Kevin Klatt, PhD, RD

As I've written before on my posts at the-sage.org, I'm not against the paleo diet - it's backed by a really shallow understanding of evolutionary theory and desperately needs a name change (Unprocessed/antigrain isn't very sexy, I guess), but overall, I don't see a huge worry for nutritional deficiencies - depending on the strictness/vigilance, an individual might be low in calcium, iodine, manganese and vitamin E. From a clinical perspective, I'm more concerned with those consuming standard American diets. From a scientific perspective, I'm mostly concerned with religious evangelization of a dietary mantra posing as science. I had a friend send me this link , claiming that gluten free diets are backed by 'real' science and asked me for my thoughts. For one, i'm familiar with Robb Wolfe, and generally like his and Matt LaLonde's call for a harder science approach to the Paleo movement. I am a big critic of the dietetics education standards...

One of the most common 'anti-nutrients'/organic compounds that alternative health/ancestral diet followers seem to talk about is phytic acid. The structure of phytic acid contains an inositol group (similar to B-vitamin structures) and 6 phosphate groups. Phytic acid exists in plant foods, particularly high in nuts, seeds, whole grains and legumes. Phytic acid is a particularly important reservoir of phosphorous and other mineral cations for a plant - plants contain the enzyme phytase, which can hydrolyze the bonds between phytic acid and its bound minerals (phytic acid:mineral complexes are known as phytates). Humans do not produce phytase, though some bacteria in the human small intestine may have phytase activity, allowing for the release of a small fraction of the bound mineral. The human GI tract's pH, also, does not facilitate the liberation of minerals from their phytate complexes. Phytic acid most commonly binds to non-heme iron, zinc, and calcium (1). From an evo...

The term anti-nutrients seems to come up a lot when considering ancestral diets, and for those trying to eat a diet more in line with this concept. For one, I don't think antinutrients is truly the best of describing these plants compounds - calling phytic acid or lectins 'antinutrients' automatically assumes that they are bad in all forms and all concentrations. You'll hear me say this a lot - Nutrition is Toxicology. There is nothing that is inherently bad for you, in and of itself. It depends on the quality, quantity, and form. Don't get me wrong, phytic acid may be something you want to consider, especially if you're a vegetarian with low iron, but it's also been looked at as having anti carinogenic effects (1) - there is definitely not enough of a body of research to draw any overwhelming clinical significance out of this, but there's at least a hint that it's not all bad (phytic acid will probably get its own post later). Anywho, let's ...