Simon Hill

05/12/2026

The most encouraging trend in longevity right now: at any given age, your risk of dementia is lower than it was 40 years ago.

A 90-year-old in 2024 has less than half the dementia risk of a 90-year-old in 1984 (Stallard et al, JAMA 2025). And it’s been replicated — Framingham Heart Study, Rotterdam Study, the Alzheimer Cohorts Consortium. Different countries, different cohorts, same direction.

Two things commonly get confused here, so this brief walks through both: PREVALENCE (how many people have dementia — rising, because the population is older) versus INCIDENCE (a given individual’s annual risk — falling).

And no — this isn’t because people are dying of heart disease earlier. US cardiovascular mortality has fallen by about 75% since 1950. People are living longer AND their per-age risk of dementia is dropping. Both improving together.

Why? The 2024 Lancet Commission identified 14 modifiable risk factors that together account for around 45% of dementia cases worldwide. The drivers map onto exactly the things we’ve been getting better at — blood pressure, smoking, education, hearing, lipids, glucose.

And with the rise of GLP-1s — and the next generation of dual and triple receptor agonists targeting obesity at scale — there’s a credible case the trend could accelerate further. Phase 2 and real-world data are promising. Phase 3 EVOKE in already-symptomatic Alzheimer’s was negative, which is an important caveat — primary prevention is a different question.

For the full evidence-based prevention protocol, listen to my conversation with preventive neurologist, Dr Kellyann Niotis — EP #337.

05/11/2026

USC Longevity Scientist Dr. Valter Longo: Why Growth Hormone Peptides Age You Faster

The peptide boom has moved from niche bodybuilding circles into mainstream wellness, GLP-1s are being treated as the perfect drug for almost everyone, and bi...

05/06/2026

Life of late. Podcasts and soul filling things. 🫶🏼

New episode with Harvard scientist .glenn.rd out on YouTube, Apple and Spotify podcasts.

05/06/2026

Two guidelines. One country. They don’t say the same thing.

The American Heart Association just published its 2026 dietary guidance for cardiovascular health.

The federal Dietary Guidelines for Americans 2025–2030 (sometimes called the “Real Food” guidelines) are also in effect.

Most of the message lines up — vegetables, fruits, whole grains, less added sugar, less sodium, less alcohol.

Both even agree to limit ultraprocessed foods (the federal version renames them “highly processed foods” but the directional advice is similar).

Where they actually split:

→ Protein source. AHA: shift from meat to plants — legumes, nuts, seeds, soy, fish. Federal: animal sources listed first, plants last. No clear preference.

→ Dairy. AHA: low-fat or fat-free preferred. Federal: full-fat dairy at 3 servings/day — a clear reversal of decades of low-fat guidance.

→ Saturated fat. Both kept the 10%-of-calories cap. But the federal guidelines simultaneously promote butter, beef tallow, and full-fat dairy as “healthy fats” in the new pyramid graphic.

These documents shape school lunches, hospital menus, SNAP and WIC standards, clinical advice, and nutrition research funding. They are not just words.

The cardiovascular evidence on plant-vs-animal protein and on full-fat vs low-fat dairy points the direction the AHA points.

📊 Quick poll — drop your answer in the comments:

🅰️ I’m following the AHA

🅱️ I’m following the federal “Real Food” guidelines

🅲 I follow my own framework based on the evidence

🅳 I had no idea these two disagreed

Curious where this community lands. No judgement — just want to see the split.

🎙️ Full breakdown on EP. 409 — The Dietary Guidelines Great Debate with Dr Christopher Gardner (Stanford, 2025 DGAC) and Dr Ty Beal (GAIN). On The Proof Podcast — link in bio.

👇 Reading-like-a-scientist toolkit in the comments.

05/05/2026

Dr Andrea Glenn is an Assistant Professor at NYU and a Visiting Scientist at Harvard. She’s a registered dietitian. And in this conversation, we cut through the noise on the questions you actually care about:

→ Are seed oils harming you, or are they protective?

→ Is butter “back,” or did the science never say what the influencers claimed?

→ Are low-carb diets the answer for diabetes, or do they make it worse depending on what you eat?

→ What does 30 years of cohort data actually show about the diets that protect against heart disease?

→ And how did the new American Heart Association guidance just publicly break with the Federal Dietary Guidelines on salt and red meat?

We also get into the diet that’s been shown to lower LDL cholesterol nearly as much as a low-dose statin — and the trial that’s about to test whether it actually prevents heart attacks.
This is the conversation for anyone who’s tired of being told what to eat by someone with a microphone and a strong opinion. The stakes couldn’t be higher. The conversation online has never been more confused. Today we cut through it.

🎧 Episode 416 — out now.

Search “The Proof with Simon Hill” on YouTube, Apple Podcasts, or Spotify and look for Episode 416 with Dr Andrea Glenn.

Save this post and share it with someone who needs to hear this.

04/30/2026

Peptides are having a moment.

Influencers and “wellness clinic” doctors are selling experimental peptides as the next biohacking frontier — for muscle, recovery, sleep, libido, longevity, you name it. CJC-1295. Ipamorelin. BPC-157. The list keeps growing.

Here’s what’s actually going on:

— The GLP-1 halo effect. GLP-1 receptor agonists went through decades of large human trials. They work. The brain takes that and generalises: if one peptide works, all peptides must. That’s not how evidence works. Each compound stands on its own trials.

— The evidence gap is real. The GLP-1 family — including dual and triple agonists — has 60,000+ trial participants and a decade of follow-up. BPC-157, the most-marketed of the lot, has roughly 30 human subjects across all published trials. Same broad chemical class. Completely different evidence base.

— “Big Pharma is threatened” is a marketing tool, not an evidence base. Pharma gets excited when early data looks promising — they’ve invested billions in peptide drugs (insulin, GLP-1s) when it justified the cost. BPC-157 was first described in 1991. CJC-1295 in the early 2000s. Industry has had 20–30 years to follow up. They mostly haven’t, because the later-stage risk-to-reward looks unfavourable. That’s the system working, not failing.

— The grey market is the real risk. In 2023, the FDA placed BPC-157, CJC-1295, and several others on its Category 2 list, citing insufficient evidence of safety in humans. In 2026, the HHS announced 12 peptides moving off Category 2, with PCAC review beginning July 2026. What this changes: where the grift happens. What it doesn’t change: the evidence base. No new RCTs. No new long-term human safety data. Same compounds. Different storefront.

This isn’t anti-peptide. Insulin is a peptide. GLP-1s are peptides. Real clinical use is real. The point is to distinguish what’s been properly studied from what hasn’t.

Don’t let DIY medicine become something you regret later in life.

Are you taking experimental peptides?

04/28/2026

Your brain isn’t built to find truth. It’s built to find patterns.
That’s why so many bad health claims feel right. A clean story beats a messy dataset. A confident voice beats a hesitant one. Confirmation bias does the rest.

Most of what I share in this carousel I’ve learned over years of reading and listening to Dr. Steven Novella () — neurologist at Yale and host of The Skeptics’ Guide to the Universe. His book of the same name is the best primer on scientific thinking I know.

We unpacked a lot of this on Episode #364 of The Proof — link in bio.
Here’s the toolkit I use to cut through the noise:

— “It worked for me” isn’t evidence. Anecdotes are where questions start, not where they end. Placebo, post hoc fallacy, and regression to the mean explain most of them.

— Some evidence weighs more than others. A single study is a data point. A meta-analysis of thirty is closer to a finding.

— Watch the messenger. Red flags: never changes their mind, sells what they claim works, speaks only in absolutes. Green flags: cites meta-analyses, discloses conflicts, says “I don’t know” when they don’t.

— Watch the claim. Mechanism is interesting — outcome data is what matters.

Four questions, every time:
i. Compared to what?
ii. Over what timeframe?
iii. What does the whole body of evidence say?
iv. Who benefits if you believe this?

Confidence isn’t credibility. Calibrated uncertainty is.
If you want to go deeper, listen to Episode #364 with Dr. Novella — link in bio. And grab his book The Skeptics’ Guide to the Universe. Both worth your time.

Save this and share it to someone to avoid them falling for a “miracle” claim this week.

What’s the worst health claim you’ve seen recently? 👇

04/27/2026

The protein conversation has gone off the rails.

Timing windows. Massive daily targets. “You need 1g per pound.” Most of it isn’t supported by the evidence — and a lot of it distracts from what actually moves the needle.

Here’s what we know:

1. There’s a ceiling for muscle growth. Beyond ~1.6 g/kg/day, additional protein doesn’t translate to more muscle. The grams are oxidised — not stored.

2. Most adults are already eating enough. The average US adult sits at ~1.2 g/kg/day. That’s a stone’s throw from where strength gains plateau (~1.5 g/kg). The bottleneck isn’t protein. It’s that most people aren’t lifting.

3. For muscle, plant and animal sources tie. Vegan and omnivorous diets produce comparable gains in size and strength when totals match. Recent work in older adults backs this up too.

4. Meal frequency is overstated. Three meals, six meals, two meals — when daily totals match, the muscle response is comparable. The “anabolic window” framing has not held up.
5. For long-term health, plants pull ahead. Higher plant-to-animal protein ratios link to lower CVD risk and better odds of healthy aging. You don’t need to be 100% plant. Replacing some red and processed meat with tofu, tempeh, seitan, TVP, edamame, beans and lentils is a genuine win-win.

The take-home:

Lift heavy, consistently. Hit your protein target — most of you already are. Stop watching the clock. Bias the plate toward plants for the long game.

Save this one. Share with someone who needs to hear it.

What’s your go-to sources of protein? 👇

- Simon
—
References:

Morton et al., Br J Sports Med 2018 (PMID: 28698222)
Tagawa et al., 2022 (PMID: 36057893)
USDA/ARS, NHANES 2017–March 2020
Hevia-Larraín et al., Sports Med 2021 (PMID: 33599941)
Monteyne et al., Med Sci Sports Exerc 2023 (PMID: 36822394)
Reid-McCann et al., Nutr Rev 2025
Domić et al., 2024 (older men, beef vs lacto-ovo-vegetarian + RT)
Askow et al., J Int Soc Sports Nutr 2025
Trommelen et al., Int J Sport Nutr Exerc Metab 2024 (DOI: 10.1123/ijsnem.2024-0107)
Glenn et al., Am J Clin Nutr 2024 (DOI: 10.1016/j.ajcnut.2024.09.006)
Ardisson Korat et al., Am J Clin Nutr 2024 (DOI: 10.1016/j.ajcnut.2023.11.010)

04/14/2026

For decades, people with osteoporosis were told to be careful - avoid heavy lifting, go easy on impact.

Prof Belinda Beck’s research challenged that. Her LIFTMOR clinical trials showed that high-intensity exercise is not just tolerable for those with low bone mass - it may be the most effective lifestyle intervention we have.

This episode pairs well with my earlier conversation with Dr Lora Giangregorio - together they cover the full landscape of what the evidence says about building and preserving bone density.

You can watch on YouTube or listen on Apple/Spotify - just search The Proof with Simon Hill.