Just for Nick, I'm listening to the podcast.
About 30 mins in and if you are basing your 'just chuck it in' philosophy purely on this, I'm surprised.
Notwithstanding the incredibly small sample group and complete lack of controls in the 'experiment' (data collected by people writing in and measured by things like preference), the general conclusion is .....well....inconclusive. it certainly isn't solid enough to just completely discard anything previously written by Narziss, Briggs, Fix, Bamforth etc.
Some trubby pale ales were preferred despite possibly harsher bitterness. A non trubby Black IPA was preferred by the brewer while the announcer liked the trubby one. A Kolsch was considered cleaner without trub by the brewer, a hefe was similar although the brewer's club colleagues thought differently.
As mentioned in a previous post, I have previously thrown all trub in, back when I brewed on a weber barbecue with two small tapless pots and chilled in the bath*. Beer turned out fine which tells me what the podcast tells me and what I have always maintained - hot break won't immediately destroy your beer. That seems to be the main point of this podcast but why is that so interesting? The proper studies on hot break effects talk about things like long term stability, subtle differences etc. It's about improving and streamlining process to make the best product possible (at least as far as the market is concerned) not keeping poison out of your beer. The surprise that trub doesn't make beer automatically taste like arse and in some cases may have slight benefits is strange considering that this is already known. There is a literature review which I am trying to find (previously linked by MHB and bigfridge) for example which finds most of the ideas in the podcast pretty much covered - some protein carry over may have benefit to head retention, flavour etc, some studies found big negatives, some very little, some benefits. Some say yes, some say no which means not everything is known. The podcast says the same thing with more variables.
*Back before book learning turned me into a total academic bewer with my fancy Kmart esky and my elitist 'ferment directly in the NC cube in a water bath' bizzo.
I asked if the podcast contained anything about long term stability - your response was "listen to the ******* podcast angry face'. One sentence to say 'no but they mention it would be a good idea to leave a few bottles in a hot place for a while and see' could have been pretty easily written. If I can try and summarise my experiences or a chapter or paragraph in a book, you could courteously summarise an answer to a reasonable question. 60 mins to find out that one of the biggest negatives in regard to HB inclusion isn't covered but that it might be a good idea for another show?
A link here on lauter turbidity - keep in mind that lauter turbidity is turbidity of the wort pre-boil (so more to do with recirculation or lack thereof). Turbidity is still protein related and these proteins are still considered to have similar effects to hot break on stability. I'll see if I can hunt up the review because it mentions quite a few other studies (both pro and con turbid wort) which people can research for themselves.
http://www.endoc.net/PDF2/0424.pdf