#haven’t even been listening for a full week & i’m already on episode 80

[amazingmsme]

“My name is a curse” said the man who collected every horrifically evil & murderous book he could find

#haven’t even been listening for a full week & i’m already on episode 80 #just met jurgen leitner #this podcast is so good i can’t believe i waited so long to get into it! #jon sims is my new little meow meow #that man is going through some SITUATIONS right now!! #that michael bitch is completely terrifying & i hate being so afraid of someone named fucking michael #like wtf why aren’t you normal with a name like that? #the magnus archives #tma #jurgen leitner #jonathan sims #jon sims

[the-bau-quinjet]

heyyy. I know you’ve been doing marvel a lot, but if you could do one with morgan and the reader? Based on amplification and it’s the reader who gets sick instead. thanks!

Finally

Warnings: some mentions of being sick (cause... you know... anthrax), angst and fluff :)

Word Count: 2735

a/n: My first Morgan fic!! I love him so much! This one took me a while because 1) I feel like I'm not that good at rewriting episodes, and 2) I wanted to get Derek's character right. Hopefully it's not too terrible! I hope you enjoy!! :)

Masterlist

"Rossi, Prentiss head to his office. Morgan, get Reid and L/N from the hospital and check out his house." Hotch instructed as soon as Dr. Nichols was deemed a reasonable suspect.

It wasn't long before you, Reid, and Morgan were pulling up outside of Dr. Nichols house.

"It's clear so far. I'll let you know when we're done checking." One of the CDC techs said through a walkie.

"We should look around a bit." Reid started down the driveway, gesturing for you and Morgan to follow.

"Ow!" You flinched away from the rose bush, shaking your hand in an attempt to lessen the pain.

"You good?" Morgan eyed you, overly concerned about a small scrape.

"I'm fine. Promise." You winked, walking past him and Reid to check for anything out of the ordinary in the backyard.

"I don't understand why you haven't asked her out yet." Reid looked between you and Morgan. Unfortunately, Morgan was saved from answering by the sound of his phone ringing.

"Hey, princess what do you have?" Morgan greeted Garcia, glaring at Reid.

You continued to explore while Derek and Reid talked to Garcia. It wasn't until after you entered the shed-like building that you thought maybe the CDC should check for anthrax out here too.

By then it was too late.

"L/N?" You could hear Morgan calling you. "Y/N!" It was clear him and Reid were approaching the door you just walked through.

You ran back to the sliding glass door, slamming it shut and locking it before either of them could stop you.

"What's wrong?" He frantically ran up to the door.

"Get back! No, don't come any closer." Your eyes flitted between the two agents, landing solely on Derek when you muttered, "I'm sorry."

"Y/N, open the door..." Derek's typically powerful voice nearly broke as he watched you shake your head.

"I can't. I- I'm already exposed." You shook your head resolutely, convincing yourself this was the right move. "I'll look for anything that could help in here. It's the best move."

"Y/N, you need to go to the hospital." Derek put more power behind his words with hopes of convincing you.

"The hospital won't do anything for me. Nichols could've made a cure, and if he did it's probably in here." You tore your eyes from Derek, hoping Spencer would help you convince him. "Reid, tell him I'm right."

He looked conflicted, eyes flitting between you and Derek.

"She's right. The cipro isn't working on anyone infected. Her best chance is to stay in there and find something useful." Reid looked reluctantly at Derek.

"Then you better find a cure in there." Derek whispered, eyes lingering on you before he finally turned away to call Hotch.

-

"Morgan, Reid. How's L/N?" Hotch questioned immediately, forgoing any greeting.

"White powder all over the room and the air was blasting." Morgan responded quickly. He made brief eye contact with Hotch before turning to walk back to the door.

The general barked out instructions for a decontamination team and cordoning off the area.

"Get her in the ambulance." Hotch directed Morgan and Reid.

"She won't." Morgan felt his heart rate increase at the thought of you staying in there any longer. "Said she's more helpful inside than in the hospital."

"Nichols is dead, looks to be about 2-3 days." Reid added on.

Just then Hotch's phone rang.

"L/N?" He answered on speaker.

"I really messed up this time." You let out a dry laugh.

"You need to get to the hospital." Hotch tried to argue.

"I know Morgan and Reid already told you I won't go. There could be answers in here." Your stubbornness was showing. "I need to figure out who killed Nichols."

"Y/N-" You cut Morgan off before he could try to convince you to leave.

"I think he had a partner." You decided to refocus the conversation on the case rather than yourself.

"I'll get Rossi and Prentiss to ask at his office." Hotch sighed in resignation.

"Good, I'll keep looking at everything in here."

You hung up before anyone could argue further. You shoved your phone into your pocket, immediately going back to look through papers and lab equipment around the room.

As you worked inside, you could hear the CDC team setting up outside.

Watching through the windows as people in full hazmat suits prepared to enter the room you were in made everything feel more real.

You pulled your phone swiftly out of your pocket dialling the number you knew by heart.

"Hi." Garcia's voice was quiet when she answered the phone.

"No funky greeting? I'm feeling a little jipped." You tried to joke with her, but it fell flat.

"I can't be my normal, bubbly self when you are where you are." Again, her voice was quiet.

"Garcia, can you do something for me?" Your voice was steady, masking the emotion about to pour out of you.

"What? Tell me what to do and I'll do it." She frantically moved around her desk, ready to do anything you requested.

"You know how a few weeks ago, you were joking about my crush on Morgan?" You asked slowly.

"The one you swore didn't exist? I remember." Her voice was laced with confusion at your topic change.

"Well, um, do you think you could record a message for him?" Your breaths were unsteady as you thought about saying goodbye.

"But you're gonna be fine." She spoke with authority, as if saying it made it true.

"I know, but, um... just in case. I want him to hear it at least once." Your voice broke.

"Okay. Um, whenever you're ready." She listened as you spoke to Derek.

"Hi Derek. Um, I kind of have a secret to tell you, but first I want you to know this isn't your fault. I'm the idiot who walked into the lab. It's on me. I guess I just want to make sure you hear this from me at least once." You cleared your throat, thick from emotion.

"I, uh, I think I'm maybe, just a little bit, um... in love with you." You felt the tears fall from your cheeks. "You're my best friend. You've always been there for me when cases hit a little too close to home or even if I'm just having a bad day. You never fail to make me smile, no matter how hard I'm trying not to."

You wiped at your cheeks roughly, trying to focus on the message.

"I've wanted to tell you for a while, but I never knew how. I guess I'm glad I walked in here for one reason. It finally pushed me to tell you how I feel."

You chuckled again, but there was no humor in it.

"I'm, ah, I'm really sorry if this is goodbye." You paused, unsure if you had anything left to say.

"Y/N?" Garcia questioned if you were still on the line.

"Prep the victim for transfer." You could hear Dr. Kimura entering the room, preparing to begin treating you.

"I've got to go." You hung up without another word, trying to rid your face of any evidence of the tears before facing the doctor.

"How are you feeling?" She questioned once you were in view.

"I'm actually feeling okay." You nodded, trying to convince yourself it was true. She eyed you like she didn't believe you, but nodded with you anyway.

"Alright, how can I help?"

You spent the next few minutes explaining Dr. Nichols profile. Dr. Kimura set off to look for the cure while you continued trying to figure out who killed Nichols.

-

"L/N, stick with me." Morgan's voice sounded through your phone, drawing your attention away from the stack of papers in your hand. "Prentiss and Rossi don't think the partner is from work."

"Okay, um..." You went back to the bigger desk. "He's got course syllabi and outlines dating back to the 80s." You glanced around the room, eyes catching on the other desk.

"A student..." You trailed off, mind moving a mile a minute.

"Talk to me." Morgan drew your attention again.

"Derek, I think it's a student. There's two desks, different organization on both. The smaller one has what looks like a dissertation that Nichols could've been grading. He wouldn't open his lab to a scientist, but he might for educational purposes." You prattled on, more and more information fitting the theory.

"I'll get Garcia to look at science students." Morgan gestured for Hotch to call Garcia. He was about to hang up when you corrected him.

"Wait! The paper, it's more about social policies surrounding an anthrax attack, not the actual science of it." You spoke quickly, trying to hold in an impending cough.

"Okay, political science and social studies majors then." Morgan trailed off, waiting for your response.

"Good. That's good." You coughed slightly, listening to the sound of his breathing.

"Garcia's got a match." Hotch nodded to Morgan before heading toward the SUVs.

"Y/N, you got everything you could in there. Now get the hell out." He practically begged.

"Sure thing, Derek. Bye." You hung up right as Dr. Kimura walked back toward you.

"His inhaler! It could have the cure, right?" She looked to you for approval.

-

"They're checking out Brown's house." Derek watched as they hosed you down.

"Go help them." You coughed slightly, wincing at the cool water.

"They've got plenty of help. I'm staying with you." His eyes never left yours.

"Please." You looked him in the eye. "They're about to strip me naked and hose me down. As much as I know that's something you want to see, I don't think I look my best right now." You joked, watching the way he averted his eyes slightly.

"Y/N, I-" You cut him off again.

"I know." You smiled softly, gesturing for him to go. "Now go help catch him." You kept your eyes on him until he was out of sight.

Turning back to the conversation happening in front of you, you watched as Dr. Kimura instructed another hazmat team member to get the inhaler tested for the cure.

"It makes sense for the inhaler to have the cure." Your mind felt fuzzy as you thought it over. You moved to grab your head, something catching the attention of the doctor.

"Agent L/N, did you cut your hand?" You glanced at your hand, remembering the rose bush outside. You nodded, eyes widening ever so slightly at the now blistering cut on your hand.

"Let's move." You were quickly cleaned of any lingering traces of anthrax before she directed you into the waiting ambulance. "Are you still feeling fine?" She questioned while taking your vitals.

"I'm doing great. I flea foon. I fill fon." You muttered, eyes rolling back in your head.

"Driver, faster!" She called to the front of the ambulance as you started coughing blood.

-

"Are you eating my jello?" You cleared your throat as you eyed Derek sitting next to your bed.

"Yes I am." He stared directly into your eyes as he ate another spoonful.

"Well, is there more?" You pouted, eyes still lingering on the cup in Derek's hands. He laughed in response.

"What happened?" You slowly moved to sit up, eyes flitting around the various machines in your room.

"The cure was in the inhaler. The other patients are in recovery, and you are going to be just fine." The way he smiled when he said 'just fine' had your heart aching. He just looked so relieved.

"Brown?" You continued your line of questioning.

"We got him. It's over." Derek's soft smile remained, eyes flitting around your body as if he were making sure you were actually okay.

"Well, that's a relief." You took a deep breath. "There's actually something I want to tell you."

He raised a brow, a small smirk playing at the edges of his mouth.

"Oh, yeah? Does Garcia know anything about this?"

You felt the blood rush to your cheeks, eyes widening in horror that he had already heard the message. "Oh, um, I mean, technically yes. I didn't- I wouldn't have told her before you if I didn't think I might die!" Your voice was rising in pitch, panic surging through your body.

"Woah, babygirl, slow down." His previous smirk shifted into another look of concern, although he still let out a small chuckle. "She just told me to ask you about a message. That's all."

"Oh." Your mouth stayed in the 'o' shape for longer than necessary, your body's way of stalling what you were about to say. "You haven't heard the message?"

"Nope." He said with a pop. "Care to enlighten me?"

"Well, I guess I have to since you brought it up." You rolled your eyes, messing with him.

"Hey, now! You started it." He clearly had you beat, so you just blurted it out.

"I think I love you!" You threw your hands over your mouth, eyes wide now that you'd confessed to your best friend that you're in love with him.

"That's what the message said. I thought- I mean there was a strong possibility that I was going to die. I didn't want that to happen without me having told you how I actually feel."

Your eyes were focused on the edges of the hospital blanket where your fingers were twisting a loose thread.

"Can I hear it?" His question confused you, causing you to look at him with a furrowed brow. "The message I mean?"

You nodded slowly, texting Garcia to see if she could send it to you. The chime of a text coming in happened almost instantly. You didn't hesitate to hit play on the recording.

"Hi Derek. Um, I kind of have a secret to tell you, but first I want you to know this isn't your fault. I'm the idiot who walked into the lab. It's on me. I guess I just want to make sure you hear this from me at least once.

I, uh, I think I'm maybe, just a little bit, um... in love with you. You're my best friend. You've always been there for me when cases hit a little too close to home or even if I'm just having a bad day. You never fail to make me smile, no matter how hard I'm trying not to.

I've wanted to tell you for a while, but I never knew how. I guess I'm glad I walked in here for one reason. It finally pushed me to tell you how I feel.

I'm, ah, I'm really sorry if this is goodbye."

The message cut off abruptly at that point.

You could feel your heart pounding as if it were trying to escape your chest.

"I'm sorry. I didn't realize it sounded so sad." You smiled, though your eyes were watery. "I mean, I guess it makes sense since I thought you would only hear it if I died." You continued rambling, eyes looking anywhere but at Derek.

"Y/N?" He prevented you from muttering any other embarrassing words.

"Yeah?" You winced, trying to prepare yourself for his rejection.

"I love you too."

"I'm sorry. I shouldn't have said any-" You abruptly stopped, the words you heard finally catching up with your brain.

"You- you love me too?" You whispered, eyes finally meeting his.

"I do." His smile was wider than you've ever seen, and so, so pure.

"Oh." Your mind was having a hard time comprehending the gravity of what just happened. Luckily for you, Derek knew exactly what was going on when he leaned in to kiss you.

It took a second for your body to respond, but as soon as it did you could feel the butterflies swarming in your stomach.

Despite how new it was, everything felt right in the world when you were kissing Derek Morgan.

He only pulled back when you gently pushed him away, a wide smile on your face as you sucked in deep breaths of air. The two of you stared at each other lovingly, just enjoying the presence of one another.

The sound of a throat clearing coming from the doorway shocked you out of your trance. Reid stood leaning against the doorframe, a smirk on his face. He uttered one word, perfectly encapsulating your own feelings on the situation.

"Finally."

permanent taglist:

@averyhotchner @jesuswasnotawhiteman @madewithsebstan @sebastnstn

Criminal Minds tag list:

@mac99martin @goldeng1rl8 @measure-in-pain

#derek morgan x reader #derek morgan x you #derek morgan x y/n #derek morgan #derek morgan fic #criminal minds fic #derek morgan fluff #derek morgan one shot #derek morgan angst

[skamamoroma]

I Promised You The Moon - Episode 1 Thoughts - aka did John Hughes direct this and not tell us?

Oh I had to wait so long today to see episode 1 as I was working but I am so very happy I waited till I was in bed and with a cup of tea... which I then cried into four times. So that’s where I’m at. This is going to be long, I’m not even sorry in the slightest!

For ITSAY, I made so many posts about this show and how moving and beautiful it was, how the symbolism and writing was exceptional, how the music was absolutely incredible and how much I adored BK and PP’s chemistry. P’Boss’ work is special and the feel of Part 1 was a delicious kind of awkward, indie movie full of metaphors, fraught pain and emotion and pretty breathtaking storytelling of love and growth. I fell absolutely in love with Teh and Oh and their story, obsessed with Teh as a character (as I see a lot of myself in him and I love when he spirals) and I just felt utterly moved by the whole show. So I never needed Part 2. Part 1, for me, is perfect. And I certainly didn’t expect to love Part 2 as much or feel as much emotion because I just thought it wouldn’t be possible especially with a change of director and city and storyline... but I genuinely think that was a good idea after seeing Episode 1.

I just finished it and I’m kinda tear stained and the first thing I couldn’t get out of my head was just how much it reminds me of the late dear John Hughes movies from the 80s. Those of you who are a little old like me born right at the beginning of the 90s, will have been brought up on those movies filled with 80s synth music, stories of growing up, artsy camera work and filled with colour and emotion. Those movies are some of my all time favourites and I absolutely felt their influence on Episode 1 and maybe the rest of the season, I don’t know! I really wonder if P’Meen used them or was aware, hahaha. Anyway...!

But first off, I cannot, and I mean CANNOT handle the music. Part 1 really did floor me with the use of the score and how it was such a huge part of the reason it was so beautiful. Phuket Dreams has me in tears about 3 notes in... so cue me crying at the remixes of the old score with 80s synth sounds and almost Dream Pop echoy sounds. That right there is my jam, my absolute favourite music and the way IPYTM is so clearly going to be full of it makes my heart very happy. Especially those last scenes with Oh, that sweeping 80s style music taking him from heartbroken pain to dancing to forget had John Hughes all over it and just felt so impactful. So I will bang on every week about the music I’m sure.

As for the beginning and the casual buying of condoms (yesssss god damn Nadao, thank you for safe sex lessons for LGBT+ youth and a nod to actual sexual expression, I’m mega proud) leading into the way Hoon and Suri were involved (they didn’t give me Tuty 😭) in transferring Teh, it felt like such a gorgeous transfer from ITSAY vibes to IPYTM... watching Teh’s mamma so proud, Hoon watching over him as always and then gently leading into the first moment that made me cry...

How dare they put a remix of the old score over Teh being told by his mamma that she accepts him as he is so casually and softly, in a way that not only lets Teh know he’s loved but welcomes Oh as someone she cares about deeply and is happy being someone her son loves. It was beautifully done and I couldn’t help but think of Teh’s teary face on the Cape at the end of Episode 5 and thinking how proud I am of him. The way Hoon stroked his hair - help.

Teh. Now I made no secret of the fact that I loved every moment of watching Teh go through it in Part 1, how his very physicality and struggle played out especially him writhing all over his rug! But we had to see him grow. He isn’t the same boy he was but he still feels like Teh, just a little more comfortable, a little more mature in some ways and just READY for life. He feels tentative but also prepared to grow more and I just adore him. Oh, on the other hand, the one who was much more secure in himself in terms of his self and sexuality in Part 1 is now absolutely thrown into the unknown and isn’t handling it well.

Oh was established so beautifully as a Phuket boy. His name is rooted in his home, he lives in shorts and by the sea, he’s shaped by that place and what it means to him... his signature scent is coconut! He literally embodies Phuket... so it doesn’t in any way surprise me that we are watching him flounder and feel lost. It feels so human and so many moments felt so moving. When he told Teh that the best part of his day was seeing him, when he imagined the waves on his mind, when he listened to his mamma talk about the coastal weather... it’s hardly surprising that he cried as he was asked to explain his name. That was the second moment that got me. I was a wreck. Watching him break down and fall to pieces infront of total strangers just because he was recounting the meaning of his name, the foundation of who he is, the thing he misses to very much... he doesn’t fit, he doesn’t feel at home and he didn’t feel himself. It was beautifully done, for me. I caught my breath the second he started crying because it was so utterly human and raw. I have felt the way he does and recognised every second on his face. PP has come so so far with his acting.

Then we get the mention of Yongjian. NOW SOMEONE TELL ME IS THAT TEH AS YONGJIAN IN THE TITLES? If so, how dare they spoil it?! I am going to weep uncontrollably if Teh gets his dream. But the way Teh spoke of their future, the way he tried to recreate their past with Yongjian’s speech. Their entire history as friends and boyfriends is rooted in that story, that character, the idea of being Male protagonists... and Teh is so sure of their future. Also, you cannot also avoid the meta of it all with BK and PP. That moment and their words felt so personal to them too and their own real lives!

Do not even start with how their first kiss in Phuket was underwater and arguably their first kiss in Bangkok is the same albeit in public. DO NOT LET ME THINK ABOUT THIS TOO MUCH.

The issue is that, Part 1 set out for us how they ended up where they are. Oh fell into acting, it was never his dream from the start. Then it all became a fight, a thing to win from his rival and in the end a thing to prove. We haven’t really ever see Oh show a passion for the stage and acting, not really. He worked so hard to get his place in Uni but there’s so much irony at play. Their entire story of rivalry has actually caused this current situation. Oh “won” the coveted Uni spot (helped in part by Teh) and Teh “lost” and was making do. But we see how that’s not how life goes. Oh never really felt he knew what he wanted and so he just ploughed on. He’s now in a situation where he has to start deciding, has to be his own person and he’s just... lost. I can’t wait to see him find it whatever it may be! The difference with Teh is that he may not have got his number 1 desire but his passion is ENOUGH. He loves what he’s doing and that moment where Khim (is that her name, I forget now, it’s so late, but Goy’s character) was explaining the lights was gorgeous. Teh’s passion was ignited, you could see that “oh wow” moment... and you can see the difference in how they’re going to progress, Teh didn’t need the top Uni because his passion can carry him and will help him succeed whereas Oh doesn’t know what his passion is and perhaps he’s where he is for the wrong reasons after all. The story telling is lovely to me, if completely heartbreaking.

The tears came again at “but I’ve already given so much of our time to other people”. Oh the tears. The boat scene from ITSAY is my favourite scene of the show and that line is one of the most beautiful bits of writing I’ve encountered for a long while... and to see Teh use it and remember it and effectively set out the issue they’re facing was heartbreaking. They made that promise on the boat and they’re breaking it. Oh-aew is trying to be what he thinks Teh needs and Teh is wide eyed and filled with this new world and getting to indulge his passions. They’re both so human and both trying the best way they know but they’re so young and so unsure and have so little life experience that they don’t know how to be adults or how to manage all of this stuff. They know they care and love and are each other’s person but they have such a lot to learn.

So the introduction of Q and the boys... and let me say they’re glorious... feels both beautiful and tragic because they look like they will be accepting and also potentially LGBT+ themselves or maybe Q (I see your gorgeous painted nails, sweetheart and the way you didn’t question Oh saying “partner” for a second)... but also they’re what Oh is using to fill the time he promised to Teh. It’s not Oh’s fault. He deserves friendship and a world of his own too but he was relying so much on the familiarity of Teh and Teh’s presence to keep him grounded and comfortable but he can’t do that all the time. He is trying so hard to be good and thoughtful and kind that he’s not telling Teh the truth. He’s doing what he said he wouldn’t do on the boat, but we can’t blame him in the slightest, he’s the sweetest boy.

I have so much to say but I guess that’ll do for now. I really loved the episode. Yes, it’s different but I think I realise now why it needed to be. In a way I’m kinda of happy about it because ITSAY stays sacred!!!! It stays as that beautifully fraught and emotional indie movie of my heart filled with metaphorical depth. It can’t be touched as far as I’m concerned but with IPYTM it feels just as moving, just as emotional, just as impactful but in a different way that reflects maturity. I don’t think it would have worked if it still felt fraught and characterised by ITSAY vibes. They’re not kids, they’re not insecure about who they are anymore in terms of their sexuality and they are moving into adulthood.

I know it’s going to break me. Episode 1 had me genuinely crying into my tea but I also know that it had the potential for its own special brand of symbolism and meaning. We can already see some special moments which seemed to be saying way more than the words themselves like the speech on light and how we see things and the way Oh even used it himself to see a different perspective at the end. That felt really very meaningful. They’re going to need to be able to see different view points as they navigate what will probably be a shit ton of pain! They will need to adjust to the light, to their circumstances to be able to survive and for their bond to be what is important without allowing other stuff to pass into their line of sight. Oh saw nothing. Empty stage, no Teh, not even himself... he opened his eyes too soon. He needs to learn to adjust and learn how to see the world and his place in it so that when he opens his eyes he sees what he desires and has worked for and made for himself rather than emptiness.

The last thing for me is the chemistry. What more can you say other than they’re perfect? They have the most natural, enigmatic, intense and sweet chemistry. They work so beautifully together. They sell even the smallest of moments and they absolutely destroy with emotion. I just feel every second of Teh and Oh’s emotion and that is such a damn skill. Their talent, man.

So I loved it. I am going to be dreaming tearstained in 80s synth music tonight! I can’t wait for the rest to emotionally destroy me a little more.

#ipytm #i promised you the moon #ipytm thoughts #itsay

[ollyarchive]

Olly Alexander Is Done With Shame

Like the character he plays in “It’s a Sin,” the actor and singer struggled with being gay. Now, he tells the world everything.

By Anna Leszkiewicz

Feb. 19, 2021Updated 9:22 a.m. ET

LONDON — When Olly Alexander burst into tears shooting a scene of “It’s a Sin,” no one was very surprised.

Making the show, which came to HBO Max on Thursday and follows a group of friends embracing the gay culture of ’80s London under the shadow of AIDS, was emotional for many of the cast and crew — and Alexander is as comfortable showing his vulnerabilities as the character he plays, Ritchie, is at deflecting them.

“I was a complete mess after the first take,” Alexander, 30, said in a recent video interview. “I was sobbing.” Peter Hoar, the director of “It’s a Sin,” paused filming.

The scene in question, which comes after Ritchie and his friends are arrested protesting the British government’s inaction on AIDS, is one of many in the show that explore how the epidemic devastated gay men’s lives.

When we meet Ritchie, he is an impishly confident but naïve 18-year-old who has just moved to London, with dreams of becoming an actor. Alexander also moved to the capital from rural England at 18 and scored his first movie role, but today he is better known as the lead singer of the band Years & Years. “It’s a Sin” is his first acting gig in six years.

Years & Years’s music often explores the relationship between desire and shame, and is heavily influenced by ’80s bands like Pet Shop Boys. (“It’s a Sin” takes its title from that group’s song of the same name.) So when Alexander heard Russell T Davies, the show’s creator, was interested in him for the lead role, the opportunity “made poetic sense,” Alexander said.

In an interview, Davies said the show was “cast gay as gay, which is my policy.” For Ritchie, he added, he wanted an out actor who already had a big profile in Britain. “That almost narrows it down to a field of one,” he said. “It was the simplest audition of my life.”

Alexander’s arch performance as Ritchie suggests that the character’s ambition and bravado are reactions to fear and self-loathing. “I realized straight away, ‘Oh, I know who Ritchie is,’” Alexander said. “He’s trying to get onstage and shine and dazzle: I’ve done that.”

But whereas Ritchie masks his vulnerabilities, Alexander has spoken frankly in interviews and onstage with the band about his experiences of bulimia, anxiety, self-harm and depression.

“I’ve said just everything about myself,” he said. “My life is kind of out there now.”

Alexander grew up in Gloucestershire, in western England, where his mother founded a local music festival. His father, an aspiring musician, worked in amusement parks.

It was a creative household, Alexander said, but his father had mental health problems and substance abuse issues that led to a difficult atmosphere at home. When he was 14, his parents separated; he’d only seen his father a handful of times since, he said.

School was an even more fraught environment, and Alexander experienced homophobic bullying from age 9. “I had long blond hair, and I acted quite feminine,” he said. “That made me a target. And kids can be so cruel.”

As Alexander recalled his younger self, he started to cry. It took many years until he could look back at the child he was with compassion, he said. “But that’s the biggest thing I’ve tried to do,” he added. The impact of his childhood is something he’s still processing in weekly therapy, he said.

When Alexander’s high school classmates went to college, he moved to East London and became a jobbing actor while babysitting and waiting tables. A pale, skinny teenager with a nest of tight curls, he landed roles as the tuberculosis-ridden younger brother of Ben Whishaw’s Keats in the film “Bright Star,” and an anguished drug user in Gaspar Noé’s trippy art movie “Enter the Void.”

Alexander had been living in London for a couple of years when he met his Years & Years bandmates, Mikey Goldsworthy and Emre Türkmen. Though they started out making high-minded, Radiohead-inspired electronic music, Alexander pushed the band toward synth-pop, with big, melodramatic choruses full of longing.

In 2015, the band’s exhilarating but anguished song “King” — about the strange thrill of being treated badly in a relationship — reached No. 1 on the British singles chart, and its debut album, “Communion,” topped the album charts, too.

“His songs are his life,” said the producer Mark Ralph, who has worked with Years & Years from the band’s earliest days “If you want to know what’s gone on in Olly’s life, then you just read all his lyrics.”

“Love takes its toll on me,” Alexander sings in “Sanctify,” a song about a secret liaison with a straight man. “And I won’t, and I won’t, and I won’t be ashamed.”

When the band performed the song at the Glastonbury Festival in 2016, soon after the shooting at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando, Fla., a rainbow-clad Alexander told the crowd, “I’m here, I’m queer, and, yes, sometimes I’m afraid.” But, he added, “I am never ashamed, because I am proud of who I am.”

The speech caught the interest of TV producers, and, in 2017, he fronted a BBC documentary called “Olly Alexander: Growing Up Gay.” In it, he returns to his family home and leafs through teenage diaries full of references to bulimia and self-harm. On camera, he tells his mother about the bullying at school for the first time: Through tears, they discuss how it led him to mental health problems in his teenage years.

“It’s a lot to ask someone to bare their soul on national television,” said Vicki Cooper, the TV movie’s director. “But those difficult conversations created the best moments in the film.”

That documentary, and Alexander’s openness about his own mental health, mean he gets a lot of messages on social media from fans who are struggling themselves. He used to try to respond to them, he said, but the quantity has become impossible to keep up with.

Through those messages, though, Alexander had “seen a really emotionally vulnerable side to a lot of people,” he said. “That’s a precious thing, actually.”

Alexander had also been humbled by the positive response to “It’s a Sin” in Britain, he said. The show broke records for the streaming service All4, where it aired, with 6.5 million streams.

“It’s a Sin” first appeared on All4 during National H.I.V. Testing Week; on social media, the show’s cast encouraged viewers to get tested. The Terrence Higgins Trust, an H.I.V. nonprofit, said that the number of people taking tests through their service had almost quadrupled in the weeks afterward.

“People living with H.I.V. now can live normal, healthy lives: It’s so important to get that message out,” Alexander said, adding that treatments for the virus had transformed since the ’80s. “I’m really grateful that these conversations are happening, because, honestly, lots of people really didn’t know what was going on in this period of history. They’re shocked to learn about it now.”

That era is also having an influence on Alexander’s music. He is currently recording new material with Years & Years, inspired by the ’80s dance anthems of the “It’s a Sin” soundtrack and beyond: Donna Summer, New Order, Pet Shop Boys.

“During the pandemic, I wanted to listen to super upbeat club music that made me dance around,” he said. “I found myself wanting to create the fantasy and the energy that I haven’t necessarily been experiencing.”

As well as working on new music, Alexander said he had spent the lockdowns in England watching “Real Housewives” episodes, and playing Animal Crossing. “I used to be so, so driven,” he said, but now he was putting less pressure on himself.

He was happy, he added, to think back on what he’d already achieved, and how much has changed since he was a little boy who wished he wasn’t gay.

“I’ve kept a diary since I was 13 years old,” he said. “Sometimes I look at it and think I can tell this kid: ‘You’re going to do amazing things. You’re going to get to where you are now. It’s OK. You got this.’”

Hugo Yangüela contributed additional camera operating for photographs.

#olly alexander #years & years #years and years #yearsandyears #interviews #its a sin #boys #acting #tv #new york times #articles #new york #pandemic #uk #bbc #soundtrack #hair #fashion #photos #images #photo shoot #photo shoots

[heymeowmao]

[Full] Our Song _ E11 (Last in rankings today (fourth place) will leave. Last episode next week.)

4:17 - MC: Na-jie is back with the team, and XZ can finally breathe a breath of relief. He finally let Na-jie come back and has withstood the challenges without her, right? But right now we have a different situation, which is that they haven’t met for a while. Tonight is an important match. XZ, you won’t let Na-jie only come back this once and then not again, right?  XZ: Of course not! Na-jie and I have not felt the passing of time at all, we’re still as compatible as ever! NY: I have communicated through phone, and I always ask him how the song selections are going.  

5:30 - MC: In order to pick our order today, we all went shooting. The only person to shoot a 10 was... /one day earlier/ MC: When you (XZ) film, you should have practiced this, right? XZ: Yep. NY: Ge, let me tell you. You might not win over him (XZ). While filming he’s been learning how to shoot. FYQ: Oh, he has experience? NY: Yes, yes. Be careful! XZ: Playing blind~

6:44 - WOW, Fei Yuqing shoots a 10 AND made it look so easy. 7:15 - XZ: NA-JIEEEEEE!!!! /shoots a 4/ oTL [total 18 points] 7:26 - FYQ getting ready... /Na-jie starts singing/ He misses. FYQ: Who was singing??! ZHJ: You definitely influenced him. 7:51 - NY: Let me sing another song. FYQ: /misses again/ [total 10 points]

8:32 - MC: Because FYQ’s skill is very good, he can give the #1 spot to another team. FYQ: Ah, number 1.... Who was it that sang “The Evening Bell of Nanping”? NY: /oops/ FYQ: Who sang “One Plum Blossom”? NY: HAHAHA

--

9:14 - MC: Team Na-Zhan will be the first to sing tonight. They’ll be fulfilling two expectations. The first is that Na-jie is back! What sort of stage will their collaboration bring to us this time? The second is that they had prepared this song a while ago but didn’t get the chance to sing (bc they passed into the next round already), and at the time I had asked XZ to sing a few lines. Since that time, the audience has been asking non-stop when we would hear the song in its entirety. Everyone. That time is now.

9:54 - XZ: Na-jie!!!! NY: What is this? We’re matching again today, too. XZ: Come quick, come quick! XZ: I really missed you. NY: You missed me? How did it go? XZ: Pretty good. I need to report to you my results. NY: I thought it was a payroll. XZ: LOL. This is our record for the past weeks. We got third place twice, but last time we got second. Pretty good. NY: Very good!

Na Ying x Xiao Zhan -  被风吹过的夏天 (Bei Feng Chui Guo De Xia Tian)

16:07 - XZ: /confused baby takes the fish from Na-jie/ NY: I’m sorry. MC: Na-jie. I’m sure in all your years on stage and in your life, you’ve never been gifted a bag of fish before, have you? NY: /giggling/ XZ: /still confused/ NY: You didn’t see, did you? XZ: ? NY: I dropped the fish. XZ: /WHAT?/ A: If he had seen I bet he also would have laughed. XZ: If I had seen I wouldn’t have been able to sing the last verse either

16:45 - NY: When we were practicing, XZ would only be holding an ID card. Look at this thing- all wet, and REAL fish. With water. I didn’t hold it properly and when I was walking behind you I dropped it. At that time- my heart shattered. NY: And then when I was sitting here, I held up the fish and then I remembered how I dropped them and I COULD NOT sing anymore.

17:15 - XZ: I didn’t know what happened. I thought I sang wrong, Na-jie! NY: You were great. You kept on singing until the end. XZ: I didn’t have any other choice

17:26 - NY: I’m really glad you didn’t see that. I really need to tell you I’m sorry. XZ: No, no, no, no. It’s his fault (the fish). It’s you. /pokes the fish/ 17:38 - A: We were laughing ourselves silly down here. I saw Huajian-dage over there... ZHJ: I knew it could definitely influence them, but I get more screen-time.

17:51 - MC: Let me ask HJ, do you think it’s alright to make mistakes on a live stage? ZHJ: Of course! In this world, who can compare to me in terms of making mistakes on stage? JYQ: Big Bro “Forgetting the Lyrics”  ZHJ: Not only forgetting the lyrics. I’ve written a whole new song before.  ZHJ: This has to be said though, Xiao Zhan has improved a lot.

--

Hacken Lee x Zhou Shen -  大会堂演奏厅 (Da Hui Tang Yan Zou Ting)

30:06 - MC: Hacken wrote the lyrics for this song in 1988, when he was just 21 years old. A lot of people know his songs, but I must let everyone know that he’s written lyrics for more than 80 songs.

--

Fei Yuqing x Ayanga -  新鸳鸯·蝴蝶梦 (Xin Yuan Yang - Hu Die Meng) + Ayanga in a Pikachu sweater. Never thought I’d see it.

37:55 - MC: I need to say, from my standpoint, the one I could see the most clearly was Xiao Zhan. It looked like there was something shining from deep within his eyes. XZ: I feel very touched. I felt like I could hear in the song a hopeful feeling. It was divine, and made me see “hope” and the “future”. It’s very abstract, but I liked it a lot. NY: As soon as FYQ opened his mouth, I felt (indescribable). I realized that in the music industry, he’s too superior.  -- NY: I’ve been thinking to myself- how could FYQ not continue to sing anymore.[FYQ is retiring, after this show is over, he will not be singing professionally anymore.] At the very last moment, now here is Ayanga. When he stood there singing I came to realize that even when Xiao Ge doesn’t sing anymore, he could be relieved that Ayanga is there to sing in his place. 

--

Zhou Huajian x Jiang Yiqiao -  虎口脱险 (Hu Kou Tuo Xian)

--

Na Ying x Xiao Zhan -  恼人的秋风 (Nao Ren De Qiu Feng)

1:00:20 - MC: Hold on! We need to confirm something first. Could the female singer please say a few words? (/confirm it is really Na Yin XD/) NY: He’ll talk first. Him first. MC: I really do not dare believe this is our Na-jie! Audience: Team Na-Zhan! x10000 NY: What about us? Audience: You’re great!!! NY: Do you think we can turn this around (win another round)? Audience: /cheering/ MC: XZ, tell me. Whose idea was this? XZ: Actutally, it was Na-jie. She said she wanted to pay tribute. MC: ??? NY: It’s because previously we heard Hacken and Zhou Shen sing the “Ye Lang Disco”. After I saw that I thought that we also should sing a song like that. I wanted to pay tribute to my 80′s. MC: XZ. When you heard about the song, did you not even hesitate for a second? NY: He ignored me for a whole day! XZ: No, Na-jie! I really was working! I wouldn’t dare (ignore you)! NY: I was thinking “Oh shoot. He probably doesn’t like it.” MC: Or maybe he got scared.  XZ: Honestly I did hesitate at first. I didn’t think I would be able to control it. But Na-jie said she wanted it retro, and she explained her vision to me, and I was convinced. I said if we’re going to do it, let’s [go big or go home]. So we tried a retro style.

1:02:05 - MC: You know, with Na-jie.. it’s very rare that we have the chance to see you sing AND dance on stage.  ZHJ: And she danced very well! NY: I really need to thank XZ for practicing the steps with me all the time. When we were sitting there, too, he was counting the beats for me. You all know that even when I walk normally I’m a little uncoordinated. So this (dance) was really hard for me. You may not have seen, but up there where the lyrics are, the choreographer was there, showing me the steps. 

1:02:53 - MC: Let me tell you, ever since we started battling in teams, this is the first time that FYQ forgot to hold his pen and paper.  1:03:44 - ZHJ: I know you are all very happy, but have you thought about how we feel? (ZHJ x JYQ, who have to sing next). You two... do you have to be so cruel? NY: In this music competition, you HAVE TO be this cruel.  ZHJ: If we could vote, I’d vote for you to win.  ZHJ: I’m really happy and thankful to have made it this far in the competition. It doesn’t even feel like one at this point. We’re all here to appreciate each other. I really want to thank the two of you for letting us open our eyes and ears. Especially Na-jie. NY: This is not easy for me. ZHJ: You’re obviously someone who can just rely on your face... why do you have to sing so well? And why do you have to have such a nice figure? NY: Do you know how much I’ve suffered off this stage? I can’t eat all the good foods! YOU can eat a bowl of noodles, but I can only eat three strands! XZ: !! NY: And then I have to work out. I think if you still want to stand on stage, you have to maintain a healthy mind/body.  ZHJ: We will still work hard! Watch out for us!

--

Zhou Huajian x Jiang Yiqiao -  其实不想走 (Qi Shi Bu Xiang Zou | Don’t Want to Go)

1:05:11 - NY: This title makes my heart hurt. ZHJ: We can only play the sympathy card now.

1:12:24 - MC: When I was conversing with HJ before, he had told me that there was a singer that he always wanted to sing with- that singer is Na-jie. NY: ?! Audience: /sing sth!/

1:13:13 - ZHJ: Work with me here, is there any of my songs that you’ve heard? NY: I can sing any/all of your songs. MC: Can I request one? Because the two of your teams.... only one will continue in the competition, and now you have to part ways. So the only thing I can think of is “ 让我欢喜让我忧” (Make Me Happy Make Me Worry)

多想說聲我真的愛妳 I want to say I really love you 多想說聲對不起妳 I want to say I’m sorry to you 妳哭著說情緣已盡 You cry and say the relationship is over 難再續 難再續 It’s too hard to continue, too hard to continue

就請妳給我多一點點時間 再多一點點問候 Just please give me just a little more time, just a little more greetings 不要一切都帶走 Don’t take everything and go 就請妳給我多一點點空間 再多一點點溫柔 Just please give me just a little more space, just a little more tenderness 不要讓我如此難受  Don’t make me so uncomfortable

ZHJ: Wait, there’s more I have to sing

妳這樣一個女人 讓我歡喜讓我(+們)憂 A woman like you, makes me happy and makes US worry (he changed the lyrics from “me” to “us”) 讓我甘心為了妳付出我(+們)所有 Let me be happy for you, give US everything

--

1:16:39 - MC: I’ve been listening to a song recently that I really like, and I’ve written down a few of the lyrics to share with you. I think it suits this stage and everyone’s thinking. We say that this society runs too fast sometimes. So how fast is it? [Lyrics to Zhou Huajian’s most recent release “少年” Shao Nian (Youth)]

有时候来不及沉淀　岁月总是跑在灵魂的前面 Sometimes it’s too late to rush, years go by passing faster than the soul 好在还有一点信念　陪我们完成每一天 Fortunately I still have a little faith to accompany us to complete the day 别忘记心中的少年　狂奔的勇敢的 Don’t forget the youth still in your heart, hasty, brave 最初的少年 The youth you were at first

MC: We’ve been waiting six years for a new song from Huajian. Could you tell us about this song? ZHJ: Let me speak directly. For people my age, it’s hard to walk into a record shop... it’s highly likely that there aren’t many songs we can choose to listen to. That’s not to say that the current music of the youth isn’t good, it’s just that when you reach a certain age, there’s inevitably going to be that generational gap. I wanted to be able to give people in my generation a choice. For the past six years I’ve been thinking about this, and it’s only in the past year that I realized that after having written eight songs I was always talking about the past, when I was young. That’s how I thought of the theme, the title- “shao nian.” When I finished making the song I found it interesting. I used the word “youth” to look at the faces of everyone around me. The people I know now, the people I’ve known for years, the people I am getting to know. There’s a youth inside all of us. No matter what age you are now, whether 60 or 70, there’s a youth inside you. Don’t hide them. Let them out. 

Goodbye to Zhou Huajian and Jiang Yiqiao :’(

#Our Song #我們的歌 #i think lkq x zs or fyq x ayanga will win #straight up vocals #give fyq a grand memory for his start of retirement

[ladyshinobi]

Episode 80: A Really Reconciliatory Recap

*Grabs MEGAPHONE*  

Attention PLEASE....The Suegra has boarded the Ship...I repeat, The Suegra has boarded the ship!

I always knew that Lupe would come around, and do you know why? because she LOVES Juliana more than anything, and thats what you do when you love someone: you ACCEPT and SUPPORT them for who they really are.

I personally found Lupe's (and Eva's) initial reactions quite baffling, I would NEVER treat someone I care about like that but I KNOW its a reality for many people sadly.  I hope the Lupes and Evas watching the show can see themselves (and their kids/loved ones) in these characters and that It can help them understand and bridge the gap and realize that as clichè as it sounds, LOVE is LOVE.

This show is really out there changing lives for the better and I think it’d deserve all the accolades just for that (even tho the whole show is pretty amazing anyway lol). Humans learn through tales and stories and if Juliantina can make a parent change idea on homophobia or give hope to a kid that his/her parents will eventually come around and accept them then mission accomplished. Slow clap for all involved really, you’re making the world a better place,

One Lupe at a time.  

I hope that as we move forward more and more we can all respect and treat each other as HUMANS and understand that in the end we all love the same, there's just more than one way to show it... AND THAT's OK.

(I went Full MACA for a moment there lol)...Anywayyyyyyy ...back to the EP...

  Remember that Telenovela 101 post where I said It was OK to do your best Evil Laughter when the bad guys get what they deserve? Well...

MUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA 

CRY HARDER EVA, CRY HARDERRRRRRR.

Time to check on Val and see how her "Space and Time" life is going ....

Figured XD.

I honestly think Val pushed Juls away out of self preservation only, since she doesn't wanna risk getting burned (again) by a NOT-SURE-I-WANNA-DO-THIS-Juls. 

I think she's just waiting for her to actually go ALL-IN on the relationship and leave all doubts and drama behind, which I believe IS Juls intention anyway, she just has to fuckin' SHOW IT lol. Lupe's OK will definitely help with this IMO.

Also ...Juls-Make-Up-Your-Mind-Please?-Ansgty-Valentina Soundtrack:

"Say You Love Me" by Jessie Ware ...ADD IT TO THE JULIANTINA PLAYLIST!!! XD

OMG This scene ...you can see when Val STOPS BREATHING for a second there, and that hopeful smile on her face...only to be crushed when she realises its NOT her Favorite-Hitman's-Daughter-Stubborn-Ass-Gurl : (

You can literally see the moment her heart sinks (and shatters into a million pieces) UGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH. No One does ANGST like a Telenovela you hear me? ...NO ONE.  

Is that Val and Tears I see? WHAT A SURPRISE!....Here's the Give-Val-A-Break edit, I knew it was bound to happen soon anyway lol.

Also Mayela ...keep that wine away from Valentina ...and while we're at it stay away from Valentina and that alberca as well, you hear me!? You're already making shit awkward for Guille and Renata and there's literally only a week left gurl ...AIN'T NOBODY GOT TIME FOR THAT lol.

Beltran is fully into this redemption arc and all I can say is good for him, and that whole choose one wife/family path? ...Listen, Panchito can take it from here so yeah, the choice is quite simple if you ask me, just saying.

Lucia showing up to Chivis House ...Well shit. I think she could end up helping them honestly? Once Lupe tells her about Beltran and confirms the whole transmigration thing is real, and also she KNOWS Valentina cares about Juliana so I think she could end up doing the right thing and lend them a place to stay as well.

_______________________________________________________________________

We've reached the "All IS LOST" part of the plot, which means the climax and resolution are right around the corner, this last week is gonna be WILD, I’m REALLY curious to see IF (and HOW WELL) they are gonna be able to stick ALL these landings, I haven't been much disappointed this far so hopefully they'll end on a high note, fingers crossed.

Also next EP is (the now infamous lol) EPISODE 81, normally I wouldn't pay much attention to a passing comment on an interview ...BUT this is Maca-The-Spoiler-Supreme we're talking about, So MAYBE they elope, have 3 kids, and go on honeymoon ...GUESS WHERE...Costa Rica hahahahaha.

I REALLY want to know what you guys think is gonna happen? let's turn this rambling monologue into a crazy-theories conversation, shall we? 

Leave me a comment with your theories about 81 and how do you think Juliantina is gonna endgame this whole thing eventually? K, Thanks, Bye.

#Juliantina #Amar A Muerte #YASSSSSS LUPE #Finally #Val Just Call Her Gurl #You Already had Time #And Space #Beltran Be Good ok? #Mayela Go Away

[dxmedstudent]

Weird Asks that Say a Lot  Meme...

My friend the wonderful @meanwhileonwednesday suggested I fill out Every even number for the 'weird asks that say a lot', so here I am. Thanks, friend! XD

2. chocolate bars or lollipops?

Chocolates.

4. how did your elementary school teachers describe you?

At my first school? Artistically talented and perceptive (one teacher was very vividly impressed by my grasp of duck anatomy at like 5 years old). Then there’s the teacher at my new school who thought I had special needs because I was withdrawn (I was being bullied by most of the class, really); she was a new teacher and not really equipped to deal with that. By the end of primary school, I went back to being commended on my work ethic and smarts and artistic ability.

6. pastel, boho, tomboy, preppy, goth, grunge, formal or sportswear?

Hmmm I think my work clothes are mostly a formal/preppy mix. With a little bit of boho thrown in, particularly when I’m at home.

8. movies or tv shows?

I prefer movies, because they represent a lot less commitment (America, please stop giving everything like 17 seasons, I beg of you!), however TV show episodes are shorter and easier to slot into your life than a full movie.

10. game you were best at in p.e.?

I was generally awful in PE. I liked benchball, can’t say that I was good in it, being yet another game where being short doesn’t do you any favours.

12. name of your favorite playlist?

Either my Kickass playlist, or my Reflective playlist.

14. favorite non-chocolate candy?

Starburst.

16. most comfortable position to sit in?

Curled up, on my side, in a nice big armchair with my legs hanging off the side. Surrounded by pillows, and probably a cat or two.

18. ideal weather?

Picture this: it’s a sunny day; warm but not too hot. Maybe around 24 degrees celsius. There’s a warm breeze; it’s not stifling, and it’s not cold enough to make you shiver. The trees rustle with the sound of the wind; change is in the air. You can go out in short sleeves, perhaps with the thinnest of cardigans if like me your metabolism basically died 300 years ago.

20. preferred place to write (i.e., in a note book, on your laptop, sketchpad, post-it notes, etc.)?

Depends on what I’m writing. I am the kind of ineffectual person who starts to write tings in a notebook, but also a couple of word docs. I have post- it notes for important things. I document ideas for my comic in a note/sketch book. I love doodling in my sketchbooks.

22. role model?

I never really had one, growing up. I guess the closest I’d get is David Attenborough.

24. favorite crystal?

My birthstone is ruby (which is red; my favourite colour!) however I also love opals; I love their irdescent (OK, opalescent, technically) sparkliness and the way they shimmer with lots of colours. I don’t see why everyone prefers massive diamonds when opals are like... so much cooler. I I don’t actually own any, but maybe one day I’ll be able to buy myself a nice one.

26. favorite activity to do in warm weather?

Go for a nice long walk, take lots of pictures, have a picnic in the park. No, I lie, my favourite activity is roping someone I care about into doing it all with me, and having even more fun. 

28. five songs to describe you?

Home - Ellie Goulding Fight Song - Rachel Platten Working Woman’s Blues - Valerie June Alive - Bird Set Free My Medea - Vienna Teng

30. places that you find sacred?

Already been answered.

32. top five favorite vines?

Alas, hard to name off the top of my head. I mainly know vines from various compilations.

34. advertisements you have stuck in your head?

Right now? Thankfully none of them.

36. what is the first meme you remember ever seeing?

That’s impossible to say! Memes were a thing before internet memes became a thing. I’d say that ‘S’ shape we all drew in primary school? Nursery rhymes? Who knows.

38. lemonade or tea?

They don’t usually compete for my love, but i have tea more often than lemonade, purely due to availability reasons.

40. weirdest thing to ever happen at your school?

Some students climbed onto the roof.

42. jacket pockets or pants pockets?

Honestly? Skirt pockets. But being a woman, jacket pockets are usually woefully ineffectual and small. Trouser pockets are a bit better, but again usually small. Whereas if someone puts pockets on a skirt, they make sure they are actually proper pockets!

44. favorite scent for soap?

Maybe honey, or roses, or jasmine.

46. most comfortable outfit to sleep in?

A baggy pair of PJs; I’m a dress for comfort kind of girl. Particularly since the places I’ve lived haven’t always been great in the heating department. I’ve been known to sleep in a hoodie when it gets cold.

48. if you were a fruit, what kind would you be?

I would like to be a berry, or maybe an apple. Something pinkish red. Sweet, and a little sharp.

50. what made you laugh the hardest you ever have?

Probably my little brother astounding me with how grown-up he is about things. He’s pretty awesome. Or my mum just saying something wildly, hilariously inappropriate XD

52. favorite font?

I love the Komika font family for my comic. I used to use Bookman Old Style, Book Antiqa, Georgia or classic Arial for essays and things like that, when they didn’t specify Times New Roman.

54. what did you learn from your first job?

Always call the med reg if you are stuck, be nice to the nurses and always help each other. OK, I did lots of volunteering in hospital before FY1. In which case my

56. favorite tradition?

My family/culture have a specific tradition on the morning of an exam/interview/life event where you fill a cup with water and a couple of plant leaves (Slavs love putting greenery into everything). You place it at the threshold,  and give it a good kick it with your dominant foot. It symbolises your knowledge flowing, and I guess it’s a good luck charm.. You also aren’t meant to look back (literally); because you should be focusing on the task at hand. As a kid it was a comforting good luck ritual, and I don’t think I ever really grew out of it.

58. four talents you’re proud of having?

I’m proud of my artistic skills, modest though they are. I enjoy creating, and I enjoy that I can make things to cheer up my friends, or things that people here can relate to.

By extension, I’m good with my hands, and that usually translates to picking up procedures and things like that pretty quickly at work. And yes, I love being able to get that cannula in (especially if it’s on the first go!)  when nobody else can. It’s a tiny, tiny thing, but it sparks a little joy. I can develop good rapports with people; which means I can help them to confide their problems, and can help them to feel better or to address things that are bothering them. It’s really mostly about listening and not being judgemental. I am proud that I can sometimes make people feel better, and feel listened to. I’m proud that I learned to try to work through my feelings. As a young person who was really quite stressed, I somehow learned how to apply what’s basically CBT to keep myself relatively sane, and I think it’s helped me a lot. It was only much later that I realised it was basically CBT when I was comparing notes with friends actually going through those kinds of therapies. I’m not perfect at it, and my mind tests me on a regular basis, but it helps.

60. if you were a character in an anime, what kind of anime would you want it to be?

I don’t know what I’d like to be in? Maybe a Ghibli film. I think I’d like that.  When I was at school, a close friend of mine just turned around and said “OMG, you’re just like an anime character”, to fervent agreement from my peers. I guess they meant one of those chirpy, ditzy shojo anime characters. I can still see myself as some shojo series heroine; frantically trying to keep it together under the pressures of magical girldom, being romantically inept, trying to fight off the baddie of the week whilst learning lessons about getting along with each other, being helpful and not being mean.

62. seven characters you relate to?

Right now? Sophie from Howl’s moving castle, Princess Carolyn from Bojack Horseman, Miranda Otto from D. Gray-Man, Elinor Dashwood from Sense and Sensibility, The Red Blood Cell from Cells at Work, Kiki from Kiki’s delivery service, and Aggressive Retsuko.

64. favorite website from your childhood?

I used to love looking at other people’s art on Elfwood or Deviantart.

66. favorite flower(s)?

Today I’m feeling the answer is lilacs.

68. worst flavor of any food or drink you’ve ever tried?

Ugh anything bitter.

70. left or right handed?

I’m ridiculously right handed, but I’ve learned to use my left hand more effectively because of procedures etc. I’m really good with my hands, but my right hand takes over like 80% of the work.

72. worst subject?

PE in school, biochemistry at university.

74. at what pain level out of ten (1 through 10) do you have to be at before you take an advil or ibuprofen?

At home, maybe a 3, because I don’t see the point in suffering needlessly. However at work I’ll do whatever it takes to keep functional including taking pain relief before it gets bad because I don’t want to have to deal with pain and an on-call. I’m not sure if the scale is logarithmic? I’d rate the worst pain that I’ve had 5 ot a 6, and that made me vomit and curl up into a ball and basically unable to do anything. But I can imagine pain that’s much, much worse than that was, so perhaps I just can’t thin

76. what’s your favorite potato food (i.e. tater tots, baked potatoes, fries, chips, etc.)?

This kind of new potato salad my mum makes with onions. Raw onions are totally a trigger food for my IBS, and any time my mum feeds me anything full of onions, she’ll tell me I can take them out if they upset my tummy. And every single time I’ll pile even more onions into my plate because there’s no way I’m letting my gut dictate my life. Turns out, I’m even more stubborn than my IBS; I just don’t want to give up some of the foods that set things off. My GP once recommended a FODMAP diet, and having had a look at all the stuff I’d have to cut, I resolved I’d only start cutting things if my symptoms got really bad.

78. coffee from a gas station or sushi from a grocery store?

Honestly, I have no pretentions to snobbery. The best coffee is the one you get when you are about to collapse on a night shift, even if much, much better coffee exists in the world. And the best sushi is the plain supermarket one you get between on-calls to treat yourself, even if the one from a good restaurat is so much nicer.

80. earth tones or jewel tones?

I wear a lot of jewel tones, but I also wear a lot of earth tones, and I don’t really see them as being in competition. Rock all the colours!

82. pc or console?

Phone. XD I don’t play much on either, mainly due to time. Phone has the benefit of being in my pocket when I’m at a loose end on the bus, or at my parents’. I don’t sit down and make time to play, I play games in the stolen minutes here and there when I don’t have much to do.

84. podcasts or talk radio?

Classical music radio in the office (because it’s the most neutral), retro stations in the car (or whatever your guests would like), and podcasts at home when you are by yourself.

84. barbie or polly pocket?

I didn’t have a real Barbie (fairly sure ours were knockoff dolls) but I do have fond memories of making outfits for our toys. Though our favourites were always various little animal models who got into all sorts of adventures.

86. cookies or cupcakes?

Cookies, but it’s a close call. Really, I’d have to say biscuits, since I eat those more often than either of the above.

88. your greatest wish?

For myself? To be happy. For others? Ditto. 

90. luckiest mistake?

Getting into my first degree. Feels like I fell into it, but it set me off on a great path, and I don’t regret that my initial path was far from straightforward.

92. lamps, overhead lights, sunlight or fairy lights?

All of the above.

94. favorite season?

That kind of Spring-Summer interface when all the plants are in bloom, and the weather is warm but not too hot, and the days are long.

96. desktop background?

Arietty’s bedroom from the Ghibli Borrowers film adaptation. I’m a sucker for ghibli aesthetic; usually because my rooms end up similarly haphazardly adorned with cool things. 

98. favorite historical era?

Every era has its own awesomeness. I feel very fondly for the regency period because of all the books I’ve read set in it, likewise the Victorian period. Though both aren’t without their problems. I realised that I style my hair like a Victorian; centrally parted with a neat, low bun at the nape of the neck. XD

I think that might be all the questions! Phew!

#ask meme #personal #my life #askdx #ask dx

[coolgreatwebsite]

Cool Games I Finished In 2018 (In No Real Order)

Man! Wow! 2018! 2018 was a wild year for me. I managed to deliver those elbow drops I talked about last year and ended up doing a lot of of things. I left my job and moved cross-country in the span of like 2 and a half weeks! I took a new job in the video game industry (play Ninjin and Override)! I took a trip to Vegas a week after that! I got in a relationship! I got out of a relationship! It’s been a ride. A ride that hasn’t left me a ton of time to play video games or write about video games, but I’m like 1000 times happier now so it’s probably a fair trade. No matter what though, I will always be here at the end of the year to make a bunch of terrible MSPaint banners and provide you with another one of these. Here’s a bunch of cool games I experienced for the first time in 2018.

Shin Megami Tensei: Nocturne (PlayStation 2, 2004)

Nocturne is a game that I haven’t been able to get out of my head since I beat it. It’s so damn cool. It starts with you witnessing a demonic apocalypse where only you, your two friends, your teacher, a reporter, and the man with the world’s wildest widow’s peak survive. These people are, with a couple of notable exceptions, the only real characters in the entire game. You barely see them, and when you do your meetings are usually pretty brief. Sure, you talk to and recruit a horde of demons to your side as party members, and you interact with a handful of demonic antagonists and various demonic NPCs, but for the most part the game is just you. You, alone, wandering the weird hellscape remnants of Tokyo. It’s one of the most solitary-feeling video games I’ve ever played, and it nails this atmosphere flawlessly. The music, the visuals, the writing, every element gels with every other element so smoothly to create a prevailing, almost overbearing feeling of loneliness. The combat and gameplay mechanics are what I understand this series to mostly be like (this being the only mainline SMT I’ve played), and are fun and engaging in a way that’s not too dissimilar from the Persona series. The only knock I have against Nocturne is that the dungeon design super sucks. I’m fine with endless corridors, my love of the PS2 Persona games can attest to that, but almost every dungeon in Nocturne has an annoying gimmick to it, and they all essentially boil down to different takes on a teleporter maze. I was kind of almost dreading navigating dungeons by the time I got to the last fourth of the game, but my intense love for literally everything else saw me through. For those of you who like JRPGs and haven’t played Nocturne, I’m sure you’ve heard this plenty of times, and I was like you once. I didn’t listen. But now I’m on the other side of the tunnel, so I get to say it. You should really, really play Nocturne. It’s good.

Splatoon 2 Octo Expansion (Nintendo Switch, 2018)

Octo Expansion is what Splatoon 2′s single player mode should have been from the start. Don’t get me wrong, the packed in single player campaign is fine, but it’s basically a level pack for Splatoon 1′s. Octo Expansion, on the other hand, is 100% fresh. Structurally it’s much more diverse, with the campaign taking place over 80 mostly-bite-sized missions with varying objectives. There’s a couple of stinkers in there, but overall the quality of the missions is much higher than what was in the original single player campaign. They can actually be pretty tough sometimes too! It was fun to see some actual challenge in a Splatoon campaign. Everything wrapped around the core gameplay of Octo Expansion is kind of phenomenal. The setting and visual design is super weird, the music is way more mellow than anything else that’s come out of the series and creates a great sense of atmosphere, and the writing is actually genuinely pretty great. There’s a lot of funny dialogue and good character moments. They made me like Pearl! The weird gremlin that eats mayo! She’s my friend now! The last half an hour or so of Octo Expansion is also straight up my favorite sequence from a game I played this year too. Don’t sleep on this thing just because it’s DLC. It’s legitimately great.

Monster Hunter: World (PlayStation 4, 2018)

At the outset I was incredibly skeptical of Monster Hunter: World. This wasn’t entirely fair to the game, as a lot of this feeling was based on its initial E3 reveal trailer kinda sorta matching up to some mostly not true pre-E3 leaks, namely that it would be much more action heavy to cater to Western audiences and tie into the then unannounced Monster Hunter movie (which, as an aside, looks like a trainwreck that I desperately want to see). You can probably pretty easily find some tweets and posts from me around that time saying that the game looks like trash because of some misinterpreted new game mechanic. I am here to say that I am a big wrong dumbass and Monster Hunter: World is very good. You might be surprised to hear this, but it’s Monster Hunter! With a bunch of good and well-executed gameplay refinements! And graphics that aren’t repurposed from a PS2 game! It’s a ton of fun and I put a lot of time into it, but it’s not without its flaws. The number of monsters and weapons is comparatively way lower than in previous games, mostly due to that whole not repurposing PS2 models thing. It’s still kind of clunky in a lot of the places Monster Hunter has been historically clunky in, but also in some pretty big new ways, mainly around playing multiplayer. Also the story, while it’s as bland as it’s ever been, is exponentially more intrusive thanks to the addition of voiced cutscenes (which need to be triggered before the game lets you bring other players into story missions, causing a lot of that clunk I mentioned earlier). It’s all nothing game-ruining, of course. The game wouldn’t be on the list if it was! Monster Hunter: World exceeded my expectations, and I’m super looking forward to playing the recently announced G Rank expansion when it comes out next year.

Contra: Hard Corps (Sega Genesis, 1994)

I wish I could go back in time and kick my own stupid ass for not playing this sooner. I’d written off Contra: Hard Corps for the longest time based solely on some bullshit I read on the internet at an age where I just took other peoples’ opinions and made them my own. This and Castlevania Bloodlines were the bad ones, the ones some weird b-team crapped out for the Genesis while the SNES got the good stuff like Contra 3: Alien Wars. Well, it turns out... they were right about Bloodlines. But MAN were they wrong about Hard Corps. Hard Corps is the best Contra game. It fucking rules. I would have gone on with my life never giving the game a glance if not for this excellent Giant Bomb feature happening, and a couple of episodes in I knew I had to play it for myself. Contra: Hard Corps is fucking nuts. It’s balls to the wall 100% of the time. There’s so many unique enemies and wild bosses and they’re all never not exploding. The game has four characters with unique weapons and multiple different level paths that have totally different levels, bosses, and story beats. Oh, and the soundtrack fucking rips. Sometimes it’s a little too much, and there are definitely some sequences and boss attacks that are total gotchas that you can’t survive without prior knowledge of how they work. I’d also be remiss not to give a special shoutout to level 4′s awful, tedious, unskippable-on-any-route boss. But god damn if the rest of Hard Corps doesn’t outshine these flaws. It’s the high water mark for insane non-stop 16-bit action.

Deltarune (PC, 2018)

Does this count? It’s a demo for a full game that won’t be out for a real long time... I suppose it does, it’s self-contained enough. Deltarune, the free demo for the sort of but also sort of not sequel to Undertale, is unsurprisingly good as hell. Less surprising for sure, as Undertale is a known quantity these days, but I’m still way into it. The story is interesting and full of charming characters, and the battle system has been overhauled to include things like multiple party members with different abilities while still keeping all the things that made Undertale’s battles novel. The music is, of course, fantastic, and the visuals look much nicer while adhering to the same general style as the previous game. It’s fairly short, and some character development feels a little rushed because of it, but again, it’s a small chunk of the beginning of a much larger game. I can’t imagine any of this stuff wouldn’t be expanded upon. It’s hard to judge this thing story-wise due to the nature of it being a demo. I thoroughly enjoyed what is there, though, and look forward to playing the rest of the game in 50 years or whatever.

Super Smash Bros. Ultimate (Nintendo Switch, 2018)

This game is so much. Even though the first thing I learned about this game was “everyone is here”, I still wasn’t ready for how much it is. Super Smash Bros. Ultimate is maybe too much. Of course, as previously stated, everyone (meaning every single previous playable Smash Bros. character) is here. Most of the previous stages are also present. This was all known. Where the game really, truly goes overboard though is in the single-player content. There’s the usual classic mode for every character, this time specifically structured around a theme for each character, but the vast majority of it is actually comprised of the all-new spirits system. Spirits are non-playable video game characters that you can collect and equip to your fighters for special abilities, sort of like a less terrible version of Smash Bros. Brawl’s stickers. You collect these spirits through spirit battles, which are fights themed around the character the spirit represents via extremely clever usage of already existing fighters and mechanics. These battles range from the obvious (Big the Cat’s battle tasks you with fighting a giant purple Incineroar), to the obscure (fight the main characters from Zangeki no Reginleiv as represented by Link and female Robin while you’re giant-sized), to the creative (Porygon’s spirit puts you in a fight against wireframe Little Mac and Akira from Virtua Fighter, normally an assist trophy), to the downright in-jokey (the spirit of Ness’s Father, displayed as the telephone spirte from Earthbound, makes you fight an invisible Solid Snake). There are like 1200 spirits. The vast majority of them have an associated battle. And you don’t just experience these battles through a menu, at least half of them are implemented into the 30 hour long adventure mode, World of Light, which has you fighting spirits, navigating dungeons, and facing bosses. It’s insane. They focused on spirits in lieu of collectible trophies this time around and they absolutely made the correct choice. The trophies in the last two Super Smash Bros. games were fine, but easier access to existing 3D models of most represented characters made them inherently less exciting than Melee’s tailor-made collection of high quality (considering the time period) renders, many of which would never receive a 3D model again. The spirits system manages to be exciting in the same way Melee's trophies were, fostering a genuine sense of anticipation to see what they cooked up next, but in the context of gameplay. They completely knocked it out of the park. Smash 4 made it on one of these lists long ago, and I essentially just said “it’s more Smash Bros. and that’s good”. Smash Ultimate is also more Smash Bros., but it’s SO much more Smash Bros. It’s so much more extremely good Smash Bros. The only things I can ding it for are some totally subjective stage preferences (where the hell is Poké Floats) and some slightly less than optimal music sorting decisions. Super Smash Bros. Ultimate is, ultimately, the ultimate Super Smash Bros.

These games were also cool, I just had less to say about them:

Bloodstained: Curse of the Moon (Nintendo Switch, 2018): Remember Castlevania 3? Inti Creates sure did! This prequel to the still unreleased Koji Igarashi Kickstarter project Bloodstained: Ritual of the Night is an unabashed love letter to Castlevania 3, and it’s pretty good. Mom Hid My Game! (Nintendo Switch, 2017): A charming little game in the style of those old escape the room Flash games. It even looks like one (in the literal sense, not the pejorative). It’s not tough or replayable really, but it is $5 and consistently absurd and surprising. Yakuza 6: The Song of Life (PlayStation 4, 2018): Yakuza 6 is kind of a weird juxtaposition. It’s the final chapter of Kazuma Kiryu’s story, but also the first game to use the Yakuza team’s new Dragon Engine. The story end of things is a good, solid sendoff for a bunch of characters I’m going to miss very dearly, but the gameplay feels very formative and limited in a way that sort of reminds me of Yakuza 1. I had a good time with it overall, but I hope they manage to dial it in like they did with the previous decade of Yakuza games and make something truly excellent again. Looking at you, Judge Eyes. Etrian Odyssey V: Beyond the Myth (Nintendo 3DS, 2017): Etrian Odyssey V is a return to basics for the series, ditching things like overworlds and sub-dungeons and just pitting your party against one big labyrinth. Honestly, gotta say, I miss the stuff they left behind! The core of Etrian Odyssey is still super strong so I had fun regardless, but the overall simplicity of the game and the changes to how classes work had me missing EOIV more often than not. Soundtrack’s great though, as expected. Sonic Mania Plus (Nintendo Switch, 2018): To be completely honest, most of the stuff they added to Sonic Mania in Plus really isn’t that fantastic. Mighty’s spike and projectile immunity is fun, but Ray’s flying is more interesting than effective. Encore mode is largely disappointing, with most of it feeling identical to the base game outside of its all-new (and too hard for their own good) special stages. HOWEVER, Sonic Mania Plus was an exceptional excuse to play through Sonic Mania another six or so times. Congratulations to Sonic Mania for being game of the year for two years in a row. WarioWare Gold (Nintendo 3DS, 2018): A good compilation game, executed much better than in the team’s previous Rhythm Heaven Megamix, but lacking in reasons to come back after you’ve played all the games. There’s the usual toy room stuff WarioWare has had since Touched!, but it’s bogged down by reliance on a currency system and the fact that sooooo many things you unlock are just parts that feed into a larger, not that interesting thing. The part where you play WarioWare is great though, and the new visuals make it all feel fresh even though it’s mostly older games. Mario Tennis Aces (Nintendo Switch, 2018): I had a brief, passionate love affair with Mario Tennis Aces. The core gameplay is rad as hell and more like a fighting game than a tennis game, with multiple different special shots and a focus on meter management. I played like 40+ hours of it between the full game and the demo and never even touched the single player (which makes it technically not count for this list, but, shut up). I got 2nd place at its very first tournament at CEO 2018. Then I... stopped playing. It had some weird balance issues, sure, but I think it was more a victim of circumstance rather than anything else. I moved basically right after CEO and just never went back to it. It’s still incredible though. I hope this game’s systems are the standard for Mario Tennis games going forward.

We made it! Bottom of the list! It was a shorter trip this time, but I’m still proud of you for making it here all the same. Thank you for reading the words I typed about video games. I’m looking to get this web page back into gear in 2019, so you can probably expect part 2 of The Best Babies sometime in January. Hopefully I’ll actually play some video games too so I can bring back Breviews on the first of February. Until then!

#article #year wrapup

[paleorecipecookbook]

RHR: The Truth about Saturated Fat, with Zoё Harcombe

In this episode, we discuss:

Why you need to eat fat

Why the Paleo diet template makes sense

Where these misguided ideas about fat came from

The Seven Countries Study

Zoё Harcombe’s research on fat

Why you should be skeptical of some news headlines

Why dietary guidelines don’t work

The epidemiological evidence

Conclusions about saturated fat

Show notes:

The Obesity Epidemic: What Caused It? How Can We Stop It?, by Zoё Harcombe

“Evidence from Randomised Controlled Trials Did Not Support the Introduction of Dietary Fat Guidelines in 1977 and 1983: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis,” by Zoё Harcombe

“The Nitrate and Nitrite Myth: Another Reason Not to Fear Bacon,” by Chris Kresser

USDA Food Composition Databases

“Re-evaluation of the Traditional Diet-Heart Hypothesis: Analysis of Recovered Data from Minnesota Coronary Experiment (1968–73),” by Christopher Ramsden

“The Challenge of Reforming Nutritional Epidemiologic Research,” by John Ioannidis

[smart_track_player url="https://ift.tt/2pzvMar" title="RHR: The Truth about Saturated Fat, with Zoё Harcombe" artist="Chris Kresser" ]

Hey, everybody, Chris Kresser here. For the past 50 years we’ve been told that eating meat, saturated fat, and cholesterol is unhealthy. Recently, a growing number of people are turning to a vegetarian or vegan diet with the goal of improving their health.

But is it really true that meat and fat are bad for us? And are vegetarian and vegan diets a good choice for optimizing health and extending lifespan? If not, what is the optimal human diet? Join me on the Joe Rogan Experience on Thursday, September 27th, as I debate these questions with vegan doctor Joel Kahn. You can tune in live at 12 noon Pacific Time at JoeRogan.live. That’s J-o-e-r-o-g-a-n.live, or you can catch the recording at podcasts.joerogan.net, on YouTube, or in iTunes or Stitcher.

If you’d like to receive updates about the debate, including links to the recording and new articles and information I’ve prepared on this topic, go to Kresser.co/Rogan. That’s Kresser.co/Rogan and put your email in the box.

Okay, now onto the show.

Welcome to another episode of Revolution Health Radio. This week I'm very excited to welcome Dr. Zoë Harcombe as the guest on the podcast.

Dr. Harcombe is a Cambridge University graduate with a BA and MA in economics and math. Zoë enjoyed a successful career in blue-chip organizations before leaving corporate life in 2008 to pursue her passion. Her early career involved international roles and management consultancy, manufacturing, and marketing in global organizations from FMCG to telecoms before specializing in personnel and organization. At the peak of her career, Zoë was vice president for human resources for Europe, Middle East, and Africa. Having written three books between 2004 and 2007 while being head of people, Zoë left employment to research obesity full time. This culminated in the publication in 2010 of The Obesity Epidemic: What Caused It? How Can We Stop It?

Zoë returned to full-time education in 2012 to complete a PhD in public health nutrition, which was awarded in March 2016. Her PhD thesis was entitled “An Examination of the Randomised Controlled Trial and Epidemiological Evidence for the Introduction of Dietary Fat Recommendations in 1977 and 1983: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.” A number of peer-reviewed articles have emanated from this work, and the first was the 64th most impactful paper in any discipline in the year 2015. Zoë lives with her husband and rescue animals in the Welsh countryside surrounded by food, a.k.a. sheep, hens, and cows.

Now I'm really excited to talk with Zoë because she recently published a paper critiquing the U.S. dietary guidelines and the U.K. dietary guidelines for the lack of evidence behind their recommendation against eating saturated fat or limiting it to less than 10 percent of calories in the diet. And she, as I just suggested with her bio, has probably spent more time looking at this than anybody else. She wrote her PhD thesis, as the title suggests, on the evidence, or lack of evidence, rather, behind the dietary guidelines around total fat and saturated fat. And she went all the way back to the late 70s and early 80s to look at the studies that were used to create the original dietary guidelines. And then the second half of her paper looked at all of the research that has been published since then through 2016.

And as we’ll discuss in the show, the conclusion is that the dietary guidelines never really had any meaningful evidence behind them to justify restricting saturated fat back in the late 70s and the early 80s. And the same is true today in 2018. So I hope you enjoy this interview as much as I did, and let's dive in.

Chris Kresser:  Zoë, it is such a pleasure to have you on the show. We were just chatting before the show, and I can't believe we haven't connected by now. We walk in many of the same circles, and I’ve followed your work for some time. So I'm really, really grateful that you’re able to join us.

Zoë Harcombe:  Oh, I thank you so much for having me. I’ve just followed you for so long and your “nitrates in bacon” is my just absolute go-to blog. Stop, people, worrying about bacon.

Chris Kresser:  All right. Well, we’re going to talk a lot more about that and there’s so many things we could talk about today. But the main reason that I wanted to have you on the show is to talk about your recent paper critiquing the dietary guidelines both in the U.S. and in the U.K. related to total fat and particularly saturated fat. And everyone who’s listening to this knows that for many, many years, really, I guess about 40 years now, right? It goes back to about 40, 41 years now, we've been told that fat in general, although that's maybe slightly changing in the public perception recently and even in some of the dietary guidelines that fat in general is bad, and particularly saturated fat is terrible.

But as we’re going to discuss in the show, your research has shown that that's maybe not what the evidence actually says. So before we dive into that, why don’t you tell everyone a little bit about your background and how you came to this work.

Zoë Harcombe:  Okay, I’ll do a really quick one because I know you’re not sort of a three-hour podcast man. So I’ll give you a composite history. First fascination came when I was studying at Cambridge University in the late 80s, early 90s and started seeing obesity growing around me. And it was just a fascination to me because it's the last thing that people want to be. People do not want to be overweight, let alone obese, and it was just starting to explode and had already exploded in the U.S. And I was just fascinated.

So I wanted to understand, why do we have an obesity epidemic? When you start looking at why, you go back to looking at when, and you can't help but see, particularly on the U.S. graph, that it just takes off like an airplane at about 1976 to 1980, that pivot point in the NHANES data. And of course, therefore, you go back to look at that period of time. Did anything particularly happen? Did we suddenly start eating 10,000 calories a day and sitting around on our backsides? Well, actually, no we didn't.

Did you grow up hearing that saturated fat would give you a heart attack? You’re not alone. Check out this episode of RHR for an in-depth look at the science surrounding saturated fat with researcher and author Zoё Harcombe. 

And the UK data was particularly interesting. We seem to be eating fewer calories nowadays than we did back in the 1970s, when we were much slimmer. Barely any obesity in the UK by about 1972. And you then start looking at an event called the dietary guidelines, which came in with the Senator McGovern committee in 1977, and of course these were then embedded in the US Dietary Guidelines for Americans in 1980 and then every five years since. And there is debate.

There are people who will say the introduction of the dietary guidelines has nothing to do with the rise in obesity and type 2 diabetes and more beta conditions related to diet and lifestyle. But it at least needs to be looked at. I mean, I say it coincided with the epidemics in obesity and diabetes, and we need to therefore explore was that a coincidence or was it a factor that was material in the changes in our health. And I am one of the people who thinks it is material and that our shift to basing our meals on starchy foods, grains, fruits, vegetables, largely carbohydrates, being encouraged to consume as high as 60 percent of our diet in the form of carbohydrate, the one macronutrient we don’t actually need, I do think it has made a difference. And I’m not alone in that view.

And then of course you look at guidelines and say, well, what were they about? And of course, they were about restricting total fat to no more than 30 percent of calories and saturated fat to no more than 10 percent. And because they were only three things that we ate and because protein is in everything other than sucrose and oil, so it tends to be fairly constant in any natural diet, and the peer study showed this beautifully, nice evidence for this, protein tends to stay constant around 15 percent. So as soon as you set the fat guideline, you’ve automatically set a carbohydrate intake minimum of 55 percent. And that’s what we did.

So I wanted to understand why did we set that total fat guideline. If that was the thing that started everything, why did we do that? And did we get it right or did we get it wrong?

Chris Kresser:  So you have a BA and an MA from Cambridge in economics and math, and then in 2016 you got a PhD in public health nutrition. And what I find really fascinating is what you … tell us a little bit about your PhD thesis.

Zoë Harcombe:  Yeah, so the PhD thesis was using the relatively modern techniques, and they have been around since the 1970s, but we’re really using them a lot now. And that’s the systematic review and meta-analysis. And when we pulled together evidence from randomized controlled trials, ideally, if not from cohort studies, it’s considered to be the pinnacle of the evidence that we could examine. So I approached looking at the dietary fat guidelines in four ways. And one was to say, what was the RCT evidence at the time available to the committee? Had they looked at it back in …

Chris Kresser:  That’s “randomized controlled trials,” for those who are not familiar.

Zoë Harcombe:  Yes. Yeah, so the randomized controlled trial evidence available to the US committee in 1977, and then the UK committee deliberated in 1983, and that allowed one more study available to the UK committee that wasn't available to the US committee, and that was the Woodhill Sydney Diet Heart Study. And also to look at the epidemiological evidence available, had the committee chosen to look it at the time the guidelines were set? So that was the first two papers, the first half of the PhD. And then the second half was to bring it up to date and to say if the committees were deliberating again today and they had all the RCT, randomized controlled trial, evidence available and all the epidemiological evidence available we have today, what would the conclusions be, looking at it in an up-to-date scenario. And that was the four parts.

Chris Kresser:  Yeah, so you’ve spent, how many years did it take for you to get your PhD?

Zoë Harcombe:  Yeah, three and a half. I did it full time. I just decided to stop everything else I was doing and do it full time. And as anyone who’s ever done one meta-analysis knows, to try and do four …

Chris Kresser:  Yeah, that’s a lot of work. But the upshot here is that you have a PhD in public health nutrition. You spent the better part of four years examining the evidence base for the last 40 years connecting fat and saturated fat to health and disease. And this is exactly why I wanted to have you on the show to talk about this topic because it's one thing if you have a kind of armchair critic who's cherry picking one or two studies to make their point, which often happens on the internet, right?

Zoë Harcombe:  Yes.

Chris Kresser:  It's another thing to have someone who's trained at the level that you've been trained at who spent four years objectively looking at this evidence and then publishing on it and showing where it doesn’t add up. So let's dive into that now.

I want to start by talking about some basics because I think they’re really important. I love how you did this in your recent dietary guidelines paper. Just a few facts about fat that maybe not everyone is aware of or has thought about much.

Zoë Harcombe:  Okay, so I shared these in conference presentations and I was really pleased that when I did this, there’s peer-reviewed study. They didn’t get edited out because I thought they might be a bit chatty, if you know what I mean, for a peer-reviewed paper.

Chris Kresser:  Yeah, yeah.

Zoë Harcombe:  But I actually had a couple of nice comments in the margin of people saying, “Oh, good point, I hadn’t thought about that.”

Chris Kresser:  Yeah, yeah. I had the same reaction.

Why You Need to Eat Fat

Zoë Harcombe:  Oh, thank you. So the most important one is that we must consume fat. Human beings must consume fat. We die without consuming dietary fat. We must consume essential fatty acids, that’s why they’re called essential.

“Essential” in nutrition means something that we must consume, not just something that the body needs. And of course we have the fat-soluble vitamins A, D, E, and K, and they come in foods with fat. And they need fat to be absorbed. So that’s pretty vital. When people demonize fat to the extent that they do, they always give the impression that we could get away without eating this stuff. And we couldn’t. I don’t know how quickly we’d die, but we would. So we need it.

Number two, again, that people seem to realize particularly when they demonize saturated fat is that every single food that contains fat, and it’s actually quite difficult to find a food that doesn't contain fat, sucrose doesn’t. But not much else doesn’t. So every food that contains fat contains all three fats. That’s:

Saturated fat

Monounsaturated fat

Polyunsaturated fat

And only the proportions vary. So again, people talk as if we can avoid saturated fat and only eat unsaturated fat, and that is completely impossible unless you're in a lab and you’re trying to create single fats. It is impossible if you’re going to eat food, which I recommend that all people do.

And then the other interesting factoid, I love playing around on the USDA all foods database and just looking at things that add up and things that don’t add up. And it was a real surprise to me when I first started looking at foods that when it comes to food groups, there is only one food group that has more saturated than unsaturated fat, and that is dairy products. So your struggle to find a meat, and I have not yet found one, that has more saturated than unsaturated fat, typically the main fat in meat is monounsaturated fat. And that goes for lamb or steak or chicken.

Chris Kresser:  Even pork.

Zoë Harcombe:  Absolutely. And therefore lard, which I just love, because people just think lard is pure disgusting.

Chris Kresser:  Saturated fat, yeah.

Zoë Harcombe:  Saturated fat.

Chris Kresser:  If you were to put lard or coconut oil together, people would say lard would be the unhealthy choice from a saturated fat perspective. But of course, coconut oil is 97 percent saturated, I think.

Zoë Harcombe:  Yes.

Chris Kresser:  Something like that.

Zoë Harcombe:  And lard is 39 percent.

Chris Kresser:  Right.

Zoë Harcombe:  So nowhere near as bad. And that’s not saying that saturated fat is worse than unsaturated fat. It’s just stating a nutritional fact. The only food group that has more is dairy products. And then of course you’re getting to, “Well, are dairy products bad for us?” And it’s really difficult to think that they are when you look at the nutritional profile of dairy products and the bone nutrients calcium, phosphorus, vitamin D. Look at any profile of any dairy product and you can’t help but think …

Chris Kresser:  And the evidence.

Zoë Harcombe:  Yes.

Chris Kresser:  I mean there’s a ton of evidence suggesting that full-fat, but not nonfat or low-fat dairy are beneficial for both cardiovascular and metabolic health. And there was actually a new study recently published, I’m not sure if you saw it. I am less persuaded by it. Or you mentioned it, the PURE Study.

Zoë Harcombe:  Oh, yes.

Chris Kresser:  Because it has within-country or between-country comparisons, which I think we’ll be talking about later, is problematic. That was an issue with the Seven Countries Study. But it does align with many of the other studies that have been done on this topic previously, showing that when people eat more full-fat dairy, that's associated with lower body weight, with lower blood sugar and better glycemic control, and with lower risk of heart disease based on cardiovascular markers. And that's actually the reason that the full-fat dairy works better than the low-fat or the nonfat dairy in that regard because some of the nutrients that are thought to be beneficial for cardiovascular and metabolic health are in the fat.

Zoë Harcombe:  Yes, amazing.

Chris Kresser:  So if you take out the fat, you take out the benefit.

Zoë Harcombe:  Yeah, yeah.

Chris Kresser:  Yeah.

Zoë Harcombe:  Absolutely, I’m a huge fan of dairy, personally.

Chris Kresser:  Me too. I mean, of course if someone is lactose intolerant or they’re intolerant of the proteins, it needs to be avoided. But for people who are not, what I always say is at least the evidence that we have suggests that it's healthy when it's well tolerated by the individual.

Zoë Harcombe:  Yes.

Why the Paleo Diet Template Makes Sense

Chris Kresser:  So given this, given that fat is essential, that all foods contain all fats and that saturated fat is not even the highest percentage of fat in any food except for dairy, this leads us to some pretty interesting conclusions. You mentioned in your paper, which I loved, and I loved that they kept it in here too, it’s illogical that the same natural food would be both helpful and harmful. Like you can't eat a steak and eat it so that you're only eating the unsaturated fats and not the saturated fats.

Zoë Harcombe:  Yeah, yeah. There’s no other way of putting that. It just, it doesn’t make sense. Whether your belief system is in God or nature, food is provided around us on this planet, and it makes no sense that in that same food that we need to thrive and survive, something has been put that is trying to kill us at the same time as all the things being there that are trying to save us and enable us to live. And we’ve evolved of course over—I’m reading Sapiens at the moment, so there’s an argument over our heritage—but, I mean, we’ve certainly been around potentially since Australopithecus, Lucy, two-and-a-half, maybe three-and-a-half million years ago. And we’ve done pretty well eating anything we can forage or hunt around us.

Chris Kresser:  That’s right.

Zoë Harcombe:  The idea that they came up with in the last 40 years that this stuff is trying to kill us, it’s just so stupid.

Chris Kresser:  It doesn’t add up at all.

Zoë Harcombe:  Yeah.

Chris Kresser:  It doesn’t add up. So another example you used which I love because it really turns nutrition-dominant paradigm ideas on their head is the olive oil versus pork chop example. Tell us about that.

Zoë Harcombe:  Yeah. So I have a little postcard that I leave on the chairs at conferences, as well, so there’ll be many around the world. And I put up a picture of a sirloin steak, mackerel, olive oil, and mention the pork chop. And a couple of interesting, fun factoids. One is that the mackerel has twice the total fat and one-and-a-half times the saturated fat as the sirloin steak, which isn’t a problem because both of them are great foods. But of course we’re told not to have red meat and we’re told not to have oily fish. So that’s illogical.

And then olive oil has 14 percent saturated fat versus a typical pork chop might be only sort of one to two grams, but then people say, “Oh, you wouldn't consume 100 grams of olive oil.” No, but a tablespoon of olive oil has more saturated fat than a 100-gram pork chop. And again, we can make a mockery of nutritional advice when you know something about food.

Chris Kresser:  Yeah, I mean, and it’s easy to see how you could have a salad, if you have a big salad with a couple tablespoons of olive oil and dressing versus a 200-gram pork chop, you’re still eating more saturated fat there.

Where These Misguided Ideas about Saturated Fat Came From

So, I mean, this is so obvious when you look at it this way, and it makes you wonder, how did we get the idea that saturated fat is bad in the first place? I know there are some political and social roots of this, and feel free to talk a little bit about that if you want. But in particular, how did this arise from the evidence? What was your sense of that as you did your PhD and looked deeply at all of this?

Zoë Harcombe:  Yeah, so one of the most important chapters in the PhD is the review of the literature. And you go back in the review of the literature, and of course in this topic area, you’ve got to go back to the Russian pathologists in the early part of the 19th century, when they noticed the cholesterol deposits in the arteries of the autopsies that they were doing. So they started to hypothesize, had these cholesterol deposits actually caused the death of this relatively young person that they were performing an autopsy on, and could they come to any conclusions about those sort of cholesterol stores of fatty deposits?

And many people know this, it’s been said in conference presentations, that at the time they then started experiments on rabbits, feeding them foods containing cholesterol, feeding them purified cholesterol, to try to see if they could mimic the impact that they thought food might be having on the human body. And of course, as some people have worked out, rabbits are herbivores and the only foods that contained artery cholesterol are foods of animal origins. No exception. So you find dietary cholesterol only in meat, fish, eggs, and dairy, which are things that rabbits can't tolerate.

Chris Kresser:  Yeah, it’s strange. In a certain way, this almost supports what we were just saying. Eat a species-appropriate diet. The message there is not “don’t eat cholesterol.” It’s “don’t feed cholesterol to an animal that’s not supposed to eat it and don’t feed humans foods that we’re not supposed to eat.”

Zoë Harcombe:  Absolutely. And very interesting. When they fed purified cholesterol not in animal foods to the rabbits, they didn’t have any problems. And when they fed cholesterol foods to dogs, they didn’t have any problems because dogs are omnivores.

The Seven Countries Study

So we then wind forward to the 1950s, and Ancel Keys gets a bit of a bad rap in our world. I like to look on him in quite a more balanced way because he did some brilliant work, like the research starvation experiment. But he did kind of fall by the wayside a little bit on the fat thing.

So his first exploration was with the Russian experiments in mind to try to see if dietary cholesterol impacted blood cholesterol. And he concluded it did not, and he never deviated from that view. And the best quotation I found on that was from the 1954 symposium on atherosclerosis, and he said, “Cholesterol in food has no impact on either cholesterol in the blood or the development of atherosclerosis in man.” Which was brilliant because he had actually exonerated animal foods. But he didn't make that connection at the time. Maybe his nutritional knowledge just wasn't good enough and he just hadn't quite worked out, “If I’m finding nothing when I’m feeding human subjects,” because you could do that then with ethics, “human subjects massive amounts of dietary cholesterol via loads of animal products, they don’t develop any blood cholesterol problems and they don’t develop any signs of atherosclerosis,” he should’ve concluded, “I therefore just exonerated what I’ve been feeding them.” Which would be:

Eggs

Cheese

Meat

Possibly fish

But most likely meat, cheese, and eggs. But he didn’t. For some reason he was convinced that fat was the bad guy. If it wasn’t cholesterol in food, then it had to be fat in food. And yet again, having given his human subjects animal foods, he should’ve said, “What are the macronutrients in those animal foods? Okay, so it’s fat and protein. Dairy products have got a little, little bit of carbohydrate, but essentially what I've just fed them is fat and protein. So I should turn my attention to the one thing I haven't fed them, which is carbohydrate.” But he didn't do that.

So he was convinced that total fat was the problem, and of course we then had the Mount Sinai presentation in 1953, which gave us that famous Six Countries Graph, which has nothing to do with the Seven Countries Study. And then of course there were a number of countries that he'd left out. And Yerushalmy and Hilleboe found this out and unfortunately published a little bit too late, in 1957, saying, “Hey, hang on, you left out all of these other countries. And if you put them all on there it looks a bit like a spider scatter, that the pattern has gone. But the Seven Countries Study had already started in 1956. And Keys seemed pretty determined that he was going to come to the end of the Seven Countries Study and find fat guilty.

Now interestingly, and this is not terribly widely known, he could not find anything against total fat. So when, as part of my PhD, I pulled the epidemiological studies that were available at the time the guidelines were introduced, and of course the Seven Countries Study was one of those, and you’ve got Framingham and Honolulu, Puerto Rico, the London bank and bus study, and the Western Electric study being the others, none of those six found any relationship between coronary heart disease and total fat. So Keys acted. He went in with the total fat hypothesis. He accepted that it was not total fat. Now he had spent so much time and money on this study, he needed to find something. And he could find an association between saturated fat in the different cohorts, and coronary heart disease in the different cohorts. But at the same time he claimed, and this is in the summary paper, “I found no issue with weight, obesity, I found no issue with sedentary behavior activity, I found no issue with smoking.”

So things that we now know he was wrong about, we give him the benefit of the doubt on the one thing that he did find, which was saturated fat. And the other five peer studies, the ones I’ve just mentioned, did not find anything against saturated fat. And of course, they were all in country studies. So they were right, they were in community studies.

So you take Framingham. It’s a small town, it’s looking at people who eat a certain level of total fat or saturated fat versus people who don’t. So you’ve got all the other factors, or many of them, constant. You’ve got the same GDP, the same politics, the same community, the same access to healthcare. Go to Japan in the 1950s versus the US in the 1950s, you’re comparing efficiently.

Chris Kresser:  Completely different.

Zoë Harcombe:  Exactly.

Chris Kresser:  Not even apples and oranges. We’re not even in fruit category there. I just want to pause here and just highlight this for people who are less familiar with research and methodologies. What Zoë’s saying is that if you … the problem with comparing groups of people between countries is that there's so many factors that vary from country to country and lifestyle, physical activity, the type of foods they eat. Saturated fat comes in lots of different types of food. So what kinds of foods are people eating in the US versus in Japan, where saturated fat would be found in totally different type of food? So comparing between countries just makes the possibility of confounding factors and all of the other issues of epidemiological research, it just amplifies them and makes them even more likely. So typically, especially today, those between-country studies are often discounted or taken with a large grain of salt because it's so hard to control for factors even within the population, much less between different populations.

Zoë Harcombe:  Absolutely. Absolutely yes.

Chris Kresser:  Okay, so, I mean, this is … the crazy thing to me about this, Zoë, and I'm sure this struck you at many intervals throughout your PhD, is just how much of a house of cards the whole evidence base is behind the idea that saturated fat is bad for us. There’s this illusory truth fallacy that we were chatting about before we hit the record button, as well, which is the idea that if you hear something repeated enough times, you just start to believe that it's true, whether it has any basis in fact or not. And we think maybe that researchers and scientists are immune to this illusion. But the fact is, they’re not.

John Ioannides, one of the most famous epidemiologists in the world, one of my favorite quotes of his is, “Claimed research findings may often be simply accurate measures of the prevailing bias.” So, I mean, that sums it. He has all these pithy quotes that just sum it up in, like, 10 words. Which basically means that once you have a certain idea and it's out there because of groupthink and confirmation bias, that idea will often just be perpetuated, even if it was never based in fact in the first place. Because someone will link to that original study that turned out to be erroneous as proof, then someone does a later study and you link to that second study. And then it just becomes a chain of references that all point back to that original study that then it was later shown to be invalid. So it's crazy to me that 40 years of dietary policy has been based on such flimsy evidence.

Zoë Harcombe:  I should declare my own bias, actually, going in, because up until 2010 I’d been a vegetarian for about 20 years. Then my own bias going in was that fat was bad, saturated fat was bad, saturated fat equaled animal fat, which of course I now know absolutely that it doesn’t. All fats are in all foods, especially coconut oil, which is purely vegan. And I believed what I’d been taught at school, that we should be eating low-fat foods and healthy whole grains and plenty of fruit and vegetables. And I believed it too. And I was at a dinner party just a couple of weeks ago, and there were a couple of young people who were engaged and full of life and full of news and full of opinions.

And as we sat down to dinner, they were reliably informing me and my husband that they didn’t eat much meat because it was full of saturated fat, which of course it isn’t, and saturated fat is bad for you, which of course it isn’t. And I said, “You guys work in the finance industry. How did you pick up, how did you become authorities on dietary fat at your tender young years?” We had done a superb marketing job on fat and cholesterol worldwide and people have fallen for it.

Chris Kresser:  Absolutely. Yeah, yeah, and it’s deep. It’s really a form of conditioning. At least, I’m not sure what’s happening with with kids now, but I grew up certainly at a time where butter and eggs and all those foods were really demonized. And it becomes kind of part of your cultural conditioning, and it's so deeply hardwired in the brain, it can be really hard to let go of it. I, as my listeners know, I was a macrobiotic vegan at one point. So I took it about as far as you could go.

Zoë Harcombe:  Wow.

Chris Kresser:  And I remember in high school, I was an athlete and the whole carb loading paradigm. I was eating, like, bagels with nothing on them, like dry bagels and breakfast cereal with nonfat milk for breakfast, and eating pasta and pancakes before my basketball games because the thinking was that would be good for athletic performance and also good for my health.

So I can be pretty extreme when I go for something. I took it to the extreme and when I started to figure out, I mean, it took a very serious chronic illness for me to snap out of that. And even with that, I remember when I was first starting to eat more fat, I had this distinct feeling, like I was doing something wrong or I should do it behind closed doors, or that something bad was going to happen to me. And it took quite a while for that to unwind. So I think there’s that kind of deeper psychological influence happening here too.

Zoë Harcombe:  I’ve read your stuff on that. You write so, like it just happened yesterday. I mean you just describe it, and you just did it then. I could see you running around the track with your bagel. It sort of stays in your mind, doesn’t it, how we felt and what we thought we were doing when we did all of that stuff.

Zoё Harcombe’s Research on Fat

Chris Kresser:  Absolutely. So let's talk a little bit more. Let’s kind of dive in with a little more of a fine-toothed comb on your thesis and your review of the RCTs from 1977, the randomized controlled trials. Which again, if we’re looking at a hierarchy of evidence, it's not that RCTs are perfect or they don't have potential issues, but certainly when compared to epidemiological issues and all of the problems there, which we’ll discuss a little later, they are more reliable. So what did you find in your review of RCTs related to saturated fat and either death from all causes and death from heart disease?

Zoë Harcombe:  So this paper came out in February 2015, and it went nuts. And if you Google it, it was front page in New Zealand and in the UK papers. And I spent the whole day when it came out. The phone was ringing the second I put it on in the morning and it was the BBC, could I come in? And I ended up doing about 20 or 30 interviews that day, just back to back. And it just went nuts. So I think it went nuts because it was the unique part of the PhD that was looking at the evidence at the time. And so people were picking up on the idea that we’ve been eating low fat for 40 years and the evidence wasn’t there at the time to back up the call to do that.

So the major findings from that paper were first of all that there were only six studies, six randomized controlled trials that were available to the UK committee. Only five were available to the US committee, and they’ll be pretty well-known to people. It’s like the Rose corn oil, olive oil trial, the low-fat diet; the Leren Oslo Diet-Heart Study; the MRC soybean study; the Sydney Diet Heart Study; and the LA Vet study. And you pull all of those together, there is no difference whatsoever. Not even to just leak the significance, it was actually the exact same number of deaths in the controlled side as in the intervention side. There was no significant difference in coronary heart disease mortality, it wasn’t quite an identical number, but it was something like 221 versus 219, or something. It was so close. It was virtually identical, again.

A really interesting finding, and this just massively undermined the diet–heart hypothesis and was not a finding that we expected to come across. It just came out. We were able to measure the … Across the polled studies, there was a significant difference in cholesterol being lowered in the intervention studies. But of course that made no difference whatsoever between mortality or coronary heart disease mortality. And I then went on to try to understand why it may have been the case that cholesterol had been lowered by the intervention and not made any difference to health benefits apart from the fact that cholesterol is not bad for us. But why didn’t intervention diets lower cholesterol?

And I think it’s because the main intervention was to swap out saturated fat and to swap in polyunsaturated fat. And a lot of the polyunsaturated fats that they were putting in, corn oil, soybean oil, vegetable oils, contain plant sterols. And plant sterol is effectively plant cholesterol, and it competes in the human gut with the human cholesterol and it replaces it, to an extent. So if you take plant sterols in margarines or spreads or in vegetable oils or indeed in some grain plant products, or some people take them from tablets from the health food shop, which is a really crazy … they will replace your own cholesterol to an extent and lower your blood cholesterol. But I’ve looked at the evidence for the end outcomes on heart disease. I’ve got another paper on that that was published in an editorial, and that shows that actually the overall benefit is not there. It’s actually overall harm of administering plant sterols in the end outcomes of heart disease.

But I think that’s why they lowered cholesterol and perhaps the studies weren’t long enough for the harm from that replacement to actually manifest itself in a difference in outcomes. And I would then expect the interventions to have more deaths from heart disease and more deaths therefore from all-cause mortality.

One of the other really big aspects I think that grabbed the media is the point that we made at the end of the paper, saying that these six studies, when he pulled them together, amounted for fewer than two-and-a-half thousand men, not one single woman had been studied, and not one of those men was healthy. They had all had a heart attack already.

Why You Should Be Skeptical of Some News Headlines

Chris Kresser:  So this is just really key here. You cannot generalize, even if the results were consistent across all these studies, which they weren’t, implicating … Or it sounds like they were consistent in the opposite direction that people thought they were. But even if they had implicated saturated fat as increasing total and CHD mortality, coronary heart disease, that would only be applicable to men.

Zoë Harcombe:  Sick.

Chris Kresser:  With pre-existing, yeah, sick men.

Zoë Harcombe:  Yeah.

Chris Kresser:  Not women and not men that are not sick.

Zoë Harcombe:  Yeah, absolutely, yeah. And interestingly not one study called for change, and studies at the time were far more ethical, I think, than they are today. Far less media orientated, far less trying to get a press release. They would just say things how they were. And a couple of them were a bit nervous about potential toxicity of the fish oil that we’d administered, and they’re the ones that were a bit worried about … the corn oil study had more deaths in the intervention group, and said, “We’re worried about the potential harm from the fish oil intervention.” And the low-fat diet study, the last sentence of that study just cracks me up. It just says, “A low-fat diet has no place in the treatment of myocardial infarction,” which is heart attack.

Chris Kresser:  It's interesting to me what you just said that how much the, both the reporting on studies has changed in the media and also even the way that researchers talk about their findings themselves to the media. I think I was reading an article in Science that was published in 1993, and they were talking about relative risks, which we can get into more detail when we talk about epidemiological evidence. But this is the percentage increase in risk from a given intervention, and they were outside of nutrition, still today in any other field, epidemiologists would consider anything below a 200 to 400 percent increase in risk to be indistinguishable from noise, meaning they would consider anything less than a 200 percent increase in risk to be not significant statistically. And in this article, Marcia Angell, who is a former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine, was quoted as saying that, “They typically didn't really accept a paper unless it had a relative risk ratio of over three for nutrition.” And that just blew me away because today, like IARC's panel about red meat and processed meat causing increased risk of cancer, the percentage increase is 18 percent.

Zoë Harcombe:  Yeah.

Chris Kresser:  That’s not even remotely close to the 200 percent which is the lower end of the threshold. And yet the media headlines are not saying indistinguishable increase in risk observed in people eating more red meat. They come out and just claim causality. They say, “Red meat and eating red meat and processed meat is going to kill you.”

Zoë Harcombe:  And as Bradford Hill would say, “There’s nine criteria and that double is just one of them.”

Chris Kresser:  Yeah.

Zoë Harcombe:  “So hit the double and then you can look at the other eight.” But none of them hit the double, none today get anywhere close.

Chris Kresser:  Nowhere near and yet, and I think this is partly an artifact of the world we live in, just with, like, proliferation of the internet and so many headlines. Everyone's vying to get attention and so you have to … a headline that said, almost insignificant increase in risk observed in people who eat more red meat than other people. But of course there are other diet and lifestyle factors that we’re not considering. That's not to make a good headline, right? Nobody’s going to click on that. And so people want the flashy, clickbait headline saying low-carb diet will shorten your lifespan or eating red meat will give you a heart attack. Even though I would hope that the researchers themselves somewhere deep down know that that’s a gross exaggeration of their findings.

Zoë Harcombe:  Yeah.

Chris Kresser:  And as for the media, I guess it’s just that we don’t have science journalists anymore.

Zoë Harcombe:  We don’t. I do a note every Monday where I look at a paper from the previous week and dissect it. And you can tell, mostly the ones that get into the media have had a press release. And if you look at the press release and you look at the media article, the media have just taken the press release almost verbatim. The press release provides a couple of quotes, they end up in every single article. Completely lazy journalism. Occasionally they might call in the UK me or Dr. Aseem Malhotra or Dr. Malcolm Kendrick and just say, “Do you want to give an opposing quote?” and occasionally they’ll stick it in.

Mostly they’ll just run off the press release, and the researchers should be challenging the press release. I mean, our paper in February 2015 was press released, and I remember having a few toings and froings because I wanted it to be scientific. It’s a big enough claim in itself to say we only studied two-and-a-half thousand sick men, and then we introduced these guidelines for 250 million Americans and 50 million Brits. That’s okay, enough. We don’t need to sensationalize it anymore than that.

Chris Kresser:  Absolutely.

Zoë Harcombe:  So I tried to get it down to the facts that we found and not to put any spin on them.

Chris Kresser:  Yeah. Yeah, to your credit, I mean, that's so hard to do in this crazy media environment that we live in now. And to be fair, there are definitely researchers that make an effort to do that. And you still will see that in reports where, I was reading one on, I can't remember what it was, but it actually stood out to me because I don't see it as often as I do. I was impressed by both at what the researchers were saying and that the author of the article. Because they went out of their way to say this is just an association or correlation. It doesn't prove causality, and here are the reasons why it might not be a causal relationship, and why we need more research. But my sense of that is it's almost like when you watch, if you see a commercial for a drug and then you have like the 20 seconds of side effects after the 10 seconds of the commercial. People have heard that so many times they just kind of tune that out and they’re only really still paying attention to the headline.

Zoë Harcombe:  Yeah.

Chris Kresser:  So let’s talk. So you went back, you reviewed the RCTs from the late 70s that were responsible for creating dietary guidelines that, as you said, applied to hundreds of millions of people around the world and probably affected many more even just by osmosis. Those ideas becoming firmly entrenched in industrialized society, even if they weren’t part of formal dietary guidelines. And then you went back and analyzed all of the research that had been done from, was it from the late 70s to 2016?

Zoë Harcombe:  Yes, so we then took it up to date. And I actually said in the recent paper that’s just been published by the BJSM, the one on is saturated fat a nutrient of concern, and that’s because the USDA is now looking at it again for the next dietary guidelines. And I actually put in that paper that the day that the paper is saying there was no evidence at the time came out, I was astonished that Public Health England came out almost immediately on the day. I said, “Okay, so maybe there wasn’t evidence at the time, but we’ve got plenty of evidence today.”

Chris Kresser:  Right.

Zoë Harcombe:  I was surprised that they were prepared to concede. I thought they said, “No, no, no, this is ridiculous. The Seven Countries Study was marvelous and that’s all we need. And we can ignore everything else.” But they didn’t. They said, “Okay, there was no evidence, but there is plenty nowadays.” And of course it takes so long to get papers published that with my supervisory team, we’d already moved on to the next step, which was looking at the evidence available today. So we had that paper pretty much ready to go. And of course you keep in the original six studies, then you just add in any other randomized controlled trials that have looked at coronary heart disease, mortality, and total mortality. Those were our two outcome criteria so we wouldn’t lose some RCTs that only looked at events, for example. But then that then brought in the Women’s Health Initiative, the DART study, the STARS study, and the very well-known Minnesota Coronary Survey study.

Chris Kresser:  Zoë, before we go on I want to pause there. Let’s talk about why you chose total and coronary mortality as an endpoint and why that's important—to focus on the mortality endpoints versus just the events.

Zoë Harcombe:  Yeah, I’ve got to credit Dr. Malcolm Kendrick with this, and I am such a Dr. Malcolm Kendrick fan, it’s just not true.

Chris Kresser:  Yeah, me too.

Zoë Harcombe:  And I just remember, I mean, I’m fortunate enough to know him and consider him a friend and to meet him on occasions. And just every time I meet with him he says stuff and I'm just, why is this not just the only thing that’s being taught in medical school because it’s so sensible? So he’ll say, “I can guarantee that you won’t die from heart disease by pushing you off a cliff.” And it just, it then sticks in your head. Okay, so the important thing is total mortality because there is no point to reducing heart disease if you increase deaths of something else. So all this stuff going on with statins. Oh, we think we can reduce some events. We could have a whole different program on statins. But would there be any point in making any benefit anyway, even if they could, if they, for example, as they might do, increase your risk of cancer or dementia or mind health, etc., etc.? So it has to be total mortality. The only thing that matters is are you going to help people to live longer, to die later?

Chris Kresser:  Absolutely.

Zoë Harcombe:  That’s what we’re trying to do with health interventions. And so we’ve got to have all-cause mortality in there and then we’ve got to have heart disease mortality and not just events. Because that’s where the dietary fat guidelines came about. They were issued in the name of trying to stop deaths, particularly in men at the time, younger men at the time, from coronary heart disease. So if they’re not going to achieve that, then they’re not even going to achieve what they were introduced for. So why on earth were they introduced?

Chris Kresser:  Yeah, thanks for clarifying, and sorry to interrupt. But I'm banging on this drum all the time. I just want to make sure that people understand it because it's a crucial distinction. You frequently see headlines like “XYZ intervention reduces the risk of heart attack by 20 percent,” which again, as we just said, in an epidemiological study, that's meaningless. We can’t distinguish that from chance anyways.

But even if it's an RCT, then the first thing I’d do is go look at the table to see if they even measured total mortality. Which previously, that was less common. It’s more common now, I'm finding. But then when you look at total mortality, there is often no difference. So that’s where the disease substitution is happening that you were just talking about. The risk of death.

Zoë Harcombe:  A bit of gossip. Malcolm Kendrick wants to die from a heart attack.

Chris Kresser:  Rather than cancer?

Zoë Harcombe:  Exactly. Rather than cancer.

Chris Kresser:  Yeah, that’s what I tell people too.

Zoë Harcombe:  Yeah, he doesn’t want to go early, don’t get me wrong. He probably wants to go at sort of 98 drinking a glass of red wine, playing with his grandchildren when he gets them.

Chris Kresser:  Yeah. You just have a heart attack in your sleep overnight. You don’t wake up one morning. That sounds a lot better to me than dementia or Alzheimer’s or cancer.

Zoë Harcombe:  Yeah.

Chris Kresser:  So you don’t need to belabor this, but it’s really important to point out because I think it's something that people who are less familiar with research may not have thought of. So okay, so you chose total and CHT mortality, and I believe you ended up with 10 RCTs?

Zoë Harcombe:  Yeah. So the original six and then the Women’s Health Initiative, DART, STARS, and the Minnesota Coronary Survey, pull them all together, there’s no difference in all-cause mortality. There’s no difference in coronary heart disease mortality. Again, there was a significant reduction in cholesterol in the interventions that did not meet any difference in coronary heart disease mortality or all-cause mortality.

So essentially, all we did by adding in the former recent studies was that we increased the number of people studied quite dramatically. It came up into the tens of thousands, not least because the women’s health initiative alone brings along tens of thousands of people to the party. And of course it then became more female than male because of all the women in the Women’s Health Initiative. But we still in those 10 only ended up with one study including both men and women that would be a primary prevention study, so people who had not already had a heart attack, and that was of course the Minnesota Coronary Survey. And this in itself found no significant results at the time of publication and of course we then had that brilliant paper where … it should be on the tip of my tongue, the person who went back to look at this, Christopher, I’m thinking. You know the person I mean, who went back to look at the Minnesota Coronary Survey and also went back to look at the Sydney.

Chris Kresser:  Was it Hibbeln?

Zoë Harcombe:  No.

Chris Kresser:  No that’s Joseph Hibbeln and Christopher, they’re both the guys who have done a lot of the critique of the polyunsaturated fat research, or am I thinking of someone different?

Zoë Harcombe:  Oh, I’ll be kicking myself and don’t worry. Stick it in your show notes. But it’s a very well-known team that went back to look at both of those studies and even thought there was no evidence found against the dietary intervention at the time, they found that there was some unpublished data. And it just made it even more robust that we had been demonizing fat at the time. So all the RCTs as of 2016, and there haven’t been any since, and there’s still no more evidence than we had at the time the guidelines were introduced.

Chris Kresser:  Wow, it’s just, it’s really kind of remarkable, actually. And it’s again just going back to this idea that a lot of this evidence is really based on a house of cards. And as an example of the fallibility of these guidelines, the US in 2015 for the first time removed their advisory that we should not be eating dietary cholesterol. Because they finally acknowledged the cholesterol in the diet does not have any relationship with heart disease. And that was kind of like a pretty major thing that just, like, slipped through.

There weren’t really big announcements or any fanfare around that. Like, “Hey, everybody, we’ve been really wrong about this for the last 30 or 40 years and we just want to bring that to your attention.” And I even remember reading editorials written by scientists who were kind of still anti-saturated fat and cholesterol, and were saying things like, “We can’t really make too much of this because the public is going to lose faith in our ability to guide them with diet.” And I have a sense that the same thing is going to happen with saturated fat in the next few years. And maybe already people know this, but they're just not willing to do it yet because if they do, people will absolutely lose faith in the diet guidelines.

Zoë Harcombe:  Yeah, and they need to.

Chris Kresser:  Yeah.

Zoë Harcombe:  I mean, let’s face it, they need to lose faith. The best thing that they could do, the dietary guideline committees, would be to come out and say, “Guys, we were wrong. I’m sorry, we were wrong. And we’re going to get it right from now on.” And that would be the only way that we would start having trust in them again. But all this surreptitious slipping things out, then slipping things in, anyone who’s working in this field is just finding this completely unprofessional and noncredible.

 Why Dietary Guidelines Don’t Work

Chris Kresser:  I mean, this is a whole other discussion, but it’s worth pointing out that the idea of top-down, one-size-fits-all dietary guidelines that will apply to everyone is really not consistent with our understanding, our modern understanding of human biology, biochemistry, and physiology. And I think that this, the whole idea of dietary guidelines that would apply to everyone needs to just die. Because that has led to this reductionist approach, which one researcher calls nutritionism, I like that idea, which is that a nutrient is a nutrient is a nutrient no matter what it's found in.

Saturated fat in candy or pizza or junk food will have the same impact as saturated fat found in a steak or another whole food. And it’s led to this extreme focus on macronutrients and isolated food components rather than looking at the whole context of the diet. And that's starting to change slowly. There have been some pretty good studies in the last couple years. There was one, I’m sure you know which one I mean. It was looking mostly at weight loss and they compared, they designed a study that was comparing the effects of a healthier low-carb versus a healthier low-fat diet. And they found that both were actually pretty effective compared to the standard junk food diet that most people eat.

And we need more studies like that, and if we let go of this kind of one-size-fits-all approach, we might actually be able to start looking at the context of foods we’re eating, and then where maybe one person does need to eat more fat and fewer carbs and another person might do better eating a little bit less fat and more carbs from whole foods relative to that other person. So to me that’s one of the biggest assumptions behind the dietary guidelines that’s not mentioned.

Zoë Harcombe:  Yeah, that was the Gardner study, wasn’t it?

Chris Kresser:  Yeah.

Zoë Harcombe:  I corresponded that enough.

Chris Kresser:  Yes, the Gardner study.

Zoë Harcombe:  Yeah, very good study, yeah.

 The Epidemiological Evidence

Chris Kresser:  So let's just briefly touch on epidemiological evidence. I mean, there’s so many issues with observational nutrition studies. I don't know if you saw John Ioannidis’s recent review. It was published in JAMA and I’m going to pull up a couple choice … It was called “The Challenge of Reforming Nutritional Epidemiological Research.” And I’m going to read the first two sentences because they’re classic Ioannidis in how pithy and direct they are. It says, “Some nutrition scientists and much of the public often consider epidemiologic associations of nutritional factors to represent causal effects that can inform public health policy and guidelines. However, the emerging picture of nutritional epidemiology is difficult to reconcile with good scientific principles. The field needs radical reform.”

Zoë Harcombe:  Oh, I couldn’t agree more. I just couldn’t agree, I mean, I had the privilege of seeing John present at the Food for Thought conference in Zurich, which was arranged by the British Medical Journal and Swiss Re, a reinsurance company, and he gave the, I guess you’d call it the keynote, after-dinner speech by videoconference into the conference hall where we were in Zurich. And it was uncomfortable, shall we say, for some of the audience.

Chris Kresser:  I could imagine. In an audience full of nutritional epidemiologists, probably didn’t like what he had to say.

Zoë Harcombe:  Yeah, largely. I mean, I sat near Nina Teicholz, and we were absolutely loving it. But I won’t mention any names, but a couple of nutritional epidemiologists did walk out.

Chris Kresser:  Yeah, yeah, I’m not surprised. It’s hard to consider, and there are ways that nutritional epidemiology can be done better. We can have more advanced data collection methods and an application of Bradford Hill criteria, which you mentioned, to increase the chance that the relationship between variables is causal. But the way it is now … there’s another critique that I love by Archer and he says, “For results to be scientific, data must be, number one, independently observable. Number two, measurable. Number three, falsifiable, Number four, valid, and number five, reliable. And these criteria distinguish scientific research from mere data collection and pseudoscience.”

And when you look at nutritional epidemiology, they do not satisfy those basic criteria for science because they're relying on data collection methods like food frequency questionnaires, which are just a joke. I mean, they’ve been so thoroughly debunked as a reliable way of assessing what someone is eating. We know that human memory is not an accurate reproduction of past events. It’s just basically a highly edited anecdote regarding what we ate. And we know that these approaches that are used to assess what people are eating in these studies are really not accurate and not reliable and don't fulfill the basic criteria of science.

So, I mean, we could talk a lot more about the problems with epidemiology, but I think let's, given the time constraint, let's just go on and talk with those caveats, those huge caveats. What did the epidemiological evidence suggest if it had been included in the original analysis that you looked at and then also since then?

Zoë Harcombe:  So we covered in some depth at the time that essentially it was just the Seven Countries Study that found anything. None of the six studies found anything against total fat, and then just the Seven Countries Study alone found something against saturated fat. When you bring the epidemiology up to date, and I actually did it, I had to do it in a different way in the fourth part of the PhD because they didn’t have data on current epidemiology and total mortality or coronary heart disease mortality. So there was going to be nothing that I could actually update the original studies with.

So I had to look at different measures of looking at any relationship that I could find with deaths and total fat or deaths and saturated fat separately. Of course they’re not interventions anymore. So you are into just this epidemiological base of looking at the fat intake in different regions or in different studies. So it was slightly different to the other three that were looked at, and they were completely different studies, and probably studies therefore that are less well known to people. They were certainly less well known to me. So things like the Ireland-Boston study, Kushi, the US Health Professionals, Lipid Research study that’s very well known. The Pietinen Finnish counts study, a UK health survey by a couple of people called Boniface and Tefft. She’s not very well known, this new heart study, and then the Gardner Japanese study, which is probably not too badly known within the field. And when you separate it out, look in it, coronary heart disease deaths, so we couldn’t get the total mortality anymore.

But we could at least get the heart deaths and align those to either the total fat, where it was examined, or the saturated fat. There was, again, no significant difference for coronary heart disease deaths and total fat or saturated fat consumption. We were back to a limitation of the pooled studies from those seven that I’ve mentioned being almost entirely male. So 94 percent of the people involved in those studies were male. They were at least mostly healthy. Almost all of them had not already had a heart attack, but there was still no relationship for coronary heart disease deaths and total or saturated fat. So there was then a fifth paper that I published with the BJSM that wrapped up the four studies.

So it went through essentially what we’ve gone through now, which is, what did I do, looking at RCTs then, RCTs now, epidemiology then, epidemiology now? What was found? What wasn't found, which was far, far more. And then an era that I suggest we’ll probably be heading into quite soon was to put what I’d looked at in context of other meta-analyses that had been done. Because I’m a PhD researcher, I was not straight out of finishing my degree. But I’m still just a PhD researcher looking at this evidence fresh in a systematic way.

A number of other people have also looked at the data in this field either for mortality or for events or for interventions or for epidemiology. And I therefore wanted to look at what everybody else had done to say have I found something different. Has everybody found this? Because you have to do that. You can’t come to the end of your PhD and say, “I find if I might drop the toast buttered 100 times out of 100 it falls on the butter on the floor,” if everybody else has found more (audio cuts out 59:06) it doesn’t fall with the butter on the floor. You’ve got to put your own research in context.

Chris Kresser:  That’s another core principle of science. Shapiro, an epidemiologist, said, “We should never forget that good science is skeptical science, and science works by experiments that can be repeated. When they’re repeated they must give the same answer.” So this is another core principle. So what did you find when you looked at these other meta-analyses?

Zoë Harcombe:  So the main ones that were pulled together, and there’s a great table in the paper five, which is one from 2016. I think it's called “Dietary fat guidelines have no evidence base: Where next for public health nutritional advice?”

Chris Kresser:  That’s a pretty straightforward title.

Zoë Harcombe:  Yeah, it is pretty straightforward, actually yeah.

Chris Kresser:  Not beating around the bush.

Zoë Harcombe:  They’re pretty good, actually. They help you with titles. So they come up with catchy ones.

Chris Kresser:  Yeah.

Zoë Harcombe:  And I then went through, for example, I got the tape in front of me, so you’ve got Skeaff and Miller from 2009 who looked at RCTs and epidemiological studies. And they looked at mortality and events for total fat. You’ve got a fairly well-known study with Siri Tarino and colleagues from 2010 looking at epidemiology of fatal and nonfatal coronary heart disease and cardiovascular disease. Mozaffarian, who I had the pleasure of meeting in Zurich over the summer, and his paper looking at just events, not mortality. We might come back to that one. And then of course you’ve got the two well-known Hooper studies, that’s the Cochrane research, which should be the gold standard, but we can take a bit of a better look at that one. And then you’ve got Schwing, Jacqueline, Hoffman from 2014, RCTs, and my own study. And then of course you’ve got the Chowdhury study that looked very interestingly at the four different types of fats, saturated fat, monounsaturated fat, polyunsaturated fat, and they included trans fats in their research looking at coronary disease for both randomized controlled trials and epidemiological studies.

Chris Kresser:  Right, and I’d like to read the conclusion of that one: “Current evidence does not clearly support cardiovascular guidelines that encourage high consumption of polyunsaturated fatty acids and low consumption of total saturated fats.”

Zoë Harcombe:  Here, here.

Chris Kresser:  So that was the Chowdhury, and then, so there were, I think, 39 total reports.

Zoë Harcombe:  Yeah, 35 non-significant. And we don’t shout that often enough.

Chris Kresser:  Yeah.

Zoë Harcombe:  If you stop—and I’ve done this for a Welsh TV program that I was working on—we went to Cardiff, which is the capital city of Wales, and we walked down the main street in Wales and we said to people, “What do you think about fat? What do you think about fruit?” And people would tell you, “We need to eat five a day and fat is bad for us.” So people have got the messages. But what we’re not telling them is when you actually look at all the evidence, 35 out of 39 results were non-significant. No findings. And that has to be the most significant thing that has been found, that we didn't find much. Why don’t we look at that more often? That’s so more powerful to me than the four findings. And if we just whiz through those. In the Chowdhury study that you mentioned, the one finding that they did make was against trans fats, and I don’t think you or I would give them any argument over that one.

Chris Kresser:  No.

Zoë Harcombe:  Mozaffarian, I really liked him in Zurich. But I was involved in a paper that critiqued his 2010 study which said, “You should replace saturated fats and polyunsaturated fats because there’s an impact on CHD events.” And our paper criticized that paper for excluding two studies that were not favorable to polyunsaturated fats, which was the Rose corn oil study and also the Sydney Diet Heart Study. And including, and it’s all bad studies, the Finnish Mental Hospital Study, which was not randomized, not controlled, crossover trial. I mean, just the worst possible trial to try and slip in to pretend it’s an RCT. So we critiqued that paper. I like to think he wouldn't publish that paper if he had the opportunity tomorrow. I can't speak for him, that wasn't right.

And that’s, of course, exactly what the Sax paper did last year, the American Heart Association paper. Again left out two unfavorable studies, the same two. Included the Finnish Mental Hospital Study, they shouldn't have done. And so basically, there were only two findings, and they boil down to one because it was the same research team, Hooper and the Cochrane team, working out of the east of England in the UK. One paper was from 2011 and the other was from 2015. And among 11 known findings for CVD, mortality, total mortality by modified fat, reduced fat, any kind of variation of fat, the only finding they could come up with was for CVD events when they looked at all RCTs for saturated fat reduction intervention. And we can get into that.

Chris Kresser:  Yeah, I mean, I think we can stop here at least in terms of the actual studies because it's, just to review what we've discussed, the randomized controlled trials that have been done since the late 1970s to today have not supported the idea that saturated fat increases the risk of death from heart disease, or any cause. The epidemiological evidence that has been done throughout that period does not support that hypothesis either. And even if it did, we'd still have all of the issues that epidemiological research, that make it problematic, like the healthy user bias and inaccurate methods of data collection, small risk ratios.

We talked about that earlier, how the increase in relative risk is so low that it doesn't really meet the threshold for assuming a causal relationship in any kind of epidemiology outside of nutrition, and even in nutrition 20 or 30 years ago. Other people who've meta-analyzed these data have come to a similar, if not the same, conclusion as you did in your research and your PhD thesis. And I just want to highlight something that you said about how the Finnish study, which is really not a good study at all, has been included in a number of analyses. And you might wonder why that would happen if the researcher is aware of its limitations and that it's not a valid study to draw any inferences from on this topic, why would it be included?

And again I’d like to turn to a John Ioannidis quote, and he says, “Consequently, meta-analyses become weighted averages of expert opinions. In an inverse sequence, instead of carefully conducting primary studies informing guidelines, expert-driven guidelines shaped by advocates dictate what primary studies should report.”

Zoë Harcombe:  Yeah.

Chris Kresser:  Doesn’t that sum it up?

Zoë Harcombe:  He’s so brilliant, isn’t he?

Chris Kresser:  So in other words, we start out with, the way that science should proceed is by doing experiments, and then if any guidelines are made, to make them based on these objective experiments. But the way it actually happens, a lot is we start out with a certain agenda and then we design studies that will return results that support that agenda. And anyone who's worked with data in any capacity knows how easy that is to do.

Zoë Harcombe:  Yeah.

Chris Kresser:  And it's not even conscious all the time. This is where confirmation bias comes in. It’s very difficult to guard against. I have to, and I’m not 100 percent, I’m not saying I’m 100 percent successful. But I can watch even myself. If I go and look for research on a particular topic and I have a certain idea, it's very easy to just skip the studies that don't support that idea. And that happens among scientists. It's a real cognitive bias that is very difficult to guard against. And I think it has a huge effect on research.

Here's another quote, this is from Casazza: “Confirmation bias may prevent us from seeking data that might refute propositions we have already intuitively accepted as true, because they seem obvious. For example, the value of realistic weight loss goals. Moreover, we may be swayed by persuasive yet fallacious arguments.” So again I come back to psychology. It's a real … we’re human beings doing this work, right? All researchers and scientists are not infallible. They’re human beings as well. Many of them have their own ideas and preferences about diet and nutrition. They’ve been influenced by many of the same things that we as laypeople or myself have been influenced by. And it really, really does affect the outcomes of this research.

Zoë Harcombe:  Yeah, yeah. I would agree with you. I mean I went in with a vegetarian, fat is bad, carbs are good bias. I am aware that I was so shocked by the things that I found when I started researching in this field, even before the PhD, you do then get quite skeptical and quite angry. And I now almost trust nothing. So every week I’m taking a paper from any kind of field, though mostly typically nutrition, and the low-carb study was one that I did recently, and then there was a weight loss drug that came out. And then I looked at red meat, the evidence because that was topical for something. And when I’m going in, I just assume that there’s going to be errors, and I’ve yet to find a published paper that doesn’t have something that you can point out as being really quite seriously wrong or disingenuous or open to interpretation.

Chris Kresser:  Yeah.

Zoë Harcombe:  I mean it’s really shocking. I saw on Twitter just a couple of days ago a guy, an academic, got so fed up with all the emails that you do get saying, “Oh, I really enjoyed this paper. Please can you write some papers for us.” Because papers are big spinners for the journals. He got so fed up with all these spam emails that he made up a complete nonsense study using Latin words that made something look really impressive, but it was basically saying something like, “If you do this with excrement, this happens.” I mean it was just, it really was, he was really taking the mickey and it got through peer review and he put it on Twitter. And he said, “I’m delighted to say that my complete nonsense article has just been published by this complete nonsense journal.”

Chris Kresser:  Yeah, and I’ve heard other experiments like that that have been done where a lot of stuff like that has made it through peer review. And there have been a lot of critiques of peer review and why it’s broken and the links to the money in the research industry. Marcia Angell, who I mentioned earlier, in the context of the relative risk who was the former editor of New England Journal of Medicine, has famously said that some, I’m going to paraphrase, but “I now no longer think we can believe any published research,” is basically what she said.

So yeah, I mean, I think it doesn't mean that research is not valuable. It doesn't mean that we have to just become, I think you can go too far with this where we just say, “Oh, forget it. There’s no point in even trying. Let’s just discount all research equally.” Because there are differences in the quality of research and there are still studies that are done well even if they're not done perfectly. And it's the best tool that we have, that we’ve discovered today to try to answer some of these questions, at least on a population-wide scale.

 Conclusions about Saturated Fat

So I want to close by just kind of going through some conclusions here. One, we’ve talked throughout that the evidence against total saturated fat is incredibly weak, if not nonexistent. But something we touched on briefly but I want to highlight here is that even if saturated fat were harmful, you have to consider the source of it in the diet. Get away from this reductionist approach where we think that saturated fat coming in different forms is going to have the identical effect. Because we don’t eat nutrients. We eat foods that have nutrients in them.

 And I love how in your paper you pointed out that pizza, desserts, candy, potato chips, pasta, tortillas, burritos, and tacos accounted for 33 percent of saturated fat consumed in the diets of US citizens. A further 24.5 percent was unaccounted for and collated as “all other food categories,” which is almost certainly processed food. And so as a result, only 43 percent of saturated fat came from natural foods like dairy products, nuts and seeds, and burgers and sausages. Although I'm guessing that the burgers and sausages had highly processed buns and sugary ketchup and other stuff on them too. So how can we even look at those things as being anywhere remotely similar, much less the same?

Zoë Harcombe:  Yeah. I mean I actually took out the processed meat in that section. So I got the natural foods listed down to cheese, nut butter, nuts, and seeds. And collectively together they accounted for 20.8 percent of saturated fat intake. But then I actually made the point it would’ve been ideal for the unprocessed chicken, beef, and eggs to have been separated from the processed meals because they always just lump them together. And they will always put, whenever there’s a study damning red meat, particularly in the US, it will always include hamburgers, which they are very firmly processed food in the UK, but for some reason seems to be considered as some sort of Paleo food in America.

Chris Kresser:  Right, right.

Zoë Harcombe:  And meat-type dishes, or something, which might be a curry.

Chris Kresser:  KFC.

Zoë Harcombe:  Yeah, exactly, Kentucky Fried Chicken.

Chris Kresser:  That’s the way most people eat chicken, KFC or chicken nuggets at McDonald’s. There’s your chicken.

Zoë Harcombe:  Absolutely, yeah. Or maybe a curry takeaway ready meal that you pop in the microwave and if it's got a couple of percent of meat in it, you’ve done well. You bought a more expensive one than the average, which doesn’t even bother putting the meat in.

Chris Kresser:  I mean, I’m … yeah, go ahead.

Zoë Harcombe:  No, and that’s the crazy thing because I want us to be able to have heated agreement. I don’t want to be fighting anyone out there. The whole world is much better if we get on and we’re in harmony than when we’re fighting over anything, whether that’s territory or politics or nutrition or anything else. So I would love for us to find a way forward. And I think there could be a way forward by saying, “Guys, can we have a heated agreement that we can demonize processed food?”

And I know there’s industry conflicts all over the place and we have to expose the industry conflicts with the guidelines set in committee in the UK, they are completely dominated by the processed food industry and grocery retail. I mean, it’s just horrific. If somehow we could get the conflicts out of setting health guidelines, which please, for goodness’ sake, must be objective. We must tell people honestly what is healthy. Not tell them what the food industry wants them to believe is healthy. That’s got to be step one.

Chris Kresser:  Absolutely.

Zoë Harcombe:  If we can get all of that nonsense out, surely then we could agree that real food has got to be better than processed food. And there might be some debate what’s real food. But if it’s found in a field, it’s found growing on a tree, it’s found in the natural environment … I said to my niece when she was five years old, fish swim in sea, fish fingers don’t. Breaded fish.

Chris Kresser:  If it comes in a bag or box, you probably shouldn’t be eating it.

Zoë Harcombe:  Yeah.

Chris Kresser:  I mean, of course, there are exceptions. Butter usually comes in a box, but yeah, that’s a general guideline, right?

Zoë Harcombe:  Yeah, we know what real food is. It’s the best-quality meat, eggs, dairy products, fish you can get a hold of, it’s vegetables, seeds, nuts, fruits in season. There will be some debate over legumes and whole grains and how recently they’ve been part of our consideration set, and I agree with your point, there’s not one diet fits all because some people just cannot tolerate grains and legumes and fibrous products, suffering from irritable bowel syndrome or celiac or other digestive conditions. But somewhere within that real food, total consideration set, surely we ought to be able to set some principles that people can follow that are not based on advice from the processed food industry.

Chris Kresser:  Absolutely, and I mean, I've said this so many times that Sean Croxton, who used to write in the health space, he came up with a diet advice that was JERF, he called it. J-E-R-F, just eat real food, which is, like, look, okay, we can debate about is it better, like you said, whole grains or legumes, in or out, saturated fat higher or lower, carbs higher or lower within this context of a whole-foods diet. But is there any doubt that if everyone ate real foods, we would decrease the burden of chronic disease and early mortality by something like 60 to 80 percent? I mean, I have no doubt of that.

And that’s again where this reductionist focus on nutrients completely isolated from the context of the foods that they come in has been such a disservice. Because imagine if we spent the last 30 or 40 years just hammering home the message that eating real, whole, nutrient-dense foods is really, like, if you want to simplify it for public health, like, that's the message. Don't even worry about those other finer points. And we would not, well there's a whole other discussion about whether people will actually follow that advice if you give it to them and given the influence of our brains with highly rewarding and palatable foods in the food industry and all of that. But there's no doubt that if people really did follow that advice, we probably wouldn't even be having this discussion right now.

The other thing about that is it is possible at least in theory to, like, if we really wanted to answer the question of is saturated fat harmful, the way we would need to do that is we would need to take two groups and they would both have to have the same baseline healthy diet that we’re talking about. Just eating real, whole foods, right? And then in one group, they would eat more saturated fat. And then we would, this is to be a randomized controlled trial, we’d lock them up in a metabolic ward so that we could control all of the variables that we know can influence health, or at least most of them, and then we’d follow them for about 15 or 20 years and see what happens. And the problem is that's never going to be done. I mean, that study would be hundreds of millions of dollars, if not billions, and no, Coca-Cola's not going to pay for it, right? I mean none of the, no drug company is going to pay for that study. So unfortunately, that study is unlikely to ever happen.

Zoë Harcombe:  Yeah, but “just eat real food” would work as a message until.

Chris Kresser:  Exactly.

Zoë Harcombe:  Yeah.

Chris Kresser:  Just eat real food, and then we can use other mechanistic studies and other lines of evidence and maybe even shorter trials to try to answer some of the finer points. And those trials should also include individual, should also pay attention to individual factors or genetic or non-genetic factors that might bear on the answer to that question, so that we don't then extrapolate the findings to everybody instead of just one group of people, for example. We know there are genetic polymorphisms that make some people hyper-responders to saturated fat and that can lead to an increase in LDL particle number. And the clinical significance of that is still controversial and debatable. But we know pretty certainly that that does happen.

So, but then if you were to extrapolate those results to someone that didn't have those genetic polymorphisms, that would not be a valid inference. So yeah, it’s just disappointing that, I mean, we know this and yet we still go on doing the same things over and over again. And I have to throw in one last Ioannidis quote which—from that more recent, or I think from one of his previous papers, and I'm going to paraphrase this one because I don't, let me see if I can find it—yeah, “Definitive solutions won’t come from another million observational papers or small randomized trials.” In other words, that was from a paper he wrote called “Implausible Results in Human Nutrition Research.” So in other words, doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result is the definition of insanity, right?

Zoë Harcombe:  Absolutely.

Chris Kresser:  So, Zoë, thank you so much for joining me, and I know we went a little long, everybody, but I hope you enjoyed it and got a lot out of it. And I just, I wanted to have one podcast that we could direct people to to really answer this question and look at all the evidence on saturated fat in particular and its relationship with mortality and heart disease mortality. And I think we didn't cover everything, but I think we did a pretty good job of getting the most of it out there. So thank you so much.

Zoë Harcombe:  Oh, thank you. Can I just add one thing, because I think we just about completely nailed everything.

Chris Kresser:  Please, of course. Yeah.

Zoë Harcombe:  When we ran through the 39 results and found that only four were significant, and we dismissed Mozaffarian and we agreed with Chowdhury, and then the two Hooper results, which were just on the CBD events, we can actually put those to bed as well because aside from the fact that they’re events and they’re not mortality and we both agree that mortality is best, the thing that you have to then look at is why did Hooper find something different to all the other people? And when I went in detail, Hooper had actually managed to include four studies which involved only 646 people that were not about cardiovascular disease. And she’d asked the study authors if they happened to have data on cardiovascular disease events. So this was non-peer-reviewed data. That was the first thing.

When, and I owe Dr. Trudi Deakin in the UK, I always credit her for this finding, she spotted in the Hooper paper that when Hooper actually did as she should do, the sensitivity test on that one single finding, it was no longer significant. So the test that had to be done was not just which studies intended to reduce saturated fat or which studies actually did reduce saturated fat.

Chris Kresser:  A key distinction there.

Zoë Harcombe:  That’s really, really important, yeah. So Trudi looked at this and found that it is declared in the paper, but it’s tucked away on sort of page 158, or something.

Chris Kresser:  Right.

Zoë Harcombe:  That when the ones that were tested did actually reduce saturated fat only were included, there was no statistical significance and it was not generalizable because again in the whole of the evidence that was looked at by Hooper in either of those two papers, there was no single study of healthy men and women. But I think sensitivity tests apart from non-peer-reviewed data and apart from events, I think we can actually put that one to bed as well. So when you do that, because that’s the one that the other sites still try to hang onto. That’s the one that came up in the Professor Noakes trial when that’s down there for him as an expert witness. They tried to wave that in front of us and said, “Oh, see saturated fat is bad.”

Chris Kresser:  Right.

Zoë Harcombe:  So we hit them back with an, “Oh, no it isn’t.”

Chris Kresser:  What’s the data?

Zoë Harcombe:  Yeah, we kind of went in on the data. So there just is no evidence, and knowing the facts about fat, it would make no sense if there were.

Chris Kresser:  Exactly. And that reminds me of the recent low-carb study which you and I both critiqued on our blogs. It wasn’t a low-carb study. The people were eating something like 40 percent of calories is carbohydrate, not to mention the fact that they reported a calorie intake that was basically at starvation level, which would invalidate the entire data set. So you don't even need to go any further. I mean we did, but, like, that would've been enough, right? And all it takes is one major error like that, and it casts doubt on the entire data set and makes any kind of inferences that you would draw from it invalid. And I don't think people understand that enough.

Zoë Harcombe:  Yeah, I think critiques, I think the word you used there was quite polite. Actually, I think we both annihilated that study.

Chris Kresser:  Yeah, well it was.

Zoë Harcombe:  And a few other people as well, Nina Teicholz and Georgia Ede.

Chris Kresser:  Several, yeah. I mean, it was frankly like shooting fish in a barrel.

Zoë Harcombe:  Yeah, it wasn’t hard, that one, was it?

Chris Kresser:  Yeah, it was not hard. I’m just actually kind of shocked that that kind of study makes it through peer review and gets published, given all of those issues. So anyways, yes, thank you so much for doing all of the work that you do, Zoë. It’s such a pleasure to meet you, virtually, at least, and to be able to really just concisely and comprehensively go through all of these deficiencies in the evidence and to just make it clear for people that this, despite the fact that they've heard this probably for 30 or 40 years, depending on how old they are, and despite the fact that it still forms the basis of our dietary guidelines, there really is no evidence to support it.

Zoë Harcombe:  Yep.

Chris Kresser:  Fantastic. Well, where can people find more about your work, Zoë?

Zoë Harcombe:  Just ZoeHarcombe.com. So my surname is H-a-r-c-o-m-b-e. So that’s ZoeHarcombe.com. And as I say, I blog every week. That’s my sort of business model. So if anyone wants to sign up and get the newsletter, there is lots of stuff on open view. But if you do that, then you support what I do and you help me to stay independent because I don’t take any money from anyone for anything in any circumstance.

Chris Kresser:  Key. Absolutely.

Zoë Harcombe:  I just work away and come up with what I want to find. And I know some people are on the email list who are quite fans of whole grains, for example. And I know every time I write a newsletter saying I looked at this whole grains study and it really didn’t stack up, I know that I’m upsetting some people who are subscribing, but I have to go with where the evidence takes me and I have to report as I find. So that’s what I do.

Chris Kresser:  Yeah, yeah. I’m disappointing my readers all the time with my opinions and it’s important, I think, to stay true to what the data is showing and be as objective as possible about it. You’re one of the few people that I do follow regularly. I love reading your stuff, so everyone who’s listening to this, go check out the blog. It’s one of the most thorough and insightful sources on all of these topics that we discussed today.

And Zoë, we didn’t get a chance to go into much detail on red meat above and beyond its saturated fat content, which as we know is less than its polyunsaturated fat content. But Zoë has recently tackled that, the evidence behind red meat being associated with high risk of heart disease and death. And i'd really recommend checking that out too, because that's another persistent myth that continues to this day.

Zoë Harcombe:  Indeed.

Chris Kresser:  Okay, everybody, thanks for listening. Continue to send in your questions at chriskresser.com/podcastquestion, and we’ll talk to you next time.

The post RHR: The Truth about Saturated Fat, with Zoё Harcombe appeared first on Chris Kresser.

Source: http://chriskresser.com September 25, 2018 at 07:12PM

#paleo #recipe #food #delicious #healthy #yum #diet

[wineanddinosaur]

VinePair Podcast: Will Sports Bars Score Big This Fall?

As athletic stadium seats begin to fill up this fall, the drinking culture surrounding sporting events makes its return, too. For sports bars with livelihoods that largely depend on game-day drinking, it is a welcome shift toward normalcy. But will it be enough?

On this episode of the “VinePair Podcast,” hosts Adam Teeter, Joanna Sciarrino, and Zach Geballe assess the state of sports bars and how they foresee athletics impacting the scene. Sports stadiums are increasingly opting to serve alcohol at games, too — a move that may further influence how and where fans drink.

LISTEN ONLINE

Listen on Apple Podcasts

Listen on Spotify

OR CHECK OUT THE CONVERSATION HERE

Adam Teeter: From VinePair’s New York City headquarters, I’m Adam Teeter.

Joanna Sciarrino: And I’m Joanna Sciarrino.

Zach Geballe: And in Seattle, Washington, I’m Zach Geballe.

A: And this is the “VinePair Podcast.” Before we start, I want to talk about something that’s a little bit of a bummer, and that is that Joanna’s in the phone booth of the office, because we still don’t have the studio set up again from Covid. I’m in my office with the door closed, and Joanna has the phone booth. It’s so weird.

J: It’s real tight in here.

A: I’m just thinking about Joanna sitting in the phone booth right now. It’s too funny.

Z: Can we blame someone for it not being set up? Maybe Keith?

J: Covid.

A: It’s Covid’s fault. Keith is here right now, figuring out how we’re going to bring in the panels and everything. We were in the process of building a full studio before Covid. We stopped, obviously. Now we’re doing this. We’re all coming back into the office.

Z: I miss being in a studio. Shout-out to our former engineer, Nick Patri.

A: Oh, yeah. Nick was a great guy.

Z: I haven’t talked to him in a while, but I’m sure he’s got lots of thoughts about hard seltzer.

A: He was a big hard seltzer person. So, how have you both been? What’s been going on? What have you been drinking?

J: I’ve been well. I had a really great weekend of drinking. I took my banana rum and made the Banana Justino cocktail. It came out really, really well. I can’t wait to do it again. It’s my new thing.

A: I love it.

Z: So it was worth whatever the effort was?

J: Yes. Absolutely worth the effort.

A: I kind of want to make this now.

J: You just need this enzyme, the Pectinex stuff that I talked about. It’s a quick order, and then you’re good to go.

A: That’s so interesting. What else did you do this weekend?

J: I went to the Dead Rabbit, which I had never been to. It was awesome. What a great place. I had the Irish Coffee there, which is incredible.

A: It’s famous.

J: It’s so good. I really want to make it at home. I also had a really delicious gin cocktail with vermouth and snap pea.

A: Interesting. Cool.

J: It was really wonderful, and I can’t wait to go back. That was the extent of my drinking this weekend. What about you guys?

Z: The thing that I had this past weekend that was really exciting for me was when we were celebrating one of my sisters’ birthdays. It was a small family gathering, and I brought a magnum of Prosecco from Adami, which is one of my favorite producers. It’s one of their higher-end bottlings from a single vineyard. Most of the time, when I drink Prosecco, it’s probably something like that. It’s a DOCG bottle. It’s so good. I used to think, “Prosecco. Yeah, sure. Whatever.” Maybe it’s something about — as has been the case with other wine regions for me — going to a place, seeing it, trying some of the wines, and meeting some of the people. Sometimes that makes you feel differently about it. I also think there is something about the balance of Prosecco and how it’s a little less intensely effervescent than a lot of other sparkling wines. It’s often a touch sweeter. It’s a little more fruit-driven. It’s not quite as much about long bottle aging and conditioning. It’s delicious. There’s a lot of mediocre Prosecco out there, but even that stuff is pretty good. The good stuff is actually really good. It reminded me that I should drink more Prosecco. What about you, Adam?

A: I had some fun adventures over the weekend. I went to the western Catskills. I think I’ve talked about this before, but we went to check out this new hotel that opened, called Callicoon Hills. It was a fun hotel. It was one of my last big weekends traveling, except for what I’m about to talk about for our subject this week. I had some delicious cocktails in the area. I went to this really great pizzeria and bar called Kaatskeller. I had a hemlock Negroni, which was really delicious.

Z: And you survived? Aren’t hemlocks poisonous?

A: Yeah, I think it’s supposed to be. Who knows? That was the name of it. It was a really good Negroni, very floral, and quite enjoyable. You’ve been before, right, Joanna?

J: I have. It’s a cool spot.

A: There’s a connection between the owner and his partner, or someone, who is the owner of Apotheke.

J: Yes, you’re right.

A: I think that’s who does the cocktails. That was really cool. Then, I continued to search for an Old Fashioned and continued to not be served an Old Fashioned with a large cube. I think I’m done searching for an Old Fashioned. I think I’m tapped out.

J: You just have to make it yourself, man.

A: I tried, multiple times, after listening to the first episode of “Cocktail College,” and every place basically did chunk ice.

Z: Did you never ask for a big cube, or did you just take it how they gave it to you?

A: Yes. Let me be clear. The first few times I just took it and thought, “I guess this is what we’re doing again.” The last time, we were at dinner at a place that was having some issues. They were newer. I think they were having some service issues, still getting their sea legs, and had only been open for a few months. They had a bottle-aged Old Fashioned on their list. I thought that was interesting, and that they had to serve it over a big cube. The server comes over. I said, “I’m looking at your cocktails and trying to choose between one thing or the bottle-aged Old Fashioned. It sounds really delicious. How do you guys serve it? Over a big cube? Orange twists?” The server was very enthusiastic about it. Then, it comes out over chunk ice. Anyways, I did have two service issues that I was curious about. One happened at the same restaurant, and another that happened later in the week. As our resident hospitality professional, I wanted to ask how to handle these situations and what you would do.

Z: OK.

A: I’m going to give you both scenarios and let you talk about both of them. In scenario one, we ordered cocktails that took forever to come out because the bar was backed up. They were having a huge party outside, which I always understand. Make that money. There was one bartender behind the bar and the dining room was full. It just totally sucks. When you first go out to eat, you’re craving that first cocktail when you sit down. We ordered cocktails and starters. We ordered our mains, and the cocktails came out. The starters still hadn’t come, so we figured we had some time. They placed the starters down and saw that our cocktails were a quarter full. They asked if we wanted wine. We ordered glasses of wine for our entrees. They walk back. The starters had just come out. Then, the entrees came out.

Z: Oh, man.

A: Naomi literally said, “Excuse me, could you please send those back to the kitchen?” They were really surprised and taken aback by that. We had literally just gotten salad and were sharing an appetizer. I could tell they were caught off guard. Then, of course, when the entrees came out, they were cold. That was really a bummer. I’m curious how we should have handled that and how you would handle it. I didn’t know what to do, because either way they were going to get cold. They were going to sit to the side of us and get cold while we ate the starters. I’m just curious what they should have done. The other question I have for you was a situation where we went out to dinner and ordered wine. There was a somm. We went to a nicer place in New York that has a Michelin star. The somm asked if we were interested in red or white, something funky. I told him what we’re looking at and mentioned a wine that was around $80. He recommends this producer and says we have to try her. I look at the list, and it’s $150. That’s a lot more than the $80 bottle I told him I was looking at. He walks away and Josh and I are looking at the menu. Both of us realized we had never had a Cabernet Franc from Anjou before.

Z: OK.

A: There’s one on the list at $85. We ordered that. He comes back and is pouring the Anjou. I taste it and say, “This is so cool. It’s such a great Cabernet Franc. I’ve never had a Cab from Anjou before.” He said, “Yeah. My favorite Cabernet Franc on the list is from Saumur. It’s amazing. It’s a better deal at $70.” He literally said that to me.

Z: After he’s already poured you the wine?

A: I was so taken aback. I was like, “What? I don’t know what to do here.” I wondered if he was pissed that we didn’t take his original recommendation? Did I do something wrong? Am I right? Was this bad behavior, or should I have done something better? What’s going on here, Zach? And, Joanna, would you be just as shocked as me?

J: Oh, my God. Yes. I think like in the first instance, I probably would have just let them give us the entrees and eaten it all together. That’s not great, though. With the second, I truly don’t know what I would have done. What a wild thing to do. He should’ve said that when you ordered. You were clearly looking for recommendations and his input on wine, if you’re ordering this Cab Franc, then he says, “Actually, this is a better deal.”

A: Maybe he thought I was very assertive. Then I thought, if you thought I was very assertive, there was no reason to say something else to me after you poured that wine.

J: Right. Just say, “This is a really great wine. You’re going to love it.”

Z: OK. Let me try to put this together. With the entree thing, I’m generally in Joanna’s camp that I would rather get the entrees, even if it’s way too early. I can try a couple of bites while it’s still warm. It’s not a great situation. Having worked service for many years, timing food out of a kitchen, especially a busy or new kitchen, is really hard. It may be the case that the server is new. It may be the case that the chef is a tyrant, and if the server goes back to say the table isn’t ready for their entrees and they need to be re-fired, the server might get screamed at. I don’t blame the server, totally. But, it is true that part of what you pay for when you go out to a meal is pacing. When I make dinner at home, all the food gets made at the same time because I want to sit down and eat it. I don’t get up and make multiple courses, generally. We all accept that as a given. When you go out to eat, you are hoping to get a lot of those things done for you, including proper coursing. That’s just a bummer, but that’s a bummer that happens, right?

A: Talking to both of you, I think we should have just let them place it. We were just so taken aback, but we should have just let them drop it on the table.

Z: You’re kind of damned if you do, damned if you don’t in that situation. If you’re at a one-star Michelin restaurant, you would reasonably expect that not to happen. I think you would be well within your right to say, “We just got our appetizers, can you hold on to these?” If they can’t keep them at peak condition, warm, then they should remake it. That’s just the reality of that kind of restaurant. I’ve certainly done that plenty of times in my career. It’s not fun, but that’s the deal. That’s how it works. If you don’t get the timing right on your end, that’s not the guest’s fault. As far as the somm goes, what blows me away here is that I don’t think it’s totally outlandish for them to have recommended a wine that’s significantly more expensive, but only if they also recommended other wines that were in your price range. If they had said, “Hey, you’re looking at this wine, so maybe you like lighter-to-medium-bodied reds. I’ve got this great Cabernet Franc from Saumur. I’ve also got this really cool other wine.” Give the cool story behind the situation with this wine. When people asked me for recommendations, or say something they’re interested in, often I would throw wines at them that were at or below their price range, and above. You never know when someone might be willing to spend $120 or more on a bottle of wine if you can give them a reason to do it. That’s the somm’s job in many cases: to upsell.

J: You can always say, “If you’re looking to splurge, here’s an option.”

Z: Exactly. Or say, “If you want something really special.” As a customer, you can say, “That sounds great, but maybe not for tonight. The thing that you were more turned off by, and understandably, is him saying that afterwards. Maybe they felt like you were really sure that you wanted this Cab Franc from Anjou, and they didn’t want to tell you no. What they could say to you is, “If you really liked this, next time you come in, there’s this other great Cabernet Franc on our list from Saumur that I think is also really good. It’s in that price range. Definitely keep your eye on that next time.” They can tell you about it and it still may be a little odd, but they wouldn’t have made you feel like an ass. Why do that? There’s just nothing in it for them, other than getting to lord it over you that you made a bad choice. That’s on them. Their job is to not let you make a bad choice, if at all possible. It sounds like you enjoyed your wine.

A: It was great. It was super cool.

Z: No harm there. If that was me — and that $70 Cab Franc from Saumur was my favorite wine on the list — and someone ordered a different Cab Franc in that price range from a nearby region, I’d let them know that this other wine is my personal favorite so they could consider that. The truth is that some somms are weird about it. They don’t want to down-sell. You already turned down the up-sell. I don’t think they have an obligation to talk you out of your $95 bottle of wine, but they do have an obligation to not make you feel like a moron for having bought it as you’re tasting it.

A: It was literally at the very beginning of the glass.

Z: I’m sorry. That’s no fun.

A: Thank you. It’s just funny. Maybe we’re just all getting our sea legs back in terms of going out to dinner. I don’t want to hold it against the somm. I was just very taken aback by it. Josh and Naomi were, too. When he walked away, they were like, “Did that just happen?”

Z: Adam, you are a weird magnet for strange interactions with sommeliers.

A: I think I just share them more.

Z: You do have a podcast. That’s true.

A: I just share them more because I’m curious about them. I also want people to know this stuff happens to all of us. I want to understand how we should handle it. That’s sort of where the intimidation comes from.

Z: For sure.

A: When you’re talking about beverage especially, it can be really intimidating. It feels easier to talk about the menu and say, “I definitely don’t want the $195 prime ribeye.”

Z: Imagine if you did order a steak, the server brings it, you take one bite, and they say, “Oh, by the way, do you know what’s way better?” The flatiron steak for two-thirds the price. It doesn’t matter the context. That’s just terrible service. That’s unfortunate.

A: Totally. So, I thought we would have a really fun conversation this week.

Z: We did have a really fun conversation. This already was one.

A: We’ll keep this one fairly brief. This weekend, I’m doing something a little bit crazy.

Z: OK?

A: I promise I’ll get a PCR test when I’m back. Those of you that are loyal listeners know that I am originally from Auburn, Ala., and I’m a huge Auburn Tigers football fan. They are playing a White Out game, primetime ABC, on Saturday night at Penn State. I have tickets. I’m going with my friend Ryan. We are going to a sporting event. I’m really curious to see what sporting events are going to start looking like as we’re coming out of Covid and the drinking around sporting events. Last weekend was the first weekend of NFL football. I know lots of people that went out to watch the games. There are lots of brands that are really hopeful that this happens. These are great entertaining occasions where people love to grab cans of seltzer, bottles of beer, make cocktails, drink wine, et cetera. I’m curious what you guys think the fall holds for drinking and sports. Right now, it feels to me like a lot of people are acting like we’re getting back to normal in that regard.

Z: Well, Joanna is our biggest sports fan. You should go first.

J: What is a White Out game?

A: Penn State’s tradition is that, at their biggest night games of the year, every single Penn State fan wears white in the stadium that holds 80,000 people. Apparently, it’s very intimidating, because all you can see is this bright white. I think Georgia does a Black Out game. Because one of Penn State’s colors is white, it has become very famous in college sports as this thing that happens.

Z: I assume you will not be wearing white?

A: I’m going to wear orange and blue on purpose and hope that I don’t get beat up. I think we’re sitting deep in the Penn State section, so it’s going to be a little freaky. It’s going to be interesting. Joanna, what’s your opinion here? How do you feel about sports and drinking?

J: I have a few thoughts on football, specifically. I have been to a few professional sports games recently. I’ve been to a few baseball games. I actually went to the U.S. Open, which was also fun. I have a feeling that they’re tamer than what I imagine college football to be.

A: Yeah. I have a theory of why that is, but we can get to that in a second.

J: I think it’s actually going to be really interesting to see, like you were saying, Adam, the sports bars. I’m curious what that situation is like, because college football has started already. I feel like I’ve seen a lot of our local sports bars pretty packed with people watching games. I will not be participating. I do not care for football.

A: Why?

J: I think it’s so boring. I have no allegiance to any team. This is a fun fact about me. I am married to a very lovely Canadian man who, when we first met, had no interest in the NFL. He has subsequently joined a fantasy football team. It’s so dreadful because now he cares to watch the games.

Z: We’ve corrupted him.

J: Yeah. It’s horrible. He spends hours at night on his phone, setting his draft. It’s so horrible.

A: It’s so good. Naomi hates when I do that, too. Zach, how is it in Seattle? You guys have, at least, a very famous quarterback. I don’t know how the Seahawks are this year.

Z: Oh, they’re good.

A: Is it full? Are people going out to the bars and watching the games? What have you heard? What are you seeing?

Z: Really good question. The Seahawks have not played at home yet. They started their season on the road. They’ll be at home over this coming weekend, so by the time this podcast airs, that game will have happened. I was recently reaching out to a contact who works for the Seattle Mariners because I’ve been interested in what they’re doing about beverage service. My wife and I went to a Mariners game a few weeks ago. It was interesting to see how, even in the couple of years since I’ve been to a game, the product mix and how things are done at the games has changed. Some of that may be Covid-related. Some of that is just due to changes in the market. It was definitely a little different than it had been in the past. The University of Washington’s football team appears to be dreadful, but they are serving beer and wine at games for the first time in a long time. Last year the Seahawks played, but they did not play in front of fans. A huge part of the game- day profitability for these franchises are concessions, and beer in particular. Alcohol is a big driver. There’s certainly a lot of hope that things will be back to normal. Stadiums are at full capacity. There are vaccines and mask mandates here in Washington for these events. People can be in the stands drinking, obviously. To the question about sports bars, I think that what you’re seeing is a little bit of a mixed bag, from what I can gather. Around the stadiums, you’re definitely seeing bars that are game day spots being pretty busy. What I’ve heard of more, just anecdotally this year, is what you were getting to in the intro, Adam, which is that a lot more people are doing stuff at home. A lot of people have decided they may not be comfortable going out to a sports bar with strangers and spending hours eating and drinking, unmasked. They are comfortable having 10 to 15 people over in their house. People may feel a little more comfortable with their own entertaining chops because they’ve had to do so much more at home as of late. Overall, I think you’re definitely going to see a real uptick in the sales of light beer or seltzer. Those things are already doing well. If I was a sports bar owner and not near a stadium, I might be a little concerned. Those things revolve around the big NFL Sundays and college football Saturdays. They’re not necessarily super profitable on a Wednesday night. I think we will see. In Seattle, we’re just transitioning weather-wise from summer into fall. What are people going to do when it’s dark, gloomy, rainy, and cold? Do you really want to be at home again? Maybe Sunday seems like a good day to go out to a sports bar because it’s just something to do.

A: Yeah. In Seattle, are they requiring vaccination proof to come inside?

Z: Not yet for all restaurants, It’s required at all of the sporting events, including the outdoor events. Somehow, the Mariners are not implementing it until October, which is convenient for them because their season is going to be over in October. I have not been tracking it ultra-diligently, in part because we have a small child and another one due any day. We are not going out to eat much right now. If there isn’t a vaccine mandate yet, though, it will be coming soon. I think they’re just trying to get everyone on the same page, which is tricky.

A: I wonder if part of the reason there is more excitement around sports bars in New York is just because the vaccine is required. When you’re in the sports bar watching the game with people and drinking Truly, White Claw, or Bud Light, you know you’re there with other vaccinated fans. It might feel a little safer. To go back to your original point, Joanna — about college seeming crazier — I think that all has to do with the fact that college has a real problem admitting that its of-age fans drink before the game and would like to drink at the game. I think we’ve had this conversation before, Zach. There are still so few college stadiums that allow the legal sale of alcohol, so a lot of fans smuggle alcohol in and drink to oblivion before. Both are very bad. These are not things that should happen.

Z: I mentioned that the University of Washington is allowing alcohol sales at games now. One of the reasons they cited was basically that. They think they can decrease people getting blackout drunk before they even get in or smuggling stuff into the stands if the stadium can provide them with an option. Cynically, I don’t know if that’s true. It’s obviously a cash grab. There is something to the idea that, if a lot of these games are dry, people aren’t going to just be sober. That’s just not how people are going to behave.

A: I do think that it’s different when you attend a sporting event in New York or any professional sporting event. I also went to the U.S. Open this year. When I did, I got on the train and I hadn’t had a drink. I got to the stadium and had two beers.

J: You paid $40 for your drink.

A: That’s why I only had two beers. It’s cool to have a beer and watch tennis. I think if I wanted to have a beer but I couldn’t, something psychologically happens for people. There’s the mentality that “you’re not going to stop me from being less than sober for this.” That’s why I think college is crazier. More universities are starting to think the way that University of Washington is. There’s a very easy fix here: Sell alcohol and continue to ban it in the student section, because they probably should. Only one-quarter of the student section population should be of age. In the rest of the stadium, allow adults to buy beer and wine. In the places that have done it, they’ve seen some success. A lot of times, in these stadiums, the people who have the worst behavior are the older people, to be very honest. It’s really depressing to see an older person get taken away because they’re been confiscated for illegal booze. It’s never a good look.

Z: That’s one thing you can roll with when you’re 21. It’s a little harder to roll with when you’re 51, I’d imagine.

A: That’s embarrassing.

Z: All that to say, what do you anticipate drinking at this Penn State and Auburn game? Rolling Rock?

A: I don’t know. My friend Ryan, who lives in New York, too, is actually an alum of Auburn. I’m from the town and my parents are professors there, but I didn’t go to Auburn. He was invited to the alumni tailgate. I think they’re providing alcohol. It’ll be beer. I don’t know what it will be. We’ll go. He was allowed to bring a guest. I think they’re providing beer and barbecue. Then, we’ll go into the game. Normally, I’d check out one of the local bars beforehand. I’m definitely not going to do that this time. I feel pretty safe because Ryan is a doctor in New York at Mount Sinai, and he’s been very involved in Covid. If he feels safe to go, then I feel safer to go as long as we stay outside and wear our masks. But, I’m not going to go downtown, try to go into a few of the college bars, and check out what’s going on. We’ll go to this tailgate. We’ll have a few beers. We’ll go in the stadium.

Z: Give us a prediction. What’s the final score?

A: I think it’s going to be 35 Auburn, 21 Penn State. I think we’re going to run up the score. I think we have a better quarterback. We have a new coach. I think we’re the better talent. Road games are hard. Being the away team is not easy. This is why I’m a little scared, as is Ryan. This is the first home game for Penn State since Covid, and it is a White Out game. They are going to be rocking. It will be a very live crowd. This has been a great conversation. I’d love to hear what some of the listeners think. If you’re attending any sporting events this fall, tell us what sports bars in your area look like and what you think the fall holds for drinking and sports. Zach and Joanna, I’ll talk to you on Friday.

J: See you.

Z: Sounds great.

Thanks so much for listening to the “VinePair Podcast.” If you love this show as much as we love making it, please leave us a rating or review on iTunes, Spotify, Stitcher or wherever it is you get your podcasts. It really helps everyone else discover the show.

Now for the credits, VinePair is produced and recorded in New York City and Seattle, Washington, by myself and Zach Geballe, who does all the editing and loves to get the credit. Also, I would love to give a special shout-out to my VinePair co-founder, Josh Malin, for helping make all this possible, and also to Keith Beavers, VinePair’s tastings director, who is additionally a producer on the show. I also want to, of course, thank every other member of the VinePair team who are instrumental in all of the ideas that go into making the show every week. Thanks so much for listening, and we’ll see you again.

Ed. note: This episode has been edited for length and clarity.

Joanna’s Take on Dave Arnold’s Banana Justino

Ingredients

1 750-milliliter bottle of rum (I used Diplomático Mantuano)

3 yellow bananas (not too green or too brown/ripe)

½ teaspoon vanilla bean paste (optional)

2 grams Pectinex Ultra SP-L

Limes

Coconut water

Whole star anise

Technique

Make the banana rum

Add the rum, bananas, vanilla bean paste if using, and Pectinex to a blender and blend for a minute or two until completely smooth. Keep the rum bottle for decanting later.

Pour the mixture into a sealable container and leave on the countertop for about a week, until the mixture has fully, visibly separated.

Slowly pour the mixture through a coffee filter (I used a Chemex) to clarify. Pour the extracted liquid (your banana rum) back into the original bottle.

Make the Banana Justino

Freeze coconut water into large ice cubes.

In an Old Fashioned glass, add an ice cube and pour over the banana rum (about 2 ounces); stir briefly.

Squeeze in a wedge of lime and garnish with a whole star anise.

The article VinePair Podcast: Will Sports Bars Score Big This Fall? appeared first on VinePair.

source https://vinepair.com/articles/will-sports-bars-score-big-this-fall/

[weekendwarriorblog]

Some Thoughts on Long-Lasting Music Fandom

I've been wanting to write something freeform for this blog that isn't necessarily about movies -- because that was whole reason I started the Weekend Warrior blog in the first place. I got a little more time to do that last year when there weren't too many movie releases. As luck would have it, next week is one of the quietest weeks in many, many months even with what is likely to be one of the biggest movie releases... but again, this is my chance to write about something not movies but something that's very dear to my heart, maybe more than anything else: ROCK MUSIC.

The idea to write this piece came out of a couple hours I spent Friday night on something called "The Alarm Central." I have a feeling that if you were to ask even my closest friends who some of my favorite bands are, some might be able to name one or two, maybe from a T-shirt I might wear, but I'm not sure how many friends would guess that my top band for many years has been The Alarm.

If you don't know who The Alarm are, you're probably very young. Lucky you. The Alarm had their highest acclaim and fame back in the mid-80s with songs like "68 Guns" and "The Stand" and eventually "Rain in the Summertime." When I was a teenager driving around CT from one job to another, my favorite radio station, WLIR, would play The Alarm a *LOT*. They were a mainstay along with U2, Depeche Mode and other bands that I was also inevitably a fan of.

It was a far cry from the Top 40/Beatles stuff I listened to in the mid '70s and the metal/prog rock that I got into in 1979 when I was playing in bands, but The Alarm just had this great spirit to them that really came out when you saw them live. Oddly, I only saw them live twice in the '80s... but that's a story for another time that I'm kind of saving...

The Alarm Central is a relatively new website/app/platform that Alarm frontman Mike Peters and his wife Jules (who also plays keys in The Alarm, but please no Linda McCartney comparisons... Jules actually has a lovely singing voice -- rimshot) put together as an alternative to the YouTube/Facebook platforms that so many bands have flocked to. Actually, The Alarm did and still does have a Facebook presence and last year, when COVID hit, and everything shut down, Mike and Jules started doing a weekly livestream show called "The Big Night In." They started doing it on March 20, 2020 and continued to do it for a few months, resumed in July for a second season.. but anyway, it was a great way to get together with other Alarm fans (or rather, "fams," as the Peters' lovingly call us) to listen to Mike play some songs, tell some stories, enjoy watching Jules poking fun at her famous husband (they've been married for almost as long as the band has been together).

Anyway, I'm getting a little sidetracked, but the point I'm trying to make is that this band and its singer, Mike, have managed to keep their fanbase alive now for 40 years. In fact, this year is the official 40th anniversary. No, they're not the first or only band to make it 40 years... another long-time favorite of mine, Rush, celebrated it a few years back before Neil Peart died -- The Damned also has hit 40 years but it's also gone through so many line-up changes that only the singer has remained that entire time. Another thing that influenced my decision to write this was seeing Edgar Wright's The Sparks Brothers documentary for about the third time, and those guys, brothers Ron and Russell Mael, have been making music together for over *50* years... although as you see in the movie, their popularity and success has fluctuated. Sure, there are some people who heard their first hit "This Town Ain't Big Enough for the Two of Us" and are STILL fans.... some fans dropped in and out, maybe went off to do other things for a while, then came back. I'm not sure if the Go-Go fans who discovered the band when they did a duet with Jane Wiedlin stuck around as they started experimenting with opera and other music genres. But then you see the band playing shows in the past five years for HUGE audiences. About ten years ago, they decided to play all (then) 22 of their albums from beginning to end in a series of shows in London... and yeah, people did go to all 22 of those shows.

The other thing that influenced my decision to write this was seeing another documentary, this one at the Tribeca Festival, about the '80s Norwegian group A-Ha, who to many, are probably considered the epitome of one-hit wonders since every single person on the planet knows "Take On Me" but can you name one other song by them? Can you name any of the many albums they made after that first one? It's interesting because in that movie, you also see the band going through some highs and lows but when they play gigs in Europe, like in Germany or their native Norway, they still play to HUGE audiences, and they still have many devout fans. And yes, many of them have stuck with them since the "Take on Me" days but would you happen to know one of these fans personally?

That brings me back to the Alarm. I will fully admit that I wasn't there as a fan/fam through thick and thin... I was already deviating before Mike Peters left the band almost exactly 30 years ago in a very famous concert in Brixton where he let the rest of the band know he was quitting while ON STAGE PERFORMING. I mean, how punk is that? Sounds like something I might do. ;)

I definitely lost track of the band until an episode of VH-1's "Bands Reunited" in the early '00s, maybe 2002 where the band was... I'm sure you you can figure it out. At that time, I had absolutely zero idea that Mike and various members of the band had been doing annual "Gatherings" in their Wales hometown for the fans they built in the '80s who stuck around for all of Mike's solo albums, side projects like Coloursound with Billy Duffy from the Alarm (album #2 comes out in a couple weeks!), and basically through thick and thin.

A few years later, maybe 2004, I saw that The Alarm were playing at the Knitting Factory down near me and I decided to see what they had been up to and surprise, surprise, what I loved about the band in the '80s was still very much intact, even if it was now Mike and a completely different band. But I was happy to see them again, even more thrilled to learn that the Knitting Factory gig was part of a residency and then also learned that Mike/The Alarm had not only made a new album... but they made an entire 5-album box set called In the Poppyfields and holy shit... it didn't seem like there was a bad song in the bunch! (They played some of the songs at that gig, but they also played ALL of my favorites from the '80s, too!) That moment was kind of a revelation for me and even though I've seen The Alarm maybe twice in the '80s, I've probably seen them live maybe 16 or 17 times since that Knitting Factory gig.

If you've spent even a second at one of these shows with the band's fams, then you know why the Alarm is such a popular band with so many infectious and anthemic sing-along-songs, and you know what? I found that from the very first time I saw the band in the mid-80s as well. But a lot of these fams stuck with the band through thick and thin, once Mike left the band and did his own solo thing (I personally have only been getting into his solo stuff VERY recently)... and then when he was back with a new incarnation. Sometimes, Mike would just go out and perform acoustically and the fams love that, too.

So I was thinking how does Mike do it, and how does he keep those "fams" coming back for more? How does he and Jules convince a good number of them (including myself) to shell out something like $160 a year to subscribe to Alarm Central? That certainly seems like a lot of money and believe me, a lot of long-time fans were not happy with that.

But Mike and Jules also created a lot of good will with the amount of time and energy they put into the Big Night In and into Alarm Central... and frankly, into every single thing they do EVER. I've never been to a Gathering in Wales, but I've been to a bunch of them in New York, and they never disappoint. They're always a full day with all sorts of events -- trivia, a QnA, a meet and greet, maybe a solo set, a full band set... there have even been multiple night shows.

That said, I still haven't really gotten into what makes Mike and Jules and The Alarm so popular that they have fans who go all the way back to Mike's *previous* band Seventeen. (I've met a couple of them last night in Alarm Central, which also convinced me to write this.)

I know what I like about the band and Mike and the music, almost all of it, in fact, but I also have a personal connection since both Mike and Jules are cancer survivors. Not only that but they've also created Love Hope Strength, a foundation whose entire existence is to find stem cell and bone marrow donors. Even if you did not know what a big Alarm fan I was before reading this, there's a good chance you realize that I'm a leukemia survivor myself, that I had a stem cell transplant, and I take everything about that seriously, whether it's to raise awareness or to be there for others when they are going through their own transplants, whatever. It's something that's probably as important to me as the very air I breathe*.

*Yes, that actually is an Alarm reference, actually one of Mike Peters' solo songs co-written with Jules that he still plays with the band.

INTERMISSION (Gotta run out to a movie but will be back later to finish this.)

Let me see if I can get back into my train of thought. Oh, yeah, I was getting into the reason why The Alarm and Mike in particular seems to be able to keep his fambase going for 40 years with some truly diehard sticking through thick and thin. I think part of it is that Mike and Jules are just truly nice and good people. I mean, think about it. They didn't need to spend hours each week during a pandemic putting together the Big Night In show to keep everyone entertained and sane. "Music Will Keep Us Together" was the motto of those weekly music and talk shows with a lot of really special guests and announcements. I'm sure that they have a lot of other things to do, like making music (and Mike's done a lot of that during the pandemic) but they are constantly doing things to keep in contact with the fams, including the Alarm Central and very casual weekly pub updates where fams communicate with each other and can share their thoughts with the Peters. They even invited their fambase to come to their hometown for weekly "Staycations" (that just started this week) where the fams can rent out one of a number of special rooms and be able to watch special performances right in Wales. The first night of it was so fun even watching on the Alarm Central and they'll be doing this for the next five months in lieu of touring. And then early next year, the Alarm is touring all over the UK and making up for shows that were delayed and cancelled.

I just want to tell one more thing about Mike's dedication. A week before the first Staycation, he had a bad accident, falling off his bike and breaking his elbow, and yet, that night, he was on Alarm Central in full cast with Jules, and he even pulled out his acoustic guitar and played a song, much to the shock of everyone watching.

But that's enough about The Alarm. You get the idea, but they're not the only ones. I was a pretty big fan of Nirvana and when David Grohl came along with Foo Fighters, I was a hard pass, but 20 years later, I became a pretty diehard fan, and I realized that there's a reason why the Foo Fighters can fill Citifield two nights in a row (50,000 people a night) and that's because you can tell that David is just as dedicated to his fans... and you can also tell from his docs and appearances that he's also a really nice guy.

And I'm sure I've mentioned Tim's Twitter Listening Parties here, and Tim Burgess of the Charlatans is another guy who could be super-busy and doing lots of things but almost every night, he's on Twitter interacting with musical guests and his fans... and he's been doing that diligently since last March, as well. I'm not sure he makes any money doing that, and I don't think he cares. He enjoys it. He knows that those who tune in every night enjoy it, and like Alarm Central, he's created a community around these listening parties.

I feel like I can even bring this analogy over to the world of movies and some of my favorite directors and people who have just done really well over the years by just being nice to their fans. Edgar Wright is one. Guillermo del Toro is another. Both of those guys could just lock themselves in an ivory tower ala Nolan, but they always get out there to talk about their movies and interact with fans whenever possible, and that's something that really means a lot to people.

We're definitely living in different times than the '70s and '80s, and maybe we're living in times when people just want to be nicer to each other. People have been through a lot even pre-COVID, and I'd like to think that all of us are coming out the other side being nicer or more consideration. I'm not 100% sure that's true, but I do think that musicians/bands/artists who can maintain their fanbase for decades through thick and thin really are something special. I think that any band or artist starting out now or who has been around for a few years can learn a lot from the Mikes and Tims and Dave Grohls because you know what? It takes more than talent alone to keep the fans around through every experiment you might decide to do over time.

(As I did with my 30-minute experiments, I'm gonna post this witohut going back and reading over it and doing any error correction. Like I said, this is the kind of free-form writing I like to do when I have something on my mind but don't want to take too much time away from my paid writing.)

[aion-rsa]

Bruce Lee Forever! Shannon Lee Reflects on Her Father’s Legacy

https://ift.tt/3nm3pcn

Bruce Lee stands among the greatest icons on the planet. But such notoriety comes with a price and it’s one that Bruce pays more heavily than any other celebrity. He’s also the most ripped off. Brucesploitation is an entire genre of film dedicated to Bruce Lee impersonators. Bruce Lee clones proliferate fighting video games more than any other person, real or imagined. His image has been poached illegally for all sorts of random things like for Zhen Kungfu, a major Chinese fast food franchise with some 300 restaurants, all of which use his likeness without permission. No one else can claim this level of image piracy.

For years, Shannon Lee has fought hard to guard the family name and see that her dad receives the respect he is due. Now at the helm of the Bruce Lee Family Company, Shannon continues to champion her father’s work, dedicating herself to preserving his message of harmonious individuality and curtail those who would steal his image for their own gain. She has dedicated herself to bringing the real Bruce Lee to the world. 

As we approach Bruce Lee’s 80th birthday this November, the Little Dragon remains as hot as ever. The Bruce-Lee-inspired Cinemax series Warrior has kicked off its second season. On October 6th, Shannon releases a new book, Be Water, My Friend: The Teachings of Bruce Lee. And there’s more coming in November in celebration of her father’s auspicious birthday. Den of Geek caught up to Shannon Lee to talk about where the Bruce Lee estate is now. 

Den of Geek: Warrior is based on the treatment that your father did that was allegedly turned into David Carradine’s Kung Fu series?

Shannon Lee: Well, I guess that’s a matter of some debate.

Yeah. Which is why I’m asking you this.

Yeah. My father was definitely up for the lead in Kung Fu, and he was definitely not given that role because he was Chinese interestingly. And at the same time, he had also developed and pitched this show. Warner Bros.’ point of view is that they had been working on a show – their show – for a long time prior to involving my father. And if you speak to my mother, she will say that my father was working on this treatment for a number of years before he pitched it as well.

So the two shows are very similar in some ways and very different in some ways. What we do know is that my father was turned down to star in the show and we have no idea how much his ideas influenced the ultimate vision for Kung Fu. 

Very diplomatic answer. One thing that’s continually impressed me about your father was how incredibly prolific he was. Even today, and I remember when he passed, I still see new material from him. Did he have any other show ideas that you might have kicking around?

Most definitely.

Oh, that’s very intriguing.

Yes. So he did have a number of other treatments in various states of readiness and even one full script that I still have, and that I am working on developing, in different ways.

That’s incredibly exciting. How close do you feel that Warrior is to your father’s original vision of it?

I think it’s actually very close, in the sense that I think that the show captures the perspective that he was hoping to capture. Meaning, his treatment was written more as 1970s episodic television; it was more of an adventure of the week format, which shows were back then…I think he would be really pleased with how the show turned out today, because I think we have more of an opportunity to tell the story that he would have wanted to tell, than he would have had back then.

What can fans expect from Season 2? 

We have the warring Tongs. We have the political goings on and plotting. We have the Irish labor workers really coming into more conflict with the Chinese workers. We have the cops on all sides of this as well, really coming up against the Chinese. So it’s very complicated and the weaving of the story is really brilliant and the stakes are really high. And you’ll see what happens.

As an immigrant tale, how do you feel this is playing out given the current politics surrounding immigration right now?

It’s crazy how relevant our show is. I think that its issue’s not just of immigration, but also of racism, of the involvement of the police, of xenophobia, of ‘us versus them’ mentality. There’s a lot of themes in the show and, quite frankly, where the show culminates toward the end of the season is very reflective of where we find ourselves right now, which is interesting since we filmed it last year.

But I think that it’s because this is the natural outcome of these types of policies and attitudes toward our fellow humans. And also what happened historically, so history is rather repeating itself.

How does it feel to be working on this show with a predominantly Asian cast?

It’s phenomenal. I know that there are a number of shows that, especially in the half-hour genre, that have Asian casts, but in the one-hour television format, there really aren’t that many. Even shows like Into the Badlands who have Asian characters, they’re not necessarily predominantly Asian characters.

So I feel really proud of our show that we got to make the show we wanted, that we got to create these multi-layered, complicated three-dimensional characters for all our cast. And I think that it’s actually a huge win for representation.

You used to have a pretty wicked spinning back kick. Are you still practicing?

[laughs] Not as much as I used to. Every now and again, I get back to it. It’s been a little harder in quarantine, not because I’m not able to exercise on my own. Certainly I am, but I’m much more used to working with others in the space. So I would say I’m a little rusty right now.

I think we all are during the pandemic. I could totally see you doing a cameo in Warrior like a singer at Ah Toy’s place or something. Are you thinking about that?

We definitely talked about it for Season 2. Just by the time we were talking about it, the season was already written and there didn’t seem to be the perfect and right feeling opportunity to do something like that.

Right now, Season 3 is a little uncertain. There are not plans to move forward, just given that Cinemax has canceled their programming and their original programming… If there are, then I will definitely look to try and sneak on set for part of that.

Do you ever think about going back into acting?

I don’t think about it as a career. I think if there were opportunities, if the right opportunity came along, I think it would be a lot of fun. I would definitely have, from a creative standpoint, an interest in doing that for myself, but not as a career.

You have a book coming out the same week that Warrior drops. Tell us about Be Water, My Friend.

I wrote this book, over the last year or so, and it is called Be Water, My Friend: The Teachings of Bruce Lee. It is a book about my father’s water philosophy, what it means, and what it meant to him, what it means to me, and also how it can be accessed and utilized by the reader.

Read more

Movies

Best Martial Arts Movies on Amazon Prime Right Now

By Gene Ching

And, for me, it was a really personal, internal journey to write this book, to really sit with my father’s words and to really try and express in as simple and in as simple and clear a way as I could, what this is and to provide it as a tool for the reader to utilize, or even just something to think about for themselves.

I find my father’s words to be extremely soothing and extremely healing and extremely thought provoking. And my hope is that people will pick up this book, regardless of whether they’re into martial arts or whether they’ve recently had, because it’s really for everyone. It just really speaks to this human journey that we are all on. And I hope that people will find something beneficial for them in it.

I really admire what you’ve been doing with the Bruce Lee Family Company. Your dad has been the most ripped-off icon of all. Nobody has an entire film genre like Bruceploitation that’s dedicated to him. What are some of the battles you’re fighting trying to control his image? 

Yeah. Look, it’s always a challenge. It’s really hard to know what the best course of action is. I’m certainly very protective of him and his legacy. And at the same time, I try not to be unreasonable or overly difficult, but I really do think he requires respect. And that’s really what I’m asking for most of the time.

If somebody can show up and have a honest conversation with me and be open minded and listen to me, then I will always give them the same in return. It is really hard. The laws are different in all different places and it’s really challenging because it’s on a global level and you got to pick your battles and you only have so many resources to put towards these different types of things.

But I really feel like when I’m asked to speak up about, and give my opinion on something, I definitely will and do. And when it seems like a fight worth fighting, then I have no problems with that. I’m willing to stand up for myself and my family. And it doesn’t mean I’ll always win, but for me, it’s not about winning. It’s about doing what I feel is appropriate and right.

The CW reboot of Kung Fu is getting some buzz again, which feels as if it is in the wake of Warrior now. That’s ironically recursive given the unusual relationship that Bruce Lee’s treatment had and what we spoke about, when we first started this conversation. They’re putting out that it’s going to be all female leads, and that Asian community is reclaiming this property, but who knows? What are your thoughts on that?

Listen, I’m not in competition with anyone. I’m trying to put forth the best projects that I could put forth. And I never want to be in a place of wishing someone to not do well or be well. Right?

I don’t know anything about that show other than its existence and exactly what you just said. I haven’t read any scripts. So it’s really hard for me to say what it is. I don’t even know. And look, it’s hard to get a show made. I think that whatever happens with the show, I know these things are always a labor of love and or just a labor. So either way, it’s hard enough. And I just really couldn’t comment because I really don’t know, but I certainly never wish anyone any ill will.

That’s fair. What does your mom think of Warrior?

Oh, she loves it. She really loves it. She really is like, “Oh, I think your dad would love this show. I think you really did your dad proud.” My mom was married to Bruce Lee, so she’s no shrinking violet when it comes to action. She just thinks the show is great and a lot of fun. She’s really impressed with Andrew Koji and with the whole cast, and she just thinks it really captured the right energy and the right spirit.

What’s next for the Bruce Lee Family Company? 

Oh, my gosh. So much. We’re really excited. In November, we’re going to be celebrating my dad’s 80th. How crazy is that? Eighty years of Bruce Lee in the world. And so we have a lot of celebrations planned, mostly virtual and online and through our store, and on social media and those types of things.

Read more

TV

Warrior Season 2 Episode 1 Review: Learn to Endure, or Hire a Bodyguard

By Gene Ching

We were hoping to be able to do some kind of bigger events, but of course, with the current state of the world, we’re changing it up a little bit, and our timelines have been a little delayed on some of the bigger things that we’re working on, but we will be having some interesting announcements and fun drops and things that’ll be available in November. And so I’m super excited to celebrate that. I’ve got a number of other film and TV projects in the works, which hopefully I’ll be able to announce soon.

We’ve got a bunch of exhibits that we’re working on with different museums around the world, revamping the exhibit in Hong Kong and in Seattle but also other places. We have our social initiatives we’re doing through the foundation. We’re about to launch and revamp that website to have some different social initiatives that we’ll be promoting as well as our camps for kids that we do. And the exhibits that we’re doing, and we’re working on a permanent exhibition space as well for my father. So there’s no shortage of things going on. And we’re all really excited to share what we can do with the world.

That’s great timing because it will still be in the rollout of Warrior Season 2. You’ve got the show, the book, and the celebration, so we’re looking at a Fall season of Bruce Lee.

Yeah. And we have a new season of the Bruce Lee podcast. That’ll be dropping in October also.

Has Warrior met up to your expectations in terms of what you envisioned when you first embarked on this?

Absolutely. I would say it met it, and it exceeded it. Obviously, in small details, sometimes there are things you’re, like, “Oh, I wish we could have done this differently or that differently.” But those things are nothing in comparison to the full force of the project, the scope, the storytelling, the cast that we have, the crew that we have, the writing that we have. I really couldn’t be happier.

Look, I think there are always places to go and things to be improved. Nothing is ever perfect, but I think that it’s as good a show as I could have hoped for. I’m so thrilled because I think it captures my father’s spirit and his energy without being like a copycat of him in any way. I think it tells his story. I think it’s entertaining. I think it’s got awesome action. I think it’s got amazing characters with storylines. I think it’s dramatic. I think it’s very binge worthy. It’s like one of those shows where you’re like, “Oh my God, what’s going to happen next.” You know?

cnx.cmd.push(function() { cnx({ playerId: "106e33c0-3911-473c-b599-b1426db57530", }).render("0270c398a82f44f49c23c16122516796"); });

Warrior Season 2 can be seen exclusively on CINEMAX. Be Water, My Friend: The Teachings of Bruce Lee is available wherever fine books are sold. For more on Shannon’s work and the Bruce Lee Family Company, visit BruceLee.com.

The post Bruce Lee Forever! Shannon Lee Reflects on Her Father’s Legacy appeared first on Den of Geek.

from Den of Geek https://ift.tt/2Sw9bdb

#aion-rsa #Den of Geek

[magic-multicolored-miracle]

A Review and Contextless Commentary of Episode Two of CW’s Nancy Drew

[I watched this episode last Thursday, but forgot to post because my life is busy with midterms and the last weekend of the LARP I cast at, so I’m just getting this up now. Might watch the next episode and try to post the review/commentary before bedtime.]

I liked this episode less than the first one. There were a lot more facepalm moments. The characters are developing well but the mystery is not. It feels very stagnant from where the story ended in the first episode, nothing really changed in the course of this one. 

I haven’t given up hope yet, they do have to make this mystery last at least a season, so I get why it’s moving slowly. 

And now, for judgy, slightly obnoxious thoughts (be warned, they’re long):

Oh good. They didn’t totally ruin Carson by making him a cheating bastard.

I still refuse to believe that Carson, any version of him, is capable of or responsible for murder. If any version is, I’d buy the golf ball over this guy

Why are we doing this CW? Why are we having a teenage girl and a grown-ass-man hooking up? I don’t care that she’s 18, the implication is that she wasn’t when this bullshit started. I’m not even angry about it, I’m just tired. And maybe a little concerned how often this kind of storyline crops up in teen shows and is not portrayed as BAD and CREEPY and PREDATORY

Yes George, little reminder, his wife was just murdered and he’s a suspect. Smart move on maybe not sleeping with him. On top of the whole predatory thing.

That is a pretty bullshit injunction. But also, I think technically plausible? Either way Highly Suspicious on Mr. Ryan Hudson’s part

We’re still calling him Nick huh?

Of course the small town wouldn’t cancel their quirky and probably slightly creepy event for something like a simple murder

Is he McGinnis? Cus I’m like 80% sure that’s not what we called him last week…but whatever man, McGinnis it is

Yes let’s just openly discuss stealing blood from a corpse. Good plan Nancy.

Break in with better coverage bitch! Not in your distinctly colored work uniform and all your hair and other DNA sources exposed!

So far Nancy is the only one conclusively seeing the ghost, including even the audience not seeing it clearly, and I’m hoping that means something…

I call bullshit on Ace’s haunted morgue story. If someone died or went missing in a government building, especially a FREAKING MORGUE that would not go unsolved/attributed to a ghost

Exact wording concerned-flirting is still 110% what I’m here for with the Nedcy relationship

That’s your story? That your wife was on (impliedly) psychiatric medication and you don’t want that somehow going from an autopsy report, usually a sealed medical record at least until the death is solved, to ending up in the paper because of some nebulous effect it might have on your family? Could you be any vaguer and more full of shit?

Noo, George don’t fall for that and refuse to steal his phone because you feel guilty or something…even if you believe him, which you shouldn’t, you still need that to clear your name

Sure you’d never try to cover up info on your wife’s murder. But you’ll hook up with an 18-year-old the day after she’s murdered…

Nancy, spying on your friends and co-conspirators is rude. Justified, but still bad form

Oh, Carson knows Ryan. Good. And there’s clearly a history there. Awesome.

Finally! Carson with a spine! Much more the Carson I know and respect.

Ooh, so the history has something to do with Kate. Intriguing

Tactless Drew strikes again. Super not helping…

Oof. Probably deserved, but harsh anyway George.

Maybe don’t loudly discuss your criminal plans in the middle of a restaurant? I mean even discounting the girl you have just given every reason to turn your ass in, there are other people in there. With ears and the capability to tell McGinnis.

Bucket ritual? Really? That is the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard, and I grew up in a town with the Annual Rubber Duck Races and the Tomato Festival

Can part of the bucket ritual be punching a sleezeball in the face with a bucket?

Also, maybe look around when you’re talking in case people overhear?

Going to Ryan and not the police is…maybe not the smartest idea George

More Ghostly hallucinations for Nancy…good…and she’s doubting herself. Not good. Don’t listen to Team Ghost or go to them for comfort when you see things, they’re not going to be helpful and we don’t need you freaking out more.

A least she’s covered up a bit more this time. But still leaving her hair and face exposed and wearing her distinctive (apparently) hat that got her into trouble once before on B&E. Nancy. Get it together.

That’s a lot of bodies for a small-town morgue

Coroner’s driver is hot. And clearly annoyed by these morons. I love her

That body looks very different than the woman before she died. I’m going to chalk it up to lighting and being a several day old corpse, but on another level I think it’s a low-budget corpse? Like that’s nowhere near the same hair color or face shape. Did you even try?

Lisbeth is so fucking Done with these two. Also I feel bad for Ace having to bust his clearly beloved car. And that leaking was focused on too closely to not be suspicious

When did it start raining? It wasn’t at the festival…

Oh god is this going to be a jumpscare? Nope, just dramatic noises. I think I might have to start watching in the dark for all the dramatics to really work…

So Gay! I love it!

Focus Nancy! Also she didn’t leave her whole body behind huh? I’m guessing Dead Lucy is less dead than one might think

Don’t steal evidence of a cold case. That you’ve already asked the police about recently. Bad plan.

How did the alarms get set off?! I would have believed on the way in or the way out, but not in the middle of the process. Unless the cold case evidence boxes are on pressure sensors for some bullshit reason

Go George! Glad you’re feeling apologetic Nan, but now is super not the time

And now Nancy’s in prison. Well this was a short show, considering this McGinnis doesn’t like her enough to let her investigate from lockup the way he did in ASH

I guess the suspicious zoom in on the dripping under the car was a red herring?

Yes! Bess got the cute girl’s number!

If Bess is what they’re calling ace rep, I’ll flip a table because what she’s describing is NOT WHAT BEING ACE IS (at least not for most people’s experience of it)

Adorable. And so fucking awkward. I love Ace like a lot. Which does not bode well for him tbh, especially as a canon foreigner

I love that they each have their own very different priorities to George’s announcement. Like, does it really matter what dead people parts she has Ace?

Listen to your cop friend Nancy. And maybe don’t immediately snoop so blatantly in a police computer…

Obviously she breaking into shit. That’s what she does. This isn’t new Carson

That’s…not how manslaughter trials work. Like ever. Unless, maybe, if she was a CI for the police and revealing her identity jeopardized other cases.

Is now the best time to talk about this? There’s usually shit like cameras in police holding areas…also do you really think your dad’s just going to be “haha yeah, I killed Lucy Sable and stashed her dress in the attic, you caught me!”

Really? I left you locked in a prison cell to get you to talk to me? That’s bad parenting

Ominous statement is ominous

I mean she JUST died, and her murder is still being investigated where both of you are suspects. So like maybe don’t jump to that assumption. Also, fuck him (but don’t fuck him) because he is a garbage person

I’m kind of in love with the fact that he fixed up the Blue Roadster and gave her a secret compartment for her locket. It’s sickeningly adorable

Watchya doing Carson?

I maintain that this is the dumbest ritual/town tradition ever

You’re stopping in the middle of sex for the bucket thing? Really? Is it that important?

Oof. Burning evidence now that you know your nosey ass daughter knows about it is bad form Carson. Way to look Suspicious

George…don’t read into it…it’s more likely a prank than an omen. Especially if you’ve been bullied/harassed before… Alternately, it’s hurting my theory that the ghostly apparitions are all in Nancy’s head

Of course it was Nick’s phone. I knew it was going to be one of theirs.

Okay, but seriously, Ace desperately needs a last name as one of the best things about the show and currently unsearchable as a unique tab on Tumblr

And now for the trailer!: Oh goodie, we’re doubling down on the ghosts and weird shit so I don’t get to keep pretending there’s a logical explanation or that it’s all in Nancy’s head…yay…

#Nancy Drew #CW Nancy Drew #Nancy Drew 2019 #Nancy Drew tv show #review and commentary #episode 2 was...meh #but I remain on team 'it's not bad and I'm cautiously optimistic' #please don't completely ruin this CW...I'm sorta trusting you here #cataloging my thoughts as I watch TV #semi-liveblogging