I needed to disable self sign-ups because I’ve been getting too many spam-type accounts. Thanks.
Nine Year Update
Lutein supposedly doesn't get converted to retinol. I would suggest that carotenoids that don't convert to retinol in humans are treated more as foreign plant compounds than pro-Vitamin A carotenoids because they probably serve no purpose in humans and may instead interfere with the body's functioning. Folks need to be very careful to distinguish between all the different carotenoids and retinoids...they are all chemically different!
If you go back and re-read my posts, you'll see that the unavoidable presence of beta-carotene in the diets of herbivores, and the unavoidable presence of retinol in the diets of predators, is at the foundation of my argument for why retinol IS in fact a nutrient. Thinking evolutionarily, if something is ubiquitous in the environment but harmful to the body, every organism for which it is harmful should have evolved a mechanism to get rid of it. Moreover, because beta-carotene is such an old compound, if it and retinol were in fact purely detrimental, the pathways for eliminating them from the body should have developed a very long time ago as well, should therefore be highly conserved through lineages, and should be highly efficient. Instead, what we find is that the conversion of beta-carotene to retinol and the absorption, storage, and circulation of retinol are highly conserved processes, which indicates retinol is NOT a toxin.
Think of it this way...if there's a board of nails sticking up at the entrance to your house, and you have the option to get rid of that board of nails using relatively few resources (few enough that you see an obvious benefit to doing so, like bending over to pick it up and throwing it in the trash), are you going to just leave the nails there and expose yourself to that major hazard every day of your life? If you pass your house down to your children, are you going to leave that hazard there for them to deal with every day of their lives? No, of course not, and neither is natural selection going to favor circulation of a ubiquitous toxic hazard to persist through lineages when some individuals acquire (via genetic mutation) the ability to keep such a toxin out of circulation and thereby increase their odds of survival and reproduction.
Quote from wavygravygadzooks on August 15, 2023, 11:38 am"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...
Yes, the burden of proof is on the dissenter. And in my view Grant has done an excellent even if its not perfect job of doing so. SO I refer to that. I haven't seen you provide anything at all outside of anger. I do think its worth investigating why we convert carotenoids to retinol though. That is a very pertinent question. I understand you are very convinced about the logic you present but there is no logical arugements here except some assumptions that are if I get you right something along the lines of "there is a lot of it so it has to be healthy/needed", which needs no refutation as that is a dissenting view from you, and thus something you have to proof. I find that extremely tenious as a theory. If you are familiar with evolutionary biology I would like to hear what your thoughts are about arsen. The most common view of singel-cellular life during "the boring billion" - meaning before the event dubbed the oxygen explosion - was based on arsenic and not oxygen. It also have been speculated to be the origin time of carotenoids though newer discoveries have put some doubt on that. Still its obvious that this very abundant material is toxic to oxygen-producing organisms in general.
A substance that life depends on at one stage can for higher organisms be toxic. Even cancer is sort of a reversal to an older form of metabolism (we dont need to discuss that if you dont agree- Its for the purpose of exemplification)So like arsen there is no inherent illogical conclusions going on to think that an abundant substance might be problematic for another more complex specie.
I am agreeing that it maybe misleading to describe carotene as simply plant-pesticide as the main function is to assist in photosynthesis (as I assume you know and is what irks you about that part), but it is a terpene-group chemically and terpenes definately in general has this function (yes terpenes is also involved in steroid-synthesis f.ex) Here is a paper on terpene in plants
https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/what-are-terpenes
. Now I would like to bring you attention to the part where it says that carotenes ALSO function as repellants:
"In addition to phenolics, carotenoids also participate in numerous protective functions in the plant, being able to act as defensive mechanisms or natural repellents, antioxidants, hormone precursors and volatile apocarotenoids, among other functions, thus being important mediators of tritrophic interactions (Heath et al., 2013). Therefore, the synthesis of secondary metabolites, whether phenolic or carotenoid, can be understood as a standard response to any form of stress (biotic or abiotic), one of its functions being to help the plant overcome unfavorable conditions, especially in the development phase of the plant. ..."
And to claim that you have debunked anything in this thread ... ok you are free to feel that. But you didnt even address the incosistencies I pointed out you just made some statements and said victoriously you disproved something. I'm pretty well versed in formal logic and while that doesnt guarantee I have the right conclusions or that we will end up agreeing it does make me pretty unimpressed with your bombastic claims. Its of course the common view and Im here discussing it in the light of what Grant and others have discovered. Anger is not a very convincing arguement. Neither is the fact that you are incredoulous to beliving it can be posionus. I dont want to contiune arguing about this as you seem to lack a basic knowledge both of biology and the philosophy of science. I dont expect you to take in the consequences of that I just posted the papers you dared me to post , but to actually end on a good note -- its a fortunate situation that we are allowed to disagree.
Oh and one more thing since you claim to be versed in biology.... the body does NOT CREATE vitamin A from carotenoids. Carotenoids are made up of retinals and the body simply brakes it down again (as the first step of the metabolic cascade)https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17368314/ . Its a good question yes, but it happens because not surprisingly the body brakes down the molecule into retinals, which it is made of. it does not manufacture it brakes it down primarily.
@henrik you managed to write all that and not adress anything wavy wrote! So far you are just what-abouting everything, and claiming you know more about biology, when you are talking to an actual biologist/scientist. Just try, even once, to reply to his carefully structured posts, point by point, maybe you could learn something, or maybe you could teach something, both are possible outcomes, but right now you won’t find out, because you are doing a bad job answering. Your room looks like a teenagers room, and wavy’s room look like an adult. Clean it up, please!
That people here that supposedly know science and the scientific community, society and a bit of human psychology, think that Grant has achieved something yet, you are utterly wrong. We need to start treating this as a project, where our main goal is to tell the world that either vA is a toxin, or something we need very little of. We need help in determining this question from the scientific community! Thinking differently is so arrogant it infuriates me. Many very smart people on this forum have argued very well for vA being a vitamin, and somehow others have the intellectual arrogance to think these people «just don’t get Grant’s arguments» or science. Jeesus freaking Christ, people! Personally I am sick, I want my life back, I hope being low vA will help me, but I am not going to take this more seriously than Grant, by posting my blood every year. It comes off like this is just his hobby side-project. Now we don’t need studies. We can just use words. What happened to science is not done through debate argument? What is that 9 year update but a debate?
This project should be treated professionally, and right now it is not. People are risking their health and life by trusting a guy saying vA is not a vitamin, viruses doesn’t exist and people are being poisoned for profits. Maybe that is true, but it sure sounds weird. The burden of proof is on us, folks, we are so fringe as you can possibly get. We are a small cult here, especially if we can’t critizise our leader. And Grant should freaking welcome being that, and welcome being debated, take it seriously… I’m fuming here, can’t write more, and I’m surprised people are not seeing the importance of this
I am a bit unvertaim about what exactly it is you are wanting me to refute. I on the note of untidy teemager am guilty - I have a headache and cant be bothered to do a polished text when its a waste of time. And yes science is done by arguing. All facts needs interpretions. Its not like facts speak independantly. I am not hopeful, but look at the arguments, not how beautifully written the texts are and tell me what you take issue with? Its ok, also to disagree. Im also sick but at least better then before. I am still working on it. If you have any specific unanswered questions I might or might not be able to answer them.
I know I sound like a broken record but I don’t care at this point.
According to the science, Grant’s serum vA is indicative of an extreme deficiency and he should be blind and dead right now.
According to the science Grant’s vA intake is extremely low and should lead him to an extreme vA deficiency state to which he will then go blind and die.
It’s been a decade now and none of these things have happened. How long does this need to go on for before we can question the “vitamin” status of this compound?
“Maybe you don’t need much vA“- Then how tf do you become deficient in it!!!
”Maybe Grant still has plenty of vA in his liver” - So when that runs out will he finally get xerophalmia? Will it ever run out?
I’m not trying to treat him like a guru or anything… it’s simply the decade abstinence from retinol for this individual that is putting holes in a lot of the science in my eyes.
And if this n=1 experiment doesn’t challenge the science then he’s either lying or he’s an anomaly- I’m not denying either.
The medical establishment has known about vitamin A toxicity going all the way back.
Does it really matter if it is called a vitamin or not? If it is used in tiny amounts in the eye and you want to call that substance a vitamin, then go ahead. But it certainly shouldn't be in vitamin pills. It's easy to be replete and toxicity is real and always been known.
They knew about this type of poisoning going all the way back! This isn't new.
In my opinion, which I've garnered by hanging out here for 4 years, I think your body cannot go on and on taking in toxins from the environment forever. And it's a toxic world. That's why we don't live forever and we have to start out new little humans with a clean(er) slate to start anew.
You want to feel younger, longer? Avoid things that make you toxic! And "vitamin" A is one thing that has always been known to be able to rise to toxic levels.
If you want be more well in your time allotted, you will avoid toxins, and vitamin A should be on that list of things you keep at arms length.
If Wavy and Hermes met at a party they would be so excited to meet another person on a low vitamin A diet! They have more in common than not in common.
Where did that last paragraph come from? But I'm certainly open to a dinner date with you (Lil Chick) and Wavy. I doubt you would see an INTJ and INFJ at a party for long, you know, introverted intuition likes solitude a lot. It's different with those ENFJs though, they just can't get enough of social gatherings, right, Lil Chick?! And if you're not familiar with MBTI, find out your type here, I'd really love to hear if I was right with my suspicions or not: https://www.humanmetrics.com/personality/test It's only 64 questions, a curious chicken will just breeze through it.
I hadn't previously heard about the arsenic topic to which you vaguely referred. After doing a couple searches, I think what you're talking about is either the switch in microbial arsenic metabolism after the "Great Oxidation Event", or the discovery of microbes in Mono Lake that appear to have a novel mechanism for coping with high concentrations of arsenic in the lake.
In the former case, a major change in oxygen levels across the world resulted in a dramatic shift in forms of arsenic present in the environment, from predominately arsenite to predominantly arsenate. That change meant that existing life forms also had to modify the way they handled arsenic to avoid dying from its toxicity. I see no mention of microbes actively using arsenic for cellular processes, it sounds like they specialized in preventing arsenic from KILLING them because they were exposed to so much of it all the time.
Similarly, in the case of microbes in Mono Lake, it sounds like they have adapted to unusually high concentrations of arsenate in the lake by increasing their ability to selectively uptake phosphate and NOT arsenate (apparently they are chemically very similar, which is why arsenic is so toxic to life...it replaces phosphate in cells, which damages the cells). The microbes also appear to have evolved "resistance" to arsenate toxicity within the cell.
In neither case are microbes actively seeking and using arsenic. Everything I've read indicates that arsenic is and always has been toxic to life on Earth.
Carotenoids constitute a whole family of compounds. Apparently some of them function as defensive compounds, whether or not that was incidental or their primary evolved purpose. I was specifically referring to beta-carotene in my posts. Has beta-carotene been demonstrated to function as a defensive compound? Maybe it has...
I said repeatedly that beta-carotene is CONVERTED to retinol. Pretty sure I never said the body "creates" it, but even if I did, it wouldn't be incorrect. For example, it's commonly said that different elements are "created" via nuclear fission, which is the - as you say - "breaking down" of another element into two constituent parts. The more precise term for "breaking down" beta-carotene to retinal is CLEAVAGE, if you want to nitpick about verbage. Retinal then has to be converted to retinol in a second step.
I'm not going to respond to any of the other bullshit in your post. I may not bother responding to anything else you write because you don't seem to actually understand or appreciate anything I'm saying and you're making a lot of hollow accusations and assertions.
Quote from Hermes on August 16, 2023, 12:14 pmWhere did that last paragraph come from? But I'm certainly open to a dinner date with you (Lil Chick) and Wavy. I doubt you would see an INTJ and INFJ at a party for long, you know, introverted intuition likes solitude a lot. It's different with those ENFJs though, they just can't get enough of social gatherings, right, Lil Chick?! And if you're not familiar with MBTI, find out your type here, I'd really love to hear if I was right with my suspicions or not: https://www.humanmetrics.com/personality/test It's only 64 questions, a curious chicken will just breeze through it.
sorry I meant Henrik! I didn't meant to startle you, Hermes! ooops
I forget what my Myer's briggs type is, but it is one of the ones that you usually end up a software engineer, which I was before! LOL. Yes, I'm definitely introverted...
According to "the science", people on a carnivore diet should be dying of scurvy.
According to "the science", people on a carnivore diet should be suffering from folate deficiency.
It's pretty clear that nutrient requirements are highly context dependent.
Will Grant ever run out of Vitamin A? Maybe not if he keeps eating meat and living the way he's living. We might have slightly more of a clue if he'd gotten a serum Vitamin A lab done in the past 4 years...is he intentionally avoiding this measurement? He's had other labwork done in that time frame. This is starting to ring of someone in denial.
I've suggested before that symptomatic Vitamin A deficiency may be due more to a deficiency in protein or other cofactors needed to use Vitamin A throughout the body, rather than too little Vitamin A in the body. A number of people here seem to have taken a liking to Meri Arthur's ideas and that the similarity between toxicity and deficiency symptoms could stem from a problem with basic Vitamin A metabolism rather than too little or too much Vitamin A in the body.