The GCC Pod Ep 14: The Metabolic Crisis: Prevention, Policy, and AI

Every week, my colleagues and I unpack what's really happening in the world of global capability centers. We're living in unprecedented times and most businesses aren't ready for what's coming. Many mistake using AI for simply adopting tools like ChatGPT without actually thinking about how their organizations operate. For example, how Ashish Vaswani has built RNJ model, their first open source model, described as a world class 8 billion base plus instruct pair. Or for example, how companies are setting up their entire data value chain to acquire highly specialized expert data sets by setting up global capability centers in South

Asia and South America.

The real shift is happening elsewhere. Some companies are building their own models, others are embedding AI deeply into custom workflows. But many are securing long term advantages around computer energy, data and most importantly, access to global talent. At the heart of it all is this. The future belongs to companies that can tap into the world's most capable, ambitious and underutilized talent pools and turn them into a strategic advantage. In the GCC podcast, I sit down with operators, founders and leaders to explore how the world's most important businesses are building global capabilities centers not just to cut costs, but to acquire proprietary data, develop custom AI systems and transform their products, services and workplaces into truly AI native organizations. This is a podcast about how global businesses are being rebuilt from the inside out.

So today I wanted to sort of discuss something that is, you know, arguably the most severe yet normalized crisis in America, which is our collapsing health. Right? We talked, we talked and we continue to talk in previous episodes about systems and infrastructure. And so this too, if you think about it, is almost systematic in nature. If a foreign adversary deployed some sort of, you know, a bioweapon that made, let's say, 80% of our population overweight, we would generally consider that an existential national security threat. But this is happening from within. We're living in an environment that systematically produces sick people. So today I really wanted to uncover why the default health outcome in the US specifically is so poor and how corporate culture, corporate capture, government subsidies, created this toxic food system back in the 1970s. And you know, all of that. So, so let's start at the root, right? This, this obesity and chronic sort of disease crisis is, is not a failure of individual willpower. It's more like the natural output of this environment. People constantly ask why America has an obesity problem and why we are so sick. And we were talking about this earlier on and you sort of argued that the answer is this very simple, almost trivial thing that has to do with the environment that we've built. So could you comment on that a little bit? Perhaps we can start there.

So I'm in San Francisco and, and I walk for, to eat something healthier, I have to walk for at least 4 or 5 kilometers and still I'm unable to find a cafe which has something that I can eat comfortably. There's so much sugar, there's so much fructose syrup in everything in every shop. Wherever you go there is. You just find it extremely hard to find something that is basically, that's basically you feel comfortable about which after itching you won't have any kind of guilt. So I mean it's somehow the environment, we've shaped our environment where it's, it's. I mean you can't be fit in that environment because everything around you, even the stacks of pastries, the bread, wheat, corn, because they are subsidized by the governments. So I mean, can you imagine 20% of American caloric intake is coming from wheat, right? So this is so somehow we, we, we have somehow stacked up the environment that does that, that's not fit for a good health culture. I mean literally, I mean yesterday I was, I walked for 6km. There was a cafe and then there was a Visa shop, then there was another cafe and then another Visa shop and then another cafe and other b. I just kept on walking for 5, 6 km and I couldn't find something that I could eat. And I have this issue like for example, if I eat something unhealthier, then I have this guilt coming in.

And I also think like, you know, so this didn't happen randomly though, right? Like this, this timeline of our health decline tracks back to as I mentioned, 1970s, which was sort of driven by this pressure from shareholders on massive food conglomerates of that time. So was there a specific turning point where things started to escalate?

So in 1970s what happened was got off the shareholder value, these 150 or 100 year old corporations started to do one thing that was very significant and that was like they started to replace sugar with fructose syrup. And that's where your everyday food has had this fake sugar. Even the sugar in its purest form is not good. And now imagine it's a fake sugar, right? So that's where things started to fall apart. It just kept on destroying your mental health, physical health, your agency, your ability to think cognitively in a better way. So all that thing has just somehow started to fell apart. So that started to happen in 1970s and one particular decision or happening that was like replacing sugar with fructose here. And that was a major, major turning point.

And I think also like, so if we, if we talk a little bit about, you know, the structural nature of all of this, I mean government subsidies, you know, for corn and you mentioned wheat and you know, other things like soy and all of this, I think they make these inflammatory high processed ingredients artificially cheap. Right. And so if we wanted to pull sort of the biggest lever to fix this food crisis, regardless of political difficulty, what would you say on policy change?

I don't know about the policy, but I think in the last few decades the U.S. government has spent $100 billion in subsidizing corn, soy and wheat. Imagine $100 billion in subsidizing these three things. And now every food corporation has big advantage of cross putting these three ingredients as a primary food component in everything they make. So today the average American gets take most of their caloric intakes from these three things. Not because it's good or it was desired, but simply because the government makes it extremely cheap and it just favors these big food corporations. We use these things in much higher proportion than for example, something healthier, organic.

And then there's also like, you know, obviously in the last few years there's been a lot of discussion around Universal Ozempic and GLP1s and all of that. And I think that while they can, you know, jumpstart weight loss, there's a, there's a misconception because they don't actually fix the root cause. Right. Eating less of a toxic diet, you know, simply leads to nutrient deficiency. Right. So with almost like 80% of the country currently overweight or obese, why not just put everyone on a GLP1 or

something is a very good technology to jump start. But I mean it's not cure for all. I mean what does that essentially does it turns down your appetite. But if you are eating exact the same highly processed garbage, and even if you're eating that in lesser quantity, then you're not having those macros and micros that are required for healthier life or healthier cognitive and physical capabilities. So I think the core idea, the core thing, what we need to think about is we need to change our environment. I mean think about like we are willing to do a zempic, but we're not willing to change this garbage food that's around us, which every one of us I think is now want to change. Not here in the U.S. but even globally, whatever is happening, they us that's basically happens in the entire world, right? This happens in Pakistan, in Middle East. That's what's, that's where the biggest, all the ideas are coming from. So I think there's, there's a lot of value in, for example, deploying AI systems in making better food choices. So I was in this mall here and the guy had this Cloudbot configured with their meta glasses and they were, he was walking down that corridor and trying to pick things based on, I mean, based on what his diet or what his opinion, his priorities are. And I've seen his whole boss, he didn't pick any wrong thing. Right. So it just, I mean, just think about it like you have your meta glasses up and every time you have set up your far part and opal claw in a way that, that you start like you are not going to eat sugar. This, this, this, this, this, you go, you need to, for example, go through every ingredient and all that. And then the cameras of Metaglass are so good, but it processes an incredible amount of text in split seconds. And there's a model and it just gives you all the idea of better, all the better choices that you can have in Those thousands of SKUs that are available in these Target stores now. If customers stop buying these things, eventually I think the market would respond and they would start creating better products and products that are more beneficial for the health. Because at the end of the day there is a demand for these things. Right?

Yeah.

Even if you eat. I mean, because I travel a lot, I'm more of a nomad now. Right. So I traveled. So in the last, I think for one or so, one year or so, I've traveled to I don't know how many countries. If you order a 12 inch pizza in, in US, New York, San Francisco, it's double the size of what you order in, let's say Dubai or Yad in Lahore. So the size of the products are too big as well. And then when you are, when you pick, it's a one person serving or two. Two person serving. You can, I mean people in our part of the world, they can eat, for example, the entire family can eat that one person serving. Somehow the markers are different and that they need to be readjusted, I guess.

Yeah. And it's very true when they say, you know, at the end of the day, like health and fitness and all of these things are very, very genuinely just a reflection of our environment. And so you've pointed out in the past that many of our issues sort of stem from this like disconnect or a mismatch between the environment and our gene makeup. Like for example, animals taken out of the wild. We are suffering from this mismatch between our genetics and the modern habitat that we, you know, have. And you use this like, interesting analogy about like animals in the zoo. Could you sort of maybe walk us through that?

So I was listening to this podcast from a 16Z. That's why I picked it up from there, that if you move animals from. Away from zoo, what happens to them? They're not comfortable. That's not good for their health. So.

Exactly.

I mean, somehow in the last 40, 50 years, our environment is not. I mean we've taken a. We not in our natural zoo where we should have. We should be. I mean, in. Especially in an environment where our kids spend 70% time indoor. And that is basically. I mean, our kids spend more time indoor than a prisoner who is sentenced to maximum prison in jail. Think about it, right? So somehow the whole structural structure, the social media, the overall things, I mean, somehow we have come to a culture and we've come to an environment where our health is not. I mean, think about like I was listening to David Sinclair and it's true, like he's working on curing aging. Just imagine there's one, one big, like if you cure cancer today, it would add on an average human life, increase human lifespan on average of 2.5 years. That's it. If you cure cancer in, in its entirety, cross effect, it's not a very big change. Aging is a major disease and we're doing a lot in reversing your managing process. And one of the core things of reversing managing process is about how you structure environment, how your cell response to different kind of foods.

Right?

This is the core thing.

And so, you know, you, you mentioned aging and you know, I've also recently been very slowly dipping my toes in this space. But I think if we, if we talk about food specifically, the US regulatory approach is, you know, to, to essentially allows thousands of these toxic compounds into our food system. And just for, you know, perspective, most of these things are very, very strictly banned in Europe. So it seems like Europe doesn't have this problem to, to at least to the same degree. Right. So what's the difference between how the US and the EU

so USA has this standard called grass, like, generally recognized as safe. So for example, if you're introducing a new component, all you have to share this to fda. Like this is recognized as safe and that's. Nothing is required. I mean, this is one of the Area where regulation have to be put in place and where it's not. I mean otherwise, I think in every case asking for Europe US is doing incredible job in not putting much of the regulations, but here I think there should be regulations. So this gross standard and the very lenient implementation of this has somehow produced 60 to 80,000 chemical compounds in our food that were not even, that didn't exist before. Those 60 to 80,000 compounds are not available in the US food products, in the EU EU food products and they have in the US and that's the difference is like imagine 80,000 chemical compounds in your food products that should not be there at the first place.

And I also think like this is then where money sort of enters the conversation, right? There's like massive these agriculture and chemical companies who are using their wealth to lobby for almost like these liability shields, right? And to be able to influence these dietary guidelines. So given how harmful these 60 to 80,000 chemicals and processed foods and all of these things are, why hasn't like the government or the free market corrected this? Like why haven't they would.

I think, I mean it's easier to criticize like to all these big food cops and all that. That's how capitalism works. And I think if you have some great idea and if you think you have some innovation where how you can produce these mass scale products while making sure they are healthier for everyone. I mean you just need a presentation and a pitch deck and you present to these big businesses and they will invest a lot. The real thing is like the innovation is slower than in this space than it has to be. So I don't buy this thing like for example, only for profit somehow our pace of innovation in this area is very slow when it comes to food and all that stuff.

So.

And currently I've seen some of the companies who are investing a lot in preventing healthcare. But I, I mean not a big groundbreaking work but things have started to, I mean innovation has somehow started to take some root. But let's see, I mean I strongly believe AI implementation of AI in these kind of, in these, in these kind of hard problems. I think there's, there's a lot of, they can be, a lot of value can be extracted here if we deploy. I just like say for even smaller things like how you shift demand, for example, if you make it this easier varying these AI devices and making people enable people to make better choices in real time, just in time. What are the other things? Like how can you for example, if those 60 to 3,000 compounds should not be there at the first place. Okay, what are the compound. What are the things that should be there at the first place?

Okay.

If you're not subsidizing feed, then how can you. If you're not subsidizing wheat, corn, okay, then what's the alternative? Then it would get expensive. So these are the problems. Not because like shareholder value and all that stuff, somehow it requires a lot of innovation. Innovation, like SpaceX kind of thing?

Yeah, I think, you know, there's obviously like stories about companies like, you know, large companies, like spending millions to influence nutrition guidelines. But I think all those things on one side, I think I enjoyed the response you gave me because there is a lot of work that is, I think, at the cusp of being genuinely valuable to this space, especially around AI

in this point, at this point, it's like in 1900s, the world population was close to a billion. Today's close to 8 billion. If you produce organic food through organic means, purely organic means probably won't be able to feed everyone. Yes, you need to find ways, but I think now we have the tools and technologies where we can find ways. I'm not saying organic, but for example, that food products to which our metabolic system respond better.

I also think like. So you mentioned mental health like a little bit ago, near the. Nearer to the start. I think let's talk about that a little bit. Because it's deeply tied to our biological health. Right. And fixing, you know, the health of your gut and reducing, you know, inflammation inside your body, research has shown will almost in most cases outperform know, talk therapy or, you know, when you go to a therapist and you sort of do all of those things, which is also obviously great. But I think let's, let's talk about the mental health piece because we're obviously facing like this massive mental health crisis alongside this very big physical one. Are these two connected? We know they are, but you know,

there's a thing called metabolic psychiatry. Yes, they're. I mean, they are, they're almost. The one thing metabolic psychiatry is, is the idea that disease like depression, schizophrenia have root in metabolic causes. And there are lots of evidences where fixing your diet directly impact your mental health. So, yeah, I mean, by the way, I've experienced some of these things myself as well. I have a journey to. So how this impact your mental health? I mean, you can't perform cognitive, your cognitive function. Function should be incredibly well if you, let's say, want to build a company, if you are an entrepreneur. So I was listening to. He was being in this, it was, it was a very hard time. In his journey of building, I think Perishing Square, he was thinking about like he had these two goals, two things every day. One, how he can be. He, he didn't think much about the future. He thought of like how he can be 1% better than yesterday. That was his thing. And second, just be healthy. Right. Because if you have these two things, somehow it compounds over time. Even after 12 months, you'll be in a different thing, you will be in a different shape. So health is incredibly important if you are going after things that are generally considered extremely hard. And why health is important because you are required to have that cognitive function, have that emotional stability over a long period of time if you are pursuing something hard. So yeah, it's both physical and mental health is almost the one thing.

Yeah, yeah. And I think, I think most of us have also sort of experienced, you know, it's not that you kind of, it's not as trivial as, oh, you know, I'm eating this, therefore I am, you know, depressed or something. It's just you, you kind of notice the improvement when you start eating better. Right? That's what it is. So, so let's talk a little bit about this from a, from a business perspective as well, and maybe like a way forward point of view as well. The current healthcare system only pays for disease management, right. If you think about it like, you know, it pays for what to do once you are sick, doesn't sort of incentivize prevention. So we know that in that sense the system is broken, the environment is toxic, and the government at the end of the day is subsidizing the wrong things. So how do we actually fix this from a business perspective? And what is, what is a good model?

Think about it like if you are at a risk of a heart disease, you pay out of your pocket for a gym and a good food to prevent it. Right. But if you do nothing and have a heart attack, the healthcare system spends millions in managing your condition for life. But that's entirely backward. So I think there are a lot of value in interventionist technologies, preventive technologies, companies like Trumed, they're doing incredible work. But there are only handful of companies. But yes, I think there's. So, but the challenge is it's hard. I mean, then, I mean, we can prioritize. Like for example, if I'm an insurance company, I'll, I'll prioritize that my people should like people who have, who have the insurance with us. They go to gym and all that stuff. It's not like that. They can't pay and that's the reason they don't go to gym. In the US you would find a gym in almost every street but you won't find people there. Just going to gym is hard. It is, right? Not eating these yummy food, not eating pizzas, not eating pastries. It is hard. It's a hard thing to do, right? And if you are not used of, used to, of pursuing hard things, resist. If you're not used to resisting the temptations, then probably you are in a problem. Of course your environment would play a very active role. But then of course you have to play an active role too. And it's, it's a skill that you need to learn that how to do it, how to resist these temptations.

It's also like so then at the end of the day like where does this leave the individual then? Because when it comes to like, when it comes to like personal optimization there is so much like you have, you know, this, this, you know, people like Brian Johnson bullish on pushing plant based caloric restriction and those kinds of things. But that's a very like, you know, niche I guess approach to take. So are there other schools of thought you find more compelling? And talk to us a little bit about that.

I think most things exist in spectrum. There's a value to plant based diet. Of course, I'm not expert in that but what I've gathered is like there's a lot of value in grandmother wisdom. Our grandparents, they didn't have an access to these strawberries and pastries and they had a good life. Like my grandmother died at the age of 97 and she was very good. The day she died she, at the end of the day she was just hanging around and she was walking and talking to all of us and she was very good. And, and she died at the age of 97. And at the, I think one day before her death she had a proper meal, all three meals. But, but one thing was like it's not like that what she had to eat. It's like she, what she never ate. So she, so for example, she never ate sugar. She. Things like that, things that were not even available before. Sugar was a very restrictive thing in the earlier days. Only when the guests used to come in the house, only they get to have something sugary. Otherwise it wasn't the case. So I think we don't need to be Brian Johnson. We just need to be normal human beings and just try to avoid things like these fructose, these cookies and strawberries, and then we'll be okay. 97 is a good age, I guess.