Transcript
John Coogan (0:02)
Do you know how I got here today? I drove through the Hollywood Hills, drove through the San Fernando Valley, because we're covering Hill and Valley today, but we're doing it from the TVPN ultradome. We have a whole bunch of meetings. Who doesn't like it anyway? What do you think about this, Jordy? We have to recap some things. There's been a whole bunch of news. We had the great peptide debate of 2026. Brandon Gorell on our team wrote about this in the newsletter today. Tbpn.com, you can go subscribe. Who do you think won? I was talking to a lot of people. Very interesting you had scheduled this. I wasn't even really aware that there was a peptide debate going on. We talked to some other folks on the show about peptides and how there was a debate rating. And I was aware of the meme, like the Chinese peptides in Silicon Valley, all of that stuff. But I wasn't aware of, like, that the debate was boiling to a particular point and that there were a lot of people that were discussing it. So it was great timing. So thank you for organizing that and thank you to our guests Max and Martin, who took the time to come and talk to us and I thought did a really good job of being simultaneously entertaining and also very cordial. Like they weren't actually going at each other's throats, they were scoring points. But I don't think that either of them crossed any lines. Yeah, there was some. There was some discussion over, like, should we have done more fact checking? I genuinely, I generally think that the chat is good for fact checking or the experts. Yeah, it's kind of like your view. But I don't know.
Jordyn Hayes (1:24)
There was a bunch of. There's a bunch of people that made very fair points pointing out, you know, a study here or a patent here.
John Coogan (1:31)
Yeah.
Jordyn Hayes (1:32)
And it would have been great if we got to a conclusion yesterday. And like, yeah, this is all bad and I'll be banned or no, they're all good or figured it out. But that's where we started.
John Coogan (1:41)
We started. That's where we started, like with like, yeah, everyone there agrees that GLP1s that are owned by pharmaceutical companies are probably net beneficial, blah, blah, blah. And then the really far out stuff that hasn't been studied, that's made in, you know, a basement is probably risky. And we actually had a good friend of the show sum it up. Creatine Cycle Atlas, of course, said the peptide debate is as follows against. I would be worried about unknown unknowns Pro. While there isn't much human data, the anecdotal evidence is pretty strong. Against. Anecdotes are not enough for me. Pro. Fair. It is for me. Against. Okay, fair. And I think that's a good, I think that's a good point. And truthfully, people can make their own decisions here. I do think interjecting with a ton of fact checking during the debate would, would be disruptive. I'm not a fan of that. I sort of dislike having one person like the guest, the debater, fact check the other person because if they know the fact and the other person who they're debating against drops something that's not factual, that's their opportunity to come in and say, no, that's not accurate.
