Amazoniac
Member
I didn't understand how you arrived on those figures.Well they not only survived but also seemed to grow almost normally (+104% growth vs +136% in controls), they also mention a separate experiment where
"a group of 25 weanling male rats of the Sprague-Dawley strain (ordered specifically for purposes of vitamin A assay so as to have low vitamin A reserves) were placed on the vitamin A deficient diet (A^ ; 80% of the animals have survived for 80 days and attained an average weight of 245 gm. No xerophthalmia or marked visible evidence of vitamin A deficiency is apparent in these surviving animals. Of 6 control animals on the same diet but receiving vitamin A, all have survived, and their average weight at 80 clays was 370 gm."
Sure, the cure with Vitamin C wasn't 100%, but nevertheless suggests that much of the disease state caused by VA depletion diets in rats is secondary to disturbed Vitamin C metabolism. This makes it even more difficult to extrapolate from rat studies about the need for VA in humans since we have totally different Vitamin C metabolism.
There was the peculiar 25,000 IU/d cirrhosis case in which you used to back up the idea that if such a low dose was capable of complicating the condition to that extent, what could be going on with other people passing unnoticed? The same applies here. For example, if animals managed to develop normally (they didn't) and tissues weren't analyzed, we could suppose that the depletion had no impact at all for a lack of manifestation.