Very insightful interviews all scattered over Spotify. The best I think are with Peter Attia, he just recorded his third or fourth one with him recently!
He’s a scientist at heart, so that means you get research backed content without any sugar coating. He’s one of the few fitness personalities that I actually enjoy listening to even if he can be a little brash sometimes.
Him chewing out liver king is something I’ll never get over haha. His material can get a bit dense given his mol bio background (science majors represent!), however he is not one to get lost in the implications of a mechanism - he’s actually quite the opposite: he is skeptical about any claims that come out of mice or in vitro research especially without randomized clinical study research
@kagenonikki I would say putting out misinformation is more rude than the criticism. I mean this sub alone you see so much bullshit from people who don’t know how to properly interpret and synthesize research
For example, just because in a Petri dish a certain substance may inhibit a protein does not mean you can extrapolate the effect to humans without randomized controlled clinical trials. And too often people here push bogus supplements after hearing about some study cited by a guru
@ruin225018 Layne is pretty sensationalist when it comes to content, but his credentials speak for themselves and he's certainly a trusted OG in the space.
@ruin225018 His content is pretty drama-fuelled as he does a lot of call outs, this is why I say sensationalist - relative to other evidence based practitioners like 3DMJ.
Now that I think about it, Layne was pretty bad with the whole “metabolic damage” thing which I don’t recall him correcting.
@ruin225018 Damn, you just made me realise that time has flown by...
No, it wasn't recent - about 5 years ago now. Layne was basically promoting the concept of metabolic damage based on "X amount of anecdotes" from his clients, despite the lack of scientific evidence for it. Most of the evidence based community (rightly) seemed to disagree with it, but it was Lyle McDonald in particular who went hard at him for it.
@durantis Hm that really seems not like him, maybe he’s grown in the past few years I guess because he rarely ever makes claims without multiple supporting pieces nowadays
@durantis Of course, and he goes into that. It’s why he’s skeptical even with a single or two studies “confirming” a topic because of random occurrences
@ruin225018 Would you mind giving an example of this? From memory, all of the evidence-based practitioners who I follow are pretty quick to point out limited studies and the 'early days' of a potential finding.
