The Lifestyle Clinic

Apparently, we’re pouring oil directly into our eyeballs now.. nothing surprises me anymore

Nothing screams optimal health quite like marinating your retinas.

It’s called Netra Basti, an ancient Ayurvedic practice being promoted for improving vision, relieving dry eyes and even “detoxifying” your eyeballs.

The glaring problem?

There’s a spectacular lack of convincing clinical evidence that it actually does any of those things.

But don’t worry, it’s been practised for thousands of years, so apparently that counts as proof. 🙃

Unfortunately, tradition isn’t evidence, and ancient doesn’t mean effective.

And personally, when it comes to my eyeballs, I’d quite like some decent clinical trials before turning them into a fondue.

If you’re tired of health advice built on confident claims rather than credible evidence, that’s exactly what my 1:1 coaching avoids.

Evidence-based nutrition, training and support. No detoxes, no magic fixes, no bu****it.

🔗 Apply for 1:1 coaching via the link in my bio.

Apparently, airport body scanners are now giving us cancer, headaches and a whole host of other health problems. 🤦‍♂️✈️

At least, according to this chiropractor.

And naturally, she’s got the scientific evidence to prove it.

Well… sort of.

You see, the paper she cites is called Evaluation of Radiation Exposure to TSA Baggage Screeners.

Sounds terrifying, doesn’t it?

Except there’s one rather inconvenient detail.

IT’S ABOUT THE PEOPLE OPERATING BAGGAGE X-RAY MACHINES. NOT PASSENGERS WALKING THROUGH BODY SCANNERS.

And it gets better.

The researchers found that approximately 90% of the workers had no measurable occupational X-ray exposure.

They did identify some equipment maintenance and safety issues, which absolutely deserved addressing.

But the paper doesn’t establish that passenger body scanners cause cancer, headaches or any of the other conditions she’s claiming.

Meanwhile, modern airport body scanners in the UK, EU and US use non-ionising millimetre-wave technology.

That’s not the same as the ionising X-rays used in baggage screening equipment.

And understanding that distinction is rather important when you’re making claims about radiation and cancer.

This is a perfect example of something I discuss regularly:

Just because someone cites a scientific paper doesn’t mean the paper supports what they’re saying.

Sometimes the research has been misinterpreted.

Sometimes the findings have been exaggerated.

And sometimes, apparently, they’ve just found a paper with the word “radiation” in the title and decided that’ll do.

The irony of claiming to expose dangerous radiation while demonstrating you don’t understand the different types of radiation is quite something.

🎯 Want to learn how to spot misinformation, misleading research and the tricks influencers use to make nonsense sound scientific?

Join my FREE webinar, Hook, Line & Bull S**t, on 15th October.

I’ll be breaking down the logical fallacies, cognitive biases and tactics used to spread health misinformation.

🔗 Link in bio to register.

Because reading the title of a scientific paper is not the same as understanding it.

We are back with another pointless video that shows nothing other than this man likes to waste food and highlight is glaring lack of qualifications all in the pursuit of financial gain … most likely anyway

The argument? If it doesn’t melt and drip like other chocolate, there must be something suspicious in it.

Except that’s not how any of this works.

A Flake has a distinctive, thinly layered, crumbly structure that affects how it behaves when heated.

And holding a lighter against chocolate doesn’t replicate normal melting conditions. You’re exposing it to intense, localised heat, which can cause scorching and charring.

Different chocolates have different formulations, fat compositions and physical structures, all of which influence how they melt and flow.

None of which tells you whether a food is harmful.

If you want to know what’s in your chocolate, here’s a revolutionary idea…

TURN THE FKING PACKET AROUND AND READ THE INGREDIENTS.** oh and even that doesn’t actually tell you much about the health of said chocolate since the context of the overall diet matters a lot more

The bigger problem is that influencers can perform these ridiculous demonstrations in front of enormous audiences, frighten people about perfectly ordinary foods, and then position themselves as trusted health authorities.

Some even have supplements to sell you. Funny that.

We desperately need to stop confusing confidence, dramatic demonstrations and social media followings with scientific expertise.

🎯 Want to get better at spotting nutritional misinformation before it costs you time, money and your sanity?

Join my FREE webinar, Hook, Line & Bull S**t, on 15th October, where I’ll break down the tricks, biases and logical fallacies used to make nonsense sound convincing.

🔗 Link in bio to register.

Because apparently, in 2026, we still need to explain that setting your snacks on fire isn’t nutritional science.

Let’s start putting warning labels on podcasts or just a 💩 tax or something ..

At least we established he’s not a scientist and that he won’t listen to any evidence so we establish quite quickly the lack of credentials and dogmatism

I do enjoy the classic “I don’t understand it, therefore it must be dangerous” school of scientific reasoning. 👏

Decades of research, including large systematic reviews, have not established that everyday exposure within international safety guidelines causes the health problems these influencers are suggesting.

That doesn’t mean every possible risk has been ruled out. It means extraordinary claims require actual evidence, not just an uncomfortable feeling about technology.

some people mistake their inability to understand the evidence for evidence of a conspiracy.

And then broadcast that confusion to thousands of followers.

Also I’m not suggesting getting sunlight is bad for you I’m just highlighting the irony of his position

If you’re tired of health advice that relies more on fear than facts, that’s exactly why I do what I do.

My 1:1 online coaching helps women cut through the misinformation and focus on what actually improves their health, strength and body composition.

No fearmongering. No unnecessary supplements. No escaping to a field to avoid your router.

Just evidence-based nutrition, resistance training and sustainable lifestyle changes.

📩 DM me “COACH” to find out more about working together, or apply through the link in my bio.

Welcome to another episode of influencers confidently misunderstanding things they could have Googled in 30 seconds. 🤦‍♂️

Today’s game: “Is it FDA approved?”

Creatine? ❌
Protein powder? ❌
Collagen? ❌
Ozempic? ✅
Vi**ra? ✅

SHOCKING. 😱

Well, not really.

Because here’s the rather important detail they conveniently missed…

The FDA doesn’t generally approve dietary supplements before they go to market.

Creatine, protein powders and collagen supplements aren’t regulated in the same way as prescription medications.

And FDA approval doesn’t mean something is universally healthy, harmless or suitable for everyone. It means a specific product has met the relevant regulatory requirements, including evidence of safety and effectiveness for its approved use.

So comparing supplements with prescription drugs and acting horrified at the results isn’t exposing some grand conspiracy.

It’s exposing a fundamental misunderstanding of how regulation works.

And perhaps the most frustrating part? These are the same people positioning themselves as authorities on your health.

The irony is almost as impressive as the confidence. 🙃

If you’re tired of trying to navigate the endless stream of misinformation, contradictory advice and influencers selling you solutions to problems you probably don’t have…

My 1:1 online coaching is designed to cut through the bu****it.

Evidence-based nutrition, resistance training and sustainable lifestyle changes, tailored to you and your goals.

No detoxes. No hormone-balancing hacks. No unnecessary restrictions.

Just a structured approach that actually makes sense.

📩 DM me “COACH” to find out more, or head to the link in my bio to apply.

And please, before playing FDA-approved bingo, learn what the FDA actually approves.

Nutritionist

Apparently, women now need a different workout, supplement and shopping list for every week of their menstrual cycle. 🙃

Menstruation? Just walk. 🚶‍♀️
Follicular phase? Lift heavy. 🏋️‍♀️
Ovulation? Lift even heavier. 💪
Luteal phase? Time to deload. 🛋️

And if you don’t follow this hormonal treasure map, apparently your metabolism stops working and that stubborn belly fat isn’t going anywhere.

There’s just one small problem… the evidence doesn’t support it.

Yes, hormones fluctuate throughout the menstrual cycle.

Yes, some women experience changes in energy, symptoms and exercise performance.

But systematic reviews and meta-analyses have failed to establish convincing evidence that women should universally adjust their training intensity according to menstrual-cycle phase.

In fact, the research suggests that individual responses vary considerably.

If you’re experiencing painful cramps, fatigue or poor sleep, adjust your training accordingly.

If you feel fantastic during your period and want to squat heavy? Crack on.

Your menstrual cycle isn’t a mandatory four-week training programme.

And you certainly don’t need a different supplement for every phase to magically unlock your metabolism.

What you need is a well-structured training programme, adequate nutrition, recovery and consistency.

Not an influencer turning your ovaries into a personal trainer.

🎯 Want to learn how influencers use scientific-sounding nonsense to sell you solutions to problems you probably don’t have?

Join my FREE webinar, Hook, Line & Bull S**t, on October 15th.

We’ll break down the biases, logical fallacies and manipulation tactics used to make misinformation sound convincing.

🔗 Link in bio to register.