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 I don’t think that this is a …

Please to create posts and topics.

Why I don’t think that this is a legit theory anymore

#101 · November 3, 2021, 10:36 am

I forgot to mention that absence of glyphosate is also probably a factor.

As for the pie chart, I don't trust it. At least for the reason that they use meaningless conversion coefficients of carotenoids. Therefore, fruits and vegetables in reality will account for more VA.

#102 · November 3, 2021, 11:20 am

Quote from wavygravygadzooks on November 3, 2021, 11:20 am
Does anyone know why the % recovery of beta-carotene from liver in the Egyptian study is greater than 100? Or how they calculated recovery? I searched the paper for that term and do not see it defined anywhere.

@jeremy

I find the methodology of the Egyptian study lacking. That doesn't inherently make it wrong, but it makes it suspect. As others have essentially pointed out, wouldn't you expect the ratio of Vitamin A found in liver and muscle meat to remain roughly the same, even when you have a more effective "recovery" of that Vitamin A? That increased recovery applies to both liver and muscles, so unless the muscles have an extraordinary amount of a particular form of Vitamin A that was previously undetected, which does not occur in the liver, you would not expect the ratios to change dramatically.

It's quite likely that the particular muscle group sampled doesn't make much of a difference due to a general absence of intramuscular fat, but this lack of methodological information is a red flag. Peer-reviewed studies are supposed to have the methods described thoroughly enough to be repeatable, which means you really need to know where and how they took the samples, how large the sample pieces were, and whether they were homogenized in a blender before measurement or what.

A few reminders about modern science publications:

Different journals have different standards. You can basically pay journals with poor quality standards to publish just about anything these days.

Peer-review does not guarantee quality. Not only do reviewers and editors routinely miss flaws in reported methodology and results, but they often come to the table with their own biases. When publishing my M.S. research, I was the victim of such bias, and my manuscript was turned down by the most appropriate journal because one of the reviewers, who was a well-published researcher in the field, incorrectly criticized my methods. I could've appealed it and explained why, but it was clear that the deck was stacked against me, so I took my manuscript elsewhere.

There are only a small number of highly qualified researchers in a given field of science, and they have very limited time to devote to peer-review. It is the less experienced academics that have all the time, and therefore you are more likely to have an inexperienced researcher review a manuscript than one at the head of the field. This inevitably leads to substandard review processes, which are inherently concentrated in less popular journals who are often unable to secure reviews from the most established researchers.

Thus, it is certainly possible that an error was made in the units reported in one of these papers, although I would tentatively agree that the same error happening twice in different manuscripts with different authors is unlikely.

Does anyone know why the % recovery of beta-carotene from liver in the Egyptian study is greater than 100? Or how they calculated recovery? I searched the paper for that term and do not see it defined anywhere.

@jeremy

I find the methodology of the Egyptian study lacking. That doesn't inherently make it wrong, but it makes it suspect. As others have essentially pointed out, wouldn't you expect the ratio of Vitamin A found in liver and muscle meat to remain roughly the same, even when you have a more effective "recovery" of that Vitamin A? That increased recovery applies to both liver and muscles, so unless the muscles have an extraordinary amount of a particular form of Vitamin A that was previously undetected, which does not occur in the liver, you would not expect the ratios to change dramatically.

It's quite likely that the particular muscle group sampled doesn't make much of a difference due to a general absence of intramuscular fat, but this lack of methodological information is a red flag. Peer-reviewed studies are supposed to have the methods described thoroughly enough to be repeatable, which means you really need to know where and how they took the samples, how large the sample pieces were, and whether they were homogenized in a blender before measurement or what.

A few reminders about modern science publications:

Different journals have different standards. You can basically pay journals with poor quality standards to publish just about anything these days.
Peer-review does not guarantee quality. Not only do reviewers and editors routinely miss flaws in reported methodology and results, but they often come to the table with their own biases. When publishing my M.S. research, I was the victim of such bias, and my manuscript was turned down by the most appropriate journal because one of the reviewers, who was a well-published researcher in the field, incorrectly criticized my methods. I could've appealed it and explained why, but it was clear that the deck was stacked against me, so I took my manuscript elsewhere.
There are only a small number of highly qualified researchers in a given field of science, and they have very limited time to devote to peer-review. It is the less experienced academics that have all the time, and therefore you are more likely to have an inexperienced researcher review a manuscript than one at the head of the field. This inevitably leads to substandard review processes, which are inherently concentrated in less popular journals who are often unable to secure reviews from the most established researchers.

Thus, it is certainly possible that an error was made in the units reported in one of these papers, although I would tentatively agree that the same error happening twice in different manuscripts with different authors is unlikely.

#103 · November 3, 2021, 11:47 am

Interestingly guys, you consider this ratio and conclude that 2 newer studies are incorrect, not one old one.

Retinoicon has reacted to this post.

#104 · November 3, 2021, 11:59 am

I think it's just that new methods have made it possible to detect more retinol metabolites in muscle tissue. While in the liver, most of it will still be stored in the form of retinyl esters.

Retinoicon has reacted to this post.

#105 · November 3, 2021, 12:42 pm

Quote from ggenereux on November 3, 2021, 10:05 am

Hi @daniil,

RE: 1) I think Grant's bison have NEVER received vitamin A supplements (am I right, Grant?).

Yes, that's correct. The rancher that raises them here does not even feed them supplemental grass / hay. Not even in the winter.

They are as 100% natural as you can get. These animals are also not sent to feed-lots for "finishing" aka fattening, as most beef cattle are here in Alberta.
BTW, I didn't go looking for that ultra-natural bison, I just happened on to it by chance. But, I still think beef in reasonable amounts is quite safe too.

RE: 2) Grant eats the most fat-free pieces

Yes, true.

I think that pie chart posted by @david is quite interesting. There was a discussion here a while ago where I think it was @michele that said that she made a big turn around in her health on a mostly fruit diet. It looks like what an all meat and an all fruit diet have in common is they are both really low vA intake.

not if it has fruits like watermelon and papaya

#106 · November 3, 2021, 2:29 pm

Quote from wavygravygadzooks on November 3, 2021, 11:20 am

It's quite likely that the particular muscle group sampled doesn't make much of a difference due to a general absence of intramuscular fat, but this lack of methodological information is a red flag.

The particular muscle sampled seems to be an important detail for you as you have mentioned it twice. I reread the relevant paragraph in the study and it states that the longissimus dorsi muscle was sampled. This muscle is the second-most tender and forms part of many steak cuts that we would recognize.

https://www.smartkitchen.com/resources/longissimus-muscle

There were 125 total animals, 20 of which were grass-finished male cattle and 20 of which were grain-finished male cattle.

#107 · November 3, 2021, 2:44 pm

@jeremy

Thanks for pointing out the muscle group sampled.

Different muscles do have different properties for different morphological functions, so you can't just assume they're all the same for sampling purposes.

Can you answer my other questions about the definition of "recovery" and why there is a recovery value greater than 100%? You've spent a lot more time looking at these studies than I have.

#108 · November 3, 2021, 3:52 pm

Quote from wavygravygadzooks on November 3, 2021, 2:44 pm

Can you answer my other questions about the definition of "recovery" and why there is a recovery value greater than 100%? You've spent a lot more time looking at these studies than I have.

Can you define recovery (again, if you have done so before) and why you are interested in it?

#109 · November 3, 2021, 10:52 pm

Quote from David on November 3, 2021, 10:52 pm
@jeremy

Since you seem uninterested in further discussion I will start by trying to answer my own question with just regard to the 2015 Egyptian study which I have had a look at. I will also post the 1989 study since it seems I won't get any further discussion from you, Jeremy. At the same time @ggenereux2014 seemed interested in the 1989 study and its pie chart. That pie chart is made from Table II which shows the estimated daily intake of each food group (g per day and person) next to each name of the food group, format:(xxx).

From the Egyptian study Figure 3 and grain-fed cattle (which is probably closest to the 1989 study from Finland) I read:
Beef liver vitamin A content (grain-fed mean): ~35 mcg/g = ~3500 mcg/100 g
Beef muscle meat vitamin A content (grain-fed mean): ~3 mcg/g = ~300 mcg/100 g

The liver/muscle meat-ratio: 3500 / 300 = 11.67x

Compare that to the 1989 study's values:
Beef liver vitamin A concentration (mean) = 27000 mcg/100 g
Muscle meat vitamin A concentration (mean) = 12 mcg/100 g

27000 / 12 = 2250x

Why is there an almost 200x difference in liver/muscle meat-ratio?

With Occam's razor the easiest answer is that the Egyptian study never converted a mcg/100g value to a mcg/g value for the muscle meat, inflating the numbers with 100x right there.

But there are of course other possible answers like the animals was unknowingly poisoned in the Egyptian study. The cattle's strangely low vitamin A concentration in their livers I think points towards liver damage in these poor animals. See just 3500 mcg/100 g in the Egyptian study compared to 27000 mcg/100 g in the 1989 Finnish study.

If the Egyptian animals had liver damage the liver-bound retinol could then escape from the damaged cells in the liver and out into the blood stream poisoning the muscle tissue. Eating sickly animals would be a bad idea.
I would liken this idea of being in a car with a highly pressurized ABC powder fire extinguisher. As long as the pin is in place and there is no one pressing the handle, all the powder is safely contained in the fire extinguisher and nothing will happen. Pull the pin and push the handle and an all out powder mayhem will ensue which is extremely difficult to clean up. A big difference though is that in the liver all cells are single entities and all of them don't fail at the same time unless maybe in the case of acute liver failure.

Perhaps it is because the world was a cleaner and less toxic place in 1989 compare to 2015 when the Egyptian study was made. I think the point which was brought up about the present high use of glyphosate around the world. A ban of glyphosate alone should get all the attention for all the damage glyphosate is causing the world we all live in. Toxic feed will poison animals making them sick.

Secondly I quickly looked at the comment you made about better retinol measurement procedures. That 2003 paper you brought up specifically mention the saponification process and how it improves the measurements of retinoids and beta-carotene, I didn't know that before. It just happens to be that the 1989 study was specifically made to update vitamin A values because of the newer technics available for measuring vitamin A. In Heinonen's 1989 study she says that the saponification process with solvents is used but the exact process is quotes as being described in another paper she made with someone else but also in another paper made by a Finnish researcher. You can see the names of those papers in the references of the study, but I haven't tried to find them. That is 14 years before the paper you posted so if anything you or @danill can try to dismiss this well-made 1989 study by, as it now seems to me, being on the cutting edge of nutritional research. Two quotes from the 1989 study which says the reason behind the study and short about the saponification process with solvents being used:

"However, because high-pressure liquid chromatography (HPLC) has improved the methods for analysing carotenoids and retinoids revised data on vitamin A in Finland are needed."

"The carotenoids (alpha-carotene, beta-carotene, lutein and lycopene) and retinoids (all-trans-retinol, 13-cis-retinol and 3,4-didehydro-retinol) were isolated from diets and foods by room temperature saponification, which was followed by solvent extraction."

PS. Without knowing any history we are lost to repeat its mistakes over and over.

@jeremy

Since you seem uninterested in further discussion I will start by trying to answer my own question with just regard to the 2015 Egyptian study which I have had a look at. I will also post the 1989 study since it seems I won't get any further discussion from you, Jeremy. At the same time @ggenereux2014 seemed interested in the 1989 study and its pie chart. That pie chart is made from Table II which shows the estimated daily intake of each food group (g per day and person) next to each name of the food group, format:(xxx).

From the Egyptian study Figure 3 and grain-fed cattle (which is probably closest to the 1989 study from Finland) I read:
Beef liver vitamin A content (grain-fed mean): ~35 mcg/g = ~3500 mcg/100 g
Beef muscle meat vitamin A content (grain-fed mean): ~3 mcg/g = ~300 mcg/100 g

The liver/muscle meat-ratio: 3500 / 300 = 11.67x

Compare that to the 1989 study's values:
Beef liver vitamin A concentration (mean) = 27000 mcg/100 g
Muscle meat vitamin A concentration (mean) = 12 mcg/100 g

27000 / 12 = 2250x

Why is there an almost 200x difference in liver/muscle meat-ratio?

With Occam's razor the easiest answer is that the Egyptian study never converted a mcg/100g value to a mcg/g value for the muscle meat, inflating the numbers with 100x right there.

But there are of course other possible answers like the animals was unknowingly poisoned in the Egyptian study. The cattle's strangely low vitamin A concentration in their livers I think points towards liver damage in these poor animals. See just 3500 mcg/100 g in the Egyptian study compared to 27000 mcg/100 g in the 1989 Finnish study.

If the Egyptian animals had liver damage the liver-bound retinol could then escape from the damaged cells in the liver and out into the blood stream poisoning the muscle tissue. Eating sickly animals would be a bad idea.
I would liken this idea of being in a car with a highly pressurized ABC powder fire extinguisher. As long as the pin is in place and there is no one pressing the handle, all the powder is safely contained in the fire extinguisher and nothing will happen. Pull the pin and push the handle and an all out powder mayhem will ensue which is extremely difficult to clean up. A big difference though is that in the liver all cells are single entities and all of them don't fail at the same time unless maybe in the case of acute liver failure.

Perhaps it is because the world was a cleaner and less toxic place in 1989 compare to 2015 when the Egyptian study was made. I think the point which was brought up about the present high use of glyphosate around the world. A ban of glyphosate alone should get all the attention for all the damage glyphosate is causing the world we all live in. Toxic feed will poison animals making them sick.

Secondly I quickly looked at the comment you made about better retinol measurement procedures. That 2003 paper you brought up specifically mention the saponification process and how it improves the measurements of retinoids and beta-carotene, I didn't know that before. It just happens to be that the 1989 study was specifically made to update vitamin A values because of the newer technics available for measuring vitamin A. In Heinonen's 1989 study she says that the saponification process with solvents is used but the exact process is quotes as being described in another paper she made with someone else but also in another paper made by a Finnish researcher. You can see the names of those papers in the references of the study, but I haven't tried to find them. That is 14 years before the paper you posted so if anything you or @danill can try to dismiss this well-made 1989 study by, as it now seems to me, being on the cutting edge of nutritional research. Two quotes from the 1989 study which says the reason behind the study and short about the saponification process with solvents being used:

"However, because high-pressure liquid chromatography (HPLC) has improved the methods for analysing carotenoids and retinoids revised data on vitamin A in Finland are needed."

"The carotenoids (alpha-carotene, beta-carotene, lutein and lycopene) and retinoids (all-trans-retinol, 13-cis-retinol and 3,4-didehydro-retinol) were isolated from diets and foods by room temperature saponification, which was followed by solvent extraction."

PS. Without knowing any history we are lost to repeat its mistakes over and over.

Uploaded files:

Heinonen_1989.pdf

#110 · November 4, 2021, 3:55 am

With Occam's razor the easiest answer is that the Egyptian study never converted a mcg/100g value to a mcg/g value for the muscle meat, inflating the numbers with 100x right there.

As I have said, the content of grain fattening in the liver corresponds to the databases, so I don't think there is any measurement error here.

If the Egyptian animals had liver damage the liver-bound retinol could then escape from the damaged cells in the liver and out into the blood stream poisoning the muscle tissue. Eating sickly animals would be a bad idea.

Do you have evidence that the mechanisms you described really exist?

Why the almost 200x difference in liver/muscle meat-ratio?

As I said, the most obvious explanation is the best measurement methods and instruments. I also think that this ratio may vary depending on factors such as, for example, vitamin E intake. Since you came up with this ratio yourself, we don't know what affects it.

Retinoicon has reacted to this post.

Why I don’t think that this is a legit theory anymore

Share this:

Like this: