#314 - How to Make Health Decisions When the Science Is Unclear | Dr. Anupam Jena & Mike Haney
LEVELS – A Whole New LevelShow Notes
Most health decisions happen before the science is settled. A study points one way, another points somewhere else, experts disagree about what matters, and even strong population-level evidence may not tell you what will happen to you.
In this episode, Mike Haney talks with physician and economist Dr. Anupam Jena about how to make decisions under that kind of uncertainty. The goal isn’t to find a single hierarchy of evidence or a perfect source to trust. It’s to understand how much weight to put on any one piece of information, when personal experimentation can actually teach you something, and how the potential downside of an intervention should change the amount of evidence you demand before trying it.
Free course: Improve your metabolic health Get our free email course on how glucose, nutrition, exercise, sleep, and measurement can help you build habits that support better energy and long-term health: https://levels.link/wnl
What We Cover: Why even a high-quality study should rarely change your mind by itself Why a meta-analysis is only as useful as the studies that go into it What randomized trials can establish, and where they can still fail to apply to real life How to judge whether a study’s outcome is actually meaningful, not merely statistically significant When N-of-1 experiments can help, and how they can fool you A practical framework for deciding whether an intervention is worth trying: potential harm, quality of evidence, biological plausibility, and cost
🎙️ About the Guest: Dr. Anupam Jena is the Joseph P. Newhouse Professor of Health Care Policy at Harvard Medical School, a physician at Massachusetts General Hospital, and an economist whose research uses natural experiments to uncover unexpected influences on health and medical care. He is also the host of Freakonomics, M.D. and co-author of Random Acts of Medicine.
📍What Dr. Anupam Jena & Mike Haney discussed: 04:04 - Why taxi and ambulance drivers die least often of Alzheimer's 09:20 - Why half of people still skip a free heart medication 13:02 - Why the headlines on coffee keep reversing 14:55 - Judge the study on its merits, not on who funded it 17:43 - Why even a high-quality study should rarely change your mind 23:04 - Why a cold plunge trial cannot separate the bath from the belief 26:19 - Why a meta-analysis is only as useful as the studies inside it 27:15 - What a randomized trial can establish, and where it still fails in real life 33:53 - The coin-flip test for whether a study shows cause and effect 36:25 - Absolute risk, relative risk, and what "significant" leaves out 43:06 - When an N-of-1 experiment can teach you what a trial cannot 46:02 - Getting better does not mean the experiment worked 53:55 - Harm, evidence, plausibility, cost: is it worth trying?
🔗 Helpful Links: Dr. Anupam Jena — Harvard Medical School profile Random Acts of Medicine — Anupam B. Jena & Christopher Worsham Freakonomics, M.D. https://freakonomics.com/series/bapu Alzheimer’s mortality among taxi and ambulance drivers (BMJ, 2024). Hypothesis-generating, not evidence that driving prevents Alzheimer’s: Read the BMJ study Marathon road closures and cardiac mortality (NEJM, 2017): New England Journal of Medicine
Watch the conversation: https://youtu.be/k9XI7ym7iP8 Find us on YouTube: https://youtube.com/levelshealth?sub_confirmation=1
📲 Connect: Connect with Dr. Anupam Jena on https://x.com/AnupamBJena
👋 Who we are: Levels helps you understand your metabolic health with personalized data, expert guidance, and tools that connect your daily choices to measurable changes in your body. Our goal is to help you make better decisions about food, exercise, sleep, and long-term health.
Look for new shows every month on A Whole New Level, where we have in-depth conversations with thought leaders about metabolic health.
More from LEVELS – A Whole New Level
Heart disease is the leading cause of death, but it’s also one of the most preventable. Decades of research have established a strong causal role for LDL and other ApoB-containing particles in atherosclerosis, and we now have multiple proven ways to lower them. The harder question is how to turn that evidence into a decision for an individual person. Mike Haney talks with Johns Hopkins cardiologist Dr. Seth Martin, a co-author of the new 2026 dyslipidemia guidelines, about what the latest evidence says we should actually measure and act on. The throughline is pragmatic: lower exposure to atherogenic particles earlier and for longer, use additional tests when they can change a decision, and distinguish interesting new measurements from ones that have actually been shown to improve outcomes.
Most of NextLevel starts with a measurement problem: we can see more biology than ever, but we still have to figure out what to do with it. Bioelectronic medicine flips that sequence. We already know how to send electrical signals into the nervous system to change biology, including an FDA-approved vagus nerve treatment for rheumatoid arthritis, even though we still can’t map or read most of the individual nerve fibers carrying those signals.
Most medical imaging happens after a symptom, injury, or abnormal test gives a clinician a reason to look. But what changes if imaging becomes a more routine measurement, creating a record of the body before something goes wrong? In this episode of Next Level, Mike Haney talks with Dr. Daniel Durand, chief medical officer at Prenuvo, about whole-body MRI as a test case for a broader shift from episodic medicine toward longitudinal health data. Whole-body MRI is controversial, and Durand is clearly an advocate. The conversation takes the skepticism seriously, then asks a larger question: as measurement gets cheaper, more frequent, and increasingly visible to patients themselves, how should medicine decide what is worth knowing?
Alcohol has spent the last 40 years bouncing between two health narratives: a little is good for your heart, or any amount is dangerous. The science doesn’t really support either slogan. Dr. Tim Naimi has spent decades studying the health effects of alcohol and, just as importantly, why the research is so difficult to interpret. His read of the evidence is less dramatic but more useful: there’s no good reason to start drinking for your health, very low intake may carry little measurable added risk, and risk rises as consumption does. Understanding why earlier studies made moderate drinking look protective helps explain a lot of the whiplashing headlines.
From a single blood sample, new proteomic tools can now measure thousands of proteins at once. Dr. Tony Wyss-Coray’s lab is using that flood of data, together with machine learning, to build a much higher-resolution picture of what’s happening throughout the body and where someone’s health may be headed.