Tag: nutrition

  • Ozempic and the Gospel of Suffering

    Ozempic and the Gospel of Suffering

    In his Washington Post essay “I’m on Ozempic. The Shaming Is Real,” Rick Reilly commits what remains, strangely enough, a minor social transgression: he admits that he loves GLP-1 drugs.

    Why wouldn’t he?

    They work.

    In three months, Reilly has lost twenty-two pounds. More importantly, he has escaped some of the relentless mental negotiations surrounding food—the calculations, cravings, promises, rationalizations, and internal committee meetings that can turn eating into a second occupation.

    You might expect people to congratulate him.

    Instead, they accuse him of cheating.

    Just exercise more, they tell him.

    Stop eating sugar.

    Use some willpower.

    In other words, please return to the traditional weight-loss program in which you spend every waking hour negotiating with a muffin.

    Reilly’s response is straightforward: Why is using effective technology considered cheating?

    Modern life is essentially one long conspiracy against doing things the hard way. We take statins to lower cholesterol. We use GPS rather than unfolding a map across the steering wheel while hurtling down the freeway. We undergo cataract surgery rather than accepting that God apparently wants the menu blurry. We use calculators, dishwashers, hearing aids, blood-pressure medication, cruise control, anesthesia, and increasingly cars capable of performing some of the driving themselves.

    Nobody emerges from surgery and announces, “Frankly, I think anesthesia was cheating.”

    Yet GLP-1 drugs somehow violate an ancient moral code.

    Even people taking them often behave like members of a secret society. At parties, Reilly says, people approach him and whisper that they’re on them too. Apparently admitting that you take a medication that helps control appetite now requires the discretion formerly reserved for revealing an affair with the tennis instructor.

    Why the embarrassment?

    Because body weight occupies a peculiar territory between medicine and morality. We don’t merely want people to lose weight. We want them to have earned the weight loss through visible suffering.

    Sweat.

    Hunger.

    Broccoli.

    Repentance.

    The acceptable thinner person must emerge from the wilderness carrying a food scale and a battered pair of running shoes.

    Tell people you lost thirty pounds by waking at five every morning, eating boiled chicken breasts, rejecting birthday cake, and performing burpees until your vision blurred, and they admire your discipline.

    Tell them a weekly injection quieted your appetite and suddenly an ethics committee needs to be convened.

    Reilly rejects the accusation that he lacks willpower. His problem, he argues, isn’t simply willpower. It’s time. Managing food can consume enormous amounts of mental bandwidth: thinking about what to eat, resisting what not to eat, calculating portions, experiencing cravings, compensating with exercise, and then beginning the entire negotiation again several hours later.

    There are only so many hours in a life.

    Why spend them arguing with a cheeseburger?

    Then comes the warning about “Ozempic Face”—the gaunt appearance associated with substantial or rapid weight loss. Reilly’s answer is that he is microdosing, trying to obtain the benefits without racing toward physical extremes. He isn’t attempting to disappear. He wants appetite control without looking as though someone left him overnight in a food dehydrator.

    So what explains the hostility?

    Some of it may indeed be envy. Watching someone obtain with medication what you obtained through years of dietary trench warfare can provoke resentment.

    But envy isn’t enough to explain it.

    Something deeper is operating: the lingering belief that appetite must be conquered through character. Discipline is virtuous precisely because discipline hurts. If technology reduces the struggle, people suspect that the resulting success is somehow counterfeit.

    This is the Moral Suspicion of Easy Weight Loss: when a difficult problem becomes easier to solve, we sometimes distrust the solution precisely because it eliminates the suffering we once considered evidence of virtue.

    There are legitimate questions about GLP-1 drugs—side effects, cost, access, long-term use, appropriate prescribing, and what happens after treatment stops. Those questions deserve serious attention.

    But “You cheated” isn’t a medical argument.

    It’s a moral complaint wearing gym clothes.

    Meanwhile, Reilly has lost the weight. The Food Noise has diminished. He has recovered mental territory previously occupied by appetite and negotiation.

    And he has no intention of surrendering it merely because someone else believes virtue should burn more calories.

  • The Discipline Ceiling

    The Discipline Ceiling

    When I followed baseball in the 1970s, certain teams seemed to have permanent reservations in the cellar. The Milwaukee Brewers. The San Diego Padres. The Washington Senators. I didn’t need to study the standings. I knew where to find them.

    At the bottom.

    Eventually, losing ceased to seem like a temporary condition and became a form of civic identity. Other teams competed for pennants. These teams competed for mathematical elimination sometime around Memorial Day. Their fans could open the sports page in August without anxiety. There would be Milwaukee, comfortably settled into the basement, unpacking boxes and hanging pictures on the walls.

    This is roughly my relationship with 230 pounds.

    For seven years, I have tried to break through that number and descend toward my promised land of 210. Occasionally I approach the border. I eat well. I exercise. I begin imagining myself entering the exotic kingdom of the 220s.

    Then 230 appears at the checkpoint.

    Not so fast.

    At this point, 230 doesn’t merely exist. It has developed a personality. It flexes its biceps. It smokes a cigar. It leans against the clubhouse wall with the serene confidence of a last-place team holding a twenty-game lead over its nearest competitor.

    Go ahead.

    Try something.

    I’ll be here.

    And it is.

    I eat mostly whole foods. In the morning, steel-cut oats. Later, a protein-heavy salad. After my nap, Greek yogurt. Dinner is protein and vegetables. I monitor portions. I exercise. I generally keep my calories below 2,500.

    Then I step on the scale.

    230.

    It’s like opening the sports page in 1974.

    Milwaukee: last place.

    Of course.

    At this point, the fitness tribunals will convene.

    “You’re eating too much.”

    Fine.

    “Reduce your calories.”

    I have.

    “Reduce them more.”

    And here we arrive at The Discipline Ceiling: the point at which a person is technically capable of imposing additional restrictions upon himself but decides that the marginal improvement isn’t worth making everyday life more miserable.

    This distinction matters because whenever weight loss stalls, the discussion inevitably becomes moral.

    You lack discipline.

    You don’t want it badly enough.

    You’re making excuses.

    Really?

    Come spend a week with me.

    Enjoy the steel-cut oats.

    Have another salad.

    Marvel as I spoon Greek yogurt into my mouth for approximately the ten-thousandth time.

    Then join me for dinner, where once again protein and vegetables await like two elderly relatives who have been sitting in the same chairs since the Eisenhower administration.

    I have discipline.

    What I don’t have is any interest in escalating it indefinitely.

    Could I eat 1,900 calories a day?

    Probably.

    Could I start intermittent fasting?

    Certainly.

    Could I go to bed hungry, wake up hungry, drink black coffee while contemplating mortality, and spend the afternoon fantasizing about a baked potato?

    Absolutely.

    I could probably reach 210 if I were willing to make weight loss the organizing principle of my existence.

    But I’m not.

    That’s my Discipline Ceiling.

    The modern optimization culture has difficulty accepting such a ceiling because its governing philosophy is that every measurable human characteristic should be improved until either perfection or death intervenes.

    Weight too high?

    Eat less.

    Still too high?

    Eat less than that.

    Hungry?

    Excellent. The program is working.

    Miserable?

    Even better. Misery demonstrates commitment.

    Soon enough you’re weighing blueberries on a digital scale and wondering whether licking the spoon requires an entry in MyFitnessPal.

    At some point, I decline.

    This doesn’t mean I’ve discovered that calories don’t matter or that my body has repealed the laws of thermodynamics. If I consistently ate substantially less, I would almost certainly lose additional weight.

    The question isn’t whether I can impose more discipline.

    The question is how much of my remaining life I’m willing to surrender to it.

    There is always another restriction available.

    Skip breakfast.

    Eliminate starch.

    Reduce dinner.

    No food after six.

    Fast sixteen hours.

    Fast eighteen.

    Count almonds.

    Fear bananas.

    Treat a tablespoon of peanut butter like an uncontrolled substance.

    Eventually you can become so disciplined that you spend your entire day thinking about the food you’re heroically not eating.

    No thanks.

    I would still like to weigh 210. I would enjoy seeing 225, then 220, then perhaps one glorious morning stepping onto the scale and seeing a number beginning with 21.

    But there are terms.

    I’ll eat nutritious food. I’ll control my portions. I’ll exercise. I’ll tolerate some hunger. I’ll maintain a degree of dietary monotony that would make a monastery cafeteria look like the Bellagio buffet.

    But I will not turn eating into punishment.

    That is the ceiling.

    Perhaps this means I’ll remain at 230.

    Perhaps 230 is my Milwaukee Brewers.

    If so, I’ll continue trying to climb out of the cellar—but I’m not going to set fire to the clubhouse to prove how badly I want the pennant.

    There is discipline.

    And then there is making your entire life kneel before a number on a bathroom scale.

    I’ve reached the ceiling.

    I’m not climbing through it.

  • Waiting for the Norwegian Sweat Lodge

    Waiting for the Norwegian Sweat Lodge

    I often think about something Samuel Wilson Fussell wrote in his memoir Muscle. At the height of his bodybuilding obsession, he resented the hours between one workout and the next. Training made life bearable. Everything else was simply waiting.

    I understand that feeling better than I wish I did.

    Every workout is Christmas morning.

    The days between workouts are spent writing exercise programs the way children write Christmas lists. Should I begin with kettlebell swings? Goblet squats? Romanian deadlifts? Reverse lunges? The anticipation becomes its own form of pleasure. I don’t merely look forward to training. I ache for it.

    I’m almost sixty-five, and my one-hour kettlebell sessions in the garage have become my transcendental escape. They feel less like exercise than boarding a flight to a Norwegian sweat lodge hidden deep within a pine forest. There, steam rises through the trees like incense. The air is clean. My mind finally grows quiet. For an hour, I take a vacation from my own neuroses.

    Age, however, imposes its own theology.

    Injury is now the unforgivable sin.

    At twenty-five, I could bully my body into submission. At sixty-five, my body is the senior partner in the relationship. It insists on negotiation. I have to lift lighter, move smarter, recover longer, yet still wander close enough to my physical limits that my muscles receive the message without my tendons filing a formal complaint. Fifty years under the barbell have taught me where that narrow path lies. The art is approaching the cliff without tumbling over it.

    I cannot exaggerate how much I treasure those three weekly workouts.

    Three.

    No more.

    My body has cast its vote.

    The remaining days belong to the Schwinn Airdyne.

    Calling it “cardio” feels charitable. The Airdyne is less Norwegian sweat lodge than medieval torture device, a machine apparently designed by monks who believed salvation was achieved only through prolonged respiratory distress. If I could replace every Airdyne session with kettlebells, I would do it tomorrow. Unfortunately, my joints have become more persuasive than my enthusiasm.

    Training, however, is only half the bargain.

    Then comes eating.

    Or, more precisely, eating the right amount.

    People often say, “Just eat healthy.”

    That’s charming.

    I can eat salmon, berries, oatmeal, Greek yogurt, beans, and vegetables until I resemble a prosperous bear preparing for hibernation. My problem has never been distinguishing broccoli from doughnuts. My problem is that my default setting is abundance.

    Real nutrition isn’t merely choosing healthy foods.

    It’s choosing enough healthy foods—and then stopping.

    That is where the real battle begins.

    Like most people, I live with a steady stream of food noise humming in the background of my consciousness. Portion control doesn’t silence that noise. It merely lowers the volume enough that I can hear myself think.

    Yesterday was a perfect example.

    Breakfast was oatmeal, protein powder, soy milk, and berries. Lunch was a shrimp-and-tuna salad. After my afternoon nap came plain Greek yogurt with mango. Dinner was salmon over a salad with white rice and garbanzo beans, followed by an apple.

    Roughly 2,400 calories.

    Objectively, I ate well.

    Subjectively, I was hungry for most of the day.

    Not Hungry with a capital H.

    Not the desperate hunger of starvation.

    Just small-h hunger.

    And over the years I have learned something the fitness influencers rarely advertise between shirtless selfies and discount codes:

    Successful weight management is usually hungrier than unsuccessful weight management.

    If you’re never a little hungry, there’s a good chance you’re eating enough to maintain exactly the body you already have.

    That isn’t a tragedy.

    It’s simply arithmetic.

    If I want the leaner, stronger body my kettlebell training is trying to build, then I must accept small-h hunger as the price of admission.

    So I make peace with it.

    Because somewhere in the distance, beyond another measured meal and another day of anticipation, I can already see that Norwegian sweat lodge rising from the forest. Steam drifts through the evergreens like a veil. The kettlebells are waiting.

    And, like Christmas morning, it will be worth every hour I spent waiting.

  • Resurrection Fatigue and the Will to Begin Again

    Resurrection Fatigue and the Will to Begin Again

    My first memory of stepping onto a scale came in September of 1973. I was eleven years old, living in Nairobi, Kenya, recovering from the flu. I had barely eaten in several days and wondered whether I still weighed one hundred pounds. Curious, I wandered into my parents’ bathroom, climbed onto the scale, and watched the needle settle at ninety-seven.

    It seemed like a trivial moment.

    It wasn’t.

    Six months later my family returned to California, and I joined the Junior Olympic Weightlifting team at Earl Warren Junior High. From then on, weigh-ins became as routine as brushing my teeth. The scale was no longer a bathroom fixture. It became a judge.

    Within a year I was competing in the 148-pound class and, for a brief, glorious moment, ranked number one in the nation. Then I watched Pumping Iron.

    Like countless teenage boys before and after me, I fell under Arnold Schwarzenegger’s spell. His charisma was so overwhelming that Olympic weightlifting suddenly seemed like yesterday’s religion. I converted to bodybuilding.

    From that point forward, every weigh-in became an attempt to measure myself against Arnold. He stood six-foot-two and weighed about 230 pounds. I was five-foot-eleven, so simple arithmetic convinced me that 220 pounds would make me his earthly cousin.

    By sixteen I weighed 195 pounds, naturally lean and deeply tanned. A classmate named Kay McQuade told me I looked perfect.

    Poor Kay.

    She didn’t realize she was competing with Arnold Schwarzenegger.

    Compliments bounced harmlessly off my ego because perfection had already been assigned another number.

    By eighteen I weighed 210 pounds and could bench press four hundred pounds. I assumed 220 was inevitable.

    It wasn’t.

    At nineteen I competed in the Mr. Teenage San Francisco contest and finished runner-up. Contest dieting stripped away fat—and a good deal of muscle—until I weighed a shredded 180 pounds. I had never taken steroids. I wasn’t enormous, but I looked the way I had imagined a bodybuilder should look.

    Soon afterward I retired from competition.

    I continued lifting because it steadied my mind as much as it strengthened my body, and I settled comfortably around 205 pounds.

    That became my dating weight.

    Then, at thirty-two, something quietly went wrong.

    My weight climbed to 235 pounds with astonishing speed. The muscles remained underneath, but they now seemed trapped beneath an expanding layer of softness. I no longer looked powerful. I looked inflated.

    I became obsessed.

    Calories.

    Body fat.

    Scales.

    Mirrors.

    Thinking about my weight occupied so much mental real estate that you would have assumed all that rumination would produce results.

    It didn’t.

    When I began dating the woman who would become my wife, romance arrived carrying a dessert menu. We celebrated by eating at restaurants, lingering over dinners, and ordering sweets with cheerful abandon. Love and indulgence turned out to be enthusiastic dinner companions.

    By 2003, one year into our marriage, I weighed 257 pounds.

    There is photographic evidence.

    Somewhere on my wife’s Mac sits an image of me sprawled across our living-room couch with a bowl of popcorn studded with chocolate kisses. Melted chocolate decorates my face like war paint from a battle I had decisively lost.

    My daughters love that photograph.

    They laugh every time they find it.

    I don’t.

    When I look at that man, I don’t merely see obesity. I see someone whose appetites have staged a successful coup. He looks less like a husband than a failed republic.

    The next two decades became an exhausting cycle of resurrection and relapse.

    In 2004 I embraced a reduced-carbohydrate diet and returned to a respectable 205 pounds.

    Mission accomplished.

    Then came complacency.

    Back to 235.

    Years later I repeated the feat.

    Back to 205.

    Back to 235.

    In 2017 I met a remarkably fit celebrity chef whose daughters attended school with mine. His example inspired me to cut calories again. By August of 2018 I weighed a lean 200 pounds.

    Victory.

    Temporary victory.

    The weight quietly returned, as faithful to me as an old friend who never forgets my address.

    The last photograph of myself that I genuinely admire was taken in Yosemite in 2019.

    My daughters and I are standing beneath El Capitan. I’m wearing a black T-shirt and a Seiko Monster with its coral-blue dial mounted on a hulking Super Engineer bracelet. My arms are muscular. My face is lean. My expression carries a quiet confidence that only hindsight fully appreciates.

    Now I look at that photograph the way one studies an old passport.

    Proof that I once lived there.

    Then came COVID.

    For eighteen months I shuffled around the house in pajamas, taught college classes online, and discovered that home workouts were no match for comfort eating. My weight drifted back toward 240.

    As I write this in August 2026, I weigh 230 pounds.

    It suddenly occurs to me that I haven’t seen the 220s since 2019.

    Seven years.

    Seven years hovering above 230, occasionally visiting 240 whenever vacation invited me to overstay my welcome at the buffet.

    Last week my family returned from Carlsbad.

    I came home weighing 236.

    Three disciplined days later I was back to 230.

    I now eat roughly 2,400 calories and about 140 grams of protein each day. Three times a week I spend sixty-five minutes in my garage swinging kettlebells. Twice a week I climb aboard my Schwinn Airdyne and pedal as if someone were chasing me with bad bloodwork.

    I have little doubt that I will soon break below 230.

    The problem is that I have already celebrated this victory several times before.

    I suffer from what I call Resurrection Fatigue: the exhaustion that arises from repeatedly rebuilding oneself after failure while knowing that every previous resurrection eventually gave way to another collapse. Each new beginning carries not only hope but memory.

    Memory can be a cruel training partner.

    It whispers:

    “You’ve been here before.”

    On difficult days I hear another voice.

    “What’s the point? You’ll gain it back anyway. You’re almost sixty-five. Eat the pizza. Order the carrot cake. You’ve had a good run.”

    Ironically, many of my eighteen-year-old students agree with that sentiment.

    Recently I asked them whether they would rather live to sixty-five eating whatever they pleased or live to one hundred on an austere diet.

    Every single one chose sixty-five.

    I understood their answer.

    At eighteen, death is an abstraction.

    At sixty-five, it has a calendar.

    You no longer think in terms of someday.

    You think in terms of seasons remaining.

    You become strangely willing to fight for another episode.

    No one wants his television series cancelled.

    So I’m still fighting.

    I know every trap.

    I know every rationalization.

    I know exactly how easily discipline dissolves into complacency.

    But I also know what waits on the other side of twenty lost pounds.

    Less sleep apnea.

    Healthier cholesterol.

    Less pain in my ankles.

    More years with my wife.

    More years watching my daughters become the women they are meant to be.

    Getting down to 210 is no longer about vanity.

    It is about longevity.

    It is about mental health.

    It is about refusing to surrender while the fight is still mine to wage.

    The older I become, the less interested I am in looking like Arnold Schwarzenegger.

    I would settle for looking like a man who refused to quit.

  • The First Rule of Diet Club

    The First Rule of Diet Club

    The first rule of dieting is beautifully simple: don’t talk about dieting. The moment you begin enthusiastically recounting your Fourth of July bacchanal—how you mainlined salami, slabs of Muenster cheese, triple-fudge brownies, and vanilla bean ice cream until you were convinced you had one foot in the grave and the other in a podiatrist’s office diagnosing gout—you have already begun sabotaging yourself. Soon your audience will be treated to your target weight, your macros, your supplement stack, your Mediterranean meal plan, and your newly acquired expertise in insulin sensitivity, fibermaxxing, and protein optimization. You will sound like someone who completed an online doctorate in nutrition sometime between dessert and midnight. Unfortunately, the odds that you will still be following the plan by next weekend hover somewhere around the lifespan of a mayfly.

    The irony is that talking about dieting feels suspiciously like dieting. You receive the emotional reward before earning the physical result. Friends nod approvingly while you bask in the warm glow of your imminent transformation. The fantasy becomes so satisfying that the actual work begins to feel almost optional. Meanwhile, everyone else quietly wonders why they have become unwilling participants in your nutritional TED Talk. Like nearly every worthwhile endeavor, dieting rewards execution rather than narration. Calories are indifferent to speeches. Fat cells are unimpressed by declarations of intent. Biology has never once accepted enthusiasm as a substitute for consistency.

    Then comes the humbling realization that your revolutionary plan is neither revolutionary nor particularly new. You have saddled this horse before—roughly a hundred and twenty times. Your success rate for reaching your target weight, less than 5%, is discouraging enough; your success rate for keeping it there is indistinguishable from zero. 

    With this in mind, you briefly entertain the modern miracle of GLP-1 medications, only to discover that the price, potential side effects, and your physician’s reluctance to prescribe them leave you unconvinced. So, in the colorful language of the internet, you decide to raw-dog the process. 

    Beneath all these failed diets lies a more subtle addiction. You are not merely addicted to food. You are addicted to self-reinvention. Every new eating plan promises not simply a smaller waistline but a new identity—a wiser, leaner, more disciplined version of yourself who will finally silence the persistent suspicion that you have somehow fallen short of your own expectations. The tragedy is that this future self often functions less as a destination than as a mirage shimmering just beyond the horizon.

    And yet, abandoning the effort altogether is hardly an attractive alternative. Better to struggle toward health than surrender to gluttony with theatrical resignation. So make your plan. Count your calories. Work out with the kettlebells. Ride the bike. Eat the vegetables. Decline the brownies. But keep your mouth shut. Announce nothing. Promise nothing. Let your bathroom scale and your belt become your only press secretaries. The instant you begin proclaiming your impending metamorphosis, your words become dietary Kryptonite, knocking Superman out of the sky and sending him headfirst into a vat of vanilla bean ice cream. Silence, it turns out, may be the most underrated weight-loss supplement of all.

  • My Diet Revolution Will Not be Livestreamed

    My Diet Revolution Will Not be Livestreamed

    Today marks my first day of abandoning snacks and eating only three meals.

    I’m already making minor adjustments. I think I’ll add a couple of eggs to lunch to help carry me through the long stretch between 11:30 and 5:00. After dinner, I’ll finish with a small crystal bowl of Greek yogurt, berries, and a drizzle of honey—not as a fourth meal, but as a civilized period at the end of the sentence. It softens the psychological blow of eliminating my beloved post-nap yogurt-and-protein-powder ritual without turning dessert into another calorie ambush.

    As I write this, about four and a half hours after lunch, I won’t pretend it’s effortless.

    I notice the absence of the snack.

    My stomach notices it.

    My brain notices it even more.

    It keeps floating little suggestions.

    “You know, one handful of almonds wouldn’t count.”

    “A spoonful of peanut butter is practically medicine.”

    “Surely Greek yogurt exists outside the jurisdiction of snacks.”

    My appetite has hired an exceptionally creative attorney.

    But the discomfort is remarkably ordinary.

    I’m not suffering.

    I’m not wandering the Sahara with cracked lips and hallucinations.

    I’m simply a little hungry.

    If tolerating that mild inconvenience helps me lose twenty pounds, it strikes me as an excellent bargain.

    The larger lesson has nothing to do with nutrition.

    It’s about refusing to become a baby.

    Modern life encourages us to interpret every minor discomfort as an emergency requiring immediate relief. Hungry? Eat. Bored? Snack. Tired? Caffeinate. Restless? Scroll. We have become connoisseurs of eliminating even the slightest irritation before it has a chance to teach us anything.

    Perhaps that’s why ordinary self-discipline now gets marketed as though it were a heroic expedition.

    Someone skips dessert for three days and suddenly there’s a podcast, a YouTube channel, and a line of merchandise celebrating their “journey.”

    I have no interest in becoming that guy.

    You will not see me posting a dramatic video titled How I Defeated Hunger and Reclaimed My Life.

    There will be no livestream documenting my courageous decision to survive the dangerous interval between lunch and dinner.

    No inspirational soundtrack.

    No slow-motion footage.

    No sermon about embracing pain.

    Because there is no pain.

    There is only structure.

    There is only routine.

    There is only a modest reduction in calories.

    Sometimes common sense is refreshingly unglamorous. It doesn’t require a manifesto, a support group, or a motivational speech. It merely asks us to tolerate a small amount of discomfort in exchange for a much larger reward.

    That hardly qualifies as heroism.

    It’s just growing up.

  • 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.

  • Leanmaxxing and the New Fantasy of Frictionless Medicine

    Leanmaxxing and the New Fantasy of Frictionless Medicine

    As a boy watching Star Trek, I was transfixed by the Tricorder–that tidy slab of certainty doctors waved over a body the way a priest might wave incense over a mystery. No scalpels, no tubes, no anxious waiting rooms with their stale magazines and fluorescent despair. A quick scan, a soft chirp, and the problem surrendered. The body, usually so coy and uncooperative, became a readable document–its secrets itemized, its fate clarified. It was medicine without friction, diagnosis without drama. In that universe, ignorance lasted seconds.

    For decades, the Tricorder sat where all good fantasies sit: just out of reach, gleaming with impossible efficiency. But reality has a way of cheating. The future did not arrive as a handheld scanner; it arrived as chemistry–specifically, a class of drugs that seems to negotiate directly with the body’s most stubborn impulses. If the Tricorder promised instant knowledge, GLP-1 drugs promise something more unnerving: the quiet rewriting of appetite, metabolism, and behavior from the inside out.

    In her New York Times essay “The Great Ozempic Experiment,” Julia Belluz catalogs the early returns, and they read less like a drug profile than a wish list that forgot to edit itself. Yes, there’s weight loss–the headline act–but the understudies keep stealing the show: concussion recovery, addiction dampening, relief from menopause symptoms, long COVID, alopecia, inflammation, arthritis, IBS, anxiety, brain fog. The list grows with the confidence of a rumor that keeps being confirmed. By the time you finish reading, you suspect the drug might also fix your credit score.

    The catch, for now, is almost comically modest: nausea and paperwork. The body may revolt briefly; the insurance company may revolt permanently. Yet demand surges, fueled by users who report not just slimmer bodies but upgraded lives–better mood, sharper focus, revived social calendars, improved fertility. It’s less a medication than a lifestyle intervention with a prescription pad.

    Clinicians, watching this unfold, have begun to reach for a new framework–the “root-cause” theory–because the old boxes no longer hold. These drugs don’t respect the tidy borders between endocrine, cardiovascular, and neurological disease; they trespass, improve, and move on. Even more disorienting, benefits appear in patients who don’t lose weight at all: better heart, liver, and kidney function, as if the drug were quietly tuning systems we didn’t know were connected.

    And here is where the story turns from miracle to question mark. As GLP-1 use spreads–along with the culture’s sudden enthusiasm for “leanmaxxing”–we risk trading one distortion for another: the cartoon body, now achieved pharmacologically rather than cosmetically. It is far too early to crown these drugs the real-world Tricorder, and just as premature to condemn them as a Faustian bargain. Like AI, they are moving faster than our ability to narrate them. We are watching a technology outrun our categories, and the only honest response, for now, is attention without prophecy.