Cinemorphosis

Tag: weight-loss

  • How a Torn Rotator Cuff Tried to Break Me

    How a Torn Rotator Cuff Tried to Break Me

    A rotator cuff injury is an affront to the human desire for control. You follow instructions and protocols to avoid injury and get stronger, but the pain reminds you that you can’t control the trajectory of recovery. Complete rest could be its own disaster. You’re choosing between two bad options.

    Not only do you lose control of your body in ways you never imagined—you can’t optimize.

    If you’re an exercise buff who struggles with weight and is waiting for affordable versions of GLP-1 drugs, as I am, the compromises forced by a shoulder injury are disconcerting.

    My workout on November 29, with kettlebells integrated with shoulder rehab exercises, was not encouraging. My shoulder felt worse afterward. When the Motrin wore off and I woke up at two in the morning, I could tell the training had aggravated it. I began thinking about giving up the Farmer’s Walk with a 45-pound kettlebell in each hand. Perhaps that was too much. My entire training life has been a process of eliminating one exercise after another.

    With my shoulder still aggravated from the workout, on November 30 I decided to try my Schwinn Airdyne again, but this time I wouldn’t use my left arm to row the lever. I would rest my hand on it and rely mostly on my legs. The problem was psychological. Using my arms fully, I had burned 600 calories in about 50 minutes—probably more, since the calorie monitor doesn’t calculate body weight, and several forums claim that an hour on an air bike burns around 1,000 calories. Not using my arms would reduce my output, which, in a gamified world, is demoralizing. Still, even without using my arms, the calorie burn would exceed that of walking the neighborhood for an hour while worrying about stray dogs and car fumes.

    Exactly a week before—on the day my Airdyne workout was followed by nerve pain shooting down my left arm—I burned 600 calories in 52 minutes, which comes to 11.54 calories per minute. A week later, three days after seeing the doctor, I tried the Airdyne again with a significant disadvantage: I couldn’t row with my left hand. During the session, I protected my shoulder with three strategies. I rested my hand on the lever with no pushing or pulling; I gripped my towel with the left hand while my right arm did the rowing; or I grabbed the towel draped over my neck with both hands. Not surprisingly, I didn’t burn as many calories as the week before. I burned 601 in 57 minutes, which was 10.54 calories per minute. My calorie-burn efficiency was down 9.5 percent.

    Despite the significant drop in efficiency, the experiment was half successful: I still reached my goal of 600 calories.

    The real test remained: an hour after the workout, how would my shoulder feel?

    I showered, ate lunch, did some mild isometrics for my shoulder, and did not experience the shooting nerve pain I had a week earlier, so perhaps I was in the clear with the Airdyne provided I don’t row with my injured side.

    I would take this minor victory. The last three months I felt insulted by the difficulty in wrapping a towel around my waist, taking off a sweat-soaked tank top, putting on a belt, closing the driver-side car door, reaching for something in the back of the fridge, and using my left hand to soap my right armpit. Being able to burn 600 calories on the Airdyne was a sweet morsel of consolation. 

    In this war with a rotator cuff injury, I was willing to take whatever tiny victories I could get. 

    A small expression of gratitude might help my morose disposition and the self-pity that I had indulged in over the last three months. If I ever were to write and publish a book on my ordeal, I would probably title it Shoulder, Interrupted: How a Torn Rotator Cuff Tried to Break Me. 

  • Why Willpower Can’t Save You from the Snack Aisle

    Why Willpower Can’t Save You from the Snack Aisle

    After hearing something thoughtful interviews with journalist Julia Belluz and scientist Kevin Hall about their new book Food Intelligence: The Science of How Food Both Nourishes and Harms Us and KCRW food expert Evan Kleinman praise the book, I broke down and decided to see if the authors had any new insights into the exploration of what I call humans’ mismanagement of eating. The book begins on a promising note: The authors observe that in the animal kingdom, we are hard-wired with “food intelligence,” a natural-born instinct to regulate the quantity of what we eat and to target foods that our body craves for optimal nutrition. Our instinctive connection with food went haywire in the twentieth century: “Many of us started to eat too much, and the wrong things, even when we didn’t want to. Obesity rates began rising, first in rich, Western, industrialized countries such as the United States, then elsewhere.” Between 1980 and today, the obesity rate has doubled in several countries. Seventy percent of American adults and a third of U.S. children are classified as overweight or obese. Obesity-related diseases such as type 2 diabetes kills over half a million Americans a year. Obesity-related health costs are in the trillions.

    One of the major reasons for this breakdown in our instinctive hardwiring to naturally eat well is our disconnection from food: how it’s grown, produced, and cooked. We are now addicted to factory-produced fat, sugar, and salt. 

    Shaming and the gospel of self-discipline doesn’t help even though, as the authors point out, the wellness industry points an accusatory finger at our own moral shortcomings (lack of willpower, gluttony, and sloth) for our failures at weight management. The diet industries, the authors claim, are asking the wrong questions when they ask what is the best diet and how people can lose weight. For example, there are influencers who say low-carb is the best, but the authors show studies that contradict that claim. Low-carb diets are no better than low-fat ones in the long-term. The authors argue that championing the so-called ultimate diet is not the right question. Instead, the more helpful question is this: “Why do we eat what we eat?” Their obsession with answering this question is what propelled them to write the book. 

    The authors explain the problem of calories-in, calories-out as a surefire model for weight loss. The model is complicated and eventually sabotaged by the way the body reacts when we reduce calories. The metabolism slows down, we burn fewer calories doing the same exercise than we did initially, and our hunger signals rebel and scream “Eat more!” Contrary to the cheery claims of the wellness industry, eating less and exercising more usually fails within a year. 

    A more promising approach to weight management is avoiding ultra-processed foods. The more of these foods we eat, the less we are able to regulate our appetite, resulting in “a calorie glut” and weight-gain hell. But becoming food literature, replacing processed foods with whole foods, and learning to enjoy this exchange requires time and resources, which are lacking in many. Convenience and cost drive many Americans to processed food. Therefore, “the root causes” of obesity are structural. In the words of the authors: “It was never about us as individuals. Our food environment is wrecking us.” Our food environment is rewriting our brains to make us consume a calorie glut. Therefore, the food environment is making us overweight, sick, and unhappy. It is killing us. 

    Don’t consult Food Intelligence for the simple call to eat like your great-grandmother did. Even that sentiment is based on myth, the authors point out. Your great-grandmother may have spent endless hours in the kitchen exhausted while struggling “with hunger and nutrient shortfalls.” 

    One of the book’s objectives is to show how “old, unproven ideas and outdated policies continue to guide our current thinking and approaches to food.” They make it clear early on that they won’t be pushing this or that diet or even promoting “clean eating.”  If you’re looking for food puritanism, then look elsewhere. Kevin Hall admits to eating ultra-processed food and Julia Belluz admits to eating too much sugar. This book is not so much about rigid prescriptions as much as helping you change from a mindless eater to an intelligent one.   

  • The Aesthetic Pharmaceutical Complex (a College Essay Prompt)

    The Aesthetic Pharmaceutical Complex (a College Essay Prompt)

    Write a 1,700-word argumentative essay that evaluates this claim: GLP-1 weight-loss drugs (e.g., Ozempic/Wegovy) offer a Faustian bargain–they blunt appetite and deliver rapid results, but at significant cultural, moral, and social costs. Examine whether these drugs simply cure an individual problem or whether they reshape appetite, pleasure, gender and marital dynamics, class inequality, body aesthetics, and personal agency in ways that should alarm us.

    Use Rebecca Johns (“A Diet Writer’s Regrets”), Johann Hari (“A Year on Ozempic…”), Harriet Brown (“The Weight of the Evidence”), Sandra Aamodt (“Why You Can’t Lose Weight on a Diet”), and at least two additional reputable sources of your choice. Address both sides: acknowledge the medical benefits (for diabetes, metabolic disease, disability reduction) while testing the claim that GLP-1s amount to a societal deal with the devil — trading desire, culinary culture, and autonomy for narrow aesthetic and market outcomes.

    Be sure to define terms (e.g., “Faustian bargain,” “GLP-1 drugs,” “body aesthetics”), offer evidence, and include a clear counterargument and rebuttal.

    Five Sample Thesis Statements (with mapping components)

    1. Thesis 1
       GLP-1 drugs are a Faustian bargain: they deliver rapid weight loss and metabolic benefit, but they also erode culinary pleasure, exacerbate social inequality, and replace disciplined habits with pharmaceutical dependence.
    • Mapping: (1) immediate medical and psychological benefits, (2) cultural costs to food and pleasure, (3) social/economic consequences and dependence.
    1. Thesis 2
       While GLP-1 medications can rescue lives in a clinical sense, their mainstreaming industrializes thinness—privileging aesthetics over health, amplifying economic divides, and outsourcing self-control to corporations and prescribers.
    • Mapping: (1) clinical life-saving benefits, (2) commercialization of body aesthetics, (3) economic and ethical fallout.
    1. Thesis 3
       GLP-1 drugs pose an ethical dilemma: they promise to erase cravings and curb addiction, but in doing so they risk flattening human desire, unsettling intimate relationships, and converting a public-health problem into a luxury aesthetic market.
    • Mapping: (1) pharmacological suppression of appetite, (2) impact on relationships and social life, (3) marketization and inequality.
    1. Thesis 4
       The rise of GLP-1s reframes weight management from moral failing to medicalized consumerism—undeniable benefits for some masked by troubling costs: cultural loss, shifting marital dynamics, and a dangerous dependence on biotech fixes.
    • Mapping: (1) medical reframing of obesity, (2) cultural and interpersonal costs, (3) risks of technological dependence.
    1. Thesis 5
       GLP-1 drugs give individuals the power to silence hunger, but that power comes tethered to troubling social outcomes: it amplifies privilege, intensifies pressure for aesthetic conformity, and weakens the role of habit and self-discipline in healthy living.
    • Mapping: (1) appetite suppression and individual gains, (2) exacerbation of aesthetic and class pressure, (3) erosion of habit-based agency.

    Counterargument (fair, strong):
     Proponents of GLP-1 drugs argue that calling them a “Faustian bargain” ignores the very real medical and social benefits these medications deliver. For many patients—especially those with type 2 diabetes, obesity-related hypertension, or mobility-limiting weight—GLP-1s reduce blood sugar, lower cardiovascular risk, and unlock functional gains that years of dieting could not. Early reports also show improvements in mood, self-efficacy, and social participation: when chronic hunger is quieted, people can exercise more, sleep better, and engage with life instead of being consumed by food preoccupation. From this perspective, the drugs restore agency rather than remove it; they are tools that expand options for people trapped by biology, food environments, and limited access to behavioral medicine. To label them morally corrosive risks stigmatizing patients who finally find relief.

    Rebuttal:
     That claim deserves respect—but it doesn’t dissolve the deeper social harms that mainstreaming GLP-1s threatens to produce. Medicine can relieve individual suffering while simultaneously reshaping culture in ways that reward aesthetic conformity and widen inequality: when a pharmaceutical becomes the fastest route to thinness, weight status shifts further from a health metric to a marketable badge of status, attainable first by those with money, time, and prescriber access. The drugs also substitute biochemical fixes for social solutions—affordable nutritious food, safer neighborhoods for exercise, workplace protections—that address root causes of metabolic disease; this medicalization risks absolving policymakers and corporations of responsibility. Finally, the long-term psychosocial costs are real: appetite suppression can blunt pleasure and disrupt food’s role as social glue, and couples who diverge in access to these drugs face novel tensions over desirability, divided resources, and identity. In short, GLP-1s can be miracles for patients; they can also be catalysts for cultural and economic shifts that deserve critical scrutiny before we call the bargain a fair trade.

  • What Fifty Years of a High-Protein Diet Taught Me

    What Fifty Years of a High-Protein Diet Taught Me

    These days, there’s no shortage of content promising health, strength, and longevity through high-protein diets. Everyone’s got a take. I can only give you mine—earned through fifty years of trial, sweat, and a steady stream of protein powder.

    I first learned the value of protein in 1974. I was thirteen, a Junior Olympic weightlifter, and determined not to be outlifted by anyone with better genetics or better snacks. I made it my mission to eat no fewer than 160 grams of protein a day. That habit never left. For the past five decades—save for the occasional vacation detour—I’ve kept my intake between 160 and 200 grams daily. Today, approaching 64, I train in my garage like a teenager on a mission, kettlebells swinging, breath steady, muscles intact.

    Protein isn’t a trend. It’s foundational. Just the other day, I was driving my daughter and her friend to Knott’s Berry Farm when her friend said, “I think I’m going to faint.” I asked if she’d eaten breakfast. “Yes,” she said. “A bowl of fruit.” I told her the truth: “That’s zero protein. No wonder you’re crashing. First thing you do when we park—go find yourself a carne asada burrito.” I told her to eat a meal with forty grams of steak-powered resurrection.

    Here’s what people still don’t get: if you don’t eat at least 40 grams of protein in a meal, you’ll be starving and sluggish thirty minutes later. It’s not magic; it’s physiology. Back in the day, I inhaled bodybuilding magazines. Everyone warned me: “Don’t believe those. They’re just selling supplements.” Sure, some of them were. But when it came to protein, they weren’t wrong. The numbers don’t lie. For men, 160 grams a day is a solid target. For women, around 120. I’ve lived it. I’ve trained on it. And I’ve aged with it. The science has finally caught up to what lifters have known all along.

  • I Came for Health and Left with a Halo

    I Came for Health and Left with a Halo

    I’m stubborn—pathologically so. I know full well that going full carnivore would melt the fat right off me. A steady stream of fatty meats, maybe a token vegetable or two for show, and boom—I’d be a suburban Wolverine. Ripped, lean, possibly feral. But my suspicion kicks in around the long-term effects. Sure, eating like a seal-clubbing Inuit makes sense when you live on a glacier and need 6,000 calories just to blink. But when you’re a guy driving a hybrid through Trader Joe’s parking lots, gorging on brisket with your Apple Watch monitoring your heart rate, the “ancestral diet” starts to look less like primal wisdom and more like performative caveman cosplay.

    No, my reluctant truth is this: a mostly plant-based diet is probably my best bet. I imagine a future of buckwheat groats, steel-cut oats, rainbow chard, tofu, tempeh, and beans. My meals will be slathered with artisanal dressings composed of balsamic vinegar, spicy mustard, and nutritional yeast—because apparently sainthood is now spreadable.

    Sure, I’ll fold in some salmon twice a week. Maybe Greek yogurt. And yes, I’ll backslide into Mongolian beef barbecue once a month when life feels meaningless and I want my food to fight back. But the plan is mostly monkish. And here lies the rub: the diet starts making me feel too pure. Too righteous. The kind of person who silently judges you for using ranch dressing. The glow of self-congratulation hangs around my head like a flickering LED halo.

    And then comes the cookware. You can’t cook holy grains in a peasant pot. No, this lifestyle demands French-made enameled cast iron Dutch ovens—heirloom cookware with the price tag of a minor surgical procedure. I tell myself this is an investment in my health. What it really is: a $300 declaration that I’ve joined the priesthood of quinoa.

    Worse, the whole thing becomes a personality. Plant-based meals. Exercise tracking. Morning rituals. Deep-breathing routines. It becomes its own narcissistic opera. I’m centered. I’m optimized. I’m intolerable. My life starts to feel like an Instagram reel narrated by a smug inner voice that’s always meditating.

    The real irony? I embarked on this whole food pilgrimage to escape the traps of modern life—its clutter, chaos, and chronic disease. And yet, somewhere between my third batch of millet and Googling the mineral content of nutritional yeast, I crossed into a new disorder: a lifestyle so curated it starts to feel like a museum exhibit titled Me, Trying Too Hard.

    Sometimes the cure becomes its own kind of sickness. We chase health, only to wind up imprisoned by our own kale-scented, cast iron-coated obsessions.

  • Training to Failure: A Love Letter to My Broken Sixty-Year-Old Body

    Training to Failure: A Love Letter to My Broken Sixty-Year-Old Body

    I just inhaled 80 grams of braised tofu on a bed of arugula—an herbivore’s banquet—because I didn’t want any leftovers skulking in the fridge while my family disappears for a weeklong trip. The trip also means six missed workouts, which my inner gym rat is already mourning with the solemnity of a funeral dirge.

    In my infinite wisdom—or perhaps masochistic delusion—I stacked seven consecutive kettlebell workouts into my week like some demented CrossFit monk chasing transcendence through joint pain. Predictably, I torched myself. Yesterday, I hit the wall. Even after a nap, I was cooked—bone tired, foggy, the kind of fatigue that whispers pre-flu doom into your ears while your muscles quietly plan a mutiny.

    Today was my supposed “last hurrah” before vacation. I skipped the kettlebells and mounted the Schwinn Airdyne, knowing full well I was running on fumes. Usually, I scorch 700–800 calories in an hour. Today I limped to 600. Eighty percent effort. That’s what the data says. My pride says otherwise.

    This might be my new reality: controlled, measured workouts instead of cinematic Rocky montages. The problem? I came of age in the 1970s golden era of bodybuilding, when Arnold preached the Gospel of Training to Failure and warned us about becoming “paper tigers.” I took that to heart. Too much heart. The kind that skips beats when your prefrontal cortex is begging you to lie down and your inner bro yells, “One more set!”

    But now, every time I push too hard—whether it’s with kettlebells or a fevered sprint on the Airdyne—I spiral into what I’ve dubbed RAA: Rundown Anxiety Affliction. It’s not a diagnosis. It’s a curse. You feel like you’re on the verge of the flu, haunted by a twitchy dread that your immune system has thrown in the towel. And for what? To impress the ghost of Mike Mentzer?

    I’m not exercising and eating tofu like a reformed monk to become a sickly, anxious husk of a man. That’s not fitness. That’s martyrdom.

    Today I danced at the edge of RAA. I throttled back. Took my 600 calories, thanked the fitness gods for the mercy, and called it. I’ll nap. I’ll pack. I’ll go on this trip, eat as decently as possible, and try not to treat my return like a penitential Ironman.

    Because no one needs to come back from vacation needing a vacation from their vacation—especially if it starts with RAA and ends with a doctor saying, “You need to calm the hell down.”

  • Neddy Merrill Disease: Lifting Weights to Outrun the Abyss

    Neddy Merrill Disease: Lifting Weights to Outrun the Abyss

    I take no glory in training through my 60s. At nearly 64, with a lifting life that began in 1974 amid the clang of Olympic barbells and testosterone-choked gyms, I no longer chase records or applause. These days, I chase mobility. I chase not falling apart. A nagging flare of golfer’s elbow—inner right, thank you very much—has made its uninvited return, forcing me to swap kettlebell rows for gentler “lawnmower” pulls and abandon my beloved open-palm curls in favor of reverse curls, the orthopedic equivalent of safe sex.

    There was a time, of course, when I confused self-worth with showing off. I strutted under heavy weights in the ‘70s through the ‘90s like a tragic extra from Pumping Iron, nursing shredded rotator cuffs and wrecked lumbar discs in my quest to impress… well, no one, really. The mirror? My dad? Arnold? These days I tiptoe a tightrope between intensity and injury, trying to silence the reckless ghost of my twenty-year-old self who still believes he’s indestructible.

    This tug-of-war with time reminds me of Neddy Merrill, the doomed protagonist in John Cheever’s “The Swimmer,” who tries to recapture youth by swimming across his neighbors’ pools like a suburban Odysseus, only to arrive at his own foreclosed house—empty, echoing, and final. I see flashes of my own Neddy Merrill alter ego every time I glimpse my neighbor, a sturdy cop in his early 40s, shepherding his twin teenage sons off to jiu-jitsu. I envy them—their youth, their purpose, their untouched joints. But I remind myself that comparison is the mother of misery. I don’t train for glory anymore. I train because the alternative is to surrender to frailty, to collapse into a slow-motion horror film of decay. I train because being strong is still cheaper than therapy, and it’s the only middle finger I can raise at time’s relentless advance.

  • The Hunger Games: GLP-1, Free Will, and the Price of Thin

    The Hunger Games: GLP-1, Free Will, and the Price of Thin

    In my Critical Thinking course, we tackle three research-based essays that wrestle with one central, disquieting premise: technology is not just helping us live—it’s rewriting what it means to be human. Our first unit? A polite but pointed takedown of the American weight loss gospel. The assignment is called The Aesthetic Industrial Complex, and it asks students to write a 1,700-word argumentative essay exploring a question that’s fast becoming unavoidable: Does the old moral framework of discipline, kale, and “personal responsibility” still hold water in the age of GLP-1 injections, food-delivery algorithms, and weaponized Instagram bodies?

    We dive into the stories of good-faith dieters—folks who’ve counted calories, logged cardio, avoided sugar like it was plutonium—and still watched their doctors frown over charts lit up with prediabetes, high blood pressure, and the telltale signs of metabolic collapse. These are not cases of vanity. These are mandates from cardiologists and endocrinologists. Lose weight or lose time.

    Enter the needle. GLP-1 drugs like Ozempic and Wegovy promise what decades of dieting books never delivered: chemical satiety and the end of food noise—that constant mental hum that turns the pantry into a siren song. The results are seismic: hunger down, weight down, cravings down, existential questions up.

    Because here’s the paradox: when food no longer seduces us, we gain a body that’s marketable and medically optimized—but we lose something else. Food is not just fuel. It’s ritual. It’s celebration. It’s Grandma’s lasagna, a first date over sushi, a kitchen filled with the smell of garlic. Food is culture, memory, and soul. And yet, being ruled by it? That’s a kind of servitude. Constant hunger is its own form of imprisonment.

    So we’re caught in a new paradox: to be free from food, we must become dependent on pharmacological salvation. Health insurers love it. Employers love it. Actuarial tables are singing hymns of praise. But should we?

    That’s the real assignment: not just whether GLP-1s work, but whether the shift they represent is something to embrace or fear. This is no clear-cut debate. It’s a riddle with contradictory truths. A tug-of-war between biology, economics, ethics, and the shrinking silhouette in the mirror.

    And if my students groan under the weight of the question, I remind them: this isn’t Home Ec. This is Critical Thinking. If you want easy answers, go back to diet TikTok.

  • The Death of Dinner: How AI Could Replace Pleasure Eating with Beige, Compliant Goo

    The Death of Dinner: How AI Could Replace Pleasure Eating with Beige, Compliant Goo

    Savor that croissant while you still can—flaky, buttery, criminally indulgent. In a few decades, it’ll be contraband nostalgia, recounted in hushed tones by grandparents who once lived in a time when bread still had a soul and cheese wasn’t “shelf-stable.” Because AI is coming for your taste buds, and it’s not bringing hot sauce.

    We are entering the era of algorithm-approved alimentation—a techno-utopia where food isn’t eaten, it’s administered. Where meals are no longer social rituals or sensory joys but compliance events optimized for satiety curves and glucose response. Your plate is now a spreadsheet, and your fork is a biometric reporting device.

    Already, AI nutrition platforms like Noom, Lumen, and MyFitnessPal’s AI-diet overlords are serving up daily menus based on your gut flora’s mood and whether your insulin levels are feeling emotionally regulated. These platforms don’t ask what you’re craving—they tell you what your metrics will tolerate. Dinner is no longer about joy; it’s about hitting your macros and earning a dopamine pellet for obedience.

    Tech elites have already evacuated the dinner table. For them, food is just software for the stomach. Soylent, Huel, Ka’chava—these aren’t meals, they’re edible flowcharts. Designed not for delight but for efficiency, these drinkable spreadsheets are powdered proof that the future of food is just enough taste to make you swallow.

    And let’s not forget Ozempic and its GLP-1 cousins—the hormonal muzzle for hunger. Pair that with AI wearables whispering sweet nothings like “Time for your lentil paste” and you’ve got a whole generation learning that wanting flavor is a failure of character. Forget foie gras. It’s psy-ops via quinoa gel.

    Even your grocery cart is under surveillance. AI shopping assistants—already lurking in apps like Instacart—will gently steer you away from handmade pasta and toward fermented fiber bars and shelf-stable cheese-like products. Got a hankering for camembert? Sorry, your AI gut-coach has flagged it as non-compliant dairy-based frivolity. Enjoy your pea-protein puck, peasant.

    Soon, your lunch break won’t be lunch or a break. It’ll be a Pomodoro-synced ingestion window in which you sip an AI-formulated mushroom slurry while doom-scrolling synthetic influencers on GLP-1. Your food won’t comfort you—it will stabilize you, and that’s the most terrifying part. Three times a day, you’ll sip the same beige sludge of cricket protein, nootropic fibers, and psychoactive stabilizers, each meal a contract with the status quo: You will feel nothing, and you will comply.

    And if you’re lucky enough to live in an AI-UBI future, don’t expect dinner to be celebratory. Expect it to be regulated, subsidized, and flavor-neutral. Your government food credits won’t cover artisan cheddar or small-batch bread. Instead, your AI grocery budget assistant will chirp:

    “This selection exceeds your optimal cost-to-nutrient ratio. May I suggest oat crisps and processed cheese spread at 50% less and 300% more compliance?”

    Even without work, you won’t have the freedom to indulge. Your wearable will monitor your blood sugar, cholesterol, and moral fiber. Have a rogue bite of truffle mac & cheese? That spike in glucose just docked you two points from your UBI wellness score:

    “Indulgent eating may affect eligibility for enhanced wellness bonuses. Consider lentil loaf next time, citizen.”

    Eventually, pleasure eating becomes a class marker, like opera tickets or handwritten letters. Rich eccentrics will dine on duck confit in secrecy while the rest of us drink our AI-approved nutrient slurry in 600-calorie increments at 13:05 sharp. Flavor becomes a crime of privilege.

    The final insult? Your children won’t even miss it. They’ll grow up thinking “food joy” is a myth—like cursive writing or butter. They’ll hear stories of crusty baguettes and sizzling fat the way Boomers talk about jazz clubs and cigarettes. Romantic, but reckless.

    In this optimized hellscape, eating is no longer an art. It’s a biometric negotiation between your body and a neural net that no longer trusts you to feed yourself responsibly.

    The future of food is functional. Beige. Pre-chewed by code. And flavor? That’s just a bug in the system.

  • College Writing Prompt: The Willpower Illusion: Ozempic, Obesity, and the Myth of Self-Control in a the Aesthetic Industrial Complex

    College Writing Prompt: The Willpower Illusion: Ozempic, Obesity, and the Myth of Self-Control in a the Aesthetic Industrial Complex

    Overview:

    Write a 1,700-word argumentative essay exploring whether the dominant narrative about weight loss—discipline, clean eating, and personal responsibility—still holds up in the age of pharmaceutical intervention, economic inequality, and digital diet culture.

    Drawing from Rebecca Johns (“A Diet Writer’s Regrets”), Johann Hari (“A Year on Ozempic…”), Harriet Brown (“The Weight of the Evidence”), and Sandra Aamodt (“Why You Can’t Lose Weight on a Diet”), analyze how obesity is shaped by factors far beyond individual willpower. Consider the influence of wealth disparity, pharmaceutical marketing, addictive food engineering, and digital culture on how we define health, blame failure, and reward certain bodies over others.

    Key Questions to Consider:

    • Is the belief in personal discipline as the primary tool for weight loss a dangerous oversimplification?
    • How do Ozempic and similar drugs challenge or reinforce our cultural obsession with self-control?
    • What role does economic privilege play in deciding who gets access to medical weight-loss interventions?
    • Are we witnessing a new form of techno-body capitalism where apps, injections, and dopamine loops manage our appetites better than we ever could?
    • How might social media, AI influencers, and fitness-tracking technologies contribute to a culture of body surveillance and shame?

    Required Sources (Use at least 4, MLA Format):

    • 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”

    Recommended Focus Areas:

    1. The Discipline Dilemma
     How Johns and Hari dismantle the myth that all it takes is willpower. What emotional, social, and physiological realities do they reveal?

    2. Set Points and Self-Sabotage
     How Aamodt and Brown explain the body’s resistance to permanent weight loss. What does the science say about the limits of effort?

    3. Ozempic and the Access Divide
     Ozempic works—but only for those who can afford it. How does this reflect a larger healthcare injustice?

    4. Capitalism’s Role in Body Control
     How the Industrial Food Complex profits from addiction, and Big Pharma profits from the “cure.” Is this a closed system of exploitation?

    5. Digital Diet Culture
     Optional but encouraged: bring in TikTok, fitness influencers, AI diet advice, or surveillance devices (like smartwatches and calorie-counting apps). How do these amplify shame or create new ideologies of control?

    Conclusion:

    Make a claim about how society should reframe the conversation around obesity and weight loss. Should we abandon the willpower narrative? Should access to medical treatments be universal? Should we question the legitimacy of “health” as a moral standard at all?

    Final Essay Requirements:

    • 1,700 words minimum
    • MLA format, 12pt Times New Roman, double-spaced
    • Include a clear thesis, transitions, and a conclusion
    • Use and cite at least 4 sources

    Submit with a Works Cited page