While the term "hyperpalatable" has been used frequently for considerable time to refer to foods that are so appealing and tasty that they drive overeating, this term hasn't been well-defined nor has there been a universal standard for what it means.

One researcher who set out to create an objective definition for hyper-palatable foods (HPFs) is Dr. Tera Fazzino. Using specific defined thresholds of sugar, fat and salt combinations, Dr. Fazzino and colleagues have looked at the impact of consumption of these HPFs.

In this episode, we delve into defining HPFs and their nutrient profiles, whether they have addictive-like properties, how HPFs differ from (and overlap with) ultra-processed foods (UPFs), the mechanisms by which these foods drive overconsumption, and the broader public health implications.

Tera Fazzino, PhD, is an associate professor of psychology at the University of Kansas. Her research focuses on addiction, obesity, and eating-related behaviors.

• [03:39] Interview begins
• [05:05] Attempting to define hyper palatability
• [10:03] Nutrient combinations in hyper palatable foods
• [14:54] Prevalence of hyper palatable foods
• [17:43] Debate on ultra processed foods
• [30:02] Mechanisms behind hyper palatability
• [35:06] Addiction theory and hyper-palatable foods
• [43:38] Early exposure and long-term effects
• [50:53] Key ideas recap

• • Go to episode page (with links to studies mentioned)
  • Join the Sigma email newsletter for free
  • Subscribe to Sigma Nutrition Premium
  • Enroll in the next cohort of our Applied Nutrition Literacy course

In this episode, the discussion turns to a deceptively simple question that sits at the centre of countless nutrition debates: how much protein do we actually need?

On one side, there are confident claims that very high protein intakes are not just beneficial but essential for maximising strength, performance, and muscle mass. On the other, equally strong assertions that the current RDA is entirely sufficient for most people, and that going beyond it is unnecessary or even harmful.

Dr. Eric Helms and Dr. Matthew Nagra work through what the evidence actually tells us when we step away from slogans and thresholds. What does 0.8 g/kg represent, and just as importantly, what does it not? At what point do higher intakes stop meaningfully improving muscle-related outcomes? And where do concerns about kidney function, longevity, and chronic disease fit when we look at long-term data rather than isolated mechanisms?

Rather than treating protein as a single number to defend or dismiss, this conversation places intake in context: training status, ageing, health outcomes, source and optimising for specific goals.

• [05:19] Discussion starts
• [07:18] Setting the scene: protein intake and health
• [09:38] Health outcomes and protein intake
• [10:27] Mechanistic measures vs. longitudinal outcomes
• [15:47] The RDA: purpose and limitations
• [19:19] Higher protein recommendations: where do they come from?
• [21:48] Protein intake for athletes and general population
• [27:25] Dose response and optimal protein intake
• [44:59] Statistical errors in Morton meta-analysis
• [46:07] Comparing meta-analyses: Morton, Tagawa, and Nunez
• [56:23] Mechanistic claims and protein intake
• [59:49] Nitrogen balance and protein requirements
• [01:11:55] Protein sources and health outcomes
• [01:18:13] Summarizing optimal protein intake
• [01:24:31] Key ideas segment (premium subscribers only)

• Go to the episode page (with linked studies & resources)
• Join the Sigma email newsletter for free
• Subscribe to Sigma Nutrition Premium
• Enroll in the next cohort of our Applied Nutrition Literacy course
• Dr. Helms:
  • MASS Research Review
  • Muscle & Strength Pyramids books
  • Instagram: @helms3dmj
• Dr. Nagra:
  • Instagram: @dr.matthewnagra
  • Dr. Nagra's website

Maintaining the ability to carry out everyday tasks and live independently is often described as a cornerstone of healthy ageing. But what actually happens to muscle strength, power, and functional ability as we get older? And how inevitable is their decline?

At what point do changes in muscle function really begin to matter for day-to-day life? Is loss of strength an unavoidable consequence of ageing itself, or does it reflect something more modifiable? If declines are not fixed, what kinds of training or lifestyle interventions genuinely make a difference, and how strong is the evidence behind them?

In this episode, exercise physiologist Dr Brendan Egan examines these questions through the lens of both epidemiological data and controlled training studies in older adults. What do we learn from short-term resistance training interventions lasting just a few months? Do the gains persist once supervised training ends? And what does this tell us about the practical challenges of maintaining functional capacity over the long term?

The conversation also explores the idea of "use it or lose it" in muscle function, the role of resistance training in extending healthspan, and how exercise programmes can be designed to support independence later in life. Ultimately, the episode asks a simple but crucial question: what does the evidence actually say about staying strong, capable, and functionally independent as we age?

Dr. Brendan Egan is an Associate Professor of Sport and Exercise Physiology the School of Health and Human Performance at Dublin City University. Currently, he is Associate Dean for Research in the Faculty of Science and Health.

• [03:49] Understanding functional capacity
• [05:56] The importance of muscle strength and mass
• [14:09] Epidemiology and strength training
• [25:07] Concurrent training in older adults study
• [31:05] Barriers to strength training in older adults
• [34:18] Misconceptions about older adults and exercise
• [39:13] Exercise snacking and SBAE
• [51:04] Key ideas segment (Premium-only)

• Go to episode page (with links to studies)
• Join the Sigma email newsletter for free
• Subscribe to Sigma Nutrition Premium
• Enroll in the next cohort of our Applied Nutrition Literacy course