When someone voices an idea that runs strongly contrary to current popular opinion, it is typically ridiculed and/or ignored. If however there is enough groundswell of support for the new idea, or if it is being championed by someone with enough credibility, then the new perspective has the ability to disrupt both our thinking and our outward lives. What initially results is a strong polarisation of opinion, both in the public and amongst the experts themselves.
This is what we are currently witnessing in the case of what constitutes healthy eating. In my private practice, in the lifestyle support groups that I run, and on the various programmes offered by the Sports Science Institute of South Africa, I daily encounter individuals who are extremely frustrated by these polarised opinions. It makes them question the assumptions which they hold about some very emotionally-laden issues. This results in significant anxiety, and is at times outwardly expressed as anger towards one or the other of the viewpoints and the people expounding them.
We need to understand however, that (unlike in the case of the world being either flat or round), it is rarely the case that one extreme is 100% correct and the other 100% incorrect. The extreme polarisation is often more perceived than real. Partly, this is influenced by;
the fact that we are constantly hearing about the disputed aspects, and forget that there is much which the opposing camps do in fact agree on, and
the danger of the experts becoming overly invested in one side of the argument, to the point of it distorting their objectivity (and it resulting in over-simplified and over-generalised arguments).
We the public, can respond to this in one of two ways: We can either pick a side and on principle argue vociferously for it, or we can stay open to new ideas, opinions, and research and strive to find that which works best for ourselves. The trend that I am observing now is one of gradually moving away from the former, and more towards the latter approach. In other words, increasing numbers of people seem to be tired of arguing for or against Banting, and starting to focus more on figuring out what specific aspects of either approach are most helpful to themselves.
The great thing about this - and this is the ‘upside’ referred to in the title above - is that it is making people more accountable for their own health decisions. They seem more open to both sides of the argument, and more pro-actively managing the process of finding the most personally beneficial approach. Compared to just blindly following orders from the first expert you happen to cross paths with - that’s a very good thing.
Written by Clinton Gahwiler