Are These Foods Really Inflammatory?

This week, I watched a webinar about a gut test that, on paper, has considerable potential.

Gut tests can be tricky. If the person interpreting the results doesn't understand what the test can or can't tell you, it's easy to overreach. Most gut tests list numerous microbe families but cannot offer conclusions with clinical significance. But that is not their purpose. They are a snapshot of a person's gut on the day of the test sample.

That said, I appreciated that this test reported optimal ranges for each microbe group and indicated whether someone's results were too high, too low, or just right (not their exact wording—but you get the idea). That's pretty standard for gut testing.

What stands out, though, is that this test includes metabolites. And that matters. The actual microbial balance in your gut is best reflected by the compounds those microbes produce—beneficial ones like short-chain fatty acids and neurotransmitters, and harmful ones like LPS or hydrogen sulfide.

So, back to the webinar. A nurse practitioner was sharing how he uses the test in practice. The idea is simple: test someone's gut, tailor a protocol, then retest and assess progress.

Sounds great, right?

Except… he said he puts everyone on his “gut protocol” for six weeks (not nearly long enough to do anything meaningful) and removes the "inflammatory" foods: dairy, gluten, and soy.

And that's when I realized—this practitioner doesn't fully understand the test's potential or food, for that matter.

Because food isn't inherently inflammatory. If someone has an inflammatory reaction to a food, the issue lies within the body, particularly in the gut, rather than with the food itself.

But we live in a culture where food is constantly demonized. And this belief—that certain foods are inflammatory—is not unique to this guy. It's shared by thousands (and possibly millions) of practitioners, and it's ingrained in many gut "protocols."

So, what's the point of doing a detailed test if you're going to fall back on the same cookie-cutter advice you always give? If you're going to eliminate foods that're beneficial to the gut based on misinformation, why test at all? Especially a test that provides suggestions for foods to improve areas highlighted on the test.

I've heard plenty about the false assumption that gluten and dairy are inflammatory, but soy? That was new to me.

So, I asked ChatGPT to look into it. (The current version can search peer-reviewed research online, which saves me hours, making it a very handy thing to use).

I gave it specific instructions:

• Find human clinical studies that say soy is inflammatory

• Only include studies that measured inflammatory markers before and after soy intake

• Differentiate between whole soy foods and isolated isoflavones (a phytonutrient extracted from soy)

In case you're wondering, studying a single nutrient extracted from a food is not the same as studying the food itself. But in this case, it didn't matter.

ChatGPT reviewed several dozen meta-analysis reviews (like this one) and summarized the findings:

"Across multiple meta-analyses and reviews, approximately 80 human clinical trials have investigated the effects of soy foods and isoflavones on inflammatory markers like CRP, IL-6, and TNF-α. The findings consistently show that whole soy foods tend to be mildly anti-inflammatory, especially lowering CRP, while isolated soy isoflavones are generally neutral, with occasional benefits in people with elevated inflammation."

I asked it again, more directly: Did any studies suggest soy is pro-inflammatory?

Here's what it said:

"No — none of the human clinical trials or meta-analyses reviewed reported that soy or soy isoflavones are pro-inflammatory.

In fact:

No studies showed increases in CRP, IL-6, or TNF-α following soy intake.

Even in studies with neutral findings, soy did not raise inflammatory markers — it either had no effect or slightly lowered them.

Animal and in vitro studies also generally show anti-inflammatory or neutral effects from soy protein and isoflavones.

So far, the scientific literature does not support the idea that soy is pro-inflammatory in humans."

If you think ChatGPT is showing a little attitude, you're not alone—I thought the same thing. But it's not wrong.

Here's the thing: unless you're measuring inflammation before and after someone eats a food, and doing it in well-designed trials, the results would need to show that everyone's inflammatory markers increase. You repeat the process in several studies, and only then can you claim that a food is inflammatory. Otherwise, saying that the food is inflammatory is not science. It's speculation.

Multiple high-quality studies on soy have been conducted, and it is non-inflammatory.

What about dairy?

This one is easy. A meta-analysis of 52 clinical trials concluded that dairy products are not inflammatory, except in individuals with a dairy allergy. And that's true for any food: if you're allergic, it's your immune system that's the problem, not the food.

And gluten? Now that's a convoluted tale…

Gluten got thrown under the bus thanks to a mix of cell culture studies, sweeping generalizations, and a widespread misunderstanding of gut function. It was easy to blame. It was also profitable. A lot of people made a lot of money demonizing gluten.

So, I asked ChatGPT again. This time, I specified:

• Only include studies on people who do not have celiac disease or a wheat allergy

• Distinguish between studies on pure gluten and those using gluten-containing foods

• Consider whether the food source was whole grain or refined

Here's what it told me:

"Clinical studies in people without celiac disease or wheat allergy show that gluten is generally not pro-inflammatory. Most trials have found that consuming gluten or gluten-containing foods does not increase inflammatory markers, such as C-reactive protein (CRP), interleukin-6 (IL-6), or tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-α). Some studies have shown neutral effects, and a few have demonstrated even slight reductions in inflammation, especially when gluten is consumed as part of whole grains. Gluten-free diets did not consistently lower inflammation in healthy individuals.

Overall, the evidence suggests that gluten is inflammation-neutral in non-sensitive people, and gluten-containing whole grains may even have anti-inflammatory benefits."

I'd list all the studies, but there are too many to mention. Here's just one example you can check out.

Now, for those who think they know about gluten and want to bring the "gluten causes leaky gut" thing into this. Again, it is assumed that locking onto a receptor site in the gut lining and triggering it to open is a smoking gun to be used against gluten. The truth is that any protein molecule that can access receptor sites in the gut lining can trigger the gut lining to open. In a healthy gut, protein molecules do not have access to the gut lining, as a mucus layer protects it. But this is a discussion for another day.

I've spent years trying to offer a counterpoint to the reflex of blaming food. It's what first led me to study the gut and eventually to realize that food reactivity is more about what's happening inside the person than what's on their plate.

However, pushing back against misinformation is exhausting because most people promoting these ideas don't care about the science. They haven't read the research. They just repeat what they've heard or base it on anecdotal evidence. And they don't care about food.

I spent hours writing this (even with ChatGPT helping). Who else is going to do that?

Who cares if we stop eating wheat, dairy, or soy?

The gut does.

It wants diversity. Removing foods for the wrong reasons doesn't help—it hinders. And when people do it or suggest that others do it without good cause, it shows that they don't understand how the gut works at all.

It's too bad there are so many of them. The genie is out of the bottle, and it's impossible to put it back in. Perhaps in 100 years, people will look back on this time as the Dark Ages when it comes to feeding the gut.