Dr. Peter Attia

And again, let's say you're on a road trip, and you're parched, and you pull over at a gas station, and your choice is to stay parched or drink the water out of the plastic bottle. Drink the water out of the plastic bottle. That's better than getting a kidney stone. Okay. Right? Like, again, people have to remember the dose effect of this stuff.

Like, I get, I'm amazed at how people completely lose the forest for the trees sometime on this thing. And they all of a sudden become so fixated on, I can't ever touch anything that touched plastic, and yet they forget to work out. Like, remember the priority list, right?

Like, I get, I'm amazed at how people completely lose the forest for the trees sometime on this thing. And they all of a sudden become so fixated on, I can't ever touch anything that touched plastic, and yet they forget to work out. Like, remember the priority list, right?

Like, I get, I'm amazed at how people completely lose the forest for the trees sometime on this thing. And they all of a sudden become so fixated on, I can't ever touch anything that touched plastic, and yet they forget to work out. Like, remember the priority list, right?

Probably not as much as health influencers want you to believe.

Probably not as much as health influencers want you to believe.

Probably not as much as health influencers want you to believe.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Yeah.

That's a bit of a gross oversimplification. The truth of the matter is Cancer feeds off glucose. Glucose is the simplest breakdown product of all carbohydrates or virtually all carbohydrates. The evidence that sugar is uniquely carcinogenic is virtually non-existent, despite, again, what every anti-sugar health influencer wants you to believe. The evidence is awful for that statement. But...

That's a bit of a gross oversimplification. The truth of the matter is Cancer feeds off glucose. Glucose is the simplest breakdown product of all carbohydrates or virtually all carbohydrates. The evidence that sugar is uniquely carcinogenic is virtually non-existent, despite, again, what every anti-sugar health influencer wants you to believe. The evidence is awful for that statement. But...

That's a bit of a gross oversimplification. The truth of the matter is Cancer feeds off glucose. Glucose is the simplest breakdown product of all carbohydrates or virtually all carbohydrates. The evidence that sugar is uniquely carcinogenic is virtually non-existent, despite, again, what every anti-sugar health influencer wants you to believe. The evidence is awful for that statement. But...

sugar almost undoubtedly drives people to overeat. And there are really compelling biochemical reasons for that and decent experimental reasons for that, especially in animals, that High sugar diets will drive overeating, and overeating certainly drives cancer. But cancer does not have a unique ability to consume fructose, which is the actual part of sugar that makes it sweet.

sugar almost undoubtedly drives people to overeat. And there are really compelling biochemical reasons for that and decent experimental reasons for that, especially in animals, that High sugar diets will drive overeating, and overeating certainly drives cancer. But cancer does not have a unique ability to consume fructose, which is the actual part of sugar that makes it sweet.

sugar almost undoubtedly drives people to overeat. And there are really compelling biochemical reasons for that and decent experimental reasons for that, especially in animals, that High sugar diets will drive overeating, and overeating certainly drives cancer. But cancer does not have a unique ability to consume fructose, which is the actual part of sugar that makes it sweet.

So if you eat a bowl of rice, that's all glucose. If you eat sugar, it's half glucose, half fructose. Well, the cancer does not have a unique ability to consume the fructose. It just consumes the glucose. So you could frankly argue that rice is more carcinogenic than sugar. Except for the fact that, again, as I said, maybe sugar drives people to eat a little bit more. Okay.

So if you eat a bowl of rice, that's all glucose. If you eat sugar, it's half glucose, half fructose. Well, the cancer does not have a unique ability to consume the fructose. It just consumes the glucose. So you could frankly argue that rice is more carcinogenic than sugar. Except for the fact that, again, as I said, maybe sugar drives people to eat a little bit more. Okay.

So if you eat a bowl of rice, that's all glucose. If you eat sugar, it's half glucose, half fructose. Well, the cancer does not have a unique ability to consume the fructose. It just consumes the glucose. So you could frankly argue that rice is more carcinogenic than sugar. Except for the fact that, again, as I said, maybe sugar drives people to eat a little bit more. Okay.

But sugar is, pardon me, the bigger driver of cancer from a nutrition perspective is likely the growth signals that are very prevalent with obesity and type 2 diabetes. So it's undoubtedly much more the high levels of insulin than the high levels of glucose that are problematic when you're trying to prevent or minimize cancer risk. Okay. Let's move into dementia.