These articles explore the body, the mind, the environment, and the systems that shape human health. Each piece is written to make complex ideas easier to understand, whether the topic is training, nutrition, sleep, stress, digestion, symptoms, physiology, disease, or the way modern life affects how we feel and function.
Strength, Health, & the Art of Living Well
Food Is More Than Fuel: How What We Eat May Help Tell the Body Where and When It Is
We usually talk about food in terms of calories, macronutrients, vitamins, minerals, and the raw materials required to keep the body functioning. Protein provides amino acids, carbohydrates provide glucose, fats provide fatty acids, and all of these can eventually be used to support energy production, tissue repair, hormone synthesis, and the thousands of biochemical reactions occurring throughout the body at any given moment.
That is all true, but it leaves out something I think is becoming increasingly important to how we understand health. Food does more than supply material and energy. It also changes the physiological state of the organism consuming it. Different foods alter hormones, enzymes, cellular signaling pathways, mitochondrial activity, redox balance, gene expression, and even the peripheral biological clocks found throughout tissues such as the liver, skeletal muscle, pancreas, and adipose tissue.
Seen through that lens, food can also be understood as information.
That idea becomes more interesting when we consider that human beings did not evolve in an environment where food, light, temperature, movement, and season existed as independent variables. They changed together. The amount of daylight changed with the seasons. Temperature changed with the seasons. The plants that were available, the amount of carbohydrate in the environment, and the amount of energy required to survive all changed along with them.
Modern life allows us to separate nearly all of those things.
We can experience a short winter day while sitting in a climate-controlled room, remain under artificial light well into the biological night, move very little, and eat foods grown thousands of miles away in an entirely different light and temperature environment. I do not think we currently have enough evidence to say exactly what the physiological consequences of every one of these mismatches are, but I do think there is a reasonable question hiding underneath them: how much of health depends on the different signals reaching the body telling a coherent story?
The Body Is Constantly Reading Its Environment
Light is the most obvious example because its relationship with circadian biology is well established. Light entering the eyes helps synchronize the central circadian clock in the brain, which in turn helps organize sleep and wakefulness, hormone secretion, body temperature, metabolic activity, and many of the other processes that follow a roughly 24-hour rhythm.
The central clock is only part of this system. Tissues throughout the body contain their own circadian machinery, and these peripheral clocks respond to more than light alone. Meal timing, physical activity, temperature, and metabolic state all contribute to the timing and organization of physiology.
This means the body is continually integrating information from several directions at once. Light provides information about time of day. Temperature provides information about the physical environment. Movement provides information about energetic demand. Food provides information about nutrient availability and alters the metabolic state of the tissues receiving it.
These signals historically occurred in patterns that were largely predictable. Morning light was accompanied by waking and movement. Darkness was accompanied by rest. Seasonal changes in daylight and temperature influenced the foods available in the local environment. Biology evolved inside those relationships.
I think this is where the conversation around food becomes much more interesting than simply asking how many calories it contains.
Different Fuels Create Different Metabolic Conditions
Carbohydrate and fat can both be used to generate ATP, but they do not travel through metabolism in exactly the same way. Once we follow those fuels into the mitochondria, the differences become more obvious.
Carbohydrate metabolism produces NADH through glycolysis and the citric acid cycle, which the cell then uses to help generate energy. Fatty acids are broken down through beta oxidation, which produces both NADH and FAD-related energy carriers. The key point is that carbohydrates and fats feed into energy production in slightly different ways, even though both ultimately help the body make ATP.
The important point for this discussion is that the body does not simply see “energy” arriving. The form in which that energy arrives influences how electrons enter mitochondrial respiration, how the proton gradient is generated, how much oxygen is consumed, how much ATP can be produced, and what the surrounding redox environment looks like.
Fat and carbohydrate therefore create somewhat different metabolic conditions even when both ultimately contribute to ATP production.
This becomes even more interesting when we look beyond energy production itself. NAD is a molecule the body uses to help manage energy and keep cells running properly. Its balance in the cell reflects how much energy is available and how “stressed” or active the cell is. It also seems to play a role in timing systems in the body, helping coordinate things like metabolism, repair, and daily biological rhythms.
Food composition therefore has the potential to influence physiology at several levels simultaneously. It provides substrate, changes hormonal signaling, alters mitochondrial fuel selection, changes redox conditions, and interacts with biological timing systems.
This is where I think the phrase “food is information” starts to become more than a metaphor.
Food Carries a History of the Environment That Produced It
There is another layer to this that I find particularly interesting.
Plants are products of their environment. Light intensity, photoperiod, temperature, water availability, soil conditions, stress, and season all influence how a plant grows and what compounds it produces. The food that eventually reaches us is therefore partly a biochemical expression of the conditions in which it was grown.
That doesn’t mean a tomato carries a code about where it was grown. We don’t have evidence for anything like that.
Still, it’s worth asking whether the chemistry and availability of food have always been part of the broader environment people lived in.
For most of human history, the foods available in a particular place were constrained by the conditions of that place. Long summer days, warmer temperatures, and greater plant growth tended to coincide with greater carbohydrate availability. Shorter days and colder temperatures changed the food environment and, depending on geography, could shift the diet toward stored foods, animal foods, and different macronutrient proportions.
The light environment and the food environment were therefore connected even if food itself was not functioning as some kind of direct photoreceptor.
Sunlight shaped the environment. The environment shaped the food. The food shaped human metabolism.
That chain alone gives us plenty to think about.
Modern Life Allows the Signals to Separate
One of the unusual features of modern life is that we can now experience combinations of environmental signals that would have been difficult or impossible to create for most of human history.
We can eat tropical fruit in the middle of a northern winter. We can consume food at midnight under bright artificial lighting. We can live in darkness during the day and expose ourselves to strong light at night. We can remain at a comfortable indoor temperature regardless of season. We can consume a continuous abundance of carbohydrate and fat while doing almost no physical work.
None of these observations proves that any single modern behavior is inherently harmful. The larger issue is that they allow the timing and relationships between biological signals to drift apart.
Light may be telling the central nervous system one thing while meal timing is telling peripheral tissues something else. Temperature may suggest one environment while food availability reflects another. Energy intake may signal abundance while physical activity signals almost no demand for that energy.
This is where I think the concept of biological synchronization becomes useful.
Health depends on the body coordinating an enormous number of processes at once. Energy has to be produced, tissues have to be repaired, damaged proteins have to be cleared, immune activity has to activate and resolve, hormones have to rise and fall, and metabolic pathways have to respond appropriately to changing conditions.
The body does not need those processes to remain constant. It needs them to remain organized.
Training provides a good example. A hard workout temporarily disrupts homeostasis. Energy stores fall, tissue is stressed, inflammatory signaling increases, and fatigue accumulates. None of that is inherently unhealthy. If the system has enough capacity to recover, the disturbance is resolved and the organism can return in a more capable state.
Problems begin when disruption continually outpaces resolution.
The same framework may apply more broadly to health. Poor sleep, circadian disruption, chronic psychological stress, excessive energy intake, insufficient movement, and repeated environmental mismatch may all create demands that the organism has to continually compensate for. Over time, health declines as more of the system's resources are spent managing unresolved problems rather than building and maintaining capacity.
Where Local and Seasonal Food May Fit
This is where my own interest in local and seasonal food comes in.
I am not making a strong claim that we fully understand all the mechanisms at play here, or that the science has already mapped out every possible interaction between food, environment, and physiology. My sense is simply that there are multiple overlapping systems involved, and we may not yet have a complete picture of how they integrate.
What I do think is reasonable is that eating foods produced within the environment and season you currently inhabit tends to preserve some of the relationships that shaped human biology in the first place.
Local food reflects local growing conditions. Seasonal food reflects the time of year. Both tend to reconnect food availability with the light, temperature, and environmental conditions occurring around the person eating it.
I also want to be careful not to overstate certainty about mechanisms here. I am not claiming that we already know exactly how these relationships translate into health outcomes, whether through circadian biology, mitochondrial metabolism, gut signaling, plant chemistry, or some combination of factors. My interest is more in acknowledging that modern nutrition often treats food as if its geographic and environmental context is irrelevant, even though that context is part of how food comes into existence.
I am not convinced that it is irrelevant.
If the human organism is constantly using environmental information to organize physiology, then it seems reasonable to ask whether the food environment should be considered part of that information system rather than simply a collection of calories and nutrients.
At the very least, the question pushes us toward a broader understanding of nutrition.
Food contains energy. It contains nutrients. It alters hormones and cellular signaling. It changes mitochondrial substrate use and redox state. It influences peripheral clocks. It is also produced by an environment whose light, temperature, soil, water, and season influence what that food becomes.
Those layers do not have to compete with one another. They are different levels of the same biological conversation.
The question I keep coming back to is whether health improves when those conversations remain coherent.
If light, food, movement, temperature, sleep, and season historically changed together, then perhaps part of maintaining health is preserving enough of that relationship for the body to accurately organize itself around the environment it actually inhabits.
That idea is still partly hypothesis, but it is a hypothesis I think is worth taking seriously.
P&G Bought Thorne. Here’s Why I’d Start Looking Elsewhere
I’ve used Thorne supplements for years, and I still think they’ve been a very good company. Their reputation was earned through strong formulations, quality standards, testing, and credibility with health professionals.
But this week, Procter & Gamble agreed to acquire Thorne for $3.8 billion.
That acquisition is worth paying attention to.
In 2023, private-equity firm L Catterton purchased Thorne for approximately $680 million and took the company private. Less than three years later, it’s being sold to P&G for $3.8 billion. During that time, Thorne has continued growing, with sales reportedly expected to reach roughly $650 million this year.
In other words, P&G isn’t buying a struggling supplement company that needs to be fixed.
It’s buying a successful premium wellness brand.
And arguably, the most valuable thing it’s buying isn’t the capsules in the bottles. It’s the credibility Thorne spent decades building.
That’s becoming increasingly valuable to companies like P&G as consumers spend more money on health, prevention, supplements, and premium wellness products. Rather than building that trust from scratch, a large consumer company can simply acquire a brand that already has it. P&G already owns supplement and wellness brands including New Chapter, Align and Metamucil, and the Thorne acquisition represents a much larger push into the category.
The problem is that ownership transfers immediately. Trust doesn’t.
Nothing about this acquisition means the Thorne products sitting on the shelf suddenly became worse. And there’s currently no evidence that P&G has plans to reduce ingredient quality, changed formulations, or lower Thorne’s manufacturing standards.
My concern is what happens over time.
When a company spends $3.8 billion on an acquisition, that investment eventually has to produce a return. Growth, margins, distribution, manufacturing costs, ingredient costs and product profitability all become part of the equation.
That doesn’t guarantee Thorne’s quality will decline. But it does change the incentives surrounding the brand.
And when the reason I was willing to pay a premium for Thorne in the first place was its reputation for quality, that’s enough for me to start considering alternatives rather than waiting to find out what changes under new ownership.
So, What Should You Look For Instead?
If you decide to move away from Thorne, the goal should be to find a company that still prioritizes the same things that made Thorne worth using in the first place: quality ingredients, strong formulations, reliable manufacturing, and meaningful testing.
That’s one reason I’ve used NutriDyn alongside Thorne for years.
NutriDyn is a smaller, pharmacedical grade, practitioner-focused supplement company with a strong emphasis on formulation, manufacturing standards, ingredient quality, and third-party testing. More importantly, they already make alternatives to many of the Thorne products I’ve commonly used and recommended.
So rather than telling people to stop using Thorne without giving them somewhere to go, I put together a simple Thorne → NutriDyn replacement guide with comparable options for many of Thorne’s most popular supplements.
“N/A” means there is no direct NutriDyn replacement listed in this guide. Products marked “consider” are alternatives rather than exact matches.
Why High-Glycemic Post-Workout Meals May Work Against Muscle Growth
Glycemic load is a term used to describe the effect a food has on blood sugar. The higher the glycemic load, the more that food raises blood sugar and insulin.
Over the years, there has been growing public awareness around glycemic load and how it affects health. More people understand that certain foods spike blood sugar more aggressively than others, and that repeated blood sugar and insulin spikes can affect metabolism over time.
However, this topic is still widely misunderstood, especially in sports nutrition.
One of the most common assumptions is that high-glycemic protein meals promote muscle gain. Many commercial protein products are packed with sugar and marketed around the idea that deliberately spiking insulin after training will help drive more nutrients into muscle and produce better growth.
The logic sounds simple. Insulin is an anabolic hormone, so if you spike insulin after training, it should increase protein deposition in the muscle and improve muscle gain.
That is the idea.
But that is not necessarily what happens in real life.
In real life, high-glycemic protein meals may be counterproductive for muscle. There are two main reasons why.
First, exercise causes a temporary disruption in glucose utilization in the muscle. This is related to muscle microtrauma, or the wear and tear that occurs in muscle tissue during training. Immediately after exercise, the muscle may not tolerate a high-glycemic meal as well as people assume.
The post-workout window is often described as a time when the body can handle anything because the muscles are “primed” for nutrients. But that idea may be too simplistic. Training creates demand, but it also creates stress. The body still needs to manage inflammation, tissue damage, glucose handling, and recovery.
Second, high-glycemic meals can impair insulin function, disrupt muscle mTOR signaling, and interfere with muscle protein synthesis. mTOR is one of the key biological mechanisms involved in building muscle. If insulin sensitivity is impaired, mTOR cannot be fully activated in the way people want.
This is where the insulin-spike theory starts to fall apart.
Insulin matters, but more insulin is not always better. The goal should not be to constantly force the largest possible insulin response. The goal should be to maintain insulin sensitivity so the body can respond properly to the insulin it produces.
There is a major difference between using insulin effectively and chronically overspiking it.
Chronic intake of high-glycemic meals has been shown to cause hyperinsulinemia, a condition where insulin is repeatedly or chronically elevated. Hyperinsulinemia has been linked to uncontrollable fat gain, damage to insulin receptors, and harm to the muscular system.
That matters because muscle growth does not happen in isolation. It depends on the health of the entire metabolic system. If the diet repeatedly drives excessive insulin responses and worsens insulin sensitivity, the body may become less efficient at using nutrients properly.
In that environment, the same meal that was supposed to help build muscle may contribute to fat gain and metabolic dysfunction instead.
This does not mean carbohydrates are bad. It does not mean insulin is bad. It does not mean post-workout nutrition does not matter. The issue is the assumption that a high-sugar, high-glycemic protein meal is automatically the best way to support muscle growth.
Muscle growth requires training stimulus, adequate protein, enough total calories, recovery, and proper nutrient timing. But none of that requires turning every post-workout meal into a blood sugar spike.
A better approach is to support recovery without overwhelming the body. That means prioritizing high-quality protein, choosing carbohydrates based on the person’s training, goals, and insulin sensitivity, and avoiding the belief that more sugar automatically means more muscle.
The body builds muscle through coordinated signaling, not through brute-force insulin spikes.
High-glycemic post-workout meals may sound effective because they appear to match a simple anabolic story: spike insulin, drive nutrients, build muscle. But the body is more complex than that. If insulin sensitivity is impaired, glucose handling is disrupted, and mTOR signaling is compromised, the strategy can work against the very outcome it is supposed to support.
The goal after training is not simply to raise insulin as high as possible.
The goal is to create the internal conditions that allow the body to recover, repair, and build muscle efficiently.
Snacking Is Stupid
Prior to 1977, Americans did not just eat more dietary fat and fewer refined grains. They also ate less often.
That part of the nutrition conversation does not get nearly enough attention. Most people focus on what changed in the diet, but eating frequency changed too. There were no official recommendations telling people to abandon structured meals and start eating all day, but eating patterns changed anyway.
That shift may have contributed to the obesity crisis.
The National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, or NHANES, found that in 1977 most people ate three times per day: breakfast, lunch, and dinner. Eating was organized around meals, not constant grazing. If a child wanted an after-school snack, the typical answer from mom was, “No, you’ll ruin your dinner.” If they wanted a bedtime snack, the answer was usually no again.
Snacking was considered neither necessary nor especially healthy. A snack was a treat. It happened occasionally, not automatically.
Now, the message has changed. We are often told that eating more frequently helps with weight loss. The idea is that more frequent meals or snacks somehow “stoke the metabolism,” control hunger, or make fat loss easier. The problem is that this assumption has been repeated far more than it has been proven.
The scientific support for eating more frequently as a weight-loss strategy is weak. Its respectability seems to come mostly from repetition. At first glance, the idea sounds pretty stupid. And it sounds stupid because, in most cases, it is.
Snacking creates more opportunities to eat. More opportunities to eat can easily become more opportunities to overeat. This is especially true in a modern food environment where snacks are rarely just small portions of whole foods. They are usually highly palatable, easy to consume, calorie-dense, and designed to be eaten quickly.
The issue is not that a snack can never have a place. The issue is that snacking has been normalized as if the human body requires constant feeding to function well. Historically, that was not how most people ate. Most people ate meals, then stopped eating until the next meal.
That structure matters.
When eating is built around breakfast, lunch, and dinner, hunger and satiety have a clearer rhythm. You eat, you digest, you become hungry again, and you eat the next meal. When eating becomes constant, that rhythm gets blurred. Food becomes less tied to hunger and more tied to habit, boredom, stress, convenience, availability, or marketing.
That is exactly the question raised by Barry Popkin and Kiyah Duffey in their paper, “Does Hunger and Satiety Drive Eating Anymore?” The title alone points to the problem. Modern eating patterns have shifted toward more eating occasions and less time between those eating occasions.¹
This matters because hunger and satiety should mean something. They are part of the body’s regulatory system. But when food is always available, and when snacks are treated as a normal part of the day, eating can become disconnected from actual physical need.
A person may not be hungry. They may just be used to eating at that time.
They may not need food. They may just be tired, stressed, bored, distracted, or surrounded by snacks.
They may not be supporting their metabolism. They may simply be adding calories they never needed in the first place.
That is why snacking deserves more scrutiny. It is often presented as a helpful habit, but for many people, it may be one of the quiet reasons they struggle to lose weight. A handful of food here, a protein bar there, a few bites after dinner, something sweet before bed, and suddenly the calorie deficit they thought they were creating is gone.
The body does not need to be fed constantly. Most people do not need six meals a day. Most people do not need a snack between every meal. And most people trying to lose weight would probably benefit from fewer eating occasions, not more.
This is especially true when the goal is fat loss.
A simple meal structure creates boundaries. Breakfast, lunch, and dinner give the day a clear rhythm. It becomes easier to know when eating starts and when eating stops. It becomes easier to build meals around protein, whole foods, and adequate nutrition instead of trying to manage constant hunger with random snacks.
Again, this does not mean a snack is always wrong. A hard-training athlete, someone with higher calorie needs, a person with blood sugar issues, or someone who genuinely needs more food within their day may have a reason to include one. But that is different from treating snacking as a universal recommendation.
The problem is not the occasional snack. The problem is the belief that constant eating is necessary, healthy, or automatically helpful for weight loss.
For most people, snacking is not a strategy. It is a leak in the system.
If the goal is better health, better appetite control, and better body composition, the first step may be returning to a simpler structure: eat real meals, make them satisfying, prioritize protein and whole foods, and stop treating every passing urge to eat as a biological emergency.
Snacking became normal. That does not mean it became useful.
Reference
Popkin, B. M., & Duffey, K. J. “Does Hunger and Satiety Drive Eating Anymore? Increasing Eating Occasions and Decreasing Time Between Eating Occasions in the United States.” American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 91, no. 5, 2010, 1342–1347. https://doi.org/10.3945/ajcn.2009.28962
Vegetarian Omega-3s: Healthy Fat or Not?
Omega-3s are usually discussed as healthy fats, and for good reason. They play important roles in brain health, cardiovascular function, inflammation, and overall cellular health. The part that often gets missed is that not all omega-3s are the same.
The three omega-3s most commonly discussed are ALA, EPA, and DHA. ALA, or alpha-linolenic acid, is found in plant foods such as flaxseeds, chia seeds, walnuts, and some plant oils. EPA and DHA are found primarily in seafood and marine algae. These are the longer-chain omega-3s most directly associated with many of the benefits people think of when they hear “omega-3.”
Many vegetarians try to meet their omega-3 needs by supplementing with ALA because ALA is technically a precursor to both EPA and DHA. That means the body can use ALA to make EPA and DHA. The problem is that the body is not very efficient at this conversion.
In general, ALA can be converted into EPA and then DHA, but the conversion is limited. The National Institutes of Health notes that this conversion occurs primarily in the liver and is generally reported to be less than 15 percent. Other research and nutrition reviews have shown that the conversion can be much lower, especially for DHA.
This is where the issue becomes important for vegetarians and vegans. ALA is a healthy fat, but relying on ALA alone may not reliably provide enough EPA and DHA. Some estimates suggest that less than 5 percent of ALA is converted into EPA, and even less is converted into DHA. The exact number can vary depending on sex, genetics, overall diet, omega-6 intake, and nutrient status, but the main point remains the same: conversion is limited.
DHA is especially difficult to produce from ALA. The Linus Pauling Institute notes that studies in healthy young men found approximately 8 percent of dietary ALA converted to EPA and 0 to 4 percent converted to DHA, while healthy young women showed higher conversion rates, likely influenced by estrogen.
This means plant-based omega-3 intake is not useless. ALA still matters. It is an essential fatty acid, which means the body cannot make it and it must come from the diet. The issue is that ALA is not the same thing as directly consuming EPA and DHA.
There is also another layer to consider. The conversion of ALA into EPA and DHA depends on enzymes involved in fatty acid metabolism, including desaturase and elongase enzymes. Linoleic acid, an omega-6 fat that is common in many plant foods and seed oils, competes with ALA for some of those same enzymes. A higher omega-6 intake can reduce conversion of ALA into longer-chain omega-3s.
Nutrient status may also matter. The conversion process relies on several nutrients that support fatty acid metabolism, and iron status is worth paying attention to because many vegetarians and vegans are already at greater risk of low iron intake or lower iron stores. If someone is relying on ALA conversion as their main source of EPA and DHA while also struggling with nutrient deficiencies, the system may become less reliable.
The practical takeaway is simple: vegetarian omega-3 sources can be healthy, but they may not be enough on their own if the goal is to maintain optimal EPA and DHA status.
For someone eating a vegetarian or vegan diet, flaxseeds, chia seeds, walnuts, and other ALA-rich foods can still be useful. They provide essential fats and belong in a healthy diet if they are tolerated well. However, they should not automatically be treated as a complete replacement for EPA and DHA.
A more reliable strategy for vegetarians and vegans is to consider algae-based EPA and DHA. Marine algae is where fish ultimately get these omega-3s in the food chain, which makes algae oil a direct plant-compatible source of EPA and DHA without relying entirely on conversion from ALA.
So, are vegetarian omega-3s healthy fats?
Yes, but with an important distinction. ALA is healthy, essential, and worth including, but it does not convert efficiently enough to assume it fully covers EPA and DHA needs for everyone. If someone avoids seafood, they should understand the difference between consuming plant-based ALA and directly consuming EPA and DHA from marine algae.
The issue is not whether vegetarian omega-3s are healthy. The issue is whether they are complete enough to meet the body’s long-chain omega-3 needs.
Sugar Is Bad for Your Brain
Sugar is usually discussed in the context of weight gain, blood sugar, or diabetes, but its effects go much deeper than that. Sugar also has consequences for the brain, partly because the brain depends heavily on energy metabolism, mitochondrial function, neurotransmitter signaling, and inflammation control.
Scientists have known there is a relationship between sugar and cellular energy production for a long time. In 1927, biochemist Herbert Crabtree discovered that elevated glucose levels could lower mitochondrial function. This matters because mitochondria are responsible for producing the energy our cells rely on to function properly.
When mitochondrial function is impaired, the issue is not only about energy. Mitochondria are involved in cellular health, oxidative stress, inflammation, and the way tissues throughout the body respond to metabolic stress. Since the brain is one of the most energy-demanding organs in the body, anything that negatively affects mitochondrial function has the potential to affect brain health.
Sugar has also been shown to decrease the number of dopamine receptors in the brain. Dopamine is closely tied to motivation, reward, pleasure, drive, and reinforcement. When dopamine signaling is altered, it can affect how the brain responds to food, reward, and repeated exposure to highly palatable foods.
This is one reason sugar can be so difficult for people to moderate. The issue is not only that sugar tastes good. It also interacts with the brain’s reward system in a way that can influence cravings, habits, and the desire to keep consuming more.
While all forms of sugar can become a problem when consumed excessively, fructose appears to be especially concerning. Fructose is found in fruit, high-fructose corn syrup, and agave nectar. The context matters, though. Eating moderate amounts of whole, seasonal fruit is very different from consuming large amounts of fructose through fruit juice, sweetened beverages, processed foods, high-fructose corn syrup, or agave nectar.
Fructose can contribute to oxidative stress and may also feed less beneficial bacteria in the gut, which can promote inflammation. That matters because the gut and brain are not separate systems. Inflammation that begins in the gut can influence the rest of the body, including the brain.
Fructose has also been implicated in damaging mitochondria in skeletal muscle cells, harming the mitochondrial membrane, and impairing cellular respiration and energy metabolism. In simple terms, excessive fructose may interfere with the body’s ability to produce energy efficiently at the cellular level.
The brain will usually tolerate moderate amounts of whole fruit, especially when that fruit is seasonal and eaten in its natural form. Whole fruit comes packaged with water, fiber, micronutrients, and other compounds that slow down absorption and make overconsumption less likely.
Fruit juice is different. High-fructose corn syrup is different. Agave nectar is different. These sources make it much easier to consume large amounts of fructose without the same natural limits that come with eating whole fruit.
For that reason, a practical approach is to avoid excessive fructose intake, completely stay away from fruit juice, and avoid foods that contain high-fructose corn syrup or agave nectar.
A reasonable target is to limit fructose intake to about 20 grams per day.
This does not mean fruit is the enemy. It means the form, dose, and context matter. Whole fruit in moderate amounts is not the same thing as drinking fruit juice or consuming processed foods sweetened with concentrated fructose sources.
Sugar affects more than body weight. It can influence mitochondrial function, dopamine signaling, oxidative stress, gut health, inflammation, and energy metabolism. Since all of those systems matter for the brain, sugar is not something we should think about only through the lens of calories.
If the goal is better brain health, better energy, and better metabolic function, reducing excess sugar, especially concentrated fructose, is one of the simplest places to start.
Are Commercial Probiotics as Natural as They Seem?
Probiotics are usually marketed as a simple way to support gut health, but many commercial probiotic supplements and foods may not be as beneficial as people are led to believe.
One of the concerns is that many commercial probiotics use strains that are easier to produce, control, transport, and store. The healthiest and most potent strains of probiotics are not always stable outside the body. Nature did not design them to reproduce and live indefinitely in commercial production environments. Their natural homes are in soil, on the surface of plants, and inside the microbiome of living creatures.
That makes growing, transporting, and storing probiotics properly a sensitive process.
For many companies, this creates a practical problem. Truly natural, delicate, and diverse microbial strains may be harder to preserve and sell at scale. Commercial food and supplement production often favors products that are cheap, easy to standardize, and shelf-stable. As a result, some products may be sterilized, homogenized, or altered in ways that remove many of the natural properties people are actually looking for.
This is why some companies use proprietary strains that are easier to control through commercial processes. These strains may be selected, modified, or developed to survive manufacturing, packaging, shipping, and storage better than naturally occurring microbes.
So how can you tell if a probiotic may not be naturally occurring?
One clue is the label. Many commercial strains are followed by a number, such as Bacillus coagulans GBI-30 6086. This kind of labeling can indicate that the strain is proprietary and possibly patented. In other words, it may be a commercial version of microbiota developed for production rather than a naturally occurring organism used in its original form.
That distinction matters because naturally occurring microorganisms cannot be patented in the same way proprietary commercial strains can.
The larger point is that probiotics should not be accepted blindly just because the label sounds healthy. A product can say “probiotic” and still be far removed from the kind of microbial exposure humans historically received through soil, plants, fermented foods, animals, and natural environments.
This does not mean every probiotic supplement is useless. It means the source, strain, processing, storage, and form matter.
Gut health is not built by a label. It is built by the total environment we create for the microbiome, including food quality, fiber, fermented foods, soil exposure, plant diversity, stress regulation, sleep, and reducing the things that damage gut ecology in the first place.
A probiotic may help, but it should not be treated as a shortcut around the deeper work of supporting the microbiome naturally.
Sugar Burns Through Magnesium
Sugar does not enter the body for free. It has to be metabolized, and that process requires nutrients.
One molecule of sugar requires 56 molecules of magnesium, along with other minerals, for the body to metabolize it properly. That matters because magnesium is already involved in hundreds of biological processes, including energy production, muscle function, nervous system regulation, blood sugar control, and overall metabolic health.
This is one reason whole fruit is different from added or concentrated sugar.
Whole fruits grown naturally contain the sugar they provide along with the minerals, fiber, water, and plant compounds that help the body handle that sugar. In this view, naturally grown whole fruit contains the approximate 1:56 ratio needed to metabolize its sugar without creating the same mineral burden.
Added and concentrated sugars are different. When sugar is removed from its natural context and added to processed foods, sweet drinks, desserts, candy, syrups, or other refined products, it no longer comes packaged with the same support system.
That means the body still has to metabolize the sugar, but now it may need to pull magnesium from other biological processes in order to do so.
This is the real problem with added sugar. It is not only that it adds calories. It is that it can create a nutrient cost. The body may have to use minerals it needs elsewhere just to process the sugar coming in.
Over time, that can matter. If someone regularly eats added or concentrated sugar while failing to replenish minerals through a nutrient-dense diet, the body may be pushed toward deficiency. Magnesium is too important to waste on a constant stream of refined sugar.
The simple takeaway is this: sugar in whole food form is not the same as sugar stripped from its natural context.
Whole fruit comes with support. Added sugar creates demand.
If the goal is better energy, blood sugar control, and mineral balance, reducing added and concentrated sugars is one of the simplest places to start.
Nine Natural Ways to Support Insulin Sensitivity
Insulin resistance is one of the major drivers of poor metabolic health. When the body becomes less responsive to insulin, blood sugar becomes harder to control, the pancreas has to work harder, and the risk of type 2 diabetes increases over time.
The good news is that several foods, spices, herbs, and plant compounds have been studied for their ability to support insulin sensitivity and improve blood sugar control. None of these should be treated as a replacement for medical care, especially for someone already diagnosed with diabetes, but they are worth understanding because they show how strongly the body can respond to nutritional inputs.
Here are nine natural ways to support insulin sensitivity.
1. Turmeric
Turmeric contains curcumin, a compound known for its anti-inflammatory and metabolic effects.
In a study published in the American Diabetes Association’s journal Diabetes Care, 240 prediabetic adults were given either 250 milligrams of curcumin or a placebo every day. After nine months, none of the participants taking curcumin had developed diabetes, while 16.4 percent of the placebo group had developed type 2 diabetes.¹
That suggests curcumin may be a powerful tool for supporting blood sugar regulation in people at risk for diabetes.
2. Ginger
Ginger has also been studied for its effect on blood sugar and insulin sensitivity.
In a 2014 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, 88 volunteers with diabetes were divided into two groups. One group received a placebo every day, while the other received three one-gram capsules of ginger powder.
After eight weeks, the ginger group reduced fasting blood sugar by 10.5 percent. The placebo group, on the other hand, increased fasting blood sugar by 21 percent. Insulin sensitivity also improved significantly more in the ginger group.²
Another study found that 1,600 milligrams per day of ginger improved eight markers of diabetes, including insulin sensitivity. Since 1,600 milligrams is only about a quarter teaspoon, this suggests that large doses may not be necessary to see meaningful effects.³
3. Cinnamon
Cinnamon has been used for thousands of years as both a spice and a warming medicine traditionally used to support the blood.
A meta-analysis published in the Journal of Medicinal Food reviewed eight studies and concluded that cinnamon, or cinnamon extract, lowers fasting blood sugar levels.⁴
One way cinnamon may work is by slowing how quickly the stomach empties after eating. This can reduce the speed at which glucose enters the bloodstream after a meal.
Sprinkling about half a teaspoon of cinnamon into meals or smoothies may help reduce blood sugar levels, even in people with type 2 diabetes.⁵
When choosing cinnamon, look for Ceylon cinnamon, named after the old name for Sri Lanka, where it was originally harvested. Many products labeled as cinnamon are actually cassia, which is related to true cinnamon but not the same.
4. Olive Leaf Extract
Olive leaf extract has been shown to improve insulin sensitivity.
Researchers at the University of Auckland conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study involving 46 overweight men. One group received capsules containing olive leaf extract, while the other group received a placebo.
After 12 weeks, olive leaf extract lowered insulin resistance by an average of 15 percent. It also increased the productivity of the insulin-generating cells in the pancreas by 28 percent. The researchers noted that the results were “comparable to common diabetic therapeutics,” particularly metformin.⁶
That makes olive leaf extract an interesting compound in the conversation around blood sugar regulation and insulin function.
5. Berries
Berries may help reduce the insulin response to a meal.
In a study of healthy women in Finland, volunteers were given white and rye bread to eat, either with or without a selection of pureed berries. The women who ate the plain bread had a quick spike in glucose after eating. The women who ate the bread with berries had a much lower spike in after-meal blood sugar.⁷
This matters because berries may help blunt the blood sugar response to higher-carbohydrate foods. They are also rich in polyphenols, fiber, and other compounds that support metabolic health.
6. Black Seed
Black seed, or Nigella sativa, is also known as Roman coriander, black sesame, black cumin, and black caraway.
Just two grams of black seed per day has been shown to significantly reduce blood sugar and glycation end-product formation. The same dose may also improve insulin resistance.⁸
Glycation end-products are compounds that form when sugar reacts with proteins or fats in the body. They are associated with oxidative stress, inflammation, and tissue damage, which makes black seed especially interesting for metabolic health.
7. Spirulina and Soy
Spirulina is a type of blue-green algae that provides protein, calcium, iron, and magnesium. It can be eaten as a food, though in the United States it is most often consumed in powder form and added to smoothies or shakes.
In a study conducted in Cameroon, researchers compared spirulina and soy powder to see which was more effective for insulin sensitivity. The study involved volunteers suffering from insulin resistance related to antiretroviral drugs used in HIV treatment.
One group received 19 grams of spirulina per day for eight weeks, while the other received 19 grams of soy.
At the end of the trial, the soy group increased insulin sensitivity by 60 percent, which is a meaningful improvement. But the spirulina group’s insulin sensitivity increased by an average of 224.7 percent. While 69 percent of the soy group improved insulin sensitivity, every volunteer in the spirulina group improved.⁹
That is a strong result, especially given the metabolic challenge created by antiretroviral treatment.
8. Berberine
Berberine is a bitter compound found in the roots of plants such as goldenseal and barberry. Its bitterness may be a clue to its strength as a blood sugar-supporting compound.
In a Chinese study of 36 patients, researchers found that three months of treatment with berberine was as effective as metformin in lowering blood sugar.¹⁰
Berberine is powerful, but it should be used carefully. Herbs like berberine are generally considered safer than many pharmaceutical compounds, but they are not free from side effects or interactions. Berberine should be used under the guidance of a medical herbalist or experienced integrative medical practitioner, especially by anyone taking medication for blood sugar, blood pressure, or other health conditions.
9. Resistant Starches
Resistant starches are different from many other carbohydrate sources because they are lower on the glycemic index and are broken down slowly in the large intestine. Their “resistance” to digestion means they are less likely to cause sharp spikes in blood sugar.
They also have time to ferment, which gives beneficial gut bacteria an opportunity to flourish. As a source of fermentable fiber, resistant starches may help improve insulin sensitivity and reduce body fat.¹¹ ¹²
Examples of resistant starches to include in the diet include:
Amaranth
Cassava
Chickpeas
Millet
Muesli
Soaked beans of all varieties
Unprocessed oats
Unripe bananas
Resistant starches are especially useful because they connect blood sugar regulation with gut health. They feed the microbiome, support short-chain fatty acid production, and may help improve the way the body handles glucose.
The Bigger Picture
Insulin resistance does not develop in isolation. It is influenced by food quality, movement, sleep, stress, inflammation, gut health, body composition, and the body’s overall metabolic environment.
These nine foods and compounds are not magic fixes, but they do show that the body responds to the information it receives. Turmeric, ginger, cinnamon, olive leaf extract, berries, black seed, spirulina, berberine, and resistant starches all appear to influence blood sugar regulation in meaningful ways.
The goal is not to chase every supplement or turn food into medicine in a rigid way. The goal is to understand that the body’s response to insulin can be improved when the right inputs are provided consistently.
References
Chuengsamarn, Somlak, et al. “Curcumin Extract for Prevention of Type 2 Diabetes.” Diabetes Care 35, no. 11, November 2012, 2121-2127. https://doi.org/10.2337/dc12-0116
Mozaffari-Khosravi, Hassan, et al. “The Effect of Ginger Powder Supplementation on Insulin Resistance and Glycemic Indices in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial.” Complementary Therapies in Medicine 22, no. 1, February 2014, 9-16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ctim.2013.12.017
Arablou, Tahereh, et al. “The Effect of Ginger Consumption on Glycemic Status, Lipid Profile and Some Inflammatory Markers in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus.” International Journal of Food Sciences and Nutrition 65, no. 4, June 2014, 515-520. https://doi.org/10.3109/09637486.2014.880671
Davis, Paul A., and Wallace Yokoyama. “Cinnamon Intake Lowers Fasting Blood Glucose: Meta-Analysis.” Journal of Medicinal Food 14, no. 9, April 2011, 884-889. https://doi.org/10.1089/jmf.2010.0180
Hlebowicz, Joanna, et al. “Effect of Cinnamon on Postprandial Blood Glucose, Gastric Emptying, and Satiety in Healthy Subjects.” The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 85, no. 6, June 2007, 1552-1556. https://doi.org/10.1093/ajcn/85.6.1552
de Bock, Martin, et al. “Olive Leaf Polyphenols Improve Insulin Sensitivity in Middle-Aged Overweight Men: A Randomized, Placebo-Controlled, Crossover Trial.” PLOS ONE 8, no. 3, 2013, e57622. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0057622
Törrönen, Riitta, et al. “Berries Reduce Postprandial Insulin Responses to Wheat and Rye Breads in Healthy Women.” The Journal of Nutrition 143, no. 4, January 2013, 430-436. https://doi.org/10.3945/jn.112.169771
Bamosa, Abdullah, et al. “Effect of Nigella sativa Seeds on the Glycemic Control of Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus.” Indian Journal of Physiology and Pharmacology 54, October 2010, 344-354.
Daryabeygi-Khotbehsara, Reza, et al. “Nigella sativa Improves Glucose Homeostasis and Serum Lipids in Type 2 Diabetes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.” Complementary Therapies in Medicine 35, December 2017, 6-13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ctim.2017.08.016
Marcel, Azabji-Kenfack, et al. “The Effect of Spirulina platensis versus Soybean on Insulin Resistance in HIV-Infected Patients: A Randomized Pilot Study.” Nutrients 3, no. 7, July 2011, 712-724. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu3070712
Dong, Hui, et al. “Berberine in the Treatment of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.” Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine 2012, October 2012, 591654. https://doi.org/10.1155/2012/591654
den Besten, Gijs, et al. “The Role of Short-Chain Fatty Acids in the Interplay Between Diet, Gut Microbiota, and Host Energy Metabolism.” Journal of Lipid Research 54, no. 9, September 2013, 2325-2340. https://doi.org/10.1194/jlr.R036012
Zheng, Jolene, et al. “Resistant Starch, Fermented Resistant Starch, and Short-Chain Fatty Acids Reduce Intestinal Fat Deposition in Caenorhabditis elegans.” Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 58, no. 8, April 2010, 4744-4748. https://doi.org/10.1021/jf904583b
Critical Opinion: Resisting the 'Built to Gain Weight' Default: It's Misused to Excuse Fucked Food Industry
Dr. Tamas Horvath, chair of the Department of Comparative Medicine at the Yale School of Medicine, succinctly puts it: “Our default is to put on weight.”
While this captures a key insight from his neuroscience research, highlighting how hypothalamic circuits evolved to promote hunger and energy storage as a survival mechanism in environments of scarcity (where prioritizing intake prevented starvation), I resist interpreting it as nature's overriding blueprint.
It risks being taken out of context, oversimplified, and weaponized to evade accountability.
All too often, people invoke Horvath's phrase as a handy biological excuse. This absolves the consequences of fundamentally fucking with our food supply. Industries engineer ultra-processed, hyper-palatable products loaded with sugars, fats, and additives that hijack our reward systems and disrupt satiety signals. At the same time, this shifts the burden of weight gain squarely onto individuals as if it's an inescapable genetic fate rather than a predictable outcome of environmental manipulation by food industries.
Yet, Horvath's "default" is not an inevitable drive toward endless accumulation but a conditional bias. It is a neural subroutine that activates strongly in caloric surplus, like today's always-available, engineered foods. This leads to weight gain because our brains err on the side of caution against historical famines.
This mechanism ultimately serves a grander default: homeostasis, the body's dynamic equilibrium that regulates energy, hormones, and metabolism to sustain health and adaptability, not obesity.
Nature's true priority is this homeostatic health, achieved through:
Natural inputs (nutrient-dense, whole foods that signal satiety properly),
Adaptation (metabolic flexibility to burn or store as needed), and
Cyclical habitats (feast-famine rhythms, seasonal shifts, and circadian cycles that reset setpoints and prevent drift).
Arguing from evolutionary logic, if perpetual weight gain were the intent, it would sabotage survival:
Excess fat slows mobility (reducing escape efficiency by up to 10% per extra 10 kg, per biomechanical studies),
Fosters metabolic inflexibility (insulin resistance that hampers fuel-switching in stress), and
Heightens vulnerability to predators, infections, or resource shortages. These are maladaptive traits that natural selection would purge, as seen in lean ancestral fossils and balanced wild ecosystems.
Thus, Horvath's observation clarifies a modern mismatch trap. But subordinating it to homeostasis, and rejecting its misuse as an individual scapegoat, reveals nature's design for resilient balance.
It urges us to demand systemic fixes to our tainted food environment rather than accept weight gain as personal destiny or evolutionary inevitability.
The Way: A Step-by-Step Directive for Selecting a Diet
When navigating the overwhelming world of dietary advice, where conflicting "experts" and fad diets create confusion, a clear and grounded framework is essential for making sustainable, health-promoting food choices. Joel Greene’s The Way offers a compelling approach rooted in ancestral wisdom, natural rhythms, and scientific insight, cutting through the noise of modern diet trends.
By observing nature’s patterns — scarcity, variety, and cyclical eating — Greene emphasizes a return to diverse, balanced diets that align with our biology and the realities of time. The following step-by-step directive distills these principles into a practical guide for selecting a diet that prioritizes long-term health, minimizes toxicity, and respects individual needs, all while drawing authority from nature itself rather than fleeting trends or dogmatic food tribes.
1. Observe Nature as Your Authority
What to Do: Base your eating choices on nature’s patterns—seasonal cycles, hunger cues, and historical human diets.
Why It Matters: Nature provides a time-tested guide for eating, free from modern fads. Ancestors ate what was available, guided by instinct and environment.
How to Apply: Eat when you’re hungry, not by a schedule. Look to traditional diets (like Mediterranean or hunter-gatherer) or seasonal foods for inspiration.
2. Seek Variety, Nature’s Answer to Scarcity
What to Do: Pursue a wide range of foods—plants (greens, roots, berries), animals (meat, fish, dairy), and fermented options—to mirror ancestral eating habits shaped by unpredictable food availability.
Why It Matters: In times of scarcity, variety ensured survival by providing balanced nutrients and reducing dependence on one food source. Today, it keeps your diet rich and adaptable.
How to Apply: Switch it up—pair fish with leafy greens one day, then try berries with nuts the next. Use seasonal or local foods to let nature steer your choices.
3. Cycle Your Eating Patterns
What to Do: Alternate between light meals (foraging), no meals (fasting), regular eating (abundance), and hearty meals (feasting) based on your body’s needs and life’s rhythms.
Why It Matters: Nature’s cycles—lean times and plenty—keep your metabolism flexible and aligned with activity or seasons.
How to Apply: Try a day of salads, a morning fast, then a big dinner. Adjust protein or carbs—more when active, less when resting.
4. Prioritize Quality
What to Do: Choose fresh, whole, minimally processed foods over packaged or refined options.
Why It Matters: High-quality foods, like those our ancestors ate, deliver nutrients without artificial additives, supporting long-term health.
How to Apply: Source from farms, grow herbs, or pick unprocessed options—like fresh fish over canned.
5. Personalize Over Time
What to Do: Tweak your diet based on how your body responds, adjusting amounts or frequency to suit your unique needs.
Why It Matters: No one-size-fits-all exists—your diet should evolve with your lifestyle, energy, and health.
How to Apply: Track energy, digestion, or mood after meals. Test more carbs or fats for a week, then refine based on what works.
Food is Information
Photo by Pineapple Supply Co. on Unsplash
I've been mulling over this: our food isn't just fuel, it's information. Plants absorb their surroundings — sunlight, soil, water — and encode this into their very being, down to the electrons. Eating food grown elsewhere hands our bodies mismatched information, creating a disconnect between the food's origin and our current environment, which I think can subtly disrupt our system over time.
Imagine this: each meal carries the signature of its birthplace. A tomato ripened under the Sicilian sun isn't just different in taste from one grown in a Japanese greenhouse; it's fundamentally distinct. The light it absorbed, the soil it's rooted in, the seasons it endured all imprint an environmental code into its makeup. Our bodies evolved consuming local produce — foods that reflect the same light and air we're exposed to. Our gut, equipped with sensors — nerves, microbiome, the whole setup — is tuned to interpret this code. When the food's story aligns with our surroundings, everything's in sync. But munching on a tropical mango in a snowy urban apartment? That's like playing static through our system.
This "static" is the misaligned data I'm talking about. Picture being in Minnesota during midwinter: short days, dim light. Your eyes and skin register this, signaling your body to conserve energy. Then you eat a pineapple from Costa Rica, grown under intense equatorial sun. Your gut receives signals of abundance and heat — completely out of sync with what your eyes and skin are conveying. This desynchronization is likely causing the system to glitch. It's not science fiction; it's intuitive. Nature operates in harmony: food, place, and body speaking the same language. Disrupt this, and you invite chaos.
What does this chaos manifest as? Inflammation. It's the body's way of signaling, "Something's off." Perhaps your gut struggles to process that pineapple — enzymes don't match its profile, or your microbiome overreacts. A bit of irritation sparks, a few extra free radicals emerge, and inflammation simmers. Initially, it's subtle — maybe some bloating, a dip in energy, a vague sense of unease. But it's real. One meal like this isn't catastrophic, but make it a habit — like many of us do with globally sourced grocery aisles — and it's not just a blip. It's cumulative.
Health is a marathon, and this is where it gets tricky. A single imported avocado won't derail you, but over years or decades and things begin to add up. Assuming one meal a day with a mismatched food over 20 years, you're at 7,300 meals nudging your gut off balance, fostering inflammation, altering your metabolic processes. This could account for 20-30% of extra weight, dwindling energy, the uphill battles we're all promised to face health-wise. It's not headline-grabbing — "Imported Oranges Ruin Life" — but it's a slow leak, draining vitality bite by bite.
Here's the twist: it's not just about mismatched food, it's the entire system. Nothing in health exists in isolation. If you're excelling elsewhere — getting quality sleep, ample sunshine, staying active, managing stress — this might barely register. Your gut grumbles, inflammation ticks up slightly — maybe 1-5%— but you've got the resilience to brush it off. You're a well-oiled machine; a bit of bad data doesn't cause a breakdown. But if you're already struggling — sleepless nights, confined indoors under artificial lights, high stress, sedentary lifestyle — then that same out-of-place food hits harder. It could be a 20-30% impact, or more, because your system lacks a health buffer. The gut's already compromised, baseline inflammation is high, and that foreign pineapple is like rubbing salt in the wound. Everything's interconnected. Hammer the basics, and this is a footnote; neglect them, and it's probably a player in your decline.
Where are your studies? I don't have any. I don't need a stack of studies to grasp this — it makes sense. Step outside, observe: nature thrives on coherence. A deer grazes on the grass beneath its feet, not on feed shipped from another continent. Our ancestors consumed what grew around them — berries in summer, roots in fall. Their eyes saw the same sun as the plants; their skin felt the same breeze. Now? I'm eating Columbia bananas under fluorescent lights, and my body's confused. This mismatch delivers incorrect information — the gut anticipates one thing, eyes and skin report another — and inflammation ensues. How significant is this? It varies. For the average person — with mixed habits and a global diet — I'd estimate it's 10-15% of why we're heavier, more fatigued, and less healthy than we should be. Optimize your lifestyle, and it's less; let things slide, and it's more. Either way, it's a factor.
So, yes, I believe eating local, seasonal food matters — not just for the feel-good aspect, but because our bodies are designed for it. Transporting food across the globe disrupts a rhythm we're attuned to, and we pay the price, even if it's gradual. It's not the entire picture — sleep, exercise, stress all play roles — but it's a thread I can't ignore. What about you? What do you think?
Craving in the Modern World: How Environmental Disruptions Hijack Our Biology and Drive Overeating
Photo by charlesdeluvio on Unsplash
The conventional narrative of human eating behavior often suggests that we overeat because we are hardwired to crave calories for survival. This view implies that obesity is an inevitable byproduct of evolutionary programming, a relic from our ancestors who needed to store fat for times of scarcity. However, this explanation oversimplifies the complexities of human behavior, psychology, and the modern environment.
As Mark Schatzker argues in The End of Craving, while humans require calories to survive, our biological programming doesn’t inherently drive us to overconsume them. Instead, the environmental disruptions of the modern world manipulate our behaviors, reshape our psychology, and lead to the widespread obesity crisis. The interplay between these factors has created a perfect storm, overriding natural regulatory systems and fostering patterns of overconsumption largely disconnected from biological needs.
Human evolution prioritized efficiency over excess. Early humans lived in environments where food was scarce, and physical activity was constant. While carrying extra fat may have been advantageous during periods of famine, it also came with significant drawbacks. As Schatzker highlights, a greater body mass reduced agility, increased the risk of injury, and made individuals more vulnerable to predators. Excessive weight also hindered the ability to chase and capture prey, diminishing survival odds.
Traits that favored energy balance—efficient use of calories rather than unchecked consumption—were far more advantageous. To support this balance, humans evolved intricate systems of energy regulation, including hunger and satiety signaling, which were fine-tuned for natural food environments. These systems worked well in environments where foods were whole and minimally processed. But today, hyper-engineered food landscapes exploit these systems, disrupting the balance that evolution worked so meticulously to create.
Dana Small, a leading expert in neuropsychology and nutrition science, has shed light on how modern food environments distort our biology. Her research on "nutritive mismatch" reveals how ultra-processed foods hijack the body’s natural regulatory systems. In her groundbreaking experiments, Small demonstrated that when sweetness—a cue for incoming calories—does not align with actual caloric content, metabolic processes falter.
Small created a series of solutions with varying calorie amounts, all designed to taste equivalently sweet, mimicking the caloric content of 75 calories of sugar. Remarkably, only the solution where sweetness matched caloric content triggered the body’s expected metabolic response, efficiently burning the calories. Mismatched solutions—where sweetness falsely signaled caloric content—showed no such response. This disruption, which Small terms “nutritive mismatch,” illustrates how processed foods confuse the body, leaving it unable to metabolize calories effectively. In natural food environments, sweetness reliably indicated energy, and the body responded accordingly. Today, these mismatched cues foster cycles of overconsumption, as the body perpetually chases an equilibrium it can no longer find.
Small’s findings challenge the assumption that overeating is a natural behavior. Instead, they reveal that the modern food environment manipulates our biological systems, encouraging patterns of eating disconnected from genuine physiological needs. This disruption is compounded by the psychological dynamics of craving, a distinction Schatzker emphasizes in his work.
Hunger is a biological drive designed to meet energy needs, while craving is a psychological state driven by the brain’s reward system. Cravings are fueled by dopamine, the neurotransmitter associated with anticipation and reward. In the context of food, dopamine surges in response to cues like the sight or smell of hyper-palatable options, triggering an intense desire to eat. Yet, these foods often fail to deliver the satisfaction the body expects, creating a disconnect between “wanting” and “liking.” This cycle mirrors addiction, where the relentless pursuit of reward becomes disconnected from actual satisfaction.
Repeated dopamine surges condition the brain to seek out ultra-processed foods—not because they nourish, but because they promise a fleeting reward. Over time, this psychological shift transforms eating into a pursuit of gratification rather than a response to hunger. The modern food environment, with its hyper-palatable, mismatched offerings, capitalizes on this vulnerability, driving a feedback loop of overconsumption and dissatisfaction.
The obesity crisis, then, cannot be reduced to an evolutionary imperative to overconsume calories. It is the product of environmental disruptions that exploit human biology and psychology, distorting natural regulatory systems. Small’s research on nutritive mismatch and Schatzker’s insights into craving illuminate the profound impact of these factors, offering a more nuanced understanding of why we overeat in the modern world.
The Power of Questions: Transforming Intentions into Actions for Healthier Habits
We all make commitments we fail to honor. How many times have you said, ‘I’ll stick to my diet plan this month’ or ‘I’ll cut down on sugar starting today’, only to find yourself straying from these goals? While we often intend to follow through, good intentions alone aren’t sufficient to create meaningful change. However, a well-designed question might just be the key.
After analyzing over 100 studies covering 40 years of research, a team of scientists from four US universities found that asking questions is more effective than making statements when it comes to influencing your own or someone else’s behavior.
David Sprott, a co-author of the research from Washington State University, noted: ‘If you question a person about performing a future behavior, the likelihood of that behavior happening will change.’ Questions trigger a psychological response that differs from the response to statements.
This means, for example, that a sign that says, ‘Please choose healthy food options’ is less likely to influence its viewers’ dietary choices than a sign that asks, ‘Will you choose healthy food options today?’ Telling yourself ‘I will drink more water’ is less effective in changing your behavior than asking yourself, ‘Will I drink more water today?’
Remarkably, the researchers discovered that transforming a statement into a question could influence a person’s behavior for up to six months.
The question/behavior effect is particularly potent with questions that can be answered with a simple yes or no.
The question/behavior effect is most powerful when questions are used to encourage behavior that aligns with the receiver’s personal health goals (answering yes to the question would bring them closer to their desired fitness and nutrition objectives).
Starting the question with ‘will’ implies ownership and action, making the question/behavior effect even stronger than beginning your question with words like ‘can’ or ‘could’, which suggest capability rather than action. It’s also more effective than starting your question with ‘would’, which is conditional and implies possibility rather than probability.
Why Nutrient Supplementation is Essential for Modern Diets
Our existence depends on what the earth offers.
The foundation of human nourishment comes from plants, which supply vital macronutrients such as proteins, fats, and carbohydrates, all generated through the nourishment obtained from the earth. Additionally, plants give us crucial micronutrients, including vitamins produced through photosynthesis and minerals extracted from the soil, both of which are essential for maintaining healthy cellular functions.
Vitamins and minerals play a crucial role in enzymes and coenzymes (enzyme helpers), acting as biological catalysts that accelerate chemical reactions needed for cellular operations. They collaborate to either combine molecules or break them down in countless chemical reactions that occur within living cells. In essence, life would not be possible without enzymes and their vital vitamins and minerals.
Considering this, the equation is straightforward: plants cannot produce minerals; they must absorb them from the soil. Thus, without minerals, vitamins cannot function effectively. As a result, if crucial minerals are depleted from our soil, they are also diminished in our bodies.
A continuous deficiency of minerals can lead to illness. Therefore, it is not surprising that any decline in the mineral and nutrient content of our soils results in a corresponding increase in nutrition-related diseases among both animal and human populations.
The alarming fact is that foods -- fruit, vegetables and grains -- now being raised on millions of acres of land that no longer contain enough of certain needed nutrients, are starving us -- no matter how much we eat of them.
—US Senate Document 264
Surprisingly, the statement mentioned earlier was made almost 80 years ago, in 1936. Since then, the United States and other industrialized countries have been experiencing an unprecedented loss of fertile land. Today, the topsoil in the US is eroding at a rate ten times faster than it can be replenished. In regions like Africa, India, and China, soil erosion surpasses the replenishment rate by 30 to 40 times. Current projections indicate that our global topsoil reserves will last less than 50 years. As topsoil diminishes, so do essential nutrients, and consequently, our health suffers.
Data presented at the 1992 RIO Earth Summit revealed that throughout the 20th century, mineral depletion of global topsoil reserves was widespread. During this period, agricultural soils in the US and Canada lost 85% of their mineral content; Asian and South American soils saw a 76% decrease; and in Africa, Europe, and Australia, soil mineral content declined by 74%. Since then, little has been done to prevent the inevitable depletion of these invaluable mineral resources.
In March 2006, the United Nations acknowledged a new form of malnutrition: multiple micronutrient depletion. According to Catherine Bertini, Chair of the UN Standing Committee on Nutrition, those who are overweight are just as malnourished as those who are starving. Ultimately, the problem lies not in the amount of food consumed, but in its quality.
Modern Agriculture Depletes Our Soil
The topsoils of the earth form a thin layer of mineral-rich, carbon-based material. They serve as buffers and filters for water and air pollutants, store vital moisture and essential minerals and micronutrients, and act as critical reservoirs for carbon dioxide and methane. Apart from global warming, soil degradation poses a severe threat to the long-term environmental sustainability of our planet.
Soil depletion was well recognized in ancient societies, which would either relocate to new lands every few years or enrich the soil with organic waste. In more recent history, the westward migration of Europeans to the New World saw families relocating frequently as their dry-land farming practices repeatedly exhausted the soil. The first indication of nutrient depletion was not crop failure but an increase in illness and disease among both animals and humans dependent on the land. Those who did not abandon their farms or practice soil replenishment experienced inevitable declines in crop production, eventually leading to complete land collapse, as seen in the Dust Bowl of the 1930s.
Now, there is nowhere else to go. We can no longer move to greener pastures because none remain. We must work with what we have; soil erosion, contamination from industrial pollutants, and depletion of our finite mineral resources have become global issues. Yet, modern agricultural practices continue to consume water, fuel, and topsoil at alarmingly unsustainable rates, seemingly disregarding nature's imperative to return what we have taken from the earth. Instead of renewing and restoring our soils, commercial agriculture has disrupted nature's natural cycles, and the consequences will be costly.
Depleted Soils, Depleted Crops
Soil depletion due to unsustainable agricultural practices leads to an inevitable decline in the nutrient content of our crops. Historical records indicate that the average mineral content of vegetables grown in US soils has decreased significantly over the last century. A 2004 study published in the Journal of the American College of Nutrition found considerable declines in the mineral and vitamin content of 43 garden crops grown in US markets. Additionally, a 2001 report by the Life Extension Foundation revealed that the vitamin and mineral content of various foods declined dramatically between 1963 and 2000. Collard greens experienced a 62% loss of vitamin C, a 41% loss of vitamin A, and a 29% loss of calcium, while potassium and magnesium decreased by 52% and 84%, respectively. Cauliflower lost nearly half of its vitamin C, thiamine, and riboflavin, and most of the calcium in commercial pineapples had almost vanished.
The US data supports findings for vegetable crops grown between 1940 and 2002 in Great Britain, which show mineral losses ranging from 15% to 62% for common minerals and trace elements. In an earlier study, harmful changes were found in the natural ratio of minerals, such as calcium and magnesium, in the foods tested. Similarly, a Canadian study found significant declines in the nutrient content of produce grown over a 50-year interval to 1999. During that time, the average Canadian potato lost 57% of its vitamin C and iron, 28% of its calcium, 50% of its riboflavin, and 18% of its niacin. The same trend was observed for all 25 fruits and vegetables analyzed. The Canadian data showed that nearly 80% of the foods tested displayed large drops in their calcium and iron content, three-quarters showed considerable decreases in vitamin A, half lost vitamin C and riboflavin, and one-third lost thiamine.
Selective breeding of new crop varieties prioritizing yield, appearance, and other commercially desirable traits has also contributed to the depletion of the nutritional value of our foods. Dr. Phil Warman of Nova Scotia's Agricultural College contends that the emphasis on appearance, storability, and yield, with little or no focus on nutritional content, has significantly exacerbated the overall nutrient depletion of our food. The USDA standards for fruits and vegetables only account for size, shape, and color, neglecting nutritional value. With such standards, it is not surprising that today, one would need to eat eight oranges to obtain the same amount of vitamin A that their grandparents got from a single orange.
Nutrient Depletion in Soils: Causes and Consequences
Soil erosion by wind and water is exacerbated by over-cultivating, over-grazing, and the destruction of natural ground cover. The loss of organic matter leads to a corresponding decline in nitrogen, minerals, and trace elements, as well as a reduction in the soil's ability to retain moisture and support healthy plant growth. High-yield crops further strain the limited nutritional capacity of our depleted soils. For instance, in 1930, an acre of land yielded about 50 bushels of corn, while by 1960, yields reached 200 bushels per acre—far exceeding the soil's capacity to sustain itself.
Erosion, combined with high-yield nutrient extraction, also depletes the soil of its alkalizing minerals (calcium, potassium, and magnesium), resulting in the loss of natural buffering capacity and an increase in soil acidity. Conversely, over-irrigation with hard (alkaline) water can cause some soils to leach essential minerals while accumulating others (such as calcium), making the soil too alkaline for crop growth.
Although nitrate, phosphate, and potassium (NPK) fertilizers, introduced in the early 1900s, substantially increase crop yield, they come at a high cost. Overuse of these chemical fertilizers has been found to accelerate the depletion of other vital macronutrients and trace elements while reducing their bioavailability to plants. NPK fertilizers gradually decrease soil pH, making soils too acidic to support beneficial bacteria and fungi. These symbiotic organisms aid plants in absorbing nutrients from the soil. Once absent, plants' micronutrient uptake is significantly impaired. Additionally, NPK application in acidic soils has been found to bind soil-based selenium, rendering it unavailable for root absorption.
Using NPK fertilizers to replenish primary growth-promoting nutrients fails to address the simultaneous losses of valuable micronutrients and trace elements (such as copper, zinc, and molybdenum) in intensively cultivated soils. According to Dr. William Albrecht of the University of Missouri, using NPK fertilizers ultimately leads to malnutrition, insect infestations, bacterial and fungal attacks, weed encroachment, and crop loss in dry weather. Albrecht argues that employing chemical fertilizers to increase yield weakens the crop, making it more vulnerable to pests and diseases. As a result, commercial farmers have no choice but to depend on a range of dangerous and harmful chemical pesticides to protect their crops and investments.
Nutrient Depletion Forces Pesticide Abuse: Consequences and Solutions
The decline of soil and crop health due to unsustainable commercial agricultural practices leads to a vicious cycle of dependence on pesticides and herbicides. The highly toxic organochlorine (OC) and organophosphorus (OP) derivatives damage our soils by killing symbiotic bacteria and fungi responsible for nutrient uptake in plants, inactivating essential enzyme systems within plant roots involved in mineral absorption, and destroying soil microorganisms needed to produce organic mineral complexes that naturally replenish the soil.
Moreover, these environmental toxins end up in our food, causing widespread human exposure to pesticides primarily through consumption. There is ongoing debate about whether low levels of exposure to these persistent environmental toxins and their residues can cause harm. Some studies have found harmful biological effects resulting from chronic environmental exposure, while others have reported harmful synergistic effects from combinations of pesticides and chemical agents at typical levels of environmental exposure.
Pesticides and herbicides have been linked to various human health effects, including immune suppression, hormone disruption, reduced intelligence, reproductive abnormalities, neurological and behavioral disorders, and cancer. They can also act as potent endocrine hormone disruptors and easily pass through the placenta to unborn infants, who are especially vulnerable to toxins that disrupt the developmental process. Children are particularly susceptible to these agents due to their higher food intake relative to body weight and their still-developing immune systems.
To protect ourselves and our children, it is crucial to choose sensible dietary alternatives to commercially grown and processed foods, which are the primary sources of pesticide and herbicide exposure. Some ways to reduce exposure include:
Buying organic produce: Organic farming practices avoid the use of synthetic pesticides and herbicides, reducing the potential for toxin exposure through food consumption.
Washing and peeling fruits and vegetables: Thoroughly washing and peeling produce can help remove some pesticide residues on the surface.
Eating a diverse diet: Consuming a variety of foods can help minimize the risk of exposure to a single pesticide or a group of related pesticides.
Supporting sustainable agriculture: Encourage and support agricultural practices that prioritize soil health, biodiversity, and environmental sustainability.
By making informed choices, we can help reduce our exposure to harmful pesticides and herbicides while promoting agricultural practices that preserve soil health and protect our environment.
Organic Agriculture Improves Nutrient Content: Benefits and Considerations
Throughout most of human history, agriculture has relied on organic growing practices. However, over the past 100 years, synthetic chemicals and their destructive consequences have been introduced to the food supply. Thankfully, more and more progressive growers are abandoning commercial growing techniques and returning to organic methods and traditional soil care.
Organic gardening utilizes natural mulching and cultivation techniques that nourish the soil rather than the plant. This approach replenishes nutrients lost through plant growth and fosters the growth of beneficial fungi, nitrogen-fixing bacteria, and other advantageous microorganisms. Healthy living soil encourages the symbiosis of plants with these soil microbes, enhancing the transfer of essential nutrients into the plants. Organic agriculture, unlike conventional agriculture, respects the natural replenishing cycles of nature.
A 2003 study in Seattle, Washington, found that children aged two to four who consumed organically grown fruits and vegetables had urine levels of pesticides six times lower than those who consumed conventionally grown foods. The study's authors concluded that consuming organic fruits, vegetables, and juices could reduce children's exposure levels to below the EPA's current guidelines, thus moving exposures from a range of uncertain risk to a range of negligible risk.
A growing body of evidence supports the health-promoting effects of organically grown foods. Studies have shown that organic crops have higher levels of vitamin C, iron, natural sugars, magnesium, phosphorus, and other minerals and lower levels of harmful nitrates than conventional crops. An independent review published in the Journal of Complementary Medicine found that organically grown crops had significantly higher levels of nutrients for all 21 nutrients evaluated compared to conventionally grown produce. Organically grown spinach, lettuce, cabbage, and potatoes exhibited particularly high mineral levels.
Research by the University of California (Davis) revealed that organically grown tomatoes and peppers had higher levels of flavonoids and vitamin C than conventionally grown tomatoes. The health-promoting effects of these secondary plant metabolites, produced by plants to protect themselves from oxidative damage caused by strong sunlight, are well-established. High-intensity conventional agricultural practices seem to disrupt the production of these natural plant metabolites, resulting in reduced flavonoid content in conventional crops. In contrast, organic growing practices stimulate the plant's defense mechanisms, leading to increased production of these vital botanical nutrients. Organic crops, which are not protected by pesticides, have higher levels of flavonoids than conventional crops, including up to 50% more antioxidants. A prime example is the polyphenol content of red wine: this heart-healthy nutrient is found in much higher concentrations in wine made from organically grown grapes, which produce the nutrients to protect against a naturally occurring fungus that attacks grape skins.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the modern lifestyle and reliance on commercial, chemically based agriculture have led to the degradation of the nutritional value of our food supply and increased our exposure to environmental toxins. As a result, many people are not meeting their daily nutritional requirements, even if they consume the recommended servings of fruits and vegetables.
To counter these challenges and ensure a healthy diet, consider the following recommendations:
Opt for organic produce whenever possible to reduce exposure to chemical pesticides and benefit from the higher nutrient content found in organically grown foods.
Complement your diet with high-quality nutritional supplements to ensure you meet your daily nutritional requirements, particularly if you struggle to consume the recommended servings of fruits and vegetables.
Practice mindful eating habits, including consuming a diverse and balanced diet rich in whole, unprocessed foods.
Stay informed about the source of your food and support sustainable and responsible agricultural practices that prioritize the health of the environment and consumers.
By making informed choices about the food we consume and the agricultural practices we support, we can help protect our health and the environment while enjoying the benefits of a nutrient-rich diet.
Hack your Endurance with Rhodiola & Ginkgo
Rhodiola and ginkgo combination boosts endurance (no training required)
Supplementation with extracts of Ginkgo biloba and Rhodiola crenulata increases the stamina of young men. This is shown in a human study published in 2009 in the Chinese Journal of Integrative Medicine.
Study
The researchers, at the University of Hong Kong, divided 67 young men into 2 groups. For 7 weeks, they gave the men in one group placebo capsules and the men in the other group capsules containing extracts of Ginkgo biloba and Rhodiola crenulata in a ratio of 1: 9.
The men took 4 capsules each day, each containing 270 milligrams of extract mixture. They took 2 capsules with breakfast and 2 capsules with dinner.
Results
The supplement increased the men's stamina. The subjects in the experimental group managed to cycle longer, and that may have been due to the increase in their bodies' ability to absorb oxygen. [VO2max]
Supplementation did not affect the test subjects' testosterone levels, but it did prevent cortisol levels from rising after exercise. That may mean that the men recovered faster.
Conclusion
"The present findings have provided evidence supporting the use of Rhodiola crenulata and Ginkgo biloba combined supplement for improving the endurance performance by increasing oxygen consumption and protecting against fatigue", summarize the researchers.
According to Russian animal study, extracts from both plants improve endurance, albeit in different ways. [Bull Exp Biol Med. 2003 Dec;136(6):585-7.]
Glutathione Info and Supplementation Tips
Glutathione is critical in the management of your voltage. When an electron donor gives up its electrons, the donor can become a stealer. Glutathione readily supplies the electrons to restore your electron donor to its donor status so it can help again.
Glutathione is not significantly absorbed from the gut, so taking it doesn’t help. However, it is made in every cell in the body by assembling the amino acids cysteine, glycine, and glutamine. Thus the key is for you to be sure to consume those amino acids.
Glutathione has multiple functions:
It is the major antioxidant produced by the cells, participating directly in the neutralization of free radicals and reactive oxygen compounds, as well as maintaining exogenous antioxidants such as vitamins C and E in their reduced (electron donor) forms.
It detoxifies many foreign compounds and carcinogens, both organic and inorganic.
It is essential for the immune system to exert its full potential, e.g.:
Modulating antigen presentation to lymphocytes, thereby influencing cytokine production and type of response (cellular or humoral) that develops
Enhancing proliferation of lymphocytes thereby increasing magnitude of response
Enhancing killing activity of cytotoxic T cells and NK cells
Regulating apoptosis, thereby maintaining control of the immune response
It plays a fundamental role in numerous metabolic and biochemical reactions such as DNA synthesis and repair, protein synthesis, prostaglandin synthesis, amino acid transport, and enzyme activation. Thus every system in the body can be affected by the state of the glutathione system, especially the immune system, the nervous system, the gastrointestinal system, and the lungs.
It is necessary for converting T4 to T3 (thyroid hormones). It is also necessary to transfer electrons from the cell membrane to the mitochondria.
Supplementing has been difficult, as research suggests that glutathione taken orally is not well absorbed across the gastrointestinal tract. In a study of acute oral administration of a very large dose (3 grams) of oral glutathione, Witschi and coworkers found that “it is not possible to increase circulating glutathione to a clinically beneficial extent by the oral administration of a single dose of 3g of glutathione.”
However, plasma and liver glutathione concentrations can be raised by oral administration of S-adenosylmethionine (SAMe), glutathione precursors rich in cysteine include N-acetylcysteine (NAC) and whey protein, and these supplements have been shown to increase glutathione content within the cell.
N-acetylcysteine is available both as a drug and as a generic supplement. Alpha lipoic acid has also been shown to restore intracellular glutathione. Melatonin has been shown to stimulate a related enzyme, glutathione peroxidase, and silymarin, an extract of the seeds of the milk thistle plant (Silybum marianum) has also demonstrated an ability to replenish glutathione levels.
Top 9 Food Myths
Myth #1: Eating fat will make you fat.
Truth: It’s true that fat is denser in calories than carbohydrates and proteins (more than twice the calories per gram), but obesity is not primarily due to an excess of calories consumed. It is the type of calories consumed that is important. Recent science shows that most surplus weight and obesity is caused by excess carbohydrates in the diet. Fats are a main source of energy. They are also an important source of fat-soluble vitamins and provide much of the pleasurable flavor and texture in food. Some (the omega fats) are, in fact, essential in our diet, as we can’t produce our own.
Myth #2: Saturated fats are bad for your heart.
Truth: There has never been any robust, conclusive evidence that saturated fats cause chronic disease. In fact, saturated fats are the cleanest-burning fuel you can put in your body. From a health perspective, saturated fats are not only benign, they’re beneficial.
Myth #3: Carbohydrates are essential to our bodies.
Truth: There are no essential carbohydrates. Your body evolved to make its own blood glucose from non-carbohydrate sources. When it does so, it makes the optimum amount for the present needs of the body. There are beneficial carbohydrates—soluble and insoluble fibers—but you can get plenty of these without also burdening your body with sugars and starch.
Myth #4: Gluten-free eating is the healthiest option.
Truth: If you have celiac disease or are gluten sensitive, by all means avoid gluten in your diet. Otherwise, keep in mind that most processed, gluten-free foods use substitutes like rice flour, potato starch, and tapioca flour. These and other starches rapidly raise blood glucose and insulin, aggravating diabetes and other chronic diseases. Gluten-free does not mean low-carbohydrate. In fact, it’s sometimes quite the opposite.
Myth #5: Everything in moderation.
Truth: To quote Canadian physician Dr. Jay Wortman, “Everything in moderation is an excuse we use to eat the things we shouldn’t eat.” Like the notion of a “balanced diet,” “everything in moderation” gives us license to trade off nutritious calories for empty ones. This is doubly dangerous when that junk food contains sugar, which activates the opiate receptors in our brain, stimulating our reward center. Each time we eat something sweet, we’re reinforcing those neuropathways and hardwiring our brains to crave the stuff. So, next time you catch yourself using “moderation” and “balance” as a rationale to consume foods you know are bad for you, it helps to remember that you’re not only fooling yourself, you’re compromising your health in the process.
Myth #6: To lose weight, you need to cut calories.
Truth: Cutting calories means you eat less food, and eating less food means you have less of an opportunity to meet daily nutritional requirements. If you are restricting calories to less than your daily needs, you will not only be perpetually hungry, but you will also reduce your metabolic rate, making weight loss more difficult. What’s more, once you return to your regular diet, there is a high probability that you will regain the weight you lost and are likely to put on even more.
Myth #7: Fruit is good for you because it’s natural.
Truth: Newsflash: fruit did not evolve to be a health food. Its evolutionary imperative is to spread its seeds, and the best way to do that is to get animals to eat it, move on, and deposit the seeds, some distance away, embedded in a healthy dollop of fertilizer. Sweet fruit is more attractive to animals—including humans—so job well done on the dispersal-system front. But the sweetness comes at a high cost not only in terms of high-carbohydrate starches but also fructose—a known toxin. The same goes for honey and maple syrup. Don’t be persuaded to buy and eat food simply because it’s considered natural.
Myth #8: All vegetables are created equal.
Truth: Many vegetables—especially root vegetables, beans, and grains (and, yes, I include grains as vegetables because they are plants)—are high in starch and can contribute to obesity and insulin resistance. Choose wisely.
Myth #9: If you work out, you can eat whatever you want.
Truth: Working out does burn calories, so your food intake should increase proportionally. However, science tells us that about 80 percent of weight management is determined by what you eat, not how many calories you burn. You lose weight in the kitchen; you get fit in the gym. If you eat poorly, exercise will not help you outrun the negative health consequences.
via The Bio Diet
Research Bias: Be Careful Where You Place Your Trust
Industry funding is a major impediment to unbiased results when it comes to testing new methodologies and pharmaceutical drug interventions, as analyses have shown that industry-sponsored trials report positive outcomes significantly more often than trials financially backed by the government, nonprofits, or nonfederal organizations.1 In a publication, bias known as the “file drawer” phenomenon, negative and null trials, or results that are unfavorable to drugs are more likely to be suppressed.2 There is also widespread rigging of data—deliberate manipulation of outcomes and use of statistical sleight-of-hand—wherein the outcomes of trials are being corrupted by commercial interests.3 And then there is the issue of industry bribery of journal editors. One retrospective observational study revealed that 50.6 percent of journal editors accept payments from industry sources, with an average payment of $28,136 and some payments approaching half a million dollars, meaning that the editors of the most influential journals in the world, who steer the scientific dialogue, are effectively on the take.4 In addition, a 2007 national survey published in the New England Journal of Medicine found that 94 percent of physicians had ties to the pharmaceutical industry, with physicians receiving free meals, reimbursement for medical education or professional meetings, consulting, lecturing, and enrolling patients in clinical trials.5
Florence T. Bourgeois, Srinivas Murthy, and Kenneth D. Mandl, “Outcome Reporting among Drug Trials Registered in ClinicalTrials.gov,” Annals of Internal Medicine 153, no. 3 (2010): 158–66, https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-153-3-201008030-00006.
Erick H. Turner et al., “Selective Publication of Antidepressant Trials and Its Influence on Apparent Efficacy,” New England Journal of Medicine 358, no. 3 (2008): 252–60, https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMsa065779.
John P. A. Ioannidis, “Why Most Published Research Findings Are False,” PLoS Medicine 2, no. 8 (2005): e124, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124; and Alex Hern and Pamela Duncan, “Predatory Publishers: The Journals That Churn Out Fake Science,” The Guardian, August 10, 2018, www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/aug/10/predatory-publishers-the-journals-who-churn-out-fake-science.
Jessica J. Liu et al., “Payments by US Pharmaceutical and Medical Device Manufacturers to US Medical Journal Editors: Retrospective Observational Study,” BMJ 359 (October 26, 2017): j4619, https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.j4619.
Eric G. Campbell et al., “A National Survey of Physician-Industry Relationships,” New England Journal of Medicine 356, no. 17 (2007):1742–50, https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMsa064508.)
THE ULTIMATE HANGOVER CURE
Step 1: Rehydrate, Duh Alcohol is dehydrating. Along with the loss of water is a loss of minerals. You need both. Drink a liter of natural spring water with the addition of a total of 5 grams of Himalayan salt within the first two hours of waking up. Keep drinking water heavily until you pee at least twice. Additional magnesium is also a really good idea before bed, as it further assists with step 2, the reduction of acetaldehyde.
Step 2: Reduce the Toxic Burden of Acetaldehyde Excessive alcohol puts a strain on the body, requiring the utilization of vitamins and minerals to assist with recovery. One of those crucial minerals is molybdenum. Never in the history of TV medical dramas has the mystery ailment been severe molybdenum deficiency, but molybdenum is essential for the body’s production of chemicals that neutralize acetaldehyde. What the hell is acetaldehyde? It’s one of the main toxins that the body produces as a result of alcohol ingestion. If we have been drinking, we are likely depleting our stores of molybdenum rapidly, increasing our acetaldehyde sensitivity. It’s one of the reasons we feel hungover in the morning, and why our bodies then begin to crave molybdenum-rich foods like legumes. In Texas, at least, classic hangover food is tacos, nachos, and burritos—all of them chock full of beans. In the Mediterranean? Hummus, made from garbanzo beans. Even after a night of crushing Jack Daniel’s or ouzo, our instincts can be incredibly accurate, cutting across cultures and cuisines. But rather than gorge on nachos, the best idea would be to supplement with some molybdenum (300 mcg) prior to bed, and again in the morning. Studies have shown it to reduce regular aches and pains, which if nothing else will make tomorrow’s walk of shame a little easier to endure!
Step 3: Balance Your Neurotransmitters Alcohol is a gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA) agonist, meaning that it produces more GABA in the brain. This is what results in the good, loopy feelings from drinking. Another neurotransmitter, glutamate, has the exact opposite effect on GABA. When you drink alcohol, after you are done with the flood of GABA, you experience a glutamate rebound where the body overcorrects for the problem with the release of excess glutamate. This is why you wake up so quickly and sleep so poorly, and it’s what leads to the anxious, light-headed, cracked-out feeling you can get from a hangover. To combat this, you should take things that support the GABA system. This is precisely why the “hair of the dog” seems to work. At least on a neurotransmitter level, you are getting more GABA in your system to balance out the glutamate. L-theanine, which occurs naturally in green tea, is great at mimicking the effects of GABA. Matcha, as we described in chapter 6, is the best source.