CGM Craze, Fauci Hearings Unpacked, and AI-Powered Meal Mastery

Can Continuous Glucose Monitoring (CGM) devices truly benefit non-diabetics, or are they just another business gimmick? Explore this provocative question with us as we delve into the latest advancements in CGM technology and scrutinize its real-world applications beyond diabetes management. We also tackle the complex and often contentious COVID-19 discourse head-on, examining the facts and myths surrounding the Fauci hearings and the lab leak theory, all while advocating for a balanced, scientifically-backed perspective.

Discover the transformative power of AI in nutrition planning, a game-changer for anyone serious about their health and fitness goals. I share my personal journey of overcoming the tedium of nutrition logging by leveraging ChatGPT for meal planning and optimizing my diet to achieve muscle hypertrophy. With practical tips on streamlining meal prep and the benefits of a nightly protein shake, this episode equips you with tools to enhance your dietary regimen efficiently and effectively.

We also take a critical look at the political polarization surrounding COVID-19 and how identity politics shapes public opinion on vaccines and health measures. By dissecting the main arguments behind the lab leak theory and highlighting the importance of staying open-minded, we emphasize the need for caution in making definitive statements amidst ongoing scientific inquiries. Join us as we stress the interconnectedness of mental and physical development, championing our mantra: "There are no gains without brains. Keep lifting and learning.

Producer: Thor Benander
Editor: Luke Morey
Intro Theme: Ajax Benander
Intro: Timothy Durant

For more, visit Simon at The Antagonist

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:04):
Welcome to the Mind Muscle Podcast.
Here's your host, simon DeVere,and welcome back to Mind Muscle
, the place we study the history, science and philosophy behind
everything in health and fitness.
Today I am Simon Devere andthere's nothing new except all

(00:30):
that has been forgotten.
All right.
So title you're probably seeingon the show today.
We're going to talk aboutconstant glucose monitoring.
I'm going to refer to that asCGM throughout the rest of the
show.
Refer to that as CGM throughoutthe rest of the show.

(00:51):
This is a new device that you'regoing to be seeing more and
more Obviously.
This is something if you'rediabetic, you're familiar with.
There are some newbreakthroughs in the technology
of the devices that handle theconstant glucose monitoring, or
continuous, but we are nowseeing that these are going to
be marketed to a different set,people who don't have diabetes

(01:13):
or blood sugar issues.
So, anyway, just wanted to havea quick discussion.
We'll see how quick it goes.
But, yeah, cgm, is that a bigbusiness or a big deal for your
health?
I want to take a deep dive intothat.
I also actually want to touchon some persistent COVID

(01:33):
bullshit.
We got the Fauci hearings goingon right now and a lot of
popular podcasts have beenweighing in and covering that.
So, at the risk of being yetanother podcaster weighing in, I
don't, or shall we say.
The irony of that isn't lost onme.
I am going to keep it a littlecloser to the accepted

(01:56):
scientific literature and breakdown sort of the most popular
claims that I see flying aroundto this day, even though we've
all had about three years tolook at this data now.
But anyway, guys, that's kindof the main two for the day.
I think each of those is goingto give us plenty to dive into.
But before I get into the maintopics, I wanted to continue

(02:18):
following up on my personaljourney with getting back into
nutrition logging.
The reason I've been runningthis down is that one of the
biggest issues that I've seenover the years with my own
clients myself, with nutritionlogging.
It works, but it's tedious,it's annoying, a lot of people
can't do it for an extendedperiod of time, so it doesn't

(02:41):
work in that context at all.
It doesn't work in that contextat all.
So anybody who's been up on thelast few episodes of the show
you know that I started to tryout this new thing for me anyway
, maybe somebody had alreadybeen doing this and I'm not
crediting them.
But yeah, if I wasn't first, Iat least didn't take this from

(03:02):
anybody, I just intuited it onmy own.
I just doubt I was the firstperson to ever do it.
So, yeah, if you remember, toget myself in the habit of
nutrition logging, coming from aplace where I wasn't logging
anything, the first step that Igot to is just logging all my
bad food.
This step actually workedreally well, because I still

(03:23):
don't like logging and I find ittedious.
So, because I had committed tologging bad food, I actually
started making better choices,simply because I didn't want to
write it down.
Had a couple of weeks with thatand, honestly, my behavior
shifted.
I was just making betterchoices consistently.
I still do find logging tedious, but it is kind of getting to

(03:45):
the time where I've alreadytrimmed out the obvious junk.
I'm still going to push alittle bit farther with my goals
, so I kind of have to startgenerating some logs.
I still don't want to log myfood, though, so work in a
strategy that I have employed inthe past.
This one isn't as new, but I'mfinding that this is helping me

(04:11):
out a lot.
So, after we go from log thebad stuff.
Next, let's log ahead of time.
I'll tell you what that lookslike for me, and then I think
you could pretty easily adaptthis to your week or your flow.
Sunday is a day where I have noclients, nothing going on.
That is planning day.
So first step is to get a plan,then get the food you need for

(04:35):
it.
Do all that planning on Sunday.
I have done this for years formyself and for my clients, and I
do want to confess something.
And then maybe I have a pro tipin here.
But cheater alert.
I use ChatGPT to create my ownnutrition program and I'm

(04:56):
somebody who's done thisprofessionally for a long time.
Anyway, I'm still personallycatching flack for using GPT and
before I give you guys this tip, you know, just quick rant, if
you will.
Um, the thing that I findannoying about the flack that I
keep getting for it is Ihonestly think I'm one of the

(05:16):
only people who's being honestand flagging when he's actually
using a LLM.
The reason that I flag that topeople when I've used it for
whatever I'm sending orproducing is actually the first
thing is I'm kind of lettingthem know that hey, I didn't
write this.
I say that so that if they wantto critique the ideas in there,

(05:39):
they're free to rip it any ofit as hard as they want to and
not protect my feelings becauseI didn't write it.
So one of the reasons that I'llactually if I, you know this
will happen, if we're evertalking and I send you something
and I reference hey, I did thisin chat, gbt part of what that
means is I'm not going to takeanything personal Attack this
all you want.

(05:59):
Another reason that I actuallyjust like to be, you know,
transparent about its use oneattack this all you want because
I didn't write it.
Um two, I've actually just foundlike, like, let's say that you
were in a debate with somebodyand they already know my
position on the debate.
It's probably pointless for meto then just like rewrite out

(06:23):
all of the stuff that I'vealready said.
So, anyway, fun prompt.
And then I'll tell you thenutrition prompt I like doing
this now on something thatpeople are debating is.
I will ask GPT, you know,whatever the debate topic is,
can you write a position forthis, the best position you

(06:43):
possibly can, write a positionagainst it, the best position
you probably can, or youpossibly can, and then, when
both of those two are done, Iwant you to read both of those
statements and now write a thirdstatement saying which of those
two scenarios is the mostplausible.
So again, I want to be clearthat I don't offer that then as

(07:04):
a plausible.
So again, I want to be clearthat I don't offer that then as
a source of anything.
But I have found that this is agreat tool to help me think
clearer about the problem athand.
One of the things that I do findactually ChatGPT does a good
job of, particularly with aprompt like that, is, rather
than trying to straw man andfind the weak points of an

(07:24):
argument so that I can just beatit and win which, even if you
have intellectual integrity, ifyou engage in a debate with
somebody in a public forum,you're probably going to try to
win, and you might actuallyemploy some techniques in the
course of winning that debatethat if you had a private moment
with yourself and all thosepeople weren't watching, you
would know that you might havejust misrepresented either an

(07:46):
argument they were making ormaybe you slightly chair picked
your data to make it look alittle bit stronger.
Anyway, this prompt form that Ijust did is actually kind of
allowing a generic steel mannedversion of the argument.
The argument isn'tauthoritative.
I just think it can breakpeople out of their own biases.

(08:17):
The argument isn'tauthoritative, I just think it
can break people out of theirown biases.
And one thing I would throw outthere is, if you think you
don't possess any biases, debateabout what generative AI can
possibly achieve, and it feelslike that debate hasn't moved in
over a year and my use of thetechnology has changed quite a
lot in that time.
But anyway, tired of thataspect of it.

(08:38):
But anyway, here is an effectiveprompt that I use to get chat
GPT to create a good nutritionplan, and then again, I have
been refining this skill.
I know over a year ago, when Italked about the uses of LLMs,

(08:58):
we talked about building somenutrition plans.
I've actually gotten a lotbetter at it in the last year,
and one hack in particular I'mgoing to give you once I
actually get into the prompt.
So this is actually what Ireally like, though I actually
worked back from what I'mactually doing right now.
There is some overnight oatsthat I'm very attached to that
I'm really liking, and I'mmaking a burger every single day

(09:20):
at lunch.
I can execute it perfectly inabout 13 minutes.
So those were, for whatever,those were the non-negotiables
in my diet.
So the prompt was something tothe effect of you know, I need
to get 190 grams of protein.
I detailed my training, Idetailed the supplements that
I'm currently taking, Ireferenced the two meals that I

(09:40):
eat every single day, and then Iasked it to give me eat every
single day, and then I asked itto give me, according to science
, a diet program that would giveme the protein needs that I
need in light of the things thatI'm eating every day, and I
suggested that it could fill thegaps of any major nutrients
that I was missing for my goalof muscular hypertrophy.

(10:04):
Here is my favorite little hackthat took me about a year to
learn.
So then I will also ask it atthe end of the prompt I will say
you know, please put this inthe form of a spreadsheet that I
can copy and paste in aseparate column for each meal,
include the grams of protein andsum the column.

(10:25):
So I know you guys are readingtons of articles about AI
hallucinating.
To this day.
Every one of those articles iswritten by somebody who prompted
the system poorly.
Ai or LLM results are highlydependent on the prompt.
If you keep getting bad results, you need to work on your
prompt writing, having it put itin a spreadsheet and total the

(10:49):
column.
This was just something Iaccidentally stumbled into that
vastly reduces hallucinationswhen you are dealing with
numbers, which was a big issueearly on.
This is just a little line thatyou can add to your prompt, the
line being put those values ina spreadsheet and total the
column.
If you do that, what you'regoing to find because I do go

(11:11):
back and check the work itdoesn't take that long.
But adding that simple step tothe prompt has actually I
haven't had to correct anycolumns.
It's produced with that line inthe prompt.
So anyway, quick sponsor break.
I just want to give a quickshout out to my good friend Sam
Altman over at OpenAI.

(11:31):
Just kidding, no, I actually amusing the product more and more
Program planning, nutritionplanning, talking about health
issues that have unfortunatelybeen popping up in my family my
father, my daughter, bothimportant to me.
Chatgpt has been a great tool.

(11:52):
I even referenced that.
And then people tell me oh, yougot to have caution.
I'm like, yep, I read the samearticles too.
I'm just actually speaking onan anecdotal experience of
ChatGPT, correctly predictingthe course of treatment that my
dad has actually undergone andhelping to enlighten me on a
condition that I'm going to haveto monitor with my daughter.

(12:14):
So anyway, particularly withhealth stuff, I completely
understand all of the issues.
I've read the same damnarticles.
I'm not sure that these peoplehave read the work of folks like
Ethan Mollick over at UPenn,who's teaching people how to
actually prompt and use AIsystems.
I think if they practice ontheir prompts we might see fewer

(12:35):
and fewer of these articles.
But anyway, I'm not here totalk AI again.
The numbers I got from theprogram were good.
I told you that little bitabout having it crank out the
spreadsheet so then I couldactually then take and then just
copy that right over to myfitness tracking app, which is
my fitness pal.

(12:56):
I plugged it all in.
It was pretty damn good rightout of the gate.
I did do a little bit oftweaking, like added, you know,
like an afternoon snack withsome cottage cheese and an apple
stuff like that, butlegitimately very minor tweaks
and since I have done nutritionlogs for years, can confirm this

(13:17):
was way faster than any otherway that I've attempted to input
this Um and admittedly, Iactually don't need chat GPT to
do any of this.
I could do it all from scratch.
It just simply takes me a lotlonger and I get like basically
the same result in way less time.
So that that's kind of why I'veconverted to not um, spending

(13:41):
all that time um on the setupand, ironically, I've been
putting out some programs withit.
It gives me more time to makethe spreadsheets colorful and
pretty and find videodemonstrations that are really
good, because I'm not spendingas much time on formatting my
cell blocks and doing all ofthese things that at this point
actually take up most of thework.

(14:02):
For me.
The programming part goes very,very fast.
Inputting the data into a formthat's clear and people like to
look at that's what actuallytakes the most time.
So anyway, got my nutritionprogram done with ChatGPT.
So the breakfast and lunchobviously those are parameters
that I put in.
It was basically work aroundthis.

(14:24):
This is what I'm eating.
I kind of know roughly whatdinner is.
Every night my wife cooks that.
It's pretty much a protein, awhole grain and a vegetable
every night.
So I don't know exactly whatit'll be, but I just basically
it's easy enough to estimate,subtract that out and build the
plan without dinner in place,knowing what a typical dinner is
going to provide, and then I'llactually, you know one other

(14:52):
tip to go with this.
I've given this one before, butso let's say I do all that
estimating and then my wifedoesn't cook as much dinner as I
was planning for.
This is where I love thatnightly protein shake.
If you're ever on a muscle gainor you know program like that,
I love to have a nightly proteinshake there to fill the gaps.
And at least this is the way Ithink of it, because the more
stuff you get to put into yourprotein shake, the better it

(15:14):
tastes.
So, in a sense, the less foodyou have eaten during the day,
the better your nightly proteinshake will taste, because
whatever we're off in terms ofcalories, I'm going to put it
into the shake.
So, um, yeah, you know it's notfun normally to be skipping
meals, but if you get a littlebusy and skip some meals, you
get to have a shake that youknow it's like, made with like

(15:36):
cream.
You're going to throw somepeanut butter in there and all
your protein and you justbasically make it taste like you
know the that you get fromJamba Juice, but yeah, if you're
logging, you'll know when youactually need to pull that big
giant shake, when you need tobreak that glass.
So that you know.

(15:56):
I've only got about a weekrunning this program.
I've done this in the past, sothe current results are really
mapping One of the biggestbenefits that I want to talk
about, because the physicalstuff that comes and, quite
frankly, you don't see it aftera week, I mean, maybe I feel a
little bit better, but it'smostly psychosomatic in my head

(16:17):
at this point.
One of the biggest benefits whenyou plan ahead, though, is that
you don't think about food, andyou aren't really going to
realize how much time you spendin a day thinking about food
until you completely remove thatfrom your docket.
It makes my week actually justflow a lot easier, because I'm

(16:40):
not having to stop and thinkabout you know, when am I going
to take that break, where am Igoing, et cetera.
It's already been done for me.
This doesn't for me, you know,sap the joy out of eating.
I told you, every night I'meating with the family, and that
is not a planned meal.
It's, you know, kind of makesit so that when I'm trying to

(17:01):
enjoy food which I know a lot ofpeople like to do, that I'm
typically with company andpeople that I want to enjoy food
with.
I'm not doing it because it'sTuesday and I'm bored.
My dopamine crashed and I'mnear a cinnamon scent wafting
down one of the streets I'mwalking.
Nothing against that.

(17:22):
That's fantastic.
But obviously eating in thatfashion isn't consistent with me
delivering any type of result.
So that's for times when Idon't care about any type of
particular training result.
That's not right now for me theinfomercial pitch, but it

(17:43):
literally makes your meals moreefficient, healthier, cost less.
There really aren't a lot ofdownsides.
The other one that I feel, andthis is starting to form at
about a weekend I wouldn't saythat I'm there yet.
Give me two more weeks and thenI will.
But good habits really are justas sticky as bad ones.

(18:04):
You get just a few days underyour belt and it already starts
to feel easy to do the rightthing.
You know, example of that Ijust started doing the.
I make the overnight oats thenight before, put everything in.
When you first start thatroutine, you have to kind of
remember to do it.
It's only been, you know, maybetwo weeks on that and it's just

(18:25):
part of my nightly routine, Idon't even think about it.
I'm, you know, I like podcastsand books, audio books, and a
lot of times, um, rather thansitting on the couch listening
to a book, I'm I'm prepping upmy food for the next day
listening to a book.
After about three weeks of this, and it really becomes second
nature and doing anything justto hammer home how much time

(18:49):
people really do spend onthinking about food.
I used to run a lot of sessionsfor a bunch of casting directors
in Los Angeles not only my wife, but a bunch of other ones and
one of the common things youwould do on a callback session
is you've got clients and maybethey're in from New York or
wherever, and then fulldisclosure within their own
company, whoever gets to traveland be that guy or that gal,

(19:11):
that's kind of like well, Idon't know, I'm not in their
companies, but but they'rehigher up there, they're better,
it's a flex, um, so so they gottheir moment in LA and when
they come here, um, they, theydo.
They want to go to whateverclub is cool, they want to eat
at whatever restaurants are cool, and so, even when we have them
in the studio at lunch.
A lot of times lunch was also abig deal.
You got to give them some goodoptions.

(19:32):
But yeah, we used to have thisbig giant menu book of
everything in LA and I justremember watching college
educated, very successful peoplesit there and lose about an
hour of time trying to figureout what they were going to eat.
Obviously, you can't reallytell people like that what to do
, so we just kind of roundaboutfigured out that if you just

(19:52):
kind of printed up what lookedlike the equivalent of like a
prefix menu, something that theywould see like at a fancy spot,
make it look nice, limit theoptions to like three things
that were easy to get, peoplewould make that choice in a few
seconds and they still felt likeit was exclusive and special
and we just didn't have to losethe hour of work time watching
people try to decide what foodthey were going to eat.

(20:14):
And, trust me, I still want youto love your meal, still want
to be great, all that.
People are just seriously justwatch the next time and maybe at
least I can just be the onlyperson not annoyed with how long
it takes people to decide whatthey're going to eat.
Last rule I'll say on this,because another one that I've

(20:34):
just done to simplify at leastthe ordering process.
Some of my clients do have togo to work dinners, things like
that.
Obviously, anytime you'reeating in a restaurant, I don't
care where it is, they sell foodto make it taste good, so it's
not as healthy as you would makeat home.
Period, sorry, don't try totell me about what they do at
your kitchen or whatever.
I've heard this.

(20:59):
If you're eating out regularlyand the physique goals haven't
hit, quit telling me yourrestaurant does it the way you
tell them to.
They got to make it taste goodto keep you coming back.
So I told my clients who havebusiness meetings they can't
avoid that are over food thatthere's basically three things
on the menu every time you goout for work.
There's a steak salad, there'sa chicken salad and there's like
fish and vegetables.
Pick one, get on with it.
If you don't, you just burnedone of those free meals that we

(21:22):
talk about.
Everybody gets three in a week.
So every time you go to a quoteunquote work dinner and you
don't do what we just said, youjust burned one of your free
meals and that's fine.
But seven days you get three ofthem.
Have fun and see how that worksout Much, much easier.
Because obviously some folks,like agents people I've worked
with are out for meals a lot.

(21:44):
You can't make it a party everysingle time you go out.
If going out is a part of yourjob, don't make a big thing of
it.
Don't tell people you're on adiet.
That puts people in a weirdheadspace.
Just order it like it's thething you're actually excited
for, and literally nobody willcare.
But if you say anything to theeffect of like oh I'll have a
steak salad, I'm trying to loseweight or I'm not drinking

(22:06):
because I want to like now justget ready for a big subject of
the conversation to be thatperson trying to convince you to
not do whatever you're doingfor any number of reasons oh,
you look great, don't worryabout it.
Oh, I'm not here that often.
If you want to have thatconversation, tell like you
enjoy what you're eating andthat's actually what you are

(22:27):
there for, and you won't triggerany of the conversations that
we just talked about happening.
Anyway, guys, I know I meandereda bit.
All that I really do like planahead with your food logs.
I think the biggest concern isit's gonna sap joy, kill

(22:49):
spontaneity.
I don't think that's a bigissue.
Build some space so that youcan still have, like I did.
I planned for dinner everysingle night and I don't know
what it's going to be.
It's fine, I've worked thespace out for it.
We still have those three freemeals every week.
So I would argue that I thinkthe most valid contention would
be sapping joy.

(23:09):
I don't think that's a bigproblem if you kind of throw in
the amendments that we were justtalking about there.
All right.
Next one, and this was actuallyso it's kind of funny.
I want to be a little morespecific because sometimes I'll
say I'm seeing articleseverywhere and that to me sounds
a lot similar to the idea of alot of people are saying so.

(23:30):
First I saw an article at theWall Street Journal.
It was just asking the questionhow often do you really need to
check your insulin levels?
Not going to lie to you guys, Idon't subscribe to the Wall
Street Journal, so I only seethe headlines, articles behind a
paywall.
I saw the first half of theparagraph and then they kind of
faded the text off.
Then actually it was in one ofmy finance newsletters, the

(23:51):
Verge, abbott Labs just got FDAclearance for over-the-counter
continuous glucose monitors fornon-diabetics.
So this is when I kind ofactually decided that I wanted
to talk about it, because I nowI have a few people that I know
who have actually gotten thesefrom trainers, these from

(24:15):
trainers.
I now am seeing it pop inmainstream publications, so I
think that this is now startingto jump into the mainstream, if
you will.
So this is one of those things.
To be honest, if you wanted toget one of these a couple of
years ago, you really did need aprescription and to be diabetic
.
So I do personally know ahandful of trainers who have
been using these with clientsaround Los Angeles.
This is one of those thingsthat quote unquote Hollywood

(24:37):
trainers, that stuff you readabout in the articles that they
have been using.
We'll get there.

(25:04):
Anyway, these devices used torequire a prescription or you
had to go to a trainer who wouldget it some other way, but now
the big change is that they arejust flat out rolling these out
for non-diabetics selling them.
So I think it does raise animportant question that if you
don't have diabetes, do you needto monitor your blood sugar.
I think this is probably thebest place to start, but
obviously there is a ton ofevidence of positive benefits of

(25:25):
glucose monitoring in peoplewith health problems.
I also should say it up frontthere's almost no evidence
showing improved health fromcontinuous glucose monitoring in
people that are already healthy.
Admittedly not a lot of studies, but one of the best ones that
I could find.

(25:46):
They had 153 people who didn'thave diabetes.
153 people who didn't havediabetes.

(26:09):
About 96% of the time theirblood sugar levels were normal
or nearly so.
So often, in fact, that thestudies, or the scientists
running the study, believe thatmost of the abnormal levels were
actually implausible.
A mistake, maybe a readingerror?
So again, it's only one study.
It's 153 people.
That's not that big.
But the lack of variance intheir blood sugar levels kind of
points to just sort of a basicfact in a sense that when you
have a healthy insulin responsethere isn't wide variance.
Hence there isn't much to seethrough continuous glucose

(26:33):
monitoring.
I guess in a way it's a littlebit of a jump, but it's
analogous or similar to detoxdiets, where some people will
push that you go on this specialdiet and that'll handle
detoxing.
We've talked about this, butthat's what a healthy liver does
, and if you have a healthyliver you're not going to be in

(26:54):
any need for detox.
So this isn't trying to bedismissive of the problem.
It can sound that way or likewe're trying to be funny, but if
you have a healthy insulinresponse, it might not be
beneficial to record um yourblood sugar, because it just
simply isn't going to show muchyour your body.
If you have an ability tomaintain your blood sugar,
because it just simply isn'tgoing to show much your body, if
you have an ability to maintainyour blood sugar levels, we

(27:16):
really aren't going to see much.
I honestly could see,particularly like that
quantified sulfur, the personwho, like me, has fitness
watches and likes to gather dataon themselves.
Knowledge is power.
Why not?
Maybe you could detectprediabetes.
Maybe there would be a slightedge there.

(27:38):
I'm trying to be devil'sadvocate.
I think healthy people aretested every three years, just
thinking through it.
But prediabetes also isn'tdiabetes.
So if you were getting yourregular physicals and screening,
you would normally be diagnosedas prediabetic before you got

(27:59):
to diabetes.
That being said, it wouldn't beinconceivable that maybe some
CGM could improve the diagnosistime.
Maybe it could be useful forsomeone with a family history
who really suspects that theymight be diabetic.
Uh, outside of that, though, Idon't know if there really would
be a massive edge.

(28:20):
Most people just getting theirregular physicals and things
done, um, I think would havethat spotted in a relatively
timely manner.
One thing that I also see thetraining crowd that I'm familiar
with here already pushing isthis idea that you can optimize
blood sugar for performance,that if your blood sugar is here
, now's a good time to give thatspeech or have that.

(28:41):
This is very, very popular andalso completely unverified.
I think.
If there's any real resultbehind it, it might be a placebo
effect or just a sense ofcontrol.
Some people really do like that.
That itself might be a validreason to monitor glucose

(29:04):
consistently.
If having that feeling of beingin control makes you feel
better, then that might besomething you could achieve with
CGM.
You know, I guess last, you know, just general curiosity, why
not?
It's just another data point.
If you're somebody who doesn'toverread into data points, you

(29:24):
know get too reactive to things.
Not a big deal.
Maybe you're quantified selfersthat again know what to do with
the data they gather.
All that being said, Ipersonally still find very
limited utility in doingsomething like this.
I'm a quantified selfer andhave been.
I'm not really that interested.
It's from a 2012 book, at leastthe title, nate Silver's the

(29:46):
Signal, and the Noise clearlybeen talked about elsewhere, but
obviously some data isindicative of a trend or a
direction and a lot of data isjust noise that you actually
don't need to pay attention to.
I do think for healthy people,it's not hard to make an

(30:07):
argument that constantlymonitoring your blood glucose
would be useless, redundant orinaccurate information.
That really isn't making youmore powerful.
Devil's advocate one more time,like let's say that it did work
.
I would still even haveconcerns then, like if you're
using this device and you make amistake and it beeps or does

(30:29):
whatever, and then you you know,then you start to get better
choices through that mechanism,I would still argue it's a bit
like having a helicopter parentand even if it directs you to
make the right choices, youaren't learning how to make them
.
I wouldn't think that somebodywho was really relying on this
to make choices about the foodsthey eat again outside of people

(30:51):
with blood sugar issues, who Ithink that there would be
completely valid and fantasticverified uses of I'm talking
about non-diabetics here Don'tthink that's going to help them
develop intuition around foodchoices or a sustainable
relationship with food, quitefrankly.
And then, yeah, last littleanalogy I'll reach for here with

(31:13):
you guys, but I do think therewould be a major risk of over
reliance, just like when you useGPS, driving you know too much
kind of dulls your ability tonavigate, no matter how long
you've lived in the city thatyou're driving in.
I could see.
I actually think that mostpeople will wind up getting only
more lost with their nutritionefforts if they get into

(31:34):
continuous monitoring.
I don't think this is going tobe a big panacea.
That, you know, is just somedata that really unlocks big
gains for people, for healthypeople who this product that
we're talking about is going tobe marketed simply eating a
balanced diet, rich in wholefoods, you know, lean proteins,
healthy fats, complex carbs.

(31:55):
That can achieve almostidentical results to continuous
monitoring.
So yeah, to repeat something Isay often, but I kind of see
this product, as you know,another one of those majoring in
the minors bits.
Go for it if you want to.
I really wouldn't expect bigchanges.

(32:16):
I wouldn't imagine that sixmonths out, your eating has
gotten fundamentally better oryou understand it better.
I really do think that, yeah,for healthy folks, whole food
diet is going to absolutelycrush continuous glucose
monitoring and if you want tospend money, just spend money on
like a food service orsomething delivering that to you

(32:37):
and then you probably won'thave to monitor your glucose
continuously.
But anyway, that is me, thebearer of bad news and the
killer of all new products,except for chat GPT.
If you guys want to run someads, hit me up.
I know you got money, but, allright, last one of the day and I

(32:59):
feel like I've actually dancedaround this a little bit.
I have.
Even though I say some meanthings every now and again, I
really do try to respect a lotof people's opinions.
I know a lot of people on allends of this one.
So anyway, I want to talk aboutsome persistent COVID bullshit
and I don't know if I'm going todo as much dancing today.
I also don't want to presentmyself as an expert in this.

(33:22):
I am just another guy with apodcast talking.
But I think the criticaladvantage that I have with most

(33:47):
of the guys with podcaststalking is I'm not going to pull
any of the ideas out of my ownhead.
I just want to cite the studies, the data that we have right
now.
So I don't know if you saw this, but we got the Fauci hearings
going on, so that's kind ofwhat's motivating this.
I just saw a clip.
It was Joe Rogan talking abouthow some people just live in
this fantasy land and theyhaven't updated anything.

(34:08):
And I know that he means peoplewho have, I don't know, gotten
vaccines or gave a shit duringthe pandemic.
But yeah, so I actually wantedto be very specific and
highlight some of the thingsthat we know with pretty good
certainty are bullshit at thispoint.

(34:31):
There's still a lot of thingsthat are unknown and might
continue to be that way, um, butas many years we're into this,
there's still just a lot ofpersistent bullshit that I want
to shoot down.
So anyway, first one this one'salso a little bit of a rant,
kind of like you know my aistuff, but I had a really good
trainer friend.
Um, don't want to throw himunder the bus, he he's actually
a pro bodybuilder, uses a lot ofsteroids, but also during the

(34:54):
pandemic he was very against thevaccine.
We had some very openconversations about that.
Maybe you didn't pick up on thisalready, but I did find there
to be an inherent irony insomebody who injects PEDs, even
attempting the won't put that inmy body line, but yeah, that

(35:15):
was one angle, another one, andactually this is going to get us
to the study I wanted to talkabout that.
I just saw my friend is reallybig into dog rescue.
So in between you know postinganti-vax material, one day he
posted a dog that was availablefor rescue and me, being a
little bit of a troll, I didrespond to the story and just

(35:36):
asked does he have all his shots?
And I laughed.
My buddy didn't think it wasfunny, but I'm pretty sure he
got the irony, which wasprobably why he didn't think it
was funny.
But no, so I just remember thestory.
If you guys remember this, youknow Fauci kills puppies.
That was a moment in thepandemic.
Many of my friends believed itand so, in a big think, media

(36:00):
fact, chest bias.
By the way, I put their plug inon my Chrome browser so I can
see the bias of every page I'mon.
They score them as the leastbias bias.
So anyway, they had a title onan article that caught my
attention.
It was no gain of functionresearch did not cause COVID-19.
So again, that's the article.

(36:21):
That's my source, if you guyswant to go check, because that's
where we're going to break downa whole bunch of this science
that was contained in thearticle.
I didn't do any of these studiesand I'm not pretending to be an
expert on any of this.
That's again.
I'm just prefacing all thatbecause so many guys with
podcasts act like they're theend all be all authority on this
and most of us, myself included, the only reason that we're

(36:44):
even talking about this is thatwe have free expression and you
can't tell me to not talk aboutit.
We don't have any right toactually be discussing this the
way we all do.
But obviously, you know, tiedto the puppies getting killed
was this gain of functionresearch.
And now this story was alsotied to one of the most popular
conspiracy theories that COVIDwas created in a lab.

(37:10):
Should say right up front, Iactually remain open minded to
the possibility that it did comefrom a lab.
Should say right up front, Iactually remain open-minded to
the possibility that it did comefrom a lab.
But again, that's reallydifferent than saying that it
did.
With the available evidence youcouldn't say right now going
one way or the other, which itreally was.
There is no proof and the dataoverwhelmingly does point to a

(37:31):
zoological origin.
Even after I get done sayingthat if there's other evidence
in six months, I'm not reallyanchored to that.
So again, I think, unlike otherpeople, I don't really have a
horse in this race.
I don't really care which wayit plays out and I've even tried
to explain this to friends whenI've been debating this but for
me the origin actually doesn'tmatter.

(37:52):
It's truly interesting but itreally doesn't matter in any
sense, particularly now thatwe're in 2024.
Again, it would be a nice factto know one day, but it changes
nothing about what you've doneover the last few years.
It literally changes absolutelynothing.
So I know that some people,behavioral economics teaches us

(38:12):
about sunk cost fallacies.
So I know that some people,behavioral economics teaches
about sunk cost fallacy.
So if people have publicopinions on one side of this
debate, it might be very, veryhard for them to let that go, as
they'll see it as a personalaffront or attack on the
identity.
I admit I don't really have ahorse in this race, so I know
that other folks maybe have saidthings in the past and your

(38:32):
buddies heard you and you knownow it's going to make you look
like a fool, but all I would sayis don't don't speak so
certainly about stuff that'splaying out in real time, so you
won't be in that position.
But anyway, I am genuinely openminded following the science.
I just want to point out thatwhen I am looking at the
information right now,overwhelmingly points to

(38:52):
zoological origin and actually,just because the identity
politics do trigger intopeople's understanding of this,
I just want to remind peoplethat prior to COVID, the
anti-vax space was actually andsort of alternative medicine, if
you will, really was like thekale and, frankly, liberal
identity politics, particularlyout here where I live on the

(39:14):
coast.
So that was part of thewhiplash that people like me got
under.
Covid was how, you know, youused to go out to like Topanga
or Venice and it was like thosehippies out there eating raw
food and stuff who would tellyou about the vaccines and this
and that.
And then all of a sudden COVIDhits and now it was, you know,

(39:34):
my friends in North Carolina, myfriends up in Montana, who I've
known them their whole lives,never gave a shit, never talked
about that until I saw it on thepodcast they were listening to.
So obviously that shows some ofmy priors.
I actually don't think manypeople in reality are deeply
anchored to this.
I think that this issue waspoliticized and kind of became a

(39:55):
part of people's identities.
For against, I don't think manypeople were thinking their way
through it.
I think they were just goingwith the people around them.
Even folks who got onto thequote unquote right choice, many
of them did so just becausetheir neighbors were.
That's how most people maketheir choices anyway.
So there's a handful of peopleout there who are actually
thinking about things and thevast majority of people are just

(40:18):
copying the people they trust.
That's the most reliableheuristic they have.
But anyway, I just want topoint out one.
I don't see this either as areally strong ideological or
identity issue, because in mylifetime both ends of the
American political spectrum havebeen rip-roaring for anti-vax,
or at least yelling it at me atvarious times in my life.

(40:42):
Where I train the West side ofLA, this really was one of the
first.
Like Marin County up North anddown here in LA, we were the
first places to bring backmeasles.
By the way, we did that first.
The first places to bring backmeasles, by the way.
We did that first and it wasn't, you know, in the mid city, it
was over in Malibu, it was overon the west side.
That's where we brought measlesback first, just by simply not
giving our kids vaccinations.

(41:02):
Actually, you know.
Full disclosure.
Now to my daughter was born in2018.
Pandemic hadn't happened yet,so no one had their positions
public on vaccines.
Yet my belief then was actuallythat more people were
anti-vaxxed in the area that Ilive in, and this was actually
holdover from Jenny McCarthy,oprah and the MMR stuff.

(41:26):
I had to inform myself on allof that, because highly
available in my mind when I wasgetting ready to have a kid was
all this.
Vaccines cause autism.
So I, while my wife is pregnantand I'm reading up on books,
that was a segment that I kindof went heavy into was the
vaccine stuff, and so, yeah, Iactually felt in 2018 when I

(41:47):
chose to give my daughter all ofthe vaccines that were
available then, that I wasactually making a very counter
decision to many of my friendsin Los Angeles, particularly the
ones on the West side,particularly the high income,
high status friends.
Back then it was way cooler togo without those shots or to
space them out, do lower doses.

(42:09):
So again, if you didn't havethat experience, you may see
this as just a starkly partisanissue.
I do think this has been onethat different political
ideologies grab onto atdifferent times.
Yeah, and also, while I'm juststill running down my memory of
it, I can kind of remember whenit flipped in my mind and it was

(42:31):
in the pandemic and it was whengyms got closed down and I'm
not throwing anybody under thebus, but a lot of my trainer
friends were emailing me andtrying to get us to organize, to
go and protest the shelter inplace because they didn't have
money, and one of the thingsthat really upset a lot of
people was that there was a lotof money going around through

(42:52):
programs like PPP, taxincentives, other stuff like
that.
Many people describe thepandemic as the great pause
where they collected that moneyand they sat back and they
thought about what they wantedto do with their life and they
worked from home.
That wasn't an experience inthe health and wellness space.
A lot of these people were outof work.
They weren't getting PPP, theyweren't getting anything through

(43:14):
their employment, because mostfitness workers, to be honest,
they're 1099.
They're temp.
They're not really going tohave health insurance, anything
like that.
They're probably splittingrevenue with the business
they're working at.
So what you had was a bunch ofprecarious workers who were just

(43:35):
immediately chucked off.
And actually, despite whatpeople think about stimulus and
other programs, what even wasthat stimulus check?
Was that 1200?
But even bump it up, double it,triple it, I don't care.
Let's call it 5000 actually,because it definitely wasn't
that much.
For many people in the city ofLos Angeles, which is obviously
all of the trainers I'm speakingto, that's not a month of

(43:58):
expenses.
So I know that a lot of peoplewrote big op-eds about how that
fueled inflation for two years.
The truth is, most workingpeople who had rent and things
to pay and kept up on that, ifthey got a stimulus check, it
was probably burned through inthe first month, definitely
didn't get through two months.
I mentioned all that becausethis is when people in the

(44:19):
health and wellness spacestarted to get a little bit
agitated.
They wanted to get back to workand I actually understood why
so many of my cohorts wereprotesting and going against the
shutdown orders, and it wasbecause they were running out of
money.
The other thing that I think isvery unique to the health and

(44:41):
wellness space is a lot of thesepeople, even before the
pandemic, they already had abusiness where they were
speaking out about the benefitsof eating healthy working out.
So pivoting their core productto becoming a COVID cure was not
only one of the easiest thingsto do, but it was also one of
the only things that theyactually could do.

(45:02):
You've heard enough from methat obviously I don't think it
works.
If, like ivermectin or drinkingbleach or any of the shit that
people said had worked, thatwould have been great.
They didn't, and so, although Iclearly think it's unethical to
put out bad information,particularly when you don't have
the qualifications to put thatinformation out, in the same

(45:27):
token, I do understand why somany people did it, and the
brutal reality is it's becausethey were broke and they didn't
have any other options.
One more specific to LA but wedid get hollowed out Everybody
who wasn't making their rentleft.
That's what we're left with onthis end is everybody who didn't
go broke during the pandemic.

(45:47):
So many people not just healthand fitness got hollowed out of
here, but I do think it was thefinancial demands of the
pandemic that turned my trainingfriends into like kind of
hardcore.
You know, anti-vax.
I think that's why there is somuch overlap in the health and
wellness space and, yeah, alsohow it's kind of like I don't

(46:10):
know if you guys are seeing thisas clearly as I am, but the
alternative medicine space hasreally morphed from like that
burnout hippie that smells likepatchouli.
You're going to see a lot morered trucker hats in there these
days, and that, actually, Ithink, is what well brings me to

(46:30):
another thing that I'm not surepeople get to see, particularly
if they are in echo chambers.
If you step outside, you'regoing to notice that a lot of
the not only COVID conspiraciesbut a lot of conspiracy theories
tend to occupy the far extremesof the political spectrum.
Um, some call this horseshoetheory, but these folks seem
like strange bedfellows and Ithink that they are generally

(46:56):
unawareinges.
If you will, I'm not reallywell.
I was going to say clearly, likeanybody else, I have a bias and

(47:17):
I have a set of partisans, butwhat is different for me is I
really am not dogmatic about it.
I will actually switch based onhow things go.
Look at the data.
So I'm just saying that if Ineed to talk shit about somebody
I'll say it and I'll call themout.
I don't actually think there'san ideological bias to this as

(47:37):
much as other people do.
I think people think that's oneof the main drivers.
I'm not so sure that it ismyself.
I think it has a lot to do withfeelings of alienation,
loneliness, control, things likethat.
That are the real psychologicaldrives to why people accept
conspiracy theories, and theseare present in every single

(47:59):
ideology.
So anyway, I know I'vemeandered around.
I told you guys about my wholeLA pandemic story.
There are five main points thatthe lab leak proponents make.
Let's try to run through themquickly.
I don't want to burn out yourtime.
So the SARS-like virus emergedin Wuhan, where the Wuhan

(48:21):
Institute of Virology is located.
That's fact number one fromtheir standpoint.
Two a year prior to itsemergence, in collaboration with
US partners, they createdsimilar viruses to COVID through
gain-of-function research.
That's number two fact, theysay.
Number three, they say is afact Scientists at the Wuhan

(48:41):
Institute of Virology pursuedthis type of work under low
biosafety conditions that couldhave contaminated an infectious
airborne virus like SARS-CoV-2.
Four piece.
Four, they say the hypothesisof a natural spillover for
COVID-19 from an animal at theHunan seafood market in Moonhead
is not supported by theevidence.
And five, the key evidence thatwould be expected to have

(49:05):
emerged from a natural spilloverevent.
The progenitor animal host hasnever been found.
So is any of that true?
Let's start with number one yes, the Wuhan Institute of
Virology is located in Wuhan,china.
Fact number one is correct.

(49:25):
Number two so this was that ayear prior, the US collaborated.
This is very misleading.
There was an internationalcollaboration to investigate the
features of coronavirus thatcould lead to an infection of
humans, and that collaborationincluded US-based partners.
However, they never created apotentially infectious variant
and, importantly, the specificproposal to create a virus with

(49:47):
the defining features ofSARS-CoV-2 was rejected and that
research was never conducted.
So three they pursued this workunder bad safety conditions.
That is also simply not true.
All the work was conducted atWuhan Institute of Virology was
pursued under the standardbiosafety procedures for the

(50:08):
type of work that was done andeven passed an international
inspection.
Quick point of order on that,because no one ever talks about
this.
I just want to remind everybody, because we weren't talking
about COVID when this happened.
The United States of Americadid dismiss the CDC chief from
China in 2019.

(50:29):
Chief from China in 2019.
So I just want to remind peoplethat, had we not been on a
cost-cutting thing in 2019, youwouldn't need to rely on Chinese
officials for the data.
But we, the United States ofAmerica, pulled the CDC out
before the pandemic ever started.
Maybe you can question thatdecision I don't hear anybody

(50:50):
ever talk about that but if youwanted clean information, you
did lose your chance in 2019.
So, yeah, sidebar, but yeah, wedon't know.
Simply, internationalinvestigations that have been
done showed that actually theydid use the sanitary protocols
that were up for whatever theywere doing.
So that one's also not true.

(51:11):
So, number four the hypothesisof a natural spillover is not
supported at the Hunan seafoodmarket.
This one got a special note inthe article.
So this one is so thoroughlyuntrue that it demands pushback.
And then we have one, two I'mnot going to read them all to
you guys, all right.
So I got like seven different.
Two I'm not going to read themall to you guys, all right.

(51:31):
So I got like seven differentstudies here we're going to make
a few quick points.
A 2023 critical analysis of theevidence of the origins of COVID
.
Let's see.
Oh yeah, no, I already told you.

(51:52):
So we got seven differentstudies that have been looking
at how it has originated.
The sum of all of this work isthat when you're trying to find
a natural progenitor, you almostnever find the actual monkey
number zero.
This gets so far beyond my paygrade, but they're getting into
comparing different proteinstructures what could support it
.

(52:16):
But the bottom line is that evenwhen something does have a
natural host and we know thatthere was a natural host you
never find that progenitor,animal host, if you will, the
one that causes the spillover.
You don't need that evidence toknow that it that it started
with natural origin and cause.
This is their sort of pointnumber five.
I guess it is um that that theyhaven't found the animal host.

(52:41):
Um, that that's a goalpost thatwill probably never cross, um,
so now, all that being said, Ijust want to really hammer home
that this is, right now, thecurrent accepted literature.
Things might change and wemight have a different topic,
but the main five points aboutit emerging from a lab, only one

(53:02):
the fact that the lab islocated in Wuhan, china.
That's true.
I really haven't been able tovalidate any of the other four
major claims you know more sothan me, talking about the
people I know and the annoyingconversations I've had, the main
downside of all this is thatthe misinformation being spread
is actually putting thesescientists in the literal line

(53:23):
of fire over research that theydidn't do and these conspiracies
have no basis in reality.
That they didn't do and theseconspiracies have no basis in
reality.
So I'm annoyed when science isattacked from people just being
stupid and misrepresentingthings.
This is causing sometimes toactually be threatened and
absolutely muddying the watersand making it almost impossible

(53:44):
for people to get to truth.
All that I know.
This is the part I'm mostpassionate about, so one of the
most annoying things to me thathas persisted throughout COVID
is this idea that if you'rehealthy, you have nothing to
fear.
I don't know what you guys arelooking at who say this.
The first instance that I hadpop in real life was a client in

(54:05):
roughly April of 2020,20-year-old, who'd had it
asymptomatically in a workoutreach for his heart.
Um, fortunately, he has umgreat healthcare plan and he'll
be taken care of.
He's fine.
But I know that a lot of peopledon't have the kind of
healthcare that this young manhas and if, if you had an
asymptomatic case of COVID and asimilar heart issue probably

(54:30):
wouldn't get discovered.
But no, so I actuallypersonally know a number of
healthy young people who havehad cardiac injuries as a result
of COVID infections.
It just was annoying hearingagain and again and again that
there was quote unquote nothingto fear for healthy people.
That was never true, and I knowyou heard it a lot.
But if you were unhealthy, younothing to fear for healthy
people.
That that was never true, and Iknow you heard it a lot.

(54:51):
But if you were unhealthy, youneeded to fear for your
respiratory system.
If you were healthy, you neededto fear for your vascular
system.
Sorry, I'm just now getting tothis in 2024, but I don't know
how it went on that long.
Um first study I saw again wasprobably like April of 2020 or
May of 2020.
And it was heart issues poppingup in NCAA athletes obviously

(55:13):
young and healthier younger andhealthier than every single
person that I've saying on TVthat it wasn't something to
worry about.
Ironically, I'm a jerk.
If I looked like any of thosepeople saying it on TV, I would
get off TV and work out andchange my life choices.
But their confidence is awesomebecause they go out there every
day and say those things andlook the way they do and it

(55:35):
doesn't bother them one bit.
Not everybody has thatconfidence so that one could at
least look up to.
I know I deal with depression,so if I look like that I might
not be here.
Oh, that was mean.
All right, we got to try todial it back in.
No, but they so.

(55:56):
Yeah, it is annoying.
Some of the heart issues thathave been observed in studies
heart arrhythmias, mitocarditis,difficulty breathing, rapid
heart rate, chest pain they'reobviously.
There is no such thing as zerorisk.
Um, this one's annoying mecause it's popping up now.
So you know, whatever bespecific, my dad had a COVID

(56:18):
infection and now has heartissues never had in his whole
life, and so now, once thatpresents, people start talking
and there's this idea that, oh,I wonder if the vaccines caused
that.
And you know it's my dad.
So of course I wonder that too,and so I actually went and ran
the numbers, though, instead ofjust spouting bullshit like
everyone else seems like theywant to do.
I did.

(56:39):
Yes, there are side effects.
There's no such thing as zerorisk.
So what I found for the risk ofhaving heart issues from an mRNA
vaccine the type that my dadhad.
That's about 0.002% to 0.005%.
The chance that you get acardiac injury from a COVID

(56:59):
infection is between 10% and 20%.
People are terrible withnumbers, so let's put that
another way.
Let's put that another way.
The chance that you get acardiac injury from an mRNA
vaccine it's about as likely asyou getting injured in a car
accident in a year of driving,where getting a cardiac injury

(57:21):
from a COVID infection is aboutas likely as having a
complication during a majorsurgery.
Again, maybe that's still alittle bit too nebulous.
So why don't we put it evenmore directly If 100 people got
COVID, about 10 to 20 of themare going to have some form of
cardiac injury.
And if, like 100,000 people gotvaccinated, like two to five of

(57:43):
them might have some form ofcardiac injury.
Not a math major, so I alsodon't want to flex and pretend
that, but I can run that one inmy head.
Probabilistically it is so muchmore likely if you had a
cardiac issue that it came froma COVID infection than a shot.
But no, in fairness toeverybody out there saying it,

(58:03):
yes, it is possible to have acardiac injury from a vaccine or
COVID, but the probabilitiesare nowhere fucking near
equivalent.
Unlike all the other podcasters, I actually understated the
risk because if you include longCOVID, the observed rates of
cardiac injury go upsignificantly to 75%.

(58:25):
So I'm not going to rerun allthe numbers, but now 100 people
got COVID, 75 will have someform of cardiac injury.
That is versus two to five if100,000 get vaccinated.
So anyway, last two that I guessI'm shooting down here annoyed
the hell out of me.

(58:45):
For all these years People havebeen saying that if you're
healthy there was nothing tofear.
That was one of the mostpersistent, annoying and
inaccurate beliefs.
I wish you guys were right, butI have two cardiac patients in
my family right now.
And then, yeah, obviously, ifyou're one of those and you're
thinking, well, it could havebeen the vaccine.
People have already said thatYou're technically right.

(59:08):
There is a really fucking slimchance that might have happened
and there is an overwhelmingchance that it probably just
happened from the fucking COVID.
But anyway, mind is open.
But the thing that we really doand I really kind of want to
hammer home in here, isprobabilistic thinking.
We don't know any of thesethings for certain, but we can

(59:29):
start ascribing probabilities tocertain things, and that is
what I'm doing when I'm kind offraming what is most likely.
Any one of these things mightchange with further study.
But what you really are tryingto do with health and this is
why I've even presented healthas a subject that is very, very

(59:49):
similar to finance.
You don't know which waymarkets are going, and if you
think you do, you're fuckingwrong and you're confused and
you bought into some marketingbullshit.
But you don't need to know thedirection that the market is
moving If you can startassessing some probabilities and
making some wagers based onthat.

(01:00:10):
You want to avoid negativeasymmetries.
You want to seek out somepositive asymmetries.
Avoid the behaviors that cancause quick death or blowing up
In your portfolio.
That's trading with margin,that's trading on meme stocks,

(01:00:31):
that's watching CNBC or readingWall Street bets and buying what
everyone else is buying.
Now flip it around If we wantto take advantage of asymmetries
.
Wearing sunscreen unsexy, butskin cancer I don't know if you
guys looked at it really bad,really disruptive Sunscreen,

(01:00:53):
really cheap, doesn't reallycost you much time or anything.
So again, a big part of eliteperformance in health, just like
elite performance in finance,is avoiding the big losses.
Some of these things are reallylike the most boring and unsexy
stuff and everybody thinks theyhave it mastered.

(01:01:13):
But when you really come downto the basics and see who is
actually consistently masteringthe basics, that's a tiny group
of people that we call the elitein every single domain.
So, anyway, I know that COVIDis over.
You know, quote unquote it'snot in the sense that it still

(01:01:36):
exists, it's not going anywhere.
Covid itself and the vaccinesare a part of life.
Now I just want to remindpeople that there are no
mandates, there are no vaccinepassports, there were no
tracking devices, no 5g um.
Years have gone on and a lot ofour debates really haven't.

(01:01:59):
Um again, it's.
Covid isn't over in the sensethat like you can get covid,
just like you can get flu or thestrep throat, but a lot of
these circular debates that aregoing on, particularly
representing those faucihearings that are going on right
now, they're actually fuckingover and you guys can keep
talking, but we're four yearsout of this pandemic and a lot

(01:02:19):
of us really would like for youto come back and join reality.
I get there's irony because,you know, obviously opened this
segment on this, but Joe Roganfeels the same way about people
who've, you know, viewed thisdifferently.
So I want to be clear it's notbecause I disagree with him on
the points of this, it's becausehow much he has sat there and

(01:02:41):
talked about this thing, whilenot being an expert, not
bringing them on on it's franklybecome a little bit of a
personality for someone like him.
And then, as I can readily sayright now, if the evidence
points to a different conclusionthan what I put out here today
or in any past episode, I'mgoing to switch it up just that
fast.
It means absolutely nothing tome that I have spoken to the

(01:03:05):
most probabilistic thingsthroughout this and if new
evidence demonstrates it to notbe the most likely, it'll be
that easy for me to say that itisn't so.
Anyway, in that way, guys,covid is over.
Stop with the gain of function,the puppies, all that stuff,
all this stuff has already beendebunked.
And even on the vaccine, quitefrankly, we have more data

(01:03:29):
points on this uh, you knowmedical intervention than
anything in human history.
So it's over, at least the thecircular debates around it.
Um, anyway, guys, I'm running upon time.
I really do appreciate you guysspending, you know, almost an
hour of your time with me.
Um, I I really do believe thatthat is absolutely the most

(01:03:52):
valuable thing we all have.
I'll be quick, but Father's Day, people were asking me hey,
what do you want?
And I was like I'm just likeevery other dad in the world, I
just want time, that's it.
I don't want to go out tobrunch, I don't want to go
shopping, I just value time.
So, anyway, that was on my mindover the weekend.
It is never lost on me when youspend your time here and you

(01:04:12):
put your trust in me.
I never want to violate thatand I hope that you are learning
stuff.
Pass this along to anyone elsethat you think might get some
positive value from this, andremember mind and muscle are
inseparably intertwined.
There are no gains withoutbrains.
Keep lifting and learning.
I'll do the same.