I really enjoy your videos and reading your articles. It is one of the best sources of information out there, because your work is the best I've seen on putting together real science based material and with a very healthy does of critical thinking.
Can you post the screenshots you posted on your instagram story of him claiming to have the skin of a 20-year old woman and more stamina in bed than an 18-year old man or something? It really seemed like the perfect copypasta
Oh, wow. Previously I assumed he really wanted to be healthy, while making a buck on the side and got just confused.
After this response, it's clear to me he only wants to sell and doesn't care that much about health. If he did he'd engage more carefuly.
Relying on his team is an excuse. You don't need a team of Phds to understand that correlation doesn't mean causation. I can see it clearly without any scientific background.
He is just a pathological narcissist, now selling his scam.
His starting claims were already nonsense, even if you reduce all inflammation, your ADN is bound to have errors in replication. Living longer than what is possible with a healthy lifestyle is a fool's errand anyway.
On the diet side of thing, the issue is that telling the truth does not make you much money and people generally hate the truth.
Veganism is some sort of food disorder that has a basis in psychological issues more than any science merit. Once you understand the real motivations, it is hard to take it seriously.
I don't know why people make things so complicated about diet!!! Our grand grand parents had red meat all their lives and they were healthy!!
Just eat simple notorious food and reduce the processed food as much as possible. Nowadays, everyone knows fast food and sugary drinks are bad for our health. So, avoid them.
To be honest I value both of your content. It is sad to see that the conversation is not on a mutual readiness for fact discussion & exchange. Both of you seem honest, both of you seem surely also online personalities with a marketing around you. Maybe this marketing and online path is sometimes making an honest exchange from human to human more difficult?
Joseph took his time to make a solid argument to which Bryan responded with what's essentially ad-hominem in this context. (Note: the response would've been valid if it was just data against data, but it's not.) People normally use ad hominems when they have nothing better to say.
I think it's very clear who is honest and who is not.
From the first time I heard him speak and what he was talking about, there never was anything verifiable. He's made lots of choices but there's no way to even know if anything he is doing will improve his longevity
I watch both Bryan Johnson and WIL channels. I haven been watching WIL when it got 20 videos and Joseph didn't show his face and I'm always amazed by the amount of research in a YouTube video. I know the claims and conclusions is backed by both anecdotes and highlights on research papers.
I started watching Bryan recently and most of the info has been lifestyles and inspirations. They helped me with prioritizing sleep and not drinking. But I've been confused for a long time with eating meat or not eating meat since I follow both channels for health advice. Now I know more context about Bryan's decision to not eat meat. Thanks for making this video Joseph!
It’s insane how Bryan can stand on the shoulders of “science” and then just leave such a corny reply. I wouldn’t really expect any different from a vegan peddler though. Probably was a reply from one of his science team.
I encourage everyone to watch the MPMD podcadst with Bryan, if you listen critically you realize Bryan backs up nothing and answers none of the critical questions with any kind of meaningful reasoning. All marketing. I kind of had high hopes for him until I saw the slow descent into selling "snake oil" and all the blatant marketing-speak.
You are too harsh on observational studies. How do you test effects of nutrition over the course of 10+ years instead? RCTs are necessarily short term. A long RCT essentially becomes a questionnaire after multiple years, since you can't control people's lives for that long without imprisoning them. Observational data is not great, but the best we have for long term assessment.
Would love to hear your take on the trade-off between quality and length of studies.
Just to be clear, I agree that read meat is generally healthy, despite seeing the value in Bryan Johnson's studies.
Remember, this is the guy who spent $2million on his protocol, has a team of 30 scientists, says his diet is 100% based on data and science to where every calorie 'has had to fight for its life.' This is the context I'm knocking on his observational studies from
I am not sure I understand you correctly. Even if the data is flawed, it could still be the best we have for long term outcomes. As his scientist I might say: "I am 70% sure that this is true" while also rightfully saying that my claim is "100% based on data".
I am not trying to defend Bryan Johnson's conclusions, just observational data in general.
I really enjoy your videos and reading your articles. It is one of the best sources of information out there, because your work is the best I've seen on putting together real science based material and with a very healthy does of critical thinking.
Thank you!
No, Thank you for what you do!
The guy is obiously full of shit.
Can you post the screenshots you posted on your instagram story of him claiming to have the skin of a 20-year old woman and more stamina in bed than an 18-year old man or something? It really seemed like the perfect copypasta
https://substack.com/@josepheverettwil/note/c-87732627?utm_source=notes-share-action&r=1rgj34
Oh, wow. Previously I assumed he really wanted to be healthy, while making a buck on the side and got just confused.
After this response, it's clear to me he only wants to sell and doesn't care that much about health. If he did he'd engage more carefuly.
Relying on his team is an excuse. You don't need a team of Phds to understand that correlation doesn't mean causation. I can see it clearly without any scientific background.
He is just a pathological narcissist, now selling his scam.
His starting claims were already nonsense, even if you reduce all inflammation, your ADN is bound to have errors in replication. Living longer than what is possible with a healthy lifestyle is a fool's errand anyway.
On the diet side of thing, the issue is that telling the truth does not make you much money and people generally hate the truth.
Veganism is some sort of food disorder that has a basis in psychological issues more than any science merit. Once you understand the real motivations, it is hard to take it seriously.
Do you happen to have any other evidence that he's a narcissist? I don't follow him.
I don't know why people make things so complicated about diet!!! Our grand grand parents had red meat all their lives and they were healthy!!
Just eat simple notorious food and reduce the processed food as much as possible. Nowadays, everyone knows fast food and sugary drinks are bad for our health. So, avoid them.
That's it!!
To be honest I value both of your content. It is sad to see that the conversation is not on a mutual readiness for fact discussion & exchange. Both of you seem honest, both of you seem surely also online personalities with a marketing around you. Maybe this marketing and online path is sometimes making an honest exchange from human to human more difficult?
Joseph took his time to make a solid argument to which Bryan responded with what's essentially ad-hominem in this context. (Note: the response would've been valid if it was just data against data, but it's not.) People normally use ad hominems when they have nothing better to say.
I think it's very clear who is honest and who is not.
From the first time I heard him speak and what he was talking about, there never was anything verifiable. He's made lots of choices but there's no way to even know if anything he is doing will improve his longevity
I watch both Bryan Johnson and WIL channels. I haven been watching WIL when it got 20 videos and Joseph didn't show his face and I'm always amazed by the amount of research in a YouTube video. I know the claims and conclusions is backed by both anecdotes and highlights on research papers.
I started watching Bryan recently and most of the info has been lifestyles and inspirations. They helped me with prioritizing sleep and not drinking. But I've been confused for a long time with eating meat or not eating meat since I follow both channels for health advice. Now I know more context about Bryan's decision to not eat meat. Thanks for making this video Joseph!
It’s insane how Bryan can stand on the shoulders of “science” and then just leave such a corny reply. I wouldn’t really expect any different from a vegan peddler though. Probably was a reply from one of his science team.
I encourage everyone to watch the MPMD podcadst with Bryan, if you listen critically you realize Bryan backs up nothing and answers none of the critical questions with any kind of meaningful reasoning. All marketing. I kind of had high hopes for him until I saw the slow descent into selling "snake oil" and all the blatant marketing-speak.
You are too harsh on observational studies. How do you test effects of nutrition over the course of 10+ years instead? RCTs are necessarily short term. A long RCT essentially becomes a questionnaire after multiple years, since you can't control people's lives for that long without imprisoning them. Observational data is not great, but the best we have for long term assessment.
Would love to hear your take on the trade-off between quality and length of studies.
Just to be clear, I agree that read meat is generally healthy, despite seeing the value in Bryan Johnson's studies.
Remember, this is the guy who spent $2million on his protocol, has a team of 30 scientists, says his diet is 100% based on data and science to where every calorie 'has had to fight for its life.' This is the context I'm knocking on his observational studies from
I am not sure I understand you correctly. Even if the data is flawed, it could still be the best we have for long term outcomes. As his scientist I might say: "I am 70% sure that this is true" while also rightfully saying that my claim is "100% based on data".
I am not trying to defend Bryan Johnson's conclusions, just observational data in general.
It's kinda sad that many people believe that meat consumption is bad for you when in reality is the opposite.
Hi I too enjoy your newsletter!
I came across this what do you think about it?: https://www.reddit.com/r/interestingasfuck/comments/1i8453x/yellow_cholesterol_nodules_in_patients_skin_built/
https://x.com/nicknorwitz/status/1882535203748671646?s=46
Wow thanks. Have a nice day I love your videos I watched them all.