Commentary on Huberman Podcast #224: Cell Politics, Metabolism & N = 1

Today’s HubermanLab Podcast Episode #224 was packed with discussion points that had me stroking my chin and clapping my hands. Here are my favorite two points from the episode.

Today’s HubermanLab Podcast Episode #224 (YouTube, Spotify, Apple Podcasts) was packed with discussion points that had me stroking my chin and clapping my hands.

Okay – calling a duck a duck – I am biased because I was given a nice shout out at the 2-hour mark. But I stand by what I said: It was a thought-provoking episode about Functional Medicine and Individualized Biochemistry. Here are my favorite two points from the episode. I encourage you to have a listen.

1. “Cells Don’t Have a Political Ideology”

I loved this quote from the podcast. Mark and Andrew spend a significant amount of time talking about the intersection of metabolism and politics.

The TLDR summary: There shouldn’t be one. But there is.

In fact, it’s so present and palpable I bet I can provoke a visceral reaction from you in 4 letters: “M.A.H.A.”

The words “Make America Healthy Again” represent a goal to which we should all aspire as a community. But they aren’t just words. They are a slogan and a verbal brand of the right. That is not a judgement; it is simply a description of the present state of affairs.

Unfortunately, this creates large barriers to productive communication, reasonable dialogue, and implementing solutions to the metabolic health epidemic.

It’s astonishing to me the degree to which politics bleeds into health sciences.

People will literally assume your politics and ideological positions on abortion, gun control, affirmative action and other diversity, equity, and inclusion issues based on what’s on your plate.

It’s an insidious domino chain in the brain:

• If you’re keto, or carnivore, you’re like right-wing and probably pro-life, believe in just two genders, and so on.

• If you’re plant-based, you’re like left-wing and probably pro-choice, support trans rights, and so on.

Please pause and think about how ridiculous that is: People will literally draw conclusions about my opinion on the life-status of a fertilize egg based on the macronutrient composition of my meals. As I write that sentence, it sounds like hyperbole. But it’s not, not even a little. And the effects aren’t small either. This inappropriate parabiosis of science and politics shifts news coverage and scientific literature.

As a case in point, I’ve been contacted by Fox news six times in the last six months, along with the Epoch Times and Daily Mail and other right-leaning media outlets. I’ve tagged and/or contacted CNN and MSNBC in the hopes of getting balanced red and blue coverage, but to no avail.

Honestly, I struggle with this. But what should I do?

Should I filter my research and my interpretation of the data through a political filter?

Should I reject a dialogue about metabolism and hard data about physiology, biology and medicine just because of which presidential candidate the majority audience supported?

I think that would only exacerbate the problem.

But what do you think? What would you do in my shoes? If you’re liberal, would you appear on Fox to talk about metabolic health? If you’re conservative, would you appear on CNN to talk about metabolic health?

In summary, health shouldn’t be red or blue because “Cells Don’t Have a Political Ideology”

Of potential interest, my Newsletter from Yesterday was all about the “Mitochondrial Endosymbiosis” Hypothesis of Autoimmune disease, which certainly relates to apolitical cellular metabolism and discussions about Mitochondrial Health that arise in the Huberman and Hyman episode. Check it out.

2. “Test, Don’t Guess”

This is my second favorite pithy quote from episode. Synonymous phrases that were used included “Biochemical Individuality” and “N = 1 Science” or “N = 1 Medicine.”

This is the future!

We humans are incredibility heterogenous with respect to our genomes, microbiomes, metabolomes, family histories, lifestyle practices and health goals. The heterogeneity within each of these factors don’t just compound, they synergize, generating individuals who exhibit dramatically different responses to the same interventions.

While there are many ways in which I could provide commentary on this point, the most obvious and important is to elaborate on the “case study” Mark discussed with Andrew about – well – me.

Mark shared that when I adopted a ketogenic diet for inflammatory bowel disease my LDL “bad” cholesterol responded by blowing up like an inflatable tube man at a car dealership. Specifically, my LDL cholesterol on a mixed diet including carbohydrates ran ~90 mg/dl, whereas on a ketogenic diet it runs as high at the mid 500s. On last check my LDL cholesterol 566 mg/dl.

This isn’t the moment for a physiology lesson on why my cholesterol went through the roof, or what bizarre biohacks I can use to change it. This is a moment for making one point plain and clear: This is my N = 1, not yours.

I emphasize this because I have put a tremendous amount of thought and time into my personal medical care. I’ve spent dozens of hours conversing with experts, published four case reports on myself, collected mountains of data include whole exome sequencing, cardiac images and countless blood tests. And after all that, came to a decision about which I’m still not entirely confident.

That’s the art of medicine: Making the best decision you can for an individual patient given incomplete information.

*I delve deeper into my personal decision to remain untreated for high LDL and ApoB, in the context of recent research findings, in this Metabolic Mind Episode with cardiologist, Dr Bret Scher* - COMING SOON (Hopefully Later Today)*

My intent is always to encourage people to approach their own N = 1 with thought and care. I believe this is best done by trying to teach about the fundamentals of metabolic health, elucidate new data as it comes to light, and consistently push the narrative - the truth - that every individual has to power and capacity to improve their health provided they #StayCurious and realize that the N = 1 scientific process is not a chore, but a joy and privilege!

Final Words

Andrew says in the podcast that“[Nick is n]ot afraid to go against the grain… I’ve encouraged him to keep going…”

He also told me that to survive in this space, “You need to become comfortable with people misunderstanding and misrepresenting you.” That was about a year ago, and I’m beginning to understand just how right he was.

But I promise I have no intention to do anything but “keep going.”

And, if you’re new to me, please check out my other social media: YouTube, X (Twitter), Instagram, LinkedIn.

And, as it happens, today’s YouTube video on saffron (below) was initially inspired by Andrew Huberman who predicted that saffron would be the next big thing in mental health.