The November Broken Science Medical Society Journal Club, hosted by Pete and Bob, focused on ultra-processed foods (UPFs), which are a “hot topic” in health, social media, and politics. The discussion aimed to define UPFs and provide context for their potential effects on health. UPFs are categorized using the NOVA classification system, which divides food into four groups based on the nature, extent, and purpose of processing. The definition of UPFs, particularly the inclusion of ingredients “never or rarely used in kitchens,” is considered subjective. The central argument for the UPF movement, advanced by figures like Carlos Monteiro (who coined the term “ultra-processed food” in 2009) and Michael Pollan, is that the extent of processing is the most important factor linking nutrition and chronic diseases, not the food or nutrients themselves.
Bob and Pete reference Kevin Hall’s “landmark trial” suggesting UPFs cause excess caloric intake. The conversation challenged the claim that processing is solely responsible for chronic diseases, noting that studies often rely on subjective recall (observational data) and that healthy populations like the Maasai and Inuit have vastly different diets, some rich in fat and meat. They discussed the idea that the effort of cooking, even “junk food,” acts as a barrier to overconsumption. The meeting concluded by emphasizing the difficulty of generating objective, reliable knowledge in nutrition research.
Featured papers:
A 10-minute summary of the webinar is available here free, for anyone, while the full video is available for Medical Society Members and MetFix affiliates in their dashboard.
Bob Kaplan is an independent research analyst. Bob previously served as director of research at Early Medical, contributing to The Drive podcast with Peter Attia and its other properties. Kaplan was a researcher at the Nutrition Science Initiative (NuSI), and an exercise physiologist at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas. His current and previous research interests include meta-research, chronic diseases, bioenergetics, exercise physiology, and nutrition.
Support the Broken Science Initiative.
Subscribe today →
recent posts
Metabolic health, medical education, and the case for bringing clinicians and coaches together
At the 2026 Unbreakable Health Retreat in Miami, Emily Kaplan hosted a panel with Bob Kaplan, Professor Thomas Seyfried, and Dr. Derek Lee on what it means to treat cancer as a metabolic disease. They discussed the glucose-ketone index (GKI), nutritional ketosis, and strategies aimed at restricting the fuels cancer cells depend on while considering how metabolic therapy can fit alongside standard cancer treatment.
The conversation also addressed the practical realities patients face when trying to pursue a metabolic approach within the conventional oncology system, including questions about nutrition, repurposed drugs, inherited cancer risk, and how to evaluate different treatment options. Seyfried and Lee connected these clinical questions back to mitochondrial dysfunction, fermentation, and the metabolic vulnerabilities that may offer additional targets for cancer treatment.
An abbreviated version of this discussion is available here, for free.
At the 2026 Unbreakable Health Retreat in Miami, Professor Thomas Seyfried presented the case that cancer is fundamentally a mitochondrial metabolic disease rather than primarily a genetic one. He contrasts the dominant somatic mutation theory with a metabolic model in which impaired mitochondrial respiration drives a shift toward fermentation, dysregulated cell growth, and the mutations commonly associated with cancer.
Citing the work of Otto Warburg and research from his lab at Boston College, Seyfried explains how cancer cells rely heavily on fermentable fuels—particularly glucose and glutamine—and why mitochondrial dysfunction sits upstream of many of the genetic abnormalities seen in tumors. He also discusses reactive oxygen species, altered cellular signaling, and the role of mitochondria in regulating cell growth and behavior.
The presentation then turns to the therapeutic implications of this model. Seyfried explains strategies aimed at placing tumor cells under metabolic stress by restricting the fuels they depend on, including ketogenic metabolic therapy and approaches targeting glucose and glutamine. For Seyfried, the therapeutic target follows directly from the biology: restrict the fuels cancer cells depend on, exploit their metabolic weaknesses, and treat mitochondrial dysfunction as the central feature of the disease.
An abbreviated version of this discussion is available here, for free.
MetFix and BSI Members can view the full 54-minute video.
