Episode 405: Dr. Andreas Eenfeldt - Satiety Per Calorie Approach

Dr. Andreas Eenfeldt is the founder/CEO of both Diet Doctor and HAVA. Diet Doctor focuses on providing information related to low carbohydrate ketogenic diets, and HAVA leverages an approach that focuses on key components of satiety to help users decide what food choices may best serve them.

Endurance Training Simplified Series

Zach’s Low Carb Endurance Approach Series

SFuels: sfuelsgolonger.com code: BITTER5 ***FREE SAMPLE PACK LIMITED OFFER***

Janji: janji.com code: Bitter10

LMNT: drinkLMNT.com/HPO

deltaG: deltagketones.com - IG: @deltag.ketones code: BITTER20

HPO Sponsors: zachbitter.com/hposponsors

Support HPO: zachbitter.com/hpo 

Zach’s Coaching: zachbitter.com/coaching

Dr. Eenfeldt: dietdoctor.com & hava.co - X: @DrEenfeldt

Zach: zachbitter.com - IG: @zachbitter - X: @zbitter - Substack: zachbitter.substack.com - FB: @zbitterendurance - Strava: Zach Bitter - TikTok: @zachbitter - Threads: @zachbitter

Episode Chapters:

00:00:00 - Introduction and Raffle Opportunity

00:03:53 - A New Approach to Obesity and Metabolic Health

00:08:07 - The Importance of Having Options

00:11:46 - The Impact of GP1s and the Need for Other Options

00:15:54 - Reverse Engineering Food Engineering

00:20:18 - Discounts and Promos for Sponsor Products

00:24:14 - Satiety on a Ketogenic Diet

00:28:04 - The Unpalatability of Oil-based Diets

00:31:53 - Understanding the Satiety per Calorie Model

00:36:17 - Fine-tuning Nutrition in the Off-Season

00:40:10 - Precision vs. Simplicity in Food Scoring Methods

00:44:15 - Flexible Approaches to Eating Ice Cream

00:48:17 - Exploring Specific Research Tools for SPC

00:52:49 - The Difficulty of Nutrition Research and Algorithm Development

00:57:05 - The Benefits of Improved Health Markers

01:01:36 - The Role of Blood Sugar in Diabetes

01:05:59 - Metabolic Inflexibility on a Ketogenic Diet

01:10:07 - Micronutrients and Satiety

01:14:51 - The Problem with Seed Oils

01:18:52 - Exciting News about the Hava App

01:22:55 - How Zach uses HPO sponsors

Episode Transcript:

Right on. Well, I think maybe, maybe to kick things off, it would be fun just to kind of dive a little bit into your background. For listeners who aren't familiar with your work and what you've done. And I think, like, the starting point I find here is Diet Doctor, I think that's something where, a lot of people within the low carb community especially, have probably heard about that or have used that. You want to just tell us a little bit about how you got interested in nutrition and what led to forming Diet Doctor originally. Sure. It's been a long, long, long journey. It's 22 years now. I was a young, younger doctor. and, just picked up a book about the low glycemic index approach and really found it fascinating. Started reading all kinds of things about this, trying it myself, pestering my friends and family about it. And then eventually, after reading a lot of science, started to help patients with obesity, type two diabetes, etc. to try a lower carb, lower glycemic index diet. And, had some spectacular cases where people had unbelievably good results. Like I would take them. the test results and show it to my colleagues. And they were like, 'cause I've never seen anything like that. And I was like, okay, these people, they've been working for 20 years. They probably have seen something like this, but they're like, no, they had never seen anything like it either. So I was so fascinated by that, that, yeah, I got totally into it, read everything I could find, and eventually found out that there wasn't really any good. Suddenly there was no good information in Swedish. So I started a Swedish blog website, and it became the biggest health blog in Sweden. And then I saw, hey, actually what we're doing here is perhaps better than anything in the English language as well. So maybe we should start an English website and that is Diet Doctor to turn into the biggest, low carb focused website in the world. so it's been a long, interesting journey. Another really formative, I guess factor was reading, Gary Taubes back in 2007. Good calories, bad calories, very few times. Very persuasive at the time. So I was totally into low carb. And clearly that is an approach that works really well for a lot of people. and then, in the last 5 or 10 years, I guess, learned even more, learned that low carb, while it's a promising, helpful approach for a lot of people, it's not the only way that works. There are other ways that can also be helpful for obesity, for metabolic health, diabetes, hypertension, all these sort of clusters of conditions that, that, drive all our top chronic diseases. And I really found it to be healthy, and well functioning. So, together with Doctor Ted Nyman, we developed a new approach that sort of takes all of these core factors, and puts them together in a way that explains why every diet works like you could do. In a whole foods plant based diet and be pretty successful. You can do a carnivore diet and be pretty successful. Those are absolute opposites. How can you do two things that are opposites and get good results either way? Or you could do a low carb diet or you could do a low fat diet. Actually, there are some people who do quite well on a low, low fat, Whole foods diet again. How can you get good results doing the absolute opposite? Even people with diabetes can get good results sometimes from an extremely low fat diet. That's very, very hard to explain, with the low carb theory. So, I find it fascinating that there actually is a way to put all these, all these black swans together, you know, taking any sort of specific low carb approach or a carnivore approach or a vegan approach. You can only explain what you see in your own community. You can't explain the people who do the opposite. but with this approach we're taking now, you can actually explain potentially all of it in theory. I find that super exciting, actually. It is likewise. I mean, that's what kind of led me to your stuff actually was you know, my introduction into nutrition was very much through the lens of I like to run. I'm good enough at this where I should be paying attention to more than just the training input. And that led me to nutrition. So I went through kind of like the typical endurance nutrition phase of more moderate to high carbohydrate, and that didn't seem to be problematic for me at all. when I was racing more traditional distances. It wasn't until I got into an ultramarathon, where I started seeing some application for a lower carbohydrate approach, at least enough to get curious. And then I, you know, I tried that and it worked. It worked very well for me. So my first thought was like, wow, what is this? And why isn't everyone else doing it? And then you kind of get further into the research and just as low carb has gotten more, kind of, I would say not necessarily more research, although there has been that too. We also have this scenario where low carb ketogenic diets have been around for a long, long time. But what's changed throughout that timeline is the food environment and just the way people engage with everything essentially nowadays. So it's like, where's the application for this type of an approach in the grand scheme of things? And the first thing I kind of realized was there is no very specific way of eating that has even reasonably good adherence rates. So at that point my thought was, well, if we have like dietary guidelines that are so strict or strict enough that it kind of pigeonholes everybody into a relatively specific way of eating, it's going to fail at a population level because you're just going to have such low adherence rates. But that doesn't mean that the actual diet itself is bad. It just means, for whatever reason, that specific way of eating isn't something that we can expect a large percentage of people to stick to, given their surroundings with the food environment. So then that leads me to think, well then we need options. We need to have a bunch of options so people can sort of explore which of these inputs is actually going to be something they can sustain, sustain and stick to versus having this kind of Yo-Yo effect of, all right, I could stick to that ketogenic diet for six months, and I fell off and gain back on my weight, or I stuck to that vegan diet for six months, and then I felt like my energy's just tanked. So I had to switch back. And then you have all those sorts of scenarios where all these dietary kinds of tribes and groups have their, like, poster boy like success stories, but then all the other ones have their list of like, epic failures where they bring in someone who tried it and failed badly. And then it's like, you have this like if you're an outside observer, you're sort of looking at it like, well, like you described, how do you have this person who's just swearing by the success they had and this other person talking about how miserable it made them feel? And. Yeah, and that's kind of what led me to like your, your current work with, with Java and the, satiety per calorie approach, because it did seem like it was more of an umbrella where the inputs are pretty wide open, and then it's just kind of more scored based on how that food will likely impact satiety. So then when someone is deciding maybe they do want to follow a low carbohydrate approach, they can see where those inputs actually, put them. And maybe what that would do for, for their, their, their weight goals or something like that, or if they wanted to do a completely different dietary approach, they have that option too. It doesn't necessarily exclude them if they want to kind of move around those different inputs. Yeah, exactly. You could, you could, benefit from this if you're a low carb or if you're not low carb. And you can also use it to troubleshoot your approach, like let's say you're on a low carb diet or let's say a vegan diet, and you're not having the results that you want, even though you're pretty strict on the carbs or you're you're only eating vegan foods and still you're not getting the results you want, what do you do? Well, I think that. With our system, where you can just take a picture of what you're eating and get an automated ranking and breakdown of which foods give you more or less satiety. You can use that no matter what kind of diet you're on, whether it's low carb or plant based or McDonald's or anything really. And you can see what are the problems, foods that you're eating and what are the really great foods that you're eating for your goals. And then perhaps you can just eat a bit more of those great foods that you're already eaten, and a little bit less of the problem foods. And that might be all you need to do. And going back to what you said about sustainability, it's very hard to change your diet completely and start cooking everything from scratch and never eating another carb or never, ever eating any animal foods. It's going to be very challenging for most people to do that for a lifetime. And I think, just like you said, we need other options too. These problems are so prevalent, like the majority of the adult population in the US have poor metabolic health. They're overweight. They're perhaps even obese. There are a lot of people. And what we sort of have to offer them today is sort of get on these ozempic drugs, these GLP ones. And yeah, that works perhaps really well while people take it, although they may not get all the way to their goals, but it's pretty powerful. But if you get off, then everything comes back, right? So you're basically going to have to be on these drugs for life. And if we're really going to make an impact on everybody, like 90% of the adult population needs to be on these drugs for life. Is that really what we're going for? And even if we do, people are still not going to get all the way to where they want to be. I think we definitely need other options and that's what we are hoping to build there. Something that is potentially more effective than other approaches, and certainly much more flexible than anything else I've seen, which makes it more sustainable and more enjoyable. Yeah. No, it makes sense. I think maybe it's probably worth diving into some of the, the kind of the theory behind the approach and just share with the listeners a little bit about what we mean by like satiety per calorie, which is what the SPC stands for. And like, what are the things that you're considering when weighing in to a food being either scoring high or low on, on that scale? Yeah, sure. I mean, fundamentally it comes down to this simple fact: some foods make you eat more and some foods make you eat less. And they've been abundantly proven in studies over and over again. Certain diets make you eat many calories, and others if you are, there is one. The most famous study may be the one by Kevin Oil on ultra processed foods, where he had a group of people that were randomly divided into two. And, and one of them had. two weeks of ultra processed foods to eat, and one group had two weeks of less processed foods. Otherwise everything was the same carbs, fats, protein, etc. and the people on the ultra processed food diet, they ate 500 calories extra every day without even thinking about it, and quickly gained weight and body fat. while the other group ate 500 calories less and lost weight and body fat. Without thinking about it, just just going about their day, eating as much as they wanted or as little as they wanted. This is what the different kinds of food made them do. And similar things have been shown in, in all kinds of studies. If you go on a high protein, low carb diet, you tend to eat less if you go on a whole foods vegan diet. You tend to eat less. And actually the diet that causes you to eat the most is the one that is most easily available. Is the standard American diet ultra processed food? Because probably it's designed to be that way. it's designed to be that way because it's more profitable. It's cheaper to produce. And most of all, it just drives you to want it more, which is perfect. If you are selling something you want people to want to consume as much as possible, right? So they buy as much as possible. so it just makes sense. The food industry has been spending decades and, you know, millions and millions, hundreds of millions of dollars to research. How do you make people eat more so that they buy more? And that's what they're selling to us. The result of that research and the and the result when people eat it is they eat more and they gain weight. And then we end up in this situation where 90% of people have excess body fat. And that drives poor metabolic health and ultimately all our top chronic diseases. Yeah, yeah. It's really interesting when you say that, because if I think of it just as sort of reverse engineering, what the food engineers are doing essentially is they're basically saying, okay, if I take this food and I ratchet the protein content as low as I can get it, remove all the fiber, and then also reduce the water. You also sort of pull anything out of that food. That would typically be something that would drive the signal of, fullness or lack of hunger. And yeah, then you're going to eat way more of it. And by the time you realize you've eaten way too much of it, you've already kind of, you know, plowed through that bag of potato chips or whatever it happens to be versus a scenario where, like, if you're on your end of the spectrum where you're like, I'm trying to get people to eat less but not do it in a way where they're sitting there meticulously counting calories. Then you want to sort of leverage those aspects that these food manufacturers are removing or putting them back, essentially, if that sounds like that's kind of the approach. Yeah, exactly. I guess it didn't fully answer your question. I got into the problem sort of that we have. But yeah, our approach with satiety per calorie is just as you say, to. You know, slowly or quickly, depending on how people want to do it. Pull in the other direction, like identify what are the factors that cause people to eat more or less. And then you can score foods with an algorithm that is trained on that data. And then you can figure out what they are. Okay. If we can figure out what the foods that cause you to eat more are. We can also figure out what are the foods that cause you to eat less. And just like you said they used, they tend to be full of nutrition, hiring protein higher in fiber. Also lower in energy density. So more water in the food and, and less of these sort of hyper palatable combinations, fat and sugar together, fat and salt together. And I think of chocolate ice cream, salted potato chips, and salted nuts. These are foods that cause us to eat even when we're not hungry. Because just dopamine. just pleasure. addiction even. So what we've done is to take this sort of complexity where we have a number of factors that interact and drive us to eat more or drive us to it less, and, and then build a system and an app that makes this whole thing super, super simple. because all this data is way too much to figure out on your own. I mean, the beauty of a, let's say, a mediterranean diet or a low carb diet or a vegan diet is that they are simple to understand. Just avoid animal products or avoid carbohydrates. Very simple. The problem is that it's only one aspect of reality. And, you're getting a very rough, rough approach that doesn't take everything into account. And then the problem with that is it's not as effective as it could be, and it's not as flexible as it could be. Yeah. And if you do the opposite approach where you try to take in all this data, how much protein is it compared to how many carbs and fats and how much fiber and and what's the weight of this food and the calories per weight like the energy density? And are there any hyper palatable combinations here? And how do I weigh this factor versus that factor? And then do that for every ingredient and everything you eat, you wouldn't do anything else. Like it is, it's too complex. So you can't do it, but you can outsource all that work to technology to an app. and then you can have the best of both worlds. you can eat your cookie and have it, too, in a sense, because you get an approach that is. Potentially more effective and also far more flexible and enjoyable. And it's still simple to do. So that's the beauty of it. Yeah. Yeah it definitely seems like it's something where it's taking a more what would typically be a more complex approach, which is going to basically place friction in front of the an uninformed user and trying to make it very much more accessible so they can sort of just kind of get, get to it before they even understand it necessarily. I wanted to ask you because it sounds like there's, like, you're kind of taking this, this approach where if we look at the reason different dietary approaches are successful, they're often pulling a lever, like so like you mentioned, low carb is pulling this level of well, we have you. Yeah. Minimize carbs to a drastic degree. You're going to probably eat less because you've removed an entire match of macronutrient or like I think raise the protein right. Remove the carbs. Generally a low carb diet will be quite high in protein, which is a powerful satiety signal. And also you remove all the hyper palatable foods. Almost not not entirely, but, you know, certainly chocolate, potato chips. You know, the worst, the worst, ultra processed foods are all gone. So you're pulling at least two levels really powerfully by using a low carb diet. So, on average, a low carb diet tends to score pretty high on our satiety per calorie scale. it's not perfect. There are some, blind spots, you might say. that could cause people to not be successful on a low carb diet. if they're if they don't know about them. So that's pretty interesting. Plus, I believe that a ketogenic diet becomes far more Inflexible than it needs to be. Which ultimately makes it hard for a lot of people to sustain long term. Some people eat a strict low carb diet. For many years, I did it myself. but it is hard. so kudos to the people who do it, for a decade or longer. That's impressive. Fortunately, I don't think it's necessary. Yeah. You know, you I mean, you make a good point there, too. Like, if you are going to pull the way I look at it is like if I just told someone, all right, you're going to do a low carbohydrate diet. And the rule here is take the carbohydrates out of your, your diet and everything else is up to their they're choosing the food inputs they're likely to pick are going to carry a protein component. They're not going to likely go straight to the bottle of olive oil and just start dumping that on everything. They may get to that point at some point, but like generally speaking, they're going to be picking more things that would resonate with them as, you know, a typical meal just without the carbohydrate and proteins just always going to come along for a ride in that scenario. And I think you're right, like when we look at some of the, the, the, the free feeding, low carbohydrate stuff studies, it's like the first thing you kind of have to account for if you're going to actually compare it to a control diet. It was protein accounted for because you have this diet that's let's say 10% protein versus one that's 25% protein. It stands to reason that 1 to 25% protein, if they're just eating ad lib, is probably going to result in lower energy intake overall. And that's a second lever. Essentially, even though the directive maybe wasn't to eat more protein. And that was one of the big aha moments for me because I've been studying these low carbs, studies for, for a long time. And there are quite a few, dozens of studies, really, that show randomized controlled trials. That goes down to the research where they show that people lose more weight on the low carb diet compared to a comparison diet, low fat diet. but in every single study that showed this, they also ate more protein. So to my knowledge, there is no study where people lost more weight without also eating more protein. I think this is a little bit of a yeah, this is a little bit of a tangent, but I think you're probably a good person to ask, given your, your kind of background and your interest is do we know? Because when someone actually kind of employs a very strict ketogenic diet where they're like a 4 to 1 fat to protein ratio and their protein actually is almost by default kept lower than what we would typically see in just someone eating a low carbohydrate diet. And a lot of times these folks will report that they have this insane level of satiety. Is there something there that's just like because of the requirements to hit that sort of a ratio, you've created an environment in which just the appetite to kind of continue eating the same essential groups of food over and over just dampens their desire to kind of keep going. And since they've sort of held themselves accountable to that rule, they're avoiding the foods that would typically trigger them to eat more. Or is there something else that's going on with just like a long term adherence to that sort of an approach that just kind of just blunts hunger signals and maybe success yields adherence, I guess. Yeah. If you're talking about, these, really hardcore, sort of epilepsy treatment, level, where you're basically eating a lot of oil. not so much, perhaps real food, but, oil based sort of meal, replacements to, to get your ketone levels really high. This is, usually for, pediatric epilepsy treatment or something. yeah, I think you're on the right track there that you get a likely sensory specific satiety. It's just not very pleasant to eat. I mean, for most people it certainly wouldn't be for me, at least to eat mostly oil. It doesn't, it doesn't drive you to overeat. It's almost like the opposite of hyper palatability. It's actively unpalatable. Perhaps if it's like, eat this oil and that's all you have. yeah, it will not likely cause overeating. You will be, yeah. It's sort of like the opposite of hyper palatable foods, in a way. Unpalatable foods. Yeah. Yeah, it's really interesting. I think it kind of touches on what we were talking about before where you're just going to have like the majority of people, they're not going to walk into our food environment and default to that. And they're also if they do try it, it's just a low likelihood that they're going to stick with it. And then we're going to have probably a single digit percentage of the population who for one reason or another finds that preferable. And, you know, maybe it is something like they had some pre-existing condition that is so miserable that they've sort of conceded that food enjoyment isn't worth whatever discomfort they're going to have if they don't stick to some very strict protocol. And then that relief of that worse scenario is just powerful enough to keep them motivated to. Yeah, sure. I mean, if you need to eat like that to live or, or to be, functioning, then sure, I guess most people might be able to do it. if you really, really have to, But I think very few people are going to stick to it, or one would like to do that, unless they really have to. If you're talking about these oil based diets that are, like, not really a real food at all. Yeah. Yeah. It's funny because you have like, it's almost just like it shows the variance in personality too, because you'll have like a foodie who would never dream of something like that. They'd be like, it'd be the worst case scenario. But then you also have these people who are just like, they want to just be done with it and move on to their next thing. They're just not very interested in food for one reason or the other. So for them, it's like maybe like, oh, this is so easy. It's just like I plug this very simplistic thing in that's pretty much calculated pre predetermined. And just they can kind of just set it and forget it more or less. And for those people maybe that is something that they like or enjoy, that real kind of clear cut try to approach versus trying to juggle the different inputs. But again, I think that's probably a small percentage of the population that would find that valid or maybe not valuable, but find it, find that preferable. Yeah. But I mean, even if you do these liquid meal replacement diets, Maybe you don't want to go into the ultra low carb and low protein diet. I mean, I think that that needs to be, some specific purpose, like epilepsy. because otherwise I don't see the point in that. Yeah. I think it's safe to say if we were to say like, all right, we have these dietary guidelines that say what they say. Now if we would just replace those with a very strict ketogenic diet, will we have better or worse success or the same? It's like it kind of goes back to what I was saying before. I think that's strict enough where you're going to have very low adherence rates at a population level when you have any dietary input that is that one dimensional. Yeah, I think keto is great. It's great to have as an option, but certainly we need other options too because not everybody's going to do that for life. Yeah. Okay. So we have I want, I want to kind of come back to the SPC, satiety per calorie model and just dive into some of the, the kind of ins and outs of it for those who are interested. So when people are putting in these foods, whether they're taking a picture of it with the app or whether they're just plugging it in manually, if they put in a food, they produce a score from 0 to 100, correct? Yeah. So we rank it from 0 to 100. so zero is The commonly available foods that have the. The cost is the most and the most calories, and 100 are the commonly available foods that cause you to eat the fewest calories. And a key thing is the goal is not a hundred because you can't live on just, you know, egg whites and spinach leaves is just going to be completely miserable and may not even be compatible with life. You need to be somewhere in the middle, maybe a little bit to the right if you want to lose weight, for example. but the way we set up this algorithm is 50 is sort of the midpoint. And aspirationally what we aim for the algorithm to do is to make that the foods that cause, like a normal person living a normal life, eating 50 on average, should get a normal weight, a normal metabolic health. That's sort of what we aim for the algorithm to do. and then if you go a little bit higher, you would tend to get leaner. Leaner. and if you go lower. Well, then you get more energy and potentially, excess weight, etc. if you look at, for example, the standard American diet, what, what an average adult in the US eats scores about 27. And so that's pretty low on our scale. And that's in an environment where most people end up with excess weight. So it's kind of a check out. And if you look at what people eating, low carb or carnivore or vegan or some other whole foods diet, end up on, they probably end up in the 50 or 60, maybe slightly higher. so, I mean, all these diets that work tend to be somewhere in the middle of the satiety range or maybe a little bit higher than that. And that's probably where most people would do well to be, depending on their goals. If people want to be healthy, lean, and strong , then most people should probably aim to be somewhere in the middle or or slightly to the right of the middle. Yeah it makes sense and I think you can almost, you can almost just predict what you would want to do based on your lifestyle to some degree. We were chatting a little bit about this before the start, which is like if you take me, I'm an extreme example, but like take someone like myself where when I'm in season peaking for a race, I may have an energy expenditure rate of 4000 plus per day. So for those sort of days, I may want to be sitting kind of closer to a number that would kind of intuitively yield me to consuming 4000 plus calories versus I'm in the off season, I'm not training, I'm burning probably closer to 2000 calories a day, which in which case then, if weight stabilization is my goal, I may want to skew towards a score that's going to be higher, like in the 60, maybe 70 range. So I can intuitively sort of approach it without feeling like I'm either constantly full or constantly hungry, depending on which phase of the year I'm in. Yeah, I mean, I think this could be a great tool to help guide people for that as well. I guess, you will have a bit of an intuitive sense. After all, all the years you've been doing this, you probably know pretty much what works. but maybe this could still help you tweak some things. Well I think of it like a lot of my coaching clients too, where they'll have sort of a protocol that we find is working well for them during the season. And then they finish the race and then the off season and they're sort of in, you know, if it's the first time we've gone through it, they're like, well, now what do I do? Because I don't want to be eating these exact same things. Do I just reduce a little bit of every one of that and, and just kind of go with that route, or do I change things altogether? And I think where a tool like this would be useful for them is they can sort of maintain the the sort of schedule or this basic scaffolding of what they're doing, but look at it through the lens of, well, for if for breakfast, my meal had these three components and that averaged a 30. Well, I'm just going to look at what the comparators are to those foods, those three foods that I had for that meal. But rather than scoring 30 score 60 or 70. So you're sort of replacing a similar type of food, but that scores much higher. So kind of the aesthetics of the approach and the consistency of their schedule stays more or less the same. But the quality, I guess we could say, of the product in terms of its satiety yielding effects just goes up. So, I mean, I think exactly like, yeah, your clients, for example, or I mean, it's interesting because, a lot of people are lean and strong when they're athletic, athletically active. And then maybe they get a little bit older, get a family and stop some of that. And, if they keep eating the same foods, they tend to perhaps put on quite a lot of weight. And I think this could be a great tool to do exactly what you say, whether it's offseason or you sort of off your career. You ended your career, you're retired, and now you need to sort of rethink a little bit what you eat. And you need less energy and you need more concentrated nutrition because of that, right? So for example, in the morning, let's say you have yogurt, maybe you switched your regular yogurt to Greek yogurt, maybe even nonfat Greek yogurt. Now you get a ton of protein, much less energy, much less carbs and fat. I mean, it doesn't have to be harder than that. You switch the brand of that thing and then you're halfway home. Yeah. Yeah I think that seems like a really low barrier to entry to kind of engage with a process like this. I want to ask you about just the scoring system in general. Like how did you and the team kind of come up with a 0 to 100? Was there some sort of discussion around having either too broad of a categorization where you have like a landing zone that's maybe wide enough where you're going to have mistakes being made? If someone is like hanging around the fringes of it versus having it so precise that people get into the weeds too much and are like, oh, this food scores one point better. Therefore I'm going to go that way versus that way. Yeah, I mean, so much discussion on this. Yeah. We've been exploring all kinds of ways to do this. And there doesn't seem to be a perfect way, but I think that this is the best one we've come up with. We've tried a few others. and they seem to be worse. You could argue that, 0 to 100, is a lot of detail. And, is the real difference between something that's called 63 and 65. Well. Maybe a little bit, but I think going from going from that to a 0 to 10 score would lose a lot of detail. And I actually think that having the ability to make these small tweaks all over the place actually adds up, quite a bit. I think the difference between 60 and 70 is pretty big, or 50 and 60 is pretty big, so I wouldn't want to do a 0 to 10 score. Or some people have suggested let's just have, a red, green and blue or whatever, like three colors. I think that's far too little. I really believe that there is a lot of value in, In, in more detail so that you can actually make small upgrades here and there. And I think all those small upgrades you can do really will make a difference in the long term. Yeah, yeah, I can see the arguments. I think the way I tend to look at it though, is I tend to favor a little more precision as the default, because it seems to me to be easier to kind of take a step back from that level of precision. If the user needs that versus trying to add the precision on top of something that's too simple. So like if you had a three point or a ten point scale, if you had someone who wanted to engage with a little more precision, they don't have a framework available. Whereas if someone decided, hey, 100 points is too complex for me right now, what do I do? You can tell them, well, pick foods in the 50 to 60 or the 60 to 70 and use that as your sort of landing zone. And let's see where it gets you. If we have success, great. We can keep running with it. If we don't. And we need to get more precise. Now you have an understanding of the program and we can add more precision as you see necessary 100%. And we also do color coding so that, if you're in the 0 to 30 range, we mark those with orange, 30 to 70 green, sort of the balanced center. And then 70 plus is blue. These are really highly nutritious and high calorie foods. That would be great to add to your diet if you want to push the average up. And then just marking them out like the blue foods, like some of our users have sort of focused on that. They find these blue foods and they eat them, and then the average goes up and they eat less on average, and they lose weight pretty easily. So you can have both. We do have a, you know, three color sort of big, big picture framework, but we also have the 0 to 100 detailed scale for those who want to dive into tweaking and optimizing. Yeah, and another thing I wanted to ask you about. I'd be curious what people kind of default to if you have been able to collect this information from users, because I sort of see two kinds of main ways of engaging with the app. And one would just be, I'm just going to look at the list of foods and pick higher scoring foods, and you kind of have this like a smorgasbord of different things. You're kind of throwing it and you're essentially comparing everything to everything versus kind of saying, let's say, for example, I take a person and they're like, I'm gonna eat ice cream three times a week. There's no way you're going to stop me from doing that. What should I do? Does. Are more users like that? Where then they're like, okay, well, if I'm gonna eat ice cream three times a week, where are my high, higher scoring options? And they're comparing the scoring within that Or are they looking at it more through the lens of oh, this like more like, this ice cream that scores better than normal is going to be better than some other food option that is in a totally different category, but still has the same score tied to it, or a similar score tied to it. Yeah, you could do it in many different ways. And I get so much pushback on Twitter, about this because some people feel like. You just shouldn't eat ice cream and you shouldn't try to find better ice cream. And ice cream is evil, so the right answer is no ice cream. But I'm with you and with other people. Like some people are going to eat ice cream. I don't have a problem with people occasionally eating ice cream or, you know, voluntarily eating a lot of ice cream. Adult people can do whatever they like, right? My kids, they don't get ice cream every day. But, you know, everybody else who's an adult. anyways. So there are various ways to do this, right? One way could be you eat a little bit smaller servings of ice cream and or you make sure to eat a lot of satiating, high satiety foods during the other meals of the day. So maybe you have a very high satiety breakfast and lunch. Now you have some space for some ice cream in the evening, and your average for the day is still going to be pretty decent. There is another option which is like you mentioned, you could find ice cream brands that are higher in satiety. Maybe they replace the sugar with artificial sweeteners. And some people are against that, but it apparently works. And maybe they are higher in protein, a little bit of fiber in there. Then you can end up with an ice cream. That score is pretty average, you know. That's pretty amazing actually. You can even go super hardcore and do the ice cream yourself. You could have some protein powder and frozen berries and mix it up. And that actually turns into something that, at least to me, tastes like ice cream, which is super high satiety. It's just protein and fiber. That's all it is. It's insane. My kids don't like it, but I do. So yeah, there are various ways. Or you can just stop eating ice cream. And I think, of course, that's also an option if you can. If you can. But you raise a good point. A lot of listeners are going to have kids, and those kids are going to probably have ice cream from time to time. So if you have a, you know, a quart of ice cream in your freezer and the family's having ice cream and you want to kind of engage with the activity, if the question for you is, do I eat this like low scoring ice cream or this homemade ice cream that I also have for me, then you're not necessarily kind of avoiding that ritual or that like kind of, you know, communal experience, I guess you could say, but but doing it in a way that's likely to kind of yield a better outcome down the road if you do it routinely. Yeah, exactly. I think that, with a tool such as ours, it becomes very flexible and may not be for everybody. Some people, maybe they are addicted to ice cream or foods like that, and once they start, they can't stop. And in that case, maybe it is better to just never eat it. It's like being addicted to alcohol or anything. It's better to never even bring it home, right? But if you can eat it occasionally with no major issues, then, There are various ways to do that and still reach your goals when it comes to health and weight. Yeah. And it could even be kind of like we were talking about before too, where let's say you're an endurance athlete and during your season you're eating the, the full low scoring ice cream version. And then maybe in your off season you're skewing more towards the higher scoring one. And that's you're kind of I don't have to change my kind of evening, experience of having some ice cream for dessert. I just changed what that ice cream is actually made out of. Absolutely makes perfect sense. Yeah I want to jump in to kind of just some of the, some of the different levers that that you're using because it looks kind of like you took an evidence based approach of like we have good data that would suggest fiber on average tends to be more satiety inducing. Protein tends to be society inducing, you know, not removing the water from your fruit. So like a good example, this would be like grapes versus raisins or something like that, or like a banana versus like dehydrated banana chips. You know, these are things like if you eat the whole version of it, you're never going to get anywhere near the amount you could get down with the dehydrated version. And you're sort of taking like saying, like all these different components have evidence and we're going to combine them all to kind of maximize that is, is there any sort of like incentive or plan to try to get data or research done on the combination of all these things, or does that exist? Maybe I'm just not even aware of what is out there. I guess maybe the overarching question is, as you kind of grow this, are there plans and, interest and kind of like exploring more specific research tools to the very specific nature of SPC? Yeah, absolutely. I mean, we aim to research this as much as we can. I do think that some people. May. Online may be a little bit naive about, the, the work involved and also, missing the point of actually this power that we have in that we can leverage all the existing research, all the top quality randomized controlled trials on any kind of diet, that, when people eat ad lib, meaning, you know, to as much or as little as as you want, you can look at low carb studies, you can look at, plant based studies, you can look at high protein studies. You can look at all of these studies and try to get our scoring system to match the results of, of all of these studies as well as possible. So it is not currently possible to, say exactly how to weigh these factors against each other, but maybe that's not necessary. You know, you can get, in a way, 80% of the way to the goal with 20% of the effort. And then you need. 80% of the effort to get the last 20% right. I actually think that the approach we're taking here, leveraging all these existing studies, is likely to already be a lot stronger than any approach that just looks as one at one factor, like a low carb diet or a plant based diet. Because, you know, we get criticized for some details. You know, why is this field a little bit higher than that food? It doesn't fit. My preconceived ideas. I think it's wrong. Okay. You know, maybe it even is wrong, but that's a little tweak where there are, like, elephants, elephant sized problems with other dietary approaches where they can't explain why people can get good results doing the absolute opposite. It's like, okay, I give you that. our approach will always need tweaking to get closer to the truth. And, Now that is something we will keep working on as soon as we get more data. We can, tweak these, tweak these approaches. There is an interesting study coming from Kevin Hall, in process, where it's like a follow up to his ultra processed diet, study where he's, trying a few different versions of ultra processed diets that are different in ways like the energy density and the hyper palatability. I'm looking forward to that because I think it's going to inform our weighing, a bit. but ultimately what we really would really want is not one randomized controlled trial, but dozens of them on various factors and combinations of factors. So this is no small thing. This is something that could cost hundreds of millions or billions of dollars to do. And, yeah. It's just harder than people may realize. but I think we get pretty far with all the existing human research, trying to summarize it, trying to fit our algorithm to those results as well as possible. And whenever a new study comes out, check it out. You know, how well does our result match the results of this study? Is there anything we need to tweak to fit the overall data better? We don't really focus so much on feedback from the users, because I think trying to figure out the satiety per calorie of what you eat, is very, very challenging. Especially the per calorie part is extremely challenging. I think what we need to do is lean very heavily on human, well-controlled, randomized controlled trials where they measure in detail how much people eat and the results on their weight, etc., and really control it. So I think certainly listening to feedback from our users, for a million things. but when it comes to the score, the exact scoring of foods, I think we have to lean very heavily on, on well-controlled, randomized human studies. Yeah. Yeah, I think you're right with that. I think it's just it's what we have from an information standpoint. And to some degree, I find where the conversations online tend to get kind of stuck is we look at nutrition as something that needs to have, like this very high level of precision to the degree that it's like launching a rocket. Whereas like you can have a little bit more flexibility in terms of what the end outcome is versus the combination of the parts. So like if you have a combination of parts that, broadly speaking, is going to kind of steer people into a direction that's going to result in better health outcomes. We can kind of just look at those health outcomes. Or in your case, it would be like the progress of the user or the sustainability of the approach for the user versus what else they have available to them. And kind of go from there versus worrying too much about, oh, well, this product scored 53 and that product scored 56. They should be reversed. That seems kind of like getting into the weeds to a degree where yeah that's really my guess is most that's really detailed. and again we'll, we'll keep updating our algorithm as we get more data and maybe fine tune things, and maybe this will change later. but I don't think that's, like you said, that that's not the main thing. The main thing is that. The, the, the. We're trying to guide people in a simple way towards the things that we know are beneficial, like eating a higher protein percentage or more fiber or lower energy density like we talked about. Right? less hyper palatable foods. These things have been proven over and over and studies to be effective. So we can be confident that when we can guide people in that direction, they will get more of the results that they want. if those results are, you know, weight loss, less body fat, being leaner, stronger, better blood sugar, blood pressure, cholesterol profiles, all these things. And, ultimately, in all likelihood, reduce risk of chronic disease due to, making a very key risk factor improve, you know, every Ki health factor. So I'm trying to look at the big picture. I think a lot of the criticism is missing the big picture and zooming in on some little detail or, you know, a score that they don't agree with because their bias says is wrong because they're coming at it, usually from a very low carb, high fat perspective. And if you look at it through that lens, then there are some things that you would object to. However, someone who comes at it from a low fat, plant based approach would object to the opposite things, you know, and they would. So. What we're trying to do is something that just focuses on first principles and what is evidence based. And we try to not be influenced so much by what intuitively seems to be right. For example, some people believe that just because the food is ultra processed, it's automatically bad for you. I'm not sure that's necessarily true, at least not from a sort of metabolic health weight-loss perspective. You could have a very ultra processed protein powder, for example, with a lot of additives. And just going from the ultra processed nova classification, it would be horrible. But, you know, people actually lose weight very effectively and get strong and lean with those kinds of products. So I think sometimes our intuition or sort of bias leads us in the wrong direction. And it is good to have this sort of more objective, unbiased, evidence based scoring system to check, check your biases, you know, is it actually. This is actually the way that, my preconceived preconceived ideas, believe it is. Or do I need to challenge my beliefs? So, like, if I 'm looking at our scoring. if the Andreas of ten years ago was looking at our scoring, I would, I would object to the same things that some people objected to today. but I actually think maybe it's not wrong. Maybe it's just that I was wrong ten years ago, and some other people are still, still believing in the same thing, and it's just not true. Like, for example, that everybody needs to eat a very low carb diet. To be metabolically healthy is clearly not true. There are lots of populations like, you know, Asian people or indigenous populations or various other groups that have been eating a high carb diet, and they have been extremely metabolically healthy and fit, no metabolic disease whatsoever, no obesity whatsoever. It's clearly not true that you have to be low carb to achieve those goals. There are other ways to clearly. Yeah, that's actually an interesting topic. And this is maybe a slight tangent from what we're talking about now. But I think when you look at some of those stuff, there's sort of like two questions and one which is like what is the short term? Like what we see in like say like a blood marker or something like that versus what happens in like six months if you continue on the path following the protocol properly. And the question I see getting kind of tossed around a lot in the online space is like diabetes, like type two diabetes, where, you know, the low carb ketogenic community kind of clung to that as something where it's like, hey, we should be the primary approach for this because we're sort of removing the thing that's exasperating the blood sugar. Well, if we look at it like acute blood sugar spikes and things like that versus what is going to potentially actually drive type two diabetes in the short term versus the long term, we we maybe have two different answers to that question, where maybe it's possible if someone sees like more immediate like blood marker success on a ketogenic low carbohydrate diet in type two diabetes management. But if someone decided, hey, that's not going to work for me, I'm going to do this a different way. And they have a reasonable amount of carbon puts, but they manage weight loss. They may also see that same result down the road if I'm understanding it right. Do you have any kind of thoughts or opinions on how that fits? Yeah, basically I agree with what you said. I mean, there is no doubt that the low carb keto approach can be beneficial for diabetes. And certainly if you talk about postprandial like, postprandial blood glucose, meaning the blood sugar right after you eat, then a low carb diet will always be superior, because if you don't eat carbs, you don't get any blood sugar elevation. I think that the problem, though, is that, people tend to be very focused on the short term, and they tend to be very focused on what happens right after they eat something. And that makes sense. I mean, it's easy to focus on the short term. But the problem is that diabetes type two is not just about short term spikes. It's much more about the underlying insulin resistance, the energy toxicity. And really, if people can lose their excess body, body weight, body fat, the type two diabetes, at least during the early stage of the disease, it's just going to disappear. It's been shown many times. Like if, if people manage to lose their excess weight, the type two diabetes goes away. So. And you can do that in any way, really? Whether low carb or not, low carb is possible. So, I mean, I'm all in favor of low carb for for diabetes, but I think that, we need to be aware that it's it's not the only way and that people may be focusing a little bit too much on short term postprandial glucose and, not enough on the driver, the underlying driver, the insulin resistance, the, visceral fat, and, That if, if you add a lot of fat to your diet, for example, to maybe reduce the postprandial spikes, that may stop you from losing that excess body fat and thus may stop you from reversing your type two diabetes, and maybe you will be much better off eating way less fat and being less worried about short term glucose spikes and doing whatever it takes to, lose excess body fat. And then, you could tolerate eating more carbs, potentially even, as long as you can keep your weight down. Yeah. It's interesting because I think it's like it sort of gets into the same topic of metabolic health and metabolic flexibility and the way I like to kind of position that always is. Well that cuts both ways. So like metabolically flexible by the way I would define it would be someone who can leverage fat and carbohydrates without too much trouble, like within reasonable quantities, versus a scenario where, all right, I am eating so much sugar and carbohydrate that I'm just so rarely metabolizing high amounts of fat at any given time. Yeah, maybe I'm too reliant on that fuel substrate. The alternative, though, that I think when you get both sides of that kind of spectrum arguing, is they don't want to acknowledge their own metabolic inflexibility. Where now if I go strict ketogenic or zero carb, quote unquote. Yeah, I may not have some of those, like, surface level issues, but I'm essentially building a structure that's not flexible metabolically to tolerate really any reasonable amount of carbohydrate. So at that point it's kind of like where is the landing zone that you want to be in? And if you want to be able to have some carbohydrates in your daily diet, then eliminating them altogether is not the option you're looking for. And it's not the option that's going to yield the flexibility metabolically that you're probably looking for either. And yeah, so I think it's like it's worth to kind of explore both of those extremes. And they sort of have the same problem. But yeah, as I mentioned, this is a touchy subject. Clearly a ketogenic diet is one option that can work quite well for a lot of people. But like you say, if you do that long term, then you are really making yourself inflexible metabolically. and you are going to be intolerant to carbohydrates in the short term. like even a small amount of carbohydrates is going to make your blood glucose skyrocket. And then you get if you have a CGM, a continuous glucose monitor, you might get alarmed by this spike from just a small amount of carbs. And now you get even more afraid of carbs, and you avoid it even more, but you really back yourself into a corner and become ever more metabolically inflexible, ever more intolerant to carbohydrates. And it may not be optimal because it may not be the highest satiety per calorie diet. Which means that, may be hard, harder than necessary to to lose that excess body fat by doing a super, super strict, keto diet. So it. Yeah, it may not be optimal, and maybe it's actually beneficial to include a little bit of unrefined, high fiber carbohydrates and, and, back down a little bit on the fat in order to be able to do that, have a high protein diet, of course, high protein, unrefined food, unprocessed foods that are, you know, high protein, high fiber, low energy density, avoiding hyper palatable foods. And then, you know, by doing that, you get a high calorie, which means you eat fewer calories, which means you lose excess body fat over time. And now your insulin resistance goes down because your excess body fat is slowly melting away. That means that you get more and more tolerant of eating a little bit of carbohydrates. And you could imagine slowly losing weight, being metabolically flexible, being able to eat a little bit of carbohydrates, a little bit of fat and, Yeah, I think that's possibly more optimal than doing it the strict ketogenic way. At least it's probably more sustainable for a lot of people because you get a more flexible, flexible diet, more options to eat. Yeah, yeah. I'm also curious about what SPC thinks or if they have any plans for what the micronutrient total would be with any given input. Is that something where it's like that's important, but it's a it's an additional step that you're going to want to take once you come up with a dietary pattern that you like, in terms of trying to make sure you're more or less within range on those, or I'm just I'm curious, kind of just where things fall. Like if people are typically following the program, do they just have a higher likelihood of hitting their micronutrient totals, or is that something that people need to be concerned with as they're kind of getting into things? Yeah, it's a great question. The main answer is that micronutrients tend to come with protein if we're talking about real foods. Generally speaking, high protein foods are also high in micronutrients. So since our calorie model is sort of guiding people to higher protein foods, it also tends to guide them at the same time to higher micronutrient foods. It also guides people away from these hyper palatable ultra processed foods, which sort of has the same effect. So I think the effect of all of this is people eating higher calorie foods will also be eating more micronutrients than they did before. So it sort of happens, a little bit, without having to focus specifically on that. There are some interesting things. Things were, At least some micronutrients may drive more satiety, like potassium, calcium, potentially iron to some extent. And it's possible we could build this into our model, to fine tune it even more in the future. But, I would argue it's really getting into the minutia, the small details. but still, I still think we probably will eventually add that sort of little fine tuning with that. The nice thing about developing a protocol where part of the call to action essentially, is there's going to be an evolution with this as we get more convincing data to input into the system. So like, yeah, if a study comes out that suggests, hey, these key micronutrients are going to be a value add in your satiety, you can plug those in when you get that versus, doing them on on assumption I guess. Yeah. I mean we are open of course too. And the thing that works like one thing that comes up a lot is, why don't you, look at the fat quality, like, depending on who you ask. polyunsaturated fats or seed oil, should either be penalized or they should be rewarded, depending on what camp you're asking about, today, there doesn't seem to be any good evidence. either way. Certainly they don't seem to cause people to eat more. Despite what you can hear online, there's really no good evidence to suggest that they do. So I mean, we have that data. So we could very, very easily put that into our algorithm and have it affect the results. we're just waiting for evidence that it actually affects ad-lib human food intake. it doesn't seem to. At least not in a negative way. Yeah, I would imagine just with if people are engaging with, I mean, sorry, I, you know, just want to add to it like, compared to other added fats, like added fats drop the satiety per calorie like a rock, right? So actually I need to just fill that in. Yeah. If you pour seed oil on your food, that's a terrible calorie of the food. It is going to take a huge hit. It's going to drop a lot. The question I'm just debating with people is, is it even worse than adding, let's say, butter? And it seems no. Yeah. And I think just the way that the SPC model pushes people there, you're going to likely see a fairly drastic reduction in linoleic acid if they switch from whatever they're doing on a Western diet to. Absolutely. People will eat less cereals. Yeah, if they follow this. Yeah. Because like you said, if they're pouring seed oils onto their meals, they're dropping that score like a rock. So they're going to be mindful of not doing that if they're following the protocol. Yeah. So I'm not in favor. I think cereals are terrible in that they are added on top of it, sort of diluting the nutrition in the whole Western diet. It's an enormous amount of empty calories that we sort of inject into the food environment and just lower the nutrition density, increasing empty calories. So the whole discussion is, is it worse than other added pure fats? And probably the answer is, not really. but adding a bunch of pure added fats to, to any diet, is going to lower the score for sure. Yeah. And I mean it's actually more of a potential problem if someone is engaging with a low carb ketogenic way of eating, because that would be the scenario in which your fat intake may be high enough, where having like a high load of linoleic acid is on the table versus someone engaging in a more kind of balanced approach where they're they're almost certainly going to reduce linoleic acid compared to whatever Western diet they were following prior. I find the topic interesting, though, because, I mean, I do follow a low carbohydrate diet, so like, and I have a high calorie intake sometimes too. So I could in theory load up on a lot of seed oils, a lot of linoleic acid as a calorie source and potentially run into issues with that if we believe that that is of concern. I had Professor Philip Calder on the podcast a while ago, and he kind of takes the stance that the Western diet as a whole is likely higher in linoleic acid than what would be optimal. So he sort of advocates for some reduction in linoleic acid through either substituting other seed oils that are lower in linoleic acid for ones that are higher, or a whole other fat source. And he suggests, like an Omega three source would be kind of like the biggest value add switch out, because that's kind of what you're trying to like eliminate is the competition between the Da and EPA and linoleic acid, and where I think the conversation oftentimes gets a little bit goofy is you'll get the, the sort of like the real hard anti seed oil takes where the messaging is eliminated altogether for the most part. Or like you'll get a trace amount in enough trace amounts to meet needs. So you don't have to really worry about it. But for all intents and purposes you can essentially eliminate all seed oils or all linoleic acid. I think that's probably a step beyond what is necessary for optimal health. so then we're back. If you subscribe to that, then we're back to where I was just now where an approach like SPC or any approach that's essentially going to end up reducing the amount of energy intake one takes is almost certainly going to also reduce their linoleic acid. And then at which point maybe they've reduced it enough to be in a, in a, in a way where it's not potentially harmful for them. Sure. And I think that this seed oil anti-stall approach is just another one of these sorts of. Mono focused diet approaches where, yeah, it is going to be beneficial. Like if you take a standard American diet and then you remove all the foods with seed oils in them, your diet is going to be way better because you're going to remove all these processed foods and all these foods that are full of empty calories and hyper palatable and low in energy density and low in protein. Everything is going to improve if you remove that. But arguably it's not because of this being seed oil or some other oil. It's, you know, it's for other reasons. It works, but not for the reason that people believe it works. Yeah. Well this has all been really interesting stuff. Doctor E I've been kind of excited to chat with you about some of this. I want to give you a chance to share with us if you have anything. I know everything kind of is open to change with Java, as you guys kind of roll things out and everything evolves and new research is done. Is there anything kind of on the horizon that's coming up soon that you can share with our listeners that they'll be able to see showing up over? Yeah, sure. I mean, we do have some pretty big news. We haven't released it yet. I think when this podcast is released, though, that we will have communicated this. So I think it's safe to share that, we are making the Java app free like we want to make it. So that anybody can benefit whether people want to pay or not. So, the basic version, everything you need to try this out, it's going to be free forever from now on. So if anybody is curious about this, they can download the HOV app and give it a try. Take a minute to sign up, and you can do it for free. Yeah. And then see what happens. I think it's always cool to have more tools available to try to figure out what the best path forward is with nutrition and navigate, you know, the monster of the grocery store that we have in today's society. And it's pretty cool what we have done and what we are able to do with AI. That's another thing. I just want to highlight how exciting it is that, like every existing nutrition app, it is going to be obsolete by kind of tomorrow or next year, like nobody will be using them anymore unless they get on the AI train because. It's amazing what's going to be possible to do and what's already possible to do. So for example, in our app already we are able to just take a picture of what you eat in a few seconds. You have everything logged and you have all the details. You can take a picture of any food item in the store like you mentioned. You're in the store. It's difficult to know what to eat and not to eat. You can just take a picture of any food in a couple of seconds, you will have the scoring of it, the contents don't even have to pick it up, and scan the barcode anymore. You just take a picture of the front end, then on the shelf. Right. And then, It's pretty amazing. You have this AI that's trained on the entire internet. Everything is on the internet, right? So it already knows pretty much. And certainly in 6 to 12 months, it's probably going to be perfect. So, That's so much better than anything that has existed up until now. Yeah. Is that something where if someone has, like, a plate of food, they can take a picture, then it gives them like an overall star, all the components, it identifies all the ingredients. And it's actually, I mean, I think for now, it's, it's like a good human at, at estimating this a good human who knows what's in all the common recipes on the internet. But the really fascinating thing is how fast this improves. So I predict that within a year it's going to be world class. Human level, like the best human in the world would struggle to do better estimations and give it another year. It's going to be superhuman. It's going to be better at estimating the contents of a photo than any living human. it's just inevitable. I think that it's just a question of how long, but it's probably something like that in a couple of years. Superhuman. No human will beat it. it's, and you get the results in, in a second, you know? It's amazing. Yeah, yeah. That is, that's a pretty cool feature to have available. And I think it makes it just a very low barrier to entry for people who want to try it out and see what they think for themselves. Yeah, exactly. That's what we aim to do. That's the whole point of what we're doing. We want to make it as simple as possible. This shouldn't be only for geeks like me. There should be for anybody who's interested in eating better and getting better health, getting a bit leaner, stronger. Those kinds of things. And, most people want that, so we need to make it available. I think for anybody. Anybody? No doubt. Where can listeners find you, doctor E? Yeah, they can find me on X. They can also go to Harvard Co. That's our website. Tabaco. yeah, I'm mostly on ex if they want to. If anybody wants to say hi. Yeah. No, no, no doubt you're definitely responsive there. So, I encourage listeners to throw some questions their way if they have them, but, I'll put all the links and stuff like that in, in the show notes too. So if anyone's looking to access it through there, they will, they will be there. But thanks a bunch for taking some time today to chat. Yeah. Good. good to talk to you.