Paul Saladino· MD
we know that human health declined radically when that happened and so that's too short a time and there haven't really been selective pressures to say like oh you're a race now of plant-eating people
Loading…
The headline is broadly defensible, but the qualifications matter. Effect sizes vary by population, the strongest claims rest on shorter trials, and credible voices push back on how it's typically framed.
we know that human health declined radically when that happened and so that's too short a time and there haven't really been selective pressures to say like oh you're a race now of plant-eating people
Every Sunday: the week’s new conflicts and verdict changes — and nothing else.
Native comments, Twitter mentions, and Reddit threads about this claim — surfaced together so the conversation isn't fragmented across platforms.
Bookmarking — the dossier-vs-overview split is the right call. Most of the time I want overview; sometimes I want receipts.
Would love a "what would change this verdict" RSS feed. Sign me up if it exists.
the idea that pastoralism which we appeared to have a spouse 12 to 13 thousand years ago certainly led to some pretty major decline in the health of humans not surprising right you decrease the nutrient density of your food humans aren't that healthy they're less resilient to infection a concept that's very germane today and you've seen more problems in terms of human skeletons you see more evidence of parodic hypothesis with as a spongiform expansion of the skull and other tissues that are trabecular bone related to anemias and mineral deficiencies you see more tubercular lesions connected with tuberculosis you see more fractures and you see shorter skeletons for people within the last ten thousand years
There's clear evidence that's not the case, and we have great anthropological and ethnographic evidence that when we as humans transitioned from a diet that was a hunter-gatherer diet to a pastoralist diet with more grains, our health went into the toilet.