America is facing a health crisis.
People are sicker than ever, healthcare costs are soaring, and preventable diseases like obesity and diabetes are everywhere.
A couple of weeks ago, Donald Trump won the 2024 presidential election.
Whether you’re leaping for joy or considering moving to another country, we need to talk about the changes coming to the health of Americans.
Trump nominated Robert F. Kennedy Jr. as the health secretary, and he says it’s time for a change.
His “Make America Healthy Again” plan is a bold vision to help Americans live longer, healthier lives.
From fixing our food system to focusing on prevention, Kennedy wants to tackle the root causes of poor health.
My name is Dr. Christian Poulos, and like a detective tracking down a serial killer, I’ve spent years hunting down the real culprits behind America’s health crisis.
I wanted to give some commentary on RFK’s ideas.
The Current State of Affairs
Before we talk about RFK’s agenda, let’s go over our current state of affairs.
The numbers I’m about to share aren’t just statistics – they’re a wake-up call that should have us all reaching for the alarm clock.
In recent years, we’ve watched America’s health metrics plummet faster than a skydiver without a parachute.
A staggering 73% of Americans now carry excess weight, and this isn’t just about aesthetics or fitting into last year’s jeans.
This is about survival.
Even more concerning is the state of our metabolic health.
According to the latest National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) data, an astounding 93.6% of Americans have poor metabolic health. Let that sink in for a moment.
That’s not a typo – we’re talking about nearly our entire population struggling with basic metabolic function.
In 2023, we witnessed record-high numbers of heart attacks and strokes, despite nearly half of all adults being prescribed statin medications.
This paradox should have our medical establishment scratching their heads, but instead, they’re busy writing more prescriptions. It’s like trying to fix a leaking boat by bailing water without patching the hole.
And this was one of my issues with modern medicine (and why I pivoted to my own health and fitness business).
We are treating symptoms and fixing numbers instead of tackling the root cause.
The most frustrating part?
While our health institutions have been laser-focused on managing a respiratory virus with a 0.001% fatality rate for those under 59, we’ve been ignoring a metabolic pandemic that’s claiming lives and destroying the quality of life on an unprecedented scale.
It’s as if we’re obsessing over a paper cut while ignoring the gaping wound in our healthcare system.
When Big Tobacco Became Big Snack
Here’s where our story takes a turn worthy of a Hollywood thriller.
Over the last several decades, society realized that cigarettes were not the cool thing to do – they are actually an easy way to an early death.
As a result, the tobacco industry faced mounting pressure over their addictive products.
When this happened, they didn’t just fold their cards and walk away from the table.
Instead, they played a masterful hand that would make Machiavelli proud: they transformed themselves into food industry giants.
The shift was subtle but devastating.
Major tobacco companies like Philip Morris and RJ Reynolds began acquiring food companies with the same enthusiasm a kid shows in a candy store.
But unlike our young sugar enthusiasts, these corporations had decades of experience in addiction science and behavior manipulation.
They purchased Nabisco, turning the humble cookie into an engineering marvel of irresistibility.
Kraft fell under their influence, and suddenly mac and cheese wasn’t just comfort food – it was comfort food designed by addiction experts.
General Mills joined the portfolio, and breakfast cereal became less about nutrition and more about creating loyal customers before they could tie their shoes.
Even Oscar Meyer wasn’t spared, as processed meats got a makeover in the labs of former tobacco scientists.
Recent research has unveiled the disturbing truth behind these acquisitions.
Products owned by these tobacco-turned-food companies showed a consistent pattern: they were 30% more likely to be classified as high-fat and high-sodium, and an astonishing 80% more likely to be classified as high-carbohydrate and high-sodium.
These weren’t accidents or coincidences – they were the result of applying decades of addiction research to our food supply.
Our brains did not evolve to have these hyper-palatable, ultra-processed foods forming the basis of American diets.
There aren’t any natural foods that contain the deadly trio of high-carbohydrate, high-fat, and high-sodium.
The Reform Agenda
When it comes to fixing America’s health crisis, we need more than just superficial changes.
RFK says we need a complete overhaul of our approach to food, water, and health policy.
Let’s start with something most of us take for granted: our water supply.
Fluoride in Our Water
The fluoride controversy isn’t just about dental health – it’s about the intersection of industry influence and public health policy.
Originally added to water supplies as a partnership with the cereal industry (who wanted to protect consumers from their sugar-laden products), fluoride’s presence in our water is increasingly questioned by modern research.
Studies pointing to potential neurotoxic effects, particularly in developing brains, suggest we need to reassess this decades-old practice.
Supporters of water fluoridation see it as a public health triumph, calling fluoride a cavity-fighting superhero.
By strengthening enamel and reducing tooth decay by up to 25%, it’s credited with protecting millions of smiles, especially in low-income communities where dental care is less accessible.
Plus, fewer cavities mean fewer dreaded trips to the dentist—a win for everyone.
Critics, however, argue that fluoride is more foe than friend.
They worry about risks like dental fluorosis (those white streaks on teeth) and potential long-term health effects, pointing to controversial studies on brain health.
Others simply dislike the idea of the government adding anything to their water without consent.
To them, fluoridation feels less like protection and more like unwanted meddling.
I can see both sides.
I don’t want the government adding chemicals to our water, but at the same time, I think dental care should be more easily accessible in lower-income communities.
Adding fluoride to water is a band-aid type fix as opposed to attacking the root causes.
However, not all additives are created equal.
The 1924 iodization program stands as a testament to thoughtful public health intervention.
By adding iodine to salt, we virtually eliminated goiter, boosted IQ scores in deficient regions, and prevented cognitive impairment in millions of children.
This success story shows us that targeted, science-based interventions can work when they’re not driven by industry interests.
The Food System Overhaul
We also ought to flip the food pyramid upside down – and not just because it looks cooler that way.
The science supports a radical reimagining of our dietary guidelines.
A topic that has gained increasing popularity is consuming a minimum of 60% of animal products in your diet.
Why?
Because they’re the most nutrient-dense foods available.
A single serving of liver contains more bioavailable nutrients than a wheelbarrow of kale.
As a result, increasing your calories from healthy fats to 50% isn’t a crazy idea either – your brain is 60% fat.
Feeding it sugar is like putting diesel in a gasoline engine.
Then there’s the issue of food labels.
Because “natural flavors” shouldn’t require a chemistry degree to understand.
And the marketing is always misleading.
No, that sugar-laden cereal isn’t “heart-healthy” just because you sprinkled some vitamin powder on it.
Opponents of this radical dietary shift caution against overemphasizing animal products and fats, citing environmental, ethical, and health concerns.
High consumption of animal products raises alarms about sustainability, greenhouse gas emissions, and the ethical treatment of animals.
From a health perspective, critics argue that over-reliance on animal fats may increase risks of certain diseases, including heart disease, if not carefully managed.
Moreover, some question the practicality and accessibility of such a diet.
High-quality animal products, particularly nutrient-dense options like grass-fed meats and organ meats, are often expensive and less accessible to low-income communities.
Critics also contend that plant-based foods like kale, while less nutrient-dense, still offer important fiber and phytochemicals that animal products lack, advocating for a more balanced approach.
My opinion?
I think a more animal-based diet will benefit us.
But we have to make it affordable for everyone—the hyper-processed foods I mentioned earlier tend to be dirt cheap.
The USDA Makeover
Proponents of RFK’s plan argue for a USDA makeover.
They argue the current system favors large-scale monoculture farming, harming biodiversity and depleting soil health.
Subsidies for crops like corn and soy disadvantage small farmers, while soil degradation worsens under industrial practices.
Regenerative agriculture offers a solution by restoring ecosystems through crop rotation, no-till farming, and integrated livestock systems.
Proponents also push for animal welfare reforms, believing ethically raised animals produce better-quality food (and, yes, better butter).
Additionally, they call for ending outdated “fat is bad” policies, emphasizing the nutritional importance of healthy fats while poking fun at stigmas surrounding them.
Critics warn that overhauling the USDA risks unintended consequences.
Transitioning to regenerative practices requires significant investments, potentially raising food prices and straining small farmers.
Monoculture farming, though flawed, is currently crucial for affordable staples in global supply chains.
Animal welfare reforms spark concern over higher costs, while skeptics of the “fat renaissance” fear it could lead to overconsumption if healthy fats aren’t clearly differentiated from processed ones.
The debate centers on balancing systemic change with practical concerns like affordability and feeding a growing population, which is a tough problem to tackle.
The Restaurant Revolution
The modern restaurant industry has evolved into something akin to a dopamine dispensary with a side of instant gratification – think of it as a Las Vegas casino, but instead of slot machines, you’ve got bottomless mozzarella sticks performing the same neurological magic tricks.
These establishments have masterfully engineered their offerings through hyper-palatable flavor combinations that light up our brains like Times Square on New Year’s Eve, turning simple meals into neurochemical firework shows.
Critics point to portion sizes that have grown so dramatically that what was once considered a serving for four could now be mistaken for a light lunch by today’s standards, while environmental cues, from strategic dessert displays to wafting aromas, are carefully orchestrated to override our natural satiety signals – it’s basically Pavlov’s experiment, but with endless breadsticks.
Defenders of the industry contend that restaurants simply respond to consumer demands and provide a valuable social service, arguing that dining out represents more than just sustenance – it’s a cornerstone of modern social interaction and cultural exchange.
The path forward likely requires a balanced approach, with solutions ranging from more reasonable portion sizes (because your appetizer shouldn’t have its own area code) to creating alternative social venues that don’t revolve around consuming enough calories to power a small city.
While some establishments are already making strides toward transparency and healthier options – even if those options sometimes feel like they’re hidden in the menu’s witness protection program – more comprehensive changes are needed.
These include emphasizing nutrient density over caloric density, implementing genuine transparency in ingredient sourcing, and transforming the industry from a dopamine dispensary into something more sustainable for both our bodies and social lives.
Sugar Taxation
Should we add a tax to foods high in sugar?
The great sugar taxation debate has become the health policy equivalent of telling someone their favorite dessert is actually just a cleverly disguised sugar cube – necessary but not exactly popular at parties.
The science behind such taxation is remarkably compelling, with countries that have implemented these measures reporting significant drops in consumption patterns – it turns out people’s love affair with sugary drinks isn’t quite as unconditional when their wallet gets involved.
Price elasticity has proven to be a surprisingly effective behavioral modification tool, working like a financial personal trainer nudging consumers toward healthier choices.
Moreover, these taxes create a win-win situation by generating revenue that can fund public health initiatives, essentially making sugar pay for its own damage control.
Perhaps most intriguingly, when faced with the prospect of their products becoming as expensive as liquid gold, many industry players have chosen to reformulate their offerings with less sugar, proving that sometimes the best way to a corporation’s heart is through its profit margins.
However, critics argue that sugar taxes disproportionately affect lower-income communities, essentially placing the burden of public health on those least able to bear it.
To address these concerns, proponents have developed nuanced implementation strategies that go beyond simple taxation.
These include progressive taxation based on sugar content (the sweeter you are, the more you pay), innovative approaches like tax credits for good metabolic health markers (finally, a reason to brag about your blood sugar levels), and targeted subsidies for whole food producers.
Perhaps most importantly, comprehensive support systems for low-income families ensure they can access healthy alternatives without breaking the bank.
The goal isn’t to punish people for their sweet tooth but rather to create a more balanced food environment where choosing health doesn’t require a second mortgage.
After all, making healthy choices shouldn’t be a luxury reserved for those who can afford it – even if it means making some folks’ favorite soft drinks cost more than their streaming subscriptions.
I see where this one is going, but I can’t say I’m a fan of it.
America is a free country, and I’m not into extra taxes if they aren’t necessary.
Corporate Regulation
I’ve always found this bizarre: Former FDA officials seamlessly transition into lucrative positions at pharmaceutical companies, USDA regulators find cozy homes in agribusiness, and CDC leaders pivot to healthcare corporations with such regularity you’d think it was part of their job description.
It’s a bit like having the referee switch teams mid-game, then claiming they can still make impartial calls – a premise that strains credibility more than a politician’s campaign promises.
Why is there such a crossover between government officials being involved and healthcare and big food?
The solutions to this regulatory merry-go-round are as straightforward as they are challenging to implement.
Extended cooling-off periods – think of them as a regulatory timeout – would require officials to spend significant time in the penalty box before joining the industries they once regulated.
Stricter conflict of interest rules could help ensure that regulatory decisions are made with the public’s health in mind rather than potential future employers’ profit margins.
Enhanced transparency requirements would shine a spotlight on these career moves brighter than a Times Square billboard, while independent oversight committees would serve as impartial referees in this high-stakes game.
Critics argue these measures might deter talented individuals from public service, but supporters counter that if your career plans require hiding them from public view, perhaps they deserve a second look.
After all, regulatory oversight should function more like a one-way street than a revolving door at a busy hotel – because when it comes to public health and safety, we can’t afford to keep playing musical chairs with accountability.
The Implementation Plan
There must be an implementation plan, however.
Creating lasting change requires more than just good intentions – it demands a structured approach that addresses both immediate needs and long-term goals.
We need to start with education, not just about what to eat, but about how our food choices impact our bodies, our communities, and our planet.
Imagine walking into a grocery store where the layout isn’t designed to tempt you with processed foods, but to guide you toward optimal health.
Picture schools where children learn about nutrition not from industry-sponsored materials, but from evidence-based curriculum that empowers them to make informed choices.
This isn’t just a dream – it’s an achievable reality if we commit to systemic change.
Policy reform must follow education.
We need legislative changes that prioritize public health over corporate profits.
This means updating regulatory frameworks, revising industry standards, and developing robust enforcement mechanisms.
But perhaps most importantly, we need to close the revolving door between industry and regulatory agencies that has allowed corporate interests to shape public health policy.
The Science Behind the Changes
The beauty of this approach lies in its scientific foundation.
We’re not talking about fad diets or quick fixes – we’re talking about understanding and optimizing human metabolism.
This means paying attention to key markers like fasting insulin levels, triglyceride/HDL ratios, and inflammatory markers.
It means recognizing that nutrition isn’t just about calories, but about nutrient bioavailability, protein quality, and hormonal responses to different foods.
The Bottom Line
We’re facing a metabolic health crisis that threatens not just our individual well-being, but our collective future as a nation.
The good news?
We already have the knowledge and tools to turn things around.
What we need now is the collective will to make it happen.
Remember, if we can put a man on the moon, we can certainly figure out how to make broccoli as appealing as a bag of chips.
(Okay, maybe that’s pushing it, but we can at least try.)
The question isn’t whether we can make these changes – it’s whether we’re ready to prioritize our health over corporate profits and convenience.
But we must make these changes evidence-based and rooted in science.
What do you think?
Do you think Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. will make America healthy again, or should we wait until our pants stop fitting entirely?
If you’re interested in more tips related to becoming a top tier human, fill out my 1 on 1 coaching application from the button below to become fitter and healthier – guaranteed in 90 days.
All the best,
Dr. Christian Poulos