Paul Saladino Still Doesn't Understand Science | What the Fitness | Biolayne

Norton explains the critical physical difference: EPG is solid at room temperature and remains solid at body temperature. When you consume EPG, it stays in solid form throughout the digestive tract, acting like normal food chyme, and passes through without causing leakage. Olestra, in contrast, melted at body temperature into a liquid oil, which could pool and leak from the anal sphincter. This property difference is the entire reason EPG doesn't cause anal leakage, and no studies have shown such an effect. Norton himself ate up to four bars per day and gave them to friends and family with no issues, though he acknowledges individual sensitivities possible. He asserts Saladino either ignored or didn't read the actual science, instead relying on inaccurate comparisons.

Norton points out that the study found a small decrease in beta-carotene at a moderate EPG dose, but the highest dose group showed less decrease, not more. If EPG truly acted as a nutrient sink, you'd expect a linear dose-response: more EPG, greater depletion. Instead, the inverted result suggests the effect might be noise rather than real. He also underscores the mechanistic reason why EPG wouldn't trap fat-soluble vitamins: since it's solid at body temperature, it won't form micelles with vitamins to shuttle them out of the body, unlike liquid fat substitutes like Olestra. Thus, any minor beta-carotene change is likely clinically insignificant.

Norton explains that food formulation involves balancing taste, texture, shelf life, and appearance. David's team noticed that some early bars browned over time; while not dangerous, a color shift could make consumers think the product had spoiled. To fix this, they reformulated, increasing the use of maltitol. Maltitol also helps reduce the bar's glycemic response and contributes to mouthfeel. So, the use of sugar alcohols was a practical solution, not a reckless addition of 'chemicals'. Norton implies that Saladino's criticism of sugar alcohols is overstated, as they serve multiple functional roles.

Norton uses this as a prime example of why people should worry more about undisclosed conflicts of interest than disclosed ones. While Norton openly states his investment in David bars, Saladino's pivot from condemning whey to selling it is not equally transparent. Norton frames this as a pattern of dishonesty: Saladino will proclaim something harmful until he can monetize it, then conveniently reverse his position. This, Norton argues, makes Saladino's original claims about David bars less credible, as they may be driven by competitive market interests rather than science.