I have historically been anti-kale. Not that I don’t approve of the taste of kale. I eat kale in what I would consider fairly normal amounts, and have done even while denouncing kale. My enmity towards kale is not towards the Species Brassica oleracea, Cultivar group Acephala Group. Rather, my hostility is towards that set of notions and ideas for which kale has become a symbol and shorthand for in recent years.
In the circles which I frequent, at least, insofar as kale is known of, it is known as a “superfood”, which I am to understand, means that it is exceptionally healthy. It is touted, by those who are inclined to tout their choices in vegetables, as being an exemplar of the kinds of foods that one ought to eat constantly. That is to say, it is touted as a staple for diets.
Now, just as I have nothing against kale, I also have nothing against diets in the abstract. I recognize that one’s diet is a major factor in one’s long term health, and I appreciate the value of a carefully tailored, personalized diet plan for certain medical situations as a means to an end.
In point of fact, I am on one such plan. My diet plan reflects my medical situation which seems to have the effect of keeping me always on the brink of being clinically underweight, and far below the minimum weight which my doctors believe is healthy for me. My medically-mandated diet plan calls for me to eat more wherever possible; more food, more calories, more fats, proteins, and especially carbohydrates. My diet does not restrict me from eating more, but prohibits me from eating less.
Additionally, because my metabolism and gastronomical system is so capricious as to prevent me from simply eating more of everything without becoming ill and losing more weight, my diet focuses on having me eat the highest density of calories that I can get away with. A perfect meal, according to my dietician, nutrition, endocrinologist and gastroenterologist, would be something along the lines of a massive double burger (well done, per immunologist request), packed with extra cheese, tomatoes, onions, lots of bacon, and a liberal helping of sauce, with a sizable portion of fries, and a thick chocolate malted milkshake. Ideally, I would have this at least three times a day, and preferably a couple more snacks throughout the day.
Here’s the thing: out of all the people who will eventually read this post, only a very small proportion will ever need to be on such a diet. An even smaller proportion will need to stay on this diet outside of a limited timeframe to reach a specific end, such as recovering from an acute medical issue, or bulking up for some manner of physical challenge. This is fine. I wouldn’t expect many other people to be on a diet tailored by a team of medical specialists precisely for me. Despite the overly simplistic terms used in public school health and anatomy classes, every body is subtly (or in my case, not so subtly) different, and has accordingly different needs.
Some people, such as myself, can scarf 10,000 calories a day for a week with no discernible difference in my weight from if I had eaten 2,000. Other people can scarcely eat an entire candy bar without having to answer for it at the doctor’s office six months later. Our diets will, and should, be different to reflect this fact. Moreover, the neither the composition of our respective diets, nor particularly their effectiveness, is at all indicative of some kind of moral character.
This brings me back to kale. I probably couldn’t have told you what kale was before I had fellow high schoolers getting in my face about how kale was the next great superfood, and how if only I were eating more of it, maybe I wouldn’t have so many health problems. Because obviously turning from the diet plan specifically designed by my team of accredited physicians in favor of the one tweeted out by a celebrity is the cure that centuries of research and billions in funding has failed to unlock.
What? How dare I doubt its efficacy? Well obviously it’s not going to “suppress autoimmune activation”, whatever that means, with my kind of attitude. No, of course you know what I’m talking about. Of course you know my disease better than I do. How dare I question your nonexistent credentials? Why, just last night you watched a five minute YouTube video with clip-art graphics and showing how this diet = good and others = bad. Certainly that trumps my meager experience of a combined several months of direct instruction and training from the best healthcare experts in their respective fields, followed by a decade of firsthand self-management, hundreds of hours of volunteer work, and more participation in clinical research than most graduate students. Clearly I know nothing. Besides, those doctors are in the pockets of big pharma; the ones that make those evil vaccines and mind control nanobots.
I do not begrudge those who seek to improve themselves, nor even those who wish to help others by the same means through which they have achieved success themselves. However I cannot abide with those who take their particular diet as the new gospel, and try to see it implemented as a universal morality. Nor can I stand the insistence of those with no medical qualifications telling me that the things I do to stay alive, including my diet; the things that they have the distinct privilege of choice in; are not right for me.
I try to appreciate the honest intentions here where they exist, but frankly I cannot put up with someone who had never walked in my shoes criticizing my life support routine. My medical regimen is not a lifestyle choice any more than breathing is, and I am not going to change either of those things on second-hand advice received in a yoga lesson, or a ted talk, or even a public school health class. I cannot support a movement that calls for the categorical elimination of entire food groups, nor a propaganda campaign against the type of restaurant that helps me stick to my diet, nor the taxation of precisely the kind of foodstuffs which I have been prescribed by my medical team.
With no other option, I can do nothing but vehemently oppose this set of notions pertaining to the new cult of the diet, as I have sometimes referred to it, and its most prominent and recognizable symbol: kale. Indeed, in collages and creative projects in which others have encouraged me to express myself, the phrases “down with kale” and “death to kale”, with accompanying images of scratched-out pictures of kale and other vegetables, have featured prominently. I have one such collage framed and mounted in my bedroom as a reminder of all the wrongs which I seek to right.
This is, I will concede, something of a personal prejudice. Possibly even a stereotype. The kind of people that seem most liable to pierce my bubble and confront me over my diet tend to be the self-assured, zealous sort, and so it seems quite conceivable that I may be experiencing some kind of selection bias that causes me to see only the absolute worst in my interlocutors. It is possible in my ideo-intellectual intifada against kale, that I have thrown the baby out with the bathwater. In honesty, even if this were true, I probably wouldn’t apologize, on the grounds that what I have had to endure has been so upsetting that, with the stakes being my own life and death as they are, that my reaction has been not only justified, but correct.
As a brief aside, there is, I am sure, a great analogy to be drawn here, and an even greater deal of commentary to be drawn on this last train of thought as a reflection of the larger modern socio-political situation; refusing to acknowledge wrongdoing despite being demonstrably in the wrong. Such commentary might even be more interesting and relevant than the post I am currently writing. Nevertheless such musings are outside the scope of this particular post, though I may return to them in the future.
So my position has not changed. I remain convinced that all of my actions have been completely correct. I have not, and do not plan, to renounce my views until such time as I feel I have been conclusively proven wrong, which I do not feel has happened. What has changed is I have been given a glimpse at a different perspective.
What happened is that someone close to me received a new diagnosis of a disease close in pathology to one that I have, and which I am also at higher risk for, which prevents her from eating gluten. This person, who will remain nameless for the purposes of this post, is as good as a sister to me, and the rest of her immediate family are like my own. We see each other at least as often as I see other friends or relations. Our families have gone on vacation together. We visit and dine together regularly enough that any medical issue that affects their kitchen also affects our own.
Now, I try to be an informed person, and prior to my friend’s diagnosis, I was at least peripherally aware of the condition with which she now has to deal. I could have explained the disease’s pathology, symptoms, and treatment, and I probably could have listed a few items that did and did not contain gluten, although this last one is more a consequence of gazing forlornly at the shorter lines at gluten-free buffets at the conferences which I attended than a genuine intent to learn.
What I had not come to appreciate was how difficult it was to find food that was not only free from gluten in itself, but completely safe from any trace of cross contamination, which I have learned, does make a critical difference. Many brands and restaurants offer items that are labeled as gluten free in large print, but then in smaller print immediately below disclaim all responsibility for the results of the actual assembly and preparation of the food, and indeed, for the integrity of the ingredients received from elsewhere. This is, of course, utterly useless.
Where I have found such needed assurances, however, are from those for whom this purity is a point of pride. These are the suppliers that also proudly advertise that they do not stock items containing genetically modified foodstuff, or any produce that has been exposed to chemicals. These are the people who proclaim the supremacy of organic food and vegan diets. They are scrupulous about making sure their food is free of gluten not just because it is necessary for people with certain medical conditions, but as a matter of moral integrity. To them these matters are of not only practical but ethical. In short, these are kale supporters.
This puts me in an awkward position intellectually. On the one hand, the smug superiority with which these kale supporters denounce technologies that have great potential to decrease human hardship based on pseudoscience, and out of dietary pickiness as outlined above, is grating at best. On the other hand, they are among the only people who seem to be invested in providing decent quality gluten free produce which they are willing to stand behind, and though I would trust them on few other things, I am at least willing to trust that they have been thorough in their compulsiveness.
Seeing the results of this attitude I still detest from this new angle has forced me to reconsider my continued denouncements. The presence of a niche gluten-free market, which is undoubtedly a recent development, has, alas, not been driven by increased sensitivity to those with specific medical dietary restrictions, but because in this case my friend’s medical treatment just so happens to align with a subcategory of fad diet. That this niche market exists is a good thing, and it could not exist without kale supporters. The very pickiness that I malign has paved the way for a better quality of life for my comrades who cannot afford to be otherwise. The evangelical attitude that I rage against has also successfully demanded that the food I am buying for my friend is safe for them to eat.
I do not yet think that I have horribly misjudged kale and its supporters. But regardless, I can appreciate that in this matter, they have a point. And I consider it more likely now that I may have misjudged kale supporters on a wider front, or at least, that my impression of them has been biased by my own experiences. I can appreciate that in demanding a market for their fad diets, that they have also created real value.
I am a stubborn person by nature once I have made up my mind, and so even these minor and measured concessions are rather painful. But fair is fair. Kale has proven that it does have a purpose. And to that end I think it is only fitting that I wind down my war on kale. This is not a total cessation of all military action. There are still plenty of nutritional misconceptions to dispel, and bad policies to be refuted, and besides that I am far too stubborn to even promise with a straight face that I’m not going to get into arguments about a topic that is necessarily close to my heart. But the stereotype which I drew up several years ago as a common thread between the people who would pester me about fad diets and misconceptions about my health has become outdated and unhelpful. It is, then, perhaps time to rethink it.