When Willpower Isn’t Enough: Media, Metabolism, and the Myth of Transformation
You’re listening to Taste Test Thursdays–a space for the deep dives, the passion projects, and the stories that didn’t quite fit the main course. Today, we’re hitting pause on the intense spiritual and political conversations we usually have to focus on something just as powerful: how technology shapes our bodies, minds, and behaviors. We’ll be unpacking a recent Netflix documentary that highlights research and concepts we’ve explored before, shining a light on the subtle ways screens and media program us and why it matters more than ever.
I have a confession: I watched The Biggest Loser. Yep. Cringe, right? Back in 2008, when I was just starting to seriously focus on personal training (I got my first certification in 2006 but really leaned in around 2008), this show was everywhere. It was intense, dramatic, and promised transformation—a visual fairy tale of sweat, willpower, and discipline.
Looking back now, it’s so painfully cringe, but I wasn’t alone. Millions of people were glued to the screens, absorbing what the show told us about health, fat loss, and success. And the new Netflix documentary Fit for TV doesn’t hold back. It exposes the extreme, sometimes illegal methods used to push contestants: caffeine pills given by Jillian Michaels, emotional manipulation, extreme exercise protocols, and food as a weapon. Watching it now, I can see how this programming shaped not just contestants, but an entire generation of viewers—including me.
Screens Aren’t Just Entertainment
Laura Dodsworth nails it in Free Your Mind:
“Television is relaxing, but it also is a source of direct and indirect propaganda. It shapes your perception of reality. What’s more, you’re more likely to be ‘programmed’ by the programming when you are relaxed.”
This is key. Television isn’t just a casual distraction. It teaches, it socializes, and it normalizes behavior. A study by Lowery & DeFleur (Milestones in Mass Communication Research, 1988) called TV a “major source of observational learning.” Millions of people aren’t just entertained—they’re learning what’s normal, acceptable, and desirable.
Dodsworth also warns:
“Screens do not show the world; they obscure. The television screen erects visual screens in our mind and constructs a fake reality that obscures the truth.”
And that’s exactly what reality diet shows did. They created a distorted narrative: extreme restriction and punishment equals success. If you just try harder, work longer, and push further, your body will cooperate. Except, biology doesn’t work like that.
The Metabolic Reality
Let’s dig into the science. The Netflix documentary Fit for TV references the infamous Biggest Loser study, which tracked contestants years after the show ended. Here’s what happened:
Contestants followed extreme protocols: ~1,200 calories a day, 90–120 minutes of intense daily exercise (sometimes up to 5–8 hours), and “Franken-foods” like fat-free cheese or energy drinks.
They lost massive amounts of weight on TV. Dramatic, visible transformations. Ratings gold.
Six years later, researchers checked back: most regained ~70% of the weight. But the real kicker? Their resting metabolic rate (RMR) was still burning 700 fewer calories per day than baseline—500 calories less than expected based on regained body weight.
In everyday terms? Imagine you used to burn 2,000 calories a day just by living. After extreme dieting, your body was burning only 1,300–1,500 calories a day, even though you weighed almost the same. That’s like your body suddenly deciding it needs to hold on to every calorie, making it much harder to lose weight—or even maintain it—no matter how “good” you eat or how much you exercise.
This is huge. It shows extreme dieting doesn’t just fail long-term; it fundamentally rewires your metabolism.
Why?
Leptin crash: The hormone that tells your brain you’re full plummeted during the show. After weight regain, leptin rebounded, but RMR didn’t. Normally, these rise and fall together—but the link was broken.
Loss of lean mass: Contestants lost ~25 pounds of muscle. Regaining some of it didn’t restore metabolic function.
Hormonal havoc: Chronic calorie deficits and overtraining disrupted thyroid, reproductive, and adrenal hormones. Weight loss resistance, missed periods, hair loss, and constant cold are all part of the aftermath.
Put bluntly: your body is not passive. Extreme dieting triggers survival mode, conserving energy, increasing hunger, and slowing metabolism.
I know this from my own experience. Between May 2017 and October 2018, I competed in four bodybuilding competitions. I didn’t prioritize recovery or hormone balance, and I pushed my body way too hard. The metabolic consequences? Echoes of the Biggest Loser study:
Slowed metabolism after prep phases.
Hormonal swings that made maintaining progress harder.
Mental fatigue and burnout from extreme restriction and exercise.
Diet culture and TV had me convinced that suffering = transformation. But biology doesn’t care about your willpower. Extreme restriction is coercion, not empowerment.
This isn’t just a TV problem. The same mechanisms appear in social media fitness culture, or “fitspiration.” In a previous podcast and blog, From Diary Entries to Digital Screens: How Beauty Ideals and Sexualization Have Transformed Over Time, we discussed the dangerous myth: hard work guarantees results.
Fitness influencers, trainers, and the “no excuses” culture sell the illusion that discipline alone equals success. Consistency and proper nutrition matter—but genetics set the foundation. Ignoring this truth fuels:
Unrealistic expectations: People blame themselves when they don’t achieve Instagram-worthy physiques.
Overtraining & injury: Chasing impossible ideals leads to chronic injuries and burnout.
Disordered eating & supplement abuse: Extreme diets, excessive protein, or PEDs are often used to push past natural limits.
The industry keeps genetics under wraps because the truth doesn’t sell. Expensive programs, supplement stacks, and influencer promises rely on people believing they can “buy” someone else’s results. Many extreme physiques are genetically gifted and often enhanced, yet presented as sheer willpower. The result? A culture of self-blame and impossible standards.
Fitspiration and Self-Objectification
The 2023 study in Computers in Human Behavior found that exposure to fitspiration content increases body dissatisfaction, especially among women who already struggle with self-image. Fitspo encourages the internalized gaze that John Berger described in Ways of Seeing:
“A woman must continually watch herself. She is almost continually accompanied by her own image of herself… she comes to consider the surveyor and the surveyed within her as the two constituent yet always distinct elements of her identity as a woman.”
One part of a woman is constantly judging her body; the other exists as a reflection of an ideal. Fitness becomes performative, not functional. Anxiety, depression, disordered eating, and self-objectification follow. Fitness culture no longer focuses on strength or health—it’s about performing an idealized body for an audience.
The Dangerous Pipeline: Fitspo to Porn Culture
This extends further. Fitspiration primes women to see themselves as objects, which feeds directly into broader sexualization. Porn culture and the sex industry reinforce the same dynamic: self-worth tied to appearance, desire, and external validation. Consider these stats:
Over 134,000 porn site visits per minute globally.
88% of porn scenes contain physical aggression, 49% verbal aggression, with women overwhelmingly targeted (Bridges et al., 2010).
Most youth are exposed to pornography between ages 11–13 (Wright et al., 2021).
91.5% of men and 60.2% of women report watching porn monthly (Solano, Eaton, & O’Leary, 2020).
Fitspiration teaches the same objectification: value is appearance-dependent. Social media and reality TV prime us to obsess over performance and image, extending beyond fitness into sexualization and body commodification.
Contestants were given illegal caffeine pills to keep energy up.
Trainers manipulated emotions for drama—heightened stress, shame, and competitiveness.
Food was weaponized—rationed, withheld, or turned into rewards/punishments.
Exercise protocols weren’t just intense—they were unsafe, designed to produce dramatic visuals for the camera.
The documentary also makes it clear: these methods weren’t isolated incidents. They were systemic, part of a machine that broadcasts propaganda as entertainment.
The Bigger Picture: Propaganda, Screens, and Social Conditioning
Dodsworth again:
“Watching TV encourages normative behavior.”
Shows like The Biggest Loser don’t just affect contestants—they socialize an audience. Millions of viewers internalize: “Success = willpower + suffering + restriction.” Social media amplifies this further, nudging us constantly toward behaviors dictated by advertisers, algorithms, and curated narratives.
George Orwell imagined a world of compulsory screens in 1984. We aren’t there yet—but screens still shape behavior, expectations, and self-perception.
The good news? Unlike Orwell’s telescreens, we can turn off our TVs. We can watch critically. We can question the values being sold to us. Dodsworth reminds us:
“Fortunately for us, we can turn off our television and we should.”
Breaking Free
Here’s the takeaway for me—and for anyone navigating diet culture and fitness media:
Watch critically: Ask, “What is this really teaching me?”
Respect biology: Your body fights extreme restriction—it’s not lazy or weak.
Pause before you absorb: Screens are powerful teachers, but you have the final say.
The bigger question isn’t just “What should I eat?” or “How should I train?” It’s:
Who’s controlling the story my mind is telling me, and who benefits from it?
Reality shows like The Biggest Loser and even social media feeds are not neutral. They are propaganda machines—wrapped in entertainment, designed to manipulate perception, reward suffering, and sell ideals that are biologically unsafe.
I’ve lived some of those lessons firsthand. The scars aren’t just physical—they’re mental, hormonal, and metabolic. But the first step to freedom is seeing the screen for what it really is, turning it off, and reclaiming control over your body, mind, and reality.
Thank you for taking the time to read/listen!
🙏 Please help this podcast reach a larger audience in hope to edify & encourage others! To do so: leave a 5⭐️ review and send it to a friend! Thank you for listening! I’d love to hear from you, find me on Instagram! @taste0ftruth , @megan_mefit , Pinterest! Substack and on X!
Until then, maintain your curiosity, embrace skepticism, and keep tuning in! 🎙️🔒
If you’re a woman in midlife witnessing changes in your body, let’s be honest—hearing one more expert say “just move more and eat less” might make you scream. That tired, oversimplified advice ignores the very real ways our bodies change—and the decades of life we’ve already lived in them.
Midlife, generally defined as the ages between 37 and 65, isn’t just a calendar phase. It’s a biological, emotional, and identity-shifting chapter. For women, it often marks the beginning of perimenopause—the transitional period leading up to menopause, when the ovaries gradually produce less estrogen. Menopause itself is defined as the 12-month mark after your final menstrual period, but the hormonal fluctuations and symptoms often begin years before and can last well beyond that point.
To really understand what’s happening in our bodies now, we have to rewind the clock.
From puberty, our bodies have been shaped by an elegant hormonal dance. Estrogen, progesterone, and to a lesser extent testosterone, govern everything from our cycle to our skin, from our energy to our emotional responses. These hormones rise and fall in predictable patterns until they don’t. And when they don’t, you feel it.
Hot flashes. Sleep disruptions. Brain fog. Mood swings. Slower recovery from workouts. A scale that doesn’t seem to budge no matter what you do. And the silent undercurrents like the gradual loss of bone density—osteopenia—that often go unnoticed until it’s too late.
These aren’t random annoyances. They’re signals. And they deserve to be understood.
In this post and in today’s podcast episode, I talk with registered dietitian and research wizard Maryann Jacobsen about what actually helps us thrive during perimenopause and menopause. We get into why muscle is metabolic gold, why cardio isn’t always the answer, and how biofeedback your body’s own cues like hunger, energy, sleep, and mood can tell you more about what’s working than any calorie tracker or influencer’s reel ever could.
We also challenge the idea that your bathroom scale is the best measure of health. Spoiler alert: it’s not. Tools like DEXA scans provide deeper insight into your bone density and lean mass—two things that matter more than “weight” ever could in this stage of life. And while your smart scale using bioelectrical impedance might not be as accurate, it can still help you track general trends if you know how to interpret it.
One part of our conversation that hit me hard was Maryann’s mention of the body fat research around fertility. Scientists have found that a minimum of 17% body fat is required just to get a menstrual cycle, and about 22% is needed to maintain ovulation. But here’s the real shocker: in mature women, regular ovulatory cycles are often supported best at 26–28% body fat. (PMID: 3117838, 2282736) That means what many of us have been taught to chase ultra-lean physiques (around 17 BF% or so), chronic calorie restriction, or overtraining can actually backfire on our reproductive health, bone health, and overall vitality.
In populations where food is scarce or physical demands are high, we see patterns: delayed first periods, longer gaps between births, earlier menopause. It’s the body adapting for survival. But in modern life, we sometimes impose these same conditions on ourselves in the name of “fitness.”
And while estrogen usually gets the spotlight in menopause care often treated as the main character it’s progesterone that deserves a standing ovation. Many women are told they “need progesterone” just to protect themselves from estrogen’s effects, as if it’s merely a buffer. But that undersells its brilliance.
The name progesterone literally means “pro-gestation,” but its impact goes far beyond fertility. Progesterone is a master regulator. It stabilizes tissues, supports metabolic balance, calms inflammation, protects against stress, and even plays a role in brain health. While estrogen stimulates, progesterone shields. While estrogen builds, progesterone restores.
Fascinatingly, our bodies produce far more progesterone than estrogen especially after ovulation and during pregnancy. That’s not a fluke. It reflects just how critical progesterone is to our overall well-being.
So when ovulation slows or disappears in midlife, it’s not just your period going quiet. It’s this entire downstream network of hormonal resilience especially progesterone that starts to fade. And that’s when symptoms ramp up.
Understanding this isn’t just about managing menopause. It’s about honoring your biology, updating your strategy, and supporting your body like the powerful, responsive system it actually is.
If we want to balance and optimize our hormones in midlife, we have to re-evaluate our goals. This isn’t about grinding harder it’s about getting smarter. And to get smarter, we need to zoom out.
Ovulation isn’t just some fertility footnote-it’s the main event of your cycle. But many of us were taught that the bleed is the cycle. Nope. That’s just the after-party. The headliner? Ovulation.
Why does this matter in midlife?
Because ovulation is what triggers the production of progesterone a hormone that plays a critical role in metabolism, mood, sleep, brain function, and bone health. And spoiler: progesterone is the first to dip off the radar as we enter perimenopause. That’s why your energy feels off, your sleep gets weird, and your tolerance for stress tanks. Your body isn’t broken—it’s adapting.
Here’s where things click into place: your body will only ovulate consistently if it feels safe and nourished. That means you’re eating enough, not overtraining, and not living in a cortisol-fueled chaos spiral.
Ovulation isn’t just about reproduction it’s a vital sign of health. And the two hormones that anchor your entire cycle, estrogen and progesterone, do so much more than regulate periods.
From bone density to brain function, from insulin sensitivity to mitochondrial health, these hormones influence nearly every system in your body. So, when they fluctuate…. or flatline… you feel it. Not just in your body, but in your entire day to day experience.
So, let’s break the rules, rewrite the midlife playbook, and finally start listening to the wisdom our bodies have been whispering all along.
The Fatal Flaws of Calories In Calories Out and the Metabolism Model That Could Change Everything
Alright, let’s talk about the four most useless words in the history of weight loss advice: ‘Just eat less, move more.’ You’ve heard it, I’ve heard it, and if this phrase actually worked the way people think it does, we wouldn’t have skyrocketing rates of obesity, metabolic dysfunction, and entire industries built around yo-yo dieting. But here’s the kicker—it sounds logical. Simple math, right? Calories in, calories out. Except the human body is not a bank account; it’s a biological orchestra, and the way we process energy is more like a symphony than a spreadsheet.
We’ve already tackled the oversimplified calorie-counting dogma in our Science Dogma episode, and we’ve explored how perception alone—like believing a milkshake is ‘indulgent’—can literally alter our hormonal response. That’s not woo-woo, that’s science. But today, we’re going deeper. Because beyond the CICO model, beyond the calorie obsession, there’s a much bigger, messier, and more fascinating reality about metabolism, obesity, and why diet advice keeps failing people.
And I know what some of you might be thinking—‘But Megan, are you saying calories don’t matter?’ No. I’m saying they don’t tell the whole story. The way we eat, when we eat, why we eat, our hormones, stress levels, metabolic adaptations, even our past dieting history—all of it plays into how our body responds to food.
So as we close out Season 3 of Taste of Truth Tuesday, I want to leave you with something foundational. Not another diet trend. Not another oversimplified soundbite. But a real, nuanced conversation about what actually influences metabolism, weight loss, and why some of the most popular strategies—like keto, intermittent fasting, and calorie counting—work for some people but absolutely wreck others.
And here’s the disclaimer—I’m not an advocate for low-carb dieting in general, especially as someone who’s recovered from disordered eating. But my guest today? He eats low-carb and keto. And here’s what I respect—he’s not dogmatic about it. He understands that the real answer to health and weight loss isn’t found in any one-size-fits-all approach. It’s about bio-individuality.
So grab your coffee, take a deep breath, and get ready to rethink everything you thought you knew about metabolism. Let’s do this.
The calorie, as a unit of measurement, has a fascinating history that ties directly into the calories in, calories out (CICO) debate. While many assume the calorie has always been the standard for measuring food energy, its adoption in nutrition is relatively recent and shaped by shifts in scientific understanding, industry influence, and public health narratives.
The Origin of the Calorie
The concept of the calorie originated in physics, not nutrition. In the early 19th century, Nicolas Clément, a French chemist, introduced the term calorie as a measure of heat energy. By the late 1800s, scientists like Wilbur Olin Atwater adapted this concept to human metabolism, conducting bomb calorimeter experiments to determine how much energy food provided when burned. Atwater’s Physiological Fuel Values established the foundation for modern caloric values assigned to macronutrients (fat = 9 kcal/g, carbohydrates and protein = 4 kcal/g, alcohol = 7 kcal/g).
The Rise of Caloric Nutrition
By the early 20th century, calories became central to dietary guidelines, especially in public health efforts to address malnutrition. During both World Wars, governments used calorie counts to ration food efficiently. However, as food abundance grew, the focus shifted from ensuring sufficient calorie intake to preventing excess, paving the way for weight-focused dietary interventions.
CICO and the Simplification of Weight Loss
The calories in, calories out model became dominant in the mid-20th century, driven by research showing that weight loss or gain depended on energy balance. The First Law of Thermodynamics—energy cannot be created or destroyed, only transformed—was applied to human metabolism, reinforcing the idea that a calorie surplus leads to weight gain and a deficit to weight loss.
This framework became the foundation of mainstream diet advice, but it often overlooked complexities such as:
Metabolic adaptation (how bodies adjust to calorie deficits)
The thermic effect of food (protein takes more energy to digest than fat or carbs)
Gut microbiome effects on calorie absorption
Psychological and behavioral aspects of eating
Criticism and the Evolution of the Debate
By the late 20th century, challenges to strict CICO thinking emerged. Researchers in endocrinology and metabolism, such as Dr. Robert Lustig and Dr. David Ludwig, highlighted that not all calories affect the body in the same way—insulin regulation, macronutrient composition, and food quality play crucial roles.
Low-carb and ketogenic diet advocates argued that carbohydrate restriction, not just calorie restriction, was key to weight management due to its impact on insulin and fat storage.
I personally think, it’s not just carbs or calories doing this. There are at least 42 factors that impact blood sugar and metabolism. This is something I’ve worked to educate my audience on for years. Carbs are just one piece of the puzzle. Stress, sleep, gut microbiome, meal timing, inflammation, hormonal balance—all of these influence the body’s metabolic “terrain.”
Where Are We Now?
Today, the calorie remains a useful measure, but the conversation has expanded beyond simple energy balance. Researchers acknowledge that while calories matter, factors like food quality, hormonal responses, and individual metabolic differences significantly impact how the body processes energy. The debate now leans toward a more nuanced view.
Now, let’s talk about why this matters.
Today, I’m joined by Adam Kosloff, an author and researcher who isn’t afraid to challenge conventional wisdom—especially when it comes to obesity and metabolism. A Substack post of his, A Righteous Assault on the Absolute Worst Idea in the History of Science, takes a sledgehammer to the dominant ‘calories in, calories out’ model, aka Move More, Eat Less? The Lie That Won’t Die, arguing that our understanding of fat storage is fundamentally broken. Instead, he presents a revolutionary new framework—the Farmer Model—that redefines how we think about metabolism, obesity, and weight loss.
For years, the dominant narrative around weight loss has been depressingly simple: “move more, eat less.” This slogan has been drilled into us by dietitians, doctors, and fitness gurus as if it were an unshakable law of physics. But if it were that simple, why has metabolic disease skyrocketed despite more people tracking their calories and increasing exercise?
Adam challenges the traditional CICO (calories in, calories out) model, not just by saying it’s wrong, but by arguing it is catastrophically misleading. His Farmer Model reframes obesity and metabolic dysfunction as a landscape issue rather than a simple calorie balance equation.
Think of your metabolism like farmland. The most obvious disruptor might be “acid rain”—high-carb, sweet, ultra-processed foods that erode the topsoil, flood the land, and cause metabolic damage (fat storage, inflammation, insulin spikes). But not all disruptions look like a storm.
Sometimes, the changes are more insidious. Maybe those daily lattes weren’t a flood but a subtle shift in the terrain, like over-fertilizing a field. Too much of a good thing, whether dairy proteins or artificial sweeteners, can nudge the metabolic landscape in a way that leads to dysfunction over time.
And here’s the kicker: It’s not just carbs or calories doing this. There are at least 42 factors that impact blood sugar and metabolism. This is something I’ve worked to educate my audience on for years. Carbs are just one piece of the puzzle. Stress, sleep, gut microbiome, meal timing, inflammation, hormonal balance—all of these influence the body’s metabolic “terrain.”
Adam’s latest Substack post, 10 Smackdowns That Lay Waste to CICO, was an absolute banger. The line “Gaze upon these arguments, ye mighty gym bros, and despair…” had me cackling. But beyond the sass, the research was rock solid. In our conversation, we break down some of the most devastating smackdowns against CICO and discuss which ones tend to make the most die-hard calorie counters short-circuit.
The takeaway? The “move more, eat less” doctrine is outdated and incomplete. It’s time for a more sophisticated conversation about metabolism that acknowledges the complexity of the human body rather than reducing it to a basic math equation.
In this week’s Taste of Truth Tuesdays podcast episode, we’re diving into an issue that has been brewing in the wellness world—particularly within the anti-MLM (Multi-Level Marketing) community. While many of us recognize the toxicity of MLM schemes in the beauty, wellness, and health industries, there’s another area where the promotion of questionable health products is happening: the food industry.
It’s strange, really. The same voices that speak out against MLMs’ manipulative practices often promote highly processed, sugar-laden foods in the name of convenience, cost-effectiveness, and even “health.” You’ve likely heard some of these food brands positioned as “healthier alternatives”—like Hawaiian Fruit Punch or cinnamon toast cereals—with a wink and a nod suggesting they’re okay to indulge in because they’re “fun,” “easy,” or “fortified” with vitamins. But here’s the truth: these products aren’t the wholesome treats they’re often presented as. The U.S. food system is more complicated—and far more dangerous—than most people realize.
How Many New Chemicals Are in Our Food?
Between 2000 and 2021, 766 new chemicalswere introduced into the U.S. food supply. That’s right—thousands of chemicals and additives have been added to our foods without the rigorous review process people assume exists for food safety. In fact, 98.7% of these chemicals were approved through a loophole called the Generally Recognized as Safe (GRAS) pathway, which allows companies to self-certify their ingredients as safe, bypassing FDA review altogether. This system has enabled potentially harmful chemicals to enter our food without independent oversight.
The implications for consumer health are serious. These chemicals include artificial colors, flavor enhancers, preservatives, and sweeteners linked to various health issues. And because the FDA doesn’t maintain a comprehensive list of all the chemicals in our food, the lack of oversight should concern everyone.
The Problem with Self-Certification: Why HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Is Pushing Back
It’s a real problem when the system designed to ensure food safety operates like the fox guarding the henhouse. Under the GRAS loophole, manufacturers can decide for themselves whether an ingredient is safe, meaning many additives in foods like sugary cereals or drinks may never have undergone adequate safety testing. As a result, foods marketed as “harmless fun” or “nutritious” could contain chemicals with long-term health risks.
In response, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has directed the FDA to explore eliminating the GRAS loophole. His argument? The current system treats chemicals as “innocent until proven guilty” rather than requiring manufacturers to prove safety before using them in food. Kennedy is pushing for greater FDA oversight to hold companies accountable for the ingredients they use—especially those with potential long-term health effects.
The Irony of Anti-MLM Advocates Promoting Big Food Products
Here’s where things get ironic: Many anti-MLM advocates call out the harmful ingredients in MLM products like shakes or vitamins, exposing their pseudoscience and shady marketing tactics. Yet, these same people turn a blind eye when it comes to mass-market food brands like Hawaiian Fruit Punch and sugary cereals.
Why? Because these products are marketed as “fun,” “easy,” or “family-friendly” and don’t carry the same stigma as MLMs. The problem is, these mass-market foods are often loaded with added sugars, artificial colors, and preservatives that have well-documented links to obesity, diabetes, and other chronic illnesses.
The Truth: Real Nutrition vs. Big Food’s Agenda
The food industry operates much like MLMs in how it prioritizes profit over consumer health. While MLMs exploit their members with empty wellness promises, Big Food capitalizes on our craving for convenience and nostalgia. If they can make something taste good, look appealing, and market it as a childhood favorite, we’ll keep buying it—regardless of its actual nutritional value.
As consumers, we need to recognize that just because something is widely available and heavily marketed doesn’t make it safe. Many of these products contain additives that have never been thoroughly tested or reviewed by the FDA. So, while it’s important to call out MLMs for misleading practices, we can’t ignore the fact that Big Food is playing the same game with what we eat.
Conclusion: What We Can Do About It
In this week’s podcast, we discussed the need for greater transparency and awareness in the food industry. Just like with MLMs, it’s crucial to remain skeptical and stay curious about what’s being marketed to us as “healthy.” Whether it’s a pre-packaged drink or a processed cereal, understanding what’s actually in these products can help us make better, more informed choices about what we’re putting into our bodies.
But beyond skepticism, real empowerment comes from reclaiming control over our food choices—getting back to the basics, connecting with local farmers, growing our own food, and learning how to cook from scratch. The more we detach from the processed food system and build relationships with those who produce real, whole foods, the less power these corporations have over our health.
For those wondering where to start, there are resources to help. Websites like LocalHarvest.org make it easy to find nearby farmers’ markets, family farms, and CSAs (Community Supported Agriculture) in your area. Many farmers’ markets even accept food stamps through the SNAP program, making fresh, local food more accessible than ever. Programs like USDA’s Farmers Market Nutrition Program (FMNP) also help connect families with nutritious, farm-fresh options.
This isn’t about fear—it’s about freedom. The freedom to nourish ourselves and our families with food we trust, to support local communities instead of faceless conglomerates, and to opt out of a system that prioritizes profit over well-being.
Let’s keep asking questions, seeking better alternatives, and finding ways to reconnect with real food. And as always, let’s maintain our curiosity, embrace skepticism, and keep questioning what we’re told is “safe.”
Sources:
Center for Science in the Public Interest. (n.d.). GRAS loophole and FDA food safety concerns. https://www.cspinet.org
Environmental Working Group. (n.d.). Thousands of chemicals in our food system remain unregulated. https://www.ewg.org
I had a lot of different topics in mind for my final solo episode of Taste of Truth Tuesdays Season 3. For example, The Stress-Mitochondria Connection: How B vitamins, Taurine and Magnesium Fuel your Energy, A world without religion: Freedom or Fragmentation, How Emotional Trauma contributes to Chronic Pain or the Social Media Dilemma How to Break Free from the Digital Grip… But then, a new development landed right in my lap—one that perfectly encapsulates the concerning trends I’ve been observing in the deconstruction, ex-Christian, anti-MLM, and ex-cult communities.
My friend Brandie, who I had on in Season 2 for the episode From Serendipity to Scrutiny, recently blocked me. And why? Because I simply pushed back and asked questions. We’d had some private conversations in the DMs that had already raised red flags for me, but apparently, even the slightest bit of pushback was enough to get me cut off. This isn’t just about one friendship—it’s about a much bigger pattern I’ve seen unfolding.
The Deconstruction Pipeline: When Leaving a High-Control Group Means Entering Another
One of the biggest ironies in the ExChristian circles is how quickly people flee high-control religious environments only to land in equally dogmatic ideological spaces. This isn’t a coincidence—it’s human nature. As Jonathan Haidt lays out in The Righteous Mind, our reasoning evolved more for argumentation than truth-seeking. We are wired for confirmation bias, and when we leave one belief system, we often replace it with another that feels equally absolute but now appears “rational” or “liberating.”
This is where figures like Steven Hassan and Janja Lalich come in (because this isn’t just about Brandie) self-proclaimed experts on cults who, ironically, exhibit the same control tactics they claim to expose. Hassan, a former Moonie turned cult deprogrammer, has made a career out of helping people escape authoritarian religious systems. But a deeper look at his work reveals an ideological bent (it’s hard to ignore). He frequently frames conservative or traditional religious beliefs as inherently cult-like while giving progressive or leftist movements a pass. He has called Trumpism a cult but is conspicuously silent on the high-control tactics within certain progressive activist spaces. His criteria for what constitute undue influence seem to shift depending on the political context, (BITE model) making his framework less about critical thinking and more about reinforcing his preferred ideological narrative. I did what Hassan won’t: use his own model to break down the mind control tactics of the extreme left.
Janja Lalich follows a similar pattern. A (supposedly) former Marxist-Leninist, she applies her cult analysis primarily to religious and right-wing groups while glossing over the coercive elements in the far-left spaces she once occupied (or still does). Her work is valuable in breaking down how high-demand groups operate, but she, too, appears to have blind spots when it comes to ideological echo chambers outside of the religious sphere. These represent a pattern rather than an isolated incident. Other platforms like (The New Evangelicals,Dr. Pete Enns (The Bible for Normal People), Eve was framed,Jesus Unfollower, Dr. Laura Anderson just to name a few.) highlight control tactics when they appear in traditional or conservative groups but fail to apply the same scrutiny to their own ideological circles.
This selective analysis creates a dangerous illusion: it allows people leaving fundamentalist religious spaces to believe they are now “free thinkers” while unknowingly adopting another rigid belief system. The deconstruction pipeline often leads former evangelicals straight into progressive activism, where purity tests, ideological loyalty, and social shaming operate just as effectively as they did in the church. The language changes: “sin” becomes “problematic,” “heresy” becomes “harmful rhetoric”, but the mechanisms remain the same.
Haidt’s work on moral foundations helps explain this phenomenon. Progressive and conservative worldviews are built on different moral intuitions, but both can be taken to extremes. The key to avoiding ideological capture is intellectual humility—the ability to recognize that no belief system has a monopoly on truth and that reason itself can be weaponized for tribalism.
John Stuart Mill warned of this centuries ago: the greatest threat to truth is not outright censorship but the cultural and social pressures that make certain ideas unspeakable. Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt’s The Coddling of the American Mind echoes this concern, showing how overprotective thinking and emotional reasoning have created a generation that confuses disagreement with harm.
Franklin O’Kanu’s concept of the “fake intellectual” is particularly relevant here—people who claim to be champions of free thought while aggressively enforcing ideological orthodoxy.
In this episode, through my experience with Brandie, I’ll illustrate how skepticism is selectively applied, and how ‘critical thinking’ communities can become just as dogmatic as the systems they reject. And unlike Hassan or Lalich, my connection with Brandie was personal. And that’s why I felt this warranted an entire podcast episode. Because what happened with her is a microcosm of a larger issue: people leaving high-control spaces only to re-enter new ones. They are convinced that this time, they’ve finally found the “truth.” Spoiler alert: that’s not how truth works.
So, let’s talk about it.
Blocked for Asking Questions
Recently, Brandie posted on Instagram about DARVO—a psychological tactic where abusers Deny, Attack, and Reverse Victim and Offender to avoid accountability. I agree that MLMs use DARVO. But I wanted to add friendly pushback, that I’ve noticed anti-MLM advocates use similar tactics to silence critics—especially when it comes to questioning the food industry— but she had turned the comments off.
DARVO stands for Deny, Attack, Reverse Victim and Offender—a tactic frequently used by abusers, cult leaders, and high-control groups when they’re called out. It flips accountability on its head, making the person asking legitimate questions seem like the aggressor while the actual manipulator plays the victim.
How MLMs Use DARVO
Multi-Level Marketing (MLM) schemes thrive on DARVO because their entire business model is built on deception. Here’s a classic example:
Deny – A distributor is confronted with the fact that 99% of people in MLMs lose money. Instead of addressing the data, they deny it completely: “That’s just a myth! I know tons of people making six figures!”
Attack – When pressed further, they go on the offensive, accusing the skeptic of being negative or jealous: “Wow, you’re so close-minded. No wonder you’re not successful!”
Reverse Victim and Offender – Finally, they paint themselves as the victim and the questioner as the bully: “I’m just a woman trying to build a business and empower others. Why are you trying to tear me down?”
This tactic shuts down meaningful discussion and keeps people trapped in a system that exploits them.
Do you know what else exploits individuals? Fear and propaganda.
I saw this firsthand in a recent conversation with a friend who’s deeply entrenched in leftist ideologies and what I’d call “Trump Derangement Syndrome.” She shared a post warning people to change their bank accounts because of a false claim that Elon Musk’s staff had access to personal financial data. I pointed out that the post was misinformation, but instead of engaging with the facts, the conversation quickly shifted in a way that mirrors the DARVO tactic.
First, she denied that the post could be harmful or misleading. Then, she attacked me for not understanding the larger “fear” that people are feeling in the current political climate. Finally, she reversed the roles, casting herself as the victim of a chaotic world and me as the one creating unnecessary tension by questioning the post.
This is a textbook example of DARVO, a tactic that deflects accountability, shifts blame, and keeps people trapped in fear-driven narratives. It keeps them from having honest, fact-based conversations and prevents any real understanding of what’s going on around them.
How Brandie Used DARVO on Me
Ironically, despite being an anti-MLM advocate, Brandie used the exact same manipulation tactics when I pushed back on some of her positions. This is a woman who criticizes manipulative marketing tactics in MLMs, yet here she was, employing the very same tactics in our discussion. It’s a stark example of how these patterns can be so ingrained that even those who oppose them can fall into using them.
Deny – When I questioned her promotion of dietitians who endorse processed foods like Clif Z Bars (which recently faced a class-action lawsuit for misleading health claims), she refused to acknowledge the legitimate concerns. Instead, she dismissed it by claiming that caring about food ingredients was more stressful for the body than just eating the food itself—a false dichotomy that undermines any nuance in the conversation, especially when she often critiques the same logical fallacy in other contexts.
Attack – Rather than engaging with my points, she made it personal, implying that I was being antagonistic or bad-faith for even questioning her stance.
Reverse Victim and Offender – Finally, when I didn’t back down, she blocked me, flipping the narrative to make it seem like I was the one causing harm simply by asking questions.
When Therapy Becomes Thought Control: The Weaponization of Mental Health
What makes this dynamic even more interesting is that both my friend in Portland and Brandie, an anti-MLM advocate, are therapists. These conversations have all unfolded within a culture that professes to value feelings, emotional well-being, and mental health awareness. More people are going to therapy than ever before, and an increasing number of people are training to become therapists—mostly women. Currently, around 70-80% of psychologists and therapists are female, and those seeking help are also more likely to be female.
The field has increasingly become a vehicle for ideological activism. Dr. Roger McFillin has spoken extensively about this shift, describing how therapy now often reinforces victimhood narratives rather than fostering resilience. Instead of helping clients process experiences and build coping skills, many therapists nudge them toward predetermined ideological conclusions—especially in areas of identity, oppression, and systemic injustice.
This shift has eroded one of psychology’s most fundamental ethical principles: informed consent. Clients, particularly young and vulnerable individuals, are often funneled into ideological frameworks without realizing it. Under the guise of “affirming care” or “social justice-informed therapy,” therapists may subtly guide them toward specific worldviews rather than offering a full range of perspectives. What should be a process of self-discovery instead becomes thought reform, where questioning the prevailing narrative is framed as harmful or regressive.
Therapy is no longer just political—it has become a mechanism of enforcement. We see this in counseling programs that demand ideological conformity from students, in therapists who blur the line between clinical work and activism, and in public figures like Janja Lalich and Steven Hassan, who claim to expose undue influence while engaging in the same tactics. This is ideological gatekeeping disguised as expertise.
Rather than fostering open exploration, the field is increasingly defined by rigid dogma. Questioning the dominant ideology isn’t framed as critical thinking—it’s labeled as resistance, ignorance, or even harm. And when that happens, dissenting voices aren’t debated; they’re erased. If this trend continues, therapy won’t just be a tool for self-improvement. It will be a tool for social control. It already is.
The Hypocrisy of Selective Skepticism
Brandie and the anti-MLM crowd claim to combat misinformation, yet they overlook a significant issue: the influence of Big Food and Big Pharma on public health narratives.
On her social media story and in private conversations, Brandie has defended dietitians who actively promote ultra-processed foods. Some registered dietitians with large platforms endorse products like Hawaiian Punch and Clif Z Bars as acceptable—even healthy—options.
Clif Z Bars, for example, were recently involved in a $12 million class action settlement for falsely marketing their products as “healthy and nutritious.” These bars are 37% added sugar, essentially sugar bombs.
Yet, a dietitian Brandie supports feeds these bars to her young children, publicly calling them a “healthy snack.” Why is this not considered misinformation?
These conflicts of interest raise serious concerns about industry influence over public health recommendations. Yet, if you question this, you’re labeled anti-science.
This kind of blind faith in authority is no different from religious dogma. The pursuit of truth should always leave room for debate. This also highlights why blindly trusting “credentialed experts” is insufficient. Degrees and titles don’t guarantee that recommendations are free from corporate influence.
Rather than acknowledge these conflicts, Brandie and her followers discredit those asking valid questions, often accusing them of using the “Just Asking Questions” fallacy.
The “Just Asking Questions” Fallacy
A common tactic used to dismiss skepticism is labeling it as the “Just Asking Questions” (JAQ) fallacy. This fallacy occurs when people imply that merely questioning an issue is a form of misinformation or bad faith argumentation.
Many dietitians and anti-MLM advocates are deeply entrenched in mainstream narratives on topics like vaccine safety, climate change, and pharmaceutical efficacy. When skeptics ask pointed questions about these subjects, they are often accused of using JAQing off—a term that suggests they are sowing doubt without providing counter-evidence. The accusation assumes that asking difficult questions is inherently conspiratorial, rather than a legitimate means of inquiry.
But skepticism is not the same as denialism. Critical thinking demands that we interrogate all claims—especially those made by institutions with financial or ideological incentives. Dismissing questions outright only serves to protect entrenched power structures.
The Counterpoint: Intellectual Humility and the Dogma of Data
While it’s vital to engage critically with the information we’re presented, it’s equally crucial to consider the potential pitfalls of blind adherence to any ideology—whether it’s religious, political, or scientific. In the modern age, science and data have often become the new forms of dogma. The scientific community, which prides itself on skepticism and inquiry, is sometimes treated as an unassailable authority—leaving no room for dissent or alternative perspectives.
The worship of science and data as infallible can feel eerily similar to religious dogma. It demands conformity in the name of progress, dismisses alternative viewpoints, and often shuts down debate—all while asserting that it’s in the name of critical thinking and rationality. In this system, the pursuit of truth can ironically become an exercise in tribalism and intellectual rigidity.
What is critical to recognize is that science and reason themselves are not immune to bias, corruption, or influence. Take, for example, the “revolving door” between regulatory agencies and the pharmaceutical industry, which compromises the integrity of public health policies. This conflict of interest is a significant factor in the mistrust surrounding many mainstream health recommendations, especially when we see how corporate interests shape the outcomes of clinical trials, the approval of drugs, or public health initiatives.
Take the nutrition field, for example. The dietitian mentioned earlier endorses Clif Z Bars for her young children, but if you challenge this, you’re accused of being anti-science or fear-mongering.
Similarly, when figures like RFK Jr. highlight pharmaceutical industry ties to regulatory agencies, critics don’t engage with the data. Instead, they attempt to discredit the person asking the questions.
The Real Issue is Deception from Trusted Intuitions
The real misinformation often stems from corporate-backed institutions. Public trust in physicians and hospitals fell from 71.5% in April 2020 to 40.1% in January 2024—not due to misinformation, but because people witnessed firsthand the contradictions, shifting narratives, and financial incentives behind public health decisions. Trust is eroded by deception, not by questioning.
RFK Jr. isn’t “sowing doubt” for the sake of it. He’s pointing out documented cases where pharmaceutical companies have manipulated clinical trials, buried adverse data, and exercised significant influence over regulatory bodies. His book The Real Anthony Fauci outlines a heavily researched case against the unchecked power of Big Pharma and its ties to government agencies. If his claims were false, he would face lawsuits, yet his work continues to spark vital discussions.
True skepticism means demanding better science, not blindly trusting authority. The real danger lies in silencing those who ask critical questions.
Big Food and the Shaming of Health Advocates
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. 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 JUST 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.
Is This Healing or Just Another High-Control Belief System?
Brandie often talks about “cult recovery” and the importance of psychological resilience. But is she really modeling resilience? Because true resilience isn’t about avoiding discomfort—it’s about engaging with it, questioning your own biases, and standing firm in discussions, even when they challenge your worldview.
Instead, she’s teaching people to coddle their minds. To create ideological echo chambers where questioning the “right” experts is heresy. To avoid any perspective that might cause discomfort. If she’s teaching people to avoid discomfort rather than work through it, I’m not sure how that aligns with the principles of ethical psychotherapy.
True healing requires grappling with discomfort, not running from it. When you teach people to shut down their discomfort rather than confront it, you’re not promoting growth—you’re just pushing them into another high-control belief system.
That’s not healing. That’s just another form of control.
And let’s be real—if your response to fair, thoughtful criticism is to shut down the conversation and block people who used to support you, you haven’t actually deconstructed anything. You’ve just built a new echo chamber with different branding.
The Bigger Picture
This isn’t just about Brandie. It’s about a larger pattern I see in the deconstruction and anti-MLM communities. Many of them claim to be freeing minds, but in reality, they’re just recruiting people into a different kind of ideological purity test.
The message is clear: You’re allowed to be skeptical, but only in the “approved” ways.
That’s not intellectual freedom. That’s just another cult.
Where Do We Go From Here?
We need real conversations about manipulation and misinformation—whether it comes from MLMs, Big Food, Big Pharma, or influencer dietitians who profit from pushing corporate-backed narratives. It means we need to question everything—without replacing one unquestionable authority with another. And we need to be willing to hold all forms of power accountable, not just the ones that fit neatly into our existing beliefs.
Because if we’re not careful, we’ll escape one high-control group only to fall right into another.
Over the past year, we’ve explored a web of interconnected topics—religious extremism, theology, the role of social media in radicalization, and most recently, body image and the impact of fitspiration.
These discussions aren’t isolated; they all trace back to a common thread—how external influences shape our beliefs, behaviors, and sense of identity. Today, we’re diving deeper into that connection, looking at how beauty standards, social media, and the normalization of self-objectification are part of a larger cultural shift.
The Evolution of Body Image: From Calorie Counting to the Cult of Fitness
Our cultural obsession with body modification isn’t new—it’s just evolved.
In The Body Project, historian Joan Jacobs Brumberg explores the history of American girls and how today women have more freedom and choice than ever before, but many of us begin a pattern of negative self-image, beauty obsession and dieting as early as five or six. Brumberg states:
“All throughout history, adolescent self-consciousness is quite persistent, but it’s level is raised or lowered, like the water level in a pool, by the cultural and social setting.”
For instance, in the late 19th century, girls might have been particularly conscious of their hands and feet due to the fashion and modesty standards of the time, as well as the emphasis on delicate and proper presentation. Additionally, the ideal feminine silhouette of the time, with tightly laced corsets and voluminous skirts, might have made girls more conscious of their waists and overall body shape.
So, while in modern day times, we may cringe at the confinements of what the Victorian society and wearing the corset did to women, but I’d like to argue that in 2025 body angst is driven by much more sinister forces. Today, commercial interests utilize marketing strategies that result in enormous amounts of profit for the manufactures of cosmetic, surgery, hair products and of course diet foods.
The reality that American girls now center their lives around their bodies is neither coincidental nor trivial: it reflects historical shifts that are just now being comprehended.
15th November 1926: Film star, Mae Murray (1889 – 1965) making herself up in a mirror in the lid of her make-up box.
Brumberg examines how the modern fixation on weight began in the early 20th century. Historically, the surge of explicit “girl talk” about body and sexuality is a relatively recent American phenomenon. As the language surrounding sex and the body has evolved, so too have the body projects of different generations of American girls. By the 1920s, girls began writing about their efforts to develop sexual allure through clothing and cosmetics, and for the first time, they experimented with “slimming”—a new body project tied to the scientific discovery of the calorie. The dieters and sexual players of the 1920s were generally girls in middle to late adolescence, finishing high school or heading off to college and jobs in the business world—unlike today, where such concerns often affect younger children and teenagers.
By the 1970s and 1980s, body control became about more than just being thin; it evolved into sculpting the ideal physique. This shift gave rise to what we now recognize as the cult of fitness—a movement that reframed body control as discipline and self-mastery. The rise of bodybuilding, aerobics, and the emerging diet industry all played a role in selling the idea that, with enough effort, anyone could build their “dream body.”
The Role of Genetics in Muscle Growth: What Fitness Culture Gets Wrong
But science tells a different story. While training and nutrition matter, genetics play a massive role in muscle development, strength, and even fat distribution. A study published in Communications Biology (2020) found that an individual’s ability to build muscle and strength is 50-80% genetic(Pei et al., 2020).
This means that two people following the exact same training program and nutrition plan will not achieve the same results—because their genetic blueprint largely determines their potential for muscle growth, recovery speed, tendon strength, and even motivation to train.
Yet, fitness culture—including myself as a personal trainer for nearly 20 years—rarely acknowledges this, pushing the narrative that extreme discipline alone is the key to achieving a certain look. This myth is not only misleading but also damaging, leading many people to believe that if they just worked harder, ate “cleaner,” or followed the right influencer’s workout, they could look like a fitness model.
How Genetics Impact Strength and Muscle Development
Muscle Fiber Composition: The Fast-Twitch vs. Slow-Twitch Factor
People with a higher percentage of fast-twitch muscle fibers (Type II) have a genetic advantage in strength and hypertrophy (muscle growth). These fibers respond better to resistance training and grow larger than slow-twitch (Type I) fibers, which are more endurance-focused.
Some individuals are naturally fast-twitch dominant, making it easier for them to build muscle. Others are slow-twitch dominant, meaning they may struggle with size gains but excel in endurance sports like long-distance running (Timmons et al., 2010).
Myostatin: The Genetic “Muscle Growth Brake”
Myostatin is a protein that regulates muscle growth by preventing muscles from getting too large.
People with lower levels of myostatin (due to genetic mutations) have an easier time building muscle naturally. Some bodybuilders and elite athletes are born with myostatin deficiencies, giving them an unfair advantage (Lee & McPherron, 2001).
Testosterone and Hormonal Variability
Testosterone is a major driver of muscle protein synthesis, and its levels vary wildly among individuals.
Some people naturally produce more free testosterone (the biologically active form), which enhances muscle recovery, strength, and hypertrophy.
Women generally have 10-20 times lower testosterone levels than men, making significant muscle gains much harder without pharmacological assistance (i.e., steroids)(Kraemer et al., 1998).
Bone Structure and Muscle Insertions: The Aesthetic Factor
Ever wonder why some people seem to have a “naturally sculpted” look even before they start training?
Bone structure (such as clavicle length, rib cage width, and hip-to-waist ratio) dictates how muscle mass is distributed.
Muscle insertion points vary genetically, meaning some people have longer muscle bellies, which create fuller-looking muscles, while others have shorter insertions, making certain muscles appear smaller or less defined no matter how much they train (Abe et al., 2016).
The Dangerous Myth of “Hard Work = Guaranteed Results”
Fitness influencers, personal trainers, and the entire “no excuses” culture have sold the idea that discipline alone determines success. And yes—training consistency and proper nutrition absolutely matter. But they will never override genetic limitations.
This myth leads to:
Unrealistic Expectations: People blame themselves when they don’t achieve Instagram-worthy physiques, despite training and eating “perfectly.”
Overtraining & Injury: Chasing unrealistic body standards leads many to overtrain, ignore recovery, and develop chronic injuries.
Disordered Eating & Supplement Abuse: Some resort to extreme dieting, excessive protein intake, or even performance-enhancing drugs to push past genetic limits.
The Industry’s Selective Silence on Genetics
Why does fitness culture ignore genetics? Simple: it doesn’t sell. If people accepted that their muscle-building potential was largely predetermined, the billion-dollar fitness industry wouldn’t be able to push:
Expensive training programs promising “X body in X weeks.”
Supplement stacks claiming to “maximize muscle growth.”
The illusion that buying a program from a shredded influencer will make you look like them.
Ironically, many of the biggest names in fitness—especially those with extreme physiques—are genetically gifted (and often enhanced by PEDs). Yet, they claim their results come solely from “hard work and dedication,” keeping their followers trapped in a cycle of unrealistic expectations and self-blame.
After nearly 20 years as a personal trainer, I wish I had been more honest about genetics with my clients. Fitness is absolutely a combination of training, nutrition, recovery, and mindset—but genetics are the foundation that determines what’s possible.
Let’s stop pretending everyone can achieve the same results through sheer willpower. Fitness should be about maximizing your individual potential—not chasing an impossible ideal. Focusing on body neutral fitness and strength training gave me tangible, measurable improvements, but it also made me realize how much misinformation circulates in mainstream fitness spaces, particularly in the fitspiration content flooding social media.
Fitspiration: The Reinvention of Beauty Standards
A 2023 study in Computers in Human Behavior compared the effects of fit ideal vs. non-fit ideal body types in fitspiration imagery. The findings? Exposure to fitspiration content significantly increases body dissatisfaction, especially in women who already struggle with self-image. This isn’t surprising—social media’s curated highlight reels create a distorted sense of what’s achievable. And just like 90s diet culture failed to acknowledge genetic differences in weight, today’s fitness culture largely ignores the reality that strength and muscle growth are heavily influenced by genetics.
But the impact of fitspiration goes beyond body image. The same mechanisms that fuel fitness obsession—comparison, idealization, and self-objectification—are also at play in the broader cultural shift toward hypersexualization.
Fitspiration and Self-Objectification: The Internalized Gaze
Self-objectification occurs when a person sees themselves through the eyes of others, measuring their worth by how they look rather than who they are. And nowhere is this dynamic more evident than in fitspiration culture.
John Berger describes this process perfectly in Ways of Seeing:
“A woman must continually watch herself. She is almost continually accompanied by her own image of herself… From earliest childhood she has been taught and persuaded to survey herself continually. And so she comes to consider the surveyor and the surveyed within her as the two constituent yet always distinct elements of her identity as a woman.”
Fitspiration content encourages this exact split identity—one part of a woman is the observer, constantly assessing whether she looks toned, lean, or strong enough. The other part is the observed, existing only as a reflection of an idealized body type. It’s no longer just about fitness; it’s about performing fitness for an audience.
And the consequences are severe:
Chronic body surveillance leads to increased anxiety, depression, and disordered eating (Fredrickson & Roberts, 1997).
Instead of focusing on how movement feels, women focus on how their bodies appear while exercising.
The line between fitness and sexualization blurs, reinforcing the idea that a woman’s body is only valuable when it is desirable to others.
In this way, fitspiration isn’t just a rebranded version of diet culture—it’s also a pipeline to broader cultural hypersexualization, where the body is constantly on display, measured, and objectified. And this feeds directly into an even deeper issue: the normalization of pornography and the sex industry, where women’s bodies are not just idealized but commodified.
By promoting self-objectification as empowerment, fitspiration culture primes women to see themselves as both the product and the consumer, caught in an endless cycle of external validation. And the most insidious part? It’s framed as self-improvement—when in reality, it’s just another system designed to keep women watching themselves instead of living fully.
The Connection Between Fitspiration, Porn Culture, and Self-Objectification
The way women are impacted by pornography—and by extension, the sex industry—is something far too many people overlook. The statistics are staggering:
The top three porn sites receive a combined 134,491 visits per minute.
Most pornographic videos contain some form of aggression or violence, particularly toward women. A 2020 meta-analysis found that 88% of pornographic scenes contain physical aggression (slapping, choking, hair-pulling) and 49% contain verbal aggression, with women overwhelmingly being the targets (Bridges et al., 2010).
Most young people are exposed to pornography between the ages of 11 and 13, with some studies reporting an even earlier age for boys (Wright et al., 2021).
How This Connects to Fitspiration and Porn Culture
At first glance, fitspiration (or “fitspo”) might seem like it has nothing to do with pornography or the sex industry. After all, isn’t fitness about health and strength? But when we look closer, the connections become clear.
Both fitspiration and porn culture promote self-objectification. Fitspiration culture tells women that their worth is tied to their body’s appearance—specifically, whether they have a lean, sculpted, and sexually desirable physique. This reinforces self-objectification, where women begin viewing their bodies primarily as objects to be judged rather than lived-in, experienced, and valued beyond aesthetics.
Remember our study in Computers in Human Behavior (2023) found that exposure to fitspiration imagery leads to increased body dissatisfaction and self-objectification, particularly among women who already struggle with body image….Similarly, pornography fuels external validation as a primary measure of self-worth.
Women in both fitspo and porn culture are expected to conform to an idealized version of femininity that is both hypersexualized and carefully curated for male consumption.
Both industries capitalize on the illusion of empowerment. One of the biggest arguments in favor of fitspiration and porn is that they “empower” women. But empowerment, in its truest sense, involves autonomy, agency, and self-determination—not just adhering to societal beauty standards under the guise of “strength” or “choice.”
Fitspiration content often presents extreme dieting, excessive exercise, and body sculpting as forms of self-discipline and self-improvement, even when they veer into disordered behaviors.
The porn industry promotes the idea that sex work is a path to empowerment, despite overwhelming evidence of the harm it causes to those involved. Research on women in the porn industry has found high rates of PTSD, substance abuse, and coercion (Farley et al., 2003).
The same narrative that tells women they must be “empowered” by fitspiration also tells them they must be “empowered” by commodifying their bodies through sex work. The reality is that both industries profit from women internalizing external standards of worth rather than defining it for themselves.
The rise of OnlyFans and the blending of fitness and sex work. Social media has blurred the lines between fitness influencers and the sex industry in a way that previous generations didn’t experience. Platforms like Instagram, TikTok, and OnlyFans have created a new category of influencers who monetize their appearance—whether through fitness content, sexually suggestive photos, or outright pornography.
Some fitness influencers now have OnlyFans accounts, where they claim to be selling fitness content but also offer sexually explicit material.
The normalization of “soft porn” in fitness spaces (suggestive poses, hypersexualized workout attire) conditions women to see their fitness journey as something that must be publicly displayed and validated by others.
Many young women have turned to selling “spicy content” on OnlyFans as a form of income, believing it to be harmless self-expression—only to later experience the psychological and social fallout.
This isn’t just theoretical. A growing body of research shows that women who engage in sexualized self-presentation online report higher levels of self-objectification, body dissatisfaction, and lower self-esteem(Boursier et al., 2020).
The Psychological Toll: What Happens When Women Internalize These Messages?
Self-objectification doesn’t just impact body image—it affects mental health, cognitive performance, and even physical performance. Studies have found that women who are primed to focus on their appearance:
Perform worse on cognitive tasks (Fredrickson et al., 1998).
Experience greater body shame and anxiety (Moradi & Huang, 2008).
Are less likely to engage in activities that prioritize function over appearance (Roberts & Gettman, 2004).
And this has real-world consequences. Women who internalize self-objectification are more likely to experience:
Higher rates of depression and anxiety
Greater susceptibility to eating disorders
Lower confidence in their physical abilities
Reframing the Narrative: What’s the Alternative?
Recognizing these patterns is the first step in breaking free from them. If fitspiration, porn culture, and social media all push the message that women must shape themselves into externally validated objects, then the antidote is reclaiming agency over our bodies—not as things to be looked at, but as tools for living, experiencing, and creating.
Strength training should be about what your body can do, not how it looks.
Health and fitness should prioritize function over pain.
Challenge Beauty Norms & External Validation. Who benefits from women being consumed by their appearance? The more we recognize these influences, the easier it is to resist them.
Women should be encouraged to pursue movement, sport, and physical strength without the added layer of performative sexuality.
Joan Jacobs Brumberg’s The Body Project reinforced for me how unprepared young women have been for the level of sexualization and exploitation in our culture—something that has only worsened with social media. The way sex work is framed as “empowerment” in some circles ignores the long-term harm it inflicts, and I’ve seen that firsthand.
I can’t wait to discuss this more with my friend Sloane Wilson, a survivor advocate with Exodus Cry, on my podcast later this season. Her insights into the realities of the sex industry and the dangers of normalizing self-objectification are incredibly important for this conversation.
If you’ve ever been confused by conflicting diet headlines, you’re not alone! Nutrition research aims to help us understand how different foods impact our health, but the process isn’t always straightforward. From small sample sizes to biases and misinterpreted data, the field is full of challenges that can lead to mixed messages. Today, we’re breaking down the complex world of nutrition research, unpacking what it really tells us, what it doesn’t, and how we can read between the lines to make sense of it all.
This is a complex topic, especially when it comes to understanding terms like absolute and relative risk, which can often be confusing without a visual, so be sure to scroll along as you listen!
Let’s dive in!
I recently sat down with Jacqui, a passionate advocate for empowering women to understand and support their bodies at every life stage. Our conversation was deeply insightful, particularly as Jacqui highlighted the importance of critically assessing nutrition research, an area she’s worked in for years. From her early love for nutrition labels to her background in bio-nutritional statistics and clinical trials, Jacqui’s journey has led her to focus on prenatal research and nutrition that fosters development.
Throughout our interview, Jacqui stressed the need for a more nuanced approach when it comes to nutrition science, pointing out how certain research methodologies and common misinterpretations can lead us astray.
1. The Pitfalls of Food Frequency Questionnaires (FFQs)
One of Jacqui’s key points was the reliability—or lack thereof—of Food Frequency Questionnaires (FFQs), a tool frequently used to assess dietary habits. FFQs often rely on participants’ memory, which can be imprecise and subjective.
Jacqui shared her firsthand experience collecting FFQ data and witnessing how confused participants often were when asked to recall what they ate. This variability in data collection can significantly impact the accuracy of nutritional studies, making it difficult to draw reliable conclusions about diet and health.
FFQs, though commonly used in research, often do not capture the full complexity of individual diets. This leads to inaccuracies in studies that can misguide dietary guidelines and public health advice. Jacqui emphasized that this is a critical issue because it directly affects how we understand nutrition and the effectiveness of dietary recommendations.
2. Understanding Relative Risk vs. Absolute Risk in Nutrition Headlines
Nutrition studies often grab attention with sensational headlines, particularly when they report relative risks. Jacqui explained how a “33% increase in risk” can sound alarming, but in many cases, it doesn’t reflect the real picture. The key issue here is the difference between relative risk and absolute risk.
Relative risk refers to the increased risk of a particular outcome in one group compared to another. While this sounds important, it can be misleading without context. For example, a small increase in relative risk might not translate to a significant increase in your actual chance of experiencing that outcome.
Absolute risk, on the other hand, tells us the actual probability of an event happening.
Jacqui stressed the importance of recognizing this distinction when reading nutrition headlines.
A 33% increase in relative risk might sound alarming, but when we examine the absolute risk, the actual impact could be much less significant. Understanding this distinction helps consumers interpret research with greater accuracy, preventing them from falling for misleading headlines.
3. The Problem with ‘Statistically Significant’ Results
The term “statistically significant” often sounds impressive, but Jacqui warned that it’s not always a reliable indicator of a meaningful finding. In nutritional research, a statistically significant result means that the data supports a specific conclusion beyond what could be expected by chance. However, Jacqui compared this to winning a small lottery: just because the result is statistically significant doesn’t necessarily mean it’s practically important.
In many cases, results that are statistically significant may not have a meaningful or clinically significant impact on real-world outcomes. For example, a study might show a statistically significant difference in health markers between two groups, but the actual difference might be so small that it doesn’t matter in terms of improving health.
When encountering results labeled as statistically significant, Jacqui advised readers to take a step back and ask: Is this result meaningful in the real world, or is it just a statistical fluke?
4. Why Nutritional Research Seems Contradictory
Another fascinating part of our conversation focused on the reasons why nutritional research can often feel contradictory. Jacqui pointed out that factors like small sample sizes, observational study designs, and various biases can skew the outcomes of studies. These variables contribute to conflicting opinions and conclusions in the field of nutrition.
Moreover, biases—whether financial or ideological—can shape the results of studies and the way findings are interpreted. For instance, when a study is funded by a food company, the results might be more favorable toward the products of that company, consciously or unconsciously.
Jacqui encouraged listeners to develop a critical eye when reading nutrition studies. Instead of accepting conclusions at face value, she suggested asking questions like: What’s the sample size? Who funded the study? What biases could influence the results?
5. How to Approach Nutrition Research as an Informed Consumer
So, how should we navigate the sea of nutrition research to make informed decisions about our food? Jacqui’s advice is simple yet powerful: approach nutrition research with a critical mindset.
Here’s how to do it:
Look beyond the headlines: Understand the difference between relative and absolute risk and question whether the findings are clinically significant.
Question study design: Be wary of studies with small sample sizes or those that rely on self-reported data, like FFQs. Also, consider the biases that may influence results.
Seek balanced perspectives: Look for research that examines multiple viewpoints and is not influenced by financial or ideological pressures.
Jacqui’s passion for empowering women through nutrition, particularly prenatal research, shines through in her work. By shedding light on the limitations and complexities of nutrition research, she offers us a much-needed roadmap to make informed decisions about our health. Whether you’re navigating the confusion of wellness trends or simply trying to understand what’s truly healthy, Jacqui’s insights can help us all approach nutrition with more clarity and skepticism.
Want more insights from Jacqui? Follow her on Instagram, where she shares practical advice and challenges the latest trends in wellness.
If you had asked me a year ago why my body hurt so much—why my hips ached, my calves tightened with every step, or why even walking on the treadmill felt like a chore—I would have said it was from overtraining or poor posture. What I couldn’t articulate then was that my pain wasn’t just physical. It was a complex dance involving my nervous system, my fascia, and my body’s attempt to protect itself after years of unresolved trauma.
Our nervous system plays a fundamental role in chronic pain. When we experience physical or emotional trauma, our body reacts by creating a heightened state of alertness. Over time, these experiences are encoded in the nervous system as neurotags—clusters of physical, emotional, and cognitive memories that influence how we react to stress and pain. Chronic pain, I’ve learned, is often an echo of this activation. It’s not just about tight muscles or structural imbalances—it’s a survival mechanism trying to make sense of and respond to past trauma.
This is the story of how I’ve started to untangle it all, and how chronic pain, emotional wounds, and trauma are all intricately tied together in ways I never imagined.
The Connection Between Chronic Pain and Trauma
For years, I treated my body like a machine. During my bodybuilding days, I pushed through discomfort, ignored signs of overtraining, and celebrated soreness as a badge of honor. But what I didn’t understand then was how my nervous system was quietly keeping score.
Chronic pain, I’ve learned, isn’t just about tight muscles or structural imbalances—it’s a survival strategy. When we experience trauma, whether from overtraining, stress, or emotional wounds, our nervous system can get stuck in a heightened state of alertness. It’s like a smoke alarm that keeps going off, long after the fire has been extinguished.
Fascia, the connective tissue that surrounds every muscle and organ in our body, plays a fascinating role in this process. Fascia isn’t just structural—it’s sensory. It’s packed with nerve endings that communicate directly with the brain. When the body perceives danger (even subconsciously), the fascia can tighten, creating patterns of tension that mirror emotional or physical trauma. In my case, that tension showed up in my psoas muscles, my calves, and my lower back—all areas associated with safety and movement.
The more I explored these connections, the more I began to see that pain wasn’t random—it was a message from my body. And it was asking me to listen.
The Power of Neurotags: How Pain and Trauma Intersect
One of the most eye-opening concepts I’ve come across in my journey is the idea of neurotags—a term used to describe the brain’s way of organizing and processing sensory, emotional, and cognitive information. Neurotags are like maps of experiences that are built over time, creating an interconnected network of physical sensations, emotions, and thoughts that work together to form a response to stimuli.
Here’s the kicker: Chronic pain is often stored in these neurotags. When trauma occurs—whether physical, emotional, or psychological—it gets encoded in the nervous system as a pattern. These patterns are not just about the physical experience of pain, but also the emotions and thoughts tied to that experience.
When trauma is stored in the nervous system, it doesn’t just affect how we feel physically; it affects our entire emotional and cognitive landscape. For example, someone who has experienced physical trauma may also experience emotional flashbacks or cognitive distortions that are linked to that experience. These flashbacks are like sudden replays of past trauma, but they don’t just exist in the mind—they can show up physically in the body.
Neurotags, Emotional Flashbacks, and Chronic Pain
Think about it this way: When we experience a traumatic event, our nervous system reacts by encoding that event into a neurotag. This neurotag includes not only the physical sensations (like tightness, pain, or discomfort), but also the emotions (fear, anger, sadness) and cognitive patterns (thoughts like “I am unsafe” or “I am weak”).
Emotional flashbacks happen when the brain reactivates these neurotags, causing the body to respond as if the trauma is happening again. This is why someone with chronic pain may experience intense emotions that seem disproportionate to the physical sensations they’re feeling. The pain can trigger a flashback—a sudden, overwhelming re-experience of trauma that isn’t just mental but is felt deeply in the body.
In my case, the tension I experienced in my hips and lower back was a reflection of both the physical trauma of overtraining and the emotional trauma I had internalized from years of pushing myself too hard and ignoring my body’s signals. When my nervous system encountered stress, it activated these neurotags, making the tension and pain feel more intense and more pervasive. The more I resisted this pain or ignored the emotional connection to it, the worse it became.
How I’m Healing: Creating New Neurotags and Engaging the Vagus Nerve
Understanding neurotags has been revolutionary in how I approach my healing process. The key to healing, I’ve learned, is not simply “fixing” the physical pain but reprogramming the neurotags. This involves creating new patterns that support healing, safety, and relaxation.
One powerful way I’m rewiring my nervous system is by engaging the vagus nerve, the longest cranial nerve that plays a critical role in regulating the parasympathetic nervous system. The vagus nerve is like the body’s “brakes,” helping to turn off the fight-or-flight response and return the body to a state of calm. When activated, it encourages relaxation, emotional regulation, and recovery—exactly what my body needs as I untangle the tension stored in my fascia and nervous system.
Here’s how I’m starting to rewire my system:
Reconnecting with Joyful Movement: I’ve reintroduced activities that make me feel alive, like walking in the garden or playing with my pets. These moments remind me that movement isn’t just about strength—it’s about freedom. By incorporating joyful, non-stressful activities, I’m helping to reinforce new neurotags that associate movement with pleasure and ease.
Reclaiming Safety Through Movement: Instead of high-intensity workouts, I’ve shifted to gentle, functional exercises that strengthen my core and glutes while supporting my nervous system. Slow, mindful movements like glute bridges, bird dogs, and pelvic tilts have become my new best friends. These exercises not only build strength but signal to my nervous system that it’s safe to move.
Releasing Fascia with Love: I’ve embraced somatic practices like gentle rocking, diaphragmatic breathing, and fascia-focused stretches to help release tension. These practices aren’t just physical—they’re a way of telling my body, “You’re safe now.” They help reprogram the neurotags associated with stress and trauma by sending a message of relaxation and calm.
Vagus Nerve Activation: To support my nervous system’s recovery, I’ve incorporated practices that stimulate the vagus nerve, such as slow, deep belly breathing and humming. Breathing deeply into my diaphragm (focusing on long exhales) has been especially helpful in calming my body and signaling to my nervous system that it’s okay to relax. By consciously engaging my vagus nerve, I’m helping shift from the fight-or-flight response into a restorative state.
Rewriting Emotional Patterns: Rewiring my nervous system also means rewriting my emotional patterns. This involves acknowledging the emotional flashbacks that arise when pain triggers old neurotags and consciously choosing to respond with compassion and self-care. Instead of reacting with fear or frustration, I’m learning to pause, breathe, and remind myself that I’m safe now.
What Chronic Pain Has Taught Me
Chronic pain has been a tough teacher, but it’s taught me lessons I wouldn’t trade for anything:
Your body is always on your side. Pain is a signal, not a punishment.
Healing isn’t linear. Some days, progress looks like resting instead of pushing.
Movement is medicine, but only when done with intention and love.
I share this journey because I know I’m not alone. So many of us carry the weight of trauma—both emotional and physical—in our bodies. And while the road to healing isn’t easy, it’s worth it.
If you’re navigating chronic pain, I want you to know this: Your body isn’t broken, and you don’t have to fight it. With the right tools, patience, and self-compassion, you can create safety, release tension, and rediscover the joy of movement.
I’m still on this journey, and I’d love to hear about yours. What has chronic pain taught you? How are you learning to trust your body again? Let’s keep this conversation going—because healing happens when we feel safe enough to share.
🎙️ 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.
Taste0ftruth Tuesdays 