 Well, thanks guys, a huge honor to be here. So here's my pitch. Why don't we act like I gave my talk and then we all go watch Chris Masterjohn's talk. Show of hands? Okay, we've got a couple of hands. Okay, I guess you guys are gonna hold my feet at the fire and we'll really do this thing. So thank you so much for having me here. Almost 20 years ago now is when I entered into this whole ancestral health scene and funny enough, it was in Seattle. I was up here contemplating either a natural path route or a medical school route. And during this time, my health pretty much cratered and it was in discovering kind of the inner workings of sleep, circadian rhythm, food, community, exercise that I started to piece my health back together. And so for you guys, this talk, a lot of it won't be particularly new. Some of it may be, but I think that kind of the angle that's in it may be really powerful if you are a healthcare provider, if you are a coach. How many folks in here do their day-to-day life helping other people? Okay, so a lot of folks. So you might get some pretty good efficacy out of this in that regard. So for the most part, when we interface with people, the big concerns that people have are generally, weight and aesthetics, health, performance, longevity. I can't really think of too many other buckets that we could drop people into. Those tend to be the big primary concerns. But when we're trying to help people with this stuff, we need some sort of a rubric or a plan for how we're gonna tackle things. We need to figure out how we're gonna solve a specific problem. So check this image out. Really look close at that. Okay, so the way I found this, I put into a search engine wrong way to fix a problem. And now depending on how desperate you are, I don't know what they have plugged in here. Like clearly this was a very compelling situation that they had to gerry-rig this thing such that they could have burned the whole operation down. But clearly not the best way to fix a problem, right? I think we could all agree on that. Okay, let's look at some problems that we're all facing here. So you guys are all familiar with this type of stuff. Essentially exponential increases, no obesity rates, type two diabetes, and all the diabetes related issues, all these things are increasing at exponential rates, cost and frequency of Alzheimer's. And what's the solutions that we're offered? We're basically given two mainstream solutions. The first one is eat less, move more. The second one, everything in moderation. Would you guys agree with that? This is the mantra, these are the solutions. If you have health problems that are related to overeating or sedentism or what have you, these are the options. Eat less, move more, everything in moderation. Let me ask you this. Where does eat less, move more, everything in moderation exist here? And this is kind of the salty crunchy aisle. If you don't like the salty crunchy aisle, how about the sweet aisle? I don't really like the sweet stuff all that much, but if you move me down an aisle of potato chips, I will push down an old woman, use her spine as a springboard to jump and get the last bag of sea salt and vinegar potato chips. So this is just, this is our situation. From what I can look at, there is no eat less, move more, no everything in moderation, except in two places. It's two places that this does really exist. The first is a metabolic ward setting. Metabolic ward setting is effectively prison, needs a hospital, you don't get the shower perks. There's kind of a slow response on that. Maybe needed more coffee at this thing, but so everything in the metabolic ward, they weigh and measure all the food coming in. They literally frisk people to make sure that they're not sneaking in food. They collect your pee, they collect your poo. It's a full input output analysis. So in this setting, eat less, move more, everything in moderation works because they completely control the inputs and they scrutinize the outputs. There's one other place that eat less, move more, everything in moderation works. Anybody remember that? Fantasy Island, so those are the places that eat less, move more, everything in moderation works. And I say that, how much do we know today about type two diabetes versus what we knew 20 years ago? Do we know more today? We know infinitely more, virtually infinite. I believe in 2013 alone, there were 30,000 peer reviewed papers with type two diabetes in the title to some degree. Now granted, the quality of this type of research can vary, but I mean, there's been an enormous increase in our understanding of the gut microbiome, of genetics, epigenetics. So we know more about these problems than we've ever known in the past, but yet we can't seem to affect any type of really qualitative change. Just a few other bummer type statistics. I can see who is at least out of my age cohort when they recognize the graphics that I put in here. This is from airplane. Yeah, just shows how old I am at this point, but 108 million people in the US try a diet every year. Virtually all of them fail, fail being that they don't meet the kind of goal with regards to weight and health. 220,000 morbidly obese people had a gastric bypass in 2009 with an average cost of between $15,000 and $35,000 a person. So I don't really see a whole lot of success with the standard of care. Every once in a while somebody gets in and they ask a good question, well, why? Why is this situation the way that it is? But the common response tends to be an immediate bounce to this kind of moralization of the situation. We're just broken. There's something just wrong with us. Just to push a ways from the table and then that will solve all of the issues. But again, what if that table is the snack aisle of the supermarket? Like how do you moderate that stuff? Do we just lack moral fiber? If we were just better human beings, if we could just be better people then everything would be fine. Then there's this notion, people are just lazy. And we are, but that's actually something that was successful in the past and is maladaptive today, but we don't have that perspective to really understand that. So we vilify people and it leads to enormous shame. There was just a really tragic story of a beautiful young woman who ended up committing suicide recently because of social media shaming. And I mean, she was not overweight in the least by anybody's standards, but this kind of societal pressure that we have and this lack of understanding about why we just fundamentally are as humans leads to some really profound situations of loss and suffering. And then maybe we start asking some more granular questions. So we get into the most controversial of topics, are we eating too many carbs, too much fat, too much protein, the macronutrient war. So we've been in this thing for 60 years now and if you want to guarantee that anything goes on at Infanitem, you declare war against it and then it goes on forever. So we've been in these macronutrient wars and people will get all kinds of frisky and fired up about this. They will say that we've eaten more protein carbs or fat in the last couple of years, relative to previously and that is the sole cause of the obesity epidemic. But if you talk to Stephen Guine and you talk to some other folks, this is kind of hard to support when you look at just the ratios of the macronutrients that we've eaten. And we have some interesting anthropological examples of people who've eaten on the very low carb side of things historically who are quite healthy, the Inuit being an example. And then we have populations like the Katavans who've eaten an exceptionally high carb diet. And I love the Katavans, they're such a great example. When you break down their diet, they eat a 60 to 70% carbohydrate diet. They eat significant amounts of pork and saturated fat. And what's the other? They smoke like chimneys. And so if you're into the American Heart Association model, the fact that they eat saturated fat, they should be dead. If you're into the China study model, the fact that they eat pork and animal products, they should be dead. And if you're in the low carb jihadi group, they should be dead from that too. And they're not dead at all, they're healthier than we are by and large. So this whole notion that it's just protein, just carbs, just fat, it really doesn't hold up to scrutiny or just looking at some basic anthropological observations. But man, when we start asking, what about calories? Are we eating too many calories? And we start getting a, yeah, and it's not just that we are eating too many calories. This is a graph of the available food in our system, the amount of food that's available to us. And what this really boils down to is novelty. We have more options with regards to our food than we've ever had in history. And when we understand the way that our neurophysiology, our neurobiology is wired to regulate our appetite, this starts making some sense. So American supermarket stock over 50,000 food-like items each year, about 11,000 new items are introduced. What I would propose is that it's novelty, not a lack of moral fiber or moral substance. And the crazy used car salesman pitch that I'll throw out there is that the forces that made us who we are may be working against us today. Does that seem crazy over the top? Maybe the thing that made us successful in the past may be working at odds today. So we have two interconnected factors that forged essentially who we are. These two factors, the first part is optimum foraging strategy, optimum foraging models argue that an organism will select the nutrients that give the greatest benefit for the least energy expended. This is basic thermodynamics. If you spend more energy trying to acquire nutrients, at some point, that's gonna become a zero sum game. You're gonna die, you're gonna starve to death. So woven into our genetics is kind of a game theory programming that we must find more nutrition with regards to vital nutrients and also total caloric load than what we burn in the acquisition of that process. And so a really great modeling of this is that you track down a significant amount of food and then you go lay down and wait until you start getting hungry again and then you go get more food. And when we look at anything from crickets to lizards to humans to sharks, this optimum foraging strategy is a great modeling of how we balance that acquisition of nutrients versus the expenditure of calories so that we're always in a caloric excess. So this really flies in the face of much of what we're told too that we need to try to program in some sort of a caloric deficit. Maybe we do in this modern world, but we really don't understand the underpinnings of why. So the second piece that plays into this, and this is kind of like a dueling banjos against the optimum foraging strategy is pallet fatigue. And within the pallet fatigue, the strategy of paleolithic foragers was to eat small amounts of various foods. To decrease the impact of toxin pathogens, but also to diversify the nutrient intake. So on the one hand, we have a drive to eat everything that's not nailed down, but then on the other hand, we have a tendency to get bored of that food and get bored of it quickly and there's really good reasons for that. If we ate too much of one type of food, we could get exposed to a toxic level of anti-nutrients, for example, and also we might end up with a nutrient deficiency. So a variety literally is a spice of life and this is pulling from a paper which I will reference at the end, but eating a variety of foods made it more likely that the species will get a balanced diet. That includes the required micronutrients that's simultaneously limiting the toxins ingested. And boredom is built in. This pallet fatigue phenomena is a really interesting thing that we can use both to our benefit and our detriment and I'll show you some examples of that. So again, the crazy, greasy, used car sales and pitch that I would make is that we have great wiring but really bad timing. The novelty that involves ancient areas of the brain which are largely superseding our logical forebrain and people will know that they should do something but they're driven by an emotive process which is survival. And it's interesting that we would not begrudge anyone if they fell into a creek and they were drowning. We would not begrudge that person doing everything in their control to pop their head up out of that water, grab a limb and save their life. That wouldn't be extraordinary, would it? No, it's totally reasonable but the desire to eat all the food is a similar survival mechanism and when you think through our evolutionary past it really can't be any other way but yet we will vilify the overeater but excuse the person who is saving themselves from drowning with their evolutionarily driven survival mechanisms. Ultraprocessing can introduce tremendous variety in the diet. The abundant variety of the meal bypasses the brain's sensory specific satiety thus avoiding palate fatigue. Basically, highly processed foods can really circumvent the tendency for us to say, okay, enough's enough and I'm gonna show you a really fascinating example of that here in just a few minutes. In a world of plenty, a varied diet may in fact be maladaptive, stimulating appetite thus promoting excessive eating. Variety produces the dessert effect in which a satiated eater will rekindle their appetite when presented dessert which is so different from the meal foods making them palatable. So how many times have we been there and we ate a great meal there was some pork loin and Brussels sprouts and cooked in bacon and all this stuff and you're like, oh man, I'm stuffed and then somebody brings out some sort of a dessert and you're like, well, I guess I'm not that stuffed and so this is a great example of that. What's happening here is we're switching up the palate inputs in a way that even though our senses which are regulated at the gut, at a hormonal level, at the brain level, that may be saturated or at a spot where it's like it's sending all the signals of enough, I'm full and then we change that palate experience enough and then we can eat more food. It's very easy to do. And what's the delay's potato chip deal? Bet you can't eat just one. I'll take that bet all day long. Studies in animals and humans show that increasing consumption when there is more variety in a meal or diet this variety should be noted as based on added fat, sugar, salt, spices, shape and texture. So this is an interesting thing that even within the context of say like ancestral eating just introducing some alterations in texture and seasonings. How many of you folks are familiar with my food matrix? That was actually an attempt at taking good food and introducing enough variety so that people would be comfortable with eating chicken and pork loin and stuff like that in a more continual basis by switching up spices and cooking methods and whatnot. But clearly we can take this to a possibly maladaptive level. Okay, so this thing is pretty cool and really the whole talk could have been this next minute and a half video and then we could have really ran in and watched Chris Masterjohn. So this is Adam Rickman, man versus food and what he's getting ready to take on is called the Kitchen Sink Challenge. It's an eight pound ice cream sundae and you have to eat it in a specific amount of time. I think it's 30 minutes or 45 minutes for you to win. I don't know what you win. Is it like 5,000 units of insulin or something and never really detailed that. But I want you to watch what he does, what happens to him partway through eating this ice cream and what does he do to win this challenge? Check this out and hopefully this thing plays. Fueled by San Francisco's energy and support, I'm feeling fine. But then the magnitude of what I am eating hits me. This is crazy. I am experiencing sweetness overload. In the words of William Shakespeare, this totally sucks. Frantic to stop the sugary tide from rising. I make a desperate play. Can I get like a small plate of fries? I'm salty to break it up. Thank you. Right now all the orange is starting to get to me. I think the more I can appreciate each bite, I got a better chance of rocking this one. I cautiously eat a few fries. The strategy works for now and I resume my epic ice cream battle. Holy cats. Okay, so what happened there? What happened? This guy's eating a massive amount of ice cream. Who would argue that an ice cream sundae doesn't taste great? Probably tastes pretty good. Orange ice cream, I don't know. That's a little weird, but an ice cream sundae, I think we could label as a hyper palatable food. It's very tasty food. But after three and a half or four pounds, he was about halfway through, this is a shorter video clip. There's a longer video that's like five minutes that the Food Network has and you can see him, he tries to put a spoonful of the ice cream down and he's green and he wretches. He almost throws up and so if he throws up, the deal's done. He lost the kitchen sink challenge. So he is at such a profound moment of palate fatigue that eating more ice cream literally is making him want to be physically ill. What does he do to get through this? He orders extra salty, extra crunchy French fries and he eats a French fry, which that salty, crunchy savory is about as different from the sweet, cold, creamy experience of the ice cream. And this is something that just, usually I use this talk more for kind of mainstream hospital and registered dietetics tracks, which you'll see in a little bit, it ends up pissing them off pretty thoroughly at the end of it. But this makes them crazy because how does he succeed in this situation? He ate more food to just eat the initial food that he was gonna eat. That plate of French fries is probably about 1,500 calories alone. Do you guys get that? He could not eat the ice cream had he not also eaten the French fries. And the way that we eat, the way that much of our world eats is like professional eaters. This is a professional eating strategy. If you poke around some of the professional eating websites, they have all these different food pairings. Well, if you need to eat 70 hot dogs and you should pair it with gummy bears and they have all these different things figured out and this is the way that we inadvertently construct most of our meals. And I live in Reno, Nevada. There's a buffet on every corner and you walk into these things and there's every option you could ever dream of. There's sushi over here, and Mexican food there, and Italian food there. And man, you can put away some chow when you go to these places because it's literally almost infinite palette options that you experience. So the modern world offers limitless food options. The food is engineered to be hyper palatable. I don't think anybody could argue with that. Like there are a number of food scientists that would otherwise be out doing drug labs or something if they weren't engineering this food. Our ancient wiring is now a liability and the medical recommendation and moderation, I wouldn't even say so much fail but are actively working against us and we'll take a gander under the hood at that. So this came up Blue Cross Blue Shield of North Carolina. Hi, my name is Mariana. I have type two diabetes and I could eat chocolate. Well Mariana, you could eat depleted uranium if you wanted to also but it's not gonna be particularly healthy for you. So these are the gatekeepers. And this is where when I'm presenting this to a hospital system they get super mad and they don't realize what demon they've let loose into their midst. But these are the gatekeepers. These are the people in charge of taking care of people and they put out stuff like this. Now this one is kind of benign because I could say okay well, 90% dark chocolate, kick your heels up, no problem. Check this other one out. This is from the American Diabetes Association Facebook page. It was their satisfy your sweet tooth recipe and the recipe was one cup of rice, one can of sweetened condensed milk, two tablespoons of honey, and then a dash of cinnamon. Why the cinnamon? Because it lowers blood sugar. Yeah, because it lowers blood sugar. So this thing hit social media and it went crazy. It just went, these people got roasted at the steak and they took the thing down and they had kind of a mea culpa like well, we didn't provide context about amounts and ratios and all that type of stuff. And when we know anything about the type two diabetic situation in insulin resistance and yes, you can food restrict somebody again in a metabolic ward setting and stick them on a high carbohydrate diet and we will probably reverse the signs and symptoms of type two diabetes but we literally need to starve the person. Whereas if we just remove the insulting macronutrient which is carbohydrates and these insulin resistant individuals, we pretty miraculously get a resolution of the problem. So these are the gatekeepers that are telling us eat less, move more, everything at moderation. And as this ancestral health message has grown and it's kind of infiltrated out further and further, what's being done is that they are turning good eating into disordered eating is being called orthorexia. Any attempt at good eating is effectively given what ICD-10 code now and so you are disordered eater, subcategory ancestral health, subcategory ketogenic. And so this is the response. What's the standard dietetics model? Have a little of everything, exclude nothing. Every single study to date shows that that approach fails and it doesn't matter if it's like cabbage soup diet, cookie diet, paleo, Atkins, you name it, any other nutritional approach that's been tested head to head with the have a little bit of everything, the little bit of everything fails again and again and again, but it's still the kind of standard of care. Excluding food groups is orthorexia. And I would argue that actually some exclusion of food groups is the only way that we are ever going to effectively navigate this whole problem and make that point down at the bottom, some degree of food avoidance maybe necessary to navigate the modern food forest. I love this quote. And again, I just kind of throw this stuff out there as there are folks that do fine on the moderate approach, but that is not the vast majority of people. At a minimum, if you get into some of Gretchen Rubin's work where she talks about abstainers and moderators, perhaps 50% of the people are abstainers. If they are going to succeed in some sort of a dietary change, they need to draw a line in the sand and they say there's not a safe limit with that. For some alcoholics, they can have a drink. For other alcoholics, they can't even do herbal tinctures because it's an alcohol. So orthorexia is nutritional self-defense. Palate fatigue and simple meals are the foundation of our omnivore past. Maybe requisite to maintaining normal health today. This is a very controversial topic if you're in a mainstream hospital setting. So I would make this point. If you're fat sick, diabetic and broken, you are a biological success story. You've done nothing wrong. You've in fact done everything right. You are liberated. I used to have a Thelma and Louise picture on that with the car driving off the ledge, but it's like copyrighted or something, so I couldn't use that one. But we still have some work to do. Even though we're liberated from this on an intellectual level, we need to have some strategies about what to do next. And I love this Van Gogh quote, even the knowledge of my own fallibility cannot keep me from making mistakes. Only when I fall do I get back up again. That's gotta be the approach that we take both with ourselves and with our clients that it's not about perfection, it's about just getting back on track. If we had one meal off rails, we're only one meal away from getting back on. If we had one night of bad sleep, we're only one night away from getting back on track with that. So what can you do? This is where you guys... Yeah, I told you we should have gone to watch Chris Masterjohn. I told you guys. Let's see if I can jam through. Pretty close. And so this is the stuff that you guys know a ton of. But something that I think would be really powerful for folks that are running clinical practices, working with people, talking to folks about this omnivores real dilemma that we are wired to eat more and move less. That is our normal biological state, the exact opposite of what we're being told to do on kind of an implementation basis. We need to figure out how to use something like the food matrix to get enough variety so that people don't want to shoot themselves because they're so bored with the food that's in front of them, but not so much variety that we get into that professional eating kind of strategy. Factors that govern our neural regulation of appetite, food, sleep, and specifically circadian rhythm and photo period, I honestly think that part is perhaps more important than any other element in our lives at this point. I'm getting more and more driven towards that circadian rhythm piece. Community is enormous. We now understand that inadequate community is as big a stress and as big an impact on our health as a pack-a-day smoking habit and the movement. I highly recommend a 30-day reset for folks. It's long enough to get great success. It's short enough that you can guilt people into giving it a shot, and usually it'll get some pretty good progress with that. Whole 30 is a great example of something that's just gone enormously large and successful and recommending an approach similar to this. We focus on largely whole-on processed foods, eat these simple meals, eat them to society. This is my food matrix example, which I think is pretty cool. If we took the chicken breast, I'm super afraid that I was making that thing fail, but if you go chicken breast and then vegetable asparagus, and then what do we have? Herbs and spices, let's say garlic, cooked in coconut oil, and then we could go chicken breast, asparagus, ginger, coconut oil. See how that goes? On this page alone, there are 80,000 different meals that are potential options there. Now, some of them are gonna be a dog. Let's see here. Bass cooked with beets in all spice and lard. In all spice and lard. I might pass on that one, but who knows? Maybe somebody will like that. For sleep, go to bed early, use your blue blockers, dim your lights, pitch black room every night. Everybody's pretty familiar with this type of stuff. Community, this is why I love martial arts, and even things like CrossFit. If the CrossFit is well run, a good CrossFit gym will talk to you about sleep, food, exercise is kind of the reason why you're there and community is just baked in the cake. So I really like that stuff. Movement, get outdoors as much as possible. CrossFit yoga, dance, martial arts, I'm a big Brazilian jiu-jitsu guy. Gives you a chance to hug people and choke them also, which is great. So it's not about morality or stupidity or laziness, it's novelty. And thank you guys so much for having me here and look forward to seeing more of what's going on. And who knows, maybe Chris Masterjohn is still talking. We can sneak over there and see some slack. Is there a Q and A sec? Peace? Okay, okay. Okay, and I have no idea how that's run. Is there a microphone or folks just jumping up or? Maybe people can come up to the mic line up over here. That'd be easier than running around trying to hand out. If there's no questions, we can go do something. I have not given a hue, who asked that question? Could you raise your hand? I think that's a really fascinating topic and by no means well steeped in the neurophysiology of how music is interpreted. It's a fascinating topic for me just in that where does that even come from? Where does the creativity of that process come from and music and music theory? I am not qualified to really comment on it, but I would say music potentially has enormous effects on our state of wellbeing, happiness. I've noticed that I listened to far too many podcasts and far too little Soundgarden radio on Amazon Prime and when I listened to more of that, I'm much happier than listening to the gloom and doom of podcasts for the most part. Pardon? Absolutely, I mean, if you listen to music, you typically dance, so yeah, yeah. So apparently if to get everybody on mic, I either have to pass this around or you can repeat the question. Okay, we could do that, we could do that. Okay, I'll do a question repeat. You just need to project. Why don't I just bring the mic over here, maybe it's easier. We're figuring this out as we go folks. Hi Rob, I was wondering if you have an opinion on like paleo foods like granola and things like that cause I find that those for me are hyper palatable as well and I can't stop eating them so it's better for me to just avoid them. So I don't know if you have anything to say about those types of foods. I'm hard pressed to improve on what you just said. Okay, I guess maybe it wasn't a question. For me, I'm super gluten intolerant and it's really a bummer to go out to eat, spend a decent amount of money on the meal and then spend the next two or three hours in the washroom. So the development of all these gluten-free options like just being able to have a birthday cake now that doesn't poison me is amazing but those things are easily hyper palatable. Even back in 2001 when Lauren Cordain wrote his first book, this was super early and very few people were doing like date almond, nut cluster type things but even in 2001 he warned in the back of the book yet these are technically paleo foods but you can easily overeat these and he didn't couch it in terms of specifically like hyper palatability but even then when there was no one doing this stuff yet and none of the kind of like epic bar and all these things which I think are incredible. They're really amazing but you can get yourself in trouble with them without a doubt. Thank you. Yeah. Okay. Hey, nice, nice, nice hearing from you. Love your humor. I just want to say real quick a Dunbar's book on human evolution on the question of musicality talks about human brain size and how we're wired to be around 150 people. Most people know that Dunbar's number but musicality, laughing, feasting was a way for us to groom larger numbers when we didn't have time in smaller groups. So you might check out that book. A clarification question. So are you saying novelty is driving caloric intake? Yes, largely. If you have more, on average, in a given situation if you have more food options, greater novelty you will tend to eat more food. Yeah. Okay, because I'm also, yeah, so okay. I'm not sure I'm convinced yet and I'm wondering if there's something underneath novelty that also exists like convenience? Like I know that if you walk down the grocery store like your picture shows there's just lots of just crap food that's just calories, but not real substance, right? So to me it's almost as much convenience as it is novelty that there's just so much available and because yeah, I'm just not yet convinced. So can you convince me that novelty is driving that or say it one more time? I mean when we couch it from these two elements which are really foundational in evolutionary biology which is optimum foraging strategy plus pallet fatigue. So the optimum foraging strategy is driving us to get as much as we can expanding as little as possible which totally corroborates with what you're talking about with regards to convenience. And this is something that Steffan DNA talks about at very great length and is much more of an expert on than I am. So it kind of dovetails in all of the convenience elements. That is the foundational elements of optimum foraging strategy, but even within that if you had a giant pile of Twinkies here at some point that would be incredibly convenient but you will get bored of that via pallet fatigue and cease eating it at some point. Now I might have to go a mile away to find the next food item, but if I know that okay there's Twinkies here but ding-dongs over there, I will walk that mile to go get it even though it's not convenient because the difference is the loosening of that pallet fatigue and that's where the novelty comes in. And we see this a lot in like a Robert Lee's book on the sun and it's interesting where we see very little starvation in hunter-gatherer groups. They will eat the preferential foods, the foods that they like the best in an ever-increasing radius from where their base camp is. Even though there are other foods that are very convenient nearby but they value both the flavor and then potentially the nutritional value less. But if all of those foods are gone and they fall back on starvation foods, they have lots of options right at hand which are convenient but they will go out of their way spending even more calories to go seek out things that are more novel. Okay, thank you. Yeah, great question. Please. I'm gonna add something we can avoid. That was not working, sorry. Totally throwing out the baby with the bath water. There is a major factor in macronutrient type in a behavioral context. In other words, most foods are under the control of deprivation before hungry will eat. Sugary foods tend to be what are known as generalized reinforcers. We'll eat even if we just finished eating which is a major reason why we serve dessert after we're finished eating. Right. So I think that's a factor as well. Absolutely. Yes, sir. Rob, in your books you talk about meat, fish, fowl and eggs and you mentioned an emphasis on lean cut meats. But in the paleo world and more specifically ketogenic, we talk about higher fat. So is there a reason why you refer specifically to lean cut meats as opposed to like if I've got options in front of me, I'm gonna take the fattier cut because it's tasty and I'm telling myself it's healthier. Is lean cut healthier? Not necessarily, but it was one. So there's two things in that first book that I did that I wouldn't say sleight of hand, but it, so there's all this controversy everywhere over different things like cholesterol levels, for example. So I suggested lean cut meats because then the folks who are in that more mainstream paradigm were like, okay, he said lean meats, even though when you get to the recipe section, it's not lean meats at all. And then there was the cholesterol suggestion which was totally in line on the front part with what the kind of mainstream recommendations are, but then I had the caveat. But if your insulin levels are low, if your LDLP is this, if your C-reactive protein is that, if your LP little a is this, then actually cholesterol levels don't matter. So I ended up, and it's funny because I didn't get any pushback because when they read through the whole thing, typically they see the thing that they want to see and then they don't get excited about the other part that they disagree with, they just kind of focus on the first part. So there was actually a bit of subterfuge on that, trying to cater to both of those camps because I had heard these things pop up all the time. Yeah, yeah, so good digging that up, yeah.