Cinemorphosis

Tag: health

  • Exiled from Desert: A Bodybuilder’s Dream of Failure

    Exiled from Desert: A Bodybuilder’s Dream of Failure

    Last night I dreamed I lived in a place so stripped of imagination it had the confidence to call itself Desert, Arizona—as if the planners had looked at a map, shrugged, and said, “Why embellish? We’re in the desert. That’s our name.”

    In Desert, I was a bodybuilder. Not one of the marble statues you see in magazines, but a working stiff with a barbell and delusions of parity. My friends—my friends, I thought—were Serge Nubret and Robbie Robinson in their prime. Thirty years old, luminous, carved out of some superior mineral. We spent our afternoons at a man-made lake, discussing training splits, protein intake, and the eternal question of carbs—as if the fate of civilization hinged on oatmeal versus steak.

    For a while, I forgot who they were. That was the charm. They were just Serge and Robbie—men with opinions, not monuments with lats.

    Then I made the mistake that ruins most good things: I noticed the hierarchy. They were far beyond me in achievement. 

    One afternoon, the thought hit me with the force of a missed squat: I told them I didn’t belong. These were titans. I was a reasonably assembled civilian. I said as much—praised their greatness, confessed my inadequacy, pledged to work ten times harder to catch up.

    And just like that, the air changed.

    They didn’t argue. They didn’t correct me. They simply withdrew, as if I had violated an unspoken clause in the friendship agreement: Do not turn us into symbols. The moment I stopped seeing them as people and started seeing them as achievements, the spell broke. They eased me out of the circle with the quiet efficiency of men accustomed to dropping dead weight.

    A replacement arrived with the punctuality of a cautionary tale: a young Englishman in his early twenties, newly employed as a high school teacher, brimming with the kind of metabolic optimism that borders on arrogance. He made gains at a rate that suggested divine favoritism. Within weeks, he surpassed me. Within days of that, he lost interest in me. He graduated upward—into the company of Serge and Robbie—leaving me where all the surpassed are left: behind, holding yesterday’s program.

    That’s when I knew I had to leave Desert.

    My in-laws were waiting to drive me to Prescott Valley, a destination that sounded like a compromise. Before the journey, we stopped at an overnight smoothie station—an oasis for the nutritionally anxious. Imagine a row of blenders stretching into the horizon, bins of organic ingredients arranged like offerings, and travelers preparing their liquid penance before braving the heat.

    I approached the blender with the confidence of a man who has learned nothing.

    I added fruit. Then vegetables. Then protein powder. Then more of everything, because moderation is for people who have already succeeded. The machine whirred, strained, and then produced something biblical: a green, algae-like tendril that rose from the blender and clawed at the ceiling, as if trying to escape my dietary philosophy.

    The proprietor—a matronly woman in an apron who had seen too many men confuse excess with virtue—fixed me with a look that could curdle whey. “You overloaded it,” she said, with the calm authority of someone accustomed to cleaning up after ambition.

    Nearby, bodybuilder and YouTuber Greg Doucette produced a perfect smoothie with surgical precision and regarded me the way a pilot regards turbulence: an inconvenience best ignored. His competence was an indictment.

    We got in the car.

    As we drove away from Desert, the realization settled in: this wasn’t a relocation. It was a retreat. I had committed the small, accumulating sins of a man who wants the result without fully respecting the method. I ate buckwheat groats when I should have eaten steak and eggs. I entertained carbs with a softness bordering on affection. I mistook enthusiasm for discipline and variety for virtue.

    But the deeper failure wasn’t nutritional. It was philosophical. I had tried to stand among the great by admiring them as great, which is the surest way to exile yourself. I had reduced people to their achievements, and in doing so, reduced myself to a spectator.

    In Desert, that’s a disqualifying offense.

    And so I left, not because I was banished, but because I finally understood the terms of my own eviction: in a city that rewards precision, I had been imprecise—in diet, in discipline, and worst of all, in how I saw other people.

  • 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. 

  • Why the Word “Stress” Has Outlived Its Usefulness

    Why the Word “Stress” Has Outlived Its Usefulness

    The word stress has been talked into exhaustion. It shows up everywhere—therapy sessions, productivity podcasts, corporate memos—until it becomes a kind of verbal white noise. Everything is stressful. Traffic is stressful. Email is stressful. Existence itself is apparently one long panic attack. The result is not clarity but numbness. A word that once pointed to something real now floats, bloated and imprecise, over every inconvenience and calamity alike. It needs to be stripped down, cleaned up, and returned to service.

    Start by dividing what we lazily call “stress” into three distinct experiences.

    First, there is what we might call existential friction—the strain that comes from living a life that actually matters. Sartre described it as getting your hands dirty. It is the tension of responsibility, of choosing action over comfort. Think of Viktor Frankl, who could have escaped a concentration camp but stayed to tend to the suffering around him. To say he was “stressed” is to trivialize the moment. He was engaged in a moral confrontation with evil. The discomfort was not a malfunction; it was the price of meaning. A bodybuilder tears muscle to grow stronger. A moral person strains against life’s conflicts to become more fully human. This is not pathology. It is construction.

    Second, there is narcissistic agitation—the counterfeit version of stress, self-generated and corrosive. This is the anxiety of the addict chasing relief, the restless paranoia of the status-obsessed, the brittle ego that reads every room as a threat. Here the individual is both the engine and the victim of the distress. It is not the friction of purpose but the turbulence of misalignment. To confuse this with existential friction is not just sloppy; it is morally obtuse. One builds character. The other erodes it.

    Finally, there is existential overload—the strain that arrives uninvited and exceeds your capacity to absorb it. This is not heroic and not self-inflicted. It is what happens when life stacks too many weights on the bar at once. Divorce, illness, financial collapse—events that don’t ask for your permission before they rearrange your nervous system. In this state, the body begins to narrate what the mind cannot contain. Appetite disappears. Sleep fractures. Symptoms bloom. There is no lesson neatly packaged inside it, no redemptive arc guaranteed. It is endured, not chosen.

    I think of my brother in 2020. His marriage collapsed. He was suddenly alone during the pandemic, financially strained, disoriented. Then came the diagnosis: Burkitt lymphoma. Two months to live. That is not “stress.” That is existential overload in its purest form. And yet, against those odds, he found a narrow corridor of hope—a CAR T-cell therapy trial at UCSF. He took it. He survived. He is in remission. The word stress does not belong anywhere near that story.

    This is why the word needs to be retired from serious use. It flattens distinctions that matter. It places the inconvenience of a crowded inbox on the same plane as a confrontation with mortality. Better to replace it with terms that carry weight: existential friction, narcissistic agitation, existential overload. Precision is not pedantry; it is navigation. If you’re trying to find your way out of the dark, you don’t need a vague feeling. You need a compass that actually points somewhere.

  • I Can’t Count on Casio to Keep Making the Kind of Watch That I Want

    I Can’t Count on Casio to Keep Making the Kind of Watch That I Want

    My G-Shock GW-7900 is the best watch I’ve ever owned. Objectively speaking, it works better than my Frogman because its slightly smaller size makes it a better daily driver and its bigger, bolder digits are easy to read. I have thought of getting another 7900 (soon to be discontinued?) as a backup. I could wait and see if G-Shock makes another Tough Solar Multiband-6 with legible digital readout, but my wait might be in vain because I’ve come to accept something I didn’t want to admit at first: I can’t count on Casio to keep making the kind of watch I want. The combination I’ve zeroed in on—Tough Solar, Multiband 6, large, high-contrast digits, and a strap that comfortably fits my eight-inch wrist—isn’t just uncommon; it’s quietly disappearing. Watches like the GW-7900 didn’t fail. If anything, they solved the problem too well. They delivered time with such blunt clarity that there was nowhere obvious to go next—at least not if readability was the priority. But Casio doesn’t build its future around my priorities. It builds forward, and forward now means more sensors, more layers, more data, and more visual complexity.

    I can see the shift in the newer models. The GW-9500 Mudman looks like progress on paper: bigger digits, more information, more sophistication. But the duplex display muddies the water. The gray-on-gray layering introduces a subtle interference that makes the time less immediately legible, even as the numbers themselves get larger. The Pro Trek PRW-3500 goes the opposite route—clean, crisp, and highly readable—but with smaller digits and a more restrained, instrument-like feel. The Frogman GWF-D1000 adds size and presence, but also adds visual density. I can read it, but I have to look. I have to engage. The effortless glance is gone. In each case, something is gained. And in each case, something essential—immediacy—is diluted.

    This isn’t a fluke. It’s a direction. Casio is moving toward watches that look more technical, more advanced, more information-rich. The design language has shifted from blunt clarity to layered capability. In that world, a watch that simply tells me the time instantly starts to look almost primitive. But that so-called primitiveness is exactly what I value. The GW-7900 doesn’t ask me to process anything. It tells me the time with authority. I glance, and I know. No interpretation. No delay.

    I keep thinking maybe Casio will circle back. Maybe they’ll rediscover the appeal of simplicity and release something that restores that kind of clarity. It’s possible. But it’s not how they’ve operated. Casio doesn’t rewind; it iterates forward. And when a design philosophy gets left behind, it tends to stay there. The GW-9500 is probably as close as we’re going to get to a modern successor, and its compromises tell me everything I need to know.

    So I’m left with a realization that feels both obvious and unsettling: peak usability might already be behind me—not in some nostalgic sense, but in the simple fact that the problem I care about was already solved. The GW-7900 isn’t outdated. It’s optimized for a value the market is drifting away from. And that puts me in a different position than I expected. I’m not waiting for something better. I’m deciding whether I’m smart enough to recognize what I already have.

    Because the real risk isn’t missing out on the next great watch. The real risk is waiting. Waiting for a future model that aligns with my preferences while the present quietly disappears. I can easily imagine the moment: I decide I want another GW-7900, I go looking for one, and I realize the window has closed. The model is gone, or overpriced, or reduced to whatever scraps are left in the aftermarket.

    That’s the part that changes the equation for me. I’m not chasing something new. I’m securing something that already works.

  • Pedaling Through the Voice That Says Quit

    Pedaling Through the Voice That Says Quit

    Ninety percent of the time, the Schwinn Airdyne—known in honest circles as the Misery Machine—treats me like a competent operator. I settle into a rhythm and burn roughly 730 calories an hour, sometimes pushing past 800 over a 51–58 minute stretch. It’s hard work, but it feels governed, almost cooperative. The Rate Select hovers around 52, climbs to 58 when I press it, and rewards effort with visible progress. Numbers rise, and with them, morale.

    Then there is the other ten percent—the mutiny.

    You know it immediately. The first minute betrays you. The legs feel like they’ve been filled with wet cement. The lungs are slow to negotiate. The machine, once a willing accomplice, turns indifferent. No matter how much you push, the Rate Select stalls in the high 40s, as if it has quietly downgraded your status. Today was one of those days. Fifty-eight minutes of negotiation yielded 601 calories—an 18 percent deficit from my usual output. I clawed my way past 600 not out of strength, but out of stubborn bookkeeping: at least I could claim I burned off breakfast.

    The real struggle, of course, isn’t physical. It’s narrative. When the numbers climb, the mind becomes a cheerleader—faster, harder, more. But when they sag, a different voice takes the microphone. You’re finished. You’ve lost it. This is a young man’s game, and you’re trespassing. The body tires, but the mind drafts a eulogy.

    That’s the moment that matters. Not the calories, not the pace, but the argument. Today, I didn’t win cleanly, but I held the line. I kept pedaling. I refused the early exit. Six hundred calories is not a triumph, but it is a refusal to collapse.

    These lag days arrive like monthly audits. They expose the fault lines—the impatience, the vanity, the dependence on numbers for validation. The task is not to dominate the machine, but to manage the voice that wants to quit. The reasonable adult has to step in, take the whining child by the shoulders, and say: Not today.

  • Seven Watches Have Made Me Contemplate the Tyranny of Want

    Seven Watches Have Made Me Contemplate the Tyranny of Want

    I was raised to believe that wanting something was reason enough to have it.

    Not a suggestion. Not a temptation. A principle.

    In the 60s and 70s, appetite was rebranded as intelligence. If you knew how to indulge—food, gadgets, experiences—you weren’t weak. You were evolved. The man who said no looked like a malfunction: tight-lipped, joyless, possibly afraid of his own shadow.

    The rest of us were out there chasing pleasure like it was a civic duty.

    And I didn’t just participate—I specialized.

    I built a life around calibrated indulgence. Watches, food, stimulation. I didn’t impulse-buy; I strategized. I had rotations, hierarchies, justification frameworks. I could explain any purchase with the calm authority of a man who had already made the purchase.

    Which is why it’s unsettling—borderline alarming—that I now feel relief that my watch collection is down to seven.

    Seven.

    At one point, seven watches would have been the warm-up act. Now it feels like silence after a fire alarm. Manageable. Contained. Almost peaceful.

    Out of curiosity, I tried to imagine adding just one more watch.

    Not buying it—just imagining it.

    Within seconds, I felt the familiar anxiety spool up: Where does it fit? When do I wear it? What does it replace? What problem is it solving that doesn’t exist?

    That’s when the illusion cracked.

    What I used to call “expanding the collection” was actually expanding the burden.

    Which led to a thought I’ve spent most of my life avoiding:

    What if self-denial isn’t deprivation?
    What if it’s relief?

    This idea runs against decades of conditioning. My instincts are trained like a high-performance lab animal: stimulus, response, reward. See it. Want it. Acquire it. Repeat until the dopamine system starts filing complaints.

    And yet the results are undeniable.

    The next watch doesn’t calm me—it destabilizes me.
    The next meal doesn’t satisfy me—it expands me.
    The next YouTube video doesn’t enlighten me—it hooks me into a slot machine where the jackpot is always one more spin away.

    Different behaviors. Same engine.

    I’ve spent years obeying impulses that don’t know how to stop—and calling that freedom.

    Now I’m starting to see it for what it is: a feedback loop that promises satisfaction and delivers agitation.

    So I’m experimenting with a radical intervention.

    Not buying the watch.
    Not eating the extra food.
    Not clicking the next video.

    It sounds trivial. It feels trivial. But it isn’t.

    Because when you interrupt the impulse—even once—you discover something unexpected: nothing collapses. The urgency fades. The world keeps spinning. You’re still here.

    And in that small gap between wanting and doing, something rare appears.

    Control.

    Self-denial, it turns out, is not a punishment. It’s leverage.

    It’s the ability to step between impulse and action and say, “Not this time.” It’s the quiet refusal that breaks the loop. It doesn’t feel dramatic. It feels almost boring. But it works.

    Which raises a question I can’t quite shake:

    Why did no one make this case to me when I was younger?

    Or did they—and I dismissed it because it sounded like the philosophy of people who weren’t having any fun?

    Would I have listened? Or would I have reacted the way anyone reacts when you threaten their favorite addiction—with polite skepticism covering a deeper hostility?

    Tonight, the old circuitry is still humming.

    There’s hunger—not real hunger, but the kind that shows up after dinner with a marketing pitch.
    There’s restlessness—the urge to check something, watch something, consume something.
    There’s the gravitational pull toward the kitchen and the screen.

    I know how this ends.

    Stay up late, and discipline dissolves. You eat something unnecessary while watching something forgettable and go to bed slightly disappointed in both.

    So I try something different.

    Go to sleep.

    End the day before the impulses take over.

    It’s not heroic. It won’t trend. No one is going to applaud the man who defeated temptation by becoming unconscious.

    But it might be the smartest move I make all day.

    And still—because habits don’t die quietly—the voice is there, smooth as ever:

    I’ll deny myself.

    Just not yet.

  • The Multi-Headed Dopamine Monster

    The Multi-Headed Dopamine Monster

    Any halfway attentive observer eventually stumbles upon a depressing but unmistakable truth: modern life is a carnival of pleasures engineered to be irresistible and endlessly repeatable. Physical indulgence, consumer toys, and the shimmering applause of social media metrics arrive every day like trays of free samples at a supermarket. The problem is not their existence. The problem is their limitless availability. When gratification can be summoned instantly—one click, one swipe, one purchase—the temptation to pursue it with manic dedication becomes nearly impossible to resist.

    The results are rarely noble. Self-discipline dissolves. Organization frays. Focus collapses like a folding chair under a heavy guest. In their place arrives a nervous state of agitation accompanied by a dull, persistent suspicion: You are wasting your life on trinkets. The realization is humiliating because it is so obvious. Hedonism, convenience, consumerism, and the intoxicating glow of digital approval are not spiritual achievements. They are simply the brain chasing dopamine like a lab rat pounding a reward lever.

    At first the dopamine feels marvelous. A new gadget, a flattering comment, a few hundred views, the pleasing geometry of a purchase confirmation page. But like all stimulants, the effect fades. The rewards grow thinner. The hits arrive faster but satisfy less. Eventually a quiet despair creeps in. You feel oddly disconnected—from other people, from yourself, from the adult you imagined becoming. You begin asking dangerous questions. Is there anything meaningful enough to lift you out of this quicksand of micro-pleasures? Is there any pursuit capable of competing with the relentless ease of cheap gratification?

    You remember that you possess other faculties—creativity, curiosity, philosophical struggle, the ability to tell a story that might illuminate something about the human condition. These pursuits possess real dignity. Yet they struggle to survive in the same ecosystem as frictionless entertainment and effortless affirmation. The brain, like a spoiled monarch, prefers velvet pillows to hard chairs.

    Eventually the interrogation becomes more specific. The real engine of this predicament is not merely pleasure but technology. Your phone and computer function as a many-headed dopamine creature sitting permanently on your desk. Slaying the monster would be satisfying—but impossible. Unlike alcohol, which the addict can abandon entirely, the digital world is inseparable from modern survival. You need the machine to work, communicate, pay bills, manage life, create things, and occasionally attempt to think.

    So you continue to live beside the creature.

    You read the tidy aphorisms offered by productivity gurus: Be mindful. Stay disciplined. Follow your North Star. But these slogans feel faintly ridiculous when the dopamine cauldron sits inches away—one browser tab from ignition. The advice begins to sound less like wisdom and more like a variety of motivational wallpaper.

    And so you arrive at a strange emotional position.

    You do not yet possess a solution. But you possess something useful: anger. Anger at the machinery of distraction. Anger at the cheapness of digital applause. Anger at your own willingness to accept the bargain.

    It is not a cure, but it is a beginning.

    You can see the problem clearly now.

    The only remaining question is what you intend to do about it.

  • 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.

  • From Muscle Monsters to Ken Doll Tyrants

    From Muscle Monsters to Ken Doll Tyrants

    When I was a teenage bodybuilder in the 1970s, the weight room was full of boys with the same secret: we were trying to fix ourselves. Our cure for insecurity was iron. We trained like men preparing for war, convinced that if we grew large enough—huge traps, bulging biceps, necks like bridge cables—we could terrify the world into respecting us. We fantasized about becoming “monsters” or “gargoyles,” grotesque statues of muscle that would scare away humiliation and banish our private doubts. Of course, the plan never worked. Just as the chronic overeater cannot outrun gluttony, we could not out-muscle low self-esteem. The demons we tried to crush with barbells simply followed us out of the gym.

    Nearly fifty years later, bodybuilding’s old delusion has been replaced by a stranger one: looksmaxxing, the obsessive attempt to engineer physical perfection through cosmetic intervention and digital-age narcissism. In Becca Rothfeld’s New Yorker essay “The Captivating Derangement of the Looksmaxxing Movement,” we meet a new breed of self-improvement fanatic embodied by an influencer who calls himself Clavicular. Testosterone injections, rhinoplasty, double-chin surgery, pharmaceutical regimens, manic diet protocols, and relentless “biohacking” have sculpted him into something resembling a laboratory-grown Ken doll. The goal is not merely attractiveness but algorithmic perfection: a human face optimized to survive the merciless scrutiny of social media.

    Yet beneath this glossy surface lies something dark. Rothfeld observes that the movement often overlaps with the internet’s most antisocial subcultures—incel forums, misogynistic grievance factories, and communities obsessed with ranking human worth according to facial symmetry and bone structure. Technology theorist Jaron Lanier warned years ago that social media algorithms reward content that appeals to our most primitive impulses, dragging public discourse downward toward the brain stem. Looksmaxxing appears to be the logical endpoint of that descent: a digital coliseum where identity, masculinity, and human dignity are reduced to metrics of jawline geometry.

    Ironically, the men who pursue this transformation claim they are trying to become more attractive to women. Instead, they often cultivate the personality of a malfunctioning action figure: narcissistic, performative, and incapable of genuine intimacy. They rehearse “alpha male” poses, brag about their surgical upgrades, and sneer at the supposedly inferior masses who lack their aesthetic discipline. What emerges is not confidence but solipsism—individuals who can admire their reflection indefinitely but seem constitutionally incapable of love.

    When broken misfit toys acquire millions of followers and begin shaping cultural and political attitudes, the spectacle stops being merely ridiculous. It becomes ominous. Movements fueled by resentment, aesthetic purity, and tribal grievance have a long and ugly history. The looksmaxxing phenomenon, with its blend of cosmetic obsession, internet radicalization, and juvenile power fantasies, bears the unmistakable scent of decadence—and perhaps something worse. A healthy society cannot thrive when its young men aspire not to become human beings but to become action figures.

  • The Great Rangeman Dilemma

    The Great Rangeman Dilemma

    You should be grading over a hundred student essays right now—papers waiting patiently for marginal comments, thesis corrections, and the quiet mercy of a final score. Instead, you are wrestling with a question of far greater cosmic importance, a problem so profound it makes theological disputes such as substationary atonement look like small talk: Should you buy the positive or negative display of the G-Shock Rangeman GW-9400?

    After hundreds of hours on Reddit and YouTube—an advanced degree in amateur Rangeman studies—you have learned the central truth of the universe. The negative display looks better. The positive display works better. And now you stand at the fork in the road where beauty and usability glare at each other like rival theologians.

    Choose the negative display and you will live with Legibility Anxiety—the persistent suspicion that your watch looks magnificent but requires negotiation every time you want the hour. Choose the positive display and you inherit Aesthetic Anxiety—the quiet sense that you chose practicality at the expense of tactical cool. Either way, you lose something essential.

    Of course, there is the nuclear option: buy both. But this only deepens the disorder. Now each morning becomes a moral trial. Whichever watch you choose indicts the other. You will experience Rotational Guilt, the daily awareness that satisfaction has been structurally engineered out of the system.

    Welcome to the Great Rangeman Dilemma—the condition in which a minor consumer choice expands into a metaphysical crisis because every option comes preloaded with future regret. Time disappears into comparison videos, comment threads, lighting tests, and wrist shots while your actual obligations—those hundred essays—sit quietly aging like milk on the counter. The dilemma is not about watches. It is about the mind’s ability to convert a simple decision into a no-win psychological contract where perfection is mandatory, satisfaction is temporary, and productivity flatlines.

    Do not berate yourself for failing to solve it. Many have entered this labyrinth. None have emerged with certainty.

    Now close the browser.

    Your students are waiting.