Yeah, I sometimes wonder how much it actually costs them to produce a video, if they have to pay for each little clip of stock video to make a montage like that -- if it's $1-$2 for each 1-second clip, they just blew through close to $50 just for that little explanation.
Hello! I’m a qualified science teacher who edits scientific papers in international journals for a living, and my undergraduate degree is specifically in genetics. I usually stay a long way away from comments sections for my own sanity, but this is right up my alley and I thought some of the stuff I have to say might be interesting to you guys or anyone else scrolling through here. It’s a bit long; I’ve tried to keep it accessible, and will do my best to answer any questions in the comments. First up, genes and genetic instructions are not actually set in stone. Epigenetics is the study of how DNA is packaged, processed and modified at the cellular level; genes can be turned on, off, upregulated, downregulated, none of which you can tell by looking at someone’s genetic sequence. These modifications can be influenced by your environment, things like stress, and can also be inherited; there are measurable differences in how people process and store food if their mothers grew up during a war or famine, for example. You simply can’t measure someone’s metabolic capacity from looking at their genes. We even have evidence that your metabolism can be influenced by things like whether you enjoy the food, whether you’re familiar with the flavour profiles, and whether you’re eating alone! I realise you’re pushed for time when you’re communicating in this video format, but some of your comments brought up more questions than they answered. For example, when you say that Jamie’s genome suggests reducing or limiting smoked and charred meat, that’s a very broad statement. Is it because it’s carcinogenic? Is he unusually prone to cancer? What kind? When you say “toxins”, what do you mean, exactly? Genes are very, very specific things, there are so many different genes and proteins involved in the metabolism of everything we eat, all interacting and working in tandem. Your response to carbohydrates, for example, involves so many different steps in many different parts of your body; there is no one gene or even one group of genes responsible for handling just this. On a more serious note, I also think that the commercial neutraceutical, diet and genetics industries have massive vested financial interests in providing the general public with the information that makes them money, even if it doesn’t actually accurately reflect where the science is at and what it says. Not buying into or promoting myths, inaccuracies or fad diet tactics is an important thing for science communicators and anyone with a public platform to be aware of. I’d really love to see you go deeper into food and metabolic science in the future, it’s so important for people to be aware of!
Thank you! I think this is the worst content this channel have produced and was shocked that I had to scroll so far down for a critical comment. Thanks for having so much information in your comment as well.
Some one had to say it, and you said it so eloquently. In an attempt to make a video on something that is trending, they are getting so close to pseudoscience. Show us some actual food science!! I love when science and food come together, Alton Brown is the King of that, but this just doesn't work. I wish they would make more videos on what they are truly passionate about in the food world and stop chasing fads and trends so much.
Yeah, as a biochemist and science teacher, this was kind of triggering. Going from DNA directly to metabolism is skipping so much, and ignoring most of the story. In the end, that service seems like 23&me or horoscopes. It's certainly pseudoscience, but what did it actually suggest? Less charred/grilled meat, less salt, more complex carbohydrates, more kale. Show me someone living in the western world that would not be healthier by doing that, please. Surprised it didn't suggest eating less meat in general. I really hope we get to see the other results, because I've got a sneaking suspicion they will be similar.
Thank you, this is at best pseudoscience and at worse snake oil. It puts me off and is ridiculous for this channel to be promoting. I can guarantee that almost anyone would benefit from the advice and I'm sure the advice for the others will be the same. The company doing the testing and I'm sure selling diet plans probably has 5 or so pat diet plans and I'm sure they all will offer some health benefit, they have nothing to do with genotype.
None of this was related to taste, only health. The perfect dish would be based on what tatses best and DNA results are not that refined yet. Also all these diet-based ones give you a ten percent or less in either direction for health dangers determined by genes, not much change from the baseline health effects. Except for alcohol and caffeine metabolism which can be very different from one person to another. If you want to know about your response to foods get a urine, blood and stool analysis done.
@@SortedFood Please do! I was expecting all of your meals at the top of the video, to be honest. Would really love to see all of your reactions... even if we don't see the cooking part.
I've done a DNA test, though not a nutrition specific one. I also have a PhD in molecular biology. Before signing up for a nutrition specific DNA test I would have some serious questions around the research basis of the results and recommendations. I've found that many DNA kits rather overreach in their conclusions, or at the very least don't do a great job in educating their clients about the different kinds of results and which ones are yes/no vs. "a statistically significant greater risk of X". People are notoriously bad at measuring risk, and oversimplifications on these tests is a genuine problem. Also, the suggestions for Jaime (complex vs. simple carbs, less smoking and charring) are exceedingly common suggestions that are good for almost everyone. I dunno, I'm sure it would be interesting, but honestly unless you're a high level athlete, you're probably fine just going along with the NHS nutritional recommendations, which are common sense things like minimizing processed meats and meat overall, eating complex carbs, eating a lot of veg and not having a lot of sugar and fried foods.
I've heard that DNA isn't as reliable of an indicator for your ideal diet as your *microbiome* results. DNA has a lot, but so much of our digestion is down to gut bacteria, which change depending on environment and prior diet and such. But I think that involves a fecal sample, so maybe not as RU-vid friendly... Still, I'd love to see it!
Except we really don't actually know enough yet to make specific recommendations. Some companies make and sell tests, but these often claim more than can really be scientifically verified. Microbiomes don't just vary with diet, they vary with where you live and where you grew up, and even how you were born. We don't know enough to accurately control for all those determinates to focus solely on diet.
And 100% love of meat. Wait a minute, that makes 200%, I hear you say. That's because Jamie consumed his identical twin in the womb (and that's where he gets his love of meat from) and has double.
As a tetragametic genetic chimera myself, I've been part of multiple genetic studies and had my DNA examined many times. The "science" that is sold as results from those services is a blend of real science, and what equates to the "popular generic advice of the day" horoscope rubbish. They look at bits that show "this person's genetics show they are slightly more predisposed to a lower metabolism", and then look up generic things told to people that have slower metabolisms. "Better stick to complex carbs"... And so on. How many of them suggest that one would be better off extra refined sugars in their diet? Any? Do you suppose ANY of them suggest people should eat more of ANYTHING that runs COUNTER to the popular current day nutritional ideas? Or is it more likely to just be some random horoscope-like pick of basic popular advice that kinda fits something that "generally fits people that have this expression of this gene"... Seriously. Try asking that question of anyone that actually works in a genetics lab. You might be surprised by the answer. That said, LOVE the video, and still wanna see what you do for everyone else! :D
They used it badly, cruciferous is not a noun but an adjective. I cooked a lot of crucifers, so the meal was very cruciferous. You can have a cruciferous vegetable and it would be one of the Cruciferaceae family, so-called because the flowers have four petals in a cross-shape.
@@pattheplanter But that's not them using the word incorrectly, that's Ben making a grammatical mistake because he doesn't realise the word "crucifer" exists. He did his best with what information he had :P
@@diablofrag2177 That is the very definition of using a word incorrectly. A chef should know the correct terms for ingredients. The phrase was also more vague than necessary as all the plants they used were brassicas.
I know a little bit about mine through a blood test. I have insulin resistance so I also have to avoid refined carbs and sugars and learning this has had such a significant impact on how I live my life
You cannot determine diet from genetics. Most of the suggestions are literally just eat healthier which we know not from genetics but just diet. Genetic code in general changes over time as well.
Cut simple carbs, eat more green veggies, stew or vapor your food instead of smoking/searing it. Yup, that's literally what any doctor would tell anybody. It just has fancier words lol
Jonathan Bowen it does. Micromutations do happen. Also, genes can technically be turned on or off like a light switch. Like in babies, they produce an enzyme (lactase) that can digest lactose in milk. When the baby comes to age, the gene for lactase becomes inactive = lactose intolerant. Although in some races (the Europeans I think) started farming milk from cows and developed a tolerance to milk, even past childhood, because their gene for lactase didn’t go inactive. It’s more complicated than this and I’m sure someone else knows more about it than me but there you go.
You should do a "before" and "after" challenge where you eat for a few weeks based on your genetic results. How do your bodies change (body fat, blood tests, etc)? How do your moods change? How do your food behaviors change when working around the results (i.e. a test of the sustainability of the diet)? When you start eating something that was advised you avoid after the challenge, how does your body react?
That study has been done, and looking at your DNA does not seem to increase the effectiveness of Personal Nutritional advice: academic.oup.com/ije/article/46/2/578/2622850 "Among European adults, Personalized Nutrition advice produced larger and more appropriate changes in dietary behaviour than a conventional approach. There was NO EVIDENCE that including phenotypic and phenotypic plus GENOTYPIC information enhanced the effectiveness of the PN advice."
It would still be interesting to watch, given that they work in the food industry and are constantly exposed to food. Eating behaviors are not just the items they eat but what they start looking for in their foods, what they start avoiding, maybe what they may overcompensate, how they shop, etc. And it’s not that it’s all healthy, but introducing healthy foods that initially weren’t genetically optimal for them after the diet may create shocks, and that would be interesting to know about. Also, whether they think the changes they made based on a genetics test are reasonable to sustain for them, given their industry.
Fascinating! As someone who is lactose intolerant it took me years to figure out that some chippies put milk on the fish to adhere the batter and other ones don't. Which for those that don't get it I just burp embarrassingly for two hours. But all my children are also lactose intolerant too. So when my son was screaming for hours after eating it was because we gave him custard. This is in our genes and really important to get ya head round it! Well done guys!
Eat more complex carbs, eat more (cruciferous) vegetables, reduce your (smoked) meat consumption....aren't those more or less universal nutritional tips these days?
Yes! Of course- so that's why it's interesting to think if these kinds of things should be taken with a pinch of salt or if certain individuals should take particularly more care in certain areas....
@@SortedFood Or in Jaime's case WITHOUT a pinch of salt! Honestly though, this should be repeated for each person in order to be fair in exploring the idea of genetic nutrition and its validity. I'd love to see if and how results differ beyond the universal basics of nutrition. But mostly I just want more because this episode was so fun and interesting! 🤓
@@SortedFood I'm not smart enough to know the answer...but it feels similar to reading one's horoscope in the newspaper, or reading a fortune cookie. Backed by space age technology, of course.
@@SortedFood Given the lads are roughly identical in terms of their genetic background I doubt that the results will differ massively between any of them. If you managed to get phenotypically non-identical people on board though (read people of different ethnicities) that's when youd begin to see clear distinctions in advice. This is particularly highlighted in the related (but vastly more complex and advanced) field of pharmacogenomics, where people of West African heritage should be dosed with approximately 60% more warfarin to maintain an equal therapeutic effect to that of a caucasian.
@@LHommeDeCave that's a bit like saying one member of a family can't have a food allergy for instance. very similar people can have very different genetics. see other comments re: epigenetics for example. we are more than just what our DNA 'says' we are.
It sounds like the recommendations James got are the ones you always get when people talk about a healthy diet. Less processed or grilled meat, complex carbs, healthy vegetables. I don't know if you need to take a DNA test to make these changes. It would now be interesting to see if anyone got the recommendation to eat all the refined carbs.
I think you're right. A study has shown NO benefits of looking at your DNA: academic.oup.com/ije/article/46/2/578/2622850 "Among European adults, Personalized Nutrition advice produced larger and more appropriate changes in dietary behaviour than a conventional approach. There was NO EVIDENCE that including phenotypic and phenotypic plus GENOTYPIC information enhanced the effectiveness of the PN advice."
I’ve taken a food sensitivity test which required blood samples. It mostly confirmed what I had already assumed based on elimination. However, I’ve had a tab open for ages on nutrigenetics but have yet to read more about it. You’ve now inspired me to get on it and discover a little more about myself!
I think this is such a wonderful video to demonstrate that not all of us react to foods and diets the same and it really is about customizing your own experience with food. I love this so far!
I completely agree. I have been told a million times by random people what diet worked for them and almost forcible making me try those too. We are all different and some diets scare me.
It's interesting considering our ancestors thousands of years ago would have hunted, gathered and generally ate similar diets. As time has gone on, our digestive systems have gotten used to less natural food and more processed.
A personalized dietary advice is a good thing! However, as this study showed, there's NO EVIDENCE that looking at DNA (Genotype) will yield a better results. So far, that idea seems to be just a marketing hype.. academic.oup.com/ije/article/46/2/578/2622850 "There was no evidence that including phenotypic and phenotypic plus genotypic information enhanced the effectiveness of the Personalized Nutritional advice."
@@MarthVader1 Id be cautious, about that paper it seems like it lacks much scientific integrity, from just your quoted section "phenotypic and phenotypic plus genotypic" makes no sense. Your genotype is the raw code of your DNA, this makes up your phenotype (your expressed characteristics i.e. green eyes and not the gene encoding green eyes) when combined with your environmental factors (which contributes to the epigenomic and transcriptomic control of the genotype). As you can see the phenotype cannot be separated from the genotype leading me to question the robustness of their findings if they got this very basic genetic fact wrong. Furthermore, as pharmacogenomics is beginning to truly gain momentum in the personalisation of medicine, then nutrigenomics could similarly lead to improvements in personalisation of diets.
@@LHommeDeCave Thanks for your advice.. I always TRY to be cautious, that's why I'd like to see evidence first. I'm not saying that it ISN"T true definitively, but for the moment this study does not show evidence that it IS true.. I globally know what phenotypes and genotypes are, but it's not my field of professional expertise.. But maybe this detail from the report's supplement helps to understand what they specifically meant by phenotype and genotype in this case? I read it as: phenotype came from a blood test (metabolic markers), genotype from a DNA test.. Report detail: " - Participant blood profile related to nutrition (glucose, total cholesterol, carotenes, n-3 index) " " -Participant genetic profile related to nutrition (MTHFR, FTO, TCF7L2, APOE ε4 and FADS1 genes) "
Ok, first question: Where are the studies on this? Whenever i hear detoxification all of my bullshit sensors go off cause the only thing in your body you need to do a proper detox are your liver and your kidneys. If they dont work, you got other problems, than a healthy cale smoothie...
The studies on this actually prove that this is nonsense: academic.oup.com/ije/article/46/2/578/2622850 _"There was _*_no evidence_*_ that including phenotypic and phenotypic plus genotypic information enhanced the effectiveness of the PN (personalized nutrition) advice."_ So looking at genes provides absolutely no benefit on top of the normal nutrition advice you saw in the video, ie. less processed meat, less simple carbs, more veggies. Another commenter pointed out the easy question that exposes the horoscope-like nature of this advice: Do you think any of these DNA-based diets will say, "Go ahead, eat however much smoked and charred meat you want, and sugar is no problem, go nuts on simple carbs", or do all these results just return a varied amount of generic diet advice we already know to be true for most people?
Interesting you say that... that's not how it was explained to us. You're right though... the word "detoxification" is often used out of context as a buzzword. A cleanse or detox diet has not been proven to have a beneficial effect. What we understood was (this time we won't simplify it for the video: "The GSTM1 and GSTT1 genes create enzymes that are involved in detoxification of compounds, including carcinogens, environmental toxins and products of oxidative stress. The variation tested is the insertion (I) / deletion (D) variation, in which a piece of DNA is either present or deleted from the gene - the D version is associated with significantly lower enzymatic activity. In this instance, cruciferous vegetable consumption should be increased, as they contain biologically active compounds that can replicate the function of these genes within the body."
When will we see the next pass it on and can we have it so that Jamie or Barry have to sabotage the dish and the rest of them have to eat the full thing but if they suspect sabotage, the sabatour himself is forced to eat the whole thing creating a interesting situation where they want to ruin it but not so badly that it is too obvious
guess who would sabotage every dish with meat... ... meat pancakes ... meat icecream ... meaty vegan dish ... extra meaty meat. (bacon goes with everything.)
So, (a) Every genetics researcher not working for one of these companies will happily tell you all of this is nonsense and we don't know enough to be able to figure out where you're from or what you should eat from your genome; (b) Literally every single thing recommended has been recommended for all humans who eat food in the last decade; (c) You have now - seriously, check those T&Cs - given the company you sent the sample to a licence to sell on that data to, say, health insurance companies. And again, it's still all nonsense, but that won't stop them introducing genetic profiling based on junk science so you wind up paying more. As does your mom. And your son. And anyone else who shares a bloodline with you and is still alive. And under the GDPR, you didn't really have their consent to do that, so congrats, you're now a cooking channel that opened a giant can of worms on air.... Also, the fish taco joke was the funnier one.
Yeah, that's not science... That's somwhere between pop and pseudo "science". You wouldn't trust a biologist to be a professional cook, maybe cooks shouldn't try and be scientists?
I've been trying to get healthier the last couple of years and have seriously considered getting one of those dna tests to get a better idea of how I can improve my health even more!
Never realized that this was possible -- I loved this, I'm definitely intrigued and I'd love to see more about it. Amazing to see how you guys have grown and changed with your videos and how there's a genuine interest and love for what you do and present.
i'd love to see tailor-made dishes for all of the boys that had their DNA analyzed! I'd want to get my DNA tested to see how my body is with both food and medicine since pharmacogenetics is becoming more commonly used too!
Interestingly if you attend the Mayo clinic in Florida as a patient, they will routinely sequence your DNA to apply pharmacogenetic principles when issuing medicines. However, beyond the basics of "will I suffer malignant hyperthermia when using isofluorane/will I need a higher/lower dose of codeine than the average person" there really isn't much that pharmacogenetics can tell us. That's why the newer field of pharmacogenomics is rapidly becoming more relevant to modern medicine.
Jamie, I might be wrong but if you use the sous vide method for cooking the steak it might get around the Smoking, searing and charring. You still sear in the end but it is cooked low and slow for an hour or so prior. Maybe give that a go?
This is interesting! I've done research on eating based on one's blood type before wjen I first dealt with severe IBS, directed by a doctor of course, and learned about why I preferred the foods I do. My obsession is with turkey, seafood, leafy greens, wheat, apples, and citrus. I am lactose intolerant although pizza is my first love lol! It has helped me find balance and reduce how much the disease effects me.
This is a really interesting concept! Just wanted to say thank you - because you guys have motivated me to start a youtube channel uploading recipes as well!
this is so interesting guys! diets are a challenge for me, but i have been doing better at cooking more healthy, and i think it would be fantastic to know my dna better so i can be healthy more easily. Jamie, dont despair! your results say you should *minimize, not completely eliminate, so look at that sliver lining. if you are interested in pursuing your results, start with one thing at a time instead of flipping your whole life upside down at once, give yourself some breathing room to be able to accomplish what you want to in your own time.
In this isolated example perhaps so. We left out several other factors (too complex for an intro video to the subject) and wen you see the results compared to 4 other people who took the test, the genetic variants and advice alter. That's where it gets interesting. But one step at a time...
Good job on coming up with a new concept, being educational (I legit enjoyed that explanation of DNA) and to top it all off bringing us entertainment and good food! This channel has got to be one of my favorites
Way back at the beginning I paused it and said if they lift the cloche to find steamed asparagus and a broccoli souffle instead of a gigantic steak I'm going to burst out laughing. I wasn't that far off.
you give labs your DNA every time you get bloods done. hell, you leave your DNA all over the floor every time you go to a barber/ hair dresser. If someone wanted your DNA, they could find it discared all around you.
Isn't this just really general health advice for everyone? Moderate consumption of alcohol, limit salt intake, complex carbs instead of simple ones, don't eat too much grilled meat. How is this that personalized?
Well, yeah. That's how these DNA tests work. They look for anything really obvious that they might be able to find, such as the ability to digest lactose, then fill up the rest with generic stuff to sound more convincing.
DNA tests are super cool and fun to take but they almost never analyze things like methylation or even RNA levels because it's difficult and expensive. Because of this the tests themselves aren't very accurate. Take Jaime for example, because he's been eating smoked and fried meats all his life his body turns some genes off and others on, this means that eating that piece of bacon isn't as bad as the test suggest. (There I helped you out Jaime)
It won't change the way I eat. BUT over the years I have struggled hard with weight loss. I have never done diets but I have really listened to my body and what I can eat. There are some foods that make me feel bloated, slow, lethargic, and sometimes depressed (not the right term, but it makes me feel like I don't have the energy to do anything). For me, low carb, low meat, low dairy makes my body happy. But I still have things every now and again. Just less often.
Your kidneys and liver DO detoxify your body. That's their function. That's why "detox" teas can say that they support detoxification because water in the tea helps your organs function.
@@SortedFood Yes, please! This was really interesting and it would be great to see your practical recommendations for those of us who might have different composition than Jamie.
Maybe steaks cooked sous-vide? I vaguely recall Heston doing that when he did his Little Chef show... Cooking the steak sous-vide and then finishing it on the grill?
Well, do you ever have toasty bread with beef stew? Having something crunchy or more textured can add a new experience to the overall enjoyment of a dish. Speaking from a chinese background, I wouldn't use raisins in a stewed dish, rather red dates. But I feel like it has a similar principle, it adds a layer of flavour that compliments the meat. Kind of like an "umami" flavour...that's how I feel about the dates anyway. Personal preference though!
Weird as it sounds, it’s actually in many stews or similar meat dishes around the world. Morocco has stews that contain raisins, for example. There’s a molasses and raisin stew here in the United States (not super well known, but it exists!) and there’s also Cuban stews that include raisins.
Really, think about the fact that we use red wine all the time in stew. Wine and raisins are both coming from the same fruit, so it’s not that weird lol. :P while wine adds an acidity along with the sugars, you can balance that easily when you use raisins by also using an acid of some kind. You often see them in tomato based stews for that reason, or with capers or olives and a bit of vinegar for the bright and briny balance.
Same; reducing your salt, fatty acids and charred red meat intake is healthy for every person. I'm not sure how much of that is generic makeup and how much is guess work.
There is definitely robust and legitimate science behind all of this. My field of research is in functional pharmacogenomics and from a pharmacotherapeutic point of view our group-based differences in DNA can lead to far better medicinal outcomes, so why shouldn't similar GWAS techniques be employed to optimise our diets also?
i love these super informative episodes, just one thing i'd change is having the clips in the beginning with mike's voiceover be all shot with the actual Sorted crew groups (it'd just make it more personal and add a little to the videos I think :D)
I've been watching koreanenglishman, and was thinking what a great series/idea would it be if sortedfood did a collab with them for a korean food/culture series
"detoxification"? that's your liver's job, you can't detox your body with detoxyfing food. Unsure how charring is toxic? It's just carbon surely. WE NEED SCIENTIFIC REFERENCES, SORTED xx
In a perfect world, charring would be just carbon yes. But of course it's more complexe than that. The extreme heat denatures some of the meat proteins and transforms them into carcinogens. The fat drippings also release toxic chemicals (polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons) when burnt. Finally, some toxins can be created if certain molecules aren't fully combusted, such as dioxin furans. So SURELY charred meat isn't JUST carbon... And yes certain organs' job are detoxification, but it will continue to accumulate in your body if you consume more than it can detoxify, or process. And believe it or not, some food contain helpful molecules for the body's processes. For example, artichoke contains luteolin which prevents the formation of cholesterol in the body, therefore contributing to cholesterol decrease (or "detoxification" if you will). Science has brought a lot of understanding about the world and nature, I suggest you read and research a little bit more, I'm sure you will find it interesting!
Yes hence I said "we need scientific references"! And all I meant was it would be best to avoid using buzz words with vague explanations which creates misconceptions and strange trends x
@@marika147 You're right... many words have been adopted elsewhere and become buzzwords. We are, however, referring to detoxification as explained to us by the supporting info from the tests. "Cooking certain meats at high temperature creates the formation of chemicals that are not naturally present in uncooked meat. Some of these chemicals, known as HCA (Heterocyclic Amines) and PAH (Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons), are regarded as toxic compounds that can damage DNA and protein in our cells, possibly leading to serious health problems in the long run. Foods cooked at very high temperatures or for a very long time create the highest levels of these chemicals, so be aware of your consumption. Certain variations in the GSTM1 gene can make the removal of toxic compounds from our diet and environment less effective, but this can be improved through increased consumption of cruciferous vegetables."
In response to the new book, how about a relay Ultimate battle between the boys to makes a 3-course or a breakfast, lunch and dinner using a single vegetable where it must be a star in all the dishes. Then judge the winner based on overall presentation and taste afterwards. It could be broken up into multiple episodes to increase the tension for us views too
