Fork U with Dr. Terry Simpson

Terry Simpson
  • 4.8 (104)
  • MEDICINE
  • UPDATED WEEKLY

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. Mexican Food Is Healthy. The Taco Took the Blame.

    19H AGO

    Mexican Food Is Healthy. The Taco Took the Blame.

    Why Traditional Mexican Food Is Healthy — and How America Got It WrongEvery time someone says Mexican food is unhealthy, I know exactly what they’re picturing. They aren’t picturing Mexico. They’re picturing an American taco: a hard shell or a fluffy white flour tortilla, fatty hamburger, sour cream, a thin smear of salsa that contributes almost nothing except salt, and a yellow substance legally allowed to be called cheese. After eating that, they naturally conclude Mexican food is the problem. That conclusion doesn’t come from biology. It comes from branding. Traditional Mexican food looks nothing like that. More importantly, it behaves nothing like that once it hits your body. So let’s slow down, take a breath, and do what we always do here—follow the evidence, not the vibes. First, Let’s Talk About the Taco America Put on TrialThe American taco stacks the deck against itself. It leads with saturated fat, piles on refined carbohydrates, and adds dairy on top of dairy. Meanwhile, it offers almost no fermentable fiber. The gut gets nothing to work with. Blood sugar spikes. Inflammation follows. That taco doesn’t help anyone. But here’s the key point: it isn’t Mexican food. It’s ultra-processed American convenience food wearing cultural drag. Now Let’s Look at a Real TacoBy contrast, a traditional taco starts very differently. It starts with a corn tortilla, not refined flour. Then it adds beans. After that, it layers vegetables, real salsa, and often cabbage. Finally, it finishes with avocado. Sometimes it includes fish. Sometimes it doesn’t. Either way, the structure holds. And structure matters. Because when you look at how that meal behaves biologically, it stops looking indulgent and starts looking smart. Corn Tortillas Aren’t the Villain — They’re the FoundationFirst of all, traditional corn tortillas come from nixtamalized corn. That process treats corn with lime, and no, that isn’t trivia. Instead, nixtamalization improves mineral absorption, improves protein quality, and preserves resistant starch. As a result, resistant starch passes through the small intestine untouched. Then it reaches the colon, where gut bacteria ferment it. Consequently, those bacteria produce short-chain fatty acids, especially butyrate. And here’s the important part: butyrate fuels the cells lining your colon. In addition it strengthens the gut barrier. It reduces inflammation. Finally, it improves metabolic signaling. So no, this isn’t a carb disaster. On the contrary, it’s colon nutrition. Beans Do the Heavy Lifting — And They Always HaveNext, add beans. At that point, the conversation usually derails, so let’s keep it grounded. A serving of beans delivers roughly ten grams of fiber. Not one kind — several kinds. Soluble fiber. Insoluble fiber. Resistant starch. Plus protein. Because of that, beans slow digestion. They flatten glucose curves. They improve satiety. Most importantly, they feed gut bacteria that matter. Specifically, bean fiber supports Akkermansia, a gut bacterium associated with better insulin sensitivity and a stronger gut barrier. In other words, beans don’t fill space. Instead, they build infrastructure. And yes, when you pair beans with rice, you get a complete amino acid profile. Humans figured that out centuries ago, long before protein powders and “ancestral” snack companies tried to monetize it. Now Let’s Deal With Refried Beans — Because This Is Where People PanicAt this point, someone

    10 min
  2. Keep Your Poop in a Group

    FEB 5

    Keep Your Poop in a Group

    Why Fiber Fails to Impress—and Why That’s the PointFiber has a public relations problem. Unlike supplements or extreme diets, fiber does not promise instant transformation. Instead, it works slowly, predictably, and quietly. Because of that, people rarely notice it when it’s doing its job well. However, that very boredom is precisely why fiber matters. When fiber intake is adequate, digestion functions normally, blood sugar behaves more consistently, and bowel habits stay predictable. As a result, there is no drama to post on social media. Consequently, influencers move on. Meanwhile, the science stays exactly where it has been for decades: fiber lowers disease risk over time. That kind of quiet effectiveness may not sell products, but it saves lives. “Fiber Isn’t Essential”—Why That Argument Misses the MarkTechnically speaking, fiber is not an essential nutrient in the classic sense. In other words, there is no disease caused solely by a lack of fiber the way scurvy results from vitamin C deficiency. Because of this, critics often stop the conversation there. However, medicine does not ask only whether you survive. Instead, it asks whether your risk of chronic disease rises or falls over time. On that front, fiber consistently lowers the risk of colon cancer, improves glucose regulation, reduces constipation, and supports cardiovascular health. Therefore, while you can live without fiber, you do not age particularly well without it. Protein Gets the Spotlight While Fiber Does the WorkAt the same time, nutrition conversations fixate on protein. Protein goals dominate podcasts, social media, and supplement aisles. Yet, in practice, true protein deficiency in the United States is rare, even among bariatric surgery patients. In contrast, fiber deficiency is the norm. Roughly 92% of Americans fail to meet recommended fiber intake. As a result, constipation becomes common, long bathroom visits feel normal, and scrolling on a phone in the bathroom gets rebranded as “self-care.” Unfortunately, that normalization hides a real problem. A Personal Lesson From Oats, Gas, and a Scorched DeskYears ago, I learned a fiber lesson the hard way. After deciding to increase my fiber intake quickly, I started eating steel-cut oats every morning during a busy meeting week. At first, everything seemed fine. Soon, however, my digestive system made it clear that it had not been consulted in this decision. By the second day, bloating appeared. By the third day, office etiquette became questionable. Consequently, I lit a candle at my desk. Unfortunately, I turned my back, and papers caught fire. Although the flames were extinguished quickly, the scorch mark stayed for years. That stain served as a reminder: fiber works best when introduced gradually. Your gut adapts over time. Confidence without patience, on the other hand, leads to unnecessary consequences. Not All Fiber Works the Same WayUnderstanding fiber helps people stop fearing it. Soluble fiber, found in oats, barley, beans, lentils, psyllium, apples, and citrus, forms a gel in the gut. Because of this, it slows absorption, reduces glucose spikes, and lowers LDL cholesterol. Consequently, psyllium appears in clinical guidelines rather than influencer protocols. Meanwhile, insoluble fiber focuses on mechanics. It adds bulk, speeds transit, and improves regularity. Importantly, this matters even more for people using GLP-1 medications, where slowed digestion often leads to constipation. In that setting, fiber is not optional—it is foundational. Finally, fermentable fiber feeds gut bacteria. Beans, onions, garlic, asparagus, chicory root, and resistant starch nourish...

    12 min
  3. How GLP-1 Quiets Food Noise

    JAN 29

    How GLP-1 Quiets Food Noise

    Food Noise Isn’t Hunger — and Why Broccoli Never Fixed the BrainFood noise does not announce itself politely. Instead, it hums in the background, persistent and exhausting. For years, patients tried to describe it. Meanwhile, medicine largely ignored it. Recently, however, GLP-1 receptor agonists forced the conversation into the open. I did not understand food noise myself until it stopped. About twelve hours after my first GLP-1 injection, I stood in my kitchen waiting for baked salmon to finish cooking. Nothing dramatic happened. No emotional moment followed. Still, something felt different. The internal commentary was gone. The negotiations disappeared. For the first time, my brain felt quiet. At that moment, I finally understood what patients had been telling me for years. First, Define the Problem ClearlyFood noise is not hunger. Hunger serves a biological purpose. In contrast, food noise describes persistent, intrusive thoughts about food that occur regardless of energy needs. People experience rumination, preoccupation, cravings, and mental fatigue—even when they are physiologically full. Importantly, this phenomenon is now measurable. The Food Noise Questionnaire validates what patients already knew. Specifically, it assesses the frequency of food thoughts, difficulty controlling them, interference with daily activities, emotional distress, and craving intensity. In other words, food noise exists independently of willpower. Consequently, advice that targets hunger alone inevitably fails. Next, Address the Broccoli MythI eat vegetables. Nevertheless, I have never liked broccoli. Frankly, if broccoli is air-fried to the edge of carbonization, I will tolerate it. That concession, however, does not transform broccoli into a neurological intervention. Fiber increases fullness. Protein improves satiety. Vegetables slow digestion. None of those actions quiet the reward centers of the brain. Put simply, broccoli fills the stomach. Food noise lives elsewhere. Because of that distinction, the “just eat for satiety” argument collapses under scrutiny. Then, Follow the Science Where It LeadsFood noise arises from heightened food-cue reactivity. Visual cues, smells, availability, and anticipation activate reward pathways long before food reaches the stomach. Ultra-processed foods amplify this response. Their engineered combinations of refined carbohydrates, fats, salt, and flavor compounds reliably stimulate the mesolimbic dopamine system. As a result, ultra-processed foods increase wanting rather than liking. However—and this matters deeply—removing ultra-processed foods does not automatically restore normal appetite signaling. Once reward circuitry becomes dysregulated, dietary virtue alone cannot reset it. At that stage, telling someone to “just eat whole foods” resembles telling someone with tinnitus to “enjoy the silence.” Therefore, ultra-processed foods contribute to the problem, but they do not explain it entirely. Now, Enter GLP-1 Receptor AgonistsGLP-1 receptor agonists act centrally and peripherally. While many people fixate on gastric emptying, the central mechanisms explain the lived experience. In the hypothalamus, GLP-1 receptor agonists activate satiety-promoting POMC/CART neurons while inhibiting hunger-promoting NPY/AgRP neurons. This dual action reduces homeostatic hunger. Meanwhile, in the brainstem—particularly the nucleus tractus solitarius—GLP-1 signaling integrates gut-brain communication and sustains appetite suppression. More importantly, GLP-1 receptor agonists modulate reward circuitry. In regions such as the ventral tegmental area and nucleus accumbens, these agents dampen dopamine signaling. Consequently, food becomes less...

    9 min
  4. Whole Milk Isn’t the Fix—Feeding Kids Is

    JAN 22

    Whole Milk Isn’t the Fix—Feeding Kids Is

    Whole Milk Is Back in SchoolsBut Hungry Kids Are Still the Real ProblemWhole milk is back in school cafeterias. As a result, a lot of people are celebrating. Some are calling it a victory for nutrition. Others are calling it common sense. Meanwhile, a few are even calling it a breakthrough. However, that excitement misses the point. Because the biggest problem facing kids in school today is not milk fat. Instead, the real problem is hunger. First, Let’s Start With the ObviousBefore we talk about milk, fat, or nutrients, we need to start with something very basic. Hungry kids do not learn well. In fact, hunger affects attention, memory, and behavior. As a result, students who do not eat enough struggle to focus. Over time, that struggle shows up as lower academic performance. Because of that, no change to milk will ever fix an empty stomach. Therefore, if we want better outcomes, we have to start with food access. Next, What Actually Changed With MilkDespite what many people believe, whole milk was not removed from schools in the past. Instead, schools continued to offer low-fat and fat-free milk. Importantly, those options provided the same essential nutrients: proteincalciumpotassiumiodinevitamin B12 In addition, vitamin D was added through fortification, regardless of milk fat level. So, children did not lose vital nutrients. What they lost was milk fat. Now, Why Milk Fat Is Not EssentialMilk fat is made mostly of saturated fat. That matters because saturated fat is not an essential dietary nutrient. If the human body needs saturated fat, it can make it on its own. In other words, there is no requirement to eat it for normal growth or brain development. As a result, adding more saturated fat to a child’s diet is not necessary. Then, Let’s Talk About the BrainHere is where biology matters. The brain is built largely from polyunsaturated fats, not saturated fats. These polyunsaturated fats keep cell membranes flexible. Because of that flexibility, brain cells can signal, adapt, and learn. In contrast, saturated fat is rigid. It plays only a small structural role in membranes. If membranes contained too much saturated fat, they would become stiff. When that happens, signaling does not work well. For that reason, biology uses saturated fat sparingly. Therefore, less saturated fat in the diet of growing children is actually better for long-term brain and cardiovascular health. Meanwhile, What Kids Are Really MissingIf there is one nutrient that most children lack, it is fiber. Fiber supports gut health. In addition, it improves insulin sensitivity. Over time, it also reduces cardiovascular risk. Milk fat does none of those things. So, if nutrition is the concern, fiber deserves more attention than nostalgia for saturated fat. At the Same Time, Food Access Is ShrinkingWhile milk is being discussed, something else is happening quietly. Food assistance programs are being reduced. That matters because programs like SNAP do more than help families buy groceries. They also help children qualify for free school meals. When eligibility is reduced, fewer children qualify. As a result, schools receive less funding for lunch programs....

    10 min
  5. Food Pyramid Blues: Influencers are not Scientists

    JAN 15

    Food Pyramid Blues: Influencers are not Scientists

    When Influencers Replace Scientists, Everyone LosesEvery few years, nutrition gets a makeover. First comes a new graphic. Then comes a new slogan. Soon after, we hear claims that this time, someone finally figured it all out. Recently, that makeover arrived in the form of a “reverse food pyramid” and the cheerful phrase “Eat Real Food.” On the surface, that message sounds reasonable. In fact, many doctors have said the same thing for decades. However, the real problem isn’t the slogan. Instead, the problem lies in who is now shaping nutrition advice—and who is not. Yes, Some of the Advice Is RightTo be clear, let’s start with agreement. Eating real food helps health. Limiting added sugar makes sense. Reducing ultra-processed foods improves outcomes. Importantly, none of this is new. Doctors, dietitians, and public-health researchers have said these things for years. Because of that, when influencers now say, “See, we were right,” a serious issue appears. They didn’t discover this information. They copied it. The Real Risk Isn’t AgreementAt first glance, agreement sounds harmless. Nevertheless, agreement becomes dangerous when it turns into ownership. Once someone believes they have discovered basic nutrition truths, they often assume they can rewrite everything else. As a result, bad ideas slip in quietly, wrapped in confidence instead of evidence. That shift matters. Scientists and Influencers Are Not InterchangeableAt this point, we need to say something clearly. We cannot afford to replace scientists with influencers. Nutrition science didn’t come from podcasts or social media. Instead, it came from metabolic ward studies, long-term population research, and randomized trials. Moreover, real scientists accept uncertainty. They change their minds when the data changes. By contrast, influencer culture rewards certainty. Even worse, confidence often replaces humility. There is no “Mediterranean diet influencer community.” Likewise, there is no “DASH diet movement.” Those dietary patterns exist because scientists studied them, tested them, and measured outcomes over time. On the other hand, a loud low-carb and carnivore influencer ecosystem does exist. That ecosystem includes brands, supplements, coaching programs, and a strong contrarian identity. Because of that structure, influence—not evidence—often drives the message. Fiber Versus Saturated Fat: A Telltale SignIf you want to know whether someone understands nutrition science, ask a simple question: Which matters more—fiber or saturated fat? Influencers often say, “Fiber isn’t an essential nutrient.” Technically, that statement is true in the narrowest sense. However, context matters. Fiber supports a healthy gut microbiome. Additionally, fiber improves insulin sensitivity. Furthermore, fiber lowers cardiovascular risk. Finally, fiber supports colon health. Because fiber feeds beneficial gut bacteria, entire fields of microbiome research depend on it. Now compare that with saturated fat. Saturated fat is truly non-essential. Your body can make all it needs. No deficiency disease exists from avoiding it. Even more importantly, excess saturated fat raises LDL cholesterol and worsens artery health. Over time, that increases cardiovascular risk. So ask yourself this: Why dismiss fiber as optional while quietly promoting saturated fat? That choice reflects ideology, not biology. The Brain...

    8 min
  6. Ultra-Processed Food The Enemy

    JAN 8

    Ultra-Processed Food The Enemy

    Ultra-Processed Food: Making Sense of the MadnessUltra-processed food has become the villain of modern nutrition. Scroll through social media, and you’ll hear that it’s poisoning us, wrecking our gut, and driving the obesity epidemic all by itself. At the same time, other voices dismiss the entire idea as fear-mongering. According to them, processing doesn’t matter at all. Neither extreme tells the full story. So instead of slogans, let’s talk about what ultra-processed food actually means, why people want to blame it, where the science is strong, and where it starts to drift into storytelling. Why We’re Looking for Something to BlameThe obesity epidemic is real. Rates have climbed for decades, and people understandably want answers. Human biology didn’t suddenly change in the 1980s. Willpower didn’t vanish overnight. Something in our environment shifted. Food is an obvious suspect. Because food changed, many people assume there must be a single culprit hiding in the ingredient list. That belief leads to bold claims. Some say Europe bans certain additives and therefore avoids obesity. In reality, obesity rates continue to rise across Europe as well. Others argue that specific ingredients damage the gut, letting in more calories or triggering metabolic chaos. Those ideas sound scientific, especially when they involve complex biology. However, when a problem is large and complicated, humans naturally want a cause that feels simple and controllable. Blaming one ingredient feels easier than confronting patterns of eating, stress, time pressure, and convenience. Biology, unfortunately, rarely offers cinematic villains. What “Ultra-Processed” Actually MeansTo understand the debate, definitions matter. Researchers use the NOVA classification system to describe food processing. NOVA does not rate healthfulness. Instead, it categorizes food by how manufacturers produce it. The system includes four groups. First come whole or minimally processed foods, such as vegetables, beans, eggs, and fish. Next are culinary ingredients like oil, sugar, salt, and flour. Then come processed foods, including bread, cheese, yogurt, and canned vegetables. Finally, NOVA defines ultra-processed foods as industrial formulations. These products often combine refined ingredients with additives, stabilizers, emulsifiers, and flavor systems that home cooks rarely use. Here’s the crucial point. Ultra-processed food is defined by how it is made, not by what it does in the body. That distinction often gets lost. As a result, soda and whole-grain bread can fall into the same category, even though they behave very differently nutritionally. Why Ingredient Blame Falls ShortAt this point, many discussions take a wrong turn. Instead of asking how people eat, the conversation focuses on what to ban. Ingredients become the enemy. Yet most claims about additives rely on animal studies using doses far higher than what humans consume. Human data remains limited and inconsistent. Meanwhile, the bigger picture often gets ignored. Ultra-processed food correlates with stress, long work hours, poor sleep, and limited time for cooking. Those factors influence eating behavior regardless of ingredients. When people feel rushed and overwhelmed, they don’t just eat differently. They eat faster, snack more often, and rely on foods that require little effort. That context matters. The Simple Question That Changed the ConversationInstead of chasing villains, one researcher asked a much simpler question. Do people eat more when food is ultra-processed, even...

    10 min
  7. Willpower Is B.S.: A Surgeon on Zepbound

    JAN 1

    Willpower Is B.S.: A Surgeon on Zepbound

    Willpower Is B.S.: Food Noise, Healthspan, and What Actually Changed My LifeFor decades, I started every New Year the same way. In January, I promised myself this would be the year. By February, I tried harder. Every spring, I adjusted the plan. And by summer or fall, the weight crept back. That cycle repeated not because I lacked knowledge, discipline, or effort. Instead, it repeated because I misunderstood biology — at least when it came to myself. This year is different. For the first time since Ronald Reagan was first elected, weight loss is not at the top of my New Year’s resolution list. Not because I stopped caring, but because I lost 45 pounds with the help of Zepbound over the last year. More importantly, however, I learned something that reshaped how I think about obesity, healthspan, and shame. Before anything else, let me be clear: this is not medical advice. This is a story. Anecdotes are not evidence, even when the anecdote is from a physician. Nevertheless, stories help us understand science when data alone fails to move us. And this story matters. I Had Willpower. That Wasn’t the Problem.For years, people told me — and millions of others — the same thing: move more and eat less. At first glance, that advice sounds logical. After all, calories matter. Energy balance matters. However, reality is more complicated. To begin with, I am a surgeon. Surgical training requires extraordinary willpower. Moreover, I’ve logged food meticulously, cooked Mediterranean-style meals, exercised consistently, and followed every evidence-based recommendation I’ve ever given patients. Meanwhile, Oprah has willpower. Olympic athletes have willpower. Yet obesity persists. Sure, willpower works briefly. In fact, go on a liquid protein diet, and the weight will fall off quickly. Unfortunately, the food noise remains. Eventually, biology wins. Always. In the same way you cannot positive-think your way out of hypertension, cholesterol, diabetes, cancer, or heart disease, you cannot willpower your way out of obesity. Obesity is a disease. It is not a moral failure. Ironically, I knew this intellectually. Nevertheless, I failed to apply it to myself. We have a name for that: cognitive dissonance. Food Noise Was the Missing ConceptThe real turning point did not come from reading another study. Instead, it came from listening to people I trusted. One colleague quietly lost weight on a GLP-1. Another friend told me something more striking: the food noise stopped. Alcohol lost its appeal. Smoking no longer called. That phrase — food noise — suddenly explained decades of struggle. To illustrate, think of sleeping near Lake Shore Drive in Chicago. At first, traffic noise dominates your awareness. Eventually, it fades into the background. Only when you leave the city do you realize how loud it was. Food noise works the same way. When GLP-1 therapy quieted that background signal, eating slowed naturally. Meals ended without effort. Desire changed without rules. Biology shifted. Notably, calories did not lower my stress. Calories did not improve my sleep. Calories did not stop snoring. Biology did. The Unexpected Early BenefitsInterestingly, weight loss was not the first change I noticed. Sleep improved almost immediately. Stress dropped dramatically. Commutes that once registered hours of physiologic stress now barely registered minutes. Appetite normalized. Eating slowed. These changes matter because sleep and stress directly affect inflammation, metabolic health, appetite signaling, and long-term disease risk. In other words, healthspan improved before the scale reflected anything meaningful. That...

    18 min
  8. Is Whoop Predicting My Death?

    12/25/2025

    Is Whoop Predicting My Death?

    Is Your Watch Predicting Your Death?What Biologic Age Really Means — and What It Doesn’tMy Whoop tells me I’m eight years older than I actually am. Naturally, that raises a question. Does that mean I’m going to die eight years sooner? Is my watch quietly chiseling a new date onto my tombstone? Fortunately, the answer is no. Still, confusion around biologic age has exploded. Wearables promise insight. Apps offer scores. Some even whisper about your future health, as if destiny lives on your wrist. So let’s slow this down and talk about what biologic age really is — and why it matters far less than you think. The Two Numbers and the DashEvery tombstone has two numbers. One marks when you were born. The other marks when you died. However, the most important part isn’t either number. It’s the dash in between. That dash represents your life. It reflects your health, mobility, independence, and curiosity. When we talk about longevity, we shouldn’t obsess over the second number. Instead, we should focus on making those two numbers far apart — and keeping the dash strong for as long as possible. That’s healthspan. Why Biologic Age Sounds Scarier Than It IsBiologic age is not a prophecy. It isn’t a death clock. It doesn’t predict how long you’ll live. Instead, biologic age is a model. It estimates how your body is functioning right now based on things like: resting heart rateheart-rate variabilitysleep duration and consistencyactivity and recovery patternssometimes weight or blood pressure Different devices use different inputs. As a result, they often give different answers. In other words, biologic age reflects recent stress and behavior, not your destiny. Think of it as feedback — not fate. Why Your Watch Isn’t Measuring “Real” AgingEarlier in the Fork U longevity series, we talked about telomeres. Those shorten slowly over decades, one cell division at a time. Your wearable isn’t tracking that. Instead, devices like Whoop measure physiology, not DNA. They detect how hard you’ve been living lately, not how much time you have left. A bad week of sleep, travel, stress, or alcohol can push your biologic age higher. A calm, consistent routine can bring it back down. That’s not aging. That’s load management. A Simple Experiment That Tells the Whole StoryHere’s a trick I tried. I told Whoop I was younger than I actually am. Guess what happened? Suddenly, my biological age dropped below my real age. That alone tells you everything. Whoop isn’t predicting where you’re going. It’s comparing how you’re doing relative to the age you told it you are. Once again, that’s feedback — not destiny. Why I Prefer WithingsI use multiple devices because, frankly, I’m a nerd. However, I tend to prefer Withings for one simple reason. They don’t try to scare you. Instead of telling you how old you “really” are, Withings focuses on things that actually improve your life today: blood pressure trendsbody weight and compositionheart rhythmsleep durationlong-term consistency More importantly, they ask better questions. Are you sleeping better? Is your blood pressure improving? Are your habits trending in the right direction? That’s medicine. Not numerology. And no — Withings didn’t pay me to say that. The Biggest Mistake People...

    10 min
See All (118)

Trailer

4.8
out of 5
104 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.

Information

  • Creator
    Terry Simpson
  • Years Active
    2018 - 2026
  • Episodes
    118
  • Rating
    Clean
  • Copyright
    © Copyright 2026 Terry Simpson
  • Show Website
    Fork U with Dr. Terry Simpson

You Might Also Like