Podcasts about stanford prevention research center

About this episode: Research shows that seed oils, like sunflower and sesame, can contribute to better health. So why are wellness influencers talking about a group called “the hateful eight,” which include non-seed oils like soybean and canola? In this episode: a breakdown of what seed oils are (and aren't), misconceptions around inflammation and omega 6's, and how processed foods play into the conversation. Note: This episode mentions Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and was recorded prior to his confirmation as Secretary of HHS. Guests: Christopher Gardner is the director of nutrition studies at the Stanford Prevention Research Center. Host: Stephanie Desmon, MA, is a former journalist, author, and the director of public relations and communications for the Johns Hopkins Center for Communication Programs, the largest center at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. Show links and related content: Are Seed Oils Actually Bad For You?—The New York Times Contact us: Have a question about something you heard? Looking for a transcript? Want to suggest a topic or guest? Contact us via email or visit our website. Follow us: @‌PublicHealthPod on Bluesky @‌JohnsHopkinsSPH on Instagram @‌JohnsHopkinsSPH on Facebook @‌PublicHealthOnCall on YouTube Here's our RSS feed

Dietary supplements like those for weight loss and muscle building have become a multi-billiondollar industry, even as health experts say that in many cases their efficacy and safety is unproven. We take a close look at the rules governing the industry and what might change under the Trump Administration especially as Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is poised to be confirmed as Health and Human services secretary. Do you have a vitamin or dietary supplement question? Guests: Dr. S Bryn Austin, social epidemiologist and professor of Social and Behavioral Sciences, Harvard School of Public Health Nicholas Florko, staff writer, The Atlantic Marily Oppezzo, behavioral and learning scientist, registered dietician, Stanford Prevention Research Center

Public Health Careers podcast episode with Eric J. Daza, DrPH, MPS

When you hear university dining, you likely have images in your mind of college students with trays and hand waiting in a line for a meal in a dining hall. You may even think of a food court or a trendy food hall in the cool part of town. But there is so much more happening behind the scenes. Today we will learn about Menus of Change University Research Collaborative, MCURC for short, which is a nationwide network of colleges and universities using campus dining halls as living laboratories for behavior change. The Collaborative's goals are to move people towards healthier, more sustainable and delicious foods using evidence-based research, education and innovation. Our guest today is the Collaborative's co-founder and co-director, Stanford University's Sophie Egan.  Interview Summary I'd like you to tell our listeners a little bit more about the Menus of Change University Research Collaborative. What is it and how does it actually work? The Menus of Change University Research Collaborative was co-founded by the Culinary Institute of America and Stanford University, two divisions there, the Stanford Prevention Research Center and the School of Medicine, and Residential and Dining Enterprises. And that should tell you something is different in our vision, which is that first and foremost, we wanted to break down silos that exist on campuses between experts in food who work in academic realms. So, researchers, faculty who may be studying food, either from one certain discipline or ideally some cases transdisciplinarily, and those who actually feed students, the experts in the dining programs on campus. And Stanford was a good place to co-found this because of this great partnership that already existed between the dining program and between Dr. Christopher Gardner at the School of Medicine. But that model has actually now been replicated. We are at 70 plus institutions, not only across the U.S., but actually increasingly internationally. In addition to fostering that collaboration and breaking down those silos on a given campus, we really wanted to foster collaboration between universities to take what we consider kind of a plug-and-play research protocol. You know, a given design of a study that, as you said, uses campus dining halls as living laboratories and actually replicate research. So that's what we've done. It's been incredibly fun to be part of it from the beginning, and it's been incredibly exciting and impactful because of the approach that we take. We really democratize even what it means to be a researcher, to be involved in research. We have involvement in the collaborative and in research projects from students, faculty, of course, who are critical in their expertise, but also executive chefs, nutrition and sustainability experts. And many other research collaborators who are mission aligned organizations like EAT and REFED and Food for Climate League, who bring their own kind of comparable expertise. And we all work together to shape these living lab studies and then to test those at multiple sites to see if this a more generalizable effect? Or is that something just those west coast schools work for? Or is this only something that, you know, more elite schools where students of a certain demographic really respond? But that's also the beauty is the diversity of the institutions that we have. Geographically, public private, small and large. And we're really brought together by the kind of common language of what's also in our name, Menus of Change. And these are these principles of optimizing both human and planetary health through the food on our plates. And for us really, especially through students, changing that trajectory and cultivating the long term wellbeing of all people in the planet, one student, one meal at a time. Wow. This sounds like a really amazing program. And I love the fact that you're working across different types of universities across the U.S. and even outside. And it does make me believe that the findings that you have are applicable in a broader setting than if one institution does it. I can appreciate the power of the Collaborative. I want to know a little bit more about the impact of the collaborative. What has it been up to this point and in what ways have you seen this collaborative generate new ideas or new research findings? Yes. So, we've got about six peer reviewed publications under our belt with more on the way. Our latest is called the University Procurement and Planetary Health Study led by Dr. Jackie Bertoldo, who was at the Johns Hopkins University and also Stanford Food Institute. But we have a number of academic publications also in the works. And then importantly, we actually have produced 13 operational publications and reports. So, what that illustrates is that we've come to realize that those that are collaborating have different currencies. Publishing in a peer reviewed journal, that's what motivates academic researchers, right? That's what's going to enable them to invest time and resources. Fundamentally, this is primarily something that people do,  in their free time, right? It's a volunteer-based network of over 300 members. But if they're going to work on a project, it has to have some value to their own work. But what has value to those in dining operations is implementable, real, tangible strategies, recommendations, and guidelines that translate 'these are the findings of a certain study into what do you want me to do about it? How do you want me to change my menu, sourcing, the design of the dining hall, the choice architecture, right? The food environment itself. How do you want me to change something in the operational setup?' Maybe, if it has to do with food waste. All of these resources are on our website. We also have three really exciting new projects in the pipeline. So that's our research and publication impact to date. But I should say that importantly, it's much more meaningful to us who take those resources and acts upon them. We know that universities are unique places to conduct research, but our research is not aimed only at the campus dining sector. It's actually offered open source to inform and shape the entire food service industry. We have been thrilled, for example, one of our kind of flagship publications called the Edgy Veggies Toolkit has been implemented and adopted by some of the largest food service companies in the world. Think of Sodexo, Aramark, Compass, who are phenomenal members of the collaborative. Think of corporate dining programs, hospitals, hotels, elsewhere. K 12 environments. And that's, to us, the most important kind of reach is to know that those toolkits, those resources. Edgy Veggies was about how you could simply change the way you describe vegetable-based dishes on a menu, to use more taste focused language, to increase the appeal. We actually demonstrated you can measurably increase selection and consumption of vegetables. So, you can imagine that has applications in public health in countless settings. Even those of us trying to feed our kids. Hey, if I call tonight's broccoli, you know, zesty orange broccoli versus just broccoli, maybe my kid will eat more of it, right? So, it has applications in countless different contexts. Another really big area for us is our collective purchasing power. So, we learned at some point that it's not only that these organizations, the institutions that are part of the collaborative are brought together by a desire to co create research, but it's really that alignment on healthy, sustainable, plant forward future for the food service industry. And so we've actually created this collective impact initiative where it's our combined purchasing power. We've now measurably reduced our combined food-related greenhouse gas emissions. By 24 percent just between 2019 and 2022, and that's across 30 institutions, 90 million pounds of food. I mean, this is a huge outcome for us, and we're not stopping there. We had a goal to reduce by 25 percent by 2030, and now reaching that, we're A, enhancing the target to a 40 percent reduction by 2030. But importantly, we're actually measuring now the uptick in diet quality. So, because human health is equally important to that sustainability part, that University Procurement for Planetary Health study that I mentioned, we're actually able to see that if we are aligning our procurement, meaning what do we buy in the total pounds of an institution and then in the aggregate, right? How plant forward, how healthy and sustainable is that kind of portfolio, that total mix of foods that we're purchasing? And we can actually really increase the diet quality and that kind of average health profile at the same time. So, getting that data layer is really key. And it's the kind of area of impact that has so much momentum and will only continue into the future. Also, lastly, just to say our student engagement numbers have really grown, and that's critically important because educating and cultivating the next generation of food systems leaders. is also core to our work. We have our MCRC Fellows program and that has really grown to have about 30 fellows from a number of institutions all around the country. That's another great way that anyone interested can get involved in. Students are a reason for being. So, it's key that they see these ways to make an impact through their work as well. I am really impressed with the improvements in lowering greenhouse gas emissions or improving sustainability of the dining facilities. How actually did you all do that? I mean, it sounds like you're asking people to report and through that reporting, you see reduction? Can you explain? Coming soon is our 2.0 learnings report that will answer that exact question, but we do have a 2020 version. We call it the early learnings report that shares what it sounds, you know, the early learnings of what works, what doesn't. But what I can tell you can have been kind of the big keys to that success. First, collective target setting. We have been able to welcome institutions that really don't necessarily have the political support, the kind of stakeholder buy in, to make a big public commitment. Some schools do, some institutions do, and that's great. And others, they can sort of take cover, so to speak, in contributing to something where, you know. Their pace of change may be different. And so, it's really kind of contributing to something larger than only their institution, but also having the comfort that it's going to be fits and starts. It may not be linear. It may not be all forward. It might be a little bit backward in terms of the progress trajectory. So that's been really key to having a real diversity of schools where it's not only those that are at the very leading edge. And it's in again, places that aren't as comfortable coming out with a big splashy public wedge. The other big thing that's been key is that we have created a very streamlined framework for data collection. Instead of kind of saying you must submit your data for every single item you've ever purchased, we've on a smaller subset of food categories, where it's easier for them to track, we've created a streamlined and standardized template for them to submit the data, and we also provide individualized reports back to that university. It's confidential. They are the only one who gets it. And that's very motivating because a lot of institutions don't have that resource or that expertise to conduct that analysis to track their emissions year over year. It's almost like getting kind of a free consultancy. But it's what creates that reciprocity where we need their data. We need their collective contribution to the collective effort. And they're getting something out of it because they do have to take the time to find the data and to submit it to us. And then the other thing I think has really been key is, and this was kind of the core concept of collective impact, is continuously iterating. Every year we're listening to those involved in tweaking, you know, how we're asking for the data, how frequently we used to ask for it twice a year, and now it's annually, for example. So always kind of iterating, testing and iterating to make the processes mutually beneficial as possible. And then also keeping the door open for those other institutions to join. It's kind of a cohort effect where we have some institutions that have been part of it from the beginning and others that have only been submitting data for a year and everyone is playing a role. Great. Thank you for sharing that. I want to ask you a little bit more about your other work that you're doing because you're the co-director of the collaborative. You're also the co-director of the Stanford Food Institute. Can you tell our listeners more about that institute and what you're working on there? The Stanford Food Institute was founded by our visionary leader, Dr. Shirley Everett, who's Senior Vice Provost for Residential Dining Enterprises at Stanford. And she really had this vision to bring together an entire community of people to shape a better future of food for the benefit of all humanity and, and really embracing how much food is happening on the Stanford campus. To have the Stanford Food Institute be really this hub and this home for what belovedly we say at Stanford, it's a very decentralized place. There's a ton of entrepreneurial spirit and that's fantastic and should be, but often we don't know what everyone else is doing. So, it's a great opportunity for the Stanford Food Institute to be that magnet and say, come one, come all, whatever student led group, research project, course, event, you know, we want to work with you. So, in practice, what we really do is we work across research, education and innovation to bring together that community and work on this better future. We have a really strong focus on racial equity in the food system, as well as bold climate action. Those are kind of some cross-cutting themes. Our R&DE (research, development, education) core values that have to do with excellence and students first, sustainability, health, deliciousness. All of those things are kind of foundational at the same time. So we actually collaborate with faculty in all seven schools, which is for me super fun because I get to learn about the business dimensions of food and the psychology and social sciences. We have the new Stanford Doerr School of Sustainability that is a very active partner. We have phenomenal partners in the School of Medicine. And when possible, of course, we bring them all together. One really phenomenal culmination of all of those different research efforts is we host something called the Stanford Food Institute Food Systems Symposium, where every year, I like to explain it as a food systems science fair. It's a kind of exhibition style showcase. Researchers get really creative with how they show their work. We had over a hundred researchers at our latest symposium. And it demonstrates that real diversity of disciplines and topics that, that touch food because that's what's so exciting about food. It touches all parts of society. That's one big example. And then we have a number of community partnerships in the Bay Area. One is with the nonprofit Farms to Grow and we're really committed long term to helping support black farmers, not only in California, but sharing our model for increasing supplier diversity and equitable supply chains with other institutions. So those are just two examples, but it's really such a pleasure and an honor to lead the Stanford Food Institute. And as you can likely gather, it's really quite complimentary to the menus of change university research collaborative as well. I am really excited to learn about this symposium. And I got to say, I've worked in land grant institutions before, and I studied at land grant institutions. And so it's interesting to hear of a school like Stanford that is not a land grant. That doesn't have a tradition of agriculture in a narrowly defined sense engaging in this work. I mean, how is it that you're able to find that many people? You said a hundred folks were working on different projects related to the food system. Is it just happening, and people don't necessarily know that it's happening and you're able to bring them together? What's going on there? That's a good question. I don't have a scientific answer. I have a hunch. Anecdotal evidence. We're talking about research here. So, I've got to be clear on my methods for answering. I'll tell you, Norbert, so before I was in this role, one of the things I did was I taught a class at Stanford in the School of Design that was all about food systems careers. And it was essentially a stopgap because there was so much interest from undergraduate students in careers in food systems. But they didn't know what on earth they were going to do to make money, to make a living. How were they going to tell their parents I'm going to use all this money you spent on my degree to do what exactly? There also was just not a clear sense of even what the role types were. What's out there? What's possible? How can I make a difference? And so that class that we co-taught for several years. And I say that because that was just an interesting signal of how many students were interested, sort of, you know, poking at the edges. But a lot of them, to be honest, I call it off ramping. They didn't see the path. They just went the path that was more clear cut. They went to law school or they went to med school. And then they said, ‘well, I'll just like cook at home as a side hobby instead. Because maybe my passion for food doesn't need to be my career.' And so I think what we're really doing with the Food Institute, and there's a number of other kind of similar initiatives, is trying to say, let's try to, you know, address this in a more root cause kind of way. We have something now called the Stanford Food Systems Community, which is just a list serve. And in the fall, we host an event right at the beginning of the year where it's, it's kind of a, again, a come one, come all. We come to the farm, the actual farm at Stanford and have a pizza party and get to know all the different events and things on campus. I think to me, it's, it's a groundswell that's happening nationwide. So, I'm also an author and I've spoken for my books at a lot of universities. And I will often get asked to speak to the career services department. They'll ask me, can you talk about careers in food systems? I've seen this groundswell of interest from students. And then I think a lot of faculty also are really seeing how maybe they study law or a certain dimension. But its kind of either like backs into food or stumbles upon food, maybe. You know, we don't have, like you're saying, we don't have a department in nutrition. I mean, we don't have a specifically food kind of academic framework. But it's more those inherent intersectionalities with food where it's almost in, I think, inescapable to faculty. And then it's really kind of bolstered by how many students are expressing interest. It's something I'm really excited to see where we're in conversations with faculty to do even more to just make students aware of how many classes there are. Because I think sometimes that is the challenge that it's there, but they just don't know how to access it. Right. Thank you for sharing that. And I got to say, I've been taking notes, so I may follow up with you some more later. You've been working with campus food leaders for over a decade now. And you talked about that even in, I guess, in referencing the class as well. What is it about colleges and universities that excite you when it comes to making positive changes in the food system? And you've given me a little bit about that. I'm intrigued to see what else are you seeing? You know, it's surprising. It's the longest I've done something, like a certain one specific role is, is co leading this collaborative. Because I actually co-founded it when I was with the Culinary Institute of America on the other side of the partnership. And I think I have just a deep appreciation, and maybe I like to describe myself as an I realist, idealist mixed with a realist. A realistic view of the potential for universities to be change agents in society. Does it mean they always use that potential? No, but it's there. It's everything from the incubators of new knowledge. They're where new ideas emerge, right? I remember when I first went to the University of Bologna, and it's been there for a thousand years. That's just incredible, right? But it's also a place of growth and expanding your mind for students. Many of these higher education institutions are what's been referred to as anchor institutions. They are huge employers in a region. They are huge thought leaders in a region. They're places of opportunity for all kinds of different things. Whether it's collaborations with private sector and industry, whether it's international kind of tourism and exposure, I mean, so many different possibilities there. And I think the other big thing is that, and I should just say on the anchor institution point, it's the, all that purchasing power too, that I mentioned right there. Very streamlined, fairly agile decision making. I'm sure someone on the podcast is going to say, you think Higher Ed is agile, you know. There's bureaucracy, I know, but I just mean compared to some other food service companies or industries where it's really hard to make changes within campus dining, in particular, you do have a fairly sizable, you know, amount of purchasing power that can have fairly quick, they can be early adopters and they're known as early adopters. The food service industry really looks at what's campus dining doing. That's the tip of the spear. That's a signal of the trends to come. That's a signal of what are going to be the new norms. And the last thing is that we really embrace the fact that students in college, this is this unique period of identity formation. They're figuring out their relationships to food. What is the role that food is going to play in their lives? What do they value? How does that get reflected through food? How does that make them feel? How do they perform academically, physically, et cetera? And of course, for community and belonging, coming together, breaking bread, et cetera. We really love this stat where we've seen that in a given year, we have 4 million meals across the collaborative. But it's not just the meals that these students eat when they're on our campuses. It's the billions of meals they will go on to consume in their collective lifetimes, and when they go on to be decision makers and parents and in the other future realms. And again, that shaping formative opportunity. There are many reasons, I guess, that I've been motivated and I think the potential is still just tremendous. I'm excited for all that's ahead. This is great. And I love the idea and the recognition that this is this formative time for students. That their taste, which may have been shaped, of course, from home, but are being transformed in the dining halls. The place where they're learning to step out and make decisions about food in a way that they couldn't even in high school. I really appreciate this idea and this opportunity. And I appreciate the sort of seriousness that you take at approaching this issue. I have to say, as someone who's related to or connected to a policy center, I am intrigued to think about what kind of policy initiatives, federal, state, even university, do you see coming out of the work of the collaborative? Well, you know, it's really exciting when there is, again, I mentioned that our schools are both public and private, right? So, policy has so many opportunities to kind of shape, again, that social or political will that the decision makers administrators, dining directors may have to pursue something. So, you know, the University of California has been part of the collaborative, most of their campuses have been part for a very long time. And it just is a good example, I think to me, where in that state, there is so much support from the governor's office for farm to fork, local procurement, direct procurement, supplier diversity, regenerative agriculture, climate friendly and plant forward meals in public schools, in K 12. It's that sort of enabling environment, I think, that policy can create and also learn from. So, if it sees constellation of institutions, making a bold move or all aligning on the same kind of, you know, targets or metrics, that can give them the wind at their backs to pass something that maybe applies to all publicly run institutions. Or all food vendors in their state. For example, I would love to see more policy efforts on data and reporting. As I shared with you about collective impact, we're really proud of what we've done, but this is all voluntary, right? We're just choosing to measure this and hold ourselves accountable and keep striving. But I think at some point if it becomes required, you could have more resources in these institutions being brought to do that hard work that is required. I mean, it's not only, you know, sharing with us, but then it's analyzing your menu. What were the strategies that led to that biggest reduction? How did the student feedback go? Working with suppliers is a huge area that Stanford's really excited to have begun, but it takes time. It's, and we need more support, more capacity to do that. I could envision that if there were more requirements kind of coming from policy for some of that tracking and disclosing. And an example that gives me reason to think that's possible is again in California. Something called SB 1383 requires Institutions like ours and all others to disclose their food donation amounts. And I think that's a really interesting example again of measuring something. Bring a measurement requirement from policy to something that maybe everyone's already been doing because it was just best practice, or something that they wanted to know for themselves again that more voluntary. I think there's a lot of opportunities to do more of that. And I would love to see more of those state and regional policies, but also some of these kind of best practices emerge from some of these states and counties that become perhaps nationwide. You know the old saying, if you don't measure it, you can't change it because you don't know. And I love the fact that the collaborative sees itself as a place to prototype, to figure out how do we collect these data. How do we make it less burdensome? Because if you can figure those things out, then I can imagine allowing others to replicate that. This is a great test bed for what policies could look like by the work that you all are doing, it sounds like. And I think that's a really important point because I think the fear would be that policies get created in a vacuum, right? Where you just say, we're going to require you to disclose XYZ crazy detailed things that either an entity doesn't know how to get, can't get, or it costs them thousands and thousands of dollars to collect, or something along those lines. And so, really marrying feasibility, sort of what measurement tools exist how is the kind of dynamic between humans in your environments and those technology tools? I mean, food waste measurement right now is an area that we're really focusing on that because AI and there's a huge opportunity to kind of reduce the burden on staff. But so far, it's been difficult for pretty much every food service operation, including campuses, to get really high-quality food waste data. Even though they may have these tools. And it often has to do with how difficult, how much time it requires staff. I think it's really key that policymakers really, yeah, work with institutions like ours. We love to be, as you said, that kind of prototyping place to find the right balance of rigor and frequency and volume of data with, again, kind of labor and financial constraints and operational realities. And for us, it's also critically important to keep in mind the student experience. How do we not do so many research projects in a four walled space so that we forget this is their home. This is where students eat and live every day. It can't only be about us getting as much data as possible, of course. It's just really accounting for all those variables in the equation. I appreciate this. And I swear, Sophie, we could talk forever. Let me ask you one last question. And I think this is a good place for us to come to an end. What are the different ways people can get involved in the Menus of Change University Research Collaborative? Excellent. Well, please do. So first, the easiest thing is just check out our website. Everything that we create is open source. As I mentioned, it for sure can be applied in university settings, but it pretty much across the board can be applied in a number of other settings. Food service, for sure, but also there's a lot of, whether it's prepared foods at retails, other settings in general. Check out moccollaborative. org in particular, our resources and research. The other way is if you're affiliated with an institution, if you're an academic researcher, and you can get in touch with us to find out about. Or you can become what we call a member institution where dining services and at least one academic researcher are involved. Then you're actually part of all that data collection kind of effort. I think the other biggest area is if you have students who are interested, if once you become a member institution, as I mentioned, there's tons of opportunities to get involved in shaping research. But also in the educational side, which is through our MCRC student fellows program. So those would be some of the big ones, and we always love feedback, too. Tell us how you're utilizing the resources and how we can continue to identify gaps in the research agenda that we are uniquely positioned to help fill. BIO Sophie Egan, MPH is the Director of the Stanford Food Institute and Sustainable Food Systems at R&DE Stanford Dining, Hospitality & Auxiliaries, where she is Co-Founder and Co-Director of the Menus of Change University Research Collaborative. She is also the author of How to Be a Conscious Eater (Workman, 2020)—named one of Bon Appétit's “Favorite New Books for Climate-Friendly Cooking and Life”—and the founder of Full Table Solutions, a consulting practice that's a catalyst for food systems transformation. An internationally recognized leader at the intersection of food, health, and climate, Sophie is also a contributor to The New York Times Health section and Director of Strategy for Food for Climate League. Previously, Sophie served as the Director of Health and Sustainability Leadership/Editorial Director for The Culinary Institute of America's Strategic Initiatives Group. Sophie's writing has been featured in The Washington Post, TIME, Parents, The Wall Street Journal, Bon Appétit, WIRED, EatingWell, Edible San Francisco, FoodTank, and Sunset. She is a member of the Food System 6 Advisory Board, James Beard Foundation Sustainability Advisory Council, and the Food Tank Academic Working Group. She holds a BA with honors in history from Stanford University; an MPH with a focus on health and social behavior from UC Berkeley; and a certificate from the Harvard Executive Education in Sustainability Leadership program.

From fads to fallacies, misconceptions have permeated diet narratives for decades. So, we dig in and demystify to forge a personalized path toward sustainable well-being.In today's episode, Jonathan is joined by Prof. Christopher Gardner and podcast regular Dr. Sarah Berry. Christopher is a professor of medicine at Stanford University and the director of nutrition studies at the Stanford Prevention Research Center. Sarah is an associate professor in nutrition at King's College London and chief scientist at ZOE.If you want to uncover the right foods for your body, head to zoe.com/podcast, and get 10% off your personalized nutrition program.Find top tips for better gut health from ZOE Science & Nutrition — download our FREE gut guide.Follow ZOE on Instagram.Timecodes:00:00 Intro01:00 Quick fire questions02:30 Why do people go on diets?05:07 Is it too late to change your diet?06:28 How to adopt a better diet lifestyle in the long term11:06 What are the worst diets for our health?16:47 Why is there such a big gap between the scientific evidence and what we see on the shelves?19:49 What should we do to improve our diet?25:40 Do whole foods make us feel more full?31:14 What does plant based mean and how does it tie in with the mediterranean diet?32:14 Why is fiber so good for us?35:50 Is it healthy to have fat in your diet?37:03 Are reduced fat foods in supermarkets as good as they claim to be?39:33 Low carb vs low fat study45:07 What dietry revalations can we expect to see this year?52:15 Summary57:39 Goodbyes/OutroMentioned in today's episode: Life expectancy can increase by up to 10 years following sustained shifts towards healthier diets in the United Kingdom in Nature Popular dietary patterns: Alignment with American Heart Association 2021 dietary guidance: A scientific statement from the American Heart Association in AHA JournalsCardiometabolic effects of omnivorous vs vegan diets in identical twins: A randomized clinical trial in JAMA Network Ultra-processed diets cause excess calorie intake and weight gain: An inpatient randomized controlled trial of ad libitum food intake in Cell MetabolismEffect of low-fat vs low-carbohydrate diet on 12-Month weight loss in overweight adults and the association with genotype pattern or insulin secretion: The DIETFITS randomized clinical trial in JAMA NetworkIs there a nutrition topic you'd like us to explore? Email us at podcast@joinzoe.com, and we'll do our best to cover it. Episode transcripts are available here.

Each day this week, we examine one of the world's most popular diets. Putting the latest scientific evidence under the microscope, we'll discover these diets' true impact on your health.Today, we're talking about the Mediterranean diet. This indulgent diet champions vegetables, beans, fish, and even red wine, all with a liberal helping of extra virgin olive oil.However, this relatively high-fat diet undergoes many regional adaptations, and the wide range of options can be confusing, even intimidating, if you're not that confident in the kitchen.In this special episode of ZOE Science & Nutrition, Jonathan is joined by Christopher Gardner, Professor of Medicine at Stanford University and the Director of Nutrition Studies at Stanford Prevention Research Center. Together, they discuss this diet's potential health benefits and pitfalls. If you want to uncover the right foods for your body, head to https://zoe.com/podcast and get 10% off your personalised nutrition program.Top tips for better gut health from ZOE Science and Nutrition — Download our FREE gut guideFollow ZOE on InstagramTimecodes:00:00 Introduction00:42 Topic Intro02:42 What is the concept of the Mediterranean diet?04:22 Why do we have more data on this diet?06:08 What are the main differences between this and other diets?07:30 How much meat is in the Mediterranean diet?08:20 Is the Mediterranean diet a “whole food” diet?09:10 How do whole grains fit into this diet?10:06 Where do oils and legumes come into this?11:31 What happens when you switch from a US/UK-centric diet to a Mediterranean diet?13:23 What is going on inside the body to deliver the health benefits?14:08 What are the possible challenges of the Mediterranean diet?16:05 Keto vs. Mediterranean diet study19:09 What's the verdict?19:50 OutroMentioned in today's episode: Adherence to Ketogenic and Mediterranean Study Diets in a Crossover Trial: The Keto-Med Randomized Trial, from Nutrients Effect of a ketogenic diet versus Mediterranean diet on glycated hemoglobin in individuals with prediabetes and type 2 diabetes mellitus, from the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition Is there a nutrition topic you'd like us to cover? Email us at podcast@joinzoe.com, and we'll do our best to cover it.Episode transcripts are available here.

Each day this week, we're examining one of the world's most popular diets. Putting the latest scientific evidence under the microscope, we'll find out these diets' true impact on your health.Today, we're talking about the century-old paradigm of weight management — calorie counting. Rooted in the law of thermodynamics, the notion is simple: Consuming fewer calories than expended results in weight loss.While seemingly straightforward, the practical application of calorie counting can prove challenging, with many of us underestimating our calorie intake or finding it difficult to maintain this diet long-term.In this special episode of ZOE Science & Nutrition, Jonathan is joined by Christopher Gardner, Professor of Medicine at Stanford University and the Director of Nutrition Studies at Stanford Prevention Research Center. Together, they explore this diet's complexities, addressing its potential and pitfalls. If you want to uncover the right foods for your body, head to https://zoe.com/podcast and get 10% off your personalised nutrition program.Top tips for better gut health from ZOE Science and Nutrition — Download our FREE gut guide Follow ZOE on InstagramTimecodes:00:00 Introduction00:42 Pre warning00:52 Topic Intro01:20 Why is calorie counting so popular?02:40 Does it matter what you eat or only about total calorie intake?04:14 What happens in your body when you eat fewer calories?07:08 What does the science say now?08:35 How does your metabolism change when you cut calories?10:29 Why is the diet still so officially accredited?11:23 What's the verdict?12:30 OutroMentioned in today's episode: Energy compensation and metabolic adaptation: "The Biggest Loser" study reinterpreted, from Obesity Is there a nutrition topic you'd like us to cover? Email us at podcast@joinzoe.com, and we'll do our best to cover it.Episode transcripts are available here.

Each day this week, we're examining one of the world's most popular diets. Putting the latest scientific evidence under the microscope, we'll find out the true impact of these diets on your health.Today, we're talking about the carnivore diet, a zero-carb approach centered on meat, fish, eggs, and minimal dairy while excluding all plant foods and alcohol.Advocates claim it can help with autoimmune conditions, type 2 diabetes, and weight loss, asserting that our ancestors thrived eating this way. However, there are questions about nutrient deficiencies and excessive saturated fat intake with this diet.In this special episode of ZOE Science & Nutrition, Jonathan is joined by Christopher Gardner, Professor of Medicine at Stanford University and the Director of Nutrition Studies at Stanford Prevention Research Center. Together, they explore its purported advantages and drawbacks.If you want to uncover the right foods for your body, head to joinzoe.com/podcast and get 10% off your personalised nutrition program.Top tips for better gut health from ZOE Science and Nutrition — Download our FREE gut guide Follow ZOE on InstagramTimecodes:00:00 Introduction00:42 Topic intro01:10 Why would anyone want to follow the carnivore diet?01:45 What are people eating on this diet?01:59 What would happen if you ate this way?02:53 Can we get all the essential nutrients we need to live from this diet?03:37 What are the claimed benefits of this diet?04:21 Could you live on this diet long-term?05:18 What are the differences between animal carnivores and us?07:08 Are there any studies to show what happens when you follow it?08:32 Why aren't there any official studies on the carnivore diet?09:56 What's the verdict?10:25 OutroMentioned in this episode:Behavioral characteristics and self-reported health status among 2029 adults consuming a “Carnivore Diet”, from Current Developments in Nutrition Is there a nutrition topic you'd like us to cover? Email us at podcast@joinzoe.com and we'll do our best to cover it.Episode transcripts are available here

Each day this week, we're examining one of the world's most popular diets. Putting the latest scientific evidence under the microscope, we'll find out the true impact of these diets on your health.Today, we're talking about the paleo diet, rooted in the idea of emulating our hunter-gatherer ancestors after concerns about the impact of a modern westernized diet packed with highly processed foods.However, the diet often involves consuming increased amounts of saturated fats, primarily from meat. This is associated with heightened cholesterol levels and heart disease risk.In this special episode of ZOE Science & Nutrition, Jonathan is joined by Christopher Gardner, Professor of Medicine at Stanford University and the Director of Nutrition Studies at Stanford Prevention Research Center. Together, they dissect the diet's potential benefits, pitfalls, and sustainability. If you want to discover the right foods for your body, head to https://zoe.com/podcast and get 10% off your personalized nutrition program.Follow ZOE on InstagramTimecodes:00:00 Introduction00:42 Topic intro02:05 Is the paleo diet a logical diet based on where we came from?03:03 What's so appealing about the stone age diet?04:19 What's the difference between paleo diets now and our authentic ancient diets?05:30 What are the theoretical health benefits if you were to follow the paleo diet?06:32 What are the downsides of following the paleo diet?07:09 How closely does the ancestral paleo diet match our modern paleo diet?09:25 What's the verdict?10:04 OutroIs there a nutrition topic you'd like us to cover? Email us at podcast@joinzoe.com and we'll do our best to cover it.Episode transcripts are available here

Each day this week, we're examining one of the world's most popular diets. Putting the latest scientific evidence under the microscope, we'll find out these diets' true impact on your health.Today we're talking about the low-fat diet, popularised in the 1970s and fueled by the belief that fat was the culprit behind heart disease and weight gain.However, the aftermath saw a surge in low-quality carbs. Food manufacturers, in the quest for low-fat options, replaced fats with sugar and refined grains, resulting in us opting for low-quality carbs over whole foods and whole grains.In this special episode of ZOE Science & Nutrition, Jonathan is joined by Christopher Gardner, a professor of Medicine at Stanford University and the Director of Nutrition Studies at Stanford Prevention Research Center. Together, they unravel the complexities of the low-fat diet, addressing its potential and pitfalls. If you want to uncover the right foods for your body, head to https://zoe.com/podcast and get 10% off your personalized nutrition program. Top tips for better gut health from ZOE Science and Nutrition — Download our FREE gut guideFollow ZOE on InstagramTimecodes:00:00 Introduction00:42 Topic Intro02:11 Why do people still follow low fat diets today?03:56 What happens in the body when you cut out fat?05:26 Does a low fat diet make you healthier?07:01 Is it possible to have a healthy low fat diet?09:49 If you choose a low fat diet with healthy carbs, is it better than a high fat diet?11:39 What happens if you remove all fat from your diet?12:06 What's the verdict?12:35 OutroIs there a nutrition topic you'd like us to cover? Email us at podcast@joinzoe.com and we'll do our best to cover it.Episode transcripts are available here.

Each day this week, we're examining one of the world's most popular diets. Putting the latest scientific evidence under the microscope, we'll find out these diets' true impact on your health.Today we're talking about the keto diet, a global phenomenon favoring fats over carbs, lauded for potential health benefits like improved blood sugar control and weight loss.Yet, the allure of keto does come with downsides. With a dearth of fiber and essential nutrients — as well a reputation for being notoriously difficult to keep on top of long-term — many find ketosis elusive.In this special episode of ZOE Science & Nutrition, Jonathan is joined by Christopher Gardner, a professor of Medicine at Stanford University and the Director of Nutrition Studies at Stanford Prevention Research Center. Together, they unravel the keto diet's complexities, addressing its potential and pitfalls. If you want to uncover the right foods for your body, head to joinzoe.com/podcast and get 10% off your personalized nutrition program.Top tips for better gut health from ZOE Science and Nutrition — Download our FREE gut guideFollow ZOE on InstagramTimecodes:00:00 Introduction00:42 Topic Intro01:54 Why would anyone follow the keto diet?02:59 What's the theory behind cutting carbs and switching to fat?04:16 What happens in your body if you follow keto correctly?05:59 What are the possible health benefits of switching to the keto diet?06:34 What are the downsides to following the keto diet?07:54 Keto diet study10:01 What's the verdict?11:37 OutroIs there a nutrition topic you'd like us to cover? Email us at podcast@joinzoe.com and we'll do our best to cover it.Episode transcripts are available here.

------------------------------- 通勤學英語VIP加值內容與線上課程 ------------------------------- 通勤學英語VIP訂閱方案：https://open.firstory.me/join/15minstoday 社會人核心英語有聲書課程連結：https://15minsengcafe.pse.is/554esm ------------------------------- 15Mins.Today 相關連結 ------------------------------- 歡迎針對這一集留言你的想法： 留言連結 主題投稿/意見回覆 : ask15mins@gmail.com 官方網站：www.15mins.today 加入Clubhouse直播室：https://15minsengcafe.pse.is/46hm8k 訂閱YouTube頻道：https://15minsengcafe.pse.is/3rhuuy 商業合作/贊助來信：15minstoday@gmail.com ------------------------------- 以下是此單集逐字稿 (播放器有不同字數限制，完整文稿可到官網) ------------------------------- 國際時事跟讀 Ep.K707: Vegan vs. Omnivore: A Twin Study Reveals Surprising Health Differences Highlights 主題摘要：Health Benefits of Vegan Diet: The study highlights a 10-15% reduction in LDL cholesterol, 25% decrease in insulin levels, and 3% weight loss among twins on a vegan diet.Plant-Based Richness: A vegan diet, excluding animal products, is noted for its higher fiber, vitamins, minerals, and phytonutrients, promoting cardiovascular health.Gradual Shifts for Health: Individuals need not fully embrace veganism; gradual reductions in meat consumption can still yield positive cardiovascular and weight-related outcomes. In a groundbreaking study, researchers examined the impact of a vegan diet on genetically identical twins and discovered remarkable differences in health outcomes. The study, conducted by Christopher Gardner, a research professor of medicine at the Stanford Prevention Research Center, compared twins who followed a vegan diet for eight weeks with those adhering to an omnivore diet of meat and vegetables. 在一項開創性的研究中，研究人員探討了純素飲食對基因相同的雙胞胎的影響，發現了在健康結果方面的顯著差異。這項研究由史丹佛預防研究中心的醫學研究教授克里斯多福·加德納（Christopher Gardner）主持，研究人員針對採用純素飲食和以肉類和蔬菜為主的雜食的雙胞胎進行比較。 The vegan group experienced a notable 10% to 15% reduction in "bad" LDL cholesterol, a 25% decrease in insulin levels, and a 3% weight loss within the short duration of the study. Gardner emphasized that these improvements were achieved solely through consuming real food without any animal products, highlighting the potential health benefits of a plant-based diet. 在短暫的研究期內，純素組經歷了明顯的「壞」低密度脂蛋白（LDL）膽固醇降低10%至15%，胰島素水平降低25%，體重減輕了3%。加德納強調，這些改善僅通過食用不含任何動物產品的真實食物實現，突顯了植物性飲食的潛在健康益處。 A vegan diet, distinct from a vegetarian one, excludes not only animal flesh but also dairy, eggs, and other animal-derived ingredients. Gardner explained that a plant-based diet tends to be higher in fiber, vitamins, minerals, and phytonutrients compared to other dietary patterns. 與素食不同，純素飲食不僅不食用動物肉，也不用乳製品、雞蛋和其他動物衍生原料。加德納解釋說，植物性飲食往往在纖維、維生素、礦物質和植物營養素方面比其他飲食模式更高。 The study, involving 22 pairs of genetically identical twins, aimed to control genetic and environmental factors by using the unique twin design. Although the findings may not be universally applicable, the results underscore the potential advantages of a diet rich in unsaturated fats, whole grains, fiber, and vegetables, as endorsed by current dietary guidelines to reduce cardiovascular disease risk. 這項研究共有22對基因相同的雙胞胎參與，目標通過獨特的雙胞胎設計來控制基因和環境因素。儘管研究的發現可能並不普遍適用，但結果強調了富含不飽和脂肪、全穀物、纖維和蔬菜飲食的潛在優勢，這也符合目前飲食指南所認可的減少心血管疾病風險的方法。 During the study, meals were provided to each twin for the first four weeks, emphasizing the importance of healthy vegan choices. Both groups experienced dietary improvements, with the omnivore group consuming more vegetables, whole grains, and fewer added sugars and refined grains. The subsequent four weeks required the twins to prepare their own diet-appropriate meals, leading to sustained positive changes in biological markers. 在研究期間，前四周為每對雙胞胎提供餐點，強調選擇健康素食的重要性。兩組人都經歷了飲食改善，雜食組攝取了更多的蔬菜、全穀物，減少了添加糖和精製穀物。接下來的四周要求雙胞胎準備適合自己飲食的餐點，從而對生理指標產生持續的正向改變。 While the vegan diet demonstrated quick health improvements, Gardner acknowledged the challenges of adherence due to its restrictive nature. However, he emphasized that individuals don't need to fully adopt a vegan lifestyle to benefit from healthier eating habits. Gradual reductions in meat and animal byproduct consumption can still yield positive health outcomes. 雖然純素飲食能快速的改善健康，但加德納也承認，由於其限制，堅持純素有挑戰性。然而，他強調個人無需完全採用純素生活方式，就能從更健康的飲食習慣中受益。逐步減少肉類和動物副產品的攝取量，也能夠產生正面的健康效果。 Keyword Drills 關鍵字：Genetically (ge-net-i-cal-ly): In a groundbreaking study, researchers examined the impact of a vegan diet on genetically identical twins and discovered remarkable differences in health outcomes.Vegetarian (veg-e-tar-i-an): A vegan diet, distinct from a vegetarian one, excludes not only animal flesh but also dairy, eggs, and other animal-derived ingredients.Phytonutrients (Phy-to-nu-tri-ents): Gardner explained that a plant-based diet tends to be higher in fiber, vitamins, minerals, and phytonutrients compared to other dietary patterns.Unsaturate (un-sat-u-rate): "The results underscore the potential advantages of a diet rich in unsaturated fats, whole grains, fiber, and vegetables."Cardiovascular (car-di-o-vas-cu-lar): Although the findings may not be universally applicable, the results underscore the potential advantages of a diet rich in unsaturated fats, whole grains, fiber, and vegetables, as endorsed by current dietary guidelines to reduce cardiovascular disease risk.Reference article: https://edition.cnn.com/2023/11/30/health/vegan-twin-study-wellness/index.html

"Geh mal Bier holn, du wirst schon wieder hässlich!" lautet der Titel eines Partyschlagers von Micky Krause. So streitbar die Aussage des Liedes auch sein mag, ist sie doch ein Beleg für den weit verbreiteten Mythos, dass wir uns unser Gegenüber schöntrinken können. Der Mythos ist sogar so weit verbreitet, dass es das Wort schöntrinken in den Duden geschafft hat. Doch ist da überhaupt etwas dran oder ist das sogenannte "Schönsaufen" ein Mythos? Forschende vom Stanford Prevention Research Center in Kalifornien sind dieser Frage in einer Studie, die im "Journal for Studies of Alcohol and Drugs" veröffentlicht wurde, auf den Grund gegangen. Dazu haben sie Probanden in einer simulierten Trinksituation, die der Realität möglichst nahe kommen sollte, die Attraktivität von Personen beurteilen lassen. Die Probanden waren dabei in der Annahme, dass sie die vorgestellten Personen zu einem späteren Zeitpunkt auch kennenlernen würden. Die Forschenden entdeckten, dass der Blutalkoholgehalt zwar keinen Einfluss auf die Wahrnehmung von Attraktivität hat, aber die Bereitschaft der Männer erhöhte, mit den begehrten Personen in Kontakt treten zu wollen. Über den Alkoholkonsum im Dienst der Wissenschaft sprechen wir jetzt mit Dr. Mark Benecke. | Diese Podcast-Episode steht unter der Creative Commons Lizenz CC BY-NC-ND 4.0.

"Geh mal Bier holn, du wirst schon wieder hässlich!" lautet der Titel eines Partyschlagers von Micky Krause. So streitbar die Aussage des Liedes auch sein mag, ist sie doch ein Beleg für den weit verbreiteten Mythos, dass wir uns unser Gegenüber schöntrinken können. Der Mythos ist sogar so weit verbreitet, dass es das Wort schöntrinken in den Duden geschafft hat. Doch ist da überhaupt etwas dran oder ist das sogenannte "Schönsaufen" ein Mythos? Forschende vom Stanford Prevention Research Center in Kalifornien sind dieser Frage in einer Studie, die im "Journal for Studies of Alcohol and Drugs" veröffentlicht wurde, auf den Grund gegangen. Dazu haben sie Probanden in einer simulierten Trinksituation, die der Realität möglichst nahe kommen sollte, die Attraktivität von Personen beurteilen lassen. Die Probanden waren dabei in der Annahme, dass sie die vorgestellten Personen zu einem späteren Zeitpunkt auch kennenlernen würden. Die Forschenden entdeckten, dass der Blutalkoholgehalt zwar keinen Einfluss auf die Wahrnehmung von Attraktivität hat, aber die Bereitschaft der Männer erhöhte, mit den begehrten Personen in Kontakt treten zu wollen. Über den Alkoholkonsum im Dienst der Wissenschaft sprechen wir jetzt mit Dr. Mark Benecke. | Diese Podcast-Episode steht unter der Creative Commons Lizenz CC BY-NC-ND 4.0.

"Geh mal Bier holn, du wirst schon wieder hässlich!" lautet der Titel eines Partyschlagers von Micky Krause. So streitbar die Aussage des Liedes auch sein mag, ist sie doch ein Beleg für den weit verbreiteten Mythos, dass wir uns unser Gegenüber schöntrinken können. Der Mythos ist sogar so weit verbreitet, dass es das Wort schöntrinken in den Duden geschafft hat. Doch ist da überhaupt etwas dran oder ist das sogenannte "Schönsaufen" ein Mythos? Forschende vom Stanford Prevention Research Center in Kalifornien sind dieser Frage in einer Studie, die im "Journal for Studies of Alcohol and Drugs" veröffentlicht wurde, auf den Grund gegangen. Dazu haben sie Probanden in einer simulierten Trinksituation, die der Realität möglichst nahe kommen sollte, die Attraktivität von Personen beurteilen lassen. Die Probanden waren dabei in der Annahme, dass sie die vorgestellten Personen zu einem späteren Zeitpunkt auch kennenlernen würden. Die Forschenden entdeckten, dass der Blutalkoholgehalt zwar keinen Einfluss auf die Wahrnehmung von Attraktivität hat, aber die Bereitschaft der Männer erhöhte, mit den begehrten Personen in Kontakt treten zu wollen. Über den Alkoholkonsum im Dienst der Wissenschaft sprechen wir jetzt mit Dr. Mark Benecke. | Diese Podcast-Episode steht unter der Creative Commons Lizenz CC BY-NC-ND 4.0.

Here to guide us toward an evidence-based, rational model for nutritional health and teach us how to distinguish good nutrition science is one of the world's leading and most innovative researchers, Christopher Gardner, Ph.D. Dr. Gardner is the Director of Nutrition Studies at the Stanford Prevention Research Center and a Rehnborg Farquhar Professor of Medicine at Stanford University. He's been researching the health effects of a plant-based diet for 20 years, and his research has provided significant and practical health insights to better inform our everyday dietary decisions. Today we dive into the following topics: What we know and don't know about diet, weight loss, obesity, diabetes, heart & metabolic health; the diet wars: plant-based vs. carnivore vs. Mediterranean & low-fat vs. low carb; common misconceptions about protein requirements; the importance of personalized nutrition and finding a sustainable diet for long-term success; what makes a rigorous scientific study and why knowing a study's funding source is important; what defines a healthy microbiome; and why diet is the most under-appreciated, underutilized factor in preventing disease. Dr. Gardner is an absolute delight. It was an honor to spend time with him. I hope you find his insights clarifying, informative, actionable—and perhaps even life-saving. Show notes + MORE Watch on YouTube Newsletter Sign-Up Today's Sponsors: ROKA: roka.com/RICHROLL On: on-running.com/stories/rich-roll AG1: drinkaG1.com/RICHROLL InsideTracker: insidetracker.com/RICHROLL Whoop: whoop.com Athletic Brewing: athleticbrewing.com  Plant Power Meal Planner: https://meals.richroll.com Peace + Plants, Rich

What's the best way to lose weight, and keep it off for good? Does your body prefer a low-fat or a low-carb diet? The body's metabolism rate, genes, and microbiomes can all affect the way we lose or gain weight. The good news? The field of personalized nutrition will likely soon be able to give you a full list of which foods will help your body lose weight, and which will contribute to weight gain.  Medcan's director of food and nutrition, Leslie Beck chats with Dr. Christopher Gardner, the director of nutrition studies at the Stanford Prevention Research Center. They explore the implications of Dr. Gardner's research into the different ways that low-carb and low-fat diets can affect different bodies. Check out the episode webpage for links and more info.

All this week, the Brian Lehrer Show will be taking a closer look at some of the most pervasive nutrition myths with Sophie Egan, author of How to Be a Conscious Eater: Making Food Choices That Are Good for You, Others, and the Planet (Workman, 2020), and contributor to the New York Times, most recently the article "10 Nutrition Myths Experts Wish Would Die." Today, busting the myths that you should never give small babies peanuts, and that you can't get enough protein with a vegetarian diet with Christopher Gardner, director of nutrition studies at the Stanford Prevention Research Center and the Rehnborg Farquhar Professor of Medicine at Stanford University.

Join host Mario Espinoza-Kulick as he speaks with guests from the San Luis Obispo Tobacco Control Program Amy Gilman, Program Manager for Tobacco Control at the County of San Luis Obispo, Trent Johnson, Co-Chair San Luis Obispo County Tobacco Control Coalition, as well as the Program Manager of the Tobacco Policy Studies research group at the Stanford Prevention Research Center, and Ari Khalameyzer, Cal Poly Public Health Club President. They will discuss how communities on the Central Coast can work together to decrease teen and adult tobacco use and in turn save lives.Broadcast date: 11/3/2022Central Coast Voices is sponsored by ACTION for Healthy Communities in collaboration with KCBX and made possible through underwriting by Joan Gellert-Sargen.

In this podcast conversation with Matthew Landry, a nutrition and health promotion postdoctoral fellow and registered dietitian at the Stanford Prevention Research Center, Clancy and Matt dig into how to normalizing the provision of basic needs for students can help with their mental health, wellness, and future performance in school and the workforce.

每日英語跟讀 Ep.K374: Scientists Find No Benefit to Time-Restricted Eating   The weight-loss idea is appealing: Limit your eating to a period of six to eight hours each day, during which you can have whatever you want. 減肥的方法很有吸引力：將你的飲食限制在每天六到八小時，在此期間你可以吃任何你想要的東西。 Studies in mice seemed to support so-called time-restricted eating, a form of the popular intermittent fasting diet. Small studies of people with obesity suggested it might help shed pounds. 對老鼠的研究似乎支持所謂的限時飲食，這是一種流行的間歇性禁食飲食。對肥胖人群的小型研究表明，它可能有助於減輕體重。 But now, a one-year study in which people followed a low-calorie diet between the hours of 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. or consumed the same number of calories anytime during the day has failed to find an effect. 但現在，一項為期一年的研究表明，人們在上午 8 點到下午 4 點之間遵循低熱量飲食。或在一天中的任何時間消耗相同數量的卡路里都沒有發現效果。 The bottom line, said Dr. Ethan Weiss, a diet researcher at the University of California, San Francisco: “There is no benefit to eating in a narrow window.” 最重要的是，舊金山加利福尼亞大學的飲食研究員 Ethan Weiss 博士說：“在狹窄的時間裡吃飯沒有任何好處。” The study, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, was led by researchers at Southern Medical University in Guangzhou, China, and included 139 people with obesity. Women ate 1,200 to 1,500 calories a day, and men consumed 1,500 to 1,800 calories daily. To ensure compliance, participants were required to photograph every bit of food they ate and to keep food diaries. 該研究發表在《新英格蘭醫學雜誌》上，由中國廣州南方醫科大學的研究人員領導，包括 139 名肥胖患者。女性吃了 1,200 到每天 1,500 卡路里，男性每天消耗 1,500 到 1,800 卡路里。為確保合規，參與者被要求拍攝他們吃的每一口食物並記錄食物日記。 Both groups lost weight — an average of about 14 to 18 pounds — but there was no significant difference in the amounts of weight lost with either diet strategy. There also were no significant differences between the groups in measures of waist circumference, body fat and lean body mass. 兩組都減輕了體重——平均約 14 至 18 磅——但兩種飲食策略的體重減輕量沒有顯著差異。也沒有顯著各組在腰圍、體脂和瘦體重方面的差異。 The scientists also found no differences in such risk factors as blood glucose levels, sensitivity to insulin, blood lipids or blood pressure. 科學家們還發現血糖水平、對胰島素的敏感性、血脂或血壓等風險因素沒有差異。 “These results indicate that caloric intake restriction explained most of the beneficial effects seen with the time-restricted eating regimen,” Weiss and his colleagues concluded. “這些結果表明，熱量攝取限制解釋了限時飲食方案的大部分有益效果，”Weiss 和他的同事總結道。 Christopher Gardner, director of nutrition studies at the Stanford Prevention Research Center, said he wouldn't be surprised if time-restricted eating nonetheless worked on occasion. 斯坦福預防研究中心營養研究主任克里斯托弗·加德納（Christopher Gardner）表示，如果限時飲食偶爾奏效，他也不會感到驚訝。 “Almost every type of diet out there works for some people,” he said. “But the take-home supported by this new research is that when subjected to a properly designed and conducted study — scientific investigation — it is not any more helpful than simply reducing daily calorie intake for weight loss and health factors.” “幾乎所有類型的飲食都適用於某些人，”他說。 “但這項新研究支持的結論是，當進行適當設計和進行的研究——科學研究——它並沒有比簡單地減少每日卡路里攝入量來減輕體重和健康因素更有幫助。”Source article: https://udn.com/news/story/6904/6294472

Today's episode is focused on Nutrition Science. We are speaking with Dr. Christopher D. Gardner, who is the Rehnborg Farquhar Professor of Medicine at Stanford University, and the Director of Nutrition Studies at the Stanford Prevention Research Center. Dr. Gardner has recently shifted much of his energies to a second and more challenging question: What forces and factors can successfully motivate people to improve their food and beverage choice behaviors? To address this question, he has collaborated with scholars and researchers from across all seven of Stanford's undergraduate and graduate schools. He is also currently collaborating with chefs and dining operators from Stanford's Residential and Dining Enterprises, and the Culinary Institute of America, with an emphasis on elevating the unapologetic deliciousness of food. Today we will discuss common Nutrition Myths and talk about ways to encourage patients to eat healthier foods, to support their nutritional needs. Read Transcript CME Information: https://stanford.cloud-cme.com/medcastepisode39 Claim CE: https://stanford.cloud-cme.com/Form.aspx?FormID=1158

This week we sit down with Matthew Landry who is a Health Promotion Research at Stanford Prevention Research Center.

In Episode #191 I sit down with Stanford University Professor's Dr Christopher Gardner and Dr Justin Sonnenburg to talk about fermented foods, fibre, gut health and immunity. This conversation was organised following the results of their latest randomised controlled trial 'Gut-microbiota-targeted diets modulate human immune status' which was published in Cell Press in 2021. In this conversation we cover: Dr Sonnenburg's background and journey into studying the microbiome Defining the terms ‘microbiome' and ‘microbiota The development of technology in learning more about the microbiome What defines a healthy microbiome and dysbiosis Studying the microbiomes of traditional populations such as the Hadza tribe The benefits of microbiome diversity Lack of microbiome diversity Intestinal permeability How Justin and Christopher came to working together The mission behind their study of fibre and fermented foods The methodology of the study The definition of fermented foods Microbes being added to packaged fermented foods What the study found in terms of fermented food Conducting studies with humans vs animals What can the study tell us about the effectiveness of probiotics Sodium in fermented foods What the study found in terms of fibre intake Accuracy of stool/microbiome testing Key takeaways from the study and plenty more Justin Sonnenburg, PhD bio: Dr Sonnenburg is an associate professor in the Department of Microbiology and Immunology at the Stanford University School of Medicine, where he studies the gut microbiota in health and disease and co-directs the Center for Human Microbiome Studies. He and his wife Erica, are the authors of the book The Good Gut: Taking Control of Your Weight, Your Mood, and Your Long-Term Health. Their laboratory at Stanford develops and employs diverse technologies to understand basic principles that govern interactions within the intestinal microbiota and between the microbiota and the host. An ongoing objective of the research program is to devise and implement innovative strategies to prevent and treat disease in humans via the gut microbiota. Current pursuits include genetic engineering commensal bacteria to enable therapeutic delivery within the gut, as well as understanding the health impact of microbiome change that has occurred during industrialization. Justin conducted his Ph.D. in Biomedical Sciences at the University of California, San Diego in the laboratory of Ajit Varki. His postdoctoral work was conducted at Washington University in Saint Louis, Missouri in the laboratory of Jeffrey Gordon. He has received an NIH Director's New Innovator Award and Pioneer Award. He serves on several scientific advisory boards and is a co-founder of Novome Biotechnologies. Christopher Gardner, PhD bio: Dr Gardner is the Rehnborg Farquhar professor of medicine at Stanford, the director of Stanford Prevention Research Center's (SPRC) Nutrition Studies Group, and the director of the SPRC postdoctoral research fellow training program. His primary research focus for the past decade has been randomized controlled nutrition intervention trials (soy, garlic, antioxidants, ginkgo, omega-3 fats, vegetarian diets, weight loss diets), testing the effects of these on chronic disease risk factors that have included blood cholesterol, weight, inflammatory markers, and the microbiome. His research interests have recently shifted to two new areas. The first is to approach helping individuals make healthful improvements in diet through motivators beyond health, linking to ongoing social

In Episode #191 I sit down with Stanford University Professor's Dr Christopher Gardner and Dr Justin Sonnenburg to talk about fermented foods, fibre, gut health and immunity. This conversation was organised following the results of their latest randomised controlled trial 'Gut-microbiota-targeted diets modulate human immune status' which was published in Cell Press in 2021.In this conversation we cover:Dr Sonnenburg's background and journey into studying the microbiomeDefining the terms ‘microbiome' and ‘microbiotaThe development of technology in learning more about the microbiomeWhat defines a healthy microbiome and dysbiosisStudying the microbiomes of traditional populations such as the Hadza tribeThe benefits of microbiome diversityLack of microbiome diversityIntestinal permeabilityHow Justin and Christopher came to working togetherThe mission behind their study of fibre and fermented foodsThe methodology of the studyThe definition of fermented foodsMicrobes being added to packaged fermented foodsWhat the study found in terms of fermented foodConducting studies with humans vs animalsWhat can the study tell us about the effectiveness of probioticsSodium in fermented foodsWhat the study found in terms of fibre intakeAccuracy of stool/microbiome testingKey takeaways from the studyand plenty moreJustin Sonnenburg, PhD bio:Dr Sonnenburg is an associate professor in the Department of Microbiology and Immunology at the Stanford University School of Medicine, where he studies the gut microbiota in health and disease and co-directs the Center for Human Microbiome Studies. He and his wife Erica, are the authors of the book The Good Gut: Taking Control of Your Weight, Your Mood, and Your Long-Term Health. Their laboratory at Stanford develops and employs diverse technologies to understand basic principles that govern interactions within the intestinal microbiota and between the microbiota and the host. An ongoing objective of the research program is to devise and implement innovative strategies to prevent and treat disease in humans via the gut microbiota. Current pursuits include genetic engineering commensal bacteria to enable therapeutic delivery within the gut, as well as understanding the health impact of microbiome change that has occurred during industrialization. Justin conducted his Ph.D. in Biomedical Sciences at the University of California, San Diego in the laboratory of Ajit Varki. His postdoctoral work was conducted at Washington University in Saint Louis, Missouri in the laboratory of Jeffrey Gordon. He has received an NIH Director's New Innovator Award and Pioneer Award. He serves on several scientific advisory boards and is a co-founder of Novome Biotechnologies.Christopher Gardner, PhD bio:Dr Gardner is the Rehnborg Farquhar professor of medicine at Stanford, the director of Stanford Prevention Research Center's (SPRC) Nutrition Studies Group, and the director of the SPRC postdoctoral research fellow training program. His primary research focus for the past decade has been randomized controlled nutrition intervention trials (soy, garlic, antioxidants, ginkgo, omega-3 fats, vegetarian diets, weight loss diets), testing the effects of these on chronic disease risk factors that have included blood cholesterol, weight, inflammatory markers, and the microbiome. His research interests have recently shifted to two new areas. The first is to approach helping individuals make healthful improvements in diet through motivators beyond health, linking to ongoing social movements around animal rights and welfare, climate change, and social justice, and their relationships to food. The second is to focus less on trying to improve individual behaviors around food, and more on a food systems approach that addresses the quality of food provided by universities, worksites, hospitals, schools, etc., using a community-based participatory research approach and taking advantage of the many complementary disciplines represented on the Stanford campus, such as medicine, business, education, law, and earth sciences.Resources:The new study on fermented foods, fibre and the immune systemDr Gardner on TwitterThe Sonnenburg lab on TwitterSonnenburg Lab websiteThe Good Gut by Drs Justin & Erica SonnenburgPrevious episodes with Dr Christopher Gardner on plant-based meat and low versus high carb diets and weight loss.Want to support the show?If you are enjoying the Plant Proof podcast a great way to support the show is by leaving a review on the Apple podcast app. It only takes a few minutes and helps more people find the episodes.Simon Hill, Nutritionist, Sports PhysiotherapistCreator of Plantproof.com and host of the Plant Proof PodcastAuthor of The Proof is in the PlantsConnect with me on Instagram and TwitterDownload my two week meal plan

About FrankFrank Chen is a maker. He develops products and leads software engineering teams with a background in behavior design, engineering leadership, systems reliability engineering, and resiliency research. At Slack, Frank focuses on making engineers' lives simpler, more pleasant, and more productive, in the Developer Productivity group. At Palantir, Frank has worked with customers in healthcare, finance, government, energy and consumer packaged goods to solve their hardest problems by transforming how they use data. At Amazon, Frank led a front-end team and infrastructure team to launch AWS WorkDocs, the first secure multi-platform service of its kind for enterprise customers. At Sandia National Labs, Frank researched resiliency and complexity analysis tooling with the Grid Resiliency group. He received a M.S. in Computer Science focused in Human-Computer Interaction from Stanford. Frank's thesis studied how the design / psychology of exergaming interventions might produce efficacious health outcomes. With the Stanford Prevention Research Center, Frank developed health interventions rooted in behavioral theory to create new behaviors through mobile phones. He prototyped early builds of Tiny Habits with BJ Fogg and worked in the Persuasive Technology Lab. He received a B.S. in Computer Science from UCLA. Frank researched networked systems and image processing with the Center for embedded Networked Systems. With the Rand Corporation, he built research systems to support group decision-making.Links: Slack: https://slack.com “Infrastructure Observability for Changing the Spend Curve”: https://slack.engineering/infrastructure-observability-for-changing-the-spend-curve/ “Right Sizing Your Instances Is Nonsense”: https://www.lastweekinaws.com/blog/right-sizing-your-instances-is-nonsense/ Personal webpage: https://frankc.net Twitter: @frankc TranscriptAnnouncer: Hello, and welcome to Screaming in the Cloud with your host, Chief Cloud Economist at The Duckbill Group, Corey Quinn. This weekly show features conversations with people doing interesting work in the world of cloud, thoughtful commentary on the state of the technical world, and ridiculous titles for which Corey refuses to apologize. This is Screaming in the Cloud.Corey: It seems like there is a new security breach every day. Are you confident that an old SSH key, or a shared admin account, isn't going to come back and bite you? If not, check out Teleport. Teleport is the easiest, most secure way to access all of your infrastructure. The open source Teleport Access Plane consolidates everything you need for secure access to your Linux and Windows servers—and I assure you there is no third option there. Kubernetes clusters, databases, and internal applications like AWS Management Console, Yankins, GitLab, Grafana, Jupyter Notebooks, and more. Teleport's unique approach is not only more secure, it also improves developer productivity. To learn more visit: goteleport.com. And not, that is not me telling you to go away, it is: goteleport.com. Corey: This episode is sponsored by our friends at Oracle Cloud. Counting the pennies, but still dreaming of deploying apps instead of "Hello, World" demos? Allow me to introduce you to Oracle's Always Free tier. It provides over 20 free services and infrastructure, networking, databases, observability, management, and security. And—let me be clear here—it's actually free. There's no surprise billing until you intentionally and proactively upgrade your account. This means you can provision a virtual machine instance or spin up an autonomous database that manages itself all while gaining the networking load, balancing and storage resources that somehow never quite make it into most free tiers needed to support the application that you want to build. With Always Free, you can do things like run small scale applications or do proof-of-concept testing without spending a dime. You know that I always like to put asterisks next to the word free. This is actually free, no asterisk. Start now. Visit snark.cloud/oci-free that's snark.cloud/oci-free.Corey: Welcome to Screaming in the Cloud. I'm Corey Quinn. Several people are undoubtedly angrily typing, and part of the reason they can do that, and the fact that I know that is because we're all using Slack. My guest today is Frank Chen, senior staff software engineer at Slack. So, I guess, sort of… [sales force 00:00:53]. Frank, thanks for joining me.Frank: Hey, Corey, I have been a longtime listener and follower, and just really delighted to be here.Corey: It's one of the weird things about doing a podcast is that for better or worse, people don't respond to it in the same way that they do writing a newsletter, for example, because you receive an email, and, “Oh, well, I know how to write an email. I can hit reply and send an email back and give that jackwagon a piece of my mind,” and people often do. But with podcasts, I feel like it's much more closely attuned to the idea of an AM radio talk show. And who calls into a radio talk show? Lunatics, and most people don't self-describe as lunatics, so they don't want to do that.But then when I catch up with people one-on-one or at events in person, I find out that a lot more people listen to this show than I thought they did. Because I don't trust podcast statistics because lies, damn lies, and analytics are sort of how I view this world. So, you've worked at a bunch of different companies. You're at Slack now, which, of course, upsets some people because, “Slack is ruining the way that people come and talk to me in the office.” Or it's making it easier for employees to collaborate internally in ways their employers wish they wouldn't. But that's neither here nor there.Before this, you were at Palantir, and before this, you're at Amazon, working on Amazon WorkDocs of all things, which is supposedly rumored to have at least one customer somewhere, but I've never seen them. Before that you were at Sandia National Labs, and you've gotten a master's in computer science from Stanford. You've done a lot of things and everything you've done, on some level, seems like the recurring theme is someone on Twitter will be unhappy at you for a career choice you've made. But what is the common thread—in seriousness—between the different places that you've been?Frank: One thing that's been a driver for where I work is finding amazing people to work with and building something that I believe is valuable and fun to keep doing. The thing that brought me to Slack is I became my own Slack admin, [laugh] when I met a girl and we moved in together into a small apartment in Brooklyn. And she had a cat that, you know, is a sweetheart, but also just doesn't know how to be social. Yes, you covered that with ‘cat.' Part of moving it together, I became my own Slack admin and discovered well, we can build a series of home automations to better train and inform our little command center for when the cat lies about being fed, or not fed, clipping his nails, and discovering and tracking bad behaviors. In a lot of ways this was like the human side of a lot of the data work that I had been doing at my previous role. And it was like a fun way to use the same frameworks that I use at work to better train and be a cat caretaker.Corey: Now, at some point, you know that some product manager at Amazon is listening to this and immediately sketching notes because their product strategy is, “Yes,” and this is going to be productized and shipping in two years as Amazon Prime Meow. But until then we'll enjoy the originality of having a Slack bot more or less control the home automation slash making your house seem haunted for anyone who didn't write the code themselves. There's an idea of solving real world problems that I definitely understand. I mean, and again, it might not even be a fair question entirely. Just because I am… for better or worse, staggering through my world, and trying—and failing most days—to tell a narrative that, “Oh, why did I start my tech career at a university, and then spend time in ad tech, and then spend time in consulting, and then FinTech, and the rest?” And the answer is, “Oh, I get fired an awful lot, and that sucked.”So, instead of going down that particular rabbit hole of a mess, I went in other directions. I started finding things that would pay me and pay me more money because I was in debt at the time. But that was the narrative thread that was the, “I have rent to pay and they have computers that aren't behaving properly.” And that's what dictated the shape of my career for a long time. It's only in retrospect that I started to identify some of the things that aligns with it. But it's easy to look at it with the shine of hindsight and not realize that no, no, that's sort of retconning what happened in the past.Frank: Yeah, I have a mentor and my former adviser had this way of describing, building out the jankiest prototype you can to prove out an idea. And this manifested in his class in building out paper prototypes, or really, really janky ideas for what helping people through technology might look like. And I feel like it a lot of ways, even when those prototypes fail, like, in a career or some half baked tech prototype I put together, it might succeed and great, we could keep building upon that, but when it fails, you actually discover, “Oh, this is one way that I didn't succeed.” And even in doing so, you discover things about yourself, your way of building, and maybe a little bit about your infrastructure, or whatever it is that you build on a day-to-day basis. And wrapping that back to the original question, it's like, well, we think we're human beings, right, we're static, but in a lot of ways we're human becomings. We think we know what the future might look like with our careers, what we're building on a day-to-day basis, and what we're building a year from now, but oftentimes, things change if we discover things about ourselves, the people we work with, and ultimately, the things that we put out into the world.Corey: Obviously, I've been aware of who Slack is, for a long time; I've been a paying customer for years because it basically is IRC with reaction gifs, and not having to teach someone how to sign into IRC when they work in accounting. So, the user experience alone solved the problem.Frank: And you've actually worked with us in the past before. [laugh]. Slack, it's the Searchable Log for all Content and Knowledge; I think that backronym, that's how it works. And I was delighted when I had mentioned your jokes and you're trolling [a folk 00:07:00] on Twitter and on your podcast to my former engineering manager, Chris Merrill, who was like, oh, you should search the Slack. Corey actually worked with us and he put together a lot of cool tooling and ideas for us to think about.Corey: Careful. If we talk too much, or what I did when I was at Slack years ago, someone's going to start looking into some of the old commits and whatnot and start demanding an apology, and we don't want that. It's, “Wow, you're right. You are a terrible engineer.” “Told you.” There's a reason I don't do that anymore.Frank: I think that's all of us. [laugh]. An early career mentor of mine, he was like, “Hey, Frank, listen. You think you're building perfect software at any point in time? No, you're building future tech debt.” And yeah, we should put much more emphasis on interfaces and ideas we're putting out because the implementation is going to change over time, and likely your current implementation is shit. And that is, okay.Corey: That's the beautiful part about this is that things grow and things evolve. And it's interesting working with companies, and as a consultant, I tend to build my projects in such a way that I start on day one and people know that I'm leaving with usually a very short window because I don't want to build a forever job for myself; I don't want to show up and start charging by the hour or by the day, if I can possibly avoid it. Because then it turns into eternal projects that never end because I'm billing and nothing's ever done. No, no, I like charging fixed fee and then getting out at a predetermined outcome, but then you get to hear about what happens with companies as they move on.This combines with the fact that I have a persistent alert for my name, usually because I'm looking for various ineffective character assassination from enterprise marketing types because you know, I dish it out, I should certainly be able to take it. But I found a blog post on the Slack engineering blog that mentioned my name, and it's, “Aw, crap. Are they coming after me for a refund?” No, it was not. It was you writing a fairly sizable post. Tell me more about that.Frank: Yeah, I'm part of an organization called Developer Productivity. And our goal is to help folk at Slack deliver services to their customers, where we build, test, and release high quality software. And a lot of our time is spent thinking about internal tooling and making infrastructure bets. As engineers, right, it's like, we have this idea for what the world looks like, we have this idea for what our infrastructure looks like, but what we discover using a set of techniques around observability of just asking questions—advanced questions, basic questions, and hell, even dumb questions—we discover hey, the things that we think our computers are doing aren't actually doing what they say they're doing. And the question is like, great. Now, what? How can we ask better questions? How can we better tune, change, and equip engineers with tooling so that they can do better work to make Slack customers have simple, pleasant, and productive experiences?Corey: And I have to say that there's a lot that Slack does that is incredibly helpful. I don't know that I'm necessarily completely bought into the idea that all work should happen in Slack. It's, well, on some level, I—like people like to debate the ‘should people work from home? Should people all work in an office?' Discussion.And, on some level, it seems if you look at people who are constantly fighting that debate online, it's, “Do you ever do work at all?” on some level. But I'm not here to besmirch others; I'm here to talk about, on some level, what you alluded to in your blog post. But I want to start with a disclaimer that Slack as far as companies go is not small, and if you take a look around, most companies are using Slack whether they know it or not. The list of side-channel Slack groups people have tend to extend massively.I look and I pare it down every once in a while, whenever I cross 40 signed-in Slacks on my desktop. It is where people talk for a wide variety of different reasons, and they all do different things. But if you're sitting here listening to this and you have a $2,000 a month AWS bill, this is not for you. You will spend orders of magnitude more money trying to optimize a small cost. Once you're at significant points of scale, and you have scaled out to the point where you begin to have some ability to predict over months or years, that's what a lot of this stuff starts to weigh in.So, talk to me a bit about how you wound up—and let me quote directly from the article, which is titled, “Infrastructure Observability for Changing the Spend Curve,” and I will, of course, throw a link to this in the [show notes 00:11:38]. But you talk in this about knocking, I believe it was orders of magnitude off of various cost areas within your bill.Frank: Yeah. The article itself describes three big-ish projects, where we are able to change the curve of the number of tests that we run, and a change in how much it costs to run any single test.Corey: When you say test, are you talking CI/CD infrastructure test or code test, to make sure it goes out, or are you talking something higher up the stack, as far as, “Huh, let's see how some users respond when, I don't know, we send four notifications on every message instead of the usual one,” to give a ridiculous example?Frank: Yeah, this is in the CI/CD pipelines. And one of these projects was around borrowing some concepts from data engineering: oversubscription and planning your capacity to have access capacity at peak, where at peak, your engineers might have a 5% degradation in performance, while still maintaining high resiliency and reliability of your tests in order to oversubscribe, either CPU or memory and keep throughput on the overall system stable and consistent and fast enough. I think, with spend in developer productivity, I think, both, like, the metrics you're trying to move and why you're optimizing for it at any given time are, like, this, like, calculus. Or it's like, more art than science in that there's no one right answer, right? It's like, oh, yeah—very naively—like, yeah, let's throw the biggest machines most expensive machines we can at any given problem. But that doesn't solve the crux of your problem. It's like, “Hey, what are the things in your system doing?” And what is the right guess to capitalize around how much to spend on your CI/CD [unintelligible 00:13:39] is oftentimes not precise, nor is this blog article meant to be prescriptive.Corey: Yeah, it depends entirely on what you're doing and how because it's, on some level, well, we can save a whole bunch of money if we slow all of our CI/CD runs down by 20 minutes. Yeah, but then you have a bunch of engineers sitting idle and I promise you, that costs a hell of a lot more than your cloud bill is going to be. The payroll is almost always a larger expense than your infrastructure costs, and if it's not, you should seriously consider firing at least part of your data science team, but you didn't hear it from me.Frank: Yeah. And part of the exploration on profiling and performance and resiliency was, like, around interrogating what the boundaries and what the constraints were for our CI/CD pipelines. Because Slack has grown in engineering and in the number of tests we were running on a month-to-month basis; for a while from 2017 to mid 2020, we were growing about 10% month-over-month in test suite execution numbers. Which means on a given year, we doubled almost two times, which is quite a bit of strain on internal resources and a lot of dependent services where—and internal systems, we oftentimes have more complexity and less understood changes in what dependencies your infrastructure might be using, what business logic your internal services are using to communicate with one another than you do your production.And so, by, like, performing a series of curiosity-driven development, we're able to both answer, at that point in time, what our customers internally were doing, and start to put together ideas for eliminating some bottlenecks, and hell, even adding bottlenecks with circuit breakers where you keep the overall throughput of your system stable, while deferring or canceling work that otherwise might have overloaded dependencies.Corey: There's a lot to be said for understanding what the optimization opportunities are, in an environment and understanding what it is you're attempting to achieve. Having those test for something like Slack makes an awful lot of sense because let's be very clear here, when you're building an application that acts as something people use to do expense reports—to cite one of my previous job examples—it turns out you can be down for a week and a majority of your customers will never know or care. With Slack, it doesn't work that way. Everyone more or less has a continuous monitor that they're typing into for a good portion of the day—angrily or otherwise—and as soon as it misses anything, people know. And if there's one thing that I love, on some level, seeing change when I know that Slack is having a blip, even if I'm not using Slack that day for anything in particular, because Twitter explodes about it. “Slack is down. I'm now going to tweet some stuff to my colleagues.” All right. You do you, I suppose.And credit where due, Slack doesn't go down nearly as often as it used to because as you tend to figure out how these things work, operational maturity increases through a bunch of tests. Fixing things like durability, reliability, uptime, et cetera, should always, to some extent, take precedence priority-wise over let's save some money. Because yeah, you could turn everything off and save all the money, but then you don't have a business anymore. It's focused on where to cut, where to optimize in the right way, and ideally as you go, find some of the areas in which, oh, I'm paying AWS a tax for just going about my business. And I could have flipped a switch at any point and saved—“How much money? Oh, my God, that's more than I'll make in my lifetime.”Frank: Yeah, and one thing I talk about a little bit is distributed tracing as one of the drivers for helping us understand what's happening inside of our systems. Where it helps you figure out and it's like this… [best word 00:17:24] to describe how you ask questions of deployed code? And there a lot of ways it's helped us understand existing bottlenecks and identify opportunities for performance or resiliency gains because your past janky Band-Aids become more and more obvious when you can interrogate and ask questions around what is it performing like it used to? Or what has changed recently?Corey: This episode is sponsored in part by something new. Cloud Academy is a training platform built on two primary goals. Having the highest quality content in tech and cloud skills, and building a good community the is rich and full of IT and engineering professionals. You wouldn't think those things go together, but sometimes they do. Its both useful for individuals and large enterprises, but here's what makes it new. I don't use that term lightly. Cloud Academy invites you to showcase just how good your AWS skills are. For the next four weeks you'll have a chance to prove yourself. Compete in four unique lab challenges, where they'll be awarding more than $2000 in cash and prizes. I'm not kidding, first place is a thousand bucks. Pre-register for the first challenge now, one that I picked out myself on Amazon SNS image resizing, by visiting cloudacademy.com/corey. C-O-R-E-Y. That's cloudacademy.com/corey. We're gonna have some fun with this one!Corey: It's also worth pointing out that as systems grow organically, that it is almost impossible for any one person to have it all in their head anymore. I saw one of the most overly complicated architecture flow trees that I think I've seen in recent memory, and it was on the Slack engineering blog about how something was architected, but it wasn't the Slack app itself; it was simply the [decision tree for ‘Should we send a notification?' 00:18:17] and it is more complicated than almost anything I've written, except maybe my newsletter content publication pipeline. It is massive. And I'll throw a link to that in the [show notes 00:18:31] as well, just because it is well worth people taking a look at.But there is so much complexity at scale for doing the right thing, and it's necessary because if I'm talking to you on Slack right now and getting notifications every time you reply on my phone, it's not going to take too long before I turn off notifications everywhere, and then I don't notice that Slack is there, and it just becomes useless and I use something else. Ideally, something better—which is hard to come by—moderately worse, like, email or completely worse, like, Microsoft Teams.Frank: I tell all my close collaborators about this. I typically set myself away on Slack because I like to make time for deep, focused work. And that's very hard with a constant stream of notifications. How people use Slack and how people notify others on Slack is, like, not incumbent on the software itself, but it's a reflection of the work culture that you're in. The expectation for an email-driven culture is, like, oh, yeah, you should be reading your email all the time and be able to respond within 30 minutes. Peace, I have friends that are lawyers, [laugh] and that is the expectation at all times of day.Corey: I married one of those. Oh, yeah, people get very salty. And she works with a global team spread everywhere, to the point where she wakes up and there's just a whole flurry of angry people that have tried to reach her in the middle of the night. Like, “Why were you sleeping at 2 a.m.? It's daytime here.” And yeah, time zones. Not everyone understands how they work, from my estimation.Frank: [laugh]. That's funny. My sweetheart is a former attorney. On our first international date, we spent an entire day-and-a-half hopping between WiFi spots in Prague so that she could answer a five minute question from a partner about standard deviations.Corey: So, one thing that you link to that really is what drew my notice to this—because, again, if you talk about AWS cost optimization, I'm probably going to stumble over it, but if you mention my name, that's sort of a nice accelerator—and you linked to my article called Why “Right Sizing Your Instances Is Nonsense.” And that is a little overblown, to some extent, but so many folks talk about it in the cost optimization space because you can get a bunch of metrics and do these things programmatically, and somewhat without observability into what's going on because, “Well, I can see how busy the computers are and if it's not busy, we could use smaller computers. Problem solved,” versus, the things that require a fair bit of insight into what is that thing doing exactly because it leads you into places of oh, turn off that idle fleet that's not doing anything is all labeled ‘backup,' where you're going to have three seconds of notice before it gets all the traffic.There's an idea of sometimes things are the way they are for a reason. And it's also not easy for a lot of things—think databases—to seamlessly just restart the thing and have it scale back up and run on a different instance class. That takes weeks of planning and it's hard. So, I find that people tend to reach for it where it doesn't often make sense. At your level of scale and operational maturity, of course, you should optimize what instance classes things are using and what sizes they are, especially since that stuff changes over time as far as what AWS has made available. But it's not the sort of thing that I suggest as being the first easy thing to go for. It's just what people think is easy because it requires no judgment and computers can do it. At least that's their opinion.Frank: I feel like you probably have a lot more experience than me, and talked about war stories, but I recall working with customers where they want to lift-and-shift on-prem hardware to VMs on-prem. I'm like, “It's not going to be as simple as you're making it out to be.” Whereas, like, the trend today is probably oh, yeah, we're going to shift on-prem VMs to AWS, or hell, like, let's go two levels deeper and just run everything on Kubernetes. Similar workloads, right? It's not going to be a huge challenge. Or [laugh] everything serverless.Corey: Spare me from that entire school of thought, my God.Frank: [laugh].Corey: Yeah, but it's fun, too, because this came out a month ago, and you're talking about using—an example you gave was a c5.9xlarge instance. Great. Well, the c6i is out now as well, so are people going to look at that someday and think, “Oh, wow. That's incredibly quaint.”It's, you wrote this a month ago, and it's already out of date, as far as what a lot of the modern story instances are. From my perspective, one of the best things that AWS has done in this space has been to get away from the reserved instance story and over into savings plans, where it's, “I know, I'm going to run some compute—maybe it's Fargate, maybe it's EC2; let's be serious, it's definitely going to be EC2—but I don't want to tie myself to specific instance types for the next three years.” Great, well, I'm just going to commit to spending some money on AWS for the next three years because if I decide today to move off of it, it's going to take me at least that long to get everything out. So okay, then that becomes something a lot more palatable for an awful lot of folks.Frank: One thing you brought up in the article I linked to is instance types. You think upgrading to the newest instance type will solve all your challenges, but oftentimes it's not obvious that it won't all the time, and in fact, you might even see degraded resiliency and degraded performance because different packages that your software relies upon might not be optimized for the given kernel or CPU type that you're running against. And ultimately, you go back to just asking really basic questions and performing some end-to-end benchmarking so that you can at least get a sense for what your customers are doing today, and maybe make a guess for what they're going to do tomorrow.Corey: I have to ask because I'm always interested in what it is that gives rise to blog posts like this—which, that's easy; it's someone had to do a project on these things, and while we learn things that would probably apply to other folks—like, you're solving what is effectively a global problem locally when you go down this path. It's part of the reason I have a consulting business is things I learned at one company apply almost identically to another company, even though that they're in completely separate industries and parts of the world because AWS billing is, for better or worse, a bounded problem space despite their best efforts to, you know, use quantum computers to fix that. What was it that gave rise to looking at the CI/CD system from an optimization point of view?Frank: So internally, I initially started writing a white paper about, hey, here's a simple question that we can answer, you know, without too much effort. Let's transition all of our C3 instances to C5 instances, and that could have been the one and done. But by thinking about it a little more and kind of drawing out, while we can actually borrow a model for oversubscription from another field, we could potentially decrease our spend by quite a bit. That eventually [laugh] evolved into a 70 page white paper—no joke—that my former engineering manager said, “Frank, no one's going to [BLEEP] read this.” [laugh].Corey: Always. Always, always. Like, here's a whole bunch of academically research and the rest. It's like, “Great. Which of these two buttons do I press?” is really the question people are getting at. And while it's great to have the research and the academic stuff, it's also a, “Great we're trying to achieve an outcome which, what is the choice?” But it's nice to know that people are doing actual research on the back end, instead, “Eh, my gut tells me to take the path on the left because why not? Left is better; right's tricky friend.”Frank: Yeah. And it was like, “Oh, yeah. I accidentally wrote a really long thing because there was, like, a lot of variables to test.” I think we had spun up 16-plus auto-scaling groups. And ran something like the cross-section of a couple of representative test suites against them, as well as configurations for a number of executors per instance.And about a year ago, I translated that into a ten page blog article that when I read through, I really didn't enjoy. [laugh]. And that template blog article is ultimately, like, about a page in the article you're reading today. And the actual kick in the butt to get this out the door was about four months ago. I spoke at o11ycon rescources which you're a part of.And it was a vendor conference by Honeycomb, and it was just so fun to share some of the things we've been doing with distributed tracing, and how we were able to solve internal problems using a relatively simple idea of asking questions about what was running. And the entire team there was wonderful in coaching and just helping me think through what questions people might have of this work. And that was, again, former academic. The last time I spoke at a conference was about a decade earlier, and it was just so fun to be part of this community of people trying to all solve the same set of problems, just in their own unique ways.Corey: One of the things I loved about working with Honeycomb was the fact that whenever I asked them a question, they have instrumented their own stuff, so they could tell me extremely quickly what something was doing, how it was doing it, and what the overall impact on this was. It's very rare to find a client that is anywhere near that level of awareness into what's going on in their infrastructure.Frank: Yeah, and that blog article, right, it's like, here's our current perspective, and here's, like, the current set of projects we're able to make to get to this result. And we think we know what we want to do, but if you were to ask that same question, “What are we doing for our spend a year from now?” the answer might be very different. Probably similar in some ways, but probably different.Corey: Well, there are some principles that we'll never get away from. It's, “Is no one using the thing? Turn that shit off.” That's one of those tried and true things. “Oh, it's the third copy of that multiple petabyte of data thing? Maybe delete it or stuff in a deep archive.” It's maybe move data less between various places. Maybe log things fewer times, given that you're paying 50 cents per gigabyte ingest, in some cases. Et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. There's a lot to consider as far as the general principles go, but the specifics, well, that's where it gets into the weeds. And at your scale, yeah, having people focus on this internally with the context and nuance to it is absolutely worth doing. Having a small team devoted to this at large companies will pay for itself, I promise. Now, I go in and advise in these scenarios, but past a certain point, this can't just be one person's part-time gig anymore.Frank: I'm kind of curious about that. How do you think about working with a company and then deprecating yourself, and allowing your tools and, like, the frameworks you put into place to continue, like, thrive?Corey: We're advisory only. We make no changes to production.Frank: Or I don't know if that's the right word, deprecate. I think… that's my own word. [laugh].Corey: No, no, it's fair. It's a—what we do is we go in and we are advisory. It's less of a cost engagement, more of an architecture engagement because in cloud, cost and architecture are the same thing. We look at what's going on, we look at the constraints of why we've been brought in, and we identify things that companies can do and the associated cost savings associated with that, and let them make their own decision. Because it's, if I come in and say, “Hey, you could save a bunch of money by migrating this whole subsystem to serverless.”Great, I sound like a lunatic evangelist because yeah, 18 months of work during which time the team doing that is not advancing the state of the business any further so it's never going to happen. So, why even suggest it? Just look at things that are within the bounds of possibility. Counterpoint: when a client says, “A full re-architecture is on the table,” well, okay, that changes the nature of what we're suggesting. But we're trying to get away from what a lot of tooling does, which is, “Great. Here's 700 things you can adjust and you'll do none of them.” We come back with a, “Here's three or four things you can do that'll blow 20% off the bill. Then let's see where you stand.” The other half of it, of course, is large scale enterprise contract negotiation, that's a bit of a horse of a different color. I want to thank you so much for taking the time to speak with me today. I really do appreciate it. If folks want to hear more about what you're up to, and how you think about these things. Where can they find you?Frank: You can find me at frankc.net. Or at me at @FrankC on Twitter.Corey: Oh, inviting people to yell at you at Twitter. That's never a great plan. Yeash. Good luck. Thanks again. We've absolutely got to talk more about this in-depth because I think this is one of those areas that you have the folks above a certain point of scale, talk about these things semi-constantly and live in the space, whereas folks who are in relatively small-scale environments are listening to this and thinking that they've got to do this.And no. No, you do not want to spend millions of dollars of engineering effort to optimize a bill that's 80 grand a year, I promise. It's focus on the thing that's right for your business. At a certain point of scale, this becomes that. But thank you so much for being so generous with your time. I appreciate it.Frank: Thank you so much, Corey.Corey: Frank Chen, senior staff software engineer at Slack. I'm Cloud Economist Corey Quinn, and this is Screaming in the Cloud. If you've enjoyed this podcast, please leave a five-star review on your podcast platform of choice, whereas if you've hated this podcast, please leave a five-star review on your podcast platform of choice, along with an angry comment that seems to completely miss the fact that Microsoft Teams is free because it sucks.Frank: [laugh].Corey: If your AWS bill keeps rising and your blood pressure is doing the same, then you need The Duckbill Group. We help companies fix their AWS bill by making it smaller and less horrifying. The Duckbill Group works for you, not AWS. We tailor recommendations to your business and we get to the point. Visit duckbillgroup.com to get started.Announcer: This has been a HumblePod production. Stay humble.

Today's episode is the first in a three-part series looking at wellness through the lenses of movement, sleep, and mindset. For today's conversation, Melissa and Hannah invite Professor Abby King to discuss movement. Abby is an award-winning Professor of Epidemiology & Population Health and of Medicine at the Stanford Prevention Research Center. Her research focuses on the development, evaluation, and translation of public health intervention to reduce chronic disease in the US and globally. Through her research, Abby has found that one of the main barriers to healthy movement practices is environment. Thus, her research centers not only on individuals, but individuals within given contexts. Abby explains what it can look like for an environment to foster movement, encourages simple queues and social support, and describes different forms of healthy movement. They end the conversation with a discussion about the intersection of human and planetary and what Abby is most excited about in her field. Connect with Abby King! - HARTS Lab website: https://med.stanford.edu/healthyaging.html - Our Voice: Citizen Science for Health Equity: https://med.stanford.edu/ourvoice.html Connect with BOOM (and enter to win a water bottle)! - Twitter, Instagram, Facebook: @biomechanicsoom - Email: biomechanicsonourminds@gmail.com - Website and shop: biomechanicsonourminds.com

A complete breakdown of epigenetics and biological age with Dr. Lucia Aronica, the lecturer at the Stanford Prevention Research Center. Dr. Aronica shares her comprehensive knowledge on genetic testing and the utility of it, and why a lot of those genetics tests out there aren't worth it.Who is Dr. Lucia Aronica? Dr. Lucia Aronica, Ph.D., is Lecturer at the Stanford Prevention and Research Center, Genomics Lead at Metagenics Inc., and editor of the peer-reviewed journal Life by MDPI. Her research investigates how diet, genetics, and epigenetics interact with each other to impact our health and longevity, and how to use this information to design personalized lifestyle interventions.She is an acclaimed speaker and serves as an advisor for companies active in the personal genomics and precision health field. Dr. Aronica received her PhD from the University of Vienna and has research experience from the University of Oxford, University of Southern California, and University Federico II of Naples. She has published research papers in top-ranked peer-reviewed journals such as Cell, Genes and Development, and the EMBO Journal.Highlights[3:20] An overview of epigenetics [5:03] What is methylation?[9:15] Diet influence on epigenetics[18:55] Do people actually benefit from high carb diets?[31:40] Is a genetics test useful? [36:20] The truth behind biological age testsResourcesGood Calories, Bad Calories by Gary TaubesEpigenetics, Second EditionThe Easy Low-Carb CookbookYounger in 8 weeks | Interview with Dr. Kara FitzgeraldHorwath's Biological Age ClockSponsorsB Strong I've been fascinated by blood flow restriction training for a very long time. B Strong made great innovations on this technology. I use it almost every day: high reps, low number of sets, a few exercises. In 20 minutes, I have a fantastic workout that is triggering an anabolic response. If you want to get your B Strong blood flow restriction device, head on over to https://bstrong.training/ and use the code BOOMER, and you're going to get yourself 10% off.KÄÄPÄ Health: KAPPA Health produces some of the best mushrooms on this planet, which can be applied in your supplement regimen every single day. I encourage everyone to try Mai Take, Shitake, Turkeytail, or cordyceps which I mix with cacao every morning to get me fired up fast. The co-founder of KÄÄPÄ Health, Eric Puro came on this show and talked about the medicinal and performance benefits of mushrooms and how these fungi help both improve the health of humans and ecosystems. If you want to give these mushrooms a try, head over to kaapahealth.com and use the code BOOMER for a 10% discount on your order. Continue Your High Performance Journey with Dr. Lucia AronicaWebsite: https://draronica.com/Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/DrLuciaAronicaTwitter: https://twitter.com/luciaaronicaInstagram: https://www.instagram.com/drluciaaronica/LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/luciaaronica/YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXFaVKe8JxWyZviKqtiT9lQDisclaimer This information is being provided to you for educational and informational purposes only. This is being provided as a self-help tool to help you understand your genetics, biodata and other information to enhance your performance. It is not medical or psychological advice. Virtuosity LLC, or Decoding Superhuman, is not a doctor. Virtuosity LLC is not treating, preventing, healing, or diagnosing disease. This information is to be used at your own risk based on your own judgment. For the full Disclaimer, please go to (Decodingsuperhuman.com/disclaimer). See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

A fermented-food diet increases microbiome diversity and lowers inflammation, study finds Stanford University, July 13, 2021 A diet rich in fermented foods enhances the diversity of gut microbes and decreases molecular signs of inflammation, according to researchers at the Stanford School of Medicine.  In a clinical trial, 36 healthy adults were randomly assigned to a 10-week diet that included either fermented or high-fiber foods. The two diets resulted in different effects on the gut microbiome and the immune system. Eating foods such as yogurt, kefir, fermented cottage cheese, kimchi and other fermented vegetables, vegetable brine drinks, and kombucha tea led to an increase in overall microbial diversity, with stronger effects from larger servings. "This is a stunning finding," said Justin Sonnenburg, PhD, an associate professor of microbiology and immunology. "It provides one of the first examples of how a simple change in diet can reproducibly remodel the microbiota across a cohort of healthy adults." In addition, four types of immune cells showed less activation in the fermented-food group. The levels of 19 inflammatory proteins measured in blood samples also decreased. One of these proteins, interleukin 6, has been linked to conditions such as rheumatoid arthritis, Type 2 diabetes and chronic stress.  "Microbiota-targeted diets can change immune status, providing a promising avenue for decreasing inflammation in healthy adults," said Christopher Gardner, PhD, the Rehnborg Farquhar Professor and director of nutrition studies at the Stanford Prevention Research Center. "This finding was consistent across all participants in the study who were assigned to the higher fermented food group." Microbe diversity stable in fiber-rich diet By contrast, none of these 19 inflammatory proteins decreased in participants assigned to a high-fiber diet rich in legumes, seeds, whole grains, nuts, vegetables and fruits. On average, the diversity of their gut microbes also remained stable. "We expected high fiber to have a more universally beneficial effect and increase microbiota diversity," said Erica Sonnenburg, PhD, a senior research scientist in basic life sciences, microbiology and immunology. "The data suggest that increased fiber intake alone over a short time period is insufficient to increase microbiota diversity."  The study will be published online July 12 in Cell. Justin and Erica Sonnenburg and Christopher Gardner are co-senior authors. The lead authors are Hannah Wastyk, a PhD student in bioengineering, and former postdoctoral scholar Gabriela Fragiadakis, PhD, who is now an assistant professor of medicine at UC-San Francisco. A wide body of evidence has demonstrated that diet shapes the gut microbiome, which can affect the immune system and overall health. According to Gardner, low microbiome diversity has been linked to obesity and diabetes.  "We wanted to conduct a proof-of-concept study that could test whether microbiota-targeted food could be an avenue for combatting the overwhelming rise in chronic inflammatory diseases," Gardner said.  The researchers focused on fiber and fermented foods due to previous reports of their potential health benefits. While high-fiber diets have been associated with lower rates of mortality, the consumption of fermented foods can help with weight maintenance and may decrease the risk of diabetes, cancer and cardiovascular disease. The researchers analyzed blood and stool samples collected during a three-week pre-trial period, the 10 weeks of the diet, and a four-week period after the diet when the participants ate as they chose.  The findings paint a nuanced picture of the influence of diet on gut microbes and immune status. On one hand, those who increased their consumption of fermented foods showed similar effects on their microbiome diversity and inflammatory markers, consistent with prior research showing that short-term changes in diet can rapidly alter the gut microbiome. On the other hand, the limited change in the microbiome within the high-fiber group dovetails with the researchers' previous reports of a general resilience of the human microbiome over short time periods.  Designing a suite of dietary and microbial strategies The results also showed that greater fiber intake led to more carbohydrates in stool samples, pointing to incomplete fiber degradation by gut microbes. These findings are consistent with other research suggesting that the microbiome of people living in the industrialized world is depleted of fiber-degrading microbes.  "It is possible that a longer intervention would have allowed for the microbiota to adequately adapt to the increase in fiber consumption," Erica Sonnenburg said. "Alternatively, the deliberate introduction of fiber-consuming microbes may be required to increase the microbiota's capacity to break down the carbohydrates." In addition to exploring these possibilities, the researchers plan to conduct studies in mice to investigate the molecular mechanisms by which diets alter the microbiome and reduce inflammatory proteins. They also aim to test whether high-fiber and fermented foods synergize to influence the microbiome and immune system of humans. Another goal is to examine whether the consumption of fermented food decreases inflammation or improves other health markers in patients with immunological and metabolic diseases, and in pregnant women and older individuals.  "There are many more ways to target the microbiome with food and supplements, and we hope to continue to investigate how different diets, probiotics and prebiotics impact the microbiome and health in different groups," Justin Sonnenburg said.   Effect of resveratrol intervention on renal pathological injury in type 2 diabetes Capital Medical University (China), July 11, 2021 According to news reporting from Beijing, People's Republic of China, research stated, “Type 2 diabetes (T2D) is a clinically common cardiovascular disease that can lead to kidney damage and adversely affect male fertility and sperm quality. Resveratrol (Res) is a natural product that has a wide range of effects in animals and cell models.” The news correspondents obtained a quote from the research from Capital Medical University, “This research is designed to observe the effect of resveratrol (Res) intervention on renal pathologic injury and spermatogenesis in mice with type 2 diabetes (T2D). Sixty healthy male SD mice without specific pathogens (SPF grade) were selected, and numbered by statistical software to randomize into control group (CG; n=20), model group (MG; n=20) and research group (RG; n=20). Mice in CG were given regular diet, while those in MG and RG were fed with high fat diet. Subsequently, RG was given Res intervention while MG received no treatment. Biochemical indexes [triglyceride (TG), total cholesterol (TC), fasting blood glucose (FBG), 24-hour urinary albumin excretion rate (24h-UAER)] of mice in the three groups before and after intervention were observed and recorded. The effect of Res on oxidative stress, kidney histopathological structure, spermatogenic function, sperm density and viability of mice, as well as spermatogenic cell cycle of testis were determined. Res reduced hyperlipidemia and hyperglycemia in T2D mice. By reducing malondialdehyde (MDA) and increasing superoxide dismutase (SOD) and glutathione peroxidase (GSH-Px), Res relieved oxidative stress and alleviated kidney tissue damage. In addition, Res improved the spermatogenic function of T2D mice by increasing the sperm density and survival rate and restoring the percentage of spermatogenic cells at all levels.” According to the news reporters, the research concluded: “Res intervention in T2D mice can reduce kidney tissue damage, lower blood glucose (BG), and improve spermatogenic function by increasing sperm density and restoring the percentage of spermatogenic cells at all levels.” This research has been peer-reviewed.     Eating whole grains linked to smaller increases in waist size, blood pressure, blood sugar Study in middle- to older-aged adults suggests whole grains may protect against heart disease Tufts University, July 13, 2021 Middle- to older-aged adults who ate at least three servings of whole grains daily had smaller increases in waist size, blood pressure, and blood sugar levels over time compared to those who ate less than one-half serving per day, according to new research. Published July 13, 2021, in the Journal of Nutrition, the study by researchers at the Jean Mayer USDA Human Nutrition Research Center on Aging at Tufts University examined how whole- and refined-grain intake over time impacted five risk factors of heart disease: Waist size, blood pressure, blood sugar, triglyceride, and HDL ("good") cholesterol. Using data from the Framingham Heart Study Offspring Cohort, which began in the 1970s to assess long-term risk factors of heart disease, the new research examined health outcomes associated with whole- and refined-grain consumption over a median of 18 years. The 3,100 participants from the cohort were mostly white and, on average, in their mid-50s at the start of data collection. The research team compared changes in the five risk factors, over four-year intervals, across four categories of reported whole grain intake, ranging from less than a half serving per day to three or more servings per day. According to the Dietary Guidelines for Americans 2020-2025, the recommended amount of whole grains is three or more servings daily. An example of a serving is one slice of whole-grain bread, a half cup of rolled oats cereal, or a half cup of brown rice. The results showed that for each four-year interval:   Waist size increased by an average of over 1 inch in the low intake participants, versus about ½ inch in the high intake participants. Even after accounting for changes in waist size, average increases in blood sugar levels and systolic blood pressure were greater in low intake participants compared to high intake participants. The researchers also studied the five risk factors across four categories of refined-grain intake, ranging from less than two servings per day to more than four servings per day. Lower refined-grain intake led to a lower average increase in waist size and a greater mean decline in triglyceride levels for each four-year period. "Our findings suggest that eating whole-grain foods as part of a healthy diet delivers health benefits beyond just helping us lose or maintain weight as we age. In fact, these data suggest that people who eat more whole grains are better able to maintain their blood sugar and blood pressure over time. Managing these risk factors as we age may help to protect against heart disease," said Nicola McKeown, senior and corresponding author and a scientist on the Nutritional Epidemiology Team at the USDA HNRCA. "There are several reasons that whole grains may work to help people maintain waist size and reduce increases in the other risk factors. The presence of dietary fiber in whole grains can have a satiating effect, and the magnesium, potassium, and antioxidants may contribute to lowering blood pressure. Soluble fiber in particular may have a beneficial effect on post-meal blood sugar spikes," said Caleigh Sawicki. Sawicki did this work as part of her doctoral dissertation while a student at the Gerald J. and Dorothy R. Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy at Tufts University and while working with the Nutritional Epidemiology Team at the USDA HNRCA. The greatest contributor to whole-grain intake among participants was whole-wheat breads and ready-to-eat whole-grain breakfast cereals. The refined grains came mostly from pasta and white bread. The difference in health benefits between whole and refined grains may stem from the fact that whole grains are less processed than refined grains. Whole grains have a fiber-rich outer layer and an inner germ layer packed with B vitamins, antioxidants, and small amounts of healthy fats. Milling whole grains removes these nutrient-dense components, leaving only the starch-packed refined grain behind. "The average American consumes about five servings of refined grains daily, much more than is recommended, so it's important to think about ways to replace refined grains with whole grains throughout your day. For example, you might consider a bowl of whole-grain cereal instead of a white flour bagel for breakfast and replacing refined-grain snacks, entrees, and side dishes with whole-grain options. Small incremental changes in your diet to increase whole-grain intake will make a difference over time," McKeown said. Methodology To measure daily grain intake, the researchers used diet questionnaires that participants completed every four years from 1991 to 2014, resulting in a median of 18 years of data. Dietary assessment data came from five study examinations, and observations were only included if participants attended at least two consecutive examinations with accurate dietary data. Participants with diabetes at baseline were excluded. The statistical analysis was adjusted for factors that might influence the results, including other aspects of a healthy diet. Limitations of the study include the fact that food consumption is self-reported, and participants may over- or under-estimate intake of certain foods based on perceived social desirability. Due to its observational design, the study does not reflect a causal relationship.   Antibiotics in early life could affect brain development Exposure to antibiotics in utero or after birth could lead to brain disorders in later childhood Rutgers University, July 14, 2021 Antibiotic exposure early in life could alter human brain development in areas responsible for cognitive and emotional functions, according to a Rutgers researcher. The laboratory study, published in the journal iScience, suggests that penicillin changes the microbiome - the trillions of beneficial microorganisms that live in and on our bodies - as well as gene expression, which allows cells to respond to its changing environment, in key areas of the developing brain. The findings suggest reducing widespread antibiotic use or using alternatives when possible to prevent neurodevelopment problems.  Penicillin and related medicines (like ampicillin and amoxicillin) are the most widely used antibiotics in children worldwide. In the United States, the average child receives nearly three courses of antibiotics before the age of 2. Similar or greater exposure rates occur in many other countries.  "Our previous work has shown that exposing young animals to antibiotics changes their metabolism and immunity. The third important development in early life involves the brain. This study is preliminary but shows a correlation between altering the microbiome and changes in the brain that should be further explored," said lead author Martin Blaser, director of the Center for Advanced Biotechnology and Medicine at Rutgers. The study compared mice that were exposed to low-dose penicillin in utero or immediately after birth to those that were not exposed. They found that mice given penicillin experienced substantial changes in their intestinal microbiota and had altered gene expression in the frontal cortex and amygdala, two key areas in the brain responsible for the development of memory as well as fear and stress responses.  A growing body of evidence links phenomena in the intestinal tract with signaling to the brain, a field of study known as the "gut-brain-axis." If this pathway is disturbed, it can lead to permanent altering of the brain's structure and function and possibly lead to neuropsychiatric or neurodegenerative disorders in later childhood or adulthood. "Early life is a critical period for neurodevelopment," Blaser said. "In recent decades, there has been a rise in the incidence of childhood neurodevelopmental disorders, including autism spectrum disorder, attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder and learning disabilities. Although increased awareness and diagnosis are likely contributing factors, disruptions in cerebral gene expression early in development also could be responsible." Future studies are needed to determine whether antibiotics directly effect brain development or if molecules from the microbiome that travel to the brain disturb gene activity and cause cognitive deficits.  The study was conducted along with Zhan Gao at Rutgers and Blaser's former graduate student Anjelique Schulfer, as well as Angelina Volkova, Kelly Ruggles, and Stephen Ginsberg at New York University, who all played important roles in this joint Rutgers-New York University project.   Taking the brain out for a walk A recent study shows that spending time outdoors has a positive effect on our brains Max Planck Institute for Human Development, July 15, 2021 If you're regularly out in the fresh air, you're doing something good for both your brain and your well-being. This is the conclusion reached by researchers at the Max Planck Institute for Human Development and the Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf (UKE). The longitudinal study recently appeared in The World Journal of Biological Psychiatry. During the Corona pandemic, walks became a popular and regular pastime. A neuroscientific study suggests that this habit has a good effect not only on our general well-being but also on our brain structure. It shows that the human brain benefits from even short stays outdoors. Until now, it was assumed that environments affect us only over longer periods of time. The researchers regularly examined six healthy, middle-aged city dwellers for six months. In total, more than 280 scans were taken of their brains using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). The focus of the study was on self-reported behavior during the last 24 hours and in particular on the hours that participants spent outdoors prior to imaging. In addition, they were asked about their fluid intake, consumption of caffeinated beverages, the amount of time spent outside, and physical activity, in order to see if these factors altered the association between time spent outside and the brain. In order to be able to include seasonal differences, the duration of sunshine in the study period was also taken into account. Brain scans show that the time spent outdoors by the participants was positively related to gray matter in the right dorsolateral-prefrontal cortex, which is the superior (dorsal) and lateral part of the frontal lobe in the cerebral cortex. This part of the cortex is involved in the planning and regulation of actions as well as what is referred to as cognitive control. In addition, many psychiatric disorders are known to be associated with a reduction in gray matter in the prefrontal area of the brain. The results persisted even when the other factors that could also explain the relationship between time spent outdoors and brain structure were kept constant. The researchers performed statistical calculations in order to examine the influence of sunshine duration, number of hours of free time, physical activity, and fluid intake on the results. The calculations revealed that time spent outdoors had a positive effect on the brain regardless of the other influencing factors. "Our results show that our brain structure and mood improve when we spend time outdoors. This most likely also affects concentration, working memory, and the psyche as a whole. We are investigating this in an ongoing study. The subjects are asked to also solve cognitively challenging tasks and wear numerous sensors that measure the amount of light they are exposed to during the day, among other environmental indicators," says Simone Kühn, head of the Lise Meitner Group for Environmental Neuroscience at the Max Planck Institute for Human Development and lead author of the study. The results therefore, support the previously assumed positive effects of walking on health and extend them by the concrete positive effects on the brain. Because most psychiatric disorders are associated with deficits in the prefrontal cortex, this is of particular importance to the field of psychiatry. "These findings provide neuroscientific support for the treatment of mental disorders. Doctors could prescribe a walk in the fresh air as part of the therapy - similar to what is customary for health cures," says Anna Mascherek, post-doctoral fellow in the Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy of the Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf (UKE) and co-author of the study. In the ongoing studies, the researchers also want to directly compare the effects of green environments vs urban spaces on the brain. In order to understand where exactly the study participants spend their time outdoors, the researchers plan to use GPS (Global Positioning System) data and include other factors that may play a role such as traffic noise and air pollution.     Vitamin C found to block growth of cancer stem cells, says peer reviewed study University of Salford (UK),  July 8, 2021   Increasingly, researchers are discovering the role played by cancer stem cells in the growth and spread of the disease. In groundbreaking new research, vitamin C showed its ability to target cancer stem cells and stop their growth – preventing the recurrence of tumors. Although mainstream medicine has been slow to accept the cancer-fighting properties of vitamin C, the exciting results of this study could help to change that. It's official: Vitamin C interferes with cancer stem cell metabolism In a newly-published study conducted at the University of Salford in Manchester, vitamin C demonstrated its power to stop tumors in their tracks by interfering with cancer stem cell metabolism – suppressing their ability to process energy for survival and growth. Cancer stem cells are responsible for triggering tumor recurrence, and promoting their growth and metastasis. Researchers believe that cancer stem cells give cancer its ability to resist chemotherapy and radiation – the reason for treatment failure in advanced cancer patients. The study, helmed by researchers Michael P. Lisanti and Gloria Bonucelli, was published last month in Oncotarget, a peer-reviewed journal. Peer-reviewed studies are considered the gold standard of scientific research. The study was the first to explore the effects of vitamin C on cancer stem cells – and provided the first evidence that vitamin C, in the form of ascorbic acid, can target and kill them. In a side-by-side comparison of seven different substances, vitamin C even outperformed an experimental cancer drug. Vitamin C works ten times better than the experimental cancer drug 2-DG The team investigated the impact on cancer stem cells of seven different substances. Three were natural substances, three were experimental drugs, and one was an FDA-approved clinical drug that is widely used. The natural products studied, along with vitamin C, were silibinin – derived from milk thistle seeds – and caffeic acid phenyl ester – or CAPE – derived from honeybee propolis. The experimental drugs were actinonin, FK866 and 2-DG, and the clinical drug was stiripentol. Researchers noted that vitamin C destroyed cancer stem cells by inducing oxidative stress. And, the vitamin performed this process ten times more effectively than 2-DG. Vitamin C used two different mechanisms of action to attack cancer stem cells. It worked as a pro-oxidant in cancer cells, depleting them of the antioxidant glutathione and causing oxidative stress and apoptosis – or cell death. It also inhibited glycolysis, which is the process that creates energy production in cell mitochondria. By inhibiting glycolysis, vitamin C inhibited mitrochondrial protein synthesis in cancer stem cells – while leaving healthy cells unaffected. Non-toxic vitamin C lacks the serious side effects of many pharmaceutical drugs Both experimental and approved cancer drugs can feature serious adverse effects, including thrombocytopenia – a deficiency of platelets in the blood that can cause bruising and slow blood clotting. They can also induce lymphopenia – a decrease in the body's infection-fighting white blood cells – and anemia, or low red blood cells. And the clinically-approved drug used in the study, stiripentol, can cause severe nausea, vomiting and fatigue. On the other hand, the National Cancer Center reports that high-dose vitamin C has caused very few side effects when used in clinical studies. Scientifically speaking, the future looks bright for vitamin C All seven of the substances tested inhibited the growth of cancer cells to varying degrees – including the non-toxic natural substances. But researchers said the most “exciting” results were with vitamin C. The research team concluded that vitamin C was a “promising new agent,” and called for more study to explore its use as an adjunct to conventional cancer therapies to prevent tumor recurrence and growth. “Vitamin C is cheap, natural, non-toxic and readily available, so to have it as a potential weapon in the fight against cancer would be a significant step,” observed Dr. Lisanti. As in most of the successful studies showing vitamin C's cancer-fighting properties, researchers used high doses of vitamin C, administered intravenously. IV vitamin C therapy is available in some alternative and holistic cancer treatment clinics worldwide. The real reason why vitamin C is ignored by conventional medicine and the mainstream media Again, vitamin C was 1,000 percent more effective than 2-DG, an experimental pharmaceutical drug – in targeting cancer stem cells. If vitamin C were developed by big pharma, these results would be shouted from the rooftops and featured in newspaper headlines. Yet, as always, “the powers that be” in mainstream medicine respond with…crickets. The reason; say natural health experts, is all too obvious. As a natural nutrient and vitamin, vitamin C can't be patented, and is inexpensive and easy to obtain. Therefore, there is no incentive for cancer clinics to promote it – when they can instead rake in the profits from chemotherapy. The indifference of conventional medicine to vitamin C is all the more frustrating because the nutrient has been shown to be an effective and non-toxic anti-cancer agent in previous studies, including many conducted by Nobel prize-winning scientist Linus Pauling. Vitamin C has been shown in a Japanese study to cut mortality in cancer patients by 25 percent. In addition, it has inhibited tumors in animal studies, and been shown to kill cancer cells in a wide variety of cancer cell lines. How much longer will the potential of this safe and powerful cancer-fighting nutrient be overlooked?     Mothers' high-fat diet affects clotting response in sons, mice study finds University of Reading (UK), July 13, 2021 Mothers who follow a high fat diet may be affecting the cardiovascular health of their sons, according to a new study in mice. In a paper published in Scientific Reports, a team of scientists found that the male children of mice mothers who were fed on a high fat diet during pregnancy had unhealthy platelets, which are responsible for clotting, when fed on a high fat diet themselves. Although both male and female children of the mothers fed on a high fat diet showed a variety of risks associated with cardiovascular disease, it was only the platelets of male mice which were considered hyperactive. These platelets were larger, more volatile and showed signs of stress compared to offspring fed on a normal diet. Dr. Dyan Sellayah, lecturer in cellular and organismal metabolism at the University of Reading said: "Heart disease is one of the UK's biggest killers and mounting evidence suggests that the risk of developing it may be increased during early development, particularly during the gestation period where mothers have a high-fat diet/are obese. The underlying mechanisms by which an unhealthy maternal diet may impact heart disease risk remains largely unknown. "This study used a mouse model of maternal obesity to understand how specialist blood cells known as platelets may be programmed during pregnancy. Platelets are important for blood clotting but are also the cause of heart attacks and strokes if they are activated at the wrong time and place." Children of the mothers fed on a high fat diet who followed a control diet however did not show the same concerning heart disease risks. The offspring from the group given a control diet had very similar levels of fat mass, cholesterol and other markets of cardiovascular health as the children of mothers fed a standard diet. In addition, where mothers had been fed a standard diet and their offspring fed a high fat diet, those children had higher levels of fat mass and other cardiovascular markers, but their platelets were statistically similar to the other groups apart from where both mum and child were fed high fat diet.  Dr. Craig Hughes, lecturer in cardiovascular biology at the University of Reading said: "This study revealed that maternal obesity during pregnancy causes offspring platelets to become hyperactive in response to a high-fat diet in adulthood. These results raise the possibility that the risk of unwanted blood clotting (aka thrombosis) in adulthood could be altered during pregnancy by diet of the mother. "The specific mechanisms for why high fat diets affect male offspring are still being investigated but we can see that there's likely to be a double-hit where both mums and sons diets together were required to see these bigger, more hyperactive platelets."

In this episode, host Sandy Webster is joined by internationally-known integrative health and mindfulness expert Shirley Archer, JD, MA. Shirley is an award-winning health journalist, and best-selling author of 16 fitness and wellness books. In addition to being a contributing editor to IDEA Fitness Journal, she is a media spokesperson and was named IDEA's 2008 Fitness Instructor of the Year. She's a 25-year industry veteran and former health and fitness educator at the Stanford Prevention Research Center. She has served on multiple industry committees and co-authored countless articles and chapters for various fitness and wellness trade groups. When it comes to health and fitness services, Shirley believes it's not only what you offer, it's HOW you offer it. Her IDEA World Virtual session “Train Clients Happy for Better Retention and Results” revealed the secret sauce to offering training programs that improve participation and results by leading with a positive and uplifting approach. Today we discuss the latest research findings on the science of happiness, and share practical tips on helping clients to tap into their happiness quotient—which very likely will have impact on the health and happiness of your business' bottom line. Stay with us for this enlightening conversation. Links to contact Shirley Archer: Website: shirleyarcher.com LI: Shirley Archer, JD, MA FB: Shirley Archer Eichenberger IG: @shirleyarcher Article Link: Train Clients Happy for Positive Behavioral Change article Connect with Sandy Webster FB: Sandy Todd Webster IG: sandytoddwebster LI: Sandy Todd Webster TW: @fitnesseditor. IDEA World Virtual, July 9-11, 2021 IDEAfit+ Membership IDEAfit PRO SHOW is hosted by Sandy Todd Webster, Editor in Chief, IDEA Publications, ideafit.com; executive produced by Jordan Leeds; produced and engineered by Michael Hilding. Copyright 2021 by Outside Interactive, Inc. All rights reserved. IDEA Health & Fitness Association is the world's leading organization of fitness and wellness professionals and has been for more than 39 years. We deliver world-class content and continuing education to fitness professionals, business owners and allied health professionals via our publications, including the award-winning Fitness Journal; our fitness, business and nutrition conferences; and hundreds of streaming videos and online courses available on ideafit.com. Additionally, with IDEA FitnessConnect, we host the largest national industry-wide directory, linking over 275,000 fitness professionals to more than 40 million consumers. Through IDEA professionals in over 80 countries, we Inspire the World to Fitness™!

Most people (hopefully) know the dangers involved with smoking. But is vaping just as bad for your health as smoking? Is actually worse for you as some say? Is vaping more harmful for younger people than it is older people? Is there an effective way to quit? What's the best way to kick this habit and talk to teens about why it's dangerous? On this episode of the Merck Manuals Medical Myths podcast, we welcome Dr. Judith Prochaska, Professor in the Department of Medicine at Stanford University with the Stanford Prevention Research Center and a member of the Stanford Cancer Institute. Dr. Prochaska is a licensed clinical psychologist with a focus in addiction medicine. Click here to learn more about vaping and click here to learn more about smoking. For listeners in the U.S. and Canada, visit MerckManuals.com to learn more. For those outside the U.S. and Canada, visit MSDManuals.com for more information.

Coming soon: the Merck Manuals, one of the world’s most widely used medical resources since 1899, will be releasing the 3rd season of the Merck Manuals Medical Myths Podcast! All new episodes coming the week of May 10, 2021! Season 3 once again dispels common medical myths and misconceptions through revealing conversations with nationally recognized physicians. These new episodes encompass just the first half of Season three and address a number of topics that are top of mind for today’s medical consumers: Vaping and Smoking Myths featuring Dr. Judith Prochaska, Professor in the Department of Medicine at Stanford University with the Stanford Prevention Research Center and a member of the Stanford Cancer Institute Travel in 2021 Myths featuring Dr. Christopher Stanford, Associate Professor in the Departments of Family Medicine and Global Health at the University of Washington Acne Myths featuring Dr. Jonette Keri, Associate Professor of Dermatology and Cutaneous Surgery at the University of Miami Miller School of Medicine and Chief, Dermatology Service at Miami VA Hospital Sun Protection Myths featuring Dr. Jonette Keri, Associate Professor of Dermatology and Cutaneous Surgery at the University of Miami Miller School of Medicine and Chief, Dermatology Service at Miami VA Hospital Skincare Beauty Myths featuring Dr. Jonette Keri, Associate Professor of Dermatology and Cutaneous Surgery at the University of Miami Miller School of Medicine and Chief, Dermatology Service at Miami VA Hospital Topics for the podcast were developed based on the most popular web searches for key medical topics, along with common questions physicians received when talking to patients. The podcast is the latest offering in support of the Manuals’ ongoing commitment to make the best current medical information accessible globally and in relevant formats. For listeners in the U.S. and Canada, visit MerckManuals.com to learn more. For those outside the U.S. and Canada, visit MSDManuals.com for more information.

Today we're talking all things aging with an icon in the field of women's health.Today we're talking all things aging with an icon in the field of women's health. Marcia Stefanick, Ph.D., is a professor of medicine at the Stanford Prevention Research Center and professor of obstetrics and gynecology and a leading pioneer in women's health research. With over 200 publications her bio is extensive. Dr. Stefanick and Dr. Pam catch up on this episode and talk about The Women's Health Initiative, hormones,  and the role of diet, supplements, and physical activity in aging between males and females. 

Today we're talking all things aging with an icon in the field of women's health.Today we're talking all things aging with an icon in the field of women's health. Marcia Stefanick, Ph.D., is a professor of medicine at the Stanford Prevention Research Center and professor of obstetrics and gynecology and a leading pioneer in women's health research. With over 200 publications her bio is extensive. Dr. Stefanick and Dr. Pam catch up on this episode and talk about The Women's Health Initiative, hormones,  and the role of diet, supplements, and physical activity in aging between males and females. 

Today we're talking all things aging with an icon in the field of women's health.Today we're talking all things aging with an icon in the field of women's health. Marcia Stefanick, Ph.D., is a professor of medicine at the Stanford Prevention Research Center and professor of obstetrics and gynecology and a leading pioneer in women's health research. With over 200 publications her bio is extensive. Dr. Stefanick and Dr. Pam catch up on this episode and talk about The Women's Health Initiative, hormones,  and the role of diet, supplements, and physical activity in aging between males and females. 

Shirley Archer, a graduate of Stanford University, Harvard University and Georgetown University Law Center, is an integrative health promoter and advocate, best-selling author of 16 books, award-winning fitness industry leader and health journalist, with over 25 years experience in mind-body holistic health and wellness. She's a former New York City attorney turned full-time integrative health advocate, meditation teacher, public speaker, author and yogini. Through her live younger blog, over 1,000 magazine articles, books, podcasts and videos, Shirley inspires people worldwide to take personal responsibility for creating optimal health and longevity through a mindful approach to healthy living along with simple to apply tips based on Eastern wisdom and evidence-based information.It's important to Shirley to not only offer the "what to do", but also explain the "why do it" and "why NOW". Shirley's career as a high-powered attorney in New York City was stalled by Chronic Fatigue Syndrome. Overcoming illness, burnout and depression, compounded by panic attacks and post-traumatic stress disorder from a violent assault she survived at 16, she restored her health after conventional doctors gave up and told her she may never feel well again, [Shirley refused to believe that!]. Her challenging personal journey to reclaim her health inspired Shirley to dedicate herself to sharing hard-earned health information with others.Her self-healing journey from trauma and illness inspired her 15-year Stanford University career at the Health Improvement Program and Health Promotion Resource Center at the Stanford Prevention Research Center at the Stanford University School of Medicine. She supplemented her legal education with a course at Medill School of Journalism at Northwestern University and classes toward a Health Psychology Education degree at the Stanford University School of Education, along with countless continuing education courses and formal certifications in mind-body medicine, the MBSR program, mindfulness meditation, yogic meditation, guided visualization, aroma and nature therapy.Shirley draws on her personal background blending traditional East Asian holistic values from her Japanese mom [augmented by her Master's Degree from Harvard in East Asian Studies and time spent living in Japan] and a love of Western science and logic from her American dad. She's a columnist, features writer and contributing editor for Fitness Journal. She's achieved certification in mindful modalities including yoga, Pilates and meditation. She received the internationally acclaimed IDEA Fitness Instructor of the Year award in 2008 for her industry leadership, particularly in promoting an integrative, mindful approach to health and fitness and to welcoming and promoting movement for health for diverse people of all sizes, ages and abilities. Currently, she’s training to become a certified Forest Therapy Guide (also known as Shinrin Yoku) with the Association of Nature and Forest Therapy.Happily married to a Swiss man and step-mom of 3 beautiful children (now amazing young adults), you can find Shirley hiking with her beloved German Shepherd, Cheyenne, either on beautiful Swiss trails or in sunny California, speaking at conferences worldwide, and being featured in various high-profile media including USA Today, Washington Post, Health, Fitness, Shape and cnn.com.If you want to learn about:How Shirley Archer made her way from being a high powered attorney on Wall Street to becoming an integrative holistic health promoter and advocate.Health as a journey and an evolving process.Why there’s no magic pill that can solve our health issues.Why humans can benefit from a digital detox.Why science proves that humans benefit from and are a part of nature.How we can bring nature into our homes to feel better.The importance of a mindfulness/meditation practice.And much, much more.Tune in!

Our guest today is Dr. John Ioannidis, a Stanford professor who has been described by “BMJ” as “the scourge of sloppy science.” Atlantic magazine has gone so far as to refer to him as one of the world’s most influential scientists. John is renowned for his 2005 paper, “Why Most Published Research Findings Are False,” which has been viewed more than 2.5 million times and is the most citied article in the history of the journal PLoS Medicine. He has authored nearly a thousand academic papers and has served on the editorial board of 30 top-tier journals. At Stanford, John is a professor of medicine, of health research and policy, and of biomedical data science in the school of medicine as well as a professor of statistics in the school of humanities and sciences. He is the co-director of the university’s Meta-Research Innovation Center and the former director of the Stanford Prevention Research Center. In today’s wide-ranging interview, John talks about: [00:07:43] What led him to begin questioning the reliability of medical research during his residency at Harvard. [00:12:03] His 2005 paper, “Why Most Published Research Findings Are False.” [00:26:27] How a major issue facing science is a lack of replication. [00:30:51] Which studies are worse, nutritional studies or drug studies. [00:38:25] If it’s possible to remove sampling biases like the healthy user bias. [00:46:50] The need for scientists to disclose their personal dietary biases as well as their personal diets when publishing research findings. [00:52:40] His recent paper, “Evidence Based Medicine Has Been Hijacked,” which argues that vested interests have transformed clinical medicine into something that resembles finance-based medicine. [00:55:36] The impact that funding pressure is having on the veracity of research being done today. [01:08:42] The need for future research to be designed by scientists without vested interests. [01:14:58] The ways John would fix the system if he had magic wand. [01:18:42] And as a bonus, John reads an excerpt from his latest book. Show notes: [00:02:37] Dawn begins the interview asking John about being born in New York but raised in Athens. [00:03:54] John talks about how his parents were physicians and researchers and how they instilled in him a love for mathematics at an early age. [00:05:26] Dawn asks John about winning the Greek Mathematical Society’s national award when he was 19 years old. [00:06:23] John talks about his decision to go to medical school and to attend Harvard. [00:07:43] Ken mentions that John began questioning the reliability of medical school during his residency at Harvard, and asks John to talk about his interest in an “evidence-based medicine” movement that was gathering momentum at the time. [00:08:47] Dawn asks John about his work with the late Tom Chalmers, who played a major role in the development of randomized controlled trials. [00:09:58] John talks about returning to Greece to take a position at the University of Ioannina. [00:12:03] John talks about his 2005 paper “Why Most Published Research Findings Are False,” which became the single most-cited and downloaded paper in the history of the journal PLoS Medicine. [00:15:32] Dawn mentions that when the paper came out, it was theoretical model. She asks John to talk about how now there are a number of studies pointing out problems with preclinical research on drug targets. [00:17:34] Dawn asks John about his decision to leave the University of Ioannina to take a position at Stanford University. [00:21:02] Dawn asks John for his thoughts on ways to improve the peer-review process. [00:24:09] John talks about how he and his colleagues have found that most medical information that doctors rely on is flawed. [00:26:27] Dawn points out that a major issue facing science is a lack of replication. She talks about how funding for repeat studies is hard to come by and that ma...

People get excited about their favorite diets. Maybe you do, too. Are you a low-carb champion or a low-fat fan? Which one really is your best diet? The DIETFITS Study: A big study from the Stanford Prevention Research Center assigned 600 people to either a healthy low-fat diet or a healthy low-carb diet. (No junk […]

Prof. Gardner is the Director of Nutrition Studies at the Stanford Prevention Research Center and a professor of medicine at Stanford University. He received his PhD in Nutritional Sciences at the University of California, Berkeley in 1993. His postgraduate training included a postdoctoral fellowship in cardiovascular disease epidemiology at Stanford. Dr. Gardner is passionate about two central questions that keep him up at night and get him to jump out of bed most mornings. The first of these is: What can people eat and drink (or avoid/limit) to optimize their health? Dr. Gardner has recently shifted much of his energies to a second and more challenging question: What forces and factors can successfully motivate people to improve their food and beverage choice behaviors? Study Discussed: Gardner et al., 2018 – Effect of Low-Fat vs Low-Carbohydrate Diet on 12-Month Weight Loss in Overweight Adults and the Association With Genotype Pattern or Insulin Secretion: The DIETFITS Randomized Clinical Trial

Associate professor of medicine at the Stanford Prevention Research Center and diet researcher Dr. Christopher Gardner is our guest today in Episode 1311 of “The Livin’ La Vida Low-Carb Show.” Landmark nutritional research was conducted by Dr. Christopher Gardner and published in the prestigious Journal of the American Medical Association in March 2007 called A TO Z: A Comparative Weight Loss Study. In that study, this devout vegetarian advocate (for moral reasons) found that the Atkins low-carb diet produced more weight loss and better health improvements than the low-fat Ornish, moderate-carb Zone or standard American LEARN diet. This was obviously big news in the low-carb community at the time and Dr. Gardner went on the lecture circuit to discuss his study results, including a May 2008 lecture at the Stanford School of Medicine posted on YouTube called The Battle of the Diets: Is Anyone Winning (At Losing?). It’s been a few years since that historical JAMA study sent shock waves through the medical community. What’s been going on with Dr. Gardner’s continued research into this subject and how has his point of view changed regarding diet and health over the past five years? Listen in today as Jimmy has a rather candid conversation with this top nutritional researcher about the continuing ramifications resulting from his positive low-carb diet study. MAKE KETO EASIER WITH FBOMB ORGAN MEATS WITHOUT COOKING USE COUPON CODE “JIMMY” FOR 20% OFF NOTICE OF DISCLOSURE: Paid sponsorship   LINKS MENTIONED IN EPISODE 1311 – SUPPORT OUR SPONSOR: Join Jimmy Moore’s new keto coaching program at KetoClarityAcademy.com – SUPPORT OUR SPONSOR: Snack without sugar with Nush. Nush-Foods.Myshopify.com/ (Get 20% off your first order with coupon code “JIMMY”) – SUPPORT OUR SPONSOR: Get the low-carb, high-fat, ketogenic-friendly Pili Nuts (Get 10% off your order with coupon code “LLVLC”) – Dr. Christopher Gardner Stanford School of Medicine page – The Battle of the Diets: Is Anyone Winning (At Losing?) – RELATED BLOG POST: Stanford Researchers Confirm Atkins Diet Best For Weight Loss, Improved Health

Marily Oppezzo, PhD '13, and an instructor at the Stanford Prevention Research Center, discusses the impact that walking has on the learning process.

As populations gravitate to large cities throughout the world and are absorbed into the middle class, there are corresponding significant shifts in lifestyle; one of these is diet. While access to new food sources can certainly lead to a healthier lifestyle, it just as easily can cause serious health issues. Many of these communities and nations are ill-equipped to handle the exponential rise of certain illnesses traceable in part to diet and nutrition. Take for example the rate of Type II diabetes worldwide; it has almost doubled in the past decade. Much of this increase occurred in the Middle East, where affluence is directly correlated with changes in diet. Similar epidemics of obesity and hypertension, previously unheard of in certain parts of the world, are also on the rise. This discussion will focus not only on the causes of these illnesses in unexpected places, but also on prevention. Speakers: Jason Beaubien, Global Health and Development Correspondent, NPR Gitanjali SinghResearch Assistant Professor, Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy, Tufts University Christopher GardnerDirector of Nutrition Studies, Stanford Prevention Research Center; Professor of Medicine, Stanford University Bruce Y. Lee, Director, Global Obesity Prevention Center, Johns Hopkins; Bloomberg School of Public Health For more information about this event please visit: http://www.worldaffairs.org/media-library/event/1546

Following the burst of the housing bubble in 2008 and the subsequent worldwide financial crisis, governments began looking for ways to tighten their purse strings. Austerity (the sequester in the US) is one of the main policy options to deal with heavy public debt. Sometimes a painful process and not without controversy, austerity generates substantial cuts to many public services. According to Dr. Basu, when approached incorrectly austerity can also have deadly consequences. Drawing on case studies starting during the Great Depression up to the present day Basu has found that certain austerity measures have led to large public health problems such as HIV and malaria outbreaks, medicine shortages, increased heart attacks and even a recent outbreak of West Nile virus in California. However, it doesn’t have to be this way, according to Basu. Several countries such as Iceland and Japan have actually improved their public health situations in tough economic times. Which direction will the sequester take the US and California? Join the conversation with Dr. Sanjay Basu to find out. Speaker: Sanjay Basu, Assistant Professor of Medicine, Stanford Prevention Research Center, Stanford University http://www.worldaffairs.org/speakers/profile/sanjay-basu.html

Michaela Kiernan, PhD, a senior research scientist at the Stanford Prevention Research Center talks about the unorthodox “maintenance-first" approach to dieting and how it could help those who are trying to slim down and be healthier. (October 30, 2012)

The case for low-carbohydrate diets is gaining weight. Christopher Gardner, PhD, assistant professor of medicine at the Stanford Prevention Research Center, has completed the largest and longest-ever comparison of four popular diets. (January 17, 2007)  

The case for low-carbohydrate diets is gaining weight. Christopher Gardner, PhD, assistant professor of medicine at the Stanford Prevention Research Center, has completed the largest and longest-ever comparison of four popular diets. (January 17, 2007)