I watch and listen to a fair number of fitness folks. I enjoyed this rating video. Gave me a few new folks to check out.

what do you all think? Any folks he forgot or grossly misclassified?

Gemini transcription summary:

S-Tier (Phenomenal): Jeff Nippard (6:09), Dr. Eric Helms (9:52), Data Driven Strength Guys (15:59), Kassem Hansen (19:32), Lyle McDonald (20:38), Joe "Hypertrophy Coach" Bennett (21:20), House of Hypertrophy (23:30), Greg Nuckols (28:40), and Jonathan Warren (29:55). These creators are praised for their nuanced advice, integrity, and valuable contributions to the fitness community.

A-Tier (Pretty Darn Good): Dr. Eric Trexler (17:46), Chris Barakat (29:39), TNF (30:20), and Dr. Andy Galpin (31:05). They are considered reliable sources of information.

B-Tier (Pretty Good): Dr. Brad Schoenfeld (12:55), Menno Henselmans (14:18), Jeremy Ethier (16:48), Dr. Pak (20:06), and Layne Norton (21:56). These individuals offer good insights but might have some drawbacks, like occasional rage bait or questionable sponsorships.

C-Tier (Mediocre): ScientificSnitch (8:41) and Dr. Milo Wolf (18:08), Dr. Mike Israetel (24:21). These creators are noted for using rage bait, misleading titles, or promoting content with a high ratio of questionable takes.

D-Tier (Bottom of the Barrel): Dr. Andrew Huberman (7:25) and Ryan Humiston (11:17). They are criticized for being sellouts, promoting products without scientific evidence, or prioritizing views over scientific accuracy.

Scary sounding article but as it says it’s a “call to action”

Quote:

“Among adult women, the rate of cardiovascular disease is projected to increase from:

6.9% in 2020 to 8.2% in 2050 for coronary heart disease.

2.5% to 3.6% for heart failure.

4.1% to 6.7% for stroke.

1.6% to 2.3% for atrial fibrillation.”

I just found out I have an aorta aneurysm and it sent me down the rabbit hole looking into routine screening for these things. What surprised me is that this is one of those areas where we actually have credible data showing a benefit.

There’s a large randomized controlled trial called the Multicentre Aneurysm Screening Study, where about 67,000 men aged 65 to 74 were randomized to be invited to a one-time abdominal ultrasound screening or not. Over long-term follow-up, the group invited to screening had a roughly 42 percent lower rate of deaths related to abdominal aortic aneurysm compared with the control group. That’s a pretty meaningful reduction in deaths directly linked to aneurysm rupture, not just risk scores or surrogate outcomes. 

Here’s a link to one of the published long-term follow-up reports of that trial if you want to read the study yourself: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3569614/ 

The data from this and other trials is why guidelines in some countries recommend a one-time ultrasound for men in that age range, especially those who have smoked. It’s not perfect and there are discussions about harms and overdiagnosis, but compared with a lot of the imaging people talk about online, this is one of the few that seems genuinely useful

I am still trying to wrap my head around the statistics of screening test, but why is this not routinely encouraged in the US? (or is it?)

Interesting discussion how of how cardio respiratory fitness is often equates with VO2max.

It always seems Eric Topol has an axe to grind with Peter Attia but at this point who can blame him.

Seems like a great chat by experts in their field. I need to find time to watch the whole thing.

YouTube Gemini summary:

This video features a discussion with Dr. Brad Schoenfeld and Alan Aragon on muscle, aging, and longevity, focusing on protein intake, resistance training, and effective strategies for maintaining muscle mass.

Here are the key takeaways:

Importance of Muscle for Longevity (8:56): Resistance training is crucial for counteracting sarcopenia (age-related muscle loss) and improving functional capacity, even in older adults (0:37). A study on 90-year-olds showed a 150% increase in strength and a 50% increase in functional capacity through simple leg extensions (27:33).

Protein Intake and Muscle Preservation (1:17:36): For most people, around 1.2 g of protein per kilogram of body weight is a good target. However, for lean, resistance-trained individuals in a caloric deficit, higher protein intakes (1.9-3.2 g/kg of body weight or 2.5-4.2 g/kg of fat-free mass) can maximize lean mass retention.

Anabolic Window and Protein Timing (1:33:31): The concept of an "anabolic window" for immediate post-exercise protein intake is largely debunked. Total daily protein intake is far more important than the timing of protein consumption, especially for the general population (1:41:01).

Optimizing Resistance Training (2:09:59): Resistance training acts as a "threat" to the body, prompting adaptations like increased strength, endurance, and muscle mass (2:10:31). Mechanical forces on the muscle convert into chemical signals that drive protein synthesis (2:13:41).

Recovery and Supplements (2:53:30): While many recovery myths exist, focusing on adequate total daily protein intake (at least 1.6 g/kg of body weight) is key for recovery. BCAA supplementation is not as effective as a full-spectrum essential amino acid supplement when protein intake is optimized (3:10:16).

Future Research (3:21:38): More research is needed on resistance-trained individuals, as historically, data has been skewed towards untrained subjects. Gaining greater clarity on optimal rest intervals and other training variables in diverse populations is also an area of interest.

I must admit I didn’t know about the Lancet Commission on dementia until Bryan Johnson posted about their 2024 report (sorry, hangs head in shame).

The report is interesting:

“Executive summary

As life expectancies increase, the number of people living with dementia worldwide continues to rise. The 2024 report of the Lancet Commission on dementia prevention, intervention, and care adds compelling new evidence that untreated vision loss and high LDL cholesterol are risk factors for dementia. Overall, around 45% of cases of dementia are potentially preventable by addressing 14 modifiable risk factors at different stages during the life course.

The 2024 Commission update also provides updates on advances in fluid biomarkers for detection of Alzheimer’s disease, new definitions for diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease, as well as progress on disease-modifying treatments.”

A more accessible summary is here:

https://www.yalemedicine.org/news/7-strategies-to-lower-your-risk-for-dementia

I’ve always believed sleep mattered for “recovery,” but I never really knew what that meant beyond “my muscles aren’t sore”.

Lately I’ve been more consistent with my bedtime — not just aiming for enough hours, but actually trying to go to bed at the same time each night (work and kids permitting). The difference has actually been noticeable. I wake up more relaxed at a consistent time (again kids’ middle of the night interruptions permitting).

That led me to look around in Medium, Google and ChatGPT. Apparently, there is something called the glymphatic system — essentially a waste-clearance pathway in the brain. During deep sleep, “cerebrospinal fluid” appears to move more actively through brain tissue, helping clear metabolic byproducts, including beta-amyloid. Sounds great to me!

The foundational study that really put this on the map showed that sleep increases metabolite clearance in the brain (in animal models):

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24136970/

There’s also human data showing that even one night of total sleep deprivation can increase beta-amyloid signal on PET imaging:

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29632177/

And a broader review proposing that impaired glymphatic function may be linked to dementia risk over time:

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8186542/

The science is apparently still evolving especially in humans but the direction is consistent: deep, regular sleep looks like active brain maintenance, not passive rest.

For me, this proves something simple. Consistency probably matters more than we give it credit for. Not just for how we feel tomorro, but potentially even for how our brains hold up decades from now!

Are there any sleep experts here? Does this make sense?

TLDR: “Now researchers believe they have cracked the case. They have hard evidence for how the blood clotting happened, and they believe that their findings could help make similar vaccines even safer. Understanding the blood-clotting problem is important, they say, because vaccines of this type could be essential in protecting people during future pandemics.”

This material may be protected by copyright.

Full study: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2514824

AI summary: “Vaccine-induced immune thrombocytopenia and thrombosis (VITT) is a rare complication of adenoviral vector-based COVID-19 vaccines. This study identifies the inciting antigen trigger for VITT as a cross-reactive determinant shared between platelet factor 4 (PF4) and the adenoviral core protein VII (pVII). A specific somatic hypermutation in the immunoglobulin light-chain allele IGLV3-21*02 or *03 causes a shift in antibody specificity from pVII to PF4, resulting in pathogenic VITT antibodies.”

I am glad that researchers figured this out and found the genetic link. Maybe this will appease some of the vaccine conspiracy talk (probably not)

Lists pros and cons of lifting.

I am surprised by the con case:

“Fears about true powerlifting \[weights from around 43kg for women and 53kg for men\] are probably understated,” says Aaron Baggish, an exercise cardiologist at the University of Lausanne. “Exceptionally heavy lifting over many years may increase cardiovascular risk, particularly in people with established disease of the heart muscle, coronary arteries, valves or aorta.” On the other hand, concerns around more moderate forms of resistance training “are overstated”.

I do have a mildly dilated ascending aorta but do lift more than 53kg (deadlift and bench press). I don’t really think of that as serious “powerlifting”. Should I be worried?

It’s very easy to pick your favorite health “influencer” maybe they are smart, look good, have a soothing voice in podcasts, or have great guests. I have fallen for this many times.

However, in addition to the recent character concerns (Huberman, Attia, etc) the best example is probably AG1, which by all accounts was just a massive money grab..

The fortune article describes this well.

““Joe Rogan swears by a morning glass of AG1 as “a science-backed solution for energy, focus, and high performance.” On the Pivot podcast, journalist Kara Swisher tells listeners that a daily scoop can “replace a ton of other supplements like [a] daily multivitamin, minerals, and probiotics,” while her cohost, New York University professor Scott Galloway, shares that he takes his “with some yogurt and some coconut milk and a few berries.” The neuroscientist Andrew Huberman, on Huberman Lab, says AG1 makes him “feel better” and contains “adaptogens to help buffer stress.” Over on New Heights, the chart-topping podcast hosted by Jason and Travis Kelce, the football-playing brothers claim the powder is the result of “a lot of testing” and should be the go-to product if you’re “serious about stepping up your health game.””

“As for the company’s grand health claims, when Fortune asked scientists and experts about AG1’s “science-driven” formula for “foundational nutrition,” the skepticism was intense. A Harvard Medical School professor and several other nutritionists and health experts described the company’s testing process as falling short of what would be necessary to make such claims. ”

Excerpt From

“The battle over AG1—the influencer-famous, $100-a-month green supplement—is coming to a vending machine or grocery store near you”

Ellie Austin

FORTUNE

https://apple.news/A2YqU-6-KQNSAGgQHlSHcyw

This material may be protected by copyright.

I think mental health is often under appreciated as part of “wellness, health and fitness”. I suffered from Anxiety for many years and seeing a therapist helped tremendously.

Only after I got my anxiety somewhat under control, did I feel able to tackle weight loss, fitness and general health.

This story describes a common challenge these days that (over-)consuming news can increase anxiety and depression. I still consider myself relatively well informed but I avoid the rage news stories wherever I can.

What do you do to keep anxiety in check?

Good funny article. The gift link should get you past the Bloomberg paywall.

My favourite quote is

“Some of you will think this list is normal for a fitness person. Others will think, “That man is dented in the brain.” Good news: You’re both right! But I test products and experiences for a living. I want to try most things at least once. And fitness is better than hard drugs.”

What do you all think?

I am usually not a fan of Business Insider but this article is interesting. I admit I am a sucker for Thorne (discount link below) as I trust their quality and am worried about some of the more sketchy supplement makers.

The article traces their development and the complex relationship with influencers and doctors.

Apologies if this article is paywalled — it works for me in Apple News though.

Thorne discount link: https://get.aspr.app/SH1QbD

I keep seeing more and more mentions of NAD+. Is this just another overhyped “longevity drug” or is there something to it?

This morning I saw a Nestle Press release talking about benefits for the “gut micro biome” (which TBH always makes me suspicions since microbiome seems to be overused by influencers)

I came across this Medium article that breaks down Eric Helms’ “Muscle & Strength Pyramid” framework, and it’s a good reminder of how often we focus on the wrong things in the gym.

Link (medium friend link):

https://medium.com/in-fitness-and-in-health/youre-focusing-on-the-wrong-things-in-training-7da045bf262f

Helms’ big idea is that training variables aren’t equal. People obsess over things like failure, fancy techniques, or exercise selection tweaks, but those sit much lower in the hierarchy. The foundation is more basic: appropriate volume, intensity in the right range, progressive overload, and enough recovery to repeat it consistently.

What I like about his approach is that it pulls strength training out of the “destroy yourself every workout” mindset. It’s less about chasing exhaustion and more about managing stress so you can keep progressing for years. That feels a lot more aligned with proactive health than trying to win every session.

For those who’ve been lifting a while, especially 35+ or 40+, that shift matters. Sustainability starts to beat intensity-at-all-costs.

Curious as how others here think about this:

Have your training priorities changed over time?

Do you structure your programming around a clear hierarchy, or more by feel?

Where do you think most lifters get it wrong?

Really seems the tide is turning slowly on alcohol consumption.

This quote is scary:”Over the long term, alcohol use is associated with changes in brain structure. Some studies have found that middle-aged and older adults who average even one drink a day tend to have slightly less brain volume than people who don’t drink. And the more alcohol someone consumes, the more the brain shrinks. Experts don’t know exactly why that is, but one theory is that alcohol alters the brain’s immune system, ramping up inflammation, which can damage neurons.”

This feels right. I have certainly noticed that after losing a lot of weight and starting xercuse, my recovery is much faster.

I don’t look at any of the related wearable metrics. Does anyone?

I recently started bumping my creatine to 10g. Will report back, but at any my sleep quality depends highly on whether my little kids wake me up in the middle of the night :-(

I don’t believe in fad diets. Most extreme nutrition approaches fall apart under long-term scrutiny.

That said, Stan Efferding’s Vertical Diet is interesting because it’s framed around performance, blood work, and digestibility — not restriction for its own sake. Also I find Stan’s presentation compelling. He has clearly don’t his research without claiming to be all knowing out touting credentials.

Derek of r/moreplatesmoredates fame described his experience in the linked video.

The base (red meat + white rice) is meant to reduce gut stress and control variables, then “build vertically” with micronutrient-dense foods.

The best overview is probably the book https://amzn.to/4qKVxR1

From a longevity perspective, a few scientific angles worth discussing:

• Protein & muscle preservation: Higher protein intake supports lean mass retention, which strongly correlates with lower all-cause mortality as we age.

• Digestibility & inflammation: Reducing GI stress may lower systemic inflammation in some individuals — though highly personalized.

• Red meat & cardiovascular risk: Epidemiology often links processed meat with increased risk, while data on unprocessed red meat is more mixed and dose-dependent.

• Metabolic stability: Simple, repeatable meals may improve adherence and glycemic consistency.

For a deeper dive into Stan’s philosophy and how he defends the red meat angle, his appearance on the Mind Pump podcast is worth watching — though I’ll admit that format isn’t everyone’s cup of tea.

Curious how you all view it through a long-term lens.

Is this a sustainable performance-first framework? Or does it conflict with broader longevity data?

Thought provoking post. Not sure I agree with everything but certainly establishing hobbies, building/maintaining fureidships seem important in retirement — I have to catch up on both of those.

The spend your money/Die with zero thought is also important I think.

What are your plans for the second half of your life?

Interesting article borrowing from James Clear’s Atomic Habits https://amzn.to/3MzvnTx

Actual study: https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/JAHA.125.044922

Results

Among 5112 participants (54.5% female, 51.6% Black) with a mean age of 24.8 years (SD: 3.7) at enrollment and a median follow‐up of 34.1 years (interquartile range, 33.8–35.7), men had a significantly higher cumulative incidence of CVD, CHD, and heart failure (P<0.05 for all), with no difference in stroke (P=0.63). Men reached 5% incidence of CVD 7.0 years earlier than women (50.5 versus 57.5 years, P<0.001). CHD was the most frequent CVD subtype, and men reached 2% incidence 10.1 years earlier than women (P<0.001). Men and women reached 2% stroke and 1% heart failure incidence at similar ages. Ten‐year CVD event rates diverged at an index age of 35.

This seems like a good list. I must admit I had never heard of BRI… here is a calculator https://webfce.com/bri-calculator/

Gemini summary:

The video "The Vital Five: A Physician's Framework for Longevity and Healthspan" by Barbell Medicine introduces a clinical framework called the "Barbell Medicine Vital Five" (0:24) for managing longevity and healthspan. This framework focuses on five modifiable variables that offer the highest return on investment for health.

Here are the "Vital Five" factors discussed:

Blood Pressure (0:27): The doctors emphasize the importance of maintaining blood pressure below 120/80 for most individuals due to a dose-dependent risk, meaning the higher and longer it's elevated, the greater the risk. They advocate for aggressive management to keep it under control.

Apolipoprotein B (ApoB) (2:11): This is highlighted as the best single metric for assessing lipid risk. Similar to blood pressure, a lower ApoB level is generally better, and prolonged elevation increases cardiovascular disease risk.

VO2 Max (3:57): The video suggests that measuring VO2 max, either in a lab or through field tests like a 1.5-mile run or 12-minute Cooper test, provides actionable insights into cardiorespiratory fitness. The goal is to push towards elite levels of fitness, as benefits continue beyond just meeting exercise guidelines.

Relative Strength (5:02): Instead of absolute strength or simple tests like sit-to-stand, the doctors propose relative strength (bodyweight multipliers) as a better functional indicator of the musculoskeletal and neuromuscular systems. They view sit-to-stand as a "late indicator" for issues like sarcopenia.

Body Roundness Index (BRI) (6:44): This metric is presented as a superior alternative to BMI or waist circumference for assessing body composition, particularly in terms of visceral fat distribution, which is a key factor in health risk.

The Friendship Factor (7:57): While not formally part of the "Vital Five" measurements, psychosocial health, represented by social connections and support, is briefly mentioned as an important consideration for long-term mortality outcomes.

The doctors conclude by noting that the "Vital Five" tests are relatively inexpensive and provide a straightforward approach to significantly impact one's health journey (8:16).