Sep 26, 2026 · 1 hr 3 min · 11 segments
Julian Wong is a biochemistry undergraduate and health coach who specialises in helping people improve their health through a holistic approach. Julian uses tools such as bloodwork and symptomology to…
Julian WongGuest
Ryan Mitchell BrownHostChrisHost
You have to think about, are they actually playing out in the real world? And we can talk about things like seed oils and, you know, the Randall cycle.

But I think you have to, understand their underlying chemistry and their biology behind everything, and then see if it's actually manifesting in an individual.

And I think there's over-reliance on studies, whether it's a study conducted in isolation.

A great example of this is the rats that... are in these artificial lights with um they shine isolated uv on them and then they and rats nocturnal as well and then they come to the conclusion that well uv's dangerous for humans in the context of full spectrum sunlight it doesn't make sense so you have to look at all of their different variables.

And going back to your point about the lack of curiosity at university, I think the academic system sort of treats science as a finite set of facts that have finished being discovered.

So if you're someone who... wants to bring up a point that hasn't been discussed.

This is what the mainstream... viewpoint is and there's really a lack of curiosity and there's a lack of people wanting to actually discover new things because people don't understand this but for something to be discovered it first has to be unorthodox you know so if if you're just dismissing something because it's hasn't it because it's not mainstream then how would you ever discover anything
That's a really good take.
And then they just spit out a pyramid at you and they're like, well, at the top of this, it's meta analysis and then it's human randomized control trial.
And then here's your anecdotal evidence that sucks at the bottom.
And then I think like, okay, are you just going through those like one at a time and then deducing based on that way? I'll often think that when these sorts of statements are being said, I'll think about like, how is this actually impacting the future directions of research and the funding that actually gets like put into certain things? I'll often also think like if I was in the 1800s, I say it all the time and I told people like, Hey guys, there's no evidence that cigarettes are bad for you.
Don't worry about it.
We don't have any randomized control trials for it.
The experts said we're good.
Well, next thing you know, I just got a bunch of people killed probably.
So at the end of the day, like, It's almost like there's an art and a science to understanding this information and then kind of portraying it in a way that supports our understanding of health while simultaneously accepting that we don't know everything happening in the human body at once.
So my question for you would be like, when you're saying something publicly or making a statement, because Ryan and I always think about this too.
If you're just like putting something out, right? What's kind of like your process and where you draw the line of like, okay, this claim has enough evidence for me to put this out there.

You have to think about, are they actually playing out in the real world? And we can talk about things like seed oils and, you know, the Randall cycle.

But I think you have to, understand their underlying chemistry and their biology behind everything, and then see if it's actually manifesting in an individual.

And I think there's over-reliance on studies, whether it's a study conducted in isolation.

A great example of this is the rats that... are in these artificial lights with um they shine isolated uv on them and then they and rats nocturnal as well and then they come to the conclusion that well uv's dangerous for humans in the context of full spectrum sunlight it doesn't make sense so you have to look at all of their different variables.

And going back to your point about the lack of curiosity at university, I think the academic system sort of treats science as a finite set of facts that have finished being discovered.

So if you're someone who... wants to bring up a point that hasn't been discussed.

This is what the mainstream... viewpoint is and there's really a lack of curiosity and there's a lack of people wanting to actually discover new things because people don't understand this but for something to be discovered it first has to be unorthodox you know so if if you're just dismissing something because it's hasn't it because it's not mainstream then how would you ever discover anything
That's a really good take.
And then they just spit out a pyramid at you and they're like, well, at the top of this, it's meta analysis and then it's human randomized control trial.
And then here's your anecdotal evidence that sucks at the bottom.
And then I think like, okay, are you just going through those like one at a time and then deducing based on that way? I'll often think that when these sorts of statements are being said, I'll think about like, how is this actually impacting the future directions of research and the funding that actually gets like put into certain things? I'll often also think like if I was in the 1800s, I say it all the time and I told people like, Hey guys, there's no evidence that cigarettes are bad for you.
Don't worry about it.
We don't have any randomized control trials for it.
The experts said we're good.
Well, next thing you know, I just got a bunch of people killed probably.
So at the end of the day, like, It's almost like there's an art and a science to understanding this information and then kind of portraying it in a way that supports our understanding of health while simultaneously accepting that we don't know everything happening in the human body at once.
So my question for you would be like, when you're saying something publicly or making a statement, because Ryan and I always think about this too.
If you're just like putting something out, right? What's kind of like your process and where you draw the line of like, okay, this claim has enough evidence for me to put this out there.
The rest of this transcript — segmented and speaker-labeled, so you land on the exact moment something was said
Search every transcript — by keyword, by phrase, or by meaning, across every show Radar indexes
Trends — what is surging across podcasts, measured against its own baseline
Alerts — when a name you follow appears in a newly indexed episode
No account is needed to search Radar.