Subconscious Fat at 30,000 feet

Imagine you’re a sailor in 1741.

You’re cold. You’re hungry. You’re stranded in the North Pacific.

Then you look into the shallow water and see something that shouldn’t exist.

A 30-foot, multi-ton sea cow slowly grazing on kelp.

No supermarket. No nutrition label. No influencer telling you whether it’s “heart healthy.”

You see food.

Mr. Skeptical interrupts.

“Wait. You’re telling me people discovered a completely unfamiliar 10-ton sea monster and their first thought was… dinner?”

Pretty much. Here I disagree with ChatGPT; a hungry human, for sure, would be thinking about it when seeing a large, defenseless animal.

It was called Steller’s sea cow, a gigantic relative of today’s manatees and dugongs. Europeans encountered it around the Commander Islands in 1741.

By 1768, it was extinct.

Twenty-seven years.

Humans arrived, discovered it, and hunted it relentlessly for its meat and fat.

Mr. Skeptical smiles.

“Wow. What an impressive conservation strategy.”

Ugh. His sarcasm is unbearable.

But Mr. Skeptical has a point.

We discovered one of the largest marine mammals on Earth—and within 27 years, it was gone.

It’s a conservation tragedy.

But it also tells us something fascinating about humans and food.

Subconscious Fat at 10,000 feet

For most of human history, eating wasn’t an intellectual exercise.

It was survival.

Our ancestors didn’t ask whether an animal was familiar.

They asked whether they could catch it.

Wild horses are another fascinating example.

Long before horses became symbols of transportation, warfare, and cowboy movies, humans hunted them for food. Archaeological evidence shows wild-horse hunting stretching deep into the Paleolithic, including sites where entire groups of horses appear to have been systematically harvested.

Eventually, our relationship with horses changed dramatically. Humans managed them, milked them, harnessed them, and ultimately rode them.

Mr. Skeptical raises an eyebrow.

“So before Uber, the horse was basically lunch?

Yes, it was.

And consider the dodo.

When European sailors reached Mauritius, they encountered a large flightless bird that had evolved without fear of humans.

Humans hunted it for food. But here’s where the popular story needs correcting: we didn’t simply eat every last dodo. Introduced pigs, rats, dogs, and cats also devastated the birds and their eggs.

Still, within roughly a century of European arrival, the dodo was gone.

Subconscious Fat at Eye-Level

There’s a pattern here.

Humans have an extraordinarily long relationship with animal foods.

Different environments produced different menus: fish near coastlines, horses on Eurasian grasslands, large mammals where they were available, and eventually domesticated cattle, sheep, goats, and pigs.

Mr. Skeptical interrupts again.

“Okay, cavemen ate meat. Why should I care what somebody ate 20,000 years ago? I’ve got Whole Foods.”

Fair question.

Our evolutionary history doesn’t prove that everybody today should eat an all-meat diet.

But it does demolish the idea that meat is some strange modern addition to the human diet.

Animal foods aren’t new.

They’re ancient.

Humans have sought them out across radically different environments and cultures for an extraordinarily long time.

The stranger story might actually be how recently we’ve begun debating whether eating animals is somehow unnatural for humans.

Practical Suggestions and Conclusions

I’m certainly not suggesting we repeat the Steller’s sea cow experiment.

Quite the opposite.

We managed to discover one of the most extraordinary marine mammals ever documented and eliminate it within 27 years.

That’s not nutritional wisdom.

That’s a lesson in what happens when consumption outruns conservation.

But there’s another lesson buried inside the story.

For our ancestors, meat wasn’t something that came shrink-wrapped with a barcode.

It was valuable nutrition that had to be hunted, caught, butchered, shared, and preserved.

Mr. Skeptical leans back.

“So you’re saying eat the steak… just don’t wipe out the species?”

Now you’re getting it.

I favor a meat-centered diet because foods such as beef, eggs, fish, and other animal products provide abundant protein and important micronutrients in highly concentrated packages.

But you don’t need to exaggerate history to make that case.

The real history is fascinating enough.

For hundreds of thousands of years, humans and our ancestors have pursued animals for food.

The animals changed.

The hunting methods changed.

Eventually the spear became the supermarket.

But meat never stopped being food.

And perhaps the strangest chapter isn’t that humans once looked at a gigantic sea cow and thought:

“Can we eat that?”

ChatGPT, put in the previous comment, but I think the comment is making humans look nicer than we really are. I’d argue a hungry human back then thought ‘How do we kill it right away.’

The silly thing is, today, surrounded by foods our ancestors would barely recognize, we’re suddenly asking whether eating animals was ever natural in the first place.

But you know better now; don’t fall for the bullshit.

Be aware.

Share Subconscious Fat

PS Links on LinkedIn, Facebook, Instagram, X, and Notes.

Full disclosure: ChatGPT was used to research and enhance this post.

Doing a live banded workout event on Saturday, October 3rd at Legions Park in Miami, details coming soon.

He wasn’t a close friend or a family member. But he was someone I knew.

He’d been inside my apartment many times. He worked on my bathroom. He fixed things around my place. I’d make him coffee with monk fruit while he worked, and we’d talk.

He was a nice guy.

He was also significantly overweight.

I remember telling him once what I do for a living—that I help men get their weight under control and improve their fitness.

He knew.

“I know, I know. I need to lose weight.”

But there was always later.

Then I found out that he had died from an abdominal aortic aneurysm.

I cannot tell you that his weight caused his aneurysm or caused it to rupture. I wasn’t his doctor, and that would be an assumption.

What I can tell you is that research has found an association between excess body fat—particularly abdominal obesity—and a greater risk of aortic aneurysm.

And what I can’t stop thinking about is that conversation.

“I know. I need to lose weight.”

How many of us know?

We know we should lose the belly.
We know we should exercise.
We know we should get our blood pressure checked.
We know we should take better care of ourselves.

But later.

And that’s why the image in this video hit me so hard:

I’LL FOCUS ON ME LATER.

Today is Labor Day—a holiday built around work.

Maybe it’s also a good day to remember that your body is the thing that has to carry you through all that work.

Your career matters. Your business matters. Providing for your family matters.

But so do you.

Don’t wait for a diagnosis, a heart attack, an aneurysm—or some other catastrophic event—to finally make your health a priority.

You don’t have to change everything tomorrow.

Just stop saying later.

And if you’re a man over 40 who’s finally ready to do something about it, reach out to me. I’ll sit down with you for a complimentary fitness strategy session and help you figure out where to start.

Because there’s one thing none of us knows:

How many “laters” we have left.

Be aware.

Other links related to this post:

The Truth About Rapid Weight Loss

Information was cheap — commitment was expensive

You Don’t Need a Fitness Trainer… You Need an Eating Trainer

PS Links on LinkedIn, Facebook, Instagram, X, and Notes.

Doing a live banded workout event on Saturday, October 3rd at Legions Park in Miami, details coming soon.

On this week’s Better Wealth and Health Podcast, I talk with professional voice actor Russell Eakle, founder of Valiant Voice of an Era.

Russell’s journey into voice acting didn’t begin with fame or even a career plan. It began with something much more personal: his son.

We talk about how that motivation pushed him into the world of voice acting, what it actually takes to develop your craft, and how a voice can become much more than simply a way of speaking—it can become a way of telling stories, creating characters, and leaving something behind.

It’s a great conversation about reinvention, persistence, family, and finding an unexpected second act.

🎙️ The Better Wealth and Health Podcast

PS Links on LinkedIn, Facebook, Instagram, X, and Notes.

Doing a live banded workout event on Saturday, October 3rd at Legions Park in Miami, details coming soon.

Subconscious Fat at 30,000 feet

Imagine having a refrigerator full of food—but being unable to open the door.

You aren’t starving because food doesn’t exist.

You’re starving because you can’t properly access it.

Something similar may be happening inside the brain in Alzheimer’s disease.

For decades, Alzheimer’s has primarily been discussed in terms of amyloid plaques and tau proteins. But another theory has been developing alongside it:

What if Alzheimer’s is also a metabolic disease?

Mr. Skeptical raises an eyebrow.

“Wait. Are you telling me Alzheimer’s is diabetes?”

This is where ChatGPT tells me to say ‘Not exactly.’ But in my opinion, diabetes is the underlying Subconscious Fat to many diseases, including Alzheimer’s disease.

And some way more credentialed researchers than me have gone far enough to call Alzheimer’s “Type 3 diabetes.”

And that changes the conversation.

Russell “Russ” Eakle is a Cleveland-based professional voice actor, mentor, and founder of Valiant Voice Of An Era. His voice work spans commercials, animation, audiobooks, narration, character roles, and digital media, including work connected with brands and productions such as LEGO.

Russell’s path into voice acting began during a serious health challenge, when he became determined to create something lasting and meaningful for his son. Now in good health and working full-time in the craft, Russell brings versatility, emotion, and storytelling to his performances while also mentoring others pursuing careers in voice acting.

ValiantVoiceOfAnEra.com ph. 440-570-4357

Join Russell and me for another conversation with Stand-Up Energy on The Better Wealth and Health Podcast. 🎙️ New episode drops tomorrow, Friday, at 11:57 a.m. ET

Subconscious Fat at 10,000 feet

The term isn’t something invented by a TikTok influencer.

In 2008, Brown University researcher Dr. Suzanne de la Monte and Dr. Jack Wands published a scientific review literally titled Alzheimer’s Disease Is Type 3 Diabetes—Evidence Reviewed.

Their argument centered on abnormalities in insulin signaling and glucose metabolism inside the Alzheimer’s brain. Later research from de la Monte continued describing Alzheimer’s as potentially representing a brain-specific form of diabetes.

Neurologist Dr. David Perlmutter, author of Grain Brain, has also popularized the connection between insulin resistance, metabolic dysfunction and Alzheimer’s.

And psychiatrist Dr. Georgia Ede, author of Change Your Diet, Change Your Mind, (link for my book review below) focuses much of her work on the relationship between metabolism, nutrition and brain health. She has discussed Alzheimer’s in terms of impaired brain glucose processing and insulin resistance.

Mr. Skeptical interrupts.

“Okay, but the brain needs glucose. Doesn’t it?”

Yes.

But here’s where things get really interesting.

Subconscious Fat at Eye-Level

The brain is an energy hog.

Under normal circumstances, glucose supplies most of its energy.

But Alzheimer’s brains show impaired glucose uptake and metabolism in important regions.

Researchers led by Dr. Stephen Cunnane have studied another remarkable finding:

While the Alzheimer’s brain’s ability to use glucose declines, its ability to take up ketones can remain relatively intact.

So what exactly are ketones?

Ketones are an alternative fuel produced by your liver from fat when carbohydrate availability is low. When someone dramatically reduces carbohydrates—as with a ketogenic or carnivore-style diet emphasizing foods such as meat, eggs, fish and animal fats—or during periods of fasting, the body begins relying more heavily on fat for energy. The liver converts some of that fat into ketones, which can then be used as fuel by the body and brain.

And here’s the fascinating part:

Ketones can cross the blood-brain barrier and provide neurons with an alternative source of energy.

Think about our refrigerator again.

One fuel door isn’t opening properly.

But another one still is.

Cunnane’s research has investigated whether supplying more ketones might partially bypass the brain’s glucose-energy deficit. Clinical studies have reported modest improvements in certain cognitive outcomes in people with mild cognitive impairment or mild-to-moderate Alzheimer’s, although this remains an active area of research—not a proven cure.

And here is where I’d wish ChatGPT would tell me something more authentic and real, as there will likely NEVER be research on this because who’s going to fund it?

Not pharmaceutical companies.

Maybe one day, meat, chicken, and fish processing companies will get together and fund it; that would actually be a great idea.

Mr. Skeptical leans forward.

“So ketogenic diets cure Alzheimer’s?”

No. But the metabolic question deserves serious attention.

Again, the above is what ChatGPT is telling me to say, but I really believe that, in most cases, an animal-based diet can have a huge impact on Alzheimer’s.

Practical Suggestions and Conclusions

“Type 3 diabetes” is not an official medical diagnosis, and Alzheimer’s is enormously complex. Genetics, aging, vascular health, inflammation, amyloid, tau and other mechanisms can all play roles.

But dismissing metabolism would be equally foolish.

Actually, really foolish.

If insulin resistance and impaired glucose metabolism contribute to Alzheimer’s—and evidence increasingly supports an important connection—then protecting metabolic health also means protecting brain health. Duh!

That makes the fundamentals remarkably important:

Maintain and grow muscle.

Protect your sleep.

Avoid chronically elevated blood glucose and insulin.

Prioritize nutrient-dense animal-based foods.

And perhaps most fascinatingly, continue watching the research into ketones as an alternative brain fuel.

Really, ChatGPT?

Like we all have time to just sit around and wait for the latest research on metabolic brain health.

Because Alzheimer’s may not simply be a disease where the brain forgets.

It may also be a disease where parts of the brain are slowly losing their ability to properly fuel themselves.

And if that’s true, perhaps one of the biggest questions in Alzheimer’s research shouldn’t only be:

How do we remove what’s accumulating in the brain?

Maybe we should also be asking:

What are we feeding it?

Be aware.

PS Links on LinkedIn, Facebook, Instagram, X, and Notes.

Full disclosure: ChatGPT was used to research and enhance this post.

🎙️The Better Wealth & Health Podcast with guest Russell Eakle is dropping tomorrow at 11:57 AM Eastern.

Doing a live banded workout event on Saturday, October 3rd at Legions Park in Miami, details coming soon.

Then I started paying closer attention to what was happening with hydration, electrolytes and circulation—and eventually stumbled onto a combination that has worked remarkably well for me: ginger and salt water.

Why ginger? That’s where this gets interesting.

Ginger has been studied for potential effects on nitric oxide and blood-vessel function—some of the same mechanisms that make blood flow so important to sexual function. That got me wondering whether improving circulation could also play a role in what I was experiencing with my legs.

This isn’t me claiming I’ve discovered a cure for leg cramps. It’s an N=1 experiment that worked for me after other approaches didn’t.

In this Subconscious Fat video, I break down what I tried, what failed, what finally worked—and why I think it worked.

Sometimes your own body is the most interesting experiment you’ll ever run.

Be aware.

PS Links on LinkedIn, Facebook, Instagram, X, and Notes.

On this week’s Better Wealth and Health Podcast, I’m joined by Greg Myer, LMHC, founder of RPM Counseling in South Florida.

Greg brings an interesting perspective to mental health. He’s a Licensed Mental Health Counselor with about a decade of experience, as well as a former Marine Corps Military Police Officer. His work includes helping people dealing with trauma, PTSD, anxiety, depression, grief, and the pressures faced by veterans, first responders, and men who have learned to carry everything themselves.

We talk about why people can know exactly what they need to change and still remain stuck, why men can be particularly reluctant to ask for help, and how our mental and physical health affect one another.

Sometimes moving forward isn’t about knowing more.

It’s about figuring out what’s keeping you from acting on what you already know.

🎙️ Join Greg and me for a conversation about mental health, change, and moving forward on The Better Wealth and Health Podcast—with Stand-Up Energy.

PS Links on LinkedIn, Facebook, Instagram, X, and Notes.

Subconscious Fat at 30,000 Feet

Dolly Parton died this week at 80 after what her representatives described as a brief battle with cancer.

I was genuinely saddened.

I’ve always been a Dolly Parton fan. She may have been one of the most universally likable celebrities America ever produced—talented, funny, generous and remarkably down-to-earth.

But when I heard 80, another thought entered my head:

Is 80 really that old?

Hong Kong—one of the highest meat-consuming populations per capita in the world—also has one of the world's longest life expectancies: approximately 83 years for men and 88 years for women.

So perhaps instead of simply celebrating someone reaching 80, we should also be asking why some people don’t get another five, ten or twenty healthy years.

And then I learned Dolly died after battling cancer.

I recently lost a great and kind friend to cancer, and I’m sad about it because I miss him. I do sometimes wonder what if he tried a better diet to help fight the cancer. What if Dolly Parton did the same?

Mr. Skeptical enters right on cue.

“Hermann, Dolly dies and you’re already blaming her diet?”

No.

I don’t know what caused Dolly Parton’s cancer.

But I think her death raises a question we don’t discuss nearly enough:

What does cancer eat?

Subconscious Fat at 10,000 Feet

Dolly was refreshingly honest about food.

She once described herself as “a junk food person.” She said she tried to eat fish and vegetables during the week, but joked that if she wanted three pizzas on the weekend, she’d eat them.

And potatoes?

She famously said every diet she’d ever fallen off had been because of potatoes—French fries, mashed potatoes or baked potatoes.

She loved traditional Southern cooking, pizza, potatoes and plenty of foods containing refined carbohydrates.

Does that mean those foods caused her cancer?

Knowing the real cause of cancer is difficult.

We don’t even know publicly what type of cancer she had.

But there is a fascinating metabolic connection between glucose and cancer that has been known for approximately a century.

Mr. Skeptical folds his arms.

“Oh boy. You’re going to tell me sugar feeds cancer.”

Actually...

Let’s see what the science says.

Subconscious Fat at Eye Level

In the 1920s, German scientist and Nobel laureate Otto Warburg observed something remarkable.

Many cancer cells consume enormous amounts of glucose and convert much of it into lactate even when oxygen is available.

Today we call this the Warburg effect.

It’s not some obscure alternative-health theory.

Modern medicine actually exploits cancer’s unusually high glucose uptake with FDG-PET scans, which use a radioactive form of glucose to help reveal metabolically active tumors.

Think about that for a moment.

We can sometimes find cancer by following where the glucose goes.

Mr. Skeptical interrupts.

“Then stop eating carbohydrates and starve the cancer. Case closed, right?”

Not so fast. But I like how you’re thinking, and I agree to a point.

And that’s where things become much more complicated.

Your body can manufacture glucose even when you eat virtually no carbohydrates. And cancers aren’t all metabolically identical. Some tumors can use other fuels, including amino acids and fatty acids.

So the Warburg effect doesn’t prove that eliminating dietary sugar cures cancer. Modern cancer research confirms both the importance of increased glucose consumption in many cancers and the substantial metabolic differences among tumors.

But it certainly raises an interesting question.

Researchers are studying metabolic approaches precisely because changing glucose availability, insulin signaling and other aspects of metabolism could potentially alter the environment in which certain cancers grow.

And here’s where I start asking questions.

If I developed cancer, I’d want to know:

What happens if I dramatically reduce refined carbohydrates and sugar?

What happens to my glucose?

My insulin?

My ketones?

And could changing that metabolic environment help conventional treatment?

Mr. Skeptical looks surprised.

“Wait. You’re NOT saying carnivore would have cured Dolly?”

No. I’m saying it’s a possibility.

I’m saying I wish we knew.

Those are very different statements.

We don’t currently have much clinical evidence showing that a ketogenic or carnivore diet—would have put Dolly Parton’s cancer into remission or extended her life.

But altered glucose metabolism is important enough to cancer biology that I think metabolism deserves to be part of the conversation, and I know if I ever get cancer I’m going to go pure and extreme carnivore to give my body the best chance it’s got.

Practical Suggestions and Conclusions

Dolly Parton lived an extraordinary life.

Eighty years.

Thousands of songs.

A business empire.

Generations of people entertained.

Hundreds of millions of books given to children.

And seemingly an endless supply of kindness.

But I don’t think wanting more than 80 healthy years is unreasonable.

And Dolly herself was remarkably candid about loving junk food.

Could decades of dietary choices have influenced her overall health or cancer risk?

Possibly (is what ChatGPT tells me to say), but in reality I’d say ‘very likely’.

Could eating differently after her diagnosis have changed the outcome?

We don’t know. But again, I know what I’m doing: if I get cancer, I’ll avoid all sugars and carbs to see if that can make a difference.

And anyone claiming certainty in either direction is getting ahead of the evidence.

What we DO know is that altered glucose metabolism is a hallmark of many cancers. We know the Warburg effect is real. We know cancer’s unusually high glucose uptake is important enough that medicine exploits it diagnostically with FDG-PET imaging.

And we know Dolly died at 80 in a world where women in Hong Kong average close to 88 years.

Mr. Skeptical has one last question.

“So what’s your point?”

My point is simple.

Maybe cancer treatment shouldn’t make us choose between medicine and metabolism.

Use the oncologist.

Use the imaging.

Use surgery, radiation, immunotherapy, or chemotherapy when appropriate, and after much investigation on one’s own- not just what the doctor recommends, but do your own research- for your life could very well depend on it.

But why wouldn’t we also want rigorous research into the metabolic environment we’re asking those treatments to fight in?

We want that research, but I doubt the medical/pharmacy companies will do it, just like my last post where I talked about the documentary The Cholesterol Code; the money had to be raised by crowdfunding.

Dolly Parton gave the world 80 remarkable years.

I wish we’d gotten 20 more.

And maybe one of the questions her passing should leave us asking is:

If cancer has an altered relationship with glucose, shouldn’t we be talking a lot more about what cancer eats?

Be aware.

PS Links on LinkedIn, Facebook, Instagram, X, and Notes.

Full disclosure: ChatGPT was used to research and enhance this post.

🎙️The Better Wealth & Health Podcast with guest Gregory Myer is dropping tomorrow at 11:57 AM Eastern.

The documentary follows Dave Feldman’s fascinating journey after his LDL cholesterol skyrocketed on a ketogenic diet.

Instead of simply accepting that high LDL automatically meant his health was deteriorating, he started asking questions.

That eventually helped lead to research on Lean Mass Hyper-Responders—people who can develop extremely high LDL on carbohydrate-restricted diets while simultaneously having high HDL, low triglycerides, and otherwise good metabolic markers.

And some of the early coronary-imaging research is fascinating.

But here’s my problem with the movie:

How did we become so terrified of cholesterol and animal fat in the first place?

That’s the part of the story I wanted more of.

Long before Dave Feldman started questioning conventional thinking about LDL, Ancel Keys and the diet-heart hypothesis helped fundamentally change how Americans thought about saturated fat, cholesterol, meat, eggs, and butter.

So while The Cholesterol Code asks an important question—

“What if a high LDL doesn’t tell us the entire story?”

—I think there’s another question we should be asking:

“Were some of our assumptions about cholesterol and animal fat oversimplified from the beginning?”

The movie is worth watching.

But sometimes understanding where science is going requires understanding where it came from.

And that’s where I think The Cholesterol Code could have dug much deeper.

PS Links on LinkedIn, Facebook, Instagram, X, and Notes.

In this episode of The Better Wealth and Health Podcast, I’m joined by David A. Ward Sr., a workplace safety professional with more than 40 years of experience.

We talk about what David calls the humanistic side of safety—why leadership, workplace culture, communication, and genuinely valuing the people doing the work can matter just as much as another safety manual.

Because behind every workplace accident, there isn’t just a statistic.

There’s a person. A family. A life.

🎙️ Join David and me for a conversation about making workplaces safer—with Stand-Up Energy.

PS Links on LinkedIn, Facebook, Instagram, X, and Notes.

Subconscious Fat at 30,000 Feet

Benjamin Franklin was hosting a dinner party at Passy, France, during his years as America’s representative in France.

On one side of the table sat the Americans. On the other, the French.

Among the French guests was the influential writer Abbé Raynal...

The French intellectual Abbé Raynal was arguing a popular European theory of the day: nature—and even human beings—had somehow “degenerated” in America.

Franklin apparently had enough.

He looked around the table and proposed a wonderfully simple experiment:

“Let both parties rise, and we will see on which side nature has degenerated.”

They stood.

The Americans towered over the French.

Thomas Jefferson later recorded the story, describing Franklin’s American guests as men of impressive stature while the French guests were remarkably smaller.

Mr. Skeptical clears his throat.

“Hermann, that’s a funny dinner-party story. It isn’t a randomized controlled trial.”

Correct, Mr. Skeptical.

But here’s where the true story gets much more interesting.

David A. Ward Sr. is an author, speaker, leadership consultant, and occupational safety professional with more than 40 years of experience in workplace safety and leadership.

Based in the Greater Chicago area, David challenges organizations to look beyond rules, regulations, and compliance and recognize the human side of workplace safety—the employees, families, and communities affected when leadership and safety fail.

Author of three books, including his latest, The Humanistic Side of Safety, and brings a powerful message about leadership, accountability, workplace culture, and the value of human life.

dawsr@davidawardsrspeaks.com Ph. 219-669-9043. davidawardsrspeaks.com

David will be my guest on The Better Wealth and Health Podcast, dropping tomorrow at 11:57 a.m. Eastern.

Subconscious Fat at 10,000 Feet

Historical height records indicate that Franklin wasn’t simply benefiting from an unusually tall group of dinner guests.

Research using colonial and Revolutionary-era records estimates that American men were approximately two to four inches taller than Europeans around this period.

Why?

Nutrition matters.

Colonial America had enormous amounts of land, wildlife and livestock relative to its population. Historical accounts indicate that meat was substantially more available to many Americans than to Europeans, where malnutrition was considerably more common.

Protein-rich animal foods have also been associated historically with greater stature.

Height is influenced by genetics, childhood disease, sanitation, overall calories, protein intake, socioeconomic conditions and other environmental factors.

Still, Franklin may unknowingly have been observing a biological consequence of America’s unusually abundant food environment.

Mr. Skeptical interrupts.

“So you’re telling me steak made Americans giants?”

No.

I’m saying something more interesting:

When human beings have abundant nutrition during childhood, their physical development tends to reveal it.

And animal foods play an important part in that abundance.

Subconscious Fat at Eye-Level

Now comes the historical irony.

Fast-forward roughly two centuries.

America—the country whose abundant food supply may have helped produce unusually tall people—became ground zero for another erroneous nutritional idea:

Animal fat was killing us.

Ancel Keys became one of the most influential proponents of the diet-heart hypothesis and led the famous Seven Countries Study.

The countries studied included the United States, Finland, the Netherlands, Italy, Yugoslavia, Greece and Japan.

Notice somebody missing?

France.

France later became famous for something called the French paradox: comparatively low rates of coronary heart disease despite a diet high in fat.

The historical reversal is delicious and ironic.

In Franklin’s day:

Americans stood up and embarrassed the French with their stature.

Two centuries later:

The French became an awkward nutritional question for Americans.

Mr. Skeptical smiles.

“So now the shrimp gets his revenge?”

Apparently history has a sense of humor.

Practical Suggestions and Conclusions

There’s a bigger lesson here than Americans versus Frenchmen—or meat versus vegetables.

Human biology doesn’t change because nutritional fashion changes.

For most of human history, obtaining enough calories, protein and micronutrients to maximize growth was difficult. Animal foods provided extraordinarily dense packages of protein, fat, vitamins and minerals.

History should make us humble.

Yesterday’s nutritional certainty can become tomorrow’s TIME magazine retraction.

Franklin didn’t need an epidemiological model at that dinner table.

He simply asked everyone to stand up.

Sometimes nature leaves clues right in front of us.

The difficult part is deciding whether we’re willing to see them.

George Santayana famously wrote in 1905, “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”

Maybe nutrition should spend a little more time remembering the past.

Be aware.

PS Links on LinkedIn, Facebook, Instagram, X, and Notes.

Full disclosure: ChatGPT was used to research and enhance this post.

🎙️The Better Wealth & Health Podcast with guest David A. Ward Sr is dropping tomorrow at 11:57 AM Eastern.

We’re constantly told: sunlight is dangerous. Protect yourself. Cover your skin. Put on sunglasses.

But here’s where things get interesting.

Researchers have found something remarkable in animal experiments: UVB exposure to the eyes can increase alpha-melanocyte-stimulating hormone (α-MSH) and activate melanocytes elsewhere in the skin.

Even more interesting?

When researchers put UVB-blocking contact lenses on mice, that increase in α-MSH and skin pigmentation was strongly suppressed.

Think about what that means.

Your eyes aren’t just cameras.

They communicate with your nervous system. Your nervous system communicates with your brain. Your brain communicates with your endocrine system. And those signals can affect tissues seemingly unrelated to your eyes.

The body isn’t a collection of independent spare parts.

It’s one interconnected organism.

Does this prove that wearing sunglasses makes humans burn more easily?

No.

Does it prove that taking off your sunglasses will prevent sunburn?

No.

But it DOES challenge the simplistic idea that blocking sunlight from the eyes can have absolutely no effect on what happens elsewhere in the body.

And that’s the part I find fascinating.

Maybe our obsession with separating the body into specialties—eyes over here, skin over there, hormones somewhere else—sometimes prevents us from seeing the bigger picture.

I’m not suggesting staring at the sun. And if glare is interfering with your vision—especially while driving—wear the damn sunglasses.

But do I personally think our eyes were designed to experience natural daylight?

Absolutely.

And maybe the question isn’t:

“How can I block sunlight every second I’m outside?”

Maybe we should also be asking:

“What signals does my body lose when I do?”

Sometimes the most interesting science begins with questioning something everyone else stopped questioning.

Be aware.

PS Links on LinkedIn, Facebook, Instagram, X, and Notes.

With more than 30 years of leadership experience across business, government, healthcare, higher education, technology, and nonprofit organizations, Kevin has helped leaders navigate change, strengthen teams, and build organizations that thrive.

But this conversation goes far beyond business.

We explore why the best leaders put service before status, how trust is earned, what it takes to lead through uncertainty, and why true leadership begins with helping others succeed.

Whether you’re leading a company, a team, your family, or simply working to become a better version of yourself, Kevin shares practical lessons you can start applying immediately.

I hope you enjoy our conversation.

PS Links on LinkedIn, Facebook, Instagram, X, and Notes.

Subconscious Fat at 30,000 Feet

Imagine two men.

One weighs 190 pounds with a 32-inch waist.

The other also weighs 190 pounds, but his waist measures 42 inches.

The bathroom scale says they’re identical.

Your body says otherwise.

What if I told you that one of the simplest ways to estimate your metabolic health doesn’t require a doctor’s appointment, a blood test, or even a scale?

All you need is a tape measure.

The measurement is called the waist-to-height ratio (WHtR).

The formula couldn’t be simpler:

Waist Circumference ÷ Height = Waist-to-Height Ratio

Fortunately, you don’t even have to remember the math.

Just remember one rule:

Keep your waist less than half your height.

If you’re 6 feet tall (72 inches), aim for a waist under 36 inches.

If you’re 5’10” (70 inches), aim for under 35 inches.

If you’re 5’8” (68 inches), aim for under 34 inches.

That’s it.

Mr. Skeptical scratches his head.

“Wait a second...you’re telling me a $5 tape measure might tell me something important about my health?”

It just might.

Sometimes the simplest measurements are the ones we’ve ignored while chasing more complicated ones.

Kevin Spencer Beckford is the Managing Principal of Finding Your Cup LLC and a strategic leadership consultant with more than 30 years of experience across financial services, healthcare, higher education, technology, government, and nonprofit organizations. He helps leaders improve organizational performance, develop stronger teams, and lead lasting change. Kevin also made history as the first African American elected to the Pittsford, New York Town Board and remains an active civic leader dedicated to serving his community.

Kevin.Beckford@me.com ph. (585) 747-4354 LinkedIn profile

Kevin will be my guest on The Better Wealth and Health Podcast, dropping tomorrow at 11:57 a.m. Eastern.

Subconscious Fat at 10,000 Feet

For years we’ve been obsessed with body weight.

Then BMI became the gold standard.

The problem?

BMI has no idea whether those pounds come from muscle or fat.

A muscular football player and a sedentary office worker can have exactly the same BMI while looking nothing alike.

The waist-to-height ratio asks a much better question:

How much of your body is your waist taking up?

Why does that matter?

Because fat stored around the abdomen is associated with a greater risk of metabolic disease than fat stored in many other places.

A larger waist often reflects more visceral fat—the fat surrounding your organs—which has been linked with conditions like Type 2 diabetes, high blood pressure, heart disease, and metabolic dysfunction.

Now, before anyone misunderstands me...

I’m not saying a tape measure replaces your doctor.

Blood pressure still matters.

Blood sugar still matters.

Blood work still matters.

But if someone asked me, “You can only measure one thing today,” I’d be pretty happy with that choice.

Mr. Skeptical raises an eyebrow.

“So should I throw away my lab results?”

Not at all.

Think of your waist measurement as one of the easiest health screenings you’ll ever perform.

No appointment.

No waiting room.

No needle.

Just honesty.

Subconscious Fat at Eye-Level

Here’s how simple it is.

Stand up.

Relax.

Don’t suck your stomach in.

Measure your waist about halfway between the bottom of your ribs and the top of your hips, usually just above your belly button.

Then measure your height.

Use the same units for both.

Now divide:

Waist ÷ Height

Let’s say you’re 5’10”.

That’s 70 inches.

If your waist is 38 inches...

38 ÷ 70 = 0.54

That’s above the commonly recommended target of 0.50.

Now imagine you lose a few inches around your waist.

Your waist drops to 34 inches.

34 ÷ 70 = 0.49

You didn’t grow taller.

You didn’t necessarily lose a massive amount of body weight.

But your health profile improved substantially.

People often confuse this with the waist-to-hip ratio, which compares your waist to your hips.

That measurement has value too.

But I like the waist-to-height ratio because anyone can remember it:

Your waist should be less than half your height.

No complicated charts.

No confusing formulas.

Just one memorable rule.

Mr. Skeptical smiles.

“So my plan to improve my ratio by getting four inches taller probably isn’t going to work?”

Probably not.

Working on your waist is the easier option.

Practical Suggestions and Conclusions

Tomorrow morning, before breakfast, grab a tape measure.

Measure your height.

Measure your waist.

Divide one by the other.

That’s your waist-to-height ratio.

If your waist is less than half your height, congratulations.

You’re meeting one of the simplest benchmarks associated with lower health risk.

If you’re above that mark, don’t panic.

Don’t starve yourself.

Don’t spend thousands chasing the latest biohack.

Instead, use it as feedback.

Build muscle.

Eat foods (like animal products with their natural fat) that help control your appetite.

Sleep well.

Reduce excess body fat.

Then measure again in a month.

One of the mistakes we make is believing that health has to be incredibly complicated.

We buy expensive gadgets.

We obsess over tiny laboratory changes.

We track dozens of biomarkers.

Meanwhile, one of the most useful health measurements may be sitting in the junk drawer in your kitchen.

A tape measure.

Mr. Skeptical sighs.

“I was really hoping you’d tell me buying a smarter smartwatch would shrink my waist.”

Sorry.

Your watch isn’t getting fatter.

Your waistband is.

Start with the tape measure.

The smartwatch can wait.

Be aware.

PS Links on LinkedIn, Facebook, Instagram, X, and Notes.

Full disclosure: ChatGPT was used to research and enhance this post.

🎙️The Better Wealth & Health Podcast with guest Kevin Spencer Beckford is dropping tomorrow at 11:57 AM Eastern.

Every system in it has been shaped by one basic biological pressure: survive long enough to reproduce.

That same principle helps explain why animals behave the way they do, why fruit becomes sweet, why plants develop defenses, and why the body constantly adapts to its environment.

In this Subconscious Fat video, I break down what I call the first and only law of longevity:

Understand the innate intelligence of the body before you try to outsmart it.

Be aware.

PS Links on LinkedIn, Facebook, Instagram, X, and Notes.

Some people view it as a natural botanical that may support well-being. Others see it as an unregulated product with real risks and too many unanswered questions.

In this episode of The Better Wealth and Health Podcast, I speak with Christopher Deaney, owner of Christopher’s Organic Botanicals, about what kratom is, how it is traditionally used, and why consumers need better information before deciding whether it belongs in their lives.

Christopher discusses his own journey with kratom, the importance of sourcing mature leaves from trusted growers, and why independent laboratory testing, proper handling, transparency, and responsible business practices are essential in this industry.

We also talk about the confusion surrounding kratom, the difference between natural leaf products and more concentrated products, and why education should come before hype—whether that hype is positive or negative.

This conversation is not medical advice or an endorsement of kratom. It is an opportunity to hear from someone who has spent years working directly with the plant, the industry, and the people trying to understand it.

Listen to my conversation with Christopher Deaney on The Better Wealth and Health Podcast.

PS Links on LinkedIn, Facebook, Instagram, X, and Notes.

Mr. Skeptical looks at me cautiously.

“Let me guess. You’re going to blame corn for the fall of the Aztec Empire?”

Not exactly. In fact, if it weren’t for corn, that Aztec Empire would’ve never gotten so large.

Christopher Deaney is the founder of Christopher’s Organic Botanicals, a family-run kratom company established in 2016. He is a longtime kratom consumer, educator, and advocate committed to natural kratom, responsible use, rigorous laboratory testing, consumer protection, and sensible regulation. LinkedIn profile.

Shawn will be my guest on The Better Wealth and Health Podcast, dropping tomorrow at 11:57 a.m. Eastern.

Subconscious Fat at 30,000 Feet

Let’s compare two encounters between Europeans and the Indigenous peoples of North America.

When Hernán Cortés described Mexico and the great city of Tenochtitlan, he wrote extensively about its markets, buildings, wealth, political organization, food, and enormous population.

What he apparently did not emphasize was encountering a population of unusually large or towering people.

Meanwhile, later European observers described some of Florida’s Indigenous inhabitants, particularly the Timucua, as tall, strong, agile, and well-built.

Was diet part of the reason?

That is my theory—and I’m sticking to it.

It is a theory worth chewing on.

Mr. Skeptical raises an eyebrow.

“Chewing on? Please tell me you’re not serving corn.”

I’m not. I rarely eat it, so I wouldn’t serve it.

Subconscious Fat at 10,000 Feet

Maize was one of the great inventions in human history.

It was domesticated in what is now Mexico thousands of years ago and eventually became the dietary foundation of Mesoamerican civilization. Archaeological evidence shows that maize became a major staple in parts of the region roughly 4,000 years ago, sometimes providing most of the population’s food energy.

Corn helped feed dense cities and large populations. Without it, civilizations such as the Aztec Empire may never have reached the same scale.

But keeping people alive and providing ideal nutrition are not the same thing.

The Aztec diet was not exclusively corn. It also included beans, squash, amaranth, chilies, tomatoes, fish, birds, insects, small game, algae, and other foods. Corn was traditionally treated with lime through nixtamalization, which improved its nutritional usefulness.

Still, meat from large domesticated animals was not a major part of everyday Aztec life because cattle, pigs, sheep, and goats had not yet been introduced to the Americas.

Corn was the foundation.

Animal food was the supplement.

Mr. Skeptical folds his arms.

“So corn built an empire.”

Yes—but perhaps not the biggest shoulders.

Subconscious Fat at Eye-Level

Mr. Skeptical leans forward.

“Hold on. Are you saying Mexico has never produced a tall basketball player?”

No. Mexico has produced a few very tall NBA players.

Horacio Llamas stood 6 feet 11 inches. Gustavo Ayón was 6 feet 10 inches. Eduardo Nájera was 6 feet 8 inches.

And in 2026, 6-foot-8 Karim López became the first Mexican-born player ever selected in the first round of the NBA Draft.

But think about that for a moment.

Mexico has a population of well over 100 million people, shares a border with the country that created the NBA, and has been exposed to American basketball for generations.

Yet it took until 2026 for a Mexican-born player to be selected in the first round—and only a small handful of Mexican-born players have ever reached the league at all.

Mr. Skeptical shrugs.

“But you just admitted they produced men who were 6 feet 10 and 6 feet 11.”

Of course. Population averages do not prevent unusual individuals from becoming extremely tall. Every population produces exceptions.

The more interesting question is why those exceptions have so rarely developed into major NBA prospects.

Childhood nutrition is a big piece of that puzzle.

Basketball is less culturally dominant in Mexico than soccer. Coaching, facilities, youth leagues, scouting, money, and player-development systems also matter enormously.

So the NBA record does not prove that corn kept Mexicans out.

But it does raise an interesting question: when a large population has historically relied heavily on inexpensive starches and has had uneven access to protein and complete childhood nutrition, could that affect how many children reach their full genetic potential for height and physical development?

Mr. Skeptical points toward the basketball court.

“So corn is not guarding the paint?”

No.

But nutrition may help determine who grows tall enough—and develops well enough—to reach it.

Now consider Florida.

The historical contrast becomes more interesting when we look at what early Spanish explorers said about the people they encountered in Florida.

Juan Ponce de León explored Florida’s coastline in 1513, but his original account of the voyage has not survived. Much of what historians know about that expedition comes from the later account of Spanish historian Antonio de Herrera.

However, only four years after Ponce’s voyage, another Spanish expedition reached the Florida coast. Its pilot, Antón de Alaminos, had previously sailed those same waters with Ponce.

Bernal Díaz del Castillo, who participated in the later expedition, described the Native Floridians they encountered as “very tall of stature.”

That is worth noticing.

Cortés described the enormous cities, crowded markets, wealth, foods, buildings, and political organization of Mexico. But he did not leave us with the same striking description of the Aztecs as unusually tall people.

Meanwhile, one of the earliest eyewitness descriptions from Florida specifically emphasizes height.

Mr. Skeptical leans back.

“So one Spanish soldier saw some tall Floridians, and now you’ve solved human nutrition?”

No. One historical description does not prove my theory.

But it does give us a legitimate clue—and it fits the environmental contrast.

Many Florida communities had access to fish, shellfish, turtles, deer, birds, manatees, and other wild animal foods. Some coastal peoples, such as the Calusa, built powerful societies largely around aquatic resources rather than depending primarily on corn agriculture.

That does not prove every Floridian ate more animal protein than every person in Mexico.

But when an early Spaniard specifically describes Florida’s Native people as very tall, while the accounts from corn-dependent central Mexico do not emphasize unusual stature, the comparison deserves more than a shrug.

Mr. Skeptical looks toward the water.

“So Florida had tall people, seafood, and no shortage of sunshine?”

Apparently, Miami was already showing off before Miami existed.

Practical Suggestions and Conclusions

Cortés’s failure to call the Aztecs unusually tall is not proof that they were short. Silence in one historical document is not a measuring tape. But it’s enough for me to form my theory and see the pattern.

Archaeology does support a broader observation: when humans adopt heavy dependence on staple crops, they gain a reliable source of calories and the ability to support larger populations. Yet agriculture often shows signs of reduced stature, nutritional stress, tooth decay, and disease compared with earlier hunter-gatherer populations.

Food abundance is not always the same as nutritional abundance.

Corn may have been one of the most successful filler foods in history—not because it was useless, but because it could feed thousands of mouths cheaply and dependably.

It filled stomachs.

It built cities.

It prevented starvation.

But it could not provide the complete protein and concentrated nutrition found in meat, fish, eggs, and other animal foods.

For men over 40, the lesson is simple:

Do not confuse the food that keeps a population alive with the food that best builds and maintains the human body.

Mr. Skeptical holds up a tortilla.

“So I can keep this?”

Of course.

Just don’t mistake the wrapper for the protein.

Be aware.

PS Links on LinkedIn, Facebook, Instagram, X, and Notes.

Full disclosure: ChatGPT was used to research and enhance this post.

🎙️The Better Wealth & Health Podcast with guest Christopher Deaney is dropping tomorrow at 11:57 AM Eastern.

Vertical pupils are common among certain predators that need to judge distance and strike accurately, especially close to the ground.

Horizontal pupils help many grazing animals scan a wide area for danger while keeping the ground in view.

Round pupils are common among animals that are active in daylight, taller predators, birds, and primates—including humans.

Pupil shape does not tell us an animal’s complete diet by itself. But it can give us clues about whether that species evolved mainly to stalk, chase, graze, escape, or search for food in a particular environment.

In today’s Subconscious Fat video, I explore what different eyes may reveal about an animal’s role in nature—and what our own round pupils might tell us about the way humans evolved to move, hunt, and eat.

The eyes may be the window to the soul.

But they may also be a window into the food chain.

Be aware.

Other links related to this post:

Omnivores Survive, But Carnivores Thrive

Can Too Much Meat be Bad for You?

5,700 Years Ago, Dinner Was Human

PS Links on LinkedIn, Facebook, Instagram, X, and Notes.

Most people think hypnosis means staring at a swinging watch, falling asleep, or losing control.

But what if you are already being hypnotized every day—by your habits, your beliefs, your internal conversations, and the same emotional patterns you keep repeating?

In this episode of The Better Wealth and Health Podcast, I speak with hypnotherapist, coach, educator, and speaker Shawn Kostiuk about how the subconscious mind influences our behavior.

With more than 30 years of experience helping people learn, change, and perform at a higher level, Shawn explains how hypnosis and coaching can help people manage stress, change unwanted habits, improve motivation, build confidence, and break through limiting patterns.

We also discuss why knowing what you should do is often not enough.

You may understand that you need to exercise, eat differently, manage stress, or stop repeating a destructive habit—but another part of your mind keeps pulling you back toward what is familiar.

Shawn’s philosophy is simple: many people are already living in a trance created by repetition. The real opportunity is learning how to change that trance and create better results.

This conversation may make you question how many of your daily decisions are truly conscious—and how many are simply old programming running automatically.

Listen to my conversation with Shawn Kostiuk on The Better Wealth and Health Podcast.

PS Links on LinkedIn, Facebook, Instagram, X, and Notes.

Mr. Skeptical stares at me in disbelief.

“Are you serious? You’re going after lettuce now? Really? Lettuce? Of all the foods in the world, lettuce is the problem?”

I suppress a smile, for I enjoy irritating him.

This Week’s Podcast Guest: Shawn Kostiuk

Shawn Kostiuk is a hypnotist, coach, educator, speaker, and co-host of the Hypnosis Hero Podcast. With more than 30 years of experience, he helps people manage stress, change unwanted habits, build confidence, improve motivation, and perform at a higher level.

Through SKHypnosis and his mPOWER Hypno-Coaching program, Shawn helps people break through the beliefs and repeated patterns that may be holding them back.

Web: https://skhypnosis.com Call: 306.620.9390

Shawn will be my guest on The Better Wealth and Health Podcast, dropping tomorrow at 11:57 a.m. Eastern.

Subconscious Fat at 30,000 Feet

Right now, lettuce is having a public-relations problem.

A gastrointestinal illness linked to recalled lettuce has suddenly made people suspicious of every green leaf sitting on their plate.

For years, lettuce enjoyed one of the greatest reputations in nutrition. Put almost any food on top of a pile of lettuce and it magically becomes a “healthy salad.”

But now that many people are temporarily avoiding lettuce, something extraordinary has happened:

Nobody appears to be suffering from a lettuce deficiency.

Have you stopped eating lettuce recently? Have you noticed that you are not dead yet? Have your muscles disappeared? Has your immune system collapsed? Has your doctor diagnosed you with acute iceberg deprivation?

Probably not.

In fact, there may be a positive side to lettuce’s current image problem. Millions of people are being given an accidental opportunity to discover that lettuce was never doing as much for them as they imagined.

And once you have broken the lettuce habit, I would argue that it may be a good habit to keep.

Lettuce is mostly water, bulk and crunch. It is not completely devoid of vitamins, minerals or fiber. But compared with eggs, beef, chicken, sardines or liver, its nutritional return is remarkably small.

Lettuce is not necessarily harmful. It is simply occupying valuable real estate.

Mr. Skeptical checks his pulse after going three days without a salad.

“No lettuce since Monday. Somehow, I remain among the living.”

Subconscious Fat at 10,000 Feet

Consider the typical man over 40 trying to “eat healthy.”

He orders a chicken salad. He skips the croutons, requests dressing on the side and feels extremely responsible.

The bowl looks enormous—but most of that volume is lettuce.

If the salad contains only about 2 to 3 ounces of cooked chicken, he may receive roughly 18 to 25 grams of protein. The lettuce helps fill his stomach, so the meal appears larger and may temporarily feel satisfying.

But remove that mountain of leaves and place the same small amount of chicken on a plate. Suddenly, it does not look like a meal. It looks like an appetizer.

Without the lettuce taking up space, he might naturally eat 4, 6 or even 8 ounces of chicken—approximately 35 to 70 grams of protein—depending on the cut and serving size.

That is the real issue. Lettuce can crowd out the food that provides complete protein, essential amino acids, highly bioavailable minerals and meaningful nourishment.

The man believes he made the salad healthier by removing the croutons. But he is still eating a giant bowl of low-nutrition volume with a decorative serving of protein scattered across the top.

Lettuce may be the original filler food.

Mr. Skeptical pushes aside the lettuce and uncovers three lonely strips of chicken.

“Ah. I found the entrée. It was hiding under the landscaping.”

Subconscious Fat at Eye-Level

Yes, romaine and spinach contain more folate and vitamin K than iceberg lettuce. Spinach clearly has a more impressive micronutrient résumé.

But spinach brings another issue: oxalates.

Spinach is consistently categorized as a high-oxalate food.

Mr. Skeptical leans forward, suddenly concerned.

“Hold on. What exactly are oxalates?”

Oxalates are naturally occurring compounds found in many plants, especially foods like spinach. They bind to minerals such as calcium and lead to high calcium-oxalate kidney stones or other issues.

Here’s an image of what oxalate crystals can look like.

And remember: vegetables want to live. Plants cannot run away, bite you or call the police, so they produce chemical defenses. Oxalates are just one of the many compounds plants use to make themselves a little less inviting.

Mr. Skeptical studies the image, rolls his eyes and slowly turns away.

“So the spinach is fighting back now?”

Even the salad has a security system.

So upgrading iceberg lettuce to spinach gives you more micronutrients—but it is not a free upgrade. You get a much larger oxalate load.

Arugula and many lettuces are generally much lower in oxalates than spinach, but they still provide very little protein and relatively little total nutrition compared with animal foods.

You can upgrade the leaves, but you are still eating leaves.

Mr. Skeptical proudly replaces his iceberg lettuce with spinach.

“Excellent. My filler food now comes with terms and conditions.”

Practical Suggestions and Conclusions

I am not arguing that one lettuce leaf will destroy your health. Lettuce can add texture, carry dressing and help someone feel full faster. Some people enjoy it, tolerate it and have no reason to eliminate it.

Mr. Skeptical leans in and asks: “You’ve never enjoyed eating a salad?”

I smile. I used to, but not that much anymore, and I don’t miss it at all.

“You’ve gotten too smart for your own good.”

I shrug my shoulders. Maybe.

But we should stop confusing low-calorie volume with high-quality nourishment.

For a man over 40 trying to preserve muscle, improve strength and control his appetite, protein should be the center of the meal—not a garnish hidden beneath a wheelbarrow of leaves.

Try this experiment:

Build your meal around a substantial serving of beef, chicken, eggs, fish or another complete protein. Eat the protein first. Add lettuce afterward only when you genuinely want it—not because you believe the green color automatically makes the meal healthier.

And if the current lettuce scare has already caused you to stop eating it, consider keeping the experiment going.

Pay attention to what happens. Do you miss it? Are you less healthy? Or do you simply begin eating more of the protein that the lettuce used to displace?

You may discover that nothing bad happens when you remove lettuce from your diet.

Except perhaps that your chicken salad finally becomes chicken.

Lettuce is not the villain.

It may simply be the original filler food: taking up space, creating the appearance of abundance and distracting you from how little protein is actually on your plate.

Mr. Skeptical holds up his oversized salad bowl.

“So I ordered a pound of food and received four ounces of nutrition?”

Welcome to the magic of salad.

Be aware.

PS Links on LinkedIn, Facebook, Instagram, X, and Notes.

Full disclosure: ChatGPT was used to research and enhance this post.

🎙️The Better Wealth & Health Podcast with guest Shawn Kostiuk is coming out tomorrow at 11:57 AM Eastern.

Since losing him, I have kept asking myself a painful question:

Could I have said something about his diet that might have made a difference?

I’ve had guilty feelings because I know that food is the biggest foundation for health and does contribute (more than many realize) to the spread and growth of cancer.

Many cancer cells display what is known as the Warburg effect: they take up unusually large amounts of glucose and convert much of it into lactate, even when oxygen is available.

That does not mean eliminating carbohydrates automatically starves cancer. The body can manufacture glucose, tumors can use other fuels, and different cancers behave differently.

But it does raise serious questions about metabolic health, blood sugar, insulin resistance, ultra-processed foods, excessive alcohol intake, and the role nutrition may play alongside conventional treatment.

In this Subconscious Fat video, I talk about my friend and what I wish more people understood before a diagnosis forces them to think about their health.

Nutrition is not a guaranteed cure.

But it should not be treated as an afterthought either, and if someone has cancer, they should do all they can to make sure they are on a diet that at least won’t contribute to the cancer’s growth and spread.

Be aware.

PS Links on LinkedIn, Facebook, Instagram, X, and Notes.