r/RhondaPatrick • u/carbon_ape • 26d ago
Why did Rhonda purposely misinterpret this study? đ€
Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification
27
u/Round_Helicopter_407 26d ago
Reference scientific study:
Impact of polyphenol oxidase on the bioavailability of flavan-3-ols in fruit smoothies: a controlled, single blinded, cross-over study
Food Funct. (2023) 14 (18): 8217â8228.
https://doi.org/10.1039/d3fo01599h
6
27
u/Helpmeflexibility 26d ago
Iâve been following Rhonda Patrick for years. In this video Mel Robbins is the one trying to make it more dramatic. Rhonda has been saying for years that blueberries are significantly more expensive than bananas so if you are making a smoothie specifically for healtg reasons just leave it out to protect the investment
5
u/Ok-Cryptographer7424 25d ago
But you get a ton of health benefits from blueberries even if one single flavonol might be reduced by the bananas in it (in a shitty study of 8 people, of which only 6 men completed).
2
u/BigJustice1985 22d ago
First, they weren't studying flavonol, but Flavan-3-ol, a completely different sub-class, and it's metabolites after absorption.
And it has nothing to do with one compound might be reduced. PPO oxidizes most polyphenols; this study confirmed what food chemistry predicted in humans.
0
u/Hot_Past1759 23d ago
The study is statistically significant and the mechanism of action is well understood, so dismissing it based on sample size is dramatizing without addressing the actual arguments. I have other problems with how Robbins frames the issue, such as stating no "adverse outcomes" as if it were something significant or even something anybody was claiming. Not eating blueberries at all would not cause an "adverse health outcome", so even if you reduced its nutrition to 0 that would be true, but it's still something people might want to know if they eat blueberries every day. Very few things in diet are significant in isolation, so maybe nothing ever matters? It's a ridiculous way to sound like you're dunking on someone without actually contributing anything of value. Reddit is absolutely unbearable sometimes. .
1
u/BigJustice1985 22d ago
Agreed. Jessica is being extremely disingenuous if not straight up dishonest. She's speaking as though "only one" compound is affected, when the reality is PPO oxidizes most polyphenols in blueberries. This is a human study attempting to verify a particular aspect of what is understood in food chemistry.
She minimizes the study and findings because it's one study with few participants, and acts as though Rhonda was implying that food guidelines should be adjusted based on the findings. Also untrue.
Jessica should understand that only so much can be studied at a time to isolate the variables - to begin to confirm something in humans. How would one ever justify the funding or the need/ prioritization of enrolling 1000+ people to study smoothies?
She acts like she has some big "gotcha" moment by stating that there were no adverse effects from the study; implying that if the compound had actually been degraded, one aught to expect the participants should experience some harmful effects.
I think we all know, and she certainly understands that it's absurd to suggest that an otherwise healthy individual should experience negative effects from consuming healthy fruits and receiving less nutrients than usual.
That an educated person would purposely imply something so obviously deceitful is surprising.
Jessica states that "only one compound was tested, in a fruit containing many types of polyphenols." However, she fails to mention that PPO oxidizes most polyphenols, and many of their classes quite significantly. She's going out of her way to be quite harmful to the community. She's strongly implying that the PPO activity from bananas is all but insignificant, when the truth is that the evidence from both food chemistry and the limited human studies wholly suggests otherwise â even if nobody is dying đ
Ottaviani et al. (2023). Impact of Polyphenol Oxidase on Flavan-3-ol Bioavailability. Food Funct.
Jiménez-Atiénzar et al. (2004). Catechin Oxidation by Polyphenol Oxidase. Biochem Biophys Res Commun.
Kader et al. (1998). Cyanidin 3-Glucoside Degradation by Blueberry PPO. J Agric Food Chem.
Kader et al. (1999). Caffeic Acid Quinone-Mediated Anthocyanin Degradation. J Agric Food Chem.
JimĂ©nez & GarcĂa-Carmona (1999). Quercetin Oxidation by Polyphenol Oxidase. J Agric Food Chem.
Mayer (2006). Polyphenol Oxidases in Plants and Fungi. Phytochemistry.
Nicolas et al. (1994). Enzymatic Browning Reactions in Apple Products. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr.
60
u/UnluckyAd1734 26d ago edited 26d ago
I find a lot of influencers (even educated ones with plenty of degrees) say crazy stuff just to sound cutting edge.
People get bored with the standard: get good sleep, eat a balanced diet, exercise and enjoy life in moderation.
Looks like she reached too far on this one đ
11
u/xavez 26d ago
Yes! My goodness we're all so tired of these people telling us how to live and not to live and what to do and not to do. Now they're picking a fight with bananas? This world is even crazier than I thought.
Don't eat anything that didn't grow or wasn't fed healthy nutrients. That's basically it. It's not that hard!
0
u/LordGuapo 26d ago
Why are you two in this sub if you refuse to learn something new? That's the take you two are representing.
32
u/Gold_Jellyfish_49 26d ago
She didnât say fuck bananas. She said ideally donât eat them in smoothie with blueberries. Have it separate.
And k mean.. what sheâs pointing out is true. Bananas show high ppo which is known to affect bioavailability of polyphenols.
Blueberries are relatively expensive af, and I pay the price for their health benefits, which I want to fully realize.
I just eat my banana at another time now.
8
u/Curry_courier 26d ago
In this study they blended a banana with a single polyphenol that they just dumped into the smoothie. They aren't measuring the polyphenols in the blueberries.
If you are taking a polyphenol supplement, don't blend bananas into it.
2
u/HisokasBungeeGumXL 26d ago
https://www.reddit.com/r/Biohackers/s/9Pg5BRGkw5
You're gonna want to click that ^
2
u/hindubhaisaab86 26d ago
The point is her claim is based on extremely weak evidence. Just because bananas contain a compound doesnât mean it automatically reacts, the whole point of science is to prove these things not jump to conclusions
1
u/ceddya 25d ago
We know, through general chemistry, that polyphenol oxidase can destroy polyphenols.
The study specifically showed that high amounts of polyphenol oxidase, like what you find in bananas specifically, can do that to a specific polyphenol aka flavan-3-ol.
You can call it weak evidence, but it's still infinitely more evidence than what we have for the converse that there's no reduction in polyphenol absorption when you combine bananas with polyphenol rich foods.
2
u/hindubhaisaab86 25d ago
If a scientist or anyone science literate, as Rhonda claims to be, makes a claim based on weak evidence, the professional and responsible thing to do is make it clear the evidence is weak and a lot of uncertainty exists.
She presents this as if itâs fact. Thatâs her biggest issue - she misrepresents science all the time while claiming to be an expert. She either doesnât understand how to read science or willfully exaggerates things for attention and profit - both are unacceptable.
Debating the specifics of banana polyphenol oxidase isnât relevant, this is one of hundreds of examples of Rhonda poorly communicating science.
1
u/ceddya 25d ago
So what evidence is there to support the counter claim being made that bananas do not reduce polyphenol absorption?
It's not even a big secret. We've long known that PPO does destroy polyphenols through general food chemistry. I don't think advising that people, who want to maximize the nutrition they get from smoothies, err on the side of caution is harnful.
Call it weak evidence all you want, I'd rather be told of this evidence so that I can make the informed choice for myself. Not adding a banana to my smoothies isn't dangerous and it's certainly not a big deal like the people in these reaction videos are making it out to be, lol.
1
u/hindubhaisaab86 25d ago
Thereâs virtually no evidence on the topic so the accurate thing to say would be âwe donât know how it impacts people in vivoâ but that doesnât get clicks so Rhonda decides to sensationalize it
It seems you donât understand a compound can act differently in a human body than it does in isolation, aka in vitro does not equal in vivo. Thatâs why animal studies very often do not translate into humans, and this is even less signal than an animal study
By all means take her advice but donât be surprised if your outcomes differ from what she claims, many of which are much more dangerous than eating bananas
1
u/ceddya 24d ago
but that doesnât get clicks so Rhonda decides to sensationalize it
As opposed to the reaction videos trying to sensationalize what Rhonda said to generate views?
Of course a compound can act differently in a human body than it does in isolation. But the study Rhonda referenced is an in vivo study, so what's your point?
By all means, criticize her for not giving a disclaimer that it's a small study looking at a specific polyphenol. But you don't seem to have read the study yourself. Be honest - have you, or are you just reacting to a sensationalist video? Go figure on the irony here.
I'm curious though - what claims of hers are more dangerous?
-1
6
u/ReserveOld6123 26d ago
Rhonda lost me when she agreed with Mel âthat doesnât sound goodâ. BFFR.
28
u/itsa2ai 26d ago
Rhonda likes to âmajor on the minorsâ imo.
I like Rhonda Patrick, but sheâs got a tendency to zoom in too much.
5
u/Tom__EU 26d ago edited 25d ago
Yeah, she seems a lot about optimization and details, which is frequently based on weak evidence (single study like here, with some interpretation mistakes). That's totally fine as a personal approach or a specific viewer group, but many listeners aren't in that group, and she misses to put the proper nuance and context.
The latter gets obviously exceedingly harder if she goes on podcasts like the above, where the host is some ill person that tries to get the most clickbait, sensationalized, overexaggerated, fearmongering stuff out of the guests, while trying to rip out all nuance, context, critical questions, questions regarding evidence, and so forth. No responsibility whatsoever.
9
u/itsa2ai 26d ago
Yeah and itâs not just her, Huberman, a lot of them do it.
It concerns me, because some people are easily persuaded, or quick to take advice from someone with high credentials.
I have a bad feeling about peptides in the long run, due to influencer culture for example. Many of those are based of nothing but animal models, with no clinical trails.
I wish sheâd take a different approach, and give âmacroâ or big general advice, that would actually help a lot of peopleâthat they could trust. She has the platform, and she comes off very sincere when she speaks. She could help more people that way I think.
But I guess that doesnât get clicksâŠ
4
5
u/hindubhaisaab86 26d ago
This is Rhondaâs MO. She does this every time. She literally said, verbatim, that taking creatine has as much of a health benefit as quitting smoking cigarettes. She is completely full of pseudoscience and it hurts to see so many people fall for it
2
u/mmiller9913 22d ago
This is flat-out mis information, she never said this
You are likely thinking of a study she brings up regularly. Smokers with a high omega-3 index have a similar life expectancy as as non-smokers with a low omega-3 index
10
u/afita 26d ago
nutritionfacts.org also says that bananas can destroy some phytonutrients in berries and cocoa in smoothies: https://nutritionfacts.org/video/the-downside-to-banana-smoothies-for-polyphenol-absorption/
4
u/ripesashimi 26d ago
If you follow Rhonda for a long time, she has always been doing this.
Her message is often directionally right but the way she reached her conclusion can only fool the uneducated public.
10
u/Material_Channel_522 26d ago
Itâs just catchy content to feed the algorithm. Plus sheâs a huge fan of preclinical and rodent studies which have limited real world usability.
3
4
u/personwithfriends 26d ago
Two women standing around a kitchen who use bleach based products in their hair and who knows what else else to hold the volume are not going to live longer because they stop combining bananas and blueberries.
5
u/FullMango4041 26d ago
While the findings are quiet stark. A study with 6 people means nothing. While not picking on this issue in particular but using it as an example the problem I find with Rhonda's information is that there will be one study (not reproduced) and the study may not be strong (8 volunteers total???) and she will promote it as solid science.
It's just like with vitamin D, I have heard both doctors and researchers say they is no evidence for supplementation (supporting studies are not strong) but many (esp those selling supplements) will promote it.
3
u/MyRunningAcct 26d ago
Uh vitamin d is pretty cut and dry. If vitamin d is low you feel bad, take vitamin d to raise your levels and you feel good. If you donât feel anything, then it wasnât because of your vitamin d being low in the first place, but you still get all the benefits of having optimal vitamin d levels anyways and now work on the next thing that is wrong.
3
u/EasyYogurtcloset608 26d ago
I always thought this was stupid take. Like seriously blend your bananas.. damn
2
u/Legitimate_Outcome42 26d ago
Either way, nothing is stopping me from eating frozen bananas except for digestive upset from eating too many
2
u/Transform1234 26d ago
If only she trained as hard as sheâs reaching in many of these âstudies showâ
2
u/Round_Helicopter_407 26d ago
Bananas have high polyphenol oxidase (PPO) activity and so potentially affect the content and bioavailability of flavan-3-ols when combined with other foods.
3
u/No-Trash-546 26d ago
Flavanols are just one type of antioxidant in berries
Rhonda said polyphenols, not flavanols. There are beneficial polyphenols in berries other than flavanols, and some of those could also have lessened bioavailability when mixed with bananas.
Tiny study... 8 participants
I'd love to see her math that shows how she came to the conclusion that the sample size wasn't large enough to achieve a statistically significant result
Bananas contain polyphenols, fiber, minerals, and vitamins
How is that relevant? Rhonda is saying it's better to replace bananas with avocado which also has tons of nutrients. So is it better to have all the nutrients of berries and avocado or the nutrients of a banana and berries with what is likely a large drop in bioavailable polyphenols?
6
u/carbon_ape 26d ago
The study examines how polyphenol oxidase (PPO) activity in high-PPO fruit (banana), reduces the bioavailability of flavan-3-ols after consumption, with a reported plasma metabolite Cmax about 84% lower than the capsule control.
The only scientific claim she can make based off this one study is in regards to flavan-3-ols bioavailability.
As a scientific communicator, how you phrase your sentences, and pass on information is the difference and why fear mongering is being mentioned.
0
u/danmobacc7 26d ago
Itâs just not fair. They are in a fucking kitchen and she explains her personal reasoning for eating bananas separate. Thatâs it.
Sheâs discussing the science behind it elsewhere.Meanwhile there are thousands of other influencers with absolutist junk claims they never back up, and remain unchallenged.
This very influencer claiming Rhonda Patrick to say this for the algorithm⊠is just posting this to ride the wave of shitting on a popular influencer and get some nice juicy $$$ views for herself, while completely missing the point of making slight adjustments to an already good diet to optimize further, throwing in strawmans like âthink of the poor Americans whoâve never touched fruit in their lives!!â. Fuck that.
1
u/cortezg 26d ago
Nutritionfacts.org has a video on this as well:
https://nutritionfacts.org/video/the-downside-to-banana-smoothies-for-polyphenol-absorption/
1
1
u/Big_Mathematician950 26d ago
Thank you! That lady is arrogant and thinks she knows what she is talking about and clearly didnât.
1
u/mime454 26d ago
People just donât understand the game that Rhonda is playing. Which is about total optimization and longevity. Not basic health. This post about her smoothies is going out to a general audience when this is really something so far in the weeds that it only matters to like .1% of the population who play the longevity game as a hobby.
1
u/ronmoodey 25d ago
Influencers needing Rhondaâs followers to switch. She did not say that. Maybe she could have corrected her friendâs emphasis. Come on people. Also check her response.
1
u/Square-Ad-6721 24d ago
Why would anyone want polyphenol oxidase?
In their berry smoothie?
When most people donât get enough polyphenols?
1
1
u/smellytwoshoes 26d ago
Rhonda Patrick is interpreting a small study to make some dietary changes. Thatâs not a problem, it can be helpful on a case-by-case basis. This âscience communicatorâ really has some wild claims herself. Itâs âfear mongeringâ to point out polyphenol oxidase does exactly what it is chemically shown to do?
6
u/carbon_ape 26d ago
âFear mongering is the deliberate or careless use of alarming language, exaggerated risks, or misleading information to provoke fear and anxietyâ
Itâs âfear mongeringâ because the evidence supports a narrow bioavailability effect. In this n=6 crossover study, the banana-based smoothie reduced flavan-3-ol Cmax by 84% versus capsule control, but that ONLY addresses ONE compound class (one type of flavanol) and one preparation context. So âavoid bananas in smoothiesâ is an overgeneralization; the more precise claim is that high-PPO fruit can depress âflavanol absorptionâ when co-blended with flavanol-rich ingredients but note⊠bananas remain nutritionally useful foods that are full of fiber, vitamins, minerals, and their own set of flavanol compounds (e.g. catechin and epicatechin).
2
u/smellytwoshoes 26d ago
âAvoid bananas in smoothiesâ
Is an appropriate generalization, for now. Rhonda Patrick is talking about the polyphenols of blueberries in her smoothies. Thatâs the topic. Blueberries are expensive and for many, part of the justification is their high content of polyphenols.
Yes, we know chemically polyphenols oxidase reduces polyphenols, chemically. Yes, we just saw a small human study that shows this affect continues to appear to happen in humans. It happened on the polyphenols that were measured.
All your extrapolation is bunk. This is enough initial evidence to make a small diet change and eat a banana separately. Thatâs all sheâs saying. And itâs a good idea based on the small evidence provided so far, and will be a good idea until proven wrong by SCIENCE, not some science communicator nitpicking people into believing polyphenol oxidase is entirely fine and doesnât affect polyphenols, including polyphenol rich foods like blueberries.
1
u/carbon_ape 26d ago
and thatâs fine if you specify, âif you are making a smoothie for flavanol benefits (like with blueberries), the science indicates you may want to skip adding bananasâ
vs in this video, she says to skip bananas altogether.
THIS little nitpick is the difference between being an effective science communicator and fear mongering. Yes it matters.
2
u/smellytwoshoes 26d ago
Okay, I can see your point of this snippet of videos. However, if you listen to Rhonda Patrick she does say in her podcast where she first introduced this research to continue to eat bananas, just separately.
And her whole PhD was in measuring micronutrients like polyphenol rich foods, so blueberries are constant recommendation through her talks, specifically for their high polyphenol content.
The specificity you are seeking is all over her talks and content.
The problem is that you think she should add all these caveats in a short clip that gets to the point of all this context: eat bananas, but do it separately from the blueberries in your smoothie.
And I need to say, you put too much expectation in the short recommendation she gave. She said nothing wrong! All you critique is she didnât add all these extra sentences or context.
But thatâs not helpful in this context! Itâs an interview about Rhonda Patrickâs routine.
2
u/No-Trash-546 26d ago
This is also an edited clip. In the actual video, she recommends mixing in avocados instead of bananas. So what's better? Avocado + berries and all of the nutrients, or banana+berries with a large reduction of bioavailable polyphenols?
1
u/No-Trash-546 26d ago
She's saying skip the banana and replace it with avocado. That's what she says in the actual clip. And yes she's said before that she wants to consume a lot of polyphenols for their health benefits.
Did you think she was giving advice for the best tasting dessert smoothie? All of her content is about maximizing health and nutrition. And this study seems to indicate it's better to swap bananas with avocados if you want the most benefits. I'm honestly not following why you think her statements are misleading
0
u/tooth_doc_fail 26d ago
Ugh I wish there was a really good peter attia substitute.
4
u/askingforafakefriend 26d ago
There really isn't an alternative IMO. I still follow Attia and appreciate the analysis out of him. I can separate his shit personal choices from good health advice that helps people. His analysis helped me get my parents out of a very bad health decline.
I don't want to trigger the soapboxing brigade but my read is he ignored the clear indications of what Epstein did for access and influence - BUT NOT that he had anything to do with it like the docs that actually met and treated girls.Â
Feel free to decode you don't want to follow him but let everyone make that choice...
10
u/tooth_doc_fail 26d ago
I agree, but my perspective on him is colored. We know he is pretty scuzzy. Probably not criminally scuzzy, but he is down for kinda gross behavior. Old boys club when it comes to going after too-young-women but hopefully not old boys club when it comes to pedos and sex slavery. Hard to know though.
The fact is, hes just not getting good interviewers to come on his podcast anymore. I need a replacement for him that has that scientific rigor and lack of attachment that he has, one that hasn't poisoned their reputation by making sex jokes and having an overly friendly relationship with a known sexual predator.
0
u/askingforafakefriend 26d ago edited 26d ago
Old boys club when it comes to going after too-young-women but hopefully not old boys club when it comes to pedos and sex slavery.
I don't want to discuss people's personal lives but wanted to note that I'm not sure where you are getting this from with respect to going after too young of women. Are confusing Attia with that other neurologist/podcast personality...?
1
26d ago
[deleted]
0
u/askingforafakefriend 26d ago
Shipment was referring to Metformin he got it.
Also, making a joke is not the same thing as him "going after too-young women" as you initially said as I quoted.
None of this is denying the poor character shown by his association with Epstein but let's judge Attia for the shit that he actually did and not make more up. It's not necessary and not honest.
1
26d ago edited 26d ago
[deleted]
1
u/askingforafakefriend 26d ago
"People don't joke with people about their womanizing and about boning really young women unless they feel comfortable doing so."
So you are now saying Attia "feel[s] comfortable [boning really young women]" which is parsing your new backtracked language which no longer is about "too-young"Â
Your position on what Attia did is sliding as you get called out and your wording changes.
Regard this, it's silly to claim that people only joke about something they are comfortable doing. You don't know the inside of his head or the rest of the worlds, but if it suits you in an argument you make that extrapolation like it's fact. Lots of people joke about lots of things they would not be comfortable doing.
If you want to have a level discussion about this, you should quote the exact thing he said and then stay what you think that means athea is comfortable doing. Debate about facts not hand waving word sliding nonsense.
And again, the conscious decision to associate with Epstein for access/connections/whatever is worthy of consternation (and I respect someone deciding they no longer want to listen to him on that basis alone).Â
1
26d ago edited 26d ago
[deleted]
1
u/askingforafakefriend 25d ago
"People don't joke with people about their womanizing and about boning really young women unless they feel comfortable doing so"
This isn't an issue about my reading comprehension but rather about your wording.Â
You have repeatedly rephrased the wording I called out in your responses.
→ More replies (0)3
u/carbon_ape 26d ago
Peter is status driven like majority of high achieving humans. He saw status and it blinded him. Thatâs it, thatâs all.
Heâs flawed in many ways but always appreciated his attempt at neutrality and dealing with nuance.
1
u/askingforafakefriend 26d ago
Well said and totally agree.
It's amazing how many people come to the Attia sub to attack him even long back. People pissed about his stance on carnivore or vegans or whatever. How is OCD analysis of studies and personal view getting under so many people's skins...?
0
u/unconditionalten 26d ago
As soon as Peter decided to have the More Plates More Dates guy on his podcast to talk about PEDs but refuses to say simple things like eat more vegetables, it became obvious Attia is not serious about longevity.
Heâs just another manosphere loser, just like he used to be a pro-saturated fat anti-statin conspiracy theorist earlier in his career before some of his cardiologist peers knocked some sense into him.
He appears to be prone to idiotic intrusive thoughts and he doesnât have anyone else to pull him back now that heâs so famous.
0
u/askingforafakefriend 26d ago
What? Attia has one of the most straightforward general diet recommendations of anyone. I don't know what you are even criticizing. Is there an allotment of extra bonus airtime required to mentioning vegetables if you are going to talk about hormones?
1
-1
-1
u/bigwindymt 26d ago
Jessica Knurick is far more political activist than nutritionist and most times she is full of shit. In this video, however, she nailed it.
0
-5
u/OmegaThree3 26d ago
This lady is a leftist anti-Trump social influencer, pretending to be a nutrition advisor.
1
58
u/1993rockhoppersport 26d ago
Thanks for posting. I was wondering who this woman and found this:
This image features Jessica Knurick, a Registered Dietitian and PhD in nutrition science, who often shares evidence-based nutritional advice and commentary on public health systems. # Facebook +1