Send us a text

Organic food often sounds like a smarter, healthier choice—but is it really worth the extra cost? In this episode, we dig into the scientific evidence behind organic foods, pesticide risks, and whether you're buying better health or just paying for a better-sounding label.

We begin by breaking down the steep price differences between organic and conventional food. According to the USDA, Americans spend roughly $1 trillion annually on food at home, averaging over $3,100 per person. Organic options can increase grocery bills by 50% or more, as LendingTree reports in this price comparison analysis. My own market trip found Fuji apples nearly double in price, and wild-caught salmon more than twice as expensive.

But do organics deliver better health outcomes? Most organic foods contain lower pesticide residues, which 85% of Americans cite as a concern. Yet research shows these lower levels don’t clearly translate to better health. Rodent studies show harm at extremely high pesticide doses, far above what’s found in conventional produce. Human risk data mostly comes from farm workers, not everyday consumers.

A 2023 meta-analysis of 50 studies found that organic diets reduced blood pesticide levels and increased plant-derived phenolics, but showed inconsistent results for antioxidants. Cancer data is also mixed. One observational study found no clear differences across 15 cancer types. Another study of 68,000 participants linked organic food with perhaps a  0.6% lower risk of cancer incidence (JAMA Internal Medicine). However, organic eaters also are more likely health oriented (perhaps exercise more, sleep better), so lifestyle may explain the difference—not the food alone.

I ran the numbers: avoiding one case of cancer might require 150 people to eat organic, costing about $300,000 in additional food expenses to avoid 1 cancer. And since organic prices may lead families to buy less produce overall, there’s a tradeoff. We know from a meta-analysis that increasing fruit and vegetable intake (organic or not) is linked to a 13% reduction in mortality and a 35% drop in cancer risk. That’s a far more impactful move.

If you’re looking for a middle ground, consider using the Environmental Working Group’s Dirty Dozen and Clean 15 lists. While not a neutral source, their rankings can help prioritize which foods might be worth buying organic. Washing produce also helps reduce, but not eliminate, pesticide residues.

Takeaways:

1. Organic foods have lower pesticide levels but no clear, consistent health advantage.
2. The biggest health gain comes from eating more fruits and vegetables—regardless of whether they’re organic.
3. If organic costs limit your produce intake, stick with conventional and focus on volume, variety, and other wellness investments like better sleep or exercise.

As always, I’d love to hear what you think. Does this shift how you shop? Let me know—and share this episode with someone navigating the same choice.

Send us a text

Why are U.S. health care costs so high—and what does that mean for you and your family? In this episode, I dive into the real reasons behind America’s staggering health care bills.

We start with a story that hits close to home—a $189,000 outpatient cancer surgery bill followed by $12,000-a-month immunotherapy—and I unpack how even with Medicare coverage, the pricing dynamics can feel shocking. Using my experience as a physician and health policy researcher, I explain why these massive charges happen and where the system is breaking down.

At the national level, we now spend over $5 trillion a year on health care—roughly 18% of our GDP—and this number is growing far faster than inflation. This growth threatens the solvency of key programs like Medicare, which is projected to run out of funds by 2033 (Health Affairs). Employers are also feeling the pinch, with average family coverage costs now topping $25,500 annually (WSJ). Individuals, especially those using ACA exchanges, face rising premiums—some increasing by 20–30% next year (Axios)—and deductibles between $3,000 and $5,000 are now typical.

Despite all this spending, our health outcomes are among the worst in the developed world. The U.S. ranks 33rd in infant mortality and 32nd in life expectancy out of 38 OECD countries, even though we spend about $12,000 per person annually—nearly three times the OECD average (America's Health Rankings).

So, what drives these costs? It boils down to three factors: high prices, high utilization, and high administrative overhead. Prices for common procedures are far above international norms—a CT scan in the U.S. costs around $900 compared to $279 in the Netherlands and just $97 in Canada (Health Imaging). U.S. physicians, nurses, and hospital executives also earn significantly more, contributing to overall spending (Medscape; JAMA).

On the utilization front, studies estimate that around 25% of all care may be unnecessary, driven by defensive medicine, patient expectations, and incentive structures that reward more procedures—not necessarily better outcomes (PGPF; Choosing Wisely).

Even administrative overhead plays a massive role: nearly 25% of U.S. health care spending goes to bureaucracy—four times what’s typical in simpler, single-payer systems (Health System Tracker; Health Affairs%20of%20US%20GDP)).

If you’re wondering why your doctor spends just 17 minutes with you or why your premiums feel like a second mortgage, this episode offers the context—and data—to help you understand what’s really going on.

Takeaways:
Start asking about cash prices—especially if you're still in your deductible phase. Preventive steps like regular exercise may offer the highest return on investment when compared to costly downstream care. And above all, consider your plan carefully during open enrollment.

For deeper insights, links to all the studies mentioned, and access to my newslet

Send us a text

We often hear about heart disease prevention, but stroke—a condition nearly as common and often more disabling—gets far less attention. In this episode, Dr. Bobby is joined by cardiologist Dr. Anthony Pearson to uncover what science really says about stroke prevention, the distinct types of strokes, and what practical steps you can take today to lower your risk.

Together, they explore the two major types of stroke—ischemic and hemorrhagic—and explain why strokes caused by clots or vessel rupture can have very different causes and consequences. The data shows nearly 800,000 Americans experience strokes annually, and about half of survivors live with long-term disability (CDC; NIH). Yet most of us are unaware of the modifiable risk factors that account for up to 90% of stroke risk (INTERSTROKE Study).

Dr. Pearson emphasizes the number one culprit: high blood pressure. It triples individual risk and contributes to half of all strokes, with randomized trials like SPRINT showing that aggressive control reduces both stroke and mortality (SPRINT Study). Both doctors also discuss physical activity—while Dr. Bobby cites strong associations between exercise and reduced stroke risk (BMJ Review), Dr. Pearson cautions that current evidence is largely observational and inconclusive.

They also explore the role of lipid levels, citing that high ApoB or LDL may increase risk in strokes caused by carotid atherosclerosis, but not necessarily in cardioembolic strokes. Dietary improvements, particularly following a Mediterranean-style diet, have shown benefits, including reduced stroke risk in randomized trials like PREDIMED.

Beyond traditional risk factors, they also explore loneliness as a newer area of concern. A recent study linked persistent loneliness in adults over 50 to a 50% increased stroke risk (Lancet eClinicalMedicine), highlighting the complex social and behavioral factors at play.

Dr. Pearson discusses atrial fibrillation (AFib) and why it’s a key cause of cardioembolic strokes—especially relevant given that wearables like Apple Watch now help detect AFib early. They also touch on controversial screening approaches, warning against routine carotid ultrasounds and unwarranted treatment of asymptomatic brain aneurysms.

Importantly, Dr. Bobby highlights the signs of stroke—sudden weakness, numbness, speech difficulties, or confusion—and urges immediate ER visits to enable timely treatment like thrombolysis, ideally within four hours of symptom onset.

As always, they wrap by challenging popular myths. Dr. Pearson explains why aspirin, once widely promoted for primary prevention, is no longer recommended due to increased bleeding risk, especially into the brain. He also debunks the idea that supplements like fish oil or B vitamins help prevent strokes, noting no benefit in recent large trials.

Takeaways:

1. Know your blood pressure and cholesterol levels—and treat them if needed. These remain the top modifiable risks for stroke.
2. Prioritize physical activity, even if trial data is imperfect—it benefits vascular health broadly and may reduce stroke risk.
3. Stay socially connected: chronic loneliness has emerging links to stroke risk, highlighting that prevention isn't just physical—it's relational.

To continue learning how to live long and well, visit drbobbylivelongandwell.com.

Send us a text

Dr. Bobby examines how legitimate medical treatments often get overextended into unproven health claims—why it happens, why it matters, and how to spot it.

Building on last episode’s theme of health hype, this installment digs into examples where therapies with real medical uses (like vitamin C, B12, hyperbaric oxygen, and stem cell therapy) are being promoted far beyond what the evidence supports. Dr. Bobby unpacks the flawed logic of “theory plus anecdote plus expert equals evidence” and explains why even well-intentioned health advice can go too far when it skips the evidence.

You’ll hear about the historical rise and modern misuse of vitamin C—from preventing scurvy to overstated claims of immune boosting. The episode dives into vitamin B12, which has real benefits for those with deficiencies but is often marketed as a cure-all without support. Hyperbaric oxygen therapy, which is FDA-approved for very specific conditions like carbon monoxide poisoning and diabetic ulcers, is another example—now advertised for fatigue, brain fog, and aging without strong data to back it. And stem cell therapy, which truly helps in leukemia and bone marrow failure, is being extended to treat everything from dementia to heart disease—despite the lack of proven efficacy in these areas.

Dr. Bobby then addresses why this happens: patient desperation, the placebo effect, and the sheer momentum of what has been called “Big Wellness”—an industry now worth hundreds of billions. Social media only amplifies these trends, creating fear of missing out and distorting what counts as credible.

To help listeners navigate this landscape, Dr. Bobby shares questions to ask when encountering bold health claims. Has the treatment been proven in your condition? Are there peer-reviewed studies in humans? What are the risks and costs—not just financially, but in delaying evidence-based care? Are the promoters benefiting from those beliefs?

He encourages all of us to remain open-minded skeptics: curious, informed, and protective of both our health and our wallets.

Takeaways:
Ask whether the health claim is backed by solid evidence, not just theory and anecdote.
Don’t assume treatments with real uses are effective for everything they're marketed for.
Before trying the latest therapy, ask: Is this proven for my condition, and what’s the real cost?

Send us a text

Dr. Bobby unpacks the surge of health hype—from red light therapy to NAD⁺ boosters—and empowers listeners to stay curious yet skeptical using science-backed tools and critical thinking.

Are claims like “boost your mitochondria” or “natural detox” real breakthroughs—or today’s version of snake oil? Dr. Bobby explores why health hype is everywhere, why we’re vulnerable to it, and how to sift compelling theories from proven treatments. He outlines examples of widely accepted beliefs that ultimately didn’t hold up to rigorous scrutiny. Inserting stents to open clogged arteries seemed sensible, but studies like the COURAGE and ORBITA trials found no added benefit over medical management (NEJM). 

Dr. Bobby then turns to newer fads. Claims around NAD⁺ boosters (like NMN or NR), red light therapy, PRP for knee pain, and hydrogen water often rely on plausible-sounding mechanisms or mouse studies—but currently lack human RCTs to back them up. While these ideas may sound promising, human trials are either missing or preliminary.

Why does this hype persist? Financial incentives are everywhere: the U.S. spends over $5 trillion annually on health, and the supplement market alone is worth $150 billion. Influencers, professionals, and even well-meaning providers may promote approaches they financially benefit from. As patients, we’re often eager for solutions to symptoms like fatigue or anxiety—especially when conventional medicine doesn’t have a satisfying answer. This opens the door for pseudoscience, placebo effects, and the viral spread of misinformation.

To navigate this environment, Dr. Bobby outlines seven action steps. First, demand human evidence: ask if a treatment has been tested in RCTs, replicated, and proven in diverse populations. He recommends Examine.com for non-biased supplement research and revisiting his episode on evaluating health headlines (#22). Second, follow the money—financial conflicts should raise your skepticism. Third, be alert to hypey language like “miracle cure” or “doctor secrets”—phrases designed to manipulate, not inform. Fourth, understand the placebo effect, especially with vague symptoms. Fifth, ask  questions: “Compared to what?” “In whom?” “For how long?” “With what risks?” These shift the focus from excitement to real evaluation. Sixth, adopt what Dr. Bobby calls the mindset of a curious skeptic—open to ideas, but insistent on evidence. Finally, he urges listeners to consult evidence-literate doctors who will explore with you, both mainstream and emerging treatments with a critical eye—see episode #20 for more on choosing the right provider.

Takeaways: Ask, “Has this been tested in people?” before jumping on a health trend. Beware buzzwords and financial conflicts—science, not sales, should guide your decisions. Embrace curiosity, but anchor it in real-world evidence to truly live long and well.

Send us a text

Connect with Dr. Bobby 

What is your Health Type:  find out here

Provide feedback-answer just a few questions

Six surprisingly simple actions mighty meaningfully improve your sleep, eating habits, and overall well-being—and how you can easily test them for yourself.

We begin with two sleep-related tips. First, try lowering your bedroom temperature to under 70°F. In a small controlled trial, participants who slept on a cooling mattress fell asleep faster and reported better rest. 

The second tip: go to bed at the same time every night. A study in adolescents showed that consistent sleep timing improves how quickly you fall asleep, total sleep duration, and overall sleep quality.

Then we dive into three food-focused techniques. Starting meals with protein may help you feel fuller, thanks to effects on hunger-regulating hormones like ghrelin and GLP-1, as explored in this review and systematic analysis. 

Next, waiting 20 minutes before going for seconds may give your brain time to register fullness, supported by a study comparing fast and slow eaters. 

The fourth tip? Just stand up. There’s no formal data yet, but being upright might affect how full your stomach feels mechanically—something I noticed during long flights when a quick walk dramatically reduced my appetite.

Finally, we explore the idea of non-food “snacks” throughout your day. Evidence shows that short bursts of movement as brief as 30 seconds to 5 minutes can improve fitness, particularly in sedentary individuals. Similarly, just five minutes of breathwork has been shown to elevate mood in randomized trials. 

But here’s the key: try them for yourself. In Part 2 of the episode, I guide you through using an “N of 1” approach to test each strategy. Start by measuring a baseline (using wearables, a sleep journal, or a validated sleep questionnaire). Then try one of these approaches for a few days or a week. Reassess and see what happens. 

Takeaways:

Sometimes, the most powerful health strategies aren’t the hardest—they’re just the ones you haven’t tried yet.

Send us a text

In this episode, I explore whether the famed Blue Zones offer genuine insights for longevity or if they’re more marketing myth than science, while highlighting what the evidence truly shows about living to 100.

We begin by considering how many people actually reach 100. Currently, just 0.03% of Americans are centenarians, though this is expected to quadruple by 2054, with women comprising about 78% of that group (Pew Research). Globally, regions like Hong Kong show higher longevity, where 12.8% of females and 4.4% of males are projected to reach 100 (Nature). This brings us to the question: what might we learn from regions like the Blue Zones?

I break down how the Blue Zones concept originated, starting with Sardinia where researchers Pes and Poulain mapped centenarians with blue dots, hence the term Blue Zones. Their 2004 study highlighted clusters of longevity (ScienceDirect). Dan Buettner later popularized these findings through his National Geographic article (Blue Zones PDF) and subsequent books, documentaries, and programs. The Blue Zones promote nine lifestyle habits: daily activity, minimal meat and processed foods, moderate red wine intake, calorie reduction, life purpose, stress reduction, spiritual community involvement, prioritizing friendships, and surrounding oneself with like-minded people.

While these recommendations align in part with my six pillars of health—exercise, nutrition, mind-body harmony, sleep, exposure to heat/cold, and social relationships—the Blue Zones overlook critical factors like sleep and heat/cold exposure. Their encouragement of moderate alcohol use also contrasts with emerging evidence on alcohol’s risks.

I examine critiques of Blue Zone science, including flawed birth records that may inflate longevity claims, as seen historically in the U.S. and Greece  (bioRxiv, UCL). Some regions, like Okinawa and Sardinia, no longer display exceptional longevity, possibly due to regression to the mean or changes in lifestyle (PubMed).

I also share a rigorous epidemiologic study tracking 80-year-olds to 100, identifying key predictors like non-smoking, low alcohol use, regular exercise, healthy BMI, and dietary diversity (fruits, vegetables, fish, beans, tea). Those with high lifestyle scores had a 60% greater chance of reaching 100 (JAMA).

Ultimately, while Blue Zones have helped popularize valuable lifestyle habits, the science behind their claims is mixed. My six pillars remain grounded in evidence that applies to real-world aging.

Takeaways: Focus on proven factors—exercise, balanced nutrition, sleep, mind-body practices, social connections, and thoughtful heat/cold exposure—to enhance both lifespan and healthspan. Be cautious about adopting longevity claims without strong evidence. Remember, while genetics play a larger role at extreme ages, your daily choices still profoundly influence your journey toward living long and well.

Send us a text

Send me feedback here

Dr. Bobby begins with a walk through his local deli, which sparked a deeper investigation into what actually goes into processed meats. 

He outlines how processed meats are defined by the USDA as those altered through salting, curing, or smoking for preservation, dating back to Paleolithic food practices. The real concern, he explains, lies in compounds like nitrates (NO3) and nitrites (NO2), which can convert into nitrosamines, a group of chemicals potentially linked to colorectal cancer.

Citing the American Institute for Cancer Research and the International Agency for Research on Cancer, Dr. Bobby notes that processed meats have been labeled carcinogenic, with consumption linked to an increased cancer risk. However, he contrasts this with a weak recommendation from the Nutritional Recommendations Consortium, which found low-certainty evidence that processed meat increases cancer risk, suggesting most people could continue their usual consumption patterns.

He scrutinizes observational studies like the UK Biobank study and a meta-analysis of 15 studies involving 2.5 million participants, both hinting at a modest increased risk but fraught with methodological flaws such as poor adjustment for confounders like diet, exercise, and lifestyle habits.

The conversation deepens with the Shanghai study that found nitrate-related cancer risk only in individuals with low vitamin C intake, pointing to the potentially protective effects of antioxidants. Supporting this, Dr. Bobby highlights that 70% of dietary nitrates come from vegetables like spinach and beets, which are associated with lower cancer risk, adding nuance to the nitrate debate.

And it gets more paradoxical—beetroot juice rich in nitrates has been shown in 75 randomized controlled trials to lower blood pressure by up to 7 points systolic, rivaling medication.

To put things into perspective, Dr. Bobby crunches the numbers: if processed meats raise colorectal cancer risk by 13%, your lifetime risk might increase from 4% to 4.4%—a marginal difference. In real terms, out of 1,000 people who completely avoid processed meats, only four might avoid colorectal cancer.

Other additives like sodium erythorbate and sodium ascorbate appear non-problematic at normal levels, and while sodium may raise blood pressure in salt-sensitive individuals, it’s not linked to cancer risk—explored further in Episode 27.

Dr. Bobby closes with a pragmatic and humor-tinged "bacon hack": since vitamin C may counteract the formation of harmful nitrosamines, consider enjoying your bacon with a glass of orange juice—a personal theory grounded in biochemical plausibility but not tested.

Takeaways:
If you enjoy processed meats, the absolute cancer risk appears minimal based on current evidence. Leafy vegetables, despite their high nitrate content, are protective—likely due to vitamin C and other antioxidants. To balance pleasure and prudence, pair your bacon with a side of vitamin C, and above all, remember: wellne

Send us a text

What really helps prevent injuries—and what should you do when one inevitably strikes? In this episode, I use my friend Tim’s pickleball injury as a jumping-off point to explore what the evidence actually says about ice, rest, NSAIDs, stretching, and more.

When Tim skipped his warm-up and pulled a calf muscle, it raised a question many of us face: was it avoidable? While ancient wisdom and modern influencers often shout conflicting advice, this episode sorts through the noise to uncover what’s evidence-backed, what’s outdated, and what might actually delay healing. For pain, yes, ice works—cooling slows nerve conduction and can help with comfort, as seen in this study of ankle injuries. But does it reduce inflammation in a helpful way? Possibly not. Some research suggests that vasoconstriction may hinder the delivery of reparative cells and removal of waste, as noted in this trial.

The evolution from RICE to PEACE to MEAT and even PEACE & LOVE reflects our shifting understanding. A meta-analysis of 22 randomized trials found no conclusive benefit of ice when added to compression or elevation. As for NSAIDs like ibuprofen, the Cochrane Review revealed no significant advantage over acetaminophen in pain relief or swelling reduction—and no clear evidence they speed up recovery.

What about rest? Surprisingly, prolonged rest may do more harm than good. The Deyo study and later NEJM data show that continued normal activity (within pain tolerance) results in faster recovery than either bed rest or structured exercises, at least for acute low back pain—offering insights that might extend to other strains or sprains.

Can you prevent injuries altogether? Static stretching (think toe touches) doesn’t show strong support in RCT reviews, and while a recent meta-analysis found a small reduction in muscle injuries, the impact was modest. Dynamic stretching remains inconclusive according to current evidence.

The takeaway? When treatments or prevention strategies are studied over and over yet results remain ambiguous, it likely means any real benefit is small—a principle I call “Dr. Bobby’s Law of Many Studies.” Compare that with fall prevention in older adults: 66 RCTs involving 47,000 people showed strength and balance training significantly reduces falls by 20–30%. When something works, it tends to show up clearly and consistently.

Takeaways:
If you’re injured, ice and NSAIDs can ease discomfort—but don’t count on them to speed up healing. Resting too much may slow recovery; try gentle movement instead. Stretching might help a bit with prevention, but don’t expect miracles. Evidence

Send us a text

Answer a few questions to help me improve this podcast here.

We all want to live long and well—but how do we determine how many good years we have ahead?

In this episode of Live Long and Well with Dr. Bobby, we explore how to estimate both our total lifespan and the number of years we can expect to remain active and pain-free. Dr. Bobby reflects on personal experiences, emerging science, and time-tested frameworks to help you reframe your health trajectory with clarity and motivation. While we may not find exact answers, the tools and thought experiments shared in this conversation can shape the way we live now—and influence how we plan for the future.

We begin with why this topic matters, touching on personal stories of loss, aging milestones, and medical advancements. Then we move into three frameworks: how many years you might live (using tools from actuarial tables to cardiovascular risk calculators), how many of those years might be "good," and the wildcard of unpredictable events.

The simplest predictor comes from actuarial life tables, which estimate life expectancy by age and sex. A 55-year-old man today might expect to live to 79; a woman to 82. More advanced tools include the Framingham Risk Score, which factors in cholesterol, blood pressure, smoking status, and diabetes to estimate 10-year cardiovascular risk. Research suggests that sharing these risk scores can lead to behavior changes, as shown in this meta-analysis of 28 studies and preliminary evidence of outcome improvements.

On the genetics side, polygenic risk scores offer a glimpse into inherited risks, though they remain research tools for now (Nature study). More accessible are tests for specific genes like APOE4, which increases the risk of dementia (PubMed).

Beyond numbers, simple physical tests can offer insight. The Brazilian sit-stand test links mobility with mortality risk: fewer than 8 points doubles your six-year mortality risk. Grip strength, too, is a strong predictor of all-cause mortality across 17 countries (PubMed).

While biologic clocks based on DNA methylation are generating buzz, their utility remains limited due to variability between samples and testing methods (Nature Communications).

When it comes to estimating “good” years—those lived free from major pain or disability—the data are sparse. Some disease-specific tools (e.g., for MS or dementia progression) exist, but there’s no universal actuarial equivalent. However, we know muscle mass and aerobic capacity decline predictably with age—1–2% muscle loss per year and a 10% drop in aerobic fitness per decade (OUP Journal). Predicting your future function can begin with assessing how far you can walk, whether stairs leave you breathless, or how your weight and strength compare to a decade ago.

Finally, we can’t forget unpredictable events: the odds of a serious fall increase significantly after 65, and vision or hearing loss multiplies that risk (NCOA). Building physical resilience now can reduce these odds—see