Low Toxin Diet Vitamin A depletion Rate

[Aromasin]

Higher OXPHOS only increases ROS production significantly in an electromagnetically polluted environment. The incoherent EMF causes electrons to leak from the electron transport chain, which is what creates the ROS, which then in turn damage parts of the cell and lead to a buildup of damaged cell constituents that then burden the cytochrome P450 enzymes needed to get retinoic acid ready for excretion.

Personally, even if there is some physiological use for very small amounts of VA, I doubt that there is a such thing as "using up" any significant quantity other than in the sense of detoxification and excretion.

I see, thank you for explaining.

I'll read about vit A some more.

 

[Aromasin]

Humans probably ate quite a bit of liver to not waste any cut of meat from their hunt and accumulated toxic amounts of vitamin A. I do think vitamin A is essential and needed in small amounts, it’s not an absolute toxin but it can become one in excess. I differ from Dr. Smith on that.

Oh, you reminded me of something with this.
It is interesting to consider whether the average vitamin A content in a liver of some X animal would be roughly similar to that of the same animal (or its closest ancestor) thousands of years ago.

The domestications of the animals of which livers we eat might have also (just as our lifestyles have changed) affected the animals negatively in terms of vitamin A excess.

Is there any study that compared vitamin A content (and maybe iron and copper) of wild and moving animals vs the domesticated animals?

 

[DanDare]

Damn, I should really start eating beans lol.

Fibre is the toxin train out of bile recirculation.. I think it's really important, and beans are high in fibre in quantities that are enjoyable to eat ( unlike many other high fibre foods)

 

[youngsinatra]

Oh, you reminded me of something with this.
It is interesting to consider whether the average vitamin A content in a liver of some X animal would be roughly similar to that of the same animal (or its closest ancestor) thousands of years ago.

The domestications of the animals of which livers we eat might have also (just as our lifestyles have changed) affected the animals negatively in terms of vitamin A excess.

Is there any study that compared vitamin A content (and maybe iron and copper) of wild and moving animals vs the domesticated animals?

I remember that wild predator carnivorous animal have the highest hepatic retinol levels, esp in the sea life. Makes sense since they eat other animal‘s livers. But a carnivores physiology apparently handles retinol differently and they don’t get bone deformaties and so on from very high vitamin A intakes.

 

[frederic]

I can't understand why Grant is so unwilling to delve a little bit deeper into the biochemistry of our bodies. He has the right mind for it.
His theory is a fantastic contribution but why would he go so far as to say "vitA is literally not useful for anything in the body".

Maybe he's right.
He mentions in his books those war prisoners in Vietnam who had no vitA for several years (that is, longer that the admitted depletion time) and showed no signs of deficiency (they had perfect sight). Grant Genereux seem not to care about the theory of why vitA could be useful. He's only interested in clinical observations.

In fact, his story and testimonials all over the place confirm the fact that vitA intake is detrimental to the body and we do not need any of it. Maybe the body uses some here and there (maybe). In that case, the body may well be able to synthesize it (like it does vitC for instance).

 

[youngsinatra]

Has Grant ever tested his testosterone and sperm parameters with zero serum vitamin A?

 

[Aromasin]

I remember that wild predator carnivorous animal have the highest hepatic retinol levels, esp in the sea life. Makes sense since they eat other animal‘s livers. But a carnivores physiology apparently handles retinol differently and they don’t get bone deformaties and so on from very high vitamin A intakes.

Oh, okay, that's interesting.

Maybe he's right.
He mentions in his books those war prisoners in Vietnam who had no vitA for several years (that is, longer that the admitted depletion time) and showed no signs of deficiency (they had perfect sight). Grant Genereux seem not to care about the theory of why vitA could be useful. He's only interested in clinical observations.

In fact, his story and testimonials all over the place confirm the fact that vitA intake is detrimental to the body and we do not need any of it. Maybe the body uses some here and there (maybe). In that case, the body may well be able to synthesize it (like it does vitC for instance).

Yeah, maybe he is correct. I'll pretend as if he is - I'm attempting his low vit A diet/protocol soon.

 

[DanDare]

Has Grant ever tested his testosterone and sperm parameters with zero serum vitamin A?

Yes, for testosterone. he posted the results on his forum. Testosterone was in the middle of the range

 

[DanDare]

Has Grant ever tested his testosterone and sperm parameters with zero serum vitamin A?

Thyroid labs

I was recently asked to get a thyroid and testosterone lab test. Here are the results.The testosterone level of 17.8 nmol/L is 513 ng/dL.

ggenereux.blog

 

[youngsinatra]

Thyroid labs

I was recently asked to get a thyroid and testosterone lab test. Here are the results.The testosterone level of 17.8 nmol/L is 513 ng/dL.

ggenereux.blog

Thanks, this was 4 years ago. Did he already achieve zero serum retinol at that point?

 

[Peater]

Thyroid labs

I was recently asked to get a thyroid and testosterone lab test. Here are the results.The testosterone level of 17.8 nmol/L is 513 ng/dL.

ggenereux.blog

It would be fascinating to see his ceruloplasmin status.

 

[DanDare]

Thanks, this was 4 years ago. Did he already achieve zero serum retinol at that point?

As far as I know he still hasn't achieved zero. At his 9 year update it still wasn't zero.

 

[youngsinatra]

As far as I know he still hasn't achieved zero. At his 9 year update it still wasn't zero

Alright thanks!!

 

[mosaic01]

Maybe he's right.

He has 100% proven that "vitamin A" is not a vitamin according to the common definition. It obviously has some effects in the body, but it's not a vitamin.

As far as I know he still hasn't achieved zero. At his 9 year update it still wasn't zero.

It is zero in a practical sense. The problem is that his lab measures in μmol/L. The other way to measure is in μg/dL, which is very exact.

And the lowest value his lab can give is <0.1 μmol/L. Which translates to <2.87 μg/dL.

It's possible that the lab can not even show zero if no retinol is detected at all, because it has never happened before and they just use that as the lowest possible value. But even if it can detect zero, even a few molecules of retinol would make them show "< 0.1". He needs to go to a lab that measures in μg/dL, because the sensitivity for that measurement seems to be greater.

But even a retinol value below 2.87 μg/dL is enough to put the vitamin theory to rest, as everything below 10 (0.35 μmol) means severe deficiency according to the WHO and others. It is not legitimate for a proponent of the essentiality of retinol to arbitrarily redefine the cut-off values. When a blood value that marks severe deficiency does not produce any symptoms at all, the vitamin theory is dead.

 

[DanDare]

He has 100% proven that "vitamin A" is not a vitamin according to the common definition. It obviously has some effects in the body, but it's not a vitamin.
theory is dead.

Indeed

Part of the problem is diagrams like this as repeated by Danny Roddy , that resemble chemical equations, that give a false level of authority as to what is going on:

I.e in terms of a chemical equation, the above is nonsense, pseudo chemistry, not a pair of equations, just a speculative flow diagram

These people get off the hook because frankly barely anyone has the knowledge to recognize it is bull****

 

[Nick]

Indeed

Part of the problem is diagrams like this as repeated by Danny Roddy , that resemble chemical equations, that give a false level of authority as to what is going on:

View attachment 62538

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't this roughly the mainstream view of factors that play into hormone production? Not in a chemical equation sense but in terms of a flow chart to describe co-factors. It happens to be built on a foundation of total nonsense but that shouldn't be surprising since most of the "science" of biology is built on foundations of total nonsense. Peat (and by his influence Danny Roddy) saw through many parts of this nonsense (receptor theory, electron microscopy, etc.) but then seemed to give the hormone and vitamin parts of it a free pass.

 

[DanDare]

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't this roughly the mainstream view of factors that play into hormone production?

yes exactly. Chemical equations are pretty robust- they are balanced, behave as expected, they've got a lot of utility and are based on careful experiment. Meanwhile the biochemical flow diagrams compoud the assumptions.

Peat (and by his influence Danny Roddy) saw through many parts of this nonsense (receptor theory, electron microscopy, etc.) but then seemed to give the hormone and vitamin parts of it a free pass.

Well put. So to a chemist (which neither are) they would have been interested in a level deeper than these flow diagrams, questioned more exactly how these reactants are forming the products and what is essential for mitochondria to churn it all out.

 

[Nick]

yes exactly. Chemical equations are pretty robust- they are balanced, behave as expected, they've got a lot of utility and are based on careful experiment. Meanwhile the biochemical flow diagrams compoud the assumptions.
Well put. So to a chemist (which neither are) they would have been interested in a level deeper than these flow diagrams, questioned more exactly how these reactants are forming the products and what is essential for mitochondria to churn it all out.

I would add that it is possible that retinoids could have a positive physiological role in humans without being involved in a chemical equation--there are theoretical bases for many plausible ways such as affecting molecular resonance (this is one way that Peat concieved of the "receptor" idea), modulating the electromagnetic environment in and between the cells (retinoids may be able act as an antenna of sorts), effects on water structuring, etc.

More likely in my opinion is that VA ends up in flow charts like this because of experimental findings that the presence of retinoids increases the production of various compensatory substances like Pregnenolone via the inflammatory damage they cause, and people who are working from the assumption that it's an essential vitamin just assume this means it is getting "used up."

As far as I can figure it, unless VA is involved in a chemical equation in which it is transformed or incorporated into another molecule that is not toxic, then one can't talk about it being "used up," but rather only detoxified and excreted.

 

[DanDare]

More likely in my opinion is that VA ends up in flow charts like this because of experimental findings that the presence of retinoids increases the production of various compensatory substances like Pregnenolone via the inflammatory damage they cause, and people who are working from the assumption that it's an essential vitamin just assume this means it is getting "used up."

Yes specifically it was guessed to be the missing component responsible for the ulceration of the eye in a malnutritioned dogs and relatively slower maturation of rats (as opposed to the normal precocious puberty). After this, from 1920 onwards it's broadly accepted as axiom that it's essential for eyes and growth, and everything builds on this guessing at reasons why, including it in process diagrams as a factor wherever you like and wherever you see it having an impact. As you stated the impact could be compensatory - like for instance breaking a bone stimulates it's growth, therefore breaking bones is good. I would like to say it is more than this but if it is then people who holds the keys are keeping it a secret instead of explaining themselves.

 

[Nick]

I would like to say it is more than this but if it is then people who holds the keys are keeping it a secret instead of explaining themselves.

I doubt anyone is keeping secret knowledge of a mechanism (more plausible to me is Grant's theory that some group secretly knows VA is toxic), if there is a beneficial role of the molecules it's probably not understood and may involve mechanisms that aren't understood. Since the orthodox scientific community typically wants to maintain the flimsy impression that they understand just about every possible aspect of chemistry and physics and how it relates to biology, it's unlikely that the question gets examined any deeper since this kind of controversy is generally not good for academic politics or getting funded and published.