Fork U with Dr. Terry Simpson podkast

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.

37 odcinki(-ów)

  • Fork U with Dr. Terry Simpson podkast

    Microplastics in Fish, in Fruit, in Water

    3:34

    The term "microplastics" was originally described in 2004 for plastic particles that are less than 5 millimeters in diameter, originally being seen on beaches. But everywhere scientists have looked on planet earth, they have been found. From fruit, vegetables, nuts, beer, baby bottles, in the air, in our water. Some have estimated that we ingest 100,000 microplastic particles per day or the equivalent of a credit card of microplastic in a year. That number will only increase, as we are producing over 400 million tons of plastics a year, and we have over 5 billion tons of plastics in landfills. Plastic degrades over time, from sunlight, from ocean water, from wind. Some of those plastics become so small they cross the blood-brain barrier in humans. These plastics come in all shapes and sizes. As they are exposed to the environment and degrade, they become smaller and smaller. They come with different types of plastics with different reactions, but mostly we don't know. The problem is we don't know what these plastics are doing to us. We don't know what the toxic levels of microplastics are. We don't know what, if any, physiological systems that microplastics would interfere with. We don't know if they increase cancer, heart disease, auto-immune disease, dementia, liver cirrhosis - we just don't know. We don't know if they inhibit the growth of children if they cause the loss of fetuses in women who are pregnant. We do know on larger levels; plastics cause issues with marine mammals. Shopping bags in the water look like the turtle's favorite feast, a jellyfish, and they will consume those, and those plastics become stuck in the turtle's digestive system clogging up their intestines and leading to their death. Most have seen the turtle whose nose was stuffed with a plastic straw. What we don't know is what happens when the small microplastics enter into cells, or cross the blood-brain barrier, or land in our lungs. Those finds led to the laws to decrease plastic one-use bags and plastic straws, but that is just the tip of what might be a more serious problem. We know that mice fed microplastics had lower sperm counts, smaller offspring, but again, mice are not men. We also don't know what the different types of microplastics will do - one type might be harmful, another type might be benign. Some plastics might pass through us like fiber, indigestible matter that has no consequence other than moving stool along. What can you do if you are worried? If you feed your child formula, use bottles instead of plastic. If you use your microwave, don't reheat food in plastic containers. Try not to use plastic containers for storage, and don't dispose of them so quickly. Water bottles - well, time to use reusable water bottles made of metal or glass. For now, we can do a small part, but it isn't the entire part. It is a problem that may be a larger problem or less of a problem. But it probably is an issue. We already know that some plastics do cause endocrine disruption, and those products have been outlawed. But it isn't just a marine problem; whether you are a vegan, pescatarian, vegetarian, omnivore, or carnivore, there will be plastics in everything you eat. ----- http://forku.com (Fork U) is part of the https://your-doctors-orders.captivate.fm (Your Doctors Orders network of podcasts) and is hosted by the noted physician and surgeon Dr. Terry Simpson. https://www.tiktok.com/@drterrysimpson? (Follow Dr. Terry Simpson on TikTok) for bite-sized content on  healthy eating Visit https://terrysimpson.com/ (TerrySimpson.com) for additional details on Dr. Simpson https://twitter.com/drterrysimpson?lang=en (Follow @DrTerrySimpson on Twitter) for skepticism, travel, and much more. Fork U is produced by http://simpler.media (Simpler Media) and is recorded in the studios of https://myproducergirl.wixsite.com/producergirl (ProducerGirl Productions).
  • Fork U with Dr. Terry Simpson podkast

    Fructose: Evil or Misunderstood?

    2:47

    Ever since the YouTube video of Dr. Lustig and the evils of fructose went viral in 2010, many have advocated that fructose is the single most common cause of obesity in the United States. The video had metabolic pathways that had the hypothesis that most fructose either becomes fat in the liver, or that it might go down a pathway to cause joint issues, leaky gut, and inflammation causing obesity. Here are the two chemical structures of glucose, also known as the "good sugar" and fructose, or the bad sugar. I cannot help but thinking of the good witch and the bad witch on the Wizard of Oz. Dr. Lustig's hypothesis was based on studies done in mice and rats. In those studies, published two years before the viral video, found that high fructose diets in mice lead to increased "gut leak" and led to liver damage (1). This was even confirmed with a small study of 8 men (2) who had their complex carbohydrates replaced by fructose and fed normal caloric diets - meaning, these eight men had increased liver fat, more de novo fat formation (de novo lipogenesis) . This all makes that logical sense since sugar-sweetened beverages are associated with chronic inflammation and these days everything to do with chronic inflammation increases the risk of obesity, diabetes, heart disease, and aging. Then came a double-blinded, randomized, crossover study where a group of people were fed a standard diet but drank 25% of their calories as either fructose (the evil sugar), or glucose (the good one) or a high fructose corn syrup sweetened beverage. Oddly, there was no difference in any of those groups with regard to markers of inflammation, intestinal permeability, or inflammation in the fat tissue. To quote from the study: "Excessive amounts of fructose, HFCS, and glucose from SSBs consumed over 8 d did not differentially affect low-grade chronic systemic inflammation in normal-weight to obese adults." SSB = sugar sweetened beverages. There have been a number of human trials looking at sugar-sweetened beverages and inflammation, and the results are not consistent. Even finding that people who drink large amounts of either glucose of fructose didn't find changes in inflammation or visceral fat. Mice are not men, and the link between gut permeability, leading to systemic and chronic inflammation, occurs in mice, but not men. And while in mice fructose can lead to inflammation and liver issues, this doesn't happen in human beings. (4) The key may not be fructose itself, but increased caloric intake.  If you eat more, you will increase in weight, but it is not fructose alone. It is, in fact, high caloric intake combined with sugars. Meaning, that great tasting snack with the high levels of sugars and fats act in concert with the increased calories consumed to give you that portly look. To be fair, all of the studies were short term, less than a couple of weeks. Fructose, over the long term, may still be a bad actor. What about fruit? It is exceedingly difficult to eat enough whole fruits to make this a problem. To eat the excess amount in some of these studies you would have to eat several pounds of apples, and most people simply cannot do that in a day. And whole fruit consumption, as a part of the Mediterranean diet reduces the burden of cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and even erectile dysfunction.(5) In fact less than 10% of most Western dieters have adequate levels of fruit (6) leading to a serious threat to human health. Maybe a couple of apples a day will keep the doctor away. ----- http://forku.com/ (Fork U) is part of the https://your-doctors-orders.captivate.fm/ (Your Doctors Orders network of podcasts) and is hosted by noted physician and surgeon Dr. Terry Simpson. https://www.tiktok.com/@drterrysimpson? (Follow Dr. Terry Simpson on TikTok) for bite-sized content on  healthy eating Visit https://terrysimpson.com/ (TerrySimpson.com) for additional details on Dr. Simpson https://twitter.com/drterrysimpson?lang=en...
  • Fork U with Dr. Terry Simpson podkast

    Nie przegap odcinka z kanału Fork U with Dr. Terry Simpson! Subskrybuj bezpłatnie w aplikacji GetPodcast.

    iOS buttonAndroid button
  • Fork U with Dr. Terry Simpson podkast

    Red Meat: Is it good or bad? The answer is... sometimes

    3:32

    On my tiktok channel (@drterrysimpson or terrysimpson309) putting up a review of red meat the comments are reflective of the polarization that makes politics look like gentle disagreements. Nutrition is nuanced - meaning, it is rare that something is good or bad for us, except for Death Cap Mushrooms, they will kill you, although I hear they are delicious. The same is true for red meat. What we have are rarely the types of nutrition studies where we feed people precise amounts of food and see the results (the DASH diet studies were great with this -ref 1 ). Instead we rely on what people tell us, which can be accurate, or not - and we look at markers for disease instead of the disease itself (looking at end points of heart disease we look at LDL, cholesterol, C-reactive protein, and rather non-specific markers. Red Meat and Glycemic Control and Inflammation In this study (ref 2) they examined the premise that red meat's has an effect on inflammatory markers and glycemic control. So the study  was a meta analysis of randomized control of glycemic control and inflammatory markers. Adults that were studied were given various quantities of red meats and then checked for glycemic control and inflammation. The end result "Total red meat consumption, for up to 16 weeks, does not affect changes in biomarkers of glycemic control or inflammation for adults free of, but at risk for, cardiometabolic disease. " Does this put this to bed - not really, but the proposed ill effect of red meat is not something that is seen in these studies.  Here are the markers they studied: glucose, insulin levels, HOMA-R, Hemoglobin A1c, C-reactive protein, IL-6, and TNF-alpha. This was a group of studies that went to about 16 weeks (four months) so any longer term issues with red or even red processed meats, were not seen. But there were clearly no indication found in these studies. What about other markers for heart disease? So the next question is the effect of red meat on lipids, lipoproteins and blood pressure(ref 3)? It turned out that increasing red meat did not affect those variables for heart disease. What if you check not just red meat, but "red meat with diets that replaced red meat with a variety of foods. We stratified comparison diets into high-quality plant protein sources (legumes, soy, nuts); chicken/poultry/fish; fish only; poultry only; mixed animal protein sources (including dairy); carbohydrates (low-quality refined grains and simple sugars, such as white bread, pasta, rice, cookies/biscuits); or usual diet. We performed random-effects meta-analyses comparing differences in changes of blood lipids, apolipoproteins, and blood pressure for all studies combined and stratified by specific comparison diets."- from ref 4.  They found that changing red meat for plant protein had a minimal effect, and yet other studies (ref 2) found that plant protein had no significant difference at all. Those short term studies, which are clear changes with specific amounts over a short period of time, appear to contrast with the studies of various groups where they look at the risk of type 2 diabetes and red meat consumption. Take reference 5, where they looked at the increase of diabetes in different groups based on self-reporting of red meat intake. These studies are not as powerful as the controlled trials above, and they are confounded by other variables - people who eat more red meat have higher caloric intake and more obesity, they also tend to drink more and to smoke more. It is not easy to isolate, statistically, those variables out and this is always the issue with large cohort studies. Take the many studies of the Seventh Day Adventist group, who are considered America's Blue Zone in Loma Linda, California. They don't eat meat, they live longer -- but there is more, that group tends to exercise more, they do not smoke, they do not drink, and they have a strong sense of community. When studied (reference 6) it appears to
  • Fork U with Dr. Terry Simpson podkast

    The Carnivore Diet and Myths

    3:26

    The Carnivore diet is the most extreme of the low-carbohydrate diets, with its expressed point that humans did great on a diet of flesh and evolved to eat a diet high in fats. While we cannot make up what people ate in the past, we can see about the diet of the Yupik’s of Alaska.  These people have been studied extensively by the https://canhr.uaf.edu/ (Center for Alaska Native Health Research) (CANHR) at the University of Alaska in Fairbanks who partnered with https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/full/10.1161/circresaha.115.306566 (Genetics of Coronary Artery Disease) in Alaska Native people. First the CANHR found that Alaska Natives who ate processed meats (hot dogs, lunch meat, fried chicken) had higher triglycerides. Those Yupik’s who consumed lots of omega-3 fatty acids and ate lots of meats with saturated fats developed coronary artery disease. As much as we like to get our omega-3 fatty acids from the sources, and few in the world eat as many as the Yupik’s, that cannot protect you from coronary artery disease in the presence of the over-consumption of saturated and trans fatty acids. It further showed that, at least for the Yupik’s, consuming processed meats, and meats high in saturated fats like beef, pork, lamb and chicken with skin was not healthy for the Alaska Natives. The Carnivore diet excludes greens and berries, however sea greens and berries are a large part of the traditional Yupik diet. The diet that they have is high in marine mammals, fish, game animals, greens and berries that provide high levels of fat soluble vitamins (A,D,E, and K) as well as iron. The Biotruth of the Carnivore Diet:A biotruth is a logical fallacy, usually found to be a misunderstanding of evolution. In this case the idea that early human ancestors were meat eaters and that the adaptation of cultivation of crops led to chronic disease. When CT scans were looked at from 137 mummified remains from four geographical regions, ancient Egypt, Peru, the Pueblo, and Unangan from the Aleutian Islands were examined they found atherosclerosis in all of them.  “Interpretation: Atherosclerosis was common in four preindustrial populations including preagricultural hunter-gatherers. Although commonly assumed to be a modern disease, the presence of atherosclerosis in premodern human beings raises the possibility of a more basic predisposition to the disease.” It should be noted that those were diverse diets from those who ate primarily marine mammals and fish to those whose diet was composed primarily of vegetation with little meat. The Myths of LDLThe low carbohydrate community propose that LDL isn’t an issue with heart disease. This flies in the face of the recent article in JAMA looking at 34 clinical trials and finding that lowering LDL-C not only decreased the risk of heart disease, but all causes of mortality. While the low-carb crowd likes to point out how sugar indeed has a role in development of heart disease, they quietly forget to point out that diets rich in meats are overwhelmingly an issue. ----- http://forku.com/ (Fork U) is part of the https://your-doctors-orders.captivate.fm/ (Your Doctors Orders network of podcasts) and is hosted by noted physician and surgeon Dr. Terry Simpson. https://www.tiktok.com/@drterrysimpson? (Follow Dr. Terry Simpson on TikTok) for bite-sized content on  healthy eating Visit https://terrysimpson.com/ (TerrySimpson.com) for additional details on Dr. Simpson https://twitter.com/drterrysimpson?lang=en (Follow @DrTerrySimpson on Twitter) for skepticism, travel, and much more. Fork U is produced by http://simpler.media/ (Simpler Media) and is recorded in the studios of https://myproducergirl.wixsite.com/producergirl (ProducerGirl Productions).   ----- REFERENCESBrand-Miller JC, Griffin HJ, Colagiuri S. The carnivore connection hypothesis: revisited. J Obes. 2012;2012:258624. doi: 10.1155/2012/258624. Epub 2011 Dec 22. PMID: 22235369; PMCID: PMC3253466. Bersamin A, Luick...
  • Fork U with Dr. Terry Simpson podkast

    Fish Oil and Atrial Fibrillation

    3:23

    Fish oil is the bomb - Greenland Yupik and the rise of fish oil Fish oil first became a "hot topic" when a 1980 publication showed that Yupik in Greenland had a lower incidence of cardiovascular disease. Their paper concluded, "The rarity of ischemic heart disease in Greenland Eskimos may partly be explained by the antithrombotic effect of the long-chained polyunsaturated fatty acids, especially eicosapentaenoic acid prevalent in diets rich in marine oils." (Bang HO, Dyerberg J, Sinclair HM. The composition of the Eskimo food in north western Greenland. Am J Clin Nutr. 1980 Dec;33(12):2657-61. doi: 10.1093/ajcn/33.12.2657. PMID: 7435433). This led to more scientific bodies looking at the evidence for fish oil, and ultimately omega 3 fatty acids, and if it did reduce the incidence of cardiovascular disease. And even 22 years after the publication of that study, the American Heart Association put out a statement that fish oil was protective against cardiovascular disease. (Kris-Etherton PM, Harris WS, Appel LJ; American Heart Association. Nutrition Committee. Fish consumption, fish oil, omega-3 fatty acids, and cardiovascular disease. Circulation. 2002 Nov 19;106(21):2747-57. doi: 10.1161/01.cir.0000038493.65177.94. Erratum in: Circulation. 2003 Jan 28;107(3):512. PMID: 12438303) The other predictable tract this led on was the inevitable marketing of fish oils in the supplement industry trying to sell fish oil capsules, from whatever source, as a "must take" to prevent the number one killer in the United States. As with most supplements, being unregulated, they would make claims that their oil was better than others - because it came from krill, or it was vegan-based, or from cod, or pick something that sounds like it can be marketed. Some would claim their fish oil was more pure omega 3 fatty acids. Radio and television spots were secured, and when it was confirmed that the "good cholesterol" or HDL was indeed raised by omega 3 fatty acids it raised their game and intensity of marketing. Back in the world of science, testing continued and the results that came back didn't match the conclusions. Some papers would conclude that fish oil didn't produce a significant decrease in first time cardiac events but might help prevent secondary cardiac events (Yokoyama M, Origasa H, Matsuzaki M, Matsuzawa Y, Saito Y, Ishikawa Y, Oikawa S, Sasaki J, Hishida H, Itakura H, Kita T, Kitabatake A, Nakaya N, Sakata T, Shimada K, Shirato K; Japan EPA lipid intervention study (JELIS) Investigators. Effects of eicosapentaenoic acid on major coronary events in hypercholesterolaemic patients (JELIS): a randomized open-label, blinded endpoint analysis. Lancet. 2007 Mar 31;369(9567):1090-8. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(07)60527-3. Erratum in: Lancet. 2007 Jul 21;370(9583):220. PMID: 17398308). In 2004 the Cocharane database looked at 48 randomized controlled trials and concluded that taking fish oils did not reduce mortality from cardiovascular disease. It also concluded that it didn't matter where the fish oil came from, fish or plant sources, or other sources. This, as you might imagine, throws a monkey wrench into the statement by the American Heart Association that fish oils were good for you, especially coming two years later. Marketing moves faster than medicine, so while doctors and scientists were working to find out why there were inconsistent results, the marketing of fish oils continued to expand. Given that there was no regulation in the supplement industry, they continued to market the "benefits" of their product. By 2020 the sales of over-the-counter fish oil products became to a SIX BILLION dollar industry, (https://www.grandviewresearch.com/industry-analysis/omega-3-supplement-market). Scientists worked at looking at the different components of dietary, or essential fatty acids. Because the literature was confusing, and the American Heart Association had a bit of salmon egg on their face, they decided to get their...
  • Fork U with Dr. Terry Simpson podkast

    Fork U: The new podcast by Dr. Terry Simpson

    5:44

    Welcome to Fork U, the latest podcast from Dr. Terry Simpson. If you enjoyed the previous episodes of https://www.yourdoctorsorders.com/category/culinary-medicine/ (Culinary Medicine) and https://www.yourdoctorsorders.com (Your Doctors Orders), you'll love these quick, impactful bits of information that are easily digestible. (See what I did there?) No need to adjust your podcast or subscribe to anything new, you are already here! With that, here is the first episode of the new podcast, Fork U, where you can learn a bit about food and medicine.
  • Fork U with Dr. Terry Simpson podkast

    Myths about the COVID19 vaccines [S4E3]

    30:29

    Full details:  https://www.yourdoctorsorders.com/2020/12/covid-vaccine-myths/ Produced and distributed by https://simpler.media (Simpler Media) Follow Dr. Terry Simpson on Twitter
  • Fork U with Dr. Terry Simpson podkast

    mRNA Vaccines - A New Hope Against COVID19 [S4E2]

    11:59

    mRNA vaccines represent the most   Full details:  https://www.yourdoctorsorders.com/2020/12/mrna-vaccines-a-new-hope/  ----- Produced and distributed by https://podcastlaunch.pro (Simpler Media) Follow Dr. Terry Simpson on Twitter
  • Fork U with Dr. Terry Simpson podkast

    Trapping The COVID19 Virus [S4E1]

    18:29

    Monoclonal antibodies are an exciting new treatment which have now been applied to COVID19.  Full details:  https://www.yourdoctorsorders.com/2020/12/antibodies/ ----- Produced and distributed by https://podcastlaunch.pro (Simpler Media) Follow Dr. Terry Simpson on Twitter
  • Fork U with Dr. Terry Simpson podkast

    Covid19 Part Five [S3E8]

    16:36

    Part five - we can open the economy today  https://www.yourdoctorsorders.com/covid19-how-to-open-the-economy/ ‎ ----- Produced and distributed by https://podcastlaunch.pro (Simpler Media) Follow Dr. Terry Simpson on Twitter

Odkrywaj najlepsze podcasty dzięki bezpłatnej aplikacji GetPodcast.

Subskrybuj ulubione podcasty, słuchaj odcinków offline i sprawdzaj najlepsze polecane podcasty.

iOS buttonAndroid button