logo
The Best Wellness Advice Has Always Been Free

The Best Wellness Advice Has Always Been Free

Yahoo20 hours ago

The Atlantic Daily, a newsletter that guides you through the biggest stories of the day, helps you discover new ideas, and recommends the best in culture. Sign up for it here.
This is an edition of Time-Travel Thursdays, a journey through The Atlantic's archives to contextualize the present. Sign up here.
Allow me to make myself sound very dainty and attractive: Last year, I was diagnosed with inflammatory bowel disease. This was an unfortunate development, I decided, and so not in line with 'brat summer.' I handled the news like any journalist might—with compulsive research and fact-checking. My fear directed me to Reddit threads and scientific studies, to new diet plans and workout regimens and supplement orders, until my unremitting quest for answers landed me in the Zoom office of a functional-medicine doctor, a woman who charged me a couple of hundred bucks to tell me that I should eat more boiled plantains.
My search for wellness had gone too far. I was spending money I didn't have to try to fix an illness with origins I'd never understand, much less control. Yet I trust that I'm far from alone in this desire to feel good. Every year, the average American spends more than $6,000 on 'wellness,' an imprecise category that includes both fads and legitimate endeavors, with offerings as varied as diagnostic technologies and protein popcorn. Across the world, wellness is a $6.3 trillion business—outpacing even the pharmaceutical industry—and Americans are by far the biggest spenders. Although some health issues require interventions or specialists (which can be exorbitantly expensive), the wellness industry tells Americans that no matter their condition—or lack thereof—there's always some treatment they should be buying. There's always more Googling and optimizing to be done.
Take the journalist Amy Larocca's book, How to Be Well, which details her wellness-industry misadventures, including 'gravity' colonic cleanses, $200-a-month prescription herbs, and $1,000 Goop events. In a recent Atlantic review of the book, the writer Sheila McClear observed how widespread the 'wellness craze' has become, noting that 'in a nation known for its relatively poor health, nearly everybody seems to be thinking about how to be healthy.'
Yet, like the human body's frailty, America's obsession with wellness is far from new. In our archives, I found a letter addressed to someone else facing an unsexy stomach ailment: 'A Letter to a Dyspeptic,' published in 1859, includes some remarkably sassy advice from an anonymous writer to a 19th-century gentleman with indigestion. This writer is all tough love, unafraid to call the gentleman an 'unfortunate individual,' a man of 'ripe old age, possibly a little over-ripe, at thirty-five,' and, due to the fellow's unique bathing habits, an 'insane merman.'
The dyspeptic man had spent the past years suffering, quitting his business and doling out cash to questionable doctors and therapies, to little avail. 'You are haunting water-cures, experimenting on life-pills, holding private conferences with medical electricians, and thinking of a trip to the Bermudas,' the author writes. But this search for a cure came at a high cost: 'O mistaken economist! can you afford the cessation of labor and the ceaseless drugging and douching of your last few years?'
Any hyperfixation on wellness can be draining and futile; an endless search for answers to one's ailments might be alluring, but 'to seek health as you are now seeking it, regarding every new physician as if he were Pandora,' the writer warns, 'is really rather unpromising.'
In lieu of expensive treatments, the writer advises that the dyspeptic man do three things: bathe, breathe, and exercise. (Another suggestion is to purchase 'a year's subscription to the 'Atlantic Monthly,'' one of the 'necessaries of life' for happiness—it seems we writers have never been above the shameless plug.) Notably, all of these (except the Atlantic subscription, starting at $79.99) are more or less free.
Written almost two centuries later, Larocca's book ends on a similar note, championing the kind of health advice that doesn't hurt your wallet. After her tiresome and expensive foray into the world of wellness, she 'doesn't recommend a single product, practice, or service, although she does name one tip that helped her,' McClear notes. 'It's a simple breathing exercise. And it's free.'
America's wellness methods have changed over time—sometimes evolving for the better. (The 1859 letter, for instance, details how some philosophers believed in being as sedentary as possible because 'trees lived longer than men because they never stirred from their places.') Even so, as skyrocketing costs and medical mistrust plague American health care, the wellness industry churns out a carousel of treatments, touting sweeping benefits that are often dubious at best. Compared with the many big promises that 'gravity' colonics and supplement companies might make, most health tips that have stood the test of time are far more quotidian: sleep, exercise, breathe. Their simplicity can be both healing and accessible. The body has 'power and beauty,' the anonymous writer noted more than a century ago, 'when we consent to give it a fair chance.'
When you buy a book using a link in this newsletter, we receive a commission. Thank you for supporting The Atlantic.
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

How a purge at one obscure panel could disrupt US vaccinations
How a purge at one obscure panel could disrupt US vaccinations

Boston Globe

time39 minutes ago

  • Boston Globe

How a purge at one obscure panel could disrupt US vaccinations

On Monday, Kennedy, long a vaccine skeptic, Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up On the social platform X, he promised not to replace the panel's experts with 'ideological anti-vaxxers.' On Wednesday, Kennedy Advertisement For years, Kennedy has argued that American children receive too many shots and has falsely claimed that vaccines are not tested in placebo-controlled studies. Critics fear he is now setting the stage for a rollback of federal recommendations. Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Secretary of Health and Human Services, testifies on Capitol Hill in Washington, May 14, 2025. HAIYUN JIANG/NYT 'I'm very, very worried about young children in this country,' said Dr. Helen Chu, professor of medicine at the University of Washington and one of the committee members who was fired. If the panel's new members 'don't believe in vaccines, then I think it puts us in a very dangerous place.' Advertisement Richard Hughes IV, who teaches vaccine law at George Washington University, predicted that the new committee would move to pare back the childhood vaccination schedule 'relatively quickly.' The Department of Health and Human Services did not respond to a request for comment. 'All of these individuals are committed to evidence-based medicine, gold-standard science, and common sense,' Kennedy said in a message on X. 'They have each committed to demanding definitive safety and efficacy data before making any new vaccine recommendations.' He also acknowledged that the panel would 'review safety and efficacy data for the current schedule as well.' The upheaval arrives as measles infections approach the highest level in decades; whooping cough has risen significantly, too, compared with this time last year. Steep cuts to global immunization programs also make it more likely that infectious diseases, such as polio, may reach American shores. Alarmed, members of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform have asked Kennedy to provide all communications and documents related to the dismissal of the committee and a 'detailed description of the rationale for removing each individual' by June 24, according to a letter obtained by The New York Times. The American Medical Association called for an immediate reversal of the purge and resolved to 'identify and evaluate' alternative sources of advice on vaccines. It is unclear whether Kennedy will appoint more members -- there is no required minimum -- before the next scheduled meeting at the end of June. And no one can say whether or how the decisions of the reshaped panel may diverge from current recommendations. Advertisement But any softening of federal recommendations regarding vaccination would ripple through the nation in unpredictable ways. Access to the shots eventually may depend on where you live, which insurance policy you hold and which doctor you see, experts said. 'That obviously is going to decrease the number of people who are protected with these vaccines,' said Dr. Mysheika Roberts, the health commissioner of Columbus, Ohio. 'I am concerned about what that means about herd immunity, what that means about outbreaks and infections.' Under the Affordable Care Act, insurance companies are required to cover the cost of any vaccine recommended by the ACIP. Losing that endorsement means that some insurance companies may choose not to pay for immunizations. Nor could those shots be offered for free through the Vaccines for Children program. The measles vaccine can cost up to $250 and the four-dose polio series up to $340. 'You'd essentially have a two-tier system where people who have cash at hand can purchase their own vaccines if they're not recommended, and those who don't have the money may have to go without,' said Dr. Yvonne Maldonado, a pediatrician at Stanford University and one of the fired panelists. The panel could take a more measured approach, perhaps advising that a doctor's sign-off should be required for some immunizations. The vaccines program would still cover it, but reimbursement from private insurers would be more difficult to enforce, Hughes said. The Vaccines for Children program was created after a measles epidemic from 1989 to 1991 led to tens of thousands of cases and hundreds of deaths. More than half of the infected children were unvaccinated even though many had seen a doctor, because they could not afford the shots, according to the CDC. Advertisement Cutting back on free access to immunizations 'is not a strategy to even think about -- only vaccinating potentially the half of the population that has health insurance,' Chu said. If measles continues to resurge, for example, even vaccinated people will be at risk, she said. Vaccinations are not profitable for clinics, and reduced demand could mean that fewer places bother to offer the shots. 'In places where you know there's a large anti-vax sentiment, there may not be financial incentive, or any incentive, to keep those vaccines in stock,' she said. ACIP makes recommendations for immunizations. But the authority to mandate them rests with the states. Even if the federal government walked away from some recommendations, most, if not all, states are likely to maintain the current mandates for school-age children, said Claire Hannan, executive director of the Association of Immunization Managers, which represents state and local officials. 'Even where legislators are chipping away at requirements and mandates, there's a commitment to protect children,' she said. Still, she added, 'our members are very confused.' Now some scientists are considering establishing alternatives to federal guidance on vaccines. 'The new ACIP cannot be trusted to oversee unbiased and scientifically sound vaccine policy development,' said Michael Osterholm, a public health researcher at the University of Minnesota. He and other experts have formed a new group, called the Vaccine Integrity Project, to offer science-based advice on immunization. Members of the ACIP are usually vetted thoroughly. It took more than four months for Roberts, who was set to join the panel in July, to be accepted, and several more weeks to fill out at least 50 forms, including disclosures of conflict of interest. The committee's members typically rotate in staggered four-year terms to ensure some continuity and institutional memory. Advertisement Mina Zadeh, a CDC scientist, has been named to oversee the committee, but the rest of her team has not been set up. Staff members who lead the committee's work groups may meet with her 'starting early next week,' according to a recording of an internal meeting obtained by the Times. But the panel's next meeting is scheduled to begin June 25. Dr. Adam Ratner, a pediatric infectious diseases physician and expert on vaccine policy, said he worried the new members could not be prepared on such short notice and without the help of previous members or CDC personnel. 'This raises the question of whether the goal here is for ACIP to be able to do its job,' he added. 'Kennedy has accused the prior committee members of conflicts of interest and for rubber-stamping things, but I think that's exactly what we're looking at with this group.' This article originally appeared in .

Medically tailored nutrition can help make America healthy
Medically tailored nutrition can help make America healthy

The Hill

time43 minutes ago

  • The Hill

Medically tailored nutrition can help make America healthy

Chronic disease is a threat not only to Americans' physical health but also to the nation's financial health. Conditions like heart disease, cancer, diabetes and kidney failure account for trillions of dollars in annual health care spending and are among the leading causes of death in the U.S. The growing consensus is clear that our health care system needs better solutions to manage chronic diseases. One promising tool is surprisingly simple: food. But not just any food. We need nutritious, locally sourced, medically tailored meals — food-based interventions designed by registered dietitian nutritionists specifically for chronically ill Americans. These medically tailored meals are proven to improve health outcomes, reduce hospitalizations and lower health care costs. Just as important, they can reduce patients' dependency on medications, making health care more effective and affordable. At the Boston-based nonprofit I lead, we have seen firsthand how medically tailored meals can transform lives. One of our clients, for example, reduced his daily medications from 14 to just four after enrolling in our program. This is what we mean when we say 'food is medicine' — food, either alone or in conjunction with pharmaceuticals, can help patients become and stay healthier. These meals are not only about nourishment. They are about addressing the root causes of chronic diseases while offering real cost savings. Medically tailored meals prioritize nutrition, treating the underlying causes of disease, not just symptoms. They reduce dependence on medication, leading to fewer prescriptions and better health outcomes. These meals prioritize fresh ingredients over processed foods, with a commitment to quality local food. They lead to immediate cost savings, with reductions in hospitalizations and medical costs. And they support local businesses, strengthening local farms and fishing industries through prioritization of regional sourcing. Does it work? The evidence is clear. Studies published in JAMA and Health Affairs show that medically tailored meals reduce hospitalizations by 49 percent and emergency room visits by 70 percent. They have also been shown to lower total medical costs by a remarkable 16 percent. Another recent study published in Health Affairs estimates that a nationwide rollout of medically tailored meals could save $32 billion annually. In a time of policy uncertainty, one thing is clear: 'Food is medicine' is a bipartisan opportunity to transform health care. The Make America Healthy Again movement is dedicated to reducing the burden of chronic diseases, decreasing reliance on pharmaceuticals and integrating nutrition into health care. The Senate MAHA Caucus is already focused on improving access to high-quality, nutrient-dense foods and addressing the root causes of disease. Congress should act now to expand medically tailored nutrition for veterans, older Americans and people with disabilities — groups who stand to benefit the most. Let us seize this moment and make medically tailored nutrition a central part of making America healthy again. David B. Waters is the CEO of Community Servings, a Boston-based nonprofit provider of medically tailored meals and nutrition services, and founder of the AMPL Institute.

Warning Issued Over $500 Million Loss From Medicaid Cuts
Warning Issued Over $500 Million Loss From Medicaid Cuts

Newsweek

time44 minutes ago

  • Newsweek

Warning Issued Over $500 Million Loss From Medicaid Cuts

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. Minnesota's Medicaid Director has warned that the state could lose $500 million in federal funding a year if President Donald Trump's "Big Beautiful Bill" is passed in Congress. John Connolly said in a media briefing yesterday, as shared with Newsweek by the Department of Human Services, "the bill currently on the table is inefficient, ineffective, and fundamentally unfair." Newsweek has contacted the White House via email for comment. Why It Matters President Trump's "Big Beautiful Bill" has sparked significant concern among some lawmakers, particularly over the subject of Medicaid. The tax bill would aim to cut around $600 billion from Medicaid, the federal program that provides health coverage to the country's most vulnerable, to enable the president to bring about $4.5 trillion in tax breaks. The Congressional Budget Office has predicted that more than 10 million Americans could lose their health coverage if the bill is brought into law, and health experts and lawmakers have warned that this could result in worse health outcomes across the country and, over time, an increase in medical costs. File photo: Thousands of protestors calling for a stop to the proposed cuts to Medicaid funding. File photo: Thousands of protestors calling for a stop to the proposed cuts to Medicaid funding. Katie Godowski/MediaPunch via AP What To Know Connolly said that hundreds of thousands of Minnesotans would lose their health coverage as a result, and that increases in medical debt could force some hospitals and clinics to close, leaving communities vulnerable. Around 250,000 in the state could lose their coverage, according to KFF estimates, and the Commonwealth Fund estimated 9,300 jobs would be lost. Connolly also pointed to the impact Trump's tax bill would have on family planning services in the state, as the legislation would provide no federal funding for them, alongside a $170 million cut for reproductive health services. According to a fact sheet shared with Newsweek by the Minnesota Department of Human Services, eligibility checks for the Medicaid program would also take place every six months instead of annually, which the Department said would double the workload for "backlogged" counties, "setting them up to fail." The Department added it "leads to enrollment churn where enrollees lose coverage as soon as their eligibility is reverified." Connolly also warned that the cuts would impact not only those who lose their Medicaid coverage but everyone in the state, as the increase in constituents without health coverage would lead to a reduction in preventative care and, in turn, a worsening of health outcomes that would ramp up medical costs for all. "If these cuts go forward, families will face impossible choices between caregiving and working, between food and medicine, and our hospitals, especially those in rural communities, will suffer and Minnesotans will fall through the cracks ultimately," Connolly said, according to the regional news outlet, InForum. Alongside proposed cuts in funding to Medicaid, Minnesota would be among one of the states penalized by Trump's tax bill for states for providing health coverage to undocumented migrants. The terms of the legislation would reduce the federal match rate for the Medicaid expansion under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) in states providing health care for undocumented migrants from 90 percent to 80 percent. This would lead to a $330 million reduction in federal funding for the state, the Department of Human Services fact sheet reported. However, Minnesota has recently passed a budget bill suspending MinnesotaCare coverage for undocumented migrants starting from 2026, which is currently waiting to be signed off by Governor Tim Walz. What People Are Saying John Connolly, Medicaid director and deputy commissioner at the Minnesota Department of Human Services, said in a media briefing yesterday, as shared with Newsweek by the Minnesota Department of Human Services: "[The bill] achieves its purported reductions by slashing federal Medicaid funding. But those reductions are actually a cost shift - to states, counties, Tribes, providers and people themselves who will have to pick up the expense of health care no longer covered and the cost of increased administrative burdens." What Happens Next Lawmakers in Congress will continue to deliberate over Trump's tax bill until the current scheduled deadline of July 4.

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