I needed to disable self sign-ups because I’ve been getting too many spam-type accounts. Thanks.
All Roads Lead To Anhydroretinol: The Sneaky Vitamin A metabolite that causes Vitamin A Toxicity
Quote from Inger on March 19, 2024, 11:46 pmQuote from Luke on March 19, 2024, 5:49 pm
The simplest solution to virtually all methylation challenges? Incorporate a pound of meat into your daily diet to ensure an ample supply of methionine and cysteine, along with supplementing with TMG, Creatine, Choline, and Niacin. Problem solved.
@luke, I am not sure about this. I have become very aware of the dangers of supplementation. It just too often do not work like we think it should because it is out of natural concept. Also I dont agree that narrowing down on food to almost just 1 or a few things, not being able to tolerate other things, it is not health. I have been there and it did not end well.
I very much agree to follow ones intuition. But if you are stressed, there is no way you can feel it, because you are just a tight knot. You have no connection to your intuition. And adding supplements just mess it up further.
What I got from Meri´s video the most was.. what STRESS can do. How it can mess up the whole thing. It just confirmed what I have been intuitively feeling.
Ultimately it is stress that messes up the cell metabolism. Imho.
@bella, of course you can share, it is all open on internet and the more we share different perspectives the better it is the broader a view we become 🙂,
Hi @Inger,
Your point regarding supplementation is excellent. I believe delving into the intricacies of this concern necessitates tackling various levels of potential pitfalls associated with supplementation.
Over the past 15 years, I've invested a significant sum in supplements, totaling tens of thousands of dollars. Regrettably, I've encountered numerous adverse effects from substances promoted by certain figures in the alternative health community, such as Chris Masterjohn, Ray Peat, Rhonda Patrick, Peter Attia, Ben Greenfield and others. In certain instances, they harbored a distinct monetary incentive to encourage others to adopt their health philosophy and were motivated by the desire to sell products. In other cases, I believe they promoted somewhat hazardous health philosophies due to negligence and their own intellectual self-aggrandizement. Some of them genuinely believe in the efficacy of their own remedies.
For instance, herbs possess pharmacological properties akin to drugs. In this regard, I agree entirely with Dr. Garrett Smith. While many pharmaceutical interventions have drawn inspiration from herbal medicines, which can yield drug-like effects and prove highly effective for acute care, they often contribute minimally to the long-term well-being of an organism. In my view, health influencers promoting herbal remedies based on the Parasite and Germ Theory ideology are causing significant harm to an untold number of individuals.
I am currently writing a book, within which I've devised and outlined a straightforward method for assessing the safety of a substance for supplementation or its compatibility with what I would define as natural law. This has worked really well for both myself and my clients. The principles are as follows:
Principle 1: Is the substance naturally obtained through the diet from a historical and anthropological perspective?
Principle 2: Does the body endogenously produce the substance for which it fulfills a biological destiny?
Principle 3: Considering the contemporary comprehension of the substance and its recommended daily intake for biological utility, does supplementation at 10 times the RDA result in adverse effects, and is such heightened supplementation sustainable without negative consequences?
For me to contemplate supplementing with a substance, it must adhere to at least two of these three principles/laws. If it aligns with all three, I consider it, in my opinion, a highly safe substance for supplementation.
Here's how you might apply these principles to your decision-making process when considering the implementation of a potential supplement, like PQQ, for instance.
Does PQQ adhere to the criteria of Principle 1? Is it naturally obtained through the diet from a historical and anthropological perspective? Not quite. While PQQ exists in trace amounts in certain foods, its concentration is exceedingly small—far below even a single microgram. To consume a meaningful quantity, one would need to adopt an incredibly unusual diet sourced from around the globe, and even then, the amount ingested would be minuscule. Mercury is essentially omnipresent in food, but when we are discussing values in the parts per billion (ppb), its potential to form consistent patterns within natural laws diminishes significantly. Therefore, one wouldn’t say that Mercury passes the threshold of Principle 1.
Also, PQQ does not meet the criteria outlined in Principle 1. As for Principle 2, does the body naturally produce PQQ? As far as current knowledge goes, no, it does not. With PQQ already failing two out of three principles, I would opt against supplementing it.
Now, let's delve into Principle 3, which debunks the fallacy of the "narrow therapeutic window." Within numerous health paradigms, one of the most pervasive misconceptions is the belief that a minimal amount of a substance is beneficial, yet a slightly higher dose of the same substance becomes harmful. In reality, the substance itself is likely a toxin (Folate, B6).
Consider Vitamin D3 as an illustration. Its measurement system, denoted in International Units (IU), is intentionally misleading, obscuring the minuscule nature of the dosage (similar to Vitamin A). When individuals encounter a label stating 5,000 IU, they might believe it's a substantial amount, yet in reality, it translates to a mere 125 micrograms (mcg!). Realizing the incredibly small dosage sheds light on the substance's potential toxicity. Vitamin D3 falls short of Principle 3 because while 5,000 IU is touted as therapeutic, multiplying this dosage by a factor of 10 or even 5 leads to significant harm and adverse effects over time.
I find these 3 Principles to be a valuable framework for guiding individuals in their decision-making process when selecting substances to incorporate into their supplement regimen. It's also quite enjoyable to assess various substances, such as Taurine, Choline, Glycine, CoQ10, Zinc, among others, against these principles and observe what insights emerge. Particularly noteworthy are substances that adhere to all 3 Principles.
The next topic I want to discuss is fillers, which I think are a contributing factor to the dangers and inconsistencies with supplementation. Namely, Silcon Dioxide.
I believe Silicon Dioxide is a hidden toxin disproportionately affecting those who prioritize their health. While some claim it's merely nanoparticle silicon dioxide posing a risk, I'm skeptical. Even brands like NOW, which assert they don't process it in a nanoparticle-forming manner, offer scant information on its sourcing, making it challenging to trace its origin. Take a look at NOW's statement; it's crafted in lawyerly non-specific language, a tactic frequently used to protect oneself and minimize liability. Despite its molecule size potentially not being small enough to breach barriers, I suspect it can still lodge in microvilli, posing challenges for digestion due to its essentially sandy composition. For years, I dismissed concerns about fillers in supplements as hypochondria, given the minuscule amount of silicon dioxide in each pill. However, my perspective has shifted entirely, as I've noticed adverse effects from silica/silicon dioxide in both my myself and clients. Now, I exclusively opt for supplements containing cellulose and magnesium stearate as fillers and avoid silica in all artificial forms.
Additionally, @Inger, you addressed the themes of stress, food intolerances, and the perspective that excessively restricting foods may not align with your perception of health. This highlights another crucial concept: the individualistic nature of the health journey.
We are adapted, in the deepest Darwinian sense, not to the world of objects, but to the meta-realities of order and chaos, yang and yin. This implies that every individual's path to health is unique, and their approach to different aspects of this journey holds significant importance. For one person, restricting or eliminating certain foods may signify chaos, while for another, it may represent order. The question then becomes: why do these actions hold such distinct meanings for each of us? Embedded within that individual's response lies the singular path to unparalleled healing and genuine insight into the internal obstacles they face.
@jessica2 Yeah some people do very well on those things, others like those who are mercury toxic will get symptoms from them. Including from high thiol foods which I found the list of in Andy Cutler's book on mercury chelation.
Yeah pork doesn't seem to be an issue. And it is a good source of thiamine.
I wish I had gone to school for this stuff because I want to understand it better. I don't want to be black and white about anything. When new information comes along I need to be able to change my mind. Including the reitnol thing. I am open to Meri's ideas. I just need to know the inconsistency about turning it into anhydroretinol yet needing more retinol to buffer it? How do we safely get more retinol if it's turning into anhydroretinol?
@luke interesting thoughts, I tend to agree about supplements. I took folinic acid, molybdenum and zinc yesterday and had the worst tingling neuropathy in my hands and feet I've ever had, it's still not gone today. But we also painted our living room and toxic neuropathy can be a side effect of paint fumes although I've never reacted that way in the past even when pretty unhealthy. This stuff is so confusing.
So are you saying that if something is toxic at 10 times the RDA then we should never supplement it? That leaves very few safe supplements. Which is something I lived by for many yrs only using ascorbic acid as there really is no toxic dose. People have taken 100 grams in one day with only diarrhea as a side effect. I don't take it anymore though, but I'm being blinded by all the info coming out about minerals. I think I'm going to go on a supplement fast again. The only one that had a noticeable positive effect was betaine hcl because if we don't digest our meat it putrefies and those toxins are far worse than any vitamin supplement, endotoxin can cause heart disease . Autointoxication needs to be considered before we add on a bunch of stuff. Emulsifiers (carboxymethylcellulose and polysorbate 80) are the worst at causing endotoxin absorption. I was unable to figure out if vegetarian capsules made of cellulose are the kind that promotes endotoxin absorption.
I've been meaning to state on this site that I really think eggs help my blood sugar, and I saw that from the first when becoming a chicken keeper 25 years ago. This week I skipped my eggs and immediately, that day, saw more of a "blood sugar roller coaster" going on.
Whether it is the sulfur, the choline, the fat/protein, the "fresh VA" or the fact that it has the combo to make everything on a chicken from tail to beak... I don't know.
Quote from Jessica2 on March 21, 2024, 3:50 am@janelle525 One other thing I've read about sulfur is that soils in recent years are being depleted of it. I've read this on Ag websites not speculation from nutrition peoples so I tend to trust it. Farmers have a vested interest to have healthy crops. Its an often said idea that soils are becoming low in minerals so the idea they can become low in sulfur too makes sense. Sulfur deficiency in plants looks a lot like nitrogen deficiency so sometimes its tough to diagnose and treat it by farmers and gardeners.
Interestingly, I read that curbing emissions from factories has contributed to this because apparently the sulfur they emitted helped add sulfur to soils. Who knew? I'll link a site when I find it.
https://www.soildoctorconsulting.com/pro-tips/2020/4/27/sulfur
https://www.croplife.com/crop-inputs/micronutrients/sulfur-deficiency-a-developing-issue/
Yeah I believe that. I think people are sulfate deficient particularly those who are not neurotypical. Autistics have over double the amount of sulfate in their urine than neurotypical people. This is something I research because I don't think I'm completely neurotypical, my son has Asperger's and my other son is the typical ADHD type (though we homeschool so it's much more manageable at home).
I took a long bath last night with a cup of epsom salts. I used to do this regularly, but gave it up when I had anxiety attacks because one time I got an adrenaline rush after one, but I think it was the hot water that caused it. I slept really well! I think we need sulfate, it is the sulfites that are causing the problem. Big difference.
Quote from lil chick on March 21, 2024, 5:09 amI've been meaning to state on this site that I really think eggs help my blood sugar, and I saw that from the first when becoming a chicken keeper 25 years ago. This week I skipped my eggs and immediately, that day, saw more of a "blood sugar roller coaster" going on.
Whether it is the sulfur, the choline, the fat/protein, the "fresh VA" or the fact that it has the combo to make everything on a chicken from tail to beak... I don't know.
There is also something with eggs that helps people that are overly anabolic. Particularly fried eggs. Poached or runny eggs helps those who are overly catabolic. Overly anabolic people tend to have blood sugar crashes. Anabolic people have high urine ph and low saliva ph and higher resting pulse.
Another one by Meri on the retinol and beta carotene content of meat.
@bella, that was super interesting, thank you for posting!
Now it is even easier to understand why carnivores who consume liver/organs regularly run into troubles, because they already get retinol from the meat.
And one more possibility to understand why someone would feel bad from eating meat... if they convert it into in their gut(because of candida etc) into anhydroretinol. I love all these new perspectives 🙂
Hello Luke,
I would love to send you a direct message but unfortunately it's not possible here. Reading your statement in this thread and also your log I have to say I am intrigued by you. You have a strong voice. I feel that we share the quest for finding out what truly leads to health and experimenting while doing so, working through supps and coming to conclusions.
I am currently looking into methylation. I am not on top of this topic yet and wondered if you could help me.
1) Could you explain the link between vitamin A metabolism and methylation a bit more? I am asking because in my case I feel like in retrospect the longer I was on the vitamin a detox, the more methylation issues I got.
2) Do you have some recommendations dosage wise?
My daily methylation protocol currently features 4,5 g creatine, 880 mg phosphatidyl choline, 500 mg betaine (usually I take 500 niacinamide with it, I feel like my body wants the niacinamide, I don't know if any methyl donor function is still left after taking the niacinamide into consideration)
Thank you very much!
Also I am looking forward to your update, I am very curious how you are doing!
These are thought-provoking subjects that I believe are pivotal in the detoxification of Vitamin A. Methylation participates in numerous stages of Vitamin A metabolism, including the conversion of retinol to retinaldehyde, the subsequent conversion of retinaldehyde to retinoic acid, commonly referred to in mainstream mechanistic studies as "Retinoic Acid Signaling," and epigenetic regulation. Epigenetic regulation plays an intrinsic role in various aspects, encompassing retinol-binding proteins and hundreds of different receptors, not limited to retinoid receptors alone.
In my view, much of the science surrounding methylation seems convoluted and overly complex, often leading to confusion. I hold the belief that folate, in all its forms, is toxic. If there is indeed a biological necessity for folate, it likely exists at levels far below 400mcg, which can be easily obtained through diet alone. Fortification programs certainly lead to toxic levels. Research suggests that a daily intake of 1mg of folate, not limited to folic acid alone, can have profound detrimental effects. I approach with skepticism the enthusiastic endorsement of folate by entities such as Big Pharma and Big Science. If a substance exhibits toxicity at such a minute dose as 1mg, it raises concerns about its overall safety. The narrow margin between therapeutic benefit and toxicity, relative to the small dosage amount, is akin to claiming that one grain of sand is healthy, while two grains are not. The notion of the "folate trap" and the necessity of B12 for folate to function without toxicity is utterly absurd. Vitamin B6 is also associated with toxicity, often touted as a crucial element in discussions about methylation and prominently featured in fortification initiatives. The topic of B12 is too extensive for this post, but I'm skeptical about B12 supplementation. I believe that imbalances in B12 levels are often linked to other imbalances that can be addressed through dietary adjustments and supplementation without relying on B12 supplementation. Reducing folate for example, will raise B12 levels. No human being is going to get massive B12 levels from their diet.
I think there's too much focus on intermediate methylation products when the solution lies in relieving the burden on the entire methylation process and conserving biological energy. This can be achieved by supplementing end-stage methylation products that are typically obtained from the diet in significant quantities. While the body is capable of manufacturing many of these products from scratch in times of scarcity or famine, I don't believe it's ideal to leave the body struggling to produce its own substances. So, what are these raw materials?
Methionine:
Some individuals resort to supplementing SAM-e even when they're not consuming sufficient methionine from their diet, particularly from sources like meat. I view this practice as highly questionable. Supplementing intermediate products can potentially disrupt the metabolism of upstream products, leading to unintended consequences.
Cysteine:
This topic is so multifaceted that it could be explored endlessly in numerous posts. While there's certainly an association with glutathione and methylation, its implications extend far beyond that, including empowering the body to manage and neutralize aldehydes. Ideally, individuals should aim to consume grams of cysteine daily (meat). Achieving this level of intake yields health benefits comparable to those observed from consuming grams of NAC (N-acetylcysteine) daily. Supplementing with NAC while already obtaining adequate cysteine from sources like meat is redundant, as the benefits have likely already been maximized. In my view, supplementing with NAC without ensuring sufficient cysteine intake from the diet is unreasonable.
Choline:
In instances where our ancestors lacked access to animal-based products, which are the primary sources of choline, TMG (trimethylglycine), more commonly derived from grains and vegetation, can serve as an alternative. The choline molecule constitutes approximately 15% of Phosphatidylcholine. Personally, I don’t want to consume lecithin to obtain my choline, and supplement NOW Choline Bitartrate. 500mg of "elemental" choline per day.
TMG:
Supplementing with TMG conserves a portion of choline. I see it as supporting and strengthening both the primary system and the "backup" system. 1g per day.
Glycine:
There exists a difference between glycine and TMG from a utility perspective, although delving into that is a topic of its own. 10g per day.
Creatine:
Adding creatine supplementation to a diet already rich in creatine sources (like meat) acts as a form of health insurance. Despite consuming over 1lb+ of meat daily, I still notice benefits from supplementing an additional 5g per day. Consider this: 5 grams. That's equivalent to 5,000,000 micrograms (mcg). Now, compare that to the typical dose of folate, which is just 400mcg. Creatine stands out as one of the most biologically demanding substances, requiring a significant portion of methylation processes for its production. This underscores why individuals who follow a vegan, vegetarian, or low-animal-product diet are more likely to experience methylation-related issues. They aren't "under-methylators"; they're simply "under-nourished."
Niacin:
This topic is vast. I favor nicotinic acid over niacinamide and consider niacinamide to be an inferior alternative. I've been taking mega doses of niacin for years after reading "Niacin: The Real Story," and it has been a significant part of my healing journey. It's nice to see Dr. Garrett Smith jumping on the train. I used to find it frustrating when he talked about niacin being toxic because there's simply no biological evidence to support such a claim. I'm aware of Chris Masterjohn's speculation that niacin depletes methyl groups, and this idea has gained popularity. However, I believe this is another instance where prioritizing mechanistic science over real-world observations can lead to an ideology that misses the mark. The notion of "over methylators" and "under methylators" is pseudoscience, partly perpetuated by health influencers seeking to sell products and promote an ideology suggesting they have a unique solution to ongoing issues. Nonetheless, various toxins, such as folate, can indeed disrupt methylation function. I consume 3 grams of niacin daily and have taken up to 20 grams in a single day.
I rushed a bit while typing this out, aiming for brevity. Have a fantastic day! 🙂