GorillaHead
Member
I think we are ignoring a huge part that vitamin D and vitamin A work together. Rxr and vdr.
UV blocks retinol action in the skin.
UV blocks retinol action in the skin.
-
By using this site you agree to the terms, rules, and privacy policy.
-
Charlie's Restoration Giveaway #2 (Entire Home EMF Mitigation & Protection Along With Personal Protection) - Click Here To Enter
-
Dear Carnivore Dieters, A Muscle Meat Only Diet is Extremely Healing Because it is a Low "vitamin A" Diet. This is Why it Works so Well...
Rest the rest of this post by clicking here
-
The Forum is transitioning to a subscription-based membership model - Click Here To Read
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.
Low Toxin Diet Essentiality of Vitamin A
- Thread starter Bozidar
- Start date
The supplement form of retinyl palmitate, even 3000IU daily, causes greasy scalp, greasier skin, hair loss and acne and an inflamed look to the skin. Some sites claim its supposedly temporary but im not sure. Thats an extremely low dose for a supplement. I wasnt eating any liver either, but was probably getting another 2000IU from non fortified whole milk.
I suspect natural sources of A could actually be worse be worse because it is uniformly dispersed within them in the fat, in the protein, and hence more absorbed/ bioavailable compared to a pill. We probably do not absorb a lot of the pills.
The whole milk source in my case doesnt cause the same issues like oily scalp, acne or anything else. Also for a time in the past I would use ancestral supplements products, many different ones combined together which had liver in them. Even in that case the effects were nothing like the retinyl palmitate. It was around 3000IU or more from those ancestral products.
Interesting
@Bozidar Vitamin A is bound to all opsins in the body not just Rhodopsin. Melanopsin is the most prevalent through out the body and brain and is blue light detector. The bond between Vit A and the opsins are all a weak covalent bond in humans which is easily broken by blue light and non-native EMF.
My working hypothesis of this low Vit A diet is that the essentiality of Vit A is far lower than we know and/or our liver stores are lasting a long time as well hence why the low vit A diet works. We clearly do need a tiny bit based on the functioning of the opsin proteins. Since 1893 and growing ever since, we are exposed to increasing amounts of blue light and EMF which is causing more free retinal to be released from the opsins and poison our body (This process is clearly summarized by the work of Dr Jack Kruse). The body can normally deal with the toxicity aspect of Vit A when we arent dealing with multiple sources of toxicity, but in the modern environment, there is just too much toxicity to deal with and vitamin A becomes a problem that it wasnt really was back 150+ years ago. We are only having to do this extreme thing of vit a reduction because society has poisoned us beyond the point of no return.
Thoughts?
My working hypothesis of this low Vit A diet is that the essentiality of Vit A is far lower than we know and/or our liver stores are lasting a long time as well hence why the low vit A diet works. We clearly do need a tiny bit based on the functioning of the opsin proteins. Since 1893 and growing ever since, we are exposed to increasing amounts of blue light and EMF which is causing more free retinal to be released from the opsins and poison our body (This process is clearly summarized by the work of Dr Jack Kruse). The body can normally deal with the toxicity aspect of Vit A when we arent dealing with multiple sources of toxicity, but in the modern environment, there is just too much toxicity to deal with and vitamin A becomes a problem that it wasnt really was back 150+ years ago. We are only having to do this extreme thing of vit a reduction because society has poisoned us beyond the point of no return.
Thoughts?
mattmm24
Member
Glyphosphate has messed up vitamin A metabolism. Low vitamin A diet doesn't exist in countries without glyphosphate. Japan, Italy, Thailand are a few examples.
I agree, there are probably too many things to list as both toxins that burden the liver and also things that directly screw up vitamin a metabolism like glyphosate. Glyphosate screws up collagen and collagen networks are carriers of energy in the body and collagen is piezoelectric in addition to the vit a metabolism. So anything that screws up your general redox will make you sick one way or another
But Japan and Thailand dont even eat vitamin A do they? Those countries seem to have diet issues of their own like too much pufa consumption. It may not be as toxic as omega 6 so they dont have as severe effects. They eat seafood but not cod liver oil. Italy they use cheese and dairy but how much is it really, and how much vitamin A remains in their cheeses and dairy.
How do you think vitamin A, and other dietary factors affect the color of the eyes? Supposedly some people got lighter eyes on the low A diet? Which diet factors do you think affect the eyes. I would think sunlight and possibly vitamin D supps would also darken the eyes? Mine seem to keep getting lighter since drastically cutting down on vitamin D supplements.
vit d supps would only cause damage, anything you make internally, you shouldn't take exogenously in 90% of cases because in uncouples coupled systems/feedback loops. I cant comment credibly on the eye color thing, but sunlight/UV is the only thing that can stimulate the POMC gene and hence make melanin which is what darkens the eyes and skin, plus it acts as a battery/energy source by charge separating water with a resulting 2 electrons. Eye color is a product of your haplotype and heritage. If you are closer to the equator you would have darker skin and eyes to handle the intense UV since melanin absorbs all forms of radiation. If you are northern European lighter eyes and skin would be advantageous as you need to absorb as much as UV light as possible since its so low at those latitudes.
Vit A seems to be linked to melanin production, yet im not clear on the exact mechanism. So less vit A you get less melanin and lighter eyes? Losing melanin is not a good thing. These people probably arent getting enough full spectrum sunlight and/or live in too much EMF
Hugh Johnson
Member
Vitamin A is excreted in the urine during acute infection - PubMed
Episodes of acute infection are thought to deplete body stores of vitamin A. The mechanism by which this might occur is not known, but increased metabolic requirements are presumed to play a role. We have found, however, that significant amounts of retinol and retinol-binding protein (RBP) were...
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
We do know humans clear Vitamin A via urine. There are limits to that, obviously, so a poisoning is possible.
GorillaHead
Member
Vitamin A. Has cured my hand warts. Fixed my back acne. And even gotten rid of the Millia on my eye lid. There is no way retinol is not essential. I truly believe a lot of the toxic effects people experience is overdosing and the lack of vitamin E and vitamin D. But I would argue the E is more important. Because taking a lot of A is like taking a lot of pufa. U need the E.
Highserotonin90
Member
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2018
- Messages
- 792
@GorillaHead Can you clarify the role of vitamin E? some say it is agonist, others antagonist.
GorillaHead
Member
This is interesting you say that. I’ve seen some studies on chickens where too much of either or would drop of the levels of the other. That’s where the agonist and antagonist part comes from. But if we ignore that for now since that seems unclear. We can focus on something we understand from more hard coded biochemistry. We know that retinol palmitate for example is highly unsaturated like a pufa. Its very likely that vitamin E prevents its over oxidation that lead to some negative effects.
Also the VDR (vitamin d receptor) cannot work without the RXR. Basically you need retinol to activate some vitamin D receptors. I think some people need more A than others but it makes no sense to think A is a poison when there are so many studies show benefits and many many studies showing strong associations of disease and defeciency. All the science and date out there is against this idea that retinol is bad. Of course too much can be
Dark skinned people living in low uv countries do not suffer from expected UV light deficiencies, i.e low bone density, infact they have on average denser bones. The way we ' make vitamin D' isn't even consistently described. Supposedly fury animals like cats make vitamin d on the oil on their skin and the lick it up
. The whole light skin for more UV light theory is nonsense that does not have real world support. People simply lost dark skin ( and skin IR resistance ) because it was unnecessary, and a waste of energy to produce, especially as they wore clothing. ( Making melanin takes energy and resources).In short the lighter skin for more vitamin D is a trash theory. It has also been argued against in the mainstream so it isn't just me.
Last edited:
GorillaHead
Member
Vitamin D sulfate which is water soluble and made thru the skin may have different effects than from a Pill.
"
As for vitamin D production, while reduced exposure to UV rays may have played a role in the evolution of the extremely light skin found in residents of the northernmost areas of Europe and Asia, Elias and Williams propose that the moderate pigment reduction seen in Central European and Asian populations did not evolve to support additional vitamin D production. In support of this proposition, they cite studies by other researchers showing that even darkly pigmented individuals, though better protected from UV light, are still quite efficient at producing vitamin D.
As an alternative hypothesis to the evolution of dark pigmentation on the African savannah, Elias and Williams lay out largely overlooked benefits of dark skin: a more efficient permeability barrier, more cohesive and mechanical strength, and superior antimicrobial defense, a key basis for which is lower pH at the surface of darkly pigmented skin.
Previous research by Elias and colleagues found that the pH of skin in darkly pigmented individuals is substantially lower than that of their fair-skinned counterparts—the surface of dark skin is more acidic. This higher acidity increases protection against pathogenic microbes while also promoting increased production of molecules critical for moisture retention, for physical strength and cohesion, and for warding off inflammation, he said.
The new paper also proposes that pigmentation was lost in central European and Asian populations because a pigmented skin barrier, which is metabolically expensive to produce, became less important. “It’s all about diverting precious resources towards the most urgent requirements,” Elias said, a concept known in medicine as metabolic conservation.
As ancestral humans moved northwards from Africa into Europe and Asia to cooler and more moist environments, they began donning clothing, which provides a partial barrier. Elias and Williams theorize that the enhanced barrier function provided by dark skin became less critical. At the same time, as they entered cooler climates, modern humans’ need to stay warm became more critical. Evolution would have driven a reduction in the production of intense pigmentation under such conditions, Elias said, offering intriguing examples of pigment reduction in modern humans under metabolic stress: lactating women and growing children display paler skin than that seen in individuals who have fewer metabolic demands."
Dark skinned people living in low uv countries do not suffer from expected UV light deficiencies, i.e low bone density, infact they have on average denser bones. The way we ' make vitamin D' isn't even consistently described. Supposedly fury animals like cats make vitamin d on the oil on their skin and the lick it up
In short the lighter skin for more vitamin D is a trash theory. It has also been argued against in the mainstream so it isn't just me.
But that is exactly what sources said about darker skinned people moving to lower sunlight areas. They become more at risk of vitamin D deficiency.
"
As for vitamin D production, while reduced exposure to UV rays may have played a role in the evolution of the extremely light skin found in residents of the northernmost areas of Europe and Asia, Elias and Williams propose that the moderate pigment reduction seen in Central European and Asian populations did not evolve to support additional vitamin D production. In support of this proposition, they cite studies by other researchers showing that even darkly pigmented individuals, though better protected from UV light, are still quite efficient at producing vitamin D.
As an alternative hypothesis to the evolution of dark pigmentation on the African savannah, Elias and Williams lay out largely overlooked benefits of dark skin: a more efficient permeability barrier, more cohesive and mechanical strength, and superior antimicrobial defense, a key basis for which is lower pH at the surface of darkly pigmented skin.
Previous research by Elias and colleagues found that the pH of skin in darkly pigmented individuals is substantially lower than that of their fair-skinned counterparts—the surface of dark skin is more acidic. This higher acidity increases protection against pathogenic microbes while also promoting increased production of molecules critical for moisture retention, for physical strength and cohesion, and for warding off inflammation, he said.
The new paper also proposes that pigmentation was lost in central European and Asian populations because a pigmented skin barrier, which is metabolically expensive to produce, became less important. “It’s all about diverting precious resources towards the most urgent requirements,” Elias said, a concept known in medicine as metabolic conservation.
As ancestral humans moved northwards from Africa into Europe and Asia to cooler and more moist environments, they began donning clothing, which provides a partial barrier. Elias and Williams theorize that the enhanced barrier function provided by dark skin became less critical. At the same time, as they entered cooler climates, modern humans’ need to stay warm became more critical. Evolution would have driven a reduction in the production of intense pigmentation under such conditions, Elias said, offering intriguing examples of pigment reduction in modern humans under metabolic stress: lactating women and growing children display paler skin than that seen in individuals who have fewer metabolic demands."
This seems like the researchers are racist and biased. They titled their paper “darker skin is stronger skin” and came up with different conclusions regarding dark skin than the rest of the world. Even if humanity originated in Africa it doesn’t mean the very first humans were dark skinned. On the contrary, darker skin is a response to sunlight. It is actually a response to damaging the skin as well, as you see in bruising or inflammation.
Also people can live in Africa and retain their white skin as seen via numerous white or middle eastern people from that part of the world. I actually asked Ray about this too and he agreed that the darker skinned societies were basically the less religious, nudist groups of people while religious Christians or Muslims were more likely to retain lighter skin due to wearing a lot more clothing. Everyone with lighter skin didn’t have to evolve into it from darker skin.
Numerous people maintain lighter skin even while being in Africa. A pigmented skin barrier as they call it, is metabolically expensive to produce because it is a form of damage control and response to damage. Its not something you should intentionally inflict on yourself.
The bone density has much more to do with diet and no connection to darker or lighter skin. People who research this stuff, even medical doctors, will laughably compare an African person whos ancestors were eating things like raw beef, blood and raw dairy, to an Asian person who’s ancestors were eating soy, fish, rice and seaweed and draw the wild conclusion that darker skin equals more bone density. In the medical world, diet means nothing and everything is about genetics and environment. Theyll never compare an African with proper diet history to say someone in Iceland or Northern Europe who also may have had a similar diet of raw beef organs raw dairy etc. It will either be compared to a standard Asian diet or standard American diet.
If they were more at risk of d deficiency, we would see weaker bones in black people living in the UK, but we don't. Therefore theory WRONG. Infact black women here have slightly denser bones than white women in a study I read.
And it is not racist to say that black skin is stronger, it's a fact. Its thicker, less damaged by heat, less damaged by UV.
AND in case you are wondering if I am biased, I am white, I barely tan.
We dont know if black skin is stronger or less damaged by heat, its like saying white skin is less damaged by cold and thicker, or asian skin is less damaged by wind or dryness. If white skin is an adaptation to cold, then it would be more cold resistant. Thickness is a different question
What you mentioned regarding vitamin d deficiency is incorrect. Its already been confirmed over and over they were more likely deficient in vitamin D/have an easier time becoming deficient in vitamin D in darker places. Thats obvious without testing as well. Bone density has nothing to do with it and is irrelevant. Bone density is affected by environment, diet, and diet/environment of the ancestors (genetics). So even if they have more dense bones, it doesnt mean the vitamin D deficiency isnt there it means the dense bones are from other factors. Dense bones dont prove the vitamin d deficiency Isnt there.
Also they don’t actually have denser bones, like I mentioned before, they will do things like compare an African to an Asian diet or someone eating a wheat heavy, corn heavy diet. Denser bones are a result of a superior diet or environment or both. If they actually compared different cultures that ate a red meat heavy and dairy heavy diet it would be a much closer battle and would come down to differences in environmental quality and whichever culture was maintaining that diet and environment for a longer time period.
EMF Mitigation - Flush Niacin - Big 5 Minerals
