Wheat called modern poison

Ever had it before? Well you got it again.
User avatar
Bruce
Posts: 19395
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2004 11:46 pm
Title: Big cynic in small state
Location: Rhode Island
Has thanked: 259 times
Been thanked: 394 times

Re: Wheat called modern poison

Postby Bruce » Sat Sep 21, 2013 3:23 am

Cloverlief wrote:Gliadin does have opiate properties. Of course you have to have .5 mg of gliadin (and that isn't all the gliadin used, btw, just the portion that became active) to make 1 nM of opiate that will actually bind to receptors.

Now I admit that I was a horrible chemist and remember little more than the composition of H2O (hell I have the periodic table on my shoes for easy reference), so I may be misunderstanding something here.

BTW, gliadin is part of the gluten.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6099562

Heavily refined wheat, aka, white wheat, is hell on everybody and should be used in moderation. It is like fruit juice - everything healthy about it has been removed and all that is left is the sugars.


Thanks for the reference.

Isn't it funny how biology and chemistry can be so close in scientific discipline and yet so different. I can't even have a conversation with biologists. It's like a totally foreign language.

Biologist love naming things, even if they have little or no mechanistic understanding of what they're naming.

Proteins confuse me. It's a single word that describes an endless array of huge molecules. I thought they would make more sense when protien crystallography came along. Nope.

Oxycodone (an opioid)
Image
Got it.

Even large peptides make sense, though a bit messy. Here's Nocicpetin.
Image

But protiens?
Image
Myoglobin crystal structure. Looks like something swept up off the floor next to a drill press. :|

Now the bit about Opioid Receptors made sense. That means somewhere in those taffy squiggles is an opiate functional group that chemically bonds to the squiggly gooey stuff in the brain that's reactive to opiate functional groups.

chemistry = science

biology = squiggly gooey stuff, and critters
Such potential!

User avatar
Cloverlief
Posts: 4982
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 10:59 pm
Location: Here, there or somewhere
Has thanked: 10 times
Been thanked: 29 times

Re: Wheat called modern poison

Postby Cloverlief » Sat Sep 21, 2013 3:41 am

DrMatt wrote:A truly paleolithic diet should include a lot of insects, no?



True adherents to the paleolitic diet would be out there in california scrounging for bits of charred meat on the dead animals. Other than that they would eat a lot of nuts for protien and have heavy musculature in the jaws to accomodate such heavy chewing.
Chani

User avatar
Cloverlief
Posts: 4982
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 10:59 pm
Location: Here, there or somewhere
Has thanked: 10 times
Been thanked: 29 times

Re: Wheat called modern poison

Postby Cloverlief » Sat Sep 21, 2013 3:46 am

Bruce wrote:
Cloverlief wrote:Gliadin does have opiate properties. Of course you have to have .5 mg of gliadin (and that isn't all the gliadin used, btw, just the portion that became active) to make 1 nM of opiate that will actually bind to receptors.

Now I admit that I was a horrible chemist and remember little more than the composition of H2O (hell I have the periodic table on my shoes for easy reference), so I may be misunderstanding something here.

BTW, gliadin is part of the gluten.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6099562

Heavily refined wheat, aka, white wheat, is hell on everybody and should be used in moderation. It is like fruit juice - everything healthy about it has been removed and all that is left is the sugars.


Thanks for the reference.

Isn't it funny how biology and chemistry can be so close in scientific discipline and yet so different. I can't even have a conversation with biologists. It's like a totally foreign language.

Biologist love naming things, even if they have little or no mechanistic understanding of what they're naming.

Proteins confuse me. It's a single word that describes an endless array of huge molecules. I thought they would make more sense when protien crystallography came along. Nope.

Oxycodone (an opioid)
Image
Got it.

Even large peptides make sense, though a bit messy. Here's Nocicpetin.
Image

But protiens?
Image
Myoglobin crystal structure. Looks like something swept up off the floor next to a drill press. :|

Now the bit about Opioid Receptors made sense. That means somewhere in those taffy squiggles is an opiate functional group that chemically bonds to the squiggly gooey stuff in the brain that's reactive to opiate functional groups.

chemistry = science

biology = squiggly gooey stuff, and critters


Actually per the article's abstract it appears they did break the gliadin into peptides. And it was the peptides that attached to the opioid receptors in rats.

Btw your lack of understanding of protiens explains why you are an inorganic chemist! :-P
Chani

User avatar
Bruce
Posts: 19395
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2004 11:46 pm
Title: Big cynic in small state
Location: Rhode Island
Has thanked: 259 times
Been thanked: 394 times

Re: Wheat called modern poison

Postby Bruce » Sat Sep 21, 2013 3:49 am

Organic and Inorganic chemists have a similar language barrier.

For example, here is a chemical reaction described by an inorganic chemist:

Li2C8H8 + PtCl2(COD) + 3 C7H10 → [Pt(C7H10)3] + 2 LiCl + C8H8 + C8H12
Pt(C7H10)3 + 2 COD → Pt(COD)2 + 3 C7H10

Every inorganic chemist knows that the real chemistry occurs on the metal. The rest is just grease, abbreviated as CxHy. Why bother with drawing out the structures. d-orbitals rule.

Here's a chemical reaction described by an organic chemist:

Image

The real chemistry is the organic chemistry. The inorganic part is just a magic powder that makes the organic reaction go, abbreviated at PdCl2 above the arrow. Sometimes simply abbreviated as "cat." for catalyst if they're not sure which magic powder to use. :P
Such potential!

User avatar
Cloverlief
Posts: 4982
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 10:59 pm
Location: Here, there or somewhere
Has thanked: 10 times
Been thanked: 29 times

Re: Wheat called modern poison

Postby Cloverlief » Sat Sep 21, 2013 3:52 am

Bruce wrote:Organic and Inorganic chemists have a similar language barrier.

For example, here is a chemical reaction described by an inorganic chemist:

Li2C8H8 + PtCl2(COD) + 3 C7H10 → [Pt(C7H10)3] + 2 LiCl + C8H8 + C8H12
Pt(C7H10)3 + 2 COD → Pt(COD)2 + 3 C7H10

Every inorganic chemist knows that the real chemistry occurs on the metal. The rest is just grease, abbreviated as CxHy. Why bother with drawing out the structures. d-orbitals rule.

Here's a chemical reaction described by an organic chemist:

Image

The real chemistry is the organic chemistry. The inorganic part is just a magic powder that makes the organic reaction go, abbreviated at PdCl2 above the arrow. Sometimes simply abbreviated as "cat." for catalyst if they're not sure which magic powder to use. :P


Yes and biochemists combine the two. Which is why biochemists rule and the rest of you drool! Although to be fair they do tend more towards the organic notation.
Chani

User avatar
Bruce
Posts: 19395
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2004 11:46 pm
Title: Big cynic in small state
Location: Rhode Island
Has thanked: 259 times
Been thanked: 394 times

Re: Wheat called modern poison

Postby Bruce » Sat Sep 21, 2013 4:02 am

Cloverlief wrote:
Bruce wrote:Organic and Inorganic chemists have a similar language barrier.

For example, here is a chemical reaction described by an inorganic chemist:

Li2C8H8 + PtCl2(COD) + 3 C7H10 → [Pt(C7H10)3] + 2 LiCl + C8H8 + C8H12
Pt(C7H10)3 + 2 COD → Pt(COD)2 + 3 C7H10

Every inorganic chemist knows that the real chemistry occurs on the metal. The rest is just grease, abbreviated as CxHy. Why bother with drawing out the structures. d-orbitals rule.

Here's a chemical reaction described by an organic chemist:

Image

The real chemistry is the organic chemistry. The inorganic part is just a magic powder that makes the organic reaction go, abbreviated at PdCl2 above the arrow. Sometimes simply abbreviated as "cat." for catalyst if they're not sure which magic powder to use. :P


Yes and biochemists combine the two. Which is why biochemists rule and the rest of you drool! Although to be fair they do tend more towards the organic notation.


This is the part where Sheldon scoffs and calls us monkeys. :P

Makes me mad that chemists don't get any representation on that show at all. :x
Such potential!

User avatar
Rob Lister
Posts: 19044
Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2004 7:15 pm
Title: Incipient toppler
Location: Hiding under ed's bed
Has thanked: 491 times
Been thanked: 489 times

Re: Wheat called modern poison

Postby Rob Lister » Sat Sep 21, 2013 11:23 am

Bruce wrote:This is the part where Sheldon scoffs and calls us monkeys. :P

Makes me mad that chemists don't get any representation on that show at all. :x


That was explained implicit in an argument between Sheldon and almost-girlfriend Amy during season 2. Since chemistry is derived from physics, it 1) isn't fundamental and therefore, 2) isn't worthy. :)

You're just playing with toys Sheldon invented with a neural network Amy deconstructed.

User avatar
Bruce
Posts: 19395
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2004 11:46 pm
Title: Big cynic in small state
Location: Rhode Island
Has thanked: 259 times
Been thanked: 394 times

Re: Wheat called modern poison

Postby Bruce » Sat Sep 21, 2013 1:04 pm

Rob Lister wrote:
Bruce wrote:This is the part where Sheldon scoffs and calls us monkeys. :P

Makes me mad that chemists don't get any representation on that show at all. :x


That was explained implicit in an argument between Sheldon and almost-girlfriend Amy during season 2. Since chemistry is derived from physics, it 1) isn't fundamental and therefore, 2) isn't worthy. :)

You're just playing with toys Sheldon invented with a neural network Amy deconstructed.


Image

I bet Sheldon wouldn't say that to Heisenburg's face.
Such potential!

User avatar
Cloverlief
Posts: 4982
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 10:59 pm
Location: Here, there or somewhere
Has thanked: 10 times
Been thanked: 29 times

Re: Wheat called modern poison

Postby Cloverlief » Sat Sep 21, 2013 6:29 pm

Rob Lister wrote:
Bruce wrote:This is the part where Sheldon scoffs and calls us monkeys. :P

Makes me mad that chemists don't get any representation on that show at all. :x


That was explained implicit in an argument between Sheldon and almost-girlfriend Amy during season 2. Since chemistry is derived from physics, it 1) isn't fundamental and therefore, 2) isn't worthy. :)

You're just playing with toys Sheldon invented with a neural network Amy deconstructed.

Sadly like in many things, Sheldon is wrong.
Chani

clarsct
Posts: 5872
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2005 9:30 am
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 10 times

Re: Wheat called modern poison

Postby clarsct » Fri Sep 27, 2013 3:26 am

Cloverlief wrote:Gliadin does have opiate properties. Of course you have to have .5 mg of gliadin (and that isn't all the gliadin used, btw, just the portion that became active) to make 1 nM of opiate that will actually bind to receptors.

Now I admit that I was a horrible chemist and remember little more than the composition of H2O (hell I have the periodic table on my shoes for easy reference), so I may be misunderstanding something here.

BTW, gliadin is part of the gluten.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6099562

Heavily refined wheat, aka, white wheat, is hell on everybody and should be used in moderation. It is like fruit juice - everything healthy about it has been removed and all that is left is the sugars.

I was about to mention that gliadin is part of gluten. So... how much of this would, say, a 200 pound man need to eat to get high?
When Religion becomes State, and breaking the Law becomes a Sin, then Dissenters will become Heretics.

"Reading other people's opinions is a good way to avoid thinking." --My Wife


Return to “Medicine, Health, & Nutrition”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: CCBot [Bot] and 0 guests