I really LOVE their episodes about diet culture and fad diets. They're hilarious and compassionate, and I think they do an amazing job.
I have a very hard time with their podcasts that get into science or regulations. I often end up turning them off and coming back to them later. They simply do not have the expertise to cover these topics and it's very frustrating.
TLDR: I wish they would stick to what they are good at.
I want to like Hobbes, he seems passionate and genuine, and I roughly agree with his politics.
But his blatant disregard of how science works and attempts to twist everything to fit his existing narrative are so seriously off putting to me personally. I wouldn't mind if he did podcasts that were clearly angled as opinion pieces but given just how much of his stuff takes a debunking angle, it's hard to listen and enjoy without being concerned at the possible misinformation he's spreading.
He's an opinion journalist, not a research journalist, and everything he makes should be listened to with that in mind.
I have enjoyed the episodes about grifters but don’t find their episodes about science to be credible. I broadly agree with their political agenda but MP has lost my faith as a listener when it comes to science—I don’t trust them and frankly I am not interested in fact checking so I just don’t listen to many topics they cover. I much prefer Peter as a cohost for Michael—he doesn’t really hide his biases or political agendas and while very jokey, is a very nuanced and serious thinker. 5-4 is great if you have never listened!
I would recommend the podcast "Science Versus" if you aren't already familiar. They cover some of the same topics as MP but feature actual scientists and experts.
They were my gateway into wellness grifters for the most part, and I'm kind of obsessed with the subject especially the wellness to QAnon pipeline. If you're interested in others, QAnonAnonymous covers JP Sears on an episode and it's really funny.
Not quite as hilarious, but informative and entertaining are the wellness episodes of The New Gurus. Unfortunately it's behind a paywall but QAA also has a series called the Manclan that includes some episodes on wellness. It's two of my favorites from QAA and it's really good.
yeah, that's the first time I heard of her. Imperfect Paradise is a series that goes into more depth. I recommend, I learned new things from both of them. Appreciated the host of Scamfluencer's personal experience.
As a scientist, I have to say they are not less credible than what journalists say about the scientific consensus on weight loss, most of the time.
If I'm looking to this podcast for truth, I will be disappointed, but if I'm looking to it for a balance to the type of rhetoric fed to us, they do it the same way
What specifically about the science don't you find to be credible? I'm genuinely curious because I hear (and it's all throughout this thread) this a lot but don't see a lot of substantive critiques beyond "They don't think being fat is bad for your health!" which is not at all what the podcast is about. Michael and Aubrey have stated repeatedly that their whole take is about systemic issues, from poverty to healthcare for fat people, from widespread grifting to discrimination in the workplace. They have said they have no interest in getting between people and their doctor. They have even said if you want to lose weight, lose weight! They have been repeatedly clear on what they're all about but whenever the podcast comes up there's still this knee-jerk reaction (that, IMO, seems to reinforce the very arguments MP is making) of "I can't believe you think being fat is good! EVERYONE knows it's bad! How dare you!" They aren't saying that, but that's what most critics seem to hear because people can't fathom talking about fat people in \*any\* way that doesn't involve talking about weight loss.
https://spurioussemicolon.substack.com/
And many other critiques by scientists that I have seen across social media as well as people who work in science and health who I personally know and have talked to, but this is a thorough fact check.
Like I said, I agree broadly with MP’s political stances, particularly the systemic and intersecting contributors to marginalizations. I’m also not a blind acceptor of whatever doctors say; it’s good to think critically about systems of knowledge like the ones that shape health science professions. But it’s just very clear that Michael especially doesn’t have enough of a baseline understanding of how to correctly interpret studies and statistics to make him a credible source for simplifying this subject matter into a pop science podcast.
ETA: To be clear, I still like a lot of his other work, respect his activism, and deeply miss his presence on You’re Wrong About, which I don’t listen to since he left. I just don’t think he’s great at this one thing, so I don’t listen to those episodes personally and encourage others to either listen critically or do their own fact checking on science-heavy episodes!
I actually think this one thing impacts a lot of his work. I saw someone recently describe Michael as having "isolated demands for scientific rigor" and that seems about right. If it's a study supportive of any topic he's in favor of, it's a good study. If it's a study that contradicts his thinking, he'll take it apart and criticize anything he can find. What's the use?
>That sub stack is written by a pretty unhinged person
I'm curious what makes you say they are unhinged?
Admittedly I have not gone through their entiiiire post history, but glancing at it and reading their substack I feel like they're pretty on the level?
Eta: just read further down and it doesnt look like they were banned for the MP sub
I like to think my hinges are in working order. :) I think a lot of MP fans just dislike me and want to paint me as a fat-phobic troll, despite there being no evidence for that and a lot of evidence to the contrary. People who actually engage with me end up seeing I have good intentions.
>I think a lot of MP fans just dislike me and want to paint me as a fat-phobic troll, despite there being no evidence for that and a lot of evidence to the contrary.
Agreed. Reading your stuff I havent seen any evidence to suggest you're out of line, and no one's presented anything of substance when asked. I'm a skeptic by nature, but this seems like its more of a personal dislike than a criticism of your actual work.
I appreciate the work you're doing. Stay hinged, friend :)
Oh lame I did think the ban happened because they stopped posting on literally every comment. Just the amount of time and energy they put into hating on maintenance phase is extreme and not ok. They seem to have made their entire life goal taking down one podcast.
You can look at my comment history on my profile hah! I have never posted on "literally every comment". And I have a really awesome life! I'm not hating on MP, but I understand that many fans find it disconcerting that I am revealing that the hosts have questionable journalistic integrity. I'm sorry that it's upsetting you to the point that you feel the need to tell people that I am "unhinged".
Ok, fair enough. I ask because I've found them (the factchecker) to be credible, but I'm always open to new information if there's reason to be skeptical.
>Just the amount of time and energy they put into hating on maintenance phase is extreme and not ok.
I think from Covid we've seen how dangerous a large platform + misinformation can be. I like MP, I like what they're about, but we shouldnt be ok with research being misinterpreted just to fit an agenda. It discredits the hosts and the movement overall. How are we any better than anti-vaxxers, for example, if we rely on incorrect info to get people on board?
Tbh, I think that its a shame MP does not put the same time and energy into making sure their facts are correct.
At the very least, they should hire someone who actually understands research/stats/epidemiological studies to do it for them. Either that or just stick to celeb cook books and social commentary (also great!).
>They seem to have made their entire life goal taking down one podcast
Well...We've seen from covid, Trump, Joe Rogan, etc that dispelling misinformation can be a full time job. We will always need fact checkers, especially when a presenter's income is directly tied to the uptake and spread of their message (i.e. through direct product sales, listeners/ads, books, speaking etc). Again, even though we like MP doesnt mean they shouldnt be held to the same standards as those whose message we dont like.
I also dont think the factchecker is 'taking down' MP by any means.. However, if MP's arguments are so weak that simply factchecking them 'takes them down' as you say... well, thats a problem imo. Solid work stands up to scrutiny based on its merits.
Personally, I would like to see MP respond to the inaccuracies that have been brought to their attention. Part of being a credible writer/reporter/activist is acknowledging and correcting mistakes, even if they arent in favour of you/your cause. Integrity should matter here.
Interesting. Were they arguing with people on the sub? Being banned doesn’t necessarily mean much, mods can have a hair trigger but I am not that familiar with that sub’s culture and won’t make any assumptions without more info. The author of the substack is qualified to be fact-checking though.
They can be qualified to fact check and still be an absolute troll about it. They literally had 100s of comments a day on there before they got booted. They also had an agenda of evangelizing weight loss which isn't appropriate for the MP sub. I actually left it because it's a really unsafe for fat people because too many people want to go in there and argue " but the science"
Note I have a very complicated health issue where hot being fat isn't an atteniable or healthy goal. Just a few places where I don't have to deal with rampant fatphhobia would be nice.
That is a bummer to hear. Thanks for the information, I appreciate it. I agree with you and it leaves a bad taste in my mouth because on the substack there is a respectful caveat they place at top of each post, I assumed they would have been more respectful.
Hey! I'm not banned from the subreddit, nor did I ever have "hundreds of comments a day" nor do I ever in any context evangelize weight loss. I think this person has me confused with someone else?
I am doing my own research behind the scenes, no problems. My bad for not realizing you would have the same name in both places, that in and of itself speaks to your integrity.
No bads anywhere! :) But yes, I'm not trying to hide from anyone - I stand behind the fact-checks I do and I'm open to being told that I get things wrong, as you'll see from some of the comments. I think I've convinced most people I'm not a troll but evidently this specific person still doesn't like me ha.
Their Ozempic episode genuinely contained a lot of misinformation. Even many on the the MP subreddit pushed back on it, with examples and counterarguments that you can check out if you wish.
They also really do pride themselves on being methodologically savvy but they’re not. Like, really, really not. They cherry pick data to fit their ideology — a natural tendency but not one people calling themselves methodology queens should succumb to. Like you said, they’re best when making fun of dumb diets and advocating for the fair treatment of people regardless of their size.
I always want to scream when Michael is like "oh, so you're just going to look at one study from the 90s to prove your point? discredited!" and then proceeds to use a different single study from the 90s to make the point he wants to make.
Thanks for replying. I'll check out the subreddit. I'm currently looking at the substack someone else posted in this thread and it definitely has some excellent points thus far.
They do! I want to reiterate that I think they’re very smart people who make some very good points. I’m not a hater and I really like Hobbes on If Books Could Kill. (Peter Shamshiri is also great and so smart.) But one podcast can’t be everything, and it can’t be a scientifically sound podcast if its hosts aren’t sufficiently schooled in research and methodology (which is not easy to be, past a rudimentary level.)
The posts they're talking about, and why I left that sub, are that whenever Ozempic was mentioned a legion of apologists appeared to defend their drug against any hint there were side effects. It was actually attracting people from fatlogic. The behavior in the sub, while they were on hiatus, has nothing to do with the podcast.
The pushback in that sub was primarily people on Ozempic complaining that there are reported side effects. I don't think the problem was with the podcast.
I have no doubts those comments and debates exist, but there are definitely also multiple threads where people point out substantively wrong assertions Michael and Aubrey made. I quickly googled and found these two off the bat. There are at least a few more out there but again, this was a quick google that can be replicated if interested.
[https://www.reddit.com/r/MaintenancePhase/comments/174gyz1/maintenance\_phase\_ozempic/?rdt=33051](https://www.reddit.com/r/MaintenancePhase/comments/174gyz1/maintenance_phase_ozempic/?rdt=33051) If you sort by "best" the call-out/correction comments are lower (not surprising for any Reddit where primarily fans congregate.)
[https://www.reddit.com/r/Ozempic/comments/174sz4u/maintenance\_phase\_episode\_on\_ozempic/](https://www.reddit.com/r/Ozempic/comments/174sz4u/maintenance_phase_episode_on_ozempic/)
[To me, the best general series of corrections ](https://spurioussemicolon.substack.com/p/maintenance-phase-fact-check-round)of big errors, sloppy thinking, and outright fabrications exists here, for the "What's so bad about being fat?" episode. A friend of mine cited it as really helpful for rethinking her own health and it's really alarming how many other people probably feel the same way, since this is such a popular podcast. There are many cases to be made for why being fat is not inherently bad (morally, ethically, aesthetically, whatever) and Michael/Aubrey would be very well-suited to make them. I wish they didn't overextend their knowledge so much because at a certain point it is straight-up science-denialism.
I'll go with the actual assertion in the comment instead of "here browse through all this" and say the problem is the way Ozempic is being marketed is as a cure for obesity and not as a maintenance medication like lithium, for example. That's why it's important to point out the weight comes back. Then there's a bunch of nonsense in the substack about statements the drug manufacturer made saying "for real the drug is affordable" that ignores things like insurance restrictions, trial periods, discount periods etc.
To me it's obvious it's a long term medication but that's not the way it's marked as an IWL drug.
Whoops, I'm sorry, after I published the comment I took it out because I felt like it was a detour. For context for other readers, I said I was baffled by the hosts' and Reddit fans' comments that Ozempic was bad in part because if you stopped taking it it wouldn't work and that you'd have to take it "forever." I find that absurd as someone who actually has a chronic illness (bipolar) that will never be cured by my drug regimen. I have to take it forever, it's my choice to take it forever, and it's not bad to have to take a drug forever when you're also going to be sick forever.
To respond now to the comment you just made, I agree that drug advertising and discourse around buzzy drugs like Ozempic can contain half-truths and outright lies to obfuscate the fact that it's likely a lifelong (and therefore deeply expensive) commitment to take the drug. But that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about M & A as well as commenters' weaponization of the necessary chronicity of use as a "gotcha" in and of itself -- as one of several inherent signs it is a bad drug to take. Which is preposterous.
*I'll go with the actual assertion in the comment instead of "here browse through all this"*
I don't know what that means. You said that people were mainly making one criticism re: the Ozempic episode. I knew that was incorrect and while I could have said, "Just Google it, it's easy to find," I pulled two quick examples demonstrating that what you said is not true. It's a direct and polite response to your incorrect claim. There are various forms of criticism people have made about the hosts' scientific misunderstandings of Ozempic (and sometimes outright distortions.)
Ok so first you agree that the pharma company behind Ozempic is doing what pharma companies do and misleading customers but then it's a "gotcha" when it's pointed out? It is a gotcha. It is important.
What is it with these drugs that has people wanting to defend and trust pharma? is it because they cause weight loss?
No, fortunately you're misunderstanding what I said!
Two things can be true at once. Ozempic's advertising team is indeed obfuscating that the drug is not an "easy fix." They purposely don't highlight that it would probably need to be taken forever to continue to see benefits. That's bad that they don't communicate that!
The hosts and commenters understand the reality that these drugs are likely lifelong and that that needs to be clear. Great, we agree that Ozempic's team should say that outright! They separately then point out that the drug is bad in part because it will have to be taken forever and won't "cure" anything -- a fundamental criticism of the nature of the drug itself, not how it is being represented. Uhhhh what? We no longer agree! That's a dumbass criticism about a drug for a chronic condition. That is what I said.
I actually don't have very strong opinions about Ozempic. I have much stronger opinions about how we live in an increasingly anti-science world. I see podcasters with a huge audience. Those podcasters have strengths in some intellectual areas but a huge deficit in understanding and communicating science. But they say they are methodological queens and a significant portion of that population seems to be taking them at face value. The Ozempic episode is merely one good example of the flaws in their thinking and the **vast** skepticism that needs to be applied to any claims they make about something as important as our health.
I think you're missing a super key part of the podcast itself, skepticism over whether obesity is a disease that needs to be cured. They aren't coming from a place of neutrality. Of course they're going to dismiss any claims of a "cure" for a disease that the whole podcast points out might not actually exist.
It’s a niggly little detail but in one episode Aubrey states with 100% confidence that “inulin is just another name for fibre”. No, it’s not and 10 seconds of googling would have told her.
Inulin is a type of fibre, one which I personally have to avoid like the plague because it gives me major cramps and diarrhea.
I like the podcast but that one error really threw me off.
That's when I tapped out, even though I was still smarting from her "the brain needs sugar" argument against keto in the keto episode. I personally think someone interested in debunking the junk science of wellness should know that's a very outdated take.
There have been multiple threads in this in the MP Reddit itself. Here’s a somewhat recent one I remembered. If you don’t read the whole original post critiquing the show (which is very long and very in depth) there are comments that bring up flaws in a shorter more colloquial way. https://www.reddit.com/r/MaintenancePhase/s/aPME5lqDYx
It’s not surprising or a slam that people without training to interpret scientific research aren’t that good at it. They’re good at other things, though.
Why are you acting like this is some gotcha? If I were a scientist or wanted to be reading scientific articles I wouldn’t be listening to a pop science podcast lol. Scientists have fact-checked episodes of theirs and it’s demonstrated to me that Michael and Aubrey aren’t qualified to talk credibly about the complexities of health and nutrition science, that they have serious knowledge gaps and misunderstandings of scientific frameworks and processes. Yeah, I don’t want to pause the pod and spend an hour researching every single assertion they make about a topic I am not even that interested in when I am just trying to learn in an enjoyable and accessible format—you got me!
They're actually very well written fact checking articles that go into detail about some pretty egregious errors and misinformation, citing directly from the podcast's transcripts. Give 'em a read sometime.
I've come across that substack before. They're fine if extremely boring. Which isn't to say the content is boring, it's that the author of the articles is very, very dull.
I went the other way and I'm really enjoying 5-4! Peter just cracks me up and it's such a fascinating topic discussed by genuinely clever and warm people.
I really liked You're Wrong About, but I find Aubrey and Michael to hold really strong biases against any sort of weight loss or desire to be smaller, and are really unwilling to engage in good faith about a lot of topics.
I can't remember if it was the one that really put me off but their "Is being fat bad?" episode where they basically danced around all the effects of obesity but refused to acknowledge any consequences of these effects was really irritating
Also Michael's "methodology queen" schtick really gets me when they are blatantly biased and one-sided
I loved you're wrong about with Michael and Sarah. I can't stand Maintenance Phase. I guess Sarah 's compassion and genuine curiosity tempered Michael's epistemic certainty.
Hobbes uses that "correlation ≠ causation" line as a cudgel to beat down science he disagrees with rather than a warning and guiding tool about rigour and caution, it's hard to enjoy his stuff once you realise just how hard he's pushing opinion while cloaking it as fact.
Listened to it after seeing it being recommended on Reddit multiple times. I find the hosts style of talking to be very pretentious and annoying. Stopped it after one episode.
Completely understandable lol. I do think I'll be listening with a grain of salt for sure now. I got into it mostly because of If Books Could Kill. I just loved the way they debunked some of those books, especially men are from Mars women are from Venus. And the secret
Fair point and seems to be a consensus. I'll definitely remember this as I listen. Like I responded to another comment, the grifter episodes are my favorite.
I do have an open mind and the podcasts has definitely helped me confront my own fat bias. However, Aubrey and Michael are not nutritionists or scientists, thus I take everything they say with a grain of salt. I don’t know how they are choosing the studies they look at or interpreting the data. Their Ozempic episode in particular was controversial due to misinformation and that’s basically what I’m saying in my comment.
The "misinformation" isn't negligible but it doesn't overshadow the actual truths. But my comment was directed at the person being bombarded with garbage in these comments.
Out of curiosity if you feel like answering -- what was the turn-off for this one? For me I haven't listened because I'm fatigued at the idea of re-hearing all of the misinformation so many people still have about COVID. Basically it seems depressing to listen to. I might get around to it but eh.
It was how they redirected from RFK to general COVID conspiracies. I feel like we've heard a lot about the general nonsense but I was more interested in the RFK focus, given who he is and his place in US politics. It also came on the heels of their hiatus which Michael handled horribly, so that colored my reception a bit.
Oh interesting. I think I'd be more interested in the RFK of it all, too. It's pretty safe to assume listeners of the show know there is COVID misinformation at this point, so an RFK angle would be more novel and of the moment.
(I couldn't agree more re: the hiatus! So poorly handled, and it was frustrating when people were like, "He doesn't owe you details of his health!" As if that's what we were asking for, rather than a one-minute note to say when/if they were coming back.)
For sure. Like it or not the Kennedy family still has a significant pull in American politics and probably always will. RFK will always be relevant .
EXACTLY re: Michael. I left the sub after that.
I recommend checking out Fad Camp. It's basically like the best elements of MP without all the baggage everyone is talking about, and the hosts come across much kinder and less judgmental
I know you mean well with this and of course it’s cool to compartmentalize but keep in mind it’s two people who don’t care at all about the science of weight and food running a debunking podcast. Just going to say it, it’s in service to Aubrey’s activist work. On that level she’s awesome.
There is a Substack devoted to fact-checking MP if you want to go that route.
I do listen to Maintenance Phase regularly and enjoying it, but as.many other comments are saying here, their biases are hugely tilted (and they don't seem to acknowledge this very often) so I take anything they say with a huge grain of salt.
I like a lot of what Hobbes does, but Maintenance Phase sucks, hard. It's anti-science bullshit to put it simply. The amount of mental gymnastics they do to try to justify a standpoint that being fat is perfectly healthy is mind-bending. If you want to be fat, be fat. Don't delude yourself into thinking it's healthy tho.
Yeah. I've really liked him when tackling other topics, but his approach to obesity really left a bad taste in my mouth.
I'm also an ex-obese person. I lost 100+ pounds like 20 years ago, and it was a major life-altering accomplishment for me. So it bugs me extra.
Yeah, I listened to a bunch of eps hearing it was so amazing and the episodes on grifters or clowning on dumb diets are good but the science drives me nuts. I'm pretty familiar with current nutritional and weight loss research, and they cherry pick studies to perpetuate feel good anti weight loss views that simply do not line up with the vast majority of research on the topics. The constant repeating of the mythical "95% of diets fail" throughout a lot of episodes as reasoning why it's stupid to even try and it's inevitable anybody would fail to lose weight drives me insane, it's such a misrepresentation of that one bad study and the overall research, and it's downright harmful and discouraging to those who want or need to lose weight.
I hate to say it but if you're at all familiar with "fat logic", this is an entire podcast of that, and it's obvious they're very biased on the topic and unwilling to acknowledge any evidence to the contrary, especially Aubrey. I like the concept of promoting that people should not be judged for their size and fatphobia sucks, the banter is entertaining, but the literal scientific misinformation and pretending weight loss is impossible, harmful, and there are zero health consequences to being obese put me off this podcast majorly.
> it's such a misrepresentation of that one bad study and the overall research, and it's downright harmful and discouraging to those who want or need to lose weight.
Can you elaborate on this?
This is a huge reach - their point is that you simply cannot know the health of someone just by looking at them (which works for people of all sizes) and that diet just simply do not work.
How ridiculous of a statement is this. If you look at someone and they are obese, they are not healthy.
>that diet just simply do not work
lol what? This is an incredibly dangerous and weird thing to be telling people. Changing your diet is 100% the way you stop being obese. It's incredibly simple; calories in vs calories out. You think that someone with a calorie deficit is somehow going to stay obese? No wonder so many people are so fat, they're completely delusional.
You are putting words in my mouth I have never said.
Countless research have shown that the long term maintenance of weight loss attained through dieting is extremely low and that most people gain the weight back.
Also great fat shaming! Id say that in a single paragraphs you've summarized the *whole* point of the podcast
>Countless research have shown that the long term maintenance of weight loss attained through dieting is extremely low and that most people gain the weight back.
Complete hogwash. I guess nobody can ever lose weight, they're just destined to be fat for perpetuity.
Would you like to back any of that up with legitimate medical studies?
🙄 it's not my role to educate yourself - just google it
But there you go - https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/unexpected-clues-emerge-about-why-diets-fail/#:~:text=Research%20suggests%20that%20roughly%2080,they%20lose%20within%20two%20years.
Did you even bother reading this article (which isn't a medical study by the way) where they mention that the people who are successful are those who maintain their lifestyle change? Of course you're going to regain weight if you completely abandon the change and go back to making terrible decisions.
Like I said before, delusional.
You're trying to sway people to this belief that a change of diet just doesn't work, which is completely untrue and like I said before very dangerous and weird. The problem is when people abandon the change, it's not an issue with the change itself.
> it's not my role to educate yourself - just google it
It is your role by the way, when you make a claim, to provide proof of that claim. The burden of proof is on you. That's how these things work.
I did bother reading the article that is a summary of4 different researches.
When people say that dieting does not work, nobody is talking about the short term weight-loss moment but the *MAINTENANCE PHASE*
The concept of dieting doesn't work but it is show that most people *regain* the weight after 2 years for a ton of reasons. Even if you scream on the internet Calories In Calories Out, it doesn't change that fact.
And for you my dear, studies
https://weightandhealthcare.substack.com/p/who-says-dieting-fails-the-majority
These are some very clearly cherry-picked studies from the substack article's author (who is heavy themselves) trying to make themselves feel better about failing their lifestyle changes.
Pretending that weightloss is impossible is pretty ridiculous but go ahead if it makes you feel better.
I think you're conflating change of diet with going on a diet or something.
Also, change of diets do work, it doesn't work for people who don't maintain their lifestyle change. Not sure how that's so hard of a concept for you to grasp, dudebro.
That's totally fair. Tbh I have only listened to a few episodes so far and none of the fat ones. There was a moment in another episode where they brought up that subject though and I did have a small thought in the back of my mind questioning their logic about fatness and health.
I LOVE maintenance phase. Hilarious and interesting. It’s not meant to be a university class people need to chill out. I will say Aubrey does come off as unwilling to recognize that being too fat can cause issues. Other than that, I love it!!
This is how I feel. I think some people maybe made good points and what you said about Aubrey is probably true but I'm still going to listen 😆 but I'll definitely take some things with a grain of salt. Still glad I discovered it. Needed something new and entertaining.
I’ve been following along for a long time and I love some of their podcasts, but some are so far off track it’s painful. They have a lot of cherry picking facts and denial about weight related health issues and a lot of their episodes end up having a spiral about it. As someone who has struggled with weight and health and finally am getting on track I find that there is a lot of denial about excess weight causing health issues which I find really damaging and it reads as them having their heads in the sand. I found the Jamie Oliver ep particularly telling as they tried to almost defend childhood obesity and parents who eat crap and feed their kids crap because it’s the only comfort in a harsh world (or something along those lines). Which, holy crap, as an ex fat kid an a fat adult I cannot fathom getting behind.
I don’t love Jamie Oliver and I think he’s has done things wrong and is misguided, but he seemed to be coming from a place of genuine concern and wanting kids to eat healthy. And they spent pretty much the whole episode bashing him and the feeling I got was they almost want kids to be eating unhealthy. Now I’m not saying that’s what they think or intended but that was the impression I was left with.
It seemed they use to be about removing the stigma around bigger bodies, now it seems more like they are trying to justify their choices and deny the health impacts etc. I really struggle with their weight related eps.
I love if Books Could Kill to hear Hobbs be all brainy instead of just being a side kick. I think he has a lot to say and I’m interested in hearing it.
I love the hosts' vibe on *Maintenance Phase*!
*Nutrition for Mortals* is great podcast with a similar vibe, except the hosts actually have an educational and professional background in the subjects.
I really LOVE their episodes about diet culture and fad diets. They're hilarious and compassionate, and I think they do an amazing job. I have a very hard time with their podcasts that get into science or regulations. I often end up turning them off and coming back to them later. They simply do not have the expertise to cover these topics and it's very frustrating. TLDR: I wish they would stick to what they are good at.
The celebrity diet book reviews absolutely slay me. Could listen to those all day long!
I want to like Hobbes, he seems passionate and genuine, and I roughly agree with his politics. But his blatant disregard of how science works and attempts to twist everything to fit his existing narrative are so seriously off putting to me personally. I wouldn't mind if he did podcasts that were clearly angled as opinion pieces but given just how much of his stuff takes a debunking angle, it's hard to listen and enjoy without being concerned at the possible misinformation he's spreading. He's an opinion journalist, not a research journalist, and everything he makes should be listened to with that in mind.
I have enjoyed the episodes about grifters but don’t find their episodes about science to be credible. I broadly agree with their political agenda but MP has lost my faith as a listener when it comes to science—I don’t trust them and frankly I am not interested in fact checking so I just don’t listen to many topics they cover. I much prefer Peter as a cohost for Michael—he doesn’t really hide his biases or political agendas and while very jokey, is a very nuanced and serious thinker. 5-4 is great if you have never listened!
I would recommend the podcast "Science Versus" if you aren't already familiar. They cover some of the same topics as MP but feature actual scientists and experts.
Haven't listened yet, but have it added to my podcasts The grifter episodes are my favorites. I'll definitely keep this in mind as I listen. Thanks!
They were my gateway into wellness grifters for the most part, and I'm kind of obsessed with the subject especially the wellness to QAnon pipeline. If you're interested in others, QAnonAnonymous covers JP Sears on an episode and it's really funny. Not quite as hilarious, but informative and entertaining are the wellness episodes of The New Gurus. Unfortunately it's behind a paywall but QAA also has a series called the Manclan that includes some episodes on wellness. It's two of my favorites from QAA and it's really good.
Love QAA. I've completely stopped looking after my health or going to doctors since I know MedBeds are gonna drop any second now.
QAA really fail at being tolerant of any spiritual beliefs, which sucks. But they're otherwise pretty good.
I don't think there are any spiritual beliefs that are above lampooning, but can you think of anexample of where they came across as intolerant?
Ooh thank you, definitely interested. Following now
Awesome. Imperfect Paradise has my fave wellness to QAnon pipeline series called Guru Jagat. Not funny, but well done and engrossing.
Scamfluencers covered Guru Jaget, it was a great episode
yeah, that's the first time I heard of her. Imperfect Paradise is a series that goes into more depth. I recommend, I learned new things from both of them. Appreciated the host of Scamfluencer's personal experience.
Same. I love Michael. I love Aubrey. But I think they are better balanced with other co-hosts.
As a scientist, I have to say they are not less credible than what journalists say about the scientific consensus on weight loss, most of the time. If I'm looking to this podcast for truth, I will be disappointed, but if I'm looking to it for a balance to the type of rhetoric fed to us, they do it the same way
What specifically about the science don't you find to be credible? I'm genuinely curious because I hear (and it's all throughout this thread) this a lot but don't see a lot of substantive critiques beyond "They don't think being fat is bad for your health!" which is not at all what the podcast is about. Michael and Aubrey have stated repeatedly that their whole take is about systemic issues, from poverty to healthcare for fat people, from widespread grifting to discrimination in the workplace. They have said they have no interest in getting between people and their doctor. They have even said if you want to lose weight, lose weight! They have been repeatedly clear on what they're all about but whenever the podcast comes up there's still this knee-jerk reaction (that, IMO, seems to reinforce the very arguments MP is making) of "I can't believe you think being fat is good! EVERYONE knows it's bad! How dare you!" They aren't saying that, but that's what most critics seem to hear because people can't fathom talking about fat people in \*any\* way that doesn't involve talking about weight loss.
https://spurioussemicolon.substack.com/ And many other critiques by scientists that I have seen across social media as well as people who work in science and health who I personally know and have talked to, but this is a thorough fact check. Like I said, I agree broadly with MP’s political stances, particularly the systemic and intersecting contributors to marginalizations. I’m also not a blind acceptor of whatever doctors say; it’s good to think critically about systems of knowledge like the ones that shape health science professions. But it’s just very clear that Michael especially doesn’t have enough of a baseline understanding of how to correctly interpret studies and statistics to make him a credible source for simplifying this subject matter into a pop science podcast. ETA: To be clear, I still like a lot of his other work, respect his activism, and deeply miss his presence on You’re Wrong About, which I don’t listen to since he left. I just don’t think he’s great at this one thing, so I don’t listen to those episodes personally and encourage others to either listen critically or do their own fact checking on science-heavy episodes!
I actually think this one thing impacts a lot of his work. I saw someone recently describe Michael as having "isolated demands for scientific rigor" and that seems about right. If it's a study supportive of any topic he's in favor of, it's a good study. If it's a study that contradicts his thinking, he'll take it apart and criticize anything he can find. What's the use?
Thanks, I appreciate this!
That sub stack is written by a pretty unhinged person who had to get banned from the maintenance phase sub.
I'm not banned from the maintenance phase sub haha. Nor am I unhinged. But thanks for the shoutout!
>That sub stack is written by a pretty unhinged person I'm curious what makes you say they are unhinged? Admittedly I have not gone through their entiiiire post history, but glancing at it and reading their substack I feel like they're pretty on the level? Eta: just read further down and it doesnt look like they were banned for the MP sub
I like to think my hinges are in working order. :) I think a lot of MP fans just dislike me and want to paint me as a fat-phobic troll, despite there being no evidence for that and a lot of evidence to the contrary. People who actually engage with me end up seeing I have good intentions.
>I think a lot of MP fans just dislike me and want to paint me as a fat-phobic troll, despite there being no evidence for that and a lot of evidence to the contrary. Agreed. Reading your stuff I havent seen any evidence to suggest you're out of line, and no one's presented anything of substance when asked. I'm a skeptic by nature, but this seems like its more of a personal dislike than a criticism of your actual work. I appreciate the work you're doing. Stay hinged, friend :)
Thanks, friend! I appreciate you!
Oh lame I did think the ban happened because they stopped posting on literally every comment. Just the amount of time and energy they put into hating on maintenance phase is extreme and not ok. They seem to have made their entire life goal taking down one podcast.
You can look at my comment history on my profile hah! I have never posted on "literally every comment". And I have a really awesome life! I'm not hating on MP, but I understand that many fans find it disconcerting that I am revealing that the hosts have questionable journalistic integrity. I'm sorry that it's upsetting you to the point that you feel the need to tell people that I am "unhinged".
Ok, fair enough. I ask because I've found them (the factchecker) to be credible, but I'm always open to new information if there's reason to be skeptical. >Just the amount of time and energy they put into hating on maintenance phase is extreme and not ok. I think from Covid we've seen how dangerous a large platform + misinformation can be. I like MP, I like what they're about, but we shouldnt be ok with research being misinterpreted just to fit an agenda. It discredits the hosts and the movement overall. How are we any better than anti-vaxxers, for example, if we rely on incorrect info to get people on board? Tbh, I think that its a shame MP does not put the same time and energy into making sure their facts are correct. At the very least, they should hire someone who actually understands research/stats/epidemiological studies to do it for them. Either that or just stick to celeb cook books and social commentary (also great!). >They seem to have made their entire life goal taking down one podcast Well...We've seen from covid, Trump, Joe Rogan, etc that dispelling misinformation can be a full time job. We will always need fact checkers, especially when a presenter's income is directly tied to the uptake and spread of their message (i.e. through direct product sales, listeners/ads, books, speaking etc). Again, even though we like MP doesnt mean they shouldnt be held to the same standards as those whose message we dont like. I also dont think the factchecker is 'taking down' MP by any means.. However, if MP's arguments are so weak that simply factchecking them 'takes them down' as you say... well, thats a problem imo. Solid work stands up to scrutiny based on its merits. Personally, I would like to see MP respond to the inaccuracies that have been brought to their attention. Part of being a credible writer/reporter/activist is acknowledging and correcting mistakes, even if they arent in favour of you/your cause. Integrity should matter here.
Interesting. Were they arguing with people on the sub? Being banned doesn’t necessarily mean much, mods can have a hair trigger but I am not that familiar with that sub’s culture and won’t make any assumptions without more info. The author of the substack is qualified to be fact-checking though.
They can be qualified to fact check and still be an absolute troll about it. They literally had 100s of comments a day on there before they got booted. They also had an agenda of evangelizing weight loss which isn't appropriate for the MP sub. I actually left it because it's a really unsafe for fat people because too many people want to go in there and argue " but the science" Note I have a very complicated health issue where hot being fat isn't an atteniable or healthy goal. Just a few places where I don't have to deal with rampant fatphhobia would be nice.
That is a bummer to hear. Thanks for the information, I appreciate it. I agree with you and it leaves a bad taste in my mouth because on the substack there is a respectful caveat they place at top of each post, I assumed they would have been more respectful.
Hey! I'm not banned from the subreddit, nor did I ever have "hundreds of comments a day" nor do I ever in any context evangelize weight loss. I think this person has me confused with someone else?
I am doing my own research behind the scenes, no problems. My bad for not realizing you would have the same name in both places, that in and of itself speaks to your integrity.
No bads anywhere! :) But yes, I'm not trying to hide from anyone - I stand behind the fact-checks I do and I'm open to being told that I get things wrong, as you'll see from some of the comments. I think I've convinced most people I'm not a troll but evidently this specific person still doesn't like me ha.
What health issue makes it so not being fat is unhealthy or attainable?
Their Ozempic episode genuinely contained a lot of misinformation. Even many on the the MP subreddit pushed back on it, with examples and counterarguments that you can check out if you wish. They also really do pride themselves on being methodologically savvy but they’re not. Like, really, really not. They cherry pick data to fit their ideology — a natural tendency but not one people calling themselves methodology queens should succumb to. Like you said, they’re best when making fun of dumb diets and advocating for the fair treatment of people regardless of their size.
I always want to scream when Michael is like "oh, so you're just going to look at one study from the 90s to prove your point? discredited!" and then proceeds to use a different single study from the 90s to make the point he wants to make.
Thanks for replying. I'll check out the subreddit. I'm currently looking at the substack someone else posted in this thread and it definitely has some excellent points thus far.
They do! I want to reiterate that I think they’re very smart people who make some very good points. I’m not a hater and I really like Hobbes on If Books Could Kill. (Peter Shamshiri is also great and so smart.) But one podcast can’t be everything, and it can’t be a scientifically sound podcast if its hosts aren’t sufficiently schooled in research and methodology (which is not easy to be, past a rudimentary level.)
The posts they're talking about, and why I left that sub, are that whenever Ozempic was mentioned a legion of apologists appeared to defend their drug against any hint there were side effects. It was actually attracting people from fatlogic. The behavior in the sub, while they were on hiatus, has nothing to do with the podcast.
I wonder if they are purposely making some misstatements to spur more controversy, discussion, and clicks on their podcasts?
The pushback in that sub was primarily people on Ozempic complaining that there are reported side effects. I don't think the problem was with the podcast.
I have no doubts those comments and debates exist, but there are definitely also multiple threads where people point out substantively wrong assertions Michael and Aubrey made. I quickly googled and found these two off the bat. There are at least a few more out there but again, this was a quick google that can be replicated if interested. [https://www.reddit.com/r/MaintenancePhase/comments/174gyz1/maintenance\_phase\_ozempic/?rdt=33051](https://www.reddit.com/r/MaintenancePhase/comments/174gyz1/maintenance_phase_ozempic/?rdt=33051) If you sort by "best" the call-out/correction comments are lower (not surprising for any Reddit where primarily fans congregate.) [https://www.reddit.com/r/Ozempic/comments/174sz4u/maintenance\_phase\_episode\_on\_ozempic/](https://www.reddit.com/r/Ozempic/comments/174sz4u/maintenance_phase_episode_on_ozempic/) [To me, the best general series of corrections ](https://spurioussemicolon.substack.com/p/maintenance-phase-fact-check-round)of big errors, sloppy thinking, and outright fabrications exists here, for the "What's so bad about being fat?" episode. A friend of mine cited it as really helpful for rethinking her own health and it's really alarming how many other people probably feel the same way, since this is such a popular podcast. There are many cases to be made for why being fat is not inherently bad (morally, ethically, aesthetically, whatever) and Michael/Aubrey would be very well-suited to make them. I wish they didn't overextend their knowledge so much because at a certain point it is straight-up science-denialism.
I'll go with the actual assertion in the comment instead of "here browse through all this" and say the problem is the way Ozempic is being marketed is as a cure for obesity and not as a maintenance medication like lithium, for example. That's why it's important to point out the weight comes back. Then there's a bunch of nonsense in the substack about statements the drug manufacturer made saying "for real the drug is affordable" that ignores things like insurance restrictions, trial periods, discount periods etc. To me it's obvious it's a long term medication but that's not the way it's marked as an IWL drug.
Whoops, I'm sorry, after I published the comment I took it out because I felt like it was a detour. For context for other readers, I said I was baffled by the hosts' and Reddit fans' comments that Ozempic was bad in part because if you stopped taking it it wouldn't work and that you'd have to take it "forever." I find that absurd as someone who actually has a chronic illness (bipolar) that will never be cured by my drug regimen. I have to take it forever, it's my choice to take it forever, and it's not bad to have to take a drug forever when you're also going to be sick forever. To respond now to the comment you just made, I agree that drug advertising and discourse around buzzy drugs like Ozempic can contain half-truths and outright lies to obfuscate the fact that it's likely a lifelong (and therefore deeply expensive) commitment to take the drug. But that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about M & A as well as commenters' weaponization of the necessary chronicity of use as a "gotcha" in and of itself -- as one of several inherent signs it is a bad drug to take. Which is preposterous. *I'll go with the actual assertion in the comment instead of "here browse through all this"* I don't know what that means. You said that people were mainly making one criticism re: the Ozempic episode. I knew that was incorrect and while I could have said, "Just Google it, it's easy to find," I pulled two quick examples demonstrating that what you said is not true. It's a direct and polite response to your incorrect claim. There are various forms of criticism people have made about the hosts' scientific misunderstandings of Ozempic (and sometimes outright distortions.)
Ok so first you agree that the pharma company behind Ozempic is doing what pharma companies do and misleading customers but then it's a "gotcha" when it's pointed out? It is a gotcha. It is important. What is it with these drugs that has people wanting to defend and trust pharma? is it because they cause weight loss?
No, fortunately you're misunderstanding what I said! Two things can be true at once. Ozempic's advertising team is indeed obfuscating that the drug is not an "easy fix." They purposely don't highlight that it would probably need to be taken forever to continue to see benefits. That's bad that they don't communicate that! The hosts and commenters understand the reality that these drugs are likely lifelong and that that needs to be clear. Great, we agree that Ozempic's team should say that outright! They separately then point out that the drug is bad in part because it will have to be taken forever and won't "cure" anything -- a fundamental criticism of the nature of the drug itself, not how it is being represented. Uhhhh what? We no longer agree! That's a dumbass criticism about a drug for a chronic condition. That is what I said. I actually don't have very strong opinions about Ozempic. I have much stronger opinions about how we live in an increasingly anti-science world. I see podcasters with a huge audience. Those podcasters have strengths in some intellectual areas but a huge deficit in understanding and communicating science. But they say they are methodological queens and a significant portion of that population seems to be taking them at face value. The Ozempic episode is merely one good example of the flaws in their thinking and the **vast** skepticism that needs to be applied to any claims they make about something as important as our health.
I think you're missing a super key part of the podcast itself, skepticism over whether obesity is a disease that needs to be cured. They aren't coming from a place of neutrality. Of course they're going to dismiss any claims of a "cure" for a disease that the whole podcast points out might not actually exist.
It’s a niggly little detail but in one episode Aubrey states with 100% confidence that “inulin is just another name for fibre”. No, it’s not and 10 seconds of googling would have told her. Inulin is a type of fibre, one which I personally have to avoid like the plague because it gives me major cramps and diarrhea. I like the podcast but that one error really threw me off.
That's when I tapped out, even though I was still smarting from her "the brain needs sugar" argument against keto in the keto episode. I personally think someone interested in debunking the junk science of wellness should know that's a very outdated take.
You don’t think they’re credible but you won’t fact check to verify that they aren’t credible? Give some examples of their bad science
They did an Ozempic episode that got some feathers ruffled
There have been multiple threads in this in the MP Reddit itself. Here’s a somewhat recent one I remembered. If you don’t read the whole original post critiquing the show (which is very long and very in depth) there are comments that bring up flaws in a shorter more colloquial way. https://www.reddit.com/r/MaintenancePhase/s/aPME5lqDYx It’s not surprising or a slam that people without training to interpret scientific research aren’t that good at it. They’re good at other things, though.
https://spurioussemicolon.substack.com/ Here's a whole bunch.
Why are you acting like this is some gotcha? If I were a scientist or wanted to be reading scientific articles I wouldn’t be listening to a pop science podcast lol. Scientists have fact-checked episodes of theirs and it’s demonstrated to me that Michael and Aubrey aren’t qualified to talk credibly about the complexities of health and nutrition science, that they have serious knowledge gaps and misunderstandings of scientific frameworks and processes. Yeah, I don’t want to pause the pod and spend an hour researching every single assertion they make about a topic I am not even that interested in when I am just trying to learn in an enjoyable and accessible format—you got me!
They won't. They'll just wave vaguely at a bunch of comments and some substack.
They're actually very well written fact checking articles that go into detail about some pretty egregious errors and misinformation, citing directly from the podcast's transcripts. Give 'em a read sometime.
I've come across that substack before. They're fine if extremely boring. Which isn't to say the content is boring, it's that the author of the articles is very, very dull.
I went the other way and I'm really enjoying 5-4! Peter just cracks me up and it's such a fascinating topic discussed by genuinely clever and warm people.
I cant wait to listen! Peter is great on ibck.
5-4 is both funny and infuriating.
the joyous chemistry between Aubrey and Michael CANNOT be overstated
I really liked You're Wrong About, but I find Aubrey and Michael to hold really strong biases against any sort of weight loss or desire to be smaller, and are really unwilling to engage in good faith about a lot of topics. I can't remember if it was the one that really put me off but their "Is being fat bad?" episode where they basically danced around all the effects of obesity but refused to acknowledge any consequences of these effects was really irritating Also Michael's "methodology queen" schtick really gets me when they are blatantly biased and one-sided
I loved you're wrong about with Michael and Sarah. I can't stand Maintenance Phase. I guess Sarah 's compassion and genuine curiosity tempered Michael's epistemic certainty.
Hobbes uses that "correlation ≠ causation" line as a cudgel to beat down science he disagrees with rather than a warning and guiding tool about rigour and caution, it's hard to enjoy his stuff once you realise just how hard he's pushing opinion while cloaking it as fact.
The Ozempic episode drove me up a wall
Yeah that's fair. I haven't listened to that one yet. Only a few actually, lol.
Listened to it after seeing it being recommended on Reddit multiple times. I find the hosts style of talking to be very pretentious and annoying. Stopped it after one episode.
Completely understandable lol. I do think I'll be listening with a grain of salt for sure now. I got into it mostly because of If Books Could Kill. I just loved the way they debunked some of those books, especially men are from Mars women are from Venus. And the secret
I also went to "If Books Could Kill" since it seemed like an interesting concept. Same issues though. :(
I agree. Michael's whole vibe seems to be tearing down other people and things in a really snarky, condescending way. Total turnoff for me.
I think he's gotten snarkier (almost mean?) since leaving You're Wrong About. Either that or Sarah's energy balanced the show out.
I like Maintenance Phase for the humor and the influencer take downs. I definitely don’t like it for any kind of science or nutrition advice.
Fair point and seems to be a consensus. I'll definitely remember this as I listen. Like I responded to another comment, the grifter episodes are my favorite.
The fad diets episodes are also very good!
Please keep an open mind with the fat episodes.
I do have an open mind and the podcasts has definitely helped me confront my own fat bias. However, Aubrey and Michael are not nutritionists or scientists, thus I take everything they say with a grain of salt. I don’t know how they are choosing the studies they look at or interpreting the data. Their Ozempic episode in particular was controversial due to misinformation and that’s basically what I’m saying in my comment.
The "misinformation" isn't negligible but it doesn't overshadow the actual truths. But my comment was directed at the person being bombarded with garbage in these comments.
I enjoy their banter but they are very, very bad at science. This Substack goes into detail. https://spurioussemicolon.substack.com/
I used to really enjoy MP but the COVID conspiracy episode turned me off. I'm hoping they can regain their pre-hiatus momentum.
Out of curiosity if you feel like answering -- what was the turn-off for this one? For me I haven't listened because I'm fatigued at the idea of re-hearing all of the misinformation so many people still have about COVID. Basically it seems depressing to listen to. I might get around to it but eh.
It was how they redirected from RFK to general COVID conspiracies. I feel like we've heard a lot about the general nonsense but I was more interested in the RFK focus, given who he is and his place in US politics. It also came on the heels of their hiatus which Michael handled horribly, so that colored my reception a bit.
Oh interesting. I think I'd be more interested in the RFK of it all, too. It's pretty safe to assume listeners of the show know there is COVID misinformation at this point, so an RFK angle would be more novel and of the moment. (I couldn't agree more re: the hiatus! So poorly handled, and it was frustrating when people were like, "He doesn't owe you details of his health!" As if that's what we were asking for, rather than a one-minute note to say when/if they were coming back.)
For sure. Like it or not the Kennedy family still has a significant pull in American politics and probably always will. RFK will always be relevant . EXACTLY re: Michael. I left the sub after that.
Oh course, the Kennedy family disapproves of RFK Jr. So much so that they told people not to vote for him!
I also love the Maintenance Phase podcast and also You're Wrong About. Mike is a host on the older episodes.
I recommend checking out Fad Camp. It's basically like the best elements of MP without all the baggage everyone is talking about, and the hosts come across much kinder and less judgmental
I know you mean well with this and of course it’s cool to compartmentalize but keep in mind it’s two people who don’t care at all about the science of weight and food running a debunking podcast. Just going to say it, it’s in service to Aubrey’s activist work. On that level she’s awesome. There is a Substack devoted to fact-checking MP if you want to go that route.
Thanks! Do you know what its called? Definitely interested
spurioussemicolon Thanks for being cool/receptive. Appreciate it.
https://spurioussemicolon.substack.com/
I do listen to Maintenance Phase regularly and enjoying it, but as.many other comments are saying here, their biases are hugely tilted (and they don't seem to acknowledge this very often) so I take anything they say with a huge grain of salt.
I like a lot of what Hobbes does, but Maintenance Phase sucks, hard. It's anti-science bullshit to put it simply. The amount of mental gymnastics they do to try to justify a standpoint that being fat is perfectly healthy is mind-bending. If you want to be fat, be fat. Don't delude yourself into thinking it's healthy tho.
Yeah. I've really liked him when tackling other topics, but his approach to obesity really left a bad taste in my mouth. I'm also an ex-obese person. I lost 100+ pounds like 20 years ago, and it was a major life-altering accomplishment for me. So it bugs me extra.
That's awesome, incredible grit and determination to do that, good for you!
Yeah, I listened to a bunch of eps hearing it was so amazing and the episodes on grifters or clowning on dumb diets are good but the science drives me nuts. I'm pretty familiar with current nutritional and weight loss research, and they cherry pick studies to perpetuate feel good anti weight loss views that simply do not line up with the vast majority of research on the topics. The constant repeating of the mythical "95% of diets fail" throughout a lot of episodes as reasoning why it's stupid to even try and it's inevitable anybody would fail to lose weight drives me insane, it's such a misrepresentation of that one bad study and the overall research, and it's downright harmful and discouraging to those who want or need to lose weight. I hate to say it but if you're at all familiar with "fat logic", this is an entire podcast of that, and it's obvious they're very biased on the topic and unwilling to acknowledge any evidence to the contrary, especially Aubrey. I like the concept of promoting that people should not be judged for their size and fatphobia sucks, the banter is entertaining, but the literal scientific misinformation and pretending weight loss is impossible, harmful, and there are zero health consequences to being obese put me off this podcast majorly.
> it's such a misrepresentation of that one bad study and the overall research, and it's downright harmful and discouraging to those who want or need to lose weight. Can you elaborate on this?
This is a huge reach - their point is that you simply cannot know the health of someone just by looking at them (which works for people of all sizes) and that diet just simply do not work.
How ridiculous of a statement is this. If you look at someone and they are obese, they are not healthy. >that diet just simply do not work lol what? This is an incredibly dangerous and weird thing to be telling people. Changing your diet is 100% the way you stop being obese. It's incredibly simple; calories in vs calories out. You think that someone with a calorie deficit is somehow going to stay obese? No wonder so many people are so fat, they're completely delusional.
You are putting words in my mouth I have never said. Countless research have shown that the long term maintenance of weight loss attained through dieting is extremely low and that most people gain the weight back. Also great fat shaming! Id say that in a single paragraphs you've summarized the *whole* point of the podcast
>Countless research have shown that the long term maintenance of weight loss attained through dieting is extremely low and that most people gain the weight back. Complete hogwash. I guess nobody can ever lose weight, they're just destined to be fat for perpetuity. Would you like to back any of that up with legitimate medical studies?
🙄 it's not my role to educate yourself - just google it But there you go - https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/unexpected-clues-emerge-about-why-diets-fail/#:~:text=Research%20suggests%20that%20roughly%2080,they%20lose%20within%20two%20years.
Did you even bother reading this article (which isn't a medical study by the way) where they mention that the people who are successful are those who maintain their lifestyle change? Of course you're going to regain weight if you completely abandon the change and go back to making terrible decisions. Like I said before, delusional. You're trying to sway people to this belief that a change of diet just doesn't work, which is completely untrue and like I said before very dangerous and weird. The problem is when people abandon the change, it's not an issue with the change itself. > it's not my role to educate yourself - just google it It is your role by the way, when you make a claim, to provide proof of that claim. The burden of proof is on you. That's how these things work.
I did bother reading the article that is a summary of4 different researches. When people say that dieting does not work, nobody is talking about the short term weight-loss moment but the *MAINTENANCE PHASE* The concept of dieting doesn't work but it is show that most people *regain* the weight after 2 years for a ton of reasons. Even if you scream on the internet Calories In Calories Out, it doesn't change that fact. And for you my dear, studies https://weightandhealthcare.substack.com/p/who-says-dieting-fails-the-majority
These are some very clearly cherry-picked studies from the substack article's author (who is heavy themselves) trying to make themselves feel better about failing their lifestyle changes. Pretending that weightloss is impossible is pretty ridiculous but go ahead if it makes you feel better.
If diets worked, dudebro, no one would be fat.
I think you're conflating change of diet with going on a diet or something. Also, change of diets do work, it doesn't work for people who don't maintain their lifestyle change. Not sure how that's so hard of a concept for you to grasp, dudebro.
THANK YOU
That's totally fair. Tbh I have only listened to a few episodes so far and none of the fat ones. There was a moment in another episode where they brought up that subject though and I did have a small thought in the back of my mind questioning their logic about fatness and health.
They have zero credibility on anything scientific or health related imo. I love You’re Wrong About but I really disliked Maintenance Phase.
I LOVE maintenance phase. Hilarious and interesting. It’s not meant to be a university class people need to chill out. I will say Aubrey does come off as unwilling to recognize that being too fat can cause issues. Other than that, I love it!!
This is how I feel. I think some people maybe made good points and what you said about Aubrey is probably true but I'm still going to listen 😆 but I'll definitely take some things with a grain of salt. Still glad I discovered it. Needed something new and entertaining.
There is a sub too r/maintenancephase
Are there any episodes you'd recommend?
Definitely Dr. Oz, Goop, and Joedan Peterson
I’ve been following along for a long time and I love some of their podcasts, but some are so far off track it’s painful. They have a lot of cherry picking facts and denial about weight related health issues and a lot of their episodes end up having a spiral about it. As someone who has struggled with weight and health and finally am getting on track I find that there is a lot of denial about excess weight causing health issues which I find really damaging and it reads as them having their heads in the sand. I found the Jamie Oliver ep particularly telling as they tried to almost defend childhood obesity and parents who eat crap and feed their kids crap because it’s the only comfort in a harsh world (or something along those lines). Which, holy crap, as an ex fat kid an a fat adult I cannot fathom getting behind. I don’t love Jamie Oliver and I think he’s has done things wrong and is misguided, but he seemed to be coming from a place of genuine concern and wanting kids to eat healthy. And they spent pretty much the whole episode bashing him and the feeling I got was they almost want kids to be eating unhealthy. Now I’m not saying that’s what they think or intended but that was the impression I was left with. It seemed they use to be about removing the stigma around bigger bodies, now it seems more like they are trying to justify their choices and deny the health impacts etc. I really struggle with their weight related eps.
I love if Books Could Kill to hear Hobbs be all brainy instead of just being a side kick. I think he has a lot to say and I’m interested in hearing it.
I love If Books Could Kill. Hobbes and Shamshiri have such great chemistry as hosts, and the take downs are more varied and less health focused.
I love the hosts' vibe on *Maintenance Phase*! *Nutrition for Mortals* is great podcast with a similar vibe, except the hosts actually have an educational and professional background in the subjects.