I needed to disable self sign-ups because I’ve been getting too many spam-type accounts. Thanks.

DiscussionLet's talk about it: Diets and foodsA Best Practices Diet

Please to create posts and topics.

A Best Practices Diet

#51 · June 12, 2021, 4:12 pm

Body is sensitive to all vitamins starting with micrograms. Meat already contains A - throw some extra above and it could be too much. Besides we have a huge A deposit in our livers with a very tight regulation of A levels in blood(unless one fully depleted himself like Grant did).

p.s. highly controlled partly because it is a hormone, not a vitamin:

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8227879/

So ... any intake has a potential to disrupt the body efforts to regulate it and could be unproductive in the attempt to become more healthy.

Jessica has reacted to this post.

#52 · June 12, 2021, 10:27 pm

Quote from David on June 12, 2021, 10:27 pm
@rockarolla
You like many others here seem to have an all-or-nothing mindset regarding vitamin A so you probably have a hard time comprehending my idea about gradually lower vitamin A intake when someone is just starting a low vitamin A diet. I wanted to add this gradual reduction idea to the discussion. Some people might personally prefer a cold-turkey approach but I am entertaining the idea that a gradual reduction in vitamin A intake might be beneficial for those that don't prefer to go cold-turkey on vitamin A.

Of course I see vitamin A as something that is generally bad.

I think the idea of a gradual reduction of vitamin A could be really prudent for a best practice diet since there is people coming here from all types of diets of all from a low to a really high vitamin A diet.

Do you have an idea on how to accomodate this huge possible variation in starting conditions for someone that is new to eating a low vitamin A diet?

Talking about vitamin A metabolism, I know that beta-carotene most likely will convert to retinaldehyde or any other proabably toxic metabolite like apo-carotenals. But these metabolites are probably inturn rate limiting the later retinoic acid conversion. Since beta-carotene needs to be converted in the body, to become vitamin A, the body also has some amount of control on how fast this conversion will go.

From the 1993 review article that you linked, "Vitamin A as a hormone: Recent advances in understanding the actions of retinol, retinoic acid, and beta carotene" by Catharine A. Ross et. al they say this about beta-carotene:

"Beta carotene is in a direct line, after conversion to retinal, for oxidation to retinoic acid. Beta carotene may also be converted to retinoic acid via apocarotenals, bypassing retinaldehyde as an intermediate (30). Thus, it is possible that cellular beta carotene bypasses retinol as a precursor of retinoic acid and that this pathway might be regulated independently from the retinol pathway (31). Further investigation is needed to understand the importance of beta carotene as a precursor of retinoic acid, tissue capacities for conversion, and regulation of this process in vivo."

In the study they even mention the idea, which was popular at the time, that a really high intake of beta-carotene (viewed as an anti-oxidant) might be good for health. I think the seemingly good effects short term effects from beta-carotene is mainly from a probable slow down of the body's production of retinoic acid. I believe this probable short term effect could be beneficial for many people when they are just starting a low vitamin A diet.

Summary:
I don't think a cold-turkey approach is ideal. I don't know if there is any good long term evidence that a cold-turkey approach is in any shape or form better health wise than a gradual reduction approach. Using beta-carotenoid to reduce the intake of vitamin A most likely slows down the vitamin A conversion process while still leaving the body in control of the conversion rate of vitamin A. It would still make the diet very simple for new people to follow. I don't know of any long term evidence of looking at a difference between a cold-turkey reduction or a gradual reduction of vitamin A.

PS. Beta-carotene has been shown to be bad for smokers, so this idea of gradual reduction with beta-carotene is probably a no-go for any smoker.
Still my main idea is to gradually lower vitamin A intake instead of doing a cold-turkey approach. I have not really thought much about what vitamin A food that could be used for this or how fast to then reduce the vitamin A intake or how low to reduce the vitamin A intake (I am not convinced a super low vitamin A diet is the best approach).

PSS. For a best approach diet I think there should be a general warning, that starting a low vitamin A diet is stressful on the body and if you are already in a high stress situation, you might want to take it super-slow or just hold off on starting a low vitamin A diet until the stressful situation had passed.

@rockarolla
You like many others here seem to have an all-or-nothing mindset regarding vitamin A so you probably have a hard time comprehending my idea about gradually lower vitamin A intake when someone is just starting a low vitamin A diet. I wanted to add this gradual reduction idea to the discussion. Some people might personally prefer a cold-turkey approach but I am entertaining the idea that a gradual reduction in vitamin A intake might be beneficial for those that don't prefer to go cold-turkey on vitamin A.

Of course I see vitamin A as something that is generally bad.

I think the idea of a gradual reduction of vitamin A could be really prudent for a best practice diet since there is people coming here from all types of diets of all from a low to a really high vitamin A diet.

Do you have an idea on how to accomodate this huge possible variation in starting conditions for someone that is new to eating a low vitamin A diet?

Talking about vitamin A metabolism, I know that beta-carotene most likely will convert to retinaldehyde or any other proabably toxic metabolite like apo-carotenals. But these metabolites are probably inturn rate limiting the later retinoic acid conversion. Since beta-carotene needs to be converted in the body, to become vitamin A, the body also has some amount of control on how fast this conversion will go.

From the 1993 review article that you linked, "Vitamin A as a hormone: Recent advances in understanding the actions of retinol, retinoic acid, and beta carotene" by Catharine A. Ross et. al they say this about beta-carotene:

"Beta carotene is in a direct line, after conversion to retinal, for oxidation to retinoic acid. Beta carotene may also be converted to retinoic acid via apocarotenals, bypassing retinaldehyde as an intermediate (30). Thus, it is possible that cellular beta carotene bypasses retinol as a precursor of retinoic acid and that this pathway might be regulated independently from the retinol pathway (31). Further investigation is needed to understand the importance of beta carotene as a precursor of retinoic acid, tissue capacities for conversion, and regulation of this process in vivo."

In the study they even mention the idea, which was popular at the time, that a really high intake of beta-carotene (viewed as an anti-oxidant) might be good for health. I think the seemingly good effects short term effects from beta-carotene is mainly from a probable slow down of the body's production of retinoic acid. I believe this probable short term effect could be beneficial for many people when they are just starting a low vitamin A diet.

Summary:
I don't think a cold-turkey approach is ideal. I don't know if there is any good long term evidence that a cold-turkey approach is in any shape or form better health wise than a gradual reduction approach. Using beta-carotenoid to reduce the intake of vitamin A most likely slows down the vitamin A conversion process while still leaving the body in control of the conversion rate of vitamin A. It would still make the diet very simple for new people to follow. I don't know of any long term evidence of looking at a difference between a cold-turkey reduction or a gradual reduction of vitamin A.

PS. Beta-carotene has been shown to be bad for smokers, so this idea of gradual reduction with beta-carotene is probably a no-go for any smoker.
Still my main idea is to gradually lower vitamin A intake instead of doing a cold-turkey approach. I have not really thought much about what vitamin A food that could be used for this or how fast to then reduce the vitamin A intake or how low to reduce the vitamin A intake (I am not convinced a super low vitamin A diet is the best approach).

PSS. For a best approach diet I think there should be a general warning, that starting a low vitamin A diet is stressful on the body and if you are already in a high stress situation, you might want to take it super-slow or just hold off on starting a low vitamin A diet until the stressful situation had passed.

Jenny and Sussan have reacted to this post.

#53 · June 13, 2021, 3:50 am

Quote from salt on June 13, 2021, 3:50 am

Quote from David on June 12, 2021, 10:27 pm

@rockarolla
You like many others here seem to have an all-or-nothing mindset regarding vitamin A so you probably have a hard time comprehending my idea about gradually lower vitamin A intake when someone is just starting a low vitamin A diet. I wanted to add this gradual reduction idea to the discussion. Some people might personally prefer a cold-turkey approach but I am entertaining the idea that a gradual reduction in vitamin A intake might be beneficial for those that don't prefer to go cold-turkey on vitamin A.

Of course I see vitamin A as something that is generally bad.

I think the idea of a gradual reduction of vitamin A could be really prudent for a best practice diet since there is people coming here from all types of diets of all from a low to a really high vitamin A diet.

Do you have an idea on how to accomodate this huge possible variation in starting conditions for someone that is new to eating a low vitamin A diet?

Talking about vitamin A metabolism, I know that beta-carotene most likely will convert to retinaldehyde or any other proabably toxic metabolite like apo-carotenals. But these metabolites are probably inturn rate limiting the later retinoic acid conversion. Since beta-carotene needs to be converted in the body, to become vitamin A, the body also has some amount of control on how fast this conversion will go.

From the 1993 review article that you linked, "Vitamin A as a hormone: Recent advances in understanding the actions of retinol, retinoic acid, and beta carotene" by Catharine A. Ross et. al they say this about beta-carotene:

"Beta carotene is in a direct line, after conversion to retinal, for oxidation to retinoic acid. Beta carotene may also be converted to retinoic acid via apocarotenals, bypassing retinaldehyde as an intermediate (30). Thus, it is possible that cellular beta carotene bypasses retinol as a precursor of retinoic acid and that this pathway might be regulated independently from the retinol pathway (31). Further investigation is needed to understand the importance of beta carotene as a precursor of retinoic acid, tissue capacities for conversion, and regulation of this process in vivo."

In the study they even mention the idea, which was popular at the time, that a really high intake of beta-carotene (viewed as an anti-oxidant) might be good for health. I think the seemingly good effects short term effects from beta-carotene is mainly from a probable slow down of the body's production of retinoic acid. I believe this probable short term effect could be beneficial for many people when they are just starting a low vitamin A diet.

Summary:
I don't think a cold-turkey approach is ideal. I don't know if there is any good long term evidence that a cold-turkey approach is in any shape or form better health wise than a gradual reduction approach. Using beta-carotenoid to reduce the intake of vitamin A most likely slows down the vitamin A conversion process while still leaving the body in control of the conversion rate of vitamin A. It would still make the diet very simple for new people to follow. I don't know of any long term evidence of looking at a difference between a cold-turkey reduction or a gradual reduction of vitamin A.

PS. Beta-carotene has been shown to be bad for smokers, so this idea of gradual reduction with beta-carotene is probably a no-go for any smoker.
Still my main idea is to gradually lower vitamin A intake instead of doing a cold-turkey approach. I have not really thought much about what vitamin A food that could be used for this or how fast to then reduce the vitamin A intake or how low to reduce the vitamin A intake (I am not convinced a super low vitamin A diet is the best approach).

PSS. For a best approach diet I think there should be a general warning, that starting a low vitamin A diet is stressful on the body and if you are already in a high stress situation, you might want to take it super-slow or just hold of on starting a low vitamin A diet until the stressful situation had passed.

Personally I feel worse from beta-carotene than retinol, beta carotene quickly gives me night blindness and brainfog whereas the only immediate effect of consuming a small amount of retinol on my body is it seems to cause a rush of stress hormones and give me nervous energy, and quicken my hairloss.

I personally I prefer a cold turkey approach but everyone is different and some people will definitely prefer a slower approach so it would be good if there was a more easy going approach laid out for them. I think Garrett Smith's program is more laid back so that would be a good start, although it costs money, so yeah it's probably a good idea to have some free instructions here too maybe. I don't think a low VA diet is stressful at all, nothing seems to cause more stress than VA, but for those who hate food restriction I understand it could cause a lot of psychological stress to be too restrictive. If you feel stressed out on a low VA diet and it's not because of the restriction, I would suppose that your diet is probably lacking something, or is in excess of something else, rather than the low VA factor itself being what's causing the stress.

Quote from David on June 12, 2021, 10:27 pm

@rockarolla
You like many others here seem to have an all-or-nothing mindset regarding vitamin A so you probably have a hard time comprehending my idea about gradually lower vitamin A intake when someone is just starting a low vitamin A diet. I wanted to add this gradual reduction idea to the discussion. Some people might personally prefer a cold-turkey approach but I am entertaining the idea that a gradual reduction in vitamin A intake might be beneficial for those that don't prefer to go cold-turkey on vitamin A.

Of course I see vitamin A as something that is generally bad.

I think the idea of a gradual reduction of vitamin A could be really prudent for a best practice diet since there is people coming here from all types of diets of all from a low to a really high vitamin A diet.

Do you have an idea on how to accomodate this huge possible variation in starting conditions for someone that is new to eating a low vitamin A diet?

Talking about vitamin A metabolism, I know that beta-carotene most likely will convert to retinaldehyde or any other proabably toxic metabolite like apo-carotenals. But these metabolites are probably inturn rate limiting the later retinoic acid conversion. Since beta-carotene needs to be converted in the body, to become vitamin A, the body also has some amount of control on how fast this conversion will go.

From the 1993 review article that you linked, "Vitamin A as a hormone: Recent advances in understanding the actions of retinol, retinoic acid, and beta carotene" by Catharine A. Ross et. al they say this about beta-carotene:

"Beta carotene is in a direct line, after conversion to retinal, for oxidation to retinoic acid. Beta carotene may also be converted to retinoic acid via apocarotenals, bypassing retinaldehyde as an intermediate (30). Thus, it is possible that cellular beta carotene bypasses retinol as a precursor of retinoic acid and that this pathway might be regulated independently from the retinol pathway (31). Further investigation is needed to understand the importance of beta carotene as a precursor of retinoic acid, tissue capacities for conversion, and regulation of this process in vivo."

In the study they even mention the idea, which was popular at the time, that a really high intake of beta-carotene (viewed as an anti-oxidant) might be good for health. I think the seemingly good effects short term effects from beta-carotene is mainly from a probable slow down of the body's production of retinoic acid. I believe this probable short term effect could be beneficial for many people when they are just starting a low vitamin A diet.

Summary:
I don't think a cold-turkey approach is ideal. I don't know if there is any good long term evidence that a cold-turkey approach is in any shape or form better health wise than a gradual reduction approach. Using beta-carotenoid to reduce the intake of vitamin A most likely slows down the vitamin A conversion process while still leaving the body in control of the conversion rate of vitamin A. It would still make the diet very simple for new people to follow. I don't know of any long term evidence of looking at a difference between a cold-turkey reduction or a gradual reduction of vitamin A.

PS. Beta-carotene has been shown to be bad for smokers, so this idea of gradual reduction with beta-carotene is probably a no-go for any smoker.
Still my main idea is to gradually lower vitamin A intake instead of doing a cold-turkey approach. I have not really thought much about what vitamin A food that could be used for this or how fast to then reduce the vitamin A intake or how low to reduce the vitamin A intake (I am not convinced a super low vitamin A diet is the best approach).

PSS. For a best approach diet I think there should be a general warning, that starting a low vitamin A diet is stressful on the body and if you are already in a high stress situation, you might want to take it super-slow or just hold of on starting a low vitamin A diet until the stressful situation had passed.

Personally I feel worse from beta-carotene than retinol, beta carotene quickly gives me night blindness and brainfog whereas the only immediate effect of consuming a small amount of retinol on my body is it seems to cause a rush of stress hormones and give me nervous energy, and quicken my hairloss.

I personally I prefer a cold turkey approach but everyone is different and some people will definitely prefer a slower approach so it would be good if there was a more easy going approach laid out for them. I think Garrett Smith's program is more laid back so that would be a good start, although it costs money, so yeah it's probably a good idea to have some free instructions here too maybe. I don't think a low VA diet is stressful at all, nothing seems to cause more stress than VA, but for those who hate food restriction I understand it could cause a lot of psychological stress to be too restrictive. If you feel stressed out on a low VA diet and it's not because of the restriction, I would suppose that your diet is probably lacking something, or is in excess of something else, rather than the low VA factor itself being what's causing the stress.

r has reacted to this post.

#54 · June 13, 2021, 11:46 am

@david, carotenoids half life is so huge that it's impossible to quit them cold turkey:

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11481400

#55 · June 13, 2021, 3:02 pm

Quote from lil chick on June 13, 2021, 3:02 pm
I totally get the idea that the body likes slow changes.

That is so interesting @salt, about the night blindness from carotenes. I think this was discussed before on another thread. My night blindness is worse it seems after eating oat meal for a few weeks. (lutein?) However, the other benefits are good. A small part of me wonders if the phytates are depleting zinc, so I bought some. My ears are ringing more too.

I went into low-VA so slowly. I came off of some of the high-VA foods like cod liver oil myself prior to reading Grant's info. And I'd already scaled back on liver and butternut squash too. The failsafe diet had me thinking about food chemicals in general and limiting them. I think it would have taken me 100 years more to figure out that VA was a food chemical to avoid, but I was getting there.

Then, when I did read Grant, my stubbornness kept me on just a lowish-VA diet, and not ultra-low.

Here is my first impression to whether a slow start is better. I think that when you switch from high-VA "scramble to store it mode" to "orderly detox mode" what happens is that you start depleting nutrients quickly and you start having VA coming out all of your pores and orifices and your bile system gets overloaded and etc.

You can get there slowly or fast, but you will get there. Either way you are probably going to end up needing some support at some point, maybe now or later. Fiber or zinc or B12 or C or ?

I actually think your body is kind of happy when you quit the VA.

When people suddenly go low carb they get "low carb flu". I don't think there is a parallel to that in the VA world. In fact, there may be a sort of honeymoon at first. And then there can be hell to pay, and for quite a while for some. Others get through it quicker, especially the young.

For me, lowish and slowish fits my goal of not being on a strict diet. A serious diagnosis like the kidney failure in Grant's case might give someone a good reason to go fast, and I don't think I'd worry about a fast change, you just might need to be a bit more prepped with info.

edited to add: I also don't think VA is like oxalates where if you take more oxalates it will stop you detoxing.

I totally get the idea that the body likes slow changes.

That is so interesting @salt, about the night blindness from carotenes. I think this was discussed before on another thread. My night blindness is worse it seems after eating oat meal for a few weeks. (lutein?) However, the other benefits are good. A small part of me wonders if the phytates are depleting zinc, so I bought some. My ears are ringing more too.

I went into low-VA so slowly. I came off of some of the high-VA foods like cod liver oil myself prior to reading Grant's info. And I'd already scaled back on liver and butternut squash too. The failsafe diet had me thinking about food chemicals in general and limiting them. I think it would have taken me 100 years more to figure out that VA was a food chemical to avoid, but I was getting there.

Then, when I did read Grant, my stubbornness kept me on just a lowish-VA diet, and not ultra-low.

Here is my first impression to whether a slow start is better. I think that when you switch from high-VA "scramble to store it mode" to "orderly detox mode" what happens is that you start depleting nutrients quickly and you start having VA coming out all of your pores and orifices and your bile system gets overloaded and etc.

You can get there slowly or fast, but you will get there. Either way you are probably going to end up needing some support at some point, maybe now or later. Fiber or zinc or B12 or C or ?

I actually think your body is kind of happy when you quit the VA.

When people suddenly go low carb they get "low carb flu". I don't think there is a parallel to that in the VA world. In fact, there may be a sort of honeymoon at first. And then there can be hell to pay, and for quite a while for some. Others get through it quicker, especially the young.

For me, lowish and slowish fits my goal of not being on a strict diet. A serious diagnosis like the kidney failure in Grant's case might give someone a good reason to go fast, and I don't think I'd worry about a fast change, you just might need to be a bit more prepped with info.

edited to add: I also don't think VA is like oxalates where if you take more oxalates it will stop you detoxing.

Jessica has reacted to this post.

#56 · June 13, 2021, 10:02 pm

Quote from David on June 13, 2021, 10:02 pm
Thanks for the replies on my comments! They have made me think of a few new points.

First off I think a best practice diet should be made for the sickest people, since they will be the lowest common denominator of people coming from all walks of life. Adjusting a best practice diet to fit different communites (like vegan, keto, carnivore) is probably a good idea as mention earlier in this thread, I believe by @rachel-2 .

What the sickest people can handle diet wise is probably a diet everyone else should be able to handle. Instead of assuming that people beginning a vitamin A diet are healthy people with no ailments or nutrient deficiencies, I think we should design a best practice diet to accomodate the sickest. Grant's diet is already a type of elimination diet with low oxylates, no gluten andlow in many other difficult to handle food stubstances.

This leads into to why I think a slow approach needs to be the goal for a best practice diet, a failsafe diet has to be a compromise on speed in order to work for a greater number of people, that is the trade-off. All-or-nothing people will of course ignore any advice to slow down anything so I don't know if you can even give them a diet suggestion where they will not try to speed it up by removing any breaks. Faster is always better with those that are all-or-nothing minded, I have previously been more of that mindset.

Regarding my slow approach idea to add some type of vitamin A at the start of doing a low vitamin A diet is just a very small part of the total detox time for vitamin A. Say an adult average female has 2 years worth of RDA just stored in her liver, and the USDA RDA is 700 mcg for most adult females. That means she has 511 mg of vitamin A just stored in her liver.

If her average daily vitamin A intake was 1666.7 mcg (5000 IU) and she reduces her intake linearly by 10% each week, down to say 10% of her original intake that would cause this extra intake of vitamin A at the start of the diet:

(0.9+0.8+....+0.2)*(7 days)*(1666.7 mcg vitamin A) =51334 mcg of vitamin A.

That is 10% of her initial liver vitamin A storage before starting a low vitamin A diet. Which I don't think is an alarming amount in this case as we should remember that the body is also excreting some amount of vitamin A all the time, I don't know of any good numbers on what the excretion/depletion rate of vitamin A is especially depending on diet and other factors. Anyway 10% of 2 years are 73 days if we assume excretion happens at the RDA level (which it might or might not do). 73 days extra on top of a "minimal" depletion period of 730 days. So 803 days instead of 730 dats, which is not a huge difference.

I want to finish of by comparing vitamin A with ethanol, like in alcoholic beverages. It is know that alcohol is one of few intoxicating drugs that can kill someone from stopping cold-turkey; alcohol acidosis I believe it is called.

That information taken together with that retinol/retinaldehyde/retinoic acid is, at least in part, handled by the same detox pathways as ethanol I think it is especially prudent to start slow even though ethanol is probably more toxic to the body than vitamin A.

Thanks for the replies on my comments! They have made me think of a few new points.

First off I think a best practice diet should be made for the sickest people, since they will be the lowest common denominator of people coming from all walks of life. Adjusting a best practice diet to fit different communites (like vegan, keto, carnivore) is probably a good idea as mention earlier in this thread, I believe by @rachel-2 .

What the sickest people can handle diet wise is probably a diet everyone else should be able to handle. Instead of assuming that people beginning a vitamin A diet are healthy people with no ailments or nutrient deficiencies, I think we should design a best practice diet to accomodate the sickest. Grant's diet is already a type of elimination diet with low oxylates, no gluten andlow in many other difficult to handle food stubstances.

This leads into to why I think a slow approach needs to be the goal for a best practice diet, a failsafe diet has to be a compromise on speed in order to work for a greater number of people, that is the trade-off. All-or-nothing people will of course ignore any advice to slow down anything so I don't know if you can even give them a diet suggestion where they will not try to speed it up by removing any breaks. Faster is always better with those that are all-or-nothing minded, I have previously been more of that mindset.

Regarding my slow approach idea to add some type of vitamin A at the start of doing a low vitamin A diet is just a very small part of the total detox time for vitamin A. Say an adult average female has 2 years worth of RDA just stored in her liver, and the USDA RDA is 700 mcg for most adult females. That means she has 511 mg of vitamin A just stored in her liver.

If her average daily vitamin A intake was 1666.7 mcg (5000 IU) and she reduces her intake linearly by 10% each week, down to say 10% of her original intake that would cause this extra intake of vitamin A at the start of the diet:

(0.9+0.8+....+0.2)*(7 days)*(1666.7 mcg vitamin A) =51334 mcg of vitamin A.

That is 10% of her initial liver vitamin A storage before starting a low vitamin A diet. Which I don't think is an alarming amount in this case as we should remember that the body is also excreting some amount of vitamin A all the time, I don't know of any good numbers on what the excretion/depletion rate of vitamin A is especially depending on diet and other factors. Anyway 10% of 2 years are 73 days if we assume excretion happens at the RDA level (which it might or might not do). 73 days extra on top of a "minimal" depletion period of 730 days. So 803 days instead of 730 dats, which is not a huge difference.

I want to finish of by comparing vitamin A with ethanol, like in alcoholic beverages. It is know that alcohol is one of few intoxicating drugs that can kill someone from stopping cold-turkey; alcohol acidosis I believe it is called.

That information taken together with that retinol/retinaldehyde/retinoic acid is, at least in part, handled by the same detox pathways as ethanol I think it is especially prudent to start slow even though ethanol is probably more toxic to the body than vitamin A.

Jenny has reacted to this post.

#57 · June 13, 2021, 11:58 pm

For me the idea of a graduate start appeals not so much due to the gradual reduction in VA, carotenoids etc but because I am easily stressed.
Part of it is my personal make up and life experiences and part of it is due to VA toxicity (I've noticed that although I still stress easily it has improved as I've been longer on a reduced VA diet and have presumably lowered my toxicity). Some people starting this come to it because they are desperate and at their wits end. Their health is tanked and they have few physical and emotional resources. Lets be gentle or at least offer a gentle approach for those that need it.

For me changing a lot quickly can send my anxiety and stress levels sky high and the sense of overwhelm can either leave me paralysed with indecision or flipping into panic mode.

Having some idea of priorities would have helped me. This type of thing: if all you can manage at the moment is one thing then start with this. Then when you feel ready, addess this... And so on. Start with the big hitters ie the things that will have the most impact and then work from there. Breaking it down into steps for people like me who struggle with changes. If others prefer to go whole hog then they can do multiple steps at once.

Also for me there is very much the danger of an orthorexia type of thinking and I think it can be harmful to stress over the smaller details. Don't eat this because it's got x in it. Dont eat that because it's got y in it. Before you know it there is little to eat that doesn't have some demonised component in it and all food becomes bad in your eyes. It's not helpful for people like me.

At the end of the day, the goal is to help people so presumably we want an approach that is easy to understand and implement and that is sustainable. We want something that will get the job done without worrying about being perfect and getting fanatical about diet.

Jenny, puddleduck and 2 other users have reacted to this post.

#58 · June 14, 2021, 2:31 am

I’m a fan of slow changes too. I feel while there are unknowns about this process (and there certainly are still) then slow changes are safer.

In the oxalate world they recommend slow changes as otherwise the ‘oxalate dump’ can be dangerous. I’m not saying vA and oxalates are similar as they have completely different excretion pathways as vA is processed in the liver. However, it’s something to bear in mind imo.

I also think that the anxiety provoking nature of extreme changes is an issue for some as Rachel says. On my NT course we discussed how some people like to dive right into changes and others need a very gradual stepped approach. I’m in the latter category.

puddleduck and David have reacted to this post.

#59 · June 29, 2021, 2:26 am

Quote from wavygravygadzooks on April 30, 2021, 11:09 am

what I think is onycholysis of my fingernails;

Interesting, I got something like that on my toenail, but didn't even linked it to the diet, until I saw your post. Would you mind sharing how you treat it?

My experience with the diet is similar to that of @are , almost 2 years on a diet close to that of Grant (with other forms of beef though, more based on steak & corned beef), with some slip offs for travel & social events. Very encouraging at the start, but overall little progress and some new symptoms. Maybe some of us have very compromised detoxification system, and so the diet doesn't work so well. I also noticed that since this journey my metabolism shifted up. Maybe very low metabolism was my body's adaptation to retinoids toxicity, once their amount has lowered , my metabolism went up and accordingly the symptoms followed this.

puddleduck has reacted to this post.

#60 · June 29, 2021, 3:43 am

‘Maybe some of us have very compromised detoxification system, and so the diet doesn't work so well.’ I think you’ve hit the nail on the head there @grapes

If people have significant cholestasis (liver damage) then the detox becomes a re-tox. The toxin ladened bile is not getting out into the gut efficiently, it refluxes back into the blood. Then the brain, kidneys and skin etc get the toxicity (or back to liver in a continuous recycle). It is this that causes the detox symptoms - toxicity in the blood. The vA detox is only a detox if the toxicity gets OUT of the body.

I guess as long as more toxicity leaves than enters the body we will all eventually get there. However, if the liver is sick (many reasons) this could be painfully slow and involve much suffering.

Vitamin A toxicity is a significant cause of cholestasis (but certainly not the only one). It is also a result of cholestasis. Chicken and egg. Cause and result in an ever worsening negative cycle. As the liver gets less able to get rid of excess vA then the vA gets accumulated more. This explains why I, who had never done anything excessive with vA, became vA toxic. I’d inadvertently done loads of stuff to ruin my liver function to the tipping point where I couldn’t cope with moderate amounts vA and I negatively spiralled downwards into overt vA toxicity symptoms. Other people, I’m sure, initiate the problem with excess vA.

This is my current understanding based on following Grant and Garrett Smith for nearly 3 years. Dr Smith is making massive leaps forward in understanding how to help the whole process. I suggest joining his Advanced Detox programme and get the latest ideas (I have no financial interest in this. I just want to help people!!).

puddleduck, grapes and lil chick have reacted to this post.

A Best Practices Diet

Share this:

Like this: