I needed to disable self sign-ups because I’ve been getting too many spam-type accounts. Thanks.
Mike Fave YouTube Video
Just wondering if @ggenereux2014 or anyone else has seen this video (link below) and what their thoughts were? I am always looking for counter points to this low vitamin a theory to test whether it holds up to scrutiny (as far as I have seen Grant does the same and thankfully doesn't take disagreements about it personally) so wanted to share this to gather his and anyone elses thoughts on it.
Personally I think he needs to take into consideration the lifetime accumulation and the rate at which the human body can eliminate vitamin A. Here's a good thread discussing that: https://ggenereux.blog/discussion/topic/depletion-rate/
"I Finally Read Grant Genereux’s Low Vitamin A Book… It’s Worse Than I Thought…"
Yep. Mike Fave is a bad faith actor. His numbers comparing human vs rat dosages of cod liver oil vs halibut oil are insanely wrong. So wrong he must have intended to be wrong. He avoids addressing facts proven out by Grant and the rest of us. A number of folk brought that out in the comments. Amazing how many have improved with low vitamin A. Amazing how many claim low vitamin A while eating a lot of vitamin A. More amazing how much effort goes into labeling low vitamin A a bad idea without testing it for themselves.
This guy (with orange face btw) doesn't understand this concept of accumulation over long time. Not months and in most cases not even years but decades.. But the problem is also on the other side of extreme view on vit A by Grant and "Dr." Smith.. I can see how most intelligent people just laugh watching Smith crazy rants on his youtube channel.. Ray Peat himself was talking about how over 5000iu of vit A is problematic for people who don't have ideal thyroid/metabolic health. But try to eat under 5000iu of vit A, when your diet consists of dairy, orange juice, carrot salad, liver, eggs etc.. So that right there tells you that "Ray Peat style of eating" is the worst thing that you can eat if your metabolism/thyroid is low.. How ironic is that.. But his whole thing was to push thyroid/metabolism artificially by taking hormones, by drinking coffee like it is water etc.. For that you need to consume sugar constantly(like you are hummingbird or something) so you don't crash. It is crazy it's like you are doing A so you have to do B and because you do B you have to do C and because you do C you have to do D. This same concept is using mainstream medical system and we know how well it works... Simply most people who have impaired metabolism accumulate things in their system especially copper, vit A, iron and other heavy metals and toxins. I am not saying vit A or copper or iron are just toxins(like Grant or Smith says) I am saying that they can become toxic very easily..
Grant Genereux's recent post:
"Jay Feldman’s and Mike Fave’s hit-piece videos."
https://ggenereux.blog/2024/07/28/jay-feldmans-and-mike-faves-hit-piece-videos/
Want to add this to Grant Genereux's excellent post that Mike Fave is obviously lying right from the start in the title of his video:
"I Finally Read Grant Genereux’s Low Vitamin A Book… It’s Worse Than I Thought…"
Grant Genereux has written three free ebooks, not one, as in books not a single book. If someone had gone to ggenereux.blog and downloaded one of these books for themselves they would have known that.
If a health practitioner cannot understand accumulation of something fat soluble, then there's no need to listen to a word they say because they don't understand fundamental things about the body. Even when I was following Ray Peat I did not enjoy Mike's videos. And back yrs ago when I would try to watch him I'd practically fall asleep listening because he was yawning every 5 seconds. I asked in the comments, why are you yawning all the time? Apparently it was his job, but still not a good look for the diet.
Thanks for the reply, Grant.
Mike actually released another video today which I will link below for anyone interested. It actually makes some very good points in my opinion. There are studies referenced where vitamin A and retinoic acid do appear to be properly isolated and the animals given them live longer and are healthier than the animals without.
At this point it's hard to know what to believe and I think it would require Grant to go through each of Mike's points (you can see the 4 main points at the 12:01 timestamp) and properly address each one however I get the sense that Grant isn't interested in the continued back and forth (which is completely within his right). He doesn't ow anyone anything and I don't think he should waste his time out of a sense of obligation. It's just a shame as this is the most well thought out and rigorous argument against the vitamin A theory I have seen yet and if these assertions could be refuted it would make the theory even more airtight. I tried coming up with my own explanations for the contradictory findings but wasn't able to and I fear only Grant would be capable of properly defending this theory.
I will look into the new video. In the meantime, there is still that Wisconsin (?) autopsy study which showed human livers clogged with vitamin A. So it is easy to believe that livers are storing vitamin A and visually looking icky as a result. Obviously that autopsy study alone cannot directly tie the icky livers to health issues.
Quote from Anon33 on July 29, 2024, 1:14 pmMike actually released another video today which I will link below for anyone interested. It actually makes some very good points in my opinion. There are studies referenced where vitamin A and retinoic acid do appear to be properly isolated and the animals given them live longer and are healthier than the animals without.
At this point it's hard to know what to believe and I think it would require Grant to go through each of Mike's points (you can see the 4 main points at the 12:01 timestamp) and properly address each one however I get the sense that Grant isn't interested in the continued back and forth (which is completely within his right). He doesn't ow anyone anything and I don't think he should waste his time out of a sense of obligation. It's just a shame as this is the most well thought out and rigorous argument against the vitamin A theory I have seen yet and if these assertions could be refuted it would make the theory even more airtight. I tried coming up with my own explanations for the contradictory findings but wasn't able to and I fear only Grant would be capable of properly defending this theory.
He really thought he found the smoking gun to put it to rest... but did he see this study Grant already posted about:
" Up until period III, McCollum’s study diet is nearly identical to the one used by W&H. McCollum’s study diet is supposedly devoid of vitamin A too, yet his animals survive quite well to the 20 week mark, and beyond. Whereas, in the W&H study all of the animals were either dead or dying by the 8th-10th week. In the last two weeks of the W&H study the animals needed to be force fed their ration, and that finished them off. Except, here in McCollum’s study, not only have the animals survived at least 2X longer, there is no mention of sickness or disease, at all. In other words, his animals were probably very healthy, and obviously reproductive, at the 20 week mark. McCollum’s study presents similar results for male rats."
Why was the study not reproducible? He says it might have been they didn't overheat the casein. It was the exact same diet yet the heat treatment may have been different.