Intuitive eating
Diet choice has become as personal and passionately discussed as religion or politics, at the core of which is an egocentric principle - what works for me must work for everyone.
Don’t talk about politics, religion or diet.
From a psychological perspective, several factors contribute to why people argue so much about diet. Diet is often closely tied to an individual's identity and self-concept, as people may see their dietary choices as a reflection of their values, beliefs, and lifestyle. For instance, someone who chooses a vegan diet may do so because of ethical concerns about animal welfare, environmental sustainability, or health reasons. Criticising or questioning their diet can feel like a personal attack on their core values and identity, leading to defensive and passionate arguments.
Social influence and group identity are significant factors, as diet is influenced by social groups and communities. People often align their eating habits with those of their family, friends, or cultural group. Arguments can arise when there are differing norms and practices between groups. Additionally, people may feel the need to defend their group's dietary practices to maintain a sense of belonging and social cohesion.
Dietary choices are often intertwined with moral and ethical beliefs. Debates about meat consumption, organic foods, and genetically modified organisms (GMOs) can become heated because they touch on broader ethical issues. People may argue passionately to advocate for what they believe is morally right or to challenge practices they see as harmful.
The abundance of conflicting information about what constitutes a healthy diet can lead to confusion and debates. With various experts, studies, and media sources providing differing opinions, people may argue to assert their understanding and to make sense of the conflicting information they encounter.
Food and diet are areas where people can exert a high degree of control in their lives. Arguing about diet can be a way for individuals to assert control and autonomy, especially in a world where many aspects of life may feel uncertain or uncontrollable.
Another key factor in food arguments is the egocentric perspective
What works for me must work for you!
The debate about diet is often linked to the belief that there is a singular perfect human diet, which can lead to passionate arguments and strong opinions. This belief is rooted in the idea that there is one optimal way of eating that can benefit everyone universally. People who adhere to specific diets often advocate for them as the best or only way to achieve health and well-being. This can be seen in various dietary movements, such as veganism, paleo, ketogenic, and others, where followers claim their diet is superior.
This belief is compounded by an egocentric perspective, where individuals assume that what works for them must work for everyone else. When someone experiences positive results from a particular diet, they may generalise their success and believe it is the best approach for everyone. This egocentric belief can lead to strong advocacy and sometimes judgement or criticism of others who follow different dietary practices. It often stems from personal experiences and anecdotal evidence, which are powerful but not universally applicable.
However, humans have individual requirements due to differences in physiology, genetics, lifestyle, and health conditions. The concept of bio-individuality suggests that each person has unique nutritional needs and responds differently to various foods and diets. Factors such as metabolism, digestive health, food sensitivities, activity levels, and even cultural background can influence what constitutes an optimal diet for an individual.
Scientific research supports this variability. Studies have shown that people can have different responses to the same foods, impacting blood sugar levels, cholesterol, and other health markers differently. Personalised nutrition, which tailors dietary recommendations based on individual characteristics, is gaining traction as a more effective approach to diet and health.
The clash between the belief in a singular perfect diet and the reality of individual dietary needs fuels much of the debate. Those who advocate for a one-size-fits-all approach often come into conflict with those who emphasise personalised nutrition. This tension is further amplified by the abundance of conflicting information and the strong emotional, ethical, and identity-related connections people have with their dietary choices.
Sheep, like all other animals, vary hugely as individuals as to what they choose to eat, managing to self medicate and naturally balance their nutritional requirements
But humans are animals and animals all eat the same diet, right?
Wrong. It's a common misconception that animals, whether farmed or wild, all consume the same diet. This uniformity in diet typically occurs only when animals are not given a choice, similar to humans in institutional settings. When animals have the freedom to choose within a natural environment, they instinctively select a diet that best supports their individual health.
In the book "Nourishment" by Fred Provenza, the author explores the concept of nutritional wisdom in animals, particularly focusing on how sheep can vary their diets to support their health. Provenza's research and observations reveal that sheep, like many other animals, have an innate ability to select foods that meet their nutritional needs and help them maintain health.
One of the key points Provenza makes is that sheep possess a remarkable ability to detect what nutrients they need and to seek out foods that provide those nutrients. This ability, termed "nutritional wisdom," allows them to balance their diet by choosing from a variety of plants, each offering different nutrients, vitamins, and minerals.
Sheep demonstrate this through a process of learning and adaptation. When given the opportunity to forage in a diverse environment, they learn which plants help alleviate specific deficiencies or health issues. For example, if sheep are deficient in certain minerals, they will consume plants that are rich in those minerals. Similarly, if they experience digestive issues or toxicity from consuming a particular plant, they will learn to avoid it and instead choose plants that counteract the negative effects.
Provenza highlights several experiments that show sheep's ability to self-medicate and maintain nutritional balance. In one experiment, sheep that were made deficient in certain nutrients actively sought out and consumed more of the plants that provided those missing nutrients. In another study, sheep that were exposed to toxins would subsequently seek out and consume medicinal plants that helped detoxify their systems.
Clara M. Davis and the wisdom of letting children choose their own diets
List of the 34 foods in the ‘Self Selection of Diets’ study by Clara M Davis presented in 1939
Clara Marie Davis's pioneering research, detailed in her description titled “The self-selection of diets by young children,” has sparked extensive debate and discussion about children's appetites, food choices, and health.
Davis's experiment, set up in Chicago, involved allowing newly weaned infants to choose their own meals from 34 different foodstuffs, without any adult guidance. The children’s nurses were instructed to remain passive, merely providing the food without influencing the children's choices. Remarkably, the experiment lasted over several years and meticulously recorded every aspect of the children’s diets and health outcomes.
The study’s results were groundbreaking. Despite each child having a unique diet, all the children ended up well-nourished and healthy, suggesting an innate ability to select the right foods to meet their nutritional needs. This concept, later referred to as “the wisdom of the body,” implied that children's natural appetites could guide them towards a balanced diet.
However, Davis’s findings also noted a crucial caveat: the food choices provided to the children were all generally healthy. This meant that even with their freedom to choose, the children were unlikely to make severely detrimental dietary errors. Davis’s experiment suggested that given a variety of wholesome foods, children could be trusted to make beneficial dietary choices, a notion that contrasted sharply with the rigid dietary prescriptions of the time.
Yet, the relevance of Davis's findings in today's food environment is contentious. The modern diet, dominated by processed and unhealthy food options, presents challenges that Davis’s experiment did not address. The question remains whether children’s innate dietary wisdom could navigate the complexities of contemporary food choices, including highly palatable and nutritionally poor foods and that brings us to the key point, the diet contained only whole foods and not today’s ultra processed offerings, could it be that our modern foods have caused us to lose this inate wisdom?
Where have we gone wrong?
If humans and non-human animals alike possess an innate ability to select foods that meet their individual needs and maintain perfect health, why do we fail to do so? As a species, we are plagued by the consequences of improper diets, leading to widespread suffering. In our quest for solutions, we intertwine dogma, belief systems, and ideology, complicating our path to nutritional wisdom.
However, it’s not all our fault. Clara Davis (above) presented her paper in 1939, a long time before we had Cool Ranch Doritos, Honey Nut Cornflakes or Krispy Creme donuts, if such foods were available in her ‘Self Selection of Diets’ Study perhaps the children’s decision making and hence incredibly positive health outcomes would not have been seen, if the toddlers had the option of fried chicken, french fries, ketchup, glazed donuts and sugar laden fizzy drinks these foods would have probably won the hearts and minds of the children, simply becasue that is what they are designed to do, designed with intention.
Ultra-processed foods have been consciously designed to override the human ability to make intuitive food choices through several mechanisms. These foods are engineered to be hyper-palatable, stimulating dopamine the pleasure and reward bran chemical, meaning they are exceptionally appealing to our taste buds due to a carefully balanced combination of sugar, salt, fat, and artificial flavourings. This hyper-palatability triggers reward centres in the brain, similar to addictive substances, leading to cravings and overeating.
The impact of hyper-palatable processed foods versus natural foods on our brain's reward centers, physiology, and psychology reveals significant differences, supported by scientific research.
How can we relearn intuitive eating?
Natural foods, such as fruits, vegetables, nuts, and lean proteins, also stimulate the brain's reward centres but in a more moderate and balanced manner. The dopamine release associated with these foods is generally less intense and more regulated, promoting satisfaction without addiction, the only way to not have these foods over ride our physiological and psychological reward mechanisms is simply to avoid them.
Learning intuitive eating from a scientific perspective is a journey towards reconnecting with our innate bodily wisdom, fostering a harmonious relationship with food, and embracing a mindful approach to nourishment. This path begins with cultivating interoceptive awareness, the ability to recognise and respond to our body's internal signals of hunger and fullness. By tuning into these natural cues, we can better align our eating habits with our physiological needs, avoiding the pitfalls of eating for emotional reasons or out of habit.
Mindful eating, where attention is paid to the taste, texture, and experience of food, enhances enjoyment and satisfaction, encouraging us to savour our meals and recognise satiety naturally. Challenging the internal "food police"—those negative thoughts about food and eating rooted in diet culture—further supports this process. Cognitive reframing and positive self-talk transform our internal dialogue into one of support and acceptance.
Trust your cravings
Once liberated from the internal dialogue of diet culture and the dogma that labels certain whole foods as inherently good or bad, we can begin to truly listen to what our bodies are telling us. As demonstrated by toddlers in the 1920s and '30s, we possess an innate sense of what we need; we must simply attune ourselves to it.
Yet, we must remember that humans are complex social beings. Our eating habits are influenced by psychological, cultural, emotional, and social factors that shape our food preferences and desires. We celebrate many events with specific foods and have deep cultural and emotional ties to certain flavors and memories. For instance, breakfast foods hold a unique place in human culture—no other animal distinguishes its morning meal from the rest of the day.
Another crucial consideration in our journey toward intuitive eating is the role of the gut biome. Dysbiosis, or an imbalance of gut bacteria, can lead to cravings driven by these microorganisms. These gut inhabitants have evolved to create neurotransmitters and communicate their desires via the vagus nerve, potentially tricking us into eating what benefits them, which may not align with our best interests.
To master intuitive eating, one should focus on consuming real, whole foods produced from complex ecosystems, ensuring they are both flavorful and nutrient-dense. Start simply: after eating, check in with yourself and ask, "How do I feel?" Consider your mood, satiety, alertness, clarity of thought, and any sensations in the stomach such as bloating or heaviness. By eating simple, natural foods, you can fine-tune your body to recognize the differences not only between various ingredients but also between different methods of food production.
Learning to discern how you feel after eating is the first step to recognizing genuine cravings and desires, much like sheep do instinctively. This mindful approach to eating allows us to reconnect with our innate nutritional wisdom and embrace a more harmonious relationship with food.
Allow those cravings to win occasionally; if you fancy a deep-dish pizza or a handful of crisps once in a while, enjoy them for what they are, and pay attention to how you feel afterward and you’ll soon discover the difference between a deep cellular craving for a particular nutrient and cheap dopamine fix, the kind of knowledge we’re born with and that sheep don’t haver to learn,