Are we wearing poison? Let’s talk the Hidden Chemistry of Modern Clothing
We obsess over what goes into our bodies (the food we eat, the supplements we take) but what about what touches our skin every day? From Victorian gowns to modern period underwear, the history of fashion is riddled with invisible chemicals that make us sick, sometimes quietly, sometimes catastrophically.
In this week’s Taste of Truth Tuesdays, we explore the hidden chemistry in the fabrics we wear, the cultural stories that taught us to hide what’s natural, and small steps we can take to reclaim autonomy over our own bodies.
I sat down with Arielle, founder of Flower Girl, a brand reimagining period underwear with natural, breathable fibers— no toxic coatings, no gimmicks. But this episode isn’t just about a product. It’s about the invisible chemistry that touches our skin, and the cultural stories that taught us to hide what’s natural while normalizing what’s toxic.
🧵 A Brief History of Poisonous Fashion
From Victorian gowns to modern athleisure, fashion has a long history of exposing us (sometimes invisibly) to chemicals that affect our health. Here’s a quick dive:
Victorian Era: Those green dresses weren’t just a statement— they were laced with arsenic, and mercury-based pigments were common. The result? Rashes, lung damage, even death. Fashion literally killed.
Early 1900s: Factory workers handled lead, aniline dyes, and formaldehyde finishes. Mercury made hat-makers insane, while young women painting radium watch dials suffered bone decay and radiation poisoning.
Mid-20th century: Synthetic fabrics like nylon and polyester promised convenience and comfort — but chemical coatings for stain-proofing, wrinkle-free finishes, and flame retardants added a new layer of invisible toxins.
Modern Toxic Threads
Fast-forward to today, and the chemical story hasn’t improved much:
Plastic fibers (polyester, nylon, spandex): Shed microplastics into waterways and can absorb and re-release toxins through skin contact with these substances. And yes— even period products aren’t safe from the chemical experiment.
PFAS (“forever chemicals”): Used for stain- and water-resistance in yoga pants, athleisure, and some period underwear. Linked to hormone disruption, infertility, thyroid disease, and cancer.
Formaldehyde finishes: Wrinkle-free clothing often contains formaldehyde, a known skin irritant and probable carcinogen.
Azo dyes & heavy metals: Cheap and fast-fashion fabrics often use dyes with heavy metals, which can trigger allergic reactions and long-term organ toxicity.
Some of the most publicized cases show just how pervasive these risks are:
Thinx Period Underwear (2023): Independent testing revealed PFAS in products marketed as organic and “clean,” sparking lawsuits and class-action settlements. Even items sold as safe aren’t always free from hidden chemicals.
Flight Attendant Uniforms: Airlines like Alaska, Delta, and American faced reports of workers developing rashes, respiratory issues, and thyroid problems after new uniforms were treated with PFAS or formaldehyde coatings.
Outdoor & Athleisure Brands:Major brands like Patagonia, Lululemon, and REI have been scrutinized for PFAS in waterproof or sweat-wicking gear, showing that convenience and performance often come at a chemical cost.
Globally, more than 40,000 chemicals are used in textiles and apparel, yet only a fraction have been tested for safety— for humans, animals, or the environment. These scandals aren’t isolated; they reflect a system where toxic exposure is often invisible, normalized, and poorly regulated.
A 2024 study from UC Berkeley and Columbia found 16 different metals (including lead and arsenic) in tampons across both organic and non-organic brands. The levels were low, but researchers warned that the vaginal route is especially absorbent— a reminder that what we wear inside our bodies matters as much as what we eat.
💬 From Ritual Impurity to Hygiene Marketing
Over the last century, the cultural messaging around menstruation has shifted in a few distinct stages and each one carried the same underlying expectation: women should hide and control their bodies.
Ritual or moral framing (ancient to early modern): In many societies, including biblical times, periods were treated as a matter of ritual purity. Women were temporarily “unclean” in religious or social terms, meaning they couldn’t participate in certain activities. The focus was spiritual or moral, not about hygiene or appearance.
Hygiene framing (early 20th century): With industrialization and the rise of consumer products, periods were recast as a hygiene problem. Ads emphasized cleanliness and odor control, implying that menstruation was inherently messy or dangerous. Women were encouraged to conceal their cycles, but the emphasis was still largely about avoiding germs and embarrassment.
Performance framing (mid-to-late 20th century onward): Marketing and media shifted the conversation again, this time framing periods as an obstacle to a woman’s ability to perform socially, professionally, and physically. Products promised to let women stay active, go to work, exercise, and socialize “normally”, without anyone noticing their period. The message became: your body is natural, but it shouldn’t interfere with the image of a controlled, capable, and flawless woman.
In other words, the period itself didn’t change, but what society demanded of women did. “Performance” here doesn’t mean athletics alone— it means the expectation that women should navigate daily life seamlessly, keeping their bodies’ natural processes invisible, as if menstruation were a glitch in an otherwise perfect system.
🌍 The New Awareness
Today’s “wellness” world loves to market empowerment but secretly it’s still selling control. Arielle’s work with Flower Girl pushes against that. Her goal isn’t fearmongering about chemicals; it is about helping women rebuild trust with their own bodies, starting with the fabrics that touch them daily.
Because true control over your body is about sovereignty, not ideology.
What we wear, what we absorb, and how we relate to our cycles all tell a deeper story about modern womanhood…. one that’s overdue for rewriting.
Next Steps: What You Can Do
Read Labels Critically: Seek out brands that disclose fabric treatments and avoid PFAS, formaldehyde, or undisclosed chemical finishes. Wicker highlights the challenge in identifying safe clothing due to the lack of ingredient transparency, urging consumers to demand more disclosure from manufacturers.
Prioritize Natural Fibers: Opt for materials like cotton, bamboo, or other certified breathable fabrics to reduce your chemical load. Wicker notes that while natural fibers are generally safer, it’s crucial to ensure they are not treated with harmful chemicals during processing.
Wash New Clothes: Especially synthetics- washing before first wear can remove some surface chemicals. Wicker advises washing new garments to reduce initial chemical exposure, particularly from dyes and finishes.
Choose Sustainable Period Products: Brands like Flower Girl use body-safe fabrics designed for comfort, breathability, and longevity— and are tested for safety. Wicker emphasizes the importance of selecting period products that are free from toxic chemicals, as these items are in close contact with sensitive areas of the body.
Advocate for Transparency: Demand that brands tell you what’s in your clothing. Knowledge is power, and the more we ask, the more companies will act. Wicker encourages consumers to be vocal about their concerns, as increased demand for transparency can drive industry-wide change.
🎧 Listen In
Tune in to this week’s Taste of Truth Tuesdays episode, “What’s Really in Our Clothes (and What That Says About Us)”, where Arielle and I unpack the hidden toxins in textiles, the myths around “clean” wellness marketing, and what it really means to live in a body that’s free— not just from chemicals, but from shame.
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.
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.
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.
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:
Watch critically: Ask, “What is this really teaching me?”
Respect biology: Your body fights extreme restriction—it’s not lazy or weak.
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! 🎙️🔒
If you’re a woman in midlife witnessing changes in your body, let’s be honest—hearing one more expert say “just move more and eat less” might make you scream. That tired, oversimplified advice ignores the very real ways our bodies change—and the decades of life we’ve already lived in them.
Midlife, generally defined as the ages between 37 and 65, isn’t just a calendar phase. It’s a biological, emotional, and identity-shifting chapter. For women, it often marks the beginning of perimenopause—the transitional period leading up to menopause, when the ovaries gradually produce less estrogen. Menopause itself is defined as the 12-month mark after your final menstrual period, but the hormonal fluctuations and symptoms often begin years before and can last well beyond that point.
To really understand what’s happening in our bodies now, we have to rewind the clock.
From puberty, our bodies have been shaped by an elegant hormonal dance. Estrogen, progesterone, and to a lesser extent testosterone, govern everything from our cycle to our skin, from our energy to our emotional responses. These hormones rise and fall in predictable patterns until they don’t. And when they don’t, you feel it.
Hot flashes. Sleep disruptions. Brain fog. Mood swings. Slower recovery from workouts. A scale that doesn’t seem to budge no matter what you do. And the silent undercurrents like the gradual loss of bone density—osteopenia—that often go unnoticed until it’s too late.
These aren’t random annoyances. They’re signals. And they deserve to be understood.
In this post and in today’s podcast episode, I talk with registered dietitian and research wizard Maryann Jacobsen about what actually helps us thrive during perimenopause and menopause. We get into why muscle is metabolic gold, why cardio isn’t always the answer, and how biofeedback your body’s own cues like hunger, energy, sleep, and mood can tell you more about what’s working than any calorie tracker or influencer’s reel ever could.
We also challenge the idea that your bathroom scale is the best measure of health. Spoiler alert: it’s not. Tools like DEXA scans provide deeper insight into your bone density and lean mass—two things that matter more than “weight” ever could in this stage of life. And while your smart scale using bioelectrical impedance might not be as accurate, it can still help you track general trends if you know how to interpret it.
One part of our conversation that hit me hard was Maryann’s mention of the body fat research around fertility. Scientists have found that a minimum of 17% body fat is required just to get a menstrual cycle, and about 22% is needed to maintain ovulation. But here’s the real shocker: in mature women, regular ovulatory cycles are often supported best at 26–28% body fat. (PMID: 3117838, 2282736) That means what many of us have been taught to chase ultra-lean physiques (around 17 BF% or so), chronic calorie restriction, or overtraining can actually backfire on our reproductive health, bone health, and overall vitality.
In populations where food is scarce or physical demands are high, we see patterns: delayed first periods, longer gaps between births, earlier menopause. It’s the body adapting for survival. But in modern life, we sometimes impose these same conditions on ourselves in the name of “fitness.”
And while estrogen usually gets the spotlight in menopause care often treated as the main character it’s progesterone that deserves a standing ovation. Many women are told they “need progesterone” just to protect themselves from estrogen’s effects, as if it’s merely a buffer. But that undersells its brilliance.
The name progesterone literally means “pro-gestation,” but its impact goes far beyond fertility. Progesterone is a master regulator. It stabilizes tissues, supports metabolic balance, calms inflammation, protects against stress, and even plays a role in brain health. While estrogen stimulates, progesterone shields. While estrogen builds, progesterone restores.
Fascinatingly, our bodies produce far more progesterone than estrogen especially after ovulation and during pregnancy. That’s not a fluke. It reflects just how critical progesterone is to our overall well-being.
So when ovulation slows or disappears in midlife, it’s not just your period going quiet. It’s this entire downstream network of hormonal resilience especially progesterone that starts to fade. And that’s when symptoms ramp up.
Understanding this isn’t just about managing menopause. It’s about honoring your biology, updating your strategy, and supporting your body like the powerful, responsive system it actually is.
If we want to balance and optimize our hormones in midlife, we have to re-evaluate our goals. This isn’t about grinding harder it’s about getting smarter. And to get smarter, we need to zoom out.
Ovulation isn’t just some fertility footnote-it’s the main event of your cycle. But many of us were taught that the bleed is the cycle. Nope. That’s just the after-party. The headliner? Ovulation.
Why does this matter in midlife?
Because ovulation is what triggers the production of progesterone a hormone that plays a critical role in metabolism, mood, sleep, brain function, and bone health. And spoiler: progesterone is the first to dip off the radar as we enter perimenopause. That’s why your energy feels off, your sleep gets weird, and your tolerance for stress tanks. Your body isn’t broken—it’s adapting.
Here’s where things click into place: your body will only ovulate consistently if it feels safe and nourished. That means you’re eating enough, not overtraining, and not living in a cortisol-fueled chaos spiral.
Ovulation isn’t just about reproduction it’s a vital sign of health. And the two hormones that anchor your entire cycle, estrogen and progesterone, do so much more than regulate periods.
From bone density to brain function, from insulin sensitivity to mitochondrial health, these hormones influence nearly every system in your body. So, when they fluctuate…. or flatline… you feel it. Not just in your body, but in your entire day to day experience.
So, let’s break the rules, rewrite the midlife playbook, and finally start listening to the wisdom our bodies have been whispering all along.
The Fatal Flaws of Calories In Calories Out and the Metabolism Model That Could Change Everything
Alright, let’s talk about the four most useless words in the history of weight loss advice: ‘Just eat less, move more.’ You’ve heard it, I’ve heard it, and if this phrase actually worked the way people think it does, we wouldn’t have skyrocketing rates of obesity, metabolic dysfunction, and entire industries built around yo-yo dieting. But here’s the kicker—it sounds logical. Simple math, right? Calories in, calories out. Except the human body is not a bank account; it’s a biological orchestra, and the way we process energy is more like a symphony than a spreadsheet.
We’ve already tackled the oversimplified calorie-counting dogma in our Science Dogma episode, and we’ve explored how perception alone—like believing a milkshake is ‘indulgent’—can literally alter our hormonal response. That’s not woo-woo, that’s science. But today, we’re going deeper. Because beyond the CICO model, beyond the calorie obsession, there’s a much bigger, messier, and more fascinating reality about metabolism, obesity, and why diet advice keeps failing people.
And I know what some of you might be thinking—‘But Megan, are you saying calories don’t matter?’ No. I’m saying they don’t tell the whole story. The way we eat, when we eat, why we eat, our hormones, stress levels, metabolic adaptations, even our past dieting history—all of it plays into how our body responds to food.
So as we close out Season 3 of Taste of Truth Tuesday, I want to leave you with something foundational. Not another diet trend. Not another oversimplified soundbite. But a real, nuanced conversation about what actually influences metabolism, weight loss, and why some of the most popular strategies—like keto, intermittent fasting, and calorie counting—work for some people but absolutely wreck others.
And here’s the disclaimer—I’m not an advocate for low-carb dieting in general, especially as someone who’s recovered from disordered eating. But my guest today? He eats low-carb and keto. And here’s what I respect—he’s not dogmatic about it. He understands that the real answer to health and weight loss isn’t found in any one-size-fits-all approach. It’s about bio-individuality.
So grab your coffee, take a deep breath, and get ready to rethink everything you thought you knew about metabolism. Let’s do this.
The calorie, as a unit of measurement, has a fascinating history that ties directly into the calories in, calories out (CICO) debate. While many assume the calorie has always been the standard for measuring food energy, its adoption in nutrition is relatively recent and shaped by shifts in scientific understanding, industry influence, and public health narratives.
The Origin of the Calorie
The concept of the calorie originated in physics, not nutrition. In the early 19th century, Nicolas Clément, a French chemist, introduced the term calorie as a measure of heat energy. By the late 1800s, scientists like Wilbur Olin Atwater adapted this concept to human metabolism, conducting bomb calorimeter experiments to determine how much energy food provided when burned. Atwater’s Physiological Fuel Values established the foundation for modern caloric values assigned to macronutrients (fat = 9 kcal/g, carbohydrates and protein = 4 kcal/g, alcohol = 7 kcal/g).
The Rise of Caloric Nutrition
By the early 20th century, calories became central to dietary guidelines, especially in public health efforts to address malnutrition. During both World Wars, governments used calorie counts to ration food efficiently. However, as food abundance grew, the focus shifted from ensuring sufficient calorie intake to preventing excess, paving the way for weight-focused dietary interventions.
CICO and the Simplification of Weight Loss
The calories in, calories out model became dominant in the mid-20th century, driven by research showing that weight loss or gain depended on energy balance. The First Law of Thermodynamics—energy cannot be created or destroyed, only transformed—was applied to human metabolism, reinforcing the idea that a calorie surplus leads to weight gain and a deficit to weight loss.
This framework became the foundation of mainstream diet advice, but it often overlooked complexities such as:
Metabolic adaptation (how bodies adjust to calorie deficits)
The thermic effect of food (protein takes more energy to digest than fat or carbs)
Gut microbiome effects on calorie absorption
Psychological and behavioral aspects of eating
Criticism and the Evolution of the Debate
By the late 20th century, challenges to strict CICO thinking emerged. Researchers in endocrinology and metabolism, such as Dr. Robert Lustig and Dr. David Ludwig, highlighted that not all calories affect the body in the same way—insulin regulation, macronutrient composition, and food quality play crucial roles.
Low-carb and ketogenic diet advocates argued that carbohydrate restriction, not just calorie restriction, was key to weight management due to its impact on insulin and fat storage.
I personally think, it’s not just carbs or calories doing this. There are at least 42 factors that impact blood sugar and metabolism. This is something I’ve worked to educate my audience on for years. Carbs are just one piece of the puzzle. Stress, sleep, gut microbiome, meal timing, inflammation, hormonal balance—all of these influence the body’s metabolic “terrain.”
Where Are We Now?
Today, the calorie remains a useful measure, but the conversation has expanded beyond simple energy balance. Researchers acknowledge that while calories matter, factors like food quality, hormonal responses, and individual metabolic differences significantly impact how the body processes energy. The debate now leans toward a more nuanced view.
Now, let’s talk about why this matters.
Today, I’m joined by Adam Kosloff, an author and researcher who isn’t afraid to challenge conventional wisdom—especially when it comes to obesity and metabolism. A Substack post of his, A Righteous Assault on the Absolute Worst Idea in the History of Science, takes a sledgehammer to the dominant ‘calories in, calories out’ model, aka Move More, Eat Less? The Lie That Won’t Die, arguing that our understanding of fat storage is fundamentally broken. Instead, he presents a revolutionary new framework—the Farmer Model—that redefines how we think about metabolism, obesity, and weight loss.
For years, the dominant narrative around weight loss has been depressingly simple: “move more, eat less.” This slogan has been drilled into us by dietitians, doctors, and fitness gurus as if it were an unshakable law of physics. But if it were that simple, why has metabolic disease skyrocketed despite more people tracking their calories and increasing exercise?
Adam challenges the traditional CICO (calories in, calories out) model, not just by saying it’s wrong, but by arguing it is catastrophically misleading. His Farmer Model reframes obesity and metabolic dysfunction as a landscape issue rather than a simple calorie balance equation.
Think of your metabolism like farmland. The most obvious disruptor might be “acid rain”—high-carb, sweet, ultra-processed foods that erode the topsoil, flood the land, and cause metabolic damage (fat storage, inflammation, insulin spikes). But not all disruptions look like a storm.
Sometimes, the changes are more insidious. Maybe those daily lattes weren’t a flood but a subtle shift in the terrain, like over-fertilizing a field. Too much of a good thing, whether dairy proteins or artificial sweeteners, can nudge the metabolic landscape in a way that leads to dysfunction over time.
And here’s the kicker: It’s not just carbs or calories doing this. There are at least 42 factors that impact blood sugar and metabolism. This is something I’ve worked to educate my audience on for years. Carbs are just one piece of the puzzle. Stress, sleep, gut microbiome, meal timing, inflammation, hormonal balance—all of these influence the body’s metabolic “terrain.”
Adam’s latest Substack post, 10 Smackdowns That Lay Waste to CICO, was an absolute banger. The line “Gaze upon these arguments, ye mighty gym bros, and despair…” had me cackling. But beyond the sass, the research was rock solid. In our conversation, we break down some of the most devastating smackdowns against CICO and discuss which ones tend to make the most die-hard calorie counters short-circuit.
The takeaway? The “move more, eat less” doctrine is outdated and incomplete. It’s time for a more sophisticated conversation about metabolism that acknowledges the complexity of the human body rather than reducing it to a basic math equation.
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.
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
Refuse to comply with ideological language. Women are women—not AFABs.
Call out the erasure of sex in medicine and policy. We must advocate for sex-based language in healthcare.
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.
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
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).
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).
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).
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
If you had asked me a year ago why my body hurt so much—why my hips ached, my calves tightened with every step, or why even walking on the treadmill felt like a chore—I would have said it was from overtraining or poor posture. What I couldn’t articulate then was that my pain wasn’t just physical. It was a complex dance involving my nervous system, my fascia, and my body’s attempt to protect itself after years of unresolved trauma.
Our nervous system plays a fundamental role in chronic pain. When we experience physical or emotional trauma, our body reacts by creating a heightened state of alertness. Over time, these experiences are encoded in the nervous system as neurotags—clusters of physical, emotional, and cognitive memories that influence how we react to stress and pain. Chronic pain, I’ve learned, is often an echo of this activation. It’s not just about tight muscles or structural imbalances—it’s a survival mechanism trying to make sense of and respond to past trauma.
This is the story of how I’ve started to untangle it all, and how chronic pain, emotional wounds, and trauma are all intricately tied together in ways I never imagined.
The Connection Between Chronic Pain and Trauma
For years, I treated my body like a machine. During my bodybuilding days, I pushed through discomfort, ignored signs of overtraining, and celebrated soreness as a badge of honor. But what I didn’t understand then was how my nervous system was quietly keeping score.
Chronic pain, I’ve learned, isn’t just about tight muscles or structural imbalances—it’s a survival strategy. When we experience trauma, whether from overtraining, stress, or emotional wounds, our nervous system can get stuck in a heightened state of alertness. It’s like a smoke alarm that keeps going off, long after the fire has been extinguished.
Fascia, the connective tissue that surrounds every muscle and organ in our body, plays a fascinating role in this process. Fascia isn’t just structural—it’s sensory. It’s packed with nerve endings that communicate directly with the brain. When the body perceives danger (even subconsciously), the fascia can tighten, creating patterns of tension that mirror emotional or physical trauma. In my case, that tension showed up in my psoas muscles, my calves, and my lower back—all areas associated with safety and movement.
The more I explored these connections, the more I began to see that pain wasn’t random—it was a message from my body. And it was asking me to listen.
The Power of Neurotags: How Pain and Trauma Intersect
One of the most eye-opening concepts I’ve come across in my journey is the idea of neurotags—a term used to describe the brain’s way of organizing and processing sensory, emotional, and cognitive information. Neurotags are like maps of experiences that are built over time, creating an interconnected network of physical sensations, emotions, and thoughts that work together to form a response to stimuli.
Here’s the kicker: Chronic pain is often stored in these neurotags. When trauma occurs—whether physical, emotional, or psychological—it gets encoded in the nervous system as a pattern. These patterns are not just about the physical experience of pain, but also the emotions and thoughts tied to that experience.
When trauma is stored in the nervous system, it doesn’t just affect how we feel physically; it affects our entire emotional and cognitive landscape. For example, someone who has experienced physical trauma may also experience emotional flashbacks or cognitive distortions that are linked to that experience. These flashbacks are like sudden replays of past trauma, but they don’t just exist in the mind—they can show up physically in the body.
Neurotags, Emotional Flashbacks, and Chronic Pain
Think about it this way: When we experience a traumatic event, our nervous system reacts by encoding that event into a neurotag. This neurotag includes not only the physical sensations (like tightness, pain, or discomfort), but also the emotions (fear, anger, sadness) and cognitive patterns (thoughts like “I am unsafe” or “I am weak”).
Emotional flashbacks happen when the brain reactivates these neurotags, causing the body to respond as if the trauma is happening again. This is why someone with chronic pain may experience intense emotions that seem disproportionate to the physical sensations they’re feeling. The pain can trigger a flashback—a sudden, overwhelming re-experience of trauma that isn’t just mental but is felt deeply in the body.
In my case, the tension I experienced in my hips and lower back was a reflection of both the physical trauma of overtraining and the emotional trauma I had internalized from years of pushing myself too hard and ignoring my body’s signals. When my nervous system encountered stress, it activated these neurotags, making the tension and pain feel more intense and more pervasive. The more I resisted this pain or ignored the emotional connection to it, the worse it became.
How I’m Healing: Creating New Neurotags and Engaging the Vagus Nerve
Understanding neurotags has been revolutionary in how I approach my healing process. The key to healing, I’ve learned, is not simply “fixing” the physical pain but reprogramming the neurotags. This involves creating new patterns that support healing, safety, and relaxation.
One powerful way I’m rewiring my nervous system is by engaging the vagus nerve, the longest cranial nerve that plays a critical role in regulating the parasympathetic nervous system. The vagus nerve is like the body’s “brakes,” helping to turn off the fight-or-flight response and return the body to a state of calm. When activated, it encourages relaxation, emotional regulation, and recovery—exactly what my body needs as I untangle the tension stored in my fascia and nervous system.
Here’s how I’m starting to rewire my system:
Reconnecting with Joyful Movement: I’ve reintroduced activities that make me feel alive, like walking in the garden or playing with my pets. These moments remind me that movement isn’t just about strength—it’s about freedom. By incorporating joyful, non-stressful activities, I’m helping to reinforce new neurotags that associate movement with pleasure and ease.
Reclaiming Safety Through Movement: Instead of high-intensity workouts, I’ve shifted to gentle, functional exercises that strengthen my core and glutes while supporting my nervous system. Slow, mindful movements like glute bridges, bird dogs, and pelvic tilts have become my new best friends. These exercises not only build strength but signal to my nervous system that it’s safe to move.
Releasing Fascia with Love: I’ve embraced somatic practices like gentle rocking, diaphragmatic breathing, and fascia-focused stretches to help release tension. These practices aren’t just physical—they’re a way of telling my body, “You’re safe now.” They help reprogram the neurotags associated with stress and trauma by sending a message of relaxation and calm.
Vagus Nerve Activation: To support my nervous system’s recovery, I’ve incorporated practices that stimulate the vagus nerve, such as slow, deep belly breathing and humming. Breathing deeply into my diaphragm (focusing on long exhales) has been especially helpful in calming my body and signaling to my nervous system that it’s okay to relax. By consciously engaging my vagus nerve, I’m helping shift from the fight-or-flight response into a restorative state.
Rewriting Emotional Patterns: Rewiring my nervous system also means rewriting my emotional patterns. This involves acknowledging the emotional flashbacks that arise when pain triggers old neurotags and consciously choosing to respond with compassion and self-care. Instead of reacting with fear or frustration, I’m learning to pause, breathe, and remind myself that I’m safe now.
What Chronic Pain Has Taught Me
Chronic pain has been a tough teacher, but it’s taught me lessons I wouldn’t trade for anything:
Your body is always on your side. Pain is a signal, not a punishment.
Healing isn’t linear. Some days, progress looks like resting instead of pushing.
Movement is medicine, but only when done with intention and love.
I share this journey because I know I’m not alone. So many of us carry the weight of trauma—both emotional and physical—in our bodies. And while the road to healing isn’t easy, it’s worth it.
If you’re navigating chronic pain, I want you to know this: Your body isn’t broken, and you don’t have to fight it. With the right tools, patience, and self-compassion, you can create safety, release tension, and rediscover the joy of movement.
I’m still on this journey, and I’d love to hear about yours. What has chronic pain taught you? How are you learning to trust your body again? Let’s keep this conversation going—because healing happens when we feel safe enough to share.
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!”
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.
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:
Your body adapts to chronic dieting as a survival mechanism.
Maintenance isn’t a punishment—it’s freedom.
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
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.
Lower Exercise Volume Temporarily: Shift to resistance training 3-4x per week, and sprinkle in restorative activities like walking or Pilates.
Micronutrient Check: Get a blood test to address any vitamin or mineral deficiencies—common culprits are iron, B12, and vitamin D.
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.
How to Use Temperature and Pulse for Metabolic Health Insights
In the summer of 2020, my health began to take a dive. Years of chronic dieting, over-exercising, negative self-talk, and hormonal birth control were taking their toll. I was eating next to no carbs, minimal sugar, low fat, no dairy, and only lean protein. I was working out six days a week, doing hours of cardio, and feeling terrible physically, mentally, and emotionally. Hypothyroid and adrenal symptoms began to emerge. It was clear my lifestyle was working against my physiology. My metabolism felt ‘broken’ or ‘slow,’ but in reality, I was undernourished and overstressed.
Initially, I started tracking basal temperature but did not include resting pulse rates. At the time, my average temperatures were 96.5°F, and my pulse was 44 bpm. Discovering the “pro-metabolic” community introduced me to the research of Dr. Ray Peat and Dr. Broda Barnes, and it changed my perspective.
According to Dr. Raymond Peat, a well-nourished, healthy human should have a resting pulse of 85+ beats per minute. A high resting pulse (in the absence of stress) indicates good metabolic health and a strong ability to repair. This counters mainstream advice, which often celebrates a low resting heart rate as a marker of fitness.
Why Temps and Pulses Matter
Your thyroid acts as your body’s thermostat, controlling metabolism. Metabolism is the sum of all biochemical reactions in the body—essentially, the rate of energy production in the cells and the speed of bodily processes. Body temperature reflects metabolic activity, and people with underperforming thyroids often have low basal body temperatures.
Tracking basal body temperature and resting pulse provides insights into your thyroid and metabolic function:
Basal body temperature can indicate if ovulation has occurred, reflecting progesterone production (a pro-thyroid hormone).
Resting pulse shows how well your body is utilizing nutrients and oxygen.
Tracking post-meal temperatures and pulses helps identify stress responses and metabolic efficiency.
How to Track Temps and Pulses
To get accurate and actionable insights, follow these steps: Log your readings daily to identify trends over time. Note factors like stress, sleep, meals, and menstrual cycle phases that might influence your results.
Choose the Right Thermometer
Use a digital thermometer with a quick response time and high accuracy.
Glass basal thermometers are also effective but require more time to measure.
Measuring Basal Temperature
Take your temperature first thing in the morning, immediately after waking, and before getting out of bed.
Place the thermometer under your tongue for the most reliable reading. Avoid using armpit readings as they can be less accurate due to environmental factors.
Measuring Resting Pulse
Use a wearable device, like a fitness tracker, to measure your resting pulse overnight or immediately upon waking.
Alternatively, place your index and middle fingers on your wrist or neck to manually count beats for 60 seconds.
After Meals
Check your temperature and pulse 30-40 minutes after breakfast. These should gently rise after eating, as food lowers stress and generates heat. If they drop, it may indicate elevated stress hormones upon waking.
Track Afternoon Readings
Record your temperature and pulse between 1-3 p.m. when your body’s temperature should naturally peak.
Use a Tracking App or Journal
Questioning the Mainstream Narrative
The Mayo Clinic states: “Generally, a lower heart rate at rest implies more efficient heart function and better cardiovascular fitness. For example, a well-trained athlete might have a normal resting heart rate closer to 40 beats per minute.”
But is a low resting heart rate truly beneficial? Evidence suggests otherwise. Thyroid health—the thermostat of the body—plays a crucial role in metabolism. A sluggish thyroid often correlates with lower body temperatures and slower heart rates, indicators of reduced metabolic function.
Why Temperature and Pulse Matter
Metabolism refers to the sum of all biochemical reactions in the body. It’s essentially the rate of energy production at the cellular level—the speed at which your body processes and utilizes energy. Your body temperature is a reflection of this activity. People with under-functioning thyroids tend to exhibit low basal body temperatures and slower pulses, which can indicate:
Low thyroid function
Inflammation
Suppressed immune function
High stress
Estrogen dominance
In contrast, a warm body is linked to better immune function, efficient digestion, reduced inflammation, and overall metabolic health.
How to Track Temperature and Pulse
Tracking these metrics throughout the day provides invaluable insights into your metabolic health:
Upon Waking:
Follicular Phase: 97.2-97.8°F
Luteal Phase: 98.6°F
Resting pulse: 75-90 bpm
After Breakfast:
Temperatures and pulse should gently rise after meals. Food lowers stress and generates heat. If your numbers drop, it may indicate falsely elevated waking temps due to stress hormones like cortisol.
Afternoon:
Temperatures should peak between 1-3 PM.
What Your Numbers Reveal
Higher temp and pulse (in the absence of stress): Optimal metabolic function
Normal temp and higher pulse: Active stress response
Lower temp and lower pulse: Chronic stress and metabolic suppression
Normal temp and lower pulse: Chronic stress or low thyroid function
How to Optimize Your Numbers
If your temperature and pulse rates aren’t within optimal ranges, consider the following steps:
Prioritize bioavailable protein: Aim for at least 100 grams per day.
Eat enough calories: 1,800-2,000+ per day, depending on individual needs.
Include digestible carbs: At least 150 grams daily (e.g., honey, maple syrup, fruit, root vegetables).
Pair carbs with protein: Avoid “naked carbs” to stabilize blood sugar.
Focus on anabolic exercise: Build muscle with strength training to boost metabolism.
Why This Matters
Using temperature and pulse as tools, you can:
Monitor how well your body utilizes energy.
Evaluate recovery from exercise.
Gain insights into hormonal balance (e.g., progesterone production and ovulation).
Identify the impacts of stress on your physiology.
Final Thoughts
Key Takeaways By regularly monitoring your temps and pulses, you can uncover patterns and make adjustments to optimize your thyroid and metabolic health. These small, daily practices provide powerful insights into how your body is functioning and what it needs to thrive.
Healing is never a final destination; it’s an ongoing journey. Over time, I’ve seen significant improvements in my metabolic markers. My overall body temperature has risen to 97.6–98.1°F, and my resting pulse is now around 70 bpm—much better than where I started. This progress has required me to embrace a larger body size than what traditional “fit fam” culture promotes, but it has been worth it. Prioritizing healing and hormone rebalancing has provided my body with the sense of safety and stability it needed to thrive.
To read more about the doctor that pioneered these tests grab the book called Hypothyroidism: The unsuspected illness by Dr. Broda Barnes
Taste0ftruth Tuesdays 