The Peter Attia Drive - #276 ‒ Special episode： Peter answers questions on longevity, supplements, protein, fasting, apoB, statins, and more

00:00:00.000 Hey, everyone. Welcome to the drive podcast. I'm your host, Peter Atiyah. This podcast,

00:00:16.580 my website, and my weekly newsletter all focus on the goal of translating the science of longevity

00:00:21.580 into something accessible for everyone. Our goal is to provide the best content in health and

00:00:26.780 wellness, and we've established a great team of analysts to make this happen. It is extremely

00:00:31.720 important to me to provide all of this content without relying on paid ads to do this. Our work

00:00:37.000 is made entirely possible by our members. And in return, we offer exclusive member only content

00:00:42.760 and benefits above and beyond what is available for free. If you want to take your knowledge of

00:00:47.980 this space to the next level, it's our goal to ensure members get back much more than the price

00:00:53.260 of the subscription. If you want to learn more about the benefits of our premium membership,

00:00:58.080 head over to peteratiyahmd.com forward slash subscribe. Welcome to a special episode of

00:01:06.800 The Drive. This is an episode that is set up like an AMA where Nick is asking me questions. However,

00:01:13.560 this will be an episode that is available to everyone. Where this differs from most AMAs is

00:01:19.640 that in this episode, I haven't seen the questions beforehand, and I come in kind of blind. As

00:01:24.780 such, whereas most AMAs go an inch wide and a mile deep, here we go, I would say, a mile wide and a foot

00:01:32.680 deep. For this conversation, the team pulled some of the most common questions that we are asked,

00:01:37.660 including some that I traditionally can't stand answering. Of course, I have no choice here,

00:01:43.080 and therefore we go through those in today's podcast. We end up talking about why I don't think

00:01:48.140 people are currently going to be able to live to 120, 150, or 180, some of the claims you see out

00:01:53.560 there all the time. We talk about what supplements I take and why you shouldn't just blindly follow me

00:01:58.580 by taking the same thing. We talk about how to lower your ApoB with and without medications.

00:02:03.960 We talk about how I think about taking statins over a long period of time and what we know about other

00:02:09.240 ASCVD-modulating drugs today or in the pipeline. We talk about why there's no such thing as good or bad

00:02:15.400 cholesterol, why nutrition research is so hard, how I think about the question of, quote,

00:02:20.820 what is the best diet, how I hit my protein targets throughout the day, what my current

00:02:26.100 favorite wearable is, and what the role for CGM is in non-diabetics, and much more. If you're not a

00:02:32.680 subscriber, this episode will hopefully give you some insight into our AMAs, although as mentioned

00:02:37.780 earlier, the format here is a little different. Without further delay, please enjoy this special

00:02:42.860 episode of The Drive. Peter, welcome to a special podcast. How are you doing?

00:02:52.580 Doing pretty good. Good. So today's episode, we're going to do something a little different.

00:02:57.540 It's going to be kind of like an AMA style where you're the one answering questions,

00:03:01.780 but it's going to be an episode that's available to everyone. We've done this a few times in the past,

00:03:07.060 usually our Strong Convictions loosely held episodes celebrating the 100, 200 episodes.

00:03:13.560 Those just receive really good feedback. And so what we decided to do was do another type of those

00:03:19.740 episodes, but instead pull some of the most frequently asked questions that have come through

00:03:25.060 the site. And so we organized them a little bit by various topics, but this is going to be an episode

00:03:31.360 that's kind of more old school style where it's just question answer. A lot of these questions you

00:03:38.120 haven't seen before, which is probably good because some of them you've always refused to talk about

00:03:44.060 on AMA, such as what supplements do you take? I know it's not your favorite subject to go into those

00:03:50.760 details. So we're going to get into them today, which I think will be good. And I think it should just be

00:03:56.080 a fun conversation where you're coming into this blind and it should be really interesting,

00:04:01.920 I think for the listener and viewer. So with that said, anything you want to add before we get

00:04:07.780 started? Why do people care what supplements I take? We can save that for the question. We will get to

00:04:14.140 it. And I think people will find it enjoyable. The other thing I should say is, do you know why

00:04:19.460 I'm also excited to have this conversation today of all days with you? No. As our friend Kyler

00:04:25.920 Brown would say, based on some emails we've exchanged earlier, you kind of seem like you're

00:04:30.580 in a spicy mood today. So I think it's going to be kind of fun to go through these questions. What

00:04:36.120 do you think? I think I am in a very spicy mood. So for the listener and viewer, this should be a fun

00:04:43.620 one all around. With that said, first question, when people think of longevity, a lot of times in the

00:04:50.500 space, they think of living to 120, 150, 200 years old. I think anyone who's listened to your podcast,

00:04:59.880 read the book, listened to interviews you've done, you're not really in that camp of very confident

00:05:05.500 that we're going to live to 120, 150 years old. One of the common questions we get is just,

00:05:10.580 why is that? Why do you think that's maybe not possible? And the follow-up would be,

00:05:16.060 based on that, why do you think it's important to act and live like we might only get to 90 years

00:05:23.460 old? This is a bit of a complicated question. So why do I not have confidence in the biohacking

00:05:31.020 your way to 120, 150, 180? I've heard all of these sorts of numbers. Because I don't think we have

00:05:39.300 the tools to address the underlying aspects of the aging of biology that are relentlessly pushing us

00:05:49.600 towards the end of our lives. Again, that's not a depressing statement. I think it's just an obvious

00:05:54.720 reality, right? So there are things about us as we age that we have the capacity to reduce the rate

00:06:02.920 of change on. We can slow them down. But I've seen no real evidence that we can reverse them in a

00:06:10.180 meaningful way. Now, it's true that there are some people out there claiming they've got their aging

00:06:16.920 clock and it shows that even though their birth certificate says they're 60, they're really 35.

00:06:22.820 We could put some time into explaining why that's not correct. So the long and short of it is,

00:06:28.060 we don't have any evidence that we can take the diseases of aging and erase them or that we can

00:06:35.240 take the underlying processes of everything from defects in mitochondrial function, defects in protein

00:06:45.760 folding and misfolding, changes in DNA breaking and repair, breakdown in nutrient sensing, all of these

00:06:53.260 pathways. I haven't seen any evidence that we can undo that. So then what would you have to believe?

00:06:57.460 So if you're going to believe someone my age, i.e. someone who's 50, is going to be around in 70

00:07:04.560 years, you have to believe that in the next dozen years or so, someone is going to come up with a way

00:07:13.240 to completely halt aging and or reverse it. In other words, it's not going to do me any good if this

00:07:19.860 happens 50 years from now, because in 50 years, I probably won't be here. And I spend a lot of time

00:07:25.200 looking at this type of literature. I really do spend a lot of time looking at this technology.

00:07:31.300 I haven't seen many examples where there's a bigger mismatch between what is actually happening

00:07:38.340 scientifically and what is being talked about in the press, on social media, on podcasts. And that chasm

00:07:45.940 is enormous. In other words, what's really happening is like nowhere near the sci-fi that's being

00:07:52.740 portrayed. So because of that, and because I have confidence that what's actually happening is more

00:07:59.820 a representation of reality, I know that these things are not a decade away. That's why I take

00:08:06.120 that point of view. Now, why does all of this matter? I think this matters because if you knew

00:08:12.160 that this was as good as it was going to get, and I don't think it is, by the way, I do think there

00:08:17.240 are incremental things that are going to make a difference, even in the lives of people my age.

00:08:22.540 But if you thought that, look, this is directionally as good as it were going to get,

00:08:25.960 I think it would motivate you to be more serious about using the tools that we have today for primary

00:08:33.880 and secondary prevention of disease, for optimizing and maximizing lifespan and healthspan.

00:08:39.880 If for no other reason, you would do that as a hedge against the enormously long odds that something

00:08:47.740 dramatic and miraculous is going to happen in the next decade or two.

00:08:52.600 To double click on a few things there, when you were talking early on about diseases,

00:08:57.180 were those diseases what you call the four horsemen from your book? Is that what you're referring to?

00:09:01.880 Yes. You still have to have a strategy that says, how are you not going to die of ASCVD,

00:09:09.180 cancer, neurodegeneration, dementia, and of all of those diseases, the only one where I can see a

00:09:15.980 pretty clear path to delay it significantly would be ASCVD if you take really dramatic steps early in

00:09:25.160 life. Instead of talking about what we think of as primary prevention, think of ultra-primary

00:09:31.680 prevention, treating people in their 30s, making sure a person never, ever walks around with an ApoB

00:09:38.640 over 30 or 40 milligrams per deciliter, making sure a person doesn't even spend one year with mild

00:09:45.420 hypertension, making sure a person is always metabolically healthy. If you do that, I agree,

00:09:50.840 you would not get atherosclerosis in a normal lifespan. But we don't have that degree of certainty

00:09:57.340 for pushing off cancer indefinitely, for pushing off neurodegeneration indefinitely, for pushing off

00:10:03.660 dementia indefinitely. Nor do we have it, by the way, for pushing off, I think, sarcopenia

00:10:10.200 indefinitely, or pushing off arthritis indefinitely. I mean, there's these other conditions that are

00:10:15.960 not as interesting to think about because they don't rise to the level of the horseman,

00:10:20.000 but they matter a lot. So physical frailty is a really, really, really big one.

00:10:24.280 If you manage to not die of heart disease, cancer, neurodegeneration, dementia,

00:10:30.340 and you're willing to train really hard, I really do think there's a path to be physically robust

00:10:36.400 as a centenarian. But I don't see a path to doing that at 120 or 150, unless there is a significant

00:10:45.100 technologic breakthrough that would basically allow us to rewind. And maybe this is a different

00:10:51.620 discussion, and maybe it's a longer discussion, Nick. And I don't know if we want to go into it

00:10:55.180 because it's taking us a little off topic, but it really gets into what does it mean to age at a

00:11:00.120 cellular level? What is the role of the epigenome in regulating our genetic code? I don't know if

00:11:07.000 there are other questions about that topic, but we could certainly defer to that.

00:11:10.500 On that topic, I know that's talked a little bit about in the episode with David Sabatini,

00:11:15.620 Matt Cabral, and so maybe we'll pull questions from there and do a future AMA kind of diving into that

00:11:21.520 a little deeper. Kind of what I'm hearing you say is, you still think that we will succumb to the same

00:11:28.080 diseases that will kill us. Your goal with Medicine 3.0 and Prevention is still to put that off as far

00:11:35.040 as possible, but that doesn't mean you're going to put it off until you're 120 years old. The goal is

00:11:41.420 to really live as robustly as possible and avoid those as long as you can, but still more in the

00:11:47.300 traditional lifespan opposed to the 150 year old lifespan. I think that taking all of the steps

00:11:54.120 that I talk about in the book and could seriously add a decade to life. I don't doubt that you can

00:11:59.600 live a decade, a decade and a half, maybe two decades longer. I don't doubt that, but I don't think

00:12:05.840 we're talking about adding 30 years or 50 years to lifespan. What I think is more important is that

00:12:12.580 whether you're adding five years, seven years or 10 years to your lifespan, what I think is much more

00:12:19.020 interesting and much more important is reducing or compressing the period of morbidity late in life.

00:12:29.240 What I think people should fixate on is how do I not be really, really frail, both physically and

00:12:38.520 cognitively in the last decade of my life, what I call the marginal decade. I don't know if I'm going

00:12:43.020 to live till I'm 85 or 90 or 80 or whatever. I mean, I don't feel like I have as much control

00:12:49.020 over that. I think there are some elements of bad luck that factor into that. What I feel like I have

00:12:53.920 much more control over is when I'm in my marginal decade, can I still go for a ruck? Will I carry 80

00:13:01.520 pounds on said ruck? No way. But I might be able to carry 10 or 20. Will I be able to swim half a mile

00:13:08.900 in a pool? Yeah. Will I be able to swim it as fast as I can now? No chance. But I could still swim half

00:13:15.760 a mile and get out of the pool under my own power. Could I sit on the floor? You know, it's all those

00:13:19.420 things that I talk about in the centenarian decathlon. Those are the things I think that we

00:13:23.160 really want to relentlessly fixate on. Because I think most people would rather live to 90 and die of a

00:13:29.680 heart attack while swimming in the ocean, but being otherwise in remarkable shape than live to 120 and

00:13:36.280 spend the last 30 years of that unable to do much. Earlier, you also mentioned there's incremental

00:13:43.860 things you think that could happen that will help someone, even your age at 50, live longer. Do you

00:13:50.160 want to just lightly touch on what a few of those things are that you were talking about there?

00:13:54.360 One of the most interesting, and I talked about this on a recent podcast with David Sabatini,

00:13:59.680 Matt Caberlin, is I still think we are really in early days of understanding what pharmacologic

00:14:07.060 inhibition of mTOR can do. There's really a lot of promise with this approach in virtually every other

00:14:14.680 model species outside of humans. And that doesn't mean it will work in humans, but it's very interesting.

00:14:22.160 And I think if we had better biomarkers, again, I think that's something that can happen in our

00:14:26.960 lifetime. I think that's a very promising strategy. And it's especially promising when you consider

00:14:32.080 that the animal models show that pharmacologic inhibition of mTOR using rapamycin or its analogs,

00:14:40.520 even applied late in life, still provided lifespan and healthspan improvement. And why that's

00:14:47.940 interesting is very few other interventions that have shown to be geroprotective work when applied that

00:14:55.820 late in life. So that to me is very promising. Last question on this aging topic would be,

00:15:02.260 let's take someone who's listening, maybe your age, but they have a son or a daughter who is 10 years

00:15:08.960 old. How do you think that 40-year time scale differs as you look at a 10-year-old's potential

00:15:15.560 lifespan today compared to your 50-year-old lifespan today?

00:15:19.560 That's a good question. I don't know. Look, I'm that guy, right? I mean, I have a six-year-old,

00:15:24.140 a nine-year-old, a 15-year-old, and I often think about what's the difference between me and them

00:15:30.760 in terms of their runway versus mine vis-a-vis the types of technologic breakthroughs that we're

00:15:36.940 interested in. And again, the one that I'm most interested in is probably on selective and high

00:15:44.940 fidelity, high-precision modulation of the epigenome. I don't know the answer, truthfully. I simply don't

00:15:53.220 have a way to predict the pace of that type of innovation. And of course, not to be a doomsdayer,

00:16:01.220 but even though they have a longer horizon for good things to happen, they also have a long horizon

00:16:07.060 for bad things to happen. And when I think about bad things that can happen to our kids,

00:16:13.500 of course, you can't help but think about nuclear war. By the way, in order, how would I rank them?

00:16:19.180 I don't know. Probably I would say biological terrorism would be the single greatest threat

00:16:24.220 to our species simply based on the low barriers to entry and the ease with which there's proliferation.

00:16:31.100 But again, you could sit here and debate what's the greater threat to our species. Is it nuclear war?

00:16:35.780 Is it climate change? Is it biological warfare? The point being here, they have just as much

00:16:41.180 time to be exposed to really bad things that could obliterate our species as good things that could

00:16:46.660 extend the life of our species. So I just don't know how to handicap the pros and cons on that.

00:16:52.200 That could be our next book. We could call it The Fifth Horseman, and it could be all about that.

00:16:58.480 That's a good intro into this next section, which gets into drugs and supplements and the most common

00:17:04.700 questions we get asked there. But I think you mentioned one thing in the aging section that I

00:17:09.760 think would be worth touching on real quick. I think it will affect what we talk about here, which is

00:17:14.180 we really don't have biomarkers for aging. And you've been open about frustrations with that because

00:17:21.520 when you look at geoprotective molecules and you look at if these things are working or not,

00:17:28.160 we really don't know because we don't have those biomarkers. So do you maybe want to talk about that for

00:17:32.620 just a minute to kind of set the stage? So when people hear you're framing for everything else,

00:17:37.780 I think it will make a little more sense. I think one of the most important things to understand

00:17:42.920 when you're using some sort of intervention is, do you have a biomarker to know if you're doing it

00:17:50.340 correctly? So think of like really basic things that most people don't even consider as interventions

00:17:55.540 like nutrition. How would you know if you're eating too much? Do you have a biomarker for it?

00:18:02.040 Sure. There are lots. One biomarker might be your weight. Another biomarker might be your waist

00:18:09.920 circumference. Another biomarker might be your insulin level, your glucose level, your average

00:18:16.500 glucose. I mean, you get deeper and deeper down this and you start to realize that how much you eat,

00:18:22.460 you have a way of getting feedback from the system that tells you, do you need to correct this?

00:18:28.660 The same is true for exercise. The same is true for sleep. So there might not be a lab value that is

00:18:37.620 specific to sleep, but there are clearly ways to get feedback to know if you're sleeping too much or

00:18:43.440 not sleeping enough. If you think about it through the lens of taking exogenous molecules, you take a

00:18:49.560 drug like lisinopril, an ACE inhibitor for lowering blood pressure. How do you know if you're taking the

00:18:56.920 right amount? You measure your blood pressure. Let's say you get started on a dose of lisinopril

00:19:02.540 when you're starting blood pressure was 135 over 85, and all of a sudden it's 115 over 75. That says

00:19:11.640 the drug is working. Are you symptomatic? By the way, that's another biomarker in a sense. No, you're

00:19:17.060 not lightheaded. Great. Everybody wins the game. If your blood pressure goes too low and or you're

00:19:22.720 symptomatic, which is probably the bigger issue, then you're taking too much. You have to dial the

00:19:27.240 drug back. If you're taking the drug and your blood pressure comes down but doesn't come down

00:19:30.660 enough, that's more feedback. Dial the drug up. So you have this sort of input-output ability with

00:19:36.460 every drug that we like to think of. Again, the same is true with drugs for diabetes, with drugs for

00:19:41.900 lipids, with cancer drugs that you take. You would be able to look and study, is the tumor shrinking?

00:19:47.580 Is the tumor growing? So you have somebody getting feedback. Well, the problem when it comes to

00:19:51.940 gyroprotection, this broad category where we are not targeting diseases specifically, but instead

00:19:58.280 we're targeting the underlying mechanisms of aging, is we can't measure it. We don't have a way to

00:20:06.640 measure it. So we take a drug, we take a supplement that we believe is gyroprotective, and we don't know

00:20:14.480 if it's working. Are we taking enough? Are we taking too much? Maybe if you're really lucky, you might find

00:20:19.780 a side effect that tells you you're taking too much. But do we really want to be in the game of

00:20:24.340 pushing things to the point of seeing overt side effects? So that's why I believe as unsexy as the

00:20:31.360 world of diagnostics and biomarkers are, and it is a very, very unsexy world. I mean, this is not a place

00:20:39.160 where people like investing money. This is not a place where there's an enormous amount of capital being

00:20:46.060 thrown at the problem. It is a very important problem, and it's going to be very important in

00:20:51.080 humans if we're interested in studying gyroprotection. Probably the very first time I went on kind of a

00:20:57.780 long diatribe on this was back when I was really, really obsessed with trying to understand the

00:21:03.200 perfect routine for fasting. I'm sure you can recall this circa 2018, 2019, 2020. I was very frustrated that

00:21:10.900 as much as I was trying to study this in myself and doing every sort of blood analysis under the

00:21:16.940 sun, I had no way of knowing if my fasting protocol of seven to 10 days of water only once a quarter,

00:21:25.060 three days once a month, was that too much? Was that too little? Was that doing anything? No idea.

00:21:31.720 To this day, I have no idea if that provided any benefit at all. I could certainly point to some

00:21:37.340 negative things it did. It cost me probably 20 pounds of muscle over six years, but maybe that

00:21:43.360 was a worthwhile trade-off given some other benefits, but how would I know? Don't know what

00:21:47.280 the benefits are. Don't know how to measure it. It's a very important problem, and it's one that I

00:21:52.100 hope more and more resources will be poured into because otherwise it's going to be very difficult

00:21:56.760 for us to move further in understanding what works in humans. On that, I do actually have another

00:22:03.920 framework question, which before we get to the list of supplements, which I know people are anxious to

00:22:09.180 get to, you've often talked about your analogy of, are you picking up a gold coin or a penny? Are you

00:22:14.560 picking up in front of a train or a tricycle? And oftentimes when I've heard you use this, it's a lot

00:22:20.360 of times as it relates to interventions, specifically drugs and supplements. Do you maybe want to quickly

00:22:26.240 give people what that framework is? Because I think it is really important based on everything you said,

00:22:31.520 which is a lot of this is kind of a guessing game and we don't really know. So we kind of need to

00:22:36.780 anchor it to another framework to try and figure out what are the risks and what are the potential

00:22:41.800 rewards as we try and figure out within ourselves, what are we willing to do and not do? It's nothing

00:22:47.760 more than a very simple matrix of risk and reward, which I'm sure anybody would easily be able to walk

00:22:54.500 themselves through. All I do is just to make it easy to remember. I just put very obvious concrete

00:23:02.180 examples in the corners of the matrix. So it doesn't matter which axis is horizontal or vertical,

00:23:08.380 but if you just say that the horizontal axis represents risk going from low to high and the

00:23:16.380 vertical axis represents reward going from low to high, you would say, okay, at a very extreme level,

00:23:24.460 low risk is bending down in front of an oncoming tricycle. And as you move from left to right on

00:23:31.060 that horizontal axis, it goes to jumping in front of a train track and grabbing something and then

00:23:36.120 getting off the train track. So that's going from low risk to high risk. And in terms of reward,

00:23:41.440 you would think of a penny being pretty low reward. And you'd think of a big fat juicy gold coin being

00:23:49.480 very high reward. So as you go from higher risk, you would expect and demand higher reward. So I'll

00:23:59.000 tell you a story. I'm embarrassed to say this because it speaks to just how stupid teenage boys are

00:24:04.820 and how much of a miracle it is that our species still exists with the utter lack of judgment that

00:24:13.160 exists in the presence of young boys. So when I was in high school, one of our favorite games to play

00:24:19.800 was when we would get off the train, we would immediately jump under the train and see who could

00:24:27.080 lay the most coins on the train track and then get out as quickly as possible so that once the train

00:24:33.000 started rolling, you could see how many coins got flattened. Just think about the abject stupidity

00:24:40.060 of this game. Another game that was tragically very popular when I was young was playing chicken

00:24:47.560 in front of the subway in Toronto. Who could be the last guy out? And very sadly, the younger brother

00:24:56.220 of one of my friends in high school did not make it out. He was killed by a subway playing a stupid game

00:25:02.540 of chicken. Talk about incredibly high risk for no reward. So how do we apply that to interventions?

00:25:13.680 I guess we're talking about this through the lens of supplements. Well, I think we have to acknowledge

00:25:18.220 that there's a great uncertainty with many of these things. And therefore, we should ask ourselves,

00:25:24.120 how can we handicap the risk based on human data, animal data, safety data, efficacy data as far as

00:25:32.860 reward? And where on that matrix do we place this intervention? So if you're going to take,

00:25:40.260 I don't know, fill in the blank, some fancy supplement that some internet guru is telling you like he's making

00:25:48.340 his own proprietary blend of crushed bird feathers and testicular juice. Okay. I mean, do you want to

00:25:56.880 take that risk? Because it's hard for me to imagine the reward is really there. So one of the things I

00:26:02.480 will push my patients on is when they show me their laundry list of supplements, I walk them through a

00:26:08.480 framework about thinking through it. And one of them is, where are you on the risk reward matrix?

00:26:13.020 So with that said, let's get into Peter Atia's list of supplements that he takes. You can pick

00:26:20.800 whichever one you want to start with. For some reason, I hate talking about this only because

00:26:25.340 I noticed that it tends to show up online and it somehow becomes like, well, if Peter does this,

00:26:31.860 you should do this or something like that. And there's no context to it. And therefore,

00:26:37.320 nobody understands the rationale. Nobody understands the clinical history and all of those things.

00:26:43.020 So with that caveat, which I don't think matters, because I just, at the end of the day,

00:26:46.860 don't think people care. I think a lot of people just are sort of searching, but I take EPA and DHA.

00:26:54.040 So I take fish oil. Again, I'm happy to even state the brands that I take of these things because I

00:26:58.660 don't have any affiliation with any of these companies. And frankly, I like to give a shout

00:27:02.260 out to companies that I think sell good products. So I use Carlson's EPA and DHA. I can't remember

00:27:08.020 exactly which one I take. I can never remember their names. They're so convoluted. It's like

00:27:12.400 super EPA or something, but it is the highest EPA version that they have. So by taking four of these

00:27:20.120 capsules a day, I'm taking roughly two grams of EPA a day and probably a gram and a half of DHA.

00:27:28.780 The reason I take that much is I'm treating to a dose. I'm treating to a red blood cell membrane

00:27:36.740 concentration of EPA and DHA of about 12%. So that's a blood test you would do. You have a biomarker

00:27:43.080 that I can use to say, I'm taking too much. I'm taking too little. Here you go. I take vitamin D.

00:27:49.520 I'm sorry that I'm blanking on the brand. I can see the bottle, but I'm blanking on the brand. I take

00:27:54.300 5,000 IU of vitamin D. Why? Largely because this is one of those things where I think the risk is

00:28:02.340 insanely low. I think this is really a tricycle and I'm not sure what I'm picking up. I think it's

00:28:10.080 more than a penny. I definitely think it's less than a gold coin. It might be a $5 bill, but I'd

00:28:17.020 pick up a five. If I was walking down the street and there was a kid riding a tricycle towards me

00:28:19.920 and I saw a $5 bill, I would pick it up. I think that most of the studies on vitamin D have been very

00:28:25.740 poorly done. And we do need to do a podcast on this. Maybe this is something we could deep dive onto in an

00:28:31.560 AMA. So I won't get into it more now, but having looked very critically at the vitamin D literature,

00:28:37.180 which is insanely underwhelming, I think it is almost assuredly the result of very lousy studies

00:28:45.480 that add no value to our understanding of the problem. So the dosing has been wrong. The duration

00:28:52.260 has been wrong. The compliance has been wrong and the targeting has been wrong. Everything has been

00:28:59.400 blown. And so I would say, we truly have no idea. I take SlowMag, that is a brand, and I take two or

00:29:06.460 three of those every day. So that is a slowly and completely absorbed form of magnesium. All in all,

00:29:13.520 I'm trying to get up to about a gram of total magnesium or elemental magnesium in my system a day.

00:29:20.580 And I get that through, again, through SlowMag, through magnesium L3 and 8, and through magnesium oxide.

00:29:26.860 So I take all of those things. I take methylfolate and methyl B12. I use Gero as a brand. Again,

00:29:36.200 here we do have biomarkers. You can measure B12 levels, but more than anything, I'm measuring

00:29:40.620 homocysteine levels. That's why I'm taking methylated versions of those. And basically, I take these to

00:29:47.920 keep homocysteine below 9. That for me just means just taking one a day. So I take the standard dose

00:29:53.740 of that. They do make it in two strengths, and I take the lower of the two, in part because my MTHFR gene,

00:30:01.680 most of us have variants of MTHFR. The variants I have are reasonable at methylation. This is actually

00:30:08.700 an interesting change. I used to take 50 milligrams of B6 daily. I've now lowered that to three times a

00:30:16.240 week. We have seen some people who, when they take too much B6, can actually develop a sort of

00:30:23.140 neuropathy as a result of it. Though I've never experienced any symptoms from it, a little further

00:30:27.960 digging has led me to realize we don't need nearly as much B6 as I thought we did. So I've lowered that

00:30:34.400 to 50 milligrams three times a week. And it helps with the homocysteine. You just have to be careful

00:30:39.660 that you're not overdoing it. I take a baby aspirin a day. I think the evidence for the use

00:30:46.200 of baby aspirin in cardio protection is pretty weak. This is kind of a soft call. I don't think

00:30:55.040 there's an evidence-based reason why I should take a baby aspirin. And there's even some evidence to

00:31:02.780 suggest that once you get significantly older, unless your risk of cardiovascular disease is significantly

00:31:09.140 high, the benefits of it, which are clear. There's no doubt there are benefits of a baby aspirin, but

00:31:14.380 they're outweighed by the bleeding risks that are associated with aspirin use. In particular, if you

00:31:21.160 fall and hit your head, that becomes a bigger liability. Baby aspirin use falls in and out of

00:31:27.620 favor over time. Given that I am very young, relatively speaking, to these study populations and not really at

00:31:36.940 risk for a risk for a bleeding injury, I think of this as picking up like a dollar or two dollars in

00:31:42.260 front of a tricycle at this point. But again, I'm always happy to reevaluate the use of this and any

00:31:48.020 supplement for that matter in the presence of new data. That might be it for daytime supplements.

00:31:52.600 In the night, I take ashwagandha. I take 600 milligrams of ashwagandha. I recently switched to

00:32:03.800 the Solgar brand. I take two grams of glycine. I use the Thorne brand. I take magnesium L3 and 8, which I

00:32:16.100 just mentioned. I use the Magteen brand. By the way, anytime you're buying magnesium L3 and 8, just make

00:32:23.220 sure it has Magteen in it. So you could buy it from any different company, but they have to have the Magteen

00:32:28.820 proprietary combination because they're the only people that have the license to make L3 and 8.

00:32:34.280 Occasionally for travel, I will take Gero's phosphatidylserine. It comes in 100 milligram

00:32:41.500 capsules or gel caps. For some reason, I like the gel caps better. No idea if they're just more

00:32:47.920 quickly absorbed. I truly have no idea. If I'm really going to the trouble of taking it, I'm

00:32:53.620 presumably on a long flight where I'm trying to overcome a significant time zone. So I'll usually

00:32:58.620 take about 400 milligrams. That's a compound that's been tested readily up to 600 milligrams.

00:33:04.900 It's possible I'm forgetting something else, but I think those are my supplements.

00:33:09.180 Sorry, there's two others I take, but they're not in the cabinet and that's why. So I take Athletic

00:33:13.240 Greens in the morning. Disclosure, I am an investor in that company. I'm also an advisor to that company.

00:33:19.120 So I take AG1 as a green drink in the morning and I take a probiotic called glucose. I think it's

00:33:28.200 called glucose control by a company called Pendulum. So I take two of those in the morning

00:33:33.360 with my AG. That's kind of like the first thing I consume in the morning.

00:33:37.840 With those, just on the whole, just because you take them, not everyone should take them and you're

00:33:42.920 looking at your medical history. What percent of that, let's say the same drugs or the same

00:33:48.780 supplements in the same doses were you taking a year ago? How is this changing? Yeah. Yeah. So

00:33:54.460 that way, if someone listening to this down the road, here's it, they don't automatically just go

00:33:59.060 do the same thing. Yeah. So a year ago, I was not taking the Pendulum probiotic. That's something

00:34:04.000 I've only been taking for a couple of months and I'm doing an experiment there, which is looking at

00:34:08.740 average blood glucose. So the reason I'm taking this particular probiotic is I believe, having

00:34:15.140 looked at all of these probiotics, I think this is the most rigorously tested and validated probiotic

00:34:23.060 out there. And in a small but double-blinded randomized clinical trial, it demonstrated a 0.6%,

00:34:33.120 meaning 0.6 absolute percentage point reduction in hemoglobin A1c in people with type 2 diabetes.

00:34:38.940 And that was only in 90 days, which is pretty interesting. It also was associated with,

00:34:44.340 I would say more than associated with, it demonstrated and caused about a 30% reduction

00:34:48.860 in postprandial glucose A1c, area under the curve. So meaning when you gave people a glucose challenge

00:34:56.380 and then measured and plotted a graph of their glucose response and looked at the area under that

00:35:01.460 curve, the people who had been taking this Pendulum glucose control probiotic had a 30%

00:35:07.900 reduction in that, meaning they had become more insulin sensitive. And I'm a couple of weeks away

00:35:14.460 from doing a blood test on myself to see if I've had any improvement in glycemic markers in response

00:35:21.240 to that. I was not taking that a year ago. I was not taking ashwagandha a year ago. I had taken it a long

00:35:27.960 time earlier, but just came back to it, probably found a slightly more potent version of it.

00:35:32.420 I was taking a different brand of fish oil before. I had used Carlson's in the past,

00:35:39.680 had switched to Nordic Naturals. Now I've switched back to this. I find it to be just a slightly more

00:35:45.080 robust product. The Nordic Naturals ones, for some reason, every third bottle had a broken capsule in

00:35:51.280 it. And once a capsule breaks in the bottle, it just totally destroys the remaining of the capsules.

00:35:56.360 It was just happening too frequently. I was kind of aggravated by it. I don't think I was taking a

00:36:01.080 baby aspirin a year ago. I think again, that's something I've kind of done on and off over

00:36:05.200 periods of time and probably the same with vitamin D. It's possible I wasn't taking vitamin D a year

00:36:09.340 ago. Yeah. So it's not only the drugs have changed, but even like the B6 you mentioned,

00:36:15.340 the dosing has also changed. Right.

00:36:18.240 So then if we look at outside of supplements and we kind of look at drugs,

00:36:22.000 the most common drug we'd asked about would be rapamycin followed by metformin. And we won't

00:36:29.980 get into those too much here because of that podcast with David and Matt. And then also we

00:36:36.440 won't get into too much on metformin because you and Andrew did a journal club and you kind of focused

00:36:42.460 on metformin. And so just for time's sake, we'll kind of punt those to those other resources. But

00:36:48.460 outside of that, the question around drugs that we can ask the most is kind of within the ASCVD.

00:36:55.440 And you mentioned early, that's a disease that you think we have some chance to really stop it and

00:37:02.220 to really delay the onset of it if we take early interventions. And one of the most common questions

00:37:07.960 we get is how do you lower your ApoB and what's realistic with and without pharmacology?

00:37:14.680 Without pharmacology. So first of all, exercise has no meaningful impact on ASCVD risk factors

00:37:20.440 through lipoproteins. It does in other ways. But if you're just talking about managing lipoprotein

00:37:24.880 risk, it really comes down to pharmacology, hands down the most potent way to do it. And then nutrition,

00:37:31.220 a far less potent, but not insignificant way to do it. On the nutrition front, you're basically

00:37:35.860 have two levers to pull. You can dramatically reduce carbohydrates, which will lower triglycerides

00:37:42.060 and all things equal. The lower triglycerides, the lower the ApoB burden, because you have to

00:37:46.640 traffic fewer triglycerides with the cholesterol. The other way to do it is dramatically cut saturated

00:37:52.060 fat. In a high saturated fat diet, what typically happens in addition to an increase in cholesterol

00:37:57.520 synthesis is the liver through something called the sterile regulatory binding protein says,

00:38:04.040 I don't need any more fat brought in. I don't need any more cholesterol brought in.

00:38:09.200 So it down regulates LDL receptors. So it pulls fewer LDL out of circulation and LDL will skyrocket.

00:38:17.360 So the reverse is true. If you cut saturated fat, the liver is going to want more LDL coming in. It

00:38:24.260 will upregulate LDL receptors and pull more LDL out of circulation. So if you were on a really low

00:38:31.260 carbohydrate, really low saturated fat diet, you would indeed lower your ApoB. Would you

00:38:39.100 lower it to the levels that I think are necessary to make ASCVD irrelevant? Most people probably not.

00:38:47.040 And then would that be a diet that for most people is sustainable long-term? That's probably a very

00:38:52.400 individual decision. So for someone like me who has very low triglycerides, I don't go out of my way to

00:39:00.360 eat saturated fat, but I'm also not restricting it either. I'd say I probably am in line with where the

00:39:05.160 average person is. My ApoB at a baseline would still be, I don't know, 90 to 100 milligrams per

00:39:13.800 deciliter, which puts me at about the 50th percentile of the population. So that's my normal ApoB.

00:39:19.580 That's far, far too high for someone who A, has a genetic predisposition to ASCVD, and B, just somebody

00:39:27.740 who wants to take the one horseman that can be taken off the table and take it off the table. So

00:39:33.280 my target for ApoB is 30 to 40 milligrams per deciliter. Therefore, that would require

00:39:37.660 pharmacology. And so I take three drugs to do that. I take a PCSK9 inhibitor called Bropatha,

00:39:44.920 and I take a combo drug called Nexlizet, which is bempendoic acid and ezetimibe combined into a

00:39:51.380 single pill. And the mechanism of action of ezetimibe is that, well, not to get too technical,

00:39:57.660 but it blocks the Neiman-Pixi-1-like-1 transporter in both hepatocytes and enterocytes of the gut.

00:40:04.040 It prevents non-esterified cholesterol from coming back into the gut after you've recirculated it

00:40:12.260 through your liver and into bile. So it prevents you from reabsorbing your cholesterol. Of the three

00:40:17.760 drugs I'm taking, that's far and away the least potent. Bempendoic acid is a pro-drug. What that

00:40:23.820 means is by itself, it is inactive. So when you ingest it, it goes to the liver, it gets activated,

00:40:29.620 and there it is a cholesterol synthesis inhibitor. It acts on a different enzyme from statins. And

00:40:36.300 what makes bempendoic acid special, for lack of a better word, is that it only inhibits cholesterol

00:40:42.500 synthesis in the liver. Whereas statins, which are very potent inhibitors of cholesterol synthesis,

00:40:48.020 they do so throughout the body because they don't have this pro-drug trick. When the liver

00:40:53.340 senses less cholesterol, it increases LDL receptor expression on its surface and pulls more LDL out

00:41:01.980 of circulation. So that's how both statins and bempendoic acid work. They work indirectly.

00:41:06.460 The difference is bempendoic acid is less potent than a statin and more selective in that way.

00:41:12.360 So the combination of those three drugs will keep my ApoB negligible. And equally importantly,

00:41:18.520 there are no side effects associated with that for me personally. And again, when it comes to lipid

00:41:24.000 management, it's certainly one of my favorite topics. I always tell patients, we have tools today

00:41:28.520 that we couldn't even fathom 20 years ago. 20 years ago, if you needed to have your ApoB slammed,

00:41:35.500 there was only one way to do it, which was megadose of statins. I don't believe any patient needs to be

00:41:40.620 on a megadose of a statin today. We just have too many other tools. And I do have some concern about

00:41:46.660 megadose of statins because one, the efficacy curves show that statins hit their maximum efficacy

00:41:53.960 at about quarter dose. The curve for the efficacy of a statin looks like this. For example, if you look

00:41:59.840 at resuvastatin, you're getting 85% of its maximum ApoB reduction at 5 milligrams. Roughly 85%,

00:42:10.760 you hit the maximum. And by the way, it's a drug that is typically dosed up to 40 milligrams.

00:42:14.680 So once you hit 10 milligrams, there's no need to go any higher because all you're really doing

00:42:20.540 is buying side effects and you're getting very little in the way of increased efficacy. So we're

00:42:25.360 very quick to pivot patients off statins if we can't get great efficacy with no side effects at low

00:42:32.820 dose. On those drugs, including statins, let's say, if you can get the efficacy at the low dose,

00:42:39.160 oftentimes while people who are younger in their 30s, 40s, even 50s kind of reach out and say,

00:42:44.680 do you have any concerns about taking those drugs for such a long period of time?

00:42:50.540 Yes and no. I think it depends on the alternative. So I think that there are some people who kind of

00:42:57.220 poo-poo the side effects of statins and say they're non-existent. Well, I think that's a

00:43:01.300 ridiculous thing to say. There are well-documented side effects of statins, at least three that shouldn't

00:43:06.940 be ignored. One is muscle aches. The two is elevations of transaminases or liver function

00:43:11.580 tests. And the third is insulin resistance. All of these are relatively small, but they're not

00:43:18.160 zero. Two of the three are objectively measurable. Why would we ignore that? So I really like when you

00:43:26.780 have objectively measurable side effects. So I would say that if a young person is in a situation

00:43:33.340 where perhaps they can't afford bempendoic acid, Nexlizet, PCSK9 inhibitors, because to be clear,

00:43:39.080 those drugs are expensive at this time and statins are not, yeah, your alternative might be,

00:43:44.160 I'm going to be on a statin, at least go through the trouble of trying to find the right one that

00:43:50.320 produces the fewest side effects. Again, we think that probably Pitavastatin or Livolo,

00:43:57.520 Resuvastatin or Crestor, probably the best places to go, but it's also so highly individualized that

00:44:05.280 I think you just have to try a couple until you find the ones that are doing the best

00:44:08.400 without any collateral damage. You've talked about PCSK9s before, but

00:44:13.380 do you think we're any closer to those being more widely available? And by widely available,

00:44:18.680 just meaning at a potential lower cost to individuals? I think so, because we now have,

00:44:24.640 through a different mechanism, you have a shot that can be administered once every six months.

00:44:30.040 So I think that the twice monthly shot that I take for a PCSK9 inhibitor, which has already come

00:44:35.700 down in price by more than 50% since that drug came out eight years ago, I think there will just

00:44:40.820 be continued price pressure on these drugs as more and more other drugs become available.

00:44:45.360 Speaking of drugs, you mentioned before you think for the future of LP little a,

00:44:51.240 that there's a drug in the pipeline that you're pretty optimistic about being available for people

00:44:57.440 who have a high LP little a, which could be anywhere from eight to 12, up to 20% of people.

00:45:02.480 And we've had podcasts on that before. And so just with the amount of people that have a high LP little

00:45:07.220 a, often they'll reach out because up until now, there's not really a drug that can lower that.

00:45:13.420 So do you just maybe want to talk a little bit more about

00:45:15.540 what's on the future for LP little a medications?

00:45:20.220 Truthfully, I haven't been following anything for the last few months. So I don't have anything

00:45:23.760 new to say on this since I probably last spoke about it, but there is a drug being made by a

00:45:28.960 company, I think in San Diego that is an antisense oligonucleotide. So the drug disrupts the process of

00:45:35.920 DNA making RNA to make APO little a. It interrupts the synthesis of the protein that turns an LDL into

00:45:44.880 an LP little a. The drug worked very well in phase two. So in phase two studies, which don't have

00:45:52.380 clinical hard outcomes, the outcome is just, is the biomarker improving? There was a complete

00:45:58.860 obliteration of LP little a and there were no side effects over the short haul. So what matters now

00:46:06.800 is the phase three trial, which is ongoing. And that's testing the more important question,

00:46:12.400 which is does eliminating LP little a via this mechanism reduce clinical events? Does it reduce

00:46:19.720 major adverse cardiac events? So the answer to that question will determine whether or not this drug

00:46:25.800 is approved and therefore becomes available. But I will say this, it is unlikely for me to imagine

00:46:31.740 that that drug will be approved to treat patients with primary prevention because the manner in which

00:46:38.520 it's being tested understandably is for secondary prevention. This is very common in drug development

00:46:44.420 where you first test the drug, the clinical indication is in the highest risk patient. So you get

00:46:49.200 the answer relatively quickly. So this is a trial that is looking at people who have already had major

00:46:54.760 adverse cardiac events. And it's basically seeing, can we prevent subsequent events? And if the answer

00:46:59.380 is yes, I believe the drug gets approved, it gets approved for that use case, it would still be able to

00:47:05.700 be used by anybody for primary prevention, but it's not likely that an insurance company would pay for

00:47:10.300 that yet. Very interesting. What's a traditional timeline for drug development to go from that first use

00:47:18.920 case, which is the most urgent to that primary prevention. Is that usually years over a decade?

00:47:27.540 The rule of thumb is one decade and $1 billion for a drug to go from IND to FDA approval. And again,

00:47:34.060 once a drug is approved by the FDA, anything can be done with it. It can be used off label.

00:47:38.080 In the case of statins, they were very quickly employed for primary prevention, probably even before

00:47:44.160 primary prevention trials were published because the drugs weren't that expensive. The only reason I think

00:47:48.520 this is an issue here is I do not expect this drug to be cheap. Got it. Anything else you want to say

00:47:55.300 on the drug supplement category before we move on? Only that I can't believe we wasted how many ever

00:48:01.040 minutes we wasted talking about that. As a reward, you get to talk about nutrition. We go from one

00:48:07.400 positive to another. The first question is what set of words trigger you more when you are asked

00:48:14.980 which diet is best, which diet is best, or what is good cholesterol and bad cholesterol?

00:48:23.760 I don't know. Those are pretty upsetting questions.

00:48:30.320 Let's start with the second, considering we just hit ASCVD. You made a YouTube video about this,

00:48:36.260 but I do think it's an important subject because not only is there a misunderstanding of this

00:48:40.800 with patients, but also the amount of doctors out there who I think still use good, bad cholesterol.

00:48:47.580 Do you just want to give a rundown why there is no such thing as good and bad cholesterol?

00:48:53.820 The term originates from the differentiation between low-density lipoprotein, LDL, and high-density

00:49:01.620 lipoprotein, HDL. Let's start with where there's a grain of truth here. LDL, or low-density lipoprotein,

00:49:08.580 which is not cholesterol. LDL is the carrier molecule. It's the low-density lipoprotein. It's

00:49:14.660 the boat or the submarine that carries cholesterol. LDLs are bad, and HDLs, high-density lipoproteins,

00:49:23.620 are good. But HDL and LDL are not laboratory measurements. There's such a thing as an LDL or an

00:49:29.800 HDL that you can check at a lab. You can measure the content of cholesterol within the LDL. That's

00:49:35.880 called LDL-C. Similarly, you can measure the content of cholesterol within the HDL. That's

00:49:41.440 called HDL-C. When you have a basic lipid panel and it says your HDL is 50, well, if you read the

00:49:49.160 fine print, what it's actually saying is your HDL cholesterol concentration is 50 milligrams per

00:49:54.020 deciliter. Don't say that your LDL is 120. Say that your LDL cholesterol is 120 milligrams per

00:50:01.580 deciliter. It's very important, I think, to be accurate in our nomenclature.

00:50:04.160 So the reason that saying there's good cholesterol and bad cholesterol is nonsensical is because

00:50:08.660 cholesterol is cholesterol is cholesterol. The same molecule of cholesterol inside the HDL

00:50:13.540 is present inside the LDL. What's bad about the LDL is that the LDL traffics that cholesterol into

00:50:21.720 the artery wall where it will get retained and oxidized and lead to the process of atherosclerosis,

00:50:29.300 whereas the HDL will not do that. That's the fundamental difference. We should really never

00:50:35.400 say good cholesterol and bad cholesterol because it's highly inaccurate and it only reflects a lack

00:50:40.900 of understanding of what one is talking about, which is why it certainly would be a red flag if a doctor

00:50:47.040 ever said that. And then moving to the nutrition side, do you maybe want to take a minute to talk about

00:50:53.760 why nutrition research is so flawed and so hard to do? And then how, because that's true,

00:51:01.780 that kind of affects everything you look at within nutritional epidemiology and trying to understand

00:51:08.920 that question of which diet is quote unquote best?

00:51:12.460 Well, I mean, we could spend an hour on that question, which I don't have the appetite for.

00:51:18.980 I think it comes down to the complexity of the organism at question, which is us,

00:51:23.220 and the complexity of the intervention, which is eating. So it's really the worst of both worlds.

00:51:29.840 We can study something as complicated as nutrition in a simple organism that can be put in a cage

00:51:35.320 where you can control everything and where lifespan is short enough that you can actually measure

00:51:41.020 how inputs affect outputs on a reasonable timescale. But to be clear, even studying the effects of

00:51:47.300 nutrition in a confined environment using more complicated organisms, such as rhesus monkeys,

00:51:53.420 as was the case in the NIA Wisconsin experiments from the 1980s, which again began in the late 80s,

00:52:00.700 I believe, that's an experiment that could never be replicated. I mean, it took north of 20 years to do

00:52:06.340 an experiment in rhesus monkeys where you could still have perfect control over what they ate.

00:52:11.020 And it's not entirely clear what the answer was. That was an experiment that sought to test the

00:52:15.220 question, does caloric restriction extend life? And the answer turned out to be, it depends if

00:52:19.620 your monkey lives in Wisconsin or Bethesda, Maryland. Of course, I'm being tongue-in-cheek.

00:52:24.420 I think that study did answer the question if you knew how to read the study. I won't get into that

00:52:28.820 because I think I have a whole chapter devoted to that in the book. That's basically the long and

00:52:32.520 short of why it's so difficult to study. So when you study it in humans, you can do controlled

00:52:38.160 experiments in a research setting, but by definition, they can't tell you anything about

00:52:43.260 health in the long-term sense because it would be almost impossible to confine humans for more

00:52:49.100 than a month or so and control everything they ate. So one can do those types of experiments to

00:52:54.520 understand very precise mechanisms of action, but those rarely translate to a clear understanding

00:53:00.400 of health. If you want to understand what happens over the course of a year, three years, five years,

00:53:06.220 10 years, by definition, you have to do that outside of a hospital and you have to do it with

00:53:12.000 patients being able to eat what they want. There are some historical exceptions to this rule. So for

00:53:17.260 example, the Minnesota coronary study was a seven-year study that was, well, I shouldn't say that. I think

00:53:23.500 the actual intervention was probably closer to three or four years. I could be wrong on that,

00:53:27.240 but it was done on patients in a nursing home. And there you had the interesting situation where you

00:53:32.340 had patients who were relatively old, therefore at high risk for ASCVD, but the investigators had

00:53:38.800 complete control over what those patients ate because every meal was being provided to them.

00:53:43.300 That experiment was rather interesting in that it did not yield what the hypothesis suggested.

00:53:48.480 I think there's lots that could be learned from that potentially, but net-net, this is why nutrition

00:53:53.700 in humans tends to rely heavily on epidemiology, where you are looking for patterns without doing an

00:54:01.140 experiment, without randomization. So with your patients then, are you still continuing to try and

00:54:07.500 manage their nutrition, manage their diet, not to you put everyone on the same diet, but more so

00:54:14.920 what is that patient doing and how do you get the best metabolic health for that patient?

00:54:21.340 Yeah, I mean, we think that the most important parameter for determining metabolic health is energy

00:54:26.780 balance. So even the quote-unquote best diet, if it's in excess of energy balance, will produce

00:54:33.960 poor metabolic health. So regardless of what you think the best diet is, if you think it's a keto diet

00:54:41.020 or a paleo diet or a low-carb diet or a Mediterranean diet or a vegan diet, take any version of those and

00:54:47.900 consume them to excess to the point where you are no longer in energy balance and you are accumulating

00:54:52.860 adipose tissue that leaks out of the subcutaneous space and gets into the liver, gets into the

00:54:58.500 viscera, you're going to be unhealthy. So I always think people are majoring in the minor and minoring

00:55:04.160 in the major on nutrition when they start to fight in dietary tribes on this stuff. There are some

00:55:09.380 general principles. Look, I do still think that clinically, in my experience, patients with profound

00:55:15.460 insulin resistance tend to respond better to carbohydrate restriction as the best tool to

00:55:21.680 reduce total intake. You have to create a caloric deficit in those patients. And in my experience,

00:55:27.460 they respond better to carbohydrate restriction than they do straight caloric restriction or fat

00:55:33.560 restriction. Ultimately, it matters most that you can find something that is manageable and sustainable

00:55:39.480 over the long haul. None of this matters if you can adhere to the perfect diet for three months and

00:55:45.320 then you can't. It's better to have a seven out of 10 diet in terms of quality and perfection that

00:55:53.520 you can sustain indefinitely than a 10 out of 10 diet that you can only sustain for three or six

00:55:58.080 months. Some other questions we see come through are questions where people are kind of confused on

00:56:03.680 why should we not just look to populations with longer lifespan and attribute their longevity to their

00:56:11.640 diet. So there's different populations around the world who will traditionally live longer.

00:56:17.500 And so do you associate their longevity with their diet? Is that a mistake for people to do?

00:56:23.640 It's a complicated question because there are probably too many factors that factor into

00:56:28.960 why these populations live a long time. So if you look at, for example, the Okinawa,

00:56:34.660 where everybody loves to talk about the Okinawa in Japan, unquestionably a very long lived people.

00:56:39.660 Although I've read recently, not as long lived as the current generation of Okinawan adopt a more

00:56:47.120 Western lifestyle, inclusive of diet, by the way, a lot of those things seem to go away. So it suggests

00:56:54.180 that it might not just be the diet that is responsible for the benefits that these cultures

00:57:00.580 are bestowed with. So what are some of the other things that could factor into that? Well,

00:57:04.620 we could certainly look at activity level, exercise level, sleep, stress, social connections,

00:57:13.260 lack of other toxic elements in the environment. I think the same exercise is true when you look

00:57:19.660 across all of these populations. The other reason that I think it's very difficult to say there's any

00:57:25.380 one perfect diet is when you look at these different populations and pockets over the past hundred

00:57:33.720 years that have popped up and have been studied who seem to outlive others, even in relative proximity

00:57:41.540 to them. Their diets are actually quite diverse. So what does that tell us, right? So if you have

00:57:48.440 people in Japan and people in Switzerland and people in this part of Africa and people in this part of

00:57:55.040 the Arctic or whatever, where you see reasonable pockets of longevity, but their diets are relatively

00:58:01.260 diverse. It might be interesting to look at what's missing from all of the diets or what do they have

00:58:06.760 in common in their absence or what do they have in common in their presence. But to me, at least it

00:58:11.520 suggests that there's probably a pretty robust nature within the human to manage a variety of different

00:58:21.380 dietary conditions. Again, it comes down to provided energy balance is met. And I think provided that a

00:58:28.280 person stays metabolically healthy. So they're active, they're sleeping well, cortisol levels are not

00:58:33.460 through the roof. All of this is to say, I think our diets are problematic in this country, but I don't

00:58:39.900 think that changing the way people eat alone will turn us into quote unquote, a blue zone.

00:58:47.360 You hinted at this earlier question we get asked a lot, which is, are you still doing your longer

00:58:53.140 fast? And if not, why is that? I'm not. And I think there were several reasons I'm not, but truthfully,

00:59:01.220 perhaps one of the most logistically relevant ones is just, I don't travel anymore. I used to only do my

00:59:07.800 long fasts when I was traveling, when I was away from home. And it was just so much easier to be fasting

00:59:13.980 when I was in New York than being at the time in San Diego. But now I never travel. So it would mean

00:59:21.820 that if I wanted to do long fasts, I'd be doing them at home and I just don't feel like doing it.

00:59:27.600 And I don't have a better answer than that. I think it also speaks to the fact that I don't

00:59:32.120 have a clear sense of what the benefit is. This is one of those things where I'm going to reserve

00:59:36.000 the right to completely change my mind. If I had some biomarker that could convince me that a seven

00:59:40.600 day fast, even once a year, had a meaningful rewrite on some negative processes in my body, I mean,

00:59:47.980 I would happily make that sacrifice again. But in the absence of knowing that the cost is a bit

00:59:53.100 high right now. Another thing on the nutrition side that you talk about a lot is the importance

00:59:58.320 of protein. We just did a premium email that kind of looked at the pros and cons of protein, because

01:00:04.200 when you look at protein and aging, it does seem like it's a bit controversial in sense of what people

01:00:10.680 will recommend. And so the question that came through and comes through often is, if someone's

01:00:17.400 under 50, so let's say you're 30 or 40, do you think it's important that they err on the side of

01:00:24.100 caution and eat less protein based on the research? Or do you still think no matter what age you are,

01:00:30.660 protein is so important and that everyone should be getting as much as possible of it?

01:00:35.480 I think it depends on how much muscle mass that person has. So if you have an individual

01:00:41.100 who's overnourished and adequately muscled, so they're overweight, but they actually have a

01:00:49.760 sufficient amount of muscle mass and they need to go into a caloric deficit, we would certainly tolerate

01:00:55.380 also a little bit of a protein deficit in that individual. Not because I think it's necessary,

01:01:00.860 but because I think it's easier to hit caloric targets if you are able to relax your protein

01:01:07.120 targets. In other words, if you say you need to be in a caloric deficit and hold one gram of protein

01:01:13.160 per pound of body weight, that becomes really challenging. If you say, look, you could be at

01:01:17.440 0.6 to 0.7 grams of protein per pound of body weight and create a caloric deficit is much easier.

01:01:24.080 Conversely, if a person is overnourished and under muscled, I think we do have to toe that fine line

01:01:29.540 of keeping protein high because that person needs to be putting on muscle as they're losing fat.

01:01:34.980 The truth of it is, I don't find the data for people below 50 having an increase in mortality

01:01:40.580 with high protein being at all convincing. I think that is easily attributed to caloric excess as

01:01:47.060 opposed to protein excess. And I think that there are enough other confounders there that it's really

01:01:52.160 a proxy for poor health than it is a proxy for high protein. Furthermore, the absolute mortality

01:01:57.940 in people below 50 is so low in terms of absolute amounts that even a slight increase in the relative

01:02:05.920 amount is trivial. Finally, it's very important when people are still able to put on muscle that

01:02:12.260 they put on as much as possible because once you're in the over 50 category, you're kind of

01:02:18.180 clawing on for dear life and trying to keep as much of that muscle as possible. So I don't really want

01:02:23.300 people entering middle age with a muscle deficit. This kind of goes back to our original question.

01:02:28.280 Like even if someone comes up with the solution for cancer and Alzheimer's disease and all of these

01:02:33.780 other things, you still have to ward against frailty. You still have to make sure that you enter that

01:02:39.340 marginal decade physically robust. And most people don't come close to it. They're really, really

01:02:45.040 under muscled late in life. Another question we get asked a lot is how do you eat so much protein in a

01:02:51.960 day? As we're kind of going through Peter protocols, why don't you just run us through

01:02:57.040 your protein per day and what that looks like? Again, I have the luxury of being at home. So

01:03:02.580 I have more control over what I eat than if I was back on the road, but I get a lot of it through

01:03:07.660 venison. So Maui Nui, again, disclosure, I'm an investor in that company. They make a really,

01:03:13.380 really good venison jerky stick. And I love it because it has no garbage in it. It's literally just got

01:03:19.740 some natural flavors in it. I absolutely love the taste of it. So that makes life easy. And each

01:03:25.380 stick, I eat the peppered ones, has like 9.9 grams of protein in it. It's funny, the USDA makes you,

01:03:32.520 or I don't know if it's the USDA or whichever governing body determines food labeling, you have

01:03:37.540 to round down. So it says 9 grams of protein on the stick, but it's actually 9.9 grams is what it

01:03:43.500 measures. So I actually think of each stick as having 10 grams of protein. So I will easily

01:03:49.200 throw down five to 10 of those sticks a day. And that would represent one versus two high protein

01:03:55.960 snacks. And then the rest of it, I'm kind of getting in my food, basically. Lately, I haven't

01:04:02.300 really been doing much on the protein shake front because the jerky sticks are just quicker and easier

01:04:07.820 for me than making a shake. But I would also use a high quality whey protein shake if necessary.

01:04:13.940 So it's not that hard for me to kind of hit my goals throughout the course of a day. And by the

01:04:18.700 way, what am I targeting? Somewhere between 150 and 180 grams of protein per day. And how often is

01:04:25.440 that spread out between? Typically like four hits. Yeah. I've been in plenty of meetings with you where

01:04:31.640 you'll walk in with just a handful of jerky sticks, drop them on the table. You'll be like anyone else

01:04:37.560 want one. And then within 15 minutes, they're all gone and all the wrappers are right in front of

01:04:42.180 you. So I can attest that I've seen you do that protocol for sure. Anything else on the nutrition

01:04:48.700 front you want to talk about before we move on? No. All right. Next section, wearables. What is your

01:04:57.980 current favorite wearable or just a device that tracks things for you? So maybe it doesn't have to

01:05:03.760 be something that is like on your body at all times, but just what's your favorite device for

01:05:08.900 tracking? And it can be tracking anything. I've been using something called Morpheus lately. It's

01:05:14.820 got two heart rate monitors. It's got a chest strap and a wrist strap, not a wrist, a forearm strap.

01:05:19.560 It's got an app that in the morning you lay down and put the heart rate monitor on and you answer

01:05:27.540 four questions. How long did you sleep last night? So I checked my eight sleep for how long I slept.

01:05:32.700 And then how well did you sleep? So I look at my eight sleep score and get a sense of the quality

01:05:38.100 of my sleep. And then I enter that. And then how do I feel and how sore am I? So it asks these four

01:05:45.320 questions and then I do a two minute lay down with the heart rate monitor on and it measures my heart

01:05:51.420 rate and my respiratory rate and my heart rate variability. And then it spits out a readiness score

01:06:00.840 and it provides training zones via heart rate for the day. So for the past six months, I've been doing

01:06:08.300 an experiment where every time I do a zone two workout, I'm using the heart rate that it predicts.

01:06:16.320 I'm riding to my RPE and then I compare the lactate at the end of that ride to the predicted

01:06:23.360 heart rate from Morpheus to the RPE heart rate. And I will say that it tracks pretty darn well,

01:06:30.820 better than I would have expected. And the reason I'm doing this is to see if this could be a good

01:06:36.200 tool for our patients to use who might not be as clued in to their own RPE and who clearly don't want

01:06:44.020 to check their lactate levels. And are you using Morpheus for anything? Do you use any of that data

01:06:50.100 for anything outside of zone two? Are you using it for how hard you'll push that day lifting and

01:06:55.620 anything like that? I don't. Certainly that's how they would suggest you use it. I don't wear it

01:07:00.940 outside of my zone two or VO2 max training. So I don't wear it when I'm in the weight room. I don't

01:07:05.440 wear it rucking in large part because I hate wearing heart rate monitors in general. I don't find them

01:07:10.200 comfortable. I can sort of tolerate it when I'm on a bike, but I don't want to be rucking with one.

01:07:13.660 I don't want to be lifting with one. It's probably the case that it would be an even better predictor

01:07:19.580 of my training if it could see me across the day. If it could see me train in every workout,

01:07:26.160 it would probably be an even more effective tool because it would understand where I am in terms

01:07:30.980 of overload. Another wearable we get asked a lot, you've talked a lot about this, and I believe you

01:07:35.920 still use it with a lot of patients, is CGMs. Is that something you're still using a lot with your

01:07:41.560 patients? We do. Yeah. We use CGM a lot. It's a great tool. When we have questions, it provides answers.

01:07:48.920 We could sit here and look at a person's OGTT. In some cases, it's just a slam dunk. This person

01:07:55.780 isn't super metabolically dialed in. In other cases, it's a complete slam dunk. This person

01:08:01.360 has type 2 diabetes by OGTT criteria, even if not by A1C criteria. But there are a lot of people in

01:08:07.880 the middle. This is a great way that we can glean more information and really dial in our treatment

01:08:15.820 for them. And so there was some controversy way back when on if CGMs were still valuable,

01:08:24.040 still useful for people who are non-diabetics. Have you changed your opinion on that at all?

01:08:29.860 Not one bit. Do you maybe just kind of want to walk through people what you look for with CGMs and

01:08:36.960 ultimately what people, if someone's wearing one, because it seems like it is more widely available

01:08:41.860 for non-diabetics now. And so you see a lot more of them around. So if someone gets one,

01:08:47.380 what are some of the things you like to see within patients? What are some of the things you look at?

01:08:52.940 How do you use it?

01:08:54.540 I mean, we still look for the same things. I think average blood glucose is still the most

01:08:58.140 important metric we care about because that's the one for which we have the most data. In other words,

01:09:02.780 we know all-cause mortality data as it relates to hemoglobin A1c. Hemoglobin A1c is a measurement

01:09:10.240 that's used to impute average blood glucose. So this is a very, very close proxy. When we can see

01:09:16.540 average blood glucose on CGM, even though that's not the same as measuring A1c, it's very difficult

01:09:21.880 to argue that knowing your average blood glucose on CGM and knowing your A1c aren't highly comparable,

01:09:28.200 and therefore by proxy, the lower your average blood glucose on CGM, the lower your all-cause

01:09:34.240 mortality. Because it is abundantly clear that the lower your hemoglobin A1c, even outside of the

01:09:40.120 diabetic range, the lower your all-cause mortality. So first and foremost, that's the metric we care

01:09:44.700 about. The other metrics we look at, of course, are what's the standard deviation? So all things equal,

01:09:50.260 do you have less variability in your glucose than more? And then finally, and the least important,

01:09:56.040 I think, is how big are the spikes you're seeing. Now, in truth, that becomes less important if the

01:10:03.100 first two are reasonable. If a person's average blood glucose is 98 milligrams per deciliter with

01:10:08.140 a standard deviation of 16 milligrams per deciliter, it doesn't really matter what kind of spikes they

01:10:13.260 have because they're clearly not going to be too many unless they're using insulin. You could obviously

01:10:19.520 arrive at those numbers the wrong way. So I would say that fixating on average blood glucose and standard

01:10:25.180 deviation are probably the most important thing. From when you would wear one, do you recall what

01:10:30.380 caused the biggest spike you ever saw? No, I don't recall. A buddy of mine took me to this vegan

01:10:36.840 restaurant in New York once. I think it was called like Candle 79 or something. It was really close to

01:10:42.560 my apartment. And it was great. It was amazing food. But obviously, by definition, like it's just

01:10:48.640 basically all carbs. And I remember the dessert was so incredible. And I remember looking at my CGM

01:10:58.200 after and it was like 180. And I feel like that's about the highest I'd ever seen.

01:11:02.200 Funny. Do you think we're any closer to continuous blood pressure monitors?

01:11:10.300 Absolutely.

01:11:11.340 You do?

01:11:12.200 Oh, yeah.

01:11:12.620 How far out do you think that is? Because I know in the past with Ethan Weiss, the AMM blood pressure,

01:11:18.360 you've talked about how important that is as a device.

01:11:21.800 I think we have it. So I think the Actia device works. At least it works as well as an automated

01:11:28.540 cuff works. So this is a device that is not yet FDA approved, but it is approved by the similar

01:11:36.260 governing bodies in Europe. So this is a device that's already on the market in Europe.

01:11:39.800 It's a bracelet that you wear that optically measures a signal in your wrist. And you calibrate

01:11:46.920 it against an automated cuff. And every two hours, it gives you your average blood pressure. So over

01:11:54.180 the course of a day, you'll get 12 blood pressure readings. I would say even though automated cuffs

01:11:59.360 in general aren't nearly as good as manual cuffs, for an automated cuff, I don't see any difference

01:12:05.640 really between this and pick your favorite automated cuff. So I really hope that this device

01:12:11.640 gets approved in the U.S. because we'll certainly have every one of our patients wearing this. And

01:12:16.460 it would do away with ambulatory blood pressure cuffs, which are cumbersome and difficult to use

01:12:22.460 and low compliance and artificial.

01:12:24.940 Interesting. So any listener viewer in Europe would have access to this.

01:12:31.320 That's right.

01:12:32.060 And then what do you think the rough timeframe for people in the U.S.? Is it years, a decade? How does

01:12:40.200 that process typically work?

01:12:42.060 It's entirely dependent on the FDA. It's possible it doesn't get approved at all if the FDA is

01:12:49.060 difficult to work with on this. Unfortunately, I hope that's not the case.

01:12:53.600 So if anyone listening and watching works for the FDA, something to internally push on then.

01:13:00.440 Yep.

01:13:00.920 Any other wearables that you're excited about, whether they're close to being here or even

01:13:07.320 in the longterm, like 10 plus years?

01:13:10.340 I would always welcome continuous lactate monitoring during exercise. That would really,

01:13:15.660 really make zone two training enjoyable for me.

01:13:18.620 Just as opposed to having to do the finger pricks all the time or just knowing where it's at?

01:13:24.660 To me, it's the most accurate way to really understand what's happening. I mean,

01:13:28.260 even heart rate and RPE are just approximations for what you're really interested in.

01:13:32.840 So I think, yeah, just being able to monitor lactate levels while you're exercising,

01:13:36.900 especially doing cardio training. I'd also love to be able to do my VO2 max workouts with a

01:13:42.240 lactate meter, continuous lactate meter. So I could actually watch lactate rise and clearance on each

01:13:48.360 subsequent set. As I'm fatiguing, am I really just breaking down metabolically as much as anything

01:13:53.880 else?

01:13:55.040 So Peter, I think that was the majority of the questions we wanted to get through.

01:14:00.620 As we kind of said at the outset, those are questions that come through often. So we compiled

01:14:06.600 them here, but any closing words you want to tell people?

01:14:11.140 No. What episode number are we at roughly?

01:14:14.740 Well, at the time of this recording, 267. So this will be in the 270s, creeping up on 300,

01:14:25.540 but also at the time of this recording hit five years as a last month, which is crazy because

01:14:33.500 that's what was fun to have David Savantini and Matt Caberlin back on is because they were not only

01:14:39.240 the first 10 episodes, but if I remember correctly, I think that was you and Bob interviewing them and

01:14:45.380 recording it for the book that we then turned into a podcast, which one shows that we didn't even think

01:14:52.460 about the podcast at that time. And two, it shows how freaking long you wrote that book for.

01:14:57.160 That's right. I remember those interviews. I went up to Boston with Bob in the summer of 2017

01:15:02.520 to interview David and then Matt came to New York and I interviewed him a month later and that's like

01:15:12.300 a year before the podcast came out. So yes, that was literally just done for the book. Pretty funny.

01:15:19.160 Yeah. It's kind of crazy to see how far things came along, not only with the podcast, but also now

01:15:25.020 seeing the book out and the reception from that, which is great because we've joked about it before,

01:15:30.040 but I think we can both seriously say there was a lot of periods of time where we didn't think that

01:15:34.280 book was ever going to get released. Yeah. Right up until a couple of months before.

01:15:38.480 Yeah. Yeah. All the way up until 2023. So awesome. Well, hopefully people enjoyed this kind of a

01:15:45.040 little different of a style, but until next time, Peter, have a good one. You too, Nick. Thanks, man.

01:15:51.040 Thank you for listening to this week's episode of The Drive. It's extremely important to me to provide

01:15:55.860 all of this content without relying on paid ads to do this. Our work is made entirely possible by our

01:16:01.580 members. And in return, we offer exclusive member only content and benefits above and beyond what is

01:16:07.860 available for free. So if you want to take your knowledge of this space to the next level, it's

01:16:12.120 our goal to ensure members get back much more than the price of the subscription. Premium membership

01:16:17.320 includes several benefits. First, comprehensive podcast show notes that detail every topic, paper,

01:16:24.400 person, and thing that we discuss in each episode. And the word on the street is nobody's show notes

01:16:30.020 rival ours. Second, monthly ask me anything or AMA episodes. These episodes are comprised of detailed

01:16:37.540 responses to subscriber questions, typically focused on a single topic and are designed to offer a great

01:16:43.520 deal of clarity and detail on topics of special interest to our members. You'll also get access to the

01:16:48.560 show notes for these episodes. Of course, third delivery of our premium newsletter, which is put

01:16:54.340 together by our dedicated team of research analysts. This newsletter covers a wide range of topics related

01:17:00.280 to longevity and provides much more detail than our free weekly newsletter. Fourth, access to our

01:17:07.340 private podcast feed that provides you with access to every episode, including AMA's sans the spiel you're

01:17:13.580 listening to now and in your regular podcast feed. Fifth, the qualies, an additional member only podcast

01:17:21.040 we put together that serves as a highlight reel featuring the best excerpts from previous episodes

01:17:26.700 of the drive. This is a great way to catch up on previous episodes without having to go back and listen

01:17:31.580 to each one of them. And finally, other benefits that are added along the way. If you want to learn more and

01:17:37.520 access these member only benefits, you can head over to peteratiamd.com forward slash subscribe. You can also find me on

01:17:45.500 YouTube, Instagram and Twitter, all with the handle peteratiamd. You can also leave us review on Apple podcasts or

01:17:52.800 whatever podcast player you use. This podcast is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute the

01:17:59.640 practice of medicine, nursing, or other professional health care services, including the giving of medical advice. No doctor

01:18:06.020 a patient relationship is formed. The use of this information and the materials linked to this podcast

01:18:11.920 is at the user's own risk. The content on this podcast is not intended to be a substitute for professional

01:18:17.720 medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. Users should not disregard or delay in obtaining medical advice from any

01:18:24.300 medical condition they have, and they should seek the assistance of their health care professionals for any such

01:18:29.640 conditions. Finally, I take all conflicts of interest very seriously. For all of my disclosures and the

01:18:35.720 companies I invest in or advise, please visit peteratiamd.com forward slash about where I keep an up-to-date

01:18:43.680 and active list of all disclosures.

01:19:05.720 Thanks for listening to the podcasting of this podcast, our online podcast, the podcast, and thereof, this podcast.

01:19:13.260 And, I have a free Monday where I keep a message from, for all of my disclosures, which is glaringly eastward, which is the

01:19:15.180 channel of the forward slash of the meeting, I believe there is a multiple increase from the summitsta at the батaris, now

01:19:17.480 that is actually going on. I see where I keep an up-to-date and active Como ming in Australia next time. So now, we'll see where I keep an up-to-date.

01:19:21.120 Like going ins ap-to-date and active the post-date step of experiencing promotion as well. I stand-to-date.

01:19:26.000 At the head of like Obviously I am in the school follo was going to be distant, but first-date.

01:19:28.400 Philippines by Friday, 1959, 2017.

The Peter Attia Drive - October 23, 2023

#276 ‒ Special episode： Peter answers questions on longevity, supplements, protein, fasting, apoB, statins, and more

Episode Stats

Length

Words per Minute

Word Count

Sentence Count

Misogynist Sentences

Hate Speech Sentences

Summary

Transcript