The Dr. Jules Plant-Based Podcast

Pseudoscience Exposed: How to Spot Wellness Trends That Don't Work

• Dr. Jules Cormier (MD) • Season 2 • Episode 86

Share episode

Ever feel bombarded by conflicting health advice online? From raw carrot salads supposedly detoxing estrogen to cold plunges magically melting fat, Dr. Jules cuts through the noise with science-based clarity in this eye-opening episode.

We're living in an era where everyone with a social media account claims expertise in hormones, detoxification, and biohacking. But there's a vast difference between what sounds scientific and what actually holds up under scrutiny. Dr. Jules delivers three powerful thinking tools that will transform how you evaluate health claims: understanding that mechanism doesn't equal meaningful outcome, recognizing that anecdotes aren't evidence, and acknowledging that short-term hype rarely translates to long-term health.

The episode systematically examines trending wellness fads including hormone-balancing smoothies, chlorophyll water, mouth taping, and cold plunging — revealing what limited evidence exists behind the marketing hype. You'll learn to recognize how wellness influencers misuse scientific concepts, cherry-pick studies, and exploit mechanisms that sound impressive but deliver minimal real-world benefits. 

Most importantly, Dr. Jules emphasizes that while you're chasing trendy biohacks, you might be neglecting the fundamentals that deliver exponentially greater health benefits: quality sleep, stress management, exercise, plant-forward nutrition, social connection, and avoiding toxins.

Whether you've been curious about the latest TikTok health trend or simply want to become more discerning about health information, this episode provides a practical framework for critical thinking. Share this episode with someone who might be vulnerable to health hype, and together let's make critical thinking about health claims cool again.

Go check out my website for tons of free resources on how to transition towards a healthier diet and lifestyle.

You can download my free plant-based recipes eBook and a ton of other free resources by visiting the Digital Downloads tab of my website at https://www.plantbaseddrjules.com/shop

Don't forget to check out my blog at https://www.plantbaseddrjules.com/blog

You can also watch my educational videos on YouTube at https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCMpkQRXb7G-StAotV0dmahQ

Check out my upcoming live events and free eCourse, where you'll learn more about how to create delicious plant-based recipes: https://www.plantbaseddrjules.com/

Go follow me on social media by visiting my Facebook page and Instagram accounts
https://www.facebook.com/plantbaseddrjules
https://www.instagram.com/plantbased_dr_jules/

Last but not least, the best way to show your support and to help me spread my message is to subscribe to my podcast and to leave a 5 star review on Apple and Spotify!
Thanks so much!

Peace, love, plants!
Dr. Jules

Speaker 1:

Hey everyone, welcome to Season 2 of the Dr Jules Plant-Based Podcast, where we discuss everything from plant-based nutrition to the main pillars of lifestyle medicine. Hey everyone, welcome back to another episode of the podcast. Today is going to be a fun one. We are going to be debunking health trends and we're going to talk about the signs that you need to spot the hype. Now there's nothing that presses my buttons more when I see someone who has no expertise in a certain field selling BS.

Speaker 1:

Supplements, hacks, trends or fads Everything from hormone-balancing smoothies, raw callot salad for estrogen detox detox or cold plunging for fat loss. Some of these trends sound exciting, some feel empowering, but some just fall apart under the microscope. Now, I applaud anyone who's researching things that can improve their health, but the people that I do not applaud are those who make hyperbolic claims in order to profit from vulnerable people looking to improve themselves. So in today's episode, I'll teach you how to think critically about wellness trends, using real science, so that you can spot helpful ones and avoid the hype. Now the internet is very loud and everyone suddenly seems to be a hormone expert, a detox coach or a biohacker, but there's a big difference between what sounds scientific and what is scientific. Now, the truth is that many of these trends are actually based on misinterpreted mechanisms, personal anecdotes or cherry-picked studies. So, instead of just debunking, I want to give you tools and a way to think critically so you're not left confused the next time someone on TikTok tells you to eat raw liver with maple syrup, claiming that it's going to cure your chronic disease. Now, the three thinking tools that I want to give to you today are well, number one mechanism doesn't mean meaningful outcome. Number two anecdote doesn't mean evidence. And number three short-term hype doesn't mean long-term health. Now, just because a nutrient does something in a petri dish doesn't mean that it's going to help when you eat it.

Speaker 1:

And we see all of these mechanistic data used against us in all sorts of different scenarios. I'll give you an example. In all sorts of different scenarios. I'll give you an example. I did a full episode on Red Dye 40, where it was banned because, at super high dose, in a powdered form in rodents, it could increase the risk of thyroid cancer, where humans would have to eat pounds of it daily for it to have possible toxic implications. The same thing goes for aspartame, a sweetener that we find in diet soda, for example, where, at ultra-high doses, it increases the rates of brain cancer in rodents. But for actual adults or humans, they would have to consume something like 40 milligrams per kilogram, which equates to dozens and dozens of diet sodas every single day.

Speaker 1:

To see a potential lethal dose? Now day to see a potential lethal dose? Now I'll give you the example of Tylenol. Right At high dose, Tylenol will kill you. At moderate dose it's perfectly safe. It may actually help reduce your fever and your headache, but if you take 0.2 milligrams of Tylenol it will do absolutely nothing. So, using this as an example, if aspartame in rodents causes brain cancer and people are using that data to then fearmonger about diet soda, well then we should be avoiding Tylenol as well when we have a headache, because it kills people at high doses. But it actually, for a lot of people, is quite useful at studied doses.

Speaker 1:

Using mechanisms in animals or rodents or what happens in mechanistic studies at super high doses and then extrapolating that to fear monger in normal consumed doses in adults is quite sad and most scientists can see right through that. But I understand that for the layperson that's not necessarily educated in the sciences or in different scientific studies, this can be very confusing to read online. The second thing is that anecdote is not evidence and stories are powerful and emotions are involved, but stories aren't science evolved, but stories aren't science now. When I transitioned to a plant-based diet, a lot of things went better for me. My allergies went away, my asthma got better, my eczema went away. I've never had another bout of cholinergic angioedema or chronic urticaria since. But that doesn't mean that this that's going to happen to everyone who has the same conditions as I have. Our contexts are different, our stress levels are different, our genetic predispositions are different, our diets are different. We are different. So it's impossible for me to assume that my anecdote, although it relates to a lot of people, it's impossible to claim and it's actually quite dangerous to claim that this is going to happen to everyone who goes plant-based and also short-term hype is not equal to long-term help, and feeling better for a week doesn't mean that something is sustainable or safe.

Speaker 1:

Now we do have studies showing that there are benefits of coal plunging, but what people don't know is that a proper coal plunge is quite a hassle to operate, that a proper cold plunge is quite a hassle to operate. Either it costs thousands of dollars or, if you make one at home. It may increase mood for a few hours or days after doing it, but you are going to have to do it over the long term. What people fail to understand is that eating healthier, sleeping better, managing your stress and exercising and connecting with people has exponentially more impact on short-term and long-term health than cold plunging. Now I don't want to sound like a hypocrite. I have a cold plunge at home and when I'm in the mood to challenge myself and to defy my limits and to break mental barriers, I really enjoy doing it. But that being said, killing it with water, washing it, finding the time and waking up in the morning at 6 am and jumping in a cold plunge is not that enjoyable for me and honestly, I'd prefer going to run a 20K because I know that that level of discomfort I can reproduce during a longer run. But I'll have a better time and I'll have exponentially more benefit. If you're spending all your time in a cold plunge but yet you're sleeping five hours per night, you are stepping over dollars to pick up pennies. You are majoring in the minors.

Speaker 1:

The most important thing is to understand what really impacts short-term and long-term health and to try to prioritize these things first to try to prioritize these things. First, let's talk about a few viral trends that I've seen online lately. I've seen raw carrot salad for estrogen detoxing, and the claim is that raw carrots bind excess estrogen and balance your hormones. Now, the truth is that this claim is based on the fact that carrots do contain insoluble fiber, which does help bind some of the estrogen metabolites in the gut, but that's not unique to carrots. Any fiber-rich vegetable can do this, and there's no evidence that a raw carrot a day significantly impacts hormone levels. Now, eat your carrots, for sure, but don't expect them to replace lifestyle, fiber diversity, fiber quantity or clinical support if you need it.

Speaker 1:

Now, what about cold plunges, burning fat and resetting your hormone? Now, the claim is that cold exposure boosts metabolism and brown fat activity, leading to fat loss and hormone optimization. Now, the truth is, yes, cold does activate brown adipose tissue. It can burn calories, but the effect is modest, not magical, and cortisol and adrenaline will spike, which isn't actually helpful for everyone, especially during a burnout or during menopause or when your body's not fully recovered. Now, cold plunges can be invigorating, but they're not a fat loss fix. Now, if you love it, go for it, but don't expect dramatic metabolic changes and I think that sleeping seven to nine hours per night, meditating, managing your stress, connecting socially, exercising and eating a plant-forward diet is hundreds-fold more important than cold plunging.

Speaker 1:

Now another trend that I've seen resurface online lately is mouth taping. Now the claim is that mouth tape promotes nasal breathing, better sleep and less snoring. The truth is that nasal breathing is actually great, but if you snore and have sleep apnea or sinus issues, taping your mouth can actually be dangerous, and there's minimal evidence on long-term benefit and no safety screening involved in most of these viral videos. Instead of taping your mouth shut, maybe focus on optimizing nasal airflow, sleep hygiene and getting screened for sleep apnea. If you're waking up tired Now, when I go out for a 10K run, I do nasal breathe. There are some benefits, but I'm not sure that taping your mouth shut during sleep is the way to go for most people. Now what about hormone-balancing smoothies? The claim is that this blend of maca, flax, almond milk and nut butter will balance your hormones naturally. Now the truth is that maca is a root with some good evidence for libido and mood, but not for hormone regulation per se, and flax is healthy and is recommended to consume daily. But again, it's about the total dietary pattern, not one magical blend, and you can't balance hormones with a drink. Can't balance hormones with a drink, especially if you're sleeping is off, your stress management is off and your diet is off. Now drink your smoothie. It's a great way to get a nutrient-dense meal inside of you. A lot of nutrient variety can be packed in a smoothie, as well as Nutrient variety can be packed in a smoothie, as well as phytochemicals and fiber. But don't let marketing convince you that a smoothie is a prescription no-transcript. Now, another trend that I've seen is something called chlorophyll water. Now, the claim is that chlorophyll neutralizes body odor and detoxes your body from the inside out. Now, the truth is that there's one small study showing that topical chlorophyllin may reduce body odor in some people with a very specific yet rare medical condition in some people with a very specific yet rare medical condition. But chlorophyll in water there's no solid evidence that it changes body odor in normal, healthy people. And again, your liver and your kidneys are already detoxing like pros. Drink water and eat leafy greens. That's your chlorophyll fix For free. You do not need to be falling for these scams. Now. There are a lot of things that these trends do get right, and that's the intention of wanting to feel better, of wanting to take control of your health, wanting a solution that feels empowering. But long-term health isn't sexy. It's daily habits that you sustain over time Whole food variety, variety of colors, movement, sleep, stress reduction, reduction, social support. When you have these fundamentals in place, you become very less vulnerable to the hype and grounded in what actually works.

Speaker 1:

There are different types of studies that have different types of conclusions and these studies, like weight in a balance, can be kind of put on this type of pedestal that we call the hierarchy of proof. Now imagine this hypothetical scenario Someone maybe breaks into a corner store and robs the place. Now, when investigating, the police will look at whether or not we have different levels of proof to try to find who robbed the place. Now the first thing will be anecdotes Is there anyone who heard anything or is there anyone who saw anything? Obviously, you understand that people who heard the rumor that maybe John robbed that place, that's maybe a little less reliable than people who claim to have seen John rob the place. So there's a difference between hearing about it and actually seeing it. So there's a difference between hearing about it and actually seeing it. But there's still some bias that's there and some people sometimes they think they saw something and they think they saw someone who looked like John, but it wasn't actually John. So what we want to rely on are maybe other forms of evidence like, for example, cameras, or shoe prints or fingerprints or DNA, for example, cameras.

Speaker 1:

Cameras is a good example of how proof can exist according to a certain hierarchy or on a spectrum. Maybe the store across the street has a low-definition black or white camera. It's a little bit blurry, but the shirt and the hat and the shoes and the face maybe look like John just a little. Obviously, there are more reliable ways to prove that John robbed the store. Maybe closer, the streetlight had a camera. Closer, the streetlight had a camera and that was a camera that's in color and still a little bit blurred. But yeah, john does have that colored shirt and that colored hat. Now what about the neighboring store who has a high def camera getting a clear shot of John's face? It's not blurred, it's in perfect 1080p. The colors match perfectly, the face matches perfectly. It's clearly John who robbed the store. Now, everyone would agree that the different quality cameras exist on what we call a hierarchy of proof or a spectrum, from low quality of proof to high quality of proof.

Speaker 1:

Now it just so happens that the same thing exists for scientific studies, with the best studies being systematic reviews or meta-analyses. Then we have randomized controlled trials and clinical guidelines and then we have prospective cohort studies done on millions of people. Then maybe we have these same studies done on less people and then we start diving into the maybe poorer conduct studies or lower levels of proof like, for example, mechanistic studies or expert opinions or personal anecdotes or petri dishes. Obviously a study on soy showing that soy is dangerous in rodents may be a cause for concerns in humans if we don't have any data on humans. But if we have generations of studies on soy and how it impacts human health and we've studied it on hundreds of thousands of people and it consistently shows that soy is protective in terms of reducing chronic disease risk or cancer rates or cardiovascular disease or cholesterol in humans, then honestly I really don't care what the lower levels of studies are showing.

Speaker 1:

Now, if the high def clearly shows and the footprints and the fingerprints are all pointing in the same direction and all towards John having robbed that convenience store, then I don't really care that the blurred-out camera across the street shows something that doesn't look like John shows something that doesn't look like John. When we have multiple lines of evidence all converging towards the same thing or the same conclusion, we can be more sure that the conclusion is the right one. So if you have four different types of cameras, all showing John Fingerprints, show John Anecdotes from people around showing that John has no alibi and he was in the vicinity of the store at the time of the robbery, all of these different lines of proof are converging towards John. Now that same concept can be applied to scientific studies. If we have multiple lines of proof randomized controlled trials, mendelian randomization, systematic reviews and meta-analysis all showing that LDL cholesterol is a causal factor in atherosclerosis and in cardiovascular disease, then I don't care if a very ultra low level study showed that it wasn't related. Like if all cameras and all lines of proof are showing that LDL cholesterol increases heart attack risk, then really who cares about that poor quality petri level animal study that showed that? Maybe it doesn't right?

Speaker 1:

But the thing is, is that this, these different types of studies do exist out there and that's why often people will cherry pick a study that fits their narrative. Now obviously, john's defense lawyers are going to point towards that blurry camera that really shows someone that looks different from John, right? So the same thing happens online when people are demonizing red dyes. They're not talking about the fact that it was studied in rodents but deemed safe in adults. When they're pointing at aspartame, they're not mentioning that it was hundreds of times the dose needed to cause harms in humans that are being used in rodents. We are not mice and the ways that food impacts rodents is not the same that would happen in adults if we would be to consume the typical levels that we consume during a typical day. Right.

Speaker 1:

It's easy to fearmonger, it's easy to make exaggerated claims and it's particularly easy to use low quality science to back up the story that will support your supplement or whatever behavior you're trying to sell, and that's why people are confused. Where we have two different experts that are saying completely different things, people will typically believe the one who appears more confident or is a better communicator. Now, the reality is is that doctors and scientists are typically too busy to be influencing people on social media and when they are, they typically are very poor communicators of the science, and that's why I don't blame patients for being confused. 86% of people consume their news from a tablet or a smartphone, and that's where people are getting their health advice from as well. The general public is not reading scientific journals. They're reading Instagram and Facebook and TikTok and YouTube, and on these social media platforms you can find infinite numbers of doctors and wellness influencers that all say contradicting things.

Speaker 1:

It's important to understand how to think critically, how to interpret science and, mostly, understanding that health isn't built around fads. Hype isn't built around fads, hype, quick fixes or trends. It's built on the six lifestyle pillars, which are eating a healthy, plant-forward diet, exercising, managing your stress, prioritizing good sleep hygiene and connecting socially with other people, while you avoid consuming known toxins Right on. If this episode has helped you feel more confident in navigating health information online, please share it with a friend. Let's try to make critical thinking cool again. Let's try to make critical thinking cool again. Thanks for being here. Thanks for tuning in. We'll see you at the next episode. Peace, hey everyone. Go check out my website plantbaseddodrjulescom to find free downloadable resources, and remember that you can find me on Facebook and Instagram at Dr Jules Cormier, and on YouTube at Plant Based Dr Jules. Thank you.

People on this episode

Head Shot

Dr. Jules Cormier

Host