<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:itunes="http://www.itunes.com/dtds/podcast-1.0.dtd">
  <channel>
    <title>Paul Saladino MD Newsletter (Audio)</title>
    <link>https://podcast.carverupton.com/saladino</link>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <description>Unofficial audio narration of Paul Saladino MD&#x27;s email newsletter, generated automatically with local text-to-speech. Not affiliated with him.</description>
    <itunes:author>Paul Saladino MD (unofficial audio mirror)</itunes:author>
    <itunes:owner><itunes:email>carver.upton@gmail.com</itunes:email></itunes:owner>
    <itunes:category text="Health &amp; Fitness" />
    <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
    <itunes:image href="https://podcast.carverupton.com/saladino/cover.jpg?v=1791318861" />
    
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 14 Oct 2026 14:25:06 +0000</lastBuildDate>
    <item>
      <title>What I do when I feel a cold coming on</title>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">&lt;01M4X73H2TW4QQJ57MH5SM6E7T@klaviyomail.com&gt;</guid>
      <pubDate>Wed, 14 Oct 2026 13:01:14 +0000</pubDate>
      <description><![CDATA[One quick favor once you read today's newsletter:​Forward this to a friend. Protocols stick when you have someone doing them with you. Sleep, training, food, all of it works better with an accountability buddy. Find yours. Let's get into it.


THE PROTOCOL

What I Do When I Feel a Cold Coming On

 

It's that time of year. The people around you are starting to drop, and sooner or later you feel that first scratch at the back of your throat.

I don't get sick often, and when I feel something coming on, I don't wait around.

First, I don't panic, and I don't reach for cold medicine.

Most of that stuff just mutes the symptoms while your body does the actual work, and sometimes it keeps you running around when you should be resting.

I'd rather give my body what it needs to win the fight faster.

The second I feel that first scratch or that run-down drag, I change three things that day.

I sleep like it's my job.

Sleep is such a critical process for recovery and healing, whether from exercise or a cold.

I clear the evening, get to bed early, and take a full, dark, cold night. If I can nap, I nap.

Gives my body the rest it needs to repair and, since I'm resting, my body can put more energy toward fighting the virus.

I stop training.

A hard workout is a stressor, and a body fighting something off doesn't need another one piled on.

Hard training while sick can delay recovery and, if you’re doing so in a public place (like a gym) you might get other people sick.

I trade the surf or the resistance session for a walk and some sun. Rest now, train when you're better.

I eat simple and nutrient-dense and I cut the sugar completely.

Broth, eggs, meat, a little fruit. Processed junk and sugar are the opposite of what you want when your immune system is busy.

I'll often take zinc at the very first sign, the one remedy here with real evidence behind it (more on that below).

I’ll also take some grass-fed colostrum, link here, which supports immune function as well as the gut lining.

None of this is a magic cure, and if something turns into more than a cold, see a doctor.

But for the common stuff, removing the stressors and handing your body the raw materials lets it do what it already knows how to do, faster.

⇒ Grab my favorite grass-fed colostrum here, link here


THE LAB

Serum Zinc

 

Your immune system use zinc to build and fire up the cells that fight off invaders.

When you're short on it, you get sick more often and stay sick longer. A lot of people run low without knowing it.

Serum zinc is the standard blood test. Most labs put the normal range around 70-120 micrograms per deciliter, and you'd rather not scrape the bottom of it.

Red meat, shellfish, and organs are the best food sources, which is one more reason this crowd tends to do fine here.

One catch:

Serum zinc is an imperfect measure.

Your body holds blood levels fairly steady even when your tissue stores are down, and the number dips during any infection or inflammation.

So read it when you're well, not mid-cold, and treat it as one data point, not a verdict.


THE SWAP

Cold Medicine → Letting The Symptoms Handle It

 

Reaching for NyQuil at the first sniffle treats the wrong thing.

A runny nose, some congestion, and feeling wiped out are good if you’re sick. They’re signs your body is fighting the virus and forcing you to slow down.

Mucus clears things out, for example. Feeling tired is what makes you rest, too.

Also, you’ve probably heard that a fever is your body actively fighting an infection.

That’s true. The higher body temperature makes it harder for the bacteria/virus to survive and it activates the immune system.

Blunt all of it so you can keep grinding through your day and you often just drag the whole thing out longer.

Not to mention that the antihistamine in NyQuil that knocks you out leaves you groggy.

It sedates you, rather than truly making you “tired.” Hence the poorer sleep.

The swap is to stop masking and start supporting.

Stay warm, eat well, drink plenty of fluids, and get real rest while your body runs the program it already knows.

(If you're running a high or persistent fever, or it's clearly more than a cold, that's a different conversation. See a doctor.)


WHAT I'M READING

Sam Walton: Made in America

 

I’m reading the memoir of Sam Walton, the man who built Walmart.

What stuck with me is that he became the richest person in America and kept driving the same beat-up pickup truck.

The money never changed what he valued or how he lived.

I respect it.

It's easy to let a little success pull you away from the simple things that actually work. We’ve all heard about “lifestyle inflation,” or stories of people who make a lot of money but are up to their eyeballs in debt.

Sam Walton never did that. I try to live the same way.

⇒ Grab Sam Walton: Made in America here, link here


ONE QUESTION

Should I Load Up On Vitamin C?

Probably not, at least not the way most people do.

For the average person, taking vitamin C every day doesn't actually prevent colds, and loading up once you already feel one coming barely shortens it.

Meanwhile, that orange Emergen-C packet everyone reaches for is mostly sugar, which works against your immune system.

If you're eating real food, you're already getting vitamin C.

Put the effort where it pays off: Sleep, zinc early, and not running yourself into the ground.

That's it for this week.

I'm rooting for you,

Paul

SUNDAY NEWSLETTER

WANT MY SUNDAY EXPOSÉ NEWSLETTER TOO?

That's where I deep dive into one topic weekly, with
science-backed perspectives you won't find anywhere else.

SUBSCRIBE HERE, link here

 

[]]></description>
      <enclosure url="https://podcast.carverupton.com/saladino/episodes/saladino-01M4X73H2TW4QQJ57MH5SM6E7T-klaviyomail-com.mp3" length="2478308" type="audio/mpeg" />
      <itunes:duration>00:05:53</itunes:duration>
      <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Are we overprescribing statins?</title>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">&lt;01M4NT724CAW2MPXR4G01FAQDX@klaviyomail.com&gt;</guid>
      <pubDate>Sun, 11 Oct 2026 16:05:13 +0000</pubDate>
      <description><![CDATA[SUN • OCTOBER 11, 2026

ISSUE #22· THE SUNDAY EXPOSÉ

The Statin Prescription Nobody Explains

One in four Americans over 40 is on a statin. For most of them, the number of patients who need to take the drug to prevent one event is around 200. Yet few have that conversation in their 15-minute doctor’s visit that results in a statin prescription.

Before we get into it...

Every Sunday, I show you what's broken. Every Wednesday, in Paul's Protocol, I show you what I actually do about it.

Each issue shows you one protocol I'm running, one lab number to know, and one swap to make. Short, actionable, 3-minute reads.

Click here to get Paul’s Protocols every Wednesday., link here

(If you land on my homepage after clicking that, you're in. Nothing else needed from you.)

You go to your annual physical feeling fine.

The nurse draws blood, but you don’t expect anything out of the ordinary.

A week later, the lab results come back and your LDL cholesterol is 130.

Your doctor spends 90 seconds explaining that this is above the recommended range, increasing your risk of cardiovascular disease (the leading cause of death in the US)...

And that a daily statin would reduce your risk.

They send the prescription to your pharmacy before you leave the parking lot and schedule the follow-up appointment for six months out.

That scene plays out in millions of American exam rooms every year.

Roughly one in four Americans over 40 is now taking a statin.

For many of those prescriptions, nobody in the exam room has done the math that would tell the patient what the drug could actually do for them.

The math is public. It's not controversial. It's in the clinical literature and the guideline documents themselves.

It just doesn't get translated into the 15-minute visit.

That math starts with a number called "NNT"...

NNT is short for "number needed to treat."

It answers a specific question:

How many patients have to take this drug for one of them to receive the benefit the drug is being prescribed for?

For primary prevention (patients who have never had a cardiovascular event and are taking the drug to prevent a first one), the published NNT over several years of continuous treatment is:

~200 to prevent one non-fatal heart attack

~500 to prevent one cardiovascular death.

Different analyses produce slightly different numbers depending on the risk population studied, but the order of magnitude is consistent across the major reviews.

What that means in plain language:

For every 200 patients taking a statin daily for about five years as primary prevention, approximately one of them will avoid a heart attack they would otherwise have had.

The other 199 either would not have had one anyway, or will have one despite taking the drug.

Secondary prevention numbers (patients who have already survived a cardiovascular event and are taking the drug to prevent a second one) are dramatically better at ~40 to prevent one subsequent event.

That is a much more defensible intervention, and nobody seriously disputes the use of statins in that context.

However…

Primary prevention is where most of the prescribing happens.

If you are a 55-year-old man with 130 LDL, slightly elevated blood pressure, and no personal history of cardiovascular events, you fit the profile the current guidelines target.

Your doctor will likely offer a statin.

They may not say that "199 people like you will take this drug for several years so that one person benefits, and we don't know whether you are that one.”

Instead, you get "your cholesterol is high, this will lower it, take one a day with dinner."

Yet the eligible population keeps getting bigger…

In 2013, the American Heart Association and American College of Cardiology jointly issued new cholesterol guidelines that replaced the previous risk calculation with a new one called pooled cohort equations.

As a result, ~13 million additional Americans became eligible for statin treatment overnight, mostly by capturing more adults aged 60-75 whose cardiovascular risk score crossed the newly-lowered threshold.

The 2018 update to those guidelines widened eligibility again by lowering LDL thresholds for pharmacologic treatment and adding new risk-enhancing factors to the calculation.

In 2024, the AHA released the PREVENT risk calculator, replacing the pooled cohort equations and producing lower risk estimates for many patients.

One analysis published in JAMA suggested that applying PREVENT nationally would make ~15 million fewer Americans eligible for statins.

The 2024 update represented a partial reversal of a two-decade trend of continuously expanding statin eligibility.

The trials themselves reinforced the guideline-driven expansion.

A substantial share of the pivotal primary prevention statin trials were funded, directly or indirectly, by the pharmaceutical companies that manufactured the drugs.

The JUPITER trial (2008) was funded by AstraZeneca and became one of the most-cited primary prevention trials in the field.

The trials were well-conducted, and the results were real.

They also happened to support the commercial interests of their sponsors, and the resulting guidelines happened to expand the market for the sponsors' products.

This pattern is familiar to anyone who has read what I've written on cholesterol and on the broader history of industry-funded dietary science.

It is the same institutional capture playbook, applied to the pharmaceutical side of the cardiovascular story rather than the dietary side.

And then there is the well-documented yet systematically minimized side effect profile…

Muscle symptoms. Statin-associated muscle symptoms (SAMS) are the most common reason patients discontinue statins. Published prevalence estimates range from 1-2% in randomized trials to 20-30% in observational studies and clinical practice. The gap between those numbers is one of the most debated topics in statin literature. Both sides are partially right. Trial populations are selected for tolerability. Real-world populations are not.

New-onset type 2 diabetes. Documented in multiple large randomized trials and meta-analyses. Statins modestly increase type 2 diabetes risk, particularly in patients with metabolic risk factors. The AHA's own 2018 scientific statement on statin safety acknowledges this and estimates the increase at roughly one additional case of diabetes per 1,000 patient-years of treatment, higher in higher-risk patients.

Cognitive effects. The FDA added a warning about memory and cognitive effects to all statin labels in 2012. The clinical literature on this is mixed, with some meta-analyses finding no effect and others finding modest effects. Many patients report cognitive symptoms that resolve when stopping the drug.

CoQ10 depletion. Statins inhibit the same enzyme pathway (HMG-CoA reductase) the body uses to produce coenzyme Q10. CoQ10 is required for mitochondrial energy production, especially in muscle tissue and the heart. Whether supplementation meaningfully offsets the muscle and cognitive symptoms is less settled.

None of these make statins unsafe for every patient, but the risk-benefit calculation differs from what a doctor may present in a prescribing visit.

A drug with a 1-in-200 primary prevention benefit and a documented side effect profile including muscle symptoms, metabolic consequences, and cognitive effects is a drug that deserves a full conversation before it gets prescribed for 20 years.

As a former physician assistant in cardiology, I spent years in the clinic that is the endpoint of this prescribing pattern…

The pattern I saw, over and over, was patients returning every six months with the same lab values, lifestyle, and prescription.

LDL came down thanks to the statin, but nobody looked into the insulin resistance building in the background.

Inflammation markers improved, but no one addressed the processed food and seed oils driving that inflammation.

Their chest pain was kept at bay, but their diet wasn’t so great.

Everything “looked” good…

But six months later, the same patient came back with the same underlying metabolism, now also carrying the side effect profile of the drug.

This is what I mean when I say the system isn't the people. And why I am not blaming the doctors when I mentioned “doctors” earlier.

Most of those doctors wanted to help. The system trained them to drive down the number, not fix the metabolism.

Here is what to do with this information, whether you’re on a statin or it has come up in discussions with your medical provider…

If you are offered a statin as primary prevention, ask three specific questions:

Is this primary or secondary prevention? This clarifies which math applies.

​

What is the specific NNT for a patient with my risk profile? This forces the conversation that should (but rarely) happens on its own.

​

What are the metabolic markers that would tell us whether my LDL elevation reflects actual cardiovascular risk? This gets you to the markers that actually predict events.

​

Ask for the better markers. ApoB is the most important. It measures the number of atherogenic particles rather than the amount of cholesterol they carry, and recent major guidelines have concluded it is a more accurate risk marker than LDL-C alone.

Lp(a) is genetically determined and an independent risk factor standard panels don't include.

Triglyceride/HDL ratio is on nearly every standard panel, and is one of the simplest insulin resistance markers available.

Fasting insulin tells you more about metabolic health than fasting glucose.

hs-CRP measures inflammation.

If you are already on a statin and want to understand whether it still makes sense, don't stop on your own. Find a doctor who takes a metabolic approach, request a full panel including the markers above, and have the conversation that should have happened before the prescription was written.

Address the drivers. The metabolic patterns that elevate ApoB and drive cardiovascular events respond to sleep, movement, food composition, and stress management. Examples:

Seed oils and refined carbohydrates drive insulin resistance

Resistance training moves insulin sensitivity more than any medication currently available

Sleep debt elevates every cardiovascular risk marker

As with many aspects of your health, the drug attacks the number, whereas the lifestyle addresses the underlying issues.

For patients who have had an event, I am not arguing against your statin.

Secondary prevention is where the drug earns its place in the risk-benefit calculation. Continue the conversation with your cardiologist on that basis.

A 15-minute visit is not enough time to decide whether you should take a drug every day for the next twenty years.

Your doctor should walk you through the actual math. Primary or secondary. The specific NNT for your risk profile. The markers that would tell you whether your LDL means what the lab form says it means.

If that conversation isn't happening, ask for it. If your doctor can't have it, find one who can.

You deserve to hear the math before the pen hits the pad.


P.S. If this hit, forward it to someone who needs it. If it got forwarded to you — subscribe here so you don't miss the next one.]]></description>
      <enclosure url="https://podcast.carverupton.com/saladino/episodes/saladino-01M4NT724CAW2MPXR4G01FAQDX-klaviyomail-com.mp3" length="5049428" type="audio/mpeg" />
      <itunes:duration>00:11:33</itunes:duration>
      <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>How I buy meat directly from the source</title>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">&lt;01M4B6AF1GRGHPYSSDK271ADBX@klaviyomail.com&gt;</guid>
      <pubDate>Wed, 07 Oct 2026 13:05:01 +0000</pubDate>
      <description><![CDATA[One quick favor once you read today's newsletter:​Forward this to a friend. Protocols stick when you have someone doing them with you. Sleep, training, food, all of it works better with an accountability buddy. Find yours. Let's get into it.


THE PROTOCOL

How I Buy Meat Straight From the Source

 

When you buy meat at the grocery store, you're trusting a label and a supply chain you can't see. I stopped playing that game a long time ago.

Instead, I buy meat directly from farms I trust, people raising animals the right way on pasture, like White Oak Pastures.

When you buy direct, you can know how the animal lived, what it ate, and how it was handled. It’s not a black box, unlike most grocery store supply chains.

You can do the same thing, and the best value is buying in bulk straight from a rancher.

It's called a cow share, and it sounds intimidating until you see how it works.

You pay for a share of an animal. That could be a quarter, a half, or a whole cow split with family or friends.

You fill out a "cut sheet," which just tells the butcher how you want it broken down:

How many steaks, how much ground beef, which roasts, etc.

A few weeks later, you pick up a freezer's worth of grass-fed beef.

Two terms so nothing surprises you:

You usually pay on "hanging weight," and your take-home weight comes out a bit lower after the butcher trims and ages it.

There's also a processing fee on top. Factor both in and the per-pound price still lands well under grocery-store grass-fed.

Start smaller than you think. A quarter cow is plenty to test the whole thing.


THE LAB

Omega-3 Index

 

When you go from feedlot meat to grass-fed and pasture-raised, the fat you eat changes.

Grass-fed animals carry more omega-3 and less omega-6 than grain-fed ones.

The omega-3 index is the blood test that measures your levels.

It's the percentage of omega-3 in your red blood cell membranes, and higher is better.

Under 4% is the risk zone. 8% or above is where you want to be. Most people in the West sit well below that.

One catch:

Seafood can impact omega-3 numbers much more than meat, especially fatty fish like salmon and sardines.

Better meat nudges it the right way, but if your index is low, oily fish is the fastest fix.

Treat omega-3s as the number that reflects the quality of the fat you're eating overall.


THE SWAP

Next Grocery Run → One Farm-Direct Order

 

You don't have to overhaul everything at once.

Start with one order.

Find a regenerative farm that ships (White Oak Pastures and plenty of others do) or a local rancher at your farmers market, and buy a single box with some ground beef and a few steaks.

Cook it and notice the difference.

Doing things a little at a time helps you wade comfortably into the world of buying direct without getting overwhelmed or letting meat go to waste.

That way, you can see whether investing in some extra freezer space is worth it.


WHAT I'M READING

My Life In Advertising

 

My Life in Advertising is the companion to Claude Hopkin's Scientific Advertising (his memoir). It's the story behind the method.

What stands out is that Hopkins learned everything by doing.

He spent decades in the field watching how real people behaved, never theorizing from a desk. He trusted direct contact with reality over secondhand expertise.

(That’s how he became one of the most famous ad men in history and helped pioneer a scientific approach to the field.)

It’s a bit like what today’s newsletter talks about regarding sourcing your meat directly from the farmer or rancher. Go to the source.

⇒ Grab My Life in Advertising here, link here


ONE QUESTION

Isn’t A Whole Cow Way Too Much Meat/Money?

A whole cow is a lot, which is why almost nobody buys one solo.

You split it, a half or a quarter, with family or friends, and the cost splits with it.

Per pound, buying in bulk directly beats the grass-fed meat at the store, sometimes by a wide margin.

It's all thanks to cutting out the middleman and other savings involved in bulk selling.

The "expensive" part is just that it's one big payment up front.

Spread it across months of meals sitting in your freezer and it's often the cheapest high-quality meat, per pound, you'll ever buy.

Obviously, you’ll need the freezer space.

But investing in some extra freezer space can pay off in spades when you’re enjoying locally raised, grass-fed good stuff at decent prices.

That's it for this week.

I'm rooting for you,

Paul

SUNDAY NEWSLETTER

WANT MY SUNDAY EXPOSÉ NEWSLETTER TOO?

That's where I deep dive into one topic weekly, with
science-backed perspectives you won't find anywhere else.

SUBSCRIBE HERE, link here

 

[]]></description>
      <enclosure url="https://podcast.carverupton.com/saladino/episodes/saladino-01M4B6AF1GRGHPYSSDK271ADBX-klaviyomail-com.mp3" length="2116628" type="audio/mpeg" />
      <itunes:duration>00:05:00</itunes:duration>
      <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>How a waste product replaced your cooking fat</title>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">&lt;01M43SE467AM5TX5MJPZ8DTR1R@klaviyomail.com&gt;</guid>
      <pubDate>Sun, 04 Oct 2026 16:02:49 +0000</pubDate>
      <description><![CDATA[SUN • OCTOBER 04, 2026

ISSUE #21· THE SUNDAY EXPOSÉ

How a Textile Waste Product Became the Foundation of American Cooking

In 1911, Procter & Gamble (then a soap company) launched Crisco. Within one generation, animal fats were mostly gone from American kitchens. This story is one of the most concrete examples of how food policy gets made. Time to tell that story.

Before we get into it...

Every Sunday, I show you what's broken. Every Wednesday, in Paul's Protocol, I show you what I actually do about it.

Each issue shows you one protocol I'm running, one lab number to know, and one swap to make. Short, actionable, 3-minute reads.

Click here to get Paul’s Protocols every Wednesday., link here

(If you land on my homepage after clicking that, you're in. Nothing else needed from you.)

If you walk into any American grocery store today and look at the cooking oil aisle, roughly nine out of ten bottles will be some form of industrial seed oil:

Canola

Soybean

Corn

Sunflower

Safflower

Cottonseed

"Vegetable oil" as a generic category

If you did the same walk in 1900, you would not have found any of them.

Instead, the American kitchen ran on butter, lard, tallow, beef suet, chicken fat, and small amounts of olive oil imported from the Mediterranean.

Humans cooked with these for thousands of years.

Nobody thought about it. It was available, so people used it.

That changed in about one generation.

We replaced animal fats with industrial seed oils, many of which originated as waste products from other industrial processes as America’s industry/manufacturing grew.

The transition happened faster than any major dietary shift in recorded history, and it did not happen because Americans discovered something.

Rather, one company, with one product, ran one of the most effective marketing campaigns in the history of American food…

In the late 1800s, cotton was the dominant crop of the American South.

But not every part of the cotton was useful.

Every cotton boll contained dozens of hard little seeds in the fluff (the useful part).

Run that through cotton gins (devices that separate the fiber and seeds), and the leftover seed pile is around twice the weight of the desired fiber.

Those seeds had a few low-value uses, like pressing it into oil for lamps, lubricating machinery in textile mills, or feeding it to cattle.

However, the volume of seeds produced was far greater than these uses demand and can absorb.

So a lot of that excess was dumped into rivers.

Around the same time, a soap company called Procter & Gamble (P&G) released a soap called Ivory Soap…

And cottonseed oil was an ingredient.

P&G needed a stable supply of the cheap raw material, so it began buying up cottonseed oil mills.

Then a German chemist named Wilhelm Normann patented a new chemical process in 1901 called catalytic hydrogenation.

Hydrogenation pumps hydrogen gas through liquid oil in the presence of a nickel catalyst. This creates a solid, shelf-stable fat that looks a great deal like lard.

In 1907, Procter & Gamble bought the US rights to Normann's patent.

They now had a supply of a cheap liquid oil previously used as machinery lubricant, and a chemical process that could turn it into a solid white substance resembling animal fat.

In June 1911, Procter & Gamble began selling this substance to American homemakers as a cooking fat.

They called it Crisco, short for "crystallized cottonseed oil."

The marketing campaign that followed did more to change how Americans cooked than any policy, any recipe book, or any celebrity chef in the 20th century…

In 1912, P&G published a free cookbook titled The Story of Crisco and mailed it to hundreds of thousands of American homes.

It contained more than 200 recipes, all of them using Crisco in place of lard or butter.

The book positioned Crisco as modern, clean, scientific, and superior to the animal fats American women had been cooking with for their entire lives.

Lard was reframed as old-fashioned, greasy, and unclean…

While Crisco was reframed as progress.

The Story of Crisco went into multiple editions. By its later editions, it had sold or been distributed in the millions. Crisco sales rose more than 40-fold in the first four years of the product's existence.

P&G also went into the schools.

The company hired Domestic Science teachers, put them on the payroll, and sent them out to teach cooking classes in home economics programs across the country.

Home economics was a rising professional field at the time.

Its instructors reached millions of American girls and young women who were being trained to be the cooks of their households.

So a generation of American cooks learned that Crisco was what modern women used in the kitchen.

By the 1920s, Crisco was in most American kitchens.

By the 1940s, it was the default cooking fat.

That same generation of American cooks now had daughters of their own…

And the daughters learned to cook with Crisco because that was what mothers cooked with.

Within 40 years of Crisco’s launch, an oil from cotton seeds had usurped the throne once occupied for generations by lard, tallow, and butter.

All thanks to a marketing campaign.

The next chapter of the story involves an institution that would eventually become the most trusted voice on heart health in America…

The American Heart Association was founded in 1924 as a small professional society for cardiologists.

For its first 20 years, it was a modest organization with a modest budget, largely unknown to the general public.

In 1948, Procter & Gamble sponsored a national radio show contest called Walking Man, part of the Truth or Consequences program. The contest raised money for the American Heart Association.

When the contest was over, the AHA had received approximately $1.7 million from the Procter & Gamble-sponsored event.

In 2026 dollars, that is roughly $22 million.

That grant transformed the American Heart Association overnight.

It gave the organization the funding to open chapters nationwide, hire staff, run public health campaigns, and become the national institution most Americans know today.

By 1960, the AHA had more than 300 chapters nationwide and was bringing in tens of millions of dollars per year.

In 1961, the American Heart Association issued its first national dietary guidelines.

Those guidelines advised Americans to reduce their consumption of animal fats and replace them with vegetable oils…

The same class of vegetable oils that Procter & Gamble had been selling since 1911.

The AHA has since disputed some retellings of this story, and the extent to which the 1948 grant directly shaped the organization's later dietary positions is something historians can argue about.

But I can’t help but notice the sequence of events:

A company that sold vegetable oil provided the founding institutional grant that made the American Heart Association what it is.

The organization then became the leading national voice for the dietary framework that told Americans to eat more vegetable oil.

And that brings us to the American diet as it actually exists in 2026…

Per-capita soybean oil consumption in the United States has increased approximately 1,000-fold since 1900.

Yes. You read that right. That is not a typo.

A thousand-fold.

It is the largest change in the composition of the American diet in recorded history, and most Americans have no idea it happened.

Now, the human body’s fat tissue can tell us a lot about what someone has been eating, to some degree.

A 2015 analysis of American adipose tissue samples found that the linoleic acid content of the fat tissue of the average American has approximately tripled since 1959.

That’s because Americans have been eating dramatically more polyunsaturated fat, primarily from industrial seed oils, than any human population in history.

At the same time, per-capita consumption of butter has fallen roughly 75% since 1900.

Consumption of lard has fallen even more dramatically.

Tallow and other animal fats have largely disappeared from home kitchens and restaurant fryers.

So why are seed oils everywhere?

The cottonseed oil story gives you a hint…

It’s largely because they're still cheap.

Most of the seed oils dominating the American food supply started as byproducts or leftovers of other industrial processes:

Cottonseed oil was the byproduct of the cotton industry

Corn oil was the leftover of the corn-starch and high-fructose corn syrup industries

Soybean oil was originally used for paint and machinery lubricant before it became food

The raw material was already produced at industrial scale for other reasons, which made the oil dirt cheap to source.

And dirt cheap is the reason it's the default fat in almost every packaged food, restaurant meal, and fast food kitchen in the country.

Thankfully, it’s getting easier to find seed-oil-free cooking fats and packaged foods…

Here is what to actually cook with:

Tallow, link here (rendered beef fat). What Americans cooked with before Crisco. Stable at high heat and rich in fat-soluble vitamins from grass-fed animals. It made American French fries famous before restaurants switched to seed oils in the 1990s.

Ghee and butter (grass-fed when possible). The traditional cooking fats of most of the world.

Lard (pastured pork fat). What Grandma cooked with.

Coconut oil. A traditional plant fat used in tropical cultures for thousands of years.

Olive oil (extra virgin, cold-pressed) for cold use, dressings, and low-heat cooking. Not a high-heat cooking oil, but excellent in its proper role.

Avocado oil (cold-pressed, quality-verified) for medium-heat cooking.

I obviously lean toward animal and dairy fats. But those last three can work if you focus on quality.

Avoid these:

Canola, soybean, corn, sunflower, safflower, cottonseed, grapeseed, rice bran

"Vegetable oil" as a generic label (usually soybean)

Margarine and shortening (Crisco and its descendants)

Anything labeled "hydrogenated" or "partially hydrogenated"

Read the labels on everything. Industrial seed oils are the base ingredient in most "healthy" packaged foods. Some examples:

Salad dressings

Mayo

Hummus

Roasted nuts

Granola

Protein bars

Bread

Crackers

The "heart-healthy" oat milk in the refrigerator case

Fast food

Almost every restaurant meal, even at expensive restaurants

Industrial seed oil is the default cooking fat of American food service because it is the cheapest available.

Real food is cooked in real fats.

So pay attention to the ingredients list rather than the front-of-package marketing.

If any of the oils in the "avoid" list appears in the first few ingredients, it is a seed oil product regardless of what the packaging says.

If tallow, butter, ghee, coconut oil, or extra virgin olive oil is the fat listed, that's a real food product.

Every previous generation of humans, in every previous culture, cooked with animal fats and traditional plant fats.

That was normal for our species for as long as our species has existed.

What Americans cook with in 2026 is not that.

It is the industrial byproduct of a textile industry, chemically processed by a soap company, promoted by a marketing campaign, and endorsed by an institution that soap company paid to build.

The path back is straightforward:

Read every label.

Question every fat on the shelf, and ask what it was before it was on the shelf.

Cook with what humans have cooked with for thousands of years.

The answer is often more revealing than the packaging suggests.


P.S. If this hit, forward it to someone who needs it. If it got forwarded to you — subscribe here so you don't miss the next one.]]></description>
      <enclosure url="https://podcast.carverupton.com/saladino/episodes/saladino-01M43SE467AM5TX5MJPZ8DTR1R-klaviyomail-com.mp3" length="5326676" type="audio/mpeg" />
      <itunes:duration>00:12:23</itunes:duration>
      <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>How I train (it&#x27;s less than you think)</title>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">&lt;01M3S5H9KV209D86SCFFG4KZAT@klaviyomail.com&gt;</guid>
      <pubDate>Wed, 30 Sep 2026 13:05:28 +0000</pubDate>
      <description><![CDATA[One quick favor once you read today's newsletter:​Forward this to a friend. Protocols stick when you have someone doing them with you. Sleep, training, food, all of it works better with an accountability buddy. Find yours. Let's get into it.


THE PROTOCOL

How I Train (And How Little You Need)

 

Somewhere along the way, fitness got confused with punishment.

If you're not wrecked, you didn't work hard enough. That's backwards, and it's why a lot of people are sore, tired, and not much fitter.

This is why I don't have a "workout" the way most people picture it. I have a day full of movement. And I'm outside for most of it.

First of all, I surf for a couple of hours, which is my main cardio and doesn't feel like exercise at all. I walk a lot, too.

In the morning (often after surfing) I do functional mobility work: Deep squats, Nordic curls, balance and lower-leg work, the stuff that keeps joints strong and durable.

I’ll add real resistance a few times a week as well.

That's the whole program.

No two-hour gym grind, chronic cardio, or punishing workouts.

Your body wants frequent, varied movement, not one brutal session that leaves you beat for two days.

Consistency beats intensity. A body that moves a little every day, with some hard efforts mixed in, will outperform one that gets smashed three times a week and sits still the rest of the time.

No need to move to Costa Rica and surf like I do.

Walk every day. Add short bursts of something harder. Do some resistance work a couple times a week to hold onto your muscle.

Train your joints, not just the muscles you see in the mirror.

That covers almost everything, and none of it requires wearing yourself down.

(Obviously this goes for general health and fitness, not for those training competitively for something.)

​⇒ Check out my full body workout to stay lean and healthy at age 48, link here


THE LAB

Resting Heart Rate

 

Resting heart rate is how many times your heart beats per minute when you're fully at rest.

It's a free read on your fitness and your recovery, off any watch or a finger on your wrist first thing in the morning.

Lower generally means fitter. A strong, well-conditioned heart pushes more blood with each beat, so it doesn't have to beat as often.

Most adults sit between 60 and 100. Fit people often run in the 50s or below, and as your base builds you'll usually watch this number drift down.

Once you know your normal morning number, a jump of 5-10 beats above it is your body telling you it's under-recovered from too much training, poor sleep, stress, or a cold coming on.

That's the day to back off, not push harder.

One catch:

Measure it the same way every time, first thing, before caffeine or before your feet even hit the floor. And your own baseline matters more than the textbook range.


THE SWAP

Long, Joyless Cardio → Walking + Short Bursts

 

If your idea of cardio is slogging on a treadmill for 45 minutes because you think you have to, stop.

Swap it for two things that work better and cost you less.

Walk, a lot, every day.

A couple times a week, do something genuinely hard for a short spell. Something like a sprint, hill, or a hard few minutes on a bike.

Long, moderate, joyless cardio is the least efficient way to train.

Daily walking builds your base without the wear (and can be great for enjoying nature, sunlight, and fresh air), and brief hard efforts give you the intensity that actually moves the needle.

More results, less time, none of the dread.


WHAT I'M READING

Scientific Advertising

 

I'm reading Scientific Advertising by Claude Hopkins.

It's a short one from 1923, and it's still the sharpest thing ever written on how to actually reach people.

I run companies, so it earns its keep on that level alone. Lots of great lessons about marketing, advertising, positioning your business/products, and so on.

But here’s another awesome nugget:

Hopkins refused to trust opinions, including his own. He tested everything and let the results decide, which meant killing ideas he loved the second the numbers said they didn't work.

I try to hold my own beliefs about health that loosely. Be willing to drop what you're sure of the moment the evidence says otherwise.

⇒ Get, link hereScientific Advertising here, link here


ONE QUESTION

Cardio or Lifting?

Both, and you don’t have to make it a war.

Resistance training builds and keeps muscle, and muscle is what protects you as you age. More muscle helps you maintain strength and a healthy metabolism, while reducing your risk of falls and other issues associated with aging.

Cardio, mostly the easy daily kind, builds your heart and your base.

Neither has to be a grind, though.

Lift a couple times a week, walk every day, add the occasional hard effort.

Exercise to live, don’t live to exercise (unless it’s a hobby of yours).

⇒ More on why cardio alone won’t help when it comes to weight loss/management, link here

That's it for this week.

I'm rooting for you,

Paul

SUNDAY NEWSLETTER

WANT MY SUNDAY EXPOSÉ NEWSLETTER TOO?

That's where I deep dive into one topic weekly, with
science-backed perspectives you won't find anywhere else.

SUBSCRIBE HERE, link here

 

[]]></description>
      <enclosure url="https://podcast.carverupton.com/saladino/episodes/saladino-01M3S5H9KV209D86SCFFG4KZAT-klaviyomail-com.mp3" length="2309108" type="audio/mpeg" />
      <itunes:duration>00:05:31</itunes:duration>
      <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>How America made real milk almost illegal</title>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">&lt;01M3HRNAHHB301CCG8C5MPR6N2@klaviyomail.com&gt;</guid>
      <pubDate>Sun, 27 Sep 2026 16:04:43 +0000</pubDate>
      <description><![CDATA[SUN • SEPTEMBER 27, 2026

ISSUE #20· THE SUNDAY EXPOSÉ

How America Made Real Milk Almost Illegal

Raw milk was a staple human food for ten thousand years. In one generation, the United States made it functionally illegal across most state lines. The historical story is more interesting than "the government is corrupt," and it changes how to think about what's in your grocery store.

Before we get into it...

Every Sunday, I show you what's broken. Every Wednesday, in Paul's Protocol, I show you what I actually do about it.

Each issue shows you one protocol I'm running, one lab number to know, and one swap to make. Short, actionable, 3-minute reads.

Click here to get Paul’s Protocols every Wednesday., link here

(If you land on my homepage after clicking that, you're in. Nothing else needed from you.)

Raw milk has been a staple human food for approximately ten thousand years.

If you drank milk, you drank it raw. There was no other option.

In roughly 60 years, from about 1909-1987, the United States functionally illegalized raw milk across most state lines. Federal law has officially banned the interstate sale of raw milk since 1987.

Twenty US states currently prohibit even in-state raw milk sales, and 30 allow them under varying restrictions.

Depending on where you live, the milk your great-grandparents drank as a matter of course is either a specialty food you have to find through a farmer, a legal gray area you have to navigate around, or illegal.

Most Americans have no idea any of this happened, or why…

Or that during the same period, there was a proven alternative to pasteurization that made raw milk demonstrably safe and got regulated out of existence anyway.

Let’s start at the end of the 1800s, because that's when the story gets going…

Urban America was in the middle of a real public health crisis.

The industrial dairies feeding the growing cities were producing what everyone at the time called "swill milk."

Cows were kept in filthy conditions attached to distilleries, fed the mash left over from whiskey production, and milked into open buckets by workers who often had tuberculosis.

Milk arrived at consumers days later, unrefrigerated, often deliberately watered down or bulked up with flour, chalk, or plaster.

Infant mortality in American cities was over 200 deaths per 1,000 births. Contaminated milk was one of the leading causes.

Two parallel solutions emerged, backed by two very different men.

Dr. Henry Coit of Newark, New Jersey, was a pediatrician who lost his own infant son to milk-borne typhoid in 1891.

Two years later, in 1893, he founded the Essex County Medical Milk Commission, the first of its kind.

Coit's approach was source control:

Instead of killing pathogens after the fact, prevent them from getting into the milk in the first place.

His commission set standards for dairy sanitation, required veterinary inspection of every animal, mandated bacteriological testing, and enforced refrigeration protocols.

Dairies that met the standards could sell their raw milk as "Certified Milk," a category the medical community itself supervised.

The model worked.

By 1906, Medical Milk Commissions existed in cities across the country and federated into the American Association of Medical Milk Commissions.

The Walker-Gordon Certified Milk Laboratory, founded in Boston in 1891 by Harvard's first professor of pediatrics, eventually operated in twenty US cities plus London.

Certified Milk was fed to hospitalized infants and consumed by upper-middle-class families who could afford it.

Its safety record was excellent, and it demonstrated that safe raw milk was not only possible but reproducible at commercial scale.

The other solution came from Nathan Straus, the Macy's department store magnate, who dedicated three decades of his life and personal fortune to promoting pasteurization…

Straus opened his first pasteurized milk depot in New York in 1893 (the same year Coit founded his commission).

He then spent the next 30 years lobbying, funding, and campaigning for mandatory pasteurization laws in city after city.

His approach was industrial:

Heat the milk, kill the pathogens, and sell it cheap.

Both movements reduced infant mortality…

But Certified Milk cost 2-4 times what ordinary milk cost. It required intensive veterinary oversight and testing. Small dairies could produce it, but industrial dairies could not.

Pasteurized milk, by contrast, could be produced at industrial volume from ordinary herds, tested for pathogens after processing, and sold for pennies more than raw milk from swill dairies.

Chicago became the first American city to mandate pasteurization in 1909.

New York followed in 1914.

In 1924, the US Public Health Service introduced the Standard Milk Ordinance (now called the Pasteurized Milk Ordinance, or PMO), a model code that positioned pasteurization as the default regulatory posture for the whole country.

Michigan became the first state to mandate pasteurization in 1947.

Every other state followed over the next several decades.

Certified Milk died because the regulation was written for industrial-scale problems and the industrial dairies won the regulatory fight.

By the 1950s, most Medical Milk Commissions had disbanded.

In 1973, the FDA proposed requiring all interstate-shipped milk to be pasteurized. Certified Milk producers objected and got a temporary exemption. In 1987, the FDA finalized the rule, ending that exemption too.

You cannot buy Certified Milk anywhere in America today. The category effectively no longer exists.

So now, let’s talk about raw milk safety and risk…

Raw milk does cause more foodborne illness outbreaks per unit of consumption than pasteurized milk.

Stick with me for a second here.

A widely cited 2012 CDC study found that raw dairy products cause outbreak-related illness at roughly 150 times the rate of pasteurized products per unit.

A 2017 study by Costard and colleagues, published in the CDC's own journal Emerging Infectious Diseases, refined the number to 840 times per billion servings.

We hear those numbers all the time…

But what about the per-consumer picture?

The same Costard 2017 dataset shows approximately 761 outbreak-related illnesses per year attributed to raw milk in the United States.

761 divided by the 10-15 million American raw milk drinkers equals a per-consumer annual illness rate of about 0.007%, or roughly one in 14,250 consumers.

For comparison, per-consumer annual illness rates for leafy greens run around 0.69%, chicken around 0.3%, and raw oysters around 1.5%.

All of them are substantially higher than raw milk.

CDC data from 2005 to 2020 documents 162 raw milk outbreaks producing 1,696 illnesses, 170 hospitalizations, and 2 deaths over sixteen years.

Pasteurized milk produced 18 outbreaks but 2,111 illnesses, 32 hospitalizations, and 4 deaths (fewer outbreaks, but each outbreak was much larger) in the same period.

Leafy greens produced 16,434 illnesses and 23 deaths.

So raw milk is riskier per unit than pasteurized milk, but dramatically safer than several foods almost everyone eats regularly without a second thought.

Risk is producer-dependent, too. Outbreaks cluster around specific operations with specific sanitation failures.

Small grass-fed operations with rigorous testing protocols have safety records comparable to or better than pasteurized dairy.

"Raw milk" spans everything from an unmarked jug filled at a filthy operation to Certified-standard milk from a tested small herd.

Lumping them together tells you almost nothing about what's in the specific bottle you might buy.

So we have to ask what we lose when pasteurization is the default…

Pasteurization heats milk to at least 145°F for 30 minutes, or 161°F for 15 seconds, to kill pathogens.

It is then quickly cooled. But that heat still:

Denatures enzymes (lactase, phosphatase, lipase) that raw (but not pasteurized) milk contains.

Reduces vitamin C, folate, and some B vitamins

Denatures whey proteins in ways that change how the body responds to them

Kills the naturally occurring probiotic bacteria that populate raw milk from healthy animals

Ultra-pasteurization (what they do to most organic milk in American grocery stores) heats milk to 280°F.

That is dramatically more destructive than standard pasteurization.

Homogenization is a separate process that mechanically breaks up the fat globules, changing how the body absorbs the milk.

Most grocery store milk is also from grain-fed cattle raised in confinement, which produces a fundamentally different nutritional profile than milk from grass-fed cattle on pasture.

What arrives in the average American refrigerator is four levels of processing removed from the food that "milk" originally referred to.

So you cannot buy real milk in most American grocery stores.

But you can find it if you want to…

Start with RealMilk.com, link here, which maintains a state-by-state map of what's legal where.

If your state permits on-farm sales or retail sales, you can buy directly.

If your state only permits herdshares, you can join one. This typically means paying a modest boarding fee for legal partial ownership of a cow whose milk you then receive.

What to look for in a producer:

Grass-fed and grass-finished, ideally on rotational pasture. This is the single biggest determinant of nutritional quality and pathogen risk.

Small herd size, typically under 100 cows and often much smaller. Small operations can maintain sanitation standards that make raw milk safe.

Low somatic cell count, a standard marker of udder health. A good producer will share their numbers on request.

Regular pathogen testing for the milk and the animals. Ask what they test for and how often.

A farm you can visit. Transparency is the most important safety guarantee. If you can walk into the milking parlor, you can see whether the conditions are what you'd want. If you can't, you're taking someone's word for it.

There’s also A2/A2 protein status. Most modern dairy cattle produce a mix of A1 and A2 beta-casein proteins. Some people who react to conventional dairy tolerate A2/A2 milk well. Ancient dairy breeds (Jersey, Guernsey, and some heritage lines) are more likely to be A2/A2. Not required, but useful information.

If raw milk isn't legal or accessible where you live, low-temperature (vat-pasteurized) organic grass-fed milk from a small operation could work.

Not the same food, but dramatically closer than ultra-pasteurized homogenized supermarket milk.

Real milk was food for ten thousand years.

Regulations around it aimed to solve a specific problem that specific dairies caused a century ago.

No one ever updated these for the modern food system.

There was a proven alternative that solved the same problem differently, and it lost the regulatory fight to industrial scale, not to better science.

None of that makes pasteurization evil.

It made sense in 1920, the midst of mass industrialization and urbanization (and the sanitation issues this can cause).

It doesn't make sense to treat it as a moral baseline in 2026 when small-scale grass-fed producers exist who can solve the safety problem the way Coit's dairies did over a century ago.

The choice should be yours.


P.S. If this hit, forward it to someone who needs it. If it got forwarded to you — subscribe here so you don't miss the next one.]]></description>
      <enclosure url="https://podcast.carverupton.com/saladino/episodes/saladino-01M3HRNAHHB301CCG8C5MPR6N2-klaviyomail-com.mp3" length="5436740" type="audio/mpeg" />
      <itunes:duration>00:12:27</itunes:duration>
      <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>How I clean my tap water at home</title>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">&lt;01M374RK4HMK4JNKGJ0KSPBRXG@klaviyomail.com&gt;</guid>
      <pubDate>Wed, 23 Sep 2026 13:03:36 +0000</pubDate>
      <description><![CDATA[One quick favor once you read today's newsletter:​Forward this to a friend. Protocols stick when you have someone doing them with you. Sleep, training, food, all of it works better with an accountability buddy. Find yours. Let's get into it.


THE PROTOCOL

How I Get Clean Water At Home

 

The EPA just announced it's launching a new study to screen tap water for more than a thousand possible contaminants, from PFAS to pharmaceuticals.

I'm not waiting on the results. I already do a few things at my own house to take the question off the table.

It all comes down to one thing:

Take all the bad out.

I do that with a reverse osmosis filter on my sink.

Reverse osmosis pushes water through a membrane so fine that almost nothing else gets through:

Fluoride, chlorine, lead, arsenic, uranium, most of what you don't want.

Mine gets the water down to about 13 parts per million, which is close to nothing.

A fridge filter or a basic pitcher doesn't come close. If you want water that's actually clean, reverse osmosis is the standard.

There’s an optional step two, though…

Remineralization.

Reverse osmosis is thorough enough that it strips the good minerals out along with the bad stuff, so you're left with water that's clean but a little empty.

I’m personally not too worried about this. An animal-based diet gives you plenty of that.

But there’s nothing wrong with doing it, especially if it gives you some extra peace of mind.

So if you’re interested, you can add a pinch of a clean, heavy-metal-tested sea salt back in to restore those trace minerals.

Ultimately, getting the junk out matters most.

⇒ Here’s more of my thoughts on household water, link here


THE LAB

Blood Lead

 

Everything a good filter pulls out, lead, arsenic, uranium, you can also measure in your own body.

Blood lead is the standard test, and I say this because there's no safe level of lead.

Yet it builds up over years, and the damage is done long before you'd feel a thing.

The CDC's reference value is 3.5 micrograms per deciliter, but "reference" doesn't mean "safe." You want this as close to zero as you can get.

If your number is creeping up, you want to find out why ASAP.

One catch:

Blood lead is your total exposure, not a water readout.

Old paint and household dust are common sources, and most lead in tap water comes from aging pipes rather than the source water itself.

So a high result means look at everything, not just the water itself.


THE SWAP

Plastic Bottles→ Glass and Stainless Steel

 

Filtering your water does you no good if you pour it straight into plastic.

Plastic bottles shed microplastics into whatever's inside them, more so when they've been sitting in heat or getting reused.

That goes for disposable and refillable bottles.

So switch the container.

I keep my water and drinks in glass at home, and carry them in stainless steel. No plastic bottles anywhere.

And if you're buying cases of bottled water, this is a double win.

Most of it is just filtered tap anyway, so you're paying a premium to drink plastic-tinged water you could make cleaner and cheaper at your own sink.


WHAT I'M READING

Benjamin Franklin: An American Life

 

We all know Ben Franklin was an American Founding Father.

But set that aspect of him aside for a second.

What gets me is that Franklin was the original self-experimenter.

Printer, inventor, scientist, all self-taught, and he got there by trying things himself and watching what happened instead of simply accepting the scientific authorities of the day.

That's how I approach my own health. Many of these protocols and other things I do are n=1 experiments, to some degree.

Test it on yourself, measure, and don't let the experts have the last word.

⇒ Get Benjamin Franklin: An American Life here, link here


ONE QUESTION

Is Fluoride Actually a Problem?

For years, questioning fluoride got you labeled a crank.

That's changed.

In 2024, a federal judge ordered the EPA to act on fluoride, citing evidence that higher exposure is linked to lower IQ in children.

A major government toxicology review pointed the same direction.

More recently, the EPA is now running an accelerated review of fluoride's health risks.

So this is no longer a fringe position.

Public health agencies still support fluoride in water at the recommended level to prevent cavities, yes, so this isn’t 100% solved yet.

But who says you have to therefore use fluoridated water anyway?

While the experts sort out how much is too much, I'd rather not drink it in the meantime.

If you have the means, it makes perfect sense to equip your home with a way to filter that out.

That's it for this week.

I'm rooting for you,

Paul

SUNDAY NEWSLETTER

WANT MY SUNDAY EXPOSÉ NEWSLETTER TOO?

That's where I deep dive into one topic weekly, with
science-backed perspectives you won't find anywhere else.

SUBSCRIBE HERE, link here

 

[]]></description>
      <enclosure url="https://podcast.carverupton.com/saladino/episodes/saladino-01M374RK4HMK4JNKGJ0KSPBRXG-klaviyomail-com.mp3" length="2193452" type="audio/mpeg" />
      <itunes:duration>00:05:09</itunes:duration>
      <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Why you randomly wake up at 3 AM</title>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">&lt;01M2ZQW3HSY5Z0R6BXGBH4G8HP@klaviyomail.com&gt;</guid>
      <pubDate>Sun, 20 Sep 2026 16:01:53 +0000</pubDate>
      <description><![CDATA[SUN • SEPTEMBER 20, 2026

ISSUE #19 · THE SUNDAY EXPOSÉ

The Real Reason You Wake Up at 3 AM

Millions of Americans wake between 2 and 4 AM every night with a racing heart and an alert mind. The medical system reaches for sleep aids. The actual problem is metabolic, and it responds to food.

Before we get into it...

Every Sunday, I show you what's broken. Every Wednesday, in Paul's Protocol, I show you what I actually do about it.

Each issue shows you one protocol I'm running, one lab number to know, and one swap to make. Short, actionable, 3-minute reads.

Click here to get Paul’s Protocols every Wednesday., link here

(If you land on my homepage after clicking that, you're in. Nothing else needed from you.)

You go to bed at 10:30 PM and fall asleep quickly.

Hours later sometime between 2 and 4 AM, you snap awake.

Your heart’s racing. Your brain is on high alert. Your body is, for some reason, primed for action.

Sometimes it’s a hot flash, or sweating, or a nightmare… or even an inexplicable sense of anxiety with no thought attached to it.

You lie there for an hour, locked in a staring contest with your ceiling, trying to fall back asleep.

Around 4:30 or 5, you finally drift off…

Just for the alarm to go off at 6:30. Now you’re wiped out and have a long day ahead.

If this describes any percentage of your week, it’s not experiencing anxiety, insomnia in the psychiatric sense, or stress you can't identify.

There’s a good chance it's metabolic.

Yet the medical system often prescribes a sleep aid, a benzodiazepine, or trazodone. None of those address the underlying issue, but do make you wake up groggier.

The 3 AM wake-up is one of the most misdiagnosed conditions in modern American medicine. And the fix is almost entirely about what you eat and when.

Before we discuss the fix, here is what is actually happening…

Blood glucose normally sits between 70 and 140 milligrams per deciliter during the day, dropping toward the lower end of that range during overnight fasting.

Somewhere between 3 and 6 hours after your last meal, glucose can dip below approximately 70 mg/dL. When it does, your body activates an emergency response called the counter-regulatory hormone cascade.

The pancreas reduces insulin output, while glucagon signals the liver to convert stored glycogen into glucose.

Furthermore, the adrenal glands release adrenaline (epinephrine) and cortisol.

Adrenaline mobilizes stored energy quickly. Cortisol does the same job more slowly and stimulates gluconeogenesis, the liver's process of making new glucose.

Together, these hormones raise your blood sugar back to safety. Your metabolism has done its job.

But you can see the problem.

Adrenaline raises heart rate, increases blood pressure, induces sweating, and produces the physical sensation of anxiety.

Cortisol activates the brain and interrupts sleep architecture.

So while your metabolism rescues your blood sugar, your body produces a hormonal signature nearly identical to a fight-or-flight response.

Therefore, you wake up to a racing heart, anxiety, and even dread… but there’s no reason for it.​

The dawn phenomenon (the natural rise in cortisol, growth hormone, and catecholamines starting around 3 to 5 AM to prepare your body for morning) further amplifies this window.

If your glucose regulation is stable, you sleep through the pre-dawn hormonal shift. If it isn't, that shift pushes you the rest of the way awake.

This is a documented physiological response, well-established in the medical literature, and it happens in people without diabetes just as it happens in people with it.

So what causes the drop in the first place?

Modern American dietary patterns are exceptionally good at producing exactly this problem.

High-refined-carbohydrate dinners spike insulin, drive glucose up sharply, then drive it down sharply several hours later. Pasta, bread, pizza, rice bowls, sugar-heavy desserts, and sweet cocktails are all reliable ways to guarantee a 3 AM wake-up. The higher the insulin response at dinner, the deeper the glucose crash six hours later.

Alcohol is one of the biggest drivers. It enhances GABA activity in the brain, which is why it works as a sedative. You fall asleep faster, but you’re “sedated” somewhat. As your liver metabolizes the alcohol (typically 3-4 hours later, exactly aligned with the middle of the night), several things happen.

GABA activity drops off, and glutamate rebounds. Blood sugar drops because alcohol suppresses gluconeogenesis, and the liver prioritizes alcohol metabolism over glucose regulation. REM sleep, suppressed in the first half of the night, rebounds hard in the second half. Cortisol rises sharply, too.

Hence your 3 AM wake-up that feels particularly rough. This is the "hangover in the middle of the night," and it happens after two drinks, not just after five.

A 2018 study of Finnish workers using continuous heart-rate monitoring found that even "low" alcohol intake (less than one drink) reduced physiological sleep recovery by 9.3%. Moderate intake (one to two drinks) reduced it by 24%. High intake (three or more) reduced it by 39%.

Late eating followed by long overnight fasting windows creates a related problem. If you eat dinner at 6 PM, your glucose curve largely returns to baseline by bedtime, and you have 8 to 10 hours before your next meal. If your last meal is mostly carbs, you set yourself up for a midnight glucose crash.

Insufficient protein and fat at dinner removes the buffer. Protein and fat slow gastric emptying andthe glucose curve, providing steadier fuel through the night. A carb-heavy dinner without meaningful protein and fat leaves you exposed to the drop.

Chronic sleep debt magnifies all this by making cortisol regulation less stable. The less you've slept the previous week, the worse the 3 AM cascade tends to be. A vicious cycle forms.

I trained in psychiatry. The clinical intake for patients presenting with 3 AM wake-ups was almost entirely about mood, stress, work, and relationships.

Dietary questions came up rarely, and when they did, it was usually about caffeine.

If the wake-up pattern persisted, the standard clinical move was to prescribe medication such as:

Trazodone

Ambien

Benzodiazepines

Sometimes SSRIs

All off the theory that the underlying issue was mood-driven.

Almost never did anyone in that room ask about dinner, about alcohol, about the timing and composition of the last meal.

This partly shaped how I think about food as the intervention conventional medicine misses.

The patient in front of me at 8 AM describing a nightly 3 AM wake-up wasn't necessarily depressed. Looking deeper, metabolic dysregulation could have been the culprit.

Makes sense, given the gut-brain connection.

I do want to make some caveats, though…

Some 3 AM wake-ups are not metabolic.

If dietary changes don't move the needle within four to six weeks, or if you have specific symptoms that suggest something else, get evaluated.

Sleep apnea is common and often undiagnosed, particularly in men, people who snore, and people who wake with dry mouth or morning headaches.

Perimenopause and menopause produce their own 3 AM wake-up pattern driven by estrogen and progesterone fluctuations, sometimes with hot flashes attached.

Thyroid dysfunction (particularly hyperthyroidism) can drive middle-of-the-night waking.

Chronic HPA-axis dysregulation from years of unmanaged stress is real.

Persistent mood or anxiety symptoms may need clinical attention on their own terms.

Each of these warrants an evaluation if the food-first approach doesn’t resolve the pattern.

But dietary/scheduling changes are a good starting place, if for nothing else than to eliminate it as a potential variable…

Here's what to do.

Eat protein and fat at dinner, not just carbs. Aim for 30-40 grams of protein and meaningful fat as part of your last meal. Ruminant meat, eggs, dairy, fish. The protein and fat slow the glucose curve and provide steadier overnight fuel. This alone resolves the pattern for many people.

Reduce refined carbs at dinner. Sugar, refined flour, most processed grains. If you eat carbs at dinner, prioritize whole-food sources (potatoes, rice, fruit) alongside protein and fat. The steeper the insulin spike at dinner, the deeper the crash at 3 AM.

But don’t cut carbs entirely, especially if you’re lean and healthy. Your liver stores glycogen to feed your brain glucose during sleep. That can run low on a very-low or zero-carb diet, and your body has to work harder (cortisol) to make it from scratch. Some who cut carbs entirely to "fix" their sleep make the 3 AM wake-up worse. A small amount of easily-accessible, real-food carbs (a spoonful of raw honey, link here or a piece of fruit) can stabilize overnight glucose. Don't have it right before bed, but somewhere in your evening eating window.

Stop drinking alcohol within 3-4 hours of sleep. If you drink, drink earlier in the evening and stop at least 3 hours before bed. Better yet, drink with food during dinner rather than as a nightcap. For anyone with a persistent 3 AM wake-up pattern, cutting alcohol for two weeks is one of the highest-value experiments you can run.

If you drink, drink simple and sugar-free. Sweet cocktails, sugary mixers, and dessert-style drinks stack a glucose crash on top of the alcohol, doubling the mechanism driving the wake-up. Beer, cider, and sweeter wines carry meaningful residual carbs too. The best options are a spirit over ice, a spirit with soda water, or a dry wine with food.

Extend the evening eating window. Try to finish eating at least 2 to 3 hours before sleep. Late eating drives insulin, cortisol, and blood sugar in ways that disrupt overnight regulation.

Don't rely on midnight snacking as a permanent fix. Some, particularly women in perimenopause, benefit from a small protein and fat snack (like a spoonful of nut butter or a few bites of cheese) if the 3 AM wake-up happens. However, it's a workaround. The goal is to fix dinner so the snack becomes unnecessary.

Consider testing if dietary changes don't resolve things. Fasting insulin, morning cortisol, thyroid panel, and a sleep study for anyone with snoring or other apnea signs. Ask your doctor about these.

Do not take sleep aids as a long-term solution. They may buy you a few nights when you genuinely need them. As a permanent fix, they leave the underlying metabolic dysregulation entirely in place, and the dependency can become its own problem.

Melatonin is not the answer. Melatonin signals darkness to your brain. Supplemental melatonin, therefore, is a legitimate tool for shifting your circadian rhythm in acute situations (jet lag, shift work, adjusting your bedtime by 1-2 hours), but it doesn't fix the cortisol-driven glucose rescue waking you up. If you use it nightly for months to try to stay asleep, you're treating the wrong system.

When your metabolism is fed correctly, sleep organizes itself.

When it isn't, no amount of sleep hygiene, blackout curtains, magnesium, or prescription medication will fully compensate.

The 3 AM wake-up is your body asking for a different dinner.

Feed it what it needs, and it will hold you through the night.


P.S. If this hit, forward it to someone who needs it. If it got forwarded to you — subscribe here so you don't miss the next one.]]></description>
      <enclosure url="https://podcast.carverupton.com/saladino/episodes/saladino-01M2ZQW3HSY5Z0R6BXGBH4G8HP-klaviyomail-com.mp3" length="5186660" type="audio/mpeg" />
      <itunes:duration>00:12:13</itunes:duration>
      <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Why I don’t drink coffee</title>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">&lt;d4GYiT0HQr-I-VV-Kgm6_A@geopod-ismtpd-57&gt;</guid>
      <pubDate>Wed, 16 Sep 2026 13:06:28 +0000</pubDate>
      <description><![CDATA[One quick favor once you read today's newsletter:​Forward this to a friend. Protocols stick when you have someone doing them with you. Sleep, training, food, all of it works better with an accountability buddy. Find yours. Let's get into it.


THE PROTOCOL

My Morning Routine For Getting Energy Without Caffeine

 

Summer vacations are over, work is getting busier for a lot of people, and kids are back in school.

Soon enough, mornings will get cold enough so that a hot cup of joe becomes the best part of waking up.

But caffeine doesn’t give you energy, biochemically speaking.

It blocks a molecule called adenosine, which builds up through the day and makes you feel tired, from binding with adenosine receptors.

When the caffeine wears off, all that adenosine hits at once… hence, why you crash (and reach for that next cup).

So instead of muting my tiredness signal, I go after the root causes of low energy to feel good all day long.

First, I sleep and wake at the same time every night.

This trains my circadian rhythm to operate as smoothly as possible.

My body gets used to sleeping and waking at these times, which can make it easier to fall and stay asleep and then wake up in the morning.

I make sure my room is cold and fully dark, with 0 screen time several hours beforehand.

As for my wake time, I wake up with the sun, just as our ancestors did.

Which brings us to the next step…

I get morning sunlight in my eyes as soon as possible.

I don’t stare at the sun, obviously, but I avoid sunglasses on purpose.

That sunlight reaching your eyes reinforces your internal clock and tells your body it’s day time.

And while I’m out there…

I move my body early on.

Starts with some barefoot walking and grounding since I’m outside for that first bout of sunlight.

Soon after, I hit the waves and surf for 2-2.5 hours.

You don’t have to live in Costa Rica or surf, though. 10 minutes of walking in the morning sun and fresh air will do you wonders.

Finally…

What I eat:

Often, I’ll have water + creatine + a bit of raw honey before I head out to surf. Gives me hydration and a healthy source of sugars for my AM activity.

I eat my first real meal mid-morning, after the surfing:

Meat, eggs, fresh fruit, and raw honey. That’s how I get steady energy and avoid big-time crashes.

In short:

A regular sleep schedule

Sunlight

Movement

Animal-based breakfast

⇒ Check out my full morning routine for amazing energy and focus, link here


THE LAB

Morning Cortisol

 

Cortisol is your body's "get up and go" hormone. It spikes in the morning to wake you up and get you moving.

So unlike what some online communities say, not all cortisol is bad. You want a strong morning peak.

The problem is when it runs high all the time.

Chronically elevated cortisol is your body stuck in low-grade stress mode, and it shows up as anxiety, poor sleep, and that tired-but-wired feeling.

Caffeine raises cortisol, especially on an empty stomach, which is why coffee can leave some people jittery and anxious rather than calm and alert.

If you get it checked, morning is the only time the number means much. Standard labs call 6 to 23 mcg/dL normal, and a healthy morning level sits in the upper-middle of that.

The catch: a single reading is noisy and depends heavily on timing and how your morning went, so it's a snapshot, not a verdict.


THE SWAP

Coffee → Near-Zero-Caffeine Tea

 

When I stopped coffee, I swapped in a tea with almost no caffeine (a fruit tea, blueberry and açai).

It keeps the ritual and allows you to enjoy that warm cup in your hands to start the day…

Without the “borrowing-against-tomorrow” part.

What’s nice is the lower caffeine content makes it easier to enjoy a cup later in the day without messing with your sleep schedule.

Still, I avoid caffeine several hours before bed, and all liquids a couple hours before to minimize nighttime bathroom trips.

Be careful, though. Many tea bags release tons of microplastics when you’re brewing your tea.

⇒ Learn how I make tea without all the microplastics, link here


WHAT I'M READING

Shoe Dog

 

I'm still reading Shoe Dog, Phil Knight's memoir about starting Nike.

Everyone with authority told him no. The banks, the experts, all of them.

He built it anyway, out of a conviction he couldn't shake.

I can relate.

I walked away from a system that had all the credentials and none of the answers to build something on what I actually believed instead.

Along the way, people kept telling me my ideas are silly and/or that my businesses would never pan out.

Worth the read if anyone has ever called your idea crazy.

⇒ Grab Shoe Dog here, link here


ONE QUESTION

Is Coffee Actually Bad For You?

Honestly? For many, no.

Plenty of studies link coffee to lower risk of several diseases, believe it or not. If you're thriving on it, keep drinking it. I mean that.

If you need coffee to function, however, something upstream (sleep, food, stress) may be off. The coffee is covering for that issue instead of fixing it.

Remember: Your body doesn’t need caffeine to survive. Your body runs fine without it. It can be a great add-on, and it’s not necessarily terrible if you drink it daily…

But don't let it hide a problem you'd be better off actually solving.

⇒ Here are some ways to mitigate coffee’s side effects if you still enjoy it, link here

That's it for this week.

I'm rooting for you,

Paul

SUNDAY NEWSLETTER

WANT MY SUNDAY EXPOSÉ NEWSLETTER TOO?

That's where I deep dive into one topic weekly, with
science-backed perspectives you won't find anywhere else.

SUBSCRIBE HERE, link here

 

[]]></description>
      <enclosure url="https://podcast.carverupton.com/saladino/episodes/saladino-d4GYiT0HQr-I-VV-Kgm6_A-geopod-ismtpd-57.mp3" length="2535404" type="audio/mpeg" />
      <itunes:duration>00:06:02</itunes:duration>
      <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Why Americans throw away half the animal</title>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">&lt;01M2DQ2JCV938X3YT6GNP47YBR@klaviyomail.com&gt;</guid>
      <pubDate>Sun, 13 Sep 2026 16:05:16 +0000</pubDate>
      <description><![CDATA[SUN • SEPTEMBER 13, 2026

ISSUE #18 · THE SUNDAY EXPOSÉ

Why Almost No American Has Eaten a Kidney

In two generations, organ meat consumption in the United States dropped by 80 to 90 percent, and the most nutrient-dense foods humans have access to disappeared from the plate. Here's why.

Before we get into it...

Every Sunday, I show you what's broken. Every Wednesday, in Paul's Protocol, I show you what I actually do about it.

Each issue shows you one protocol I'm running, one lab number to know, and one swap to make. Short, actionable, 3-minute reads.

Click here to get Paul’s Protocols every Wednesday., link here

(If you land on my homepage after clicking that, you're in. Nothing else needed from you.)

For most of human history, kidney was prized food.

It appeared regularly on English, French, and Central European tables.

It was a Sunday dish across large parts of the Middle East and Asia.

It was one of the cuts a hunter's family reached for first, because on a fresh kill, the organ meats spoiled fastest and carried the highest nutrient value per pound.

Yet today, kidney is something most Americans have never touched. Same story for heart, liver, spleen, sweetbreads, tripe, and marrow.

In other words…

Roughly half of the animal has quietly disappeared from the American plate over the last two generations.

But why? Why would the food system phase out the most nutrient-dense foods on the planet?

Peoples’ tastes didn’t change naturally over time. A lot of factors that appeared in the 20th century came together to shove organs off American plates and into the trash can.

First, let’s rewind to premodern food systems to show what they thought of organs…

Before refrigeration, if you butchered a cow, you had to use all of it quickly or lose the value of what you'd raised.

Organs spoiled first specifically because of their nutrient density (fuel for bacterial growth), but also because:

They have higher water content (creates ideal conditions for bacterial growth)

They have higher enzymatic activity (gives bacteria substrates to feed on)

And so people ate the organs first.

Meanwhile, muscle meat could be salted, smoked, or preserved for longer.

Every traditional food culture developed dishes around organs as a result:

Steak and kidney pie

Liver and onions

Blood sausage

Menudo

Haggis

Sweetbreads with brown butter

Marrow bones served with toast

Tripe soups from Mexico to Vietnam

Organs were considered an elevated cuisine rather than “peasant food.” In many cases, they were served at holiday celebrations.

Then the mid-20th century happened…

Industrial slaughterhouses restructured the economics of meat.

When one facility processed thousands of animals a week, the incentive was to identify the highest-margin cuts (muscle meat) and sell everything else at the lowest possible price, often for export or industrial use.

Meanwhile, advancements in American cold chain infrastructure (refrigerated trucks, refrigerated warehouses, and freezers in every home) meant American consumers no longer needed to buy or process whole animals.

You could buy just the cut you wanted, and it wouldn’t spoil.

In theory, that means organs become even more prized because you can preserve them for longer.

But postwar affluence really kneecapped organs here.

Organ meats became associated with things like poverty and the war years. People started to think of it as “poor folks’ food”. Marketing pushed steaks and boneless chicken breasts as aspirational.

The kids of the generation that ate liver every Wednesday grew up thinking of it as embarrassing food.

By 1970, most American children had never seen an organ on a family dinner table.

The precise historical data on organ meat consumption is limited (USDA never tracked offal-specific intake with the same rigor as major muscle-meat categories), but the change is well documented:

Estimates from multiple sources put the decline in the United States at 80 to 90 percent between the 1940s and the 1970s.

Consumption has stayed at the low level ever since.

What we lost with those foods is measurable in nutrient terms, and the loss is not small…

Just look at what the more well-known organ means have to offer:

Liver is the most nutrient-dense food humans have access to. One serving of beef liver provides nearly 30 times the daily vitamin B12 requirement, over 7 times the daily retinol requirement (the animal form of vitamin A that the body uses directly), and significant amounts of copper, folate, choline, and iron. Muscle meat is a good protein source. Liver is a functional multivitamin. No plant food matches it.

Heart is the richest known dietary source of coenzyme Q10, at ~11 milligrams per 100 grams (roughly 3-4 times what you'd get from an equal weight of muscle meat). CoQ10 is a molecule mitochondria use to produce ATP, and the heart tissue is loaded with it because it never stops working in a living animal. Heart also delivers concentrated taurine, L-carnitine, and B vitamins. It tastes and cooks more like muscle meat than any other organ, so it's a natural first stop for anyone aiming to eat this way.

Kidney provides among the highest natural selenium and vitamin B12 concentrations in the food supply (one serving delivers well over the daily requirement for both). It carries a full day's intake of riboflavin, too. Oh, and it is one of the only meaningful dietary sources of diamine oxidase, the enzyme your gut uses to break down histamine from food. For anyone with histamine sensitivity, or interested in supporting the systems that clear it, look at kidney.

I eat these three regularly. They are part of the foundation of how I've eaten for years, and along with the broader shift to real animal-based food…

They were part of how I cleared my own eczema after a decade of it not responding to anything the medical system offered me.

But they’re not the only three…

Here are a few other overlooked organ meats I highly suggest you look into:

Spleen delivers heme iron at concentrations nothing else in the food supply matches. If you or anyone in your family struggles with iron status, look into spleen. It is also a food for building blood in Traditional Chinese Medicine, which developed the same practical wisdom empirically over centuries.

Sweetbreads (thymus and pancreas) were historically the "chef's cut" in European cuisine (especially French) and still command premium prices at upscale restaurants. They contain unique polypeptides and hormones muscle meat lacks. They also have one of the mildest flavors of any organ, which is why they were the entry point for organ eating in French cooking.

Tongue is high-quality protein and fat, with a rich flavor and a texture closer to slow-cooked brisket than to what most people imagine when they hear "organ meat." It is culturally accessible in a huge portion of world cuisine (Mexican, Jewish, Korean, and countless others), which makes it one of the easier organs to try if you're new to this and want to start with something familiar.

Brain and testicles are also eaten globally and carry distinct nutrient profiles. Brain is dense in DHA and cholesterol (which a fetus or infant’s developing brain uses to build itself). Testicles are high in specific hormones and amino acid profiles.

See?

A small amount of organ meats delivers a wide spectrum of nutrients to your body. Much more per serving than muscle meat.

Of course, I understand if you’re a bit hesitant to try something like brain or spleen. Even something milder like sweetbreads can sound odd and be hard to get right.

The good news is you don’t have to eat all of these at once or at all…

Here's how to actually start.

Start with heart. It's the easiest cultural on-ramp. Cook it like a steak or grind it into your ground beef. Season generously, sear hot, slice thin. Most people who taste heart cooked well are surprised how much they like it.

Mix liver into ground beef. Make a blend of ~20% liver and ~80% ground beef, and season to taste (garlic, onion, herbs). This is one of the easiest ways to eat liver regularly without needing to like the flavor of pure liver. Meatballs, burgers, chili, meat sauce, etc… they all work.

Try kidney with proper prep. Soaking is key. Split the kidney, remove the white central membrane, and soak in cold salted water or milk for several hours before cooking. This removes most of the strong flavor. Then sauté with butter, onions, and herbs. Steak and kidney pie is the classic entry dish, and it works.

Sweetbreads and tongue when you're ready. These are the "next level" organs. Sweetbreads take some technique (poaching, pressing, then searing) but are one of the most delicious foods you can eat. Tongue is nearly foolproof: Simmer for hours until tender, peel, slice, serve.

Source from local operations. Small butchers, farmers markets, and direct-from-rancher purchases are your best sources. Organs from a well-raised animal are night-and-day different from organs from a feedlot animal. If you buy a quarter or half cow direct, ask specifically for the organs. Many ranchers include them for free or at nominal cost because they're not sure the customer wants them.

If cooking organs genuinely won’t happen in your kitchen,​ two options:

First, you can try meat snacks that contain organs, link here. Like with any meat or organs, do your due diligence to find the best quality.

High-quality organ supplementation, link here is another good way to dip your toes in.

Neither of these replicate whole-food nutrition (nothing does), but they are dramatically better than no organs at all.

Something is better than nothing.

The half of the animal we throw away was food, prized food, for as long as humans have been eating animals.

In the middle of the 20th century, a marketing and infrastructure shift convinced a generation of Americans to throw away the most nutrient-dense part of every animal they ate.

Fortunately, more people are waking up to the fact that organs should be priority in many cases.

So buy an organ meat. Cook it. Eat it. Bring back the food your grandmother's grandmother took for granted.

Or, at the very least, find a good source of clean organ supplements and start with those.

Time to remember how we used to eat.


P.S. If this hit, forward it to someone who needs it. If it got forwarded to you — subscribe here so you don't miss the next one.]]></description>
      <enclosure url="https://podcast.carverupton.com/saladino/episodes/saladino-01M2DQ2JCV938X3YT6GNP47YBR-klaviyomail-com.mp3" length="4663388" type="audio/mpeg" />
      <itunes:duration>00:10:59</itunes:duration>
      <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>How I stay animal-based while traveling</title>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">&lt;01M23363SGRA1JNN3SEG4GK0DH@klaviyomail.com&gt;</guid>
      <pubDate>Wed, 09 Sep 2026 13:05:31 +0000</pubDate>
      <description><![CDATA[One quick favor once you read today's newsletter:​Forward this to a friend. Protocols stick when you have someone doing them with you. Sleep, training, food, all of it works better with an accountability buddy. Find yours. Let's get into it.


THE PROTOCOL

How I Travel Without Wrecking My Diet

 

I don't rely on airport food.

Ever.

It's the seed-oil capital of the country, and I'm not touching any of that food just because I got stuck at a gate.

So I come prepared.

For a normal trip, I pack the basics.

Meat sticks, link here, jerky (without the sugars and artificial ingredients), a few pieces of fruit, and, sometimes, cooked ground beef or a steak in a container. I’ll bring a small cooler if it's a long haul.

At the airport itself, I skip the food court and find a sit-down spot that will cook me real meat.

I look for things like steak, eggs, beef patties, and similar. I make sure they’re cooked dry or in butter, and hold the seed oil sauces. Most kitchens will do it if you just ask.

Breakfast places are great because they tend to have all these at a decent price.

If I'm staying somewhere with a kitchen, even better.

I've been known to travel with a small electric burner and a stainless pan and cook ground beef right in the room.

That said, I occasionally will go out to eat, but I’m careful about where I go.

Same thing as the airport:

Find meat-friendly spots that cook dry or in animal fats, rather than seed oils. Breakfast places and BBQ joints are great options in a pinch.

I pull up Seed Oil Scout, link here ahead of time to find a few solid places.

It's a community map that shows you which restaurants cook with butter and tallow instead of seed oils, so I'm not interrogating a server about the fryer oil.

What about driving?

Similar rules apply here, although it's easier since you have more dining options. Skip the gas station/restaurant snacks, look for animal-based options, etc.

Is that a lot?

Maybe.

But I feel incredible when I land (or while driving), and that's the whole point.

⇒ Check out a few more animal-based airport hacks here, link here


THE LAB

Serum Sodium

 

Sodium is the mineral that controls your body's water balance.

It decides how much fluid you hold onto and where that fluid goes, which makes it the best hydration signal on a standard blood panel.

If your sodium is high, you're usually dehydrated. There isn't enough water in your system, so everything is too concentrated.

If your sodium is low, it's often the reverse.

You've had a lot of plain water but not enough minerals to go with it, so you've diluted yourself. That one catches people on long travel days, when they chug water and barely eat.

Most labs consider 135 to 145 mmol/L normal. You want to land in the middle of that range, not at either edge.

No, you're not getting a blood draw on day three of a beach trip or a holiday vacation.

But next time you're due for labs, this is the number that tells you whether your hydration is actually dialed in, or whether you've been running a quart low without knowing it.

One catch:

It's a snapshot that shifts with whatever you drank that morning, so pay attention to where you usually land over time, not a single reading.


THE SWAP

Airplane Water → Stainless Steel Filtered Bottle

 

The water on a plane is arguably worse than the food.

It sits in onboard tanks that rarely get cleaned, and testing keeps finding bacteria in it. That's the same water they use for the coffee and the tea, so those are out too on the plane.

Bring an empty stainless steel bottle through security (TSA lets you, as long as it's empty), and fill it at the terminal before you board.

That alone gets you off the tank water.

But then the airport water is tap water. Hard to bring a reverse osmosis filter with you, so I suggest getting a bottle with a solid filter built into it.

Not the basic carbon kind that only touches taste and chlorine, either.

Look for a stainless steel bottle with a multi-stage or membrane filter that actually pulls out fluoride, heavy metals, and bacteria.


WHAT I'M READING

Shoe Dog

 

I'm reading Shoe Dog, Phil Knight's memoir about starting Nike.

Everyone with authority told him no. The banks, the experts, all of them.

He built it anyway, out of a conviction he couldn't shake.

I can relate.

I walked away from a system that had all the credentials and none of the answers to build something on what I actually believed instead.

Along the way, people kept telling me my ideas are silly and/or that my businesses would never pan out.

Worth the read if anyone has ever called your idea crazy.

⇒ Grab Shoe Dog here, link here


ONE QUESTION

Is One Airport Meal Really That Bad?

Honestly… No. One rough travel meal will not undo you.

If you're stuck, you're starving, and the only option is the seed-oil stuff, eat it and move on.

Your body is resilient. It can handle the occasional hit without a problem.

Jet lag and the sleep issues it causes aren't a huge deal if you get back on your sleep schedule soon after. This is the same.

So if you generally eat well otherwise, this should be nothing more than a minor disruption.

The thing that wrecks people isn't the one airport meal, it's turning "I'm traveling" into a week of eating badly because you decided the rules were off.

One meal is a blip. Get right back to real food at the next opportunity and you've lost nothing.

(Obviously this doesn’t apply to those with legitimate medical conditions, such as autoimmune disorders, since some foods can trigger symptoms.)

That's it for this week.

I'm rooting for you,

Paul

SUNDAY NEWSLETTER

WANT MY SUNDAY EXPOSÉ NEWSLETTER TOO?

That's where I deep dive into one topic weekly, with
science-backed perspectives you won't find anywhere else.

SUBSCRIBE HERE, link here

 

[]]></description>
      <enclosure url="https://podcast.carverupton.com/saladino/episodes/saladino-01M23363SGRA1JNN3SEG4GK0DH-klaviyomail-com.mp3" length="2533892" type="audio/mpeg" />
      <itunes:duration>00:06:01</itunes:duration>
      <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Big news for beef dropped last week</title>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">&lt;01M1VP9PFHNVWGCWSDY1EN3R5B@klaviyomail.com&gt;</guid>
      <pubDate>Sun, 06 Sep 2026 16:02:15 +0000</pubDate>
      <description><![CDATA[SUN • SEPTEMBER 6, 2026

ISSUE #17 · THE SUNDAY EXPOSÉ

The Biggest Push Toward Food Sovereignty in Decades

A sweeping federal policy package for American ranchers and small processors was announced last week. Here's what it's trying to do, why it matches what your grocery choices have been pointing at for years, and a few points of healthy skepticism.

Before we get into it...

Every Sunday, I show you what's broken. Every Wednesday, in Paul's Protocol, I show you what I actually do about it.

Each issue shows you one protocol I'm running, one lab number to know, and one swap to make. Short, actionable, 3-minute reads.

Click here to get Paul’s Protocols every Wednesday., link here

(If you land on my homepage after clicking that, you're in. Nothing else needed from you.)

Last Sunday, I explained why beef prices have been climbing at the grocery store.

In short:

The American cattle herd is at a 75-year low, drought has forced ranchers to sell breeding cows early, a screwworm outbreak in Mexico has disrupted imports…

And the recovery timeline is years long. The situation is structural, not political.

Since I wrote to you about that, the administration has announced one of the most substantive federal packages for American ranchers and small food processors in recent memory.

The individual announcements have been getting covered in agriculture trade press, but the bigger picture has been mostly missed in the general news cycle.

I want to walk you, politics-free, through what actually got announced, what it's trying to do, and where potential concerns and downsides exist.

And then you’ll learn a few ways you can help move toward a more locally-driven food system that benefits farmers/ranchers, their customers, and the animals.

First, let’s talk about what the government said…

On August 31, Ag Secretary Brooke Rollins rolled out what USDA is calling the Ranchers First Initiative.

It's a package of new actions building on roughly a year of prior policy moves, some of which have gotten almost no attention outside industry press.

The pieces that matter most:

The BRAND endorsement (Beef Retention and National Development) is a new insurance product that pays a rancher the difference between a heifer's slaughter value and her retained-breeding value if the market moves against her.

In plain terms: it makes it economically safer for a rancher to hold onto a breeding cow instead of selling her early under drought or feed-cost pressure. This directly targets the behavior driving the herd shortage.

The SPUR Guaranteed Loan Program expands the existing $500 million Strengthening Processing for U.S. Ranchers program (launched in June 2026). It provides new loan guarantees for regional processors, processor cooperatives, and small operators.

This is the operational follow-through on the administration's stated intent to break up the Big Four processing bottleneck.

Regional Processor Continuity Effort funds the strengthening of regional processing capacity nationwide, aimed at building resilience against disruptions at any single facility. Helps local and national food security.

Federal procurement priority directs USDA to prioritize purchasing locally processed American beef for federal and state institutions, including prisons, hospitals, and VA facilities. This creates stable, predictable demand for smaller American operators.

Emergency Conservation Program flexibility lets ranchers use ECP funds on Grassland Conservation Reserve Program acres to rebuild after wildfires and drought damage.

These sit on top of the earlier 2026 announcements:

The $60 million fourth round of the Meat and Poultry Processing Expansion Program

The $500 million FIELDS domestic fertilizer program

Expanded grazing access on public lands

Inspection fee reductions of 75% for very small processors and 30% for small ones

The ongoing Product of USA labeling effort

Speaking of the Product of USA labeling effort...

On Tuesday, 9/1 last week, Rollins publicly signaled she's pushing to reinstate Mandatory Country of Origin Labeling (MCOOL).

This would require beef labels to identify where the animal was born, raised, and processed… not just processed.

It was federal law from 2009 to 2015 and has been sought by cattle producers ever since. Meanwhile, the Big Four meat packers (Tyson, Cargill, JBS USA, and National Beef Packing) have opposed it since it shines a light on their full supply chains.

That is a lot of policy pointing in one direction…

And if this initiative works as intended, that direction appears to be decentralized food sovereignty.

Small and regional processors handling more of the animals raised nearby means ranchers keep more of the price on every pound they produce, instead of losing most of it to the middle of the supply chain.

Consumers can trace their beef back to a specific ranch and a specific operation instead of an anonymous industrial pipeline.

The meat on your plate carries the quality standards of a real person who has to look you in the eye at the farmers' market rather than the standards of a processing plant that has never met you.

Such a model creates resilience in the food system, too.

Right now, four companies (Tyson, Cargill, JBS USA, and National Beef Packing) control the majority of American meat processing.

If one of those companies has an operational failure (such as a cyberattack, disease outbreak, labor action, or natural disaster), it would disrupt a huge share of the national beef supply overnight. Prices would rise even more.

Food security is national security, and a food system that runs through four bottlenecks is not secure.

A network of regional processors, spread geographically and independently owned, is dramatically more resilient.

For ranchers, it means economic viability.

Since 2017, the United States has lost more than 17% of its family farms.

Ranchers who can process their own animals, or use a nearby small processor they trust, keep the margin that would otherwise go to a Big Four company operating on a scale that ranchers cannot compete with.

For consumers, it means better food.

Beef from an animal raised on grass, finished on grass, processed at a small facility, and sold within a few hundred miles of where it was raised is not the same product as feedlot beef shipped through the industrial pipeline.

The nutrient density, flavor, fat quality, and traceability are all better.

This is the direction. But there are real concerns and skepticism we have to look at…

Building small processing capacity takes years and significant investment. Announcing the policy is not the same as making it real for the average small operator.

John Boyd Jr., founder of the National Black Farmers Association, has said publicly that many small ranchers welcome the independence but lack the facilities and capital to safely process meat at commercial scale.

The legal authority for some of the processing regulation changes is uncertain, too.

Bloomberg and other outlets have flagged that it is not clear whether the administration can make many changes without Congressional action, and industry observers expect legal challenges.

Policy timelines rarely match press-release timelines, too.

Some of the funding requires Congressional appropriations that may or may not come through.

Certain regulatory changes require rulemaking processes that take months to complete.

Some of these funding packages or rulemaking actions will get blocked or narrowed.

None of that means the direction is wrong.

But it’s a lot harder to achieve these ambitious goals than it is to lay them out. We shouldn’t expect steaks at the store to suddenly drop to 2019 prices by November…

Which is exactly why what you do with your dollars and your eating habits matters more than any policy timeline.

Federal policy is directional and slow. Household purchasing is immediate.

Buy direct from a rancher.​ EatWild.com, link here and LocalHarvest.org, link here maintain searchable directories of local farms and ranchers selling direct to consumers. State-specific farmer networks exist in almost every state. A quarter or half cow purchased annually from a local rancher, packaged and frozen, likely costs about the same as cheap grocery store beef (maybe a little more) at higher quality. Yet the rancher keeps more of the money.

Find a local butcher or small processor. Small regional processors are exactly what the SPUR program is trying to strengthen. Using them means your money supports the businesses the federal push is trying to build up, and you often get better-quality product with real transparency.

Eat the whole animal. Organs, bones, fat, cheap cuts done low and slow. Render and save fat if you can. This is what ranchers have always done because it's the honest economics of raising food. Your kitchen habits should match the supply chain you're trying to support. Save money and promote a holistic use of the animal.

Source raw dairy from a local farm if legal in your state. RealMilk.com, link here maintains a directory of farms selling raw milk state by state. Again, a direct relationship with a local producer builds resilience into your food supply while boosting the local economy.

Talk to your farmer. If you're buying direct, you can ask the right questions. What do they feed? How is it finished? What conditions are the animals in? The transparency of a real relationship is something the industrial supply chain fundamentally cannot provide.

Support small independent grocers and butchers when the direct option isn't available. Every dollar spent at a small operation instead of a national chain is a dollar staying closer to where the food came from.

Every household that shifts a portion of its meat spending toward local, direct, and small-scale puts downward pressure on the Big Four's market share, upward pressure on rancher economics, and resilience into regional food supply.

This is happening whether Washington succeeds or not (but at scale may make some of these efforts more viable).

American ranchers built this country's food supply the same way they have always built it:

Cattle on grass, whole-animal processing, regional networks, and direct relationships between the person raising the food and the person eating it.

Industrial consolidation dismantled this system over the past several decades.

What's happening right now, in policy announcements and in kitchen decisions, is a chance to rebuild it.

Food sovereignty, after all, is the ability of a country, a community, a household, to feed itself with confidence and quality.

The federal push helps. Your grocery choices help more.

Regardless of what happens politically, the cat is already out of the bag.

People want to shop local and support their neighborhood farmers and ranchers these days.

That's how we can bring it back.

Governments may act in the right direction, but the people doing the work are your local ranchers, farmers, and butchers, and the households that support them.

So do at least one thing this week from the list I gave you in the previous section.

It matters far more than you think.


P.S. If this hit, forward it to someone who needs it. If it got forwarded to you — subscribe here so you don't miss the next one.]]></description>
      <enclosure url="https://podcast.carverupton.com/saladino/episodes/saladino-01M1VP9PFHNVWGCWSDY1EN3R5B-klaviyomail-com.mp3" length="4972220" type="audio/mpeg" />
      <itunes:duration>00:11:22</itunes:duration>
      <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>How I eat sugar while animal-based</title>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">&lt;01M1H2DGRYARFNX2R1ZQ6HZ00T@klaviyomail.com&gt;</guid>
      <pubDate>Wed, 02 Sep 2026 13:07:06 +0000</pubDate>
      <description><![CDATA[Welcome to my newest newsletter, Paul's Protocol. Over 2,400 people in this community filled out a content survey at the start of the year. The message was clear: less theory, more "what do I actually do on Tuesday." More protocols. More lab work. More swaps. So I built this with my team.  Every Wednesday, you'll get one protocol I'm actually running, one biomarker worth knowing, one swap worth making, what I'm reading, and one question. Three-minute read. You’ll still get the Sunday expose style newsletter as well if you're subscribed. One quick favor:​Forward this to a friend. Protocols stick when you have someone doing them with you. Sleep, training, food, all of it works better with an accountability buddy. Find yours. Let's get into it.


THE PROTOCOL

How I Eat Fruit and Honey

 

Fresh fruit and raw honey are where I get most of my carbs (that’s how animal-based works). Not oats, bread, or "complex carbs.”

On a normal day I’ll eat mango, pineapple, papaya, watermelon, oranges, a banana, some coconut water, and raw honey.

Yeah, it looks like a lot of sugar. Somewhere around 200 to 300 grams of carbs. Yet my blood work is dialed in.

Here’s why it works:

First, fruit is the one part of a plant that isn't trying to protect itself.

Roots, leaves, stems, and seeds carry the plant's defense chemicals. Fruit is the opposite.

The plant made it sweet and colorful because it wants an animal to eat it and spread the seeds. It's the least defended, most freely given plant food there is.

Second, I never eat fruit or honey naked.

There's always animal fat or protein next to it, such as eggs, meat, or some raw dairy. That slows everything down and softens the blood sugar swing.

Third, the rest of my dietary context.

I don't eat seed oils, I move every day, and I'm lean. Sugar behaves very differently in that body than in an inflamed, sedentary one.

Real fruit and raw honey are not the problem. It’s when companies wrap sugar in seed oils to create all the “healthy snacks” you see on store shelves.

⇒ Learn more about why you shouldn’t fear fruit and honey, link here


THE LAB

Fasting Insulin

 

Fasting insulin is how hard your pancreas is working to keep your blood sugar in line.

When your cells stop responding well, your body pumps out more insulin to compensate. That test shows this years before your blood sugar looks abnormal. It's the early smoke alarm for metabolic trouble.

Most doctors only check glucose or A1c, which move late. Ask for fasting insulin. Labs call anything up to 25 µIU/mL "normal," but optimal is low single digits, roughly 2 to 6. Over 10 and something's already slipping.

Mine sits around 2 to 3, even eating all that fruit.

That's the whole point. It isn't the sugar, but rather whether your body can handle it.

One catch: read it next to your fasting glucose, not on its own.


THE SWAP

Dessert → Fruit Or Raw Honey

 

Whatever you reach for when you want something sweet, whether that’s candy, ice cream, cookies, or something else…

Swap it for real fruit or a spoonful of raw honey.

You get the sweetness, plus minerals and polyphenols instead of seed oils and additives.

Make sure the honey is actually raw and single-source, because most of what's on the shelf isn't.

⇒ Here’s the 100% organic, single-source raw honey I eat (it’s delicious), link here


WHAT I'M READING

Elon Musk

 

(NOTE: This is the same book as last week. Still working through this one, so if it looks familiar, that's why.)

I’m still reading Elon Musk by Walter Isaacson.

Isaacson shadowed Musk for two years before writing, giving him an up close perspective on the man.

Whatever you think about Musk, what stuck with me is his refusal to outsource the things that matter.

He wants to understand and control the whole production chain, not just trust it.

That's the same instinct that made me stop trusting the industrial food supply and build my own companies.

I don't live anything like Musk, though. I prioritize sleep, real food, and recovery, and his barely-sleep, grind-yourself-into-the-ground approach is, in my view, bad for your health.

But as someone who's built companies myself, it's still fascinating to watch how a mind like that operates once it decides something simply has to exist.

⇒ Grab the Elon Musk biography here, link here


ONE QUESTION

Isn’t Sugar Just Sugar?

Chemically, close. But your body doesn't eat chemicals, it eats food.

Whole fruit brings fiber, water, and polyphenols that slow the sugar down and feed your gut. A candy bar brings sugar, seed oils, and not much else.

Big difference.

IMPORTANT NOTE: If you're already diabetic or insulin resistant, go slower and lighter than I do. Get the machinery working before you load it up. As always, speak to your doctor if you have any concerns.

⇒ See why isolated fructose acts differently than fructose in fruit, link here

That's it for this week.

I'm rooting for you,

Paul

SUNDAY NEWSLETTER

WANT MY SUNDAY EXPOSÉ NEWSLETTER TOO?

That's where I deep dive into one topic weekly, with
science-backed perspectives you won't find anywhere else.

SUBSCRIBE HERE, link here

 

[]]></description>
      <enclosure url="https://podcast.carverupton.com/saladino/episodes/saladino-01M1H2DGRYARFNX2R1ZQ6HZ00T-klaviyomail-com.mp3" length="2413412" type="audio/mpeg" />
      <itunes:duration>00:05:48</itunes:duration>
      <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>The real reason beef’s getting expensive</title>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">&lt;01M19NGK6FJN06T72C7RRSAKHJ@klaviyomail.com&gt;</guid>
      <pubDate>Sun, 30 Aug 2026 16:02:34 +0000</pubDate>
      <description><![CDATA[SUN • AUGUST 30, 2026

ISSUE #16 · THE SUNDAY EXPOSÉ

The Real Reason Beef Is Getting Expensive (It Isn't Politics)

The US cattle herd is at a 75-year low, prices are up 23% in two years, and the fix isn't "eat less beef."

Before we get into it...

Every Sunday, I show you what's broken. Every Wednesday, in Paul's Protocol, I show you what I actually do about it.

Each issue shows you one protocol I'm running, one lab number to know, and one swap to make. Short, actionable, 3-minute reads.

Click here to get Paul’s Protocols every Wednesday., link here

(If you land on my homepage after clicking that, you're in. Nothing else needed from you.)

If you've been to the grocery store in the last few months, you’ve seen (or felt) beef prices rising.

A choice sirloin that was $8.50 a pound two years ago is closer to $10.50 now.

Ground beef, once the affordable fallback for anyone trying to eat meat on a budget, is creeping up to prices that used to be reserved for premium cuts.

Even conventional, grain-finished, feedlot beef, the kind I don't recommend except for those on a tight budget, is getting expensive enough that families notice at the checkout.

Everyone has a theory about why.

A lot of it gets blamed on politics or on the downstream effects of political decisions. For example, foreign conflicts pushing up energy and shipping costs, or tariffs on various goods (including meat).

Some blame the current administration, some blame the previous one, some blame both.

Outside the political frame, others blame the packing industry, grocery retailers, or corporate greed.

All of those things contribute a little. None of them is the main story… a structural problem that has almost nothing to do with any political decision made in the last several years.

It has to do with the American cattle herd, the weather it's been living through, and a parasite that hasn't been a serious problem in the US since the 1960s.

I want to walk you through what's actually happening, why it's going to take years to fix, and what to do in the meantime if you want to stay beef-first without breaking the bank…

Start with the herd.

The US had 86.2 million head of cattle at the start of 2026, according to USDA data.

That is the smallest total cattle inventory this country has recorded since the early 1950s.

Yes. The smallest in 75 years.

For some perspective, the US had over 94 million cattle as recently as 2019. Meaning we have lost more almost 8 million animals in seven years. That’s an ~8.3% drop.

Worse:

The 2025 calf crop, meaning the number of new calves born to build next year's beef supply, was the smallest since 1941.

Smaller herd + same (or growing) demand = higher prices. The math is not complicated.

Some may again blame political decision-making here, but drought is the real reason the herd shrunk so fast.

More than ¾ of the US beef cow herd currently sits in areas classified as under drought conditions.

Persistent dry weather has depleted the grasslands that ranchers depend on to feed their cattle. When there isn't enough grass, and hay prices spike because everyone is trying to buy it, ranchers do the only thing they can do:

They sell.

The animals they sell first are the breeding cows. But breeding cows are producers of future calves..

So when you send her to slaughter early, you lose that animal and every calf she would have produced over the rest of her productive life.

Ranchers know this. They don't want to sell their breeding stock. But when the alternative is watching them starve, they sell.

The result is a herd that has been shrinking faster than it can rebuild.

Even if drought conditions ended tomorrow, cattle biology doesn't move fast. It takes roughly two years from breeding a heifer to putting beef on your plate.

Industry analysts don't expect meaningful herd recovery until 2028 or 2029, and that assumes the weather cooperates.

USDA projects beef prices could rise another 9.4% by the end of this year.

And unfortunately, there's a second contributor most people haven't heard of…

In November 2024, USDA inspectors detected the New World Screwworm in Mexican cattle for the first time in decades.

The screwworm is a parasitic fly whose larvae burrow into the flesh of living animals. The US eradicated it from the country in 1966 through a decades-long sterile-fly program that is still considered one of the great successes of American agricultural science.

Since 2024, the parasite has been slowly moving north through Mexico.

USDA has responded by repeatedly closing the southern border to Mexican cattle imports.

Closed in November 2024. Reopened February 2025 with new inspection protocols.

Closed again in May 2025 after officials cited an "unacceptable northward advancement."

Reopened at limited crossings starting in July 2025.

The Douglas, Arizona crossing just reopened in late August 2026.

Mexico normally supplies the US with about 1.1 million head of cattle per year, roughly 3% of total American beef supply.

That sounds small until you learn that most of those cattle go directly to feedlots in Texas, New Mexico, and Oklahoma, which then finish them and send them to processing.

So it’s not “3% of supply.” It removes 3% of supply from exactly the region where American ranchers are already hurting most from drought.

Screwworm is not the main driver of higher beef prices. But it only adds difficult conditions to an already tough situation.

Speaking of government decision-making, the current administration announced a few responses recently…

First, on August 22, 2026, USDA approved 331,000 tons of tariff-free imported ground beef to be sold at below-market prices over the next 90 days.

The stated goal is to bring grocery prices down.

Cheaper imported beef helps household budgets in the short term if it manages to impact prices.

Families notice meat prices (especially in the summer, when everyone’s grilling), and government intervention that lowers prices, even temporarily, is politically popular for obvious reasons.

But every pound of imported beef sold at below-market prices in an American grocery store is a pound of beef that an American rancher didn't sell.

Ranchers operate at thin margins. Many are selling breeding cows they can't afford to lose.

Undercutting their pricing during the period when they most need to rebuild won't help the American cattle industry recover.

Economists working in the space, including Dr. Derrell Peel at Oklahoma State, have publicly said the imports are unlikely to move retail beef prices in any measurable way.

The volume is small relative to the total US market. What it will do is take some revenue out of American ranchers' hands.

Any administration facing this price pressure would consider the same move, but there’s no such thing as a free lunch.

It's either the potential for cheaper beef today or a viable American cattle industry over the next decade.

The country cannot fully have both under the current conditions.

In short, caught between a rock and a hard place.

Now for the second thing...

This past Thursday, August 28, the administration said it will look into authorizing legal action to let farmers and ranchers process their own food.

They're targeting what it called a "monopoly" among the four largest meat processing companies (Tyson, Cargill, JBS USA, and National Beef Packing).

Those four control the majority of US meat processing.

Currently, farmers and ranchers are NOT allowed to process their own meat, per the Federal Meat Inspection Act.

I understand the importance of food safety, but this does look a bit like "regulatory capture," or when big companies use government regulations to shut out smaller competition and benefit themselves.

The Department of Justice has been investigating these Big Four for antitrust violations. USDA is expected to follow up Monday with additional policy on interstate sales and processing deregulation.

If it works as intended, this policy would let American ranchers keep more of the price on every pound of beef they produce, bypassing the processor markup that currently sits between them and the grocery store.

Better rancher economics could, over time, contribute to a healthier domestic supply and modest downward pressure on consumer prices.

Whether the administration has the legal authority to make these changes is genuinely unclear, and the practical effects will depend on rulemaking over the coming months.

Processor concentration is also a bipartisan concern. Administrations on both sides of the aisle have gestured at breaking it up over the last decade.

All of these moves together, plus resolving other factors (like energy costs) may help at the margins.

But it's still a structural problem. Cattle biology moves slowly. This will take a while, regardless.

No need to abandon beef, though…

Here's how to stay beef-first when beef costs more.

Buy ground beef instead of steaks. The nutrient density is essentially identical. The price per pound is dramatically lower. Cook it as burgers, in stews, in meat sauce, in tacos, in chili, mixed with organ meats to stretch it further. Ground beef is the most efficient calorie-per-dollar in the ruminant category.

Learn to cook cheap cuts low and slow. Chuck roast, brisket, oxtail, shank, tongue. These are traditionally the cuts ranch families ate themselves while selling the tenderloin to the city. A chuck roast at $8 a pound turns into three or four meals for a family. A ribeye at $22 a pound is one meal.

Buy direct from a rancher. A quarter cow bought directly from a local rancher, packaged and frozen, could land you at roughly half the per-pound cost of grocery store equivalents. You'll also support a rancher directly instead of feeding the wholesale-retail markup. Local farmers' markets, sites like EatWild, and word of mouth from other beef-first eaters are all ways to find one.

Save and render your own fat. Every pound of beef you cook releases high-quality tallow. Save it in a jar in the fridge. Use it as your cooking fat instead of buying olive oil or butter for pan work. Free fat, better nutritional profile than seed oils, and it's already paid for.

Eat organs., link here Liver, heart, kidney, sweetbreads. Dramatically cheaper per pound and more nutrient-dense than muscle meat. This is the highest-density source of the nutrients that make beef what it is in the first place. If steaks are pricing you out, organs may be the answer.

Use bones for broth. The bones you'd throw away make stock that carries collagen, minerals, and gelatin your body actually uses. It's essentially free.

If beef is still too expensive after all of that, add high-quality pork and chicken to the mix.

Not the industrial feedlot stuff.

I mean pasture-raised pork from a farmer you trust, or chicken from a small operation raising birds on real feed and with access to the outdoors.

It's not as nutrient-dense as ruminant beef, and I wouldn't build a diet around it long-term, but it's a legitimate stretcher when the beef budget is thin.

Cook it in the tallow you've been rendering. Use the bones for broth the same way. You still get value the industrial version doesn't provide.

Even with every strategy on this list, staying animal-based will cost more than it did two years ago. That's the reality of a 75-year herd low.

But these will help you keep costs under control as we tough out the next few years.

The American cattle herd will rebuild. It will take 3-5 years, and then prices will eventually normalize.

There’s a silver lining to all this, though:

The current situation is just making more people learn what ranch families have always known.

Cooking cheap cuts, saving your fat, eating organs, making broth from bones, and, of course, sourcing from those same ranchers, will still be the most economical way to eat well even after the market returns to normal.

Beef has been the foundational food of pastoral cultures for thousands of years. People didn’t completely replace it for chicken then, and you don’t have to now (even if you add some to your diet).

So the fix isn’t switching foods or dropping animal-based. It’s time to get smarter about the food we already know is best.


P.S. If this hit, forward it to someone who needs it. If it got forwarded to you — subscribe here so you don't miss the next one.]]></description>
      <enclosure url="https://podcast.carverupton.com/saladino/episodes/saladino-01M19NGK6FJN06T72C7RRSAKHJ-klaviyomail-com.mp3" length="5604284" type="audio/mpeg" />
      <itunes:duration>00:12:57</itunes:duration>
      <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>How I’d buy animal-based on a budget</title>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">&lt;01M0Z1M7G7A5P2XQDF3MHD7SK0@klaviyomail.com&gt;</guid>
      <pubDate>Wed, 26 Aug 2026 13:06:12 +0000</pubDate>
      <description><![CDATA[Welcome to my newest newsletter, Paul's Protocol. Over 2,400 people in this community filled out a content survey at the start of the year. The message was clear: less theory, more "what do I actually do on Tuesday." More protocols. More lab work. More swaps. So I built this with my team.  Every Wednesday, you'll get one protocol I'm actually running, one biomarker worth knowing, one swap worth making, what I'm reading, and one question. Three-minute read. You’ll still get the Sunday expose style newsletter as well if you're subscribed. One quick favor:​Forward this to a friend. Protocols stick when you have someone doing them with you. Sleep, training, food, all of it works better with an accountability buddy. Find yours. Let's get into it.


THE PROTOCOL

How I’d Shop Animal-Based on a Budget

 

If you've felt sticker shock at the meat counter lately, you're not imagining it.

The U.S. cattle herd is the smallest it's been since the 1950s, and energy costs/other economic factors aren’t helping.

But the typical animal-based image of a plate stacked with ribeyes is not how you need to eat. It’s not how I eat, in fact.

I lean toward ground beef, chuck (sometimes called the “poor man’s ribeye”), stew meat, skirt, and sirloin.

Even when grass-finished, those cuts often run $7 to $10 a pound, and conventional runs less.

80/20 ground beef is the anchor: the most versatile, most affordable, most forgiving thing in the case.

Then liver. It's the most nutrient-dense food on the planet and one of the cheapest things at the counter. A few ounces a week covers a lot of ground. If you won't cook it, desiccated organs are the shortcut.

Buy in bulk and freeze. A chest freezer pays for itself fast when you stop overpaying for small, marked-up packages.

Eat pork and chicken on occasion. The nutrient profiles for these are inferior to beef due to what chickens and pigs eat (they are higher in linoleic acid, the seed oil fat), but they’re still animal foods. Find the highest-quality stuff to mitigate the potential downsides of these animal foods.

I'm not counting dollars at the meat counter these days.

But I've shown this works on a real budget, in an expensive city, on roughly what the lowest-income bracket already spends on groceries.

Prices have climbed since, no question. The approach remains the same.

⇒ Learn more ways to shop animal-based on a budget, link here


THE LAB

Ferritin

 

Ferritin is how much iron you have stored. It's the first thing to drop when you're running low, well before a standard test would ever call you anemic.

When it's low, that's usually why you're tired, foggy, or shedding hair.

Most labs call anything above 12 to 15 ng/mL "normal," but plenty of people drag until it climbs north of 30, and feel best around 50 to 100.

Red meat is the best food source of the iron that refills it.

One catch: Ferritin also rises with inflammation, so a "normal" number can hide a real deficiency.

Read it next to a CRP, not on its own, and don't megadose iron blind. More isn't better here.


THE SWAP

Pre-Cut Steaks → A Whole Primal Cut

 

Stop paying the pre-cut tax.

A whole primal (like a ribeye or striploin roast) is cheaper per pound than the same meat sliced into individual steaks.

Warehouse stores and local butchers are your best bet for finding these cuts.

In fact, I found a ribeye roast for almost 30% less per pound than pre-cut ribeye steaks.

Buy the roast, spend 20 minutes with a sharp knife, and portion it yourself. Freeze what you don't need this week.

⇒ Learn more animal-based budget hacks here, link here


WHAT I'M READING

Elon Musk

 

I’m currently reading Elon Musk by Walter Isaacson. Different from The Book of Elon that I listened to as an audiobook a few weeks ago.

Isaacson shadowed Musk for two years before writing, giving him an up close perspective on the man.

Whatever you think about Musk, what stuck with me is his refusal to outsource the things that matter.

He wants to understand and control the whole production chain, not just trust it.

That's the same instinct that made me stop trusting the industrial food supply and build my own companies.

I don't live anything like Musk, though. I prioritize sleep, real food, and recovery, and his barely-sleep, grind-yourself-into-the-ground approach is, in my view, bad for your health.

But as someone who's built companies myself, it's still fascinating to watch how a mind like that operates once it decides something simply has to exist.

⇒ Grab the Elon Musk biography here, link here


ONE QUESTION

Is Grass-Fed Actually Worth the Extra Money?

If you can swing it, yes. It has a better fat profile and no feedlot inputs, and it usually just tastes better.

But regular, conventional beef is still real food, and it beats a traditional protein bar or a fast-food combo by a mile.

So while beef is this expensive, if the choice is grass-fed or nothing, buy the regular beef and eat it.

Don't let perfect be the reason you skip real meat.

That's it for this week.

I'm rooting for you,

Paul

SUNDAY NEWSLETTER

WANT MY SUNDAY EXPOSÉ NEWSLETTER TOO?

That's where I deep dive into one topic weekly, with
science-backed perspectives you won't find anywhere else.

SUBSCRIBE HERE, link here

 

[]]></description>
      <enclosure url="https://podcast.carverupton.com/saladino/episodes/saladino-01M0Z1M7G7A5P2XQDF3MHD7SK0-klaviyomail-com.mp3" length="2435180" type="audio/mpeg" />
      <itunes:duration>00:05:47</itunes:duration>
      <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Loneliness = 15 cigarettes a day?</title>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">&lt;01M0QMRD9QSBBGWR1KPB5BHBF2@klaviyomail.com&gt;</guid>
      <pubDate>Sun, 23 Aug 2026 16:04:46 +0000</pubDate>
      <description><![CDATA[SUN • AUGUST 23, 2026

ISSUE #15 · THE SUNDAY EXPOSÉ

Loneliness Is Killing More Americans Than Obesity

The ambient community modern life quietly removed was doing more for your health than any supplement, and rebuilding it takes more than "making friends."

Before we get into it...

Every Sunday, I show you what's broken. Every Wednesday, in Paul's Protocol, I show you what I actually do about it.

Each issue shows you one protocol I'm running, one lab number to know, and one swap to make. Short, actionable, 3-minute reads.

Click here to get Paul’s Protocols every Wednesday., link here

(If you land on my homepage after clicking that, you're in. Nothing else needed from you.)

Loneliness now poses a health risk comparable to smoking 15 cigarettes a day.

That’s what the US Surgeon General concluded in an 85-page advisory released in May 2023, drawing on decades of research into how isolation actually affects human mortality.

Data tends to back it up.

Meta-analyses tracking over 3.4 million people found that social isolation increases all-cause mortality by roughly 29%, loneliness by 26%, and living alone by 32%.

Those numbers put the mortality effect of chronic loneliness on par with well-established risk factors like smoking and above the effect of obesity.

Sounds bad. Even worse when you consider the scale of the problem:

Half of American adults, according to the data cited in the report, were experiencing loneliness even before the pandemic made it worse.

Most, hearing that loneliness increases mortality, may conclude that suicide is the driver behind the increased mortality.

It fits.

Lonely people are more likely to be depressed. Depression increases the risk of suicide.

And that’s true. Partially. Suicide is not even close to being the main driver…

Far more of the deaths come from physical health impacts. Loneliness has been linked to diseases such as:

Cardiovascular disease

Stroke

Type 2 diabetes

Dementia

Alzheimer's

This is because chronic loneliness drives measurable elevations in:

Cortisol

Inflammatory markers like C-reactive protein

Blood pressure

Lipid dysregulation

It also suppresses immune function and can accelerate cognitive decline.

It kills you the way smoking kills you, through the same physiological pathways, just with a different upstream trigger.

Isolation, in other words, is a physiological state your body reads as a survival emergency.

Humans are one of the most social species on the planet. The nervous system evolved on the assumption that you were surrounded by a tribe. The tribe means protection. Strength in numbers.

When it senses otherwise for years at a time, it responds the way any system responds to prolonged emergency:

It breaks.

Medications can’t fix this. Cognitive behavioral therapy helps at the margins. Your primary care doctor is not going to write you a prescription for a Tuesday night dinner with three friends.

And yet that intervention would move more mortality risk than most of what shows up on your annual physical…

You see, the mainstream loneliness advice assumes the problem is individual.

You need to reach out more. Go and make new friends. Don’t be so shy at the party. Approach people and talk to them!

That puts the burden on the person and misses the structural reality:

The environment that produced ambient community for most of human history has been systematically dismantled in the last 50 years.

Two books worth naming here.

In 2000, Harvard political scientist Robert Putnam published Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. In it, Putnam documented a steady collapse of civic and social participation in America starting in the 1970s.

Church attendance, union membership, PTA involvement, bowling leagues, book clubs, service organizations, neighborhood associations…

All of them declined together, across the same time window, driven by the same underlying forces:

Television

Suburbanization

Longer working hours

Generational shifts

Americans didn't stop bowling. They stopped bowling in leagues. They kept doing the activity and lost the community that came with it.

In 1989, sociologist Ray Oldenburg published The Great Good Place, in which he coined the term "third places” for places where ambient community used to happen.

Your first place is home. Your second place is work. Third places are everything in between, such as cafés, barbershops, taverns, community centers, church halls, corner stores, and the local library.

In these places, you'd see the same faces repeatedly without an appointment or predefined reason. You just happen to be there for something else, and might meet and make friends with others in your community. specific reason, just because that's where you happened to be.

Both authors documented the same underlying pattern from different angles.

Suburbanization spread everyone out, while cars replaced walking. Chain stores replaced the local shops where you knew the owner. Longer commutes ate the hours that used to go to civic life. The extended family dispersed across states. Work-from-home eliminated the ambient contact of an office.

Digital "connection" replaced physical presence with something that looks like connection but doesn't produce the same biological signal.

The environment that made community effortless was disassembled.

Today, most modern Americans live in a physical and social environment where community requires deliberate effort at every step.

You often have to engineer community (which has led to lots of niche online microcommunities around all sorts of topics) since there are fewer opportunities for natural community.

So “just go out and make friends” doesn’t work the same way.

But it’s not like this everywhere…

One of the things I notice most in Costa Rica, and that took me a while to have words for, is that people here know each other.

The same faces show up at the beach, at the market, at the coffee shop. Kids play outside without arrangements, and adults run into each other repeatedly because there's a small number of places everyone goes. Relationships are ambient in a way that you don’t often see in the US anymore.

I'm not saying you need to move to Costa Rica.

If everyone should just move somewhere else to “find community,” and yet, if done on a large enough scale, you’d erase the organic community that already exists there.

(And plenty of areas in America still have that community feel, they’re just less numerous than decades past.)

But it’s worth having some perspective on what this looks like if you’ve never truly experienced it.

The good news is you can recreate this to some degree, and perhaps play a role in rebuilding your local community over the long term…

Here's what to do:

Start with recurrence over intensity. Community involves seeing people repeatedly, without much friction, in low-stakes settings. Once-a-year gatherings or parties don't build community, but a weekly coffee or lunch at the same place does. A morning walk with the same neighbor does, too. Optimize for repetition, not for how impressive the interaction was.

Identify or invent your third places. If your neighborhood lacks obvious ones (many do nowadays), create them. A weekly gathering at your house. A pickup basketball game. A walking group. Church, if that's a fit for you. The specific format matters less than the reliability, so pick something you like.

Host regularly. Again, no need to be perfect. Get comfortable with a lower bar for what you consider hosting. The point is that people gather, not that the menu is elaborate.

Build a tribe of three or four. Beyond ambient community, most benefit from a small number of relationships they invest in deliberately. Find three or four people you can check in with regularly, exchange real information with, and help when needed. Digital substitution has eroded this layer most. Text threads are not the same. Voice memos are closer. Calls are closer still. In-person, when you can, is the actual thing.

Redesign your physical environment where. Front porches invite passersby in. Back decks don't. Walkable neighborhoods create accidental encounters. Car-dependent ones don't. If moving isn't possible, spend more time in parts of your existing environment where accidental contact can happen.

Say yes more often. Most adults have said no to enough invitations that the invitations stopped coming. Reverse that. Say yes even when you don't feel like it. You build community by showing up before you want to.

What not to do:

Rely on social media or text threads to substitute for physical presence

Wait until you feel motivated

Assume the friends you had at 25 will maintain themselves without effort at 45

You do have to get out there, but it has to be intentional as I laid out here.

We are one of the most social species on the planet.

Our nervous system was built by tribes of 50 to 150 people who saw each other every day, worked together, ate together, raised children together, and knew each other's life stories without effort.

Ancient philosophers like Plato and Aristotle recognized this too. They understood that humans are fundamentally not made for extended isolation.

Yet the environment changes without any accompanying change in biology.

You cannot supplement your way out of this one. You cannot outsource it.

You have to rebuild the structures the modern environment removed, one recurrence at a time, starting where you are.


P.S. If this hit, forward it to someone who needs it. If it got forwarded to you — subscribe here so you don't miss the next one.]]></description>
      <enclosure url="https://podcast.carverupton.com/saladino/episodes/saladino-01M0QMRD9QSBBGWR1KPB5BHBF2-klaviyomail-com.mp3" length="4286228" type="audio/mpeg" />
      <itunes:duration>00:09:59</itunes:duration>
      <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>🤔 The problem with PEANUT BUTTER</title>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">&lt;01M0D0VBXJHFN1AJ9SD2JWB7PH@klaviyomail.com&gt;</guid>
      <pubDate>Wed, 19 Aug 2026 13:05:02 +0000</pubDate>
      <description><![CDATA[WED • AUGUST 19, 2026

SPECIAL ANNOUNCEMENT

Peanut Butter:

Smooth, Creamy, and... Rancid??

I have major beef with most peanut butter.

Start here: peanuts are roughly half fat by weight. Which fat you get depends entirely on the variety of peanut you start with, and that's where things go sideways.

A standard peanut runs up to 30% linoleic acid, link here, an omega-6 polyunsaturated fat. That's the same fat family that makes up the bulk of seed oils, the ones I've been telling you to get out of your kitchen for years.

The problem is structural. Linoleic acid has two double bonds, and double bonds are where oxidation attacks. Oleic acid, the monounsaturated fat that makes up most of olive oil, has one. Fewer double bonds, slower oxidation.

So a jar of conventional peanut butter is degrading the whole time it sits in your pantry. By the time you scrape the bottom of it, you're eating oxidized fat. Which means it’s rancid, in plain English.

Then there's the mold problem.

Peanuts grow underground, get harvested wet, and sit in storage. That's close to ideal conditions for the molds that produce aflatoxins, which is why peanuts are one of the most aflatoxin-tested crops in the world.

Now, the reason I'm telling you this is...

HERE, link here

Peanut butter chocolate chip, link here has been the most requested flavor in Lineage Provisions history, and it wasn't close. It's also the single most popular protein bar flavor on the market. People want it, and they're going to get it from somewhere.

So I gave the Lineage team two conditions before I'd sign off on this incredible bar we landed on, link here.

The peanuts had to be hi-oleic. And every lot had to be tested for agrochemicals, mold and mycotoxins, plus glyphosate, heavy metals, and pesticides, by a third-party lab.

The result is a peanut running 75 to 82% oleic acid and only 2 to 6% linoleic, instead of the usual 30% linoleic.

There are fewer than a handful of growers globally producing them at the quality level we needed. Most brands don't know they exist, because peanuts get bought on flavor and price, never on fatty acid profile.

The Lineage team went searching far and wide for low linoleic acid peanuts, and we found them. Then I had our peanut butter and a conventional peanut butter sent out for independent fatty acid testing, because I wanted the actual numbers rather than a supplier's word.

Ours came back with:

84% less linoleic acid

73% more oleic acid

An oleic to linoleic ratio of 24.2:1, against 2.3:1 for the conventional sample

That ratio is not a number we invented for marketing. The peanut industry uses it as the standard predictor of shelf life, because linoleic acid oxidizes so much faster than oleic. Normal peanuts sit around 1 to 1.6. Anything above 9 is considered hi-oleic. Ours is 24.2.

In practice, that means the peanut butter stays fresh and doesn’t oxidize like 99% of peanut butter on the shelves (and in other bars).

CLICK HERE TO TRY →, link here

The rest of the bar is what you'd expect. 20g of protein from grass-fed whey and collagen, organic chocolate chips, raw honey and coconut nectar, 100% grass-fed beef tallow. 0 garbage ever.

I wasn't willing to lower our standard to make a peanut butter bar. So we went and found a peanut that could meet it.

⭐️ This first batch is limited and already moving fast, so if you want to grab some check it out now!

Try Peanut Butter Chocolate Chip →, link here

Thanks always for your support.]]></description>
      <enclosure url="https://podcast.carverupton.com/saladino/episodes/saladino-01M0D0VBXJHFN1AJ9SD2JWB7PH-klaviyomail-com.mp3" length="1705532" type="audio/mpeg" />
      <itunes:duration>00:03:56</itunes:duration>
      <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>What I do the 4 hours before bed</title>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">&lt;01M0D0VE5MB2A7AFR7JF6E7TV9@klaviyomail.com&gt;</guid>
      <pubDate>Wed, 19 Aug 2026 13:03:01 +0000</pubDate>
      <description><![CDATA[Welcome to my newest newsletter, Paul's Protocol. Over 2,400 people in this community filled out a content survey at the start of the year. The message was clear: less theory, more "what do I actually do on Tuesday." More protocols. More lab work. More swaps. So I built this with my team.  Every Wednesday, you'll get one protocol I'm actually running, one biomarker worth knowing, one swap worth making, what I'm reading, and one question. Three-minute read. You’ll still get the Sunday expose style newsletter as well if you're subscribed. One quick favor:​Forward this to a friend. Protocols stick when you have someone doing them with you. Sleep, training, food, all of it works better with an accountability buddy. Find yours. Let's get into it.


THE PROTOCOL

What I Do In The 4 Hours Before Bed

 

Half the people who message me about sleep are looking for the perfect supplement.

Sleep is not a supplement problem, though.

You need a routine in the evening. That starts at dinner, not at bedtime.

I'm asleep by 8:30 and up at 5 to surf. Every part of my evening is reverse-engineered from those two times.

5 PM, dinner. Finished by 6, two and a half hours before bed. Most nights: grass-fed ground beef burger on the grill, cooked squash, a cucumber, and a smoothie with raw milk, Lineage honey, and frozen blueberries. Coconut water on the side. The glycine in beef helps your body cool for sleep. Tryptophan in milk is a melatonin precursor. Honey improves sleep quality. Coconut water has magnesium.

Around 6 PM, walk. 10 to 15 minutes on the dirt road. Helps digestion, catches the last of the sunset.

Sun down, no overheads. LEDs flicker and they're enriched in blue, which tells your brain it's noon. I use zero-flicker red bulbs low to the floor. Phone goes red mode and gets put away an hour or two before bed.

7:30 PM, bed. Cooling mat on. Eye mask and earplugs ready. Then the move I'd bet you're not doing: legs straight up against the wall for 10 to 15 minutes. Try it, you get sleepy fast.

8:30, lights out.

Watch my full night routine →, link here


THE LAB

RBC Magnesium

 

People take magnesium for sleep. Fine.

But if your doctor checked your levels and said "normal," that test was probably useless.

Serum magnesium measures what is in your blood. Less than 1% of your body's magnesium lives there. You can be deficient and still test normal.

RBC magnesium measures what is inside your cells, where it actually does the work.

Optimal: 6.0+ mg/dL. Under 5.0, fix it.

Why serum magnesium is useless →, link here


THE SWAP

Homemade Air Freshener

 

Stop buying store-bought air fresheners. Most are loaded with phthalates and other endocrine disruptors (PMID: 34069956).

Make this instead:

Glass jar, coarse salt, baking soda, a splash of vinegar, eucalyptus essential oil, a few cloves.

Smells like a sauna. Costs pennies to make.

Full recipe →, link here


WHAT I'M READING

The Creative Act

 

I recently read Rick Rubin's The Creative Act. He's a record producer who treats his craft like a Buddhist treats a koan.

Reading it at night with a red light, no screens.

It's making me think about how presence and curiosity shape outcomes in health work and everywhere else. Read it slow, it’s worth it.

Grab it from Amazon, link here


ONE QUESTION

"Is Raw Dairy Safe For Kids?"

Short answer:

The risk isn't raw dairy, it's bad sourcing.

Pasteurization exists because industrial dairy is dirty by design.

Clean, grass-fed, regularly tested raw milk from a farm you trust is a fundamentally different product.

Kids are more vulnerable, so the sourcing bar has to be higher.

Know your farmer. Know their testing protocol. Know the herd.

Here's a great tool to find raw dairy farms near you., link here

That's it for this week.

I'm rooting for you,

Paul

SUNDAY NEWSLETTER

WANT MY SUNDAY EXPOSÉ NEWSLETTER TOO?

That's where I deep dive into one topic weekly, with
science-backed perspectives you won't find anywhere else.

SUBSCRIBE HERE, link here

 

[]]></description>
      <enclosure url="https://podcast.carverupton.com/saladino/episodes/saladino-01M0D0VE5MB2A7AFR7JF6E7TV9-klaviyomail-com.mp3" length="1970876" type="audio/mpeg" />
      <itunes:duration>00:04:44</itunes:duration>
      <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>What DuPont knew about “forever chemicals”</title>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">&lt;01M05KYJ4JZQ5H0SKMJ1SDSV7Q@klaviyomail.com&gt;</guid>
      <pubDate>Sun, 16 Aug 2026 16:02:57 +0000</pubDate>
      <description><![CDATA[SUN • AUGUST 9, 2026

ISSUE #14 · THE SUNDAY EXPOSÉ

What DuPont Knew About the "Forever Chemicals" in Your Blood

For four decades, the companies that made PFAS studied its toxicity in secret. Now 97% of Americans carry it, and the EPA walked back some of the limits.

Before we get into it...

Every Sunday, I show you what's broken. Every Wednesday, in Paul's Protocol, I show you what I actually do about it.

Each issue shows you one protocol I'm running, one lab number to know, and one swap to make. Short, actionable, 3-minute reads.

Click here to get Paul’s Protocols every Wednesday., link here

(If you land on my homepage after clicking that, you're in. Nothing else needed from you.)

You have chemicals in your blood that shouldn't be there.

Almost everyone reading this does.

A class of synthetic compounds called PFAS, short for per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, has been detected in the blood of roughly 97 to 99% of Americans in recent biomonitoring.

They're in your nonstick cookware, your waterproof clothing, your fast food wrappers, your dental floss, some of your cosmetics, and the drinking water of an estimated 200 million Americans.

They were patented in the 1940s…

Mass-produced by the 1950s…

And were known to be toxic by their own manufacturers by 1961.

Yet the first legally enforceable drinking water limit for any of them wasn't set until 2024. That limit is now being walked back.

Today, I want to tell you about what the companies who made them knew, when they knew it, and what happened when a lawyer in West Virginia finally forced them to open the files…

The story starts in a small town called Parkersburg, West Virginia.

In 1951, DuPont began manufacturing perfluorooctanoic acid, or PFOA, also called C8, at its Washington Works plant on the Ohio River.

PFOA was the key ingredient in Teflon, the nonstick coating that would soon be in millions of American kitchens.

In 1998, a farmer named Wilbur Tennant contacted a Cincinnati corporate defense attorney named Robert Bilott.

His cattle were dying.

He suspected DuPont's landfill next door was the reason. Bilott, whose usual clients were chemical companies, took the case anyway.

In a years-long legal fight, Bilott obtained a court order forcing DuPont to turn over documents. DuPont handed him 100,000+ pages of internal correspondence, studies, and memos going back four decades.

They showed that DuPont's own workers had elevated levels of PFOA in their blood by 1961, and the company knew.

In 1981, DuPont's own scientists ran studies showing PFOA caused testicular tumors in rats. In that same year, DuPont's own researchers documented the first direct evidence in humans that PFOA crossed the placenta from mother to fetus.

Internal documents from later in the 1980s classified PFOA as a "possible human carcinogen."

In 1984, DuPont quietly tested the blood of Parkersburg residents. PFOA was there.

DuPont did not tell them.

When PFOA was found in a nearby resident's private drinking water well, DuPont paid for a new well without disclosing the contamination.

For the next 15 years, DuPont continued to sell Teflon. It continued to discharge PFOA-laden waste into the Ohio River and into unlined landfills that leached into the groundwater. It continued to tell the public and the EPA that the chemical was safe.

It did all of this knowing what its own studies had shown.

In 2001, Bilott filed a class action on behalf of ~70,000 Parkersburg residents whose drinking water had been contaminated.

That case settled in 2004 for $70 million plus water filtration and, critically, funding for the C8 Science Panel: seven years of independent epidemiological research on the actual health effects of PFOA exposure.

The C8 Science Panel concluded, in 2012, that PFOA was probably linked to six specific diseases:

Kidney cancer

Testicular cancer

Ulcerative colitis

Thyroid disease

Pregnancy-induced hypertension

Elevated cholesterol

Subsequent research expanded that list.

Peer-reviewed studies have linked PFAS exposure to immune system suppression (including reduced vaccine antibody response in children), liver dysfunction, developmental delays in exposed infants, and multiple additional cancers.

The mechanism is complex but includes endocrine disruption, oxidative stress, and immune modulation.

Two things about these chemicals make them particularly difficult…

The first is their persistence.

PFAS have some of the longest half-lives of any environmental contaminant. PFOA has a human blood half-life of two to eight years, meaning a single exposure takes decades to fully clear. In tissue, some PFAS accumulate and are cleared slowly if at all.

The "forever chemicals" name is not metaphorical. These molecules were engineered to resist heat, water, grease, and biological breakdown. They do.

The second is their transfer.

Like microplastics (see last week’s newsletter), PFAS cross the placenta, appear in breast milk, and reach the developing fetus.

A child born today inherits a body burden of PFAS that the mother spent decades accumulating.

Now let’s take a look at the current situation and how things could pan out over the next few years…

In April 2024, the EPA set the first legally enforceable drinking water limits for six PFAS compounds.

It set the PFOA and PFOS (the two most-studied) limits at 4 parts per trillion. The health-based goal, meaning the level below which no health risk is expected, was set at zero. The EPA's own scientists concluded that no exposure to these chemicals is considered safe.

Public water systems were given until 2029 to comply.

In May 2025, the new administration's EPA announced it would rescind the limits for four of those compounds (PFNA, PFHxS, HFPO-DA, and the mixture index), keeping only the PFOA and PFOS limits. It also announced it would extend the compliance deadline for the remaining two chemicals from 2029 to 2031. The formal rulemaking was proposed in May 2026 and is being finalized as I write this.

Meanwhile, the industry has been paying to settle what it did.

In June 2023, 3M agreed to a $10.3 billion settlement with public water systems for PFAS contamination cleanup.

DuPont, Chemours, and Corteva jointly agreed to a $1.185 billion settlement the same month. Bilott's 2018 class action, filed on behalf of essentially every American with PFAS in their blood, is still moving through the courts.

The industry has decided it's cheaper to pay than to stop. The regulation that would have forced them to stop is now being walked back.

My father was a doctor, and he trusted the EPA.

He trusted that if a chemical was in commercial use, it had been tested. He trusted that if there was a problem, someone would say something.

Totally different society back then. Much more institutional trust. So I can’t blame him.

However, every piece I write about this era of American industry ends up here.

Glyphosate, sugar-funded cholesterol science, mass GLP-1 prescriptions… the pattern is the same:

Corporate science is done in private. Public health advice is issued without full evidence. Independent research eventually catches up. Litigation forces disclosure. Regulators act, sometimes.

And then, occasionally, the political tide shifts and the regulation gets rolled back before the exposure is even contained.

You don't have to be a conspiracy theorist to see this pattern. You have to be able to read.

Now, you cannot fully avoid PFAS. They're too widespread. But you can reduce your daily incoming load meaningfully…

Here are some tips:

Filter your drinking water. This is the highest-ROI move. Standard carbon filters help but don't fully remove PFAS. The most effective home options are reverse osmosis systems and specific certified carbon block filters. If you're on well water in an agricultural, industrial, or firefighting-training area, get your water tested. Roughly 200 million Americans are on water systems with detectable PFAS.

Replace nonstick cookware. Older Teflon (pre-2013 manufacture) contained PFOA directly. Newer nonstick uses different fluoropolymers, but scratched or overheated nonstick still releases particulates and volatile compounds. Cast iron, carbon steel, stainless steel, and ceramic are the alternatives.

Skip grease-resistant food packaging. Fast food wrappers, microwave popcorn bags, and takeout containers with grease-resistant coatings often contain PFAS. If you have to eat fast food, remove the wrapper and eat off a plate.

Check waterproof and stain-resistant products. Waterproof-treated clothing, stain-resistant carpet, treated furniture upholstery, some raincoats. Look for PFAS-free labels (increasingly common as awareness has grown). Patagonia and a few other brands have moved on this.

Check cosmetics and dental floss. Some waterproof mascaras, foundations, and long-wear lipsticks contain PFAS. So do many dental flosses that use PTFE (Teflon) as the coating. Uncoated silk floss is a simple alternative.

Some of what's already in you can come out. PFAS blood levels can be reduced by donating blood or plasma regularly. This is backed by peer-reviewed research. It's not a cure, but it's worth knowing about.

Consider bloodwork. If you've had long-term exposure (firefighter, military, industrial worker, or lived near a contaminated site), PFAS blood testing is available through several commercial labs. Knowing your baseline is the first step in doing something about it.

We have chemicals in our blood that no human had before 1950.

The companies who put them there knew what they were doing 40 years before anyone told us.

The regulation that would have started to address it is being walked back before it took full effect.

And the products keeping the exposure current are still on every American grocery store and drugstore shelf.

The Remembering, in this case, is about paying attention to which companies get to decide what we consume. It's about who gets to say what's safe and what isn't.

No need to wait to act, either.

You can start checking labels today and filter your water this week.

You could even donate blood right now.

Meanwhile, over the following year, you could slowly swap out cookware for healthier options.

None of this is comprehensive, but all of it matters.


P.S. If this hit, forward it to someone who needs it. If it got forwarded to you — subscribe here so you don't miss the next one.]]></description>
      <enclosure url="https://podcast.carverupton.com/saladino/episodes/saladino-01M05KYJ4JZQ5H0SKMJ1SDSV7Q-klaviyomail-com.mp3" length="4935908" type="audio/mpeg" />
      <itunes:duration>00:11:35</itunes:duration>
      <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>We&#x27;re passing microplastics to our kids</title>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">&lt;01KZKK64GAA4CR1A02S5XR0853@klaviyomail.com&gt;</guid>
      <pubDate>Sun, 09 Aug 2026 16:03:24 +0000</pubDate>
      <description><![CDATA[SUN • AUGUST 9, 2026

ISSUE #14 · THE SUNDAY EXPOSÉ

We're Passing Microplastics To Our Children

Microplastics cross the placenta, reach the fetus, and alter hormone levels at birth. The exposure continues through every bottle and pacifier that follows. Data on how this affects children is just starting to emerge on the impacts.

Before we get into it...

Every Sunday, I show you what's broken. Every Wednesday, in Paul's Protocol, I show you what I actually do about it.

Each issue shows you one protocol I'm running, one lab number to know, and one swap to make. Short, actionable, 3-minute reads.

Click here to get Paul’s Protocols every Wednesday., link here

(If you land on my homepage after clicking that, you're in. Nothing else needed from you.)

20 years ago, if you talked about microplastics in food/water, the average person would look at you funny.

Today, things have changed for the better.

Every wellness account on the internet has told you about microplastics. Brands sell microplastic-free cookware, clothing, blankets, and so much more… and market themselves that way.

So I don’t need to tell you that “microplastics are bad for your health.”

But that’s not all there is to it.

The plastic in your body is being transferred to the next generation right now, if you're a woman who could get pregnant…

Or later, if you're a man whose sperm is being made from the tissue that contains those particles.

What you consumed in the last 20 years is now what your children will be built from.

I’ll show you the evidence. But first, as a refresher, let’s review some of the data about microplastics in human tissue in general…

A 2024 University of New Mexico study found microplastics in every one of 23 human testicles tested.

The average concentration was 329 micrograms/gram of tissue, nearly 3x higher than dogs in the same geographic environment. The most abundant polymer was polyethylene, the material of plastic bags and bottles. The second was PVC, which researchers noted has been shown to interfere with sperm production and act as an endocrine disruptor.

Concentrations were highest in men between the ages of 20 and 45. Peak reproductive years.

The same lab then examined placenta samples in a separate study. Every one contained microplastics too, at concentrations ranging from 6.5 to 790 micrograms/gram, averaging 127. That's tissue that only exists for eight months of pregnancy. The concentration built up that fast.

Then they moved to the brain.

A study published in Nature Medicine in early 2025 found microplastic concentrations in the frontal cortex to be higher than in the liver or kidney. Comparing 2016 samples to 2024 samples, average concentrations rose approximately 50% in eight years.

In samples from patients diagnosed with dementia before death, concentrations were up to 5x higher than the 2024 average.

That would be one thing if the plastic just sat there…

But it doesn't.

Microplastics have been documented in umbilical cord blood, meaning they cross the placenta and enter the developing baby's circulation directly.

Concentrations found range from 1.1-10+ particles/gram of cord tissue. The same particles have been found in amniotic fluid, the medium the fetus develops in for nine months.

So the baby soaks in the mother’s exposure, and researchers are just starting to document the correlations with real harm. Honestly, they should have gotten more attention than they have.

A 2025 study found that women who developed pregnancy-induced hypertension had 46% higher microplastic concentrations in umbilical cord tissue than women who had healthy pregnancies. The correlation tracked with frequency of plastic tableware use, plastic-packaged beverage consumption, and takeout meals.

The data is only correlational, so researchers aren’t saying plastic caused hypertension.

But the association is strong, and the mechanism (endocrine disruption, oxidative stress, vascular inflammation) is plausible. Related research has found higher neonatal mortality and lower Apgar scores (a quick test/rating of a newborn’s skin color, heart rate, reflexes, muscle tone, and breathing on a 1-10 scale) in babies born to mothers with high plastic container usage.

Animal studies point the same way.

Maternal exposure to polyethylene microplastics in pregnant mice impaired umbilical blood flow. Earlier work on polystyrene at similar concentrations produced measurable fetal growth restriction.

Direct human causation is harder to prove for obvious ethical reasons, but the direction of the evidence is consistent across every model that's been tested.

Then, hormones. A 2025 study of 1,324 newborns found that placental microplastic concentrations correlated with altered levels of cortisol, DHEA, and other androgens in the baby's own cord blood. Yes, at the moment of birth.

The hormonal environment a newborn arrives with is measurably different depending on the mother's plastic burden. The effects tracked differently in male and female babies, which is what you'd expect if endocrine disruption is doing the work.

And it doesn't stop at birth.

Microplastics have been documented in breast milk, formula milk, milk storage bags, plastic feeding bottles, and pacifiers. The exposure that started at conception continues through infancy in the very containers we use to feed and soothe our children.

This is what generational inheritance actually looks like in the data. Not "someday." Right now, at every stage from conception through the first year.

That said, not every plastic exposure carries the same weight, and most people rank them wrong…

Some daily habits contribute 100x more than others.

Ranked by the actual particle load they contribute, some exposures are dramatically worse than others.

Hot beverages in plastic are near the top. A 2019 McGill University study found that steeping a single plastic tea bag at brewing temperature (95°C) released ~11.6 billion microplastic particles and 3.1 billion nanoplastic particles into one cup of tea. 2024 follow-up work at the Autonomous University of Barcelona confirmed this across multiple bag materials. Coffee cups with plastic linings behave similarly. Anything hot in contact with plastic is first-tier exposure.

Microwaving food in plastic is similar. Heat + plastic plus food fat = rapid particle release into what you're about to eat.

Bottled water is one of the most underestimated. A 2024 PNAS study found the average liter of bottled water contained ~240,000 plastic particles, and roughly 90% were nanoplastic-sized. Regular consumption meaningfully changes your daily particle intake.

Nonstick cookware, especially when scratched or heated above medium, releases particles and volatile compounds. Cast iron and stainless steel don't.

Polyester and synthetic clothing in the dryer creates airborne microplastics you inhale in your home. Dust in most American homes is now measurably plastic-heavy. Vacuuming often and using natural fibers where possible reduces this significantly.

Everything else (cold plastic storage, occasional plastic utensils, packaging that never touches heat) is far lower on the hierarchy.

It matters, but not as much as these things.

For what it's worth, my own daily setup is not complicated…

Here’s what I use:

Glass and stainless steel for food and drink storage

No plastic in the dishwasher's hot cycle

No plastic in the microwave

Filtered water

Cast iron for cooking

Natural fibers where I can

No plastic bottles except as a last resort

Now, for something more advanced. I don’t recommend it to the average person, but want to tell you about it so you’re maximally informed:

Last summer, I did two sessions of a procedure called Inuspheresis, a form of double-filtration plasmapheresis available in Europe since 2008, to remove microplastics from my body.

This process separates plasma from red blood cells, runs the plasma through a very fine filter that captures lipid-soluble toxins that adhere to lipoproteins, and returns your blood to you.

Unlike TPE (therapeutic plasma exchange), it saves the good things in your plasma (immunoglobulins, hormones, clotting factors) while removing the bad.

A study published this week found the procedure reduced PFAS by up to 75% and microplastics by around 70% in the treated cohort, plus reductions in inflammatory markers.

My own eluate (the toxins captured in the filter) contained detectable levels of DDT breakdown products, lindane, benzene, PCBs, and industrial solvents. This is what a modern human body accumulates from a lifetime of contact with modern life. Nobody told me any of it was there until I filtered it out and looked at it.

Inuspheresisis not cheap (~$7,000 for two sessions) and it's not yet available in the US, though a group is working on that.

It's not the first move I’d make given the price and complexity. But it does show us that some of these materials, in some cases, could be removed.

We lived in glass, wood, ceramic, and stone for 200,000 years.

The switch to plastic happened in the last 70. Less than a blip in human history.

Yet our great-grandchildren's biology is being decided by decisions we're making right now, and by the ones we choose to change.

The children of the next century will be born into either the same synthetic sea we're currently swimming in, or one that's meaningfully cleaner.

You don't have to fix everything. You have to fix the exposures that matter most, and know where to go from there.

Speaking of that… I recently put together a free, 30-day microplastics "reset guide."

It shows you how to make the biggest shifts without a massive lifestyle overhaul and gives you a timeline to follow so that, by the end, you’ve dramatically cut your exposure.

I can’t promise a 100% microplastic-free environment.

But by hitting the biggest factors, you reduce exposure enough to mitigate the worst effects:

Click here to view the free guide., link here


P.S. If this hit, forward it to someone who needs it. If it got forwarded to you — subscribe here so you don't miss the next one.]]></description>
      <enclosure url="https://podcast.carverupton.com/saladino/episodes/saladino-01KZKK64GAA4CR1A02S5XR0853-klaviyomail-com.mp3" length="4673156" type="audio/mpeg" />
      <itunes:duration>00:10:45</itunes:duration>
      <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>What nobody told you about the pill</title>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">&lt;01KZ1JD0RZMYR67803WMSEWHZW@klaviyomail.com&gt;</guid>
      <pubDate>Sun, 02 Aug 2026 16:01:47 +0000</pubDate>
      <description><![CDATA[SUN • AUGUST 2, 2026

ISSUE #13 · THE SUNDAY EXPOSÉ

What Nobody Told You About The Pill

A decade of the pill changes a woman's body, mood, and bones in ways the 15-minute prescribing visit almost never mentions.

Before we get into it, two things:

First, Heart & Soil kicks off the Animal-Based 30 Challenge today.

Thirty days of meat, organs, fruit, honey, and raw dairy, with a guide, recipes, weekly cooking classes and live Q&As, and 183,000 people who have already run it.

It's free and starts now:

Join Animal-Based 30 here, link here

Second...

Every Sunday, I show you what's broken. Every Wednesday, in Paul's Protocol, I show you what I actually do about it.

Each issue shows you one protocol I'm running, one lab number to know, and one swap to make. Short, actionable, 3-minute reads.

Click here to get Paul’s Protocols every Wednesday., link here

(If you land on my homepage after clicking that, you're in. Nothing else needed from you.)

Around 65% of US women between the ages of 15 and 49 are on some form of contraception.

About 17.5% of those women use the birth control pill.

Most were first prescribed it as teenagers, often for reasons that had nothing to do with preventing pregnancy. Things like acne, painful periods, and irregular cycles.

On the surface, it seems to work.

Women on the pill dramatically reduce the chance of pregnancy and often see improvements in non-pregnancy issues for which they get a prescription.

But below the surface, a decade or more of the pill does things to a woman's body that the average doctor doesn't discuss.

If you are a man reading this, you have a stake in this too. The women in your life, the relationships you're in, the children you may have someday…

All of it is downstream of a decision most women made before they were old enough to vote. Later in the piece, I go into what the male side of this equation looks like.

Now, hormonal birth control can be legitimate medicine for some women with legitimate medical conditions. And if you take it electively, it’s your choice. No shame.

I simply want you to know the potential drawbacks so you’re more confident talking with your doctor about these things and making the best decision for you.

To do that, we have to start with what the pill actually does…

Hormonal contraception overrides the entire hypothalamic-pituitary-gonadal axis.

Synthetic hormones (usually estrogen and progestin, or progestin alone) suppress the normal signaling cascade that would produce ovulation.

They also change cervical mucus, thin the uterine lining, and alter the reproductive tract’s immune environment.

Every menstrual cycle a woman on hormonal contraception experiences is not really a cycle, then. It's a scheduled withdrawal bleed produced by the placebo week of the pack. Her actual reproductive biology is idling in a suppressed state.

This is one of the most systemically active medications routinely prescribed to healthy people in the modern medical system…

And it is prescribed to healthy people.

The average American woman on the pill is not sick. She is preventing pregnancy, treating a symptom like acne or heavy periods, or trying to make a cycle predictable.

The average woman on the pill is also on it for a decade or more.

Some are on it for 20 years, generally adolescence through their late 30s. The intervention starts before her endocrine system is even fully developed.

The prescribing visit that starts all of this typically takes 15 minutes. That’s it.

Yet the research indicates long-term use can increase your risk of several health problems, physical and mental…

Here is what the research shows:

Depression. In 2016, a Danish research team led by Charlotte Skovlund published a nationwide cohort study in JAMA Psychiatry following 1,061,997 women aged 15 to 34 for over six years. Combined oral contraceptives users had a 23% higher rate of first-time antidepressant use than nonusers. Adolescent users on combined oral contraceptives had nearly double the rate. All hormonal contraception types (pill, patch, ring, IUD) showed elevated risk, with the highest signals among the youngest women.

Suicide risk. The same team published a 2018 follow-up in the American Journal of Psychiatry using a separate cohort of 475,802 Danish women. Current or recent hormonal contraceptive users had roughly double the risk of a first suicide attempt and triple the risk of completed suicide compared to women who had never used it. The highest risk was in the first months after starting. The patch showed the strongest signal, followed by the IUD, the ring, and the pill.

Bone density. In 2004, the FDA put a black box warning on Depo-Provera, the injectable contraceptive, for significant bone mineral density loss that increases with duration of use and may not be fully reversible. The FDA recommends limiting Depo-Provera to no more than two years unless no other option is suitable. This is especially concerning for adolescent users, since peak bone mass is built in the teens and 20s.

Libido and hormone signaling. Hormonal contraception elevates sex hormone binding globulin (SHBG), the protein that binds free testosterone in the bloodstream. Higher SHBG means less bioavailable testosterone, which affects libido, energy, and mood. In some women, SHBG stays elevated for months or years after stopping the pill.

Nutrient depletion. Some research documents that hormonal contraception depletes B vitamins (especially B6, B12, and folate), magnesium, zinc, and selenium. These play roles in mood regulation, energy metabolism, and hormonal biology, which may partially explain the mood effects and the difficulty many women have when they come off.

Post-pill recovery. When women stop hormonal contraception to try to conceive, cycles typically return within 3-12 months. Some experience longer amenorrhea. The system the pill suppressed takes time to reactivate. Meanwhile, the medical system tends to treat the pill as fully reversible on discontinuation, which oversimplifies the actual biology.

Here is the harder part…

Almost none of what I just described gets discussed in the average prescribing visit.

The typical pattern is this:

A young woman goes to her primary care doctor or gynecologist for acne, painful periods, or contraception.

The doctor asks about pregnancy risk, checks blood pressure, and writes the prescription.

15 minutes later, the young woman walks out with prescription in hand.

The follow-up in three months confirms she is tolerating it. After that, refills are automatic.

Nobody revisits the decision. Nobody asks how she feels. Nobody tests her nutrient status. She stays on it for a decade.

The vast majority of doctors aren’t careless.

However, the system trains them to manage prescriptions, not to have long conversations about the endocrine implications of overriding a young woman's reproductive biology for twenty years.

If you are on the pill and have been for a long time, this is exactly the conversation you were entitled to have and probably never got.

Now, if you’re a man reading this, the next part’s for you…

Three things around the pill men need to consider:

The pill can impact partner selection. Claus Wedekind at the University of Bern published a 1995 study showing women preferred the scent of men with dissimilar major histocompatibility complex (MHC) genes, an evolutionary mechanism thought to promote genetic diversity and immune resilience in offspring. Follow-up studies suggested women on hormonal contraception showed different or reversed preferences. A 2012 Roberts et al. study in Proceedings of the Royal Society B found that women who met their partners while on hormonal contraception, and later stopped, reported relationship satisfaction changes after. Effect sizes are modest and the field is not settled, but the direction is consistent enough to consider: A woman’s attraction could potentially shift when she starts or stops hormonal contraception.

Your fertility is as important as hers. When a couple decides to conceive, most medical attention goes to the woman, even though ~40-50% of infertility cases involve a male factor. Her cycle takes 3-12 months to normalize after coming off. Your sperm production cycle is ~74 days. Both timelines run the moment she stops the pill. Both partners should optimize sleep, nutrition, sun exposure, and lifestyle from then on.

Estrogens may be in the water. Municipal water carries measurable estrogenic compounds, including synthetic estrogens from hormonal contraception excreted in urine. Fish and amphibian data showing feminization downstream of wastewater plants is real. Research hasn’t fully established a direct causal chain to human male hormone health, but the exposure is real. Filter your water. This is not the biggest issue for men, but it is worth knowing.

Here is what to do now that you know a little more about the pill and what it does…

If you’re on it and considering stopping, work with a doctor who understands post-pill support. Expect 3-12 months for cycles to normalize. Support the transition with nutrient-dense whole foods (ruminant meat, link here, organs, eggs, dairy if tolerated, seasonal fruit) and replenishment of what was depleted (B vitamins, magnesium, zinc, selenium). Eat cholesterol. Your body needs it to make hormones now that it has to make them again.

If you are on it for a medical reason, speak with your doctor. I’m not telling you to stop. I just want to give you the info you should’ve had the first time you walked into the doctor’s office.

If you are staying on it electively, support the biology it suppresses. Adequate protein, link here and cholesterol. Fat-soluble vitamins (A, D, K2). Mineral density. Move regularly. Sleep enough. The pill does not make these things unnecessary. It makes them more necessary.

For couples planning to conceive, start the male optimization now, not at the moment she goes off. Sperm cycle is 74 days. Her cycle recovery is 3-12 months. The clock is already running.

Non-hormonal options for the reasons the pill often gets prescribed: For acne, the dietary interventions (removing seed oils, sugar, industrial dairy). For period irregularity, an actual root-cause workup (thyroid, insulin resistance, undernutrition, stress).

For contraception itself, non-hormonal options exist (copper IUD, barrier methods, fertility awareness methods for those willing to learn them).

The pill was one of the most consequential pharmaceutical inventions of the twentieth century.

It gave women choices they hadn't had before. That matters, and I am not arguing otherwise.

But at some point, we stopped treating a decade of endocrine override as a significant medical event.

It became routine. Handed to 14-year-olds and refilled without conversation. Doctors started prescribing it for reasons that could often be addressed at the root.

Now that you’ve read this newsletter, you have the missing information the prescribing visit rarely includes, but should.

The body keeps the books.

The bill often comes due at conception, or when a woman comes off after a decade and doesn't fully recognize how she feels without it.

The choice was always yours. The knowledge should be, too.


P.S. If this hit, forward it to someone who needs it. If it got forwarded to you — subscribe here so you don't miss the next one.]]></description>
      <enclosure url="https://podcast.carverupton.com/saladino/episodes/saladino-01KZ1JD0RZMYR67803WMSEWHZW-klaviyomail-com.mp3" length="5157164" type="audio/mpeg" />
      <itunes:duration>00:12:02</itunes:duration>
      <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>How I cleared 30 years of eczema</title>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">&lt;01KYFHKRP15F66TJ2A3WD8X4J4@klaviyomail.com&gt;</guid>
      <pubDate>Sun, 26 Jul 2026 16:02:36 +0000</pubDate>
      <description><![CDATA[SUN • JULY 26, 2026

ISSUE #12 · THE SUNDAY EXPOSÉ

The Real Cause of Your Acne, Eczema, and Psoriasis (It's Not On Your Skin)

How I cleared 30 years of eczema through food alone... and what the dermatologist never thought to check.

I had eczema as a kid.

Cracked skin on the inside of my elbows, behind my knees, on my hands in the winter…

Itching so bad it woke me up at night…

Scratching myself raw and then trying to hide the marks…

Not a fun time.

My parents did what parents were told to do in the 1980s to fix it:

They took me to the dermatologist, who prescribed topical steroids. When those didn't fully work, we tried stronger topical steroids.

When those didn't fully work, they prescribed oral antihistamines and moisturizing regimens.

Nobody asked what I was eating, how I was sleeping, or about my stress, environment, or gut health.

The skin was the problem, so the skin got the treatment.

I lived with some form of it for the next 20+ years, through undergrad, medical school, and my residency in psychiatry, of all specialties.

Then I changed how I ate, and within months, the eczema I'd carried since childhood was gone.

I haven't had a flare-up in years…

If you'd told me at 12 that food could fix what steroid creams couldn't, I would not have believed you.

Because the medical system I grew up inside operated on a fundamental assumption:

The skin is a separate organ with its own problems and its own solutions.

The data says the opposite, and it's been saying it for decades.

In 2002, a research team led by Loren Cordain published a study in Archives of Dermatology examining acne in two non-Westernized populations.

In 1,200 Kitavan Islanders in Papua New Guinea (including 300 adolescents aged 15-25), they found zero cases of acne.

Not "less" or "milder" acne.

Zero.

Same result across 115 Aché hunter-gatherers in Paraguay observed over 843 days.

For comparison:

Acne affects 79-95% of adolescents in Western societies. Roughly half of Western men and women over 25 have some form of it.

The Kitavans and Aché weren't genetically special. Cordain's team documented that. Genetically similar populations in the same region who had adopted Western diets developed the same skin conditions we do.

Their traditional diets contained essentially no dairy, refined grains, processed sugars, or industrial oils. Ours contain almost nothing else.

Skin conditions are a signal of something further, something deeper.

Which means the skin issue is not inevitable if you know what it’s telling you…

The gut-skin axis is now well-established in the peer-reviewed literature. Multiple 2024-2025 reviews have mapped the mechanisms.

Your gut lining is a barrier serving as the last line of defense between the outside world (the food you ate two hours ago, now being broken down by your microbiome) and your bloodstream.

When that barrier is intact, and the microbes on it are balanced, you're fine.

When it's not, everything downstream gets loud.

Damaged intestinal barrier → bacterial fragments + inflammatory signals cross into circulation → systemic immune activation → cytokines and immune cells migrate to peripheral tissues → skin gets the overflow.

Acne, eczema, and psoriasis all correlate with measurable gut dysbiosis and intestinal permeability .

The pattern is well-documented for psoriasis specifically:

Decreased Actinobacteria, increased Firmicutes, and modulation of the Th17/IL-17 immune axis that drives the disease.

For atopic dermatitis (eczema), the pattern is reduced beneficial bacteria and increased barrier dysfunction.

For acne, dysbiosis correlates with the inflammatory component, making acne more than just a clogged pore.

There's honest scientific uncertainty about causation direction:

Does gut dysbiosis cause the skin condition, or does an already-inflamed body drive both?

Researchers are still working this out.

But the correlation is real, mechanistically plausible, and consistent across populations.

The dietary drivers are increasingly clear.

High-glycemic-load food. Robyn Smith + colleagues at Melbourne’s RMIT University ran the first randomized controlled trial on this in 2007. 43 male acne patients aged 15-25 were assigned to either a low-glycemic-load or standard high-glycemic-load control diet for 12 weeks. The low-GL group's total acne lesion counts dropped ~twice as much as the control (-23.5 vs -12.0, p=0.03), with parallel improvements in insulin sensitivity, IGF-1, and free androgen index. Multiple follow-up trials have replicated this.

Dairy. A 2018 meta-analysis of 78,529 people found that any dairy consumption was associated with roughly 25% higher odds of acne. Skim and low-fat milk showed higher odds (OR 1.32) than whole milk (OR 1.22). Hormones and IGF-1-elevating whey proteins, more concentrated per calorie in skim than in whole, may be the link.

Seed oils and refined fats. Skin is a lipid organ. Fats you eat make up its cell membranes and secretions. When industrial seed oils (canola, soybean, corn, sunflower, safflower) dominate your diet, cell membranes shift toward linoleic acid dominance. That's a substrate for inflammatory arachidonic acid metabolites and oxidative stress in skin. The mechanistic case is strong. The direct RCT evidence for skin conditions specifically is thinner, but the population data is consistent.

Ultra-processed food. Ultra-processed food is high glycemic, dairy-added, seed-oil-cooked, and generally low in the nutrients skin needs to maintain itself. Everything above bundles inside this.

The Standard American Diet is essentially a delivery system for every input that drives skin dysfunction.

There's one more part of this story…

Topical steroids, the treatment I was on for years, don't fix skin conditions.

They suppress the visible symptoms.

When used long-term at moderate-to-high potency, they can create a condition called “topical steroid withdrawal syndrome” (TSW), also known as topical steroid addiction or red skin syndrome.

TSW is now recognized in the peer-reviewed literature.

A 2015 systematic review by Hajar and colleagues documented 1,206 patients across 34 studies. A 2025 review in Frontiers in Allergy described the phenomenon as "severe cutaneous rebound inflammation and new distressing symptoms upon cessation" of long-term topical steroid use.

Steroids cause vasoconstriction while being used.

When you stop, rebound vasodilation and cytokine cascades worsen skin beyond baseline, often extending to areas the original condition never affected. Some patients spend years recovering.

The National Eczema Society acknowledges the phenomenon exists, though the field is still working out diagnostic criteria.

I'm not saying topical steroids are useless. Short courses are legitimate medicine for acute inflammation.

But the standard practice of treating with progressively stronger steroids for years is a suppression strategy that can create its own downstream disease.

The system trained me, and my parents, to treat the symptom. It never trained anyone to ask what was driving it.

Now that you understand the gut-skin connection, here’s how to clean things up:

Eliminate the big drivers first. Start with refined sugar and ultra-processed foods (the 2007 Smith RCT), then seed oils (canola, soybean, corn, sunflower, safflower), then industrial dairy (especially skim and low-fat milk). Give it at least 60-90 days. Skin turnover takes 4-6 weeks, and deeper healing takes longer.

Rebuild the foundation with animal-based whole foods. Ruminant meat, eggs, wild-caught fish, seasonal fruit, raw honey, link here, and (if you’re serious) organs. Liver, heart, and kidney are the highest-density sources of fat-soluble vitamins (A, D, E, K2), B vitamins, and minerals your skin needs to remodel itself. This was my biggest eczema-clearing leap.

Add healing fats. Grass-fed butter, tallow, ghee, coconut oil, olive oil (cold). Your cell membranes rebuild with the fats you eat. Your skin composition literally changes over six months.

Raw dairy if tolerated. Raw, grass-fed dairy is nutritionally different from industrially processed dairy (what the meta-analysis viewed). Many who react to conventional tolerate raw. Not a universal fix, but worth testing.

Address the gut directly. Fermented foods (real sauerkraut, kefir, plain full-fat yogurt if dairy's fine). Bone broth. Adequate protein, link here. Time between meals to let your gut rest. Consider working with a functional medicine practitioner on targeted testing if you suspect dysbiosis or leaky gut.

Don’t stop long-term topical steroids cold. Withdrawal risk is real. Taper with your dermatologist. Address underlying food drivers in parallel to avoid dependency on medication that worsened your skin.

The skin is the largest surface your immune system communicates through.

It’s a real-time display of what's happening inside you…

And for 20 years, my body was trying to tell me something through my own skin.

Everything I ate created the message. Every treatment I received suppressed the messenger.

Unfortunately, the system I grew up in taught brilliant, well-meaning doctors to look at and treat the skin.

Meanwhile, the system that Kitavan islanders and Aché hunter-gatherers grew up inside taught them to eat real food, and they never got the message my body was sending in the first place.

Just goes to show:

You don't have to be a genetic outlier to have clear skin. You have to eat like a human.


P.S. If this hit, forward it to someone who needs it. If it got forwarded to you — subscribe here so you don't miss the next one.]]></description>
      <enclosure url="https://podcast.carverupton.com/saladino/episodes/saladino-01KYFHKRP15F66TJ2A3WD8X4J4-klaviyomail-com.mp3" length="4648844" type="audio/mpeg" />
      <itunes:duration>00:10:50</itunes:duration>
      <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Your salad might be contaminated right now</title>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">&lt;01KXXGTQQN5Q2JHDJ6GMZHM8ZD@klaviyomail.com&gt;</guid>
      <pubDate>Sun, 19 Jul 2026 16:01:27 +0000</pubDate>
      <description><![CDATA[SUN • JULY 19, 2026

ISSUE #11 · THE SUNDAY EXPOSÉ

The Parasite Hiding In Your Salad In 2026

A produce-focused outbreak has hit 34 states… and the "prewashed" label won't protect you.

Since May 1 this year, the CDC has received reports of 1,645 confirmed cases of cyclosporiasis — a parasitic infection that produces severe, watery, "explosive" diarrhea that can last for weeks.

Add in the probable cases still being investigated, and the number is over 7,000.

That's six times higher than the same period last year.

Twenty-seven times higher if you include probable cases.

Thirty-four states are affected. Taco Bell has voluntarily pulled ingredients from some restaurants as a precaution.

Michigan alone has reported more than 3,300 cases. Investigators in the state are pointing to lettuce and salad greens as the likely source.

If you've been feeling off after a "healthy" meal in the last month, this may be why…

Cyclospora cayetanensis is a microscopic parasite that lives in contaminated water and soil.

It spreads through what you eat (not person-to-person) via the fecal-oral route, meaning food and water contaminated by human waste.

The symptoms:

Watery diarrhea that comes in relentless episodes

Loss of appetite

Weight loss

Bloating

Nausea

Fatigue

Sometimes, low-grade fever

Left untreated, the illness can follow a waxing-and-waning course lasting weeks to over a month. About 1 in 11 confirmed cases have required hospitalization.

Historical U.S. outbreaks have been linked to raspberries, basil, cilantro, snow peas, and lettuce.

In 2018, McDonald's pulled salads from restaurants in 14 states after a Cyclospora outbreak. In 2013, imported Mexican lettuce sickened around 400 people.

Now the pattern is repeating…

But bigger, faster, and across more states than we've ever seen.

The news is leaving something out, though, and it changes what you should do about this…

No EPA-registered chemical disinfectant reliably kills Cyclospora.

Not chlorine wash. Not commercial produce rinses. Not vinegar solutions. Not the antibacterial sprays your grocery store uses on the bagged salad.

According to the CDC, no chemical treatment has been shown to inactivate this parasite.

The only reliable kill mechanisms are:

Cooking to 158°F or higher

Freezing to below −4°F for extended periods

Thorough physical rinsing under running water — Done properly (multiple rinses, salad spinner, repeat cycles), it can meaningfully reduce parasite load but never fully eliminate risk

Your "prewashed" bag of spring mix isn't sterile.

It cannot be.

The parasite, if present, survives whatever the processor did to that lettuce before it hit the shelf.

This is uncomfortable info for the American diet as it's currently constructed.

We eat a lot of raw plants. We treat them as inherently safe. Dietary guidelines encourage more of them. Meanwhile, they’re the highest-risk foods in the modern American food supply — not undercooked meat.

Fresh produce accounts for a disproportionate share of foodborne outbreaks, in fact.

Cooked animal foods are actually safer per calorie than raw plants when you look at the actual outbreak data.

So, how do you protect against this outbreak?

Cook your produce, or wash it obsessively. That's the immediate answer.

Sautéed spinach, wilted kale, roasted vegetables. Cooking above 158°F kills Cyclospora and most other pathogens. This is one of the safest food swaps you can make.

Not everyone who's exposed to Cyclospora gets sick with it. Not everyone who gets sick gets equally sick. The variable is gut immunity.

This is where the modern American gut is chronically under-defended.

Your gut is the largest immune organ in your body. About 70% of your immune system lives in the tissue lining your intestines.

When that lining is intact, when the microbes on it are balanced, and when your immune infrastructure is stocked, you handle exposures. When it's not, you don't.

I recommend supplementing with bovine colostrum, link here to fortify your gut immunity.

Colostrum is highly concentrated milk that mammals (including humans) make immediately after giving birth.

It is an excellent source of nutrients, like immunoglobulins, lactoferrin, and growth factors that support gut barrier integrity and help defend against microbes.

Meanwhile, it has about half as much lactose as regular milk (although exact amounts can vary) and lacks other dairy proteins (whey, casein) that can cause issues for some.

Research has grown substantially in the last decade, with peer-reviewed trials showing reduced GI infection rates in adults taking colostrum.

Look for grass-fed and unheated with minimal processing to preserve immunoglobulins.

Pair with organs, link here (liver, heart, kidney) for fat-soluble vitamins and minerals your immune system depends on. Add bone broth and, if tolerated, fermented foods.

Here's what else to do this week:

Wash raw greens under running water for at least 30 seconds if raw. A quick faucet rinse isn't enough. If eating greens raw, physically agitate them under running water 2-4 times and use a salad spinner between rinses. The mechanical action throws parasites off the leaves. Multiple cycles won't guarantee safety, but will meaningfully reduce risk. Do this with bagged salad marked "prewashed," too. The CDC has been clear that prewashed is not sterile.

Avoid the highest-risk foods during the outbreak window. Restaurant salads. Bagged spring mix. Fresh cilantro and basil. Raspberries from unknown sources. Anything you can't confirm was cooked.

Watch for symptoms. If you develop watery diarrhea lasting more than a couple days, or that comes back after seeming to resolve, see your doctor and ask specifically for Cyclospora testing. Standard stool panels don't always detect it, and clinicians must request Cyclospora testing.

Stay hydrated if you do get sick. Electrolytes matter more than water alone. The parasite is treatable with a specific antibiotic (trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole), but untreated cases can last weeks.

Bagged salad isn't sterile. “Prewashed” doesn't mean safe.

The systems designed to protect you have limits, and those limits are being exposed in real time across 34 states.

Doesn’t mean produce is bad. It's that the food supply is not what most Americans think it is.

You don't have to be afraid of every meal, though.

Know where the actual risks are, and build the defenses your body was designed to use. Cook what needs cooking. Wash what you can't. Fortify what protects you from what gets through.

Real food is safer. Real gut immunity is stronger. The system will keep giving us outbreaks.

Your job is to make sure your body is ready for them.


P.S. If this hit, forward it to someone who needs it. If it got forwarded to you — subscribe here so you don't miss the next one.]]></description>
      <enclosure url="https://podcast.carverupton.com/saladino/episodes/saladino-01KXXGTQQN5Q2JHDJ6GMZHM8ZD-klaviyomail-com.mp3" length="3226124" type="audio/mpeg" />
      <itunes:duration>00:07:31</itunes:duration>
      <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Your grandfather had more testosterone than you</title>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">&lt;01KXBG1WJE10VDT1WF6MK1VSD5@klaviyomail.com&gt;</guid>
      <pubDate>Sun, 12 Jul 2026 16:00:46 +0000</pubDate>
      <description><![CDATA[SUN • JULY 12, 2026

ISSUE #10 · THE SUNDAY EXPOSÉ

The Quiet Collapse of Male Testosterone

A 25-year-old today has lower testosterone than his father did at 40 — and TRT isn't the answer.

Quick one before we get into it:

Our Chocolate Chip Cookie Dough bar is BACK IN STOCK, link here.

I've spent years bashing the protein bar industry (and for good reason). It is a complete disaster... Most bars are filled with sugar alcohols, fiber syrups, gums, seed oils, dressed up as "healthy" and sold to people trying to do the right thing and eat healthy.

So when my team told me they wanted to build a cookie dough bar that actually tasted like cookie dough, I was skeptical that it was possible using only clean ingredients.

But I was wrong…we nailed this!!

It’s got grass-fed whey, collagen, beef tallow. Sweetened with honey and coconut nectar. It tastes like dessert, but it is not dessert. It’s the cleanest, most nutrient-dense protein bar around…

I always believe real food is the answer. Most days that looks like a ground beef and fruit, with some raw milk and honey. But kids need snacks. You need something in the bag on a long travel day. And when you want a treat, this is what “sweet treats” should look like.

My team built something I'd put my name on. And I hope that we can set a standard to make the rest of the industry do better when it comes to sourcing ingredients.

Go grab it before it sells out again! CLICK HERE, link here

In 1989, researchers at the Massachusetts Male Aging Study measured the testosterone levels of 60-year-old men in the Boston area.

Six years later, in 1995, they measured a different group of 60-year-olds.

The second group had significantly lower testosterone.

The researchers repeated the measurements again in 2003.

Same result:

Men measured at any given age had lower testosterone than men measured at the same age a decade prior. The decline held after controlling for smoking, obesity, medication use, and every other lifestyle variable they could measure.

The paper landed in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism in 2007. Population-level testosterone was falling at roughly 1.2% per year, age-matched, and no one could fully explain why.

Nearly two decades later, we can.

Sperm counts have fallen 62% globally since 1973, per a 2022 meta-regression by Hagai Levine and colleagues at Hebrew University. The pace has accelerated — sperm counts are now declining faster than 2.6% per year post-2000, up from 1.4% per year across the earlier decades.

The bodies of the men reading this email are, on average, less hormonally intact than the bodies of the men who read newspapers about the moon landing.

“Aging,” therefore, is not a good explanation.

Something changed about the environment men are made in…

Many things, actually:

Endocrine-disrupting chemicals. Phthalates and bisphenol A (BPA) are among the most well-documented anti-androgenic compounds in the modern environment. Phthalates are in plastic packaging, personal care products, vinyl, fragrances, and food storage materials. BPA is in polycarbonate plastics and epoxy resin can linings. ~100% of Americans test positive for one or more phthalates in urine.

Both interfere with testosterone production at the cellular level by disrupting Leydig cell function in the testes, altering hypothalamic-pituitary-gonadal signaling, and impairing enzymes involved in steroid hormone synthesis. Human studies consistently show negative associations between urinary phthalate and BPA metabolites and serum testosterone levels.

Ancestral men encountered zero of these compounds. Modern men marinate in them from before birth.

Body fat and aromatization. Visceral fat contains aromatase, an enzyme that converts testosterone into estrogen. The more visceral fat a man has, the more testosterone converts to estrogen before it can do its work.

American obesity rates have roughly tripled since 1980. The hormonal consequences track. Lower testosterone can lead to muscle loss and increased fat storage, creating a vicious cycle.

Chronic sleep debt. Most testosterone production happens during sleep, peaking during deep and REM sleep. Men who sleep fewer than 5 hours nightly show dramatic morning testosterone reductions (often 10-15% in a sleep-restricted week). Adult sleep duration has declined ~90 minutes nightly vs. the 1940s.

Seed oils and cell membrane biology. Steroid hormones are lipid-based signaling molecules, crossing cell membranes to reach their receptors. When membrane fatty acid composition shifts (as under a diet dominated by industrial seed oils, and thus linoleic acid), signaling efficiency degrades. This is upstream of the entire endocrine cascade.

Reduced sun exposure. Vitamin D directly modulates testosterone production, and the vitamin D receptor is in the testes. Men with adequate vitamin D status have measurably higher testosterone than deficient men. Half a century of "avoid the sun" has driven population-level vitamin D deficiency to unprecedented levels.

Sedentary life. Skeletal muscle, when loaded, signals for testosterone production. That signaling shuts down when you don’t use muscle. Grip strength is falling. Physical labor is engineered out of daily life. The biological cost is measurable in bloodwork.

There's one more contributor to the decline that fits directly into the story I told last week…

Cholesterol is the raw material the body uses to make testosterone.

Every steroid hormone in the human body traces back to a cholesterol backbone. Reduce cholesterol availability — through diet, statins, and the systematic demonization of animal foods — and you reduce the raw material the body needs.

For 50 years, official dietary guidelines told American men to fear dietary cholesterol. Egg yolks, butter, red meat, organ meats were pushed out of the diet.

That advice was built on the industry-funded 1967 NEJM review I wrote about last Sunday.

The science never supported the recommendation. But the recommendation shaped what a generation of men ate.

Reduce the substrate. Reduce the hormone.

Yet, despite all the potential factors at play, the medical system's response to the testosterone crash isn't to ask what caused it…

It's to prescribe testosterone.

TRT prescriptions in the US grew from 7.3 million in 2019 to over 11 million in 2024. Men aged 35-44 saw the sharpest increases, up nearly 60% in the last decade. About 14% of men under 40 have used or are using testosterone therapy.

For men with genuine hypogonadism — primary testicular failure, pituitary dysfunction, specific medical conditions — TRT is legitimate medicine. That's not what I'm talking about.

I'm talking about the mass-market TRT clinic model:

A man walks in tired, gains weight easily, has low libido, feels flat. His labs come back "low normal." He gets a prescription.

Nobody asks what he eats, how he sleeps, how much sun he gets, how much he moves, what his cell membranes are made of.

The prescription works, temporarily. His labs go up. He feels better.

But his body, sensing exogenous testosterone in circulation, downregulates production. The pituitary shuts down the signal. The testes shrink because they're no longer being asked to work. Sperm production drops toward zero.

His labs stay stable, but only because the injection is doing the work his body used to do.

Some doctors add drugs called HCG or clomiphene to keep endogenous production running. Most don't. And if he ever stops the injection without a specific protocol to restart his own system, his testosterone crashes… often below where it was before he started.

That’s how it works:

Treat the symptom → Ignore the upstream cause → Write the next prescription.

I live in a way that's mostly the opposite of what modern American life engineers you toward.

I surf every morning in unfiltered equatorial sun. I eat animal foods with organs at the center of the plate. I sleep in a dark room and I sleep enough. I lift things that are heavy. I don't use plastic for hot food or drinks.

I just turned 49, and I've never taken TRT.

I’m in the greatest shape of my life. I feel the best I’ve ever felt. n=1, but it’s hard to ignore such stark differences.

With that in mind, here's what actually restores endogenous testosterone…

Sleep 7-9 hours a night, in a cool, dark room. Your body makes testosterone at night. This alone can move levels 10-20% in chronically sleep-deprived men. So sleep is non-negotiable.

Get sun on your skin. Morning sun for circadian entrainment. Midday sun for vitamin D. Bare skin, no sunscreen for the first 15-20 minutes, gradual exposure by skin type. Both endogenous vitamin D production and sunlight’s direct cardiovascular effects support testosterone.

Lift heavy things two to three times a week. Compound movements: Squats, deadlifts, presses, rows. Muscle demands testosterone. Deconditioned muscle doesn't.

Eat cholesterol. Whole eggs, ruminant meat, link here, dairy, organs, link here. Cholesterol is testosterone’s substrate. If you're not eating it, you're not giving your body what it needs.

Lose visceral fat, not just weight. Waist circumference matters more than the scale. Every reduction in visceral adiposity reduces aromatization and preserves free testosterone.

Remove plastics from your food and drink chain. No hot food in plastic. No microwaving in plastic. Water in glass or stainless steel. Reduce personal care products with phthalates. This won't clear existing exposure quickly, but it stops the daily incoming load.

Cut seed oils. Ditch canola, soybean, corn, sunflower, safflower. These reshape your cell membranes over months. Cook with tallow, ghee, butter, coconut oil, olive oil.

Talk to a doctor if your labs are truly low, not just "not optimal." If you're hypogonadal (total testosterone below 250-300 ng/dL with symptoms), and the cause isn't lifestyle-reversible, TRT may be appropriate. Get labs done properly (morning, fasted, repeated for accuracy) before making a decision that's very hard to reverse.

The testosterone story is the same story I've been telling in different forms for years.

The environment changed, and the biology followed.

The medical system then built a prescription pad around the symptom without asking what caused it.

Modern men are running ancient hardware in an environment that no longer feeds it. Restore the inputs the biology evolved with — real food, cholesterol, sun, sleep, movement, minimal plastic — and the hormones respond.

You don't need TRT to feel like a man.

You need the conditions your body was built to make testosterone in.


P.S. If this hit, forward it to someone who needs it. If it got forwarded to you — subscribe here so you don't miss the next one.]]></description>
      <enclosure url="https://podcast.carverupton.com/saladino/episodes/saladino-01KXBG1WJE10VDT1WF6MK1VSD5-klaviyomail-com.mp3" length="5112548" type="audio/mpeg" />
      <itunes:duration>00:11:54</itunes:duration>
      <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>The 1967 paper that changed what’s on your plate</title>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">&lt;01KWSF92AYD3H5CN18RZG1N1H4@klaviyomail.com&gt;</guid>
      <pubDate>Sun, 05 Jul 2026 16:02:05 +0000</pubDate>
      <description><![CDATA[SUN • JULY 5, 2026

ISSUE #09 · THE SUNDAY EXPOSÉ

How Saturated Fat Got Demonized (and Why It Was Wrong)

A $48,000 industry payoff in 1967 turned animal fats into the villain… and gave us 50 years of dietary policy the science never supported.

In 1967, the New England Journal of Medicine published a literature review that reshaped how Americans ate for the next 50 years.

It was titled "Dietary Fats, Carbohydrates and Atherosclerotic Disease," and it concluded that saturated fat was the dietary culprit in heart disease.

Not sugar. Saturated fat.

Hence, the diet-heart hypothesis that governs much of modern nutritional thinking:

Saturated fat raises blood cholesterol, and blood cholesterol drives heart disease. Therefore, reducing saturated fat reduces heart disease.

The journal didn't disclose (and wasn't required to at the time) that the review had been funded by the Sugar Research Foundation (SRF), the trade association for the US sugar industry.

The SRF paid the equivalent of ~$48,000 in 2026 dollars to three Harvard nutrition scientists:

Frederick Stare (chair of Harvard Nutrition), D. Mark Hegsted (who’d later help write the first US Dietary Guidelines), and Robert McGandy.

According to internal industry documents uncovered by Cristin Kearns and her UCSF colleagues in 2016, the SRF hand-selected which studies the reviewers analyzed. Internal correspondence showed the industry communicating what they wanted the outcome to be. The Harvard scientists delivered it.

For five decades, doctors, dietitians, and government agencies built the case against animal fats — and the case for the low-fat, ultra-processed , seed-oil-enriched American diet — on top of that paper and the others that followed in its wake.

Now, the diet-heart hypothesis was accelerated by the 1967 review, but is itself older than that…

The strongest support came from Ancel Keys' Seven Countries Study, begun in 1958.

Keys tracked dietary patterns and cardiovascular outcomes across populations in Greece, Italy, the former Yugoslavia, the Netherlands, Finland, the United States, and Japan.

He found a correlation between saturated fat intake and heart disease, and that correlation became the empirical backbone of half a century of dietary policy.

However…

The Seven Countries Study was observational.

It compared whole populations, so it couldn't isolate saturated fat from everything else those populations ate (like sugar, refined grains, processed food, and alcohol) or from how they lived, smoked, worked, and slept.

When you compare countries to each other, you compare ways of life. Critics raised this at the time.

In 1957, before the Seven Countries Study had even begun, Jacob Yerushalmy and Herman Hilleboe published a methodological critique of Keys' earlier cross-country work. They pointed out that broader data showed weaker and less consistent associations than Keys' initial analyses suggested.

The critique was largely ignored. The hypothesis kept moving.

By 1977, the US Senate's McGovern Committee report recommended reducing saturated fat consumption.

By 1980, the first official US Dietary Guidelines made that recommendation national policy.

The UK followed in 1983. The American Heart Association followed shortly after.

The policy was built on observational data, industry-influenced reviews, and a methodological framework that couldn't isolate cause from correlation. That was the foundation.

The randomized controlled trials, which are the kind of evidence required to actually establish causation, came later…

And they didn't validate the hypothesis.

A 2025 systematic review and meta-analysis published in JMA Journal pooled 9 randomized controlled trials with 13,532 participants.

The conclusion:

Saturated fat restriction did not produce significant reductions in cardiovascular mortality (RR 0.94), all-cause mortality (RR 1.01), myocardial infarction (RR 0.85), or coronary artery events (RR 0.85).

Earlier meta-analyses found similar things.

A 2022 review by Valk and colleagues concluded there was no conclusive link between saturated fat intake and cardiovascular risk.

A meta-analysis by Harcombe and colleagues across seven cohort studies and roughly 90,000 participants found no significant difference in coronary heart disease mortality based on saturated fat intake.

Across more than two dozen meta-analyses and systematic reviews now in the literature, the consistent finding is that the diet-heart hypothesis — saturated fat causes cardiovascular disease — isn't supported by the level of evidence required to enforce it as universal policy.

The science required to back the dietary guidelines, it turns out, was never assembled.

The guidelines remain in place anyway.

I’ve trained inside this system. My father was a doctor, too. The advice he passed to his patients came directly from these guidelines.

He wasn't lying to anyone, though.

He was repeating what his training told him was settled science.

The system trains brilliant, well-meaning people to repeat a consensus built on a paper, paid for by an industry, using a methodology that couldn't support the conclusion in the first place.

By the time the original premise was seriously questioned, three generations of doctors had already built their practices on top of it.

This is what I mean when I say the system isn't the people. The people inside it are mostly trying to help.

So if saturated fat isn't what we should have been focusing on, what is?

The newer markers tell a much more accurate story…

ApoB is the most important. It measures the number of atherogenic particles (the ones that drive arterial plaque buildup) in your blood. The 2019 European Society of Cardiology guidelines and the 2024 National Lipid Association consensus both concluded that ApoB is a more accurate cardiovascular risk marker than LDL cholesterol.

A 2025 review found 9 of 9 discordance studies showed ApoB outperforms LDL-C. When ApoB and LDL-C disagree on risk, the actual events track with ApoB.

Triglyceride/HDL ratio is one of the simplest and most informative insulin resistance markers.

A ratio above 2 (in American units) suggests metabolic dysfunction. Below 1.5 is good. This is on almost every standard panel and almost nobody uses it.

Fasting insulin is rarely measured in standard panels but tells you more about metabolic health than fasting glucose.

By the time fasting glucose is elevated, insulin resistance has usually been compensating for years.

Lp(a) is genetically determined and an independent cardiovascular risk factor. Many cardiologists don't test for it.

These are the markers that matter. The cholesterol panel your doctor runs yearly mostly measures the wrong thing.

Here's what to do with this information:

Get the right tests. ApoB, triglyceride/HDL ratio, fasting insulin, Lp(a), and hs-CRP (an inflammation marker) tell far more about your cardiovascular trajectory than total cholesterol. Most labs run them on request. Insurance won't often cover them, but they're inexpensive out of pocket.

Eat real food. Single-ingredient, animal-based foundation. Ruminant meat, link here, organs, link here, eggs, dairy if tolerated, fruit, raw honey, link here, seasonal vegetables you tolerate well. This is what humans evolved to eat. The body recognizes it. The cardiovascular biomarkers respond to it.

Cut the actual drivers. Seed oils (canola, soybean, corn, sunflower, safflower) and ultra-processed foods are the dietary inputs most strongly associated with metabolic dysfunction. They drive insulin resistance, inflammation, and the apoB particle elevations that actually predict events.

Move your insulin sensitivity. Resistance training, sleep, time-restricted eating, walking. The mechanism that's broken in most cardiovascular disease is metabolic, not lipid-specific. Address the metabolism and the lipids follow.

The 1967 paper that started this is the foundation of dietary guidelines still in place today.

The science required to defend it was never built. The science that did get built tells a different story.

You don't have to fear animal foods.

You have to fear what replaced them in the American diet — and to know what to measure if you want to know your real risk.


P.S. If this hit, forward it to someone who needs it. If it got forwarded to you — subscribe here so you don't miss the next one.]]></description>
      <enclosure url="https://podcast.carverupton.com/saladino/episodes/saladino-01KWSF92AYD3H5CN18RZG1N1H4-klaviyomail-com.mp3" length="4009652" type="audio/mpeg" />
      <itunes:duration>00:09:17</itunes:duration>
      <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Red meat protects the aging brain (new study)</title>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">&lt;01KW7EFBFPDMGBCKE5SBKE4MSK@klaviyomail.com&gt;</guid>
      <pubDate>Sun, 28 Jun 2026 16:01:46 +0000</pubDate>
      <description><![CDATA[SUN • JUNE 28, 2026

ISSUE #08 · THE SUNDAY EXPOSÉ

THE REAL REASON YOU'RE OMEGA-3 DEFICIENT (AND IT'S NOT FISH)

The genetic risk most doctors call "fixed" may be more responsive to diet than they're telling you.

 

Red meat may protect your brain as you age.

Especially if you're carrying what's been called the "Alzheimer's gene."

At least, that's the finding of a 15-year Swedish study just published in JAMA Network Open.

Researchers tracked 2,157 adults and found that the people who ate the most unprocessed meat had dramatically lower rates of dementia…

And the protective effect was strongest in exactly the group conventional medicine says can't do much about their genetic risk.

This is mainstream peer-reviewed science. Not a “fringe” nutrition website. 

Here's what the study actually found, why it makes evolutionary sense, and what to eat if you want to feed your brain what it was built for…

The Swedish National Study on Aging and Care followed 2,157 adults aged 60 and older for up to 15 years. They tracked diet, genotype, and cognitive trajectories.

About 26% of the cohort carried at least one APOE ε4 allele (close to the general population rate).

ε4 carriers who ate the most unprocessed meat had 55% lower dementia risk than those who ate the least (sHR 0.45, 95% CI 0.21-0.95). Their cognitive trajectories over 15 years were measurably better, particularly in episodic memory, the cognitive domain early Alzheimer's affects most.

In non-carriers, meat intake didn't move the needle in either direction. The effect was specific to people carrying the "Alzheimer's gene."

And for the most shocking result:

At the lowest meat intake, ε4 carriers had about 2.5x the dementia risk of non-carriers.

At the highest meat intake, that gap essentially disappeared. ε4 carriers eating unprocessed animal foods looked, cognitively, like people who never had the "risky" gene in the first place.

The interaction was statistically robust (p = 0.004 for cognitive trajectory). So this wasn't a fluke subgroup finding.

This study isn't the first to find red meat associated with better cognitive outcomes, but it is the first to nail down that the effect is strongest in people carrying the highest-risk genotype.

One more thing that makes this stronger:

In observational research, vegetable consumption usually associates with a bundle of other healthy behaviors (exercise, lower smoking rates, better sleep, etc). So when vegetables correlate with better health, the confounder problem is real.

Red meat is the opposite. Red meat eaters typically don't score better on those other lifestyle variables. Which means when red meat associates with a positive outcome, like 55% lower dementia risk, the finding is harder to explain away.

A few important caveats, but we’ll get to those in a second.

First, here's why this differs from other "meat and Alzheimer's" headlines you might see…

APOE ε4 is the ancestral allele. That means it's the original.

The ε3 and ε2 variants (lower Alzheimer's risk) are new, relatively speaking. They emerged later in human evolution, with agriculture and its accompanying dietary shifts.

ε4 was the dominant form when humans were hypercarnivorous. When we hunted big game, consumed a lot of organs, and ate nutrient-dense animal foods at every meal.

In other words: 

The "Alzheimer's gene" was the standard human gene during the period of our evolution that probably built our brains.

This gene isn't defective, then. It's ancient, but running in a modern environment that no longer feeds it correctly.

ε4 carriers do best when they eat the way ε4 evolved to eat. Put them on a modern low-meat diet (vegetable-oil-heavy, processed-food-rich, grain-dominant), and the system breaks. Feed them what their genes were calibrated for, and the cognitive disadvantage vanishes.

So what is it about meat that the ε4 brain wants?

It's not "meat" exactly…

It's the nutrient density that comes with unprocessed animal foods.

B12 is obvious. Required for myelination, central nervous system function, and methylation biology… The chemistry that keeps homocysteine (a brain-toxic amino acid) in check. B12 exists in animal foods, and not in unfortified plant foods. The Norgren study found higher circulating B12 in ε4 carriers who ate more meat. Probably not a coincidence.

Creatine, link here is underrated. Most know it as a gym supplement, but the brain runs on it, as it helps regenerate ATP. The Alzheimer's brain, mechanistically, has a broken energy metabolism. Older adults consuming >0.95 grams of dietary creatine daily had better cognitive function in NHANES data. 1g of creatine maps to ~2-3 servings of red meat.

Carnitine, heme iron, zinc, taurine, choline, anserine. These are all in animal foods, and all involved in brain energy and structural maintenance.

Each of these is more concentrated in organs, link here than in muscle meat. Liver, heart, kidney… these are the densest packages of brain-relevant nutrients.

I'm not arguing that everyone should eat carnivore, though:

The "high meat" group wasn't carnivore. They averaged ~4.4 oz of meat per day. That’s about a quarter pound. Two small servings.

Not extreme. Not even particularly high historically. The data supports moderate-to-higher meat intake within a normal eating pattern, not the elimination of all plant foods.

Meanwhile, the "low meat" group averaged 1.2 oz per day. A couple bites.

Also, processed meat went the other direction. A higher processed-to-total meat ratio was associated with 14-16% higher dementia risk.

Real meat helped. Processed meat hurt. The genotype determined who responded the most.

So why isn't this the conversation happening in every neurologist's office?

The answer is something I saw firsthand from inside the system.

You see, I trained in psychiatry.

The Alzheimer's conversation in conventional medicine is mostly about three things:

Genetic risk you can't change

Pharmaceutical interventions that don't work well

Lifestyle factors that get listed in passing but never centered

No one discussed, in any clinical setting, that we might be running ancestral hardware on industrial fuel...

And that the population most affected might be least equipped to handle the mismatch.

The conversation that follows the positive test is always about acceptance, screening, and planning, but never food.

Yet this study suggests the conversation should be about what the patient ate yesterday, and what they plan to eat tomorrow.

If you carry an APOE ε4 allele, or you have a family history of Alzheimer's, or you just want to feed your brain what it was built for…

Here's what the data points to:

Make unprocessed animal foods your foundation.​ Ruminant meat, link here (beef, lamb, bison) 2-4 oz per meal, eggs, dairy if tolerated, raw honey, link here, and seasonal fruit. The Norgren data supports moderate (not extreme nor minimal) intake of unprocessed meat.

Eat organs. Liver, heart, kidney, and other organ meats are more nutrient-dense than muscle meat in brain-relevant nutrients, like B12, heme iron, zinc, carnitine, taurine, and (in heart specifically) creatine. If you don’t want to cook liver (or other organs), consider organ supplements, link here.

Cut processed meats. The study showed that the more of your meat intake that comes from processed sources (like bacon, deli meat, and sausage), the worse the trajectory.

Know your status if it matters to you. APOE genotyping is available through standard genetic testing services. If you're in the high-risk demographic (Northern European ancestry, family history, female, post-menopausal), the knowledge can change how seriously you take diet.

Avoid the modern diet wholesale. Ultra-processed foods, seed oils, refined carbohydrates. These are the fuel ε4 wasn't built for.

The "genetic disadvantage" of carrying the "Alzheimer's gene" disappeared when carriers ate the diet their genes evolved with.

Thus, the genetic vulnerabilities the modern medical system describes as fixed are often vulnerabilities to a modern environment that no longer matches our biology.

Change the environment, change the outcome.

So to counter that… You have to feed them what they were built for.

Eat real food (mostly animal foods we evolved with). Eat organs. Avoid processed shortcuts. Do this for the next 30 years, and your brain at 80 will be a different brain than what your APOE result said you'd have.


P.S. — What do you want me to dig into in future Sunday newsletters? Hit reply with the topics on your mind. The ones that come up most often are the ones I write about next.]]></description>
      <enclosure url="https://podcast.carverupton.com/saladino/episodes/saladino-01KW7EFBFPDMGBCKE5SBKE4MSK-klaviyomail-com.mp3" length="4171700" type="audio/mpeg" />
      <itunes:duration>00:09:53</itunes:duration>
      <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>What you’re REALLY losing on Ozempic</title>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">&lt;01KV3CXV00XKZ2HJQRWQ0NGEY7@klaviyomail.com&gt;</guid>
      <pubDate>Sun, 14 Jun 2026 16:00:59 +0000</pubDate>
      <description><![CDATA[One in eight American adults (almost 6% of all American adults, about 15 million people) has tried a GLP-1.

I can see why. 

You inject yourself once a week. You lose weight. Your life gets easier.

What they do, mechanistically, is mimic an incretin hormone (GLP-1) your gut releases when you eat.

This suppresses appetite, slows gastric emptying, and increases insulin response. You lose weight because you don’t feel like eating.

But nothing in life is that simple. When people lose weight on a GLP-1, roughly 25-40% of what they lose isn't fat…

It's lean mass. Muscle, bone, and organ tissue.

The STEP 1 trial of semaglutide (the trial that got the drug approved for weight loss) showed lean mass making up about 45% of total weight lost.

SURMOUNT-1 with tirzepatide put it closer to 25-35%. Liraglutide (the earlier-generation GLP-1) ran as high as 60% in some studies.

Some GLP-1 defenders say every weight loss method causes some lean tissue loss. Diet, exercise, bariatric surgery, all of them.

True. But there are two things wrong with that defense.

First, GLP-1s cause a higher proportion of lean tissue lost than most other methods, especially when users don’t do resistance training or eat enough protein (most aren't since the drugs suppress appetite).

Second (and this is the thing nobody's talking about), losing that much lean tissue while trying to fix metabolic dysfunction accelerates the underlying problem.

Here's why…

Muscle is the most metabolically active tissue in your body. It burns calories at rest and absorbs glucose. It's where insulin sensitivity lives.

Lose 5-7 kg of lean mass (what semaglutide users averaged in STEP 1), and your resting metabolic rate drops. This hampers your ability to burn glucose. Insulin sensitivity worsens.

Less muscle also means less exercise capacity. You lift less, walk less, and push less in the gym, burning fewer calories with exercise and stagnating in your fitness goals.

And then there’s bone loss.

A 52-week semaglutide trial showed hip bone mineral density drop 2.6% and lumbar spine 2.1% versus placebo. A 146,000-patient analysis presented at the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons in 2026 showed a 30% osteoporosis risk increase on GLP-1s and double the rate of osteomalacia, a bone-softening disease.

Picture the demographic most affected: Women aged 50-64. The single highest GLP-1 user group is also the demographic most vulnerable to osteoporosis.

Once you see why this happens, you’ll see why this isn't unique to GLP-1s.

Your body is a network of interlocking systems in homeostasis.

Appetite, hormones, energy balance, metabolism, sleep, reproduction… Every system talks to every other system, and every input gets balanced.

When you intervene pharmacologically and artificially to force a change in one system, the body adjusts.

For example, steroid users get bigger and stronger from injections.

They also get acne, mood swings, and infertility, and their testicles shrink because the body downregulates testosterone production. When they come off the cycle, they lose their muscle, and their natural hormonal axis can take years to recover.

You can see this outside health and pharmacology. 

Lottery winners who haven't built the skills to make and keep money mostly go broke within a few years. They got the outcome without the work required by taking a shortcut.

GLP-1s, as a “shortcut,” suppress your appetite to make it easier to eat less and lose weight. But they won’t teach your body how to regulate appetite without it.

It treats the visible symptom (excess fat) by artificially suppressing the signal (appetite) rather than fixing what broke upstream.

This is why the rebound happens.

In the STEP 1 extension trial, semaglutide users lost an average of 17.3% of their body weight after 68 weeks on the drug. Then the drug was stopped.

They regained ⅔ of what they'd lost within a year of stopping. About 18% regained ALL weight, or more. Cardiometabolic improvements (blood pressure, blood sugar, lipids) reverted toward baseline (Wilding et al., 2022).

STEP 4 showed the same pattern. SURMOUNT extensions showed similar trajectories.

Fat returns. Lean mass does not without what builds it (protein + resistance training). Most don't do that. They end up weighing the same (or more) as they started, with worse body composition. Less muscle, weaker bones, and higher fat percentage.

We put 15 million people on these. Why aren't doctors saying any of this?

Some are. Most aren't.

As a PA in cardiology, I watched the same dynamic over and over:

Patient comes in with high blood pressure, obesity, prediabetes. The conversation that should happen is, "What's broken upstream? Let's look at your food, sleep, activity, stress, medications, etc." The conversation that actually happens is, "Here's a prescription."

So doctors aren’t evil. But they operate inside a system that:

Trained them to manage symptoms with drugs

Gave them 12-minute appointment windows

Made nutrition counseling a billing liability

Taught them in medical school that food is a “soft topic” and pharmacology is “real medicine”

This dynamic is playing out now, at scale, with GLP-1s.

Ultra-processed food is engineered to be hyper-palatable. Real food is more expensive, harder to find, and harder to prepare. Many real foods on store shelves contain pesticides and other nasty chemicals.

Hard to say it’s just discipline. Our ancestors (distant and recent) didn’t need “discipline” at every meal. They could cook, enjoy their meal, and go about their lives.

So many go to the doctor after putting on that weight and feeling their quality of life decline, and the doctor prescribes a GLP-1. 

Again, not blaming the doctor. But the prescription is the second systemic failure since the drug doesn't fix what made them sick.

The food industry has noticed. And the response is tragically predictable.

In May 2024, Nestle announced a new frozen-food brand called Vital Pursuit, designed specifically for GLP-1 users.

Twelve products at launch (bowls, sandwich melts, pizzas) fortified with protein, calcium, iron, and vitamin A. By January 2025, they'd launched a "Max Pro" line of high-protein frozen pizzas engineered for GLP-1-suppressed appetites.

Nestle didn't put GLP-1 on the packaging. They told CNBC they would "connect the brand to the drugs on social media."

The world's largest food company, the same company that for fifty years sold us the processed food that made us metabolically sick in the first place, now sells us specially packaged processed food to take alongside the drug we're using to manage metabolic sickness.

It's perpetual motion engineered for the food and pharma industries:

Get sick on processed food → Take a drug to manage symptoms → buy new processed food optimized for the drug

Lean Cuisine launched in 1981 as a solution to the obesity epidemic. Forty-three years later, Nestle's own kitchens launched a sub-brand for the drugs we now use to manage the epidemic Lean Cuisine didn't solve.

This is the system working exactly as designed. And who knows what kinds of issues these GLP-1 meals may cause in the future that someone else sells a solution for.

I want to be careful, though.

GLP-1s can be appropriate for some.

The risk-benefit calculus changes for those with severe Type 2 diabetes, 40+ BMI, or active cardiovascular disease. These severely compromise quality of life and can threaten it.

I always recommend talking to your doctor about these things.

But the point I’m trying to make is the current culture entails handing out these drugs to all sorts of people who are moderately overweight but not in imminent danger. 

I mean people whose primary complaint is not liking how they look in pictures or a swimsuit. 

Nothing wrong with wanting to get leaner. But these people have more time to fix what's broken without life-threatening consequences… if anyone had told them what was broken.

So what fixes metabolic dysfunction?

The answers aren't sexy. They've been the same for as long as humans have understood metabolism.

But they work, they're durable, and they don't generate a rebound.

Eat real food.

Single-ingredient and animal-based foundation. Grass-fed & finished meat + organs, link here, eggs, dairy if you tolerate it, fresh seasonal fruit, and organic raw honey, link here. 

The body recognizes these because it was built for them. Eat enough protein and your appetite naturally regulates. Eat enough nutrient density and the cravings calm down.

Eat in a window.

Most metabolic improvement comes from giving your body 14-16 hours between meals (not from eating less per meal).

The body needs time to use glucose, mobilize fat, and run cellular maintenance. Modern grazing patterns prevent these things.

Lift heavy things.

Three sessions a week, focused on compound movements (squats, deadlifts, presses, rows, pulls.) This is the single most important intervention for metabolic health, body composition, and aging well.

No need to chase max numbers or become a bodybuilder.

Compound movements are foundational, functional movement patterns humans should be able to do. They help you add lean mass (which looks good and burns calories at rest) and move better.

Walk daily.

8,000-12,000 steps. Outside if you can, in morning sunlight if you can.

Walking does not burn a ton of calories (abs are “made in the kitchen”), but helps with mitochondrial function, blood sugar regulation, mood, and circadian alignment.

Sleep.

Seven to nine hours, dark room, cool, screens off an hour before bed. Put your phone on airplane mode, too.

If you're already on a GLP-1 and reading this, you're not the problem. The system failed us.

The way out is building the foundation underneath it so you can come off without rebound. Practical priorities:

Protein floor.

1 gram/pound of goal body weight. Animal protein (ideally ruminant) at every meal, eggs, dairy. Non-negotiable for preserving lean mass.

GLP-1 appetite suppression can make this tough. Drink your protein, link here (protein shakes) if needed.

Nutrient density.

When your appetite is suppressed, every bite counts. Organ meats are nature's multivitamin, and the highest-density nutrient source available.

If you don’t like the taste of organs, or aren’t hungry enough to eat them with the rest of your food, desiccated supplements are a fine alternative. Here’s what I take, link here. 

Resistance training.

Same point as above. Lean tissue loss is preventable if you load muscle hard enough to tell the body it can't afford to lose it. Two to three sessions a week, progressively overloaded.

Calcium + vitamin D.

Bone loss is documented and largely preventable. 1,000-1,200 mg calcium, 1,500-2,000 IU vitamin D3 daily. From food first (dairy, leafy greens, sun), and supplement if needed, link here.

Coming-off protocol.

Don't stop cold. Taper with your doctor. Build the food, training, and sleep foundations BEFORE you taper. 

The data is clear. Rebound happens when you remove the drug without replacing its impact. We must make the underlying system work so the drug isn't necessary.

You can hide symptoms with drugs, and the drugs work for as long as you're on them, but the body collects what it's owed somewhere else.

For a small population of patients with life-threatening obesity or uncontrolled diabetes, this trade may be the right one.

But for most people on these drugs, it isn't. After all…

The food system that made us sick is now selling us drug-compatible processed food. 

The medical system that ignored root causes for fifty years is now writing 15 million prescriptions a year. 

The food and pharma industries are profiting from both sides of the problem they helped create.

You don't have to play this game. Your body remembers what it's supposed to do. Feed it. Move it. Sleep. Give it time.

The mechanisms that got us here are millions of years old. They still work.


P.S. — What do you want me to dig into in future Sunday newsletters? Hit reply with the topics on your mind. The ones that come up most often are the ones I write about next.

This Week on Instagram

Sourdough bread’s having a moment. It can be a good dietary addition for some variety, but quality matters. Learn what to look for when buying sourdough, link here.

This Week on the Podcast

Speaking of staying lean... learn how I stay naturally lean at 48 years old (no GLP-1's needed), link here.

 

Listen to the podcast on ​Spotify​, link here or ​Apple Podcasts​, link here
 
Follow me on ​Instagram​, link here
 
Subscribe on ​YouTube​, link here
 
If you can't get fresh organs, get desiccated ones from ​Heart & Soil., link here If you're looking for real food on the go check out Lineage Provisions, link here.

No longer want to receive these emails? Unsubscribe, link here.
Paul Saladindo MD 600 1st Ave Ste 330 PMB 92768 Seattle, WA 98104-2246]]></description>
      <enclosure url="https://podcast.carverupton.com/saladino/episodes/saladino-01KV3CXV00XKZ2HJQRWQ0NGEY7-klaviyomail-com.mp3" length="6237908" type="audio/mpeg" />
      <itunes:duration>00:14:36</itunes:duration>
      <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>93% of pregnant women had Roundup in them</title>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">&lt;01KTHC49D8XB842RQ34XX7HACS@klaviyomail.com&gt;</guid>
      <pubDate>Sun, 07 Jun 2026 16:00:24 +0000</pubDate>
      <description><![CDATA[TL;DR: Don't have time to read the full newsletter? Here's the short version:

A 2018 study tested 71 pregnant women in Indiana for glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup. 93% had detectable levels in their urine, and higher levels correlated with shorter pregnancies. It's the only study of its kind in the US, and no national follow-up has been funded.

Glyphosate is the most-used herbicide on earth. It's sprayed on Roundup Ready crops (corn, soy, canola) and as a pre-harvest desiccant on wheat, oats, and legumes. This is how it ends up in 80-90% of wheat-based products, and in nearly every pregnant woman tested.

IARC classifies glyphosate "probably carcinogenic to humans", while the EPA disagrees. Bayer has paid ~$10 billion to settle non-Hodgkin lymphoma claims, with more cases pending and the Supreme Court deciding whether pesticide makers can be sued at all. Meanwhile, in February 2026, the President invoked the Defense Production Act to scale US glyphosate production for national security reasons.

The fix: Prioritize the pre-conception window (the 3-6 months before pregnancy, when egg and sperm quality is being set), and focus organic spending on the heaviest-sprayed foods (oats, wheat, legumes, corn, soy, and the processed foods that contain them).

The full story is below. 👇

Sperm counts have been falling for fifty years.

Miscarriage rates are climbing.

The age at which couples can conceive has crept up every decade since the 1970s.

Something is changing about the environment our species reproduces in…

And most of what's changing is chemistry. New chemistry. Chemistry humans have never lived inside before.

This piece is about one chemical in particular, because it's everywhere and the evidence is clearer than for any other. 

I’m talking about glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup.

In 2018, researchers tested 71 pregnant women in central Indiana for glyphosate via urine samples.

93% had detectable levels. The women with higher levels delivered shorter pregnancies.

Let me show you what's going on. But first, a bit about glyphosate so we’re all on the same page…

Glyphosate is a broad-spectrum herbicide patented by Monsanto in 1974 and brought to market as Roundup.

It works by inhibiting a metabolic process called the shikimate pathway, which plants and some bacteria use to make essential amino acids.

Animals don't have this pathway, which is part of why glyphosate was sold as low-risk for humans. We'll come back to that.

Today, it's the most heavily used herbicide on earth.

The reason isn't only Roundup, but the system Monsanto built around it.

Starting in 1996, "Roundup Ready" crops were engineered to survive direct glyphosate application. Soybeans, corn, cotton, canola, sugar beets, alfalfa. Spray entire fields, kill everything that isn't the crop. 

The product and the seed got locked together.

But the part most people don't know (and the part RFK Jr. specifically singled out in 2024) is the practice of pre-harvest desiccation.

Glyphosate is sprayed on non-Roundup-Ready crops shortly before harvest to dry them out for processing. Wheat, oats, legumes like beans, chickpeas, and lentils.

So your "non-GMO" oat product can still carry significant glyphosate residue, because the chemical wasn't used to grow the plant but to kill it on schedule.

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency has found significant residue in 80–90% of wheat-based products like pasta, pizza, and crackers, plus legumes including beans and lentils.

Now consider what regulators and juries have done with the question of harm…

In 2015, the International Agency for Research on Cancer, part of the World Health Organization (WHO), classified glyphosate as Group 2A, "probably carcinogenic to humans."

The classification rested on limited human evidence, sufficient animal evidence, and strong mechanistic evidence of genotoxicity and oxidative stress.

The EPA holds the opposite position. It classifies glyphosate as not likely to be carcinogenic at typical exposure levels. 

Juries have largely sided with IARC.

Since Bayer acquired Monsanto in 2018, the company has paid roughly $10 billion to settle non-Hodgkin lymphoma claims tied to Roundup exposure.

More than 192,000 lawsuits have been filed against Monsanto/Bayer over Roundup. As of January 2026, about 65,000 cases remain pending.

In March 2026, a $7.25 billion class settlement received preliminary approval from a Missouri court. Final approval is expected in July 2026.

In April 2026, a jury awarded $2 billion to a single plaintiff who developed non-Hodgkin lymphoma after 20 years of Roundup use.

The Supreme Court is currently weighing Monsanto v. Durnell, which will decide whether federal pesticide labeling laws preempt state failure-to-warn lawsuits. If Bayer wins, the pesticide industry could be shielded from cancer claims nationwide.

The decision is expected by the end of this month…

Possibly while this newsletter is still in your inbox.

None of this proves glyphosate is harmful in any given dose, in any given person, in any given way. What it proves is that, for the most widely used chemical in modern agriculture:

The regulatory question is genuinely unsettled

Twelve-figure liabilities are still being paid out

The highest court in the country is deciding whether the companies that make it can be sued at all

And this is all for adults who have the capability to sue.

It’s only natural we’d be concerned about what that same chemical may be doing to those who haven't yet been born and can’t advocate for themselves…

Researchers enrolled 71 pregnant women between 2015 and 2016, taking urine samples and tracking pregnancy outcomes. 93% had detectable glyphosate.

The women with higher urine levels had measurably shorter pregnancies, a statistically significant correlation. Two of the 71 infants were born premature.

That said..

The cohort was small, regional, and not racially diverse. National NHANES data shows lower median urinary glyphosate in the general US population, meaning the Indiana women may have been unusually high-exposure due to agricultural surroundings.

The researchers called for a larger and more diverse follow-up study. So far, that study hasn't been funded.

But we have the first direct evidence in US pregnant women:

Near-universal detection plus a correlation with shorter gestational length, a known predictor of lifelong adverse outcomes.

Beyond Indiana, the mechanistic picture is unfinished but concerning.

Glyphosate inhibits the shikimate pathway in plants and some bacteria, including species in the human gut microbiome. Roughly 90% of the body's serotonin is manufactured in the gut, by cells called enterochromaffin cells.

The argument that glyphosate disrupts gut bacteria and downstream microbiome function is plausible. The argument that this directly causes mood disorders in humans at typical exposures is several inferential steps further, and the literature doesn't yet establish it.

Glyphosate exhibits endocrine-disrupting activity in animal and cell studies. Human dose-response data is weaker.

A 2022 systematic review concluded that exposure is associated with neurotoxic effects across the studied populations. Those include things like abnormal cell development, oxidative stress, neuroinflammation, mitochondrial dysfunction, and neuronal death. (PMID 35562999.)

Sperm counts have been declining globally for fifty years. Glyphosate is one of several environmental factors implicated alongside phthalates, microplastics, and other pesticides.

Pinning the decline on glyphosate alone is a leap, though. The trend is real, the cause is multi-factorial.

We have direct evidence of near-universal exposure in pregnant women, suggestive evidence of effects on pregnancy length, plausible mechanisms across multiple body systems, and growing concern across major research bodies, including the World Health Organization.

We don't yet have controlled human trials that would settle causation, and we're unlikely to get them. Exposing pregnant women to suspected reproductive toxicants is not something institutional review boards approve.

If the chemistry is this contested, why is the country producing MORE of it?

In February 2026, The President signed an executive order invoking the Defense Production Act (DPA) of 1950 to scale up US production of elemental phosphorus and glyphosate-based herbicides.

The stated rationale was national security, reducing American reliance on Chinese supply chains for the chemicals that current US agriculture depends on.

RFK Jr., as Secretary of Health and Human Services, defended the order.

This caught a lot of people off guard, because just 20 months earlier, when running for president, he had said this:

"The herbicide Glyphosate is one of the likely culprits in America's chronic disease epidemic. Much more widely used here than in Europe. Shockingly, much of our exposure comes from its use as a desiccant on wheat, not as an herbicide. From there it goes straight into our bodies. MY USDA will ban that practice."

The easy read of the situation is that he sold out. The lobbyists won.

Bayer spent $9.2 million on Washington lobbying in 2025, much of it through firms with ties to the current administration, and now the executive order is on the books.

But consider this:

Modern American agriculture has been engineered around glyphosate for fifty years.

Crop varieties, processing equipment, supply chains, farm equipment, labor models are all built around it. You can't switch a continent of corn, soy, and wheat off glyphosate the way you flip a light switch.

And those in charge of feeding 330 million Americans also have to worry about whether a hostile state will choke off the chemicals the current system depends on. They must navigate a complex, interwoven world of political and geopolitical issues.

That doesn't mean the system shouldn't change. Of course it should. Neither is this to defend glyphosate nor the advocacy of using it.

But changing it takes longer than a press release.

The good news is the alternatives are real, and already in commercial deployment.

Carbon Robotics builds an autonomous machine called the LaserWeeder. It rides through fields on a tractor and kills weeds with high-power lasers. No chemicals. It's being used on commercial farms right now.

Meanwhile, Naio Technologies and FarmWise are deploying autonomous mechanical weeders, machines that physically remove weeds without spraying anything. Computer vision is moving precision pest management from research into production.

The MAHA Commission's May 2025 report (RFK Jr.'s own report) still flags glyphosate's documented links to reproductive and developmental disorders, cancers, liver inflammation, and metabolic disturbances.

They set aside the wheat-desiccation concern while they navigate bigger geopolitical questions. They did not retract it.

Furthermore, RFK Jr. himself has championed Carbon Robotics’ LaserWeeder machines.

So the story isn't necessarily "regulatory capture" or “lobbying” by these Big Ag companies, at least on its own.

Fixing this takes longer than any one administration. Even the politician whose movement was built on getting this chemical out of our food is now navigating the constraints of the system he wants to change.

So what do you do to navigate all this and reduce your glyphosate exposure?

A few things…

Start with the timing.

The 3-6 months before conception is when egg and sperm quality is being set. Egg cells are made once and stored for decades, but the final maturation window (the months immediately before ovulation) is when their environment matters most.

Sperm take about 70 days to develop from precursor cells. If you're planning a pregnancy, or could be, that's the window where reducing chemical exposure matters most.

You don't have to eat perfectly. You have to know where the load is heaviest and prioritize accordingly.

Highest priority for organic:

Anything heavily sprayed with glyphosate as a desiccant.

Oats, wheat-based products (bread, pasta, crackers), legumes (beans, chickpeas, lentils), conventional corn and soy products, including their oils, sweeteners, and the processed foods that contain them. Most of this category is grain products.

Next priority: 

Conventional non-organic produce on the Environmental Working Group's "Dirty Dozen" list. Things like strawberries, spinach, kale, grapes, and peppers.

These tend to carry higher pesticide loads beyond glyphosate.

Lower priority for organic spending: 

Avocados, onions, cabbage, sweet corn, asparagus, and other produce with thick skins or low pesticide loads.

For animal products, what happens upstream matters more than the certification on the package. Conventional grain-fed meat carries residues from whatever the animals were fed, while grass-fed beef from regenerative operations is produced in a system that doesn't use glyphosate to begin with.

Same with eggs, dairy, and honey. Bees foraging near Roundup-treated crops carry contamination back to the hive.

If you don't have a local source, clean alternatives, link here aren't always nearby, and that's where tested, traceable food sources matter most.

If budget is a constraint, focus on the pre-conception window. Six months of careful eating pre-conception does more biological work than 6 months of careful eating in your 30s without a pregnancy in view.

No single piece of evidence in this newsletter proves glyphosate is destroying fertility, causing cancer, or shortening pregnancies in any given person.

The science is suggestive on every front, the courtroom evidence is overwhelming, the regulatory picture is contested, and the political picture is complicated.

What we have is a chemical detected in nearly every pregnant American woman we've tested, a $10 billion liability trail behind a single product, an agricultural system built around it that can't pivot overnight, and the technology to step away from it sitting in commercial deployment on farms today.

And it's not just glyphosate.

Atrazine, the second-most-used herbicide in the US, shows similar patterns in prenatal-exposure studies. The EU banned it in 2004 over groundwater contamination. The US never did. 

The conditions for life to thrive across generations are not optional.

We can swim in this chemistry or we can clean the water. The question is whether we move toward the cleaner one, or just keep producing more of what we've got.


P.S. — What do you want me to dig into in future Sunday newsletters? Hit reply with the topics on your mind. The ones that come up most often are the ones I write about next.

This Week on Instagram

Sourdough bread’s having a moment. It can be a good dietary addition for some variety, but quality matters. Learn what to look for when buying sourdough, link here.

This Week on the Podcast

450,000+ Americans have a tick-induced meat allergy called alpha-gal syndrome. I visited a physician who’s seen surprising success treating it with an acupuncture-based therapy called SAAT. Watch my latest video to learn about alpha-gal and see how the treatment works works, link here.

 

Listen to the podcast on ​Spotify​, link here or ​Apple Podcasts​, link here
 
Follow me on ​Instagram​, link here
 
Subscribe on ​YouTube​, link here
 
If you can't get fresh organs, get desiccated ones from ​Heart & Soil., link here If you're looking for real food on the go check out Lineage Provisions, link here.

No longer want to receive these emails? Unsubscribe, link here.
Paul Saladindo MD 600 1st Ave Ste 330 PMB 92768 Seattle, WA 98104-2246]]></description>
      <enclosure url="https://podcast.carverupton.com/saladino/episodes/saladino-01KTHC49D8XB842RQ34XX7HACS-klaviyomail-com.mp3" length="7336556" type="audio/mpeg" />
      <itunes:duration>00:16:56</itunes:duration>
      <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Avoiding the sun may be as risky as smoking?</title>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">&lt;01KSZBBPNG2SFZ1DKDJQTBAB3Z@klaviyomail.com&gt;</guid>
      <pubDate>Sun, 31 May 2026 16:00:45 +0000</pubDate>
      <description><![CDATA[I get sun every morning. No sunscreen. Most days, no shirt.

For most readers, that lands somewhere between concerning and irresponsible.

Forty years of dermatology trained us to believe the sun is the enemy and SPF is the gospel.

You know:

Cover up. Wear sunscreen every day. When in doubt, stay in the shade.

But the long-term data on what actually happens when you avoid the sun tells a story almost nobody hears.

It starts with a 20-year study that followed nearly 30,000 women.

The women who avoided the sun didn't live longer. They died earlier…

At a rate the researchers themselves compared to smoking.

Let me show you what's actually going on here.

Because the real story is more interesting and useful than both "sunscreen is poison" and "go bake in the sun." 

The study is called the Melanoma in Southern Sweden cohort.

Researchers tracked 29,518 women for two decades, logging their sun habits and, eventually, their causes of death. (Lindqvist et al., Journal of Internal Medicine, 2014 and 2016.)

The women who actively sought sun had roughly half the mortality rate of the women who avoided it.

The advantage came mostly from lower rates of cardiovascular disease. And the authors put it in plain terms:

A non-smoker who avoided the sun had a life expectancy similar to a smoker who got the most sun.

There's a real biological mechanism behind this.

When UV light hits your skin, it triggers the release of nitric oxide from stores already present in your skin.

This compound dilates blood vessels and lowers blood pressure. (2016 review, PMID 26766556.) That's a direct cardiovascular benefit, independent of vitamin D.

So Lindqvist isn't a statistical accident. It's the visible end of a physiological pathway: sun on skin → nitric oxide release → lower blood pressure → less cardiovascular disease → fewer deaths.

Now for the honest caveats:

This was an observational study, not a controlled trial.

It followed fair-skinned women in Sweden (a high-latitude, low-sunlight country) so it doesn't transfer cleanly to my skin in Costa Rica or yours in Arizona.

Also, the sun-seekers got more skin cancer (we’ll come back to that)

Other researchers have argued the effect could be partly explained by sicker people staying indoors to begin with.

So this is not proof that sunlight is a fountain of youth.

But it's a large, long-term, serious signal that the thing we’re supposed to fear without qualification has a cost on the other side of the ledger…

And we have the receipts.

Vitamin D deficiency is now one of the most common nutrient insufficiencies in the developed world. 

This isn’t actually a vitamin, but a hormone your skin manufactures from sunlight, and it touches everything from immune function to mood to bone health. We spent four decades optimizing against one cancer. We may have ignored the bill coming due elsewhere.

Here's where it gets weird…

If sunlight were the simple cause of skin cancer, then the people who work outdoors (farmers, fishermen, construction workers, lifeguards) should be the highest-melanoma-risk group on earth.

They're not.

A 2016 study compared outdoor workers to indoor workers. 

The outdoor group had higher rates of the less-dangerous, more cumulative UV-driven skin lesions (actinic keratoses, basal cell carcinoma, squamous cell carcinoma). That tracks with what you'd expect. 

But for melanoma, the skin cancer that actually kills, the study found no significant association with outdoor work. (PMID 26995016.)

A 2004 review went further.

Examining the existing data, the authors wrote that "paradoxically, outdoor workers have a decreased risk of melanoma compared with indoor workers, suggesting that chronic sunlight exposure can have a protective effect." (PMID 15005091.)

The people who get the most sun aren't the people getting the deadliest skin cancer. Office workers, who barely see the sun, get melanoma at higher rates than those who spend their lives in it.

That's not what the public health story predicts. And it suggests the story is missing a variable…

If chronic outdoor sun isn't the driver of melanoma, two other patterns are.

The first is well-established:

Intermittent intense exposure. Which means sunburns. Especially blistering ones, and especially in childhood.

The burn is the enemy, NOT the sun. 

The second pattern is barely discussed outside a specific corner of the literature:

Dietary fat composition.

Specifically, polyunsaturated fats (PUFAs) from industrial seed oils.

In 1987, researchers analyzed the subcutaneous fat tissue of 100 melanoma patients. The percentage of linoleic acid (the dominant PUFA in modern seed oils) in their fat stores was substantially higher than in controls, as was their total PUFA content.

The researchers concluded that "increased consumption of dietary polyunsaturates may have a contributory effect in the etiology of melanoma." (PMID 3110746.)

A 2018 epidemiological study confirmed the pattern:

PUFA intake was associated with skin cancer risk. No other type of fat showed that association. (PMID 29636341.)

The most striking evidence is interventional.

In 2012, researchers tested how different fats affect UV-stressed skin. Topical cholesterol (the same molecule that makes up healthy cell membranes) protected skin from UV-induced damage. Topical linoleic acid did the opposite. It aggravated the damage. (PMID 22209282.)

The epidemiology is observational. It doesn’t prove causation. The interventional study is on barrier-disrupted skin rather than melanoma directly.

But it's all converging evidence pointing at a variable the public health story left out:

Your skin's lipid composition reflects what you eat. If your diet is heavy in PUFA, your skin is too. Those fats are highly prone to oxidation when UV light hits them. The damage we've been blaming entirely on sunlight may be partly damage from oxidizing seed oils inside your own tissue, triggered by light.

That changes the protocol. The defense against skin damage isn't only what you put on top of your skin. It's also what you put into it.

But what you put on your skin does matter, and consider what kind of stuff most people use…

Because while we were told to avoid the sun, we were handed the replacement: Chemical sunscreen, every day, for life.

A 2018 systematic review and meta-analysis in the European Journal of Dermatology looked at the evidence behind that claim.

Its conclusion:

The data "does not confirm the expected protective benefits of sunscreen against skin cancer in the general population." (PMID 29620003.)

So the claim isn't that sunscreen is harmful.

Rather, its expected protective benefit against skin cancer isn't confirmed by this meta-analysis. That’s it.

However…

In a 2020 randomized clinical trial, the FDA confirmed that the common chemical filters (oxybenzone, avobenzone, octinoxate, octocrylene, homosalate, octisalate) pass through the skin into the bloodstream at concentrations exceeding the agency's own threshold for further safety testing. (PMID 31961417.)

Careful caveat:

Absorption alone does not mean harm. We just don’t have the data, but that gap’s the point.

As of now, the FDA will NOT give its “safe and effective” stamp to those common chemical filters. 

The two that DO get the FDA thumbs up?

Zinc oxide and titanium dioxide. Both mineral options.

Then there’s the contamination problem.

In 2021, independent lab Valisure tested nearly 300 sunscreen and after-sun products.

Benzene (a known human carcinogen linked to leukemia and blood cancers) showed up in 78 of them.

Some batches carried three times the FDA's own limit.

Johnson & Johnson recalled five Neutrogena and Aveeno aerosol sunscreens within weeks. Banana Boat recalled products the following year.

To be fair, benzene is a contaminant, mostly turning up in aerosol sprays, and plenty of products tested clean. It’s not added intentionally as an ingredient.

Valisure itself told people not to stop using sunscreen. But a known carcinogen showing up in a quarter of the products you've been told to apply daily is something.

A 2023 study tested further, finding that 44% of sunscreen products marketed to children and teenagers, and 38% of those marketed to adults, contained benzene at concentrations exceeding acceptable lifetime cancer risk thresholds. (PMID 37201845.)

Meanwhile, oxybenzone and octinoxate are banned outright in Hawaii, Palau, Thailand, and the US Virgin Islands…

Because they damage coral reefs.

Whatever you conclude about what these chemicals do inside your body, they're potent enough to be outlawed for what they do to the ocean.

None of this is to say that sunscreen causes cancer. No data has shown such a thing.

But it does demonstrate that the products you’re told to apply daily have documented quality problems, real regulatory data gaps, and ingredients that don't have full safety clearance.

So what does getting sun look like for yours truly?

I live in Costa Rica now, close to the equator.

I get sun almost every morning (on my skin and in my eyes, especially), early, before the day gets going. I don't wear much, and most days I don't wear shoes.

I'm not telling you to do what I do. My skin, my latitude, and the years I spent building up to this are not yours.

A red-haired reader in Australia and I are running completely different equations, and pretending otherwise would be reckless.

But the moral of the story is that humans evolved under the sun, not seeking to avoid it.

Your hormones, sleep, mood, skin, and so many other systems expect that signal and are built to use it.

We were handed a story where the sun is purely a threat.

The data show the relationship is more complicated, and more in our favor, than that.

So where does this leave you, practically?

First, and most important: Don't burn.

A sunburn (especially a blistering one) is the single biggest modifiable risk factor for melanoma, and melanoma is the skin cancer that actually kills.

So yes, the sun can harm you. Skin cancer is real. But the burn is the enemy, NOT the sun.

Everything else is about building a relationship with sunlight instead of waging a war against it:

Get sun early and regularly, in smaller doses, and let it build over weeks. Morning sun is gentler and does real work for your circadian rhythm and your sleep. The goal is consistent, sensible exposure. Don’t aim for a "base tan," because a tan is itself your skin responding to damage.

When you've had enough, cover up the old-fashioned way first. Shade, a shirt, a hat. Physical protection has no absorption question and no contamination recalls (ideally, your clothes are made of biology-friendly materials rather than synthetics like polyester).

When you want topical protection, like for a long day on the water or a peak-sun hike, reach for mineral. Zinc oxide and titanium dioxide sunscreens sit on top of the skin and won’t show up in your bloodstream or reef. The FDA recognizes these as safe and effective. Skip the aerosols. Aim for something animal-based, such as a tallow-based sunscreen.

Pay attention to who you are. Your skin type, your family history, your latitude, the time of day — they all change the math. This is personal, the way most real health is.

We were taught to fear the sun the same way we were taught to fear so many of the things our bodies were built around…

Things like red meat, fat, and salt.

Each one is a foundational food, yet each one is demonized on incomplete evidence.

The sun is trying to kill you any more than these critical nutritional building blocks. It's the oldest input your biology has.

Treat it like a relationship (consistent, respectful, never reckless) and it gives back far more than the guidelines ever admitted it could.


P.S. What do you want me to dig into in future Sunday newsletters? Hit reply with the topics on your mind. The ones that come up most often are the ones I write about next.

This Week on Instagram

The quality of your olive oil matters more than you think. If you eat or cook with olive oil, watch this before you buy your next bottle, link here.

This Week on the Podcast

Costco’s a great place for cost-effective, animal-based grocery shopping if you know what to look for.

Click here to see how I’d shop at Costco to learn what’s worth buying and what to avoid., link here

 

Listen to the podcast on ​Spotify​, link here or ​Apple Podcasts​, link here
 
Follow me on ​Instagram​, link here
 
Subscribe on ​YouTube​, link here
 
If you can't get fresh organs, get desiccated ones from ​Heart & Soil., link here If you're looking for real food on the go check out Lineage Provisions, link here.

No longer want to receive these emails? Unsubscribe, link here.
Paul Saladindo MD 600 1st Ave Ste 330 PMB 92768 Seattle, WA 98104-2246]]></description>
      <enclosure url="https://podcast.carverupton.com/saladino/episodes/saladino-01KSZBBPNG2SFZ1DKDJQTBAB3Z-klaviyomail-com.mp3" length="6102932" type="audio/mpeg" />
      <itunes:duration>00:14:20</itunes:duration>
      <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Last chance to get this!</title>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">&lt;01KSFV869G3F78YCG1BVVRA7A3@klaviyomail.com&gt;</guid>
      <pubDate>Mon, 25 May 2026 15:30:21 +0000</pubDate>
      <description><![CDATA[Hey,

Hope you’re having a great Memorial Day weekend and spending time with loved ones.

I am grateful for every person who made the ultimate sacrifice so the rest of us could live the life we do. Everything I have built, every message I have been able to share, every person whose health has changed because of it -- none of that exists without the people who gave everything before us.

To every service member and every family who paid that price: thank you. This weekend is yours.

The team and I at Lineage wanted to share what we’re running this weekend in case it’s helpful for you.

We run 2 big sales every year: one on Black Friday and one on Memorial Day weekend, link here. If you want to stock up for the summer, this is a great chance to do that. The team is doing 30% off first purchase on new subscriptions, and 20% off one-time purchases using MD2026.

Check it out →, link here

I built Lineage to fight back against big food and the broken system that is making so many people sick.

We source from regenerative farms; every product goes through rigorous third-party testing for heavy metals, glyphosate, and pesticides, and contains exactly what the label says and nothing else. That is the standard I hold myself to, and it is the standard I hold this company to.

Now go enjoy the rest of your weekend. Talk soon.

Paul

 

No longer want to receive these emails? Unsubscribe, link here.
Paul Saladindo MD 600 1st Ave Ste 330 PMB 92768 Seattle, WA 98104-2246]]></description>
      <enclosure url="https://podcast.carverupton.com/saladino/episodes/saladino-01KSFV869G3F78YCG1BVVRA7A3-klaviyomail-com.mp3" length="739484" type="audio/mpeg" />
      <itunes:duration>00:01:44</itunes:duration>
      <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Honey doesn&#x27;t spoil. So why does yours?</title>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">&lt;Z0V7Y2pgRYyLU5PkjthjyA@geopod-ismtpd-0&gt;</guid>
      <pubDate>Sun, 24 May 2026 16:01:35 +0000</pubDate>
      <description><![CDATA[In 1922, when Howard Carter cracked open Tutankhamun's tomb, he found something unexpected among the gold, jewels, and death masks…

Pots of honey.

Three thousand years old.

Sealed in clay and still edible.

In 2003, in Georgia (the country), a team uncovered honey from roughly 3500BC (~2,000 years older than Tut’s tomb). Still chemically honey, and still identifiable as meadow flower, berry, or linden.

Archaeologists have found ancient honey across the Mediterranean, in tombs in the Caucasus, and in pottery dating back more than five millennia.

In fact, it is the only food known to humans that doesn't spoil. Sealed properly, it lasts forever.

The same honey, on your grocery shelf today, is something different. And there's a real chance it isn't honey at all…

---------------------------------------------------------------

In 2011, an investigation by Food Safety News tested honey samples from 60 different jars at major US retailers, including supermarkets, big-box stores, drugstores, and more.

About 76% had been ultra-filtered.

They had no pollen in them, and so you couldn’t trace them.

See, there's an entire scientific field called melissopalynology that maps pollen grains back to the flowers the bees visited, and from those flowers back to a region.

It's a chemical fingerprint. Real honey carries pollen, which is how scientists trace honey to its country of origin.

Ultra-filtration strips that fingerprint out.

The FDA stated, in writing, that ultra-filtered honey is not honey and should not be labeled as such. The FDA also does not proactively check retail honey for pollen.

So why filter the pollen out?

The industry's defense is that consumers like their honey clear.

Maybe. But an actual honey producer told Food Safety News the following in that same investigation:

"It's no secret to anyone in the business that the only reason all the pollen is filtered out is to hide where it initially came from. And the fact is that in almost all cases, that is China."

In 2013, federal prosecutors moved on what became one of the largest food fraud cases in US history. 

They called the investigation Project Honeygate.

A German company called Alfred L. Wolff had been buying Chinese honey, routing it through Indonesia, the Philippines, Taiwan, and elsewhere, relabeling it to evade US tariffs, and selling it into the American food supply.

Some shipments were contaminated with antibiotics not approved for use in food.

Five executives pleaded guilty. Two of the country's biggest honey processors (Honey Holding in Texas and Groeb Farms in Michigan) entered deferred prosecution agreements. The total tariff evasion exceeded $180 million.

That was 13 years ago, but the fraud has not stopped. 

Adulterators have moved from corn syrup (detectable by the standard C4 isotope test) to rice syrup, beet syrup, and other C3 sugars that slip past most lab screens.

And the word "raw" on a honey label has no federal definition. Companies can heat honey, filter it, blend it across continents, and still call it raw.

Yet the fraud doesn’t stop at country of origin…

---------------------------------------------------------------

I spent time at Two Hives Apiary in Austin, hanging out with bees and seeing what the real version of all this actually looks like.

Enlightening to see behind the scenes of a great apiary, where bees and flowers carry out the same process they have run symbiotically for tens of millions of years.

It’s a small operation, like most apiaries that you can trace.

The commercial supply is a different story.

We tested commercial US honeys at Lineage, and many came back positive for glyphosate.

Yes, Roundup. The herbicide that's the subject of multiple cancer-related lawsuits…

Because the same industrial system that allowed honey to be laundered through five countries, ultra-filtered to erase its origin, and adulterated with cheap syrups also allowed it to be sprayed with weed killer in the field and along the way.

But wait… what about the sugar? Isn’t honey just a big dose of sugar?

---------------------------------------------------------------

Real honey is not sugar. It contains sugar. There's a difference.

When you eat processed sugar (or honey adulterated with it), the sucrose drops into your gut, gets cleaved into glucose and fructose, spikes your blood sugar, and feeds the wrong bacteria.

The resulting overgrowth of gram-negative bacteria releases endotoxin (lipopolysaccharide), which leaks across the gut wall and triggers low-grade inflammation throughout the body.

That's the actual mechanism by which "sugar" drives metabolic disease, rather than calories alone.

Real honey doesn't do that.

Real honey carries:

- Hundreds of polyphenols (plant-derived compounds that survived the bees' work because the bees and the plants evolved alongside each other)

- Enzymes, including glucose oxidase, which produces hydrogen peroxide in trace amounts
 
That's why honey is naturally antibacterial and doesn't spoil… and why it's been used to dress wounds for at least 3,600 years.

The polyphenols also appear to mitigate the dysbiosis caused by pure sugar.

The same chemicals that protect the bees' nectar from microbial spoilage seem to protect your gut from the bacterial overgrowth that endotoxin comes from.

The research is still maturing, but the directional finding is consistent across the literature.

We also have a 9,000-year-old natural experiment to compare against.

The earliest chemically confirmed alcoholic beverage in human history is a fermented drink that scientist and ancient food expert Patrick McGovern found in pottery at Jiahu, in China’s Yellow River Valley, dated to around 7000 BCE.

The recipe:

Rice, fruit, and honey.

More historical examples…

The Edwin Smith Papyrus, ancient Egypt's surgical text from roughly 1600 BCE, prescribed it. Hippocrates kept prescribing it. The Roman army carried it. Olympic athletes ate honey before competing. Modern hospitals are quietly returning to it for chronic wounds that won't close.

Honey appears centrally in every major ancient diet and medicine system that left a record. Egyptian, Greek, Roman, Vedic, biblical, and Norse all seem to have it.

And the modern parallel:

In Tanzania, the Hadza hunter-gatherers rank honey above meat in their food preferences.

They get 15-20% of their average annual calories from honey, with that figure rising into the 60-percent range during peak honey months in the wet season. The Hadza have essentially no type 2 diabetes. Cardiovascular disease is virtually absent in studied populations.

In the Congo, the Mbuti get up to 80% of their calories from honey during the honey season. They are metabolically healthy throughout.

This is the food the industrial supply chain has been working to replace, but you can still get real honey if you know what to look for…

---------------------------------------------------------------

Here’s how to find real honey:

Look for cloudiness. Real raw honey carries pollen, propolis, and trace solids. Over time, it crystallizes, which is a sign of authenticity, not a problem. A jar that stays clear and pourable for years has probably been heated, filtered, or both.

Buy single-source. "Multi-country blend" is a red flag. A jar from one apiary, floral source, and region (with the country of origin printed on the label) is dramatically less likely to be adulterated than a generic blend.

Skip the plastic honey bear. Almost universally heated. Often filtered to a degree that strips out the medicinal fractions. Frequently cut with corn or rice syrup, depending on the brand.

Don't trust "raw" alone. It has no federal definition. Look specifically for "unfiltered" and, ideally, a producer who tests their honey.

Best option: A local apiary or farmers market. You're paying for traceability. The beekeeper knows where their bees forage. You know the bees haven't been routed through five countries.

When local honey is not accessible, Lineage Provisions’ raw honey, link here is a great choice. 

It’s a single-source honey from the Yucatan Peninsula (far from commercial honey farms), tested for glyphosate, raw and unfiltered.

The alternative to most of what's on the shelves. Much more in line with the good local stuff.

---------------------------------------------------------------

Humans have eaten real honey for at least 9,000 years.

We have evidence of beekeeping carved into Egyptian temple walls from 2400 BCE.

The substance has nourished kings, athletes, hunter-gatherers, and pygmies. It's been used as medicine, currency, ritual offering, and embalming agent.

In the span of about 50 years, an industrial supply chain has done its best to replace it with something that isn't honey at all.

You can still have the real thing. You just have to know where to look, link here.


P.S. What do you want me to dig into in future Sunday newsletters? Hit reply with the topics on your mind. The ones that come up most often are the ones I write about next.
 

This Week on Instagram

High protein and keto labels don't make something healthy. Click here to watch me tear apart the nutrition labels on so-called "health" foods, link here.
 

This Week on the Podcast

Patrick Bet-David had me on recently to talk GLP-1 weight loss drugs, Big Pharma, obesity in America, testosterone decline, microplastics, and more.
 
Check it out: ​Health Expert - Secrets Big Pharma Doesn’t Want You To Know | PBD #801, link here

 

Listen to the podcast on ​Spotify​, link here or ​Apple Podcasts​, link here
 
Follow me on ​Instagram​, link here
 
Subscribe on ​YouTube​, link here
 
If you can't get fresh organs, get desiccated ones from ​Heart & Soil., link here If you're looking for real food on the go check out Lineage Provisions, link here.

No longer want to receive these emails? Unsubscribe, link here.
Paul Saladindo MD 600 1st Ave Ste 330 PMB 92768 Seattle, WA 98104-2246]]></description>
      <enclosure url="https://podcast.carverupton.com/saladino/episodes/saladino-Z0V7Y2pgRYyLU5PkjthjyA-geopod-ismtpd-0.mp3" length="4426508" type="audio/mpeg" />
      <itunes:duration>00:10:21</itunes:duration>
      <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>This invisible gas is making you dumber (and wrecking your
 sleep)</title>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">&lt;01KRV9SSS65TVZ2Z0J6PP56W69@klaviyomail.com&gt;</guid>
      <pubDate>Sun, 17 May 2026 16:01:10 +0000</pubDate>
      <description><![CDATA[I've been carrying around a CO2 meter (Aranet4) for a while now.

Some people might think this is overkill… 

But last week, sitting in an airport lounge, I pulled it out and watched something pretty alarming unfold in real time…
 

 
I started at 1,180 ppm.

For context, outdoor air sits around 420 ppm. (Ppm = parts per million, how we measure the concentration of CO2 in the air around you.)

Then the lounge got a bit more crowded.

1,312 ppm.

Then 1,431 ppm…
 

 
People tend to roll their eyes at this sort of stuff. Same way they roll their eyes at EMFs.

Because like EMFs, CO2 is invisible, odorless.

But… completely measurable. 

And before the Ray Peat crowd comes for me…

Telling me I’m fear mongering and that CO2 is a good thing for humans…
 
Yes, CO2 has important roles in the body. Internal CO2 production is a marker of healthy oxidative metabolism. 

That’s not what we’re talking about. 

Breathing elevated ambient CO2 in a poorly ventilated room is a different mechanism with a different outcome.

So what do those elevated CO2 numbers mean for you? 
 
---------------------------------------------------------------

 
Most people blame their bad sleep on stress, their phone, or their diet.
All valid. 

But think about this…

Most people also sleep in a closed room with the windows shut. No ventilation, no airflow. 

Every breath you take overnight adds more CO2 to that space.

That CO2 has nowhere to go. It just builds and builds.

And here’s the thing:

Excess CO2 can quietly destroy your sleep and cognitive performance.

A closed bedroom with just one person can hit 1000+ ppm within a couple of hours. Two people? Even faster.
 
Here's what happens when you turn your bedroom into a CO2 hotbox…
 
Above ~900–1000 ppm: Sympathetic nervous system activation kicks in. Studies suggest sleep quality starts to decline. People spend more time awake, get less restorative sleep, and feel less refreshed the next morning. One study also found next-day performance improved when bedroom CO2 levels were kept lower. (PMID: 26452168)

Above ~1300 ppm: Common in closed bedrooms, especially with two people. Sleep efficiency drops 1.8%, you lose around 7 minutes of deep sleep, post-wake cortisol is higher, and morning grogginess becomes more pronounced. (PMID: 32979003)

Above 2000–3000 ppm: Extreme, but possible in small rooms with poor ventilation. You’re no longer talking about ‘slightly stale air.’ This is strongly linked to fragmented sleep, morning sluggishness and markedly poorer cognitive performance. Not where you want to be sleeping for 7–8 hours. (PMID: 37076419)

Unsettling when you do the math:

A closed bedroom with a sleeping couple can easily push CO2 above 1300 ppm overnight.

They’re slowly accumulating CO2 for 7-8 hours…

And wake up wondering why they feel like garbage even after a "full night's sleep."

The bedroom story is bad enough, but here's what really got my attention…
 
---------------------------------------------------------------

At around 945 ppm, one Harvard-led controlled office study found measurable declines in cognitive scores compared with better-ventilated conditions (PMID: 26502459).
 
This is a level that is ROUTINELY exceeded in offices, classrooms, conference rooms, and yes... airport lounges. 

Even at gyms where you’d think ventilation would not be a problem…
 

 
If you can’t see it, my meter read 1553ppm at a LifeTime gym I was at recently. 

Things can get considerably worse at that number…

At 1400-2500 ppm, complex task performance drops up to 50%.Researchers described performance in this range as "dysfunctional." (PMID: 26502459)

The curse of being a physician is you can't unknow this stuff. 

I was sitting in that lounge watching my own CO2 meter climb and I knew exactly what was happening to my brain in real time 😅

Now imagine sitting in a poorly ventilated office at these levels for 8 hours a day, every day…

Or putting your kids in a classroom that routinely hits 1500+ ppm…

Or sleeping in a closed room every single night at 1300+ ppm...

This could be a hidden driver of impaired cognition and disrupted sleep that nobody is even thinking about. 

Fortunately, the solution is incredibly simple (and almost free)...
 
---------------------------------------------------------------

 
Below 750 ppm = safe zone. Your sleep architecture stays intact.

Here’s how to get there:

1. Get a CO2 meter. The Aranet4 is what I use. It uses NDIR (Non-Dispersive Infrared) sensor technology which is generally considered the more reliable sensor type for consumer CO2 meters. Cheap meters often use lower quality sensors that are unreliable.

2. Open windows wherever possible. Especially when you sleep. Even cracking a window meaningfully drops indoor CO2 levels. This single change can dramatically improve your sleep quality and how you feel in the morning. 
 
(It’s almost summer in most places so take advantage of the season to do this!)

3. Ventilate your bedroom before sleep. Run a fan, open a window, let fresh air circulate. Do this habitually.

4. Be aware in shared spaces. Offices, meeting rooms, planes, airport lounges… CO2 builds up fast when lots of people are exhaling in an enclosed space. If you can open a window, do it. If you can step outside, do it.

This is one of those things that once you see, you can't unsee.

I genuinely believe more people testing their indoor CO2 levels would change their health trajectories in a meaningful way.

Better sleep.

Sharper thinking.

More energy.

Less grogginess.

For basically zero cost.

So go grab yourself a CO2 meter.

Use it.

Forward this to someone who keeps waking up exhausted and can't figure out why."

 

P.S. - What do you want me to dig into in future Sunday newsletters? Hit reply with the topics on your mind. The ones that come up most often are the ones I write about next.

 

Listen to the podcast on ​Spotify​, link here or ​Apple Podcasts​, link here
 
Follow me on ​Instagram​, link here
 
Subscribe on ​YouTube​, link here
 
If you can't get fresh organs, get desiccated ones from ​Heart & Soil., link here If you're looking for real food on the go check out Lineage Provisions, link here.

No longer want to receive these emails? Unsubscribe, link here.
Paul Saladindo MD 600 1st Ave Ste 330 PMB 92768 Seattle, WA 98104-2246

Pictures:

https://podcast.carverupton.com/saladino/20260517Picture01.jpg

https://podcast.carverupton.com/saladino/20260517Picture02.jpg

https://podcast.carverupton.com/saladino/20260517Picture03.jpg]]></description>
      <enclosure url="https://podcast.carverupton.com/saladino/episodes/saladino-01KRV9SSS65TVZ2Z0J6PP56W69-klaviyomail-com.mp3" length="3249284" type="audio/mpeg" />
      <itunes:duration>00:07:42</itunes:duration>
      <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
