logo
The Perilous Spread of the Wellness Craze

The Perilous Spread of the Wellness Craze

Yahoo29-05-2025

For many Americans, health care is something to be dreaded and deferred—a source of pain, wasted time, or financial hardship. For luckier Americans, it could mean curling up on an exam table in a med spa and receiving a 'gravity' colonic. Amy Larocca's new book about the wellness industry, How to Be Well: Navigating Our Self-Care Epidemic, One Dubious Cure at a Time, opens with the author undergoing exactly this procedure, against doctor's orders. The water forced into her colon will, she writes, discharge toxins, and the result will 'change my life, provide perspective and purpose and a near-ecstatic lightness of being.'
Larocca, a reporter who spent two decades covering fashion for New York magazine, is being somewhat facetious. But only somewhat. She can't deny being a willing participant as well as a skeptic, and she's far from the only woman who has chased the idea of being not just healthy but well—a state she describes as the new 'feminine ideal.' Wellness is a $6.3 trillion industry, according to a 2024 report from the Global Wellness Institute, an industry trade group. That's bigger than the GDP of Germany, and nearly four times the size of the global pharmaceutical industry. The real growth has been within the past 10 years—the GWI's report calls it the 'wellness decade.' And women represent most of its consumers.
In a nation known for its relatively poor health, nearly everybody seems to be thinking about how to be healthy: According to a 2024 report from McKinsey, 82 percent of U.S. consumers consider wellness to be a 'top or important priority in their everyday lives,' and 58 percent said they were prioritizing wellness more than they had the previous year.
Another year on, even more has changed. With Donald Trump's appointment of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. as the secretary of Health and Human Services, the ethos of wellness has been incorporated into the 'Make America healthy again' movement, a cause marked by extreme skepticism about conventional medicine (including vaccines) and extreme openness to purported alternative cures. MAHA reached a new apotheosis this month with Trump's nomination of the wellness influencer Casey Means for surgeon general. Means graduated from medical school but does not have an active medical license, having dropped out of her surgical residency because she 'saw how broken and exploitative the healthcare system is,' as she wrote on her website. Although she's expressed skepticism about the national vaccine schedule for children, some MAHA adherents are worried that she's not anti-vax enough. If confirmed, she will join Mehmet Oz within the broader ranks of HHS; before being tapped to lead the Medicare and Medicaid programs, he was a celebrity physician and daytime TV host with a history of espousing unreliable medical advice. Mainstream medicine may have good reason to frown on these government officials, but their rise to power is explicable: Americans are exhausted from navigating a health-care system so costly and inconvenient that it has sent many of them scrambling for alternatives.
[Read: The wellness women are on the march]
MAHA is such a young movement that Larocca's book couldn't be expected to account for it. But the author deftly transcribes the writing on the wall. Wellness culture spread 'like a rash,' she writes, showing up in the places you might expect—The White Lotus, the influencers selling detoxes to Los Angeles wildfire victims—and the places you wouldn't. The Financial Times, for example, recently published an article on the scientifically challenged practice of somatic 'tapping,' under a vertical titled 'Adventures in Woo-Woo.' Art in America's recent 'Spring Wellness Issue' features a story about Marina Abramović's rebirth as an alternative healer. (The 78-year-old artist hawks 'longevity drops' for roughly $130.) And good luck attending a wedding free of woo-woo this summer: An event planner told The New York Times last month that about 75 percent of the weddings she organizes contain a 'wellness element'—sound baths, beach yoga, or 'spiritual-growth sessions,' for example. The well women overtook the fashion world long ago: While researching this article, I received an invitation from the designer Maria Cornejo for a gathering at her downtown boutique. She was promoting not her latest collection but a new book on longevity. 'Ayurvedic mocktails' were promised.
How to Be Well sets out to capture the depth and breadth of the wellness invasion—its fads, its legitimate practices, and its so-called cures. Larocca details the impressive variety of forms wellness can take: ingesting supposedly magical super-ingredients (ashwagandha, matcha, hyperlocal honey), chasing spiritual highs from fitness classes (SoulCycle, Peloton), or attending a $1,000 wellness-focused 'traveling road show' from Goop, Gwyneth Paltrow's health company, valued several years ago at $250 million.
There is something old and something new in this welter of products and practices. Even as the movement repackages traditional practices from China and India, it also promises better health through data collection, biohacking, and at its most extreme end, the Silicon Valley cult of longevity advanced by Peter Thiel and others. Larocca homes in on the often-caricatured type of the Lululemon-wearing, Pilates-toned girlie—'hopped up on her plant-based diet and elaborate adaptogen regimen'—whom she got to know well during her years writing about the fashion world. But she also devotes space to its advocates on the far right, including the conspiracist news site Infowars, which shills some supplements containing the same on-trend ingredient—ashwagandha root—that features in products sold by many mainstream wellness companies, including the Los Angeles hippie-chic brand Moon Juice.
The nomination of Means represents a merger between these anti-establishment forces on the left and the right. MAHA is generally associated with its own version of health and wellness—downvoting vaccines, seed oils, and hormonal birth control while promoting ideas ranging from the basic or commonsense (wholesome school lunches and preventive medicine, good; pesticides and microplastics, bad) to the dubious or risky (raw-dairy consumption, skipping shots, eschewing fluoride). Under Trump, MAHA's big tent draws in snake-oil salespeople alongside skeptics, paranoiacs, and ideologues. Uniting them is a deep disdain for the health-care industry. After critics pointed out that Means never finished her medical residency, Kennedy replied on X, 'Casey is the perfect choice for Surgeon General precisely because she left the traditional medical system—not in spite of it.' Larocca asks: 'Is wellness just consumerism, or is it a new politics, a new religion?' Perhaps it is all three.
If MAHA is a religion, it represents a kind of prosperity gospel in a country where access to health care is often determined by wealth. 'Good health in America has been elevated as a luxury commodity as opposed to a fundamental right,' Larocca writes. The average American, she notes, spends just 19 minutes a year talking with a primary-care physician. Meanwhile, the average member of Parsley Health—a 'direct primary care' health-and-wellness clinic whose standard membership costs $225 a month without insurance—spends at least 200 minutes a year being listened to. In short: To get that kind of attention from a doctor, you'll have to pay dearly for it.
[Read: America can't break its wellness habit]
Nearly a third of Americans don't have adequate access to primary-care services, including regular checkups, a 2023 PBS News report found. And 40 percent of adults reported that they were delaying or forgoing doctor visits because of high costs. More than a third of all U.S. counties are 'maternity care deserts,' lacking a single obstetrician or birthing facility. The country spends more than twice as much money on health care as other high-income nations, with worse outcomes: 40 percent of Americans are obese, and six in 10 adults have a chronic illness.
For both the affluent and the aspirational customer, wellness seems to hold the promise of bridging a gap in medical care. The cost of wellness products and services has a very high ceiling, but the barrier to entry is low—almost anyone can purchase a $38 jar of adaptogenic 'dust' that claims to improve your mood, and that option is much easier than bushwhacking your way toward finding a therapist who takes insurance. But most alternative cures are no more affordable than conventional medicine. Neither are members-only urgent-care practices that come with wellness bells and whistles. Sollis Health, for example, promises an average wait time of three and a half minutes or less—if you can pay its annual fee of at least $4,000.
The wellness industry and the MAHA movement may draw from different political cultures, but they both operate from a place of fear: We can't control skyrocketing infections or health costs, but we can try to manage—or at least tinker with—how we feel inside our bodies. At the height of the coronavirus pandemic, 'taking care of yourself was going to be the only way to get through our terrifying new world,' Larocca writes.
Particularly attracted to wellness's promises are women and people with chronic illnesses (also often women), Larocca writes, in part because the concerns of both groups have historically been played down by doctors. I find much truth in this argument, as many of my own forays into wellness have followed unsuccessful attempts to treat various ailments through the modern medical system. After years of visits with doctors to manage my migraines (none would prescribe one of the many available migraine medications; one suggested that I visit the ER if things 'got really bad'), I found the solution in acupuncture and an individualized prescription for herbs. This successfully treated both the headaches and the joint pain roundly waved off by my rheumatologist. But the cure was costly: The herbs set me back $200 a month, the acupuncture $175 an hour—and you can imagine how much of this was covered by insurance.
Larocca does a good job of both explaining the wellness industry and ferreting out its scammier corners—the way that, for example, a variety of cleanses, clean-eating programs, and fasts are almost indecipherable from disordered eating. But she doesn't quite answer the bigger question: What are we owed in terms of our health? How much of it is our responsibility, as consumers, and how much can be laid at the feet of a government that has failed to create wide-scale solutions?
[Read: How did healing ourselves get so exhausting?]
That depends on whom you ask. The wellness industry views health as an individual pursuit, one that requires us to be model consumers and do the work necessary to recognize which goods and services to pay for. MAHA, meanwhile, seems to want to use the top-down power of legislation to mandate nutrition-labeling reform, limit the use of pesticides in our food system, create stricter rules for vaccine development, and call for the removal of toxins (however the government defines them) from the environment. (So far in his tenure, RFK Jr. has focused on redundancies at HHS, slashing thousands of jobs.)
But other messaging suggests that MAHA prefers to shift the burden onto the individual, too. 'Once Americans are getting good science and allowed to make their own choices, they're going to get a lot healthier,' RFK Jr. said in a November interview with NBC. So maybe we're on our own, either way, when it comes to curing what ails us.
Finally, you might be wondering: Does any of the stuff detailed in the book actually work? In her conclusion, Larocca, who has subjected herself to more wellness treatments than can be listed here, points to the solutions we already know: hydrate, sleep, exercise, eat plants instead of processed foods, seek out 'the best medical care you can manage.' (Hah.) She doesn't recommend a single product, practice, or service, although she does name one tip that helped her. Spoiler alert: It's a simple breathing exercise. And it's free.
Article originally published at The Atlantic

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Palantir CEO Karp says AI is dangerous and 'either we win or China will win'
Palantir CEO Karp says AI is dangerous and 'either we win or China will win'

CNBC

time22 minutes ago

  • CNBC

Palantir CEO Karp says AI is dangerous and 'either we win or China will win'

Palantir CEO Alex Karp said the artificial intelligence arms race between the U.S. and China will culminate in one country coming out on top. "My general bias on AI is it is dangerous," Karp told CNBC's "Squawk on the Street" on Thursday. "There are positive and negative consequences, and either we win or China will win." Karp has been a vocal advocate for U.S AI dominance. He told CNBC in January that the country needs to "run harder, run faster" in an "all-country effort" to develop more advanced AI models. In a recent letter to shareholders, he also touted Palantir's commitment to equipping and enhancing U.S. defense interests. The billionaire tech CEO said Thursday that the U.S. currently has a leg up in the AI race and Palantir is leading the way in making companies more secure and efficient with its tools. "There is no economy in the world with this kind of corporate leadership which is willing to pivot, which understands technologies, which is willing to look at new things, but also has deep domain expertise," he said. "Our allies in the West, in Europe, are going to have to learn from us." Shares of the Denver-based data analytics and AI software firm outperformed in 2024 and have continued their ascent in 2025 as investors bet on their software and work with key government contractors and agencies. The stock is up 74% this year, but investors have to shell out on a higher earnings multiple than its tech peers. "You don't like the price, exit," Karp said on Thursday in response. Karp also asserted that the company is "not surveilling Americans" in response to recent New York Times report that Palantir is helping the Trump administration gather data on Americans.

Democrats more likely than Republicans to boycott brands, new survey
Democrats more likely than Republicans to boycott brands, new survey

Axios

time24 minutes ago

  • Axios

Democrats more likely than Republicans to boycott brands, new survey

Why it matters: These murky expectations highlight the complicated environment businesses are currently operating in. What they're saying: "Businesses need to understand how their brand aligns to current issues and the values that matter to their customer base," says Mallory Newall, vice president at Ipsos. "Brands cannot please everyone, and wading into the political fray does not come without risk. It needs to be done in a strategic way. However, there are potential upsides if companies have a clear understanding of who they're talking to and who their customers are. Those who act inauthentically will lose ground in this environment," she added. State of play: There's a disconnect in what consumers say and what they do. 53% of Americans say they are less likely to buy from a company that takes a stance they don't agree with, but only 30% actually do. Between the lines: A company's political or social stances influence Democrats more than Republicans, per the survey. Democrats are more likely to boycott (40%) than Republicans (24%), but they are also 2x more likely to go out of their way to support a brand that aligns with their values. Target is the latest American corporation to grapple with these boycotts, following its retreat from diversity, equity and inclusion efforts. Of note: Boycotting is a luxury afforded to those with disposable income, per the survey. Households with incomes of $100k and above are 50% more likely to stop buying from a company they disagree with than those households making $50k and below. What to watch: 67% of Democrats say they are closely tracking how companies respond to pending Supreme Court decisions, compared to 52% of Republicans. There is more appetite across party lines for business commentary on economic issues — like inflation and trade policies — than other policy issues. The bottom line: "The data suggest that Democratic consumers are much more likely to actually follow through on the threat to withhold or reduce spending when they disagree with brands during this era of complete GOP control," says Matt House, managing partner at CLYDE.

Supreme Court sides with straight woman in decision that makes it easier to file ‘reverse discrimination' suits
Supreme Court sides with straight woman in decision that makes it easier to file ‘reverse discrimination' suits

Yahoo

time25 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Supreme Court sides with straight woman in decision that makes it easier to file ‘reverse discrimination' suits

The Supreme Court on Thursday sided with a straight woman in Ohio who filed a 'reverse discrimination' lawsuit against her employer when her gay boss declined to promote her. The ruling will make it easier to file such suits in some parts of the country. Despite the politically divisive debate playing out over workplace diversity efforts – a fight that has been fueled by President Donald Trump – a unanimous coalition of conservative and liberal justices were in the majority. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote the opinion for the court. 'Our case law thus makes clear that the standard for proving disparate treatment under Title VII does not vary based on whether or not the plaintiff is a member of a majority group,' Jackson wrote. Marlean Ames started working for Ohio's state government in 2004 and steadily rose through the ranks at the Department of Youth Services. She claims that in 2017, she started reporting to a gay boss and was passed over for a promotion that was offered to another gay woman. Ames is challenging a requirement applied in five appeals courts across the nation that 'majority' Americans raising discrimination claims must demonstrate 'background circumstances' in order to pursue their suit. A plaintiff might meet that requirement, for instance, by providing statistical evidence documenting a pattern of discrimination against members of a majority. Ames couldn't do that and so she lost in the lower courts. An employee who is a member of a minority group does not face that same initial hurdle. The requirement was rooted in the notion that it is unusual for an employer to discriminate against a member of a majority group. But neither federal anti-discrimination law nor Supreme Court precedent speak to creating one set of requirements for a majority employee to file a discrimination suit and a different set for a minority employee. During oral arguments in the case in late February, it was clear Ames had widespread support from the justices. Citing the 'background circumstances' requirement, the Cincinnati-based 6th US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled for Ohio. Federal appeals courts based in Denver, St. Louis, Chicago and Washington, DC, applied that same standard, according to court records. At a moment when Trump has politicized workplace diversity efforts, both the court's conservative and liberal justices – as well as the attorneys arguing the case – appeared to agree that the 6th Circuit's analysis was wrong. The case landed on the Supreme Court's docket last fall, about a month before Trump was elected on a pledge to clamp down diversity and inclusion efforts in both the government and the private sector. The administration has taken a number of steps in that direction, including but attempting to cut funding to entities federal officials allege have supported DEI efforts. Many of those actions are being reviewed by courts. But Ames' case was more procedural. Notably, both the Trump and Biden administrations agreed that the 6th Circuit should reconsider its approach. CNN's Hannah Rabinowitz contributed to this report. This story has been updated with additional developments.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store