Welcome to Episode 1 of The Better Wealth and Health Podcast.

In this conversation, Brad Glassman and I explore wealth, health, personal growth, business, and the habits that help people build a better life after 40.

One thing that makes these conversations different is what I call stand-up energy. Rather than sitting through another interview, Brad and I recorded this conversation standing. The result is a more dynamic, energetic, and engaging discussion.

We talk about lessons learned, mindset shifts, common mistakes, and practical strategies for improving both financial and physical well-being.

Whether your goal is to build a stronger body, a stronger business, or a stronger future, you’ll find ideas here that can help you move forward.

About Brad Glassman:

Brad Glassman is a financial educator, former college professor, and licensed financial professional serving clients in more than a dozen states.

After a 30-year career as an engineer in the entertainment industry, Brad transitioned into financial services, where he focuses on helping individuals, families, and business owners make informed decisions about retirement, taxes, asset protection, and long-term wealth planning.

Known for his practical, education-first approach, Brad is passionate about helping people gain clarity and confidence in their financial future.

Learn more at BradGFinancial.com.

Mr. Skeptical squints at the title suspiciously.

“Okay, let me save everyone some time. You’re going to tell us that genetics are fake, doctors are wrong, and everything can be fixed with a ribeye.”

That’s not what I’m saying.

What I am saying is that inheritance may be a lot more complicated—and a lot more empowering—than most people realize.

🎙️ Tomorrow, I’m launching the very first episode of my new podcast:

The Better Wealth & Health Podcast

My first guest is Brad Glassman, a financial educator, former college professor, and licensed financial professional who helps individuals, families, and business owners make smarter decisions about retirement, taxes, asset protection, and long-term wealth planning.

In this conversation, we discuss financial education, decision-making, wealth building, and some of the biggest mistakes people make when planning for their future.

📅 Episode #1 drops tomorrow at 11:57 a.m.

I hope you’ll join me as we kick off this new journey.

Learn more about Brad at BradGFinancial.com.

Subconscious Fat at 30,000 Feet

One of the most powerful words in modern health is genetics.

It’s also one of the most dangerous.

Why?

Because genetics often sounds like destiny.

Your parents had diabetes.

Your parents had heart disease.

Your parents were overweight.

Therefore, you assume you’ll be the same.

Case closed.

But what if genetics isn’t the final verdict we once thought it was?

What if inheritance matters, but not nearly as much as we assume?

Mr. Skeptical folds his arms.

“So you’re saying genes don’t matter?”

No.

Genes absolutely matter.

But they may not matter in the way we’ve been taught.

The real question isn’t whether genes exist.

The real question is how much control they actually have.

Subconscious Fat at 10,000 Feet

For years, scientists assumed many conditions were almost entirely inherited.

Then reality became more complicated.

One example discussed in the book Beyond Inheritance by Roxanne Khamsi involves Long QT Syndrome, a heart rhythm disorder that was long viewed primarily as an inherited condition.

But researchers found cases where individuals developed the disorder despite not inheriting the mutation from either parent.

The genetic change occurred during early development.

In other words, the story wasn’t simply:

Parent passes gene to child.

Case closed.

Instead, biology turned out to be more dynamic than expected.

Mr. Skeptical scratches his head.

“Wait. So even genetic conditions aren’t always inherited?”

Exactly.

Which raises an uncomfortable question.

If inheritance isn’t always as straightforward as we thought, what else might we be oversimplifying?

Subconscious Fat at Eye Level

This matters because many people use genetics as an explanation for almost everything.

“My family has high blood pressure.”

“My family has obesity.”

“My family has diabetes.”

“My family has heart disease.”

Sometimes that’s true.

But families don’t merely share genes.

They also share habits.

They share meals.

They share beliefs.

They share traditions.

They share lifestyles.

A child raised in a family that eats a particular way often continues eating that way as an adult.

A family that normalizes processed food tends to produce more people who eat processed food.

A family that rarely exercises often produces more people who rarely exercise.

Mr. Skeptical leans forward.

“So maybe what gets inherited isn’t just DNA?”

Exactly.

Sometimes what gets inherited is behavior.

And behavior can look a lot like genetics.

Consider my own family.

My mother and grandmother both had their gallbladders removed.

I almost had mine removed too.

But instead, I changed my behavior.

I used fasting.

I adjusted my eating habits.

And eventually, I avoided surgery altogether.

Does that prove genetics played no role?

Of course not.

But it does suggest genetics wasn’t the entire story.

The same thing applies to blood pressure, diabetes, obesity, and countless other conditions.

The environment matters.

The choices matter.

The habits matter.

And increasingly, research suggests that gene expression—the way genes are activated or suppressed—may be influenced by those factors.

Practical Suggestions and Conclusions

The problem with believing everything is genetic is that it removes responsibility.

And while that may feel comforting, it’s often disempowering.

Because if your future is already written into your DNA, why bother changing anything?

Why improve your diet?

Why exercise?

Why sleep better?

Why lose weight?

Why manage stress?

Mr. Skeptical shrugs.

“Because maybe it won’t matter anyway.”

Exactly.

And that’s the trap.

The opposite view isn’t that genetics don’t matter.

The opposite view is that genetics are only part of the equation.

Your genes may load the gun.

Your environment often pulls the trigger.

That idea is far more empowering.

Because it means your choices still matter.

A lot.

Maybe more than we’ve been led to believe.

The next time someone says:

“It’s genetic.”

Pause for a moment.

Maybe they’re right.

But maybe they’re only telling part of the story.

And sometimes the part of the story we control is the part that matters most.

Be aware.

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

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

Watch your email tomorrow, The Better Wealth & Health Podcast will drop at 11:57 AM Eastern.

Most people talk about the antioxidants.

Very few talk about the oxalates.

And almost nobody talks about what happens when you combine dark chocolate with the right food.

In this video, I explain why I almost never eat dark chocolate by itself and the simple pairing that may change the way your body handles it.

Sometimes the healthiest foods have a hidden side.

And sometimes the solution isn’t avoiding a food.

It’s understanding what to eat it with.

Be aware.

Watch the video below.

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

Subconscious Fat at 30,000 feet

Most people assume fruit is sweet because nature loves us.

Nature does not love us.

Nature is not trying to nourish us, reward us, or help us hit our protein goals.

Nature is trying to reproduce.

A fruit tree has one job: spread its genes.

The fruit is simply the marketing department.

Sweetness is the advertisement.

The goal is simple: convince an animal to eat the fruit, carry the seeds somewhere else, and help the tree reproduce.

Mr. Skeptical scratches his head.

“Wait. So the fruit isn’t for me?”

Not really.

You’re the delivery service.

The tree gets the next generation.

You get a temporary sugar rush.

That’s the deal.

Subconscious Fat at 10,000 feet

Think about what a fruit actually is.

It isn’t the plant.

It isn’t the trunk.

It isn’t the leaves.

It’s the reproductive package.

The fruit surrounds the seed.

The sweetness attracts animals.

The color attracts animals.

The smell attracts animals.

Everything about the fruit is designed to get attention.

In many cases, the seed itself doesn’t want to be destroyed.

That’s why seeds often have protective compounds.

Some seeds can pass through animals intact. Others rely on various defenses to discourage being crushed and digested.

Mr. Skeptical looks annoyed.

“So you’re telling me the fruit is basically a billboard?”

Exactly.

A billboard with sugar.

Nature’s version of advertising.

The sweeter the fruit, the more likely something will notice it.

And if something notices it, the odds of reproduction increase.

But here’s where the story gets even more interesting.

Humans figured out long ago that sweeter fruit sells better.

So farmers and growers selectively bred fruit to become larger, juicier, and sweeter than what existed in the wild.

In other words, the tree wants the fruit to be sweet.

And the farmer wants the fruit to be even sweeter.

Mr. Skeptical raises an eyebrow.

“So nature started the advertising campaign, and humans doubled the marketing budget?”

Exactly.

Subconscious Fat at Eye-Level

This idea becomes even more important when we look at the modern world.

For most of human history, fruit was seasonal.

If berries were available, they were available.

If they weren’t, they weren’t.

There was no overnight shipping.

There was no refrigerated trucking.

There was no global transportation network.

Today, however, you can walk into a grocery store and buy sweet fruit virtually every day of the year.

Fruit that has been transported thousands of miles.

Fruit that has been selectively bred for sweetness.

Fruit that is available regardless of season.

Mr. Skeptical leans back.

“So not only is modern fruit sweeter, but it’s available all the time?”

Exactly.

Our ancestors occasionally encountered sweet fruit.

We encounter it continuously.

That doesn’t automatically make fruit bad.

But it does mean we’re interacting with a food environment that humans never experienced throughout most of our evolutionary history.

Many people view sweetness as proof that a food is somehow designed specifically for human health.

But sweetness evolved because it benefited the plant.

And modern agriculture amplified that sweetness because it benefits sales.

Practical Suggestions and Conclusions

The next time you eat a piece of fruit, ask yourself a simple question:

Why is it sweet?

The answer isn’t random.

The sweetness exists because sweetness attracts attention.

And attention helps reproduction.

First the tree benefited.

Then the farmer benefited.

And today, the transportation industry makes sure that sweetness is available almost everywhere, all year long.

Understanding that doesn’t mean you must avoid fruit.

It simply means you start looking at food through a different lens.

One that’s less emotional and more evolutionary.

Mr. Skeptical pauses.

“Okay... if fruit is sweet because plants want animals to eat it, then why are so many vegetables bitter?”

That’s a great question.

And it might just be the topic for a future newsletter.

Be aware.

Other links related to this post:

Why I Only Eat Half an Apple

The White Lotus and Curiosity

A Fruit for Giant Beasts…and Keto Humans

PS Links on LinkedIn, Facebook, Instagram, X, and Notes. Full disclosure: ChatGPT was used to research and enhance this post.

They’re failing because they’re overloaded.

Too much information.
Too many contradictions.
Too many “experts” pulling them in opposite directions.

One day it’s calories.
The next day it’s macros.
Then it’s fasting.
Then it’s “just be balanced.”

Meanwhile, the body keeps getting softer, more inflamed, more exhausted, and harder to control.

In this video, I break down what I believe are the four psychological foundations that almost every successful physical transformation is built on.

Because lasting fitness success is rarely just physical.

It’s mental architecture.

And when the mind becomes more organized, disciplined, and certain… the body usually follows.

Be aware.

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

Subconscious Fat at 30,000 feet

One of the biggest fears many men over 40 have about strength training is this:

“What if I get too bulky?”

Mr. Skeptical squints suspiciously.

“Yeah, because the second I touch a dumbbell at 47 years old, I’m obviously going to wake up looking like a Marvel superhero.”

Mr. Skeptical should be named Mr. Sarcasm.

Most men over 40 are nowhere near becoming “too bulky.” In fact, the exact opposite usually happens.

They become more compact.

Leaner.
Denser.
Stronger.
More athletic-looking.

Not bigger.

This is because after 40, the body changes dramatically. Testosterone levels are usually lower than they were at 18 or 25 years old. Recovery is different. Hormonal signaling changes. Bone growth slows. Muscle-building potential decreases compared to youth.

In other words, the body becomes less interested in adding sheer size and more responsive to improving efficiency.

And that is not a bad thing.

That may actually be the healthiest outcome possible.

Subconscious Fat at 10,000 feet

When most people picture “muscle,” they imagine a 22-year-old bodybuilder force-feeding chicken breast and rice while desperately trying to gain mass.

But many men over 40 who start resistance training — especially while following a lower-carb, ketogenic, or carnivore-style approach — experience something very different.

They lose inflammation.
They lose water retention.
They lose visceral fat.
Their waist shrinks.
Their face becomes leaner.
Their stomach flattens.

And yes, they may gain muscle…

…but visually they often appear smaller in clothing.

Mr. Skeptical looked confused.

“So wait… I start lifting weights and eating protein and somehow I get smaller? That sounds like false advertising.”

Not exactly.

Because the real transformation is usually happening underneath the shirt.

A man may weigh less yet look dramatically healthier:

• better posture

• stronger shoulders

• more visible jawline

• flatter stomach

• visible abs

• more muscular legs

• less puffiness

The body becomes more defined instead of merely more massive.

That is a very different goal from traditional “bulk culture.”

Even Hollywood gives us examples of this.

Dwayne Johnson has visibly leaned out compared to certain earlier periods of his career where he carried far more overall mass and size. While still extremely muscular, his physique in recent years appears tighter, leaner, and more conditioned rather than simply enormous.

That’s an important distinction.

Health is not always about becoming larger.

Sometimes it is about becoming more refined.

Subconscious Fat at Eye-Level

There is another uncomfortable truth hidden inside all this.

Fat often creates the illusion of size.

A man with a large belly and inflamed body may actually appear “bigger” in a shirt than a leaner, stronger man with substantially better health markers.

That can play tricks on the male ego.

Mr. Skeptical stares down at his stomach thoughtfully.

“So you’re telling me some of my ‘size’ might not actually be impressive?”

Exactly.

A flatter waistline may reduce overall circumference while simultaneously improving nearly every meaningful health metric:

• insulin sensitivity

• blood pressure

• mobility

• inflammatory load

• sleep quality

• cardiovascular health

And ironically, many men discover that when they finally get lean enough, their physique only truly becomes obvious when the shirt comes off.

A loose shirt may hide everything.

But underneath:

• visible muscle separation

• a flatter abdomen

• stronger glutes

• more athletic movement

• less joint stress

• better posture

This is one reason why chasing endless “bulk” after 40 can become counterproductive.

The body is no longer trying to become a refrigerator.

It is trying to remain functional.

Strong.
Mobile.
Capable.
Resilient.

The older male body often responds best to intelligent resistance training, sufficient protein, recovery, and reduced body fat rather than endless calorie-surplus “mass gaining.”

Practical Suggestions and Conclusions

For men over 40, the better goal may not be:
“Become bigger.”

The better goal may be:
“Become harder to break.”

That means:

• maintain muscle

• improve strength

• reduce visceral fat

• preserve joints

• improve movement

• stay metabolically healthy

• and maintain a leaner waistline

You may not become massive.

But you may become healthier, sharper, more athletic, and biologically younger-looking.

And perhaps most importantly…

you may finally stop confusing “bulk” with health.

Mr. Skeptical folds his arms.

“So basically, I shouldn’t panic if my shirt size goes down?”

No.

You should probably panic if your waistline keeps going up.

Be aware.

PS Links on LinkedIn, Facebook, Instagram, X, and Notes. Full disclosure: ChatGPT was used to research and enhance this post.

Happy Memorial Day. This video was originally recorded in 2024, but the message still applies today, so I’m bringing it back from the archive.

Any other sugar substitutes will give you a glucose/insulin spike, so look for these 4 only. These sugar substitutes are taken from natural sources and are typically well tolerated.

1. Stevia

2. Allulose

3. Monk Fruit

4. Erythritol

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

Subconscious Fat at 30,000 feet

Most people think sugar is merely “energy.”

That’s the spell.

Mr. Skeptical shifts in his chair.

“Don’t you have a name for that….obesity…”

Yes, I’d like to call thinking sugar is only energy an “obesity spell”.

Sugar is not merely energy. Sugar is also chemistry. And one of the most important chemical reactions sugar participates in inside the body is something called glycation.

Glycation is, in many ways, biological stickiness.

Sugar sticks to proteins, fats, and tissues in the body in ways that slowly damage them over time. Think of it like syrup drying onto a countertop. At first it’s just sticky. Eventually it hardens, darkens, and becomes difficult to remove.

That’s not a bad metaphor for aging.

Wrinkled skin. Stiff arteries. Cloudy eyes. Damaged nerves. Achy joints. Poor circulation. Much of this is connected to oxidation and glycation slowly accumulating over decades.

And yet society still treats sugar as harmless fun.

Meanwhile, the human body quietly caramelizes from the inside out.

Subconscious Fat at 10,000 feet

Mr. Skeptical leans back in his chair with a grin.

“Come on. Sugar can’t possibly be THAT bad. My grandmother ate dessert every day.”

I nod.

Yes. And some people smoke until ninety.

The existence of exceptions does not erase biology.

Glycation occurs when sugar molecules bind to proteins or fats in the body without enzymatic control. The result is the formation of compounds called AGEs — Advanced Glycation End Products.

Even the acronym sounds ominous.

AGES.

Because that’s exactly what they help accelerate.

Collagen becomes less flexible. Blood vessels stiffen. Proteins lose proper function. Tissues become more brittle and inflamed over time.

This is one reason diabetics often age faster physically.

Chronically elevated blood sugar dramatically accelerates glycation.

And here’s the important part: glycation is not merely about eating “desserts.”

It’s fundamentally about glucose exposure over time.

Bread.

Pasta.

Cereal.

Rice.

Juice.

Soda.

Candy.

Even “healthy” ultra-sweet smoothies.

The body often breaks many carbohydrates down into glucose anyway.

Mr. Skeptical smirks.

“So fruit is basically poison now?”

No.

Dose matters.

Context matters.

Metabolic health matters.

But modern people consume sugars and processed carbohydrates at levels human biology likely never evolved around.

That matters too.

Subconscious Fat at Eye-Level

One useful mental model is this:

Sugar is sticky.

Not literally like glue pouring through your veins. But chemically sticky enough to interfere with proteins and tissues over time.

Hemoglobin A1c — one of the most important blood markers doctors measure — is literally glycated hemoglobin.

That test partially reflects how much sugar has been attaching itself to your red blood cells over the prior months.

Think about that.

One of the most respected metabolic markers in medicine is basically measuring sugar-stickiness.

Now, sugar is not the ONLY thing involved in glycation.

Smoking increases glycation.

Oxidative stress contributes.

Highly processed foods cooked at very high temperatures can contain dietary AGEs.

Chronic inflammation worsens the process.

But elevated blood glucose remains one of the major drivers.

And this creates a difficult truth modern culture resists:

The body does not merely “burn” excessive sugar.

Some of it leaves residue.

Mr. Skeptical interrupts again.

“But the body runs on glucose!”

Partly true.

The body CAN use glucose.

The body can ALSO run heavily on fat and ketones.

Those are not the same statement.

Humans evolved with metabolic flexibility. Modern society evolved metabolic dependency.

There’s a difference.

Mr. Skeptical suddenly looks concerned.

“Wait a second. So you’re telling me sugar can make me overweight AND older looking?”

I nod.

In a strange way, yes.

One of the cruel ironies of glycation is that excess body fat can temporarily “hide” some aging by making the face look fuller and puffier. But underneath, glycation may still be damaging collagen and reducing skin elasticity over time.

Then comes the double-whammy.

A person finally loses the weight — which is objectively healthier — but now the puffiness disappears and the damaged skin underneath becomes more visible. Wrinkles that were once stretched flat by excess fat suddenly appear more obvious.

In other words, sugar may help create the very aging process that excess weight temporarily conceals.

That’s a disturbing thought.

The body can sometimes hide damage for years.

Until it can’t.

Practical Suggestions and Conclusions

This does not mean you must become a monk living on steak and mineral water.

But it does mean you should stop thinking about sugar as nutritionally innocent.

A few practical ideas:

• Reduce liquid sugars first

• Stop normalizing constant snacking

• Prioritize protein

• Build meals around nutrient density instead of entertainment

• Improve insulin sensitivity through exercise and body composition

• Understand that “healthy carbs” can still become glucose

And perhaps most importantly:

Start viewing aging differently.

Many people think aging is purely time.

Often it’s accumulated damage.

Oxidation.

Inflammation.

Glycation.

The slow wearing down of biological machinery.

The modern world tells you sugar is harmless because it tastes pleasant and because everyone else is consuming it too.

But popularity does not equal biological compatibility.

After all, rust is common too.

Be aware.

PS Links on LinkedIn, Facebook, Instagram, X, and Notes. Full disclosure: ChatGPT was used to research and enhance this post.

They’re not.

Some are basically carbohydrate snacks pretending to be health food… while others are almost perfectly designed for keto and carnivore-style eating.

In this Subconscious Fat episode, I break down:

• Why macadamia nuts are the king of keto

• Why pecans quietly outperform most “healthy” nuts

• Why I personally eat 1–2 Brazil nuts daily

• Why selenium may matter more for men over 40 than most people realize

And stay until the END…

because I give you a ridiculously simple acronym to remember:

• which nuts to eat

• the exact order of value

• and why fat dominance matters more than marketing

Once you hear it, you won’t forget it.

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

NOTE:
I originally wrote this Subconscious Fat essay in April 2023.

With the Alex Murdaugh conviction now being overturned and the story suddenly dominating headlines again, I revisited the piece and updated a few sections.

The essay was never really about murder.

It was about something stranger:
how names, labels, identity, and subconscious association may shape human behavior far more than we realize.

Before I can even start, Mr. Skeptical jumps in. “Why do you have a picture of the convicted killer, Alex Murdaugh, in the post today?”

“Because I’m writing about how our names impact our lives.”

“But why do you have to use the infamous case of Alex Murdaugh? Who was recently found guilty of killing his wife and son?”

“Because it’s an infamous case, and I want to draw attention to this newsletter.”

Mr. Skeptical shakes his head with a disgusted look on his face. “Don’t you feel sleazy and cheap using the Murdaugh name and image?”

“Nope. I want to draw attention to this newsletter, and if you don’t like it, you can kiss my ass.”

Mr. Skeptical slowly nods, with his lips protruding. I can tell; he’s planning on getting me back. He’s letting me get away with this one, but I know that before this newsletter is over, he’ll fire back a vengeful assault.

Subconscious Fat at 30,000 feet

I remember from grade school how often people’s surnames were given according to their profession. For example, in the English-speaking world, many names like Barber came from someone being a barber. However, in the Middle Ages, a barber would also do minor surgery and take out wisdom teeth.

“Ouch, that sounds painful. You’ve put a bad image in my mind. I can’t imagine taking a tooth out in the Middle Ages.”

“Yes, I’m sure it was a much more complicated and messy procedure back then.”

Names like Baker, Knight, and Shoemaker likely meant that if you have one of those names, you probably had an ancestor in that profession.

Sometimes, surnames were given to people who came from a particular place. For example, Hamilton was likely someone who came from that town. Names like Hills, Woods, and Brooks all stemmed from a geographic location and were used as last names.

Often, surnames were given to someone based on a relationship. For example, if one has ‘son’ at the end of the name (Ex. Watson, Nicholson, Johnson), this could mean the son of. For those of Spanish descent, if the surname ends in ‘ez’ (Ex. Gomez, Mendez, Martinez), this also means the son of. The Irish have Mac at the beginning of the surname, indicating the son of (Ex. MacDonald). Germans and Irish also use Fitz to mean the same (Ex. Fitzgerald).

Another intriguing way we may have gotten our names is based on what we wore or a common nickname. Surnames like Grey, Black, Brown, White, and Green simply meant it was a color one often wore. The last name Fox could indicate someone with red hair or a clever person.

“What does Diehl mean? I think of like a deal gone wrong.”

Mr. Skeptical always views anything about me negatively. “My last name Diehl is pronounced like a deal, like let’s make a deal. And I don’t appreciate your negative spin. A person can get a good deal and not a bad deal.”

“I can’t help myself. Sometimes unpleasant thoughts come up when I think of you and your name.”

After giving him a dirty look, I answer his question. “Diehl is German. It comes from the Germanic word meaning ‘tribe.’ It also is a shortened form of the German name Dietrich.”

I’ve spoken about how we get our surname because this can now bleed into our lives. It can become Subconscious Fat affecting our behavior. As a child, I remember thinking about friends’ names. For some reason, I attached meaning to people’s names. More emphasis was on a person’s first name, yet the last name also held power. Do humans have a genetic predisposition to give meaning to people’s names?

“It seems far-fetched to me,” replies Mr. Skeptical.

I hate it when he responds to a question I want you, the readers, to ponder. It’s so irritating. “Well, think about how now there’s evidence of trauma that can be passed down from generation to generation. It’s a real thing. If trauma can be passed down, then a natural inclination to apply meaning to a name likely does too, especially since surnames did have significance in the past. Maybe there’s no genetic component to giving names and surnames power, but I think there’s a psychological component.”  

“I agree there may be a psychological component, but I don’t think it’s genetic.”

“Now, we’re going to dive into the psychological components of our names. Do our given names and surnames impact our lives?”

Subscribe now

Subconscious Fat at 10,000 feet

Names can have good and bad consequences. For example, there’s evidence that after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, resumes with Arabic-sounding names were less likely to be interviewed. Our names affect how we feel and how others perceive us. Internally, one study by U.S. psychologist Jean Twenge indicated that humans who don’t like their names tend to have poorer psychological adaptive capabilities. This was found after controlling for family background and general dissatisfaction with life.

Another study was done, this time from the Institute of Psychology in Beijing, and found that our names can increase the likelihood of one becoming a criminal. The study done by Huajian Cai cross-checked hundreds of thousands of names affiliated with crimes. Statistically, a negative-sounding or unpopular name was associated with crime to a higher degree than average. This study also controlled for the bias of demographic and socioeconomic factors.  

In another study in the Journal of Attitudes and Social Cognition, psychologist Brett Pelham found that our names influenced our career choices. They looked at all the dentists and lawyers in the U.S., finding higher numbers of humans named Dennis in dentistry and higher numbers of Laura and Lawrence in law.

Subconscious Fat at Eye-Level

So, I’ve concluded that without question, our names affect our lives more than we think. Our names provide us with much Subconscious Fat to look at. Could the surname Murdaugh have influenced murder in the Murdaugh family?

 I think yes, without question. Starting in 2015, there was the mystery surrounding the death of Stephen Smith, then in 2018, the mysterious fall of Gloria Satterfield at the Murdough home, then the boating accident and death of Mallory Beach, where Paul Murdaugh was the driver of the boat, then the murder of Maggie Murdaugh and Paul Murdaugh by Alex Murdaugh. I watched the Netflix documentary, which showed all the controversy surrounding these deaths. One can conclude that Alex Murdaugh is a murderer. Paul Murdaugh was at least guilty of manslaughter by being the driver of the boat that killed Mallory Beach, and possibly Maggie Murdaugh had something to do with the death of Gloria Satterfield, and perhaps one of the Murdaughs had something to do with Stephen Smith’s death.

“And I think that due to your name Hermann Diehl, you’re likely a Nazi and a bad person to deal with.”

I knew he had something waiting for me. I knew Mr. Skeptical just couldn’t keep quiet. “Maybe you should’ve been on the defense team for Alex Murdaugh. I look at it this way. One grows up his whole life being told yes to everything they ask. All the Murdaughs come from a very privileged and prestigious background. It makes a Murdaugh think that they can get away with anything. The last name happens to be Murdaugh, which rhymes with murder. So, it’s easier for a Murdaugh to think they can get away with murder.”

“What crimes have you committed, Hermann Diehl?”

“You’re insinuating earlier that I'm xenophobic because my first name is Hermann, which rhymes with German. That thinking means you’re racist, assuming all with a German name are bigots. I don’t believe myself to be racist.”

“No one ever made fun of your name when you were a kid?”

“Yes, some called me Hermy Squirmy, which made me think of my penis, which I guess is squirmy like all penises are. Herm-Germ was another nickname. That made me think maybe I had some contagious germs, which maybe I did, like many kids.”

Mr. Skeptical folds his arms and squints at me. “Well, like a skilled politician, you’ve avoided my question about the crimes you’ve committed.”

“This newsletter isn’t about any crimes I’ve committed. But, if I did, I may address them in a future issue.”

Mr. Skeptical slowly shakes his head from side to side. “Again, you answer just like a politician would. You’re hiding something.”

If looks could kill, Mr. Skeptical would be dead now.

And he continues, “No one ever pointed to you and a girlfriend and said, “Hermann, so you’re her man, huh? I bet she bosses you around?”

How old is Mr. Skeptical? 12? I’m going to ignore him.

But…I can’t. ” No one ever said that to me, and if they did, I have two n’s at the end of my name, so I’m more a man than a her.”

“Well, I wasn’t talking about that, but that shows your insecurity. It shows a little of your own Subconscious Fat.”

Practical Suggestions and Conclusions

When I was 12 years old or so, did I think I’m more a man than a her because I have two n’s at the end of my name? I may have thought that a little, but not too much. The truth is…I like my name. Hermann rhymes with German, and I do have German ancestry. So, I see this as an advantage. Germans make great cars and have the largest economy in Europe. I also think of my surname Diehl as a good thing. It makes me think that I find and make great deals. It makes me think I’m authentic by being the real Diehl.

My point is this. Realize that your name has power over you. Your name is subconsciously affecting you. However, you can turn it into something good. If you feel you can’t, it might be worth changing your name or viewing it as the opposite of what it appears to mean. Be fully aware of your name and find a way to make it empower you.

Be aware.

PS Links on LinkedIn, Facebook, Instagram, X, and Notes. Full disclosure: ChatGPT was used to research and enhance this post.

Subconscious Fat at 30,000 feet

Modern obesity is not just about overeating.

It is about perception.

People are trapped inside nutritional “spells” — deeply repeated ideas that sound healthy simply because they’ve been repeated long enough. Many of these beliefs are not completely false. That’s what makes them powerful. They contain just enough truth to survive.

Two of the strongest obesity spells today are:

1. The belief that fruits and vegetables are automatically optimal foods.

2. The belief that fiber is universally necessary for human health.

Neither belief survives intact in the face of aging human metabolism.

As we get older, our priorities change. Muscle preservation becomes critical. Blood sugar regulation becomes more important. Recovery becomes harder. And many people discover that foods once tolerated easily at 20 begin producing brain fog, inflammation, fatigue, cravings, or digestive issues at 45.

Yet modern nutrition often continues treating all plant foods as universally protective and all fiber as universally beneficial.

Mr. Skeptical leans back in his chair.

“Funny how humans survived hundreds of thousands of years without oat bran muffins.”

He has a point.

Subconscious Fat at 10,000 feet

One of the strangest things about modern nutrition is how foods are often judged by isolated nutrients rather than their overall metabolic effects.

Fruit is praised for its antioxidants, vitamins, and minerals.

Vegetables are praised for their phytonutrients and fiber.

But there is another side to the equation:
Fruit still contains sugar, and vegetables still contain carbohydrates that ultimately break down into glucose.

That does not automatically make them “bad.” Context matters.

For a metabolically healthy athlete training intensely, fruit and vegetables may pose little issue.

But for many overweight, insulin-resistant adults over 40, the situation changes dramatically.

The body becomes less metabolically flexible. Muscle mass declines. Blood sugar control worsens. Cravings intensify. Energy becomes unstable.

At that point, continuing to prioritize large amounts of carbohydrates — even “healthy” carbohydrates — may not be ideal.

What many people actually need is:

• more protein

• more nutrient density

• more satiety

• and better blood sugar control

In other words, they may need to shift toward a more ketogenic or carnivore-style approach.

Mr. Skeptical interrupts.

“So we spent decades telling people to fear steak… while they drank mango smoothies the size of a fire extinguisher?”

Again, difficult to argue with.

Subconscious Fat at Eye-Level

The second obesity spell is fiber.

Fiber is now treated almost like a sacred nutrient. Some people are even “fiber maxing,” attempting to consume massive amounts daily under the assumption that more is always healthier.

But many people transitioning into ketogenic or carnivore eating discover something surprising:
Once adapted to higher-fat, lower-carbohydrate intake, they often no longer need large amounts of fiber at all.

Why?

Because digestion changes.

Fat stimulates bile flow and often allows smoother digestion without relying heavily on plant bulk. Many carnivore and ketogenic eaters report reduced bloating, reduced gas, improved bowel regularity, and better satiety even with minimal fiber intake.

This sounds shocking only because modern nutrition rarely discusses the possibility that fiber requirements may depend heavily on the rest of the diet.

Fiber may be useful in high-carbohydrate diets partly because it slows glucose absorption and helps regulate appetite.

But if glucose intake is already low and insulin spikes are minimized, the body may not require the same buffering system.

That doesn’t mean everyone should eliminate vegetables tomorrow.

It means nutritional needs are not universal.

A 23-year-old athlete eating whole foods is not metabolically identical to a 52-year-old executive with chronic inflammation, low testosterone, poor sleep, and insulin resistance.

Yet nutrition advice is often delivered as if all humans were one body.

Mr. Skeptical smirks.

“Apparently, the official human diet is now: less meat, more cereal, and additional powdered fiber.”

This is getting weird. Mr. Skeptical agrees with me!

Practical Suggestions and Conclusions

The goal is not to fear plants.

The goal is to stop assuming that all “healthy foods” are equally healthy for everyone in every metabolic condition.

For many adults over 40:

• prioritizing protein becomes critical

• stabilizing blood sugar becomes critical

• preserving muscle becomes critical

• reducing cravings becomes critical

And for many, that may require reducing fruit, reducing carbohydrate intake, and moving toward a more ketogenic or carnivore-style framework.

The real obesity spell is not fruit or fiber themselves.

The real spell is the belief that modern dietary guidelines automatically reflect optimal human biology.

Sometimes the body tells a different story.

And eventually, biology always wins.

Mr. Skeptical stands up, grabs a steak from the kitchen, and shrugs.

“So after 50 years… humanity finally discovers that maybe living on cereal, juice, snack bars, and powdered fiber while fearing meat wasn’t the metabolic masterpiece we thought it was.”

Be aware.

PS Links on LinkedIn, Facebook, Instagram, X, and Notes. Full disclosure: ChatGPT was used to research and enhance this post.

Now even mainstream science publications like New Scientist are beginning to admit something much bigger may be happening:

The brain is metabolic.

In this video, I break down the growing discussion around ketogenic diets and mental health… from depression to anorexia… and why scientists are suddenly revisiting ideas that many people dismissed for years.

But what fascinated me most wasn’t just the article itself.

It was the hesitation.

Phrases like:
“possible”
“may help”
“more research is needed”

Meanwhile, human beings evolved through scarcity, hunting, fasting, and long periods where ketosis was likely a completely normal part of life.

So why does ancient human metabolism suddenly sound controversial?

And why is changing the body’s fuel source treated like a last resort… while pharmaceuticals are treated like the starting point?

This isn’t an anti-science conversation.

It’s a conversation about incentives, biology, and what happens when modern humans become disconnected from the conditions their brains evolved to expect.

Mr. Skeptical definitely had thoughts about this one.

Other links related to this post:

GLP-1 Drugs Are Just Copycats

Horses

The Evidence That Can’t Be Bought

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

Subconscious Fat at 30,000 feet

We tend to treat “science” like it’s immune to bias.

If it’s published, peer-reviewed, stamped with authority… it must be true.

But history keeps reminding us that science—especially modern, corporate-funded science—is not always a clean mirror of reality. It’s often shaped by incentives, funding, and narratives.

Meanwhile, there’s another type of evidence that doesn’t care about funding cycles or quarterly profits: archaeology.

Bones don’t lie easily. Teeth don’t file reports. Ancient skeletons aren’t trying to sell anything.

So when we see a consistent pattern—wider jaws, straighter teeth, robust frames in pre-agricultural humans—and then a clear shift toward narrower jaws, crowding, and reduced stature after agriculture… we have to ask:

Which evidence do we trust more?

Mr. Skeptical leans back, arms crossed.

“So now we’re just throwing out science?”

Not quite. But we are questioning which version of it deserves our trust.

Subconscious Fat at 10,000 feet

Modern science has gotten things very wrong before—sometimes catastrophically wrong.

Take the opioid crisis. For years, a widely cited letter published in the New England Journal of Medicine suggested that addiction to prescription opioids was rare. That claim—based on weak evidence—was amplified and used in marketing. Pharmaceutical companies leaned on it heavily. Doctors trusted it. Patients paid the price.

You can look into it here:

• https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM198001103020221

• https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2622774/

That wasn’t a small mistake—it was a systemic failure influenced by incentives.

The food world has similar examples. The sugar industry funded research in the 1960s that downplayed sugar’s role in heart disease while shifting blame to saturated fat. That narrative shaped dietary guidelines for decades.

• https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/2548255

Mr. Skeptical raises an eyebrow.

“Okay, but that doesn’t mean all science is corrupt.”

Correct. But it does mean:

Science is not immune to bias—especially when money is involved.

Now compare that to archaeological evidence—but instead of jaws, look at something else entirely:

When researchers examine ancient bones, they often find:

• Thicker, denser bones (higher bone mineral density)

• Strong attachment points where muscles connected (suggesting regular physical strain)

• Fewer signs of chronic metabolic disease in earlier populations

After the agricultural shift, and especially into more modern times, we begin to see:

• Reduced bone density

• More fragile skeletal structures

• Increased markers of nutritional stress

In other words:

The body itself changed in ways that suggest a decline in overall robustness.

This isn’t based on surveys or questionnaires.

It’s written directly into the structure of the human skeleton.

No corporation benefits from those bones telling a different story.

Subconscious Fat at Eye-Level

Here’s where this becomes practical—and where things get really interesting.

You’ll often hear a phrase like:
“Stable isotope analysis suggests high trophic-level diets.”

That sounds complicated, but it’s actually pretty simple.

Stable isotope analysis is a way scientists analyze tiny chemical signatures left in bones. When you eat food, it leaves a trace—almost like a fingerprint—in your body. That fingerprint sticks around long after you’re gone.

Now, “trophic level” just means your place in the food chain.

• Plants are at the bottom

• Herbivores (like cows) eat plants

• Carnivores (like wolves—or humans) eat animals

So when scientists say “high trophic-level diet,” they mean:

Eating higher up the food chain—more animal-based foods.

When researchers analyze ancient human bones, they often find chemical signatures that match animals who were eating… other animals.

In plain English:

Humans weren’t just nibbling on meat occasionally—they were heavily relying on it.

And this lines up with other archaeological findings:

• Large animal kill sites

• Tools designed for hunting and butchering

• Evidence of mass animal consumption

Mr. Skeptical tilts his head.

“So you’re saying bones can tell us what people ate?”

Exactly.

And those bones aren’t influenced by:

• Corporate funding

• Food industry narratives

• Trends or guidelines

They just reflect what actually happened.

Now compare that to modern recommendations:

You’re told:

• Eat less fat

• Focus on processed “balanced” diets

• Trust packaged solutions

But when we look at long-term human evidence, we see:

• Stronger skeletal structures

• Better dental alignment

• Fewer signs of chronic degeneration

Mr. Skeptical smirks.

“So… eat like a caveman?”

Not necessarily.

But when modern advice sharply contradicts thousands of years of physical evidence, it’s worth questioning.

Because one of these:

• Has existed across long stretches of time

• Has no incentive to lie

• Is physically preserved

The other:

• Can change every decade

• Is influenced by funding

• Has been wrong—repeatedly

Practical Suggestions and Conclusions

1. Don’t blindly trust modern studies—especially when funding sources are unclear.

2. Learn to question conclusions, not just headlines.

3. Give weight to long-term human evidence, not just short-term experiments.

4. Ask yourself:

“Does this align with how humans actually lived for most of history?”

Mr. Skeptical leans forward slightly.

“So… bones over journals?”

Not quite.

But when journals and bones disagree…

It might be worth asking why.

Be aware.

PS Links on LinkedIn, Facebook, Instagram, X, and Notes. Full disclosure: ChatGPT was used to research and enhance this post.

Track this. Avoid that.
Hit this ratio. Measure that gram.

Meanwhile… they’re missing the one thing the body actually cares about.

Protein.

Your body doesn’t wake up thinking:
“Hey, I need 73 grams of fat today.”

But it absolutely has a built-in drive to get enough protein.

Miss that target?
You’ll stay hungry. You’ll snack. You’ll overeat.

Hit it?
Hunger drops. Cravings calm down. Things start working.

That’s why I built the 151 Protocol:

• 1 thing to track → protein

• 5 exercises → simple push/pull structure

• 1 set → to true muscle failure

Done.

No spreadsheets. No guesswork. No wasted time.

Most people aren’t failing because they lack discipline.

They’re failing because they’re trying to manage everything…
instead of focusing on the one thing that actually moves the needle.

Simplify the inputs.
Your body will handle the outputs.

Be aware.

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

Subconscious Fat at 30,000 feet

“You don’t need a fitness trainer… you need an eating trainer.”

That sounds backwards at first.

Most men over 40 assume the opposite:

• Join a gym

• Lift heavier

• Push harder

• Sweat more

And the results should follow.

But then something frustrating happens.

You’re working out consistently…
You’re doing more than you used to…
And yet the midsection doesn’t move the way it used to.

Or worse—it barely moves at all.

Mr. Skeptical leans back, arms crossed.

“So now we’re just blaming food for everything? What about discipline? What about hard work?”

Fair question.

But here’s the reality:

Workouts build the body… but food determines what that body looks like.

Especially after 40.

Subconscious Fat at 10,000 feet

When you were younger, you could get away with a lot.

• Late-night eating

• Processed foods

• High sugar intake

• Random meal timing

And as long as you worked out, you still looked lean.

That wasn’t because your workouts were magical.

It was because your body was more forgiving.

Now?

Your body is more efficient.

And efficiency cuts both ways.

• It stores energy more easily

• It adapts faster

• It resists change more aggressively

So the same strategy that used to work…

Stops working.

Mr. Skeptical smirks.

“So you’re saying the gym doesn’t matter anymore?”

Not quite.

The gym still matters.

But not in the way most people think.

For men over 40:

• Workouts might account for 10–20% of how you look

• Diet accounts for 80–90%

That’s not an exact formula…

But it’s directionally true.

You can out-train a poor diet in your 20s.

You cannot do that in your 40s.

Subconscious Fat at Eye-Level

Let’s make this practical.

You can:

• Train 4–5 times per week

• Push hard

• Get stronger

…and still carry extra body fat.

Why?

Because your body is built from raw materials.

Not effort.

Effort matters—but only after the inputs are correct.

Mr. Skeptical raises an eyebrow.

“So what—you’re saying I should just stop working out and focus on food?”

No.

That’s the wrong takeaway.

The right takeaway is this:

If you had to prioritize one… it’s not the gym.

It’s what you eat every single day.

This is also why something interesting happened in my own career.

When I worked one-on-one with clients in the gym, results were… decent.

But when I shifted to online coaching—where I could monitor and guide what people were actually eating—

Results improved dramatically.

Fat loss accelerated.
Energy improved.
Consistency went up.

Because we weren’t just training movement.

We were training behavior.

We were training eating.

Practical Suggestions and Conclusions

If you’re a man over 40 and your results have stalled, here’s the shift:

1. Stop thinking like a “workout problem”
   It’s usually not.

2. Start thinking like a “fuel problem”
   Your body reflects what you consistently feed it.

3. Treat your eating like a skill
   Not just a habit.
   Not just “try to be better.”

4. Consider this idea:
   You don’t need accountability in the gym…

   You need accountability in the kitchen.

Mr. Skeptical shrugs.

“Alright… but I still like lifting.”

Good.

You should.

Keep lifting.

Build strength.
Protect muscle.
Stay capable.

Just understand this:

The gym shapes the body…
but the kitchen reveals it.

And if you want real, lasting change after 40…

You don’t just train how you move.

You train how you eat.

Be aware.

PS Links on LinkedIn, Facebook, Instagram, X, and Notes. Full disclosure: ChatGPT was used to research and enhance this post.

What they’re actually doing is letting the stronger side cover for the weaker one.

That works… until it doesn’t.

Shoulders start talking. Elbows start whispering. And eventually something taps out.

In this video, I walk through how I use isolateral push and pull exercises—one arm at a time, combined with isometric holds and controlled fatigue—to expose imbalances, improve joint stability, and get more out of less weight.

This isn’t about making workouts easier.

It’s about making them honest.

Because if both arms are working together, one of them is probably doing more than its share—and your joints are paying the difference.

Train accordingly.

Other links related to this post:

Hanging as a Solution

How Many Sets are Needed to Build Muscle?

Alternatives to Heavy Lifting

PS Links on LinkedIn, Facebook, Instagram, X, and Notes. Full disclosure: ChatGPT was used to research and enhance this post.

Mr. Skeptical walks in and sees the title for this post.

I say, There was a time in my life when I ate an incredible amount of peanut butter every single day.

Mr. Skeptical says, “I’m going to guess that was when you were in federal prison.”

I tilt my head, wondering how he knows this.

He shrugs. “Yeah, I’ve seen enough prison documentaries. Peanut butter’s basically currency in there—cheap, calorie-dense, decent protein, plus some carbs to keep you going. When good quality meat isn’t exactly on the menu, and guys are working out all the time, it ends up being one of the better options available.

Subconscious Fat at 30,000 feet

Peanut butter versus almond butter sounds like one of those “healthy swap” debates people love to have when they’re trying to clean things up… without actually changing much.

But if you zoom out, both of these foods come from the same category: ground-up plants that are calorie-dense, easy to overeat, and very easy to justify.

And that’s where the real issue lives—not in which one is slightly “better,” but in how both of them quietly keep people stuck.

Mr. Skeptical smirks, “I’m pretty sure you didn’t have the almond butter option in prison.”

I shake my head. No, no almond butter. Just straight peanut butter… and at that point, you’re not picking foods because they’re optimal—you’re picking them because they’re available, affordable, and get the job done. There’s a big difference between eating for survival and eating for optimization.

Subconscious Fat at 10,000 feet

Let’s get something straight first.

If you put peanut butter and almond butter side by side and forced me to choose, almond butter usually comes out slightly ahead.

Why?

Almond butter tends to have:

• A better fat profile (more monounsaturated fats)

• Slightly fewer inflammatory compounds than peanuts

• Less likelihood of mold contamination compared to peanuts (which are technically legumes, not nuts)

But let’s not pretend this is a huge win. This is like arguing whether walking into a wall or a door is better. One might hurt less… but neither is the direction you actually want to go.

From a carnivore or low-carb standpoint, both have issues:

• They contain carbohydrates (yes, even if “low,” they add up fast)

• They’re extremely easy to overeat

• They don’t provide the same nutrient density as animal-based foods

• They can interfere with staying in ketosis if portions creep up

Mr. Skeptical chimes in: “But it’s natural. It’s just ground-up nuts. That’s healthy.”

That’s exactly the trap. “Natural” doesn’t mean “optimal.” It just means it came from somewhere other than a lab.

Mr. Skeptical folds his arms. “So did you gain weight in prison, eating so much peanut butter?”

I shake my head. Not really… but that’s because I was training like a maniac. I was doing CrossFit-style workouts constantly—not because I was chasing a six-pack, but because I needed it.

Working out was my release. It was the only thing that kept me sane in there. So between the intensity and the frequency, I could get away with eating a lot of peanut butter without putting on much weight.

That said… I didn’t have a six-pack as I do now. There’s a difference between managing damage… and actually optimizing your body.

Subconscious Fat at Eye-Level

Here’s where it actually matters in the real world.

Peanut butter—and almond butter too—are what I’d call “bridge foods.”

They feel like you’re doing something right. You’re not eating cookies. You’re not eating chips. You’re eating something with protein and fat.

But they come with a few hidden problems:

First, they’re incredibly easy to overeat. Nobody eats one tablespoon of peanut butter. That’s a fairy tale. It’s two… then four… then half the jar is mysteriously gone while standing in the kitchen.

Second, they’re not very satiating compared to animal foods. A steak shuts things down. Eggs shut things down. Peanut butter? It keeps the door open.

Third, they can quietly stall progress. If your goal is fat loss, energy, or getting into ketosis, those extra carbs—plus the sheer calorie density—can slow things down more than you realize.

Mr. Skeptical pushes back: “But I’ve seen people get in shape eating peanut butter.”

Sure. You can make progress with it. Especially if you’re training hard, controlling calories, or don’t have better options available, as I did in prison. The best time to eat peanut butter is right before or after a workout.

But that doesn’t mean it’s the best tool—it just means it’s a tool that didn’t completely derail things.

There’s a difference.

And for men over 40, recovery, inflammation, and hormonal balance matter more than they did at 25. Foods that are “fine” in your 20s can quietly work against you later on.

Practical Suggestions and Conclusions

If you absolutely had to choose:
Almond butter is the better option.

But the more honest answer?

Neither one should be a staple if your goal is optimal health, fat loss, and long-term performance.

Think of them as occasional extras, not daily foundations.

If you’re trying to simplify things, then prioritize:

• Meat, fish, chicken, pork, lamb, and buffalo

• Eggs

• Animal fats

Those foods are harder to overeat, more nutrient-dense, and far more aligned with what your body actually needs.

And if you’re using peanut butter or almond butter regularly, it’s worth asking a simple question:

Is this helping me get where I want to go… or just making me feel like I’m trying?

Mr. Skeptical pauses for a second: “So you’re saying the problem isn’t peanut butter?”

Exactly.

The problem is when something feels “healthy enough” that you stop questioning it… while it quietly keeps you stuck.

Be aware.

Other links related to this post:

Is Fiber Really Healthy?

Keeping It Simple

Convenient or Healthy

PS Links on LinkedIn, Facebook, Instagram, X, and Notes. Full disclosure: ChatGPT was used to research and enhance this post.

I used to think that too.

My upper teeth are fine. But my lower teeth are crowded and crooked, and my lower jawline never developed the way I wish it had. I always assumed I simply “needed braces.”

But the more I looked into it, the more I started asking a different question:

What if the problem started long before the braces conversation ever came up?

As a kid, breakfast was usually soft, processed food: cereal, toast, pancakes, oatmeal. Food that takes almost no chewing.

What if years of that meant my jaw never had to do much work?

Now compare that to people who grow up eating more meat, tougher foods, chewing more often, using their jaw the way it was designed to be used. In many traditional cultures, crooked teeth and crowded jaws were far less common.

I recently met two women from southern Brazil, near the Argentinian border. They told me they grew up eating meat constantly. Both had incredibly straight teeth and strong-looking jawlines, and neither had ever needed braces.

That got me thinking.

Maybe the modern problem isn’t that our teeth are too big.

Maybe our jaws never fully developed.

In this video, I explain why I think my own lower teeth ended up crooked, what chewing and diet may have to do with jaw development, and why the foods we eat as kids may shape far more than just our waistline.

Here you will likely find true Subconscious Fat that affects everyone, but no one thinks about.

Turns out Frosted Flakes may have been doing more than raising blood sugar. They may have been moonlighting as an orthodontist’s retirement plan.

Be aware.

PS Links on LinkedIn, Facebook, Instagram, X, and Notes. Full disclosure: ChatGPT was used to research and enhance this post.

Subconscious Fat at 30,000 feet

Salt has become one of the great villains of modern nutrition.

People talk about it the way people used to talk about cigarettes. A little extra salt on your steak? Suddenly someone acts like your arteries are about to explode.

Meanwhile, the same person will eat a bagel, orange juice, cereal, and a muffin for breakfast and somehow think that’s “heart healthy.”

We’ve gone way too far blaming salt and not nearly far enough blaming sugar and processed carbohydrates.

That doesn’t mean salt has no effect on blood pressure. For some people—especially people who are salt-sensitive—very high sodium intake can raise blood pressure. But the bigger picture is that salt is usually not the main problem.

The average person is not pouring salt on a steak and getting into trouble.

The average person is eating processed foods loaded with salt, sugar, refined carbohydrates, and seed oils all at the same time.

And then the salt gets blamed.

Subconscious Fat at 10,000 feet

Here’s the difference:

Sugar and refined carbohydrates create a cycle.

You eat them. Your blood sugar rises. Insulin rises. Then your blood sugar crashes and you want more.

Then more.

Then more again.

You can eat an entire basket of bread, a plate of pasta, or half a pint of ice cream and still somehow feel like you want more afterward.

But salt doesn’t work like that.

There comes a point where your body simply says, enough.

Try putting five tablespoons of salt on your food. You can’t do it. Your body immediately rejects it.

Mr. Skeptical folds his arms.

“Wait a minute. People crave salty foods all the time.”

True. But notice what those foods usually are:

• French fries

• Pizza

• Chips

• Fast food

Those foods are not just salty. They are a combination of salt, sugar or starch, and fat engineered to keep you eating.

People are not addicted to salt by itself. Almost nobody is sitting at home with a spoon eating table salt out of the shaker.

But people absolutely overeat foods loaded with refined carbohydrates and sugar.

Sugar and processed carbohydrates are much more likely to create cravings, overeating, and that feeling that you never quite get enough.

Subconscious Fat at Eye-Level

Think about this in real life.

If I hand you a salted steak, you might eat until you’re full.

Then you stop.

If I hand you a basket of warm bread, a plate of pasta, or a box of cookies, suddenly there is no off switch.

That is not because you lack willpower.

It is because sugar and carbohydrates are much better at overriding your normal hunger signals.

Salt, on the other hand, is one of the few things your body regulates very tightly. When you have enough, food actually stops tasting better with more salt.

Mr. Skeptical raises an eyebrow.

“So are you saying salt has nothing to do with blood pressure?”

No. Some people really are salt-sensitive.

Salt sensitivity is a real medical term for people whose blood pressure rises noticeably when they eat more sodium.

But it is far less common than most people think.

Only about one-quarter to one-third of healthy people are considered salt-sensitive. Among people who already have high blood pressure, it is closer to about half.

Salt sensitivity is more common in:

• Older people

• People who are overweight

• People with kidney problems

• People with insulin resistance

• People with metabolic syndrome

And here is the interesting part:

The very people who are most likely to be salt-sensitive are often the same people who are already eating too much sugar and processed carbohydrates.

High insulin levels make the kidneys hold onto sodium. Excess body fat appears to make people more sensitive to salt.

In other words, years of sugar, processed carbohydrates, excess weight, and high insulin can make someone more sensitive to salt in the first place.

Mr. Skeptical leans back in his chair.

“So maybe salt isn’t the original problem after all?”

Exactly.

Sometimes what looks like “salt causing high blood pressure” is actually sugar, insulin resistance, and excess body fat creating the problem first.

And unlike salt sensitivity, which affects a minority of people, almost everybody has experienced cravings for sugar and refined carbohydrates.

There is no real epidemic of people secretly addicted to salt.

Your body usually has a built-in shutoff switch for salt.

With sugar and carbohydrates, that shutoff switch is much easier to override.

Practical Suggestions and Conclusions

Instead of fearing salt, fear the foods that make you lose control.

Salt your steak.

Salt your eggs.

Salt your whole foods to taste.

But be much more cautious with the foods that combine salt with sugar and processed carbohydrates.

Those are the foods that make people overeat, gain weight, retain water, and then blame the salt.

Mr. Skeptical sighs.

“So the problem isn’t the salt shaker?”

Exactly.

The problem is usually not the salt shaker sitting next to your plate.

The problem is the giant pile of processed carbohydrates sitting under it.

Be aware.

PS Links on LinkedIn, Facebook, Instagram, X, and Notes. Full disclosure: ChatGPT was used to research and enhance this post.

And to a degree—that’s true.

Cuts close. Bones mend. The system is designed to recover.

But here’s the part that gets overlooked:

The body doesn’t heal in a vacuum.
It heals with whatever materials you give it.

If those materials are inconsistent… low in protein… low in quality fats… overloaded with processed fuel…

Then the body is still trying to do its job—
just with suboptimal inputs.

That’s where the disconnect happens.

Mr. Skeptical would probably say:
“Yeah, but the body is resilient. It figures it out.”

And it does—up to a point.

But resilience isn’t the same as optimization.

There’s a difference between:

• getting by
  and

• actually functioning at a high level

That difference shows up as:

• stubborn weight gain

• low energy

• poor sleep

• slower recovery

Not because the body is broken…

But because it’s being built—day after day—with the wrong materials.

So instead of asking:

“Why isn’t my body healing?”

A better question might be:

“What am I giving my body to actually build and repair itself with?”

Because the body already knows what to do.

The real question is whether you’re giving it what it needs to do it well.

Be aware.

PS Links on LinkedIn, Facebook, Instagram, X, and Notes. Full disclosure: ChatGPT was used to research and enhance this post.