I needed to disable self sign-ups because I’ve been getting too many spam-type accounts. Thanks.
Nine Year Update
I think Grant is offline and enjoying a holiday. And yes, my curiosity was piqued when he wrote the two italicised sentences in the above post.
The term vitamin is a portmanteau of "vital amine" with the implication that the substance described is vital to human health. It is useful and necessary to distinguish between substances that are vital and those that have no role in health (which are typically measurably harmful "toxins") even if everything can become harmful at large enough doses. How else would you propose to distinguish between those substances the human body needs and uses and those it doesn't? The "halo" you are talking about is simply the margins of the U-shaped curve describing the health outcomes surrounding most vital substances, something that seems to have been acknowledged going back to the origins of "vitamin".
A huge numbers of variables at play in the human environment + a lack of ability to conduct fully controlled long-term studies on humans = a complete inability to statistically tease apart the relative contributions of different variables to the rise in auto-immune conditions. One thing that's virtually guaranteed is that it is due to more than one variable: complexity rules over biological systems. Anybody claiming the rise in auto-immune conditions is all due to one particular thing, like Vitamin A, is most likely dead wrong. (They are also clearly wrong when someone like Paul Saladino heals from an auto-immune condition after switching from a vegan diet devoid of retinol to a carnivore diet loaded with liver.)
Ad hominem attacks never get us anywhere good, that's for sure. But a person's character is at fault when they repeatedly portray themselves as something they are not, at which point an ad hominem attack is fully justified even if it's not productive. For example, there are a good number of people claiming to be fully educated or even experts in logic and the scientific method (including the appropriate application of statistics) who clearly are not.
@wavygravygadzooks I think its worth commenting on your last post. Its hardly possible to seperate or even claim there is an existing distinction between "usefull" and harmfull substances. Surely there are some substances that we can do without, but that doesnt make for a definition. It is always a sliding scale of usefullness and harmfullness and sometimes they overlap. There is no vitamin that wont kill you if overdoses sufficiently. Toxins is a highly dubious term and are seldom used in scientific papers. Or Iron? Its clearly a substance of both importance and trouble to take a low hanging fruit. I think its a little funny that everytime I or someone else posts a study refuting your claims you suddenly find it to not be important anymore - or at least not affect your position.
I also think this is the right time to say that I am not 100%sure vitamin A is not a vitamin. I doubt it, as, as I have stated I have not seen any research that undoubtfully shows it to be, but several that seems to indicate the oposite. That means I have the position of a tentative placement of it as non-vitamin until further info might surface. So far I havent seen it but it doesnt exclude the possibility. AlsoI dont think its prudent to conclude (as I've hinted at before) that something might not have a function even if it might be toxic. I think the body are somewhat adapted to a lot of stressors. Like gravity, pathogens, or darkness. (darkness to does induce a stressreaction in the body, but still we have adapted to use that). Or reactive oxygen species. SO while I might be very direct in pointing out what I find to be unsatisfactory evidence, Im less sure about its absolute negativity . If anybody can show that a reasonably similar to humans (including humans) specie actually do BETTER without vitamin A then with a moderate/low amount, THEN I will consider putting it in the purely negative box.
I'd by the way be intrigued to hear how you feel about the body's handling of alcohol. (yes, retinol is also an alcohol, - which is intersting, but that's another topic). Im thinking about the kind of ethanol which is what people normally drink. It is handled quite similarly to retinol though it is to my knowledge not stored. But it does circulate in tremendously much higher amount then retinol when ingested, and is using many of the same dehydrogenase enzymes. I would think its at least relevant that few of the systems used in the vitamin A cascades in the body are completly and solely dedicated to vitamin A but like most stuff in the body serve mulitiple purposes. I only know of a few things like the Retinol Binding Protein that is (to my knowledge) only responsible for retinol. Im not talking about what processes retinol affect but the substances etc that are specific to retinol and its derivates, and not used to get rid of other stuff like aldehydes and alcohols. I think its interesting that a supposed vitamin shares pathways with a lot of surely mainly harmful stuff.
"I think its worth commenting on your last post. Its hardly possible to seperate or even claim there is an existing distinction between "usefull" and harmfull substances. Surely there are some substances that we can do without, but that doesnt make for a definition. It is always a sliding scale of usefullness and harmfullness and sometimes they overlap. There is no vitamin that wont kill you if overdoses sufficiently. Toxins is a highly dubious term and are seldom used in scientific papers. Or Iron? Its clearly a substance of both importance and trouble to take a low hanging fruit."
---Iron is extremely necessary to human life, it's integral to oxygen utilization among other things. We haven't identified roles for aluminum, mercury, lead, cadmium, etc. in human biology, and we've identified toxic outcomes from their presence in the body, so until such time that we do find a necessary role, we call them toxins. I already mentioned the well-accepted concept that essential substances typically fall on a U-shaped curve where either end of the curve (too little, too much) leads to worse health outcomes. The relative harm posed by any substance is context dependent, but there are a large number of substances on which the body depends, and another set of substances on which the body does not depend AND WHICH ARE ASSOCIATED WITH NEGATIVE OUTCOMES. A toxin is something for which no useful role has been identified and for which negative outcomes have been identified. What don't you get about this simple concept?
"I think its a little funny that everytime I or someone else posts a study refuting your claims you suddenly find it to not be important anymore - or at least not affect your position."
---Like what, that some carotenoids are associated with herbivory in plants? Did you even read that paper you cited? Here's some text from it:
During herbivory, antioxidants such as ascorbic acid, total carotenoids, non-protein thiols and catalase decreased systemically in plants (Bi and Felton 1995). The breakdown of carotenoids, chlorophylls and the production of VOCs may be symptomatic of autotoxicity or the result of strategic management of ROS by plants.
---Plants typically increase defensive compounds in response to herbivory so carotenoids do not appear to be defensive compounds based on this observation.
Zheng et al. (2010) used gene-silencing techniques to show that plant tissues that lacked carotenoids and became photo-bleached were both less attractive to an ovipositing butterfly and less nutritious for its offspring than tissue from fully competent plants.
---Insects typically do not SEEK insecticides so carotenoids do not appear to be defensive compounds based on this observation.
Carotenoid pigmentation is correlated with levels of toxic defensive compounds and can function as precursors to these compounds, such as the predator repellent grasshopper ketone.
---Correlation is not causation, precursors to defensive compounds are not defensive compounds.
Scanning through the paper, I see nothing that indicates that carotenoids themselves are harmful to insects or other animals. They may at times be a precursor to harmful compounds (maybe because the harmful compounds themselves are volatile/reactive and either don't last long in the plant or pose a risk to the plant itself, much like cruciferous plants store a precursor to sulforaphane that only converts to sulforaphane when the plant walls are crushed), but carotenoids appear to be mainly linked with antioxidant activity associated with photosynthesis, and because of this they tend to ATTRACT insects and other herbivores because they signal the presence of nutrition for those herbivores. Herbivores do not seek out poisons.
You really need to get your shit straight and quit your accusations. (BTW I never "dared" you to provide supporting evidence for your statements, we're not in elementary school here. I asked for it because you keep spouting nonsense, and sure enough your reference confirmed you were spouting nonsense.)
"I also think this is the right time to say that I am not 100%sure vitamin A is not a vitamin. I doubt it, as, as I have stated I have not seen any research that undoubtfully shows it to be, but several that seems to indicate the oposite. That means I have the position of a tentative placement of it as non-vitamin until further info might surface. So far I havent seen it but it doesnt exclude the possibility. AlsoI dont think its prudent to conclude (as I've hinted at before) that something might not have a function even if it might be toxic. I think the body are somewhat adapted to a lot of stressors. Like gravity, pathogens, or darkness. (darkness to does induce a stressreaction in the body, but still we have adapted to use that). Or reactive oxygen species. SO while I might be very direct in pointing out what I find to be unsatisfactory evidence, Im less sure about its absolute negativity . If anybody can show that a reasonably similar to humans (including humans) specie actually do BETTER without vitamin A then with a moderate/low amount, THEN I will consider putting it in the purely negative box."
---On what basis do you reject Vitamin A as essential for vision? Why don't you work your way through the references in https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8835581/ and tell me what they got wrong...
"I'd by the way be intrigued to hear how you feel about the body's handling of alcohol. (yes, retinol is also an alcohol, - which is intersting, but that's another topic). Im thinking about the kind of ethanol which is what people normally drink. It is handled quite similarly to retinol though it is to my knowledge not stored. But it does circulate in tremendously much higher amount then retinol when ingested, and is using many of the same dehydrogenase enzymes. I would think its at least relevant that few of the systems used in the vitamin A cascades in the body are completly and solely dedicated to vitamin A but like most stuff in the body serve mulitiple purposes. I only know of a few things like the Retinol Binding Protein that is (to my knowledge) only responsible for retinol. Im not talking about what processes retinol affect but the substances etc that are specific to retinol and its derivates, and not used to get rid of other stuff like aldehydes and alcohols. I think its interesting that a supposed vitamin shares pathways with a lot of surely mainly harmful stuff."
---I'm not well versed in chemistry, but I'm aware retinol is chemically classified as an alcohol, which is a compound with a hydroxyl (OH) group...there are tons of these and they all have different properties, calling something an alcohol gives you little predictive power over its actions in a biological system. Ethanol can be used for energy in the human body and the body probably prefers that it be contained and metabolized within the liver, but I'm guessing humans ingest such huge quantities of it in rapidly absorbed man-made liquids that the liver cannot contain all of it and it winds up in circulation before it can get removed. Chemically speaking, I don't know why ethanol and retinol are both metabolized by alcohol dehydrogenase, but they are both compounds the human body has regularly been exposed to throughout its evolution. Just remember that humans were most likely not consuming huge quantities of ethanol until there was widespread agriculture; until then it probably represented a minor and suboptimal source of energy from fermenting foods but was not available in sufficient quantities to cause major distress. (As an aside, dipSmith likes to say that tocopherol is also an alcohol and is therefore a poison, which it most definitely is not...it is also not metabolized by ADH as far as I know, even though it is an alcohol.)
Quote from wavygravygadzooks on August 18, 2023, 4:51 pm"I think its worth commenting on your last post. Its hardly possible to seperate or even claim there is an existing distinction between "usefull" and harmfull substances. Surely there are some substances that we can do without, but that doesnt make for a definition. It is always a sliding scale of usefullness and harmfullness and sometimes they overlap. There is no vitamin that wont kill you if overdoses sufficiently. Toxins is a highly dubious term and are seldom used in scientific papers. Or Iron? Its clearly a substance of both importance and trouble to take a low hanging fruit."
---Iron is extremely necessary to human life, it's integral to oxygen utilization among other things. We haven't identified roles for aluminum, mercury, lead, cadmium, etc. in human biology, and we've identified toxic outcomes from their presence in the body, so until such time that we do find a necessary role, we call them toxins. I already mentioned the well-accepted concept that essential substances typically fall on a U-shaped curve where either end of the curve (too little, too much) leads to worse health outcomes. The relative harm posed by any substance is context dependent, but there are a large number of substances on which the body depends, and another set of substances on which the body does not depend AND WHICH ARE ASSOCIATED WITH NEGATIVE OUTCOMES. A toxin is something for which no useful role has been identified and for which negative outcomes have been identified. What don't you get about this simple concept?
"I think its a little funny that everytime I or someone else posts a study refuting your claims you suddenly find it to not be important anymore - or at least not affect your position."
---Like what, that some carotenoids are associated with herbivory in plants? Did you even read that paper you cited? Here's some text from it:
During herbivory, antioxidants such as ascorbic acid, total carotenoids, non-protein thiols and catalase decreased systemically in plants (Bi and Felton 1995). The breakdown of carotenoids, chlorophylls and the production of VOCs may be symptomatic of autotoxicity or the result of strategic management of ROS by plants.
---Plants typically increase defensive compounds in response to herbivory so carotenoids do not appear to be defensive compounds based on this observation.
Zheng et al. (2010) used gene-silencing techniques to show that plant tissues that lacked carotenoids and became photo-bleached were both less attractive to an ovipositing butterfly and less nutritious for its offspring than tissue from fully competent plants.
---Insects typically do not SEEK insecticides so carotenoids do not appear to be defensive compounds based on this observation.
Carotenoid pigmentation is correlated with levels of toxic defensive compounds and can function as precursors to these compounds, such as the predator repellent grasshopper ketone.
---Correlation is not causation, precursors to defensive compounds are not defensive compounds.
Scanning through the paper, I see nothing that indicates that carotenoids themselves are harmful to insects or other animals. They may at times be a precursor to harmful compounds (maybe because the harmful compounds themselves are volatile/reactive and either don't last long in the plant or pose a risk to the plant itself, much like cruciferous plants store a precursor to sulforaphane that only converts to sulforaphane when the plant walls are crushed), but carotenoids appear to be mainly linked with antioxidant activity associated with photosynthesis, and because of this they tend to ATTRACT insects and other herbivores because they signal the presence of nutrition for those herbivores. Herbivores do not seek out poisons.
You really need to get your shit straight and quit your accusations. (BTW I never "dared" you to provide supporting evidence for your statements, we're not in elementary school here. I asked for it because you keep spouting nonsense, and sure enough your reference confirmed you were spouting nonsense.)
"I also think this is the right time to say that I am not 100%sure vitamin A is not a vitamin. I doubt it, as, as I have stated I have not seen any research that undoubtfully shows it to be, but several that seems to indicate the oposite. That means I have the position of a tentative placement of it as non-vitamin until further info might surface. So far I havent seen it but it doesnt exclude the possibility. AlsoI dont think its prudent to conclude (as I've hinted at before) that something might not have a function even if it might be toxic. I think the body are somewhat adapted to a lot of stressors. Like gravity, pathogens, or darkness. (darkness to does induce a stressreaction in the body, but still we have adapted to use that). Or reactive oxygen species. SO while I might be very direct in pointing out what I find to be unsatisfactory evidence, Im less sure about its absolute negativity . If anybody can show that a reasonably similar to humans (including humans) specie actually do BETTER without vitamin A then with a moderate/low amount, THEN I will consider putting it in the purely negative box."
---On what basis do you reject Vitamin A as essential for vision? Why don't you work your way through the references in https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8835581/ and tell me what they got wrong...
"I'd by the way be intrigued to hear how you feel about the body's handling of alcohol. (yes, retinol is also an alcohol, - which is intersting, but that's another topic). Im thinking about the kind of ethanol which is what people normally drink. It is handled quite similarly to retinol though it is to my knowledge not stored. But it does circulate in tremendously much higher amount then retinol when ingested, and is using many of the same dehydrogenase enzymes. I would think its at least relevant that few of the systems used in the vitamin A cascades in the body are completly and solely dedicated to vitamin A but like most stuff in the body serve mulitiple purposes. I only know of a few things like the Retinol Binding Protein that is (to my knowledge) only responsible for retinol. Im not talking about what processes retinol affect but the substances etc that are specific to retinol and its derivates, and not used to get rid of other stuff like aldehydes and alcohols. I think its interesting that a supposed vitamin shares pathways with a lot of surely mainly harmful stuff."
---I'm not well versed in chemistry, but I'm aware retinol is chemically classified as an alcohol, which is a compound with a hydroxyl (OH) group...there are tons of these and they all have different properties, calling something an alcohol gives you little predictive power over its actions in a biological system. Ethanol can be used for energy in the human body and the body probably prefers that it be contained and metabolized within the liver, but I'm guessing humans ingest such huge quantities of it in rapidly absorbed man-made liquids that the liver cannot contain all of it and it winds up in circulation before it can get removed. Chemically speaking, I don't know why ethanol and retinol are both metabolized by alcohol dehydrogenase, but they are both compounds the human body has regularly been exposed to throughout its evolution. Just remember that humans were most likely not consuming huge quantities of ethanol until there was widespread agriculture; until then it probably represented a minor and suboptimal source of energy from fermenting foods but was not available in sufficient quantities to cause major distress. (As an aside, dipSmith likes to say that tocopherol is also an alcohol and is therefore a poison, which it most definitely is not...it is also not metabolized by ADH as far as I know, even though it is an alcohol.)
I think the reason I cannot "get" your simple concept is that its just that - a simplified concept and not a very realistic view of nature. Its hard to argue against insisting on "it has to be this simple". Well howere that may be I would like to answer your comment about alcohol which was what I asked for - I see no reason to indulge in your arguemnts about sight - last time I check I have improved my sight from stopping A, and so has Grant and many others..
But on the alcohol. I just mentioned a substance that uses the same detox-pathways and is much more abundant then retinol and asked your thoughts about that. I agree that we by any reasonability had very little alcohol historically (pre-historically). some fermented foods and some dysbiosis probably and that's it. That's probably very similar to the situation with retinol. We always had problems when overconsuming it - oldest find of suspected hypervitaminosis A (which we at least agree exists) is a homo erectus find from africa more than 1 million years old. And most pre-agricultural cultures eat less then the daily lower recomendations according to medical and anthropological studies . its referred to as some sort of paradox. The Hazda people f.ex have been especially scrutinized for eye-disorders, partly due to there low intake of vitamin A and they found none. My point here isnt the eyes, but that I assume its the same with alchohol. We deal fine with some but if we do artificially high amounts like we do today we get into trouble.
"I think the reason I cannot "get" your simple concept is that its just that - a simplified concept and not a very realistic view of nature. Its hard to argue against insisting on "it has to be this simple"."
Pretty much all of our descriptions of reality are a simplified version of actual reality...that doesn't make them invalid. The utility of a model is measured by its predictive value, and there is very good predictive value in distinguishing between what we call a "vitamin" vs a "toxin".
"I see no reason to indulge in your arguemnts about sight - last time I check I have improved my sight from stopping A, and so has Grant and many others.."
You and Grant REDUCED your Vitamin A intakes. They are not zero. And you don't even know how much you are consuming without directly measuring what's in the food you're eating. You can estimate it based on food databases that are listing limited results from a small, undefined sample of the food, but guess what, that is a SIMPLIFICATION of reality, which you so detest... And guess what else, when you changed your diet you didn't just change the Vitamin A content, you changed a whole suite of other things, which in science is what we call CONFOUNDING VARIABLES. Without controlling for those variables, you don't know whether it's the reduction in Vitamin A or something else that is resulting in your improved eyesight.
You see why I am so dismissive of your comments and those of people like you? You basically just told me you refuted an entire review of Vitamin A research relating to vision WITHOUT READING IT and based solely on the fact that you noticed a personal improvement in vision (was this objectively measured by an optometrist?) after purportedly reducing the Vitamin A content of your food (without actually measuring the content of your food). And because you believe a man who also claims to have overturned ALL of Vitamin A science through a not-so-different poorly-measured self-experiment. (Always adding this note: I think there is value in what Grant is doing, he is just way overreaching in his conclusions.)
"The Hazda people f.ex have been especially scrutinized for eye-disorders, partly due to there low intake of vitamin A and they found none."
The Hadza probably have a higher intake of retinol and animal protein than many people in "civilized" areas, and a corresponding lower intake of carotenoids and other plant compounds. They appear to eat the livers of the animals they kill, and they primarily subsist on animals, so many of them are probably eating a small portion of liver at least every other day. But like I said in other posts, I'm beginning to think that the symptoms of Vitamin A deficiency in today's world are most often due to protein deficiency or deficiency in another cofactor of Vitamin A metabolism rather than a deficiency in Vitamin A itself. This scenario usually results from an absence of regular meat consumption.
Quote from wavygravygadzooks on August 18, 2023, 5:48 pm"I think the reason I cannot "get" your simple concept is that its just that - a simplified concept and not a very realistic view of nature. Its hard to argue against insisting on "it has to be this simple"."
Pretty much all of our descriptions of reality are a simplified version of actual reality...that doesn't make them invalid. The utility of a model is measured by its predictive value, and there is very good predictive value in distinguishing between what we call a "vitamin" vs a "toxin".
No that is plain wrong. I didnt find it worth my time to prove it as when you are diverging quite heavily from scientific litterature, its not my job to correct you (or anyone else for that matter).
A toxin has - to the degree that the term is used. Where I took my medical education it is hardly in use, but in other countries it is more broadly use. The restricted meaning is a plant-compound based on protein , the broader definition is any substance having a toxic effect on the body. Which is simply a dose dependent fact. I quote here a simple introduction to toxology which I will link also: "
toxin is a chemical substance which damages an organism. A toxin may be as simple as an ion or atom which negatively interferes with a cell. A toxin can also be in the form of complex molecules such as the proteins found in snake venom. Still other atoms and chemicals emit radiation, which has toxic effects on an organism. The effects of toxins vary widely in different organisms, and with different toxins. The end result of the strongest toxins is death, due to the damage they cause across the different cells of an organism. Different toxins act in different ways to affect the cells they damage.
In the study of Toxicology, the central motto is that, “all substances are toxic, it is only the dose which matters.” This fact can be demonstrated with water and oxygen. Both substances are normally good and we consider them beneficial for all forms of life. If your body holds too much water, your individual cells will not be able to operate efficiently and your body will slowly “drown”, even if you aren’t submerged in the water. And oxygen, the live giving gas, can be fatal at certain pressures."
here is the link to the article: https://biologydictionary.net/toxin/
This means that Reactive Oxygen Species is part of the group of toxins - we must use the broad definition since you as I understand you does not refer only to plant proteins. ROS are a group of toxins that is ALSO USED by the body in is actually vital though they are toxins and destructive. Here is a relatively approachable paper on how the body needs this toxin: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1550838/
"I see no reason to indulge in your arguemnts about sight - last time I check I have improved my sight from stopping A, and so has Grant and many others.."
You and Grant REDUCED your Vitamin A intakes. They are not zero. And you don't even know how much you are consuming without directly measuring what's in the food you're eating. You can estimate it based on food databases that are listing limited results from a small, undefined sample of the food, but guess what, that is a SIMPLIFICATION of reality, which you so detest... And guess what else, when you changed your diet you didn't just change the Vitamin A content, you changed a whole suite of other things, which in science is what we call CONFOUNDING VARIABLES. Without controlling for those variables, you don't know whether it's the reduction in Vitamin A or something else that is resulting in your improved eyesight.
I agree that I cannot know that it was what improved my eyesight. Actually one can only disprove a hypothesis never prove it but be that as it may - you dont seriously mean that the approximations from databases are so far of that if it shows you are eating f.ex 5% of daily intake you are really quite high?? It might be off but not that much. Also you presume a lot. I eat only locally sourced food and I check my nutrient intake with both analyzis done by researchers and farming organisation on the actual content of the relevant foods. Its not perfect but its pretty good.
You see why I am so dismissive of your comments and those of people like you? You basically just told me you refuted an entire review of Vitamin A research relating to vision WITHOUT READING IT and based solely on the fact that you noticed a personal improvement in vision (was this objectively measured by an optometrist?) after purportedly reducing the Vitamin A content of your food (without actually measuring the content of your food). And because you believe a man who also claims to have overturned ALL of Vitamin A science through a not-so-different poorly-measured self-experiment. (Always adding this note: I think there is value in what Grant is doing, he is just way overreaching in his conclusions.)
How on earth did you come to the conclusion I havent read any papers?? where did you pull that one from?? See my previous part on the content of the food. I dont belive in any mortal man, I belive in arguments and find them sufficient until someone comes with something better, and thats how i think it should be. You should never belive in people blindly but always make your own conclusions.
"The Hazda people f.ex have been especially scrutinized for eye-disorders, partly due to there low intake of vitamin A and they found none."
The Hadza probably have a higher intake of retinol and animal protein than many people in "civilized" areas, and a corresponding lower intake of carotenoids and other plant compounds. They appear to eat the livers of the animals they kill, and they primarily subsist on animals, so many of them are probably eating a small portion of liver at least every other day. But like I said in other posts, I'm beginning to think that the symptoms of Vitamin A deficiency in today's world are most often due to protein deficiency or deficiency in another cofactor of Vitamin A metabolism rather than a deficiency in Vitamin A itself. This scenario usually results from an absence of regular meat consumption.
If you dont know what you are talking about then dont embarrase yourself. If you read the actually extensive litterature on Hazda food habits an analyzis of their seasonal nutritional intake, which also has been verified by analyzis you will see that the large majority of the vitamin A they get is from plantfoods, especially fruit. There are seasonal variations and variations between the sexes but the liver eating is a very periferal part of the diet that only some of the hunters sometimes parttake in. If you have some proof that the decades long studies on their nutritional situation is false Ill be happy to see/read it as there has been many instances of premature conclusions but I would like to add that this has been studied for decades and also that the Hazda does not stand out. Dont base nutritional data on tribes from blogs or youtube.
I must though say that I think too low of a protein intake might exasperate the problems in the modern/western civilization, though for me it was more a matter of trying to eat healthy and thus stuffing myself with bright coloured vegetables, liver and dairy. Oh and that does not mean I base any theory on it - it means I agree and that I use myself as an example here. So its not too unclear. Im sorry if you get provoked but I also have little tolerance for some things. I dont mind ignorance, and am also myself highly ignorant in many respects, but you post a lot of stuff making it look like "obviously science knows this", while not knowing what science says and then I get the urge .... peace out
Quote from Henrik on August 18, 2023, 6:22 pmQuote from wavygravygadzooks on August 18, 2023, 5:48 pm"I think the reason I cannot "get" your simple concept is that its just that - a simplified concept and not a very realistic view of nature. Its hard to argue against insisting on "it has to be this simple"."
Pretty much all of our descriptions of reality are a simplified version of actual reality...that doesn't make them invalid. The utility of a model is measured by its predictive value, and there is very good predictive value in distinguishing between what we call a "vitamin" vs a "toxin".
No that is plain wrong. I didnt find it worth my time to prove it as when you are diverging quite heavily from scientific litterature, its not my job to correct you (or anyone else for that matter).
A toxin has - to the degree that the term is used. Where I took my medical education it is hardly in use, but in other countries it is more broadly use. The restricted meaning is a plant-compound based on protein , the broader definition is any substance having a toxic effect on the body. Which is simply a dose dependent fact. I quote here a simple introduction to toxology which I will link also:
"A toxin is a chemical substance which damages an organism. A toxin may be as simple as an ion or atom which negatively interferes with a cell. A toxin can also be in the form of complex molecules such as the proteins found in snake venom. Still other atoms and chemicals emit radiation, which has toxic effects on an organism. The effects of toxins vary widely in different organisms, and with different toxins. The end result of the strongest toxins is death, due to the damage they cause across the different cells of an organism. Different toxins act in different ways to affect the cells they damage.
In the study of Toxicology, the central motto is that, “all substances are toxic, it is only the dose which matters.” This fact can be demonstrated with water and oxygen. Both substances are normally good and we consider them beneficial for all forms of life. If your body holds too much water, your individual cells will not be able to operate efficiently and your body will slowly “drown”, even if you aren’t submerged in the water. And oxygen, the live giving gas, can be fatal at certain pressures."
here is the link to the article: https://biologydictionary.net/toxin/
This means that Reactive Oxygen Species is part of the group of toxins - we must use the broad definition since you as I understand you does not refer only to plant proteins. ROS are a group of toxins that is ALSO USED by the body in is actually vital though they are toxins and destructive. Here is a relatively approachable paper on how the body needs this toxin: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1550838/
"I see no reason to indulge in your arguemnts about sight - last time I check I have improved my sight from stopping A, and so has Grant and many others.."
You and Grant REDUCED your Vitamin A intakes. They are not zero. And you don't even know how much you are consuming without directly measuring what's in the food you're eating. You can estimate it based on food databases that are listing limited results from a small, undefined sample of the food, but guess what, that is a SIMPLIFICATION of reality, which you so detest... And guess what else, when you changed your diet you didn't just change the Vitamin A content, you changed a whole suite of other things, which in science is what we call CONFOUNDING VARIABLES. Without controlling for those variables, you don't know whether it's the reduction in Vitamin A or something else that is resulting in your improved eyesight.
I agree that I cannot know that it was what improved my eyesight. Actually one can only disprove a hypothesis never prove it but be that as it may - you dont seriously mean that the approximations from databases are so far of that if it shows you are eating f.ex 5% of daily intake you are really quite high?? It might be off but not that much.
Also you presume a lot. I eat only locally sourced food and I check my nutrient intake with both analyzis done by researchers and farming organisation on the actual content of the relevant foods. Its not perfect but its pretty good.
You see why I am so dismissive of your comments and those of people like you? You basically just told me you refuted an entire review of Vitamin A research relating to vision WITHOUT READING IT and based solely on the fact that you noticed a personal improvement in vision (was this objectively measured by an optometrist?) after purportedly reducing the Vitamin A content of your food (without actually measuring the content of your food). And because you believe a man who also claims to have overturned ALL of Vitamin A science through a not-so-different poorly-measured self-experiment. (Always adding this note: I think there is value in what Grant is doing, he is just way overreaching in his conclusions.)
How on earth did you come to the conclusion I havent read any papers?? where did you pull that one from??
See my previous part on the content of the food.
I dont belive in any mortal man, I belive in arguments and find them sufficient until someone comes with something better, and thats how i think it should be. You should never belive in people blindly but always make your own conclusions.
"The Hazda people f.ex have been especially scrutinized for eye-disorders, partly due to there low intake of vitamin A and they found none."
The Hadza probably have a higher intake of retinol and animal protein than many people in "civilized" areas, and a corresponding lower intake of carotenoids and other plant compounds. They appear to eat the livers of the animals they kill, and they primarily subsist on animals, so many of them are probably eating a small portion of liver at least every other day. But like I said in other posts, I'm beginning to think that the symptoms of Vitamin A deficiency in today's world are most often due to protein deficiency or deficiency in another cofactor of Vitamin A metabolism rather than a deficiency in Vitamin A itself. This scenario usually results from an absence of regular meat consumption.
If you dont know what you are talking about then dont embarrase yourself. If you read the actually extensive litterature on Hazda food habits an analyzis of their seasonal nutritional intake, which also has been verified by analyzis you will see that the large majority of the vitamin A they get is from plantfoods, especially fruit. There are seasonal variations and variations between the sexes but the liver eating is a very periferal part of the diet that only some of the hunters sometimes parttake in. If you have some proof that the decades long studies on their nutritional situation is false Ill be happy to see/read it as there has been many instances of premature conclusions but I would like to add that this has been studied for decades and also that the Hazda does not stand out. Dont base nutritional data on tribes from blogs or youtube. Also please remember that I used them as an example - they are quite typical in many ways on their nutrient ratios/compositions, and the data on low intake is typical for many such societies.
I must though say that I think you are right that too low of a protein intake might exasperate the problems in the modern/western civilization, though for me it was more a matter of trying to eat healthy and thus stuffing myself with bright coloured vegetables, liver and dairy. Oh and that does not mean I base any theory on it - it means I agree and that I use myself as an example here. So its not too unclear. Im sorry if you get provoked but I also have little tolerance for some things. I dont mind ignorance, and am also myself highly ignorant in many respects, but you post a lot of stuff making it look like "obviously science knows this", while not knowing what science says and then I get the urge .... peace out
Check out Mary Ruddick's material. I'm not going to claim she spent more time with the Hadza tribes than other researchers, but what she observed appears to be quite different from what was published in earlier studies, particularly the notion that they eat a high fiber diet was not observed by Ruddick. I don't think she's officially published her observations yet but you could consider her a journalist with first hand observations if nothing more.
I'm done here for now. I had held my tongue for a good long while and should have kept it held instead of re-engaging in this forum. Talking to some people here is like playing ping-pong with a wall...the wall always tires you out first, not because it's good at ping-pong, but because it's a stubborn, mindless WALL. The only thing I get from this site anymore is \/\/\/\/\/
Quote from wavygravygadzooks on August 18, 2023, 6:55 pmCheck out Mary Ruddick's material. I'm not going to claim she spent more time with the Hadza tribes than other researchers, but what she observed appears to be quite different from what was published in earlier studies, particularly the notion that they eat a high fiber diet was not observed by Ruddick. I don't think she's officially published her observations yet but you could consider her a journalist with first hand observations if nothing more.
I'm done here for now. I had held my tongue for a good long while and should have kept it held instead of re-engaging in this forum. Talking to some people here is like playing ping-pong with a wall...the wall always tires you out first, not because it's good at ping-pong, but because it's a stubborn, mindless WALL. The only thing I get from this site anymore is \/\/\/\/\/
I checked her out. I rest my case as it show your complete lack of insight in this field She is a low carb frill selling supplements and bluezone books, not a proper scientist and if you belive she is an authority on hadza I have nothing to add. Except yeah the fiber is long since debunked