We doctors don't tell patients to stop eating when they are obese or have metabolic syndrome. We tell them to change what they are eating (and drinking) to healthier options and, typically, to eat less. We can facilitate a prolonged fast to jumpstart the process of change, but truthfully, if the person isn't extremely motivated and willing to endure some significant discomfort (at least at the beginning), fasting won't help. It would if they did it... but they won't. And that's okay -- we need to work within the realistic parameters real humans offer us.
Most people, when diagnosed with a metabolic disorder, initially feel scared. That's enough to provoke some positive initial changes. Maybe start walking, reduce the Arby's visits, skip that fifth pint at the bar.
Sometimes the positive changes stick; usually they do not. And again, that's okay; real habit change is hard, especially when the change is not aligned with your self-image. Change that requires discipline, that evokes white-knuckle struggle against your strongest internal desires, rarely lasts. It's too hard. Dr. Maxwell Maltz, in Psycho-Cybernetics, was the first place I heard that point fully articulated: until you change your self-image, you can't really change yourself. If you look in the mirror and see a fat, lazy man, your unconscious will ultimately deliver that despite your Pilates and low-calorie diet.
I'll write more later about consciously changing your self-image so habit change becomes easy. So it doesn't require discipline because that’s not what a person like you does. Remember: WYSIWYG (it's pronounced "wiz-ee-wig").
If you truly see yourself as obese, you will be obese, full stop. Discipline, for a while, can be the catalyst to change your self-image, so don't misinterpret me to say discipline has no role -- it's critical at the start before you've altered your self-image, but it isn't a lasting solution. If you keep relying on discipline for months or years without changing your self-image, it's not sustainable -- too hard, too much. Life will mess with you. Life will drain you. Those dreaded vicissitudes will come, and you will -- being human -- fold. If, on the other hand, you concomitantly work on your self-image while discipline remains viable, you quickly find you don't need discipline. It's not that you couldn't re-apply a conscious "do this/don't do this" rule; it's that you've already soaked it into your unconscious. It's part of your new operating system -- code that runs quietly in the background and eliminates the need for high-order discipline. Once you truly believe/feel/see yourself a certain way, actions unfold straightforwardly to reinforce it.
Discipline is the catalyst for change -- the conscious, outward expression of the deeper process you're also (hopefully) undertaking internally via visualization and repetition. But the "do" or "don't" alone does nothing.
"Ah, you say, so the hell what? Why is this piece titled 'Mental Metabolic Syndrome'?" Fair enough. If you can't see the parallels between our physical health quagmire (~35% of U.S. adults with metabolic syndrome; ~88% with at least 1 of 5 diagnostic criteria) and our mental health quagmire (~25% of adults believe they have ADHD; anecdotally ~80% endorse at least 2/9 inattentive DSM-5 criteria: careless mistakes, poor sustained attention, not listening, doesn't follow through, trouble organizing, avoids sustained mental effort, loses things, easily distracted, forgetful) I don't know what will convince you how similar the two issues are.
Why do we have metabolic syndrome now when it literally did not exist 200 years ago? Abundance of calories, even more specifically, of sugar -- sweet, delicious, dopamine-releasing, and completely non-satiating. Humans evolved in conditions of extreme scarcity. It is not surprising that our dramatic improvement in availability of calories has some second- and third-order negative effects. We lack innate defenses against abundance. GLP-1s may prove an antidote, but most people remain susceptible to the draw of disaccharides.
What else has only recently become abundant/easy? Information and social stratification (getting or trying to get social status, acceptance, likes via social media). It's not just more information; it's frictionless access and hyper-palatability (the Dorito of info) that X/FB/TikTok have made ubiquitous.
I've already written about the corrosive process short-form has on our attention spans, basically training us to be unable to focus for more than 30 seconds; I've written about how infinite scroll and autoplay cram the interstices of our minds full of content, making the gaps necessary to move/process information impossible, leaving our minds as paralyzed, flabby vessels storing tidbits of information but never arranging them into a coherent whole of "knowledge." But now I'm talking about the content itself -- titillating fluff, engagement bait, the algorithmically tuned digital Dorito. This junk will destroy you if it is a staple of your mind diet.
The stuff you see, the stuff promoted by the algos is not for its inherent informational value. It gets promoted because it gets you hooked. Or rather, it's gotten other people like you hooked. And it's important to acknowledge two things: (1) sometimes there is genuine value in posts you wouldn't have found elsewhere; (2) social media companies are not trying to harm you. They are trying to build massive ad platforms. They should be allowed to and are allowed to do this. We just have to also be able to opt out. Listen, one Dorito, or one slice of chocolate cake won't give you metabolic syndrome. But a diet of only Doritos and cake will turn your body into a diseased mess. If you feed your mind only on the digital equivalents, your mind will also turn into a diseased mess.
I could feel it myself when I used Twitter and TikTok. It was nuanced, it was gradual, but in retrospect it was definitely there. Why read books when the essential kernels could be delivered in a tweet storm? Why invest the time and effort to go deep when the conclusions could be Cliff-Noted from a random person's TikTok history. It feels like you are learning or gaining from their pseudo-info deluge, but it's illusory. It feels good -- you are "knowing" things you wouldn't otherwise have known, seduced by feeling smart or having privileged inside knowledge, especially about something experts might claim as their domain...forget those guys, right? They aren't special; they're just gatekeepers, and the internet has removed their monopoly on specialized knowledge.
And yes, there is some real truth to that and good that will come from that...but there are always trade-offs. And not knowing what you don't know is the quintessence of our time. We've hyper-charged Dunning-Kruger by giving the appearance of knowledge (via tweet or video) while diminishing our capacity to actually think.
The main takeaway from all of this is your informational diet matters more than you realize. You don't have tangible, outward, quantifiable signs like with dietary excess when you overindulge on worthless mental calories. If you can't or won't read a book, can't form a coherent position on a topic you claim to know, and instead regurgitate posts or fall back to the crutch of vibes, you have the syndrome. It is mental metabolic syndrome, and most folks online have it.
Just like with physicians treating the obese, I will not tell you not to eat, not to consume social media or digital Doritos. I would encourage you to consume less and change how you get your info (maybe from sources not incented to engage). But just like with diets, the changes won't last unless your self-image changes with it. You have to see this info abundance for what it is, understand its impact on your individual capacity to think deeply, and gradually change your self-image to reflect that. Otherwise, even digital detoxes won't get you anywhere. You must want to regain autonomy over your mind and be willing to work to get it back. Otherwise it will keep decaying day by day, until at some point you've forgotten what it even felt like to know something deeply.