I needed to disable self sign-ups because I’ve been getting too many spam-type accounts. Thanks.
Grant's May 2022 Update
Because you can't stand the fact that I'm grounded in objective reality and actually have cogent arguments?
Neither you nor Grant has provided a mechanism by which the consumption of onions would lead to poor night vision and dry eyes. Saying "because sulfur compounds" is not a mechanism, especially when Grant doesn't have problems with sulfur from meat and beans.
Given his intentional avoidance of Vitamin A for 7 years and the historic reporting of vision problems associated with Vitamin A deficiency, the most obvious hypothesis is that he is experiencing Vitamin A deficiency. If it really is due to the consumption of onions, and that's not just coincidence, then what's the link between these things? As tenuous as my proposal is regarding quercetin and zinc, it seems to have more explanatory power than anything else offered so far.
Quote from wavygravygadzooks on May 3, 2022, 3:48 pmHave you considered the potential connection between zinc, quercetin, RBP, and your poor night vision and dry eyes?
Quercetin from onions is praised for its ability to get zinc into cells, yet the people offering this praise seem to have forgotten that the human body can manage zinc transport just fine in the absence of quercetin. And, since quercetin is a plant compound that is monkeying with our physiology, the forced entry of zinc into the cells by quercetin is probably detrimental on some level.
I'm doing some off-the-cuff hypothesizing here, but...I wonder if quercetin from the onions you were eating, in combination with the regular consumption of phytic acid from rice and beans, has left your body a bit starved for RBP in the absence of enough available zinc, and the diminished presence of RBP in a state where you are already deprived of retinoids has led to a "spell" of symptomatic retinoid deficiency.
You blamed onions without providing any sort of mechanism by which it could cause poor night vision and dry eyes. As a proponent of the carnivore diet, I am quite clearly in the "plants will try to kill you if you eat them" camp, and I've always hated onions, but I've also never heard of someone getting vision problems from consuming onions...doesn't seem like an expected reaction.
With regard to viruses...it seems like your position would have an extremely difficult time explaining all of the viral epidemics throughout history, the obvious immunity gained by exposure to one viral strain that does not convey immunity toward a different strain of the same virus, and the huge amount of research being conducted on viruses around the world (including the gain-of-function research that's led to SARS-COV-2). Are we to believe that all of these researchers are complete idiots, or scammers? The entire profession of virology is based on a misconception? Every last virologist PhD has been hoodwinked, or is "in on it"?
I continue to reach the same conclusion about Vitamin A and viruses after reading your posts...you are asking us believe that hundreds of years of research into both of these topics - conducted by thousands of scientists from many generations living through very different cultural eras of history - is all just plainly wrong?
I appreciate your reporting on your self-experiments, the effort it took to reproduce the information you've presented about Vitamin A in your books, and your having made this forum available to people like me...but you'll have to forgive me for objecting to the "Vitamin A is poison" and "viruses don't exist" musings based on what's been presented thus far.
I have one elegant explanation.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/57a08cbae5274a31e00013d4/tech02.pdf
"Elevated temperature and greater exposure to sunlight increase carotenogenesis in fruits."
(translate is used):
"But the specific timing of the manifestation of epidemics and pandemics is associated with cyclic solar activity. This question is very fundamental. A.L. Chizhevsky wrote about this as follows: “It would be completely unreasonable to assume that a certain state of solar activity is the direct cause of the epidemic spread of certain diseases. Such a conclusion would be completely wrong. This must be understood in the sense that this or that due to a number of biological factors, an epidemic could have taken place even without the influence of solar factors, but without the latter, it could have appeared in the wrong year when it actually took place, and the force of its development would not be what it really is. The periodic activity of the Sun must be understood as the role of the regulator of epidemics in their distribution in time, and also, very possibly, in the strength of their manifestation.
It is during the years of maximum solar activity that cholera pandemics sharply intensify and cover vast areas. With low solar activity, as a rule, cholera is not observed.
If we consider the course of cholera pandemics for shorter periods, then the same dependence on solar activity will be revealed. A. L. Chizhevsky compared data on mortality from cholera in India for the period 1902-1924. and indicators of solar activity. At the same time, it turned out that not only the average curves of the intensity of cholera and solar activity run parallel, but also sharp episodic increases or decreases in the activity of the luminary coincide in time with the same increases and decreases in mortality from cholera. Thus, periods of pandemics lasting 2.65 and 5.5 years were established. These periods make up a quarter and a half of the duration of the solar eleven-year cycle.
A very strong outbreak of cholera in Hamburg in 1892 coincided with a sharp increase in solar activity in August of that year. The disease affected 1,000 people a day. In total, 17 thousand cases of cholera were registered in Hamburg, of which 8605 cases were fatal.
Materials on the incidence of cholera in Russia were analyzed by years for 100 years, starting with the first cholera epidemic in 1823. It turned out that the largest number of cholera cases occurred in the years of maximum solar activity (the years 1831, 1848, 1871, 1892 and 1915). Periods with a minimum amount of cholera fall on the years of minimum solar activity (these are the years 1823, 1833, 1857, 1912)."
The same obviously applies to epidemics of other diseases (and not only "infectious" ones).
I think it's not hard to see the potential relationship.
Btw, from the document above:
"For example, comparison of kale of the same cultivar at the same stage of maturity produced on neighboring farms, one a natural farm and the other a conventional farm using agrochemicals, revealed significantly higher concentrations of all constituent carotenoids in samples collected from the natural farm (Mercadante and Rodriguez-Amaya 1991)."
This is also indirect evidence that carotenoids are pigments that protect plants from being eaten by animals.
So your hypothesis is that increased solar activity leads to higher carotenoid content in fruits and vegetables, which then leads to widespread Vitamin A toxicity, which increases susceptibility to pathogenic disease?
And your hypothesis assumes that:
(1) solar activity is directly related to UV solar radiation at the earth's surface, which in turn is directly related to carotenoid levels in plants,
(2) enough people eat those plants in high enough quantities, or eat high Vitamin A animal parts from animals that ate those high carotenoid plants, to get Vitamin A toxicity for a sufficiently long period of time to become more vulnerable to pathogens, and
(3) enough of these same people are exposed to enough disease causing pathogens to become ill.
Interesting, seems like a stretch, but what do I know...
I should also point out that cholera is a bacterial disease, whereas I was discussing viral disease in Grant's post. Certain conditions could increase susceptibility to both bacteria and viruses though...anything that weakens the body's defenses.
Quote from wavygravygadzooks on May 4, 2022, 8:49 pmSo your hypothesis is that increased solar activity leads to higher carotenoid content in fruits and vegetables, which then leads to widespread Vitamin A toxicity, which increases susceptibility to pathogenic disease?
And your hypothesis assumes that:
(1) solar activity is directly related to UV solar radiation at the earth's surface, which in turn is directly related to carotenoid levels in plants,
(2) enough people eat those plants in high enough quantities, or eat high Vitamin A animal parts from animals that ate those high carotenoid plants, to get Vitamin A toxicity for a sufficiently long period of time to become more vulnerable to pathogens, and
(3) enough of these same people are exposed to enough disease causing pathogens to become ill.
Interesting, seems like a stretch, but what do I know...
I should also point out that cholera is a bacterial disease, whereas I was discussing viral disease in Grant's post. Certain conditions could increase susceptibility to both bacteria and viruses though...anything that weakens the body's defenses.
This cycle applies not only to cholera, but also to many other diseases (including influenza and rabies, which are viral). Of course, this relationship is not perfect, because there are (probably) other factors besides the VA content of the food.
Regarding point 3. I also think that in addition to infection, there are also some effects of resonance between organisms that cause diseases (detoxication) to manifest themselves in the same way and at the same time. I don't believe in the contagion theory as it stands.
No @wavygravygadzooks that is not correct, it’s because I find you quite rude (could just be me) and that’s not what I want in my life. Polite debate and respect for others opinions is my vibe. Personal opinion.
guys ,
First of all I am not as knowledgeable as you guys are here , all my nutritional knowing is based on my personal experiments from food .
As more people come in this forum , I have started to notice more controversies in debate . I think there are two type of people in this forum.
1 : Who actually had an anecdotal evidence of consuming large amount of Vitamin A ( like myself from sweet potatoes and carrots , supplements , fish oil ).
2 : People who didn't have any serious health aliments or who actually aren't suffering from Vitamin A toxicity .
I am sure people form the group 1 are sold on "Vitamin A is a toxic" as I am myself . Its because people from group 2 don't actually know the horrors of living a life with Vitamin A toxicity . And it is literally a new life when you start taking ow vitamin A diet and start recovering . You almost feel like a new born .
For the people in group 2, let me remind you again , grant never claimed that all diseases are due to Vitamin A toxicity only . I dont believe this either . However, the problem is that people from group 2 are so stubborn or desperately trying to prove grant's work wrong as if they are quite sure about the need for Vitamin A in the body . Remember no body has actually proven that either vitamin A is needed or if its actually a toxic , however, @ggenereux2014 at least has done an n=1 experiment to at least have an evidence for the "toxic" hypothesis .
Never the less , if grant has proven anything is the fact that we need so little Vitamin A or we get fed enough already and we don't need a lot .
If actually it was vitamin A deficiency , can some body explain it to me why even after depleting vitamin A for 4 years , I get blurry vision when I eat any form of lutein and zeaxanthin from lentils etc ?? This only goes to prove that we might need so little of this vitamin if we actually do .
Quote from r on May 5, 2022, 7:09 amNever the less , if grant has proven anything is the fact that we need so little Vitamin A or we get fed enough already and we don't need a lot .
I don't think grass-fed beef and bison are especially low in vitamin A, so I think Grant is evidence of the healthfulness a lowish vitamin A diet. Given that I feel his diet contains a non-trivial amount of vitamin A, I find it implausible that the issue he attributes to the onions is from vitamin A deficiency.
Mine was a rhetorical question...I was not expecting you to say yes lol.
Believe it or not, I try not to be rude, but I am more concerned about being right. It's the people that get things right that advance knowledge. Would you rather be rushed into a nice, pleasant hospice care, or be greeted by a blunt but knowledgeable doctor that told you how to pick your ass up and fix yourself so you could live another 10-20 years of quality life? My family and friends don't think I'm rude, nor does most anybody else I know, but there will always be someone taking offense...can't do much about that.
You still have not addressed my points. I didn't make this thread to be an asshole. I made it because I wasn't satisfied with Grant's rather brief explanation of onions as the cause of his eye problems, and I was hoping somebody would engage my thoughts with additional substance. I wasn't satisfied with your vague allusion to sulfur metabolism, I said why, I told you I'd already listened to Nigh's information and I even went and listened to another video by him discussing his book (in which he is squarely confused by the fact that none of his clients react to sulfur in meat, but they almost always react to some vegetable after reintroduction...hmm, maybe because of everything I keep saying over and over and over), and then you got all pissy again.
You are clearly not interested in actual debate. You just want to throw your thoughts out and be respected for it. But respect is earned, it's not a handout...if it was, it would be meaningless. The primary definition of respect: a feeling of deep admiration for someone or something elicited by their abilities, qualities, or achievements.
I am always interested to hear you say something new that I hadn't heard. But if you put an idea out there, don't just expect a pat on the back every time. Ideas are meant to be critiqued. Even in visual art, a world largely outside of logic and reason, every piece is subject to critique, which is structured as an integral part of every art class I've ever taken. You make something, the class critiques it. If you've actually spent any time in academics, you would know how cutthroat science often is...it's all about challenging hypotheses, not accepting them.
I can't speak for anyone else, but I don't fit your categorization. If you've read just about anything I've ever written here, you would know that I'm 100% convinced I have been fighting Vitamin A toxicity for years, yet I am also 100% convinced that Vitamin A serves necessary purposes in the body in appropriate amounts. It seems like every "nutrient" fits a U-curve, where the sweet spot is in the middle, and deficiency and toxicity are at the extremes. I don't see why Vitamin A is any different.
Grant is not eating a zero Vitamin A diet. He's still getting some amount from the meat he's eating, and we don't know how much that is. It could be that he is now experiencing intermittent symptoms of deficiency as a result of fluctuations in the amount of Vitamin A contained in the meat he's eating. Without taking liver biopsies, we don't know how much he's still got stored in his body either. As I've said before, all he can prove by doing what he's doing is that you can be relatively healthy eating meat, rice, and beans, but it seems like we've already known this from the cultures that have subsisted on meat, rice, and beans...so, what are we actually learning here?
Every carotenoid and retinoid is a unique molecule. You can't simply lump lutein and zeaxanthin in with retinol and retinal. Even isomers of the same molecule can have radically different effects in the body. Maybe yours is an intolerance to carotenoids but not retinoids.