This is where each podcast or video can become a searchable Myospan reference page.
Transcript coming soon.
Once the transcript is ready, it can live here under the embedded video, with key topics, timestamps, guest details, and source links.
This transcript has been lightly edited for clarity and readability, including the removal of filler words and repetitions, while preserving the substance of the original conversation.
Anita Broellochs: Mitch, welcome to the Muscle Longevity Podcast. I’m really excited to have you as a guest today.
Mitch Kanter: Thanks, Anita. I’m happy to be here. I appreciate the invitation.
Anita: Before we get into protein, I’d love to start with your background. You’ve had a really interesting career spanning academia, the food and nutrition industry, and global nutrition. Can you tell us a little about yourself, your journey, and what led you to the work you’re doing today?
Mitch: Sure, I’m happy to. As we discussed previously, I started out in academia. I went the traditional PhD route and received a PhD in physiology. I picked up a master’s in nutrition along the way, and then I did a postdoc in a Department of Preventive Medicine for several years after graduate school. I taught at a couple of universities.
Then I ended up going into industry. I received a call from people I knew at Gatorade, the Quaker Oats Company. At that point in my life, as today, sports were very important to me. The ability to work for a company that was actually doing research, funding a lot of research, had its own research facility, and allowed me to stay close to sports just seemed like too good an opportunity to pass up.
So I went into industry and spent over 30 years working for various food and nutrition companies.
Toward the latter part of my career, I worked with a couple of industry groups in the dairy, egg, and potato industries. It was there that I picked up a lot of information on protein, which is relevant to what we’re going to talk about today.
That was largely my background.
Anita: Thank you so much for sharing that.
You recently published a paper that came out of a workshop where you brought together more than 20 experts to essentially pressure-test some widely held beliefs about protein. I think your paper even uses the term “pressure-test.”
I think that’s very interesting, and I’m wondering what prompted the workshop in the first place. What were you ultimately hoping to understand?
Mitch: The workshop was actually the brainchild of Dr. David Allison, who’s well known in nutrition circles. He’s the director of the Children’s Nutrition Research Center at Baylor College of Medicine.
Dr. Allison and I have known each other for a long time. We’ve worked together on several projects, and we started talking about protein in general and muscle protein synthesis.
The question came up: There are many things that we assume to be true in the protein literature and nutrition literature in general, things that people repeat over and over again like they’re gospel. But does the science really support some of these propositions?
So David and I came up with about a dozen propositions, things that many of us believe to be true because we’ve heard them repeatedly, or because there is some science to support them.
For example, protein is the most satiating of the macronutrients. Or we need 30 grams of protein per meal to promote muscle protein synthesis. These are things most of us tend to agree with because we hear them so often.
David and I talked about this and said, why don’t we bring in 11 or 12 experts in these particular areas to either defend or refute each proposition?
For example, we had Dr. Rick Mattes from Purdue University come in to talk about satiety and whether protein is the most satiating macronutrient. Rick is well known as one of the leaders in the field of satiety.
He presented the data and then gave a rating on whether the evidence strongly supports protein as the most satiating macronutrient. We did that with 11 or 12 other propositions.
In many cases, we brought in the expert in that area and essentially said, “Here, refute or defend the proposition.”
That was the gist of the meeting. It was really well attended. We had over 200 people there, and we published the proceedings of that meeting. I think that’s the paper you’re referring to, Anita. It was published a couple of months ago and written by all 20 experts involved in the meeting.
It was well received.
As a follow-up, we’re getting ready to hold another meeting next month in Houston.
During the first meeting, many participants said we needed a workshop on methodologies because a lot of protein research is conducted using substandard methodology for various reasons.
For example, it’s difficult to recruit human subjects for good protein or nutrition research. So studies are often conducted with very small sample sizes, sometimes eight or ten people. Some methods are indirect, using biomarkers that don’t directly measure what researchers are trying to measure.
We decided to bring together another dozen experts for a consensus conference. We’ll have presenters discuss various aspects of protein research methodology, and a writing committee will take that information and generate a how-to paper for publication.
The idea is that if you’re conducting protein research in the future, if you’re a journal editor deciding whether to accept a paper, or if you’re a regulator evaluating protein science, ideally our how-to paper will help you determine whether a study is well conducted.
We’re getting ready to hold that conference next month as a follow-up to the first one, all within the realm of protein.
I think it’s gratifying and interesting to get a group of experts like that in the same room to come to a consensus on various issues.
Anita: I think that’s really cool, and I’m excited to see what comes out of the workshop next month. It’s very important work.
I also think it’s valuable to bring people who sometimes disagree into one room and try to figure things out together. It’s great that you were able to bring everybody together, even with different opinions.
Mitch: There are different opinions, but that’s the scientific method. It’s rare that you’re going to get a dozen or 20 experts in a room who agree on everything.
Anita: Was there anything you went into the workshop believing was fairly well established, but after looking at the evidence, realized the science wasn’t nearly as strong as you thought?
Mitch: There were a couple of things.
One was the satiety issue I brought up. I think most people believe unequivocally that protein is the most satiating nutrient.
Dr. Mattes, who’s published a lot of research in that area, concluded that the science just isn’t that strong.
A lot of that research is conducted using paper-and-pencil tests, which aren’t the strongest methodology. People often don’t fully understand what they’re being asked to measure.
When you ask someone, “How full are you?” or “How satisfied are you?” they may answer a certain way, but physiologically those two things might not mean the same thing.
Part of his conclusion was that a lot of the science we base our beliefs on isn’t all that strong and needs to be strengthened in the future.
He concluded that it’s not carved in stone that protein is the most satiating nutrient.
He also made the point that much of the satiety research is very acute. You might eat one meal on one day and then rate how full or hungry you feel.
But satiety after one meal doesn’t necessarily translate to long-term satiety, long-term weight loss, or better health outcomes.
For those reasons, he concluded that the data isn’t as strong as many people think.
The other thing is the numbers we throw around, such as eating 30 grams of protein per meal or consuming protein immediately after exercise to maximally stimulate muscle protein synthesis.
If you look at the research behind those ideas, it’s not that strong either.
Part of the message I want to get across to listeners is: Don’t get too hung up on numbers.
If you’re trying to eat a certain way and don’t meet your 30-gram protein target at a meal, it probably doesn’t matter because we truly don’t know whether the right number is 22 grams, 24 grams, or 30 grams.
The jury is still out on a lot of this. Being too dogmatic about numbers that aren’t well established is unnecessary.
Anita: That’s super interesting, and it was actually going to be my next question.
I think a lot of people are looking for guidance on how much protein they should eat. There’s so much confusion out there, and people want something they can follow.
But as you said, your paper suggests there’s still a lot of uncertainty around the exact numbers.
What do we actually know right now about protein requirements, specifically for maintaining muscle and function as we age? Is there anything that’s better established?
Mitch: I think we know that, directionally, more protein rather than less generally supports healthy muscle and healthy aging. That’s established.
The devil is in the details, though.
We still don’t know the optimal amounts, how protein should be distributed throughout the day, or the long-term effects of eating a certain way.
Those questions remain open, even though you can read an article or listen to another expert who says we must eat 30 grams of protein per meal.
A lot of Americans eat most of their protein with their evening meal. Sometimes 50%, 60%, or even 70% of their protein is eaten at dinner.
In the typical American diet, people tend to eat less protein at breakfast, when they might have cereal or something similar, a little more at lunch, and then the bulk of it at dinner.
Some people say that’s the wrong way to eat and that protein should be distributed more evenly throughout the day.
But trying to stay true to the science, my response is: Show me the data.
There really isn’t a lot of evidence supporting the idea that we need to eat 30 grams at breakfast, 30 grams at lunch, and 30 grams at dinner.
Practically, it makes sense, and I wouldn’t dissuade someone from doing it. There’s certainly no harm in it.
But are you going to gain significant benefits by eating 30, 30, 30? I don’t think the science is strong enough to support that conclusion.
I don’t want to sound wishy-washy or throw cold water on the concept, but I think that’s what the evidence supports.
All that said, if someone is looking for a recommendation, I think it’s fair to say that for healthy people, particularly healthy older people, 1–1.2 grams of protein per kilogram of body weight per day is probably a good target.
Is it optimal for some people? Yes. For others, maybe not.
But if you want a number to aim for, 1–1.2 grams per kilogram is probably reasonable.
If you exercise, particularly resistance exercise, then more than 1.2 grams, up to around 1.6 grams per kilogram per day, makes more sense.
Most of the literature suggests that beyond 1.6 grams per kilogram, you start seeing diminishing returns.
There isn’t much good science showing that eating more than 1.6 grams per kilogram necessarily leads to greater muscle strength, greater muscle mass, or better health.
The science doesn’t support extremely high levels for additional muscle benefits, although many people eat well above 1.6 grams per kilogram and are perfectly fine.
I’m not suggesting it’s unhealthy. I just don’t know that you’re going to gain much additional benefit from a muscle perspective.
We also know that eating less than 0.8 grams per kilogram is probably not good and may lead to detrimental health outcomes.
So if you’re someone who wants numbers and direction, I think those are reasonable targets.
But again, if you look strictly at the science, it’s hard to hang your hat on any of those numbers specifically.
Anita: Another thing I want to touch on is physical activity.
You mentioned that being physically active can change our protein requirements and that people who exercise may benefit from eating more protein.
But something else that’s interesting is that when we strength train or are physically active, our muscles become more responsive to the protein we eat.
For someone who isn’t familiar with the relationship between movement and protein, can you explain how the two are connected, especially when it comes to maintaining muscle as we age?
Is that something you discussed at the workshop or in the paper?
Mitch: If you’re a health-oriented person, you should view exercise and diet, particularly protein intake, as going hand in hand.
If you exercise but have a substandard diet, you get diminishing returns. If you eat well but don’t engage in physical activity, that’s not necessarily in your best interest either.
From a protein perspective, I think exercise and protein intake are integrally dependent on one another.
The mechanisms that turn on muscle protein synthesis respond to both protein consumption and exercise.
There’s a signaling mechanism in the human body called mTOR. I won’t get into great detail, but mTOR is activated when you consume protein, particularly certain amino acids such as leucine.
Physical activity also affects mTOR activity.
So when you exercise and consume protein, you affect mTOR activity, which can translate into greater muscle protein synthesis.
mTOR is essentially a bridge between what you consume, your physical activity level, and muscle protein synthesis.
A combination of exercise and protein intake is extremely important if your goal is increased muscle protein synthesis.
Anita: I remember Luc van Loon, who I believe was also one of the experts involved in your paper, giving a keynote at a conference I attended.
He said he does all this research to prove that “you are what you eat,” which is something a lot of people say. But if you’re physically active, you’re even more what you eat.
I thought that was a really interesting way to remember the relationship.
Anita: Now I want to shift gears and get into what I believe is a very interesting question for muscle longevity.
Some people are trying to eat as little protein as possible for longevity reasons because there’s research suggesting that restricting protein or certain amino acids could potentially extend lifespan.
But as we’ve discussed, protein is important for maintaining muscle mass.
How do we bring these two ideas together?
For someone who’s focused on longevity and trying to extend their lifespan, while also trying to preserve muscle for a long, healthy life, how should they think about this?
We see headlines saying, “Eat less protein to live longer,” and some people respond by cutting protein as much as possible.
What are your thoughts on that?
Mitch: I think it’s a nuanced question.
There is a tension between how much protein we should eat for longevity and how much we should eat for muscle.
But I would be careful about saying protein is good for muscle and bad for longevity. I don’t think that’s established.
There is research that at least suggests that possibility, and some of it relates to mTOR, which I mentioned earlier.
The same mechanisms that support muscle protein synthesis through mTOR, including greater protein intake, exercise, and higher insulin levels, may have negative implications for longevity.
There are longevity studies suggesting that less protein, less physical activity, and lower insulin levels can reduce mTOR activity, which in turn may increase longevity.
Those data exist.
But the big caveat is that virtually all the data on protein and longevity come from research in mice and flies.
It’s very difficult to carry out this kind of research over an 80-year human lifespan. So researchers study flies and rodents, animals with much shorter lifespans.
Translating findings from mice or flies to humans is very difficult.
The headlines exist, and you can’t dismiss them out of hand. But much of the research suggesting that increased protein intake reduces lifespan has been conducted in small animal models.
Until we see more research in larger animal models, such as nonhuman primates, or in humans, I wouldn’t hang my hat on those findings.
I wouldn’t suggest that people avoid eating more protein or exercising because animal data suggest those behaviors might be contraindicated from a longevity perspective.
Anita: I think mTOR itself is sometimes oversimplified in the longevity world as something that’s bad and should always be suppressed.
We probably need to think about how we communicate that a little better.
Anita: Another thing I want to get into is how we score protein quality.
Right now, we have what’s called DIAAS, which mainly tells us about amino acid quality and digestibility.
But I’ve personally been wondering whether that’s enough for all the questions we’re asking today.
If our goal is to maintain muscle and support longevity, shouldn’t protein quality also account for things like leucine and other amino acids that are important for activating muscle protein synthesis?
Shouldn’t we consider the actual anabolic response, how that response changes with age, and ultimately muscle and health outcomes?
Do you think DIAAS is enough, or do we need a more comprehensive metric for protein quality?
Mitch: In my last full-time role, when I was working with the dairy industry, I was involved in quite a bit of DIAAS-oriented research.
I worked with researchers from different continents, including the University of Illinois in the United States, Maastricht University in the Netherlands, and researchers in New Zealand.
They were using pig models to measure DIAAS values for different foods, so I’m quite familiar with the issue.
To make a long story short, I think DIAAS is better than what we’ve used in the past, which was primarily PDCAAS.
PDCAAS has been used by governments to measure the protein quality of foods.
With PDCAAS, researchers took fecal samples and measured their protein and amino acid content.
The problem is that when protein and amino acids pass through the colon, they undergo fermentation.
Certain amino acids can be destroyed, and others can be produced as food passes through the large intestine.
So when you collect a fecal sample and measure it, you don’t really know whether what you’re measuring came from the food itself or includes proteins that were produced or destroyed in the large intestine.
That’s the PDCAAS method.
DIAAS involves collecting samples at the ileum, the final part of the small intestine, where it joins the large intestine, using a cannulated pig model.
By sampling there, you bypass the large intestine. You’re collecting samples before they enter the colon, where fermentation can change the protein composition.
For that reason, DIAAS is a better method than PDCAAS.
There are other issues, too.
PDCAAS truncates protein quality scores at 1.0. That’s the highest score a protein can receive.
By doing that, I think it puts animal-source proteins at a disadvantage.
Foods such as meat, dairy, and eggs could score higher than 1.0, but because PDCAAS is truncated, that’s the highest score they can receive.
It can make some plant proteins, such as soy, which might score around 0.9 or 0.92, look much closer to animal-source proteins than they really are.
When I used to give talks on this, I would use a silly analogy.
Let’s say you and I both have children in a math class. My child gets a 65 on a math test, and your child gets a 90.
If the teacher says, “I’m going to grade on a curve, and anyone who gets 65 or better gets an A,” then both children get an A.
But your child scored 90, and mine scored 65. It’s unfair to your child to give them the same grade.
It’s a simple analogy to make the point that if you truncate protein quality scores at 1.0, you’re giving an advantage to the lower scorers and a disadvantage to the higher scorers.
For those reasons, DIAAS is preferable to PDCAAS.
That said, DIAAS is far from perfect.
It measures digestibility, but it doesn’t tell us what happens downstream at the muscle level or how amino acids are metabolized.
There are better methods being developed, including stable isotope techniques.
With stable isotopes, you can measure digestibility and track amino acids to the point where they’re entering muscle.
Another method being worked on is called the indicator amino acid oxidation method, which has implications for understanding how amino acids are metabolized.
So the long-winded answer is that DIAAS is better than what we’ve used in the past, but it’s far from complete.
There may be better methods coming that allow us to measure protein quality in a more accurate and biologically meaningful way.
Anita: That’s very interesting. Maybe one day we’ll have a muscle longevity protein score that takes all these things into consideration.
I think that would be very useful, although there are still things we need to figure out, including exactly what we’d want to measure and what should go into such a score.
Anita: Another topic I want to get into is plant versus animal protein, which is always a big debate.
If someone is eating plant protein rather than animal protein, and their essential amino acid needs are being met, does the source actually matter for maintaining muscle as we age?
Mitch: There are a lot of ways to answer this question.
Depending on who you have sitting with you, you’re probably going to get a different answer.
I’m somewhat middle of the road, although I’ve spent a good amount of time working in the animal protein world, particularly with dairy and eggs.
I’ve also worked in the plant world, with oats and potatoes, so I try to be as balanced and accurate as I can.
If you have someone from the animal protein industry, they’re probably going to answer one way. Someone from the vegan or plant protein industry might answer differently.
Based on the science, I would say the following.
Can you live healthfully on a plant-only diet, a vegan diet? Absolutely, you can. And many vegans do.
If you’re good at mixing and matching proteins so that foods lacking certain essential amino acids are complemented by foods that contain them, you can live healthfully on plants alone.
There are certainly observational studies suggesting that people on plant-only diets may live longer. There are data to support that.
So I wouldn’t say that eating a vegan diet is detrimental to health.
There are caveats, though.
Young children need a lot of high-quality protein. I think giving them milk and other high-quality protein sources is important for optimal growth.
Once you’ve reached your growth potential, you could potentially remove some animal protein from your diet, but I wouldn’t recommend eliminating it completely.
There have been some excellent studies, including one by Ty Beal, who’s with GAIN, looking at protein quality in developing countries.
In many developing countries, including parts of sub-Saharan Africa, high-quality animal protein sources such as meat and milk are expensive or not readily available.
There are deficiencies in nutrients such as vitamin B12, vitamin A, iron, calcium, zinc, and riboflavin, all of which are nutrients of concern.
In Ty Beal’s study, he suggested that the top sources of these nutrients tend to be animal-source foods.
And, of course, essential amino acids are generally more abundant in animal-source foods.
So I’m of the belief that having both in your diet is a good approach.
A friend of mine in the dairy industry used to say that our diet should be “plant-based and animal-optimized.”
I’m inclined to agree with that.
I don’t think eliminating one or the other is a good idea because both contain nutrients that we need.
I would also argue that animal-source foods are generally better sources of essential amino acids.
Another point I’d make is that many health experts in the United States say that in Western countries, we all get more than enough protein.
They argue that we’re drowning in a sea of protein abundance, so protein quality isn’t particularly important because people will get enough by default.
I would argue that this isn’t true for everyone.
There are data suggesting that 20% or more of the U.S. population can’t afford to eat healthy foods because of grocery prices.
As a result, some people eat less healthy foods and get less protein.
In certain demographic groups, including women, teenage girls, and young children, upwards of 20–30% may not be getting enough protein.
So the notion that everyone in America has access to more than enough protein is erroneous.
There are many people eating substandard diets, and we need to pay attention to that.
Animal-source protein can make it easier to obtain essential amino acids than plant protein.
Another interesting point is the EAT-Lancet diet, which came out a few years ago.
It was intended as a playbook for how we should eat in the future, both for health and sustainability.
It suggested that we should eat almost exclusively plant-based diets and consume very little animal-source food because that would be better for the environment and for health.
But research conducted since then suggests that this isn’t necessarily true.
Animals grazing on land and adding manure to soil can help sequester carbon and have positive environmental effects.
Lastly, from a protein perspective, it’s worth pointing out that if you eat animal protein, you may be able to get by eating 20% less protein than if you eat only plants.
To turn that around, if you’re on a vegan or highly plant-based diet, you may need to eat 20% more protein to obtain the same amount of essential amino acids as someone who incorporates meat.
That’s inefficient if we’re trying to build a food system that provides good nutrition with fewer calories while conserving land.
We’re not going to be able to grow all the plants on the available arable land if everyone subsists on a vegan diet.
You need animals to have a more efficient diet in terms of calorie intake and possibly body weight and land use.
I’ve gone off on a few tangents, but my point is that animal protein and animal foods are important for overall nutrition.
I think our diet should be a combination of plant-based and animal-optimized.
Anita: I think one of the most interesting things you mentioned is that when people eat a food for its protein, they’re not just eating the protein. They’re eating the whole package.
For example, animal protein or meat contains iron and other nutrients. On the other hand, plant-based protein sources come with a different package, including fiber and other components.
I think it’s important to remember that we’re never just eating protein in isolation.
We need to consider the entire nutritional package and make sure we’re getting a balanced intake of macronutrients, vitamins, and other nutrients.
Anita: Another question I want to explore is whether there’s an optimal amount of muscle.
Sometimes, when we talk about muscle longevity, we assume that more muscle is always better.
But I wonder whether that’s necessarily true.
Do we have any idea of what an optimal amount of muscle might look like? We don’t necessarily all need enormous amounts of muscle.
Is there any research suggesting how much muscle humans actually need for longevity?
Mitch: The short answer is no. I don’t think anyone has a real handle on what an optimal amount of muscle is.
It would obviously differ from person to person depending on a lot of factors.
Generally speaking, from a longevity perspective, if you look across the animal kingdom, larger animals tend not to live as long as smaller animals.
Humans are actually an exception. We don’t fit that relationship quite the same way when you compare animals ranging from flies and shrews to elephants.
There are differences, but by and large, from a longevity perspective, larger isn’t necessarily better.
Muscle is also very metabolically active tissue.
There are some data suggesting that individuals with very high metabolisms may not live as long.
Again, that’s a generalization and isn’t based on definitive science.
But I would argue that there is probably a limit to what’s optimal.
Growing larger and larger may have detrimental health effects, both in the short term and from a longevity perspective.
I would argue that larger isn’t necessarily better when it comes to living longer.
Anita: My last question is about the future.
We’ve covered a lot of topics today, and many still have unanswered questions.
What are you personally excited about over the next five to ten years? Are there areas where you’re particularly hoping we’ll gain more clarity?
Mitch: That’s funny. I thought about this question before the podcast and came up with a list of about 25 things!
But I’ll narrow it down to a couple.
One is personalized protein requirements and the broader issue of personalized nutrition.
Your needs aren’t necessarily my needs, and vice versa.
As we start combining genetics, lifestyle, and genomic information, I think personalized protein requirements will become clearer.
Right now, we have a somewhat one-size-fits-all perspective.
The RDA for protein remains 0.8 grams per kilogram.
At the last RDA meetings, there was a recommendation suggesting that intakes could go up toward 1.2–1.6 grams per kilogram.
It’s a recommendation, and I think it’s a concession that 0.8 grams may be too low.
Nevertheless, we still have an RDA of 0.8 grams per kilogram per day.
Different people are going to have different needs.
I think personalized nutrition will help clarify those differences and bring everyone closer to knowing what they need for optimal health and nutrition.
Another area is GLP-1 medications.
We’re in an era where so many people are taking GLP-1 agonists and losing weight very rapidly.
That raises all sorts of questions from health, longevity, and muscle perspectives.
If you’re taking a GLP-1 medication and lose a lot of weight rapidly, what are the long-term health implications?
We don’t really know because it’s such a new area.
What happens when you stop taking a GLP-1 medication?
Do you retain the same diet you followed while taking it? Do you need to? Can people maintain that approach?
We don’t know.
I think there’s a general sense that two nutrients are extremely important for people taking GLP-1 medications: protein and fiber.
When you reduce your calorie intake significantly, you want to make sure you’re getting enough protein to at least maintain lean mass.
Protein is very important, but how much? We don’t really know.
I’d be excited to see more research on the short- and long-term implications of GLP-1 use over the next few years.
These medications seem to be here to stay, at least until something better comes along, and a lot of people are using them.
We need a better understanding of their implications.
From a research perspective, I’d also like to see a greater understanding of long-term muscle protein synthesis and how we measure it.
Much of the research conducted with stable isotopes measures acute muscle protein synthesis. Those methods don’t necessarily tell us what’s happening over the long term.
There are better methodologies emerging, such as deuterium oxide, or deuterated water, that may help measure muscle protein synthesis over longer periods.
I’d like to see progress in that area.
From a practical consumer perspective, I’m interested in all the new technologies being developed.
For example, precision fermentation. What’s going to come out of that?
Will there be products that really change the market, that people start using and that support health?
Mycoproteins are being studied, as are novel plant proteins that haven’t been tested extensively.
Cultivated meat seems to be somewhat out of favor in the industry right now. It hasn’t really caught on in the marketplace, but that doesn’t mean it’s gone for good.
What if these products are optimized in new ways? Could they have implications for protein intake in the future?
Algae is another emerging source of nutrition and protein.
And then there are insects. Some cultures eat insects, although we don’t tend to in the United States, unless you’re riding a bicycle and one flies into your mouth!
There’s a whole range of foods and technologies being developed, and I’m interested to see where they go over the next decade.
Mitch: It’s interesting. I used to give talks about functional foods and where they might go.
This was about 20 years ago, so a lot of what I said then is obsolete now.
But I remember starting those talks by asking the audience to imagine that I had a handful of pills.
I’d say, “If you take the red pill, your chances of becoming obese become virtually zero. How many of you would consider taking it?”
Every hand would go up.
Then I’d say, “If you take the blue pill, your chances of developing cardiovascular disease drop to almost nothing, with no side effects. How many of you would take it?”
Again, every hand would go up.
A green pill prevents diabetes. An orange pill prevents arthritis. And so on.
Virtually everyone would raise their hand.
Then I’d say, “Okay, but here’s the caveat. This is now your diet. No more food. No more turkey on Thanksgiving. This handful of pills is now your sustenance. How many of you would do it?”
Not one hand in the room would go up.
My point was that I still believe human beings want real food.
It’s not just about nutrition. It’s about connection, a sense of home, family, and friendship.
There’s so much tied up in the foods we eat that I’m hard-pressed to imagine we’ll ever move entirely to a handful of pills or protein sources from test tubes.
That said, I’m speaking from my generation, where I grew up with Thanksgiving dinner.
That doesn’t mean two or three generations from now, our grandchildren or great-grandchildren, who may grow up eating differently, wouldn’t be more amenable to something like that.
I don’t know.
But I’m inclined to think we’re always going to want real food.
I think the technology is great, and I hope some of it helps address major health challenges like obesity and heart disease.
But a new technology would have to be something really special to replace the real foods people currently eat.
Anita: Those are really interesting questions, and I hope we’ll see answers to all of them over the next five to ten years.
Mitch, thank you so much for taking the time to join me today.
I found this conversation very interesting. I definitely learned a lot, and I’m sure our listeners did as well.
Thank you.
Mitch: My pleasure. I enjoyed it. Thanks, Anita.
