I needed to disable self sign-ups because I’ve been getting too many spam-type accounts. Thanks.
Nine Year Update
Quote from wavygravygadzooks on August 14, 2023, 11:27 amFrom Grant's 5-year update in August of 2019 regarding his serum Vitamin A lab values:
"I was seriously disappointed with that 0.1 μmol/l result. It’s the same value that I had a year ago. I find it a little hard to believe that after another year maintaining a nearly zero vitamin A intake diet that my serum level wouldn’t have moved lower."
Scanning through his blog posts, I do not see any more recent Vitamin A labs...you would think if you were trying to prove Vitamin A is purely toxic that you would be getting at least annual labs to show that it is continuing to decline as the body gets rid of the "poison".
I mean, if it were indeed a poison, and he continues to feel better, what reason is there to think that the body wouldn't be capable of getting rid of every last bit floating around in the blood? Shouldn't his body be more capable of getting rid of it as his health improves? It's almost like...the body wants it to be in the blood?!
If it's a vitamin shouldnt the body then use it up as he doesn't replenish his stores?? If what you say is right we can also say goodbye to mercury and lead poisoning and such as it according to you would just leave the body, but if its a vitamin like vitamin b it keeps on to it?? that sounds logical. If so you cannot run out of vitamins and chemicals are not a problem Nice 🙂
Quote from Jessica2 on August 14, 2023, 4:30 am@henrik the study you mentioned uses >fortified< skim milk. Does it prove natural casein has VA attached? What if the binding capability of casein is a GOOD thing and it neutralizes VA? Lots of unanswerable questions there.
Also, even if casein DOES have VA...wouldn't this mean baby calves are getting poisoned (since we believe here that VA is a poison to all living creatures) and by the time the poor baby calf is a cow its liver is overloaded and spilling out VA to peripheral tissues and fat and it would be blind and that beef would be horrible for us to consume?
And how does ANY mammal who drinks milk with casein and whey protein make it out of baby stages and into adulthood??? milk??? it says a whole group of different sources including organic pastured. Anyways there are plenty of papers stating the vitamin A content in milk and that it has the majority of its vitamin A bound up in the casein naturally. TO not make it a info/article dumping contest I chose a more moderately sized one. This paper shows pretty well - which is fairly well known in the dairy industry - that naturally vitamin A is present it milk and that at least 30% maybe as much as 80% of it is bound to the casein. https://trace.tennessee.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4169&context=utk_graddiss
Yes 4 of the samples where with fortified milk . Still as there is no disagreement that vitamin A is naturally present in milk why would it be more concentrated in the casein after fortification then else as casein is so good at "transporting" retinol that they work on clinically using it as such. Anyways there are plenty of papers showing this I just tried to not article-bomb the forum. This is a much more thorough paper siting several more: https://trace.tennessee.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4169&context=utk_graddiss
I like this one :https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4561047/ "About 80% of the total 3.6% of proteins in milk are caseins. Caseins in milk exist as supramolecular structures called casein micelles, ranging in diameter from 50 to 500 nm, with an average of 120 nm (Fox and Brodkorb, 2008). "
I dont really understand your point with the calves. We as other animals can obviously handle a certain amount of it - I dont see how it would be different in cows. In general most lifeforms encounter it. It is equally well studied that hypervitaminosis A occurs in nature - especially among arctic and marine animals, and more higher in the food-chain as they have more fat (in their food) and thus eat more of it. I equeally dont see how that has anything to do with wether it is a poison or needed - I assume we dont need it but maybe its good for us to have some though I doubt thats because of its status as a vitamin. Anyways cows like humans can get hypervitaminosis A and like in human breast milk the level of retinol in it depends on the intake of the mother. If we live with moderate to low intake and have a decent detox system running we should be fine.
And lastly there are tons of substances like this that we get naturally that is to a varying degree bad for us. Be it other plantstuffs, lead or what not.
But Im not claiming to have all the answers and not even proving anything except that there is vitamin A in casein. I dont see how that would be controversial and also not how it would affect the cowargument as I dont think the cows would react more to casein bound retinol then to fat-borne retinol. The problem with the protein powder would be chemical/heat degredation making it more problematic
"If it's a vitamin shouldnt the body then use it up as he doesn't replenish his stores??"
---Based on his lab value at 5 years, his body has probably used a lot, or excreted it (we can't know because it wasn't measured). As I have suggested before, the body prioritizes for critical functions and it is quite possible that his body is reserving what little Vitamin A he has for vital functions like vision (assuming he has only small amounts remaining, which we can't be sure of without a liver biopsy or tissue samples). Alternatively, his lifestyle and environment may minimize requirements for Vitamin A. For one thing, he lives at a high latitude like I do where there is hardly any sun for 6-8 months of the year, which also means he probably spends the majority of his time indoors in a well-controlled environment. Either way, the asymptotic decline in Vitamin A in his blood, which at last measure stopped at 0.1 (hardly zero considering that the lab "deficiency" threshold is around 0.6), is a much stronger argument for it being a vitamin than it being a poison.
"If what you say is right we can also say goodbye to mercury and lead poisoning and such as it according to you would just leave the body, but if its a vitamin like vitamin b it keeps on to it?? that sounds logical. If so you cannot run out of vitamins and chemicals are not a problem"
---Your body does apparently attempt to rid itself of mercury and lead, given the opportunity. Whether it has the resources to do so is another matter. If you are equating mercury and lead to retinoids, you are making the same mistake Grant did earlier. Tell me...have we identified any essential body functions in humans (or any animal or plant) that regularly incorporate mercury and lead? No, but we have for Vitamin A, particularly vision. Are there complexes of transporters and receptors dedicated to distributing mercury and lead throughout the body, or converting those metals back and forth to different forms as needed? No, but there are for Vitamin A. Is mercury or lead present in the circulation of EVERY HIGHER ORDER ANIMAL?! Nope, but Vitamin A is.
From an evolutionary perspective, beta-carotene is probably one of the oldest plant compounds on the planet, likely because it arose in some of the earliest plants as an anti-oxidant providing reproductive advantage to any plant that produced it (probably via reduction in UV damage to tissues). Herbivorous animals would then have been exposed to beta-carotene FOR THE ENTIRETY OF THEIR EVOLUTIONARY EXISTENCE, as would predatory animals that ate those herbivorous animals.
If retinoids were a poison, that would mean:
(1) throughout the entire history of animal evolution there has been strong selection FOR
(a) conversion of beta-carotene (minimally toxic in animals) to retinol (a mild form of "poison")
(b) specialized absorption, storage and distribution of that "poison" throughout the body
(c) conversion of that mild "poison" to more potent "poisons" (retinaldehyde and retinoic acid) throughout the body, rather than containing it in the liver or simply passing it out in the stool without absorbing it in the first place.
(2) throughout the entire history of animal evolution there has been virtually zero selection to IMPROVE clearance of these poisons, implying that adaptive evolution is horribly ineffective (again, Vitamin A is constantly circulating in every higher order animal as far as I know).
If you have the faintest understanding of evolutionary biology, you know this is essentially impossible. Even if it was the weakest poison you could imagine, there would still be notable selection against its accumulation and distribution in the body over millions of years of evolutionary time.
It is completely illogical that something as ubiquitously incorporated in animal physiology as Vitamin A would be a poison. Plants have developed thousands or even millions of unique defensive compounds that herbivores have specialized to avoid or detoxify...why wouldn't herbivores have evolved a similar strategy for dealing with one of the oldest and most ubiquitous plant compounds on the planet if it were a toxin?
Quote from wavygravygadzooks on August 14, 2023, 2:53 pm"If it's a vitamin shouldnt the body then use it up as he doesn't replenish his stores??"
---Based on his lab value at 5 years, his body has probably used a lot, or excreted it (we can't know because it wasn't measured). As I have suggested before, the body prioritizes for critical functions and it is quite possible that his body is reserving what little Vitamin A he has for vital functions like vision (assuming he has only small amounts remaining, which we can't be sure of without a liver biopsy or tissue samples). Alternatively, his lifestyle and environment may minimize requirements for Vitamin A. For one thing, he lives at a high latitude like I do where there is hardly any sun for 6-8 months of the year, which also means he probably spends the majority of his time indoors in a well-controlled environment. Either way, the asymptotic decline in Vitamin A in his blood, which at last measure stopped at 0.1 (hardly zero considering that the lab "deficiency" threshold is around 0.6), is a much stronger argument for it being a vitamin than it being a poison.
"If what you say is right we can also say goodbye to mercury and lead poisoning and such as it according to you would just leave the body, but if its a vitamin like vitamin b it keeps on to it?? that sounds logical. If so you cannot run out of vitamins and chemicals are not a problem"
---Your body does apparently attempt to rid itself of mercury and lead, given the opportunity. Whether it has the resources to do so is another matter. If you are equating mercury and lead to retinoids, you are making the same mistake Grant did earlier. Tell me...have we identified any essential body functions in humans (or any animal or plant) that regularly incorporate mercury and lead? No, but we have for Vitamin A, particularly vision. Are there complexes of transporters and receptors dedicated to distributing mercury and lead throughout the body, or converting those metals back and forth to different forms as needed? No, but there are for Vitamin A. Is mercury or lead present in the circulation of EVERY HIGHER ORDER ANIMAL?! Nope, but Vitamin A is.
From an evolutionary perspective, beta-carotene is probably one of the oldest plant compounds on the planet, likely because it arose in some of the earliest plants as an anti-oxidant providing reproductive advantage to any plant that produced it (probably via reduction in UV damage to tissues). Herbivorous animals would then have been exposed to beta-carotene FOR THE ENTIRETY OF THEIR EVOLUTIONARY EXISTENCE, as would predatory animals that ate those herbivorous animals.
If retinoids were a poison, that would mean:
(1) throughout the entire history of animal evolution there has been strong selection FOR
(a) conversion of beta-carotene (minimally toxic in animals) to retinol (a mild form of "poison")
(b) specialized absorption, storage and distribution of that "poison" throughout the body
(c) conversion of that mild "poison" to more potent "poisons" (retinaldehyde and retinoic acid) throughout the body, rather than containing it in the liver or simply passing it out in the stool without absorbing it in the first place.
(2) throughout the entire history of animal evolution there has been virtually zero selection to IMPROVE clearance of these poisons, implying that adaptive evolution is horribly ineffective (again, Vitamin A is constantly circulating in every higher order animal as far as I know).
If you have the faintest understanding of evolutionary biology, you know this is essentially impossible. Even if it was the weakest poison you could imagine, there would still be notable selection against its accumulation and distribution in the body over millions of years of evolutionary time.
It is completely illogical that something as ubiquitously incorporated in animal physiology as Vitamin A would be a poison. Plants have developed thousands or even millions of unique defensive compounds that herbivores have specialized to avoid or detoxify...why wouldn't herbivores have evolved a similar strategy for dealing with one of the oldest and most ubiquitous plant compounds on the planet if it were a toxin?
firstly I have no idea how you can conclude that it would clear mercury and not clear retinol?? I see no arguments presented for such? That's indipendent of its status as a vitamin or not. Im not saying you dont clear mercury (.f.ex) but you claim that it magically holds on to this vitamin?? I see no such examples with other vitamins. Also I am perfectly aware of the persistence of carotenoids during evolution. I assume thats exactly why we have a system to get rid of it. Its worth remembering that after all they are a defense mechanism in the organisms that produce them
Secondly I think its kind of spurious to claim it has been proven to be needed?? I have seen no such research that hasnt been satisfactory debunked by Grant e.al. Just claiming that its a vitamin isnt really cutting it. It is involved in all kinds of stuff - does that make it a vitamin? I dont necessarily think so. IF it is its obvious that the requirements are low, and does nothing to tell why Grant and other is triving in deficiency and why the tests on humans have been aborted due to nobody getting sick instead getting healthier (I think you can find that if you look through Grants work so Im not going to be your google machine). So far I only see you repeating the general view while doing not so much in the way of debunking Grant. Maybe you can but I have not seen any such stuff. Being snarky and puttig forth strawman arguments like " vitamin A's status as a vitamin is not solely based on that one study" (parafrase) There is hardly anyone suggesting so and I dont know for a second why you do that? trolling?? I think its worth discussing the pros and cons but only saying everybody knows it's a vitamin with out pointing out much in the way of faults except spurious claims about casein isnt so effective. I hope you consider the point Im making instead of being offended by me calling out strawman argumentation and unconvincing ridiculte
Quote from Jessica2 on August 14, 2023, 4:04 pm@henrik the point is that if VA is an insidious poison to be avoided at all costs...why is milk, the first food of life for mammals, literally made out of poison? Many avoid dairy because they believe the casein protein is problematic and giving them VA poison. Are we to believe that the very first food of life is actually a poison? I don't buy that. It isn't only cows milk that has whey and casein.
There are people in the VA-is-poison community, maybe not you or mostly here, that avoid milk, even raw milk or cheese or yogurt, because of its supposed VA content, these items haven't been heated and yet Grant avoids all dairy, pasteurized or not. I happen to think evidence for this is scant and unconvincing.
I don't see why VA couldn't be like iron-necessary but not in large amounts. Milk is basically modified blood without iron. The body knows how to tightly regulate iron (mostly) until you mess it up with supplements. This is documented. So, I agree, is hypervitaminosis A. It's been a documented thing in science for ages. I tend to believe it isn't a problem until you supplement large amounts of it.
Again, when someone does a test for ALL retinols on beef, I'll believe beef is low in it. If we believe pork can have undetectable retinoic acid, then beef can and lamb can and chicken can too. Wavy could be correct...beef COULD have retinoids in it. Why wouldn't it if calves get VA filled milk then go on to VA filled grass then get VA supplemented meals and grains??? Their livers would be teeming with VA, and so would their blood and muscles potentially. If humans can have serum retinol why can't a cow?
I appreciate your elucidation of your point. Im not absolutly sure of anything though I dont at the moment think its a vitamin. I dont think its actually (I do understand its a way of speaking but still) "made of poison". I am quite sure we are able to handle a decent amount of it in a healthy enviroment and assume the same holds true for most species. I dont see why it wouldnt end up in the milk though. Its the same with mercury, lead and bromines f.ex - they end up in the milk. I am also absolutly sure that retinol is less toxic then these other substances, but also think we have a much better clearence system for vitamin A - probably at least in part because its so much more prevalent.
When it comes to avoiding dairy as it increases my symptoms tremendously to an unbearable degree- I dont especially enjoy that, as if I could add back dairy I feel Id have a more "balanced" diet (whatever that is), but on the other hand most of humanity historically has done fine without so Im less worried. Im not absolutly sure whether it - personally - is the vitamin A content I react to (and if so if it's the form or some other reason) as I react less to butter but I dont care so much. I think its quite clear that it HAS vitamin A and at least SOME of it is attached to the casein. But of course beef and other meats have retinol too. I assume that's why Ive gone from absolutly craving fat to having a distaste for it (no its not auto-suggestion) and feeling bad when eating any serious amount- my point being at least most of the vitamin A would be in the fat and I neither belive its possible, necessary or even maybe beneficial to eat zero A. I try to go as low as possible as thats what seems to work best for me though.
Cows definetly has serum retinol and this is being measured by the meat industry and they even checked for upper treshholds. Its also a problem that the retinol levels in the animals are generally much higher then in previous years, just because of the reasons you mention. I think its safe to say that commercial livestock in general is not healthy. They are raised as meat-machines with a sort of side-glance only at their wellbeing in my opininon. I dont look down on farmers its just how I think it works. SO.... they also get sick and this is documented. And like us it takes some time for symptoms to occure, and they often dont even live long enought to suffer it. Also they cant tell us how they feel, but just ends up like the regulare person living sort of within the general guidelines (of course not by choise for the cows). About pork I have no idea. It does contain retinol and lots of pufa when commercially raised, but I am not confident about why it seems to be problematic. I just avoid as it doesnt sit well with me. So to summerize I think its safe to say that cows and humans react quite similarly and all mammals dump/are unable to filter out enviormental toxins from their milk. In norway f.ex lactating mothers have restricitions on fish consumptions due to concerns about heavy metals going into the milk. Same happens with drugs. Lots of them are banned if you are lactating. Im sort of going off on arant but I try to just specify why I dont see any contradictions (also calf livers and chicken livers are getting more yellow the last 30 years)
Edit: sorry about a bit shoddy grammar. headache at the moment. I have personally b.t.w gotten into clincial hypervitaminosis A without neither fortification or supplementation . but probably have bad clearance and ate a ridiculous amount of high A foods for a long time. Its very doable though, which the prevalence in predatory animals shows
Quote from Jessica2 on August 14, 2023, 6:01 pm@henrik I think it far more likely Wavys assessment of VA as a substance needed or utilized in some way to be right rather than it is just a poison.
Again, some people's issues with highly processed cow milk could be any number of factors and I think it unlikely that the first foods of mammals eat is based on a poisonous molecule, simply because the mother must "detox". Very very unsafe and not any advantage to let a tiny liver detoxify poison. Somehow the human and mammalian body knows not to detox or put excess iron into milk. I just find it so unlikely this is what goes on with milk.
Also, getting incidental amounts of some poisons that could be in fluids or tissues into breast milk is one thing, but the idea batted around here is that casein and whey are fundamentally made out of VA and thats bad so we should avoid milk because of this "hidden" VA. Sorry I don't buy that at all.
I do very well on cheese and yogurt. No issues whatsoever, no lactose bloat at all, no eczema nothing. I don't do pasteurized homogenized milk though. Too processed for me. But I do drink whole organic Amish unhomogenized (but unfortunately pasteurized) milk. Same thing: no bloat, no issues whatsoever. Gluten and grains however bloat me up like nothing else and cause me to feel achy. That's the way I've been for years. I never ever got issues from dairy. I quit milk though for the first 6 months of VA diet to se if it would improve my symptoms of weight gain and hair loss and suffered numerous issues with eating beans rice and meat every meal. I wanted the grant diet to work for me but it didn't. I'm sorry I'm a failed experiment 😔 But I will enjoy my frequent dairy with relish.
Fair enough. I should add that while I am not totally opposed to Smiths idea that things are detoxed into milk Im simply saying that just because its there doesnt mean it should be there, or at least not that we need it. And not to mention as with all things the dose makes the poison, and as I mentioned its observably less poisonous then things like mercury. I also tolerate unpasturized/unhomogenisized fresh milk slightly better and I get no bloating and exema neither from store milk or raw milk, my inflamation just rises and I get mucus and brainfog and anxiety. I loved milk growing up and used to drink it all through my teens.
But I thinkt its wrong to say that milk then would be based on a poisonus molcule. First of all milk is only 3.6% protein of which about 80% has retinol carrying capacity, and that capacity will usually not be maxed out so its a miniscule part of milk anyway. I think we should avoid milk if it bothers us and thats about it. I feel sure about stuff like the precense of retinol in casein, but i think everybody needs to figure out what works for them . doesnt mean I am superpositive about dairy but also I as I said wish I could have it and probably would if I could.
And just to glean into pandoras box.... I'm not sure its a guaranteed fact we dont have any benefit from it even if it is a poison. I think its more useful to say it has poisonous qualities. And many things are useful for the body that is not a vitamin. Including stressors, like gravity. We get sick without it pretty quick even if it is a stressor. So we might have adapted to having a certain amount of stress as we normally cannot avoid it anyway. But I think the main point is that most people now get to much due to heightened intake and lowered expulsion and so its a lot of people that has benefits from detoxing -like myself. Also its sort of a plague of sorts this constant mixing (not shooting directly at you!) of ideal diet and curative diet. I dont know and doubt my diet is ideal but I think it's probably necessary due to actually having already aquired poisoning. If I remember correctly the average intake of vitamin A including caroteens on a world wide basis among hunter gatherers (which in some form must have been the reality for all of humanity in some form for the main time humans have existed) is less then 2000IU - thats pretty low and includes everything from Hazda to Ainu. So Im pretty sure we do fine with some of it in a healthy enviroment. If it's possible that a 0 A diet is better - sure - though I have little experience with successfull improvements upon nature - or thats not right. I like housing and hygiene f.ex. and braces for broken legs.
I dont see any direct contradiction between what you are saying and my point actually. Im mainly concerned with disecting the facts and try to see if arguents make sense. And since we obviously can handle some A I dont see any problems. 🙂
Vitamin A is so clearly not a toxin the issue is your body just can’t metabolise it anymore due to other issues 😄
"firstly I have no idea how you can conclude that it would clear mercury and not clear retinol?? I see no arguments presented for such? That's indipendent of its status as a vitamin or not. Im not saying you dont clear mercury (.f.ex) but you claim that it magically holds on to this vitamin?? I see no such examples with other vitamins."
---I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to say here, seems like you misunderstood what I wrote. Yes, the body gets rid of excess retinol. How much constitutes an excess? Couldn't say, but I'd guess it's somewhere between 50% and 100% of the liver's storage capacity. On the other hand, any and all mercury or lead is excess because the body has no use for it and it is clearly toxic, so the body tries not to store it if it can avoid it.
"Also I am perfectly aware of the persistence of carotenoids during evolution. I assume thats exactly why we have a system to get rid of it."
---We and every other animal have a system to get rid of practically anything the body doesn't need, including excess vitamins, hormones, metabolites, and above all else toxic substances. That's precisely why it's illogical that EVERY ANIMAL has a BUNCH of retinol stored in its liver and circulating in its blood EVERY DAY of its life if that retinol is pure poison. I already mentioned that the threshold for beta-carotene toxicity is far higher than for retinol, so WHY WOULD THE BODY CONVERT SOMETHING INNOCUOUS TO SOMETHING HARMFUL AND THEN STORE IT AND CIRCULATE IT?! What other substance is so ubiquitous in the body but serves no purpose?! Mercury and lead and aluminum are not ubiquitous, nor is any other poison I can think of. (Sorry about all the uppercase, but apparently my straightforward logic is still not getting through.)
"Its worth remembering that after all they are a defense mechanism in the organisms that produce them"
---Says who? Give a reference. I'm pretty sure this is an unfounded claim that started on one of these forums. I have a personal vendetta against plant compounds, but even I have to admit that beta-carotene appears to be pretty damn innocuous as far as they go (at least when ingested in reasonable quantities, unlike what I was getting eating inordinate amounts of carrots and squash and other mutant man-made plants, which was just incredibly stupid of me).
"Secondly I think its kind of spurious to claim it has been proven to be needed?? I have seen no such research that hasnt been satisfactory debunked by Grant e.al. Just claiming that its a vitamin isnt really cutting it."
---First, there is no researcher that needs to debunk Grant, it is Grant that needs to debunk the existing research. And, you're saying you and Grant have read every publication on Vitamin A, or even half of them? And Grant has debunked all of them? No, there must be hundreds if not thousands, and based on what I've seen written around here it appears that hardly anybody has read more than a tiny fraction of them, let alone understood them completely. I'm not sure I've seen Grant satisfactorily debunk even a single publication. I've provided reasons why he didn't completely debunk Wolbach and Howe earlier in this thread, referring to two publications discussing the Vitamin A content of casein used in rat studies. As someone trained in biological research, what I see is a bunch of wishing going on here.
"It is involved in all kinds of stuff - does that make it a vitamin? I dont necessarily think so."
---What else is it doing all over the place, getting converted back and forth between different forms, being shuttled around the bloodstream by specific proteins, found in association with critical biological functions?! Do you have even a single example of another molecule that is treated like this by the body?! Why would the liver keep ejecting stored poison into circulation every day of every animal's life?! THIS MAKES NO FUCKING SENSE. Nobody has provided a rational counterargument to this. And the same goes for some "neutral" compound, which I don't think actually exists...if the body has no use for it, it's going to attempt to get rid of it, and most things the body has no use for are causing some kind of damage or inefficiency, so there is no such thing as neutral. A healthy body is going to rapidly deplete non-usable compounds that it's evolved to clear. The people claiming that Vitamin A is not a vitamin and that viruses don't exist don't provide any rational alternative explanations...they love to try to point out flaws in the existing models but they never provide worthwhile explanations themselves, they are always riddled with a million more flaws than the existing models.
"IF it is its obvious that the requirements are low, and does nothing to tell why Grant and other is triving in deficiency and why the tests on humans have been aborted due to nobody getting sick instead getting healthier (I think you can find that if you look through Grants work so Im not going to be your google machine)."
---I didn't say it's obvious the requirements are low. This is the one thing I think Grant has actually provided good evidence for...under certain conditions, people probably need nowhere near the RDA value of Vitamin A to be healthy, and they may actually be healthier eating much less than the RDA. I also find it fascinating that his Vitamin C lab values were so high, and that his Vitamin D was within the reference range.
"So far I only see you repeating the general view while doing not so much in the way of debunking Grant. Maybe you can but I have not seen any such stuff."
---I'm approaching the subject from an evolutionary standpoint, which is arguably the most important way to go about it. Go find me some quality posts of other people doing this, I don't think there are any. If you think I'm saying nothing and making strawman arguments, it's because you don't understand what I'm saying. Natural selection is a very powerful force operating over huge time scales...if something persists in a species through time, it serves a function whether we've identified it or not. There are tons of examples of physiological elements once thought to be useless for which we now realize there are functions.
"Being snarky and puttig forth strawman arguments like " vitamin A's status as a vitamin is not solely based on that one study" (parafrase) There is hardly anyone suggesting so and I dont know for a second why you do that? trolling?? I think its worth discussing the pros and cons but only saying everybody knows it's a vitamin with out pointing out much in the way of faults except spurious claims about casein isnt so effective."
---Fucking ridiculous...did you even bother to read Grant's 9-year update (the subject of this entire thread)?! Here's a quote from it after his "discussion" of casein and Vitamin A (which completely ignores the two publications I referenced earlier in this thread):
"Anyways, that’s it, it’s game over for the 1925 Wolback and Howe study. As suspected, it’s completely garbage science. It’s toast, dead and finished. The same goes for every follow-on study claiming the ridiculous, and fabricated out of thin air, BS that we somehow need this horrible chemotherapy drug to “regulate” our gene expressions. Or that we need it to control our stem cell differentiation, keep us from going blind, dying, and on and on. Those studies, and it’s probably thousands of them, are now all garbage, complete junk “science."
Read that over again until you see that he is claiming to have punched a fatal hole in the Wolbach and Howe study (which he hasn't), and that by punching a hole IN THAT ONE STUDY he has thereby destroyed all Vitamin A studies that follow it. LOL. Grant claims to be a scientist and to "know the rules of science"; if that's true, then these statements are pure unadulterated arrogance and disrespect to real, honest scientists.
" I hope you consider the point Im making instead of being offended by me calling out strawman argumentation and unconvincing ridiculte"
---I did consider your points and I hope you appreciate the effort it takes, because this feels like a huge waste of my time. It's pretty annoying to have people call my carefully considered and clearly worded statements "strawman arguments". I'm a research biologist and published scientist, trained in scientific writing, and I review and edit the writing of other scientists, so I know what clear, concise writing looks like. Hardly anything on this website passes as such. I'd like to think that I put enough time into what I write here that it qualifies, but everything I write here is pretty much disappearing into a black hole, so there's not a lot of incentive to make it perfect for publication...
Quote from wavygravygadzooks on August 14, 2023, 11:27 amFrom Grant's 5-year update in August of 2019 regarding his serum Vitamin A lab values:
"I was seriously disappointed with that 0.1 μmol/l result. It’s the same value that I had a year ago. I find it a little hard to believe that after another year maintaining a nearly zero vitamin A intake diet that my serum level wouldn’t have moved lower."
Scanning through his blog posts, I do not see any more recent Vitamin A labs...you would think if you were trying to prove Vitamin A is purely toxic that you would be getting at least annual labs to show that it is continuing to decline as the body gets rid of the "poison".
I mean, if it were indeed a poison, and he continues to feel better, what reason is there to think that the body wouldn't be capable of getting rid of every last bit floating around in the blood? Shouldn't his body be more capable of getting rid of it as his health improves? It's almost like...the body wants it to be in the blood?!
This!
I don’t know what to say… this ship has no direction!
Quote from wavygravygadzooks on August 15, 2023, 11:38 am---We and every other animal have a system to get rid of practically anything the body doesn't need, including excess vitamins, hormones, metabolites, and above all else toxic substances. That's precisely why it's illogical that EVERY ANIMAL has a BUNCH of retinol stored in its liver and circulating in its blood EVERY DAY of its life if that retinol is pure poison. I already mentioned that the threshold for beta-carotene toxicity is far higher than for retinol, so WHY WOULD THE BODY CONVERT SOMETHING INNOCUOUS TO SOMETHING HARMFUL AND THEN STORE IT AND CIRCULATE IT?! What other substance is so ubiquitous in the body but serves no purpose?! Mercury and lead and aluminum are not ubiquitous, nor is any other poison I can think of. (Sorry about all the uppercase, but apparently my straightforward logic is still not getting through.)
Maybe because retinol/vitamin A is so ubiquitous in food? When you see Grant doing everything he can to avoid it, and you claim he still can be consuming it in some non negligent amount, so probably it is virtually impossible to avoid it completely?
And maybe even toxic substances can be used by the body in some way. In a similar way as man-made retinoid creams for example, or to fight some pathogens (if I'm not wrong some diseases like malaria provoke liver to release stored retinoids) (In my case I often feel generally better following a fever-like disease)
As to why carotenoids get converted to retinol while being much less harmful, my guess is it must depend on people, I seem to react quicker to lutein rich foods than retinol rich ones (cheeses/ eggs). Maybe with retinol the body has an option (at least when not 100% saturated, which should not occur "naturally") either to store it in the liver or deal with it immediately, but carotenoids do not offer this option. However they can be partly converted to retinol and stored, which may sometimes be a safer strategy.