Optimization For Whom?
I’ve stopped listening to podcasts and reading books on human health optimization. Not because human optimization isn’t important or fascinating, but because I’ve realized it’s undefined. They provide some good guidelines, but I keep coming back to the question of…
Who are you optimizing for?
If you’re following the protocol of one of the many influencers out there, do you meet the criteria they preach as optimal? The reality is that you probably don’t.
The “evidence-based” influencers, basing their protocols on the research, are optimizing for the average. The other influencers are optimizing based on their personal experience, and they seem to shift course often, which leaves you confused.
Optimizing for the average has already been done, and it didn’t work. This is why I cringe when people seek “tips” or “shoulds” to get and stay healthy. I want to know the context of your experiences, exposures, and life demands, and then make an informed recommendation.
The Flaw Of Averages
In the late 1940s/early 1950s, the US Air Force had a serious problem: its pilots could not keep control of their planes. Although this was the dawn of jet-powered aviation and the planes were faster and more complicated to fly, the problems were so frequent and involved so many different aircraft that the air force had an alarming, life-or-death mystery on its hands. “It was a difficult time to be flying,” one retired airman told me. “You never knew if you were going to end up in the dirt.” At its worst point, 17 pilots crashed in a single day.
After multiple inquiries ended with no answers, officials turned their attention to the design of the cockpit itself as to the cause of flying difficulty. Everyone believed this improved calculation of the size of the average pilot would lead to a better-fitting cockpit and reduce the number of crashes.
Lt. Gilbert S. Daniels was put to work measuring pilots. Using the size data he had gathered from 4,063 pilots, Daniels calculated the average of the 10 physical dimensions believed to be most relevant for design, including height, chest circumference, and sleeve length. These formed the dimensions of the “average pilot,” which Daniels generously defined as someone whose measurements were within the middle 30 percent of the range of values for each dimension.
Before he crunched his numbers, the consensus among his fellow Air Force researchers was that the vast majority of pilots would be within the average range on most dimensions.
How many fit the average? Keep in mind, these are fighter pilots, already pre-selected based on certain physical characteristics.
ZERO!!
Out of 4,063 pilots, not a single airman fit within the average range on all 10 dimensions.
Biohacking for Whom?
The biohacking world often suffers from the same “average pilot” problem Gilbert Daniels exposed.
A 23-year-old single male influencer optimizing:
VO2 max,
sleep score,
fasting,
cold plunges,
HRV,
productivity,
and muscle gain…
…is operating under completely different biological and life constraints than:
a 47-year-old father of four,
a 52-year-old menopausal woman,
a shift worker,
a business owner under chronic stress,
or someone sleeping 5.5 hours because of caregiving responsibilities.
And yes — the demographic issue in studies is very real.
A huge amount of exercise physiology, nutrition, supplementation, and performance literature has historically been:
male dominant,
younger populations,
college-aged subjects,
military populations,
or highly controlled groups.
Women have historically been underrepresented in research. — especially:
perimenopausal women,
menopausal women,
pregnant women,
older women,
and hormonally complex populations
Be The Research
Traditional medicine often treats disease averages.
Optimization culture often chases performance averages.
But actual humans live in an individual context.
The science matters, but the applicability of action steps matters just as much, if not more. This is the shift I’m seeing this year with the people entering my office. People are growing tired of what optimal “should be” and curious about what it can look like for them. Lab values are interpreted in the context of the person’s life demands. Recommendations are given in the context of what the individual can tolerate. To me, that’s what functional medicine has always been about. Not being right, but finding what’s right for the individual sitting in front of me.