The Ambiguities of “Balanced Diet”

The expression “balanced diet” is widely used in public health and medical nutrition guidelines. It evokes the idea of a varied diet containing different food groups (proteins, carbohydrates, fats, fruits, vegetables) in appropriate proportions. Yet this expression raises several major ambiguities.

1. Balanced for whom?

General dietary balance recommendations are typically based on population averages. They do not account for individual variability in metabolism, genetics, existing conditions, or pre-existing deficiencies.

For example, a “balanced” diet may be insufficient to correct vitamin D deficiency for a person living in a low-sunlight region, or magnesium deficiency for someone under chronic stress.

2. Balance does not guarantee adequacy

A diet can appear varied and balanced while remaining insufficient to reach optimal physiological levels of certain nutrients. Many individuals follow a “balanced” diet while presenting deficiencies in magnesium, vitamin D, omega-3s, or iron.

This is due to several factors:

• Soil depletion: Modern foods sometimes contain fewer nutrients than in previous decades.
• Reduced bioavailability: Some nutrients are difficult to absorb, especially in the presence of digestive disorders.
• Increased needs: Stress, inflammation, or certain pathologies raise nutrient requirements beyond what diet can supply.

3. Dietary balance cannot replace active correction of deficiencies

Even a perfectly balanced diet cannot rapidly correct an already-established deficiency. A person suffering from severe hypomagnesaemia cannot simply eat magnesium-rich foods; targeted, monitored supplementation may be necessary.

Physiological rights challenge the idea that a “balanced diet” is sufficient to guarantee physiological integrity. They argue for an individualised approach — based on the assessment and active correction of physiological parameters — rather than the blind application of general recommendations.