Why do corporations want you to be sick? How to live healthily? The Rodzeń Brothers

Majcher explains this is not the classic 80% fat medical keto for epilepsy; it’s a modified Atkins approach with emphasis on protein and natural foods. They consider meat a ‘superfood’ and describe traditional eating patterns before they were rebranded as a diet. The key mechanism: when carbs are restricted, insulin drops, allowing lipolysis and fat oxidation; ketone bodies are produced which provide clean fuel for brain and muscles. He rebuts claims that it’s restrictive — well-constructed low-carb is delicious, satiating, and reverses disease, while the mainstream ‘restriction’ myth comes from misunderstanding. He describes the 100g vs 50g net carb cutoff based on metabolic need, and warns about obsessively measuring ketones: as long as you are in a low-carb pattern, ketones fluctuate and you get the benefits. Seasonal fruits like strawberries can be included by metabolically healthy individuals, but diabetics treat fruit as dessert. The protocol can evolve: after reversing disease, one may become metabolically flexible and tolerate more carbs temporarily.

Majcher frames this as a counter to the cultural brainwashing that you must eat 5 meals a day, starting 30 minutes after waking. He admits it was mentally hard for him too, but he quickly discovered that morning hunger comes in waves and disappears after a few days. The underlying biology: each carb-heavy meal triggers an insulin spike; with frequent eating, insulin never fully normalises. By extending the no-food window, the body gets a clear signal that it can finally open insulin receptors and heal. He notes that the ‘breakfast is the most important meal’ mantra was largely driven by breakfast cereal companies. Once adapted, you naturally feel least hungry in the morning. He reassures that even if you feel hungry upon waking, a hot drink buys time and the sensation fades. The key is patience and seeing it as a natural human pattern, not a restriction.

Majcher contrasts the current trend of overwrapping children with the natural human adaptation to cold. He points out that babies are born in ketosis, highly metabolically flexible, but parents and societal ‘put on a hat’ norms destroy that flexibility. He sees cold as a necessary substitute for summer sun and intense outdoor activity, maintaining vitamin D status and metabolic rate. He references how children will rush into the Baltic Sea without hesitation while adults shiver because they lack brown fat. He criticises a dietitian influencer who mocked cold exposure as unsupported by evidence, arguing that lack of official studies doesn’t negate the physiological reality of BAT and mitochondrial adaptation. He frames cold exposure as part of the ‘can live beautifully’ lifestyle — not a burden, but a natural human state that modern comfort has eroded.

Majcher frames sugar addiction as more dangerous than nicotine because it is officially promoted as safe and even healthy, while tobacco is clearly labelled carcinogenic. He draws a parallel to the 1950s when cigarette companies hid cancer data; today, food companies know the harm yet market aggressively to children. The dopamine-driven cycle builds tolerance, so children demand more and more. He introduces the crucial three-factor model of addiction from the Vietnam soldier study: substance + stressful, cue-rich environment + predisposition. Soldiers heavily addicted to opioids overseas mostly quit spontaneously upon returning to a calm home, because the environment changed. Conversely, those with prior predisposition relapsed. He applies this to food: to prevent addiction, parents must not turn the home into a ‘Vietnam’ of constant processed food cues. Instead, they should create a safe environment and educate children about marketing manipulation, explaining that Messi and Beckham on chips packets are paid millions. He rejects the culture of celebrating with sugar (birthdays, Fat Thursday) and replaces it with low-carb alternatives or other rituals.

Majcher counters the common claim that athletes need carbohydrates, especially for high-intensity sports. He explains that early research concluding keto harms sport was flawed because it didn’t allow adaptation. Once adapted, fat oxidation rates can reach impressive levels even at 86% VO2max. He cites a study showing 1.5g fat/min oxidation. He lists athletes: NZB Frazier (triathlon legend, whole career low-carb), Mark Allen (6-time Ironman champ who kept it secret in the 80s–90s to avoid mockery), Tim Olson (won Western States 100-mile in 2012 and 2013 on LCHF). He also observes that many modern athletes develop prediabetes from constant gels, energy drinks, Haribo gummies, and bananas, yet they look fit. He advocates periodic HbA1c checks. He mentions the documentary ‘The Game Changers’ but doesn’t dismiss vegan athletes; he simply says any change from zero will show improvement, but low-carb uniquely reverses the metabolic damage caused by high-carb sports nutrition. He ends stating that a marathoner who develops fatty liver and type 2 diabetes from standard fueling is a failure, not an achievement.

Majcher describes how the medical establishment uses soft power: professors can block PhDs or specialist certifications, while conferences are almost entirely pharma-sponsored, shaping prescribing habits without overt corruption. He recounts a professor threatening to ‘fail’ his brother’s PhD just because of the Rodzeń name. Now a law with fines up to half a million złotys aims to enforce guideline compliance. He frames this as a test of integrity: doctors must follow current science, not outdated directives, and calls on colleagues not to be intimidated. The ultimate evidence, he says, is patients who have reversed type 2 diabetes after 30 years of standard treatment by adopting low-carb diets, tapering off 12 medications with their own doctors’ help. Banning access to such knowledge is criminal, and the penalty should be on those who suppress it.

Majcher and his brother met the young French couple who developed Nutriscore during a conference in Switzerland. The creators acted in good faith, driven by a desire to eliminate bad industry practices. However, food producers reacted defensively, even threatening the scientists—proof it was independent. Then the industry adapted: by tweaking formulations—adding some fibre or vitamins, swapping fats—they achieved ‘A’ ratings for products like breakfast cereals and even placki with wheat flour, sugar and preservatives. Meanwhile, olive oil got a C, nuts got a C. This creates the very ‘consumer doubt’ that pharma and food execs deliberately cultivate: the person thinking of reversing diabetes hears conflicting signals and ultimately gives up, returning to old habits. Majcher concludes the system has been so thoroughly ruined by industry that Nutriscore should be abandoned and consumers must simply learn to read ingredient labels.

Majcher’s group initially felt compelled to back every claim with a study, but after four years in public advocacy, they flipped: beware of anyone citing a study for each sentence. Pharma not only funds the research but also the summary leaflets given to doctors, over 90% of which manipulate information graphically. He gives the statin example: before 2005, companies pre-screened participants for intolerance, excluding those who got side effects, thus manufacturing artificially low side-effect claims (0.1% vs. ~20% in real practice). After the transparency mandate, no statin study showed net benefit. Therefore, he treats the individual patient who reverses type 2 diabetes as the ultimate randomised trial proof—unsponsored, real-world outcome. He acknowledges EBM’s original noble idea but says industry execution has thoroughly corrupted it.

Majcher sees the 80/20 rule as a commercial strategy: a large dietetic chain needs volume, and telling patients ‘you can still eat X, just less’ sounds appealing, but it won’t reverse long-standing insulin resistance or diabetes. He contrasts this with abstinence-based treatment for alcoholism or drug addiction—no clinician would tell an alcoholic to drink occasionally to maintain a healthy relationship with alcohol. The sugar/food industry knows that if consumers maintain occasional consumption, the addiction circuits remain active, increasing the likelihood of full relapse. He describes the typical scenario: someone with 3 months of clean low-carb eating gets permission from an influencer to have a doughnut on Fat Thursday, which spirals into losing all metabolic progress. His foundation’s stance is clear, consistent abstinence, at least until the patient has rebuilt their metabolic and psychological environment. He notes the rule varies by country (30/70, etc.), further revealing its arbitrary nature.