Eating vegetables: necessity or dietary dogma?

Eating vegetables: necessity or dietary dogma?

Some people claim they haven't touched a lettuce leaf in decades and are still alive. Others, meanwhile, feel a meal without vegetables is incomplete. Between these two extremes lies a debate that mixes physiology, definitions and a fair amount of dietary ideology.

The first battleground is semantic. What counts as a vegetable? For some, it's only leafy greens and cruciferous vegetables; for others, it includes tomatoes, peppers, green beans and even peas. This lack of consensus alone invalidates any categorical claim about their necessity.

On the digestive side, several accounts point out that raw vegetables cause gas and pain. The enzymes they contain, the argument goes, break down with cooking, and if the diet already includes nuts, dried fruit or legumes, the intake of fiber and micronutrients would be covered. One doctor quoted in the debate went further: "Vegetables are for grazing animals."

However, conventional nutritional evidence insists that vegetables provide vitamins, minerals and fiber that are hard to obtain in equal amounts from other food groups. Strict vegans, for instance, need to supplement B12, but the remaining nutrients could be compensated for with proper planning.

The striking fact: there is not a single study showing that a person with a varied, balanced diet — including fruit, legumes, nuts and animal protein — has worse health from cutting out the vegetable group. The deficiency only appears when all other plant foods are removed as well. In the end, vegetables are not an end in themselves but a means: what matters is the nutrient.