Category: challenges

Posted on in beautystandards, beforeandafter, beforeandafterphotos, beliefs, biology, bodyappreciation, bodyimage, calories, challenges, chronichealth, cultoffitness, diet, dietculture, disorderedeating, exercise, fatloss, fitness, fitnessjourney, fitspiration, goal setting, holistic health, hormones, hypothyroidism, influencers, mental health, mentalhealth, mindset, musclegrowth, newyeargoals, nutritionadvice, nutritionalscience, philosophy, physiology, podcast, self-help, socialmedia, socialmediainfluence, stress, thyroid health, weightloss, wellness

Fit for TV: How Screens, Diet Culture, and Reality Shows Rewire Our Bodies and Minds

When Willpower Isn’t Enough: Media, Metabolism, and the Myth of Transformation

You’re listening to Taste Test Thursdays–a space for the deep dives, the passion projects, and the stories that didn’t quite fit the main course. Today, we’re hitting pause on the intense spiritual and political conversations we usually have to focus on something just as powerful: how technology shapes our bodies, minds, and behaviors. We’ll be unpacking a recent Netflix documentary that highlights research and concepts we’ve explored before, shining a light on the subtle ways screens and media program us and why it matters more than ever.

I have a confession: I watched The Biggest Loser. Yep. Cringe, right? Back in 2008, when I was just starting to seriously focus on personal training (I got my first certification in 2006 but really leaned in around 2008), this show was everywhere. It was intense, dramatic, and promised transformation—a visual fairy tale of sweat, willpower, and discipline.

Looking back now, it’s so painfully cringe, but I wasn’t alone. Millions of people were glued to the screens, absorbing what the show told us about health, fat loss, and success. And the new Netflix documentary Fit for TV doesn’t hold back. It exposes the extreme, sometimes illegal methods used to push contestants: caffeine pills given by Jillian Michaels, emotional manipulation, extreme exercise protocols, and food as a weapon. Watching it now, I can see how this programming shaped not just contestants, but an entire generation of viewers—including me.

Screens Aren’t Just Entertainment

Laura Dodsworth nails it in Free Your Mind:

“Television is relaxing, but it also is a source of direct and indirect propaganda. It shapes your perception of reality. What’s more, you’re more likely to be ‘programmed’ by the programming when you are relaxed.”

This is key. Television isn’t just a casual distraction. It teaches, it socializes, and it normalizes behavior. A study by Lowery & DeFleur (Milestones in Mass Communication Research, 1988) called TV a “major source of observational learning.” Millions of people aren’t just entertained—they’re learning what’s normal, acceptable, and desirable.

Dodsworth also warns:

“Screens do not show the world; they obscure. The television screen erects visual screens in our mind and constructs a fake reality that obscures the truth.”

And that’s exactly what reality diet shows did. They created a distorted narrative: extreme restriction and punishment equals success. If you just try harder, work longer, and push further, your body will cooperate. Except, biology doesn’t work like that.

The Metabolic Reality

Let’s dig into the science. The Netflix documentary Fit for TV references the infamous Biggest Loser study, which tracked contestants years after the show ended. Here’s what happened:

  • Contestants followed extreme protocols: ~1,200 calories a day, 90–120 minutes of intense daily exercise (sometimes up to 5–8 hours), and “Franken-foods” like fat-free cheese or energy drinks.
  • They lost massive amounts of weight on TV. Dramatic, visible transformations. Ratings gold.
  • Six years later, researchers checked back: most regained ~70% of the weight. But the real kicker? Their resting metabolic rate (RMR) was still burning 700 fewer calories per day than baseline—500 calories less than expected based on regained body weight.
  • In everyday terms? Imagine you used to burn 2,000 calories a day just by living. After extreme dieting, your body was burning only 1,300–1,500 calories a day, even though you weighed almost the same. That’s like your body suddenly deciding it needs to hold on to every calorie, making it much harder to lose weight—or even maintain it—no matter how “good” you eat or how much you exercise.

This is huge. It shows extreme dieting doesn’t just fail long-term; it fundamentally rewires your metabolism.

Why?

  • Leptin crash: The hormone that tells your brain you’re full plummeted during the show. After weight regain, leptin rebounded, but RMR didn’t. Normally, these rise and fall together—but the link was broken.
  • Loss of lean mass: Contestants lost ~25 pounds of muscle. Regaining some of it didn’t restore metabolic function.
  • Hormonal havoc: Chronic calorie deficits and overtraining disrupted thyroid, reproductive, and adrenal hormones. Weight loss resistance, missed periods, hair loss, and constant cold are all part of the aftermath.

Put bluntly: your body is not passive. Extreme dieting triggers survival mode, conserving energy, increasing hunger, and slowing metabolism.

Read more:

Understanding the Impact of Diet on Thyroid Health

Personal Lessons: Living It

I know this from my own experience. Between May 2017 and October 2018, I competed in four bodybuilding competitions. I didn’t prioritize recovery or hormone balance, and I pushed my body way too hard. The metabolic consequences? Echoes of the Biggest Loser study:

  • Slowed metabolism after prep phases.
  • Hormonal swings that made maintaining progress harder.
  • Mental fatigue and burnout from extreme restriction and exercise.

Diet culture and TV had me convinced that suffering = transformation. But biology doesn’t care about your willpower. Extreme restriction is coercion, not empowerment.

Read more:

Breaking Free: Escaping the Diet Culture Trap

From Digital Screens to Unrealistic Bodies

This isn’t just a TV problem. The same mechanisms appear in social media fitness culture, or “fitspiration.” In a previous podcast and blog, From Diary Entries to Digital Screens: How Beauty Ideals and Sexualization Have Transformed Over Time, we discussed the dangerous myth: hard work guarantees results.

Fitness influencers, trainers, and the “no excuses” culture sell the illusion that discipline alone equals success. Consistency and proper nutrition matter—but genetics set the foundation. Ignoring this truth fuels:

  • Unrealistic expectations: People blame themselves when they don’t achieve Instagram-worthy physiques.
  • Overtraining & injury: Chasing impossible ideals leads to chronic injuries and burnout.
  • Disordered eating & supplement abuse: Extreme diets, excessive protein, or PEDs are often used to push past natural limits.

The industry keeps genetics under wraps because the truth doesn’t sell. Expensive programs, supplement stacks, and influencer promises rely on people believing they can “buy” someone else’s results. Many extreme physiques are genetically gifted and often enhanced, yet presented as sheer willpower. The result? A culture of self-blame and impossible standards.

Fitspiration and Self-Objectification

The 2023 study in Computers in Human Behavior found that exposure to fitspiration content increases body dissatisfaction, especially among women who already struggle with self-image. Fitspo encourages the internalized gaze that John Berger described in Ways of Seeing:

“A woman must continually watch herself. She is almost continually accompanied by her own image of herself… she comes to consider the surveyor and the surveyed within her as the two constituent yet always distinct elements of her identity as a woman.”

One part of a woman is constantly judging her body; the other exists as a reflection of an ideal. Fitness becomes performative, not functional. Anxiety, depression, disordered eating, and self-objectification follow. Fitness culture no longer focuses on strength or health—it’s about performing an idealized body for an audience.

The Dangerous Pipeline: Fitspo to Porn Culture

This extends further. Fitspiration primes women to see themselves as objects, which feeds directly into broader sexualization. Porn culture and the sex industry reinforce the same dynamic: self-worth tied to appearance, desire, and external validation. Consider these stats:

  • Over 134,000 porn site visits per minute globally.
  • 88% of porn scenes contain physical aggression, 49% verbal aggression, with women overwhelmingly targeted (Bridges et al., 2010).
  • Most youth are exposed to pornography between ages 11–13 (Wright et al., 2021).
  • 91.5% of men and 60.2% of women report watching porn monthly (Solano, Eaton, & O’Leary, 2020).

Fitspiration teaches the same objectification: value is appearance-dependent. Social media and reality TV prime us to obsess over performance and image, extending beyond fitness into sexualization and body commodification.

Read more:

From Diary Entries to Digital Screens: How Beauty Ideals and Sexualization Have Transformed Over Time

Netflix Documentary: The Dark Side

Fit for TV exposes just how far the show went:

  • Contestants were given illegal caffeine pills to keep energy up.
  • Trainers manipulated emotions for drama—heightened stress, shame, and competitiveness.
  • Food was weaponized—rationed, withheld, or turned into rewards/punishments.
  • Exercise protocols weren’t just intense—they were unsafe, designed to produce dramatic visuals for the camera.

The documentary also makes it clear: these methods weren’t isolated incidents. They were systemic, part of a machine that broadcasts propaganda as entertainment.

The Bigger Picture: Propaganda, Screens, and Social Conditioning

Dodsworth again:

“Watching TV encourages normative behavior.”

Shows like The Biggest Loser don’t just affect contestants—they socialize an audience. Millions of viewers internalize: “Success = willpower + suffering + restriction.” Social media amplifies this further, nudging us constantly toward behaviors dictated by advertisers, algorithms, and curated narratives.

George Orwell imagined a world of compulsory screens in 1984. We aren’t there yet—but screens still shape behavior, expectations, and self-perception.

The good news? Unlike Orwell’s telescreens, we can turn off our TVs. We can watch critically. We can question the values being sold to us. Dodsworth reminds us:

“Fortunately for us, we can turn off our television and we should.”

Breaking Free

Here’s the takeaway for me—and for anyone navigating diet culture and fitness media:

  1. Watch critically: Ask, “What is this really teaching me?”
  2. Respect biology: Your body fights extreme restriction—it’s not lazy or weak.
  3. Pause before you absorb: Screens are powerful teachers, but you have the final say.

The bigger question isn’t just “What should I eat?” or “How should I train?” It’s:

Who’s controlling the story my mind is telling me, and who benefits from it?

Reality shows like The Biggest Loser and even social media feeds are not neutral. They are propaganda machines—wrapped in entertainment, designed to manipulate perception, reward suffering, and sell ideals that are biologically unsafe.

I’ve lived some of those lessons firsthand. The scars aren’t just physical—they’re mental, hormonal, and metabolic. But the first step to freedom is seeing the screen for what it really is, turning it off, and reclaiming control over your body, mind, and reality.

Thank you for taking the time to read/listen!

🙏 Please help this podcast reach a larger audience in hope to edify & encourage others! To do so: leave a 5⭐️ review and send it to a friend! Thank you for listening! I’d love to hear from you, find me on Instagram!⁠⁠⁠ @taste0ftruth⁠⁠⁠ , @megan_mefit , ⁠⁠⁠ Pinterest! ⁠⁠ ⁠ Substack and on X! 

Until then, maintain your curiosity, embrace skepticism, and keep tuning in! 🎙️🔒

🆕🆕This collection includes books that have deeply influenced my thinking, challenged my assumptions, and shaped my content. ⁠Book Recommendations – Taste0ftruth Tuesdays

Posted on in americanpolitics, beautystandards, beliefs, Bible, biblicalworldview, bodyimage, capitalism, challenges, childcare, children'srights, christianfaith, christianpatriarchy, churchharm, civilrights, coercivecontrol, deconstruction, exchristian, faith, freedom, friendship, genderideology, historicalfigures, history, medicalconsequences, mental health, misinformation, nuance, podcast, politics, progressiveleft, progressives, radicalfeminism, religion, sexindustry, sexwork, socialjustice, theology, trump, womenssuffrage, worldview

The Real Handmaid’s Tale Isn’t in America

Between Liberation and Collapse: Why We Need to Talk About the Middle Path

Welcome back to Taste Test Thursdays, where we explore health, culture, belief, and everything in between. I’m your host, Megan Leigh and today, we’re asking a question that’s bound to make someone uncomfortable:

What if the very institutions we tore down as oppressive… were also protecting us?

We live in a time of extremes. On one side, you’ve got Quiverfull-style fundamentalists preaching hyper-fertility and wifely submission like it’s the only antidote to modern decay. On the other, we’ve got a postmodern buffet of “do what you want, gender is a vibe, all structures are violence.”

And if you’re like me—having navigated the high-control religion pipeline but also come out the other side—you might be wondering…

“Wait… does anyone believe in guardrails anymore?”

Because spoiler: freedom without form becomes chaos. And chaos isn’t empowering. It’s destabilizing.

I truly believe that structure and boundaries can actually serve a purpose—especially when it comes to sex, gender, and human flourishing.

This isn’t a call to go backward. It’s a call to pause, zoom out, and ask: what’s been lost in our so-called progress? Let’s dig in.

The Panic Playbook

This past summer, the media went full apocalyptic. You couldn’t scroll, stream, or tune in without hearing it: Christian nationalism is taking over. Project 2025 is a fascist manifesto. Trump is a theocratic threat to democracy itself. The narrative was everywhere—breathless Substacks, viral TikToks, and cable news countdowns to Gilead.

But while progressives were busy hallucinating handmaids and framing every Republican vote as the end of America, they were also helping cover up the biggest political scandal since Watergate: Biden’s cognitive decline.

This blog isn’t a right-wing defense or a leftist takedown. It’s a wake-up call. Because authoritarian creep doesn’t wear just one team’s jersey. If we’re serious about resisting tyranny, we need to stop fearmongering about theocracy and start interrogating the power grabs happening under our own banners—especially the ones cloaked in compassion, inclusion, and “equity.”

Not All “Christian Nationalism” Is the Same—Let’s Break It Down

The term “nationalism” gets thrown around a lot, but it actually has different meanings:

🔸 1. The Theocratic Extreme
This is the version everyone fears—and with good reason.

  • Belief: Government should follow biblical law.
  • Goal: A Christian theocracy where dissent is treated as rebellion.
  • Associated with: Christian Reconstructionism, Dominionism, and groups hostile to pluralism.
    📍 Reality: This is fringe. Most evangelicals don’t support this, but it’s the go-to boogeyman in media and deconstruction circles.

🔸 2. Civic or Cultural Nationalism
More common, less scary.

  • Belief: Shared culture—language, customs, even religion—can create unity.
  • Goal: Strong national identity and cohesion, not exclusion.
  • Seen in: France’s secularism, Japan’s cultural pride, and even Fourth of July BBQs.
    📍 Reality: This is where most “Christian nationalists” actually land. They believe in the U.S.’s Christian roots and want to preserve those values—not enforce a theocracy.

🔸 3. Patriotism (Often Mislabeled as Nationalism)
Here’s where it gets absurd.

  • Belief: Loving your country and its traditions.
  • Goal: A moral, thriving republic.
    📍 Reality: Critics lump this in with extremism to discredit conservatives, centrists, or people of faith.

Why It Matters

Lumping everyone—from flag-waving moderates to dominionist hardliners—into one “Christian nationalist” category fuels moral panic. It shuts down real dialogue and replaces nuance with hysteria.

You can:

✅ Love your country
✅ Value strong families
✅ Want morality in public life

…without wanting a theocracy.

Let’s Define the Terms Critics Confuse:

  • Dominionism: A fringe movement pushing for Christian control of civic life. Exists, but not mainstream.
  • Quiverfull: Ultra-niche belief in having as many kids as possible for religious reasons. Rare and extreme.
  • Christian Nationalism: Belief that the U.S. has a Christian identity that should shape culture and law. Vague, often misapplied.

And What It Isn’t:

  • Pro-natalism: A global concern over falling birth rates—not just a religious thing.
  • Conservative Feminism: Belief in empowerment through family and tradition. Dismissing it as brainwashing is anti-feminist.
  • Family Values: Often demonized, but for many, it just means prioritizing marriage, kids, and legacy.

Not all traditionalism is fascism.
Not all progressivism is liberation.
Let’s keep the conversation honest.

Hillary’s “Handmaid” Moment

Hilary Clinton🎧 “Well, first of all, don’t be a handmaiden to the patriarchy. Which kind of eliminates every woman on the other side of the aisle, except for very few. First, we have to get there, and it is obviously so much harder than it should be. So, if a woman runs who I think would be a good president, as I thought Kamala Harris would be, and as I knew I would be, I will support that woman.”

This quote from Hillary Clinton caused predictable outrage—but what’s more disturbing than the clip is the sentiment behind it.

In one breath, she managed to dismiss millions of women—mothers, caretakers, homemakers, conservative politicians, religious traditionalists—as unwitting slaves to male domination. Clinton doesn’t leave room for the idea that a woman might freely choose to prioritize home, faith, or family—not because she’s brainwashed, but because she’s pragmatic, thoughtful, and in tune with her own values.

To Clinton, there’s one legitimate type of woman in politics: the woman who governs like Hillary Clinton.

This framework—that conservative, traditional, or religious women are “handmaidens”—isn’t new. It’s a familiar talking point in progressive circles. And lately, it’s been weaponized even more boldly, as Clinton revealed in another recent statement:

“…blatant effort to basically send a message, most exemplified by Vance and Musk and others, that, you know, what we really need from you women are more children. And what that really means is you should go back to doing what you were born to do, which is to produce more children. So this is another performance about concerns they allegedly have for family life. Return to the family, the nuclear family. Return to being a Christian nation. Return to, you know, producing a lot of children, which is sort of odd because the people who produce the most children in our country are immigrants and they want to deport them, so none of this adds up.”

This is where modern feminism loses its plot. If liberation only counts when women make certain kinds of choices, it’s not about freedom then.

The Pro-Natalism Panic—and the Projection Problem

🎧 “Although the Quiverfull formal life isn’t necessarily being preached, many of the underlying theological and practical assumptions are elevated… and now, you know, they’re in the White House.”
– Emily Hunter McGowin, guest on In the Church Library podcast with Kelsey Kramer McGinnis and Marissa Franks Burt

There’s a subtle but dangerous trend happening in the deconstruction space: lumping all traditional Christian views of family into the Quiverfull/Dominionist bucket.

In a recent episode of In the Church Library, the hosts and guest reflected on the rise of pro-natalist ideas and Christian influence in politics. Marissa asks whether the ideology behind the Quiverfull movement might be getting a new rebrand—and Emily responds with what sounds like a chilling observation: echoes of that movement are now in the White House.

But let’s pause.

❗ The Quiverfull movement is real—but it’s fringe. It’s not representative of all evangelicals, conservatives, or even Christian pro-family thinking.

Yet increasingly, any policy or belief that values marriage, child-rearing, or generational stability gets painted with that same extremist brush. This is where projection replaces analysis.

Take J.D. Vance, often scapegoated in these conversations. He’s frequently accused of trying to turn America into Gilead—even though he has three children, supports working-class families, and hasn’t once called for a theocracy. His concern? America’s birthrate is in freefall.

That’s not theocracy. That’s math.

Pro-natalism isn’t about forcing women to give birth. It’s about grappling with a demographic time bomb. Countries like South Korea, Hungary, and Italy are facing societal collapse because too few people are having children. This isn’t moral panic—it’s math.

Even secular thinkers are sounding the alarm:

Lyman Stone, an economist and demographer, emphasizes: “Lower fertility rates are harbingers of lower economic growth, less innovation, less entrepreneurship, a weakened global position, any number of factors… But for me, the thing I worry about most is just disappointment. That is a society where most people grow old alone with little family around them, even though they wanted a family.”

Paul Morland, a British demographer, warns: “We’ve never seen anything like this kind of population decline before. The Black Death wiped out perhaps a third of Europe, but we’ve never seen an inverted population pyramid like the one we have today. I can’t see a way out of this beyond the supposedly crazy notion that people should try to have more kids.”

We have to be able to separate structure from subjugation. There’s a world of difference between saying “families matter” and forcing women into barefoot-and-pregnant obedience.

When we flatten every traditional idea into a fundamentalist threat, we not only lose clarity—we alienate people who are genuinely seeking meaning, stability, and community in a fragmented culture.

If we want to be intellectually honest, we must distinguish:

  • Extremism vs. Order
  • Oppression vs. Structure
  • Religious Tyranny vs. Social Cohesion

And we should probably stop pretending that every road leads to the Handmaid’s Tale.

Protective Powers: What Louise Perry and Joan Brumberg Reveal About Institutions

Let’s talk about The Case Against the Sexual Revolution by Louise Perry. Perry is a secular feminist. She’s not nostalgic for 1950s housewife culture—but she is asking: what did we actually get from the sexual revolution?

Here’s her mic-drop:

“The new sexual culture didn’t liberate women. It just asked them to participate in their own objectification with a smile.”

We built an entire culture around the idea that as long as it’s consensual, it’s empowering. But Perry argues that consent—without wisdom, without boundaries, without institutional protection—leaves women wide open to harm.

She points to:

  • Porn culture
  • Casual hookups
  • The normalization of sexual aggression and coercion in dating

These aren’t signs of liberation—they’re signs of a society that privatized female suffering and told us to smile through it.

Perry doesn’t say “go full tradwife.” But she does say maybe marriage, sexual restraint, and even modesty functioned as protective constraints—not just patriarchal tools of oppression.

We traded one form of pressure (be pure, stay home) for another (be hot, work hard, never need a man). Neither version asked what women actually want.

Now flip over to The Body Project by Joan Jacobs Brumberg. This one blew my mind.

She traces how, a century ago, girls were taught to cultivate inner character: honesty, kindness, self-control.

By the late 20th century? That inner moral development had been replaced by bodily self-surveillance: thigh gaps, clear skin, flat stomachs. Girls now focus on looking good, not being good.

She writes:

“The body has become the primary expression of self for teenage girls.”

Think about that. We went from teaching virtue to teaching girls how to market themselves. We told them they were free—and then handed them Instagram and said, “Good luck.”

So again, maybe some of those “oppressive” structures were also serving as cultural scaffolding. Not perfect. Not painless. But they gave young people—especially girls—a script that wasn’t just: “Be hot, be available, and don’t catch feelings.”

Brumberg isn’t saying go back to corsets and courtship. But she is saying we’ve lost our moral imagination. We gave up teaching self-restraint and purpose and replaced it with branding. With body projects. And now we wonder why depression and anxiety are through the roof??

We dive deeper into these subjects in these two podcasts:

From Diary Entries to Digital Screens: How Beauty Ideals and Sexualization Have Transformed Over Time
Consent Isn’t Enough: The Harsh Truth About “Sex Work”

Why the Fear Feels Real—And Why It’s Still Misguided

Look, I get it.

If you’ve escaped religious trauma, purity culture, or spiritual abuse, the sight of a political figure talking about motherhood as a virtue can feel like a threat. Your nervous system registers it as a return to oppression. The media confirms your panic. And suddenly, a call for demographic survival starts sounding like a demand for forced birth.

But your trauma doesn’t make every policy that triggers you authoritarian. It just means you need to slow down and check the data.

Because ironically, the real threats to bodily autonomy and family structure? They might not be coming from traditionalists at all.

🏛 The Progressive Power Grab You’re Not Supposed to Question

Another frustrating comment made by Kelsey Kramer McGinnis in a recent podcast was the need to “decenter nuclear families” and the dismissal of concerns about an “attack on nuclear families” as mere panic. But here’s the thing—this fear isn’t fabricated. It’s not fringe. It’s rooted in observable cultural trends and policy shifts. You can’t just wave it away with smug academic detachment.

Whether you support the traditional family structure or not, the erosion of it has real consequences—especially for children, social stability, and intergenerational resilience. Calling that out isn’t fearmongering. It’s an invitation to discuss the stakes honestly.

Let’s set the record straight: The desire to shape culture, laws, and education systems is not the sole domain of religious conservatives. Dominionist Christians aren’t the only ones with blueprints for a theocratic society. Progressive activists also seek to remake the world in their image—one institution at a time.

This isn’t a right-wing “whataboutism.” It’s an honest observation about how ideological movements—regardless of political lean—operate when they gain influence.

Let’s take a look at what this looks like on both ends of the spectrum:

🏛 Dominionism (Far-Right Christian Nationalism)

Core Belief: Christians are mandated by God to bring every area of life—government, education, business—under biblical authority.

Tactics:

  • Homeschool curricula promoting biblical literalism and creationism.
  • Campaigns for Christian prayer in public schools or Ten Commandments monuments in courthouses.
  • Promoting the idea that America was founded as a Christian nation and must return to those roots.
  • Electing openly Christian lawmakers with the explicit goal of reshaping law and public policy to reflect “biblical values.”
  • Supporting the Quiverfull movement, which encourages large families to “outbreed the left” and raise up “arrows for God’s army.”

📘 Progressive Institutional Capture (Far-Left Activism)

Core Belief: Society must be dismantled and rebuilt to eliminate systemic oppression, centering race, gender, and identity as primary moral lenses.

Tactics:

  • Embedding DEI (Diversity, Equity, Inclusion) frameworks into public schools, universities, and corporate policy.
  • Redefining gender and sex in school curricula while often sidelining parental input or community values.
  • Elevating “lived experience” over objective standards in hiring, curriculum design, and academic research.
  • Weaponizing social media and institutional policies to punish dissenting views (labeling them as “harmful,” “unsafe,” or “hateful”).
  • Using activist lingo to obscure government overreach (“gender-affirming care” vs. irreversible medical intervention for minors).

🔄 Shared Behaviors: The Race to Capture Institutions

Despite their stark differences in values, both dominionists and far-left activists behave in eerily similar ways:

  • They seek cultural dominance through schools, law, media, and public policy.
  • They view their moral framework as not just legitimate but necessary for a just society.
  • They suppress dissent by pathologizing disagreement—branding critics as “anti-Christian,” “bigoted,” “transphobic,” “groomers,” or “domestic extremists.”

The battleground is no longer just the ballot box. It’s the school board meeting. The state legislature. The HR department. The university curriculum. The TikTok algorithm.

Colorado’s HB25-1312 — The “Kelly Loving Act”

Signed in May 2025, this law expands protections for transgender individuals. Fine on the surface. But here’s the fine print:

  • It redefines coercive control to include misgendering and deadnaming.
  • In custody cases, a parent who refuses to affirm a child’s gender identity could now be framed as abusive—even if that child is a minor in the midst of rapid-onset gender dysphoria.

Is it protecting kids? Or is it using identity to override parental rights?

Washington State’s HB 1296

This bill guts the Parents’ Bill of Rights (which was approved by voters via Initiative 2081). It:

  • Eliminates mandatory parental access to children’s health records (including mental health).
  • Enshrines gender identity and sexual orientation in a new “Student Bill of Rights.”
  • Allows state-level monitoring of school boards that don’t comply.

And the cherry on top? It was passed with an emergency clause so it would take effect immediately, bypassing normal legislative scrutiny.

This isn’t some abstract culture war. These are real laws, passed in real states, stripping real parents of their authority.

A Marxist Framework Masquerading as Compassion

Some of these changes echo critical theory more than constitutional liberty.

Historically, Marxist and Maoist ideologies viewed the family unit as an oppressive structure that needed dismantling. Parental authority was often seen as an extension of capitalist control. In its place? State-affirmed loyalty, reeducation, and ideological uniformity.

Now, it’s not happening with red stars and gulags—it’s happening through rainbow flags and DEI seminars. But the power dynamics are the same:

The family becomes secondary to the state.
Dissent becomes dangerous.
Disagreement becomes “violence.”

This is how authoritarianism creeps in—wrapped in the language of safety and inclusion.

What Real Theocracy Looks Like

If you need a reality check, read Yasmine Mohammed’s Unveiled. Raised in a fundamentalist Muslim home, where women had no autonomy, no basic rights, and no freedom. She was forced into hijab at age 9, married off to an al-Qaeda operative, and beaten for asking questions. Women cannot see a doctor without a male guardian, they are forced to cover every inch of their bodies and are denied access to education and even the right to drive. That’s theocracy. That is TRUE oppression.

Now contrast that with the freedom that women enjoy in the West today. In modern America, women have more rights and freedoms than at any point in history. Women can run around naked at Pride parades, express their sexuality however they choose, and redefine what it means to be a woman altogether. The very idea of a “dystopia” here is laughable when we consider the actual freedom women in the West enjoy.

Yet, despite these freedoms, many liberal women still cry oppression. They whine about having to pay for their student loans, birth control or endure debates over abortion restrictions. This level of cognitive dissonance—claiming victimhood while living in unprecedented freedom—is a slap in the face to women who actually suffer under real patriarchal oppression.

What’s even more Orwellian is how the left, in its quest for inclusivity and justice, is actively stripping others of their freedoms. They preach about fighting for freedom of speech while canceling anyone who disagrees with them. They claim to be champions of equality while weaponizing institutions to enforce ideological conformity.

Bottom line: If you think Elon Musk tweeting about birth rates is the same as what Yasmine went through? You’ve lost perspective.

To revisit my conversation with Yasmine:

Women, Terror, and Freedom: How the West Enables Radical Ideologies

Fear Isn’t Feminism

If your feminism can’t handle dissent, it was never liberation—it was just a prettier cage.

We have to stop mistaking fear for wisdom. We have to stop confusing criticism with violence. And we absolutely must stop handing our power over to ideologies that infantilize us in the name of compassion.

Let’s be clear: Gilead isn’t coming. But if we’re not careful, something just as destructive might.

A world where parents are powerless.
Where biology is negotiable but ideology is law.
Where compliance is the only virtue, and questions are a crime.

The Courage to Be Honest

What I’m suggesting isn’t fashionable. It doesn’t fit neatly in a progressive or conservative box. But I’m tired of those boxes.

I’ve lived in Portland’s secular utopia and inside a high-control religious environment. I’ve seen how each side distorts truth in the name of “freedom” or “righteousness.”

But what if true liberation is found in the tension between the two?

The most revolutionary thing we can do today is refuse to become an extremist.

Not because we’re afraid.
Not because we’re fence-sitters.
But because we believe there’s a better way—one that honors the past without being imprisoned by it and faces the future with clear eyes and moral courage.

Maintain your curiosity, embrace skepticism, and keep tuning in. 🎙️🔒

— Megan Leigh

📚 Source List for Blog Post

1. Hillary Clinton Quotes

  • Quote 1 (on being a “handmaiden to the patriarchy”):
    [Reference: “Defending Democracy” podcast with historian Heather Cox Richardson, May 2024]
    No official transcript published — you’re using a direct audio clip for this one.
  • Quote 2 (on pro-natalism and immigration):
    [Source: Same podcast — “Defending Democracy” with Heather Cox Richardson, 2024]
    Partial reference via The Independent article

2. Louise Perry

3. Mary Harrington

4. Demographer Paul Morland

5. Lyman Stone

6. Dominionism & Quiverfull Movement

7. Recent Legislation Affecting Parental Rights

Posted on in bigpharma, billionaires, biology, challenges, childcare, children'srights, civilrights, coercivecontrol, genderideology, industrialinfluence, influencers, medicalconsequences, mental health, mentalhealth, mentalhealthindustry, physiology, podcast, politics, portlandOR, progressives, pseudoscience, scams, science, selfcompassion, socialjustice, socialmedia, socialmediainfluence, survivoradvocacy, trump, wellness

Detransition, Lawsuits, & Accountability: A Deep Dive with Transition Justice

When Affirmation Fails: The Fight for Justice in Gender Medicine

For years, we’ve been told that gender affirmation is the only compassionate response. Questioning it? Unthinkable. But as the dust settles, more and more individuals are coming forward with stories of regret, medical complications, and the realization that they weren’t given the full picture before making life-altering decisions.

This week on Taste of Truth Tuesdays, I sat down with Martha, co-founder of Transition Justice, an organization dedicated to helping detransitioners and their families seek legal recourse. If you’re unfamiliar, Transition Justice is one of the few organizations providing legal resources for those who feel they were misled, rushed, or even coerced into medical transition without true informed consent.

The Legal Battle Over Gender Medicine

One of the biggest takeaways from my conversation with Martha was the growing number of legal cases related to gender medicine. Detransitioners—many of whom transitioned as minors—are now speaking out, claiming that the medical community failed them. They argue they were fast-tracked into hormone therapy and surgeries without adequate psychological evaluation or a real understanding of the long-term consequences.

Transition Justice connects these individuals with legal professionals who can help them navigate potential malpractice suits and other forms of legal action. The goal? Accountability. Because when medical institutions push an ideology over evidence-based care, lives are affected—permanently.

Social & Ideological Pressures: A Personal Reflection

As someone who lived in Portland for years, I watched firsthand as gender ideology swept through my social circles. I had friends who transitioned, friends who encouraged their kids to transition, and a culture that made any dissent feel like social suicide. Parents who hesitated were accused of being unsupportive, bigoted, even abusive. Many went along with it—not because they were convinced, but because they were afraid.

Now, years later, some of those same parents are questioning everything. Some of those kids, now young adults, regret what happened. But where do they turn when their bodies have changed irreversibly? When the very institutions that promised to help them are nowhere to be found?

The Ethics of Informed Consent

One of the key issues Martha and I discussed was the tension between bodily autonomy and medical ethics. Should adults have the right to modify their bodies as they see fit? Some states limit abortion at some extent. But what about minors? What about individuals who were never properly informed of the risks? What happens when a decision made at 13 results in permanent medical complications at 25?

Medical ethics demand that patients receive full, unbiased information about risks, benefits, and alternatives before undergoing treatment. But in many cases, detransitioners say they were only given one path: affirmation or nothing. The idea that therapy, alternative treatments, or even just more time to explore could be a viable option was dismissed as “conversion therapy.” That’s not informed consent—that’s coercion.

What Comes Next?

The tide is shifting. Countries like the UK, Sweden, and Finland have already started scaling back gender-affirming treatments for minors, citing a lack of evidence and serious concerns about long-term harm. The U.S., however, remains deeply divided. But as more detransitioners come forward and more lawsuits gain traction, it’s clear this conversation isn’t going away.

Martha believes we’re on the cusp of major legal and cultural shifts. Institutions that once claimed there were “no regrets” are being forced to reckon with reality. And for those who were harmed? Transition Justice is fighting to make sure they’re heard—and that those responsible are held accountable.

Final Thoughts

This is a conversation we need to have—without fear, without labels, and without ideological blinders. If we care about bodily autonomy, medical ethics, and the well-being of future generations, we can’t afford to look away.

Want to hear the full discussion? Listen to my interview with Martha on Taste of Truth Tuesdays! And if you or someone you know has been impacted by these issues, check out Transition Justice at

Home | Transition Justice

Partners for Ethical Care | Medicalization

Detransition: a Real and Growing Phenomenon | SEGM

Home – Moms for Liberty

Protect Kids CA Launches Petition to Repeal Transgender Policies and Protect Parent Rights – California Family Council

Ban on puberty blockers to be made indefinite on experts’ advice – GOV.UK

🙏 Please help this podcast reach a larger audience in hope to edify & encourage others! To do so: leave a 5⭐️ review and send it to a friend! Thank you for listening! I’d love to hear from you, find me on Instagram!⁠⁠⁠ @taste0ftruth⁠⁠⁠ , @megan_mefit , ⁠⁠⁠ Pinterest! ⁠⁠ ⁠ Substack and on X!

Posted on in beautystandards, beliefs, bodyimage, challenges, christianfaith, churchharm, churchhurt, coercivecontrol, commericalcults, cults, deconstruction, emotionalrisk, exchristian, faith, feminism, freedom, friendship, gratitude, health, holistic health, informed, manipulation, mental health, mentalhealth, podcast, portlandOR, radicalfeminism, religion, resilence, scripture, self-help, selfcompassion, sexindustry, sexresearch, sexwork, sexworkiswork, socialjustice, socialmedia, socialmediainfluence, stress, sugardating, survivoradvocacy, technology, testimonies, theology, therapy, trauma, wellness, wordofgod, worldview

Consent Isn’t Enough: The Harsh Truth About “Sex Work”

Beyond the Glamour: The Dark Reality of the Sex Industry

Welcome back to Taste of Truth Tuesdays. Today’s episode is one that I’ve both been eager and hesitant to share. While I’ve spoken about my journey through faith, fitness and personal transformation that there’s one chapter I’ve largely kept private until now….

For most of my life, I was fed a specific narrative: go to college, get a degree, build a career, and don’t worry about prioritizing marriage or family. Financial independence was the ultimate goal.

After graduating college, I moved from Virginia to Portland, Oregon, to chase my career as a personal trainer, lifestyle coach, and professional circus performer. My income relied on clientele, and while I had busy seasons, nothing was ever truly stable. But with inconsistent income and the ever-present pressure to make ends meet, I found myself in a space that many glamorize but few truly understand—the world of sugar dating.

At first, it didn’t seem that different from the casual dating I was already doing—except now, dinner was covered, and there was a financial incentive. But the deeper I got, the more I realized how unstable and unsafe it was. Most of these men didn’t care about you as a person; they just wanted no-strings-attached access to your body. And when I found myself in situations where I wasn’t in control—where boundaries were ignored, protection was negotiable, and at times, I left empty-handed even after doing my part—I started to see the cracks in the ‘empowerment’ narrative. I remember one night, sitting in my car after being verbally and physically assaulted, I realized I had no one to report it to. No way to warn the next woman. That’s when the illusion fully shattered for me.

That’s why today’s conversation is so important. I’m joined by Sloane Wilson from Exodus Cry, an organization dedicated to exposing the truth about sexual exploitation and advocating for survivors. We’re unpacking the hard truths about the sex industry, the myths that keep women trapped in it, and the cultural shifts that have normalized what should never be considered “just work.”

But we’re also diving into something deeper, faith. Both Sloane and I have gone through our own journeys of deconstruction and reconstruction. She’s seen firsthand how the church can mishandle encountering survivors and how delicate and complex these situations can be.

The Reality of “Sugar Dating”

Some nights felt harmless—like having dinner with a businessman who just wanted company and conversation. But most nights? They were anything but that. The truth is, the fantasy of sugar dating—mutually beneficial, long-term arrangements with financial stability—was just that: a fantasy. Most men weren’t offering monthly allowances or ongoing support. They wanted pay-per-meet agreements—no strings attached, no safety net, just transactional sex. And when survival depended on it, I found myself scrambling to secure the next “daddy.”

I struggled to assert myself, especially in two key areas: insisting on protection and ensuring I was paid upfront. That put me at immense risk—both for my health and my safety. One night, I was forced into acts I didn’t consent to, verbally assaulted, and then left empty-handed. Sitting in my car afterward, I realized something chilling: there was no one to report it to. No way to warn the next girl. No system to hold these men accountable.

Some men had hidden home cameras, recording our time together without my consent. Others were forceful, rough, and used sex toys in ways that crossed every boundary I had. And yet, as awful as those experiences were, I knew I was lucky—because it could have been so much worse.

Most of these men pushed to move conversations off the platform as quickly as possible, demanding explicit photos before agreeing to meet. When you’re in a financial bind, it’s hard to say no. That’s how exploitation thrives—through desperation.

The Trap of a “Luxe” Illusion

Looking back, I wonder—why didn’t I just walk away? Why couldn’t I see, from the beginning, that this wasn’t sustainable? I wasn’t like most women in the industry. I was white, college-educated, and didn’t even have student debt shackling me. My financial stress came from my own reckless spending—maxed-out credit cards and the relentless costs of bodybuilding, a sport I was pouring everything into. So why, with all the options I had, did I keep chasing this?

I think part of it was desperation. The MLM-like promise of sugar dating had me convinced that if I just worked harder, played the game right, and landed the right arrangement, I could have financial security and independence. I put more energy into curating the perfect sugar persona than I ever did into building my personal training business. And maybe, just maybe, I was chasing the mirage of someone close to me—someone who had made sugar dating “work.” I saw her succeed, and I kept believing I could, too.

But there’s another layer. One I don’t love admitting (and one my mom will absolutely deny.) My mother praised me for it. She told me, “I wish I had done this when I was your age.” That kind of validation messes with your perception of right and wrong. It made it seem like I was onto something genius, like I had cracked code other women were too scared or too moralistic to try. Was I subconsciously trying to prove something? Was I filling the void left by emotional neglect?

Or was it just my own damn fault?

That’s the thing about these choices—they never come down to just one reason. It is always more complex. It wasn’t just the financial stress. It wasn’t just my upbringing. It wasn’t just the influence of someone I admired. It was all of it, tangled together, keeping me locked in place. And it took me years to realize that no amount of effort or strategy would turn sugar dating into the safety net I desperately wanted it to be.

The Lie of “Sex Work is Work”

For a long time, I believed the mantra: “sex work is work.” It’s the rallying cry of the sex-positive movement, a phrase meant to legitimize the industry. Prostitution is often called “the oldest profession,” but historically, it has always been a last resort for survival. Women don’t enter this industry because it’s empowering. They do it because they have no better options.

The real harm in prostitution isn’t just about bad working conditions or societal stigma. It’s about dehumanization. When sex is reduced to a transaction, people become commodities. And when we treat people like products to be bought and sold, we strip them of their dignity.

Louise Perry, in The Case Against the Sexual Revolution, makes this point powerfully. She argues that the sex industry’s only real defense is a hollow, commodified version of “liberation”—one that insists, “Everyone consents, everyone is an adult, the women enjoy it, so who are you to judge?” But when consent is the only moral standard, we ignore the broader ethical issue: that people are being treated as means to an end. Consent alone does not erase coercion, exploitation, or harm.

In our postmodern culture, we’ve rejected objective morality and replaced it with a consumerist approach to sex. If both parties “agree,” then anything goes. But this is a dangerous slope—one that allows predatory men to exploit desperate women under the guise of empowerment.

Insights from Recent Research

New research exposes the blurred lines between sugar dating and traditional sex work. A study published in The Journal of Sex Research found that over one-third of sugar babies have engaged in other forms of transactional sex work, such as escorting or stripping. This challenges the narrative that sugar dating is different or “classier” than prostitution. The reality? It operates on the same fundamental exchange.

The study also found that sugar benefactors reported an average of over six arrangements, indicating a revolving door of sugar relationships. For these men, sugar dating is just another avenue for purchasing companionship and sex.

Beyond the emotional toll, sugar dating carries serious legal and personal risks. Legal experts warn that these arrangements can lead to blackmail, coercion, and threats—especially when expectations aren’t met. Many women find themselves in vulnerable situations with no real recourse. The illusion of control is just that—an illusion.

The Flawed Narrative Around Sex Work and Deconstructing Purity Culture

In the deconstruction space, there’s a growing trend of equating sexual liberation with empowerment while rejecting any critique of the sex industry as moral panic. A popular post circulating on International Sex Workers Day exemplifies this mindset, arguing that deconstructing purity culture requires deconstructing any negative views of sex work. The claim? Sex work and sex trafficking are entirely separate, and many big Christian anti-trafficking organizations wrongly conflate the two to push an agenda. The post insists that if a person is not forced, defrauded, or coerced, they are simply making a free choice to engage in sex work. But this argument is deeply flawed when examined through historical context, real-world data, and the experiences of women who have lived through it.

The Demand Problem: Why Legalizing Sex Work Doesn’t Protect Women

One of the most critical oversights in this argument is the failure to acknowledge that sex work is a demand-driven industry. As Louise Perry outlines in The Case Against the Sexual Revolution, countries that have legalized prostitution have seen an increase in trafficking. Why? Because legalizing the industry normalizes the demand for paid sex, and when there aren’t enough willing participants, traffickers step in to fill the gap. Studies show that in places like Germany and the Netherlands, where prostitution is legal, trafficking rates have skyrocketed because the market rewards pimps and exploiters. The idea that sex work can be fully separate from trafficking ignores the economic reality that supply follows demand.

Linda Lovelace’s experience in Deep Throat is a perfect example of this. The film was a massive success, grossing over $600 million, and was hailed as revolutionary at the time. But years later, Lovelace revealed that she had been coerced into performing in the film under violent and abusive conditions. Her book Ordeal exposed the hidden abuse within the industry—an industry that thrives precisely because there is a market for extreme, degrading content. This isn’t an isolated case; countless women have echoed similar stories after leaving the industry, only to be dismissed while they were still in it because they were expected to uphold the “liberation” narrative.

The Exploitation Behind the Industry

Another major flaw in the sex-work-as-liberation argument is the lack of accountability within the industry itself. MindGeek, the corporation behind the world’s largest pornography sites, has faced multiple civil lawsuits for monetizing non-consensual content—including child sexual abuse, rape, revenge pornography, and voyeuristic recordings of women showering. Reports from December 2020 revealed that the platform was infested with videos depicting abuse and that it profited from some of the darkest corners of human sexuality.

The industry thrives on the illusion that all participants are willing, yet it repeatedly fails to ensure consent. The reality is that the vast majority of those in sex work come from backgrounds of financial instability, trauma, or coercion—not from an empowered, freely chosen career path. The notion that sex work is “just another job” ignores how uniquely dangerous, exploitative, and often inescapable it can be.

The Broader Issue: Normalizing Harm Under the Guise of Liberation

This same pattern of dismissing harm under the banner of liberation isn’t exclusive to the sex industry. I recently came across another example in the deconstruction space where an account that advocates for women’s sexual empowerment was documenting her abortion experience on National Abortion Day. She filmed herself taking the abortion pill as if it were nothing—a casual, almost celebratory act. But this kind of messaging erases the medical realities and risks associated with the abortion pill. It ignores the fact that women absolutely should get an ultrasound before taking it to determine gestational age and rule out ectopic pregnancy, which can be fatal if left untreated. Reducing such a serious medical decision to a political performance trivializes the real consequences that many women face.

This connects back to the issue with sex work: the rush to de-stigmatize everything labeled as “empowerment” often leads to a dangerous lack of critical thought. If deconstruction is about questioning harmful narratives, then why aren’t we allowed to question the harm within the sex industry? Why does rejecting purity culture mean embracing an industry that, time and time again, has been built on coercion, abuse, and exploitation?

Deconstructing purity culture shouldn’t mean abandoning discernment. If anything, it should mean taking an even closer look at these industries and asking hard questions about who truly benefits from them. Because when we actually listen to the stories of women who have left sex work, the pattern is clear: what is sold as empowerment often turns out to be exploitation in disguise.

Healing & Advocacy

Looking back, my perspective has completely shifted. The journey out of the sex industry has been long and complicated, but I’m grateful for the clarity I have now. Organizations like Exodus Cry work to expose the realities of the commercial sex trade and fight for real change. And voices like Louise Perry’s are crucial in dismantling the harmful myths that keep this industry alive.

The sexual revolution promised liberation, but for many women, it delivered exploitation instead. The more we normalize the commodification of sex, the more we enable the very systems that harm us. It’s time to rethink everything we’ve been told about “sex work” and start asking: Who really benefits from this industry? Because it’s certainly not the women inside it.

If you’ve ever questioned the narrative around sex work, if you’ve been curious about the reality behind sugar dating, or if you want to hear from someone who’s been there—I invite you to tune in.

It’s time to move beyond the glamour and face the truth.

Resources:

Posted on in AI, americanpolitics, beautystandards, beliefs, bigpharma, billionaires, biology, bodyimage, challenges, children'srights, civilrights, coercivecontrol, cults, deconstruction, genderideology, health, historicalfigures, history, hormones, industrialinfluence, influencers, manipulation, medicalconsequences, mental health, mentalhealth, mentalhealthindustry, misinformation, nuance, pharmaceuticalcompanies, physiology, podcast, politics, progressives, pseudoscience, scams, self-help, selfcompassion, socialjustice, socialmedia, socialmediainfluence, technology, transhumanism, trump, wellness

From ‘Women’ to ‘AFAB’: The Ideological Capture of Biology and the War on Reality

Welcome back to Taste of Truth Tuesdays. Today, we’re diving into a topic I’ve wanted to explore for a while now. Earlier this month, I came across a writer on Substack who posted something that really struck me. In his piece, he used dehumanizing language ‘assigned female at birth’. While his intention may have been to be inclusive, I found it to be exclusive and downright misogynistic.

It reminded me of back in 2021, I had a few people reach out to me on Instagram, pointing out that we had shifted from using the term ‘women’ to ‘AFAB’—’assigned female at birth.’ My gut reaction was intense—what the hell is going on here? It also reminds me of when I was living in Portland, I was constantly stressed, seeking external validation, and lacked the courage to speak up against gender ideology around 2013-2015. Little did I know, it would eventually take over the world.

Now, we’re going to dive into the consequences of transgenderism and its impact on children. And here’s the thing: I’m no longer afraid of being canceled or ridiculed. Honestly, I’ve already lost all my friends. But at this point, I’ve come to appreciate who I am, and standing for truth in today’s world has never been more important. It’s worth every consequence.

How We Got Here—The Origins of Gender Ideology

To understand how we went from recognizing biological sex as reality to debating whether we can even say the word “women” in medical journals, we have to look at where gender ideology came from.

This whole mess started with psychologist John Money in the 1950s. He was one of the first people to separate “gender” from “sex,” arguing that gender was a social construct, independent of biology. Expanding on John Money’s experiments is crucial because they expose the disturbing origins of gender ideology. Money, a psychologist and sexologist, was instrumental in pushing the idea that gender identity is entirely socially constructed, separate from biological sex. However, his most infamous experiment—the case of David Reimer—reveals the dark and unethical foundation of this belief system.

David Reimer was born male, alongside his identical twin brother, Brian. After a botched circumcision, Money convinced his parents to raise David as a girl, “Brenda,” after undergoing surgery and hormone treatments. Money believed this would prove that gender identity was purely a matter of socialization. However, David never truly identified as female. He struggled with severe psychological distress, eventually rejecting the imposed identity in his teenage years and transitioning back to male. His twin brother Brian also suffered severe emotional distress, and both tragically died by suicide in their 30s—a devastating consequence of Money’s reckless experiment.

The nature vs. nurture debate is at the heart of this issue. Money’s work attempted to prove that nurture—socialization and upbringing—could completely override biological sex. Yet, the failure of the Reimer case demonstrated the opposite: biology plays an undeniable role in identity and development. Attempts to force individuals into gender identities that contradict their biology often lead to severe psychological distress.

While John Money championed the idea that gender was purely a social construct, his ideological opponent, Dr. Milton Diamond, spent decades proving otherwise. Diamond, a biologist and sexologist, conducted extensive research showing that biological sex has an innate influence on identity. He exposed the flaws in Money’s work, particularly the David Reimer case, and argued that forcing an identity contrary to one’s biology leads to immense suffering. Diamond’s work underscored the importance of acknowledging biological sex while still allowing for individual gender expression—a stance completely at odds with today’s gender ideology, which seeks to erase biological realities altogether.

Intersex conditions are often misused as a justification for erasing sex-based distinctions. While intersex individuals exist, they make up a small fraction of the population and do not negate the binary nature of human sexual reproduction. Most intersex conditions result in variations of male or female biology, not a third sex. Using intersex as a reason to eliminate sex-based language ultimately harms both intersex and non-intersex individuals by denying the reality of biological differences.

Beyond David Reimer’s case, Money’s broader work was filled with moral controversies. His therapy sessions with young children were highly controversial and ethically disturbing by today’s standards. He conducted what he called “sexual rehearsal therapy,” which involved encouraging children to engage in sexual activities with their parents or siblings as a form of treatment for various psychological issues.

These sessions were intended to help children overcome sexual anxieties or developmental disorders, but they often crossed serious ethical boundaries and caused significant harm to the children involved. The lack of informed consent, the inappropriate nature of the activities, and the potential for long-term psychological damage have led to widespread criticism of Money’s methods.

Despite this, Money’s ideas laid the foundation for modern gender ideology. His theories, though discredited by cases like David Reimer’s, were absorbed into academia and later expanded upon by activists. The result? A cultural shift where subjective identity is prioritized over biological reality, and dissent is often met with backlash.

Understanding the origins of gender ideology is crucial because it reveals the shaky foundation upon which these ideas were built. Science, ethics, and real-world consequences all point to the same conclusion: biology matters, and attempts to erase it come at a significant human cost.

His theories were later expanded by Judith Butler in the ‘90s, who pushed the idea that gender is performative and entirely detached from biology. This philosophy has now morphed into the idea that sex itself is a “social construct.”

The Trans Flag’s Creator: A Window into Gender Ideology’s Evolution

Monica Helms, born Robert Hogge, designed the trans🏳️‍⚧️ pride flag in 1999.

Genevieve Gluck wrote in Reduxx Magizine:

According to researcher Dr. Sarah Goode, CEO of StopSO (Specialist Treatment Organization for the Prevention of Sexual Offending), pedophiles who organize online have developed their own culture, language, and symbols. One common symbol used in pedophile forums incorporates the colors baby blue, pink and white. In her lecture, ‘Hidden Knowledge: What We Ought to Know About Pedophiles,’ Dr. Goode shows a slide of the image, and says, “The pink half represents ‘girl lovers’ and the blue half represents ‘boy lovers.’”

The color code system appears to predate the initial design of the transgender flag and can be traced back to at least as early as 1997, according to online pro-pedophile forums.

Areas in Europe that advertise child trafficking to pedophile sex tourists have used the color code: “blue curtains mean a boy child prostitute and pink curtains a girl.”

It is unclear whether Helms was aware of this correlation at the time, but when discussing the symbolism behind the trans flag in an interview in 2017, Helms stated that blue represented young boys and pink represented young girls.

Whatever the case may be, his personal history and writings reveal disturbing patterns that echo the unsettling dynamics of gender ideology we’ve seen in figures like Dr. John Money. Helms, who now identifies as a woman, has long been involved in controversial and fetishistic behaviors, even writing “forced feminization” and erotic short stories. His writings include disturbing themes, such as the sexualization of minors, notably in a short story where a man marries a young girl who ages slowly, reflecting a disturbing fantasy that came to him in a dream.

In his memoir, More Than Just a Flag, Helms describes his “bigender” identity, as an “enlightened” being who floats between multiple identities, switching from male to female, sometimes simultaneously, or in an instant. He recalls times of experimentation, especially as an adult, where he would wear clothing inappropriate for his age and faced consequences for doing so at work.

Adding a deeply unsettling layer to the conversation, Helms, who was 70 at the time in 2022, made headlines by claiming to have changed his age to 25. Given the logic behind these transformations, this age shift sparked a viral conversation, with some commenters pointing out that his partner, Darlene Darlington Wagner, would now be “just 16 years old.” This raises questions about how fluid identity could extend beyond gender and into age.

As gender ideology increasingly became intertwined with political movements, it found its way into the mainstream, especially within the Democratic Party. Initially, intellectual discussions around gender began with French philosophers whose ideas about the body, power, and identity influenced later iterations of gender theory. But these complex theories have since been stripped of their nuance and rebranded into a political dogma that now dominates much of the left-leaning discourse.

The Democratic Party, which once championed civil rights and social justice, now finds itself navigating a fine line between advocating for freedom and accommodating forces that seek to change the very definition of identity itself. But at what cost? The more corporate interests and industries gain traction in shaping these ideologies, the more the left’s original values of anti-corporate resistance become a distant memory.

Which brings us to today’s nightmare.

From Fringe Theory to Political Dogma—How Gender Ideology Took Over the Democratic Party

How did academic theorizing become an institutionalized belief system within mainstream politics, particularly in the Democratic Party? This transformation happened through several key developments:

  1. The Rise of Queer Theory in Academia – Universities became breeding grounds for gender ideology throughout the 1990s and 2000s. Gender studies departments, influenced by postmodernist philosophy, framed gender as entirely fluid, rejecting biological sex distinctions. As students trained in these theories graduated and took positions in media, education, and activism, they carried these ideas into broader society.
  2. Institutional Capture and Activism – Activist organizations like the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) began pushing gender ideology into corporate policies, legal frameworks, and public schools. Their influence, combined with the rapid spread of social media, helped mainstream these concepts far beyond the academic world.
  3. Legal and Policy Shifts – Under the Obama administration, gender ideology gained political traction, particularly through Title IX reinterpretations that mandated schools to accommodate self-declared gender identities. This was further expanded under the Biden administration, with policies requiring federally funded institutions to adopt gender-affirming policies in sports, healthcare, and education. Let’s talk about the hilarious double standards around the billionaires funding the LGBT movement. We’ve all seen the left melting down over the influence of billionaires—except, of course, when those billionaires are funding agendas they support. An article from First Things calls out some of the big names behind the LGBT movement, and guess what? It’s showcases this massive contradiction.
  4. Big Tech and Media Reinforcement – Social media platforms, major news outlets, and entertainment industries began actively promoting gender ideology while censoring dissenting views. This created a cultural environment where questioning gender ideology was framed as hateful or bigoted, further entrenching it within left-wing politics.
  5. The Redefinition of Civil Rights – Transgender identity was increasingly framed as the next major civil rights frontier, equating sex-based protections with racial and disability rights. This shifted the Democratic Party’s platform to fully embrace gender ideology, making skepticism or critique politically unacceptable within mainstream liberal discourse.

The Shift from ‘Women’ to ‘AFAB’—Erasing Women for Ideology

So why has the term “women” been replaced with “AFAB” (Assigned Female At Birth)? The justification is that saying “women” is “exclusionary” to trans-identified females. But in reality, it’s deeply misogynistic.

Jennifer Bilek, in her Dispatches from the 11th Hour essays, has done incredible work exposing how gender ideology isn’t some organic civil rights movement—it’s a well-funded social engineering project backed by billionaires and biotech companies. She points out that this linguistic shift isn’t just about “inclusion.” It’s about destabilizing categories of sex for the benefit of corporate and medical industries.

When you erase the words “women” or “woman,” you erase women’s ability to advocate for their needs. You make it harder to talk about female-specific health issues. And you make it easier for policies to prioritize ideology over science.

The Medical and Scientific Consequences of Erasing Sex

This isn’t just an abstract cultural issue. It has real, dangerous consequences for medicine and science.

Historically, women have been excluded from medical research—for decades, studies were conducted almost exclusively on male subjects, and the results were assumed to apply to women. The problem? Women are not small men. We have different hormonal cycles, different metabolic rates, and different responses to medications.

Here are just a few examples of how ignoring biological sex in medicine harms women:

  • Heart disease: Women’s symptoms are different from men’s, and because most research was done on men, women are more likely to be misdiagnosed.
  • ACL injuries: Women are at a significantly higher risk due to differences in hip structure and ligament laxity, yet training protocols are still modeled on male athletes.
  • Medication dosages: Women metabolize drugs differently, but dosages are often tested on male bodies, leading to overdoses or ineffective treatments for women.

In 2016, the NIH finally mandated that women be included in medical research, a huge step forward. But now, under gender ideology, we’re reversing that progress by saying we can’t acknowledge sex at all.

If we replace “women’s health” with “AFAB health,” how do we effectively study and treat female-specific conditions like PCOS, endometriosis, or pregnancy-related complications?

We don’t. Because that’s the point.

The Connection Between Transgenderism and Transhumanism

As the journalist, Stella Morabito, has written:

“Transgenderism is a vehicle for state power and censorship.”

It is tyranny dressed up in the clothes of what has become the carcass of the progressive left and it seeks absolute power and control over humanity and nature.

This is where things get dark.

Jennifer Bilek and other researchers have pointed out how gender ideology is just one arm of a larger movement: transhumanism—the belief that humanity should merge with technology, that our bodies are “obsolete,” and that we should ultimately move beyond biology altogether.

Think about what the transgender movement pushes:

  • The idea that our bodies are wrong and need to be medically altered
  • A reliance on synthetic hormones for life
  • The normalization of body modification to fit identity over reality

Now zoom out: Who benefits from this ideology? Pharmaceutical companies. The same billionaires pushing trans activism are also deeply invested in AI, biotech, and synthetic biology.

Oligarchs on both the political right like Peter Thiel and on the left like Jeff Bezos. JD Vance is the co-founder of Narya Capital and invested in Amplied Bio which has announced a strategic partnership RNAV8 to support MRNA therapeutic developers. Even MAHA’s hero RFK Jr has invested in Crispr technology. Financially disclosers released in Jan 2025 reveal he holds invested in Crispr therapeutics which specialists in gene editing technologies, as well as Dragon Fly Therapeutics which focuses on immunotherapies. So, despite his history of expressing concerns against gene-editing therapy. He did state he would divest from these companies if confirmed secretary of HHS. So, Mr. Secretary, we are keeping eyes on you. 👀

I haven’t even mentioned of Elon Musk with NeuraLink and who knows what else that guy has planned. I am a big fan of DODGE and the exposure of the corruption, YET I definitely keep a skeptical eye on him as well.

The goal is not just to let people “live as their authentic selves.” The goal is to dissolve sex-based reality entirely, making people dependent on medical interventions for life. This isn’t liberation—it’s medical enslavement.

Brave New World Revisited: The Synthetic Creation of Culture

Earlier this year I read Huxley’s Brave New World, and it didn’t read as fiction, it read as he had a crystal ball into the future. In his dystopia, human reproduction was industrialized, the family unit was obsolete, and people were engineered for compliance under the guise of “progress.” Sound familiar? The push for synthetic reproduction, the erasure of sex-based identity, and the growing narrative that biology itself is a problem all mirror Huxley’s warning.

Jennifer Bilek exposes how transhumanism is the real endgame. The same corporate interests promoting gender ideology are also pioneering artificial wombs, genetically modified embryos, and bioengineered organ harvesting. This is a world where human beings are no longer conceived but manufactured. Where the natural, biological family is replaced by state-sanctioned, lab-grown “life.”

Huxley warned us about a future where people would love their servitude—where the loss of freedom would be reframed as liberation. That future is unfolding now. The question is: Are we resisting dehumanization, or are we embracing it under a new name?

The Erasure of Women Illustration by Greg Groesch

Fighting Back Against the Erasure of Women

So what do we do?

  1. Refuse to comply with ideological language. Women are women—not AFABs.
  2. Call out the erasure of sex in medicine and policy. We must advocate for sex-based language in healthcare.
  3. Expose the billionaires funding this movement. This is not grassroots activism—it’s top-down social engineering.

The fight to protect reality isn’t just about ideology. It’s about protecting women, safeguarding science, and ensuring future generations don’t grow up in a world where “female” is a forbidden word.

Sources:

Posted on in beautystandards, beforeandafter, beforeandafterphotos, beliefs, bodyappreciation, bodyimage, challenges, cultoffitness, cults, dietculture, disorderedeating, fitness, fitnessjourney, fitspiration, goal setting, health, history, hormones, industrialinfluence, manipulation, mental health, mentalhealth, mentalhealthindustry, mindset, misinformation, musclegrowth, nervous system, neuroplasticity, nuance, nutrition, nutritionalscience, physiology, podcast, progressives, self-help, selfcompassion, socialmediainfluence, stress, transformationphotos, weightloss, wellness, worldview

From Diary Entries to Digital Screens: How Beauty Ideals and Sexualization Have Transformed Over Time

Over the past year, we’ve explored a web of interconnected topics—religious extremism, theology, the role of social media in radicalization, and most recently, body image and the impact of fitspiration.

These discussions aren’t isolated; they all trace back to a common thread—how external influences shape our beliefs, behaviors, and sense of identity. Today, we’re diving deeper into that connection, looking at how beauty standards, social media, and the normalization of self-objectification are part of a larger cultural shift.

The Evolution of Body Image: From Calorie Counting to the Cult of Fitness

Our cultural obsession with body modification isn’t new—it’s just evolved.

In The Body Project, historian Joan Jacobs Brumberg explores the history of American girls and how today women have more freedom and choice than ever before, but many of us begin a pattern of negative self-image, beauty obsession and dieting as early as five or six. Brumberg states:

“All throughout history, adolescent self-consciousness is quite persistent, but it’s level is raised or lowered, like the water level in a pool, by the cultural and social setting.”

For instance, in the late 19th century, girls might have been particularly conscious of their hands and feet due to the fashion and modesty standards of the time, as well as the emphasis on delicate and proper presentation. Additionally, the ideal feminine silhouette of the time, with tightly laced corsets and voluminous skirts, might have made girls more conscious of their waists and overall body shape.

So, while in modern day times, we may cringe at the confinements of what the Victorian society and wearing the corset did to women, but I’d like to argue that in 2025 body angst is driven by much more sinister forces. Today, commercial interests utilize marketing strategies that result in enormous amounts of profit for the manufactures of cosmetic, surgery, hair products and of course diet foods.

The reality that American girls now center their lives around their bodies is neither coincidental nor trivial: it reflects historical shifts that are just now being comprehended.

15th November 1926: Film star, Mae Murray (1889 – 1965) making herself up in a mirror in the lid of her make-up box.

Brumberg examines how the modern fixation on weight began in the early 20th century. Historically, the surge of explicit “girl talk” about body and sexuality is a relatively recent American phenomenon. As the language surrounding sex and the body has evolved, so too have the body projects of different generations of American girls. By the 1920s, girls began writing about their efforts to develop sexual allure through clothing and cosmetics, and for the first time, they experimented with “slimming”—a new body project tied to the scientific discovery of the calorie. The dieters and sexual players of the 1920s were generally girls in middle to late adolescence, finishing high school or heading off to college and jobs in the business world—unlike today, where such concerns often affect younger children and teenagers.

By the 1970s and 1980s, body control became about more than just being thin; it evolved into sculpting the ideal physique. This shift gave rise to what we now recognize as the cult of fitness—a movement that reframed body control as discipline and self-mastery. The rise of bodybuilding, aerobics, and the emerging diet industry all played a role in selling the idea that, with enough effort, anyone could build their “dream body.”

The Role of Genetics in Muscle Growth: What Fitness Culture Gets Wrong

But science tells a different story. While training and nutrition matter, genetics play a massive role in muscle development, strength, and even fat distribution. A study published in Communications Biology (2020) found that an individual’s ability to build muscle and strength is 50-80% genetic (Pei et al., 2020).

This means that two people following the exact same training program and nutrition plan will not achieve the same results—because their genetic blueprint largely determines their potential for muscle growth, recovery speed, tendon strength, and even motivation to train.

Yet, fitness culture—including myself as a personal trainer for nearly 20 years—rarely acknowledges this, pushing the narrative that extreme discipline alone is the key to achieving a certain look. This myth is not only misleading but also damaging, leading many people to believe that if they just worked harder, ate “cleaner,” or followed the right influencer’s workout, they could look like a fitness model.

How Genetics Impact Strength and Muscle Development

  1. Muscle Fiber Composition: The Fast-Twitch vs. Slow-Twitch Factor
    • People with a higher percentage of fast-twitch muscle fibers (Type II) have a genetic advantage in strength and hypertrophy (muscle growth). These fibers respond better to resistance training and grow larger than slow-twitch (Type I) fibers, which are more endurance-focused.
    • Some individuals are naturally fast-twitch dominant, making it easier for them to build muscle. Others are slow-twitch dominant, meaning they may struggle with size gains but excel in endurance sports like long-distance running (Timmons et al., 2010).
  2. Myostatin: The Genetic “Muscle Growth Brake”
    • Myostatin is a protein that regulates muscle growth by preventing muscles from getting too large.
    • People with lower levels of myostatin (due to genetic mutations) have an easier time building muscle naturally. Some bodybuilders and elite athletes are born with myostatin deficiencies, giving them an unfair advantage (Lee & McPherron, 2001).
  3. Testosterone and Hormonal Variability
    • Testosterone is a major driver of muscle protein synthesis, and its levels vary wildly among individuals.
    • Some people naturally produce more free testosterone (the biologically active form), which enhances muscle recovery, strength, and hypertrophy.
    • Women generally have 10-20 times lower testosterone levels than men, making significant muscle gains much harder without pharmacological assistance (i.e., steroids) (Kraemer et al., 1998).
  4. Bone Structure and Muscle Insertions: The Aesthetic Factor
    • Ever wonder why some people seem to have a “naturally sculpted” look even before they start training?
    • Bone structure (such as clavicle length, rib cage width, and hip-to-waist ratio) dictates how muscle mass is distributed.
    • Muscle insertion points vary genetically, meaning some people have longer muscle bellies, which create fuller-looking muscles, while others have shorter insertions, making certain muscles appear smaller or less defined no matter how much they train (Abe et al., 2016).

The Dangerous Myth of “Hard Work = Guaranteed Results”

Fitness influencers, personal trainers, and the entire “no excuses” culture have sold the idea that discipline alone determines success. And yes—training consistency and proper nutrition absolutely matter. But they will never override genetic limitations.

This myth leads to:

  • Unrealistic Expectations: People blame themselves when they don’t achieve Instagram-worthy physiques, despite training and eating “perfectly.”
  • Overtraining & Injury: Chasing unrealistic body standards leads many to overtrain, ignore recovery, and develop chronic injuries.
  • Disordered Eating & Supplement Abuse: Some resort to extreme dieting, excessive protein intake, or even performance-enhancing drugs to push past genetic limits.

The Industry’s Selective Silence on Genetics

Why does fitness culture ignore genetics? Simple: it doesn’t sell. If people accepted that their muscle-building potential was largely predetermined, the billion-dollar fitness industry wouldn’t be able to push:

  • Expensive training programs promising “X body in X weeks.”
  • Supplement stacks claiming to “maximize muscle growth.”
  • The illusion that buying a program from a shredded influencer will make you look like them.

Ironically, many of the biggest names in fitness—especially those with extreme physiques—are genetically gifted (and often enhanced by PEDs). Yet, they claim their results come solely from “hard work and dedication,” keeping their followers trapped in a cycle of unrealistic expectations and self-blame.

After nearly 20 years as a personal trainer, I wish I had been more honest about genetics with my clients. Fitness is absolutely a combination of training, nutrition, recovery, and mindset—but genetics are the foundation that determines what’s possible.

Let’s stop pretending everyone can achieve the same results through sheer willpower. Fitness should be about maximizing your individual potential—not chasing an impossible ideal. Focusing on body neutral fitness and strength training gave me tangible, measurable improvements, but it also made me realize how much misinformation circulates in mainstream fitness spaces, particularly in the fitspiration content flooding social media.

Fitspiration: The Reinvention of Beauty Standards

A 2023 study in Computers in Human Behavior compared the effects of fit ideal vs. non-fit ideal body types in fitspiration imagery. The findings? Exposure to fitspiration content significantly increases body dissatisfaction, especially in women who already struggle with self-image. This isn’t surprising—social media’s curated highlight reels create a distorted sense of what’s achievable. And just like 90s diet culture failed to acknowledge genetic differences in weight, today’s fitness culture largely ignores the reality that strength and muscle growth are heavily influenced by genetics.

But the impact of fitspiration goes beyond body image. The same mechanisms that fuel fitness obsession—comparison, idealization, and self-objectification—are also at play in the broader cultural shift toward hypersexualization.

Fitspiration and Self-Objectification: The Internalized Gaze

Self-objectification occurs when a person sees themselves through the eyes of others, measuring their worth by how they look rather than who they are. And nowhere is this dynamic more evident than in fitspiration culture.

John Berger describes this process perfectly in Ways of Seeing:

“A woman must continually watch herself. She is almost continually accompanied by her own image of herself… From earliest childhood she has been taught and persuaded to survey herself continually. And so she comes to consider the surveyor and the surveyed within her as the two constituent yet always distinct elements of her identity as a woman.”

Fitspiration content encourages this exact split identity—one part of a woman is the observer, constantly assessing whether she looks toned, lean, or strong enough. The other part is the observed, existing only as a reflection of an idealized body type. It’s no longer just about fitness; it’s about performing fitness for an audience.

And the consequences are severe:

  • Chronic body surveillance leads to increased anxiety, depression, and disordered eating (Fredrickson & Roberts, 1997).
  • Instead of focusing on how movement feels, women focus on how their bodies appear while exercising.
  • The line between fitness and sexualization blurs, reinforcing the idea that a woman’s body is only valuable when it is desirable to others.

In this way, fitspiration isn’t just a rebranded version of diet culture—it’s also a pipeline to broader cultural hypersexualization, where the body is constantly on display, measured, and objectified. And this feeds directly into an even deeper issue: the normalization of pornography and the sex industry, where women’s bodies are not just idealized but commodified.

By promoting self-objectification as empowerment, fitspiration culture primes women to see themselves as both the product and the consumer, caught in an endless cycle of external validation. And the most insidious part? It’s framed as self-improvement—when in reality, it’s just another system designed to keep women watching themselves instead of living fully.

The Connection Between Fitspiration, Porn Culture, and Self-Objectification

The way women are impacted by pornography—and by extension, the sex industry—is something far too many people overlook. The statistics are staggering:

  • The top three porn sites receive a combined 134,491 visits per minute.
  • Most pornographic videos contain some form of aggression or violence, particularly toward women. A 2020 meta-analysis found that 88% of pornographic scenes contain physical aggression (slapping, choking, hair-pulling) and 49% contain verbal aggression, with women overwhelmingly being the targets (Bridges et al., 2010).
  • Most young people are exposed to pornography between the ages of 11 and 13, with some studies reporting an even earlier age for boys (Wright et al., 2021).
  • A 2020 study found that 91.5% of men and 60.2% of women had watched porn in the past month (Solano, Eaton, & O’Leary, 2020).

How This Connects to Fitspiration and Porn Culture

At first glance, fitspiration (or “fitspo”) might seem like it has nothing to do with pornography or the sex industry. After all, isn’t fitness about health and strength? But when we look closer, the connections become clear.

  1. Both fitspiration and porn culture promote self-objectification.
    Fitspiration culture tells women that their worth is tied to their body’s appearance—specifically, whether they have a lean, sculpted, and sexually desirable physique. This reinforces self-objectification, where women begin viewing their bodies primarily as objects to be judged rather than lived-in, experienced, and valued beyond aesthetics.

Remember our study in Computers in Human Behavior (2023) found that exposure to fitspiration imagery leads to increased body dissatisfaction and self-objectification, particularly among women who already struggle with body image….Similarly, pornography fuels external validation as a primary measure of self-worth.

Women in both fitspo and porn culture are expected to conform to an idealized version of femininity that is both hypersexualized and carefully curated for male consumption.

  1. Both industries capitalize on the illusion of empowerment.
    One of the biggest arguments in favor of fitspiration and porn is that they “empower” women. But empowerment, in its truest sense, involves autonomy, agency, and self-determination—not just adhering to societal beauty standards under the guise of “strength” or “choice.”
  • Fitspiration content often presents extreme dieting, excessive exercise, and body sculpting as forms of self-discipline and self-improvement, even when they veer into disordered behaviors.
  • The porn industry promotes the idea that sex work is a path to empowerment, despite overwhelming evidence of the harm it causes to those involved. Research on women in the porn industry has found high rates of PTSD, substance abuse, and coercion (Farley et al., 2003).

The same narrative that tells women they must be “empowered” by fitspiration also tells them they must be “empowered” by commodifying their bodies through sex work. The reality is that both industries profit from women internalizing external standards of worth rather than defining it for themselves.

  1. The rise of OnlyFans and the blending of fitness and sex work.
    Social media has blurred the lines between fitness influencers and the sex industry in a way that previous generations didn’t experience. Platforms like Instagram, TikTok, and OnlyFans have created a new category of influencers who monetize their appearance—whether through fitness content, sexually suggestive photos, or outright pornography.
  • Some fitness influencers now have OnlyFans accounts, where they claim to be selling fitness content but also offer sexually explicit material.
  • The normalization of “soft porn” in fitness spaces (suggestive poses, hypersexualized workout attire) conditions women to see their fitness journey as something that must be publicly displayed and validated by others.
  • Many young women have turned to selling “spicy content” on OnlyFans as a form of income, believing it to be harmless self-expression—only to later experience the psychological and social fallout.

This isn’t just theoretical. A growing body of research shows that women who engage in sexualized self-presentation online report higher levels of self-objectification, body dissatisfaction, and lower self-esteem (Boursier et al., 2020).

The Psychological Toll: What Happens When Women Internalize These Messages?

Self-objectification doesn’t just impact body image—it affects mental health, cognitive performance, and even physical performance. Studies have found that women who are primed to focus on their appearance:

  • Perform worse on cognitive tasks (Fredrickson et al., 1998).
  • Experience greater body shame and anxiety (Moradi & Huang, 2008).
  • Are less likely to engage in activities that prioritize function over appearance (Roberts & Gettman, 2004).

And this has real-world consequences. Women who internalize self-objectification are more likely to experience:

  • Higher rates of depression and anxiety
  • Greater susceptibility to eating disorders
  • Lower confidence in their physical abilities

Reframing the Narrative: What’s the Alternative?

Recognizing these patterns is the first step in breaking free from them. If fitspiration, porn culture, and social media all push the message that women must shape themselves into externally validated objects, then the antidote is reclaiming agency over our bodies—not as things to be looked at, but as tools for living, experiencing, and creating.

  • Strength training should be about what your body can do, not how it looks.
  • Health and fitness should prioritize function over pain.
  • Challenge Beauty Norms & External Validation. Who benefits from women being consumed by their appearance? The more we recognize these influences, the easier it is to resist them.
  • Women should be encouraged to pursue movement, sport, and physical strength without the added layer of performative sexuality.

Joan Jacobs Brumberg’s The Body Project reinforced for me how unprepared young women have been for the level of sexualization and exploitation in our culture—something that has only worsened with social media. The way sex work is framed as “empowerment” in some circles ignores the long-term harm it inflicts, and I’ve seen that firsthand.

I can’t wait to discuss this more with my friend Sloane Wilson, a survivor advocate with Exodus Cry, on my podcast later this season. Her insights into the realities of the sex industry and the dangers of normalizing self-objectification are incredibly important for this conversation.

Posted on in carbs, challenges, dietculture, disorderedeating, exercise, fitness, fitnessjourney, health, holistic health, hormones, hypothyroidism, masterthebasics, metabolism, misinformation, nuance, nutrition, nutritionalscience, physiology, podcast, science, self-help, socialmedia, veganism, vegetarianism, weightloss, wellness

The Real Story Behind Nutrition Research: Unpacking ‘Statistical Significance’

What You Need to Know About Risk and Bias

If you’ve ever been confused by conflicting diet headlines, you’re not alone! Nutrition research aims to help us understand how different foods impact our health, but the process isn’t always straightforward. From small sample sizes to biases and misinterpreted data, the field is full of challenges that can lead to mixed messages. Today, we’re breaking down the complex world of nutrition research, unpacking what it really tells us, what it doesn’t, and how we can read between the lines to make sense of it all.

This is a complex topic, especially when it comes to understanding terms like absolute and relative risk, which can often be confusing without a visual, so be sure to scroll along as you listen!

Let’s dive in!

I recently sat down with Jacqui, a passionate advocate for empowering women to understand and support their bodies at every life stage. Our conversation was deeply insightful, particularly as Jacqui highlighted the importance of critically assessing nutrition research, an area she’s worked in for years. From her early love for nutrition labels to her background in bio-nutritional statistics and clinical trials, Jacqui’s journey has led her to focus on prenatal research and nutrition that fosters development.

Throughout our interview, Jacqui stressed the need for a more nuanced approach when it comes to nutrition science, pointing out how certain research methodologies and common misinterpretations can lead us astray.

1. The Pitfalls of Food Frequency Questionnaires (FFQs)

One of Jacqui’s key points was the reliability—or lack thereof—of Food Frequency Questionnaires (FFQs), a tool frequently used to assess dietary habits. FFQs often rely on participants’ memory, which can be imprecise and subjective.

Jacqui shared her firsthand experience collecting FFQ data and witnessing how confused participants often were when asked to recall what they ate. This variability in data collection can significantly impact the accuracy of nutritional studies, making it difficult to draw reliable conclusions about diet and health.

FFQs, though commonly used in research, often do not capture the full complexity of individual diets. This leads to inaccuracies in studies that can misguide dietary guidelines and public health advice. Jacqui emphasized that this is a critical issue because it directly affects how we understand nutrition and the effectiveness of dietary recommendations.

Read more here

2. Understanding Relative Risk vs. Absolute Risk in Nutrition Headlines

Nutrition studies often grab attention with sensational headlines, particularly when they report relative risks. Jacqui explained how a “33% increase in risk” can sound alarming, but in many cases, it doesn’t reflect the real picture. The key issue here is the difference between relative risk and absolute risk.

  • Relative risk refers to the increased risk of a particular outcome in one group compared to another. While this sounds important, it can be misleading without context. For example, a small increase in relative risk might not translate to a significant increase in your actual chance of experiencing that outcome.
  • Absolute risk, on the other hand, tells us the actual probability of an event happening.

Jacqui stressed the importance of recognizing this distinction when reading nutrition headlines.

A 33% increase in relative risk might sound alarming, but when we examine the absolute risk, the actual impact could be much less significant. Understanding this distinction helps consumers interpret research with greater accuracy, preventing them from falling for misleading headlines.

  • Swipe through examples here!

Review Jacqui post here to learn more!

3. The Problem with ‘Statistically Significant’ Results

The term “statistically significant” often sounds impressive, but Jacqui warned that it’s not always a reliable indicator of a meaningful finding. In nutritional research, a statistically significant result means that the data supports a specific conclusion beyond what could be expected by chance. However, Jacqui compared this to winning a small lottery: just because the result is statistically significant doesn’t necessarily mean it’s practically important.

In many cases, results that are statistically significant may not have a meaningful or clinically significant impact on real-world outcomes. For example, a study might show a statistically significant difference in health markers between two groups, but the actual difference might be so small that it doesn’t matter in terms of improving health.

When encountering results labeled as statistically significant, Jacqui advised readers to take a step back and ask: Is this result meaningful in the real world, or is it just a statistical fluke?

4. Why Nutritional Research Seems Contradictory

Another fascinating part of our conversation focused on the reasons why nutritional research can often feel contradictory. Jacqui pointed out that factors like small sample sizes, observational study designs, and various biases can skew the outcomes of studies. These variables contribute to conflicting opinions and conclusions in the field of nutrition.

Moreover, biases—whether financial or ideological—can shape the results of studies and the way findings are interpreted. For instance, when a study is funded by a food company, the results might be more favorable toward the products of that company, consciously or unconsciously.

Jacqui encouraged listeners to develop a critical eye when reading nutrition studies. Instead of accepting conclusions at face value, she suggested asking questions like: What’s the sample size? Who funded the study? What biases could influence the results?

5. How to Approach Nutrition Research as an Informed Consumer

So, how should we navigate the sea of nutrition research to make informed decisions about our food? Jacqui’s advice is simple yet powerful: approach nutrition research with a critical mindset.

Here’s how to do it:

  • Look beyond the headlines: Understand the difference between relative and absolute risk and question whether the findings are clinically significant.
  • Question study design: Be wary of studies with small sample sizes or those that rely on self-reported data, like FFQs. Also, consider the biases that may influence results.
  • Seek balanced perspectives: Look for research that examines multiple viewpoints and is not influenced by financial or ideological pressures.

Jacqui’s passion for empowering women through nutrition, particularly prenatal research, shines through in her work. By shedding light on the limitations and complexities of nutrition research, she offers us a much-needed roadmap to make informed decisions about our health. Whether you’re navigating the confusion of wellness trends or simply trying to understand what’s truly healthy, Jacqui’s insights can help us all approach nutrition with more clarity and skepticism.

Want more insights from Jacqui? Follow her on Instagram, where she shares practical advice and challenges the latest trends in wellness.

Learn more about Jacqui

Work with Jacqui: https://www.wellnesswithjacqui.co.za/contact 

The lazy cookbook https://www.wellnesswithjacqui.co.za/product-page/the-lazy-cookbook

Women’s health course: https://cominghometoyourself.thinkific.com/courses/coming-home-to-yourself

Stay curious, embrace skepticism, and keep tuning in!

Posted on in bodyappreciation, bodyimage, carbs, challenges, dietculture, digestion, disorderedeating, exercise, fitness, fitnessjourney, goal setting, guthealth, health, holidays, holistic health, hormones, hypothyroidism, industrialinfluence, influencers, masterthebasics, mental health, mentalhealth, metabolism, mindset, nervous system, neuroplasticity, newyeargoals, nuance, nutrition, nutritionalscience, physiology, podcast, science, self-help, socialmedia, stress, stressresilence, thyroid health, weightloss, wellness

Metabolism Myths: Why Dieting Fails

Let’s dismantle the myths, explore the facts, and learn how to stop fighting against your body and start working with it.

Welcome to Taste of Truth Tuesdays—where we challenge the quick-fix culture, dive deep into the science, and find practical ways to take care of our bodies and minds. Today we’re tackling a hot topic: weight loss—or more accurately, fat loss—and why I preach the mantra: “You’ve got to earn the right to diet.”

Our culture is obsessed with weight loss—seriously, it’s everywhere. It’s in magazine headlines, social media posts, and those cringe-worthy commercials promising “30 pounds in 30 days!”

But here’s the deal: when we talk about weight loss, what most of us really want is fat loss. And that’s a critical distinction. For example, when we discussed in our opening episode about Ozempic, some people using the drug experience muscle loss and lower bone density, increasing the risk of injury—especially for older adults. So, losing “weight” can mean losing muscle, water, or even bone density—not exactly what we’re aiming for, right?

Before diving into dieting strategies, let’s start with the fundamentals: metabolism, daily energy needs, and why chasing fat loss without preparation often backfires.

Understanding Metabolism and Energy Needs

First, to break down the metabolism, let’s chat about your Total Daily Energy Expenditure—TDEE, for short. This is the total amount of energy (aka calories) your body burns in a day. Think of it like your budget: how much energy you’re spending to stay alive, digest food, and live your life.

Here’s what makes up your TDEE:

  • 1. Resting Metabolic Rate (RMR)
    • This is your body’s baseline energy burn—the calories you need just to breathe, pump blood, and stay alive.
    • Body size & muscle matter: More muscle means burning more calories, even when you’re chilling on the couch.
    • Age matters too: As we age, we lose muscle and, unfortunately, burn fewer calories. But guess what? It’s never too late to hit the weights and change that!
  • 2. Thermogenesis
    • This is the heat your body produces to maintain a stable temperature. It also includes the Thermic Effect of Food (TEF)—the energy required to digest, absorb, and store the food you eat. About 10% of the calories you consume go toward this process, proving that even digestion is hard work!
  • 3. Physical Activity
    • This includes both Exercise Activity and Non-Exercise Activity Thermogenesis (NEAT)—everyday movements like walking, housework, thinking, carrying groceries, or even fidgeting. NEAT can make up 15% of your TDEE, while intentional exercise typically contributes around 5%. Never underestimate the power of a good walk!

Fat Loss ≠ Weight Loss

Here’s the thing: your body isn’t a spreadsheet. It doesn’t see your calorie deficit and say, “Oh great, let’s burn fat!” Instead, your body adapts to survive. When you cut calories too hard or for too long, your body gets the message: famine alert! It starts conserving energy and prioritizing survival.

The result? You feel tired, your hair starts thinning, your period might disappear, and fat loss grinds to a halt. This is called metabolic adaptation, and it’s a feature—not a bug. Your body’s goal is survival, not helping you fit into your old jeans.

The Metabolic Aftermath – Lessons from The Biggest Loser

Let’s get into the nitty-gritty science of why extreme dieting is a metabolic disaster waiting to happen. Remember the Biggest Loser study we teased in the first episode of this season? Well, buckle up because we’re about to unpack it further.

To recap: contestants on The Biggest Loser followed an intensely restrictive protocol. They ate roughly 1,200 calories per day and worked out like machines—90 minutes of intense exercise six days a week, sometimes up to five or eight hours daily, according to some contestants. Their grocery lists? Approved by their trainers, and dominated by so-called “Franken-foods” like fat-free cheese and energy drinks. The result? Drastic weight loss during the season. But the aftermath tells a much darker story.

The Study: What Happened Post-Show?

In 2015, six years after their stint on the show, researchers revisited the contestants. By then, they’d regained about 70% of the weight they lost—but their metabolisms didn’t bounce back. In fact, their resting metabolic rate (RMR) was still burning 700 fewer calories per day than when they first started the show. That’s 500 calories less than predictive equations would expect based on their regained body weight. This is a huge deal.

Participants also lost 25 pounds of lean mass during the filming of the show. They did regain about 13 pounds of it, but their RMR didn’t increase accordingly. Usually, regaining lean mass helps boost your metabolism, but not for these contestants. Their bodies were still in “conservation mode.”

Why? Because extreme calorie deficits and grueling exercise regimens wreak havoc on your body’s hormonal systems:

  • Leptin, the hormone that signals fullness and regulates energy expenditure, plummeted during the show. After contestants regained weight, leptin levels rebounded, but their RMR didn’t follow suit. Normally, these two rise and fall together, but the link was severed.
  • These metabolic adaptations weren’t just temporary—they lingered years later, showing that the body doesn’t easily forgive extreme restriction.

What Does This Mean for Us?

Many people think fat loss is all about willpower or psychological resilience. But as this study shows, extreme dieting fundamentally changes your physiology. Your body isn’t just sitting idly while you slash calories; it’s actively fighting back to keep you alive. Once that metabolic “check engine” light goes on, calorie restriction becomes far less effective than it was at the start. This is why dieting feels so much harder over time.

The Cost of Chronic Dieting

The Biggest Loser study highlights the long-term consequences of metabolic adaptation, a normal bodily response to extreme or chronic dieting. Here’s what can happen:

  • Disrupted leptin and ghrelin levels, which throw off hunger and satiety cues.
  • Upregulated adrenal activity and downregulated thyroid and reproductive hormones, leading to weight-loss resistance, missed periods, hair loss, and constant coldness.
  • Loss of muscle mass, which lowers your RMR and makes it harder to maintain fat loss.

This is why I preach: You’ve got to EARN THE RIGHT TO DIET!

Coaching Clients Out of the Yo-Yo Cycle

When new clients come to me, fat loss is often their top goal. But most have already been through cycles of yo-yo dieting, binge eating, and sporadic exercise routines. Many are already in a metabolically downregulated state without realizing it.

Instead of diving into another calorie deficit, we work on stabilizing their foundation first.

  • We focus on sustainable habits: consistent workouts, balanced meals, and a healthier relationship with food.
  • We optimize metabolism through resistance training, proper nutrition, and enough recovery.
  • We work on mindset: reframing negative self-talk, building body confidence, and learning to appreciate progress beyond the scale.

Once we’ve mastered these basics, a fat-loss phase—if desired—becomes a healthier, more effective process.

Your Body Isn’t Broken—It’s Adaptable

The takeaway here? Our bodies are designed to survive famines, not crash diets or “shredding for summer.” You can still have aesthetic goals, but you need to respect the incredible adaptability of your metabolism. By avoiding extremes and building metabolic efficiency, you can achieve your goals without wrecking your long-term health.

Let’s dive into the sneaky sneaky metabolic red flags—the subtle, often-overlooked signs that your metabolism is waving a caution flag without setting off obvious alarms. Here are a few that might fly under the radar:

1. Digestive Woes

  • Persistent constipation, bloating, or irregular bowel movements. These can indicate sluggish digestion linked to metabolic slowdown, as the body conserves energy by slowing non-essential functions.
  • Feeling too full or nauseous after small meals, which could signal a dysregulated gut-brain connection from chronic stress or extreme dieting.
  • How you can start addressing this:
    • Support your gut: Add fermented foods like kefir, sauerkraut, or kimchi for probiotics. Pair these with fiber-rich prebiotics (think asparagus, oats, and onions).
      Ease into meals: Practice mindful eating—slow down, chew thoroughly, and avoid distractions to help your digestion catch up.

2. Resting Heart Rate Changes

  • Lower-than-normal resting heart rate (Sudden spikes in heart rate during light activity could mean your body is stressed and overcompensating.
  • How you can start addressing this:
    • Monitor stress: Incorporate daily relaxation practices like deep breathing, yoga, or meditation to keep your nervous system in check.
    • Increase electrolytes: Boost potassium (bananas, avocados) and magnesium (almonds, spinach or supplements) intake for better heart regulation.

3. Skin and Nail Changes

  • Dry, flaky skin or increased sensitivity to cold due to impaired circulation.
  • Vertical ridges or brittleness in nails, signaling nutrient deficiencies like iron or biotin depletion.
  • How you can start addressing this:
    • Prioritize nutrient-dense animal foods: Incorporate foods like beef liver (rich in vitamin A and zinc), pasture-raised egg yolks, and grass-fed butter for skin elasticity and nail strength.
    • Collagen and gelatin: Include bone broth or collagen-rich cuts like oxtail and shanks to support skin, hair, and nails from the inside out.
    • Omega-3s from wild-caught fish: Salmon, mackerel, and sardines are excellent for reducing inflammation and promoting healthy skin.
    • Hydration through broths: Instead of plain water, hydrate with mineral-rich broths or herbal teas to balance electrolytes and nourish your body.

4. Random Muscle Cramps or Twitches

  • Could be a result of electrolyte imbalances from overexercising or undereating.
  • How to start addressing this:
    • Balance electrolytes: Add a quality electrolyte supplement, especially if you sweat a lot during workouts.
    • Stretch + magnesium: Use stretches and add magnesium glycinate or citrate before bed to reduce cramps.

5 Brain Fog and Forgetfulness

  • Struggling to focus or experiencing slower mental processing, which can result from inadequate glucose availability or dysregulated cortisol levels.
  • How to start addressing this:
    • Fuel your brain: Don’t fear carbs—opt for slow-digesting options like sweet potatoes or quinoa. Pair them with protein and fats for sustained energy.
    • Blood sugar balance: Keep meals consistent in timing and composition (protein + fat + fiber) to avoid crashes.

6. Reduced Appetite

  • Wait, what? Yes! A suppressed appetite after prolonged dieting is a sneaky sign of a dampened leptin response, your body’s way of conserving energy.
  • How to start addressing this:
    • Eat smaller, nutrient-dense meals: Focus on foods that pack a punch like eggs, nuts, and Greek yogurt to avoid overwhelming your system.
    • Gentle refeeding: Gradually increase calories, especially from whole, unprocessed sources, to rebuild your body’s trust. (We talk about this further down in the blog!)

7. Waking Up Exhausted

  • Even after a full night’s sleep, waking up feeling like you didn’t rest at all can be due to poor recovery from stress or disrupted sleep stages (thanks, cortisol and ghrelin!).
  • How to start addressing this:
    • Improve sleep hygiene: No screens an hour before bed, a dark room, and consistent bedtime routines can work wonders.
    • Focus on protein at breakfast: A high-protein breakfast (30-40g) stabilizes cortisol and sets you up for better energy.

8. Dull Libido or No Interest in Sex

  • A metabolic system that’s in survival mode often deprioritizes reproduction.
  • How to start addressing this:
    • Check hormones: Get labs done to check for imbalances in thyroid, sex hormones, or cortisol.
    • Increase zinc: Shellfish, beef, and pumpkin seeds are great for boosting hormones like testosterone.

9. Random Injuries or Slow Healing

  • Susceptibility to injuries like strains or joint pain, and delayed recovery from workouts or cuts, hinting at insufficient energy and nutrients for repair.
  • How to start addressing this:
    • Focus on anti-inflammatory foods: Fatty fish, berries, and leafy greens can help repair tissue.
    • Scale back intensity: Opt for lighter workouts until your body starts feeling strong again.

These subtle signs don’t scream “your metabolism is broken!”—but together, they can whisper it pretty loudly. 

So, finally, what do I mean when I say, “Earn the right to diet”?

We are now talking strategy. Nutrition isn’t a one-size-fits-all, all-the-time thing. It’s seasonal, just like nature.

  • Maintenance Season: Focus on balance and consistency.
  • Fat Loss Season: Create a calorie deficit strategically and temporarily.
  • Reverse Dieting Season: Slowly increase calories post-diet to avoid rebound weight gain.

This approach, called nutritional periodization, prevents the long-term damage we’ve seen in extreme dieters (ahem, Biggest Loser contestants). Instead of burning out your metabolism, you give your body time to adapt and recover.

Nutritional Periodization: The Real Secret Sauce

Timelines for nutritional periodization will vary depending on the person, but the framework is a progressive process. It involves:

  • Gradually increasing calories to support your metabolism.
  • Shifting fitness priorities from cardio-heavy routines to strength-focused programming that builds muscle and improves body composition.
  • Reviving your mindset to understand that fat loss does not automatically mean a better body image or more happiness.

Now, let’s talk about maintenance—the often-overlooked MVP of this entire process.

The Maintenance Window: The Ultimate Flex

Most people gloss over maintenance because it’s not glamorous. There’s no scale-dropping dopamine hit or big “reveal.” But here’s the truth: maintenance is where the magic happens.

  • It’s where you rebuild your metabolism, so when you eventually do enter a fat loss phase, your body responds the way you want.
  • It’s where you master the “basics” (which, by the way, aren’t easy): meal prep, consistent workouts, and stress management.
  • It’s where you cultivate a relationship with food that isn’t all-or-nothing.

Let me share a story to illustrate this:

The Client Who Wanted It Harder

A client came to me desperate to lose weight. She was frustrated with her stomach area and hated the way her clothes fit. I got it. Her pain was real. Her goals were valid. But as we talked, it became clear there was a bigger picture:

  • She had a shoulder injury that limited her workouts.
  • She struggled with GERD, a digestive issue worsened by stress.
  • She was so busy managing her job that she’d forget to eat or rely on takeout for meals.

She was eating roughly 1,400–1,700 calories a day—barely enough for a toddler, let alone a busy adult who wanted to lose weight. Most fat loss programs will have the client start by cutting 15–20% of their total daily intake– from that would’ve been impossible to sustain and would’ve made her health even worse.

I explained this to her. We needed to focus on foundational habits first:

  • Improving digestion by reducing stress and eating whole, nutrient-dense meals.
  • Packing her own lunches instead of relying on fast food.
  • Building strength in the gym without aggravating her shoulder.

About six weeks in, she hit me with this: “This needs to be harder. If it were harder, I’d be doing it.”

I was floored. She was so used to crash diets and extreme programs that not suffering felt wrong to her. I realized we weren’t aligned in values. I told her:

“There are plenty of coaches who will take your money and throw you into a calorie deficit, but that’s not how I practice. I’m about health first, and I won’t compromise on that.”

Why Maintenance Matters

This is exactly why earning the right to diet is critical. If you can’t master the basics in maintenance—like fueling your body properly, managing stress, and being consistent—then making it harder by cutting calories and ramping up exercise will only set you up for failure.

Maintenance is a big deal because it prepares your body and mind for success when the time comes for a fat-loss phase. It’s not just about burning calories; it’s about building a life you can sustain.

If you’re thinking, “This sounds too slow,” remember:

  1. Your body adapts to chronic dieting as a survival mechanism.
  2. Maintenance isn’t a punishment—it’s freedom.
  3. When done right, fat loss becomes easier, healthier, and more effective later.

IN CLOSING! Health First, Always

To wrap this up, I want you to remember one thing: fat loss can be a goal, but it should never come at the expense of your health. By focusing on metabolism, hormones, and habits first, you’re setting yourself up for sustainable success.

A HOLISTIC REBOOT STRATEGY

  1. Reverse Diet Smartly: If you’ve been in a calorie deficit for too long, increase calories by 50-100 per week, focusing on whole, nutrient-dense foods.
  2. Lower Exercise Volume Temporarily: Shift to resistance training 3-4x per week, and sprinkle in restorative activities like walking or Pilates.
  3. Micronutrient Check: Get a blood test to address any vitamin or mineral deficiencies—common culprits are iron, B12, and vitamin D.
  4. Track Baseline Metrics: Keep an eye on resting heart rate, body temperature (shouldn’t be too low), and energy levels to monitor progress. What is biofeedback and why is it so important?
  5. Patience: You didn’t get here overnight, and reversing these adaptations will take time. Celebrate small wins along the way!

The key is sustainability. Think of this as a long-term investment in metabolic health, not a quick fix.

If you enjoyed this episode, share it with someone who’s caught in the cycle of dieting frustration. Let’s help them break free and find a better way forward.

Posted on in americanpolitics, biblicalworldview, challenges, christianfaith, christianpatriarchy, coercivecontrol, cults, deconstruction, faith, freedom, influencers, manipulation, mental health, mentalhealth, mindset, misinformation, moms, podcast, politics, progressives, religion, resilence, self-help, selfcompassion, socialjustice, socialmedia, spiritualabuse, stress, stressresilence, testimonies, theology, trad wife, trump, wellness, womenssuffrage, worldview

1984 and The Handmaid’s Tale: Misplaced Parallels and Liberal Delusion

Breaking Free: A Conversation with Yasmine Mohammed on Radical Islam, Empowerment, and the West’s Blind Spots

After finishing George Orwell’s 1984, I noticed its resurgence in popularity, especially after Trump’s election. Ironically, it’s not the conservative right but the progressive left that increasingly mirrors Orwellian themes. Similarly, Margaret Atwood’s The Handmaid’s Tale has become a rallying cry for liberals who claim to be on the brink of a dystopian theocracy. Yet, as Yasmine Muhammad pointed out in this week’s episode, this comparison is not only absurd but deeply insulting to women who live under regimes where Atwood’s fiction is a grim reality.

1984: Rewriting Language and History

The Democratic Party’s obsession with redefining language is straight out of Orwell’s playbook. They tell us biology is bigotry and that there are infinite genders, forcing people to adopt nonsensical pronouns or risk social ostracism. This is not progress—it’s the weaponization of language to control thought, eerily similar to Orwell’s Newspeak.

But it doesn’t stop there. They actively rewrite history by renaming monuments, military bases, and even schools, erasing cultural markers in the name of ideological purity. This is doublespeak in action: the manipulation of truth for political orthodoxy. Orwell’s warning that “orthodoxy is unconsciousness” feels disturbingly apt when observing the modern left.

The Handmaid’s Tale: An Insult to Women Who Actually Suffer

In our conversation, Yasmine highlighted the absurdity of liberal claims that America is The Handmaid’s Tale come to life. Yasmine, who grew up under Islamic theocracy, knows firsthand what it’s like to live in a world where women have no autonomy. These women cannot see a doctor without a male guardian, are forced to cover every inch of their bodies, and are denied basic freedoms like education or the right to drive.

Contrast this with the West, where women have more freedom than any other point in history. Liberal women can run around naked at Pride parades, freely express their sexuality, and redefine what it means to be a woman altogether. And yet, they cry oppression because they are expected to pay for their own birth control or endure debates over abortion limits. This level of cognitive dissonance—claiming victimhood while living in unprecedented freedom—is a slap in the face to women who actually suffer under real patriarchal oppression.

Liberal Orthodoxy: Lost in the Sauce

What’s truly Orwellian is how the left uses its freedom to strip others of theirs. They shout about inclusivity but cancel anyone who disagrees. They claim to fight for justice while weaponizing institutions to enforce ideological conformity. Meanwhile, they are so consumed with their own victim complex that they fail to see how absurd their comparisons to dystopian fiction really are.

Orwell and Atwood warned against unchecked power and ideological extremism. If liberals actually read these books instead of using them as aesthetic props, they might realize they’re mirroring the very authoritarianism they claim to oppose. Instead, they’re lost in the sauce, preaching oppression in a society where they have more freedom than they can handle.

As Yasmine said, “You want to see The Handmaid’s Tale? Try being a woman in Saudi Arabia, Iran, or Afghanistan.” The left would do well to remember that before playing the victim in their cosplay dystopia.

Posted on in brainfog, brainhealth, carbs, challenges, dietculture, digestion, exercise, fitness, goal setting, gratitude, guthealth, health, holidays, holistic health, hormones, hypothyroidism, masterthebasics, mental health, mentalhealth, metabolism, mindset, misinformation, MLMS, multilevelmarketing, new years resolution, newyeargoals, nuance, nutrition, nutritionalscience, physiology, podcast, pseudoscience, sales, scams, science, self-help, sleep, stress, stressresilence, thyroid health, weightloss, wellness

Ditch the Quick Fix: Building Habits That Actually Stick

Reframing the New Year: Rejecting Quick Fixes for Sustainable Growth

Welcome to Season 3 of Taste of Truth Tuesdays! 🎉 We’re kicking off with a bang, diving deep into a topic near and dear to my heart. After two decades in the fitness industry, I’ve got some game-changing insights, tips, and no-nonsense truths to share. You won’t want to miss a single minute of today’s episode💪✨

The New Year is here, and you’ve probably seen the tidal wave of ads pushing detoxes, cleanses, and resets. Let me stop you right there: NO, you do NOT need a detox, cleanse, or reset after the holidays.

When I say, “quick fix,” what comes to mind? Maybe it’s a detox tea promising to cleanse your system, a miracle shake that claims to replace your meals, or even the latest pharmaceutical weight-loss drug like Ozempic, used off label and hailed as the “solution” to stubborn fat. Quick fixes thrive on our desperation for immediate results. They’re marketed as shortcuts—whispering, “This will solve all your problems,” no patience or hard work required. 🫣

But here’s the hard truth: quick fixes rarely fix anything. Whether it’s a detox, a cleanse, or a medication designed to suppress your appetite, they often bypass the root causes of your concerns. They don’t teach you how to nourish your body or rebuild a healthy relationship with food. Instead, they slap a band-aid on symptoms while creating long-term consequences for your metabolism, hormones, and mental well-being.

Take Ozempic, for example. While it’s been touted as a “miracle” weight-loss drug, there are some serious health warnings that aren’t always front and center. As with significant weight loss in general, some people using these drugs experience muscle loss and lower bone density, increasing the risk of injury—especially for older adults.

In animal studies, semaglutide (the drug behind Ozempic) has been linked to an increased risk of thyroid cancer, including medullary thyroid carcinoma. While we don’t yet know if this risk translates to humans, it’s something to be aware of—especially if you have a family history of thyroid conditions. And let’s not forget the FDA’s 2023 warning about potential intestinal blockage associated with these medications, although the evidence so far shows it’s more about slowed gastric emptying and vomiting mimicking an obstruction.

And here’s the kicker—while these quick fixes promise to reshape your body in a short period, they often come with a slew of side effects that are rarely discussed. The key to managing those risks? Pay attention to your diet, listen to your body, and stay hydrated. But I can’t help but wonder: is the price tag on this “quick fix” really worth it?

In my own journey, I repeatedly fell for these promises—from replacing real food with Smart Start cereal, to taking ephedra and green tea energy pills in high school, and in my 30s, chasing the next shake, cleanse, or some ridiculous holistic protocol that promised to transform my body overnight. Spoiler alert: it never worked the way I hoped, and sometimes, it made things worse.

Today, we’re pulling back the curtain on quick fixes, diving into why they’re so appealing, and exposing the truth about detoxes, cleanses, and even medications like Ozempic. Because your health deserves more than a shortcut—it deserves a sustainable, thoughtful approach rooted in a long-term sense of well-being.

Let’s start by breaking down the dangers of these so-called “solutions” and why they often cause more harm than good.

🚨 The Dangers of Detoxes and Cleanses

Let me start by sharing a bit about my personal experience with Isagenix, an MLM I was involved in for four years. Their program revolved around “shake days” and “cleanse days.” Shake days required replacing two meals with shakes, leaving you with just 1,200-1,500 calories a day. Cleanse days were even more extreme: 24-48 hours of intermittent fasting where you consumed only “approved” snacks—essentially glorified candies from their product line.

These cleanse days were touted as the secret to triggering autophagy, “cleaning up your cells,” and building muscle while shedding fat. But for me, the reality couldn’t have been further from the sales pitch. Instead of gaining energy, building muscle, or feeling cleansed, I experienced fatigue, hormonal disruptions, and a worsening relationship with food.

I want to clarify here: if you’re under the care of a well-educated, integrative professional who has run labs and prescribed a short-term liver cleanse or restrictive protocol tailored to your needs, this isn’t directed at you. I’m talking to the folks who, like me, were misled by the marketing tactics of supplement companies, MLMs, and Pinterest ads. These programs prey on our insecurities while delivering none of the promised benefits.

Here’s why these quick-fix detoxes and cleanses are more harmful than helpful:

They Deplete Your Energy Over Time

On those “cleanse days,” I often felt like I was running on fumes. Severely restricting food intake forces your body to pull from its energy reserves, leaving you fatigued, irritable, and unable to function optimally.
Over time, this restriction triggers metabolic adaptation, slowing down your metabolism to conserve energy. Instead of speeding up fat loss, it makes your body cling to every calorie it gets, making future weight management even harder.

They Disrupt Hormonal Health

My cleanse days wreaked havoc on my hormones. The lack of consistent nourishment interferes with thyroid hormone conversion and overactivated the adrenal glands, increasing cortisol production. Chronic high cortisol levels undermine immunity, energy, and mood.
For women, the risks are even greater. Prolonged restriction sends your body into survival mode, disrupting your reproductive hormones. I dealt with irregular periods, cold extremities, and even hair thinning—all signs that my body was prioritizing survival over reproduction.

They Create Nutritional Deficiencies

When you cut out food, you cut out nutrients. The shakes and supplements from Isagenix were marketed as “nutritionally complete,” but they couldn’t compare to the diversity and richness of whole foods. This reliance on synthetic supplements is not a sustainable way to meet your nutritional needs.

They Damage Your Relationship with Food

One of the most insidious effects of these programs was how they warped my relationship with food. By constantly restricting and “cleansing,” I lost touch with hunger cues and began seeing food as the enemy. At one point, my appetite diminished, which might sound like a win in hustle culture, but it was actually a red flag. Our bodies need food to fuel productivity, creativity, and overall well-being. Sacrificing health in the name of hustle isn’t the flex diet culture makes it out to be.

The Bottom Line

Programs like the one I was involved in sell you the illusion of health while delivering energy depletion, hormonal imbalance, and long-term damage to your metabolism. Sustainable growth comes from nourishing your body, listening to its needs, and rejecting the false promises of quick fixes.

If you’re considering a cleanse or detox, ask yourself: is this supporting my long-term health, or am I falling for a marketing gimmick? 

💡 What Your Body Actually Needs

Your body thrives on consistency, nourishment, and balance. That’s why the 365 Easy Challenge focuses on six foundational habits to create sustainable growth:

  • Gratitude – Build a positive mindset by reflecting daily on what you’re thankful for.
  • Digestion – Support your gut with mindful eating practices and nourishing foods.
  • Sleep – Prioritize restorative rest to boost energy and metabolism.
  • Mindset/Self Talk – By reframing, shift your mindset to approach challenges with resilience.
  • Stress Management & Nutrition – Balance your life and plate without extremes.

These habits aren’t about perfection—they’re about progress. You can join in any time and make this year about sustainable, steady growth. One phrase I often say often to clients:

“Slow is steady and steady is fast.”

Seven Things I Wish I Knew Sooner

In this episode, we’re tackling the first four lessons I wish I’d learned earlier in my nutrition and fitness journey. These are insights that can save you time, frustration, and even your health.

1. Extreme Diets Have Extreme Consequences

If you’ve ever thought, “I just need to cut calories harder,” let me stop you right there. Extreme diets may promise quick results, but they come with a hefty price tag on your body.

Research, such as the Biggest Loser Study (PMID: 27136388), reveals a major roadblock: metabolic adaptation. Your body isn’t wired for vanity; it’s wired for survival. When you restrict calories excessively, your body compensates to preserve energy—this can continue for years after the diet ends (PMID: 35729736).

Here’s what that looks like:

  • Calorie restriction becomes less effective over time.
  • Your metabolic rate slows down, making it harder to maintain or continue fat loss.
  • You feel frustrated, but it’s your body hitting the brakes, not your willpower failing.

Takeaway: Your body isn’t out to sabotage you; it’s protecting you. The solution? Nutritional periodization. Incorporate diet breaks, maintenance phases, and even reverse dieting to minimize these adaptations.

2. Restrictive Diets Wreck Hormonal Health

Chronic or yo-yo dieting isn’t just stressful for your mind—it’s a major stressor for your body. Prolonged restrictions can negatively impact your:

  • Adrenal system: Chronic stress triggers the HPA axis, increasing cortisol. While cortisol is essential in moderation, consistently high levels can negatively impact energy, mood, and immunity.
  • Thyroid: High stress interferes with TSH production and the conversion of thyroid hormones, which are vital for metabolism.
  • Reproductive hormones: Missing or irregular periods, hair loss, and constant coldness? These are signs your body isn’t feeling “safe” enough to prioritize reproduction.

Minimum body fat is necessary to maintain reproductive health, especially for women. Hormones like progesterone, critical for ovulation and metabolism, rely on nutrient availability and a sense of safety

Takeaway: Your body isn’t the enemy—it’s doing its best with the fuel and signals you’re giving it. Support your hormones by eating enough, maintaining balance, and avoiding extreme restrictions. PMID: 2282736

3. Exercise + Intermittent Fasting = Double Trouble for Women

Adding intense exercise to intermittent fasting might sound like a fast track to results, but for women, it’s a recipe for dysfunction. Here’s why:

Women’s bodies are highly sensitive to kisspeptin, a neuropeptide critical for reproductive and endocrine health. Diets like keto and intermittent fasting can disrupt kisspeptin production, leading to:

  • Endocrine dysfunction.
  • Menstrual irregularities.
  • Depression and increased abdominal fat (yes, the opposite of what you wanted).

Half of all active women aren’t eating enough to support basic functions, let alone training. The long-term impact? Impaired thyroid function, stalled muscle growth, and metabolic imbalance.

Takeaway: Women need nourishment, especially when training hard. Fasting and exercise together often do more harm than good, leaving your body stressed instead of thriving.

PMID: 29860237
PMCID: PMC4818825
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41574-020-0363-7
Dr. Stacy Sims

4. A Healthy Relationship with Exercise is Flexible and Fulfilling

Exercise is amazing for your body and mind, but even a good thing can become harmful when taken to extremes.

Exercise addiction is a compulsive engagement in physical activity, despite negative consequences. It often comes with:

  • Excessive rules and rigidity.
  • Feelings of shame before, during, or after workouts.
  • Withdrawal symptoms when unable to exercise.

In contrast, a healthy relationship with exercise is:

  • Flexible: It allows for variety in movement types and durations.
  • Fulfilling: It’s rooted in joy and self-care, not punishment or guilt.

Takeaway: The best kind of movement is the one that enriches your life, not rules it. Exercise should add value to your day, not take away from it.

✨ Let’s Leave Hustle Culture in 2024👋

Hustle culture says, “Eat less, work more, and sacrifice rest to succeed.” This mindset isn’t empowering—it’s exhausting. This year, let’s prioritize health over hustle and choose habits that energize rather than deplete.

The 365 Easy Challenge is here to help you make that shift. Whether it’s gratitude, better sleep, or balanced nutrition, these small steps add up to big changes over time.

Takeaway for 2025: This year, skip the detox and focus on what truly works: habits that honor your body’s needs, not a quick-fix fantasy. If you’re ready to embrace sustainable growth, join the 365 Easy Challenge and start building a foundation for lifelong health.

Easy 365 ChallengeDownload

It’s never too late to jump in—let’s grow together!