I needed to disable self sign-ups because I’ve been getting too many spam-type accounts. Thanks.
The 1945 study: "Activated carbon diets and early vitamin A deficiency. Application to the preparation of diets without vitamin A" (translated from French)
@jessica2
I unfortunately think you are drawing too hasty and subjective conclusions. I would avoid taking any of the study's words at face value, especially in regards to vitamin A deficency from reading Grant Genereux's books.
For me it was a while since I looked at this study but here are a few points I can add:
- I am not at all sure that the casein they used in this 1945 study was vitamin A deficient. I believe retinoic acids was not chemically discovered until 1960s-1970s. Can't find something they don't even know exists.
- The use a disgusting type of "purified" diet with some of the ingredients unknown to us right now, like "Mineral blend (McCollum and Davis)" in one experiment and "Mineral mix with vitamins" in another experiment.
- 2 weight % of your diet in charcoal seems like a very high dose. Could this have made the rats constipated on a "purified" diet and sick all by it self? Scientists push things to the limit to get fast and nice looking responses.
- Don't mix charcoal with vitamin K, a fat-soluble substance, and it probably won't impede with its absorption. Just in the same manner one could avoid eating carotenoids with fat since then you will have a much lower absorption of them.
Glad you found the study interesting though, but remember like I said earlier, this is a online translation of the original paper. It probably contains several translation mistakes.
@jessica2 "Perhaps...but they tested the livers of the dead animals and they had no VA. Shouldn't those rats have been the picture of health and wellness?"
The question is was there anything else apart from vit A missing in the diet?
@jessica2 well I said many times that taking charcoal long term is not a good idea. It can deplete essential elements as well.. The only binder that should be in the diet constantly is fiber.. Charcoal should be taken only when you feel some detox reaction or some digestive issues..
Quote from Jessica2 on February 7, 2024, 6:39 amI wholeheartedly agree with you Jiri. My experience with charcoal is not very good. It does appear useful in medical settings for certain poisons or for heartburn. Other than that, and as I rarely get heartburn, I'm not touching it again with a 10-ft pole.
I do have a bag of it left it might be fun to use it for tooth whitening or for a face mask with my daughters and to have on hand in case of emergencies.
Sometimes I think you are an agent here trying to refute everything! LOL I guess it keeps us humble.
I haven't looked at this study and I won't, very poorly designed. Charcoal will adsorb nutrients, it's no surprise such a large amount of it will cause death quickly. Just proves... we actually need nutrients, cant adosrb all of it and expect to be healthy!
Quote from Jessica2 on February 7, 2024, 7:47 amI am contrarian by nature, this is true.
But I jumped into low VA and gave it my all hoping it would solve my health issues and it didn't. So what would you do in that case? Try to convince everybody that low VA is the miracle diet we all want it to be in spite of your poor results?
So if you haven't looked at the study how do you know it's poorly designed? Would any study using charcoal be poorly designed because it simply uses charcoal? It has to be a miniscule amount otherwise it's not worth looking at? I'm also just reporting my anecdotal experience with charcoal. And it wasn't good. Sorry I had that and if that makes anybody uncomfortable.
I happen to think it's super interesting that the rats with zero vitamin A in their liver appeared unhealthy and died before the other ones did. If vitamin A is a poison all the time everywhere to every creature these rats really should have been super healthy.
Also: I'm "agent" of no one else but myself. If I wanted to cause misery and somebody's life there's so many better ways you can do that then by refuting toxic vitamin A Theory. I love a good conspiracy theory but the one that they're trying to poison us by toxic vitamin A is really next level stupid bullshit and it really turns people off to the idea that vitamin A can be toxic in certain instances which I do believe, which has been already fairly well established in nutritional science. Like I previously mentioned there's much better ways "they" can and do ruin the masses lives.
So I read the study, actually it does tell us something, that vitamin K would be necessary to supplement if you are going to use activated carbon to deplete vitamin A. Vitamin C as well. But most people here are not using it throughout the day, just once or twice away from food. I assume the way they gave the activated carbon is with the food. Which would obviously destroy the very sensitive fat soluble vitamins. Vitamin A is very sensitive to destruction. I guess we can include K and C in that assessment as well. So we would do well to make sure NOT to use carbon with food so it does not destroy nutrients. I had been taking it half hour before breakfast, and right before sleep.
I still think the study is poorly designed giving them that much activated charcoal with their food. If vitamin A is necessary in some amount, they really did make sure there was none left by destroying it with the charcoal. Most will never get to that level of destruction. And most will never get to that level of vitamin K and vitamin C deficiency.
I wonder what @ggenereux thinks of this study?
This needed to be studied further: " Once the vitamin deficiency had set in, we administered vitamin A to certain animals in
both groups, after removing the carbon in group 338. The animals in both groups reacted
normally to this administration."
What happened to those rats? What's 'normally'? Did they recover their health and live a long life? lol Doesn't sound like they followed them.
Quote from Jessica2 on February 7, 2024, 10:57 am@janelle525 did the idea that BOTH groups of rats had eye lesions and leg issues seem intriguing to you?
Remember that both groups were fed vitamin A deficient diets, but only one had the charcoal hence only one would also be deficient in C and/or K due to charcoal.
It is intriguing, I'm inclined to believe that vitamin A is necessary in very small amounts. I just wonder why Grant has not developed the same problems yet with such a minuscule amount in his serum? It's extremely confusing. I got a vit A test, mine came back normal at 35. I've been loosely doing the experiment since middle of 2018. Never going above about 700 mcg a day. I think we did ourselves a lot of harm by thinking it was something we use up quickly. It's clearly not. I am thinking the RDA is more like 200 mcg. Anything above that you are storing for later and eventually the ticking time bomb goes off and you die. Haha that's basically life.
Interesting study, I summarize for people not understand it.
(1) Vitamin A "deficient" diet
Control group lose weight after ~80 days, die after ~100 days.
Carbon group lose weight after ~40 days, die after ~50 days.
Some "saved" by Vitamin A administration when sign of deficiency and not die.
Conclusion: carbon makes lose weight and die twice as fast. Vitamin A administration prevent death and disease.
(2) "Low" Vitamin A diet
Control group lose weight after 60-90 days, die after 80-100 days.
Carbon group lose weight after ~40 days, die after 50-70 days.
Conclusion: carbon still makes lose weight and die twice as fast.
(3) Vitamin A fortified diet
No difference in control and carbon group. No death after 90 days.
Conclusion: carbon not cause death when Vitamin A administered.
(4) Pregnancy with "low" Vitamin A diet
Carbon group offspring die after 35-40 days.
(5) "High" Vitamin A diet then "low" Vitamin A diet
Some control group lose weight after 70 days, die after 120 days, but one control group not die.
Carbon group lose weight after 75-85 days, die after 95-105 days.
Both group have no Vitamin A in liver after 70 days.
Conclusion: carbon no effect liver Vitamin A but makes die faster when zero liver Vitamin A.
TOTAL CONCLUSION
All lose weight and die if not enough Vitamin A in diet.
Carbon makes lose weight and die faster if not enough Vitamin A in diet.
Carbon makes lose Vitamin K.
Carbon no effect liver Vitamin A.
Carbon not good!!!
I personally don't understand why the activated charcoal bashing is going on.
The 1935 study ain't that good. I would like to once again add that the married couple that did the study, and no one else for the matter, didn't even knew retinoic acids existed in 1945. So in this case it is impossible for them to find something they don't even know exists.
That brings up huge question marks on all of the study's vitamin A measurements, including what they call a diet without vitamin A. All that data is questionable and no one can add more than speculations to what was really measured.
What I do think the study shows is that everything can be over-done and over-doing activated charcoal is of course possible and it seems to absorb vitamin K, a fat-soluble vitamin. Eat foods or supplements with vitamin K away from activated charcoal, problem solved?
To balance the activated charcoal bashing here, I want to link this great video (that some else has found) which is about how the right binder, in a sufficient amount, over a long enough time period can cause amazing results. The video below is from 2017, it is 7 min 30 s long, and is called:
"Psoriasis & Alopecia Update"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JLt-8uF1bkY
It is an interview with Michael R. Gray and him talking about one of his succesful mold patients who was treated with bentonite clay first (3 years) and then later on added activated charcoal as well.
PS. Updated the comment for increased readaility.