When Predator Becomes Prey: Will Dr Layne Norton Choose Humility or Humiliation?

Could this person be a functional foe? Lane Norton finally blocked me. Now, I know what you're probably thinking. Either you're thinking, "Good riddance to bad rubbish," if you're not a Lane fan, or perhaps you're thinking, "Is this some sort of victory lap video where you're gonna try to prove how you got one over on Lane in his absence to get clicks and clout chase off a celebrity? Lame. Click off." I promise you, this is gonna be different. And I'll aim to provide some actual value through a post-hoc analysis of what I think happened, what I learned, and how we can apply those lessons. I'll also present my 3 criteria for fighting, i.e., the conditions under which I actually think it's appropriate to start or perpetuate an internet beef, which I present in large part as a self-audit to hold myself accountable and to honestly ask you to hold me accountable for future behavior. I only wanna do things if they're functional and value-add. First, the history on the whole me and Lane thing. Lane's MO is basic to dissect. He has built his brand on being the self-proclaimed BS crusher and aggressor. It's entertaining, and honestly, it's worked for his brand. But if he considers himself a predator, well, a good predator always chooses his prey wisely. And sometimes Layne missteps. I never went looking for a beef with Layne, but there was a moment when he noticed that keto Harvard boy and I started appearing in his feed with coverage that I found superficial or misleading. As a first example, in a response to a paper review video I did on intracellular metabolism of the molecule fructose, he misrepresented the coverage and went on some tangent about how saturated fat increases liver fat by 70% more than than fructose in an overfeeding setting. Ouch. First, I said nothing about saturated fat, and second, he cites a 1-week overfeeding trial where literally Figure 1A, the first thing shown in the paper, shows that fructose induces a massive spike in triglycerides circulating around in the blood, far more than saturated fat. Seems like that's kind of a critical detail to leave out. When this was highlighted, he failed to correct the record, but instead got defensive, continued to misrepresent my positions and failed to listen until he decided to drift away. More recently, and more pertinent to this discussion, Lane chose to cover my Oreo versus Statin study. For some further context, this followed me sending him a private email where I provided the opportunity to see the discussion section of a paper, that paper, the Oreo versus Statin paper, prior to me going to publication so that he could provide feedback for which I would give him credit. I also highlighted an editorial I wrote with 9 other researchers, clinicians, cardiologists, and lipidologists for the Journal of Clinical Lipidology on striking a balance between a conservative clinical stance and urgent research interest in a new phenotype. My intent was honestly to try to build a bridge where I knew there would be potential for fallout and friction since he's built his brand on jumping on and attacking anything pro-low-carb. Or produced by prominent "low-carbers." For better or worse, I guess I now fit that bill to some extent. So, my outreach, while genuine, was an attempt at prophylaxis, an olive branch extended so swords wouldn't need to be drawn in future. Didn't work, evidently. Down the line, we also published a meta-analysis, or set of meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials, which we figured would appeal to Lane given the frequency with with which he preaches the virtue of the human randomized controlled trial. Indeed, we had a group chat with Lane, me, Adrian Sotomayor, MD, PhD, and Dave Feldman, where Lane actively asked questions of myself and my co-authors with respect to the meta-analysis, and also secondarily with respect to Oreo versus statin. And we gave him the benefit of the doubt that his questions were sincere, and that he'd put that big brain he loves to talk about to work in providing a fair and comprehensive coverage of this subject matter with respect to the lipid-energy model and lean mass hyperresponders, ideally in conversations with us, which we did offer, or with colleagues like Professor William Cromwell, an expert in lipidology with over 30 years of lipidology experience. Sadly, Layne went and flubbed it, ignoring the bulk of the literature, including the meta-analyses of RCTs, which I find pretty hypocritical, given how much he loves to talk about RCTs, and also ignoring the positions of myself and colleagues on the issue of risk highlighted for him in the Journal of Clinical Lipidology editorial that I shared. Choosing instead— he chose instead to nutpick opinions of internet randos while also misrepresenting the physiology of the lipid-energy model that was presented to him in text, published text, and direct messages. His video wasn't an attack, to be clear, it was just poorly done. And given he was selling a "Data Over Feelings" shirt in his video, combined with some flagrant bullying after publication, which was honestly the straw that broke this camel's back to respond, I did give my feedback. Subsequently, it appeared his feelings were hurt, and then he quit on me, stating that he refused to engage with me on any social media platforms. Surprisingly, he was true to his word. I honestly didn't think he would be. Including ghosting or refusing offers to have a discussion with me on several platforms. Now, I won't share words exchanged in emails from mutual friends without permission, but words have been exchanged and I found them interesting. I'll leave it at that. Now, that could have been the end of it. Thorn out of my side, so to speak. Lane quit on me. Great. But then, Simon Hill, handle @TheProof, fact-checked Lane on his coverage of a protein study, where again Lane misrepresented the data. Simon pointed this out to Lane in a polite but rather viral manner, and I sat and watched with my proverbial popcorn to see what Lane would do. I saw it as an intellectual integrity litmus test. It was a fair rebuttal by Simon on data that was posed by someone who was not me and who was also not perceived to be a proponent of low-carb diets. Simon is more in the plant-based sphere. I wondered, would Laine engage or scurry off? He ghosted and scurried. That was a disappointment, but sensible from his point of view as a businessman and as a brand. Laine loves to attack and pick fights. It's his brand. But sometimes he picks fights He frankly loses out of the gate because his coverage can be shallow. Then, rather than engaging to promote nuance or correct the record, he runs to find more vulnerable prey. It's actually quite adaptive. If a lion chases prey and then realizes it might crush him, the lion runs away. It's adaptive. It's good for survival. Now, what do I, what do we learn from this? This series of interactions, woven with others I've had over the years, have made me a more critical analyzer of incentive structures. One can develop a chip on their shoulder and take things personally, and I'm not immune to that. I'm not gonna say I am. But instead, I found it all very curious and found value in dissecting it from a business and brand marketing perspective. Now, I try to ask myself questions. When I'm digesting content from others. First, who has this person built themself to be? What is their audience? Who is their audience? And what does that audience want? Influencers are largely beholden to their audiences and get reprimanded for getting out of line. That's just the truth, the incentive structure. I also ask myself too, has this person demonstrated the capacity within their brand of authentic humility, of correcting the record where they've been wrong? Or conversely, do they prefer the "just move on" brand-over-data approach, like Lane seemingly likes to? Finally, and most newly for me, could this person be a functional foe? Functional foe. What do I mean by this? I prefer to have allies and build bridges, I'm relatively new to this space, all things considered, but it's no secret by now that I have the intent to stick around for a while, and my growth won't stagnate, I promise you that. So, where there is overlap between me and other influencers, and it seems the person's actually worth engaging with, that they maybe have something to bring to the table, if efforts at bridge building do fail, do I let the person just slip away? Or do I change from a purely defensive and correct-the-record approach, as I've been historically, to an active offense, the technique Lane uses, but I think I can do better? Can I have functional foes, with Lane I suppose being the first at the top of the list? To be clear, I have not made this brand pivot, nor have I decided whether or not I actually want to. But is it both fair and functional to do so? Now I'm just being transparent and authentic about where my mind is right now, because I guess that's part of the brand I'm trying to build. Kind of meta there, you see what I did? But that brings me to my personal 3 criteria for fighting. Fighting with other influencers. Fighting. Not actually physically fighting. First, the confrontation needs to add value. This can be because it corrects the record on a matter of data interpretation that I think is important, or for other reasons like holding bullies to account to dissuade future inappropriate behavior. 2. Efforts at bridge-building must have occurred or be someway inaccessible. Again, I prefer building bridges rather than going Dracarys on them. So I will generally try a "will you be my friend, will you be my ally" approach first, which is generally best done privately. But if this fails or the person is otherwise impossible or difficult to access, then I feel better about going on the offensive, correcting the record at the very least. And then 3, and finally, and probably most importantly, I reserve the right to turn a functional foe into a functional friend. If every engagement has a purpose per Rule 1, and that purpose is better served by taking a past opponent on as an ally, I am in all cases prepared to bury the hatchet, provided that person comes with intellectual honesty and good faith. So I fully extend that offer to Dr. Lane Norton, as well as to others I've, quote, "boldly responded to" in the past, and probably will boldly respond to in the future. In summary, I prefer to hug rather than punch. But when I feel the moment calls for it, well, I have a spicy side. And I will consciously let it loose.