Latest / The LIVING Room Podcast | Inside The WNDR Lab / #1 Monthly. Peptides, FDA Approval & Longevity Trends: Dr. Myles Spar Separates Science From Hype

Transcript

#1 Monthly. Peptides, FDA Approval & Longevity Trends: Dr. Myles Spar Separates Science From Hype · The LIVING Room Podcast | Inside The WNDR Lab

• 0:00
  SPEAKER_01: I'm very anti-hacking, and I think we are here at Wonder Labs.
• 0:03
  SPEAKER_01: We don't believe that you can just bypass what's proven to make a difference in your healthy aging, your healthy living, your optimal performance.
• 0:11
  SPEAKER_01: Just because GLP1s have become so popular, people think, oh, all peptides must do miraculous things.
• 0:17
  SPEAKER_01: They are as different as cells are in the body, and they all do very different things.
• 0:22
  SPEAKER_01: And so it's very important to understand some of them affect the brain, some of them affect muscle recovery, some of them affect the ability to produce energy.
• 0:29
  SPEAKER_01: They all have very different effects and they all have very different risks.
• 0:32
  SPEAKER_02: I think this blood transfusion is one of the wildest overreaches in our space right now.
• 0:38
  SPEAKER_02: It's crazy.
• 0:39
  SPEAKER_02: I think people are paying 10,000 bucks a shot to remove all of their blood, have it cleaned of microplastics, and then put back in.
• 0:47
  SPEAKER_01: They're using plastic tubing.
• 0:48
  SPEAKER_01: They're using a lot of plastics in your arm.
• 0:51
  SPEAKER_01: So it could be introducing more microplastics and it's getting rid of it.
• 0:55
  SPEAKER_01: FDA cleared is mostly for devices.
• 0:57
  SPEAKER_01: It just means that device has been cleared to do what it says it does.
• 1:00
  SPEAKER_01: Period.
• 1:01
  SPEAKER_01: It doesn't mean it's been approved for use for certain indications.
• 1:04
  SPEAKER_01: Just because these peptides are going to be recategorized, that still doesn't mean they will be FDA approved.
• 1:09
  SPEAKER_01: That just means they will be cleared to be manufactured by these compounding pharmacies.
• 1:14
  SPEAKER_02: I think a really good high-level takeaway is to be curiously skeptical.
• 1:19
  SPEAKER_02: And so never take a headline at face value.
• 1:48
  SPEAKER_02: But with so much information, one question becomes increasingly important.
• 1:52
  SPEAKER_02: What actually works?
• 1:53
  SPEAKER_02: Today I'm joined by my colleague and the Wonder Lab Chief Medical Officer, Dr.
• 1:57
  SPEAKER_02: Miles Barr, where we will be regularly assessing the longevity media landscape to give you some high-level perspectives on what's looking promising in the field, what to approach with caution, and what we think right now you should avoid entirely.
• 2:10
  SPEAKER_02: Now we're going to be doing this more frequently, so please feel free to comment in the channel with any questions or topics you'd like us to cover in future episodes.
• 2:18
  SPEAKER_02: Enjoy.
• 2:19
  SPEAKER_02: Dr.
• 2:19
  SPEAKER_02: Spa, welcome.
• 2:21
  SPEAKER_01: Thank you, Chris.
• 2:22
  SPEAKER_01: Good to be here.
• 2:23
  SPEAKER_02: So a good place to start, I think, given that this is going to be first of many regular reviews of what's going on in the space is what your role is here at the Wonder Lab.
• 2:33
  SPEAKER_02: And who are you, Dr.
• 2:35
  SPEAKER_02: Spar?
• 2:35
  SPEAKER_01: I'm the chief medical officer here at Wonder Lab, and I've been doing longevity integrative medicine my whole career.
• 2:42
  SPEAKER_01: I'm a board certified internal medicine doctor, but I've done further training in a whole person view of health and what are all the aspects that lead to a well-lived life and to a very healthy life.
• 2:53
  SPEAKER_01: And that's a lot more than we learn in med school or even in internal medicine training.
• 2:57
  SPEAKER_01: So I've trained in how to assess all aspects of performance.
• 3:00
  SPEAKER_01: And that's what my whole career has been about.
• 3:03
  SPEAKER_01: And that's what I'm doing here at Wonder Labs is helping really to guide our members into understanding what's relevant to them, what tests are most appropriate for them, with the guidance of our amazing scientific advisory board.
• 3:20
  SPEAKER_01: Yeah.
• 3:20
  SPEAKER_01: So I get to be the clinical translator of these incredible scientists that we have that have expertise in all aspects of longevity, but they're not necessarily clinicians, they're scientists.
• 3:30
  SPEAKER_01: So I get to translate what the science they're doing is that's relevant to every member.
• 3:36
  SPEAKER_02: I'm I'm I promise not to go off on a tangent here, but in the clinical space, you know, for so long we weren't using this term longevity or health span.
• 3:48
  SPEAKER_02: Now everyone is using it and there are experts everywhere.
• 3:52
  SPEAKER_02: Right.
• 3:52
  SPEAKER_02: How is that changing the way that people are educated in clinical practice?
• 3:57
  SPEAKER_02: Yeah.
• 3:57
  SPEAKER_02: You know, is there such a thing as, you know, longevity medicine training now for the people that are in medical school?
• 4:05
  SPEAKER_01: Yeah, great question.
• 4:06
  SPEAKER_01: There really isn't right now, and certainly not in medical school.
• 4:09
  SPEAKER_01: Medical school is pretty much the same as it's always been, unfortunately.
• 4:13
  SPEAKER_01: There are people, including Dr.
• 4:15
  SPEAKER_01: Mozarian, who's on our board, that are trying to help implement more training and nutrition, for example, in medical school.
• 4:22
  SPEAKER_01: But most of the training in longevity medicine is done after training in whatever specialty a physician goes into.
• 4:28
  SPEAKER_00: Right.
• 4:28
  SPEAKER_01: So they might become a surgeon or an internist or an obstetrician, gynecologist, or psychiatrist.
• 4:34
  SPEAKER_01: And then they want to go further into how do I look at the whole person and understanding the role of exercise, nutrition, sleep, all the things that we work on that we don't really learn about in medical school.
• 4:44
  SPEAKER_02: Yeah.
• 4:45
  SPEAKER_02: And I think Will uh Mayer, who is our chief science officer, who was on the very first episode of the podcast, did a really good job of explaining this that, you know, that is, you know, biology is way too nuanced and layered.
• 4:56
  SPEAKER_02: There is no such thing as one individual that can do all of these things.
• 5:00
  SPEAKER_02: But I think what we do need as consumers is a a source of truth, right?
• 5:06
  SPEAKER_02: Like who do we trust in to help aggregate all of those things?
• 5:11
  SPEAKER_02: Because you can't have access to all of the world's best experts all of the time.
• 5:15
  SPEAKER_02: Right.
• 5:15
  SPEAKER_02: Especially not on a huge scale.
• 5:18
  SPEAKER_02: And so I think you know, we we need to understand the the general public need to be able to understand who I should listen to.
• 5:27
  SPEAKER_02: Exactly because every single day, and we're going to discuss some of these things today.
• 5:32
  SPEAKER_02: We go onto social media and we are bombarded with dozens of different tools and technologies and protocols and claims molecules and claims.
• 5:43
  SPEAKER_02: Yeah, they can't all be true.
• 5:44
  SPEAKER_02: We know they're not all true, but some of them are, right?
• 5:48
  SPEAKER_02: And some of them um certainly strategies by which we can improve the things that matter to us.
• 5:55
  SPEAKER_02: Like there are ways of doing it.
• 5:57
  SPEAKER_02: And so, how do we know which is right and which is wrong?
• 5:59
  SPEAKER_02: Because they all sound compelling.
• 6:00
  SPEAKER_01: Absolutely.
• 6:01
  SPEAKER_01: Yeah.
• 6:01
  SPEAKER_01: And so I think one way is to look at the training of the person that's making that claim or making that statement.
• 6:07
  SPEAKER_01: And so, like I said, in med school, we don't learn this, but we do have ability to learn this after our training in things like integrative medicine, functional medicine, and even now in longevity medicine, there are training programs.
• 6:19
  SPEAKER_01: So I would look to see does this person have any clinical knowledge?
• 6:23
  SPEAKER_01: First of all, just basic clinical knowledge.
• 6:25
  SPEAKER_01: And then have they gone further to really do some training?
• 6:28
  SPEAKER_01: What's the science to whether it's longevity or a holistic approach to care?
• 6:33
  SPEAKER_01: Yeah.
• 6:34
  SPEAKER_02: And I think the tough thing is certainly for those brilliant clinicians, which there are many, right, right, who don't overreach, who don't make these grandiose claims.
• 6:45
  SPEAKER_02: Right.
• 6:45
  SPEAKER_02: It's hard to stand out then.
• 6:47
  SPEAKER_02: Yeah.
• 6:47
  SPEAKER_02: Certainly on social media, when you have one person saying, do this very easy thing that will make a very big, quick difference with no friction to your life.
• 6:56
  SPEAKER_02: And so I can understand there being a desire from some people, certainly economically, commercially, to make these big bold claims when pulling on threads of evidence, but it's not what we need.
• 7:07
  SPEAKER_02: Right.
• 7:07
  SPEAKER_02: You know, we need the truth, or at least, you know, the truth to that relates to our own biology.
• 7:14
  SPEAKER_02: Right.
• 7:15
  SPEAKER_02: And and and our preferences and desires in this moment.
• 7:18
  SPEAKER_02: And I think that makes it very hard for brilliant clinicians who are being conservative in the right way and cautiously optimistic to stand out.
• 7:28
  SPEAKER_02: Right.
• 7:28
  SPEAKER_01: Well, it's a few things you said there are important.
• 7:30
  SPEAKER_01: Number one, it's what's relevant to you, the listener.
• 7:33
  SPEAKER_02: Yeah.
• 7:34
  SPEAKER_01: And that's the biggest mistake people make is they hear these claims that may not even be true.
• 7:39
  SPEAKER_01: And if they are true, they may be true for populations, but that doesn't mean they're true for you.
• 7:44
  SPEAKER_01: Yep.
• 7:44
  SPEAKER_01: So that's one level to look at anything you're reading or hearing about is is that really relevant to me?
• 7:50
  SPEAKER_01: And let's look at the source of that data.
• 7:52
  SPEAKER_01: And did that data come from people that are like me, that have the same goals that I have or the same history I have?
• 7:57
  SPEAKER_01: But the other is to look at who's making the claim.
• 7:59
  SPEAKER_01: And unfortunately, sometimes it's indirectly proportionate to how loud they are in terms of their training.
• 8:05
  SPEAKER_01: Because, like you said, the ones that are really doing the science, that are really knowledgeable, aren't necessarily investing a lot in making big social media followers or in you mean like making a meeting, like investing the time it takes to create a media platform.
• 8:19
  SPEAKER_02: They're not actually doing the exactly.
• 8:22
  SPEAKER_01: And so there are people there though that are able to do both.
• 8:25
  SPEAKER_01: It's just few and far between.
• 8:28
  SPEAKER_01: And also, I think some of the scientists are so interested in making sure they are accurate that they end up not making sexy snippets that go viral.
• 8:38
  SPEAKER_01: And so you're hearing the sexy snippets that aren't from the most reputable people.
• 8:42
  SPEAKER_01: Yeah.
• 8:42
  SPEAKER_01: It's hard to find out how do I take the time to read a little bit more than a sexy snippet from the people who are actually explaining things.
• 8:50
  SPEAKER_02: And I guess, you know, we also have our own, as individuals, desire for risk reward.
• 8:58
  SPEAKER_02: Right.
• 8:59
  SPEAKER_02: Right.
• 8:59
  SPEAKER_02: And so sometimes for some people, they may not need the depth of clinical data, evidence on humans to say, okay, well, I'm gonna try that thing.
• 9:10
  SPEAKER_02: Right, right.
• 9:10
  SPEAKER_02: And so understanding what how risky is this.
• 9:14
  SPEAKER_02: Exactly.
• 9:15
  SPEAKER_02: Um, and that's difficult to understand if there is no data.
• 9:18
  SPEAKER_02: Right, right, absolutely.
• 9:20
  SPEAKER_01: But yeah, it absolutely the the degree of proof needs to be commensurate with the potential for harm.
• 9:26
  SPEAKER_01: Yeah.
• 9:26
  SPEAKER_01: So I don't need a lot of proof to tell me that taking deep breaths or doing breath work is gonna help me.
• 9:32
  SPEAKER_01: That's not gonna hurt me.
• 9:33
  SPEAKER_01: Yeah.
• 9:33
  SPEAKER_01: So if I have a sense that doing a certain breath work is going to help my nervous system, I'm gonna try it.
• 9:40
  SPEAKER_01: Yeah.
• 9:40
  SPEAKER_01: Oh, sleep.
• 9:41
  SPEAKER_01: Inject right or sleep.
• 9:42
  SPEAKER_01: Yeah.
• 9:42
  SPEAKER_01: But if someone's telling me to inject something into my body, I want a lot of proof that that isn't gonna harm me before I let's let's dig into that then, because the by far the biggest sort of talk track in our space right now is peptide therapy.
• 9:57
  SPEAKER_02: Right.
• 9:57
  SPEAKER_02: Right.
• 9:58
  SPEAKER_02: And um, I think there has been um more acceptance to the idea of putting a needle in you now with the this um just a huge explosion of GLP1 agonists.
• 10:12
  SPEAKER_02: And you know, they are peptides as well.
• 10:14
  SPEAKER_02: Um and so I think people are much more open to the concept now that if I do this thing, if I have this like small injection daily or weekly, that it might create this very high upside for me.
• 10:26
  SPEAKER_02: Um, and so given there is this huge desire now for for people to benefit from these potential upsides, we're seeing a huge amount of overreaching.
• 10:37
  SPEAKER_02: Yes.
• 10:38
  SPEAKER_02: Um, like more so than I think I've seen in any other um domain in a long, long time.
• 10:43
  SPEAKER_02: Yeah, I agree.
• 10:44
  SPEAKER_02: And so the purpose of these episodes, um, and I want to do these regularly moving forward, is to help pass through some of that for the listener.
• 10:54
  SPEAKER_02: Um and you know, in the press this week, one of the you know, biggest trending topics has been RFK's decision to potentially change the regulation around some of these categories of peptides.
• 11:07
  SPEAKER_02: Right.
• 11:08
  SPEAKER_02: Can you maybe start at the top and explain, you know, what even they are and then what that decision, how that decision may impact us in general?
• 11:17
  SPEAKER_02: Sure.
• 11:18
  SPEAKER_01: A lot to unpack there.
• 11:19
  SPEAKER_01: So peptides, first of all, are simply a chain of amino acids that's less than about 25.
• 11:25
  SPEAKER_01: So think of amino acids as the building blocks of proteins, and proteins are what do everything in the body.
• 11:31
  SPEAKER_01: Small proteins are these chains of amino acids called peptides, kind of like putting a bunch of Legos together.
• 11:38
  SPEAKER_01: And depending on which Lego pieces you use, that will change what that peptide does, change the function of it in the body.
• 11:46
  SPEAKER_01: Now, these used to be able to be made pretty simply because they're small by what are called compounding pharmacies.
• 11:53
  SPEAKER_01: And then back in 19 in, and then back in 2023, there was some concern that even though they were thought to be very safe and small and simple, and they're just signaling processes in the body, they're not taking over whole processes in the body, um, that there would be no issue with them.
• 12:10
  SPEAKER_01: But some issues did come up, including in how safe they were even being made, how sterile and how standardized they were, and were they even doing what they said they could do, and were they including in the molecule that was being produced what it was supposed to be?
• 12:23
  SPEAKER_01: So the FDA clamped down and said, we're moving these from a category where they could be made by what's called a compounding pharmacy to ones that can't be made by a compounding pharmacy.
• 12:33
  SPEAKER_01: Well, what RFK Jr.
• 12:34
  SPEAKER_01: is saying is, well, there is potential for benefit for these.
• 12:37
  SPEAKER_01: So let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater.
• 12:40
  SPEAKER_01: Let's try and help some of these to be able to be made again.
• 12:44
  SPEAKER_01: So moving them from what's called category two can't even be produced to category one can be produced, but let's do it in a way where we ensure that they are safe and sterile and have in it what they say they have in it.
• 12:56
  SPEAKER_02: So where are we now?
• 12:57
  SPEAKER_02: We're category two.
• 12:58
  SPEAKER_02: Right.
• 12:58
  SPEAKER_02: Category two can't be produced, with the exception of Well, category two can't be produced at all.
• 13:04
  SPEAKER_02: No, I know, but some GLP agonists can be produced.
• 13:06
  SPEAKER_01: Right.
• 13:07
  SPEAKER_01: So those are not in category two.
• 13:08
  SPEAKER_01: Right.
• 13:08
  SPEAKER_01: So all these things are moved to category two.
• 13:10
  SPEAKER_01: Now in July, the FDA is going to revisit some of these peptides to see if they can be produced like the GLP ones can be produced and moved into a category where they can be produced.
• 13:20
  SPEAKER_02: So do we have a list of the peptides that are changing from category two to category one?
• 13:26
  SPEAKER_01: Yes, we do.
• 13:26
  SPEAKER_01: So those are ones that probably the listeners are most used to hearing about BPC 157, TB500, something called MOTS C, something called C Max.
• 13:38
  SPEAKER_01: Um those are the GHK copper, those are the most common ones.
• 13:41
  SPEAKER_01: There are a few more that are a little less commonly heard about.
• 13:45
  SPEAKER_01: So there are thousands of peptides.
• 13:49
  SPEAKER_01: There are thousands of peptides.
• 13:50
  SPEAKER_01: There are only about 500 that are approved at all on any level.
• 13:55
  SPEAKER_01: And what we're talking about is maybe in this July it'll only be about seven, but over the next year, maybe up to about 25 being moved back into a category where they can be produced again.
• 14:05
  SPEAKER_02: Okay, so here's the thing I think that's confusing for us as listeners, um, or consumers.
• 14:10
  SPEAKER_02: I'm not listening, um, is that you know, be there are a couple of hundred of them that are being clinically studied right now.
• 14:18
  SPEAKER_02: Of those, you know, one has become very, very popular and has opened the floodgates.
• 14:24
  SPEAKER_02: Right.
• 14:25
  SPEAKER_02: For the rest of them, there is little to no evidence in humans that they actually work or are safe.
• 14:34
  SPEAKER_01: Correct?
• 14:35
  SPEAKER_01: Correct.
• 14:35
  SPEAKER_01: There are thousands of them, and they are they're categories, they don't all do the same thing.
• 14:39
  SPEAKER_01: So we all know about the GLP ones, they help improve insulin secretion, help with weight loss, help with cravings.
• 14:45
  SPEAKER_01: There are lots of other categories of peptides.
• 14:47
  SPEAKER_01: So that's why you're hearing about them.
• 14:49
  SPEAKER_01: Some of them help with ATP production, which is energy production in your cells, some of them help with recovery from injury, some of them help with collagen production.
• 14:58
  SPEAKER_01: So there are all these different categories.
• 15:00
  SPEAKER_01: This term peptide is a catchal.
• 15:02
  SPEAKER_01: Exactly.
• 15:03
  SPEAKER_01: So just because GLP1s have become so popular, people think, oh, all peptides must do miraculous things.
• 15:10
  SPEAKER_01: Yeah.
• 15:10
  SPEAKER_01: They are as different as cells are in the body, and they all do very different things.
• 15:15
  SPEAKER_01: And so it's very important to understand some of them affect the brain, some of them affect muscle recovery, some of them affect the ability to produce energy.
• 15:23
  SPEAKER_01: They all have very different effects and they all have very different risks.
• 15:27
  SPEAKER_01: And one thing that you mentioned is they haven't all been studied nearly as rigorously as the GLP ones have.
• 15:33
  SPEAKER_01: Most of them haven't.
• 15:34
  SPEAKER_01: The only reason the GLP1 receptor agonists are approved is because they've had years and years of study by pharmaceutical companies.
• 15:42
  SPEAKER_01: Most of these peptides have been studied in animals.
• 15:44
  SPEAKER_01: We don't know how well that translates into efficacy or safety in humans.
• 15:49
  SPEAKER_01: And if there are human trials, it's usually 12, 20 people in the trials, maybe.
• 15:54
  SPEAKER_01: Not enough to really show does it actually work and are they actually safe?
• 15:59
  SPEAKER_01: And most of them, almost none of them, have long-term safety data.
• 16:03
  SPEAKER_01: So why would they then re-categorize them from two to one?
• 16:07
  SPEAKER_01: They're recategorizing them so they can be studied.
• 16:10
  SPEAKER_01: And so I think that is a positive because right now they're in a category where they can't even be made for the most part.
• 16:16
  SPEAKER_01: So they can't really be studied.
• 16:17
  SPEAKER_01: So the advantage of recategorizing them is not just allow everyone suddenly to have access to them, it's to allow them to be studied in humans in rigorous trials to show do they do what they claim to do.
• 16:28
  SPEAKER_02: But then does that not open the door to people compounding them and then just prescribing them anyway?
• 16:35
  SPEAKER_01: Yes, that's the shadow side.
• 16:37
  SPEAKER_01: But you kind of can't have one without the other, right?
• 16:39
  SPEAKER_01: You can't say we're gonna ban them, then you can't study them.
• 16:42
  SPEAKER_01: And people are then getting them on the gray market anyway.
• 16:45
  SPEAKER_01: The gray market being a market where you're getting them from disreputable sources where you don't know what you're getting.
• 16:50
  SPEAKER_01: There's no cold chain, meaning they're not even kept stable in the shipment process.
• 16:55
  SPEAKER_01: So yeah, the advantages they can be studied, the disadvantages they will be available for use, even if they're not yet studied fully, but at least they'll be available from places that can be checked to make sure they're producing what they say they're producing in a safe and sterile way.
• 17:13
  SPEAKER_02: So, in one sense, you're gonna ensure that what you're actually that what they're actually studying is the compound that they think they're studying.
• 17:21
  SPEAKER_02: Exactly.
• 17:21
  SPEAKER_02: But the downside of that is that then that is just gonna open the door to a lot of agendas.
• 17:27
  SPEAKER_02: Right, but that's happening now, right?
• 17:28
  SPEAKER_02: Hey, this sounds ridiculous though.
• 17:30
  SPEAKER_02: Why why can't it be classified just for study purposes for humans and not be made available for everyone else?
• 17:38
  SPEAKER_01: Well, I mean, that's it kind of where we're at now, but there's no mechanism to ban their use for common people and what's called research purposes, right?
• 17:48
  SPEAKER_01: Um, if you're trying to research it.
• 17:49
  SPEAKER_02: So so that's why when people buy these um injectables, at least online that they say for research purposes only.
• 17:59
  SPEAKER_02: Right.
• 18:00
  SPEAKER_01: Right.
• 18:00
  SPEAKER_01: But the the issue is, and this is almost a separate issue from recategorizing, there isn't really any kind of enforcement of what that means.
• 18:08
  SPEAKER_01: Yeah.
• 18:08
  SPEAKER_01: So that's a separate thing that really should happen is let's enforce what does that mean for research only?
• 18:13
  SPEAKER_01: Let's make sure if you are a compounding pharmacy selling it for research only, that you're actually collecting data on the people that you're sending it to.
• 18:20
  SPEAKER_01: Right now, that isn't happening.
• 18:22
  SPEAKER_01: You're saying for research only, but no one's enforcing that.
• 18:24
  SPEAKER_01: Sure.
• 18:25
  SPEAKER_01: So you can order them and no one's gonna check to see did you die from it?
• 18:29
  SPEAKER_01: Did you get an infection from it?
• 18:30
  SPEAKER_01: Do you get nodules from it?
• 18:31
  SPEAKER_01: Do you get skin reactions?
• 18:33
  SPEAKER_01: Does it have MDMA in it?
• 18:34
  SPEAKER_01: We talked about that's been found that some of these peptides say they have BBC 157, but they have other ingredients in there.
• 18:41
  SPEAKER_01: And so that is a separate thing that I haven't seen being proposed, but should be proposed.
• 18:47
  SPEAKER_02: That's what I find difficult to understand though, Miles, is you know, we have there's obviously this appetite for these things.
• 18:55
  SPEAKER_02: There is obviously promise in them, right?
• 18:57
  SPEAKER_02: And they make sense um, certainly mechanistically and certainly in animal models.
• 19:02
  SPEAKER_02: Right.
• 19:02
  SPEAKER_02: Why can't there just be an agreement that these get studied in humans now, but actual proper randomized control trials, right?
• 19:11
  SPEAKER_02: And then we can say with some degree of certainty that these are more beneficial than they are risky.
• 19:21
  SPEAKER_02: Yeah.
• 19:21
  SPEAKER_02: I just don't understand how that works.
• 19:23
  SPEAKER_02: Why we couldn't do that.
• 19:25
  SPEAKER_01: Well, or is it just time and money and time and money, and they're so easy to make.
• 19:30
  SPEAKER_01: So they're not like complicated pharmaceuticals that require giant investments.
• 19:35
  SPEAKER_01: So you need a pharmaceutical company to invest millions and tens of millions of dollars to create it.
• 19:40
  SPEAKER_01: These can be made pretty inexpensively.
• 19:42
  SPEAKER_01: So that's why it's hard to enforce a research mandate, which I agree with you, should happen.
• 19:49
  SPEAKER_01: Even if it's not double blind placebo randomized controlled trials, which is the gold standard, that would be amazing.
• 19:55
  SPEAKER_01: At least there should be a requirement that you're collecting outcomes data in some validated way.
• 20:01
  SPEAKER_01: So you know, are there safety issues happening with this?
• 20:04
  SPEAKER_02: Second confusing thing for me is that, you know, given the smash hit that is GLP1 agonists for pharma companies, right?
• 20:15
  SPEAKER_02: Why have they not already done this?
• 20:17
  SPEAKER_02: Why, like, why have they not already studied this?
• 20:19
  SPEAKER_02: Why are they not, or are they?
• 20:21
  SPEAKER_01: Right.
• 20:21
  SPEAKER_01: Well, the pharmaceutical companies aren't, because there's not a big financial incentive because it's hard to patent a biological molecule like this.
• 20:29
  SPEAKER_01: So they're they're so small and easy to make, a lot of people can copy it easily.
• 20:33
  SPEAKER_01: And so the pharmaceutical companies don't want to invest millions of dollars in something that could be made so easily by a compounding pharmacy.
• 20:40
  SPEAKER_01: But is that not the case for GLP ones?
• 20:42
  SPEAKER_01: They're a little harder to make, they're a little more complicated to make.
• 20:45
  SPEAKER_01: And they've made them like you see, the the dual agonists, right?
• 20:49
  SPEAKER_01: So the terzepitide that does more than just GLP, it also does GIP.
• 20:53
  SPEAKER_01: The new one coming out, retagritite, that also adds in glucagon.
• 20:56
  SPEAKER_01: So they're making them more complicated.
• 20:59
  SPEAKER_02: Yeah.
• 21:00
  SPEAKER_02: And I guess there is a huge addressable market for the things that they sold for as well.
• 21:05
  SPEAKER_02: Right.
• 21:05
  SPEAKER_02: Right.
• 21:06
  SPEAKER_02: So, okay.
• 21:08
  SPEAKER_02: So it looks like they're changing.
• 21:10
  SPEAKER_02: Is that definitely happening?
• 21:11
  SPEAKER_02: They're going from category to oh, okay.
• 21:13
  SPEAKER_01: It's probably, it's very likely because it's so clear the administration wants them to be recategorized.
• 21:19
  SPEAKER_01: But officially the meeting's happening the first week in July to consider recategorizing them.
• 21:25
  SPEAKER_01: There's a lot of pressure to recategorize them.
• 21:27
  SPEAKER_01: So everyone thinks it will happen.
• 21:29
  SPEAKER_01: Yeah, it hasn't happened yet.
• 21:30
  SPEAKER_02: Do you think if that happens, that that is a good thing?
• 21:33
  SPEAKER_02: I mean, uh, it sounds like a good thing, e given that there is so much of a grey market right now.
• 21:40
  SPEAKER_02: Yeah, yes.
• 21:41
  SPEAKER_02: And I and I suspect, as you've already mentioned, you know, people are buying these things online for research purposes, injecting them into themselves, and they don't have any idea of what is actually in this vial.
• 21:52
  SPEAKER_01: Exactly.
• 21:53
  SPEAKER_01: Um so I do think it's a good thing, because I think it'll enable the reputable players, these combating properties, to make them and then For consumers to really be able to vet where they're getting them from.
• 22:04
  SPEAKER_01: Right now, you your only option is to get them from random places that aren't in the kind of legal domain.
• 22:11
  SPEAKER_01: And so this will at least make it so it's regulated.
• 22:16
  SPEAKER_02: What's kind of confusing as well for me, a lot of confusion for me today, but the thing that I've been thinking about of late, certainly with these the popular ones that are spreading like wildfire on social media at least, is that they still have very, very little human data.
• 22:38
  SPEAKER_02: You know, take BPC 157 and TB500 that people are calling the Wolverine stack.
• 22:44
  SPEAKER_02: You know, there's less than I think 30 people, humans ever that they can study.
• 22:51
  SPEAKER_02: Why are there not private companies investing in those human trials given the huge potential upside economics?
• 23:01
  SPEAKER_01: I think because the concern is I'm gonna invest in this giant trial.
• 23:05
  SPEAKER_01: It'll cost$10 million, but then 20 compounding pharmacies or more than 20 will just go ahead and manufacture it and use my data for my trial to say why I should buy from them.
• 23:17
  SPEAKER_01: So it's very hard for me to return my investment on that research.
• 23:22
  SPEAKER_01: Because you cannot protect what is coming out of that.
• 23:26
  SPEAKER_01: I can't patent it.
• 23:27
  SPEAKER_01: I can unless, you know, potentially I guess I could come up with some way to tweak it so it's a patentable form of BPC 157, but I guess there's not a line of sight into being able to do that.
• 23:42
  SPEAKER_02: Curious.
• 23:43
  SPEAKER_02: Yeah.
• 23:44
  SPEAKER_02: Because that makes, I mean, I've not seen many trends in our industry blow up as quickly as this.
• 23:50
  SPEAKER_02: Right.
• 23:51
  SPEAKER_02: Um okay, so for the people that have been sold on this concept, even without the data, um, of which I'm not one of them, um uh, I do think they have promise.
• 24:03
  SPEAKER_02: I I would rather wait, I think, because we've seen this happen badly in the past.
• 24:09
  SPEAKER_02: Yes, you know, and I think we have no idea systemically how this is gonna play out.
• 24:14
  SPEAKER_02: Right, right.
• 24:14
  SPEAKER_02: Um, but for the people that are on that bandwagon, you know, what should they be looking out for when purchasing these things?
• 24:23
  SPEAKER_02: What should they be doing to lower the risk that they're putting on themselves?
• 24:31
  SPEAKER_01: Yeah, yeah.
• 24:32
  SPEAKER_01: I think they should be looking for the source of where they're getting them from.
• 24:36
  SPEAKER_01: They want a place that follows what's called good manufacturing practices, GMP.
• 24:42
  SPEAKER_01: Um, once they're regulated, they should actually be able to see what that pharmacy is, what are their credentials, are they licensed, have they been checked, have they had any sanctions against them?
• 24:53
  SPEAKER_01: Should be relatively easy to check out which compounded pharmacies have not had issues with compliance or sterility or safety, and then get them from those pharmacies.
• 25:02
  SPEAKER_01: Yeah.
• 25:03
  SPEAKER_01: Yeah.
• 25:03
  SPEAKER_01: The other thing I would say is a lot of people also are being kind of drawn into getting forms of these peptides that aren't injected because no one likes to inject them, even though they're willing to.
• 25:14
  SPEAKER_01: And that hasn't been proven either.
• 25:16
  SPEAKER_01: There's a lot out there about sublingual formulations or transcutaneous formulations.
• 25:21
  SPEAKER_01: Those have not been proven to even get a blood level up of those peptides like the subcutaneous injections do.
• 25:28
  SPEAKER_02: Can you just explain what those two terms mean for the other thing?
• 25:31
  SPEAKER_01: So liposomal means they make the peptide being able to be absorbed in an area that likes fat.
• 25:37
  SPEAKER_01: So if you just put a regular peptide under your tongue, peptides need to be wrapped in fat to actually be used by the body.
• 25:46
  SPEAKER_01: So if they're just water-based, they're not going to be able to be absorbed at all.
• 25:50
  SPEAKER_01: So then the manufacturers of this liposomal said, well, now we'll make them kind of wrapped in a fatty matrix, a fatty kind of surrounding, so that the body will see it has a fat, uh, it's called lipophilic.
• 26:04
  SPEAKER_01: Philic is love, so it likes fat.
• 26:06
  SPEAKER_01: So they put it in a liposomal.
• 26:09
  SPEAKER_01: Lipo is Latin for fat kind of formulation.
• 26:12
  SPEAKER_01: And that makes sense and it's compelling and it makes theoretical sense, but that hasn't really been proven.
• 26:18
  SPEAKER_01: Um, and again, that data just isn't there, especially in humans.
• 26:21
  SPEAKER_01: It's there in the lab that it should work, but we don't know, does it actually get the levels?
• 26:25
  SPEAKER_01: And what's the dosing?
• 26:26
  SPEAKER_01: We have no idea.
• 26:27
  SPEAKER_01: We know the dosing for subcutaneous, if it's actually the right product and safe and sterile.
• 26:32
  SPEAKER_01: We know the doses that have been studied, not in a lot of people, but in some study, but we don't even know how do you dose a sublingual liposomal growth hormone promoter.
• 26:42
  SPEAKER_02: Well, that's interesting, right?
• 26:44
  SPEAKER_02: We don't, because I guess in in the huge breadth of peptides that we're being sold, we don't know the dosage, even subcutaneously.
• 26:53
  SPEAKER_02: Even sub it's wide, though, it's very wide, yeah, the doses you see.
• 26:58
  SPEAKER_02: If there's no human data, how do we know how much of it we should be taking?
• 27:01
  SPEAKER_02: Exactly.
• 27:01
  SPEAKER_02: You can't just multiply this a mouse is this size, and therefore you should take this mic.
• 27:05
  SPEAKER_02: Absolutely.
• 27:06
  SPEAKER_02: Absolutely.
• 27:06
  SPEAKER_01: And one of the issues with these peptides is these are mostly signaling molecules.
• 27:11
  SPEAKER_01: And that's why they're said to be very safe, because they're not taking over a whole system.
• 27:16
  SPEAKER_01: If you take thyroid hormone or you take testosterone, of course, yeah, you are taking over your body's production of testosterone because you're, you know, presumably you're not making enough.
• 27:25
  SPEAKER_01: So you're taking testosterone in order to get your level up, and that's fine.
• 27:29
  SPEAKER_01: But that means you are relying on that external testosterone and your body stops making it.
• 27:34
  SPEAKER_01: And that's okay.
• 27:35
  SPEAKER_01: Again, if you have really low testosterone or really low thyroid hormone, you're going to take thyroid hormone.
• 27:39
  SPEAKER_00: Yeah.
• 27:39
  SPEAKER_01: But the body senses you're taking it and then stops producing any of its own.
• 27:44
  SPEAKER_01: Well, these are different, these peptides.
• 27:46
  SPEAKER_01: And so they're advertised as much safer because they're not taking over the whole production.
• 27:50
  SPEAKER_01: They're signaling the body.
• 27:51
  SPEAKER_01: They light up receptors in the body, like GLP1, receptor agonist, to help the body make more of its own production, which is great.
• 28:00
  SPEAKER_01: So that means you're not taking over production, you're not getting the body to stop producing its own.
• 28:05
  SPEAKER_01: You're actually coaxing the body to produce more of whatever it is you're signaling it to produce.
• 28:10
  SPEAKER_01: So the thinking is, therefore, it's safer.
• 28:12
  SPEAKER_01: But that also means we don't know what dose is required in Chris versus Miles to get your body to produce more of its own.
• 28:19
  SPEAKER_01: And that's why with the GLP1 receptor agonists, you see people have crazy side effects from one dose that their friend has no side effects from.
• 28:27
  SPEAKER_02: Yeah.
• 28:27
  SPEAKER_01: Because their own body's production is different and they're coaxing it in different ways.
• 28:32
  SPEAKER_01: So it's very hard to get the right data.
• 28:34
  SPEAKER_02: And even with that data, that human clinical data for GLP1s, I think about 20% of people are unresponsive to the medication.
• 28:42
  SPEAKER_02: Right.
• 28:42
  SPEAKER_02: And so even with decades of data, we're still uncertain as to dosage or or even whether this will work for me or not.
• 28:51
  SPEAKER_01: Right.
• 28:51
  SPEAKER_01: Your receptors may be different.
• 28:52
  SPEAKER_01: You're you're relying on the body's system, which is what makes it safer, probably.
• 28:58
  SPEAKER_01: Yeah.
• 28:58
  SPEAKER_01: Big probably.
• 28:59
  SPEAKER_01: But it also means it's very individualized, the response.
• 29:02
  SPEAKER_02: So you you said two terms there.
• 29:04
  SPEAKER_02: You said subcutaneous, sublingual, and you said another one.
• 29:08
  SPEAKER_01: Right.
• 29:09
  SPEAKER_01: Well, transcutaneous.
• 29:10
  SPEAKER_01: So they're patches.
• 29:11
  SPEAKER_00: Yeah.
• 29:11
  SPEAKER_01: Um, so transcutaneous just across the skin.
• 29:14
  SPEAKER_01: Yep.
• 29:14
  SPEAKER_01: And there are creams that can do that.
• 29:16
  SPEAKER_01: Well, I haven't seen a lot of these made into creams, but what they're being made into is patches.
• 29:20
  SPEAKER_01: And some of these patches even have tiny, tiny micro needles to help them get in absorbed in the skin.
• 29:26
  SPEAKER_01: Um, now we know that works well with some of them.
• 29:29
  SPEAKER_01: Like GHK copper is actually approved for use topically is in creams.
• 29:33
  SPEAKER_01: It does a lot of good things for the skin.
• 29:35
  SPEAKER_01: And there are products with it in there that actually do great things for helping collagen.
• 29:42
  SPEAKER_01: But the other peptides are not necessarily absorbed as easily as GHK copper.
• 29:47
  SPEAKER_01: So we don't know are those gonna do anything?
• 29:49
  SPEAKER_01: Are they gonna raise the blood level?
• 29:51
  SPEAKER_01: Plus, it makes sense if you're using something on the skin for the skin.
• 29:54
  SPEAKER_01: Sure.
• 29:55
  SPEAKER_01: But now these are saying we're gonna put it on the skin and it's supposed to help my knee get better after orthopedic surgery.
• 30:02
  SPEAKER_01: And that there's just no proof to it.
• 30:03
  SPEAKER_01: It's a big reach.
• 30:04
  SPEAKER_01: It's a big reach.
• 30:04
  SPEAKER_01: It's a hope.
• 30:05
  SPEAKER_01: That would be great.
• 30:06
  SPEAKER_01: If I could just wear a patch after, you know, right after I get out of surgery for my knee and it helps my recovery, great.
• 30:13
  SPEAKER_01: But we just don't know that yet.
• 30:14
  SPEAKER_02: Yeah.
• 30:15
  SPEAKER_02: How far off do you think we are from knowing these things?
• 30:18
  SPEAKER_01: I think well, that's where I think the changing category will help us study it.
• 30:22
  SPEAKER_01: And so therefore, I think we're just a couple of years away once they can really be studied and really looked at to see, let's do some trials on more than just 10 or 12 people.
• 30:31
  SPEAKER_01: Yeah.
• 30:31
  SPEAKER_01: We want other long-term studies.
• 30:33
  SPEAKER_01: So we still need 10 years to know does it cause problems downstream?
• 30:37
  SPEAKER_01: The likelihood of it causing problems downstream is low because these are, again, signaling the body to do its own thing.
• 30:43
  SPEAKER_01: You're not taking over a whole process.
• 30:45
  SPEAKER_00: Yeah.
• 30:46
  SPEAKER_01: So I'm not as worried about long-term effects, honestly, but we at least will know short-term safety and efficacy.
• 30:53
  SPEAKER_01: Does it actually do what it says it does within a couple of years, I think.
• 30:56
  SPEAKER_02: But but we don't, I mean, we couldn't know for sure about the long-term effects systemically yet.
• 31:03
  SPEAKER_02: Correct.
• 31:04
  SPEAKER_02: Which is that's the big worry I I would have.
• 31:07
  SPEAKER_02: Is in a world where there are so many things that we already know to work, yeah, why take the risk?
• 31:13
  SPEAKER_02: Right.
• 31:13
  SPEAKER_02: Well, that's a huge point.
• 31:14
  SPEAKER_01: I mean, that that's a multi-level point.
• 31:17
  SPEAKER_01: And one of the main points is I'm very anti-hacking, and I think we are here at Wonder Labs.
• 31:23
  SPEAKER_01: We don't believe that you can just bypass what's proven to make a difference in your healthy aging, your healthy living, your optimal performance.
• 31:31
  SPEAKER_01: Yeah.
• 31:32
  SPEAKER_01: We know the things that have been absolutely proven, adding years to your life and adding health to your years, right?
• 31:38
  SPEAKER_01: And it's not sexy, but if it's individualized, it's powerful.
• 31:42
  SPEAKER_01: How you exercise, how you sleep, how you make sure you're keeping your brain active, how you eat and what you eat, and when you eat, and when you're exposed to light, and all those things.
• 31:51
  SPEAKER_01: Absolutely proven.
• 31:53
  SPEAKER_01: What isn't proven yet are these peptides.
• 31:56
  SPEAKER_01: And even if they are proven, they're gonna add small impacts relative to these bigger and I would say supplementally as well.
• 32:04
  SPEAKER_02: Yeah, right.
• 32:04
  SPEAKER_02: Like I think one danger with anything being packaged as a silver bullet solution is that then that you mistakenly think that that is going to make the difference in the absence of the things that we already know to work.
• 32:19
  SPEAKER_02: Right.
• 32:19
  SPEAKER_02: And I I would wager that, you know, some of the people that are real peptide advocates, it there is a probably a strong placebo.
• 32:28
  SPEAKER_02: I'm not saying that they don't work.
• 32:30
  SPEAKER_02: Yeah, yeah.
• 32:30
  SPEAKER_02: I'm just saying that in their presence, people are much more likely to do the things that they do know to work with consistency and adherence.
• 32:37
  SPEAKER_02: You know, if you're taking a peptide that you believe is an exercise mimetic or you believe gives you more energy or improves ATP production, you're more likely to exercise.
• 32:46
  SPEAKER_01: Exactly.
• 32:47
  SPEAKER_01: And so that's great.
• 32:48
  SPEAKER_01: Yeah.
• 32:48
  SPEAKER_01: I mean, I'm all for that.
• 32:49
  SPEAKER_01: Uh, if they're safe, if it gets you to exercise more, great.
• 32:52
  SPEAKER_01: But what mistake people make is they say, oh, it's an exercise mimetic, that means it replaces exercise.
• 32:58
  SPEAKER_01: No, there's no proof for that.
• 32:59
  SPEAKER_01: Yeah.
• 33:00
  SPEAKER_01: And it doesn't.
• 33:01
  SPEAKER_01: But yeah, if it gets you to exercise more and you feel like you're getting more bang for your exercise buck, yeah, then as long as again, if it's safe and proven and we have studies, then then fine.
• 33:10
  SPEAKER_01: But you still need the exercise.
• 33:11
  SPEAKER_02: Yeah.
• 33:11
  SPEAKER_02: And I think that can be applied to all of these major verticals.
• 33:15
  SPEAKER_02: The sleep is the same thing.
• 33:16
  SPEAKER_02: You know, you take a peptide for sleep, and you're more likely to get better sleep because of a placebo, but also you might then change your sleep hygiene.
• 33:24
  SPEAKER_02: Exactly.
• 33:24
  SPEAKER_02: You might do that alongside other hacks in a diet, commas, but and then it would potentially work.
• 33:30
  SPEAKER_02: So let's give everyone a placebo.
• 33:32
  SPEAKER_01: There you go, exactly.
• 33:33
  SPEAKER_01: And it'll make you pay attention to your sleep and then look at other exactly other sleep hygiene elements.
• 33:38
  SPEAKER_02: I think one interesting term that you mentioned was something being approved or cleared.
• 33:44
  SPEAKER_02: Yeah.
• 33:44
  SPEAKER_02: And I think this is something that is important for the listeners to know that when we talk about certainly something that is FDA approved, that is very different from something that is FDA cleared.
• 33:55
  SPEAKER_02: Yes, yes.
• 33:56
  SPEAKER_02: Can you explain the difference between those?
• 33:58
  SPEAKER_02: Because I think this is really important for people to understand.
• 34:00
  SPEAKER_01: Sure.
• 34:01
  SPEAKER_01: Yeah.
• 34:01
  SPEAKER_01: So first of all, FDA cleared is mostly for devices.
• 34:04
  SPEAKER_01: It just means that device has been cleared to do what it says it does.
• 34:08
  SPEAKER_01: Period.
• 34:08
  SPEAKER_01: So a DEXA scanner has been cleared to perform a DEXA scan and give you data.
• 34:15
  SPEAKER_01: Doesn't mean it's been approved for use for certain indications.
• 34:18
  SPEAKER_01: So if something like we were talking about therapeutic plasma exchange, okay, which is taking your blood out and cleaning it, that's an FDA cleared way of treating certain conditions.
• 34:30
  SPEAKER_01: That doesn't mean it's approved to treat those conditions or that it does anything to help that condition.
• 34:34
  SPEAKER_01: It just means the device to take your blood out and clean it has been cleared for use.
• 34:38
  SPEAKER_02: Period.
• 34:39
  SPEAKER_02: So it performs the function that performs the thing it's done, but doesn't necessarily get you the outcome.
• 34:44
  SPEAKER_02: Exactly.
• 34:45
  SPEAKER_02: I think this blood transfusion that is one of the wildest overreaches in our space right now.
• 34:52
  SPEAKER_02: Yes.
• 34:53
  SPEAKER_02: I think it is crazy.
• 34:54
  SPEAKER_02: I think people are paying 10,000 bucks a shot to remove all of their blood, have it cleaned of microplastics, and then put back in, which, by the way, is inherently dangerous on its own.
• 35:06
  SPEAKER_01: Very.
• 35:07
  SPEAKER_01: It's very dangerous because you're stripping everything out of the blood.
• 35:10
  SPEAKER_01: Yeah.
• 35:10
  SPEAKER_01: Number one, you're not just stripping what is advertised as it's stripping, you're stripping a lot of your immune cells, all of your antibodies, things that have been built up purposefully in your system to protect you.
• 35:21
  SPEAKER_01: You're stripping all that.
• 35:22
  SPEAKER_01: Now that's great if you have inappropriate antibodies and if you're having antibodies against yourself.
• 35:28
  SPEAKER_01: And so that's what it was initially used at.
• 35:30
  SPEAKER_01: So there are diseases where your body's making these antibodies against your own tissue.
• 35:34
  SPEAKER_01: Yeah, certain cause neurological diseases as well, I think.
• 35:36
  SPEAKER_01: Yeah.
• 35:36
  SPEAKER_01: Exactly, right?
• 35:37
  SPEAKER_01: And so that's what this it's called plasmaphoresis or therapeutic plasma exchange was invented for largely is let's get rid of these antibodies that are killing this person or causing the neurologic issues.
• 35:48
  SPEAKER_01: But that doesn't mean you want that if you don't have antibodies that need to be taken out and you think you're just clearing out trash from your system like microplastics, because it can't differentiate that.
• 35:59
  SPEAKER_01: Number one, it's never been shown to do that.
• 36:01
  SPEAKER_01: Again, the device is cleared, but not approved to strip microplastics out of your blood.
• 36:07
  SPEAKER_01: And in fact, something else is they're using plastic tubing.
• 36:10
  SPEAKER_01: They're using a lot of plastics in your arm.
• 36:13
  SPEAKER_01: So it could be introducing more microplastics and it's getting rid of.
• 36:17
  SPEAKER_02: And I think the the the data on that is tiny as well.
• 36:21
  SPEAKER_02: If if it even exists at all.
• 36:23
  SPEAKER_02: And here is the the foundation of the problem in our space.
• 36:26
  SPEAKER_02: Some of the biggest social media influencers, health experts, biohackers in the world are holding up bags of plasma and saying, do this thing.
• 36:36
  SPEAKER_01: Right.
• 36:37
  SPEAKER_01: And it makes me crazy.
• 36:38
  SPEAKER_01: And so, I mean, a bunch of questions asked about that is number one, why are they saying that?
• 36:43
  SPEAKER_01: Try and investigate who else is sponsoring them, you know, to say that.
• 36:48
  SPEAKER_01: But also, are they saying it just because it sounds compelling?
• 36:50
  SPEAKER_01: And it does, it sounds really compelling.
• 36:52
  SPEAKER_01: I want to get my blood cleaned out.
• 36:53
  SPEAKER_01: I want to go do that every three months.
• 36:55
  SPEAKER_02: Yeah, like an MOT for the blood.
• 36:56
  SPEAKER_02: Yeah, it does make it does sound compelling.
• 36:58
  SPEAKER_01: Yeah, it sounds great.
• 36:59
  SPEAKER_01: Let's do it.
• 37:00
  SPEAKER_01: But no, there's a lot of potential harm for that.
• 37:02
  SPEAKER_01: And and then they will say, some of them will even say it's FDA approved, which it isn't, it's FDA cleared, meaning the device is cleared for use, but not for the evidence that it does the thing that you're paying for.
• 37:14
  SPEAKER_02: That is wild.
• 37:15
  SPEAKER_02: Yeah.
• 37:16
  SPEAKER_02: And that is one of many examples that we see.
• 37:19
  SPEAKER_02: Unfortunately.
• 37:20
  SPEAKER_02: Correct me if I'm wrong, but most peptides are neither FDA approved or FDA cleared.
• 37:25
  SPEAKER_02: Absolutely.
• 37:26
  SPEAKER_02: Right.
• 37:26
  SPEAKER_01: Most peptides, the only ones that are FDA approved are the ones we've heard about, like the GLP1 reciprocity.
• 37:31
  SPEAKER_01: Well, there are others.
• 37:32
  SPEAKER_01: Yes.
• 37:32
  SPEAKER_01: Most peptides are not FDA approved.
• 37:35
  SPEAKER_01: Just because these peptides are going to be recategorized, that still doesn't mean they will be FDA approved.
• 37:40
  SPEAKER_01: That just means they will be cleared to be manufactured by these compounding pharmacies.
• 37:46
  SPEAKER_01: They are not on a path to get FDA approved.
• 37:50
  SPEAKER_02: Miles, another thing that that makes me think about is the difference between things that are correlated and causated.
• 37:59
  SPEAKER_02: So correlation and causation are both very different things.
• 38:02
  SPEAKER_02: And I think even when we see things that are both FDA cleared and FDA approved, right, and seemingly get people a good result from doing the thing, that can still be a correlation and not a causation.
• 38:14
  SPEAKER_02: Well, I think that is actually a really good way for us as uh consumers to be analyzing the headlines that we read, right?
• 38:22
  SPEAKER_02: And I think there was a really great example this week that women that gave birth after the age of 40 were four times more likely to live to 100.
• 38:32
  SPEAKER_02: Yeah.
• 38:32
  SPEAKER_02: I don't know if you saw this, but um when you that that's the headline, right?
• 38:37
  SPEAKER_02: Right.
• 38:38
  SPEAKER_02: And so that would make one think okay, maybe delaying um, you know, pregnancy was increases my likelihood of living a long and healthy life.
• 38:47
  SPEAKER_02: Right.
• 38:47
  SPEAKER_02: But the reality was um all of the the participants in the study gave birth naturally.
• 38:54
  SPEAKER_02: That was one of the prerequisites.
• 38:55
  SPEAKER_00: Yeah.
• 38:56
  SPEAKER_02: And by giving birth naturally over the age of 40, you you filter through a lot of the people with the genetic disposition to actually be able to have healthy fertility.
• 39:08
  SPEAKER_01: Exactly.
• 39:09
  SPEAKER_01: And that's what's correlated with the longevity is the same women that were healthier enough so that they could have healthy births after 40 are naturally more likely to live longer.
• 39:19
  SPEAKER_01: Yeah.
• 39:19
  SPEAKER_01: It's not that having a baby after 40 made them live longer.
• 39:23
  SPEAKER_01: It's that the same women that were healthy enough to have these healthy babies, it makes sense that they're healthy enough to live longer.
• 39:31
  SPEAKER_02: Yeah.
• 39:31
  SPEAKER_01: But you're right, when you drew that, you'd say, oh, wait, then I'm gonna purposely have a kid at 41, so I'll live longer.
• 39:37
  SPEAKER_01: So that is an exact example of correlation.
• 39:39
  SPEAKER_02: Yes, that's correlation, not causation.
• 39:41
  SPEAKER_02: I mean, there may be some elements in there that that's what's so difficult about research in general is like what was the study size, who funded the study, right?
• 39:51
  SPEAKER_02: What was the ambition of it?
• 39:52
  SPEAKER_02: But then also like having like being able to determine the exact cause of the thing.
• 39:58
  SPEAKER_02: Right.
• 39:58
  SPEAKER_02: And I think like a root another great example is um, you know, the big um fright around the consumption of uh red meat causing cancer, for example.
• 40:08
  SPEAKER_02: When we look at these epidemiological studies across populations, is it that the red meat caused more incidence of cancer, or is it that the red meat eaters were also eating lots of other junk food or they were less likely to exercise because they I don't know, that there might be a prevalence of people who eat more red meat that do other have other lifestyle choices or indicators.
• 40:30
  SPEAKER_01: I think it all comes down to be curious when you're reading these.
• 40:33
  SPEAKER_01: Don't just take it at face value.
• 40:35
  SPEAKER_01: Be curious about who's saying it, why are they saying it, what are their interests in saying it, and what's the common denominator here?
• 40:41
  SPEAKER_01: Yeah.
• 40:42
  SPEAKER_01: The common denominator that you were just talking about is maybe people are just generally less healthy if they're eating a lot more red meat and they're not exercising and they're eating processed food as well.
• 40:52
  SPEAKER_01: So, did that study account for all of that?
• 40:54
  SPEAKER_01: Did it just look at people who had the same amount of exercise, the same red rest of their diet, and the only difference was red meat?
• 41:01
  SPEAKER_01: Then you could really say there's causation.
• 41:03
  SPEAKER_01: Yeah.
• 41:03
  SPEAKER_01: But likely no.
• 41:04
  SPEAKER_01: And so the common denominator is overall outlook of what my diet should be, not just am I eating more red?
• 41:10
  SPEAKER_01: Yeah.
• 41:11
  SPEAKER_02: I think a really good high-level takeaway is to be curiously skeptical.
• 41:15
  SPEAKER_01: Yeah.
• 41:16
  SPEAKER_02: Right.
• 41:16
  SPEAKER_02: And so never take a headline at face value.
• 41:19
  SPEAKER_02: Exactly.
• 41:20
  SPEAKER_02: Um, and then, you know, I don't think we all need to become research scientists to be able to determine, you know, does this apply to me in this moment, given that we now have lots of really great tools to measure our own biology.
• 41:34
  SPEAKER_02: Yes.
• 41:35
  SPEAKER_02: And so my two bits of advice would be be curiously skeptical about the headline.
• 41:39
  SPEAKER_02: Don't, don't believe anything when you first read or hear about it.
• 41:42
  SPEAKER_02: But then secondly, do as much data collection on your own biology in real time.
• 41:47
  SPEAKER_02: And so I think, you know, I love the idea now that we can, you know, measure our sleep to some degree of accuracy, accuracy, sorry, our activity levels, our blood glucose, our nutrient intake, you know, all of those things we're getting much more resolution on.
• 42:03
  SPEAKER_02: Yeah.
• 42:03
  SPEAKER_02: Almost like monthly, that's improving.
• 42:05
  SPEAKER_01: Right.
• 42:06
  SPEAKER_01: And even if you don't have an objective measure, at least know what your goal is.
• 42:10
  SPEAKER_01: So don't just try something, be curiously skeptical, and then say, okay, what am I trying to achieve?
• 42:14
  SPEAKER_01: Let me kind of rate that and track that.
• 42:17
  SPEAKER_01: And so if you can do it with a wearable, great, but might just be my mood.
• 42:21
  SPEAKER_01: So I might just jot in my journal how what's my mood like one to 10.
• 42:26
  SPEAKER_01: And then I'm gonna try this thing that might help my mood, whether it's a supplement or breath work or meditation, and I'm gonna track that.
• 42:32
  SPEAKER_01: So do your own N of One studies, we call it.
• 42:35
  SPEAKER_01: Yeah.
• 42:35
  SPEAKER_01: And do that and be conscious of what am I trying to achieve with this thing that I read about that's supposed to be great.
• 42:40
  SPEAKER_01: Maybe it's better skin, great.
• 42:42
  SPEAKER_01: But then take a picture of your skin and then try the thing and take a picture a week later and compare them.
• 42:49
  SPEAKER_02: Yeah.
• 42:49
  SPEAKER_01: Because that's what's exciting about the time we live in, is we can do these little N of One studies and really research ourselves and understand how we are different from the population.
• 43:00
  SPEAKER_01: Even if it's a completely validated, studied pharmaceutical, it still might not work for me the way it works for you.
• 43:07
  SPEAKER_01: So let's get a little bit right.
• 43:09
  SPEAKER_01: So let's get a little more sophisticated and care about ourselves enough to get curious to see does this work for me?
• 43:15
  SPEAKER_02: And that is a really optimistic approach.
• 43:17
  SPEAKER_02: And I love that.
• 43:17
  SPEAKER_02: But how do we do that without sucking the fun out of life or just taking so much time?
• 43:23
  SPEAKER_02: Because, you know, it my my big concern is that, you know, if we were to look into every different headline and we were to take every different measurement and try every different thing, that that we wouldn't have time to do much else.
• 43:36
  SPEAKER_02: Right.
• 43:36
  SPEAKER_01: I would say you do one or two things at a time.
• 43:38
  SPEAKER_01: Right.
• 43:39
  SPEAKER_01: In blocks of time.
• 43:40
  SPEAKER_01: That's what we do here at Wonder Labs is we say, let's there are 20 things that you could be doing.
• 43:45
  SPEAKER_01: And over the next several years, we will do all of those.
• 43:48
  SPEAKER_01: But for this six-week chunk of time, yeah, let's do one thing so we know is it having an impact.
• 43:53
  SPEAKER_01: If you do five things at one time, not only does it suck the fun out of life, you don't know what's moving the needle.
• 43:57
  SPEAKER_01: Let's say it got better, weight loss or your skin or your mood, which of those five things impacted that?
• 44:03
  SPEAKER_01: You won't know if you did them all at the same time.
• 44:05
  SPEAKER_01: So be a little more patient and try one or two things and really measure it.
• 44:11
  SPEAKER_01: Measure it in some way that's easy to measure, easy to track.
• 44:14
  SPEAKER_01: Just write down one to ten, your self-rating on that, and see if it's helping you.
• 44:18
  SPEAKER_02: Yeah.
• 44:19
  SPEAKER_02: And I think the point you make there is a really great takeaway, and that is patience.
• 44:24
  SPEAKER_02: Yeah.
• 44:24
  SPEAKER_02: Right.
• 44:24
  SPEAKER_02: And we are everything is just such instant gratification.
• 44:28
  SPEAKER_02: And we that's why there is such popularity for these things, because we want the result and we want it now.
• 44:33
  SPEAKER_02: Of course.
• 44:34
  SPEAKER_02: And I think if everyone took a beat, um, you know, and just chipped away at this with some consistency.
• 44:41
  SPEAKER_02: The way I like to do this is I I I devote between 20 and 30 minutes a day, and that is it.
• 44:47
  SPEAKER_01: Yeah.
• 44:48
  SPEAKER_02: And that includes all of my workout, like any kind of um tracking or monitoring that is done, just I don't that doesn't take any time.
• 44:55
  SPEAKER_02: Right.
• 44:55
  SPEAKER_02: Any like journaling or gratitude, all of that.
• 44:57
  SPEAKER_02: I try and condense everything into 30 minutes.
• 45:00
  SPEAKER_01: And that's all it takes.
• 45:01
  SPEAKER_01: If you and you can get that return on your effort, that optimal return on your effort, if it's really personalized.
• 45:07
  SPEAKER_02: Yeah.
• 45:07
  SPEAKER_01: If you learn what works for you.
• 45:08
  SPEAKER_01: Yeah.
• 45:09
  SPEAKER_01: If you're just trying to do everything that works for everybody, that's hours of your day.
• 45:12
  SPEAKER_01: But if you learn for Chris, this is what I need to do, and then I can get much more efficient with it.
• 45:17
  SPEAKER_02: And I'm I'm not saying that more time than that does not increase the outcome.
• 45:21
  SPEAKER_02: It's just that for me, I I just haven't got the patience, I don't think, to to do anything for an hour.
• 45:27
  SPEAKER_02: Well, Miles, look, I I want us to do this uh on a monthly basis.
• 45:32
  SPEAKER_02: I think it would be really useful to review everything that is becoming very popular in the press and just giving a perspective on it through a lens of actual evidence.
• 45:40
  SPEAKER_02: Yes, I do.
• 45:40
  SPEAKER_02: Um, and so for any listeners, I think when we when we post these or anywhere on our socials, if you have questions or or any topics that you want us to cover on this yet unnamed segment of the the podcast, please let us know.
• 45:56
  SPEAKER_02: Yes, thank you.
• 45:57
  SPEAKER_02: No, Marles, thank you.