Low Toxin Diet Grant Genereux's Theory Of Vitamin A Toxicity

Richiebogie

Member
Joined
May 3, 2015
Messages
969
Location
Australia
Hi @Travis,

I think I can see your point of view.

Franko has a peculiarly intimate knowledge of Grant's theories. Maybe Grant felt more confident marketing his theories under an alias!

Franko hasn't made many claims for himself on a low vitamin-A diet. The claim that he is most remembered for was that Little Caesar's pizza made him feel worse! As has been pointed out, this doesn't prove a near-zero vitamin A diet is best.

While this seemed odd at the time, perhaps it was a deliberate tactic by Grant to take away any reliance we might put into the fictional Franko's experiences.

Grant had already supplied his own true testimony in his blog and books. He also had his gerbil experiments. He did not want to deceive us into believing in a low vitamin A diet due to a fictional testimony.

So as Travis said, Franko shouldn't be too upset by these speculations if he is not Grant, and I now suggest others should not be too upset if he is.

Does that make everybody happy, or angry? Would Grant's credibility be gone for good? Does Franko have any interest outside of Grant?
 
Last edited:

Nighteyes

Member
Joined
Sep 5, 2015
Messages
411
Location
Europe
LOL calm down dude... I am sure franko Will reply when he has the time.. why not just ask: are you Grant or somehow afiliated with him? Then he can say yes or no. All This other crap is unnecesarry and annoying ‘cause I am following This thread to learn about his theory on vit A. You are clouding the thread with paranoia and useless words. And you just made me add more useless words
 
OP
F

franko

Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2015
Messages
187
Are you Grant Genereux by any chance? :)

You directly reference his name so often which seems odd - kind of sales pitch-y.

I agree retinol can be problematic in certain scenarios but you've ignored many valid lines of enquiry in only the way a person that has a vested interest in something can.

This might be an unfair comment but it has crossed my mind a few times already.

I was thinking about asking him that exact same question, and you had read my mind verbatim.* The manner in which he uses the name 'Grant' explicitly, and not suitable pronoun, does give the reader an overcompensatory vibe...Yet it's his reluctance to acknowledge any of the book's shortcomings is what had led me to that suspicion.

[*] If you actually did read my mind, please ignore the Hieronymus Bosch panda bears playing tennis. [F.Y.I. Giraffes make the best line judges, for the obvious reason.]

I don't get the vibe from franko that he is Grant Genereux™, Grant Genereux™ seems more open to other possibilities, and from my experiences of speaking to them both, franko is more blindly defending Grant Genereux's ™ theory than the man himself does. I think it is more of a cult leader and cult worshipper situation.

Hi @Travis,

I think I can see your point of view.

Franko has a peculiarly intimate knowledge of Grant's theories. Maybe Grant felt more confident marketing his theories under an alias!

Franko hasn't made many claims for himself on a low vitamin-A diet. The claim that he is most remembered for was that Little Caesar's pizza made him feel worse! As has been pointed out, this doesn't prove a near-zero vitamin A diet is best.

While this seemed odd at the time, perhaps it was a deliberate tactic by Grant to take away any reliance we might put into the fictional Franko's experiences.

Grant had already supplied his own true testimony in his blog and books. He also had his gerbil experiments. He did not want to deceive us into believing in a low vitamin A diet due to a fictional testimony.

So as Travis said, Franko shouldn't be too upset by these speculations if he is not Grant, and I now suggest others should not be too upset if he is.

Does that make everybody happy, or angry? Would Grant's credibility be gone for good? Does Franko have any interest outside of Grant?

You guys are ridiculously paranoid.

I use Grant's name when quoting / paraphrasing him in order to clearly distinguish between his words and mine because I don't want people to confuse them.

I've been posting on RPF since 2015. Grant has been writing about his VA theory since 2014. Any theory you might have for why he would do what you are suggesting would be utterly ridiculous.

I've been accused of being "cult worshipper" but you all are the ones acting out cult-like behavior. All I've done is argue in favor of a nutritional theory of VA toxicity — and yet the personal attacks and ridicule and paranoid accusations are what you'd expect from religious or political zealots — or the treatment you'd expect an apostate to get from cult members.

@Travis, I've never claimed Grant is right about everything or that his material has no shortcomings. Like I told to you before, I simply agree with the big picture of the theory. Most of the criticisms you have made have to do with technical biochemistry details that I don't even have the knowledge to confirm or deny. There could be minor errors in his material and the big picture of the theory could still be true.
 
Last edited:

raypeatclips

Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2016
Messages
2,555
You guys are ridiculously paranoid.

I use Grant's name in order to clearly distinguish between his words and mine because I don't want people to confuse them.

I've been posting about my health problems on RPF since 2015. Grant has been writing about his VA theory since 2014. There's no possible explanation for why he would do what you are accusing him of that is not utterly ridiculous.

I've been accused of being "cult worshipper" but you all are the ones acting out cult-like behavior. All I've done is argue in favor of a nutritional theory of VA toxicity — and yet the personal attacks and ridicule and paranoid accusations are what you'd expect from religious or political zealots — or the treatment you'd expect an apostate to get from his former cult members.

@Travis, I've never claimed Grant is right about everything or that his material has no shortcomings. Like I told to you before, I'm just focused on the big picture. Most of the criticisms you have shared with me have to do with technical biochemistry details that I don't necessarily even have the knowledge to prove or disprove. From Grant's material and my own research, I simply agree that there's a strong case to back up the theory that Vitamin A is toxic. And Grant could have many mistakes in his books, and the main point of the theory could still be true.

Calling you a cult worshipper was my post and I thought it was obvious it was just a joke, but if you found offence from it I shall apologise.

On a more serious note I don't want to detract from my post before this where Grant accepted vitamin D was a possibility in this whole theory, and has gone so far as to say he is getting vitamin D blood tests. I wanted to know if this changes your opinion at all, now Grant has conceded D may possibly be involved.
 
OP
F

franko

Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2015
Messages
187
I've reached the limit of my patience in dealing with attacks and trolling and paranoid accusations on this forum — all of which have made it extremely difficult (for me anyway) to have a productive discussion on this subject.

From now on, I am going to focus my personal efforts on what I believe will be most productive and worthwhile and that is to post my own thoughts, research and experience on this subject elsewhere.

If you're interested in hearing what I have to say on this subject in the future, I will be posting in either the comments of Grant's blog or on my own blog which I have just created for this purpose. You can follow me there.

If you're looking for a more welcoming place to ask questions and discuss this theory, there's always Grant's blog / comment section and he has even added a forum section to his blog so that might pick up eventually.

Thanks to all the people who were supportive or appreciative or who were simply polite and respectful. Don't worry, I know this wasn't a total waste. I am satisfied that I have done my part to raise awareness about vitamin A toxicity and that I have helped some to find Grant's work and evaluate it for themselves.
 
Last edited:

Brother John

Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2016
Messages
101
I've reached the limit of my patience in dealing with attacks and trolling and paranoid accusations on this forum — all of which have made it extremely difficult to have a productive debate on this subject.

From now on, I am going to focus my personal efforts on what I believe will be most productive and worthwhile and that is to post my own thoughts, research and experience on this subject elsewhere.

If you're interested in hearing what I have to say on this subject in the future, I will be posting in either the comments of Grant's blog or on my own blog which I have just created for this purpose. You can follow me there.

Thanks to all the people who were supportive or appreciative or who were simply polite and respectful. Don't worry, I know this wasn't a total waste. I am satisfied that I have done my part to raise awareness about vitamin A toxicity and that I have helped some to find Grant's work and evaluate it for themselves.
Franko I don't blame you for leaving. When discussion turns into adhom attack .... it's wasted time to continue. I have gone 3 weeks on zero A diet. Joint pain way way down, Psoriasis vastly improved, major energy level increase and mental energy seems much improved...I agree that Vitamin D is important. However D never helped me much even though I tested High in vitamin D... I thank you for bringing this "Idea" to the forum.
Brother John
 

raypeatclips

Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2016
Messages
2,555
Franko I don't blame you for leaving. When discussion turns into adhom attack .... it's wasted time to continue. I have gone 3 weeks on zero A diet. Joint pain way way down, Psoriasis vastly improved, major energy level increase and mental energy seems much improved...I agree that Vitamin D is important. However D never helped me much even though I tested High in vitamin D... I thank you for bringing this "Idea" to the forum.
Brother John

Out of interest, what were your vitamin D levels when you tested them?
 

Brother John

Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2016
Messages
101
Out of interest, what were your vitamin D levels when you tested them?
Not going there. No matter what I say they were I don't believe they will satisfy you. I expect you to say: not good enough, or wrong kind of test, or how long ago, etc. Just not going there.
Brother John
 

charlie

Admin
The Law & Order Admin
Joined
Jan 4, 2012
Messages
14,364
Location
USA
Franko I don't blame you for leaving. When discussion turns into adhom attack .... it's wasted time to continue. I have gone 3 weeks on zero A diet. Joint pain way way down, Psoriasis vastly improved, major energy level increase and mental energy seems much improved...I agree that Vitamin D is important. However D never helped me much even though I tested High in vitamin D... I thank you for bringing this "Idea" to the forum.
Brother John
I know of others seeing improvements, you are not alone.
 

raypeatclips

Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2016
Messages
2,555
Not going there. No matter what I say they were I don't believe they will satisfy you. I expect you to say: not good enough, or wrong kind of test, or how long ago, etc. Just not going there.
Brother John

? Okay, it is up to you, I was honestly just interested. My issue is that I've been asking for months now for the vitamin A crowd to provide vitamin D tests to see if there is any probable link to the D/A thing. I am genuinely willing to accept vitamin A is an issue. I don't have problems with Vitamin A myself, so my own blood tests aren't very useful to look at the D level. Every time I try to make sense of the theory of vitamin A, one of the Vitamin A crowd just shuts down and I can't get further. Grant seems open to discussion, and I really hope he does the vitamin D blood tests, because I am very intrigued by the theory, but get stonewalled as soon as I try to challenge it, the person runs off, doesn't reply to messages, dodges the question etc. (Isn't challenging a theory how you prove its legitimacy?)

I am assuming from your defensive reaction though your test was deficient? Otherwise you could tell me and essentially "shut me up."
 

Brother John

Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2016
Messages
101
? Okay, it is up to you, I was honestly just interested. My issue is that I've been asking for months now for the vitamin A crowd to provide vitamin D tests to see if there is any probable link to the D/A thing. I am genuinely willing to accept vitamin A is an issue. I don't have problems with Vitamin A myself, so my own blood tests aren't very useful to look at the D level. Every time I try to make sense of the theory of vitamin A, one of the Vitamin A crowd just shuts down and I can't get further. Grant seems open to discussion, and I really hope he does the vitamin D blood tests, because I am very intrigued by the theory, but get stonewalled as soon as I try to challenge it, the person runs off, doesn't reply to messages, dodges the question etc. (Isn't challenging a theory how you prove its legitimacy?)

I am assuming from your defensive reaction though your test was deficient? Otherwise you could tell me and essentially "shut me up."
My test was not deficient. I simply supply the info I want to and if I clear the "D bar" there can be another and another. Rather than go after people about D perhaps you could read the Free Books on V A that Grant has written. I Did. Last reply about D and Me!
Brother John
 

raypeatclips

Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2016
Messages
2,555
My test was not deficient. I simply supply the info I want to and if I clear the "D bar" there can be another and another. Rather than go after people about D perhaps you could read the Free Books on V A that Grant has written. I Did. Last reply about D and Me!
Brother John

I am confused about what you are meaning by clear the "D bar"? I have simply asked all the vitamin A crowd what their vitamin D levels were, to see if there was any possible relationship between my D and A idea. So far not one of them has been able to provide them for me, despite vitamin D being one of the cheapest and widely taken blood tests. I'm not going after people about D at all, I am sorry if it seems that way. It may seem like I am going after people, because I have yet to get any sort of reasonable reply, so I feel the need to keep repeating myself. I have read some of Grant's book, and was largely disappointed by it. In the comments on his website he accepted to me that D might be a possibility why the issues with A are happening. In a separate comment to someone else, he admits he has not looked into Vitamin D and the connection to vitamin A at all.


For a person that has now written, is it 3 ebooks? About a certain vitamin's toxicity, admitting they have not looked into one of that vitamins main antagonist, and the vitamin that is mostly linked to it, seems strange to me. Grant is a man that is utterly devoted to researching vitamin A, why has he not researched its relationship with vitamin D?

"Vit D relationship to Vit A
I haven’t investigated this topic too much."

My question is, why not?
 

Mito

Member
Joined
Dec 10, 2016
Messages
2,554
For a person that has now written, is it 3 ebooks? About a certain vitamin's toxicity, admitting they have not looked into one of that vitamins main antagonist, and the vitamin that is mostly linked to it, seems strange to me. Grant is a man that is utterly devoted to researching vitamin A, why has he not researched its relationship with vitamin D?

"Vit D relationship to Vit A
I haven’t investigated this topic too much."

My question is, why not?
It would be interesting to see Grant’s Vitamin D level but I’d be even more interested know his serum Vitamin A levels. Travis had posted a study about the very narrow range that the body regulates serum Vitamin A. I wonder how quickly serum Vitamin A levels fall on a very low or no Vitamin A diet especially someone Grant’s age (considering his liver has presumably been storing Vitamin A for 50+ years before he changed his diet)? Had he measured his Vitamin A level at the beginning of his diet change and again now, it would have added a lot of clout to his theory.
 

raypeatclips

Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2016
Messages
2,555
It would be interesting to see Grant’s Vitamin D level but I’d be even more interested know his serum Vitamin A levels. Travis had posted a study about the very narrow range that the body regulates serum Vitamin A. I wonder how quickly serum Vitamin A levels fall on a very low or no Vitamin A diet especially someone Grant’s age (considering his liver has presumably been storing Vitamin A for 50+ years before he changed his diet)? Had he measured his Vitamin A level at the beginning of his diet change and again now, it would have added a lot of clout to his theory.

Good points, I agree.
 

sunraiser

Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2017
Messages
549
I would also add that with retinol issues then low vitamin D might be a good indicator, however in my experience k2 depletion can also occur.

It might simply mean taking a small amount of k2 to allow magnesium tolerance and therefore vitamin D level restoration.

When I've eaten too much liver experimentally or stupidly vitamin D hasn't always helped but K1 K2 combo has.

https://chrismasterjohnphd.com/2009/04/07/tufts-university-confirms-that-vitamin/

That article states it in a positive light but I don't believe it just curbs "excess", I think the vitamin K curbing keeps going into deficiency if retinol is pushed too far.
 
Last edited:

inthedark

Member
Joined
Apr 29, 2017
Messages
268
Many people seem to want simple answers for complex questions, which is understandable. It would be much easier to solve our issues if the secret was simply to eliminate pufa or vitamin a, or take thyroid, or never eat saturated fat etc etc etc. Even in the post linked above, Matt Stone states that one of his goals with 180D is:
  1. Figuring out what the hell is causing an accelerated increase in nearly all health problems worldwide over the past century, the last 40 years in particular, and determine how best to turn those trends “180 degrees.”
Then if someone does find one important lynchpin that seems to save their health, often they tend to foist it on everyone as a panacea. And a "magic bullet" is almost irresistibly appealing.

But the world and our own environments and contexts are incredibly complex and each of us has a different interplay of variables. Even with this being so, discussions often collapse into dichotomy, with nuance and context falling by the wayside. Further into his article on this, Stone says

"And so, I present to you today a really great lead about what might be causing all this, something that might possibly slay THE most sacred nutritional cow, and something that might have real potential to reverse the horrifying recent health trends."

It blows me away that someone who's spent over a decade in independent health research could once again fall for the lure of the magic bullet as THE one thing causing "all this". Is Vitamin A a problem? Genereux has certainly done a good thing with his well researched work on this, and even through a Peat lens we should take a new look at retinol and see if it might be an issue in the context of our own bodies and diets. But I strongly disagree with this cycle where someone points up a single thing as being the villain whose defeat would stop all our ills.

I've followed the comments on this thread since it was posted and it really did reframe my thinking around vitamin A. This knowledge is a great tool in apprehending health. But the idea that this -or any single factor- is the lynchpin for everyone's health is dangerously simplistic.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom