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

DiscussionLet's talk about it: Progress ReportsAndrew's Progress Log

Please to create posts and topics.

Andrew's Progress Log

#11 · July 19, 2023, 1:56 am

@andrew2 I'm fairly sure you've spotted an error in that paper. Whether the typo or error affected the calculations I'm not sure. Before this paper I tended to say we might be capable of excreting 15,000 IUs per day in excellent health with excellent Vitamin A metabolism. Many things can affect it and reduce it considerably hence why some people build up a problem on relatively low amounts and some 'seem' capable of eating a lot of liver. Thanks for doing this exercise. It's very helpful. Another point about the study is the 4,000 IUs per day never prevented some excretion of Vitamin A even assuming high balance going to the body.

An example from a friend though challenges your low 3,000 IUs excretion. She was taking 30,000 IUs of vitamin A per day for 4 years on Garrett Smith's instructions. Food say 2,500 IUs per day. With only 3,000 IUs being excreted that would lead to a very high liver storage. Some might not be absorbed (0-25% for retinoids) but she was in good health when she started the supplements. Say she built up 15,000 IUs a day that would be 21.9 million IUs. At 3,000 IUs excretion that would be 20 years detoxing whereas she is nearly recovered now after 5 years. I'm not being precise but generally saying I think we detox say 15,000 IUs a day. But if 21.9 million IUs is exceeding storage it implies higher excretion.

I'm tending to think this excretion process should take 1.5-2 years in recovering healthy people doing choline and betaine first, moderate protein then increasing fibre for gut health and moderate fat. So tending to be about 15,000 to 21,000 IUs per day. Some people though will have egg intolerances, poor supplement absorption, lutein sensitivity and Vitamin A sensitivity, gut issues, gallbladder removal so it's an ideal result in that time.

puddleduck, Navn and 4 other users have reacted to this post.

#12 · July 19, 2023, 2:14 am

so much speculation

so little foundation

put an egg on your head

and go to bed

puddleduck and Joe2 have reacted to this post.

#13 · July 19, 2023, 2:51 am

Quote from Andrew W on July 19, 2023, 2:51 am
Some more interesting points (apologies if this is common knowledge / has been discussed here before):

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK222318/

"The hepatic vitamin A concentration can vary markedly depending on dietary intake. When vitamin A intake is adequate, over 90 percent of total body vitamin A is located in the liver (Raica et al., 1972) as retinyl ester (Schindler et al., 1988), where it is concentrated in the lipid droplets of perisinusoidal stellate cells (Hendriks et al., 1985). The average concentration of vitamin A in postmortem livers of American and Canadian adults is reported to range from 10 to as high as 1,400 μg/g liver (Furr et al., 1989; Hoppner et al., 1969; Mitchell et al., 1973; Raica et al., 1972; Schindler et al., 1988; Underwood et al., 1970)."

10 ug/g = 0.01mg / g = 15mg -> 15 * 3333 = 50 000 IU total in the liver - lowest found in postmortem

1,400 ug/g = 1.4mg / g = 2,100mg -> 2100 * 3333 = 6 999 300 IU (call it 7 million) - highest found in postmortem

Obviously, that's a huge range. And we cannot know where we personally sit individually without liver biopsies...

https://efsa.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.2903/j.efsa.2015.4028

"The absolute catabolic rate (µg/day or µmol/day) and the fractional catabolic rate (% of a defined pool) of retinol are defined as the rate at which retinol is irreversibly utilised each day in absolute or relative amounts, respectively.

The distribution and catabolism of retinol was determined in eight men who received intravenous or oral doses of 14C‐labelled retinyl acetate during vitamin A depletion (up to 771 days) and repletion (up to 372 days) (Sauberlich et al., 1974). It took about 26 days for the labelled dose to equilibrate with the total body vitamin pool, which was estimated to range from 315 to 879 mg (1 100–3 070 µmol). A fractional catabolic rate of the total body retinol pool of approximately 0.5 % per day (range 0.3– 0.9 %) was determined in these subjects consuming a vitamin A-free diet, deduced from a mean halflife of retinol in the liver of 154 days (range 75–241 days, CV 35 %) during the depletion phase (Sauberlich et al., 1974; Olson, 1987). The absolute utilisation rate of retinol ranged between 1 113 and 2 070 µg (3.9 and 7.2 µmol) per day among subjects at baseline and fell to low levels as depletion progressed (50–180 µg (0.2–0.6 µmol) per day). "

-> the Sauberlich study must have been where this 0.5% figure comes from. Interestingly, the ABSOLUTE amount of vA used per day by those on a vA depleted diet actually reduced over time. i.e. the body was not using 'x' mg every day to keep up with "required functions", but was excreting 'y' % as a proportion of total stores. As the total vA stores reduce over time from the excretion, the amount excreted / utilized per day also reduced - this is very interesting... almost like the body is saying "it's okay, we've gotten rid of a significant portion of the stores and are in a safer place. We still need to excrete vA, but don't need to do it at such a fast pace anymore." Whilst this seems to support the theory, it also means that complete vA depletion may never even happen (although it probably isn't needed) -> a graph would be like a descending curve to an "asymptote", not a straight line -> see my attached graph I made in excel.

Graph Entitled "Percentage TTD" :- This shows two lines, the blue line is a linear relationship where the body utilizes 0.5% of total vitamin A stores from day zero, every single day. 2 days will excrete 1%, 200 days will excrete 100%. The orange line shows the non-linear relationship where 0.5% of the previous day's vitamin A store is used on any given day i.e. we are using less and less of the original vA stores every day as the overall toxic load reduces (this seems to coincide with the study quoted above around the "utilisation rate" -> I think this is more akin to what they mean when they say "0.5% per day". Interestingly, after 1 year (365 days), vA stores are 16% of the original day 0 value, and after 2 years, this drops to c. 2.5% (730 days) - notice in the study quotes above, they state 771 days was the maximum time to depletion - this seems to make sense.

The second graph I've uploaded entitled "Amount TTD" :- this shows three lines, using the 7,000,000 IU found in the highest postmortem test as a starting point (very high). The blue line shows 0.5% from starting value being utilised every day (200 days), the orange shows 0.5% of the previous day's value, but I have also added a grey line that uses 3000 IU every day (fixed).

Notice in the second graph, the blue line takes 200 days (6-7 months), the orange line takes (effectively) c. 800 days (c. 2.2 years) to become very close to 0% (c. 1-2%), but the grey line is still at 20% of the original value even after 1825 days (5 years)...

Blue Line - I believe this is wishful thinking. In the man with 7 million IU of vitamin A, it implies an excretion of 35 000 IU every single day. Although, I note that this isn't too crazy a value compared to the 22,600 IU in @andrew-b s study link. Additionally, if we reduce the starting IU to 3.5 million (which was the highest value I could find in my studies), that excretion rate (assuming 0.5% of total at day 0) would be 17 500 IU per day -> a much more sensible number, but still possibly wishful thinking.

Orange Line - This pattern demonstrates that: when vA stores are very high, the body will do a lot of work to excrete as much as possible (high excretion in the earlier days). However, as total vA load comes down (and the body becomes "less toxic"), the excretion rate slows down to a reduced (more manageable?) level. But this scenario still implies that the body is capable of dumping massive amounts of vA every day (for the man with 7 million IU -> day 1 = 35 000 IU excreted, day 100 = 21 300 IU excreted, day 365 = 5645 IU excreted - based on my graphical calculation of 0.5% excreted from the previous day's stores).

Grey Line - this is probably the worst case scenario. In this scenario, the body excretes no more than the RDA every single day (which I have chosen to be 3000 IU). In such a case, time to depletion would depend very much on your total starting stores. If you had 3 000 000 IU total in the body, it would take 3 000 000 / 3 000 = 1000 days to depletion (c. 2.75 years). Whereas if you had 7 million (like the highest concentration postmortem, it would take 2000 days (5.5 years).

I think the question on time to depletion would be solved if we could determine which is correct.

If blue line is correct - 200 days is a good estimate for everyone.

If orange line is correct - 365 days (1 year) to reach 16% of day 0 stores, 730 days (2 years) to reach 2.5% of day 0 stores.

If grey line is correct - there is no good estimate for any one individual. The only way we could know is to have a biopsy to determine our total at the starting point, and divide by 3000. As said, someone with 3 million IU (which seems to be a very high amount compared to all animal livers and young adult women examined above, but the study Andrew B linked had a gentleman with 14 million, and the maximum postmortem test in the study I linked was 7 million - so who knows) would take 1000 days.

To me, the blue line seems unrealistic.

I would hope that the orange line is possible. However, this would still imply that a much higher excretion rate than the RDA is technically possible. And if this is the case, then why shouldn't the blue line also be possible?

I hope the grey line is not the reality (i.e. we are capped at c. the RDA in terms of excretion per day). This would be the worst case scenario ...Murphy's Law??

Nevertheless, both Andrew B's paper link, and the links in the studies in this comment, appear to suggest that higher excretion rates are possible - so I am trending towards thinking that something at a mid-point in between the grey and orange line (hopefully closer to the orange) is the reality for most people.

Apologies all - I know this is supposed to be a progress thread, but this is all very new to me, and I'm trying to figure things out.

Best wishes, speak to you all soon.

Edit: looking again at this quote from the study I linked: "The absolute utilisation rate of retinol ranged between 1 113 and 2 070 µg (3.9 and 7.2 µmol) per day among subjects at baseline"

1113 ug = 1.113mg -> * 3333 = 3709 IU per day

2070 = 2.070mg -> * 3333 = 6899 IU per day

But total stores at t=zero ranged from, quote "315 to 879 mg (1 100–3 070 µmol)" -> i.e. 1,049,895 IU - 2,929,707 IU

3709/1,049,895 = 0.35%

6899/2,929,707 = 0.23%

All very confusing - but the important (and distressing) thing here is that c. 7000 IU was the maximum estimated daily excretion rate (call it double the RDA approx) -> no where near the 22,600 or 35,000 examples.

Some more interesting points (apologies if this is common knowledge / has been discussed here before):

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK222318/

"The hepatic vitamin A concentration can vary markedly depending on dietary intake. When vitamin A intake is adequate, over 90 percent of total body vitamin A is located in the liver (Raica et al., 1972) as retinyl ester (Schindler et al., 1988), where it is concentrated in the lipid droplets of perisinusoidal stellate cells (Hendriks et al., 1985). The average concentration of vitamin A in postmortem livers of American and Canadian adults is reported to range from 10 to as high as 1,400 μg/g liver (Furr et al., 1989; Hoppner et al., 1969; Mitchell et al., 1973; Raica et al., 1972; Schindler et al., 1988; Underwood et al., 1970)."

10 ug/g = 0.01mg / g = 15mg -> 15 * 3333 = 50 000 IU total in the liver - lowest found in postmortem

1,400 ug/g = 1.4mg / g = 2,100mg -> 2100 * 3333 = 6 999 300 IU (call it 7 million) - highest found in postmortem

Obviously, that's a huge range. And we cannot know where we personally sit individually without liver biopsies...

https://efsa.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.2903/j.efsa.2015.4028

"The absolute catabolic rate (µg/day or µmol/day) and the fractional catabolic rate (% of a defined pool) of retinol are defined as the rate at which retinol is irreversibly utilised each day in absolute or relative amounts, respectively.

The distribution and catabolism of retinol was determined in eight men who received intravenous or oral doses of 14C‐labelled retinyl acetate during vitamin A depletion (up to 771 days) and repletion (up to 372 days) (Sauberlich et al., 1974). It took about 26 days for the labelled dose to equilibrate with the total body vitamin pool, which was estimated to range from 315 to 879 mg (1 100–3 070 µmol). A fractional catabolic rate of the total body retinol pool of approximately 0.5 % per day (range 0.3– 0.9 %) was determined in these subjects consuming a vitamin A-free diet, deduced from a mean halflife of retinol in the liver of 154 days (range 75–241 days, CV 35 %) during the depletion phase (Sauberlich et al., 1974; Olson, 1987). The absolute utilisation rate of retinol ranged between 1 113 and 2 070 µg (3.9 and 7.2 µmol) per day among subjects at baseline and fell to low levels as depletion progressed (50–180 µg (0.2–0.6 µmol) per day). "

-> the Sauberlich study must have been where this 0.5% figure comes from. Interestingly, the ABSOLUTE amount of vA used per day by those on a vA depleted diet actually reduced over time. i.e. the body was not using 'x' mg every day to keep up with "required functions", but was excreting 'y' % as a proportion of total stores. As the total vA stores reduce over time from the excretion, the amount excreted / utilized per day also reduced - this is very interesting... almost like the body is saying "it's okay, we've gotten rid of a significant portion of the stores and are in a safer place. We still need to excrete vA, but don't need to do it at such a fast pace anymore." Whilst this seems to support the theory, it also means that complete vA depletion may never even happen (although it probably isn't needed) -> a graph would be like a descending curve to an "asymptote", not a straight line -> see my attached graph I made in excel.

Graph Entitled "Percentage TTD" :- This shows two lines, the blue line is a linear relationship where the body utilizes 0.5% of total vitamin A stores from day zero, every single day. 2 days will excrete 1%, 200 days will excrete 100%. The orange line shows the non-linear relationship where 0.5% of the previous day's vitamin A store is used on any given day i.e. we are using less and less of the original vA stores every day as the overall toxic load reduces (this seems to coincide with the study quoted above around the "utilisation rate" -> I think this is more akin to what they mean when they say "0.5% per day". Interestingly, after 1 year (365 days), vA stores are 16% of the original day 0 value, and after 2 years, this drops to c. 2.5% (730 days) - notice in the study quotes above, they state 771 days was the maximum time to depletion - this seems to make sense.

The second graph I've uploaded entitled "Amount TTD" :- this shows three lines, using the 7,000,000 IU found in the highest postmortem test as a starting point (very high). The blue line shows 0.5% from starting value being utilised every day (200 days), the orange shows 0.5% of the previous day's value, but I have also added a grey line that uses 3000 IU every day (fixed).

Notice in the second graph, the blue line takes 200 days (6-7 months), the orange line takes (effectively) c. 800 days (c. 2.2 years) to become very close to 0% (c. 1-2%), but the grey line is still at 20% of the original value even after 1825 days (5 years)...

Blue Line - I believe this is wishful thinking. In the man with 7 million IU of vitamin A, it implies an excretion of 35 000 IU every single day. Although, I note that this isn't too crazy a value compared to the 22,600 IU in @andrew-b s study link. Additionally, if we reduce the starting IU to 3.5 million (which was the highest value I could find in my studies), that excretion rate (assuming 0.5% of total at day 0) would be 17 500 IU per day -> a much more sensible number, but still possibly wishful thinking.

Orange Line - This pattern demonstrates that: when vA stores are very high, the body will do a lot of work to excrete as much as possible (high excretion in the earlier days). However, as total vA load comes down (and the body becomes "less toxic"), the excretion rate slows down to a reduced (more manageable?) level. But this scenario still implies that the body is capable of dumping massive amounts of vA every day (for the man with 7 million IU -> day 1 = 35 000 IU excreted, day 100 = 21 300 IU excreted, day 365 = 5645 IU excreted - based on my graphical calculation of 0.5% excreted from the previous day's stores).

Grey Line - this is probably the worst case scenario. In this scenario, the body excretes no more than the RDA every single day (which I have chosen to be 3000 IU). In such a case, time to depletion would depend very much on your total starting stores. If you had 3 000 000 IU total in the body, it would take 3 000 000 / 3 000 = 1000 days to depletion (c. 2.75 years). Whereas if you had 7 million (like the highest concentration postmortem, it would take 2000 days (5.5 years).

I think the question on time to depletion would be solved if we could determine which is correct.

If blue line is correct - 200 days is a good estimate for everyone.

If orange line is correct - 365 days (1 year) to reach 16% of day 0 stores, 730 days (2 years) to reach 2.5% of day 0 stores.

If grey line is correct - there is no good estimate for any one individual. The only way we could know is to have a biopsy to determine our total at the starting point, and divide by 3000. As said, someone with 3 million IU (which seems to be a very high amount compared to all animal livers and young adult women examined above, but the study Andrew B linked had a gentleman with 14 million, and the maximum postmortem test in the study I linked was 7 million - so who knows) would take 1000 days.

To me, the blue line seems unrealistic.
I would hope that the orange line is possible. However, this would still imply that a much higher excretion rate than the RDA is technically possible. And if this is the case, then why shouldn't the blue line also be possible?
I hope the grey line is not the reality (i.e. we are capped at c. the RDA in terms of excretion per day). This would be the worst case scenario ...Murphy's Law??
Nevertheless, both Andrew B's paper link, and the links in the studies in this comment, appear to suggest that higher excretion rates are possible - so I am trending towards thinking that something at a mid-point in between the grey and orange line (hopefully closer to the orange) is the reality for most people.

Apologies all - I know this is supposed to be a progress thread, but this is all very new to me, and I'm trying to figure things out.

Best wishes, speak to you all soon.

Edit: looking again at this quote from the study I linked: "The absolute utilisation rate of retinol ranged between 1 113 and 2 070 µg (3.9 and 7.2 µmol) per day among subjects at baseline"

1113 ug = 1.113mg -> * 3333 = 3709 IU per day

2070 = 2.070mg -> * 3333 = 6899 IU per day

But total stores at t=zero ranged from, quote "315 to 879 mg (1 100–3 070 µmol)" -> i.e. 1,049,895 IU - 2,929,707 IU

3709/1,049,895 = 0.35%

6899/2,929,707 = 0.23%

All very confusing - but the important (and distressing) thing here is that c. 7000 IU was the maximum estimated daily excretion rate (call it double the RDA approx) -> no where near the 22,600 or 35,000 examples.

Uploaded files:

puddleduck, Navn and 7 other users have reacted to this post.

#14 · July 19, 2023, 3:55 am

Last charts on this I promise. Based on the last edit where I noticed they showed a maximum daily utilization rate of c. 7000 IU. I have produced two charts:

Both charts show an individual with 7 million IU stored at day zero, and an individual with 3 million stored at day zero.
In chart 1, I have created a scenario where the body can utilize up to 7,000 IU per day, but once 0.5% of the total remaining vA is below 7,000 (i.e. once total has dropped below 1.4million) the daily utilization starts to decrease (but is still trending the body towards zero).
In chart 2, I have created a scenario where 3000 (the RDA) is the max possible utilized. But once again, when 0.5% of the total remaining vA goes below 3,000, the daily utilization rate starts to decrease slightly (but is still trending towards zero).

These charts show that time to depletion is HIGHLY variable, based on on two things:

(1) the intercept (i.e. the starting amount).

(2) the gradient (i.e. the daily utilization amount / rate).

In Chart 1: the individual with 3 million IU at start, and utilization of 7000 per day, starts to trend pretty close to zero after around 700 days (call it 2 years). Whereas the individual with 7 million IU at start, with 7000 per day utilization, trends close to zero in around twice as long.

In Chart 2: if we make the daily cap of utilization the RDA, the individual with 3 million IU at start takes c. 3-4 years to trend to zero (depending on where you call it). And the individual with 7 million is still at c. 20% even after 5 years.

Regardless, it seems that it is very difficult for any individual to hazard a guess: (1) we do not know our starting amount, and (2) we do not know our individual utilization rate.

After all that analysis - still none the wiser hahaha!

Uploaded files:

puddleduck, David and 4 other users have reacted to this post.

#15 · July 19, 2023, 4:07 am

To add to the speculation (love the poem, @sand 🤣), I think it is unnecessary for the liver to be fully depleted of vitamin A for symptoms be alleviated. My symptoms progressively improved every single month since lowering my vitamin A intake (this started even before I lowered it to below 3% of the RDA, albeit much more slowly).

In rodent studies, diets high in saturated fat (54% of calories from beef tallow, as I recall) dramatically increased liver storage of vitamin A compared to the control diet (20-something% of calories from nut meal). So perhaps if your friend, Andrew B, was eating nuts and legumes and whole grains daily, her absorption and retention would be lower, and her excretion higher, than if she were taking the retinol supplements along with cheese and croissants.

Even if you were able to pin down an excretion rate, there are too many variables affecting each of us (especially genetic factors, considering some of us here may be more susceptible this chronic hypervitaminosis A problem due to bottlenecks in conversion enzymes than the average person), to know for sure what to expect.

ETA: ahem, posted this before seeing the latest two posts, but yes agreed, Andrew W. 😂 Great discussion! Thank you.

Andrew B, Andrew W and Joe2 have reacted to this post.

#16 · July 19, 2023, 4:11 am

@andrew-b - thanks for the above! I only just saw it (post #11). Very interesting points, and I like the real world application and sense checks!

@sand - thanks for your comment. Whilst it gave me a chuckle, and you have a point, I think that mentality is unhelpful in uncovering the truth. We'd still be living in caves if we all took that stance with everything.

"so much speculation" -> somewhat, yes. As mentioned, these are just calculations based on certain assumptions.

"so little foundation" -> these assumptions are trying to make sense of the best real-world empirical studies I can find, and trying to deduce a more concrete answer...

"Dunno mate, how long is a piece of string?" or "It takes as long as it takes." are not great answers to the question "how long can I expect to see results from this diet / how long must I wait to see meaningful depletion occurring?"... Not when people are suffering and looking for help and reassurances.

If you aren't interested, don't read.

Best wishes all.

puddleduck, Andrew B and Joe2 have reacted to this post.

#17 · July 19, 2023, 4:17 am

Thanks for this @puddleduck - all good points! As I say, it's just a thought experiment from me at this stage.

Not necessarily trying to prove anything by myself, just sharing some ideas, because I know it's a question that has us all stumped at present.

Very interesting about the liver stores depending on the fat content of the diet too - this makes sense with vA being fat soluble.

puddleduck and Joe2 have reacted to this post.

#18 · July 19, 2023, 4:31 am

Quote from puddleduck on July 19, 2023, 4:31 am
@andrew2 And now to reply to your earlier response—yes, the handle was inspired by Miss Potter’s Jemima. 😂

I think clear sweat is an excellent sign (orange/yellow sweat is lipofuscin, and you don’t want that, obviously). Improvements may well be faster for you than they were for me! 😁

As emphasized above, everyone has different factors affecting their rate of progress: genetics, microbiome, age, thyroid function, gender, ability to tolerate exercise and sunshine, nutritional deficiencies, other toxicities, etc...and, as you, say how many retinoids are stored and where and in what form likely matters, too.

I have an idea too much got into my brain when I was severely undernourished and underweight, due to a poor blood brain barrier and lowered transthyretin levels, leaving me more vulnerable to the excess retinol I was ingesting. Someone who has maintained lean muscle mass (and higher transthyretin levels) on a hearty diet is likely excreting vitamin A more readily (forum member David has posted evidence of carotenoid accumulation in various tissues throughout the body, in some case studies the researchers believed this was worsened by a diet too low in protein, but iron or zinc deficiency may have been excretion limiting factors, too).

In addition to monitoring mineral levels, I ran into beri beri a year after starting to lower my vitamin A, which may have been partly due to my over-reliance on polished rice, white flour, and sugar. I wouldn’t suggest using Dr. Antonio’s Costantini’s high-dose thiamine method, unless you have clear signs of beri beri, but do take care to get an abundance of high-thiamine foods.

Oh and yes—Andrew B has seen remarkable hair growth improvements, too! 😎 Hopefully that is encouraging. There are many different recovery approaches people are having success with, really (from carnivore to plant-based with Andrew’s approach right in the middle), and you’ll figure out how to adjust yours as you go (dietary needs may change somewhat throughout the process). Best of luck! 🙂

Looking forward to learning more from your research and observations.

ETA: the refined carbohydrate foods were helpful for me at the time, so I can’t say for sure if it would’ve been better had I avoided them, just something to watch out for.

@andrew2 And now to reply to your earlier response—yes, the handle was inspired by Miss Potter’s Jemima. 😂

I think clear sweat is an excellent sign (orange/yellow sweat is lipofuscin, and you don’t want that, obviously). Improvements may well be faster for you than they were for me! 😁

As emphasized above, everyone has different factors affecting their rate of progress: genetics, microbiome, age, thyroid function, gender, ability to tolerate exercise and sunshine, nutritional deficiencies, other toxicities, etc...and, as you, say how many retinoids are stored and where and in what form likely matters, too.

I have an idea too much got into my brain when I was severely undernourished and underweight, due to a poor blood brain barrier and lowered transthyretin levels, leaving me more vulnerable to the excess retinol I was ingesting. Someone who has maintained lean muscle mass (and higher transthyretin levels) on a hearty diet is likely excreting vitamin A more readily (forum member David has posted evidence of carotenoid accumulation in various tissues throughout the body, in some case studies the researchers believed this was worsened by a diet too low in protein, but iron or zinc deficiency may have been excretion limiting factors, too).

In addition to monitoring mineral levels, I ran into beri beri a year after starting to lower my vitamin A, which may have been partly due to my over-reliance on polished rice, white flour, and sugar. I wouldn’t suggest using Dr. Antonio’s Costantini’s high-dose thiamine method, unless you have clear signs of beri beri, but do take care to get an abundance of high-thiamine foods.

Oh and yes—Andrew B has seen remarkable hair growth improvements, too! 😎 Hopefully that is encouraging. There are many different recovery approaches people are having success with, really (from carnivore to plant-based with Andrew’s approach right in the middle), and you’ll figure out how to adjust yours as you go (dietary needs may change somewhat throughout the process). Best of luck! 🙂

Looking forward to learning more from your research and observations.

ETA: the refined carbohydrate foods were helpful for me at the time, so I can’t say for sure if it would’ve been better had I avoided them, just something to watch out for.

Andrew B, Viktor2 and Joe2 have reacted to this post.

#19 · July 20, 2023, 2:06 am

Hi @puddleduck - awesome, I loved those stories!

Do you mean when the sweat is wet? Or after it has dried? Or both?

Very interesting comments and tips - thanks so much.

I'm aiming to get my blood work done very soon, plus will take the photos I mentioned (I'll try to avoid anything nasty-looking). I guess I will look at: general hormones, thyroid, "autoimmune" antibodies, plus some other metrics e.g. iron panel.

Cheers.

puddleduck, Andrew B and Joe2 have reacted to this post.

#20 · July 20, 2023, 5:22 am

While it can be both, the sweat lipofuscin would likely be most apparent as discoloration on white clothing items or bedding.

It’s great you’re going to be monitoring your bloodwork so regularly! That’ll be quite interesting.

ETA tag: @andrew2

Joe2 has reacted to this post.

Andrew's Progress Log

Share this:

Like this: