Removing Fads From The Future Of Wellbeing

A brief history of wellbeing through the ages

Shaped by culture and identity, marred with fear, marketing and a lack of evidence, what “being healthy” looked like in the past tends to be drastically different to the present day.

It may even be quite shocking to reflect on the mishaps along the way.

Hopefully we won’t regret what we are doing now in decades to come…

The 1950s: The rise of convenience and cabbage soup

After wartime rationing eased, innovations in preservation and packaging (canning, freezing, boxed meals) accelerated, and convenience foods promised to ease the pressure on home cooks. This was paired with the rise of the TV dinner phenomenon.

The move away from ‘from scratch’ cooking toward packaged convenience had major implications for nutrition quality. In an aim to counteract it, cabbage soup became a popular weight loss trend. For cabbage fans, this might not seem like such a terrible prospect, but this diet was pretty unforgiving.

The idea behind it was to spend a week only consuming unlimited amounts of super-low-calorie homemade cabbage soup. On some versions of the cabbage soup diet, a limited selection of other foods was allowed on certain days, but overall the plan remained extremely restrictive.

Cabbage is actually claimed to have benefits for the integrity of the gut lining, thanks to glucosinolates, natural compounds that may help reduce the risk of ulcers and colitis, protect the stomach lining and balance the gut microbiome. For this purpose, cabbage is thought to be even more beneficial when consumed in raw juice preparation.

However, eating solely cabbage soup for a week could drain the body of vital nutrients that a balanced and varied diet can offer.

In the 1950s, the fear of fat was driven by the medical community linking saturated fats to heart disease and the public health campaigns that framed obesity as a crisis and a psychological problem. This led to the belief that being overweight was a sign of being "maladjusted," insecure, and lacking self-control.

Views on obesity causes are nowadays more nuanced, understood to have many possible underlying factors including genetics, hormonal imbalances, metabolic issues, and the environment in which a person lives.

The 1960s: Machines and magic pills

The hour-glass figure was now out of fashion. Miniskirts got shorter and shorter. The 60s represented an era of modernisation and revolution. With that came a sense of urgency and impulsivity.

It’s not surprising, therefore, that appetite suppressants and diet pills gained traction during this time. Stimulant‑based weight loss drugs such as amphetamines were marketed to consumers. This was due to the regulatory environment that prioritised short-term use for weight loss and a cultural acceptance of stimulants as quick fixes.

Nowadays, the concept of ‘diet pills’ has thankfully moved on to a gentler and more balanced approach. Weight can be supported with supplements offering probiotics, increased fibre intake and an aim to improve cholesterol levels. That said, it is recommended to always purchase from reputable brands that are third-party tested, to avoid unregulated and potentially harmful products.

Think along the lines of vibrating belts, slimming rollers, “fat reduction machines.” These products had been around since the 1930s, but the 1960s saw a rise in popularity. They were marketed as tools to loosen the fat cells so you could “lose them quicker”. And, although they promised localised fat loss with minimal effort, they were often without credible evidence.

A modern day perspective on these gadgets is built on research indicating that whole-body vibration machines might support weight loss, muscle development, as well as muscle recovery. However, many of the studies on weight loss in particular involved small groups of participants or focused only on individuals who were physically inactive or living with obesity.

The Stillman diet (1967) proposed a high‑protein, low fat, low carb approach. It became popular but drew criticism for being unbalanced and lacking fibre, vitamins and minerals. Stillman’s diet book The Doctor’s Quick Weight Loss Diet sold to many, even as medical critics warned of its deficiencies because the diet limits key foods including fruits, vegetables, carbohydrates and healthy fats.

The 1970s: Strength and sugar under the spotlight

Arnold Schwarzenegger and other figures helped popularise muscular physiques in gyms. Fitness and bodybuilding magazines, often featuring male models who used anabolic steroids (AAS) on the cover, began to proliferate, making more young men aware of the dramatic muscle gains achievable through AAS use.

With that, the use of performance enhancers such as steroids increased, often without medical supervision, and risking side effects.

In 1972, British scientist, John Yudkin, published Pure, White and Deadly. In it, he argued that it was sugar, not fat, that may be a primary driver of metabolic disease. His views were controversial at the time. Yudkin’s hypothesis continued to be marginalised for decades, but later work on metabolic syndrome, insulin resistance, and sugar’s role in disease revived interest in his thesis.

In the same year, Dr. Atkins published ‘Dr. Atkins' Diet Revolution’. It went one step further than Yudkin’s, suggesting that drastically limiting carbohydrates could lead to weight loss.

The principles of the Atkins diet involve a phased approach to reduce carbohydrate intake, especially from sugar and refined grains, to encourage the body to burn fat for fuel.

However, some argue that potential risks include increased heart disease risks from high saturated fat intake and nutritional deficiencies due to limited food groups. There are also issues such as the " keto flu" adjustment period and potential low fibre intake causing negative effects to the bowel, like constipation and dysbiosis.

The 1980s and 1990s: Aerobics and abolishing fat

Jane Fonda’s Workout videos made aerobics a home fitness craze, bringing exercise into living rooms and popular culture.

At the same time, fat was widely blamed for poor health. Low fat products became mainstream, often replacing fat with sugar or refined starches. This approach was later criticised for reducing overall nutritional quality.

By the 1990s, diet culture had gone global. Brands like Weight Watchers, SlimFast and Jenny Craig turned weight loss into big business. In the UK, data showed rising intake of sugar and carbohydrates, often hidden in processed low fat foods.

The 2000s and 2010s: Low carb backlash, detox culture

In the 2000s, low carb diets such as Atkins returned to popularity, promising fast results. At the same time, detox teas, juice cleanses and “clean eating” became widespread online, often promoted as ways to reset the body even though evidence was limited, or sometimes even to the contrary. Potentially problematic words like ‘toxin’ and ‘clean’ became common, turning food into something of a ‘moral choice’.

By the 2010s, superfoods were everywhere and high intensity workouts such as HIIT gained traction. Wearables and apps gave people new ways to track sleep, steps, heart rate and food intake. A 2017 study found that even identical twins can respond differently to the same foods, reinforcing the idea that health advice may need to be more personalised.

What did we learn?

Wellbeing fads often rely on absolutes and fragile science, revealing how definitions of “healthy” are shaped as much by culture and identity as by, at times, incredibly scant evidence.

How can we change the face of wellbeing in decades to come?

After decades of blanket rules, the next era draws upon tailored insight. We’re moving things on from “what works for many” to “what works for you.”

Why generic health advice can’t always deliver

Rules like “eat a balanced diet, move more, cut down sugar, sleep eight hours” can be helpful as baseline approaches. But they fail when they ignore your unique biology.

• People differ in gene expression, hormone sensitivity, metabolism, and microbiome health.

• Something that boosts energy for one might cause a crash in someone else.

• Evidence shows even genetically identical twins can respond differently to the same diets or exercise regimens.

• Generic health guidelines are often built on population averages, not your individual baseline.

Precision health: Exploring biomarkers, genetics and AI

Your internal biology speaks through biomarkers. They often detect imbalance before symptoms show.

Biomarkers let you see what your body is doing before anything feels wrong. They spot early signs of risk, like inflammation, insulin resistance or nutrient gaps. Issues like this could exist, even if you feel ‘fine’.

Instead of just checking LDL on its own, measuring ApoB gives a clearer view of heart risk.

For blood sugar, HbA1c shows how your glucose has been over months, not just a single day.

If inflammation is building, hsCRP is the signal that often arises early on.

And for energy or mood, a full thyroid panel gives better answers than only a TSH reading.

A single test gives a snapshot. A second reveals more.

You start to see trends, and if something is improving, unchanging, or may require specialist advice.

Test twice a year and your data stops being just numbers. It allows you to act earlier, personalise your next move and, most importantly, stop guessing.

Furthermore, integrated AI interpretation can build personal insights into your health.

Final thoughts: habits, not hype

Fads fade, while your body keeps score.

We really have seen it all. From cabbage soup weeks to vibrating belts, low-fat everything, the steroid boom and drastic detoxes. Each decade sold a new idea of health, often far louder than it was accurate.

But your body keeps receipts. On what you eat, how you move, how you rest, and how you handle pressure.

The body also knows that precision wellbeing is not about doing more, but truly understanding what works for you.

Testing your blood markers, tracking your sleep, paying attention to your energy, these are just some examples of how knowledge is power. Knowledge that means you can start building routines grounded in evidence.

Taking action: Let’s get personal

Shop the four Healf Pillars: EAT, MOVE, MIND, SLEEP, to build better habits in each area and stay consistent.

Head to Healf Zone for 35+ biomarkers, expert tools and advice that help you personalise your approach to wellbeing. Real change comes when you stop following trends and start paying attention to your own biology.

FAQs

A wellbeing fad is usually defined by sudden popularity, celebrity or influencer promotion, bold health claims, minimal scientific support, and a focus on quick fixes. These trends often emphasize extremes rather than sustainable long-term practices.

Not all trends are harmful. Some are based on valid research or traditional practices with proven benefits. However, it is important to stay critical, look for evidence, and consider whether a trend truly fits your individual needs.

Wellbeing can be tracked through a mix of physical, mental, and emotional indicators such as sleep quality, mood, energy levels, physical activity, and stress. Tools like journals, fitness trackers, and wellbeing apps can support regular monitoring.

Common biomarkers include blood pressure, cholesterol, blood sugar, inflammation markers like CRP, vitamin levels, and hormones such as cortisol or thyroid levels. A healthcare provider can help you choose the most relevant ones for your goals.

Focus on long-term habits that suit your lifestyle and health needs. Avoid chasing trends and instead prioritize consistency, balance, and practices that support your physical, emotional, and mental wellbeing.

Fibre-Maxxing Is Trending Again, But Is It A Real Thing?

Read more

Is ChatGPT Smarter Than Your Doctor?

Read more

Am I Metabolically Healthy?

Read more

The Testosterone Connection: Habits That Really Move The Needle

Read more

This article is for informational purposes only, even if and regardless of whether it features the advice of physicians and medical practitioners. This article is not, nor is it intended to be, a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment and should never be relied upon for specific medical advice. The views expressed in this article are the views of the expert and do not necessarily represent the views of Healf