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

[Collden]

What about your message quoted in my previous post?

I was saying they get no positive effects from eating VA, not that they didn't get positive effects from removing VA.

Not too much if after a year there wasn't someone such as ours truly telling them to keep pushing further because there hasn't been enough time, implying that they're almost there.

If after a year no benefit is experienced, I'd advise them to move on, really.

Again, your mixing toxicity with accumulation, there are people with insanely high reserves that have it safe without causing any problem, and people with meek ones having its metabolism wrecked, and if we go by the stores level judgement, we're being distracted from the actual problem. You can be a poor converter, have past use of tretinoins, malfunctioning organs/proteins/enzymes, secondary malnutrition, and so on; you'll be treating all these through strict depletion even when the person is close to such state.

People differ in their ability to handle excess amounts, but generally the more you have stored above the optimal the more risk that it will cause issues all other things being equal. Most case studies on chronic toxicity include VA restriction as part of the treatment plan, so I guess someone else who has experience with this thinks its important, but its just common sense really.

Since you hint on every opportunity that it's fine to proceed with this, do you mind answering the following?

It's a fair request given your encouragement. Can be for a theoretical case that's as critical as the reports that you select.

Almost all accounts report some benefits in the first month, so if you're not getting anything at all at that point maybe its not for you, then again if you know that you have a history of high VA consumption and symptoms of toxicity maybe you wanna go longer. I don't know and its up to each individual to personally evaluate whether the diet feels right and if they feel things are moving in the right direction or not. I think most people could do low-VA safely for at least a year, doesn't mean that they should.

 

[Amazoniac]

I was saying they get no positive effects from eating VA, not that they didn't get positive effects from removing VA.

No one can 'finally re-introduce foods with vitamin A without ill effects', it's 'just less negative'.

People differ in their ability to handle excess amounts, but generally the more you have stored above the optimal the more risk that it will cause issues all other things being equal. Almost all case studies on chronic toxicity include VA restriction as part of the treatment plan, so I guess someone else who has experience with this thinks its important, but its just common sense really.

Right, and who here is suggesting people not to consume lower amounts?

If after a year no benefit is experienced, I'd advise them to move on, really.

Almost all accounts report some benefits in the first month, so if you're not getting anything at all at that point maybe its not for you, then again if you know that you have a history of high VA consumption and symptoms of toxicity maybe you wanna go longer. I don't know and its up to each individual to personally evaluate whether the diet feels right and if they feel things are moving in the right direction or not. I think most people could do low-VA safely for at least a year, doesn't mean that they should.

Collden, there's no need for us to discuss the obvious: those that stick to it is because they've gotten better. What if almost a year has passed, they have noticed improvements but others issues start to creep in? This is the classic dillema, when people start to become unsure if they should keep going, question their decisions, wonder if this will suffice, and return to the thread for support. Then, they come across vague messages of hope: we are different, it can take a long time, it's always accompanied by liver excess, reserves should be fine, check out these (critical) cases, it gets worse before it gets better, etc. What I'm asking is your threshold where even a severe case can't expect miraculous improvement all of the sudden afterwards. This is not a pessimistic request because such measure involves avoidance of an important nutrient for too long, it has risks.

 

[Collden]

Look, this is new territory, all the answers are not in yet and we are all just experimenting with our bodies the same that a Peatarian might experiment with PUFA restriction, which mainstream medicine would also consider hazardous. One year will likely suffice in most cases, maybe not all. The only way to have some indication of where you stand is liver biopsy.

 

[Amazoniac]

Look, this is new territory, all the answers are not in yet and we are all just experimenting with our bodies the same that a Peatarian might experiment with PUFA restriction, which mainstream medicine would also consider hazardous. One year will likely suffice in most cases, maybe not all. The only way to have some indication of where you stand is liver biopsy.

The improvement in health is remarkable, but we have 100% of cases so far without resolution after '10-12 months' on a diet that's more rigid than hamster's genital organ.

 

[lampofred]

Could vitamin A toxicity just be a sign of poor mitochondrial function? Vitamin A is used by the mitochondria to make pregnenolone, so if your mitochondria aren't working, the vitamin A will build-up and block thyroid function (as RP says). Depleting Vitamin A is like a band-aid when the real problem is dysfunctional mitochondria. But who knows how to get your mitochondria to work again. I've hit a wall for over a year.

 

[postman]

Could vitamin A toxicity just be a sign of poor mitochondrial function? Vitamin A is used by the mitochondria to make pregnenolone, so if your mitochondria aren't working, the vitamin A will build-up and block thyroid function (as RP says). Depleting Vitamin A is like a band-aid when the real problem is dysfunctional mitochondria. But who knows how to get your mitochondria to work again. I've hit a wall for over a year.

I feel like it's probably something like that. The VA is not being metabolized/handled is the proper way so it's causing all kinds of havoc. I don't know anything about mitochondria. The keto folks always talk about mitochondria and how ketosis upregulates mitochondrial generation or whatever

 

[schultz]

Look, this is new territory, all the answers are not in yet and we are all just experimenting with our bodies the same that a Peatarian might experiment with PUFA restriction, which mainstream medicine would also consider hazardous. One year will likely suffice in most cases, maybe not all. The only way to have some indication of where you stand is liver biopsy.

Mainstream medicine maybe, but it is generally recognized that PUFA causes all sorts of damage if you go through science papers. When I first started to read about this stuff years ago I was shocked at how well known it was/is that PUFA causes all sorts of problems. They disuss it in papers like it's common knowledge.

Such happens to be a physician and a physicist.

As in "the" Such_ ?

 

[Dolomite]

I am one who noticed benefits within a week. I experienced what might have been minor detox after a month or so. At two months I ate some scrambled eggs and bacon and didn't notice any problems.

When I started to eat the daily carrot, OJ, milk, monthly liver, no starch, no pufa I had immediate ill effects. But I stuck with it for 3 years thinking I just needed time.

This is just anecdotal so you can easily dismiss it. But at 64 years old I feel better and sleep better than I have in years.

I suppose I might eventually feel the need for more Vitamin A but not now.

 

[sunraiser]

You don't need a full storage reset, this is the point.

That misses my point, though. I'm saying that while VA appears to be the most antagonistic thing in a "stagnant" liver situation, it's very possible it's not the root cause - it wouldn't be VA you were trying to detox!

This is reductive but it's just an example; VA asks for B2 in retinoic acid conversion, and b2 plays an active role in iron metabolism, supposedly in moving iron from the liver, too.

It would still likely be a situation of functional VA deficiency, but if VA avoidance allows a slightly higher semblance of iron metabolism for energy production, then you could use that energy to exercise, help clear the lymph system to unburden the liver, and also sweat to help with more removal of stored iron.

Slowly you could clear the liver of stored iron and "fat", which would allow normal function for methylation, hormone activation / conversion etc to very slowly return. Once you're able to raise functional ceruloplasmin levels via better liver and adrenal health, then copper and zinc - and in turn VA - should start to metabolise and store properly again.

 

[Amazoniac]

That misses my point, though. I'm saying that while VA appears to be the most antagonistic thing in a "stagnant" liver situation, it's very possible it's not the root cause - it wouldn't be VA you were trying to detox!

This is reductive but it's just an example; VA asks for B2 in retinoic acid conversion, and b2 plays an active role in iron metabolism, supposedly in moving iron from the liver, too.

It would still likely be a situation of functional VA deficiency, but if VA avoidance allows a slightly higher semblance of iron metabolism for energy production, then you could use that energy to exercise, help clear the lymph system to unburden the liver, and also sweat to help with more removal of stored iron.

Slowly you could clear the liver of stored iron and "fat", which would allow normal function for methylation, hormone activation / conversion etc to very slowly return. Once you're able to raise functional ceruloplasmin levels via better liver and adrenal health, then copper and zinc - and in turn VA - should start to metabolise and store properly again.

I got it, but that's in theory. In practice, a good time has passed for people here and the problem hasn't been fixed. You could argue that the rate of metabolism differs depending on a person's state or condition, making publications unreliable, but the major drop in body stores occurs during the initial period where it's still being used at a relatively higher rate. Which is why if you don't have full depletion in mind, 1 year is enough time for a marked decrease either way.

Having an excess accumulated (at the start) is also not a justification because it was shown before how it's possible to mobilize monstrous amounts at a time. It can give a misleading impression that it secures abundance for longer than it might do.

- The Biochemistry and Pathology of Hypervitaminosis A

"The vitamin A content of the blood, of the liver, and of a number of other organs increases greatly in experimental hypervitaminosis A in animals. Wendt and Schroeder (1935) observed that large quantities of the vitamin can be stored especially in the liver. Davies and Moore (1935) reported that they found that as much as 5% of the dry weight in the liver was vitamin A in adult rats after administration for two-five weeks. This amount could supply the vitamin A requirement of this animal for about 200 years. However, it was found that the content in the liver rapidly decreased on discontinuing the supply of vitamin A and that about 98% of the vitamin disappeared within twelve weeks."​

Therefore if a great portion of an animal's stores is lost after a while, it means that it's likely already being prioritized for certain functions at the expense of others, and the longer you stay away from it to avoid the impediment hoping that someday it will fix spontaneously, the riskier it is.

As in "the" Such_ ?

⇊

 

[Collden]

If we consider that the metabolism of a rat is approximately 7 times faster than a human, those 12 weeks corresponds to 84 weeks in a human, eliminating 98% in 84 weeks fits pretty well with the model of depletion of 0.5% per day that Grant/Garrett are using.

The case of that hypermobilizer does slightly exceed this value, and the oddest part is that he could reduce his stores that much while continuing to consume quite a lot of VA, but you have to remember that he also put on 26 pounds of mass in those 12 weeks, increasing his total body weight by 23%. I'd guess that played a big part in how he was able to mobilise VA that quickly.

The question is why would a rat store enough VA to last a hundred life times, a substance that is so abundant in nature? I can't imagine that the organism would actually prefer to store that much, so if it does it rather suggests it can't get rid of it while its still coming in and so has no choice but to store it in the liver.

 

[Amazoniac]

If we consider that the metabolism of a rat is approximately 7 times faster than a human, those 12 weeks corresponds to 84 weeks in a human, eliminating 98% in 84 weeks fits pretty well with the model of depletion of 0.5% per day that Grant/Garrett are using.

The case of that hypermobilizer does slightly exceed this value, and the oddest part is that he could reduce his stores that much while continuing to consume quite a lot of VA, but you have to remember that he also put on 26 pounds of mass in those 12 weeks, increasing his total body weight by 23%. I'd guess that played a big part in how he was able to mobilise VA that quickly.

The question is why would a rat store enough VA to last a hundred life times, a substance that is so abundant in nature? I can't imagine that the organism would actually prefer to store that much, so if it does it rather suggests it can't get rid of it while its still coming in and so has no choice but to store it in the liver.

If you adopt their model as correct, within 200 days your reserves are over (orange line). Relying on the extrapolation of 84 weeks, that would require a rate of about 0.15%/d (red line). We know that both are unrealistic because it's never constant, so to reconcile such model and your extrapolation, it requires you to acknowledge that the rate has to decrease over time, otherwise people would be hospitalized by now. In leveling at the end, it forces you to compensate up until the start; this skews most of the mobilization to the initial period, and by the time it reaches one year, according to your model the reserves should be low.

Spoiler

For more discussion on rates:
- Anti-Peat - Grant Genereux's Theory Of Vitamin A Toxicity

Regarding that guy, members have been attempting to speed up the process in various ways, bulking up was mentioned at some point:
- Anti-Peat - Grant Genereux's Theory Of Vitamin A Toxicity "muscle"
His case serves to exemplify that it's physiologically possible to mobilize it that fast, it goes against the containing tone of the thread, implying that it requires long-term strictness and diligence to succeed.

After all that has been posted, I don't know how else to be more convincing when it comes to demonstrating that focusing on overfilled livers is a misguided approach. It must be one of those things that you refuse to assimilate unless you have the experience.

 

[Blossom]

Update from anonymous member:

Just checking in to let you know I'm another week into this. Not blind. I am enjoying amazingly clear vision, consistently, which is something I have never enjoyed in my life. Down 1 and 1/2 stubborn lbs.
Hair is shiny and soft- also strange for me, has always been very dry and coarse. Strangers are complimenting me about the hair. Add to the list of good things: IBS disappeared. Hoping in 6 months Ill lose some gray hair, you never know. The peculiar aged cracked looking dry skin on my lower legs is gone, its soft, no special lotions needed. It always looked old and crinkly, like crumpled up wax paper.
I have no plans of going off this, it just doesn't seem unhealthy in any way. My son looks great- still no eczema and almost no more dandruff (adult cradle cap) plus hes losing weight. His skin is better each week.

The A requirement for an adult woman for A is 700 mcg. Or 2,310 IU not even counting Beta Carotene and Lutein conversion plus A recycling in the body. 1 cup Kale has 6,693 IU...216 in an orange. 225 in a piece of chicken. Anyone on a normal diet is getting lots of A. You know we got way too much with Retin A and that was for YEARS plus sunscreens, skin care. Add glysophate interference in detox and no wonder we feel better.
Once depleted in a year or 2, its pretty easy to get the RDA.

I am thrilled with results so far. Really sad no doctor listened 4 years ago when the condition came on overnight with inflammation, sores and foamy urine, burning skin ulcers leading to ongoing fire and scar tissue.
I just fail to see how someone could eat rice, potato, onion, grapes, raisins, figs, sauerkraut,a few berries, black beans and 4 oz or so beef, glycine as collagen in coffee, some salt, sugar each day, plus vitamin c, be deprived, starving sick or blind. if ou see flaws in this regimen please let me know.

I understand why some find this unacceptable as the info happened to come up in the Peat forum, its not Peaty. I would push this on no one, its a choice I am grateful to know exists.

 

[Louise]

new blog post by Grant. The Retinol Binding Proteins as Antibodies

 

[Amazoniac]

- Carotenoids as scavengers of free radicals in a fenton reaction: antioxidants or pro-oxidants?

"[..]carotenoids can serve as effective scavengers of reactive free radicals. However, when carotenoids are involved in a reaction cycle with the participation of iron, an increase of total radical yield can be expected. Thus, it was demonstrated that carotenoids could affect metal ion-mediated processes. In the presence of Fe2+ the pro-oxidant effect will increase with decreasing carotenoid oxidation potential and its scavenging activity. Similar effects were earlier described for ascorbate, a-tocopherol and other reducing agents."

"In our investigation, b-carotene has the lowest oxidation potential."​

Not blind.

I just fail to see how someone could eat rice, potato, onion, grapes, raisins, figs, sauerkraut,a few berries, black beans and 4 oz or so beef, glycine as collagen in coffee, some salt, sugar each day, plus vitamin c, be deprived, starving sick or blind. if ou see flaws in this regimen please let me know.

Consider these:
- Why Ray Recommends Eating Lots Of Calcium
- Why Ray Recommends Eating Lots Of Calcium

 

[Amazoniac]

The Retinol Binding Proteins as Antibodies

When you think that it can't get worse after calling it a toxin, he's now superating it by viewing the binding proteins as antibodies released in response to it, getting close to treating them as necrophages meant to engulf it.

 

[Blossom]

- Carotenoids as scavengers of free radicals in a fenton reaction: antioxidants or pro-oxidants?

"[..]carotenoids can serve as effective scavengers of reactive free radicals. However, when carotenoids are involved in a reaction cycle with the participation of iron, an increase of total radical yield can be expected. Thus, it was demonstrated that carotenoids could affect metal ion-mediated processes. In the presence of Fe2+ the pro-oxidant effect will increase with decreasing carotenoid oxidation potential and its scavenging activity. Similar effects were earlier described for ascorbate, a-tocopherol and other reducing agents."

"In our investigation, b-carotene has the lowest oxidation potential."​

Consider these:
- Why Ray Recommends Eating Lots Of Calcium
- Why Ray Recommends Eating Lots Of Calcium

Thank you. I’ll let her know you replied in this thread.

 

[Louise]

When you think that it can't get worse after calling it a toxin, he's now superating it by viewing the binding proteins as antibodies released in response to it, getting close to treating them as necrophages meant to engulf it.

It doesn't seem to be that unreasonable to call RBPs antibodies if one thinks of vitamin A as a toxin which is why this thread was started in the first place.

 

[Collden]

If you adopt their model as correct, within 200 days your reserves are over (orange line). Relying on the extrapolation of 84 weeks, that would require a rate of about 0.15%/d (red line).

Nah their model is 0.5% of current stores per day, so 0,995^588 = 5% of initial stores remaining after 84 weeks.

His case serves to exemplify that it's physiologically possible to mobilize it that fast, it goes against the containing tone of the thread, implying that it requires long-term strictness and diligence to succeed.

It can happen that fast in some circumstances but it can also be much slower. To contrast your rat study, here is one where 7 weeks of VA deprivation after 7 weeks of high-VA feeding only resulted in a 20% decrease of the stored excess.

Metabolism of retinol-binding protein and vitamin A during hypervitaminosis A in the rat.

There are also numerous human case studies already quoted in this thread where they note that recovery can be complicated due to slow mobilisation and we don't know all the factors that influence how quickly VA can be mobilised. Thats why I don't think you can make blanket recommendations on how a person should proceed after a given time, but it has to be based on individual evaluation of the person, their dietary history, symptoms and ongoing response to the diet, and we are all still just trying to figure out how to make that assessment. Of course the focus is not only on VA intake but there's plenty debate about other factors that influence a persons recovery and what recovery means.

 

[Amazoniac]

Nah their model is 0.5% of current stores per day, so 0,995^588 = 5% of initial stores remaining after 84 weeks.
It can happen that fast in some circumstances but it can also be much slower. To contrast your rat study, here is one where 7 weeks of VA deprivation after 7 weeks of high-VA feeding only resulted in a 20% decrease of the stored excess.

Metabolism of retinol-binding protein and vitamin A during hypervitaminosis A in the rat.
View attachment 14212

There are also numerous human case studies already quoted in this thread where they note that recovery can be complicated due to slow mobilisation and we don't know all the factors that influence how quickly VA can be mobilised. Thats why I don't think you can make blanket recommendations on how a person should proceed after a given time, but it has to be based on individual evaluation of the person, their dietary history, symptoms and ongoing response to the diet, and we are all still just trying to figure out how to make that assessment. Of course the focus is not only on VA intake but there's plenty debate about other factors that influence a persons recovery and what recovery means.

This is a good point, but the skewing remains nevertheless: reserves drop to only 15% of the original content after a year. Therefore you're left with the justification that its mobilization can be sluggish, but why then you claim that one year suffices for most people? It doesn't add up and this period wasn't enough for anyone. It seems to me that you're encouraging a risky and insensible practice without willing to put yourself on the line.