Busting Fitness Myths, Best Supplements and Setting World Records | Layne Norton DSH #273

I don't want to skip over like if there are any concerns like I would say there is some data suggesting that they may alter some of the artificial sweeteners may alter the gut microbiome.

But what's important to point out is we don't really know enough about the gut microbiome to know whether that change is a good change, bad change, or neutral change.

I'm saying when faced with a choice of diet versus regular, diet's definitely better.

Wherever you guys are watching this show, I would truly appreciate it if you follow or subscribe.

It helps a lot with the algorithm.

It helps us get bigger and better guests, and it helps us grow the team.

Truly means a lot.

Thank you guys for supporting, and here's the episode.

Ladies and gentlemen, we got Dr.

Lane Norton here today.

How's it going, man?

I'm good.

How about yourself?

Good, man.

Any new and exciting studies in your space going on right now?

I mean, there's a lot of stuff coming out.

It just depends on the, I just put up a post about...

Training volume, like number of, you know, sets per week.

A lot of what's been really

looked at in the the resistance training side of things is like, okay, what is, can we figure out like how many sets you should be doing per week per body part to like maximize muscle growth?

And without getting too detailed into the new studies, there's basically we haven't found the cap yet.

Okay.

That you know, it's important to realize this isn't like a linear effect, but you know, if you do a couple hard sets per week, I mean, you're getting quite a bit of a response.

But we also, even up to like 52 sets per week in a recent study of like hard training for a body part

they still saw better results than like 40 sets wow so anyway it's kind of interesting that

you know we're usually in most things we see kind of a cap-out response

but it doesn't appear we found that dosage with resistance training yet interesting so theoretically you could be in the gym for two hours and still get the same benefits oh I mean when I was when I was prepping for

I compete in powerlifting yeah and I qualified for open worlds in 2015.

And I set a world squat record at that meet.

But when I was prepping for that, I was training for three, four hours at a time.

Damn.

Yeah.

You were squatting for three hours?

Squatting, bench pressing, deadlifting.

Yeah.

I mean,

I had some pretty brutal sessions that took my soul.

What's the most you ever squatted?

Most ever squatted in competition was 668 pounds

in the 205-pound class.

Dude, squatting scares me because it's easy to have the wrong form.

Yeah, I mean, it's, and I'm actually somebody somebody who, like, I have pretty long legs by nature.

So my, my upper body's about somebody who's 5'8 ⁇ , and my legs are about somebody who's 6'2 ⁇ .

Oh, yeah.

So I think that's.

Is that a good thing?

What's that?

Is that a good thing in squatting to have that?

No, no.

Typically, you want to be a little bit longer, torso, shorter.

It's really the femur length that makes the difference.

So I actually have quite a bit of forward lean, but I squat.

And

I don't know, what can I say?

I'm just hard-headed.

Yeah.

I had skinny legs growing up, and I was, I, I took that, and people making fun of me for having chicken legs And was like, Well, I guess I'll go show you.

You know, yeah.

How common are injuries in that weightlifting space?

It must be happening a lot, right?

Um,

I mean, it depends on what you compare it to.

So, if you compare like per hours of activity performed, weightlifting is much lower than most sports that are out there.

It has similar injuries to non-contact sports.

Um, track and field has a similar injury rate there.

Um, so it is common, especially amongst like lifters who are higher level, because

once you get to a certain level, and this goes for any sport, what it takes to make progress versus what will possibly injure you because you're not recovered enough is really close together.

And that's why you see so many pro athletes struggle with injuries.

And even the guys who aren't on the DL,

they're usually dealing with quite a few aches and pains.

Like it's, it is a very, very

brutal experience being a professional athlete.

And very rarely do you find guys who are like feeling good, you know, most of the year.

It's just not how it works.

Yeah.

So, health-wise, what are you keeping a really close eye on?

Is it your testosterone levels, any certain vitamins you want at a good level?

You know, I mean, like for myself, you know, I keep an eye on my blood lipids, my insulin sensitivity, sex hormones, you know, testosterone, those sorts of things.

But inflammation.

And based on my last blood draw, I was in good shape.

Nice.

how do you measure the inflammation?

So you're looking at something called typically CRP,

which is C-reactive protein.

That's typically the most common measure for inflammation.

And there's also other things like IL-6.

There's quite a few markers.

Shout out to the Science Scaling Podcast hosted by Mark Roberge.

It's brought to you by the HubSpot Podcast Network, the audio destination for business professionals.

Each week, Mark, founding CRO at HubSpot CRO and senior lecturer at Harvard Business School, interviews some of the most successful sales leaders in tech to learn the secrets, strategies, and tactics to scaling company growth.

He recently had on the head of sales from Open AI, and that was a very interesting episode on the future of AI.

Listen to the science of scaling wherever you get your podcast today.

A few markers, but I think CRP is the most common.

Interesting.

I remember when I posted that video about diet soda, you got pretty pissed.

Well, not pissed.

Not pissed.

So I think that there's a lot of,

if you don't understand the scientific literature, if somebody's not like had the training to peel through it, it's very easy to take pieces of studies or even whole studies and make an opinion.

And I'll give you an example why it's important to understand

like literature as a consensus.

and have an idea of what the overall literature states as well as the differences between studies.

And artificial sweeteners are a great, great example of that.

So I can remember very clearly years ago, I was reading what's called a meta-analysis of smoking and adenocarcinoma.

Now, a meta-analysis is basically a study of studies.

So they take studies that have similar methods

and they combine them to try to form kind of an overall effect.

Like what are the, because you can always find a couple studies that are different.

And

in this meta-analysis, I think there was about 50 studies included.

And they do what's called a forest plot, which is basically you have a center line.

If the studies fall to, how far they fall to the right, it favors one thing.

How far they fall to the left favors another thing.

So on the right was basically in this study showing that smoking was a risk factor for adenocarcinoma.

And the overall effect was like a 700%

increased risk, right?

But of those 40, of those 50 studies, you could find two that were to the other side of the line.

Right.

Right.

So what's the take?

If I just picked out one of those two and was like, oh, look at these studies.

Yeah.

I could say, well, look, see smoking's not bad for you.

But is it about those two studies or is it about the 48 other studies showing the other thing?

I see.

Right.

And so,

you know, when it comes to artificial sweeteners, I actually was on the other side of it, you know, circa like early 2000s when I was first getting into competing in bodybuilding.

I'm like, oh, that crap's the same thing.

You know, it's going to have all these health issues.

And then I started reading through the research literature.

And what you find is that you can find basically two kinds of studies that will suggest that artificial sweeteners might not be good for you.

The first kind is where they feed it to lab animals in really high doses, right?

And you can make darn near anything a poison in the right dose.

Yeah.

Like if you drink too much water, you can actually die.

Wow.

Like this has happened at college hazing events before.

You can dilute your electrolytes to to the point where it actually you.

So even water can be a toxin at the right dose.

Now it takes an incredibly high dose, right?

So these studies in lab animals, usually they're giving a thousand to ten thousand times the normal dose that you could ever get.

I mean you would you would actually drought you would actually have the same effect as drinking too much water than you would ever have from like the side effects from diet soda.

So

there's that kind of study.

Then there's also what we call epidemiological studies, which is where they're looking at groups of people and saying, Okay, this group does this, this group does this.

What's their disease incidence?

Right.

And so, you know, it seems like every few months the media will say, oh, look at this new study came out.

It shows, you know, diet soda, artificial sweetener increases the risk of cancer.

Yeah.

Well, the problem with those is in epidemiology, you cannot you cannot separate out different factors with people.

What I mean by that is

people who drink diet soda are also more likely to be overweight.

And some people have drawn the conclusion that, well, that means it makes you overweight.

No, it's the people who are overweight are going to make more diet attempts and they're going to be more likely to use this as a tool.

Right.

And I'm thinking of a very recent study that came out where

they,

there was the Nutrisante cohort out of, I think it was France, 100,000 people, and the takeaway, the big headline was: aspartame

linked to cancer.

But if you go in there, they separated into like never users or don't use aspartame, low to moderate, and high.

And from low to moderate, there was an effect, but then there was actually a lower risk for the high group.

So to me, if something is carcinogenic, what you're looking for is a dose response.

I mean, if you smoke more, you are at more risk of lung cancer.

It's not a U-shaped curve, right?

Then when you consider, I use this and I'm involved with them.

There's an AI tool called ConsenSys, which basically

is like an AI-powered search for scientific studies.

If you ask it a question, it will basically pull all the relevant studies and then give you what the kind of the overall message is.

That's cool.

Yeah, it is very cool.

And there's also a feature called synthesize, which it'll tell you, like, you have to ask a yes or no question, and it'll say, like, how many studies say yes?

What percentage say possibly?

What percentage say no.

So if you look up,

does aspartame cause cancer?

80% of the studies say, or sorry, 70% say no, 15% say possibly, and 15% say yes.

So it's like

on ballot, you would never think that when you listen to the media.

Not it.

Right.

But think about it.

What in general on the news gets attention?

It's stuff that scares scares you.

Right.

Because if you are, and there's actually research to show this, that stuff that promotes a fear response is much more likely to be shared than things that

are not scary.

For sure.

Right.

And part of that, I think, is

kind of a biological initiative as humans that we're trying to protect other people in our tribe.

Right.

So when it comes to artificial sweeteners and things in general, the highest quality of evidence that we see in science is typically called human randomized control trials.

And that means ideally subjects are getting a placebo or not

and you're controlling other variables.

You're controlling a lot of variables.

And the reason randomization is important is let's say we're going to go into a study, right?

And I like artificial sweeteners.

Let's say you don't, right?

And

they say, okay, you can pick which group you want to be in.

Well, I'm going to pick the one that is giving the artificial sweeteners, you're going to pick the one that's not.

But the problem is we may select that, but we may also have a bunch of other things that are inherent to that selection that influence our overall behavior.

Maybe one of us is more likely to seek other health-promoting behaviors because we're also specifically avoiding artificial sweeteners, right?

And so what randomization does is when you bring people in, you say just randomly, you're going to that group, you're going to that group.

And you can assume that any of those traits, inherent traits, are going to get randomly distributed across those groups.

So, if there's a difference between the groups, you can assume it's from the treatment effect.

And so, when we look at artificial sweeteners, and you can't do randomized control trials for years and years, you just people don't allow themselves to be controlled that long.

But if we look at, like, for example, weight loss, if we look at

like markers of health,

most of the studies, the randomized control trials where they say, okay, you can have either regular sugar beverage or diet beverage, people lose a significant amount of body weight.

Like, I think there was one trial that was, I think the end point was people lost 13 pounds on average just from consuming diet soda versus regular, and their blood markers of like insulin sensitivity and some of their blood lipids improved.

Wow.

Now, I don't think artificial sweeteners are fat burners.

What's happening is they're just eating less, right?

Because they're replacing that.

But what's really interesting is some more recent studies have looked at, well, what about water?

What if we just told people to drink water, right?

And

when you do that same experiment, it still beats water.

Diet?

Yeah, just by a little bit.

Not a huge amount,

but just a little bit.

And

again, I don't think the take-home is that you shouldn't drink water.

I think what the take-home is people who are

using water, maybe they're seeking out that sweet taste taste elsewhere.

Whereas if they're consuming diet sodas, they don't feel like they have to go get it somewhere else.

So now, again, I don't want people to strawman what I'm going to say.

I'm not saying everybody should drink diet soda or anything like that.

I'm saying when faced with the choice of diet versus regular, diet's definitely better.

And,

you know,

I don't want to skip over like if there are any concerns, like I would say there is some data suggesting that they may alter some of the artificial sweeteners may alter the gut microbiome.

But what's important to point out is we don't really know enough about the gut microbiome to know whether that change is a good change, bad change, or

neutral change.

Because I'm thinking of one study where they gave sucralose and saw a change in the gut microbiome.

But one of the species of bacteria that increased in population is a species that's known to produce more butyrate.

And butyrate, which is a volatile fatty acid produced by fermentation of these bacteria, actually has a bunch of data showing it to improve health, improve metabolic health, improve insulin sensitivity.

So, bringing it all back around recommendation-wise, if you can just drink water, drink water, right?

That's great.

But if you're somebody who has gotten to the point where you're drinking quite a few sugar-sweetened beverages, using diet beverages is a very, very great tool to lose weight.

And in fact, every time I post about this, I get people saying, well, I lost, you know, 50, 60, 70 pounds.

All I did was replace with diet soda, right?

That's fascinating.

So, my big thing is like, I'm not saying maybe there's no downsides.

I certainly haven't seen anything yet that makes me real worried.

But what I'm saying is, like, we got to be careful demonizing something that could actually be a really great tool for people, right?

And so, that's kind of the take-home I have.

It's easy to read headlines, and there's very few people like yourself that will actually read these studies.

Absolutely.

Like, when I do a blog post on my site,

you know, I always make citations with everything.

And we know from like tracking clicks on my site that less than 1% of people will click even a single citation.

So

and even then, like I do understand the

difficulties because even if you click the citation, I mean, unless you've had training as a research scientist, it's so hard to read these studies and understand what they're actually saying to you, which is one of the reasons I like consensus, which is great for the average folk.

And then I do like a research review every month on my website called Reps, where like we take a few studies that are really popular at the time and kind of break them down in a way that's easy easy to understand for people.

Yeah.

Another thing or person, I guess, that you've been critical of is Gary Brecca.

He's probably the most viral person on TikTok and Instagram right now in your space.

What are the things specifically you're critical about him of?

I haven't seen him make many claims that I agree with.

Now, a lot of people will say, well, you know, I know he worked with Dana White and Dana White's been singing his praises.

I do, if I'm not sure about this, but I think there's some kind of business association between the two.

I could be wrong.

But, you know, Dana lost like, I think it was like 30 pounds.

The research shows, regardless of the way you lose it, if you lose 30 pounds and you were overweight or obese, your inflammation is going to improve, your insulin sensitivity is going to improve,

your blood lipids are going to improve, like you're going to get healthier.

And so I'm not saying that what he suggested didn't work.

I'm just saying it didn't work for the reasons he's saying, right?

Which is all these kind of like biohacking things so let's take um cold plunge he's big on cold plunge and one of the things i saw him say was

well when you do a cold plunge um nothing will i think he said remove calories faster from your body which that's not really how it works but anyway um nothing will get rid of calories or burn calories more than a than a cold plunge and then he said it also helps you build muscle because it activates cold shock proteins which affect uh muscle building

so this is a case of where again, what he's talking about, let's take the cold shock proteins, for example.

So, this is right in my wheelhouse because my PhD specifically was examining protein metabolism.

So, I'm very familiar with this research data.

Are you interested in coming on the digital social hour podcast as a guest?

Well, click the application link below in the description of this video.

We are always looking for cool stories, cool entrepreneurs to talk to about business and life.

Click the application link below, and here's the episode, guys.

So, what he's talking about is a mechanism so if you activate cold shock proteins and heat shock proteins there are uh pathways that lead to increased uh activation of anabolic signaling okay

but that's just one mechanism and when you're looking at an outcome of say like building muscle that is the summation of thousands of signals not just one got it and so what i always say is okay well do we have studies that directly address what we what we care about what we're asking about?

And we do.

In the case of cold plunge, we have studies looking at muscle growth, people doing cold plunge versus people not, and lifting weights.

And the people doing cold plunge actually gain less muscle.

Really?

Yes.

Wow.

So now, again, people will strawman what I'm saying.

I'm not saying you can't build muscle doing cold plunge.

You can.

What I'm saying is on balance, you won't build as much as somebody who's not doing it.

And we have studies showing that basically what happens is it inhibits what we call muscle protein synthesis.

It inhibits the anabolic signaling of the mTOR pathway.

Now, that's not to say that there aren't benefits to cold plunge.

There are.

It does reduce inflammation.

It appears to help with recovery from exercise.

It reduces soreness.

So if you're, like if I'm a bodybuilder, probably a bad idea, right?

But if I'm an MMA fighter, and I'm feeling real beat up, I'm real sore, and I'm starting to peek for a fight, and I'm thinking about, man, I just want to be able to get my next training session in then it may make a lot of sense right

but and as far as the calorie burn stuff goes again we have that data we have data looking at um energy expenditure in response to cold water and exercise in cold water and i think i believe that was part of a larger claim where he was talking about um

Michael Phelps and why he needed to eat 10,000 calories a day.

By the way, I don't believe that Michael Phelps actually ate 10,000 calories a day.

That is such an that is a job.

And if you're training eight hours, win.

You know what I mean?

Like, I'm sure that there are days that he did.

I'm sure maybe he got there a couple of days or something like that.

But the idea that he did it consistently,

maybe I'm too skeptical, but I don't believe it.

I actually know his roommates, so I will find out.

He ate it every day, he said.

I think he said he ate 10,000 calories per day.

I don't know the specific claim.

Well, he's probably burning 3,000 just swimming, right?

Oh, he's probably burning a good amount.

I mean, if you're exercising for, you know, six to eight hours a day, which a lot of these guys are because it's literally their job, you can burn thousands of calories.

Yeah.

But I mean, 10,000 calories to even get that in, even from junk food.

I mean, anybody out there, just try to eat five.

Like, try that.

Yeah.

It's like a job.

That's five Chipotle burritos.

Yeah, it's a lot of food.

So

we have studies looking at energy expenditure.

And what they show is either it doesn't increase energy expenditure or it does, but it's just a really small amount.

So does it?

Maybe, but it's not this like fat, you know, loss modality that's going to make a huge difference.

And there are studies actually showing that people who

exercise in cold water actually end up eating more, that they have higher levels of appetite as well.

So now, I mean, that could be a useful tool if you're somebody who doesn't have a big appetite, right?

But if you're somebody who's, you know, focus is losing weight, which I'm assuming if somebody's talking about energy expenditure or calories you're burning,

you would want to have increased appetite.

So, my thing is, like, whenever it comes to anything, I always say there's no solution.

This is a quote from Thomas Sowell, but there's no solutions, there's only trade-offs.

And so, be very wary of anybody who claims that, like, whatever they're recommending, that there's no downsides to it whatsoever.

I mean, even with like the artificial sweetener stuff, you still hear me couching with, like, well, there's this thing, and you know, I would love to see more research.

Like, you know, I hold open the idea that, you know,

one, that the literature could change.

And two, that I don't know everything.

Right.

And three, that anything we do is a trade-off.

Right.

There's no magical substance that has no side effects.

Yeah.

I mean, you know, there's things that, like, you know, when it comes to like supplements and that sort of stuff, I mean, there's stuff that appears to be like very, very well tolerated.

Like take creatine, for example.

The most studied, most effective,

safest supplement that we know of.

But some people do get GI irritation from it.

Like they get diarrhea, they get bad stomach cramps.

And so, again, like it depends on the population and everything has a downside.

And it's up to you as an individual.

And that's why when people say, this thing worked for me, this thing didn't work for me.

I don't think a lot of that boils down to like...

huge differences in physiology, a lot of it's psychology, but then also just like people's experience.

And I always tell people, your experience is totally valid.

Like what you experience is totally valid.

Just be careful thinking that it applies to everyone else.

Yeah.

Right.

I like what you said about the literature changing because when I was a kid growing up, I'm taught all these things are bad.

Certain things are good.

Like certain foods were superfoods like kale.

And now it's like the opposite.

And it's like things could change at any time.

Yeah.

I mean, you know, I tell everybody.

Are there foods that appear to be more health promoting than other foods?

Absolutely.

Like, you know, if you look at the research on fruit and vegetables, I mean, I know it's boring because they've been saying this for years, but so, and fiber intake.

If you look at

our most meat, or the biggest meta-analysis I've seen, which was almost a million subjects in total, basically they did what's called a meta-regression, which is where they take the data they have available and try to project out like what the dose response is.

For every 10 gram increase in dietary fiber, there was a corresponding 10% decrease in the risk of mortality, cardiovascular disease, and cancer.

Wow.

Now, before anybody thinks I'm going to eat 100 grams of fiber a day and live forever, keep in mind that these are like relative

percent changes.

So what I mean by that, and this is where people get screwed up with media headlines as well, you'll see something says increases risk of cancer by 20%, right?

Sounds really scary.

If your absolute rate of the possibility of getting cancer in, say, the next 10 years is is 5%, like I'm just throwing a number out there, a 20% increase in the relative rate would mean your absolute risk goes from 5% to 6%.

Right.

Right.

Now, still, like, obviously you would want to avoid, you know, like things that increase your risk.

Yeah.

But 5% to 6% doesn't sound nearly as scary as 20.

Right.

Exactly.

So same thing with fiber, right?

Like, if your risk of developing heart or having a heart disease in the next 10 years is, let's say, 10%,

every 10 gram increase in fiber, you go up, you know, a corresponding 10% decrease in the risk.

Now,

I think that probably caps out somewhere, right?

But, you know, there are foods that promote more health.

You know, fruits and vegetables seem to be pretty consistently in the literature show up.

But yeah, like the idea that like there's like one superfood that everybody should eat, you know,

I'm a big fan of eating a diverse array of foods and even some foods that you enjoy that may not be healthful because I always compare it to like having a budget.

Right.

So if you're an athlete, say like Michael Phelps, right, and you expend a ton of energy, right?

You have a huge budget.

And so if you are somebody who, like a financial advisor, financial example, if you make a million bucks a year and you can, and you want to buy a sports car for $250,000,

is it okay to buy that if you're still putting money away for retirement?

paying your mortgage, taking care of all your responsibilities?

Sure, especially if it's something that like you feel good about and it makes you like hungry to like work hard you know yeah uh but should you do it if you can't afford it and you can't afford to pay these other of course not right because it's a it's a bad investment no matter how much money you have right because it's well most are going to go down in value

but that doesn't mean that you shouldn't do it if you can afford it right and so the same thing with you know if you're somebody who expends a lot of energy you can still meet your nutritional requirements with you know fiber and protein and these sorts of of things and have room left over to have some fun with foods that you enjoy.

And so I think there's probably not enough of that messaging either.

And speaking of nutrition, the nutrition on the back of every item at the grocery store, I saw you made a statement saying that could be off by 20%.

Yes.

So

the,

I think it's the FDA, allows up to a 20% variance in the energy and macronutrient contents, which means if something says it has 20 grams of protein, it could have anywhere from 16 to 24 grams of protein.

Now, what I will say is,

you know, people will kind of use that as like, well, that's why, like, for example, like tracking your nutritional intake is a waste of time.

You know, and full disclosure, conflict of interest, I have an app that functions based off of like providing macronutrient recommendations and making changes and tracking.

But that would be like saying it's useless to keep a budget because you can never know exactly what inflation is doing.

You can't know what interest rates are going to do.

You have investments that you don't know what they're going to do and you have unexpected expenses, right?

You don't have to be exact.

What you have to be is consistent, right?

And so, and also, do you need to keep a budget to save money?

No, plenty of people do without one.

Is it a useful tool for a lot of people?

Like seeing where your expenses are going?

Absolutely.

Right.

So same thing with like tracking calories, tracking macros.

Do you need to do it to lose body fat?

No.

Is it a useful tool for a lot of people?

For sure.

Yeah.

Yeah.

So, like, I remember one of your competitors had a brownie and you took it to the lab and you found out he lied more than 20%.

Right.

Well, so this was a

small company.

So I want to say that, right?

Like, this wasn't something you could go buy off a grocery store.

But I think one of the things I will tell people, like, if, because I hear people say, man, I'm eating low calories and I can't seem to lose weight.

and invariably usually when you look at this literature people underreport their nutritional intake in studies anywhere from 30 to 70 percent wow so there was actually a study I'm thinking of it I think it was in 1992

where

they had

people who self-reported had difficulty losing weight on low calories

submit themselves to what's called a metabolic ward, which is basically food jail.

Like you are housed and you have all the food provided for you, and they can track everything you're eating, and they can track your daily energy expenditure, everything.

It's very controlled.

And what they found was these people reported that they were eating 1,200 calories, and on average, they were eating over 2,000 calories per day.

And

getting back to this, the way this whole thing came about was we had a client who was having difficulty losing weight when we found out she was having a couple of these

like

low-calorie brownies per day.

And I don't remember the exact macros, but it was supposed to be something like 17 grams of protein, 12 grams of carbs, and like three grams of fat.

Had it, purchased one, sent it direct to the lab, didn't even, never touched it.

Yeah.

Right.

Lab comes back, and it's like, I think it was like,

it was over 10 grams of fat.

I want to say it was like close to 15 or 17,

like 50 grams of carbohydrate and three grams of protein, right?

So what I'll tell people is like, what's more likely that, like, you know, so if you're having trouble losing weight and you're consuming a lot of like, like low-calorie diet products, maybe cutting back to like more whole single ingredient or

whole foods, I don't like using those terms because it's kind of nebulous, but you know, when it comes to that, it's kind of like, you know, fruits, vegetables, lean meats, you know, try that for a week and see what happens, right?

And the other thing is, too, people are really bad at remembering.

We remember our meals, but not our snacks.

So a great example of this is if you look at dietary food recall data, the average caloric intake in the U.S.

is pegged at about 2,500, which doesn't make sense based on the obesity crisis.

But if you looked at the data based off of food production and consumption, it's like 3,500 calories a day.

And I think a big part of that is when, I think about like, do you remember what you had yesterday to eat?

I mean, somebody could probably pry it out of you,

but you'd remember your meals.

But if you grab like a handful of chips or like some nuts or like a few, like whatever,

that stuff adds up over time.

And like in research studies, when they actually track it, and it adds up usually to a few hundred calories a day, the people aren't aware that they're getting in.

And even like.

take like the professionals, registered dieticians, when they did research studies on them and their tracking, they still underestimated by about 10%.

Wow.

And I think people get really

like defensive about that stuff

because they think if i say that they think oh lane's saying i'm lying about what i'm consuming i don't think people are necessarily lying some are but i think mostly people are just really bad estimators of portion sizes like if you ever want to be depressed go weigh out a serving of peanut butter like it says two tablespoons If you go weigh out, I've weighed like two tablespoons before.

The serving size is supposed to be like 32 grams.

If you take two, like not even crazy big tablespoons, but just like a good scoop, I weighed it was almost double, you know?

And then if you look at a serving of cereal, I mean, with the bowls we have, it barely covers the bottom of the bowl.

You know, a serving ice cream, most people, a bowl of ice cream is probably three to four servings of ice cream.

Wow.

So like the most I ever learned about nutrition, honestly, even after doing a PhD and everything, was when I first got into bodybuilding.

And I got a food scale and I just started weighing everything.

I'm like, oh man, God, I haven't eaten like four servings of cereal at a sitting, you know, like you know, you never truly realize that you ever have that experience.

Yeah, because you just assume one serving in your head when you see the nutrition fact.

Right.

But it's right.

It's double, tripled up.

Exactly.

Exactly.

Wayne, it's been fun, man.

I've definitely learned to be more diligent with my research.

Anything you want to close off with or promote?

Yeah, I mean, if people are interested, like, you know, I've done nutrition coaching for a long time.

I have an app, Carbon Diet Coach, which basically is an algorithm-based coaching app where people can put their information in and it will generate out dietary recommendations based on their goals.

And then it will not just do that, but it will adjust them as they progress to optimize things.

And we have a tracker embedded in that as well.

That's done really well.

My research review I talked about,

I've got some courses and we also do one-on-one coaching.

So I pretty much do everything.

Awesome.

Sounds good.

We'll link it in the description.

Thanks for coming on, man.

Thanks, John.

Appreciate it.

Thanks for watching, guys, as always, and I'll see you next time.