Optimization is useful because it forces a question into the open: what, exactly, are we trying to improve?
It can be a marker, a training outcome, a sleep variable, a business process, or a biological risk. Once the target is defined, progress can be measured against it.
That logic has obvious value. Athletes train more intelligently because variables can be measured. Clinicians can identify risks that would otherwise remain invisible. Organizations can remove waste. People can learn things about their own bodies that were difficult to observe a generation ago.
Optimization helps make complicated problems manageable. But the technical work starts one step later than it appears. Before anything can be optimized, someone has already decided what counts as better.
Lower glucose. More strength. Better sleep efficiency. More output per hour. Lower risk. Each target can be useful. Each one reduces a larger problem to something that can be moved and measured.
That reduction is the point, and also where the hidden judgment enters. The metric can tell us whether we moved toward the target. It cannot tell us whether the target deserved the authority we gave it, or what the rest of the life should be allowed to pay for the improvement.
Humans rarely have one objective at a time.
Optimization Starts by Choosing What Counts as Better
To optimize anything, you first have to decide what counts as better.
Faster. Lower. Higher. More stable. More productive. Longer-lived.
The target is what makes the problem solvable. Real lives are less cooperative because the objectives multiply.
A person may want more strength and more time with their children. More income and less chronic urgency. Better sleep and a social life. Lower health risk and a relationship with food that does not require constant monitoring. Higher performance and enough unused attention to absorb an unpredictable week.
Those aims can reinforce one another. But they can also conflict. The chosen metric does not make the conflict disappear. It can make the other costs less visible.
This is where optimization becomes a judgment question. Improving a variable is comparatively easy to define. Deciding what the rest of life is allowed to pay for that improvement is not.
A sleep score does not know how much an evening with an old friend was worth. A productivity dashboard does not know whether faster response has turned into permanent availability. A training plan does not know whether another session should displace dinner with the family.
The metric may be accurate. The question it was designed to answer is simply narrower than the life receiving the answer.
A Better Metric Can Move the Cost Elsewhere
Consider someone who becomes serious about health and starts tracking sleep, training load, glucose, body composition, and laboratory markers. They reduce alcohol, improve food quality, add strength training, control light exposure, and become more deliberate about recovery.
The numbers improve.
Now suppose dinner with friends becomes a negotiation. A late family event is experienced mainly as a threat to tomorrow’s score. A rough night creates anxiety before the day has begun. Exercise becomes compliance with the plan rather than one way of using the body.
The practices may still be beneficial. But life may also be becoming narrower.
Sleep clinicians have described patients who became so focused on ideal tracker data that the pursuit of better sleep itself became part of the problem. The term “orthosomnia” emerged from those clinical cases. That is not evidence that sleep tracking is generally harmful, but it is a useful example of a broader boundary: a measure can remain informative while the role it plays in the person’s life changes.
The same pattern appears outside health. A company improves speed by adding pressure. A founder improves responsiveness by becoming permanently available. A team protects output by borrowing time from recovery. A sales organization raises short-term conversion through incentives that slowly damage trust.
The visible metric can improve because another part of the arrangement is absorbing the cost.
Nothing about the improvement has to be false. The faster response time is real. The stronger lift is real. The lower marker is real. The increased output is real.
The question is what the metric was never asked to count.
A founder can remain highly productive while the business consumes the attention that once made reflection possible. An athlete can keep hitting training targets while ordinary travel or a missed session becomes increasingly disruptive. A health-conscious person can keep improving markers while meals, holidays, and social life require more negotiation than they used to.
If we look only at the chosen target, all three may appear to be succeeding.
This does not mean every trade is a mistake. Serious goals require trade-offs. The important distinction is whether the trade remains visible and chosen.
Optimization becomes more questionable when the objective silently expands from “this matters” to “everything else should organize itself around this.” The health practice that was meant to support life starts governing it. The business goal that justified a demanding quarter becomes the permanent operating condition. The productivity system that was supposed to create time fills every saved hour with another task.
The target did not change. Its authority did.
Margin Looks Inefficient Until You Need It
Optimization also has an awkward relationship with margin.
Unused time looks inefficient. An unfilled calendar looks underutilized. A lighter training week can look like lost progress. A meal that is simply good enough loses against one that is technically ideal.
In a tightly defined optimization problem, that logic makes sense. A life is less cooperative.
Some unclaimed time is where a conversation runs long, a delayed train does not become a crisis, a child needs more attention than expected, or fatigue can be answered without renegotiating the entire week. Some flexibility is not waste. It prevents ordinary variation from becoming a larger disruption.
This is not an argument for inefficiency. It is an argument for noticing that not everything valuable appears as maximized output.
A person can become very good at following a plan while becoming less comfortable when the plan cannot be followed. The plan may have improved the target. That does not settle what happened to flexibility around it.
Coherence Is Not Balance
I use coherence for a narrower idea than balance.
Balance suggests that every part of life should receive a fair share. That is rarely realistic. There are periods when a launch, illness, newborn, competition, family crisis, or creative project reasonably consumes more capacity.
Coherence asks a different question: is the trade visible, and can the major demands coexist without one measurable objective quietly becoming the organizing principle for everything else?
Earlier this year, writing about AI, I used the word in a similar way: does an improvement in one part make the larger arrangement easier to inhabit, or does it mainly move cost somewhere else?
A coherent life can be temporarily intense. It can contain ambition, discipline, sacrifice, and highly specific goals. What matters is whether the person can still recognize the hierarchy of values underneath the metrics. The goal may deserve sacrifice. The sacrifice should not disappear merely because the dashboard has no field for it.
Optimization asks how far a variable can move.
Coherence asks what else had to move with it.
Longevity Can Reproduce the Fragmentation It Is Trying to Solve
The longevity conversation makes this problem visible because the number of possible interventions keeps expanding.
Diagnostics. Supplements. Training methods. Nutritional strategies. Environmental controls. Therapeutics. Recovery technologies. Monitoring.
Much of that work is useful. More information can reveal risk earlier. Better training can preserve strength. Thoughtful nutrition matters. Sleep deserves attention. The fact that an intervention can become excessive is not an argument against the intervention.
But health can be divided into so many improvable variables that the person eventually needs a management system for the health stack they have built around themselves.
Sleep becomes one project, strength another, blood sugar another, body composition another, supplements another, recovery another. Each can have its own evidence, device, expert, protocol, and score. The individual interventions may all be defensible while the total arrangement becomes harder to live inside.
The current anti-optimization mood in wellness is interesting for this reason. Recent coverage has begun using that language explicitly, describing consumers questioning constant tracking and performance-oriented health management in favor of simpler practices and more presence. This is a cultural signal, not evidence that people have stopped caring about health or that wearables are disappearing.
The more interesting question is why the language resonates at all.
Perhaps people are not rejecting improvement. They are noticing that improvement can itself become another source of management.
A person can spend so much attention extending life that less attention remains available for inhabiting it. They can pursue a technically superior routine that makes travel, meals, relationships, and ordinary spontaneity feel like threats to compliance.
The irony is not that health takes effort. Health has always taken effort. The question is whether the effort preserves the capacity to live or increasingly consumes it.
Better for What?
A dashboard can tell us whether the target moved. It cannot decide how much authority that target should have over friendship, spontaneity, recovery, work, cultural meaning, family life, or an ordinary week that refuses to follow the plan.
Those are not failures of measurement. They are outside the metric by design.
This is why optimization is both useful and insufficient. It is powerful when the objective is clear, the trade is understood, and the chosen variable deserves the weight being placed on it. It becomes less reliable as a philosophy for living because a life contains objectives that cannot all be maximized at once.
The problem is not that data is cold, protocols are rigid, or ambition is unhealthy. The problem is allowing a method for improving one variable to decide what the whole life is for.
Good judgment sometimes means choosing the measurable improvement. Sometimes it means accepting a technically worse score because something outside the metric matters more. Sometimes it means deciding that the target itself has been given too much authority.
Optimization asks, “Can this become better?”
The question coherence adds is, “Better for what?”
A life can be less impressive on a dashboard and better organized around what the person actually values.
If this helped you name something you have been feeling but had not quite put into words, please share it with someone who might need the same language.
The Human OS Manual is now available for pre-order. If this work resonates, you can reserve your copy and follow the ideas here as they continue to develop.
Feel free to leave a comment. I read and respond to every thoughtful note.
Notes and Sources
Kelly Glazer Baron, Sabra Abbott, Nancy Jao, Natalie Manalo, and Rebecca Mullen, “Orthosomnia: Are Some Patients Taking the Quantified Self Too Far?” Journal of Clinical Sleep Medicine (2017).
Rachael Akhidenor, “Meet the Wellness Brands Riding the Anti-Optimization Wave,” Vogue (2026).