2 ms·

The science behind this article (hat tip to DanBC for his top-level comment linking to the author's promotional website) is dubious at best. Much of what can be

The science behind this article (hat tip to DanBC for his top-level comment linking to the author's promotional website) is dubious at best. Much of what can be called in general "phytochemicals" (chemicals found in plants) and that the author specifically praises as "phytonutrients" (chemicals found in plants with nutritional benefits for human eaters) can be, depending on DOSAGE, "phytotoxins" (poisonous chemicals found in plants). The poison is in the dose. Agriculture was pioneered by human cultures all over the world, http://www.jstor.org/userimages/ContentEditor/1320774798622/v52nS4.pdf http://www.jstor.org/userimages/ContentEditor/1320774798622/... because people wanted a reliable supply of food later. In many different regions, human beings noticed that planting seeds not only made a crop for the future likely, but also allowed artificial selection of high yield (a crucial concern at first) and better taste. Plant foods from all over the world have been actively selected for centuries or even millennia. In quite a few cases, human beings selected plants so that they were loss toxic and more bearable to eat in larger doses. The author is writing from ignorance of an evolutionary perspective informed by the general biological fact that most plants produce chemicals to REDUCE being eaten by animals, not to be beneficial to human beings in a wild state.

dnautics 13y ago
Even the plants that do want to be eaten (fruits) often produce agents intended to make you pass them violently in a distant location, which is why overconsumption of wild plants on hikes can result in gastrointestinal discomfort.
codex 13y ago
Just because plants produce toxins doesn't mean humans don't benefit from them. Humans and plants coevolved over millions of years, and it's not unreasonable for the human body to "expect" certain chemical triggers in the environment, and to go awry without them. It could be that plant toxins turn on specific cellular repair machinery which the body needs. This theory of hormesis is young but promising, and attempts to explain the health promoting effects of vigorous exercise, modest stress, resveratrol/sirtuin activation, and mTOR activation. For example, restricting calories improves life span, but in high doses (zero calories) is fatal. But just because this strategy is bad at the limit doesn't mean it's bad in small does. Similarly, exposure to the sun results in skin cancer in large doses, but produces cancer fighting vitamin D in small doses. What is the correct dose of plant toxins? We don't know, but it could well be higher than in bred plants, at least for adults. Children generally hate bitter foods and the reason could well be to protect their small livers from overdose.
- btilly 13y ago
  ...restricting calories improves life span... I suspect that your knowledge on this topic has hit its expiry date. You are probably thinking of the various studies relating to rats and mice. However the correlation failed when we went to monkeys, and there is no reason to believe that it works in humans. See http://www.nature.com/news/calorie-restriction-falters-in-the-long-run-1.11297 http://www.nature.com/news/calorie-restriction-falters-in-th... for verification of that.
  - codex 13y ago
    One primate study verified the effect and one did not; see http://www.davidstipp.com/on-calorie-restriction-monkeys-magic-and-medicine/ http://www.davidstipp.com/on-calorie-restriction-monkeys-mag... for an interesting, if biased, analysis of the NIH study.
    - btilly 13y ago
      Thank you for the additional information. I've updated my mental note from "disproven for primates" to "unclear".

dnautics 13y ago

Even the plants that do want to be eaten (fruits) often produce agents intended to make you pass them violently in a distant location, which is why overconsumption of wild plants on hikes can result in gastrointestinal discomfort.

codex 13y ago

Just because plants produce toxins doesn't mean humans don't benefit from them. Humans and plants coevolved over millions of years, and it's not unreasonable for the human body to "expect" certain chemical triggers in the environment, and to go awry without them. It could be that plant toxins turn on specific cellular repair machinery which the body needs. This theory of hormesis is young but promising, and attempts to explain the health promoting effects of vigorous exercise, modest stress, resveratrol/sirtuin activation, and mTOR activation. For example, restricting calories improves life span, but in high doses (zero calories) is fatal. But just because this strategy is bad at the limit doesn't mean it's bad in small does. Similarly, exposure to the sun results in skin cancer in large doses, but produces cancer fighting vitamin D in small doses. What is the correct dose of plant toxins? We don't know, but it could well be higher than in bred plants, at least for adults. Children generally hate bitter foods and the reason could well be to protect their small livers from overdose.

btilly 13y ago
...restricting calories improves life span... I suspect that your knowledge on this topic has hit its expiry date. You are probably thinking of the various studies relating to rats and mice. However the correlation failed when we went to monkeys, and there is no reason to believe that it works in humans. See http://www.nature.com/news/calorie-restriction-falters-in-the-long-run-1.11297 http://www.nature.com/news/calorie-restriction-falters-in-th... for verification of that.
- codex 13y ago
  One primate study verified the effect and one did not; see http://www.davidstipp.com/on-calorie-restriction-monkeys-magic-and-medicine/ http://www.davidstipp.com/on-calorie-restriction-monkeys-mag... for an interesting, if biased, analysis of the NIH study.
  - btilly 13y ago
    Thank you for the additional information. I've updated my mental note from "disproven for primates" to "unclear".