I’ve created a short new guide titled: Getting Started and Succeeding with the low vitamin A diet. Hopefully it can help people with both getting started and in achieving long term success. The low vitamin A diet is not complicated. On the contrary, it is rather straightforward. There are just a few guiding principles and concepts you need to understand to apply it successfully. However, the journey can be long, so please consider this to be somewhat of a travel guide. You can download it here.
Please add your suggestions and recommendations.
I’ve created a short new guide titled: Getting Started and Succeeding with the low vitamin A diet. Hopefully it can help people with both getting started and in achieving long term success. The low vitamin A diet is not complicated. On the contrary, it is rather straightforward. There are just a few guiding principles and concepts you need to understand to apply it successfully. However, the journey can be long, so please consider this to be somewhat of a travel guide. You can download it here.
Please add your suggestions and recommendations.
grapes, Janelle525 and 6 other users have reacted to this post.
This is really good. I know a lot of older women who have been told they have osteoporosis or osteopenia. I always tell them to avoid all vitamin A but it goes over their heads. They tell me they take a multivitamin as if I had mentioned they need to take vitamin A.
Perhaps emphasizing vitamin A and bone loss could help.
This is really good. I know a lot of older women who have been told they have osteoporosis or osteopenia. I always tell them to avoid all vitamin A but it goes over their heads. They tell me they take a multivitamin as if I had mentioned they need to take vitamin A.
Perhaps emphasizing vitamin A and bone loss could help.
lil chick, ggenereux and Livy have reacted to this post.
"The current RDA (recommended daily amount) is around 900 mcg RAE (equivalent to 3,000 IU). I feel the low vitamin A diet should target getting down to one tenth that amount or less. "
I feel like this is overly restrictive for anyone not in the late stages of a terminal disease and desperate for a change. I think for most people just getting down to the RDA is already going to take some work, so maybe adding some wording would help, like "the lower you go the faster you can clear it all, but if you only get to half the RDA that's still pretty good. Even just getting down to the RDA will result in slow and steady progress."
"The current RDA (recommended daily amount) is around 900 mcg RAE (equivalent to 3,000 IU). I feel the low vitamin A diet should target getting down to one tenth that amount or less. "
I feel like this is overly restrictive for anyone not in the late stages of a terminal disease and desperate for a change. I think for most people just getting down to the RDA is already going to take some work, so maybe adding some wording would help, like "the lower you go the faster you can clear it all, but if you only get to half the RDA that's still pretty good. Even just getting down to the RDA will result in slow and steady progress."
Thanks for the suggestion. Although I suggested people should ease their way down, meaning go slowly, carefully, and gently. I can be clearer in stating that target is more of a long term end goal, rather than right from the start.
Who really knows what the ideal amount is? I don't.
Thanks for the suggestion. Although I suggested people should ease their way down, meaning go slowly, carefully, and gently. I can be clearer in stating that target is more of a long term end goal, rather than right from the start.
Who really knows what the ideal amount is? I don't.
Excellent idea. Already distributed electronically and printed a few copies. A few friends have been asking for more than I feel comfortable telling them. Beauty of this comes when they reach the eyes roll back in the head phase of paradigm shift, they can put it down, rest and come back to it later. And I do not have to be present to catch them when they tip over while I plow on through my experience and the whole paradigm.
Excellent idea. Already distributed electronically and printed a few copies. A few friends have been asking for more than I feel comfortable telling them. Beauty of this comes when they reach the eyes roll back in the head phase of paradigm shift, they can put it down, rest and come back to it later. And I do not have to be present to catch them when they tip over while I plow on through my experience and the whole paradigm.
I certainly didnt mean to say I know that we need to be around half the RDA. I just know that when I've tried to talk to people about how low vitamin A has improved my vision and my frozen shoulders, not to mention allowed various blood markers to improve, it devolves quickly into the Idiocracy conversation ("electrolytes, what plants crave) circular conversation. So I let them have their view that vitamin A is truly a "vitamin" and try to show them that we get insanely high amounts of it and that's why they need to put some effort into getting less, and that the RDA is a good point to aim for. If they get that far (they rarely do) THEN I tell them to try and get under the RDA.
I certainly didnt mean to say I know that we need to be around half the RDA. I just know that when I've tried to talk to people about how low vitamin A has improved my vision and my frozen shoulders, not to mention allowed various blood markers to improve, it devolves quickly into the Idiocracy conversation ("electrolytes, what plants crave) circular conversation. So I let them have their view that vitamin A is truly a "vitamin" and try to show them that we get insanely high amounts of it and that's why they need to put some effort into getting less, and that the RDA is a good point to aim for. If they get that far (they rarely do) THEN I tell them to try and get under the RDA.
ggenereux and lil chick have reacted to this post.
How concerned should we be with the non-vitamin A carotenoids, like lutein? For example, if I'm not mistaken, lentils and oats are both zero vitamin A, but they have moderate amounts of lutein.
When we're looking up vitamin A amounts in different foods, is IU or mcg RAE the preferred unit? I'm under the impression that mcg RAE is a little more useful because it puts a greater weight on preformed vitamin A rather than plant carotenoids, the latter of which have variable absorption/conversion.
How concerned should we be with the non-vitamin A carotenoids, like lutein? For example, if I'm not mistaken, lentils and oats are both zero vitamin A, but they have moderate amounts of lutein.
When we're looking up vitamin A amounts in different foods, is IU or mcg RAE the preferred unit? I'm under the impression that mcg RAE is a little more useful because it puts a greater weight on preformed vitamin A rather than plant carotenoids, the latter of which have variable absorption/conversion.
How concerned should we be with the non-vitamin A carotenoids, like lutein? For example, if I'm not mistaken, lentils and oats are both zero vitamin A, but they have moderate amounts of lutein.
When we're looking up vitamin A amounts in different foods, is IU or mcg RAE the preferred unit? I'm under the impression that mcg RAE is a little more useful because it puts a greater weight on preformed vitamin A rather than plant carotenoids, the latter of which have variable absorption/conversion.
I think the current understanding regarding lutein is that it does not have direct vitamin A activity. But, it sure did for me. Other people may be completely OK with it. Sorry, I don't have a well informed option on how much is safe or not safe. But, I think there's been an assumption made that since it's related to vitamin A, and it naturally accumulates in the eye with age, that it is somehow a good thing. I think that assumption is flawed.
Regarding RAE versus IU. RAE (Retinol Activity Equivalents) and IU (International Units) are two different systems for measuring vitamin A, and they differ in how they account for the biological activity of different forms of vitamin A. RAE is the more modern unit, and I think the older IUs measure is slowly being phase out of use. Yes, RAE unit is suppose to factor in the bio-availability of the different forms. Basically, its purpose is to allow an apple t0 apples type of measurement. Meaning 100 RAE from animal sources of vitamin A is biologically the same as 100 RAE from plant sources of vitamin A.
How concerned should we be with the non-vitamin A carotenoids, like lutein? For example, if I'm not mistaken, lentils and oats are both zero vitamin A, but they have moderate amounts of lutein.
When we're looking up vitamin A amounts in different foods, is IU or mcg RAE the preferred unit? I'm under the impression that mcg RAE is a little more useful because it puts a greater weight on preformed vitamin A rather than plant carotenoids, the latter of which have variable absorption/conversion.
I think the current understanding regarding lutein is that it does not have direct vitamin A activity. But, it sure did for me. Other people may be completely OK with it. Sorry, I don't have a well informed option on how much is safe or not safe. But, I think there's been an assumption made that since it's related to vitamin A, and it naturally accumulates in the eye with age, that it is somehow a good thing. I think that assumption is flawed.
Regarding RAE versus IU. RAE (Retinol Activity Equivalents) and IU (International Units) are two different systems for measuring vitamin A, and they differ in how they account for the biological activity of different forms of vitamin A. RAE is the more modern unit, and I think the older IUs measure is slowly being phase out of use. Yes, RAE unit is suppose to factor in the bio-availability of the different forms. Basically, its purpose is to allow an apple t0 apples type of measurement. Meaning 100 RAE from animal sources of vitamin A is biologically the same as 100 RAE from plant sources of vitamin A.
