Nezam El-Tayebat Fact CheckA scientific assessment of the “نظام الطيبات” nutrition system
Choose country
Choose language: English

Mostly false Not supported by high-quality evidence Certainty of evidence: moderate provisional C-VEG-16

Avoiding (nearly) all vegetables, salads and legumes is compatible with good health.

Safety note: Eliminating vegetables and legumes can lead to low fibre, potassium, folate and vitamin C intake. This is a particular concern for children (WHO advises at least 250-350 g of fruit and vegetables per day for ages 2-9, and paediatric societies recommend vegetables from the start of complementary feeding), for pregnant women and women planning pregnancy (folate and neural-tube defect prevention) and for people with high blood pressure or kidney stones. Children's diets should not be restricted in this way without paediatric or dietetic advice.
In short: This claim is mostly false: no good evidence shows that avoiding nearly all vegetables, salads and legumes is compatible with good health, while consistent evidence and WHO guidance support daily intake; the size of the mortality benefit is uncertain, but the risks of nutrient shortfalls, especially for children and in pregnancy, are well founded.
Conclusion: Avoiding nearly all vegetables and legumes contradicts a large and consistent body of evidence and WHO guidance; the size of the heart benefit is debated, but nutrient shortfalls are a real risk, especially for children and in pregnancy.
  1. Original statement
  2. Scientific assessment
  3. Scientific evidence in detail
  4. In plain language
  5. Studies on this claim
  6. Regional context
  7. What applies in my country?
  8. References

Original statement

طبق السلطة بجميع أنواعه ممنوع

verbatim according to source. Translation by the project; the Arabic wording is authoritative.

Translation

Avoiding (nearly) all vegetables, salads and legumes is compatible with good health.

Origin

Source status
Third-party site (unofficial)
Attribution
Third-party site (unofficial)
Origin
https://mytayibat.com/forbidden
Attribution uncertainty
mytayibat.com is an unofficial third-party site in the sense that it is neither the eltayebat.com archive nor Elawady's own words. Its footer describes it as 'المنصة الرسمية التعليمية لنظام الطيبات' ('the official educational platform of the Tayebat system'), and its pages refer to it as 'the official platform'. This self-description could not be verified: no evidence was found that the site is authorised by Dr. Diaa Elawady's heirs or by the eltayebat.com archive. By contrast, altayybat.com states that it is not affiliated with Dr. Diaa Elawady. Lowest attribution level; page fetched 2026-10-25.
Claimed mechanism

Combination of the system's arguments (cellulose, pesticides, oxalate, outbreaks).

Claimed health effect

Better health without vegetables and legumes.

Population concerned

Everyone

Geographic restriction by Elawady

none found

Diverging source versions

Source status
Archive food list
Attribution
Archive food list (archive editors)
Origin
https://eltayebat.com/foods/
Attribution uncertainty
Food list compiled by the archive; no video reference per item.
Source status
Third-party site (unofficial)
Attribution
Third-party site (self-described as unofficial)
Origin
https://altayybat.com/ar/
Attribution uncertainty
altayybat.com states it is educational, unofficial and not affiliated with the doctor.
Source status
Archive quote (no location given)
Attribution
Elawady (archive paraphrase; source video not given)
Origin
https://eltayebat.com/rule/leafy-greens-cucurbits/
Attribution uncertainty
The archive presents this in a 'د. ضياء يقول' box without a video reference; wording may be paraphrased.

Scientific assessment

Mostly false – Essential parts of the statement are not supported by the evidence or are strongly exaggerated.

Certainty of evidence: moderate – Further research may still affect the assessment.

1. What was claimed?

A diet with almost no vegetables and no legumes is healthy.

2. What is demonstrably correct?

Specific vegetables carry specific, avoidable risks (bitter zucchini, contaminated produce, extreme juicing, infant nitrate).

3. What is wrong or exaggerated?

Fruit and vegetables: RR 0.90 for all-cause mortality per 200 g/day (Aune 2017), with benefits up to 800 g/day; green leafy vegetables and salads were inversely associated with CVD and mortality. Fibre: 15-30% lower mortality and disease incidence at highest vs lowest intake; greatest benefit at 25-29 g/day (Reynolds 2019). Potassium (mainly from vegetables, legumes, fruit) lowers blood pressure in hypertension (indirect for vegetables: 20 of the 22 trials used potassium supplements) and is associated with 24% lower stroke risk (Aburto 2013). Legumes lower LDL (Ha 2014) and are associated with lower mortality (Zargarzadeh 2023). Vegetables and legumes are main sources of folate; folate needs are higher in pregnancy.

4. What remains unclear?

Observational associations may be partly confounded: in UK Biobank, adjustment for confounders explained most of the raw-vegetable/CVD association (Feng 2022, I-VEG-107), and a Mendelian randomization study found no clear effect on coronary disease (Feng 2023, I-VEG-108). The exact harm of complete elimination has not been tested; a self-selected survey of carnivore dieters reported short-term wellbeing but high LDL cholesterol (Lennerz 2021, I-VEG-109).

5. Which studies support it?

Very weak: Lennerz 2021 (I-VEG-109), a self-reported, uncontrolled survey of people on a meat-based diet. Feng 2022/2023 question the size of the cardiovascular benefit of vegetables but do not test elimination.

6. Which studies contradict it?

Aune 2017; Wang 2021 (I-VEG-106: 5 vs 2 servings/day, mortality HR 0.87); Reynolds 2019; Aburto 2013; Ha 2014; Zargarzadeh 2023; Taylor 2009; Lietz 2026 scoping review (I-VEG-110: nutrient-deficiency and LDL risks of plant-free diets); WHO healthy-diet guidance (I-VEG-112); ESPGHAN 2017 (I-VEG-111).

7. What applies to Germany and Europe?

German (DGE) and EU guidance recommend daily vegetables and regular pulses (not fetched in this review).

8. What is known about Egypt?

In Egypt, vegetables and legumes are central, affordable sources of fibre, potassium and folate.

9. What practical conclusion is appropriate?

Excluding vegetables and legumes for everyone is not consistent with the evidence; specific risks can be managed individually.

Assessment details

Rationale for certainty of evidence

Consistent dose-response cohort meta-analyses link fruit/vegetable and fibre intake with lower mortality, CVD and cancer; RCTs show causal effects of fibre, potassium and pulses on risk factors (body weight, blood pressure, LDL). No trial has tested total vegetable elimination, so certainty is moderate.

Source quality

Food lists (archive and third-party) and archive quote.

Regional transferability

Applies to Germany and Egypt.

Individual exceptions

Temporary restriction of specific vegetables may be appropriate in IBS, certain bowel obstructions, potassium restriction in advanced CKD, or individual allergy.

Regional scope of the claim
general (biological/medical)
Last reviewed
26 October 2026 provisional

Scientific evidence in detail

Not supported by high-quality evidence – There is no good evidence for the claim; this alone does not prove it wrong.

Research question: In the general population including children and pregnant women, is a diet that avoids (nearly) all vegetables, salads and legumes compatible with good health compared with diets meeting recommended intakes?

Research question in detail (PECO)
Population
General population; children; pregnant women
Intervention or exposure
Very low or no intake of vegetables, salads and legumes
Comparison
Recommended intakes (e.g. WHO >=400 g/day fruit and vegetables)
Geographic scope
universal biology; dietary patterns vary by region
Outcomes
  • all-cause and cause-specific mortality
  • cardiovascular disease
  • nutrient adequacy (fibre, folate, potassium, vitamin C)
  • growth and health in children

Study results as reported by the authors. Our assessment follows below.

What speaks for the claim?

  • Survey of meat-only dieters reports satisfaction

    Lennerz BS et al.. Curr Dev Nutr 2021 · PMID 34934897 · DOI 10.1093/cdn/nzab133 Cross-sectional studyabstract checkednewly added

    Social-media survey of 2,029 self-identified carnivore-diet adults.

    Actual result
    Few self-reported adverse symptoms (<1-5.5%); 95% reported improved health; reported LDL-C 172 mg/dL.
    Methodological quality
    very low (self-selected, self-reported, no control)
    Relevance
    direct for the dietary pattern but not for long-term health
    Limitations
    Selection, survivorship and reporting bias; short duration.

    Original publication

  • Vegetable benefit for the heart may be overestimated

    Feng Q et al.. Front Nutr 2022 · PMID 35265657 · DOI 10.3389/fnut.2022.831470 Cohort studyabstract checkednewly added

    UK Biobank cohort (399,586) quantifying residual confounding.

    Actual result
    Raw vegetables CVD HR 0.89 (0.83-0.95); cooked 1.00 (0.91-1.09); confounder adjustment removed 82-87% of the association.
    Methodological quality
    moderate
    Relevance
    indirect: questions size of CVD benefit, does not test elimination
    Limitations
    Crude intake measure.

    Original publication

What speaks against the claim?

  • About five portions of fruit and vegetables a day linked to lower death rates

    Wang DD et al.. Circulation 2021 · PMID 33641343 · DOI 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.120.048996 Meta-analysisfull text checkednewly added

    Two US cohorts plus dose-response meta-analysis of 26 cohorts (1.9 million).

    Actual result
    5 vs 2 servings/day: total mortality HR 0.87 (0.85-0.90); meta RR 0.87 (0.85-0.88); green leafy vegetables inversely associated.
    Methodological quality
    high for observational evidence (large, repeated measures), some concerns for confounding
    Relevance
    direct
    Limitations
    Observational; heterogeneity; small-study bias in the meta-analysis.

    Original publication

  • Fibre and health (Lancet 2019)

    Reynolds A et al.. Lancet 2019 · PMID 30638909 · DOI 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)31809-9 Meta-analysisabstract checked

    Reynolds 2019 Lancet series of SRs/MAs (fibre).

    Actual result
    Highest vs lowest fibre: 15-30% lower mortality and disease incidence; RCTs: lower weight, BP, cholesterol; GRADE moderate.
    Methodological quality
    high (SR/MA with GRADE)
    Relevance
    direct for fibre, which vegetables and legumes supply
    Limitations
    Fibre also from grains; registered twice (I-VEG-01 / I-WHT-01).

    Original publication

  • WHO: at least 400 g fruit and vegetables a day

    World Health Organization. WHO fact sheet 2026 Guideline / position statementfull text checkednewly added

    WHO healthy-diet fact sheet.

    Actual result
    Minimum 400 g/day fruit and vegetables over 10 years; 250-350 g for young children; minimum fibre intakes.
    Methodological quality
    authoritative guidance
    Relevance
    direct
    Limitations
    Summary document.

    Original publication

What does the overall evidence say?

Editorial assessment based on the studies above – not itself a study result.

Which position is better supported?

Diets meeting fruit, vegetable and legume recommendations are associated with lower mortality and better risk-factor profiles; diets largely without plant foods carry risks of fibre, folate, potassium and vitamin C inadequacy and of raised LDL cholesterol. No controlled evidence supports long-term safety of eliminating vegetables and legumes.

Why some studies weigh more

Large cohort meta-analyses (Aune 2017, Wang 2021; overlapping cohorts counted once), fibre SR/MAs with RCT components (Reynolds 2019), potassium and pulse RCTs (Aburto 2013, Ha 2014) and WHO/ESPGHAN guidance outweigh a self-reported survey. Feng 2022/2023 lower confidence in the size of the vegetable-CVD effect but do not address nutrient adequacy.

Is a causal relationship established? Probable Causal effects are established for fibre, potassium and pulses on risk factors in RCTs; for vegetables and mortality, causality is probable but not proven (observational data, residual confounding).

Remaining uncertainty

Magnitude of the causal mortality benefit of vegetables specifically; no trial of total elimination exists.

Justified conclusion

The claim is mostly false: avoiding nearly all vegetables, salads and legumes is not shown to be compatible with good health and conflicts with consistent evidence and with WHO and paediatric guidance. It is a particular risk for children and pregnant women.

Why do studies seem to disagree?

Feng 2022 (UK Biobank) and Feng 2023 (MR) suggest that the vegetable-CVD association may be largely confounded, whereas Wang 2021 and Aune 2017 find robust inverse associations with mortality. Differences: crude single-measure tablespoon intake vs repeated FFQs; CVD vs total mortality; genetic instruments capture small intake differences. None of these studies tests near-total elimination, and none addresses nutrient adequacy, which is the main concern for children and pregnancy.

Does this depend on the country?
General biological effects
Nutrient needs (fibre, folate, potassium, vitamin C) are universal.
Eating habits
In Egypt, vegetables and legumes (ful, koshari, molokhia, salads) are central, affordable nutrient sources; removing them removes major folate and fibre sources.
Origin of the food
not applicable
Contaminants
Residue concerns are addressed in C-VEG-13/14 and do not justify elimination.
National production conditions
not applicable
Legal rules
WHO and ESPGHAN recommendations apply.
Actual monitoring data
not applicable

A regional difference that changes the conclusion is not supported by robust data.

Statistical re-check
  • Log-symmetry of HR/RR CIs; illustrative absolute risk – CIs symmetric within rounding; at an assumed 10% 10-year risk, HR 0.87 would mean ARR 1.3% (NNT 77) if causal. recalculated
  • CI symmetry; interpretation of LR reduction – CIs consistent; 82-87% LR reduction indicates strong confounding of crude association. recalculated
  • Multiplicity of nominal stroke finding – OR 0.82 (0.69-0.98), p ~0.03, not significant after Bonferroni correction. recalculated
Certainty of the overall evidence (GRADE, simplified)
Main outcome
All-cause mortality with very low vs recommended fruit/vegetable intake
Starting level
low (observational studies)
Reasons for downgrading
  • risk of bias (residual confounding)
Reasons for upgrading
  • dose-response gradient
  • consistency across cohorts and regions
Result
moderate

Simplified assessment by a single reviewer, following the GRADE approach; not a formal GRADE panel. GRADE rates the body of evidence for one outcome, not individual studies.

Clinical guidelines and official statements checked
  • WHO: Healthy diet (fact sheet) (2026) · Original publication
    At least 400 g fruit and vegetables per day for everyone over 10 years; at least 250 g (2-5 years) and 350 g (6-9 years) for children; at least 25 g/day naturally occurring fibre over 10 years (15 g and 21 g for younger age groups); carbohydrates mainly from whole grains, vegetables, fruits and pulses.
  • ESPGHAN Committee on Nutrition: Complementary Feeding: A Position Paper (Fewtrell 2017; I-VEG-111) (2017) · Original publication
    Complementary foods not before 4 months and not later than 6 months; offer varied flavours and textures including bitter-tasting green vegetables (PubMed abstract).
Search strategy

Documented literature searches for this review (search strings in the original database syntax).

DatabaseDateSearchLooking forHitsIncluded
PubMed26 October 2026("fruit and vegetable" OR vegetable*) AND (mortality) AND (meta-analysis[pt] OR "dose-response meta-analysis") AND (cohort OR prospective)contradicting evidence55
Europe PMC26 October 2026TITLE:("fruit and vegetable intake" OR "vegetable intake") AND TITLE:(mortality) AND (2021 OR 2022 OR 2023 OR 2024 OR 2025 OR 2026) AND ("pooled analysis" OR "meta-analysis")contradicting evidence8
PubMed26 October 2026"carnivore diet" OR ("animal-based diet" AND "vegetable-free") OR ("zero-carb" AND diet AND survey)supporting evidence51
Europe PMC26 October 2026vegetable intake cardiovascular "UK Biobank" residual confoundingsupporting evidence586
PubMed26 October 2026(vegetable* AND (raw OR cooked)) AND ("UK Biobank") AND cardiovascularsupporting evidence4
Europe PMC26 October 2026JOURNAL:"Cochrane Database Syst Rev" AND TITLE:("fruit and vegetables" OR vegetable*)contradicting evidence9
PubMed26 October 2026(Egypt[tiab] OR Egyptian[tiab] OR Arab[tiab]) AND (vegetable*[tiab] OR "fruit and vegetable"[tiab]) AND (intake OR consumption) AND (mortality OR cardiovascular OR "non-communicable" OR obesity OR hypertension)both directions57
WHO website26 October 2026https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/healthy-dietguidelines1
WHO eLENA26 October 2026https://www.who.int/tools/elena/interventions/fruit-vegetables-ncdsguidelines1

Open questions

Long-term outcomes of plant-food elimination diets; nutrient status of people following the Tayyibat lists (no data found).

How deeply was this checked?

13 linked studies: 5 checked in full text (3 of them with a structured risk-of-bias assessment), 8 on the basis of the abstract, 0 bibliographically only. No formal assessment with two independent reviewers and no independent human expert review has taken place yet.

Last scientific review: 26 October 2026

History of the verdict
  1. 25 October 2026 · Phase 1 · Initial assessment: Mostly false (moderate)
  2. 26 October 2026 · Phase 4 (systematic evidence review) · Re-examined with extended evidence; verdict unchanged: Mostly false (moderate)
    New evidence includes both directions: Wang 2021 strengthens the inverse association, while Feng 2022/2023 raise legitimate doubts about the size of the cardiovascular benefit. Neither changes the conclusion, because nutrient adequacy and guideline positions (WHO, ESPGHAN) are independent of that debate. Safety note sharpened for children.
    New sources: I-VEG-106 I-VEG-107 I-VEG-108 I-VEG-109 I-VEG-110 I-VEG-111 I-VEG-112

In plain language

The Tayyibat lists ban almost all vegetables, salads and legumes. Large studies consistently link eating more vegetables, fruit, fibre and legumes with lower rates of heart disease, stroke, some cancers and death. Trials show that fibre, potassium and pulses improve weight, blood pressure and cholesterol. Vegetables and legumes are also key sources of folate, which is especially important before and during pregnancy. The specific risks the archive mentions can be managed without giving up these foods.

Studies on this claim

Studies supporting the claim (1)

  • Survey of meat-only dieters reports satisfaction

    Lennerz BS et al.. Curr Dev Nutr 2021 · PMID 34934897 · DOI 10.1093/cdn/nzab133
    Cross-sectional studyindependent cross-checkabstract checked

    Over 2,000 self-selected carnivore dieters reported few side effects and feeling better, but their reported LDL cholesterol was markedly high.

    Self-reported short-term wellbeing on a diet almost without plant foods (very low quality).

    Does the study support the specific claim? Partly · Methodological quality: very low · Certainty of evidence: see overall assessment of the claim

    Original publication · Scientific details

    Study explained simply
    What did the researchers want to find out?

    Describe people on a carnivore diet.

    How was the study done?

    Online survey.

    How many people, animals or samples were studied?

    2,029 adults.

    What was actually found?

    High satisfaction, few reported symptoms, high LDL-C.

    How large was the observed effect?

    Descriptive only.

    What do the results mean in everyday life?

    Some people feel well on such diets in the short term.

    What are the study's limitations?

    Self-selected, self-reported, no controls.

    What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?

    Weak support; cannot show long-term health.

    Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?

    Low.

    What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?

    Cannot show safety or benefit over time.

    Scientific details →

Studies contradicting or limiting the claim (10)

  • Fruit, vegetables and death rates

    Aune D et al.. Int J Epidemiol 2017 · PMID 28338764 · DOI 10.1093/ije/dyw319
    Meta-analysisindependent cross-checkfull text, structured risk-of-bias assessment★ key study

    Each extra 200 g of fruit and vegetables a day was linked to 10% lower death risk; green leafy vegetables and salads were also protective.

    Does the study support the specific claim? No · Methodological quality: high · Certainty of evidence: see overall assessment of the claim

    Original publication · Scientific details

    Study explained simply
    What did the researchers want to find out?

    F&V and outcomes

    How was the study done?

    Meta-analysis

    How many people, animals or samples were studied?

    95 studies

    What was actually found?

    Lower CVD, cancer, mortality

    How large was the observed effect?

    RR 0.90 per 200 g

    What do the results mean in everyday life?

    Eat plenty of vegetables.

    What are the study's limitations?

    Observational

    What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?

    Contradicts avoidance

    Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?

    High

    What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?

    Cannot prove causation.

    Scientific details →

  • Fibre and health (Lancet 2019)

    Reynolds A et al.. Lancet 2019 · PMID 30638909 · DOI 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)31809-9
    Meta-analysisindependent cross-checkabstract checked★ key study

    High fibre intake is linked to 15-30% lower death and disease rates; trials show better weight, blood pressure and cholesterol.

    Does the study support the specific claim? No · Methodological quality: high · Certainty of evidence: see overall assessment of the claim

    Original publication · Scientific details

    Study explained simply
    What did the researchers want to find out?

    Fibre and NCDs

    How was the study done?

    Meta-analyses

    How many people, animals or samples were studied?

    185 cohorts, 58 RCTs

    What was actually found?

    Large benefits

    How large was the observed effect?

    15-30% lower risk

    What do the results mean in everyday life?

    Eat 25-29 g fibre daily.

    What are the study's limitations?

    Observational endpoints

    What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?

    Contradicts 'cattle food'

    Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?

    High

    What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?

    Not specific to leafy greens.

    Scientific details →

  • Potassium and blood pressure

    Aburto NJ et al.. BMJ 2013 · PMID 23558164 · DOI 10.1136/bmj.f1378
    Meta-analysisindependent cross-checkfull text, structured risk-of-bias assessment

    More potassium lowered blood pressure in people with hypertension and was linked to 24% lower stroke risk.

    Does the study support the specific claim? No · Methodological quality: high · Certainty of evidence: see overall assessment of the claim

    Original publication · Scientific details

    Study explained simply
    What did the researchers want to find out?

    Potassium effects

    How was the study done?

    Meta-analyses

    How many people, animals or samples were studied?

    RCTs and cohorts

    What was actually found?

    Lower BP, less stroke

    How large was the observed effect?

    SBP -3.49 mm Hg

    What do the results mean in everyday life?

    Potassium-rich foods are beneficial.

    What are the study's limitations?

    Indirect for vegetables

    What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?

    Supports vegetable intake

    Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?

    High

    What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?

    Not specific to vegetables.

    Scientific details →

  • Beans and lentils lower LDL cholesterol

    Ha V et al.. CMAJ 2014 · PMID 24710915 · DOI 10.1503/cmaj.131727
    Meta-analysisindependent cross-checkabstract checked★ key study

    About one serving of pulses daily lowered LDL cholesterol in randomised trials.

    Does the study support the specific claim? No · Methodological quality: moderate · Certainty of evidence: see overall assessment of the claim

    Original publication · Scientific details

    Study explained simply
    What did the researchers want to find out?

    Pulses and lipids

    How was the study done?

    Meta-analysis of RCTs

    How many people, animals or samples were studied?

    1,037

    What was actually found?

    Lower LDL

    How large was the observed effect?

    -0.17 mmol/L

    What do the results mean in everyday life?

    Beans support heart health markers.

    What are the study's limitations?

    Short trials

    What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?

    Contradicts harm claims

    Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?

    High

    What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?

    Cannot show long-term outcomes.

    Scientific details →

  • Legumes and death rates

    Zargarzadeh N et al.. Adv Nutr 2023 · PMID 36811595 · DOI 10.1016/j.advnut.2022.10.009
    Meta-analysisindependent cross-checkfull text, structured risk-of-bias assessment★ key study

    People eating more legumes had about 6% lower risk of death from any cause.

    Does the study support the specific claim? No · Methodological quality: moderate · Certainty of evidence: see overall assessment of the claim

    Original publication · Scientific details

    Study explained simply
    What did the researchers want to find out?

    Legumes and mortality

    How was the study done?

    Meta-analysis

    How many people, animals or samples were studied?

    1.14 million

    What was actually found?

    Lower all-cause mortality

    How large was the observed effect?

    HR 0.94

    What do the results mean in everyday life?

    Legumes compatible with longevity.

    What are the study's limitations?

    Observational

    What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?

    Contradicts harm claims

    Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?

    Moderate

    What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?

    Cannot prove causation.

    Scientific details →

  • Vegetable-rich diet and kidney stones

    Taylor EN et al.. J Am Soc Nephrol 2009 · PMID 19679672 · DOI 10.1681/ASN.2009030276
    Cohort studyindependent cross-checkabstract checked★ key study

    People with a diet rich in vegetables, fruit and legumes had about 40-45% fewer kidney stones.

    Does the study support the specific claim? No · Methodological quality: high · Certainty of evidence: see overall assessment of the claim

    Original publication · Scientific details

    Study explained simply
    What did the researchers want to find out?

    DASH and stones

    How was the study done?

    Cohorts

    How many people, animals or samples were studied?

    ~240,000

    What was actually found?

    Fewer stones

    How large was the observed effect?

    RR 0.55-0.60

    What do the results mean in everyday life?

    Vegetables protect rather than harm.

    What are the study's limitations?

    Observational

    What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?

    Contradicts claim

    Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?

    Moderate

    What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?

    Cannot prove causation.

    Scientific details →

  • About five portions of fruit and vegetables a day linked to lower death rates

    Wang DD et al.. Circulation 2021 · PMID 33641343 · DOI 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.120.048996
    Meta-analysisindependent cross-checkfull text checked★ key study

    Compared with 2 servings a day, 5 servings were linked to 13% lower mortality in 2 US cohorts and in a meta-analysis of 26 cohorts with nearly 1.9 million people.

    Lowest intakes associated with highest mortality; green leafy vegetables inversely associated.

    Does the study support the specific claim? No · Methodological quality: high · Certainty of evidence: see overall assessment of the claim

    Original publication · Scientific details

    Study explained simply
    What did the researchers want to find out?

    Find the fruit and vegetable intake linked to the lowest mortality.

    How was the study done?

    Two long cohorts plus a dose-response meta-analysis.

    How many people, animals or samples were studied?

    108,735 US adults; 1.9 million in meta-analysis.

    What was actually found?

    Lowest mortality at ~5 servings/day; green leafy vegetables beneficial; potatoes and juice not.

    How large was the observed effect?

    HR 0.87 (0.85-0.90).

    What do the results mean in everyday life?

    Eating around 3 servings of vegetables and 2 of fruit a day is associated with longer life.

    What are the study's limitations?

    Observational; confounding and measurement error possible.

    What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?

    Contradicts the claim that avoiding vegetables is compatible with good health.

    Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?

    Applies to European populations (included cohorts).

    What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?

    Cannot prove that vegetables themselves cause the lower mortality.

    Scientific details →

  • Meat-only diets: little evidence, real risks

    Lietz A et al.. Nutrients 2026 · PMID 41599961 · DOI 10.3390/nu18020348
    Systematic reviewindependent cross-checkabstract checked

    A 2026 review of 9 small studies found possible short-term benefits but risks of vitamin C, fibre and mineral deficiency and high LDL cholesterol.

    Nutrient deficiency and LDL risks of diets largely without plant foods; evidence very limited.

    Does the study support the specific claim? No · Methodological quality: low · Certainty of evidence: see overall assessment of the claim

    Original publication · Scientific details

    Study explained simply
    What did the researchers want to find out?

    Map evidence on carnivore diets.

    How was the study done?

    Scoping review.

    How many people, animals or samples were studied?

    9 human studies.

    What was actually found?

    Short-term benefits reported; deficiency and LDL risks.

    How large was the observed effect?

    Not quantified.

    What do the results mean in everyday life?

    Removing plant foods long-term is not recommended.

    What are the study's limitations?

    Weak primary studies.

    What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?

    Contradicts the claim of compatibility with good health.

    Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?

    Applicable.

    What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?

    Cannot quantify long-term disease risk.

    Scientific details →

  • European paediatricians: offer green vegetables to infants

    Fewtrell M et al.. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr 2017 · PMID 28027215 · DOI 10.1097/MPG.0000000000001454
    Guideline / position statementindependent cross-checkabstract checked★ key study

    ESPGHAN advises starting solids between 4 and 6 months and offering varied foods including bitter green vegetables.

    Paediatric guidance recommends green vegetables in complementary feeding.

    Does the study support the specific claim? No · Methodological quality: moderate · Certainty of evidence: see overall assessment of the claim

    Original publication · Scientific details

    Study explained simply
    What did the researchers want to find out?

    Give complementary-feeding recommendations.

    How was the study done?

    Position paper.

    How many people, animals or samples were studied?

    Not applicable.

    What was actually found?

    Green vegetables recommended from 4-6 months.

    How large was the observed effect?

    Not applicable.

    What do the results mean in everyday life?

    Vegetables are part of normal infant feeding after the first months.

    What are the study's limitations?

    Consensus document.

    What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?

    Contradicts removing vegetables for children; context for infant nitrate warning.

    Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?

    European.

    What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?

    Does not quantify nitrate risk.

    Scientific details →

  • WHO: at least 400 g fruit and vegetables a day

    World Health Organization. WHO fact sheet 2026
    Guideline / position statementindependent cross-checkfull text checked

    WHO recommends at least 400 g of fruit and vegetables daily for everyone over 10 and 250-350 g for young children, plus minimum fibre intakes.

    WHO recommends minimum fruit/vegetable and fibre intakes for adults and children.

    Does the study support the specific claim? No · Methodological quality: moderate · Certainty of evidence: see overall assessment of the claim

    Original publication · Scientific details

    Study explained simply
    What did the researchers want to find out?

    State WHO healthy-diet recommendations.

    How was the study done?

    Fact sheet.

    How many people, animals or samples were studied?

    Not applicable.

    What was actually found?

    Minimum fruit/vegetable and fibre intakes for adults and children.

    How large was the observed effect?

    Not applicable.

    What do the results mean in everyday life?

    Children and adults should eat vegetables every day.

    What are the study's limitations?

    Summary document.

    What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?

    Contradicts the claim.

    Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?

    Global.

    What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?

    Not a study of outcomes.

    Scientific details →

Studies with mixed or unclear results (2)

  • Vegetable benefit for the heart may be overestimated

    Feng Q et al.. Front Nutr 2022 · PMID 35265657 · DOI 10.3389/fnut.2022.831470
    Cohort studyindependent cross-checkabstract checked★ key study

    In 400,000 UK adults, raw vegetables were linked to 11% lower CVD risk, but adjustment for lifestyle and social factors explained over 80% of the association.

    Suggests residual confounding of vegetable-CVD association; does not test near-total elimination.

    Does the study support the specific claim? Partly · Methodological quality: moderate · Certainty of evidence: see overall assessment of the claim

    Original publication · Scientific details

    Study explained simply
    What did the researchers want to find out?

    Separate raw and cooked vegetable effects on heart disease.

    How was the study done?

    Prospective cohort with confounding analysis.

    How many people, animals or samples were studied?

    399,586 adults.

    What was actually found?

    Raw (not cooked) vegetables associated with lower CVD; mostly explained by confounding.

    How large was the observed effect?

    HR 0.89 (0.83-0.95).

    What do the results mean in everyday life?

    Eating vegetables may matter less for heart disease than many studies suggest.

    What are the study's limitations?

    Crude dietary measure.

    What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?

    Weakens the strength of one argument against the claim, but says nothing in favour of eliminating vegetables.

    Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?

    UK data; directly applicable.

    What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?

    Cannot show that a diet with almost no vegetables is healthy.

    Scientific details →

  • Genetic study finds no clear heart benefit from vegetables

    Feng Q et al.. Nutrients 2023 · PMID 37686714 · DOI 10.3390/nu15173682
    Otherindependent cross-checkabstract checked★ key study

    Gene-based estimates of vegetable intake were not linked to heart disease, with a weak signal for less stroke.

    Null MR for CHD; nominal stroke benefit.

    Does the study support the specific claim? Partly · Methodological quality: moderate · Certainty of evidence: see overall assessment of the claim

    Original publication · Scientific details

    Study explained simply
    What did the researchers want to find out?

    Test causality of vegetable intake for CVD with genetics.

    How was the study done?

    Mendelian randomization.

    How many people, animals or samples were studied?

    1.2 million.

    What was actually found?

    Null for CHD, HF, AF; nominal stroke reduction.

    How large was the observed effect?

    Stroke OR 0.82 (0.69-0.98).

    What do the results mean in everyday life?

    Uncertainty about how much vegetables protect the heart.

    What are the study's limitations?

    Weak instruments.

    What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?

    Does not support eliminating vegetables; adds uncertainty.

    Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?

    European.

    What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?

    Cannot evaluate nutrient deficiency.

    Scientific details →

Regional context

Germany / EU

German (DGE) and EU guidance recommend daily vegetables and regular pulses (not fetched in this review).

Egypt

In Egypt, vegetables and legumes are central, affordable sources of fibre, potassium and folate.

What applies in my country?

General scientific assessment

Mostly false Avoiding nearly all vegetables and legumes contradicts a large and consistent body of evidence and WHO guidance; the size of the heart benefit is debated, but nutrient shortfalls are a real risk, especially for children and in pregnancy.

The following areas of food safety are relevant to this statement:

  • Pesticides and pesticide residues
  • Contaminants (heavy metals, PFAS, PCBs, dioxins, nitrate)
  • Mycotoxins (mould toxins)
  • Pathogens (Salmonella, Campylobacter, etc.)

Fruit and vegetables · Legumes and nuts

Choose a country to see the checked information for it.

Limits: legal rules describe what is allowed, not what every single food contains. Measurement data come from samples and are meaningful only together with their method details.

Country of residence or purchase Compare with another country

References

  1. Behavioral Characteristics and Self-Reported Health Status among 2029 Adults Consuming a "Carnivore Diet".. Lennerz BS et al.. Curr Dev Nutr 2021 · PMID 34934897 · DOI 10.1093/cdn/nzab133
  2. Fruit and vegetable intake and the risk of cardiovascular disease, total cancer and all-cause mortality-a systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis of prospective studies.. Aune D et al.. Int J Epidemiol 2017 · PMID 28338764 · DOI 10.1093/ije/dyw319
  3. Carbohydrate quality and human health: a series of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.. Reynolds A et al.. Lancet 2019 · PMID 30638909 · DOI 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)31809-9
  4. Effect of increased potassium intake on cardiovascular risk factors and disease: systematic review and meta-analyses.. Aburto NJ et al.. BMJ 2013 · PMID 23558164 · DOI 10.1136/bmj.f1378
  5. Effect of dietary pulse intake on established therapeutic lipid targets for cardiovascular risk reduction: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.. Ha V et al.. CMAJ 2014 · PMID 24710915 · DOI 10.1503/cmaj.131727
  6. Legume Consumption and Risk of All-Cause and Cause-Specific Mortality: A Systematic Review and Dose-Response Meta-Analysis of Prospective Studies.. Zargarzadeh N et al.. Adv Nutr 2023 · PMID 36811595 · DOI 10.1016/j.advnut.2022.10.009
  7. DASH-style diet associates with reduced risk for kidney stones.. Taylor EN et al.. J Am Soc Nephrol 2009 · PMID 19679672 · DOI 10.1681/ASN.2009030276
  8. Fruit and Vegetable Intake and Mortality: Results From 2 Prospective Cohort Studies of US Men and Women and a Meta-Analysis of 26 Cohort Studies.. Wang DD et al.. Circulation 2021 · PMID 33641343 · DOI 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.120.048996
  9. Carnivore Diet: A Scoping Review of the Current Evidence, Potential Benefits and Risks.. Lietz A et al.. Nutrients 2026 · PMID 41599961 · DOI 10.3390/nu18020348
  10. Complementary Feeding: A Position Paper by the European Society for Paediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition (ESPGHAN) Committee on Nutrition.. Fewtrell M et al.. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr 2017 · PMID 28027215 · DOI 10.1097/MPG.0000000000001454
  11. Healthy diet (WHO fact sheet). World Health Organization. WHO fact sheet 2026
  12. Raw and Cooked Vegetable Consumption and Risk of Cardiovascular Disease: A Study of 400,000 Adults in UK Biobank.. Feng Q et al.. Front Nutr 2022 · PMID 35265657 · DOI 10.3389/fnut.2022.831470
  13. Genetically Predicted Vegetable Intake and Cardiovascular Diseases and Risk Factors: An Investigation with Mendelian Randomization.. Feng Q et al.. Nutrients 2023 · PMID 37686714 · DOI 10.3390/nu15173682

← Back to overview