i have the impression nutrition is a bit like religion. the right way, i.e. what a "balanced diet" means is heavily depends on the country you grew up in and ho

i have the impression nutrition is a bit like religion. the right way, i.e. what a "balanced diet" means is heavily depends on the country you grew up in and how your parents did it. either this or you join a cult and swear by the one diet ... religulously. thus critizicing one's diet is like saying: "your religion is trash", which is, not surprisingly, usually not taken well be the other. in my experience, a healthy diet is mostly about two things: * restricting calories to reach a balanced CI-CO for a bodyweight in the healthy range * allowing caloric restriction without going insane so it's technically less about the quality of the food (i.e. how healthy your meal ingredients are) and more about feeling satiated long enough to not go crazy from hunger pangs between meals. in practice, those two overlap a great deal: if your meals lack in certain nutrients you tend to become "hungry" - for those missing nutrients, but people on a "bad" diet just eat more of the usual stuff. apart from that, people have different motives and preferences: there are bodybuilders who can happily scarf down the same prepared meals day in and out and would subsist on cardboard if possible as long as the macros are right. there are the foodies who'd rather starve than eat a meal that's not delicious. women may need other ingredients than men due to different hormone profiles. some people love the simplicity of drinkable meals that contain all the nutrients and don't care for solid food at all anymore, while for others that would be hell on earth. the potato diet will not work for a gourmand. a low fat diet may not work for women who need certain essential fats more than men. a low carb diet might not work well for an athlete. etc.