I needed to disable self sign-ups because I’ve been getting too many spam-type accounts. Thanks.
synthetic vs natural VA
I was talking with some WAPF'ers and they were putting forward the notion that all of the problems we talk about here are due to SYNTHETIC VA, and have nothing to do with VA that arises naturally in nature.
I suppose they could have an interesting point, and perhaps one that needs research. It would be a point that is hard to prove because very few people have lived a life devoid of vitamin A that comes from a lab. (it is even in animal feeds, and so I would wonder if agricultural foods are not exempt from the discussion).
My first thought is that many of the diseases we discuss are ancient, such as lupus or rheumatism.
Your thoughts?
Hi lil chick,
I disagree with that WAPF view, A molecule is a molecule. It makes absolutely no difference if it was made in nature by a plant, or in a lab. Plants were here long before us humans showed up. Contrary to popular belief, plants were not put on the planet for our dining pleasure. These nice photosensitizing and fertility toxins plants produce are not by chance.
However, yes, there are some synthetic retinoids that do not naturally occur in nature. But, by a very wide margin, these are not the ones that have now moved millions of people into a chronic disease condition.
Agreeing with Grant here. WAPF is pure BS. Let me know when they have a polar bear liver challenge.
Have you checked Nourishing Traditions to see what is written there?
Obviously natural vA can lead to Hypervitaminosis A, this isn't up for debate.
There is a difference between natural and synthetic though. Synthetic vA differs isomerically. I can't find the source but I've seen it discussed.
As I've previously stated synthetic vitamins are problematic from a homeopathic/energetic perspective but they are also problematic from a conventional scientific perspective too. The reason is is that synthetic vitamins can be a mix of subtle molecular variations sharing the same molecular formula. Very subtle differences can have important differences in their physiological effect. The nature fallacy is the nature fallacy until it isnt...
https://www.masterorganicchemistry.com/2018/09/10/types-of-isomers/
@tim-2, regarding "Nourishing Traditions" (NT), I was noticing that in the book she often quotes a paper "Vitamin A Vagary". https://www.realmilk.com/health/vitamin-a-vagary/ I never realized it is her own paper, written in 1995 and published by the Price Pottenger Foundation. I kinda thought it was another author's opinion that gave credence to her point of view. To me, the paper is quite intuitive (more like one of my posts) rather than scientific (like one of Tim's). https://www.realmilk.com/health/vitamin-a-vagary/ Here is a chunk, (the reverse of VA toxicity thought):
"...This vital nutrient is needed for the growth and repair of body tissues; it helps protect mucous membranes of the mouth, nose, throat and lungs; it prompts the secretion of gastric juices necessary for proper digestion of protein; it helps to build strong bones and teeth and rich blood; it is essential for good eyesight; it aids in the production of RNA; and contributes to the health of the immune system. Vitamin A deficiency in pregnant mothers results in offspring with eye defects, displaced kidneys, harelip, cleft palate and abnormalities of the heart and larger blood vessels."
Then I eventually ended up re-skimming Chris Masterjohn's arcticle here: https://www.westonaprice.org/health-topics/abcs-of-nutrition/vitamin-a-on-trial-does-vitamin-a-cause-osteoporosis/ This article only looks at one aspect of VA toxicity (bone loss), and uses animal models (humans aren't chickens or rats). But it does make me wonder if most of us with chronic VA overload don't get sunshine.
To return to the subject at hand, both NT and Masterjohn's articles do call out synthetic VA as being bad.
Just on a personal note, in the world of fake news, isn't it tiresome to yet again be faced with two camps that are so completely at odds with what they think is true? Is confusion sown purposefully?
On the other hand, I can see how a person un-wittingly going through VA detox might suffer mucus membrane dryness in the mouth and nose, low stomach acid, changes in eyesight etc... and blame it on VA "deficiency" rather than detox.
I don't feel confused about vA. There are very negative effects from deficiency as well as excess.
The problem with WAPF is that they go on about the wonders of a vitamin that nobody is deficient in and many are toxic with. There are two crucial pieces of evidence that you can show to WAPFers to change their mind. Autopsy liver analysis studies and tables of average serum vA by age.