Vitamin A Is Toxic?

[Mossy]

Maybe turning orange is just an extreme, end-stage reaction, and there can still be excess without being orange? Does his ebook mention anything about vitamin D tests? I am still convinced this could be simply a vitamin D issue exacerbated by vitamin A.

I do horrible with supplementing A, and I usually have lower than normal D levels on my blood tests, so, what you're saying has caught my attention. Would you say it's simply a matter of increasing vitamin D intake (sun, supps, and food)? I ask, because I already supplement with liquid vitamin D daily, and I do try to get about 1000mg via sun. It would seem I would need even more, but I'm hesitant to increase my supplemental D, based on many discussions recommending against it.

Thanks for any input.

 

[raypeatclips]

I do horrible with supplementing A, and I usually have lower than normal D levels on my blood tests, so, what you're saying has caught my attention. Would you say it's simply a matter of increasing vitamin D intake (sun, supps, and food)? I ask, because I already supplement with liquid vitamin D daily, and I do try to get about 1000mg via sun. It would seem I would need even more, but I'm hesitant to increase my supplemental D, based on many discussions recommending against it.

Thanks for any input.

Who recommends against vitamin D?

All the people who I have seen talk about D supplementation negatively have either been debunked thoroughly already by someone else (Marshall), or the studies they use are destined to fail. For example the studies Garret Smith quotes where rats or mice were injected with collosal amounts of vitamin D, I think it was in the millions of IU. Who is doing that in real life?

If you have low vitamin D, I don't see how you could raise it without vitamin D. I have seen people say that an infection is the root cause of vitamin D deficiency, and that when the infection is cleared, your vitamin D will raise itself. I'm not convinced by this either and I think you would have years of trying strange supplements you don't know if they work, in attempt to kill an infection you don't know you have and going round in circles.

How much vitamin D are you taking now? Maybe try using a uvb light if you havent already, that's my newest experiment.

 

[mmb82]

If you have low vitamin D, I don't see how you could raise it without vitamin D. I have seen people say that an infection is the root cause of vitamin D deficiency, and that when the infection is cleared, your vitamin D will raise itself. I'm not convinced by this either and I think you would have years of trying strange supplements you don't know if they work, in attempt to kill an infection you don't know you have and going round in circles.

To play devil's advocate, you should not need a vitamin D supplement to raise vitamin D levels, but I would not say it has to do with an infection.

Your body can produce vitamin D from the sun, but it needs certain nutrients to assist with that process. Further, the main function of vitamin D is to increase calcium absorption, so if the body is already saturated with calcium, it may be a protective mechanism of the organism to halt its own vitamin D production and shuttle the vitamin D into the tissues, hence lowering the levels that appear in the blood, as a means to reduce calcium absorption.

Basically, I think a vitamin D deficiency is indicative that you a) may have excess calcium and your body is trying desperately to avoid absorbing more, b) may be deficient in other minerals (boron, magnesium, etc.) that have roles in calcium metabolism and/or vitamin D production, or c) simply just need to go outside more. If you fix these mineral and vitamin imbalances and get proper sun exposure, serum vitamin D levels should be just fine without vitamin D supplementation. Ingesting vitamin D directly will raise your blood levels, but why try to be smarter than your own body and skip the processes in between? You argue that no one takes millions of IUs of vitamin D, but realistically, there is no natural food out there that can give you even 1000 IUs of vitamin D in a single day...at least not that I am aware of. This should be some indication that the body can regulate vitamin D levels itself, provided it has all the tools to do so.

 

[Mossy]

Who recommends against vitamin D?

All the people who I have seen talk about D supplementation negatively have either been debunked thoroughly already by someone else (Marshall), or the studies they use are destined to fail. For example the studies Garret Smith quotes where rats or mice were injected with collosal amounts of vitamin D, I think it was in the millions of IU. Who is doing that in real life?

If you have low vitamin D, I don't see how you could raise it without vitamin D. I have seen people say that an infection is the root cause of vitamin D deficiency, and that when the infection is cleared, your vitamin D will raise itself. I'm not convinced by this either and I think you would have years of trying strange supplements you don't know if they work, in attempt to kill an infection you don't know you have and going round in circles.

How much vitamin D are you taking now? Maybe try using a uvb light if you havent already, that's my newest experiment.

I didn't mean to imply that no D should be taken, but that I've read low doses (2,000 iu and under), with breaks. I do remember some comments of others referring to Dr. Peat saying you have to be careful with supplementing it. The number I remember hearing from him is around 2,000 iu is a safe, and when I searched I found this quote as being from Peat : "

VITAMIN D
I use Carlson's, and I think most of the informed people are recommending about 2,000 units per day. John
Cannell's site, "the vitamin D council," has a newsletter, and is a good way to keep up with the vitamin D research

Really, I think the only way is to test it--to increase my D, when I take A. With taking vitamin A previously, I would take a 5:1, A-to-D ratio and I've never felt good doing that. I'll just have to increase D and see what happens.

For the past several years, I've attempted to get sun at high-noon, but I'm now starting to doubt that perspective, and going back to before 11am and after 3pm, to avoid UV radiation. The UVB may be the way to go as well.

Thank you for the input.

 

[Mossy]

To play devil's advocate, you should not need a vitamin D supplement to raise vitamin D levels, but I would not say it has to do with an infection.

Your body can produce vitamin D from the sun, but it needs certain nutrients to assist with that process. Further, the main function of vitamin D is to increase calcium absorption, so if the body is already saturated with calcium, it may be a protective mechanism of the organism to halt its own vitamin D production and shuttle the vitamin D into the tissues, hence lowering the levels that appear in the blood, as a means to reduce calcium absorption.

Basically, I think a vitamin D deficiency is indicative that you a) may have excess calcium and your body is trying desperately to avoid absorbing more, b) may be deficient in other minerals (boron, magnesium, etc.) that have roles in calcium metabolism and/or vitamin D production, or c) simply just need to go outside more. If you fix these mineral and vitamin imbalances and get proper sun exposure, serum vitamin D levels should be just fine without vitamin D supplementation. Ingesting vitamin D directly will raise your blood levels, but why try to be smarter than your own body and skip the processes in between? You argue that no one takes millions of IUs of vitamin D, but realistically, there is no natural food out there that can give you even 1000 IUs of vitamin D in a single day...at least not that I am aware of. This should be some indication that the body can regulate vitamin D levels itself, provided it has all the tools to do so.

Thank you for sharing this.

Going off of this perspective, if the body is trying to reduce calcium, by halting/limiting vitamin D production, would one want to reduce calcium via food (milk and cheese primarily)?

 

[mmb82]

Going off of this perspective, if the body is trying to reduce calcium, by halting/limiting vitamin D production, would one want to reduce calcium via food (milk and cheese primarily)?

Yes. If you were to go along this line of thinking, reducing calcium intake and increasing the intake of magnesium and vitamin K2 would be beneficial. I am not saying that this person would never be able to consume dairy again, but it probably takes at least a year to clear out excess calcium depending on the severity of excess and the supplement regimen introduced specifically to reduce calcium levels. If the person is already saturated with vitamin D, however, calcium levels will come down more slowly (or not at all) because the vitamin D would continue to help absorb calcium into the body. The only way to reduce the amount of vitamin D stored in their system is time, assuming no more vitamin D is ingested (this includes nightshade vegetables) and vitamin A to antagonize the effects of excess vitamin D. If your blood levels of vitamin D are low, this is probably not you.

All that said, I don't suggest people start randomly taking fat solubles because dosing too much or for too long (or both) can f*ck you up. If you overdo the vitamin A in an attempt of get rid of excess vitamin D, you can end up creating new problems.

What are your vitamin D levels by the way? You said they come up lower than normal, but what do you consider low? If you don't do well with a vitamin A supplement, I would not take it at all rather than taking more vitamin D to "balance out" the vitamin A. If you want to bring up vitamin D levels without supplementing vitamin D, i.e. what I suggest, good starting points in terms of supplementation are looking into Mg, vitamin K2, and boron and increasing food sources of potassium. Getting sun is also important, though it may be hard this time of year depending on your location.

BTW, this is all just my opinion, I am not a doctor, and probably 80-90% of the forum members would suggest that you should just take vitamin D and that I am stupid.

 

[raypeatclips]

Yes. If you were to go along this line of thinking, reducing calcium intake and increasing the intake of magnesium and vitamin K2 would be beneficial. I am not saying that this person would never be able to consume dairy again, but it probably takes at least a year to clear out excess calcium depending on the severity of excess and the supplement regimen introduced specifically to reduce calcium levels. If the person is already saturated with vitamin D, however, calcium levels will come down more slowly (or not at all) because the vitamin D would continue to help absorb calcium into the body. The only way to reduce the amount of vitamin D stored in their system is time, assuming no more vitamin D is ingested (this includes nightshade vegetables) and vitamin A to antagonize the effects of excess vitamin D. If your blood levels of vitamin D are low, this is probably not you.

All that said, I don't suggest people start randomly taking fat solubles because dosing too much or for too long (or both) can f*ck you up. If you overdo the vitamin A in an attempt of get rid of excess vitamin D, you can end up creating new problems.

What are your vitamin D levels by the way? You said they come up lower than normal, but what do you consider low? If you don't do well with a vitamin A supplement, I would not take it at all rather than taking more vitamin D to "balance out" the vitamin A. If you want to bring up vitamin D levels without supplementing vitamin D, i.e. what I suggest, good starting points in terms of supplementation are looking into Mg, vitamin K2, and boron and increasing food sources of potassium. Getting sun is also important, though it may be hard this time of year depending on your location.

BTW, this is all just my opinion, I am not a doctor, and probably 80-90% of the forum members would suggest that you should just take vitamin D and that I am stupid.

Is there any proof that mg, boron, k2 etc raise vitamin D?

And is this only if calcium blood tests measure high?

 

[mmb82]

Is there any proof that mg, boron, k2 etc raise vitamin D?

Mg, boron, K2, etc. primarily affect calcium metabolism, so all of them have some effect on vitamin D since vitamin D is also involved in calcium metabolism. No nutrient lives in a bubble. Attached is a study for Boron and vitamin D. From this study discussing magnesium and vitamin D (with additional references you can explore):

"Both 25(OH)D and 1,25(OH)2D can be converted by 24-hydroxylase to the 24,25(OH)2D or 1,24,25(OH)3D, respectively [37]. Therefore, 25(OH)D levels are primarily determined by VDBP, 25-hydroxylase, 1α-hydroxylase and 24-hydroxylase activity, a fact that has recently been substantiated by a genome-wide association study [38]. Based on previous in vitro studies, magnesium status regulates both 1α-hydroxylase and 24-hydroxylase activity [22, 24]. Previous studies indicated both VDBP [23] and 25-hydroxylase [25, 39] might also be magnesium dependent. Therefore, magnesium would be expected to play an important role in 25(OH)D metabolism."

There are probably more, but I do not have the time to search. If you are really interested, you can probably find some on PubMed.

In a nutshell, vitamin D deficiency is probably not caused by a deficiency of an oral vitamin D supplement. Your body can regulate its production, so there is likely something absent or inadequate in the chain or your body is protecting you by not producing more vitamin D. If you want to force your blood levels up regardless, by all means take a vitamin D supplement. I don't think vitamin D is bad, I just think the hype with its supplementation has gotten out of hand. Taking a vitamin D supplement to raise vitamin D is putting a band-aid on an underlying problem.

I will re-iterate: this is all just my opinion and I am not a doctor.

 

[mmb82]

And is this only if calcium blood tests measure high?

Calcium levels on blood tests will likely come back in normal range even in the case of excess calcium or calcium deficiency because the body strives to keep blood levels of everything (glucose, potassium, calcium, sodium, etc.) in a tight range. This is basically so you don't die. For example, many people with osteoporosis or low bone density likely won't have low blood calcium levels, just like people with bone spurs or atherosclerosis likely won't have elevated blood calcium levels.

I might be misunderstanding your question, but having adequate levels of Mg, B, K, vitamin K2, etc. would help your body produce its own vitamin D and raise blood levels of D, but probably not in the case of excess calcium...if your vitamin D is low, but you have excess calcium, fixing calcium metabolism and removing the excess is the first step. Once the "bad" calcium has been removed from soft tissues, vitamin D levels should come up. If you have low vitamin D and low or normal calcium, vitamin D levels should come up easily. If you have high vitamin D and any level of calcium, you have to lower the elevated vitamin D issue before your body will produce its own vitamin D regardless of supplementation of Mg, B, K, etc.

 

[Mossy]

...vitamin A to antagonize the effects of excess vitamin D. If your blood levels of vitamin D are low, this is probably not you.

If accurate, this comment is very telling, for me; because, maybe when I take vitamin A, it makes me feel so bad by antagonizing the already low levels of D that I have.

What are your vitamin D levels by the way? You said they come up lower than normal, but what do you consider low? If you don't do well with a vitamin A supplement, I would not take it at all rather than taking more vitamin D to "balance out" the vitamin A. If you want to bring up vitamin D levels without supplementing vitamin D, i.e. what I suggest, good starting points in terms of supplementation are looking into Mg, vitamin K2, and boron and increasing food sources of potassium. Getting sun is also important, though it may be hard this time of year depending on your location.

By low, whatever the lowest allowable number is to be within normal, on a blood test, I'm usually under that or just at it. My last test had a range of 30 - 100 ng/mL, and my reading was 31.1 ng/mL. I'm due for another test.

I will try this, adding more Mg, by way of MagBiCarb; I already take K2mk4; I can eat more raisins for boron; I've been noting that I never make my potassium levels on chronometer and I've been adding pro-potassium foods to my grocery list. Thankfully, I live in one of the best places for sun, so I'll make effort to get more.

BTW, this is all just my opinion, I am not a doctor, and probably 80-90% of the forum members would suggest that you should just take vitamin D and that I am stupid.

I appreciate the perspective and input. It could do no harm to try it, which I will.

 

[mmb82]

I can eat more raisins for boron; I've been noting that I never make my potassium levels on chronometer and I've been adding pro-potassium foods to my grocery list.

Prunes are another decent source of boron if you get tired of eating raisins. I also like to put raisins in applesauce or canned fruit to plump them up and give them a different flavor. For potassium, bananas are what most people think of, but coconut water and honeydew melons are the most bang for your buck IMO. I think 2 cups of coconut water and 1/2 of a honeydew is almost 50% of the recommended daily value of potassium and that is only about 300-325 calories worth of food.

I appreciate the perspective and input. It could do no harm to try it, which I will.

Thank you and good luck.

 

[Mossy]

Prunes are another decent source of boron if you get tired of eating raisins. I also like to put raisins in applesauce or canned fruit to plump them up and give them a different flavor. For potassium, bananas are what most people think of, but coconut water and honeydew melons are the most bang for your buck IMO. I think 2 cups of coconut water and 1/2 of a honeydew is almost 50% of the recommended daily value of potassium and that is only about 300-325 calories worth of food.

Ok, I'll keep the prunes in mind; I do already use the raisins just as do, in applesauce, over cottage cheese. Bananas are hard on my digestion, so I'll see what I can do about getting coconut water and honeydew melons. I was able to get organic dried apricots for cheap for a while, but I don't think those are available to me any longer.

Thank you and good luck.

You're welcome and thanks.

 

[SOMO]

I've taken up to 100,000 IU of Vitamin A at one time with no negative effect.

 

[Mossy]

I've taken up to 100,000 IU of Vitamin A at one time with no negative effect.

I do hear these kind of stories, and I wish my body was as cooperating, but unfortunately my body reacts to even small amounts of A.

 

[SOMO]

I do hear these kind of stories, and I wish my body was as cooperating, but unfortunately my body reacts to even small amounts of A.

Extremely high doses (400,000 IU range) are sometimes used to treat persistent acne.

Vit A changes the lipid/oil composition of the sebum. RP says Vit A affects steroid hormones, but sebum that is formed from Omega-9s like Oleic Acid is sticky and gets clogged. The sebum of acne-free skin is high in Linoleic Acid (Omega 6 fatty acid) and low in Omega-9s.

Do you also notice side effects from consuming liver or egg yolks?

 

[raypeatclips]

I do hear these kind of stories, and I wish my body was as cooperating, but unfortunately my body reacts to even small amounts of A.

Are you taking orally? If so, have you tried topically?

Everyone's different, if you react badly to A don't take it regardless of how much anyone else takes etc

 

[Mossy]

Extremely high doses (400,000 IU range) are sometimes used to treat persistent acne.

Vit A changes the lipid/oil composition of the sebum. RP says Vit A affects steroid hormones, but sebum that is formed from Omega-9s like Oleic Acid is sticky and gets clogged. The sebum of acne-free skin is high in Linoleic Acid (Omega 6 fatty acid) and low in Omega-9s.

Do you also notice side effects from consuming liver or egg yolks?

Not with egg yolks, but I do have a slight reaction to liver.

 

[Mossy]

Are you taking orally? If so, have you tried topically?

Everyone's different, if you react badly to A don't take it regardless of how much anyone else takes etc

I have tried both ways, but orally gives me the worst effect. I did try it yesterday with topical D and K2 included, as well as oral D and K2, which I believe helped significantly. I also took MitoLipin, saturated choline, topically, which may have been a good help as well. Ultimately, with combing all these, and using a small amount of A (12,500) it has been my most successful episode with it yet.

 

[EIRE24]

Extremely high doses (400,000 IU range) are sometimes used to treat persistent acne.

Vit A changes the lipid/oil composition of the sebum. RP says Vit A affects steroid hormones, but sebum that is formed from Omega-9s like Oleic Acid is sticky and gets clogged. The sebum of acne-free skin is high in Linoleic Acid (Omega 6 fatty acid) and low in Omega-9s.

Do you also notice side effects from consuming liver or egg yolks?

Vit A never cleared my acne ever and eating liver also always made it worse.

 

[tizout]

What's a safe daily intake of Vitamin A (from fish liver oil) if one takes 10,000 IU D3 and 100 mcg K2 daily? Right now I'm just taking 10,000 IU twice a week which averages out to under 3000 IU daily.