Molecule of the Day

Phytic acid is an inositol derivative:


i-0aba567310794bf7cd88b2830161df7b-inositol.png

i-e5df29a7bee4cec98c95ebd9a9a79426-phytic-acid.png

There was a time when phytate was mostly associated with disease states. All those phosphates make a fine metal binder, and people who lived on plants nigh-exclusively were often short on essential minerals.

We eat less plants these days, and phytate has shown itself to be capable of playing a number of different roles.

You could find worse ways to guess how prevalent diseases than to count drug commercials. By this technique, you might come to the conclusion that the bulk of the might of the American pharmaceutical industry is focused on herpes and the metabolic syndrome.

You’d have come to a frighteningly accurate one. The prevalence of each has been reported as one in four or five. But let’s save herpes for another day!

Plant metabolism is astonishly varied, bacterial metabolism even more so. Any chemist who’s baffled at an arsenic-containing buffer that grew bacteria, or, once, astonishingly, neat acetic acid, can attest to this. Plants and bacteria may play a more nuanced role in the metabolic syndrome than was once appreciated.

Phytic acid, in a low-mineral, low-protein, high-plant diet, can cause mineral deficiencies, but many people these days live on a high-mineral, high-meat, low-plant diet. It turns out phytate isn’t just an antinutrient, and fiber isn’t just a bulking agent. Lots of these nutrients have potential effects on colon cancer and markers of the metabolic syndrome.

Hear me right: plants make a lot of nasties (Uncle Al will, no doubt, supply some if you ask nicely). Coumarin’s bad, substituted isocoumarin’s good. We don’t understand the metabolic syndrome completely, not all plants are medicines, and meat’s not poison. I will say this: it is one of the singular ironies of the modern age that enough people are making themselves sick through diet that we are prompted to learn some exciting, underexplored aspects of human nutrition – which seemed solved, in many ways, years ago.

Comments

  1. #1 Vince Noir
    April 16, 2008

    I really do hope you talk about herpes in terms of anti-virals. These are an interesting class of drugs, and a class that could use a lot more work. Not that antibiotics are much better these days with resistance, etc…

  2. #2 Uncle Al
    April 16, 2008

    1) You will die.
    2) You will die by age 120.
    3) Anything past 90 is awful at best.
    4) Sacrificing 20 years’ happiness up front to tack on 10 years of misery at the far end is stupid.
    5) Eat what pleases you.
    6) Leave an ugly corpse with a big smile.

    7) Compare the rates of colonoscopy “misadventures” to confirmed cancer detection.
    8) The elderly living dead are no joke. Have a healthcare directive/living will in place long before it is necessary.
    9) On 01 January 2011 the “death tax” is 50% of an estate. If you cannot lawfully pass it on to your kids spend it on yourself.

  3. #3 JB
    May 8, 2008

    1) You will die.
    2) You will die by age 120.
    3) Anything past 90 is awful at best.
    4) Sacrificing 20 years’ happiness up front to tack on 10 years of misery at the far end is stupid.
    5) Eat what pleases you if you want to make the time between 40 and 90 clouded by arterial disease, diabetes, and the inability to fit into an airline seat or play football with your children.
    6) It isn’t about making life longer, it’s about making the life we have better.

The site is undergoing maintenance presently. Commenting has been disabled. Please check back later!