The Limits of “Healthy Eating”

The notion of “healthy eating” is omnipresent in nutritional discourse. Yet it is profoundly ambiguous and can mislead. Whether a food is “healthy” is never absolute: it depends on the physiological context of the person consuming it, their individual needs, intolerances, and underlying conditions.

For example:

• Spinach: Rich in iron and vitamins, it is often presented as a “healthy” food. However, for a person suffering from oxalate kidney stones, spinach — high in oxalates — can worsen their condition.
• Dairy products: Frequently recommended for their calcium content, they can be problematic for lactose-intolerant individuals, or for those whose calcium/magnesium ratio is already imbalanced.
• Nuts and seeds: Considered sources of “good fats,” they are nevertheless high in omega-6s, whose excess can promote chronic inflammation — especially when omega-3 intake is insufficient.

In reality, the notion of “healthy eating” conceals biological complexity and the extreme variability of individual needs. A food can be beneficial for one person and harmful for another. Physiological rights invite us to abandon these misleading simplifications in favour of a personalised approach, based on the objective assessment of each individual’s physiological parameters.

Rather than promoting universally “healthy” foods, it would be more relevant to measure and correct the nutritional imbalances specific to each person — taking into account their health status, deficiencies, and unique needs.