Image 01 Image 03

Cowboys Versus “Soy Boys”: The Politics of Food, Alcohol, and Tobacco

Cowboys Versus “Soy Boys”: The Politics of Food, Alcohol, and Tobacco

I was overjoyed to learn of the new food pyramid, recently announced by RFK, which reversed harmful earlier guidelines. I strongly believe that individuals should be free to do their own research and make their own informed choices regarding their food and drink consumption. This presupposes that the government should not provide misleading and outright dangerous guidelines, as was the case for the past several decades, when natural animal foods were demonized, while refined carbohydrates and highly processed plant-based oils were recommended.

I have often pondered the politics of nutrition and the underlying ideologies behind it. When I first arrived in America 30 years ago, after being fortunate to win a doctoral scholarship in Classics, I was shocked to discover that after one short semester, I had gained over 30 lbs. I examined what I was doing differently and realized that I was eating predominantly refined carbohydrates, which had caused rapid weight gain despite my youth and daily practices of vigorous swimming and climbing the steep hills of Ithaca, NY.

I knew from chemistry and biology classes that carbohydrates are quickly absorbed by the body and readily turned into fat when aided by insulin. I therefore combined a low-carb diet with intermittent fasting and managed to successfully reverse my shocking weight gain. I still resort to such measures to maintain good health. I also realized that there was a rampant, government-supported war on saturated fat and meat in general, which had resulted in predominantly carb- and plant-focused nutritional recommendations.

I love and admire everything American, so I couldn’t understand at first why the greatest country on Earth promoted what I thought were untrue and harmful dietary guidelines. I delved into deeper research and learned about the influence of scientists like Ancel Keys. Keys, who conducted the notorious Minnesota starvation experiment, produced a misleading study, which blamed saturated fat for heart disease. He apparently intentionally omitted data that did not fit the hypothesis outlined in his now infamous “Seven Countries Study.” Keys was well-connected in political circles, and he managed to insert his theories into subsequent government guidelines, which enjoyed tremendous influence and popularity until now.

Ancel Keys was challenged by internationally renowned scientists like John Yudkin, who blamed the exponentially increased intake of dietary sugars for the predominance of coronary disease, which had been a rare phenomenon before the 20th century. Keys prevailed in the debate on political rather than scientific grounds, and thus, the guidelines that contributed to generations of Americans becoming overweight and sick were formulated and ubiquitously imposed. This was facilitated by the influence of various “Big Food” and soda companies’ lobbies, which subsidized questionable research that “proved” no ill effects associated with, say, drinking several liters of sugary beverages per day.

Today, various medical doctors and scientists emphasize the importance of nutrition for preventing and treating chronic disease and underscore the need to avoid refined carbohydrates and seed oils. I have listened to fascinating lectures and podcasts by experts such as Philip Ovadia, Ken Berry, Shawn Baker, Anthony Chaffee, Ben Bikman,  Thomas Seyfried, Sean O’Mara, and Eric Berg, to name just a few, who explain the benefits of prioritizing natural, animal-based foods, as our ancestors have done for millennia.

I was curious to examine whether there were any deeper philosophical and ideological reasons for the insistence by leftist governments in different Western countries on prioritizing plant-based foods and processed carbohydrates — reasons that might go beyond economic interests and corporate influences. A major reason is the climate hysteria and net-zero policies, which have demonized cows and beef, despite the phenomenal nutritional profile and far-reaching benefits of animal products, especially those of ruminant species. The climate hysteria has led to the proliferation of absurdities such as lab-grown and plant-based meat, as well as encouraging the consumption of insects. History shows that numerous tribes in cold climates, for example, had survived and thrived on animal foods alone, in excellent health and without widespread chronic disease, until they were introduced to the modern Western diet.

Another reason for the war on meat is linked to the leftist rejection of individualism and self-reliance, associated with traditional images of nomads, warriors, cowboys, and independent farmers. Many independent farms are struggling, which hurts the health of the American public and serves hostile interests such as those of Chinese businesses and massive offshore production.

The war on animal-based food is related to the “intersectional” leftist demonization of masculinity and traditional gender roles. Since time immemorial, meat consumption has resulted in well-developed musculature and physical strength, and animal fats have proven essential for hormonal balance and both mental and physical thriving. Leftist propaganda praises instead effeminate men, masculine women, “gender fluidity,” and “body positivity.” It has led to the phenomenon of “soy boys,” who spend their time in their parents’ basements, jobless and addicted to their electronic devices. It is not surprising that many young people struggle not only with a host of previously rare medical conditions but also with social interaction, dating, and marriage.

This attack on what the Left labels as “toxic masculinity” is also evident in the politics of alcohol and tobacco, as pointed out by some conservative influencers, notably in Daily Wire and PragerU videos. Traditional male camaraderie over a drink or a cigar has been ridiculed and vilified, even though there is a significant difference between smoking cigarettes and inhaling the smoke, on the one hand, and the occasional enjoyment of pipes or cigars, without smoke inhalation, on the other. Even iconic images of Churchill have been photoshopped to remove his cigar from various school materials. At the same time, leftist ideologues laud the virtues of drugs like marijuana, which negatively affect mental concentration and productivity, among other, more serious side effects.

The new food pyramid promoted by the current administration is a monumental step in reclaiming America’s health and reviving traditionally successful nutritional approaches and lifestyles. It is a victory of cowboys over “soy boys” and of common sense over anti-Western leftist absurdities.

Nora D. Clinton is a Research Scholar at the Legal Insurrection Foundation. She was born and raised in Sofia, Bulgaria. She holds a PhD in Classics and has published extensively on ancient documents on stone. In 2020, she authored the popular memoir Quarantine Reflections Across Two Worlds. Nora is a co-founder of two partner charities dedicated to academic cooperation and American values. She lives in Northern Virginia with her husband and son.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

destroycommunism | January 18, 2026 at 7:00 pm

the sadder part is that we have submitted not just to knowledge that the government wants to pass along but the claws in your back that fores you to pay for others dna and/or bad habits

thats the pyramid that needs to be turned on its head

People whine about alcohol, cigarettes and sugar, but who was there for you during rough times? Sure wasn’t broccoli.

    CommoChief in reply to Olinser. | January 19, 2026 at 11:27 am

    ‘If you got bad news
    You wanna kick them blues…
    Cocaine

    When your day is done
    And you wanna run
    Cocaine

    She don’t lie, she don’t lie, she don’t lie
    Cocaine

    Famously covered by Eric Clapton

Fascinating article – carb plusses and minuses has been debated for a long time. Now, assuming Sec. Kennedy and Nora Dimetrava are REALLY on to something, I am intrigued. I’ve had no thyroid for almost 40 years. Subsequent to losing that organ I developed weight problems. Have Reading this article has me thinking differently – I may try adding more meat to my diet. Overall, we don’t eat much junk food but carbs, another issue. So, I’ll up the meat and see what happens in 30, 60 days.

    Sanddog in reply to B. | January 18, 2026 at 9:00 pm

    The thing is, it shouldn’t be a “debate”. The science is actually pretty clear.

Dr. Atkins was a heart doctor….

I started a low carb eating plan about 25 years ago to knock back about 40lbs I’d put on. I spent a lot of time trying to find any credible research about low carb but kept finding the same old crap that pretended that somehow it was protein and fat being driven into fat cells instead of refined carbohydrates. Luckily, Good Calories, Bad Calories was released in 2007 and I bought several copies to give to fat family members who were “concerned” about my style of eating. The US government did massive damage to the health of this nation and this is one small step towards repairing the damage.

Suburban Farm Guy | January 19, 2026 at 3:42 am

It was the Department of Agriculture that did the old food pyramid. Not the Department of Health. At the time, their commerce-heavy recommendations may have been useful in building out a fledgling nation, but those days are over.

Low-T soy boys are a maladaptive response to perceived overcrowding. Most of our social pathologies are as well. The Third World has no such guilt burdens and will swamp the First. Mark my words.

    Suburban Farm Guy in reply to Suburban Farm Guy. | January 19, 2026 at 3:47 am

    Should have been ‘a (false) perception of overcrowding’ but the question remains. What next? What of civilization? Must we return to chaos and anarchy, corruption and misery. For a thousand years? Really?

    I won’t be here to see it.

Remember the “Trust the experts not your own research” mantra of Covid? Unfortunately that episode of mass hysteria driven by government has left quite a large chunk of America unwilling to listen to anyone anymore.

Eat what you want. But there is no need to sneer at people who choose to eat a plant based diet. Soy boys, as you say. It works. I’m 65, healthy and active (good weight, no meds, no arterial disease, no metabolic diseases). I’m the 4th generation of my family to eat a plant based diet. Most have reached their late eighties or nineties.

    CommoChief in reply to jeffrey. | January 19, 2026 at 11:39 am

    Much of the hostility comes as pushback for the actions of the ‘in your face’ evangelism of the vegans many of whom seem thoroughly convinced their mission in life is to make themselves the ‘hero’ of their fantasy cosplay as they lecture the rest of society about their own virtue and denounce those of us who refuse to play along. Speech, even sneering speech, is preferable to more vigorous direct pushback.

    JRaeL in reply to jeffrey. | January 19, 2026 at 7:27 pm

    I don’t think it’s about sneering at a plant based diet but rather at how the old food guidance pushed making carb heavy foods as the base for good nutrition without the important distinction of whole grain vs refined or the impact even healthful carb heavy foods have on metabolism. The older food pyramid did not put too much of a focus on vegetables calling for only half the amount they recommended for cereals, breads, pasta, and other often heavily refined grain based foods. There also was never any room given to combining plant based foods to obtain a complete amino acid profile.

    A plant based diet is certainly healthful and is better than thinking eating sausage wrapped in bacon then battered and deep fried several times a week isn’t going to catch up with you at some point.

I was diagnosed with Type II diabetes in 2000. I was an active runner and cyclist. Regularly ran 10K’s and cycled 100Ks. Was into “carb loading”, thought they were good for me.
Rapidly learned that, as far as my personal metabolism was concerned, that pyramid was pretty much upside down. Protein, fat good. (Fiber good). Avoid carbs as much as possible.
A diabetes educator said: “ As a diabetic you have to eat low carb. The conventional teaching is low fat. If you eat low fat, low carb your diabetes will no longer be a problem in a couple months. Because you will have starved to death. Low carb, low fat protein basically doesn’t exist.”
So much for the low fat stuff. Bring on the bacon and eggs.
The American Diabetes Association diet? Deadly.
25 years later, I have the usual problems with being old (82), but not much attributable to diabetes. My running is down to a half mile or so, but most days I walk at least five miles.

I don’t personally eat seed oils. But it’s impossible to find any quality medical evidence to support the claim that they are worse for you than other oils—outside the limited context of lengthy reuse of them for frying.

They might still be harmful. But there

    JRaeL in reply to denizen. | January 19, 2026 at 7:28 pm

    I don’t think that seed oils in an of themselves are claimed to be harmful but rather how they are usually processed.

E Howard Hunt | January 19, 2026 at 8:55 am

Do people really pay attention to any government-recommended diet? It seems they just buy tasty, addictive junk on offer. Half the country lives on take-out pizza, salsa and chips and a steady diet of Netflix.

I’m not a scientist, but just curious…could some real journalist please find the fact regarding reduction in lung cancer incidence over the last decades since smoking was banned? My bet is not much but I’m open to be proven wrong.

Speaking of facts, could some real journalist find out if any scientists have done a study on the health differences between cigarette smoking and marijuana smoking, as well as 2nd hand smoke from each. My be is they’re both equally harmful but I’m open to be proven wrong. I wonder why no one talks about marijuana and health?

    E Howard Hunt in reply to Leo. | January 19, 2026 at 1:24 pm

    Lung cancer rates did decrease. But, I invite the author to write about the multi-billion dollar radon remediation scam. The authorities falsely attribute 10 percent of lung cancer to indoor radon. There is indeed a link between indoor radon and lung cancer. It is inverse! The more radon, the less cancer. It acts as a vaccine. But we have the feds promoting phony radon tests to detect a phony problem adding thousands to housing costs.