By Coach Manny A.
In my 19 years of being in the fitness industry, I’ve never witnessed so much disagreement in the health and food space. There’s always been disagreement, but it really seems that the sides are digging their heels in now—and both have solid evidence to support their claims.
I’ll call one side The Academics—doctors, researchers, PhD nutritionists, chemists, exercise scientists, and the like. The other side I’ll call The Practitioners—trainers, functional and alternative medicine doctors, fitness influencers (unfortunately), and those working directly with people every day.
What I’m going to do is sum up what the debates are, what the current literature and evidence say, and give you my 2 cents on the matter. Truthfully, each of these food topics (seed oils, food dyes, and sugar) could be a blog of their own, but they’re rooted in a lot of the same arguments.
Let’s dive in, shall we?
FOOD DYES
Food dyes are synthetic or natural color additives used to enhance the appearance of foods, drinks, and even medications. They’re what make kids’ cereals glow neon, sports drinks shimmer blue, and candy look like it’s been Photoshopped.
There are two main categories:
- Artificial food dyes – Made from petroleum (yes, the same stuff used in fuel). Examples: Red 40, Yellow 5, Blue 1.
- Natural food dyes – Extracted from plants, fruits, or minerals. Think beet juice (red), turmeric (yellow), or spirulina (blue-green).
The Academics argue that food dyes are safe. Backed by decades of FDA regulation and large-scale studies, they maintain that current usage levels pose no serious health risks. They emphasize controlled environments, reproducible data, and statistical significance.
The Practitioners see a different story on the ground. They point to anecdotal spikes in hyperactivity, skin reactions, and behavioral changes in kids—especially with dyes like Red 40 and Yellow 5. Their stance: if it’s banned in Europe and unnecessary in real food, why risk it?
My Take – I’m a bit more on the Academics’ side on this one. I don’t think a little dye is going to make a big difference in a kid’s health. However, I highly suspect that since we find these disruptors in so many items, the accumulation over time—mixed in with genetics and environmental factors—sets the stage for something we can’t measure in a lab.
SEED OILS
Seed oils are vegetable oils extracted from the seeds of plants like soybeans, corn, cottonseed, safflower, sunflower, and canola. They’re commonly used in processed foods, salad dressings, margarine, and for high-heat cooking due to their long shelf life and neutral taste.
Popular examples: soybean oil, canola oil, sunflower oil, corn oil.
The Academics argue that seed oils are not only safe, but beneficial. They’re rich in polyunsaturated fats (especially omega-6s), which some research suggests lower LDL cholesterol and reduce heart disease risk when used in place of saturated fats. They rely heavily on large epidemiological data and controlled trials to support these claims.
The Practitioners, however, aren’t buying it. They point to the high omega-6 content as a driver of chronic inflammation—especially when omega-3 intake is low. They argue that the industrial processing (refining, bleaching, deodorizing) damages the oil’s structure and leads to the formation of lipid peroxides and aldehydes—compounds that generate reactive oxygen species (ROS).
This increase in oxidative stress has been associated with mitochondrial dysfunction, cellular damage, and potentially even cancer development—especially when these oils are consumed chronically and repeatedly heated (like in fried foods). Their rally cry: ditch the industrial oils and cook with olive oil, butter, or beef tallow instead.
My Take – I’m more skeptical of seed oils than food dyes. Not because one tablespoon is toxic, but because they’ve crept into everything. Add in decades of high intake, nutrient-poor processed food, and sedentary lifestyles—and yeah, the argument that they might be inflammatory and promote oxidative damage doesn’t seem unreasonable.
The issue is that the buck seems to stop on ROS with seed oils, which is my primary beef (see what I did there, hehe).
SUGAR
When we talk about sugar, we’re usually referring to sucrose (table sugar), made of 50% glucose and 50% fructose. It comes from sugarcane or sugar beets. High-fructose corn syrup (HFCS), on the other hand, is a corn-derived sweetener with a slightly different glucose-to-fructose ratio (often 55% fructose, 45% glucose in HFCS-55).
Both end up tasting sweet and spiking blood sugar—but the conversation around them has gotten loud.
The Academics argue that sugar is sugar. Whether it’s HFCS or cane sugar, both deliver calories, both impact insulin and metabolism similarly, and both contribute to weight gain and metabolic issues when overconsumed. From a molecular standpoint, they’re functionally equivalent. Most studies show that excess intake—not the type—is the real issue. The focus is on quantity, not source.
The Practitioners don’t necessarily disagree. But they claim that HFCS is more harmful due to:
- The slightly higher fructose content, which is processed differently by the liver and may increase fat storage.
- Its ubiquity in processed foods, sodas, and snacks—making it hard to avoid and easy to overconsume.
- Anecdotal reports of sharper crashes, cravings, and more noticeable energy swings compared to cane sugar.
They argue that switching to cane sugar may not solve the problem, but it may reduce some of the liver-specific stress and insulin resistance associated with large HFCS consumption.
My Take – I don’t think switching from HFCS to cane sugar is going to fix America’s health crisis. It’s clear to me that it’s an overconsumption problem.
But the real question is: will the switch from HFCS to cane sugar lead to less consumption due to suspected fewer cravings? My tinfoil hat comes on and I suspect that it might. I have no evidence to back up my claim, but I suspect HFCS is used for a very specific reason—and that the food scientists at these companies know it. Or perhaps it’s true in combination with seed oils and food dyes.
Maybe HFCS, seed oils, and food dyes have a synergistic effect on our senses, leading us to overconsume. Think about it—food scientists study food to make sure its color is appealing, its texture is just right on the tongue, and the taste lights your brain up. Though it sounds conspiratorial, I don’t think it’s a far-fetched thought.
Final Thoughts
I enjoy both sides’ arguments, but as a Practitioner, I value what I see happening more than what a paper (that many times has conflicts of interest—like when a seed oil company funds a study to tell you it’s safe) tells me.
I will always go back to this fundamental question any time I’m at a standstill on who to believe:
Who benefits from this?
Is this potentially harmful or beneficial for the population?
With those two questions, it’s hard to believe that the Practitioners’ arguments are rooted in money/fame and worse health outcomes. Whereas the Academics stand to lose a lot: money, authority, and credibility—especially considering that the current food system includes food dyes, seed oils, and HFCS, and yet our health is rapidly declining.
Overall, the improvements, the thoughts, and the talks are in the right direction. But the actions are underwhelming. Real impact is going to be minimal if bigger changes aren’t made.
So although a lot of the changes that organizations like MAHA have made are a step in the right direction, it’s still not even close to enough to solve the real problems.
Which then begs the question:
Why are we taking these baby steps?
Is there something political we don’t understand?
Or is this a distraction to protect the entities profiting off a food system that keeps us addicted and sick?