Fork U with Dr. Terry Simpson

Terry Simpson

Fork U(niversity) Not everything you put in your mouth is good for you. There’s a lot of medical information thrown around out there. How are you to know what information you can trust, and what’s just plain old quackery? You can’t rely on your own “google fu”. You can’t count on quality medical advice from Facebook. You need a doctor in your corner. On each episode of Your Doctor’s Orders, Dr. Terry Simpson will cut through the clutter and noise that always seems to follow the latest medical news. He has the unique perspective of a surgeon who has spent years doing molecular virology research and as a skeptic with academic credentials. He’ll help you develop the critical thinking skills so you can recognize evidence-based medicine, busting myths along the way. The most common medical myths are often disguised as seemingly harmless “food as medicine”. By offering their own brand of medicine via foods, These hucksters are trying to practice medicine without a license. And though they’ll claim “nutrition is not taught in medical schools”, it turns out that’s a myth too. In fact, there’s an entire medical subspecialty called Culinary Medicine, and Dr. Simpson is certified as a Culinary Medicine Specialist. Where today's nutritional advice is the realm of hucksters, Dr. Simpson is taking it back to the realm of science.

  1. How Cooking Made Us Human

    1 day ago

    How Cooking Made Us Human

    Fire didn't just change dinner. It changed us.If I asked you what made us human, you might say language. Or tools. Maybe agriculture. All of those changed our species, but I think one discovery came even earlier—and it may have been the most important of all. Fire. Not because it kept us warm. Not because it frightened predators. But because it cooked dinner. At first glance, that might seem like an odd claim. After all, cooking is something we do every day without much thought. However, when you look at the science and the history together, cooking becomes one of the most remarkable innovations in human evolution. More importantly, it changed far more than the taste of our food. For more in-depth discussion, go to my Substack channel at DrSimpson.com Cooking Changed the Food We AteBefore humans learned to control fire, food was difficult work. Raw meat is tough. Many roots are fibrous. Grains are nearly impossible to eat without processing, and many plants lock away their nutrients behind tough cell walls. Then everything changed. Cooking unfolds proteins, softens connective tissue, gelatinizes starches, and breaks down plant cell walls. As a result, our digestive system has less work to do, and we gain access to more of the calories and nutrients already present in the food. In other words, cooking didn't create nutrition. It unlocked it. Then Cooking Made Food SaferHowever, the story doesn't stop with nutrition. Long before anyone understood bacteria or parasites, early humans discovered something through observation. Food cooked over a fire made people sick less often. Today we know why. Heat destroys many harmful bacteria. It kills many parasites. It reduces the risk of foodborne illness. Consequently, cooking likely became one of humanity's earliest public health tools. Groups that regularly cooked their food would have lost fewer children to severe diarrheal disease, had healthier adults, and retained more of the calories they worked so hard to obtain. That is a tremendous evolutionary advantage. Flavor Matters More Than You ThinkThere is another benefit that often gets overlooked. Cooking made food taste better. That may sound obvious, yet it is incredibly important. Humans don't simply eat because food contains nutrients. We eat because food is enjoyable. Cooking creates hundreds of new flavor compounds through browning reactions that simply don't occur in raw food. Think about the smell of fresh bread. Or grilled steak. Or roasted coffee. Those aromas are products of cooking. Likewise, a cooked potato bears little resemblance to a raw one. The texture changes. The flavor changes. Even the way our bodies digest the starch changes. Fire didn't just feed us. It invited us back for another meal. The Real Lesson from EvolutionUnfortunately, some people oversimplify this fascinating story. They argue that because meat was important during human evolution, the ideal modern diet must consist almost entirely of meat. The science doesn't support that conclusion. Cooking improved meat. It also improved roots. Cooking made tubers tasty. Then cooking softened grains. And finally, it made legumes digestible The evolutionary advantage wasn't eating one perfect food. Instead, it was becoming adaptable enough to thrive on many foods by transforming them with fire. That is a much more interesting story—and one much better supported by the evidence. Why This Still Matters TodayEven in modern kitchens, we continue using the same principles our ancestors discovered thousands of years ago. We cook food to improve digestibility. And we cook food to improve safety. We cook food because it tastes better. Most importantly, we gather around meals because cooking has always been about more than calories. It has always been about family, community, and sharing stories. Perhaps civilization didn't begin with the first city. Perhaps it began around the first campfire.

    12 min
  2. The Bank of Muscle: Your Retirement Account Isn't Your 401(k)

    25 Jun

    The Bank of Muscle: Your Retirement Account Isn't Your 401(k)

    The Bank of Muscle: Why Your Real Retirement Account Isn't Your 401(k)I used to think retirement planning was all about money. Put enough away, let compound interest do its thing, and someday you'll enjoy the rewards. As I've gotten older, however, I've come to appreciate another form of savings that may be just as important. It's your muscle. Nobody reaches eighty-five and wishes they had less of it. Instead, people wish they could get out of a chair more easily. They wish they could carry groceries, travel, garden, and play with grandchildren. In other words, they wish they had more reserves. That's really what muscle buys us. Dad's First Retirement AccountI was fortunate. My father lived nearly ninety-nine years old, and he didn't simply survive. He lived. At eighty-five, Dad was walking three and a half miles every day. That's remarkable. Many people half his age don't walk that much. He had survived several heart attacks over the years, but he had reserves. Looking back, I realize that making it to eighty-five is one thing. Reaching eighty-five healthy enough to begin the sprint into your nineties is something else entirely. Dad didn't do anything exotic. He wasn't biohacking. He wasn't chasing supplements. He wasn't optimizing every laboratory value. He walked. And my mother cooked. Their meals weren't complicated. They enjoyed meat, potatoes, vegetables, soups, and desserts. They enjoyed life together. In hindsight, Dad was making deposits into his Bank of Muscle every day without ever calling it that. Then Life ChangedAs my mother's dementia slowly progressed, things began to fall apart. Dad stopped walking, not because he wanted to, but because he didn't want to leave Mom alone. He worried she might wander. At the same time, Mom stopped cooking. Breakfast became something out at a diner. Lunch might be a sandwich. Dinner often became cereal. I watched them both lose weight. Then I got the phone call no child wants. "Dad's in the hospital. He fell and couldn't get up." The fall wasn't the problem. Falls happen. What concerned me was that Dad no longer had enough reserve. After a couple of weeks in rehabilitation, I convinced him to move into an assisted living center close to our house. He wasn't thrilled with the idea, but something remarkable happened. Once Mom entered memory care and Dad had regular meals again, he began to thrive. He complained constantly about the food while gaining seventeen pounds. But he made friends and was always talking to someone or another. I would drive by and see him talking to anyone, from former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who lived there, and had a crush on my dad. My dad was making sure his neighbor got the newspaper, and yet he continued to complain about the food. All while gaining 17 pounds the first year. Twice a week, I would take Dad to dinner, and we would split a steak. The waitresses had a standing joke. They would ask him whether he wanted the kale salad. Dad would smile and say, "I grew up in an orphanage in Alaska. We grew kale, but we fed it to the cows. I'll eat the cow." He charmed every waitress in town. Eventually, after Mom died, Dad moved back home to Oregon and lived independently again. Visiting Angels helped with meals and companionship, but he was back in his own house. Looking back, I learned two things. Food matters. Muscle matters. Frailty Is the EnemyWe spend a lot of time talking about heart disease, cancer, cholesterol, and blood pressure. Those are important. However, frailty is another great enemy of aging. Frailty steals independence. One broken hip can change everything. A fall that would have been a nuisance at sixty can become life-changing at eighty-five. Muscle gives us reserve, and reserve allows us to recover. My father didn't avoid every setback. He survived them. That's what reserve does. Protein Helps, But It Isn't MagicThe supplement industry would love us to believe that a powder is all we need. Unfortunately, muscles didn't get the memo. Protein matters, especially as we age. Most experts recommend older adults consume about 1.2 to 1.5 grams of protein per kilogram of body weight each day, spread throughout the day rather than eaten all at once at dinner. For many people, that means aiming for twenty-five to thirty grams of protein at each meal.¹ However, protein alone isn't enough. A large meta-analysis found that protein supplementation without resistance exercise had limited effects on strength and muscle mass. In contrast, combining protein with resistance exercise produced meaningful improvements.² In other words, muscles need both building blocks and a reason to keep existing. Exercise Doesn't Have To Be FancyWhen people hear "resistance exercise," they often picture bodybuilders. That's not what the science requires. Walking hills counts. Gardening counts. Resistance bands count. Swimming counts. Carrying groceries counts. Yoga counts. For me, yoga became the answer. I'm not a gym person. Exercise isn't my hobby. I don't wake up every morning excited to work out. I do yoga because I know future Terry will appreciate it. I'm not training for the Olympics. I'm training for my eighties. Real Food Still WorksWhey protein is probably the most studied supplement because it's rich in leucine, an amino acid that helps stimulate muscle protein synthesis. As we age, muscles become less sensitive to that signal, which is why getting enough leucine becomes increasingly important.¹ Fortunately, you don't need expensive powders. Eggs, fish, dairy products, soy, beans, chicken, and meat all provide excellent protein. Personally, whey protein and I are not close friends. I've had lactose intolerance for years, and the slower gut that comes with GLP-1 therapy has made me even less tolerant of many whey products. Add stevia, sugar alcohols, and various flavorings, and my intestines politely object. Instead, I use egg protein or plant proteins. I avoid stevia because it tastes like electrical tape to me, and I don't need a chemistry experiment in a shaker bottle. Still, I recognize supplements have a role. If you're on a GLP-1 medication and eating less, or if you're simply busy, a protein shake or bar can be a useful tool. They aren't magic. They're convenient. A Father's WisdomAfter Mom died, Dad came to live with me in California. By then, I had discovered yoga. Dad teased me about it at first. Then one day, he looked at me and said something I've never forgotten. "I think you doing yoga is great. You're the right age. Doing this now is important. If yoga is what you like, buy all the spandex you want and keep doing it." Those words stayed with me. You're the right age. Doing this now is important. If you're lucky, your parents give you wisdom throughout your life. When you're young, you roll your eyes. Later, you realize those words become part of who you are. Money gets spent. Wisdom gets carried. Dad wasn't telling me to do yoga. He was telling me to keep moving. Make DepositsEvery age has different priorities. At twenty-five, you may be building a career. At forty-five, you may be raising children. At sixty-five, you may be protecting your muscle. At eighty-five, you may simply want enough reserve to get out of a chair and go to dinner with your family. The body doesn't really care whether those deposits come from yoga, barbells, swimming, pickleball, or walking. It only cares that you keep making deposits. Because someday you'll need to make a withdrawal. Life guarantees that. When that day comes, you'll be grateful for every walk, every stretch, every protein-rich meal, and every little thing you did, not because you loved doing them, but because they built reserve. Healthy aging isn't about dying young as slowly as possible. It's about building enough reserve so that when life knocks you down, you still have enough strength to get back up. And that may be the most important retirement account you'll ever own. ReferencesBauer J, Biolo G, Cederholm T, et al. Evidence-based recommendations for optimal dietary protein intake in older people: a position paper from the PROT-AGE Study Group. J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2013;14(8):542-559.Liao CD, Tsauo JY, Wu YT, et al. Effects of protein supplementation combined with resistance exercise on body composition and physical function in older adults: a meta-analysis. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 2017;106(4):1078-1091.Cruz-Jentoft AJ, Bahat G, Bauer J, et al. Sarcopenia: revised European consensus on definition and diagnosis. Age and Ageing. 2019;48(1):16-31.

    12 min
  3. Did the Food Pyramid Make America Fat?

    19 Jun

    Did the Food Pyramid Make America Fat?

    If you read some low-carb sites, or Gary Taub's books, you will find the contention that the food pyramid - the last one being in 2011 - put America into a low fat, high carb diet responsible for today's obesity. That the government food pyramid misled a generation of people, and because we faithfully follow it, we became fat. The problem is, that isn't the case, but I want to go back in time and see why we have those government issued guidelines, and see where we are today. Dietary RecommendationsThe first major food guide appeared in 1943. It wasn't even a pyramid. It was called the Basic Seven. Created to prevent malnutrition and maintain stamina during World War II, it categorized foods into seven groups and served as the precursor to the modern food pyramid: 1: Green and Yellow Vegetables (e.g. leafy greens, green beans, carrots). 2: Oranges, Tomatoes, Grapefruit (or other raw greens high in Vitamin C). 3: Potatoes and Other Vegetables/Fruits (e.g., apples, potatoes, beets). 4: Milk and Milk Products (e.g. fluid milk, evaporated milk, cheese). 5: Meat, Poultry, Fish, or Eggs (as well as plant-based proteins like dried beans and nuts). 6: Bread, Flour, and Cereals (focusing on whole grain or enriched varieties). 7: Butter and Fortified Margarine (specifically noted to provide necessary calories and Vitamin A during rationing). The Basic FourThese came out in 1956 to help a growing America. doctors worried about malnutrition and vitamin deficiencies. Diseases such as pellagra, rickets, and scurvy were still being treated. A breakdown of the 4 food groups and how they currently fit into a balanced, healthy routine: 1. Fruits & Vegetables 🥦Focus: Whole forms (fresh, frozen, or canned without added sugars).Benefits: Packed with essential vitamins, minerals, and dietary fiber.Goal: Aim to make half your plate fruits and vegetables at meal times. 2. Grains 🌾Focus: Whole grains (oats, brown rice, whole-wheat bread).Benefits: Provides vital carbohydrates and fiber for sustained energy.Goal: Make at least half your daily grains "whole" to get the most nutritional value. 3. Protein 🥩Focus: Lean proteins like poultry, fish, eggs, legumes (beans/peas), nuts, and seeds.Benefits: Builds muscle mass, repairs tissues, and keeps you full.Goal: Include a portion of protein with every meal to keep metabolism regulated. 4. Dairy 🥛Focus: Milk, yogurt, and cheeses (or calcium-fortified plant alternatives).Benefits: Crucial source of calcium and vitamin D for strong bones and teeth.Goal: Opt for low-fat or unsweetened varieties whenever possible to limit excess sugar 1979 What to AvoidDirectly after the Basic Four, the USDA introduced the Hassle-Free Daily Food Guide (1979). The Hassle-Free Daily Food Guide (1979–1984) What changed: It kept the core Basic Four, but added a fifth group: Fats, Sweets, and Alcohol. Purpose: This was the first time a group was explicitly highlighted for the public to consume only in moderation. The transition away from the Basic Four marked a major shift in government policy: instead of just telling Americans to eat enough nutrients to avoid deficiencies, the focus changed to preventing chronic illnesses by telling people what to limit. The Food Guide Pyramid (1992–2005) The first guide to feature highly specific daily serving sizes across six distinct categories. Grains formed the massive base (6–11 servings), followed by fruits and vegetables, then dairy and meat, with fats/sweets resting at the tiny top peak. Fair Criticisms of the Food PyramidNone of this means the Food Pyramid was perfect. In fact, there are several reasonable criticisms. First, the pyramid did not do a great job distinguishing between whole grains and refined grains. A bowl of steel-cut oats is different from a sugary breakfast cereal, but both could look similar on a simple graphic. Likewise, the pyramid often treated fats as a single category when we now know that olive oil, nuts, and fish are different from trans fats and highly processed shortening. In addition, agriculture and food industry groups had influence over the process. That should not surprise anyone. Food policy has always involved scientists, government agencies, farmers, food manufacturers, and politicians. As a result, some recommendations reflected compromises rather than perfect science. That is a fair criticism, and it is one reason nutrition advice continues to evolve. However, we should also be honest about today's environment. While many criticize the influence of industry on older food guides, we now live in an age where nutrition advice often comes from influencers, supplement companies, podcasters, social media personalities, and people selling books, courses, or products. In other words, we have not eliminated outside influences. We have simply changed who those influences are. Therefore, the challenge today is the same as it has always been: separating evidence from marketing. Most importantly, the biggest problem facing Americans today is not that we are following an outdated Food Pyramid. Instead, it is that inexpensive, highly processed, calorie-dense foods surround us that require little preparation and are available everywhere. At the same time, portion sizes have increased, sugary beverages have become common, restaurant meals have grown larger, and fewer people cook regularly at home. As a result, we consume more calories than previous generations, while often moving less. The Real Reason We Became HeavierThe Food Pyramid did not make America fat. That story is appealing because it is simple, but simple stories are not always true. The reality is that obesity developed while most Americans were not following the Food Pyramid at all. Instead, we were eating larger portions, drinking more calories, consuming more ultra-processed foods, dining out more often, and cooking less frequently. At the same time, our food environment changed dramatically. Food became cheaper, more convenient, and available nearly everywhere. Consequently, it became much easier to consume excess calories without even noticing it. The real lesson is not that one graphic ruined America's health. Rather, the lesson is that every generation faces new food challenges and tries to solve them with the best knowledge available at the time. Some recommendations age well, while others do not. Yet one message has remained remarkably consistent for decades: eat more fruits and vegetables, include beans and whole grains, enjoy fish and other healthy proteins, cook when you can, and share meals with people you care about. That advice may not fit neatly into a pyramid, but it has stood the test of time.

    14 min
  4. The Scientists Who Built the Modern Snack

    11 Jun

    The Scientists Who Built the Modern Snack

    How We EatMost of us think we know what we eat. However, nutrition researchers have learned a frustrating lesson over the years: asking people what they ate yesterday is often less accurate than anyone would like. Although food diaries and surveys can provide useful information, memories are imperfect, snacks are easily forgotten, and portion sizes tend to grow smaller in retrospect. Consequently, some of the most important nutrition research takes place in a setting that is both expensive and surprisingly simple—a metabolic ward, where every meal is prepared, every serving is weighed, and every leftover bite is measured. That approach is exactly what researcher Kevin Hall and his colleagues used in a landmark study at the NIH. Participants were given two different diets, one based largely on ultra-processed foods and another built around minimally processed foods. Importantly, the volunteers could eat as much as they wanted. Nobody instructed them to count calories, restrict portions, or lose weight. Nevertheless, participants consumed about 500 more calories per day when eating the ultra-processed diet. The same people, living in the same environment, produced dramatically different results simply because the food changed. Obesity in the US and Ultra-Processed FoodsAs a result, the study raised an intriguing question. If ultra-processed foods can influence calorie intake to that degree, why isn't everyone obese? After all, ultra-processed foods make up a large portion of the modern food supply. Grocery stores are filled with them, convenience stores specialize in them, and many restaurants depend on them. Yet despite widespread exposure to the same food environment, some people seem relatively unaffected while others struggle with appetite, cravings, and weight gain. Prego and Vanishing CaloriesTo understand how we arrived here, it helps to step back a few decades. During the latter half of the twentieth century, food companies increasingly turned to scientists, statisticians, and sensory researchers to understand consumer behavior. One of the most influential figures was Howard Moskowitz, a researcher who discovered that there was no single perfect food. Instead, he found that consumers tended to cluster into different preference groups. Some people preferred sweeter products, others wanted more texture, and still others favored stronger flavors. As a result, food manufacturers stopped searching for one ideal product and began creating multiple versions designed to appeal to different consumers. Meanwhile, another researcher, Steven Witherly, focused on a different question. Rather than asking what people preferred, he explored why certain foods were so rewarding. His work highlighted the importance of texture, aroma, crunch, temperature, and mouthfeel. In other words, food is not simply taste. Instead, it is a complex sensory experience involving multiple signals that influence how satisfying a meal feels. One of Witherly's most memorable concepts is known as vanishing caloric density. Certain foods, particularly puffed snacks, dissolve quickly in the mouth and create the sensation that they have almost disappeared. Although the calories remain, the physical experience of eating them can feel surprisingly brief. Consequently, these foods may be easier to consume in larger quantities before the body's normal satiety signals fully catch up. While that does not make such foods inherently bad, it does help explain why some snacks seem to empty themselves once the bag is opened. Ultra-Processed Foods and GLP-1At the same time, the modern food environment has become remarkably effective at attracting attention. Food manufacturers optimize texture, flavor, aroma, and convenience, while consumers encounter those products virtually everywhere. Therefore, the challenge is not simply one of personal responsibility. Biology, environment, culture, sleep, stress, and genetics all influence how people respond to food. Some individuals appear naturally protected, whereas others experience stronger reward signals and greater susceptibility to cravings. Interestingly, the recent rise of GLP-1 medications has provided another perspective on appetite. Many patients describe a quieter relationship with food, noting that foods which once demanded attention suddenly seem less compelling. The food itself has not changed; rather, the brain's response to it has shifted. Consequently, these medications have highlighted something obesity researchers have suspected for years: appetite is not merely a matter of willpower. Instead, it reflects a complex interaction between biology and an increasingly sophisticated food environment. Ultimately, Kevin Hall's study gave us an important clue about what happens when people are exposed to different types of food. Howard Moskowitz showed how companies learned to identify consumer preferences, while Steven Witherly helped explain why certain foods are so appealing in the first place. Together, their work offers a fascinating glimpse into the science behind modern eating and raises a question that may be more interesting than why some people gain weight. Perhaps the real mystery is why some people seem largely unaffected by an environment that was designed to capture our attention. For a deeper discussion of food engineering, the bliss point, vanishing caloric density, and what this means for appetite in the era of GLP-1 medications, listen to this week's episode of Fork U.

    14 min
  5. Taste Buds Everywhere: Your Body's Hidden Food Sensors

    4 Jun

    Taste Buds Everywhere: Your Body's Hidden Food Sensors

    Taste Isn't What You Think It IsMost people believe taste happens on the tongue. That idea seems obvious because food enters the mouth, the tongue recognizes flavors, and the brain decides whether something tastes good or bad. However, modern science has revealed a much more fascinating story. Taste receptors are scattered throughout the body, including the stomach, intestines, airways, pancreas, and even tissues associated with the nervous system. Consequently, what we call taste is actually part of a much larger surveillance system that helps us detect nutrients, toxins, microbes, and potential threats before they become serious problems. Before we explore those hidden taste receptors, though, we need to separate taste from smell. Most people use the words interchangeably, yet they are remarkably different systems. In fact, if you've ever had a bad cold, you've already experienced the difference firsthand. Why Expensive Wine Tastes Like Grape Juice With a Stuffy NoseImagine spending a fortune on a bottle of Screaming Eagle wine. A sommelier describes notes of blackberry, cedar, tobacco, leather, and dark cherry while swirling the glass dramatically. Now pinch your nose shut and take a sip. Suddenly, those elegant descriptions become much harder to appreciate, and the wine starts tasting suspiciously like grape juice. The reason is simple. Your tongue detects only a handful of basic categories: sweet, salty, sour, bitter, and umami. Meanwhile, your nose identifies the thousands of aromatic compounds that make strawberries taste different from cherries or Cabernet different from Merlot. Therefore, much of what we casually call taste is actually smell working behind the scenes. Without smell, a wine tasting becomes a costly visit to a Welch's grape juice stand. This distinction matters because it helps explain why taste receptors throughout the body are not there for pleasure. Instead, they exist to gather information. Sweet Means Calories, and Your Body Pays AttentionFor most of human history, finding calories was difficult. As a result, sweet flavors became associated with survival. A ripe fruit, a handful of berries, or a cache of honey represented valuable energy in a world where starvation was a constant threat. Because of that evolutionary pressure, the body developed specialized receptors to detect sweetness and rapidly prepare for incoming fuel. The story becomes even more interesting once food reaches the intestine. Sweet receptors known as TAS1R receptors help stimulate the release of incretin hormones such as GLP-1 and GIP. Consequently, eating sugar creates a different physiologic response than receiving glucose through an IV. The tongue detects sweetness, the gut begins releasing hormones, the pancreas prepares insulin, and the brain activates reward pathways. In contrast, intravenous glucose raises blood sugar, but skips much of the sensory experience that evolution spent millions of years refining. Warm apple pie and an IV bag may deliver similar sugar molecules. Nevertheless, your body treats them as entirely different events. Umami: The Taste the Japanese Taught the WorldWhile sweet and bitter flavors are easy to recognize, umami remained poorly understood until Japanese scientists formally described it in the early twentieth century. The term refers to a savory, rich taste associated with glutamate and certain amino acids. Soy sauce, mushrooms, Parmesan cheese, tomatoes, broths, and many fermented foods owe much of their appeal to umami. From an evolutionary standpoint, umami serves an important purpose. Protein is essential for growth, repair, reproduction, and survival, so recognizing protein-rich foods provided a significant advantage. Consequently, the body evolved receptors specifically designed to detect those compounds. Modern scientists call them TAS1R1 and TAS1R3 receptors. Our ancestors simply recognized them as signs that dinner was likely worth pursuing. Growing up in Ketchikan, Alaska, I had a slightly different perspective on some of these foods. The first time somebody enthusiastically explained sushi to me, my immediate reaction was, "That's bait." Fortunately, the Japanese had grander plans for raw fish than I did. Why Children Hate BroccoliParents often assume children reject vegetables because they are stubborn. Evolution suggests another explanation. Many toxic plant compounds are bitter, and bitterness frequently serves as nature's warning label. Therefore, children are generally more sensitive to bitter flavors than adults. Their bodies are essentially operating a heightened food safety program. As people age, repeated exposure teaches the brain that many bitter foods are safe and even beneficial. Coffee, tea, dark chocolate, kale, Brussels sprouts, and beer all require overcoming an instinctive caution signal. Adulthood, in many ways, involves learning which bitter things deserve a second chance. Moreover, many of those foods contain nutrients, fiber, and bioactive compounds associated with better health. This is one reason I smile whenever someone declares kale is poison. The statement may reveal more about the speaker's bitter receptors than about kale itself. Babies, Honey, and a Healthy Fear of FoodInfants face a different challenge. During the first months of life, stomach acid production is lower than in adults. Consequently, babies are more vulnerable to certain organisms that older children and adults can handle without difficulty. This difference explains one of the most important feeding rules in pediatrics: do not give honey to infants under one year of age. Honey can contain spores of Clostridium botulinum. In adults, stomach acid and a mature intestinal environment generally prevent those spores from causing problems. However, infants lack many of those defenses. Therefore, infant botulism remains a genuine concern, despite honey's reputation as a natural food. Once again, evolution reminds us that caution often exists for a reason. The Stomach: Bouncer, Judge, and ExecutionerOne of the most surprising discoveries in recent years is that the stomach contains bitter taste receptors known as TAS2Rs. These receptors do not evaluate flavor. Instead, they help assess what has arrived and determine how aggressive the digestive system should respond. When bitter compounds appear, gastric emptying may slow, giving stomach acid additional time to destroy microbes and process potentially hazardous material. I learned this lesson personally during a trip to Tijuana. Someone handed me a Clamato loaded with raw shellfish. At the time, it tasted wonderful. Several hours later, however, my stomach conducted a thorough review of the situation. The acid weighed in, the receptors filed their reports, and the immune system apparently demanded immediate action. The resulting decision was swift, unanimous, and memorable. Evolution does not care about dignity. Survival remains the only vote that counts. Your Sinuses Listen to BacteriaPerhaps the strangest discovery involves bitter receptors in the airways and sinuses. Researchers have found that certain receptors can detect chemical signals used by bacteria to communicate. In other words, cells lining your sinuses may effectively eavesdrop on microbial conversations before those microbes establish a significant foothold. Once those signals are detected, defensive mechanisms begin activating. Nitric oxide production increases, antimicrobial responses strengthen, and mucus clearance accelerates. Consequently, these receptors function less like taste buds and more like security personnel monitoring suspicious activity. The fact that a system originally associated with tasting food can also help defend against infection highlights how versatile these ancient sensors have become. The Real Story of TasteFor generations, we assumed taste existed primarily for enjoyment. While pleasure certainly plays a role, the larger story is far more interesting. Taste receptors help identify calories, protein, toxins, bacteria, and environmental threats. Furthermore, many of these receptors appear to have evolved as general chemical sensors long before they became associated with dining. The next time you enjoy a slice of pie, a bowl of sushi, a glass of wine, or even a serving of broccoli, remember that your tongue is only one participant in the conversation. Your stomach is paying attention. Your intestines are paying attention. Even your sinuses may be paying attention. Long before nutrition labels, food influencers, and restaurant reviews existed, the body developed its own remarkably sophisticated system for deciding what was worth eating and what should be avoided. That's not just taste. That's survival.

    12 min
  6. Diabetes, Weight Loss, Remission or Cure

    28 May

    Diabetes, Weight Loss, Remission or Cure

    Type 2 Diabetes, Bariatric Surgery, Fasting, and GLP-1s: What We Finally Learned About a Disease We Thought We UnderstoodFor years, I watched something happen in bariatric surgery that made very little sense, according to the medical textbooks of the time. Patients with type 2 diabetes would undergo surgery, and within days, their blood sugars would improve dramatically. Some would leave needing far less insulin. Others would stop insulin entirely. Many of them would eventually remain off diabetes medications for years. Now here is the important part: They had not yet lost significant weight. That observation mattered enormously. Because if diabetes improvement were simply the result of fat disappearing from the body over time, then blood sugar should improve slowly over months as weight comes off. But that was not what we saw.Instead, patients barely eating — sipping broth and protein shakes while recovering from surgery — were suddenly metabolically different almost immediately. At the time, we knew it worked. What we did not fully understand was why. And honestly, that story tells you something important about medicine and science: sometimes clinical medicine notices the truth before biology fully explains it. For decades, type 2 diabetes was often taught in very mechanical terms. You gained weight. You became insulin-resistant. The pancreas worked harder and harder until it “burned out.” Then you needed insulin. That explanation was not entirely wrong. However, it was incomplete. Furthermore, it encouraged a kind of fatalism around type 2 diabetes, as though progression were inevitable and irreversible for everyone. Then, bariatric surgery complicated the narrative. Meanwhile, researchers like Professor Roy Taylor at Newcastle University began developing a much more dynamic understanding of what was actually happening inside the liver and pancreas. And suddenly, many of the strange things bariatric surgeons had observed for years started making sense. The Problem May Not Be Sugar AloneOne of the most common mistakes in nutrition discourse is assuming that blood sugar itself is the disease. It is not. Blood sugar is often the visible signal of a much larger metabolic problem involving: the liver,the pancreas,adipose tissue,appetite signaling,inflammation,gut hormones,and the brain itself. Now, to be fair, refined carbohydrates and ultra-processed foods absolutely can worsen insulin resistance and glucose control. Sugary beverages, highly refined starches, and hyperpalatable processed foods create enormous metabolic stress for many people. However, reducing the entire disease of type 2 diabetes to “sugar is poison” oversimplifies what is actually a highly complex biological system. If carbohydrates alone caused diabetes, then traditional Mediterranean populations consuming beans, lentils, intact grains, and fruit would have universally developed severe metabolic disease. Yet many of those populations historically had some of the best cardiovascular and metabolic outcomes in the world. Similarly, bariatric surgery would not improve diabetes before substantial fat loss occurred. Something deeper was happening. Roy Taylor and the Twin Cycle HypothesisRoy Taylor’s Twin Cycle Hypothesis is one of the most elegant modern explanations for type 2 diabetes. The theory proposes that type 2 diabetes develops through two interconnected metabolic cycles, involving excess fat accumulation in organs not designed to store large amounts of fat. First comes the liver. When caloric intake chronically exceeds what the body can safely store in adipose tissue, fat begins accumulating in the liver. Eventually, the liver becomes insulin-resistant. Now the liver starts misbehaving metabolically. Instead of calming down glucose production when insulin is present, the liver continues to release glucose into the bloodstream. At the same time, it exports excess triglycerides and fat particles into circulation. This creates a vicious cycle:more liver fat,more insulin resistance,higher insulin levels,more glucose production. Then comes the second cycle. Those excess fat particles eventually accumulate in the pancreas itself. And that is where the beta cells begin struggling. The Beta Cell Is Not Simply “Burned Out”For years, we talked about the pancreas as though it simply became exhausted. However, newer biology suggests something more complicated — and more hopeful. Beta cells produce insulin, which is a protein. Proteins must be folded properly inside the cell before they can be packaged and secreted. Under chronic metabolic stress — high glucose levels, elevated fatty acids, inflammation, oxidative stress — the protein-folding machinery inside the beta cell begins malfunctioning. Some insulin molecules become misfolded. Now imagine a factory assembly line where defective products begin to accumulate faster than workers can remove them. The system clogs. The beta cell experiences what is called endoplasmic reticulum stress, or ER stress. In simple terms, the protein-processing machinery becomes overloaded. At first, the cell adapts. It slows production. And the cell will activate repair systems. To clear damaged proteins. But if the stress continues long enough, the machinery begins failing. Some beta cells become dysfunctional. As a result, some become metabolically suppressed. They stop making insulin. Some dedifferentiate, meaning they stop functioning normally. And eventually some undergo apoptosis: programmed cell death. That distinction matters enormously. Because it suggests that not every beta cell is permanently destroyed early in the disease. Some are simply overwhelmed. Why Fasting Sometimes WorksThis may help explain why fasting improves type 2 diabetes in some patients. Fasting reduces metabolic demand. Less glucose enters the system.Less insulin is required.The liver produces less glucose.The pancreas experiences less pressure. In effect, fasting may temporarily reduce the metabolic traffic jam overwhelming the beta cells. Now, some people online treat fasting almost like a mystical cure for diabetes. I think that is an exaggeration. The body is not achieving enlightenment because somebody skipped breakfast. The likely benefit is much more practical: Reduced metabolic overload allows stressed systems to recover function. And clinically, we do see this. Some patients improve dramatically with fasting or aggressive caloric restriction. However, fasting is not universally successful because not all patients have the same remaining beta-cell reserve. Some patients have substantial recoverable function left. Others have experienced years of apoptosis and structural loss. That is one reason newly diagnosed patients often respond far better than patients with decades of poorly controlled diabetes. Duration matters. Furthermore, what happens after the fasting matters enormously. If someone fasts aggressively, but then returns immediately to hyper-palatable ultra-processed food, liquid calories, and chronic overnutrition, the same metabolic stress returns. Which brings us to an important point. The Real Goal Is Not Carb EliminationThis is where I part ways somewhat with the more absolutist low-carb community. Low-carb diets help many patients reduce caloric intake and improve glucose control. That part is real. However, when you look at the broader evidence, the deeper lesson is probably not: “Carbohydrates are evil.” The deeper lesson is: eat less, eat better, and create a sustainable metabolic environment that the body can actually manage long term. And this is where Mediterranean-style dietary patterns continue to shine. Why the Mediterranean Diet Works So WellOne of the strangest developments in modern nutrition culture is the fear surrounding whole grains and legumes. Beans somehow became suspicious. Oatmeal became controversial. Meanwhile, the modern industrial food environment quietly engineered ultra-processed calorie delivery systems powerful enough to overwhelm normal satiety pathways entirely. Perspective matters. After bariatric surgery, once patients had healed from the immediate postoperative phase, many naturally transitioned toward what was essentially a Mediterranean-style eating pattern. Not because it was trendy. Because clinically it worked. But because patients tolerated it well. Their weight stabilized more successfully. In addition, cardiovascular risk factors improved. And perhaps most importantly, they could sustain it. That last point matters more than anything else in nutrition. The Mediterranean diet works because it aligns well with human physiology: high fiber,intact foods,lower caloric density,reduced ultra-processed food burden,improved satiety,favorable effects on the microbiome,and long-term sustainability. Importantly, carbohydrates behave differently from rapidly absorbed refined starches and sugary beverages. Food structure mattersFiber matters.Satiety matters.Context...

    18 min
  7. The Science of Hangovers: Why Most “Cures” Fail

    21 May

    The Science of Hangovers: Why Most “Cures” Fail

    The Science of Hangovers: Why Your “Cure” Probably Doesn’t WorkYou wake up thirsty. Then, almost immediately, you realize your head hurts. Your stomach feels unstable. The room is too bright. Your mouth tastes like regret and old wine corks. Furthermore, your intestines suddenly decided today is the day they become extremely efficient. In other words, you have a hangover. Now, hopefully, this is not a regular occurrence. Nevertheless, most adults eventually experience one. The evening starts innocently enough: good friends, great conversation, maybe a cocktail before dinner. Then, however, another bottle arrives. Someone orders dessert drinks. Suddenly, what seemed like sophisticated socializing turns into next-morning negotiations with your nervous system. And that raises the obvious question: What actually causes a hangover? More importantly, why do so many supposed “cures” fail so spectacularly? First, Alcohol Is Not Just “Dehydration”Many people think a hangover is simply dehydration. Certainly, dehydration matters. Alcohol suppresses vasopressin, the hormone that helps your kidneys conserve water. As a result, you urinate more frequently. Consequently, you lose fluid and electrolytes. However, dehydration is only part of the story. In fact, hangovers are far more complicated. Alcohol irritates the stomach lining. Additionally, it disrupts blood sugar regulation. Furthermore, it interferes with inflammatory pathways, sleep architecture, hormone signaling, and neurotransmitters involved in mood and alertness. So while dehydration contributes to the misery, it does not fully explain why you feel like a Victorian ghost haunting your own apartment. Moreover, alcohol affects sleep in a particularly cruel way. It helps many people fall asleep quickly. However, it fragments restorative sleep later in the night. Therefore, you may technically be unconscious for eight hours while still waking up exhausted. You passed out. You did not recover. Then There’s Acetaldehyde — But It’s Not the Whole StorySocial media wellness culture loves one word: Acetaldehyde. This is the toxic metabolite created when your liver breaks down alcohol. And yes, acetaldehyde contributes to flushing, nausea, headache, and inflammation. Nevertheless, modern marketing often exaggerates its role because it creates a simple story. “If acetaldehyde is bad, then a supplement that lowers acetaldehyde must solve hangovers.” Unfortunately, biology is rarely that convenient. Hangovers are not caused by one molecule acting alone. Instead, they are the result of multiple overlapping physiologic stresses happening simultaneously. In other words, there is no single “off switch.” And that is exactly where the supplement industry enters the picture. The Rise of the “Hangover Cure” IndustryOver the last several years, social media has become flooded with products promising recovery, detoxification, or “support” for drinking. For example: Cheers RestoreZBioticsMyrklH-PROOFDHM DetoxDose for Liver Furthermore, many of these products use similar language: “supports liver health,” “helps metabolize alcohol,” “promotes recovery,” or “supports detoxification.” Notice the wording carefully. Most companies avoid explicitly claiming to “cure” hangovers because proving that scientifically would require strong clinical evidence. And, unfortunately for marketing departments everywhere, that evidence largely does not exist. So Do These Products Work?The honest answer is: Probably not very well. Now, to be fair, some ingredients are biologically plausible. For instance, DHM — dihydromyricetin — has shown interesting effects in animal studies involving alcohol metabolism and GABA signaling. Likewise, some probiotics may influence acetaldehyde metabolism in the gut. Meanwhile, antioxidants and electrolytes may help support recovery in limited ways. However, plausible does not mean proven. That distinction matters enormously. Most studies on hangover products are: small, poorly standardized, company-funded, or focused on surrogate laboratory markers rather than meaningful real-world outcomes. Consequently, the evidence remains weak. And that is why most medical reviews conclude the same thing: there is no strong evidence that popular hangover cures reliably work as advertised. Meanwhile, IV Clinics Are Mostly Selling Expensive Salt WaterPerhaps nothing captures modern wellness culture better than the rise of the “hangover IV.” Now, certainly, IV fluids can help with dehydration. Additionally, anti-nausea medications may temporarily improve symptoms. Nevertheless, many hangover IV clinics market themselves almost like detox spas. And that language becomes misleading very quickly. Your liver already detoxifies alcohol. In fact, that is literally its job. Moreover, your liver clears alcohol at a relatively fixed rate. Therefore, no vitamin infusion dramatically speeds the process. So while IV hydration may help some symptoms, it does not reverse toxicology. It is mostly expensive supportive care with mood lighting. What Actually Helps?Unfortunately, the most effective hangover treatments are also the least exciting. First, hydration genuinely matters. Water, electrolyte drinks, broth, and even fruit juice can help restore fluid balance and blood sugar. Second, bland foods often help settle the stomach. For example: toast, rice, crackers, eggs, or soup. Interestingly, pho may actually be one of the better hangover foods because it combines fluids, sodium, carbohydrates, and easy digestion. Third, sleep matters enormously. Alcohol damages sleep quality. Therefore, recovery sleep becomes critical afterward. Meanwhile, pain relievers should be used carefully. Ibuprofen or aspirin may help with headaches. However, they can worsen stomach irritation. And acetaminophen deserves special caution. Alcohol stresses liver metabolism. Acetaminophen also relies heavily on liver pathways. Consequently, combining large amounts of alcohol with Tylenol can become dangerous. Some Supplements May Help a LittleNow this is where nuance matters. A few supplements do show modest signals in limited studies. For example: Prickly pear extract has shown some reduction in inflammatory hangover symptoms.Red ginseng has demonstrated modest improvement in some small trials.Siberian ginseng and combination antioxidant products have shown scattered positive findings. However, none of these products “cures” hangovers. Furthermore, the studies are small and inconsistent. Most importantly, they are not permission slips for binge drinking. The Part Nobody Likes HearingHere is the uncomfortable reality. Even intermittent heavy drinking may have long-term consequences. Many people believe occasional binge drinking is harmless because they are still functioning professionally and socially. However, alcohol remains neurotoxic. Repeated episodes of heavy alcohol exposure are associated with changes in cognition, mood regulation, sleep quality, memory, and brain structure over time. And importantly, aging reduces the brain’s ability to compensate for injury. Therefore, the “weekend warrior” approach to alcohol may not be as biologically benign as people hope. Meanwhile, our culture often treats alcohol very differently from other health risks. People obsess over processed foods, seed oils, artificial dyes, or gluten. Yet somehow, repeated alcohol poisoning became normalized in adulthood with appetizers. That contradiction is worth thinking about. So What Is the Best Prevention?Unfortunately, prevention is boring. And yet boring works. Drink less. Drink slower. Eat before drinking. Alternate alcohol with water. Avoid “catch-up drinking.” Prioritize sleep afterward. And, additionally, lower-congener drinks like vodka or gin may produce fewer hangover symptoms than whiskey, bourbon, or brandy. Not because they are healthy. Simply because they contain fewer additional fermentation compounds. Final ThoughtsUltimately, the science of hangovers is less glamorous than the internet wants it to be. There is no miracle cure. There is no magical probiotic that allows unlimited tequila without consequences. There is no gummy that outperforms biology. Instead, a hangover is your body responding to inflammation, dehydration, toxic exposure, disrupted sleep, and metabolic stress. In other words, it is not a vitamin deficiency. It is a receipt. Outside ReadingFor a good evidence-based overview of hangovers and the limited science behind hangover remedies, see the review from the Cleveland Clinic on hangover cures and the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA) overview of hangovers.

    15 min
  8. Why Food Became Engineered to Defeat You

    14 May

    Why Food Became Engineered to Defeat You

    The “Real Food” Protein BarThere may be no phrase in modern nutrition more ridiculous than this: “Real food protein bar.” And yet, somehow, we are expected to nod seriously when someone says it. Recently, internet nutrition personality Paul Saladino introduced what he described as his best “real food” protein bar. While I have nothing personal against the man. I admire the confidence required to sell twelve protein bars for forty-four dollars while talking about ancestral living. Because let’s be honest for a moment. Protein bars are the modern candy bar. They simply come wrapped in better branding, cleaner fonts, and enough wellness language to make people feel virtuous while eating what is essentially an expensive Snickers bar with a podcast sponsorship. Now, before the internet declares me anti-protein-bar, let me clarify something immediately. I actually like Aloha bars. They’re expensive, but they say the right words to me. More importantly, they taste better than most compressed drywall products pretending to be nutritious. At the same time, real life exists, and sometimes convenience matters because airports happen, traffic happens, and long clinic days happen. Still, pretending industrial engineering somehow untouches these foods is a bit like pretending woodland elves handcrafted a Tesla. Breakfast Used to Be a Moral LectureTo understand how we got here, we need cereal, because cereal tells the entire story of modern food in one aisle. The first cereals in America were essentially granolas—dense grain mixtures that required chewing, preparation, and a bit of commitment. While nobody was exactly dreaming about them at night, they solved an important problem because they stored well, traveled well, and provided calories in an expanding industrial society. Then along came John Harvey Kellogg. Now, Kellogg was brilliant, strange, deeply moralistic, and profoundly suspicious of pleasure. He believed rich foods, spicy foods, meat, and almost anything enjoyable stimulated dangerous passions, and among those passions, he was particularly terrified of masturbation, which he viewed as one of the great threats to civilization. So his answer was blandness. Very blandness. Little sugar. Little excitement. Little stimulation. The original breakfast cereal movement was not designed around pleasure. Instead, it was designed around suppression. In many ways, those cereals were crunchy moral discipline. Then the Cereal Aisle Became Las VegasFast forward a hundred years, and the cereal aisle becomes the exact opposite of Kellogg’s vision. Sugar increases dramatically. Crunch becomes engineered. Colors explode across the box. Mascots arrive to recruit children before they can read. Eventually, breakfast stops being a health intervention and slowly transforms into dessert with vitamins sprinkled on top. And importantly, none of this happened because someone woke up wanting to destroy public health. That’s the part people often misunderstand. Food Engineering Solved Real ProblemsBefore obesity became the dominant nutritional problem, the real challenge facing humanity was hunger. For most of history, people worried about: starvationfood spoilagecrop failurestransportationand simple calorie availability Modern food engineering changed that reality. Shelf-stable foods mattered. Affordable calories mattered. Transportation mattered. Refrigeration mattered. And honestly, millions upon millions of lives have been improved because of those advances. It is very easy for people with stocked refrigerators and grocery delivery apps to romanticize the past, but the past involved a tremendous amount of malnutrition, uncertainty, and hunger. So modern food systems were not evil. They were revolutionary. The Problem ChangedHowever, in solving one problem, we slowly created another. Because once calories became: cheapportablestableand endlessly available …the challenge was no longer finding enough food. The challenge became stopping. And this is where modern biology collides with the modern grocery aisle. Our brains evolved in environments where calorie-dense food was rare and valuable. Suddenly, within just a few generations, we found ourselves surrounded by foods engineered to be affordable, repeatable, and highly rewarding. That mismatch matters. Extrusion Changed EverythingMost people have never heard the word extrusion, even though it may be one of the most important food technologies in modern life. The process is simple. Take starches, grains, or protein powders. Apply heat and pressure. Force them through machinery. Suddenly, you have: cerealcrackerscheese puffsprotein snacksbreakfast bars And here is the important part: extrusion changes texture, and texture changes satiety. When food crunches perfectly, dissolves quickly, and slides down effortlessly, people consume more of it before fullness has time to register. That is not a conspiracy. It is simply biology interacting with engineering. The Grocery Store Became Natural SelectionFood companies did not necessarily set out to create hyper-palatable foods. Instead, they followed what sold. And what sold was what people returned to again and again. So over time, the grocery aisle became a form of natural selection. Products survived because they triggered pleasure effectively. Foods that didn’t simply disappear. And I will confidently say something controversial: Reese's sells better than Brussels sprouts. I will die on that hill. Now, yes, Brussels sprouts can be delicious roasted with olive oil and balsamic, and somewhere at this exact moment, a chef in Brooklyn is shaving them raw onto handmade pottery while explaining their emotional complexity. Still, Reese’s triggers something primal. Sweetness. Fat. Salt. Texture. And your brain immediately says: “Yes. More of that.” Food Is EmotionalFood is not just chemistry. Food is memory. It is also culture. What we eat is comfort. For some people, comfort food is a tamale. For others, it’s lefse. Meanwhile, many people find that comfort in peanut butter cups or a Dove Bar. The grocery aisle evolved around those emotional realities much faster than human biology evolved to manage them. And that matters, because modern eating is not simply about willpower. It is about environment. Cooking Changes the ExperienceNow compare all that to actual cooking. Not content-creator cooking. Real cooking. A stew simmering slowly. A roast chicken filling the kitchen with aroma. A tagine building layers of flavor from preserved lemon, apricots, and warm Moroccan spices. That kind of food slows you down. You smell it before you eat it. You notice texture. You experience layers of flavor. And interestingly enough, you often need less of it to feel satisfied. That is one of the great ironies of modern eating. As food became more engineered for efficiency, it often became less satisfying experientially. The Wellness FantasyThere is another uncomfortable reality that nobody on wellness Instagram likes to admit. In order to feed a hungry planet, we cannot all live on pasture-raised beef, farm-fresh eggs gathered from cheerful backyard chickens, and organic kale harvested by a local poet-farmer wearing linen. That is not a food system. That is a lifestyle catalog. The modern world has eight billion people. Food has to: travelsurvive droughtssurvive warssurvive supply chain failuresand feed cities that no longer produce their own calories Engineered foods are not going away. Nor should they. Yes, Even on MarsWhen human beings eventually colonize Mars, we are not putting cattle on the rocket ship. Nobody is building a space ranch outside Olympus Mons. Likewise, we are not stocking the moons of Jupiter with artisanal grass-fed herds wandering peacefully beneath methane clouds. Instead, we will use engineered foods and lab-grown proteins, because they will be: efficientreproducibleresource-consciousand eventually taste just as good That future is not dystopian. It is practical. The Real Challenge NowThe challenge facing us today is very different from the challenge facing humanity a century ago. We no longer live in a world where most people fear starvation. Instead, we live in a world where many people are simultaneously overfed and undernourished. Calories are abundant. Satiety is not. And that is where medications like GLP-1 are helping many people—including

    13 min

Trailer

Ratings & Reviews

5
out of 5
3 Ratings

About

Fork U(niversity) Not everything you put in your mouth is good for you. There’s a lot of medical information thrown around out there. How are you to know what information you can trust, and what’s just plain old quackery? You can’t rely on your own “google fu”. You can’t count on quality medical advice from Facebook. You need a doctor in your corner. On each episode of Your Doctor’s Orders, Dr. Terry Simpson will cut through the clutter and noise that always seems to follow the latest medical news. He has the unique perspective of a surgeon who has spent years doing molecular virology research and as a skeptic with academic credentials. He’ll help you develop the critical thinking skills so you can recognize evidence-based medicine, busting myths along the way. The most common medical myths are often disguised as seemingly harmless “food as medicine”. By offering their own brand of medicine via foods, These hucksters are trying to practice medicine without a license. And though they’ll claim “nutrition is not taught in medical schools”, it turns out that’s a myth too. In fact, there’s an entire medical subspecialty called Culinary Medicine, and Dr. Simpson is certified as a Culinary Medicine Specialist. Where today's nutritional advice is the realm of hucksters, Dr. Simpson is taking it back to the realm of science.

You Might Also Like