I’ve created a short new guide titled: Getting Started and Succeeding with the low vitamin A diet. Hopefully it can help people with both getting started and in achieving long term success. The low vitamin A diet is not complicated. On the contrary, it is rather straightforward. There are just a few guiding principles and concepts you need to understand to apply it successfully. However, the journey can be long, so please consider this to be somewhat of a travel guide. You can download it here.
If you are new to the concept of the low vitamin A diet, here are a few of my more important blog posts:
- Ten-Year Update
- Obesity Causation v 2.0
- Cancer, the STRA6 “receptors” and Insulin
- Autoimmunity with Claude.ai
- The Early Rat Studies and Casein
- Protein synthesis and setbacks
- Eating liver and cancer
- Eight-Year Update
- SCURVY
Here are some of my interviews and presentations:
- Grant Genereux Debate: is Vitamin A Really a Toxin? | Rejuvenate Podcast Ep. 80
- Why Eating Liver May Not Be Good: Unspoken Truths about Vitamin A
- How Beef Liver and Vitamin A Toxicity is Causing Chronic Illness – Grant Genereux
- Grant Genereux on Vitamin A, retinol and retinoic acid Toxicity… | Rejuvenate Podcast Episode 19
- Interview de Grant Genereux (EN ANGLAIS = ACTIVER les sous-titres traduits)
- 2023 Survey Responses
thank you
Just a thought to remind you that a network that I suppose cannot be named here (?) (due to “advertising”?) has an absolute abundance of positive testimonials, perhaps 50-100x more than you have received through your own channels, yet you don’t seem to acknowledge these at all and even say the low vA diet has “mixed results”.
Have you considered that perhaps a negative bias against the personality of a peer has caused you to overlook a ratio of 90%+ positive results that he has received? Do you think that due to a reliance on only your own personal channels, which due to your recent positioning has induced a gravitation of certain negative feedback from a specific but small group of people, has resulted in the pessimistic comment of “the results are mixed”?
When objectively looking at the statistical dominance of extremely positive results in testimonials of the low vA/low toxin diet from your peer in this battle for health, the trajectory is undeniably positive, but your reluctance to see this makes it seem as though you do not value or pay attention to testimonials from anywhere but your own personal channels?
Wishing you all the best
To me, as someone who has followed a low vitamin A approach for over seven years and has also helped several other people go low vitA with more or rather less success, it is crystal clear that you are very biased. You sound like a Scientologist who believes they know the way, has all the solutions, and can show hundreds of testimonials from (paying) customers who have also found the solution. You seem blindfolded.
I think no one in the world would love to see overall smooth progress more than Grant. He does not have a financial interest in ignoring setbacks. Your guru does.
For all these years it has been comforting to see that Grant has not built a business on his experiment. Had he done so, he would now be very “optimistic” too. Once your success is tied to your survival, your objectivity is gone.
I am the biased one?
Yet you guys ignore – as you literally just admitted – the hundreds of amazing results that are in the group (which costs 10USD/month or 99/year for an abundance of information far more than just vitamin A) just because it comes from “paying(!!!)” customers (BTW many testimonials come from free channels from the 100s of hours of free content posted).
If you think paying 10 dollars for information is too much, and that’s a good enough reason to ignore testimonials you are either mentally impaired or ignorant of the state of online health, and how much people pay other online health influencers programs (hint: its a lot more than $10 and its not fixing people long term)
Was it Grant who has mentioned the functional importance of staying away from all the other toxins like arsenic in rice, mercury from seafood, excess copper, contaminated municipal water, pesticides, mold, EMFs, azole ivermectin-type drugs, methylene blue… etc? Or is he stuck on – “I think” zinc supplementation is not needed – with zero evidence or testing just “I think” (very valuable insight from Grant there)
Please tell me how these recommendations are giving the “guru” more money… hint, they’re not.
Because everything in this group is done for money, there would be no mention of cheap and effective, or otherwise free things that are considered a foundation for health would there? Such as sunlight, exercise, lymphatic movement, soluble fiber (which you guys seem to not value for some reason), potassium, and much more.
There would also not be 100s to thousands of hours of completely free content which I don’t think you guys have listened to one full episode of.
Time and time again he has said supplements are optional, and one should TEST to see if they are deficient in zinc or other minerals to make sure, he has also said time and time again that if you do not feel good on a supplement cut the dose, and if you still do not feel good, STOP USING IT.
The reason he recommends these supplements is because he is an ND, and NDs utilise supplements on clients, they also utilize research!
This is the cause of the disagreement between these two, Grant believes it is ALL for money, not knowing that the “guru” has a positive bias for using supplements due to his career as an ND, has done extensive research on them, and genuinely believes they are useful (you really think he would use them himself if he believed they were damaging? Please). To project malice is just a misinterpretation and is not fair, and if you watched more of his content and used your faculty of reason on the free information available, and also realize that THIS IS HIS JOB, you would understand that you can help people and make money at the same time, this is not a moral issue.
Moments in this article come off as so bitter and baseless, like “Don’t get sucked into the “Leaking Toxic Bile Theory / Paradigm” hype”
Ok… don’t use soluble fiber and charcoal to facilitate the transport and removal of bile which is by definition the most toxic substance in your body.
So I should stop doing that Grant? I should maintain my bile instead of expel it? What is your proposed theory and evidence that toxic bile paradigm isn’t real? At one stage you state how the toxic bile paradigm is not an original theory and how dare someone take credit for something he didn’t create, and now you say it is all “hype” and to not listen to it.
What benefit do you gain by turning people away from 1. lowering the toxicity of there bile by not intoxing and 2. facilitating the production and the removal of it?
The very expensive soluble fiber and charcoal is really setting me back, I wish i had of listened to you instead and ate more fat and less soluble fiber based on *nothing*, so smart!!!
I am beginning to think that a simple low vitamin A diet approach is the right way to do it – that is what fully reversed my eczema years ago. That simplicity with results is what separates “us” from the rest of the failing alternative health world. I would not like to see it turn into the same thing: regular blood tests, hair samples, 10+ supplements and if you take slightly too much you get hit hard.
RE: Rellax11 “Moments in this article come off as so bitter and baseless, like “Don’t get sucked into the “Leaking Toxic Bile Theory / Paradigm” hype””
There’s nothing bitter about it. It’s about safety and being cautious. It’s also not at all baseless, as I provided a very clear and solid foundational explanation for why it is indeed just hype.
RE: “I think” zinc supplementation is not needed – with zero evidence or testing just “I think” (very valuable insight from Grant there)
Here’s a ChatGPT conversation to help you put things into perspective.
https://chatgpt.com/share/698a1f0f-d9cc-8001-9e9d-ae8c0e13e787
I read your ChatGPT conversation and understand. I have a lot of experience using AI. When asking broad questions like this it easily oversimplifies, and tends to repeat things it hears – e.g it will tell you apple skin is most rich in pectin, but when pushed back it admits the pectin is all in the flesh. It does this because that is the common sentiment online, even if it contradicts the real evidence. So when you force it to really think by asking targeted questions it becomes more nuanced.
A lot of the time it’s not necessarily optimal to appeal to the established medical and governmental authority regarding food/supplements/medicine (as you surely know with the vitamin A RDA). AI often speaks in a way which oozes certainty, but when challenged on individual points it can change its position dramatically – just ask it about how Vitamin A is essential, and like I have, attempt to mechanistically debunk its points (I have had it admit that the casein and lard used to feed the rats in the 1925 study are plausibly saturated with the most toxic form of vA – retinyl esters, and could realistically be the cause of the rats “deficiency” symptoms).
But I understand your perspective on zinc. There can be specific benefits of targeted supplementation in deficient people, and a lot of people, particularly women, are not eating close to 1lb of red meat daily, but yes the 22mg from your diet is adequate no doubt, it’s also very possible you would be even better adding 5-10mg of zinc daily, but you wouldn’t know unless you tried it. If you feel 100% perfect, then no need to try anything!
Regarding Toxic Bile Paradigm, you still haven’t given any good reason to stop doing the most fundamental thing that is recommended, which is facilitate the transport/removal of the bile through fiber, particularly soluble fiber, and charcoal, which are both undoubtedly proven in the research to do just that. That’s really the functional basis of the idea, and this cannot be harmful unless you get very silly with fiber and go 0-100 quick (lots of fiber with zinc-containing meals can also lower absorption modestly, which could be another reason to supplement).
I doubt that, given the state of our gut health today, most people do not have some issues with gut junction and bile flow, to assume everyone’s insides and pooping mechanisms are perfectly healthy (based on your comment that bile “leaking” is not an issue in most people) seems wrong. The idea is that there are likely varying degrees of this problem manifesting in various different issues for different people, but mostly affecting the way people feel (e.g irritated after a day in the sun). And observing the ideas that particular things – excessive exercise, sunlight, etc. can over-promote the production of bile, and that increased release into a partially “leaky” system, manifests in the headaches or mood disturbances that often plague certain people after certain tasks. I believe gut integrity and the proper channeling of bile explains why some are accustomed to and enjoy working out or other intense physical tasks or sunlight and others can’t handle it (I am not saying this is the only factor but it is a big one).
Your article on the subject seemed only concerned with retinyl esters/vitamin A in relation to bile. But realistically vA is only one component of many that contribute to the toxicity of bile.
Nonetheless, I wish you all the best and hope that one day we can all see eye to eye in this community, or at least be in a non-divided, non combative state.
RE: When asking broad questions like this
Actually, my question was very specific.
RE: it’s also very possible you would be even better adding 5-10mg of zinc daily
Last summer I heard from someone who was very seriously messed up by taking supplemental zinc. So supplemental zinc could also be why other people aren’t doing so well too. This has nothing to do with my own health.
RE: Regarding Toxic Bile Paradigm, you still haven’t given any good reason to stop doing the most fundamental thing that is recommended
As I stated in my post, treating a non-existent condition with risky and dubious supplements is a very bad idea. The main point is that vA toxicity is defined by elevated retinyl esters. Those retinyl esters are mostly leaking into the blood directly from the liver, and not necessarily via the bile. The so- called “Toxic Bile Paradigm” hype is marketing, not innovation.
Best regards,
Grant
Grant, you are using an anecdotal, sample size of one to make a conclusion about zinc supplements. I can also tell you that last summer I heard someone has felt a lot better by taking supplemental zinc, that doesn’t prove a thing. It is obviously greater to look at the macro, which is that most people taking zinc feel fine, better or nothing at all. You have an inherent bias if an example of one has overridden the 99% neutral to positive anecdotal examples.
Yes your question was specific, but it was also open ended and completely relied on and trusted in the AI to be accurate. If you stated your current diet and asked ChatGPT what supplements you needed to ADD to your diet (a very specific, but open ended question) it would give you plenty, including the necessity of hitting the Vitamin A RDA and a bunch of other supplements – folate, vitamin C and others, which we can confidently state are not required. Just because it says there is no reason to take a supplement on your diet of 1lb beef, does not necessarily prove anything. I am not arguing for or against its response either, but I’d suggest using logic of your own rather than relying on an AI response and RDAs to give all the answers to you. This tool is best used to help understand specific nuanced things or gain loose understandings of mechanisms/concepts, not as a be-all and end-all.
It is essential to know:
1. What form of zinc were they taking?
2. How much zinc were they taking?
3. In what way were they very seriously messed up?
4. Were the symptoms consistent with the documented effects of zinc toxicity?
We cannot have a vague impression of supplemental minerals as if they are any different than food minerals, if zinc is inherently bad, meat should be avoided just the same. It is not logical to paint an abundant mineral as a very damaging boogeyman with only a vague anecdotal report of one to a few people. If it were true that zinc was inherently bad, the same could be said for the 22mg present in your beef. If someone only achieved 10mg from a chicken-only diet, would adding a 10mg zinc supplement very seriously mess them up too? I am guessing you cannot or will not provide a logical response to this fallacy, or provide answers to the 4 questions, but I hope you do so others can understand what happened and why.
BTW I am not arguing with you here, but it seems your mind is very set on things. I would simply focus on your own work, and if you don’t like others’, come up with an alternate theory or actually disprove what has been asserted, rather than simply stating that bile issues are “non existent”. I would gladly agree with you if you would actually disprove what has been asserted regarding toxic bile paradigm.
Sure I agree and take your word that retinyl esters are mostly leaking into the blood directly from the liver, because I am open minded. I also agree that taking risky and dubious supplements is a very bad idea. Thankfully soluble fiber and charcoal are very well studied and are not risky or dubious whatsoever. The same could be argued for nicotinic acid and MSG, too (minerals are obviously safe if they are not overdone because they are essential to the body). These are some of the most studied supplements around. No, that does not mean everyone should start mega dosing them, that means, as you have been open to, they are most likely some of the ones that could prove useful in speeding up the detoxification journey, and helping people in other ways, and the studies reflect this, such as niacin in addition to sauna, apple pectin fiber, charcoal, zeolite – these are all shown to help detoxification. I am not recommending these for every person at once at all times, but am confident in their effectiveness in targeted use.
The Bile Theory is not at all solely focused on vitamin A, but If you would try to explain with more nuance and logic, less emotional “hype and marketing” assertions but actual assertions/theories like you said:
“The introduction of fiber and adsorbing agents to the gut are not effective at increasing removal of retinyl esters, because most of them leak directly from the liver into the blood stream, not through the gut system. Therefore, taking detoxifying agents like nicotinic acid only speed the release of these esters into the blood stream from the liver, and do not release them into the gut system to be adsorbed and excreted, lowering overall health by increasing circulating retinyl esters.” (Just a little theory I made up, IDK if it was ever asserted that fiber and adsorbents help remove retinyl esters, but nonetheless).
We could have real, productive discussions, because actually mechanistically attempting to disprove assertions, or promote alternate methods rather than saying TBP is all “just marketing” (which is an unfounded judgment which you should really talk man to man about to get to the truth of), without dismantling assertions made would promote opportunities for constructive back and forth between the two sides instead of feminine gossip and moral posturing.
I cannot see a downside to consuming soluble fiber and charcoal, and you still haven’t given reason why they should not be consumed, apart from you believe they are treating a non-existent problem which is not to say they do not have benefits unrelated to toxic bile paradigm.
It is weird, though, that you seem to have big concerns about setbacks and issues, which are not a big issue at all in the other camp. If your way is working so well then it must be true that you are absolutely thriving and others on zero supplements are at the absolute peak of the best they’ve ever felt with no complaints, too? True?
In the other program, lots of people are doing well, I don’t know of anyone who has followed the principles, used the tools intelligently, and have not continued to improve on the diet, it seems that literally all of those who have had problems with the program have been flocking to you, and most likely have not followed the principles or instructions given, the 99% doing great are obviously not in your DMs, how can you not see this sample bias?
All the best
This will hopefully be my last comment, sorry to spam, but
We can all ChatGPT… for your information:
“Contemporary clinical biochemistry sources list bile as a major elimination route for vitamin A and its metabolites (retinol and oxidized derivatives), but they do not list intact retinyl esters in normal bile composition.
Key quote from an NCBI clinical text:
📌 “Vitamin A is primarily excreted through bile into the intestines.”
This refers to total vitamin A metabolites, not retinyl esters per se.”
“Yes, logically. Bile excretion removes vitamin A metabolites from the enterohepatic circulation.
If metabolites (retinol, retinoic acid conjugates) are excreted instead of reabsorbed, the liver may mobilize stored retinyl esters to maintain plasma retinol levels.
Over time, this could reduce total retinyl ester stores, though the effect would depend on baseline vitamin A intake and liver reserves.”
“Yes — soluble fiber + charcoal is likely among the most effective combos for physically adsorbing bile and promoting its fecal excretion, since adsorption is essentially the main mechanism to “trap” bile for elimination.”
“Yes, some rat studies show lactoferrin can increase bile acid secretion, likely by stimulating bile flow…”
“Yes, in theory. The combination ((of fiber, charcoal, and lactoferrin)) could:
Increase bile flow (lactoferrin effect).
Bind bile and its metabolites (fiber + charcoal).
Promote fecal excretion of vitamin A metabolites.”
This is Toxic Bile Paradigm. To state all of this is just marketing and hype, without disproving any of these mechanisms is arrogance. Lactoferrin is not required, but it can be seen, that in doses which do not promote the production of more bile than can be excreted, it can be useful in “speeding up” the removal of Vitamin A from our systems through bile.
There is more evidence that Toxic Bile Paradigm is real than it is a “non existent” and made up thing, solely made to purchase supplements (all of which can easily be sourced from alternate suppliers). The more bile we can adsorb and excrete, the more Vitamin A we can excrete. The obsession with retinyl esters leaking from the liver is irrelevant.
RE: “This is Toxic Bile Paradigm. To state all of this is just marketing and hype, without disproving any of these mechanisms is arrogance.”
As I stated in my post there is NOTHING new from Garrett Smith regarding the toxicity of bile. Much of it has been known for well over a 100 years.
Please show me a single published scientific reference to the so-called “Toxic Bile Paradigm”, not to just something about the already well known toxicity of bile. All of that has been proven by OTHERS decades ago.
Please show me a single published scientific paper authored by GS, or even as a co-author, on even just the toxicity of bile.
I wrote about using activated charcoal to bind to vA in my eBooks 11 years ago, and in many of the blog posts since then. Regarding using soluble fiber, it’s not a great idea, because for many people this can cause both bacterial overgrowth and reduced absorption of food nutrients.
As I have shown, the science of leaking bile and leaking retinyl esters had been published even before Garrett was born. Therefore, Garrett claiming that he’s introduced “a whole new health paradigm” is indeed just hype and marketing, and remarkable arrogance.
Here’s another ChatGPT conversation for you to consider:
https://chatgpt.com/share/698c9ac8-cdf4-8001-8b85-859cce22680a
RE: “…there is NOTHING new from Garrett Smith regarding the toxicity of bile”
Garrett never claimed to invent anything. He is literally putting the dots together and analyzing bile literature that already exists. You’ve created a strawman argument. He does not need to author a new scientific paper to gather evidence and come to reasonable conclusions. Note that you haven’t disproven any of the quotes I referenced.
It was always called Toxic Bile THEORY until a viewer suggested calling it a Paradigm because the same methods and effects of modulating bile had become so predictable, observable, and consistent in real people. You ignore the abundance of anecdotal reports supporting TBT/TBP, just as your reader admitted earlier to ignoring hundreds of positive anecdotes.
Even the most health-conscious people, decades into their journeys, have no idea about bile’s importance or function. This is such a niche topic that your exposure makes you assume it’s mainstream and inconsequential. Before 11 years ago, or whenever you started investigating your own health, you knew literally nothing about health or alternative approaches — as your statement on your lifelong consumption of a “standard American diet” implies.
Garrett has been health-conscious his whole life: PT, and later Naturopath. He has gone through multiple diets and health frameworks, understands mainstream and alternative medicine, and has years of experience interpreting bloodwork and tracking measurable improvements across hundreds of clients. Practically nobody talks about bile. Yet you demand to see a single published scientific paper authored by him on something you admit is already well known. Why?
Similar to vitamin A, bile is seriously under-discussed. Garrett is the only reason I have been exposed to bile’s function in biology, let alone understanding how to lower its toxicity or increase its removal. The fact that no one else is talking about this undeniably lends credence to his, yes, “self-authored” position on being a “leading authority” on bile and toxicity. I know of no other naturopaths working with as many clients with a focus on vA toxicity and bile issues – this literally makes him a “world leading expert”, this is not arrogance, he LITERALLY is because no one else is doing it with as many people as him (something tells me you won’t address this point). Tell me another ND/practitioner who is doing the same numbers of spreading awareness of bile and vA toxicity, there are none. Demanding a paper authored by him is ridiculous, and is missing the point completely. This is a semantic argument on what defines a “world leading expert”, nothing more. Additionally, you seem to think of yourself as a greater authority on health than him? Yet you lack his practical experience — I guarantee, and you know this yourself, that you have not a fraction of his knowledge on blood results or real client outcomes of his 15+ year experience working with real people and interpreting results. You are knowledgeable of yourself only, and only have a couple of DMs a week from likeminded people, nothing more, you are/were an engineer, not an ND in the field.
As you like to call Garrett arrogant for having confidence in the synthesis and dissemination of established science, then I would suggest looking at your own arrogance in dismissing something as false without any evidence to the contrary. The mechanisms of bile removal and facilitation — including the increased production of bile through supplements, which allows for greater excretion of vitamin A and other toxins — have not been disproven, nor have you proposed an alternative method. You are simply fixated on authorship and definitions, which are irrelevant to the mechanisms and functions — the actual “meat and bone” of the Toxic Bile Paradigm. True arrogance would be dismissing something entirely, without presenting counter-evidence, and assuming malice to bias affirm later.
Just like with the linked AI question you posed which from start to finish presupposed a narrative – it was so clearly framed in a way designed to elicit a particular response: all out of context references strategically leaving out any facts which would not support your desired outcome. You state he is “selling his own brand of supplements to treat his newly discovered condition”, conveniently leaving out the fact that he constantly promotes alternatives he doesn’t sell, has not once claimed that only his brand must be used — including apple pectin, psyllium husk, other brands of mineral/vitamin supplements and of course food-only approaches, which generate him no profit. All followed up with “is this typical of scams in the alternative health space”. I shouldn’t have to explain how these questions would obviously produce the exact result you were looking for.
RE: “Regarding using soluble fiber, it’s not a great idea, because for many people this can cause bacterial overgrowth and reduced absorption of nutrients.”
The assertions you made here are just plain wrong. Here’s a question I asked ChatGPT which should help you, which explains better than I could — I’m surprised you couldn’t do this rudimentary research yourself, I mean it’s not hard to grasp or at all controversial:
https://chatgpt.com/share/698d31fe-1154-8007-be8a-3f8df9416534
At this point, it seems you are opposing anything Garrett recommends out of sheer internalized bias or hatred. Your mind is made up sir, and your bias is evident based on your remission of facts in your foolishly set up AI question. If you cannot address any of these points this will be my last response, as you have a habit of not addressing things completely.
Good luck with your approach
Thanks for sharing your views.