June 4, 2025 • 34 mins
Join the Wits & Weights Facebook Group for evidence-based support and community, plus live Q&As and exclusive content
--
Learn about one of the biggest nutrition hoaxes of our generation - the famed Blue Zones, where people supposedly live extraordinarily long lives due to their traditional diets and lifestyles.
When demographer Dr. Saul Justin Newman examined the data behind these celebrated longevity hotspots, what he discovered was shocking. Those regions with the most reported supercentenarians (people over 100) weren't the healthiest places. They were areas with poor record-keeping, poverty, and weak documentation systems. What's going on?
You'll also discover how regions celebrated for plant-based eating actually consume meat daily, and get a data-driven framework for spotting diet deceptions.
Main Takeaways:
- Blue Zone supercentenarian claims are largely based on fraudulent data and poor record-keeping
- Many "plant-based" Blue Zone regions actually consume animal products daily
- Extraordinary health claims require extraordinary evidence - use the 5-point framework to evaluate nutrition advice
- Real longevity factors are simple and well-established by the evidence without the need for "secrets," supplements, or hacks
Timestamps:
0:01 - The Blue Zone data fraud
8:17 - The plant-based diet deception in Blue Zones
10:10 - Other diet myths: alkaline diets, detox cleanses, dietary extremism
14:20 - 5-point framework for spotting nutrition nonsense
25:53 - What actually contributes to healthy aging
29:05 - Healthspan vs. lifespan
🎓 Get 2 weeks FREE in Physique University:
https://physique.witsandweights.com/
👥 Join our Facebook community for live Q&As & support
👋 Let's connect! Ask a question, get my FREE newsletter, or find me on Instagram
📱 Try MacroFactor for free with code WITSANDWEIGHTS
🏋️♀️ Download Boostcamp for free for evidence-based workout programs
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Philip Pape (00:01):
What if I told you the so-called Blue Zone
longevity secrets might be moreabout bad record-keeping and
pension fraud than actualscience that many of those
110-year-olds never existed inthe first place?
Today, we're exposing the truthbehind one of the biggest
nutrition myths of our time.
You'll discover why the BlueZone diet narrative is built on
shaky data, how regions famousfor plant-based eating actually
(00:24):
consume meat daily, and thewarning signs that reveal when
diet advice is more marketingthan medicine.
We're also tackling other dietdeceptions that promise weight
loss and longevity but deliverdisappointment instead, so that
by the end of this episode,you'll have a data-driven
framework for spotting nutritionnonsense and focusing instead
on what actually works for yourhealth and body composition.
(00:46):
Welcome to Wits and Weights,the show that helps you build a
strong, healthy physique usingevidence, engineering and
efficiency.
I'm your host, certifiednutrition coach, philip Pape,
(01:07):
and today we're applying thatengineering mindset to one of
the most persistent nutritionmyths of the past two decades
the blue zones.
If you've never heard of these,they've been celebrated as
proof that certain diets andlifestyles can dramatically
extend human lifespan.
There have been books,documentaries, media that have
promoted these regions as havingcracked the code of longevity.
(01:29):
But what happens when youexamine the data behind these
claims, what we find is acautionary tale about how poor
record-keeping, selectivestorytelling and even
confirmation bias can createvery compelling narratives that
just fall apart under scrutiny.
And I know this was talkedabout recently on, I think, the
Mind Pump podcast.
I originally heard about it ona news podcast a few years ago
(01:53):
and I wanted to revisit thistoday to talk about not just the
blue zones themselves, butoverall.
How do we spot these kinds ofproblems out in the industry?
Before we get into the myths, Iwant you to know if you're
looking for evidence-basedsupport for your health journey
and want to talk to others whohave the same level of
skepticism and curiosity as youdo.
Join our Wits and Ways Facebookgroup.
(02:13):
It's totally free.
A community of like-mindedpeople who value critical
thinking over clickbait.
We regularly discuss how toseparate the legitimate health
advice from some of these otherthings, and we often have people
coming in asking about thingslike carnivore or longevity or
things like this.
Just search for Wits andWeights on Facebook or click the
link in the show notes and joinus in the Facebook group.
(02:35):
We recently exceeded the 1,000person mark, so it's a very
vibrant and growing communityyou're going to love.
Click the link in the shownotes or search for Wits and
Weights on Facebook.
All right, let's start with whatblue zones claim to be.
You may not have heard of theseand if you haven't, they are
five regions around the worldwhere people supposedly live
(02:55):
very, very long lives.
Okinawa in Japan is the oneoften spoken about, sardinia in
Italy, nicoya in Costa Rica,ikaria in Greece and Loma Linda
in California, and the story isvery, very compelling, as many
stories are.
These places allegedly havevery high concentrations of
centenarians and supercentenarians, so people who live
(03:18):
beyond 100 years, who attributethis long life to their
traditional diets, to activelifestyles, to strong
communities, and the story hasbeen so powerful that it really
has actually spawned an entireindustry of cookbooks, of
supplements, of coaching usingthe phrase Blue Zone.
And here's where my mind kicksin, because, as extraordinary as
(03:41):
the claims are, anyextraordinary claim requires
extraordinary evidence, right,and when Dr Saul Justin Newman
he is a demographer who won anIg Nobel Prize for his work he
examined the data behind theBlue Zone longevity claims, he
found something that's prettyshocking, and I was shocked to
learn this just a few years agoor maybe it was last year,
actually, that the regions withthe highest reported numbers of
(04:03):
supercentenarianssupercentenarians were not the
healthiest places.
They were actually correlatedwith poverty, with poor record
keeping, with higher crime ratesand with very weak
documentation systems.
So, in other words, the placesclaiming to have the most
110-year-olds were exactly theplaces where you'd expect to
find errors in data and fraud.
(04:24):
And Newman found that birthrates of the supposed
supercentenarians were oddlyclustered on days ending in zero
or five, suggesting that manydates were approximated or made
up when exact records weren'tthere.
So this is like a classic redflag when it comes to data
analysis that anyone wouldrecognize as not what I
(04:46):
shouldn't say.
Anyone like an engineer ormathematician looking at the
data, I would say, wouldrecognize it as a non-random
distribution.
Um, and honestly, if you sawthis in a list and you're like,
well, what's up with all the youknow tens and 25s and tens and
25s, it doesn't make sense.
Um, you'd probably notice thatpattern.
But it gets worse than thatbecause in Costa Rica's 2000
(05:07):
census, 42% of people age 99 andabove had misstated their age
and after correcting the errors,the centenarian population of
Nicoya that's the region inCosta Rica, right, that's a blue
zone it dropped by 90%, and sothe elderly life expectancy
ranking fell from world leadingto near the bottom.
(05:27):
And this is just a reallyshocking example of what happens
when we accept these feel-goodstories and don't validate the
data.
And then they persist for yearsand years and you might think
these are just like innocentrecord-keeping errors, but
sometimes there's something morenefarious at play, and Newman
discovered that many of thesupposed centenarians were
victims of pension fraud, andthat's where families don't
(05:48):
report death, so they keepgetting benefits.
They get benefits from theloved ones Even though they've
died, they think they're alive.
They keep getting pensionbenefits.
Japan is a really dramaticexample of this.
There was an audit by thegovernment in 2010 that found
more than 230,000 listedcentenarians were unaccounted
for, so they were either missingor long dead, and that's a lot.
(06:12):
That's 82% of their presumedcentenarians were either missing
or dead, some of them for manydecades, and their families
collected pensions.
There's a particular case witha Tokyo man who was thought to
be 111 years old and he wasfound mummified in his home.
I know it's awful.
He had actually died 32 yearsearlier, in 1978, and Newman
(06:35):
said quote the secret to livingto 110 was don't register your
death.
Kind of some very dark humorthere, but that's what was going
on, and this isn't unique toJapan.
Italy also discovered about30,000 dead pension claimants in
1997.
In Greece, at least 72% of thereported centenarians were dead
or non-existent.
And what this means is that allthe data, the foundational data
(06:56):
that supports blue zone claimsis just totally unreliable.
But now what if we set asidethe age verification issues for
a moment, although I meanhonestly, that loses me right
there.
When I hear that amount offraud and misinformation, I
can't, really I don't even wantto look at the data.
I mean, I don't even want tolike discuss the veracity of any
of the dietary claims.
Why would you?
(07:17):
However, even when you do, it'sproblematic.
So that's kind of.
The next turn I wanted to takefor the show was the blue zone
narrative.
You know, from a nutritionstandpoint, the story goes like
this these regions followprimarily plant-based diets,
with meat as a very rareindulgence, and that that
explains their longevity, andthis narrative has been used to
(07:38):
promote plant-based eating asthe key to long life.
But when you look at, you knowwhat these people in the regions
actually ate rather than whatthe marketing materials say they
ate.
A different picture emergesright.
In Sardinia, goat's milk,sheep's cheese, pork are common
staples.
The shepherds, who supposedlyexemplify the blue zone
longevity they consume animalproducts every day.
(08:00):
In Okinawa, pork has been likethe center of their traditional
diet for centuries.
They eat virtually every partof the pig, including organ
meats, and seafood is consumedregularly.
No surprise if you've ever beento Japan.
I haven't been to Okinawa, butpretty familiar with Japanese
culture and diet and yeah,there's plenty of meat there.
In Nocaya, costa Rica, beef andpork are widely consumed.
In Icaria, greece, fish, dairyproducts, lamb are eaten.
(08:23):
Loma Linda, california, there'sone exception there the
Seventh-day Adventists.
They follow a largelyplant-based diet, but they also
consume dairy and sometimes fish, and they also abstain from
smoking and alcohol and theyexercise regularly and they have
strong community.
So you can say well, maybethat's why they live a little
bit longer there.
(08:45):
No-transcript presentation ofdietary patterns and that's what
we see all the time in theindustry today with what we call
confirmation bias.
Right, it's like the blue zone,the people promoting the blue
zone diets.
Again, aside from the wholedata fraud issue, they emphasize
plant foods and then downplay,or they cherry pick or ignore
all the animal proteinconsumption because it doesn't
(09:06):
prefer fit the narrative.
What's so funny about thiswhole thing is they've done that
, thinking that the blue zonesactually have the output or the
outcomes that they're claimingto have, and they don't.
So it kind of like makes thewhole thing fall like a house of
cards.
So this blue zone myth is oneexample of how nutrition advice
gets distorted, but I wanted tolook at some other deceptions
(09:28):
that promise weight loss andlongevity but will make you
disappointed if you try tofollow them, let alone them
being in many cases restrictiveor unsustainable.
Let's talk about something likethe alkaline diet, which is
that you can change your bloodpH by eating certain foods, and
that prevents disease andpromotes longevity, and this is
physiologically impossible.
(09:48):
Like, your kidneys and lungsregulate your blood pH, and if
food could alter it, you'd be inthe emergency room.
You wouldn't be living longer.
And the reason some alkalinefoods, like vegetables, are
beneficial doesn't have anythingto do with pH.
It's because they're nutrientdense, they're high in fiber and
they displace less healthyoptions.
Right, that's just one example,and, by the way, you'll not I'm
not going to hit on some of thebig ones like carnivore in this
(10:10):
episode.
I've done that a lot lately.
I could definitely haveincluded some of those and I'm
going to do some future episodeson specific topics like fiber.
I have an episode coming up onuh, whether fiber is necessary
because carnivore diet claims itis not.
Um, another example that comesto mind is detox cleanses, juice
fasts that promise all sorts ofthings to reset your metabolism
(10:31):
, to flush toxins, and this Ialways love to talk about
detoxification, because the bestdetox fires your own body right
your liver, your kidneys.
They're detoxing your body 24-7.
They don't need any help fromanything else like a juice
cleanse.
And in fact those level ofextreme approaches usually have
the opposite effect long-term.
They end up slowing yourmetabolism, they cause nutrient
(10:54):
deficiencies, they cause muscleloss, all the things just
because you're not getting inthe things you need the protein,
the nutrition, the fiber,whatever right.
And then there's the marketingwar between low-carb, vegan
diets, plant-based, which allclaim that their approach is the
secret to longevity.
And again, all of these canwork when they are, I'll say,
(11:17):
well-planned out, well-thoughtout, structured and and here's
the key word sustainable for you.
If you can stick to the diet,it's good for you.
I've heard the argument madelately that well, even if it's
hard to stick to.
That's not the point.
Isn't health more importantthan anything?
And therefore you'll do what ittakes?
Well, no, human psychologywould beg to differ, because
(11:38):
anybody who's tried not anybody,but the vast majority of people
who've tried any diet thatrestricts things that they would
otherwise eat, is going to be aproblem, because you're going
to binge on that later.
You're going to miss it, letalone potentially unnecessarily
cut things out that you could,uh, benefit from.
You know, nutrient wise, fiberwise, taste wise, everything, um
(11:58):
, what matters overall, I think?
I think the takeaway here is thedietary pattern is going to
matter a lot more than thespecific uh ratio of these
things, and what I mean by thatis like low carb is focused on
what Lowering your carbs?
Vegan is focused on just havingplants, carnivore is just
having animal products.
In every single case, you'relike flipping these ratios
(12:18):
around to an artificialimbalance, let's call it, rather
than having a balanced dietarypattern.
You know, the funny thing iswhat your grandma said about
eating in moderation actuallyholds up pretty well.
Now there are some ways thatyou want to nudge that balance
based on your goals.
Right, like, most people aren'teating nearly enough protein,
(12:39):
so when you eat quote unquote inmoderation you're not really
thinking about it you stillmight not have nearly enough
protein for what you need as alifter, as an athlete, as an
aging person who's worried aboutmuscle loss right.
So there are ways to nudge it,but we're not talking about
wholesale obliteration of onepart of your diet, like carbs or
plants or animal products, andso the pattern here with all of
(13:03):
these is that any of theseapproaches.
What they do really well is theytake a kernel of truth.
They take a kernel of truthLike I did an.
I just did an episode I thinkit was last week on fat loss
versus fat burning, and thekernel of truth is that if you
eat a low carb diet, you'regoing to burn more fat Guess
what?
That's actually true, butyou're not going to lose more
(13:24):
fat because you're actuallyeating more fat.
So it all nets out and see,that's where you take the kernel
of truth and you expand it andyou say so it all nets out and
see, that's where you take thekernel of truth and you expand
it and you say okay, if you'reburning more fat, it means
you're going to lose more fat.
No, that's not true.
It just means you're burningmore fat versus glucose.
Somebody else is burning moreglucose versus fat.
It's all energy and all thatmatters is calories and calories
out.
And so they blow it up into auniversal solution, right, some
(13:44):
kernel of truth.
They take, for example, somecompound in a plant is toxic at
like massive levels and they say, well, that that means plants
are toxic and all plants aretoxic and therefore you get rid
of plants, you solve all yourissues autoimmune conditions,
gut health, everything else.
Go ahead and eat carnivore, andit just massively misses, um,
the evidence.
It also ignores individualdifferences between people.
(14:04):
So anytime someone makes aclaim that this is the one true
diet, you're, you've got yourskepticism.
Hackles have to get raisedbecause everybody's different
your metabolism, your genetics,your lifestyle and there is no
one true diet.
So how do we protect ourselvesfrom all of these deceptions?
Here is kind of anengineering-based framework, I
would call it for evaluatingnutrition claims.
I'm going to give you fivethings to think about.
(14:26):
Okay, this is for nutritionnonsense.
First, you want to look for anyred flag, and this sounds
generic.
So what I'm talking about iswhat I just mentioned Claims
that a diet is one size fits all.
That's the big red flag.
Human biology is complex, it'sindividual.
What works for one person maynot work for another.
So right there, right off thebat, if someone says this is the
(14:49):
way to do it for everyone, boom, be suspicious.
That's probably not true.
Second, you want to examine theevidence quality.
So not just the evidence,because evidence-based,
science-based, gets thrownaround a lot.
I use the term, and at thispoint it's become almost
meaningless, because anecdotesand testimonials are not data.
In fact, let me tell yousomething I was thinking about
(15:11):
the other day.
I'm all for anecdotes andstories.
When they are used to disprovea one-size-fits-all claim, I'm
all for that.
In other words, if you saycarnivore is right for everyone
and then I say, well, what aboutthese people over here who are
not eating carnivore and they'rethriving?
Well, right there, you've justdisproven that carnival's right
for everyone.
But you can't flip it aroundand say, well, this person, all
(15:32):
his autoimmune conditions, guthealth and brain fog went away
because he went on low-carb diet.
Therefore it's right foreveryone.
No, so you can't do that.
You can't use one anecdote tomake a universal claim.
You can use an anecdote todisprove a universal claim,
though.
Right In general, in general.
In other words, that's how thescientific method works is you
(15:52):
make a hypothesis, you test it.
If you find any evidence thatdoesn't support the hypothesis,
well, your hypothesis isdisproved and you need to adjust
it right.
You need to adjust it.
So when we talk about evidencequality, you know you want to
look for, if you're looking atscientific literature,
controlled studies, I mean someof the best would be randomized
controlled studies, which arerandomized controlled trials,
(16:14):
rcts, which are very hard tofind in the nutrition world.
Usually we have observationalstudies that show correlation,
not necessarily causation.
That's where we get into realsticky wickets here we talk
about, for example, people usedto say look, diet Coke causes
obesity because look at thecorrelation in the observational
studies.
Well, it turns out that peoplewho have weight to lose will
(16:35):
drink more Diet Coke becausethey're trying to lose weight.
It's not because drinking DietCoke causes weight gain.
And we see those kinds ofcorrelations all over the place.
All over the place andeverything you look at weight
loss, you know well, they wenton low carbon, they lost weight.
Therefore it causes weight loss.
Well, no, turns out that theycut their calories because they
(16:55):
got rid of a bunch of processedfoods and they were able to
better manage their hungersignals etc.
Right, so we have to be carefulabout evidence quality.
Honestly, the best evidence Ialways say is N equals one.
The N equals one sample size ofone.
You, you are your own bestevidence.
So I love starting with thefoundation of what the science
might suggest for you and givingyou a ballpark or framework or
guardrails, but then you need totry it out right.
(17:18):
I have clients all the time.
I have one client in particularI can think of right now.
He used to do fasted trainingand I said well, let's try
eating some carbs before youtrain.
He's like how much should I eat?
I said let's try 20 grams.
Okay, how did that feel?
Wow, I felt like more energized.
I was able to get more reps.
I wasn't winded by the end.
He's like should I eat more?
I said what do you think?
I'm like why don't we trydouble and tell me what you
(17:38):
think?
He tried double?
He's like well, you know what?
That was even a little bitbetter.
And now that my training volumeis increasing because I have
the energy, I need more energyand that's what works for him.
And now he might even try 60grams and find out that that's
optimal, and then 80 grams istoo much or not necessary, right
?
So your best evidence isyourself, and evidence quality
to me is a hierarchy.
(17:58):
You've got yourself in there.
You've got, um, very controlledstudies in there.
You've got, you know, peopleyou trust.
I'll say then that that's kindof a thorny one.
It's like I don't know if youtrust me, right, if you just
started listening to me, youdon't trust me yet.
But if you've listened to mefor a long time and you've
applied what I've said to yourlife and it works and I tried to
come across, as I'll call it,sensible or flexible, if you
(18:22):
will.
I call out people all the time,but it's because they're trying
to be restrictive and makeuniversal claims, and I'm trying
to counter that narrative bysaying that nothing is universal
, that it depends on you.
So if you start to trust me andlisten to my show, you're going
to then give more weight to theevidence that I try to present
in the future and which means Ihave a very large responsibility
to deliver that to you.
(18:43):
So that's evidence quality.
The third way to protectourselves from diet deceptions
is consider the source.
So I kind of just startedtalking about this already in my
last few statements.
But is the person making theclaims trying to sell you
something?
Do they have relevantcredentials, relevant expertise?
You know they don't necessarilyhave to have a degree per se or
(19:04):
a certification.
It really depends right, likein the medical field, they might
need to be licensed and stuff,for you know legal and liability
reasons, but it's up to you tokind of decide whether it's the
appropriate level of credentials.
I know lots of strength coacheswho don't, who never got a
personal training certification,but they're far more
experienced and helpful than thevast majority of people who
(19:25):
have personal trainingcertifications.
You know what I mean.
Just just cause I know what ittakes to.
You know, get a cert is supereasy.
It's, it's a test, it's easy,whereas to become an actual,
effective strength coach takesyears of working with clients
and you might do that withoutcertification.
So you just have to understandthe source.
You look at the big scandal withthe liver King and steroids and
Paul Saladino and thesupplements and all those guys
(19:46):
out there.
Generally people have millionsof followers.
You got to watch out like theones that have the biggest
followers I'm the most skepticalof.
It's not, again, notnecessarily the case, right?
This is just a correlation thatI'm making for you.
Um, I'm just saying that theones with the MDs behind their
names and 2 million followers,you've got to got to make sure
that they're saying what they'resaying for a reason and it's
(20:07):
not for trying to sell something, right?
And having said that, the vastmajority of people educating
online probably have a businesstied to that education in some
way.
So of course, they are tryingto make a living.
They might have a business.
They're trying to make money.
Guess what?
That's what I do.
I provide coaching, right.
But I don't make claims thatare not true to try to get you
(20:29):
to sign up for coaching.
You know that wouldn't work toowell because if that worked you
would sign up for coaching andthen all of a sudden I wouldn't
be able to deliver on the resultbecause it doesn't line up with
the evidence, right?
So, again, you have to.
You know I'm thinking more likepeople trying to sell
supplements or, you know, rapidweight loss programs or
something like that.
The fourth sign on spottingnutrition nonsense is you want
(20:52):
to ask about the mechanism orthe method, or the what should I
say?
The physiological means bywhich the intervention actually
works in the body.
Can they explain how it works?
Vague claims about boostingyour metabolism or alkalizing or
diet cleansing, detox, whatever, or even inflammation that's
the big trigger word these days,guys inflammation.
(21:14):
I think I'm going to do a wholeepisode just about inflammation
how it is misused as a label,but also how it is misunderstood
biologically, becauseinflammation can be measured in
blood markers in some ways andin many ways it can't.
But inflammation is directlytied to lifestyle and there are
(21:36):
a lot of influencers that scareyou into thinking that
inflammation is tied to specificfoods.
That's just one example and nomatter how hard you try, you
can't find anything anywhere inthe evidence that would support
their claim, for example, seedoils being inflammatory.
The evidence does not supportthat claim and I bring that one
(21:57):
up specifically because it is sooften repeated that it's
inflammatory, it's inflammatory,it's inflammatory.
What's inflammatory are dietarypatterns and movement and
sedentary behavior and stressand smoking and alcohol and lack
of sleep and so on.
There's a lot of things.
I'm going to do a whole episodeabout it, but the point is you
have to be able to understandthe mechanism.
Again, going back to lastweek's episode fat loss versus
(22:18):
fat burn or lose fat versus burnfat.
I tried to explain themechanism behind how we store
and lose fat on our body and howwe actually burn fat in the
moment, and how these aredifferent mechanisms that lead
to understanding the language weuse around them.
Okay, and then the last thinghere, number five, is look for
balance and nuance.
I think I've alluded to thisseveral times, but legitimate
(22:40):
nutrition advice is probablygonna start with something like
it depends or multipleapproaches can work, or
individual factors make matter,or this is personal.
You know those that kind of Itry to use that language.
Now, sometimes I get on my highhorse, I get on my rants, my
rambles, and I might make astatement with a lot more
confidence and definitivenessthan I intend to get across, or
(23:02):
maybe I do intend to get itacross, depending on what I'm
talking about, but I try not tomake a claim about something
that is universal to everyoneother than what's universal is
that nothing is universal, right, in other words, that I'm
definitely confident about that,that multiple approaches work.
Yes, human physiology isuniversal, but your lifestyle
(23:22):
and all the other epigeneticsand phenotypes and all the other
things that come into play asyou live your life are what
causes us to diverge andrequires a much more nuanced
application of the info.
Like, let's say, we're talkingabout training, not even diet.
We're talking about strengthtraining, and someone says how
should I train?
Oh, that is such a hugediscussion.
There's so many aspects to that.
I can throw out generalities.
(23:43):
I do all the time on podcasts,like you know, hit the big
muscle groups two times a weekusing compound lifts and train
like three or four days a week,like that would be a nice way to
say it.
That's just general, generalprinciples right, principles,
that's a good way to put it.
Principles are universal,methods are what change.
And if someone doesn't talk inthat way, if they talk, if they
instead go into the grocerystore on their Instagram reel
(24:05):
and say you see this food, don'teat this food.
It's got all this stuff.
This is inflammatory, it'sgoing to kill you, it's toxic.
They don't know what they'retalking about, right?
They have no balance, no nuance, they don't put it in the
context of your dietary pattern,they don't know who you are,
what you eat, what you do.
If I'm an athlete eating 4,000calories, I could darn well eat
100 calories of just aboutanything, I don't care how
quote-unquote toxic it is.
You know, other than alcoholand, frankly, even alcohol if
(24:28):
you just want to reduce it tocalories there are other
problems with alcohol, of courseand have great results.
Live a great life, feel great,thrive, live a long life.
All of that right, because inthe context of my 4,000 calories
, or 3,000 calories or whatever,it's a tiny fraction of an
overall dietary pattern.
(24:48):
That's nuance, that's balance,right.
It's not promising miraculousresults or claiming to discover
the secret that thousands ofresearchers somehow missed,
right.
And the blue zones are really agreat example, because they've
become something that everybodyjust clings to and it's become
quote unquote, common knowledge.
And even that was completelywrong.
Now you might be wondering ifthe blue zone claims are
exaggerated, does that mean weshould ignore everything out
(25:08):
there about healthy aging and bevery skeptical that the data is
correct?
I wouldn't say that.
I would say this is where themindset.
When you examine what actuallycontributes to healthy aging, we
do find consistent patternsthat don't require believing in
the kind of logic that the bluezones would have you believe,
(25:32):
and these are very wellsupported by the things I talked
about earlier, like randomized,controlled trials.
We know these things, so I'mgoing to share them in a second.
But my point is, if somethingnew comes along and says here's
the secret to healthy aging,you've never heard before boom
red flag.
Probably not true, right?
Yes, we're discovering newthings all the time, probably
(25:53):
not true?
The real common factors amonglong-lived, healthy populations
are very straightforward theyeat nutrient-dense foods,
including both plants andanimals, so a diverse diet.
Think about something like theMediterranean diet, for example,
which has lean meats, seafood,whole grains, seeds, nuts,
fruits, vegetables, all of it.
They stay physically activethroughout their lives, they
(26:14):
manage stress effectively, theyget adequate sleep and they
maintain strong socialconnections.
And that last one is probablyunderrated.
I don't talk about it as enoughas I probably should, because
we don't often think about thatas health and fitness, right,
the health of it, but reallyrelationships, social
connections, community is a bigpart of health, happiness and
(26:35):
wellbeing, and I mean the the uhscientific term wellbeing used
today in psychology literature,happiness and well-being.
You know, self-reportedhappiness and well-being is
highly correlated with strongsocial connections being the top
factor.
So nutrient-dense, diverse diet, which means a very flexible
diet that gives you a lot ofchoice physically active,
(26:56):
managing stress, adequate sleep,strong social connections.
Notice that none of theserequire any extreme dietary
restrictions, expensivesupplements, following the exact
eating pattern of a village oran ancestral diet or whatever.
They're principles that can beadapted to virtually any food,
culture or lifestyle, which isbeautiful, right, because food
(27:19):
culture.
Think about it as human beings.
Food is part of our culture,it's part of the social
experience, it's part of thesocial connections, in fact, and
there's nothing wrong withenjoying food and having it be
part of our ethnic culture, ourreligions, our spirituality,
just our fun, our everyday fun,all day here.
Getting to grill some meat withthe family becomes an
(27:42):
experience.
My daughters love to help out,season the food, figure out how
to cook it just right, how do weall like it, enjoy the meal
together.
It's wonderful.
And of all the blue zones, Iwould say the Loma Linda blue
zone is a really good example ofthis, where there is reality,
there is some truth there.
It's the Seventh-day Advent isthere and they don't have
(28:03):
unusually high numbers of veryold folks like super
centenarians, but they do havehigher average life expectancy
overall.
And if you look at theirlifestyle, they don't smoke or
drink, they eat a balanced dietwith plenty of protein, they
stay active and they have strongcommunity support, and that's
what longevity looks like.
Right, it's not magical 120year olds, it's not people
(28:26):
reaching their eighties, but itis people reaching their
eighties and nineties in goodhealth.
I always joke I want to diedoing a deadlift in my nineties,
maybe in my hundreds.
That would be great, and that'sactually far more achievable
and valuable than trying tochase these extreme longevity
things.
And I didn't even talk aboutall of the longevity and
biohacking podcasts out therethat make claims using devices
(28:48):
and supplements and talk abouttelomeres and all of these crazy
things.
Right, maybe I'll get provenwrong and some of those people
will be here and they'll all bewalking around at 120 years old,
but I doubt it and I wonder howgreat of a life they lived, you
know, and and whether theyactually enjoyed it.
And by enjoy I don't mean theopposite extreme of being a
(29:09):
heathen, a heathen right, whereyou're over consuming, you know,
ultra processed foods andsmoking and drinking and all
that.
I don't mean that at all.
I mean having a thriving,healthy life where you're
lifting weights, you're beingactive, you're getting off your
butt every day, involved withyour family, with your community
, you know, making socialconnections and just being
positive.
(29:29):
I mean, it's kind of the way toput it.
Put it so, by debunking thesemyths and having your own
skepticism checklist, then youactually get more clarity on
what works, because it gets ridof the noise when I talk about
the BS and the noise in theindustry, that's what I mean.
Instead, you can just focus onthe simple things at work
building muscle with strengthtraining, eating adequate
(29:50):
protein from yes, both plant andanimal sources.
Eating your fiber, eating yourcarbs, your plants, your fruits
all of that good stuff in areasonable balance, whatever
makes sense for you, whateveryour goal is, maintaining the
calorie balance appropriate foryour goals.
So, yes, even if you're tryingto lose weight or fat, you got
to understand that you need toeat less than you burn.
Prioritizing sleep and stressmanagement two of the biggest
(30:11):
factors in all of this,including things like visceral
fat accumulation as we get older, hormones, et cetera and then
cultivating meaningfulrelationships.
And the problem is, these arenot sexy marketing messages.
They're just not.
They're not.
They're based on solid evidence.
They actually work, but they'renot sexy marketing.
So I hope those of you wholisten to this podcast
appreciate where I'm coming fromwhen I talk about this and that
(30:34):
you'll share with others whoneed to hear a similar type of
message and just take a morereasonable, sensible approach
and do the thing that works.
And guess what?
The thing that works sometimestakes effort.
No, it does take effort.
It can be hard, right, but itpays off in the end.
The hard of doing the rightthing now is far less than the
hard of not doing it later.
So if you're going to evaluatehealth advice in today's very,
(30:56):
very much information saturatedworld, just remember that the
very compelling stories, theviral content that spreads
really fast, is often notaccurate.
Let's just put it that way.
It's the careful science andthe evidence takes time and it
tends to be more simple in termsof the ultimate solution.
(31:17):
And then it blinds us to redflags in the data because we
want to latch onto these amazingstories, us to red flags in the
data because we want to latchonto these amazing stories.
So when you apply theseprinciples to nutrition claims,
when you demand good data, whenyou look for consistent patterns
, when you questionextraordinary claims, the
picture emerges that the secretto healthy aging is not in
remote villages in the bluezones, which have obviously
(31:38):
questionable birth records.
They're found in thewell-established principles that
have already been validatedacross multiple populations and
studies over decades, and wehave it right in front of us,
right.
And that doesn't mean we shouldbecome cynical about all health
advice.
I don't want you to go theother extreme and just never
trust anything.
We just have to become criticalthinkers.
Question the data behind anyclaim that is a bit too
(32:00):
impressive.
Look for balanced,evidence-based approaches that
have nuance, rather than this isthe one true diet or way to
work out, and if somethingsounds too good to be true, it
probably is Like that is atime-tested adage and I don't
know about you.
I want to optimize my healthspan.
I want to optimize the yearsthat I spend healthy, strong,
(32:22):
capable.
You know not just my lifespan,I don.
I want to optimize the yearsthat I spend healthy, strong,
capable.
You know not just my lifespan.
I don't want to just live along time, I want to optimize my
health span, and that istotally achievable when you have
the right approach, all right.
So if you want to connect withothers who share this thinking,
this evidence-based, criticalthinking for health and
nutrition, you want to learn andyou're curious and you're
willing to put in the effort,you're not just binging content,
you're willing to do what ittakes to, yes, lose the fat,
(32:45):
build a muscle, look better,feel better all the things you
want.
Join our Wits and WeightsFacebook group Totally free.
That's where we discuss how toseparate legitimate science from
hype.
There's a lot of engagementthere.
There's fun questions beingposted.
I do live Q&As.
There's sometimes early podcastdrops all sorts of fun stuff.
You're gonna find a supportivecommunity.
That's the best part about itis the other people there that
(33:07):
value critical thinking overquick fixes.
Just search for Wits andWeights on Facebook or click the
link in the show notes.
Until next time, keep usingyour wits lifting those weights
and remember the best healthadvice isn't exotic or
complicated.
It is nuanced and personalized.
I'll talk to you next time hereon the Wits and Weights podcast
.
What if I told you the so-called Blue Zone
longevity secrets might be moreabout bad record-keeping and
pension fraud than actualscience that many of those
110-year-olds never existed inthe first place?
Today, we're exposing the truthbehind one of the biggest
nutrition myths of our time.
You'll discover why the BlueZone diet narrative is built on
shaky data, how regions famousfor plant-based eating actually
(00:24):
consume meat daily, and thewarning signs that reveal when
diet advice is more marketingthan medicine.
We're also tackling other dietdeceptions that promise weight
loss and longevity but deliverdisappointment instead, so that
by the end of this episode,you'll have a data-driven
framework for spotting nutritionnonsense and focusing instead
on what actually works for yourhealth and body composition.
(00:46):
Welcome to Wits and Weights,the show that helps you build a
strong, healthy physique usingevidence, engineering and
efficiency.
I'm your host, certifiednutrition coach, philip Pape,
(01:07):
and today we're applying thatengineering mindset to one of
the most persistent nutritionmyths of the past two decades
the blue zones.
If you've never heard of these,they've been celebrated as
proof that certain diets andlifestyles can dramatically
extend human lifespan.
There have been books,documentaries, media that have
promoted these regions as havingcracked the code of longevity.
(01:29):
But what happens when youexamine the data behind these
claims, what we find is acautionary tale about how poor
record-keeping, selectivestorytelling and even
confirmation bias can createvery compelling narratives that
just fall apart under scrutiny.
And I know this was talkedabout recently on, I think, the
Mind Pump podcast.
I originally heard about it ona news podcast a few years ago
(01:53):
and I wanted to revisit thistoday to talk about not just the
blue zones themselves, butoverall.
How do we spot these kinds ofproblems out in the industry?
Before we get into the myths, Iwant you to know if you're
looking for evidence-basedsupport for your health journey
and want to talk to others whohave the same level of
skepticism and curiosity as youdo.
Join our Wits and Ways Facebookgroup.
(02:13):
It's totally free.
A community of like-mindedpeople who value critical
thinking over clickbait.
We regularly discuss how toseparate the legitimate health
advice from some of these otherthings, and we often have people
coming in asking about thingslike carnivore or longevity or
things like this.
Just search for Wits andWeights on Facebook or click the
link in the show notes and joinus in the Facebook group.
(02:35):
We recently exceeded the 1,000person mark, so it's a very
vibrant and growing communityyou're going to love.
Click the link in the shownotes or search for Wits and
Weights on Facebook.
All right, let's start with whatblue zones claim to be.
You may not have heard of theseand if you haven't, they are
five regions around the worldwhere people supposedly live
(02:55):
very, very long lives.
Okinawa in Japan is the oneoften spoken about, sardinia in
Italy, nicoya in Costa Rica,ikaria in Greece and Loma Linda
in California, and the story isvery, very compelling, as many
stories are.
These places allegedly havevery high concentrations of
centenarians and supercentenarians, so people who live
(03:18):
beyond 100 years, who attributethis long life to their
traditional diets, to activelifestyles, to strong
communities, and the story hasbeen so powerful that it really
has actually spawned an entireindustry of cookbooks, of
supplements, of coaching usingthe phrase Blue Zone.
And here's where my mind kicksin, because, as extraordinary as
(03:41):
the claims are, anyextraordinary claim requires
extraordinary evidence, right,and when Dr Saul Justin Newman
he is a demographer who won anIg Nobel Prize for his work he
examined the data behind theBlue Zone longevity claims, he
found something that's prettyshocking, and I was shocked to
learn this just a few years agoor maybe it was last year,
actually, that the regions withthe highest reported numbers of
(04:03):
supercentenarianssupercentenarians were not the
healthiest places.
They were actually correlatedwith poverty, with poor record
keeping, with higher crime ratesand with very weak
documentation systems.
So, in other words, the placesclaiming to have the most
110-year-olds were exactly theplaces where you'd expect to
find errors in data and fraud.
(04:24):
And Newman found that birthrates of the supposed
supercentenarians were oddlyclustered on days ending in zero
or five, suggesting that manydates were approximated or made
up when exact records weren'tthere.
So this is like a classic redflag when it comes to data
analysis that anyone wouldrecognize as not what I
(04:46):
shouldn't say.
Anyone like an engineer ormathematician looking at the
data, I would say, wouldrecognize it as a non-random
distribution.
Um, and honestly, if you sawthis in a list and you're like,
well, what's up with all the youknow tens and 25s and tens and
25s, it doesn't make sense.
Um, you'd probably notice thatpattern.
But it gets worse than thatbecause in Costa Rica's 2000
(05:07):
census, 42% of people age 99 andabove had misstated their age
and after correcting the errors,the centenarian population of
Nicoya that's the region inCosta Rica, right, that's a blue
zone it dropped by 90%, and sothe elderly life expectancy
ranking fell from world leadingto near the bottom.
(05:27):
And this is just a reallyshocking example of what happens
when we accept these feel-goodstories and don't validate the
data.
And then they persist for yearsand years and you might think
these are just like innocentrecord-keeping errors, but
sometimes there's something morenefarious at play, and Newman
discovered that many of thesupposed centenarians were
victims of pension fraud, andthat's where families don't
(05:48):
report death, so they keepgetting benefits.
They get benefits from theloved ones Even though they've
died, they think they're alive.
They keep getting pensionbenefits.
Japan is a really dramaticexample of this.
There was an audit by thegovernment in 2010 that found
more than 230,000 listedcentenarians were unaccounted
for, so they were either missingor long dead, and that's a lot.
(06:12):
That's 82% of their presumedcentenarians were either missing
or dead, some of them for manydecades, and their families
collected pensions.
There's a particular case witha Tokyo man who was thought to
be 111 years old and he wasfound mummified in his home.
I know it's awful.
He had actually died 32 yearsearlier, in 1978, and Newman
(06:35):
said quote the secret to livingto 110 was don't register your
death.
Kind of some very dark humorthere, but that's what was going
on, and this isn't unique toJapan.
Italy also discovered about30,000 dead pension claimants in
1997.
In Greece, at least 72% of thereported centenarians were dead
or non-existent.
And what this means is that allthe data, the foundational data
(06:56):
that supports blue zone claimsis just totally unreliable.
But now what if we set asidethe age verification issues for
a moment, although I meanhonestly, that loses me right
there.
When I hear that amount offraud and misinformation, I
can't, really I don't even wantto look at the data.
I mean, I don't even want tolike discuss the veracity of any
of the dietary claims.
Why would you?
(07:17):
However, even when you do, it'sproblematic.
So that's kind of.
The next turn I wanted to takefor the show was the blue zone
narrative.
You know, from a nutritionstandpoint, the story goes like
this these regions followprimarily plant-based diets,
with meat as a very rareindulgence, and that that
explains their longevity, andthis narrative has been used to
(07:38):
promote plant-based eating asthe key to long life.
But when you look at, you knowwhat these people in the regions
actually ate rather than whatthe marketing materials say they
ate.
A different picture emergesright.
In Sardinia, goat's milk,sheep's cheese, pork are common
staples.
The shepherds, who supposedlyexemplify the blue zone
longevity they consume animalproducts every day.
(08:00):
In Okinawa, pork has been likethe center of their traditional
diet for centuries.
They eat virtually every partof the pig, including organ
meats, and seafood is consumedregularly.
No surprise if you've ever beento Japan.
I haven't been to Okinawa, butpretty familiar with Japanese
culture and diet and yeah,there's plenty of meat there.
In Nocaya, costa Rica, beef andpork are widely consumed.
In Icaria, greece, fish, dairyproducts, lamb are eaten.
(08:23):
Loma Linda, california, there'sone exception there the
Seventh-day Adventists.
They follow a largelyplant-based diet, but they also
consume dairy and sometimes fish, and they also abstain from
smoking and alcohol and theyexercise regularly and they have
strong community.
So you can say well, maybethat's why they live a little
bit longer there.
(08:45):
No-transcript presentation ofdietary patterns and that's what
we see all the time in theindustry today with what we call
confirmation bias.
Right, it's like the blue zone,the people promoting the blue
zone diets.
Again, aside from the wholedata fraud issue, they emphasize
plant foods and then downplay,or they cherry pick or ignore
all the animal proteinconsumption because it doesn't
(09:06):
prefer fit the narrative.
What's so funny about thiswhole thing is they've done that
, thinking that the blue zonesactually have the output or the
outcomes that they're claimingto have, and they don't.
So it kind of like makes thewhole thing fall like a house of
cards.
So this blue zone myth is oneexample of how nutrition advice
gets distorted, but I wanted tolook at some other deceptions
(09:28):
that promise weight loss andlongevity but will make you
disappointed if you try tofollow them, let alone them
being in many cases restrictiveor unsustainable.
Let's talk about something likethe alkaline diet, which is
that you can change your bloodpH by eating certain foods, and
that prevents disease andpromotes longevity, and this is
physiologically impossible.
(09:48):
Like, your kidneys and lungsregulate your blood pH, and if
food could alter it, you'd be inthe emergency room.
You wouldn't be living longer.
And the reason some alkalinefoods, like vegetables, are
beneficial doesn't have anythingto do with pH.
It's because they're nutrientdense, they're high in fiber and
they displace less healthyoptions.
Right, that's just one example,and, by the way, you'll not I'm
not going to hit on some of thebig ones like carnivore in this
(10:10):
episode.
I've done that a lot lately.
I could definitely haveincluded some of those and I'm
going to do some future episodeson specific topics like fiber.
I have an episode coming up onuh, whether fiber is necessary
because carnivore diet claims itis not.
Um, another example that comesto mind is detox cleanses, juice
fasts that promise all sorts ofthings to reset your metabolism
(10:31):
, to flush toxins, and this Ialways love to talk about
detoxification, because the bestdetox fires your own body right
your liver, your kidneys.
They're detoxing your body 24-7.
They don't need any help fromanything else like a juice
cleanse.
And in fact those level ofextreme approaches usually have
the opposite effect long-term.
They end up slowing yourmetabolism, they cause nutrient
(10:54):
deficiencies, they cause muscleloss, all the things just
because you're not getting inthe things you need the protein,
the nutrition, the fiber,whatever right.
And then there's the marketingwar between low-carb, vegan
diets, plant-based, which allclaim that their approach is the
secret to longevity.
And again, all of these canwork when they are, I'll say,
(11:17):
well-planned out, well-thoughtout, structured and and here's
the key word sustainable for you.
If you can stick to the diet,it's good for you.
I've heard the argument madelately that well, even if it's
hard to stick to.
That's not the point.
Isn't health more importantthan anything?
And therefore you'll do what ittakes?
Well, no, human psychologywould beg to differ, because
(11:38):
anybody who's tried not anybody,but the vast majority of people
who've tried any diet thatrestricts things that they would
otherwise eat, is going to be aproblem, because you're going
to binge on that later.
You're going to miss it, letalone potentially unnecessarily
cut things out that you could,uh, benefit from.
You know, nutrient wise, fiberwise, taste wise, everything, um
(11:58):
, what matters overall, I think?
I think the takeaway here is thedietary pattern is going to
matter a lot more than thespecific uh ratio of these
things, and what I mean by thatis like low carb is focused on
what Lowering your carbs?
Vegan is focused on just havingplants, carnivore is just
having animal products.
In every single case, you'relike flipping these ratios
(12:18):
around to an artificialimbalance, let's call it, rather
than having a balanced dietarypattern.
You know, the funny thing iswhat your grandma said about
eating in moderation actuallyholds up pretty well.
Now there are some ways thatyou want to nudge that balance
based on your goals.
Right, like, most people aren'teating nearly enough protein,
(12:39):
so when you eat quote unquote inmoderation you're not really
thinking about it you stillmight not have nearly enough
protein for what you need as alifter, as an athlete, as an
aging person who's worried aboutmuscle loss right.
So there are ways to nudge it,but we're not talking about
wholesale obliteration of onepart of your diet, like carbs or
plants or animal products, andso the pattern here with all of
(13:03):
these is that any of theseapproaches.
What they do really well is theytake a kernel of truth.
They take a kernel of truthLike I did an.
I just did an episode I thinkit was last week on fat loss
versus fat burning, and thekernel of truth is that if you
eat a low carb diet, you'regoing to burn more fat Guess
what?
That's actually true, butyou're not going to lose more
(13:24):
fat because you're actuallyeating more fat.
So it all nets out and see,that's where you take the kernel
of truth and you expand it andyou say so it all nets out and
see, that's where you take thekernel of truth and you expand
it and you say okay, if you'reburning more fat, it means
you're going to lose more fat.
No, that's not true.
It just means you're burningmore fat versus glucose.
Somebody else is burning moreglucose versus fat.
It's all energy and all thatmatters is calories and calories
out.
And so they blow it up into auniversal solution, right, some
(13:44):
kernel of truth.
They take, for example, somecompound in a plant is toxic at
like massive levels and they say, well, that that means plants
are toxic and all plants aretoxic and therefore you get rid
of plants, you solve all yourissues autoimmune conditions,
gut health, everything else.
Go ahead and eat carnivore, andit just massively misses, um,
the evidence.
It also ignores individualdifferences between people.
(14:04):
So anytime someone makes aclaim that this is the one true
diet, you're, you've got yourskepticism.
Hackles have to get raisedbecause everybody's different
your metabolism, your genetics,your lifestyle and there is no
one true diet.
So how do we protect ourselvesfrom all of these deceptions?
Here is kind of anengineering-based framework, I
would call it for evaluatingnutrition claims.
I'm going to give you fivethings to think about.
(14:26):
Okay, this is for nutritionnonsense.
First, you want to look for anyred flag, and this sounds
generic.
So what I'm talking about iswhat I just mentioned Claims
that a diet is one size fits all.
That's the big red flag.
Human biology is complex, it'sindividual.
What works for one person maynot work for another.
So right there, right off thebat, if someone says this is the
(14:49):
way to do it for everyone, boom, be suspicious.
That's probably not true.
Second, you want to examine theevidence quality.
So not just the evidence,because evidence-based,
science-based, gets thrownaround a lot.
I use the term, and at thispoint it's become almost
meaningless, because anecdotesand testimonials are not data.
In fact, let me tell yousomething I was thinking about
(15:11):
the other day.
I'm all for anecdotes andstories.
When they are used to disprovea one-size-fits-all claim, I'm
all for that.
In other words, if you saycarnivore is right for everyone
and then I say, well, what aboutthese people over here who are
not eating carnivore and they'rethriving?
Well, right there, you've justdisproven that carnival's right
for everyone.
But you can't flip it aroundand say, well, this person, all
(15:32):
his autoimmune conditions, guthealth and brain fog went away
because he went on low-carb diet.
Therefore it's right foreveryone.
No, so you can't do that.
You can't use one anecdote tomake a universal claim.
You can use an anecdote todisprove a universal claim,
though.
Right In general, in general.
In other words, that's how thescientific method works is you
(15:52):
make a hypothesis, you test it.
If you find any evidence thatdoesn't support the hypothesis,
well, your hypothesis isdisproved and you need to adjust
it right.
You need to adjust it.
So when we talk about evidencequality, you know you want to
look for, if you're looking atscientific literature,
controlled studies, I mean someof the best would be randomized
controlled studies, which arerandomized controlled trials,
(16:14):
rcts, which are very hard tofind in the nutrition world.
Usually we have observationalstudies that show correlation,
not necessarily causation.
That's where we get into realsticky wickets here we talk
about, for example, people usedto say look, diet Coke causes
obesity because look at thecorrelation in the observational
studies.
Well, it turns out that peoplewho have weight to lose will
(16:35):
drink more Diet Coke becausethey're trying to lose weight.
It's not because drinking DietCoke causes weight gain.
And we see those kinds ofcorrelations all over the place.
All over the place andeverything you look at weight
loss, you know well, they wenton low carbon, they lost weight.
Therefore it causes weight loss.
Well, no, turns out that theycut their calories because they
(16:55):
got rid of a bunch of processedfoods and they were able to
better manage their hungersignals etc.
Right, so we have to be carefulabout evidence quality.
Honestly, the best evidence Ialways say is N equals one.
The N equals one sample size ofone.
You, you are your own bestevidence.
So I love starting with thefoundation of what the science
might suggest for you and givingyou a ballpark or framework or
guardrails, but then you need totry it out right.
(17:18):
I have clients all the time.
I have one client in particularI can think of right now.
He used to do fasted trainingand I said well, let's try
eating some carbs before youtrain.
He's like how much should I eat?
I said let's try 20 grams.
Okay, how did that feel?
Wow, I felt like more energized.
I was able to get more reps.
I wasn't winded by the end.
He's like should I eat more?
I said what do you think?
I'm like why don't we trydouble and tell me what you
(17:38):
think?
He tried double?
He's like well, you know what?
That was even a little bitbetter.
And now that my training volumeis increasing because I have
the energy, I need more energyand that's what works for him.
And now he might even try 60grams and find out that that's
optimal, and then 80 grams istoo much or not necessary, right
?
So your best evidence isyourself, and evidence quality
to me is a hierarchy.
(17:58):
You've got yourself in there.
You've got, um, very controlledstudies in there.
You've got, you know, peopleyou trust.
I'll say then that that's kindof a thorny one.
It's like I don't know if youtrust me, right, if you just
started listening to me, youdon't trust me yet.
But if you've listened to mefor a long time and you've
applied what I've said to yourlife and it works and I tried to
come across, as I'll call it,sensible or flexible, if you
(18:22):
will.
I call out people all the time,but it's because they're trying
to be restrictive and makeuniversal claims, and I'm trying
to counter that narrative bysaying that nothing is universal
, that it depends on you.
So if you start to trust me andlisten to my show, you're going
to then give more weight to theevidence that I try to present
in the future and which means Ihave a very large responsibility
to deliver that to you.
(18:43):
So that's evidence quality.
The third way to protectourselves from diet deceptions
is consider the source.
So I kind of just startedtalking about this already in my
last few statements.
But is the person making theclaims trying to sell you
something?
Do they have relevantcredentials, relevant expertise?
You know they don't necessarilyhave to have a degree per se or
(19:04):
a certification.
It really depends right, likein the medical field, they might
need to be licensed and stuff,for you know legal and liability
reasons, but it's up to you tokind of decide whether it's the
appropriate level of credentials.
I know lots of strength coacheswho don't, who never got a
personal training certification,but they're far more
experienced and helpful than thevast majority of people who
(19:25):
have personal trainingcertifications.
You know what I mean.
Just just cause I know what ittakes to.
You know, get a cert is supereasy.
It's, it's a test, it's easy,whereas to become an actual,
effective strength coach takesyears of working with clients
and you might do that withoutcertification.
So you just have to understandthe source.
You look at the big scandal withthe liver King and steroids and
Paul Saladino and thesupplements and all those guys
(19:46):
out there.
Generally people have millionsof followers.
You got to watch out like theones that have the biggest
followers I'm the most skepticalof.
It's not, again, notnecessarily the case, right?
This is just a correlation thatI'm making for you.
Um, I'm just saying that theones with the MDs behind their
names and 2 million followers,you've got to got to make sure
that they're saying what they'resaying for a reason and it's
(20:07):
not for trying to sell something, right?
And having said that, the vastmajority of people educating
online probably have a businesstied to that education in some
way.
So of course, they are tryingto make a living.
They might have a business.
They're trying to make money.
Guess what?
That's what I do.
I provide coaching, right.
But I don't make claims thatare not true to try to get you
(20:29):
to sign up for coaching.
You know that wouldn't work toowell because if that worked you
would sign up for coaching andthen all of a sudden I wouldn't
be able to deliver on the resultbecause it doesn't line up with
the evidence, right?
So, again, you have to.
You know I'm thinking more likepeople trying to sell
supplements or, you know, rapidweight loss programs or
something like that.
The fourth sign on spottingnutrition nonsense is you want
(20:52):
to ask about the mechanism orthe method, or the what should I
say?
The physiological means bywhich the intervention actually
works in the body.
Can they explain how it works?
Vague claims about boostingyour metabolism or alkalizing or
diet cleansing, detox, whatever, or even inflammation that's
the big trigger word these days,guys inflammation.
(21:14):
I think I'm going to do a wholeepisode just about inflammation
how it is misused as a label,but also how it is misunderstood
biologically, becauseinflammation can be measured in
blood markers in some ways andin many ways it can't.
But inflammation is directlytied to lifestyle and there are
(21:36):
a lot of influencers that scareyou into thinking that
inflammation is tied to specificfoods.
That's just one example and nomatter how hard you try, you
can't find anything anywhere inthe evidence that would support
their claim, for example, seedoils being inflammatory.
The evidence does not supportthat claim and I bring that one
(21:57):
up specifically because it is sooften repeated that it's
inflammatory, it's inflammatory,it's inflammatory.
What's inflammatory are dietarypatterns and movement and
sedentary behavior and stressand smoking and alcohol and lack
of sleep and so on.
There's a lot of things.
I'm going to do a whole episodeabout it, but the point is you
have to be able to understandthe mechanism.
Again, going back to lastweek's episode fat loss versus
(22:18):
fat burn or lose fat versus burnfat.
I tried to explain themechanism behind how we store
and lose fat on our body and howwe actually burn fat in the
moment, and how these aredifferent mechanisms that lead
to understanding the language weuse around them.
Okay, and then the last thinghere, number five, is look for
balance and nuance.
I think I've alluded to thisseveral times, but legitimate
(22:40):
nutrition advice is probablygonna start with something like
it depends or multipleapproaches can work, or
individual factors make matter,or this is personal.
You know those that kind of Itry to use that language.
Now, sometimes I get on my highhorse, I get on my rants, my
rambles, and I might make astatement with a lot more
confidence and definitivenessthan I intend to get across, or
(23:02):
maybe I do intend to get itacross, depending on what I'm
talking about, but I try not tomake a claim about something
that is universal to everyoneother than what's universal is
that nothing is universal, right, in other words, that I'm
definitely confident about that,that multiple approaches work.
Yes, human physiology isuniversal, but your lifestyle
(23:22):
and all the other epigeneticsand phenotypes and all the other
things that come into play asyou live your life are what
causes us to diverge andrequires a much more nuanced
application of the info.
Like, let's say, we're talkingabout training, not even diet.
We're talking about strengthtraining, and someone says how
should I train?
Oh, that is such a hugediscussion.
There's so many aspects to that.
I can throw out generalities.
(23:43):
I do all the time on podcasts,like you know, hit the big
muscle groups two times a weekusing compound lifts and train
like three or four days a week,like that would be a nice way to
say it.
That's just general, generalprinciples right, principles,
that's a good way to put it.
Principles are universal,methods are what change.
And if someone doesn't talk inthat way, if they talk, if they
instead go into the grocerystore on their Instagram reel
(24:05):
and say you see this food, don'teat this food.
It's got all this stuff.
This is inflammatory, it'sgoing to kill you, it's toxic.
They don't know what they'retalking about, right?
They have no balance, no nuance, they don't put it in the
context of your dietary pattern,they don't know who you are,
what you eat, what you do.
If I'm an athlete eating 4,000calories, I could darn well eat
100 calories of just aboutanything, I don't care how
quote-unquote toxic it is.
You know, other than alcoholand, frankly, even alcohol if
(24:28):
you just want to reduce it tocalories there are other
problems with alcohol, of courseand have great results.
Live a great life, feel great,thrive, live a long life.
All of that right, because inthe context of my 4,000 calories
, or 3,000 calories or whatever,it's a tiny fraction of an
overall dietary pattern.
(24:48):
That's nuance, that's balance,right.
It's not promising miraculousresults or claiming to discover
the secret that thousands ofresearchers somehow missed,
right.
And the blue zones are really agreat example, because they've
become something that everybodyjust clings to and it's become
quote unquote, common knowledge.
And even that was completelywrong.
Now you might be wondering ifthe blue zone claims are
exaggerated, does that mean weshould ignore everything out
(25:08):
there about healthy aging and bevery skeptical that the data is
correct?
I wouldn't say that.
I would say this is where themindset.
When you examine what actuallycontributes to healthy aging, we
do find consistent patternsthat don't require believing in
the kind of logic that the bluezones would have you believe,
(25:32):
and these are very wellsupported by the things I talked
about earlier, like randomized,controlled trials.
We know these things, so I'mgoing to share them in a second.
But my point is, if somethingnew comes along and says here's
the secret to healthy aging,you've never heard before boom
red flag.
Probably not true, right?
Yes, we're discovering newthings all the time, probably
(25:53):
not true?
The real common factors amonglong-lived, healthy populations
are very straightforward theyeat nutrient-dense foods,
including both plants andanimals, so a diverse diet.
Think about something like theMediterranean diet, for example,
which has lean meats, seafood,whole grains, seeds, nuts,
fruits, vegetables, all of it.
They stay physically activethroughout their lives, they
(26:14):
manage stress effectively, theyget adequate sleep and they
maintain strong socialconnections.
And that last one is probablyunderrated.
I don't talk about it as enoughas I probably should, because
we don't often think about thatas health and fitness, right,
the health of it, but reallyrelationships, social
connections, community is a bigpart of health, happiness and
(26:35):
wellbeing, and I mean the the uhscientific term wellbeing used
today in psychology literature,happiness and well-being.
You know, self-reportedhappiness and well-being is
highly correlated with strongsocial connections being the top
factor.
So nutrient-dense, diverse diet, which means a very flexible
diet that gives you a lot ofchoice physically active,
(26:56):
managing stress, adequate sleep,strong social connections.
Notice that none of theserequire any extreme dietary
restrictions, expensivesupplements, following the exact
eating pattern of a village oran ancestral diet or whatever.
They're principles that can beadapted to virtually any food,
culture or lifestyle, which isbeautiful, right, because food
(27:19):
culture.
Think about it as human beings.
Food is part of our culture,it's part of the social
experience, it's part of thesocial connections, in fact, and
there's nothing wrong withenjoying food and having it be
part of our ethnic culture, ourreligions, our spirituality,
just our fun, our everyday fun,all day here.
Getting to grill some meat withthe family becomes an
(27:42):
experience.
My daughters love to help out,season the food, figure out how
to cook it just right, how do weall like it, enjoy the meal
together.
It's wonderful.
And of all the blue zones, Iwould say the Loma Linda blue
zone is a really good example ofthis, where there is reality,
there is some truth there.
It's the Seventh-day Advent isthere and they don't have
(28:03):
unusually high numbers of veryold folks like super
centenarians, but they do havehigher average life expectancy
overall.
And if you look at theirlifestyle, they don't smoke or
drink, they eat a balanced dietwith plenty of protein, they
stay active and they have strongcommunity support, and that's
what longevity looks like.
Right, it's not magical 120year olds, it's not people
(28:26):
reaching their eighties, but itis people reaching their
eighties and nineties in goodhealth.
I always joke I want to diedoing a deadlift in my nineties,
maybe in my hundreds.
That would be great, and that'sactually far more achievable
and valuable than trying tochase these extreme longevity
things.
And I didn't even talk aboutall of the longevity and
biohacking podcasts out therethat make claims using devices
(28:48):
and supplements and talk abouttelomeres and all of these crazy
things.
Right, maybe I'll get provenwrong and some of those people
will be here and they'll all bewalking around at 120 years old,
but I doubt it and I wonder howgreat of a life they lived, you
know, and and whether theyactually enjoyed it.
And by enjoy I don't mean theopposite extreme of being a
(29:09):
heathen, a heathen right, whereyou're over consuming, you know,
ultra processed foods andsmoking and drinking and all
that.
I don't mean that at all.
I mean having a thriving,healthy life where you're
lifting weights, you're beingactive, you're getting off your
butt every day, involved withyour family, with your community
, you know, making socialconnections and just being
positive.
(29:29):
I mean, it's kind of the way toput it.
Put it so, by debunking thesemyths and having your own
skepticism checklist, then youactually get more clarity on
what works, because it gets ridof the noise when I talk about
the BS and the noise in theindustry, that's what I mean.
Instead, you can just focus onthe simple things at work
building muscle with strengthtraining, eating adequate
(29:50):
protein from yes, both plant andanimal sources.
Eating your fiber, eating yourcarbs, your plants, your fruits
all of that good stuff in areasonable balance, whatever
makes sense for you, whateveryour goal is, maintaining the
calorie balance appropriate foryour goals.
So, yes, even if you're tryingto lose weight or fat, you got
to understand that you need toeat less than you burn.
Prioritizing sleep and stressmanagement two of the biggest
(30:11):
factors in all of this,including things like visceral
fat accumulation as we get older, hormones, et cetera and then
cultivating meaningfulrelationships.
And the problem is, these arenot sexy marketing messages.
They're just not.
They're not.
They're based on solid evidence.
They actually work, but they'renot sexy marketing.
So I hope those of you wholisten to this podcast
appreciate where I'm coming fromwhen I talk about this and that
(30:34):
you'll share with others whoneed to hear a similar type of
message and just take a morereasonable, sensible approach
and do the thing that works.
And guess what?
The thing that works sometimestakes effort.
No, it does take effort.
It can be hard, right, but itpays off in the end.
The hard of doing the rightthing now is far less than the
hard of not doing it later.
So if you're going to evaluatehealth advice in today's very,
(30:56):
very much information saturatedworld, just remember that the
very compelling stories, theviral content that spreads
really fast, is often notaccurate.
Let's just put it that way.
It's the careful science andthe evidence takes time and it
tends to be more simple in termsof the ultimate solution.
(31:17):
And then it blinds us to redflags in the data because we
want to latch onto these amazingstories, us to red flags in the
data because we want to latchonto these amazing stories.
So when you apply theseprinciples to nutrition claims,
when you demand good data, whenyou look for consistent patterns
, when you questionextraordinary claims, the
picture emerges that the secretto healthy aging is not in
remote villages in the bluezones, which have obviously
(31:38):
questionable birth records.
They're found in thewell-established principles that
have already been validatedacross multiple populations and
studies over decades, and wehave it right in front of us,
right.
And that doesn't mean we shouldbecome cynical about all health
advice.
I don't want you to go theother extreme and just never
trust anything.
We just have to become criticalthinkers.
Question the data behind anyclaim that is a bit too
(32:00):
impressive.
Look for balanced,evidence-based approaches that
have nuance, rather than this isthe one true diet or way to
work out, and if somethingsounds too good to be true, it
probably is Like that is atime-tested adage and I don't
know about you.
I want to optimize my healthspan.
I want to optimize the yearsthat I spend healthy, strong,
(32:22):
capable.
You know not just my lifespan,I don.
I want to optimize the yearsthat I spend healthy, strong,
capable.
You know not just my lifespan.
I don't want to just live along time, I want to optimize my
health span, and that istotally achievable when you have
the right approach, all right.
So if you want to connect withothers who share this thinking,
this evidence-based, criticalthinking for health and
nutrition, you want to learn andyou're curious and you're
willing to put in the effort,you're not just binging content,
you're willing to do what ittakes to, yes, lose the fat,
(32:45):
build a muscle, look better,feel better all the things you
want.
Join our Wits and WeightsFacebook group Totally free.
That's where we discuss how toseparate legitimate science from
hype.
There's a lot of engagementthere.
There's fun questions beingposted.
I do live Q&As.
There's sometimes early podcastdrops all sorts of fun stuff.
You're gonna find a supportivecommunity.
That's the best part about itis the other people there that
(33:07):
value critical thinking overquick fixes.
Just search for Wits andWeights on Facebook or click the
link in the show notes.
Until next time, keep usingyour wits lifting those weights
and remember the best healthadvice isn't exotic or
complicated.
It is nuanced and personalized.
I'll talk to you next time hereon the Wits and Weights podcast
.
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.
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
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!