What I find is that people who follow a particular diet too fanatically often rationalize and therefore attempt to dismiss the weaknesses in their diet.
For instance, the followers of the carnivore diet take issue with the idea that saturated fat can produce heart problems or that eating all that much fiber is necessary. Problem is saturated fat has been proven to cause a spike in blood cholesterol, which you don’t want, and everyone now knows that getting plenty of fiber is critical for supporting a healthy microbiome. So instead of being typical deniers of these facts, those who follow a carnivore diet should instead figure out a way to minimize, to the extent possible, their saturated fat intake as well as a way to boost fiber consumption.
Another example would be followers of the vegan diet. Here the problem isn’t what most people think — getting enough protein — but instead getting enough Omega 3 fats DHA and EPA. Everyone knows that the body can be very inefficient in converting ALA to both of these other Omega 3 fats, so that eating a large amount of, say, flax meal isn’t going to correct this deficiency. Yesterday, I listened to an ethical vegan who tried to make the argument that science hadn’t actually proven that getting substantial amounts of DHA and EPA was all that critical — I say, baloney! Here again, what vegans should do instead is admit this shortcoming and perhaps introduce a small amount of wild-caught salmon to their diets to address this serious deficiency.
I think a lot of the confusion about food stems from this inclination of fanatics committed to a certain way of eating who attempt to rationalize and dismiss the shortcomings in their diet. The unfounded assertions they make lead to a lot of confusion, particularly when they say — and they frequently do — that science supports their point of view when in fact it clearly doesn’t.
Henry's Views 