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

1. 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

2. 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

3. 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

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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

7. 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

8. 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

9. 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

10. 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

11. 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

12. 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.