Fork U with Dr. Terry Simpson cover art

Fork U with Dr. Terry Simpson

Fork U with Dr. Terry Simpson

By: Terry Simpson
Listen for free

Fork U(niversity) Not everything you put in your mouth is good for you. There’s a lot of medical information thrown around out there. How are you to know what information you can trust, and what’s just plain old quackery? You can’t rely on your own “google fu”. You can’t count on quality medical advice from Facebook. You need a doctor in your corner. On each episode of Your Doctor’s Orders, Dr. Terry Simpson will cut through the clutter and noise that always seems to follow the latest medical news. He has the unique perspective of a surgeon who has spent years doing molecular virology research and as a skeptic with academic credentials. He’ll help you develop the critical thinking skills so you can recognize evidence-based medicine, busting myths along the way. The most common medical myths are often disguised as seemingly harmless “food as medicine”. By offering their own brand of medicine via foods, These hucksters are trying to practice medicine without a license. And though they’ll claim “nutrition is not taught in medical schools”, it turns out that’s a myth too. In fact, there’s an entire medical subspecialty called Culinary Medicine, and Dr. Simpson is certified as a Culinary Medicine Specialist. Where today's nutritional advice is the realm of hucksters, Dr. Simpson is taking it back to the realm of science.Copyright 2026 Terry Simpson Biological Sciences Hygiene & Healthy Living Physical Illness & Disease Science
Episodes
  • The Bank of Muscle: Your Retirement Account Isn't Your 401(k)

    The Bank of Muscle: Your Retirement Account Isn't Your 401(k)
    Jun 25 2026
    The Bank of Muscle: Why Your Real Retirement Account Isn't Your 401(k)I used to think retirement planning was all about money. Put enough away, let compound interest do its thing, and someday you'll enjoy the rewards. As I've gotten older, however, I've come to appreciate another form of savings that may be just as important.It's your muscle.Nobody reaches eighty-five and wishes they had less of it. Instead, people wish they could get out of a chair more easily. They wish they could carry groceries, travel, garden, and play with grandchildren. In other words, they wish they had more reserves.That's really what muscle buys us.Dad's First Retirement AccountI was fortunate. My father lived nearly ninety-nine years old, and he didn't simply survive. He lived.At eighty-five, Dad was walking three and a half miles every day. That's remarkable. Many people half his age don't walk that much. He had survived several heart attacks over the years, but he had reserves. Looking back, I realize that making it to eighty-five is one thing. Reaching eighty-five healthy enough to begin the sprint into your nineties is something else entirely.Dad didn't do anything exotic. He wasn't biohacking. He wasn't chasing supplements. He wasn't optimizing every laboratory value.He walked.And my mother cooked.Their meals weren't complicated. They enjoyed meat, potatoes, vegetables, soups, and desserts. They enjoyed life together. In hindsight, Dad was making deposits into his Bank of Muscle every day without ever calling it that.Then Life ChangedAs my mother's dementia slowly progressed, things began to fall apart. Dad stopped walking, not because he wanted to, but because he didn't want to leave Mom alone. He worried she might wander. At the same time, Mom stopped cooking.Breakfast became something out at a diner. Lunch might be a sandwich. Dinner often became cereal.I watched them both lose weight.Then I got the phone call no child wants."Dad's in the hospital. He fell and couldn't get up."The fall wasn't the problem. Falls happen. What concerned me was that Dad no longer had enough reserve.After a couple of weeks in rehabilitation, I convinced him to move into an assisted living center close to our house. He wasn't thrilled with the idea, but something remarkable happened. Once Mom entered memory care and Dad had regular meals again, he began to thrive.He complained constantly about the food while gaining seventeen pounds. But he made friends and was always talking to someone or another. I would drive by and see him talking to anyone, from former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who lived there, and had a crush on my dad. My dad was making sure his neighbor got the newspaper, and yet he continued to complain about the food. All while gaining 17 pounds the first year.Twice a week, I would take Dad to dinner, and we would split a steak.The waitresses had a standing joke. They would ask him whether he wanted the kale salad.Dad would smile and say, "I grew up in an orphanage in Alaska. We grew kale, but we fed it to the cows. I'll eat the cow."He charmed every waitress in town.Eventually, after Mom died, Dad moved back home to Oregon and lived independently again. Visiting Angels helped with meals and companionship, but he was back in his own house.Looking back, I learned two things.Food matters.Muscle matters.Frailty Is the EnemyWe spend a lot of time talking about heart disease, cancer, cholesterol, and blood pressure. Those are important. However, frailty is another great enemy of aging.Frailty steals independence.One broken hip can change everything. A fall that would have been a nuisance at sixty can become life-changing at eighty-five. Muscle gives us reserve, and reserve allows us to recover.My father didn't avoid every setback.He survived them.That's what reserve does.Protein Helps, But It Isn't MagicThe supplement industry would love us to believe that a powder is all we need. Unfortunately, muscles didn't get the memo.Protein matters, especially as we age. Most experts recommend older adults consume about 1.2 to 1.5 grams of protein per kilogram of body weight each day, spread throughout the day rather than eaten all at once at dinner. For many people, that means aiming for twenty-five to thirty grams of protein at each meal.¹However, protein alone isn't enough.A large meta-analysis found that protein supplementation without resistance exercise had limited effects on strength and muscle mass. In contrast, combining protein with resistance exercise produced meaningful improvements.²In other words, muscles need both building blocks and a reason to keep existing.Exercise Doesn't Have To Be FancyWhen people hear "resistance exercise," they often picture bodybuilders.That's not what the science requires.Walking hills counts.Gardening counts.Resistance bands count.Swimming counts.Carrying groceries counts.Yoga counts.For me, yoga became the answer.I'm not a gym person. Exercise isn't my hobby. I don't wake up every ...
    Show More Show Less
    12 mins
  • Did the Food Pyramid Make America Fat?

    Did the Food Pyramid Make America Fat?
    Jun 19 2026
    If you read some low-carb sites, or Gary Taub's books, you will find the contention that the food pyramid - the last one being in 2011 - put America into a low fat, high carb diet responsible for today's obesity. That the government food pyramid misled a generation of people, and because we faithfully follow it, we became fat.The problem is, that isn't the case, but I want to go back in time and see why we have those government issued guidelines, and see where we are today.Dietary RecommendationsThe first major food guide appeared in 1943. It wasn't even a pyramid. It was called the Basic Seven.Created to prevent malnutrition and maintain stamina during World War II, it categorized foods into seven groups and served as the precursor to the modern food pyramid:1: Green and Yellow Vegetables (e.g. leafy greens, green beans, carrots).2: Oranges, Tomatoes, Grapefruit (or other raw greens high in Vitamin C).3: Potatoes and Other Vegetables/Fruits (e.g., apples, potatoes, beets).4: Milk and Milk Products (e.g. fluid milk, evaporated milk, cheese).5: Meat, Poultry, Fish, or Eggs (as well as plant-based proteins like dried beans and nuts).6: Bread, Flour, and Cereals (focusing on whole grain or enriched varieties).7: Butter and Fortified Margarine (specifically noted to provide necessary calories and Vitamin A during rationing).The Basic FourThese came out in 1956 to help a growing America. doctors worried about malnutrition and vitamin deficiencies. Diseases such as pellagra, rickets, and scurvy were still being treated.A breakdown of the 4 food groups and how they currently fit into a balanced, healthy routine:1. Fruits & Vegetables 🥦Focus: Whole forms (fresh, frozen, or canned without added sugars).Benefits: Packed with essential vitamins, minerals, and dietary fiber.Goal: Aim to make half your plate fruits and vegetables at meal times.2. Grains 🌾Focus: Whole grains (oats, brown rice, whole-wheat bread).Benefits: Provides vital carbohydrates and fiber for sustained energy.Goal: Make at least half your daily grains "whole" to get the most nutritional value.3. Protein 🥩Focus: Lean proteins like poultry, fish, eggs, legumes (beans/peas), nuts, and seeds.Benefits: Builds muscle mass, repairs tissues, and keeps you full.Goal: Include a portion of protein with every meal to keep metabolism regulated.4. Dairy 🥛Focus: Milk, yogurt, and cheeses (or calcium-fortified plant alternatives).Benefits: Crucial source of calcium and vitamin D for strong bones and teeth.Goal: Opt for low-fat or unsweetened varieties whenever possible to limit excess sugar1979 What to AvoidDirectly after the Basic Four, the USDA introduced the Hassle-Free Daily Food Guide (1979). The Hassle-Free Daily Food Guide (1979–1984)What changed: It kept the core Basic Four, but added a fifth group: Fats, Sweets, and Alcohol.Purpose: This was the first time a group was explicitly highlighted for the public to consume only in moderation.The transition away from the Basic Four marked a major shift in government policy: instead of just telling Americans to eat enough nutrients to avoid deficiencies, the focus changed to preventing chronic illnesses by telling people what to limit.The Food Guide Pyramid (1992–2005)The first guide to feature highly specific daily serving sizes across six distinct categories. Grains formed the massive base (6–11 servings), followed by fruits and vegetables, then dairy and meat, with fats/sweets resting at the tiny top peak.Fair Criticisms of the Food PyramidNone of this means the Food Pyramid was perfect.In fact, there are several reasonable criticisms. First, the pyramid did not do a great job distinguishing between whole grains and refined grains. A bowl of steel-cut oats is different from a sugary breakfast cereal, but both could look similar on a simple graphic. Likewise, the pyramid often treated fats as a single category when we now know that olive oil, nuts, and fish are different from trans fats and highly processed shortening.In addition, agriculture and food industry groups had influence over the process. That should not surprise anyone. Food policy has always involved scientists, government agencies, farmers, food manufacturers, and politicians. As a result, some recommendations reflected compromises rather than perfect science. That is a fair criticism, and it is one reason nutrition advice continues to evolve.However, we should also be honest about today's environment. While many criticize the influence of industry on older food guides, we now live in an age where nutrition advice often comes from influencers, supplement companies, podcasters, social media personalities, and people selling books, courses, or products. In other words, we have not eliminated outside influences. We have simply changed who those influences are. Therefore, the challenge today is the same as it has always been: separating evidence from marketing.Most importantly, the biggest problem facing Americans today is not that...
    Show More Show Less
    14 mins
  • The Scientists Who Built the Modern Snack

    The Scientists Who Built the Modern Snack
    Jun 11 2026
    How We EatMost of us think we know what we eat. However, nutrition researchers have learned a frustrating lesson over the years: asking people what they ate yesterday is often less accurate than anyone would like. Although food diaries and surveys can provide useful information, memories are imperfect, snacks are easily forgotten, and portion sizes tend to grow smaller in retrospect. Consequently, some of the most important nutrition research takes place in a setting that is both expensive and surprisingly simple—a metabolic ward, where every meal is prepared, every serving is weighed, and every leftover bite is measured.That approach is exactly what researcher Kevin Hall and his colleagues used in a landmark study at the NIH. Participants were given two different diets, one based largely on ultra-processed foods and another built around minimally processed foods. Importantly, the volunteers could eat as much as they wanted. Nobody instructed them to count calories, restrict portions, or lose weight. Nevertheless, participants consumed about 500 more calories per day when eating the ultra-processed diet. The same people, living in the same environment, produced dramatically different results simply because the food changed.Obesity in the US and Ultra-Processed FoodsAs a result, the study raised an intriguing question. If ultra-processed foods can influence calorie intake to that degree, why isn't everyone obese? After all, ultra-processed foods make up a large portion of the modern food supply. Grocery stores are filled with them, convenience stores specialize in them, and many restaurants depend on them. Yet despite widespread exposure to the same food environment, some people seem relatively unaffected while others struggle with appetite, cravings, and weight gain.Prego and Vanishing CaloriesTo understand how we arrived here, it helps to step back a few decades. During the latter half of the twentieth century, food companies increasingly turned to scientists, statisticians, and sensory researchers to understand consumer behavior. One of the most influential figures was Howard Moskowitz, a researcher who discovered that there was no single perfect food. Instead, he found that consumers tended to cluster into different preference groups. Some people preferred sweeter products, others wanted more texture, and still others favored stronger flavors. As a result, food manufacturers stopped searching for one ideal product and began creating multiple versions designed to appeal to different consumers.Meanwhile, another researcher, Steven Witherly, focused on a different question. Rather than asking what people preferred, he explored why certain foods were so rewarding. His work highlighted the importance of texture, aroma, crunch, temperature, and mouthfeel. In other words, food is not simply taste. Instead, it is a complex sensory experience involving multiple signals that influence how satisfying a meal feels.One of Witherly's most memorable concepts is known as vanishing caloric density. Certain foods, particularly puffed snacks, dissolve quickly in the mouth and create the sensation that they have almost disappeared. Although the calories remain, the physical experience of eating them can feel surprisingly brief. Consequently, these foods may be easier to consume in larger quantities before the body's normal satiety signals fully catch up. While that does not make such foods inherently bad, it does help explain why some snacks seem to empty themselves once the bag is opened.Ultra-Processed Foods and GLP-1At the same time, the modern food environment has become remarkably effective at attracting attention. Food manufacturers optimize texture, flavor, aroma, and convenience, while consumers encounter those products virtually everywhere. Therefore, the challenge is not simply one of personal responsibility. Biology, environment, culture, sleep, stress, and genetics all influence how people respond to food. Some individuals appear naturally protected, whereas others experience stronger reward signals and greater susceptibility to cravings.Interestingly, the recent rise of GLP-1 medications has provided another perspective on appetite. Many patients describe a quieter relationship with food, noting that foods which once demanded attention suddenly seem less compelling. The food itself has not changed; rather, the brain's response to it has shifted. Consequently, these medications have highlighted something obesity researchers have suspected for years: appetite is not merely a matter of willpower. Instead, it reflects a complex interaction between biology and an increasingly sophisticated food environment.Ultimately, Kevin Hall's study gave us an important clue about what happens when people are exposed to different types of food. Howard Moskowitz showed how companies learned to identify consumer preferences, while Steven Witherly helped explain why certain foods are so appealing in the first place. Together...
    Show More Show Less
    14 mins
adbl_web_anon_alc_button_suppression_t1
No reviews yet