Optimize Responsibly
In a context where individual performance plays a central role in the contemporary wellbeing narrative, it is crucial to make a critical distinction: optimizing is not the same as following trends.
The former requires clarity, consistency and commitment. The latter is often distraction disguised as enthusiasm.
There is, in fact, clear patterns among individuals who are truly committed to achieving a specific goal and who understand that doing so requires optimization in certain areas of their lives: they assume radical responsibility for the process - they do not wait for ideal conditions, they act; and they do not confuse expert advice with relinquishing the active role that belongs to them.
This text is about the responsibility each of us must assume when we decide to optimize any aspect of our performance (whether physical, mental or metabolic).
Defining with Precision
One of the most common mistakes among those beginning a process of this nature is the lack of specific goal definition. Statements such as “I want more energy”, or “I’d like to lose some weight” are far too vague to enable an effective plan.
The first step requires clarity across the following dimensions:
What? (e.g: increase focus during working hours; improve restorative sleep);
How much? (e.g: reduce fasting glucose to below 90 mg/dL; increase heart rate variability by 10 units);
By when? (a measurable deadline aligned with the demands of the process);
At what cost, in terms of effort and availability?
Lack of specificity leads to frustration. A well-formulated goal guides the strategy, facilitates monitoring and allows for structured adjustments. Without that, one is left with general intentions and unrepeatable results.
Understanding the Process
Performance is, inevitably, a phased process: diagnosis, intervention, adaptation and maintenance. It’s not just about intervening. It’s about knowing when to intervene, how intensely, with what support and under which control metrics.
Here, responsibility means:
Acquiring knowledge to understand the fundamentals of the plan being followed;
Accepting that effective interventions (from training to supplementation) carry adaptive costs (fatigue, discomfort, time, etc.);
Acknowledging that biology does not yield to shortcuts. There are physiological rhythms that require time, precise stimuli and consistency.
Strategic clarity protects us from common pitfalls such as overstimulation or blind comparison with protocols that do not suit our context.
Getting Help
When it comes to performance-oriented medicine, we are dealing with a field of high technical complexity. No one needs (nor should) undertake this journey alone. But one must also not enter a clinical relationship as a passive bystander.
The role of health professionals (physicians, nutritionists, psychologists, among others) is essential. Yet this role only reaches its full potential when the client:
Provides objective information about their current status and progression;
Asks critical and well-formulated questions;
Shares logistical, behavioural, or emotional limitations;
Reports results, side effects and actual adherence to the plan.
Individual responsibility here is relational: maintaining an honest and progress-focused channel of communication. Physicians - as all professionals in the field - do not guess; but instead, need continuous feedback.
Executing and Monitoring
Just like any complex project, health optimisation requires an execution system. Wanting to improve is not enough. One must integrate:
Daily routines (e.g. sleep schedule, nutrition, training, stress management, etc.);
Objective metrics (e.g. HRV, fasting glucose, bloodwork results, etc.);
Review moments (at a predefined frequency);
Self-regulation systems (such as planning for more demanding weeks, or recovering from setbacks).
Performance becomes sustainable when supported by a structure that protects progress and minimises the impact of deviations. This is the individual’s responsibility — not only the responsibility of those guiding them. In this context, responsibility should not be seen as a burden, but as a vehicle for even greater independence: the more capable we are of leading our own improvement process, the more autonomous we become in decision-making, and the better we resist external noise.
Contrary to popular belief, performance does not require perfection. It requires clear intention, consistent execution and iterative improvement. But all of that relies on a founding principle: responsibility.
If this is the path we want to take, we might begin by answering the following questions:
Do I know exactly what I want to improve?
Do I have a realistic timeline for this?
What changes am I truly willing to make?
Whom can I rely on (and how will I maintain that dialogue)?
How will I monitor progress and make course corrections when necessary?
The answers don’t need to be perfect — only genuine. Just like the process of change itself.
