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 foodsEggs as part of Vitamin A reducti …

Please to create posts and topics.

Eggs as part of Vitamin A reduction

#541 · July 21, 2023, 7:06 am

Thanks for your kind words, @christian! I don't always feel it...but at the same time, I can't see a way forward for my children's generation without a sea change in how Health is considered and defined and nourished. Helping my children improve their health, and valuing and prioritizing it, in all the ways both physical and metaphysical, is both a luxury and a necessity in a society that increasingly lionizes atomization and dependence on pharma. If my children can find their way to some semblance of connectedness with other humans, and enough health so they can enjoy their lives and do good work, I will feel that my own work was successful! Occasionally I remember that the process is a journey, and to enjoy the small victories. 🙂 Thanks for the reminder.

puddleduck, Eio and 3 other users have reacted to this post.

#542 · July 21, 2023, 9:02 am

Quote from Sarabeth on July 21, 2023, 9:02 am
Both @ggenereux2014 and @puddleduck's comments make a lot of sense to me intuitively now, after four years of experimentation. It makes sense that if vitamin A is a toxin, not only would the foods containing the toxin cause problems in an overloaded person, but the damage to the gut from the toxin would cause all sorts of other sensitivities to develop. Which is why everything felt so muddled to me at first - we were reacting to EVERYTHING!

When the toxin/vitamin A is largely to (in Grant's case) nearly-completely removed, not only would detox take place, but the gut in theory would have a chance to heal over time, possibly to different degrees in different people, depending on factors such as age/seed power, initial level of poisoning, etc. etc. etc. Meaning that eventually, even low-A but formerly-irritating foods like wheat can finally be eaten, along with some additional amount of the toxin itself in foods that have more A but also other redeeming nutrients such as choline or thiamine or any infinite number of unknown but possibly important nutrients.

I really feel that for a HEALTHY person, a stable, unchanging (well, apart from seasonality) diet is potentially important, as evidenced by native diets the world over. These diets are super varied from each other, but the individuals eating them would not have gone, say, from their northern-inland game-based diet to an equatorial-tropical fish-fruit feast for lunch, "just for variety." But for those of us who have NOT been healthy, judicious change is often necessary, and it's so hard to figure out when and how, with our manufactured cravings and our supermarkets full of foods from Not Here...

Anyway, I digress.

In our family, even while I think an overdose of animal foods added enormously to the vitamin a overload (liver, even more liver, "fermented cod liver oil" (!!!yuckbleachyuck!!!) eggs, dairy etc.), the plant foods were hugely problematic: literally dozens of pounds per week, even in winter, of yellow squash, dark leafy greens/green juice, sweet potatoes, peaches, mangoes, melons, more squash, more greens, more sweet potatoes, and tons of tomatoes/peppers/spices.

I was raised vegetarian (till age 30), and my cravings are likely still informed by a fairly unbalanced and zinc deficient diet. But I currently find that while I can eat moderate amounts of eggs and cheese (who cares about eating stupid effing liver anyway?! It tasted sooooo terrible, and I never have to eat it again!) with no symptoms, greens or even a dash of cayenne pepper will make me wake up the next day with really crusty eyes, and a stomach ache. The kids miss leafy greens and most vegetables not at all...although green lettuce salads are enjoyed by everyone. I love mangoes and many veggies, but I steer mostly clear of them in our meals unless the kids are dying for something like stuffed grape leaves... Maybe consuming liver etc. loaded our livers...but the plant-source-vitamin-a-precursors were then actively toxic to a system unable to perform daily detox functions?? Dunno exactly, but animal sources of vitamin a for us seem more tolerable and tasty, plus potentially containing nutrients we need, as compared with, say, Butternut Kale Sweet Potato Stew...

At the long tail end of many years of improvements and experiments, it's interesting to ponder the right balance, and how to trust the body in terms of eating things that have more A but also more Other Important and Possibly Deficient Nutrients. My older son says he eats more food by sheer volume than anyone else he knows, even other young men his age, and he also says he can't totally trust his sense of fullness/satiety, which possibly stems from his many years of zinc deficiency/severely disordered and limited eating as a child. He is also healthier and more robust than he's ever been, and finally this year he is able to eat wheat, which he never could since he was 3 (when I realized it was triggering massive digestive Distress episodes)...so healing is still happening! Even with our much increased-beyond-zero vitamin A consumption these days, I'd say our diet contains orders of magnitude less than it did before, so hopefully the risk/benefit ratio is greatly, greatly improved.

Both @ggenereux2014 and @puddleduck's comments make a lot of sense to me intuitively now, after four years of experimentation. It makes sense that if vitamin A is a toxin, not only would the foods containing the toxin cause problems in an overloaded person, but the damage to the gut from the toxin would cause all sorts of other sensitivities to develop. Which is why everything felt so muddled to me at first - we were reacting to EVERYTHING!

When the toxin/vitamin A is largely to (in Grant's case) nearly-completely removed, not only would detox take place, but the gut in theory would have a chance to heal over time, possibly to different degrees in different people, depending on factors such as age/seed power, initial level of poisoning, etc. etc. etc. Meaning that eventually, even low-A but formerly-irritating foods like wheat can finally be eaten, along with some additional amount of the toxin itself in foods that have more A but also other redeeming nutrients such as choline or thiamine or any infinite number of unknown but possibly important nutrients.

I really feel that for a HEALTHY person, a stable, unchanging (well, apart from seasonality) diet is potentially important, as evidenced by native diets the world over. These diets are super varied from each other, but the individuals eating them would not have gone, say, from their northern-inland game-based diet to an equatorial-tropical fish-fruit feast for lunch, "just for variety." But for those of us who have NOT been healthy, judicious change is often necessary, and it's so hard to figure out when and how, with our manufactured cravings and our supermarkets full of foods from Not Here...

Anyway, I digress.

In our family, even while I think an overdose of animal foods added enormously to the vitamin a overload (liver, even more liver, "fermented cod liver oil" (!!!yuckbleachyuck!!!) eggs, dairy etc.), the plant foods were hugely problematic: literally dozens of pounds per week, even in winter, of yellow squash, dark leafy greens/green juice, sweet potatoes, peaches, mangoes, melons, more squash, more greens, more sweet potatoes, and tons of tomatoes/peppers/spices.

I was raised vegetarian (till age 30), and my cravings are likely still informed by a fairly unbalanced and zinc deficient diet. But I currently find that while I can eat moderate amounts of eggs and cheese (who cares about eating stupid effing liver anyway?! It tasted sooooo terrible, and I never have to eat it again!) with no symptoms, greens or even a dash of cayenne pepper will make me wake up the next day with really crusty eyes, and a stomach ache. The kids miss leafy greens and most vegetables not at all...although green lettuce salads are enjoyed by everyone. I love mangoes and many veggies, but I steer mostly clear of them in our meals unless the kids are dying for something like stuffed grape leaves... Maybe consuming liver etc. loaded our livers...but the plant-source-vitamin-a-precursors were then actively toxic to a system unable to perform daily detox functions?? Dunno exactly, but animal sources of vitamin a for us seem more tolerable and tasty, plus potentially containing nutrients we need, as compared with, say, Butternut Kale Sweet Potato Stew...

At the long tail end of many years of improvements and experiments, it's interesting to ponder the right balance, and how to trust the body in terms of eating things that have more A but also more Other Important and Possibly Deficient Nutrients. My older son says he eats more food by sheer volume than anyone else he knows, even other young men his age, and he also says he can't totally trust his sense of fullness/satiety, which possibly stems from his many years of zinc deficiency/severely disordered and limited eating as a child. He is also healthier and more robust than he's ever been, and finally this year he is able to eat wheat, which he never could since he was 3 (when I realized it was triggering massive digestive Distress episodes)...so healing is still happening! Even with our much increased-beyond-zero vitamin A consumption these days, I'd say our diet contains orders of magnitude less than it did before, so hopefully the risk/benefit ratio is greatly, greatly improved.

puddleduck, Janelle525 and 4 other users have reacted to this post.

#543 · July 21, 2023, 9:17 am

Quote from puddleduck on July 21, 2023, 6:59 am

Eggs made pretty much all my symptoms get worse, including chronic fatigue dysautonomia, and brought on mood issues (irritability, hypomania, anxiety, frequent crying meltdowns) I don’t normally have to deal with anymore. Atlantic herring and mussels do, too. Butter and cheese do, too. Same reaction, different foods with different choline levels. It’s dose-dependent, duration-dependent, and I believe it’s the vitamin A.

Eggs (and possibly phosphatidylcholine supplements) also made some of my symptoms flare up, especially dysautonomia and anxiety. I was able to work around that with 25mg niacinamide per day though. Also, my egg intake is roughly one every other day at the moment. What I learned is that my genetics make me prone to overmethylation and breaking down choline to make betaine to use for methylation can exacerbate the problem, if I understand correctly. Niacinamide can mop up the extra methyl donors and also help with low NAD+. In the meantime I'm working on fixing betaine and folate deficiencies before upping my egg intake. I don't know if your symptoms are rooted in similar issues to my own, but it might be possible and perhaps folate, betaine, and/or niacinamide could be helpful for you as well. I don't know, but my experience seems to suggest there can be a complex interplay between vA toxicity and the depletion of these nutrients, plus potential issues with reintroducing them too quickly, particularly choline.

Eio and Andrew B have reacted to this post.

#544 · July 21, 2023, 2:18 pm

Quote from wavygravygadzooks on July 21, 2023, 2:18 pm
@ggenereux2014

"RE: We do not know with great precision how much Vitamin A you (or I, or anyone else) is consuming.

We don’t need to know that with great precision. This is not nuclear physics. Close approximations are good enough here. The current claim is that vitamin A is “vital”, essential for vision and for life, and the RDA is 3000-4000 IU.

Well, if it’s so vital, then by now I and others should have experienced at least some detrimental effects after being at near zero amounts of it. In my case for 9 years, and others meat only carnivores for 10-20 years with zero signs of vA deficiency.

Sure, there’s small amounts of vitamin A in muscle meats. In my diet I think it’s about 3-4 IU /day. But, that’s 1,000 times lower than the RDA of the “essential” vitamin. In my books, when the “science” is off by a 1,000 fold, that is as good as a complete miss. In other words, they’ve obviously got it completely wrong.

Additionally, I make regular plasma donations (now on donation # 37) and that almost surely offsets the 3-4 IU I get from eating meat."

---On the face of it, a 1,000-fold difference between your intake (if your assumption of that value is correct) and the RDA is substantial and calls into question the veracity of many of the claims in the literature. I agree that many of the claims about which processes Vitamin A is required to carry out, and in what amounts it is required, could be wrong, or at least could be highly condition dependent. I understand why you would take such a strong stand based on this apparent 1,000-fold discrepancy. Nonetheless, the human body is quite resilient and may have mechanisms for conserving and limiting its use to only the most essential tasks, such as maintaining vision, which appears to be the most indisputable and irreplaceable role of Vitamin A. Furthermore, you yourself have pointed out the extensive time it takes to deplete liver stores…we do not know how much remains in your liver, period.

You still have measurable amounts circulating in your blood after 9 years of avoiding it, and yet you describe being in excellent health. In fact, you described being in good health years ago when you had more measurable Vitamin A in circulation. In light of the basic tenets of adaptive evolution, I would argue there must be a good reason (a benefit) for continuing to circulate that Vitamin A when your liver surely has the capacity to contain whatever small amount you are consuming in addition to what remains in your body. It seems clear to me that the body prioritizes the storage of toxins in sites of minimal reactivity when it cannot eliminate them directly…if Vitamin A is a toxin, why does your body continue to actively circulate it when it most likely has the capacity to contain it?

"Of course, I also have been taking in some small amounts of lead arsenic due to my rice consumption. Since I haven’t died, should we then accept someone’s claim that it is somehow needed and essential too?"

---Really? You know better than to make such an argument. While it is possible that arsenic does play some as yet unidentified beneficial role in the body, an absence of correlation between arsenic and necessary bodily processes, in combination with a positive correlation between arsenic and bodily harm, has led to the current general acceptance that arsenic is at best not a nutrient, and at worst a toxic element to be avoided. The case for Vitamin A is completely different. It is highly improbable that ALL of the published literature is wrong on these subjects.

"RE: We do not know how much Vitamin A is stored in your liver

Actually, it wouldn’t be surprising at all if there’s still some of this vile yellow toxin “stored” in my liver. As there is no doubt other POPs such as dioxin, PCPs, benzenes etc. Is that evidence that they are somehow vitamins too? No, of course not, they are all toxins."

---As with arsenic, there apparently are no as yet identified beneficial associations between POPs and bodily processes, but there are plenty of detrimental associations, leading to the general conclusion that they are simply toxic to the body. This is not the case for Vitamin A. Additionally, as far as I’ve seen, the regular circulation of Vitamin A appears to be ubiquitous among the bodies of mammals, if not all vertebrates, which is not the case for arsenic and POPs. Furthermore, the scientific literature has identified a complex metabolism of Vitamin A throughout the body with specific transport agents and receptors, which cannot be said for arsenic and POPs. It is this kind of clearly fallacious argument that reveals your irrationally strong convictions on the subject of Vitamin A.

"RE: You are conducting self-experimentation without direct oversight by a trained research scientist.

Well, you are underestimating me. I am a trained scientist. I have a degree in applied science (engineering). I’ve taken advanced courses in physics, chemistry and many in advanced mathematics. I’ve worked in a lab doing material science research. I know the rules of science."

---If you know the rules, then you know the severe limitations of your claims.

"RE: "Proof" in science is completely dependent on repeatability with appropriately large sample sizes and under reasonably controlled conditions, neither of which you have.

You don’t say?

I completely agree, and if you are going to be honest and objective then you must apply that same standard to the 1925 Wolbach and Howe study that established this bizarre “it’s a vitamin” science.

There were at least 5 other contemporary studies of W&H that showed the completely opposite results of thiers, and that there were no detrimental effects of vitamin A free diets. Therefore, there was NO repeatability and obviously no consensus. How can anyone call that legit science?

https://ggenereux.blog/2020/06/15/the-early-rat-studies-and-casein/

Of course, it is not. That totally violates the fundamental rule of science that you’ve stated. Yet their one (1) study, and with a small sample size, is used to establish “science” of it. Clearly, it’s garbage science. There is only one way for this to have gone down like this. It was due to their academic / financial influence etc, in other words it was due to scientific corruption, not real science."

---You seem to be quite hung up on a handful of studies, which very well may have critical flaws, yet there is an abundance of other independently conducted studies. But even if you throw away all of the published literature on Vitamin A and start from first premises, the ubiquitous presence of the group of compounds we call Vitamin A throughout the animal kingdom in association with critical bodily functions strongly indicates its nutritive role. No toxin I know of has the same ubiquitous presence in animal physiology.

"More importantly, and as you know, in addition to repeatability with appropriately large sample sizes, etc. rule needed to first establish a scientific “fact” it only takes one legitimate counter experiment to tear it down and disprove it."

---I do know this. And as soon as I were to see what I and other biologists consider sufficient credible evidence to the contrary, I would acknowledge it. But as I keep saying, your anecdotal n=1 experiment cannot satisfy that requirement. Thus far, you have made a strong case for the minimal requirements of Vitamin A in a man of your age and genetics in the environment in which you live, but nothing more. You don’t have the data to say that even your body doesn't require some small amount of Vitamin A, let alone the bodies of others, and you lack the experimental controls to statistically untangle the contributions of who knows how many critical variables.

If you truly understand the philosophy of science, you will acknowledge the limitations of your self-experimentation, particularly in the absence of critical data like the amount of Vitamin A contained in your liver and the amount being consumed and absorbed into your body on a daily basis.

I'll say it again: You have made a compelling case for minimal requirements of Vitamin A in a man of your condition living in your environment. There is certainly value in that n=1. I'm glad you continue to share your experience. But anyone who understands the principles of the scientific method recognizes that very little can be definitely concluded from your n=1.

@ggenereux2014

"RE: We do not know with great precision how much Vitamin A you (or I, or anyone else) is consuming.

We don’t need to know that with great precision. This is not nuclear physics. Close approximations are good enough here. The current claim is that vitamin A is “vital”, essential for vision and for life, and the RDA is 3000-4000 IU.

Well, if it’s so vital, then by now I and others should have experienced at least some detrimental effects after being at near zero amounts of it. In my case for 9 years, and others meat only carnivores for 10-20 years with zero signs of vA deficiency.

Sure, there’s small amounts of vitamin A in muscle meats. In my diet I think it’s about 3-4 IU /day. But, that’s 1,000 times lower than the RDA of the “essential” vitamin. In my books, when the “science” is off by a 1,000 fold, that is as good as a complete miss. In other words, they’ve obviously got it completely wrong.

Additionally, I make regular plasma donations (now on donation # 37) and that almost surely offsets the 3-4 IU I get from eating meat."

---On the face of it, a 1,000-fold difference between your intake (if your assumption of that value is correct) and the RDA is substantial and calls into question the veracity of many of the claims in the literature. I agree that many of the claims about which processes Vitamin A is required to carry out, and in what amounts it is required, could be wrong, or at least could be highly condition dependent. I understand why you would take such a strong stand based on this apparent 1,000-fold discrepancy. Nonetheless, the human body is quite resilient and may have mechanisms for conserving and limiting its use to only the most essential tasks, such as maintaining vision, which appears to be the most indisputable and irreplaceable role of Vitamin A. Furthermore, you yourself have pointed out the extensive time it takes to deplete liver stores…we do not know how much remains in your liver, period.

You still have measurable amounts circulating in your blood after 9 years of avoiding it, and yet you describe being in excellent health. In fact, you described being in good health years ago when you had more measurable Vitamin A in circulation. In light of the basic tenets of adaptive evolution, I would argue there must be a good reason (a benefit) for continuing to circulate that Vitamin A when your liver surely has the capacity to contain whatever small amount you are consuming in addition to what remains in your body. It seems clear to me that the body prioritizes the storage of toxins in sites of minimal reactivity when it cannot eliminate them directly…if Vitamin A is a toxin, why does your body continue to actively circulate it when it most likely has the capacity to contain it?

"Of course, I also have been taking in some small amounts of lead arsenic due to my rice consumption. Since I haven’t died, should we then accept someone’s claim that it is somehow needed and essential too?"

---Really? You know better than to make such an argument. While it is possible that arsenic does play some as yet unidentified beneficial role in the body, an absence of correlation between arsenic and necessary bodily processes, in combination with a positive correlation between arsenic and bodily harm, has led to the current general acceptance that arsenic is at best not a nutrient, and at worst a toxic element to be avoided. The case for Vitamin A is completely different. It is highly improbable that ALL of the published literature is wrong on these subjects.

"RE: We do not know how much Vitamin A is stored in your liver

Actually, it wouldn’t be surprising at all if there’s still some of this vile yellow toxin “stored” in my liver. As there is no doubt other POPs such as dioxin, PCPs, benzenes etc. Is that evidence that they are somehow vitamins too? No, of course not, they are all toxins."

---As with arsenic, there apparently are no as yet identified beneficial associations between POPs and bodily processes, but there are plenty of detrimental associations, leading to the general conclusion that they are simply toxic to the body. This is not the case for Vitamin A. Additionally, as far as I’ve seen, the regular circulation of Vitamin A appears to be ubiquitous among the bodies of mammals, if not all vertebrates, which is not the case for arsenic and POPs. Furthermore, the scientific literature has identified a complex metabolism of Vitamin A throughout the body with specific transport agents and receptors, which cannot be said for arsenic and POPs. It is this kind of clearly fallacious argument that reveals your irrationally strong convictions on the subject of Vitamin A.

"RE: You are conducting self-experimentation without direct oversight by a trained research scientist.

Well, you are underestimating me. I am a trained scientist. I have a degree in applied science (engineering). I’ve taken advanced courses in physics, chemistry and many in advanced mathematics. I’ve worked in a lab doing material science research. I know the rules of science."

---If you know the rules, then you know the severe limitations of your claims.

"RE: "Proof" in science is completely dependent on repeatability with appropriately large sample sizes and under reasonably controlled conditions, neither of which you have.

You don’t say?

I completely agree, and if you are going to be honest and objective then you must apply that same standard to the 1925 Wolbach and Howe study that established this bizarre “it’s a vitamin” science.

There were at least 5 other contemporary studies of W&H that showed the completely opposite results of thiers, and that there were no detrimental effects of vitamin A free diets. Therefore, there was NO repeatability and obviously no consensus. How can anyone call that legit science?

https://ggenereux.blog/2020/06/15/the-early-rat-studies-and-casein/

Of course, it is not. That totally violates the fundamental rule of science that you’ve stated. Yet their one (1) study, and with a small sample size, is used to establish “science” of it. Clearly, it’s garbage science. There is only one way for this to have gone down like this. It was due to their academic / financial influence etc, in other words it was due to scientific corruption, not real science."

---You seem to be quite hung up on a handful of studies, which very well may have critical flaws, yet there is an abundance of other independently conducted studies. But even if you throw away all of the published literature on Vitamin A and start from first premises, the ubiquitous presence of the group of compounds we call Vitamin A throughout the animal kingdom in association with critical bodily functions strongly indicates its nutritive role. No toxin I know of has the same ubiquitous presence in animal physiology.

"More importantly, and as you know, in addition to repeatability with appropriately large sample sizes, etc. rule needed to first establish a scientific “fact” it only takes one legitimate counter experiment to tear it down and disprove it."

---I do know this. And as soon as I were to see what I and other biologists consider sufficient credible evidence to the contrary, I would acknowledge it. But as I keep saying, your anecdotal n=1 experiment cannot satisfy that requirement. Thus far, you have made a strong case for the minimal requirements of Vitamin A in a man of your age and genetics in the environment in which you live, but nothing more. You don’t have the data to say that even your body doesn't require some small amount of Vitamin A, let alone the bodies of others, and you lack the experimental controls to statistically untangle the contributions of who knows how many critical variables.

If you truly understand the philosophy of science, you will acknowledge the limitations of your self-experimentation, particularly in the absence of critical data like the amount of Vitamin A contained in your liver and the amount being consumed and absorbed into your body on a daily basis.

I'll say it again: You have made a compelling case for minimal requirements of Vitamin A in a man of your condition living in your environment. There is certainly value in that n=1. I'm glad you continue to share your experience. But anyone who understands the principles of the scientific method recognizes that very little can be definitely concluded from your n=1.

puddleduck, sand and Fabio have reacted to this post.

#545 · July 21, 2023, 3:46 pm

@puddleduck @ggenereux2014

At an emotional level, I have a distaste for plants like Grant seems to have for Vitamin A. I blame almost all of my health problems on my history of plant consumption, which was largely based on a mistaken belief that it was necessary for health. Because of this perception, my knee-jerk emotion is to find a way to show how every supposed benefit of plant compounds is actually wrong (and there is quite a bit of evidence for this). On the other hand, my rational scientific side continues to note how many people live long and apparently healthy lives eating piles of plants, and I am forced to acknowledge that at least certain plants consumed in certain ways must not be as bad for some people as I believe they were for me.

This is to say, I understand how strong the emotional response can be to something that damaged your livelihood, and how hard it can be to let go of convictions based on those emotions. In the end though, you really have to strive for objective neutrality to find the most reconcilable truth that exists. For me, that means acknowledging that plants can be useful for some people under some conditions even though there is a mountain of evidence that people really should not be eating them unless they are forced to in the absence of appropriate animal products.

puddleduck, Hermes and 3 other users have reacted to this post.

#546 · July 21, 2023, 4:41 pm

Quote from puddleduck on July 21, 2023, 4:41 pm

Quote from wavygravygadzooks on July 21, 2023, 3:46 pm

@puddleduck @ggenereux2014

At an emotional level, I have a distaste for plants like Grant seems to have for Vitamin A. I blame almost all of my health problems on my history of plant consumption, which was largely based on a mistaken belief that it was necessary for health. Because of this perception, my knee-jerk emotion is to find a way to show how every supposed benefit of plant compounds is actually wrong (and there is quite a bit of evidence for this). On the other hand, my rational scientific side continues to note how many people live long and apparently healthy lives eating piles of plants, and I am forced to acknowledge that at least certain plants consumed in certain ways must not be as bad for some people as I believe they were for me.

This is to say, I understand how strong the emotional response can be to something that damaged your livelihood, and how hard it can be to let go of convictions based on those emotions. In the end though, you really have to strive for objective neutrality to find the most reconcilable truth that exists. For me, that means acknowledging that plants can be useful for some people under some conditions even though there is a mountain of evidence that people really should not be eating them unless they are forced to in the absence of appropriate animal products.

Oh the rational part of my brain agrees with everything you have said in this comment, @wavygravygadzooks. (Except, my bias isn’t carnivore, it’s “no one can possibly know as much as they think they do about nutrition” and “there exist human beings who can survive, and even thrive, on some of the weirdest, most ‘imbalanced’ diets imaginable” and “there is no ‘ideal’ diet for everyone.”)

When people tell me they felt awful or developed symptoms on Grant’s diet, but better on eggs, there is part of me thinking “I wonder if they actually made themselves deficient in vitamin A?” 😝 When I believe something, I’m never certain what I believe is true. Gotta stay open to evidence, wherever it leads.

Quote from wavygravygadzooks on July 21, 2023, 3:46 pm

@puddleduck @ggenereux2014

At an emotional level, I have a distaste for plants like Grant seems to have for Vitamin A. I blame almost all of my health problems on my history of plant consumption, which was largely based on a mistaken belief that it was necessary for health. Because of this perception, my knee-jerk emotion is to find a way to show how every supposed benefit of plant compounds is actually wrong (and there is quite a bit of evidence for this). On the other hand, my rational scientific side continues to note how many people live long and apparently healthy lives eating piles of plants, and I am forced to acknowledge that at least certain plants consumed in certain ways must not be as bad for some people as I believe they were for me.

This is to say, I understand how strong the emotional response can be to something that damaged your livelihood, and how hard it can be to let go of convictions based on those emotions. In the end though, you really have to strive for objective neutrality to find the most reconcilable truth that exists. For me, that means acknowledging that plants can be useful for some people under some conditions even though there is a mountain of evidence that people really should not be eating them unless they are forced to in the absence of appropriate animal products.

Oh the rational part of my brain agrees with everything you have said in this comment, @wavygravygadzooks. (Except, my bias isn’t carnivore, it’s “no one can possibly know as much as they think they do about nutrition” and “there exist human beings who can survive, and even thrive, on some of the weirdest, most ‘imbalanced’ diets imaginable” and “there is no ‘ideal’ diet for everyone.”)

When people tell me they felt awful or developed symptoms on Grant’s diet, but better on eggs, there is part of me thinking “I wonder if they actually made themselves deficient in vitamin A?” 😝 When I believe something, I’m never certain what I believe is true. Gotta stay open to evidence, wherever it leads.

sand and Fabio have reacted to this post.

#547 · July 21, 2023, 4:45 pm

@aleksey, that makes a lot of sense, and I wonder if B1 deficiency is chief among those that can sort of cause vitamin A "tolerance" to crash after beginning a low A diet. (I also know exactly what you mean about the hassle of logging in, yet I refuse to join facebook groups and super appreciate Grant hosting this one - so I also appreciate when folks cross-post here and utilize it. 🙂 )

puddleduck has reacted to this post.

#548 · July 21, 2023, 6:51 pm

Quote from ggenereux on July 21, 2023, 6:51 pm
Hi @wavygravygadzooks,

RE: ---You seem to be quite hung up on a handful of studies, which very well may have critical flaws, yet there is an abundance of other independently conducted studies.

No, I’m not hung up on that study. From a scientific point of view, if we are going to challenge the science, we need to challenge the original evidence supporting their claims. So, that’s what I am doing.

Since that the 1925 Wolbach and Howe study is the de facto study that established “it’s a vitamin” theory and if their evidence is invalid, then the entire basis for their claim is invalid and needs to be tossed out.

By the fundamental rule of repeatability, it is clearly not valid. There was no repeatability, and, like not at all. More importantly there are at least 5 other contemporary studies that yielded exactly the opposite findings.

So, being objective observers, and just weighing their evidence:

                  Not a Vitamin | It’s a vitamin

#Studies:     5                                 1

Sorry, I don’t give a hoot whatsoever for what the so-called experts are claiming. Just look at the very basic evidence and ask yourself if it in any way reasonable to accept their “it’s a vitamin” conclusion? I mean seriously, if this question was on a grade 9 science test, anyone accepting that claim would get a big fat F.

Then, there are many large and small studies showing how incredibly toxic vitamin A really is. So, are we supposed to be so credulous to believe that this highly toxic substance is an essential vitamin at the same time? Sorry, I’m not drinking that kool aid.

RE: But even if you throw away all of the published literature on Vitamin A and start from first premises, the ubiquitous presence of the group of compounds we call Vitamin A throughout the animal kingdom in association with critical bodily functions strongly indicates its nutritive role.

I don’t agree with that at all. Just because a compound is ubiquitous does not in any way imply that it has a nutritive role. For example, aluminium is ubiquitous and is found in many rivers and lakes. We all need to drink water, and aluminium is definitely not a nutrient.

The retinoids are ubiquitous because of the light absorbing function (and others) in plants.

RE: No toxin I know of has the same ubiquitous presence in animal physiology.

Well, now you know one.

RE: But anyone who understands the principles of the scientific method recognizes that very little can be definitely concluded from your n=1.

Of course, in real science, a theory is only ever assumed to be true until proved otherwise. As I’ve stated before, the rule in science is that it takes a lot of evidence to establish a theory but you only need 1 case / exception to disprove a scientific theory.

“The exception proves that the rule is wrong.” That is the principle of science. If there is an exception to any rule, and if it can be proved by observation, that rule is wrong.”

— Richard P. Feynman

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OL6-x0modwY

And, I’m not just presenting my own personal case study. There are many others that we’ve now learned about. In a few years there will be 1,000s of more people who have been on low vitamin A diets for many years with zero sign of so-called vA deficiency.

It’s just a matter of time before the bogus “it’s a vitamin” theory completely crumbles.

Hi @wavygravygadzooks,

RE: ---You seem to be quite hung up on a handful of studies, which very well may have critical flaws, yet there is an abundance of other independently conducted studies.

No, I’m not hung up on that study. From a scientific point of view, if we are going to challenge the science, we need to challenge the original evidence supporting their claims. So, that’s what I am doing.

Since that the 1925 Wolbach and Howe study is the de facto study that established “it’s a vitamin” theory and if their evidence is invalid, then the entire basis for their claim is invalid and needs to be tossed out.

By the fundamental rule of repeatability, it is clearly not valid. There was no repeatability, and, like not at all. More importantly there are at least 5 other contemporary studies that yielded exactly the opposite findings.

So, being objective observers, and just weighing their evidence:

Not a Vitamin | It’s a vitamin

#Studies: 5 1

Sorry, I don’t give a hoot whatsoever for what the so-called experts are claiming. Just look at the very basic evidence and ask yourself if it in any way reasonable to accept their “it’s a vitamin” conclusion? I mean seriously, if this question was on a grade 9 science test, anyone accepting that claim would get a big fat F.

Then, there are many large and small studies showing how incredibly toxic vitamin A really is. So, are we supposed to be so credulous to believe that this highly toxic substance is an essential vitamin at the same time? Sorry, I’m not drinking that kool aid.

RE: But even if you throw away all of the published literature on Vitamin A and start from first premises, the ubiquitous presence of the group of compounds we call Vitamin A throughout the animal kingdom in association with critical bodily functions strongly indicates its nutritive role.

I don’t agree with that at all. Just because a compound is ubiquitous does not in any way imply that it has a nutritive role. For example, aluminium is ubiquitous and is found in many rivers and lakes. We all need to drink water, and aluminium is definitely not a nutrient.

The retinoids are ubiquitous because of the light absorbing function (and others) in plants.

RE: No toxin I know of has the same ubiquitous presence in animal physiology.

Well, now you know one.

RE: But anyone who understands the principles of the scientific method recognizes that very little can be definitely concluded from your n=1.

Of course, in real science, a theory is only ever assumed to be true until proved otherwise. As I’ve stated before, the rule in science is that it takes a lot of evidence to establish a theory but you only need 1 case / exception to disprove a scientific theory.

“The exception proves that the rule is wrong.” That is the principle of science. If there is an exception to any rule, and if it can be proved by observation, that rule is wrong.”

— Richard P. Feynman

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OL6-x0modwY

And, I’m not just presenting my own personal case study. There are many others that we’ve now learned about. In a few years there will be 1,000s of more people who have been on low vitamin A diets for many years with zero sign of so-called vA deficiency.

It’s just a matter of time before the bogus “it’s a vitamin” theory completely crumbles.

puddleduck, Eio and 8 other users have reacted to this post.

#549 · July 21, 2023, 7:13 pm

Quote from ggenereux on July 21, 2023, 6:51 pm

I don’t agree with that at all. Just because a compound is ubiquitous does not in any way imply that it has a nutritive role. For example, aluminium is ubiquitous and is found in many rivers and lakes. We all need to drink water, and aluminium is definitely not a nutrient.

The retinoids are ubiquitous because of the light absorbing function (and others) in plants.

This is a good point. Cadmium is found in the livers of wild game like moose and deer to such an extent that the Canadian government and that of the state of Maine warn people not to eat the livers of these animals.

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

#550 · July 21, 2023, 7:25 pm

Quote from ggenereux on July 21, 2023, 6:51 pm

It’s just a matter of time before the bogus “it’s a vitamin” theory completely crumbles.

Unfortunately, I'm not too optimistic about this. I think the vA does play some physiological role, perhaps as one of the many weapons that the immune system may attempt to use against various pathogens, which might explain cold and flu symptoms when one catches a virus and vA is released from the liver. That said, vA is toxic (even in my hypothetical example it is used as a toxin against pathogens) and a healthy body generally tries to break down and excrete as much excess as possible. I think that both consuming too much vA and an impairment in vA metabolism can lead to acute or chronic toxicity. However, the medical community will probably try to hang onto any possibility of it having a function meaning it is essential. I just don't see them budging on this because they might be technically correct in a limited sense.

Fabio has reacted to this post.

Eggs as part of Vitamin A reduction

“The exception proves that the rule is wrong.” That is the principle of science. If there is an exception to any rule, and if it can be proved by observation, that rule is wrong.”

“The exception proves that the rule is wrong.” That is the principle of science. If there is an exception to any rule, and if it can be proved by observation, that rule is wrong.”

Share this:

Like this: