arcsapien
New Member
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2024
- Messages
- 2
I've been silently observing the Ray Peat Forum since around 2019. In 2021, I discovered and joined Grant’s Vitamin A toxicity forum, where I've been following a low Vitamin A diet ever since. I've been fascinated by and supportive of the growing movement recognizing Vitamin A as a toxin, and I'm grateful for the direction Charlie is leading this forum.
Over the past few years, my personal journey and venture into wellness coaching have been enlightening. Through hands-on experience with clients, I've gained valuable insights. It's a personal goal of mine to become more actively involved in this forum and others.
That being said, I'm surprised there aren't more discussions drawing attention to folate as a potential toxin. Whenever this topic arises, the response tends to echo the reactions to suggesting Vitamin A toxicity. It often clashes with the multitude of mechanistic studies and health influencers, immediately polarizing people. "But methylation! But DNA repair! But neurotransmitters! How dare you!? Folate is God’s gift.” But is it?
There's a somewhat comical aspect to vitamin science when it comes to distinguishing between "synthetic" and "natural" forms, also known sometimes as methylated counterparts. Folate is deemed good, but folic acid is labeled as bad. Pyridoxal-5-Phosphate (B6) is praised, but pyridoxine is condemned. For those familiar with the ongoing discussions surrounding B6 interventions, it's clear there's a wealth of experiential evidence that contradicts the plethora of mechanistic studies typically funded by major institutional authorities. B6, regardless of its form, is toxic. Interestingly, even these mechanistic studies illustrate how the body converts all B6 forms interchangeably between "active" and inactive states. There are thousands of testimonials that back this idea, and there are several forums dedicated to raising awareness about B6 toxicity. The issue of B6 toxicity has come to light, and one of the main products of government fortification programs is facing growing scrutiny.
But I'm not here to discuss B6; I'm here to discuss B9. Another "vitamin" with a narrow therapeutic range, akin to Vitamin A, it claims to address the very issues it can also provoke in excess. Like Vitamin A, the right amount of folate prevents neural tube defects, but an excessive intake can lead to the same problem. Mainstream medicine suggests that the difference between these contrasting effects can be as little as 500mcg—a minute dosage compared to many other substances, highlighting its glaring absurdity.
All types of folate display neurotoxic effects at doses ranging from 300 mcg to 1000 mcg, or 1 mg—the smallest limit on nearly any supplement. Surprisingly, the "therapeutic" dose mirrors that of Vitamin A, which exhibits toxicity in medical literature at approximately 1 mg daily. This highlights the substantial toxicity of folate.
“Science” postulates that folate might conceal the symptoms of B12 deficiency, potentially causing neurological harm. Numerous health influencers emphasize the detrimental effects folate can have in the presence of a B12 deficiency. They insist, "You must raise your B12 levels for folate to be effective." (Lol) Are you familiar with the "folate trap"? It's an absolutely absurd concept that's often promoted to those who are intellectually gullible. They'd have to think that the tiny doses of this highly toxic substance you're ingesting are making you feel unwell because you need to ensure you're adequately supplied with genuine nerve-protecting agents.
We shouldn't supplement with folate for two primary reasons. Firstly, because most people already consume toxic levels of it. Secondly, genuine deficiency is exceedingly rare, except in cases of extreme malnutrition such as seen in starving children in Africa. This strategy mirrors a common tactic employed by Big Pharma, which attributes symptomatic phenomena to a specific nutrient deficiency, while ignoring the broader context of overall malnutrition (I mean a starving person in Africa, come on!). Similar tactics have been used to justify claims of Vitamin A deficiency in various case studies found in the literature.
The assertion that we require folate solely for methylation is inaccurate, given that there are at least 9 other substances that contribute to the methylation process. Supplementing creatine, a major end product of all methylation processes will alone remedy a huge portion of people claiming to be plagued by methylation issues. Creatine is supplemented at 5g. Consider that: 5 grams. That's equivalent to 5,000,000 micrograms (mcg). Now, compare that to the typical dose of folate, which is just 400mcg.
Initially, in the 1920s, folate deficiency was associated with anemia. Then, in 1948, folate was attempted as a treatment for childhood leukemia, albeit unsuccessfully. In 1960, researchers established a link between folate deficiency and the risk of neural tube defects. Throughout history, the narrative surrounding folate has continuously evolved, raising questions about its actual functions. Folate was touted as a remedy for anemia, but it has since been demonstrated to be ineffective for this purpose. Despite numerous health claims suggesting that folate could potentially treat heart disease and various other conditions, extensive investigations have failed to substantiate any of these claims.
I approach with skepticism the enthusiastic endorsement of folate by entities such as Big Pharma and Big Science. If a substance exhibits toxicity at such a minute dose as 1mg, it raises concerns about its overall safety. The narrow margin between therapeutic benefit and toxicity, relative to the small dosage amount, is akin to claiming that one grain of sand is healthy, while two grains are not. Years ago, I was prescribed Deplin the pharmaceutical counterpart of methyl folate for depression and anxiety with devastating consequences. Folate cannot simultaneously cause and cure anemia just as folate cannot simultaneously cause and cure nerve problems. The entire idea is ludicrous.
Folate, when used as a mood stabilizer, operates through mechanisms of toxicity, akin to how Prozac/Fluoxetine operates ("flu" referencing fluorine components). Fluoride, for example, can indeed alleviate mental agitation, if inducing a sense of zoned-out detachment is something you are looking for.
Before hastily attributing all negative effects to folic acid alone, it's crucial to thoroughly examine the studies (below and many more on PubMed). Many of these studies, whether epidemiological or survey-based, investigate all forms of folate, not solely folic acid. Moreover, they frequently overlook distinguishing between the different forms, rendering it inaccurate to solely blame folic acid for the effects. Additionally, everyone is entitled to consume substances as they wish, so there's no need to feel offended by the sharing of this opinion, and no one is attempting to shame anyone for enjoying their preferred inebriated neurological indulgence.
Today, many individuals opt for the "methyl folate" form over folic acid, believing it to be safer due to its role as a methyl donor, support for methylation, detoxification, and its perceived benefit for people with the MTHFR mutation, which may affect around 50% of the population.
The notion of "over methylators" and "under methylators" is pseudoscience, partly perpetuated by health influencers seeking to sell products and promote an ideology suggesting they have a unique solution to ongoing issues. Nonetheless, various toxins, such as folate, can indeed disrupt methylation function. Chris Masterjohn's article presents an intriguing perspective that I believe aligns well with the topic:
https://chrismasterjohnphd.com/blog/2019/02/26/mthfr-just-riboflavin-deficiency/
“Think how different this is than trying to make up for low MTHFR activity by taking extra methylfolate. One methylfolate molecule goes into your body, stays inside your cells for 200 days, and every day has 18,000 methyl groups added to it using MTHFR. If you have a 75% decrease in that, you’re losing 13,500 of those recycling events. You can’t take 13,500 times the normal dose of methylfolate. I have no idea what it would do but I know it’s not safe. Methylfolate is one of the primary normal food forms of folate, and I think it’s great. You need to get enough folate, so getting normal, reasonable doses of methylfolate into your diet makes complete sense. But adding more to make up for low MTHFR activity is ludicrous.”
“The risk of toxicity from folic acid is low because folate is a water-soluble vitamin and is regularly removed from the body through urine.”
Vs.
“The EFSA reviewed the safety question and agreed with United States that the UL be set at 1,000 μg.[96]”
How does this make sense? Despite being water-soluble, the risk of toxicity is low, yet the upper limit is a mere 1000 mcg (1 mg), the smallest limit for any vitamin? This contradiction is quite glaring.
Effect of maternal high dosages of folic acid supplements on neurocognitive development in children at 4-5 y of age: the prospective birth cohort Infancia y Medio Ambiente (INMA) study — 2017
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28724645/
Folate causes irreversible nerve damage and “cognitive symptoms”. 8 studies cited by the NIH (US government):
https://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/Folate-HealthProfessional/
Johnson MA. If high folic acid aggravates vitamin B12 deficiency what should be done about it? Nutr Rev 2007;65:451-8. [PubMed abstract]
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17972439/
In vitamin B12 deficiency, higher serum folate is associated with increased total homocysteine and methylmalonic acid concentrations (2007)
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18056804/
Cognitive impairment in older Americans in the age of folic acid fortification. (2007)
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17616791/
Folic acid fortification: the good, the bad, and the puzzle of vitamin B-12
https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/85/1/3/4649440?login=false
“In 2005, an increased risk of cognitive decline was reported in elderly persons who took folic acid supplements in doses >400 μg/d.” (mcg/day)
Science-based micronutrient fortification: which nutrients, how much, and how to know?
https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/82/2/279/4862901?login=false
“at the time the decision was made to mandate the addition of folic acid to enriched flour, no coherent plan to monitor the national and regional effect on neural tube defect births, to document actual changes in folate status, or to assess the possible occurrence of untoward effects on the population”
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26862004/
“Between 1945 and 1959 it was convincingly documented that folic acid can precipitate or aggravate the neurological and haematological consequences of vitamin B12 deficiency by increasing the demand for vitamin B12. Since then there has been much misunderstanding of the issues, mainly by advocates of folic acid fortification who have been inclined to minimise or even dismiss the risks by misinterpreting the evidence as only a ‘masking’ of the anaemia of pernicious anaemia. Recent studies in the era of fortification are rediscovering the risks to the nervous system, especially cognitive function, of excess folate in the presence of vitamin B12 deficiency. I have reviewed the Reports of four Expert Advisory Committees in Europe and the USA, which suggest that the safe upper tolerable limit (UL) for folic acid is 1 mg in adults. These reports are unsound and there is already evidence of neurological harm from long-term exposure to doses of folic acid between 0.5 and 1 mg in the presence of vitamin B12 deficiency. There is an urgent need to review the safe UL for folic acid and to consider the addition of vitamin B12 to folic acid fortification policies.”
https://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/Folate-HealthProfessional/#h8
“In addition, intakes of 1,000 mcg per day or more of folic acid from supplements during the periconception period have been associated with lower scores on several tests of cognitive development in children at ages 4–5 years than in children of mothers who took 400 mcg to 999 mcg [153].”
“Since 1998, folic acid has been added to cold cereals, flour, breads, pasta, bakery items, cookies, and crackers, as required by federal law.”
Here, the CDC claims there are 1300 fewer neural tube defects each year. https://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/folicacid/features/folicacid-prevents-ntds.html
Here the CDC contradicts themselves :https://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/developmentaldisabilities/features/increase-in-developmental-disabilities.html
Long-term use of folic acid dietary supplements in excess of 1,000 μg/day has been linked to an increase in prostate cancer risk.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19141696/
“We subsequently showed increases in circulating homocysteine and MMA concentrations with increasing serum folate among NHANES participants…”
Is High Folic Acid Intake a Risk Factor for Autism?—A Review
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5704156/
“This raises concerns about detrimental effects of high serum synthetic FA [30]. These include effects on the enzyme dihydrofolate reductase [23], regulation of folate uptake in renal and intestinal epithelia [31], reduced cytotoxicity of natural killer T cells in postmenopausal women [27], disregulation of gene expression in lymphoblastoid cells [32], and cytotoxicity to neural tissues and mental health (reviewed in [33,34]). In addition, evidence shows that high FA intake is associated with an increase in incidence of twin births, body fat mass and insulin resistance in offspring, increased risk of colorectal cancer, and other adverse outcomes (reviewed in [20]).”
Over the past few years, my personal journey and venture into wellness coaching have been enlightening. Through hands-on experience with clients, I've gained valuable insights. It's a personal goal of mine to become more actively involved in this forum and others.
That being said, I'm surprised there aren't more discussions drawing attention to folate as a potential toxin. Whenever this topic arises, the response tends to echo the reactions to suggesting Vitamin A toxicity. It often clashes with the multitude of mechanistic studies and health influencers, immediately polarizing people. "But methylation! But DNA repair! But neurotransmitters! How dare you!? Folate is God’s gift.” But is it?
There's a somewhat comical aspect to vitamin science when it comes to distinguishing between "synthetic" and "natural" forms, also known sometimes as methylated counterparts. Folate is deemed good, but folic acid is labeled as bad. Pyridoxal-5-Phosphate (B6) is praised, but pyridoxine is condemned. For those familiar with the ongoing discussions surrounding B6 interventions, it's clear there's a wealth of experiential evidence that contradicts the plethora of mechanistic studies typically funded by major institutional authorities. B6, regardless of its form, is toxic. Interestingly, even these mechanistic studies illustrate how the body converts all B6 forms interchangeably between "active" and inactive states. There are thousands of testimonials that back this idea, and there are several forums dedicated to raising awareness about B6 toxicity. The issue of B6 toxicity has come to light, and one of the main products of government fortification programs is facing growing scrutiny.
But I'm not here to discuss B6; I'm here to discuss B9. Another "vitamin" with a narrow therapeutic range, akin to Vitamin A, it claims to address the very issues it can also provoke in excess. Like Vitamin A, the right amount of folate prevents neural tube defects, but an excessive intake can lead to the same problem. Mainstream medicine suggests that the difference between these contrasting effects can be as little as 500mcg—a minute dosage compared to many other substances, highlighting its glaring absurdity.
All types of folate display neurotoxic effects at doses ranging from 300 mcg to 1000 mcg, or 1 mg—the smallest limit on nearly any supplement. Surprisingly, the "therapeutic" dose mirrors that of Vitamin A, which exhibits toxicity in medical literature at approximately 1 mg daily. This highlights the substantial toxicity of folate.
“Science” postulates that folate might conceal the symptoms of B12 deficiency, potentially causing neurological harm. Numerous health influencers emphasize the detrimental effects folate can have in the presence of a B12 deficiency. They insist, "You must raise your B12 levels for folate to be effective." (Lol) Are you familiar with the "folate trap"? It's an absolutely absurd concept that's often promoted to those who are intellectually gullible. They'd have to think that the tiny doses of this highly toxic substance you're ingesting are making you feel unwell because you need to ensure you're adequately supplied with genuine nerve-protecting agents.
We shouldn't supplement with folate for two primary reasons. Firstly, because most people already consume toxic levels of it. Secondly, genuine deficiency is exceedingly rare, except in cases of extreme malnutrition such as seen in starving children in Africa. This strategy mirrors a common tactic employed by Big Pharma, which attributes symptomatic phenomena to a specific nutrient deficiency, while ignoring the broader context of overall malnutrition (I mean a starving person in Africa, come on!). Similar tactics have been used to justify claims of Vitamin A deficiency in various case studies found in the literature.
The assertion that we require folate solely for methylation is inaccurate, given that there are at least 9 other substances that contribute to the methylation process. Supplementing creatine, a major end product of all methylation processes will alone remedy a huge portion of people claiming to be plagued by methylation issues. Creatine is supplemented at 5g. Consider that: 5 grams. That's equivalent to 5,000,000 micrograms (mcg). Now, compare that to the typical dose of folate, which is just 400mcg.
Initially, in the 1920s, folate deficiency was associated with anemia. Then, in 1948, folate was attempted as a treatment for childhood leukemia, albeit unsuccessfully. In 1960, researchers established a link between folate deficiency and the risk of neural tube defects. Throughout history, the narrative surrounding folate has continuously evolved, raising questions about its actual functions. Folate was touted as a remedy for anemia, but it has since been demonstrated to be ineffective for this purpose. Despite numerous health claims suggesting that folate could potentially treat heart disease and various other conditions, extensive investigations have failed to substantiate any of these claims.
I approach with skepticism the enthusiastic endorsement of folate by entities such as Big Pharma and Big Science. If a substance exhibits toxicity at such a minute dose as 1mg, it raises concerns about its overall safety. The narrow margin between therapeutic benefit and toxicity, relative to the small dosage amount, is akin to claiming that one grain of sand is healthy, while two grains are not. Years ago, I was prescribed Deplin the pharmaceutical counterpart of methyl folate for depression and anxiety with devastating consequences. Folate cannot simultaneously cause and cure anemia just as folate cannot simultaneously cause and cure nerve problems. The entire idea is ludicrous.
Folate, when used as a mood stabilizer, operates through mechanisms of toxicity, akin to how Prozac/Fluoxetine operates ("flu" referencing fluorine components). Fluoride, for example, can indeed alleviate mental agitation, if inducing a sense of zoned-out detachment is something you are looking for.
Before hastily attributing all negative effects to folic acid alone, it's crucial to thoroughly examine the studies (below and many more on PubMed). Many of these studies, whether epidemiological or survey-based, investigate all forms of folate, not solely folic acid. Moreover, they frequently overlook distinguishing between the different forms, rendering it inaccurate to solely blame folic acid for the effects. Additionally, everyone is entitled to consume substances as they wish, so there's no need to feel offended by the sharing of this opinion, and no one is attempting to shame anyone for enjoying their preferred inebriated neurological indulgence.
Today, many individuals opt for the "methyl folate" form over folic acid, believing it to be safer due to its role as a methyl donor, support for methylation, detoxification, and its perceived benefit for people with the MTHFR mutation, which may affect around 50% of the population.
The notion of "over methylators" and "under methylators" is pseudoscience, partly perpetuated by health influencers seeking to sell products and promote an ideology suggesting they have a unique solution to ongoing issues. Nonetheless, various toxins, such as folate, can indeed disrupt methylation function. Chris Masterjohn's article presents an intriguing perspective that I believe aligns well with the topic:
Your “MTHFR” Is Just a Riboflavin Deficiencyhttps://chrismasterjohnphd.com/blog/2019/02/26/mthfr-just-riboflavin-deficiency/
“Think how different this is than trying to make up for low MTHFR activity by taking extra methylfolate. One methylfolate molecule goes into your body, stays inside your cells for 200 days, and every day has 18,000 methyl groups added to it using MTHFR. If you have a 75% decrease in that, you’re losing 13,500 of those recycling events. You can’t take 13,500 times the normal dose of methylfolate. I have no idea what it would do but I know it’s not safe. Methylfolate is one of the primary normal food forms of folate, and I think it’s great. You need to get enough folate, so getting normal, reasonable doses of methylfolate into your diet makes complete sense. But adding more to make up for low MTHFR activity is ludicrous.”
Here are some intriguing studies and quotes listed in no particular order and presented somewhat chaotically (apologies):
“The risk of toxicity from folic acid is low because folate is a water-soluble vitamin and is regularly removed from the body through urine.”
Vs.
“The EFSA reviewed the safety question and agreed with United States that the UL be set at 1,000 μg.[96]”
How does this make sense? Despite being water-soluble, the risk of toxicity is low, yet the upper limit is a mere 1000 mcg (1 mg), the smallest limit for any vitamin? This contradiction is quite glaring.
Effect of maternal high dosages of folic acid supplements on neurocognitive development in children at 4-5 y of age: the prospective birth cohort Infancia y Medio Ambiente (INMA) study — 2017
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28724645/
Folate causes irreversible nerve damage and “cognitive symptoms”. 8 studies cited by the NIH (US government):
https://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/Folate-HealthProfessional/
Johnson MA. If high folic acid aggravates vitamin B12 deficiency what should be done about it? Nutr Rev 2007;65:451-8. [PubMed abstract]
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17972439/
In vitamin B12 deficiency, higher serum folate is associated with increased total homocysteine and methylmalonic acid concentrations (2007)
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18056804/
Cognitive impairment in older Americans in the age of folic acid fortification. (2007)
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17616791/
Folic acid fortification: the good, the bad, and the puzzle of vitamin B-12
https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/85/1/3/4649440?login=false
“In 2005, an increased risk of cognitive decline was reported in elderly persons who took folic acid supplements in doses >400 μg/d.” (mcg/day)
Science-based micronutrient fortification: which nutrients, how much, and how to know?
https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/82/2/279/4862901?login=false
“at the time the decision was made to mandate the addition of folic acid to enriched flour, no coherent plan to monitor the national and regional effect on neural tube defect births, to document actual changes in folate status, or to assess the possible occurrence of untoward effects on the population”
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26862004/
“Between 1945 and 1959 it was convincingly documented that folic acid can precipitate or aggravate the neurological and haematological consequences of vitamin B12 deficiency by increasing the demand for vitamin B12. Since then there has been much misunderstanding of the issues, mainly by advocates of folic acid fortification who have been inclined to minimise or even dismiss the risks by misinterpreting the evidence as only a ‘masking’ of the anaemia of pernicious anaemia. Recent studies in the era of fortification are rediscovering the risks to the nervous system, especially cognitive function, of excess folate in the presence of vitamin B12 deficiency. I have reviewed the Reports of four Expert Advisory Committees in Europe and the USA, which suggest that the safe upper tolerable limit (UL) for folic acid is 1 mg in adults. These reports are unsound and there is already evidence of neurological harm from long-term exposure to doses of folic acid between 0.5 and 1 mg in the presence of vitamin B12 deficiency. There is an urgent need to review the safe UL for folic acid and to consider the addition of vitamin B12 to folic acid fortification policies.”
https://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/Folate-HealthProfessional/#h8
“In addition, intakes of 1,000 mcg per day or more of folic acid from supplements during the periconception period have been associated with lower scores on several tests of cognitive development in children at ages 4–5 years than in children of mothers who took 400 mcg to 999 mcg [153].”
“Since 1998, folic acid has been added to cold cereals, flour, breads, pasta, bakery items, cookies, and crackers, as required by federal law.”
Here, the CDC claims there are 1300 fewer neural tube defects each year. https://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/folicacid/features/folicacid-prevents-ntds.html
Here the CDC contradicts themselves :https://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/developmentaldisabilities/features/increase-in-developmental-disabilities.html
Long-term use of folic acid dietary supplements in excess of 1,000 μg/day has been linked to an increase in prostate cancer risk.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19141696/
“We subsequently showed increases in circulating homocysteine and MMA concentrations with increasing serum folate among NHANES participants…”
Is High Folic Acid Intake a Risk Factor for Autism?—A Review
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5704156/
“This raises concerns about detrimental effects of high serum synthetic FA [30]. These include effects on the enzyme dihydrofolate reductase [23], regulation of folate uptake in renal and intestinal epithelia [31], reduced cytotoxicity of natural killer T cells in postmenopausal women [27], disregulation of gene expression in lymphoblastoid cells [32], and cytotoxicity to neural tissues and mental health (reviewed in [33,34]). In addition, evidence shows that high FA intake is associated with an increase in incidence of twin births, body fat mass and insulin resistance in offspring, increased risk of colorectal cancer, and other adverse outcomes (reviewed in [20]).”
Last edited:
