Dr. Gabrielle Lyon

And I think that that convenience is going to come at a cost.

I don't exactly know what that is, but I definitely believe it is going to come at a cost.

I think environmental medicine is certainly the way of the future.

And I'll say something else.

I think that we have to reevaluate the old biomarkers that we've been using.

I know this is going to sound crazy, but we've been focusing on body fat percentage as if this is just an example, as if this is the biomarker.

I think that that is going to become less of a valuable biomarker.

I think that we're going to begin to see that it's the fat, the intramuscular adipose tissue, it's the quality of the muscle tissue.

The fat that infiltrates into that tissue is going to be arguably more valuable than understanding someone's body fat percentage.

In the next five years, what I'm hoping to see is a reevaluation of the current way that we are looking at medicine and the current standard biomarkers because humans are funny.

they have this anchoring bias.

Once they hear something, once they're taught something, then this is what they always go back to.

As opposed to, so for example, if we are taught that body fat percentage is the problem, it closes our minds and our ability to think that, you know, maybe we should reevaluate that.

Maybe body fat percentage isn't the problem, but maybe it's the fat that is infiltrated into skeletal muscle that's the actual problem.

And then perhaps we compound that by if there is then fat in the tissue, and I'll just go on and say this sounds crazy, but what if the exposures that are fat-soluble are then embedded into skeletal muscle because they're embedded into not just the visceral fat and the subcutaneous fat, but the fat within muscle tissue.

And in order to actually get well,

We have to ask the right questions.

Otherwise, we're going to always miss the mark.

Why are you not feeling well?

If the lab values don't show, then we're not looking at the right labs.