Tag: nutrition

  • Victory Lapnesia

    Victory Lapnesia

    For most of my adult life, I’ve been stalked by a sneaky, waistline-widening predator I now call Munchdrift—the stealth snacking habit that brings in a slow-motion avalanche of calories like a drip IV of lard straight to the gut. I didn’t even realize it was happening. One minute, I’m nibbling on a handful of almonds “for heart health,” the next I’m housing a Costco tub of peanut butter with a ladle. Result? I’ve been fat four times. 1996: 235 lbs. 2003: 253 lbs. 2017: 245 lbs. And now, 2025: 247 lbs. Like clockwork. Like a cursed zodiac of self-sabotage.

    I don’t have the luxury of “body acceptance” or any other hashtagged delusion. When I weigh over 230, my body throws a biochemical tantrum: cholesterol, triglycerides, and blood pressure all go full DEFCON 2. This isn’t about self-love. It’s about not dying in the next decade.

    The pattern’s always been the same. I muscle my way down to 200 on 2,400 calories a day, white-knuckling my appetite like I’m defusing a bomb. And then—poof. The discipline vanishes. I get smug. The weight loss high wears off and I forget every methodical trick that got me there. Slowly, entropy creeps in, disguised as “flexibility,” “moderation,” and “deserved treats.” The order collapses. Munchdrift returns. Pride dies. And I wake up bloated and furious, wearing sweatpants that used to hang loose and now plead for mercy.

    Now I’m 63, and I’m done playing Groundhog Day with my waistline. I needed a name for this psychological sabotage—the specific kind of pride-drunk amnesia that ruins everything. And here it is:

    Victory Lapnesia.

    It’s that delusional post-weight-loss fugue state where, drunk on success, I forget every sweaty, hungry, unsexy tactic that got me to 200. Suddenly, the rules become negotiable. “Moderation” sneaks in. Maintenance becomes an endless cheat day. And my once-disciplined mind turns into a TED Talk on rationalization. The result? Munchdrift relapse. Button-flying denial. A renewed subscription to regret, with auto-renew turned on.

    But not this time. I’ve drawn the line. Here are 7 unforgiving strategies to keep Victory Lapnesia from moving back into my love handles like a squatter with squatters’ rights:

    1. Celebrate with Systems, Not Sweets
    No more “I deserve this” cake. That’s how the descent begins—frosted and full of lies. My real reward is knowing what works. So instead of high-fiving myself with a slice of cheesecake, I schedule my next month of meals, workouts, and weigh-ins like a man preparing for war—not a man planning brunch.

    2. Install Post-Goal Protocols
    The scale hitting 200 isn’t the end. It’s the beginning of a long maintenance trench war. I now have a one-page “Maintenance Manifesto” taped to my fridge, my bathroom mirror, and the dashboard of my car. It’s non-negotiable, like brushing teeth or paying taxes.

    3. Rebrand Maintenance as a Project
    Maintenance isn’t a passive state—it’s my next mission. I’ve dubbed it Project Anti-Rebound. Think Marvel meets middle-age. This isn’t about keeping weight off—it’s about defending the citadel of sanity against the invading hordes of snack-based betrayal.

    4. Weigh Myself Like It’s Church
    Sunday mornings. Same time. Same scale. No excuses. I treat the weigh-in like mass: a ritual of reckoning. The scale doesn’t care about my feelings, my schedule, or how “good” I was. It tells the truth like an indifferent god.

    5. Make Munchdrift Illegal
    Snacking is banned. Full stop. No more “just a bite” diplomacy. No handfuls. No desk-side almonds. No post-dinner kitchen loitering. Every bite is logged. Every calorie accounted for. If it’s not a meal, it doesn’t go in my mouth. Period.

    6. Hang My Fat Pants Like a War Trophy
    I’ve kept my largest jeans. They hang like a scarecrow in my closet. A denim warning sign. Every time I feel tempted to “ease up,” I look at them and hear them whisper, We remember who you were. I do too.

    7. Outsource the Shame (Productively)
    I text my weight to a friend every Friday. I blog about my progress for strangers who don’t care but might someday. Shame kept secret is corrosive. Shame shared is accountability. I’ve turned my relapse history into content—and I dare my ego to screw it up again.

    This isn’t a journey anymore. Journeys end. This is a regimen. A regime. A ruthless campaign against the soft tyranny of my own bad habits. Because I’ve learned the hard way: if you don’t fight for maintenance like you fought for weight loss, you’ll lose everything—and you’ll gain it all back.

  • The Reluctant Dieter’s Survival Guide

    The Reluctant Dieter’s Survival Guide

    Cravattenuation Nation: Dispatches from the Snack Trenches

    In 1978, my high school biology teacher Mr. Hennessy—an underqualified martyr with a Napoleon complex and a permanent scent of chalk dust and moral compromise—falsely accused me of cutting class and vindictively tanked my grade from a B to a C. Yet, in a rare moment of non-pettiness, he lobbed a line at the class that clung to my psyche like burnt cheese on a cafeteria tray: “You need two things in life—a job and a philosophy.”

    It took me decades and a thousand acts of minor self-sabotage to grasp what he meant. A true philosophy, I finally decided, wasn’t about quoting Camus in coffee shops or scrawling Latin mottos on vision boards—it was about cultivating a healthy anger at your own slow-motion collapse into chaos. If you weren’t revolted by your own slide into sloth, indulgence, and instant gratification, then congratulations: your dignity had officially left the building.

    Flash-forward to a recent humid night in a Miami hotel kitchenette, where I stood barefoot on sticky linoleum, bathed in microwave light and the snoring of my family through a wall that may as well have been made of Kleenex. I was bloated on Cuban oxtail stew, fried sweet plantains, tres leches cake, and key lime pie, anxious, spiritually sagging like a wet hammock. I missed the illusory reinvention vibes of Southern California—where even failure could be filtered through an ocean breeze and a protein smoothie.

    That’s when my invisible guru showed up, conjured by shame, cortisol, and the psychic residue of every unwritten to-do list. Half Stoic monk, half caffeinated boot camp instructor, he looked me dead in the eyes—the eyes of a man who’d seen too many midnight Pop-Tarts—and said, “Repeat after me: Less coffee, less food, more dignity. More focus, more humility, more gratitude, more work—less regret. Got it?”

    It was the kind of slogan you’d find stenciled on a CrossFit wall next to a kettlebell and a shattered dream. But fine, I nodded. I felt that brief, delusional jolt of resolve—the one that comes right before you delete all your food delivery apps and tell your wife you’re going keto again.

    Then I caved and confessed. “Look,” I told him, “I love your gospel. Really. But the moment a cookie enters the room, I turn into a lab rat in a dopamine lab. There’s this gremlin in me—wired for despair and internet snacks—who takes over the moment my blood sugar dips or a notification pings. What do I do with that guy?”

    The guru didn’t blink. He barely moved a muscle, as if quoting from the sacred scroll of Instagram fitness influencers:

     “As you live in accordance with the plan, you’ll grow stronger. The old ways will become revolting. The deeper you root yourself in the good, the weaker the bad becomes.”

    I nodded, sure—but not with conviction. It was more of a sweat-slicked head bob, the kind one gives when pretending to agree while actually fantasizing about cinnamon rolls. Augustine came to mind, that eloquent saint of foot-dragging repentance: “Grant me chastity and continence—but not yet.”

    In my case, it was more like: “Grant me food discipline, but let me demolish a Costco cheesecake first and start clean next fiscal year.”
    And just like that, I saw myself clearly: not a fitness monk, not a nutritional Spartan—just your everyday Reluctant Dieter, dragging my fork through life’s buffet while whispering, “Soon, Lord. But not now.”

    In spite of initial reluctance, on April 10th at the age of sixty-three, fresh off a family vacation in Miami and still spiritually sticky with airport pastrami sandwich guilt, I stepped on the scale and was greeted with a soul-curdling 247 pounds. Yes, some of it is lifelong muscle from half a century of hoisting kettlebells and playing Hercules in the garage. But make no mistake—this number was a slap in the face, a statistical insult to my dignity. Fueled by a righteous anger I can only describe as metabolic revenge, I went to war.

    First, I cut my meals down to three per day and gamified the system like a psychological Jedi. My lunchtime yogurt-and-berries bowl got reassigned as a post-nap “treat,” and a humble apple—normally the most boring fruit in the bowl—was elevated to nightly “dessert,” strategically scheduled for 8 p.m. to give my inner child something to cling to as the kitchen closed. I also slashed my coffee intake from 36 to 18 ounces (don’t worry, I’m still barely human), and dropped my creatine from 6 grams to a mere 3—enough to retain my swole, but not enough to float like a sodium balloon.

    Meanwhile, I came to grips with the ugly truth that I was overstuffing both my freezer and my face. The freezer had become a metaphor for my appetite: jammed with frozen berries, low-carb snacks, and delusions of future discipline. Constantly raiding it created two problems: overconsumption and literal water puddles from a clogged defrost drain. My wife and I emptied the thing out like detoxing hoarders, and miraculously, the fridge stopped weeping. I then purchased a chest freezer for the garage to create a buffer zone—a cold storage moat to protect the kitchen from my impulsive nibbling.

    By April 19, I had dropped to 240 pounds—a loss of seven pounds in nine days, even with an Easter cheat day that involved chocolate cake and blueberry pie, which I regret nothing about. Losing seven pounds seemed like a move in the right direction, a sign of a man with a healthy anger fueling my desire to achieve some self-control. 

      But here’s the real revelation from those ten days: the hunger I thought I was feeling wasn’t hunger—it was performance anxiety from my stomach, a neurotic need to react to every twitch of emptiness like it was a national emergency. That, my friends, is where Cravattenuation comes in.

    Cravattenuation is the noble and necessary art of muting your inner snack gremlin—the one who panics at the first polite growl of your stomach and demands cheese. It’s the mental and metabolic recalibration that teaches you this: real hunger is not a 3 p.m. yawn with a craving for almonds. It’s a deeper emptiness, one you can actually enjoy. Because when you let your appetite stretch out and breathe, you arrive at meals not with guilt or compulsion, but with appetite and joy. Hunger becomes less of a trigger and more of a drumroll.

    Cravattenuation the deliberate process of retraining your body to interpret minor hunger signals not as existential emergencies but as low-priority system notifications: “You might want to eat in a bit” instead of “RAID THE PANTRY OR DIE.” Just as meditation teaches you to sit with discomfort rather than react impulsively, Cravattenuation teaches you that a little hunger isn’t a crisis—it’s foreplay for a better meal.

    We’ve been conditioned by snack culture and anxiety-driven consumption to treat hunger as something to be feared and fixed immediately, like a smoke alarm or a toddler tantrum. But when you practice Cravattenuation, something remarkable happens: your threshold for hunger strengthens, and the urgency softens. You learn to sit with a mild stomach pang without spiraling into carb-lust. Over time, you develop what can only be described as Hunger Discernment: the ability to separate emotional nibble-itching from true physiological need.

    By making your body earn the meal—not through punishment, but patience—you begin to eat with a clarity and joy that’s been missing since the dawn of office vending machines. Food tastes better when you’re actually hungry for it. Not “kinda bored” hungry, not “scrolling through cheese reels” hungry, but real hungry. Cravattenuation helps you not only manage your weight with more ease and grace, it re-enchants the eating experience itself. You’ll start treating meals like mini homecomings rather than pit stops at a dopamine gas station.

    As I snacked less, I enjoyed my meals more. They had more savor than before, and here I had arrived at the desirable condition of Savorosity–what happens when you’ve tamed the snack-demon with Cravattenuation—the fine art of not panicking at the first rumble of your stomach. It’s hunger with manners. You arrive at meals like a guest at a candlelit dinner, not a contestant in a pie-eating contest. You chew like someone who reads books—slowly, curiously, with presence. You’re not chasing a craving. You’re honoring an earned appetite. And you know you’ve crossed into Savorosity when you feel less like a gremlin in a pantry and more like a monk with a spoon.

    But if Savorosity is dinner at a five-star bistro, we must acknowledge its opposite–Munchdrift, which is loitering in the food court of your own life. It’s the slow-motion landslide of indiscriminate nibbling—a cashew here, a dry crust of cheese there, a spoonful of peanut butter just to “hold you over.” It’s hunger as white noise, muffled beneath boredom, impulse, and the kind of existential drift that ends with you staring at an empty bag of pretzels like you just blacked out at a carb rave. In the Munchdrift state, flavor is irrelevant. Appetite never sharpens. Meals become a blur, and you, a passenger on the Grazing Express with no clear destination and no seatbelt.

    This war between Savorosity and Munchdrift isn’t just about food—it’s a philosophical struggle. I arm myself with these lexicon terms the way a weary soldier straps on armor, battling the inner sloth that says, “You’re going to die anyway, so why not faceplant into a tray of brownies?” But that’s a lie dressed in pastry. Because death may be inevitable, but turning into a winded, sweat-drenched metaphor for chaos along the way is not. Dignity matters. So does self-possession. And so does a philosophy of restraint—not one rooted in punishment, but in purpose.

    My old high school biology teacher, Mr. Hennessy—grumpy, flawed, and accidentally wise—once said everyone needs two things: a job and a philosophy. This is mine. Not some monkish denial cult, but a gritty, practical roadmap to push back against entropy. It’s the reluctant dieter’s creed. A form of mature rebellion. And maybe, just maybe, a recipe for actual happiness.

  • Cerealphilia

    Cerealphilia

     Cereal is more than a grain; it’s an existential dream of happiness and the maternal embrace. As kids, we didn’t just eat cereal—we engaged in epic love affairs with cartoon mascots, played mind-bending board games on the back of the box, and embarked on treasure hunts for plastic trinkets buried deep within the sugary abyss. We sent box tops to claim submarines, shirts, hats, and other merchandise that, in hindsight, had all the utility of a chocolate teapot.

    My cereal obsession reached such dizzying heights that I fantasized about growing up to be a Major League baseball star who exclusively dined on cereal for breakfast, lunch, and dinner. In my dreams, I was a grocery store legend, cart packed to the brim with Cap’n Crunch, Franken Berry, Count Chocula, Froot Loops, and Lucky Charms. Cereal was my ticket to mindless self-gratification, whisking me away with Pinocchio to Paradise Island, where we’d lose our minds, sprout donkey ears, and bray like beasts in a symphony of sugary delirium.

    In the 1970s, cereal spun tales of the good life and ultimate success. We gorged on granola, wheat germ, Wheaties, and Special K, convinced we were one spoonful away from becoming paragons of health, fitness, and suburban nirvana. One of the era’s cereal prophets was Euell Gibbons, the outdoor enthusiast who, with a straight face, asked us in Grape-Nuts ads, “Ever eat a pine tree? Many parts are edible.” Gibbons spun a yarn about Grape-Nuts that promised to ground us in the Earth, bestow vitality, and arm us with survival skills fit for a post-apocalyptic rainforest escapade equipped with nothing but a buck knife and a loincloth. In reality, eating the gravel-like cereal resulted in thousands of dentist visits for chipped teeth and a crunch so deafening, it drowned out the morning radio.

    Despite all this, Grape-Nuts still haunt my cravings. The crunch and malty flavor have me hooked. I’ve read that Grape-Nuts are the only store-bought cereal that hasn’t been subjected to extrusion, that nefarious heating process that murders nutrients. Instead, Grape-Nuts are baked like a loaf of bread, ensuring that each bite is a dense, jaw-breaking tribute to my childhood.

    There was a time in my adult life when I raged against the societal norms that prevented me from consuming cereal for all three meals. I longed for cold store-bought cereal for breakfast, oatmeal for lunch, and buckwheat for dinner. I envisioned my cereals adorned with peanut butter, walnuts, chia seeds, hemp seeds, and berries to pack in nutrients and calories. But my plan was thwarted by my wife and twin daughters, who, in their maddeningly rational mindset, refused to partake. Clearly, I was on the brink of an eating disorder, or perhaps my subconscious was grasping for the lost comfort and convenience of my cereal-drenched youth.

    Yuval Noah Harari has plenty to say about our destructive quest for comfort and convenience in Sapiens. He argues that as foragers, hunting animals and gathering fruits, we were sharp, alert, fit like Special-Ops fighters, and generally happy. But when we settled down to farm, convinced we were making life easier, we fell for history’s biggest con. Agriculture, which brought us mountains of grains and cereals, was the dawn of obesity, tooth decay, impotence, arthritis, hernias, scoliosis, rampant thievery, economic disparity, starvation, infectious disease, mass animal cruelty, and misogyny. We weren’t duped by people but by wheat, rice, and potatoes—plants that manipulated us into cultivating them, chaining us to the fickle rhythms of the harvest, and inflicting more misery than any human could.

    Maybe I was getting played by cereal. It wormed its way into my psyche, hijacked my thoughts, and turned me into a zombie who couldn’t watch TV without retreating to the kitchen for a bowl of cold cereal by 7 p.m., seeking the soothing crunch as I stared, glassy-eyed, at the screen.

    My excessive thoughts on cereal point to Cerealphilia–a condition in which love for cereal evolves from innocent childhood affection into a full-blown emotional dependency masquerading as nutritional strategy. Cerealphilia sufferers don’t just eat cereal—they commune with it, fantasize about it, and defend it with the fervor of a late-stage cult member. Symptoms include justifying cold cereal for dinner as “wholesome,” craving the cardboard crunch of Grape-Nuts like a Pavlovian hit, and resenting anyone who dares suggest you diversify your diet. At its core, Cerealphilia is comfort-seeking disguised as health enlightenment, a warm milky bath for the soul stirred with nostalgia, rebellion, and a sprinkle of dietary delusion.

    Diagnostic Checklist for Cerealphilia:

    1. Box-top Hoarding: You’ve considered raiding your attic for vintage box tops in case the Cap’n ever reopens the mail-order treasure vault.
    2. Cereal Monogamy: You’ve eaten Cap’n Crunch in more variations than you’ve had actual romantic partners.
    3. Midnight Communion: Your idea of unwinding involves a mixing bowl of cereal and a trance-like TV binge by 7 p.m.—without fail.
    4. Grape-Nuts Evangelism: You’ve told someone, without irony, that “many parts of a pine tree are edible” while crunching through Grape-Nuts like a woodland druid.
    5. Multi-Box Illusionism: You “rotate” between six cereal boxes to simulate dietary variety while consuming 99% corn and sugar in slightly different shapes.
    6. Mascot Emotional Investment: You’ve had an existential crisis over the retirement of Quake the Coal Miner.
    7. Snack Shame Evasion: You justify an evening bowl by claiming it’s your “light dinner” or “a superior protein vehicle.”
  • Déjà Chew 

    Déjà Chew 

    When I was a kid, my mother indulged my insatiable appetite for sugary cereal, Cap’n Crunch, in all its glorious variations: Cap’n Crunch plain, Cap’n Crunch with Crunch Berries, Peanut Butter Cap’n Crunch, and the audaciously renamed versions that tasted exactly the same: Quisp, Quake, and King Vitamin. I felt a burning compulsion to taste-test all these varieties with the meticulousness of a sommelier sampling dozens of Zinfandels or a fromager savoring different types of Camembert, or a musicologist analyzing hundreds of versions of Rachmaninoff’s Second Symphony. Eating six versions of Cap’n Crunch was my way of embracing the illusion of variety while devouring the same cereal over and over again. I was a preadolescent boy, steadfast in my desire to believe I had choices, yet paradoxically terrified of making any. It’s like hearing about the man who’s on his sixth marriage, each wife a near-carbon copy of the last in appearance, temperament, and personality. The poor sap keeps circling back to the same woman, convincing himself he’s “found someone new” and pinning his hopes on a fresh start. That was me with Cap’n Crunch. I was stuck in a sugary Groundhog Day, endlessly looping through bowls of the same old cereal under different guises. Not only was I stagnant in my food choices, but I was also regressing into a sugar-coated stupor. My love for cereal, which persists to this day, was my way of vanishing into a chosen comfort zone. In that sugary sanctuary, I found both bliss and oblivion, content to float along in a sea of crunchy sameness, convinced I was exploring new culinary frontiers.

    This type of delusional behavior points us to Déjà Chew–the eerie sensation that every “new” cereal tastes exactly like the last one you swore was different. The uncanny sensation of culinary déjà vu happens when, despite the flashy new box, the novelty-shaped marshmallows, or the misleading “limited edition” label, your spoon hits the same old sugary slurry you’ve been eating since the Nixon administration. Déjà Chew convinces you you’re exploring new taste frontiers, when in fact you’re just riding a merry-go-round of processed nostalgia. It’s the foodie equivalent of dating your ex’s identical twin and calling it personal growth. One bite in, you know exactly where this is going—but you chew on, comforted by the illusion of variety and the soothing crunch of your own arrested development.

  • Longing to Return to the Syrupocene Era

    Longing to Return to the Syrupocene Era

    Back in the 60s and 70s, nutritional concerns were as relevant to us as an old vinyl record in a streaming world. We were blissfully unaware of things like sugar grams and carbohydrate counts. On weekend mornings, my parents would sometimes treat me to a local pancake house, where I indulged in my favorite dish: apple pancakes. Now, picture this: a stack of ten flapjacks, each one a marvel of culinary excess. To say the pile was monumental is like calling Mount Everest a hillock. As I sat next to it, I looked like a hapless Lilliputian standing beside a mountain of golden, buttery goodness. The age-old question had to be asked: Was I going to eat these pancakes, or were they going to consume me in a pancake avalanche? Spoiler alert: I ate them. Every last one. These pancakes were no ordinary breakfast fare. They were brimming with cinnamon-spiced apple compote, slathered in creamy butter, and drenched in what must have been a half-gallon of maple syrup. If I had spilled that syrup, it would have created a sugar tsunami. To wash down this syrupy mountain, I guzzled down several tall glasses of orange juice, which was basically just liquid sugar with a side of citrus. The sheer volume of insulin-spiking sugars and carbohydrates I ingested could have given a modern endocrinologist a cerebral hemorrhage. I was consuming enough sugar to make Willy Wonka look like a health food advocate. After these epic breakfasts, rather than running outside to join my friends in their energetic games, I would slump into bed in a state of what could only be described as a Carbohydrate Coma. I was so catatonic, my friends might as well have been playing a game of “Guess Where’s the Sleeping Kid?” The trauma inflicted on my pancreas was beyond imagination. It was like a small factory working overtime without a break, pumping out insulin at a rate that would have made any modern dietitian faint. In those days, gluttony was a virtue, and self-indulgence was a badge of honor. We reveled in our ignorance, blissfully ignoring the fact that our indulgences would make today’s health-obsessed populace break out in a cold sweat. So there I was, a child of the 60s and 70s, living in an era where pancakes and orange juice were not just meals but monumental feats of indulgence. Our motto was simple: “Why worry about nutritional concerns when you can have another stack of apple pancakes?” Our golden era of gluttony was truly a feast for the ages—literally and metaphorically.

    This memory points us to the Syrupocene Era–a mythic golden age spanning the 1960s and 70s when nutritional ignorance reigned supreme, and breakfast was less a meal and more a caloric Greek tragedy performed in maple-soaked acts. The Syrupocene was a time when food pyramids hadn’t been built, glycemic indexes hadn’t been discovered, and “carb-loading” wasn’t a fitness strategy—it was a lifestyle.

    During the Syrupocene, children guzzled orange juice like it was an IV drip from the gods, consumed pancakes in stacks that could double as insulation, and considered butter a vegetable. It was a utopia of food denialism, where a carbohydrate coma was mistaken for a nap and diabetic shock was just “a sleepy Sunday morning.” The only sugar tracker in town was your mother asking, “Do you want more syrup, honey?”

    The Syrupocene didn’t end with an apocalypse—just a quiet whimper as food labels, cholesterol, and science crept in like puritans at a Mardi Gras parade. But those who lived through it still carry the memory: a wistful ache for the era when gluttony was innocent, ignorance was delicious, and a pancake wasn’t a sin—it was a ten-layered sacrament.

  • My Personal Sane Eating Lexicon: Cravattenuation, Savorosity, and Munchdrift

    My Personal Sane Eating Lexicon: Cravattenuation, Savorosity, and Munchdrift

    On April 10th, fresh off a family vacation in Miami and still spiritually sticky with airport pastrami sandwich guilt, I stepped on the scale and was greeted with a soul-curdling 247 pounds. Yes, some of it is lifelong muscle from half a century of hoisting kettlebells and playing Hercules in the garage. But make no mistake—this number was a slap in the face, a statistical insult to my dignity. Fueled by a righteous anger I can only describe as metabolic revenge, I went to war.

    First, I cut my meals down to three per day and gamified the system like a psychological Jedi. My lunchtime yogurt-and-berries bowl got reassigned as a post-nap “treat,” and a humble apple—normally the most boring fruit in the bowl—was elevated to nightly “dessert,” strategically scheduled for 8 p.m. to give my inner child something to cling to as the kitchen closed. I also slashed my coffee intake from 36 to 18 ounces (don’t worry, I’m still barely human), and dropped my creatine from 6 grams to a mere 3—enough to retain my swole, but not enough to float like a sodium balloon.

    Meanwhile, I came to grips with the ugly truth that I was overstuffing both my freezer and my face. The freezer had become a metaphor for my appetite: jammed with frozen berries, low-carb snacks, and delusions of future discipline. Constantly raiding it created two problems: overconsumption and literal water puddles from a clogged defrost drain. My wife and I emptied the thing out like detoxing hoarders, and miraculously, the fridge stopped weeping. I then purchased a chest freezer for the garage to create a buffer zone—a cold storage moat to protect the kitchen from my impulsive nibbling.

    By April 19, I had dropped to 240 pounds—a loss of seven pounds in nine days, even with an Easter cheat day that involved chocolate cake and blueberry pie, which I regret nothing about. Today I weigh again after my workout, prepared to assess the pastry fallout. But here’s the real revelation from those ten days: the hunger I thought I was feeling wasn’t hunger—it was performance anxiety from my stomach, a neurotic need to react to every twitch of emptiness like it was a national emergency. That, my friends, is where Cravattenuation comes in.

    Cravattenuation is the noble and necessary art of muting your inner snack gremlin—the one who panics at the first polite growl of your stomach and demands cheese. It’s the mental and metabolic recalibration that teaches you this: real hunger is not a 3 p.m. yawn with a craving for almonds. It’s a deeper emptiness, one you can actually enjoy. Because when you let your appetite stretch out and breathe, you arrive at meals not with guilt or compulsion, but with appetite and joy. Hunger becomes less of a trigger and more of a drumroll.

    Cravattenuation the deliberate process of retraining your body to interpret minor hunger signals not as existential emergencies but as low-priority system notifications: “You might want to eat in a bit” instead of “RAID THE PANTRY OR DIE.” Just as meditation teaches you to sit with discomfort rather than react impulsively, Cravattenuation teaches you that a little hunger isn’t a crisis—it’s foreplay for a better meal.

    We’ve been conditioned by snack culture and anxiety-driven consumption to treat hunger as something to be feared and fixed immediately, like a smoke alarm or a toddler tantrum. But when you practice Cravattenuation, something remarkable happens: your threshold for hunger strengthens, and the urgency softens. You learn to sit with a mild stomach pang without spiraling into carb-lust. Over time, you develop what can only be described as Hunger Discernment: the ability to separate emotional nibble-itching from true physiological need.


    The Unexpected Perk:

    By making your body earn the meal—not through punishment, but patience—you begin to eat with a clarity and joy that’s been missing since the dawn of office vending machines. Food tastes better when you’re actually hungry for it. Not “kinda bored” hungry, not “scrolling through cheese reels” hungry, but real hungry. Cravattenuation helps you not only manage your weight with more ease and grace, it re-enchants the eating experience itself. You’ll start treating meals like mini homecomings rather than pit stops at a dopamine gas station.


    Name for the Healthy State: Savorosity

    (savor + satiety + curiosity)

    Savorosity is the elegant state you enter after mastering Cravattenuation—a zone where hunger feels less like a hostage crisis and more like an invitation. It’s when you greet mealtime with curiosity and pleasure, not guilt or compulsion. It’s when you chew slower, taste deeper, and know you’ve arrived not because you gave in to a craving, but because you earned your appetite.

    Cravattenuation gets you there. Savorosity keeps you there. And together, they free you from the tyranny of the pantry’s siren call.

    Of course, the desired state of Savorosity has an opposite condition: Munchdrift, which is the mindless, momentum-driven eating that results from random grazing, emotional nibbling, and culinary boredom. It’s what happens when hunger is no longer a signal but a background noise, muffled by routine snacking and phantom cravings. In the Munchdrift state, meals are neither anticipated nor savored—they’re accidental. A handful of nuts here, a swipe of hummus there, three spoonfuls of cottage cheese at midnight, and suddenly, you’ve eaten 1,200 calories without ever feeling either full or satisfied. The food doesn’t taste bad; it just doesn’t taste like anything—because your palate is bored and your appetite never had a chance to sharpen.

    While Savorosity is marked by intentionality, restraint, and presence, Munchdrift is all drift and no anchor. It’s eating as ambient noise. It’s the cognitive equivalent of scrolling Instagram while watching TV while wondering why you’re still chewing. 

  • How to Stop Your Appetite from Heckling You and Achieve Savorosity

    How to Stop Your Appetite from Heckling You and Achieve Savorosity

    Coined Term: Cravattenuation

    (craving + attenuation)


    Extended Definition:

    Cravattenuation is the psychological and physiological art of turning down the volume on your inner snack gremlin—the one who starts kicking the back of your consciousness the moment your stomach makes a polite gurgle. It’s the deliberate process of retraining your body to interpret minor hunger signals not as existential emergencies but as low-priority system notifications: “You might want to eat in a bit” instead of “RAID THE PANTRY OR DIE.” Just as meditation teaches you to sit with discomfort rather than react impulsively, Cravattenuation teaches you that a little hunger isn’t a crisis—it’s foreplay for a better meal.

    We’ve been conditioned by snack culture and anxiety-driven consumption to treat hunger as something to be feared and fixed immediately, like a smoke alarm or a toddler tantrum. But when you practice Cravattenuation, something remarkable happens: your threshold for hunger strengthens, and the urgency softens. You learn to sit with a mild stomach pang without spiraling into carb-lust. Over time, you develop what can only be described as Hunger Discernment: the ability to separate emotional nibble-itching from true physiological need.


    The Unexpected Perk:

    By making your body earn the meal—not through punishment, but patience—you begin to eat with a clarity and joy that’s been missing since the dawn of office vending machines. Food tastes better when you’re actually hungry for it. Not “kinda bored” hungry, not “scrolling through cheese reels” hungry, but real hungry. Cravattenuation helps you not only manage your weight with more ease and grace, it re-enchants the eating experience itself. You’ll start treating meals like mini homecomings rather than pit stops at a dopamine gas station.


    Name for the Healthy State: Savorosity

    (savor + satiety + curiosity)

    Savorosity is the elegant state you enter after mastering Cravattenuation—a zone where hunger feels less like a hostage crisis and more like an invitation. It’s when you greet mealtime with curiosity and pleasure, not guilt or compulsion. It’s when you chew slower, taste deeper, and know you’ve arrived not because you gave in to a craving, but because you earned your appetite.

    Cravattenuation gets you there. Savorosity keeps you there. And together, they free you from the tyranny of the pantry’s siren call.

  • The Santa Claus of Donuts Must Die

    The Santa Claus of Donuts Must Die

    Let’s start with the obvious: your family bonds over food because food is reliable. It doesn’t argue with you about politics, it doesn’t criticize your life choices, and it doesn’t ask to borrow your car. It just shows up, warm and sugary, like a friend who never judges. And when you show up holding that pink box of donuts? You’re not just a guy walking through the front door—you’re the Santa Claus of Donuts, bearing gifts that turn your living room into a dopamine theme park. Everyone lights up. You are loved. You are admired. You are a hero.

    Until the sugar crash hits and you’re lying on the couch wondering how a simple box of pastries turned into a hostile takeover of your waistline. Again.

    You, my friend, have what polite society calls an “addictive personality,” but let’s not sugarcoat it (pun intended). You go overboard like it’s your patriotic duty. One treat turns into three. One bite into a blackout. You need boundaries, not Pinterest recipes.

    So here’s your prescription. It’s boring, brutal, and blessedly effective:

    Breakfast: Plain Greek yogurt, a scoop of protein powder, flaxseeds, chia seeds, and a handful of berries. Also, coffee. Strong enough to slap you awake and maybe shake loose some of your delusions.

    Lunch: A salad—yes, a salad—with actual protein in it. Maybe chicken. Maybe tuna. Add a scoop of cottage cheese if you hate joy a little less that day. Have some fruit so you don’t hallucinate cookies.
    Dinner: Protein again. Vegetables. Herbal tea, like the sad monk you are becoming. Cap it off with an apple and the faint memory of dessert.
    Snack Defense Protocol: If you start prowling like a raccoon between lunch and dinner, shove a carrot in your mouth, sip some green tea, and crack open a diet root beer. It’s not a thrill, it’s a strategy.

    And let us not forget why you had to slam the snack door shut like it owed you money: snacks are traitors. They pretend to be innocent little diversions—just a handful here, a nibble there—but they’re silent assassins. Those calories accumulate like guilt after a Vegas weekend, slowly padding your frame while you’re busy telling yourself you’re “cutting back.”

    Now, let’s address the hard truth, as spoken by the philosopher-king of overweight comedians, Tom Segura: “You don’t lose weight until you hate your fatness more than you love food.” Yes, it’s harsh. But he’s not wrong.

    Still, let’s reframe it with a little less bile and a touch more clarity:
    You won’t change until you prefer discipline to chaos. Until your craving for stability outweighs your need for a dopamine hit. Until your love of self-respect outweighs your love of Cheez-Its.

    You don’t need another meal plan—you need a code. A way of eating that doesn’t just fill your stomach, but recalibrates your priorities. Food is not your therapist. Food is not your friend. Food is fuel. And you? You’re not Santa Claus anymore. You’re something better: a man in control of his appetite, his identity, and his damn life.

    Now go make that yogurt bowl like it’s a holy ritual and not a punishment. The rest will follow.

  • The Boba-Loaded Lie: How Big Soda Got a Makeover

    The Boba-Loaded Lie: How Big Soda Got a Makeover

    Magical thinking is the bedazzled duct tape we slap onto reality to avoid facing the truth. It lets us take something objectively terrible—like a 20-ounce bottle of fizzy corn syrup—and slap on enough gloss, hashtags, and buzzwords to make it seem like an act of wellness. It’s how you turn poison into a product. And that, in essence, is what Ellen Cushing unpacks in her incisive Atlantic piece, The Drink Americans Can’t Quit.”

    Once upon a time, Big Soda was king—until the internet’s favorite shirtless gym bros decided that guzzling sugar water was about as cool as smoking indoors. Sodas became the new Marlboros: once iconic, now socially repellent. But like any villain in a rebooted franchise, soda didn’t die. It got a makeover. Now it struts back into our lives wearing a new name tag: energy drink, boba tea, cold brew, mushroom latte, functional hydration. Same blood sugar spike, new marketing copy.

    Cushing doesn’t just document this cynical rebranding—she vivisects it. The modern “status beverage” has evolved into a Trojan horse of marketing genius: wrapped in virtue-signaling wellness language, dressed in neutral tones and matte cans, and fortified with meaningless additions like adaptogens, B vitamins, or vaguely defined “nootropics.” These drinks promise energy, clarity, even spiritual alignment—because what better way to mask liquid candy than by suggesting it unlocks your third eye?

    But the rot remains. These drinks are still what Cushing calls “a remarkably unhealthy, nutritionally inessential product that costs pennies to make”—only now, they’re draped in the aesthetic of self-care. We’ve replaced high-fructose corn syrup with high-gloss delusion. It’s not soda, you see—it’s a wellness ritual. A personality in a can. A lifestyle choice with a QR code.

    And it works because the industry knows exactly who we are: vanity-ridden optimists with just enough disposable income and just little enough critical thinking to fall for it again. We don’t want hydration; we want a vibe. Something that fits in our hand, photographs well on Instagram, and makes us feel like we’re doing something good for ourselves—while doing the exact opposite.

    Cushing’s essay left me seething, in the best way. Because once you see the scam, you can’t unsee it. I don’t care if your can is minimalist, if your label says “plant-based,” or if Gwyneth Paltrow herself handed it to me with a smug nod. If it’s just soda in yoga pants, I’m out.

    So no, I won’t be purchasing a $5 can of turmeric-infused, adaptogen-enhanced, crystal-charged carbonated nonsense. Because once I understand the con, drinking it would feel like punching my own dignity in the face. I’d rather hydrate the old-fashioned way—with water and a shred of self-respect.

  • 3 College Writing Prompts: Willpower Is Not a Weight-Loss Strategy: Rewriting the Narrative of Obesity in an Age of Ozempic

    3 College Writing Prompts: Willpower Is Not a Weight-Loss Strategy: Rewriting the Narrative of Obesity in an Age of Ozempic

    Essay Prompt:

    In contemporary culture, weight loss is often framed as a matter of individual discipline: eat less, move more, stay motivated. This narrative, reinforced by diet culture, media messaging, and public health campaigns, reduces a complex biopsychosocial phenomenon into a moral test of willpower. But what if this view is not only incomplete, but damaging?

    This essay invites you to critically analyze the myth of weight loss as a simple formula of personal responsibility, using the following readings:

    • Rebecca Johns, “A Diet Writer’s Regrets”
    • Johann Hari, “A Year on Ozempic Taught Me We’re Thinking About Obesity All Wrong”
    • Harriet Brown, “The Weight of the Evidence”
    • Sandra Aamodt, “Why You Can’t Lose Weight on a Diet”

    Drawing on these texts, write a 1,700-word argumentative essay that explores the deeper systemic, biological, and psychological forces that influence body weight. In your analysis, define what is meant by diet culture, obesity stigma, metabolic adaptation, and the illusion of control. Consider how economic privilege, the Industrial Food Complex, and the Diabetes-Management Complex affect who gets access to treatment and who gets blamed for their bodies.

    Reflect on the question: Is obesity the result of failed individual discipline—or a condition shaped by biology, capitalism, and inequality? And what are the ethical and political consequences of continuing to frame weight as a personal failing?


    Key Themes and Concepts to Define in Essay:

    • Diet culture: The belief system that prioritizes thinness as a moral virtue and equates weight loss with health and worth.
    • Obesity stigma: The systemic dehumanization, bias, and blame placed on people in larger bodies.
    • Metabolic adaptation: The body’s physiological resistance to weight loss, often leading to weight regain.
    • Ozempic and GLP-1 drugs: Medications that challenge traditional weight-loss advice by offering pharmacological interventions, often accessible only to the wealthy.
    • Industrial Food Complex: The economic system that prioritizes hyper-palatable, processed foods for profit.
    • Diabetes-Management Complex: The medical-industrial apparatus that profits from managing obesity-related conditions without addressing root causes.

    10-Paragraph Essay Outline


    Paragraph 1 – Introduction

    • Begin with a personal or cultural anecdote about dieting, body shame, or the weight-loss industry.
    • State the prevailing myth: that weight loss is just about willpower, calories, and exercise.
    • Introduce the core idea: this myth obscures structural, biological, and psychological realities.
    • End with a strong thesis: The cultural obsession with personal discipline in weight loss not only ignores science but perpetuates economic injustice, medical misinformation, and moral shame.

    Paragraph 2 – The Myth of Personal Responsibility

    • Explore how diet culture frames obesity as a personal failure.
    • Use Johns and Brown to show how this narrative is reinforced by health media and public policy.
    • Define diet culture and obesity stigma as forms of social control.

    Paragraph 3 – The Science of Weight and Metabolism

    • Explain Aamodt’s key argument: the body defends a weight range through metabolic adaptation.
    • Introduce the concept of the set point and how dieting can backfire physiologically.
    • Emphasize the biological limits of “discipline” in long-term weight maintenance.

    Paragraph 4 – Ozempic and the Medical Disruption of Diet Culture

    • Analyze Hari’s experience with Ozempic as a reframing of what obesity is and isn’t.
    • Explain how drugs like Ozempic challenge the calorie-math logic of diet culture.
    • Raise the question: if a drug changes appetite, was willpower ever the issue?

    Paragraph 5 – Economic Access and the Ozempic Divide

    • Examine the cost of GLP-1 drugs and the class-based disparity in access.
    • Discuss how the rich can “solve” obesity pharmacologically while others are blamed.
    • Introduce the concept of the Diabetes-Management Complex and its profit motives.

    Paragraph 6 – The Industrial Food Complex and Engineered Cravings

    • Analyze the food industry’s role in promoting addictive, ultra-processed foods.
    • Use Brown and outside data (optional) to show how working-class communities are targeted by fast food and soda industries.
    • Connect this to systemic inequality: people are set up to fail and then blamed for it.

    Paragraph 7 – Psychological Toll and the Shame Cycle

    • Highlight the emotional and mental health damage caused by diet failure and stigma.
    • Reference Johns and Aamodt: shame is not a motivator—it’s a trap.
    • Argue that repeated dieting often leads to worse health outcomes, not better ones.

    Paragraph 8 – Counterargument: Isn’t Some Responsibility Necessary?

    • Acknowledge the argument that individuals do make choices about food and movement.
    • Rebut by showing how choice is constrained by biology, environment, and marketing.
    • Emphasize that awareness and access—not shame—should guide public health.

    Paragraph 9 – Reframing Obesity: Toward Compassionate Policy and Practice

    • Suggest new narratives: body neutrality, medical compassion, anti-poverty approaches.
    • Point to Hari’s conclusion: we must rethink how we talk about food, body, and health.
    • Argue for policies that regulate Big Food and expand access to affordable treatment—not just lectures on willpower.

    Paragraph 10 – Conclusion

    • Reaffirm thesis: The weight-loss myth isn’t just scientifically flawed—it’s morally dangerous.
    • Remind the reader that bodies are not math problems to be solved.
    • End with a call to change the story: from blame to understanding, from shame to structural justice.

    Three Sample Thesis Statements


    Thesis 1:
    Despite decades of public health messaging urging personal responsibility, evidence from metabolic science and socioeconomic analysis shows that weight loss is rarely a matter of willpower; rather, it is shaped by systemic inequalities, industrial food marketing, and biological resistance that diet culture refuses to acknowledge.


    Thesis 2:
    Ozempic has exposed the hollowness of traditional dieting advice by proving that appetite, metabolism, and weight are governed by mechanisms beyond discipline—forcing us to rethink obesity not as moral failure, but as a condition entangled in capitalism, privilege, and biology.


    Thesis 3:
    While self-discipline plays a role in shaping health behaviors, framing obesity as a personal choice erases the complex realities faced by those in larger bodies—and perpetuates a culture that profits from their shame while denying them access to real solutions.

    Prompt Variation #1:

    Title:

    Ozempic Nation: Rethinking Health, Shame, and the New Politics of Body Control

    Prompt:

    In recent years, the rise of weight-loss drugs like Ozempic has disrupted the cultural script about how people should lose weight. For decades, Americans were taught that health was a product of self-control, calorie-counting, and personal virtue. Now, pharmaceutical interventions are reframing obesity not as a failure of discipline, but as a medical condition treatable through science—at least, for those who can afford it.

    In a 1,700-word argumentative essay, use the following sources to explore the tension between medical innovation and cultural shame in the weight-loss conversation:

    • Rebecca Johns, “A Diet Writer’s Regrets”
    • Johann Hari, “A Year on Ozempic Taught Me We’re Thinking About Obesity All Wrong”
    • Harriet Brown, “The Weight of the Evidence”
    • Sandra Aamodt, “Why You Can’t Lose Weight on a Diet”

    Your essay should analyze the shifting meanings of health, body control, and legitimacy in the age of Ozempic. What happens when pharmaceutical shortcuts challenge decades of moral messaging around food and fitness? Who benefits from this shift—and who is still left behind?

    Define and explore key concepts such as obesity stigma, the illusion of dietary control, medical privilege, and the cultural performance of health. Consider how these sources challenge or reinforce the idea that technology can “fix” what social systems continue to break.


    Sample Thesis Statements:

    Thesis 1:
    Ozempic reveals the deep contradictions at the heart of American health culture: while it promises to liberate people from shame and failed diets, it reinforces an unequal system in which the wealthy gain slimness without stigma while the poor remain trapped in cycles of blame and exclusion.

    Thesis 2:
    The pharmaceutical rebranding of obesity as a treatable disease may signal progress, but it risks medicalizing a problem rooted in inequality and cultural cruelty—shifting the solution from public reform to private access.

    Thesis 3:
    Even as Ozempic offers a scientific disruption of diet culture, the surrounding narrative still clings to old myths of self-control, body optimization, and moral value, showing that shame is more durable than even the most effective drug.


    Prompt Variation #2:

    Title:

    The Hunger Trap: How Diet Culture Profits from Our Failure

    Prompt:

    For decades, diet culture has promised transformation through willpower: thinner bodies, better health, and a more valuable self. Yet mounting evidence suggests that these promises are not only false but economically and biologically rigged to ensure failure.

    Using the following texts, write a 1,700-word argumentative essay examining how diet culture operates as an economic and psychological trap:

    • Rebecca Johns, “A Diet Writer’s Regrets”
    • Johann Hari, “A Year on Ozempic Taught Me We’re Thinking About Obesity All Wrong”
    • Harriet Brown, “The Weight of the Evidence”
    • Sandra Aamodt, “Why You Can’t Lose Weight on a Diet”

    Your task is to explore how the weight-loss industry—and the broader systems of food production, health marketing, and cultural control—profits from the manufactured failure of diets. Analyze how this industry shapes individual psychology while diverting attention from systemic issues such as poverty, food engineering, and medical access.

    Define key terms such as the weight-loss industrial complex, metabolic resistance, social shame as behavioral control, and the commodification of insecurity. Ask: who profits when we hate our bodies, and what changes when we stop believing weight loss is the solution?


    Sample Thesis Statements:

    Thesis 1:
    Diet culture functions less as a roadmap to health than as a profit engine fueled by failure, shame, and false hope—ensuring that the more we try to lose weight, the more the system wins.

    Thesis 2:
    The illusion of dietary control is not a harmless myth but a profitable one, carefully engineered by the Industrial Food Complex and the diet industry to keep consumers trapped in a cycle of craving, guilt, and spending.

    Thesis 3:
    By exposing how diets are designed to fail and shame is weaponized for profit, these texts argue that weight loss is not a health goal—it is an industry built on emotional extraction and economic exploitation.