June 6, 2024 • 59 mins
Ever felt like clean eating is the golden ticket to your dream body but still not seeing the results? We’re here to tell you why that might be happening and what you can do about it. We also tackle the hot topic of muscle loss linked to the weight-loss drug Ozempic and reveal some startling truths about PFAs in your favorite sparkling water. Tune in to hear a personal story of how a disrupted Sunday workout turned into a lesson in adaptability and resilience, teaching us all how to turn frustration into motivation.
Living in Los Angeles offers some quirky experiences, and we're sharing them all. From the odd reality of recognizing people from TV commercials to a canvasser’s Botox comment that left us laughing, we explore how life in LA can skew your perception of fame and familiarity. We'll also correct some common misconceptions about nutrition, emphasizing that a caloric deficit is key to weight loss—even if that means subsisting on Peeps (but please, don’t actually do that). Plus, a humorous take on an unfulfilled dream of becoming a Navy SEAL adds a personal touch to our discussion on LA culture.
Gradual, lasting changes are crucial for health and fitness, and we’ve got strategies to help you maintain those new habits. We discuss the importance of lean body mass and offer tips to minimize muscle loss if you're using weight-loss drugs like Ozempic. Concerned about PFAs? We break down their presence in consumer products, from sparkling water to seafood, and offer practical advice to reduce exposure. Whether it's the relationship between clean eating and caloric control, or making informed choices about what you consume, this episode is packed with actionable insights to support your health and fitness journey. Tune in and let’s keep lifting, learning, and growing together!
Producer: Thor Benander
Editor: Luke Morey
Intro Theme: Ajax Benander
Intro: Timothy Durant
For more, visit Simon at The Antagonist
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:04):
Welcome to the Mind Muscle Podcast.
Here's your host, simon DeVere,and welcome back to Mind Muscle
, the place where we study thehistory, science and philosophy
behind everything in health andfitness.
(00:25):
Today, I am Simon DeVere andthere's nothing new, except all
that has been forgotten.
All right, you know how it goes.
Before we dive into it, I wantto let you know what we're going
to talk about today.
So, yeah, guys, on the docketfor today's episode, I want to
(00:46):
talk about when your body isn'tresponding to clean eating.
Sorry, I'm laughing and there'snothing funny, because this
came from a comment that Ioverheard out there in the wild,
if you will.
So anyway, we'll get to thehumor.
I realized there was nothingfunny even though I was laughing
(01:07):
.
Yeah, bad poker player show inmy hand.
I also want to talk about astory that I'm seeing more and
more, and something that I'mseeing pop in conversations with
this idea of muscle loss whileusing Ozempic.
Let's take a look at that.
And again, I'm seeing a lot ofstories having a lot of
(01:28):
conversations about this withoutshowing our hand.
Yet again, might be a littlebit different.
The truth might be differentthan what is currently being
conveyed.
And then, last one, that thiswas kind of a deep dive that one
of my own clients got me into,but you guys have maybe seen the
(01:49):
same thing floating around.
There was a recent study aboutPFAs, let's try to say it,
polyfluoroalkali substances.
We're going to call them PFAsfor the rest of the show.
But yeah, there was a studyabout PFAs in sparkling water.
(02:12):
I'm a sparkling water drinker,so are some of my clients, so I
had to run this down for thebenefit of, well, quite frankly,
myself, but a lot of otherfolks too.
So I just kind of wanted todive into a study that you might
or might not have seen that ismaking the rounds right now
about, yeah, these foreverplastics that might be in
(02:33):
sparkling waters.
But anyway, guys, before I diveinto the stuff I have prepped,
I just kind of wanted toactually come clean on one from
the weekend.
I was not the best version ofmyself and, yeah, normally on
Sunday, sunday is my biggesttraining day.
It's the only day of the weekwhere I don't have a schedule
(02:56):
that I need to adhere to.
So I really look forward to itand I like to wake up, drink my
coffee and take as long as Ineed to do my workout.
It is the only day in the weekwhere time restrictions are not
the main driver of what I'mdoing.
(03:18):
I get real excited andprotective of my Sunday morning.
It's actually my daughter'sbirthday at the end of the month
and one of her presents showedup a little bit early.
So anyway, I had this big box.
So the surprise was dead.
My daughter was getting a gianttrampoline for her birthday and
(03:39):
, yeah, she could see it.
So she had.
She'd been asking me to put ittogether and clearly I hadn't.
But yeah, when I woke up it wasabout like 530 on Sunday and I
my daughter always comes out inthe middle of my workout and I
was just thinking to myself like, oh, how cool would it be if,
when she comes out to see methis morning, if there's a big
(04:00):
giant trampoline set up backhere.
So, anyway, aborted my normalSunday mission.
I normally would have beenworking out.
Instead, I spent the morningassembling my daughter's
trampoline and, yeah, it was allgood, except she comes out,
like I anticipated.
And then eventually it kind ofwound up turning into like a
(04:22):
small community workout, andthen it still was Sunday.
So I tried to get my beautifulSunday workout done, but there
was a lot of people over at thatpoint, a lot of kids jumping
around, and it was literallyalmost comical because I think
the only time people wanted totalk to me was when I was
(04:44):
deadlifting.
So it was like people wouldwait until I had the bar near my
lockout and just ask me rightthen in that moment.
So, anyway, I didn't vocalizethis during the workout.
I did almost immediately,privately to a friend.
Yeah, in a way, this is kind ofwhat kills me on group workouts
(05:05):
why I'm so much of a soloartist is you bring so many
people around and it just.
I had a really bad workout,quite frankly.
Um, I wasn't good at any of mylifts.
It took way longer than itnormally should have, and and I
didn't do good at anything.
So, anyway, come inside pissedoff about the workout, and then
(05:25):
I just quietly rant about it toa friend over text and I
actually had a few hours to thensit there and think about it
and I still was, admittedly,pissed about the workout.
It will obviously be anotherweek until I have a chance to
atone for that, but no, asactually time went on, I did
(05:47):
calm down a little bit and I wasjust reminding myself like it's
okay to not have the perfectworkout this Sunday and,
admittedly, as you can tell, itreally did bother me.
It actually pissed me off.
I'm not exaggerating and so onething that I've actually found
that I can use that anger that Ifeel for is to motivate for the
(06:11):
next workout.
So, younger version of me, Ithink, would have made time
later that day to go back andmake amends for it literally
that day.
But, as I complain, I reallydon't have loads of time
available.
So, like, doubling up on Sunday, the one day I don't have time
restrictions, also didn't seemlike a great plan.
(06:31):
So, um, no, as weird as thissounds, I just used my anger.
I wasn't going to lie and tryto tell myself I'm not angry or
this is okay, and bottle it upand everything's no, I'm
actually just going to let itburn and I'm going to use it in
the very next workout.
Um, so that that that'ssomething that I was able to
(06:51):
kind of connect to later, butthat I do more and more these
days is, if something reallydoes bother me, um, just throw
it on the fire, use it as fuelfor the next one.
I didn't really need to atonefor it that day and it was funny
.
And again, I'm not going to lieto you guys and say that I
don't have emotions and I don'tget irrational.
(07:12):
I am a human being.
I do this shit all the time and, yeah, maybe later I think
differently on it.
But no, I'm not going to.
I need to respect my ownemotions as much as I respect
other people's emotions, quitefrankly.
So it's entirely okay for me toget angry because I don't like
(07:32):
the way my workout wentsomething productive, rather
than let it kind of just consumeme and piss me off all day and
make me resent the people thatcame over and ruined my workout.
(07:53):
It took me a minute to getthere, but before the day was
out actually before the morningwas out I had actually kind of
recalibrated and decided no,this was good.
In my own workout logs, I keepseeing this note about some
nagging joint injuries andthings.
So, yeah, even though I wantedto have a really, really good
(08:14):
workout that day, I don't thinkit's just coping or
rationalizing to point out thatactually not going all out also
had some benefits.
Other thing I'll mention is sonot only being honest, using my
anger to motivate the nextsession, the other thing I
focused on throughout the daywas just being healthy, on all
the other little things that areoutside of my workout.
(08:34):
Admittedly, something I've kindof caught onto myself is I lean
a lot on movement, exercise,movement exercise and just going
hard all the time, and so Iactually know that if I just eat
like I tell my clients to, thatI don't need to train as hard
as I normally do when I'm alwaysmoving.
(08:55):
It covers a lot of the mistakesthat I'm making on the
nutrition side.
And so, yeah, on even a Sunday,which I'm anticipating a really
great workout if it doesn'tconnect for whatever reason,
more and more I'm just remindingmyself to one use that anger
and motivation that you willfeel to motivate the next
(09:19):
workout, and then, while you'resitting there stewing about what
you should do in the nextworkout, and then, while you're
sitting there stewing about whatyou should do in the next
workout, eat like an adult, doall the things that you tell
everybody else to do all thetime, and you'll actually be in
a great spot for the nextworkout.
So, anyway, yeah, just wanted tocome clean.
I actually wasn't proud of that.
I really, really do try to staypresent, particularly as it
(09:49):
pertains to my family and thatlife outside of the gym.
And, anyway, glad that I onlyshared this with a friend
privately and that I didn'tmention it to anybody who was
there, because, yeah, I probablywould have regretted it within
a few minutes.
And, yeah, the thing that wasbothering me, even though it was
bothering me for real and Ireally was angry about it, it's
(10:10):
fine and I can use it to keepmyself on track.
So, anyway, just there.
I'm not perfect, stillstruggling, trying to figure out
work-life balance, whatever thehell that is.
But yeah, anyway, just samething for you guys.
Life gets in the way of ourbest laid plans.
Be flexible, take it in stride,roll with the punches.
(10:33):
I'm trying to be better andbetter at that.
I'm a little bit type A.
I like to control, I like toprogram.
So this is something that I'mprobably saying out loud to help
myself out more than you guys.
So, anyway, guys, the stuffthat I actually got saying out
loud to help myself out morethan you guys.
So, anyway, guys, the stuffthat I actually got prepped to
talk about today.
(10:57):
So a long time ago, in a blogthat a lot of Angelenos read,
called the LAist, they used tohave this segment that was
called Overheard in LA and theywould just kind of people would
send in just things that theyhad kind of heard people say,
that were just very emblematicof this, the city that I live in
.
And you know, admittedly, I dofeel like about Los Angeles as I
(11:17):
do about members of my family.
If I want to talk shit aboutLos Angeles or my friends that
live here, do fair game, justlike if I'm talking about
someone in my family.
But if you are from outside thefamily and you try bad mouthing
, um, for a lot of reasons I'mnot into it.
One, all the stuff that peoplenot from here say isn't relevant
(11:39):
because they don't really knowwhat they're talking about.
It's based on, like stereotypesand things.
And then same thing, just likewhen someone not in your family
tries talking about your family,I just want to slap them.
And so, yeah, we get a lot ofLA hate.
But no, I would rather us dishit out ourselves than hear it
from people that are makingtheir impressions of this city
(12:00):
on their own poor screen habits.
So, yeah, usually whatevercritique they have of Los
Angeles should actually be moredirected at their own attention
span.
But anyway, fair game for meSome of the fun ones, just to
run down kind of the flavor ofwhat will be like an acceptable
one.
(12:21):
Oh, I love this one.
There should be a word for thatmoment when you see someone in
Los Angeles and you're not sureif you met them when you were
drunk, worked with them orrecognize them from a minor TV
role.
That one was a few years back,I don't remember exactly, but
that one really tracks for me.
My wife does commercial casting.
I've looked over literallythousands of actors in my over a
(12:43):
decade living here now andweird for me is that I actually
think the non-famous actors thatI've looked at their faces in
grotesque detail on a castinglink are actually the famous
ones.
And then I think actual famouspeople are just people that I
know from around the way.
So ironically, that's my wholeflow around the city.
(13:05):
I am very blunt and direct withthe actual stars and I am very
cautious and respectful of thepeople that I've seen on my
commercial casting tape.
Um, yeah, anyway, just weird,weird aspect of living here I
think all the B and D listactors are the big deal, the A
listers.
I just assume that I alreadyknow them.
(13:33):
Actually, another funny one wasa canvasser says to this woman
hey, you look like a good person.
And she says, no, it's Botox,even like our weather fair game,
bring a jacket.
It's 10 below outside.
No, it's not 10 below 70, um,but anyway, one of my clients
actually called me out for oneof these recently.
Um, I was just telling him anawesome self-aggrandizing story
(13:56):
about how I was going to go intothe navy seals if I hadn't been
cast on that show one tree hill.
Um, true, by the way, but I'mnot so self-obsessed that I
don't get the comedy in somebodysaying that out loud.
But yeah, I really was gettingrecruited by the Seals when I
wound up getting cast on thatshow, one Tree Hill.
(14:18):
So I did abandon that dream andhonestly not bragging, because
that one actually still eats atme.
I genuinely you know people havethat that the one that got away
in other aspects in their life,that's the one for me.
I will still always wonder if Icould have made it into the
(14:38):
seals, and there's literallynothing anybody can say that
will make me feel any kind ofway about it.
There's only one thing thatwould make me feel any kind of
way about it, and that would betaking the test and passing it.
So, yeah, I still do somethings and I've talked to some
folks.
But that for me is the one thatI probably won't.
(15:01):
Maybe I don't know, maybe I'lllet it go.
But yeah, I would have likedthat challenge and that test.
Obviously I'm cocky enough tothink I would have made it, but
I really would have liked tohave been pushed and seen how
that played out.
But yeah, no, going back intime, that one's done.
But anyway, the one I heard.
I'm at a relatively famousworkout destination on the west
(15:22):
side of Los Angeles.
We're at the Santa Monicastairs.
Two gentlemen walk past.
One says to the other my bodyjust isn't responding to clean
eating.
You know, this to me justseemed like a very LA
conversation.
And his buddy was a good friend.
He offered absolutely nopushback on what the guy said,
(15:47):
he just nodded, agreed, or, youknow, as friends say, he just he
engaged in polite conversation.
Um, so I w I was laughing and Iactually did flag it to my
client right then.
And there I was like wow, thereare, you know, just ceaseless
attempts to overthrowthermodynamics.
Um, nutrition is a space peoplelike to do it the most, and all
(16:10):
attempts so far have failed.
Um, I'm not gonna lie, my guydidn't quite get what I was
talking about, and then Iflagged the comment and pointed
out that people just want a wayout of calories in, calories out
.
It's not a theory of everything, but there are just so many
ways that people try to nullifythat.
Oh, if you have this calorie,it doesn't count.
(16:31):
Or if you plug your leftnostril while you stand on this
foot, it's negative calories.
Or don't eat this single foodgroup.
But it is actually funny to mehow often in nutrition people
try to overturn the idea thatenergy is energy and that it
cannot be lost or destroyed orcreated out of nowhere.
(16:58):
But yeah, if I was a nice personinstead of just yet another
self-obsessed modern personusing every single interaction
in his life for content in hopesof monetizing all of the
mundane minutiae of my life, Imight have helped the guy, but I
didn't.
I'm a podcaster and a modernperson, so I'm just going to try
(17:21):
to monetize every aspect of mypersonality and experience,
because that's what we're toldto do these days.
But yeah, so anyway, if I wasthis guy's trainer, I would have
reminded him that, obviously,just improving the quality of
your food does not necessarilyresult in weight loss.
You must have a caloric deficitfor that to happen.
(17:44):
Devil's advocate, in a senseit's entirely possible to be in
a caloric deficit with terriblefood.
That's the reductio ad absurdum.
Let's take the opposite end toits farthest logical extent and
you could literally eat nothingbut Peeps and lose weight if you
controlled the calories.
Peeps, you remember those comearound Easter time.
(18:04):
It's just those littlemarshmallows.
There's literally nothing inthere but sugar and despite what
you have heard about carbs andsugars, toxicity and all of
these other things, if you ateless than your daily caloric
expenditure in nothing but peeps, you 100% would lose weight.
Your blood work would beterrible.
(18:25):
There would be so many otheraspects of your health that
would be an absolute shambles.
But for everybody who worshipsat the temple of stepping on the
scale and seeing a lower number, it is entirely possible to
achieve eating nothing butterrible foods.
The thing I'm even why I'm doingthis reductive Adam's is not to
(18:47):
justify eating terrible diets.
I'm just trying to point outthat losing weight is indicative
of calories, your energybalance and nothing else.
It doesn't indicate your moralor ethical abilities.
You can be very unhealthy, eatcrappy food all the time, be at
(19:10):
an acceptable weight or evenlose weight.
On the flip side, you could eata whole food diet full of great
, healthy foods and be gainingweight constantly if you were
eating too much food.
Calories in, calories out is nota singular theory by any
(19:30):
stretch, but again, none ofthese other truths that we bring
in overturn it.
And if you are talking aboutweight loss, you are talking
about energy balance.
Here's the flip side, because I, you know, talk some shit about
myself, talk some shit aboutthis guy.
But here's the thing is thatactually, this guy is actually
(19:53):
in a pretty decent place.
Most likely, his body is notactually rejecting clean eating,
he's just eating too much.
I would be almost certain thathis health has improved, but if
he's not happy with how his bodyis looking and feeling
frustrated with regard to that,all he has to do is just take
(20:13):
the portions down just a littlebit and keep the same quality
foods, and then I think hishealth and his physique goals
would potentially be addressed.
But no, what this reminded meof, and why I wanted to bring up
, wasn't to throw myself underthe bus for being a shameless
podcaster and to throw this guyunder the bus for having friends
that don't challenge him tochange any behaviors.
(20:37):
I think that this is a very,very common problem.
We've been talking about it alot lately, but what I consider
scale obsession, singular focuson weight, has people constantly
rejecting a lot more meaningfulmeasures of health.
And again, this is kind of mysoapbox that I'm going to jump
(20:58):
on every day now.
But if people over 35 were asobsessed with maintaining or,
dare I say, even gaining muscle,go ahead, cancel me, even
though that's not a real thing.
Just cancel me because I saidgain weight, I'm insane.
Nobody right, no one in thefitness space says that.
But no, if people would get asobsessed with maintaining and
(21:21):
yeah, I said it or even gainingmuscle, the worst possible
outcome according to so manypeople, so many of our health
issues would be addressed thatobsessive focus on fat reduction
can never achieve.
Muscle improves metabolism.
Fats are needed for a healthyendocrine system.
That's your hormones, andhormones are the single most
(21:42):
important factor in how you look.
A lot of other things play in.
That one is the most importantis the most important.
It is much easier to maintain aphysique when you focus on
maintaining or gaining musclethan if your only move is to
reduce fat.
The second and third orderimpacts of maintaining or
(22:04):
gaining muscle are fantastic andreinforce your goals.
The second and third orderimpacts of reducing fat even
though we do need to do it fromtime to time, none of them
actually lead you towards yourgoal.
The second and third orderimpacts are for your metabolism
to.
You're slowing at the end of afat loss program, so you're
(22:25):
probably going to rebound.
In my world, where we're notscared to put on muscle,
sometimes you'll actually do asix-week mini cut with the
intent of predisposing your bodyto gain weight, so when you hit
the next mass cycle youactually gain more.
So again, second and thirdorder impacts of most weight
loss programs are actually goingto be to add more weight in the
(22:48):
future.
Again, people like me use minicuts to actually prime our body
for growth.
We don't do those little minicuts to get lean.
You do that in the middle of abulk to keep the working.
Ironically, the mini cut that Ijust described for bodybuilders
looks a lot like the fat lossdiet for non-bodybuilders that
(23:09):
wind up yo-yoing.
So anyway, I don't want to veertoo far off of the stranger's
question that I didn't help himwith.
But back to the initialstatement.
Why is he not making physiqueimprovements if he is eating
clean?
Simple Calories still exist.
You're eating too much.
Not all calories are createdequal and these are better
(23:32):
choices, but again, it ispossible to have too much.
If I was coaching this guy, I'dremind him again that he's
actually in a great place.
He's already handled quality,which in my world is step one.
He's controlled for that.
Next let's focus on quantity.
If he were to standardize hisnutritional intake or log it but
(23:54):
I like standardized nutritionbecause people hate logging but
if he were just to adhere to acaloric threshold within a few
weeks, honestly his goal wouldprobably happen.
We might tweak the macros, theamount of calories coming from
protein, fat and carbohydratesalong the way, but I really
would like to see adherence toquantity before we get into
(24:17):
dialing in macros, because if wedon't dial in the calories
first, same thing.
It doesn't matter what yourmacros are, because you're going
to be gaining weight becauseyou're eating too much.
(24:38):
So who cares what themacronutrient ratio is if you
haven't controlled for qualityand quantity first?
That's always been the way I goabout it and admittedly, you
could dial it all in right outof the gate.
This is what I used to do forpeople in my early 20s when I
didn't have a lot of experiencetraining real people.
You just throw the kitchen sinkat it right out of the gate.
What I saw in my early years wasthat actually very, very few
(24:59):
people can actually make all ofthose changes simultaneously and
keep them up for any period oftime.
I would say most people don'tget through a week.
You've got some people that canreally push it Easily.
Less than 25% of clients thatyou'll have might be able to
stick it out for like six weeks.
And then I would say thatalmost none of those behaviors
(25:20):
that you tried to coach them onwill become lasting changes.
They will view them as theseamendments that are, like you
know, break glass in case ofemergency.
That's what they'll do.
They will just binge and purgeand yo-yo.
If you introduce these thingsslowly instead, habit stack them
into getting there, they don'tburn out and then, when they're
(25:41):
done with the program, most ofthe behaviors actually stick and
become lasting changes.
So again, I say this all thetime, but this actually came
from First.
I used to try it the other way.
I would dial up everybody'snutrition, get all the macros,
get everything dialed in weekone, and had that approach been
successful, I might still dothat and coach it and preach and
(26:04):
do all that.
But again, I've just found thatthat is a great way to burn
people out really quick and givethem a bad taste on health and
fitness so that they neverreally connect and get into it
ever so.
Anyway, guys, the main point ofthis, though it's always a
benefit to switch to cleaneating.
I'm sorry my dude wasn'tgetting his physique results yet
(26:26):
.
Dial in the calories and youwill.
But yeah, I honestly think thisis an important one, because I
think too many people are stillobsessively focused on fat loss.
Even if you achieve that, rundown the second and third order
impacts of what you haveachieved.
It's actually not going to playout as well for your health as
(26:49):
people tend to think.
Let's even just go to somesuperficial aspects.
If you just want your face tolook decent talk to plastic
surgeons around LA you actuallywant to keep a little bit of fat
in there.
Your hormones Again.
There's a lot of reasons whereI know how we've all been told
to be skinny.
It really doesn't correlatewith great health.
(27:10):
Be skinny it really doesn'tcorrelate with great health,
great performance, greathormones.
I'm not sure what it's good for, quite frankly.
So anyway, with my very limitedspace in the fitness space, I
want to keep hammering home thatmessage let's focus on gaining
and maintaining lean body mass.
I ain't going to lie.
(27:30):
Y'all know I still cutperiodically, but seriously,
that represents I'm just beinghonest it's way less than 10% of
my training year.
I think it takes up way toomuch energy and attention in
people's minds.
But anyway, guys, that's it.
Certainly won't be the lasttime that we bring this one up,
(27:51):
but anyway, anyway, this one I'mexcited to get into.
There are more and more storiesof people losing muscle mass on
Ozempic and I was recently toldthat I could become a
trillionaire if I solved this.
So fun part is, I really cansolve this one and it's actually
only going to take a fewminutes.
So when this show wraps up,let's see if the money comes
(28:15):
pouring in, because I waspromised a trillion dollars and
yeah, sadly, this one actuallyisn't even going to take as long
as the last one.
But you know, quick review howdoes Ozempic actually work?
I mentioned this because we'vehad some drugs in the past that
have done, you know, stimulatedmetabolism or done things to
(28:35):
your GI tract.
So I just want to establishthat Ozempic and drugs like it
are basically trying to mimicthe hormone that makes you feel
full.
It's functioning essentially asan appetite suppressant and
that is how these drugs areaiding in weight loss.
So, obviously, depending onI've been around to see some of
(29:00):
this stuff shift.
But amphetamines were popularfrom the 1940s to the 1970s.
It's kind of like thepredominant thing.
They're actually still in usetoday.
Those were obviously stimulantsthat suppress the appetite.
Short run they led to someweight loss.
Obviously, long run, addiction,cardiovascular issues,
psychological problems yeah,short run you can get some
(29:25):
weight loss with amphetamines.
Long run, I don't know ifyou're going to like it.
Run, I don't know if you'regoing to like it.
But no, I just bring it upbecause so this was one that
obviously stimulated yourmetabolism in certain ways.
If you guys remember Fen-Phenfrom the 90s, this one was
increasing your serotonin in thebrain, also leading to a
(29:46):
decreased appetite.
This one was withdrawn from themarket over heart valve issues.
This one was withdrawn from themarket over heart valve issues.
And then, actually, just whilewe're there, I want to actually
keep it clear that today we aretalking about muscle loss.
I don't want to overkick ourcoverage on this issue.
There might be other aspects ofOzempic that can reveal
(30:08):
themselves down the line.
At this juncture, when we'rehaving this discussion, we don't
have that information.
Those studies haven't been done.
So I am not saying that, orlet's just be about what I am
saying, not what I'm not saying.
We are talking about Ozempic'srole in muscle loss.
That's it.
(30:28):
That's the scope of theconversation today.
So, yeah, let's just make surethat we are not doing too much,
as I would say.
But yeah, so again, I am seeinga lot of articles popping up.
One.
I jotted down the title we gotthe races on to stop Ozempic
muscle loss.
(30:48):
That's where I come in.
Obviously, countless podcasts.
Everybody's trying to ride theSEO wave right now.
Anyway, I've been promising Ican solve it.
Let's take a look at it.
Obviously, we just got done witha segment talking about muscle
loss.
(31:08):
You know what I think?
I think it's a big deal.
You hear me talk about it allthe time and so again, no
challenge coming.
Your healthy muscle is very,very, very, very, very important
.
The less of it you have, theless efficient you are, the
harder all of your other fitnessgoals.
Get Ozumpic.
And none of these companies arepaying me.
(31:29):
Eli Lilly, by the way, but yeah, just shout him out.
Hey, if you guys want, maybethis is beneficial, I don't know
Pay me.
But no inconvenient truth inthis stuff, guys, and I'm not
shilling for Ozempic they don'tpay me anything.
Every time you lose weight, youlose muscle, fyi.
That's why I literally just gotdone talking about that
(31:51):
obsessive focus on fat reductionso many times backfires and
blows up in people's faces andsets them down a course of worse
and worse health.
Um, we have talked at lengthmany times about how, um to not
reduce your muscle, or so how tohow to minimize your muscle
(32:12):
loss.
When dieting Short version, yougot to keep your protein up.
You got to strength trainthrough the fat loss cycle, or
it's going to be weight loss,not fat loss, which is not as
cool as it sounds.
You want fat loss, not weightloss.
So again, whether using Ozempicor not, if you are taking in
(32:33):
less energy than you need,that's what you need to do to
lose weight.
If you are doing that, there isa great chance that you will
also lose some muscle.
It is absolutely unavoidable.
There is no diet where youdon't lose fat and muscle.
The question becomes how muchmuscle will you lose?
(32:54):
So the relevant question then,as it comes into Ozempic, would
actually be not will you losemuscle using Ozempic?
The answer, you should alreadyknow, will obviously be yes.
That's clear.
You should know that before weeven start.
The part you want to learnabout is is there going to be
(33:15):
any difference or will you losemore muscle using Ozempic than
using other approaches?
That is the question thatpeople need to be asking, and
nobody has yet.
So here we are.
We finally got there.
Will you lose more muscle ifyou use Ozempic than if you
don't?
(33:35):
Um, so, on average, uh, whenpeople are not using Ozempic uh,
typical weight loss programyou're probably losing between
20 and 50% of your weight frommuscle mass.
So we have a couple of studieson Manjaro and Zebound.
I don't even know that none ofmy clients are on that, but
(33:56):
anyway, those two showed about a25%.
25% of weight loss came frommuscle.
There was a study done onOzempic showing about 40% of
weight loss coming from muscle.
So quick refresh On average,when people are losing weight on
their own or just dieting, youexpect between 20 and 50% of
(34:19):
weight loss to come from muscle.
The studies that we have onthis current batch of weight
loss drugs range from 25% to 40%.
So these are actually in therange of normal muscle loss.
You guys know I love shootingdown, I love to be a contrarian
(34:39):
and I love to shoot somethingdown.
So if I could I would take theshot, but there's actually
nothing to see here.
Again, I'm pretty consistent inmy concern about worrying about
muscle loss through other meansof diet and I would all just
sort of point out few otherpeople have that track record.
So I just think it's meaningfulthat I am not concerned about
(35:02):
muscle loss from Ozempic andother people who haven't been
speaking on this issue areno-transcript.
(35:28):
But no, there's just so manyfallacies that are playing in
and I'm not shilling for them.
If a new study comes outtalking about a risk, we're
going to run right into it.
I don't care, but just thethings people are mentioning now
are unsubstantiated and areactually kind of evidence of the
fact that they have some badideas about fat loss in general.
So, like one I hear a lot evenis like ozempic face, that's
(35:53):
called weight loss face.
Every time you lose weightyou're going to lose fat from
your face or you're going tolose fat from everywhere and you
don't actually get to pickwhere.
That gets down to your genetics.
So you've probably heard allthe stories.
But some women get upset aboutwhich fat stores leave first.
Some guys get upset about whicharea likes to retain it last.
(36:13):
Just keep in mind when you loseweight, you're going to lose it
from everywhere.
You don't get to point to yourleast favorite spot and lose the
fat from that spot.
Whether you rub creams andjellies, do your mood boards.
People have tried to come upwith ways to spot, reduce and
(36:35):
target.
None of it works Literally noneof it.
All you really can do is justbe aware and try to maintain
your muscle mass whenever youare losing weight.
That's going to be your bestgeneral practice.
But beyond that you don't getto pick.
Ladies, sorry, Sometimes itcomes out of the bust or the
rear Guys, sometimes the lovehandles are the last thing to
(36:57):
drop.
You're lean everywhere else andyou still have that little back
fat thing that you hate.
That's genes.
That's not a curse, it's notanybody plotting against you,
and there is nothing you can doto lose that particular spot
that you don't like you know,reframe it, think about it a
little differently, and I thinkit generally gets better.
But if you keep trying to, youknow, do these things that
(37:24):
frankly don't work.
It's just going to make youmore frustrated and feel lost.
Best practice I don't carewhether you're on Ozempic or not
, this is going to apply toeverybody.
You should be strength trainingand fueling adequate protein
throughout your fat loss cycle.
Said it already if you don't dothat, it's going to be a weight
loss cycle, and who cares?
You probably might have beenbetter off without doing it,
(37:46):
because you might be back toneeding it in short order Again.
Last thing, and then we'll justkind of move on because there
really isn't much else to sayhere.
If there are issues withOzempic that pop, we will talk
about it.
But right now, as people aretalking about again the muscle
loss things like that, Iactually think pretty clearly
(38:07):
there is nothing to see here.
I'm not going to get mytrillion dollars because there's
nothing to solve.
Quite frankly, every time youlose weight, you lose muscle, on
average, 20% to 50%.
Even without Ozempic, the newweight loss drugs, people don't
appear to be losing muscle atfaster rates.
So yeah, with regard to theissue of muscle loss and weight
(38:32):
loss drugs, I'm pretty confidentin saying nothing to see here.
I don't think that this wouldbe an issue if people had some
better ideas about how youactually go achieve fat loss
versus weight loss, and I hope Icovered that difference well
enough here.
Anyway, guys, last one of theday, so yeah, in my direct
(38:55):
messages last week, I got one anInstagram reel about PFAs in
sparkling water recently, andyou know, admittedly, because I
saw the dates on all thearticles and all the studies I
was reading, this is not themost current story, so I'm a
little bit behind it here.
(39:15):
A lot of the stuff I'm going tobe quoting today was actually
coming out of some studies doneabout two and three years ago.
So, anyway, we're not breakingany ground here today, but I
missed this.
My client was dealing with it,so maybe we're not the only ones
, but yes, so, admittedly, guys,I really didn't know about this
one.
(39:35):
I had to look it up First place.
I started was literally adefinition, so per and
polyfluoroalkylized substances,pfas they're chemicals in
various industries that havebeen around since the 1940s.
They're known for resistinggrease, oil, water, heat,
commonly found in nonstickcookware, water-repelling
(39:56):
clothing, stain-resistantfabrics, food packaging and
because of their widespread useand persistence in the
environment, pfas have now beencalled forever chemicals.
There was a relatively recentstudy within the last couple of
weeks or so that they'reliterally finding them
everywhere, guys they're in yourtesticles, they're in basically
(40:20):
all over the entire planet.
So, yeah, these things are abig deal and, as our name
indicates, forever chemicals,they don't go anywhere.
I did want to be carefulinvestigating this because I
remember a few years back whenGMOs hit and the group of people
(40:41):
that I talked to that were theleast convinced by it were
actually scientists thescientists I spoke with about it
.
Their main contention was GMOwas too broad and that the
public discussion around it waspretty infantile and stupid and
meaningless, and I know thatthey were just actually
frustrated at least the onesthat I spoke to personally were
just frustrated with theinformation discourse a lot of
(41:02):
stuff that I bitch and moanabout here all the time that you
can't really have an adultconversation in the media about
these things because people havetoo many, you know, people have
too many incentives other thangetting the truth out, and I
don't even know if the appetitefor the subtlety of nuance is
out there.
Quite frankly, even if youoffer it, will people click it?
(41:23):
Will people read it?
Probably not, to be totallyhonest.
Um, so we can't just likebemoan they for indoctrinating
us.
No, most of us are lazy andthat's why we get what we get.
But anyway, not to getsidetracked.
But no, not all PFAs arecreated equal.
(41:44):
So I at least wanted to diveinto some of the context lest we
just start broadly labelingsomething.
There's a little bit morenuance there and admittedly, I
was ignorant coming in.
So what I found is that PFAs doencompass a wide variety of
chemicals.
A lot of them have verydifferent properties and
different levels of toxicities.
(42:05):
The health risks associatedwith PFAs are going to be
dependent on the duration andfrequency of the exposure.
They're not all equivalent.
Acute exposure to high levelsof PFAs is, of course, going to
be more immediately harmful,while if you were to exhibit
chronic low-level exposure overtime, you would have a different
set of long-term health risksassociated cancer, liver damage,
(42:28):
some pretty bad stuff, quitefrankly.
But a lot of factors are goingto influence how PFAs affect you
, factors like age, your currenthealth status Obviously,
somebody whose health status isnot good is going to be more
compromised.
Your genes can influence howthey affect you.
The most vulnerable populationsto PFAs are going to be, not
(42:53):
shockingly, but pregnant women,infants, individuals with
pre-existing health conditions.
These are all going to begroups that are more susceptible
to the effects of PFAs.
We're focused on water,sparkling water, specifically
sparkling water.
You know specifically, but whatI found was that the EPA has
(43:13):
set advisories on PFAs in waterat about 70 parts per trillion.
So now, when we look at thestudies that came out on
sparkling water, in fairness tothe sparkling water makers, they
were well below that threshold.
The highest one tested was TopoChico, at 9.76 parts per
(43:36):
trillion.
And then again, because I'm notnew to this story, actually
Topo Chico has already respondedto this story and reduced it
down to 3.9.
So even at that 3.9, that stillputs it higher than many other
ones that are on the market.
Polar and Bubbly are going toround out your three worst
(44:01):
sparkling waters.
As it pertains to PFAs, the onesthat tested better are going to
be Spindrift.
Spindrift was undetectable.
Lacroix and Perrier had tracelevels, but they rounded out the
top three.
And yeah, again, I'm new tothis.
So you know, don't take my wordas the final gospel.
But in my opinion, thedetection of any level of PFA, I
(44:24):
think, is a concern and thiskind of just gets to the fact
that they are persistent andaccumulate in the body.
So I think the drink makers aregoing to be well within their
rational and, frankly, legalobligations to say exactly what
I just said, that they are belowthe EPA thresholds.
That's true and I don't see anyissue there, any issue there.
(44:57):
But as an individual I don'tsee any upside to taking NPFAs.
And then, obviously, withsparkling water, there's just so
many easy substitutes to gointo.
And admittedly, guys, topoChico is actually one of my
favorite sparkling waters.
So yeah, I guess I'm justspeaking from the experience of
it really isn't that hard tosubstitute if you need to.
And yeah, I wouldn't say thatI'm like scared of a Topo Chico
(45:22):
with the you know level of PFAsthat are in there.
But you know, if I'm gonna buya 12 pack and I'm at the grocery
store, why wouldn't I grab aSpindrift in light of that
information?
But no, I guess too, justbefore I because I'm going to
say obviously what I'm about tosay I don't want to sort of
(45:46):
weigh in and get people scaredand unduly worried, which
actually I might intentionallydo anyway, but at least, hey,
let's not be scared andunintentionally over-worried
about our sparkling water.
To give us a little bit morecontext seafood is generally the
highest food that you'reprobably going to be sourcing
(46:08):
regularly, for PFAs sometimesexceeding 1000 parts per
trillion.
So remember, the worstsparkling water tested was like
9.76.
And it now runs more like 3.9.
It is not uncommon for seafoodto have, you know, levels as
(46:29):
high as 1000 parts per trillion,which is just massively higher
than any sparkling water thatyou're going to eat.
I'm really not trying to makefun of this in any way, but
seafood consumers tend to alwaysbelieve that they're getting
great seafood.
I've really never talked tosomebody who doesn't think
(46:50):
they're getting great food.
But then when I go read thestudies on the seafood industry
myself, mislabeling is a rampantproblem.
The people I talk to who eatfish they seem to believe that
they have always eaten whateverthey have ordered.
The studies I read make it seemlike that is highly unlikely.
(47:12):
Even if you are going to thebest restaurants in LA, new York
and San Francisco, you areactually constantly eating
mislabeled fish, obviously withthe PFAs.
I think why it's so relevant iswe were mentioning.
Pfas are everywhere, so they'reobviously in our water too.
Poor environmental conditionsare a huge problem in the
(47:33):
seafood industry.
Fish is good for you.
We're not knocking all that,I'm just trying to point out
this is literally one of themost difficult foods to source
and you're generally going tofind a lot of health-focused
people who will be doing itregularly.
Actually, real quick, I justwant to make so many people
around.
Los Angeles is almost like anoverheard in LA, but you know
(47:57):
I'm always talking nutritionwith folks, but whenever people
like tell me they're apescatarian, it always has this
like sound of moral superiorityin it.
So one of my favorite retortsto that that sound is, oh, I'm
pescatarian.
And I'll say, damn right, fuckfish.
And they're like what?
And I'm like that's right.
Oh, I'm pescatarian and I'llsay, damn right, fuck fish.
And they're like what?
And I'm like that's right,brother, I fucking hate them too
.
Kill them all.
And they're like, no, no,that's not what I'm like.
(48:19):
Say no more, fam, fuck fish,but no, anyway, I'm really not
trying to mean seafood, I'm justpointing out it's literally one
of the riskiest things thatpeople source regularly.
We can move on.
Processed foods are also goingto be a good source of PFAs.
Well, or a bad source, I guessthat we should say.
(48:39):
But looking about it, can rangefrom 10 to 300 parts per
trillion.
So, ironically, processed foodactually safer than most seafood
, meat and dairy.
You're typically going to becoming in under 50 parts per
trillion.
That's also some you know,significant, significantly more
risk than sparkling water.
Frame it there when we get intofoods that have similar risk to
(49:04):
sparkling water, you're talkingfruits and vegetables.
Most of these are going to becoming in around one to 10 parts
per trillion.
So now we are finally at thatsimilar risk threshold to
sparkling water.
So anyway, I know I might havejust scared everybody with that,
but I still maintain thatconsumers should be informed,
(49:25):
not unduly worried.
Nearly everything we consumehas PFAs in it, so you just kind
of have to be conscious whilenot worrying about it so much
that it makes it so you can'tact or make a choice.
I think it's obvious that weshould strive to reduce our
exposure to PFAs and since allof this started around our
(49:49):
sparkling water, to be totallyhonest, after doing the research
I did, I think sparkling watermight be one of the easiest
choices that you have in thatregard.
Obviously, we already mentionedit Topo, chico, slash Coke they
were the worst.
They've already been reactivebecause they don't want to lose
market share and even in lightof that fact, you and I already
(50:10):
know they have 3.9 parts pertrillion and we know what their
competitors are at.
So I actually think that'sprobably one of the easiest
choices that you can make.
It's incredibly easy tosubstitute brands.
Again, I came into thisrelatively uninformed.
I picked up, I learned a littlebit, but I'm actually leaving
(50:32):
this issue way less concernedabout my sparkling water and
more concerned about damn neareverything else.
We've only talked like the foodaspects of it.
But your cookware, obviouslythat's a big deal.
A lot of the nonstick pans.
You're going to be getting alot of PFAs from there.
Your clothes I went and lookedsome uh studies on different
(50:56):
brands.
So here you go, we'll do somequick grades.
Levi's and victoria's secretgot an a.
Not many pfas in their stuff.
Ralph loren, gap, americaneagle, calvin klein, tommy hill
figure they got a b.
Um abercrombie and fitch that Iused to work at in college.
They've've recently beenrediscovered, kind of a darling
of Wall Street and young people.
(51:17):
These days they get a C.
Nike came in with a D+ LOB.
North Face, timberland andCostco all got Ds, and Under
Armour, skechers, columbia, rei,wolverine, kohl's, nordstrom's,
macy's, walmart, penny's allgot an F.
So anyway, I do think one ofthe bigger ones is probably
(51:40):
going to be clothes.
There we go Levi's andVictoria's Secret you're good to
go, yeah, no, no.
So anyway, it actually got me alot less concerned about my
sparkling water, a lot moreconcerned about a lot of other
things.
When I was kind of getting tothe question of how do I reduce
my exposure to PFAs.
I think one of the mostimpactful um easiest ones is
(52:02):
going to be to replace yournonstick cookware with cast iron
, stainless steel, glass orceramic.
You're going to want to avoidmicrowaving foods in general.
Definitely don't warm up in thepackages that they came in.
Most foods that are designed tobe made in a microwave.
You're going to have a bunch ofit there.
Also going to want to avoidfast food, processed food, and
(52:24):
especially the packages thatthey come in.
When we get back to water, it'sa concern, but the parts
petroleum and water aresignificantly lower than all of
the other segments that we'retalking about.
That being said, it's easyenough to invest in water
filters.
Make sure you're reading upwhen you're when you're buying.
There are filters that can getthe PFAs out, um, but again,
(52:45):
that being said, I actuallythink water is probably one of
the easier ones to deal with, umwith, because of the
persistence and availability ofthese things.
I actually think it's othersegments where we're probably
getting our biggest exposures.
Like we always say, controllingfor quality and food this was
something that I think that Idid unintentionally.
(53:06):
That was allowing me to controlin some capacity to reduce,
because you just use lesspackaging and typically the
context that the food was grownin if you're shopping at farmers
markets in good places, isbetter on average than other
places.
So I still think it's a goodidea to control for quality.
That can see you out of a lotof these issues, not 100%, but
(53:28):
certainly most of it.
I guess, just with food,clothes, cook or all of it, we
kind of have to be conscious andmindful about what we're
sourcing, not just sparklingwater, which that you know.
I'm only saying it that waybecause it is kind of like that
fear tactic thing flying aroundsocial media.
So you know, by all meanssource your sparkling water
intelligently, but I would arguethat you should also be
(53:51):
sourcing everything elseintelligently, and sparkling
water might not be the mostmeaningful segment in your diet
to be focusing on.
But anyway, long-winded here.
So I actually answered thequestion in real life.
I just told my client that thestudy was real.
Topo Chico was the worst.
Unfortunately, that's herfavorite too, which actually
quick, we've been doing.
(54:12):
Ranch water I don't even drink,so maybe already everybody knows
this.
But if I drink, one of myfavorite drinks was a Topo Chico
and a little bit of tequila.
You know we're not we'll dothis in a separate topic one day
because I'm wrapping up butclear liquors, those are going
to be your friend Top shelfagave.
(54:33):
The more it's distilled, theworse or the less likely you are
to have a hangover.
So if Simon drinks, I couldclear liquor, clear top shelf
liquor, and I was usually goingto chase it or cut it with some
water so I don't feel as bad inthe morning.
But yeah, I don't know, I'malready thinking about that.
I could maybe just swap thatout for like a, I don't know,
like a grapefruit spindrift, dolike a Paloma inspired something
or other, but no, it's a bummer.
(54:53):
I really do like Topo Chico.
But actually here, demonstrablemoment.
I just found out that a productthat I was using is not the
best there is.
I'm not trying to change thestudies that I read, I'm just
kind of taking my knocks.
You know, take this one on thechin and move on.
I'm not going to engage in alot of techniques that I know
(55:15):
how to do to rationalize thechoice that I made a while ago.
So anyway, this, I think, ishow you also deal with new
information when something youlike, if you find out that maybe
it's not so good.
You know, here's how you handleit Anyway.
So yeah, my client typicallydoes buy um.
There's almost always liketopos lacroix's spindrifts in
(55:37):
the little party fridge, and so,on my way out she handed me a
lacroix and um.
You know, tasted great and youknow, by the way, lacroix first
one's free um.
We can make a thing of this.
If you guys give me a call,I'll talk up the brand whenever
you want.
But um, no, anyway, I thoughtthere's actually a relatively
easy one.
I was just telling her you knowmore Spindrift, more LaCroix.
(55:59):
You know, maybe we run down theTopo Chico for now, but hey,
fingers crossed, coca-cola willkeep moving them.
You know closer to where theircompetitors are at so I can get
back into my glass bottles.
But anyway, guys, we are up ontime.
I just want to quickly sum itall up.
(56:19):
But don't worry too much aboutyour sparkling water choice.
There are definitely betteroptions than some, but exposure
to PFAs is going to besignificantly greater in almost
every area of your life.
I think you will do well toavoid those exposures.
There's no upside.
But sparkling water is not themost meaningful or dangerous
(56:40):
choice that you're making, noteven close the talk that I'm
hearing right now about muscleloss from weight loss drugs
trendy and exaggerated.
There may be other issues withthese drugs.
Muscle loss isn't one of them.
Muscle loss is always an issuewhen you are losing weight.
Just because I said that,that's not a green light or an
(57:03):
endorsement of these drugs.
Fat loss 100% can be achievedwithout these drugs, but I just
don't think that the currentcycle talking about muscle loss
from Ozempic.
I don't think that's an issue.
You always lose muscle when youlose weight.
It's always an issue withcaloric deficits.
(57:24):
So nothing to see there as faras I'm concerned.
Clean eating obviously does notnegate calories.
Eating clean does not upendthermodynamics.
A calorie is still a calorie.
Energy cannot be lost orcreated.
(57:45):
So, yeah, even clean eatingcannot upend thermodynamics.
If you've improved your foodquality and you're not seeing
your physique improve, you'restill eating too much.
Just control for quantity andyou'll be on track very, very
quickly, not a big problem.
Can feel frustrating, but thatone's really pretty easy.
(58:07):
And then, last but not least I'mdefinitely saying this one for
me again make sure, guys, thatyou're taking time for the
little thing.
Stay present, be available tothose who count on you.
Anytime you open yourself up tothat.
There's a great chance.
That actually is the mostimportant thing that you did all
day, no matter what you thoughtyou were going to get done.
So anyway, guys, with that, asalways, I appreciate you hanging
(58:30):
out with me, spending your time.
Yeah, make sure to share thisshow.
If there's anything in herethat helped you guys out, pass
it on to someone else.
Same commitment, guys.
I'm going to keep trying tolearn and share what I'm getting
on my ride with you guys.
Remember, mind and muscle areinseparably intertwined.
There are no gains withoutbrains.
(58:52):
Keep lifting and learning.
You know what I'll do.
Welcome to the Mind Muscle Podcast.
Here's your host, simon DeVere,and welcome back to Mind Muscle
, the place where we study thehistory, science and philosophy
behind everything in health andfitness.
(00:25):
Today, I am Simon DeVere andthere's nothing new, except all
that has been forgotten.
All right, you know how it goes.
Before we dive into it, I wantto let you know what we're going
to talk about today.
So, yeah, guys, on the docketfor today's episode, I want to
(00:46):
talk about when your body isn'tresponding to clean eating.
Sorry, I'm laughing and there'snothing funny, because this
came from a comment that Ioverheard out there in the wild,
if you will.
So anyway, we'll get to thehumor.
I realized there was nothingfunny even though I was laughing
(01:07):
.
Yeah, bad poker player show inmy hand.
I also want to talk about astory that I'm seeing more and
more, and something that I'mseeing pop in conversations with
this idea of muscle loss whileusing Ozempic.
Let's take a look at that.
And again, I'm seeing a lot ofstories having a lot of
(01:28):
conversations about this withoutshowing our hand.
Yet again, might be a littlebit different.
The truth might be differentthan what is currently being
conveyed.
And then, last one, that thiswas kind of a deep dive that one
of my own clients got me into,but you guys have maybe seen the
(01:49):
same thing floating around.
There was a recent study aboutPFAs, let's try to say it,
polyfluoroalkali substances.
We're going to call them PFAsfor the rest of the show.
But yeah, there was a studyabout PFAs in sparkling water.
(02:12):
I'm a sparkling water drinker,so are some of my clients, so I
had to run this down for thebenefit of, well, quite frankly,
myself, but a lot of otherfolks too.
So I just kind of wanted todive into a study that you might
or might not have seen that ismaking the rounds right now
about, yeah, these foreverplastics that might be in
(02:33):
sparkling waters.
But anyway, guys, before I diveinto the stuff I have prepped,
I just kind of wanted toactually come clean on one from
the weekend.
I was not the best version ofmyself and, yeah, normally on
Sunday, sunday is my biggesttraining day.
It's the only day of the weekwhere I don't have a schedule
(02:56):
that I need to adhere to.
So I really look forward to itand I like to wake up, drink my
coffee and take as long as Ineed to do my workout.
It is the only day in the weekwhere time restrictions are not
the main driver of what I'mdoing.
(03:18):
I get real excited andprotective of my Sunday morning.
It's actually my daughter'sbirthday at the end of the month
and one of her presents showedup a little bit early.
So anyway, I had this big box.
So the surprise was dead.
My daughter was getting a gianttrampoline for her birthday and
(03:39):
, yeah, she could see it.
So she had.
She'd been asking me to put ittogether and clearly I hadn't.
But yeah, when I woke up it wasabout like 530 on Sunday and I
my daughter always comes out inthe middle of my workout and I
was just thinking to myself like, oh, how cool would it be if,
when she comes out to see methis morning, if there's a big
(04:00):
giant trampoline set up backhere.
So, anyway, aborted my normalSunday mission.
I normally would have beenworking out.
Instead, I spent the morningassembling my daughter's
trampoline and, yeah, it was allgood, except she comes out,
like I anticipated.
And then eventually it kind ofwound up turning into like a
(04:22):
small community workout, andthen it still was Sunday.
So I tried to get my beautifulSunday workout done, but there
was a lot of people over at thatpoint, a lot of kids jumping
around, and it was literallyalmost comical because I think
the only time people wanted totalk to me was when I was
(04:44):
deadlifting.
So it was like people wouldwait until I had the bar near my
lockout and just ask me rightthen in that moment.
So, anyway, I didn't vocalizethis during the workout.
I did almost immediately,privately to a friend.
Yeah, in a way, this is kind ofwhat kills me on group workouts
(05:05):
why I'm so much of a soloartist is you bring so many
people around and it just.
I had a really bad workout,quite frankly.
Um, I wasn't good at any of mylifts.
It took way longer than itnormally should have, and and I
didn't do good at anything.
So, anyway, come inside pissedoff about the workout, and then
(05:25):
I just quietly rant about it toa friend over text and I
actually had a few hours to thensit there and think about it
and I still was, admittedly,pissed about the workout.
It will obviously be anotherweek until I have a chance to
atone for that, but no, asactually time went on, I did
(05:47):
calm down a little bit and I wasjust reminding myself like it's
okay to not have the perfectworkout this Sunday and,
admittedly, as you can tell, itreally did bother me.
It actually pissed me off.
I'm not exaggerating and so onething that I've actually found
that I can use that anger that Ifeel for is to motivate for the
(06:11):
next workout.
So, younger version of me, Ithink, would have made time
later that day to go back andmake amends for it literally
that day.
But, as I complain, I reallydon't have loads of time
available.
So, like, doubling up on Sunday, the one day I don't have time
restrictions, also didn't seemlike a great plan.
(06:31):
So, um, no, as weird as thissounds, I just used my anger.
I wasn't going to lie and tryto tell myself I'm not angry or
this is okay, and bottle it upand everything's no, I'm
actually just going to let itburn and I'm going to use it in
the very next workout.
Um, so that that that'ssomething that I was able to
(06:51):
kind of connect to later, butthat I do more and more these
days is, if something reallydoes bother me, um, just throw
it on the fire, use it as fuelfor the next one.
I didn't really need to atonefor it that day and it was funny
.
And again, I'm not going to lieto you guys and say that I
don't have emotions and I don'tget irrational.
(07:12):
I am a human being.
I do this shit all the time and, yeah, maybe later I think
differently on it.
But no, I'm not going to.
I need to respect my ownemotions as much as I respect
other people's emotions, quitefrankly.
So it's entirely okay for me toget angry because I don't like
(07:32):
the way my workout wentsomething productive, rather
than let it kind of just consumeme and piss me off all day and
make me resent the people thatcame over and ruined my workout.
(07:53):
It took me a minute to getthere, but before the day was
out actually before the morningwas out I had actually kind of
recalibrated and decided no,this was good.
In my own workout logs, I keepseeing this note about some
nagging joint injuries andthings.
So, yeah, even though I wantedto have a really, really good
(08:14):
workout that day, I don't thinkit's just coping or
rationalizing to point out thatactually not going all out also
had some benefits.
Other thing I'll mention is sonot only being honest, using my
anger to motivate the nextsession, the other thing I
focused on throughout the daywas just being healthy, on all
the other little things that areoutside of my workout.
(08:34):
Admittedly, something I've kindof caught onto myself is I lean
a lot on movement, exercise,movement exercise and just going
hard all the time, and so Iactually know that if I just eat
like I tell my clients to, thatI don't need to train as hard
as I normally do when I'm alwaysmoving.
(08:55):
It covers a lot of the mistakesthat I'm making on the
nutrition side.
And so, yeah, on even a Sunday,which I'm anticipating a really
great workout if it doesn'tconnect for whatever reason,
more and more I'm just remindingmyself to one use that anger
and motivation that you willfeel to motivate the next
(09:19):
workout, and then, while you'resitting there stewing about what
you should do in the nextworkout, and then, while you're
sitting there stewing about whatyou should do in the next
workout, eat like an adult, doall the things that you tell
everybody else to do all thetime, and you'll actually be in
a great spot for the nextworkout.
So, anyway, yeah, just wanted tocome clean.
I actually wasn't proud of that.
I really, really do try to staypresent, particularly as it
(09:49):
pertains to my family and thatlife outside of the gym.
And, anyway, glad that I onlyshared this with a friend
privately and that I didn'tmention it to anybody who was
there, because, yeah, I probablywould have regretted it within
a few minutes.
And, yeah, the thing that wasbothering me, even though it was
bothering me for real and Ireally was angry about it, it's
(10:10):
fine and I can use it to keepmyself on track.
So, anyway, just there.
I'm not perfect, stillstruggling, trying to figure out
work-life balance, whatever thehell that is.
But yeah, anyway, just samething for you guys.
Life gets in the way of ourbest laid plans.
Be flexible, take it in stride,roll with the punches.
(10:33):
I'm trying to be better andbetter at that.
I'm a little bit type A.
I like to control, I like toprogram.
So this is something that I'mprobably saying out loud to help
myself out more than you guys.
So, anyway, guys, the stuffthat I actually got saying out
loud to help myself out morethan you guys.
So, anyway, guys, the stuffthat I actually got prepped to
talk about today.
(10:57):
So a long time ago, in a blogthat a lot of Angelenos read,
called the LAist, they used tohave this segment that was
called Overheard in LA and theywould just kind of people would
send in just things that theyhad kind of heard people say,
that were just very emblematicof this, the city that I live in
.
And you know, admittedly, I dofeel like about Los Angeles as I
(11:17):
do about members of my family.
If I want to talk shit aboutLos Angeles or my friends that
live here, do fair game, justlike if I'm talking about
someone in my family.
But if you are from outside thefamily and you try bad mouthing
, um, for a lot of reasons I'mnot into it.
One, all the stuff that peoplenot from here say isn't relevant
(11:39):
because they don't really knowwhat they're talking about.
It's based on, like stereotypesand things.
And then same thing, just likewhen someone not in your family
tries talking about your family,I just want to slap them.
And so, yeah, we get a lot ofLA hate.
But no, I would rather us dishit out ourselves than hear it
from people that are makingtheir impressions of this city
(12:00):
on their own poor screen habits.
So, yeah, usually whatevercritique they have of Los
Angeles should actually be moredirected at their own attention
span.
But anyway, fair game for meSome of the fun ones, just to
run down kind of the flavor ofwhat will be like an acceptable
one.
(12:21):
Oh, I love this one.
There should be a word for thatmoment when you see someone in
Los Angeles and you're not sureif you met them when you were
drunk, worked with them orrecognize them from a minor TV
role.
That one was a few years back,I don't remember exactly, but
that one really tracks for me.
My wife does commercial casting.
I've looked over literallythousands of actors in my over a
(12:43):
decade living here now andweird for me is that I actually
think the non-famous actors thatI've looked at their faces in
grotesque detail on a castinglink are actually the famous
ones.
And then I think actual famouspeople are just people that I
know from around the way.
So ironically, that's my wholeflow around the city.
(13:05):
I am very blunt and direct withthe actual stars and I am very
cautious and respectful of thepeople that I've seen on my
commercial casting tape.
Um, yeah, anyway, just weird,weird aspect of living here I
think all the B and D listactors are the big deal, the A
listers.
I just assume that I alreadyknow them.
(13:33):
Actually, another funny one wasa canvasser says to this woman
hey, you look like a good person.
And she says, no, it's Botox,even like our weather fair game,
bring a jacket.
It's 10 below outside.
No, it's not 10 below 70, um,but anyway, one of my clients
actually called me out for oneof these recently.
Um, I was just telling him anawesome self-aggrandizing story
(13:56):
about how I was going to go intothe navy seals if I hadn't been
cast on that show one tree hill.
Um, true, by the way, but I'mnot so self-obsessed that I
don't get the comedy in somebodysaying that out loud.
But yeah, I really was gettingrecruited by the Seals when I
wound up getting cast on thatshow, one Tree Hill.
(14:18):
So I did abandon that dream andhonestly not bragging, because
that one actually still eats atme.
I genuinely you know people havethat that the one that got away
in other aspects in their life,that's the one for me.
I will still always wonder if Icould have made it into the
(14:38):
seals, and there's literallynothing anybody can say that
will make me feel any kind ofway about it.
There's only one thing thatwould make me feel any kind of
way about it, and that would betaking the test and passing it.
So, yeah, I still do somethings and I've talked to some
folks.
But that for me is the one thatI probably won't.
(15:01):
Maybe I don't know, maybe I'lllet it go.
But yeah, I would have likedthat challenge and that test.
Obviously I'm cocky enough tothink I would have made it, but
I really would have liked tohave been pushed and seen how
that played out.
But yeah, no, going back intime, that one's done.
But anyway, the one I heard.
I'm at a relatively famousworkout destination on the west
(15:22):
side of Los Angeles.
We're at the Santa Monicastairs.
Two gentlemen walk past.
One says to the other my bodyjust isn't responding to clean
eating.
You know, this to me justseemed like a very LA
conversation.
And his buddy was a good friend.
He offered absolutely nopushback on what the guy said,
(15:47):
he just nodded, agreed, or, youknow, as friends say, he just he
engaged in polite conversation.
Um, so I w I was laughing and Iactually did flag it to my
client right then.
And there I was like wow, thereare, you know, just ceaseless
attempts to overthrowthermodynamics.
Um, nutrition is a space peoplelike to do it the most, and all
(16:10):
attempts so far have failed.
Um, I'm not gonna lie, my guydidn't quite get what I was
talking about, and then Iflagged the comment and pointed
out that people just want a wayout of calories in, calories out
.
It's not a theory of everything, but there are just so many
ways that people try to nullifythat.
Oh, if you have this calorie,it doesn't count.
(16:31):
Or if you plug your leftnostril while you stand on this
foot, it's negative calories.
Or don't eat this single foodgroup.
But it is actually funny to mehow often in nutrition people
try to overturn the idea thatenergy is energy and that it
cannot be lost or destroyed orcreated out of nowhere.
(16:58):
But yeah, if I was a nice personinstead of just yet another
self-obsessed modern personusing every single interaction
in his life for content in hopesof monetizing all of the
mundane minutiae of my life, Imight have helped the guy, but I
didn't.
I'm a podcaster and a modernperson, so I'm just going to try
(17:21):
to monetize every aspect of mypersonality and experience,
because that's what we're toldto do these days.
But yeah, so anyway, if I wasthis guy's trainer, I would have
reminded him that, obviously,just improving the quality of
your food does not necessarilyresult in weight loss.
You must have a caloric deficitfor that to happen.
(17:44):
Devil's advocate, in a senseit's entirely possible to be in
a caloric deficit with terriblefood.
That's the reductio ad absurdum.
Let's take the opposite end toits farthest logical extent and
you could literally eat nothingbut Peeps and lose weight if you
controlled the calories.
Peeps, you remember those comearound Easter time.
(18:04):
It's just those littlemarshmallows.
There's literally nothing inthere but sugar and despite what
you have heard about carbs andsugars, toxicity and all of
these other things, if you ateless than your daily caloric
expenditure in nothing but peeps, you 100% would lose weight.
Your blood work would beterrible.
(18:25):
There would be so many otheraspects of your health that
would be an absolute shambles.
But for everybody who worshipsat the temple of stepping on the
scale and seeing a lower number, it is entirely possible to
achieve eating nothing butterrible foods.
The thing I'm even why I'm doingthis reductive Adam's is not to
(18:47):
justify eating terrible diets.
I'm just trying to point outthat losing weight is indicative
of calories, your energybalance and nothing else.
It doesn't indicate your moralor ethical abilities.
You can be very unhealthy, eatcrappy food all the time, be at
(19:10):
an acceptable weight or evenlose weight.
On the flip side, you could eata whole food diet full of great
, healthy foods and be gainingweight constantly if you were
eating too much food.
Calories in, calories out is nota singular theory by any
(19:30):
stretch, but again, none ofthese other truths that we bring
in overturn it.
And if you are talking aboutweight loss, you are talking
about energy balance.
Here's the flip side, because I, you know, talk some shit about
myself, talk some shit aboutthis guy.
But here's the thing is thatactually, this guy is actually
(19:53):
in a pretty decent place.
Most likely, his body is notactually rejecting clean eating,
he's just eating too much.
I would be almost certain thathis health has improved, but if
he's not happy with how his bodyis looking and feeling
frustrated with regard to that,all he has to do is just take
(20:13):
the portions down just a littlebit and keep the same quality
foods, and then I think hishealth and his physique goals
would potentially be addressed.
But no, what this reminded meof, and why I wanted to bring up
, wasn't to throw myself underthe bus for being a shameless
podcaster and to throw this guyunder the bus for having friends
that don't challenge him tochange any behaviors.
(20:37):
I think that this is a very,very common problem.
We've been talking about it alot lately, but what I consider
scale obsession, singular focuson weight, has people constantly
rejecting a lot more meaningfulmeasures of health.
And again, this is kind of mysoapbox that I'm going to jump
(20:58):
on every day now.
But if people over 35 were asobsessed with maintaining or,
dare I say, even gaining muscle,go ahead, cancel me, even
though that's not a real thing.
Just cancel me because I saidgain weight, I'm insane.
Nobody right, no one in thefitness space says that.
But no, if people would get asobsessed with maintaining and
(21:21):
yeah, I said it or even gainingmuscle, the worst possible
outcome according to so manypeople, so many of our health
issues would be addressed thatobsessive focus on fat reduction
can never achieve.
Muscle improves metabolism.
Fats are needed for a healthyendocrine system.
That's your hormones, andhormones are the single most
(21:42):
important factor in how you look.
A lot of other things play in.
That one is the most importantis the most important.
It is much easier to maintain aphysique when you focus on
maintaining or gaining musclethan if your only move is to
reduce fat.
The second and third orderimpacts of maintaining or
(22:04):
gaining muscle are fantastic andreinforce your goals.
The second and third orderimpacts of reducing fat even
though we do need to do it fromtime to time, none of them
actually lead you towards yourgoal.
The second and third orderimpacts are for your metabolism
to.
You're slowing at the end of afat loss program, so you're
(22:25):
probably going to rebound.
In my world, where we're notscared to put on muscle,
sometimes you'll actually do asix-week mini cut with the
intent of predisposing your bodyto gain weight, so when you hit
the next mass cycle youactually gain more.
So again, second and thirdorder impacts of most weight
loss programs are actually goingto be to add more weight in the
(22:48):
future.
Again, people like me use minicuts to actually prime our body
for growth.
We don't do those little minicuts to get lean.
You do that in the middle of abulk to keep the working.
Ironically, the mini cut that Ijust described for bodybuilders
looks a lot like the fat lossdiet for non-bodybuilders that
(23:09):
wind up yo-yoing.
So anyway, I don't want to veertoo far off of the stranger's
question that I didn't help himwith.
But back to the initialstatement.
Why is he not making physiqueimprovements if he is eating
clean?
Simple Calories still exist.
You're eating too much.
Not all calories are createdequal and these are better
(23:32):
choices, but again, it ispossible to have too much.
If I was coaching this guy, I'dremind him again that he's
actually in a great place.
He's already handled quality,which in my world is step one.
He's controlled for that.
Next let's focus on quantity.
If he were to standardize hisnutritional intake or log it but
(23:54):
I like standardized nutritionbecause people hate logging but
if he were just to adhere to acaloric threshold within a few
weeks, honestly his goal wouldprobably happen.
We might tweak the macros, theamount of calories coming from
protein, fat and carbohydratesalong the way, but I really
would like to see adherence toquantity before we get into
(24:17):
dialing in macros, because if wedon't dial in the calories
first, same thing.
It doesn't matter what yourmacros are, because you're going
to be gaining weight becauseyou're eating too much.
(24:38):
So who cares what themacronutrient ratio is if you
haven't controlled for qualityand quantity first?
That's always been the way I goabout it and admittedly, you
could dial it all in right outof the gate.
This is what I used to do forpeople in my early 20s when I
didn't have a lot of experiencetraining real people.
You just throw the kitchen sinkat it right out of the gate.
What I saw in my early years wasthat actually very, very few
(24:59):
people can actually make all ofthose changes simultaneously and
keep them up for any period oftime.
I would say most people don'tget through a week.
You've got some people that canreally push it Easily.
Less than 25% of clients thatyou'll have might be able to
stick it out for like six weeks.
And then I would say thatalmost none of those behaviors
(25:20):
that you tried to coach them onwill become lasting changes.
They will view them as theseamendments that are, like you
know, break glass in case ofemergency.
That's what they'll do.
They will just binge and purgeand yo-yo.
If you introduce these thingsslowly instead, habit stack them
into getting there, they don'tburn out and then, when they're
(25:41):
done with the program, most ofthe behaviors actually stick and
become lasting changes.
So again, I say this all thetime, but this actually came
from First.
I used to try it the other way.
I would dial up everybody'snutrition, get all the macros,
get everything dialed in weekone, and had that approach been
successful, I might still dothat and coach it and preach and
(26:04):
do all that.
But again, I've just found thatthat is a great way to burn
people out really quick and givethem a bad taste on health and
fitness so that they neverreally connect and get into it
ever so.
Anyway, guys, the main point ofthis, though it's always a
benefit to switch to cleaneating.
I'm sorry my dude wasn'tgetting his physique results yet
(26:26):
.
Dial in the calories and youwill.
But yeah, I honestly think thisis an important one, because I
think too many people are stillobsessively focused on fat loss.
Even if you achieve that, rundown the second and third order
impacts of what you haveachieved.
It's actually not going to playout as well for your health as
(26:49):
people tend to think.
Let's even just go to somesuperficial aspects.
If you just want your face tolook decent talk to plastic
surgeons around LA you actuallywant to keep a little bit of fat
in there.
Your hormones Again.
There's a lot of reasons whereI know how we've all been told
to be skinny.
It really doesn't correlatewith great health.
(27:10):
Be skinny it really doesn'tcorrelate with great health,
great performance, greathormones.
I'm not sure what it's good for, quite frankly.
So anyway, with my very limitedspace in the fitness space, I
want to keep hammering home thatmessage let's focus on gaining
and maintaining lean body mass.
I ain't going to lie.
(27:30):
Y'all know I still cutperiodically, but seriously,
that represents I'm just beinghonest it's way less than 10% of
my training year.
I think it takes up way toomuch energy and attention in
people's minds.
But anyway, guys, that's it.
Certainly won't be the lasttime that we bring this one up,
(27:51):
but anyway, anyway, this one I'mexcited to get into.
There are more and more storiesof people losing muscle mass on
Ozempic and I was recently toldthat I could become a
trillionaire if I solved this.
So fun part is, I really cansolve this one and it's actually
only going to take a fewminutes.
So when this show wraps up,let's see if the money comes
(28:15):
pouring in, because I waspromised a trillion dollars and
yeah, sadly, this one actuallyisn't even going to take as long
as the last one.
But you know, quick review howdoes Ozempic actually work?
I mentioned this because we'vehad some drugs in the past that
have done, you know, stimulatedmetabolism or done things to
(28:35):
your GI tract.
So I just want to establishthat Ozempic and drugs like it
are basically trying to mimicthe hormone that makes you feel
full.
It's functioning essentially asan appetite suppressant and
that is how these drugs areaiding in weight loss.
So, obviously, depending onI've been around to see some of
(29:00):
this stuff shift.
But amphetamines were popularfrom the 1940s to the 1970s.
It's kind of like thepredominant thing.
They're actually still in usetoday.
Those were obviously stimulantsthat suppress the appetite.
Short run they led to someweight loss.
Obviously, long run, addiction,cardiovascular issues,
psychological problems yeah,short run you can get some
(29:25):
weight loss with amphetamines.
Long run, I don't know ifyou're going to like it.
Run, I don't know if you'regoing to like it.
But no, I just bring it upbecause so this was one that
obviously stimulated yourmetabolism in certain ways.
If you guys remember Fen-Phenfrom the 90s, this one was
increasing your serotonin in thebrain, also leading to a
(29:46):
decreased appetite.
This one was withdrawn from themarket over heart valve issues.
This one was withdrawn from themarket over heart valve issues.
And then, actually, just whilewe're there, I want to actually
keep it clear that today we aretalking about muscle loss.
I don't want to overkick ourcoverage on this issue.
There might be other aspects ofOzempic that can reveal
(30:08):
themselves down the line.
At this juncture, when we'rehaving this discussion, we don't
have that information.
Those studies haven't been done.
So I am not saying that, orlet's just be about what I am
saying, not what I'm not saying.
We are talking about Ozempic'srole in muscle loss.
That's it.
(30:28):
That's the scope of theconversation today.
So, yeah, let's just make surethat we are not doing too much,
as I would say.
But yeah, so again, I am seeinga lot of articles popping up.
One.
I jotted down the title we gotthe races on to stop Ozempic
muscle loss.
(30:48):
That's where I come in.
Obviously, countless podcasts.
Everybody's trying to ride theSEO wave right now.
Anyway, I've been promising Ican solve it.
Let's take a look at it.
Obviously, we just got done witha segment talking about muscle
loss.
(31:08):
You know what I think?
I think it's a big deal.
You hear me talk about it allthe time and so again, no
challenge coming.
Your healthy muscle is very,very, very, very, very important
.
The less of it you have, theless efficient you are, the
harder all of your other fitnessgoals.
Get Ozumpic.
And none of these companies arepaying me.
(31:29):
Eli Lilly, by the way, but yeah, just shout him out.
Hey, if you guys want, maybethis is beneficial, I don't know
Pay me.
But no inconvenient truth inthis stuff, guys, and I'm not
shilling for Ozempic they don'tpay me anything.
Every time you lose weight, youlose muscle, fyi.
That's why I literally just gotdone talking about that
(31:51):
obsessive focus on fat reductionso many times backfires and
blows up in people's faces andsets them down a course of worse
and worse health.
Um, we have talked at lengthmany times about how, um to not
reduce your muscle, or so how tohow to minimize your muscle
(32:12):
loss.
When dieting Short version, yougot to keep your protein up.
You got to strength trainthrough the fat loss cycle, or
it's going to be weight loss,not fat loss, which is not as
cool as it sounds.
You want fat loss, not weightloss.
So again, whether using Ozempicor not, if you are taking in
(32:33):
less energy than you need,that's what you need to do to
lose weight.
If you are doing that, there isa great chance that you will
also lose some muscle.
It is absolutely unavoidable.
There is no diet where youdon't lose fat and muscle.
The question becomes how muchmuscle will you lose?
(32:54):
So the relevant question then,as it comes into Ozempic, would
actually be not will you losemuscle using Ozempic?
The answer, you should alreadyknow, will obviously be yes.
That's clear.
You should know that before weeven start.
The part you want to learnabout is is there going to be
(33:15):
any difference or will you losemore muscle using Ozempic than
using other approaches?
That is the question thatpeople need to be asking, and
nobody has yet.
So here we are.
We finally got there.
Will you lose more muscle ifyou use Ozempic than if you
don't?
(33:35):
Um, so, on average, uh, whenpeople are not using Ozempic uh,
typical weight loss programyou're probably losing between
20 and 50% of your weight frommuscle mass.
So we have a couple of studieson Manjaro and Zebound.
I don't even know that none ofmy clients are on that, but
(33:56):
anyway, those two showed about a25%.
25% of weight loss came frommuscle.
There was a study done onOzempic showing about 40% of
weight loss coming from muscle.
So quick refresh On average,when people are losing weight on
their own or just dieting, youexpect between 20 and 50% of
(34:19):
weight loss to come from muscle.
The studies that we have onthis current batch of weight
loss drugs range from 25% to 40%.
So these are actually in therange of normal muscle loss.
You guys know I love shootingdown, I love to be a contrarian
(34:39):
and I love to shoot somethingdown.
So if I could I would take theshot, but there's actually
nothing to see here.
Again, I'm pretty consistent inmy concern about worrying about
muscle loss through other meansof diet and I would all just
sort of point out few otherpeople have that track record.
So I just think it's meaningfulthat I am not concerned about
(35:02):
muscle loss from Ozempic andother people who haven't been
speaking on this issue areno-transcript.
(35:28):
But no, there's just so manyfallacies that are playing in
and I'm not shilling for them.
If a new study comes outtalking about a risk, we're
going to run right into it.
I don't care, but just thethings people are mentioning now
are unsubstantiated and areactually kind of evidence of the
fact that they have some badideas about fat loss in general.
So, like one I hear a lot evenis like ozempic face, that's
(35:53):
called weight loss face.
Every time you lose weightyou're going to lose fat from
your face or you're going tolose fat from everywhere and you
don't actually get to pickwhere.
That gets down to your genetics.
So you've probably heard allthe stories.
But some women get upset aboutwhich fat stores leave first.
Some guys get upset about whicharea likes to retain it last.
(36:13):
Just keep in mind when you loseweight, you're going to lose it
from everywhere.
You don't get to point to yourleast favorite spot and lose the
fat from that spot.
Whether you rub creams andjellies, do your mood boards.
People have tried to come upwith ways to spot, reduce and
(36:35):
target.
None of it works Literally noneof it.
All you really can do is justbe aware and try to maintain
your muscle mass whenever youare losing weight.
That's going to be your bestgeneral practice.
But beyond that you don't getto pick.
Ladies, sorry, Sometimes itcomes out of the bust or the
rear Guys, sometimes the lovehandles are the last thing to
(36:57):
drop.
You're lean everywhere else andyou still have that little back
fat thing that you hate.
That's genes.
That's not a curse, it's notanybody plotting against you,
and there is nothing you can doto lose that particular spot
that you don't like you know,reframe it, think about it a
little differently, and I thinkit generally gets better.
But if you keep trying to, youknow, do these things that
(37:24):
frankly don't work.
It's just going to make youmore frustrated and feel lost.
Best practice I don't carewhether you're on Ozempic or not
, this is going to apply toeverybody.
You should be strength trainingand fueling adequate protein
throughout your fat loss cycle.
Said it already if you don't dothat, it's going to be a weight
loss cycle, and who cares?
You probably might have beenbetter off without doing it,
(37:46):
because you might be back toneeding it in short order Again.
Last thing, and then we'll justkind of move on because there
really isn't much else to sayhere.
If there are issues withOzempic that pop, we will talk
about it.
But right now, as people aretalking about again the muscle
loss things like that, Iactually think pretty clearly
(38:07):
there is nothing to see here.
I'm not going to get mytrillion dollars because there's
nothing to solve.
Quite frankly, every time youlose weight, you lose muscle, on
average, 20% to 50%.
Even without Ozempic, the newweight loss drugs, people don't
appear to be losing muscle atfaster rates.
So yeah, with regard to theissue of muscle loss and weight
(38:32):
loss drugs, I'm pretty confidentin saying nothing to see here.
I don't think that this wouldbe an issue if people had some
better ideas about how youactually go achieve fat loss
versus weight loss, and I hope Icovered that difference well
enough here.
Anyway, guys, last one of theday, so yeah, in my direct
(38:55):
messages last week, I got one anInstagram reel about PFAs in
sparkling water recently, andyou know, admittedly, because I
saw the dates on all thearticles and all the studies I
was reading, this is not themost current story, so I'm a
little bit behind it here.
(39:15):
A lot of the stuff I'm going tobe quoting today was actually
coming out of some studies doneabout two and three years ago.
So, anyway, we're not breakingany ground here today, but I
missed this.
My client was dealing with it,so maybe we're not the only ones
, but yes, so, admittedly, guys,I really didn't know about this
one.
(39:35):
I had to look it up First place.
I started was literally adefinition, so per and
polyfluoroalkylized substances,pfas they're chemicals in
various industries that havebeen around since the 1940s.
They're known for resistinggrease, oil, water, heat,
commonly found in nonstickcookware, water-repelling
(39:56):
clothing, stain-resistantfabrics, food packaging and
because of their widespread useand persistence in the
environment, pfas have now beencalled forever chemicals.
There was a relatively recentstudy within the last couple of
weeks or so that they'reliterally finding them
everywhere, guys they're in yourtesticles, they're in basically
(40:20):
all over the entire planet.
So, yeah, these things are abig deal and, as our name
indicates, forever chemicals,they don't go anywhere.
I did want to be carefulinvestigating this because I
remember a few years back whenGMOs hit and the group of people
(40:41):
that I talked to that were theleast convinced by it were
actually scientists thescientists I spoke with about it
.
Their main contention was GMOwas too broad and that the
public discussion around it waspretty infantile and stupid and
meaningless, and I know thatthey were just actually
frustrated at least the onesthat I spoke to personally were
just frustrated with theinformation discourse a lot of
(41:02):
stuff that I bitch and moanabout here all the time that you
can't really have an adultconversation in the media about
these things because people havetoo many, you know, people have
too many incentives other thangetting the truth out, and I
don't even know if the appetitefor the subtlety of nuance is
out there.
Quite frankly, even if youoffer it, will people click it?
(41:23):
Will people read it?
Probably not, to be totallyhonest.
Um, so we can't just likebemoan they for indoctrinating
us.
No, most of us are lazy andthat's why we get what we get.
But anyway, not to getsidetracked.
But no, not all PFAs arecreated equal.
(41:44):
So I at least wanted to diveinto some of the context lest we
just start broadly labelingsomething.
There's a little bit morenuance there and admittedly, I
was ignorant coming in.
So what I found is that PFAs doencompass a wide variety of
chemicals.
A lot of them have verydifferent properties and
different levels of toxicities.
(42:05):
The health risks associatedwith PFAs are going to be
dependent on the duration andfrequency of the exposure.
They're not all equivalent.
Acute exposure to high levelsof PFAs is, of course, going to
be more immediately harmful,while if you were to exhibit
chronic low-level exposure overtime, you would have a different
set of long-term health risksassociated cancer, liver damage,
(42:28):
some pretty bad stuff, quitefrankly.
But a lot of factors are goingto influence how PFAs affect you
, factors like age, your currenthealth status Obviously,
somebody whose health status isnot good is going to be more
compromised.
Your genes can influence howthey affect you.
The most vulnerable populationsto PFAs are going to be, not
(42:53):
shockingly, but pregnant women,infants, individuals with
pre-existing health conditions.
These are all going to begroups that are more susceptible
to the effects of PFAs.
We're focused on water,sparkling water, specifically
sparkling water.
You know specifically, but whatI found was that the EPA has
(43:13):
set advisories on PFAs in waterat about 70 parts per trillion.
So now, when we look at thestudies that came out on
sparkling water, in fairness tothe sparkling water makers, they
were well below that threshold.
The highest one tested was TopoChico, at 9.76 parts per
(43:36):
trillion.
And then again, because I'm notnew to this story, actually
Topo Chico has already respondedto this story and reduced it
down to 3.9.
So even at that 3.9, that stillputs it higher than many other
ones that are on the market.
Polar and Bubbly are going toround out your three worst
(44:01):
sparkling waters.
As it pertains to PFAs, the onesthat tested better are going to
be Spindrift.
Spindrift was undetectable.
Lacroix and Perrier had tracelevels, but they rounded out the
top three.
And yeah, again, I'm new tothis.
So you know, don't take my wordas the final gospel.
But in my opinion, thedetection of any level of PFA, I
(44:24):
think, is a concern and thiskind of just gets to the fact
that they are persistent andaccumulate in the body.
So I think the drink makers aregoing to be well within their
rational and, frankly, legalobligations to say exactly what
I just said, that they are belowthe EPA thresholds.
That's true and I don't see anyissue there, any issue there.
(44:57):
But as an individual I don'tsee any upside to taking NPFAs.
And then, obviously, withsparkling water, there's just so
many easy substitutes to gointo.
And admittedly, guys, topoChico is actually one of my
favorite sparkling waters.
So yeah, I guess I'm justspeaking from the experience of
it really isn't that hard tosubstitute if you need to.
And yeah, I wouldn't say thatI'm like scared of a Topo Chico
(45:22):
with the you know level of PFAsthat are in there.
But you know, if I'm gonna buya 12 pack and I'm at the grocery
store, why wouldn't I grab aSpindrift in light of that
information?
But no, I guess too, justbefore I because I'm going to
say obviously what I'm about tosay I don't want to sort of
(45:46):
weigh in and get people scaredand unduly worried, which
actually I might intentionallydo anyway, but at least, hey,
let's not be scared andunintentionally over-worried
about our sparkling water.
To give us a little bit morecontext seafood is generally the
highest food that you'reprobably going to be sourcing
(46:08):
regularly, for PFAs sometimesexceeding 1000 parts per
trillion.
So remember, the worstsparkling water tested was like
9.76.
And it now runs more like 3.9.
It is not uncommon for seafoodto have, you know, levels as
(46:29):
high as 1000 parts per trillion,which is just massively higher
than any sparkling water thatyou're going to eat.
I'm really not trying to makefun of this in any way, but
seafood consumers tend to alwaysbelieve that they're getting
great seafood.
I've really never talked tosomebody who doesn't think
(46:50):
they're getting great food.
But then when I go read thestudies on the seafood industry
myself, mislabeling is a rampantproblem.
The people I talk to who eatfish they seem to believe that
they have always eaten whateverthey have ordered.
The studies I read make it seemlike that is highly unlikely.
(47:12):
Even if you are going to thebest restaurants in LA, new York
and San Francisco, you areactually constantly eating
mislabeled fish, obviously withthe PFAs.
I think why it's so relevant iswe were mentioning.
Pfas are everywhere, so they'reobviously in our water too.
Poor environmental conditionsare a huge problem in the
(47:33):
seafood industry.
Fish is good for you.
We're not knocking all that,I'm just trying to point out
this is literally one of themost difficult foods to source
and you're generally going tofind a lot of health-focused
people who will be doing itregularly.
Actually, real quick, I justwant to make so many people
around.
Los Angeles is almost like anoverheard in LA, but you know
(47:57):
I'm always talking nutritionwith folks, but whenever people
like tell me they're apescatarian, it always has this
like sound of moral superiorityin it.
So one of my favorite retortsto that that sound is, oh, I'm
pescatarian.
And I'll say, damn right, fuckfish.
And they're like what?
And I'm like that's right.
Oh, I'm pescatarian and I'llsay, damn right, fuck fish.
And they're like what?
And I'm like that's right,brother, I fucking hate them too
.
Kill them all.
And they're like, no, no,that's not what I'm like.
(48:19):
Say no more, fam, fuck fish,but no, anyway, I'm really not
trying to mean seafood, I'm justpointing out it's literally one
of the riskiest things thatpeople source regularly.
We can move on.
Processed foods are also goingto be a good source of PFAs.
Well, or a bad source, I guessthat we should say.
(48:39):
But looking about it, can rangefrom 10 to 300 parts per
trillion.
So, ironically, processed foodactually safer than most seafood
, meat and dairy.
You're typically going to becoming in under 50 parts per
trillion.
That's also some you know,significant, significantly more
risk than sparkling water.
Frame it there when we get intofoods that have similar risk to
(49:04):
sparkling water, you're talkingfruits and vegetables.
Most of these are going to becoming in around one to 10 parts
per trillion.
So now we are finally at thatsimilar risk threshold to
sparkling water.
So anyway, I know I might havejust scared everybody with that,
but I still maintain thatconsumers should be informed,
(49:25):
not unduly worried.
Nearly everything we consumehas PFAs in it, so you just kind
of have to be conscious whilenot worrying about it so much
that it makes it so you can'tact or make a choice.
I think it's obvious that weshould strive to reduce our
exposure to PFAs and since allof this started around our
(49:49):
sparkling water, to be totallyhonest, after doing the research
I did, I think sparkling watermight be one of the easiest
choices that you have in thatregard.
Obviously, we already mentionedit Topo, chico, slash Coke they
were the worst.
They've already been reactivebecause they don't want to lose
market share and even in lightof that fact, you and I already
(50:10):
know they have 3.9 parts pertrillion and we know what their
competitors are at.
So I actually think that'sprobably one of the easiest
choices that you can make.
It's incredibly easy tosubstitute brands.
Again, I came into thisrelatively uninformed.
I picked up, I learned a littlebit, but I'm actually leaving
(50:32):
this issue way less concernedabout my sparkling water and
more concerned about damn neareverything else.
We've only talked like the foodaspects of it.
But your cookware, obviouslythat's a big deal.
A lot of the nonstick pans.
You're going to be getting alot of PFAs from there.
Your clothes I went and lookedsome uh studies on different
(50:56):
brands.
So here you go, we'll do somequick grades.
Levi's and victoria's secretgot an a.
Not many pfas in their stuff.
Ralph loren, gap, americaneagle, calvin klein, tommy hill
figure they got a b.
Um abercrombie and fitch that Iused to work at in college.
They've've recently beenrediscovered, kind of a darling
of Wall Street and young people.
(51:17):
These days they get a C.
Nike came in with a D+ LOB.
North Face, timberland andCostco all got Ds, and Under
Armour, skechers, columbia, rei,wolverine, kohl's, nordstrom's,
macy's, walmart, penny's allgot an F.
So anyway, I do think one ofthe bigger ones is probably
(51:40):
going to be clothes.
There we go Levi's andVictoria's Secret you're good to
go, yeah, no, no.
So anyway, it actually got me alot less concerned about my
sparkling water, a lot moreconcerned about a lot of other
things.
When I was kind of getting tothe question of how do I reduce
my exposure to PFAs.
I think one of the mostimpactful um easiest ones is
(52:02):
going to be to replace yournonstick cookware with cast iron
, stainless steel, glass orceramic.
You're going to want to avoidmicrowaving foods in general.
Definitely don't warm up in thepackages that they came in.
Most foods that are designed tobe made in a microwave.
You're going to have a bunch ofit there.
Also going to want to avoidfast food, processed food, and
(52:24):
especially the packages thatthey come in.
When we get back to water, it'sa concern, but the parts
petroleum and water aresignificantly lower than all of
the other segments that we'retalking about.
That being said, it's easyenough to invest in water
filters.
Make sure you're reading upwhen you're when you're buying.
There are filters that can getthe PFAs out, um, but again,
(52:45):
that being said, I actuallythink water is probably one of
the easier ones to deal with, umwith, because of the
persistence and availability ofthese things.
I actually think it's othersegments where we're probably
getting our biggest exposures.
Like we always say, controllingfor quality and food this was
something that I think that Idid unintentionally.
(53:06):
That was allowing me to controlin some capacity to reduce,
because you just use lesspackaging and typically the
context that the food was grownin if you're shopping at farmers
markets in good places, isbetter on average than other
places.
So I still think it's a goodidea to control for quality.
That can see you out of a lotof these issues, not 100%, but
(53:28):
certainly most of it.
I guess, just with food,clothes, cook or all of it, we
kind of have to be conscious andmindful about what we're
sourcing, not just sparklingwater, which that you know.
I'm only saying it that waybecause it is kind of like that
fear tactic thing flying aroundsocial media.
So you know, by all meanssource your sparkling water
intelligently, but I would arguethat you should also be
(53:51):
sourcing everything elseintelligently, and sparkling
water might not be the mostmeaningful segment in your diet
to be focusing on.
But anyway, long-winded here.
So I actually answered thequestion in real life.
I just told my client that thestudy was real.
Topo Chico was the worst.
Unfortunately, that's herfavorite too, which actually
quick, we've been doing.
(54:12):
Ranch water I don't even drink,so maybe already everybody knows
this.
But if I drink, one of myfavorite drinks was a Topo Chico
and a little bit of tequila.
You know we're not we'll dothis in a separate topic one day
because I'm wrapping up butclear liquors, those are going
to be your friend Top shelfagave.
(54:33):
The more it's distilled, theworse or the less likely you are
to have a hangover.
So if Simon drinks, I couldclear liquor, clear top shelf
liquor, and I was usually goingto chase it or cut it with some
water so I don't feel as bad inthe morning.
But yeah, I don't know, I'malready thinking about that.
I could maybe just swap thatout for like a, I don't know,
like a grapefruit spindrift, dolike a Paloma inspired something
or other, but no, it's a bummer.
(54:53):
I really do like Topo Chico.
But actually here, demonstrablemoment.
I just found out that a productthat I was using is not the
best there is.
I'm not trying to change thestudies that I read, I'm just
kind of taking my knocks.
You know, take this one on thechin and move on.
I'm not going to engage in alot of techniques that I know
(55:15):
how to do to rationalize thechoice that I made a while ago.
So anyway, this, I think, ishow you also deal with new
information when something youlike, if you find out that maybe
it's not so good.
You know, here's how you handleit Anyway.
So yeah, my client typicallydoes buy um.
There's almost always liketopos lacroix's spindrifts in
(55:37):
the little party fridge, and so,on my way out she handed me a
lacroix and um.
You know, tasted great and youknow, by the way, lacroix first
one's free um.
We can make a thing of this.
If you guys give me a call,I'll talk up the brand whenever
you want.
But um, no, anyway, I thoughtthere's actually a relatively
easy one.
I was just telling her you knowmore Spindrift, more LaCroix.
(55:59):
You know, maybe we run down theTopo Chico for now, but hey,
fingers crossed, coca-cola willkeep moving them.
You know closer to where theircompetitors are at so I can get
back into my glass bottles.
But anyway, guys, we are up ontime.
I just want to quickly sum itall up.
(56:19):
But don't worry too much aboutyour sparkling water choice.
There are definitely betteroptions than some, but exposure
to PFAs is going to besignificantly greater in almost
every area of your life.
I think you will do well toavoid those exposures.
There's no upside.
But sparkling water is not themost meaningful or dangerous
(56:40):
choice that you're making, noteven close the talk that I'm
hearing right now about muscleloss from weight loss drugs
trendy and exaggerated.
There may be other issues withthese drugs.
Muscle loss isn't one of them.
Muscle loss is always an issuewhen you are losing weight.
Just because I said that,that's not a green light or an
(57:03):
endorsement of these drugs.
Fat loss 100% can be achievedwithout these drugs, but I just
don't think that the currentcycle talking about muscle loss
from Ozempic.
I don't think that's an issue.
You always lose muscle when youlose weight.
It's always an issue withcaloric deficits.
(57:24):
So nothing to see there as faras I'm concerned.
Clean eating obviously does notnegate calories.
Eating clean does not upendthermodynamics.
A calorie is still a calorie.
Energy cannot be lost orcreated.
(57:45):
So, yeah, even clean eatingcannot upend thermodynamics.
If you've improved your foodquality and you're not seeing
your physique improve, you'restill eating too much.
Just control for quantity andyou'll be on track very, very
quickly, not a big problem.
Can feel frustrating, but thatone's really pretty easy.
(58:07):
And then, last but not least I'mdefinitely saying this one for
me again make sure, guys, thatyou're taking time for the
little thing.
Stay present, be available tothose who count on you.
Anytime you open yourself up tothat.
There's a great chance.
That actually is the mostimportant thing that you did all
day, no matter what you thoughtyou were going to get done.
So anyway, guys, with that, asalways, I appreciate you hanging
(58:30):
out with me, spending your time.
Yeah, make sure to share thisshow.
If there's anything in herethat helped you guys out, pass
it on to someone else.
Same commitment, guys.
I'm going to keep trying tolearn and share what I'm getting
on my ride with you guys.
Remember, mind and muscle areinseparably intertwined.
There are no gains withoutbrains.
(58:52):
Keep lifting and learning.
You know what I'll do.
Popular Podcasts
Bookmarked by Reese's Book Club
Welcome to Bookmarked by Reese’s Book Club — the podcast where great stories, bold women, and irresistible conversations collide! Hosted by award-winning journalist Danielle Robay, each week new episodes balance thoughtful literary insight with the fervor of buzzy book trends, pop culture and more. Bookmarked brings together celebrities, tastemakers, influencers and authors from Reese's Book Club and beyond to share stories that transcend the page. Pull up a chair. You’re not just listening — you’re part of the conversation.
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com