Take a moment to reflect honestly on your (ouch!), or alternatively ‘our’ collective (if that’s more comfortable) opinions over time regarding each of these: Butter. Coffee. Spinach. Red meat. I could go on and on…and tragically, on some more. The total number of ‘opinions’ each of us have had will be largely determined by simply how long we’ve been in nutrition. And yes this tracks even pre-social media 😞 There’s an understandable, in fact, entirely acceptable element to this. Discoveries that fuel truly new thinking in nutrition are rarely linear or even predictable. These discoveries are disjointed with often big delays in between, many a contradictory finding, a juxtaposition to juggle & U-turns are not uncommon. The science can be so complicated & confusing it’s hard to sell it to ourselves, let alone others – so we turn them into stories. Problems arise when that’s all they become – stories – especially those that follow a familiar narrative arc:
Narrative simplification → Splitting → Moralisation
Narrative Simplification – Complex biology becomes a clean story.
Nutrition science is inherently messy because nutrients & non-nutrient elements of food all interact, context matters, dose, timing, and physiology all alter outcomes and individuals have individual responses! But complexity doesn’t travel well, so we compress it. This food is ‘flammable’ avoid in inflammation. Eating this is good for your gut. Don’t include this ‘disruptor’ in your diet if your value your hormonal health. A nuanced, conditional & complex body of evidence becomes a one liner that’s easier to sell.
Suspect simplification when any food ceases to be healthy inclusions for some individuals some of the time – instead its now either for everyone or no-one!
Splitting – Foods become heroes or villains.
Once our stories get so simplified that they lose lost sight of the (ever evolving) science, it’s an easy 1,2,3 into binary, black & white thinking. Foods (or nutrients or forms of nutrients) get elevated to the giddy heights of hero-status – from which they’ll inevitably fall in the future – but until that time they are objectified as: right, helpful, health-full, optimal for all. While others are demonised to death! Attributed anti-health super-villain powers – good for no one. And to be eaten never. The phenomenon of splitting is cognitively efficient, so it appeals to our overloaded brains, yes. And in a crowded information landscape, clarity – even false clarity -is the winner of people’s attention. But biology doesn’t operate in binaries. And hey, aren’t we supposed to favour holism over reductionism and personalised prescribing over population based dietary advice?
Moralisation – Food becomes a proxy for virtue.
Once foods are sorted into good and bad, it’s just another step (to the left ala Rocky Horror Picture Show!) into extrapolating about the moral virtues of the individual eating them! Clearly, the people eating these foods can be subsequently seen to also be either good or bad. Vigilant or careless, Disciplined or lazy. Informed or ignorant. Now we’re no longer just discussing food—we’re making moral judgements about its consumer. If you cared about X you wouldn’t be eating that. If you understand anything about nutrition you’d know not to eat Z. This is where Food Cancel Culture emerges. And a new cycle kicks off: a food we previously loved, or at the very least liked, becomes loathed. But spoiler alert! – if you do continue to seek out the (ever-evolving) science & accordingly critically review your ‘stories’…this opinion is not your end destination.
Once you see the cycle, you can choose not to perpetuate it.
No more heroes. No more villains.
Just a quieter commitment to letting the science -not the story- lead.