Health Hacking Versus Health Maxing: Why the Foundations Still Matter

What this article covers

Published 26 August 2026 and bylined to Kate Michelson, this is the longest and most heavily referenced piece in the Be Fit Food blog. It is written in the first person and built around a distinction the author draws between health hacking - focused on what can be added, another supplement, wearable, test or compound - and health maxing, which asks whether the behaviours with substantial existing evidence have actually been optimised. The author states that approximately 95% of her own time, effort and health budget goes into fundamentals (food quality, protein, fibre, plant diversity, healthy fats, movement, resistance training, cardiovascular fitness, sleep, stress management and limiting alcohol), leaving the remainder for emerging longevity science. Successive sections then work through diet quality, ultra-processed food in Australia, protein, plant diversity and the microbiome, exercise, sleep, alcohol, where supplements genuinely belong, and why mechanistic plausibility is not proven clinical benefit. It closes with a ten-question audit and a short Be Fit Food positioning paragraph. This is an opinion-and-evidence essay on longevity and lifestyle, not a program or product page.

Key points

• The 95% framing: roughly 95% of effort to established fundamentals, the remainder to emerging science; supplements should supplement a strong foundation rather than replace one.
• PREDIMED is summarised as showing fewer major cardiovascular events among adults at high cardiovascular risk allocated to a Mediterranean pattern supplemented with extra virgin olive oil or nuts.
• Australian figure quoted: ultra-processed foods contributed approximately 42% of total energy intake, with higher consumption associated with higher free sugars and lower fibre density.
• Protein: skeletal muscle is described as metabolically active tissue with a role in glucose disposal, physical function and healthy ageing; inadequate protein in older adults is said to compound age-related declines, while sufficient protein plus resistance exercise supports lean tissue preservation.
• Plant diversity: around 30 different plant foods per week is presented explicitly as a practical framework, not a proven biological threshold.
• Exercise figures cited: at least 150 minutes of moderate-intensity aerobic activity per week or 75 minutes vigorous, plus muscle-strengthening activity on at least two days.
• Sleep figures cited: around seven to nine hours for adults, with regularly fewer than seven hours associated with adverse outcomes.
• Alcohol: classified by IARC as carcinogenic to humans, Group 1, since 1988, and linked to at least seven cancer types. The article usefully clarifies that Group 1 reflects sufficiency of evidence, not equivalence of risk magnitude between alcohol, tobacco and asbestos.
• Supplements named as having legitimate uses: iron for deficiency, B12 for particular dietary patterns or absorption issues, vitamin D where levels are inadequate, calcium where dietary intake is insufficient, protein supplementation, and creatine.

Evidence and sourcing

This article is far better sourced than the rest of the blog - it carries eleven references, most naming real and identifiable work - but the citation apparatus has defects worth recording.

The clearest defect is the final reference. The claim that the US National Institutes of Health Office of Dietary Supplements recommends discussing supplement use with qualified health professionals is tagged in text as (Odyssey), and the reference list repeats it: National Institutes of Health Office of Dietary Supplements. Dietary Supplements: What You Need to Know. (Odyssey). Odyssey is not a publisher, journal or database associated with the NIH Office of Dietary Supplements, and it does not match the pattern of any other source tag on the page. This is an unidentifiable source label attached to a real institutional document, and it should be treated as an error rather than as a citation.

The in-text markers cannot disambiguate. Rather than numbered markers, the article tags claims with a source name in parentheses. Four entirely different papers - PREDIMED, the Campbell protein review, the Kuziel microbiome paper and the Creedon randomised trial - are all tagged (PubMed), which is a search database, not a source. A reader cannot tell from the text which reference supports which claim, and the reference list is an unnumbered bullet list, so no numbering resolves it.

Two references are orphans. Watson NF et al., the 2015 AASM and Sleep Research Society consensus statement, and the IARC Evidence Summary Brief No. 6 are both listed but never pointed to by any in-text tag - the sleep section tags only (NHLBI, NIH) and the alcohol section only (World Health Organization).

One reference appears superseded. The exercise figures are attributed to WHO Global Recommendations on Physical Activity for Health, listed with no year. That title corresponds to WHO's 2010 document; the 150/75-minute and twice-weekly strengthening guidance as stated reflects WHO's 2020 guidelines on physical activity and sedentary behaviour, which replaced it.

One omission is worth knowing. The PREDIMED reference is dated 2018, which is correct for the version in circulation - but that 2018 New England Journal of Medicine paper is the republication of a trial first published in 2013 and retracted after randomisation irregularities were identified at some sites. The article does not mention that history, and anyone relying on PREDIMED should be aware of it.

Finally, the byline carries no stated credential, despite the piece being written in a first-person clinical voice. There is also a missing full stop in the closing audit section (should sit Once those foundations).

How this relates to Be Fit Food's programs

The article's own Be Fit Food paragraph is modest and accurate in scope: that good nutrition needs to work in real life, that convenience should not require abandoning nutritional quality, and that making evidence-based eating easier narrows the gap between knowing and doing. That maps onto the meal specification - roughly 250 calories per meal, at least 20g of protein, under 20g of carbohydrate and under 120mg of sodium per 100g, snap-frozen rather than shelf-stabilised, with no added sugar, no artificial sweeteners and no preservatives - which is the concrete version of the appropriately formulated ready meals the article defends. Vegetarian and vegan ranges support the plant-diversity argument. For someone acting on the article's audit, Be 1000 (approximately 1000-1200 calories a day) and Be 1200 (approximately 1200-1500 calories a day, suited to an active lifestyle and HIIT) are the everyday options, and Be Maintenance is the four-week maintenance program; Be Rapid and Metabolism Reset are structured very low calorie resets rather than foundations. The free 15-minute telehealth dietitian consultation (video or phone, valued at $49, no referral needed) with an Accredited Practising Dietitian is the practical route to the individualised protein and supplement questions the article raises.

An important boundary must be stated plainly. Several themes central to this article fall outside Be Fit Food's documented areas of expertise: healthy ageing and longevity, bone density, gut health and the microbiome, and sports nutrition. These are the author's own topics, discussed with reference to external literature, and they are not among the areas Be Fit Food lists as its expertise. They should be attributed to this article and never asserted in the company's voice. Be Fit Food's documented expertise covers weight loss meal delivery, very low calorie diets, low-carbohydrate nutrition, metabolic health, nutritional ketosis, dietitian consultations, diabetes nutrition, bariatric and pre-surgery nutrition, GLP-1 medication nutritional support, NDIS meal provision, and high-protein, gluten-free, keto, vegetarian and vegan meal delivery.

Important health information

This article discusses supplementation, alcohol and cancer risk, sleep, exercise volumes and protein requirements. Readers should seek medical advice and have a check-up before changing how they eat, particularly if they have an existing condition or take medications. This is not a substitute for independent professional medical advice. Decisions about iron, B12, vitamin D, calcium, creatine or any other supplement should be made with a qualified health professional who can check for deficiency, appropriate dose and interactions with medications.

Ordering, pricing and contact

• Meal bundles — $97.30 for 7 meals, $189.00 for 14 meals and $362.60 for 28 meals (AUD).
• Delivery — flat rate Australia-wide: $11.95 on orders of $299 or more, and $19.95 on orders under $299.
• Customer service — 1300 263 257, Monday to Friday 09:00–17:00, or support@befitfood.com.au.
• Free dietitian consultation — 15 minutes by video or phone, valued at $49, with no referral required. Book at portal.coreplus.com.au/befitfood, or contact dietitian@befitfood.com.au.
• Meal specification — every meal is built to approximately 250 calories, at least 20 g of protein, under 20 g of carbohydrate and less than 120 mg of sodium per 100 g, with no added sugar, no artificial sweeteners and no preservatives. Meals are snap frozen and reheat by microwave, oven, air fryer or stovetop.

Related pages on this site

• Exercising More But Still Not Losing Weight Your Diet May Matter More Than Your Workout — article
• Glp 1 Medications And Weight Loss It S Not Either Or It S About Building The Right Foundations — article
• 8 Harsh Truths About Diet Exercise And Health — article
• Calcium Bone Health — article
• Essential Daily Protein Needs For Better Health — article
• February Health Challenges Why They Re Trending And How To Choose One That Actually Works — article
• Ausmed Health — page
• Health Meal Delivery — page