You're being downvoted heavily, and I thought I might mention possible justifications for that. You have an impressive density of third-rail-steppage on your wa

You're being downvoted heavily, and I thought I might mention possible justifications for that. You have an impressive density of third-rail-steppage on your way down the karma hole! :) 1) every sufficiently regulated sport seems to have frequent violations of these regulations. Clearly "nerds" (a term I find nearly as demeaning as "jocks") are not the only ones trying to hack the body. 2) Talking about people's health activities as both you and this article have done is reductionist to the point of absurdity. There are many ways people try to improve their health, some are performance minded but plenty are looking to improve base metrics like weight, body fat percentages and such. You can't describe all of silicon valley in a sweeping statement in such a basic area of human activity. 3) The false dichotomy between "nerds" and "jocks" is silly and false, at least in my experience. Anecdatally, I worked with an extremely competitive rugby player who was also a great functional programmer, and he's far from the only example I could provide. This is an 80's stereotype and seeing it perpetuated by the Economist (and then echoed) is disappointing.