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

Send us a text

Take the Health Type Quiz or Join the Newsletter here

Please give me podcast feedback with a few questions here

In this episode, I revisit the most powerful tool for longevity—exercise—and unpack fresh research that changes how we should think about its timing, type, and impact.

We begin with a quick recap of the foundational elements covered in Episode 2, emphasizing that aerobic activity can lower the risk of mortality, heart attack, stroke, cancer, and dementia by 20–30%, even when started later in life. 

Then we explore compelling new studies that show how exercise affects everything from blood pressure to brain volume. A meta-analysis of 14,000 participants shows even 15–20 minutes of moderate exercise daily lowers blood pressure. A review of 19 trials links physical activity to better sleep efficiency and reduced wake time. In terms of weight management, a meta-analysis of 116 randomized trials finds that even 30 minutes of exercise weekly leads to measurable weight loss, with a dose-response up to 300 minutes per week.

Exercise also appears to influence mood. A review of 33 observational studies involving nearly 100,000 adults suggests that 5,000–7,000 steps daily correlate with reduced depressive symptoms. While causality remains uncertain, the association is intriguing. Beyond mental health, strength training may reduce inflammation: 19 trials show CRP levels dropped in  adults who engaged in resistance training. Perhaps most excitingly, a smaller study found higher cardiorespiratory fitness linked to greater hippocampal volume and better memory in older adults.

To optimize these benefits, we explore emerging science around exercise timing and routine structure. A large study of 14,000 users wearing devices found that intense workouts within two hours of bedtime delayed sleep onset by 36 minutes. Perhaps finish workouts at least four hours before sleep for better rest. Interestingly, data from over 400,000 adults reveals that women gain more longevity benefit from exercise than men—and with less time invested.

We also cover weekend warriors. A UK Biobank study showed no difference in health outcomes based on when exercise occurred, debunking the belief that daily consistency is essential—what matters is that you do it. If you're sleep-deprived, caffeine might restore performance, as shown in a 10K time trial study. Lastly, a novel study using post-workout cold exposure showed that cold immersion reduced blood flow and amino acid uptake for up to 3 hours.

Send us a text

Help me improve the podcast by answering a few questions here.

In this episode of Live Long and Well, I'm joined by Dr. Anthony Pearson, a board-certified cardiologist known for his evidence-based yet refreshingly skeptical take on mainstream cardiac care. Together, we explore the nuanced science behind heart health and how you can make smarter decisions to protect your cardiovascular system—starting today.

We open by recognizing that heart disease remains the leading cause of death for both men and women. While many of the six pillars of longevity—from exercise to stress reduction—play protective roles, today’s episode zooms in on two powerful, sometimes polarizing topics: the role of diet in heart health and the value of coronary artery calcium (CAC) scans.

Dr. Pearson shares how a personal brunch conversation with his wife challenged decades of low-fat dietary dogma, prompting his transformation into the "Skeptical Cardiologist." Here is a summary showing that dairy won't increase risk of cardiovascular disease. He recounts the 

We dive into the broader saturated fat debate, highlighting how different fat sources have varied effects on cholesterol and cardiovascular risk. While dairy fats may be benign or even beneficial, others—particularly those consumed in excess on paleo or keto diets—can raise LDL cholesterol substantially. Dr. Pearson discusses the Keto-CAD Study, which found that even lean, low-risk keto followers may build up arterial plaque if their LDL levels skyrocket.

The conversation then shifts to the calcium heart or CAC scan, a non-invasive $100 screening test that quantifies calcified coronary artery plaque via CT imaging. While traditional risk calculators like the pooled cohort equations often fall short, CAC scoring offers a personalized look at actual plaque burden—critical since many heart attacks occur in people not flagged as high-risk. As Dr. Pearson explains, a high score doesn’t mean you will need surgery. Instead, it’s typically a cue for lifestyle and medication adjustments, not invasive procedures. He references the ISCHEMIA Trial, which found no benefit from stenting stable, asymptomatic patients over optimized medical therapy.

We close with practical advice: talk to your doctor, especially if you have a family history or fall in that “borderline risk” zone where a CAC score might influence your care plan. And yes, it should be okay to keep enjoying that butter—as long as you’re informed and mindful and don't overdue it.

Takeaways: Full-fat dairy is not the enemy—it may even be heart-protective. If your LDL skyrockets on keto, that’s a red flag worth addressing. CAC scans can personalize your prevention plan and offer peace of mind or a critical nudge toward action. Want more clarity on your own heart health journey? Talk with your doctor about whether a calcium scan makes sense for you and explore Dr. Pearson’s writings on The Skeptical Cardiologist and MedPage Today.

Send us a text

Please answer a few questions to help my podcast

The microbiome receives lots of attention, but what do we really know? In this episode, Dr. Bobby unpacks whether your gut bacteria are truly the key to preventing disease—or if the science still needs to catch up.

Microbiome buzz is everywhere—from promises of inflammation relief and weight loss to claims about mental health and longevity. But what does the research actually say? Dr. Bobby begins with four essential questions: Is the microbiome important? Does it change based on our habits? Do those changes cause disease? And can restoring it improve our health?

Using his open-minded skeptic lens, Dr. Bobby explains that while mouse studies offer compelling clues—like the famous “fat mouse, skinny poop” experiments showing weight gain linked to microbiome transplants—the same effects haven’t translated reliably in humans. A rare exception is C. difficile colitis. Here, fecal transplants have up to a 90% success rate, with medical societies endorsing this approach (source).

For other conditions like diabetes, rheumatoid arthritis, and Crohn’s disease, microbiome disruptions are well-documented. Still, whether these disruptions cause the illness—or are just innocent bystanders—is unclear. In diabetes, for instance, small studies and reviews show possible improvement in insulin sensitivity after fecal transplants (source) and mixed outcomes with probiotics (source), but nothing rivals the proven power of standard therapies like metformin.

Dr. Bobby also explores whether lifestyle choices—such as eating more fermented foods, fiber, and taking probiotics—can truly “reset” your microbiome and keep us healthy. The answer? These may enhance diversity and gut health, but current data doesn’t yet confirm long-term disease prevention. He references findings from the NIH Human Microbiome Project (source) and other studies showing how gut bacteria influence immune development, vitamin production, and digestion (source).

He also touches on terminology: probiotics are live bacteria (think yogurt and kombucha), prebiotics are their food (found in beans and whole grains), and postbiotics are beneficial byproducts. Each plays a role, but their direct impact on human disease remains uncertain.

Dr. Bobby closes with this: he enjoys homemade yogurt and sauerkraut, but doesn’t chase expensive probiotic supplements. “It can’t hurt and might help,” he says—but don’t expect probiotics to fully replace conventional treatment. As research evolves, he’ll continue to watch the space closely—and encourages listeners to let him know if this type of deep-dive, still-unsettled topic resonates.

Takeaways:

1. Fecal transplants are a proven, effective microbiome treatment—for C. difficile, not for general wellness.
2. Most microbiome buzz comes from animal studies, and evidence in humans is still preliminary and inconsistent.
3. Eating more fiber and fermented foods likely supports gut health, but won’t replace proven medical treatments.

Complete Dr. Bobby’s feedback survey here to help shape future episodes.

Send us a text

Can you provide feedback on my podcast (what you like?  what you want more of?  length?  Please answer a few questions here.  

Can a simple habit like flossing really reduce your risk of stroke? In this episode, Dr. Bobby unpacks the headlines sparked by a recent presentation at the American Stroke Association’s International Conference that claimed regular flossing could reduce stroke risk by 20–50%. 

Dr. Bobby begins with a refresher on the importance of stroke prevention. From there, he explores the biological plausibility of a connection between oral health and cardiovascular events. While Americans are fairly diligent about brushing (with 90% brushing once daily and 60% brushing twice a day per YouGov data), flossing habits lag significantly (NIH Oral Health Study—highlighting a clear opportunity if the flossing-stroke link is real.

Dr. Bobby dives into the study behind the headlines, a new analysis from the long-running Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) study, which tracked over 6,000 individuals for 25 years. The preliminary finding: regular flossers had significantly lower risk of ischemic and cardioembolic strokes (Study Abstract). Surprisingly, brushing and dental visits showed no significant benefit in this analysis.

So why isn’t this flossing-stroke connection headline a "five-alarm fire" in medicine? Dr. Bobby explains the limitations: the results were shared via a conference abstract, not a peer-reviewed journal article. Without full access to the data or understanding how many other hypotheses were tested from this large dataset (which has already generated over 2,300 publications), we risk falling into the trap of correlation being mistaken for causation.

To further evaluate the credibility of this association, Dr. Bobby introduces the Bradford Hill criteria—nine principles to assess causality in observational studies. While the biological plausibility is strong and the effect size notable, the study fails on criteria like replication, dose-response, and publication rigor (Bradford Hill Overview).

In closing, Dr. Bobby affirms the benefits of flossing—not necessarily for stroke prevention, but for better oral health, which is valuable in its own right. He shares his personal oral care routine, including flossing nightly and using a water jet, while reminding listeners to stay evidence-informed in their health decisions.

Takeaways
Flossing likely improves oral health, but its role in stroke prevention remains unproven.

Be cautious with headlines drawn from unpublished conference abstracts—they’re a starting point for inquiry, not a reason to change behavior just yet.

"How to Live Long and Well" at DrBobbyLiveLongAndWell.com.