The following is a transcript excerpt from Dr. Jordan Peterson’s conversation with physician and longevity expert Peter Attia about the benefits of exercise‚ even from just three hours a week. You can listen to or watch the full podcast episode on DailyWire+. Start time: 04:07 Jordan Peterson: A long while back I was looking at interventions to improve people’s lives‚ and I knew at that point cognitive decline was a major problem‚ especially in terms of productivity and general competence. It is a pretty pronounced linear downhill trend on the fluid intelligence front from about the age of 25 forward‚ and that can decline precipitously in the late 70s and early 80s‚ especially with the onset of degenerative neurological diseases. I was looking at the literature on cognitive remediation. This was about 10 or 15 years ago when there were a lot of online sites that purported to run you through cognitive exercises that could increase or maintain your IQ. There has never been any evidence for that‚ by the way. It is pretty damn dismal literature. But what I did find‚ and I think this is extremely solid‚ is that if you want to maintain your cognitive function‚ both cardiovascular exercise and weight lifting seem to do a pretty damn good job. Maybe that is because the brain is such an oxygen demanding organ. It is energy demanding and resource demanding in other ways‚ and if you can keep yourself cardiovascularly fit‚ interestingly enough‚ that is the best pathway to cognitive health. Then I looked on the psychological side and found there were interventions that helped people get their story straight. Of course‚ psychotherapy is one of those‚ but there are also written interventions. If people write about their past‚ about their past traumas‚ and if they write about their future plans‚ they reduce general uncertainty that reduces their stress‚ and that seems to produce a relatively pronounced physiological benefit. So there is an interesting interplay there in terms of the emotional and the physical. It is pretty funny that if you want to improve your cognitive function or maintain it‚ you should exercise rather than think‚ and if you want to improve your physiology‚ you should straighten out your story and face your traumas rather than‚ say‚ exercise.  What do you recommend in your book Outlive with regard to the expansion of health span? What do you think? And how do you practice this personally? What do you recommend to people?  Peter Attia: I think that exercise is empirically the most valuable tool we have for both the cognitive and physical components. So let’s start with the cognitive because I think it was less intuitive. So about 10 years ago when I really went down this rabbit hole‚ I had one of my research analysts spend a lot of time going through the literature‚ so we created a framework where we were going to look at every single intervention and how it impacted executive function‚ processing speed‚ short-term memory‚ and long-term memory. Those were the four metrics we cared about because‚ as you point out‚ those are all bits of intelligence that decline with age. We looked at everything. We looked at every molecule. We looked at every possible thing that you could think of. And after about nine months of this‚ the thing that stood out above all else — beyond any diet‚ beyond the importance of sleep‚ and other things that certainly mattered‚ controlling blood pressure‚ lipids‚ et cetera — was exercise. And even though I was a lifelong exerciser and love to exercise‚ I just couldn’t believe it. It seemed so trite that exercise could have such a profound difference on the state of cognition‚ not just in terms of its performance as effectively a no trophic‚ but also in its ability to delay — if not outright prevent — dementia. Once we dug into the mechanisms‚ I think it became clear why exercise is so potent‚ and it’s basically that it is acting on so many different levels. So as you pointed out‚ it’s acting at a metabolic level. The brain is such an energy demanding organ‚ as you know and maybe your listeners do‚ it weighs about 2% of your body weight and it’s responsible for 20 to 25% of your energy consumption. Therefore‚ anything that disrupts that is catastrophic. When you look at the improvements in glucose disposal‚ insulin sensitivity‚ and all metabolic parameters‚ exercise is the most important tool we have there. When you look at the reduction of inflammation‚ vascular health improvements‚ again‚ exercise stands alone. When you look at the production of neurotrophic growth factors such as BDNF‚ again‚ exercise is basically a drug for neurons. I think I eventually came around after a year or so to realize that‚ again‚ as simple as it sounds‚ exercise is such a potent tool. And you look at the brains of people who exercise a lot and you can see far less damage‚ not just microvascularly‚ but in terms of brain volume lost over time. Jordan Peterson: So let’s talk about exercise from the perspective of a behavioral psychologist. One of the things you learn as a behavioral psychologist is that it is very difficult for people to change their attitudes or their actions‚ and it is very difficult for people to change their lives. We all know this because we might tell ourselves‚ for example‚ to exercise‚ and we might be well supplied with arguments for why that is a good idea‚ but that does not necessarily mean we learn how to incorporate an exercise routine into our lives. There are many reasons for that‚ one being that exercise is difficult‚ but it is also often the case that people do not form a strategy and break the problem down into steps that are simple enough to actually implement. They think things like‚ “Well‚ I’ll go to the gym two hours a day‚ three times a week‚ and I’ll start that next week.” The truth of the matter is they do not have six hours to spend‚ and they cannot tell themselves what to do anyway. So as a behavioral psychologist‚ you look at the simplest possible change that produces the maximum possible benefit. For example‚ if people want to begin to implement an exercise routine‚ like maybe a daily walk of 10 minutes in the morning‚ where would you start someone? Peter Attia: So it completely depends on their baseline. But based on your question‚ I’m going to take it as we’re talking about someone who’s doing no exercise. The good news is‚ first of all — and I accept the fact that not everybody is swayed by data‚ but I at least want to put it out there — if you’re a person who’s in the “doing zero exercise per week” camp‚ the very good news is the benefit you get from going from zero to three hours a week is a greater benefit than anyone gets along the exercise curve. So taking someone who’s at five hours and taking them to 15 will produce less relative benefit than going from zero to three. So in other words‚ I want that person to see some real incentive for making this change. Secondly‚ I’ll put some numbers to it. So going from no exercise to three hours a week approximately reduces your all cause mortality — that is to say‚ death — by every cause by 50% at any moment in time. So if you’re standing there asking‚ what’s the probability I’m going to die this year? Well‚ we can sort of actuarially figure that out. You get to cut that number in half by simply going from zero to three hours of exercise a week if you’re a non-exerciser. So again‚ there’s going to be a subset of people for whom that’s a very powerful piece of information they didn’t know. Then what I would say is‚ how do you do that? I agree with you that you’re much better off trying to do 30 minutes six times a week than three hours once a day or two hours‚ you know‚ in whatever fashion. What I would say is the most effective way to do that is probably about 90 minutes of low intensity cardio. And for a person who’s not particularly fit‚ that’s going to amount to just brisk walking. Rather than tell them what to do‚ I tell them how to feel when they’re doing it. So what you want to feel is out of breath enough that you can barely carry out a conversation‚ but you could if you had to‚ but not so out of breath that you can’t carry on a conversation and not so easy that you can speak easily. So there is that sweet spot in there. Physiologically‚ we call that zone two‚ but I’m not going to bore them with that nomenclature. It’s just basically 90 minutes to‚ say‚ three times 30 or two times 45 a week where you’re just out of breath enough that you don’t want to talk‚ but you could if you had to. That’s part one. Jordan Peterson: So you push yourself past‚ or slightly past‚ your simple level of comfort. Then let me push on you a bit with regards to three hours a week‚ again‚ from the perspective of taking someone from zero to somewhere. You talked about the benefits of walking‚ something approximating 20 to 25 minutes a day‚ that can be dispersed out various ways. You also mentioned two 45-minute sessions or three 30-minute sessions. What would happen if someone goes from zero to like 10 minutes a day or an hour a week? Where do the benefits of that 3 hours kick in? Peter Attia: Yes‚ that’s a great question. I don’t think we have the fidelity of the data at that level because you generally don’t push enough of a conditioning benefit. But I think what you’re getting at‚ and we do this as well‚ is you want to separate between the behavior change and the physiologic change. James Clear has written a lot about this‚ but I think a lot of people have come to the same conclusion with any behavior change. If it’s a person who’s never done anything‚ you’re right; the answer might be for every day when you wake up in the morning‚ rather than your normal routine of jumping in front of the computer‚ I want you to go and walk around the block once. It’ll take four minutes. I don’t want to represent [that] you’re going to get a physiologic benefit from that. You probably won’t. But what you will get is‚ you’re going to start to reset a behavior which is‚ “Aha‚ the first thing I do in the morning now is this other thing‚” and we’ll slowly increase that and at some point you will get a physiologic benefit. But what we’re doing is planting the seed of how to change the behavior. * * * To hear the rest of the conversation‚ continue by listening or watching this episode on DailyWire+.  Dr. Jordan B. Peterson is a clinical psychologist and professor emeritus at the University of Toronto. From 1993 to 1998 he served as assistant and then associate professor of psychology at Harvard. He is the international bestselling author of Maps of Meaning‚ 12 Rules For Life‚ and Beyond Order. You can now listen to or watch his popular lectures on DailyWire+.

On his podcast Thursday‚ Daily Wire Editor Emeritus Ben Shapiro explained the enormous importance of a decision the Supreme Court is about to consider‚ as it could shift power back to the legislature and take it back from federal agencies. “The court decision is about whether federal regulatory agencies are capable of regulating huge swaths of American life or whether it turns out those regulations have to stand up to constitutional scrutiny‚” he continued. As they considered two cases in which herring fishermen from New Jersey and Rhode Island challenged federal rules requiring commercial fishermen to pay for at-sea monitors‚ the Court argued over the so-called Chevron deference. As Shapiro explained: Conservatives have been targeting a framework that was set up in 1984 under a case called Chevron USA v Natural Resources Defense Council. That case set up something called Chevron deference‚ which suggested that if the Congress passed a law and the law wasn’t specific enough‚ that  regulatory agencies could then use their expertise to read the tea leaves; sit there and Rorschach test the thing and come up with giant books filled with regulations based on the big language of statute. And then presumably the courts would have nothing to say about it‚ because if Congress really wanted to do anything about it‚ they could pass a new regulation taking power away from regulatory agencies. But they hadn’t. And therefore the courts could not sit in judgment on anything these regulatory agencies were doing. “That creates a truly perverse incentive structure where Congress is never held accountable because if something goes wrong‚ it’s not happening because of them. It’s happening because of the regulators‚” he said. “It is up to the judiciary to maintain the balance of power‚ the checks and balances that were set up in the Constitution‚ which is why Chevron deference should die‚” he stated bluntly. “[Justice Neil] Gorsuch has called long ago for getting rid of Chevron deference‚” he recalled. “Of course‚ Democrats are very much in favor of it because they believe in a bureaucratic administrative‚ centralized government where elections don’t matter so much in the legislative branch‚ where everything can be done by a powerful executive branch. This is a model of government first pushed by Woodrow Wilson in the early 20th century.” “The notion that regulatory agencies ought to be unanswerable entirely when it comes to their interpretations of statutes by the judiciary hands far too much power to the executive branch of government‚” Shapiro asserted. “A restoration‚ by the way‚ of checks and balances in government where the legislature legislates and the executive branch executes and the judiciary adjudicates would be the single best thing that could happen in the United States to restore any level of credibility in our government.” “We think Congress is incompetent because they don’t even do the legislating. They pass giant omnibus packages. And then we think the executive grabs too much power and thus is incompetent because they have too much power over our lives. … And then we think the judiciary just sits there and does nothing about any of this‚” he said. “When the various branches of government do what they were supposed to do in the first place. they reestablish their credibility. That’s why it would be excellent if the Supreme Court did get rid of Chevron deference.” he concluded.

The GOP-led House voted on Thursday to pass another short-term spending bill to avert a government shutdown over the objection of a group of conservative members who were angling to get border security reforms attached and rein in the national debt. By a 314-108 tally‚ which was bipartisan‚ the lower chamber approved a measure to fund the various federal agencies in two stages: some through March 1 and others through March 8. Because the Democrat-controlled Senate already passed the spending legislation by a 77-18 vote‚ the bill now heads to the White House‚ where President Joe Biden will likely sign it. The stop-gap spending measure will give lawmakers more time to hash out their differences on fiscal 2024 legislation that has already been pushed back multiple times. The latest deadline for a prior two-step continuing resolution was set to be the end of Friday‚ but further votes this week are getting canceled with a winter storm in the forecast for Washington‚ D.C. Senators overcame the 60-vote threshold to pass the legislation earlier on Thursday after they voted 50-44 to reject an amendment offered by Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) to restrain aid to the Palestinians until all hostages abducted by Hamas in the terrorist attacks on Israel are released and other conditions. In the House‚ 207 Democrats joined with 107 Republicans to achieve the two-thirds majority vote necessary to pass the bill. Two Democrats and 106 Republicans‚ including House GOP Conference Chairwoman Elise Stefanik (R-NY)‚ voted against the measure while 11 members did not vote. Members of the conservative Freedom Caucus pushed GOP leadership to tack on border security policy changes‚ but to no avail. The group released an “official position” urging Republicans to “uphold commitments to end inflationary spending and secure the border” and specifically called on conservatives to “oppose the Johnson-Schumer CR.” The leaders referenced by the Freedom Caucus‚ House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY)‚ joined other top members of Congress for a meeting with Biden at the White House on Wednesday to discuss a national security funding request for U.S. allies such as Ukraine and Israel as well as border security while a bipartisan group of senators try to hash out an immigration deal. “I told President Biden: it’s on you‚” Johnson said in a post to X. “Your policies created the border crisis. Your executive action can end it. House Republicans will continue to demand transformative policy change and hold this administration accountable until the border is secure.”

This week‚ amidst all of the domestic political hubbub here in the United States‚ the World Economic Forum (WEF) is happening over at Davos. Now‚ why exactly is the World Economic Forum important? In 1971‚ there was an organization that was established by Klaus Schwab‚ who is a German engineer‚ economist‚ and professor with a James Bond villain accent. He created this organization so that heads of business in heads of state could discuss what he called “stakeholder capitalism.” Stakeholder capitalism was a theory he expressed that essentially suggested if you owned a company‚ you ought not answer to your shareholders; if you managed a company‚ you ought not answer to profit margin or shareholders. Instead‚ you ought to answer to every stakeholder in the world — meaning governments. Meaning people who didn’t own stock in your company. Meaning everyone. Now‚ you might ask yourself: Then to whom are you accountable? Because it turns out that the rando who doesn’t own shares in your company can actually fire you or sell your stock or change anything about the way you run your company. The answer that Klaus Schwab would give is: You are answerable to no one. You‚ as the head of a company‚ should be like a king with his own little kingdom. You‚ as the head of a company‚ should be a lord‚ and the company should act as your fiefdom. And you can pretend that you’re acting in the name of the general will. But what you truly are is some sort of prophet from on high brought to spread your values. And this was the basis of stakeholder capitalism. WATCH: The Ben Shapiro Show This theory was promoted via what was called the European Management Symposium. That’s what the WEF was originally called in 1971. By 1975‚ it had grown so quickly that 860 participants‚ including the CEOs and chairman of the largest European companies‚ started showing up. That same year‚ only four years after creation‚ the European Management Forum‚ the EMF‚ was now partnering with the United Nations. According to the WEF website itself‚ “After just five years‚ the Forum had gained acceptance at the highest levels of business and government. While not advocating policy or strategy‚ the Forum had become a respected organization that served as a valuable platform for business‚ government‚ civil society and other stakeholders to confer and collaborate. Klaus Schwab’s stakeholder theory was beginning to evolve into a broader concept of corporate global citizenship.”  In 1987‚ the European Management Forum changed its name from the EMF to the WEF.  So what is the WEF today? The same thing‚ except bigger‚ much more prominent. 10‚000 people show up at the WEF every year‚ but the people who are on stage‚ the people who are meeting in the back rooms‚ are all of the global influential people. They are the heads of major corporations and the heads of government‚ and they all come to pat each other on the back and explore what they have in common. What they have in common is a very peculiar set of values you do not share with them‚ a set of values that suggest they are responsible for solving all of the world’s problems. They should collude and decide what system prevails everywhere. They should collude and decide what information you are capable of seeing and understanding problems like the climate. They will get together‚ and they will restructure entire swathes of the global economy in order to fight back against climate change.  This is what they do. Let’s face it‚ this is a weird group of people because the people at the top levels of power‚ particularly in the West‚ are a strange group of people. They are disproportionately secular. They are disproportionately of the political Left. These are people who do not have ties to traditional ways of life in traditional values. They are also people who seem to have scorn for the culture that actually bore them and‚ instead‚ have embraced this peculiar notion of multiculturalism in which all cultures are created equal. And that leads to this really sort of paternalistic and odd look at the WEF‚ where people are walking in wearing $5‚000 suits and $20‚000 watches‚ and then they are paying homage to poor Native Americans or natives of Europe or whoever is showing up. Yesterday at the WEF‚ for example‚ there was a bizarre spectacle of a native woman of some sort with her face painted‚ appearing before various company owners‚ heads of state‚ and top level bureaucrats. These Bane knockoffs‚ except in corporate garb‚ have come up with all sorts of interesting and weird ways to restructure the global system in order to run it and control you. CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILY WIRE APP There’s language people in the West love to use when they’re talking about controlling you: the language of war. The War on Poverty is about controlling income. It is about controlling redistribution of wealth. The war on climate change is similarly about controlling exactly how you live your life. These people are eager to use war language‚ because in a war‚ you get to take control of literally everyone‚ day and night. But — there was one wonderful moment during the WEF. Javier Milei‚ who’s become my spirit animal‚ the President of Argentina‚ who is colorful and a wonderful economist rock star‚ an all around Wolfman‚ was speaking at the WEF. And he just laid into them‚ and it was wonderful. He stated:  Do not surrender to the advance of the state. The state is not the solution. The state is the problem itself. You are the true protagonists of this story. And rest assured that as from today‚ Argentina is your staunch‚ unconditional ally. … Long live freedom. Today I’m here to tell you that the Western world is in danger. And it is in danger because those who are supposed to have to defend the values of the West are co-opted by a vision of the world that inexorably leads to socialism and thereby to poverty. Unfortunately‚ in recent decades‚ motivated by some well-meaning individuals willing to help others and others motivated by the wish to belong to a privileged caste‚ the main leaders of the Western world have abandoned the model of freedom for different versions of what we call collectivism. This is great stuff. Good for Javier Milei for going to the WEF and slapping people across the head. It’s precisely what they deserve.

Democracy is never done. It is an ongoing process

How to crush so-called 'bad' sources of information

'Using the legal process to harass and embarrass District Attorney Willis'

Country music star Reba McEntire is set to rock the pregame stage

'Could not hire fast enough'

'I don't know why anybody would take a meeting with that sleaze ball'