Layne Norton "Cracked." A Breakdown of Past and Recent Events with Analysis of Influencer Psychology

I don't like to start fights... I don't mind finishing them, if necessary.

Layne “Cracked” … Let’s Break it Down and Describe Why his recent thread is about much more than eggs.

Layne Norton recently went on a Twitter diatribe about eggs. I can’t tag it because he’s blocked me.

But why eggs, why now?

Answer: Me.

He’s thread was clearly targeted – referring to headlines about “some Harvard Medical Student.” Wonder who that could be?.

Again, we ask, “why?”

Well, like Layne’s thread, let’s start with a history.

HISTORY

Over the past couple of years, colleagues and I have been conducting research on a metabolic phenomenon – lean mass hyper-responders – and the physiology that explains it.

This research is of massive importance and has the potential to reveal the mechanistic “why” behind the diversity of lipid/cholesterol changes in the context of low-carbohydrate and ketogenic diets.

And, in so doing, this line of research may help address an obstacle to the clinical implementation of this powerful metabolic therapy for a broad range of chronic diseases: Autoimmune and inflammatory conditions, Neurological disorders, Mental health disorders, and so on.

Layne is aware of this work.

In fact, he’s engaged with us privately around the research, including our Meta-analysis of Human Randomized Controlled Trials.

And – for those who know Layne – we know how much he “loves” the “Human Randomized Controlled Trials.”

(To be clear, this if from a Layne Norton clip… he’s the one who photoshopped himself onto a rocket yelling about Randomized Controlled Trials.)

We engaged cordially with Layne, answered his questions, provided him with open data and code, and gave him the benefit of the doubt that, if he covered the topic, he’d do so with a mind to platform nuance and represent the science he professes to value.

In the end, Layne instead decided to:

(i) Reject our invitations to have an open public discussion (on his or third party platforms)

(ii) Entirely ignore the meta-analysis of randomized trials. (Hypocritical?)

(iii) And, on top of that, he screwed up when representing the physiological explanations of the phenomenon described in the published literature, despite having it explained to him directly, multiple times.

Then, to put salt in his own wound, (iv) he aggressively and defensively attacked and bullied well-meaning individuals for asking questions.

Given that he chose to comment on our work, I felt at liberty to respond to correct the record on matters of science because – as the shirt he sells reads – “data over feelings.”

Ironically, Layne then had a lot of “feelings,” and threw a tantrum because he felt my response was “mean.”

You can watch this older video it yourself and render your own verdict.

At that time, he swore to never engage with me on any social media and blocked me.

I reached out via mutual friends to try to enter a data-based discussion with Layne. Said mutual friends seemed surprised by the extent to which Layne seemed dedicated to not engaging on the matters of science and data.

It was clear he was upset.

Fair enough… we’re all allowed to have “feelings.”

But I found this sociologically interesting. So, at the time, made a video analyzing his behavior for my own learning. I found it a useful exercise for myself, not from a place of anger, but curiosity. This was months ago and I decided, at the time, I had no need to actually release it.

For me, it was more about the exercise. That said, I decided to hold on to it in case Layne “cracked” and couldn’t help himself from jumping back in to comment on matters related to our work. Specifically, I promised myself that I’d only release the banked video if Layne broke his promise and decided to poke at me publicly again.

Honestly, he lasted longer than I thought.

Even though over that time he did reach out to mutual contacts about me in ways that I felt were in poor form, with a focus on his emotional status with no mind given the data at hand, even when pressed.

But I decided to let those moments go, and wait and see if the pot boiled over and – as I expected – he wouldn’t be able to resist. I was right.

Back to Eggs…

Now, to be clear, I actually agree on Layne’s take on the healthfulness of eggs, more or less. For most people, dietary cholesterol isn’t a major concern and eggs can be healthy, but aren’t necessary.

But where I take issue is on his persistence on missing the actual point, be it Oreo Vs Statin or 720 Eggs.

In his recent thread, he writes, “Those in the low-carb/keto camp say saturated fat doesn’t matter, and they use the reversal of the egg's fortune as evidence… Trying out a dietary trick on your own diet, provides zero useful information for the population at large.”

Let’s juxtapose that to the statements I make in my N = 1 experiments:

“I’ve found utility in this “legit-bait” approach, starting with the Oreo Vs Statin study which – as silly as it may seem – captured not only a good volume of attention but also the attention of important parties, including other researchers and clinicians, who are now both aware of and invested in the work we’re doing.”

Or…

“My vegan-keto study, while certainly a carefully engineered metabolic demonstration, provocatively pokes at conventional ideas to, hopefully, force people to think more deeply about how each individual’s unique metabolic circumstances deserve individualized consideration. In this way, it’s a radical demonstration trying to make a reasonable point."

The point is this: I’m entirely transparent in my objective with these N = 1. I also clarify, repeatedly, that the results of these metabolic demonstrations will not generalize to the population at large. However, the results are physiologically predictable. Thus, the challenge to the audience is to appreciate the unique metabolic circumstances that permit for results like Oreo Cookies outperforming Statin therapy for LDL cholesterol lowering.

And if your take away is “Oreos are Healthy” or that “Nick is saying Oreos will lower cholesterol in everyone,” then please accept the award for superficial thinking.

In fact, I state directly in several videos and write-up that I’m intended to provoke emotions.

I’m effectively laying a psychological trap and stating outright and transparently that I’m trying to provoke your emotions in order to force a conversation about data that isn’t otherwise happening because “certain people” seem resistant to discussing data like the meta-analysis of RCTs when it contradicts their world view and/or they don’t understand the nuances.

I present a clear challenge: You can either engage purely with visceral emotion or express curiosity and go a level deeper, “beyond the packaging, beyond the shell.”

And it seems that Layne is in the “camp” that (repeatedly) chooses to forgo the yolk.

Do I Care?

Yes and no.

Of course, my preference would be that everyone gets the actual point. But, realistically, that won’t happen. Therefore, speaking pragmatically, I’m happy to leverage intentionally provoked superficial emotional responses to amplify a message such that a larger number of curious individuals - the general public, clinicians, and academics alike - will be engaged.

And, it’s working beautifully. We’re acquiring partners and resources to push forward the research. Trust me, commentaries like Layne’s Oreo video or Egg Thread aren’t getting in the way. They’re just kindling.

Moving Forward

My colleagues and I will continue to engage in long-form with nuance, where other parties are willing to come to the table. More and more are. Layne hasn’t been one of them, but if he decides to change his mind, the door remains open. I’m not a person who holds grudges. So what happens next is up to him.

For my part, I’ll keep on carrying on. I’m still very new to this game, but I’m learning to enjoy it.

Recent Video on N = 1

References to 10 published papers on Lean Mass Hyper-Responders can be found here.