Why Are We Treating Tech Burnout With… More Tech?
All products featured on Condé Nast Traveler are independently selected by Condé Nast Traveler editors. However, when you buy something through our retail links, Condé Nast may earn an affiliate commission.
Rosebar at Six Senses Ibiza
Like a lot of us, I often find myself fried from days spent staring at my computer screen and nights circling back to emails I haven't answered. So when I heard that the Sanctuary Beach Resort in Monterey Bay, California, offered a package known as the Burnout Recovery Journey, I had to try it. When I arrived, I was happy to find the kinds of treatments on the spa menu I've been seeing more and more of lately: science-based offerings like infrared light therapy, IV drips, and electromagnetic pulse therapy. My outstanding massage took place on something called a Pulsed Electromagnetic Field mat. I was grateful that the hotel offered signal-blocking phone bags for the ultimate unplugging experience. Then I realized the irony: I was treating my burnout with…more tech. One has to wonder: How did we get here?
In Europe, spa traditions have blended health and wellness for centuries, as evidenced by a long-standing enthusiasm for homeopathic medicine and a predilection across the continent for 'taking the waters' as a cure for ailments. Hungary's health insurance reimburses citizens for using the country's legendary thermal baths; France's covers many herbal remedies and acupuncture; Switzerland's allows for traditional Chinese medicine procedures. But the US has historically emphasized the individual's responsibility for their own health, eschewing Europe's more community- and environment-based models. Much of this tendency can be traced to the 1910 Flexner Report, a notoriously sexist and racist document, backed by the Carnegie Foundation, that encouraged medical schools to educate future doctors solely on treating pathologies, completely ignoring overall wellness.
'The US system is built all around disease care,' says Darshan Shah, MD, a board-certified surgeon and the founder and CEO of Next Health, a Los Angeles–based chain of medical health optimization centers that provides treatments for the Four Seasons Resort Maui spa. 'Anything outside of that does not get approved by the FDA.' Such a system rewards advancements like easily patented pills and surgeries over preventive wellness, which is unprofitable by comparison—a fact that's less an issue for Europe's publicly funded health care systems.
So why is America hopping onto the preventive health trend now? Shah believes, to use a well-worn phrase, that Americans are sick and tired of being sick and tired—and of the endless game of whack-a-mole they so often have to play to get health problems treated. 'Americans see that European destination spas are places to actually get healthy and want to find that for themselves,' he says. I can't help but wonder whether our uniquely American culture of avowed techno-optimism is also partly responsible: We embrace the driverless car, the soy-protein-based meal replacement, the Kim K–endorsed salmon-sperm facials—and we love keeping up with the Joneses. This past summer I got a poolside vitamin IV treatment, and instantly two people who'd seen me receiving it called the nurse over to book their own.
Twenty years ago it might have been confusing to hear that some of the most famous people in tech and science, like Larry Ellison and Dave Asprey, the 'father of biohacking,' had gotten into the spa business; nowadays it sounds par for the course. From the most exclusive resorts to neighborhood spots, many spas seem less like the lavender-scented, Enya-pumping spaces of yore and more like futuristic medical labs. Several of the biggest names in the game, like Sha Wellness Clinic, have built their popularity on such offerings as genomic testing and biofeedback therapies. Spas can biohack your trauma with psychedelics in the morning and map your personalized genetic wellness plan in the afternoon. Americans no longer visit spas only for a hit of temporary relaxation, but to invest in our long-term well-being, because the health care we have—'disaster care,' as Shah calls it, for its focus on accidents and cancers—doesn't do it. We want to live longer, age more slowly, and learn to manage our own mental health more effectively. Americans aren't looking to just survive. We want to optimize and thrive.
Getting into science-based wellness can be intimidating. I asked Shah how to cut through the marketing noise and find legitimate establishments that suit your needs. He recommends going only to facilities that employ someone with a medical license, such as an overseeing doctor or medical director; conducting your own research on a provider's claims; and speaking to someone in the scientific community, like your physician, about whether the treatment is effective, safe, and—importantly—worth the often high cost. Maybe someday these science-based treatments won't be categorized as luxury services. But until then, they just might be worth the investment.
This article appeared in the March 2025 issue of Condé Nast Traveler. Subscribe to the magazine here.
Originally Appeared on Condé Nast Traveler
The Latest Stories from Condé Nast Traveler
Want to be the first to know? Sign up to our newsletters for travel inspiration and tips
Thanksgiving in Paris Is One of the Most American Things You Can Do
15 Unwritten Rules to Know Before Visiting New York City
Welcome to Park Ranger Instagram—the Most Wholesome Corner of the Internet
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
30 minutes ago
- The Hill
What's a Medicaid cut? Senate GOP tiptoes around $800B question
When is a Medicaid cut not actually a cut? That's the $800 billion question facing Senate Republicans as they write their own version of the sweeping House-passed tax and spending bill. Administration officials and senators defending against attacks on the bill have coalesced around a message that there will be no cuts to benefits, and the only people who will lose coverage are the ones who never deserved it to begin with: namely immigrants without legal status and 'able-bodied' individuals who shouldn't be on Medicaid. 'This bill will preserve and protect the programs, the social safety net, but it will make it much more commonsense,' Office of Management and Budget Director Russell Vought said during a recent CNN interview. 'That's what this bill does. No one will lose coverage as a result.' Among many provisions, the House bill would require states to deny Medicaid to people who can't prove they are working, looking for work, in school or volunteering for 80 hours a month. It would prohibit states from using their own money to cover immigrants without legal status and would deny coverage to other lawfully present immigrants who are currently eligible. According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the legislation will result in nearly 11 million people losing health insurance coverage over the next decade. The Medicaid provisions alone would result in 7.8 million people losing their insurance. Those coverage losses would equate to hundreds of billions of dollars in savings for the federal government. However, GOP lawmakers and administration officials insist the legislation will protect Medicaid for 'deserving' people such as the elderly and disabled, while forcing others to prove they aren't freeloading. 'It's important for us to provide a nudge to some Americans to remember that they have agency over their future,' Mehmet Oz, the administration's Medicare and Medicaid chief, told reporters on Wednesday, following a closed-door meeting with GOP senators. Later Wednesday in an interview on Fox Business, Oz elaborated. 'Go out there, do entry-level jobs, get into the workforce, prove that you matter. Get agency into your own life,' he said. Republicans are wary about being attacked over health care cuts, and they're eager to reframe the debate and try to go on offense. Voter backlash over the 2017 ObamaCare repeal effort led to widespread GOP losses and cost them control of the House in the 2018 midterms. 'Give me a break, This is just fear-mongering from Democrats,' Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.) said in a post on the social platform X. 'No one's losing health care—unless you count the 1.4 million illegal immigrants getting Medicaid on your dime.' Most immigrants without legal status can't qualify for Medicaid at the federal level, but some blue states have extended health care coverage to them. The legislation would penalize those states if they continued to offer coverage by lowering their federal matching rate. In a CNBC interview Thursday, Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.) said the people who lose Medicaid coverage will merely transition to employer-sponsored health care. 'It's not kicking people off Medicaid. It's transitioning from Medicaid to employer-provided health care. So yes, we've got 10 million people that are not going to be on Medicaid, but they then are going to be on employer-provided health care,' Lankford said. Yet according to the CBO, 'few of those disenrolled from Medicaid because of the policy would have access to and enroll in employment-based coverage.' A bloc of Republican senators has been raising concerns about some of the Medicaid provisions, and some have said they do not like the idea of anything that could be interpreted as a cut. But by and large, they've signaled the coverage losses aren't what's troubling. '[We need to] protect the program for the people that really deserve and need the help and need the program, you know, and that's children, disabled, seniors, on and on and on,' said Sen. Jim Justice ( 'That's what we got to do. You know, at the end of the day, we shouldn't be protecting the program for people that are abusing or people that shouldn't be eligible, or whatever.' Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) has said he worries about the bill's potential impact on rural hospitals and pledged to withhold support from any bill that cuts Medicaid benefits. But what is a benefit cut? 'If my state tells me that, because of legislative changes in the House bill, the Senate bill, we're going to have to cut benefits. That's a benefit cut,' Hawley told The Hill. Missouri has 1.3 million Medicaid beneficiaries, but Hawley said he thinks there would only be a small number impacted by the work requirements. 'I'm fine with people who are able-bodied and not working … I'm all for that. So you know what, cut benefits from illegal aliens. Yeah, I'm fine with that, but I'm concerned about people who are here legally, residents of my state, citizens of my state, who are working and would lose health care coverage,' he said. Hawley has said that President Trump reiterated his opposition against any Medicaid cuts during recent conversations about the 'big, beautiful bill,' though the president supported the House version. Health experts say the impact of the cuts will go far beyond the small slice of the population Republicans claim. Work requirements will likely add layers of red tape for people to prove they meet the threshold. 'The people losing coverage aren't people who aren't working … but they're actually people who should satisfy the work reporting or should qualify for an exemption, but they can't navigate the complex systems for either reporting one's hours for work or other activities,' said Edwin Park, a research professor at the Georgetown University McCourt School of Public Policy. The legislation includes some exemptions, like for caregiving, but it doesn't specify what would qualify or how beneficiaries would prove they qualify. There's no requirement that states exempt people automatically, Park said, so many people who would be eligible likely wouldn't be enrolled. No matter how Republicans spin it, Park said, 'these are huge Medicaid cuts. They're going to take away coverage from millions of low-income people.' 'And those cuts are going to affect everyone throughout the Medicaid program, not just the expansion group, but also kids, seniors and people with disabilities,' he added. 'And it's going to have big ripple effects throughout the health care system.'
Chicago Tribune
30 minutes ago
- Chicago Tribune
Dr. Richard Goldberg: Preventive care and cancer screenings are critical to your health
The news of President Joe Biden's prostate cancer diagnosis came as a shock to the country. But preventive screening can protect you from having a similar shock of your own. While we don't know all the details about the former president's personal medical decisions, what we do know is this: Preventive care is absolutely critical to our health. Everyone should get the screenings appropriate to their age and individual health profiles. I have served as an oncologist for over four decades, helping thousands of cancer patients and their families navigate difficult diagnoses as well as helping thousands of other Americans catch a problem early when taking appropriate action can be curative. I have seen too many heartbreaking situations among my patients that could have led to better outcomes if a problem had been caught earlier. I have also seen firsthand the startling rise in the incidence, in particular, of colorectal cancer among younger adults at a time when incidence rates in older Americans are falling. Colorectal cancer is now the second-deadliest cancer for men and the third-deadliest cancer for women. The rise in early-onset colorectal cancer has been so dramatic that the recommended age for regular colonoscopy in people with no special risk factors was lowered in 2021 from age 50 to age 45. Some might think that moving up the screening age by five years is a small step, but it is not — certainly not in terms of outcomes. I have already witnessed examples where screening five years earlier has been consequential in identifying premalignant polyps and identifying early cancers before they metastasize when they are most likely to be cured. In many cases the polyps and even early cancers can simply be removed during a colonoscopy. I cannot urge this message strongly enough: All Americans of average risk that are over 45, and especially those exhibiting symptoms, need to get tested. One alternative is to have a colonoscopy at least every 10 years or more often if there are abnormal findings. Alternatives include stool-based studies such as Cologuard or Hemoccult testing, which need to be done more often to be most effective. New technologies are unlocking the potential for blood-based screening tests as well. The reason for this alarming increase in colorectal cancer incidence in younger adults is still being studied and the potential causes are debated in the scientific community. It is possible that there are several or even many different causes compounding the problem. As someone who practices risk-reducing dietary and activity strategies to protect my own health, I commend President Donald Trump and Health and Human Services Secretary Robert Kennedy Jr. for their emphasis on disease prevention and identifying the causes of America's chronic illness epidemic and finding measures to prevent disease like colorectal cancer. It is critical for all Americans to know what screenings are recommended at each stage in life. In general, everyone should get an annual physical, and see a dentist regularly — and everyone should receive the standard childhood vaccines. The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommends women over 21 should get screened for cervical cancer and women over 40 to be screened for breast cancer. The task force recommends that smokers over 50 get checked for lung cancer. And men aged 55 to 69 are recommended to be screened for prostate cancer with a prostate specific antigen test. These and other screenings can help catch cancer or even precancerous growths as early as possible. Unfortunately, surveys show that a large number of Americans don't get these tests done, including for reasons of cost. I understand why people might do this, but getting a checkup and talking to your health care provider about what screening tests are appropriate for you is the first step to taking action to improve our health and our lives. Fortunately, there are also some positive trends in oncology to celebrate. Science continues to deliver great promise for the most vulnerable among us: the sick. In spite of some concerning short-term trends, cancer mortality has dropped by one-third since 1991, mainly because of a dramatic decrease in smoking. Life expectancy rose by almost a full year from 2022 to 2023. In my field, recent studies have shown exciting potential for people with confirmed cancers that are called immuno-oncology approaches. These are cancer treatments that enable the immune system to kill cancer cells, rather than using the more traditional treatment methods including chemotherapy, radiation and radical surgery, which often have harrowing and sometimes lifelong side effects. These approaches are changing the model in cancer care and particularly in my area of clinical practice and research, colorectal cancer. The benefits of these immune targeted therapies are changing treatments in many types of cancer. However, only a small subset, about 5%, of colorectal cancers respond to this approach using currently approved therapeutic regimens. More research is needed on this treatment approach to determine how to best harness this powerful tool and get new drugs approved by the FDA to help the large majority of colorectal cancer patients. But doctors, patients, and their loved ones can reasonably hope that the thousands of scientists around the world who are working to find better treatments and cures will change our current standards of care. All of us should ensure that we receive the screenings and vaccines appropriate to our age — and that our kids do the same. An ounce of prevention is still worth at least a pound of cure.
Yahoo
9 hours ago
- Yahoo
"Maintaining Strong Bones Has Less To Do With Drinking Tons Of Milk": Experts Are Sharing What To Foods May Negatively Impact Your Bone Density
My grandmother has osteoporosis, along with 10 million other Americans diagnosed with the disease and 43 million others with low bone mass. Not wanting to follow in her hobbled footsteps, the rest of the women in the family are taking precautions, including consuming the recommended amount of calcium (more isn't necessarily better), adding weight-bearing exercises to our exercise regimens and attending regular doctor checkups. But according to orthopedic specialists, protecting and maintaining strong bones has less to do with drinking tons of milk (those Got Milk campaigns certainly had their intended effect) and more to do with avoiding foods and beverages that can impact our bone density. Folks concerned about osteoporosis often add calcium and vitamin D to their diets, but these supplements could hurt your bone health rather than help if not taken as needed. Dr. Liz Matzkin, associate professor at Brigham and Women's Hospital in the Department of Orthopedic Surgery in Boston, explained: 'Although calcium and Vitamin D is important to maintain bone health, exceeding the recommended doses per day can backfire and be harmful rather than beneficial. Calcium and vitamin D requirements are age dependent, so make sure you are aware of the optimal dose for you.' She advised that, for ages 50 and over, the recommendations are 1,000 milligrams per day of calcium and 800 to 1000 international units per day of vitamin D. Below, orthopedic surgeons and specialists share the foods they avoid to help lessen their risk of osteoporosis. Alcohol Related: This Picky Eater Showdown Will Be Tough For People Without Refined Palates We don't blame you if you're totally confused about whether alcohol is a healthy or unhealthy addition to your diet. Whether you've heard it's beneficial for heart health or are concerned about its effect on the liver, Matzkin cautions that sipping a few glasses of pinot or chugging lagers can negatively affect bone health. 'An increased consumption of alcohol can alter the body's ability to absorb important nutrients that are actually beneficial to bone health, such as calcium, vitamin D and magnesium,' she explained. While calcium and vitamin D often get the spotlight in this area, our sex hormones, like testosterone in men and estrogen in women, are also critical for ensuring strong bones. Angelina Waller, a physician assistant at Advanced Orthopedics in Denver, explained that alcohol 'slows the bone remodeling cycle and disrupts hormone levels.' If you do like to imbibe, Matzkin recommends no more than one alcoholic beverage per day (which is the maximum amount women should be drinking anyway, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention). Older folks and those who are at risk of bone breakage should be especially cautious. 'Lastly, if you consume too much alcohol, there is a higher risk of falling and injuring or fracturing a bone,' Matzkin said. A 2018 study found a link between alcohol consumption and hip fractures. Caffeine Related: If Your Fruit And Vegetable Knowledge Is Actually Good, Prove It By Getting 22/27 Of These Questions Right While America runs on coffee, it doesn't fuel our bones. And not just coffee. Add energy drinks, soda, tea and supplements or any product with caffeine to the hit list. Just like alcohol, the idea isn't abstention but moderation. 'Caffeine has been shown to increase calcium loss and decrease calcium absorption, both of which negatively influence bone health,' Matzkin said. 'Consider decaffeinated coffee or tea options if you just need something to warm you up or, even better, a tall glass of water.' The Food and Drug Administration recommends no more than 400 milligrams of caffeine a day (about 4-5 cups of coffee), which is a good guideline to use for bone health too. The bone builder vitamin D is also affected by caffeine, which can interfere with absorption. 'Caffeine causes decreased calcium absorption and increased calcium loss in the urine,' Waller said. Soda, particularly cola, is also a culprit of bad bone health. A 2006 comparative study found that drinking cola (including diet versions!) was associated with significantly lower bone mineral density in women. The level of consumption is related to the problem: The more cola the women drank, the more significant its impact. 'Soda contains sugars and can also contain phosphoric acid and caffeine,' Matzkin said. 'All of which fail to have any health benefits and, if consumed in large quantities, will result in negative health consequences.' Wheat Bran It may come as a surprise that heart-healthy wheat bran can have a negative effect on bone health. 'Wheat bran has high levels of phytates, which can prevent calcium absorption,' Matzkin explained. Many people eat wheat bran because it's high in dietary fiber, which is essential for keeping you regular, decreasing heart disease and even preventing colon cancer, all important considerations for many Americans. Thankfully, if you're a consumer of oat bran (which is different from wheat bran), it doesn't have the same deleterious effects on bones as wheat bran, according to Matzkin, as it doesn't contain high levels of phytates. Phytates are a type of anti-nutrient naturally found in plants. Many of your favorite veggies and legumes (from kale and cabbage to beans and peanuts) contain compounds that reduce the absorption of other nutrients. Pseudoscience makes a big deal out of avoiding these compounds, but for the most part, there's no reason to avoid these otherwise-healthy foods. Beans, spinach and beets also contain anti-nutrients that can decrease calcium absorption, but soaking (in the case of dried beans) or cooking (for raw spinach and beets) lessens their impact, according to Waller. 'Beans and wheat bran contain phytates, and spinach and beets contain oxalates that decrease calcium absorption as they bind to the calcium,' she said. If you want to reduce the phytates in wheat bran, you can try soaking, sprouting or fermenting it. Since it has tons of other benefits, there's no need to completely remove it from your diet, just moderate your intake. 'As with almost all foods, moderation is key,' Matzkin said. 'No need to completely eliminate wheat bran from the diet, but understanding that it can affect [calcium] absorption should prompt supplementation with other [calcium]-rich foods.' Salt Whether your tastes run salty or sweet or salty-sweet, the white stuff is typically associated with high blood pressure rather than bone loss. But it really should be a consideration for bone health, especially for older and at-risk groups. 'Be aware of salt that can be hidden in meats, snacks and processed foods such as cold cuts,' Matzkin said. 'Consuming excessive amounts of salt (more than 2,300 milligrams per day) can lead to calcium loss from your bones.' According to a 2018 study by the Journal of the American College of Nutrition, increased sodium consumption significantly increased the risk of osteoporosis. To put that in perspective, 2,300 milligrams per day is equal to 1 teaspoon of table salt, according to the FDA. On average, Americans are eating 1.5 times that amount. This post originally appeared on HuffPost. Also in Food: I'm Not Calling You Uncultured, But If You Can't Pass This International Food Also in Food: People Are Sharing The "Unneccessary" Cooking Rules They Stopped Following Ages Ago Also in Food: If You Can't Name At Least 10 Of These Fruits, You've Got The Taste Buds Of A Toddler
