That's a great point and this is an example of what I mean by only Grant can properly defend this theory as this probably would have immediately came to mind for him as it did you however I believe he's the only one with the comprehensive knowledge gained from researching and writing his books and blog posts to remember all of it and put it all together when confronted with seemingly contradictory information. Not to say you or someone else can't do that to a degree as you've demonstrated here, but to actually refute all of the points being made by Mike Fave is a tall order (in my humble opinion).
With that said I just want to make it clear I don't necessarily believe all of what Mike Fave is espousing. While I do think he comes across as very intelligent he seems to be very fixated on micronutrients and I think that's where the strong belief that vitamin A not being toxic comes from (even though I still entertain the idea that could be true). He's young still (28) and I think his perspective and willingness to look at vitamin A as a potential poison would change if he suddenly developed health issues as many do as they get older and then got a somewhat miraculous turnaround on a much more limited diet where supposedly "healthy" nutrients are being excluded or extremely minimized. As the saying goes the older I get the more I realize how little I actually know.
janelle525,
That's a great point and this is an example of what I mean by only Grant can properly defend this theory as this probably would have immediately came to mind for him as it did you however I believe he's the only one with the comprehensive knowledge gained from researching and writing his books and blog posts to remember all of it and put it all together when confronted with seemingly contradictory information. Not to say you or someone else can't do that to a degree as you've demonstrated here, but to actually refute all of the points being made by Mike Fave is a tall order (in my humble opinion).
With that said I just want to make it clear I don't necessarily believe all of what Mike Fave is espousing. While I do think he comes across as very intelligent he seems to be very fixated on micronutrients and I think that's where the strong belief that vitamin A not being toxic comes from (even though I still entertain the idea that could be true). He's young still (28) and I think his perspective and willingness to look at vitamin A as a potential poison would change if he suddenly developed health issues as many do as they get older and then got a somewhat miraculous turnaround on a much more limited diet where supposedly "healthy" nutrients are being excluded or extremely minimized. As the saying goes the older I get the more I realize how little I actually know.
Thanks and I did see that. It's just as soon as that was posted another video was dropped by Mike Fave, then another video by him and Jay Feldman, and then I stumbled across even more older videos of them arguing against the vitamin A theory. So there's actually way more to address than what's in that single blog post. They make very compelling points that will need to be addressed at some point for this theory to stand up to scrutiny. Not saying it can't be done either; Just pointing out the reality of the situation. Of course that's not necessary for people to try it and get benefits and I think for most of us that's all we're looking for. But if mainstream acceptance and widespread change is the goal criticisms must be properly addressed at some point.
Regardless of all of that I am grateful to Grant for his work and dedication to sharing this information with everyone for free. This website costs money and takes time to maintain. The e-books must have taken a very long time to research and write yet are disseminated for free. He's been on many podcasts which I am sure also paid nothing for his time. etc. I just think it's important to draw attention to what I consider valid criticisms so we can actually be honest with ourselves and as scientific as possible with testing this theory to see if it holds up. Otherwise we're just some weird diet cult with fingers in our ears and doing no better than the people who vehemently believe vitamin A is good for you and will not entertain any other possibility.
Thanks and I did see that. It's just as soon as that was posted another video was dropped by Mike Fave, then another video by him and Jay Feldman, and then I stumbled across even more older videos of them arguing against the vitamin A theory. So there's actually way more to address than what's in that single blog post. They make very compelling points that will need to be addressed at some point for this theory to stand up to scrutiny. Not saying it can't be done either; Just pointing out the reality of the situation. Of course that's not necessary for people to try it and get benefits and I think for most of us that's all we're looking for. But if mainstream acceptance and widespread change is the goal criticisms must be properly addressed at some point.
Regardless of all of that I am grateful to Grant for his work and dedication to sharing this information with everyone for free. This website costs money and takes time to maintain. The e-books must have taken a very long time to research and write yet are disseminated for free. He's been on many podcasts which I am sure also paid nothing for his time. etc. I just think it's important to draw attention to what I consider valid criticisms so we can actually be honest with ourselves and as scientific as possible with testing this theory to see if it holds up. Otherwise we're just some weird diet cult with fingers in our ears and doing no better than the people who vehemently believe vitamin A is good for you and will not entertain any other possibility.
Nevermind guys, requirements for nutrients are pretty darn low for rats so it's very hard to know if the diet was adequate in other ways. It's still a very refined diet.
Nevermind guys, requirements for nutrients are pretty darn low for rats so it's very hard to know if the diet was adequate in other ways. It's still a very refined diet.
You can see some of the his points at 12:01 in the video linked below. He actually has a few other videos as well that I've come across. but this is the most recent and a good start. You'd need to watch the entire video to see how he breaks down and pretty thoroughly addresses each issue.
You can see some of the his points at 12:01 in the video linked below. He actually has a few other videos as well that I've come across. but this is the most recent and a good start. You'd need to watch the entire video to see how he breaks down and pretty thoroughly addresses each issue.
@anon33 I asked, specifically, what claims are you/these two brilliant guys coming with that Grant didn’t address in his response to you/these two brilliant guys?
@anon33 I asked, specifically, what claims are you/these two brilliant guys coming with that Grant didn’t address in his response to you/these two brilliant guys?
@anon33 I asked, specifically, what claims are you/these two brilliant guys coming with that Grant didn’t address in his response to you/these two brilliant guys?
Did you watch the video? I'm thinking not since the claims are in there (I even linked it to the exact timestamp where they are all shown on the screen) and your comments about him looking orange are only applicable to the preview as he doesn't look like that in the actual video.
Also you're coming off as a bit rude and passive-aggressive. There's no need for that. We are all just seeking the truth here are we not? Let's look at the facts and address them as best we can while being polite and respectful.
@anon33 I asked, specifically, what claims are you/these two brilliant guys coming with that Grant didn’t address in his response to you/these two brilliant guys?
Did you watch the video? I'm thinking not since the claims are in there (I even linked it to the exact timestamp where they are all shown on the screen) and your comments about him looking orange are only applicable to the preview as he doesn't look like that in the actual video.
Also you're coming off as a bit rude and passive-aggressive. There's no need for that. We are all just seeking the truth here are we not? Let's look at the facts and address them as best we can while being polite and respectful.
1) You/Mike et al. made a video(s) with some claims
2) Grant responded to these claims
3) You come here and say there is a new video. This new video is not a response to Grant. I ask you: when you read Grant’s new response, which claims do you think he did not address? Instead of linking me a video, why don’t you give us at least one claim that Grant did not address?
1) You/Mike et al. made a video(s) with some claims
2) Grant responded to these claims
3) You come here and say there is a new video. This new video is not a response to Grant. I ask you: when you read Grant’s new response, which claims do you think he did not address? Instead of linking me a video, why don’t you give us at least one claim that Grant did not address?
