#491 Glycine and Cancer Risk, The Health Priorities That Actually Matter, and More - Q&A

Siim Land (0:00)

Welcome back to the Q&A episode. First question, what are some of the most important things that matter to health? There's obviously millions of things you can focus on, but what are the most impactful health markers or health factors? Yeah, that's a very good question. And, you know, yes, you can, if you browse through social media, then you can get the impression that everything is bad for you, and there's all these things that are harming your health. But, you know, the truth is, yes, there are obviously millions of things in the world that could harm our health, but that there's also, you know, the effect of how big of an effect does it have on our health. So let's say, you know, compared to diabetes, drinking from a plastic bottle is not that big of a concern on your health in the grand scheme of things. Yes, you shouldn't want to drink plastic bottle water all the time, but having diabetes is immensely more harmful to your health. And if you were to look at the association with future mortality, then diabetes would have, you know, insanely higher amounts of increased risk of mortality and increased risk of heart disease compared to drinking from a plastic bottle, especially infrequently. So, you know, there's no specific study looking at the plastic bottle and mortality risk, but you get the point that if you were to actually look at scientifically how much of an effect something would have on your long-term health risks than things like diabetes, smoking, obesity, having kidney disease, those excess alcohol consumption, those things are significantly worse for their health than, you know, eating ramen noodles or eating ginseng noodles or something like that. So I should probably make a longer form video and actually look at more studies, specific studies on this and try to grade different factors and different things that could harm your health and see, okay, what is actually harmful for you? What is significantly harmful for you? And what is kind of just, you know, like a wellness trend in terms of improving your health? And how much does it actually harm your health? But I can off the top of my head say that, you know, smoking is associated with up to 13,000% increased risk of lung cancer. So if you smoke, then that's an insanely higher risk of lung cancer compared to, you know, let's say, breathing polluted air. So if you live in a city, there is slightly more polluted. Yes, it's not the most optimal for your health, but compared to smoking, you know, it's still very small, increased risk of lung cancer or just other kind of health problems. Smoking is insanely more harmful for your health. Yes, you should try to breathe as clean air as possible. You know, it's obviously not always likely that you'll be able to do that, but we need to be realistic, and we also need to be aware of how big of an effect something really is on your health. But I can give you a list of some of the top factors that I think can move the needle the most for your health and what should be like a priority that you focus on. So number one, I think, you know, yeah, obviously don't smoke, don't drink insane amounts of alcohol, don't sleep your private self, don't experience these circadian mismatches frequently, don't be overweight, don't be obese. Those everyone knows already, but like more detailed, more nuanced factors, I would say, having a high VO2 max is based on the studies, one of the biggest predictors of survival, especially later in life, people with a higher VO2 max have significantly lower risk of mortality and lower risk of heart disease, lower risk of other diseases as well, compared to people with a low VO2 max. And of course, you can get caught up in the minutiae of, okay, is it actually training the VO2 max that's good for you, or is it associated with just overall healthy lifestyle, or you can get caught up in that kind of discussion. But based on the data, just having a high VO2 max regardless of how you achieve it, it is associated with a lower mortality, and the differences are quite large. For example, people with a low VO2 max, somewhere around 20 milliliters per kilogram per minute, which is quite bad.

And if you compare to people with a 50 milliliter kilogram per minute VO2 max, that's up to a fourfold difference in mortality risk, which is a huge amount. It's much bigger than anything related to diet, and it rivals smoking. It's not as bad as smoking, but it's pretty high up there, if you look at it that way. So I would say everyone should have the goal of trying to keep their VO2 max over 50 milliliters per kilogram per minute. Maybe if it's slightly higher than that could be better, but 50 should be kind of the benchmark or the minimal threshold you want to aim for. Second, I would say visceral fat. So yes, obesity, excess body fat in general is harmful. It's more harmful for men than it is for women, but for both men and women visceral fat is harmful. So it doesn't matter if your visceral fat is excessively high. It doesn't matter if you're following a healthy diet or you're just healthy overall. If you have excessive amounts of visceral fat, then it is still on the subterranean level harming your health. So the fat around the organs, it's what damages the organ function the most. It's what spreads the most inflammation compared to other types of fat. So you do want to keep our visceral fat also quite low. And having a low visceral fat is characteristic of good health. People with healthier lifestyles tend to have lower visceral fat. And what is a good amount? So in a general population, middle-aged people, younger people, the normal visceral fat tends to be somewhere in the range of 400 to 500, 600 grams. So 400 to 600 range is the general population, and it increases with age. So it's expected to increase the older you get. And I think as a general health goal, you want to keep your visceral fat at least below 300 grams, and more optimally below 250 grams. So I don't think you need to go as little as 50 grams like I had a year ago. Right now, it's like 100 grams. So it's probably like still a healthy sweet spot, somewhere between 50 to 150 grams maybe. So I don't think you need to deliberately get to 150 grams of visceral fat. But you should at least get it to below 300, and more optimally below 250 grams. How can you measure the visceral fat? Well, an easy way to do it is with a DEXA scan. But MRI is slightly more accurate, but the DEXA scan is a good enough. Next up, I would say having a higher omega 3 index, because there's a lot of evidence from several studies showing that high omega 3 index is associated with lower dementia, lower heart disease, lower mortality, lower Alzheimer's, and it's a very consistent phenomenon. Now, yes, you can have a high omega 3 index, not only because of taking an omega 3 supplement, it can also be some other healthy lifestyle factors. But if you look at regions with the highest omega 3 index, then these regions just consume a lot of seafood and fish. For example, Japan, they have one of the highest omega 3 index in the world. They have it 8 to 12 percent, and only 10 percent of the Japanese population is eating less than the recommended daily allowance for omega 3s. So only 10 percent of Japanese people consume less than 500 milligrams of omega 3s per day. Whereas in the America and most of Europe, 90 percent of people aren't consuming enough omega 3s. So you can see a clear reason why Americans have an omega 3 index of 4 percent, and Japanese have an omega 3 index of 8 to 12 percent. The Japanese just eat insanely more. The Japanese people just eat a lot more omega 3s and seafood, which is why their omega 3 index is also higher. And based on the evidence out there, I think it's a very impactful effect on your risk of future heart disease and Alzheimer's and dementia, because the evidence is very consistent that a high omega 3 index is associated with a lower risk of these future diseases. And how do you increase your omega 3 index? First of all, you can take a blood test to measure it. But how do you increase it? Just eating more seafood and omega 3s can be also algae, can be some plant foods like walnuts, chia seeds. They can contain omega 3s, although some individuals genetically aren't able to convert it into the DHA. So therefore, you need to be aware of the best thing to do to measure and see whether or not chia seeds or walnuts can increase your omega 3 index. But for most people, it's going to be easiest to consume just seafood, sea vegetables, plus fish, and possibly supplement, like omega 3 supplement. The next thing is low inflammation. So having low CRP levels is also associated with reduced mortality, reduced Alzheimer's, reduced diabetes, reduced kidney disease, reduced heart disease. So inflammation is at the crux of pretty much all chronic diseases, and low CRP levels typically reflect lower inflammation stats. Now, CRP isn't the only inflammatory marker. You've got a lot of other inflammatory markers as well, but CRP is the most common one. It's the cheapest one to test, and it can have the best systematic overview of your inflammation stats. It can be the most universal, because if you have slightly more visceral fat, you have slightly worse diet, you sleep worse, or you have just an overall unhealthier lifestyle, then your CRP levels typically tend to be above, even not like above the normal range, but higher than what would be optimal, because CRP, even within the normal reference range, lower is better. So the normal reference range actually doesn't provide you with the lowest mortality risk and the lowest risk of these chronic diseases. With CRP, as low as possible is the most optimal reference range. So CRP less than 0.2 milligrams per liter is the sweet spot for the best health outcomes and as close to zero as possible. The thing with CRP is that if you go to the labs, then the laboratory has different cutoff points for CRP. Some labs just measure only to 0.5, some do it to only one, others do 0.2 or 0.1, so they can go more granular or more specific with the measurement. So, yeah, if the lab just cuts off at 0.5, it doesn't mean that you have higher than optimal CRP. It just means that the lab might be cutting it short before going into the more specifics. But yeah, if you can get a very specific result, so 0.2 below that would be the sweet spot, and 0.1 would be the best. Once I measured a very specific result, it was 0.01. So I think you can't even get closer than that. Another thing is muscle strength. So people know that muscle strength is associated with longevity. People who are healthier tend to have slightly more muscle and better muscle strength compared to the general population. Of course, you can take it too far. If you're a powerlifter or bodybuilder taking steroids, you're insanely strong, but you're generally going to shorten your life as well because of the anabolic steroids. So within the normal possibility of human physiology, without using any anabolic steroids, the higher muscle strength tends to be better for overall health. Now, the reason why the strength matters is because, first of all, if you have muscle strength, then you're exercising regularly, and if you exercise regularly, you're getting the benefits from exercise. If you exercise regularly, you're activating these different pathways that lower inflammation, improve your metabolic health, lower visceral fat, they lower your blood pressure, they activate these anti-aging pathways in the body that are linked to lifespan extension in animals, etc., like AMPK, autology, serotonin, etc. So there's a wide reason why exercise and resistance training is good for you. And you exercise regularly, you're activating these pathways, which is why it's going to be good for you. And second of all, the muscle strength is going to be protective against falls in the future. If you're an elderly person, you're more likely to fall because your balance worsens with age, your stability worsens with age, your mobility worsens with age. So you're more likely to fall off the stairs, you're more likely to trip on something, you're more likely to trip on the ice. And with my higher muscle strength, you're less likely to fall, first of all. And if you are likely to fall, you're less likely to get a hip fracture because of increased muscle density and increased bone density. So yeah, just having more muscle and more strength is good for you. Now, how much is too much? You know, it's hard to say. There's no specific study actually looking at that. Looking at that, I would say, you know, I like to base it on like, how much muscle and strength is good. I like to base it on BMI. So BMI is not a very good estimation of your body fat percentage. You can be very lean and be overweight with the BMI because you have more muscle. But BMI can, on the extremes, be still accurate. So if you have a BMI of 30, then you have muscle as well. But in this situation with the BMI of 30, you probably have too much fat as well. If you have a BMI of, let's say, 26, 27, you're lean with muscle, then that's reasonable. You're not carrying extra body fat. You just have a little bit more muscle. But to reach a BMI of 30, then first of all, you would need to be taking metabolic steroids to have such insane amounts of muscle, to have a BMI of 30 with low body fat. Or the second scenario is that, okay, yes, you have some muscle tissue, but you're also carrying a little bit too much body fat. So being this kind of a chunky strong man or a chunky powerlifter, if that makes sense. So you wouldn't want to have very high BMI, even if it's muscle, because excess weight overall, I like to say that bodybuilders are like obese people with cardio megalithy. So they have enlarged heart because of the muscle tissue and increased muscle mass, but they're also just obese in terms of their BMI. Yes, they are lower body weight or lower body fat, but their body weight is disproportionately higher. And the increased weight, the increased muscle tissue is wearing down their organs over the course of decades. So even if you're sub 10% body fat, having too much muscle tissue that will put your BMI at like 30, I think it's harmful. So if you have muscle tissue, then try to keep your BMI still of like 27 with low body fat. That will be like the higher limit, in my opinion, to assess whether or not you're having too much muscle mass for your height and your BMI, if that makes sense. So my BMI right now is 25.5. I'm pretty lean. I'm maybe around 10% body fat usually. So my BMI 25.5, I have decent amount of muscle, but I'm not trying to pack on more. I'm trying to keep it around this. So yeah, that's what I'm focusing on. And the last important factor is probably having good mental health. I think it's very underrated. So it's debatable whether or not having good mental health has a causal role in making you live longer and having longevity benefits and improving your health. Partly it probably has because you'll have lower stress hormones, you'll have higher happiness hormones. So these neurochemicals do have a direct impact on your physiology. But I think it's also just that if you're healthier, and happier, then you will make healthier decisions. You're more motivated to do the healthy things, and you'll just enjoy it as well. So if you hate being healthy, or you have just bad mental health for whatever reason, then you're just less likely to actually do the things that keep you healthy, if that makes sense. So yeah, having good mental health is important. And one of the biggest sources of mental health is usually relationships for most people, social isolation, loneliness. Those things are associated with depression, anxiety, and poor mental health. Just having a good social relationships, quality relationships, it doesn't have to be like a large amount of relationships. You don't need to have hundreds of friends. But feeling isolated and feeling that your social needs aren't being met, that's the core of loneliness and social isolation. So it's more about whether or not you feel you have access to social support if you want to. So you don't need to get it. But if you feel that you can't have any support from anyone, then that's in research, that is what's characterized as being social isolated and feeling more lonely. It's not about how much you socialize or how much you interact with people. It's more about how much support you feel you have. And this is very subjective. This is how much you feel the support. I want to take a quick break to let you know about the Red Light Hat by Bon Charge, which a lot of people have been waiting for a long time. Basically, you're getting some red light therapy on your scalp. It's a regular cap, and it just gives you the specific wavelengths of red light that will help with the hair growth and the collagen synthesis in the scalp. Bon Charge also has a lot of different types of red light therapy devices, like the face mask, which actually has specific studies on where they use split face experiments, and they show that the LED red light face masks do improve skin wrinkles and collagen synthesis in the skin. But yeah, Bon Charge has a ton of different red light therapy devices as well that they've come out with over the course of years. So this red light hat is the newest one. It's pretty good. I wear it in the mornings just to help with hair growth a little bit. And they obviously also have regular red light panels, the big ones that you're going to sit in front of and also get benefits on your skin as well as overall energy. Check out the Bon Charge red light therapy devices and their new red light hat at boncharge.com for which does Siim Land for 15% discount. Next question, what is your take on glycine? I saw that Physionic made a few videos showing that it can increase cancer. I did check out the Physionic's video and the video didn't say that glycine increases cancer. And the study he referenced also didn't claim that it showed that glycine and serine restriction was helpful for colon cancer patients. So the interesting thing about glycine is that cancers can use it for their own survival. It's not that glycine is promoting cancer. It's that the cancer is utilizing glycine for its own growth. And the same was a few months ago last year was with taurine as well. They saw that taurine increased cancer. Well, that wasn't the case. It was more so that the cancer used taurine to survive. So the issue with these kind of studies is that people get caught up with the association with the glycine and the cancer, but they fail to realize that the relationship between them isn't that the glycine was increasing or causing the cancer. It was more so that the cancer was just stealing resources from the body and using glycine as one of them to survive. And cancers are just so incredibly clever and they're very tricky. They can use almost any nutrient in the body for their own survival. They can use protein. They can use glucose. They can use ketones. They can use the process of autophagy, which is the cellular clearance process, to also scavenge the material for their own survival. They can use the process of angiogenesis, which is the growth of blood vessels for survival. So, you know, growing blood vessels, I think it's an important thing for survival for your own body. You need angiogenesis to a certain extent, but the cancers can use the angiogenesis process for their own survival. They can use autophagy, which is seen to extend lifespan in animals, and it's important to clear out cellular debris. It can use autophagy for its own survival. Glycine is generally beneficial for your body in terms of helping with glutathione synthesis, collagen synthesis, creatine synthesis, etc. But in certain situations, it can be harmful. The same with taurine. Taurine has been seen to have benefits in humans for lipids, blood pressure, exercise performance, etc. But in certain situations, the cancer can use it. So, no, it doesn't mean that glycine is causing cancer. It's more so that the cancer is just so tricky, and it adapts always. It's always adapting to the environment, which is your body, and it tries to survive. So, the lesson here is that, okay, maybe if you have cancer or you're at an increased risk of cancer, don't take glycine. But it doesn't mean that you should stop taking glycine if you don't have cancer. So, yeah, it's more a lesson in the adaptability of cancers itself, in and of itself. The cancers are just very clever and tricky, and it's hard to overcome them obviously. So, you can find dozens of different healthy nutrients out there that, in some way, can promote cancer growth, but they're not necessarily implicated in causing cancer. Next question, is there any evidence that supplements can affect brain health like creatine omega-3s, impact cognitive functions such as IQ scores? There is a big difference between just short-term cognitive function, like attention, short-term memory, and focus, and those things versus IQ. IQ is more standardized, that test, and it's more resistant to short-term changes. So, if you take a supplement that increases your short-term cognition, there are some supplements out there that do that. Let's say creatine can short-term, especially after sleep deprivation, and after stress to improve your cognition, it's not going to actually increase your IQ in the short-term. So, the long-term increase in IQ is more a matter of education. You can, yes, in small amounts move the IQ. There is some evidence that longer education, just learning new things increases IQ slightly. There is some effect on nutrition as well. If you are severely deficient in certain nutrients, let's say, especially during developmental years, it's more important in the early period of life. Like iodine deficiency can cause mental developmental issues as well as cognitive issues. So, especially during pregnancy and early in life, making sure that the child gets enough iodine. Omega-3s also have that role, iron creating probably as well to a certain extent, but creatine is more like acute short-term cognitive enhancer, and it mostly applies if you're in deficiency, if you've been under some sleep stress or just sleep deprivation. B vitamins are important in the developmental years, and if you are deficient in certain micronutrients, then it just hinders your IQ or hinders your cognitive function. If you start supplementing B vitamins and omega-3s, or you just eat more of these foods that contain iron and etc., you're not going to essentially increase your IQ. You can only bring back to your normal baseline, if that makes sense. So if as an adult, you're deficient in creatine or B vitamins or iron, or some iodine or omega-3s, etc., you can experience some aspects of mental health issues, or there's some evidence that depression, like if you have low B vitamins that can give symptoms of depression, and it can give symptoms of cognitive deficits, but it's not really going to enhance your IQ above what's your baseline, if that makes sense, these supplements. For actually increasing IQ, then the most impactful thing is education, and the evidence for some like brain games and problem-solving these kind of mental games. It's much weaker, so the biggest thing is education, and actually learning new skills and learning new things. Can you update us about your current thinking on how to best to exploit autophagy for Hillspan? What are the best routines to incorporate throughout the years to optimize autophagy? Yes. So I was one of the OGs of autophagy YouTube back in the day, like 2018, 2019 I established myself quite well with creating content on autophagy. I wrote a book on it, Metabolic Autophagy. Obviously, I'm not like some PhD in autophagy, but I was thinking about it a lot, and I was researching a lot.