From religion to politics, why deeply held beliefs trigger defensiveness, outrage, and even hostility—and how we can foster better conversations.
We all have seen how the internet seems to bring out everyone’s inner troll. 🧌
The moment a deeply held belief—whether religious or political—is questioned, people lash out with hostility, aggression, or outright rage. Why does this happen? Why do some people react as if their very identity is under attack?
This season on Taste of Truth, we have been expanding the conversation—because this isn’t just about religion. Political ideologies, social movements, and even scientific debates can trigger the same defensive responses.
Fundamentalist thinking—whether in religion or politics—creates a fear-driven, us-vs-them mentality.
At its most basic, the allure of fundamentalism, whether religious or ideological, liberal or conservative, is that it provides an appealing order to things that are actually disorderly. -Peter Mountford
This hits at something crucial that I’ve written about numerous times before: the human brain craves order, even in the face of chaos. The illusion of control is a powerful psychological driver, and our brains reward it with dopamine. Fundamentalist thinking offers a structured, black-and-white framework that feels safe and predictable, making it incredibly appealing—especially in times of uncertainty. It’s why people cling even harder to rigid beliefs when they feel threatened. Whether in faith or politics, the need for certainty can override openness to new information, leading to the defensive reactions we see when those beliefs are questioned.
The moment someone questions the “truth,” it’s perceived as an existential threat, triggering anxiety, cognitive dissonance, and sometimes outright hostility.
Take a look at the patterns:
Verbal Attacks: When someone questions a core belief, the response can be insults, shouting, or belittling. For example, in religious circles, someone questioning doctrine might be labeled a heretic, while in political spaces, dissenters might be called traitors or bigots.
Social Ostracism: In both fundamentalist religious and political groups, those who challenge the status quo risk being shunned, excommunicated, or “canceled.” A former churchgoer who deconstructs their faith may be cut off from their community, just as someone who questions ideological orthodoxy in politics might lose social standing, friendships, or even career opportunities.
Online Harassment: Social media amplifies these reactions. Question a sacred political narrative? Expect dogpiling. Challenge a religious doctrine? Brace yourself for moral outrage. The internet rewards ideological purity and punishes deviation.
Physical Aggression: In extreme cases, questioning or challenging deeply held beliefs can escalate to threats or violence. History is littered with examples—holy wars, political purges, ideological revolutions—all stemming from the belief that certain ideas must be defended at any cost.
This isn’t just about bad behavior—it’s about psychology. When beliefs become intertwined with identity, disagreement feels like a personal attack. Fundamentalist teachings—whether religious or ideological—reinforce this by instilling fear of deviation:
Fear of Deviation – Straying from the accepted belief system is framed as dangerous, whether it’s framed as spiritual damnation or societal collapse.
Cognitive Dissonance – Encountering opposing viewpoints creates internal discomfort, making people double down rather than reconsider.
Fear of Consequences – Whether it’s eternal hellfire or being cast out by one’s political tribe, the cost of questioning is framed as too high.
Identity Threat – When beliefs define self-worth, changing one’s mind feels like losing a part of oneself.
Social Pressure – Communities reinforce conformity, and breaking from the group’s ideology invites punishment.
When Morality Binds and Blinds
In The Righteous Mind, Jonathan Haidt explains how moral systems don’t just guide our sense of right and wrong—they also bind us to our tribes and blind us to opposing perspectives. Morality evolved not just to help individuals make ethical choices but to reinforce group cohesion. When we share a moral framework with others, it strengthens social bonds and builds trust. But there’s a cost: once we’re deeply embedded in a moral community—whether religious, political, or ideological—we stop seeing outside perspectives clearly.
This is why people react with such hostility when their beliefs are challenged. They aren’t just defending a set of ideas; they’re defending their sense of identity, belonging, and moral righteousness. A challenge to the belief feels like a challenge to the self—and to the entire group they’re part of.
This also explains why fundamentalist thinking isn’t confined to religion. Political movements, activist groups, and even secular ideologies can exhibit the same rigid certainty, group loyalty, and hostility toward outsiders. The more a belief system becomes tied to identity, the more resistant it is to change—and the more aggressive the response when it’s questioned.
The antidote? Intellectual humility. The ability to recognize that our beliefs, no matter how deeply held, might be flawed. That truth-seeking requires engaging with discomfort. That real conversations happen not when we dig in our heels but when we’re willing to ask, What if I’m wrong?
These dynamics explain why deconstruction—whether of faith or political ideology—often leads to intense backlash. It also reminds me of our conversation with Neil Van Leeuwen, author of Religion as Make-Believe. He pointed out that factual beliefs thrive on evidence, but religious and ideological beliefs function differently. When a belief becomes part of group identity, truth often takes a backseat. In fact, sometimes falsehoods serve the group better because they reinforce belonging.
To close down the conversation, let’s talk about healthy communities—whether religious, political, or social—embrace intellectual humility. Here’s what that looks like:
Open Dialogue: Encouraging respectful conversations where differing perspectives are explored rather than attacked.
Supportive Community: Allowing for questions, doubts, and evolving beliefs without fear of punishment.
Personal Reflection: Cultivating a mindset that prioritizes growth over ideological purity.
Interdisciplinary Engagement: Seeking insights from multiple fields rather than reinforcing an echo chamber.
By recognizing these patterns, we can navigate our own beliefs with more self-awareness and engage in discussions that foster curiosity rather than hostility. The question isn’t whether we hold tightly to certain beliefs—it’s whether we’re willing to interrogate why.
So, what’s one belief you’ve held onto tightly that you later questioned?
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.
🎙️ Welcome back to Taste of Truth Tuesdays! This week, we’re diving deep into the fascinating and impactful world of body image and social media, guided by two incredible guests who bring evidence-based insights and a passion for accessibility in mental health research.
🧠 First, let me introduce Dr. Hannah Jarman, Ph.D., a trailblazer in psychology whose work sheds light on how we perceive ourselves in the digital age. Alongside her is the brilliant Ms. Claudia Liu, a Ph.D. candidate whose research explores the intersection of social media and body image. These two share a common mission: making complex research not just understandable but applicable in everyday life
Body image—it’s a term we hear often, but what does it really mean? At its core, body image is your perceptions, beliefs, feelings, thoughts, and actions related to your physical appearance. Think of it as your personal relationship with your body. Sounds simple, but in a world shaped by curated social media feeds and fitspiration photos, it’s anything but.
To ground our discussion, we’ll be exploring the four components of body image, starting with Perceptual Body Image—how you see yourself. Here’s the catch: the way you see your body often doesn’t match reality. It’s a perception distorted by negative self-talk and societal pressures. But awareness is the first step. Interrupting that loop of negative talk can help shift your perception toward something healthier.
Next, there’s Affective Body Image, which reflects how you feel about your body—your likes and dislikes. These feelings are deeply influenced by the media we consume, from TV and movies to social media trends like “fitspiration.” Here’s the thing: hating your body is not a prerequisite for change. Dissatisfaction and acceptance can coexist. Making intentional choices about what media you engage with can profoundly impact how you feel about yourself.
Then we have Cognitive Body Image, or the thoughts and beliefs you hold about your body. Ever heard someone say, “I’ll be happy when I hit my goal weight”? It’s a dangerous trap because happiness isn’t tied to a number on the scale. Chasing an external solution for an internal problem often leads to harmful patterns and a cycle of discontent.
2018: My leanest physique post-bodybuilding competitions. I sat here feeling self-conscious, convinced I looked ‘fat.’ It’s wild to look back and realize how much my mind distorted my reality.
When I look back at photos of myself at my leanest—whether it was during my bodybuilding competitions or soon after—I remember how uncomfortable I felt in my body even then. This always reminds me that body image isn’t actually about how your body looks; it’s about your relationship with your body and, ultimately, with yourself.
Finally, Behavioral Body Image—the actions we take based on our perceptions, feelings, and beliefs. When someone struggles with negative body image, they might engage in destructive behaviors like over-exercising, disordered eating, or social withdrawal.
Today, we’ll unpack these components with Dr. Jarman and Ms. Liu and dive into their groundbreaking research on the impact of social media and fitspiration on our body image. We’ll also share actionable tips to help you reshape your relationship with your body and your digital environment.
Get ready for an enlightening and empowering conversation. Let’s go!
Dr. Hannah Jarman, a research fellow at Deakin University in Melbourne, Australia, who specializes in body image, eating disorders, and the influence of media. Dr. Jarman’s interest in this field began when a young child in her life, around 5 or 6 years old, started expressing distress about her body, saying things like “I’m fat, I need to lose weight.” This was concerning not only because of the child’s age, but also because her family had a history of eating disorders. Recognizing the red flags, Dr. Jarman sought advice from a lecturer specializing in body image, which sparked her passion for research and intervention.
This led to her work on body image interventions in schools and later, a PhD on the impact of social media on adolescent body image and well-being. Dr. Jarman’s work continues to explore the critical intersection between media influence and body dissatisfaction, aiming to identify predictors and create effective prevention strategies for eating disorders.
Claudia, a final-year PhD candidate in Psychology at Melbourne University. Claudia’s research focuses on disordered eating, body image, and digital health—an emerging area in the field. Her passion for this work stems from her own personal experiences with disordered eating and negative body image during her younger years. Growing up in Southeast Asia, where thin ideals were heavily glorified, Claudia internalized these societal pressures, which led to unhealthy behaviors. Fortunately, she overcame these challenges, and this journey inspired her to pursue a PhD, hoping her research can provide insights and support for others facing similar struggles.
I’ve also seen in the data that children as young as 5 are struggling with negative body image, and I can really relate to Claudia’s experience. I, too, have struggled with disordered eating. I’ve enrolled in eating disorder therapy and have been given some of the most extreme programs, like having to eat the same meal plan six times a day for 12 weeks. The strictness of it led to binges, and it was clear that something wasn’t working.
Thank you to all the researchers out there, because while I don’t have a PhD, I did pursue a psychology certification as part of my continuing education for personal trainers. The more I worked with clients, the more I realized the connection between psychology and nutrition. Many of my clients came to me wanting to “lose weight”, but before we could even start thinking about that, we had to address underlying issues like under-eating, yo-yo dieting, and inconsistency. I had to teach them that they had to earn their right to diet, which was a difficult but crucial concept to stress. That’s when I knew I needed to learn more about psychology—it wasn’t just about the physical aspect but the mental and emotional work that had to come first.
Dr. Jarman adds, it’s so ingrained in our society, these ideals and these pressures and dieting. If you think about the people around you, how many—probably the majority, particularly of females, but also a lot of males—struggle with these issues and have unhealthy relationships with food or exercise or whatever it may be. These perfect ideals are supposedly so easy, and they should all be achieving them. But that’s absolutely right.
Men do have the pressure as well, like this big masculine look or the negative term of ‘dad bod.’ Men are also getting objectified or judged. So much of what the fitness industry sells is a psy-op. They’re just trying to sell you the idea that you can control this. It’s like in the religious world, where we have something called the prosperity gospel—‘If you do this, you’ll get God’s blessing.’ Diet culture plays the same tune: ‘If you do this, you’ll get that.’ It’s a deep psychological hook, tapping into our need for control. This need triggers dopamine, which reinforces these behaviors. Whether it’s following rigid fitness plans or religious dogma, it’s the dopamine hit that keeps us hooked. I appreciate you guys getting on here.
A little bit off-mic, season 2 was exploring breaking free from diet culture, body-neutral fitness, and focusing on performance-based goals. While you might see some changes in aesthetics, that’s just a bonus. The real focus is on getting stronger, improving blood markers, or simply walking every day. I’ve learned as a personal trainer that even when clients achieve their weight loss goals, it doesn’t always lead to a better body image or happiness. So, what is body appreciation, and why is it so crucial for mental well-being?
Body Appreciation
Claudia: “Yeah, I can take that one. So, body appreciation is basically a key or core positive body image concept that involves recognizing, valuing, and respecting the body for its functional capacity and its health, rather than how it looks. I know you mentioned that earlier on. So, it’s really about shifting the focus away from aesthetics and towards its functional capacity and functionality. Over the past 10 years, there’s been a surge in research showing that greater body appreciation is associated with a number of psychological outcomes—such as improved self-esteem, better quality of life, and overall emotional and physical well-being. Studies also show that body appreciation encourages people to adopt healthier, more flexible eating patterns, like intuitive eating. For these reasons, it’s been proposed as a potential protective factor against issues like body dissatisfaction, symptoms of disordered eating, and building resilience against societal pressures to fit unrealistic beauty standards. So, that’s kind of my interpretation of body appreciation and why it’s so important.”
Dr. Jarman: “I guess just adding to that briefly as well, I think the focus really is understanding that our bodies are wonderful. They do so much for us, and we get so caught up in how they look and the expectations in that area, that we forget how lucky we are to have a functioning body. OK, maybe you don’t like your arms or think they’re flabby, but you can hug your child or do all these incredible things that we just get so caught up in and forget. It’s about being able to take a step back and really think about and appreciate and value those things.”
You: “And also, I think body appreciation can go a level deeper for those who might be disabled or have lost certain abilities—maybe weren’t born with them, but have lost the ability to move in certain ways. That can be really difficult, because… But you can still find ways to appreciate the small things, like the sun on your skin. Or, maybe you can’t walk or hug your child like you once could, but there are still ways to appreciate the vessel that you dwell in, and that helps you interact with the world. That’s why I like body appreciation. It strips away a lot of those pressures and ideal body standards. And I think for fitness, it really… I don’t know what happened, if it’s always been poison, but wellness culture became so focused on looks. I was raised in the ‘90s—Jessica Simpson was considered fat. That slim, hair-thin ideal was pushed. And now, I’m almost 40—just crazy, that’s what I was raised with. The low-rise jeans…”
Hannah: “They’re back now, maybe just in Australia, but they’re back!”
You: “No, no thanks!” (laughter)
How Social Media Shapes Body Image and Eating Behaviors: Understanding Its Impact on Mental Health and Well-Being
Social media has become a double-edged sword in terms of its influence on our body image and eating behaviors, especially among young women. Dr. Hannah Jarman, a research expert in the field, sheds light on the complexities of this issue, drawing from the latest findings in the field.
Research consistently shows that social media tends to worsen our body image. It often leads to comparisons, where we measure ourselves against the seemingly “perfect” lives and bodies of others. This sense of inadequacy can drive us to want to change our appearance, often through unhealthy means, believing that losing weight or attaining a certain body ideal will bring happiness.
Dr. Jarman explains that while time spent online used to be the primary focus of research, recent studies have shown that the content we engage with plays a more significant role in shaping our mental health. Specifically, appearance-focused content—such as photo edits, filters, and comparison-driven posts—are more harmful than we might realize.
Interestingly, content that is perceived as “inspirational” can also contribute to this negative cycle. Instead of motivating positive behaviors, it can lead to feelings of pressure and shame, pushing individuals further away from the very practices meant to improve their well-being. Instead of encouraging exercise or body appreciation, these idealized portrayals often result in a sense of failure, making it harder to engage in self-care.
So, what can we do to become more aware of the impact social media has on our mental well-being? Dr. Jarman suggests that the first step is reflection. Being mindful of what we follow and consume online is essential. Are the accounts and content we engage with making us feel better or worse about ourselves? By being selective in our media consumption and actively avoiding harmful content, we can better protect our body image and mental health from the negative influences of social media.
Taking Control: How to Curate Your Social Media Feed for Better Body Image and Mental Health
While social media algorithms have a strong influence over the content we see, Dr. Jarman emphasizes that we do have some control over our feeds. The key lies in curating what we consume. If you find yourself comparing or feeling bad about your body after viewing certain content, it’s time to take action. Don’t hesitate to unfollow, hide, or block accounts that negatively affect your mental well-being. Instead, fill your feed with content that lifts you up—whether that’s accounts that make you laugh, reflect your hobbies, or celebrate your personal interests.
Another vital tool in reducing the harm of social media is social media literacy. Dr. Jarman encourages us to critically evaluate what we see: Who is posting this content, and why? Are they promoting a product or idea, and how realistic is what’s being presented? Developing these critical skills can help you navigate the often-misleading nature of social media, empowering you to consume content that truly adds value to your life, rather than contributing to unrealistic standards and comparisons.
By being intentional about what we engage with, we can protect ourselves from the detrimental effects of social media on body image and mental health.
Mindfulness in Social Media Consumption: A Personal Approach to Authenticity
Mindfulness is key when engaging with social media. As Dr. Jarman mentioned, it’s not just about the time we spend online, but how we feel when interacting with certain content. When consuming posts, take a moment to check in with yourself: How do you feel after reading this? Does it leave you feeling inspired, or does it trigger negative comparisons? Recognizing your emotional response is an essential step toward curating a healthier online experience.
Personally, I’ve chosen to operate from a place of transparency. I don’t monetize my content, push affiliate links, or promote products for profit. For me, it’s not about selling anything; it’s about sharing information and offering genuine value. I even make my strength training guide available for free to anyone who asks. Why? Because I want to be seen as an expert, but also as a normal, imperfect human. It’s about finding the balance between encouraging people to be open with their own journeys while demonstrating that vulnerability and authenticity are part of what makes us all human.
Dr. Hannah Jarman emphasizes that while fitspiration content can appear motivating, it may unintentionally harm individuals by focusing on unattainable ideals. She notes that before-and-after images, for instance, can imply that the person in the “before” image is unworthy, while the “after” version suddenly seems perfect. Instead, she suggests shifting the focus to how individuals feel, highlighting personal performance or other non-aesthetic milestones.
In response, I throughout the suggestion of fitness coaches adding cover photos to before-and-after images, which could serve as a “trigger warning” for those scrolling through. This small change could offer viewers the opportunity to engage more thoughtfully, especially if they have a tendency to be triggered by such comparisons.
Dr. Jarman agrees, emphasizing the importance of showcasing the entire journey—ups, downs, and all. She advocates for content that highlights authenticity, as it’s often a longer, non-linear process. By focusing on emotional growth, feelings of self-worth, and overall well-being, the goal shifts away from just numbers and aesthetics, promoting healthier perspectives on body image and wellness.
Claudia shares her personal journey with body image and disordered eating, revealing how following fitness influencers who idealized a specific body type negatively impacted her mental health. She explains how curating her social media feed by unfollowing these influencers and instead following those who emphasize strength and science-based training was transformative. This shift helped her focus on performance and appreciation for her body rather than aesthetics or calorie-burning, leading to a healthier and more sustainable approach to fitness and nutrition.
To wrap up, Dr. Hannah highlights the importance of accessible information and shares a resource for listeners: their social media accounts on Instagram and TikTok, The Well-Being Doctors (@the.well.being.doctors), which focus on making research on wellness and mental health easy to understand and implement. She encourages listeners to follow their content for practical tips and evidence-based guidance.
✨Let’s anchor in this transformative message: Your body is an instrument, not an ornament. Positive body image isn’t believing your body looks good; it’s knowing your body is good, regardless of how it looks. This quote from More Than a Body beautifully captures the essence of what we’ve explored today.
💡 The fitness industry often sets standards based on bodybuilding gurus and extreme aesthetics—standards appraised by critical judges or an audience that values visual perfection. But let’s be honest: the behind-the-scenes reality of preparing for these aesthetic ideals often includes extreme measures—severe dehydration, malnutrition, laxative and stimulant abuse, and emergency-level exhaustion. No legitimate doctor would ever recommend these tactics for health. They’re the opposite of health-promoting.
💪 Instead, let’s focus on experience and benefit, not being ornaments to be admired. Metabolic health, strength, and stamina are far more meaningful indicators of well-being than achieving a “perfect” appearance. When we prioritize function over aesthetics, we open the door to a new, more effective, and empowering way to experience health and fitness.
🚨 At first, the idea of letting go of weight goals or aesthetic ideals might feel like giving up on your body or your health. But the reality is, letting go of these pressures frees you to reconnect with your body in a way that truly serves you.
🌟 Your body is how you live, love, and experience the world. It’s the way you savor delicious food, dance to your favorite songs, feel the rain on your skin, and embrace the people you love. By focusing on what your body can do rather than how it looks, you can deepen your relationship with it and rediscover what health and fitness really mean for you.
🎙️ So, let’s commit to shifting our focus. Set goals rooted in function, experience, and well-being—not in unrealistic aesthetic ideals. Because when you change the way you think about your body, you’ll find the freedom to live more fully in it.
In today’s digital age, it seems like everyone on social media is an “expert” in health, fitness, and nutrition. With so many voices claiming to have the answers, how can you tell what’s actually beneficial, what’s mediocre, and what might harm your progress? Let’s break it down and help you navigate this complex landscape.
Credentials Matter—But Don’t Get Fooled
While it’s important to consider credentials, they don’t guarantee good advice. Registered Dietitians, Certified Nutritionists, and certifications from organizations like ISSA, ACE, NASM, NCSF, AFFA, ACSM, NETA, and more can show that someone has taken the time to learn. However, even those with certifications can spread misinformation. We’ve seen firsthand how regulatory agencies can be captured by outside interests and how lobbying can influence what gets taught.
If you’re considering working with a coach or trainer, don’t hesitate to ask about their credentials. Slide into their DMs or ask in person: What do those letters behind your name mean?
Educated Recommendations: The “Why” and “How”
Your coach or mentor should have a clear understanding of the “WHY” and the “HOW” behind their recommendations. It’s not just about pushing a workout or diet plan—it’s about making sure you understand the reasoning behind every decision.
When they introduce something new to you, it shouldn’t feel like a sales pitch for their latest product. Instead, ask questions to dig deeper:
Why am I doing this?
How does this work?
What’s happening inside my body to promote these changes?
How will this help me achieve my goals while keeping me safe and healthy?
Can you teach this to me in another way so I firmly understand it?
These questions will not only help you grasp the concept, but they’ll also weed out anyone who can’t explain their reasoning. If they can’t give you a clear answer, it may be time to move on.
The Bottom Line: Trust Your Instincts
If something feels off, triggering, or harmful to you, trust your gut and ask questions. Don’t let flashy marketing, unrealistic promises, or a push to sell products convince you that something is right for you. Your body and health deserve the best, and that means getting information that is clear, evidence-based, and tailored to your needs.
Remember, the best fitness advice comes from someone who can explain, educate, and empower you, not someone who’s just looking to make a sale. Stay curious, stay skeptical, and don’t be afraid to ask the tough questions. Your fitness journey is too important to leave in the hands of someone who can’t back up their advice.
Breaking Free: A Conversation with Yasmine Mohammed on Radical Islam, Empowerment, and the West’s Blind Spots
After finishing George Orwell’s 1984, I noticed its resurgence in popularity, especially after Trump’s election. Ironically, it’s not the conservative right but the progressive left that increasingly mirrors Orwellian themes. Similarly, Margaret Atwood’s The Handmaid’s Tale has become a rallying cry for liberals who claim to be on the brink of a dystopian theocracy. Yet, as Yasmine Muhammad pointed out in this week’s episode, this comparison is not only absurd but deeply insulting to women who live under regimes where Atwood’s fiction is a grim reality.
1984: Rewriting Language and History
The Democratic Party’s obsession with redefining language is straight out of Orwell’s playbook. They tell us biology is bigotry and that there are infinite genders, forcing people to adopt nonsensical pronouns or risk social ostracism. This is not progress—it’s the weaponization of language to control thought, eerily similar to Orwell’s Newspeak.
But it doesn’t stop there. They actively rewrite history by renaming monuments, military bases, and even schools, erasing cultural markers in the name of ideological purity. This is doublespeak in action: the manipulation of truth for political orthodoxy. Orwell’s warning that “orthodoxy is unconsciousness” feels disturbingly apt when observing the modern left.
The Handmaid’s Tale: An Insult to Women Who Actually Suffer
In our conversation, Yasmine highlighted the absurdity of liberal claims that America is The Handmaid’s Tale come to life. Yasmine, who grew up under Islamic theocracy, knows firsthand what it’s like to live in a world where women have no autonomy. These women cannot see a doctor without a male guardian, are forced to cover every inch of their bodies, and are denied basic freedoms like education or the right to drive.
Contrast this with the West, where women have more freedom than any other point in history. Liberal women can run around naked at Pride parades, freely express their sexuality, and redefine what it means to be a woman altogether. And yet, they cry oppression because they are expected to pay for their own birth control or endure debates over abortion limits. This level of cognitive dissonance—claiming victimhood while living in unprecedented freedom—is a slap in the face to women who actually suffer under real patriarchal oppression.
Liberal Orthodoxy: Lost in the Sauce
What’s truly Orwellian is how the left uses its freedom to strip others of theirs. They shout about inclusivity but cancel anyone who disagrees. They claim to fight for justice while weaponizing institutions to enforce ideological conformity. Meanwhile, they are so consumed with their own victim complex that they fail to see how absurd their comparisons to dystopian fiction really are.
Orwell and Atwood warned against unchecked power and ideological extremism. If liberals actually read these books instead of using them as aesthetic props, they might realize they’re mirroring the very authoritarianism they claim to oppose. Instead, they’re lost in the sauce, preaching oppression in a society where they have more freedom than they can handle.
As Yasmine said, “You want to see The Handmaid’s Tale? Try being a woman in Saudi Arabia, Iran, or Afghanistan.” The left would do well to remember that before playing the victim in their cosplay dystopia.
Reframing the New Year: Rejecting Quick Fixes for Sustainable Growth
Welcome to Season 3 of Taste of Truth Tuesdays! 🎉 We’re kicking off with a bang, diving deep into a topic near and dear to my heart. After two decades in the fitness industry, I’ve got some game-changing insights, tips, and no-nonsense truths to share. You won’t want to miss a single minute of today’s episode💪✨
The New Year is here, and you’ve probably seen the tidal wave of ads pushing detoxes, cleanses, and resets. Let me stop you right there: NO, you do NOT need a detox, cleanse, or reset after the holidays.
When I say, “quick fix,” what comes to mind? Maybe it’s a detox tea promising to cleanse your system, a miracle shake that claims to replace your meals, or even the latest pharmaceutical weight-loss drug like Ozempic, used off label and hailed as the “solution” to stubborn fat. Quick fixes thrive on our desperation for immediate results. They’re marketed as shortcuts—whispering, “This will solve all your problems,” no patience or hard work required. 🫣
But here’s the hard truth: quick fixes rarely fix anything. Whether it’s a detox, a cleanse, or a medication designed to suppress your appetite, they often bypass the root causes of your concerns. They don’t teach you how to nourish your body or rebuild a healthy relationship with food. Instead, they slap a band-aid on symptoms while creating long-term consequences for your metabolism, hormones, and mental well-being.
Take Ozempic, for example. While it’s been touted as a “miracle” weight-loss drug, there are some serious health warnings that aren’t always front and center. As with significant weight loss in general, some people using these drugs experience muscle loss and lower bone density, increasing the risk of injury—especially for older adults.
In animal studies, semaglutide (the drug behind Ozempic) has been linked to an increased risk of thyroid cancer, including medullary thyroid carcinoma. While we don’t yet know if this risk translates to humans, it’s something to be aware of—especially if you have a family history of thyroid conditions. And let’s not forget the FDA’s 2023 warning about potential intestinal blockage associated with these medications, although the evidence so far shows it’s more about slowed gastric emptying and vomiting mimicking an obstruction.
And here’s the kicker—while these quick fixes promise to reshape your body in a short period, they often come with a slew of side effects that are rarely discussed. The key to managing those risks? Pay attention to your diet, listen to your body, and stay hydrated. But I can’t help but wonder: is the price tag on this “quick fix” really worth it?
In my own journey, I repeatedly fell for these promises—from replacing real food with Smart Start cereal, to taking ephedra and green tea energy pills in high school, and in my 30s, chasing the next shake, cleanse, or some ridiculous holistic protocol that promised to transform my body overnight. Spoiler alert: it never worked the way I hoped, and sometimes, it made things worse.
Today, we’re pulling back the curtain on quick fixes, diving into why they’re so appealing, and exposing the truth about detoxes, cleanses, and even medications like Ozempic. Because your health deserves more than a shortcut—it deserves a sustainable, thoughtful approach rooted in a long-term sense of well-being.
Let’s start by breaking down the dangers of these so-called “solutions” and why they often cause more harm than good.
🚨 The Dangers of Detoxes and Cleanses
Let me start by sharing a bit about my personal experience with Isagenix, an MLM I was involved in for four years. Their program revolved around “shake days” and “cleanse days.” Shake days required replacing two meals with shakes, leaving you with just 1,200-1,500 calories a day. Cleanse days were even more extreme: 24-48 hours of intermittent fasting where you consumed only “approved” snacks—essentially glorified candies from their product line.
These cleanse days were touted as the secret to triggering autophagy, “cleaning up your cells,” and building muscle while shedding fat. But for me, the reality couldn’t have been further from the sales pitch. Instead of gaining energy, building muscle, or feeling cleansed, I experienced fatigue, hormonal disruptions, and a worsening relationship with food.
I want to clarify here: if you’re under the care of a well-educated, integrative professional who has run labs and prescribed a short-term liver cleanse or restrictive protocol tailored to your needs, this isn’t directed at you. I’m talking to the folks who, like me, were misled by the marketing tactics of supplement companies, MLMs, and Pinterest ads. These programs prey on our insecurities while delivering none of the promised benefits.
Here’s why these quick-fix detoxes and cleanses are more harmful than helpful:
They Deplete Your Energy Over Time
On those “cleanse days,” I often felt like I was running on fumes. Severely restricting food intake forces your body to pull from its energy reserves, leaving you fatigued, irritable, and unable to function optimally. Over time, this restriction triggers metabolic adaptation, slowing down your metabolism to conserve energy. Instead of speeding up fat loss, it makes your body cling to every calorie it gets, making future weight management even harder.
They Disrupt Hormonal Health
My cleanse days wreaked havoc on my hormones. The lack of consistent nourishment interferes with thyroid hormone conversion and overactivated the adrenal glands, increasing cortisol production. Chronic high cortisol levels undermine immunity, energy, and mood. For women, the risks are even greater. Prolonged restriction sends your body into survival mode, disrupting your reproductive hormones. I dealt with irregular periods, cold extremities, and even hair thinning—all signs that my body was prioritizing survival over reproduction.
They Create Nutritional Deficiencies
When you cut out food, you cut out nutrients. The shakes and supplements from Isagenix were marketed as “nutritionally complete,” but they couldn’t compare to the diversity and richness of whole foods. This reliance on synthetic supplements is not a sustainable way to meet your nutritional needs.
They Damage Your Relationship with Food
One of the most insidious effects of these programs was how they warped my relationship with food. By constantly restricting and “cleansing,” I lost touch with hunger cues and began seeing food as the enemy. At one point, my appetite diminished, which might sound like a win in hustle culture, but it was actually a red flag. Our bodies need food to fuel productivity, creativity, and overall well-being. Sacrificing health in the name of hustle isn’t the flex diet culture makes it out to be.
The Bottom Line
Programs like the one I was involved in sell you the illusion of health while delivering energy depletion, hormonal imbalance, and long-term damage to your metabolism. Sustainable growth comes from nourishing your body, listening to its needs, and rejecting the false promises of quick fixes.
If you’re considering a cleanse or detox, ask yourself: is this supporting my long-term health, or am I falling for a marketing gimmick?
💡 What Your Body Actually Needs
Your body thrives on consistency, nourishment, and balance. That’s why the 365 Easy Challenge focuses on six foundational habits to create sustainable growth:
Gratitude – Build a positive mindset by reflecting daily on what you’re thankful for.
Digestion – Support your gut with mindful eating practices and nourishing foods.
Sleep – Prioritize restorative rest to boost energy and metabolism.
Mindset/Self Talk – By reframing, shift your mindset to approach challenges with resilience.
Stress Management & Nutrition – Balance your life and plate without extremes.
These habits aren’t about perfection—they’re about progress. You can join in any time and make this year about sustainable, steady growth. One phrase I often say often to clients:
“Slow is steady and steady is fast.”
Seven Things I Wish I Knew Sooner
In this episode, we’re tackling the first four lessons I wish I’d learned earlier in my nutrition and fitness journey. These are insights that can save you time, frustration, and even your health.
1. Extreme Diets Have Extreme Consequences
If you’ve ever thought, “I just need to cut calories harder,” let me stop you right there. Extreme diets may promise quick results, but they come with a hefty price tag on your body.
Research, such as the Biggest Loser Study (PMID: 27136388), reveals a major roadblock: metabolic adaptation. Your body isn’t wired for vanity; it’s wired for survival. When you restrict calories excessively, your body compensates to preserve energy—this can continue for years after the diet ends (PMID: 35729736).
Here’s what that looks like:
Calorie restriction becomes less effective over time.
Your metabolic rate slows down, making it harder to maintain or continue fat loss.
You feel frustrated, but it’s your body hitting the brakes, not your willpower failing.
Takeaway: Your body isn’t out to sabotage you; it’s protecting you. The solution? Nutritional periodization. Incorporate diet breaks, maintenance phases, and even reverse dieting to minimize these adaptations.
2. Restrictive Diets Wreck Hormonal Health
Chronic or yo-yo dieting isn’t just stressful for your mind—it’s a major stressor for your body. Prolonged restrictions can negatively impact your:
Adrenal system: Chronic stress triggers the HPA axis, increasing cortisol. While cortisol is essential in moderation, consistently high levels can negatively impact energy, mood, and immunity.
Thyroid: High stress interferes with TSH production and the conversion of thyroid hormones, which are vital for metabolism.
Reproductive hormones: Missing or irregular periods, hair loss, and constant coldness? These are signs your body isn’t feeling “safe” enough to prioritize reproduction.
Minimum body fat is necessary to maintain reproductive health, especially for women. Hormones like progesterone, critical for ovulation and metabolism, rely on nutrient availability and a sense of safety
Takeaway: Your body isn’t the enemy—it’s doing its best with the fuel and signals you’re giving it. Support your hormones by eating enough, maintaining balance, and avoiding extreme restrictions. PMID: 2282736
3. Exercise + Intermittent Fasting = Double Trouble for Women
Adding intense exercise to intermittent fasting might sound like a fast track to results, but for women, it’s a recipe for dysfunction. Here’s why:
Women’s bodies are highly sensitive to kisspeptin, a neuropeptide critical for reproductive and endocrine health. Diets like keto and intermittent fasting can disrupt kisspeptin production, leading to:
Endocrine dysfunction.
Menstrual irregularities.
Depression and increased abdominal fat (yes, the opposite of what you wanted).
Half of all active women aren’t eating enough to support basic functions, let alone training. The long-term impact? Impaired thyroid function, stalled muscle growth, and metabolic imbalance.
Takeaway: Women need nourishment, especially when training hard. Fasting and exercise together often do more harm than good, leaving your body stressed instead of thriving.
4. A Healthy Relationship with Exercise is Flexible and Fulfilling
Exercise is amazing for your body and mind, but even a good thing can become harmful when taken to extremes.
Exercise addiction is a compulsive engagement in physical activity, despite negative consequences. It often comes with:
Excessive rules and rigidity.
Feelings of shame before, during, or after workouts.
Withdrawal symptoms when unable to exercise.
In contrast, a healthy relationship with exercise is:
Flexible: It allows for variety in movement types and durations.
Fulfilling: It’s rooted in joy and self-care, not punishment or guilt.
Takeaway: The best kind of movement is the one that enriches your life, not rules it. Exercise should add value to your day, not take away from it.
✨ Let’s Leave Hustle Culture in 2024👋
Hustle culture says, “Eat less, work more, and sacrifice rest to succeed.” This mindset isn’t empowering—it’s exhausting. This year, let’s prioritize health over hustle and choose habits that energize rather than deplete.
The 365 Easy Challenge is here to help you make that shift. Whether it’s gratitude, better sleep, or balanced nutrition, these small steps add up to big changes over time.
Takeaway for 2025: This year, skip the detox and focus on what truly works: habits that honor your body’s needs, not a quick-fix fantasy. If you’re ready to embrace sustainable growth, join the 365 Easy Challenge and start building a foundation for lifelong health.
As we gather around our holiday tables, indulging in sweet treats and sipping warm drinks, there’s something deeply unsettling happening behind the scenes of what we consume every day. A recent study has revealed something I find all too familiar: intimidation tactics used by industries like Big Tobacco, ultra-processed food companies, and alcohol sectors to bully and silence researchers, whistleblowers, and anyone challenging their agenda.
These industries have a long history of using misinformation, manufactured doubt, and emotional manipulation to protect their profits—and it’s not just limited to public health campaigns. This plays out in everyday conversations, too. It’s a pattern that many of us have experienced firsthand, especially those who advocate for healthier lifestyles and more transparency in what we put in our bodies.
A Christmas Paradox: Big Food’s Gaslighting & the Anti-MLM Pushback
This tactic—used by Big Food to discredit critics—reminds me of the way people are shamed or bullied for questioning processed foods or advocating for healthier diets. If you’ve ever pointed out the risks of sugary snacks or fast food, you’ve probably been labeled an extremist, a health-obsessed “wellness warrior,” or worse, a “purity culture” advocate. I can’t help but feel this is just another form of gaslighting, where we’re told that it’s worse to worry about the ingredients in our food than it is to consume those ingredients, even if they are known to contribute to chronic health conditions.
Ironically, this kind of manipulation is the same strategy Big Tobacco used for decades to muddy the waters around the health risks of smoking. And now, ultra-processed food companies are doing the same thing—distracting us from the very real, documented consequences of a poor diet.
Why We Need to Trust Ourselves, Not the Experts
What frustrates me is how the anti-MLM community often jumps on wellness advocates who want to clean up their diets for health reasons. While I agree that MLMs are a breeding ground for manipulation, this should not mean we ignore the very real need to question the food industry’s stranglehold on our diets and health. It’s vital to recognize that not all experts have your best interests at heart. Many of the mainstream recommendations we’re told to follow come from organizations or industries with questionable motives—whether it’s Big Pharma, Big Food, or Big Tobacco. These same industries have a long history of misleading the public, and many of their experts are bought and paid for by corporate interests.
Wanting to improve your diet to manage or reverse chronic health conditions shouldn’t be dismissed as obsessive or extreme. It’s a rational, self-preserving choice that empowers you to take control of your health, even when the mainstream narrative tells you otherwise.
Unwrapping the Truth This Holiday Season
This holiday season, let’s unwrap a new perspective: critical thinking over consumerism, authenticity over convenience, and self-empowerment over external pressures. It’s time we stop letting industries dictate our health choices and start reclaiming agency in what we put into our bodies.
If you’ve ever been gaslighted for your food choices, or made to feel like you’re ‘too much’ for caring about your health, know you’re not alone. The more we learn about these intimidation tactics, the better equipped we’ll be to call them out.
As we approach the new year, let’s challenge the status quo—questioning not just what’s on our plates, but the motives of the systems that feed us.
What’s a racist, homophobe, sexist, bigot, or hater? Apparently, anyone winning an argument with a liberal these days.
This year has been a wild ride. It began with me terrified of Satan, demons, and the Apocalypse, only to be ending it realizing the real danger isn’t hellfire—it’s the dogmas we create here on Earth. I didn’t grow up religious. In fact, I was raised secular, moved to Portland, OR after college, and could give you a TED Talk on progressive ideals. But then the pandemic hit, and somewhere between sourdough starters and doomscrolling, I found myself deep in the throes of fundamentalist Christianity.
That’s right—I started the year in a cult. It took months to deconstruct my faith, peel back the layers of fear-based control, and reimagine spirituality beyond the man-made monotheistic God I was sold. Yet, just as I was catching my breath, I noticed something chilling: the same patterns of zealotry I had fled were alive and well in the secular world.
Wokeness, with its sermons on systemic oppression and sacraments of allyship, has become the new secular religion. It demands unwavering faith, punishes heretics, and offers little room for redemption. And just like the fire-and-brimstone preachers I’d left behind, its most fervent believers seem less interested in dialogue and more intent on moral superiority.
Thought leaders like John McWhorter (Woke Racism), Yasmine Mohammed (Unveiled), and Douglas Murray (The Madness of Crowds) have drawn the same parallels: woke ideology mirrors religious extremism, complete with its own prophets and purges. And as someone who’s lived through both kinds of radicalism, I’m here to tell you—it’s not just unsettling; it’s dangerous.
How woke ideology mirrors religious extremism
In my podcast episode titled Faith Unbound: Navigating the Process of Disentanglement—or rather, Deconversion—I delved into my initial discovery of the Ex-evangelical Christian network. Back in February 2024, it felt like a lifeline, a safe haven for questioning my former religious beliefs. But after 6–7 months of immersion, patterns began to emerge. While the movement has been instrumental for many, I couldn’t ignore the creeping rigidity and tribalism. The hunger for certainty, the need to be on the “right side,” often replaces one dogma with another.
A striking example of this surfaced in Sexvangelicals’ episode How to Do Social Justice This Election Season Without Being a Jackass. They state:
“November’s presidential election offers a stark contrast between two types of government. One is democracy, built on the idea that many people have voices and, ideally, a government that serves a broad population. The other is autocracy, which operates on the belief that only a few have a say. Autocracies, like the 2024 Republican Party, often communicate through tactics such as blame, repression, and fear-mongering. In our latest episode, we discuss common communication strategies used by autocracies and how progressives and pro-democracy voters can avoid responding in ways that reinforce jackassdom.”
My response? “It’s not your enemies, it’s the system.” This narrative reduces a complex political landscape into a simplistic moral battle, with one side as saviors of democracy and the other as agents of autocracy. But this dichotomy misses the bigger picture. Who really shapes policy in America?
A 2014 study by Martin Gilens and Benjamin Page, often dubbed the “Oligarchy Study,” analyzed policy decisions across two decades. It revealed that elites and organized interest groups wield disproportionate influence over government decisions, while the average citizen’s impact is negligible. This stark reality transcends partisan politics and lays bare a systemic issue: power isn’t held by the left or right—it’s concentrated in the hands of those who profit from our division.
By framing every election as a battle for democracy versus tyranny, we’re falling into the trap of distraction. The real question isn’t, “Which side am I on?” but, “Who benefits from keeping me here, fighting, and not looking beyond this binary?”
The claim that the Republican Party represents an autocracy, as made by Sexvangelicals, is not just simplistic—it’s laughably disconnected from reality. To label one political party as authoritarian while ignoring the bipartisan complicity in maintaining an oligarchic system is either naïve or willfully ignorant.
Take the oligarchic nature of U.S. politics. Both major parties have long benefited from the concentration of wealth and power at the top. Consider the case of former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, whose net worth has ballooned through stock trades that suspiciously align with her legislative influence. Or Barack Obama (Barry Soetoro), who went from public servant to multi-millionaire, cashing in on book deals, speaking engagements, and lucrative partnerships with Netflix after leaving office.
Then there’s President Joe Biden. While progressives champion him as a defender of democracy, his record is far from pristine. Most recently, questions surrounding his son Hunter Biden’s international business dealings—spanning over a decade—have drawn scrutiny. Hunter’s alleged tax evasion and unregistered foreign lobbying have raised concerns, yet he continues to receive leniency from the justice system.
This isn’t to excuse Republicans from criticism, but the suggestion that they alone embody authoritarian tendencies is absurd when Democrats have equally reaped the rewards of an oligarchic system. Both parties serve the interests of economic elites and organized lobbyists far more faithfully than they do the average voter.
The Magnet, from Puck, 1911.(Udo J. Keppler / Library of Congress)
The bipartisan reality of the oligarchy dismantles the “democracy versus autocracy” narrative. For instance, the same Gilens and Page study cited earlier reveals that the preferences of the bottom 90% of income earners have statistically no impact on policy outcomes. Meanwhile, corporate donors and lobbying groups continue to hold sway over legislation regardless of which party is in power.
By framing Republicans as the sole villains in this story, Sexvangelicals perpetuates the kind of shallow tribalism that fuels division while leaving the real culprits—wealthy elites and corporate interests—untouched. The truth is that our democracy has been compromised for decades, and it will remain so until both sides of the aisle are held accountable for their role in preserving this oligarchic system.
Instead of directing anger at individuals or parties, we should be asking: How do we break free from a system designed to keep us pointing fingers at each other while those in power profit from the chaos?
From Crunchy Hippie to Conservative Christian Pipeline: My Journey Through the Radicalization Maze
Growing up secular, I’d have laughed at the idea that I would someday align with conservative or religious ideologies. Portland, Oregon, was my playground of progressive ideals—a city where conservatism felt like the root of every societal ill. But life has a way of challenging our convictions. Late in the pandemic, isolated and seeking meaning, I fell into an extreme version of Christianity. What I once dismissed as unthinkable became my new normal—until it wasn’t. Earlier this year, I deconstructed those beliefs, peeling back the layers of what led me there. Read/listen all about HERE!
Now, I can see the flaws and virtues of both worlds, which is why I find the frame of mind in deconstruction spaces puzzling. Many accounts misrepresent or overgeneralize conservatives—the very people they once were or grew up with—and cast the same stones they once had thrown at them.
It reminds me of this quote from the book The Righteous Mind:
“I had escaped from my prior partisan mind-set (reject first, ask rhetorical questions later) and began to think about liberal and conservative policies as manifestations of deeply conflicting but equally heartfelt visions of the good society. It felt good to be released from partisan anger. And once I was no longer angry, I was no longer committed to reaching the conclusion that righteous anger demands: we are right, they are wrong.”
Deconstructing past beliefs should be about nuance, growth, and intellectual humility—not trading one form of black-and-white thinking for another. When we fail to empathize with others’ moral frameworks, we miss out on a deeper understanding of the human experience.
Many in the ex-evangelical space now lean far left in their political views, where values like care, fairness, and empathy take center stage. Conservative values like loyalty and authority are dismissed or viewed with suspicion, fostering an “us vs. them” mentality.
This cultural shift into victimhood is explored further in The Coddling of the American Mind by Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt, who identify three “Great Untruths” that help explain these societal trends:
1) “What doesn’t kill you makes you weaker,”
2) “Always trust your feelings,”
3) “Life is a battle between good people and evil people.”
These untruths, they argue, contribute to fragility, discourage critical thinking, and promote a tribal mentality—characteristics that are increasingly evident in both the deconstruction space and parts of the progressive left. The focus on emotional responses over rational thought and the growing divide between “us” and “them” only strengthens these dynamics. For a deeper dive into this.
Woke Ideology as a Secular Faith: A Closer Look
“What we’re seeing isn’t a quest for justice but a demand for unquestioning orthodoxy.”
John McWhorter argues that wokeism functions like a full-fledged religion. It provides a moral framework that mirrors traditional religious beliefs. Instead of concepts like original sin, wokeism offers “privilege,” positioning those with it as morally compromised. In place of rituals like prayer, adherents perform acts like confessing their biases. And, similar to the salvation promised in traditional religions, salvation in wokeism comes through activism and striving for societal change. He warns that its refusal to tolerate dissent turns it into a rigid orthodoxy rather than a genuine quest for justice. For many, including those who’ve deconstructed evangelical faith, this framework hits uncomfortably close to home.
Many of the individuals I met and conversed with who now identify as progressive or left leaning have simply exchanged the evangelical radicalism of their past for their new liberal beliefs. Social justice, in this sense, has become their new End Times—complete with the same apocalyptic fervor. And it’s painfully obvious.
Douglas Murray discusses this analysis further in The Madness of Crowds. He suggests that wokeism often serves as a substitute for religion in today’s secular world. As belief in traditional religions has waned, people have sought meaning elsewhere—and wokeism fills that void. It provides clear rules and a sense of belonging, but in doing so, it also shuts down open debate and nuanced conversation.
The New Authority: From Sky Daddy to State Agencies
A striking similarity between fundamentalist religion and woke ideology is the relentless worship of authority. For those who’ve left behind their “big sky daddy,” that void has been filled by institutions like the CDC, FDA, and government agencies. The pandemic demonstrated how blind faith can easily shift from divine to institutional.
This is where the religion of scientism enters the picture—where reason and science are elevated to the status of ultimate truth. Figures who present themselves as “experts” rely on surface-level expertise and selective data to craft narratives that appear authoritative, yet fail under scrutiny. They become the “fake intellectuals,” as Franklin O’Kanu calls them, feeding the cult of expertise while often lacking real intellectual rigor. In public health, this plays out with the “revolving door” between regulatory agencies and the pharmaceutical industry, which further complicates the narrative of impartiality.
The “revolving door” describes the flow of personnel between agencies like the CDC and the pharmaceutical industry. This cycle blurs the lines between public service and corporate interest, with former regulators influencing policies that benefit the very companies they once oversaw—creating a potential conflict of interest that’s staggering.
In this new system, the scientific establishment becomes the new authority—replacing the monotheistic idea of God with the “god” of reason and data. For those in the deconstruction space, this is a new form of dogma. It stifles curiosity, dismisses dissent, and discourages critical thinking—all in the name of progress. This mirrors the rigid certainty and tribalism found in the religious structures people sought to escape.
Worshipping “science” or blindly trusting clinical trials can be misleading. While clinical trials are seen as vital for medical progress, they are often heavily influenced by the pharmaceutical industry, which funds a vast majority of these trials. This creates a conflict of interest that can skew results and delay critical information about the risks of drugs. Examples like the Vioxx scandal, where a painkiller was marketed despite internal knowledge of its dangers, and the Tamiflu case, where the effectiveness of the drug was overstated, show how corporate interests can shape clinical trial outcomes. Clinical trials, while important, are not always as objective or transparent as they seem.
Empowering Dangerous Systems
Yasmine Mohammed’s Unveiled pushes the conversation even more, explaining how wokeism can actually empower authoritarian regimes. One key point she makes is how Western progressives, in the name of cultural relativism, avoid criticizing radical Islam. This gives a platform to extremist ideologies, which harms vulnerable groups like women and minorities. She argues,
“By shielding oppressive practices from scrutiny, wokeism betrays the very people it claims to protect.”
The binary “oppressor versus oppressed” narrative has become a staple of modern discourse, particularly within the context of the Israel-Palestine conflict. This oversimplified lens reduces complex geopolitical and historical realities to a stark dichotomy, fostering a dangerous environment where nuance is lost. It’s unnerving to see college students waving the flag of Palestine while simultaneously undermining U.S. monuments and values, while spreading fear mongering lies about Project 2025, and comparing Trump to Hitler. These contradictions are not only mind-numbing but also deeply troubling, signaling a shift toward ideological extremism that dismisses the complexities of any issue in favor of emotional, binary thinking.
Antisemitism has spiked globally after the October 7 attacks on Israel, but this tragic reality has also fueled the misuse of the term “antisemitism” to suppress valid critiques of Israeli policies. Labeling critics as antisemitic conflates political criticism with hate, shutting down meaningful dialogue essential to addressing the Israel-Palestine conflict’s complexities.
This approach mirrors patterns within woke ideology, where dissent is often silenced in the name of ideological purity. The weaponization of identity politics and accusations hinders nuanced discussions and reinforces systems of power, obstructing pathways to justice and true understanding.
Vivek Ramaswamy, in Woke, Inc., adds another layer to this by discussing how authoritarian regimes like China’s Communist Party (CCP) take advantage of woke rhetoric. According to Ramaswamy, the CCP amplifies America’s internal divisions—often fueled by wokeism—to weaken the West. By focusing on these cultural rifts, China diverts attention from its own human rights abuses, all while strengthening its geopolitical position. This is part of China’s broader geopolitical strategy, which seeks to deflect attention from its authoritarian practices while exploiting divisions in Western societies.
This pattern can be seen as part of a broader effort to exploit the distractions created by cultural conflicts to enhance its influence in global organizations, trade, and international relations. For example, while Western nations debate internal social issues, China continues its expansive Belt and Road Initiative, which increases its influence across developing nations.
Heretics and the Price of Dissent
Religious movements and extreme ideologies, like wokeism, are often defined by their treatment of dissenters or heretics. Woke spaces, much like traditional religious communities, are quick to condemn those who question or criticize. Whether it’s TERFs (trans-exclusionary radical feminists) or former progressives like Yasmine Mohammed, those who dissent face severe backlash. This exclusionary behavior creates a stifling environment, not dissimilar to how traditional religions treat apostates. As Douglas Murray puts it, “The hatred reserved for heretics is often more intense than that directed at outsiders.”
But this dynamic is about more than just ideological rigidity—it’s also rooted in human psychology. The human brain is naturally drawn to certainty. When we embrace extreme ideologies, we seek control over our environment, which provides us a sense of stability and security. Research in neuroscience shows that when our beliefs are challenged, we experience discomfort, but defending them can trigger a dopamine response, rewarding us with a sense of control. The brain gets a “hit” from maintaining a sense of certainty, even if it’s at the cost of nuance or rational discussion.
In fact, this need for certainty can become addictive. The human brain often craves certainty in the form of binary thinking—where things are either completely right or completely wrong. This type of thinking is satisfying because it shields us from the cognitive dissonance that arises when faced with complexity or ambiguity. In the case of woke ideology, the call for absolute adherence to certain beliefs or behaviors is not just about social justice—it’s a way to satisfy that neurological need for control. When we feel justified in our beliefs and actions, we receive a dopamine “reward,” reinforcing the behavior.
This addiction to certainty can also be seen in extreme partisanship. The more entrenched we become in one side, the more our brain is rewarded for defending it. It’s why many people in the deconstruction space or on the political left engage in “mental gymnastics”—creating justifications and rationalizations that protect their beliefs. This isn’t just about ideology; it’s about keeping that dopamine reward flowing, keeping the illusion of control intact, and avoiding the discomfort of uncertainty.
The problem is this pattern of thinking isn’t conducive to open dialogue or true critical thinking. The “us vs. them” mentality becomes more pronounced, and the space for nuance, disagreement, and personal growth shrinks. Instead of engaging with opposing views, individuals self-censor or double down on their beliefs, further entrenched in the addictive cycle of ideological purity.
Moving Forward: A Balanced Approach
It’s important to note that this critique isn’t meant to dismiss the noble goals of social justice movements. Addressing inequality and harm in the world is crucial. But when these movements demand absolute loyalty and punish dissent, they lose sight of the very ideals they claim to uphold.
What do you guys think? How do you balance the pursuit of justice with the need for free thought?
Do you see these religious parallels in woke ideology? Are they helpful in understanding these dynamics, or do they oversimplify the issue?
I’d love to hear your thoughts. Comment below, and don’t miss my podcast episode with Yasmine Mohammed dropping 2025 for a deeper dive into these topics!
For many, the term “deconstruction” has come to represent a deeply personal process of questioning inherited beliefs, especially in the context of religion. While there’s no official “deconstruction community,” it has become a popular buzzword online, flourishing in spaces like Instagram, TikTok, and podcasts. (The New Evangelicals,Dr. Pete Enns (The Bible for Normal People), Eve was framed,Jesus Unfollower, Dr. Laura Anderson just to name a few.) These platforms provide room to question everything and dismantle rigid systems of belief—at least in theory.
But what happens when these communities become echo chambers of their own? Instead of fostering true intellectual freedom, the deconstruction movement often serves as a pipeline into new forms of dogma. Rather than encouraging critical thinking, it frequently replicates the same tribalism and groupthink that so many participants are trying to escape.
This is not growth. It’s trading one set of chains for another.
From Evangelicalism to Progressive Extremism
It’s ironic: people leave far-right evangelical Christianity believing they’ve found freedom, only to stumble into another extreme—progressive leftist ideologies. Why does this happen?
To understand this, we need to step back and look at human nature. Political scientists have found that public opinion is shaped far more by group identity than by self-interest. As Jonathan Haidt explains in The Righteous Mind, politics is deeply tribal. We’re hardwired to align with groups, not necessarily because they offer truth, but because they provide belonging.
This tribal impulse is magnified in the context of deconstruction. Many who leave evangelical Christianity are grappling with disillusionment, loss, and a hunger for community. For some, the progressive left offers a sense of safety and a clear moral framework, mirroring what they once found in their faith. The partisan brain, already trained to see the world in “us versus them” terms, naturally clings to another tribe rather than embracing the discomfort of uncertainty.
Research even suggests that extreme partisanship may be addictive. Our brains are rewarded for performing the mental gymnastics that protect us from beliefs we don’t want to confront. This dynamic—coupled with the fear of being ostracized by a new community—creates an environment where dissenting voices are silenced, and ideological purity becomes the new gospel.
Woke Ideology as a Secular Faith: A Closer Look
John McWhorter argues that wokeism functions like a full-fledged religion. It provides a moral framework that mirrors traditional religious beliefs. Instead of concepts like original sin, wokeism offers “privilege,” positioning those with it as morally compromised. In place of rituals like prayer, adherents perform acts like confessing their biases. And, similar to the salvation promised in traditional religions, salvation in wokeism comes through activism and striving for societal change. For McWhorter, this structure offers a sense of moral clarity and purpose, but the movement’s refusal to tolerate dissent makes it dangerous. He suggests, “What we’re seeing isn’t a quest for justice but a demand for unquestioning orthodoxy.”
Keep your eyes 👀out for that blog post, for it will be coming soon, and it will be called “Oh Woke night, The Sacred Beliefs of the Left”
Fragility and the “Three Great Untruths”
The allure of the deconstruction space isn’t just about leaving religion; it’s about embracing a new narrative. But narratives, like dogmas, can distort reality when they’re based on false premises. Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt explore this in their book The Coddling of the American Mind, identifying three “Great Untruths” that have come to dominate cultural discourse:
“What doesn’t kill you makes you weaker.”
“Always trust your feelings.”
“Life is a battle between good people and evil people.”
These untruths encourage fragility, discourage critical thinking, and foster an “us versus them” mentality. They create a world where discomfort is seen as harmful, emotions override evidence, and disagreement is equated with moral failure.
Sound familiar? For anyone who grew up in evangelical circles, these patterns mirror the same rigidity and moral absolutism they left behind. And yet, these same traits are now pervasive in parts of the deconstruction space. This creates an ironic cycle: people flee one form of oppression, only to adopt another, packaged in new language but rooted in the same fear-based thinking.
One of the most seductive ideas in the deconstruction movement is the belief in reason as the ultimate guide to truth. On the surface, this sounds like an antidote to dogma. But here’s the catch: reason isn’t the unbiased tool we like to imagine.
French cognitive scientists Hugo Mercier and Dan Sperber argue that reasoning didn’t evolve to help us discover truth. Instead, it evolved for argumentation—to persuade others and protect our own beliefs. This explains why confirmation bias isn’t just a quirk of human psychology; it’s a feature of our argumentative minds.
As individuals, we’re not wired to produce open-minded, truth-seeking reasoning—especially when our identity or reputation is on the line. This is why intellectual and ideological diversity is so important in any truth-seeking community. Without it, reasoning becomes a tool for reinforcing tribal loyalty, not uncovering deeper truths.
The philosopher John Stuart Mill captured this in On Liberty, arguing that free speech and open debate are essential for discovering truth. Mill believed that truth isn’t static or simple; it emerges when differing perspectives clash, forcing ideas to be tested, refined, and strengthened. Worshiping reason as an infallible guide is, in itself, a kind of faith—one as flawed and potentially dangerous as religious dogmatism.
The Rise of the Fake Intellectual
2020 and the pandemic didn’t just disrupt our lives; it disrupted how we think about authority and expertise. Franklin O’Kanu, in his Substack UNORTHODOXY, describes the emergence of a new archetype: the “fake intellectual.”
These individuals position themselves as ultimate authorities, wielding data and studies to validate their perspectives. But often, their arguments lack intellectual rigor. They cherry-pick evidence, appeal to emotion, and create the illusion of expertise without true depth.
In the realm of public health and pharmaceuticals, there’s a well-documented phenomenon known as the “revolving door” between regulatory agencies and the pharmaceutical industry. This term refers to the cyclical movement of personnel between roles as regulators or policymakers and positions within the industries they oversee.
What Is the Revolving Door?
The revolving door concept highlights a pattern where high-ranking officials from organizations such as the CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) and the FDA (Food and Drug Administration) transition into influential roles within pharmaceutical companies, and vice versa. This fluid movement raises critical questions about the integrity and impartiality of regulatory oversight.
The deconstruction space is fertile ground for this phenomenon. Disillusioned individuals, hungry for guidance, are particularly vulnerable to voices that seem authoritative. But the rise of fake intellectuals doesn’t just mislead; it stifles genuine curiosity and critical thinking, replacing one form of blind faith with another.
A Call for Intellectual Diversity
If the goal of deconstruction is freedom, then it must embrace intellectual diversity. True growth happens when we allow our ideas to be challenged—when we resist the urge to label dissenters as enemies and instead engage with them in good faith.
This is why Mill’s defense of free speech is more important than ever. Truth isn’t found in the safety of ideological purity; it’s forged in the discomfort of debate. Communities that discourage dissent are not liberating—they’re suffocating.
Conclusion: Toward True Freedom
Deconstruction should be a crossroads, not a pipeline. It’s an opportunity to question everything—including the ideologies we’re tempted to adopt in place of the ones we’ve left behind.
To truly grow, we must embrace complexity, engage with opposing perspectives, and remain humble in the face of our own limitations. The path to freedom isn’t about finding the “right” tribe—it’s about stepping beyond tribes altogether and seeking truth with courage, curiosity, and an open mind.
Taste0ftruth Tuesdays 