Sign in Subscribe

The Wellgenics Study

The Wellgenics Study

What is the Wellgenics Study?

The Wellgenics Study is an ongoing critical analysis research program that applies the wellgenics framework (McNew, 2026) to commercially published wellness books across various genres. It is a theoretical expansion inquiry, rooted in qualitative and transformative paradigms, guided by a relational theory of disability (Shakespeare, 2014).

Wellgenics is a framework that was initially conceptualized in a study that focused on 13 food as medicine books for multiple sclerosis. This study extends beyond MS diet books and asks where wellgenics holds, shifts, or contradicts in the broader wellness genre, which will help to answer how far wellgenics extends and what exceptions might exist.

Research Question and Study Design

The researcher for this study is Amelia McNew, PhD.

Research Question

Are commercial wellness books contradictory or cohesive with the wellgenics framework?

For each book analyzed, the researcher will ask:

  • Does this book sustain or challenge themes 1-6 of the wellgenics framework?
  • If there is challenge, which theme(s) does the book contradict, in what manner, and how?
    • Where apparent contradiction appears, does it represent a genuine departure from wellgenic logic, or does it function as a rhetorical hedge that ultimately reinforces the framework?
  • Does the contradictory finding warrant an adjustment to the wellgenics framework, or does it identify a boundary?
  • Does wellgenics operate consistently within a genre, or do some genres produce more resistance than others?

Purpose

This study critically examines wellness content that is written for and marketed to a layperson public. It analyzes the stories being told about wellness to the reader and searches for the presence of wellgenics, as defined by McNew (2026). It will also search for meaningful and sustained contradiction.

Contradiction matters because the researcher desires to understand the phenomenon. Does it extend beyond MS and disability into all chronic illness? All health management? All wellness genres? The study needs to answer, Do any books resist any of the six wellgenics themes in meaningful and sustained ways? If the answer is yes, the results will be discussed and the researcher will describe the boundaries of the theoretical framework; not attempt to suppress findings that contradict the theory.

Method

The original study utilized a reflexive thematic analysis to study 13 books. Six themes converged as a cohesive ideological concept, wellgenics, which can be used to systematically and critically analyze wellness content. This extension study is not generating new reflexive TA insights but is still approached from a narrative institutional ethnographic perspective: stories from the overarching informational institution of wellness, whether explicit or implicit, are engaged so that the researcher may ask what narrative the books present to their readers and why it matters, not the specifics of how they tell readers to act, live, or think.

This process will not involve the six-phase reflexive thematic analysis process. Rather, it tests whether the six existing themes of wellgenics are present in each text, and adds a seventh dimension to intentionally search for books that contradict or challenge the ideological concept of wellgenics (searching for contradictory inclusion).

The six themes are the framework as it currently stands, not a closed set. Where a text surfaces content that links clearly to the wellgenics principle but does not match an existing theme, that content is documented as a candidate for refinement or expansion of the framework — a revised theme boundary, or an additional theme. Expansion is evidence-driven and justified in the findings: the text that prompted it, what it surfaced, and why the existing six did not account for it. This is refinement of an existing framework through accumulated evidence, not the generation of new themes through fresh thematic analysis. The distinction matters — the verification study tests and, where the evidence demands, sharpens wellgenics; it does not rebuild it.

Reading Protocol

This study does not require exhaustive reading of every text, but it is not selective in the sense of jumping to pre-flagged passages. Reading is continuous and directed by what the six wellgenics themes and the contradictory inclusion dimension call the researcher to look for.

  • Introductory material (preface, introduction, foreword, etc.) and Chapter 1 of each book are read in full. Chapter openings carry the rhetorical work of establishing the "why" of the intervention — the reader's problem, the author's authority, the promise of recovery — and are where wellgenic logic, when present, tends to concentrate. Reading Chapter 1 in full also guards against premature pattern-matching.
  • Beyond Chapter 1, reading proceeds continuously until the researcher has identified all six themes of wellgenics, or has read the entire book without identifying all six. Wellgenics is not located through keyword incidence; it surfaces in narrative flow — in the story a book tells its reader about health, the body, and recovery — and that story can only be followed by reading it. A book that does not surface all six themes is read in full, both to confirm which themes are absent and to search for contradictory inclusion: sustained resistance to one or more themes, or content that links clearly to the wellgenics principle without matching an existing theme. This is done to ensure a fair assessment of each work, and to prevent prematurely categorizing a book as consistent with wellgenics.

This reading approach is informed by disability theory (Shakespeare, 2014). The researcher's use of disability theory does not constrain findings as relevant only to persons with disabilities; disability theory advocates for a diverse view of bodies that is inclusive of all bodies and allows the researcher to analyze from a stance that considers how wellgenics may view different types of bodily diversity, inclusive of disability, weight, age, fertility, sex, gender, culture, ethnicity, and class.

Results

Findings will be published on a rolling basis. The study is based on an existing framework and is not seeking to generate new themes. Qualitative research of this nature comes from a specific angle that is researcher-infused (based on specific lived experience as a disabled person and former wellness consumer alongside doctoral training as a nutrition scientist) and intentionally positional. Rolling publication of findings is consistent with the study's transformative paradigm, which prioritizes accessibility and public benefit alongside scholarly rigor.

Approach

This work serves the general public navigating wellness culture. The original study focused on MS diets, but this study extends to all wellness genres: autoimmunity, weight management, chronic conditions, aging, fertility, and beyond. Restricting findings behind journal paywalls or institutional timelines contradicts that purpose. Peer-reviewed publication will ultimately follow as a formal contribution to critical nutrition science.

Validation

Results from qualitative research are not generalizable, but may be transferable. The original study (McNew, 2026) produced a transferable concept of wellgenics that is now being systemically tested by critical review of other wellness texts.

Publication of Findings

Findings may be shared based on genre, wellgenics theme (any one of the six wellgenics themes, or a seventh category of contradiction), or as a standalone assessment of a single book. These are not ‘book reviews’ or ‘journalism’; this is an academic study by a nutrition PhD.

Findings are reported to provide the most accurate framework-based assessment. Any book that resists even one theme is written up honestly. A book may flag for most themes and still resist one; it remains within wellgenics, with the area of resistance described rather than ignored. A book that flags for some themes and resists others is included on the same terms — what it sustains and what it resists are both reported. A book that flags for no themes and offers sustained contradiction receives its own assessment, describing how it failed to flag and where its contradiction specifically lies. Partial flagging, resistance, and contradiction are findings, not failures of the framework — they are how the boundaries of wellgenics become visible.

Inclusion Criteria

  • Wellness books that present food-based ideas in some form (alongside other self-care or health management, or standalone) to a layperson audience
  • Narrative books (no strictly A-to-Z or otherwise reference books)
  • Authors have credentials of some kind
  • Books are currently in-print and top-selling, available in the U.S., in English (limitations based on the researcher’s language and location)
  • Books may, in some cases, be included because of the author's voice as a classic wellness persona. In this case, justification is given as to why the book was included, if current sales information does not justify inclusion (e.g. previous bestseller, book from 10+ years ago that was formerly bestselling, etc.).

A note on 'credentials'

Credentials are not necessarily accredited or validated. The original study found that credentials are primarily marketing tools when they are used in relation to best-selling books. As such, any credential can be used for marketing or manufacturing expertise, and will be included. The scope includes, and may be expanded:

  • MD, PhD, ND, DC, DCN, DHSc, DO, NP, RD, IFMCP, NTP, MNT, DPT, DNP, MPH, MS
  • Authors who claim titles like "nutritionist" or "certified coach" and the like may be included on the basis of giving themselves a title that others adopt

Study Duration

This study formally began on March 1, 2026 and will continue on the basis of rolling inclusion until the researcher determines that genre saturation has been met. This could conceivably mean that the study runs anywhere from 12-24 months; however, this will be determined after saturation has been reached.

Wellgenics is a living framework, subject to refinement, expansion, and challenge as more texts are analyzed. A running list of all titles analyzed is maintained here.

  • This study defines saturation as examination of at least 3 books in a narrow, specific genre from 3 different authors, published in 3 different years. Since this is not a quantitative study, there is some fluidity on genre determination. The researcher will maintain transparency as to how saturation is reached whenever that determination is made.

Disclaimer, Limitations, and Ethics

This study involves no human subjects and requires no IRB review or approval. All data is publicly accessible and available; no private information from individuals or organizations is used.

Disclaimer and Boundaries

This study does not determine author intent, publisher intent, reader response, or effectiveness of interventions described in the books.

This analysis is conducted under established principles of critical academic scholarship. All texts are analyzed, not reproduced; findings represent the researcher's interpretive analysis of published works, consistent with fair use in scholarly criticism.

Limitations

This study is conducted through an intentional lens (relational theory of disability; embodied knowledge) consistent with transformative and justice-centered research. It does not generate universal truths and does not speak for everyone. This same study conducted from a different theoretical stance and with a different researcher would naturally produce different findings.

References

  • McNew, A. (2026). Crip or cure: A document-based narrative inquiry of food as medicine books for multiple sclerosis [Doctoral dissertation, Saybrook University]. ProQuest publication pending.
  • Shakespeare, T. (2014). Disability rights and wrongs revisited (2nd ed.). Routledge.

Last updated: May 14, 2026