Talk:Phytic acid

Food sources of phytic acid

This table contains units of g of phytic acid per 100g food.

Are those %DV ? No, there is no DV for phytic acid.

Unauthorised Mirror

I have found what I believe to be an unauthorised mirror of this page, claiming to be a direct link to wikipedia. It's some guy trying to sell a book. Looks very suspicious and there are a lot of similar pages with slightly different urls. Link to the mirror is (removed) and the main page is (removed)

As far as I could tell the content of the page has not been altered.

Benniee (talk) 01:44, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

both links are dead — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.47.99.169 (talk) 22:03, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Nut butter

does anybody know about phytic acid in nut butter? Are the almonds in almond butter soaked to release the acid before the butter is made? -Unknown

Nut and legume soaking

I have it by hearsay that nuts aren't soaked before making butter, they may be roasted, but roasting probably doesn't decrease phytic acid content. Also, soaking, as I have it by hearsay, only reduces phytic acid content by about 10%. Rhodescus 21:40, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

This is a relevant concern (you probably read the Mercola/Chek article judging by the date). I've added stuff to the food science article to reflect the inquiries into these new issues. Hopefully they can be further amended to be less skittishly worded (I'm not that good) while retaining the concerns. Tyciol 02:06, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

They are not soaked before roasting and do have phytic acid that remains after cooking. Nuts are less of a concern to food scientists I assume because they do not tend to make up the majority of a person's diet as grains and legumes can.

Phytic Acid and E-number

I noticed that the e-number E391 isn't present on the wikipedia page for e-numbers. I tried doing a search for "e391 phytic acid" on google, and didn't get much except endless reiterations of wikipedia's page in the first three pages of results. Is the e-number reference out of date, or is the reference in this article out-of-date?

I know there is some controversy about safe levels of phytic acid consumption, and health problems in livestock and pets attributed to mineral deficiencies brought on by high levels of phytic acid consumption from soybean-derived feeds.

According to turtlestuff.com: "PHYTIC ACID: Phosphorus as stored in plants. Phytic acid inhibits the uptake of calcium and can cause problems with Metabolic Bone Disease, renal failure, shell pyramiding and bladder stones." pictures, all copyrighted material.

"Unless there is high phytic acid content in the forage or supplemental feed of a small ruminant it is not likely to suffer from zinc deficiency which is characterized by unthrifty hair and broken scaly skin especially around the hoof." -Bioline

"Intestinal fermentation lessens the inhibitory effects of phytic acid on mineral utilization in rats." is one of the many not-so-recent articles expanding on the interaction between intestinal flora in non-ruminants and phytic acid. Nutrition.org/NIH

"Many plants contain toxic materials or compounds that have an antinutritive effect, such as protease inhibitors, phytohaemoglutinins, gossypol, tannins, phytic acid..." -(Tacon, 1997)

It seems the consensus in the research on phytic acid, is that ruminants and non-ruminants are both ok with small amounts of phytic acid in the diet, but large amount are "anti-nutritive". Some animals are more susceptible, and some aren't (some ruminants).

"Phytate commonly binds Zn in plant sources of Zn and greatly diminishes the availability of

Zn for absorption in monogastric and pre-ruminant animals. However, rumen microbes metabolize most of the dietary phytate so it is not a factor affecting Zn absorption in ruminating animals. Others remain unidentified. " "

"Hence, phytic acid, in large amounts, can block the uptake of essential minerals, like calcium, magnesium, copper, iron - and especially zinc - in the intestinal tract. Soy also inhibits the uptake of one of the most important minerals needed for growth and metabolism, iodine, which is used by the thyroid gland in the production of thyroid hormones.

However, for non-vegetarian men, phytic acid may prove to be quite helpful, due to its binding/chelating ability with minerals. Since a large percentage of non-vegetarian adult males have excess iron, phytic acid would be helpful to them by binding the excess iron. But we need to bear in mind phytic acid will simultaneously bind other minerals, such as calcium, magnesium and zinc. In the case of children and menstruating women, the phytic acid in soy can be a serious negative, as women and children need iron. In women, iron is needed to replace the loss during their menses and in children iron is required for growth and development." -HealthDimensions

From the article: "Phytic acid has no known toxicity and is not known to cause mutagenic activity. It may have more therapuetic value when added to water rather than when naturally absorbed in foods as it is difficult to free from fiber." - there are no references here.

"Toxicity test :LD50 4.793g/Kg" - PeakChem As referenced above, phytic acid and is commonly considered as anti-nutritive.

Phytic acid, in brans (insoluble fibers) appears to effect a decrease in colon cancers - 1 reference:

"Phytic acid in wheat bran affects colon morphology, cell differentiation and apoptosis" - OxfordJournals

"In conclusion, our results have shown that WB, due both to its dietary fiber and endogenous PA component, and pure PA added to a low fiber diet can significantly increase the rate of apoptosis and degree of differentiation in the distal colon. They can also have favorable effects on colon morphology, reducing crypt cell height and crypt density. These results, coupled with the previously observed reductions in ACF and cell proliferation (1), show that WB, its fiber and PA can affect early events in colon carcinogenesis. However, the exact mechanisms of that modulation need further elaboration." - wheat bran (WB) and/or phytic acid (PA) inhibit colon cancer - OxfordJournals

In conclusion, this article seems biased and, overall, doesn't match even two hours worth of web research. The article delves into the health benefits, excusing the anti-nutritive effect of phytic acid, is not up to date with regard to natural sources of phytic acid, doesn't recognize the dietary difference between moderate sources and dense sources and contradicts the standing literature on dietary availability of nutrients in non-ruminant guts with adequate fermenting bacteria.

Throwing in a plug for soybeans at the end, nice. Research says phytic acid is dangerous in high quantities, leads to organ dysfunction due to chronic nutrient deficiency and has protective effects which are no greater than those given by wheat bran. Ugh, I lost track of where I was going. Hope this is helpful. -Rhodescus 21:40, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Editing needs

I may edit this page at some point, but I realize I need a lot more references, so it will have to wait. I've state my major concerns above, if the page is going to promote the food science of phytic acid, it should do so fairly, without looking like a promotion of phytic acid as an anti-cancer wonder drug. Also, not enough weight is given to the anti-nutritive effects of phytic acid, in both the food science section and the paragraph dealing with ruminants.

It would also be nice to see some references for the environmental effects, and a blurb about the development of strains of low-phytic-acid feedstocks (there's a 2000 patent, and advertising, so I think the page is out-of-date.)

I also want to put in some more notes and references about the anti-nutritive effects of phytic acid, and perhaps some notes and references about asian dietary habits (along with minimal consumption of unfermented soy) which tend to minimize the anti-nutritive effects of phytic acid. It is a very large topic! -Rhodescus 18:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, sourcing is a difficult thing, but at the very least we can examine the concerns and inquiries in health culture, and then with sourcing either add support or negation to them. It's notable to address myths regarding substances, both positive and negative. Tyciol 02:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I linked to Reddy, et al., 1989. Phytates in Cereals and Legumes ISBN: 9780849361081 which is a very good general reference on phytates in food. A newer book "Food Phytates" covers some of the newer issues like the antioxidant effects. Both are literature review academic texts. More consumer-oriented are two pages I have that may not be appropriate for Wikipedia, but here they are if you all want to include them as additional resources. Legumes: http://www.rebuild-from-depression.com/simplechange/simplechange/simplechange/beans.html Grains: http://www.rebuild-from-depression.com/simplechange/simplechange/simplechange/porridges.html Wikipedia is not keeping me logged in. Strange.

"Those who argue for the beneficial effects of phytic acid and freeing it up for interaction with the system through cooking, do not argue that cooking destroys the phytic acid;[citation needed]this is a major difference between those arguing for the merits of processed grain products.[citation needed]" This is a strange sentence, it is not clear which two arguments are in opposition. Secondly, the links above with sketchy domains only serve to lessen credibility. There is a broken link in the external links section, and one to books.google, with no description. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CanStudy (talk • contribs) 18:27, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

As an outside reader, this reads like a snake-oil salesman. There is no way these studies have been conducted in a scientific manner. I doubt the incredible health affects and the citations. Show me a double blind study by a scientist with a reputation. This instead reads like a salesperson or corporation pushing phytic acid as a health supplement product. Purely driven by profits and not by science and facts. My 2 cents. Save the credibility of wikipedia and remove this garbage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.32.166.162 (talk) 18:07, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Food and drink Tagging

This article talk page was automatically added with {{WikiProject Food and drink}} banner as it falls under Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here . Maximum and careful attention was done to avoid any wrongly tagging any categories , but mistakes may happen... If you have concerns , please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 01:25, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Soaking

I tried to check the reference (5) in the main article referring to soaking and it is a dead link. This is the reference on soaking nuts and seeds removing phytic acid. There is a lack of scientific research on the benefit/difference of soaking nuts and seeds.

This article states that phytic acid is primarily in the hull of nuts, seeds and grains. Most nuts and many seeds are typically consumed after hulling and thus may have less phytic acid than an unhulled counterpart. Also, there seems to be much debate on phytic acid as far as it is an "enzyme inhibitor" making it difficult to digest if unsoaked. I checked the enzyme inhibitor entry and found that it does not reference phytic acid at all.

Does anybody have verifiable scientific research on this subject? —Preceding unsigned comment added by It065 (talk • contribs) 07:10, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I fixed that reference. There's a book about it and you can read most of it in the preview feature of Google books.--Nutriveg (talk) 19:49, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

"IP6" redirects here -- And it should not.

IP6 is not phytic acid: It is a distinctly different compound. All the inositol phosphates are different from phytic acid. IP6 contains 4-Ca and 2-Mg atoms replacing the OH radicals in the phytic acid molecule. The two should not be confused in an article on biochemistry. 209.169.85.18 (talk) 11:54, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, you are seriously mistaken in your chemistry.
IP6 is definitely the shorthand notation for phytic acid, both being the hexa-phosphate of inositol.
Also, there is no such thing as a OH radical in phytic acid.
Also, Ca and Mg are not part of IP6. What you may have been thinking of is that phytic acid in plant seeds usually occurs in the form called phytin, which is the Ca-Mg salt of phytic acid. In phytin, the Ca++ and Mg++ ions (not atoms) do not 'replace' OH-groups, but they are coordinated with them.
HStreek (talk) 09:29, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what's accurate. Added Phytin (WP:BOLD); I'll let others sort out the definitions. 01:03, 5 May 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dagordon01 (talk • contribs)

I entirely agree with HStreek; IP6 is definitely the same as phytic acid, both refer to an inositol ring with 6 phosphate groups. The IP user is thinking of phytate, which is the general term for the salt form of IP6. Phytin refers specifically to the calcium or magnesium salt of IP6. Most literature discussing the storage of phosphate and chelation of cations in plant seeds stick to the term phytate because it is the general term for the salt.Puhlaa (talk) 02:25, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Not clearly worded

This section is not clear....

particularly low intake of essential minerals, especially young children and those in developing countries, this effect can be undesirable.

Binding of calcium with phytic acid depends on pH.[12]

"Probiotic lactobacilli, and other species of the endogenous digestive microflora as well, are an important source of the enzyme phytase which catalyses the release of phosphate from phytate and hydrolyses the complexes formed by phytate and metal ions or other cations, rendering them more soluble, ultimately improving and facilitating their intestinal absorption"[13]

Ascorbic Acid (vitamin C) can reduce phytic acid effects on iron.[14] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.17.200.2 (talk) 18:18, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Phytic acid bonding with calcium

So, I've been scouring around the internet for info about phytic acid and I've encountered this research about claciums bonding in nigerian children to this compound through their diet, and it seems pretty negligible. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2714392/

If anyone has any expertise in the matter please have a look. And if it is not something that impacts the wikipedia entry I would love to know why. thx :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.179.218.238 (talk) 00:04, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

This makes a difference and I think the original citation for phytate being a problem with Mg and Ca was overenthusiastic and lacked hard evidence. Mg compounds with phosphate are fairly soluble (and pH dependant), so there's no reason to think that phytate would harm Mg absorption. Calcium phosphate is not very soluble, but is susceptable to pH effects in the same way. Phytate's most recognized effects are in zinc absorption. I've fixed the text and anybody wishing to argue for a calcium or magnesium effect can provide us with a reference. SBHarris 00:34, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Hey, me again. I am obviously a layman so it might be that the next research is irrelevant, I've googled "fractional apparent magnesium " to understand if it means something else- but it didn't help me much... so: http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/79/3/418.full

That's another article I encountered along the way which headline is "Phytic acid added to white-wheat bread inhibits fractional apparent magnesium absorption in humans". The title says it all :).

PS. I believe in credit, even on a wikipedia talk page, so the link for the first article I've encountered through the Vegan Skeptic blog. http://veganskeptic.blogspot.co.il/2010/10/phytate-phytic-acid.html :P

Anti-nutrient

PMID 11673644 seems to cast doubt on ip6's anti-nutritional status. Would it be appropriate to incorporate it into the article? --78.148.24.203 (talk) 20:45, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

No. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 20:50, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Please elaborate why not.

Furthermore this study describes it as "efficiently absorbed in the digestive tract and safe". The present article suggests the exact opposite.

We prefer secondary sources. See WP:MEDRS. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 20:55, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Looks to me like reference #2 is a primary source then. You call it a preference, and the article you linked says "may generally not be used". What are the exceptions? --78.148.24.203 (talk) 21:03, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I meant reference #3 --78.148.24.203 (talk) 21:04, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Exceptions might include: for diseases which are so incredibly rare there are no secondary sources, or major historical "breakthrough" papers which are acknowledged as famously revolutionalizing their field. (Add: yup, ref #3 - now removed - was a poor source, and this article is in poor shape; let's not make it worse). Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 21:06, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. Will see if there are any secondary sources that support the assertion of the article I found. --78.148.24.203 (talk) 21:12, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

This article discussed above full text is a review of IP6 and inositol as cancer treatments in animals and cells. Along the way it gives a mini-review of IP6 absorption studies, which indeed mostly seems to indicate that mice and other non-ruminant mammals indeed absorb and metabolize IP6. It's a fully usable secondary source per MEDRS on this issue. After reading the articles it reviews, plus the primary one above, it's rather difficult for me to believe that "IP6 is not absorbed by non-ruminants" is the last word on this subject. Instead, per WP:NPOV, since there is substantial literature that suggests IP6 is absorbed, this should be included also, as a (perhaps minority) view. Let the reader compare sources and decide. We the editors cannot. SBHarris 23:40, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

A 2009 review paper [1] casts doubt on phytic acid's anti-nutritional status, stating that it's only of concern for those with "malnutrition and nonbalance diets low in minerals and essential trace elements but high in phytate". The paper also examines reports over the past 20 years that phytic acid has beneficial antioxidative, anticancerogenic activities and blood glucose and lipid lowering effects.

Another review paper [2] has called the term "anti-nutrient" into question, including using the term for phytic acid. Key quote: "...Phytic acid, lectins, phenolic compounds, amylase inhibitors and saponins have also been shown to reduce the blood glucose and insulin responses to starchy foods and/or the plasma cholesterol and triglycerides. In addition, phytic acid, phenolics, saponins, protease inhibitors, phytoestrogens and lignans have been related to reduced cancer risks. Because antinutrients can also be mitigating agents, they need re-evaluation and perhaps a change in name in the future"

Here are two review papers (from same author) [3][4] that hypothesizes why phytic acid (and other "anti-nutrients") may have protective and beneficial properties when consumed in whole grains. (JamesPem (talk) 21:46, 25 April 2015 (UTC))

I think we are dealing with a disinfo campaign here, which writers here are repeating. JamesPem does not mention the reduced availability of minerals and growth inhibition caused by phytase cited in the same the ScienceDirect paper. While phytic acid may have nutritive effects, and even anti-cancer effects, most of this misses the point of those who charge phytic acid is an anti-nutrient. While anti-cancer properties are important, the Weston Price Foundation points to low rates of cancer among primitive diets who fermented and soaked their grains. Here's an article documenting the increased adsorption of minerals in pigs, when given phytase:[5]. It is in fact, a common practice in animal husbandry to feed animals phytase to non-ruminant animals in order to break down phytates in animals for superior mineral absorption. The human equivalent is to take steps to otherwise break down these anti-nutrients. As pointed out in the article, cells themselves must make phytase for their own needs. It tends to pass right through the GI tract - taking important minerals chelated to it. It is not surprising that animals can process it. Humans make SMALL amounts of phytase - but this is an insufficient amount to break down most phytic acid. Most goes undigested and carries away important minerals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.76.46.95 (talk) 05:36, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

The reason I didn't mention reduced mineral availability is because those papers point out that the chelation of minerals in varied diets is why phytic acid offers health benefits and isn't considered to be harmful in those with varied diets. The paper suggest that it's only cultures with extremely limited diets that needed to watch out for phytates, since cultures with varied diets have few problems obtaining minerals. Furthermore, pointing out reduced cancer among primitive cultures who fermented and soaked their grains is confounded by too many variables to pinpoint soaking as the reason. Mexicans did not traditionally soak their beans because the traditional Mexican diet was varied and included meat—yet they too had very low cancer rates. (Also, black beans are known to taste bland and mushy when soaked).

One main reason why phytic acid is beneficial is because it can chelate and bind to excess iron in the body. Most Westerners are at risk for too much iron, which is believed to promote most chronic diseases, due to its oxidation. Therefore, phytic acid reducing iron absorption is believed to be a good thing, since it is helpful in reducing the chance for iron overload and it binds up free iron that can do damage in the body. Indeed, this is why phytic acid in whole grains is beleived to be a beneficial antioxidant. Another reason is that phytates can remove calcification in the body.

Zinc deficiency is very rare in modern cultures (who do not soak their grains), because meat is rich in zinc. So, it is not problematic if some zinc is chelated by phytates, because A) those with varied diets have no trouble obtaining zinc from meat and B) excess zinc being chelated by phytates means that it displaces copper from phytate chelation. This is why a high phytate diet improves copper bioavailability and Western diets are believed to be deficient in copper. Yes, phytates increase copper absorption.

Therefore, the premise that chelation is always bad is unfounded. The health benefits from phytic acid are believed to come from their ability to chelate and bind to excess minerals.JamesPem (talk) 04:15, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Ok I cleaned up the article. Tried to present both sides: is phytic acid cariogenic or not. Is phytic acid evil because it causes cavities, or is it good because it is an antioxidant that fights cancer. I think the sane approach is to present both sides and to try to flesh out the arguments for both sides. Glennchan (talk) 22:46, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

This article is referred to from the Antinutrient article, and has Antinutrient linked in the "See Also" section. However, the article makes no mention of phytic acid being an antinutrient (though as far as I know, it certainly is one). Perhaps it should be incorporated into the article? Paradox (talk) 08:53, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Why does "phytin" redirect here?

Not mentioned in article. 109.157.79.50 (talk) 01:27, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Anti-cancer references

The link to 31 cancerorg doesn't exist and I can't find any reference to Inositol hexaphosphate when I do a search there.

The weight of Pubmed evidence seems to be completely against the statement that it is a false anti-cancer treatment. It does in fact have apart to play. Whether it is a cure by itself is another issue but to dismiss its effectveness (with Inositol) seems to be wrong. It should say something like: There are not enough human trials to make any definitive conclusion but the research so far in vitro and on animals is promising. The indications so far are that it could be taken alongside conventional drug treatments.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17044765 http://m.jn.nutrition.org/content/133/11/3778S.full https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14608114 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27187454 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4882699/ http://jeccr.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1756-9966-29-12

for example. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.210.93.192 (talk) 21:05, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Are any of these WP:MEDRS? (I checked just the first - it wasn't) Alexbrn (talk) 23:46, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

I second this, I just read a National Institutes of Health study supporting the fact that IP6 reverses and inhibits some cancers.

PLEASE get this into the article!

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14666663

and

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14608114 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:7EC5:E100:BD2B:8C99:3203:63C3 (talk) 21:35, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Food sources of phytic acid

The data in the "Food sources of phytic acid" table is mg/100g? Maybe add that small info? People may think its mcg/100g or mg/kg ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.193.17.249 (talk) 17:19, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Dentistry

Phytic acid has potential use in endodontics, adhesive, preventive, and regenerative dentistry, and in improving the characteristics and performance of dental materials. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmats.2021.638909/full

References

misc. problems

ref. 13 - {meaning?} does not appear to belong here ref. 17 & 23 - the reference is missing ref. 28 - -autor? ref. 29 - this should probably not be all capitals & the reference is missing 96.88.198.77 (talk) 01:10, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Not to be confused

Not to be confused with phytanic acid:

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Phytanic_acid

which is a fatty acid

note: ruminants breakdown phytic but builds up phytanic acid from plants — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yasir muhammed ali (talk • contribs) 05:00, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

The section "Effect on human health" smells like pseudoscience

In the section Effect on human health, the paragraph beginning with the phrase "Many modern authors argue ..." gets its talking points from four references that all involve AbulKalam M. Shamsuddin and his test-tube or rat experiments. He is also the author of the book "IP6: Nature's Revolutionary Cancer Fighter: Nature's Revolutionary Cancer-Fighter" (ISBN 978-1575663579), the cover of which[6] even makes him seem like a total woo-peddler to me.

I suggest that this paragraph be removed due to the seemingly sole use of low-quality evidence, as per Wikipedia:MEDASSESS. Skoskav~enwiki (talk) 15:48, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

I wrote that section. I also happen to think that Shamsuddin is a quack. Many people nowadays say that phytic acid is an anti-oxidant (which it is) and they subscribe to the theory that antioxidants are good for you (I don't but that's not relevant). So I think we should recognize the modern views on phytic acid. Shamsuddin's views (e.g. essential nutrient) are out there, although he does get lots and lots of citations. There are people on this talk page that reference his papers. I didn't want to be the guy that starts a wikipedia editing war by completely removing viewpoints that I don't agree with. I do support the removal of Shamsuddin's eccentric views... it seems like his science is bad as he cherry picks data that supports his theory and doesn't present all of his findings. Also I don't think he understands what an essential nutrient is or found evidence to support his view on that. Glennchan (talk) 23:19, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Reverting edit by Zefr

Regarding edits by User:Zefr... here's why I reverted them. I don't think that sources should be removed simply because they are "outdated". Just because something is old doesn't mean that it is a bad source. There hasn't been any modern research that has invalidated the old science... phytic acid is still an anti-nutrient and it still chelates minerals. The old version recognizes the various viewpoints on phytic acid, including the modern revisionist version where phytic acid is supposedly beneficial. If somebody wants to know about whether or not phytic acid is an anti-nutrient, I think that the old version presents a reasonably good summary of that debate.

And it's not primary research. Shamsuddin (who I think is a quack) has lots and lots of citations... his views are popular among his peers.

I don't mean to crap on your work. But could you rework the article without imposing your worldview on it?

Glennchan (talk) 06:51, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

My two main purposes with the revision were to consolidate similar information on mineral absorption (and to highlight this effect as the main story of phytic acid and minerals) and to use updated reviews per WP:MEDASSESS, rather than primary in vitro research, which is now mostly removed. --Zefr (talk) 16:24, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

for peas and barley content adding to the table

study phytic acid content of cereals and legumes and interaction with proteins. see the table 1 for peas and barley phytic acid content Vatadoshu^french 09:09, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

fao on phytate

an interesting document of fao on phytate pdf on google title FAO/INFOODS Databases FAO/INFOODS/IZiNCG Global food composition database for phytate version 1.0 - PhyFoodComp1.0 User guide PDFwww.fao.org › ...

Vatadoshu^french 10:33, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Zefr edit of Human Nutrition section

I was a bit disappointed to see the changes made by Zefr, but as I am new to this I am reluctant to undo them. Nonetheless, I would mention that describing the breeding of crops for increased mineral content or decreased phytate content as "preliminary research" is incorrect given that this well-established research that has been going on for several decades. Thanks. Lvaughn7 (talk) 01:42, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

The abstract of PMID 31979164 acknowledges the long history of trying to develop low-phytate crops, but discusses that this is not in common practice and arguably has no general effect on the food supply or human nutrition. That summarizes to "preliminary research", in my view. If you wish to change the text, please provide a WP:SCIRS review. --Zefr (talk) 02:09, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

@Lvaughn7: The solution to many disputes in the chemistry articles are (1) the realization that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia (= compendium of well digested knowledge) and (2) reliance on books and reviews is the way to go.

Data: 17852 reports have been published on phytic acid, so why cite yet another specialized one? 8500 have appeared in the past 10 years (whats that? 2-3 per day). None of the top reviews are cited in this article. If some editor wanted to really enhance this article (vs promote some rspecialized report), those top reviews (each cite >100x) are the place to start:

• 1. New hypotheses for the health-protective mechanisms of whole-grain cereals: what is beyond fibre?" Fardet, Anthony From Nutrition Research Reviews (2010), 23(1), 65-134.
• 2. "Iron bioavailability and dietary reference values" By Hurrell, Richard; Egli, Ines. From American Journal of Clinical Nutrition (2010), 91(5S), 1461S-1467S.
• 3. "Rice antioxidants: phenolic acids, flavonoids, anthocyanins, proanthocyanidins, tocopherols, tocotrienols, γ-oryzanol, and phytic acid" By Goufo, Piebiep; Trindade, Henrique From Food Science & Nutrition (Hoboken, NJ, United States) (2014), 2(2), 75-104.
• 4. "Minor components of pulses and their potential impact on human health" By Campos-Vega, Rocio; Loarca-Pina, Guadalupe; Oomah, B. Dave From Food Research International (2010), 43(2), 461-482.
• 5. "Approaches and challenges to engineering seed phytate and total phosphorus" By Raboy, Victor From Plant Science  (2009), 177(4), 281-296.  

--Smokefoot (talk) 02:19, 12 March 2020 (UTC)