Podcast appearances and mentions of alan levinovitz

TGIF and TGIEICD (thank god it's Everything Is Content Day... is this gonna catch on?)This week, Beth, Ruchira and Oenone dip their toe in the fashion discourse, if 2025 Haute Couture is anything to go by, then quiet luxury and stealth wealth might be being booted out for loud luxury, extravagance and labels, sorry Sofia Richie Grainge! Next up, Selena Gomez posted a tearful video on Instagram Stories on Monday, before quickly deleting the post. In the video, she responded to the US' nationwide immigration raids over the weekend, which saw the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) arrest 956 people on Sunday — the largest number of arrests on a single day under Trump. He announced several extreme executive orders on immigration from his first day. US Senate candidate Sam Parker called to 'deport Selena Gomez' on X, while the left basically called her self-involved. They ask, why do you think we're so cynical of emotional outbursts online?And last but by no means least, is society shifting now towards intentional and consensual round the clock tracking? Beth found a fascinating piece called “We are all Big Brother now: The largest system of surveillance isn't run by the government or corporations. It's the grass-roots panopticon we're using to judge one another.” It was written by Alan Levinovitz, and published in the Boston Globe last June. At EIC headquarters the girls are quite worried!https://www.telegraph.co.uk/fashion/events/schiaparelli-and-dior-couture-review/https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/selena-gomez-crying-immigration-trump-b2687656.htmlhttps://www.bostonglobe.com/2024/06/20/opinion/nextdoor-ring-nest-grassroots-surveillance/https://fortune.com/2023/09/12/gen-z-find-my-friends-life360-location-tracking-privacy-safety/ Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Join Ethan Suplee and guest Alan Levinovitz as they explore the deep connections between food, health, and belief systems. From ancient dietary myths to modern-day health movements, this thought-provoking conversation uncovers the surprising ways our ideas about food shape our lives and culture.SHOW HIGHLIGHTS00:00 - Welcome and Introductions02:48 - The Soda Tax Debate07:06 - The Religion of "Natural" Foods10:05 - Desperation and Dietary Gurus15:14 - Healthy Living Beyond Restrictions22:11 - Willpower vs. Environment in Diets27:23 - Rituals and Sacred Eating35:18 - The Power of Food Narratives48:41 - The Danger of Dietary Fear56:14 - Creating a Respectful Food Culture01:07:32 - Finding Individual Truths in Eating Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

As a Thanksgiving treat, an unlocked Members Only episode featuring Moynihan in conversation with Dr. Alan Levinovitz, author of Natural: How Faith in Nature's Goodness Leads to Harmful Fads, Unjust Laws, and Flawed Science and The Gluten Lie: And Other Myths About What You Eat, about RFK's view of public health, why you are fat, the myth of “natural,” and why so many people have stopped trusting “the science.”We won't be unlocking any subscriber-only episodes for awhile so…subscribe! This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.wethefifth.com/subscribe

Do you believe in magic? On this episode of Grifty, friends of the pod explore America's mass shooting problem thru the lens of the magical thinking that fuels both gun and wellness cultures, as well as discuss the latest news about GOP grifters Donald Trump and George Santos. The market for Toxic forms of wellness exists because people are feeling disempowered with their health and lack trust in the medical community in the same way that the consumer market for military-grade weapons exists because people are feeling disempowered with their safety and lack trust in the government. Gun and wellness cultures center YOU in the discussion, as both the main contributor and detractor of your safety and well-being.  It's giving main character energy in the worst way possible. These dogmatic views and binary solutions towards self-sufficiency and empowerment have led to extremism not just by predatory grifters but also by other well-meaning but misinformed individuals, especially in this chronically online era where anyone can become a platform for spreading false information as they can work the algorithm.   FRIENDS ON THIS EPISODE Azadeh “Azi” Ghafari, Sari Beth Rosenberg, Dr. Thomas Oden MD, Baktaash "BT" Sorkhabi  IN THIS EPISODE On Trump's Sexual Assault Case Politico – A stunning Result in Trump's Sexual Assault Trial PBS - Breaking down the verdict as jury finds Trump liable for sexual assault and defamation   On George Santos' Fraud charges United States Department of Justice: Congressman George Santos Charged with Fraud, Money Laundering, Theft of Public Funds, and False Statements Fortune - Serial liar George Santos' lesser-known fraud may have been collecting $24,000 in COVID unemployment benefits while working a $120,000 job   On America's mass shooting problem Huff Post - Texas Mall Shooting Victims Include Young Child And His Parents Huff Post - The Texas Shooter Reportedly Wore A Patch Popular With Far-Right Groups Daily Beast - Why Young Men of Color Are Joining White-Supremacist Groups Harvard School of Public Health - Do guns make us safer? Science suggests no Harvard School of Public Health – Scientists Agree: Guns don't make society safer Newsweek – Republicans are blaming Mental Health School Shootings After Refusing to Fund It Washington Post – Why Haven't GOP Politicians Matched  Funding to their Rhetoric? Pew Research Center – What the Data says about gun deaths in the U.S.   On The Wellness to Alt Right Pipeline Huff Post - Gun Culture And Wellness Culture Come From the Same Place Conspirtuality – Guns, Germs, & Fears PBS - Disinformation abounds in the wellness community. How one anti-vax influencer broke free McGill Office for Science and Society – Granola and Guns: The Rise of Conspirtuality Mother Jones - Wellness Influencers Are Spreading QAnon Conspiracies About the Coronavirus Food Psych – Rethinking Wellness: The Problems with “Natural” Wellness with Alan Levinovitz  

What does the body of evidence say on the topic of gluten, celiac disease, and non-celiac gluten sensitivity? Plus: a puzzling finding in nutritional epidemiology is painted as a conspiracy, and the FDA is getting sued by people who claim the abortion drug mifepristone was wrongly approved… twenty years ago. Block 1: (2:26) Gluten: what gluten is, what celiac disease is, whether or not it's an allergy, the genetic cause, the solution, and how to test for it Block 2: (10:04) Gluten: gluten sensitivity (NCGS) and other explanations for its symptoms, including FODMAPs Block 3: (26:12) A mystery for the ages: is ice cream… good for you? Block 4: (43:53) The lawsuit against the abortion drug mifepristone   * Jingle by Joseph Hackl * Theme music: “Fall of the Ocean Queen“ by Joseph Hackl * Assistant researcher: Nicholas Koziris   To contribute to The Body of Evidence, go to our Patreon page at: http://www.patreon.com/thebodyofevidence/. To make a one-time donation to our show, you can now use PayPal! https://www.paypal.com/donate?hosted_button_id=9QZET78JZWCZE Patrons get a bonus show on Patreon called “Digressions”! Check it out!   Jingle Lyrics: FODMAPs! Woo-oo! It's not gluten, it really is FODMAPs! Woo-oo! Unless you have celiac, it's really FODMAPs! Woo-oo!   F-f-f fructose, lactose, fructans Found in bread and dairy and fruits If you feel ill, just avoid these   FODMAPs! Woo-oo! Some foods have a lot of them, it's  FODMAPs! Woo-oo! Other foods are low in them, it's FODMAPs! Woo-oo!   References: 1) Alan Levinovitz's The Gluten Lie: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/23280245-the-gluten-lie 2) Cancer incidence in people with celiac disease: https://doi.org/10.1053/gast.2002.36585 3) Testing for gluten-related disorders: https://doi.org/10.1155/2011/642452 4) Trends in gluten avoidance: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mayocp.2016.10.012 5) First gluten sensitivity trial mentioned: https://doi.org/10.1038/ajg.2010.487 6) Second gluten sensitivity trial mentioned, with FODMAPs: https://doi.org/10.1053/j.gastro.2013.04.051 7) Crossover trial of non-celiac gluten sensitivity in children: https://doi.org/10.1038/ajg.2017.483 8) The Atlantic article on the ice cream problem: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2023/05/ice-cream-bad-for-you-health-study/673487/ 9) Scientific American's write-up on the legal case surrounding mifepristone: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/mifepristone-is-safe-a-court-ruling-reducing-access-to-it-is-dangerous/   It's Not Twitter, But It'll Do: 1) Jonathan's interview in the Tribune: https://www.thetribune.ca/sci-tech/combatting-pseudoscience-with-reason-and-rationality-030423/ 2) Dr. Jonathan Howard's book, We Want Them Infected: https://redhawkpublications.com/We-Want-Them-Infected-p547021769 3) Chris' article on the misguided use of honey to treat allergies: https://montrealgazette.com/opinion/christopher-labos-no-eating-honey-wont-help-your-seasonal-allergies   Music Credits: The following music was used for this media project: Music: Wish For Victory by MusicLFiles Free download: https://filmmusic.io/song/8102-wish-for-victory License (CC BY 4.0): https://filmmusic.io/standard-license  

Alan Levinovitz, religious-studies scholar and author of Natural and The Gluten Lie, joins us to discuss the problems with framing eating and wellness practices as “natural,” the weird parallels between gun culture and wellness culture, the tricky balance between empathizing with why people are driven to harmful wellness practices and being clear in calling out misinformation, the need for nuance when discussing the connection between physical and psychological issues, and more. Alan Levinovitz is associate professor of philosophy and religion at James Madison University, and the author, most recently, of Natural: How Faith In Nature's Goodness Leads to Harmful Fads, Unjust Laws, and Flawed Science. Rethinking Wellness now has its own feed! If you like this conversation, subscribe to the new podcast to hear lots more like it! You can also sign up to get it in your inbox each week (with a full transcript) at rethinkingwellness.substack.com. Pre-order Christy's upcoming book, The Wellness Trap, for its April 25 release, and get access to an exclusive webinar discussing the book by submitting your proof of purchase at christyharrison.com/bookbonus.

Alan Levinovitz, religious-studies scholar and author of Natural and The Gluten Lie, joins us to discuss the problems with framing eating and wellness practices as “natural,” the weird parallels between gun culture and wellness culture, the tricky balance between empathizing with why people are driven to harmful wellness practices and being clear in calling out misinformation, the need for nuance when discussing the connection between physical and psychological issues, and more.Alan Levinovitz is associate professor of philosophy and religion at James Madison University, and the author, most recently, of Natural: How Faith In Nature's Goodness Leads to Harmful Fads, Unjust Laws, and Flawed Science.If you like this conversation, subscribe to hear lots more like it! You can also sign up to get it in your inbox each week (with a full transcript) at rethinkingwellness.substack.com.Pre-order Christy's upcoming book, The Wellness Trap, for its April 25 release, and get access to an exclusive webinar discussing the book by submitting your proof of purchase at christyharrison.com/bookbonus. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit rethinkingwellness.substack.com/subscribe

Today I spoke with Professor Alan Levinovitz, author of Natural: How Faith in Nature’s Goodness Leads to Harmful Fads, Unjust Laws, and Flawed Science. We talked about the myth of the natural, pseudoscience, neurodiversity and post-pandemic life. Listen to the podcast on the audio link below. Also available on Spotify, Stitcher or iTunes. . Bio … Continue reading Talking with professor Alan Levinovitz about pseudoscience and the myth of “natural”

I spoke with professor Alan Levinovitz, author of the new book, Natural, about the myth of “natural.” We also talked about neurodiversity, science, the limits of quantification and the project of healing the cultural divides that arose during the pandemic.  Listen to the episode at the audio link below. Also available on Spotify, Stitcher or … Continue reading Talking about the myth of “natural” with Prof. Alan Levinovitz

To stir the pot, Will's mother sent him Alan's book, Natural: How Faith in Nature's Goodness Leads to Harmful Fads, Unjust Laws, and Flawed Science, last year. Alan's book examines the meaning of "natural" and argues that modern Western culture has divinized nature. That seemed like a worthy conversation to unpack. Alan is an associate professor of religion at James Madison University. His work focuses primarily on the relationship between religion, literature, and science, with particular attention to classical Chinese thought and comparative ethics. In this episode, we talk a lot about psychotherapy, religion, cults, pseudoscience, wellbeing, and ritual. Useful Links Alan's JMU Page Give Alan a follow on Twitter Alan's Washington Post Page Interview with Alan about "Nature's Goodness"

Alan Levinovitz, author, professor, and genius skeptic, joins the DTFH! Check out Alan's latest book, Natural: How Faith in Nature's Goodness Leads to Harmful Fads, Unjust Laws, and Flawed Science, wherever you buy your books! Original music by Aaron Michael Goldberg. This episode is brought to you by: Herb Stomp - Use code DUNC15 at checkout to receive 15% OFF your first order! Babbel - Sign up for a 3-month subscription with promo code DUNCAN to get an extra 3 months FREE!

Life is scary. Natural disasters, violent intruders, and deadly viruses threaten our survival and endanger our loved ones. When ordinary solutions and institutions are not trusted, we may reach for talismanic help; crystals, herbal remedies, ritual prayer and magical thinking, or we might consult the charismatic oracle who channels prophecies from the Great Beyond—right on your iPhone. But what about weaponry? Even though guns exert devastating real-world impact, our guest argues that they also carry an important  symbolic power. While most may never use it, the knowledge that cold hard steel is nearby is one attempt at managing an anxiety that is all-too human. In fact, coping strategies both magical and militaristic are woven into the American political psyche—and as the pandemic has demonstrated, flare up dramatically during social crises; even at times becoming strange bedfellows. Philosophy and religion professor Alan Levinovitz calls this "empowerment epistemology" and describes it as a connective tissue between the seemingly distant domains of gun culture and the wellness sphere. In both cases, this longing for empowerment in the face of helplessness motivates us to cleave to what we believe protects us, regardless of evidence to the contrary—or the tragic consequences in our middle schools and medical ICUs. Show NotesOprah's 'happiness guru' designed apartments to maximize joy — and they start at $5 millionKilling does not come easy for soldiers - The Washington Post Hanns Johst “Schlageter”Quote/Counterquote: “Whenever I hear the word 'culture'…” 

Rosaries made of shell casings. A breakaway Unification Church sect that holds rituals with gilded ARs. JP Sears on the gun range. The unholy American trinity of conservative politics, religious extremism, and gun culture is deep into its liturgical calendar. And it looks like conspiritualist influencers in the yoga and wellness space are setting up their juice bars outside the temple of the gun. Is Christiane Northrup LARPing when she talks about murdering political enemies? What would Mikki Willis wear to tactical boot camp? Amidst the carnage of Uvalde and the Supreme Court, are conspiritualists gearing up to offer logistical or merely symbolic support for political violence? Does it even make a difference? When does the Temple of the Gun become a firing range, and then a staging ground? We'll cover these questions this week in part one of our look at guns and spirituality. Then in three weeks, Julian will talk to sociologist of religion Alan Levinovitz about how New Age spirituality and US gun culture shake hands through an “epistemology of individual empowerment,” which, he argues, has emerged amidst a crash in social solidarity.Show NotesNew York Times report on Guns in GOP AdsHow Many Lives Were Saved by The Assault Weapons Ban?Christian Nationalists and the Holy Gun CrusadeRod Of Iron Ministries Buys “Spiritual Retreat” Property in Tennessee

Natural foods. Natural medicine. Natural living. They all sound good, and lots of people tell us we need more of them, and that government policy should support them. The trouble is, as guest Alan Levinovitz explains, nailing down just what counts as "natural" is awfully difficult, and that difficulty leads to a lot of bad thinking--and bad laws. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

The 1970s saw a renaissance of Black women writers like Alice Walker and Gloria Naylor who told stories of Black women's pain and healing. Tamika Carey says that just a few decades later, these stories trickled up to a whole Black women's wellness industry, driven by figures like Oprah Winfrey, Iyanla Vanzant, and even Tyler Perry. And: In the wellness world, “natural” reigns supreme. So much so that according to Alan Levinovitz, it's become a religion. His new book explores how too much faith in nature can be misleading and even harmful. Later in the show: When we're making New Year's resolutions, many of us look to add to our lives to make them better: eat more vegetables, sleep more, start running. Leidy Klotz argues that instead of always trying to make change through additions, we should consider more subtractions. Plus: We are living through what's been dubbed “the great resignation.” People are leaving their jobs in droves and we can't quite figure out why. Richard Bargdill thinks that boredom might have something to do with it. Bargdill studies habitual boredom and how people can break out of the boredom cycle to lead a better life.

Put down the cayenne-lemon water, and step away from the "diet" teas, says Dr. Jen Gunter. She's joined by a hepatologist who explains why these cleanses and "natural" detoxes can do more harm to your body (and bank account) than good, and shares what you can do to keep your body's natural detox system running smoothly. Thanks to Dr. Kaveh Hoda and Dr. Alan Levinovitz for sharing their insights on this episode. (Audio only)

Have you ever heard the phrase "diet culture" and wondered what the heck it was all about? In this episode, Sadie & Naomi do a deep dive into what diet culture is, what it means to be anti-diet culture, and all the ways that diet culture shows up in our lives far beyond whether or not we can eat ice cream. You can stay up to date on all things Satisfaction Factor by following us on IG @satisfactionfactorpod!Here's where to find us:Sadie Simpson: www.sadiesimpson.com or IG @thesadiesimpsonNaomi Katz: www.happyshapes.co or IG @happyshapesnaomiFor this episode's transcript, visit: www.satisfactionfactorpod.comThis episode references:The Gluten Lie: And Other Myths About What You Eat by Alan Levinovitz, PhDSocial Determinants of Health diagram

My guest this week is Alan Levinovitz (@AlanLevinovitz), a professor of religion and science at James Madison University and the author of Natural: How Faith in Nature's goodness leads to harmful fads, unjust laws, and flawed science. We discuss the role of naturalness in our political debates.Alan's Website: https://www.alanlevinovitz.com/Convocation: John BurroughsEditing by Lu Lyons, check out her amazing podcast Filmed Live Musicals! http://www.filmedlivemusicals.com/podcast.htmlMusic by GW RodriguezSibling Pod Philosophers in Space: https://0gphilosophy.libsyn.com/Support us at Patreon.com/EmbraceTheVoidIf you enjoy the show, please Like and Review us on your pod app, especially iTunes. It really helps!Recent Appearances: Got some stuff coming soon but have me on to chat in the meantime!Next week: Live Kidney Donation with Alex Arnett

My guest this week is Alan Levinovitz (@AlanLevinovitz), a professor of religion and science at James Madison University and the author of Natural: How Faith in Nature's goodness leads to harmful fads, unjust laws, and flawed science. We discuss the concept of "natural", when it might be useful and how it can cause harm.Alan's Website: https://www.alanlevinovitz.com/Convocation: Mark EdwardsEditing by Lu Lyons, check out her amazing podcast Filmed Live Musicals! http://www.filmedlivemusicals.com/podcast.htmlMusic by GW RodriguezSibling Pod Philosophers in Space: https://0gphilosophy.libsyn.com/Support us at Patreon.com/EmbraceTheVoidIf you enjoy the show, please Like and Review us on your pod app, especially iTunes. It really helps!Recent Appearances: Got some stuff coming soon but have me on to chat in the meantime!Next week: Naturalness with Alan Levinovitz Pt.2

Dr. Alan Levinovitz illuminates the far-reaching harms of believing that natural means “good,” from misinformation about health choices to justifications for sexism, racism, and flawed economic policies. Book: https://www.amazon.com/Natural-Natures-Goodness-Harmful-Science/dp/0807010871 Dr. Levinovitz focuses primarily on the relationship between religion, literature, and science, with particular attention to classical Chinese thought and comparative ethics. His most recent book, Natural: How Faith in Nature's Goodness Leads to Harmful Fads, Unjust Laws, and Flawed Science, examines the meaning of "natural" and argues that modern Western culture has divinized nature. He is currently working on another book project, The Gentleman and the Jester, which develops a binary typology of ethical education. Other interests include the tension between paratext (introductions, footnotes, etc.) and primary text, the significance of play, and the role of genre in ethical discourse. Marian L. Tupy is the editor of Human​Progress​.org, a senior fellow at the Center for Global Liberty and Prosperity, and coauthor of The Simon Project. He specializes in globalization and global well‐​being and politics and economics of Europe and Southern Africa. Learn more: https://www.cato.org/people/marian-l-tupy

Alan Levinovitz is a Professor of Religion at James Madison University and author of Natural: How Faith in Nature's Goodness Leads to Harmful Fads, Unjust Laws, and Flawed Science. --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/jake-newfield/support

"Learning to Loath GMOs": A Critical Response to the New York Times   Richard Gale and Gary Null PhD Progressive Radio Network, July 27, 2021   In its July 19th issue, the New York Times Magazine published a brilliant piece of twisted pseudo-scientific propaganda. The essay, entitled “Learning to Love GMOs,” is truly stunning. Its author, journalist Jennifer Kahn, takes readers who would have little to no understanding of genetic engineering and genetically modified organisms (GMO) through a fictional labyrinth of out-dated and conflated GMO similitudes to an end point where readers might believe GMOs are really cool and there is nothing to be frantically worried about.    Kahn spins the story of Cathie Martin's research to develop a genetically engineered purple tomato high in the anti-oxidant anthocyacin as the work of a solo humanitarian to improve consumers' health by providing nutrient-rich GMO produce. What is missing from Kahn's equation is that the research was conducted at one of the world's oldest and most prestigious independent centers for plant science, the Johns Innes Centre (JIC) in the UK. The Centre, which is registered as a charity, lists over 500 employees and is funded by some of the largest proponents of genetic-modified plants, including the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council. JIC's website includes purple tomatoes as one of its projects that combines “transcription factors, biosynthetic genes and iRNA [interference RNA] with the availability of natural tomato mutants.”  iRNA, or Post-Transcriptional Gene Slicing, is a method to silence certain genes the researchers desire to curtail their expression.     The Times article makes an effort to advance the flawed agro-chemical mantra of “substantial equivalence” without citing the term. The early acceptance of GMOs was largely based upon the unproven hypothesis of “substantial equivalence.” The USDA's adoption of this concept during Bill Clinton's first term in the White House gave GM seed companies a free pass to avoid submitting trial evidence to prove the environmental and health safety of genetically modified crops. Since the ruling claims that GMOs are fundamentally identical genetically to their natural counterparts, no compliance of safety regulations should necessarily apply. Therefore Big Ag firms did not have to worry over strict regulatory hurdles, which otherwise apply to other products such as pharmaceutical drugs, processed foods, pesticides, cosmetics and chemical additives.    However, during the past decade a flurry of research has shown that the “substantial equivalence” hypothesis is patently false. Alexandria University in Egypt, the Permaculture Research Institute and the Norwegian Center for Biosafety each found genetically modified crops to be fundamentally different. In addition, studies have confirmed that nutrient levels in traditional, organically raised grown crops are substantially higher than GM varieties. New technological methods to create concise profiles of a food's molecular composition, notably “omics,” were not available in the early 1990s when Clinton wore the mantle as America's first biotech president. Omic technology destroyed the Big Ag's industry's arguments to support the lie about substantial equivalence. For example, Kings College London published a study in Scientific Reports of Nature revealing unquestionable genetic consequences between GMO Roundup and non-GMO corn. The differences include changes in 117 proteins and 91 metabolites.[1]   Despite “substantial equivalence” having been debunked, the erroneous hypothesis continues to linger in pro-GMO propaganda. However, in Kahn's recent essay, she attempts to shift attention away from the early generation of GMOs, which were engineered solely to sell more toxic pesticides, and emphasize GMO's potential for increasing nutritional health and to advance medicine. In order to add a bit of balance, Kahn quotes James Madison University professor Alan Levinovitz who accurately described one fundamental criticism, among many others, against GMOs. “With genetic engineering there's a feeling that we're mucking about with the essential building blocks of reality,” Levinovitz stated. “We may feel OK about rearranging genes, the way nature does, but we're not comfortable mixing them up between creatures.”     But most disturbing is Kahn's failure to make any mention o the trail of environmental disasters and disease risks due to consuming genetically modified foods. She completely whitewashes the matter; she prefers we may forget that Monsanto's soy and corn, which now represent the majority of these crops grown in the US, was developed solely to allow farmers to spray highly toxic pesticides without injuring the crops. These crops contain notable concentrations of the pesticides that then find their way into numerous consumer food products including baby foods. Nor should we forget that Round-Up grown foods may be destroying people's microbiome.  Last year, researchers at the University of Turku in Finland reported a “conservative estimate that approximately 54% of organisms in our microbiome are “potentially sensitive” to glyphosate. Despite her pro-GMO advocacy, if Kahn's conscience had led her to take a moral high road, she could have at least apologized on Monsanto's behalf for the trail of death and disease the company's glyphosate has left in its wake. The company has yet to atone despite losing three trials with $2.4 billion fines, repeated appeal losses, and being ordered to pay $10.5 billion in settlements. To date Monsanto's glyphosate poisoning has been identified with the suppression of essential gut enzymes and amino acid synthesis, gluten intolerance, disruption of manganese pathways, neurological disease, cancer, amyloidosis and autoimmune disease. Her New York Times article would have better served the improvement of public health as a warning rather than an applause to appease companies such as Bayer/Monsanto and Syngenta. And shame on the New York Times' editors for permitting such biased misinformation to find its way into print.    Kahn is eager to cite findings showing GMO benefits without indicating her sources. She tells us that environmental groups have “quietly walked back their opposition as evidence has mounted that GMOs are both safe to eat and not inherently bad for the environment.” Kahn doesn't mention who these groups might be. She reframes the Philippine story of the destruction of genetically engineered Golden Rice; yet around that time even the pro-industry magazine Forbes published an article questioning Golden Rice's viability and noting that its benefits are only based upon unfounded hypotheses. As for its risks to health, GM Watch in the UK points out the work conducted by David Schubert at the Salk Institute that the rice might potentially generate Vitamin A derivatives that could “damage human fetuses and cause birth defects.”   Kahn, who should be acknowledged as a highly respected science journalist and teaches journalism at the University of California's Berkeley campus, happens to be a contributing author for the Genetic Literacy Project (GLP) at the University of California at Davis, a public relations operation sponsored by the agro-chemical industry.  Monsanto/Bayer, Syngenta and DuPont are among GLP's industry partners.  It is one of the most frequently quoted sources of cherry-picked information by pro-GMO advocates and journalists. In our opinion, it is perhaps one of the most financially compromised and scientifically illiterate organizations, founded and funded to disseminate pro-GMO propaganda in order to prop up public support for GMOs and genetic engineering in general. In effect, some universities now act as private industry's lobbyists. This becomes a greater scandal when the university is a public institution receiving public funding.  GLP and its east coast partner, Cornell University's Alliance for Science, largely funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, serve as the GMO industry's clearing houses for public relations to spin science into advertising, propaganda and character assassination of GM opponents.   The Genetic Literacy Project is a key collaborator with another food industry front organization, the American Council on Science and Health (ACSH). ACSH has nothing to do with actual health science. It has been described by the independent corporate financial watchdog organization Sourcewatch as a thinly veiled corporate front that holds “a generally apologetic stance regarding virtually every other health and environmental hazard produced by modern industry, accepting corporate funding from Coca-Cola, Syngenta, Proctor Gamble, Kellogg, General Mills, Pepsico, and the American Beverage Association, among others.” ACSH also favors toxic pesticides, the use of biphenol A in products, cigarettes and hydrofracking.  It is closely aligned with pseudo-medical front organizations that criticize alternative and natural health modalities, such as Quackwatch and the Science Based Medicine network.    GLP sources a couple thousand corporate-friendly studies favoring GMO safety.  One review of over 1,700 studies, known as the Nicolia Review, for a time was the most cited source making the broadest claims for GMO safety.  However subsequent independent and unbiased reviews of Nicolia's analysis concluded that many of these studies were tangential at best and barely took notice of anything related to crop genetic engineering or GMOs. Many studies are completely irrelevant from a value-added perspective because they have nothing to do with GMO safety. Furthermore, other studies in Nicolia's collection conclude the exact opposite of their intention and give further credibility to GMOs environmental and animal and human health risks. When Nicolia published his review, he intentionally omitted and ignored scientifically sound research that directly investigated GMO safety and found convincing evidence to issue warnings.  For example, one peer-reviewed publication by over 300 independent scientists declared that there is no scientific consensus that GM crops and food are safe.  Not surprisingly, there is no mention of this study in the Nicolia Review.   It is no secret that Monsanto and Big Ag have significant influence over UC-Davis's agricultural department and divisions.  The bogus economic studies trumped up by the Big Ag cartel to defeat California's GMO labeling bill Prop 37 were performed at UC-Davis and then publicized through the GLP. Gary Ruskin, who has been filing Freedom of Information Act requests, has publicly expressed deep concerns that UC Davis is acting as a financial conduit for private corporations and interests to develop and launch PR attacks against academics, professors, activists and other institutions who oppose those same corporate interests.     For GMO opponents, the name Mark Lynas, may send shivers down the spine. As soon as any journalist or researcher mentions Lynas' name approvingly, one can be certain which camp the author represents.  You can be assured you will be reading words on dirty laundry washed in even dirtier water. Therefore when Kahn quotes Lynas as if he were an unbiased authority about GMOs, we know we have boarded the wrong train and will reach a destination of distorted scientific facts and self-righteous corporate praise.    The public watchdog group US Right to Know describes Lynas as “a former journalist turned promotional advocate for genetically engineered foods and pesticides who makes inaccurate claims about those products from his perch at the Gates Foundation-funded Cornell Alliance for Science (CAS).” Lynas has accused those who would inform the public about Round-Up's carcinogenic properties as conducting a “witch hunt” by “anti-Monsanto activists” who “abused science.”  Lynas has denied his role as a shill for Big Ag. However, a decade ago, The Guardian acquired a private memo from the pro-biotechnology organization EuropaBio about its initiative to recruit “ambassadors” to preach the GMO gospel. Mark Lynas was specifically named in the document alongside then UN Secretary General Kofi Annan as a prime candidate to pressure European agencies who were skeptical about GMO claims, promises and health and environmental risks. In short, Lynas has been one of Big Ag's most invaluable foot soldiers for over a dozen years.    Similar to the Genetic Literacy Project, the Cornell Alliance for Science does not conduct any agricultural research; yet its tentacles to attack GMO opponents are far reaching in the media. CAS was launched in 2014 after the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation granted the alliance $5.6 million in start-up monies. The public relations Alliance makes the unfounded claim to represent “balanced” research about genetic engineered products.  One of its missions is to influence the next generation of agricultural scientists to embrace GMO science. For CAS, as for Bill Gates, GMOs are the only food solution for Africa's future. Five years ago, organic New York farmers mobilized to pressure the Trustees of Cornell University to evict CAS from the campus and halt its influence over the school's prestigious College of Agriculture and Life Sciences.   One argument Kahn wants us to buy into is that there were mistakes made during the early roll out of GMOs in the 1990s. But, somehow, mysteriously and without any solid evidence, we are supposed to believe that these same companies now engineering new generations of crops have learned their lessons. All that has really changed has been the genetic technology for altering plant genomes. The same mind-set that only technology and the quest for food dominance remain. After hundreds of thousands of dollars were flushed away during a genetically modified wheat project, a retired professor of plant agriculture at the University of Guelph in Canada remarked:   "We – scientists and the public – are so malleable and gullible (or is it because researchers and research administrators are just desperate for money?), that we swallow and become promoters of the mantra that GM is somehow going to feed the world: by resolving the monumental threat of burnt toast? Or browning in cut apples? Or flower color in carnations? Really? For shame. Let's be honest. The one and only reason these people, corporations, and governments are funding this sorry use of [lab] bench space is because it may yield a proprietary product."   Following Lynas' lead, Kahn wants us to believe that genes exchanged between different plants is common in nature and therefore manipulating genes between species with genetic engineering tools, such as CRISPR, should not worry us. Yes, plants have acquired genes from other organisms in the past – the far distant past – according to the Union of Concerned Scientists. However, it is so exceedingly rare that these should be regarded as anomalies without any correlation whatsoever to the millions of different genes available to bio-engineer new plant organisms. This has been one of Lynas' pet arguments on his bully pulpit since turning traitor on his former Greenpeace activists and joining Monsanto's legions.    It may also be noted that Jennifer Kahn is an active participant in CRISPRcon, a forum dedicated to “the future of CRISPR and gene editing technology applications in agriculture, health, conservation and more.” Among the organization's supporters are Bayer, the Innovative Genomics Institute, Cornell Alliance for Science, Corteva Agriscience and the United Soybean Board.  A mission noted on its website is expressed in one of its mottos, “The public doesn't trust GMOs. Will it trust CRISPR?” This is a public relations pitch that permeates her Times article.    It is important for independent investigators and researchers to identify and publicize the background of cloaked public relations shills posing as unbiased journalists in mainstream news sources. Kahn's New York Times piece is an example of a propaganda effort without credibility; it is an attempt to disingenuously manipulate the narrative so more Americans will love GMOs. In the wake of the agrichemical industry's efforts to bolster favorable images of GMOs and more recently CRISPR editing technologies, the mainstream media willingly rolls out a red carpet. No equal publishing space is awarded to the scientific critics of genetic engineering who uncover the flaws in the industry's public research. Consequently, journalists such as Mark Lynas and Jennifer Kahn are the norm rather than exception. Today the lesson is clear that money, power and influence sustain the lies and deceit of private industry.  Take on any cause critical of GMOs and agro-chemical agriculture, and Big Ag will come after you. Kahn is seemingly just one of many other journalists the GLP and Cornell Alliance can turn towards to advance genetic engineering's mythologies.    Seven years ago, 70 percent of Americans, according to a Consumer Reports National Research Center survey, did not want genetically modified organisms in their food. In 2018, the Pew Research Center reported that only five percent of Americans said GM foods were better for one's health – which about makes up the number of people who are in one way or another invested in the agrichemical industry. Still over half believe they endanger health. Yet too much has been invested into agro-biotechnology to expect GMOS to disappear at any time. As the public increasingly turns away from genetically modified organisms in their produce, we will expect new volleys of industry propaganda like that penned by Jennifer Kahn to dangle new carrots. For Kahn, one of these rotten carrots is to improve nutritional content. Yet, similar to the Golden Rice, this will need to be proven beyond being an infomercial. We can also expect to hear ever wilder and more irrational claims about how GMO-based agriculture might reduce CO2 greenhouse pollution and save humanity. And we expect much of this PR campaign to be backed by the World Economic Forum's full-throttle Great Reset invasion. In other words, out of desperation to reach global food dominance, the agro-chemical industry backed by western governments will be declaring a full food war against the peoples of the world.  It is time for us to unlearn any illusory attachment we might have to Big Agriculture and learn to loath GMOs.

Put down the cayenne-lemon water, and step away from the “diet” teas, says Dr. Jen Gunter. She's joined by a hepatologist who explains why these cleanses and “natural” detoxes can do more harm to your body (and bank account) than good, and shares what you can do to keep your body's natural detox system running smoothly. Thanks to Dr. Kaveh Hoda and Dr. Alan Levinovitz for sharing their insights on this episode.

消失了八个月后，糊糊回来了。 在回归的节目中，她将带你像尼采那样，「重新品尝」三个在过去大半年时间里让她反复思考的人生议题——成长、叙述与怀旧。 【开播词】 1. Radiolab今年3月发布了一集很酷的节目「Elements」 (https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/radiolab/episodes/elements)，着重介绍了三种化学元素锂、碳与氙。在「碳」的篇章中，主持人们着重介绍了瑞典卡罗林斯卡学院 (https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%8D%A1%E7%BD%97%E6%9E%97%E6%96%AF%E5%8D%A1%E5%AD%A6%E9%99%A2)的科学家们利用碳十四断代法 (https://zh.wikipedia.org/zh-hans/%E6%94%BE%E5%B0%84%E6%80%A7%E7%A2%B3%E5%AE%9A%E5%B9%B4%E6%B3%95)计算人体不同细胞（尤其神经元）年龄的神奇研究； 2. 1945年至1963年间，地球上超过四百次核弹实验释放出巨量的碳十四，这一现象称为「bomb pulse」 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bomb_pulse)，译作「炸弹脉冲」； 3. 2013年科技杂志The Wired关于利用碳十四揭开人脑神经元新生秘密的报道 (https://www.wired.com/2013/06/atomic-bomb-brain-mystery/)，同年PBS发表的相关报道，题为《冷战核弹实验帮助解开最大的生物学谜团》 (https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/article/bomb-pulse/)； 4. 今年1月引进出版的哲学杂志《新哲人：我是个现代人，我需要平衡》 (https://book.douban.com/subject/35307049/)，尼采对病痛与康复、死亡与重生的精彩诠释选自这本杂志中的文章《平衡的生活》； 5. 哲学家John Kaag 的著作Hiking with Nietzsche (https://www.amazon.com/Hiking-Nietzsche-Becoming-Who-You/dp/0374170010)，台译名为《在阿尔卑斯山与尼采相遇》 (https://book.douban.com/subject/34861161/) 【推荐一：Mayim Bialik, “I started crying when I realized how beautiful the universe is”, 选自播客节目 People I Mostly Admire】 1. 推荐集收听地址一（iTunes (https://podcasts.apple.com/en/podcast/i-started-crying-when-i-realized-how-beautiful-universe/id354668519?i=1000490140860)），收听地址二（Listen Notes (https://www.listennotes.com/podcasts/people-i-mostly/2-mayim-bialik-i-started-7wSdlLgxtXm/)），收听地址三（节目网站 (https://freakonomics.com/podcast/pima-mayim-bialik/)）； 2. Mayim Bialik的youtube频道 (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCTOocPnDh2YQZZwh86K2OxA)，个人播客Mayim Bialik's Breakdown (https://www.bialikbreakdown.com/)，个人博客及线上社区Grok Nation (https://groknation.com/)； 3. Mayim Bialik为科技杂志The Wired录制的「twitter网友神经科学你问我答」 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kLsnWHvFHCo)超级有意思，糊糊强烈推荐； 4. 上世纪七八十年代美国推行「校车计划」 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desegregation_busing)，又称「种族融合校车计划」，目的为消除种族隔离政策带来的负面影响，有趣的是，在2019年美国民主党总统初选辩论中，现副总统哈里斯女士翻出旧账，指责现美国总统拜登当初对「校车计划」的反对立场 (https://cn.nytimes.com/culture/20190716/wod-busing/)； 5. Mayim Bialik的访谈文章很多，但好看的巨少，英国《卫报》2015年对Bialik的采访 (https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2015/sep/11/mayim-bialik-star-big-bang-theory)还不错； 6. 2015年，在Freakonomics Radio成立十年之际，《卫报》对两位主播Stephen Dubner和Steven Levitt的采访 (https://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/may/15/freakonomics-10-years-on-stephen-dubner-steven-levitt-interview)，同样精彩； 7. 如果你喜欢Steven Levitt的主持风格，请观看他在节目中提到的TED演讲 (https://www.ted.com/talks/steven_levitt_the_freakonomics_of_crack_dealing)； 8. Mayim Bialik的研究课题——Prader-Willi Syndrome (https://zh.wikipedia.org/zh/%E6%99%AE%E7%91%9E%E5%BE%B7%E5%A8%81%E5%88%A9%E7%97%87%E5%80%99%E7%BE%A4)（小胖威利症），一种由第十五号染色体缺失导致的先天遗传性疾病 【推荐二：The Story of Your Life，选自播客节目Hidden Brain】 1. 推荐集收听地址一（iTunes (https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-story-of-your-life/id1028908750?i=1000513988116)），收听地址二（Listen Notes (https://www.listennotes.com/podcasts/hidden-brain-hidden-brain-wXJWtqMk9GV/)），收听地址三（节目网站 (https://hiddenbrain.org/podcast/the-story-of-your-life/)）； 2. Hidden Brain关于推荐集的一篇newsletter (https://hiddenbrain.org/podcast/the-story-of-your-life/)，补充了推荐集提到的但没完整介绍的案例； 3. 加拿大约克大学心理学教授Raymond Mar关于叙事对认知能力影响的研究 (https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0963721417749654)； 4. 「叙事型写作疗法」的提出者、美国社会心理学家James Pennebaker (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_W._Pennebaker)； 5. 「写作疗法」的维基页面 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Writing_therapy)，以及2011年哈佛医学院发表的一篇短文 (https://www.health.harvard.edu/healthbeat/writing-about-emotions-may-ease-stress-and-trauma)，文章肯定了Pennebaker的主张，支持表达情绪的写作练习有助于缓解压力与创伤； 6. 做客节目的心理咨询师Gillie Bolton的个人网站 (https://www.gilliebolton.com/)； 7. 「catharsis」的词源学及哲学释义 (https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/catharsis)； 8. 亚里士多德在巨著Poetics（《诗学》） (http://web.mnstate.edu/gracyk/courses/web%20publishing/AristotlePoeticsEdited.htm)中，详述悲剧作品对观众的净化作用； 9. Hidden Brain叙事迷你系列的其他两集同样精彩：第一集题为「The Story of Stories」 (https://hiddenbrain.org/podcast/the-story-of-stories/)，拆解叙事的构成，第三集题为「Made of Honor」 (https://hiddenbrain.org/podcast/made-of-honor/)，分析叙事对文化叙述的巨大作用，揭示了「荣誉文化」（honor culture） (http://psychology.iresearchnet.com/social-psychology/cultural-psychology/culture-of-honor/)对社会的影响 【推荐三：When Exactly Were “The Good Old Days”，选自播客Build For Tomorrow】 1. 推荐集收听地址一（iTunes (https://itunes.apple.com/gt/podcast/pessimists-archive-podcast/id1104682320?l=en&mt=2)），收听地址二（Listen Notes (https://www.listennotes.com/podcasts/build-for-tomorrow/when-exactly-were-the-good-X-fCjoOu5y1/)），收听地址三（节目网站 (https://pessimists.co/the-good-ol-days/)）—— 这档节目在2020年完成改版，改版前的名字是「Pessimists Archive」，节目的封面是半杯水，相比现在的名字和封面，糊糊个人更喜欢改版前的风格； 2. 豆瓣小组「时代的眼泪」 (https://www.douban.com/group/old-time/?ref=sidebar)与「假装活在1980-2000年」 (https://www.douban.com/group/694539/?ref=sidebar)里，随处可见时空旅行家和人们对过去的依恋； 3. Woody Allen的电影《午夜巴黎》 (https://movie.douban.com/subject/4319218/)及导演本人关于本电影的访谈一篇 (https://www.filmcomment.com/article/woody-allen-the-film-comment-interview/)——有趣的是，伍老本人想通过本片戳破人们对过去的幻想泡沫； 4. 保守的科技评论人Nicolas Carr反自动化的作品《玻璃笼子》 (https://book.douban.com/subject/26644961/)及发表在The Atlantics上的文章Is Google Making Us Stupid (https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2008/07/is-google-making-us-stupid/)——这篇文章读起来有一股古朴的韵味； 5. 特朗普的标志性口号「MAGA」其实不是他原创的，NBC的文章 (https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/make-america-great-again-who-said-it-first-n645716)梳理了都有哪些政客把「MAGA」挂在口头上过； 6. 一度畅销的美国科普杂志Science and Inventions的绝美封面大赏 (https://www.pinterest.com/YarsPhotography/science-and-invention-magazine/)； 7. Hugo Gernsback决定将Electrical Experimenter杂志改版为Science and Inventions的宣言 (https://manifold.umn.edu/projects/the-perversity-of-things)； 8. Hugo Gernsback的神奇脑洞集合 (https://www.zhihu.com/column/p/26411144)； 9. 1923年，《纽约时报》发表了长文 (https://www.nytimes.com/1923/10/21/archives/-american-life-is-too-fast-scientists-support-hughes-speed-called.html)《美国人生活节奏过快：速度损害思维与进步》； 10. 十九世纪末的美国似乎人人都有神经衰弱——对于这段历史的回顾，The Atlantic 2016年发表的一篇文章 (https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2016/03/the-history-of-neurasthenia-or-americanitis-health-happiness-and-culture/473253/)分析得相当全面； 11. 时政评论人Andrew Sullivan去冥想疗养中心，戒断互联网的经历与反思 (https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2016/09/andrew-sullivan-my-distraction-sickness-and-yours.html)； 12. 2020年一项心理学研究 (https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01133/full#B18)称「怀旧是一种以未来为导向的积极情绪」； 13. 做客推荐集的Alan Levinovitz 2016年的文章 (https://aeon.co/essays/nostalgia-exerts-a-strong-allure-and-extracts-a-steep-price)，他激烈地批评了各种形式的怀旧情绪与行为。 【小海豚广播】 十分感谢大家的等待与支持！特别鸣谢小海豚新logo的设计师：南番女士！ 推荐大家使用通用播客app收听Casticle，拥有不打折扣的收听及阅读体验。 欢迎大家与小海豚通过以下渠道互动： 1. 微博 (https://weibo.com/6812416860/) （直播聊天室的时间安排会在微博通知） 2. Instagram (https://www.instagram.com/casticle.fm/) 3. casticlefm@gmail.com

Alan Levinovitz has a  phD in  religion and literature  and is the Author of the book the Gluten lie.  Alan exposes the myths behind how we as a society have come to label certain foods and good or bad and  how we have replaced Prohoets with modern YouTube gurus. Follow daily @flowwithchlo    www.flowwithchlo.comTo apply for coaching please fill out the applicationhttps://y17w4w43kar.typeform.com/to/pfZkKnIhDisclaimer: This video is not medical advice. Please seek out the appropriate care if you have questions in regards to your health.

What happens to our decision-making when we turn nature into God? Humans crave cognitive shortcuts to spare us the metabolically costly mental labour of reasoning through complex decision-making. The heuristic of "Natural Good, Unnatural Bad," has become one such shortcut. But what is natural? Why have we come to deify nature? And does worshipping it help us to make the best decisions for humanity and the environment? Natural is not always what is good for humans or the environment. Nature, for instance, is very good at killing off children under the age of five. Charcoal production, while quite natural, is leading to rapid deforestation throughout Africa. And biomass burning is treated as carbon neutral by many government regulations partially because it feels natural. Humans are not the first species to radically alter the planet and its atmospheric chemistry. During the Paleoproterozoic era, the first mass extinction was caused by cyanobacteria metabolizing CO2 into O2, turning the oceans and atmosphere from a reducing to an oxidative environment which wiped out most of life on earth. Humans, via our harnessing of technology, have radically altered the carbon, nitrogen, and hydrological cycles of the planet. As a result, standards of living have improved but a deep existential angst and fear of technology is building as we threaten the ecosystem life support services that "nature" provides us with. Can humanity have its cake and save nature too? While some dispute the very notion of nature claiming that everything is natural and made of stardust, traditional environmentalists and ecomodernists both heavily reference nature, though they have radically different conceptions of it and tools for how to preserve and interact with it. Environmentalists favour harmonizing with nature through agroecology and renewable energy, with human populations and energy infrastructure distributed diffusely across the land. Ecomodernists favour "decoupling" from nature by continued urbanization and intensifying agriculture and energy production on the smallest footprint possible to allow rewilding. We live in strange times where rather than setting clear goals and searching for the best tools to achieve them we make emotional decisions based on deifying nature and what feels natural. We are at risk of relying on simplistic labels and slick marketing in making our most consequential decisions like how to mitigate and adapt to climate change. Alan Levinovitz is a professor of Religion at James Madison University. He works at the intersection of philosophy, religion, and science, focusing especially on how narratives and metaphors shape belief. His most recent book is "Natural: How Faith in Nature's Goodness Leads to Harmful Fads, Unjust Laws, and Flawed Science." Books Referenced: Sapiens: Noah Yuval Hariri Factfulness: Hans Rosling

Diana and Lisa chat with Religion Scholar Dr. Alan Levinovitz about religious food restrictions, how they relate to eating disorders, and the modern day phenomenon of achieving a spiritual state through practices like Intermittent Fasting and keto diets. 

People will get mad because we’re going to spend the entire episode telling you why food is not medicine. Doesn’t mean it isn’t important but this rhetoric is getting way too much air time recently, forming the basis of ‘The Magic Pill’ so let’s discuss why this statement is grossly unhelpful.Follow Pixie Turner @pixienutrition on Instagram | Twitter | FacebookFollow Dr Nikki Stamp @drnikkistamp on Instagram | Twitter | FacebookEmail us with your questions inbadtastepodcast@gmail.com Please don’t forget to give us a 5-star rating to help others find us Production music courtesy of www.epidemicsound.com(Theme song is ‘Rookie Mistake’ by Fly Guy Five)Cover art is by Fine Print Food - @fineprintfoodThis week’s suggested readings:Cancer and diets from CRUK https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/about-cancer/coping/physically/diet-problems/managing/alternative-cancer-diets JAMA Oncology - patients using complementary therapies twice as likely to die of their cancer https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamaoncology/fullarticle/2687972?resultClick=1 National Aboriginal Controlled Community Health Organisation (NACCHO) https://www.naccho.org.auA great article from Huffington Post on why Food is not medicine https://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/entry/food-isnt-medicine_l_5e136ffbe4b0843d36169e02Natural by Alan Levinovitz https://www.amazon.com/Natural-Natures-Goodness-Harmful-Science/dp/0807010871 See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Steven Gundry, M.D.: “The microbiome is the number one driver of energy production.” Gundry, a cardiologist and New York Times bestselling author, joins mbg co-CEO, Jason Wachob, to discuss how much fiber you really need, plus: *Why postbiotics are the future of functional food & the best sources* *How melatonin can benefit your health, other than sleep* *How exercise snacking can benefit your health* *How to optimize energy into your 70s* *Why you should have a mono meal for breakfast* Referenced in the episode: - Gundry's book, The Energy Paradox. - mbg Podcast episode #135, with Gundry. - mbg Podcast episode #108, with Gundry. - mbg Podcast episode #44, with Gundry. - Alan Levinovitz, Ph.D.'s The Great Gluten Lie. Make sure to use the code GUNDRY300 to receive $300 off of our functional nutrition coaching program, where you'll have access to 19 of the world's top doctors and experts, including Gundry. With over 30 hours of instruction, you'll be ready to take your passion for wellness to the next level and turn it into a career. Learn more about this unparalleled program by visiting mindbodygreen.com/coaching. Enjoy this episode! Whether it's an article or podcast, we want to know what we can do to help here at mindbodygreen. Let us know at: podcast@mindbodygreen.com. 

In this episode, we speak with Dr. Alan Levinovitz. Dr. Levinovitz is an associate professor of religious studies at James Madison University. His work looks into the relationship between religion, science, and literature. His best-selling book "Natural: How Faith in Nature's Goodness Leads to Harmful Fads, Unjust Laws, and Flawed Science" takes a deep dive into our obsession with what is 'natural' and questions the very fundamental understanding of what IS, in fact, natural. We discuss naturalism as it relates to nutritional fads, nutrition tribes, and the parallels between religion and nutrition tribalism. This isn't our typical episode, but we think you will have a much better understanding of WHY people can descend into cognitive dissonance and the dangers of groupthink after listening.   You can find Alan on Twitter @alanlevinovitz and on his website, https://www.alanlevinovitz.com   Get our new nutrition coaching app, Carbon Diet Coach, for iOS and android to get custom nutrition coaching for less than $10/month: https://joincarbon.com Get our books on how to lose fat: https://www.biolaynestore.com Take my online course "The Science of Nutrition": https://cleanhealth.edu.au/product/science-of-nutrition Get custom workouts by us for $12.99/month: https://www.biolayne.com/members/workout-builder   Find Layne and Holly on Instagram @biolayne and @hollytbaxter   ---- Post-production by Jim McDonald (@thejimmcd) and David Margittai (inpostmedia.com) © 2021, Biolayne LLC. All rights reserved.

Chris and Jonathan discuss expertise and intellectual humility with Alan Levinovitz, a professor of religion, frequent guest on A User's Guide to Cheating Death, and the author of the book Natural. As facts, arguments, and content flood our attention, how can we know whom to trust when our health is at stake? This month's drinking game revolves around the word “adjudicate.” Drink responsibly!   1:11 The Anthony Fauci lie 2:14 A theologian on expertise 9:12 Tribalism 16:04 John Ioannidis and COVID-19 21:34 ScientificConsensus.com 26:09 The onslaught of contrarian content 32:30 People should be suspicious of sexiness in their epidemiology 35:25 When your job is to uncover hidden truths…. 39:30 A looming epistemic crisis and how to avoid it 49:16 On intellectual humility 57:33 Twitter hiatus     * Theme music: “Fall of the Ocean Queen“ by Joseph Hackl.   To contribute to The Body of Evidence, go to our Patreon page at: http://www.patreon.com/thebodyofevidence/.   Patrons get a bonus show on Patreon called “Digressions”! Check it out!     Links: 1) Alan Levinovitz on Twitter: https://twitter.com/AlanLevinovitz 2) Alan Levinovitz's book, Natural: https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/50128614 3) Thorpe's Science editorial on the value of debating science in the public arena: https://science.sciencemag.org/content/371/6526/213/tab-pdf

There's nothing more infuriating than when people throw shade at the anti-diet perspective without bothering to actually research it. When "The Biggest Loser" trainer/shameless fatphobe Jillian Michaels arrogantly released a Youtube clip trashing the 10 principles of intuitive eating, WITHOUT EVEN READING THE BOOK, she REALLY pi***ed off the community! And none more so than my guests, anti-diet fitness trainers Anna Hearn and Shreen El Masry, who have been dying to come on the podcast and set the record straight! Finally the COVID window opened just a crack so I could record the very first IN PERSON podcast! Join us as we dissect Jillian's often hilarious inability to comprehend a life beyond diet prison. WHAT ON EARTH IS THIS 'PERMISSION TO EAT!!' It seems the lady doth protest too much - could it be that the Queen of Diet Prison is sensing the paradigm-shifting power of the anti-diet revolution? That's right folks, the unrivalled reign of Biggest Loser-esque terror is over!! Vive La Difference! Please note - this episode comes with a hefty side serve of calorie count discussions, so if you're in recovery from an eating disorder please consider your level of spoons to hear the diet talk. But, if you've had a gutful of igno-rants about anti-dieting, it's time to get ALL FIRED UP! Show Transcript:   LOUISE: So, here I am with Anna and Shreen. Thank you so much for coming on the show. ANNA: Thank you for having us. SHREEN: Yeah, thank you so much. LOUISE: It’s so exciting to be alive with actual humans in the room, and slightly weird. Why don’t you guys tell me all about what is firing you up? ANNA: We’re really fired up about Jillian Michaels and her aggressive fatphobic rant on intuitive eating. LOUISE: (sighs) First of all, I have to say I love how you say ‘rant’, it’s very proper and awesome. But yes, Jillian Michaels – Biggest Loser trainer in the United States. Horrendously fatphobic. ANNA: Yeah, I mean … she got her living, she makes her living from shaming fat bodies. I think that tells a lot about her character and where she’s going to go with her intuitive eating rant. LOUISE: So, she was on the Biggest Loser for years and years and years. Her website … well, she’s touting herself as the world’s best trainer. Like, the biggest expert in the world on all things fitness. Which, well … this is just a hunch, but I could find people on the planet who are more qualified. ANNA: Well, if you want to break down her qualifications, I think it looks like she’s done a couple of personal training qualifications, a couple of fitness qualifications and … SHREEN: One ‘woo woo’ nutrition qualification. ANNA: There is a nutrition qualification there too, but it doesn’t look like there’s any degrees or anything. So, when it comes to intuitive eating and looking at all of that, when we go into it you’ll realise, I think, that she hasn’t really done her research. She doesn’t understand it. And I think it’s interesting that somebody without that nutrition background or lived experience with that sort of thing talks about it the way that she does. SHREEN: I think as well, not only does she come across really aggressive and shaming, also I think her insecurity is really coming out in this video. Intuitive eating is a movement that’s really starting to take off, and she’s clearly threatened by it. You can see her defence mechanism is up, and she’s … you know, really, just … her demeanour is just awful. LOUISE: It's hard to tell, though, if her demeanour’s just awful because she’s defensive or because her demeanour’s just awful. SHREEN: Yeah, that’s true. ANNA: I kind of picked up on that and thought she was sensing a threat because intuitive eating is becoming more mainstream, people are becoming more aware of it. So that could threaten what she does, because she makes a living forcing people to lose weight. LOUISE: So, during the 90’s and the early 2000’s, like … it was a free-for-all with bullying people with larger bodies, as we saw. World-wide, the Biggest Loser was the number one show, and everyone thought it was okay. So, she’s had this unfettered ability to be horrible about body size and really belittling of people in larger bodies. And now, I think she’s realising it’s not okay to keep on doing that. ANNA: The backlash about it. LOUISE: So, just to set the stage. What we’re seeing … because I did see the internet blow up. It was a while ago now, but let’s face it - we’ve all been in iso and unable to talk to each other. So, she has like a YouTube channel and one of her YouTube little presentations - I don’t watch what she does, just for my own mental health - but this one was Jillian Michaels talking about intuitive eating. Which, oh my god … let’s just get Donald Trump talking about sexism. ANNA: That’s a great analogy. SHREEN: She’s basically, I think she’s just gone on the website and just pulled up the principles without doing any research into it or even understanding there’s over a hundred studies done on intuitive eating and there’s a whole book as well. She just went on there, read out these principles and gave her, I guess, her opinion.  ANNA: It became really clear that she hasn’t taken the time to understand it. She hasn’t learnt about the authors; you’ll see as she comes to the end of it, she talks about assuming that it was written by somebody who had just had some bad experience with diet culture, maybe had an eating disorder LOUISE: Oh my god, that’s so disrespectful SHREEN: So disrespectful. ANNA: No understanding or bothering to explore that the authors are actually dietitians who had come up with this approach because they had done so much work with clients who had struggled a lot and this is what they’d learnt from working with them over years and years. LOUISE: These are the gurus. Like, Tribole and Resch, they wrote the initial book Intuitive Eating and it’s just been updated, which is fantastic. But even that, even their book which is written from that perspective of helping people recover from eating disorders, that book is built on another big long history of social justice and fat activism. To not recognise that intuitive eating is part of a social movement and like, the way she presented it is like, she just stumbled across a webpage and … oh my god. ANNA: Definitely, yeah. And it came across very, very condescending. I felt really bothered … SHREEN: It’s so harmful, as well. That was the thing that really bothered me the most, was how much … I mean, she causes so much harm anyway, but the message was just next level harm. And if anyone was watching that and had no idea, the things that she was saying … yeah, it’s just not on. LOUISE: Oh god, yikes. So, we thought we would unpick Jillian Michael’s feelpinion to each of the ten principles of intuitive eating. And you guys have written some awesomely detailed notes. ANNA: We had a really good chat about it. LOUISE: Fantastic. But I’m so interested, because you guys both work in this industry as HAES® positive, body inclusive, weight neutral trainers hearing from almost like the personification of diet culture woman. SHREEN: She is the reason why people have so much fitness trauma and so much negative association with fitness. She’s causing that. ANNA: She is the epitome of diet culture. SHREEN: Yeah, she is the epitome of diet culture, for sure. ANNA: And I think we chatted about this as we were hanging out one day, and we just came across this as a topic that fired both of us up. And it’s frustrating when you see … when you’re so heavily involved in this space, and the HAES® space, and the body inclusive space, it can be … and luckily for me working here at Haven, this is the space I come to work every day. So, I’m not exposed to traditional diet culture unless I stumble across it or it’s brought to my attention. So, I couldn’t help but just be really quite wild about this. LOUISE: I love it. I mean, I don’t love that you’re wild, but I kind of do. But, yeah. It’s nice to know that in this industry there are people who feel really strongly about just putting an end to this. She’s what’s wrong with the fitness industry at the moment, and you guys are the future. And I think she can smell that. So, I think, like I … I managed to watch it and still shaking with rage but thank you for this glass of champagne. ANNA: I don’t think we could do this without a little bit of champagne. SHREEN: No, we need some bubbles. LOUISE: The first thing she starts with, so she’s actually going through all the principles. SHREEN:  Correct. LOUISE: Why don’t you give me the lowdown on your reaction. ANNA: Let’s kick off. So, she does go through the points one by one, and the first principle is ‘reject the diet mentality’. And I just want to point out a few things that came up for me that were just so apparent throughout. Her fatphobia is so clear. She’s driven, everything she says, and her approach is all drive by this. And I think she’s very ignorant, like she doesn’t see that there’s an issue with this. She comes form that space where it’s very normalised to shame fat bodies, it’s not okay to be in a bigger body. And she very clearly associates weight and health, they’re so closely tied, which I think it really problematic, obviously. So, in this ‘reject diet mentality’, what came up for you, Shreen? SHREEN: Well, the first thing for me was that she couldn’t distinguish a difference between fad diets and what dieting is, and diet culture. She’s like, “oh you know, if it’s fad diets we’re talking about yeah, yeah sure”, but this is a woman who has sold supplements in the past. LOUISE: She’s sold fad diets. SHREEN: She’s sold fad diets. And she is diet culture, so I guess she can’t … she doesn’t understand what diet culture actually is and why it’s so important to reject it. I mean, diet culture in the US alone is worth 70 billion dollars. ANNA:  She profits off it. SHREEN: She profits off everyone’s insecurities. So, she was just like, “reject diet culture? What’s this, what does this mean?”. And I really did sense there that her insecurity is coming out there because that is her, that’s how she makes her money. ANNA: Well that’s it, she’s really incentivised to support diet culture.  LOUISE: But the distinction that she made between “well, if it’s fad, but if it’s proper” … it just made me laugh, because she’s had no less than four separate lawsuits … ANNA:  Jillian? SHREEN: Yeah. LOUISE: Launched against her by her consumers who bought her caffeine-fuelled diet pills. ANNA: Which I think she might have … there might have been something on the Biggest Loser where she gave them to contestants unfairly, apparently, as well. LOUISE: Oh my god, scandal on the Biggest Loser. Like … ANNA: Well, the other thing that came up for me there was she said, “what is this, healthy at any size?”, and that’s immediately a red flag representing that she doesn’t know what she’s talking about. She hasn’t researched this because … I can understand it’s very easy to misconstrue Health At Every Size® for healthy at every size, but it’s quite a different meaning and that assumption that, you know, just assuming that we’re saying as a Health at Every Size® professional that all bodies are healthy, that’s not where we’re aiming. We’re talking about people being able to pursue health regardless of shape and size. LOUISE: Or, also, we’re talking about the choice not to pursue health and to be left the fuck alone. SHREEN: Yeah, there’s no moral obligation. If people want to do so, then it’s up to them. It shouldn’t be … they shouldn’t have to do it if they don’t want to, but that’s what diet culture is saying. ANNA: Your body, your rules. SHREEN: And this part of her rant really, really … we know that she’s incredibly fatphobic and she fat shames, but it just came out so much in that where she was again talking, talking about size 16. And she’s saying “well, you know, if you’re a size 16 of course I love you but you’re not healthy”. Which is just … LOUISE: Get fucked. SHREEN: Yeah, absolute garbage. ANNA: Yeah. And Health at Every Size® also is about respect for all bodies, and I think there is a real lack of respect in just making that assumption. You can’t tell. How does she know what someone’s health is, you know? What their metabolic functions are, their blood work, their social, mental health … you can’t tell that by someone’s size. SHREEN: Genetics, everything. There’s so much, it’s so multifaceted. LOUISE: Everything I think is just far too complicated for her. She has to actually, like … I mean, clearly, she hasn’t read anything or thought about anything. “Nope, that’s a number, that’s an assumption, and don’t challenge that”.  SHREEN: Yeah. And if someone’s watching that, I mean, how triggering. How much harm that one comment could cause somebody that could lead them down a path of dieting and to an eating disorder. ANNA: And especially if they were already vulnerable of somebody who would identify with being in a size 16, or plus. And also, size 16 is quite variable depending on which shop you shop in, you know? Where you get your clothes from. What’s a size anyway? What does it matter? SHREEN: Yeah, it doesn’t matter. LOUISE: Size is not the same as health, and she needs to pull her head in. I wonder if her YouTube videos come with a trigger warning. I don’t think they do, but they should. Because good point, you know, that she … everything she says is potentially a trigger. SHREEN: Especially the size of her audience as well, I’m worried. ANNA: She’s got a big reach still. Some of the comments though were interesting, some really great points. People were talking about intuitive eating and picking up on that she doesn’t understand it, she’s missing the point. LOUISE: That is really reassuring. ANNA: She stopped the comments, she cut them off. LOUISE: Oh no, they were too complicated. ANNA: So, the next principle is ‘honour your hunger’, and she said something pretty radical here. Well, it’s not really radical in the fitness world. These numbers get thrown around a lot. But trigger warning, there are numbers here. She says, “if you’re trying to lose weight, you can keep your body fed on as low as 1200 calories”. And that most women, especially those over, you know, relating to being a certain age, shouldn’t be eating over 1600 calories a day. SHREEN: Which is just absolutely unbelievable. She’s saying that … I mean, that’s what a toddler needs. A toddler needs 1200-1600 calories a day. LOUISE: How very dare she tell me how much I can eat, under a principle that says, ‘honour your hunger’. ANNA: She … on one hand, I’m not surprised she threw those numbers out because those numbers are thrown out all the time in the fitness world. I don’t know where … MyFitnessPal? LOUISE: Are they really? SHREEN: We were saying, MyFitnessPal may have started the whole 1200 calories thing … LOUISE: I think Michelle Bridges is guilty of that too. ANNA: Oh actually, you’re right, she had a program that was based on that. LOUISE: It’s just a nice round number, isn’t it? Let’s just pluck this out of our arse and throw that at all women. ANNA: What I find there though is that like Shreen said, it’s something that a child needs. And I just wanted to double-check that, because I’m not a nutritionist, I’m a yogi and I run a studio, but I wanted to check with somebody who does work with that. I chatted to our non-diet nutritionist Nina and she clarified that yes - this is generalisation - but that kind of number is something that would serve a child. Like, a toddler or a four, five-year-old. And then thinking about the effects of being on a low-calorie diet for a long period, things like loss of menstrual cycle, loss of bone density, fatigue, mood swings, constipation, blood sugar imbalance, stress hormones getting out of whack … SHREEN: Sex drive … ANNA: Sex drive … what did you say before? SHREEN: Dry vagina (laughs). ANNA: She didn’t mention that, did she? SHREEN: No. LOUISE: No, but that might be suffering all of them, you know? And why she’s so grouchy. ANNA: Memory fog and brain fog … memory loss and brain fog. So, these are all things that can be affected by not being adequately fed. And the better indicator of your needs are your body and your internal hunger signals. And we’re taught to … these external sources of just following this rule plan of 1200 calories a day means that if I need more than that – maybe at the time of my period especially I might need much more - and I’m just denying my natural hunger levels. LOUISE: The whole ‘per day’ thing really gives me the shits as well. SHREEN: Yeah, that’s a really good point. LOUISE: This is just a statistical method to help researchers make assumptions about nutrition. It’s not supposed to be something religiously followed. SHREEN: No, there’s no … ANNA: An individual thing, yeah. LOUISE: It’s bizarre. But, isn’t that interesting that even as she’s like, she’s trying desperately, the poor little thing to understand that this is a principle of intuitive eating but she can’t quite get there because she immediately lurches into “well, if you want to lose weight …”. I just felt like reaching through the screen and saying, “realise that intuitive eating is not a weight loss program”. ANNA: That’s half the problem, is that she clearly thinks that the only people who explore intuitive eating are going for weight loss. She says that a few times. LOUISE: Oh, she’s a scrambled egg. ANNA: Yeah. She doesn’t understand that the whole purpose of intuitive eating is more about finding a peaceful relationship with food and your body, not about trying to pursue making your body be something, a certain size. SHREEN: It’s about food freedom, it’s about having a healthy relationship with food, stopping the obsession. It’s not … it’s definitely not following these external rules. It’s about being in tune with what your body wants and needs and getting in touch with those signals. LOUISE: Different planet, I don’t think she’s visited. SHREEN: I don’t think she understands what the ‘honouring hunger’ … it’s a basic self-care need. If you’re not honouring hunger … LOUISE: Again, you’re mentioning a foreign concept here. This is someone who will happily live with a dry vagina, it doesn’t matter. SHREEN: Yep (all laugh). LOUISE: We all went there. SHREEN: She just really doesn’t understand and that is the reason why … people don’t give themselves enough food and they’re following diet plans, and they’re going to give themselves cravings leading to overeating and bingeing, and that’s perfectly normal as well. Other than ‘rejecting the diet mentality’ one of the first steps of intuitive eating is to just honour your hunger and it’s so important. It’s self-care. ANNA: It's so liberating too, if you’re been on the diet bandwagon for many, many years, to recognise that “hey, my body’s got a lot of wisdom, and it’s telling me, it’s giving me messages and I can learn how to reconnect with that”. And I think part of the common thread that comes up with what she says all the time is that … she thinks it’s all about ‘you can’t trust your body’. I think an important thing that I’ve learned is you can really learn how to trust your body. We get into this as we move into the next principle or two. It’s not about endless eating and not being able to, you know, like you’re just not going to go out of control all the time, which is what she sort of thinks. SHREEN: Point number three is that ‘unconditional permission to eat all foods’. LOUISE: She really had a problem with principle three. Like, she was visibly … SHREEN: Yeah, and she started comparing it to smoking, and credit cards, and it’s like …what are you talking about? ANNA: So yeah, this ‘make peace with food’, you’re right. And she talks about saying, talking about the ‘last supper mentality’, and she says, “I’m not religious, I don’t know what Jesus ate”. LOUISE: She really needs to read some books. ANNA: She needs to read Intuitive Eating if she’s going to talk about it. Because if she read it, she might really understand what that means. I thought it was quite clear just from the ‘last supper mentality’, don’t you think? SHREEN: You just eat everything in sight. LOUISE: I don’t even think it has religious connotations, I thought it was like a death row thing. SHREEN: Oh, that’s true … LOUISE: Like eating your last meal. ANNA: That’s right. And it makes sense, I think, if you think about that. You know you’re not going to have something again, so you want to make the most of it in that moment. And ultimately that’s what it’s about. I think that’s kind of clear. But she didn’t understand that, she was sort of like “I don’t like this intense, this hostile approach”. And I’m like, you ARE intense and hostile.  LOUISE: How is that intense and hostile? I’ve not ever read the ten principles of intuitive eating and thought “gosh, that’s angry”. I mean, gosh. Visit the internet, really (all laugh). ANNA: I think she is the, again, the epitome diet culture, and she is the hostile one. Think about the Biggest Loser, she is very aggressive and in-your-face, pushing her clients. So, here she talks about it all being about self-control and willpower, and I think that’s missing the point of intuitive eating completely as well. LOUISE: She just can’t … SHREEN: She doesn’t understand. If she’d read the book, she would understand there’s science behind it as well, if she … LOUISE: I don’t think if she read the book she would understand.  SHREEN: Yeah (laughs) ANNA: I picked up on that too, she’s [inaudible]. LOUISE: She almost yelled “You do not permission to eat”. Which was quite scary. SHREEN: Because I think that reflects her inner narrative. That’s what’s going on in her head. LOUISE: Yeah. Not … not relaxed, that’s for sure. That response to the third point was quite unhinged. ANNA: And like you said, relating the food to credit cards or smoking, that’s a completely different thing. I don’t think … you know, food is something that we rely on, like biologically … SHREEN: We need food to survive, we need food … and intuitive eating is about healing your relationship to food, it’s about having a healthy relationship to food, and you can’t have that if you’re restricting foods. That’s why it’s really important to give yourself unconditional permission to eat. And yeah, it is scary. Of course. It’s scary when you’ve come from that mentality, but it’s the only way for food to lose its power. ANNA: Yeah. And I think it may be a good point to think about how it’s helpful to be handheld through that process. It can sound really scary to somebody who’s new to it, or who hasn’t delved into intuitive eating too much, or worked with a coach or therapist or something. Maybe working with a. dietitian on this would be really helpful. I understand how it can feel like that lack of control, but I think that’s a period that sometimes is part of that healing process. When you let go of the restriction, and allow yourself full unconditional permission to eat, then you might explore some of those foods that were off-limits for a period. And it might feel like you are diving into them a lot. But … LOUISE: Which is perfectly normal. SHREEN: Yeah. LOUISE: The last supper effect … like, that actually, now I remember. The ‘last supper’ effect, it is the paper by Herman and Polivy, “Eat drink and be merry, for tomorrow we diet”. That’s the ‘last supper’ effect. It’s a perfectly normal psychological response to restriction is to eat more. And the difference between that and going into massive credit card debt is if you keep giving yourself permission to eat, if you keep reminding yourself that the food’s always there, it’s perfectly safe and I’m allowed to eat it, you will naturally settle down when you get food safety. Eating is totally different to compulsive spending on credit cards. I think she’s just … a lot of people freak out when they let go of dieting and get into that all-or-nothing pattern with eating, but there’s like … a real difference between being in an all-or-nothing pattern of eating and adopting intuitive eating and going through that first phase of eating all the food. It’s just different, and its’ not pathological. It’s a normal response to restriction that obviously … she is so restricted and terrified of that. ANNA: It’s all about control, isn’t it? And I think that, you know, talking about the 1200-1600 calories, and I think she refers to that 1600 calories as something you should never, ever go over. So, as a woman, we’re meant to live our lives constantly not going above that. SHREEN: And it’s such a dangerous message. It’s just not enough food, at all. And it’s … and that’s what she’s selling to people, as well … LOUISE: She’s more like ‘honour your restriction’. SHREEN: Yeah! ANNA: We could reverse all of this and create a Jillian Michaels plan. LOUISE: The non-intuitive eating principles. Accept diet culture … what’s the second one? ANNA: Honour your hunger … don’t honour your hunger. LOUISE: Ignore your hunger. SHREEN: Ignore your hunger, yeah. LOUISE: Number three, you do not have permission to eat (all laugh). Alright, principle four? ANNA: Principle four is ‘challenge the food police’. LOUISE: Okay, so hers would be ‘obey the food police’. SHREEN: I don’t think she really understands that she is the food police. When she’s going through it? Like she is … the food police are all the things she’s already talked about. 1200 calories, 1600 calories, these are things that are the food police. ANNA: These are the rules. SHREEN: She doesn’t understand that principle at all. ANNA: The one thing that she said that I did agree with her on was “don’t beat yourself up”. I think she says it in a different way, she means it in a different way, because she kind of adds on and says, “don’t beat yourself up, but don’t fuck up”. Oh sorry. LOUISE:  Please, swear. ANNA: She says, not quite like that, but “maintain balance, it’s all about balance”. And don’t … SHREEN: And self-control. ANNA: So, “don’t beat yourself up, but just don’t do it”, sort of thing. SHREEN: Or, “you can do better”. She always says that, “you can do better”. ANNA: Yeah, so that message is like, it’s still that sort of shaming approach. SHREEN: Condescending. LOUISE: It makes no sense whatsoever. ANNA: But don’t beat yourself up, I mean, that’s important. LOUISE: You know what, ‘don’t beat yourself up’ means she knows people are not going to be able to do it.  ANNA: That’s a good point, yeah. Yeah, which she talks about the… LOUISE: … about going straight back to jail. ANNA: She talks about the stats, which is interesting. She brings up the stats. LOUISE: Oh, the stats. Yeah, that bit made me itchy. ANNA: That’s coming. It’s coming. The next one is ‘discover the satisfaction factor’, which I think she was actually in agreement with. SHREEN: Yeah, that one … she was saying, food for pleasure … I think that one was almost okay. ANNA: Like wow, okay, we agree. And then six was ‘feel your fullness’. And what came up here was again, it was just clear she hasn’t read the book because she didn’t understand that concept at all. LOUISE: She probably doesn’t know what fulness feels like. SHREEN: And then she started talking about how it’s in your head, and kind of went off … even I got a little bit lost with what she was saying. Like, “oh, we’re on fullness principle? I thought we were …” ANNA: She was kind of saying, yeah, she was kind of saying that if you’re not listening to your body, you’re not picking up your fullness levels, there’s something messed up in your head. And I was thinking, you know what? Sometimes I eat food and I’m quite satisfied physically but I’m still eating because the food’s really good, or I don’t want to … I’m eating in company and I don’t want to finish the meal and want to show that I’ve appreciated it … SHREEN: That’s the thing with intuitive eating, that it’s not the ‘hunger/fullness’ diet. And eating past fullness is normal. It’s totally okay. And it’s not just about eating, you know, getting in touch with your fullness signals. It’s about eating foods that give you pleasure and satisfaction. ANNA: Which is the ‘discover the satisfaction factor’. SHREEN: Which is the next one, but yeah. (sighs). LOUISE: God. So, if you can’t feel fullness, there’s something psychologically wrong with you.  ANNA: That’s the message that she’s giving, yeah. SHREEN: But not understanding that if you’re dieting or especially if you’re only eating those dangerous amount of calories a day, you’re going to be absolutely … LOUISE: You mean, like an adult [inaudible] SHREEN: (laughs). Absolutely starving and of course you’re not going to feel your fullness. But there’s nothing wrong with you, it’s just your body. Your body is doing exactly what it is meant to do. It needs food. ANNA: She doesn’t see that 1200-1600 calories as a restriction. She sees it as like … SHREEN: That’s her normal. ANNA: That’s food, that’s what you’re allowed during the day. LOUISE: So depressing. ANNA: Pretty sure I eat double or triple that. LOUISE: Oh, my goodness. ANNA: So, we’re at number seven. We’re still only … oh, over halfway. ‘Cope with your emotions with kindness’.  SHREEN: I think the thing is … LOUISE: That doesn’t really bring her to my mind. SHREEN: Yeah. She kind of goes “oh, yeah, I agree with this, but it shouldn’t just be one paragraph …”. And I’m like YES, there’s a BOOK. A book! There’s a whole book to go with this.  ANNA: She clearly seems to think it’s just this very basic, you know, overview … SHREEN: Guidelines. ANNA: Yeah, just these ten principles. She hasn’t read the book; she doesn’t know who wrote it. LOUISE: No, but this one really shat me to tears. Because this is where she’s saying that she’s had some childhood history with being maybe fractionally larger than someone else and has had to do, like … basically what she’s saying is that if you cannot lose weight and keep it off forever, that is your psychological fault. SHREEN: Yep. LOUISE: You haven’t done the work in therapy to fix your seemingly not thin body. Which is like, such a load of bullshit. And just unscientific and not sound whatsoever. And like you were saying before, people … she doesn’t understand that food is a relationship, and it’s a complex relationship. And the refusal to see anything other than like … she doesn’t even mention hunger as a reason to eat. Anything other than eating to a calorie control, anything else is incorrect. And we eat for an infinite amount of reasons and all of them make sense. And that’s what I love about intuitive eating, it doesn’t pathologise eating. It doesn’t pathologise hunger, it doesn’t pathologise fullness, and it doesn’t pathologise emotions as a reason to eat. And she clearly is. Seeing the function of how wonderful sometimes binge eating is as a way of protecting yourself from [inaudible] stuff. There’s no pathologizing in intuitive eating, but she’s full of pathologizing thinking that even to read statements like this, it doesn’t sink in. ANNA: She’s oversimplifying the whole thing; she doesn’t understand it at all. And this is where she moves into talking about the percentage of people that are successful versus not successful at diets. SHREEN: So, she acknowledges that 95-98% of diets fail. Is this where she starts talking about the Biggest Loser? ANNA: Yeah. SHREEN: She then starts talking about how the Biggest Loser, there’s a 30% extra success rate if you follow the Biggest Loser method. LOUISE: Really? SHREEN: Yeah. ANNA: So, she basically says, she acknowledges that the studies are very clear that 95% of people are unable to sustain a diet or sustain that weight loss, not a diet. But she says that actually on the Biggest Loser it’s only 65% of people that fail. So actually … SHREEN: So, she’s basically saying “we’ve got this success rate, if you do this …” LOUISE: Which study is this published in? Because the only study I’ve read from season 1 which is the … ANNA: The six-year study? SHREEN: The six year, yeah, really interesting. LOUISE: There were 16 people, and 14 of them regained. I don’t think that equates to 65%. Am I …? ANNA: I don’t know but even so … no, she says 35. So, 30% more than … she says 30%, 35% are successful. SHREEN: But even the fact that she’s now saying that 95-98% of diets fail, and she acknowledges that, but all that she’s been talking about is dieting. Diet the whole way through. She’s just completely contradicting herself. ANNA: Not only is it that they don’t work, but she continues to spruik it, continues to say that it’s possible, and if you do it her way, the Biggest Loser way … they did 7 hours of exercise a day, with gruelling regimes and being pushed and yelled at … LOUISE: And they all put the weight back on. ANNA: They put the weight back on. SHREEN: yeah. LOUISE: And their resting metabolic rate was screwed, six years later. SHREEN: Yeah, 700 calories it decreased by. They lost lean body mass, their fasting glucose increased, their blood sugar levels, yeah. They were the main things. But the fact that their metabolic rate decreased by such a large amount … especially where we were saying, she’s telling people to only eat 1200 calories but then you’re going to follow the Biggest Loser method, your metabolic rate’s going to drop by 700 calories, then what are you going to do? LOUISE: So, she lied about the stats on the Biggest Loser, and she’s not even talking to people about the metabolic impact. Because that study was fascinating, and I talk to clients about it. Because they predicted, the researchers predicted how much their resting metabolic rate would be dropped by …  ANNA: And what did they … LOUISE: And they found out it was even lower. So, they were worse off metabolically than they had predicted six years later. No one expected it to last that long, to have such a devastating impact. ANNA: Yeah, so it’s like a continued effect. It hasn’t regained back to before, pre … LOUISE: Exactly. And when stuff like that is suppressed, we know people are going to experience intense hunger, which of course you can’t honour. SHREEN: And the thing is, again, she’s completely misquoted this study herself but if she’d done her research she would know that there’s been over a hundred studies on intuitive eating that have been done that show you have better body image, higher esteem, improved metabolism, decreased rates of disordered and emotional eating, diminished stress levels and increased satisfaction with life. That’s over a hundred studies on intuitive eating that have been done. ANNA: And I’m pretty sure that you couldn’t say the same, with all of those positive effects, with dieting. LOUISE:  No, especially the ones that use her supplements, which show that everyone puts the weight back on. And the Biggest Loser study, everyone puts the weight back on … but let’s not focus on whether or not the weight comes back on. It’s actually the damage to the body and the metabolic systems that’s just absent from her rant. SHREEN: And not even the psychological damage, that’s not even mentioned. LOUISE: She’s evidence of the psychological damage. SHREEN: Yeah. That is true, yeah. ANNA: So, the next one is … principle eight, respect your body. LOUISE: Oh, fuck. ANNA: So, I think going back to when she spoke about size 16 always equalling healthiness, I think that shows that she doesn’t have respect for all bodies. And that kind of bothers me a bit. SHREEN. A bit. A lot. ANNA: It’s a big part of like, you know, our approach here and being a Health at Every Size® professional, you know? It’s about honouring and understanding and respecting that all bodies are different and need something different. SHREEN: And that you can’t tell somebody’s health by their body size, and that’s such … it’s a huge misconception as it is, let alone, I mean, Jillian Michaels saying this and it’s just … ANNA: Yeah, and just recognising that bodies are diverse, and they will do different things. Your health looks different at different points in your life. What you need changes day to day, and only your body really knows. You know? No external source, no trainer, no Jillian Michaels, no Dr Oz, nobody knows your body. SHREEN: And the whole principle of respecting your body is about being kind to yourself and compassionate and self-care, which is the complete opposite of Jillian Michaels. Like, she is just not kind. She’s not compassionate. She’s just shaming, judgemental, mean. Like … yeah. She’s … I just don’t think she even understands the word ‘respect’, quite frankly. LOUISE: Unless it’s like ‘respect my authority”. SHREEN: Yeah. ANNA: Something I noticed too, that came up before, was that because she’s so invested in it … have you heard of the concept of religion, like dieting? The religion of dieting? She’s so completely invested in it, she’s almost not willing to look the other way, or explore that there might be some truth in this, because she’s so invested, like financially and that’s her way of living … LOUISE: It’s her identity. ANNA: Exactly. LOUISE: It’s interesting, isn’t it? I think Alan Levinovitz, ‘The Gluten Lie’ … ANNA: That’s the guy. LOUISE: He talks about this, the religion of diet mentality. She is definitely the Pope. SHREEN: Quote of the day (all laugh). ANNA: So, then we come into ‘movement, feel the difference’. Which is principle nine. SHREEN: I think this one really got us fired up, didn’t it? ANNA: Well, the first thing that she said was like, “what is this? I don’t know what this ‘militant exercise’ even means”. LOUISE: That’s so funny (all laugh). ANNA: Like, really? Are you sure? LOUISE: She’s like, world-famous on memes for [inaudible]. I think I even did a presentation once where I used her with her finger in her face at someone as a demonstration of militant exercise. ANNA: Yeah, the kind of exercise that you don’t want to do if you want to have a sustainable relationship with movement. LOUISE: Yeah, your name’s on the t-shirt, love. SHREEN: Just telling people in this thing that, you know, this myth that’s just not true – ‘no pain, no gain’, that only hard exercise counts, it’s just utter rubbish. All movement counts, it doesn’t matter what it is. From playing with your kids, to hoovering, to dancing around your living room. LOUISE: Hoovering doesn’t count, I don’t even know what hoovering is … ANNA: She’s talking about hoovering, the hoover … SHREEN: Vacuuming, is that more Aussie? LOUISE: No, I don’t understand. (all laugh). SHREEN: But like, movement can be anything and you get the exact same health benefits from any type of regular movement, doesn’t matter what it is. But what she’s just trying to … she’s just bringing movement and aesthetics, that’s what she’s talking about. She’s talking about … ANNA: That’s a really good point, because if she was really interested in somebody’s health, then any kind of movement would be accessible, you know, like … SHREEN: Beneficial. ANNA: Helpful, yeah. SHREEN: Your blood markers, and stress levels, and sleep, it doesn’t matter what it is, it has the same health benefits. But she’s not talking about health. She’s talking about the way you look. ANNA: Yeah. She’s talking about ‘results’ a lot, and “if you want to get results fast” … because you know, let’s face it, she says “if you’re coming to look at intuitive eating, you’re trying to lose weight, you’re trying to get results fast.” LOUISE: Jillian! ANNA: “You’ve got to do a certain type of exercise, and my programs do that”. So, a little bit of spruiking her own programs too. SHREEN: What she doesn’t realise that she’s doing is having that negative relationship with exercise is not going to make people want to do it.  LOUISE: She doesn’t care about that. SHREEN: She’s the reason why people don’t want to go to the gym, or they hate exercise, because of people like Jillian Michaels. ANNA: Yeah, it’s that fitness trauma that you were talking about before. And what I recognise here, at the studio at Haven, community … in my experience, community has always been really powerful in building that sustainable and healthful relationship with movement. Joy and … SHREEN: And it’s that you enjoy, you [inaudible]. ANNA: And to want to come back, too. And that militant approach might work well for someone who responds to that but maybe for a short time. And then that motivation kind of wanes. And then it’s always trying to get back the motivation, you hear that a lot in fitness culture. But if you’re not coming at it from external, an external place, for external purposes, and it’s more about the … SHREEN: The way it makes you feel, using it as a tool for self-care rather than punishment … ANNA: Your mental health, having fun with your friends, it’s a completely different experience to being yelled at by Jillian Michaels. SHREEN: Her whole thing is yelling at people, making them feel guilty, punishing them. Like, and that’s just not what people need in a fitness professional. They need someone who is kind and compassionate and she’s just … that’s just not her, unfortunately. She’s just giving … ANNA: What is she? She’s the Pope of … the religion of dieting. She’s also the epitome of diet culture. She’s all of those things. And then the last principle is gentle nutrition, principle ten. LOUISE: I think this actually blew up her brain. SHREEN: Yeah, because she couldn’t understand the whole diet … principle one, principle ten … LOUISE: She couldn’t figure out how that fits with unconditional permission to eat. Because of course, if you have unconditional permission to eat, you’re going to stick your face into a burger for the rest of your life.  ANNA: Yeah, so again she thinks it’s all just endless eating. LOUISE: She’s stuck in that ‘all or nothing’ mentality. ANNA: Exactly, yeah. SHREEN: It’s funny, because she talks about that ‘black and white, all or nothing’ mentality and not understanding that’s exactly what she’s saying. Yeah. ANNA: Yeah, and again it came up just very, very clear that she hasn’t read the book, she doesn’t really know what she’s talking about. SHREEN: Yeah, I think that’s the main … ANNA: This is when she said, you know, “it’s probably written by someone who has just really been hurt by diet culture and probably had an eating disorder, and, you know, probably just some random” and actually … LOUISE: Such a shame that she didn’t actually look at the author. SHREEN: Yeah, just even look up to who they were. Yeah. ANNA: It’s a little bit disappointing because you’d think somebody who has such a following, I think, has such a … I think there’s a moral obligation in a way to represent something that … when you have such a big following and you’re sharing something that can affect people deeply … SHREEN: It’s what we say, that she’s really coming from that dieting mentality and all that sort of shaming that she doesn’t understand that intuitive eating at its core is a self-care model. It’s very compassionate and she doesn’t understand that. Also. with intuitive eating, we’re not saying that it’s a solution for everybody. Everyone has the right to do what they want with their body. She just doesn’t understand the concept at all, what it stands for. ANNA: It’s like she’s on such a different planet, and it’s not … doesn’t come across as open to exploring that this might be something that really serves people. SHREEN: Yeah, and that it’s having such a positive impact. We talked about earlier with the … ANNA: Feeling a bit threatened by the impact on her, you know, her … LOUISE: To her bottom line. I also think that, I mean, if she really is undernourished to that point that she has restricted her entire life, one of the things that happens when you’re weight supressed is cognitive rigidity. ANNA: That’s a really good point. LOUISE: So, it’s quite hard to be flexible. We see that a lot with people who are suffering in the depths of Anorexia, that you simply cannot think. And perhaps there’s an element of that that’s happening here. ANNA: That’s really interesting. SHREEN: That’s a really good point. Because what dieting, that kind of restriction is doing to you … LOUISE: Well, it gives her massive benefits. Huge amounts of recognition, it gives her income. She can’t think out of it. So, there’s not a lot of reason for her, like … I think the reason for putting up that video wasn’t a genuine exploration of “what’s this thing called ‘intuitive eating’?”.  SHREEN: It was just to … LOUISE: It was just to kind of … ANNA: Debunk it. LOUISE: To debunk it and keep hold of her customer base. Look, let’s assume that she is interested in the book. Jillian Michael’s house is in Malibu, California. I reckon we just whack a copy in an envelope, address it to her, maybe she’ll read it. ANNA: Do you think?  LOUISE: Yeah? I don’t know. Maybe if all of our listeners whack a copy into an envelope … SHREEN: Yeah!  LOUISE: 20 copies, please read. Maybe. SHREEN: Maybe, yeah. LOUISE: But I don’t think that was anything other than a … it’s quite interesting, I’m seeing this more and more. The famous people, the people who have really invested in diet culture, even the obesity researchers and all of that. They’re all kind of getting a little bit nervous about this pushback. SHREEN: They should be. LOUISE: It makes me feel warm and fuzzy. SHREEN: It’s time. LOUISE: It’s got nothing to do with the champagne. I think the celebs are getting nervous, like “what do you mean, people in larger bodies are okay with themselves just the way they are?”. And finding non weight-loss things to look after themselves, oh my gosh. What a huge, horrible threat. So, we’re not sorry, Jillian, that we made you nervous. ANNA: Agreed. I hope it gives her a little bit of food for thought (all laugh). LOUISE: I don’t know how many calories would be attached to that thought (all laugh). ANNA: I have to say, like, the thing that I think fires me up the most is how fatphobic she is. SHREEN: And how much harm … that’s the thing that fired me up the most, how much harm she’s causing people out there. And having had an eating disorder myself, it’s just … LOUISE: Horrible. You can see how triggering it is. SHREEN: I can see what it can do, yeah. That’s what fires me up. LOUISE: and let’s not forget when we say fatphobic, we mean people who hate fat people. And that is really reflective … even though she is professing “oh, I’m going to love you … but you’re unhealthy so change”. That’s troubling. Using health as a halo, an excuse or a reason for my core treatment of you just based on your appearance. And that’s just … those days are done. You can’t do that anymore. It’s just not cool. And I do wonder if there is like a Biggest Loser university somewhere?  ANNA: Michelle Bridges went to it as well. LOUISE: Because the same kind of hatred of fat people, you know … again, like masked with a thin layer of concern trolling for your health was Michelle Bridges’ thing. Four years ago, when she was on Australian Story and she was saying “I’m yet to meet someone who is morbidly obese and happy”. So, for people who are listening from overseas, Michelle Bridges is the Australian version of Jillian Michaels. And what an awful comment. So, Jillian has been pushed back against from this video, right? Michelle was pushed back against from this video too, with really clear … I know we all live in a bubble, but with quite a lot of push back. ANNA: That’s good. Was she on … was that on like Australian primetime TV? SHREEN: She was on Australian Story. LOUISE: Yeah [inaudible] … it shows how deeply she feels [inaudible] about people she’s profiting from. Putting them through three cycles a year of 1200 calorie program and she knows it doesn’t work. But the thing is, what they do is they double down. People like this double down, when they’re called out, when there’s a pushback. Instead of kind of opening up and say, “okay, I should probably issue an apology, maybe take the video down, maybe do some work”. They’re not doing that. Jillian’s not doing that. ANNA: I think she just keeps responding. And she’s just responding with the same rhetoric, so she’s not … SHREEN: I think she kind of comments that [inaudible], to learn about it more, which is a shame. ANNA: And how did Michele Bridges respond? LOUISE: Doubled down on it. About health, “I care deeply about health”. ANNA: The whole thing with health and weight, this is what really frustrates me about it too. If she’s really interested in health, she could support all the behaviours that support someone’s health. LOUISE: Too complicated. Remember? Too complicated. Anything that actually involves having to think about something other than my own diet plan … ANNA: It makes me realise how happy I’ve become in moving away from all this, that’s why I got away from it. Because I learned about how there’s another way. Intuitive eating, Health at Every Size®, the body positivity movement … I started delving into it and it just felt so triggering being around other fitness professionals from the traditional approach. And this here, I’ve got to say, got me so fired up. I’m going to be fired up for a while from this. SHREEN: We talk about fitness trauma, and Jillian Michaels is causing that. LOUISE: May she go the way of the dinosaurs and … (all laugh). ANNA: Well, hopefully there will be less and less of her to be seen in the future and more and more of kind of this messaging coming up, challenging … LOUISE: Absolutely, I absolutely think that’s going to happen. You’ve just reminded me actually, she … because Jillian, earlier in the year before she posted the nasty intuitive eating thing, she said something nasty about Lizzo. SHREEN: Yeah, of course.  ANNA: That sounds familiar … SHREEN: Yeah. That was before …  LOUISE: A little while before, I don’t know. It’s Covid, none of us have a timeline. ANNA: She’s said some pretty horrendous things. SHREEN: Really horrendous things yeah. LOUISE: Again, like … “she’s clearly going to get diabetes” or something? ANNA: I think she said something along the lines of “there’s nothing sexy about diabetes”, or clogged arteries or something.  SHREEN: Something like that, yeah. ANNA: How can she … that’s so inappropriate. Lizzo’s bouncing away on stage. She’s got stamina, she’s got energy.  SHREEN: We don’t know anything about her or her health. ANNA: And why do we have to talk about that anyway? She’s this amazing performer and doing this really cool stuff. It’s wonderful to see some diverse bodies out there that are getting out there as much as the other, the thin ideal that you see everywhere. LOUISE: Yeah, the comments that she made were like “why are we talking about Lizzo’s body, we should be talking about her music”. ANNA: So, she said that? LOUISE: Yeah. ANNA: But then … LOUISE: And it’s really funny, because she’s saying that we shouldn’t be talking about Lizzo’s body, but her entire website is full of shots of her body. ANNA: Yeah, and that’s her thing. SHREEN: That’s her thing, yeah. ANNA: She’s always talking about people’s bodies. Size 16, yeah. SHREEN: Yeah, non-stop. LOUISE: The point I’m making is that you don’t say that about Lizzo. And the pushback she got after she made that comment? This is the future Jillian. Lizzo is setting the world on fire.  ANNA: We need more Lizzo. SHREEN: We need more Lizzo. LOUISE: and you are the biggest loser. ANNA: Well put. LOUISE: Oh my god, let’s finish on a high note. Thank you, guys, that was an elegant unpacking of Jillian Michael’s ten principles of not understanding intuitive eating (all laugh). And how firmly we can steer the ship to this new awesome way of looking after our body. ANNA: Thank you. SHREEN: Thank you.  Resources Mentioned: (Watch if you can stomach) Jillian Michaels' Igno-rant on Youtube Urbszat, Dax, C. Peter Herman, and Janet Polivy. "Eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we diet: Effects of anticipated deprivation on food intake in restrained and unrestrained eaters." Journal of abnormal psychology 111.2 (2002): 396. News article about 4 lawsuits against Jillian Michaels for her weight loss pills Fothergill, Erin, et al. "Persistent metabolic adaptation 6 years after “The Biggest Loser” competition." Obesity 24.8 (2016): 1612-1619. Alan Levinovitz's The Gluten Lie Find out more about Anna Hearn & Haven Find out more about Shreen El Masry and Be You Be Free  

There's nothing more infuriating than when people throw shade at the anti-diet perspective without bothering to actually research it. When "The Biggest Loser" trainer/shameless fatphobe Jillian Michaels arrogantly released a Youtube clip trashing the 10 principles of intuitive eating, WITHOUT EVEN READING THE BOOK, she REALLY pi***ed off the community! And none more so than my guests, anti-diet fitness trainers Anna Hearn and Shreen El Masry, who have been dying to come on the podcast and set the record straight! Finally the COVID window opened just a crack so I could record the very first IN PERSON podcast! Join us as we dissect Jillian's often hilarious inability to comprehend a life beyond diet prison. WHAT ON EARTH IS THIS 'PERMISSION TO EAT!!' It seems the lady doth protest too much - could it be that the Queen of Diet Prison is sensing the paradigm-shifting power of the anti-diet revolution? That's right folks, the unrivalled reign of Biggest Loser-esque terror is over!! Vive La Difference! Please note - this episode comes with a hefty side serve of calorie count discussions, so if you're in recovery from an eating disorder please consider your level of spoons to hear the diet talk. But, if you've had a gutful of igno-rants about anti-dieting, it's time to get ALL FIRED UP! Show Transcript:   LOUISE: So, here I am with Anna and Shreen. Thank you so much for coming on the show. ANNA: Thank you for having us. SHREEN: Yeah, thank you so much. LOUISE: It’s so exciting to be alive with actual humans in the room, and slightly weird. Why don’t you guys tell me all about what is firing you up? ANNA: We’re really fired up about Jillian Michaels and her aggressive fatphobic rant on intuitive eating. LOUISE: (sighs) First of all, I have to say I love how you say ‘rant’, it’s very proper and awesome. But yes, Jillian Michaels – Biggest Loser trainer in the United States. Horrendously fatphobic. ANNA: Yeah, I mean … she got her living, she makes her living from shaming fat bodies. I think that tells a lot about her character and where she’s going to go with her intuitive eating rant. LOUISE: So, she was on the Biggest Loser for years and years and years. Her website … well, she’s touting herself as the world’s best trainer. Like, the biggest expert in the world on all things fitness. Which, well … this is just a hunch, but I could find people on the planet who are more qualified. ANNA: Well, if you want to break down her qualifications, I think it looks like she’s done a couple of personal training qualifications, a couple of fitness qualifications and … SHREEN: One ‘woo woo’ nutrition qualification. ANNA: There is a nutrition qualification there too, but it doesn’t look like there’s any degrees or anything. So, when it comes to intuitive eating and looking at all of that, when we go into it you’ll realise, I think, that she hasn’t really done her research. She doesn’t understand it. And I think it’s interesting that somebody without that nutrition background or lived experience with that sort of thing talks about it the way that she does. SHREEN: I think as well, not only does she come across really aggressive and shaming, also I think her insecurity is really coming out in this video. Intuitive eating is a movement that’s really starting to take off, and she’s clearly threatened by it. You can see her defence mechanism is up, and she’s … you know, really, just … her demeanour is just awful. LOUISE: It's hard to tell, though, if her demeanour’s just awful because she’s defensive or because her demeanour’s just awful. SHREEN: Yeah, that’s true. ANNA: I kind of picked up on that and thought she was sensing a threat because intuitive eating is becoming more mainstream, people are becoming more aware of it. So that could threaten what she does, because she makes a living forcing people to lose weight. LOUISE: So, during the 90’s and the early 2000’s, like … it was a free-for-all with bullying people with larger bodies, as we saw. World-wide, the Biggest Loser was the number one show, and everyone thought it was okay. So, she’s had this unfettered ability to be horrible about body size and really belittling of people in larger bodies. And now, I think she’s realising it’s not okay to keep on doing that. ANNA: The backlash about it. LOUISE: So, just to set the stage. What we’re seeing … because I did see the internet blow up. It was a while ago now, but let’s face it - we’ve all been in iso and unable to talk to each other. So, she has like a YouTube channel and one of her YouTube little presentations - I don’t watch what she does, just for my own mental health - but this one was Jillian Michaels talking about intuitive eating. Which, oh my god … let’s just get Donald Trump talking about sexism. ANNA: That’s a great analogy. SHREEN: She’s basically, I think she’s just gone on the website and just pulled up the principles without doing any research into it or even understanding there’s over a hundred studies done on intuitive eating and there’s a whole book as well. She just went on there, read out these principles and gave her, I guess, her opinion.  ANNA: It became really clear that she hasn’t taken the time to understand it. She hasn’t learnt about the authors; you’ll see as she comes to the end of it, she talks about assuming that it was written by somebody who had just had some bad experience with diet culture, maybe had an eating disorder LOUISE: Oh my god, that’s so disrespectful SHREEN: So disrespectful. ANNA: No understanding or bothering to explore that the authors are actually dietitians who had come up with this approach because they had done so much work with clients who had struggled a lot and this is what they’d learnt from working with them over years and years. LOUISE: These are the gurus. Like, Tribole and Resch, they wrote the initial book Intuitive Eating and it’s just been updated, which is fantastic. But even that, even their book which is written from that perspective of helping people recover from eating disorders, that book is built on another big long history of social justice and fat activism. To not recognise that intuitive eating is part of a social movement and like, the way she presented it is like, she just stumbled across a webpage and … oh my god. ANNA: Definitely, yeah. And it came across very, very condescending. I felt really bothered … SHREEN: It’s so harmful, as well. That was the thing that really bothered me the most, was how much … I mean, she causes so much harm anyway, but the message was just next level harm. And if anyone was watching that and had no idea, the things that she was saying … yeah, it’s just not on. LOUISE: Oh god, yikes. So, we thought we would unpick Jillian Michael’s feelpinion to each of the ten principles of intuitive eating. And you guys have written some awesomely detailed notes. ANNA: We had a really good chat about it. LOUISE: Fantastic. But I’m so interested, because you guys both work in this industry as HAES® positive, body inclusive, weight neutral trainers hearing from almost like the personification of diet culture woman. SHREEN: She is the reason why people have so much fitness trauma and so much negative association with fitness. She’s causing that. ANNA: She is the epitome of diet culture. SHREEN: Yeah, she is the epitome of diet culture, for sure. ANNA: And I think we chatted about this as we were hanging out one day, and we just came across this as a topic that fired both of us up. And it’s frustrating when you see … when you’re so heavily involved in this space, and the HAES® space, and the body inclusive space, it can be … and luckily for me working here at Haven, this is the space I come to work every day. So, I’m not exposed to traditional diet culture unless I stumble across it or it’s brought to my attention. So, I couldn’t help but just be really quite wild about this. LOUISE: I love it. I mean, I don’t love that you’re wild, but I kind of do. But, yeah. It’s nice to know that in this industry there are people who feel really strongly about just putting an end to this. She’s what’s wrong with the fitness industry at the moment, and you guys are the future. And I think she can smell that. So, I think, like I … I managed to watch it and still shaking with rage but thank you for this glass of champagne. ANNA: I don’t think we could do this without a little bit of champagne. SHREEN: No, we need some bubbles. LOUISE: The first thing she starts with, so she’s actually going through all the principles. SHREEN:  Correct. LOUISE: Why don’t you give me the lowdown on your reaction. ANNA: Let’s kick off. So, she does go through the points one by one, and the first principle is ‘reject the diet mentality’. And I just want to point out a few things that came up for me that were just so apparent throughout. Her fatphobia is so clear. She’s driven, everything she says, and her approach is all drive by this. And I think she’s very ignorant, like she doesn’t see that there’s an issue with this. She comes form that space where it’s very normalised to shame fat bodies, it’s not okay to be in a bigger body. And she very clearly associates weight and health, they’re so closely tied, which I think it really problematic, obviously. So, in this ‘reject diet mentality’, what came up for you, Shreen? SHREEN: Well, the first thing for me was that she couldn’t distinguish a difference between fad diets and what dieting is, and diet culture. She’s like, “oh you know, if it’s fad diets we’re talking about yeah, yeah sure”, but this is a woman who has sold supplements in the past. LOUISE: She’s sold fad diets. SHREEN: She’s sold fad diets. And she is diet culture, so I guess she can’t … she doesn’t understand what diet culture actually is and why it’s so important to reject it. I mean, diet culture in the US alone is worth 70 billion dollars. ANNA:  She profits off it. SHREEN: She profits off everyone’s insecurities. So, she was just like, “reject diet culture? What’s this, what does this mean?”. And I really did sense there that her insecurity is coming out there because that is her, that’s how she makes her money. ANNA: Well that’s it, she’s really incentivised to support diet culture.  LOUISE: But the distinction that she made between “well, if it’s fad, but if it’s proper” … it just made me laugh, because she’s had no less than four separate lawsuits … ANNA:  Jillian? SHREEN: Yeah. LOUISE: Launched against her by her consumers who bought her caffeine-fuelled diet pills. ANNA: Which I think she might have … there might have been something on the Biggest Loser where she gave them to contestants unfairly, apparently, as well. LOUISE: Oh my god, scandal on the Biggest Loser. Like … ANNA: Well, the other thing that came up for me there was she said, “what is this, healthy at any size?”, and that’s immediately a red flag representing that she doesn’t know what she’s talking about. She hasn’t researched this because … I can understand it’s very easy to misconstrue Health At Every Size® for healthy at every size, but it’s quite a different meaning and that assumption that, you know, just assuming that we’re saying as a Health at Every Size® professional that all bodies are healthy, that’s not where we’re aiming. We’re talking about people being able to pursue health regardless of shape and size. LOUISE: Or, also, we’re talking about the choice not to pursue health and to be left the fuck alone. SHREEN: Yeah, there’s no moral obligation. If people want to do so, then it’s up to them. It shouldn’t be … they shouldn’t have to do it if they don’t want to, but that’s what diet culture is saying. ANNA: Your body, your rules. SHREEN: And this part of her rant really, really … we know that she’s incredibly fatphobic and she fat shames, but it just came out so much in that where she was again talking, talking about size 16. And she’s saying “well, you know, if you’re a size 16 of course I love you but you’re not healthy”. Which is just … LOUISE: Get fucked. SHREEN: Yeah, absolute garbage. ANNA: Yeah. And Health at Every Size® also is about respect for all bodies, and I think there is a real lack of respect in just making that assumption. You can’t tell. How does she know what someone’s health is, you know? What their metabolic functions are, their blood work, their social, mental health … you can’t tell that by someone’s size. SHREEN: Genetics, everything. There’s so much, it’s so multifaceted. LOUISE: Everything I think is just far too complicated for her. She has to actually, like … I mean, clearly, she hasn’t read anything or thought about anything. “Nope, that’s a number, that’s an assumption, and don’t challenge that”.  SHREEN: Yeah. And if someone’s watching that, I mean, how triggering. How much harm that one comment could cause somebody that could lead them down a path of dieting and to an eating disorder. ANNA: And especially if they were already vulnerable of somebody who would identify with being in a size 16, or plus. And also, size 16 is quite variable depending on which shop you shop in, you know? Where you get your clothes from. What’s a size anyway? What does it matter? SHREEN: Yeah, it doesn’t matter. LOUISE: Size is not the same as health, and she needs to pull her head in. I wonder if her YouTube videos come with a trigger warning. I don’t think they do, but they should. Because good point, you know, that she … everything she says is potentially a trigger. SHREEN: Especially the size of her audience as well, I’m worried. ANNA: She’s got a big reach still. Some of the comments though were interesting, some really great points. People were talking about intuitive eating and picking up on that she doesn’t understand it, she’s missing the point. LOUISE: That is really reassuring. ANNA: She stopped the comments, she cut them off. LOUISE: Oh no, they were too complicated. ANNA: So, the next principle is ‘honour your hunger’, and she said something pretty radical here. Well, it’s not really radical in the fitness world. These numbers get thrown around a lot. But trigger warning, there are numbers here. She says, “if you’re trying to lose weight, you can keep your body fed on as low as 1200 calories”. And that most women, especially those over, you know, relating to being a certain age, shouldn’t be eating over 1600 calories a day. SHREEN: Which is just absolutely unbelievable. She’s saying that … I mean, that’s what a toddler needs. A toddler needs 1200-1600 calories a day. LOUISE: How very dare she tell me how much I can eat, under a principle that says, ‘honour your hunger’. ANNA: She … on one hand, I’m not surprised she threw those numbers out because those numbers are thrown out all the time in the fitness world. I don’t know where … MyFitnessPal? LOUISE: Are they really? SHREEN: We were saying, MyFitnessPal may have started the whole 1200 calories thing … LOUISE: I think Michelle Bridges is guilty of that too. ANNA: Oh actually, you’re right, she had a program that was based on that. LOUISE: It’s just a nice round number, isn’t it? Let’s just pluck this out of our arse and throw that at all women. ANNA: What I find there though is that like Shreen said, it’s something that a child needs. And I just wanted to double-check that, because I’m not a nutritionist, I’m a yogi and I run a studio, but I wanted to check with somebody who does work with that. I chatted to our non-diet nutritionist Nina and she clarified that yes - this is generalisation - but that kind of number is something that would serve a child. Like, a toddler or a four, five-year-old. And then thinking about the effects of being on a low-calorie diet for a long period, things like loss of menstrual cycle, loss of bone density, fatigue, mood swings, constipation, blood sugar imbalance, stress hormones getting out of whack … SHREEN: Sex drive … ANNA: Sex drive … what did you say before? SHREEN: Dry vagina (laughs). ANNA: She didn’t mention that, did she? SHREEN: No. LOUISE: No, but that might be suffering all of them, you know? And why she’s so grouchy. ANNA: Memory fog and brain fog … memory loss and brain fog. So, these are all things that can be affected by not being adequately fed. And the better indicator of your needs are your body and your internal hunger signals. And we’re taught to … these external sources of just following this rule plan of 1200 calories a day means that if I need more than that – maybe at the time of my period especially I might need much more - and I’m just denying my natural hunger levels. LOUISE: The whole ‘per day’ thing really gives me the shits as well. SHREEN: Yeah, that’s a really good point. LOUISE: This is just a statistical method to help researchers make assumptions about nutrition. It’s not supposed to be something religiously followed. SHREEN: No, there’s no … ANNA: An individual thing, yeah. LOUISE: It’s bizarre. But, isn’t that interesting that even as she’s like, she’s trying desperately, the poor little thing to understand that this is a principle of intuitive eating but she can’t quite get there because she immediately lurches into “well, if you want to lose weight …”. I just felt like reaching through the screen and saying, “realise that intuitive eating is not a weight loss program”. ANNA: That’s half the problem, is that she clearly thinks that the only people who explore intuitive eating are going for weight loss. She says that a few times. LOUISE: Oh, she’s a scrambled egg. ANNA: Yeah. She doesn’t understand that the whole purpose of intuitive eating is more about finding a peaceful relationship with food and your body, not about trying to pursue making your body be something, a certain size. SHREEN: It’s about food freedom, it’s about having a healthy relationship with food, stopping the obsession. It’s not … it’s definitely not following these external rules. It’s about being in tune with what your body wants and needs and getting in touch with those signals. LOUISE: Different planet, I don’t think she’s visited. SHREEN: I don’t think she understands what the ‘honouring hunger’ … it’s a basic self-care need. If you’re not honouring hunger … LOUISE: Again, you’re mentioning a foreign concept here. This is someone who will happily live with a dry vagina, it doesn’t matter. SHREEN: Yep (all laugh). LOUISE: We all went there. SHREEN: She just really doesn’t understand and that is the reason why … people don’t give themselves enough food and they’re following diet plans, and they’re going to give themselves cravings leading to overeating and bingeing, and that’s perfectly normal as well. Other than ‘rejecting the diet mentality’ one of the first steps of intuitive eating is to just honour your hunger and it’s so important. It’s self-care. ANNA: It's so liberating too, if you’re been on the diet bandwagon for many, many years, to recognise that “hey, my body’s got a lot of wisdom, and it’s telling me, it’s giving me messages and I can learn how to reconnect with that”. And I think part of the common thread that comes up with what she says all the time is that … she thinks it’s all about ‘you can’t trust your body’. I think an important thing that I’ve learned is you can really learn how to trust your body. We get into this as we move into the next principle or two. It’s not about endless eating and not being able to, you know, like you’re just not going to go out of control all the time, which is what she sort of thinks. SHREEN: Point number three is that ‘unconditional permission to eat all foods’. LOUISE: She really had a problem with principle three. Like, she was visibly … SHREEN: Yeah, and she started comparing it to smoking, and credit cards, and it’s like …what are you talking about? ANNA: So yeah, this ‘make peace with food’, you’re right. And she talks about saying, talking about the ‘last supper mentality’, and she says, “I’m not religious, I don’t know what Jesus ate”. LOUISE: She really needs to read some books. ANNA: She needs to read Intuitive Eating if she’s going to talk about it. Because if she read it, she might really understand what that means. I thought it was quite clear just from the ‘last supper mentality’, don’t you think? SHREEN: You just eat everything in sight. LOUISE: I don’t even think it has religious connotations, I thought it was like a death row thing. SHREEN: Oh, that’s true … LOUISE: Like eating your last meal. ANNA: That’s right. And it makes sense, I think, if you think about that. You know you’re not going to have something again, so you want to make the most of it in that moment. And ultimately that’s what it’s about. I think that’s kind of clear. But she didn’t understand that, she was sort of like “I don’t like this intense, this hostile approach”. And I’m like, you ARE intense and hostile.  LOUISE: How is that intense and hostile? I’ve not ever read the ten principles of intuitive eating and thought “gosh, that’s angry”. I mean, gosh. Visit the internet, really (all laugh). ANNA: I think she is the, again, the epitome diet culture, and she is the hostile one. Think about the Biggest Loser, she is very aggressive and in-your-face, pushing her clients. So, here she talks about it all being about self-control and willpower, and I think that’s missing the point of intuitive eating completely as well. LOUISE: She just can’t … SHREEN: She doesn’t understand. If she’d read the book, she would understand there’s science behind it as well, if she … LOUISE: I don’t think if she read the book she would understand.  SHREEN: Yeah (laughs) ANNA: I picked up on that too, she’s [inaudible]. LOUISE: She almost yelled “You do not permission to eat”. Which was quite scary. SHREEN: Because I think that reflects her inner narrative. That’s what’s going on in her head. LOUISE: Yeah. Not … not relaxed, that’s for sure. That response to the third point was quite unhinged. ANNA: And like you said, relating the food to credit cards or smoking, that’s a completely different thing. I don’t think … you know, food is something that we rely on, like biologically … SHREEN: We need food to survive, we need food … and intuitive eating is about healing your relationship to food, it’s about having a healthy relationship to food, and you can’t have that if you’re restricting foods. That’s why it’s really important to give yourself unconditional permission to eat. And yeah, it is scary. Of course. It’s scary when you’ve come from that mentality, but it’s the only way for food to lose its power. ANNA: Yeah. And I think it may be a good point to think about how it’s helpful to be handheld through that process. It can sound really scary to somebody who’s new to it, or who hasn’t delved into intuitive eating too much, or worked with a coach or therapist or something. Maybe working with a. dietitian on this would be really helpful. I understand how it can feel like that lack of control, but I think that’s a period that sometimes is part of that healing process. When you let go of the restriction, and allow yourself full unconditional permission to eat, then you might explore some of those foods that were off-limits for a period. And it might feel like you are diving into them a lot. But … LOUISE: Which is perfectly normal. SHREEN: Yeah. LOUISE: The last supper effect … like, that actually, now I remember. The ‘last supper’ effect, it is the paper by Herman and Polivy, “Eat drink and be merry, for tomorrow we diet”. That’s the ‘last supper’ effect. It’s a perfectly normal psychological response to restriction is to eat more. And the difference between that and going into massive credit card debt is if you keep giving yourself permission to eat, if you keep reminding yourself that the food’s always there, it’s perfectly safe and I’m allowed to eat it, you will naturally settle down when you get food safety. Eating is totally different to compulsive spending on credit cards. I think she’s just … a lot of people freak out when they let go of dieting and get into that all-or-nothing pattern with eating, but there’s like … a real difference between being in an all-or-nothing pattern of eating and adopting intuitive eating and going through that first phase of eating all the food. It’s just different, and its’ not pathological. It’s a normal response to restriction that obviously … she is so restricted and terrified of that. ANNA: It’s all about control, isn’t it? And I think that, you know, talking about the 1200-1600 calories, and I think she refers to that 1600 calories as something you should never, ever go over. So, as a woman, we’re meant to live our lives constantly not going above that. SHREEN: And it’s such a dangerous message. It’s just not enough food, at all. And it’s … and that’s what she’s selling to people, as well … LOUISE: She’s more like ‘honour your restriction’. SHREEN: Yeah! ANNA: We could reverse all of this and create a Jillian Michaels plan. LOUISE: The non-intuitive eating principles. Accept diet culture … what’s the second one? ANNA: Honour your hunger … don’t honour your hunger. LOUISE: Ignore your hunger. SHREEN: Ignore your hunger, yeah. LOUISE: Number three, you do not have permission to eat (all laugh). Alright, principle four? ANNA: Principle four is ‘challenge the food police’. LOUISE: Okay, so hers would be ‘obey the food police’. SHREEN: I don’t think she really understands that she is the food police. When she’s going through it? Like she is … the food police are all the things she’s already talked about. 1200 calories, 1600 calories, these are things that are the food police. ANNA: These are the rules. SHREEN: She doesn’t understand that principle at all. ANNA: The one thing that she said that I did agree with her on was “don’t beat yourself up”. I think she says it in a different way, she means it in a different way, because she kind of adds on and says, “don’t beat yourself up, but don’t fuck up”. Oh sorry. LOUISE:  Please, swear. ANNA: She says, not quite like that, but “maintain balance, it’s all about balance”. And don’t … SHREEN: And self-control. ANNA: So, “don’t beat yourself up, but just don’t do it”, sort of thing. SHREEN: Or, “you can do better”. She always says that, “you can do better”. ANNA: Yeah, so that message is like, it’s still that sort of shaming approach. SHREEN: Condescending. LOUISE: It makes no sense whatsoever. ANNA: But don’t beat yourself up, I mean, that’s important. LOUISE: You know what, ‘don’t beat yourself up’ means she knows people are not going to be able to do it.  ANNA: That’s a good point, yeah. Yeah, which she talks about the… LOUISE: … about going straight back to jail. ANNA: She talks about the stats, which is interesting. She brings up the stats. LOUISE: Oh, the stats. Yeah, that bit made me itchy. ANNA: That’s coming. It’s coming. The next one is ‘discover the satisfaction factor’, which I think she was actually in agreement with. SHREEN: Yeah, that one … she was saying, food for pleasure … I think that one was almost okay. ANNA: Like wow, okay, we agree. And then six was ‘feel your fullness’. And what came up here was again, it was just clear she hasn’t read the book because she didn’t understand that concept at all. LOUISE: She probably doesn’t know what fulness feels like. SHREEN: And then she started talking about how it’s in your head, and kind of went off … even I got a little bit lost with what she was saying. Like, “oh, we’re on fullness principle? I thought we were …” ANNA: She was kind of saying, yeah, she was kind of saying that if you’re not listening to your body, you’re not picking up your fullness levels, there’s something messed up in your head. And I was thinking, you know what? Sometimes I eat food and I’m quite satisfied physically but I’m still eating because the food’s really good, or I don’t want to … I’m eating in company and I don’t want to finish the meal and want to show that I’ve appreciated it … SHREEN: That’s the thing with intuitive eating, that it’s not the ‘hunger/fullness’ diet. And eating past fullness is normal. It’s totally okay. And it’s not just about eating, you know, getting in touch with your fullness signals. It’s about eating foods that give you pleasure and satisfaction. ANNA: Which is the ‘discover the satisfaction factor’. SHREEN: Which is the next one, but yeah. (sighs). LOUISE: God. So, if you can’t feel fullness, there’s something psychologically wrong with you.  ANNA: That’s the message that she’s giving, yeah. SHREEN: But not understanding that if you’re dieting or especially if you’re only eating those dangerous amount of calories a day, you’re going to be absolutely … LOUISE: You mean, like an adult [inaudible] SHREEN: (laughs). Absolutely starving and of course you’re not going to feel your fullness. But there’s nothing wrong with you, it’s just your body. Your body is doing exactly what it is meant to do. It needs food. ANNA: She doesn’t see that 1200-1600 calories as a restriction. She sees it as like … SHREEN: That’s her normal. ANNA: That’s food, that’s what you’re allowed during the day. LOUISE: So depressing. ANNA: Pretty sure I eat double or triple that. LOUISE: Oh, my goodness. ANNA: So, we’re at number seven. We’re still only … oh, over halfway. ‘Cope with your emotions with kindness’.  SHREEN: I think the thing is … LOUISE: That doesn’t really bring her to my mind. SHREEN: Yeah. She kind of goes “oh, yeah, I agree with this, but it shouldn’t just be one paragraph …”. And I’m like YES, there’s a BOOK. A book! There’s a whole book to go with this.  ANNA: She clearly seems to think it’s just this very basic, you know, overview … SHREEN: Guidelines. ANNA: Yeah, just these ten principles. She hasn’t read the book; she doesn’t know who wrote it. LOUISE: No, but this one really shat me to tears. Because this is where she’s saying that she’s had some childhood history with being maybe fractionally larger than someone else and has had to do, like … basically what she’s saying is that if you cannot lose weight and keep it off forever, that is your psychological fault. SHREEN: Yep. LOUISE: You haven’t done the work in therapy to fix your seemingly not thin body. Which is like, such a load of bullshit. And just unscientific and not sound whatsoever. And like you were saying before, people … she doesn’t understand that food is a relationship, and it’s a complex relationship. And the refusal to see anything other than like … she doesn’t even mention hunger as a reason to eat. Anything other than eating to a calorie control, anything else is incorrect. And we eat for an infinite amount of reasons and all of them make sense. And that’s what I love about intuitive eating, it doesn’t pathologise eating. It doesn’t pathologise hunger, it doesn’t pathologise fullness, and it doesn’t pathologise emotions as a reason to eat. And she clearly is. Seeing the function of how wonderful sometimes binge eating is as a way of protecting yourself from [inaudible] stuff. There’s no pathologizing in intuitive eating, but she’s full of pathologizing thinking that even to read statements like this, it doesn’t sink in. ANNA: She’s oversimplifying the whole thing; she doesn’t understand it at all. And this is where she moves into talking about the percentage of people that are successful versus not successful at diets. SHREEN: So, she acknowledges that 95-98% of diets fail. Is this where she starts talking about the Biggest Loser? ANNA: Yeah. SHREEN: She then starts talking about how the Biggest Loser, there’s a 30% extra success rate if you follow the Biggest Loser method. LOUISE: Really? SHREEN: Yeah. ANNA: So, she basically says, she acknowledges that the studies are very clear that 95% of people are unable to sustain a diet or sustain that weight loss, not a diet. But she says that actually on the Biggest Loser it’s only 65% of people that fail. So actually … SHREEN: So, she’s basically saying “we’ve got this success rate, if you do this …” LOUISE: Which study is this published in? Because the only study I’ve read from season 1 which is the … ANNA: The six-year study? SHREEN: The six year, yeah, really interesting. LOUISE: There were 16 people, and 14 of them regained. I don’t think that equates to 65%. Am I …? ANNA: I don’t know but even so … no, she says 35. So, 30% more than … she says 30%, 35% are successful. SHREEN: But even the fact that she’s now saying that 95-98% of diets fail, and she acknowledges that, but all that she’s been talking about is dieting. Diet the whole way through. She’s just completely contradicting herself. ANNA: Not only is it that they don’t work, but she continues to spruik it, continues to say that it’s possible, and if you do it her way, the Biggest Loser way … they did 7 hours of exercise a day, with gruelling regimes and being pushed and yelled at … LOUISE: And they all put the weight back on. ANNA: They put the weight back on. SHREEN: yeah. LOUISE: And their resting metabolic rate was screwed, six years later. SHREEN: Yeah, 700 calories it decreased by. They lost lean body mass, their fasting glucose increased, their blood sugar levels, yeah. They were the main things. But the fact that their metabolic rate decreased by such a large amount … especially where we were saying, she’s telling people to only eat 1200 calories but then you’re going to follow the Biggest Loser method, your metabolic rate’s going to drop by 700 calories, then what are you going to do? LOUISE: So, she lied about the stats on the Biggest Loser, and she’s not even talking to people about the metabolic impact. Because that study was fascinating, and I talk to clients about it. Because they predicted, the researchers predicted how much their resting metabolic rate would be dropped by …  ANNA: And what did they … LOUISE: And they found out it was even lower. So, they were worse off metabolically than they had predicted six years later. No one expected it to last that long, to have such a devastating impact. ANNA: Yeah, so it’s like a continued effect. It hasn’t regained back to before, pre … LOUISE: Exactly. And when stuff like that is suppressed, we know people are going to experience intense hunger, which of course you can’t honour. SHREEN: And the thing is, again, she’s completely misquoted this study herself but if she’d done her research she would know that there’s been over a hundred studies on intuitive eating that have been done that show you have better body image, higher esteem, improved metabolism, decreased rates of disordered and emotional eating, diminished stress levels and increased satisfaction with life. That’s over a hundred studies on intuitive eating that have been done. ANNA: And I’m pretty sure that you couldn’t say the same, with all of those positive effects, with dieting. LOUISE:  No, especially the ones that use her supplements, which show that everyone puts the weight back on. And the Biggest Loser study, everyone puts the weight back on … but let’s not focus on whether or not the weight comes back on. It’s actually the damage to the body and the metabolic systems that’s just absent from her rant. SHREEN: And not even the psychological damage, that’s not even mentioned. LOUISE: She’s evidence of the psychological damage. SHREEN: Yeah. That is true, yeah. ANNA: So, the next one is … principle eight, respect your body. LOUISE: Oh, fuck. ANNA: So, I think going back to when she spoke about size 16 always equalling healthiness, I think that shows that she doesn’t have respect for all bodies. And that kind of bothers me a bit. SHREEN. A bit. A lot. ANNA: It’s a big part of like, you know, our approach here and being a Health at Every Size® professional, you know? It’s about honouring and understanding and respecting that all bodies are different and need something different. SHREEN: And that you can’t tell somebody’s health by their body size, and that’s such … it’s a huge misconception as it is, let alone, I mean, Jillian Michaels saying this and it’s just … ANNA: Yeah, and just recognising that bodies are diverse, and they will do different things. Your health looks different at different points in your life. What you need changes day to day, and only your body really knows. You know? No external source, no trainer, no Jillian Michaels, no Dr Oz, nobody knows your body. SHREEN: And the whole principle of respecting your body is about being kind to yourself and compassionate and self-care, which is the complete opposite of Jillian Michaels. Like, she is just not kind. She’s not compassionate. She’s just shaming, judgemental, mean. Like … yeah. She’s … I just don’t think she even understands the word ‘respect’, quite frankly. LOUISE: Unless it’s like ‘respect my authority”. SHREEN: Yeah. ANNA: Something I noticed too, that came up before, was that because she’s so invested in it … have you heard of the concept of religion, like dieting? The religion of dieting? She’s so completely invested in it, she’s almost not willing to look the other way, or explore that there might be some truth in this, because she’s so invested, like financially and that’s her way of living … LOUISE: It’s her identity. ANNA: Exactly. LOUISE: It’s interesting, isn’t it? I think Alan Levinovitz, ‘The Gluten Lie’ … ANNA: That’s the guy. LOUISE: He talks about this, the religion of diet mentality. She is definitely the Pope. SHREEN: Quote of the day (all laugh). ANNA: So, then we come into ‘movement, feel the difference’. Which is principle nine. SHREEN: I think this one really got us fired up, didn’t it? ANNA: Well, the first thing that she said was like, “what is this? I don’t know what this ‘militant exercise’ even means”. LOUISE: That’s so funny (all laugh). ANNA: Like, really? Are you sure? LOUISE: She’s like, world-famous on memes for [inaudible]. I think I even did a presentation once where I used her with her finger in her face at someone as a demonstration of militant exercise. ANNA: Yeah, the kind of exercise that you don’t want to do if you want to have a sustainable relationship with movement. LOUISE: Yeah, your name’s on the t-shirt, love. SHREEN: Just telling people in this thing that, you know, this myth that’s just not true – ‘no pain, no gain’, that only hard exercise counts, it’s just utter rubbish. All movement counts, it doesn’t matter what it is. From playing with your kids, to hoovering, to dancing around your living room. LOUISE: Hoovering doesn’t count, I don’t even know what hoovering is … ANNA: She’s talking about hoovering, the hoover … SHREEN: Vacuuming, is that more Aussie? LOUISE: No, I don’t understand. (all laugh). SHREEN: But like, movement can be anything and you get the exact same health benefits from any type of regular movement, doesn’t matter what it is. But what she’s just trying to … she’s just bringing movement and aesthetics, that’s what she’s talking about. She’s talking about … ANNA: That’s a really good point, because if she was really interested in somebody’s health, then any kind of movement would be accessible, you know, like … SHREEN: Beneficial. ANNA: Helpful, yeah. SHREEN: Your blood markers, and stress levels, and sleep, it doesn’t matter what it is, it has the same health benefits. But she’s not talking about health. She’s talking about the way you look. ANNA: Yeah. She’s talking about ‘results’ a lot, and “if you want to get results fast” … because you know, let’s face it, she says “if you’re coming to look at intuitive eating, you’re trying to lose weight, you’re trying to get results fast.” LOUISE: Jillian! ANNA: “You’ve got to do a certain type of exercise, and my programs do that”. So, a little bit of spruiking her own programs too. SHREEN: What she doesn’t realise that she’s doing is having that negative relationship with exercise is not going to make people want to do it.  LOUISE: She doesn’t care about that. SHREEN: She’s the reason why people don’t want to go to the gym, or they hate exercise, because of people like Jillian Michaels. ANNA: Yeah, it’s that fitness trauma that you were talking about before. And what I recognise here, at the studio at Haven, community … in my experience, community has always been really powerful in building that sustainable and healthful relationship with movement. Joy and … SHREEN: And it’s that you enjoy, you [inaudible]. ANNA: And to want to come back, too. And that militant approach might work well for someone who responds to that but maybe for a short time. And then that motivation kind of wanes. And then it’s always trying to get back the motivation, you hear that a lot in fitness culture. But if you’re not coming at it from external, an external place, for external purposes, and it’s more about the … SHREEN: The way it makes you feel, using it as a tool for self-care rather than punishment … ANNA: Your mental health, having fun with your friends, it’s a completely different experience to being yelled at by Jillian Michaels. SHREEN: Her whole thing is yelling at people, making them feel guilty, punishing them. Like, and that’s just not what people need in a fitness professional. They need someone who is kind and compassionate and she’s just … that’s just not her, unfortunately. She’s just giving … ANNA: What is she? She’s the Pope of … the religion of dieting. She’s also the epitome of diet culture. She’s all of those things. And then the last principle is gentle nutrition, principle ten. LOUISE: I think this actually blew up her brain. SHREEN: Yeah, because she couldn’t understand the whole diet … principle one, principle ten … LOUISE: She couldn’t figure out how that fits with unconditional permission to eat. Because of course, if you have unconditional permission to eat, you’re going to stick your face into a burger for the rest of your life.  ANNA: Yeah, so again she thinks it’s all just endless eating. LOUISE: She’s stuck in that ‘all or nothing’ mentality. ANNA: Exactly, yeah. SHREEN: It’s funny, because she talks about that ‘black and white, all or nothing’ mentality and not understanding that’s exactly what she’s saying. Yeah. ANNA: Yeah, and again it came up just very, very clear that she hasn’t read the book, she doesn’t really know what she’s talking about. SHREEN: Yeah, I think that’s the main … ANNA: This is when she said, you know, “it’s probably written by someone who has just really been hurt by diet culture and probably had an eating disorder, and, you know, probably just some random” and actually … LOUISE: Such a shame that she didn’t actually look at the author. SHREEN: Yeah, just even look up to who they were. Yeah. ANNA: It’s a little bit disappointing because you’d think somebody who has such a following, I think, has such a … I think there’s a moral obligation in a way to represent something that … when you have such a big following and you’re sharing something that can affect people deeply … SHREEN: It’s what we say, that she’s really coming from that dieting mentality and all that sort of shaming that she doesn’t understand that intuitive eating at its core is a self-care model. It’s very compassionate and she doesn’t understand that. Also. with intuitive eating, we’re not saying that it’s a solution for everybody. Everyone has the right to do what they want with their body. She just doesn’t understand the concept at all, what it stands for. ANNA: It’s like she’s on such a different planet, and it’s not … doesn’t come across as open to exploring that this might be something that really serves people. SHREEN: Yeah, and that it’s having such a positive impact. We talked about earlier with the … ANNA: Feeling a bit threatened by the impact on her, you know, her … LOUISE: To her bottom line. I also think that, I mean, if she really is undernourished to that point that she has restricted her entire life, one of the things that happens when you’re weight supressed is cognitive rigidity. ANNA: That’s a really good point. LOUISE: So, it’s quite hard to be flexible. We see that a lot with people who are suffering in the depths of Anorexia, that you simply cannot think. And perhaps there’s an element of that that’s happening here. ANNA: That’s really interesting. SHREEN: That’s a really good point. Because what dieting, that kind of restriction is doing to you … LOUISE: Well, it gives her massive benefits. Huge amounts of recognition, it gives her income. She can’t think out of it. So, there’s not a lot of reason for her, like … I think the reason for putting up that video wasn’t a genuine exploration of “what’s this thing called ‘intuitive eating’?”.  SHREEN: It was just to … LOUISE: It was just to kind of … ANNA: Debunk it. LOUISE: To debunk it and keep hold of her customer base. Look, let’s assume that she is interested in the book. Jillian Michael’s house is in Malibu, California. I reckon we just whack a copy in an envelope, address it to her, maybe she’ll read it. ANNA: Do you think?  LOUISE: Yeah? I don’t know. Maybe if all of our listeners whack a copy into an envelope … SHREEN: Yeah!  LOUISE: 20 copies, please read. Maybe. SHREEN: Maybe, yeah. LOUISE: But I don’t think that was anything other than a … it’s quite interesting, I’m seeing this more and more. The famous people, the people who have really invested in diet culture, even the obesity researchers and all of that. They’re all kind of getting a little bit nervous about this pushback. SHREEN: They should be. LOUISE: It makes me feel warm and fuzzy. SHREEN: It’s time. LOUISE: It’s got nothing to do with the champagne. I think the celebs are getting nervous, like “what do you mean, people in larger bodies are okay with themselves just the way they are?”. And finding non weight-loss things to look after themselves, oh my gosh. What a huge, horrible threat. So, we’re not sorry, Jillian, that we made you nervous. ANNA: Agreed. I hope it gives her a little bit of food for thought (all laugh). LOUISE: I don’t know how many calories would be attached to that thought (all laugh). ANNA: I have to say, like, the thing that I think fires me up the most is how fatphobic she is. SHREEN: And how much harm … that’s the thing that fired me up the most, how much harm she’s causing people out there. And having had an eating disorder myself, it’s just … LOUISE: Horrible. You can see how triggering it is. SHREEN: I can see what it can do, yeah. That’s what fires me up. LOUISE: and let’s not forget when we say fatphobic, we mean people who hate fat people. And that is really reflective … even though she is professing “oh, I’m going to love you … but you’re unhealthy so change”. That’s troubling. Using health as a halo, an excuse or a reason for my core treatment of you just based on your appearance. And that’s just … those days are done. You can’t do that anymore. It’s just not cool. And I do wonder if there is like a Biggest Loser university somewhere?  ANNA: Michelle Bridges went to it as well. LOUISE: Because the same kind of hatred of fat people, you know … again, like masked with a thin layer of concern trolling for your health was Michelle Bridges’ thing. Four years ago, when she was on Australian Story and she was saying “I’m yet to meet someone who is morbidly obese and happy”. So, for people who are listening from overseas, Michelle Bridges is the Australian version of Jillian Michaels. And what an awful comment. So, Jillian has been pushed back against from this video, right? Michelle was pushed back against from this video too, with really clear … I know we all live in a bubble, but with quite a lot of push back. ANNA: That’s good. Was she on … was that on like Australian primetime TV? SHREEN: She was on Australian Story. LOUISE: Yeah [inaudible] … it shows how deeply she feels [inaudible] about people she’s profiting from. Putting them through three cycles a year of 1200 calorie program and she knows it doesn’t work. But the thing is, what they do is they double down. People like this double down, when they’re called out, when there’s a pushback. Instead of kind of opening up and say, “okay, I should probably issue an apology, maybe take the video down, maybe do some work”. They’re not doing that. Jillian’s not doing that. ANNA: I think she just keeps responding. And she’s just responding with the same rhetoric, so she’s not … SHREEN: I think she kind of comments that [inaudible], to learn about it more, which is a shame. ANNA: And how did Michele Bridges respond? LOUISE: Doubled down on it. About health, “I care deeply about health”. ANNA: The whole thing with health and weight, this is what really frustrates me about it too. If she’s really interested in health, she could support all the behaviours that support someone’s health. LOUISE: Too complicated. Remember? Too complicated. Anything that actually involves having to think about something other than my own diet plan … ANNA: It makes me realise how happy I’ve become in moving away from all this, that’s why I got away from it. Because I learned about how there’s another way. Intuitive eating, Health at Every Size®, the body positivity movement … I started delving into it and it just felt so triggering being around other fitness professionals from the traditional approach. And this here, I’ve got to say, got me so fired up. I’m going to be fired up for a while from this. SHREEN: We talk about fitness trauma, and Jillian Michaels is causing that. LOUISE: May she go the way of the dinosaurs and … (all laugh). ANNA: Well, hopefully there will be less and less of her to be seen in the future and more and more of kind of this messaging coming up, challenging … LOUISE: Absolutely, I absolutely think that’s going to happen. You’ve just reminded me actually, she … because Jillian, earlier in the year before she posted the nasty intuitive eating thing, she said something nasty about Lizzo. SHREEN: Yeah, of course.  ANNA: That sounds familiar … SHREEN: Yeah. That was before …  LOUISE: A little while before, I don’t know. It’s Covid, none of us have a timeline. ANNA: She’s said some pretty horrendous things. SHREEN: Really horrendous things yeah. LOUISE: Again, like … “she’s clearly going to get diabetes” or something? ANNA: I think she said something along the lines of “there’s nothing sexy about diabetes”, or clogged arteries or something.  SHREEN: Something like that, yeah. ANNA: How can she … that’s so inappropriate. Lizzo’s bouncing away on stage. She’s got stamina, she’s got energy.  SHREEN: We don’t know anything about her or her health. ANNA: And why do we have to talk about that anyway? She’s this amazing performer and doing this really cool stuff. It’s wonderful to see some diverse bodies out there that are getting out there as much as the other, the thin ideal that you see everywhere. LOUISE: Yeah, the comments that she made were like “why are we talking about Lizzo’s body, we should be talking about her music”. ANNA: So, she said that? LOUISE: Yeah. ANNA: But then … LOUISE: And it’s really funny, because she’s saying that we shouldn’t be talking about Lizzo’s body, but her entire website is full of shots of her body. ANNA: Yeah, and that’s her thing. SHREEN: That’s her thing, yeah. ANNA: She’s always talking about people’s bodies. Size 16, yeah. SHREEN: Yeah, non-stop. LOUISE: The point I’m making is that you don’t say that about Lizzo. And the pushback she got after she made that comment? This is the future Jillian. Lizzo is setting the world on fire.  ANNA: We need more Lizzo. SHREEN: We need more Lizzo. LOUISE: and you are the biggest loser. ANNA: Well put. LOUISE: Oh my god, let’s finish on a high note. Thank you, guys, that was an elegant unpacking of Jillian Michael’s ten principles of not understanding intuitive eating (all laugh). And how firmly we can steer the ship to this new awesome way of looking after our body. ANNA: Thank you. SHREEN: Thank you.  Resources Mentioned: (Watch if you can stomach) Jillian Michaels' Igno-rant on Youtube Urbszat, Dax, C. Peter Herman, and Janet Polivy. "Eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we diet: Effects of anticipated deprivation on food intake in restrained and unrestrained eaters." Journal of abnormal psychology 111.2 (2002): 396. News article about 4 lawsuits against Jillian Michaels for her weight loss pills Fothergill, Erin, et al. "Persistent metabolic adaptation 6 years after “The Biggest Loser” competition." Obesity 24.8 (2016): 1612-1619. Alan Levinovitz's The Gluten Lie Find out more about Anna Hearn & Haven Find out more about Shreen El Masry and Be You Be Free  

* Mijn meningen zijn feiten. De wording van Thierry Baudet, van Harm Ede Botje en Mischa Cohen * Black Swan, van Nassim Nicholas Taleb * Natural: the seductive myth of nature's goodness, van Alan Levinovitz * Afscheid, van Cherry Duyns

George McGraw from DigDeep on water inequality. Nafees Hamid of the University College London on radicalization. Andrew Carroll, Center for American War Letters at Chapman University, on collecting one million war letters. Supervising sound editor and designer Richard King on sound design. Alan Levinovitz, James Madison Univ, on natural products. Author Candace Fleming and Illustrator Eric Rohmann on “Honeybee: The Busy Life of Apis Mellifera”.

On episode 63, we welcome author Alan Levinovitz to discuss the ways in which the words natural and unnatural have been used in popular culture, science, and religious ideologies; the importance of admitting and learning from mistakes; demagogy and how people fall for confidence; fostering healthier dialogue on social media; being right vs being kind; system one and system two thinking; our general susceptibility to cognitive distortions; how charlatans prey on our hopes and fears; and how to become better food consumers. Dr. Alan Levinovitz is an author and Associate Professor of Religion at James Madison University. His latest book Natural: How Faith in Nature's Goodness Leads to Harmful Fads, Unjust Laws, and Flawed Science is available now: https://www.amazon.com/Natural-Nature... Also look for his podcast SHIFT available at http://shiftpodcast.co/ Leon Garber is a philosophical writer, contemplating and elucidating the deep recesses of man's soul. He is a Licensed Mental Health Counselor/Psychotherapist — specializing in Existential Psychotherapy, Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy, and Trauma Therapy — and manages a blog exploring issues of death, self-esteem, love, freedom, life-meaning, and mental health/mental illness, from both empirical and personal viewpoints. Alen D. Ulman is a content creator and life long auto-didact. Alen manages the page Ego Ends Now which is a growing community for expanding consciousness with vital information about science, medicine, self actualization, philosophy, psychology and methods to overcome identification with compulsive thought. The purpose of Ego Ends Now is to make sure to give everyone in it's community every tool available to add levity in their own lives, making it a very real possibility for them to create a life of their own design, and help impact the world and our global community positively. Find us on:  Twitter: https://twitter.com/seize_podcast O4L: https://o4lonlinenetwork.com/seizethemoment Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/seizethemomentpodcast/ Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/SeizeTheMomentPodcast/ We are also everywhere podcasts are available!  Where To Follow  Alan Levinowitz:  Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/alanlevinovitz/ Twitter: https://twitter.com/AlanLevinovitz Website: https://www.alanlevinovitz.com/ Natural: How Faith in Nature's Goodness Leads to Harmful Fads, Unjust Laws, and Flawed Science is available now: https://www.amazon.com/Natural-Nature... Also look for his podcast SHIFT available at http://shiftpodcast.co/ -~-~~-~~~-~~-~- Support the show on Patreon if you like us!  https://www.patreon.com/user?u=32208666 -~-~~-~~~-~~-~- #AlanLevinovitz #Natural #NuancedThinking #ShiftPodcast

Dr. Alan Levinovitz is an Associate Professor of Religion at James Madison University. He works at the intersection of philosophy, religion, and science, focusing especially on how narratives and metaphors shape belief. He is the author of The Gluten Lie. His next book, Natural, explores the false faith that results from turning Nature into God. In this interview, we are going to be talking about how to stay open-minded, embracing uncertainty, and how faith in nature's goodness leads to harmful fads, unjust laws, and flawed science. Some questions I ask:(02:15) What are some examples of something that is natural to us that can be inherently bad?(04:16) Is eating organic is not necessarily better?(12:17) What do you do to stay open-minded?(31:16) is natural like the new hip religion?

This week, we celebrate our 50th episode as we’re joined by none other than Alan Levinovitz, author of Natural: How Faith in Nature's Goodness Leads to Harmful Fads, Unjust Laws, and Flawed Science. He works at the intersection of philosophy, religion, and science, focusing especially on how narratives and metaphors shape belief. A few weeks ago, he sat down with Joe Rogan on ‘The Joe Rogan Experience’ for an epic three hour episode. Hope you guys enjoy this one and thank you for all the support. We are having a ball!In the words of the greatest football coach in the land, Mark Stoops, "Were just getting started bro!"Jimmy Don, J.D., & Brad

Crowd-sponsor the show and get rewards on Patreon! Dr. Alan Levinovitz enters the mind meld! Alan is an Associate Professor of Religion at James Madison University. He works at the intersection of philosophy, religion, and science, focusing especially on how narratives and metaphors shape belief. In this one, we rap about the beauty of optimistic agnosticism, why it's possible to be a religious agnostic, natural mystical experiences, holy gratitude, and why calling things 'natural' can be hugely problematic.  Visiting THIRDEYEDROPS.com   Crowd-sponsoring the show and getting more podcast content on Patreon Leaving us a 5 star review on iTunes!

Dr. Alan Levinovitz is an author and Associate Professor of Religion at James Madison University. His latest book Natural: How Faith in Nature's Goodness Leads to Harmful Fads, Unjust Laws, and Flawed Science is available now. Also look for his podcast SHIFT available on Spotify.

Dr. Alan Levinovitz is an author and Associate Professor of Religion at James Madison University. His latest book Natural: How Faith in Nature's Goodness Leads to Harmful Fads, Unjust Laws, and Flawed Science is available now: https://www.amazon.com/Natural-Natures-Goodness-Harmful-Science/dp/0807010871 Also look for his podcast SHIFT available at http://shiftpodcast.co/

What is 'Natural,' Food, Life, and Religion - Alan Levinovitz Art of Living Author Interview Series... Welcome to The Not Old Better Show. I'm Paul Vogelzang, and this is episode #455. As part of our Art Of Living author interview series, today's show is fascinating. We'll be speaking with author, academic, and journalist Alan Levinovitz about his new book, ‘Natural: “How Faith in Nature's Goodness Leads to Harmful Fads…”. Dr. Levinovitz will be reading a passage from his new book, too. I loved the book, and let me tell you a bit about this subject: Debates about what can be called 'natural' might seem unnecessary today, or even quaint, but not so this one, especially because our guest Alan Levinovitz answers our questions about how this focus on ‘natural” drives more attention to COVID, religion, and the climate crisis From ‘clean eating' to the countryside to Goop, ‘natural' is assumed to be good and is almost a new religion, Dr. Levinovitz tells us today. Additionally, we'll hear from Dr. Levinovitz, who is an assistant professor of religion at James Madison University and a freelance journalist about our collective enchantment contradictions with what is “Natural,” and with the concept of “natural,” and tells us that often what qualifies as Natural is not simply a nutritional issue, but a moral one. “Natural” equates to “goodness,” according to Dr. Levinovitz, “Seeking out natural products is about health, yes, but holistic health,” he wrote. “Physical and spiritual, personal, and planetary. Nature becomes a secular stand-in for God, and the word ‘natural' a synonym for ‘holy, and even religion.” Let's hear from Dr. Alan Levinovitz, reading from his new book, That of course is our guest today, author, academic, and journalist Alan Levinovitz reading from his new book, ‘Natural: “How Faith in Nature's Goodness Leads to Harmful Fads…” Please join me in welcoming to The Not Old Better Show, author, academic, and journalist Alan Levinovitz. My thanks to the author, academic and journalist Alan Levinovitz, ‘Natural: “How Faith in Nature's Goodness Leads to Harmful Fads…”And, my thanks to you, my wonderful Not Old Better Show audience. Please be safe, practice smart social distancing, be well, and remember, Let's Talk About Better. The Not Old Better Show. Thanks, everybody. Please find out more at https://notold-better.com

Are the protagonists in Libya’s civil war using coronavirus as a smokescreen? Plus: the latest on UK chief adviser Dominic Cummings, whether clothing should be quarantined and the author Alan Levinovitz on his new book, ‘Natural’.

Alan Levinovitz is an Associate Professor of Religion at James Madison University, where he specializes in classical Chinese thought and the intersection of religion and science. His latest book is Natural: How Faith in Nature's Goodness Leads to Harmful Fads, Unjust Laws, and Flawed Science, forthcoming on April 7 from Beacon Press. Connect with Alan Levinovitz: https://www.alanlevinovitz.com/ Twitter: @alanlevinovitz Get the book: Natural: How Faith in Nature's Goodness Leads to Harmful Fads, Unjust Laws, and Flawed Science Connect with Nick Holderbaum: Personal Health Coaching: https://www.primalosophy.com/ Nick Holderbaum's Weekly Newsletter: Sunday Goods (T): @primalosophy (IG): @primalosophy iTunes: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-primalosophy-podcast/id1462578947 YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCBn7jiHxx2jzXydzDqrJT2A The Unfucked Firefighter Challenge

Hosts: Denis Loubet, Jim Barrow, & Johnny P AngelEmail: radio@atheist-community.orgFacebook: facebook.com/groups/ACAProductionsPatreon: patreon.com/TheNonProphets----News: Are Church Shutdowns Legal Or Gross Infringements On Religious Freedom?By William Duncan, in The Federalist - April 23, 2020Link: https://thefederalist.com/2020/04/23/are-church-shutdowns-legal-or-gross-infringements-on-religious-freedom/"...authorities are shutting down churches, and pastors are being arrested. What does the law say about all of this? ...religious freedom is being tossed around... Some defiant pastors have held large gatherings, while some government officials have threatened to permanently close churches that won't comply with stay-at-home orders."----News: Anti-vaxxers will fight the eventual coronavirus vaccine. Here's how to stop them.By Jennifer Reich and Alan Levinovitz, in Washington Post - April 29, 2020Link: https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2020/04/29/anti-vaxxers-will-fight-eventual-coronavirus-vaccine-heres-how-stop-them/"Central to our hope of returning to life as normal is the possibility of a vaccine against SARS-CoV-2, the coronavirus that is causing covid-19...It seems as if everyone would be on board...Yet the race for a vaccine and the techniques being used to manufacture it are bound to activate some familiar fears."----VANGUARD VIDEO AND DISCUSSION"David" with The Last Reformation, "casting out demons", protecting people from coronavirus----Email: From T.Radecki of Atheistisch Verbond ("Atheist Covenant"), The Netherlands"The subject (of metaphysics) mainly keeps popping up in conversations with my catholic uncle...Asking him if he considers paranormal or supernatural things as part of metaphysics...It looks like he claims victory over 'materialism' because he can point to things like feelings and platonic concepts and the sorts.""Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics"by Immanuel Kant, published 1783Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prolegomena_to_Any_Future_Metaphysics----Email: From Chuck, AZ"When theists are asked, 'who made God?', an often used response is 'God is a necessary being.' Why does no one ever ask, 'who designed necessity?' If God is the designer of all things, he must have designed the need for himself. This seems like circular reasoning. Or is he just lucky that necessity works as it does?"----======== Topics cut for time ========News: From "flat Earth" to climate change denial, kids are deluged with fake science. Now teachers are fighting back.By Ines Novacic / CBS News - March 5, 2020Link: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/flat-earth-climate-change-conspiracies-students-teachers-war-on-science-cbsn-originals/"To combat misinformation online and help teachers who don't have easy access to professional development for teaching climate change and evolution, the National Center for Science Education launched a program designed to promote effective science communication skills."----News: The Untold Truth: Control or Destroy?, part 1 of 3By Joy Kuo, www.cultscults.com ( Education on Cults and Undue Influence Sponsored by Thinking Agenda, LLC)Link: https://cultscults.com/2019/03/12/the-untold-truth-control-or-destroy%ef%bb%bf/"Several years ago I...joined Kosmic Fusion...and (I went) from being a caring and innocent individual...to be this beat-down girl that is scared of everything...share my story here."----

Professor and author Alan Levinovitz to speak at 2020 AAA Summit

In food, health, nutrition and many domains of life, humans rely on "nature" or "natural" as the default and sometimes the best option. In this podcast, we talk about when it's ok to defer to nature and when it is time to move away from it. BIO Alan Levinovitz is an Associate Professor of Religion at James Madison University, where he specializes in classical Chinese thought and the intersection of religion and science. His latest book is Natural: How Faith in Nature's Goodness Leads to Harmful Fads, Unjust Laws, and Flawed Science, forthcoming on April 7 from Beacon Press TIME STAMPS 0:15 – Update on Energy Pod, Ketogeek Membership Updates & Future Guest 7:07 – How did you end up becoming a successful writer? 8:01 – What is your viewpoint on “nature” and “natural”? 11:02 – When should you rely on nature and when should you move away from it? 14:14 – Why do people think natural is better? 16:15 – Does religion play a role in our preference for nature? 18:00 – Subjective human experience versus objective quantification? 20:01 – What can people expect from the new book “Natural: How Faith in Nature's Goodness Leads to Harmful Fads, Unjust Laws, and Flawed Science”? 22:20 – What questions did you start with before writing this book and what questions would you like answered? 25:02 – Do human beings have the collective capacity to think in nuance? 28:00 – What checkmarks do you use to find someone worth following and learning from? 30:02 – Final Plugs GUEST LINKS: Website: Personal Website Twitter: https://twitter.com/AlanLevinovitz E-mail:  Book: Natural: How Faith in Nature's Goodness Leads to Harmful Fads, Unjust Laws, and Flawed Science [Amazon] [Barnes & Noble] Book: The Gluten Lie KETOGEEK LINKS: Sign Up Ketogeek Membership: https://ketogeek.com/pages/member Shop Energy Pods Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/Ketogeek-Chocolate-Energy-Organic-Vanilla/dp/B07B88S36J Ketogeek Merchandise, Ghee & Energy Pods: https://ketogeek.com/collections Ketogeek Newsletter: https://ketogeek.com/pages/sign-up Shop Energy Pods: https://ketogeek.com/collections/energy-pods Wholesale: https://ketogeek.com/pages/wholesale

Jim Curry and Robert Adler, both of Univ of Utah, on the impeachment trial. Alan Levinovitz, James Madison Univ, on Goop. Nobu Adilman, filmmaker and artist, on tracking down the people who auditioned to be Short Round for Indiana Jones. Magda and Nathaniel Newman, authors of “Normal: A Mother and Her Beautiful Son." Mozziyar Etemadi of Northwestern Univ on AI Mammograms.

In the second of our holiday season shows we have an interview with Alan Levinovitz. Alan is the author of The Gluten Lie. You can get his book here.

Today I’m talking with Alan Levinovitz, Ph.D., about the surprising connection between current wellness and dieting trends and religion. Alan is an associate professor of religious studies at James Madison University, where he specializes in Chinese philosophy and the intersection of religion and science. His first book, The Gluten Lie, explores modern food fears as religious taboos. He is currently working on another book, Natural, that explains how we turn nature into God.   Alan talks about how religion offers a way to deal with suffering: why it happens, how to avoid it and how to fix it. He compares this narrative to the prevailing narrative that infuses diet and wellness culture which promises to heal all manner of physical and emotional suffering.   Show Highlights: Halo Top ice cream implies that there is something holy about not consuming calories which is tied up with denial of the body, a deeply religious theme The new secular saints are diet, wellness, and fitness gurus The sphere of religion’s authority is shrinking so we look to other authoritative sources like science to tell us how to avoid suffering People really want food to make them holy and pure although today we use the language of “optimizing” oneself The word holistic has been corrupted by health gurus  Most lifestyle changes that claim to be holistic are not holistic at all as they are only about the body No one knows why we suffer and die Some kind of narrative helps explain the randomness of suffering and death It’s not just that you should moderate sugar, according to current diet and wellness trends, but eliminate all sugar, which echos religious and purity taboos Dietary taboos can be a way to both distance ourselves from certain communities and to form new communities  It’s a really powerful thing to feel like you know something that other people don’t People need narratives and metaphorical shorthands to deal with everyday life Be wary whenever someone promises you a hidden, secret solution that no one else knows about Treating the scale like an oracle - you step on the scale and it tells you how good you are Ancient Taoist texts promised that if you followed a particular diet, you would have clear skin, you would live forever and you would be able to teleport, which is not much different from the promises that current day diet and wellness culture make (without the teleporting!)   Links & Resources: The Gluten Lie: And Other Myths About What You Eat by Alan Levonvitz, Ph.D. Natural: How Faith in Nature's Goodness Leads to Harmful Fads, Unjust Laws, and Flawed Science by Alan Levonvitz, Ph.D. Biologist Stephen Gould Paul Rozin

  Alan Levinovitz is an Associate Professor of Religion at James Madison University and the author of The Gluten Lie: And Other Myths About What We Eat. He joins us to chat about how rituals impact our lives and his upcoming book about the meaning of "Natural", which will be published in the Spring of 2020.  Give him a follow on Twitter: @AlanLevinovitz And give his previous book a read: The Gluten Lie (2015)    

cw: eating disorders Podcast Listen to the episode here at the audio link below (Link to Stitcher and iTunes at the end of this post). Bio Professor Alan Levinovitz is an associate professor of religious studies at James Madison University. He specializes in classical Chinese philosophy and the relationship between religion and science. In addition … Continue reading Eating in the 4th Dimension: Interview with Alan Levinovitz

We at The BMJ care about food, and if our listener stats are to be believed, so do you. In this podcast we're looking at quality as an important driver of a good diet. At our recent food conference - Food For Thought - hosted in Zurich by Swiss Re we brought researchers in many fields of nutritional science together. We asked people with competing ideas to write articles to elucidate where there's agreement, and where there is still contention. There was lots of disagreement - but one thing that was widely agreed on was that, quality of food matters. Quality is as, if not more, important than quantity. In this podcast we'll be exploring what quality is, how industrial food production affects it, and how we conceptualise quality. Joining us are Martin White, Mathilde Touvier, Jean Adams, Nicola Guess and Alan Levinovitz. For the last podcast in the food series: https://soundcloud.com/bmjpodcasts/nutritional-science-why-studying-what-we-eat-is-so-difficult? For more on the Food for Thought series https://www.bmj.com/food-for-thought

Sheila Dillon investigates the world of food and drink labelling; what has to go on, what doesn't, how we got here - and where things might be going. A complex legislative framework has built up over many years in the UK - Sheila looks at the shape of today's labelling regulations, seeks to demystify some of the terms, and asks where things might mislead or confuse. On her journey Sheila goes down a rabbit hole, reveals some labelling surprises - and makes use of a time machine. Her guide is Vitti Allender, who teaches food law at Cardiff Metropolitan University. The programme also features author and professor of religion Alan Levinovitz, Sue Davies who advises on food for the consumer rights organisation Which?, professor of food safety at Queen's University Belfast Chris Elliott who wrote a high-profile report on the UK's horsemeat scandal, Investigations Manager at the Advertising Standards Authority Jessica Tye, and wine importer and writer Doug Wregg. The podcast and Monday broadcast of this edition also features Dan Charles, food and agriculture correspondent for NPR, on the controversy around the labelling of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in the USA. The podcast is an extended version of this programme. Presenter: Sheila Dillon Producer: Rich Ward.

What is nature, and what isn’t? Is it helpful to make that distinction? If you had asked Alan Levinovitz a few years ago, he would have been skeptical. Today, however, he’ll defend the concept fiercely. As he argues, “largely unexamined and incredibly powerful beliefs [like nature] are dangerous, and they make dialogue difficult.” In this episode, Alex and Alan try to have that difficult dialogue. How do we preserve nature without knowing what it is, exactly, we want to conserve? Why do we tend to equate naturalness with a kind of morality? As a Religious Studies professor at James Madison University and a well-known food journalist and book author, Alan is uniquely positioned to take on these questions. The issue of natural-unnatural line-drawing is not limited to environmental stewardship – it cuts across so many different areas of our lives. Ever touched a plant to check whether it was “real” or not? Is clean meat “natural”? Does nuclear energy count as part of the primal order? Tune in to better understand our innate drive to categorize, and why that might actually be a useful instinct. For more, check out Alan’s essay in the Breakthrough Journal: “On Naturalness: Nature as Metaphor, Not Fact.”

Religious scholar and journalist Alan Levinovitz discusses how diet culture is like a religion, why so much modern nutrition advice is dangerous, why we need to think critically about restrictive eating practices, how suspicion of Western medicine can lead people to believe in harmful "miracle cures," why the "nocebo effect" is causing people to unnecessarily demonize particular foods, and lots more. This episode originally aired March 5, 2017.  Alan Levinovitz received his PhD in religion from the University of Chicago where he specialized in classical Chinese thought. He is now assistant professor of religious studies at James Madison University, where he teaches classes on religion, Chinese philosophy, and the connection between religion and medicine. His journalism focuses on the intersection of religion, science, and culture, and has appeared in The Atlantic, Wired, The Washington Post, Slate, Vox, and elsewhere. He is the author of The Gluten Lie: And Other Myths About What You Eat. Find him at James Madison University and on Twitter at @AlanLevinovitz. Grab Christy's free guide, 7 simple strategies for finding peace and freedom with food, to start your intuitive eating journey. If you're ready to give up dieting once and for all, join Christy's Intuitive Eating Fundamentals online course! To learn more about Food Psych and get full show notes and a transcript of this episode, go to christyharrison.com/foodpsych. Ask your own question about intuitive eating, Health at Every Size, or eating disorder recovery at christyharrison.com/questions.

Name: Alan Levinovitz, PhD Location: James Madison University: Harrisburg, VA Specialty: Professor of Religion and Philosophy “Although scientific training can inoculate against the power of nutritional myths, by no means does it guarantee immunity.” -Alan Levinovitz, “The Gluten Lie” All right, welcome back. Do a quick search on Amazon for books about gluten and over three thousand results show up. Everything from cooks books, diet guides and even childrens' books show up. If you're a listener to this podcast, and you don't have celiac disease, these are not the books likely found in your home library. Happily there's one book, on the first page of results, that you should own though. Called “The Gluten Lie”, it's well researched, backed up with peer-reviewed data and it's about much more than just Gluten. Who wrote this book you ask? An MD out there who was fed up with latest irrational diet craze. No, this book was written by our guest today, Alan Levinovitz, a professor of Religion and Philosophy at James Madison University. As we'll soon explore with Alan, many of these diet crazes, pseudo science myths and other crazy beliefs are nothing new. They've popped up again and again throughout history, and if we don't learn from history, well, you can guess what happens. This was a unique conversation and probably one of the funnest yet. Alan is fighting the good fight, writing for The Atlantic, Time, Fortune and NPR just to name a few. He's also a great guy to talk with and the kind of professor you wish you had had in college. With that said, let's get started....

Download Episode! Hey there, lovely radicals... podcast time! In today's episode of the "Life. Unrestricted." podcast, I talk to Alan Levinovitz from Charlottesville, Virginia. Alan is an assistant professor of religion at James Madison University, and his academic work focuses on classical Chinese thought, the philosophy of play, and the intersection of religion and medicine. He studied philosophy and religion at Stanford, and received his Ph.D. in religion and literature from the University of Chicago Divinity School. His writing has appeared in numerous media outlets as well as academic journals. Listen to Alan talk about: – What made him see and investigate the connection between religion and our culture’s obsession with "wildly attaching morality/miracle powers" to different foods – Why he would personally have chosen a different title for the book – Where the inclination to attribute (somewhat random) superpowers to certain foods comes from – Why we are so susceptible to fall for miracle promises and fall for all the nutritional lies we are presented with – Where the science really stands on gluten-sensitivity – Why a lot of people with disordered eating hide their disorder by making up sensitivities they don’t really have – How living in fear of certain foods can severely limit our life, relationships and joy – What we are forgetting when we are obsessed with "healthy eating" – Why a fearful attitude about food/food groups/ingredients alone can cause the undesirable symptoms we were trying to avoid – How to not get caught up in the myth of "optimization" and "body hacking" when it comes to food and exercise – How we should really be thinking about the concept (and consequences!) of "dieting" – Why fear-mongering myths about food can have a powerful, long-lasting effect on people – Why, when "the honeymoon phase" of a certain diet is over, we tend to think it’s us that sucks at dieting – What the "Sunk Cost Bias" is and how you can recognize it if it happens in your own mind – Why books by medical doctors (like "Wheat Belly" or "Grain Brain") are misrepresenting actual scientific evidence, and are causing nothing but unnecessary hysteria and fear – Why in science, any "exaggeration" is, in fact, a lie; yet science is often misquoted or taken out of context to create a new sensationalist, fear-mongering narrative – Why we hold on to false beliefs even in light of disproving evidence – What the "Wind Turbine Syndrome" is – Why the powerful "Nocebo Effect" is way too often forgotten – What our beliefs about food have to do with our own mortality – Why irrational fears can cause major obsessions, and why thinking critically and staying objective is so important – Why, when we feel stressed out, we tend to repeat actions that don’t actually work for us, and we tend to do those even harder ("diet’s not working! – let’s diet harder, then...") – Why diet-gurus summon up demons that don’t exist (and how often they get rich doing just that) – Why 30% of the American population is interested in "going gluten-free", even though only 1% actually are affected by Celiac Disease – How to stay sane in a world that constantly throws contradictory nutritional advice at us... ... And so much more! Here’s the link to Alan’s workplace: https://www.jmu.edu/philrel/people/faculty/levinovitz-alan.shtml You can also check out his Twitter account: https://twitter.com/alanlevinovitz?lang=en And here’s the link to his book "The Gluten Lie" on Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/Gluten-Lie-Other-Myths-About/dp/1941393063 If you enjoy and love my podcast, please support it on Patreon! It would greatly help me to keep those episodes coming to you. Thank you! https://www.patreon.com/lifeunrestricted If you want this sort of badassery to come to your phone automatically, please DO subscribe on iTunes (Apple): https://itunes.apple.com/ch/podcast/life.-unrestricted.-podcast/id1130713233?mt=2 or on Stitcher (Android): http://www.stitcher.com/s?fid=93987&refi ********* Don't forget!********* Make sure to join my tribe and meet some of the most supportive, loving and kind people of all shapes and sizes, including great coaches and leaders! We’re right over here at: http://www.lifeunrestricted.org/join/

Just kidding.  Dr. Alan Levinovitz, Author of The Gluten Lie and Other Myths About What You Eat joins Rob to chat about how clickbait headlines and constant new studies about nutrition claiming to be game changers is damaging people's faith in science. And how nutritionists haven't changed their recommendations much over time. 

Tony Jones and Ryan Parker are back to discuss the latest episode of The Handmaid's Tale, now streaming on Hulu. They talk about the nature of Captain Waterford's belief, the brothel as the truth that exposes the lie of Gilead, June's agency, and Nick's backstory.  Check out Alan Levinovitz's review of The Benedict Option, which also sheds some light on the setting of this series: 

En inglés diría "food for thought", alimento para el pensamiento. Pero este fin de semana trata de pensar sobre cómo nos alimentamos. Una conversación con Alan Levinovitz que estoy seguro os va a encantar. Se grabó originalmente en CST, mi programa de TV diario [enlazado aquí]. Sobre el ensayo de Alan: El gluten no es el enemigo Ni tampoco la sal, el azúcar, las grasas y otros tantos alimentos que tendemos a eliminar de nuestra dieta como resultado de una obsesiva búsqueda de la salud. En realidad, buena parte de nuestras creencias sobre nutrición se basan en mitos y supersticiones, y carecen de base científica. Ha llegado el momento de dejar de sentirnos culpables y recuperar el placer por la comida. En La mentira del gluten, Alan Levinovitz demuestra por qué el problema no radica en lo que comemos, sino en cómo comemos: llenos de ansiedad y preocupación acerca de esos «demonios» como la pizza, la pasta, los bistecs o los snacks. A menos que usted sea celiaco o padezca una enfermedad similar, una dieta saludable puede y debe incluir sus comidas preferidas (y la dosis adecuada de escepticismo ante la última cura milagrosa que haya llegado a sus oídos). Nuestras opiniones acerca de la alimentación se basan no en datos contrastados, sino en viejas creencias sin fundamento y en las mentiras de nutricionistas y médicos charlatanes. ¿Cómo saber qué es cierto? Levinovitz nos proporciona la capacidad de evaluar con rigor las últimas tendencias de la investigación al respecto. La mentira del GLUTEN le ayudará a colocar de nuevo el pan en su hamburguesa, a evitar la seducción de las últimas modas dietéticas, a vivir una vida más feliz, saludable y, en definitiva, deliciosa. Enlaces de Alan: Twitter de Alan Alan en la Universidad James MadisonLos artículos de Alan en Slate MagazineLa mentira del GLUTEN y otros mitos acerca de la alimentaciónThe Gluten Lie: And Other Myths About What You Eat by Alan Levinovitz El Método es un podcast producido por @Luis_Quevedo para los que, enamorados del mundo, queremos aprender más de él a través de la mejor herramienta que ha desarrollado la humanidad, la ciencia. Suscríbete y escucha todos los episodios elmetodo.fm. Deja comentarios y valoraciones en iTunes e ivoox, por favor, y no olvides compartir este episodio con alguien a quien creas le pueda alegrar el día. Si quieres más ideas de buenos podcasts en español, visita cuonda.com, la comunidad independiente de podcasts en tu lengua. Suscríbete al correo semanal de El Método en https://tinyletter.com/luisquevedo Puedes verme en televisión, cada día 12:30 y 2:30 pm EDT [New York] en NTN24 en este stream. En inglés diría "food for thought", alimento para el pensamiento. Pero este fin de semana trata de pensar sobre cómo nos alimentamos. Una conversación con Alan Levinovitz que estoy seguro os va a encantar. Se grabó originalmente en CST, mi programa de TV diario [enlazado aquí]. Sobre el ensayo de Alan: El gluten no es el enemigo Ni tampoco la sal, el azúcar, las grasas y otros tantos alimentos que tendemos a eliminar de nuestra dieta como resultado de una obsesiva búsqueda de la salud. En realidad, buena parte de nuestras creencias sobre nutrición se basan en mitos y supersticiones, y carecen de base científica. Ha llegado el momento de dejar de sentirnos culpables y recuperar el placer por la comida. En La mentira del gluten, Alan Levinovitz demuestra por qué el problema no radica en lo que comemos, sino en cómo comemos: llenos de ansiedad y preocupación acerca de esos «demonios» como la pizza, la pasta, los bistecs o los snacks. A menos que usted sea celiaco o padezca una enfermedad similar, una dieta saludable puede y debe incluir sus comidas preferidas (y la dosis adecuada de escepticismo ante la última cura milagrosa que haya llegado a sus oídos). Nuestras opiniones acerca de la alimentación se basan no en datos contrastados, sino en viejas creencias sin fundamento y en las mentiras de nutricionistas y médicos charlatanes. ¿Cómo saber qué es cierto? Levinovitz nos proporciona la capacidad de evaluar con rigor las últimas tendencias de la investigación al respecto. La mentira del GLUTEN le ayudará a colocar de nuevo el pan en su hamburguesa, a evitar la seducción de las últimas modas dietéticas, a vivir una vida más feliz, saludable y, en definitiva, deliciosa. Enlaces de Alan: Twitter de Alan Alan en la Universidad James MadisonLos artículos de Alan en Slate MagazineLa mentira del GLUTEN y otros mitos acerca de la alimentaciónThe Gluten Lie: And Other Myths About What You Eat by Alan Levinovitz El Método es un podcast producido por @Luis_Quevedo para los que, enamorados del mundo, queremos aprender más de él a través de la mejor herramienta que ha desarrollado la humanidad, la ciencia. Suscríbete y escucha todos los episodios elmetodo.fm. Deja comentarios y valoraciones en iTunes e ivoox, por favor, y no olvides compartir este episodio con alguien a quien creas le pueda alegrar el día. Si quieres más ideas de buenos podcasts en español, visita cuonda.com, la comunidad independiente de podcasts en tu lengua. Suscríbete al correo semanal de El Método en https://tinyletter.com/luisquevedo Puedes verme en televisión, cada día 12:30 y 2:30 pm EDT [New York] en NTN24 en este stream. Este contenido es gratis y sólo te pido que, si te ha gustado, entretenido, iluminado de algún modo, lo compartas en tus redes y nos valores en tu plataforma de pódcast favorita. Gracias ;)

Episode 22 is here and your hosts, Glenys and Aaron just need to rant a little bit.  They discuss some current research over "obesity" and cancer and examine flaws with studies like this and how it perpetuates fat-phobia.  Glenys and Aaron also take time to discuss with public weight loss experiences of Gabby Sidibe and Chrissy Metz.  Buckle up, and enjoy the bumpy, wild ride.   Links Discussed in this episode Research article discussed (must have Medscape login to read) http://www.bmj.com/content/356/bmj.j477 Food Psych Podcast interview with Alan Levinovitz — https://www.christyharrison.com/foodpsych/4/how-to-leave-the-religion-of-dieting-with-alan-levinovitz Chrissy Metz Weight Loss — http://www.refinery29.uk/2016/11/130418/this-is-us-chrissy-metz-lose-weight-contract Gabby Sidibe Interview — http://people.com/bodies/gabourey-sidibe-weight-loss-body-positivity-quotes/ Virgie Tovar -- http://www.virgietovar.com/ Ragen Chastain -- https://danceswithfat.wordpress.com/blog/ Marilyn Wann -- http://www.fatso.com/

Religious scholar and journalist Alan Levinovitz discusses how diet culture is like a religion, why so much modern nutrition advice is dangerous, why we need to think critically about restrictive eating practices, how suspicion of Western medicine can lead people to believe in harmful "miracle cures," why the "nocebo effect" is causing people to unnecessarily demonize particular foods, and lots more. Alan Levinovitz received his PhD in religion from the University of Chicago where he specialized in classical Chinese thought. He is now assistant professor of religious studies at James Madison University, where he teaches classes on religion, Chinese philosophy, and the connection between religion and medicine. His journalism focuses on the intersection of religion, science, and culture, and has appeared in The Atlantic, Wired, The Washington Post, Slate, Vox, and elsewhere. He is the author of The Gluten Lie: And Other Myths About What You Eat. Find him at James Madison University and on Twitter at @AlanLevinovitz. Join the new Food Psych Facebook group to connect with fellow listeners around the world! To learn more about Food Psych and our guest, visit christyharrison.com/foodpsych Join Christy's intuitive eating online course at christyharrison.com/course How healthy is your relationship with food? Take the quiz and get free resources at christyharrison.com/quiz!

What does religion have to do with diets? Probably more than you think. In this episode I talk with professor of religious studies and author of the book, The Gluten Lie, Dr. Alan Levinovitz. We’ll discuss why “cleansing” and forms of restriction we see with today’s diet culture is not about health at all. Alan shares his personal story of his “holier than thou” feeling he got from a very short term “challenge” he did with his wife in the name of book research. You’ll hear why we both think the “sugar is going to kill you” headlines are utterly untrue and unhelpful. Alan shares a few food trends he think will grow in 2017 and I share how we can make improvements to our eating patterns without going too crazy. About Alan Alan Levinovitz received his PhD in religion from the University of Chicago where he specialized in classical Chinese thought. He is now assistant professor of religious studies at James Madison University, where he teaches classes on religion, Chinese philosophy, and the connection between religion and medicine. His work in journalism focuses on food, science, and culture, and has appeared in The Atlantic, Wired, The Washington Post, Slate, Vox, and elsewhere. He is the author of The Gluten Lie: And Other Myths About What You Eat, and his only food taboo is fake cheese, which he believes is irredeemably evil. Follow Alan Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/alanlevinovitz Book: The Gluten Lie - http://amzn.to/2k1WpUi Articles: The Atlantic – Purity Through Food: How Religious Ideas Sell Diets - http://theatln.tc/2k1WKpK NPR – How Diet Gurus Hook Us with Religion Veiled in Science - http://n.pr/2k1WSpe Slate – The Logical Failure of Food Fads - http://slate.me/2k1VBi6 --- You can subscribe to Body Kindness on iTunes and Stitcher. Enjoy the show? Please rate it on iTunes! - http://getpodcast.reviews/id/1073275062 Are you ready for Body Kindness? Get started today with my free e-course and on-demand digital training. Learn more - http://bit.ly/2k23nbT The New York Times Book Review calls Body Kindness “simple and true”. Publisher’s Weekly says it’s “a rousing guide to better health.” http://bit.ly/2k228t9 Watch my videos about why we need Body Kindness on YouTube. https://youtu.be/W7rATQpv5y8?list=PLQPvfnaYpPCUT9MOwHByVwN1f-bL2rn1V Did you enjoy the podcast? Please subscribe and rate it. Have a show idea or guest recommendation (even yourself!) E-mail podcast@bodykindnessbook.com to get in touch. Nothing in this podcast is meant to provide medical diagnosis, treatment, cure, or prevent any disease or condition. Individuals should consult a qualified healthcare provider for medical advice and answers to personal health questions.

Each day we are faced with dozens of dietary choices, and those choices impact how we think, how we look, how we feel and how we function. Which foods are good for us, and which foods should be avoided? Gut Instinct unpacks the many commonly held and controversial beliefs surrounding food and diet, in an age where there are far too many cooks in the kitchen telling us what to believe about healthy eating. Contributors: Dr. Alan Levinovitz, Dr. Robynne Chutkan, Dr. Briana Pobiner, Dr. Steven Novella, Daniel Leffler, MD, MS, Yvette D'Entremont, Karen Stark, Annmarie Butera Cantrell, Alan Aragon, Alice Bast, Tom Asacker, Brendan Nyhan, PH.D., Dr. Elaine Hsaio

Each day we are faced with dozens of dietary choices, and those choices impact how we think, how we look, how we feel and how we function. Which foods are good for us, and which foods should be avoided? Gut Instinct unpacks the many commonly held and controversial beliefs surrounding food and diet, in an age where there are far too many cooks in the kitchen telling us what to believe about healthy eating. Contributors: Dr. Alan Levinovitz, Dr. Robynne Chutkan, Dr. Briana Pobiner, Dr. Steven Novella, Daniel Leffler, MD, MS, Yvette D'Entremont, Karen Stark, Annmarie Butera Cantrell, Alan Aragon, Alice Bast, Tom Asacker, Brendan Nyhan, PH.D., Dr. Elaine Hsaio

For this edition of Dr. Ruscio Radio, the Doc sits down with The Gluten Lie Author Alan Levinovitz PhD, for a thought-provoking talk about all-things gluten.

Today on the Regained Wellness Podcast my guest is the author of the book The Gluten Lie Alan Levinovitz In This Episode About The Gluten Lie You Will Learn: About how Alan's background provides great insight into nutritional issues The confusion around MSG dangers The confusion over gluten sensitivity How big name authors are creating […] The post RW 058: The Gluten Lie With Alan Levinovitz appeared first on Regained Wellness.

Following the release of some new books – namely Eat Real Food by David Gillespie and The Gluten Lie by Alan Levinovitz – Damian and Marcus discuss the possibility that the “truth” is being blurred. How is “plain flour” being deemed real food and “almost all people can safely put their buns back on their Listen In The post 100NO 128: The mixed message of Eat Real Food & The Gluten Lie appeared first on The Wellness Couch.

Go to www.bevanjameseyles.com for this weeks show notes. 

Gluten expert Dr. Tom O’Bryan returns to the podcast to respond to recent skepticism regarding gluten sensitivity and gluten-free diets.   This one is by popular demand. A few weeks ago, my podcast interview with Alan Levinovitz, author of The Gluten Lie, caused quite a stir.   Due to a few controversial statements made during Alan’s show, my inbox nearly blew up with requests for a rebuttal episode with Dr. Tom O’Bryan, host of The Gluten Summit.    Dr. Tom was more than happy to give his take on The Gluten Lie. In fact, he was FIRED UP!   Here's what we talked about:    4:13 – Do YOU need to avoid gluten? Dr. O’Bryan tells us exactly who should avoid gluten and why.    9:21 – The one test that you should take to test for gluten sensitivity, and why the other tests might not give you the results you need.    16:15 – Are ancient grains really better for you? An interesting study tells us what all gluten is doing to all humans.    17:59 – Is gluten-free just a fad? The reasons why Dr. O’Bryan thinks gluten-free is here to stay.    24:33 – What we know about what gluten does to the body, why we don’t always know what’s going on, and why we still have a lot more to learn.   33:54 – The one thing guaranteed to damage your gut, a few other culprits to watch out for and why positive results of going gluten-free are probably NOT from the gluten.   39:27 – What Dr. O’Bryan thinks is really behind the nocebo effect. Plus, his beef with sensationalism and bunk studies.    47:30 – Weighing the benefits of wheat: why indigestible fiber doesn’t do damage like gluten does.    49:47 – The European wheat myth that could be harming you – even if you don’t feel it!    52:57 – Why you can’t avoid gluten 100%, what you can do to protect yourself from gluten contamination, and why it’s so important.    Want the Written Version? Join The Transcribe Tribe for FREE transcripts at www.undergroundwellnessradio.com.    Hosted by Sean Croxton of Underground Wellness. 

Alan Levinovitz stops by the podcast to discuss his controversial book The Gluten Lie and Other Myths About What You Eat.    Here's what we talked about:    3:25 – Why a philosopher and religion professor wrote a nutrition book and how food and religion have more in common than you might think!   8:15 – Are modern times really so bad? The myth of paradise past and how food technologies might be helping us more than they hurt.    11:15 – What paleo is, what it isn’t, and why “eat in moderation” doesn’t work.    12:50 – Where is the science? Why it’s so hard to get clear evidence on food and nutrition and whether or not we’ll ever have any answers.    19:25 – Science vs. sensationalism: mis-reporting in the media and what the scientists really have to say about their nutrition studies.    24:48 – Is it really just the gluten? The real reasons people might feel better off gluten and how to figure out if it will make you feel better, too.    28:44 – All about the nocebo effect and how your mind might be a bigger problem than the gluten.    33:15 – When “too healthy” becomes unhealthy and why we sometimes stick with something that doesn’t really work for us anymore.    38:05 – The problem with getting ahead of the scientific evidence. Plus, why the truth about food and nutrition probably isn’t as exciting as some people would lead us to believe.    45:35 – Does morally good = physically good? Why we associate feeling good with being “bad.”    50:30 – The money and marketing behind nutrition: figuring out who really has your best interest at heart and why being an equal opportunity skeptic might be good for your health.    56:19 – Are we addicted to health? What holistic health really is, How Alan finds balance in his own life, and what he’s up to next!    Want the Written Version? Join The Transcribe Tribe for FREE transcripts at www.undergroundwellnessradio.com.    Hosted by Sean Croxton of Underground Wellness. 

Alan Levinovitz is an assistant professor of Chinese philosophy and religion at James Madison University and author of The Gluten Lie: And Other Myths About What You Eat.On the show this week we talk to Levinovitz about gluten and gluten-free diets. Should everyone go gluten-free? What does the actual science about it say? Why is a professor of religion is writing about diets in the first place? Listen and find out.iTunes: itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/inquiring-minds/id711675943RSS: feeds.feedburner.com/inquiring-mindsStitcher: stitcher.com/podcast/inquiring-mindsTumblr: http://inquiringshow.tumblr.com