Today we have our good friend and colleague Dr. Dominic D’Agostino returning for his third appearance on STEM-Talk. Dom, as most of our longtime listeners know, is well-known for his research into the ketogenic diet and the physiological benefits of nutritional ketosis. Since our last conversation with Dom in 2019, a tremendous body of research has been added to the literature about the therapeutic potential of ketosis. The high-fat, low-carb ketogenic diet has been linked to advances in the treatment of Alzheimer’s, cancer, migraines, type-2 diabetes, psoriasis, sleep apnea, psychiatric disorders, traumatic brain injuries as well as a host of other diseases and disorders, which we cover in today’s interview.

In episode 14 of STEM-Talk, we talked to Dom about his development and testing of metabolic therapies involving the ketogenic diet for a wide range of diseases and conditions. In episode 87, Dom returned to reflect on his 10 years of research focused on the high-fat/low-carbohydrate diet.

In today’s interview, we talk to Dom about this latest work as well as his extensive research on hyperbaric oxygen. Dom is a tenured Associate Professor in the Department of Molecular Pharmacology and Physiology at the University of South Florida Morsani. He specializes in neuroscience, molecular pharmacology, nutrition, and physiology. Dom also is our colleague and a research scientist here at the IHMC.

Show notes

 [00:02:50] Dawn opens the interview mentioning Dom’s recent IHMC Evening Lecture, in which he mentions the film “First Do No Harm” starring Meryl Streep. The film is based on the true story of a four-year-old boy diagnosed with severe epilepsy, whose extreme seizures continued despite extensive medical treatments. The boy’s mother reached to Dr. John Freeman, a physician who had successfully treated patients with a ketogenic diet. Dawn asks Dom to give some context about this fictional film based on a true story.

[00:05:05] Dawn asks Dom to discuss the many evidence-based applications of the ketogenic diet that he highlighted in his IHMC evening lecture.

[00:07:11] Ken asks Dom about another story involving Russell Winwood, a man with severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, also known as COPD. Russell reached out to Dom with respect to treating his COPD with a ketogenic diet.

[00:11:21] Ken asks if Russell only engaged in the ketogenic diet or if also used exogenous ketones.

[00:12:10] Ken mentions that the ketogenic diet has the broad potential to be an anti-inflammatory diet. Ken goes on to mention that COPD is an inflammatory disease. As Dom’s case report suggested, Ken wonders if the ketogenic diet has the potential to have strong therapeutic effects for other inflammatory conditions as well. Ken asks what other conditions Dom thinks might benefit from therapeutic ketosis.

[00:14:02] Dawn mentions that Dom has been busy since his last appearance on STEM-Talk, having authored or collaborated on more than 40 papers, one of which garnered a lot of attention and was published in Frontiers in Neuroscience. This paper investigated whether therapeutic ketosis via ketone esters could represent a viable way to treat epilepsy and other seizure disorders. Dawn asks Dom to elaborate on this paper’s findings and their significance.

[00:16:26] Ken mentions that those listeners who are unfamiliar with ketone esters may want to check out our interview with Dr. Brianna Stubbs. Ken asks Dom to give a quick primer on ketone esters and why so many researchers in the field are excited about their potential.

[00:19:20] Ken mentions that in addition to ketone salts and ketone esters, there are other product formulations out now, like the one from a company called Kenetik. Ken asks Dom what he thinks about this formulation.

[00:23:33] Dawn mentions that Dom has had a number of animal studies published since 2019 looking at ketone induced neuroprotection and asks Dom to give an overview of some of this work.

[00:25:57] Dawn asks Dom about his research on Angelman Syndrome, which is a rare genetic and neurological disorder that causes seizures, developmental delay, loss of body movements, and lack of speech. Dawn mentions that Dom was a part of a mouse study that explored whether ketone supplementation could mimic the ketogenic diet as an anticonvulsant, as well as the effects of ketone esters on behavioral and metabolic outcomes. The results of this study were promising, and Dawn asks Dom to talk about some of the key takeaways.

[00:29:37] Ken mentions that it makes sense that the ketogenic diet would elevate NAD (nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide) levels. Ken asks Dom whether this same effect is observed with exogenous ketones.

[00:30:32] Ken mentions that in the last decade there have been numerous human studies that have investigated the therapeutic role of ketogenic diets in various neurological disorders, with recent work looking into the potential therapeutic effects of ketosis on Alzheimer’s disease. Ken asks Dom to touch on some of this research, and also mentions that episode 59 of STEM-Talk with Steven Cunnane focused a good bit on Alzheimer’s in the context of exogenous ketones.

[00:35:02] Dawn mentions that Dom was part of two studies that examined the effects of a ketogenic diet on athletic performance. Dawn goes on to explain that high-carbohydrate, low-fat diets have been the standard for athletes for years, but recent research has challenged the superiority of carb loading. Dawn mentions that former IHMC colleague Dr. Andrew Koutnik published a study that had middle aged athletes undergo two different 31-day isocaloric diets, one which was high carb, and the other ketogenic. Dawn explains that both Dom and Jeff Volek participated in this study and asks Dom what the key takeaways were.

[00:37:46] Ken explains that Dom and Jeff Volek also collaborated with Andrew Koutnik on another study on the crossover effect. Before diving into that study specifically, Ken asks Dom to explain what the crossover effect is.

[00:40:13] Dawn mentions that Dom has been a part of many studies that have demonstrated the positive impact of a ketogenic diet, but addressing the elephant in the room, Dawn asks Dom what his thoughts are on the fact that some individuals respond to the ketogenic diet by developing a marked elevation of LDL cholesterol on the ketogenic diet, otherwise known as the lean mass hyper-responder phenotype. Dawn specifically asks Dom about an article he and other researchers published in the Journal of Clinical Lipidology on this topic, titled “Elevated LDL-cholesterol levels among lean mass hyper-responders on low-carbohydrate ketogenic diets deserve urgent clinical attention and further research.”

[00:45:16] Dawn explains that there is no one-size fits all diet, with some people breezing through a ketogenic diet and others who do not tolerate it as well. She mentions that Dom had a review published a few years ago that examined genetic and other markers in an effort to identify how people might respond to a ketogenic diet, the goal being to identify individuals who were most likely to benefit from a ketogenic diet, and pinpoint individuals who might be at risk of adverse health outcomes because of the diet. Dawn asks Dom to walk through this review and explain its findings.

[00:50:03] Ken mentions that Dom has done a lot of research on hyperbaric oxygen, which is a well-established treatment for decompression sickness, which is a risk among divers. Ken goes on to explain that hyperbaric oxygen therapy is now being used to treat several medical conditions including traumatic brain injury. There is controversy, however, regarding this therapy. Ken asks Dom to give a short primer on hyperbaric oxygen and why it has lately attracted so much attention.

[00:52:56] Dawn follows up by jumping into a discussion about the NASA project NEEMO that sends crews of astronauts, aquanauts, engineers, and scientists to live in a facility at the bottom of the Atlantic, known as Aquarius. It is the world’s only undersea research station. Dawn explains that NEEMO provides a good analog for space exploration, by mimicking the high physiological stress environment that astronauts experience during space missions. Dawn explains that she was on the crew of NEEMO 21 and Dom was on the crew of NEEMO 22, and Dom’s wife was a NEEMO support diver during NEEMO 22. She later became a part of the all-women crew in NEEMO 23. Dawn asks Dom to talk about his experience on NEEMO as well as the research he conducted.

[00:57:58] Dawn asks about Dom’s paper he published after his experience on NEEMO, titled “Human Adaptations to Multiday Saturation on NASA NEEMO,” which explored the physical and psychological effects of living in a multiday hyperbaric environment. Dawn asks Dom to discuss this paper’s findings and its significance.

[01:04:25] Ken mentions that Dom and his wife have moved to a farm and asks what life on the farm is like.

Links:

Dominic D’Agostino USF bio

Learn more about IHMC

STEM-Talk homepage

Ken Ford bio

Ken Ford Wikipedia page

Dawn Kernagis bio

Today we have the former chief scientist of NASA’s Human Research Program, Dr. Mark Shelhamer. Mark specializes in neurovestibular adaptation to spaceflight.

He is an otolaryngology professor at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine and the director of the school’s Human Spaceflight Lab. He also the director and founder of the Bioastronautics at Hopkins initiative.

In addition to his work with NASA, Mark is an advisor to the commercial and consumer spaceflight industry. In today’s interview, we talk to Mark about some of this work, as well as the research he conducted on the first all-civilian crew that successfully orbited the Earth for three days in a SpaceX capsule.

We mostly talk to Mark, however, about how the harsh conditions of space imperil humans. We have a fascinating discussion about Mark’s role in NASA’s planned human mission to Mars and how he is investigating ways to maintain the health and performance of astronauts on such a long-duration spaceflight.  We also discuss how the lessons Mark is learning about how the lessons of human spaceflight can be applied to healthcare on Earth.

Show notes:

[00:02:42] Dawn starts the interview mentioning that Mark grew up in Philadelphia in the ‘70s. She asks Mark what he was like as a kid.

[00:03:32] Dawn asks if it is true that Mark played drums in a band in school.

[00:03:54] Ken asks Mark to talk about an uncle who was key in fostering Mark’s interest in math and science.

[00:05:31] Ken mentions that Mark was only 10 years old when he took up an interest in electronics and asks what sparked that and what electronics he specifically found interesting.

[00:08:14] Dawn mentions that Mark attended Drexel University and initially wanted to become an electrical engineer but changed his mind somewhere along the way. Dawn asks what caused this shift.

[00:10:20] Ken asks Mark why he selected to attend MIT after Drexel.

[00:13:52] Ken asks Mark how he ended up at Johns Hopkins after finishing his studies at MIT.

[00:15:52] Dawn mentions that when Mark arrived at Johns Hopkins as a postdoc fellow in 1990, he continued the research he had been doing at MIT on sensory motor physiology and modeling, including astronaut adaptation to space flight. Dawn asks Mark to give an overview of this research as well as how he tracked back into studying astronauts.

[00:17:15] Ken mentions Mark’s 2007 book “Nonlinear Dynamics in Physiology: A State-Space Approach,” which provides mathematical-computational tools for analyzing experimental data. Ken asks Mark to talk about the book and its goals.

[00:20:43] Ken mentions that Mark has done quite a bit of research into motion sickness and vestibular issues, and asks about his more recent work on Space Motion Sickness.

[00:24:53] Dawn explains that on Mark’s Wikipedia page, there’s a reference to his pioneering work on a multidisciplinary approach to human space flight research. She asks Mark to give an overview of this work.

[00:29:17] Dawn explains that spaceflight has widespread effects on many different body systems at the same time, and that Mark has been an advocate for developing approaches to examining all these interactions in a rigorous way. Dawn asks if Mark feels that we should be taking this rigorous multidisciplinary approach and applying it to terrestrial medicine as well.

[00:34:08] Ken asks Mark to talk about some of the progress he has made in convincing certain groups that they need to embrace a multidisciplinary approach to their research.

[00:38:37] Dawn mentions that getting people, especially groups, to change their approach to research can be a daunting task. She goes on to mention that Mark has been quoted as saying “If there’s one thing I’m known for, it’s banging my head against the wall trying to convince people to do integrative research.” Dawn asks Mark how many scars he has on his forehead from these efforts.

[00:43:00] Dawn asks Mark to talk about his informal expertise on the history of NASA’s early stages of human spaceflight.

[00:48:54] Dawn explains that we may be on the cusp of another exciting time with NASA’s Artemis program and plans to return to the moon. Dawn also mentions that two years ago, the first all-civilian crew was sent on a 3-day mission orbiting Earth by SpaceX in a Falcon rocket. Dawn explains that there were several research projects related to Inspiration4 and that Mark was the principal investigator for one of them. Dawn asks Mark to talk about this project, which is part of a NASA-supported experiment to test and study astronauts through the year 2033.

[00:57:16] Ken points out the success of Apollo 17’s scientific inquiries thanks to Jack Schmitt being a scientist who had the chance to fly the mission as an astronaut. Ken and Mark talk about the importance of having more subject-matter experts go into space so that detailed spontaneous scientific observations can be made.

[01:00:16] Dawn mentions that in 2013, Mark took leave from Johns Hopkins to serve as the chief scientist of NASA’s Human Research Program. In this capacity, Mark particularly looked at the effects of space radiation on people as well as the behavioral risks of being confined with a small group of people in tight quarters on a long-duration spaceflight. Dawn asks Mark to talk more about this research.

[01:04:43] Mark Ken and Dawn discuss the psychological, mechanical, and physiological pros and cons of artificial gravity for a Mars mission.

[01:07:39] Dawn mentions that most human research has been focused on keeping people healthy in space. However, one thing that Mark is excited about is the potential of spaceflight research to enhance terrestrial healthcare. Dawn mentions that not everyone sees the broader scientific value of human spaceflight research. To address this, Mark and a group of colleagues published a paper in 2020 titled, “Selected discoveries from human research in space that are relevant to human health on earth.” Dawn asks Mark to talk about what some of the reservations are that people have about the ability of spaceflight research to enhance terrestrial healthcare.

[01:12:23] Ken mentions that this 2020 paper looked at five areas of physiology that support Mark’s contention of the broader implications of spaceflight research. Ken asks Mark to discuss these and their potential relevance to scientific and medical issues on Earth.

[01:17:53] Ken starts a dialogue about the assessment of risk for a Mars mission, as well as proposing pharmacological interventions for things like bone loss in long duration space flights.

[01:21:03] Ken explains that NASA estimates that it will take around seven months to get to Mars with a good planetary alignment. Ken goes on to explain that NASA is planning to send humans to Mars in the 2030s and asks Mark to give his thoughts about a future Mars Mission and the role that human research might play in enabling such missions.

[01:26:08] Dawn explains that in addition to Mark’s NASA work, he also has projects involving SpaceX and Blue Origin, and mentions that he must be very busy at the moment.

[01:26:45] Dawn mentions that Elon Musk has gone on record as saying that SpaceX will land humans on Mars by 2026 and asks Mark what his take on this is.

[01:28:16] Ken asks if it is true that Mark remains an avid ham radio hobbyist and still plays drums in his spare time.

[01:29:32] Dawn mentions that Mark’s high school is so proud of what he has accomplished in his career that last year he was inducted into his high school’s inaugural Hall of Fame class.

[01:31:15] Dawn asks if Mark’s previously mentioned connection to the Hubble Space telescope research program is in fact his wife.

[01:31:48] Dawn mentions that she has heard that Mark is a cat person and to close the interview asks Mark about that.

Back in early days of the COVID-19 pandemic, Dr. John Ioannidis wrote an article in March of 2020 questioning government statistics about the fatality rate associated with COVID-19. The backlash was swift and brutal and John’s reputation as one of the most influential scientists in the world took a beating.

Today, John makes his second appearance on STEM-Talk to discuss his extensive research into the COVID-19 pandemic as well as the public shaming he received in 2020 for questioning the World Health Organization’s prediction of a 3.4 percent fatality rate associated with COVID-19.

John also talks about his most recent peer-reviewed paper that looked at the age-stratified infection fatality rate of COVID-19 in the non-elderly population.  The study found that the pre-vaccination fatality rate for those infected may have been as low as 0.03 percent for people under 60 years old, and 0.07 percent for people under 70, far below the World Health Organization’s prediction of a 3.4 percent fatality rate.

In today’s episode, John walks us through this paper, which was published in January, as well as what he describes as the U.S. government’s bungled response to COVID-19. He also discusses the importance of collecting reliable data in the future to guide disease modelers and governments before they make decisions of monumental significance like lockdowns. He goes on to share how he underestimated the power that politics and the media, or powers outside of science, can have on science.

Over the past two decades, John’s research has earned him a global reputation as a consummate physician and researcher, which contributed to The Atlantic describing John in 2010 as one of the most influential scientists alive. He is a professor of Medicine, Epidemiology and Population Health as well as a statistician and professor of biomedical data science at Stanford University.

Back in 2018 when we interviewed John on episode 77 of STEM-Talk, we talked to him about his 2005 paper questioning the reliability of most medical research. The paper, titled, “Why Most Published Research Findings Are False,” found that much of the medical science reported in peer-reviewed journals is flawed and cannot be replicated. The paper is the most citied article in the history of the journal PLoS Medicine and has been viewed more than 3 million times.

Show notes:

[00:03:16] Dawn opens the interview welcoming John back to STEM-Talk. his last appearance being in 2018. Dawn explains that when John last appeared on STEM-Talk in 2018, he was described by Atlantic Magazine as “one of the most influential scientists alive.” But in the intervening years, John became public enemy number one in 2020 after a paper he published questioning government statistics about COVID 19’s fatality rate. Dawn asks John if it’s fair to say that he has been on a rather rocky ride for the past few years.

[00:03:54] Dawn explains that John was trained at Harvard and Tufts universities in internal medicine and infectious disease, and asks John what led him to study infectious disease.

[00:04:54] Ken asks John about his initial thoughts in 2019 when he first heard the reports coming out of China about COVID-19.

[00:05:52] Ken explains that in March of 2020, John fell into some hot water for writing a piece questioning the 3.4 percent fatality rate associated with COVID-19. John found this number to be inflated and wrote that while COVID-19 was indeed a threat, it did not behave like the Spanish Flu or a pandemic that would lead to a 3.4 percent fatality rate. Ken asks John how he came to this conclusion.

[00:08:37] The article that John wrote in 2020 was titled “A fiasco in the making? As the coronavirus pandemic takes hold, we are making decisions without reliable data.” John argued in his article that the data collected in the first three months of the pandemic was “utterly unreliable.” He went on to write that no one had a good way of knowing how many people were infected and therefore how the pandemic would evolve over time. Dawn asks John what could have been done so that governments and health agencies could have more accurately estimated incidents of new infections, particularly in the early months of the pandemic.

[00:10:19] Dawn mentions that John initially supported the lockdown, but only as a temporary measure, and that he was of the mind that after February of 2020, we had missed the window to nip the pandemic in the bud. Dawn goes on to say that John believed that if we had acted earlier and more aggressively with testing, tracing, and isolating, like in South Korea, that we could have significantly slowed the spread of the virus. Dawn asks if John still feels this way now.

[00:12:53] Dawn mentions that John wrote that the bulk of the mortalities related to COVID-19 occurred in people with limited life expectancy rather than young people. Dawn goes on to say that John was criticized for this, accused of minimizing the lives of the elderly and was even referred to as a “heartless granny killer.” Dawn asks John to expand on his point that age predicts mortality better than comorbidities.

[00:15:16] Ken follows up regarding the disproportionate infections in nursing homes, mentioning that, among other stories, New York City showed very negative outcomes in terms of nursing-home populations.

[00:16:13] Dawn asks if John investigated the nosocomial spread of COVID-19.

[00:17:53] Ken mentions that one of the things we heard early on in the pandemic, was talk of flattening the curve so that we wouldn’t overwhelm hospitals. Ken asks John for his thoughts about this.

[00:20:04] Dawn asks John what he thought of the Great Barrington Declaration, a paper that questioned school closings, lockdowns, travel restrictions and other governmental responses to the COVID-19 pandemic. Dawn goes on to mention that one of the authors of that paper, Dr. Martin Kulldorff, was our guest on episode 132 of STEM-Talk. Dawn goes on to say that Martin and his co-authors recommended protecting senior citizens and others who were most at risk from COVID, while allowing young people and others who face minimal risk to lead their normal lives. Dawn asks John about the recommendations found in the Great Barrington Declaration.

[00:23:26] Ken mentions that outrage propagated by social media and news sources became such a negative force that it shut down civil discourse in public and academic circles. Ken goes on to say that this led to harsh control over conversations regarding important topics. There were swift attacks against anyone who dissented with official narratives, no matter how well founded someone’s opinions were. Ken asks John about his experience now that he has being on the receiving end of these brutal attacks.

[00:27:00] Ken follows up and agreees that the self-censorship among scientists with regards to COVID-19 has been severe and problematic.

[00:28:33] Dawn brings up John’s recent paper published in January of this year in Environmental Research. Dawn explains that this paper points out that the largest burden of COVID-19 is carried by the elderly, but that 94 percent of the global population is younger than 70 years old, and 86 percent is younger than 60. Dawn goes on to explain that John set out to accurately estimate the infection fatality rate of COVID-19 among non-elderly people in the absence of vaccination or prior infection. Dawn asks John how he and his co-authors came together to work on this study.

[00:31:45] Dawn mentions that John’s aforementioned study reported infection survival rates around the world. John found that wealthy nations had infection survival rates of 99.962 percent for those under 60, and 99.902 percent for those under 70. In poorer nations, however, the survival rates were even better: 99.992 percent and 99.988 percent respectively. Dawn goes on to mention that John and his co-authors speculate that lower obesity rates in poorer countries may have improved their survival rates, and asks John how the U.S. would have fared if the obesity rate was at levels more common in the 1970s or ‘80s.

[00:35:08] Ken mentions that unsurprisingly the countries hit the hardest by COVID-19, like Italy and China, had two of the most elderly populations in the world.

[00:38:09] Dawn mentions that John’s paper noted that 44 percent of the population had already been infected with COVID-19 before Omicron arrived in the fall of 2021. Because of this, John points out in the paper that an infection rate of 50 percent would have only caused modestly higher fatality rates than seasonal flu fatalities for those under 70. Dawn asks John to elaborate on this.

[00:40:52] Dawn mentions that around the time John published his paper in STAT in March of 2020, the Imperial College of London predicted Covid-19 would kill 40 million people.

[00:41:56] Ken mentions that miscalculations like the one by the Imperial College of London were unfortunate because they prompted lockdowns and other heavy-handed responses from governments. Ken goes on to say that John wrote in 2020 that we need data to inform us about the rationale of lockdowns, mask mandates and social distancing measures. At a minimum, Ken said, we needed unbiased prevalence and incidence data for the evolving infectious load to guide decision-making. Ken asks John for his thoughts about why this never happened.

[00:46:34] Ken asks John what were some of the unintended consequences that resulted from lockdowns, school closures, and travel bans.

[00:49:47] Dawn mentions that John has published dozens of peer-reviewed COVID-19 related papers. John has mentioned before that any scientific papers will have some weaknesses. Dawn asks John what, in hindsight, he sees as weaknesses in his papers.

[00:50:41] Ken asks about John’s investigation into the recent study commissioned by the British nonprofit Cochrane that found no clear reduction in respiratory viral infection as a result of mask mandates. Ken mentions that the paper noted that the use of medical/surgical masks, including N-95 masks, were not effective in reducing the spread of acute respiratory viruses.

[00:55:02] Ken mentions a Zoom call he was on with a government official who was alone in his house wearing a mask during the Zoom call. Ken discusses the gentleman’s response after he was asked about wearing the mask even though he at home by himself.

[00:56:48] With respect to randomized controlled trials regarding the effectiveness of masks, Ken mentions that the media’s portrayal of such studies shows that the media does not understand statistics, and specifically the difference between relative and absolute risk.

[00:57:51] Ken launches into a discussion about the education of journalists in modern times, and how education in journalism should include a sophisticated understanding of statistics.

[01:00:24] Ken asks John what his thoughts are about the possibility of future pandemics and how this kind of situation might be handled differently.

[01:02:50] Ken mentions the issues created by funding agencies during times of pandemic and other world shaping events.

[01:03:41] Ken explains that trust, or lack thereof, in institutions and the media has turned out to be a key factor in people’s reaction to non-pharmaceutical interventions such as lockdowns and mask mandates and vaccine mandates. Ken goes on to say that surveys of trust are showing a substantial decline and offers that there may be strong negative consequences from this lack of trust in the future. Ken goes on to say that this trust could, of course, be reestablished through transparency and accountability and asks John if he sees this happening anytime soon.

[01:06:28] Ken closes the interview asking John if there are any other COVID-19 studies he is working on or hopes to pursue.

Links:

John Ioannidis bio

Learn more about IHMC

STEM-Talk homepage

Ken Ford bio

Ken Ford Wikipedia page

Dawn Kernagis bio

Today we have Dr. Barbara Thorne, a termite biologist and an expert on the invasive conehead species, a Central and South American termite that has invaded South Florida.

Barbara is a research professor and professor emerita in the Department of Entomology at the University of Maryland. Since 2012 she has served as the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services science advisor on the state’s Conehead Termite Program. She also chairs the National Scientific Advisory Committee for the Conehead Termite Program.

Barbara’s research focuses on the biology of termites, which are highly social insects that form complex colony structures. She earned her Ph.D. in Organismic and Evolutionary Biology in 1983 from Harvard University where she studied with the late Dr. E. O. Wilson, a renowned biologist and naturalist.

Show notes

[00:03:14] Dawn points out that Barbara is from Southern California and asks Barbara if she were a Valley Girl since she grew up in the San Fernando Valley.

[00:03:42] Dawn mentions that it was wanderlust that sent Barbara from the West Coast to the East Coast for college and asks why she decided on Brown University.

[00:04:14] After Barbara explains that she was originally not interested in science, Ken asks what changed her mind.

[00:06:34] Dawn mentions that some kids grow up fascinated with bugs, but not Barbara, so Dawn asks what eventually triggered Barbara’s academic interest in insects.

[00:07:58] Ken asks Barbara to elaborate on how Bug Camp and E.O. Wilson’s book “The Insect Societies”  motivated her to go to Harvard.

[00:10:22] Dawn explains, for those who aren’t familiar, that E.O. Wilson was an American biologist who was recognized as the world’s leading authority on ants among other topics. He spent 40 years on the Harvard faculty and authored more than 30 books, including two that won Pulitzer Prizes. Dawn asks how Wilson became Barbara’s Ph.D. faculty advisor.

[00:14:15] Ken asks why Barbara often refers to the time she was at Harvard as the golden age for research into social insects.

[00:18:31] Dawn asks about Barbara’s initial goal for her Ph.D. dissertation, which was to investigate the evolutionary driver that created the sociality in termites, who are a completely different branch of insects from the classic social insects (ants, bees, and wasps). Dawn goes on to ask what Wilson thought of this idea when Barbara proposed it.

[00:21:22] Barbara spent 15 years in E.O. Wilson’s lab and Ken wonders if she has a favorite story about Wilson.

[00:28:29] Dawn explains that for Barbara’s postdoc research, she continued to expand on the work of her dissertation, and then began working in the field of applied termite biology and targeted applications for control. This was when chlordane, a powerful pesticide against termites, was pulled from the market. Dawn asks Barbara to talk about the significance of pulling chlordane from the market and how this created an opportunity for her.

[00:31:30] Ken asks Barbara what led her to join the faculty at the University of Maryland in the early 1990s.

[00:33:59] Dawn mentions that during Barbara’s time at Maryland, she investigated her hypothesis of accelerated inheritance as a driver for the evolution of eusociality in termites, following up this research in a 2003 paper in PNAS. Dawn goes on to explain that the paper provided experimental evidence for the powerful selective forces driving the evolution of eusociality in termites, a question that perplexed Charles Darwin. Dawn asks Barbara to talk about why Darwin was confused by the existence of social insects and how Barbara approached this question in termites.

[00:49:16] Dawn mentions that Barbara expanded on the previously mentioned research with a study in 2009, using genetic markers to demonstrate that in merged colonies, offspring from both original, unrelated families can become new reproductives and even interbreed. Dawn asks Barbara to explain why this observation is important.

[00:50:33] Ken explains that Barbara helped put together a TED-Ed video lesson last year that depicted a conehead termite queen as she begins her reign as one of the longest living insects in the animal kingdom. Ken goes on to mention that this video was a collaboration with Thomas Johnson Volda, and Ken asks how the idea for the video came to be.

[00:53:20] Dawn explains that since September of 2012, Barbara has served as the science advisor for the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, and is helping the state target the invasive conehead termite. Dawn goes on to mention that this species was the focus of Barbara’s Ph.D. dissertation research in Central America. Dawn asks how Barbara was approached to aid in handling this species invasion into Florida.

[00:55:11] Dawn mentions that conehead termites have expansive tastes, which makes them a serious problem in Florida, and asks Barbara to give a sense of the damage that the conehead termites are causing.

[01:01:34] Ken mentions the similarities between the current situation with conehead termites and the Formosan termite invasion into North America.

[01:05:38] Ken explains that in Pensacola, the home of IHMC, the historical district has many homes built in the 1800s and early 1900s that are made from very strong, dense, old-school wood, the kind of wood that is harder for termites to get into. Ken goes on to ask if it is true that Barbara has described the cheap, fast-growing wood used in today’s structures as a kind of candy for termites.

[01:09:14] Ken mentions that we recently had Barbara’s husband Dr. Ed Weiler on STEM-Talk, episode 148. Ken goes on to mention that Ed and Barbara listened to the interview together and Ken asks what she thought of Ed’s episode.

[01:13:11] Dawn closes the interview asking Barbara what she and Ed get up to now that they’re both retired.

Links:

Barbara Thorne bio

Reign of the Termite Queen video

Learn more about IHMC

STEM-Talk homepage

Ken Ford bio

Ken Ford Wikipedia page

Dawn Kernagis bio

Dr. Jeff Volek has been investigating how humans adapt to ketogenic—and carbohydrate-restricted diets for the past 30 years.  Today, Jeff returns to STEM-Talk to discuss a growing accumulation of studies supporting a ketogenic diet as a way to improve metabolic health, as well as research confirming the relative safety of dietary fat.

Jeff is a professor in the Department of Human Sciences at Ohio State University. He is known for his research on the clinical application of ketogenic diets in the management of insulin resistance and type-2 diabetes. His research particularly aims to understand individual variability, including how well-formulated ketogenic diets alter fatty acid composition, lipoprotein metabolism, gut microbiome and overall metabolic health.

Jeff has performed several prospective diet studies that demonstrate that well-formulated ketogenic diets result in substantial improvements in (if not complete reversal of) metabolic syndrome and type-2 diabetes. In today’s episode, we talk to Jeff about:

— How a well-formulated ketogenic diet results not only in weight loss, but also leads to substantial improvements in insulin resistance as well as improvements in a number of cardio-metabolic biomarkers associated with metabolic syndrome.

— The remarkable progress that has been made in the science of low-carbohydrate nutrition in the past 30 years.

— How Jeff’s research has expanded to look at a well-formulated ketogenic diet’s potential in the treatment of mental health, heart disease and cancer.

— An initiative Jeff is conducting to address how the poor metabolic health of the nation is impacting our military troops and therefore poses a significant threat to the future of the military and our nation’s defense.

— We also ask Jeff about his thoughts on the recent popularity of fasting and time-restricted eating.  We then ask what his own daily dietary intake looks like.

Show notes

[00:02:48] Ken opens the interview welcoming Jeff back to STEM-Talk. Ken mentions that Jeff, who appeared on episode 43,  has perhaps published more research on the ketogenic diet and its effects on humans than anyone. While most STEM-Talk listeners are familiar with Jeff’s research, Ken points out that many people might not know that Jeff was once an accomplished powerlifter, achieving impressive numbers for his body weight. Ken asks Jeff what his best lifts were, and if his background in powerlifting inspired him to study exercise physiology.

[00:05:25] Dawn mentions there is a paradigm shift in terms of low-carb diets and the public perception regarding the relative safety of dietary fat.  Americans have long been led to believe that saturated fats lead to obesity and heart disease. Dawn goes on to explain that in the last 20 years, there has been a steady accumulation of studies supporting carbohydrate restriction as well as the relative safety of dietary fat. Jeff addressed this in a paper in Science titled “Dietary Fat: From Foe to Friend?”, and also a paper in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology titled “Saturated Fats and Health: A Reassessment and Proposal for Food Based Recommendations” Dawn asks Jeff to talk about this research and what listeners should take from it.

[00:08:37] Ken mentions that Jeff at one point in his life demonized fat, and was a strong advocate for low-fat diets. Ken asks what changed his mind on this issue.

[00:10:04] Dawn mentions that when Jeff was interviewed back in 2017, he was in the early stages of launching Virta, a company that was founded in 2014 to address the type-2 diabetes epidemic that we’re seeing in the United States and across the world. Dawn asks Jeff to explain what type-2 diabetes is and how it’s different than type-1.

[00:13:36] Ken explains that diabetes is a major cause of blindness, kidney failure, heart attacks, stroke and lower-limb amputation. In light of this, Ken asks Jeff if we know how many deaths can be annually attributed to diabetes.

[00:14:54] Dawn explains that Virta’s website describes the company’s program as “blood sugar control without the drugs.” Virta works with diabetics to not only lower their blood sugar, but help them lose weight, eliminate their need for insulin and other medications, and restore their metabolic health. Dawn asks Jeff to give an overview of Virta and the progress being made in its endeavors.

[00:17:57] Dawn mentions that Virta has had a number of recent papers and trials that have demonstrated some amazing results. With a paper in Nutrients last year that reported on the results of a two-year pilot study that highlighted the effectiveness and sustainability of Virta’s intervention in reversing a variety of metabolic conditions. Dawn goes on to explain that Virta was able to help 97 percent of its prediabetic patients in the two-year study to avoid type-2 diabetes. She asks Jeff, as the chief science officer of Virta, for his thoughts about the successful outcomes being seen by Virta’s trials and studies.

[00:19:48] Ken shifts to talk about Jeff’s work at Ohio State. Jeff joined the university in 2014, and in the past decade has established the Volek Low-Carbohydrate Laboratory, which specializes in dietary carbohydrate restriction and nutritional ketosis. Ken asks Jeff to give an overview of the lab and the research that goes on there.

[00:22:56] Dawn mentions that Jeff’s lab also has a team of registered dietitians who work with clients on a variety of approaches to low-carb and ketogenic diets. Dawn asks Jeff to talk about the services the lab provides.

[00:24:59] Ken explains that a lot of people have the belief that a ketogenic diet is only about losing weight. Jeff, however, stresses that a well-formulated ketogenic diet results in not only weight loss, but also substantial improvements in insulin resistance and improvements on a number of cardio-metabolic biomarkers associated with metabolic syndrome. Ken asks Jeff to talk about the wide range of benefits people experience as a result of a ketogenic diet.

[00:28:15] Dawn asks Jeff to talk about the symposium he and Ken as well as some other folks put together at Ohio State that addressed the remarkable progress that has been made in the science of low-carbohydrate nutrition. Jeff goes on to describe some the key takeaways from the symposium.

[00:31:20] Dawn asks Jeff to talk about his lab’s research into cancer and how research has shown that the majority of tumors use glucose as their primary fuel source.

[00:34:01] As a follow-up, Ken mentions the STEM-Talk interview with Colin Champ that centered on ketogenic cancer research.

[00:34:17] Ken asks Jeff about a couple of pilot ketogenic diet cancer studies that are currently underway in his lab, as well as a pilot study that is specifically looking at advanced-stage breast cancer.

[00:37:15] Dawn mentions that while weight loss is a common outcome of consuming a ketogenic diet, a question that has been rather controversial in the research community is whether there are metabolic improvements as a result of carbohydrate restriction that are independent of weight loss. Dawn explains that Jeff published a study last year in the Journal of Clinical Investigation Insight that found more than half of your obese study participants who were suffering from metabolic syndrome no longer met the criteria for metabolic syndrome at the end of a four-week low-carb diet, even though the participants didn’t lose any weight. The results demonstrate that irrespective of weight loss, a low-carb diet improves a host of metabolic problems. Dawn asks Jeff to talk about this study and the significance of its findings.

[00:41:27] Ken mentions that Jeff’s lab is currently doing work with the military, going on to mention that Jeff’s lab received funding a few years ago to look into whether a ketogenic diet could help the military deal with its ongoing challenge of obesity among the troops.  The subsequent study showed that participants lost an average of 17 pounds after 12 weeks on the ketogenic diet, and as a group, the participants lost more than five percent of their body fat, and almost 44 percent of their visceral fat, and had a 48 percent improvement in their insulin sensitivity. Ken asks Jeff to go into further depth about this study and its findings.

[00:46:07] Ken asks about Jeff’s project, currently underway, called “Strategies to Augment Ketosis,” or STAK. It’s a comprehensive initiative that is going to address the physical and financial toll attributed to the pervasive poor metabolic health of the nation and how this impacts our military troops, especially veterans, and therefore poses a significant threat to the future of the military and our national defense. Ken explains that there are multiple layers of research involved in STAK, many of which utilize ketone esters, and asks Jeff to explain what ketone esters are for those listeners who have not listened to episode 54 of STEM-Talk with Brianna Stubbs.

[00:48:41] Dawn explains that one of the major topics being examined in STAK is sleep deprivation, which is a major problem in military populations, with only one in three U.S. Army Active-Duty Soldiers estimated to get their target of seven hours of sleep on duty days. Given that insufficient sleep leads to a drop in performance and an increase in errors, it is an important problem to solve. There is evidence that ketone ester supplements may lessen the adverse effects of sleep deprivation, and thus STAK will further explore this possibility. Jeff talks about the clinical trial he is putting together, which will look at whether ingesting a ketone ester supplement twice daily can improve cognitive and physical performance during short-term sleep restriction.

[00:51:45] Ken follows up, asking Jeff what the rationale is for his hypothesis that ketosis will mitigate the negative effects of sleep deprivation.

[00:53:48] Dawn explains that another element of STAK is exploring the effects of ketone esters and the sustained long-term effects of a ketogenic diet on type-2 diabetes and heart failure. Dawn asks Jeff to talk about this study, and why he thinks ketones would be beneficial for the heart.

[01:00:28] Dawn asks about the STAK study looking at the possibility of delaying or preventing the progression of diabetic nephropathy.

[01:02:24] Ken shifts to talk about work Jeff’s lab is doing on metabolic psychiatry. Ken goes on to explain that we have known for a long time that food choices can alter a person’s neurochemistry, but we are just now beginning to research the impact that macronutrients can have on our mental and emotional well-being. Jeff discusses this work and explains what metabolic psychiatry entails.

[01:05:58] Dawn mentions that a common struggle for physicians who are strong proponents of a ketogenic diet is getting their patients to stick to it. Dawn goes on to mention our recent interview with Vyvyane Loh who talked about how some of her patients struggle with the diet and so she often ends up recommending a less stringent low-carb diet instead. Dawn asks Jeff his thoughts on this, as well as the critique of the ketogenic diet that it is not sustainable.

[01:12:03] Dawn talks about the so-called keto flu being a hurdle that many people feel they can’t overcome, and asks Jeff what his thoughts and advice are about this.

[01:16:08] Ken mentions the current popularity of fasting and time-restricted eating. Going on to say that while fasting is an effective way to get into ketosis, Jeff has reservations about fasting, particularly those that last beyond 24 hours.

[01:20:36] Dawn mentions the surge in new products on grocery shelves advertised as keto breads, keto donuts, keto bagels, etc. Dawn asks Jeff what his thoughts about the flood of keto-branded products we’re seeing.

[01:25:56] Dawn describes Jeff as a walking testimonial for ketogenic and low-carb diets. Jeff has followed a low-carb diet for more than 20 years, all the while maintaining a healthy body weight and lipid profile. Dawn asks Jeff to share with listeners what his daily dietary intake looks like and how the diet benefits him.

[01:29:07] Dawn closes the interview by asking Jeff where he sees the field of ketogenic research going in the next decade, and if the dietary recommendations might change in that time. Dawn goes on to mention that Jeff published a recent article with several prominent co-authors titled

Our guest today is Dr. Ed Weiler, a retired NASA scientist who spent 20 years as the chief scientist for the Hubble Space Telescope, the forerunner of the James Webb.

During his 33-year NASA career, Ed wore many hats, including Associate Administrator of the Science Mission Directorate; Center Director of NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center, Associate Administrator for NASA’s Space Science Enterprise, chief of the Ultraviolet/Visible and Gravitational Astrophysics Division and director of the Astronomical Search for Origins Program.

In today’s episode, we talk to Ed about:

— NASA’s accomplishments in the past year, including the Perseverance mission, the success of the James Webb telescope, and the launch of Artemis-1.

— Ed’s experience as the Chief Scientist for the Hubble Space Telescope during its early development.

— Ed’s time as the director of NASA’s Astronomical Search for Origins program.

— Ed’s role in the development of the New Horizons space craft and its mission to fly by and study Pluto and it’s moons.

— Ed’s belief that in the next 20 to 50 years, we will be able to the prove the existence of other life in the universe.

Show notes

[00:02:59] Dawn opens the interview mentioning that she and Ed share a common experience of going through the selection process to become a NASA astronaut.

[00:03:55] Dawn mentions that instead of becoming an astronaut, Ed joined NASA in 1978 as a scientist, serving in a variety of science leadership roles throughout his career, eventually retiring in 2011 after 33 years of service. Dawn asks Ed to talk about his various accomplishments at NASA.

[00:05:57] Dawn asks Ed about his feelings toward the various accomplishments of NASA in recent years since his retirement, such as the Perseverance mission, the success of the James Webb telescope, and the launch of Artemis-1.

[00:08:42] Ken asks Ed to discuss the recent images from the James Webb telescope, images that have captured the public’s imagination.

[00:12:10] Dawn asks if it’s true that Ed decided to become an astronomer and go to work for NASA when he was only 13 years old.

[00:15:36] Dawn mentions that we have had several guests on STEM-Talk that cite the Apollo missions as their inspiration for pursuing a career in science. Dawn points out that Ed was already in grad school when Neil Armstrong first stepped on the moon. Dawn asks Ed about watching the moon landing on the campus of Northwestern University.

[00:16:48] Ken asks about Ed’s experience as the Chief Scientist for the Hubble Space Telescope during its early development.

[00:25:01] Dawn points out that after graduating from Northwestern University, Ed joined the research staff at Princeton while also working at the Goddard Space Flight Center. In 1978, Ed became a staff scientist at NASA headquarters and Dawn asks how that position came about.

[00:29:45] Dawn mentions that Ed was also the director of NASA’s Astronomical Search for Origins program and asks Ed to talk about that experience.

[00:33:03] Ken mentions that in 1998, Ed became the Associate Administrator for Space Science for the first time. Ken goes on to mention when Ed was first approached about the position, he said “not in a million years.” Ken asks what eventually changed Ed’s mind.

[00:37:10] Dawn asks Ed about his first stint as NASA’s Associate Administrator, where he oversaw several successful missions and set in motion an ambitious Mars exploration mission.

[00:43:43] Dawn asks Ed to talk about the role he played in the development of the New Horizons craft and its mission to fly by and study Pluto and its moons.

[00:45:46] Ken mentions that when Ed’s first tenure as Associate Administrator for the Science Mission Directorate ended in 2004, he took over the leadership of the Goddard Space Flight Center, which is one of the premier institutions for space and earth science missions. Ken asks Ed to talk about the work he did at the center.

[00:50:06] Dawn mentions that Mike Griffin, our guest on STEM-Talk episodes 23 and 134, was the NASA Administrator in 2008, and asked Ed to return as Associate Administrator. Dawn asks why Ed was brought back again and what he was asked to accomplish.

[00:56:47] Ken asks Ed about one of his priorities at NASA, which was RTGs (Radio-Isotope Thermo-Electric Generators).  Ken asks Ed why this was a priority, and what that experience was like.

[01:00:21] Dawn mentions that Ed was an early proponent of STEM education, and during his time as Associate Administrator at NASA, he required all project proposals to set aside one to three percent of their budget for STEM education. Dawn goes on to ask Ed about a letter he received from a Mexico City student in the early days of Hubble that made an impression on him.

[01:06:38] Dawn mentions that Ed has been quoted as saying that in the next 20 to 50 years, we will be able to prove the existence of other life in the universe. She asks Ed why he’s so confident about that.

[01:14:13] Ken follows up on the previous question and asks Ed what his thoughts are on the Pentagon’s recent report on Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP), which Ken and Dawn discussed in episode 127 of STEM-Talk. While the study does not imply that these UAPs are extraterrestrial crafts, the report does indicate that they are likely physical objects of some kind.  Ken asks Ed what he thinks these objects are?

[01:20:32] Dawn wraps up the interview by mentioning that Ed has been known throughout his career for building effective teams and, toward that end, he would often take his staff water skiing.

Ed Weiler Wikipedia page

Learn more about IHMC

STEM-Talk homepage

Ken Ford bio

Ken Ford Wikipedia page

Dawn Kernagis bio

Today’s interview is with IHMC’s Dr. Gwen Bryan, a research scientist who investigates wearable robotic devices aimed at augmenting human performance in clinical, occupational, and military applications.

She is particularly focused on maximizing the benefits of powered exoskeletons. At IHMC, Gwen leads the exoskeleton team, which is developing a novel augmentative device that continues IHMC’s research on mobility devices for people with spinal cord injury. The team also is researching a powered exoskeleton to aid government employees whose work involves nuclear site remediation.

Gwen and her team’s effort, which utilizes a human-centered research approach, is uniquely situated to expand exoskeleton research and technology because of the expertise and collaboration that’s available among IHMC’s robotics and human-performance research groups.

Gwen joined IHMC after completing her Ph.D. in the Stanford Biomechatronics Lab. Outside of work, Gwen enjoys soccer, weightlifting, painting and snowboarding. She also is a dog mom to two very adorable shelter dogs, Bandit and Oreo.

Show notes:

[00:02:32] Dawn asks Gwen what it was like growing up in Albuquerque, New Mexico.

[00:03:02] Dawn mentions that it seems science was a part of Gwen’s life early on. Dawn goes on to mention that Gwen’s father was an engineer, and her mother was a nurse and asks how her parents having these backgrounds influenced her.

[00:03:35] In addition to a science background, Gwen’s mother is also a clarinetist who instilled a love for the arts in Gwen.  Dawn asks Gwen about her painting and how art benefits other aspects of her life.

[00:04:17] Ken asks Gwen what she was like as a kid.

[00:04:59] Ken asks Gwen to talk about a rafting trip she took with her cousin through the Grand Canyon.

[00:06:27] Dawn asks Gwen how chocolate chip cookies factored into her third-grade science fair project.

[00:08:04] Dawn mentions that fitness became a part of Gwen’s life following an injury she had as a senior in high school. Exercise, particularly weightlifting, helped alleviate her back pain. Dawn asks Gwen what her fitness journey taught her about her body, and ultimately, how that experience gave her insights into the work she does today.

[00:09:16] Ken asks Gwen how she chose to go to the University of Texas in Austin.

[00:10:38] Dawn mentions that Gwen transferred to the University of New Mexico for her undergraduate work. Dawn asks Gwen what motivated her to apply her interest in mechanical engineering into robotics.

[00:11:28] Ken asks Gwen what was involved in her transfer from the University of Texas to New Mexico.

[00:12:34] Ken asks Gwen what led her to the Stanford Biomechatronics Lab.

[00:13:38] Ken asks Gwen to talk about her internship with the Sandia National Research Labs.

[00:14:40] Dawn shifts to talk about Gwen’s current research focus on wearable robotics, particularly exoskeletons, mentioning that when the public hears this term most people generally think either insect exoskeletons or Ironman. Dawn asks Gwen to describe the exoskeletons she works on.

[00:15:25] Dawn mentions that the potential uses of exoskeletons to help people with limited or no lower-limb mobility seems, in some respects, clear, but the application has been limited, and asks why that is.

[00:16:40] Dawn asks what some other applications of exoskeletons are that are important to know about.

[00:18:35] Ken mentions that during Gwen’s doctoral work at Stanford, she developed the first cable-driven exoskeleton to assist all the three leg joints — hips, knees, and ankles — and asks Gwen to talk about how that design was developed and what made it special in the exoskeleton field.

[00:20:10] Ken explains that Gwen’s work also developed novel control systems for exoskeletons by using feedback from real-time physiological measurements of the user – coined human-in-the-loop optimization (HILO). Ken asks Gwen to talk about this strategy, and why it is an important innovation.

[00:21:56] Ken asks Gwen to talk about what she learned about the impact of exoskeleton assistance on walking economy when assisting the hips, knees, or ankles individually versus simultaneously.

[00:22:58] Dawn asks if the multi-joint strategy depends on the walking task, mentioning that it seems as though demands change for different joints when walking faster; or up and downhill; or carrying load.

[00:23:49] Dawn explains that the laboratory emulator approach seems to have led to many fundamental findings. Dawn goes on to ask, however, about the limitations of assisting people in the real world in an approach that has users stuck on a treadmill and in the lab.

[00:25:02] Dawn asks if exoskeletons are a ‘one-size fits all’ technology, or if they need to be customized to each individual.

[00:26:08] Ken mentions that Gwen is involved in a couple of exoskeleton projects at IHMC, and asks first about the Eva project.

[00:28:16] Dawn asks what other applications Eva, or exoskeletons in the same vein, might have in rehabilitative or therapeutic settings.

[00:29:01] Dawn asks about IHMC’s Quix, another exoskeleton that Gwen is working on, which has been primarily used to help people with lower-body paralysis gain movement. Dawn goes on to mention that the team has been looking into rehabilitative applications that Quix could serve in as well, and asks Gwen to discuss new developments with this project.

[00:31:27] Ken asks Gwen to share some final thoughts on exoskeleton and what she sees as the grand challenges facing exoskeleton development.

[00:33:18] Dawn asks about Gwen’s passion for cultivating interest in STEM among girls and young women and why that is so important to her.

[00:34:59] Gwen talks about some of the mentors in the field that helped her along the way.

[00:36:11] Dawn asks Gwen about her two rescue dogs, Bandit and Oreo, to close the interview.

Links:

Gwen Bryan bio

Learn more about IHMC

STEM-Talk homepage

Ken Ford bio

Ken Ford Wikipedia page

Dawn Kernagis bio

Our guest today is Dr. Dan Pardi, the CEO of humanOS.me, a digital health training application. Dan is well-known for his research into sleep and has collaborated with many high-performing organizations, from Silicon Valley venture capitalists to companies like Adobe, Salesforce, Workday, Pandora, Intuitive Surgical, and more.

He also works with several branches of the U.S. Military to help elite warfighters maintain vigilant performance in both combat and non-combat conditions.

Dan’s podcast, humanOS Radio, is the official podcast of the Sleep Research Society, the Canadian Sleep Society, and a content partner of the Buck Institute on Aging. Dan collaborated with more than 100 science professors around the globe to create his digital humanOS application.

Dan has a Ph.D. in cognitive neuroscience from Leiden University in the Netherlands and Stanford University in the United States. He has a master’s degree in exercise physiology from Florida State University and currently lives in Austin, Texas, with his wife, two young boys, and their dog, Wally.

Joining STEM-Talk host Dr. Ken Ford for today’s conversation with Dan is Dr. Marcas Bamman, a senior research scientist here at IHMC. Marcas was a STEM-Talk guest on episode 116. In today’s interview with Dan, we cover his early career in bioinformatics and how a trip to Moscow led to his doctoral research of sleep and treatments for narcolepsy.

He also talks about the Loop Model to Adopt and Sustain Health Behaviors, a program he developed during his Ph.D. studies. The Loop Model became the core of his company, humanOS.

Finally, Dan talks about the concepts of “actual health,” health-performance experts and a shift in what aging means, which he believes is important to improving the quality of life for all of us.

Show notes:

[00:03:19] Marcas starts the interview by asking Dan to talk about his years growing up in Northern California’s Marin County.

[00:04:06] Ken asks Dan about building radio-controlled cars with his father.

[00:05:11] Marcas explains that Dan’s father was a successful businessman who, after a successful career as a salesman for Remco selling kitchenware, started his own company in California that grew to 200 employees. Dan has been quoted as saying that one of the lessons he learned from his father was the value of relationships. Marcas asks how that lesson has affected Dan’s life.

[00:06:29] Dan talks about his passion for basketball and how his time at the Cap Lavin camp influenced his early life.

[00:08:15] Marcas mentions that Dan’s “science life” seems to have begun with a seventh-grade science-fair project that ended up landing him a job with Nike. Marcas asks Dan to talk about that story.

[00:09:26] Ken mentions that Dan went to the University of San Francisco for his bachelor’s degree and then went to Florida State for his Masters in Exercise Physiology. Ken asks what led Dan to FSU.

[00:10:26] Ken asks why Dan decided to pursue a career in cancer research, going to work at the Preventive Medicine Research Institute in Northern California after graduating.

[00:12:04] Marcas commends Dan for being ahead of his time by leveraging the new technological development of the internet portal to empower life scientists while he was working with the Bioinformatics Biotech DoubleTwist, and asks what that experience was like.

[00:13:41] Ken asks Dan how a trip to Moscow led Dan to pursue a Ph.D. at Leiden University and Stanford, after already working in the industry for 10 years.

[00:15:17] Marcas explains that Dan’s Ph.D. research at the Zeitzer Circadian Biology Lab at Stanford University focused on gamma-hydroxybutyrate (GHB), sleep and ingestive behavior. Marcas asks what was most interesting about this research for Dan.

[00:16:24] Marcas asks about a randomized controlled trial that Dan conducted to look into ecologically relevant amounts of sleep loss. This trial enrolled 50 participants and manipulated their next-day alertness by randomly assigning different levels of sleep. Dan talks about the findings of this study.

[00:21:50] Marcas explains that while Dan was working on his Ph.D., he developed a behavior model called the Loop Model to Adopt and Sustain Health Behaviors. Marcas goes on to explain that Dan has presented this model at several healthcare conferences, such as Stanford Medicine X and Health 2.0, and asks Dan to explain what this model is and how it works.

[00:24:53] Marcas mentions that Dan’s company, humanOS.me, is described as a digital health training application and asks what this means.

[00:26:23] Ken mentions that simply giving people more information doesn’t drive changes in health-related behaviors, and asks how humanOS.me approaches things differently to address this problem.

[00:29:03] Ken asks if Dan sees any downsides in tracking health markers. Ken mentions that STEM-Talk listeners often ask about the quality of data collected, but Ken goes on to say that there are also problems of becoming hyper-focused on things like sleep and food to the point where these things are no longer pleasurable experiences at all.

[00:35:02] Ken asks about the concept of health, mentioning that in 1948 the World Health Organization defined “health” as “a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity.” Ken mentions that this definition has been criticized for being too demanding and asks Dan what his thoughts are on this definition.

[00:37:51] Marcas mentions that a biogerontologist named Suresh Rattan at Aarhus University in Denmark, defines health as the maintenance of homodynamic space, and asks Dan to explain for listeners what this means.

[00:42:44] Marcas asks Dan what he means by “Actual Health,” the concept that is the core of the upcoming book that Dan is co-authoring with STEM-Talk guest Josh Turknett.

[00:44:56] Marcas mentions that Dan has been working on developing the concept of a health performance expert, and to set the stage for this discussion, Marcas asks what Dan’s views are on the gaps in our current healthcare system and how these might be addressed.

[00:50:17] Ken mentions that he likes that Dan’s idea of a health performance expert is something that should develop independently, even in coordination with, the current sick-care system. Dan elaborates on this idea.

[00:57:47] Marcas explains that in Dan’s TED talk on optimizing light for health, he opened by talking about the impact of microgravity on health. Marcas asks Dan to talk about why he chose to open with that topic.

[0:59:47] Ken shifts to talk about the difference between age and aging, making the point that we often think of aging as a continual decline from our peak but goes on to say that age and aging are more nuanced than that infers.

[01:07:20] Marcas mentions that from an evolutionary biology perspective, age and experience are valuable to the success of one’s progeny and the tribe one’s offspring inhabit, as the grandparent hypothesis posits. Marcas asks if Dan agrees that this emphasizes the importance of working at preserving our cognitive functioning as we age.

[01:10:27] Marcas asks Dan to talk about his personal practices to maintain or improve overall health, and what the key ingredients of optimized health are.

[01:16:36] Marcas asks Dan what he hopes will be the key takeaway for people to remember from this episode.

Links:

humanOS

Dan Pardi bio and IHMC lecture

Learn more about IHMC

STEM-Talk homepage

Ken Ford bio

Ken Ford Wikipedia page

Should this not be a link to Marcas?

It’s time for another Ask Me Anything episode where STEM-Talk cohost Dawn Kernagis asks Ken questions submitted by listeners.

In this episode, Ken and Dawn weigh in on:

—  Whether AI is becoming sentient.

— How women in midlife might protect their bodies from the negative effects of a slowing metabolism.

— A Stanford study that compared a low-carbohydrate diet with a Mediterranean diet.

— Whether fasting helps optimize cognitive performance.

— The future of hypersonic technology.

— And a lot more.

If you have a question after listening to today’s episode or any episode of STEM-Talk, email your question to STEM-Talk Producer Randy Hammer at [email protected].

Show notes

[00:02:45] Dawn begins the AMA with a question for Ken that was inspired by the Mark Mattson interview, episode 133. Mark talked about skipping breakfast and in his recent book,  “The Intermittent Fasting Revolution,”

Mark points out that bodybuilders often skip breakfast and do their weight training in a fasted state, which has the effect of optimizing both muscle building and cognitive performance. The listener mentions that they feel more cognitively sharp in a fasted state but as soon as they break their fast, they don’t feel as sharp. The listener asks Ken if this is normal.

[00:04:35] A listener asks Ken about a recent news story in which a Russian robot broke a boy’s finger during a chess match. The listener goes on to state that several of their friends have jumped to the conclusion that this is proof robots are becoming sentient beings and asks Ken for his take is on this given Ken’s AI background.

[00:06:02] A listener asks another AI question, this one regarding the Washington Post’s reporting on a Google engineer who was fired over claims he made while at the company that an AI chatbot he had been testing had become sentient. The engineer claimed in an interview with The Guardian that the chatbot, LaMDA, was afraid of being turned off, had read “Les Miserables” and that it had emotions. Google maintains that LaMDA is merely responding to prompts designed for it. The listener asks Ken what would be an appropriate test for gauging AI sentience and what other thoughts Ken has about this story.

[00:08:32] A listener mentions that they have been following the ketogenic diet for 18 months and have lost 40 pounds. Recently they checked their liver enzymes GGT, AST, TSH and found they were elevated above “normal” and their Alpha fetoprotein marker was measured at 10.3. The listener asks Ken what he has learned about the ketogenic diet’s impact on the liver.

[00:09:48] A listener asks about a recent paper regarding a Stanford study that compared low-carbohydrate diets with a Mediterranean diet. The listener mentions that in the Stanford study the diets had three similarities – no non-starchy vegetables, no added sugars and no refined grains. The key difference in the diets was that the low-carb diet avoided legumes, fruits, and whole grains while the Mediterranean diet included them. The study measured glucose control and cardiometabolic risk in people with prediabetes and type 2 diabetes. The study found that comparative outcomes did not support a sufficient benefit to justify people avoiding legumes, whole fruits, and whole grains to achieve the metabolic state of ketosis. The listener asks Ken for his thoughts on the study and in his answer, Ken mentions an interview Dr. Ben Scher did with one of the study’s authors, Dr. Lucia Aronica.

[00:14:57] A listener mentions in their question that they found the Mike Griffin and Mark Lewis interviews both fascinating and worrying. The listener’s key concern is that China and Russia are ahead of the U.S. in terms of hypersonic capabilities. The listener goes on to mention that they recently saw “Top Gun Maverick” and asks if it is reasonable that someday we will see jets with human pilots that are capable of flying 10-to-20 times the speed of sound, as depicted in the film; or will these sorts of aircrafts need to be operated by AI or humanoids.

[00:18:17] A listener sends a question that reads, “They say that 50 is the new 30, but after listening to STEM-Talk, I now know that I can expect my metabolism to fall off the “50-cliff” once I meet the chronological milestone of turning 50 years old.”  The listener says it’s her understanding that hormonal changes related to midlife, especially for women, are key drivers of metabolic changes that lead to everything from brain fog to weight gain. The listener would like to know what she and other women can do to ward off the negative effects of aging and a slowing metabolism.

[00:19:53] A listener mentions that in the Satchin Panda interview, Dr. Panda says that black coffee in the morning probably won’t break an overnight fast, but that coffee with cream will. The listener goes on to say that they listened to a Dave Asprey podcast in which he said drinking “Bulletproof Coffee” with two tablespoons of butter and two tablespoons of brain octane fuel was okay in the morning because it will elevate a person’s blood ketones to 0.7 millimoles per liter within 30 minutes. The listener asks Ken for his thoughts on this advice.

[00:22:33] Dawn closes the AMA with a listener question asking if Dr. Ford has any particular pet peeves that he is willing to share.

Links:

Learn more about IHMC

STEM-Talk homepage

Ken Ford bio

Ken Ford Wikipedia page

Dawn Kernagis bio

Our guest today is Dr. Jason Fung, a Toronto-based nephrologist, and the best-selling author of “The Obesity Code,” “The Diabetes Code,” and “The Cancer Code.” Jason is best known for his success in combining a low-carb diet with intermittent fasting to help thousands of overweight patients reverse their type 2 diabetes, lose weight, and improve their metabolic health.

Jason is the author of the blog “The Fasting Method” and the co-founder of the Intensive Dietary Management program, an initiative that provides low-carb dietary guidance and counseling on various fasting regimes. Jason is also the co-author with Jimmy Moore of “The Complete Guide to Fasting,” which looks at the history and culture of fasting and how it helps people improve their metabolic health.

In today’s episode, Ken is joined by Visiting IHMC research scientist Dr. Tommy Wood and together, they and Jason discuss:

Show notes:

[00:02:25] Tommy opens the interview mentioning that Jason was born and raised in Toronto and asks what drew Jason to science as a kid.

[00:03:43] Tommy mentions the irony that Jason has written several best-selling books, yet Jason was not fond of English or writing when he was in school.

[00:04:53] Ken mentions that after graduating from high school, Jason stayed close to home and attended the University of Toronto, entering into medical school just after turning 19 to study internal medicine, eventually specializing in nephrology. Ken asks Jason what intrigued him about becoming a kidney specialist.

[00:06:36] Tommy asks Jason what led him to go to UCLA after medical school for his specialty training in kidney disease at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center.

[00:07:37] Tommy mentions that Jason has been practicing clinical nephrology in Toronto since 2001, and that in those early years of his practice, Jason saw patients with type 2 diabetes and prescribed medications to keep their blood glucose low. When that didn’t work, he would prescribe insulin, which is the standard medical practice. Tommy asks what Jason observed during these early years of his practice.

[00:09:28] Ken mentions that in 2008, two landmark studies were published, the ACCORD study and the ADVANCE study (a summary of ADVANCE). These studies were followed by two more studies, the ORIGIN and VADT studies, all four of which demonstrated that using blood glucose-lowering medication for type 2 diabetes didn’t necessarily have the expected benefits. Ken asks Jason to talk about how these studies were eye-opening for him and confirmed his own experience in treating patients.

[00:16:27] Tommy explains that in 1972 Robert Atkins published the “Dr. Atkins’ Diet Revolution,” which shared his findings on the effectiveness of low-carb, high-fat dieting. Tommy goes on to mention that in the late 1990s, a string of Atkins-styled diet books surged in popularity, with most physicians being opposed due to the conventional wisdom that these high-fat diets would cause heart disease. As a result, several trials were launched in the early 2000s to prove this point. Tommy asks Jason to talk about how these trials revealed that the real story is more nuanced than people might think.

[00:20:42] Ken mentions that even though Jason and countless other doctors were appalled at the notion that high-fat diets were being promoted as safe and effective, Jason and other physicians had virtually no nutritional training during their years in medical school. Ken asks if, in hindsight, Jason believes this is something that needs to change.

[00:24:49] Tommy explains that Jason’s realization that type 2 diabetes was largely a dietary disease and therefore required a dietary solution rather than a pharmaceutical one led him, along with Megan Ramos, a medical researcher, to establish the intensive Dietary Management program in Scarborough, Ontario, in 2011. The object of this program is to counsel overweight and obese patients to follow a low-carbohydrate, high-fat diet to reduce insulin. Tommy asks about the results of this initiative.

[00:28:56] Tommy points out that when when Jason started seeing positive results with his patients losing weight and getting off their medications with a high fat diet, Jason started giving lectures around Toronto. He  eventually posted a six-part lecture on the etiology of obesity on YouTube and starting a blog, “Intensive Dietary Management,” which evolved into “The Fasting Method.” This all received good feedback and opened the door for Jason to write a book, “The Obesity Code.”

[00:30:43] Ken explains that Jason’s book begins with a critique of the “eat less, move more” strategy acclaimed by many obesity experts.  Jason points out in the book that while this sounds like a reasonable approach to weight loss, the approach has generally been ineffecitve. Ken asks Jason to elaborate on this.

[00:37:08] Tommy explains that there is substantial experimental evidence that the “eat less, move more” approach is not particularly effective advice for individuals in an environment that promotes being sedentary while surrounded by hyperpalatable, calorie-dense, low-protein food. Tommy goes on to say that this does not imply that an integrated calorie balance model is incorrect, only ineffective. Tommy asks Jason for his thoughts.

[00:46:58] Ken mentions that in Mark Mattson’s appearance on STEM-Talk, he talked about his recently published book, “The Intermittent Fasting Revolution: The Science of Optimizing Health and Enhancing Performance.” Ken goes on to say that in this interview Mark talked about a paper he had in the New England Journal of Medicine that highlighted how studies in animals and humans have shown that eating in a six-hour window and fasting for 18 hours has been shown to have positive effects on lifespan and a wide range of chronic disorders including obesity, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, cancers, and neurodegenerative brain diseases. However, a recent paper that appeared in the same journal reported that a year-long study among patients with obesity found that a regimen of time-restricted eating was not anymore beneficial – with regard to reduction in body weight, body fat, or metabolic risk factors – than daily calorie restriction. Ken asks Jason for his opinion on this recent study.

[00:55:54] Ken mentions that Jason’s answer has circled back to efficaciousness versus effectiveness, and asks if Jason would agree that fasting is a more effective method than calorie restriction to lose weight because it is easier to follow.

[00:57:52] Tommy asks if Jason agrees that calorie restriction is efficacious but not effective because it is hard for people to follow.

[00:58:45] Tommy asks Jason about his third book in what has been referred to as the wellness series, “The Cancer Code.”

[01:02:35] Ken explains that there is obviously a genetic aspect to cancer, but our environment also plays a huge role in the development of cancer. Jason points out in his book that a Japanese woman who moves from Japan to San Francisco often doubles and or triples her risk of cancer. Ken asks what makes the environment of the U.S. such a risk factor, and what makes the environment in Japan protective.

[01:05:47] Ken mentions that there is also evidence that fasting during chemotherapy may reduce the side effects of the treatment. Ken asks Jason to talk about this and how fasting might also increase the efficacy of chemotherapy.

[01:07:50] Tommy mentions that he understands that Jason weighs the same as he did in high school, and asks what his diet and fasting protocol look like.

[01:11:15] To wrap up the interview, Ken  asks Jason for his take on rapamycin and concerns about the risk-reward ratio of using rapamycin as a prescription medication.

Links:

Learn more about IHMC

STEM-Talk homepage

Ken Ford bio

Ken Ford Wikipedia page

Tommy Wood IHMC bio

Tommy Wood University of Washington bio

Jason Fung  bio