
RFK Jr. wants a wearable on every American — that future's not as healthy as he thinks
'My vision is that every American is wearing a wearable within four years.'
RFK Jr., our current secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, said this at a congressional hearing at the end of June. Wearables, he said, are key to the MAHA — Make America Healthy Again — agenda. Kennedy positioned wearables for Americans as a means of 'taking control' or 'taking responsibility' over their health by monitoring how their lifestyle impacts their metrics. In the hearing, he also cited that his friends had shed pounds and 'lost their diabetes diagnosis' thanks to devices like continuous glucose monitors (CGMs).
I'm a wearables expert. I obviously don't hate these devices. My problem with Kennedy's 'wearable for every American' vision is that it lends credence to the idea that everyone benefits from wearable technology. It's not that simple.
I started wearing a Fitbit in 2014 to lose weight. I'd mysteriously gained 40 pounds in six months. I started running. Dieting. Obsessively tracking my steps, hitting 10,000 to 15,000 a day, rain or shine. I ate as few as 800 calories while logging 15,000 steps daily — for me, roughly 7.5 miles of walking. The promise of all this data, and what Kennedy is touting, is that people will have actionable data to improve their health. I had a ton of data. I could see things weren't adding up. But the way these products and their apps are designed, I didn't know how to 'take control' of my health. Instead, I continued to gain weight.
I cried a lot during that time. So did my mom, who took my sudden aversion to carbohydrates as a personal offense. (How can you not eat bap? Bap is life!!) It didn't matter that I improved at running or that I measured everything with a food scale. Each time I went to my doctors, I'd show them my Fitbit data and beg to be taken seriously. My doctors didn't know what to do with what they were being shown. I also didn't know how to communicate what I was seeing effectively. Instead, they suggested everything from 'you must become a vegan' to 'people with slow metabolisms just have to try harder.' By 2016, I'd put on another 20 pounds and, after three years, was diagnosed with polycystic ovary syndrome — a hormonal condition that often causes weight gain and insulin resistance.
Wearables helped me realize something was off, but it was a bumpy ride getting to an answer. That's been true of my overall experience. Sure, this tech helped improve aspects of my health. I'm a much more active person. I went from being unable to run a mile to racing two half-marathons, a handful of 10Ks, and several 5Ks. My sleep is more regular. I went from being a night owl to an early riser. I've watched my resting heart rate decrease from around 75 beats per minute while sleeping to around 55 bpm. My cholesterol is lower. My weight has yo-yoed, but overall, I've been able to maintain a 25-pound weight loss from the 60 pounds I gained from PCOS. And, I've put on more muscle.
What I haven't shared quite as publicly is that these improvements came at a heavy cost to my mental health.
My first three years with wearables wrecked my relationship with food. Despite diligently tracking my data, I didn't get much by way of results. There also wasn't a ton of guidance on how to apply my data learnings in a healthy way. I ended up hyperfixating on trying anything that hinted at helping me reach my goal. I ended up with disordered eating habits. Food logging is also a prominent feature in these wearable apps, so I meticulously weighed and logged everything I ate for years. If I were even 15 calories over budget, I'd go for a five-minute run around the block to burn 50 calories and get myself back under. I avoided social outings because, when eating out, my calorie logs weren't guaranteed to be accurate. If I weren't making enough progress, I'd punish myself by skipping meals. According to my therapist, I had begun showing mild signs of both orthorexia nervosa and anorexia.
I also started developing anxiety about my running performance. If I wasn't improving my VO2 Max or mile times, I was failing. It didn't matter that I'd gone from running 16-minute miles to recording a personal best of 8 minutes, 45 seconds. Any time I became injured, my numbers would go down, and I'd feel like a complete failure. When my father died, I was stuck in a funeral home in the Korean countryside, pacing around in circles so that I wouldn't lose my step streak. Ironically, in a bid to please my wearable overlords, I've ended up injuring myself several times through overexercise in the last decade.
I'm okay now, thanks to a lot of work in therapy and the help of my loved ones. But healing isn't a one-and-done kind of thing. Ninety-five percent of the time, I use wearables in a much more reasonable way. I take intentional breaks the other five percent of the time, whenever old habits rear their ugly head.
Mine isn't a unique experience. Several studies and reports have found that wearables can increase health anxiety. Anecdotally, when a friend or acquaintance gets a new wearable, I usually get one of two types of messages. The first is an obsessive recounting of their data and all the ways they monitor food intake. The other is a flurry of worried texts asking if their low HRV, heart rate, or some other metric is a sign that they're going to die. Most of these messages come from people who have had a recent health scare, and I usually spend the next hour teaching them how to interpret their baseline data in less absolute terms. And therein lies the rub. These devices overloaded the people in my life with too much information but not enough context. How can anyone effectively 'take control of their health' if they're struggling to understand it?
There's never been, nor will there ever be, a one-size-fits-all solution.
There's never been, nor will there ever be, a one-size-fits-all solution. That's why I'm skeptical that Kennedy's vision is even feasible. Doctors don't always know how to interpret wearable data. Not only that, it'd be a massive undertaking to give every American a wearable. There are dozens, if not hundreds, of products on the market, and everyone's health needs are unique. Would the government subsidize the cost? Where do health insurance companies, FSAs, and HSAs fit into this picture? So far, all we've heard from Kennedy is that the HHS plans to 'launch one of the biggest advertising campaigns in HHS history' to promote wearable use.
But even if Kennedy were to solve this logistical nightmare, I take issue with framing wearables as a necessary component in anyone's health journey. You risk creating scenarios where insurance companies use wearables as a means of lowering or raising premiums, similar to how certain car insurance providers use telematics devices to monitor their customers' driving in exchange for discounts. It sounds good in theory, but it also opens the door to discrimination. Some, but not all, illnesses can be treated or prevented through lifestyle changes.
Not everyone will experience the darker side of this tech like I have. But I know that many have, and many more will. Some, like me, will eventually find a healthy balance. For others, the healthiest thing they could do is to avoid wearables.
Posts from this author will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed.
See All by Victoria Song
Posts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed.
See All Analysis
Posts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed.
See All Column
Posts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed.
See All Fitness
Posts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed.
See All Gadgets
Posts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed.
See All Health
Posts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed.
See All Report
Posts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed.
See All Science
Posts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed.
See All Wearable
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Medscape
9 minutes ago
- Medscape
Calcium Deposition Can Increase Osteoarthritis Risk
Calcium crystal deposition may be a risk factor for knee osteoarthritis (OA), according to a new study. In an analysis including more than 6400 middle-aged to older adults, individuals with knee chondrocalcinosis were 75% more likely to develop knee OA than those without the condition at baseline. Because knee chondrocalcinosis and OA are often observed together, it is commonly considered a feature of the OA disease process, said Jean W. Liew, MD, an assistant professor of rheumatology at Boston University, Boston, and coauthor of the study. 'This study suggests that calcium crystal deposition is a cause of knee OA rather than just a consequence,' she told Medscape Medical News . The analysis included data from two independent cohorts: the Rotterdam Study (RS) and the Multicenter Osteoarthritis Study (MOST). RS enrolled individuals aged 55 years or older residing in Rotterdam, the Netherlands. MOST, which recruited participants from Birmingham, Alabama, and Iowa City, Iowa, enrolled adults aged 50-79 years with preexisting knee OA or at increased risk for OA due to overweight status, knee injury, or knee symptoms. Researchers examined the association between baseline knee chondrocalcinosis, measured via x-ray, and development of radiographic knee OA over time. Radiographic knee OA was defined as a Kellgren and Lawrence grade (KLG) ≥ 2 or if the individual had undergone knee replacement at follow-up. The analysis, published online on August 5, 2025, in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases , included 3737 individuals from the RS cohort and 2750 individuals from the MOST cohort. At baseline in the RS cohort, 76.1% of participants had no signs of radiographic knee OA (KLG = 0), and 4.3% had knee chondrocalcinosis. For the MOST cohort, 68.5% had no signs of radiographic knee OA, and 5.0% had knee chondrocalcinosis at baseline. The analysis found that knee chondrocalcinosis increased the risk for incident radiographic knee OA after adjustment for age, sex, and BMI. The pooled odds ratio (OR) between both groups was 1.75 (95% CI, 1.25-2.27; P < .001). There were no cases of regression of chondrocalcinosis during follow-up, which suggests that chondrocalcinosis does not resolve over time, Liew and colleagues wrote. In a subgroup analysis including only individuals with KLG of 0 at baseline, the results were similar (OR = 1.77; 95% CI, 1.04-3.01; P = .035). More severe chondrocalcinosis was also associated with increased risk of developing knee OA. Commenting on the study for Medscape Medical News , Sara Tedeschi, MD, MPH, noted that these findings 'strongly suggest that [chondrocalcinosis] is a risk factor for the new development of osteoarthritis in people who don't currently have radiographic osteoarthritis.' Tedeschi is the head of crystal-induced arthritic diseases at Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston. 'One of the unique features of this paper,' she said, 'is that they were able to look at knees that had chondrocalcinosis at baseline but no osteoarthritis at baseline and were able to follow them forward' with years of follow-up data. Treatment Options Liew now wants to explore whether treatments for inflammation related to calcium crystal deposition could also help prevent or delay progression of OA in this subset of patients. 'It's time to look at designing studies focused on this subgroup of people (with chondrocalcinosis on imaging) and testing whether treatments that work for crystal-associated arthritis like gout or calcium pyrophosphate deposition disease would also work for knee OA,' she said. 'Hints of such benefits have appeared in previous cardiovascular randomized controlled trials of colchicine, where patients receiving the drug had a lower risk of joint replacement as a secondary outcome,' noted Tedeschi. It's 'one interesting therapy to consider' for potential future trials, as are other anti-inflammatory medications like interleukin-1 inhibitors, she added.


Newsweek
10 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Another State Looks To Ban Junk Food From SNAP Benefits
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Mississippi Governor Tate Reeves has said his state may block the purchase of unhealthy foods using SNAP benefits. Newsweek has contacted Reeves' office for comment via email outside regular working hours. Why It Matters So far in 2025, a slew of states have either barred or are in the process of restricting what Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) beneficiaries can buy using their benefits. Advocates for restricting SNAP purchases argue that cutting unhealthy foods from the program will improve public health, with the Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) movement leading the charge. Opponents counter that such limits dictate the diets of low-income Americans while overlooking deeper problems related to accessing affordable, nutritious food. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, in Mississippi, some 384,800 people collect SNAP benefits, representing 13 percent of the state's population. What To Know Reeves, a Republican, said of restricting SNAP benefits, "It is on my radar," SuperTalk Mississippi Media reported on Wednesday. According to the outlet, he also discussed the idea with Health and Human Services Secretary Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who has spearheaded the MAHA movement, at the National Governors Association summer meeting. "I spent some time with my fellow governors a week or two ago," Reeves said. "We also had meetings with Secretary Kennedy while we were at the conference, very productive meetings, and that is something we are looking into." Republican Governor Tate Reeves speaks with supporters during an election night watch party at the Refuge Hotel & Conference Center in Flowood, Mississippi, on November 7, 2023. Republican Governor Tate Reeves speaks with supporters during an election night watch party at the Refuge Hotel & Conference Center in Flowood, Mississippi, on November 7, 2023. Brandon Bell/GETTY SNAP Changes Across the U.S. So far this year, 12 states have approved plans to restrict SNAP benefits. While the program is administered by states, it is overseen and largely paid for by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). To make amendments to SNAP, states are required to send waiver requests to the federal agency for approval. Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Texas, Utah and West Virginia have all had their waiver requests approved. Tennessee and South Carolina have indicated that they are in the process of making similar requests to the USDA. Beginning in 2026, the approved waivers are set to prohibit certain foods from being purchased with electronic benefit transfer cards, which are reloaded monthly for use at participating grocery stores nationwide. Not all the new restrictions are the same. For example, in Colorado, Utah and West Virginia, only soft drinks and/or soda would no longer be purchasable with SNAP. In numerous other states, the restriction also extends to candy. What People Are Saying USDA Secretary Brooke Rollins said in an August 4 news release regarding states with approved waivers: "It is incredible to see so many states take action at this critical moment in our nation's history and do something to begin to address chronic health problems. President Trump has changed the status quo, and the entire cabinet is taking action to Make America Healthy Again. At USDA, we play a key role in supporting Americans who fall on hard times, and that commitment does not change. Rather, these state waivers promote healthier options for families in need." Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said in the news release: "For years, SNAP has used taxpayer dollars to fund soda and candy—products that fuel America's diabetes and chronic disease epidemics. These waivers help put real food back at the center of the program and empower states to lead the charge in protecting public health. I thank these governors who have stepped up to request waivers, and I encourage others to follow their lead. This is how we Make America Healthy Again." Valerie Imbruce, the director of the Center for Environment and Society at Washington College, previously told Newsweek: "Controlling how the poor eat is a paternalistic response to a problem that is not based in SNAP recipients' inability to make good decisions about healthy foods, it is a problem of the price differential in choosing healthy or junk foods. Soda and candy are much cheaper and more calorie dense than 100 percent fruit juices or prebiotic non-artificially sweetened carbonated beverages, thanks to price supports and subsidies by the federal government to support a U.S. sugar industry." What Happens Next Reeves' comments suggest that Mississippi has not formally requested a waiver from the USDA. It remains to be seen whether the state will do so.
Yahoo
38 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Editorial: Saving lives no more — RFK risks us all in targeting mRNA vaccine research
Showing that his loyalty to his own anti-vax mentality is greater than his loyalty to President Donald Trump, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the dangerous quack atop the Department of Health and Human Services, has announced that he will be rescinding a half billion dollars in grants and contracts for the development of mRNA technology and vaccines. It was mRNA that was key to both the Pfizer-BioNTech and the Moderna COVID vaccines that were created under Trump in his first term, but RFK does not like life-saving vaccines and so he's pulling the plug. Part of the problem with policymaking at the level of the federal government is that the impacts are often too large, too long-winded, too abstract to really be able to nearly encompass their full breadth, particularly for busy people who have their own immediate concerns to worry about. In this case, though, we can point to very clear, very grim and almost unavoidable repercussions directly caused by this decision: many people worldwide — including in the United States — will die deaths that could have been prevented. Setting aside all of the jargon, at its most basic level a vaccine is about allowing the body to ward off or survive pathogens that would otherwise be extremely dangerous and debilitating or kill a person outright. The model itself is far from new; inoculations in some form of another, including the basic utilization of a dead virus to create antibodies that can attack a live one, date back centuries. What's mainly changed since then is that we have only advanced our understanding and technology to keep infectious diseases from running rampant in our society. One such technological leap was the mRNA process, an innovation so significant that its pioneers won the Nobel prize. The effectiveness and the safety of this process has been well-documented in research settings, but we don't even have to parse the studies to know this because we all collectively lived it. As Trump's Operation Warp Speed produced, the first and most widespread COVID inoculations were mRNA-based vaccines, which enabled us to blunt the rampaging pandemic and much more quickly return our society to a semblance of normalcy. Those COVID vaccines have already been synthesized, but the real issue here are the ones that haven't, or even the inoculations for viruses that we have not even identified or think to be a threat today. Whether we like it or not, our relationship to infectious diseases is something akin to an arms race, in which we are constantly trying to counteract pathogens that, by dint of evolution, are constantly finding ways to elude our defenses and sicken us. We've stayed largely on top of this arms race over the last six decades or so in particular because of constant efforts that have developed sophisticated tools to fight back, including mRNA. A disarmament here for no other reason than ideologically-driven conspiracy that drives Bobby Kennedy is going to mean that we give the diseases an opening, which they will no doubt exploit to sicken and kill us. There are quite simply no two ways about it, and any pause in the research could have dire consequences, even if it is reversed later. Ongoing and sometimes multimonth or even multiyear projects will lose funding and might have to be shut down, with all their efforts wasted. There's no way to really put the genie back in the bottle so we have to stop it in the first place, which means RFK must be fired immediately or impeached and removed by Congress. Many lives hang in the balance. _____