I have stopped posting publicly about diet and dieting. This decision is not a reflection of any change in my understanding of the science behind nutrition, metabolism, or the impact of caloric intake on body composition. The principles of sustained caloric surplus leading to fat gain, the relevance of metabolic health, and the existence of personal agency remain unchanged.
The cessation of these public discussions stems from a fundamental shift in how these topics are being received and debated online. My contributions, intended to explore ideas and present information, have increasingly been met not with intellectual engagement but with personal attacks and accusations. When discussing concepts like caloric surplus, population-level differences in obesity rates, or the role of personal agency, the response has often devolved into labels such as “fatphobic,” “racist,” or “fascist.” These epithets arrive with such speed that they preempt any opportunity for reasoned argument. Once such a label is applied, the conversation effectively ends; the individual is no longer seen as someone making a claim that can be examined, but as a moral antagonist to be silenced.
I once believed that by refining my explanations, incorporating more data, adding necessary caveats, and approaching the subject with empathy, I could foster more constructive dialogue. This proved to be an optimistic, but ultimately inaccurate, assessment. The moment discussions touch upon body size or weight, a segment of the audience appears to interpret any mention of trade-offs, health consequences, or behavioral patterns as a personal attack on their identity. When identity is activated in this manner, it tends to shut down debate and instead move towards a form of prosecution.
The experience of being a constant defendant in a trial I never agreed to participate in has become exhausting. It is disheartening to witness individuals who may themselves be grappling with similar issues treating honest, evidence-based discussion as an act of violence. The prevalence of performative outrage, which often misconstrues statistical realities or scientific observations as hate speech, further exacerbates this issue. This environment transforms potentially valuable conversations into arenas of conflict, where good-faith arguments are drowned out by emotional reactions and ideological policing.
Despite these challenges, the subject matter itself remains critically important. Metabolic health, body composition, and the long-term health consequences of chronic overeating are significant concerns that affect many people. However, these issues no longer hold enough weight for me to continue absorbing the personal cost associated with discussing them in the public sphere. The level of abuse and hostility encountered has rendered the endeavor unsustainable.
I will continue to live according to the principles and practices that I have found to be effective for my own well-being. Furthermore, I intend to maintain private conversations with those who genuinely seek information and are open to a good-faith exchange of ideas, rather than searching for a scapegoat for their struggles. The public discourse on diet and dieting, however, is at an end for me. The personal toll exacted by the current online environment is simply not worth the effort.
