I have this tendency towards skepticism. Sometimes it's beneficial, but it's also made me a less-than-great student (I don't believe what teachers tell me), a resistant medical patient (what, exactly, is the science behind your advice, and what is its source?) a less-than-cooperative employee (you really think that's a good business model?), and an accidentally unsupportive friend (you think he's 'the one'? gimme a break.)
The tendency comes out loud but not especially proud in nutritional matters. I am not an expert, I am just a skeptic. When it was determined that my beloved husband had hereditarily high cholesterol, I was furious that his nutritionist was promoting almonds. The new (at the time, around 2007) study that almonds had all these great health properties? That was sponsored by the Almond Board of California. She was also a vegetarian, and was pushing him to eat less meat as well. Except we don't eat meat every day as it is. There were one or two pro-fiber changes he made thanks to her suggestions, but it had zero effect on his cholesterol numbers. More fruit every day isn't a bad idea--but it wasn't the solution he needed. And almonds are not a miracle food. No food is a miracle food, no matter what a marketing commission-sponsored study might say.
Before that episode, I spent a few years reviewing numerous diet books for Amazon. They're all essentially the same--more vegetables, and either more whole grains and less meat, or fewer grains and more meat. A gazillion dollar industry is built on this. It drove--drives--me crazy. During these years, and beyond, I dealt with a deeply frustrating physical issue. At its root was an "incompetent disk" (I love that phrase) in my lower spine that caused all sorts of referred nerve pain and direct low back pain. Ultimately, I had the disk removed and that part of my spine fused, and had a terrific physical therapist and aside from lingering nerve damage, all is now well. But those pre-fusion years--years spent trying to delay or avoid that surgery entirely--were awful. Every healer I visited had different solutions, and different ideas for the cause. It was fibromyalgia. It was all in my head. It was stress. It was just something to learn to live with. It was body mechanics. It was curable by opiates, or vitamins, or antidepressants, or yoga, or some experimental medical procedure (most famous one: frying the disk with concentrated heat and letting it regrow) or cortisone shots. Finally, an impossibly painful procedure was able to determine that a single disk was at fault. I had great doctors, and terrible doctors, and finally the big surgery was what I needed to get better.
So I get, first hand, the idea that sometimes drastic solutions are what works to solve health problems. And I get, more theoretically, that dietary changes can be those drastic solutions. Celiacs need to avoid gluten, diabetics need to watch sugars of all kinds, those with high cholesterol should balance their fat and fiber intake. But I am deeply, deeply resistant to the recent "elimination diet" methods that are currently everywhere in my circle of acquaintance.
First, there is of course an obvious and well documented history of this country's food-based health fads. We are a nation of plenty, and because immediate starvation has only rarely, and only in the short term, been a national issue, most of our citizens find other ways to fret over food. Mr. Kellogg founded an accidental empire on his grain-based dietary advice. When I was a kid, half of my fellow students were claimed by their moms to be hypoglycemic, and thus in need of a midmorning fruit snack. (I have not met a hypoglycemic in at least 25 years. Where did they go?) Now, it seems that everyone is allergic to something. And when I say "something" I mean broad categories of proteins. People report experiencing symptoms that in general sound to me like being human. Mild headaches, occasional digestive upsets, lower-than-ideal energy, sporadic itchiness, a bad mood. They eliminate all sorts of foods in search of an ideal state of health, a personal skin-enclosed utopia. There are some allergy tests that do not have, to me, a particularly reliable record--around 70% accuracy. In school, that's what--a C minus? Not good enough in my book.
I'm not saying that there are never reasons to eliminate a broad category of food from your diet. The last time I ate oysters, I ended up with violent vomiting for 24 hours followed by a bright red rash that coated me from clavicle to patella for a week. I visited my terrific allergist, and sure enough: no more mollusks for me. That was not the case a few years ago, and I assume (and hope) that it could easily change in the future. I also ended up being visited by the paramedics after eating a Brazil nut. For years, it was "no tree nuts"--although I knew I could eat all the almonds I liked, so this never made sense. Turns out there is no botantical "tree nut" category--so many things we know as nuts are utterly different. Variations on this are why some people get a rash from cow's milk but can eat chevre 'til...well, 'til the cows come home. I get that bodies are different, and reactions are different, and just because to me an allergy means "hives and breathing trouble" that isn't necessarily what it means to everyone.
After my years of crippling pain, and that damned pain scale, I know that sometimes even a minor reduction in feeling lousy is worthwhile. When I signed up for the spinal fusion, I was told to expect a 3-point reduction in pain on that chart. Considering that doped to the gills I averaged a 7, a 3-point shift sounded awesome. But now, my daily experience is ballpark of a 3--if I don't take my meds, my legs are pins/needles to varying degrees, and without careful attention to posture and regular stretching, I am guaranteed a severe, life-affecting headache. It's how I roll, and I don't need opiates or accupuncture. I also don't feel the need to pursue an ideal state of zero on that pain chart. Some days, I experience that, and it's great. But it's unlikely that it'll ever be the norm, and I don't honestly care that much. When you have lived for years at the other end of that scale, a 3 is great. A 3 is dancing, and long dinners out, and gardening, and going for walks, and using public transit again, all on the same day. It's not thoughtless perfect health, and that's fine.
For me, the only circumstances where it would be worth elimating gluten, dairy, eggs, soy or whatever would be if I was down past 5 on that scale, on a regular daily basis for a lengthy period of months, and it was proven to me after a couple of weeks of avoiding that food category that I was getting that 3-point improvement. I do see that in some cases, and good for you if you're one of them--dealing with a chronic health issue is no picnic. Be of stout heart and firm mind and best of luck to you. But when I see people living utterly normal lives trying these diets in search of magic, it drives me crazy. If it was the 1600s you'd belief that baths were unhealthy; if you lived in the 1700s you'd believe in balacing your humors via bloodletting and laxatives; if you lived in the 1800s you'd chew each bite 100 times and drink sulphorous water (another laxative); if you lived in the 1920s you'd have decided it was all because of your mother, and if it was the 1970s you'd be hypoglycemic.