Author: Jessica Serdikoff

Gluten-free used to be pretty black-or-white: either you had celiac disease and needed a gluten-free diet, or you didn’t. Now, though, there’s a whole lot of gray area, and it can make for some pretty confusing health advice.

Part of the confusion lies in the difference between celiac disease (a diagnosable autoimmune condition involving physical damage to the lining of the intestines as a result of ingesting gluten) and the more mysterious phenomenon vaguely termed “gluten sensitivity.” Gluten sensitivity does not involve changes in intestinal lining or permeability and therefore may produce normal intestinal biopsy results when a person is tested for celiac disease. Gluten sensitivity is only established if celiac disease has been ruled out but symptoms seem to improve on a gluten-free diet.

Does gluten sensitivity actually exist, though?

New research seems to say it may not. A 2013 study reviewing gluten sensitivity in non-celiac irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) patients found improvement of symptoms not upon removing gluten from the diet, but by reducing the amount of FODMAPs the participants consumed.

…Huh?

Ok, let’s backtrack. FODMAPs are fermentable oligosaccharides, disaccharides, monosaccharides, and polyols, and they are the wrench in this gluten sensitivity equation. FODMAPs are carbohydrates that are often insufficiently digested in the intestine, making them prime food for gut bacteria. When gut bacteria “eat” (break down) compounds in our intestines, we may very well experience cramping, abdominal distention (bloating), and diarrhea. Do you know what those symptoms also describe? Yup: non-celiac gluten sensitivity.

Is it possible that the majority of individuals who seem to have a sensitivity to gluten are actually responding to high levels of FODMAPs in their diets? In short, yes, it’s possible, but everyone is a little different. Wheat, barley, and rye (the three gluten-containing grains to avoid) also happen to be high in FODMAPs, so feeling relief after eliminating these foods doesn’t say for sure whether it was the gluten or the FODMAPs causing the issue. More and more, scientists are considering wheat intolerance (as a result of FODMAP content) to be a more accurate explanation for this particular set of symptoms than gluten itself.

Wheat, barley, and rye are not the only foods high in FODMAPs; in fact, certain individuals who experience some relief by going gluten-free don’t find that it completely eliminates their symptoms. Total symptom relief often comes by looking at high-FODMAP foods in general. These foods fall into a few categories: foods with excess fructose (honey, apples, mango, watermelon, pear, and the vilified high-fructose corn syrup), fructans (artichokes, garlic, leek, onion, scallions, shallots, wheat, rye, barley, and inulin, which is found added to many packaged foods), lactose (milk and yogurt products), galacto-oligosaccharides (legumes, lentils, chickpeas), and polyols (apples, apricots, nectarines, pears, plums, prunes, mushrooms, and sugar alcohols like sorbitol and xylitol). Foods are constantly being tested and retested for FODMAP content, so this list should only be considered partial.

There is a way to tell if your gastrointestinal symptoms are related to gluten or these poorly absorbed carbohydrates known as FODMAPs. The first step is to find a gastrointestinal (GI) doctor you trust. Rule out actual celiac disease and wheat allergies (you must continue to consume gluten while testing for celiac or the results will be inaccurate), lactose intolerance, and a lesser-discussed condition called small intestine bacterial overgrowth, or SIBO for short. Once those are all excluded, find a registered dietitian, because this next part can be a bit of a pain.

You see, to test for FODMAP sensitivity, you have to do what’s called an elimination diet. Working closely with a dietitian, you will remove all sources of FODMAPs for up to six weeks to see if symptoms improve. Then, the dietitian will guide you through reintroducing the FODMAPs, group by group (fructose, fructans, lactose, galacto-oligosaccharides, and polyols, as mentioned above). The initial phase of the diet is highly restrictive, but the goal is to discover which specific groups of FODMAPs are causing you discomfort and in what quantities—in other words, to ultimately create as liberal a diet as possible without symptoms developing.

The gut is a fascinatingly mysterious set of organs, capable of much more than we fully realize. There is a solid chance that non-celiac gluten sensitivity either doesn’t exist or, at the very least, is considerably rarer than it seems. But that does not make your individual symptoms less real. If you feel as though something in your body is not right, find a doctor who takes your concerns seriously and explore all possible explanations.

It might be gluten, but it may be something else entirely. Don’t stop searching for answers, and don’t underestimate the power of those poorly digested, fermentable carbohydrates called FODMAPs. I think we’ll be hearing a lot more about them moving forward.

When it comes to celiac disease, few foods have caused as much controversy as the humble oat.
Oats are naturally gluten-free, but they’re almost always contaminated from being farmed, stored, transported, or processed using fields and equipment that once touched gluten-containing grains (wheat, barley, and rye).
For years, the only way for someone with celiac disease to safely eat oats was to buy ones that were grown, harvested, and produced under a “purity protocol” that guaranteed they never came in contact with gluten. When oat-based food companies decided they wanted a piece of the gluten-free pie, though, they were faced with a dilemma: There are not enough purity protocol oats to meet their demand.
Enter mechanical and optical sorting, where commodity oats are fed through a machine that separates them by length, density, and color in order to remove any foreign grain (mostly wheat or barley). With the gluten-containing grains removed, the commodity oats are said to be “cleaned” and—by U.S. government standards—gluten-free.
Are they really, though?

THE PROS

Big guns in the food industry like General Mills and Quaker would not risk the negative exposure if they didn’t genuinely believe the sorting process worked. Their websites assure consumers there are various testing checkpoints to ensure the finished product contains less than 20 ppm (“parts per million,” or about 0.02%) gluten—the government standard for gluten-free.
(It turns out that several other companies producing gluten-free oat products have been using the same technology for some time now, but only recently has it gotten media attention.)
This sorting process could make gluten-free products more available and more affordable than ever, with companies like General Mills promising to keep prices constant. For someone with celiac disease who doesn’t live in a more affluent or metropolitan area, these two factors have been major obstacles in treating their disease.
Ultimately, several big celiac organizations do support the mechanical sorting of commodity oats, as long as the testing is consistent, transparent, stringent, and reliable; which of course brings up the question…is it?

THE CONS

Mechanical and optical sorting may mostly work, but the testing protocols have rendered it rather risky. As long as humans drive the process, there will be room for error, and testing has to be on point to catch it. Mere months after their gluten-free launch, General Mills recalled a number of boxes of Cheerios for cross-contact with wheat during transport. General Mills responded swiftly, but top representatives of the gluten-free community asserted that this incident was not only avoidable but a sign that testing was more lax than the company let on.
It’s not only a concern of the frequency of testing, though; the method itself has also raised questions. Quaker says it tests every sample box individually, but General Mills uses a composite or mean score. Basically, they grind up a minimum of 12 boxes, test, and average the results; if 11 of them contain 3 ppm gluten and the last contains 70 ppm, they average out to less than 10 ppm, and the lot will pass inspection. Would you want to be the unlucky celiac sufferer who gets box number 12?
Then there are the unintended consequences of the technology. When titans like PepsiCo (Quaker) and General Mills step onto the scene, the livelihood of the smaller companies that are producing purity protocol oats is threatened. Why would companies spend money on these special oats when they can just buy and sort cheap, commodity oats themselves? Pure oat sales have been declining, leaving their manufacturers questioning the future of the business. Pretty soon, celiac sufferers may not have a choice: the companies growing and using pure oats could be put plum out of business.

THE BOTTOM LINE: FIT OR FLOP?

I wish I didn’t have to say this, but as of right now, FLOP. Look, I’m not so cynical as to think these larger companies got into the gluten-free game solely to take advantage of a “trend” and earn a quick buck, but if they don’t do this thing right, that’s exactly how it will appear. They have a huge responsibility in pioneering this technology to make sure they’ve tested and retested ad nauseam.
As of today, that testing simply isn’t there for me to recommend that anyone with a diagnosed intolerance to gluten take the chance on mechanically and optically sorted oats.
If you’d still like to incorporate oats into your diet, first check with your doctor, because even certified gluten-free oats can be problematic for a subset of people with celiac disease. Then, find a company that uses purity protocol oats to be certain that the utmost care and attention is being devoted to making sure your oats are safe to eat. These smaller companies need your support.
Gluten-free eating is not a fad; it’s a medical treatment. Every decision we make has consequences, and every decision we make matters.
Choose with care.

With nearly half of all Americans (and 70 percent of older women) claiming to supplement with calcium, you would think that its benefits would be pretty well established.

We do know that calcium is important for health. It’s the most abundant mineral in the body, with a whopping 99 percent of it found in bones, where it aids in both structure and function. The remaining 1 percent contributes to vascular contraction, vasodilation, muscular function, nerve transmission, intracellular signaling, and hormonal secretion.

So, yeah, calcium is kind of a big deal.

We also know that many Americans do not get enough through diet alone. Dairy might get the most attention, but it’s not the only food bringing its calcium game. In fact, sardines packed with bones contain more calcium than eight ounces of milk, and the calcium found in the kale family (kale, broccoli, cabbage, turnip greens, and bok choy), although found in smaller quantities, is comparable in “bioavailability.” (That’s a good thing.) Additional sources include almonds, Brazil nuts, dried figs, fortified tofu, and (my personal favorite!) blackstrap molasses.

Calcium’s important roles in the body—paired with our tendency to under consume it—should make supplementation a no brainer, but as with many health habits, it is not so cut and dried.

WHY NOT? (THE CONS)

The mixed results of the Women’s Health Initiative, which looked at 36,282 postmenopausal women, has raised some notable red flags. It found that daily supplementation of 1000 mg calcium with 400 IU vitamin D for seven years did not lead to any significant decrease in colorectal cancer, and that women who started supplementing during the study actually wound up with an increased risk of cardiovascular events. These women also had a 17 percent higher risk of kidney stones than women on a placebo.

The finding regarding calcium supplements and heart disease, in particular, has been receiving attention lately. Researchers can’t say for sure, but their concern is that high calcium intakes, especially from supplements, can lead to calcium deposits in—and subsequent hardening of—arteries, a known risk factor for incidents such as heart attacks. This area of research needs more attention before any changes to guidelines occur, but it’s certainly something to pay attention to moving forward.

Nonetheless, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recently concluded that there is actually no benefit to supplementing calcium in doses smaller than 1,000 mg and that the data is insufficient to support higher doses as well. They ultimately no longer recommend the majority of Americans take calcium supplements at all.

BUT BEFORE YOU TOSS YOUR PILLS…(THE PROS)

Let’s not forget that we know that a dietary calcium deficiency can lead to osteoporosis, and segments of our population are more at risk than others. Women who are postmenopausal, amenorrheic, or suffering from female athlete triad; vegetarians and vegans; smokers; and anyone with a family history are particularly susceptible. Even if we shouldn’t prescribe preventive calcium supplements to every American, that doesn’t mean that it’s not advisable for certain demographics.

In fact, despite the risks many experts conclude that calcium supplements are probably a good idea for women with osteoporosis or broken bones over the age of 50.

We need to see more consistent results across studies before we jump to any new conclusions. Repeat research doesn’t happen nearly as often as it should, leading to single, flawed studies making big headlines. One of the biggest challenges and criticisms of the research, for example, is that adherence is poor; it’s hard to study a supplement’s effect if the participants forget to take the prescribed dose. If everyone took the pills as instructed, perhaps the results would be more definitive.

THE BOTTOM LINE: FIT OR FLOP?

FIT…but only if necessary. We need to focus first on calcium-rich foods. Dietary calcium has all of the potential benefits without any of the purported risks of supplemental calcium. Use the money you’ll save by not buying the supplements on buying more nutritious foods, and you won’t have to be bothered with popping a pill every time you eat.

If you do choose to supplement as a high-risk individual, find a high-quality one, preferably with a USP seal to ensure that it’s been independently tested for contamination and quality. Definitely do not take more than the 1,000 to 1,300 mg daily dose (depending on your life stage and sex). Split your daily intake into less than 500 mg per sitting, which is crucial for proper absorption, and ideally go for one that’s also packed with some vitamin D, magnesium, phosphorus, and vitamin K.

Supplemental calcium may make us healthier in the short term, but don’t let it be a crutch or an excuse to not turn to those calcium-rich foods first. Medicine saves millions of lives, but remember, nature is pretty remarkable, too.

When I pulled up to the former paintball building in downtown Newark, New Jersey, in a block encased by brick warehouses and concrete, I hardly felt like I was about to tour a farm. But then, AeroFarms is not exactly your average farm.

Established in 2004 in Ithaca, New York, AeroFarms is as much a tech company as it is an agricultural one; but don’t let that scare you. Although their aeroponic, indoor growing method is decidedly unconventional, their vision for food and farming is all about getting back in touch with our food. “We want to be a force for good in the world,” their values statement reads; and that is precisely what they are.

AeroFarms chose to lay down roots in abandoned warehouse spaces within a city that has long struggled with access to fresh food. In addition to the repurposed paintball facility I toured, they have given new life to an old steel mill and a night club. Although their farm model can fit in virtually anywhere, they intentionally seek locations close to retailers and food distributors in order to decrease food miles and ensure the freshest, highest quality product possible.

But how, you might ask, could a vegetable possibly be fresh when it’s grown inside an inner-city warehouse? Don’t plants need sunlight, open air, and, um, soil to grow?

In fact, they do not.

Plants do need specific types of light, nutrients, and water, but they do not need to come from the sun, soil, rain, or irrigation systems. Those traditional sources are not even the most effective when you get right down to it. By moving their farms indoors, AeroFarms can pinpoint the exact spectrum of light (through LEDs), ratio of minerals, and amount of water that each one of their products requires for optimal growth and nutrition.

Indoor farming also allows them to seriously cut down on the risk of foodborne illnesses, like salmonella, E. coli, and listeria, which have become so ubiquitous in modern agriculture. 

As Alina Zolotareva, dietitian and marketing manager for AeroFarms, explained to me, “Foodborne illnesses from vegetables are mainly a product of the practices needed to sustain large-scale commercial agriculture.” Without soil, contact with neighboring environments, or pesticides of any kind (because there aren’t any pests, period), the majority of food safety risks encountered in the industry are “simply not an issue with our system,” she added.

AeroFarms manages their product from seed to package, with ultimate traceability and an attention to detail that did not go unnoticed during my tour. They source only seeds that are not genetically modified (GMO), which start their lives on fabric made from post-consumer recycled plastic (water bottles). The germinated seeds are then transferred to a “module,” a stackable growing station that will provide it with all of the LED light and targeted nutrition it needs. After harvest, the cloths are sanitized and reused for a new batch of crops.

Not only is the aeroponic technology ideal for urban farming, food safety, and the health of the plants themselves, but it also has some pretty profound implications for the sustainability of the planet. Aeroponics uses 95 percent less water than field-farmed food and 40 percent less than hydroponics. It allows for product yields that are 75 times higher per square foot annually compared with conventional practices. And there are no concerns over land use and soil erosion, which is crucial when we consider the need for nutritious foods for a growing world population. There are no pesticides, herbicides, fungicides, insecticides, or GMOs involved, underscoring that we can feed the world without them.

Oh, and all of the issues we’ve been having with produce shortages as a result of weather issues? Not a problem for an indoor farm. Prices and supply can remain constant, no matter what Mother Nature throws our way.

(If you’re as sold at this point as I was and you live near Newark, find out where and how you can taste some of their fresh greens for yourself.)

Aeroponics. Technology. Indoor farming. It sounds suspicious; I get it. A “pure” farm should involve a bucolic field of crops, vibrantly green under a bright sun—not a cement-floored industrial warehouse where the “farmers” are scientists who wear white jumpsuits and hairnets. Right?

That’s the incredible thing about AeroFarms. They understand that our food environment is going the way of technology, and fast. Rather than push against it, they have found a way to harness it for the betterment of the entire planet.

That’s huge.

“Innovation in the field of agriculture is an imperative—it’s not optional,” Zolotareva wrote to me at the end of our correspondence. “[We] need new ways of farming, fast. AeroFarms doesn’t operate like any other farm, and that’s a good thing.”

Indeed it is.

In this world of instant food gratification, there is a rogue movement rising up against King Convenience, and one of the forms it’s taking is a small, unassuming seed. Grains, legumes, and nuts are all actually the seeds of their plants, and the potential for new life is inside of them if they’re allowed to germinate under the right conditions (think: warm and wet). It used to be that this happened accidentally, during a rain shower on a summer day while harvested wheat kernels lay outside awaiting the mill, for example. These days, however, we whisk our wheat, rye, oats, or lentils (to name a few) off to be ground up, dried, or cooked before any of that happens.
A growing number of people are channeling their colonial farmer, though, claiming that we lost something great when we stopped eating what are now called “sprouted” grains, seeds, legumes, and nuts.
And if you thought cooking dried beans or wild rice takes a long time, now we’re talking about soaking them and letting them sprout for days before we eat them.
Why go to all this trouble? Well…

THE PROS

Sprouting generates additional nutrients, including B vitamins, vitamin C, folate, fiber, and essential amino acids (the building blocks of protein). Some of the starch is “eaten up” as well, leaving a higher proportion of protein, vitamins, and minerals. If the seed is allowed to fully sprout a new seedling and grow into a plant, all of that extra nutrition will be used up; but if we stop the process before that plant actually develops, we get to reap those benefits instead.
Some preliminary research even suggests that sprouting generates unique nutrients that could reduce the risk of cancer. Many individuals claim that they cannot tolerate certain grains, legumes, nuts, or seeds, but that they experience no issues with their sprouted versions.

THE CONS

Unfortunately, the research is less convincing. Too many of the studies rely on rodent test subjects or small groups of humans lacking diversity. Their methodologies are further suspect, with too many uncontrolled variables clouding the results. These are fine starting points, but we can’t yet draw definitive conclusions from them.
Some sources claim that even if sprouting improves the nutritional profile of certain foods, it is unlikely to lead to substantial changes in an individual’s overall health. In fact, they say the risks of foodborne illness far outweigh the potential nutritional rewards.
Sprouted foods, you see, are considered pretty high risk. The warm and wet conditions necessary for sprouting are exactly what bacteria (think salmonella, listeria, and E. coli) love. Even in the cleanest environment, the seed itself could be harboring bacteria from its time in the field. There have been more than 30 reported outbreaks linked to raw sprouts in the past 20 years, although most of these relate to actual sprouts and not the sprouted grains and legumes discussed in this article. The Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics says the benefits outweigh the risks for healthy individuals, but the government advises us to avoid them, especially if you’re young, pregnant, or elderly. If nothing else, both agree that sprouted foods should be cooked well before they are eaten.

THE BOTTOM LINE: FIT OR FLOP?

FIT! Every food we eat carries some risk. That’s not an excuse to be reckless, but it’s also not a reason to automatically discredit all sprouting. Products using cooked, sprouted ingredients are both more convenient and less risky than sprinkling raw, homemade sprouted chickpeas over your mid-day Buddha bowl. I often recommend Food for Life (“Ezekiel”) products to clients as a starting point and always caution against buying raw sprouts from stores that don’t seem to sell a lot of them.
Once you’re feeling more comfortable, you can consider sprouting your own, but this is something I admittedly have yet to try myself. Oh My Veggies, Nourished Kitchen, and Vegetarian Times all provide tutorials. Buy your ingredients from trusted sources and keep everything super clean to reduce the risk of contamination.
If even that has you nervous (I get it!), consider the simple act of soaking your grains, legumes, nuts, and seeds in water before you use them, without leaving them out to sprout. Soaking doesn’t provide the same benefits, but it does improve digestibility because plants are not always the easiest for humans to process. Beans are a great example of this, because soaking breaks down oligosaccharides (a fancy name for carbohydrates responsible for beans’ gassy reputation). Soaking also breaks down phytic acid, a form of phosphorous in plants that blocks the absorption of iron, zinc, and calcium.
Will switching to sprouted or soaked foods be the magic bullet that revolutionizes your entire existence? Probably not, but no single thing ever is.
It may be a small step toward improved health, but it’s a step nonetheless, and I say let’s take it.
Cautiously, anyway.

It’s March, which means every food under the sun is taking on a verdant—but unfortunately all too often artificial—hue. I think we can do better this March 17 by taking advantage of all of the naturally green foods that are at our disposal.
Naturally green foods get their color from phytochemicals, which are associated with aiding the liver in clearing out carcinogenic compounds. They also tend to have significant amounts of folic acid, potassium, and vitamin C. Of course, it’s important to eat a colorful diet rather than focusing solely on any single hue, because each color represents a unique nutritional profile, but greens can be a struggle (and therefore opportunity) for many of us.
I get it. Kale can be a hard sell sometimes. I’ve got you covered with these 17(+) green recipes…no dyes needed!

Breakfast

Avocado toast with cilantro cashew cream

We have to start with the super-trendy avocado toast, and this recipe from With Food + Love is brilliant in its simplicity. If you happen to be one of those people who can’t stand cilantro, try fresh tarragon instead.

Super green smoothie bowl

Smoothie bowls are the love-children of ice cream, salad, and chewable toppings…because sometimes, a girl (or guy) needs a little substance in the morning. This recipe from Minimalist Baker is perfect to get you started.

Green banana pancakes

Who doesn’t love a stack of pancakes? Sneaking in a little spinach, à la this recipe from the Healthy Maven, is a total game changer. Might I suggest topping it with some equally green pistachio butter?

Lunch

Broccoli flatbread

Green Kitchen Stories is an obvious source of green recipes, both in color and carbon footprint, and this broccoli flatbread is proof of that. Keep up the green streak with green goddess hummus or edamame and avocado salad (see below) as fillings.

Greeny salad with crispy chickpeas

The Sprouted Kitchen’s recipes are bursting with fresh ingredients, this “greeny salad” included. If you really want to see green, try swapping out the chickpeas for some shelled (preferably organic) edamame or use cooked (not roasted) green lentils instead.

Edamame avocado sandwich

Move over, chicken salad, this very green mixture from Two Peas and Their Pod is the perfect recipe to keep on hand for weekday lunches. Make sure you choose a hearty, high-fiber bread, or go bun-less and scoop it over a big salad.

Green wellness bowl with spirulina vinaigrette

Buddha bowls, wellness bowls, nourish bowls: whatever you call them, they’re in, and for good reason. These veggie-packed dishes, like this recipe from Thrive Market, can be prepped ahead for quick assembly. Plus, any non-smoothie recipe that calls for spirulina has got my attention.

Chopped kale salad

Kale salads can be made at the start of the week and only get better as they sit and marinate. I recently tried and loved this one from Edible Perspective. It’s pretty versatile, so aside from the kale, feel free to mix in whatever veggies you have on hand.

Dinner

Very green vegan pesto pizza

Ashley’s Edible Perspective blog earns a second spot on this list, and deservedly so. Not only is this pizza paired with a bright green pesto, but it’s also topped with more green vegetables. Do you think we can find a way to add some green to the crust, too? Hmm…

Asparagus pea soup

Spring, asparagus, and peas might as well be synonymous, so I’m all in when it comes to this soup from Minimalist Baker. My two cents? Boil the often-discarded, woody asparagus ends in water or broth for 45-60 minutes, then puree and strain it to stretch your food dollars a little more. The stringy pulp can then be composted.

“The Hulk” potato kale soup

Can you get over the color of this recipe from Vegan Heaven?! If you’re feeling more adventurous, add a crisp kale chip garnish before serving. I mean, go big or go home, right?

Baked peas with tarragon

This recipe from 101 Cookbooks would make a great side dish, and leftovers, I imagine, would be wonderful for lunch. Oh, and did I mention there’s a pistachio dressing? Because there is. 

Fig and zucchini pasta with hemp seed crumble

I couldn’t have a green recipe collection without some sort of “zoodle” recipe, and I think this one from Nutrition Stripped takes the cake. Figs? Hemp seed crumble? Avocado? Yes, please!

Green monster veggie burger

One of my favorite meals is a solid veggie burger, and so why not choose a green-hued recipe like this one from Vegan Heaven for St. Paddy’s Day? For a bit of a protein boost, try layering it with seared tempeh or, if you’re not vegan, a poached egg.

Snacks & Dessert

Green pea guacamole

The NY Times caused quite a stir when it suggested pureeing green peas into guacamole, but I have to say, I don’t hate the idea. That being said, if pea-guac is utter blasphemy to you, this “perfect guacamole” from Simply Recipes is much more traditional.

Matcha banana nice cream

“Nice cream” is a fancy term for frozen bananas blended into creamy oblivion. It’s a fabulously fruity alternative to ice cream, and with the addition of a dose of matcha powder, this Free People recipe is perfect for a St. Patrick’s Day treat.

St. Paddy’s day macaroons

Matcha and spirulina make second appearances for this Pure Mama macaroon recipe, minimally sweetened and loaded with the healthy fats of walnuts. You know what I’m going to say, though: looking for some extra green? Try it with pistachios.
Shamrock shakes and green bagels of the food marketing world, your days are numbered. I have all the green I need right here, and with recipes as nutritious as these, I’ve got more than luck on my side. How about you?

There are a lot of niche dietary preferences (paleo, gluten free, low carb), but I think the one that sparks the most curiosity is vegetarianism or, better yet, veganism. But what do you eat? How do you get enough protein? Perhaps most fundamentally, why?

For a while, the most common reason was ethics: It’s wrong to kill an animal when there are perfectly edible, nutritious plant foods available. Other reasons that are rising in popularity are personal health and sustainability.

There are also different “types” of vegetarianism. Lacto-ovo vegetarians consume eggs and dairy, while vegans reject anything derived from an animal. There are also pescetarians (who eat fish) and pollotarians (who eat chicken). More recently, there are “veggans” (vegans who eat eggs) and pegans (a hybrid of vegan and paleo). Oh and then there are “flexitarians” who will occasionally eat animal products, but not always.

There are arguments on both sides of the fence when it comes to vegetarianism, but does one side edge out the other?

THE PROS

We have to establish one thing early on: Vegetarians and, yes, vegans can easily meet their protein needs and live perfectly healthy lives without animal products. The question is not whether vegetarian diets can be healthy, but are they superior to animal-based ones?

A lot of the evidence says yes. Vegetarian diets have been associated with lower cholesterol, blood pressure, heart disease, and certain cancers. In fact, of Harvard’s list of 11 foods that may help lower cholesterol, a whopping 10 are plants.

Cancer, specifically, has gotten a lot of media attention over the past year after the International Agency for Research on Cancer published a statement that red and processed meats are significantly associated with increased risk of colon cancer. From this perspective, a diet that eschews them would by nature be a healthier one.

Seventh-day Adventists are another oft-cited example of the benefits of a plant-based diet. Compared to 3 percent of U.S. citizens overall, 30 percent of Seventh-day Adventists are vegetarian. They are also known for living extremely long and healthy lives. Many researchers think it has a lot to do with their plant-based diets.

Our health is not the only consideration for the “ideal” healthy diet, however. Our food choices have a direct and significant impact on the environment. Although a few studies have played devil’s advocate, the vast majority of evidence shows that animal products put a greater strain on the planet than plants do. A healthy diet has to account for how it affects the sustainability of the food system and planet overall, and vegetarianism seems to have the upper hand here.

THE CONS

Even though a healthy vegetarian diet is more than possible, you do have to be vigilant about nutrition. Animal products are our main sources of certain nutrients, including vitamin B12 and EPA/DHA (the forms of omega-3 fats most readily used by the body). It’s easier to get these nutrients without relying on supplements if you continue to eat animal products to some degree.

It’s also extremely important to note that just because a vegetarian diet can be healthier than an omnivorous one, that does not hold true for all vegetarian diets. Some individuals, for example, default to being “pastatarians,” a tongue-in-cheek term for vegetarians who rely on carbohydrates almost exclusively. There are also plenty of “accidentally vegan” foods and other vegetarian-friendly but highly processed products, such as Oreos and low-quality veggie burgers; filling your diet with these foods would not guarantee improved health.

Vegetarianism is also likely too extreme for the majority of individuals. By going too gung-ho on strict vegetarianism, we run the risk of alienating a lot of people who start to feel overwhelmed or intimidated and decide against even trying.

BOTTOM LINE: FIT OR FLOP?

FIT! As far as I know, there is little evidence that eating no animal products is significantly healthier than simply eating less, choosing higher quality options, and filling most of our diets with fiber-rich, vitamin-rich plants. However, done well, a vegetarian diet could be an express ticket to personal and planetary health.

If going full veggie is a bit of a stretch for you, experiment with Meatless Monday or dishes that use meat as a garnish; stir-fries are especially good for this. The Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics and Harvard Medical School both have excellent tips for reducing or eliminating animal products.

Regardless of how you choose to get your protein, focus on filling your diet with plenty of plants. And if you do decide to transition to a more plant-based diet, listen to your body and get regular blood work to see how you as an individual respond to those dietary changes.

There is no one-size-fits-all diet, but I think we could all stand to learn at least a thing or two from our veggie-loving compatriots.