Podcasts about tulleken

First up, we look at the absurdities of modern leadership with goofy governance. Liberal Democrat leader Sir Ed Davey has declared he won't attend Donald Trump's state banquet — a bold refusal of an invitation he never received. Mark and Pete explore what this reveals about the theatre of British politics and the problem of symbolic posturing in governance. Next, we turn to the tennis court. Daniil Medvedev lost his cool when a photographer strayed onto the court, showing how easily anger boils over in sport. But when is anger righteous, and when is it destructive? Pete reflects on biblical teaching about temper, from Jesus cleansing the Temple to Paul's warning not to let the sun go down on our wrath. Finally, posture comes under scrutiny. Scientist and BBC presenter Dr Xand van Tulleken has urged people to improve their posture for health's sake. Pete has tried this himself and shares why posture matters — not just physically, but spiritually, as Scripture calls us to stand firm in faith.Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/mark-and-pete--1245374/support.

Lots of talk these days about ultra-processed foods (UPFs). Along with confusion about what in the heck they are or what they're not, how bad they are for us, and what ought to be done about them. A landmark in the discussion of ultra-processed foods has been the publication of a book entitled Ultra-processed People, Why We Can't Stop Eating Food That Isn't Food. The author of that book, Dr. Chris van Tulleken, joins us today. Dr. van Tulleken is a physician and is professor of Infection and Global Health at University College London. He also has a PhD in molecular virology and is an award-winning broadcaster on the BBC. His book on Ultra-processed People is a bestseller. Interview Summary Chris, sometimes somebody comes along that takes a complicated topic and makes it accessible and understandable and brings it to lots of people. You're a very fine scientist and scholar and academic, but you also have that ability to communicate effectively with lots of people, which I very much admire. So, thanks for doing that, and thank you for joining us. Oh, Kelly, it's such a pleasure. You know, I begin some of my talks now with a clipping from the New York Times. And it's a picture of you and an interview you gave in 1995. So exactly three decades ago. And in this article, you just beautifully communicate everything that 30 years later I'm still saying. So, yeah. I wonder if communication, it's necessary, but insufficient. I think we are needing to think of other means to bring about change. I totally agree. Well, thank you by the way. And I hope I've learned something over those 30 years. Tell us, please, what are ultra-processed foods? People hear the term a lot, but I don't think a lot of people know exactly what it means. The most important thing to know, I think, is that it's not a casual term. It's not like 'junk food' or 'fast food.' It is a formal scientific definition. It's been used in hundreds of research studies. The definition is very long. It's 11 paragraphs long. And I would urge anyone who's really interested in this topic, go to the United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization website. You can type in NFAO Ultra and you'll get the full 11 paragraph definition. It's an incredibly sophisticated piece of science. But it boils down to if you as a consumer, someone listening to this podcast, want to know if the thing you are eating right now is ultra-processed, look at the ingredients list. If there are ingredients on that list that you do not normally find in a domestic kitchen like an emulsifier, a coloring, a flavoring, a non-nutritive sweetener, then that product will be ultra-processed. And it's a way of describing this huge range of foods that kind of has taken over the American and the British and in fact diets all over the world. How come the food companies put this stuff in the foods? And the reason I ask is in talks I give I'll show an ingredient list from a food that most people would recognize. And ask people if they can guess what the food is from the ingredient list. And almost nobody can. There are 35 things on the ingredient list. Sugar is in there, four different forms. And then there are all kinds of things that are hard to pronounce. There are lots of strange things in there. They get in there through loopholes and government regulation. Why are they there in the first place? So, when I started looking at this I also noticed this long list of fancy sounding ingredients. And even things like peanut butter will have palm oil and emulsifiers. Cream cheese will have xanthum gum and emulsifiers. And you think, well, wouldn't it just be cheaper to make your peanut butter out of peanuts. In fact, every ingredient is in there to make money in one of two ways. Either it drives down the cost of production or storage. If you imagine using a real strawberry in your strawberry ice cream. Strawberries are expensive. They're not always in season. They rot. You've got to have a whole supply chain. Why would you use a strawberry if you could use ethyl methylphenylglycidate and pink dye and it'll taste the same. It'll look great. You could then put in a little chunky bit of modified corn starch that'll be chewy if you get it in the right gel mix. And there you go. You've got strawberries and you haven't had to deal with strawberry farmers or any supply chain. It's just you just buy bags and bottles of white powder and liquids. The other way is to extend the shelf life. Strawberries as I say, or fresh food, real food - food we might call it rots on shelves. It decays very quickly. If you can store something at room temperature in a warehouse for months and months, that saves enormous amounts of money. So, one thing is production, but the other thing is the additives allow us to consume to excess or encourage us to consume ultra-processed food to excess. So, I interviewed a scientist who was a food industry development scientist. And they said, you know, most ultra-processed food would be gray if it wasn't dyed, for example. So, if you want to make cheap food using these pastes and powders, unless you dye it and you flavor it, it will be inedible. But if you dye it and flavor it and add just the right amount of salt, sugar, flavor enhancers, then you can make these very addictive products. So that's the logic of UPF. Its purpose is to make money. And that's part of the definition. Right. So, a consumer might decide that there's, you know, beneficial trade-off for them at the end of the day. That they get things that have long shelf life. The price goes down because of the companies don't have to deal with the strawberry farmers and things like that. But if there's harm coming in waves from these things, then it changes the equation. And you found out some of that on your own. So as an experiment you did with a single person - you, you ate ultra-processed foods for a month. What did you eat and how did it affect your body, your mood, your sleep? What happened when you did this? So, what's really exciting, actually Kelly, is while it was an n=1, you know, one participant experiment, I was actually the pilot participant in a much larger study that we have published in Nature Medicine. One of the most reputable and high impact scientific journals there is. So, I was the first participant in a randomized control trial. I allowed us to gather the data about what we would then measure in a much larger number. Now we'll come back and talk about that study, which I think was really important. It was great to see it published. So, I was a bit skeptical. Partly it was with my research team at UCL, but we were also filming it for a BBC documentary. And I went into this going I'm going to eat a diet of 80% of my calories will come from ultra-processed food for four weeks. And this is a normal diet. A lifelong diet for a British teenager. We know around 20% of people in the UK and the US eat this as their normal food. They get 80% of their calories from ultra-processed products. I thought, well, nothing is going to happen to me, a middle-aged man, doing this for four weeks. But anyway, we did it kind of as a bit of fun. And we thought, well, if nothing happens, we don't have to do a bigger study. We can just publish this as a case report, and we'll leave it out of the documentary. Three big things happened. I gained a massive amount of weight, so six kilos. And I wasn't force feeding myself. I was just eating when I wanted. In American terms, that's about 15 pounds in four weeks. And that's very consistent with the other published trials that have been done on ultra-processed food. There have been two other RCTs (randomized control trials); ours is the third. There is one in Japan, one done at the NIH. So, people gain a lot of weight. I ate massively more calories. So much so that if I'd continued on the diet, I would've almost doubled my body weight in a year. And that may sound absurd, but I have an identical twin brother who did this natural experiment. He went to Harvard for a year. He did his masters there. During his year at Harvard he gained, let's see, 26 kilos, so almost 60 pounds just living in Cambridge, Massachusetts. But how did you decide how much of it to eat? Did you eat until you just kind of felt naturally full? I did what most people do most of the time, which is I just ate what I wanted when I felt like it. Which actually for me as a physician, I probably took the breaks off a bit because I don't normally have cocoa pops for breakfast. But I ate cocoa pops and if I felt like two bowls, I'd have two bowls. It turned out what I felt like a lot of mornings was four bowls and that was fine. I was barely full. So, I wasn't force feeding myself. It wasn't 'supersize' me. I was eating to appetite, which is how these experiments run. And then what we've done in the trials. So, I gained weight, then we measured my hormone response to a meal. When you eat, I mean, it's absurd to explain this to YOU. But when you eat, you have fullness hormones that go up and hunger hormones that go down, so you feel full and less hungry. And we measured my response to a standard meal at the beginning and at the end of this four-week diet. What we found is that I had a normal response to eating a big meal at the beginning of the diet. At the end of eating ultra-processed foods, the same meal caused a very blunted rise in the satiety hormones. In the 'fullness' hormones. So, I didn't feel as full. And my hunger hormones remained high. And so, the food is altering our response to all meals, not merely within the meal that we're eating. Then we did some MRI scans and again, I thought this would be a huge waste of time. But we saw at four weeks, and then again eight weeks later, very robust changes in the communication between the habit-forming bits at the back of the brain. So, the automatic behavior bits, the cerebellum. Very conscious I'm talking to YOU about this, Kelly. And the kind of addiction reward bits in the middle. Now these changes were physiological, not structural. They're about the two bits of the brain talking to each other. There's not really a new wire going between them. But we think if this kind of communication is happening a lot, that maybe a new pathway would form. And I think no one, I mean we did this with very expert neuroscientists at our National Center for Neuroscience and Neurosurgery, no one really knows what it means. But the general feeling was these are the kind of changes we might expect if we'd given someone, or a person or an animal, an addictive substance for four weeks. They're consistent with, you know, habit formation and addiction. And the fact that they happened so quickly, and they were so robust - they remained the same eight weeks after I stopped the diet, I think is really worrying from a kid's perspective. So, in a period of four weeks, it re-altered the way your brain works. It affected the way your hunger and satiety were working. And then you ended up with this massive weight. And heaven knows what sort of cardiovascular effects or other things like that might have been going on or had the early signs of that over time could have been really pretty severe, I imagine. I think one of the main effects was that I became very empathetic with my patients. Because we did actually a lot of, sort of, psychological testing as well. And there's an experience where, obviously in clinic, I mainly treat patients with infections. But many of my patients are living with other, sort of, disorders of modern life. They live with excess weight and cardiovascular disease and type two diabetes and metabolic problems and so on. And I felt in four weeks like I'd gone from being in my early 30, early 40s at the time, I felt like I'd just gone to my early 50s or 60s. I ached. I felt terrible. My sleep was bad. And it was like, oh! So many of the problems of modern life: waking up to pee in the middle of the night is because you've eaten so much sodium with your dinner. You've drunk all this water, and then you're trying to get rid of it all night. Then you're constipated. It's a low fiber diet, so you develop piles. Pain in your bum. The sleep deprivation then makes you eat more. And so, you get in this vicious cycle where the problem didn't feel like the food until I stopped and I went cold turkey. I virtually have not touched it since. It cured me of wanting UPF. That was the other amazing bit of the experience that I write about in the book is it eating it and understanding it made me not want it. It was like being told to smoke. You know, you get caught smoking as a kid and your parents are like, hey, now you finish the pack. It was that. It was an aversion experience. So, it gave me a lot of empathy with my patients that many of those kinds of things we regard as being normal aging, those symptoms are often to do with the way we are living our lives. Chris, I've talked to a lot of people about ultra-processed foods. You're the first one who's mentioned pain in the bum as one of the problems, so thank you. When I first became a physician, I trained as a surgeon, and I did a year doing colorectal surgery. So, I have a wealth of experience of where a low fiber diet leaves you. And many people listening to this podcast, I mean, look, we're all going to get piles. Everyone gets these, you know, anal fishes and so on. And bum pain it's funny to talk about it. No, not the... it destroys people's lives, so, you know, anyway. Right. I didn't want to make light of it. No, no. Okay. So, your own experiment would suggest that these foods are really bad actors and having this broad range of highly negative effects. But what does research say about these things beyond your own personal experience, including your own research? So, the food industry has been very skillful at portraying this as a kind of fad issue. As ultra-processed food is this sort of niche thing. Or it's a snobby thing. It's not a real classification. I want to be absolutely clear. UPF, the definition is used by the World Health Organization and the United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization to monitor global diet quality, okay? It's a legitimate way of thinking about food. The last time I looked, there are more than 30 meta-analyses - that is reviews of big studies. And the kind of high-quality studies that we use to say cigarettes cause lung cancer. So, we've got this what we call epidemiological evidence, population data. We now have probably more than a hundred of these prospective cohort studies. And they're really powerful tools. They need to be used in conjunction with other evidence, but they now link ultra-processed food to this very wide range of what we euphemistically call negative health outcomes. You know, problems that cause human suffering, mental health problems, anxiety, depression, multiple forms of cancer, inflammatory diseases like Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis, metabolic disease, cardiovascular disease, Alzheimer's and dementia. Of course, weight gain and obesity. And all cause mortality so you die earlier of all causes. And there are others too. So, the epidemiological evidence is strong and that's very plausible. So, we take that epidemiological evidence, as you well know, and we go, well look, association and causation are different things. You know, do matches cause cancer or does cigarettes cause cancer? Because people who buy lots of matches are also getting the lung cancer. And obviously epidemiologists are very sophisticated at teasing all this out. But we look at it in the context then of other evidence. My group published the third randomized control trial where we put a group of people, in a very controlled way, on a diet of either minimally processed food or ultra-processed food and looked at health outcomes. And we found what the other two trials did. We looked at weight gain as a primary outcome. It was a short trial, eight weeks. And we saw people just eat more calories on the ultra-processed food. This is food that is engineered to be consumed to excess. That's its purpose. So maybe to really understand the effect of it, you have to imagine if you are a food development engineer working in product design at a big food company - if you develop a food that's cheap to make and people will just eat loads of it and enjoy it, and then come back for it again and again and again, and eat it every day and almost become addicted to it, you are going to get promoted. That product is going to do well on the shelves. If you invent a food that's not addictive, it's very healthy, it's very satisfying, people eat it and then they're done for the day. And they don't consume it to excess. You are not going to keep your job. So that's a really important way of understanding the development process of the foods. So let me ask a question about industry and intent. Because one could say that the industry engineers these things to have long shelf life and nice physical properties and the right colors and things like this. And these effects on metabolism and appetite and stuff are unpleasant and difficult side effects, but the foods weren't made to produce those things. They weren't made to produce over consumption and then in turn produce those negative consequences. You're saying something different. That you think that they're intentionally designed to promote over consumption. And in some ways, how could the industry do otherwise? I mean, every industry in the world wants people to over consume or consume as much of their product as they can. The food industry is no different. That is exactly right. The food industry behaves like every other corporation. In my view, they commit evil acts sometimes, but they're not institutionally evil. And I have dear friends who work in big food, who work in big pharma. I have friends who work in tobacco. These are not evil people. They're constrained by commercial incentives, right? So, when I say I think the food is engineered, I don't think it. I know it because I've gone and interviewed loads of people in product development at big food companies. I put some of these interviewees in a BBC documentary called Irresistible. So rather than me in the documentary going, oh, ultra-processed food is bad. And everyone going, well, you are, you're a public health bore. I just got industry insiders to say, yes, this is how we make the food. And going back to Howard Moskovitz, in the 1970s, I think he was working for the Campbell Soup Company. And Howard, who was a psychologist by training, outlined the development process. And what he said was then underlined by many other people I've spoken to. You develop two different products. This one's a little bit saltier than the next, and you test them on a bunch of people. People like the saltier ones. So now you keep the saltier one and you develop a third product and this one's got a bit more sugar in it. And if this one does better, well you keep this one and you keep AB testing until you get people buying and eating lots. And one of the crucial things that food companies measure in product development is how fast do people eat and how quickly do they eat. And these kind of development tools were pioneered by the tobacco industry. I mean, Laura Schmidt has done a huge amount of the work on this. She's at University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), in California. And we know the tobacco industry bought the food industry and for a while in the '80s and '90s, the biggest food companies in the world were also the biggest tobacco companies in the world. And they used their flavor molecules and their marketing techniques and their distribution systems. You know, they've got a set of convenience tools selling cigarettes all over the country. Well, why don't we sell long shelf-life food marketed in the same way? And one thing that the tobacco industry was extremely good at was figuring out how to get the most rapid delivery of the drug possible into the human body when people smoke. Do you think that some of that same thing is true for food, rapid delivery of sugar, let's say? How close does the drug parallel fit, do you think? So, that's part of the reason the speed of consumption is important. Now, I think Ashley Gearhardt has done some of the most incredible work on this. And what Ashley says is we think of addictive drugs as like it's the molecule that's addictive. It's nicotine, it's caffeine, cocaine, diamorphine, heroin, the amphetamines. What we get addicted to is the molecule. And that Ashley says no. The processing of that molecule is crucially important. If you have slow-release nicotine in a chewing gum, that can actually treat your nicotine addiction. It's not very addictive. Slow-release amphetamine we use to treat children with attention and behavioral problems. Slow-release cocaine is an anesthetic. You use it for dentistry. No one ever gets addicted to dental anesthetics. And the food is the same. The rewarding molecules in the food we think are mainly the fat and the sugar. And food that requires a lot of chewing and is slow eaten slowly, you don't deliver the reward as quickly. And it tends not to be very addictive. Very soft foods or liquid foods with particular fat sugar ratios, if you deliver the nutrients into the gut fast, that seems to be really important for driving excessive consumption. And I think the growing evidence around addiction is very persuasive. I mean, my patients report feeling addicted to the food. And I don't feel it's legitimate to question their experience. Chris, a little interesting story about that concept of food and addiction. So going back several decades I was a professor at Yale, and I was teaching a graduate course. Ashley Gerhardt was a student in that course. And, she was there to study addiction, not in the context of food, but I brought up the issue of, you know, could food be addictive? There's some interesting research on this. It's consistent with what we're hearing from people, and that seems a really interesting topic. And Ashley, I give her credit, took this on as her life's work and now she's like the leading expert in the world on this very important topic. And what's nice for me to recall that story is that how fast the science on this is developed. And now something's coming out on this almost every day. It's some new research on the neuroscience of food and addiction and how the food is hijacking in the brain. And that whole concept of addiction seems really important in this context. And I know you've talked a lot about that yourself. She has reframed, I think, this idea about the way that addictive substances and behaviors really work. I mean it turns everything on its head to go the processing is important. The thing the food companies have always been able to say is, look, you can't say food is addictive. It doesn't contain any addictive molecules. And with Ashley's work you go, no, but the thing is it contains rewarding molecules and actually the spectrum of molecules that we can find rewarding and we can deliver fast is much, much broader than the traditionally addictive substances. For policy, it's vital because part of regulating the tobacco industry was about showing they know they are making addictive products. And I think this is where Ashley's work and Laura Schmidt's work are coming together. With Laura's digging in the tobacco archive, Ashley's doing the science on addiction, and I think these two things are going to come together. And I think it's just going to be a really exciting space to watch. I completely agree. You know when most people think about the word addiction, they basically kind of default to thinking about how much you want something. How much, you know, you desire something. But there are other parts of it that are really relevant here too. I mean one is how do you feel if you don't have it and sort of classic withdrawal. And people talk about, for example, being on high sugar drinks and stopping them and having withdrawal symptoms and things like that. And the other part of it that I think is really interesting here is tolerance. You know whether you need more of the substance over time in order to get the same reward benefit. And that hasn't been studied as much as the other part of addiction. But there's a lot to the picture other than just kind of craving things. And I would say that the thing I like about this is it chimes with my. Personal experience, which is, I have tried alcohol and cigarettes and I should probably end that list there. But I've never had any real desire for more of them. They aren't the things that tickle my brain. Whereas the food is a thing that I continue to struggle with. I would say in some senses, although I no longer like ultra-processed food at some level, I still want it. And I think of myself to some degree, without trivializing anyone's experience, to some degree I think I'm in sort of recovery from it. And it remains that tussle. I mean I don't know what you think about the difference between the kind of wanting and liking of different substances. Some scientists think those two things are quite, quite different. That you can like things you don't want, and you can want things you don't like. Well, that's exactly right. In the context of food and traditional substances of abuse, for many of them, people start consuming because they produce some sort of desired effect. But that pretty quickly goes away, and people then need the substance because if they don't have it, they feel terrible. So, you know, morphine or heroin or something like that always produces positive effects. But that initial part of the equation where you just take it because you like it turns into this needing it and having to have it. And whether that same thing exists with food is an interesting topic. I think the other really important part of the addiction argument in policy terms is that one counterargument by industrial scientists and advocates is by raising awareness around ultra-processed food we are at risk of driving, eating disorders. You know? The phenomenon of orthorexia, food avoidance, anorexia. Because all food is good food. There should be no moral value attached to food and we mustn't drive any food anxiety. And I think there are some really strong voices in the United Kingdom Eating Disorder scientists. People like Agnes Ayton, who are starting to say, look, when food is engineered, using brain scanners and using scientific development techniques to be consumed to excess, is it any wonder that people develop a disordered relationship with the food? And there may be a way of thinking about the rise of eating disorders, which is parallel to the rise of our consumption of ultra-processed food, that eating disorders are a reasonable response to a disordered food environment. And I think that's where I say all that somewhat tentatively. I feel like this is a safe space where you will correct me if I go off piste. But I think it's important to at least explore that question and go, you know, this is food with which it is very hard, I would say, to have a healthy relationship. That's my experience. And I think the early research is bearing that out. Tell us how these foods affect your hunger, how full you feel, your microbiome. That whole sort of interactive set of signals that might put people in harmony with food in a normal environment but gets thrown off when the foods get processed like this. Oh, I love that question. At some level as I'm understanding that question, one way of trying to answer that question is to go, well, what is the normal physiological response to food? Or maybe how do wild animals find, consume, and then interpret metabolically the food that they eat. And it is staggering how little we know about how we learn what food is safe and what food nourishes us. What's very clear is that wild mammals, and in fact all wild animals, are able to maintain near perfect energy balance. Obesity is basically unheard of in the wild. And, perfect nutritional intake, I mean, obviously there are famines in wild animals, but broadly, animals can do this without being literate, without being given packaging, without any nutritional advice at all. So, if you imagine an ungulate, an herbivore on the plains of the Serengeti, it has a huge difficulty. The carnivore turning herbivore into carnivore is fairly easy. They're made of the same stuff. Turning plant material into mammal is really complicated. And somehow the herbivore can do this without gaining weight, whilst maintaining total precision over its selenium intake, its manganese, its cobalt, its iron, all of which are terrible if you have too little and also terrible if you have too much. We understand there's some work done in a few wild animals, goats, and rats about how this works. Clearly, we have an ability to sense the nutrition we want. What we understand much more about is the sort of quantities needed. And so, we've ended up with a system of nutritional advice that says, well, just eat these numbers. And if you can stick to the numbers, 2,500 calories a day, 2300 milligrams of sodium, no more than 5% of your calories from free sugar or 10%, whatever it is, you know, you stick to these numbers, you'll be okay. And also, these many milligrams of cobalt, manganese, selenium, iron, zinc, all the rest of it. And obviously people can't really do that even with the packaging. This is a very long-winded answer. So, there's this system that is exquisitely sensitive at regulating micronutrient and energy intake. And what we understand, what the Academy understands about how ultra-processed food subverts this is, I would say there are sort of three or four big things that ultra-processed does that real food doesn't. It's generally very soft. And it's generally very energy dense. And that is true of even the foods that we think of as being healthy. That's like your supermarket whole grain bread. It's incredibly energy dense. It's incredibly soft. You eat calories very fast, and this research was done in the '90s, you know we've known that that kind of food promotes excessive intake. I guess in simple terms, and you would finesse this, you consume calories before your body has time to go, well, you've eaten enough. You can consume an excess. Then there's the ratios of fat, salt, and sugar and the way you can balance them, and any good cook knows if you can get the acid, fat, salt, sugar ratios right, you can make incredibly delicious food. That's kind of what I would call hyper palatability. And a lot of that work's being done in the states (US) by some incredible people. Then the food may be that because it's low in fiber and low in protein, quite often it's not satiating. And there may be, because it's also low in micronutrients and general nutrition, it may be that, and this is a little bit theoretical, but there's some evidence for this. Part of what drives the excess consumption is you're kind of searching for the nutrients. The nutrients are so dilute that you have to eat loads of it in order to get enough. Do you think, does that, is that how you understand it? It does, it makes perfect sense. In fact, I'm glad you brought up one particular issue because part of the ultra-processing that makes foods difficult for the body to deal with involves what gets put in, but also what gets taken out. And there was a study that got published recently that I think you and I might have discussed earlier on American breakfast cereals. And this study looked at how the formulation of them had changed over a period of about 20 years. And what they found is that the industry had systematically removed the protein and the fiber and then put in more things like sugar. So there, there's both what goes in and what gets taken out of foods that affects the body in this way. You know, what I hear you saying, and what I, you know, believe myself from the science, is the body's pretty capable of handling the food environment if food comes from the natural environment. You know, if you sit down to a meal of baked chicken and some beans and some leafy greens and maybe a little fruit or something, you're not going to overdo it. Over time you'd end up with the right mix of nutrients and things like that and you'd be pretty healthy. But all bets are off when these foods get processed and engineered, so you over consume them. You found that out in the experiment that you did on yourself. And then that's what science shows too. So, it's not like these things are sort of benign. People overeat them and they ought to just push away from the table. There's a lot more going on here in terms of hijacking the brain chemistry. Overriding the body signals. Really thwarting normal biology. Do you think it's important to add that we think of obesity as being the kind of dominant public health problem? That's the thing we all worry about. But the obesity is going hand in hand with stunting, for example. So, height as you reach adulthood in the US, at 19 US adults are something like eight or nine centimeters shorter than their counterparts in Northern Europe, Scandinavia, where people still eat more whole food. And we should come back to that evidence around harms, because I think the really important thing to say around the evidence is it has now reached the threshold for causality. So, we can say a dietary pattern high in ultra-processed food causes all of these negative health outcomes. That doesn't mean that any one product is going to kill you. It just means if this is the way you get your food, it's going to be harmful. And if all the evidence says, I mean, we've known this for decades. If you can cook the kind of meal, you just described at home, which is more or less the way that high income people eat, you are likely to have way better health outcomes across the board. Let me ask you about the title of your book. So, the subtitle of your book is Why We Can't Stop Eating Food That Isn't Food. So, what is it? The ultra-processed definition is something I want to pay credit for. It's really important to pay a bit of credit here. Carlos Montero was the scientist in Brazil who led a team who together came up with this definition. And, I was speaking to Fernanda Rauber who was on that team, and we were trying to discuss some research we were doing. And every time I said food, she'd correct me and go, it is not, it's not food, Chris. It's an industrially produced edible substance. And that was a really helpful thing for me personally, it's something it went into my brain, and I sat down that night. I was actually on the UPF diet, and I sat down to eat some fried chicken wings from a popular chain that many people will know. And was unable to finish them. I think our shared understanding of the purpose of food is surely that its purpose is to nourish us. Whether it's, you know, sold by someone for this purpose, or whether it's made by someone at home. You know it should nourish us spiritually, socially, culturally, and of course physically and mentally. And ultra-processed food nourishes us in no dimension whatsoever. It destroys traditional knowledge, traditional land, food culture. You don't sit down with your family and break, you know, ultra-processed, you know, crisps together. You know, you break bread. To me that's a kind of very obvious distortion of what it's become. So, I don't think it is food. You know, I think it's not too hard of a stretch to see a time when people might consider these things non-food. Because if you think of food, what's edible and whether it's food or not is completely socially constructed. I mean, some parts of the world, people eat cockroaches or ants or other insects. And in other parts of the world that's considered non-food. So just because something's edible doesn't mean that it's food. And I wonder if at some point we might start to think of these things as, oh my God, these are awful. They're really bad for us. The companies are preying on us, and it's just not food. And yeah, totally your book helps push us in that direction. I love your optimism. The consumer facing marketing budget of a big food company is often in excess of $10 billion a year. And depends how you calculate it. I'll give you a quick quiz on this. So, for a while, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation was by far the biggest funder of research in the world on childhood obesity. And they were spending $500 million a year to address this problem. Just by which day of the year the food industry has already spent $500 million just advertising just junk food just to children. Okay, so the Robert V. Wood Foundation is spending it and they were spending that annually. Annually, right. So, what's, by what day of the year is the food industry already spent that amount? Just junk food advertising just to kids. I'm going to say by somewhere in early spring. No. January 4th. I mean, it's hysterical, but it's also horrifying. So, this is the genius of ultra-processed food, of the definition and the science, is that it creates this category which is discretionary. And so at least in theory, of course, for many people in the US it's not discretionary at all. It's the only stuff they can afford. But this is why the food industry hate it so much is because it offers the possibility of going, we can redefine food. And there is all this real food over there. And there is this UPF stuff that isn't food over here. But industry's very sophisticated, you know. I mean, they push back very hard against me in many different ways and forms. And they're very good at going, well, you're a snob. How dare you say that families with low incomes, that they're not eating food. Are you calling them dupes? Are you calling them stupid? You know, they're very, very sophisticated at positioning. Isn't it nice how concerned they are about the wellbeing of people without means? I mean they have created a pricing structure and a food subsidy environment and a tax environment where essentially people with low incomes in your country, in my country, are forced to eat food that harms them. So, one of the tells I think is if you're hearing someone criticize ultra-processed food, and you'll read them in the New York Times. And often their conflicts of interest won't be reported. They may be quite hidden. The clue is, are they demanding to seriously improve the food environment in a very clear way, or are they only criticizing the evidence around ultra-processed food? And if they're only criticizing that evidence? I'll bet you a pound to a pinch of salt they'll be food-industry funded. Let's talk about that. Let's talk about that a little more. So, there's a clear pattern of scientists who take money from industry finding things that favor industry. Otherwise, industry wouldn't pay that money. They're not stupid in the way they invest. And, you and I have talked about this before, but we did a study some years ago where we looked at industry and non-industry funded study on the health effects of consuming sugar sweetened beverages. And it's like the ocean parted. It's one of my favorites. And it was something like 98 or 99% of the independently funded studies found that sugar sweetened beverages do cause harm. And 98 or 99% of the industry funded studies funded by Snapple and Coke and a whole bunch of other companies found that they did not cause harm. It was that stark, was it? It was. And so you and I pay attention to the little print in these scientific studies about who's funded them and who might have conflicts of interest. And maybe you and I and other people who follow science closely might be able to dismiss those conflicted studies. But they have a big impact out there in the world, don't they? I had a meeting in London with someone recently, that they themselves were conflicted and they said, look, if a health study's funded by a big sugary drink company, if it's good science, that's fine. We should publish it and we should take it at face value. And in the discussion with them, I kind of accepted that, we were talking about other things. And afterwards I was like, no. If a study on human health is funded by a sugary drink corporation, in my opinion, we could just tear that up. None of that should be published. No journals should publish those studies and scientists should not really call themselves scientists who are doing it. It is better thought of as marketing and food industry-funded scientists who study human health, in my opinion, are better thought of as really an extension of the marketing division of the companies. You know, it's interesting when you talk to scientists, and you ask them do people who take money from industry is their work influenced by that money? They'll say yes. Yeah, but if you say, but if you take money from industry, will your work be influenced? They'll always say no. Oh yeah. There's this tremendous arrogance, blind spot, whatever it is that. I can remain untarnished. I can remain objective, and I can help change the industry from within. In the meantime, I'm having enough money to buy a house in the mountains, you know, from what they're paying me, and it's really pretty striking. Well, the money is a huge issue. You know, science, modern science it's not a very lucrative career compared to if someone like you went and worked in industry, you would add a zero to the end of your salary, possibly more. And the same is true of me. I think one of the things that adds real heft to the independent science is that the scientists are taking a pay cut to do it. So how do children figure in? Do you think children are being groomed by the industry to eat these foods? A senator, I think in Chile, got in hot water for comparing big food companies to kind of sex offenders. He made, in my view, a fairly legitimate comparison. I mean, the companies are knowingly selling harmful products that have addictive properties using the language of addiction to children who even if they could read warning labels, the warning labels aren't on the packs. So, I mean, we have breakfast cereals called Crave. We have slogans like, once you stop, once you pop, you can't stop. Bet you can't just eat one. Yeah, I think it is predatory and children are the most vulnerable group in our society. And you can't just blame the parents. Once kids get to 10, they have a little bit of money. They get their pocket money, they're walking to school, they walk past stores. You know, you have to rely on them making decisions. And at the moment, they're in a very poor environment to make good decisions. Perhaps the most important question of all what can be done. So, I'm speaking to you at a kind of funny moment because I've been feeling that a lot of my research and advocacy, broadcasting... you know, I've made documentaries, podcasts, I've written a book, I've published these papers. I've been in most of the major newspapers and during the time I've been doing this, you know, a little under 10 years I've been really focused on food. Much less time than you. Everything has got worse. Everything I've done has really failed totally. And I think this is a discussion about power, about unregulated corporate power. And the one glimmer of hope is this complaint that's been filed in Pennsylvania by a big US law firm. It's a very detailed complaint and some lawyers on behalf of a young person called Bryce Martinez are suing the food industry for causing kidney problems and type two diabetes. And I think that in the end is what's going to be needed. Strategic litigation. That's the only thing that worked with tobacco. All of the science, it eventually was useful, but the science on its own and the advocacy and the campaigning and all of it did no good until the lawyers said we would like billions and billions of dollars in compensation please. You know, this is an exciting moment, but there were a great many failed lawsuits for tobacco before the master settlement agreement in the '90s really sort of changed the game. You know, I agree with you. Are you, are you optimistic? I mean, what do you think? I am, and for exactly the same reason you are. You know, the poor people that worked on public health and tobacco labored for decades without anything happening long, long after the health consequences of cigarette smoking were well known. And we've done the same thing. I mean, those us who have been working in the field for all these years have seen precious little in the ways of policy advances. Now tobacco has undergone a complete transformation with high taxes on cigarettes, and marketing restrictions, and non-smoking in public places, laws, and things like that, that really have completely driven down the consumption of cigarettes, which has been a great public health victory. But what made those policies possible was the litigation that occurred by the state attorneys general, less so the private litigating attorneys. But the state attorneys general in the US that had discovery documents released. People began to understand more fully the duplicity of the tobacco companies. That gave cover for the politicians to start passing the policies that ultimately made the big difference. I think that same history is playing out here. The state attorneys general, as we both know, are starting to get interested in this. I say hurray to that. There is the private lawsuit that you mentioned, and there's some others in the mix as well. I think those things will bring a lot of propel the release of internal documents that will show people what the industry has been doing and how much of this they've known all along. And then all of a sudden some of these policy things like taxes, for example, on sugared beverages, might come in and really make a difference. That's my hope. But it makes me optimistic. Well, I'm really pleased to hear that because I think in your position it would be possible. You know, I'm still, two decades behind where I might be in my pessimism. One of the kind of engines of this problem to me is these conflicts of interest where people who say, I'm a physician, I'm a scientist, I believe all this. And they're quietly paid by the food industry. This was the major way the tobacco industry had a kind of social license. They were respectable. And I do hope the lawsuits, one of their functions is it becomes a little bit embarrassing to say my research institute is funded [by a company that keeps making headlines every day because more documents are coming out in court, and they're being sued by more and more people. So, I hope that this will diminish the conflict, particularly between scientists and physicians in the food industry. Because that to me, those are my biggest opponents. The food industry is really nice. They throw money at me. But it's the conflicted scientists that are really hard to argue with because they appear so respectable. Bio Dr. Chris van Tulleken is a physician and a professor of Infection and Global Health at University College London. He trained at Oxford and earned his PhD in molecular virology from University College London. His research focuses on how corporations affect human health especially in the context of child nutrition and he works with UNICEF and The World Health Organization on this area. He is the author of a book entitled Ultraprocessed People: Why We Can't Stop Eating Food That Isn't Food. As one of the BBC's leading broadcasters for children and adults his work has won two BAFTAs. He lives in London with his wife and two children.

In Folge 487 des beVegt-Podcast gibt's Teil 2 der spannendsten, überraschendsten und erschreckendsten Erkenntnisse, die wir aus dem Buch „Ultra-Processed People“ von Chris van Tulleken mitgenommen haben. Shownotes: https://www.bevegt.de/ultra-processed-people-podcast-2/ Werbepartner dieser Folge: BookBeat (hol dir 60 Tage BookBeat gratis mit dem Gutscheincode BEVEGT)  Werde beVegt-Supporter*in: https://www.bevegt.de/unterstuetzen/ Hol dir den kostenlosen Newsletter: https://www.bevegt.de/newsletter/ Komm in unsere Online-Community: https://community.bevegt.de/ Unsere E-Books und Kurse: Schaffe den Einstieg ins Laufen mit LAUFSTART Laufe deinen ersten oder schnellsten (Halb-)Marathon mit FINISHER Verdoppele deine Beweglichkeit mit STRETCH Starte die Küchenrevolution mit unseren Grain-Green-Bean Kochbüchern

At the age of twenty-two, Dr Grace Spence Green's spine was broken at the fourth thoracic vertebra. One day, she was in hospital supporting patients, the next she was fighting for her own life. As Grace came to understand her new life as a wheelchair user, she also had to reconceptualise how she could be both a doctor and a patient, and her now deeply personal understanding of society's persistent ableism. She joins Dr Xand van Tulleken to share her journey, from how people's perception of her post-injury changed dramatically due to ableist mindsets, to how her own experience navigating the medical system as a patient helped her better understand her own patients, to how her patients have in turn helped her in surprising and deeply human reciprocity. Grace shares her own passion for disability advocacy, and calls for us all to change the narrative about disability and ableism. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

In Folge 485 des beVegt-Podcast sprechen wir über die spannendsten, überraschendsten und erschreckendsten Erkenntnisse, die wir aus dem Buch „Ultra-Processed People“ von Chris van Tulleken mitgenommen haben. Shownotes: https://www.bevegt.de/ultra-processed-people-podcast-1/ Unser Supplemente-Partner: FormMed (5€ Neukunden-Rabatt mit den Gutscheincode "bevegt5") Werde beVegt-Supporter*in: https://www.bevegt.de/unterstuetzen/ Hol dir den kostenlosen Newsletter: https://www.bevegt.de/newsletter/ Komm in unsere Online-Community: https://community.bevegt.de/  

Beyond the neglectful state: unpacking the intersection of public health and personal freedom In this episode of Public Health Disrupted, hosts Xand van Tulleken and Professor Rochelle Burgess tackle the concept of the "nanny state". Alongside guests Adam Briggs and Professor James Wilson, they delve into the delicate balance between government intervention and individual freedom in the realm of public health. The conversation explores how public health policies can sometimes be perceived as overreaching, despite the evidence suggesting that the public largely supports such initiatives. Our guests unpack the historical context of the term "nanny state," its implications, and the ongoing debate about the role of government in promoting health while respecting personal autonomy. Guests: - Dr Adam Briggs, Senior Policy Fellow at the Health Foundation - Professor James Wilson, Professor of Philosophy at UCL In this episode: - The origins and evolution of the "nanny state" rhetoric and its impact on public health discourse. - Insights into public opinion on government intervention in health-related issues, including obesity and smoking. - The importance of framing public health initiatives in a way that resonates with communities and policymakers alike. - How a shift towards prevention can be achieved through approaches that embed health considerations across all areas of government. This conversation invites us all to reconsider the narratives surrounding public health policies and the responsibilities of both the state and individuals in fostering a healthier society. Date of episode recording: 2025-05-12T00:00:00Z Duration: 00:43:51 Language of episode: English Presenter:Professor Rochelle Burgess; Dr Xand van Tulleken Guests: Dr Adam Briggs; Professor James Wilson Producer: Produced by: UCL Health of the Public; Editor: Annabelle Buckland, Decibelle Creative

What are ultra-processed foods really doing to our health, our kids and our food culture? In this powerful episode of Food Rebels, AJ Sharp sits down with Dr. Dolly van Tulleken to unpack the rise of UPFs and the complex mix of politics, marketing and industry influence that keeps them on our plates. Dolly shares her journey into food policy, reveals how government decisions are shaped behind closed doors and challenges the cultural norms that disconnect us from real food. From school meals to supermarket shelves, this episode exposes how the system works and what needs to change.  

In this episode of Public Health Disrupted, hosts Xand van Tulleken and Rochelle Burgess dive into how we form beliefs, and how they shape our understanding of critical public health issues. From vaccination hesitancy to climate change, the episode explores the psychological mechanisms that lead to entrenched views and the challenges of changing minds. Joining them are Mia Forbes Pirie, a leading international mediator, and Dr. Kris De Meyer, Director of the UCL Climate Action Unit. Together, they share their insights on effective communication strategies that prioritise relationship-building over persuasion, emphasising the importance of empathy and understanding in discussions surrounding contentious topics. In this episode: - How beliefs are formed and why they can become entrenched. - The role of cultural identity in shaping opinions and the fear of social rejection. - Practical strategies for engaging with differing viewpoints and fostering meaningful dialogue. Public Health Disrupted is produced by UCL Health of the Public and edited by Annabelle Buckland at Decibelle Creative / @decibelle_creative. Transcription link: https://www.ucl.ac.uk/health-of-public/news-and-events/public-health-disrupted/season-5-ep-2-listening-connect-notes-and-transcript Date of episode recording: 2025-03-10T00:00:00Z Duration: 00:42:35 Language of episode: English Presenter:Xand van Tulleken; Rochelle Burgess Guests: Mia Forbes Pirie; Kris De Meyer Producer: Fran Goldman (Producer) Annabelle Buckland (Editor)

In their new BBC Radio 4 podcast, Drs Chris and Xand are on a mission to help us take better care of ourselves.

You need to pinky swear you listened to the previous episode before you listen to this one. We're trusting you.Links:Season 2, Episode 2: We're Stronger Than the FireLebanon Bologna (Sausagepedia)Episode 41: The Bikini-Industrial ComplexGood Calories, Bad Calories by Gary TaubesEvery Time Brennan Has Talked About Loving Heavy Food [Compilation] (from Gastronauts on dropout.tv, this is on Youtube)Salt Sugar Fat by Michael MossUltra-Processed People by Chris van Tulleken

In their new BBC Radio 4 podcast, Drs Chris and Xand are on a mission to help us take better care of ourselves.

Contact Annmarie In this honest and slightly wobbly episode, Annmarie opens up about the reality of her long term weight journey that's hit a slump. With her usual mix of humour and heartfelt reflection, she talks about feeling stuck, summer photos that don't help, and the Facebook memories that used to inspire — but now feel like they're having a laugh at her expense.Rather than disappear for “a little break” like last time (which lasted 18 months), Annmarie shares her current struggles and how she's learning to show up anyway — even when the motivation's gone missing.She also reflects on a quote from Ultra-Processed People by Chris van Tulleken — a book that's made a few appearances on the podcast — and how it landed differently this time.It's a warm and relatable episode for anyone who's had a weight wobble and needed a bit of encouragement to keep going.Mentioned in this episode:

Ultra-processed food is the new cigarette—and it's fueling a global health crisis hiding in plain sight. In today's episode, I'm joined by Dr. Chris van Tulleken—infectious disease physician, BBC broadcaster, and author of Ultra-Processed People—to expose the truth behind ultra-processed foods and the industries driving their consumption. To find out what this food is really doing to us, Dr. van Tulleken became the first subject in a groundbreaking clinical trial—eating 80% of his calories from ultra-processed food for a full month. We unpack what makes ultra-processed food fundamentally different from real food—even when the ingredients look similar, and why its impact on your brain, metabolism, and long-term health is far worse than anyone thought… You'll learn: How ultra-processed food hijacks your brain's reward system The science behind food addiction and satiety hormones Why food labels and front-of-package claims are designed to mislead you What the latest data says about UPFs and 32 chronic diseases The global policy movements and lawsuits now underway to fight back This episode is part science, part exposé, and a wake-up call for anyone who thinks food is just about calories and willpower. If you care about your health, your kids, or the future of our food system, you need to hear this. https://linktr.ee/ultraprocessedpeople View Show Notes From This Episode Get Free Weekly Health Tips from Dr. Hyman https://drhyman.com/pages/picks?utm_campaign=shownotes&utm_medium=banner&utm_source=podcast Sign Up for Dr. Hyman's Weekly Longevity Journal https://drhyman.com/pages/longevity?utm_campaign=shownotes&utm_medium=banner&utm_source=podcast

Welcome back to a brand new season of Public Health Disrupted! As Rochelle makes her return to the podcast following maternity leave, we're excited to present the very first episode of Season 5: a fascinating examination and celebration of the power of movement to foster connection and belonging. This episode will be of particular interest to runners and fans of group or community exercising, or simply those interested in the intersection of public health and community engagement. Xand Van Tulleken and Professor Rochelle Burgess delve into the transformative world of community fitness events, particularly the groundbreaking success of Parkrun. They explore how grassroots initiatives are reshaping not only individual lives but entire communities by breaking down barriers to exercise and fostering social connections. Joining them are Dr. Flaminia Ronca, leading expert in exercise neuroscience, and Chrissie Wellington OBE, a four-time world Ironman champion and former global head of health and wellbeing for Parkrun. In this episode: - the profound impact of community fitness on mental and emotional wellbeing - the science behind exercise and brain health - inspiring stories of how Parkrun has created inclusive spaces for all. Public Health Disrupted, hosted by Dr Rochelle Burgess and Xand Van Tulleken is edited by Annabelle Buckland at Decibelle Creative / @decibelle_creative Transcript: https://www.ucl.ac.uk/health-of-public/news-and-events/public-health-disrupted/season-5-ep-1-running-together-notes-and-transcript Date of episode recording: 2025-03-03T00:00:00Z Duration: 00:40:26 Language of episode: English TAGS: #PublicHealthDisrupted #UCLHealthPublic Presenter:Xand van Tulleken; Rochelle Burgess Guests: Chrissie Wellington OBE; Flaminia Ronca Producer: Anabelle Buckland

5x15 is delighted to welcome leading science broadcaster and doctor Chris van Tulleken for a special online event in January, fresh from delivering the Royal Institution's prestigious Christmas Lectures. Chris's latest book Ultra-Processed People was a Sunday Times No. 1 bestseller upon publication last year, and it was widely hailed as a 'Book of the Year' and a ground-breaking intervention in the food world. It has, quite simply, changed the conversation around what we eat. We have entered a new 'age of eating' where most of our calories come from an entirely novel set of substances called Ultra-Processed Food, food which is industrially processed and designed and marketed to be addictive. But do we really know what it's doing to our bodies? Ultra-Processed People follows Chris through the world of food science to discover what's really going on. It's a book about our rights. The right to know what we eat and what it does to our bodies and the right to good, affordable food. Don't miss the chance to hear Chris van Tulleken share his expert insights into food, health and the issues that affect us all, live in conversation with food campaigner, cross-bench peer and 5x15 co-founder Rosie Boycott. Praise for Ultra-Processed People '[Chris van Tulleken] is starting a really important revolution and conversation around what we eat. Books come along once in a while, once every couple of years, once in a generation that meet culture at the exact moment…it's these books that end up changing the world.' - STEVEN BARTLETT 'If you only read one diet or nutrition book in your life, make it this one.' - BEE WILSON ‘Incendiary and infuriating, this book is a diet grenade; the bold and brutal truth about how we are fed deadly delights by very greedy evil giants' - CHRIS PACKHAM 'A devastating, witty and scholarly destruction of the shit food we eat and why.' - ADAM RUTHERFORD Chris van Tulleken is an infectious diseases doctor at the Hospital for Tropical Diseases in London. He trained in medicine at Oxford University, has a PhD in molecular virology from University College London where he is an Associate Professor and where his research focuses on how corporations affect human health, especially in the context of nutrition. He works closely with UNICEF and the World Health Organization in this area. His book Ultra-Processed People was a Sunday Times and New York Times bestseller. He is one of the BBC's leading science broadcasters on television and radio for children and adults. Photo Credit: Jonny Storey With thanks for your support for 5x15 online! Learn more about 5x15 events: 5x15stories.com Twitter: www.twitter.com/5x15stories Facebook: www.facebook.com/5x15stories Instagram: www.instagram.com/5x15stories

For today's Classic Debate we're revisiting our 2018 debate "Parenting Doesn't Matter (Or Not As Much As You Think)". We were joined by Professor of Behavioural Genetics Robert Plomin, the Developmental Clinical Psychologist Susan Pawlby, therapist, parenting counsellor and broadcaster Ann Pleshette Murphy, and Stuart Ritchie, lecturer in social genetics and developmental psychiatry and author of Science Fictions. Hosting the debate was Doctor and broadcaster, Dr Xand van Tulleken. ------- If you'd like to become a Member and get access to all our full ad free conversations, plus all of our Members-only content, just visit intelligencesquared.com/membership to find out more. For £4.99 per month you'll also receive: - Full-length and ad-free Intelligence Squared episodes, wherever you get your podcasts - Bonus Intelligence Squared podcasts, curated feeds and members exclusive series - 15% discount on livestreams and in-person tickets for all Intelligence Squared events  ...  Or Subscribe on Apple for £4.99: - Full-length and ad-free Intelligence Squared podcasts - Bonus Intelligence Squared podcasts, curated feeds and members exclusive series … Already a subscriber? Thank you for supporting our mission to foster honest debate and compelling conversations! Visit intelligencesquared.com to explore all your benefits including ad-free podcasts, exclusive bonus content and early access. … Subscribe to our newsletter here to hear about our latest events, discounts and much more. https://www.intelligencesquared.com/newsletter-signup/ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

This week, I'm thrilled to welcome Paul Wheat, a dedicated 55-year-old triathlete who exemplifies what it means to be a High Performance Human. For Paul, high performance transcends athletic excellence; it encompasses all aspects of life, including sleep, nutrition, exercise, relationships, and mental health. The beauty of this journey is that you don't need to be a top-tier athlete to excel in these areas. Paul's transformative journey began in 2020 when he joined my SWAT Inner Circle after experimenting with a complimentary 12-week plan amid the COVID pandemic. The structured approach not only challenged him but also revealed the vital connections between fitness, nutrition, sleep, and work habits. Like many, Paul was once caught in the cycle of stress and fatigue from constant travel as a manager. However, he took proactive steps by applying training principles from SWAT, incorporating the 80:20 Pareto principle, and catalyzing a substantial transformation in both his personal life and professional environment. One of Paul's standout achievements has been the establishment of a workplace culture that encourages his team to maintain a healthy work-life balance, limiting work to eight hours a day. This impactful change has led to enhanced productivity and notably reduced staff turnover. Over the past five years, Paul has made impressive strides in his athletic performance, significantly improving his 70.3 Ironman time by 75 minutes—down from 6:45 to 5:30. Additionally, he has shed 19 kg, proudly stating that he achieved this by “cleaning up what I eat, understanding that processed foods aren't real food, and being more active.” If you're inspired to embark on a lifestyle transformation in 2025, Paul's journey is sure to motivate you! In this episode, we'll explore: The lifestyle changes Paul implemented and their impact on his health. How these changes elevated his triathlon performance. The process of integrating healthy habits within his work team. The positive effects of these workplace changes on overall performance. Paul's top three pieces of advice for anyone looking to start a similar journey. Join us for an enlightening conversation that could kickstart your own path to high performance! Paul doesn't do social media so you can't follow him but if you'd like to get a feel for how he has upped his game he recommends the following books: Ultra-Processed People:The Definitive #1 Bestseller You Need to Understand Ultra-Processed Food by Chris can Tulleken. Never Split the Difference: Negotiating as if Your Life Depended on It by Chris Voss.   He also loves to listen to THIS podcast Things People Do with Joe Marler ***Join our SWAT/High Performance Human tribe using this link, with a happiness guarantee! You can watch a brief video about the group by going to our website here, and join our SWAT High Performance Human tribe here. You can find all of my social media links HERE: You'll also find some really great content on my Instagram and YouTube! Instagram  YouTube   **To get a free copy of my personal daily mobility routine, please click HERE** **To download your FREE infographic ‘7 steps to swimming faster', please click HERE  Sign up for Simon's weekly newsletter Sign up for Beth's weekly newsletter To contact Beth regarding Life Coaching, please visit her website at BethanyWardLifeCoaching.uk. If you would like to help offset the cost of our podcast production, we would be so grateful. Please click here to support the HPH podcast. Thank you! Visit Simon's website for more information about his coaching programmes.  For any questions please email Beth@TheTriathlonCoach.com.

Min 4: SUPER FILTRO RACHEL 2025 Feliz Año Nuevo y bienvenidos a un 2025 que promete emociones fuertes, títulos de altura y grandes historias que nos van a tener pegados a la pantalla durante meses. Por eso el objetivo que nos marcamos en este primer "Estamos de Cine Edición Series" es desglosar un completo avance de las novedades más potentes que nos esperan. Nos hemos confabulado con nuestra experta de Hobby Consolas, Raquel Hernández para empezar a abrir los regalos que nos traen los Reyes Seriéfilos: Min 7: THE LAST OF US 2 (2025. Craig Mazin. Max) Min 13: STRANGER THINGS. Season Finale (2025. Duffer Brothers. Netflix) Min 21. EL CABALLERO DE LOS SIETE REINOS ( 2025. Parker Bross. Max) Min 31: THE WHITE LOTTUS 3: TAILANDIA (2025. Mike White. Max) Min 38. BLADE RUNNER 2099. (2025. Jonathan van Tulleken. Prime video) Min 44: ANDOR 2 (2025. Tony Gilroy. Disney Plus)

This week is a special episode of the podcast where we are looking back on some of our favourite pieces from the magazine over the past year and revisiting some of the conversations we had around them. First up: the Starmer supremacy Let's start with undoubtedly the biggest news of the year: Starmer's supermajority and the first Labour government in 14 years. In April, we spoke to Katy Balls and Harriet Harman about just what a supermajority could mean for Keir Starmer. Listening back, it's an incredibly interesting discussion to revisit. The aim of Katy's piece was to communicate the internal problems that could arise from such a sweeping victory and, crucially, how Starmer might manage a historic cohort of backbenchers. One MP who knows about adjusting to life in government after a supermajority is Harriet Harman, former leader of the Labour party and a member of Tony Blair's first cabinet. (01:51) Reflections from the editor's chair The change in No. 10 Downing Street is, of course, not the only notable shake-up in Westminster this year. Fraser Nelson stepped down as editor of The Spectator in September after 15 years of wielding the editor's pen, with 784 issues to his name. We sat down with him on his final day in the office to reflect on his time at 22 Old Queen Street. (08:31) Do historians talk down to children? In June, Mary Wakefield dedicated her column to this very question. She wrote about her experience trying to find engaging and challenging history books for her 8-year-old and compared the dumbed-down, one-dimensional version of history portrayed in modern children's books with the classic Ladybird books of the 1960s. She joined the podcast to discuss this with Dominic Sandbrook, author of the Adventures in Time children's book series and host of The Rest is History podcast. (17:18) Are ultra-processed foods really so bad? On The Edition podcast, we enjoy a fiery debate, and none was more heated than our discussion on ultra-processed foods. This debate, between columnist Matthew Parris and Christoffer van Tulleken, associate professor at UCL and author of the bestselling book Ultra-Processed People, took place in May. It was sparked by Matthew's column on the myths surrounding ultra-processed foods—foods engineered to be hyper-palatable and typically containing preservatives, emulsifiers, sweeteners, artificial colours, flavours, and so on. Such additives are widely considered detrimental to our health. Matthew says we shouldn't be worried, but we'll let you decide. (29:10) By whose values should we judge the past? On the podcast, we showcase articles from across the magazine—from the front half to the life pages, to books and arts. One of the most intriguing books of the year was Joan Smith's Unfortunately, she was a nymphomaniac: A New History of Rome's Imperial Women. An eye-catching title that is ‘as thought-provoking as it is provocative', as Daisy Dunn wrote in October. Many popular historians are singled out for their analysis of women in ancient Rome, including Professor Dame Mary Beard. In the interest of granting a right of reply, we invited Mary onto the podcast to discuss the merit of judging history by today's standards. (49:40) And finally: the politics of the breakfast buffet We thought we would leave you with one of the most prescient discussions we had on the podcast this year: the politics of the hotel breakfast buffet. Is it ethical to pocket a sandwich at a hotel breakfast buffet? Laurie Graham explored that question in the magazine back in September. Specifically, she revealed the very British habit of swiping food from free breakfasts to save for lunch later in the day. Laurie joined us alongside Mark Jenkins, a former hotel manager in Torquay, whom listeners may remember from the Channel 4 documentary The Hotel. (01:04:04) Hosted by William Moore and Lara Prendergast. Produced by Oscar Edmondson and Patrick Gibbons. 

This week is a special episode of the podcast where we are looking back on some of our favourite pieces from the magazine over the past year and revisiting some of the conversations we had around them. First up: the Starmer supremacy Let's start with undoubtedly the biggest news of the year: Starmer's supermajority and the first Labour government in 14 years. In April, we spoke to Katy Balls and Harriet Harman about just what a supermajority could mean for Keir Starmer. Listening back, it's an incredibly interesting discussion to revisit. The aim of Katy's piece was to communicate the internal problems that could arise from such a sweeping victory and, crucially, how Starmer might manage a historic cohort of backbenchers. One MP who knows about adjusting to life in government after a supermajority is Harriet Harman, former leader of the Labour party and a member of Tony Blair's first cabinet. (01:51) Reflections from the editor's chair The change in No. 10 Downing Street is, of course, not the only notable shake-up in Westminster this year. Fraser Nelson stepped down as editor of The Spectator in September after 15 years of wielding the editor's pen, with 784 issues to his name. We sat down with him on his final day in the office to reflect on his time at 22 Old Queen Street. (08:31) Do historians talk down to children? In June, Mary Wakefield dedicated her column to this very question. She wrote about her experience trying to find engaging and challenging history books for her 8-year-old and compared the dumbed-down, one-dimensional version of history portrayed in modern children's books with the classic Ladybird books of the 1960s. She joined the podcast to discuss this with Dominic Sandbrook, author of the Adventures in Time children's book series and host of The Rest is History podcast. (17:18) Are ultra-processed foods really so bad? On The Edition podcast, we enjoy a fiery debate, and none was more heated than our discussion on ultra-processed foods. This debate, between columnist Matthew Parris and Christoffer van Tulleken, associate professor at UCL and author of the bestselling book Ultra-Processed People, took place in May. It was sparked by Matthew's column on the myths surrounding ultra-processed foods—foods engineered to be hyper-palatable and typically containing preservatives, emulsifiers, sweeteners, artificial colours, flavours, and so on. Such additives are widely considered detrimental to our health. Matthew says we shouldn't be worried, but we'll let you decide. (29:10) By whose values should we judge the past? On the podcast, we showcase articles from across the magazine—from the front half to the life pages, to books and arts. One of the most intriguing books of the year was Joan Smith's Unfortunately, she was a nymphomaniac: A New History of Rome's Imperial Women. An eye-catching title that is ‘as thought-provoking as it is provocative', as Daisy Dunn wrote in October. Many popular historians are singled out for their analysis of women in ancient Rome, including Professor Dame Mary Beard. In the interest of granting a right of reply, we invited Mary onto the podcast to discuss the merit of judging history by today's standards. (49:40) And finally: the politics of the breakfast buffet We thought we would leave you with one of the most prescient discussions we had on the podcast this year: the politics of the hotel breakfast buffet. Is it ethical to pocket a sandwich at a hotel breakfast buffet? Laurie Graham explored that question in the magazine back in September. Specifically, she revealed the very British habit of swiping food from free breakfasts to save for lunch later in the day. Laurie joined us alongside Mark Jenkins, a former hotel manager in Torquay, whom listeners may remember from the Channel 4 documentary The Hotel. (01:04:04) Hosted by William Moore and Lara Prendergast.   Produced by Oscar Edmondson and Patrick Gibbons. 

Dr Chris van Tulleken shares stories from the making of his chart-topping podcast, Fed. In conversation with Leyla Kazim, at Hay Festival 2024.In Fed, Dr Chris van Tulleken, investigated the entangled web of forces that shape what ends up on our plates. And he focused his investigation around one foodstuff in particular. The most widely eaten meat on our planet, a staple of nearly every diet and a global food production phenomenon: the humble chicken, Chris dug into the history of our relationship with this extraordinary animal, to try to get to the truth of why we eat so much of it, and what that means for the birds, for us, and for the planet.In this lively conversation, recorded live at Hay festival 2024, Chris talks to Leyla Kazim about the hidden stories behind the globalised food networks of today. From industrial-scale farming, to food labelling, to ethical dilemmas, environmental quandaries, and the complexities of the world of fast food. Plus tales from the adventure that ran through the whole series: raising his own tiny flock of broiler chickens, in his back garden.

Dr Chris van Tulleken has been at the forefront of the campaign to change our food system and better regulate the sale of ultra-processed foods (UPF). This year he will be giving the Royal Institution Christmas lectures, Britain's most prestigious public science lectures, in which he'll be investigating how food has fundamentally shaped human evolution, the importance of our microbiome – as the extra ‘organ' we didn't know we had – and how we can all eat better in future, for the sake of our own health and the health of the planet. Nicola Davis sat down with Van Tulleken to discuss the lectures, the challenge of understanding the impact of UPFs on our health, and his top tip for Christmas dinner. Madeleine Finlay hears from them both in this Christmas special edition of Science Weekly. Help support our independent journalism at theguardian.com/sciencepod

Podcast Overview: The Truth About Ultra-Processed Foods In this episode, we explore the eye-opening insights from Chris van Tulleken's book, Ultra-Processed People, revealing the hidden dangers of ultra-processed foods (UPFs). UPFs, often found in sugary snacks, ready meals, and sodas, are loaded with artificial additives, preservatives, and unrecognizable ingredients. These foods are designed to be addictive, altering brain chemistry and driving overconsumption, as evidenced by studies like Kevin Hall's 2019 trial, which showed participants eating 500 extra calories daily on a UPF diet. The result? Weight gain, mood shifts, and chronic health issues like obesity and diabetes. UPFs' dominance stems from systemic factors, including marketing, affordability, and convenience, but their health impacts are far-reaching. From ingredients like high-fructose corn syrup to artificial flavors and emulsifiers, these foods are engineered for taste and shelf life at the expense of nutrition. Tune in to learn how to identify UPFs, understand their effects, and take simple steps toward healthier, whole-food alternatives. For extra support, follow us on Instagram @HormoneGenius and post your favorite clean products to claim a free grocery guide with the ingredients to be aware of! Thanks to our sponsor Fiat Institute! If the content you're hearing on this podcast has stirred something in your heart, and you feel called to be part of the change—to launch a mission in hormone health, wellness, and true women's health care—then this program is for you! The Fiat Institute certifies women as hormone coaches in a six-month program. You'll learn about gut health, inflammation, liver detox, cycle charting, cycle-syncing, root cause restoration, and the FiatWay Coaching Methodology. Plus, you'll find community in weekly calls, small-group breakouts, and the Fiat Sisterhood. Seats for January's cohort are limited! Schedule a discovery call with Jamie today! Be part of the movement to restore women's health. Fill out an inquiry form: www.honeybook.com/widget/fiat_inst…0194ff00292a19e2 OR Schedule a 15min 1:1 chat with her! See link: calendly.com/hormoneconsult/fir…chat?month=2024-12 To learn more you can visit www.fiatinstitute.com. Medical disclaimer: The information presented in this podcast is for informational purposes only and is not intended to be a substitute for actual medical advice from a doctor, or any medical professional.

A bumper show today full of energy and great debate. We'll be back with our first show of 2025 on 8th January. Wishing all of you a peaceful and happy Christmas and New Year. Recommendations: Catriona Swiped - CH4 Emma and Matt Willis challenge a group of Year 8 pupils at the Stanway School in Colchester to give up their smartphones completely for 21 days Angela Irresistible -BBC2 Why are ultra-processed foods so irresistible, and how they have come to dominate food culture? This documentary by medical doctor and academic Dr Chris van Tulleken features interviews with former food industry insiders who talk openly about the way in which popular foods have been designed to be irresistible. Food companies go to extraordinary lengths to ensure their products connect with consumers - from using brain scans to assess the deliciousness of ice cream to carefully engineering the sound of a crunch. Ultra-processed foods are hyper-delicious and super-convenient, have long shelf lives and are extremely cheap. But a growing body of evidence is linking these products to our declining health. David A Quiet Evening: The Travels of Norman Lewis Collected here, from a period of nearly five decades, are thirty-six of Norman Lewis's best articles. In each, his writing crackles with poker-faced wit and stylistic brilliance. As a witness to his times – the good, the bad and the absurd – he was unmatched, and his instinct for important events, and moments, was infallible. His range here includes Ibizan fishermen, an interview with Castro's executioner, the genocide of the South American Indian tribes, a paean to Seville and his meeting with a tragic Ernest Hemingway. That meeting was ‘a shattering experience,' Norman wrote to Ian Fleming who had commissioned him, ‘of the kind likely to sabotage ambition.'Fortunately it didn't, and the articles assembled between these covers are compulsive, hilarious, tender and beautifully written, at times deeply upsetting, and always unforgettable. The Golden Road: How Ancient India Transformed the World  With a mind-boggling mastery of sources, Dalrymple weaves a thrilling tale of India's cultural hegemony, not forgetting its invention of mathematics and related disciplines still in use today - Andrew Lycett, Spectator Eamonn Comfort and Joy Alan Bird (Bill Paterson, Outlander, Dad's Army) thinks he has life pretty well organised. Glasgow's top DJ, with a nice apartment, and the only red BMW Cabriolet north of Manchester, he has little to worry about until his kleptomaniac girlfriend Maddy ditches him just before Christmas.

In the news pod, Chris van Tulleken tells us what he's got planned for this years Royal Institution Christmas Lectures. Then we hear about the innovation to harness energy from radioactive carbon-14 atoms, and learn more about when humans and Neanderthals got to know each other. Then, we look skyward, where astronomers have described a series of mysterious near-Earth objects similar to the famous Oumuamua... Like this podcast? Please help us by supporting the Naked Scientists

In this episode, Jake and Damian share four impactful health hacks they've picked up from remarkable experts featured on High Performance. Drawing insights from guests like Dr. Peter Attia, Dr. Rangan Chatterjee, Ruari Fairbairns, and Dr. Chris van Tulleken, they explore how small lifestyle changes, such as reducing alcohol and eating immune-boosting foods, have improved their health and well-being, emphasising the value of long-term thinking and building habits through manageable steps.Listen in as Jake and Damian offer actionable tips you can start using today and uncover how minor adjustments in mindset and routines can create massive improvements on your health journey.Listen to the episodes mentioned:Dr Peter Attia: https://pod.fo/e/1e7be5Dr. Rangan Chatterjee: https://pod.fo/e/115f19Ruari Fairbairns: https://pod.fo/e/21baafDr. Chris van Tulleken: https://pod.fo/e/24d790

A leader for conducting rigorous randomized trials of humans along with animal models for understanding nutrition and metabolism, Dr. Kevin Hall is a Senior Investigator at the National Institutes of Health, and Section Chief of the Integrative Physiology Section, NIDDK. In this podcast, we reviewed his prolific body of research a recent publications. The timing of optimizing our diet and nutrition seems apropos, now that we're in in the midst of the holiday season!Below is a video snippet of our conversation on his ultra-processed food randomized trial.Full videos of all Ground Truths podcasts can be seen on YouTube here. The current one is here. If you like the YouTube format, please subscribe! The audios are also available on Apple and Spotify.Note: I'll be doing a Ground Truths Live Chat on December 11th at 12 N EST, 9 AM PST, so please mark your calendar and join!Transcript with links to publications and audioEric Topol (00:05):Well, hello. This is Eric Topol with Ground Truths, and I'm really delighted to have with me today, Dr. Kevin Hall from the NIH. I think everybody knows that nutrition is so important and Kevin is a leader in doing rigorous randomized trials, which is not like what we usually see with large epidemiologic studies of nutrition that rely on food diaries and the memory of participants. So Kevin, it's really terrific to have you here.Kevin Hall (00:34):Thanks so much for the invitation.Ultra-Processed FoodsEric Topol (00:36):Yeah. Well, you've been prolific and certainly one of the leaders in nutrition science who I look to. And what I thought we could do is go through some of your seminal papers. There are many, but I picked a few and I thought we'd first go back to the one that you published in Cell Metabolism. This is ultra-processed diets cause excessive caloric intake and weight gain. (Main results in graph below.) So maybe you can take us through the principle findings from that trial.Kevin Hall (01:10):Yeah, sure. So that was a really interesting study because it's the first randomized control trial that's investigated the role of ultra-processed foods in potentially causing obesity. So we've got, as you mentioned, lots and lots of epidemiological data that have made these associations between people who consume diets that are very high in ultra-processed foods as having greater risk for obesity. But those trials are not demonstrating causation. I mean, they suggest a strong link. And in fact, the idea of ultra-processed foods is kind of a new idea. It's really sort of appeared on the nutrition science stage probably most prominently in the past 10 years or so. And I first learned about this idea of ultra-processed foods, which is really kind of antithetical to the way most nutrition scientists think about foods. We often think about foods as nutrient delivery vehicles, and we kind of view foods as being the fraction of carbohydrates versus fats in them or how much sodium or fiber is in the foods.Kevin Hall (02:17):And along came this group in Brazil who introduced this new way of classifying foods that completely ignores the nutrient composition and says what we should be doing is classifying foods based on the extent and purpose of processing of foods. And so, they categorize these four different categories. And in the fourth category of this so-called NOVA classification scheme (see graphic below) , they identified something called ultra-processed foods. There's a long formal definition and it's evolved a little bit over the years and continues to evolve. But the basic ideas that these are foods that are manufactured by industries that contain a lot of purified ingredients made from relatively cheap agricultural commodity products that basically undergo a variety of processes and include additives and ingredients that are not typically found in home kitchens, but are typically exclusively in manufactured products to create the wide variety of mostly packaged goods that we see in our supermarkets.Kevin Hall (03:22):And so, I was really skeptical that there was much more about the effects of these foods. Other than that they typically have high amounts of sugar and saturated fat and salt, and they're pretty low in fiber. And so, the purpose of this study was to say, okay, well if there's something more about the foods themselves that is causing people to overconsume calories and gain weight and eventually get obesity, then we should do a study that's trying to test for two diets that are matched for these various nutrients of concern. So they should be matched for the macronutrients, they should be matched for the sugar content, the fat, the sodium, the fiber, and people should just be allowed to eat whatever they want and they shouldn't be trying to change their weight in any way. And so, the way that we did this was, as you mentioned, we can't just ask people to report what they're eating.Kevin Hall (04:19):So what we did was we admitted these folks to the NIH Clinical Center and to our metabolic ward, and it's a very artificial environment, but it's an environment that we can control very carefully. And so, what we basically did is take control over their food environment and we gave them three meals a day and snacks, and basically for a two-week period, they had access to meals that were more than 80% of calories coming from ultra-processed foods. And then in random order, they either received that diet first and give them simple instructions, eat as much as little as you want. We're going to measure lots of stuff. You shouldn't be trying to change your weight or weight that gave them a diet that had no calories from ultra-processed foods. In fact, 80% from minimally processed foods. But again, both of these two sort of food environments were matched for these nutrients that we typically think of as playing a major role in how many calories people choose to eat.Kevin Hall (05:13):And so, the basic idea was, okay, well let's measure what these folks eat. We gave them more than double the calories that they would require to maintain their weight, and what they didn't know was that in the basement of the clinical center where the metabolic kitchen is, we had all of our really talented nutrition staff measuring the leftovers to see what it was that they didn't eat. So we knew exactly what we provided to them and all the foods had to be in our nutrition database and when we compute what they actually ate by difference, so we have a very precise estimate about not only what foods they chose to ate, but also how many calories they chose to eat, as well as the nutrient composition.And the main upshot of all that was that when these folks were exposed to this highly ultra-processed food environment, they spontaneously chose to eat about 500 calories per day more over the two-week period they were in that environment then when the same folks were in the environment that had no ultra-processed foods, but just minimally processed foods. They not surprisingly gained weight during the ultra-processed food environment and lost weight and lost body fat during the minimally processed food environment. And because those diets were overall matched for these different nutrients, it didn't seem to be that those were the things that were driving this big effect. So I think there's a couple of big take homes here. One is that the food environment really does have a profound effect on just the biology of how our food intake is controlled at least over relatively short periods of time, like the two-week periods that we were looking at. And secondly, that there's something about ultra-processed foods that seem to be driving this excess calorie intake that we now know has been linked with increased risk of obesity, and now we're starting to put some of the causal pieces together that really there might be something in this ultra-processed food environment that's driving the increased rates of obesity that we've seen over the past many decades.Eric Topol (07:18):Yeah, I mean I think the epidemiologic studies that make the link between ultra-processed foods and higher risk of cancer, cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, neurodegenerative disease. They're pretty darn strong and they're backed up by this very rigorous study. Now you mentioned it short term, do you have any reason to think that adding 500 calories a day by eating these bad foods, which by the way in the American diet is about 60% or more of the average American diet, do you have any inkling that it would change after a few weeks?Kevin Hall (07:54):Well, I don't know about after a few weeks, but I think that one of the things that we do know about body weight regulation and how it changes in body weight impact both metabolism, how many calories were burning as well as our appetite. We would expect some degree of moderation of that effect eventually settling in at a new steady state, that's probably going to take months and years to achieve. And so the question is, I certainly don't believe that it would be a 500 calorie a day difference indefinitely. The question is when would that difference converge and how much weight would've been gained or lost when people eventually reached that new plateau? And so, that's I think a really interesting question. Some folks have suggested that maybe if you extrapolated the lines a little bit, you could predict when those two curves might eventually converge. That's an interesting thought experiment, but I think we do need some longer studies to investigate how persistent are these effects. Can that fully explain the rise in average body weight and obesity rates that have occurred over the past several decades? Those are open questions.Eric Topol (09:03):Yeah. Well, I mean, I had the chance to interview Chris van Tulleken who wrote the book, Ultra-Processed People and I think you might remember in the book he talked about how he went on an ultra-processed diet and gained some 20, 30 pounds in a short time in a month. And his brother, his identical twin brother gained 50, 60 pounds, and so it doesn't look good. Do you look at all the labels and avoid all this junk and ultra-processed food now or are you still thinking that maybe it's not as bad as it looks?Kevin Hall (09:38):Well, I mean I think that I certainly learned a lot from our studies, and we are continuing to follow this up to try to figure out what are the mechanisms by which this happen. But at the same time, I don't think we can throw out everything else we know about nutrition science. So just because we match these various nutrients in this particular study, I think one of the dangers here is that as you mentioned, there's 60% of the food environment in the US and Great Britain and other places consist of these foods, and so they're unavoidable to some extent, right? Unless you're one of these privileged folks who have your backyard garden and your personal chef who can make all of your foods, I'm certainly not one of those people, but for the vast majority of us, we're going to have to incorporate some degree of ultra-processed foods in our day-to-day diet.Kevin Hall (10:24):The way I sort of view it is, we really need to understand the mechanisms and before we understand the mechanisms, we have to make good choices based on what we already know about nutrition science, that we should avoid the foods that have a lot of sugar in them. We should avoid foods that have a lot of saturated fat and sodium. We should try to choose products that contain lots of whole grains and legumes and fruits and vegetables and things like that. And there's some of those, even in the ultra-processed food category. I pretty regularly consume a microwavable ready meal for lunch. It tends to be pretty high in whole grains and legumes and low in saturated fat and sugar and things like that. But to engineer a food that can heat up properly in a microwave in four minutes has some ultra-processing technology involved there. I would be pretty skeptical that that's going to cause me to have really poor health consequences as compared to if I had the means to eat homemade French fries every day in tallow. But that's the kind of comparison that we have to think about.Eric Topol (11:36):But I think what you're touching on and maybe inadvertently is in that NOVA class four, the bad ultra-processed foods, there's a long, long list of course, and some of those may be worse than others, and we haven't seen an individual ranking of these constituents. So as you're alluding to what's in that microwave lunch probably could be much less concerning than what's in these packaged snacks that are eaten widely. But I would certainly agree that we don't know everything about this, but your study is one of the most quoted studies ever in the ultra-processed food world. Now, let me move on to another trial that was really important. This was published in Nature Medicine and it's about a plant-based diet, which is of course a very interesting diet, low-fat versus an animal-based ketogenic diet. Also looking at energy intake. Can you take us through that trial?Plant-Based, Low Fat Diet vs Animal-Based, Low Carbohydrate Ketogenic DietKevin Hall (12:33):Sure. So it's actually interesting to consider that trial in the context of the trial we just talked about because both of these diets that we tested in this trial were relatively low in ultra-processed foods, and so both of them contained more than a kilogram of non-starchy vegetables as a base for designing these, again, two different food environments. Very similar overall study design where people again were exposed to either diets that were vegan plant-based diet that was really high in starches and was designed to kind of cause big insulin increases in the blood after eating the meals. And the other diet had very, very few carbohydrates of less than 10% in total, and we built on that kind of non-starchy vegetable base, a lot of animal-based products to kind of get a pretty high amount of fat and having very low carbohydrates. Both diets in this case, like I mentioned, were pretty low in ultra-processed foods, but what we were really interested in here was testing this idea that has come to prominence recently, that high carbohydrate diets that lead to really large glucose excursions after meals that cause very high insulin levels after meals are particularly obesogenic and should cause you to be hungrier than compared to a diet that doesn't lead to those large swings in glucose and insulin and the prototypical case being one that's very low in carbohydrate and might increase the level of ketones that are floating around in your blood, which are hypothesized to be an appetite suppressant. Same sort of design, these minimally processed diets that one was very high in carbs and causes large swings in insulin and the other that's very low in carbs and causes increases in ketones.Kevin Hall (14:22):We ask people, again, while you're in one food environment or the other, don't be trying to gain weight or lose weight, eat as much or as little as you'd like, and we're going to basically measure a lot of things. They again, don't know what the primary outcome of the study is. We're measuring their leftovers afterwards. And so, the surprise in this particular case was that the diet that caused the big swings in glucose and insulin did not lead to more calorie consumption. In fact, it led to about 700 calories per day less than when the same people were exposed to the ketogenic diet. Interestingly, both food environments caused people to lose weight, so it wasn't that we didn't see the effect of people over consuming calories on either diet, so they were reading fewer calories in general than they were when they came in, right. They're probably eating a pretty ultra-processed food diet when they came in. We put them on these two diets that varied very much in terms of the macronutrients that they were eating, but both were pretty minimally processed. They lost weight. They ended up losing more body fat on the very low-fat high carb diet than the ketogenic diet, but actually more weight on the ketogenic diet than the low-fat diet. So there's a little bit of a dissociation between body fat loss and weight loss in this study, which was kind of interesting.Eric Topol (15:49):Interesting. Yeah, I thought that was a fascinating trial because plant-based diet, they both have their kind of camps, you know.Kevin Hall (15:57):Right. No, exactly.Immune System Signatures for Vegan vs Ketogenic DietsEric Topol (15:58):There are people who aren't giving up on ketogenic diet. Of course, there's some risks and some benefits and there's a lot of interest of course with the plant-based diet. So it was really interesting and potentially the additive effects of plant-based with avoidance or lowering of ultra-processed food. Now, the more recent trial that you did also was very interesting, and of course I'm only selecting ones that I think are particularly, there are a lot of trials you've done, but this one is more recent in this year where you looked at vegan versus ketogenic diets for the immune signature, immune response, which is really important. It's underplayed as its effect, and so maybe you can take us through that one.[Link to a recent Nature feature on this topic, citing Dr. Hall's work]Kevin Hall (16:43):Yeah, so just to be clear, it's actually the same study, the one that we just talked about. This is a secondary sort of analysis from a collaboration we had with some folks at NIAID here at the NIH to try to evaluate immune systems signatures in these same folks who wonder what these two changes in their food environment. One is vegan, high carbohydrate low-fat diet and the other, the animal-based ketogenic diet. And again, it was pretty interesting to me that we were able to see really substantial changes in how the immune system was responding. First of all, both diets again seem to have improved immune function, both adaptive and innate immune function as compared to their baseline measurements when they came into the study. So when they're reading their habitual diet, whatever that is typically high in ultra-processed foods, they switched to both of these diets.Kevin Hall (17:39):We saw market changes in their immune system even compared to baseline. But when we then went and compared the two diets, they were actually divergent also, in other words, the vegan diet seemed to stimulate the innate immune system and the ketogenic diet seemed to stimulate the adaptive immune system. So these are the innate immune system can be thought of. Again, I'm not an immunologist. My understanding is that this is the first line defense against pathogens. It happens very quickly and then obviously the adaptive immune system then adapts to a specific pathogen over time. And so, this ability of our diet to change the immune system is intriguing and how much of that has to do with influencing the gut microbiota, which obviously the gut plays a huge role in steering our immune system in one direction versus another. I think those are some really intriguing mechanistic questions that are really good fodder for future research.Eric Topol (18:42):Yeah, I think it may have implications for treatment of autoimmune diseases. You may want to comment about that.Kevin Hall (18:51):Yeah, it's fascinating to think about that the idea that you could change your diet and manipulate your microbiota and manipulate your gut function in a way to influence your immune system to steer you away from a response that may actually be causing your body damage in your typical diet. It's a fascinating area of science and we're really interested to follow that up. I mean, it kind of supports these more anecdotal reports of people with lupus, for example, who've reported that when they try to clean up their diet for a period of time and eliminate certain foods and eliminate perhaps even ultra-processed food products, that they feel so much better that their symptoms alleviate at least for some period of time. Obviously, it doesn't take the place of the therapeutics that they need to take, but yeah, we're really interested in following this up to see what this interaction might be.Eric Topol (19:46):Yeah, it's fascinating. It also gets to the fact that certain people have interesting responses. For example, those with epilepsy can respond very well to a ketogenic diet. There's also been diet proposed for cancer. In fact, I think there's some even ongoing trials for cancer of specific diets. Any comments about that?Kevin Hall (20:10):Yeah, again, it's a really fascinating area. I mean, I think we kind of underappreciate and view diet in this lens of weight loss, which is not surprising because that's kind of where it's been popularized. But I think the role of nutrition and how you can manipulate your diet and still you can have a very healthy version of a ketogenic diet. You can have a very healthy version of a low-fat, high carb diet and how they can be used in individual cases to kind of manipulate factors that might be of concern. So for example, if you're concerned about blood glucose levels, clearly a ketogenic diet is moderating those glucose levels over time, reducing insulin levels, and that might have some positive downstream consequences and there's some potential downsides. Your apoB levels might go up. So, you have to kind of tune these things to the problems and the situations that individuals may face. And similarly, if you have issues with blood glucose control, maybe a high carbohydrate diet might not be for you, but if that's not an issue and you want to reduce apoB levels, it seems like that is a relatively effective way to do that, although it does tend to increase fasting triglyceride levels.Kevin Hall (21:27):So again, there's all of these things to consider, and then when you open the door beyond traditional metabolic health markers to things like inflammation and autoimmune disease as well as some of these other things like moderating how cancer therapeutics might work inside the body. I think it's a really fascinating and interesting area to pursue.Eric Topol (21:55):No question about it. And that also brings in the dimension of the gut microbiome, which obviously your diet has a big influence, and it has an influence on your brain, brain-gut axis, and the immune system. It's all very intricate, a lot of feedback loops and interactions that are not so easy to dissect, right?Kevin Hall (22:16):Absolutely. Yeah, especially in humans. That's why we rely on our basic science colleagues to kind of figure out these individual steps in these chains. And of course, we do need human experiments and carefully controlled experiments to see how much of that really translates to humans, so we need this close sort of translational partnership.On the Pathogenesis of Obesity, Calories In and Calories OutEric Topol (22:35):Yeah. Now, you've also written with colleagues, other experts in the field about understanding the mechanisms of pathogenesis of obesity and papers that we'll link to. We're going to link to everything for what we've been discussing about calories in, calories out, and that's been the longstanding adage about this. Can you enlighten us, what is really driving obesity and calories story?Kevin Hall (23:05):Well, I co-organized a meeting for the Royal Society, I guess about a year and a half ago, and we got together all these experts from around the world, and the basic message is that we have lots of competing theories about what is driving obesity. There's a few things that we all agree on. One is that there is a genetic component. That adiposity in a given environment is somewhere between 40% to 70% heritable, so our genes play a huge role. It seems like there's certain genes that can play a major role. Like if you have a mutation in leptin, for example, or the leptin receptor, then this can have a monogenic cause of obesity, but that's very, very rare. What seems to be the case is that it's a highly polygenic disease with individual gene variants contributing a very, very small amount to increased adiposity. But our genes have not changed that much as obesity prevalence has increased over the past 50 years. And so, something in the environment has been driving that, and that's where the real debates sort of starts, right?Kevin Hall (24:14):I happen to be in the camp that thinks that the food environment is probably one of the major drivers and our food have changed substantially, and we're trying to better understand, for example, how ultra-processed foods which have risen kind of in parallel with the increased prevalence of obesity. What is it about ultra-processed foods that tend to drive us to overconsume calories? Other folks focus maybe more on what signals from the body have been altered by the foods that we're eating. They might say that the adipose tissue because of excess insulin secretion for example, is basically driven into a storage mode and that sends downstream signals that are eventually sensed by the brain to change our appetite and things like that. There's a lot of debate about that, but again, I think that these are complementary hypotheses that are important to sort out for sure and important to design experiments to try to figure out what is more likely. But there is a lot of agreement on the idea that there's something in our environment has changed.Kevin Hall (25:17):I think there's even maybe a little bit less agreement of exactly what that is. I think that there's probably a little bit more emphasis on the food environment as opposed to there are other folks who think increased pollution might be driving some of this, especially endocrine disrupting chemicals that have increased in prevalence. I think that's a viable hypothesis. I think we have to try to rank order what we think are the most likely and largest contributors. They could all be contributing to some extent and maybe more so in some people rather than others, but our goal is to try to, maybe that's a little simple minded, but let's take the what I think is the most important thing and let's figure out the mechanisms of that most important thing and we'll, number one, determine if it is the most important thing. In my case, I think something about ultra-processed foods that are driving much of what we're seeing. If we could better understand that, then we could both advise consumers to avoid certain kinds of foods because of certain mechanisms and still be able to consume some degree of ultra-processed foods. They are convenient and tasty and relatively inexpensive and don't require a lot of skill and equipment to prepare. But then if we focus on the true bad guys in that category because we really understand the mechanisms, then I think that would be a major step forward. But that's just my hypothesis.Eric Topol (26:43):Well, I'm with you actually. Everything I've read, everything I've reviewed on ultra-processed food is highly incriminating, and I also get frustrated that nothing is getting done about it, at least in this country. But on the other hand, it doesn't have to be either or, right? It could be both these, the glycemic index story also playing a role. Now, when you think about this and you're trying to sort out calories in and calories out, and let's say it's one of your classic experiments where you have isocaloric proteins and fat and carbohydrate exactly nailed in the different diets you're examining. Is it really about calories or is it really about what is comprising the calorie?Kevin Hall (27:29):Yeah, so I think this is the amazing thing, even in our ultra-processed food study, if we asked the question across those people, did the people who ate more calories even in the ultra-processed diet, did they gain more weight? The answer is yes.Kevin Hall (27:44):There's a very strong linear correlation between calorie intake and weight change. I tend to think that I started my career in this space focusing more on the metabolism side of the equation, how the body's using the calories and how much does energy expenditure change when you vary the proportion of carbs versus fat, for example. The effect size is there, they might be there, but they're really tiny of the order of a hundred calories per day. What really struck me is that when we just kind of changed people's food environments, the magnitude of the effects are like we mentioned, 500 to 700 calories per day differences. So I think that the real trick is to figure out how is it that the brain is regulating our body weight in some way that we are beginning to understand from a molecular perspective? What I think is less well understood is, how is that food intake control system altered by the food environment that we find ourselves in?The Brain and GLP-1 DrugsKevin Hall (28:42):There are a few studies now in mice that are beginning to look at how pathways in the brain that have been believed to be related to reward and not necessarily homeostatic control of food intake. They talk to the regions of the brain that are related to homeostatic control of food intake, and it's a reciprocal sort of feedback loop there, and we're beginning to understand that. And I think if we get more details about what it is in our foods that are modulating that system, then we'll have a better understanding of what's really driving obesity and is it different in different people? Are there subcategories of obesity where certain aspects of the food environment are more important than others, and that might be completely flipped in another person. I don't know the answer to that question yet, but it seems like there are certain common factors that might be driving overall changes in obesity prevalence and how they impact this reward versus homeostatic control systems in the brain, I think are really fascinating questions.Eric Topol (29:43):And I think we're getting much more insight about this circuit of the reward in the brain with the food intake, things like optogenetics, many ways that we're getting at this. And so, it's fascinating. Now, that gets me to the miracle drug class GLP-1, which obviously has a big interaction with obesity, but of course much more than that. And you've written about this as well regarding this topic of sarcopenic obesity whereby you lose a lot of weight, but do you lose muscle mass or as you referred to earlier, you lose body fat and maybe not so much muscle mass. Can you comment about your views about the GLP-1 family of drugs and also about this concern of muscle mass loss?Kevin Hall (30:34):Yeah, so I think it's a really fascinating question, and we've been trying to develop mathematical models about how our body composition changes with weight gain and weight loss for decades now. And this has been a long topic, one of the things that many people may not realize is that people with obesity don't just have elevated adiposity, they also have elevated muscle mass and lean tissue mass overall. So when folks with obesity lose weight, and this was initially a pretty big concern with bariatric surgery, which has been the grandfather of ways that people have lost a lot of weight. The question has been is there a real concern about people losing too much weight and thereby becoming what you call sarcopenic? They have too little muscle mass and then they have difficulties moving around. And of course, there are probably some people like that, but I think what people need to realize is that folks with obesity tend to start with much higher amounts of lean tissue mass as well as adiposity, and they start off with about 50% of your fat-free mass, and the non-fat component of your body is skeletal muscle.Kevin Hall (31:45):So you're already starting off with quite a lot. And so, the question then is when you lose a lot of weight with the GLP-1 receptor agonist or with bariatric surgery, how much of that weight loss is coming from fat-free mass and skeletal muscle versus fat mass? And so, we've been trying to simulate that using what we've known about bariatric surgery and what we've known about just intentional weight loss or weight gain over the years. And one of the things that we found was that our sort of expectations for what's expected for the loss of fat-free mass with these different drugs as well as bariatric surgery, for the most part, they match our expectations. In other words, the expected amount of fat loss and fat free mass loss. The one outlier interestingly, was the semaglutide study, and in that case, they lost more fat-free mass than would be expected.Kevin Hall (32:44):Now, again, that's just raising a little bit of a flag that for whatever reason, from a body composition perspective, it's about a hundred people underwent these repeated DEXA scans in that study sponsored by Novo Nordisk. So it's not a huge number of people, but it's enough to really get a good estimate about the proportion of weight loss. Whether or not that has functional consequences, I think is the open question. There's not a lot of reports of people losing weight with semaglutide saying, you know what? I'm really having trouble actually physically moving around. I feel like I've lost a lot of strength. In fact, it seems to be the opposite, right, that the quality of the muscle there seems to be improved. They seem to have more physical mobility because they've lost so much more weight, that weight had been inhibiting their physical movement in the past.Kevin Hall (33:38):So it's something to keep an eye on. It's an open question whether or not we need additional therapies in certain categories of patients, whether that be pharmacological, there are drugs that are interesting that tend to increase muscle mass. There's also other things that we know increase muscle mass, right? Resistance exercise training, increase this muscle mass. And so, if you're really concerned about this, I certainly, I'm not a physician, but I think it's something to consider that if you go on one of these drugs, you might want to think about increasing your resistance exercise training, maybe increasing the protein content of your diet, which then can support that muscle building. But I think it's a really interesting open question about what the consequences of this might be in certain patient populations, especially over longer periods of time.Dietary Protein, Resistance Exercise, DEXA ScansEric Topol (34:30):Yeah, you've just emphasized some really key points here. Firstly, that resistance exercise is good for you anyway. And get on one of these drugs, why don't you amp it up or get it going? The second is about the protein diet, which it'd be interesting to get your thoughts on that, but we generally have too low of a protein diet, but then there are some who are advocating very high protein diets like one gram per pound, not just one gram per kilogram. And there have been studies to suggest that that very high protein diet could be harmful, but amping up the protein diet, that would be a countering thing. But the other thing you mentioned is a DEXA scan, which can be obtained very inexpensively, and because there's a variability in this muscle mass loss if it's occurring, I wonder if that's a prudent thing or if you just empirically would just do the things that you mentioned. Do you have any thoughts about that?Kevin Hall (35:32):Yeah, that's really a clinical question that I don't deal with on a day-to-day basis. And yeah, I think there's probably better people suited to that. DEXA scans, they're relatively inexpensive, but they're not readily accessible to everyone. I certainly wouldn't want to scare people away from using drugs that are now known to be very effective for weight loss and pretty darn safe as far as we can tell, just because they don't have access to a DEXA scanner or something like that.Eric Topol (36:00):Sure. No, that makes a lot of sense. I mean, the only reason I thought it might be useful is if you're concerned about this and you want to track, for example, how much is that resistant training doing?Kevin Hall (36:13):But I think for people who have the means to do that, sure. I can't see any harm in it for sure.Continuous Glucose Sensors?Eric Topol (36:19):Yeah. That gets me to another metric that you've written about, which is continuous glucose tracking. As you know, this is getting used, I think much more routinely in type one insulin diabetics and people with type 2 that are taking insulin or difficult to manage. And now in recent months there have been consumer approved that is no prescription needed, just go to the drugstore and pick up your continuous glucose sensor. And you've written about that as well. Can you summarize your thoughts on it?Kevin Hall (36:57):Yeah, sure. I mean, yeah, first of all, these tools have been amazing for people with diabetes and who obviously are diagnosed as having a relative inability to regulate their glucose levels. And so, these are critical tools for people in that population. I think the question is are they useful for people who don't have diabetes and is having this one metric and where you target all this energy into this one thing that you can now measure, is that really a viable way to kind of modulate your lifestyle and your diet? And how reliable are these CGM measurements anyway? In other words, do they give the same response to the same meal on repeated occasions? Does one monitor give the same response as another monitor? And those are the kinds of experiments that we've done. Again, secondary analysis, these trials that we talked about before, we have people wearing continuous glucose monitors all the time and we know exactly what they ate.Kevin Hall (37:59):And so, in a previous publication several years ago, we basically had two different monitors. One basically is on the arm, which is the manufacturer's recommendation, the other is on the abdomen, which is the manufacturer's recommendation. They're wearing them simultaneously. And we decided just to compare what were the responses to the same meals in simultaneous measurements. And they were correlated with each other thankfully, but they weren't as well predictive as you might expect. In other words, one device might give a very high glucose reading to consuming one meal and the other might barely budge, whereas the reverse might happen for a different meal. And so, we asked the question, if we were to rank the glucose spikes by one meal, so we have all these meals, let's rank them according to the glucose spikes of one device. Let's do the simultaneous measurements with the other device.Kevin Hall (38:53):Do we get a different set of rankings? And again, they're related to each other, but they're not overlapping. They're somewhat discordant. And so, then the question becomes, okay, well if I was basically using this one metric to kind of make my food decisions by one device, I actually start making different decisions compared to if I happen to have been wearing a different device. So what does this really mean? And I think this sort of foundational research on how much of a difference you would need to make a meaningful assessment about, yeah, this is actionable from a lifestyle perspective, even if that is the one metric that you're interested in. That sort of foundational research I don't think has really been done yet. More recently, we asked the question, okay, let's ignore the two different devices. Let's stick to the one where we put it on our arm, and let's ask the question.Kevin Hall (39:43):We've got repeated meals and we've got them in this very highly regimented and controlled environment, so we know exactly what people ate previously. We know the timing of the meals, we know when they did their exercise, we know how much they were moving around, how well they slept the night before. All of these factors we could kind of control. And the question that we asked in that study was, do people respond similarly to the same meal on repeated occasions? Is that better than when you actually give them very different meals? But they match overall for macronutrient content, for example. And the answer to that was surprisingly no. We had as much variability in the glucose response to the same person consuming the same meal on two occasions as a whole bunch of different meals. Which suggests again, that there's enough variability that it makes it difficult to then recommend on for just two repeats of a meal that this is going to be a meal that's going to cause your blood glucose to be moderate or blood glucose to be very high. You're going to have to potentially do this on many, many different occasions to kind of figure out what's the reliable response of these measurements. And again, that foundational research is typically not done. And I think if we're really going to use this metric as something that is going to change our lifestyles and make us choose some meals other than others, then I think we need that foundational research. And all we know now is that two repeats of the same meal is not going to do it.Eric Topol (41:21):Well, were you using the current biosensors of 2024 or were you using ones from years ago on that?Kevin Hall (41:27):No, we were using ones from several years ago when these studies were completed. But interestingly, the variability in the venous measurements to meal tests is also very, very different. So it's probably not the devices per se that are highly variable. It's that we don't really know on average how to predict these glucose responses unless there's huge differences in the glycemic load. So glycemic load is a very old concept that when you have very big differences in glycemic load, yeah, you can on average predict that one kind of meal is going to give rise to a much larger glucose excursion than another. But typically these kind of comparisons are now being made within a particular person. And we're comparing meals that might have quite similar glycemic loads with the claim that there's something specific about that person that causes them to have a much bigger glucose spike than another person. And that we can assess that with a couple different meals.Eric Topol (42:31):But also, we know that the spikes or the glucose regulation, it's very much affected by so many things like stress, like sleep, like exercise. And so, it wouldn't be at all surprising that if you had the exact same food, but all these other factors were modulated that it might not have the same response. But the other thing, just to get your comment on. Multiple groups, particularly starting in Israel, the Weizmann Institute, Eran Segal and his colleagues, and many subsequent have shown that if you give the exact same amount of that food, the exact same time to a person, they eat the exact same amount. Their glucose response is highly heterogeneous and variable between people. Do you think that that's true? That in fact that our metabolism varies considerably and that the glucose in some will spike with certain food and some won't.Kevin Hall (43:29):Well, of course that's been known for a long time that there's varying degrees of glucose tolerance. Just oral glucose tolerance tests that we've been doing for decades and decades we know is actually diagnostic, that we use variability in that response as diagnostic of type 2 diabetes.Eric Topol (43:49):I'm talking about within healthy people.Kevin Hall (43:53):But again, it's not too surprising that varying people. I mean, first of all, we have a huge increase in pre-diabetes, right? So there's various degrees of glucose tolerance that are being observed. But yeah, that is important physiology. I think the question then is within a given person, what kind of advice do we give to somebody about their lifestyle that is going to modulate those glucose responses? And if that's the only thing that you look at, then it seems like what ends up happening, even in the trials that use continuous glucose monitors, well big surprise, they end up recommending low carbohydrate diets, right? So that's the precision sort of nutrition advice because if that's the main metric that's being used, then of course we've all known for a very long time that lower carbohydrate diets lead to a moderated glucose response compared to higher carbohydrate diets. I think the real question is when you kind of ask the issue of if you normalize for glycemic load of these different diets, and there are some people that respond very differently to the same glycemic load meal compared to another person, is that consistent number one within that person?Kevin Hall (45:05):And our data suggests that you're going to have to repeat that same test multiple times to kind of get a consistent response and be able to make a sensible recommendation about that person should eat that meal in the future or not eat that meal in the future. And then second, what are you missing when that becomes your only metric, right? If you're very narrowly focused on that, then you're going to drive everybody to consume a very low carbohydrate diet. And as we know, that might be great for a huge number of people, but there are those that actually have some deleterious effects of that kind of diet. And if you're not measuring those other things or not considering those other things and put so much emphasis on the glucose side of the equation, I worry that there could be people that are being negatively impacted. Not to mention what if that one occasion, they ate their favorite food and they happen to get this huge glucose spike and they never eat it again, their life is worse. It might've been a complete aberration.Eric Topol (46:05):I think your practical impact point, it's excellent. And I think one of the, I don't know if you agree, Kevin, but one of the missing links here is we see these glucose spikes in healthy people, not just pre-diabetic, but people with no evidence of glucose dysregulation. And we don't know, they could be up to 180, 200, they could be prolonged. We don't know if the health significance of that, and I guess someday we'll learn about it. Right?Kevin Hall (46:36):Well, I mean that's the one nice thing is that now that we have these devices to measure these things, we can start to make these correlations. We can start to do real science to say, what a lot of people now presume is the case that these spikes can't be good for you. They must lead to increased risk of diabetes. It's certainly a plausible hypothesis, but that's what it is. We actually need good data to actually analyze that. And at least that's now on the table.Eric Topol (47:04):I think you're absolutely right on that. Well, Kevin, this has been a fun discussion. You've been just a great leader in nutrition science. I hope you'll keep up your momentum because it's pretty profound and I think we touched on a lot of the uncertainties. Is there anything that I didn't ask you that you wish I did?Kevin Hall (47:23):I mean, we could go on for hours, I'm sure, Eric, but this has been a fascinating conversation. I really appreciate your interest. Thank you.Eric Topol (47:30):Alright, well keep up the great stuff. We'll be following all your work in the years ahead, and thanks for joining us on Ground Truths today.**************************************Footnote, Stay Tuned: Julia Belluz and Kevin Hall have a book coming out next September titled “WHY WE EAT? Thank you for reading, listening and subscribing to Ground Truths.If you found this fun and informative please share it!All content on Ground Truths—its newsletters, analyses, and podcasts, are free, open-access.Paid subscriptions are voluntary. All proceeds from them go to support Scripps Research. Many thanks to those who have contributed—they have greatly helped fund our summer internship programs for the past two years. I welcome all comments from paid subscribers and will do my best to respond to them and any questions.Thanks to my producer Jessica Nguyen and to Sinjun Balabanoff for audio and video support at Scripps Research.Note on Mass Exodus from X/twitter:Many of you have abandoned the X platform for reasons that I fully understand. While I intend to continue to post there because of its reach to the biomedical community, I will post anything material here in the Notes section of Ground Truths on a daily basis and cover important topics in the newsletter/analyses. You can also find my posts at Bluesky: @erictopol.bsky.social, which is emerging as an outstanding platform for sharing life science. Get full access to Ground Truths at erictopol.substack.com/subscribe

As Adrienne reflects on 6 years of the Power Hour, we are going to share some of our favourite episodes from the archives on Thursdays.Today we're sharing April 2023's episode all about Ultra-processed food, with guest Dr Chris van Tulleken. Since this episode Chris has been on a mission to get us discussing our diets and making positive healthy changes, and the phrase ultra-processed food has become common parlance!From the episode notes...Adrienne is joined by the wonderful Dr Chris van Tulleken to discuss his new book Ultra-Processed People. In the book Dr Chris discusses how we have entered a new 'age of eating' where most of our calories come from an entirely novel set of substances called Ultra-Processed Food, food which is industrially processed and designed and marketed to be addictive. But do we really know what it's doing to our bodies?Dr Chris van Tulleken is an infectious disease doctor at University College London Hospitals, and a Medical Research Council clinical research fellow at University College London in the Greg Towers lab, where he studies viral evolution and HIV. He has worked with aid organisations around the world over the past 10 years, including Doctors of the World. He also presents a range of programmes for the BBC including the double-Bafta winning Operation Ouch!. He is on Twitter @DoctorChrisVT Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Dr Chris van Tulleken shares stories from the making of his chart-topping podcast, Fed. In conversation with Leyla Kazim, at Hay Festival 2024.In Fed, Dr Chris van Tulleken, investigated the entangled web of forces that shape what ends up on our plates. And he focused his investigation around one foodstuff in particular. The most widely eaten meat on our planet, a staple of nearly every diet and a global food production phenomenon: the humble chicken, Chris dug into the history of our relationship with this extraordinary animal, to try to get to the truth of why we eat so much of it, and what that means for the birds, for us, and for the planet.In this lively conversation, recorded live at Hay festival 2024, Chris talks to Leyla Kazim about the hidden stories behind the globalised food networks of today. From industrial-scale farming, to food labelling, to ethical dilemmas, environmental quandaries, and the complexities of the world of fast food. Plus tales from the adventure that ran through the whole series: raising his own tiny flock of broiler chickens, in his back garden.

In this episode of the RCP Medicine podcast's Health Inequalities series, Dr. Rohan Mehra delves into the commercial determinants of health—how private sector activities influence health outcomes and deepen inequalities. This episode focuses on the food industry, examining how corporate actions like product design, marketing, and lobbying can negatively impact public health.Joining Rohan is Dr. Chris Van Tulleken, an infectious diseases consultant at the Hospital for Tropical Diseases in London, associate professor at University College London, and an acclaimed researcher and BAFTA wining broadcaster. Chris' work, including his bestselling book Ultra-Processed People, shines a light on how corporations, particularly in the food industry, affect health, especially in the context of child nutrition. Together, they explore the pressing issue of corporate influence on health and discuss practical ways to address these challenges. Resources:Lancet commercial determinants of health series: https://www.thelancet.com/series/commercial-determinants-healthCommercial determinants of health- WHO fact sheethttps://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/commercial-determinants-of-healthLSHTM research on commercial determinants of health (CDRG workgroup)https://www.lshtm.ac.uk/research/centres-projects-groups/cdrg  Music: www.bensound.com

Today we're discussing ultra processed food. Ultra-processed foods (UPFs) are everywhere. Many of us eat them over and over again without really understanding the detrimental impact they're having on our health.  But why are these foods so addictive? Here to help us identify the ultra-processed parts of our diet are Professor Tim Spector and Dr. Chris van Tulleken.

Under-nutrition harms health, but so does over-nutrition. The Bill and Melinda Gate's foundation has just released their Goalkeepers' report - highlighting the detrimental impact that poor nutrition is having on children's health.  Rasa Izadnegahdar, director of Maternal, Newborn, Child Nutrition & Health at the foundation joins us to explain how they are targeting nutritional interventions. Also this week, a new investigation in The BMJ has found that the UK government's  Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition - the people who help guide the UK's nutrition policy - have competing interests with the food industry. We hear from Chris van Tulleken, University College London; Rob Percival, the Soil Association; and Alison Tedstone, chair of the Association for Nutrition.   Reading list: Goalkeepers Report 2024 UK government's nutrition advisers are paid by world's largest food companies, BMJ analysis reveals    

Here in the UK, ultra-processed food makes up 60 percent of the average diet. The trouble is, says today's guest, UPFs have been shown to be the leading cause of early death in the world, ahead of tobacco. Feel Better Live More Bitesize is my weekly podcast for your mind, body, and heart. Each week I'll be featuring inspirational stories and practical tips from some of my former guests. Today's clip is from episode 414 of the podcast with Dr Chris van Tulleken. Chris is a practising infectious diseases doctor, one of the UK's leading science broadcasters, and author of the book Ultra-Processed People. Over consumption of ultra-processed foods may be the biggest public-health crisis of our time and, in this clip, he shares why he believes we eat stuff that isn't really food and why can't we stop. Thanks to our sponsor https://www.drinkag1.com/livemore Support the podcast and enjoy Ad-Free episodes. Try FREE for 7 days on Apple Podcasts https://apple.co/feelbetterlivemore. For other podcast platforms go to https://fblm.supercast.com. Show notes and the full podcast are available at drchatterjee.com/414 DISCLAIMER: The content in the podcast and on this webpage is not intended to constitute or be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. Always seek the advice of your doctor or other qualified health care provider with any questions you may have regarding a medical condition. Never disregard professional medical advice or delay in seeking it because of something you have heard on the podcast or on my website.

Purified and Born Again 1 Peter 1:22-2:3 Teacher: Blaine Dennison, Congregational Care Pastor at Oak Pointe Church Dr. Chris van Tulleken set out on a 30-day quest to discover what happens to the body on a diet of ultra-processed food (UPF). He found himself consuming more and more calories as time went on, yet he rarely felt full. One night he remarked, “I'm not enjoying it, but I can't stop.” The UPFs were causing him to want to eat increasingly more even while physically he was feeling worse. With a similar introspection, the Apostle Peter calls us to take care of our spiritual diet by consuming what is good and putting off the junk that stunts our growth. Is your heart feeling sluggish and insatiable? Do you crave what you know you shouldn't? Join us tomorrow morning for a spiritual checkup and learn how to get your heart in shape.

Are you ready to transform your health and embark on a journey toward a healthier, more purposeful life? Health, Vitality and Weight Loss Coach Sue Ellar shares her journey from struggling with weight and chronic ailments to thriving with energy through proper nutrition. Learn what natural, unprocessed foods can do for you and how to break free from misleading industry practices. Sue's mission is to empower the next generation with healthy eating habits however to achieve it, she needs your help with what corporations produce. That will only happen with changing the demand.   KEY TAKEAWAY ‘People are confused about what they can eat, what's healthy and what's not. So I can't set out on a mission to change the food industry, because let's face it, the only way we can change big corporations is by changing the demand.'   BOOK RECOMMENDATIONS* Ultra-Processed People by Chris van Tulleken - https://amzn.eu/d/iARYyM2 Focus on Why by Amy Rowlinson – https://amzn.eu/d/6W02HWu     ABOUT SUE Sue Ellar is on a mission to help women dramatically improve their health, energy, sleep, and release excess weight naturally. She harnesses the beautiful simplicity of evolutionary nutrition and behavioural change psychology to embed a more supportive, peaceful relationship with food. In just 90 days Sue's Eat Well Feel Great programme delivers significant health improvements such as reduced joint pain, improved gut health and sleep. Weight loss happens as a natural side effect - average 21 lbs. Sue's compassionate and doable approach helps ensure the changes last and clients are able to enjoy a life of food freedom, health and vitality for years to come.    CONNECT WITH SUE http://facebook.com/sueellar/ http://instagram.com/sue.ellar/ https://uk.linkedin.com/in/sueellar http://linktr.ee/sueellar    ABOUT AMY Amy is a Life Purpose Coach, Podcast Strategist, Global Podcaster, Speaker and Mastermind Host. Helping you to improve productivity, engagement and fulfilment in your everyday life and work. Prepare to banish overwhelm, underwhelm and frustration to live with clarity of purpose.   WORK WITH AMY If you're interested in how purpose can help you and your business, please book a free 30 min call via https://calendly.com/amyrowlinson/call   KEEP IN TOUCH WITH AMY Sign up for the weekly Friday Focus - https://www.amyrowlinson.com/subscribe-to-weekly-newsletter   CONNECT WITH AMY https://linktr.ee/AmyRowlinson   HOSTED BY: Amy Rowlinson   DISCLAIMER The views, thoughts and opinions expressed in this podcast belong solely to the host and guest speakers. Please conduct your own due diligence. *As an Amazon Associate, I earn from qualifying purchases.

Today's bonus guest is Dr Chris van Tulleken, he's the author of the bestselling book Ultra Processed People, an infectious diseases doctor and broadcaster. Now for anyone who's been listening to Big Fish for a while, you'll know that this book absolutely changed my life. It's an eye-opening exploration into ultra processed food and why we can't stop eating it. He looks at how this industrially processed food is designed and marketed to be addictive, why exercise and willpower can't save us and what UPF is really doing to our bodies and our health. I absolutely loved this conversation with Chris - you'll find it utterly fascinating.

Dr Chris van Tulleken wrestles with the dilemma of slaughter. Could he bring himself to dispatch an animal himself? Is he happy supporting an industry which kills animals in his name? And if not, what could he eat instead?Chris explores the rise of the alternative protein industry – plant-based meat alternatives, lab-grown meat, or most shocking of all for some, actual meat abstinence, Veganism.And it is time to revisit that initial question: what's influencing our choices when it comes to eating chicken, what impact is that having – and are we bothered?

Do YOU know what you're eating? Are you sure?Dr Chris van Tulleken is keen to make good food choices, and buy the best chicken possible for his dinner. High welfare, tasty, and good for the environment, ideally. But it's not as easy as that. How CAN he make good food choices if he has no idea what he's buying?Chris explores what we actually know about the food we buy, and to what extent we can trust what's on a label.He also uncovers the startling truth about two very different ways that we buy chicken - lifting the lid on why sometimes, even the most moral meat shoppers turn a blind eye...

The is the second instalment of a two-part discussion. We're living longer than ever before but we are also spending more years in poor health and some communities become more sick than others. In June 2024 science journalist Layal Liverpool and medical doctor Chris van Tulleken came to Intelligence Squared to reveal the underlying causes of our growing health crises. Drawing on the themes of their respective books Systemic: How Racism is Making Us Ill, and Ultra-Processed People, they uncover how structural problems and inequalities – from racism in medicine to processing in food – are making us increasingly and needlessly ill. We are sponsored by Indeed. Go to Indeed.com/IS for £100 sponsored credit. This is the second instalment of two-part discussion. If you'd like to become a Member and get access to all three parts immediately and all of our longer form interviews and Members-only content, just visit intelligencesquared.com/membership to find out more. For £4.99 per month you'll also receive: - Full-length and ad-free Intelligence Squared episodes, wherever you get your podcasts - Bonus Intelligence Squared podcasts, curated feeds and members exclusive series - 15% discount on livestreams and in-person tickets for all Intelligence Squared events - Our member-only newsletter The Monthly Read, sent straight to your inbox ... Or Subscribe on Apple for £4.99: - Full-length and ad-free Intelligence Squared podcasts - Bonus Intelligence Squared podcasts, curated feeds and members exclusive series ... Already a subscriber? Thank you for supporting our mission to foster honest debate and compelling conversations! Visit intelligencesquared.com to explore all your benefits including ad-free podcasts, exclusive bonus content and early access. ... Subscribe to our newsletter here to hear about our latest events, discounts and much more. https://www.intelligencesquared.com/newsletter-signup/ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

The is the first instalment of a two-part discussion. We're living longer than ever before but we are also spending more years in poor health and some communities become more sick than others. In June 2024 science journalist Layal Liverpool and medical doctor Chris van Tulleken came to Intelligence Squared to reveal the underlying causes of our growing health crises. Drawing on the themes of their respective books Systemic: How Racism is Making Us Ill, and Ultra-Processed People, they uncover how structural problems and inequalities – from racism in medicine to processing in food – are making us increasingly and needlessly ill. We are sponsored by Indeed. Go to Indeed.com/IS for £100 sponsored credit. This is the first instalment of two-part discussion. If you'd like to become a Member and get access to all three parts immediately and all of our longer form interviews and Members-only content, just visit intelligencesquared.com/membership to find out more. For £4.99 per month you'll also receive: - Full-length and ad-free Intelligence Squared episodes, wherever you get your podcasts - Bonus Intelligence Squared podcasts, curated feeds and members exclusive series - 15% discount on livestreams and in-person tickets for all Intelligence Squared events - Our member-only newsletter The Monthly Read, sent straight to your inbox ... Or Subscribe on Apple for £4.99: - Full-length and ad-free Intelligence Squared podcasts - Bonus Intelligence Squared podcasts, curated feeds and members exclusive series ... Already a subscriber? Thank you for supporting our mission to foster honest debate and compelling conversations! Visit intelligencesquared.com to explore all your benefits including ad-free podcasts, exclusive bonus content and early access. ... Subscribe to our newsletter here to hear about our latest events, discounts and much more. https://www.intelligencesquared.com/newsletter-signup/ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

We've heard about the potential problems around chicken welfare. But how does that square with their impact on the environment?Dr Chris van Tulleken finds out what it takes to produce the most eco-friendly chicken meat possible. And makes a devastating discovery. Welfare concerns, and environmental credentials, often pull in OPPOSITE directions. Does he want to eat the happiest birds, or the ones kindest to the planet?Halfway through his poultry quest, Chris remains massively conflicted: he loves chicken, but some of what he's discovered makes him question how much he eats it. Will he still be able to look at it the same way as he goes deeper down the rabbit hole? And more importantly, should he keep serving it up to the family?

We eat chicken. A LOT of it. We might love the taste, but what about how we're treating those birds?After witnessing first-hand the reality of indoor chicken farming - how most of the chicken we eat is raised - Dr Chris van Tulleken wants to know: are the birds happy enough, or is our method of rearing cheap chicken actually cruel?If so, what's the ‘happier' alternative – and do carnivores like Chris care enough to pay the price for that, or does a love of meat ultimately trump ethics?Chris battles with his conscience, and finds the answer hard to stomach.

So we started farming this bird called chicken, and it spread around the world. But what does it actually TAKE to feed us the amount of chicken we want to consume?100 years ago this was a scrawny, egg-laying bird, only good for a stew once her eggs ran out – no one ate chicken meat. Fast forward to today and it's the most consumed protein on the planet. How did we come to eat it in the first place, and what are the consequences of producing chicken meat on the vast, industrial scales we now consume it?Dr Chris van Tulleken uncovers the extraordinary accident of history that birthed a new industry, and changed the way we eat – and think about – meat forever.

Dr Chris van Tulleken is on a mission to find out what we're eating, why, and who or what might be influencing our decisions. And he's starting his quest to uncover food truths with the most eaten meat in the world, and one of the most numerous animals on our planet: chicken.He's recently been forced to confront a serious gap in his food knowledge - what happens before it gets to our plates - and has decided this, the world's most popular meat, is an ideal starting point.Chris' initial investigations reveal the vast scale of modern chicken consumption; and how a once revered jungle fowl was manipulated to become a modern food success story, a fast-growing heavy-breasted beast to feed the masses.Now, he's torn: is this a triumph of human ingenuity – or the creation of a monster?

The FX miniseries Shōgun takes viewers on a journey filled with action and adventure through historically accurate 1600's Edo-era Japan. Englishman John Blackthorne arrives on a Dutch trading ship after a rough voyage, interested in beginning trade with the Japanese. The country is governed by five regents locked in a power struggle, and the ruler Toranaga thinks the Englishman might be useful to him. Director Jonathan van Tulleken and cinematographer Christopher Ross worked on episodes one and two together, establishing the look of the series. They have a deep understanding of each other's creative vision, collaborating on several TV shows over the years. For Shōgun, Jonathan and Chris created a visual experience that honors both the grandeur of feudal Japan and the disorientation of a foreign visitor like the “anjin,” John Blackthorne. The two met and created a look book and sizzle reel to present to FX. Jonathan drew inspiration from movies such as The Revenant and Apocalypse Now. Chris was influenced by classic Japanese films Ran, Seven Samurai, Yojimbo, and Akira Kirosawa's jidaigeki (historical drama) films. Most importantly, they wanted the show to be bold and stand out with a cinematic look and genuine artistic intention behind it. Chris chose anamorphic lenses and wider aspect ratios for the first two episodes, playing with the point of view of the outsider's subjectivity and disorientation. The choice of anamorphic lenses, which create a lot of background blur but keeps the character in crisp focus, may have seemed controversial, but has become more widely used on today's television shows. (Read this article from The Ringer to learn more.) Shōgun was shot in British Columbia during the winter, with the wild ocean shores of Canada and carefully designed soundstages standing in for Japan. Jonathan, Chris and the production team chose a lighting and color palette of browns and greens for the warring factions. Opulent costumes, warmer lights and colors represented palace life in Osaka, while in the village, the use of blues and grays reflected the harsh realities of the time period. The dialog is almost entirely in Japanese, and Jonathan actually enjoyed directing in a language he didn't speak. “It meant that you were not giving line readings, you couldn't give line readings. You had to direct in a much more pure way, dealing with the bigger arcs of the scene, the character development, without getting into very macro stuff that isn't helpful. I think you could just feel the emotion.” Chris agrees. “What you're hoping to achieve is some sort of emotional resonance with a character that is in tune with what they're saying and synchronous with what they're saying.” Find Jonathan Van Tulleken: https://www.imdb.com/name/nm1743387/?ref_=fn_al_nm_1 Find Chris Ross: Instagram @edjibevel Sponsored by Hot Rod Cameras www.hotrodcameras.com Get Tickets to Cinebeer 2024! https://www.tickettailor.com/events/hotrodcameras/1263845? The Cinematography Podcast website: www.camnoir.com Facebook: @cinepod Instagram: @thecinepod Twitter: @ShortEndz

It's Friday, May 10th, A.D. 2024. This is The Worldview in 5 Minutes heard at www.TheWorldview.com. I'm Adam McManus. (Adam@TheWorldview.com) By Adam McManus Muslims attacked praying Catholic students On Sunday, May 5th, two young women were slightly wounded when a mob of Muslims assaulted a group of 15 Catholic students who were praying at a rented house in Banten Province, on the Indonesian island of Java, reports Morning Star News. Enraged at the Catholic group praying in a home rather than in a church building, the local neighborhood head incited area Muslims to break up the meeting and injure the two female students in a suburb of Jakarta at about 7:30 p.m. Some of the assailants were reportedly armed with long machetes, sickles, knives, and blocks. One of the young women suffered a slight wound near her nose while another sustained a minor wound in the stomach, in spite of efforts by some local Muslims to protect them. The conflict began when the leader, identified as Diding, peeped into the house where the students were praying, and then intruded in, confronting the students for prayer, and ultimately dispersing them. Chicago Teachers Union demanding abortion coverage, gender-neutral bathrooms The Chicago Teachers Union is demanding $50 billion in its contract negotiations to pay for a 9% wage increase, abortions, illegal immigrant services and "gender-neutral bathrooms" for every school district, according to leaked documents, reports The Christian Post. Earlier this year, local news outlet WLS reported that Chicago teachers requested $2,000 for each of the 5,000 illegal immigrant students recently enrolled in the district, including more bilingual teachers and full tuition coverage for teachers to obtain a bilingual certificate. The list of demands also included a series of sexual perversion provisions, with the Chicago Teachers Union calling for every school in the district to have at least one "gender-neutral restroom" and annual homosexual/transgender training for educators. No wonder the number of homeschooled children continues to skyrocket. Student newspaper: "Hitler's got some good ideas." The student newspaper at McClatchy High School in Sacramento, California is facing a big time controversy. The Prospector student newspaper published an anonymous quote in the most recent edition praising Adolf Hitler.  A student said, “Hitler's got some good ideas.” It was part of a story about “weird things” overheard in the school's hallways, reports CBS News. The student staff later posted a statement saying the quote did not reflect their ideals or beliefs. But they were glad it sparked a conversation on how students choose their words. The principal fired off a message to families saying the newspaper's actions were “deeply offensive.” And the newspaper's faculty adviser has been placed on paid leave, which angered journalists across the state. Steve O'Donoghue, director of the California Scholastic Journalism Initiative, said, “They have the right to print it. They're not advocating for it, they're just quoting what a student said.” Christian talk show host Todd Starnes wrote, “It's worth noting that a recent survey showed that 63 percent of Millennials and Generation Z did not know that 6 million Jews were killed in the Holocaust. That's what happens when public schools whitewash history. The kids are ignorant of great atrocities in world history and the next thing you know – the McClatchy High School student newspaper is singing Hitler's praises.” Ultra-processed food leads to weight gain, heart issues, & depression Research published in The British Medical Journal shows that eating a lot of ultra-processed foods such as sugary cereals, frozen meals, and sodas has been linked to poor mental health and a greater risk of dying from heart issues, reports The Telegraph. Ultra-processed foods are usually higher in fat, sugar and salt and contain chemicals, colorings, sweeteners and preservatives that extend shelf life. And thanks to Dr. Chris van Tulleken, author of the bestselling book Ultra-Processed People: The Science Behind Food That Isn't Food, it's a term now popping up everywhere. Dr. van Tulleken explains that ultra-processed foods are not only “high-fat, high-salt and high-sugar, but these ingredients have been combined into industrial products with exotic additives, which can't really be described as food. They're ultra-processed foods, a set of edible substances that are addictive for many and which are now linked to weight gain, early death and, yes – depression.” In 1 Corinthians 6:19-20, the Apostle Paul asked, “Do you not know that your bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit, Who is in you, Whom you have received from God? You are not your own; you were bought at a price. Therefore, honor God with your bodies.” Hero saves 11-month-old baby from blazing fire And finally, an Ohio man is being hailed a hero after risking his life to save an 11-month-old baby trapped inside a burning home, reports FaithWire.com. John Stickovich, age 62, was on his way to work at the time and jumped out of the car after he saw smoke billowing out from a house. STICKOVICH: “The mother was sitting on the tree lawn with her one baby.  I asked her if she was all right and she said, ‘My baby is still in the house.'” He told WJW-TV that he repeatedly went inside the house to try to find the baby in the haze of smoke and fire. Emergency workers were not yet on the scene, so he acted fast. He crawled through an open door into the kitchen and started searching for the child. At first, Stickovich couldn't find the baby, so he went back outside to ask the mother for guidance. STICKOVICH: “Came back out, asked her where the baby way. She told me: ‘Next to the kitchen, by the baby gate.'” Then, he bravely entered the inferno once again. STICKOVICH: “It was getting so bad in there, I was getting ready to leave actually. And then the baby cried or made a sound. You know, I'm thinking to myself: ‘The baby is right here.” So, I just lurched forward and my arm went across his leg, I grabbed him by the leg, and we were both out.” Firefighters, who said the home was fully engulfed in the inferno by the time they arrived, are now dubbing Stickovich a hero and crediting him for saving the baby's life. The man was simply grateful he was able to assist. STICKOVICH: “I feel wonderful that I could save the baby. That mother doesn't have to mourn her baby. That baby gets to live today. I mean I would do it for anybody — it doesn't matter. And I would hope that somebody would do it for me.” John 15:13 says, “Greater love has no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.” Or, in this case, for a complete stranger who happens to be 11 months old. Close And that's The Worldview in 5 Minutes on this Friday, May 10th in the year of our Lord 2024. Subscribe by iTunes or email to our unique Christian newscast at www.TheWorldview.com. Or get the Generations app through Google Play or The App Store. I'm Adam McManus (Adam@TheWorldview.com). Seize the day for Jesus Christ.

Brian Cox and Robin Ince embrace failure in its many forms, with a frank look at the importance of making mistakes. They examine the flaws in Charles Darwin's theory of evolution with the anthropologist Alice Roberts, as she tells them no idea is totally watertight. And sometimes scientific error even leads to important discoveries – just ask the heart patients who took a pill that did nothing for their medical condition but did boost their libido and which we now know as Viagra. But other failures in the field of medicine have had more serious consequences, and Dr Chris van Tulleken questions why we're not better at drug development for the poorest parts of the world.New episodes will be released on Wednesdays. If you're in the UK, listen to the full series on BBC Sounds: bbc.in/3K3JzyFProducer: Marijke Peters Executive Producer: Alexandra FeachemEpisodes featured: Series 15: Science's Epic Fails Series 11: Serendipity Series 25: What Have We Learnt From Covid?

Why do we all eat stuff that isn't food and why can't we stop? In this episode, Dr Chris van Tulleken, author of Ultra-Processed People explains all. As well as being one of the UK's leading science broadcasters, Chris is a practising infectious diseases doctor in the NHS. He gained his medical degree at Oxford University and his PhD in molecular virology from University College London, where he is an associate professor. He works closely with the World Health Organization and UNICEF, and his research looks at how corporations affect human health. In this episode, Chris explores what may be the biggest public health crisis of our time: ultra-processed food, or UPF, for short. Many people these days, certainly most regular listeners to this podcast, will be aware of UPFs. But there's still a lot of confusion around what they really are. For Chris, it's simple: if it's wrapped in plastic and has at least one ingredient you wouldn't find in a home kitchen, it's a UPF. If it makes a health claim on the packet? Ironically, it's even more likely! A UPF is any food that's processed industrially and created for big-business profit, rather than to provide nutrients. And here in the UK, UPF makes up 60 percent of the average diet. The trouble is, says Chris, UPFs have been shown to be the leading cause of early death in the world, ahead of tobacco. Even if you remain at what is considered a healthy weight, consuming UPFs still leaves you vulnerable to things like Type 2 Diabetes, heart disease, dementia, anxiety, depression, inflammatory bowel disease, cancer and eating disorders. In this conversation, Chris provides a clear definition of the difference between processing and ultra-processing, and explains how our toxic food environment is designed to be addictive. We also discuss a whole range of different topics such as the need to see obesity as a condition and not an identity and the seemingly revolutionary idea that re-prioritising food shopping and cooking as a vital, enjoyable part of our day, could be a first step towards the societal change that's urgently needed. This podcast episode is not about shame or blame - it's about education and empowerment. Chris is a brilliant communicator who insists the prevalence and appeal of UPFs is not our fault. I thoroughly enjoyed my conversation with him - I hope you enjoy listening.Support the podcast and enjoy Ad-Free episodes. Try FREE for 7 days on Apple Podcasts https://apple.co/feelbetterlivemore. For other podcast platforms go to https://fblm.supercast.com.Find out more about my NEW Journal here https://drchatterjee.com/journalThanks to our sponsors:https://zoe.comhttps://calm.com/livemorehttps://drinkag1.com/livemoreShow notes https://drchatterjee.com/414DISCLAIMER: The content in the podcast and on this webpage is not intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. Always seek the advice of your doctor or qualified healthcare provider. Never disregard professional medical advice or delay in seeking it because of something you have heard on the podcast or on my website. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Doctor and journalist Chris van Tulleken wanted to know how ultra-processed foods affect us, so for a month he ate almost nothing but UPFs. His book Ultra-Processed People examines how the food we eat today is dramatically changing our bodies and minds. This episode was produced by Siona Peterous, edited by Matt Collette, fact-checked by Isabel Angell, engineered by TK, and hosted by Noel King. Transcript at vox.com/todayexplained Support Today, Explained by making a financial contribution to Vox! bit.ly/givepodcasts Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

You are what you eat, right? If so, then our guest has a message for us: we're “ultra-processed people.” In this episode, Abdul reflects on just how culturally-driven our food choices are and how big corporations use that to influence those choices and feed us food that's…barely food at all. Then he interviews Dr. Chris van Tulleken, a physician and health researcher, about his book “Ultra-Processed People.”