"Balanced diet" is a truism - it says absolutely nothing of value. Of course we want to be balanced. Too much or too little of something is bad by definition. This tells us nothing about what constitutes balance. What is a balanced amount of trans fats? Or sugar? What is a balanced amount of cocaine and how many hookers until I'm balanced? Then it becomes a question of "why?" Then they see that they have to give me one reason to eat grains. They can't, if they try they get embarrassed because there exists none and the usual "but how will you get your fiber?" BS is flat-out wrong.

"Balanced" according to organizations that are in bed with the food industry? Pleeease. I'll go for "balanced" according to what the evidence tells me is balanced. That doesn't mean I don't eat some unhealthy food. I eat grains sometimes, but I don't view it as magical like some people do.

"Oh I think that balance is a very personal thing, this works best for me because I discovered some food sensitivities"

I don't really respond with much. I kind of agree. I mean, if someone truly did eat a balance of meat, veg, seeds, fruit, grain, dairy from birth all the time, and it was all of very good quality and properly prepared then yes I'd say they're probably right. I do not really disagree.

The catch of course, and its a big catch, is that most people at least nowadays don't start with a clean slate. We are firstly birthed my mothers and fathers who prolly ate crap. We were prolly fed crap since birth. Our food quality is very low, relative to less-factoryprocessed meat, fruits, and veg around the world. And we sit on our asses and don't live vigorously.

So, many times what food discussions turn into are discussion really about not just plain old eating, but rather eating in such a way that will ameliorate the impact all the above has had on us. With this in mind I think paleo, or at least simply sugar- and grain-free living, is probably important.

Since the way people eat seems to be a subject like politics or religion, I don't usually get too much into a conversation unless they seem truly interested and I know them to be a rational person. Generally I'll just say I'm allergic to grains so I don't eat them. They can't really say much after that.

I just respond with, "I do. I just measure with an internal, not external, scale." And if that doesn't work, I just tell them I'm lactose intolerant and diabetic. And if that doesn't work, I say "well, there is a reason that at 31 I am often mistaken for 22 or 23."

Just try the classic: "I eat a balanced diet too. Some meat, some vegetables, some arsenic, and some Draino."

i hear it all the time, usually happens when people are about to have dessert (shocking, right?)

i tell them that i agree (to make them feel open to their comment and views), but say that i would change the order of the words a bit to something akin to... "just eat a diet that keeps you balanced".

people tend to agree with this statement and it generally opens up the conversation to discussing homeostasis, which then leads to a quick blurb on the broad effects dietary components have on homeostasis.

i keep the explanation short and [anti-]sweet, have found that 1 (many times 2) out of 3 people want to talk to me in depth about my thoughts about all of this.

simple curiosity management gets great results.

I say I'm allergic to grains. At restaurants I say I'm allergic to canola and vegetable oils so they make sure not to cook my food in them. I've come to discover that a lot of restaurants don't have pure olive oil, they have olive/canola or soybean blends. Barf. I realize this only half relates to your question.

I say "Sure, balanced is good - but 'balanced' relative to our evolutionary adaptation and relative to societies that don't have obesity or our other diseases of civilization".

By 'balanced' they usually mean you need to eat carbs so I just tell them that vegetables are carbs too.

Kick them in the balls and show them your 8 pack abs..

Balanced has to do with eating particular foods or a class of foods in an amount that maximizes benefits while minimizing toxicity, ill effects. This will vary from person to person in terms of which food items are particularly helpful and which food items are particularly detrimental. It will also vary from person to person in terms of acceptable macronutrient ratios. For some items, this will mean complete avoidance (for me wheat and dairy). Others will have a tight window of toxicity (PUFAs particularly n-6s come to mind). Too strict of avoidance of PUFAs will have derogatory effect. A balanced diet will provide enough but not too many PUFAs which would increase inflammation. Some people will have to drastically minimize carbs, other folks may have issues with high fat diets. Eating a balanced diets will depend on issues unique to an individuals immune system (allergies, sensitives, etc). It will also be predicated on the reality and generality of being human (golly, cyanide will kill us all). You should get the idea by now with out my droning on.

Another insidious one I heard recently was "everybody is different, so you just need to find what works for you". That sounds reasonable on its face, but the implication is that different people are like different species of animals requiring entirely different foods, and you just need to know what is right for "you".

It's similar to "balanced" that it disregards that there really are better and worse ways to eat and it's important to know the difference. You can't (for purposes of lifelong health) just average them out or randomly pick one.

I don't get the "balanced diet" comments, but I get the very similar "everything in moderation" comments. My mom is especially big on this one. 8)

My response is usually to just smile and tell them that it is their choice to eat that way, but my choice is to avoid certain foods that do not agree with my body.

I tell them I do eat from a balanced food group. They all have a balanced number of legs or fins...

I've actually never been told to "just eat a balanced diet". I think you hear that line when you start being sort of unreasonable in your dietary requirements. When you turn into some dogmatic dietary extremist who talks nothing more than omega ratios, antinutrients, and WWGD (what would Grok do), you're going to get the "why can't you simply eat a balanced diet" spiel. What they're really saying is "why can't you be reasonable/normal?"

Unless someone is truly interested in changing the way they eat I have just decided to tell people I have a gluten allergy. That way I don't get those ridiculous responses about moderation and balanced diet!