In today’s health-obsessed culture, it’s easy to feel like you’re falling behind if you don’t track your VO2 max, monitor your REM sleep, or take a dozen supplements. Online influencers promoting “biohacking” claim that by measuring every bodily function and fine-tuning diet and exercise routines, people can program their bodies to live longer and avoid disease—just like coding a computer.
But this belief is flawed.
As a doctor and biotechnology executive, I see the damage this thinking can do. It makes people feel responsible when disease strikes, as if they failed to do enough. In truth, biology is far more complex—and far less predictable—than any machine.
One example is the growing trend of wearing continuous glucose monitors (CGMs). Originally designed for people with diabetes, these devices now appeal to health-conscious individuals without the disease. Users hope to optimize their diets by analyzing glucose spikes after meals.
Yet studies show that the body’s response to food is inconsistent. In a recent clinical trial, participants ate identical meals a week apart while wearing CGMs. Despite strict control, their glucose readings varied wildly—similar to data generated by random chance. The results showed no reliable pattern, making the tracking largely meaningless.
This randomness isn’t limited to blood sugar. It’s built into life itself. Our genes are shuffled during reproduction. Our immune system creates billions of random antibodies, hoping a few will defend us against infection. Sometimes they miss entirely—or even attack our own tissues, leading to autoimmune diseases.
Cancer is another case where chance plays a major role. Certain behaviors—like smoking or unprotected sun exposure—do increase cancer risk. But more than two-thirds of cancer-causing mutations happen for no clear reason. They’re the result of random errors when our DNA is copied during cell division. No diet, supplement, or workout routine can prevent these errors completely.
Even after harmful mutations occur, the immune system may destroy the rogue cells—if the right white blood cell happens to be nearby. If not, cancer can grow undetected. This immune response, too, depends partly on luck.
The role of chance is also clear in other diseases. During the COVID-19 pandemic, some people became seriously ill after exposure, while others, even those at high risk, were spared. The virus spread in unpredictable ways, with tiny differences—such as airflow or immune memory—making a big difference.
Strokes show how randomness can influence outcomes. A blood clot forming in the left side of the heart can travel to the brain, causing serious damage. But if it moves in another direction, it may do little harm or none at all.
Many people who follow biohacking routines believe they can avoid deadly diseases through strict control. But this belief overlooks the powerful role of chance. I see many patients blaming themselves for their conditions, thinking they didn’t eat right, exercise enough, or avoid toxins. In some cases, these factors matter—but often, nothing they did would have changed the outcome. They were simply unlucky.
Biohacking has become a booming industry. From supplements to wearable tech, the market promises longer, healthier lives. But along with hope, it often sells guilt and unrealistic expectations.
That doesn’t mean we’re powerless. Some health basics are proven: don’t smoke, drink in moderation, maintain a healthy weight, monitor your blood pressure and cholesterol, exercise regularly, and get recommended screenings and vaccines.
But tracking every data point in your body isn’t necessary. It won’t guarantee better health. If monitoring your glucose or supplement levels brings you joy, that’s your choice. But if you’re doing it because you believe you can fully control your health, it’s time to reconsider.
Biology isn’t software. And life, no matter how well-managed, will always include an element of chance.
Related Topics:
