What seemed like a food debate confined to Egypt around the “Tayebat” system has transformed within weeks into a cross-border digital and cultural phenomenon. On May 3, 2026, the Egyptian authorities banned in the media all content on Doctor Diaa Al-Awadi’s diet as “harmful to public health,” in a step that was supposed to put an end to the controversy or at least prompt caution, but what happened was the opposite.
With just a quick browse through social media platforms, you can see the world of “good things”: clips talking about “chicken that causes poisoning,” “deceptive insulin,” and raw vegetables described as “the enemy of health.” Despite Al-Awadi’s death in Dubai on April 19, 2026, at the age of 47, the diet did not disappear in his absence, but rather “its spread increased,” as the Moroccan newspaper Le Matin wrote, and millions of people still adopt it as if it were a magic recipe for controlling chronic diseases, in the face of health authorities warning of “insufficient scientific evidence,” and reminding that “this diet does not replace prescribed medical treatment.”
Read also
list of 2 itemsend of list
This paradox between the power of the digital presence and the absence of scientific support is what prompts the file to be opened again.
From an Egyptian debate to a Maghreb and Gulf phenomenon
In the Kingdom of Morocco, the “Al-Tayyibat” system transformed in a short time into a widespread digital phenomenon, as many users re-published Al-Awadi’s videos and adopted its principles, and some of them went so far as to question their traditional medical treatments.
The newspaper “Le Matin” monitored increasing testimonies on social media about the “amazing effects” of the diet, in contrast to the difficulty faced by doctors and specialists in making their scientific discourse resonate with the public.
In Saudi Arabia, the Ministry of Health issued a clear warning against following the therapeutic claims circulating about the “Al-Tayyibat Diet,” stressing that “there is not sufficient scientific evidence to support its use as an alternative to medically prescribed treatments.” The warning came after monitoring cases of diabetic patients who changed their medication doses or stopped them based on advice from the Internet, which led to some of them being admitted to intensive care.
The Saudi health authorities stressed that healthy eating patterns should be based on balance, diversity, and evidence-based guidelines, and not on individual claims spread across platforms.
How does the Tayyibat system build its appeal?
Le Matin explains that the appeal of the Taybat system begins with the simplicity of its concept. According to Dr. Tayeb Hamdi, a physician and researcher in health policies and systems in Morocco, the protocol is based on a strict binary division of foods that carries a clear ethical charge:
- “Tayebat”: Foods described as pure and beneficial.
- “Middies”: Foods described as harmful and toxic.
Allowed list It includes about 89 products in 18 categories, the most prominent of which are rice, potatoes, dates, honey, olive oil, ghee, red meat, and certain types of cheese.
In return, include List of prohibited items More than 81 products in 16 categories, including farm-raised chicken, most dairy products, legumes, raw vegetables, citrus fruits, vegetable oils and white sugar.
Hamdi believes that borrowing the concepts of “good things” and “bad things” from Qur’anic language was one of the first “tricks” of this regime to establish itself in a moral and spiritual framework, which makes objection to it seem like an objection to religious values, not to a debatable food protocol.
He adds that the diet is not just a menu, but “an ideological system that exploits the language of medicine” to impose practices that contradict the most established scientific consensus, with real consequences for the most vulnerable patients.
In addition to the symbolic and religious dimension, experts point to another practical reason for the spread of “tayyibat” in Morocco and Egypt: some foods banned by the regime – such as eggs and poultry – have witnessed a decrease in prices as a result of excess supply, which has created a perception among a segment of followers that abstaining from them is a kind of “food protest” against an economic system that does not satisfy them.
When dietary “eliminations” become a documented risk
Dr. Tayyab Hamdi describes eliminating legumes, raw vegetables, and whole grains as “a disaster for the intestinal microbiome.” Decades of research indicate that plant fibers, whole grains, and vegetables are the foundation of a healthy gut microbiome, and that severely reducing them is associated with microbial imbalance, increased chronic inflammation, and a higher risk of colorectal cancer.
To date, there are no clinical trials published in peer-reviewed scientific journals that support Al-Awadhi’s claims regarding the exclusion of these food groups. When the Egyptian Medical Syndicate asked him to submit at least three documented cases, accompanied by analyzes and examinations before and after treatment, the Syndicate confirmed that “he did not provide any documents proving the validity of his allegations,” saying only that “the validity of what he presents will be proven in the future.”
Individual nutrition does not accept “one rule for all”
Hamdi stresses that nutrition is “an individual issue that depends on the context and requires constant adaptation,” and it cannot be reduced to a general rule that tells millions of people of different ages, medical conditions, and lifestyles: “Eat whatever foods you want without counting calories, and eat until you are full without limits.”
This logic contradicts a basic principle in nutrition science, which is that the diet must meet the needs of each person according to his age, activity, and health condition, and be diverse and balanced, and not based on absolute binaries between what is permissible and what is forbidden.
A “wisdom” that could be fatal: drink water only when thirsty
Among the doctors’ most troubling recommendations from Al-Tayyabat is his call to drink water only when feeling thirsty. Hamdi explains that presenting this advice as “natural wisdom” ignores that entire groups, from infants to the elderly, may not feel thirsty despite their desperate need for fluids, and that dehydration in these groups can be fatal.
Hamdi warns that drinking water regularly, not waiting for thirst, is the safe rule, especially for chronic patients, and that linking thirst alone to the need for water is “harmful to everyone.”
Promotion of saturated fats in the face of global warnings
The Tayibat diet encourages the consumption of red meat, animal fats, certain types of cheese, and starchy foods, with a broad exclusion of vegetable oils and legumes. This combination, according to warnings from the American Heart Association and the European Society of Cardiology, raises levels of harmful LDL cholesterol, which is one of the main factors in heart and arterial diseases around the world.
In this sense, the diet not only offers a different menu of foods, but pushes in the opposite direction to what approved guidelines for managing fats and reducing the risk of heart disease recommend.
Banning nutritional “pillars” of human health
Eggs, dairy products, and raw vegetables, which are among the most prominent categories prohibited in Al-Tayyibat, are considered in international scientific literature to be important nutritional pillars for human health:
- Eggs are a source of complete protein, choline, B vitamins and vitamin D.
- Raw vegetables preserve heat-sensitive vitamins, such as vitamin C and B9.
- Dairy products provide calcium and vitamin D, which are essential elements for preventing osteoporosis, especially in women and the elderly.
Excluding these groups without calculated alternatives and under medical supervision exposes dieters to the risk of lacking essential nutrients, which Hamdi clearly warns against.
A phenomenon that transcends its owner
In all of this, the “Al-Tayyibat” system goes beyond its late owner: it is a protocol that builds its appeal on religious and moral language, takes advantage of the disappointment of some patients towards the health system, and exploits the power of digital platforms to perpetuate the narrative of quick and cheap “alternative treatment.”
But behind these promises stand heavy questions about medical responsibility, the limits of religious discourse in guiding food choices, and the ability of health agencies to compete with “recipes” that spread quickly and easily, while their refutation requires slow and evidence-based explanation.
