MINERAL AVAILABILITY AND UNAVAILABILITY by Lawrence Wilson, MD

[ampersand]

Can anyone interpret this article for me from a Ray Peat perspective? I'm particularly interested in the part about Atomic and sub-atomic factors, and how that would affect the way bio-identical hormones (synthesized in a lab) work.

I'm not looking for a long explanation (unless you have time and feel like it), just opinions on whether what he's writing makes sense and would therefore be a good reason to be wary of the supposed identicality of "bio-identical" hormones.

http://drlwilson.com/ARTICLES/BIOAVAILABILITY.htm

Thanks in advance to anyone who takes the time to read this and respond. I am in no way looking to start arguments or attack Ray Peat. I think that Peat is a genius and am just curious if Wilson is bringing up good strong points to consider or if people with a stronger science background than me would take this seriously.

 

[Giraffe]

Wilson and Peat disagree on quite a few points. A few examples of Ray Peat's view:

- The "membrane theory" of cell regulation is profundly irreleveant.
- Omega-3 fatty acids are not "essential", but toxic.
- Caffeine is a vitamin-like nutrient.

Regarding Wilson's claim that "most adults need to drink about three quarts or three liters of water each day", please read Water: swelling, tension, pain, fatigue, aging.

The chemical properties and structure of a substance do matter. Chemists do experiments to find out what effects a substance has in a certain environment. Not sure why Wilson calls this "atomic and sub-atomic factors".

Do you have a specific "bio-identical" hormone in mind?

 

[ampersand]

Thank you for responding!

Someone that I was speaking to used this article to argue that bioidentical hormones are probably not actually identical enough to human-produced hormones to be safe. I am currently taking progest-e & pansterone so I'm curious.

I'd side with Peat over Wilson on the water issue, am clueless about the membrane theory issue, and not particularly concerned about the caffeine issue (I like coffee and don't really care if it's bad for me so I prefer Peat's take on it). I used to take fish oil and now I don't because I suspect Peat is right. So I'm not very concerned about Wilson's view on other matters.

What I am specifically wondering is: from a scientific viewpoint, is it enough for a substance to be molecularly identical (at least to the extent that we can measure given our current technology) or are there all these other factors (atomic spin for example) that can make a substance significantly different from that which is produced by nature?

Here is the section from the article that I'm most wondering about:

Scientists know that the spin of a substance or chemical may strongly affects its biological properties. Living tissue is almost always L or D rotary. Manmade molecules are usually a combination of D and L forms that are hard to separate. This is one reason why natural food, for example, cannot be easily duplicated in a chemical laboratory. In fact, the more life force or vitality an element or molecule has, the more it usually has a D or L spin. The D form of spin is usually better, but not always. The manmade forms are usually, though not always, less biologically active and less biologically available in many cases.

 

[Giraffe]

Natural tocopherols in supplements are obtained from the tocopherols occuring in plants. Synthetic tocopherols (dl- tocopherols) are partly different in structure. Here you have this D-and L-thingy.

(Bio-identical) progesterone in supplements is made in a laboratory. Bio-identical hormones, as they occur in nature, can't be patented.

Progestins are synthetic (= not occurring in nature) substances that have progestogenic effects similar to those of progesterone.*** They can be patented and are far more interesting for pharmaceutical companies.

Progesterone in supplements is bio-identical by definition. "Bio-identical progesterone" is a tautology.

***Edit to add: Peat thinks that progestins are estrogenic.

 

[goodandevil]

post 105127 Thank you for responding!

Someone that I was speaking to used this article to argue that bioidentical hormones are probably not actually identical enough to human-produced hormones to be safe. I am currently taking progest-e & pansterone so I'm curious.

I'd side with Peat over Wilson on the water issue, am clueless about the membrane theory issue, and not particularly concerned about the caffeine issue (I like coffee and don't really care if it's bad for me so I prefer Peat's take on it). I used to take fish oil and now I don't because I suspect Peat is right. So I'm not very concerned about Wilson's view on other matters.

What I am specifically wondering is: from a scientific viewpoint, is it enough for a substance to be molecularly identical (at least to the extent that we can measure given our current technology) or are there all these other factors (atomic spin for example) that can make a substance significantly different from that which is produced by nature?

Here is the section from the article that I'm most wondering about:

Scientists know that the spin of a substance or chemical may strongly affects its biological properties. Living tissue is almost always L or D rotary. Manmade molecules are usually a combination of D and L forms that are hard to separate. This is one reason why natural food, for example, cannot be easily duplicated in a chemical laboratory. In fact, the more life force or vitality an element or molecule has, the more it usually has a D or L spin. The D form of spin is usually better, but not always. The manmade forms are usually, though not always, less biologically active and less biologically available in many cases.

Dextro and levo are part of what makes something, chemically, bio-identical. Dextro is from latin "right" and levo is left. These are called enatiomers, optical isomers, because it was found that they rotate light in different directions when they're illuminated through a polariter tube (like sunglasses for fishing. Iirc, most protein biologically is levo rotary, and sugars dextro, but i could be wrong. You cnlan change the chemical back and forth with malonic acid, and by other methods, and you can seperate them physically, i would imagine.

As regarding the spin, spin is an intrinsic property of electrons in an atom. In MRI, a radio field is applied to atoms, causing their spin to align, like many spinning tops precessing exactly the same. By analyzing the spin coming off, you can characterize molecules and also take body wcqns when a gradient is applied to the radio field.

I studied chemistry, not physics per se, just physical chemistryx but afaik science cannot yet discern between synthetic and natural hormones, when they are chemically identical. :2cents

 

[ampersand]

Thank you both!