It’s hard to avoid the steady stream of potentially toxic misinformation on the internet and in the media. Unfortunately, there are no filters to make sure the information online is valid and as a result, most people are confused by all of the conflicting advice and struggle to know the difference between myths and facts.
Today’s podcast will help you demystify science and sort sense from nonsense. Kathleen interviews Dr. Joe Schwarcz, a well-respected scientist whose mission is to fight false facts and help you decode pseudo-science from real science so you can make better choices for your health.
Key Messages:
Recognizing the difference between hazard (probability to cause harm) and risk (measure of whether the hazard can cause harm) is critical to understanding most issues.
Only the dose makes the poison.
Scientific literacy of the public is poor in part due to a lack of science education in school.
All foods and virtually everything in the world is a chemical. Just because a food’s chemical name is hard to pronounce, it doesn’t mean it is bad or not good for you.
Most people know about health but they eat to satisfy their taste buds.
Eating more produce is much more important to health than whether it is conventional or organic.
‘Natural’ and ‘superfood’ are examples of food claims that imply health halos yet are not regulated and simply marketing terms.
Dr Tom: [00:00:00] Lifestyle is medicine when done, right? Especially food choices has the potential to eliminate 80% of chronic disease. Our mission is to be the trusted signal of truth, based on the weight of the evidence that rises above the definitely noise of misinformation.
Kathleen: We offer you a no nonsense and enjoyable approach to the fundamentals of nutrition and wellness.
Our goal is to give you simple and actionable strategy so you can make smart. Health promoting decisions every day. Welcome to the true health revealed podcast. I'm your host, Kathleen Salman, registered dietician nutritionist. And today we have an exciting guest and topic. I am thrilled to bring you today, Dr.
Joe Schwartz, who is director of McGill university's office for science and society. His mission is to separate sense from nonsense. He is a [00:01:00] sleuth. He is SL sleuthing the truth and dispelling myths. He is the recipient of numerous awards for teaching chemistry and interpreting science for the public.
He's affectionately known as Dr. Joe and has hosted a, a radio show of the same name in Montreal for over 40 years. He has appeared in hundreds of TV. Uh, television shows. He's a regular newspaper column. He's the author of 18 best selling books. You can catch him on YouTube. It's called the right chemistry, where you will see all this informa informative and entertaining discussion on topics that are related to food.
The body, the mine, where he carefully looks at both sides of the issue presents very clear and compelling facts to help you make up your mind, but he puts it into perspective and he speaks candidly. I love it when he calls out, uh, celebrities and, and people who use their followers to spread [00:02:00] harmful bunk, like the Gweneth Alro and Joe Mercola and Suzanne summers and food, babe.
His message it's based on facts and science. And so today I welcome him, but before I have to just add one more thing, since you're not able to see Dr. Joe, you have to check out one of his right chemistries. He has a collection, an extensive collection of rubber duckies, and, um, they're in his office lining all of his shelves and they're his constant reminder of the fact that there is so much quackery out there today and quack.
And his job is try to cut through all this clutter and give us a science. So welcome Dr. Joe.
Joe: Well, thanks very much for that. Uh, introduction. one little correction. Okay. Most of my ducks are actually poly vinyl, chloride ducts, although everything of course uses the term rubber ducks. And originally when these things came out [00:03:00] and, uh, in the late 18 hundreds, they were rubber, but, uh, then the plastic industry got into it and most of them now are polyvinyl chloride.
Uh, but I do have, uh, as you said, a very extensive collection of these guys and, uh, I've often been asked. Why I, yeah, I do like to collect things of all kinds, you know, I, I, um, I'm kind of a history buff science, and so I like to collect bake light and celluloid and stuff like that. But the reason that I started collecting ducks, Uh, was because they have been associated with quackery and, uh, you know, we use, uh, the term quack to describe people who are really not science based and are, um, kind of giving advice that is misleading.
And, uh, so, uh, I started collecting. These ducks just for fun. And now I have them all over my office. It's sort of a, a constant reminder [00:04:00] of the battle that we have to fight against misinformation. And of course, you know, when people knew that I collected these things, they started sending me ducks. And so now I have a pretty interesting, uh, collection of these guys.
It sure
Kathleen: looks at, have you ever counted
Joe: them? Uh, I think I have about 300.
Kathleen: Wow. well, it's fun.
Joe: Although I'll tell you that in the world of duck collecting and believe it wrong, there's a world out there of collect these, uh, so-called rubber duckies and I'm small potatoes. Uh, there, there are people of thousands.
Kathleen: Wow. I never knew I have like three or four for my grandchildren.
Joe: kinda choosy about the ones that I, I, uh, I collect, I right now, I look only for ones that are, you know, interesting or unique in some way. Uh, because I tell you, frankly, the internet has, has, uh, made, collecting, uh, less interesting. You know, as far as [00:05:00] collecting any, anything goes, the, the fun used to be to poke around antique stores and fairs, et cetera, to find something you know, that you like, but today you can go on the internet and you can buy almost anything, find anything you want.
Yeah.
Kathleen: Takes the fun out of it. Takes the fun out of it. Well, let's start with the internet. Um, I think it's a great place to start because, you know, I mean, as you've made it, your life mission, um, that the internet and the media are serving up this steady stream of, of talk potentially toxic misinformation.
And it has undermined the public's confidence and what to eat and, and nutrition and lifestyle medicine. And so often people are just throwing in the towel because they of the flip flopping advice. So how do you, how do. Fight and, and debunk these myths and really get the attention of people who are somewhat fact resistant, who would rather believe the more sensational the food babes.
How do we fight this? [00:06:00]
Joe: Well, of course the internet is a double edged sword. On the one hand it's it's is wonderful. I mean, I haven't been to a library in years, you know, why should I go? It comes to me right. With a few key into any journal and download it, read it, whatever. Right. So that's the, the positive side is, you know, that it is so easy now to keep up to date with the scientific literature, but the other.
Edge of this sword is that the internet essentially is not police. I mean, although, you know, there, there are attempts by Twitter and Facebook to really, you know, cut out the really vile stuff. But essentially, you know, uh, there are blog posts about all kinds of things that are are misleading, and it's very, very difficult to, to police.
And of course, uh, sensationalism, uh, is what they're after, because that gets attention. And of course, many of these [00:07:00] people, like the ones that you've mentioned are after getting attention, because there's. Financial stake here. You know, they they're either selling some product or selling some book, or if they get enough viewers, then obviously they get money off the advertising.
And so one of the, you get the book deal. Absolutely. So, uh, you know, one feature that I always look for when you start, uh, scrutinizing websites and posts. Is whether or not the person has, um, any way of making money off of the information that they're providing. And, uh, as soon as you see that, that, you know, they're, uh, getting advertisement, uh, and or they're promoting your supplements or whatever, then you have to look at it with a, a skeptical eye.
Now, there are also, um, uh, really two categories of. Promoters of false information. There are [00:08:00] those who are just, um, scientifically unsound and are kind of well meaning, but, um, just don't have enough background to evaluate the information and the food, babe. Well, I would put into that category. Vanny. Harry is her NA name.
I think a very nice lady. And I think, you know, she, uh, started out by wanting to do good things and, you know, trying to guide people on, on proper diets, et cetera. But her scientific background is essentially zero. And so she is. Um, you know, at the mercy of, of any huckster who is very clever at promoting some pseudo scientific advice, which then she will, uh, spread around and she's got a large following.
So, you know, the information, uh, spread. So she is one, one type who, um, is just not discerning enough about the information that she spreads around because she doesn't have the background. Now there are others who fall into a different category. And for [00:09:00] me, Joe Mercola is one of those mm-hmm for he's a doctor.
Yes. For any listener who's not aware of, of, uh, Mercola. He has been labeled by the New York times as the number one spread of misinformation. Now he's a former osteopathic physician, although he hasn't practiced for decades now, uh, osteopathic physicians are, are real physicians, right? They go through, uh, slightly different training than medical doctors, but they go into the same residency match and, um, you know, so they are properly baked, uh, physicians by and large, but.
He got into the pseudo science business a long time ago. And I think discovered that it sells and he promotes all kinds of all kinds of supplements and his books, et cetera. And he's got a. Newsletter that he puts out every day. Uh, he has been, uh, slapped on the wrist many times by the FDA. And, uh, [00:10:00] now he, he only puts out his newsletter for one day and then it vanishes.
And this is in order to, uh, protect himself against, um, suits of any kind or, or fines. But I think he's a different kind of person from the food, babe. I think he knows exactly what he's doing. He has some science background and, uh, I think he knows that he's spreading, uh, false information, but it doesn't matter because this is what makes money, he's selling all of his supplements.
Uh, you know, he's, uh, an anti-vaxer, um, and he knows that this works these days. There are enough people who buy into these things and, um, he caters to that. Uh, mm-hmm another similar entity is Tucker Carlson on Fox. Mmm. Mm-hmm now he doesn't always talk, uh, about nutrition oriented things, but again, I think he's way too smart, not to know what he [00:11:00] is doing.
Mm-hmm and these people just know their audience. And unfortunately there's a lot large audience out there who are into the conspiracy theories who believe, uh, the unbeliev. You know that, uh, bill gates is trying to put, uh, uh, some kind of sensors into their bloodstream with, with vaccines, uh, and that, you know, the there's some kind of conspiratorial scheme by pharmaceutical companies to undermine the health of the public so they can keep selling their ineffective ex expensive drugs while there are natural therapies that would solve all of our problems.
And this is the kind of seductive advice that, that they give of
Kathleen: course, and people wanna hear it. They, they, they don't need to have, they don't understand signs. So what do you think of the general scientific literacy of the public? How much? I mean, I know as a nutritionist that there's misunderstanding on things, as simple as food labels, you know, how to really [00:12:00] interpret something that you see on your label every day.
In general. Wh what do you think of the, the scientific understanding of the general public? I
Joe: think it is abysmal and I, I think, uh, much of it can be traced to, uh, education. I think in, in many cases, science is not very well taught. Uh, it is not interesting for the students, you know, and, uh, Uh, not to kind of blow my own horn, but I I'll tell you that, uh, after public lectures or after some of my videos, I, I so often, you know, get a comment that GE you know, if I had, uh, chemistry taught to me like this, I would've been interested in it.
Kathleen: Interesting. You make it fun, Joe. I mean, that's what it is. You, you make it fun.
Joe: Yeah. Yeah. And you know, also interesting is how many times after, you know, I've given a public talk and someone comes up to me and somehow with this, this bizarre pride tells me, you [00:13:00] know, I failed chemistry in high school. I know what they're.
is they're saying, you know, like what I referred to before is that if it had been interesting, I would've liked it. Yeah. So there, I think they're sort of giving me a compliment, but, but this idea that, that having failed chemistry in high school should be a talking point or, or point of pride, you know?
Yeah. Is, is, is bizarre. Well, it's
Kathleen: not too late.
Joe: They can still learn from you. Absolutely. And we, we need to, we need to increase science education in elementary school because that's where you really capture their attention. It's true. It's being said that, uh, curiosity is to science. What spark is to a flame and elementary school kids are curious about every sponges.
Yes. They don't know anything and they know that they don't know. And that's the time that you start feeding. Whereas, you know, by high school, they often think that they know mm-hmm , but of course they don't and then [00:14:00] it becomes much more difficult to put them on the right track. So we need to increase high quality scientific education, elementary school.
And whenever I, I get a chance to speak to elementary school kids, which I, I do. And I like to do that because, you know, that's the raw material that really we need to work with. Um, I tell them about how science works and how we in the world of science know, or at least think we know what's what, and it all comes from the peer reviewed literature.
Mm-hmm and I, you know, you have to explain to them how all of this works, that a scientist carries out some work in his lab. But then that information is useless unless it is transmitted to someone else who can further the work. So they write it up as a scientific paper. It's um, I sent into a journal and the editor of the journal then sends it out to.
Experts in the [00:15:00] field to review it. There's a lot of back and forth, et cetera. And eventually it gets rejected or, or gets published. And, you know, it's, it's possible to get that message across to, um, elementary school kids, uh, about how science works and what the scientific method is. Mm-hmm and, uh, then you've kind of put a foot in the door, you know, and, and you're on the verge of opening it to good scientific, uh, educat.
Kathleen: Well, and it's also checks and balances. That's what the peer review process is so that you can't be bought out by industry. You, you have to, the science has to stand on the data and it has to be hard. Well, I think today's people are probably more informed. Uh, about general food and nutrition science, but they're not better informed.
Um, and they don't really understand the difference between hazard and risk. And I think from my humble opinion is understanding that difference is so important to knowing about the extent [00:16:00] of exposure and how nothing, nothing is free of risk. Absolutely. I mean, absolutely. But everything is a balance of the hazard and risk.
So could you take us through. Help people understand the difference between hazard or the propensity to cause harm in risk that it actually does
Joe: harm. This is a, an extremely important point. And I, I, I think that if there's, uh, one sort of, bit of knowledge that people will take away from our discussion here today, it is that.
I agree. Now, hazard is a property of a substance of a process that cannot be changed. It is inherent to that property or, or process. Uh, whereas risk is a measure of whether or not that product or, or that process can actually cause harm in a real life situation. Uh, an analogy, I, I think a simple analogy works and one that I found works very well.
Is that of a grizzly. [00:17:00] Now I think most of us would recognize that the grizzly bear is a hazardous, uh, animal. Indeed one swipe of its P and take off a human head. That's a hazard. But if you see this animal in a zoo behind a cage, your risk. Is minimal because the chance that is gonna break out of that cage is, is almost zero, right?
So the hazard is there, but your risk is very low. On the other hand, if you meet a grizzly bear somewhere out in the wild mm-hmm well, then you better start running fast for at least faster than one of your friends, because. Now you have to deal with a high level of, of, of risk. Now, the hazard has not changed that that grizzly bear still has the same potential to do harm, but your chance of being harmed now is much greater than it was in the zoo.
So your risk is, is much greater. So risk is a [00:18:00] function of hazard with exposure factored. And of course, this is, uh, uh, critical when we talk about chemical hazards. And obviously that is a, a, a very common topic with discussion. We. We're concerned about things like, like per floral compounds in, in our environment about endocrine disrupting compounds in our environment, whether food additives fall into that category, we're concerned about side effects of medications, et cetera.
So we are constantly evaluating risk mm-hmm , but in order to evaluate risk, obviously, You have to take into account extent of exposure. And one of the examples where this really merits a great deal of discussion is with the most widely used herbicide in the world, uh, which is glyphosate. Uh, people know it as Roundup.
And, uh, if you judge by the, uh, literature out there, the popular literature, [00:19:00] magazines, newspapers, et cetera, you'd get the impression that this is a compound that has been directly dispensed by the devil that, uh, it is killing us. Uh it's Cogenic and then they point to the. Um, IR, which is the international agency for research drug cancer, which is an arm of the world health organization that has ranked glyphosate as, uh, possible human carcinogen.
And of course, when you then start reading and you find that there are residues of glyphosate in your cereal, and that this has been ranked as a possible human, uh, carcinogen by I a you start to panic. , but again, let's put this into proper perspective. The I arc analysis is a hazard analysis. It is not a risk analysis.
So the only thing that they are concerned about is whether it is possible that the [00:20:00] substance in question under any condition in any. Can trigger a problem such as cancer, not whether or not it does. So at a certain level of exposure. But whether or not it has the physical property to cause cancer. Right?
So obviously something like water would not be ranked in that category because water is not a carcinogen. I mean, no matter how much water you consume, it doesn't trigger cancer. I mean, it can do other kinds of harm, but it doesn't trigger cancer. Right. But there are other substances and glyphosate would be.
Which when fed in Grotes doses to test animals can trigger some kinds of, of lymphoma. However, those doses are nothing compared to what humans are exposed to. And this we know because we can measure glyphosate residues in the urine. And we know that they are at an extremely low level at a [00:21:00] level that is much, much lower than what international regulatory agencies have determined is safe.
So, uh, although there is a hazard here, there is no risk. Unfortunately, that's a scientific argument. Whereas most people rely on an emotional argument. That's right.
Kathleen: And it's hard to understand it's not easily understood. And I think like the E the environmental protection agency, they often use these dose related numbers.
So you'll see them that, you know, it's like a grain of salt in an Olympic size swimming pool to try to help people understand. Yes, it could in mega doses cause cancer, but in if you consume this particular product or food or whatever, that's, that's the relative amount you'll be consuming. So it's trying to put it into perspective.
Joe: You know, I, I sometimes accuse my, uh, [00:22:00] analytical chemist colleagues of being the root of this problem. because, you know, today they have developed, uh, techniques of analysis that are absolutely astounding. We can now find substances down to the level of parts per trillion. Yeah. That's incredible now to put that into perspective.
Yeah. That parts per trillion would be the width of a credit card in the distance between the earth and the moon. Oh my goodness. And the fact is that today we can detect that, but just because something is there doesn't mean that it is causing. It just means that it's there. Yeah. In order to know whether or not it being there is a problem that requires a lot more research.
Yeah. And also, I, I want to, to be certainly scientifically fair here and, um, make it very clear that there are substances that can cause harm [00:23:00] in very, very small amounts. I mean, we've, you know, we've, uh, known since about, you know, the middle ages from para Celsis the great S that only the dose makes the poison.
Right. I mean, that's the cornerstone of toxicology and I mean, we sing that Anthem all the time. However, I, I think it is also important to point out that in some cases that dose can be extremely small. So, uh, if you consider something like Bolin, which is the, the, uh, toxic protein that is produced by the Baum Clostridium bacterium.
That is so toxic that, you know, a symbol full of it could, could kill everyone in a large, yeah, doesn't take much mm-hmm it doesn't take much or ricin, which is, um, found in castor, uh, beans. You know, these things are, are, are terribly toxic. And certainly there, uh, is evidence that there are some substances that we encounter in the environment, manmade substances, synthetics, uh, that are, uh, endocrine disruptors.
And, uh, the, the big boogeyman [00:24:00] these days are the, uh, PFASs the per floral alcohol substances. And, uh, uh, these, uh, are on one hand, extremely useful chemicals because they, um, Prevent moisture from seeping through fabrics and through paper and oil from seeping through so that they're resistant both to oil and, and, and, uh, moisture.
Uh, so obviously they're they find value in, in, um, uh, making furniture, stain resistant in food packaging, et cetera. However, they. Do end up in their environment. And, uh, they're very often termed forever chemicals, uh, because the carbon flooring bond in these molecules is very stable, very difficult to break.
So they, these substances don't biodegrade and that there is evidence that, um, even in. Very very small doses. Uh, they can have an effect on hormone levels and that, uh, uh, there is also the [00:25:00] chance that some of these compounds, again, I underline some because PFAS is a category of substances. There are about 9,000 of these and a few of them indeed are problematic.
We have to get, uh, those out of the environment as, as much as. So, you know, uh, toxicity, uh, or toxicology is a very, very difficult subject and it takes a, a lot of effort and a lot of expertise to know exactly what we should worry about and whatnot,
Kathleen: right? Like when should there be a red flag and when should you pay attention?
Just because
Joe: a chemical has a multi, you know, does to mean that we have to worry, you know, I mean the food babe will tell you that if you can't pronounce it, we shouldn't eat.
Kathleen: All foods are chemicals.
Joe: Aren't they, Joe, everything in the world is made of chemical chemicals is not a dirty word. Yeah. It is just a Des or the substance of which the world is, uh, is built.
And we do not determine whether or not a substance is, uh, Dangerous or not by the number of letters [00:26:00] in its chemical name, but it is also, you know, understandable that if someone sees this multisyllabic term on a food label, uh, they get nervous about it. You know, about things they don't understand. So it's our job to make them understand.
To demystify, uh, the science, not to terrorize them with, uh, you know, chemical nomenclature. And, you know, as I was saying, I mean the food, babe, if you offer tur beta fr offer the gluco Percy, she would run in the opposite
Kathleen: direction. Well, I might too, cuz I don't know what that is, but it, you know, I get it
Joe: and of course there are many reasons to avoid sugar.
But the fact that it has a complex chemical name is not one of those is
Kathleen: not absolutely well let's, uh, let's shift gears and talk about those claims on foods. Um, you've done such great, some great YouTube videos on the term, natural and super foods and anti-inflammatory foods. So. Let's start with natural.
Joe: Well, it, it really almost means what [00:27:00] you want it to mean because there's no legal definition of natural. Right. Right. I think the common perception is that, um, it is, um, some plant product. That has been, uh, minimally, uh, processed and, uh, wasn't made in the, in the laboratory. I think that's the common, uh, understanding.
Uh, and then, uh, to cloud it further, uh, I think it can also mean that it has not been tainted by any process. Product. So, uh, an apple would be natural. I think everyone would agree. Right.
Kathleen: But doesn't have the label on it that says natural. It's really that marketing label that is of concern to me that gives it a health halo where in essence it means whatever the manufacturer wants it to mean.
Joe: Exactly. And then, then there's a question, you know, if, if a pesticide has been used on that apple well, does that then make it unnatural? Uh, so natural has no, no legal [00:28:00] meaning, but organic does. Uh, so if, if something is labeled as organic, it means that no synthetic fertilizers, no synthetic pesticides, uh, were used, uh, no additives were, were used.
And so there are definitions of, of organic. Now, as I said, it means that no synthetic pesticides are used. It does not mean that there are no pesticides used. Exactly. Exactly. Because in organic agriculture, there are a number of pesticides that are allowed because they are natural. But of course, just because they're natural doesn't mean that they're they're safer.
Right? They're still pesticides. Yes. Copper sulfate can be used in organic agriculture. And, uh, it's obviously, you know, on the right dose is not a safe material, but because it can be mine it's natural. It can be used, uh, inorganic, uh, production. Now, uh, also though important to, uh, [00:29:00] point out that all the pesticides that are used in organic agriculture, nevertheless, still have to be approved by regulatory agencies.
So although they are allowed to use copper sulfate, uh, that copper sulfate has gone through the same regulatory, um, you know, um, hoops and hurdles as any synthetic pesticide. So. If you are going to buy organic, I think it's more to sooth your. Sole than, than for, uh, you know, real health issues. I don't think that one, you know, one can claim that, uh, if you eat only organic, uh, you're guaranteed to be healthier.
Uh, I think one can say that, that if you eat more fruits and vegetables, whether they're organic or not, you're likely to be healthier. Here
Kathleen: here. Couldn't agree with you more on that point. Yeah. I, I mean, if you want an organic have add it, but don't think that it, it offers you any additional benefits from [00:30:00] the health perspective.
No, and
Joe: unfortunately, uh, organic tends to be more expensive. Of course. And there are studies that have shown that people who are dedicated to eating only organic actually may end up eating fewer fruits and vegetables because of the expense involved. So I, I think the important thing is to concentrate on eating, uh, lots of fruits, lots of vegetables make that make plant products, the, you know, the essence of, of your diet and not worry about whether or not, uh, they're organic or not.
Kathleen: So when it comes to super foods, I guess we could call all fruits and vegetables. Superfood. Would you agree?
Joe: Yeah. That superfood is an irritating term.
Kathleen: Yeah. I agree.
Joe: The only thing that can legitimately labeled as a super food is whatever Superman eats
Kathleen: okay.
that would be super food right now. There are no, again, it's not a legal term. So it's a marketing term. And I, I, I would [00:31:00] agree though, that there are lots of foods, like you'll often see that salmon or omega-3 fatty acid, rich foods are listed as such blueberries, cuz they're high in antioxidants and high in fiber.
And. they're often associated with foods that are good for you, but there's just nothing that makes them better than, than maybe another, um, you know, fruit or vegetable on the
Joe: shelf. No one way to look at this is, is that you can have, uh, blueberries for breakfast every day and still have a terrible diet.
Yes. Or you can never eat blueberries and still have a good diet. Mm-hmm , you know, it's, it's the overall composition of the diet. That's why, you know, when, when I'm asked by someone to make a, a. Comment on, on their diet. Uh, I I'll say, you know, I'm, I'm happy to do that, but here's what you have to do. You have to sit down every day after every meal for two weeks, write down exactly what you ate and how much you ate.
And if you, you know, give me a food diary like that. For [00:32:00] two weeks, we can make a reasonable guess about the quality of the diet. Uh, and I can tell you that I've made that proposal to many, many people. Very few have . Yeah. That's
Kathleen: a lot of work
Joe: and, um, I'll tell you, is, is that people are very, very poor at judging amounts.
You know, uh, in terms of, of putting a, a weight number on, on, you know, the, the potato serving that they have eaten there,
Kathleen: right. They hardly remember what they ate yesterday. And, and I think that begs another point about. Research is that, you know, a lot of the nutrition research is based on food diaries and the accuracy is
Joe: questionable.
It's very questionable because in these, uh, food frequency questionnaires, which are quite elaborate, yes, indeed. Uh, they ask you all kinds of details about, uh, what, what you ate. Uh, but as you said, I think it's, it's unreliable for two reasons. One is [00:33:00] that, uh, people's memory. Is, uh, suspect. And the other is that they are more likely to put down.
what they think they should have eaten mm-hmm instead of what they actually ate. I mean, I know that we've looked at some of these food surveys and it turns out that the world consumes more broccoli than the amount of broccoli the world can grow. Yeah. Right.
Kathleen: not one of those things we overeat right.
Although we should, right.
Joe: Yes. And, and so people will take off that they've eaten broccoli because they think that you. That's what they should have eaten, uh, instead of the French fries. Yeah. We do have to emphasize this a as you did DEC seeding on more fruits and vegetables, because you know, the, the number that, that we normally talk about these days is five to seven servings of fruits and vegetables a day mm-hmm
Whereas the, um, the amount in north America is, is around two as, oh, it's pathetic. And that's [00:34:00] because French fries actually count as a, as a vegetable. So that's included in that too. So there are a lot of people who are eating very, very poorly and yet, you know, what they worry about is the multisyllabic additives that they may see in their food instead of the overall composition of the diet.
Absolutely.
Kathleen: Well, what about, I mean, I know you've done a lot of research and you've, you've written and spoken about, um, weight loss. So any, any tips you have because you know, more than half the population's overweight or obese, and everyone's always looking to lose some weight, anything that you have, uh, gleaned from the literature that might be
Joe: helpful.
The battle of the bulge is one of the toughest battles. , you know? Yeah. The space. I mean, we know historically that virtually every diet will fail, although there usually is some success at the beginning. Right? Well, let's start out with the fact that the laws of thermodynamics will never be repeat. [00:35:00] The only way that you can lose weight is if you take in fewer calories than you expend.
And, uh, I mean, just one word here about calories. I mean, we, we use this expression you take in calories or, you know, expand calories that actually is, is not correct because a calorie is not a thing that you eat, uh, calories, a unit of measure of, of, of energy energy. So although, you know, we, we, yeah, we say that we eat so many calories.
What we really mean is that we're eating a specific food that in the body can release a certain amount of energy. That's that's what we. But calories. And then calories out is, is, is of course critical. I mean, there, there's no way to circumvent that. However, there are certainly, uh, foods that will provide.
Fewer calories. And there are ways to quote, burn more calories. And that of course is by exercise. So it's really, it's a combination of, uh, Keric intake and [00:36:00] exercise. That's really, uh, the key and you know that there are many, many different diets out there. They all have their efficient adults and they all have testimonials about how well these worked.
But the fact is that these diets. Generally very different from each other, in terms of the composition of the food. Some are high proteins, some are high carbohydrate, et cetera, but the reason that they all work at least in the short run is because they cut down on your total intake of calories. The reason that they all fail in the long run.
Is because they somehow are restrictive, right. And people do not want the restricted diet. They want to, you know, eat whatever that's, that's why, you know, you see these, uh, ads today that advertise that, you know, you lose weight. Doesn't matter what you eat. Well, in a sense, that's true. As long as you're eating below calorie, it doesn't
Kathleen: matter.
Yeah. And you want those [00:37:00] calories to come from nourishing foods that have vitamins and minerals and phytochemicals and protein, you know, you don't wanna be eating junk. I mean, you can cut calories.
Joe: Just about every diet works in the short term, because in the beginning, people are dedicated. They, you know, abide by the rules.
So they act taken in fewer calories. And, you know, if, if you go on a keto diet, which means that you're essentially avoiding all carbohydrates, I mean, there's no question that you're going to lose weight. That, that is a fact. I mean, many studies have demonstrated that because if you Rob your body of, uh, carbohydrates, then, then you start first burning up your stores of glycogen.
But that runs out very quickly. And then you start burning up fat deposits. So yes, you will start to lose weight, but it's a diet that, that people cannot follow for a long time because. You just can't avoid [00:38:00] carbohydrates. They're they're good. They're in fruits
Kathleen: and vegetables, you know, not just bread
Joe: that's right.
That's right. So, um, uh, I, I wish that there were a magic formula. Mm-hmm there is, I mean, you know, there, some people believe that it intermittent fasting as it is called, uh, that that's the key. Uh, intermittent fasting can take on many forms. One popular one is the five, two, uh, diet where for five days you eat normally.
And for two days you eat, uh, very low calorie diet. So of course, if you average that over seven days, you've decreased your caloric intake, so you will lose, uh, some weight. Then there, there, there are diets where you can eat only during an eight hour period of any. And you can do whatever you want, as long as you don't eat anything for the, the other 16 hours.
Uh, a study just came out a couple weeks ago in the new England journal of medicine, where [00:39:00] they actually did a comparison of the same caloric intake confus, uh, consumed intermittently that is over eight hours or over 24 hours and made no difference.
Kathleen: So the science hasn't really supported the benefits of intermittent fasting.
I,
Joe: I think the, the reason that it does work for some people is because it results in inadvertently taking in fewer calories.
Kathleen: Right? Not eating in front of the TV at night. Maybe. Of course.
Joe: I mean, people are habitual snackers, you know, mm-hmm, . And you, you don't notice that cookie and that handful of popcorn and those nuts that, you know, you absentmindedly eat as you're watching Netflix that, uh, that adds up, you know?
So if, if, if you are going to restrict yourself to, you know, let's say, you know, eating, uh, or not eating anything after supper until. 11 o'clock or so the next morning, the end result of that is going to be consuming fewer calories and, and weight loss. But [00:40:00] one thing that we have seen over the years, and I can tell you, I mean, I've followed this, this business for a very, very long time is if you take a look at the efficacy of diets after a year from when people have started it, the results are the same.
Right. No matter what type diet doesn't matter, what kind of diet after a year? Well, over 90% of them will.
Kathleen: mm-hmm yeah, cuz it's hard to sustain him. So the bottom line, in my opinion, is that you have to find something that you can sustain, you know, something that you can live with. And you know, you might not see that rapid weight loss, but maybe slow and gradual.
And, and it's almost constant vigilance that you gotta think about everything you put in your mouth and you know, you're allowed to have splurges, you're allowed to have fun foods, but for the most part, you ought to be, you know, really focused on filling your house and
Joe: pantry. I would think that most people realize that, um, having, um, uh, berries [00:41:00] with a high fiber cereal for breakfast is better than having a Danish or donut.
Yeah, I think
Kathleen: so.
Joe: but the fact that they know that. Does not prevent them from eating that donut or that Danish .
Kathleen: Yeah. Right. They should just save the donut for, you know, Saturday morning or, you know, make it be the special thing. Not the everyday
Joe: thing. You know what the bottom line is that that people may know health, but they eat taste.
They eat what they like, not often what they know that they should be eating. Right. Absolutely. Another point. I, I think that doesn't get made often that, that we should make is that while nutrition is of course important, I mean, let's face it in a sense we are what we eat because food is the only raw material that ever goes into our body.
Right. So that expression has some veracity, but, um, we also have to mention that, uh, that is only one factor in. Uh, there are many, many other [00:42:00] factors, you know, I mean the air that we breathe, the water that we drink and of course are genetic. Oh, you have to select your parents properly. Yeah.
Kathleen: which we don't have a choice in , but it's true.
That's why eating at home and cooking, you know, puts the power in your hands and then, you know, the powers on the plate. Dr. Joe, this has been fabulous. Thank you so much. I mean, information related to food. Nutrition comes in many sources, many forms, and I think our challenge as a scientific community is to bring order to this chaos and highlight experts like yourself, who truly make sense of nonsense.
So thank you for your pearls of wisdom and your time. And I encourage everyone to sign up for your newsletter and, and listen to your right chemistry. YouTube videos and get a better understanding of science because it'll help you make better decisions.
Joe: Well, thanks very much for, uh, this, uh, very interesting discussion and, uh, happy to do it any time.
Dr Tom: Thank you for listening to the [00:43:00] true health revealed podcast. We appreciate your time and hope you'll join us again for more information on today's episode and to subscribe to future podcast. Please visit true health initiative.org and help us continue the fight against fake facts. Please consider donating to our nonprofit true health initiative.