Paleo Diet: Raw Paleo Diet and Lifestyle Forum
Raw Paleo Diet Forums => Health => Topic started by: p0wer on July 19, 2011, 11:14:03 pm
-
I researched a bit on phytic acid, considering this diagram of how it binds to nutrients
(http://www.aaes.auburn.edu/comm/pubs/highlightsonline/spring99/images/phytaseone.gif)
I came up with this table (left out the protein)
phytic acid 660.04 100
calcium 40.078 6
magnesium 24.305 3.6
zinc 65.409 9.9
iron 55.845 8.5
First column are molar weights, the second is normalized to 100 for phytic acid. So 100mg phytic acid theoretically would bind to 6mg Ca, 3.6mg Mg, etc. (if my calculations here are correct, I don't have much clue about chemistry actually).
According to this phytic acid is a lot worse regarding zinc/iron availability than calcium/magnesium, which goes along with what's written on Wikipedia:
it chelates and thus makes unabsorbable certain important minor minerals such as zinc and iron, and to a lesser extent, also macro minerals such as calcium and magnesium.
Even if you consume like 5000mg phytic acid daily it won't affect dietary Ca/Mg that much (considering their high RDAs), plus in practice the binding numbers will be probably lower. So I'm wondering, why does it have such a bad reputation regarding teeth health? Are zinc and iron that important for the teeth? Is it possible that it binds calcium/magnesium directly from the teeth already in the mouth? Can't think of other options.
-
my opinion is that its unlikely to decipher why nuts or diets based on fruits and such are damaging to teeth present other problems for internal mineral balance and so forth this way because like most science it can only work from an idealized model to understand something incredibly chaotic.
in the distant past..perhaps people ate these things in abundance with their corresponding seasons and suffered no problems...or perhaps they didn't much at all when they lived 'disease free' ..or perhaps they did eat these things all along and could have had stronger or longer lasting teeth and health if they didn't just eat whatever looked appealing or was available or used tools to clean them or other strategies to live longer. One thing is for sure is they didn't have generations of genetic change/ build up of other problems from modern and altered foods etc...so even those records if available would be less usefull than examining just the cause and effect on modern peoples.
the big thing is what actually happens when these things are consumed and not what is on paper. How and what kind of internal environment that it creates etc... and whether the minerals and other nutrients are actually absorbed as shown in nutrient databases or if they just ferment and feed fungus, pollute or interact poorly with 'toxic' blood or go on to form other issues internally not visible in laboratory breakdowns of acids.
-
most science it can only work from an idealized model to understand something incredibly chaotic
Indeed--except maybe cautious, skeptical, holistic and truly empirical Talebian science, but that's pretty rare.
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grass_Tetany
-
Indeed--except maybe cautious, skeptical, holistic and truly empirical Talebian science, but that's pretty rare.
right. well its not really the fault of science...its the empiricism aspect or mixed value placed on such and people that want to pick and choose information to suit their purposes often in the face of actual un-biased and non dogmatic observed information (raw animal food will kill you etc...)
like one doesn't need to quote Heisenberg and refute all recordable information. If you buy a 9 volt battery..the odds are its ~ 9 volts. In the case of say calories..this is not a clear cut system regarding energy perhaps..but its a more useful system than weight for discussing the relations between different types and quantities of foods and our requirements for such.
The problem especially in the health communities is people trying to rationalize all kinds of things with measurements (often after criticizing the very systems that give the measurements!)....like equating one type of 'protein' to another and saying its adequate..or simplifying in other ways regarding what can be measured in a food while simultaneously ignoring the actual physical results in human beings or even what can be scientifically measured there in testing human tissue/blood/bones etc...
anyway
theres plenty of even standard industrial eaters who have perfect teeth (grains and legumes and soy are fairly high in phytic acid)..but very few raw foodists with such. In some cases I'd surmise it has to do with internal stuff/'detox' or other pre-existing problems more-so than the foods being problematic themselves. but likely its both. like Nagel's info its likely also a deficiency of quality nutrients neglected even by some raw animal food eaters. But again looking at standard industrial eaters..its likely far more to do with excesses of these [modern] raw foods which seem to create a poor internal environment..despite what ancestors might have potentially eaten healthfully or whether theres a specific element to be isolated within that food. its kinda similar to the 'fructose' thing which completely misses the point on whether one digests/assimilates lots of modern fruits well or if these breed all kinds of problems too despite their positive vitamins or whatever.
-
like Nagel's info its likely also a deficiency of quality nutrients neglected even by some raw animal food eaters.
Right, and likely at times in the context of pre-existing chronic deficiencies.
... its kinda similar to the 'fructose' thing which completely misses the point on whether one digests/assimilates lots of modern fruits well or if these breed all kinds of problems too despite their positive vitamins or whatever.
Yeah, I'm getting pretty tired of reading "fructose is fructose" and how "fructose" is one of the chief neolithic agents of disease that many Paleo dieters are not taking into account (though I don't mind it as much if they eventually add qualifiers like "processed"--I just wish they would do it from the start, as in "processed fructose is one of the chief neolithic agents of disease").
I have yet to see a "fructose" tree. Condemning all fruits and honey on the basis of studies of high fructose corn syrup seems like extrapolation to me. One only has to type 9 characters to add the word "processed" to fructose--and one could even type less with "HFCS."
-
Pardon me if interject withs something quite unscientific.
If I eat acidic foods (typically fruit) my teeth hurt. Ayurveda explains that quite simply, but to be even simpler I explain that the acid removes the mucous from the teeth exposing them to the air which invites bacterial action.
Since adopting the primal diet my teeth issues have disappeared. Fat is the solution.
-
I'm curious if the acid phosphatase enzyme in unadulterated honey can break phytic acid down. Is there a way to tell? I searched to no avail. I like pecans covered in honey.