I'm kind of curious to see how often he cheated on his diet if at allHey Guys,
I am going to interview Grant Genereux for a podcast. Are there any questions you would really want me to ask?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Click Here if you want to upgrade your account
If you were able to post but cannot do so now, send an email to admin at raypeatforum dot com and include your username and we will fix that right up for you.
I'm kind of curious to see how often he cheated on his diet if at allHey Guys,
I am going to interview Grant Genereux for a podcast. Are there any questions you would really want me to ask?
What is the evidence that mild deficiency actually has any such effects in humans?However even mild vitamin A deficiency affects the biosynthesis of several steroid hormones.
Interesting theory.That means they were less susceptible to vitamin A deficiency than children are.
In individuals with good vitamin A reserves it can take years on a vitamin A deficient diet to develop clear signs of vitamin A deficiency (such as impaired dark adaptation). Protein deficiency lowers the metabolic rate and thus the requirements for vitamin A, so it can take quite a while to get so low, that the eyes are affected.
However even mild vitamin A deficiency affects the biosynthesis of several steroid hormones.
I think you have a point, although regarding oxalates for instance, it would not solve the detox dilemma since the idea behind that is the same as VA, i.e. that lowering intake will trigger stored excess to be liberated and cause symptoms on the way out. At least for oxalates they have no recognised function in the body, so if you are lowering intake and it causes you symptoms, its at least not because you are becoming deficient in oxalate.Yeah there are cases where it lasts for a little while and passes, and maybe that is detox. But what is the cut off? If your "detox" gets worse and worse over 6 months, do you continue to push through? I am advocating to not push through if it continues, but to seek new answers like some have mentioned with oxalates and what not.
of course
Tarmander,Hey Guys,
I am going to interview Grant Genereux for a podcast. Are there any questions you would really want me to ask?
Tarmander,
'Without carotenoids, photosynthesis and all life in an oxygen atmosphere would be impossible'; in the same way that plants use them to harvard light, our eyes (retina) need it to absorb those photons. Why would the body use a poison for this? Will it function without it?
The alternative (RXR) ligands proposed to claim that retinoids are dispensable not only are subordinated to the availability of RAR ligands (such as all-trans poisonoic acid) for proper transcription action (or else it's repressed), but they also occur in modest amounts, so even if they exert some effect, they'll be coadjuvants at best.
How questioning from the assumption that it's a toxin affects answers?
Isn't the avoidance approach akin to attempting to solve indigestion by not eating?
Can it be considered a variation of Coimbra's?
People have noticed improvements in their wealth, but so far there have been no permanent resolution of issues with diets being stricter for longer than those advised in severe toxicity case (reports). How can a person tell that he or she is on the right track?
Going by your first statement/question, you haven't read Grant's books. In poisoning for profits he dedicates a whole chapter about the eyes/retina, chapter 9. Funny that you post all these pro vitamin A studies, while not even reading the literature you're opposing.Tarmander,
'Without carotenoids, photosynthesis and all life in an oxygen atmosphere would be impossible'; in the same way that plants use them to harvard light, our eyes (retina) need it to absorb those photons. Why would the body use a poison for this? Will it function without it?
The alternative (RXR) ligands proposed to claim that retinoids are dispensable not only are subordinated to the availability of RAR ligands (such as all-trans poisonoic acid) for proper transcription action (or else it's repressed), but they also occur in modest amounts, so even if they exert some effect, they'll be coadjuvants at best.
How questioning from the assumption that it's a toxin affects answers?
Isn't the avoidance approach akin to attempting to solve indigestion by not eating?
Can it be considered a variation of Coimbra's?
People have noticed improvements in their wealth, but so far there have been no permanent resolution of issues with diets being stricter for longer than those advised in severe toxicity case (reports). How can a person tell that he or she is on the right track?
I'll leave these 3, the rest is up to you.If you could pick one or two questions that would be the most important to you, which would they be?
'Without carotenoids, photosynthesis and all life in an oxygen atmosphere would be impossible'; in the same way that plants use them to harvard light, our eyes (retina) need it to absorb those photons.Why would the body use a poison for this?Will it function without it?
The alternative (RXR) ligands proposed to claim that retinoids are dispensable not only are subordinated to the availability of RAR ligands (such as all-trans poisonoic acid) for proper transcription action (or else it's repressed), but they also occur in modest amounts, so even if they exert some effect, they'll be coadjuvants at best.
How questioning from the assumption that it's a toxin affects answers?
Isn't the avoidance approach akin to attempting to solve indigestion by not eating?
Can it be considered a variation of Coimbra's?
People have noticed improvements in their wealth, but so far there have been no permanent resolution of issues with diets being stricter for longer than those advised in severe toxicity case (reports). How can a person tell that he or she is on the right track?
I only skimmed through it (as commented in this thread before) and found it terrible. I'm guessing it's those that falled for that crap that never readed the literature (including experimental) on it because poisonal is undeniably there (not by accident, just like in plants); he hasn't addressed why this is and how it could function without it. The figures brought up are irrelevant since they ignore its recycling within the eye (retinal-retinol) after light strikes it.Going by your first statement/question, you haven't read Grant's books. In poisoning for profits he dedicates a whole chapter about the eyes/retina, chapter 9. Funny that you post all these pro vitamin A studies, while not even reading the literature you're opposing.
I only skimmed through it (as commented in this thread before) and found it terrible. I'm guessing it's those that falled for that crap that never readed the literature (including experimental) on it because poisonal is undeniably there (not by accident, just like in plants); he hasn't addressed why this is and how it could function without it. The figures brought up are irrelevant since they ignore its recycling within the eye (retinal-retinol) after light strikes it.
I personally am wary of anything that presents itself as "eat this one thing" or "avoid this one thing" and expect a miracle cure.
But, a few such things do exist -- such as avoid pufa, avoid tryptophan, so its not impossible.
As with anything, I'm finding my favorite Ray Peat quote now is thus: "The best method is experiment". and I couldn't agree more at this point. Theory is fun, but at the end of the day, experiment. If it makes you feel better do it. If it doesn't, don't do it. Simple
I'm not one either. It's everyone's choice to be generous in letting their gross arguments pass, so that embarking on the radical approach doesn't come with a sense of guilt/fear. I've been against this extremism from the start, but if I stayed up to the now, it's because I know that the relief from inflammation is real. However, the way that they frame the discussion and develop their odservations is absurd and shifts people's attention away from the underlying problem.I think when a chronically ill person reads a book called “extinguishing the fires of hell” with a potential cure to all their life problems they’d believe whatever information is presented. coupled with a “feel good” stage once trying it, it’s a done deal. Not saying he’s right or wrong, as I’m not a nutrition scientist, but it does seem all around like another fad that will come and go. It fits almost every bill of previous diets we’ve seen.
Even tryptophan is essential for kids to grow big, so it’s not exactly clear when one should start restricting. Even those who workout and lift weights need it for muscle growth. I know it’s impossible to completely avoid it anyway, but almost every high tryptophan food has some benefits. Everything seems to be an inability to process things, the closest thing to a 100% bad is pufa, and even those have some evidence regarding the benefits. Nothing in nutrition is clear, if it was then the world wouldn’t be what it is. There could even be polyphenols that we haven't identified that could be essential. no one really has diet down 100%, even ray who conveniently ignores evidence against things like poor quality milk
I'm not one either. It's everyone's choice to be generous in letting their gross arguments pass, so that embarking on the radical approach doesn't come with a sense of guilt/fear. I've been against this extremism from the start, but if I stayed up to the now, it's because I know that the relief from inflammation is real. However, the way that they frame the discussion and develop their odservations is absurd and shifts people's attention away from the underlying problem.
I don't know, but this is the kind of question that people should be asking instead of 'how can I detox further?' Even Grant appears to be reinforcing the idea at this point:What's the underlying problem?
Grant's five year update: Five Year Update
Interesting that his serum Vitamin A is holding steady.
"I was seriously disappointed with that 0.1 μmol/l result. It’s the same value that I had a year ago. I find it a little hard to believe that after another year maintaining a nearly zero vitamin A intake diet that my serum level wouldn’t have moved lower. Unfortunately, because of where I live, I don’t have access to another lab to get a second opinion.
Although my vitamin A research is just a side-project, I remain fully committed to it. Therefore, I will continue with my vitamin A free diet for the foreseeable future. My current plan is to keep with it for at least five more years."
I'm surprised Grant does not take this opportunity to do additional blood testing. I know he says that it's not possible in Canada, but he could travel to the United States and order almost any test he wants. With all the time and effort he has put into this theory, it seems like it would be worth the time and money to test more markers to understand what a zero Vitamin A diet is doing. Serum Retinyl Palmitate, retinol binding protein, and any steroids would be very interesting.regardless of his theory, i have the utmost respect for those who are willing to give their body for the progression of others knowledge. The same goes for the carnivore guys, or the vegan guys. it’s cool being able to have real life examples of different forms of eating to see the benefits/positives of each