It’s Back: Red Yeast Rice

/in /by

I still get questions about using red yeast rice (RYR) instead of a statin to lower cholesterol. About 15 years ago, I looked up the data, wrote about it, and tucked it away. The answer was yes—but. What does that mean? Time to review it again in case you’ve been thinking about it.

Red yeast rice is actually not a yeast, it’s a mold that is produced by the fermentation of a fungus in the Monascus family that grows on, as you may have guessed, red rice. The genera Monascus purpureus is technically a mold—a fungus that produces filaments that include many cells rather than a yeast, a single-celled fungus. From a marketing perspective, you can understand why supplement manufacturers wanted to use red yeast rice rather than red mold rice.

Did RYR as a supplement work to lower cholesterol? Yes, based on several studies done in the late 1990s. There was only one problem. The RYR contained monacolin K, a by-product of fermenting the mold on the red rice. Why is that a problem? Because monacolin K is chemically identical to lovastatin, a pharmaceutical that lowers cholesterol. While no one wants to take medications any more than they have to, the RYR was a “natural” alternative. Is it still available and moreover, is it the same RYR? I’ll let you know on Saturday.

What are you prepared to do today?

        Dr. Chet

References:
1. Methodist Debakey Cardiovasc J. 2019 Jul-Sep;15(3):192-199.
2. NIH NCCIH 2024. Red Yeast Rice.

Specificity of Training

/in /by

The concept of training to attain specific performance is called specificity of training. The simplest example is that if you want to run a marathon, you run long distances for training, not 10-yard sprints. I think it’s more than that: the objective is to train the body to use physical activity, food, and rest in a way that creates better performance during specific tasks. Remember prepping for surgery or taking kids to the amusement park? It doesn’t have to be just an athletic event. You also have to be mentally ready for the task as well.

I define energy as the mental clarity to focus on any given task along with the physical energy to complete it. On Tuesday, I talked about a marathon speech that made it. Here’s an example of an effort that didn’t succeed.

Amazing Misses

Paula and I were watching The Amazing Race, which combines travel with completing tasks requiring focus as well as endurance. On top of that, this episode took place in a climate that was extremely warm. When one competitor who looked very fit was asked why he had to stop and rest while completing the tasks and was barely able to stay in the competition, he said he misjudged what would be required physically and mentally.

I don’t agree. I’d say he didn’t train properly to make sure he had enough energy to complete the tasks by manipulating exercise, diet, mental challenges, and physical challenges in his training. He had to know what it would be like; there are dozens of prior seasons he could have watched. Even though he said he was especially sensitive to heat, there are ways to prepare for that. He and his partner could have trained, anticipated the worst, and designed the training to sustain the ability to perform. That would include eating and sleeping during the competition.

The Bottom Line

Two extraordinary performances, one successful and one not so much. If you want to perform at a high level, regardless of the task, you have to train specifically for that task—an important speech, a road trip, even a vacation. If you want some help figuring that out, review your copy of the Optimal Performance program or purchase yours today.

What are you prepared to do today?

        Dr. Chet

An Amazing Performance

/in /by

This week, I’m going to talk about a couple of amazing examples of physical feats; it all comes down to training to perform. I’m telling you in advance that the Optimal Performance training program provides the why and the how. When I’m done with the Memos, decide if you want to revisit it if you have it or buy it if you don’t.

A week ago, Senator Cory Booker of NJ spoke on the Senate floor for over 25 hours without taking a bathroom break or eating anything. I don’t care what your political persuasion may be, that’s an extraordinary physical task. According to reports, he prepared by not eating solid food after the Friday before he began speaking and limiting his water intake starting Sunday. What he probably did not train for was staying on his feet for that amount of time, but we know he wore his most comfortable shoes. That aside, this was the absolute correct way to prepare for this kind of effort.

This applies to you as well. If you’re going to have a shoulder or a knee replaced, how are you getting ready? If you’re not doing rehab exercises and building the supporting muscle a couple of months before—if you’re not preparing—it’s going to take longer in rehab to get back to full function.

How about those of you taking kids or grandkids to a giant theme park? You don’t want to disappoint the kids by wimping out halfway through!

What if you know your business is going to be exceptionally busy on a certain date? How about going on a week-long business trip? What if you’re getting ready to take the LSATs or MCATs or any other seven-and-a-half-hour test? There are also ways to manipulate what you eat and when you eat that can lead to maximal energy levels when you need it most; and if you have the energy to do whatever it is, you’re likely to perform better and enjoy it more.

We typically think of athletes when we think of serious preparation for physical challenges, but we all need it at some time. I’ll give you the scientific principle behind this in Saturday’s Memo. Until then, remember to check out the Optimal Performance program.

What are you prepared to do today?

        Dr. Chet

It’s Going to Be a While

/in /by

In the last Memo, When Will We Get Something Better?, we looked at research on a new drug to counter obesity. But don’t hold your breath.

The researchers developed a sophisticated algorithm and used AI to find the process and the potential obesity-protein hormone to help combat obesity. What’s next? Several years or longer of clinical trials to test its effectiveness and safety in human beings. If it works, it will be another pharmaceutical solution to obesity and a step better than the GLP-1 agonists currently available. Two of the researchers hold the patent for the process and the protein itself, but there are no shortcuts on the science.

In my opinion, the problem is this: that’s not really the solution. They’re looking for a pharmaceutical solution. This protein, called BRG for short, will still have to be regulated like a pharmaceutical, made like a pharmaceutical, and prescribed as such even though it’s a natural hormone made in the body.

Where the research should focus is on a natural way to stimulate the body to upregulate (turn on) the gene or genes with diet, exercise, or some other natural means. Turning specific genes on and off is where we want to be, not creating companies and chemicals that will create a single molecule. It’s just the wrong approach to me. It may very well work, but it’s not natural in any way. I’m not suggesting that people with massive obesity won’t benefit from it, but it’s treating the symptoms of the problem, not the problem itself.

The problem is that because we overeat the wrong foods while not moving enough, genes have become upregulated and stay that way. We need solutions that help us get to downregulating those genes so that weight loss can become permanent.  Eat less. Eat better. Move more. For life.

What are you prepared to do today?

        Dr. Chet

References:
1. https://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2025/03/ozempic-rival.html
2. Nature (2025). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-025-08683-y

When Will We Get Something Better?

/in /by

The quest for a pharmacological solution to obesity continues—the magic pill to make us thin. While Ozempic and Wegovy, discovered and developed to treat type 2 diabetes, have been successful in helping reduce HbA1c, it has also helped people lose weight; the problem is the side effects. As you might guess, there are receptors for GLP-1 agonists in numerous locations in addition to the brain, and other organs are impacted.

That’s why a press release from Stanford seemed promising: “Naturally occurring molecule rivals Ozempic in weight loss, sidesteps side effects.” This research used a unique approach: they designed a specific algorithm that used artificial intelligence to identify the hormone segments made by an enzyme prohormone convertase 1/3 (PC1/3); basically, it cuts prohormones into smaller segments. Some may have metabolic activity, most would not.

Based on the analysis of 2,600 protein segments, the researchers identified 373 potentials and tested the top 100 most likely to succeed. They identified a hormone segment with 12 amino acids that appears to impact hunger 10 times better than the GLP-1 agonists, which are cleaved from the same prohormone. When they tested it in mice and minipigs by injecting it into the muscles of the animals before eating, it reduced food intake by 50%.

The volume of work done by the specific algorithm using AI probably saved years compared to testing each prohormone by trial and error, but what’s next? When will it be available? I’ll cover that on Saturday.

What are you prepared to do today?

        Dr. Chet

References:
1. https://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2025/03/ozempic-rival.html
2. Nature (2025). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-025-08683-y

Research Must Go On

/in /by

This is the final installment of my Memo series illustrating why research funding for basic and clinical trials should never stop unless the approach is obviously misdirected. Delaying research due to the dogma of the day is bad; delaying it because someone believes in a refuted dogma is worse. This is not a debate on whether vaccines can cause autism. The data is clear to me; autism is the direct or indirect result of genetic mutations, most of which have not been fully researched. But many people still have questions, so let’s say that someone were to direct research to examine vaccinations as a potential cause for autism, specifically the mumps, measles, and rubella (MMR) vaccine. How should it be done?

First, every child should have complete genetic testing that includes every suspected gene that’s been associated with autism—specifically, retrograde autism, the most serious form. The children should also have a complete microbiome examination because a weak immune system may be related to the development of autism. The genetics and microbiomes of both parents should also be tested.

Second, the children should be randomly selected throughout the United States covering all geographic areas.

Third, the parent should decide whether they choose to have their children vaccinated or not; the decision should not be influenced by healthcare professionals.

Fourth, the key time for retrograde autism is within two weeks of the vaccinations; the diagnosis process should begin within that time frame.

Finally, it has to be a blinded study. That means that neither the physicians nor the parents can be told of the purpose of the study other than to agree to monitor the development of the child.

There are hundreds of details and other variables that need to be worked out, but that’s the basic idea. We’ve had numerous studies that included over a million children that were retrospective observational studies, and that’s great information, but doing a study before children are vaccinated is the best way to answer whether vaccinations are related to autism. The side benefit is that we will have genetic and microbiome profiles to compare with those who were and were not vaccinated and those who were and were not diagnosed with retrograde autism. Anything less would not answer the question.

One more thing: The scientific board that controls the funding can have no part in selecting where and how the research is conducted.

If we did all that—and it’s absolutely doable if we have the will to do it—we could finally answer the questions about vaccines and autism. Since we’re talking about the lives of children, I think most of us would agree it’s a great use of research funds because we could finally know that vaccines are safe.

The Bottom Line

Research on health and disease has to continue without political influence. I’ve tried to illustrate the problems with research delayed by professional and personal dogma as well as an idea of the timeline of how long it takes to get answers. When you get right down to it, can we afford to delay even one second? The next solution might just impact you or someone you care about.

What are you prepared to do today?

        Dr. Chet

References:
1. N Engl J Med. 2002 Nov 7;347(19):1477-82
2. Ann Intern Med. 2019 Apr 16;170(8):513-520

What Research Delays Can Cost

/in /by

In 1911, a physician named Peyton Rous discovered that a microbe, found in a tumor in chicken, was able to infect other chickens causing the same cancer. His findings were thought to be ridiculous because cancer wasn’t caused by a microbe—so his research stopped. Those microbes were called viruses in later years.

Move forward to the 1950s, when a scientist named Ludwig Gross picked up the research and established that viruses caused cancer in several species of animals. What he did not prove was how that was possible. The problem was that it went against the central dogma: DNA could result in the production of RNA, but RNA could not go backward and interfere with DNA. Without knowing how that could happen, it wasn’t possible to establish that viruses caused cancer in humans.

In the early 1970s, David Baltimore, Renato Dulbecco, and Howard Temin discovered a piece of the virus that could retroactively insert itself into the cell DNA and make it a cancer cell. They called that reverse transcriptase, and it led to the term retroviruses. In 1975, the researchers won Nobel Prizes for that discovery.

Now the science turned to finding a retrovirus in humans. Robert Gallo discovered just such a retrovirus in two different humans and submitted his paper to the Journal of Virology. It was rejected on September 15, 1980.

During the early 1980s, there was a disease that seemed to be impacting primarily gay men; at that time, catching the virus was almost always a death sentence. Dr. Gallo turned his attention to this new virus and co-discovered what became known as the human immunodeficiency virus, or HIV for short, the virus that causes acquired immunodeficiency disorder, also known as AIDS. That was in 1984—four years after Gallo demonstrated that a retrovirus caused a form of blood cancer, leukemia, in humans.

Those lost years delayed the test for HIV, also discovered by Gallo. By 1995, there was a blend of drugs that could arrest HIV and today, while there is no vaccine yet, HIV is blocked by drugs that stops it from replicating itself.

Four years were lost because science stopped. More correctly stated, science didn’t stop, but those scientists who would have been attracted to the research problem didn’t take up the search because there was limited funding for that type of research. Ryan White, a teenage hemophiliac from Indiana, died on April 8, 1990, from AIDS. If you don’t remember him, you may remember Freddie Mercury who died of AIDS on November 11, 1991. Maybe they would have lived if science hadn’t slowed for four years, as would hundreds of thousands of others.

And imagine how far ahead we might be if 114 years ago, scientists had admitted they didn’t know everything and followed up on the research by Dr. Rous. How many lives could have been saved? What major diseases could have been cured?

That’s the price for delaying research. But what about research that is started based on the dogma of the person who dictates where research dollars are spent? I’ll cover that on Saturday.

What are you prepared to do today?

        Dr. Chet

Reference: Revisionist History. Malcolm Gladwell. The Obscure Virus Club provided the basis for the HIV and AIDS timeline. Every scientific article and fact were independently verified by the Memo writer.

Why We Need Basic Research

/in /by

Imagine what your life would be like if you washed your face and your skin started to blister and bleed. If you tried to answer an email, typing caused your fingers to bleed so much that blood dripped on the keyboard. Welcome to the world of a young man who has recessive dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa, or RDEB. A protein that helps the skin “stick” to the inner layers is missing in people with that genetic disorder, which affects an estimated 3.3 out of every million people. Is he concerned about whether research on basic science continues? You bet, even though he’s not likely to live long enough to see the benefits of that research. If you want to read Shane DiGiovanna’s story, follow this link to the article.

Shane’s story, while uplifting and sad at the same time, is not the point. The point is that with a decrease in funding for basic research—and genetic mutations are basic research—there’s likely to be less research than there was before, and it was already sparse. Add to that RDEB is an “orphan disease” with about three cases per million people, and there’s no incentive for pharmaceutical companies to continue research to find solutions. While the orphan drug program is funded through 2025, solutions could be decades away. The basic research needs to happen on RDEB and other orphan diseases before scientists even know where to look for solutions. Basic research is just that; it’s the base from which all the other research is developed. And you’ll never get anywhere if you never start.

Remember, it took over 50 years from determining what a gene does until GLP-1 agonists were developed. Even what seems like simple delays can set back progress for years, because labs can close and scientists can work on other, more lucrative research. That’s why the lack of research could make pharmaceutical companies more profitable than ever: no more money spent on minor diseases, just the major ones that affect many people and bring the biggest payday.

How much can delays slow down research? I’ll cover that in the next two memos. I’m also working on a segment for my new webinar Healthy Mothers, Healthy Babies that focuses on genetics and vitamin B9. I’ll let you know when it’s available for purchase.

What are you prepared to do today?

        Dr. Chet

Reference: https://substack.com/home/post/p-158569129

Why Scientific Research Must Never Stop

/in /by

The current U.S. administration has tried to stop or delay basic and clinical research related to human conditions and diseases, and in the next few Memos, I’m going to illustrate why that’s a serious mistake. When I’ve laid it out, you can decide for yourself whether clinical research is a waste of money or critical for human health and well-being.

Example One: Glucagon-like Peptides

Sometime during the last century, chemicals were found in the intestines that seemed to increase the release of insulin in response to glucose. It wasn’t until the early 1980s that a gene was identified that resulted in the manufacture of proglucagon. Continued research found that when the protein was unfolded, it was responsible for the production of six different hormones. While all are important, one in particular has become popular 40 years later: GLP-1 (glucagon-like peptide-1). Depending on where it’s produced, its major function is to increase satiety by delaying digestion in the stomach. The net effect is to reduce food intake; that impacts glucose levels in people with pre-diabetes and type 2 diabetes, which can lead to weight loss and the possible prevention of every other condition downstream from diabetes such as cardiovascular disease or diabetic neuropathy.

You may recognize GLP-1 agonists, chemicals which will turn the production on, by their brand names such as Ozempic and Trulicity. They are helping millions of people control their type 2 diabetes with a side benefit of weight loss. From the time that the chemical was discovered, through identifying the gene that produces it, and the development of a chemical that could stimulate the gene to produce GLP-1, the process took over 50 years. The scientists began with basic research and ended with clinical trials to prove the efficacy of the medication. And the research is still not done—if research is able to continue to find something that stimulates only GLP-1 receptors in specific locations in the body instead of systemically, side effects could be controlled more effectively.

Another illustration on Saturday. Tomorrow is the March Insider Conference Call. The primary topic will be more detail on how drugs like Ozempic work as well as answering your questions. Maybe it’s time you become an Insider and join the call.

What are you prepared to do today?

        Dr. Chet

Reference: J Clin Invest. 2017 Dec 1;127(12):4217–4227. doi: 10.1172/JCI97233

Do You Have Sisu?

/in /by

What is sisu? It’s a Finnish word that has no real translation. My interest began with watching a movie of the same name, and once the movie was over, I spent a considerable amount of time trying to get a sense of what the word could mean. The reason is based on Tuesday’s Memo or what we might call the art of postponing the necessary. How can we overcome that?

To several authors, the characteristics of sisu goes along these lines:

Sisu is applied in everyday life to describe perseverance in personal challenges. It is seen as an action-oriented mindset that emphasizes persistence without boasting about it.

If you want an entire book that examines the nuances of sisu, check out Sisu: The Finnish Art of Courage by Joanna Nylund.

Weight loss. Cardiovascular fitness. Pre-diabetes. Hypertension. Mild cognitive impairment. Many more degenerative diseases and conditions. While they have a genetic component, they are primarily diseases of eating too much of the wrong foods while not moving any more than from the recliner to the refrigerator and back. No matter your current physical state, you can be better than you are right now.

This is your life. You know what you have to work on; how many years have you said, “If I could just…”? This is about taking the personal challenge of doing what you need to do, day in, day out, until you’ve got the health and lifestyle you want. Persistence, consistence, courage, resilience, grit, tenacity. Or you could call it stubbornness, which is often considered a negative trait, but one that can be used for good, too. And one more thing: an unwillingness to quit. Ever. Sisu.

What are you prepared to do today?

        Dr. Chet

Reference: Joanna Nylund. Sisu: The Finnish Art of Courage. 2018