very little difference between
cane sugar and high fructose corn syrup. Cane sugar is sucrose,
and sucrose is fifty percent is a disaccharide, which is
(34:50):
a glucose.
Speaker 6 (34:51):
Molecule linked to a fructose molecule.
Speaker 9 (34:53):
So fifty to fifty high fructose corn syrup is fifty
five percent fructose and forty five percent glucose. If you're
telling me that a five percent difference and fruit dose
content is somehow going to change our nation's health, I
would say that you're basically putting your energy into stuff
that is not going to make a darn bit of difference.
And I'm looking at right now dozens of randomized control
(35:19):
trials in humans where when they substitute high fructose corn
syrup in a one to one ratio with other sugars,
there's zero outcomes that are different in terms of body weight,
body fat, liver fat, metabolic health, insulin resistance, because.
Speaker 6 (35:38):
It's still sugar.
Speaker 9 (35:39):
And even if you want to go down that road,
I mean, people make a big deal out of sugar,
but the reality is our sugar intake has actually declined
over the last twenty years, while obesity has continued to rise.
And when you look at isocoloric. So when I say isocholoric,
I mean in feeding trials when they control total calories
(36:00):
but they substitute in other forms of carbohydrate for sugar. Again,
you don't really see a difference in metabolic health outcomes
or body weight or body fat. And there was even
one randomized control trial that was very well controlled. They
provided all the food to participants and they looked at
over one hundred grams of sugar intake per day versus
(36:21):
about ten and same total calories, protein, carbohydrate, fat intake
was still the same, and they found that both groups
lost basically the exact same amount of body fat and
all their blood markers improved in both groups. Now, I'm
not saying that eating sugar or high fructose corn strup
is a good idea because people it is not satiating,
(36:44):
and people over consume it, and so you know, if
you're gonna eat a lot of sugar, it's not like
people drink a coke and they go, well, that was
forty grams of carbohydrate, so I'm.
Speaker 6 (36:54):
Gonna skip posta tonight.
Speaker 9 (36:55):
No, they just take it in on top of whatever
else they're eating. So I think the real damage messaging
here is that somehow, because you've substituted in cane sugar,
you haven't reduced overall calories, that this is healthier.
Speaker 6 (37:08):
It's not.
Speaker 9 (37:09):
There's no there is no evidence this is going to
make an actual difference for people. And I think the
uncomfortable truth and I default to something called Aukham's razor,
which basically the lay interpretation is when all things are equal,
the simplest answer is usually true. The average calorie intake
in the United States of America is three thousand, five
(37:32):
hundred and forty per day, and the average physical activity
is less than twenty minutes per day, and that is
why we.
Speaker 6 (37:38):
Have a health crisis.
Speaker 9 (37:39):
And people don't want to deal with that uncomfortable truth
and the responsibility and accountability that comes along with.
Speaker 3 (37:45):
It, right, And I think that's such an important point
and lane every time I try to bring attention to this,
and to be clear, I agree with the message make
America healthier, grin, I think it's great. But I'm told
very often that cane sugar coke is better than drinking
diet coke, and that it's not about the calories saga,
it's a lot, It's all about the ingredients and so
(38:05):
I would love for you to basically get into that
because they are rejecting not only a message or a
theory of thermodynamic not the law of thermodynam it's not
theory about calories and calories out. They're accepting a framework
in which the quote chemicals, the pestified, pesticize, the ingredients
are themselves responsible for the health crisis that we find
(38:26):
ourselves in America, and not.
Speaker 1 (38:27):
The what is it? What is it?
Speaker 3 (38:28):
They said, it's the thirty four hundred calories per day
that the average American intake plus. Okay, I would love
for please respond to that argument. Why you know they're
in their framework cane sugar coke is better than diet coke.
Speaker 9 (38:43):
Then they simply have not read the human randomized control trials.
I mean, here's the argument against diet soda. Well, these
compounds in it are carcinogenic.
Speaker 6 (38:53):
No, no, they're not.
Speaker 9 (38:55):
These are some of the most studied compounds in the
history of mankind.
Speaker 6 (38:58):
Can you find rote studies.
Speaker 9 (39:00):
Where they feed ten thousand times.
Speaker 6 (39:03):
The dose of what you could ever get and they
see weird things happen?
Speaker 9 (39:07):
Yeah, Well, try feeding ten thousand times the dose of
anything and see if weird things happen. Yeah, I'm not
surprised that weird stuff happens. And the question is, I
mean I did this on my videos all the time.
I'm like, if only we had human randomized control trials
where they look, oh wait, we do so if we
look at if they tell people to drink diet soda
(39:30):
in place of regular soda, what happens, and very consistently
in the research literature, people lose significant amounts.
Speaker 6 (39:38):
Of body weight.
Speaker 9 (39:39):
There was actually a very recent fifty two week randomized
control trial where they.
Speaker 6 (39:44):
Had people either drink soda or diet.
Speaker 9 (39:48):
Soda or water, I actually believe, And what they found was,
I think on average, people lost about six and a
half kilograms Okay, so like fourteen pounds in freedom units
just by subbing in diet soda. And they actually lost
a little bit more than the group that drank water.
It wasn't a big difference, but it was a difference.
(40:11):
I'm not saying if you like drinking water, you don't
have to drink diet So it's not what I'm saying,
And I'm not saying that diet soda has some sort
of magical fat burner in it that makes.
Speaker 6 (40:19):
It burn to water.
Speaker 9 (40:19):
But people who are used to drinking soda, if you
replace that with either water or diet soda, what that
says to me is that people drinking water probably were
seeking out a sweet taste somewhere else because they weren't
getting it from that, Whereas the group that was drinking
diet soda, they felt more satiated because they satisfied that
sweet taste. And then if we look in the meta analyses,
(40:42):
we basically see that diet soda there was one looking
at glycemic load. Because some of these people will say, well,
diet sodas released insulin and etc.
Speaker 6 (40:51):
No they don't, they don't. In fact, the.
Speaker 9 (40:53):
Conclusion of a recent meta analysis of dozens of human
randomized control trials basically you said that diet so it
basically that the same effects as water.
Speaker 6 (41:02):
Okay, And we do see because people.
Speaker 9 (41:05):
Lose weight, not because of anything magic, but people's HbA
one C goes down, which is a marker for insulin sensitivity.
And then like even going to the you brought up
the seed oyls thing too, and I do want to
touch on that.
Speaker 1 (41:19):
Oh we're gonna get to that door.
Speaker 6 (41:20):
Yeah yeah, oh okay, okay, Well yeah.
Speaker 9 (41:22):
I mean when you look at the dietsade of stuff
people say it's carcinogenic, it's not. Over eighty percent of
the research studies say that it's not carcinogenic, and the
ten percent that say maybe, and the other ten percent
that say like yes, it's always either weak epidemiology association
data or it's it's in animal studies giving super high doses.
(41:47):
And I'm even thinking about one epidemiology study from Spain.
Speaker 6 (41:50):
It was one hundred thousand. People got a lot of
press about five years.
Speaker 9 (41:53):
Ago, and this is where the news will report certain
headlines and either they don't understand science and read the
full paper, or they just don't care and they just
want to get people scared. So this study showed that
at no intake of aspartame that was the reference group,
compared to the reference group, the group consuming a low
(42:15):
or moderate amount of aspertain had a relative risk increase
of just under twenty percent for cancer. Now, when I
say relative risk increase, I don't mean you go from
a five percent absolute risk to a twenty five percent.
Relative risk increases means you go from five to six percent,
because twenty percent of five percent is one percent.
Speaker 6 (42:33):
So I just want to I want to frame that.
Speaker 9 (42:35):
Appropriately for people, because they don't understand relative risk either.
Speaker 6 (42:39):
So a twenty percent relative risk increase, But what about
why didn't they bring up.
Speaker 9 (42:43):
The group that was the high group, like the high
intakes of aspartame, because the risk actually went down compared
to the moderate or low group. Now, please, I want
anybody out there to let me know what is carcinogenic
at a low dose but not carcinogenic and a high dose.
Somebody please explain that to me. And so again, these
(43:05):
weak epidemiology studies, I'm sorry, I just don't buy them.
And they're not supported by any real hard human data.
Speaker 1 (43:12):
This is very important. Now let's get to the seed
oils thing again.
Speaker 3 (43:14):
I have watched this stuff run like a craze across
the Internet to the point where I have people in
my own life who are explicitly going out of their
way to quote avoid seed oils.
Speaker 1 (43:25):
I can live with that if it's an internet phenomenon.
Speaker 3 (43:27):
But now I'm watching the United States government, and I
want to be clear, it's not that I'm against making
people healthy using government policy or whatever to try and
encourage it. What I'm concerned about in this case is
the Secretary of Health and Human Services saying this is
a healthy meal, drinking cane sugar coke, beef tallifries and
a cheeseburger. Or for example, lately there is a new
effort by the government lane to get laised chips to
(43:50):
replace seed oils with avocado oil. And that's the thing,
is that it's the presumption that the seed oils and
not the caloric density of this highly palatable chip itself
that people are eating, is the problem. I don't want.
It's like the fat free craze of the nineteen nineties,
right where people go to the grocery store and they say, oh,
it's fat free, and that's why it's quote healthy. Well,
(44:11):
that created a permission structure for people to continue to
up their caloric dose. And I say this because I'm
susceptible to it until I started looking at your content
and others. I'm the person buying and reading the influencers
and all this other stuff while struggling with my weight
for over twenty years. Right, and so you've looked at
the data on the seed oils. Let's go and put
this up there on the screen and you look specifically
(44:33):
at the data replacing seed oils with canola and I'll
let you read out the.
Speaker 1 (44:38):
Rest of these with saturated fat.
Speaker 3 (44:40):
Tell us in detail here what the data shows us
about replacing seed oils with saturated fat.
Speaker 6 (44:46):
Yeah.
Speaker 9 (44:47):
So this is what's really important, is if you're talking
about adding something into the diet or removing something from
the diet, the question. One of my favorite political commentators
was Thomas sol and I always liked one of the
things he said is if somebody is making a claim,
your first question should be compared to what, So, okay,
(45:07):
seed oils are.
Speaker 6 (45:08):
Bad, compared to what?
Speaker 9 (45:10):
Because I agree, like one of the biggest sources of
added calories over the last few decades is added oils.
In that way, seed oils have contributed to the obese
crisis because they're calorically dense and they're in a lot
of ultra processed foods and people cut them out and
they say, well I feel better. Well, you stopped eating
(45:30):
junk food. It wasn't the seed oils you lost weight.
It wasn't the fact that you were not eating seed oils.
It was the fact that you stopped eating so many
damn calories.
Speaker 6 (45:39):
Now, with the.
Speaker 9 (45:40):
Seed oil data, specifically, if we replace in a one
to one ratio with saturated.
Speaker 10 (45:45):
Fat, So at worst for seed oils you get a
neutral effect on metabolic health like liver fat, insulin sensitivity,
you get inflammation, You get a neutral effect at worst,
And a lot of studies show that replacing saturated fat
with polyunsaturated fats from seed oils like canola oil, improve inflammation,
(46:11):
reduce liver fat, they improve insulin sensitivity, they improve intothelial function.
Speaker 6 (46:18):
And then if we look at the.
Speaker 9 (46:19):
Long term data, Now this is cohort data, which is
a form of epidemiology, but the reality is you can't
do thirty year nutrition randomized control trials. It's just impossible
to do. Nobody is going to stick to a diet
for that long. Unfortunately, as I know as a coach,
people just have really poor adherents.
Speaker 6 (46:39):
But if we look at the cohort data.
Speaker 9 (46:43):
If we look at people who consume more seed oils
versus people who consume more saturated fat, what do we
see when it comes to mortality, heart disease, and cancer.
And what we see very consistently in the literature is
people who consume seed oils or plant oils in place
of saturated fat live longer. They have lower rates of
(47:05):
cardiovascar disease, and some studies show lower rates of cancer
and some studies don't, So I'm not sure if that's
a real effect, but certainly for heart disease and mortality.
And again, this is one of those things when the
anti seed oil people get in debates with me, the
best studies they can cite are studies that so reducing
(47:25):
saturated fat does.
Speaker 6 (47:27):
Not improve health outcomes.
Speaker 9 (47:29):
And I'm like, oh wait, wait, didn't we just move
the goalpost though, because you're saying seed walls are bad.
Now you're just saying, well, saturated fat isn't bad. But
if you're going to argue that seed dolls are bad,
if you are going to make that argument, then you have.
Speaker 6 (47:43):
To argue that saturated fat is bad for you, because
at every metric it is either a neutral or worse
effect by consuming more saturated fat in place of seedlls.
So this idea that you're.
Speaker 9 (47:55):
Going to put beef talo into fries and that's going
to make people healthier, it's absolute lunacy. It's ridiculous. And
I actually got invited to go on this Maha trip
to Congress last year and I declined it. And the
reason I declined it was because I knew this was
going to happen. What was going to happen was they
were going to ban some random ingredients in.
Speaker 1 (48:15):
Food, artificial food. Nobody was food dye.
Speaker 9 (48:18):
Yeah, and nobody was going to actually want to deal
with the reality, which is people eat too much and
move too little, because that is a very very difficult
problem to solve because it is multifaceted. It is it
involves socioeconomic things, it involves the way our whole society
is set up, and hey, to be fair, I don't
(48:41):
know what the answer is. I don't know what the
answer is, but I think coddling people and lying to
them and telling them, well, your fries, your ultra processed
sources of refined sugar and fat are now fried in
beef tallow rather than seed alls.
Speaker 6 (49:00):
Okay, now steak and shake is healthy. Like, get out
of here.
Speaker 9 (49:04):
Like it is an absolute freaking It is a distraction
from the real problem. And quite frankly, you can tell
it makes me sick that this is getting so much
played because it is literally going to do absolutely nothing
other than make a few politicians feel good about themselves,
pat themselves on the back, and Steak and shake's going
(49:26):
to get some free press.
Speaker 3 (49:27):
That's actually what I'm worried about is that steak and
shit people. There are a lot of good meeting people
who trusted RFK Junior or trust MA or whatever. They're
going to go and they're going to get that coke
and they're gonna be like, this is healthier, babe.
Speaker 1 (49:37):
I'm telling you.
Speaker 3 (49:38):
You know, they said make America Healthy has been endorsed
by this Secretary for Health and Human Services. People want
to have all the time in the world to read
your work or to listen to your videos or watch interview.
They put their trust in this person. The President appointed him,
and he's using the full force right now the US
government to basically prop the stuff up.
Speaker 1 (49:56):
And I think that's the last.
Speaker 3 (49:57):
Thing I want to kind of get into with about
what the evidence points us in the direction, because again,
and it's not just about cancer. The core claim is
that the artific I remember fruit loops RFK. I think
he was on our show and he's talking about fruit loops.
He's like, in Canada, they don't have food dye, right,
And I checked the macros and actually they're basically the
same the macros in terms of the sugar for fruit loops.
(50:20):
So like the core you know proposition being put forward
is that the problem with American fruit loops is the
fact that there's food dye in it as opposed to
all of this sugar, right, and that you're feeding this
to your child for breakfast, and whether that is a
healthy choice or not.
Speaker 1 (50:34):
So then it gives companies the easiest out.
Speaker 3 (50:36):
In the world of like, oh, sure we'll put it
in avocado oil whatever. Yeah, maybe our marginal cost will
go up, but then people will actually buy more of
it because they think it's healthy as opposed to what
you just talked about here, it's all about this calories.
And you know, that's really the final thing I'd write
for you to get into is I was talking with
Andrew Huberman, our mutual friend, about how gop one drugs
(50:59):
kind of did the proposition of calories, calories and calories
out right. It's like, people take the GLP one drug
ozembic is what I'm referring to for the lay person, and.
Speaker 1 (51:08):
They stopped, they stopped eating eating more.
Speaker 3 (51:11):
They not only lost weight, they got all their biomarkers
are trending in a much better direction, especially for people
who were obese.
Speaker 1 (51:18):
It didn't have anything to do with pesticide.
Speaker 3 (51:20):
But I know a lot of people on ozempic they
eat a ton of junk food. I went to Japan,
one of the healthiest countries in the world. Do you
know how much deep fried food that they eat in
seed oil? They're all skinny, they look pretty good, and
they live a long time, and a lot doesn't seem
to have anything to do with seed oil, has a
lot to do with coloric intake.
Speaker 1 (51:36):
So that's the final thing I'd like to tee you
up on.
Speaker 9 (51:39):
Yeah, I mean, it's the I'm not saying that calories
are the only thing that matter.
Speaker 6 (51:43):
I want to be very clear.
Speaker 9 (51:44):
There are some other things that matter, but in terms
of the big rocks that you can pick up to
put your focus into it, it's the biggest thing that
matters for at least for metabolic health and using weight.
I mean, you want to talk about something being toxic.
Too many calories are toxic because at a certain point
(52:07):
you exceed you only really have a few places to
dispose of excess glucose and lipid, and that is in
liver can store a little bit of glycogen and fat,
muscle can store some glycogen and fat, but your big,
biggest depot is your adipose tissue. But your adiposites, your
fat cells can only reach a certain size, about one
(52:28):
hundred microns in diameter apiece, before they become essentially non viable.
Where you now you've run out of places to put
it into, and now it starts backing up into the bloodstream.
And that's why you have elevated blood glucose, blood lipids
in people who have type two diabetes and compromise insulin sensitivity.
Speaker 6 (52:46):
And so what are you going to do?
Speaker 9 (52:48):
You've got to make space somewhere where your body can
make more fat cells, but that it never does it
at a rate that can catch up to the excess
lipid and glucose that's in the blood stream.
Speaker 6 (52:58):
And so uh, if you just.
Speaker 9 (53:00):
Exercise, just exercise, Okay, you don't even have to lose weight.
But sixteen weeks of resistance training in obese men with
type two diabetes was shown to improve insulin sensity by sensitivity.
Speaker 6 (53:12):
By forty five percent. Wow, Okay, we saw in some
of our in the lab.
Speaker 9 (53:17):
I was in a graduate school lab of Don Lahman
at University of Illinois. He was doing a human randomized
control trial in women and basically saw people's blood markers
when they lost just like ten to fifteen pounds. They
saw them start to resolve almost immediately. You don't need
to do a ton of exercise or lose a ton
(53:40):
of weight to begin to get metabolically healthy. It will
happen relatively quickly. That is your body's natural state. And honestly,
it takes pushing it past a really ridiculous point to
get to where we are.
Speaker 6 (53:53):
But that's where we are because.
Speaker 9 (53:55):
You can not only in the nineteen fifties we had
ultra process. We have cakes cookies, but you had to
go to the bakery you had, or you had to
make it yourself. Now you don't even have to wait.
You can just get on door dash, have somebody pick
it up from the circle k and bring it to
your house. So these are the problems we're dealing with,
and you mentioned it.
Speaker 6 (54:18):
For fifty years, fat loss research focused on metabolism. How
do we speed people people's metabolism up?
Speaker 9 (54:26):
And people who are obese, well, they got to have
slow metabolisms, or people with type two diabetes, they gotta
have slow metabolisms. Not only does the research not support
that people with type two diabetes or people who are
obese have, if anything, faster metabolisms than people who are
lean when they actually put them in a metal ball
(54:47):
chamber and measure them and oh is it if calories
don't matter. Isn't it interesting When we put people in
metabolic ward trials where they're basically in food jail and
they have to eat what the researchers.
Speaker 6 (54:57):
Give them, they all lose weight.
Speaker 9 (54:59):
Wow, somehow, you know, And then people will say, well,
you know, you can eat so low that your metabolism
slows down, and all this stuff. Yeah, all these concentration
camp photos of people who were obese because they didn't eat.
Speaker 6 (55:13):
Enough, Like, come on, get out of here.
Speaker 9 (55:15):
This is all just an excuse for people to shirk
personal responsibility because calories in, calories out. The thing people
don't like about it is the inherent truth that there
is personal responsibility in this and the GLP one mimetics,
as you mentioned, for fifty years we focused on metabolism,
(55:35):
and then for the last ten years we focused on appetite.
Speaker 6 (55:38):
And what happened.
Speaker 9 (55:40):
I mean, the research data that's coming out now basically
says these GLP ones are stopping obesity in its tracks
and reversing it. And in fact, food companies are actually
really worried because people are consuming less calories now. So
these GLP ones, they don't increase metabolic rate, they don't
do anything so spec well, they do something special other
(56:02):
than they are the most powerful appetite suppressants known to man.
And if we look at the difference between obese people
and lean people, it is not on the metabolism side,
it is on the appetite side.
Speaker 6 (56:17):
People who are obese are obese prone.
Speaker 9 (56:21):
They tend to get more of a reward from food,
They tend to not have the same sensitivity to satiety
signals as lean people, and they also tend to dissipate
less energy through spontaneous movement compared to lean people. So,
just to explain what that is briefly, you have like
a certain amount of movement you do without even thinking
(56:43):
about it, like fidgeting, like what I'm doing in my
hands right now. This would be considered non exercise activity, thermogenesis,
postural movement. Those little bitty movements actually add up quite
a bit over the course of a day. And we
have seen very clear research going all the way back
to the early nineties, showing that people who are obese
(57:03):
resistant phenotype essentially that if they overeat, they actually tend
to just spontaneously, without realizing it or intentionally doing it,
they spontaneously increase their physical activity to compensate for it,
whereas people who are obese prone don't tend.
Speaker 6 (57:18):
To do that.
Speaker 1 (57:19):
Got it, Lane, This is so so helpful.
Speaker 3 (57:21):
Last word from you at where can people find your
new podcast and all off your work so.
Speaker 9 (57:26):
You can find me as biolane on all social media platforms.
My website's biolane dot com and my new podcast is
the Doctor Lane Norton Podcast.
Speaker 6 (57:35):
I hope you guys will go check it out.
Speaker 9 (57:36):
If you want no bs, straight shooting truth, I give
it to it straight without much frills.
Speaker 3 (57:42):
He certainly does, and that's why he is the goat
of all of them. Thank you very much, sir for
joining us. We appreciate you.
Speaker 7 (57:47):
Man.
Speaker 1 (57:47):
That's right, and he's ripped.
Speaker 3 (57:49):
That's really ripped, with no steroids, no drugs, all natural,
the hard way, and he actually.
Speaker 1 (57:55):
Tells you people how to do it.
Speaker 3 (57:56):
It's not easy, not easy to say, it's not easy
to easy to do it, but you would at least
show us the way that it can be done.
Speaker 1 (58:01):
Thank you very much, sir. We appreciate you. Thanks Buddy,
Thank you guys so much for watching. We appreciate you.
Speaker 3 (58:06):
We will have a great show for everybody tomorrow with counterpoints,
and then we'll see you all then
Popular Podcasts
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Special Summer Offer: Exclusively on Apple Podcasts, try our Dateline Premium subscription completely free for one month! With Dateline Premium, you get every episode ad-free plus exclusive bonus content.
The Breakfast Club
The World's Most Dangerous Morning Show, The Breakfast Club, With DJ Envy, Jess Hilarious, And Charlamagne Tha God!
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.