Sigma Nutrition Radio

Evidence based, nuanced, no hype. Expert interviews, deep dives, detailed and clear explanations. My go-to source for all nutrition questions. Having listened to well over 100 episodes, Sigma has easily become my favorite podcast. Danny is an exceptional interviewer, and he and Alan have a talent for cutting through the confusion to tease out what the science really shows (and how/why). I’ve grown in careful, critical thinking in all spheres of life. Highly recommend.

As a PhD and Registered Dietitian I really appreciate the quality, thoroughness, and objectivity of Sigma Nutrition Radio. In a sea of sensationalism, clickbait and misinformation, SNR is a breath of fresh air. Danny and Alan are very thorough and do an excellent job of explaining studies and summarizing key points. They don’t push their personal agenda and have achieved a true evidence-based podcast. I can’t recommend this podcast enough.

Really informative. I learned a lot. Not dogmatic. I am based in the US and like that Sigma Nutrition is based across the pond, which provides a different perspective.

This is the only podcast to get the most and latest nutrition education for everyone. It does focus on athletic performance based nutrition but pertinent information for everyone interested in the evidence based nutrition practices. Danny is so knowledgeable and prepared when he interviews his guests. Often times the guests comment on his great questions and how knowledgeable he is on the topics being covered. Highly, highly recommend this podcast.

I use to find the podcast interesting and informative but have since parted ways due to the high level of arrogance. Episode 400 is a great example of this. The hosts seemingly cherry picked controversial statements made by the “quacks” and then proceeded to mock them based on little supporting evidence. I had never heard of the quacks mentioned so I have no skin in the game, but I found the ad hominem attacks off putting and unhelpful in communicating why I should think of these people as quacks

When I first saw the title of episode #336 Ethics of Veganism and Omnivorism, I was very excited for some deep discussion, especially since the guest is a philosophy professor at Princeton, and because I do not think factory farming is morally right. However, after listening to the episode, I was left disappointed to hear that a supposedly highly educated professor of philosophy presents the same basic arguments made by many misinformed online diet zealots. At one point, he presents the idea that holistically raised animals that are killed in middle age somehow increases suffering. This insinuates that a longer lifespan decreases suffering. This is a false claim, since longer lifespans, for both humans and animals, do not equate to less suffering. Simply explore the long life span, yet increased prevalence of chronic disease of later life common in the US population. Why is it that Danny and his guest are quick to attack the industrial animal industry, yet not once do they mention the equally unsustainable, unhealthy model of monocrop agriculture industry. A second point the host and guest seem to completely avoid is the fact that organisms across the animal AND plant kingdoms are sentient, on a relative scale. True, that a ruminant animal has a much more complex nervous system then a cabbage leaf, but not once is this talked about. They don’t challenge the idea that plants can also “feel” and are therefore, capable of some degree of suffering. The argument never dives into the moral dilemma that life eats life. A true philosophical exploration into a fundamental conundrum such as this would have been worth discussing. The philosophy professor really shows his true bias when he cites one study that athletes don’t need protein from animal sources for adequate nutrition. While this is acceptable, this argument on nutrition does not belong in an ethical debate. Why is a philosophy professor even presenting nutritional scientific information? It’s almost as if he is trying to prop up the superficiality of his ethical arguments with a single, arbitrarily chosen study. There should have been more talk on how we define animal/plant suffering from a neurophysiological standpoint and it’s considerations in food choices (some marine bivalves have been shown to have less complex nervous systems than plants, possibly challenging the professor’s entire argument on which causes more suffering, eating plants or animals). Not only that, but does the killing and suffering of countless gophers, moles, rabbits, insects, and bugs as a cost of crop harvesting, outweigh the killing of a single beef cattle that can feed 2-3 people for a year? Lastly, the professor makes the claim that we should avoid eating animals because, as I prosperous society, we have the ability to eat a vegan diet, unlike many tribes around the world. This is an arrogant statement that seemingly borders on making the claim that the westernized world is superior to these “meat-eating” cultures. A thoughtful professor would address the fact that for the entire 1.3 million years as Homo sapiens, no anthropologist has found a purely vegan culture throughout history. Does this make modern day humans morally superior to those in the past? This type of thinking seems to be so pervasive in many important discussions today, but it especially runs unchecked in our university systems in the US. I propose a debate format next attempt. When we start out with a predetermined conclusion presented by an obviously biased viewpoint, it doesn’t help anyone. Debate is a critical way, if not the most critical way, we can advance important ideas like these. Thank you to Danny for attempting to cover this topic. We need more discourse in this arena.