Paul Saladino· MD
I would argue that humans are not very well adapted to plant toxins because we've mostly been eating animals for the last three million years
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.
I would argue that humans are not very well adapted to plant toxins because we've mostly been eating animals for the last three million years
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.
I don't think that there's been any selective pressures or any significant selective pressure to allow for human evolution with plants to tolerate those toxins in the last million years of Homo evolution meaning the Homo genus evolution whether it's Homo sapiens Homo erectus Homo habilis whatever like I would argue that we have not to be there have not been selective pressures for us to need to eat plants in that way so we probably cannot tolerate those toxins
we became I would argue animal hunters instead of plant hunters and with that transition from plant hunting to animal hunting there were transitions in terms of our biochemistry our adaptation to eating plans and it seems that the plant toxins began to affect us much and much more than they had before