You've probably been here before. You're scrolling through social media, and within seconds, you see a post praising the benefits of a certain food or exercise or whatever it is. And then the very next post is from another expert. Telling you to avoid that thing at all costs. I constantly see this, and people in the comments are fed up and frustrated. They'll say things like, I give up, or I guess I just won't eat anything or move or do whatever. Because everything's bad for you. It's very frustrating and confusing. And today, I want to talk all about why it seems like it is this way on the internet and what we can do about it. Let's get started. And welcome back, team, to the Building Lifelong Athletes podcast. Thanks so much for stopping by. I really appreciate it. If we haven't had the chance to meet yet, my name is Jordan Rennke. I'm a dual board certified physician in family and sports medicine. And the goal of this podcast is to keep you active and healthy for life. Through actionable evidence of form education. And so today we're diving all about why the internet is so confusing and why health information constantly seems like it's conflicting. So let's dive into it. So, first things first is: let's talk about the actual nature of science. So, this Is the nature of science. So, science can be confusing, and that can be very frustrating to some people, right? So, how science works, it's really hard to avoid this thing, right? So, we're The way science is, is we learn things and then we find out that wasn't right and we change on it. We're constantly changing. So there is some back and forth that will always happen. And so, just in and of itself, science will always lead us to kind of this uncertainty in some aspects. Obviously, there's certain things where we feel like, hey, There's tons of evidence this is going to work well, and we have no problem with that. Like, this is solidly studied and all that stuff. But a lot of times, evidence moves and changes things. So, that's why, in and of itself, science kind of creates this back and forth, which some people hate. And on top of that, science is always evolving, right? Scientific understanding is not static. We learn things, we continually expand upon our viewpoints, new research builds on things or challenges existing knowledge. And this is a feature, not a flaw, of the scientific process, right? That is part of it. We're going to have these back and forth. It's good. We challenge our thoughts and we kind of learn new things, right? And what really happened, though, is a lot of times. During the pandemic, that's really where this became obvious, right? People saw science on display in real time, and people hated it. Like, we learned that the average person clearly likes authority and definitive answers, but only with the side they agree with, right? So On one side, we had people saying, Hey, this certain intervention will do what we hope it's going to do. Other side says, You know, there's nothing that could ever be done, and we should try this thing. So, there are two sides. Both equally like confident in themselves. Nobody wanted to have the middle ground where saying, hey, like we're learning more about this. We don't know. It might do this. So at the end of the day, we found that people really latched on to people who had clear, definitive answers saying, this is the answer. Whether they were right or not, is really what it came down to, and we found that. And so, you know, people listening to this, I don't want you to be all high and mighty say, Oh, I was on this side and I thought I was better. No, like everyone is guilty of this. We're all guilty of this. We'd like to confirm our biases and we like to feel right, right? That's what we like. And we don't like being uncertain. And so we, but this really kind of exploded and showed to the world that, hey, like, science sometimes can be wrong. And it's hard on a big stage like that to see where what happened and where it went. But really, it was a good example of like. Science on display. Like, hey, we think this thing's happening. Oh, turns out we were wrong. Or turns out this happened. And that's really what science happens and what happens in the scientific process. But a lot of people don't necessarily like that. Also, another thing we have to consider is the nature sciences. How studies are designed, right? So, individual studies versus scientific consensus versus other things. A single study is just one piece of the puzzle. Oftentimes, media, they Sensationalize individual studies without providing you a broader context. Now, I am guilty of doing podcasts on individual studies. I for sure do that. I think it's important to kind of go through there. But I try to put them in a bigger picture, understanding that, like, hey, this is this piece of evidence, where does this fit in the bigger body of evidence? But if someone doesn't do that, I would just be wary, right? It's important to look for what the whole overarching body of scientific literature looks like and not just one specific article. Because, right, you can go online and probably find an article for most things you want. Like, you could literally go on there. In search for a benefit of smoking, you find it may reduce your risk of some sort of inflammatory bowel disease. Like, you could find that, like, oh, this is a benefit for smoking, therefore, we should. That's probably not a good idea, right? We know that. It's important to understand the entire scientific context and how one study fits in there, right? So we have to think about that. And it's also important to look for potential consensus, right? So, what the majority of experts And a feel agree upon, right? And this is a very, very common earn it. So people love to be anti-establishment. We all do, right? It feels good to be like, I know this thing nobody else knows about. It feels good to be in the know, right? It's good to know something that everyone else missed. That is a big, big thing we see online. And there are lots of countercultural claims that get huge traction on social media, right? So we've been lied to, this big corporation wants to keep you down, wants to keep you sick, all those things. It's a nice narrative, right? It scares people, and that's the big thing. Scare and being scared and fear is a big emotion that drives action. And so that's one tool that people can use. But the question I always ask myself, and I want you to ask yourself as well: is Is there a chance that an entire field of academics is wrong? Like, is there a chance? And if that is, like, I would say that there's always a chance, right? So, there's always going to be a chance that's possible. The next question is: would it be possible for me to know it's wrong? Meaning, do I possess the skills to critically appraise the information to make that decision? Do I have the skills to look at the research, critically appraise the data, how they came to that? Do I have that? And what are the odds? That I actually have that, it's almost zero, right? Unless you are an expert in that field and understand, have years and years of knowledge of that, it'd be very, very hard to do. And another question I'll ask is when people are talking, hey, Do I have the skills? What are the odds that this influencer that we're looking at who's spouting this specific thing? What are the odds that this influencer is correct? And the entire academic community is wrong. It's like, what are the odds of that? So, even if all of those things are like, okay. It's possible, like I'm an expert in this field. It seems like it's not quite there. Maybe it's possible. Then the last question we have is: what are the stakes if I'm wrong? Right? So that's the big thing. If you're just like, Oh, should I be doing high-intensity innovative training or VO2 max training for this specific thing? Like, does it matter? Like, probably not. And that's okay. I go, the stakes are cool. You can, you can sit there. But if it's like, hey, If I'm wrong about this idea and it leads to a way higher risk of cardiovascular disease, well, that's a big, that's a big risk, right? And the stakes are big. And so that's just a kind of a framework I think about. Is it possible that they're wrong? Yes. Do I have the skills to best say? No. And a lot of times we do have to lean on experts, right? So a lot of life is relying on experts, right? When you fly in a plane or go over a bridge, you are relying on experts in their field to have done that. And that's once again. Not every expert in the world is perfect, right? And that's, I'm not appealing to authority saying, oh, like, just trust everybody. No, that's not the case at all. But you can't live life without trusting some people at some point, right? And at the end of the day, People have dedicated years and years and years of study. And at the end of the day, I don't have the expertise to know all these things. So a lot of times I have to rely on my colleagues who've done these other works. To understand where we're at. And so, like, if someone is dipping their toes and claiming to be an expert in a million things, they're probably not an expert in anything at the end of the day. And so, Once again, this is not me saying, hey, you should follow what I listen to. I'm just one beggar to another beggar telling where it's buying food, like the things I see, and you can follow it if you want to. That's fine. But I will also say, not every expert in the world is out to get you or make you sick. A lot of times, these are people who've dedicated their entire life to their craft, to learning something, to providing scientific advancement. So there's a lot of good people out there trying to do good work. And so, yeah, that's just a topic that I see quite frequently that is clearly can be weaponized, but just something to think about. Okay, the next thing I want to talk about now is why do studies have different results? Right, so why can one study show one thing and another study show something completely different? Well, there's a couple different reasons. So, first, a study, when we do this, we have to understand the population we're studying, right? So, a study, let's say, on college-age men. Might not apply to post-menopause women, right? So people online like to extrapolate findings from one population to a completely different population, and they just say, yep, because it was in this study, that's true for everybody. And we can't say that. We don't know that's the case, it may be very different. Is there some overlap? Maybe, potentially, absolutely. But what I see commonly done is: hey, this study done on like 15 college-age men, like, oh, this applies to everybody. Like, well, that's just not the case at all. There's so much going on that's different in their life. So that's one thing I see a lot. Another thing is, we have to understand the methodologies of which the study is done on it, right? So, how a study is designed can greatly impact the results. So, specifically, we talk about observational versus interventional trials. So, observational findings, this is when we say, hey, here's a data set. We kind of just look and see, like, hey, what happened here? It wasn't like we were controlling variables, we're kind of seeing what goes on. We do statistical analyses to try to isolate things out, but it's more just a hey, what are the trends? And it can't really prove anything. Whereas interventional trials like randomized control trials, those can actually prove causality, meaning, hey, we tweaked this variable and saw this result, therefore it's due to this variable being tweaked. So that's another big thing I see. We find studies all the time in the health world where they're observational, saying, hey, like this person ate fish once and they had a 25% Lower risk of dying. And that's just an observational finding saying, hey, this trend that we saw, who knows what actually causes it? Because we're not tweaking just one thing, but that's a big misunderstanding as well. Another thing we always have to talk about is who is funding the study, right? Funding and bias. Is there potential conflict of interest? And this is a big one, right? Everyone has biases, so we have to understand that, right? We're hoping to try to eliminate biases, but just the way data works in general. And publishing is that a lot of people don't publish negative results. So, negative means, hey, we thought this was gonna happen, it didn't. We're still gonna publish it. That happens not a lot of the time because it doesn't catch eyeballs, it doesn't get funding, lots of issues there. And obviously, we have to understand who funds things as well, right? A study done by a pharmaceutical organization, they have a lot of skin in the game to have a certain outcome. We have to always remember that. The same thing on the other side. If it's from You know, an agricultural business or a supplement company, whatever, they have a skin in the game and they want to have this. We'd like to think that they're doing it out of the goodness of their heart, but probably they're not. And so we always have to consider that. So, usually at the end of a study, they mention who funds it, and it's worth looking at there as well. Next, I do want to talk about nutrition and exercise specifics as well. So, there's a lot of challenge with these, particularly, and a lot of extrapolation seen on the internet. There's a big challenge to nutrition research, right? It's difficult to conduct long-term controlled nutrition studies on humans, right? It's really, really challenging. A lot of times we have to rely on self-reported data like food frequency questionnaire, food diaries. And they can be incredibly accurate, right? And a lot of times, and it's for good reason, right? It's very hard to like sit someone down in a lab for like months on end and be like, you're eating only this food. Like, nobody's going to sign up for that. They're not going to do it. So we do have these controlled wards. Metabolic word studies, we can control what they eat, but it's usually for a pretty finite amount of time. So that's one thing we have to rely on these questionnaires, and it's just not great. And a lot of times. In this nutritional research, we kind of have a reductionist approach, right? We're focusing on a single nutrient instead of whole dietary patterns, right? So, understanding that How you eat and everything you eat may play a big role in how everything works together. So, a big thing that I think I see is, you know, we're talking about one specific macronutrient, whether it's fat or carbs, whatever, you try to isolate that, but not understanding that your entire pattern shifts. So, if you eat, These things over here, you eat these other, you know, foods that have different effects on other things, that may affect how these macronutrients play with each other. So it's really confusing, a way of saying that. One macronutrient, it can be helpful to look at things, but it's very challenging to encompass the entire whole dietary pattern to see how that affects things. And another thing for exercise, what I want to talk about is the one-size-fits-all myth, right? So everybody is different, like literally everybody's different. Even identical twins have differences, and we see those in studies. But whether it's genetics, lifestyles, goals, It's just challenging to find this. And this is, once again, going back to that study, and we're talking about populations. We do studies in populations for exercise and try to extrapolate it to everybody. And that's just not the case. Like, this is, I see this all the time on social media influencers saying, hey, this study showed a 33% boost in VO2 max. Okay, who was the study? Who was the intended target population? Is this practical? Is someone going to do this interval or this intense? You know, intervention that they did in the study, like it's just crazy. So, I don't understand where this comes from, trying to extrapolate it to everybody, but we don't have universal results, right? We'll never get that, and we will never see that. When do we ever see universal everything? But for whatever reason. On the internet, it claims to be like, hey, this is the best exercise in the world. And everyone has to be individualized. We think about people talking about I work with professional athletes and I want you to do this. Like, well, that might be a terrible idea for someone who's a beginner, right? So a professional athlete hasn't. Very, very different priorities and training histories and movement competencies. That may not be the right thing. So, at the end of the day, personalization and listening to your body, Is actually key. And that's like pretty much my main thing: finding the right tool for the right person at the right time. Like, that's literally what my entire existence is in the medical world: to use the right tool for the right person. If we have someone over here who's like, I will never touch a medication in my life and you know, don't want to do that. Well, just saying, hey, well, let's stack these meds, like, that's probably not going to work, right? You got to mean them where they're at. Whereas another person's like, hey, yeah, I'm never going to work out. I'm not going to do it. So, starting medication is probably very helpful for them to minimize the risk. And so, we have this dogmatic approach where this is right and this is wrong. And at the end of the day, I think if you meet in the middle, you're probably going to find where most people actually get the most benefit. But That's not the best thing for social media and getting clicks and likes, having a polarizing view, very, very helpful for growing audiences, that's for sure. And kind of speaking into that, I do want to talk about the rise of the online health gurus and influencers, right? So. This is not derogatory at all. I'm not trying to, you know, I'm definitely not calling anybody out, but it's just definitely there. It's right. So the gatekeeper is gone, meaning, hey, back in the day. Doctors are the only ones with information. So you're like, hey, go to the doctor and see what's going on. That is no longer the case with the internet. And that's a good and a bad thing, right? So it's definitely good that they're not the only ones with information. I like when patients do research and understand and take control of their health. That's wonderful. However, this is also bad because anybody can now be an expert whether they actually are or not. So it's hard to differentiate: hey, this person who talks with such authority and such confidence that this will do this amazing thing for you. Are they actually an expert and do they actually know what's going on? That can be challenging, right? And then when you get all this information, when you hear these things, it's hard to synthesize it. How are you a lens? I view myself as like a lens for people. Meaning, hey, I've had, I'm fortunate enough to have this experience of like a stupid amount of studying that I've done and gone to medical school and done all that stuff and then seen patients and thousands of patients. Like, I have all these experiences that I can help filter things through, right? I see. You know, people go through lab results and they see red and they think, oh my goodness, like this has to be bad. And you look at that and oh, like you're 0. 1 off the reference range, and this is clinically not relevant at all. And so Understanding that can be very, very helpful. So, the internet is amazing, amazing, but sometimes we can't really sift through it, and that can be challenging. But we have people claiming to be experts when they really don't have any expertise in anything other than they've studied a couple of things here and there. But once again, this is not me gatekeeping at all. There are many people who know way more about things that I don't know about, and you know, who are not positioned. So that's not me saying that at all. But it's getting to the people who are trustworthy can be helpful, right? And so. As an influencer, now it's easy to build a platform and appeal credible, right? So you just need a website, you need some social media proof, and then you're good to go. And a lot of times, these people will share personal anecdotes as scientific fact. That can be challenging. And these people also have a lack of accountability and regulation, right? So they can say whatever they want. They can say, hey, like, there's no harm for if they say something bad. Like, if something's wrong and something happens to a patient, they have no liability. It's just like, okay, whatever. And once again, I'm not saying that's right or wrong. We live in America and we live in a world where you can say whatever you want, but it's just how do you find a person who's trustworthy and who can Have the best interest in mind, not their own personal best interest. It's very challenging. So I kind of also think about other red flags to think about, right? So if someone promises quick fixes or miracle cures, probably not going to be a person who's very trustworthy, right? If someone's demonizing entire food groups or specific programs or exercise patterns, something you know, a light bulb should just go up thinking, hey, is this true? Once again, I'm not saying that's entirely wrong. Like someone who may not respond well to something and may need to have a pretty intense diet or an extreme diet, but if someone says this is the way, It's one of those things. If you're a hammer, then everybody looks like a nail, right? If you can do one thing and one thing only, then you're going to put every single person into that group so you can try to quote unquote help them, right? But at the end of the day, You don't have any tools, you don't have a big toolbox, so you can't have a nuanced approach. And so that's just kind of something to look out for. Another red flag is selling proprietary supplements or selling based on fear, right? So selling is not a red flag, in my opinion. I don't think that's the case at all. There are some people I really, really like and respect who do a great job of selling things online, who do it the right way, right? But there is definitely an ethical way to sell, and doing that in like a scared way is one thing I see all the time: where, hey, You have this need, like you're deficient in this supplement. By the way, I happen to sell this supplement that can be a little shady potentially. Once again, there's lots of nuance here, and you're allowed to have your opinion and do what you want to do, but this is just what I've seen. And at the end of the day, a lot of times people have an us versus them attitude, right? People love being a part of something that's big, right? So, you know, this whole group Follows this standard diet or this diet, and well, we're against that, and they're wrong, and so it's us versus them. And at the end of the day, I like sitting like right in the middle. I'm just awkwardly Between both groups, saying, I don't know what to do here. There's probably a little bit of truth in each of them. But a lot of times, speaking in absolutes and demonizing one group or one thing is a great way to garner a following on social media. And another thing I do want to mention is kind of the idea of coaches versus clinicians, right? So there's a big difference between, Understanding health in theory and then applying it to real complex human beings, right? So, let me talk about that. So, skin in the game is kind of what I think about. So People who are clinicians, whether it's doctors, dieticians, physical therapists, chiropractors, whatever, these people are legally and ethically responsible for patients. When they see them in a clinic, like if I see a patient, I am legally responsible for them. So I have to make sure I am doing what's in their best interest and safe for them. My license, my reputation, our livelihood, they're all on the line there. So there's real accountability. Whereas many people online have never taken care of an actual patient, right? They've never managed a chronic disease or held true responsibility for a person's health outcomes. And there's no Real world consequences of their advice is harmful, right? And once again, that's not to say you can't have benefits from talking to the coach. I mean, I definitely think that's useful to say, hey, I want an opinion, just education. That's Totally fine, totally fine. But what I commonly, commonly see is people acting as medical interventions, as a coach, saying, Hey, you need to take this, do this, whatever. But then at the end of the day, they have no accountability, and that's just not. Yeah, it's just a very, very different experience. And As I mentioned before, absolutely they can be helpful. People who are giving education and coaching, it can be very helpful. But there's a saying in medicine that you just, you don't know what you don't know, right? We all have our blind spots. I just don't want someone to miss a very important thing because someone relied on them when they didn't have the training to help them properly. And once again, I know this can sound like, whoa, like, Jordan, what the heck do you think you're? I'm an idiot. Like, I'm an idiot. And I don't know everything, but like I've been fortunate enough to go through training, I understand like, holy cow, there's so much I don't know about. I like to think that I know the big, bad, scary things to look for. But sometimes, if you don't have that baseline level of like seeing patients, understanding clinical pathology, all that stuff, you don't know what you don't know. And so you can miss big, big things. And once again, when you have That toolbox that's very small and say it has to be this, you try to fit it in there where it might be something else. And so, yeah, that's kind of what it is. And also, working with actual patients and having working with patients, it really just teaches nuance, right? It teaches you that health is not simple. And that the perfect plans rarely ever work. And there's real messy people, and it's very, very challenging. And I tell patients all the time that nobody reads a book on how to be a patient, right? That they never present just like the book tells us. It's always messy, there's always some nuance to that. And so, A lack of clinical experience often shows up as dogmatic, overly simplistic, and one-size-fits-all advice that doesn't account for the vast variability of human health, right? A lot of times it's, hey, Oh, you tried this thing and it didn't work. Well, you didn't do it right. Like, it can't be the system, it has to be you. I see that very, very commonly. And so, that's another thing we need to look out for: is hey. Like, take a step back. What are people selling you? Are they only pushing one way? And once again, I'm not trying to gatekeep. I know people say, oh, like you're being a gatekeeper, Jordan. That's not the case at all. Not what I'm trying to say. I'm just trying to give you a. A schematic to think about when you're following someone online. Do they talk about these things? Do they talk about nuance? Have they worked with real people, right? Like that's the big thing. And people are, oh, look at these testimonials. That is very, very, very, very different. Like an online trainer, 100%. Like, you know, they get people amazing results. That's great. But when you're talking about taking crazy supplements or trying on, you know, pharmaceuticals, or you're getting. You know, peptides here and there from someone who's never actually taken care of patients and understood that. That's just my red flag. Go up a little bit there. And then I also want to mention how the algorithm actually works. If you're watching this, congrats, the algorithm worked for me. That was wonderful. Or you follow me either way. Thanks so much. But Social media, these platforms are designed to keep you engaged, right? They show more of what you've already liked, shared, or watched. So you actually may hate it. There's times where you. Totally disagree with something that was on your feet and you watched it and you're like, that was so stupid. And then you watched it again. But if you spend time on it, the algorithm will give you more because clearly you show them: hey, it doesn't matter if I like. Or don't like it, but I spent time there, they want more of that, right? Because time on the platform is everything. And oftentimes on the internet and on social media, if you engage with some sort of content, About anything, it can get you an echo chamber, right? So, if you engage with content on a specific diet, whether it's keto, vegan, carnivore, Mediterranean, whatever it is, the algorithm will show you more content on that, reinforcing those ideas. So, it can make Fringe or controversial opinions seem like mainstream consensus, right? So you looked at this one video, and all of a sudden you start seeing video after video after video about that. And you're like, oh my gosh. This is all I see. This has to be so true. Everyone else is doing it. And that's the thing. And that's very much not the case, right? You're kind of less likely to see opposing viewpoints. You get sucked into this bubble. And yeah, it can create a biased information landscape. And yeah, that's kind of what it is. And then at the end of the day, also, algorithms prioritize content that gets a strong emotional reaction: likes, comments, shares, watch time, regardless of whether or not it's accurate, right? Outrageous, shocking, and overly simplistic claims often perform better than nuanced evidence-based information. That's why misinformation can spread so quickly, right? And that's not me whining, saying, Oh, it spreads quicker. That's just what it is. And I'm okay with that. I'm totally fine with that. But for example, Every time I do a video on something low carb related, low carb, keto, carnivore, I get more views, like without exception, every single time. Now, if my entire livelihood relied on YouTube views or selling things related to that, then I'd be really tempted to double down. On that specific topic, because it's pretty much a surefire way to get more views and make more money. And that's a dangerous game. A lot of people now content creation is their full-time job, and so they need. To feed the algorithm. They need views to sustain things. And once again, I'm not saying that being a full-time influencer is a bad thing. I think it's great, I think it's wonderful and it can reach a lot of people and help a lot of people. But it can be a slippery slope when you know this specific content will get you more views, therefore more money, or let you take care of your family. It's not a bad intention to take care of your family. But it's just a dangerous game. I've noticed that. I've seen that hands-on. And so it could happen. So I'm just mentioning if you are on social media and you tend to see, like Something's happening over and over and over, that's because that's the algorithm that wants you to have that. So, understand that. And so, kind of stepping into this here, I want to talk about how to be a savvy consumer of health information, right? I kind of came up with this acronym called Axe, right? To go through any piece of content you see to see whether it's something that you can trust or not. So, the first is A. So, A, this is for authority and accountability, right? Who's the person? What are their credentials? And do they have skin in the game? You know, what's their history? Once again, this is not me gatekeeping saying, like, oh, they have to have credentials. No, there's tons of people I learn from who don't have credentials of MD, who I've learned a lot from. But. You know, what are they? Are they some random person? Are they a 22-year-old just graduated college and don't really have any expertise or really done anything? Or are they someone who had years and years of experience? Once again, I'm just kind of looking at who their credentials are, what's their authority, what's their accountability, have they ever taken care of people before? Then for the CITS context, is this a single sensationalized study they're talking about, or does this reflect broader scientific consensus? Does it fit into the bias of the presenter, right? Do they present on other things other than just parroting this one idea, saying, hey, this is all I talk about? They're one trick pony. The T is transparency and tone. So what's their purpose, right? Are they transparent about they're trying to sell you something? Is the tone educational or is it dogmatic? Is it fearful trying to stir up high emotions? And I get that. In this world, you've got to have a little bit up there of emotions and click triggers to get people to watch initially. And so. I'm not saying I'm completely guilty of that, but are they over and over trying to scare people? Are they dogmatic? Are they, you know, what's their tone? Are they trying to scare you? All those things to think about. And then the S is the source, right? Do they cite any credible sources? What do they look at? Are they just talking about opinions? Are they stating their opinions as facts? And yeah, there's always a time and a place for opinions, right? But big claims require big data. A lot of times people make enormous claims with no real data. And that's okay if you say, hey, this is what I've seen. Literally, if you just say those words, this is what I've seen, that's great. As opposed to saying, do this and this will happen, that's where I have the problem because people aren't understanding it. So, if you do get the sources, it's helpful to look at them. Right, are they research papers? Are they from other reputable things? Or that can be helpful to look at to see. Not a necessarily deal breaker, as we talked about, there's different ways, but I think about that. I think it's also important that you, as a consumer, you should use this and bounce ideas off of other people, right? So you should be kind of using a whole team. Hopefully, you have a team that you can bounce this off and hey. I saw this thing online, and what do you think about it? Talking with your doctor or a dietitian or your personal trainer or whatnot. But, like, using online information is a good starting point to have a conversation with someone, right? And I know some people get dismissed by their doctor, which is the worst thing, and I hate that. Where they bring something in and say, oh, no, but doctors are human too, and we only know so much, right? So if you don't know something, it can be challenging sometimes to have a nuanced conversation about that. But really, at the end of the day, when you're consuming information, I just want you to try to consume it from a bunch of different sources, right? So if you constantly are finding This thing, this thing, this thing. Every once in a while, just like try to find an opposing viewpoint. Like, pull up a video, see what they're talking about, right? Find a video, like a popular video, see if there's a rebuttal talk on that. You may disagree with it, but they'll probably bring up some points that you hadn't thought about before. It might be worth doing. I try to follow people on different sides of the aisle. Like, I have people who are plant-based, I have people who are carnivore, I follow people who, you know, are about long-slow distance cardio, other people are high-intensity. Like, I have, I try to follow a bunch of smattering of people. So I kind of You know, see what's the pulse of social media, but what's also going on, I think it can be helpful in the long run to understand what's going on. But that's going to be it for today. I hope this was helpful. You know, the big takeaways I want you to have are that Science is a process, right? It's always back and forth. It takes a lot longer than we want to sometimes, which can happen, but it's always back and forth. And hopefully, we're always learning, right? That's the goal. That's why I wanted to become a physician so I could always learn. On top of that, real-world experience really matters. So, when you look at information, where's it coming from? Does that person have experience? Have they helped other people? That's very helpful. And then, algorithms can create a distorted view of what the actual reality is, right? You might think something's going on. Because the algorithm feeds it to you, but that may not actually be what's going on. And finally, critically evaluate your sources, right? So that's the big thing to make sure that you know where they're coming from. And can validate them. But I hope this was helpful for you. And you do have the power to take control of your health information journey, right? So you can do things, and yeah, you can do that. And if you need to have questions, like Throw them in the comments. If you have any questions or ever had any concerns, I can try to help you out. Obviously, I'm not your doctor, I'm just some dude. But if you have questions, I'm more than happy to talk at any time. But Yeah, thanks so much for stopping by, though. I do appreciate it. If you did find this helpful, it would mean the world to me if you either liked, commented, subscribed, or shared with a friend. That really would help get the podcast around. But that's going to be it for today. Now get off your phone, get outside, have a great rest of your day. We'll see you next time. Disclaimer, this podcast is for entertainment, education, and informational purposes only. The topics discussed should not solely be used to diagnose, treat, or prevent any condition. The information presented here was created with an evidence-based approach, but please keep in mind that science is always changing, and at the time of listening to this, there may be some new data that makes this information incomplete or inaccurate. Always seek the advice of your personal physician or qualified healthcare provider for questions regarding any medical condition.
