logo
I covered my body in health trackers for 6 months. It ruined my life.

I covered my body in health trackers for 6 months. It ruined my life.

Vox02-06-2025
is a senior technology correspondent at Vox and author of the User Friendly newsletter. He's spent 15 years covering the intersection of technology, culture, and politics at places like The Atlantic, Gizmodo, and Vice.
It's never good when an alarm surprises you in the middle of the night.
I was recently on vacation with my family, and a weird beeping woke everyone up around 2 am. My wife thought it was a carbon monoxide detector. I thought it might be the baby monitor. It was actually a signal from a little sensor on the back of my arm prompting an app on my phone to go berserk. My blood sugar was low, and my fitness program was in jeopardy.
A few months ago, I started tracking everything I could about my health. In the dark bedroom of that vacation house, I was wearing smart rings on both hands and a smartwatch on my wrist. On my other wrist was a band that basically does the same thing as the smartwatch but without a screen. I'd been weighing myself with a body scanner and taking my blood pressure with a wireless cuff for weeks.
All this tech promised to tell me how well my body was working, but as I immersed myself in the alluring, sometimes dystopian future of health tracking, things got weird. Health trackers started as a way to keep a record of straightforward metrics, like the number of steps you take in a day; the industry has since matured into gadgets that promise to glean deeper insights into the essential functioning of your biological systems. Many of these new trackers take the data they collect and churn out a variety of scores — recovery scores, sleep scores, attention scores — to understand your body's performance and give you benchmarks to chase.
My sharpening sense of mortality ultimately led me to explore the frontiers of health tracking to investigate my aches and strains — and maybe help me live healthier and longer.
The sensor on my arm was a continuous glucose monitor, or CGM, which is a wearable device that measures blood sugar. This kind of biosensor has long been a lifesaving tool for diabetic patients, but tech companies are increasingly marketing them to everyone in the name of 'metabolic health.' One such company, Levels, was co-founded by Casey Means, a wellness influencer who is a central figure in the Make America Healthy Again movement and now the United States surgeon general nominee.
I am not diabetic. I'm also not an athlete, although I once was. I'm a tech journalist who, at the beginning of this year, started to feel quite old. Things that used to not hurt started hurting, and I felt tired constantly. Diabetes and heart disease, among the most prevalent chronic diseases in the United States, also run in my family, which made it seem wise to keep a closer eye on risk factors like my blood pressure and cholesterol.
My sharpening sense of mortality ultimately led me to explore the frontiers of health tracking to investigate my aches and strains — and maybe help me live healthier and longer.
User Friendly
A weekly dispatch to make sure tech is working for you, instead of overwhelming you. From senior technology correspondent Adam Clark Estes. Email (required)
Sign Up
By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms and Privacy Notice . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
What I can tell you is that over the course of my months-long experiment, covering my body with sensors and drowning my attention with fitness scores did occasionally make me feel better — when it didn't make me feel worse.
Fitness trackers, as we understand them, have been around since the 1960s, when a Japanese company hoped to capitalize on the 1964 Tokyo Olympics by selling a pedometer called the Manpo-Kei — 'manpo' means 10,000 steps in Japanese. The science behind that number has always been iffy, but the figure went mainstream in 2009, when the original Fitbit hit the market in the form of a thumb-size accelerometer that clipped onto your clothing.
Step-counting was only the beginning. In the early 2010s, tech companies flooded the market with fitness trackers. Apple released its health app in 2014 and then released the first Apple Watch the following year. That device used LED lights to measure your pulse, and eventually, Apple added sensors for your body temperature and electrodes to record electrocardiograms and track blood oxygen levels. Fitness-tracking became health tracking. The tracking devices themselves still performed the same basic measurements, but in the coming years, all of that data would get pumped through various algorithms to draw conclusions about your overall health. In theory, health-tracking software could spot — or even prevent — disease.
The amount of data that all of these devices collect is massive and extremely personal.
'For that to work, you have to have the largest data set on a person possible,' said Victoria Song, who covers wearables for The Verge. 'But it's pretty invasive, if you really think about it.'
The amount of data all of these devices collect is massive and extremely personal. Many devices need to know your age, height, and weight, not to mention where you are and how you're moving at all times — which leads to heart rate, temperature, and blood oxygen readings. If you add a glucose monitor in the mix, health trackers can now get moment-to-moment updates about what's happening in the fluid between your cells.
Safeguarding the sensitive health information these devices collect is a whole other challenge. The data is typically stored in the cloud. The privacy policies for these companies vary, but suffice it to say, it's possible that data from your health tracker, probably anonymized, ends up in the hands of an advertiser. There have also been major data breaches involving health-tracking companies, including Fitbit.
Nonetheless, about 30 percent of Americans in one survey said they wear these kinds of health trackers, and there's evidence that the tech can be good for you. In 2022, The Lancet published a systematic review that looked at dozens of studies involving over 160,000 participants of all ages and found that those wearing fitness trackers walked 40 more minutes per day — or about 1,800 steps — on average. A review into the mental health benefits of wearables published in 2024 found some research showing that wearables have a positive effect on well-being, but overall determined that the issue was understudied.
Health trackers give us the sense that we might just be able to exert control over the uncontrollable — our very mortality — or to at least momentarily allay our fears about it.
People must think wearables are helpful because they keep buying them. Perhaps that's no surprise given levels of chronic illness remain stubbornly high in the United States and a wellness industry has primed consumers to buy their way to better physical and mental health. The market for these devices includes everyone from fitness obsessives looking to optimize their performance in the gym to tech bros toying with the idea of living forever to anxious dads, like me. Health trackers give us the sense that we might just be able to exert control over the uncontrollable — our very mortality — or to at least momentarily allay our fears about it. And the industry keeps coming up with new things to sell us.
'We have so much information about everything all the time,' Thea Gallagher, a clinical psychologist at NYU Langone Health, told me recently. 'So many of us, probably all of us, feel like this is going to be an iterative process for the rest of our life: navigating our relationship with the tech.'
The most popular wearable has been the Apple Watch since its release, but in our screen-saturated world, many people are turning to devices that lack displays and buzzing notifications. That includes the Oura ring, which discreetly measures your heart rate, body temperature, and movement from a single finger, and the Whoop band, which does the same thing from your wrist. Although their lack of screens makes these devices theoretically easier to ignore, the Oura and Whoop apps are essentially endless feeds of your health data.
When you log on in the morning, Oura produces a 'Readiness Score,' which it says is a 'holistic picture of your health' that combines several signals, including resting heart rate and body temperature, into what feels like a grade for the day. Whoop gives you a similarly confusing 'Recovery' percentage. If I want to improve those scores, Oura, Whoop, and a growing number of their competitors now have AI-powered coaches built into their apps to nudge your behavior. But it's not always clear what exactly those nudges hope to accomplish.
'There's not a lot of time and effort spent on figuring out what is the actual question,' said Gary Wolf, founder of Quantified Self, a community of people who have been tracking their health metrics since the mid-2000s, and also a tech journalist. 'It's kind of obvious why people come through these tools without learning anything.'
In theory, your doctor could look at a readout of all your wearable data to get a clearer picture of your health. But in reality, few patients even share this data with their doctors, and many physicians have said it isn't very helpful. Heart-rate variability, a measure of the change in time between your heartbeats, is one of the most critical metrics used in the scoring algorithms, but there's some debate over how accurately wearables can measure it. There's also just too much data, and it's hard to isolate the signal from the noise.
'Just seeing the data can be anxiety-inducing,' said Tanzeem Choudhury, a professor of integrated health and technology at Cornell Tech. 'You have all this information that you don't know what to do with.'
In other words, if you think of your overall health as an equation (which, to be clear, it is not), the types of variables a watch or a ring can collect are limited to the right side of the equal sign. You're doing your thing, and then things like breathing patterns, heart rate, and body temperature are all the end result. What happens on the left side of that equation — what's causing all of these fluctuations — is much harder to figure out.
Health trackers ultimately put the onus on the user to decide what changes to make to get their desired results. And when it comes to smartwatches, smart rings, and smart bands, the recommendations tend to be pretty simple: Move more or sleep more. These devices know the rhythms of your body, but they can't really know what's happening internally.
The first time I installed a continuous glucose monitor into my arm, I expected it to hurt. The coin-size biosensors use a spring-loaded plunger of sorts that dips a needle into your skin and leaves a tiny piece of filament behind that measures your blood glucose. The process is surprisingly painless.
Once installed, the biosensor syncs to an app that shows you a real-time visualization of your blood sugar. It looks a little bit like a roller-coaster with spikes for high-glucose periods after eating and stable stretches. This helps people with diabetes manage their condition, but a growing number of companies and influencers say these biosensors can help anyone gain insight into their metabolic health.
Metabolic health is the latest buzz phrase not only in the health-tracking industry but among adherents of the Make America Healthy Again movement.
What I didn't know when I started receiving real-time and sometimes alarming updates about my own blood sugar was that metabolic health is the latest buzz phrase not only in the health-tracking industry but among adherents of the Make America Healthy Again movement.
While the concept of metabolic disorders, which include conditions like diabetes or heart disease, has evolved over the past century, 'metabolic health' only started showing up in medical literature in the last decade or so. Someone is considered metabolically healthy if a certain set of their biomarkers — namely blood glucose levels, cholesterol, triglycerides, and blood pressure — are within the desired range.
Related How America went MAHA
Historically, your doctor checked these levels when you got your annual bloodwork done and that was enough to give most people peace of mind about their health — particularly their risk for heart disease and diabetes. But in recent years, pharmaceutical companies like Abbott and Dexcom have begun to market over-the-counter continuous glucose monitors to everyone. Oura recently launched a glucose-tracking program of its own that uses Dexcom's Stelo biosensors. Abbott has its own app.
Then there's Levels, the metabolic health company co-founded by Means, President Donald Trump's pick for US surgeon general, with the mission to 'bring biowearables into the mainstream.' Means, a Stanford-trained physician and wellness influencer, is also the co-author of Good Energy, a bestselling book that bills itself as 'the simple answer to achieving incredible health,' which she wrote with her brother, Calley Means, a former lobbyist and current White House adviser on health policy. The book operates on the claim that every chronic disease stems from metabolic dysfunction, or 'bad energy,' and the American health care system, which Calley Means calls a 'sick-care system,' is profiting from treating the symptoms.
'You are the primary person in charge of understanding your body,' Casey Means says on her website. 'You may have been indoctrinated to think you're not capable of understanding your body or your lab tests, but this stops here.' That philosophy — and the philosophy undergirding health tracking in general — fits into MAHA's ethos — that good health is your personal responsibility and can be engineered by doing all the right things.
Other prominent figures in the MAHA movement have been raising the alarm about metabolic health, too, and touting high-tech health tracking as a solution. Robert Lustig, professor emeritus of pediatric endocrinology at UCSF who is an adviser and early investor in Levels, signed an open letter endorsing Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to lead Health and Human Services. So did Mark Hyman, the co-founder of the membership-based concierge lab test provider Function Health who's pushed Levels to his followers.
Perhaps the most influential of the health-tracking evangelists, however, is Marty Makary, the new commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration. In his Senate confirmation hearing in March, Makary, a pancreatic surgeon from Johns Hopkins, talked quite a bit about the promise of health trackers in the midst of America's chronic disease epidemic. Makary said we have a 'generational opportunity to usher in radical transparency' and to 'help people take care of their own health.'
'We don't just want to limit continuous glucose monitoring to people with diabetes. We want to prevent diabetes,' Makary told senators. 'Why are we holding these tools to help people empower them with knowledge about their health until after they're sick?'
Regardless of the recent buzz around metabolic health in the wellness community, the medical community does not seem convinced that glucose monitors are useful for people without diabetes. Because there's not much research into tracking blood sugar in healthy people, 'we won't know whether the cost and time it takes to implant one of these systems is accomplishing anything or is just the latest health monitoring fad wasting effort and money,' according to Harvard Medical School associate professor Robert Shmerling.
I'd shovel nuts into my mouth before breakfast, skip lunch to avoid stressful push alerts, and once I ate a mixing bowl full of romaine lettuce to feel better about a single slice of pizza.
I tested several glucose-monitoring apps — including Levels, Lingo, Oura — over the course of a few months, and the negative effects of watching my blood sugar levels were almost immediately obvious to me. Within a week of wearing a glucose monitor, I started to notice some borderline disordered behavior. The Levels app sent me push alerts when my blood sugar spiked, which happened about five times a day, and each notification felt like a zap of anxiety. My morning bowl of cereal sent my blood glucose off the charts. My tuna sandwich at lunch did it again. A beer at happy hour? Forget it, the app made me think I was dying.
So I started eating weird. I'd shovel nuts into my mouth before breakfast, skip lunch to avoid stressful push alerts, and once I ate a mixing bowl full of romaine lettuce to feel better about a single slice of pizza. My wife drew the line when I started taking pictures of my meals, so that some app's AI could analyze the nutrients in them.
Glucose spikes after a meal are extremely normal. This is your body converting food into energy, or sugar, and then releasing insulin to instruct your cells to consume that energy. Over time, a pattern of large, prolonged spikes can lower your insulin resistance and raise your risk for Type 2 diabetes and heart disease. Some research indicates that continuous glucose monitors could be a helpful tool for the early detection of prediabetes in high risk patients, but again, there is little evidence that healthy people benefit from using the technology.
At a certain point, I wasn't thinking about my long-term health or sanity. I definitely wasn't thinking about the future of the American health care system. I was just trying to get a good score in the app and reduce the number of anxiety zaps.
I spend a lot of time thinking about how technology makes our lives better — and worse. I've wondered the same about the American health care system, as I've gotten older and more involved in the health care decisions of my parents, kids, and myself. It's not a great comparison. After all, there is no Hippocratic oath for tech companies.
In the six months I spent hooked up to every health tracker I could find, feeding my morbid curiosity, I drove myself slightly crazy. Each hit of dopamine I enjoyed by getting good scores on a health-tracking app was offset by long periods of self-doubt that came from not fully understanding how to make sense of the torrent of data without my doctor's help. I also became obsessive — checking the apps was the first thing I did in the morning and started occupying hours of my day.
That's the contradiction embedded in this cutting-edge technology: It can often lead to panic rather than peace of mind.
'There's something called orthorexia, where being perfectionistically healthy can just take over your life,' Gallagher, the NYU psychologist, explained. 'You can get really rigid, maybe with what you eat and how you do things, when we typically find rigidity is not sustainable for most people.'
That's the contradiction embedded in this cutting-edge technology: It can often lead to panic rather than peace of mind.
I decided to take off my last biosensor as spring was turning to summer and felt a weight lifted. I put away the Whoop band, which is explicitly designed to be worn 24/7, so much so that the newest model comes with a wearable charger so that you don't have to take it off. The only thing that I kept wearing was the Oura ring when I slept. As a tired young parent, getting to see a breakdown of my sleep data somehow made me feel more in control. There was, it appeared, the right amount of data to make me feel better.
But what if, instead of too much data about my body, I had almost nothing. That's the case for many people in the United States. If you're lucky enough to have regular access to health care — over 100 million Americans do not — you might get one annual visit with a primary care doctor. That might include one check of your vitals, including your blood pressure and resting heart rate. Basic bloodwork would tell me about my blood sugar and cholesterol. Your doctor might prescribe medication, like a statin, if those numbers are out of whack.
This is an optimistic estimate of what health care currently looks like in America, where primary care is in crisis and many patients feel lucky to get 15 minutes of face time once a year or pay high prices to see someone right away at an urgent care center.
This must be a factor in the rising popularity of wearables, such as the Oura ring and Apple Watch, as well as new health-tracking services, like Levels and Lingo. That and the simple fact that Americans love independence and immediacy. Perhaps in the absence of available professional medical advice and guidance, we're turning to these gadgets for quick and constant reassurance. Combined with googling symptoms or closely following wellness influencers, it almost feels like we're better off taking our health into our own hands.
But health tracking in its current form is not a science or even an art. It's certainly not the near future of the American health care system, as some MAHA followers might make you believe. Health tracking, at its core, is a self-driven experiment in better living for those who can afford these products and have the time to spare to comb through their own data. In some ways, it's just an expensive hobby. Like running or perfecting your smoothie recipes, it can be good for you. Wearing a smart ring or a glucose monitor alone won't make you feel better.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

These Foods Will Be Labeled 'Not Recommended for Human Consumption' in Texas
These Foods Will Be Labeled 'Not Recommended for Human Consumption' in Texas

Yahoo

time11 hours ago

  • Yahoo

These Foods Will Be Labeled 'Not Recommended for Human Consumption' in Texas

A new law in Texas will require many popular products to have a label warning consumers that it contains ingredients 'not recommended for human consumption.' It targets M&Ms, Doritos, Mountain Dew, and probably at least one of your grocery store guilty pleasures. The law, which was officially signed by Gov. Greg Abbott, requires any food containing one of more than 40 additives to include the label on its packaging by 2027. Here's a closer look at the additives in question, what nutritionists have to say about the MAHA-adjacent legislation, and more. The law aims to align the Lone Star State with the more cautious approach to processed food seen in Europe. There, food additives — like artificial dyes and preservatives — are strictly regulated. The label, which would be found up and down grocery-store aisles, would read: 'WARNING: This product contains an ingredient that is not recommended for human consumption by the appropriate authority in Australia, Canada, the European Union, or the United Kingdom.' The hope is this will nudge manufacturers to strip their items of the additives. These ingredients, which slip through the cracks of a regulatory loophole, have become a priority of the 'Make America Healthy Again' movement. Some major companies — from General Mills to Nestle — have already committed to removing dyes from their products, but the food industry is still pushing back against the law. 'The ingredients used in the U.S. food supply are safe and have been rigorously studied following an objective science- and risk-based evaluation process,' the Consumer Brands Association trade group wrote in a letter to Abbott. 'The labeling requirements of SB 25 mandate inaccurate warning language, create legal risks for brands and drive consumer confusion and higher costs.' The regulation would only apply to food labels 'developed or copyrighted' on or after Jan. 1, 2027 — meaning that companies would only have to include the warning on food labels they've redesigned or updated, like when new ingredients are added, the Washington Post reports. In general, the move to pay closer attention to these ingredients has been applauded by experts, says Kathleen Melanson, a professor of nutrition at the University of Rhode Island. 'Nutrition professionals and other health organizations have been advocating for more scrutiny of food additives for a long time,' she tells us. However, Dr. Melanson and others in her field say they're not quite sure how state legislators came up with their list of 44 ingredients. And there appear to be some discrepancies. The Associated Press reports that three of the additives — partially hydrogenated oils, Red Dye No. 4, and Red Dye No. 3 — have already been restricted in the U.S., and that some of the other ingredients are allowed in Australia, Canada, the E.U., or U.K. A whole range of artificial dyes are included, from Red No. 3 to Yellow No. 5, which have been controversial for some time. That's because they've been linked to hyperactivity and neurobehavioral issues in children and cancer risk. However, the research supporting this is limited, and some of it has only been proven in animals, Dr. Melanson says. There are several preservatives that have been blacklisted, like butylated hydroxytoluene (BHT) and butylated hydroxyanisole (BHA), which prevent fats in food from going bad. Both ingredients have also been linked to cancer — although, again, in studies on animals, not humans — and BHA is being reviewed in the E.U. for its potential to disrupt hormones. Emulsifiers (or chemicals that help water and oil blend), thickeners, and stabilizers also made the list. Some of these compounds, like propylene glycol, have been linked to allergic reactions and could worsen the symptoms of kidney and liver disease. You can see the full list of 44 additives that would get a warning label here. Dr. Melanson sees the focus on additives as a net positive, but she believes that the more important takeaway for consumers is to minimize the amount of ultra-processed foods in their diets. 'Whether or not a food has a certain dye in it, the main focus should be on getting enough fiber, protein, and other nutrients you need from whole foods,' she says. The post These Foods Will Be Labeled 'Not Recommended for Human Consumption' in Texas appeared first on Katie Couric Media.

Don't let AI steal your job
Don't let AI steal your job

Vox

time16 hours ago

  • Vox

Don't let AI steal your job

is a senior technology correspondent at Vox and author of the User Friendly newsletter. He's spent 15 years covering the intersection of technology, culture, and politics at places like The Atlantic, Gizmodo, and Vice. It's okay to be scared of AI. You should learn to use it anyway. Getty Images/CSA Images RF User Friendly A weekly dispatch to make sure tech is working for you, instead of overwhelming you. From senior technology correspondent Adam Clark Estes. Email (required) Sign Up By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms and Privacy Notice . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. ChatGPT's most advanced models recently served me a surprising statistic: US productivity grew faster in 2024 than in any year since the 1960s. Half that jump can be linked to generative AI tools that most workers hadn't even heard of two years earlier. The only problem is that it's not true. The AI made it up. Despite its much-documented fallibility, generative AI has become a huge part of many people's jobs, including my own. The numbers vary from survey to survey, but a June Gallup poll found that 42 percent of American employees are using AI a few times a year, while 19 percent report deploying it several times a week. The technology is especially popular with white-collar workers. While just 9 percent of manufacturing and front-line workers use AI on a regular basis, 27 percent of white-collar workers do. Even as many people integrate AI into their daily lives, it's causing mass job anxiety: A February Pew survey found that more than half of US employees worried about their fate at work. Unfortunately, there is no magic trick to keep your job for the foreseeable future, especially if you're a white-collar worker. Nobody knows what's going to happen with AI, and leadership at many companies is responding to this uncertainty by firing workers it may or may not need in an AI-forward future. 'If AI really is this era's steam engine, a force so transformative that it will power a new Industrial Revolution, you only stand to gain by getting good at it.' After laying off over 6,000 workers in May and June, Microsoft is laying off 9,000 more workers this month, reportedly so the company can reduce the number of middle managers as it reorganizes itself around AI. In a note on Tuesday, Amazon CEO Andy Jassy told employees that the company would 'roll out more generative AI and agents' and reduce its workforce in the next few years. This was all after Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei warned AI would wipe out half of all entry-level white-collar jobs in the same timespan, a prediction so grim that Axios coined a new term for AI's imminent takeover: 'a white-collar bloodbath.' This is particularly frustrating because, as my recent encounter with ChatGPT's tendency to hallucinate makes clear, the generative AI of today, while useful for a growing number of people, needs humans to work well. So does agentic AI, the next era of this technology that involves AI agents using computers and performing tasks on your behalf rather than simply generating content. For now, AI is augmenting white-collar jobs, not automating them, although your company's CEO is probably planning for the latter scenario. Maybe one day AI will fulfill its promise of getting rid of grunt work and creating endless abundance, but getting from here to there is a harrowing proposition. 'With every other form of innovation, we ended up with more jobs in the end,' Ethan Mollick, a Wharton professor and author of the newsletter One Useful Thing, told me. 'But living through the Industrial Revolution still kind of sucked, right? There were still anarchists in the street and mass displacement from cities and towns.' We don't know if the transition to the AI future will be quite as calamitous. What we do know is that just as jobs transformed due to past technological leaps, like the introduction of the personal computer or the internet, your day-to-day at work will change in the months and years to come. If AI really is this era's steam engine, a force so transformative that it will power a new Industrial Revolution, you only stand to gain by getting good at it. At the same time, becoming an AI whiz will not necessarily save you if your company decides it's time to go all in on AI and do mass, scattershot layoffs in order to give its shareholders the impression of some efficiency gains. If you're impacted, that's just bad luck. Still, having the skills can't hurt. Welcome to the AI revolution transition It's okay to be scared of AI, but it's more reasonable to be confused by it. For two years after ChatGPT's explosive release, I couldn't quite figure out how a chatbot could make my life better. After some urging from Mollick late last year, I forced myself to start using it for menial chores. Upgrading to more advanced models of ChatGPT and Claude turned these tools into indispensable research partners that I use every day — not just to do my job faster but also better. (Disclosure: Vox Media is one of several publishers that have signed partnership agreements with OpenAI. Our reporting remains editorially independent.) But when it comes to generative AI tools and the burgeoning class of AI agents, what works for one person might not be helpful to the next. 'Workers obviously need to try to ascertain as much as they can — the skills that are most flexible and most useful,' said Mark Muro, a senior fellow at Brookings Metro. 'They need to be familiar with the technology because it is going to be pervasive.' For most white-collar workers, I recommend Mollick's 10-hour rule: Spend 10 hours using AI for work and see what you learn. Mollick also recently published an updated guide to the latest AI tools that's worth reading in full. The big takeaways are that the best of these tools (ChatGPT from OpenAI, Claude from Anthropic, and Google Gemini) can become tireless assistants with limitless knowledge that can save you hours of labor. You should try different models within the different AI tools, and you should experiment with the voice features, including the ability to use your phone's camera to share what you're seeing with the AI. You should also, unfortunately, shell out $20 a month to get access to the most advanced models. In Mollick's words, 'The free versions are demos, not tools.' 'If I have a very narrow job around a very narrow task that's being done repetitively, that's where the most risk comes in.' You can imagine similar advice coming from your geeky uncle at Thanksgiving circa 1984, when personal computers were on the brink of taking over the world. That was the year roughly the same percentage of white-collar workers were regularly using PCs at work as are using AI today. But the coming AI transition will look different than the PC transition we've already lived through. While earlier digital technologies hit frontline workers hardest, 'AI excels at supporting or carrying out the highly cognitive, nonroutine tasks that better-educated, better-paid office workers do,' according to a February Brookings report co-authored by Muro. This means AI can do a lot of the tasks that software engineers, architects, lawyers, and journalists do, but it doesn't mean that AI can do their jobs — a key distinction. This is why you hear more experts talking about AI augmentation rather than AI automation. As a journalist, I can confidently say that AI is great at streamlining my research process, saving me time, and sometimes even stirring up new ideas. AI is terrible at interviewing sources, although that might not always be the case. And clearly, it's touch-and-go when it comes to writing factually accurate copy, which is kind of a fundamental part of the job. That proposition looks different for other kinds of white-collar work, namely administrative and operational support jobs. A Brookings report last year found that 100 percent of the tasks that bookkeepers and clerks do were likely to be automated. Those of travel agents, tax preparers, and administrative assistants were close to 100 percent. If AI really did make these workers redundant, it would add up to millions of jobs lost. 'The thing I'd be most worried about is if my task and job are very similar to each other,' Mollick, the Wharton professor, explained. 'If I have a very narrow job around a very narrow task that's being done repetitively, that's where the most risk comes in.' Related These stories could change how you feel about AI It's hard to AI-proof your job or career altogether given so much uncertainty. We don't know if companies will take advantage of this transition in ways that produce better products and happier workers or just use it as an excuse to fire people, squandering what some believe is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to transform work and productivity. It sucks to feel like you have little agency in steering the future toward one outcome or the other. At the risk of sounding like your geeky uncle, I say give AI a try. The worst-case scenario is you spend 10 hours talking to an artificially intelligent chatbot rather than scrolling through Instagram or Reddit. The best-case scenario is you develop a new skill set, one that could very well set you up to do an entirely new kind of job, one that didn't even exist before the AI era. You might even have a little fun along the way. A version of this story was also published in the User Friendly newsletter. Sign up here so you don't miss the next one!

Ultra-processed foods: A patriotic American tradition!
Ultra-processed foods: A patriotic American tradition!

Vox

time17 hours ago

  • Vox

Ultra-processed foods: A patriotic American tradition!

covers health for Vox, guiding readers through the emerging opportunities and challenges in improving our health. He has reported on health policy for more than 10 years, writing for Governing magazine, Talking Points Memo, and STAT before joining Vox in 2017. Eating a hot dog on July Fourth isn't just traditional. It's patriotic. From iconic red, white, and blue rocket pops (hello, Red Dye 40!) to nitrate-loaded hot dogs and the all-day parade of sugary drinks and alcohol, this quintessential American holiday is a celebration of freedom — and, often, dietary chaos. And yet these days, many of us seem to be having second thoughts about the American diet. Our food is too processed, too loaded with dyes and preservatives. The country's obesity and diabetes epidemics, which have led to an explosion in the diagnoses of related chronic health conditions, have put the issue front and center, with much of the blame being placed on what we eat and all of the additives and preservatives it contains. About half of US adults believe food additives and chemicals are a large or moderate risk to their health — higher than the perceived risks of infectious disease outbreaks or climate change, according to a recent poll from Ipsos, a global market research firm. We all worry about microplastics, nitrates, food dyes, and ultra-processed foods. And US Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has made improving Americans' diets and our food supply a top priority. It's a policy emphasis that's popular with the public: Two-thirds of US adults believe artificial dyes and pesticides make our foods unsafe to eat — and these are opinions that transcend political leanings, according to Ipsos. Related 40 maps that explain food in America And regardless of our entrenched food system, people are trying to make healthier decisions in their daily lives: 64 percent of US adults say they pay more attention to food labels than they did five years ago, according to the public health nonprofit NSF International. But we are frustrated: Only 16 percent of Americans say they find claims on food labels trustworthy. It may sound unbelievable on a holiday when Americans will gladly stuff their faces with ultra-processed junk while wearing flag-laden paraphernalia, but these days, many of us actually wish the products in our grocery stores looked a little more like the ones across the Atlantic. Just 37 percent of American adults said in the NSF International survey that our food labeling was better than in other countries. Most Americans say they want changes to how foods at our grocery stores are labeled. American food really is different from what can be found in Europe, both in its substance and in its packaging. But while we're probably not doing any favors to our health by consuming ultraprocessed foods loaded with artificial ingredients that are banned elsewhere, the biggest source of our health woes isn't necessarily these artificial dyes and preservatives. It's the cholesterol and saturated fat in that hot dog, the sugar in that lemonade, and those ultra-processed potato chips. Americans consume about twice as much sugar as other rich countries do on average, eat more ultra-processed foods, and consume more trans and saturated fats than Europeans. We also eat enormous portions, and calories, no matter where they come from, are a big part of the problem. Americans are generally in poorer health than our peers in Europe, and US life expectancy continues to trail behind other wealthy countries. Rich Americans actually fare worse than poor Europeans, according to one study. A new era of American greatness starts at the picnic table this July Fourth. Yes, we ostensibly rebelled against an English monarchy in order to be able to do whatever we want, even eat whatever we want. But if we want to catch up to our European rivals again in how healthy we feel, how productive we are, and how long we live — we need to take a closer look at the stuff we're putting in our bodies. American food really does have different stuff in it Doctors widely agree that ultra-processed foods and food additives are bad for children's health. Yet they have become more and more readily available over the decades: One 2023 study found 60 percent of the food that Americans buy has additives, a 10 percent increase since 2001. Kennedy, the head of the Department of Health and Human Services, the country's top health agency, has made overhauling US food production a top priority. His department's recent MAHA report highlights steps taken by other countries, including France and the Nordic countries, to discourage people through their dietary guidelines from eating ultra-processed foods. The report lists several additives and artificial ingredients that are permitted in American food but are banned or heavily restricted across the pond. Kennedy suggests that the US should follow suit. So where might we begin? Let's start with Red Dye 40, the color additive found in foods such as Froot Loops and M&Ms that has been linked to hyperactivity in children and, according to some animal studies, has been shown to accelerate tumor growth in mice. The US has not placed any special requirements on Red Dye 40, aside from its listing alongside other ingredients. But the European Union has required a clear warning label on any food with the dye, and some countries (including Germany, France, and Denmark) have banned it outright. A similar warning could be adopted here. There are other additives casually lurking in American foods that have been restricted in other countries. Here are a few: Titanium dioxide: Another food coloring that can be added to candies like Skittles and coffee creamers for a bright white effect. The EU banned it in 2022 because of Another food coloring that can be added to candies like Skittles and coffee creamers for a bright white effect. The EU banned it in 2022 because of evidence it could affect the human body's genetic material, while the US continues to allow its use. Propyl paraben: This preservative is regarded as safe in the US, often This preservative is regarded as safe in the US, often added to mass-produced American baked goods such as Sara Lee cinnamon rolls or Weight Watchers lemon creme cake. But its use has been prohibited in the EU because of research indicating it could mess with hormone function. Butylated hydroxytoluene: Another preservative that's sometimes added to breakfast cereals and potato chips to extend their shelf life. It's generally regarded as safe for use in the United States despite evidence that it could compromise kidney and liver function and Another preservative that's sometimes added to breakfast cereals and potato chips to extend their shelf life. It's generally regarded as safe for use in the United States despite evidence that it could compromise kidney and liver function and concerns that it could cause cancer. In the EU, however, its use is subject to strict regulation. There are some artificial sweeteners, too — aspartame, sucralose, and saccharin — that are permitted in the US and the EU, but generally, Europe puts many more restrictions on unhealthy artificial ingredients than the US does. Kennedy is pledging he'll do something about it. His biggest win so far is securing voluntary commitments from food manufacturers to remove a variety of artificial dyes — yes, including Red Dye 40 — from their products before the end of 2026. If they fail to comply, he has suggested new regulations to put a limit on or outright prohibit certain substances of concern. But are these ingredients the most important problem with our July Fourth cookouts? They are part of the issue. But there's more to it. The real problem is the American diet, dyed or not Here's a revealing comparison: In 2018, the United States banned trans fats, an artificial ingredient derived from oils that has been linked to heart disease and diabetes — 15 years after Denmark did the same thing. For more than a decade, Americans kept eating a ton of trans fat — something that is so bad for you that it can simultaneously increase bad cholesterol while lowering good cholesterol. While that is probably not the entire reason that the US has double the obesity and diabetes rates as Denmark does, it is a telling example. A fatty and highly processed ingredient that is linked to two of the biggest health problems in the United States persisted for years in American food, long after the Europeans had wised up. It's a pattern that, across the decades, explains the enormous gulf between the typical American's diet and the Mediterranean diet that dominates much of Europe. During the 20th century, amid an explosion in market-driven consumerism, convenience became one of the most important factors for grocery shoppers. Americans wanted more meals that could be quickly prepared inside the microwave and dry goods that could last for weeks and months on a pantry shelf, and so these products gained more and more of a market share. But that meant that more American food products were laced with more of the preservatives and additives that are now drawing so much concern. Americans have also always eaten more meat, cheese, and butter, animal products high in saturated fats as opposed to the unsaturated fats that come from oils like olive oil and are more common in European diets, for years. Our meat obsession was turbocharged by a meat industry that tapped into patriotic sentiments about pioneering farms making their living off the frontier. Eating a diet with more animal products is associated with a long list of health problems, particularly the cardiovascular conditions that remain the biggest killers of Americans. Related What the MAHA movement gets wrong about meat We should push our policymakers to pass regulations that get rid of artificial additives, but that alone is insufficient. You can find too much fat and too much sugar around the picnic table. Some of it is unnatural, but plenty of it is. America has to figure out how to encourage people to eat low-fat, low-sugar, whole-food diets. That's the real path to better health. MAHA has some good ideas. Its emphasis on whole foods, not processed ones, is a step in the right direction. But Kennedy's prescriptions are contradictory: Kennedy wants to make it easier for people to find whole foods at their nearby store, while Republicans in Congress propose massive cuts to food stamps. Kennedy's MAHA report rails against the overuse of pesticides, but Trump's Environmental Protection Agency is rolling back restrictions on their use. Those contradictions are a reminder that, though Kennedy has shone a light on a worthwhile issue, we can't and we shouldn't expect the government to fix our food problems all on its own. This is America, after all, where we pride ourselves on individualism.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store