I needed to disable self sign-ups because I’ve been getting too many spam-type accounts. Thanks.

DiscussionLet's talk about it: The science of itWhy butter may be ok

Please to create posts and topics.

Why butter may be ok

#1 · November 12, 2018, 8:24 am

This study observed the effects that different fats had on the blood. They compared sunflower oil, olive oil and butter. What's interesting, is that the plasma retinyl esters were quite a lot lower (about 1/3rd) after a butter containing meal, compared to the other fats.

https://academic.oup.com/jn/article/132/12/3642/4712096 - "Chylomicron retinyl esters, a marker of intestinally derived particles, exhibited bell-shaped curves with maximum values 2–4 h postprandially and returned to baseline 6–7 h after all test meals (data not shown). CM retinyl ester 0–7 h AUC (mmol·h·L) were higher (P <0.05) after OO (2972 ± 299) and SO (2789 ± 288) meals compared with the BF (1777 ± 327) and no-fat (633 ± 314) meal"

ggenereux and Doublecapricorn have reacted to this post.

#2 · November 13, 2018, 7:30 pm

Harry,

Do you think that this could indicate that this Vitamin A toxicity is more because of beta carotenes and supplements than it is from animal foods? For example, a cup of cooked kale has more vitamin A than a gallon of whole milk without added A, that is, disregarding the rate of conversion from carotene to retinol. And, some studies including this one have hinted at Saturated Fat being protective against Vitamin A toxicity.

I really have no idea, and am honestly curious.

Thanks

#3 · November 14, 2018, 4:39 am

Quote from harrymacdonald on November 14, 2018, 4:39 am
Honestly, I really don't know. But I think that betacarotene contributes it's own problems, that are independent of its conversion into the retinoids: It oxidises easily, which increases our requirement for antioxidant minerals and vitamins, which themselves help to protect against the damage of retinoic acid. I have posted studies on another thread which show that the products of this oxidation are toxic to the mitochondria and may also be triggering an immune response, independently of the ultimate conversion to retinoic acid.

On the other hand, retinol (animal foods) is more toxic simply by being one step closer to being retinoic acid and other retinoids. But, since we get a lot more pro-vitamin A from betacarotene, which can cause problems on its own or when converted, there is a good case to be made that it is as much of a problem.

It's interesting to look at how many people experience relief from autoimmune issues when switching to a carnivore diet. Many of these people still consume eggs and liver. And yet small amounts of vegetable matter cause them issues. I don't know what this says, but it's interesting.

The exception seems to be dairy. I don't know why this causes more of a problem, but Grant has a very good chapter in his books about how dairy may contain much more vitamin A than is registered, due to its being enfolded within casein. He also mentions that the pasteurisation process may convert some vitamin A into retinoic acid, which would hide it from a test.

My hunch is that there are synergies between different foods that can exacerbate the problem. One food may be less damaging on its own than when combined with another food. I think dairy is one of these amplifying synergists.

In my own experience, if I consume large amounts of dairy consistently, I develop issues within weeks. Low fat dairy definitely causes those issues more quickly. One of the things that happens is that I get burns on the skin above my eyes and below my eyebrows.

Honestly, I really don't know. But I think that betacarotene contributes it's own problems, that are independent of its conversion into the retinoids: It oxidises easily, which increases our requirement for antioxidant minerals and vitamins, which themselves help to protect against the damage of retinoic acid. I have posted studies on another thread which show that the products of this oxidation are toxic to the mitochondria and may also be triggering an immune response, independently of the ultimate conversion to retinoic acid.

On the other hand, retinol (animal foods) is more toxic simply by being one step closer to being retinoic acid and other retinoids. But, since we get a lot more pro-vitamin A from betacarotene, which can cause problems on its own or when converted, there is a good case to be made that it is as much of a problem.

It's interesting to look at how many people experience relief from autoimmune issues when switching to a carnivore diet. Many of these people still consume eggs and liver. And yet small amounts of vegetable matter cause them issues. I don't know what this says, but it's interesting.

The exception seems to be dairy. I don't know why this causes more of a problem, but Grant has a very good chapter in his books about how dairy may contain much more vitamin A than is registered, due to its being enfolded within casein. He also mentions that the pasteurisation process may convert some vitamin A into retinoic acid, which would hide it from a test.

My hunch is that there are synergies between different foods that can exacerbate the problem. One food may be less damaging on its own than when combined with another food. I think dairy is one of these amplifying synergists.

In my own experience, if I consume large amounts of dairy consistently, I develop issues within weeks. Low fat dairy definitely causes those issues more quickly. One of the things that happens is that I get burns on the skin above my eyes and below my eyebrows.

chickadee has reacted to this post.

#4 · December 3, 2018, 6:38 pm

From reading the books and thinking for myself on these matters, I feel that the real problem is supplemental/added vitamin A (which as Genereux points out there is a lot of in dairy, grains, etc.) and perhaps large amounts of carotenes. Not in full fat animal products, as saturated fat seems to be protective, or at least butter so far by emulsifying the retinol that is naturally in it. In his first book Genereux argues that the added A in milk is palmitate combined with retinol, which could trick the body in taking in both in a way that the body was not designed for. This, however, only accounts for the added vitamin A.

Part of the increased emergence of autoimmune disease could not only be because of increased A intake, but that combined with the decreased saturated fat intake overall and increased polyunsaturated fat intake from nuts, seeds, vegetable oils, etc.

But then I don't know how to account for Charles Darwin, who apparently caused his AID by a diet big on organ meats and no supplemental vitamins.

just some thoughts

harrymacdonald, chickadee and Mââk have reacted to this post.

#5 · December 4, 2018, 3:09 pm

Quote from harrymacdonald on December 4, 2018, 3:09 pm
Interesting thoughts, thanks for sharing them

The problem with the idea that it's only supplemental vitamin A (VA) that is problematic, is that there are a number of countries which don't fortify food with VA but still suffer high levels of autoimmune disease. I live in one of them: the UK.

My opinion is that environmental toxins & pharmaceutical drugs are interfering with VA metabolism, meaning that smaller amounts become problematic. This is combined with the fact that VA is commonly used in cosmetics, multivitamins, skin care products & the sun cream which we've all been propagandised into using.

I think the loss of seasonality in our eating, and access to food from all over the globe has probably increased carotene consumption massively. The pasteurisation of dairy may have played a role, and we may actually be eating more of it because we put it on breakfast cereal and eat lots of yogurt, pizza & ice cream.

Then there are other food additives which may increase the absorption of vitamin A, like the "mono and diglycerides of fatty acids" that are in all the bread in the UK. I think we probably are exposed to a lot more VA now. If I think back to what people ate in Britain 100 years ago, it was probably bread, oats, white potatoes, leeks, onions, beef, lamb, pork, some raw & fresh milk/cheese, butter/lard/suet, seasonally: cabbage, carrot & beetroot, apples & pears, gooseberry & other berries. Most of these things are very low VA foods.

One thing that has confused me, are reports of people following Linus Pauling's work who've taken 50,000iu/day for 40 years without problem. These kind of stories make me wonder if the issue is a dysregulation of VA metabolism, analogous to the dysregulation of glucose metabolism that characterises diabetes, rather than the absolute quantity.

Another confusing thing is the people who cure autoimmune disease by going on the carnivore diet, who often eat large amounts of liver regularly. Maybe autoimmune disease is caused by VA for some people, but not all. Dunno?!

Interesting thoughts, thanks for sharing them

The problem with the idea that it's only supplemental vitamin A (VA) that is problematic, is that there are a number of countries which don't fortify food with VA but still suffer high levels of autoimmune disease. I live in one of them: the UK.

My opinion is that environmental toxins & pharmaceutical drugs are interfering with VA metabolism, meaning that smaller amounts become problematic. This is combined with the fact that VA is commonly used in cosmetics, multivitamins, skin care products & the sun cream which we've all been propagandised into using.

I think the loss of seasonality in our eating, and access to food from all over the globe has probably increased carotene consumption massively. The pasteurisation of dairy may have played a role, and we may actually be eating more of it because we put it on breakfast cereal and eat lots of yogurt, pizza & ice cream.

Then there are other food additives which may increase the absorption of vitamin A, like the "mono and diglycerides of fatty acids" that are in all the bread in the UK. I think we probably are exposed to a lot more VA now. If I think back to what people ate in Britain 100 years ago, it was probably bread, oats, white potatoes, leeks, onions, beef, lamb, pork, some raw & fresh milk/cheese, butter/lard/suet, seasonally: cabbage, carrot & beetroot, apples & pears, gooseberry & other berries. Most of these things are very low VA foods.

One thing that has confused me, are reports of people following Linus Pauling's work who've taken 50,000iu/day for 40 years without problem. These kind of stories make me wonder if the issue is a dysregulation of VA metabolism, analogous to the dysregulation of glucose metabolism that characterises diabetes, rather than the absolute quantity.

Another confusing thing is the people who cure autoimmune disease by going on the carnivore diet, who often eat large amounts of liver regularly. Maybe autoimmune disease is caused by VA for some people, but not all. Dunno?!

chickadee has reacted to this post.

#6 · December 4, 2018, 4:26 pm

Quote from Guest on December 4, 2018, 4:26 pm

Quote from Guest on December 3, 2018, 6:38 pm

From reading the books and thinking for myself on these matters, I feel that the real problem is supplemental/added vitamin A (which as Genereux points out there is a lot of in dairy, grains, etc.) and perhaps large amounts of carotenes. Not in full fat animal products, as saturated fat seems to be protective, or at least butter so far by emulsifying the retinol that is naturally in it. In his first book Genereux argues that the added A in milk is palmitate combined with retinol, which could trick the body in taking in both in a way that the body was not designed for. This, however, only accounts for the added vitamin A.

Part of the increased emergence of autoimmune disease could not only be because of increased A intake, but that combined with the decreased saturated fat intake overall and increased polyunsaturated fat intake from nuts, seeds, vegetable oils, etc.

But then I don't know how to account for Charles Darwin, who apparently caused his AID by a diet big on organ meats and no supplemental vitamins.

just some thoughts

For myself, I had signs of problems with vA before foods were fortified with it and before I took any supplements. My mom also didn't serve many veggies or fruit so I don't think I was getting that many carotenoids compared to others. It seemed like most of my family's diet was bread, potatoes, pasta, crackers, etc... and milk/dairy and eggs with smaller amounts of beef, chicken and pork. As a kid I had depression/anxiety, stomach aches, lethargy, weakness and very cavity prone teeth. I was born in the US in 1965. By the time I was about 20 I had mild scoliosis so that might have been after the start of fortification of cereals and other foods - not sure. And not sure why I got hit with so many problems as a kid. My brother who is 10 years younger than me developed many of the same problems though not all and maybe not as bad. My sister who is just 1 year younger than I has had much fewer health problems if any at all. We were all formula fed (was formula fortified with vA back in 1965?) and my mom said she carried us for a long time - I think 10 months instead of the normal 9. When I was born I weighed 9lbs 3 oz and my brother was well over 10 lbs. My sister who is relatively healthy was the puny one at 8 lbs 6 oz. We weren't overweight as kids though I had very poor muscle tone and still do.

Quote from Guest on December 3, 2018, 6:38 pm

From reading the books and thinking for myself on these matters, I feel that the real problem is supplemental/added vitamin A (which as Genereux points out there is a lot of in dairy, grains, etc.) and perhaps large amounts of carotenes. Not in full fat animal products, as saturated fat seems to be protective, or at least butter so far by emulsifying the retinol that is naturally in it. In his first book Genereux argues that the added A in milk is palmitate combined with retinol, which could trick the body in taking in both in a way that the body was not designed for. This, however, only accounts for the added vitamin A.

Part of the increased emergence of autoimmune disease could not only be because of increased A intake, but that combined with the decreased saturated fat intake overall and increased polyunsaturated fat intake from nuts, seeds, vegetable oils, etc.

But then I don't know how to account for Charles Darwin, who apparently caused his AID by a diet big on organ meats and no supplemental vitamins.

just some thoughts

For myself, I had signs of problems with vA before foods were fortified with it and before I took any supplements. My mom also didn't serve many veggies or fruit so I don't think I was getting that many carotenoids compared to others. It seemed like most of my family's diet was bread, potatoes, pasta, crackers, etc... and milk/dairy and eggs with smaller amounts of beef, chicken and pork. As a kid I had depression/anxiety, stomach aches, lethargy, weakness and very cavity prone teeth. I was born in the US in 1965. By the time I was about 20 I had mild scoliosis so that might have been after the start of fortification of cereals and other foods - not sure. And not sure why I got hit with so many problems as a kid. My brother who is 10 years younger than me developed many of the same problems though not all and maybe not as bad. My sister who is just 1 year younger than I has had much fewer health problems if any at all. We were all formula fed (was formula fortified with vA back in 1965?) and my mom said she carried us for a long time - I think 10 months instead of the normal 9. When I was born I weighed 9lbs 3 oz and my brother was well over 10 lbs. My sister who is relatively healthy was the puny one at 8 lbs 6 oz. We weren't overweight as kids though I had very poor muscle tone and still do.

harrymacdonald has reacted to this post.

#7 · December 4, 2018, 5:38 pm

Quote from Guest on December 4, 2018, 5:38 pm

Quote from Guest on December 4, 2018, 4:26 pm

Quote from Guest on December 3, 2018, 6:38 pm

From reading the books and thinking for myself on these matters, I feel that the real problem is supplemental/added vitamin A (which as Genereux points out there is a lot of in dairy, grains, etc.) and perhaps large amounts of carotenes. Not in full fat animal products, as saturated fat seems to be protective, or at least butter so far by emulsifying the retinol that is naturally in it. In his first book Genereux argues that the added A in milk is palmitate combined with retinol, which could trick the body in taking in both in a way that the body was not designed for. This, however, only accounts for the added vitamin A.

Part of the increased emergence of autoimmune disease could not only be because of increased A intake, but that combined with the decreased saturated fat intake overall and increased polyunsaturated fat intake from nuts, seeds, vegetable oils, etc.

But then I don't know how to account for Charles Darwin, who apparently caused his AID by a diet big on organ meats and no supplemental vitamins.

just some thoughts

For myself, I had signs of problems with vA before foods were fortified with it and before I took any supplements. My mom also didn't serve many veggies or fruit so I don't think I was getting that many carotenoids compared to others. It seemed like most of my family's diet was bread, potatoes, pasta, crackers, etc... and milk/dairy and eggs with smaller amounts of beef, chicken and pork. As a kid I had depression/anxiety, stomach aches, lethargy, weakness and very cavity prone teeth. I was born in the US in 1965. By the time I was about 20 I had mild scoliosis so that might have been after the start of fortification of cereals and other foods - not sure. And not sure why I got hit with so many problems as a kid. My brother who is 10 years younger than me developed many of the same problems though not all and maybe not as bad. My sister who is just 1 year younger than I has had much fewer health problems if any at all. We were all formula fed (was formula fortified with vA back in 1965?) and my mom said she carried us for a long time - I think 10 months instead of the normal 9. When I was born I weighed 9lbs 3 oz and my brother was well over 10 lbs. My sister who is relatively healthy was the puny one at 8 lbs 6 oz. We weren't overweight as kids though I had very poor muscle tone and still do.

It looks like fortification of milk with A in the US stared in the late 70’s.

“As skim and lower fat milks became popular, the reduction of vitamin A levels with fat reduction became an issue since whole milk was considered a good source of vitamin A. This was addressed in the 1978 PMO under the standards of identity for lowfat and nonfat milks, which stated that in these products, “vitamin A shall be present in such quantity that each quart of the food contains not less than 2000 IU thereof within limits of Good Manufacturing Practices.” Vitamin D fortification at 400 IU/qt. remained optional for all products. Acceptable levels within limits of “Good Manufacturing Practices” were generally interpreted as the range of 80% to 120% of the label claim for both vitamin A and vitamin D. Determination of vitamin levels was required at least annually “in a laboratory acceptable to the regulatory agency,” though there were no established procedures to determine the competency of vitamin testing laboratories.

These general requirements for vitamin fortification of milk remained in place until the 1990’s, when a number of regulatory changes were implemented. To some extent these changes were in response to the adoption of the Nutritional Labeling and Education Act (NLEA) of 1990. These changes also appeared to have been prompted by an episode involving a dairy plant where milk that was grossly over-fortified with vitamin D resulted in human illness (Jacobus et al. 1992) and also by the results of a number of survey studies suggesting that milk fortification levels were not meeting label claims (Brown et al, 1992; Holick et al, 1992; Nichols, 1991). The regulatory changes put into practice included a revision of the acceptable levels of vitamins, changes in standards of identity for fluid milk products and the implementation of a vitamin testing laboratory certification program.

On review of what was considered to be acceptable vitamin fortification levels, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) revised the levels to 100% to 150% of the label claim from what was previously 80% to 120% to be more consistent with other regulations (Nichols, M-I-92-13). With the acceptance of the NLEA of 1990, the standards for lowfat and nonfat were eliminated, placing these fluid milk products under the “general standard” for milk, but named with defined nutrient content claims, i.e. reduced fat,

THE DAIRY PRACTICES COUNCIL® DPC 53 - July 2001

3

lowfat, nonfat (Federal Register, Schultz 1996). Compliance with the new guidelines was mandated as of January 1, 1998. Within these guidelines, vitamin A is required to be added to lower fat milks so that they are “nutritionally equivalent” to the reference standard of identity (milk). Though this would be based on 1200 IU per quart for milk, the fortification level of 2000 IU per quart was still recommended for these products and is routinely followed by the dairy industry. The optional addition of vitamin D remained the same.”

Quote from Guest on December 4, 2018, 4:26 pm

Quote from Guest on December 3, 2018, 6:38 pm

From reading the books and thinking for myself on these matters, I feel that the real problem is supplemental/added vitamin A (which as Genereux points out there is a lot of in dairy, grains, etc.) and perhaps large amounts of carotenes. Not in full fat animal products, as saturated fat seems to be protective, or at least butter so far by emulsifying the retinol that is naturally in it. In his first book Genereux argues that the added A in milk is palmitate combined with retinol, which could trick the body in taking in both in a way that the body was not designed for. This, however, only accounts for the added vitamin A.

Part of the increased emergence of autoimmune disease could not only be because of increased A intake, but that combined with the decreased saturated fat intake overall and increased polyunsaturated fat intake from nuts, seeds, vegetable oils, etc.

But then I don't know how to account for Charles Darwin, who apparently caused his AID by a diet big on organ meats and no supplemental vitamins.

just some thoughts

For myself, I had signs of problems with vA before foods were fortified with it and before I took any supplements. My mom also didn't serve many veggies or fruit so I don't think I was getting that many carotenoids compared to others. It seemed like most of my family's diet was bread, potatoes, pasta, crackers, etc... and milk/dairy and eggs with smaller amounts of beef, chicken and pork. As a kid I had depression/anxiety, stomach aches, lethargy, weakness and very cavity prone teeth. I was born in the US in 1965. By the time I was about 20 I had mild scoliosis so that might have been after the start of fortification of cereals and other foods - not sure. And not sure why I got hit with so many problems as a kid. My brother who is 10 years younger than me developed many of the same problems though not all and maybe not as bad. My sister who is just 1 year younger than I has had much fewer health problems if any at all. We were all formula fed (was formula fortified with vA back in 1965?) and my mom said she carried us for a long time - I think 10 months instead of the normal 9. When I was born I weighed 9lbs 3 oz and my brother was well over 10 lbs. My sister who is relatively healthy was the puny one at 8 lbs 6 oz. We weren't overweight as kids though I had very poor muscle tone and still do.

It looks like fortification of milk with A in the US stared in the late 70’s.

“As skim and lower fat milks became popular, the reduction of vitamin A levels with fat reduction became an issue since whole milk was considered a good source of vitamin A. This was addressed in the 1978 PMO under the standards of identity for lowfat and nonfat milks, which stated that in these products, “vitamin A shall be present in such quantity that each quart of the food contains not less than 2000 IU thereof within limits of Good Manufacturing Practices.” Vitamin D fortification at 400 IU/qt. remained optional for all products. Acceptable levels within limits of “Good Manufacturing Practices” were generally interpreted as the range of 80% to 120% of the label claim for both vitamin A and vitamin D. Determination of vitamin levels was required at least annually “in a laboratory acceptable to the regulatory agency,” though there were no established procedures to determine the competency of vitamin testing laboratories.

These general requirements for vitamin fortification of milk remained in place until the 1990’s, when a number of regulatory changes were implemented. To some extent these changes were in response to the adoption of the Nutritional Labeling and Education Act (NLEA) of 1990. These changes also appeared to have been prompted by an episode involving a dairy plant where milk that was grossly over-fortified with vitamin D resulted in human illness (Jacobus et al. 1992) and also by the results of a number of survey studies suggesting that milk fortification levels were not meeting label claims (Brown et al, 1992; Holick et al, 1992; Nichols, 1991). The regulatory changes put into practice included a revision of the acceptable levels of vitamins, changes in standards of identity for fluid milk products and the implementation of a vitamin testing laboratory certification program.

On review of what was considered to be acceptable vitamin fortification levels, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) revised the levels to 100% to 150% of the label claim from what was previously 80% to 120% to be more consistent with other regulations (Nichols, M-I-92-13). With the acceptance of the NLEA of 1990, the standards for lowfat and nonfat were eliminated, placing these fluid milk products under the “general standard” for milk, but named with defined nutrient content claims, i.e. reduced fat,

THE DAIRY PRACTICES COUNCIL® DPC 53 - July 2001

lowfat, nonfat (Federal Register, Schultz 1996). Compliance with the new guidelines was mandated as of January 1, 1998. Within these guidelines, vitamin A is required to be added to lower fat milks so that they are “nutritionally equivalent” to the reference standard of identity (milk). Though this would be based on 1200 IU per quart for milk, the fortification level of 2000 IU per quart was still recommended for these products and is routinely followed by the dairy industry. The optional addition of vitamin D remained the same.”

#8 · December 4, 2018, 5:45 pm

The above was from this source:

https://phpa.health.maryland.gov/OEHFP/OFPCHS/Milk/Shared%20Documents/DPC053_Vitamin_AD_Fortification_Fluid_Milk.pdf

Bella

#9 · December 4, 2018, 5:53 pm

Hello Harrymacdonald,

I'm curious about where you 're finding positive effects from Linus Paulings work-the guy who was behind mega dosing of Vit C to cure cancer, but he died of prostate cancer right? Everything I'm finding is discredit ing his wor k.... Just curious about the positive effects of Vit A cause I haven't found any that hold up. 😉 or if I have the wrong guy...

#10 · December 5, 2018, 4:03 am

Quote from Jonette on December 4, 2018, 5:53 pm

Hello Harrymacdonald,

I'm curious about where you 're finding positive effects from Linus Paulings work-the guy who was behind mega dosing of Vit C to cure cancer, but he died of prostate cancer right? Everything I'm finding is discredit ing his wor k.... Just curious about the positive effects of Vit A cause I haven't found any that hold up. or if I have the wrong guy...

Hi Jonette,

I didn't actually say that I was finding positive effects from his work, nor did I say that people had experienced positive effects from vitamin A. I said that i'd heard reports of people following his work who'd taken 50,000iu/day without problems for many years. An example of this kind of person might be Dr Passwater, another might be Chris Masterjohn. I have also heard a number of similar accounts from people personally.

My comments weren't an implicit criticism of the VA theory - i'm quite sold on it, actually, as most of my posts on this forum will reveal. Nor were they an endorsement of Linus Pauling's work (who may have died of prostate cancer, but he died aged 93, so I think we can forgive him for that 🙂)

Doublecapricorn, chickadee and Mââk have reacted to this post.

Why butter may be ok

Share this:

Like this: