Low Toxin Diet Essentiality of Vitamin A

[Bozidar]

Hello everyone.

I am deeply intrigued by this vitamin A is a toxin thing going around and even more so by this clash of people being for and against.
I went to talk to ChatGPT to dig deeper.
Please do not try to discredit what I am about to post by saying "ChatGPT gives false information".
It certainly can give false information, but please read along and feel free to discredit something by addressing the particular thing in question and providing a good explanation why something is or is not so.

I wanted to know is Vitamin A essential or not:
So, from conversation with ChatGPT I made some observations:

Beta carotene is made by plants only. It is a starting point for all other forms of Vitamin A.
Herbivor animals obtain Vitamin A by consuming these plants and then converting beta carotene to other forms of Vitamin A. Retinol retinal and retinoic acid.
Carnivore animals by eating other animals which have eaten beta carotene containing plants and converted it to other forms of vitamin A storing it in tissues, primarily liver.

Beta carotene is a pigment molecule which is created through photo shynthesis. Plant uses it to further enhance processes involving light and energy creation for its own purposes or it is also used as a defense chemical to detere animals from eating the plant. Beta carotene is not directly toxic to animals, but its bright color discourages animals from eating the plant signaling other toxic chemicals.

In order to keep the post shorter I will write only about essentiality for vision:

Me:
tell more specifically how does it impair vision?

ChatGPT:
Vitamin A deficiency impairs vision primarily by affecting the functioning of the retina, the light-sensitive tissue at the back of the eye responsible for converting light into electrical signals that are sent to the brain for interpretation. Here's how vitamin A deficiency can impair vision:

1. **Rhodopsin Production**: Vitamin A is a key component in the synthesis of rhodopsin, a pigment found in the retina's rod cells. Rhodopsin is essential for low-light and night vision. In the absence of sufficient vitamin A, the synthesis of rhodopsin is compromised, leading to decreased sensitivity to low light levels.

Me:
how is rhodopsin synthesized?

ChatGPT:
Rhodopsin, the light-sensitive pigment found in the rod cells of the retina, is synthesized through a series of biochemical reactions involving vitamin A (retinol) and a protein called opsin. Here's an overview of the synthesis process:

1. **Absorption of Light**: The process of vision begins when light enters the eye and strikes the retina. Rod cells contain rhodopsin, which is composed of the protein opsin bound to a molecule of 11-cis-retinal (a form of vitamin A).

2. **Isomerization of 11-cis-Retinal**: When light hits the retina, it is absorbed by 11-cis-retinal, causing it to isomerize (change shape) into all-trans-retinal. This conversion triggers a conformational change in the opsin protein to which retinal is bound.

3. **Activation of Opsin**: The conformational change in opsin activates it, initiating a signaling cascade that ultimately leads to the generation of nerve impulses that are sent to the brain for visual processing.

4. **Signal Transmission**: The activated opsin interacts with other proteins in the rod cell membrane, ultimately leading to changes in ion flow across the cell membrane. This generates an electrical signal that is transmitted to the brain via the optic nerve.

5. **Regeneration of Rhodopsin**: After absorbing light and triggering a visual signal, the all-trans-retinal is released from opsin. It is then converted back to 11-cis-retinal through a series of enzymatic reactions in the retinal pigment epithelium (RPE) of the retina. This regenerated 11-cis-retinal can then recombine with opsin to form new rhodopsin molecules, allowing the process to repeat.

The synthesis and regeneration of rhodopsin are crucial for maintaining the sensitivity of rod cells to light and for the normal functioning of the visual system, especially in low-light conditions. The availability of vitamin A (retinol) is essential for the regeneration of 11-cis-retinal, highlighting the importance of adequate vitamin A intake for maintaining healthy vision.

Me:

so, if there wouldn't be any 11-cis-retinal, opsin protein would not receive a signal because there is nothing to absorb light and opsin cannot absorb light by itself?

ChatGPT:
That's correct. In the absence of 11-cis-retinal, the opsin protein alone cannot absorb light and initiate the signal transduction cascade required for vision. The binding of 11-cis-retinal to opsin is essential for the formation of the functional rhodopsin molecule, which serves as the light-sensitive pigment in rod cells. When light is absorbed by 11-cis-retinal, it triggers the isomerization of the retinal molecule and initiates the process of signal transduction that leads to the perception of light. Therefore, the presence of 11-cis-retinal is crucial for the normal functioning of the visual system.

Me:
how and from what is 11-cis-retinal made?

ChatGPT:
11-cis-retinal is derived from dietary sources of vitamin A. Here's a brief overview of its synthesis:

1. **Dietary intake:** Vitamin A is consumed through various dietary sources such as liver, eggs, dairy products, and certain fruits and vegetables.

2. **Absorption:** Vitamin A is absorbed from the intestines into the bloodstream.

3. **Transport:** In the bloodstream, vitamin A is transported primarily as retinol, bound to retinol-binding protein (RBP) and transthyretin (TTR).

4. **Conversion to retinal:** Retinol is converted to retinaldehyde (retinal) primarily in the liver. This conversion involves enzymes such as alcohol dehydrogenases and retinol dehydrogenases.

5. **Isomerization:** The trans-retinal produced from retinol undergoes isomerization to form 11-cis-retinal. This isomerization occurs in the retinal pigment epithelium (RPE) of the eye.

6. **Binding to opsin:** Once formed, 11-cis-retinal binds to the opsin protein present in the rod cells of the retina, forming the functional rhodopsin molecule.

The conversion of retinol to 11-cis-retinal is a crucial step in the visual cycle and is essential for normal vision. Any disruption in this process can lead to visual impairment and other related disorders.

So you can see from this that Vitamin A in fact is essential. If I have gotten something wrong here, please point it out. :)
Its toxicity comes from something else, maybe when it acumulates in excess.
Polar bears are know to have the highest content of Vitamin A in their livers. Why are they not bothered by this?
Maybe because they don't have an other toxins going around so they can deal with it.
Or, maybe if they would be able to avoid somehow getting so much vitamin A in their diet and accumulate it, maybe they would live longer and be even healthier.

One is true, and that is that vitamin A is essential. In which amount? I don't know.

 

[mosaic01]

You have posted a summary of the mainstream position on "Vitamin A".

Genereux has refuted this by living without vitamin A for almost 10 years now and not losing his eyesight. If there's only one black swan, the claim that "All swans are white" is debunked. If there's only one person who can go without vitamin A, the claim that vitamin A is essential for humans is debunked.

The argument that sometimes comes up - he still eats miniscule amounts of retinol and therefore that small amount goes to the eyes to save him - is ridiculous. That would mean that something like 10mcg of retinol per day would be enough, which is basically the same as saying it's not essential.

Whether few molecules of retinol are actually essential is a matter that is independent from the toxicity epidemic. Lowering retinol as much as possible is still the answer for most people, even if extremely small amounts are necessary. The liver stores need to be emptied.

Something that is as toxic as retinol is likely not essential, it's just a toxin, no matter the dose.

Polar bears are know to have the highest content of Vitamin A in their livers. Why are they not bothered by this?

Carnivores have a higher ratio of hepatic stellate cells to hepatocytes. The stellate cells store retinol. the hepatocytes are the normal liver cells that are responsible for the usual processes in the liver. That doesn't mean they thrive on retinol, it just means they can get away with eating other animals.

Carnivores are also able to excrete retinyl esters through the urine, something humans can't do. This means that carnivores detoxify the dangerous unbound form of retinol conveniently via urine, while in humans elevated free retinyl esters are very dangerous and can build up easily.

These differences between carnivores and humans is the primary reason lions can get away with eating liver. This also shows that humans were never designed to eat high A foods like liver, otherwise we would be able to excrete retinol via urine.

 

[charlie]

Dr. Garrett Smith has shown the "vitamin A" deficiency problems shown in eyesight are actually protein, zinc and taurine deficiency. He has shown "vitamin A" actually harms the eyes. I will see if I can dig up where he said this.

 

[Bozidar]

You have posted a summary of the mainstream position on "Vitamin A".

Genereux has refuted this by living without vitamin A for almost 10 years now and not losing his eyesight. If there's only one black swan, the claim that "All swans are white" is debunked. If there's only one person who can go without vitamin A, the claim that vitamin A is essential for humans is debunked.

The argument that sometimes comes up - he still eats miniscule amounts of retinol and therefore that small amount goes to the eyes to save him - is ridiculous. That would mean that something like 10mcg of retinol per day would be enough, which is basically the same as saying it's not essential.



Carnivores have a higher ratio of hepatic stellate cells to hepatocytes. The stellate cells store retinol. the hepatocytes are the normal liver cells that are responsible for the usual processes in the liver. That doesn't mean they thrive on retinol, it just means they can get away with eating other animals.

Carnivores are also able to excrete retinyl esters through the urine, something humans can't do. This means that carnivores detoxify the dangerous unbound form of retinol conveniently via urine, while in humans elevated free retinyl esters are very dangerous and can build up easily.

These differences between carnivores and humans is the primary reason lions can get away with eating liver. This also shows that humans were never designed to eat high A foods like liver, otherwise we would be able to excrete retinol via urine.

I was hoping for a comment on biochemistry from my conversation with chatGPT.
So, are you saying that "11-cis-retinal" is not needed to stimulate opsin protein. I would accept that as proof that it is not essential, but everything else you said is neither here nor there.
Generoux could still have some vitamin a somewhere stored or maybe those miniscule amounts indeed are enough, I dont know...
Please comment on biochemistry of it if you have knowledge about it.
Or somebody else who has the knowledge?
Thanks

 

[mosaic01]

So, are you saying that "11-cis-retinal" is not needed to stimulate opsin protein. I would accept that as proof that it is not essential, but everything else you said is neither here nor there.

You are approaching this from the wrong end. Everyone can build complicated biochemicals models and put them into a textbook. Thousands of scientists and academics spent decades of perfecting that model.

No one of us can take a microscope, look into an eye, and see the essentiality of retinol in action when rhodopsin disintegrates and requires new 11-cis-retinal. Just because 11-cis-retinal is there in the eye, does not magically tell us whether it's actually essential. It's a pretty tricky thing.

But models always come second to real world experiences.

The blood retinol level of Genereux is close to zero. If that level is sufficient, then vitamin A is not vitamin A, period. If your blood level of zinc, magnesium or potassium would be 2% of the norm, you would be dead.

This is taken from "Poisoning for Profits":

Retinal is the vitamin A derivative that is most toxic, due to its chemical reactivity. Even when vitamin A is used only for lightsensing, retinal can be toxic [119] due to its chemical toxicity in randomly modifying proteins through Schiff base formation. Although human vision in a sense perfectly serves our daily needs, we are living with the consequences of the choice of monostable pigments in evolution. If this choice helped our ancestors survive at night, it came at a surprisingly high costs. It is astonishing to realize that every photon we see depends on a complex enzymatic cycle that consumes cellular energy and releases free toxic retinoid. As we see using our cones in natural daylight or artificial light, a staggering amount of energy is consumed, and a constant flux of toxic free retinoid is cycling between cells to regenerate rhodopsin, which plays no role in daylight vision. In a sense, a whole range of human diseases, from our vision’s high sensitivity to vitamin A deficiency to Stargardt macular dystrophy, are the price we pay for this evolutionary choice.

Quote from "Retina, Retinol, Retinal and the Natural History of Vitamin A as a Light Sensor", Ming Zhong, Riki Kawaguchi, Miki Kassai and Hui Sun

Absurd, isn't it? Our poor eyes, needing a highly toxic chemical to function.

Genereux writes:

What’s astonishing about the “vision as a chemical reaction” theory is that it is completely illogically extrapolated to the other tissues of the eye. By finding retinal in the rhodopsin pigment in the rods of the retina, it was like: “Ah ha! We’ve found the clincher in the vitamin-A deficiency case,it’s retinal.” But, the truth is that, and by a huge factor, the so-called vitamin-A deficiency diseases of the eye predominantly manifest in the other tissues of the eye, and not in the retina. These other tissues have no connection whatsoever with the image processing function of the retina,and no need for retinal, at all. There is no rhodopsin or even vitamin-A normally found in these tissues. To make the point perfectly clear, let’sconsider the lens of the eye. The catastrophic end stage of xerophthalmiais the disintegration and piercing of the lens. Normally there is no vitamin-A found in the lens of the eye. It’s not supposed to be there, it’s not needed there, and it isn’t there. Clearly then, it is logically impossible for adeficiency in something that is not supposed to be present to cause the disease condition in the lens.

"In conclusion, it may be stated that vitamin-A has not been isolated from the lens nor is a deficiency of it known to produce any changes there. (...) There is a number of puzzling things about the way in which the eye is involved in vitamin-A deficiency. The main obstacle to an understanding of these matters is undoubtedly our present ignorance of the role the vitamin has outside the retina."

- Malnutrition and the Eye, McLaren, 1963

https://ggenereux.blog/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/PoisoningForProfits.pdf

 

[Bozidar]

You are approaching this from the wrong end. Everyone can build complicated biochemicals models and put them into a textbook. Thousands of scientists and academics spent decades of perfecting that model.

No one of us can take a microscope, look into an eye, and see the essentiality of retinol in action when rhodopsin disintegrates and requires new 11-cis-retinal.

I appreciate your responses, but you have no argument there. You are mute on on this. Its a null hypothesis which cannot be proved nor disproved.
We could design some kind of experiment/study to see in more detail what is happening there, but you haven't disproven what I wrote.
It would be interesting to see what happens if you take out "11-cis-retinal" out of the eye all together... :)

The blood retinol level of Genereux is close to zero. If that level is sufficient, then vitamin A is not vitamin A, period. If your blood level of zinc, magnesium or potassium would be 2% of the norm, you would be dead.

How is it that you are equating those mineral amounts with Vitamin A amounts?
If his level of Vitamin A is close to zero, but not zero, maybe that is all he needs. We don't know.
You are relying here on mainstream knowledge about amounts of Vitamin A needed while trying to discredit mainstream knowledge of Vitamin A.
We don't know what are real requirements for Vitamin A. These huge amounts which we take in every day from food are probably what is harming us.

From "Retina, Retinol, Retinal and the Natural History of Vitamin A as a Light Sensor", Ming Zhong, Riki Kawaguchi, Miki Kassai and Hui Sun

Absurd, isn't it? Our poor eyes, needing a highly toxic chemical to function.

I am not sure if I understood this correctly, but basically to see in the night you need this retinal and since it is so chemically reactive it harms us?
But now we can drop this revolutionary adaptation seeing in the night?
Is that the moral of the story?
Sorry if I misunderstood.

 

[Dominus]

Soon enough there will be hundreds to thousands of blind or NOT low vA enthusiasts. Then the model will be proven or refuted. I'm pretty sure that Grant's eye sight has improved over the last 9 years if I remember correctly. I can tell you that my persistent perioral atopic dermatitis has gotten 95% better after 2 months.

One thing that I hope you will develop is a deep mistrust of established science, because it is rotten to the core.

I was hoping for a comment on biochemistry from my conversation with chatGPT.
So, are you saying that "11-cis-retinal" is not needed to stimulate opsin protein. I would accept that as proof that it is not essential, but everything else you said is neither here nor there.
Generoux could still have some vitamin a somewhere stored or maybe those miniscule amounts indeed are enough, I dont know...
Please comment on biochemistry of it if you have knowledge about it.
Or somebody else who has the knowledge?
Thank

 

[PopSocket]

Anyone can disprove the current theory by going near 0 vit A and having none of the issues they are supposed to have.

Already quite a few people doing it, none has lost their eyesight, yet as far as I know. My eyesight improved since going near 0 vitA.

Nor their skin has fallen off. Quite the contrary.

Too much theory, too little reality is a major problem.

 

[charlie]

My eyesight improved since going near 0 vitA.

Mine has too.

 

[mosaic01]

I appreciate your responses, but you have no argument there.

I think I have said enough. I am not here to disprove anything what you said or argue over myopic things, I am inviting you to change your perspective. If you don't want to see for yourself, that's up to you.

As others have said, you can just try it yourself.

 

[Bozidar]

Soon enough there will be hundreds to thousands of blind or NOT low vA enthusiasts. Then the model will be proven or refuted. I'm pretty sure that Grant's eye sight has improved over the last 9 years if I remember correctly. I can tell you that my persistent perioral atopic dermatitis has gotten 95% better after 2 months.

One thing that I hope you will develop is a deep mistrust of established science, because it is rotten to the core.

You are missing my point. I want to know is Vitamin A essential or not.
From my conversation with chatGPT it looks like it is essential, but maybe only for seeing in the night. As @mosaic01 pointed out. I wouldn't know much about that.
If you dont comment on biochemistry of it, you have no argument.

 

[Bozidar]

Anyone can disprove the current theory by going near 0 vit A and having none of the issues they are supposed to have.

Already quite a few people doing it, none has lost their eyesight, yet as far as I know. My eyesight improved since going near 0 vitA.

Nor their skin has fallen off. Quite the contrary.

Too much theory, too little reality is a major problem.

No, nobody can disprove the current theory by going near 0 Vit A. Your logic is not in order.
You can disprove it by going truly 0 Vit A and eradicating any vit A from your system. That would disprove it. Not near 0.

 

[Bozidar]

I think I have said enough. I am not here to disprove anything what you said or argue over myopic things, I am inviting you to change your perspective. If you don't want to see for yourself, that's up to you.

As others have said, you can just try it yourself.

No, you actually said to little...
Why are you writing then? Which myopic things?
Well I would change my perspective if I would have some solid evidence and not only anecdotal from people who go "ner 0 Vit A" and not truly 0.
I am not saying it doesn't help to go near 0 Vit A, it most probably does. I am disputing only essentiality of Vit A.
From the current biochemical structure known, vitamin A is essential.
You can read it up in my OP.

 

[PopSocket]

No, nobody can disprove the current theory by going near 0 Vit A. Your logic is not in order.
You can disprove it by going truly 0 Vit A and eradicating any vit A from your system. That would disprove it. Not near 0.

Your logic is flawed and you have not read up enough.

1. You can't go 0 vit A as it is found in small quantities in virtually almost everything.

2. Why don't you try to go near 0 magnesium or potassium for example for 1 year and see what happens. OR even 10-20% of the daily requirements. You will very quickly understand what ESSENTIAL means first hand.

 

[High_Prob]

Soon enough there will be hundreds to thousands of blind or NOT low vA enthusiasts. Then the model will be proven or refuted. I'm pretty sure that Grant's eye sight has improved over the last 9 years if I remember correctly. I can tell you that my persistent perioral atopic dermatitis has gotten 95% better after 2 months.

One thing that I hope you will develop is a deep mistrust of established science, because it is rotten to the core.

I had that skin condition (formally diagnosed), it was a bad case. I stopped drinking milk completely (and introduced B vitamins, Probiotics, Magnesium, zinc, vitamin C). I did not stop cheese, eggs, liver, etc. It went away, completely. This was 18 years ago (I had been suffering with it for my entire childhood).

However, I still have other issues to work on: Maybe it’s time to experiment with cutting out eggs, cheese, liver, etc

 

[Bozidar]

1. You can't go 0 vit A as it is found in small quantities in virtually almost everything.

Exactly, at least not in self experimentation.
There should be some kind of heavy controlled experiment where they would really go 0 Vit A.
Then we would know. Otherwise is a null hypothesis.

2. Why don't you try to go near 0 magnesium or potassium for example for 1 year and see what happens. OR even 10-20% of the daily requirements. You will very quickly understand what ESSENTIAL means first hand.

What if I go now and make a conversation with ChatGPT about biochemical importance of magnesium and potassium and report back here?
That would be a proof that Mg and K are essential, but you wouldn't argue about it.
Try to take large dose of potassium as a supplement. How would you feel? not very good. You might even die. They actually execute people with potassium injection.
What is essential dose for potassium and what is essential dose for Vit A is not comparable in numbers. I dont know how much of Vit A is essential. By the biochemical structure it is essential, but probably only for night vision as again, @mosaic01 pointed out.

 

[mosaic01]

@Bozidar

So it seems you want to know whether technically vA is needed for vision, independent of any practical considerations at all, since no one can reduce their vA intake to zero. And you want someone to specifically look at the biochemical process that is described in textbooks and in your post and take it apart based on biochemical pathways and interactions.

Well, I hope someone will do that at one point, I have not looked into that as practical considerations are way more important than philosophical ones for me, when it comes to a low A diet, and I also have not looked for or came across sufficient information to be able to analyze/question the biochemical processes.

 

[Bozidar]

@Bozidar

So it seems you want to know whether technically vA is needed for vision, independent of any practical considerations at all, since no one can reduce their vA intake to zero. And you want someone to specifically look at the biochemical process that is described in textbooks and in your post and take it apart based on biochemical pathways and interactions.

Well, I hope someone will do that at one point, I have not looked into that as practical considerations are way more important than philosophical ones for me, when it comes to a low A diet, and I also have not looked for or came across sufficient information to be able to analyze/question the biochemical processes.

Dont get me wrong, I am also going to try out low Vit A diet, I am interested.
I am still reading and gathering info, but I would like to know if it is essential or not. And if it is how much is the minimum. Do I need night vision? I dont know. Its all interesting.

 

[Morten]

Why does tribes in for exampel africa appreciate the liver after a hunt, do you think?
Matter of victory??

 

[Dominus]

Why does tribes in for exampel africa appreciate the liver after a hunt, do you think?
Matter of victory??

Do we take architectural advice from these tribes? Why are their choices revered? I’ve choked down enough liver to know that it’s revolting, so now I’m going to trust my taste buds from now on.