Severe Health Dangers from Plants~


Hey I didn’t imply any of that. I said quite frankly it was my common sense in play not to respond to you only. I have no troubles with others chatting it out with ya and more. It won’t be me :slight_smile: It is cool SpaceB.

now onto our scheduled program


hmmm, Brian this is a big can of worms opening up here LOL

Sipping from a Poisoned Chalice

from my link…
The Texas Institute for Advancement of Chemical Technology Inc., which initially sponsored Calabrese’s database, put out a flyer in 1998 citing examples of hormesis such as dioxin, mercury, and the pesticide lindane; the brochure declared sunnily that hormesis could allow “society to enjoy the benefits of many chemicals that have been banned.” Calabrese says he doesn’t think it’s that black and white. “There will be circumstances where the response appears to be beneficial, and cases where any change [in a standard] might not be advisable,” he says. Nevertheless, Calabrese argues that chemical carcinogens are being overregulated.

Although many scientists applaud Calabrese’s tenacity for bringing hormesis into the scientific mainstream, they point out that not all hormetic effects are beneficial. For example, vom Saal stunned his colleagues with a 1997 report linking extremely low levels of the plastics ingredient bisphenol-A fed to pregnant mice and enlarged prostate glands in their male offspring—the reverse of what is observed at higher doses.

Calabrese and likeminded scientists are bullish on the prospect of their colleagues coming around to the importance of hormesis, which they are convinced will transform medicine, toxicology, and pharmacology. Many skeptics, however, are neither fomenting such a revolution nor rooting for it to begin.

----my thoughts…so it is a widely debated issue.
It has believers and it has non-believers. Both have some proven science on their side.

I think it boils down to what chemical stressors are being added and dose amts. and more.

Controlled in a lab. Not using ‘plant veg. toxins’ per say etc. as a direct link and use in these tests. Heck most of the science is based on Dioxins. (Dioxins are mainly byproducts of industrial practices. They are produced through a variety of incineration processes, including improper municipal waste incineration and burning of trash, and can be released into the air during natural processes, such as forest fires and volcanoes. Almost every living creature has been exposed to dioxins or dioxin-like compounds)

Now they say in the article that we all have low level stressors in our body every single day. But is it needed? Or is it unwanted? This is a big open debate and not a true science just yet from what I am reading.
Now correct me if wrong with more info. I find this very cool but my overall thoughts are not supporting it.

Natural stressors and a natural lifestyle and environment from very old days. The body would and could cope with plant toxins on small levels and be reactive and change as these toxins were introduced thru diet cause very old times, no meat, ya ate veg to survive. One had to so obviously the body being very adaptable has processes in place to survive thru 2 lines of food. Keto and glucose. Keto meat, glucose thru plants. So this would be a normal action. Normal for the body to tackle some plant toxins and change, react, correct etc…but no science says ‘ya get stronger’. Nothing to support that right now.

Now put us modern.
omg. nothing is the same literally.

gmo enhanced toxin load in food.
every chemical made by mankind floating around out there.
air pollutants
environmental such as massive electrical and emfs and more around us.
life stress is not normal at all LOL heck we all know that one :slight_smile:

So I have to say on this toxic load being ‘somewhat’ safe in that the body can deal but add a ton of modern day from that list above, you got more problems. Maybe that ‘less toxic load’ in that plant is what triggers catastrophic failure of your cells?

What is that tip point?

And if hermetic stressors are changed on the evaluation of risk level, like chemical companies would love to have happen…banned things come back cause they are ‘ok in small dose’ now on a new risk chart.

Hmmm, I need to read more on it but I am finding that with modern life and new plants and values put there on toxin loads and what our bodies are exposed to in current day life. I can’t see adding any more stressors to one’s cells is a good thing. Not on that level of saying it is truly beneficial.

Now I wrote a ton here…you need a ton of time to check it out and find some info etc and respond if ya want. I thought it was very interesting when I looked more into it. But from a ‘good thing’ point of view I am finding it hard to go that route at all.

very cool chat Brian

(Edith) #63

I would imagine that in the past, when we ate a cyclic diet due to the changing seasons, maybe plant toxins were not so bad. We ate different fruits and veggies for a short period, changed to a different fruit or veggie as the next type ripened and summer progressed until the winter when we didn’t eat any and then our bodies got a break from the toxins.

That probably is the true way we need to eat.


agree 100%.

food of yesteryear is not food now. even ‘organics’ and all can’t equal yesteryear in any fathom.

I think old follow the seasons eating and meat hunting is just never coming back and we can’t throw that ‘what was good eons ago’ for our bodies and how nature dealt with low level toxins could even be remotely the same as today.

What our bodies fought back then will never be the same as modern life. Very hard to put them side by side.

What is spooky also is the other thought I have…I mean the body is super adaptive etc and will work like heck to save us thru bad situations, like starvation, disease, toxins…but are we ‘so surrounded’ now, immersed and cocooned in modern polluted life that is ALL bad mostly in that the body can’t cope anymore? Like we are taking ourselves straight into extinction as a species and are too stupid to see it? ahhh, man I don’t wanna think too much on all this LOL

(Edith) #65

True, so true.


I certainly appreciate your diligence in trying to further the discussion, but I’m not sure I see the relevance of an article discussing hormesis in the context of whether it’s a good idea to ingest small amount of chemicals, toxicants, BPA, and other toxic substances. If you’re putting cadmium, dioxin, and other heavy metals in the same discussion category as lettuce and brussels sprouts when it comes to discussing whether hormesis is good for the body, we’ll have to agree to disagree. :slightly_smiling_face:


when I research it that is the main science studies out there. there is no ‘brussel sprout’ science study that I could find :slight_smile:
a toxin is a toxin tho right?

agree to disagree on this one :slight_smile:


Right. Sort of my point here…

No. Again, it’s the dose that makes the poison. UV light is beneficial at X levels. It’s toxic at Y levels. Submersion in cold water is hormetically beneficial at X minutes; deadly at Y minutes. And so on.

I respect Dr. Paul Saladino’s work tremendously in this carnivore area. I found this podcast episode which I will listen to. You might find it of interest (and helpful to your argument, at least based on the title).

The 32:25 marks begins the relevant discussion…listening to it now…


The problem with some veggies is that often the dose is very high in very small quantities of veggies. I’m histamine intolerant and a lot of veggies have very high histamine and/or oxalate levels in very small portions. Of course, we probably need more studies behind these levels, but I avoid them 99% of the time.


Good point. I have some trouble with oxalates, too, so when I eat large amounts of cooked spinach or kale, I feel it (itchy eyes). (That particular dose is the poison, for me.)


That is my point also LOL in that we know they contain some plant toxins. Where is the study showing that if you eat a brussel sprout it starts a hormetic pathway to goodness? There isn’t one :slight_smile: In fact I find no studies on veggies…the study that is out there is that other can of worms. Showing low level toxins, no matter what they are studying is still a toxin to the body like some plant toxins, are trying to be shown as beneficial but the science is just not there to support those claims. And of course other scientists take total debunk on it. So…

A pathway always happens in the body. As in every environmental, stuff we breathe, anything we eat, absorption thru our skin and more…ALL starts the cells etc to produce enzymes to combat, all functions in the body take notice and do their thing. Cells trigger detoxifying processes. They jump into action to beat the offender. Normal. They may even trigger into a long term barrier protection plan from one such toxin to combat another episode. I understand this but while beneficial on that true term, would all ingested toxins now have that label? No. The body will react differently to every low level toxin attack.

Plus the cold water submersion…I found this super fast on the net… Furthermore, plunging into cold water may be less beneficial in terms of recovery than immersion into thermoneutral water temperatures . The chronic effects of cold water immersion are still not fully understood, but some research has suggested that it may hinder vascular and muscular adaptations from both endurance and resistance training.

again this normal natural pathway process that happens when submerged can’t be deemed beneficial or unbeneficial at this point. No true science on it all just yet that show rock hard conclusive science.

again this is a super wildly wide debate on all this wanna be science leaning toward beneficial but the science facts aren’t there I am finding on most of it.

What I am saying most is the science behind it all is not there. The science is low level stress/toxins do upset the body. Proven offenders. Proven to trigger cell reactions. And more. Yes. Now are they truly beneficial? Can we show rock hard science that this theory is fact? Not at this time we can’t.

I am sorry I can’t get that podcast to work. will keep trying, not sure why I can’t get it rolling.


I know my posts might be getting confusing.

simple of it all is…yes cells react to low dose toxins.

yes we can show they start a process.

we can show the bad that plant toxins do in the body.

Can we show the science behind what good this low level plan toxins do in the body.

NO. No science support as of yet. So that is how it boils down to me on it all.

and of course after that it is a personal decision to follow the science path you want to follow. We all do what we want in the end when science is on that ‘edge’ of maybe proving or not proving and we decide which way we want to roll.

best any of us can do thru life I think


In the study I posted in my first post, which says, among other things: “ Compelling evidence from epidemiological studies suggest beneficial roles of dietary phytochemicals in protecting against chronic disorders such as cancer, and inflammatory and cardiovascular diseases. ”

The study then discusses this process as being hormetically-based.


Please show me this science in the context of vegetables, not toxic heavy metals.


My first post contains the study that cites this “compelling evidence.” People are certainly entitled to quibble with the conclusions or methodology, but saying flat out that there is “no science support as of yet” is simply not correct…

(bulkbiker) #76

There is I’m afraid no such thing…


This is a very good concluding point, and I agree wholeheartedly.

For me, given the unsettled science, I have to lean toward favoring the lifestyle of eating some plants as an omnivore or nutrivore. This is because people have been eating this way for thousands of years and there’s no compelling evidence that vegetables are bad or harmful for you. There’s some (edited from “plenty”) showing they may have a protective effect. There is no evidence yet that a 100% carnivore diet is optimal on long term human health. We have some very exciting early returns on an N=1 basis (Shawn Baker, Mikhaila Peterson) but not enough in my view to jump whole hog (pun intended) on the carnivore train.


Fair enough. Epidemiologically based or not, at least it’s something. As I note above, we can certainly agree it’s not an RCT and will have to accept cautiously. My primary point was to show there’s something out there, for whatever it’s worth, as I was afraid there was a perception that there’s nothing in the literature on the benefits of this type of hormesis.

(Also, out of an abundance of candor, I agree that the word “suggest” in my cited sentence above is actually the weakest part of using this study in my argument.)

(bulkbiker) #79

Well there isn’t… if it’s only based on epidemiology…

Sorry to labour the point but if we can agree that epidemiology is meaningless then there’d be a whole less crap “science” going around.

Much the same with mice studies.


44:30 starts the discussion we’re having. Interesting. Hope you get it to work.

Dr. Saladino acknowledges that vegetables have an initial positive pro-oxidative effect. HOWEVER, he argues that those molecules cause problems in other body systems and processes. Therefore, his contention is that, all things considered, this is a NET NEGATIVE for the body. He then argues that we don’t need plants to get these molecules.

This nuanced distinction, if correct, is critical here. It shows that the question should be “On balance, and all things considered on a holistic body system level, are vegetables a good thing to eat?”