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

[Yi at LDT]

Absolutely, and I appreciate the comments. I really do recommend you take a look at Grant's second book, it talks about the research which originally classified Vitamin A as a Vitamin. Really they were inducing Vitamin A toxicity based on what we now know..

What is 100% healthy? I don't know. I suspect their health will be slightly subpar due to the restrictive diet, maybe it will be above average and they will live longer lives due to the impact Vitamin A has on stem cells, I don't know. However if they live more then a few months without any of the horrific, obvious diseases seen in the original study, then it invalidates that study. Somewhat. If 100 people then conduct the same experiment with the same results, then we really do have to question Vitamin A's vitamin status very seriously which is a BIG deal.

I don't need any lab equipment, it's a simple experiment.

 

[Amazoniac]

I suggest you read Grant's second book poisoning for profit, it may help answer your question.
https://ggenereux.blog/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/PoisoningForProfits.pdf
The experiment is a simple and rudimentary way of testing the original experiment that classified Vitamin A as a vitamin. Upon which all the other research was built upon.

I can absolutely 100% understand the concerns people have. 100%. I talked about morality in the first mouse video and in the description of the new video. If I did not have a reasonably high level of confidence that the mice would be okay, I would not be conducting the experiment. I believe they will probably be okay because Grant conducted the same experiment with two gerbils.

I was a vegetarian for 5years, animals have always been a very significant part of my life, much more then for the average dog or cat owner. Life and nature does not conform to ideals. these are the same animals being put through all sorts of torture in studies for us to cite and discuss, these are the same animals that are being fed to reptiles constantly, sometimes while living. These animals suffer from horrible diseases humanely induces, or not. Just as we do.

None of this is justification, I do not need anyone's justification, it is context. Considering the potential significance and repercussions of vitamin A not being essential in the context of the original research, that is why I have made my decision. I stand by and honour it and continue to do so.

Respect to you all, I have had to work through my own concerns and this is the decision I have made.
I stand by it for better or worse.

It's more about how to design it right to justify the experiment. For example, to prevent them from eating poisoned excrement you'd need to elevate the cage and they'd be living on a wired surface all the time. If you do implement this, how likely it is that they're going to withstand it for long enough to start to be affected by a depletion? And if animals are able to go through all challenges and survive, what does that say about what's best for them or humans? If we have detailed human experiments living poisonless lives available, why not use them as reference instead? You think that all are flawed or unreliable?

 

[Orion]

In the original zero vit A experiments, which were actually high in retinoic acid, animal eyes were melting, and skin lesions abound at the end of two months. They would also refuse food.

I suspect @Yi at LDT animals will not have melting eyes and skin lesions in several weeks.

 

[Makrosky]

Absolutely, and I appreciate the comments. I really do recommend you take a look at Grant's second book, it talks about the research which originally classified Vitamin A as a Vitamin. Really they were inducing Vitamin A toxicity based on what we now know..

What is 100% healthy? I don't know. I suspect their health will be slightly subpar due to the restrictive diet, maybe it will be above average and they will live longer lives due to the impact Vitamin A has on stem cells, I don't know. However if they live more then a few months without any of the horrific, obvious diseases seen in the original study, then it invalidates that study. Somewhat. If 100 people then conduct the same experiment with the same results, then we really do have to question Vitamin A's vitamin status very seriously which is a BIG deal.

I don't need any lab equipment, it's a simple experiment.

Ok last message about that topic, otherwise it is like going in circles.
Do you know in a non lab environment there are so many things that can influence the life span of a rat ? To the very beginning, the genetics of the "subjects". That is why animals like Wistar rats were breeded. To exclude as much as possible genetical factors. You just bought some animals from a pet shop.

Even the ammount of sunlight the control group and the experimental group get depending on where you setup the cages, can affect the results.

 

[Makrosky]

In the original zero vit A experiments, which were actually high in retinoic acid, animal eyes were melting, and skin lesions abound at the end of two months. They would also refuse food.

I suspect @Yi at LDT animals will not have melting eyes and skin lesions in several weeks.

There's a degree of toxic effects an animal can get in their eyes before they melt.
Blindness, Cataracts, shortsightedness, nystagmus, color blindness, retina damage, corneal damage, etc... the list is endless.

 

[Tarmander]

I suggest you read Grant's second book poisoning for profit, it may help answer your question.
https://ggenereux.blog/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/PoisoningForProfits.pdf
The experiment is a simple and rudimentary way of testing the original experiment that classified Vitamin A as a vitamin. Upon which all the other research was built upon.

I can absolutely 100% understand the concerns people have. 100%. I talked about morality in the first mouse video and in the description of the new video. If I did not have a reasonably high level of confidence that the mice would be okay, I would not be conducting the experiment. I believe they will probably be okay because Grant conducted the same experiment with two gerbils.

I was a vegetarian for 5years, animals have always been a very significant part of my life, much more then for the average dog or cat owner. Life and nature does not conform to ideals. these are the same animals being put through all sorts of torture in studies for us to cite and discuss, these are the same animals that are being fed to reptiles constantly, sometimes while living. These animals suffer from horrible diseases humanely induces, or not. Just as we do.

None of this is justification, I do not need anyone's justification, it is context. Considering the potential significance and repercussions of vitamin A not being essential in the context of the original research, that is why I have made my decision. I stand by and honour it and continue to do so.

Respect to you all, I have had to work through my own concerns and this is the decision I have made.
I stand by it for better or worse.

sometimes you have to send sniffles into space first to clear the way. Please keep us updated.

Yeah morning would be good or anyother time of the day you feel good.

Morning temp was 97.5, which is pretty much been the same for years. Funny how little things change. During my Peat days, I could get my morning temp up to 98, but I usually felt pretty bad doing it. Pulse was between 60 and 80

 

[Makrosky]

sometimes you have to send sniffles into space first to clear the way. Please keep us updated.



Morning temp was 97.5, which is pretty much been the same for years. Funny how little things change. During my Peat days, I could get my morning temp up to 98, but I usually felt pretty bad doing it. Pulse was between 60 and 80

Thanks Tarmander.

97.5 ... according to Peat you are quite hypothyroid. However you are doing much better than before.

I have no further questions.

 

[Amazoniac]

Ok last message about that topic, otherwise it is like going in circles.
Do you know in a non lab environment there are so many things that can influence the life span of a rat ? To the very beginning, the genetics of the "subjects". That is why animals like Wistar rats were breeded. To exclude as much as possible genetical factors. You just bought some animals from a pet shop.

Even the ammount of sunlight the control group and the experimental group get depending on where you setup the cages, can affect the results.

If all authors in this field having their work published in journals (documenting how it progressed in details) are not taken serious, how is that supposed to be?

 

[Tarmander]

Thanks Tarmander.

97.5 ... according to Peat you are quite hypothyroid. However you are doing much better than before.

I have no further questions.

Ha, yes "quite" My TSH and thyroid blood tests would say otherwise...but that is years of hitting my head against the wall trying to up my temps.

 

[Makrosky]

If all authors in this field having their work published in journals (documenting how it progressed in details) are not taken serious, how is that supposed to be?

I think I understand it now... what they want to disprove is the most blatant things. That the animals will not die abruptly, that their eyes do not melt, etc... but if that doesn't happen it doesn't mean they are healthy. They could have tumors and what not inside.

 

[somuch4food]

If all authors in this field having their work published in journals (documenting how it progressed in details) are not taken serious, how is that supposed to be?

It's a home experiment. He is caring for them. I'm pretty sure if he sees their health go south he will change their diet/stop the experiment.

You cannot compare what he's doing with professionals getting paid and having access to diagnosis tools.

I think I understand it now... what they want to disprove is the most blatant things. That the animals will not die abruptly, that their eyes do not melt, etc... but if that doesn't happen it doesn't mean they are healthy. They could have tumors and what not inside.

A vet visit might be worth it at some point if he has the budget.

Anyway, I don't get this debate. What he's doing is not animal cruelty, he is caring for them with what he thinks is best for them (from the research he has done on A). Plenty of parents run those experiments on their own children unknowingly. Do everyone think pets are all unhappy? Life is much more cozy when cared for by a human. If they were in the wild, they would have to fight for food and possibly suffer from starvation periods.

 

[Makrosky]

The worst thing is that they will use thise flawed experiments as a reinforcement of their theory. It is easy to trick the people who doesn't understand how experiments must be done

 

[somuch4food]

The worst thing is that they will use thise flawed experiments as a reinforcement of their theory. It is easy to trick the people who doesn't understand how experiments must be done

They're not tricking anyone by forcing them to go with a low A diet or selling products. People are gathering around this because they are seeing improvements. I think you said in a post earlier that the stuff that works usually sticks and spreads like fire. That might be the case with this. Time will tell. I haven't seen a lot of negative feedback yet, just some people saying it's not doing a difference for them.

You have people all over the Internet recommending shady stuff whether diets or supplements that are supposed to help. How can going low A be considered so potentially harmful when some around here are recommending mega dosing on many nutrients and not getting the backlash this has?

 

[Blossom]

It seems to me a person could also be criticized for not trying to falsify the original findings that gave Vitamin A it’s vitamin status. The scientific community doesn’t seem to be doing anything because it’s been accepted as a fact at this point so now a grassroots effort has started. I certainly appreciate everyone’s efforts to get to the truth and I know Grant does too according to this recently posted comment on his site.

“I’d like this forum to be courteous, respectful, open and remained focused on helping others with this diet experiment. Therefore, disagreements, negative opinions or points of view are NOT at all discouraged, but I feel that they should not be personal or disparaging.

With that, I just want to chime in here with my perspective thus far in dealing with Dr. Garrett Smith. Firstly, there is absolutely no business relationship between myself and Garrett. Garrett and I have only talked a few times, but have exchanged quite a lot of email.

I am really impressed and very thankful for what Dr. Smith has done here. Firstly, he had to make a big reversal from his previous thinking and views; and that is not easy to do. Secondly, there’s a lot of risk for him jumping in here and running with it as he has done. He, and I, could still be wrong about this theory (I don’t think that’s the case, but it is possible). He’s also done a lot of his own research on this theory, and identified the detox setback that people are reporting. I did not see that one coming.

I’m very grateful for the exposure he and Matt Stone have brought to this topic. Also, to “FrankO” (alias) on the Ray Peat forum for getting the ball rolling.

As for Dr. Smith making money for his services… I’m in total support. It’s his job, his business, and his livelihood.

To contrast Dr. Smith’s uptake on this theory with that of another doctor. About a year ago I met with a local MD (a dermatologist) who has read my ebooks and has been following this topic. He wanted to meet with me face to face, and to let me know that he “thought I was right.” This conclusion was based on research he had done in the Ukraine a few years back. When I asked him if he’d add a public supportive comment on my blog, he declined and said “that would likely adversely affect my career.” So, although getting his supportive feedback was great, I was a little disappointed by his lack of action.”

 

[tankasnowgod]

I’ve been on a low A diet for a few months. But I’m still confused about dairy. The consensus here is to avoid all dairy products on this diet. As far as I can tell, dairy has Vitamin A from two sources: fortification and that naturally present in the fat.

This means that all kinds of milk are out, since all kinds of milk are either fortified or contain fat. But what about yogurt and kefir? I can get yogurt and kefir that are both fat-free and unfortified.

I’ve considered making almond milk, but my almonds don’t have any nipples (just between you and me, I think I’ve only got male almonds, but I’m too polite to ask them).

And I still can’t find good evidence that casein has “hidden retinol/retinoic acid”. So I don’t understand franko’s reaction.

Has anyone achieved health improvements on this diet with fat-free, unfortified dairy?

There are some no-fat dairy products out there with no added A. Fage Greek Yogurt, and Kirkland Brand. You may want to keep an eye out at places like Sprouts, maybe some sort of product will pop up that's not fortified.

Also, many whole milk products don't have fortified A. If you think that's the problem, and not necessarily whole A, you could incorporate some of those foods into your diet.

 

[Makrosky]

They're not tricking anyone by forcing them to go with a low A diet or selling products. People are gathering around this because they are seeing improvements. I think you said in a post earlier that the stuff that works usually sticks and spreads like fire. That might be the case with this. Time will tell. I haven't seen a lot of negative feedback yet, just some people saying it's not doing a difference for them.

You have people all over the Internet recommending shady stuff whether diets or supplements that are supposed to help. How can going low A be considered so potentially harmful when some around here are recommending mega dosing on many nutrients and not getting the backlash this has?

Buddy, I am 100% for experimentation and new theories. Specially if other people which I trust his/her judgement see results.

I even want to try this low A myself (Accutane user on my teens and being taking high A probavly for many years now).

Now what I said is that I can think of a lot of other reasons this thing works besides calling vitamin A a poison.

What is this theory different from any other supposed miracle cure we have been seeing on the internet for years? Paleo diet for instance.

The "problem" is that people jump in like crazy into this new thing, repeating stuff Grant or Stone (who the hell trusts that guy????) said like if it was definite truth.

The body works in balance. You can have excellent results for years taking lithium carbonate until one day you wake up and you have defective kidneys and you are put in dyalisis. Just an extreme example.

If you had an excess vitamin A during years it is reasonable to think that going low A (and everything else that goes along with vit A rich foods) will give you a bump to a more balanced state.

Is it really that hard to understand that people can get very good apparent health results of any dietary/lifestyle approach later to discover they damaged their own bodies doing so? Or maybe not damaged but unbalanced again.

So then when they are unbalanced again they will jump into another extreme shift which will solve the previous unbalance but with time will create another. Endless loop.

 

[Orion]

There are some no-fat dairy products out there with no added A. Fage Greek Yogurt, and Kirkland Brand. You may want to keep an eye out at places like Sprouts, maybe some sort of product will pop up that's not fortified.

Also, many whole milk products don't have fortified A. If you think that's the problem, and not necessarily whole A, you could incorporate some of those foods into your diet.

One issue with milk; when high temp pasteurized the retinol bound to casein can oxidize to retinoic acid, increasing the vitamin A load.

 

[Orion]

So then when they are unbalanced again they will jump into another extreme shift which will solve the previous unbalance but with time will create another. Endless loop.

Agree 100%, I have done all the different extremes at length, this is the first time that is seems to stick and looks like the real deal. I am committed now, and will continue to report good or bad.

 

[sunraiser]

I suggest you read Grant's second book poisoning for profit, it may help answer your question.
https://ggenereux.blog/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/PoisoningForProfits.pdf
The experiment is a simple and rudimentary way of testing the original experiment that classified Vitamin A as a vitamin. Upon which all the other research was built upon.

I can absolutely 100% understand the concerns people have. 100%. I talked about morality in the first mouse video and in the description of the new video. If I did not have a reasonably high level of confidence that the mice would be okay, I would not be conducting the experiment. I believe they will probably be okay because Grant conducted the same experiment with two gerbils.

I was a vegetarian for 5years, animals have always been a very significant part of my life, much more then for the average dog or cat owner. Life and nature does not conform to ideals. these are the same animals being put through all sorts of torture in studies for us to cite and discuss, these are the same animals that are being fed to reptiles constantly, sometimes while living. These animals suffer from horrible diseases humanely induces, or not. Just as we do.

None of this is justification, I do not need anyone's justification, it is context. Considering the potential significance and repercussions of vitamin A not being essential in the context of the original research, that is why I have made my decision. I stand by and honour it and continue to do so.

Respect to you all, I have had to work through my own concerns and this is the decision I have made.
I stand by it for better or worse.

I respect that there's a part of you that's trying to bring enlightenment and help others, but I still cannot see any possible use to bring animals into the equation. You literally have humans with human physiology in this thread running the tests on themselves. Humans that can and will give feedback, alongside yourself.

Words can only make a person consider something more deeply, they can't change a person's view when it's strong - experience alone does that. So I only ask you to reflect more deeply if you don't have an urge for some kind of scientific gravitas or a perceived validation of your intelligence by running an experiment like this, or to build a profile for yourself for whatever reason.

I only ask this because there really really really isn't any justification to be putting the mice through this.

You mention mice like to eat "what they like, not what's good for them" - are you sure you know better than a mouse what's good for it in a given moment?

If I did not have a reasonably high level of confidence that the mice would be okay, I would not be conducting the experiment.

If you have such a high level of confidence then it's another reason to keep conducting the experiment on yourself. You have at least 3 forum members here plus yourself, and they'll all give more accurate data than a mouse experiment ever could.

It's all very well saying animals are a significant part of your life but finding the value in wellbeing and a true appreciation for life of any kind can often only really come when having felt (and deeply reflected on) the kind of hardship it's possible to feel. A willingness to put any kind of intentional hardship on another being when there isn't going to be a real terms benefit to it - given the fact human tests have been done, and are also currently being done by yourself and forum members - is something that shouldn't be taken lightly.

I'm glad you've reflected on your concerns to a degree but this just isn't necessary. There won't be enough consequence in the results - it's just you playing god without due respect for other living beings.

 

[tankasnowgod]

They're not tricking anyone by forcing them to go with a low A diet or selling products. People are gathering around this because they are seeing improvements. I think you said in a post earlier that the stuff that works usually sticks and spreads like fire. That might be the case with this. Time will tell. I haven't seen a lot of negative feedback yet, just some people saying it's not doing a difference for them.

Well, I tried going much lower A for 3 months, and I didn't really see any improvements. In fact, dandruff goes seriously worse. I went back to eating calf liver last week, and dandruff is dramatically and noticeably better this week.

For the record, I was never on Accutane, but I did use high A supplements for a while (in the 50,000 to 100,000 IU a day). And it was Retinyl Palmitate. I did have some topical Retin-A that I used on my toenails (very infrequently) about a decade ago. Also, as a kid, I had lots of various creams prescribed for Keratosis Pilaris, so, who knows what kind of mutant A isomers (if any) were in those.

I still am avoiding supplemental A, and am still keeping Carotene low, and plan on keeping it low (maybe even do the no carotene at some point).