Priestess Sekhmet left a comment in one of my articles last week that got me thinking about loneliness.
She said she has been feeling stifled lately, that she is struggling to find a healthy leisure routine with real variety, and that isolation and social life play into her food choices more than she had fully acknowledged before. She said it almost as a side note. But it was not a side note at all. It was the kind of honest observation that points toward something much larger than it first appears.
Because what she described is not a personal failing or a discipline problem. It is a biological reality that modern life has created the conditions for in ways we are only beginning to properly understand. Loneliness, it turns out, is far more than an emotional experience.
Loneliness is not just an emotional experience. It is a physiological state with measurable consequences for your immune system, your cardiovascular health, your hormonal balance, your relationship with food, and your risk of early death. The fact that we still treat it primarily as a feelings problem rather than a health problem is costing people enormously.
What Loneliness Does to the Body at a Cellular Level
In 2015, researchers John Cacioppo and Stephanie Cacioppo at the University of Chicago published findings that fundamentally changed how the scientific community thinks about social isolation. They found that loneliness activates what they called the conserved transcriptional response to adversity, or CTRA, a shift in gene expression that increases inflammatory signalling and decreases antiviral immune responses.
In plain language: loneliness tells your DNA to behave differently. It upregulates the genes associated with inflammation and downregulates the genes associated with fighting viral infections.
The problem is that this ancient system cannot distinguish between genuine social isolation and the modern experience of living in a city of millions while feeling profoundly alone. It responds to the perception of loneliness, not the census data. And it does so at the level of gene expression, meaning the effects are not trivial or temporary.
The Loneliness and Inflammation Loop
Chronic loneliness produces chronic low-grade inflammation through the mechanism I just described. And chronic inflammation, as I wrote about in an earlier post, is one of the primary drivers of almost every major chronic disease.
But there is a particularly cruel feedback loop that loneliness creates with inflammation specifically. Inflammatory cytokines, the signalling molecules produced during the inflammatory response, affect brain function directly. They reduce motivation, increase sensitivity to social threat, promote withdrawal behaviour, and produce a kind of cognitive and emotional heaviness that makes reaching out to other people feel more difficult and less rewarding than it actually is.
So loneliness produces inflammation, and inflammation makes the behaviours that would resolve loneliness feel harder to access. The isolation deepens not because the person does not want connection, but because their own inflammatory biology is making connection feel less available.
Understanding this loop is not depressing. It is clarifying. Because it means that reducing inflammation through the dietary and lifestyle approaches that genuinely work is not just good for your physical health. It is part of creating the internal conditions in which social reconnection becomes more possible.
Loneliness, Cortisol, and the Stress That Never Resolves
Social connection is one of the most powerful regulators of the stress response system that exists. Being in the presence of people we trust, and particularly physical contact with them, activates the parasympathetic nervous system and suppresses cortisol in ways that almost nothing else replicates.
The hormone oxytocin, released during social bonding, physical touch, and moments of genuine connection, directly counters the stress response by reducing CRH release from the hypothalamus, the same molecule that drives the cortisol cascade. This is not a metaphor for feeling better in someone’s company. It is a precise hormonal mechanism through which social connection literally turns down the volume on the stress response at its source.
When this mechanism is chronically unavailable, the HPA axis runs without one of its most important natural brakes. Cortisol stays elevated not because of work stress or financial pressure, but simply because the regulatory input of social connection is missing. The body interprets its absence as a threat signal that never resolves.
This is why loneliness, even when it carries no obvious external stressor, still produces elevated cortisol profiles, disrupted sleep, increased visceral fat accumulation, and accelerated biological ageing. Not because those experiencing it are doing anything wrong, but because a fundamental biological need is going unmet.
The Food Connection Priestess Sekhmet Named
This is the part of her comment that I found most perceptive, and I want to give it the attention it deserves.
The relationship between loneliness and eating patterns is well documented but rarely discussed honestly. Food is social in the most fundamental biological sense. Eating with others activates different neurological and hormonal pathways than eating alone. Shared meals slow the pace of eating, increase the pleasure derived from food, and engage the social reward system in ways that eating alone simply does not.
When social connection is limited, food often becomes one of the primary available sources of dopamine and comfort. This is not weakness. This is the reward system seeking the most accessible substitute for a need that is not being met through its preferred channel.
The foods that tend to fill this role are predictable: high sugar, high fat, high salt, ultra-processed foods that produce rapid dopamine release. These are the same foods that worsen inflammation, disrupt blood sugar, impair sleep, and create the physiological conditions that make everything harder, including social engagement.
Priestess Sekhmet named this connection instinctively. She noticed that her loneliness and her food choices were related. They are. And naming that relationship is the first useful step, because it moves the conversation from “why can I not just eat better” to “what need am I actually trying to meet, and how else might I meet it.”
Variety as a Biological Need
She also mentioned struggling to find a leisure routine with real variety. I do not think this is incidental.
Novelty and variety activate the dopaminergic reward pathways in ways that repetitive routine does not. When life becomes narrow, when the same rooms, the same screens, the same food, the same loop of days repeats without meaningful variation, the reward system becomes progressively less stimulated. The baseline for what feels good rises, meaning more stimulation is required to produce the same response.
This is part of why loneliness and isolation often produce increased cravings for intensely stimulating experiences, whether food, alcohol, screens, or other sources of strong sensory input. The system is seeking the novelty and reward that the narrowed life is not providing.
Introducing genuine variety into daily life, new routes, new foods, new creative activities, new physical experiences, new social contexts, serves a real neurological function. It is not self-indulgence. It is maintenance of a reward system that requires variety to function at its intended baseline.
What Helps with Loneliness
I want to be careful here not to offer advice that sounds simple and is not. Loneliness is not solved by being told to join a club or call a friend. If it were that straightforward, it would not be the significant public health crisis that it is.
What I have found useful, both from the research and from personal experience during periods of isolation, is thinking about loneliness in terms of dose and quality rather than as a binary of lonely versus not lonely.
Small, frequent, genuine interactions carry more physiological weight than occasional large social events. A brief real conversation with a neighbour, a regular commitment to being somewhere with other people even without deep interaction, a consistent relationship with even one person who actually knows you: these things matter biologically in ways that scrolling through other people’s social media does not begin to replicate.
Physical environments matter more than people expect. Being in spaces with other humans, even without direct interaction, has measurable effects on stress hormones. Libraries, cafes, markets, parks: these are not substitutes for genuine connection but they are not nothing either. The body registers the presence of other humans as safety in a way that an empty room simply cannot provide.
And the inflammation piece is worth taking seriously as a practical entry point, not because reducing inflammation cures loneliness, but because reducing it lowers the biological barrier to engagement. When the internal environment is less inflamed, less cortisol-saturated, and better nourished, the activation energy required to reach out, to try something new, to accept an invitation, decreases in a way that makes a genuine difference.
If you are interested in learning more about the approach behind this writing, you can read more on the About Ben page.
Priestess Sekhmet, I hope this lands the way it was intended. What you named in that comment was important and I am glad you said it. For everyone reading: if any part of this resonates with where you are right now, please know that what you are experiencing has a biological logic to it. It is not a character flaw. And the path out of it, while not always simple, is real.
A note worth sharing: if loneliness or isolation is significantly affecting your mental health, please speak with a qualified professional. You can also read the full medical and health disclaimer for this site for important context about the nature of the information shared here. What I have shared is research and personal reflection, not a substitute for proper support. You deserve both.
Leave a Reply