The Supplemented States of America
At what point do we stop eating food altogether?
Supplements, the panacea to the ills of industrialized food, the purported key to immortality. From multivitamins and omegas to super greens and protein powder; they're everywhere. We've transitioned from a world where all our macro and micronutrients were harmoniously packaged together alongside phytochemicals, antioxidants, prebiotics, enzymes, and probiotics such as found in pasture-raised or wild game meats, raw dairy products, fermented foods, and organic, if not home-grown produce, all regionally and culturally ordained, to a world where food found at your local grocery store is virtually, neutrally depleted, fortified, and overly processed.
Unfortunate, but true, supplements have become a necessary evil today. Our food system is so decrepit that people are not getting nearly what they need in nutrients these days, and thus are almost necessitated to consume supplements alongside their modern diet to achieve a base level of health. But at what cost? Supplements are highly processed, chemical concoctions of their own. Despite all the labels claiming purity and independent third-party testing, supplements are largely unregulated compared to the actual food, an area where the FDA's oversight often falls short. But as with anything else found in modern society that never was before, they have become a way of life.
Take, for example, whey protein powder, a byproduct of cheese production, which has become ubiquitous in the diets of athletes, fitness enthusiasts, and biohackers alike. It is touted for its high-quality protein content, which is said to aid in muscle repair and growth. Yet, despite its popularity, and true-to-life effectiveness, especially in the depleted protein States of America, one must question the processing and addition of artificial flavors, sweeteners, and preservatives that accompany many brands of whey protein, even the quality of the starter milk itself. The simplicity of consuming whole foods, such as pasture-raised meats and dairy, which naturally contain all essential amino acids, is lost in the mix. These days, already knowing I’m getting all the protein I need from my diet (my body weight in grams; the true gold standard of health span that seems to be lost on most health practitioners and nutritionists these days), I simply drink a glass of whole raw milk after my workouts and call it a day.
Then there’s the supergreen powder drinks that epitomize the convoluted nature of dietary supplements. Promising a concentrated dose of vegetables, mushrooms, algae, and other purported superfoods, these powders have surged in popularity. Yet, they bring their issues: from the loss of nutrient integrity through processing to the environmental impact of their production, and notably, the potential contamination with pesticides, herbicides, and other chemical residues. These unwanted additives can become concentrated alongside the vegetables and plants in the powder, undermining the very health benefits sought by consumers.
More glaringly, I cannot think of a more abnormal health product than these super green powders: when and where in human history have we consumed 10’s, if not 100’s of food products in a concentrated dose in one sitting? It’s bizarre, extravagant, and the epitome of America’s relationship with food today: a cultural obsession with quick fixes, with more is better, and with convenience over the foundational principles of nutrition and health.
Multivitamins further exemplify this issue. Marketed as an easy solution to nutritional gaps, they are, in reality, a blend of artificially synthesized vitamins and minerals, often devoid of the natural co-factors and phytochemicals essential for optimal nutrient absorption and health benefits. The process of creating these supplements involves chemical concoctions far removed from the natural foods they aim to replace, complete with binders, fillers, and artificial colorings to make them palatable and shelf-stable. This artificiality stands in stark contrast to the synergistic complexity of nutrients found in whole foods.
Underpinning all of this is the supplement industry, a multi-billion-dollar enterprise, which is keenly focused on selling this narrative of necessity. It employs a sophisticated marketing apparatus that includes leveraging academic and scientific research, celebrity endorsements, and the creation of personality brands—all aimed at sustaining the purported indispensability of supplements for achieving optimal health. This strategy, while effective in driving sales, often obscures the nuanced reality of nutritional science and the essential role of diet and lifestyle in health. The industry's reliance on celebrities and influential figures to endorse their products adds layers of complexity, blending the allure of aspiration with the veneer of credibility, despite the cherry-picked evidence, or lack thereof, to support many of the claims made.
I for one, admittedly, have been duped many times by all this. I’ve been duped into buying and drinking Athletic Greens (AG1). I’ve been duped into drinking whey after every workout and casein before bed every night. I’ve been duped into taking an entire arsenal of vitamins, minerals, omegas, various powered supplements, etc., backed by highly reputable and influential nutritional academic scientists and celebrity personalities. And the incredible amount of money all these supplements demand is abysmal. It was at the height of all of this that I realized, what if I, instead of spending all this money on supplements, spent it all on the highest quality foods I could get my hands on and focused on eating as in tune with the seasons and my body as possible?
Moreover, the industry's practices reveal a deeper issue: the commodification of health. By promoting the idea that optimal health is contingent upon the consumption of their products, the supplement industry has not only profited from but also perpetuated a culture of dependency and quick fixes. This approach simplifies the complex interplay of factors that contribute to health and wellness, diverting attention from the importance of a balanced, whole-food diet and healthy lifestyle choices.
It should now be evident that while supplements like whey protein, supergreen powders, and multivitamins may fill certain nutritional gaps, they also reflect a broader societal shift towards commodified health solutions. It's worth noting that within a single generation, marked by the rapid expansion of the supplement industry and the rise of processed foods—a period these products purport to counter—obesity rates have tripled. People are sicker than ever before. It’s not working. The promise of a quick fix to nutritional deficiencies glosses over the need for a return to whole, traditionally cultivated foods and sustainable dietary practices. The real path to health is not found in a pill or powder but in reconnecting with the natural sources of nourishment, supporting sustainable agriculture, and making informed, critical choices about our diet and lifestyle.
The supplement industry, with its intricate web of marketing, endorsements, and branded narratives, serves as a powerful reminder of the need for a more grounded approach to nutrition and health. As consumers, we must navigate this landscape with skepticism and a commitment to educating ourselves about the true foundations of health. Emphasizing whole foods, diversity in our diets, and the environmental and ethical dimensions of our food choices offers a more authentic and sustainable pathway to well-being, beyond the reach of any supplement aisle.
But alas, it's much easier to throw pills at the problem and call it a day. This penchant for seeking quick fixes over enduring solutions reflects a broader societal inclination towards convenience at the expense of genuine health and well-being. Thus, the ultimate challenge lies in overcoming this mindset and recognizing the value of investing time and effort into nurturing our bodies with the nutrition they inherently require.
Stay informed. Stay empowered. Stay free, my friends.
-Greg
Addressing Some Counterarguments
Counterargument 1: Necessity Due to Modern Diets
Argument: Some might argue that due to modern agricultural practices and the depletion of soil nutrients, food today is less nutritious than it used to be, making supplements necessary to fill in nutritional gaps.
Response: While it's true that some studies suggest a decline in certain nutrients in modern produce, this does not automatically validate the reliance on synthetic supplements. A more sustainable approach involves supporting agricultural practices that restore soil health and biodiversity, thus improving the nutritional profile of whole foods. Moreover, eating a diverse diet can help ensure a broader range of nutrients, minimizing any gaps without resorting to supplements.
Counterargument 2: Convenience and Accessibility
Argument: Supplements offer a convenient and accessible way to obtain essential nutrients, especially for people with dietary restrictions or those living in food deserts where fresh produce is scarce.
Response: Convenience is an undeniable advantage of supplements, but it's important to challenge the systemic issues that make them seem necessary, such as the lack of access to fresh, whole foods. Efforts should be directed towards improving food accessibility and affordability. Furthermore, relying on supplements can lead to a false sense of security, ignoring the complex synergies of nutrients found in whole foods that supplements cannot replicate.
Counterargument 3: Scientifically Formulated for Optimal Health
Argument: The supplement industry argues that their products are scientifically formulated to provide nutrients in the most bioavailable form, making them more effective than getting nutrients from food.
Response: While bioavailability is a valid concern, the body's absorption of nutrients is highly complex and optimized through the consumption of whole foods, which contain a myriad of co-factors and enzymes that aid in absorption. Moreover, the regulation of supplements is not as stringent as that for food, leading to potential issues with purity and efficacy. Emphasizing whole foods also supports a holistic approach to health, considering not just physical but environmental and social wellness.
Counterargument 4: Personalized Nutrition
Argument: Supplements can be personalized to fit an individual's specific health needs, dietary restrictions, and lifestyle, something that whole foods cannot offer.
Response: Personalized nutrition is an appealing concept, but it should not be exclusively tied to supplements. Dietitians and nutritionists can help individuals tailor their diets to meet specific needs through whole foods. Additionally, the emphasis on personalized supplements often overlooks the importance of a balanced diet, which is foundational to health. Encouraging a deeper understanding and connection with one's food can also empower individuals to make informed, healthful choices that are personalized and sustainable.
Counterargument 5: Supplements for Specific Health Conditions
Argument: Certain health conditions or stages of life (e.g., pregnancy, osteoporosis) require specific nutrients in higher quantities than what can be realistically consumed through diet alone.
Response: It's true that supplements can play a crucial role in specific health scenarios where dietary needs cannot be met through food alone. However, this does not negate the principle that a diet based on whole foods should be the foundation of nutrition for the general population. Supplements should be viewed as just that—supplementary, reserved for specific medical needs determined by healthcare professionals, not as a replacement for a well-balanced diet.
Counterargument 6: Evidence of Benefits
Argument: There is scientific evidence supporting the benefits of certain supplements in improving health outcomes, such as omega-3 fatty acids for heart health or vitamin D for bone health, especially in regions with limited sunlight.
Response: While specific supplements have been shown to offer health benefits in targeted areas, the broader issue lies with the overgeneralization of these benefits to justify widespread, untargeted supplement use. Emphasizing a balanced diet and addressing individual nutrient deficiencies based on medical advice preserves the role of supplements as beneficial under certain conditions rather than as everyday essentials for the general population.
Counterargument 7: Advances in Supplement Technology
Argument: The supplement industry is continually advancing, with new technologies that enhance the purity, absorption, and effectiveness of supplements.
Response: Technological advancements in supplement formulation are noteworthy, yet they do not address the fundamental benefits of consuming nutrients in their natural context within whole foods. The synergy of nutrients found in foods, and their role in optimal health, cannot be fully replicated by even the most advanced supplements. Furthermore, the focus on technology in supplements may detract from addressing more pressing issues such as improving the quality and accessibility of whole foods in the diet.
Counterargument 8: Globalization and Dietary Diversity
Argument: Global trade and the availability of diverse food items have not led to improved dietary habits; instead, populations continue to face nutritional deficiencies. Supplements can bridge this gap more effectively and quickly than changes in dietary patterns.
Response: While globalization has increased food availability, it has also contributed to the homogenization of diets and an increase in processed food consumption. Supplements may offer a quick fix to nutritional deficiencies, but they do not address the underlying issues of poor dietary habits or the socio-economic factors that limit access to diverse, nutritious foods. Efforts should focus on educating the public on the importance of dietary diversity and improving access to a variety of whole foods as a more sustainable solution to nutritional deficiencies.
Counterargument 9: Economic Considerations
Argument: For many, supplements are seen as a cost-effective way to ensure nutritional adequacy without the high cost associated with some whole, organic foods.
Response: While supplements may seem cost-effective in the short term, investing in a diet based on whole foods can be more economical in the long run, especially when considering the potential health costs associated with a diet lacking in whole foods. Encouraging local and seasonal eating, as well as community-supported agriculture (CSA), can make whole foods more accessible and affordable. Additionally, the notion that all healthy, whole foods are expensive is a misconception; many nutrient-rich foods are economically viable and can be incorporated into a budget-conscious diet.
Counterargument 10: Urban Living and Accessibility
Argument: In urban environments where access to fresh, whole foods may be limited, supplements offer a practical solution to meet nutritional needs.
Response: Urban food deserts are a significant challenge, but the solution should involve improving access to fresh foods through urban agriculture initiatives, farmers' markets, and policies that support food equity. Supplements might fill immediate gaps but do not address the root problems of food accessibility and quality in urban areas. Community and policy-driven solutions can provide long-term, sustainable access to nutritious whole foods for urban populations.
Counterargument 11: Time Constraints and Modern Lifestyles
Argument: Busy lifestyles make it difficult for people to prepare meals from whole foods, making supplements an attractive option for maintaining nutrition without time-consuming meal prep.
Response: The challenge of time constraints is real, but there are strategies to incorporate whole foods into even the busiest lifestyles, such as meal planning, batch cooking, and choosing simple, quick-to-prepare whole foods. Education on efficient cooking techniques and meal preparation can empower individuals to prioritize whole foods, showing that a nutritious diet and a busy lifestyle can coexist.
Counterargument 12: Individualized Nutrition and Bioavailability
Argument: Individual differences in metabolism and nutrient absorption make supplements an attractive option for tailor-made nutrition strategies, ensuring individuals receive the exact nutrients they need in the most bioavailable form.
Response: While individual nutritional needs vary, the approach to meeting these needs should prioritize whole foods first, with supplements used selectively based on specific medical advice or nutritional deficiencies identified by health professionals. Whole foods provide a matrix of nutrients, fiber, and phytochemicals in forms that the body recognizes and utilizes efficiently, often more so than isolated nutrients in supplements.