I was recently interviewed by Bold Journey about the work behind The Nutrition Clinic, the experiences that shaped my approach to health, and why I believe the future of healthcare needs to become far more precise.

One of the central themes of the conversation is something I see repeatedly in my work:

People can remain highly functional long after their biology has started moving in the wrong direction.

This is particularly relevant for founders, executives and leadership teams.

Someone can still perform, make decisions, lead a company and deliver results while simultaneously dealing with declining energy, disrupted sleep, blood sugar instability, hormonal changes, inflammation, nutrient depletion or chronic physiological stress.

The problem is that these changes rarely arrive with a clear warning sign.

By the time performance is visibly affected, the underlying biological shift may have been developing for years.

Anyone who listens to Andrew Huberman - which admittedly I do from time to time, as he is great at communicating science to the masses - has sat through the sponsored bit where blood tests for heavy metals are framed as a detox compass. To be frank: This sponsored bit is pretty impressive confidence for inaccurate science. And it hurts my soul.

As someone who routinely screens and treats clients for environmental toxins for over a decade, this is just not right.

Blood heavy metals reflect what you ate yesterday. Sushi today, panic tomorrow - according to blood test. Skip fish for a few days, miracle recovery - also according to blood test. That’s simply temporary exposure and has nothing to do with toxic body burden.

Bryan Johnson's autoimmune diagnosis exposes the weakness in his entire model - and in most biohacking/ longevity models today for that matter.

Literally drowning in data and trying to impress with quantity - a quantity that makes most people tired just thinking about it, and thus turning off their common sense and just following some clickbait advice cos it sounds "confident" - and most of us have a day job to do aside from deciphering health advice all day.

The thing is: data without biological hierarchy is still blind.

Take his supplementation with "longevity supplement of the day" C15:0.

The answer is not to isolate one fatty acid and supplement it like a pharmaceutical hack. The smarter question is: why was C15:0 protective in the first place? Because one biomarker rarely acts alone. When one marker is out of balance, it is often a proxy for an entire biological ecosystem we have not fully mapped yet.

Most conversations about weight are still stuck in calories. And at this point, it’s limiting how we think about the problem entirely. Because weight is not primarily about discipline. It’s about regulation. Last month, I was invited to sit down with senior leadership at Danone to explore novel ways of addressing our obesity pandemic. I chose to explore how to address the obesity pandemic from a regulation angle - what I like to call: satiety engineering. We went over the different phenotypes driving weight gain. Because obesity is merely the symptom of a broken system. If we want to change the trajectory we need to understand the system we are trying to fix. What actually drives appetite, energy, and fat storage? This may seem obvious in writing, yet we are not doing it in reality. Rather we are trying to override the system - white-knuckle it through - and it's not working very well. You cannot willpower your way out of a broken biology. That's just not how biochemistry works.