The very tools designed to make people healthier are leaving them feeling more unhappy and isolated, according to a growing chorus of critics who argue that the modern obsession with “health optimisation” has backfired. Rosamund Hall, a colleague of fitness coach and journalist Harry Bullmore, recently questioned whether there is “anything more miserable-looking than [podcaster Steven Bartlett’s] perfectly optimised life”, suggesting that the relentless pursuit of peak health is fuelling loneliness rather than well-being.
The problem: when optimisation backfires
The debate was ignited by Bartlett himself, who claimed that drinking a few glasses of wine “ruined” three days of his life because it disrupted his sleep, diet and exercise metrics. His comment has come to symbolise what many see as a joyless approach to living — one that reduces human experience to a series of measurable outputs. Bullmore, writing in his Well Enough newsletter, recalled growing up rurally and making bows and arrows from sticks and string. “I soon learned that stiff, brittle sticks snapped when you drew back the string and applied a bit of pressure. But pliable sticks bent with stress, pinged back into position and stood the test of time.” He argues that the same principle applies to routines: rigid protocols are easily broken, and any perceived misstep — such as a few glasses of wine — can feel catastrophic, derailing fitness plans entirely.
The “maxxing” trend, popularised on social media, encapsulates this rigidity. It involves aggressively optimising a single aspect of health — protein intake, sleep, fibre consumption or even physical appearance — often driven by a desire for control and concerns about gut health, longevity, or chronic fatigue. Critics argue that the trend can lead to obsession and burnout. Radio host Greg James has publicly criticised Bartlett’s “endless optimisation and measuring of everything”, arguing that “optimisation is killing fun”. The pursuit of metrics, they warn, can turn self-care into a source of stress, leading to feelings of inadequacy and social isolation as individuals prioritise data over human connection.
Flexible routines and the concept of ‘enough’
Rather than striving to “max out” every health variable, Bullmore advocates for a baseline of “enough” — enough movement, enough nutritious food and enough sleep to function happily. “A better aim would be to establish a baseline of ‘enough’,” he writes. “Then, if you want to push your performance further or you enjoy a particular type of exercise, you can do more when life allows.” He illustrates this with a recent week-long road trip around Scotland with friends. He ensured he had some protein and vegetables with each meal, did a quick bout of movement each morning — stretching or a short bodyweight workout — slept in when tired and walked a lot. But he did not turn down a trip to a bakery or a late-night chance to spot orcas off John O’Groats just because those activities clashed with optimal health advice.
The principle of “something is better than nothing”, Bullmore notes, is a useful starting point for building habits, though it should not be used as an excuse for minimal effort. The aim is a pliable routine that bends with life’s demands rather than breaking. This contrasts sharply with the rigid “maxxing” approach, which can lead to digestive discomfort from excessive fibre intake or fuel body dysmorphia in the case of “looksmaxxing”. The tyranny of measurement, experts argue, reduces individuals to machines and overlooks the genuine human experiences that give life meaning.
The importance of happiness and social connection
What the optimisation advocates often overlook, Bullmore points out, are the science-backed longevity perks of socialising, purpose and friendship. “Sometimes these stand at odds with their definition of ‘optimal’ living, but for the sake of a fun life, I think this trade-off is often worth making,” he writes. “There is health to be found in happiness.”
He draws on his time as a regional newspaper reporter, where colleagues and he would write stories about local people celebrating their 100th birthdays. “Not one person named a supplement or specific protocol,” he says. Instead, “brandy and biscuits” came up more than once — not consumed by the bucketload, but as a treat that brought people joy in moderation. Staying active and spending time with friends and loved ones also earned recurring mentions. While genetics play a considerable role in longevity, Bullmore observes that happiness and purpose were fairly common denominators among those who reached a century.
The research into centenarians consistently highlights the importance of strong social connections, which help reduce stress, improve mood and combat loneliness — a recognised public health crisis in the UK. On the flip side, Bullmore recalls that some of the worst nights of sleep he endured came when he was worrying about getting enough sleep, and that obsessing over stress levels only pushed them higher. Structured routines can provide a sense of security and reduce mental fatigue, but they must remain flexible enough to accommodate life’s unpredictability.
As the health optimisation industry continues to grow — with events such as the Health Optimisation Summit in London showcasing the latest biohacking technologies — the counter-message from Bullmore and others is simple: health and happiness make for excellent bedfellows, and one should not come at the expense of the other. Fixating on optimisation should not detract from the ability to live a life you love.