Inositol Hexaphosphate (ip-6)

Combie

Member
Joined
Oct 21, 2012
Messages
293
Age
43
Location
UK
I know Mr Peat is big on the calcium/phosphate ratio, but i wonder about IP-6 (Inositol Hexaphosphate). As far as i am aware, the phosphate isnt absorbed, but rather chelates metals which are then excreted. So im thinking it doesnt have a massive effect on Ca:P ratio, and at least the brand i have comes with some calcium and magnesium in it. There appears to be evidence supporting use of IP-6 in the treatment of cancer, and chelating iron for instance is beneficial. So Is there a place for IP-6 in a peat inspired approach?
 

peatarian

Member
Joined
Sep 18, 2012
Messages
313
I don't think he ever mentioned it. The studies I found showed no positive effects on cancers.
Would you post your sources?
 

peatarian

Member
Joined
Sep 18, 2012
Messages
313
Sorry, I didn't read the references, only the article and it seems to come down to:

"According to researchers from Linus Pauling Institute of Science and Medicine, phytates appear to have anticancer effects by binding excess minerals in tissues, depriving tumors of essential minerals."

This is the same argumentation as "starving the patient is starving the tumor", "poisoning the patient, poisoning the tumor".

Ray Peat's argument for not eating seeds is that they raising serotonin. From the studies I've read, phytates would do that in any case. Am I missing something?

I'm sorry I don't have time to do the research now.

But if you're concerned about stomach cancer - you have heard about urea (as powder) and interzym?
 

Combie

Member
Thread starter
Joined
Oct 21, 2012
Messages
293
Age
43
Location
UK
peatarian said:
Sorry, I didn't read the references, only the article and it seems to come down to:

"According to researchers from Linus Pauling Institute of Science and Medicine, phytates appear to have anticancer effects by binding excess minerals in tissues, depriving tumors of essential minerals."

This is the same argumentation as "starving the patient is starving the tumor", "poisoning the patient, poisoning the tumor".
Well there seems to be a bit more to it than that. The big question is whether you are indeed "poisoning the patient"?

Ray Peat's argument for not eating seeds is that they raising serotonin. From the studies I've read, phytates would do that in any case. Am I missing something?
I thought he said avoid mainly because of PUFAs and phosphates?? Proper cooking of the starches seems to be adequate in terms of allowing you rather than bacteria to digest them, i would have thought that was the crux as far as serotonin production was concerned.
Nixtamalizing corn breaks down about a third of the phytic acid according to this study http://scialert.net/fulltext/?doi=pjn.2009.905.909 but in the process made iron more bioavailable, so which is best there? From what i remember, he mentioned how nixtamalisation removes fatty acids and improves B3, but i cant remember him mentioning phytate. Ill have to listen again. Ray doesnt seem to have too much against oats either, which are full of phytic acid. I dont recall reading that phytates increase serotonin, do you have a link or 2?



But if you're concerned about stomach cancer - you have heard about urea (as powder) and interzym?
Im no more concerned about cancer than the next man, i just find it interesting that there are some apparent benefits from IP-6, which on face value is the opposite of RPs advice.
 

kettlebell

Member
Joined
Oct 14, 2012
Messages
417
Location
UK
I thought he said avoid mainly because of PUFAs and phosphates?? Proper cooking of the starches seems to be adequate in terms of allowing you rather than bacteria to digest them, i would have thought that was the crux as far as serotonin production was concerned.

Hi Combie,

Not a massive input I know but:

I believe most starches, even when cooked well, take a long time to get digested (a lot longer than sugar), therefore they still get a long way into the lower intestine giving the bacteria a significant feeding hence the significant rise in serotonin. Also some of the particles (Starch) travel through the intestinal wall and as they are so large they block small arterioles around the body killing the cells down stream of the blockage.
 

Combie

Member
Thread starter
Joined
Oct 21, 2012
Messages
293
Age
43
Location
UK
im just going on my own experience, i can really, REALLY tell when ive not cooked the starch long/well enough. Roasted sweet potato vs steamed well and mashed is the best example. Roasted gives me the worst wind and bloating ever, acute style, while the other my gut stays nice and flat..
 

TreasureVibe

Member
Joined
Jul 3, 2016
Messages
1,877
Sorry, I didn't read the references, only the article and it seems to come down to:

"According to researchers from Linus Pauling Institute of Science and Medicine, phytates appear to have anticancer effects by binding excess minerals in tissues, depriving tumors of essential minerals."

This is the same argumentation as "starving the patient is starving the tumor", "poisoning the patient, poisoning the tumor".

Ray Peat's argument for not eating seeds is that they raising serotonin. From the studies I've read, phytates would do that in any case. Am I missing something?

I'm sorry I don't have time to do the research now.

But if you're concerned about stomach cancer - you have heard about urea (as powder) and interzym?
Wait huh? IP6 possesses alot of anti-cancer properties well studied and proven!
 

Similar threads

Top