Why David Lynch said eating the same meal every day helped spark his surreal creativity

“The purer the environment, the more fantastic the interior world can be”

By

Ryan Reed

Sep 6, 2025

By Ryan Reed

September 6, 2025

Add to Google News

Photo credit: Sasha Kargaltsev via Wikimedia Commons, cropped, Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 (left) / Canva, Artem Stepanov from ArtStudio Images (right) – David Lynch once said that eating the same meals every day opened up his imagination.

David Lynch made some of the most startlingly surreal films to ever reach a mass audience. But his diet, at least for various stretches of his adult life, was comparatively normal—even uninteresting. There was one odd thing about it, though: He often ate the exact same thing every day—partly an attempt to create “habit in a daily routine,” allowing his creativity to flourish.

The filmmaker, who died in January 2025, detailed that philosophy during a 2000 interview with journalist Charlie Rose. After a number of questions promoting his recently released drama The Straight Story, their conversation segued into food.

“I’m eating for lunch: tomatoes, tuna fish, feta cheese, and olive oil,” Lynch said. “Every day…Yeah, it’s very good. [Laughs]. [For dinner], little pieces of chicken and broccoli [with] soy sauce. Every day, except when I travel, and then I go off that.”

Creature of habit

Asked if he’s a “creature of habit,” the director immediately concurred. “When there’s some sort of order there, then you’re free to mentally go off any place,” he said. “You’ve got a safe sort of foundation and a place to spring off from. It is very important for me [in the creative process]…The purer the environment, the more fantastic the interior world can be, it seems to me.”

It’s a fascinating idea—that keeping some elements of your life as a blank slate can allow you to make a mess in other areas. One person in the YouTube comments seemed to agree: “I love the idea of repeating daily routines so that you create a habit, then once that foundation is laid and your mind doesn’t need to think about ‘what’s for lunch? What’s for dinner?’” they wrote. “It has more space to spend thinking on more creative endeavors… really is an incredible idea.”

Seven years of Bob’s Big Boy

This wasn’t the only time Lynch kept a strict eating routine. In various interviews, he’s talked about how, for a whopping seven years, he ate at the restaurant Bob’s Big Boy, ordering coffee and a particular kind of chocolate milk shake. He even went at the same time every day—2:30 p.m.—in order to get the most ideal shake temperature and consistency. He had it down to a science of sorts.

“If you came during lunch, they made so many of them that it never would get cold enough to be [like] ice cream,” he said during a 2009 conversation with the Hudson Union Society. “It would be like soup. So I would go later, and it would be cold enough. It would be just right…I had these things for seven years with a cup of coffee, and I would write on the napkins. It was like having a desk. If you need paper, there’s a piece of paper, and you write on it when you get ideas.” (He stopped eating them after climbing into a dumpster behind the restaurant, locating a carton, and becoming horrified by the ingredients.)

Lunch routines

Lynch wasn’t the only person to enjoy a rigid menu. In a 2019 article for NBC News Better, ordinary folks explained why they preferred eating the same thing for lunch every day, from saving money to staying productive.

“I consider lunch kind of annoying, actually,” a self-employed musician named Mark Rust told the publication. “Knowing what I’m having, making it, and eating it takes no thought or energy, so I can get right back to what I’m doing.”

Of course, the health component may depend on what you’re eating. The Cleveland Clinic notes that “eating a nutritious diet with a lot of variety may lower your risk of mortality,” citing a 2002 study of 59,000 women. The results: “Women who reported regularly consuming 16-17 healthy foods had a 42% lower all-cause mortality…compared to women reporting consumption of 0-8 healthy foods with any regularity.”

Other prominent people have enjoyed consistency in other areas of life. As Forbes points out, Apple co-founder Steve Jobs, for example, was known for his distinct outfit of a black turtleneck, blue jeans, and sneakers.

“Famous business people and politicians are known to be consistent with their wardrobe because it’s their brand identity,” author and Millennial Branding founder Dan Schawbel told the publication. “It’s who they are, how they want to represent themselves and make a statement. It’s not about what you wear, but what you accomplish.”

Clearing mental clutter

Eliana Bonaguro, a Florida-based licensed mental health counselor (LMHC) and anxiety disorders specialist, says Lynch’s meal mindset made sense.

“As a therapist and an artist, I can definitely speak to this,” Bonaguro says. “For me, having the same lunch every day (once it was bagels for lunch, then it became pumpkin soup) and rotating the same four dinners weekly has been a huge relief. It reduces stress and clears mental clutter. I often joke that I’m boring in the kitchen, but endlessly creative when I do art. The truth is, since I juggle everything else in life, this routine gives me space to focus on creating ideas.”

Bonaguro adds that there’s research to back this up.

“For example, psychologist Roy Baumeister’s research on ego depletion showed that acts of self-control and decision-making all draw from the same limited mental resource,” Bonaguro says. “In his classic experiments, people who had to resist chocolates or suppress emotions gave up sooner on later tasks: they had less persistence left in the tank. The takeaway is simple: every choice we make costs us energy, and saving that energy leaves more juice for creative work. That’s also why creative genius Steve Jobs wore the same outfit every day, and why David Lynch found comfort in the same meals. In my personal experience, the predictability and order of meals, the freedom from cluttered choices, create freedom in the mind. When the foundation is predictable, the creative world inside can expand.”

Add to Google News

More for You

Photo credit: Canva – A man with fast reflexes.

Culture, Internet

Italian man claims to be ‘human cheetah’ with lightning-fast reflexes

“I blinked and I missed it”

Mark Wales

4/29/2026

At first glance, this probably looks like a camera trick. Ken Lee, an Italian content creator, has built a massive online following by doing something that doesn’t quite feel real. Viewers refer to him as the “human cheetah” because it appears he has near-instant reflexes.

Grabbing objects out of the air with uncanny precision, flicking clothespins and lighters, and throwing a blur of punches and kicks at impossible speeds, it is easy to call him unbelievable. Half the audience thinks his viral speed videos are fake. The other half is just as convinced they are watching something incredibly rare.

Hands so fast they blur time

In the video above, a timer runs to confirm its authenticity. In what looks like half a second, he reaches out and snags the lighter from the table. To prove it is real, he does it twice.

Having amassed millions of followers on his TikTok page, the identity behind the mysterious influencer remains largely unknown. Active since around 2022, with almost 100 million accumulated likes, Lee has cultivated a fandom around his self-proclaimed “Superhero per Hobby!”

Do you believe it is real? Is this person the fastest human alive? Many followers cannot wait for the next video to be posted. Plenty of his fervent fans are Italian, so sifting through the remarks takes a bit of hunting. Here are some comments that sum up how much people enjoy the fun and the spectacle:

“Ken lee the fastest and the best”

“Most dangerous human”

“Is this what the lighter sees before my homie steals it”

“It was sped up during he grabbed the lighter, if u count up with the timer u would be off by like 0,5 seconds whenever he grabs the lighter.”

“If the flash were human”

“How is it possible to get such powers ?”

“I blinked and I missed it”

People love good entertainment

The awe of peak performance attracts people to watch elite athletes, musicians, or even dancers. There is something that deeply satisfies all of us when a human appears to push a skill to its limit. Whether it is real or fake seems to matter less than the opportunity to chime in on some good entertainment.

How far could any of us go by practicing and repeating a particular motion over and over until it is mastered? Beneath the flashy nickname and his viral speed videos, Lee’s content has a way of drawing people in. This is not a superpower. Just repetition. Focus. Obsession. And maybe some digital wizardry.

Testing the science of speed

If you wish to question the validity of Lee’s performances, maybe some basic science can help. Human reaction time is not just a reflex. A 2024 study found that the nervous system can fine-tune responses in real time. Practice can make movements appear almost automatic.

It has been well established in research that the gap between seeing something and responding has a limit. A 2025 study concluded that the most elite extremes allow for reaction times of 100 milliseconds. At that speed, the human brain can barely process that something has happened.

Science explains Lee is not necessarily moving as fast as we might perceive him to be. And therein lies all the fun of it. We cannot prove it is real, nor can we actually prove that it is fake.

Maybe Lee is the “fastest man alive” or the so-called “human cheetah.” Or maybe he is just a remarkable entertainer. Either way, he has clearly tapped into something strange and fascinating: a blend of human ability and fantasy that people do not want to miss.

To give context to Lee’s videos, watch this performance on Tú Sí Que Vales:

Keep Reading →
Photo credit: LisaStrachan/iStock via Getty Images – Fear not: There isn’t anything that needs saving.

Culture, Media

Despite all the likes, literallys and dropped g’s, English isn’t decaying before our eyes

Why “bad” English is nothing new.

Good Partner

4/22/2026

Valerie M. Fridland

As a linguistics professor, I’m often asked why English is decaying before our eyes, whether it’s “like” being used promiscuously, t’s being dropped deleteriously or “literally” being deployed nonliterally.

While these common gripes point to eccentric speech patterns, they don’t point to grammatical annihilation. English has weathered far worse.

Let’s start with something we can all agree on: Old English, spoken from approximately A.D. 450 to 1100, is pretty unintelligible to us today. Anyone who’s had the pleasure of reading “Beowulf” in high school knows how different English back then used to sound. Word endings did a lot more grammatical work, and verbs followed more complicated patterns. Remnants of those rules fuel lingering debates today, such as when to use “whom” over “who,” and whether the past tense of “sneak” is “snuck” or “sneaked.”

The language went on to experience centuries of tumult: Viking invasions, which introduced Old Norse influence; Anglo-Norman French rule, which shifted the language of the elite to French; and 18th-Century grammarians, who dictated norms with their elocution and grammar guides.

In that time, English has lost almost all of the more complex linguistic trappings it was born with to become the language we know and – at least, sometimes – love today. And as I explain in my new book, “Why We Talk Funny: The Real Story Behind Our Accents,” it was all thanks to the way that language naturally evolves to meet the social needs of its speakers.

From dropping the ‘l’ to dropping the ‘g’

The things we tend to label as “bad” or sloppy English – for instance, the “g” that gets lost from our -ing endings or the deletion of a “t” when we say a word like “innernet” – actually reflect speech habits that are centuries old.

Take, for example, “often.” Originally spoken with the “t,” that pronunciation gradually became less favored around the 15th century, alongside that “l” in “talk” and the “k” in know. Meanwhile, the “s” now stuck on the back of verbs like “does” and “makes” began as a dialectal variant that only became popular in 16th-century London. It gradually replaced “th” whenever third persons were involved, as in “The lady doth protest too much.”

While dropping the “l” in talk may have been initially frowned upon, today it would be strange if you pronounced the letter. And the shift makes sense: It smoothed out some linguistic awkwardness for the sake of efficiency.

If people learned to look at language more like linguists, they might come around to seeing that there is more than one perspective on what good speech consists of.

And yes, that absolutely is a sentence ending with a preposition – something many modern grammar guides discourage, even though the idea only took hold after 18th-century grammarian Robert Lowth intimated it was a less elegant choice based on the model of Latin.

Though Lowth voiced no hard and fast rule against it, many a grammar maven later misconstrued his advice as an admonition. Just like that, a mere suggestion became grammatical law.

The rise of the grammar sticklers

Many of today’s ideas about what constitutes correct English are based on a singular – often mistaken – 19th-century view of the forces that govern our language.

In the late 18th century, the English-speaking world began experiencing class restructuring and higher literacy rates. As greater class mobility became possible, accent differences became class markers that separated new money from old money.

Emulation of upper-crust speech norms became popular among the nouveau riche. With literacy also on the rise, grammarians and elocutionists raced to dictate the terms of “proper” English on and off the page, which led to the rise of usage guides and dictionaries that were eager to sell a certain brand of speech.

Another example of grammarian angst reconfiguring the view of an otherwise perfectly fine form is the droppin’ of the “g.” It became so tied to slovenly speech that it was branded with an apostrophe in the 19th century to make sure no one missed its lackadaisical and nonstandard nature.

Up until the 19th century, however, no one seemed to care whether one pronounced it as “-in” or “-ing.”

Evidence suggests that -ing wasn’t even heard as the correct form. Many elocution guides from the 18th century provide rhyming word pairs like “herring/heron,” “coughing/coffin” and “jerking/jerkin,” which suggest that “-in” may have been the preferred pronunciation of words ending with “-ing.” Even writer and satirist Jonathan Swift – a frequent lobbyist for “proper” English – rhymes “brewing” with “ruin” in his 1731 poem “Verses on the Death of Dr. Swift, D.S.P.D..”

Embrace the change

Language has always shifted and evolved. People often bristle at changes from what they’ve known to what is new. And maybe that’s because this process often begins with speakers that society usually looks less favorably on: the young, the female, the poor, the nonwhite.

But it’s important to remember that being disliked and bad are not the same thing – that today’s speech pariahs are driven by the same linguistic and social needs as the Londoners who started going with “does” instead of “doth” or dropped the “t” in often.

So if you think the speech that comes from your lips is the “correct” version, think again. Thou, like every other English speaker, art literally the product of centuries of linguistic reinvention.

This article originally appeared on The Conversation. You can read it here.

Keep Reading →
Photo credit: Ian Taylor Photographer – Two young children play in the grass.

Culture, Media

10 boys and 10 girls were left alone in separate houses and the different results are just wild

The premise was simple but high stakes.

Adam Albright Hanna

GOOD Staff

4/19/2026

It sounds like the plot of William Golding’s Lord of the Flies. However, in the mid-2000s, it was a very real and very controversial reality television experiment.

Footage from the UK Channel 4 documentary Boys and Girls Alone is captivating audiences all over again. It offers a fascinating and chaotic look at what happens when you remove parents from the equation.

The premise was simple but high stakes. Twenty children, aged 11 and 12, were split into two groups by gender. Ten boys and ten girls were placed in separate houses and told to live without adult supervision for five days.

The Setup

While there were safety nets in place, the day-to-day living was entirely up to the kids. A camera crew was present but instructed not to intervene unless safety was at risk. The children could also ring a bell to speak to a nurse or psychiatrist.

The houses were fully stocked with food, cleaning supplies, toys, and paints. Everything they needed to survive was there. They just had to figure out how to use it.

The Boys: Instant Chaos

In the boys’ house, the unraveling was almost immediate. The newfound freedom triggered a rapid descent into high-energy anarchy.

They engaged in water pistol fights and threw cushions. In one memorable instance, a boy named Michael covered the carpet in sticky popcorn kernels just because he could.

The destruction eventually escalated to the walls. The boys covered the house in writing, drawing, and paint. But the euphoria of freedom eventually crashed into the reality of consequences.

“We never expected to be like this, but I’m really upset that we trashed it so badly,” one boy admitted in the footage. “We were trying to explore everything at once and got too carried away in ourselves.”

Their attempts to clean up were frantic and largely ineffective. Nutrition also took a hit. Despite having completed a cooking course, the boys survived mostly on cereal, sugar, and the occasional frozen pizza. By the end of the week, the house was trashed, and the group had fractured into opposing factions.

The Girls: Organized Society

The girls’ house looked like a different planet.

In stark contrast to the mayhem next door, the girls immediately established a functioning society. They organized a cooking roster, with a girl named Sherry preparing their first meal. They baked cakes. They put on a fashion show. They even drew up a scrupulous chores list to ensure the house stayed livable.

While their stay wasn’t devoid of interpersonal drama, the experiment highlighted a fascinating divergence in socialization. Left to their own devices, the girls prioritized community and maintenance. The boys tested the absolute limits of their environment until it broke.

The documentary was controversial when it aired, with critics questioning the ethics of placing children in unsupervised situations for entertainment. But what made it so enduring, and why footage keeps resurfacing years later, is what it reveals about how kids are socialized long before anyone puts them in a house together. The boys weren’t born anarchists and the girls weren’t born organizers. They arrived at those houses already shaped by years of being told, implicitly and explicitly, what boys do and what girls do. Whether that’s a nature story or a nurture story is the question the documentary keeps asking without quite answering, which is probably why people are still watching and arguing about it nearly two decades later.

This article originally appeared two years ago. It has been updated.

Keep Reading →