Barbell Medicine Podcast

Barbell Medicine

Podcast by Barbell Medicine

  • 1 hour 1 minute
    Is Your Testosterone Actually Low? Why Higher Testosterone Doesn't Do What You Think | Signal Ep 2

    Out of 32 symptoms commonly attributed to low testosterone, only 3 actually correlate with it. All three are sexual. The other 29 — fatigue, brain fog, low mood, weight you can't lose, feeling not quite like yourself — are real, but they are produced by something else, and the wellness-clinic funnel runs on getting that wrong.

     

    Episode 2 of our Signal book launch series. Dr. Jordan Feigenbaum and Dr. Austin Baraki cover how testosterone actually works, what the number on your lab report is really measuring, and what a real evaluation of low T looks like.


    Timestamps:

    00:00 Mark, revisited (cold open)

    02:00 How testosterone actually works (HPG axis)

    06:14 Why "in range" can still be abnormal

    09:24 What your lab number actually measures

    12:25 Case: total 230, low SHBG — does this guy need TRT?

    17:04 The saturation model — why higher isn't better

    21:11 A patient at 480 wants 900: how the conversation goes

    28:57 What "in range" actually means (and why 264 is the cutoff)

    34:41 The 3 symptoms that matter (out of 32)

    37:16 Walking back a 10-symptom checklist

    42:31 How a real testosterone workup gets done

    46:42 Chasland trial — TRT vs. exercise at low-normal T

    49:31 A warning for hard-training men

    58:48 Takeaways, tease, and what's coming next 

    What we cover:

    The HPG axis explained — and why one low total testosterone reading tells you almost nothing about where the problem actually sits.

    The difference between total, free, and bioavailable testosterone — and why SHBG, the binding protein the wellness-clinic workup almost always ignores, is what determines whether the number on your lab report is misleading you in either direction.

    The saturation model: above roughly 250 ng/dL, the prostate androgen receptor is saturated. Libido follows the same plateau. Pushing a normal man from 500 to 900 isn't doing what the marketing implies.

    The EMAS study finding: of 32 symptoms men commonly attribute to low testosterone, only 3 actually correlate. Every other symptom needs a different workup.

    How a real testosterone workup gets done — morning sample, fasted, repeat draw, LH/FSH/SHBG to localize and contextualize.

    The Chasland 2021 trial: when standard TRT is prescribed properly to middle-aged men with low-normal levels, does it beat exercise? The answer is what most of the wellness-clinic industry is built on getting wrong.

    A note for hard-training men: the exercise-hypogonadal-male pattern, what "low-normal" means in someone whose levels are an adaptation to training load rather than a baseline deficit, and why a textbook TRT dose in that man may functionally act as a performance enhancer.

    If you have a lab report on your kitchen counter right now, this is what we wrote for you. Signal, the book, drops in May. Pre-order available soon at barbellmedicine.com.


    Resources & links

    Signal — Feigenbaum & Baraki (Barbell Medicine, 2026): coming soon

    Episode 1 (Is the Testosterone Crisis Real?): https://stream.redcircle.com/episodes/b25a8006-57e5-4dc3-b74c-203f6fbcebc1/stream.mp3

    Training Plateau Action Plan (free): barbellmedicine.com/training-plateau-action-plan

    Barbell Medicine programs and consultations: barbellmedicine.com

    To support us and get ad free listening, plus special product discounts, and exclusive content, go to supercast.barbellmedicine.com


    Referenced studies

    Wu FCW et al. 2010 - Identification of late-onset hypogonadism in middle-aged and elderly men. NEJM 363(2):123-135. [The EMAS 3-of-32 finding]

    https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20554979/


    Bhasin S et al. 2018 - Testosterone Therapy in Men With Hypogonadism: An Endocrine Society Clinical Practice Guideline. JCEM 103(5):1715-1744. [264 ng/dL threshold; first-draw protocol]

    https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29562364/


    Travison TG et al. 2008 - The natural history of symptomatic androgen deficiency in men. JAGS 56(5):831-839. [MMAS: ~50% of initially low values normalize on repeat]

    https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18308002/


    Travison TG et al. 2006 - The relationship between libido and testosterone levels in aging men. JCEM 91(7):2509-2513. [Libido plateau data, Framingham + HIM]

    https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16670164/


    Brambilla DJ et al. 2009 - The effect of diurnal variation on clinical measurement of serum testosterone. JCEM 94(3):907-913. [Why morning, fasted matters]

    https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19112025/


    Morgentaler A & Traish AM. 2009 - Shifting the paradigm of testosterone and prostate cancer: the saturation model and the limits of androgen-dependent growth. Eur Urol 55(2):310-320. [The saturation model]

    https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18838208/


    Trost LW & Mulhall JP. 2016 - Challenges in Testosterone Measurement, Data Interpretation, and Methodological Appraisal of Interventional Trials. J Sex Med 13(7):1029-1046. [Free T unreliability at the low end; equilibrium dialysis as the reference method]

    https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27210182/


    Vermeulen A et al. 1999 - A critical evaluation of simple methods for the estimation of free testosterone in serum. JCEM 84(10):3666-3672. [Calculated free T methodology]

    https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10523012/


    Chasland LC et al. 2021 - Testosterone and exercise: effects on fitness, body composition, and strength in middle-to-older aged men with low-normal serum testosterone levels. Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol 320(5):H1985-H1998. [The 12-week trial]

    https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33739153/


    Arun AS et al. 2025 - Reevaluating the Threshold for Low Total Testosterone. Clin Chem 71(5):609-611. [2025 NHANES strength-dissociation reference]

    https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40066943/


    Baillargeon J et al. 2015 - Trends in Androgen Prescribing in the United States, 2001-2011. JAMA Intern Med 175(8):1413-1415. [25% no preceding lab; the 50% no follow-up monitoring gap - referenced from Episode 1]

    https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26075486/




    Our Sponsors:
    * Check out FIGS and use my code FIGSRX for a great deal: https://wearfigs.com
    * Check out Factor: http://factormeals.com/bbm50off
    * Check out Quince: https://quince.com/bbm


    Advertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brands

    Privacy & Opt-Out: https://redcircle.com/privacy
    28 April 2026, 4:00 pm
  • 38 minutes 39 seconds
    Direct Line April 2026: Stopping Ozempic and Lifting With Osteopenia

    Stop a GLP-1 and about two thirds of the weight loss comes back within a year. Three randomized withdrawal trials (SURMOUNT-4, STEP 1 extension, STEP 4) and a new BMJ 2026 systematic review of 37 RCTs and nearly 10,000 adults all land on the same signal. The cardiometabolic benefits, blood pressure, fasting glucose, lipids, drift back in parallel with the weight. The framing that actually fits the data: GLP-1s behave like a statin. There is a cumulative benefit during exposure, but this does not extend indefinitely,

    This month's Direct Line covers two subscriber questions. The first asks what the new BMJ paper on GLP-1 cardiovascular protection after cessation actually shows, and how GLP-1 durability compares to lifestyle-only interventions. The second asks how a postmenopausal woman newly diagnosed with osteopenia should structure her lifting.

    Studies referenced: SURMOUNT-4 (Jastreboff, JAMA 2024), STEP 1 extension (Wilding, Diabetes Obes Metab 2022), STEP 4 (Rubino, JAMA 2021), West et al. BMJ 2026 systematic review, Budini 2026 eClinicalMedicine regain meta-analysis, SELECT cardiovascular outcomes, FLOW renal outcomes, the Diabetes Prevention Program, Look AHEAD, POUNDS Lost, and LIFTMOR (Watson, JBMR 2018).

    Full episode on BBM+ covers 8 additional subscriber questions. Join at https://barbellmedicine.supercast.com/

    Timestamps

    • 0:00 Intro
    • 1:52 Q1: What happens when you stop a GLP-1
    • 5:33 Lifestyle-only comparators: DPP, Look AHEAD, POUNDS Lost
    • 8:15 Austin on the cessation conversation 1
    • 2:41 BMJ 2026: weight and cardiometabolic regression
    • 17:59 The statin framing
    • 23:41 Austin: first 6 months off GLP-1
    • 28:07 Q2: Osteopenia and heavy lifting
    • 35:28 LIFTMOR protocol
    • 38:00 Outro


    Next Steps

    • For evidence-based resistance training programs: barbellmedicine.com/training-programs
    • For individualized training consultation: barbellmedicine.com/coaching
    • Explore our full library of articles on health and performance: barbellmedicine.com/resources
    • To consult with Drs. Baraki or Feigenbaum email us at [email protected]

    Resources

    Aronne, Louis J., et al. "Continued Treatment With Tirzepatide for Maintenance of Weight Reduction in Adults With Obesity: The SURMOUNT-4 Randomized Clinical Trial." JAMA, vol. 331, no. 1, 2024, pp. 38–48. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2812936

    Wilding, John P. H., et al. "Weight Regain and Cardiometabolic Effects After Withdrawal of Semaglutide: The STEP 1 Trial Extension." Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism, vol. 24, no. 8, Aug. 2022, pp. 1553–1564. https://dom-pubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/dom.14725

    Rubino, Domenica, et al. "Effect of Continued Weekly Subcutaneous Semaglutide vs Placebo on Weight Loss Maintenance in Adults With Overweight or Obesity: The STEP 4 Randomized Clinical Trial." JAMA, vol. 325, no. 14, 2021, pp. 1414–1425. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2777886

    West, Sam, et al. "Weight Regain After Cessation of Medication for Weight Management: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis." BMJ, vol. 392, 7 Jan. 2026, article e085304. https://www.bmj.com/content/392/bmj-2025-085304

    Budini, Brajan, et al. "Trajectory of Weight Regain After Cessation of GLP-1 Receptor Agonists: A Systematic Review and Nonlinear Meta-Regression." eClinicalMedicine, vol. 93, 4 Mar. 2026, article 103796. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/eclinm/article/PIIS2589-5370(26)00043-X/fulltext

    Lincoff, A. Michael, et al. "Semaglutide and Cardiovascular Outcomes in Obesity Without Diabetes." New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 389, no. 24, 11 Nov. 2023, pp. 2221–2232. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2307563

    Perkovic, Vlado, et al. "Effects of Semaglutide on Chronic Kidney Disease in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes." New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 391, no. 2, 24 May 2024, pp. 109–121. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2403347

    Knowler, William C., et al. "Reduction in the Incidence of Type 2 Diabetes with Lifestyle Intervention or Metformin." New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 346, no. 6, 7 Feb. 2002, pp. 393–403. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa012512

    Look AHEAD Research Group. "Cardiovascular Effects of Intensive Lifestyle Intervention in Type 2 Diabetes." New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 369, no. 2, 11 July 2013, pp. 145–154. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1212914

    Sacks, Frank M., et al. "Comparison of Weight-Loss Diets with Different Compositions of Fat, Protein, and Carbohydrates." New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 360, no. 9, 26 Feb. 2009, pp. 859–873. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa0804748

    Watson, Shelley L., et al. "High-Intensity Resistance and Impact Training Improves Bone Mineral Density and Physical Function in Postmenopausal Women With Osteopenia and Osteoporosis: The LIFTMOR Randomized Controlled Trial." Journal of Bone and Mineral Research, vol. 33, no. 2, 2018, pp. 211–220. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jbmr.3284



    Our Sponsors:
    * Check out FIGS and use my code FIGSRX for a great deal: https://wearfigs.com
    * Check out Factor: http://factormeals.com/bbm50off
    * Check out Quince: https://quince.com/bbm


    Advertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brands

    Privacy & Opt-Out: https://redcircle.com/privacy
    21 April 2026, 4:00 pm
  • 40 minutes 36 seconds
    Is the Testosterone Crisis Real? The Numbers Behind the Headlines | Signal Ep 1

    Every week there's a new headline saying men are losing testosterone. A quarter of men now start testosterone replacement therapy without ever getting their blood tested. The supplement aisle is full of boosters that either do nothing or contain undisclosed steroids. And the lab test that gets everybody to the pharmacy? Half of low results normalize on their own.

    In Episode 1 of the Signal launch series, Dr. Jordan Feigenbaum and Dr. Austin Baraki (both MDs and strength coaches) walk through the three-layer problem with how testosterone gets diagnosed and treated in 2026, then take apart the "testosterone is crashing" headline with the most current data available, including a 2025 meta-analysis of more than one million men.

    Timestamps

    • 0:00 Mark's story: treating the number, not the patient
    • 1:18 Welcome to the Barbell Medicine Podcast
    • 1:41 Problem 1: A quarter of men start TRT with no lab work
    • 3:36 Problem 2: Why testosterone boosters do not work (and what is in them)
    • 13:40 Problem 3: Why one low testosterone lab is not a diagnosis
    • 19:19 Setup: Is the testosterone crisis headline real?
    • 20:04 The MMAS data and the 1%-per-year number
    • 20:52 The 2025 meta-analysis of over 1 million men
    • 22:02 Why the headline is inflated: three causes
    • 22:27 Cause 1: The testing method changed (immunoassay to mass spec)
    • 25:58 Cause 2: BMI cannot see visceral fat
    • 29:37 The Nyante study: when you fix both problems, the decline vanishes
    • 33:58 What this actually means for you
    • 37:05 The broken testosterone system, summarized
    • 38:24 Five takeaways from this episode
    • 39:14 Next week: How testosterone actually works
    • 39:39 About Signal and credits

    What you'll learn in this episode:

    •  Why 25% of new TRT prescriptions are written without any pre-treatment lab work (JAMA, 2015)
    • What actually happens when researchers test 50+ "testosterone booster" supplements (spoiler: 12% are contaminated with undisclosed steroids)
    • Why a single low testosterone reading is not a diagnosis, and the Massachusetts Male Aging Study data that proves it
    • The real size of the population-level testosterone decline (much smaller than 1% per year)
    • Why BMI cannot see the visceral fat that is driving most of the genuine decline
    • The Nyante study that shows the decline essentially vanishes when you use an accurate test and measure waist circumference
    • Five practical takeaways you can apply before your next lab draw


    This is Episode 1 of a four-part series built around our upcoming book, Signal. Over the next four weeks we cover what testosterone actually is, how to tell when it is genuinely low, what is really driving population-level changes, and what the evidence says you can do about it.

    Next Steps

    • Check out our new book, Signal (coming soon)
    • For evidence-based resistance training programs: barbellmedicine.com/training-programs
    • For individualized training consultation: barbellmedicine.com/coaching
    • Explore our full library of articles on health and performance: barbellmedicine.com/resources
    • To consult with Drs. Baraki or Feigenbaum email us at [email protected]
    • To support us and get ad free listening, plus special product discounts, and exclusive content, go to supercast.barbellmedicine.com

    Resources


    Baillargeon, J., et al. (2015). Trends in Androgen Prescribing in the United States, 2001–2011. JAMA Intern Med, 175(8), 1413–1415. — 25% no preceding lab; post-prescription monitoring gap.


    Rao, P.K., et al. (2017). Trends in Testosterone Replacement Therapy Use from 2003 to 2013 among Reproductive-Age Men in the United States. J Urol, 197(4), 1121–1126. — Prescription volume growth.


    Selinger, S., & Thallapureddy, A. (2024). Cross-sectional analysis of national testosterone prescribing through prescription drug monitoring programs, 2018–2022. PLoS One, 19(8), e0309160. — Recent prescribing data, 3-4 million estimate.


    Vesper, H.W., et al. (2015). Serum Total Testosterone Concentrations in the US Household Population from the NHANES 2011–2012 Study Population. Clin Chem, 61(12), 1495–1504. — Population testosterone levels, NHANES data.


    Clemesha, C.G., et al. (2020). "Testosterone Boosting" Supplements Composition and Claims Are Not Supported by the Academic Literature. World J Men's Health, 38(1), 115–122. — 62% no published data, 10% decreased T.


    Tucker, J., et al. (2018). Unapproved Pharmaceutical Ingredients Included in Dietary Supplements Associated With US FDA Warnings. JAMA Network Open, 1(6), e183337. — 12% adulterated with undisclosed steroids.


    Trost, L.W., & Mulhall, J.P. (2016). Challenges in Testosterone Measurement, Data Interpretation, and Methodological Appraisal of Interventional Trials. J Sex Med, 13(7), 1029–1046. — Half of low results normalize on repeat.


    Travison, T.G., et al. (2008). The Natural History of Symptomatic Androgen Deficiency in Men: Onset, Progression, and Spontaneous Remission. JCEM. MMAS data — 50%+ spontaneous normalization.


    Travison, T.G., et al. (2007). A Population-Level Decline in Serum Testosterone Levels in American Men. JCEM, 92(1), 196–202. — Original MMAS secular decline, 15–20% lower across cohorts.

    Santi, D., et al. (2025). Meta-analysis of secular trend in total testosterone levels, 1971–2024. 1,256 studies, N > 1,000,000. — 0.56%/year adjusted; LH parallel decline; mass spec subgroup no significant decline.

     Methods note on the ~0.56% per year figure cited in this episode: the Santi paper does not report a single percentage rate. The headline adjusted meta-regression coefficient (−0.6 nmol/L/year) is inflated by the random-effects weighting scheme and is not a biological rate. The 0.5–0.6% per year approximation comes from the pre-2000 stratified subgroup (Fig. 5, coefficient −0.1 nmol/L/year) divided by the dataset mean of 18.5 nmol/L. The post-2000 stratum runs larger (~1.1%), and the age-stratified coefficients in Table 5 cluster in the 0.4–0.9% range. The mass spectrometry subgroup (Table 3, Group 4) showed no significant trend (p = 0.845). The episode uses the conservative end of this range as the most defensible estimate of the real population-level rate after accounting for assay drift.


    Nyante, S.J., Graubard, B.I., Li, Y., McQuillan, G.M., Platz, E.A., Rohrmann, S., Bradwin, G., & McGlynn, K.A. (2012). Trends in sex hormone concentrations in US males: 1988–1991 to 1999–2004. Int J Androl, 35(3), 456–466. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2605.2011.01230.x. — Archived NHANES samples, same platform, waist circumference added; no significant decline in total or free testosterone.



    Our Sponsors:
    * Check out FIGS and use my code FIGSRX for a great deal: https://wearfigs.com
    * Check out Factor: http://factormeals.com/bbm50off
    * Check out Quince: https://quince.com/bbm


    Advertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brands

    Privacy & Opt-Out: https://redcircle.com/privacy
    14 April 2026, 4:00 pm
  • 1 hour 15 minutes
    Medical Mystery: The Man Who Got Weaker When He Started Training

    A 43-year-old man starts exercising and ends up in the ER with a CK over 100x the upper limit of normal. His doctor says it’s from training. We don’t think so. In this episode, Dr. Jordan Feigenbaum and Dr. Austin Baraki walk through the full case — history, labs, diagnosis, and what actually went wrong — then break down the mechanisms behind the answer, the nocebo research, and what the brand-new 2026 guidelines mean for the 40 million Americans on a drug class you’ve definitely heard of.


    We also cover the STOMP trial (do statins actually impair strength gains?), the SAMSON trial (how much of statin intolerance is nocebo?), the difference between myalgia, myositis, and rhabdomyolysis, Austin’s clinical approach to a patient whose strength is declining on a statin, and the treatment escalation pathway for statin-intolerant patients including bempedoic acid, PCSK9 inhibitors, and inclisiran. Plus, where GLP-1 receptor agonists like tirzepatide fit into the cardiovascular risk picture.

    Timestamps

    • 0:00 — A 43-year-old man is getting weaker, not stronger
    • 2:09 — Taking the history: Medications, lifestyle, and red flags
    • 12:53 — The labs come back: CK at 18,979
    • 16:05 — Metabolic syndrome and the modern treatment approach
    • 23:15 — Rhabdomyolysis: What it is and why it’s dangerous
    • 29:50 — Final diagnosis and what went wrong with the medications
    • 37:15 — 2026 ACC lipid guidelines: What changed
    • 40:32 — Three mechanisms: How statins affect muscle
    • 47:02 — The nocebo effect and the SAMSON trial
    • 54:17 — Do statins impair training? The STOMP trial
    • 1:00:30 — Who’s at highest risk for statin muscle problems
    • 1:07:36 — What happened to the patient and options if this is you
    • 1:14:12 — Five takeaways

    Five Takeaway

    1.  Statin myopathy is real but relatively uncommon. The excess symptom rate above placebo is roughly 1–5% in controlled trials. But in exercising patients, especially on combination therapy, the risk can be higher.
    2. There are three proposed mechanisms: reduced energy production from CoQ10 depletion, compromised muscle cell membranes from isoprenoid loss, and accelerated protein breakdown from calcium leak via the ryanodine receptor. Exercise amplifies all three, but the vast majority of people compensate.
    3. If you’re on a statin and your strength is going down, talk to your doctor before stopping the medication or changing your training. A CK test can help separate a drug problem from a programming problem
    4. The 2026 ACC guidelines list vigorous exercise as a risk factor for statin-associated muscle symptoms for the first time. They also provide statin-intolerant patients a clear escalation pathway: bempedoic acid, ezetimibe, PCSK9 inhibitors, and more.
    5. Lower is better for LDL. There’s a 33% relative reduction in cardiovascular events at <55 vs. 70 mg/dL. Lower for longer. Healthy lifestyle changes plus effective lipid-lowering therapy are among the best things you can do for cardiovascular risk.


    Next Steps

    • For evidence-based resistance training programs: barbellmedicine.com/training-programs
    • For individualized training consultation: barbellmedicine.com/coaching
    • Explore our full library of articles on health and performance: barbellmedicine.com/resources
    • To consult with Drs. Baraki or Feigenbaum email us at [email protected]
    • To support us and get ad free listening, plus special product discounts, and exclusive content, go to supercast.barbellmedicine.com


     Resources

    Training Plateau Action Plan (free):

    https://www.barbellmedicine.com/training-plateau-action-plan/

    Fish oil episode:

    https://open.spotify.com/episode/4kRtXZBMZWKkZPDdIKpu1S

    Lp(a): https://www.barbellmedicine.com/blog/lipoprotein-a-testing-and-treatment/


    Guidelines

    Blumenthal RS, Morris PB, et al. 2026 ACC/AHA Guideline on the Management of Dyslipidemia. Circulation. 2026. DOI: 10.1161/CIR.0000000000001423



    Case

    László A, et al. Exercise and Statin-Fibrate Combination Therapy-Caused Myopathy. BMC Research Notes. 2013;6:52. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23388500/

     

    LDL Targets

    Lee YJ, et al. (Ez-PAVE) Intensive LDL Cholesterol Targeting in Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease. NEJM. 2026. PMID: 41910315


    Mechanisms of Statin Myopathy

    Meador BM, Huey KA. Statin-Associated Myopathy and Its Exacerbation with Exercise. Muscle Nerve. 2010;42(4):469–479. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20878737/


    Safitri N, et al. Statin-Induced Rhabdomyolysis: Mechanisms, Risk Factors, Management. Drug Healthc Patient Saf. 2021. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8593596/


    Molinarolo S, et al. Cryo-electron microscopy reveals sequential binding and activation of Ryanodine Receptors by statin triplets. Nat Commun. 2025;16(1):11508. doi:10.1038/s41467-025-66522-0


    Thompson PD, et al. Lovastatin Increases Exercise-Induced Skeletal Muscle Injury. Metabolism. 1997;46(10):1206–1210



    Nocebo Effect and Statin Intolerance

    Wood FA, et al. N-of-1 Trial of a Statin, Placebo, or No Treatment to Assess Side Effects (SAMSON). NEJM. 2020;383(22):2182–2184. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8453640/


    Khan S, et al. Does Googling Lead to Statin Intolerance? Int J Cardiol. 2018;262:25–27. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29706390/


    Gupta A, et al. Adverse Events Associated with Unblinded, but Not with Blinded, Statin Therapy in the ASCOT-LLA. Lancet. 2017;389(10088):2473–2481. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28476288/


    Moon JC, et al. Examining the Nocebo Effect of Statins through the FDA AERS. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2021;14(1):e007480. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33161769


    Statins and Exercise Outcomes

    Parker BA, et al. Effect of Statins on Skeletal Muscle Function (STOMP). Circulation. 2013;127(1):96–103. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23183941/


    Parker BA, Thompson PD. Effect of Statins on Skeletal Muscle: Exercise, Myopathy, and Muscle Outcomes. Exerc Sport Sci Rev. 2012;40(4):188–194. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3463373/


    Mikus CR, et al. Simvastatin Impairs Exercise Training Adaptations. JACC. 2013;62(8):709–714. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23583255/


    Slade JM, et al. The Impact of Statin Therapy and Aerobic Exercise Training. Am Heart J Plus. 2021;10:100028. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8477381/


    Gui Y, et al. Efficacy and Safety of Statins and Exercise Combination Therapy. Eur J Prev Cardiol. 2017;24(9):907–916. DOI: 10.1177/2047487317691874 


    Genetic Susceptibility

    SEARCH Collaborative Group. SLCO1B1 Variants and Statin-Induced Myopathy — A Genomewide Study. NEJM. 2008;359(8):789–799


    Autoimmune Myopathy

    Barkhordarian M, et al. Statin-Induced Autoimmune Myopathy. Am J Case Rep. 2024;25:e944261. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39219126/


    Statin-Fibrate Interactions

    Jones PH, Davidson MH. Reporting Rate of Rhabdomyolysis with Fenofibrate + Statin vs Gemfibrozil + Any Statin. Am J Cardiol. 2005;95(1):120–122


    Bruckert E, et al. Mild to Moderate Muscular Symptoms with High-Dosage Statin Therapy (PRIMO Study). Cardiovasc Drugs Ther. 2005;19(6):403–414


    Sinzinger H, O’Grady J. Professional Athletes Suffering from Familial Hypercholesterolaemia Rarely Tolerate Statin Treatment. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2004;57(4):525–528


    Tirzepatide and GLP-1 Agonists

    Al-kuraishy HM, et al. The mechanistic role of tirzepatide in atherosclerosis. Int J Biol Macromol. 2025;329(1). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2025.147734


    Effects of Tirzepatide on Lipid Profile: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. 2024. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11704219/


    Hamidi H, et al. Effect of tirzepatide on coronary atherosclerosis progression (T-Plaque trial design). Am Heart J. 2024;278:24–32. doi:10.1016/j.ahj.2024.08.015


    Fish Oil and Omega-3 Fatty Acids

    Bhatt DL, et al. Cardiovascular Risk Reduction with Icosapent Ethyl (REDUCE-IT). NEJM. 2019;380:11–22. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30415628/


    Abdelhamid AS, et al. Omega-3 Fatty Acids for Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32114706/


    Manson JE, et al. Marine n-3 Fatty Acids and Prevention of CVD and Cancer (VITAL). NEJM. 2019;380:23–32. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30415637/

     


    Myopathy Classification

    Selva-O’Callaghan A, et al. Statin-Induced Myalgia and Myositis: Pathogenesis and Clinical Recommendations. Expert Rev Clin Immunol. 2018;14(3):215–224. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6019601/



    Our Sponsors:
    * Check out FIGS and use my code FIGSRX for a great deal: https://wearfigs.com
    * Check out Factor: http://factormeals.com/bbm50off
    * Check out Quince: https://quince.com/bbm


    Advertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brands

    Privacy & Opt-Out: https://redcircle.com/privacy
    7 April 2026, 7:21 pm
  • 1 hour 36 minutes
    Overtraining Syndrome: Causes, Diagnosis, and What's Actually Going On

    In 2022, researchers conducted the most rigorous systematic review ever performed on overtraining syndrome — looking specifically for controlled studies that documented a human transitioning from a healthy training state to an overtrained state. Zero studies met those criteria.

     

    The word "overtrained" appears in coaching certifications, wearable device dashboards, and clinical sports medicine guidelines — and in each context it means something different. That definitional chaos has consequences: it delays real diagnoses, produces nocebo effects with measurable physiological outcomes, and leads athletes to reduce training they didn't need to reduce.


    In this episode, Drs. Jordan Feigenbaum and Austin Baraki work through the full evidence base on overtraining syndrome — the taxonomy, the attempted studies, the six competing mechanistic theories, the biomarker failures, and what's actually happening when a lifter can't make progress.

     

    Timestamps:


    • 0:00 Cold open — the zero-studies finding
    • 1:21 Why "overtrained" does four different jobs simultaneously
    • 16:10 The FOR / NFOR / OTS taxonomy
    • 19:43 The supercompensation model — borrowed from endurance, never validated for resistance training
    • 32:28 Austin's clinical differential for fatigue and declining performance
    • 36:17 RT evidence — what happens when researchers try to induce OTS through lifting
    • 43:19 Austin — what actually drives the complaints he sees in practice
    • 47:30 Six theories for what causes overtraining syndrome
    • 1:01:09 The biomarker problem — why the T:C ratio and cortisol don't work
    • 1:05:09 What your wearable is actually measuring (and what it isn't)
    • 1:09:28 Austin — testosterone levels in trained athletes and when to act
    • 1:13:40 Heart rate variability — limitations for strength training
    • 1:15:36 Session RPE — the monitoring tool that actually works
    • 1:17:31 How common is overtraining syndrome, really?
    • 1:23:04 Three failure modes — what's actually happening when lifters say they feel overtrained
    • 1:32:14 Austin — what a proper medical workup looks like
    • 1:34:22 Outro


    What we cover:


    • The definition problem — why a single word is doing four incompatible jobs simultaneously, and why that matters clinically and practically.
    • The taxonomy — functional overreaching, nonfunctional overreaching, and overtraining syndrome as points on a continuous variable that can only be identified after the fact, not at presentation.
    • The supercompensation model — where it came from, why it fails to describe how resistance training adaptation actually works, and how applying it too literally produces both overloading and underloading errors at the same time.
    • Austin's clinical differential — what a physician actually works through when a patient presents with fatigue and declining performance, and where overtraining syndrome actually sits on that list.
    • What resistance training research shows — including 140 maximal singles, 90 working sets per week, and daily 1-rep max attempts. No study has cleanly induced overtraining syndrome through resistance training. The hormonal data went in the opposite direction from what the endurance overtraining model predicts.
    • Six mechanistic theories — glycogen depletion, serotonin/BCAA, autonomic imbalance, central governor, HPA axis dysregulation, and Armstrong's complex systems framework. Each one is partially supported and each falls short.
    • The biomarker problem — resting cortisol is normal in 75%+ of OTS cases, the testosterone to cortisol ratio has never been validated against clinical outcomes as an individual diagnostic, and HRV recovery in strength training lags physical recovery by up to 30 hours.
    • Austin on wearables — including a clinical pattern he's seeing with GLP-1 receptor agonists: wearable scores indicating deterioration when the clinical picture is actually fine.
    • Session RPE as the real tool — why session RPE trending upward at stable training load is a more reliable signal of load-recovery mismatch than any biomarker currently used.
    • Prevalence and confounders — the 60% figure, why it almost certainly captures all three FOR/NFOR/OTS categories plus REDS, depression, and illness, and why the residual true training-load-induced OTS in an otherwise healthy athlete may be vanishingly rare.
    • Three failure modes — the three things Jordan actually sees in practice when lifters present saying they feel overtrained, and how to distinguish between them using session RPE.
    • The medical workup — Austin's practical walkthrough of what to assess when programming and lifestyle changes don't move the needle, including iron deficiency (ferritin testing caveats, lab reference range problems), sleep apnea, post-viral syndromes, and hormone panels done correctly.


    Next Steps:


    For evidence-based resistance training programs: barbellmedicine.com/training-programs


    For individualized training consultation: barbellmedicine.com/coaching


    Explore our full library of articles on health and performance: barbellmedicine.com/resources


    To consult with Drs. Baraki or Feigenbaum email us at [email protected]


    For ad free listening and exclusive discounts, become a Barbell Medicine Plus subscriber at https://barbellmedicine.supercast.com/


     Resources

     

    Taxonomy / Definitions

    Meeusen et al. (2013)

    European College of Sport Science / ACSM consensus statement on FOR, NFOR, and OTS taxonomy. Defines OTS as a diagnosis of exclusion.

    https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23247672/


    Meeusen et al. (2006)

    "Often only after a period of complete rest" — the retrospective nature of distinguishing NFOR from OTS.

    https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23016079/


    Nocebo Effects in Sport

    2024 Systematic Review

    Nocebo effects in sport were approximately twice the magnitude of placebo effects on performance across 20 studies.

    https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38999724/


    Stress-Recovery-Adaptation Model

    Original general adaptation syndrome / stress physiology work in Nature. Foundational source the SRA model was derived from — not a sports science paper.

    https://www.nature.com/articles/138032a0


    Multi-system adaptation timescales; critique of single-wave supercompensation model.

    https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/3057313/


    Multi-system adaptation timescales; further critique of the SRA "window of opportunity" model.

    https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15044685/


    Lack of empirical support for the supercompensation "window of opportunity" in real training scenarios.

    https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29189930/


    Resistance Training and OTS

    Grandou et al. (2020)

    Systematic review: 22 studies on resistance training overtraining. 10 showed zero performance decline under deliberate overload. No reliable biomarker established for RT overtraining; sustained performance drop is the only consistent signal.

    https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31313309/


    Coleman et al. (2024)

    9-week supervised high-volume RT protocol (~90 sets/week). No OTS criteria met. Ceiling for resistance training-induced OTS is considerably higher than commonly implied.

    https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10809978/


    Zourdos et al. (2016)

    Case series: 3 competitive strength athletes performed daily 1RM squat for 30 consecutive days. All three improved.

    https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26816276/


    Daily 1RM Bench Press Study

    7 athletes attempted a true 1RM bench press every day for 38 days. All improved despite day-to-day fluctuation.

    https://www.thefreelibrary.com/Efficacy+of+Daily+One-Repetition+Maximum+Bench+Press+Training+in...-a0828317501


    3 weeks of daily loading; volume arm hypertrophied. Daily frequency did not produce overtraining; volume drives hypertrophy, not frequency alone.

    https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27875635/


    Fry et al. (1994) — Overreaching Protocol

    Original resistance overreaching induction: 10×1 at 100% 1RM daily for 14 days. 1RM dropped ~12 kg. Hormonal response was opposite to endurance OTS profile (cortisol decreased, testosterone slightly increased).

    https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7808252/


    Fry et al. (1994) — Endurance Biomarkers

    Endurance OTS biomarkers (T:C ratio) do not apply to high-intensity resistance training overreaching.

    https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9843563/


    Fry et al. (2006)

    Same overreaching protocol with muscle biopsies. Beta-2 adrenergic receptor density in vastus lateralis decreased 37%. Orthopedic ceiling hypothesis: structural limits intervene before neuroendocrine axis fully desensitizes.

    https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16888042/



    Raastad et al. (2001)

    Daily submaximal leg training for 2 weeks; 1RM increased 6%. Intensity (not frequency) is the necessary ingredient for overreaching in resistance training.

    https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11394254/



    Margonis et al. (2007)

    12-week progressive RT peaking at ~14 tonnes/week. Significant 1RM decrements not restored after 6-week taper — the only resistance training study to approach true OTS criteria.

    https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17697935/


    HPA Axis / Biomarkers


    Cadegiani & Kater (2017) — EROS Study

    Resting cortisol is normal in ≥75% of OTS studies. Reduced pituitary ACTH output (not adrenal failure) is the upstream dysregulation in OTS. "Adrenal fatigue" is mechanistically backwards.

    https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5722782/


    EROS Study — Extended Findings

    Further EROS study data on HPA axis dysregulation patterns in OTS.

    https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6590962/


    Testosterone: acute 30% drops occur routinely after a marathon and normalize within days. Never validated as an individual OTS diagnostic.

    https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/3744643/


    Saw et al. (2016)

    56-study systematic review of athlete monitoring tools. Subjective measures (mood, perceived fatigue, sleep quality) tracked training load changes with greater sensitivity than objective markers including hormones, resting HR, and HRV.

    https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4789708/


    Meeusen et al. (2004/2010) — Two-Bout Exercise Protocol

    Two maximal incremental tests 4 hours apart with serial blood draws. OTS athletes show blunted ACTH/prolactin response to second bout; NFOR athletes show exaggerated response. Most validated objective test available; not a field tool.

    https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18703548/


    HRV as a Monitoring Tool

    HRV for OTS detection: weak data, foundational work done in cyclists and triathletes only.

    https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23852425/



    Strength recovery occurred ~30 hours after heavy loading; HRV had not normalized at 60 hours. Using HRV as a daily training prescription tool in strength athletes is an untested assumption.

    https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21273908/



    Session RPE and Monitoring

    Foster et al. (1998)

    Session RPE method: training load quantified as RPE × session duration. Key monitoring metric throughout the episode.

    https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9662690/


    Soreness, mood, and motivation relative to training load as monitoring signals.

    https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38321325/


    Prevalence

    Morgan et al. (1987)

    The commonly cited 60% OTS prevalence figure. Retrospective self-report using the term "staleness," conducted before the current taxonomy existed. Almost certainly captures all three tiers of the FOR/NFOR/OTS continuum.

    https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/3676635/



    Confounders: PED Use

    Anonymous Survey Data (2011)

    29% of Track and Field World Championship athletes admitted PED use; 45% at Pan-Arab Games.

    https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/109992897.pdf


    Lippi et al. (2015)

    WADA detects PED use in only 1–2% of samples; USADA detection rate <1%. Elite athlete PED use is substantially underreported in the OTS literature.

    https://www.nature.com/articles/517529a



    Confounders: Psychiatric Conditions


    Armstrong & VanHeest (2002)

    Overlap between OTS and major depression. Depression can produce every OTS symptom; any OTS workup without a formal depression screen is incomplete.

    https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11839081/



    Confounders: Energy Availability


    Cadegiani et al. (2021)

    86% of OTS studies showed co-occurrence of reduced energy availability with OTS-like presentation.

    https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34181189/


    Autoregulation and RPE — Part I

    Barbell Medicine blog post on autoregulation and RPE-based programming.

    https://www.barbellmedicine.com/blog/autoregulation-and-rpe-part-i/


    Training Plateau Action Plan

    Barbell Medicine practical guide for diagnosing and addressing training plateaus.

    https://www.barbellmedicine.com/training-plateau-action-plan/


    Injury / Rehab Coaching Questionnaire

    https://www.barbellmedicine.com/coaching-questionnaire-injury-rehab/



    Our Sponsors:
    * Check out FIGS and use my code FIGSRX for a great deal: https://wearfigs.com
    * Check out Factor: http://factormeals.com/bbm50off
    * Check out Quince: https://quince.com/bbm


    Advertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brands

    Privacy & Opt-Out: https://redcircle.com/privacy
    31 March 2026, 4:00 pm
  • 30 minutes 34 seconds
    Episode #391: VO2 Max vs. Cardiorespiratory Fitness, GLP-1 Costs, and the 10,000-Step Myth | Direct Line March 2026 (Free)

    In this free preview of the March 2026 Direct Line AMA. Drs. Feigenbaum and Baraki cover: VO2 max versus cardiorespiratory fitness for longevity (are Peter Attia’s targets evidence-based? — with Goodhart’s Law and the JAMA evidence), what GLP-1 medications actually cost now via manufacturer programs ($149–449/month), and whether 7,000–10,000 daily steps actually meet the bar for cardiovascular training.


    Full episode for Barbell Medicine Plus subscribers at https://barbellmedicine.supercast.com/


    Timestamps:

    0:00 — Introduction

    3:26 — VO2 Max vs. Cardiorespiratory Fitness for Longevity

    14:11 — GLP-1 Costs: What you should actually be paying now

    21:43 — Is Walking Enough for Cardiovascular Health?


    Next Steps:


    For evidence-based resistance training programs: barbellmedicine.com/training-programs


    For individualized training consultation: barbellmedicine.com/coaching


    Explore our full library of articles on health and performance: barbellmedicine.com/resources


    To consult with Drs. Baraki or Feigenbaum email us at [email protected]


    Resources:


    • JAMA Network Open — Cardiorespiratory Fitness & Long-term Mortality (Mandsager et al.) — Exercise capacity (METs) and longevity — the foundational CRF/mortality study cited in the episode https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2707428
    • JAMA — Blair et al. — Physical fitness and all-cause mortality: a prospective study of healthy men and women https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/379243
    • Barbell Medicine Vital Five — Multi-modal CRF benchmarks and longevity targets https://www.barbellmedicine.com/vital-5-action-plan/
    • Lilly Direct — Zepbound (tirzepatide) — Manufacturer direct program ($299–449/month) https://www.lillydirect.com/zepbound
    • NovoCare — Wegovy (semaglutide) — Manufacturer savings program ($149–349/month) https://www.novocare.com/patient/medicines/wegovy.html
    • Orforglipron — Eli Lilly oral GLP-1 — What to know about orforglipron (small-molecule oral GLP-1 agonist, pending FDA approval) https://www.lilly.com/news/stories/what-to-know-about-orforglipron


    Our Sponsors:
    * Check out FIGS and use my code FIGSRX for a great deal: https://wearfigs.com
    * Check out Factor: http://factormeals.com/bbm50off
    * Check out Quince: https://quince.com/bbm


    Advertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brands

    Privacy & Opt-Out: https://redcircle.com/privacy
    24 March 2026, 4:00 pm
  • 44 minutes 34 seconds
    Episode #390: Why Your Waist Matters More Than Your Weight — The Science of Visceral Fat

    You can have a completely normal BMI and be on your way to cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, and metabolic syndrome without triggering a single alert on a standard health screening. The fat that predicts metabolic risk most accurately isn't the fat your scale or your doctor is tracking. Dr. Jordan Feigenbaum breaks down the science of visceral fat — what it is, how it causes disease, how to measure it correctly at home for free, and what the evidence actually shows about exercise, GLP-1 medications, and testosterone.


    Timestamps:


    • 00:00:00 Cold Open: The Visceral Fat Finding
    • 00:00:49 The Scale Problem — What Body Weight Actually Measures
    • 00:03:50 What Is Visceral Fat — and Why It's Not Just "Belly Fat"
    • 00:05:04 Three Competing Theories: How Visceral Fat Actually Causes Disease
    • 00:08:35 Adipokines: PAI-1, Angiotensinogen, and What Happens When Adiponectin Drops
    • 00:09:52 How to Measure: Three Sites That Don't Give the Same Number
    • 00:14:30 Clinical Thresholds, Ethnic Adjustments, and the Waist-to-Height Ratio
    • 00:15:45 The Weight-to-Waist Ratio: Tracking the Quality of Your Fat Loss
    • 00:19:20 Sleep, Cortisol, and Why the Hormonal Environment Has to Support the Work
    • 00:21:24 Why Exercise Reduces Visceral Fat 6× More Than Diet Alone
    • 00:22:02 Mechanism 1 — Beta-3 Adrenergic Receptors and Preferential Visceral Fat Mobilization
    • 00:24:10 Mechanism 2 — Myokines: The Fat-Burning Signal Only Contracting Muscle Can Send
    • 00:26:21 GLP-1 Agonists and Body Composition: What the Clinical Trials Actually Show
    • 00:28:05 DXA's Blind Spot: Myosteatosis, Glycogen, and Why Lean Mass Numbers Are Inflated
    • 00:30:10 SEMALEAN, the BELIEVE Trial, and the 1-in-10 Reality of Long-Term Lifestyle Programs
    • 00:33:15 Testosterone, Visceral Fat, and the Aromatase Feed-Forward Loop
    • 00:36:05 Three Testosterone Ranges: Deficient, Eugonadal, and Supraphysiological
    • 00:38:05 The Bhasin 4-Group Study — and Why AAS Are a Class, Not a Synonym for TRT
    • 00:39:33 Tesamorelin: The GHRH Analogue That Selectively Targets Visceral Fat
    • 00:40:53 Practical Framework: What to Measure, When, and What to Do
    • 00:43:20 Key Takeaways


    Next Steps


    • For evidence-based resistance training programs: barbellmedicine.com/training-programs
    • For individualized training consultation: barbellmedicine.com/coaching
    • Explore our full library of articles on health and performance: barbellmedicine.com/resources
    • To join Barbell Medicine Plus and get ad-free listening, product discounts, exclusive content, and more: https://barbellmedicine.supercast.com/
    • To consult with Drs. Baraki or Feigenbaum email us at [email protected]
    • Barbell Medicine Vital 5 Action Plan: https://www.barbellmedicine.com/vital-5-action-plan/


    Resources:


    • https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11502820/
    • https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33567185/
    • https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35658024/
    • https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40318682/
    • https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41068996/
    • https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41772149/
    • https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23944298/
    • https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20948519/
    • https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27213481/
    • https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23303913/


    Our Sponsors:
    * Check out FIGS and use my code FIGSRX for a great deal: https://wearfigs.com
    * Check out Factor: http://factormeals.com/bbm50off
    * Check out Quince: https://quince.com/bbm


    Advertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brands

    Privacy & Opt-Out: https://redcircle.com/privacy
    17 March 2026, 1:00 pm
  • 1 hour 1 minute
    Episode #389: Your Liver Enzymes Are Elevated — But It Might Not Be Your Liver

    A fit, healthy 39-year-old was nearly sent for a liver biopsy. The cause? Was it that he went to the gym before every blood draw or because his supplement was throwing his labs off?. Dr. Jordan Feigenbaum and Dr. Austin Baraki break down the blind spot that sends thousands of healthy athletes down an expensive, potentially unnecessary diagnostic rabbit hole every year.

    Timestamps:

    • 00:01:09  Introducing the Case
    • 00:03:44  How to Read a Liver Panel: ALT, AST, GGT, Alk Phos, Albumin Explained
    • 00:10:50  What Is GGT and Why Does It Matter Clinically?
    • 00:16:38  Why Exercise, Protein, and Creatine Aren't on the Differential (Yet)
    • 00:17:35  The Workup: Hepatitis Panels, Abdominal Ultrasound, and More
    • 00:19:42  Second Set of Labs — The Mystery Deepens
    • 00:25:25  Updated Differential: What's Still on the List?
    • 00:27:08  The Labs Normalize — A Critical Clue Appears
    • 00:31:40  The Reveal: Exercise Was the Cause All Along
    • 00:32:18  The Mechanism: How Exercise Elevates 'Liver' Enzymes
    • 00:32:54  Point 1 — ALT & AST Are Not Exclusively Liver Enzymes
    • 00:33:49  Point 2 — It's Unavoidable: 100% of Lifters Are Affected
    • 00:36:02  Point 3 — It Takes 10–12 Days to Normalize
    • 00:37:00  Point 4 — It's Mostly Harmless
    • 00:38:27  56% of Physicians Miss This Diagnosis
    • 00:38:48  Why Clinicians Overlook Exercise History
    • 00:44:01  Point 5 — GGT as the Differentiator (And Its Limits)
    • 00:46:42  Why Alkaline Phosphatase Also Rises Post-Workout
    • 00:48:51  The Cost of Missing Lifestyle Context: Over- and Under-Diagnosis
    • 00:53:29  What to Say to Your Doctor: 3 Patient Scripts
    • 00:59:31  5 Key Takeaways
    • 01:00:25  Final Advice from Dr. Baraki 


    Next Steps


    Resources:

    • Case: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37025214/
    • https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29059178/ 
    • https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7438350/
    • https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18557801/
    • https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19209234/
    • https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11476029/
    • https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11165564/
    • https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12460594/ 
    • https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2291230/
    • https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11319523/ 
    • https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3936967/
    • https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12188904/
    • https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7969109/
    • https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11498664/
    • https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3104191/


    Our Sponsors:
    * Check out FIGS and use my code FIGSRX for a great deal: https://wearfigs.com
    * Check out Factor: http://factormeals.com/bbm50off
    * Check out Quince: https://quince.com/bbm


    Advertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brands

    Privacy & Opt-Out: https://redcircle.com/privacy
    9 March 2026, 9:48 pm
  • 34 minutes 4 seconds
    Episode #388: Muscle Imbalances, Red Meat Risk, and the Science of Body Fat Set Points

    In this special preview of the Barbell Medicine Plus Direct Line, Dr. Jordan Feigenbaum and Dr. Austin Baraki move past the fitness basics to tackle high-level technical nuances. We dive into the persistent myth of "muscle imbalances" and why your asymmetry might actually be a functional feature of your training.

    We also address the "meat" of the cardiovascular debate: is red meat and saturated fat consumption still risky if you are highly active and have a high-fiber diet? Finally, we explore the Dual Intervention Point Model to explain why the body defends its energy stores and how our environment has shifted the biological "set point" for body fat.

    Timestamps

    • 00:00 – Barbell Medicine Plus: Special Annual Membership Promotion
    • 01:03 – Muscle Imbalances: A Reliable Predictor of Pain?
    • 03:59 – Acuted vs. Gradually Acquired Asymmetries
    • 08:55 – How Coaches Should Manage "Alignment" Beliefs
    • 11:54 – Is Red Meat Necessary to Limit if You Are Otherwise Healthy?
    • 15:36 – The Role of Substitution: Plant vs. Animal Protein
    • 19:50 – Analyzing the Lean Mass Hyper-Responder (LMHR) Phenotype
    • 26:20 – The Dual Intervention Point Model of Body Fatness
    • 30:26 – Lipostat, Gravistat, and the Regulation of Energy Stores


    Next Steps


    Key Takeaways

    • Asymmetry as a Feature: Human bodies are not naturally symmetrical. In many athletes—such as tennis players, pitchers, or rowers—asymmetry is a functional adaptation to the sport's demands.
    • The Pathological vs. The Normal: Acutely acquired asymmetries (post-surgery or trauma) require specific clinical attention. Long-standing or gradually acquired asymmetries are rarely the primary driver of pain.
    • Saturated Fat & The Healthy User Bias: While fit individuals have a lower overall risk profile, elevated LDL and ApoB particles represent a "time-volume" exposure risk that should not be ignored based solely on lifestyle.
    • The Lean Mass Hyper-Responder (LMHR): We analyze the bold claims surrounding the LMHR phenotype and discuss why mechanistic hypothesizing currently lacks the "hard human outcome receipts" to prove long-term safety.
    • Body Fat Regulation: The Dual Intervention Point Model suggests the body defends a lower boundary (starvation) and an upper boundary (predation). In the modern environment, the "predation pressure" has vanished, leading to a genetic drift upward in body fat set points.






    Our Sponsors:
    * Check out FIGS and use my code FIGSRX for a great deal: https://wearfigs.com
    * Check out Factor: http://factormeals.com/bbm50off
    * Check out Quince: https://quince.com/bbm


    Advertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brands

    Privacy & Opt-Out: https://redcircle.com/privacy
    26 February 2026, 9:41 pm
  • 1 hour 12 minutes
    Episode #387: The Valsalva Maneuver- Blood Pressure &amp; Safety in Lifting

    Most doctors, trainers, and "safety-first" influencers warn that holding your breath while lifting is a dangerous habit that could lead to a stroke or heart failure. By looking back at the 300-year history of the Valsalva maneuver—from a 1704 ear treatment to the "boogeyman" blood pressure studies of the 1980s—we dismantle the myth of the "fragile tube." Discover the science of the "pressurized suit" and why your body is actually designed to handle extreme internal pressure during heavy exertion.


    Key Takeaways

    • The 'Ear Trick' Origins: Originally described in 1704 by Antonio Maria Valsalva as a way to clear middle-ear infections, the maneuver wasn't linked to cardiovascular risk until the 1850s "Weber experiments."
    • The MacDougall 480/350 Study: Why the finding of massive blood pressure spikes during leg presses may have created a "villain arc" for the Valsalva maneuver in modern medicine.
    • Transmural Pressure Protection: A blood vessel fails when internal pressure significantly exceeds external support; during a Valsalva, the internal spike is matched by an external "cradle" of intra-thoracic and cerebrospinal fluid pressure.
    • Reflexive vs. Intentional Bracing: The Valsalva maneuver is a hard-wired reflex that triggers involuntarily at approximately 80% of a maximal voluntary contraction to stabilize the trunk.
    • Vascular Safety and Stroke Risk: Evidence suggests that for healthy populations, the risk of a vascular "pop" is negligible because the pressure gradient across the vessel wall (transmural pressure) remains stable.
    • Pregnancy and Fetal Safety: Clinical data on pregnant athletes shows that heavy, braced lifting up to 90% of a 10-rep max does not cause fetal distress or compromised uterine blood flow.
    • The 'Hissing' Safety Valve: For those prone to lightheadedness or pelvic floor symptoms, using a slow, active exhalation (a hiss) during the concentric phase can help manage pressure transitions.


    Timestamps


    • [00:00] History: From the 1704 Ear Treatise to the Weber Fainting Experiments
    • [05:26] The 1985 MacDougall Study: Origin of the "480/350" Blood Pressure Boogeyman
    • [06:22] The Anatomy of a Breath-Hold: The 4 Phases of the Valsalva Maneuver
    • [12:59] Reflexive Bracing: Why You Can’t Stop Yourself from Holding Your Breath
    • [28:24] The Pressurized Suit: Transmural Pressure and Vascular Safety
    • [31:00] The Brain and the Box: CSF Protection and Intracranial Pressure
    • [35:27] Heart Health: Does Lifting Cause Pathological Heart Thickening?
    • [41:17] Special Populations: Strokes, Aneurysms, and the 'Pop' Theory
    • [46:15] The Pelvic Floor: Stress Incontinence and the Weightlifter's Paradox
    • [49:34] Pregnancy: Monitoring Fetal Heart Rates During Heavy Braced Lifting
    • [56:42] Contraindications: When is the Valsalva Maneuver Actually Dangerous?


    Next Steps



    References



    Our Sponsors:
    * Check out FIGS and use my code FIGSRX for a great deal: https://wearfigs.com
    * Check out Factor: http://factormeals.com/bbm50off
    * Check out Quince: https://quince.com/bbm


    Advertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brands

    Privacy & Opt-Out: https://redcircle.com/privacy
    20 February 2026, 3:43 pm
  • 2 hours 17 seconds
    Episode #386: Longevity Myths- Biological Clocks, GLP-1 Muscle Loss, and What Actually Predicts Lifespan

    The longevity industry is now worth over $100 billion per year. From DNA methylation clocks to multi-cancer blood tests and GLP-1 medications, the promises are bold.

    But what actually predicts lifespan?

    In this episode, Dr. Jordan Feigenbaum and Dr. Austin Baraki break down the science behind biological clocks, the real story on GLP-1–related muscle loss, and introduce the Barbell Medicine “Vital Five” — a clinically grounded framework for health and longevity.

    Key Points:


    • The Three Generations of Biological Clocks: Understanding the evolution of DNA methylation tests from simple chronological markers (Horvath) to sophisticated predictors of mortality (GrimAge) and functional decline (DunedinPACE).
    • Descriptive vs. Prescriptive Metrics: Why a biological age score acts as a lagging indicator rather than a tool for clinical decision-making, compared to traditional risk factors like blood pressure and ApoB.
    • GLP-1s and Sarcopenia Reality: A nuanced look at lean mass loss during semaglutide and tirzepatide treatment, emphasizing the difference between total lean mass and actual skeletal muscle quality.
    • Weight-Independent Benefits of Incretins: Analyzing data from the SELECT and FLOW trials regarding the direct cardioprotective and renal benefits of GLP-1 receptor agonists.
    • The Limitations of Early Detection: Why multi-cancer early detection (MCED) tests can lead to diagnostic loops and how clinical utility differs from marketing promises.
    • The Barbell Medicine Vital Five: A definitive framework for longevity focusing on blood pressure, ApoB, VO2 max, relative strength, and body composition.
    • Neurodegenerative Research Outlook: A critical review of the EVOKE trials and the potential (or lack thereof) for current weight-loss medications in treating established Alzheimer's disease.


    Next Steps



    Timestamps:


    • 00:00 Overview: longevity industry and proxy metrics
    • 01:06 Biological age and DNA methylation clocks
    • 08:18 Clinical usefulness and limitations of biological age testing
    • 16:16 Multi-cancer early detection tests: screening tradeoffs
    • 30:39 Exercise prescription for longevity (treat-to-target)
    • 54:39 Protein intake and longevity: evidence and recommendations
    • 1:07:23 GLP-1 receptor agonists: outcomes, misconceptions, and use cases
    • 1:34:24 Hormone therapy (women and men): risks, benefits, evidence
    • 1:49:19 Practical longevity tracking: “Vital Five” markers
    • 1:58:15 Closing


    References:



    Our Sponsors:
    * Check out FIGS and use my code FIGSRX for a great deal: https://wearfigs.com
    * Check out Factor: http://factormeals.com/bbm50off
    * Check out Quince: https://quince.com/bbm


    Advertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brands

    Privacy & Opt-Out: https://redcircle.com/privacy
    13 February 2026, 9:00 pm
  • More Episodes? Get the App