Tag: diet

  • Restraint Is the Superpower You Need

    Restraint Is the Superpower You Need

    In a few months I will turn sixty-five, and at first glance I appear to be doing everything right. I swing kettlebells. I pedal my Schwinn Airdyne with the determination of a man trying to escape a prison camp. I accumulate sweat at an industrial scale. My workouts are filled with muscle, stamina, grit, and a willingness to suffer that borders on the theatrical.

    Yet I deserve no bragging rights.

    In fact, I deserve a large serving of Humble Pie with a side dish of Contrition.

    Why?

    Because after decades of lifting, pedaling, sweating, straining, and pretending to be a rugged disciple of physical culture, I somehow missed the memo about the true superpower of fitness.

    The superpower is restraint.

    Not deadlifts. Not kettlebells. Not interval training. Not grit.

    Restraint.

    The real challenge arrives not during a workout but fifteen minutes before one, when a tiny twinge of hunger appears and whispers seductive nonsense into your ear.

    “Perhaps a small snack?”

    The suggestion seems harmless enough. Maybe some apple slices. A few crackers. A little hummus. Nothing excessive. Nothing worthy of a confession.

    But this is where adulthood enters the arena.

    The inner child says, “I’m hungry.”

    The inner adult replies, “You’ll survive.”

    The child says, “Let’s eat something.”

    The adult says, “No. This feeling is temporary.”

    The child says, “But I’m uncomfortable.”

    The adult says, “A little discomfort is not an emergency.”

    The child says, “What if I starve?”

    The adult says, “You weigh 230 pounds. Starvation is not currently on the agenda.”

    The child says, “I need fuel.”

    The adult says, “You need self-control.”

    The child says, “You’re mean.”

    The adult says, “Finish your workout.”

    This conversation, repeated thousands of times over a lifetime, turns out to matter far more than any exercise program.

    Unfortunately, while I spent decades cultivating muscle and stamina, I neglected to cultivate authority over my rapacious inner child. The result is that I carry roughly thirty extra pounds around like a monument to unfinished business.

    My doctor wants me to get my annual blood work done—cholesterol, triglycerides, glucose, and the rest of the alphabet soup. But I find myself reluctant.

    Why?

    Because the last time I took the test I weighed 230 pounds.

    A year later, I still weigh 230 pounds.

    Why spend money confirming what I already know?

    Part of me wants to send my doctor a message:

    “Dear Doctor,

    I am currently too fat to appreciate another blood test. The numbers will simply inform us that I remain exactly as fat as I was last year. Instead, I am attempting to acquire the superpower of restraint. Once I possess it, I shall happily report for blood work so that both of us may enjoy the pleasant novelty of improved results.”

    The power of restraint is difficult to overstate.

    Right now I train six days a week and hover around 230 pounds. I suspect I consume something close to 3,000 calories a day.

    If I consistently reduced that intake to around 2,200 calories, I could probably eliminate half my training volume. I could abandon hours of cardio, keep a few weekly kettlebell sessions, and gradually become a lean, muscular 200-pound version of myself.

    That realization is both liberating and humiliating.

    For years I treated exercise as the hero of the story.

    Exercise is important, but restraint is the executive producer.

    Exercise burns calories.

    Restraint prevents them from arriving in the first place.

    Exercise can strengthen your body.

    Restraint changes your body.

    Exercise can improve your health.

    Restraint determines whether the improvements are visible.

    Training can carry you only so far. At some point you arrive at a fork in the road where sweat stops being the limiting factor and appetite takes over.

    That is where the battle is won or lost.

    Restraint is the exit sign leading away from adiposity and self-reproach.

    Restraint is the quiet force that makes training matter.

    Restraint is what allows effort to cash its check.

    And so, as I prepare for today’s workout, there will be no pre-exercise snack. No crackers. No apple slices. No hummus.

    Just a tall glass of Contrition.

    And perhaps, if I am fortunate, a small sip of adulthood.

  • Lost in the Cerealverse

    Lost in the Cerealverse

    I am a recovering Baby Boomer, a man spending his adult life in slow convalescence from my generation’s excesses, delusions, appetites, and spectacular lapses in judgment. We were a gullible people, easily hypnotized by charisma, pseudoscience, and televised absurdity. We watched self-proclaimed psychic Uri Geller bend spoons on The Merv Griffin Show while audiences reacted as though Moses himself had just parted the Red Sea with silverware. We read The Secret Life of Plants by Peter Tompkins and became convinced our begonias possessed emotional needs and that our geraniums required not merely sunlight and water but emotional affirmation and perhaps a little Barry Manilow. We devoured comic-book advertisements promising Charles Atlas physiques, X-ray vision, and Sea Monkeys sophisticated enough to establish maritime republics. Television commercials showed eager blondes like Farrah Fawcett rubbing shaving cream onto the cheeks of Joe Namath while exhausted housewives suffered public humiliation for failing to remove “ring around the collar.” Even bad breath became a moral catastrophe. One whiff of halitosis and television implied your marriage, career, social standing, and perhaps your begonias would collapse simultaneously.

    Then came the great cultural psychedelicization of suburbia. We witnessed Woodstock, ogled at Hugh Hefner’s satin-lined Pleasure Palace, and absorbed the full narcotic force of Hair. I can personally testify that once “The Age of Aquarius” entered the bloodstream of my San Jose neighborhood, things deteriorated rapidly. One moment neighbors were making peach preserves while drinking Florence Henderson-approved Tang beneath respectable patio umbrellas. The next moment those same backyards had been transformed into hot-tub diplomacy zones populated by nudists, swingers, divorcees, and mustachioed men named Skip discussing transcendental meditation beside tiki torches. Divorces multiplied like mushrooms after rain. Wheat germ became mandatory. Tanning without sunscreen evolved into a civic religion. Entire adults developed an inexplicable longing to go on tour with The Partridge Family. We were sold a vision of freedom defined almost entirely by consumer pleasure-seeking, and like gullible Labradors chasing a tennis ball off a cliff, we lunged after it enthusiastically.

    To this day, Boomers remain burdened by what can only be described as a Hydra-headed collection of addictions, nostalgias, and narcissistic compulsions. We benefited from affordable housing, cheap college tuition, generous job markets, and an economy that still allowed mediocrity to purchase a respectable ranch home with avocado-colored appliances. Yet instead of building ladders for future generations, many of us climbed upward and kicked the rungs away behind us while lecturing younger people about “hard work.” Retirement only intensifies the pathology. Rather than volunteering or developing civic virtue, many Boomers retreat into nostalgia pageants. They attend fantasy baseball camps where aging Hall of Famers teach sixty-eight-year-old insurance salesmen how to bunt. They go on African safaris and return home narrating their adventures in the booming voice of Commander McBragg. They attend The Rolling Stones concerts hoping the pelvic gyrations of octogenarian rock stars will somehow exempt them from mortality itself. Culture critics have noticed all this and responded with flamethrowers. Bruce Cannon Gibney portrays Boomers as empathy-deficient sociopaths in A Generation of Sociopaths. Lyman Stone argues we ruined everything. Jim Tankersley accuses us of devouring resources and fleeing responsibility like drunken Vikings looting the treasury. Meanwhile Joe Queenan observed that Boomers possess the supernatural ability to transform even the most banal activities into monumental spiritual “events” requiring extensive planning, emotional reflection, and enough data analysis to launch a moon mission.

    As someone born near the tail end of the Baby Boom in 1961, I would now like to contribute my own testimony to the prosecution. My story concerns cereal. But the word cereal is hopelessly inadequate for describing the psychological labyrinth into which my generation willingly wandered. Cereal sounds harmless, like something discussed by dietitians or dentists. No, what consumed us was something far larger and more immersive: the Cerealverse. To become lost in the Cerealverse is to undergo a form of infantilization in which the rituals, mascots, sugar rushes, and comforting repetitions of childhood cease being temporary pleasures and instead become an entire operating system for adult life. You believe you are moving forward, maturing, evolving. In reality, you are merely orbiting the same tiny constellation of appetites and nostalgic comforts over and over again like a trapped satellite incapable of escape. The Cerealverse does not merely feed you. It suspends you in a permanent state of emotional adolescence while convincing you that your stagnation is happiness.

    I can’t talk about infantilization without mentioning Cap ‘N Crunch. My mother indulged my appetite for this sugary cereal and bought me all its variations: Cap ‘N Crunch with Crunch Berries, Peanut Butter Cap ‘N Crunch, and then the renamed versions of the same-tasting cereal: Quisp, Quake, and King Vitamin. Quaker cereals took their winning formula of corn and brown sugar flavors and sold several variations with different mascots and names. 

    As a kid watching these cereals being advertised on TV, it was clear that too much of a good thing was not a problem. On the contrary, I felt compelled to taste-test all these cereal varieties the way a sommelier would taste dozens of Zinfandel wines from the same region or a musicologist would listen to hundreds of different versions of Rachmaninoff’s Second Symphony.

    Eating six versions of Cap ‘N Crunch afforded me the illusion of variety while eating the same cereal over and over. I was a preadolescent boy who wanted to believe I had choices but at the same time didn’t want any choices. 

    You will sometimes hear about the man who is in his sixth marriage, and his wives in terms of appearance, temperament, and personality are all more or less the same. The man keeps going back to the same woman but wants to believe he has “found someone new” to give him the hope of a new life. 

    What you are witnessing is infantilization, the illusion that you are moving forward when in fact you are trapped in a Moebius strip. A Möbius strip creates the illusion of movement while trapping you inside the same continuous surface forever. You keep traveling forward, yet mysteriously return to the exact psychological point where you began. The horror of the Möbius strip is not that it stops you from moving. The horror is that it allows you to move forever while never truly arriving anywhere.

    To illustrate this horror properly, allow me to transport you back to the late 1970s when I worked as a bouncer at Maverick’s Disco in San Ramon, California. The job paid the princely sum of three dollars an hour—roughly ten cents above minimum wage—which at the time felt like entrance into the capitalist elite. The compensation package also included unlimited soft drinks and nightly exposure to enough polyester jumpsuits, platform shoes, and chemically fortified feathered hairdos to trigger multiple fire-code violations simultaneously. At first I considered the job a masterstroke of efficiency. I was killing two birds with one stone: earning money while prowling the disco floor performing involuntary lat spreads in tight shirts, all while socializing with an endless parade of beautiful women marinated in Jean Naté, cigarette smoke, and disco lighting. Like Cap’n Crunch, the disco promised nonstop excitement, sugar-rush pleasure, and cartoon happiness. But beneath the glitter and bass lines lurked something much darker than depression. It produced anhedonia—the condition in which the brain becomes so overexposed to stimulation that pleasure itself begins to short-circuit. When I think of anhedonia now, I think immediately of Maverick’s Disco.

    Because every night at the disco was supposedly “another exciting night,” yet every night was exactly the same. The same swaggering men in open-collared satin shirts. The same women adjusting their mascara beneath bathroom mirrors. The same Bee Gees songs vibrating through nicotine fog. The same desperate hunt for validation disguised as fun. Over time, the repetition became spiritually suffocating. Humanity itself began to look repetitive, fraudulent, vain, and emotionally trapped inside a giant behavioral loop. Working there reminded me strangely of the moment I stopped enjoying The Flintstones as a child. One afternoon I noticed that while Fred and Barney drove their stone-age car down the highway, the background scenery—trees, rocks, buildings—repeated endlessly in a looping cycle. Once I saw the wraparound background, the illusion collapsed permanently. I was no longer watching prehistoric adventure. I was watching cost-cutting animation techniques. The magic died instantly. Maverick’s Disco produced the same revelation. Every Friday and Saturday night I watched customers arrive radiating grand expectations of glamour, romance, transcendence, and reinvention. Then at closing time I watched those same faces stumble toward the parking lot glazed over with exhaustion, disappointment, loneliness, and stale gin. Yet the following weekend they returned to repeat the ritual all over again like worshippers trapped in a polyester Möbius strip. At some point I realized the disco itself had become the wraparound background of my own life, and that realization terrified me. I understood dimly that I did not merely need to quit the job. I needed to escape an entire stagnant mode of existence before I calcified inside it permanently.

    Sadly, escaping the Cerealverse—or any form of infantilized comfort addiction—is never so simple. The programming begins early. The imprinting runs deep. Even now, navigating my sixties, I remain vulnerable to the gravitational pull of bowls filled with sugary mush and edible nostalgia. Much of the blame belongs to Euell Gibbons, the patron saint of crunchy Boomer mysticism. Gibbons presented himself as a woodland prophet—a bearded naturalist survival guru who appeared in commercials for Grape-Nuts explaining with dead-serious authority that many parts of a pine tree were edible. This bizarre botanical trivia somehow qualified him, in the minds of millions of Boomers, to lecture the nation about nutrition and moral virtue. The subliminal message was unmistakable: eat Grape-Nuts and you too could survive alone in the wilderness wearing nothing but a loincloth and carrying a buck knife. Never mind that the cereal itself possessed the texture of roofing gravel and was responsible for enough chipped molars to enrich the American dental industry for decades. Eating Grape-Nuts produced a crunch so violent it could drown out the kitchen radio. Yet none of that mattered because the Boomer generation elevated cereal consumption into a kind of spiritual discipline. Granola, wheat germ, and gravel-like fiber clusters ceased being mere breakfast foods and evolved into moral performances, edible declarations that one was enlightened, natural, spiritually purified, and metabolically superior to the unwashed masses whose kitchen cabinets were not overflowing with mason jars of buckwheat groats, flaxseed meal, carob powder, and steel-cut oatmeal dense enough to patch potholes in municipal highways.

    It is impossible to contemplate the Cerealverse without returning to the early 1970s when my family shopped at a San Francisco Bay Area grocery store called Co-Op, a market proudly advertised as “owned by the people,” which gave the place the atmosphere of a food store crossed with a minor political uprising. The employees were unnervingly friendly. Many of the men had beards thick enough to shelter migratory birds and wore wilderness gear purchased from the store’s adjoining “Wilderness Supply Store,” a retail annex catering to customers who wished to survive both societal collapse and a weekend camping trip near Mount Tamalpais. Everyone at Co-Op seemed to exist somewhere on the Hippy Spectrum, ranging from mellow acoustic-guitar environmentalist to full-blown anti-capitalist survival mystic. The store boasted the town’s first daycare center for children while parents shopped and the first recycling center long before suburban America learned to pretend it cared about the planet. Alongside bins of organic produce sat a modest but influential bookstore stocked with sacred countercultural scripture: Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, The Secret Life of Plants, Chariots of the Gods?, The Peter Principle, and towering above them all like the Vegetarian Torah itself, Diet for a Small Planet. The food inventory looked less like groceries than supplies for an agrarian uprising: carob honey ice cream, wheat germ, granola, brown rice, tofu, Japanese yams, and alfalfa-sprout cultivation kits complete with mason jars so suburbanites could grow revolutionary vegetation beside their kitchen sinks.

    Co-Op was therefore more than a grocery store. It was a sanctuary for people rebelling against what they ominously called The Man. Eating granola drenched in organic honey was not merely breakfast but a political declaration, a crunchy repudiation of corporate America performed with wooden spoons and sandals. Every overflowing bowl of wheat germ signaled moral superiority over the poor unenlightened masses still eating Wonder Bread and Frosted Flakes beneath the fluorescent tyranny of Safeway. Yet the movement possessed a glaring contradiction large enough to require its own waistline. For all their rhetoric about health, moderation, and spiritual purification, many of these granola apostles suffered from a condition I came to think of as Granola Belly. They consumed calorie-dense granola, wheat germ, honey, nuts, seeds, and carob desserts with the evangelical intensity of people who believed organic calories somehow obeyed different laws of thermodynamics. As I wandered the aisles with my parents, I observed these rotund revolutionaries waddling past bins of lentils and herbal teas, their expanding stomachs bouncing beneath ponchos and safari vests while they discussed sustainable farming and the evils of processed sugar between bites of honey-coated granola containing enough caloric density to sustain minor civilizations.

    Looking back, the granola faithful of the Co-Op era were the spiritual ancestors of a distinctly Boomer contradiction: the fusion of lofty ideals with spectacular self-indulgence. They strutted through their people-owned utopia imagining themselves guerrilla warriors in the battle against corporate oppression while simultaneously consuming enough “natural” food to feed small Scandinavian fishing villages. Their granola bowls became sacramental objects, edible proof of enlightenment and rebellion. Yet like so many Boomer crusades, the movement eventually collapsed beneath the weight of its own appetites. They denounced consumer culture while buying fifty-pound sacks of artisanal oats. They preached moderation while drowning yogurt in rivers of organic honey. They fantasized about escaping modern decadence while polishing off entire tubs of carob ice cream. Their growing bellies became physical manifestations of a generation uniquely skilled at confusing indulgence with liberation. Nothing better captures the Boomer spirit than a man in hiking boots and a macramé vest lecturing others about corporate tyranny while absentmindedly eating twelve hundred calories of “healthy” granola.

    Like those self-indulgent Boomer hippies waddling through Co-Op with honey in their beards and granola in their intestines, I too became trapped inside the Cerealverse. My attraction was not merely to cereal’s sugary, infantile comfort but to its deeper promise: the fantasy of a frictionless existence. As a preadolescent boy fantasizing about growing into a baseball slugger with the heroic bulk of Reggie Jackson and Greg Luzinski, I imagined myself living as a carefree bachelor whose weekly grocery shopping consisted entirely of loading a cart with towering stacks of cereal boxes—Froot Loops, Sugar Pops, Cap’n Crunch, Count Chocula, and whatever other brightly colored sugar delivery systems the cereal industry was using to infantilize America’s youth. In my fantasy, adulthood was not about responsibility, marriage, or civic engagement. It was about ease. Convenience. Minimal friction between appetite and gratification. My spiritual guide for this philosophy was Uncle Norman from The Courtship of Eddie’s Father. In one episode, Uncle Norman explained to young Eddie that he had discovered the secret to avoiding dishes and wasting time at the dinner table: eat every meal standing over the kitchen sink. Demonstrating the method by consuming an entire head of lettuce directly above the drain basin, Norman proudly explained that his technique eliminated unnecessary cleanup, table setting, and other exhausting rituals associated with civilization itself. At that moment my brain detonated with revelation. The Uncle Norman Method became not merely a humorous TV gimmick but a governing life principle that would shape my habits, aspirations, and psychological orientation for decades.

    Aspiring to become a disciple of Uncle Norman, I began envisioning an entire lifestyle engineered around minimizing friction with reality. Why make a bed when a sleeping bag could simply be flopped across the mattress indefinitely like a tarp covering abandoned machinery? Why water plants when plastic foliage required no emotional commitment? Why learn to cook when cereal, toast, bananas, and yogurt cartons could sustain human existence with minimal labor? I planned to work within a five-mile radius of my home and only date women living inside my zip code because romance should never involve excessive driving. I saw no need for a laundry hamper since dirty clothes could be deposited directly into the washing machine drum until a sufficient mound accumulated to justify pressing START. Color coordination became unnecessary because I would own only black clothing, transforming my wardrobe into the textile equivalent of a low-budget European art film. Since bedsheets themselves struck me as unnecessary complications, the linen closet could instead house protein powder, brewer’s yeast, and protein bars. Grocery shopping would always occur during low-traffic morning hours to avoid crowds and unnecessary human interaction. Before entering restaurants, I would study menus online with military diligence so I could order instantly without burdening waiters or fellow diners with indecision. The moment the bill arrived, my credit card would already be positioned and ready for extraction like a gunslinger preparing for a duel. Most importantly, I vowed never to own a truck because trucks attract acquaintances who suddenly remember your existence whenever couches need moving.

    It is painfully clear to me now that the Uncle Norman Method emerged directly from the Cerealverse and that its deeper logic depended upon disengagement from the world itself. Infantilization, after all, is partly a yearning to return to the womb—to retreat from complexity, responsibility, unpredictability, and emotional entanglement. Depression often disguises itself as convenience. You tell yourself you are simplifying your life when in reality you are shrinking it. The Uncle Norman Method was not really about efficiency. It was about withdrawal. It was a way of quietly informing the world: “I can no longer process your noise, obligations, and chaos. I am dimming the lights, retreating into my cave, and marinating in my routines. Please do not disturb me unless absolutely necessary.” There is an episode of Seinfeld in which Jerry remarks that a man wearing gray sweatpants in public is essentially announcing that he has given up on life. Cereal as a staple food operates the same way. A bowl of cereal declares that the effort required to create a meal exceeds your emotional willingness to participate in existence. The Uncle Norman Method therefore was not enlightened minimalism. It was glorified laziness camouflaging exhaustion, melancholy, and retreat from adulthood beneath the sugary crunch of processed grain.

    I can assure you that as a man in his sixties with a wife and teenage daughters, behaviors aligned with the Uncle Norman Method are not greeted as signs of enlightened efficiency. They are treated more like symptoms requiring intervention. By Friday evening I am often so psychologically depleted from the workweek that the very idea of preparing dinner or driving somewhere for takeout feels like being assigned a humanitarian relief mission in a war zone. In these moments, the seductive logic of the Cerealverse returns with full narcotic force. More than once I have proposed what I considered a magnificent family innovation: “Oatmeal Night.” I present the concept with the enthusiasm of a Silicon Valley disruptor unveiling revolutionary technology. “Picture it,” I proclaim. “A glorious oatmeal bar! A Dutch oven filled with perfectly cooked steel-cut oats. Glass bowls overflowing with blueberries, bananas, diced sweet potatoes, walnuts, pecans, raisins, chocolate chips—an evening of rustic abundance and nutritional splendor!” My family responds as though I have proposed surviving winter inside a roadside bunker while rationing grain during the Dust Bowl. Their synchronized eye rolls contain a single unified message: Dad is once again trying to convert exhaustion into philosophy. They refuse to participate in my retreat from civilization disguised as Scandinavian peasant cuisine.

    Because to live inside the Cerealverse is ultimately a form of exile. It is separation—not merely from cooking, effort, or dishes—but from life itself. I am reminded of something Stephen Colbert once said while discussing hell with Bill Maher. Colbert remarked that hell is separation from God. That definition stayed with me because it perfectly describes the spiritual condition of the Cerealverse. To be trapped there is to become severed from vitality, intimacy, effort, sensuality, and communal joy. You become disconnected from the very things that make existence rich and earthly. Fortunately, if there exists such a condemned state, there must also exist its opposite—a glimpse of heaven. To understand that heaven, we must travel back to 1969 and the first time I tasted homemade salsa. Our neighbors, Mike and Felice Orozco, made salsa entirely from ingredients grown in nearby backyard gardens. The salsa sat upon the coffee table inside a volcanic-looking tureen as though it were some sacred artifact requiring both reverence and caution. You could smell it the instant you entered the house: chilies, onions, garlic, tomatoes—alive, aggressive, unapologetically real. The aroma alone made every jarred supermarket salsa taste like liquefied bureaucracy.

    And then there was the color. Not the synthetic red of restaurant chains or the dull industrial redness of mass production, but a deep ruby crimson possessing the vivid authority of something born directly from sun, soil, sweat, and care. I have eaten excellent salsa across decades of restaurants and dinner tables, but nothing has ever equaled the salsa Felice Orozco taught my mother to make in the late 1960s. Even now, when a Mexican restaurant serves a salsa remotely approaching that standard—even halfway—I regard it as evidence of moral seriousness in the kitchen. Because Felice Orozco’s salsa was never merely food. It was philosophy disguised as a condiment. It carried within it a quiet but radical argument about what matters in human life. Families passing down recipes are not merely exchanging ingredients; they are transmitting devotion, memory, discipline, continuity, and love. 

    Unlike the frictionless emptiness promised by the Cerealverse, this salsa required labor, patience, mess, participation, and community. There was nothing optimized about it. No shortcuts. No convenience strategy. Just human beings gathering together, giving their time, energy, and affection to produce something fleeting and beautiful. That salsa was a masterpiece not because it was authentic, artisanal, or fashionable, but because it was made by people who cared about one another deeply enough to create something unforgettable together.

    As someone who has spent decades trapped inside the Cerealverse and beholden to the Uncle Norman Method, I can assure you that Felice Orozco’s salsa was love itself, a gift from God. 

  • The Protein Prophet Meets Late-Stage Capitalism

    The Protein Prophet Meets Late-Stage Capitalism

    You spent a lifetime preaching the gospel of whey protein to a congregation that greeted you with eye-rolls and the occasional “musclehead” slur. Undeterred, you carried yourself with the calm arrogance of a man who knows the future and is watching everyone else arrive late. While they dabbled in fad diets and moralized over carbs, you quietly mixed your whey protein scoops—one in the morning over your groats, another in the afternoon with yogurt—like a chemist of hypertrophy. You hit your macros. You built your muscle. You extended your health span. And best of all, you did it on the cheap.

    You were right.

    Which is where the trouble begins.

    Now the world has caught up, and like all converts, it has arrived with a fanaticism that would make you blush. GLP-1 users clutch whey like a lifeline to their disappearing muscle mass. Aging populations treat it as insurance against frailty. Influencers chant “protein-maxxing” as if it were a sacrament. Food companies, never ones to miss a profitable crusade, have stuffed protein into everything short of tap water—cereal, ice cream, pancakes, corn chips—each product whispering, You, too, can be righteous.

    The result? Demand has detonated. Prices have surged. The humble tub of whey—once the blue-collar ally of the disciplined lifter—now sits on the shelf with the smug expression of a luxury good. Up 50 percent. Maybe doubling next year. The powder of the people has been gentrified.

    So tell me, prophet of protein, how does it feel?

    You wanted vindication. You got it. You wanted the world to recognize the power of protein. It has. You are no longer a fringe eccentric. You are mainstream. You are validated.

    And you are paying for it.

    There was a time when you were a misunderstood zealot, buying your whey in peace, your habits dismissed as obsessive but harmless. Those were the golden years—the years of ridicule and affordability. Now the masses have joined you, and like all mass movements, they have driven the price of entry skyward.

    You didn’t just win the argument.

    You priced yourself out of it.

  • Three Protein Wafers and a Funeral for Joy

    Three Protein Wafers and a Funeral for Joy

    I drank my first protein shake in 1975, at thirteen—an age when you’ll ingest anything if it promises muscle. It was milk and two heroic scoops of Bob Hoffman’s “Super Hi-Proteen,” a granular blend of soy, brown sugar, and the kind of mystery ingredients that seemed to come with a warning label in spirit if not in ink. I swallowed it like a pledge of allegiance. Years later, I realized I’d been spooning down hog slop with a marketing budget.

    Protein powders, of course, grew up. Whey replaced soy, monk fruit and stevia replaced sugar, and the flavor profile advanced from “punishment” to “tolerable.” I returned, cautiously, folding a scoop into my oatmeal or stirring it into yogurt. A lifetime lifter develops a habit I’ll call protein insurance—the quiet reassurance that your muscles won’t starve because you forgot to eat like a grown man.

    And so the shake became a fixture—less a meal than a policy.

    Bodybuilders and civilians alike now drink these things by the gallon, not just for insurance but for convenience. Which raises a question that refuses to stay polite: assuming we’re not slowly marinating ourselves in trace metals such as lead and cadmium, are we doing something more subtle—something that damages the soul? Rachel Sugar poses a version of this in her Atlantic essay “Admit It, That Protein Shake Is Basically Soylent,” where the modern ideal appears in a hoodie: a tech bro so devoted to efficiency that he outsources eating to a beige slurry. Why cook, why chew, why pause, when a bottle can reduce nourishment to a task you can complete between emails?

    Enter Soylent, the Willy Wonka chewing gum of Silicon Valley—a full meal compressed into a swallow, a dinner table dissolved into a transaction. At best, it tastes like competent baby food. At worst, it tastes like ambition without appetite.

    Soylent had its moment and then receded, but the protein shake did not. It adapted, multiplied, rebranded. Giants like The Coca-Cola Company now print money selling pre-made bottles fortified with protein, “adaptogens,” and antioxidant halos. The label reads like a résumé; the experience reads like chalk. A nation too busy to cook, trained to snack, and newly anxious about muscle retention—thanks to the rise of GLP-1 receptor agonists—is primed to accept frictionless nutrition. Open. Sip. Be optimized.

    None of this is accidental. The arithmetic of food is unforgiving: real food spoils and yields modest margins; ultra-processed food endures and pays dividends. The industry didn’t just produce these powders—it educated us to desire them, dressed them in the language of health, beauty, and time savings, and invited us to trade ritual for efficiency.

    Last week, I tried a thought experiment on my writing students. They’re working on an argument about whether ultra-processed foods are villains to both body and soul.

    “Imagine,” I said, “three protein wafers a day. They regulate appetite, deliver perfect nutrition, sculpt you into an Instagram after photo, and carry you past a hundred. No cooking. No dishes. No decisions.”

    I let that sit for a moment.

    “Now imagine what disappears. The dinners that run long. The laughter that spills over the table. The argument that turns into a story. The quiet, ordinary pleasure of chewing.”

    In this optimized life, your insurer applauds and your followers multiply. But you become something flatter—efficient, photogenic, and faintly ghostlike. Not dead, exactly. Just thinned out where life used to be.

    I asked for a show of hands. Who would choose the wafers?

    Not one hand rose.

    For all our flirtation with powders and promises, the verdict was clear: they want to be healthy, yes—but not at the cost of becoming efficient shadows of themselves. Real food, with all its inconvenience and noise, remains the center. The shake can stay as insurance. It just can’t be the policy that replaces the warmth of home.

  • Grazing My Way to Nowhere—and Learning to Stop

    Grazing My Way to Nowhere—and Learning to Stop

    At sixty-four, I’m attempting a late-life renovation project: replace a few durable bad habits with better ones before they fossilize into personality. Chief among them is my relationship with hunger, which I’ve treated for decades as a medical emergency requiring immediate intervention—preferably in the form of a calorie-dense snack. I was raised to believe that hunger is unnecessary suffering, a small indignity that can be smothered with a tasty morsel or two. If I feel it, I fix it. If I might feel it later, I preempt it. I’ve spent years grazing my way out of imaginary famines, topping off the tank before the harrowing ordeal of being without food for four hours. I call this Preemptive Feeding Syndrome: the habitual practice of eating in anticipation of future hunger, based on an exaggerated fear of discomfort, resulting in chronic overconsumption and stalled weight management.

    This approach has produced a familiar cycle. I’ve lost weight half a dozen times—descending heroically from 245 to 200—only to regain it with equal conviction. The pattern is almost admirable in its symmetry. The problem wasn’t the diet. The problem was that the moment hunger appeared, I panicked. I treated every pang like a fire alarm. And when you live that way, fat loss becomes a series of interruptions, each one justified, each one fatal to the larger goal.

    At 231 pounds as I write this, with a modest but persistent halo of fat around my midsection and joints that file quiet complaints during exercises like the Farmer’s Walk, I’ve reached a conclusion that is both obvious and inconvenient: the decisive factor in my weight loss is not willpower. It is interpretation. Specifically, how I interpret hunger.

    For most of my life, I’ve read hunger as danger. Something is wrong. Fix it now. But I’m beginning to suspect that hunger is not a malfunction; it’s a message. Often, it’s the message that the system is finally doing what I’ve asked it to do—burn stored energy. The problem isn’t the signal. It’s my reaction to it.

    So I’m attempting a small but radical shift: treat hunger as information, not alarm.

    A brief pang is not a crisis. It’s a wave. It rises, it lingers, it passes—especially if I don’t chase it down with peanut butter and honey. When I leave it alone, something surprising happens: it weakens. When I don’t treat it as a threat, it stops behaving like one. In that shift—from emergency to data point—I gain leverage. Meals taste better because I arrive at them honestly hungry, not pre-satiated by a trail of defensive snacking. My appetite becomes cleaner, less frantic. What once felt urgent now feels negotiable.

    None of this came naturally. It had to be learned, which is to say, unlearned first. Each time I resist the reflex to patch over a pang with calories, I loosen the old wiring and lay down a better circuit. It’s slow work. It’s also effective. My threshold for discomfort has widened. I’m less reactive, more deliberate. My body will follow, but my mind has to lead.

    Frank Zane understood this decades ago. He treated hunger not as an enemy but as evidence—proof that his diet was doing its job. He didn’t try to abolish hunger; he put it in its place. Years later, he still eats with restraint, having trained himself to live comfortably inside that signal. That’s the model: not a life without hunger, but a life in which hunger has been demoted from tyrant to messenger.

    If I can complete this renovation—if I can rewire my response to hunger—I solve the central problem. If I don’t, no amount of planning, tracking, or good intentions will save me from another well-executed relapse.

  • The Vegan Diet That Actually Behaves

    The Vegan Diet That Actually Behaves

    Most vegan diets chase variety. This one chases something else: predictability. I wanted a plan that supports gut health, delivers about 150 grams of protein, and stays around 2,300 calories—without turning every meal into a digestive gamble. The result is not a celebration of abundance. It’s a system that behaves.

    The guiding idea is simple. Every meal is built from three parts: a stable starch, a low-residue protein, and a measured dose of fiber. The aim is not to flood the gut with “healthy” inputs, but to give it clear, consistent instructions.

    Breakfast is structured but quiet. I start with well-cooked buckwheat groats—soft enough to digest without resistance. Into that goes a scoop of pea-and-rice protein powder, half a banana, a teaspoon of psyllium husk, and a small pour of unsweetened soy milk. It’s not exciting, but it is dependable. The psyllium adds just enough cohesion, the banana binds, and the protein arrives without the usual legume side effects.

    Lunch simplifies things even further. Oatmeal becomes the base—again, in a controlled portion. I add another scoop of protein powder, then rotate between half a banana and a small serving of applesauce. A modest amount of soy milk smooths it out. That’s it. No stacking of proteins, no fiber fireworks. Lunch is designed to send a single, clear signal to the body: digest, don’t negotiate.

    Dinner does the heavy lifting. This is the anchor meal, the one that determines how the next morning unfolds. A plate of white rice and red potatoes forms the foundation—arguably the most reliable pairing for digestive stability. On top of that, I add about six ounces of extra-firm tofu and a side of sautéed zucchini or carrots. Everything is cooked soft. Everything is deliberate. A tablespoon of olive oil finishes the plate, not for indulgence, but for smooth passage.

    If I need something at night, I keep it controlled: half a banana, a tablespoon of peanut butter, and a small glass of soy milk. Enough to take the edge off, not enough to start a second digestive act.

    Across the day, the numbers line up: roughly 2,300 calories, about 150 grams of protein, and a moderate fiber intake that stays in the zone where things hold together instead of falling apart. The real achievement, though, isn’t the macros—it’s the consistency. Meals repeat. Ingredients overlap. The system stabilizes.

    There are rules. Beans and lentils are out as daily staples—not because they’re unhealthy, but because they introduce too much variability. Raw vegetables are unnecessary friction. Fiber is measured, not celebrated. Variety is limited on purpose. This is a diet built on the belief that clarity beats complexity.

    Is it boring? Often. But boredom, in this context, is a kind of luxury. It means nothing is going wrong. It means your body is no longer improvising. It means the system is working.

    Can I sustain my health and muscle on a plant-based diet? What if I feel weak? To be honest, I have two contingency plans: I may have to add a scoop of Greek yogurt a day, and replace the vegan protein powder with whey protein powder. That will be the tentative part of the journey. 

  • Life Is Uncertain. Porridge Is Not

    Life Is Uncertain. Porridge Is Not

    For the past week my appetite has surged like a rogue wave. That could mean several things, none of them particularly flattering. Perhaps I’m medicating stress with food. Perhaps there are subterranean stress triggers rumbling beneath the surface that I haven’t identified yet. Life, after all, provides a constant background hum of anxiety, and it’s difficult to distinguish ordinary daily strain from something more corrosive.

    Retirement is hovering in the distance like a financial fog bank. I’ve been emailing HR about the price of keeping my Kaiser coverage after I retire versus moving to my wife’s more modest plan. Her school pays less than mine, which means we’re staring at something in the neighborhood of $1,500 a month once dental and vision enter the scene. Retirement, which is supposed to represent liberation, suddenly looks like a complicated negotiation with spreadsheets, identity, and self-worth. And apparently my body’s response to this existential accounting exercise is simple: eat more chicken.

    There is, at present, a dangerous quantity of takeout chicken in this house. Fried chicken. Roasted chicken. Greasy, seductive chicken lounging in the refrigerator like a gang of edible hoodlums. I open the fridge intending to take a small, respectable bite. Five minutes later I’m standing there gnawing through a drumstick like a raccoon that has discovered civilization. The aftermath is predictable: gluttony followed immediately by anxiety.

    The anxiety, unfortunately, does not arrive alone. It brings a surveillance drone. I watch myself overeating as if my consciousness has sprouted a third eye hovering above the scene like a judgmental security camera. I am both the criminal and the detective. The more I watch myself eat, the more anxious I become. The more anxious I become, the more I eat. I have achieved what behavioral psychologists might politely call a closed loop of misery.

    Action is required.

    My proposed solution is radical in its simplicity: three meals a day, no snacking. Breakfast will be steel-cut oatmeal or buckwheat groats fortified with protein powder. Lunch will be rolled oats with yogurt and more protein powder. Dinner will consist of a sensible portion of protein, vegetables, and an apple. It is not glamorous, but glamour is precisely the problem.

    Oatmeal comforts me. It possesses the mild, reassuring neutrality of something that has no ambitions beyond keeping you alive. Perhaps it is a kind of surrogate baby food. Perhaps the approach of retirement has triggered a mild regression in which my brain seeks the emotional equivalent of warm porridge and a quiet afternoon nap. As I drift deeper into my mid-sixties, it is entirely possible that my culinary philosophy is reverting to something suitable for a kindly monastery.

    Life is uncertain. Porridge is not.

    I like the predictability of three meals a day involving some form of oatmeal. I like the idea of owning a Lenovo ThinkPad, which is the oatmeal of computers. I like the Honda Accord and Toyota Camry, which are the oatmeal of the automobile world. And I like my solar atomic G-Shocks, which are the oatmeal of timepieces—durable, accurate, incapable of drama.

    If possible, I would like to swim inside a large industrial vat of oatmeal, floating peacefully while the chaos of the modern world clangs harmlessly against the outside of the tank.

    Unfortunately, hostile forces surround the vat.

    My daughters campaign relentlessly for takeout: Dave’s Hot Chicken, Wingstop, Panda Express. Holiday gatherings appear with enough pies and brownies to launch a regional bakery franchise. A man can only resist these temptations for so long before the walls of discipline begin to buckle.

    Meanwhile, medical costs continue their relentless ascent, and retirement funds tremble nervously as global markets perform their daily interpretive dance of geopolitical uncertainty.

    Under such circumstances I find myself clinging to a personal doctrine I’ve begun to call The Porridge Principle: the instinct to confront anxiety by retreating into humble, reliable technologies and routines that promise frictionless predictability. Oatmeal breakfasts. ThinkPad laptops. Honda sedans. Solar atomic watches. These objects do not thrill, but they do not betray.

    When the world becomes chaotic, the mind begins searching for tools and rituals that behave exactly the same way every day.

    So that is the plan.

    Trader Joe’s opens in an hour. I will buy groceries for my family and a heroic supply of oatmeal. The campaign against uncertainty has begun.

    Pray for me.

  • The Taco Bell Effect: How Fast Food and Watches Keep You Hungry

    The Taco Bell Effect: How Fast Food and Watches Keep You Hungry

    My daughters wanted Taco Bell for dinner. I could have abstained, assembled a respectable salad, and preserved my nutritional dignity. Instead, I chose the chicken soft tacos—modest, reasonable, practically virtuous by fast-food standards. And Taco Bell, as always, performed its engineered magic. Somewhere in Irvine, a laboratory of flavor chemists continues its quiet mission: maximize salt, fat, texture, and novelty until the brain lights up like a slot machine. The tacos tasted fantastic. Dopamine rang the bell. I walked away feeling disciplined, even proud—two tacos and a side of sliced bell peppers. Look at me, a responsible adult navigating fast food with restraint.

    Then, about an hour later, the bill came due.

    My appetite didn’t return politely. It kicked the door in. Hunger surged with a strange urgency, as if the meal had not fed me but awakened something restless and unfinished. I ate an apple. Still hungry. I opened a bag of Trader Joe’s Organic Elote Corn Chip Dippers. Still hungry. I cut a thick slice of sourdough and buried it under peanut butter. The sensation wasn’t indulgence—it was pursuit, as though my metabolism were trying to collect a debt the tacos had promised but never paid.

    I was still hungry when I finally surrendered—not to satiety, but to sleep, the only reliable way to close the kitchen.

    Clearly, I had suffered from the Taco Bell Effect: the paradoxical state in which a highly engineered, intensely satisfying experience delivers maximum sensory pleasure and minimum lasting fulfillment, triggering a rebound surge of appetite shortly after consumption. Designed for flavor density, salt, fat, and rapid dopamine, the meal convinces you—briefly—that you’ve eaten well and even responsibly. Then, an hour later, your metabolism files a formal protest. Hunger returns louder than before, prowling the kitchen like a debt collector. The Taco Bell Effect isn’t overeating; it’s under-satiation disguised as satisfaction—a culinary confidence trick in which the experience feels indulgent, the calories look reasonable, and the aftermath sends you negotiating with apples, chips, and peanut butter while wondering how two tacos opened a hunger portal instead of closing one.

    The Taco Bell Effect and the compulsive watch purchase run on the same psychological circuitry: both deliver stimulation without closure. Taco Bell gives you flavor, salt, fat, and novelty, but not satiety; the experience excites the appetite rather than resolving it. A compulsive watch purchase works the same way. You get the hit—research, tracking, unboxing, wrist shots, forum validation—but the emotional hunger remains untouched. Instead of quieting desire, the purchase sharpens it. Within days, you’re browsing again, comparing again, chasing the next micro-difference the way a fast-food meal sends you back to the pantry. In both cases, the problem isn’t excess; it’s insufficient psychological fullness.

    The illusion that traps people is the calorie logic of the hobby: “It’s only one watch,” just as “It’s only two tacos.” But the real metric isn’t the size of the purchase—it’s the behavior that follows. A healthy acquisition produces satiety: you stop looking, you forget the market, you wear the piece without agitation. A Taco Bell watch, by contrast, is engineered for stimulation—limited editions, countdown drops, spec debates, influencer hype. It tastes intense but digests poorly. The result is the horological equivalent of metabolic whiplash: the dopamine spike fades, and the mind, still unsatisfied, starts hunting again.

  • When Self-Improvement Makes Your Watch Addiction Worse

    When Self-Improvement Makes Your Watch Addiction Worse

    Here is an unpleasant truth about watch addiction: you don’t eliminate it.
    You replace it.

    Let that sit for a moment.

    Now here’s the second unpleasant truth: self-improvement—the very thing you hope will save you—may actually make your watch addiction worse.

    Consider Exhibit A: December, 2017.

    I was at a Christmas party feeling miserable. Two hundred forty-five pounds. Feet aching. Energy low. I found myself talking to a celebrity chef and former powerlifter—the kind of man who treats body composition like a moral philosophy. His advice was simple: lose the weight.

    So I went to war.

    Yogurt for breakfast. Protein and salad for lunch. Protein and vegetables for dinner. At night, a tiny apple—my “satiety apple,” the culinary equivalent of a ration in a survival bunker.

    Eight months later, I was down forty-five pounds.

    At 200, I wasn’t lean so much as economized. Sitting on a piano bench hurt because the butt padding was gone. But I looked sharp. Very sharp.

    And that’s when the trouble began.

    The fitness journey was supposed to quiet my watch obsession. Instead, it fed it. The slimmer I became, the more I noticed how watches looked on my wrist. I wasn’t just wearing timepieces anymore. I was curating a silhouette.

    Health had quietly mutated into performance.

    This is the Identity Optimization Spiral—the moment self-improvement stops being about function and becomes aesthetic management. Body, clothes, watches, posture, lighting—everything coordinated into a single ongoing presentation of the self.

    I told myself I was pursuing discipline.
    What I was really pursuing was approval.

    And approval requires accessories.

    So the watches multiplied—not because I needed them, but because my “new body” deserved the right visual punctuation.

    The story, of course, did not end in triumph. Weight rarely leaves permanently; it negotiates. Mine drifted back upward over time—not all the way, but enough to remind me that maintenance is not a phase. It’s a permanent job.

    And that’s the real parallel between dieting and watch restraint.

    Both run on willpower.
    Both require constant vigilance.
    Both demand energy.

    Imagine riding an exercise bike at full speed, indefinitely. You can do it for a while. You sweat. You grind. You feel heroic.

    Then you slow down.

    Then you stop.

    And the moment you stop pedaling, gravity returns. The diet loosens. The browsing begins. The credit card warms up. Worse, the exhaustion from all that heroic restraint makes the relapse stronger.

    This is the cruel math of self-control: willpower is a fuel tank, not a personality trait.

    The more you burn, the more violently you eventually refuel.

    Looking honestly at addiction—whether to watches, food, or the fantasy of perfect self-management—is humbling. It suggests something most improvement culture refuses to admit:

    We are not systems to be optimized.
    We are appetites trying to manage other appetites.

    Sometimes we succeed.
    Sometimes we substitute one obsession for another.
    And sometimes the search for the cure becomes just another addiction wearing a healthier costume.

  • How We Went from Breakfast Mascots to Political Tribes

    How We Went from Breakfast Mascots to Political Tribes

    A few nights ago, I watched Big Vape: The Rise and Fall of Juul, the four-part autopsy of a company that promised salvation from combustible cigarettes and instead managed to hijack a generation’s taste buds. Juul framed itself as a public-health crusader. What it actually built was a sleek delivery system for addiction, turbocharged by flavors engineered to lodge themselves deep in the dopamine circuitry of young brains.

    Former employees and users all pointed to the same thing: mango. Mango wasn’t just a flavor; it was an event. People didn’t vape mango casually. They marinated in it. Mango was the hook.

    Watching this, I was transported back to my own childhood and my first chemical romance: Cap’n Crunch.

    There was something about that unholy alliance of corn flour, palm oil, and brown sugar that short-circuited my will. I didn’t want moderation; I wanted saturation. My parents imposed limits, which only deepened my resolve to grow up as fast as possible so I could make my own enlightened dietary decisions—namely, Cap’n Crunch for breakfast, lunch, and dinner. I failed to notice the irony that a grown man subsisting on sugar cereal would represent not maturity but infantilization.

    Cap’n Crunch’s true genius wasn’t just sweetness. It was proliferation. The same cereal reappeared in endless costumes—Crunch Berries, Peanut Butter Crunch—each one offering the illusion of choice. King Vitamin was the most audacious iteration: Cap’n Crunch in a health halo, a masterclass in rebranding junk as virtue. Lipstick on a pig, poured into a cereal bowl.

    Then there were the mascots. Quisp the Martian. Quake the muscle-bound coal miner. As a child steeped in superhero comics and Hulk fantasies, I gravitated toward Quake. Strength. Power. Identity. I didn’t realize I was choosing a brand avatar, not a breakfast.

    Cereal companies were having a field day. We watched cartoons while eating the very product being advertised between scenes. It never occurred to us that we were being conditioned—trained to celebrate a non-nutritive food substance that dissolved teeth and rewired appetite. The Juul kids didn’t know it either. They thought they were buying into a sleek, adult lifestyle. What they were really purchasing was dependence, with a mango aftertaste.

    What troubles me now is that adults don’t seem any less susceptible.

    Today, many people consume political tribes the way we once consumed sugar cereal and flavored vapor. Politics has been repackaged as lifestyle branding—complete with slogans, merch, cosplay, and dopamine hits. The substance is thin. The stimulation is constant. Critical thinking is nowhere to be found.

    These aren’t political commitments; they’re identity snacks. Sugar rushes masquerading as convictions. Defense of one’s “views” consists of chanting talking points with the same reflexive loyalty I once reserved for Cap’n Crunch. No wonder the country feels like it’s in free fall. We haven’t grown up—we’ve just swapped mascots.

    We are a nation of adult children, hooked on political flavors the way kids were hooked on cereal and Juul users were hooked on mango. Politics has become a consumer product: addictive, polarizing, shallow, and wildly profitable. All dopamine. No nutrition.