B (3:16)

And you yourself have gone out of your way to go against the grain in terms of your own personal life and trying to be healthy, but it's very difficult to be healthy today. It's almost like people used to say when they were canceling people on Twitter all the time, hey, just build your own Twitter. Like just, yeah, you want your own information equals to build your own. And similarly, like, you have to build your own, like food.

A (3:34)

Totally.

B (3:35)

Yeah.

A (3:35)

I mean, in so many ways I feel like health used to just be an output of the environment that we existed in. Like my great grandmother, she lived till she was 95, very healthy until the day that she died. And she never shopped organic. She never like avoided and asked for no seed oils at the grocery store. She never did, like, any of the insanity that I've kind of had to learn, figure out and do. That's because primarily she lived and grew up in an environment that was not sickness promoting. She was not exposed to 40,000 novel chemical compounds that exist in the US or eating foods that were like, addictive and made her feel shitty and like impacted her health. And so I think that the environment that we exist in is just structurally just hard to be healthy, which is why you see the default health outcomes in the US Being so poor.

B (4:20)

And how are the Amish exempt from this?

A (4:22)

Just as an example, like, what do they do differently I mean they do a lot differently. You should go to one of the communities. There's a lot of things they do very differently than you and I, but basically they're eating food that is grown locally, seasonally, all the time. They're outside all the time, working with their hands. They're existing in a tight knit community and there's like a whole host of environmental and lifestyle differences that the Amish have. So you can argue do you have to live like the Amish to have better health outcomes? But certainly they have much better health outcomes and they live very differently than you or I.

B (4:52)

But they're not doom scrolling like us. So how do they make it? It's like they might live longer.

A (4:56)

They're uninformed.

B (4:57)

I know they might live longer, but at what cost? So when did things start to get really bad? Or has it just been monotonically for the last century? Or was there sort of a moment where things started to escalate and what happened?

A (5:08)

Yeah, things started to get much worse in the 1970s. My view is that that is around the time when you started to see childhood obesity tick up, you started to see obesity, heart disease, things like this kind of start to move. And in my view a big reason for that is there was a lot of shareholder and other pressure specifically geared towards baked food companies around that time. Where basically these companies are today like 150 years old. Almost every big food company is shareholder owned. They are not run, controlled or anything by CEOs. They're basically just like these lumbering corporations that the market is just having them optimized for like earnings per share. And what that means is these companies for the last 50 years have consistently decided to trade a real ingredient for something that's like kind of a fake version of that. Like they've moved from strawberries to strawberry flavoring, or they've moved from sugar to high fructose cord soap. And you kind of roll this out over a 50 year period and you look at our food system today and the majority of what people are eating is ultra processed crap that is like addictive, is not nutrient dense and is full of like environmental toxins, chemical compounds, things like this that the human body has in our entire millions of years of evolution never encountered many of these compounds. And so I think that that shift started in the 70s. It's compounded generationally. It certainly doesn't help today that the average child spends less time outside than like a maximum security prison. Most kids today are eating like 70% of their diet is ultra processed. Foods people are spending eight plus hours on phones. Like all these sorts of things are factors. But I really think that our food system started to become uniquely poisonous in the 70s, and especially in the U.S. that's why you started to see many healthcare and health outcomes trend in such a negative direction, especially relative to the rest of the world.

B (6:53)

What are the levers that could make a dent in reversing some of these trends as it relates to the food system?

A (6:59)

Yeah, from a food system standpoint, I think the biggest single lever that we could pull, which would be extraordinarily politically challenging to pull, is fixing our crop subsidy system. So if you look the US government over, I think it's the last decade, has spent close to $100 billion on crop subsidies. They're basically subsidizing corn, soy and wheat so that American farmers can grow corn, soy and wheat. Because it's subsidized, it's artificially cheap, so we grow a lot of it. Because it's subsidized, it's artificially cheap. And so these big food companies use it in everything. And so these big food companies have basically gone on a 30 year journey to replace sugar with high fructose corn syrup or to replace olive oil or something like that with soybean oil, which is highly processed and inflammatory, causes obesity and all sorts of like rat and human models. And I think that this sort of wholesale swapping of let's take the worst ingredients in their most highly processed form and replace them with an ingredient that humans traditionally ate is one of the root causes of chronic disease. Like today, the average American gets almost 20% of their caloric intake from soybean oil. This is historically anomalous. And it's not because anyone wants soybean oil. Like you're probably not like a big consumer of soybean oil or anything like this. It's just because it's artificially cheap. And because it's artificially cheap, it ends up in everything. And I think that that is one of the core kind of root causes of what is going wrong in our food system today.

B (8:16)

And is that a uniquely U.S. problem?

A (8:17)

Yeah, it's a uniquely U.S. problem. I mean the U.S. our food system, relative to like Europe or something like that, Europe, many of their countries are smaller. They tend to lean much more into a local food agriculture system. They also don't have as much of a federal intervention on their food system. The US like in many ways, this sort of subsidy of corn, soy, wheat, things like that, it had good intent. I mean, in the A lot of the crop subsidy stuff started with a farm bill in the 80s where basically like farmers were exposed to inclement weather, bad weather that was like impacting their crop yields. The US Government stepped in and was like, okay, we're going to try and keep these farmers solvent. I think that the intent was good, but now here we are, like years later, we have billions a year going towards these crop subsidies that are making Americans sick. And I think that we used to say, okay, we just need to make sure that we're growing enough calories and make sure that Americans are not dying of starvation. They're not like, you know, make sure our kids have enough to eat. I think now the problem is like we're feeding our kids poison and all of them are sick.

B (9:17)

Why not just universal basic Ozempic? I mean, what's the. Why doesn't that solve the problem?

A (9:21)

Yeah, well, so I think there's two things. One, I think that GLP1s are potentially an incredibly interesting technology. Like, I think that we are in the midst of the worst chronic disease crisis, one of the biggest problems in the country. And if we don't fix this, like, America is going to have even more serious problems like 20 years from now. So given that the average American is overweight, we're looking at almost 80% obesity overweight rates. I think that it does make sense to put a bunch of these people on a GLP1 to try and jumpstart them in a direction where they are moving towards health. That said, I don't at all think that giving universal GLP1s to everyone is like necessarily a universal solve. There's just a very poor history of saying here is an intervention that like is going to solve all of our problems as a species. You know, And I just think that it is quite unlikely that Ozempic is the one thing that is going to be a cure all. Like, just to use one example, what is, you know, how does Ozempic work? Is it basically it turns down someone's appetite so you're just eating less if you're still eating the same crap that the average American is eating today, but you're on Ozempic and eating less of it. Like, you are almost certainly going to be deficient in protein and micronutrients and a bunch of things that will have like, long term health implications if you like, under eat or get exposed to not enough of those nutrients for a very long period of time. So I think we fundamentally, like have to solve the food issue if we want to have A healthy country.

B (10:49)

By the way, have we yet updated our food pyramid in the sense that we have an accurate understanding of what we should be getting at a country level in terms of nutrients?

A (10:57)

Yeah, I mean, the, the new food pyramid is a tremendous improvement over, over the old guidelines. I mean, not only is the site super sexy, you know, Joe Gabbia did a great job on that. But finally, for the first time, people are saying like, eat whole foods, eat more vegetables, eat meats and other well sourced sources of protein, vegetables, fruits. It's crazy that it took until now to say maybe we shouldn't be giving kids 15 servings of whole grain and saying that sugar is totally fine for kids under 2. We recommend some amount of sugar for kids on the age of two, which was the past administration guidelines. So I think they're a tremendously positive.

B (11:36)

Stat and so forth. People who want to make a difference in the food system. You mentioned that policy recommendation. What about people who want to do something direct? You, obviously before Trumed, you started a bone broth company. What are other big companies that could be built in the space or opportunities to make a difference?

A (11:53)

Yeah, I think there's a ton of opportunities within the space that I think the core problem is that a bunch of these lifestyle interventions, like eating a healthier diet, exercising, taking certain supplements, taking peptides, if that makes sense for your individual person and risk profile, all of these things can be considered healthcare interventions. And yet, if you look at our healthcare system, nothing in the healthcare system thinks about someone who is at risk of heart disease exercising as a healthcare intervention. No payer pays for it. No one incentivizes you to do that. It's just sort of like a doctor is like, yeah, you should like clean up your diet and exercise. And so I think that there is a tremendous, tremendous opportunity for people that want to make a dent on this problem. Figuring out how to make these sorts of lifestyle interventions. Part of the healthcare system is what we're doing at True Med and incentivizing people to actually invest in their health, to invest in prevention, to invest in things that like, move the needle from a chronic disease standpoint.

C (12:50)

Yeah.

B (12:50)

So let's get to Trumed first. First trace the idea maze a little bit in terms of, you know, you, you've been obsessed with, with this problem, sort of meta problem, this series of problems, and it's kind of like, where do you even start? I'm sure you, you know, picked over every nook and cranny. How did you settle that? Hey, this was the opportunity and what was maybe some other things you consider.

A (13:10)

In growing kettle and fire? Basically when we launched, it was like $16 a carton for 16 ounces of bone broth. And everyone was like, this is good, but this is like very expensive. And you know, now nine years in, we're in every grocery store in the country and the average price per box is like $7 people. Way more people buy it, but they're also like, this is very expensive. I kind of like had that experience and then looked at things like Costco and Walmart are the two largest sellers of organic products in the country. To me, that is a signal that, like, people want to invest in products that are good for them. They want to buy products that leave them off better, healthier and like, but it's just cost prohibitive. And then if you look at the healthcare system, we have this weird dynamic where if I am at risk of cardiovascular disease or heart disease, like, I basically can exercise, I can eat well, I can do all of these things that will prevent an acute heart attack or something like that. And I'm basically not. That's all like cash pay, I'm paying out of pocket, I'm doing all of that kind of stuff totally on my own. Whereas if you take someone that doesn't do any of those things, basically they have a heart attack early, and then the healthcare system will pay hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars to manage that person's condition basically for the rest of their lives. And so I think that fundamentally, like, we need to incentivize people to invest in prevention, to invest in, you know, leveraging lifestyle interventions that can make a dent on chronic conditions. And that was kind of the lens through which I was looking at what's the company that I want to start after Kettle and fire. When I met Dr. Mark Hyman, who is basically, you know, he's a functional medicine doctor, co founder of function. He mentioned that something he was doing with a bunch of his patients was for patients that would come in, he would recommend lifestyle interventions and he would write them something called a letter of medical necessity, which is basically a letter that the IRS has said for certain people where an intervention matches matches like a lifestyle intervention matches a condition someone's working to treat, reverse or prevent. They can spend, they can get that letter and use tax free hsa, FSA dollars on sleep aids, healthy, better diet supplements, exercise, things like that. And so when Mark Hyman told us kind of about that idea, I was like, this is a really interesting thing. Like we could basically try and build Infrastructure that allows the average person to get one of these elements if they qualify and use like the telemedicine rails that hims, RO and other companies have spent the last several years building. But rather than prescribing Ozempic or prescribing trt, we can actually prescribe food interventions, exercise, things like that. So that was kind of the, kind of the idea and like, where it started from. I looked at a whole host of other things, like thought about starting a grocery store, thought about starting like a life insurance company that would be aggressive in terms of helping you live longer and making lifestyle interventions, but ultimately felt like this was the type of thing that had the potential to direct hundreds of billions of dollars towards lifestyle interventions over the next couple years. And so it felt like it was the right thing to do.

B (16:16)

So, yeah, everyone knows we need to shift more from chronic to preventive care. And this is basically a way to financially incentivize people to do that.

A (16:24)

Exactly. Yeah, exactly.

B (16:26)

One of your, your ideas is that the root cause of a lot of issues is this mismatch between our genes and our environment. Why don't you flesh that out a little bit more?

A (16:37)

Yeah, so if you look like, think of an animal in the zoo like you an animal in the wild, with few exceptions, like they can get, break their leg, get an infection, whatever. But when an animal is like, exists in a species appropriate environment, that animal tends to be healthy. Like there's a natural match between the health of the environment and the health of an animal. When you take an animal away from its natural habitat and put it in the zoo or something like that, like zoo animals exhibit all of these diseases that their counterparts in the wild just don't get. They have weird tics, they get depressed. You know, in some notable cases, like animals have even killed themselves, which is just something you like don't see in the wild. And they get obese, they get all sorts of things. And so my take, and what I think is very true is that the health of an animal is basically a reflection of the health of an animal's environment. If an animal is existing in an environment that is not health promoting, like you're in a season of drought or there's not a lot of food, that animal gets skinny, dies, you basically can kind of see that animal is not existing in an environment that's health promoting. I think that over the last hundred years or so, we basically, as humans have seen, you know, we've built an environment that is not considering or not underwriting, not thinking about what is the right thing to do for human health. Like, how do we promote human health and flourishing? And so I think that so often when we think about health, we think about, like, what is going on with you, Eric, with this specific condition, as opposed to thinking about what is the environment that you exist in that leads to you not getting 8,000 steps a day, that leads to you spending all day on your phone, that leads to you, like, eating a terrible diet. I'm not, you know, not you, actually. But I mean, so. So I think that that is, like, an important idea that people don't think about enough is just how do you shape your environment so that it's naturally health promoting, as opposed to, you know, having to, like, discipline yourself and doing all the stuff that most people frankly fail at, myself included.

B (18:33)

There's this, you know, there's this Twitter competition for a million dollars for who gets the best article, and there's this, like, so people are doing kind of clickbait stuff, and there's one guy who's like, you know, how to change your life in a day, how to change your life in an hour. Like, these kinds of posts was one that went super viral. That was how to change your life in one minute. And it was a photo of smashing the phone.

A (18:52)

That's pretty good. Totally the.

B (18:56)

Okay, so I'm curious for more, you know, you've talked about this idea of, hey, we should take this health crisis as serious as we take sort of our, you know, national security crisis. Like, you know, we as a country have something of a NRA for health or something of a, you know, collective effort, because it's a. It's a, you know, problem that, hey, the market might not solve, isn't solving on. And in fact, you know, exacerbates. What would, you know, you gave one example of. Of And. And the subsidies. What are some of the biggest levers, you think?

A (19:26)

Yeah, so I'll answer that. But, like, just to frame how I think about the problem, you know, if. If, for example, like, China or one of our adversaries deployed a bioweapon that made 75% of our population obese or overweight, 45% of kids obese or overweight, like, and healthcare, like, the largest cost in the country, all of a sudden, because everyone was sick, everyone in America would be up in arms and trying to figure out, like, how do we solve. This is an existential crisis. This is like a matter of national security that we make a dent in that, you know, no matter if we win, the IRAs, get richer or whatever. If most of the country is sick, it's kind of like, what is the point? You know, we're not thriving as a nation. I think many of our political problems are downstream of the fact that many, the majority of the country is just sick. And so if I was, like, able to wave a magic wand and do anything, I think fixing the subsidies would be one thing for sure that I would do. Secondly, I would have our healthcare system just invest far more in prevention. You look at other countries that have incredible health outcomes on a per capita basis. Singapore is a good example. They basically have these people that are not quite doctors, but are coaches or something like that that will check in with you and try and nudge you towards making better decisions, better choices. Then I would take a much stronger stance, one much, much more similar to that that Europe takes when it comes to, like, certain environmental toxins, chemical regulation, things like that. Like in the US we basically take the approach that if a company makes or manufactures a totally novel environmental chemical, that as long as they tell us under current, you know, regulations, something called grass generally recognizes safe. As long as they tell us, hey, this chemical is safe, we can introduce it into our food system. This is how, like, you've heard of the forever chemicals and stuff like this got into our food system and basically are all over the planet now because 3M invented them something like 60 years ago, and basically they just started using them in the eu. These novel chemical compounds have to go through something that is much more like what it takes to unleash or get a pharmaceutical approved in the US today, where they have to do many years of safety testing. They have to show that it doesn't cause acute harm, and they basically have to approve it before it's allowed on the market. And the end result is we have between like 60 and 80,000 chemical compounds in the US that are not allowed in the EU. And I think that that regulatory approach is one of, like, the hidden reasons why so many people are sick. And I think is one of the reasons that, you know, the US Americans are exposed to more toxic compounds and novel chemical compounds than basically any nation in the world. And I think that is like a big kind of hidden part of our chronic disease crisis. And it's something you're going to hear a lot more about in the coming years.

B (22:13)

Yeah, fascinating. I had one college professor, I have no idea if this is even remotely accurate, but they were convinced that Monsanto was evil, not just in terms of its, you know, health impacts, but they thought they were sort of like getting involved in all sorts of foreign wars and like influencing our foreign policy and stuff. And I just say that to say, could there be competitors to some of these, like mega play, like, could startups even emerge that would begin to. Or is it just like structurally unsound?

A (22:39)

I think it's really hard structurally. And I think that that doesn't mean that it's not going to happen and hopefully it will. But one of the things that you have seen is with Monsanto, for example, like the pesticide lobby and the chemical and ag lobby is one of the strongest in America. And a big part of what they're doing is like, for example, a couple months ago, Monsanto was lobbying hard, spent tens of millions of dollars to get a, a rider in a bill that would basically make sure that no one could ever sue them for the potential health impacts of one of their most popular products, glyphosate. That sort of thing is like, these companies get big, they provide a bunch of chemicals. Monsanto specifically has done a lot of things that, you know, I think are incredibly, like, morally dubious. And then once they get big enough, once they start selling billions and billions of dollars of these products, they spend a lot of that money on lobbying and making sure that they are immune from any of the harms and health impacts that come from some of these toxic products that they spray everywhere. Glyphosate is the number one pesticide sprayed in the US and the largest maker of it is spending as much as they possibly can to make sure that glyphosate, which, you know, there's been $14 billion of damages awarded to people that have gotten cancer or other diseases from glyphosate exposure. Monsanto is spending as much as they can to try and like buy basically pesticide liability shields and other things that shield them from competition and, or that shield them from the actions and the consequences of like the diseases their compounds have caused. I think that when, when these companies can kind of rig the game in that way, it becomes very, very challenging for a startup to kind of come along and make a real play at some of these things.

B (24:28)

Yeah, you mentioned a grocery store. Just as a simple idea is there, what's the opportunity that Whole Foods hasn't done with what they've tried to do?

A (24:37)

Yeah, I mean, Whole Foods is amazing. And so I think that John Mackey was like a total pioneer and legendary entrepreneur. I think that the thing that grocery stores have not really done is, and this is kind of the thesis for trumed is like, think about food as like a healthcare intervention. And to me, I think there's a ton of potential for people to, for example, like, look at their biomarkers and have a grocery store or some other entity that is responsible for improving your health. Like, I think that if you think increasingly about food, grocery as a health intervention, as like part of one's healthcare and, you know, part of the fight against chronic disease, you would think about a grocery very. A grocery store very differently than today, which is basically just like, let's figure out the sourcing and then people can buy whatever they want. So I think there's, like, my idea was that I think there's a ton of room for a grocery store that is a more active participant in your. In your health, telling you to eat certain things, you know, tracking your macros, like all these sorts of things that I think would solve a lot of problems for people. Yeah.

B (25:39)

So let's talk more about if we, you know, fully identified the health crisis as one of our main sort of national priorities, what, what else we would do, Maybe we could start looking at it in the light of, like, what were some of the pillars or main principles and maybe talk about where they are so far.

A (25:53)

Yeah. So I think that you have seen across all of healthcare, across all of food, just corporate capture of our food guidelines, of our health guidelines, of all these sorts of things. Like the previous FDA commissioner, you know, their stated goal with running the fda, their number one goal was to combat misinformation. The current one is to, like, make Americans healthy. That means grass reform. So cleaning up, like, how we regulate chemicals, that means fixing school lunches, fixing, like, military lunches, basically what we feed kids. You know, 80% of schools have contracts with soda companies. These soda companies literally, like, will pay a school district to put these vending machines all over the schools. It helps fund schools, but it also, like, comes with a cost of getting kids sick. So I think, like, cleaning up school lunches, cleaning up military lunches, cleaning up, like, the food guidelines. Second thing is, like, improving and streamlining the way that we look at regulating drugs. Make it faster for companies to like, lean in and launch innovative therapies that can make a dent on the chronic disease crisis. And just trying to, like, bring common sense back into the way that we think about health, the way that we think about food, and try and make a dent in the chronic disease crisis.

B (27:05)

Are some of these ingredients that we're discussing or foods or, you know, soda, like, so dangerous, so addicting, or so dangerous or so appeasing that they should be outlawed or, like, how do we think about it?

A (27:16)

No, I actually don't think that many of these things should be outlawed. Like, I do actually think that consumer choice is a very important thing. You know, but we have got, like, specifically with kids, we have guidelines, and we already don't think that kids should have free choice. Like, we don't let them drink. So I think that there is a place for soda in this country. I just also think that if you want to drink soda all the time, that probably we shouldn't be subsidizing it by subsidizing high fructose corn syrup. Probably we should not have Coca Cola spending $140 million to influence our nutrition guidelines like they have over the last 15 years. And I think that it's things like that where a lot of times the big food companies and people will sort of fall back on this idea of consumer choice. I think it's very important. But we also are, like, currently grappling with an incredibly important chronic disease crisis. And, like, if we don't take effort to uniquely, like, address this thing, I think that the US is, like, in an incredibly tough spot 10, 20, 30 years from now.

B (28:17)

I want to ask you about psychedelics, and I'm curious, like, is that in this discourse at all, does that move outcomes for. Is that kind of. Not really. Not really.

A (28:24)

Basically, I think that if you just look at the data, psychedelics are an incredibly powerful intervention, like ketamine therapy. Ketamine assisted therapy works better than SSRIs in many cases, especially for treating things that are very intense, like treatment resistant depression, ptsd, things like this. I think that for many of our veterans and others that suffer from PTSD and like, intense depression, psychedelics should be part of a menu of treatments that we, like, are open to giving people. You know, I. I think that we probably vastly under invest in them. I think that there's a ton of really promising research around their efficacy and things like this. I think it's an open question of, like, how ready the average American is to think about these things. Not as like a group of people dropping acid in Golden Gate park in the 60s, but as like, a vital mental health therapy for people that are really, really struggling. I'm very supportive of, you know, again, just looking at psychedelics as another therapy that can address the many mental health and depression issues that we have in this country. And if you look at it just as that through that lens, a therapy that has few to no side effects, especially when done, you know, with Dr. Oversight and things like this. I think these should be part of how we treat and address many of the mental health crises that we see today.

B (29:43)

Yeah. Are there any other really big levers that you would focus on if one of your main goals was to target the mental health crisis?

A (29:51)

I think that we are hugely underestimating the impact of biological health and how that is tied to mental health. Like, there's some really interesting studies out there around taking a functional medicine approach where, you know, you come in and say you're depressed. And rather than like doing talk therapy and things like this that statistics show, like, sort of don't work very well for many people, we focus just on, like, reducing your inflammation and fixing your gut. And there have been studies that show just by focusing and taking a functional medicine approach, you know, focusing on sleep, focusing on gut health, focusing on lowering your inflammation through diet and exercise, that combination of therapies works better than, you know, just talk therapy and things like that. So I think that we massively under underestimate the degree to which we are, you know, human beings who are biological organisms and like, our mental health is very tightly coupled with. To our emotional, you know, sorry. To our physical health. And so I would have much. I think that we should fund much, much more of research along these lines of what's called metabolic psychiatry, which is basically this idea that many diseases that we put in the mental health bucket, things like epilepsy, depression, schizophrenia, many of these things have causes that are actually metabolic in root. And like, for example, one of the best therapies for someone that is schizophrenic or epileptic or even in many cases, bipolar, if you put them on a ketogenic diet, these things will, in many cases just resolve. That is not a thing that our current, like, mental health world really underwrites.

B (31:26)

Yeah, yeah. It reminds me of a conversation I once had with Daniel Gross when he was saying, hey, anytime someone is feeling depressed, it would behoove them to, you know, before attributing it to some psychological, you know, defect or making some deep psychoanalysis about it first, just saying, hey, am I sleeping well? Am I eating well? Am I exercising? Exercising? Totally.

A (31:45)

Have I been outside recently? Yeah, totally.

B (31:48)

The. I want to shift lastly to another topic that you've just been really curious about for a while, which is, which is consciousness. What is sort of your driven, your. Your hunch or curiosity there? And, and, and where is your thinking drawn you?

A (32:05)

Yeah, I think that I have just been interested in this idea of, like, what, what does it mean to be healthy? What does it mean to live a life that people are like excited about, have energy with, you know, have energy and are just like, what does it mean to like feel great in your body and your, in your mind and everything? And I think that consciousness is sort of this root layer of like what does it mean to what is your experience of being alive, of life? And frankly, like we don't really have a great answer to this right now. You know, like a lot of our theories and philosophies and things of like what is consciousness? Are not great, they're not predictive. And you ask the average person, you ask even like philosophers that have thought a lot about this and there's nothing near consensus. And so I think that it is an area that I'm very interested in. I think we're going to learn a lot about in the next decade. I hope to have friends and play somewhat of a role in exploring and learning more about what consciousness is, how to change it, how to improve it, all these sorts of things. But yeah, I would put it very much in like personal pet interest bucket, not like I'm doing anything around it right now.

B (33:16)

Yeah, well, to it obviously you're focused on building true med. We'll close there. But if you could scale yourself, you know, infinitely like for people listening who are like also obsessed with this problem. Is there something else you think is underexplored under, Whether it's a research area or a company idea or some sort of policy thing that not enough people are looking into that we haven't yet discussed that you want more people to spend.

A (33:37)

Yeah. An idea I've been thinking about recently is like we mentioned at the beginning that the health of an organism is like the health of your environment. And in my view what that means is that if we started thinking about not improving just Eric's health, but improving the health of like all of your friends and community and people around you that exist in the same environment, like intervening and improving your environment could have a much larger impact on health than just like optimizing your own health. And so I think that there's like potentially interesting models of improving one's environment, whether that's building like a health oriented city or town or like suburb, you know, development or something like that. Whether that's like group health insurance for people that are deciding to live differently and like make have different interventions and invest in sort of like root cause lifestyle interventions. I think there's a lot of interesting things that could come about when you start thinking about health through the lens of A community or like tens, hundreds of people, not just through the lens of like me as an individual. So if I had copies of myself, I would explore companies in that direction. Yeah, I love that.

B (34:44)

Let's close on True Med and go deeper into it in the sense of we're obviously the company's done phenomenally, we're obviously very lucky to be a part of it. Say more for people who are not in terms of the actual product and the direction in terms of where it's going.

A (34:59)

Sure, yeah. So True Med, basically what it is for people that qualify, we allow them to spend tax free HSA and FSA dollars on things that treat, reverse and prevent disease that fall within like the lifestyle intervention category. So like we're partners with eight Sleep, we're partnered with Peloton, we're partnered with Momentous Lifetime Fitness. All of these brands that, you know, for someone that is working at treat reverse and prevent heart disease or obesity or things like this, these lifestyle interventions are healthcare. And so we've built a payment integration that allows people to spend their tax free HSAFCA dollars on these interventions and are scaling that up. Like I think that where this can go over the next decade is every American that is at risk or has some sort of chronic condition should be incentivized and tax free money is a great incentive to spend their own money, their dollars on things that treat, reverse or prevent disease. And there's no mechanisms in today's healthcare system for someone to actually spend, you know, for someone to get like a gym membership for cheaper than the list price or to get a gym membership covered by their employer by an insurance provider like that. And so that's kind of the thing, the way that I think about what we're building is building infrastructure that allows people and incentivizes them to invest in lifestyle interventions to stave off and prevent different chronic conditions. Yeah.

B (36:15)

And I actually have to ask, what are your thoughts on peptides and any predictions as it relates?

A (36:20)

Oh man, I think peptides are going to be so disruptive to our current healthcare system. You know, I think that if you look at peptides, there needs to be way more research. I'm like not totally yet a peptide believer, but there needs to be way more research. But from early, early signs and even just like n of 1 people taking these things and using them, this seems like a class of compounds that are very effective. They are not patentable. You know, like you can basically buy these for fairly cheap and I would put them in the bucket of like human enhancement companies. Like our current healthcare system and most of our pharmaceuticals are kind of like, don't die. Like, oh, here's a statin. Like, don't die. Take this pill. I think that these peptides are in a different class where many of them are like, give me more energy. Improve your sex drive, lower your inflammation, improve your gut health. They're just a different category of compound. And I think that as many people start to experiment with them and try them and things like this, you're going to see, like, really interesting positive healthcare outcomes from a class of compounds that no one has thought about for a long period of time. I think it's going to be exceptionally disruptive to pharma and to a bunch of other players in the healthcare system.

B (37:36)

And I'm also curious. You are just collectively, are we learning more about optimizing our nutrition? You got into the rape heat diet or you were writing about it? What are your thoughts there more broadly?

A (37:51)

I think the nutrition science is probably among the worst of the sciences in the US Right now. You know, most of nutrition science is funded by a big food company. They outfund the NIH like 11 to 1 on nutrition science, at least historically. That's hopefully changing. I think that there are all of these different diet tribes out there. The Peters, the Ray Pete crowd, I think is one that's particularly interesting, that's focused on, like, ramping up your metabolism. But I think that for many people, you should just kind of try and experiment with the diet where you feel good. Like, we now have lab tests that you can get, you know, via function or something like that to show how does this diet impact your energy, your biomarkers, things like this? You have wearables that can actually give you feedback around how is your sleep, how's your hrv, how's your resting heart rate since switching your diet or since doing things differently? And I think that that combination of getting insight into how these things are actually making you feel and how they're impacting your biomarkers means that people should be just way more open to experimenting and seeing, like, hey, I'll try a PD diet for like 90 days and just see how I feel. So I'm very bullish on people doing n of one dietary exploration and experimentation. And I think that the PD community is like, probably the most interesting one out there for me right now.

B (39:10)

Um, and, and why is that?

A (39:12)

Because there is like two schools of thought, basically. There's like the Brian Johnson school of thought, which is we've done all the research, we know that you need to eat a plant based diet. We know that you need to do caloric restriction all in the name of longevity. Um, that is like the current dogma in many ways. The Peters are the exact opposite. And you know, and Brian Johnson would say, like, sugar is bad. You should not eat carbohydrates. All this. The Peters are like, you should eat as much sugar as you possibly can, mostly in the form of like honey and fruit and stuff like this. You should try and avoid like hugely avoid seed oils, hugely avoid things that are going to impair your metabolism. But if Brian Johnson is like, I want to eat less and ramp down my metabolism, it means I can live longer. The Peters are like, ramp it up as much as you can and like, the more energy you have, the longer you are able to use that energy over a long period of time. And so it is like such a contrarian view to a hundred years of nutrition dogma that says sugar is bad should be avoided. That I think it's a very interesting idea and a lot of the people in the PD community have seen phenomenal results. Like I've started drinking orange juice and eating fruit in the morning and I feel great. My biomarkers have gotten even better from I've been doing probably a decade plus of mostly low carb kind of paleo. And so it's just a very interesting different lens that is worth playing with.

B (40:34)

Yeah, no, it's interesting. I have to check out the Peters. You know, Brian Johnson's obviously been so interesting on so many topics. One question I was curious if I, you know, if I get a girlfriend, should I make a launch video? Justin, the company is true med. Thank you so much for coming on the podcast.

A (40:50)

Thanks for having me on.

B (40:51)

Lucky to be involved.

C (40:54)

Thanks for listening to this episode of the A16Z podcast. If you liked this episode, be sure to like, comment, subscribe, leave us a rating or review and share it with your friends and family. For more episodes go to YouTube, Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Follow us on x16z and subscribe to our substack@a16z.substack.com thanks again for listening and I'll see you in the next episode. As a reminder, the content here is for informational purposes only. Should not be taken as legal, business, tax or investment advice or be used to evaluate any investment or security, and is not directed at any investors or potential investors in any A16Z fund. Please note that A16Z and its affiliates may also maintain investments in the companies discussed in this podcast. For more details, including a link to our investments. Please see a16z.com disclosures.

A (41:51)

Sam.