I needed to disable self sign-ups because I’ve been getting too many spam-type accounts. Thanks.
Documenting my experience
@michele It's funny how many people respond to me saying, "it sounds like you think you've got all the answers". I do not think this at all. What I do have is an education in the sciences and an understanding of the scientific method, which means I have a decent ability to weigh arguments about objective reality based on the merit of evidence for and against. However, you don't need a formal education in the sciences to have this ability, and many of the most innovative thinkers that have contributed to science have not had a formal education in science. So, understand that I am not judging anyone here just because they lack formal education of any sort. I am judging the arguments based on the merit that I do or do not see in them.
The whole reason I'm on this site is because I'm hoping to learn something new that I don't already know, but learning involves debate in order to weed out the arguments that do not hold water.
I wish you the best in your health journey and hope that you will take the time to post an update here in the future. Regardless of what I think the science says about your way of eating, I am very interested in honest and objective reporting of what happens when people try different diets so that I can continue to compare the empirical evidence with my own world view.
@lil-chick Both butter and beef fat vary in quantities of carotenoids depending on what the animals were fed around the time of collection. The more grain they're fed, the fewer carotenoids, the whiter the product. The more fresh pasture they eat, the more carotenoids, the yellower the product. Grain is not a natural food for most ungulates, so the presence of yellow carotenoids in the milk and fat is the more natural state.
As far as pre-formed Vitamin A, the higher amount that is found in milk rather than fat seems to me to be another basic argument for Vitamin A serving an actual purpose. If Vitamin A is toxic, especially to young animals with less capacity for storing or excreting it, then why would mammalian mothers always provide Vitamin A in their milk? Poisoning your offspring is not a good reproductive strategy. I've heard the argument that the mothers are preserving themselves by dumping extra Vitamin A into their offspring, but if Vitamin A is accumulating so consistently in mothers that they all need to do this regularly, then I think you would expect each subsequent generation to be more and more toxic and have lower and lower reproduction until the population or species died out. This is not happening with animals as far as I know.
@salt Very early on in my foray into Vitamin A toxicity, I had considered that retinol might be an intermediate form that was necessary for proper excretion of beta carotene. However, from what I've read, beta carotene is converted to retinol in the lining of the intestines. Why would it be converted before it's even been absorbed into the body if the converted product didn't serve a purpose? My experience with eating a bunch of carrots is that it can result in orange-colored stool, which seems to be the result of beta-carotene in the stool, which means we apparently have the ability to directly pass beta-carotene into the stool. So why bother with converting it if we can pass it directly out in the stool?
Something I've been curious about and haven't found an explanation for is the presence of carotenoids in the flesh of salmon.
Quote from wavygravygadzooks on May 6, 2021, 11:58 am@lil-chick Both butter and beef fat vary in quantities of carotenoids depending on what the animals were fed around the time of collection. The more grain they're fed, the fewer carotenoids, the whiter the product. The more fresh pasture they eat, the more carotenoids, the yellower the product. Grain is not a natural food for most ungulates, so the presence of yellow carotenoids in the milk and fat is the more natural state.
As far as pre-formed Vitamin A, the higher amount that is found in milk rather than fat seems to me to be another basic argument for Vitamin A serving an actual purpose. If Vitamin A is toxic, especially to young animals with less capacity for storing or excreting it, then why would mammalian mothers always provide Vitamin A in their milk? Poisoning your offspring is not a good reproductive strategy. I've heard the argument that the mothers are preserving themselves by dumping extra Vitamin A into their offspring, but if Vitamin A is accumulating so consistently in mothers that they all need to do this regularly, then I think you would expect each subsequent generation to be more and more toxic and have lower and lower reproduction until the population or species died out. This is not happening with animals as far as I know.
In my theory the reason mom gives VA is because mom has no choice. All her fats have VA. That is the flavor of her fats. They are infiltrated.
Milk is basically blood transposed into food.
I would guess that older moms give more VA.
Quote from lil chick on May 6, 2021, 4:58 am3 points here:
- I think we cleave carotene in order to store it. Because once cleaved (for some reason) then it is no longer a pigment. It is no longer orange. Pigments are pesky things. If you have a nice new wooden chair without a finish on it, and you swipe some pigments across it, you can't just clean them off. They enter the matrix of the surface of the chair. (like my picture of the tupperware stained with tomato sauce). You are going to have to sand it off. (cut to all of our faces peeling). My bet is that if you can't cleave carotenes (as they say, some can't) you probably shouldn't eat them! (btw, cats can't cleave, and cat kidney failure is rampant).
2. I stood in line at the store wondering about some of the things I wrote about yesterday. I'm thankful that this thread exists, and I'm not sure everything I believe (such as VA not having use) IS right. So I'm glad we are debating. When I first arrived here I really thought of VA as a "weapon". For instance, I have often wondered if VA is rushed to the site of vaccinations in order to "poison" the "interlopers". I have often thought that maybe this is why the VA-toxic might have extra trouble with vax. And why some would call VA overload "an over-active immune system". However, thus far it appears that lowering VA hasn't cut back on people's immune response. In fact, many report feeling like their immune systems works BETTER with lower VA.
3. Regarding meat fats, here is my theory. I think that beef fat could definitely be as high as butter. But that butter itself could vary. I think that milk probably contains vitamin A because when the fats from the mother animal are transferred into the liquid to feed the baby, the fats are *already infiltrated* with vitamin A. It's not that the body stacks milk with VA, it's that the cow's fat is infiltrated. And if the mother has lower stores in her fat, then the milk has lower stores. If the mother has higher stores in her fat then the milk has higher stores. I would bet that a cow's butter and her meat fat have the same VA levels. Would that stop me from eating meat fat: no. It is impossible to live in this world without getting some VA.
Hi Lil chick,
Think I have to disagree with your theory regarding meat fats here. You are comparing beef fat with butter. As I understand it vitamin A in animal products is yellow, hence butter, cheese, egg yolks, etc. I shallow fry mushrooms in beef fat- we call it 'dripping' here in the UK- and it is as white as the driven snow. I can't see beef fat as having the same vitamin A content as butter- no way. Cows are ruminants and specialist herbivores, as such they have much greater ability to deal with plant toxins than monogastric omnivores such as us and pigs. For instance, the fat stores in humans and pigs reflect to an extent the fats (& carbs) that are consumed in the diet, whereas ruminants such as cows and sheep will saturate fats for storage much more effectively, whatever they consume in their diet. Hence ruminant fat is much harder at room temperature than, for instance, pig fat (lard). I think you'll find the majority of vitamin A in a cow is stored in the liver, not the fat, and this would be to be expected in an animal that is a specialist at consuming a food (grass) that we can't use at all. As wavy points out above, animal vitamin A is found in dairy and eggs which are food for growing animals. It suggests it is not just toxic, but has some use for growing animals which is not relevant for mature animals- maybe it is necessary for stem cell replication at this stage of life.
@lil-chick What seems more likely, (1) all mammalian mothers are conveying toxins to their infants in every single ounce of milk they produce, or (2) all mammalian mothers are providing essential nutrients, including Vitamin A, to their infants for their proper development?
Under certain unfavorable conditions, I could see the possibility of the mammalian mother conveying too much of some substance that's accumulated in her body to her young, but this would be an anomaly, not the norm. For example, if you forcefully supplement a cow's diet with excessive amounts of Vitamin A, I think it is quite possible that higher amounts of Vitamin A would eventually wind up in the milk, once the cow's liver storage is maxed out, but I think the quantity of Vitamin A in the milk is probably highly regulated up until the point the cow becomes toxic and shows other signs of toxicity.
Quote from wavygravygadzooks on May 5, 2021, 12:52 pm@salt The storage site for toxins that can't be excreted fast enough tends to be the fatty tissues, which is where carotenoids and metals end up, whereas critical nutrients are often stored in the liver. Excess Vitamin A winds up in the fatty tissues, but the primary pool is in the liver where things like B vitamins also reside. The location of storage makes all the difference in our interpretation of why it's there.
I'm not sure what your point is about the conversion of beta carotene to retinol being uncomplicated. The simplicity of a chemical process does not mean it's good or bad in a given context, and it says nothing about the actual rate of conversion. Beta carotene is known to be cleaved asymmetrically at times, leading to compounds that are potentially even more problematic than beta carotene itself...so apparently simplicity doesn't guarantee proper cleavage.
Metals end up in the fatty tissues? Mercury does because it's highly lipophilic. I have been doing hair mineral analysis regularly for just over 17 years now, and from that I know that I have lead, aluminium, arsenic and antimony stored in my bones.
Quote from lil chick on May 6, 2021, 4:58 am3 points here:
- I think we cleave carotene in order to store it. Because once cleaved (for some reason) then it is no longer a pigment. It is no longer orange. Pigments are pesky things. If you have a nice new wooden chair without a finish on it, and you swipe some pigments across it, you can't just clean them off. They enter the matrix of the surface of the chair. (like my picture of the tupperware stained with tomato sauce). You are going to have to sand it off. (cut to all of our faces peeling). My bet is that if you can't cleave carotenes (as they say, some can't) you probably shouldn't eat them! (btw, cats can't cleave, and cat kidney failure is rampant).
2. I stood in line at the store wondering about some of the things I wrote about yesterday. I'm thankful that this thread exists, and I'm not sure everything I believe (such as VA not having use) IS right. So I'm glad we are debating. When I first arrived here I really thought of VA as a "weapon". For instance, I have often wondered if VA is rushed to the site of vaccinations in order to "poison" the "interlopers". I have often thought that maybe this is why the VA-toxic might have extra trouble with vax. And why some would call VA overload "an over-active immune system". However, thus far it appears that lowering VA hasn't cut back on people's immune response. In fact, many report feeling like their immune systems works BETTER with lower VA.
3. Regarding meat fats, here is my theory. I think that beef fat could definitely be as high as butter. But that butter itself could vary. I think that milk probably contains vitamin A because when the fats from the mother animal are transferred into the liquid to feed the baby, the fats are *already infiltrated* with vitamin A. It's not that the body stacks milk with VA, it's that the cow's fat is infiltrated. And if the mother has lower stores in her fat, then the milk has lower stores. If the mother has higher stores in her fat then the milk has higher stores. I would bet that a cow's butter and her meat fat have the same VA levels. Would that stop me from eating meat fat: no. It is impossible to live in this world without getting some VA.
Interesting thoughts. Beta-carotene is a pretty strong pigment, everyone who has ever juiced carrots know that the juicer will get stained and it's nearly impossible to remove those orange stains.
Regarding beef fat and butter, beef fat definitely has way less VA than butter. From the charts I have seen it has 19 mcg retinol and 36 mcg beta-carotene per 100 grams of tallow. Whereas butter has 588 mcg retinol and 380 mcg of beta-carotene per 100 grams of butter. I think dairy has a lot of VA either because the body is just trying to get rid of it any way possible (fecal matter, urine, sweat, earwax, and practically all other bodily fluids as well. including milk) or possibly animals that grow might actually need it. The pro-vitamin A folks talk about how VA is necessary for "cell differentiation" and if their whole theory is true then I guess it makes sense that you would need that while growing.
Quote from wavygravygadzooks on May 6, 2021, 3:36 pm@lil-chick What seems more likely, (1) all mammalian mothers are conveying toxins to their infants in every single ounce of milk they produce, or (2) all mammalian mothers are providing essential nutrients, including Vitamin A, to their infants for their proper development?
Under certain unfavorable conditions, I could see the possibility of the mammalian mother conveying too much of some substance that's accumulated in her body to her young, but this would be an anomaly, not the norm. For example, if you forcefully supplement a cow's diet with excessive amounts of Vitamin A, I think it is quite possible that higher amounts of Vitamin A would eventually wind up in the milk, once the cow's liver storage is maxed out, but I think the quantity of Vitamin A in the milk is probably highly regulated up until the point the cow becomes toxic and shows other signs of toxicity.
No, it is the norm. If you poison a mother with heavy metals those metals will show up in her milk, the same goes for just about every accumlative poison.
I'm pretty sure most cows are fed VA supplements by the way, like most animals that stupid humans take care of.
Quote from wavygravygadzooks on May 6, 2021, 11:58 am@michele It's funny how many people respond to me saying, "it sounds like you think you've got all the answers". I do not think this at all. What I do have is an education in the sciences and an understanding of the scientific method, which means I have a decent ability to weigh arguments about objective reality based on the merit of evidence for and against. However, you don't need a formal education in the sciences to have this ability, and many of the most innovative thinkers that have contributed to science have not had a formal education in science. So, understand that I am not judging anyone here just because they lack formal education of any sort. I am judging the arguments based on the merit that I do or do not see in them.
The whole reason I'm on this site is because I'm hoping to learn something new that I don't already know, but learning involves debate in order to weed out the arguments that do not hold water.
I wish you the best in your health journey and hope that you will take the time to post an update here in the future. Regardless of what I think the science says about your way of eating, I am very interested in honest and objective reporting of what happens when people try different diets so that I can continue to compare the empirical evidence with my own world view.
@lil-chick Both butter and beef fat vary in quantities of carotenoids depending on what the animals were fed around the time of collection. The more grain they're fed, the fewer carotenoids, the whiter the product. The more fresh pasture they eat, the more carotenoids, the yellower the product. Grain is not a natural food for most ungulates, so the presence of yellow carotenoids in the milk and fat is the more natural state.
As far as pre-formed Vitamin A, the higher amount that is found in milk rather than fat seems to me to be another basic argument for Vitamin A serving an actual purpose. If Vitamin A is toxic, especially to young animals with less capacity for storing or excreting it, then why would mammalian mothers always provide Vitamin A in their milk? Poisoning your offspring is not a good reproductive strategy. I've heard the argument that the mothers are preserving themselves by dumping extra Vitamin A into their offspring, but if Vitamin A is accumulating so consistently in mothers that they all need to do this regularly, then I think you would expect each subsequent generation to be more and more toxic and have lower and lower reproduction until the population or species died out. This is not happening with animals as far as I know.
@salt Very early on in my foray into Vitamin A toxicity, I had considered that retinol might be an intermediate form that was necessary for proper excretion of beta carotene. However, from what I've read, beta carotene is converted to retinol in the lining of the intestines. Why would it be converted before it's even been absorbed into the body if the converted product didn't serve a purpose? My experience with eating a bunch of carrots is that it can result in orange-colored stool, which seems to be the result of beta-carotene in the stool, which means we apparently have the ability to directly pass beta-carotene into the stool. So why bother with converting it if we can pass it directly out in the stool?
Something I've been curious about and haven't found an explanation for is the presence of carotenoids in the flesh of salmon.
I'm not sure but I am very reluctant to come to any conclusion based on any type of theoretical idea about evolution, there are always factors that we don't think about. Also clearly beta-carotene can be absorbed without being converted or else carotenemia and other carotene-specific symptoms wouldn't be a thing. If our bodies could sufficiently just expel all the things that we don't need without absorbing them then there wouldn't be such a thing as a bad diet, we could just eat whatever and our intestines would just absorb the good stuff.
Fish and other sea animals eat a lot of carotenoids, there is a ton of carotenoids in seaweed. So either these animals eat these plants directly, or, in the case of salmon, they eat smaller fish that ate those carotenoids etc. Salmon eat shrimp and krill, which are orange too because of the same carotenoids. Seems like none of these animals are able to use or excrete these carotenoids very well so they just end up being colored by them.
Other seafood like cod is not orange. Maybe this is because they eat a different diet, and maybe they are better at converting/excreting/storing the carotenoids. Codfish is white but they have a ton of retinol in the liver, cod liver oil anyone?
@are I got tired of responding to misconstrued information on this thread, but now that you are asking, Paul Jaminet (author of the Perfect Health Diet with a pile of references) states an average of 7% protein in an infant's diet, and 10-20% protein as being optimal for an adult. Infants are growing, but I don't think they're breaking down muscle tissue (due to lack of activity), whereas active adults are not growing but need to constantly rebuild a larger body of muscle tissue. It's probably true that you can get away with minimal protein as an adult if you're not using your muscles for much, but if you're living an active lifestyle (which is arguably healthier than not being active) your protein requirements are probably going to be significantly higher, and optimal health probably requires even more protein.
Also, @michele fails to mention that approximately 55% of an infant's diet is fat (compared to 39% from carbs), and that the average carnivore dieter is going to be consuming almost all of their calories in the form of fat, not protein, so the absence of carbs in an adult's diet is not problematic as she suggests.
@are
You can do the math to find out:
If a 155 pound (70,307 gram) adult is eating 2000 calories, 15% of which comes from protein, then:
0.15 x 2000 = 300 calories from protein
300 / 4 calories per gram protein = 75 grams protein consumed
75 / 70,307 body weight = 0.11% body weight consumed as protein per day
If an infant needs approximately 45 calories per pound of body weight, and it weighs 11 pounds (4,990 grams), then its daily caloric intake is roughly 495 calories.
If that infant is consuming 7% of its calories as protein, then:
0.07 x 495 = 35 calories from protein
35 / 4 calories per gram protein = 9 grams protein consumed
9 / 4,990 body weight = 0.18% body weight consumed as protein per day
In this example, the infant is consuming almost 2x as much protein as the adult relative to its body weight, but the absolute difference in percentage is 0.07%. So, make of that what you will.