27 replies to this topic

[Dmitri]

Vitamin A has been discussed numerous times and many believe we should not be supplementing it due to studies showing toxic/adverse effects. However, looking through some studies on pubmed it seems that many of those used Vitamin A alone, which could likely compromise the results. There's been further research that shows Vitamin A and D antagonize each other, one depleting the other and vice versa; in other words both prevent each others toxicity.Therefore what concerns me is that I see many taking 5,000 - 10,000 IU of D a day without supplementing A. If D in fact reduces A, would getting A from diet alone be enough with such high D dosages?

In a study I found on Pubmed on Vitamin A and bone fractures (in 74,000+ women) it was observed that A intake was many times higher than D and A seemed to cause no adverse effects. I'll post a few sections of the paper. I would like to hear your thoughts on the study and what you would consider a safe Vitamin A and D ratio.

Vitamin A and retinol intakes and the risk of fractures among participants of the Women's Health Initiative Observational Study.

Am J Clin Nutr. 2009 Jan;89(1):323-30. Epub 2008 Dec 3

Caire-Juvera G, Ritenbaugh C, Wactawski-Wende J, Snetselaar LG, Chen Z.
Nutrition Department, Centro de Investigación en Alimentación y Desarrollo, Hermosillo, Sonora, Mexico. gcaire@ciad.mx

Abstract

Background: Excessive intakes of vitamin A have been shown to have adverse skeletal effects in animals. High vitamin A intake may lead to an increased risk of fracture in humans.

Objective: The objective was to evaluate the relation between total vitamin A and retinol intakes and the risk of incident total and hip fracture in postmenopausal women.
Design: A total of 75,747 women from the Women's Health Initiative Observational Study participated. The risk of hip and total fractures was determined using Cox proportional hazards models according to different intakes of vitamin A and retinol.

Results: In the analysis adjusted for some covariates (age; protein, vitamin D, vitamin K, calcium, caffeine, and alcohol intakes; body mass index; hormone therapy use; smoking; metabolic equivalents hours per week; ethnicity; and region of clinical center), the association between vitamin A intake and the risk of fracture was not statistically significant. Analyses for retinol showed similar trends. When the interaction term was analyzed as categorical, the highest intake of retinol with vitamin D was significant (P = 0.033). Women with lower vitamin D intake (11 µg/d) in the highest quintile of intake of both vitamin A (hazard ratio: 1.19; 95% CI: 1.04, 1.37; P for trend: 0.022) and retinol (hazard ratio: 1.15; 95% CI: 1.03, 1.29; P for trend: 0.056) had a modest increased risk of total fracture.

Conclusions: No association between vitamin A or retinol intake and the risk of hip or total fractures was observed in postmenopausal women. Only a modest increase in total fracture risk with high vitamin A and retinol intakes was observed in the low vitamin D–intake group.

Discussion excerpt

Supplements contribute significantly to vitamin A intake in the United States. The mean intake of vitamin A from supplements in a sample of adult women in the Third National Health and Nutritional Examination Survey was 1338 µg/d. In our sample, the mean intake of vitamin A from supplements was 1075 µg/d at baseline and 1149 µg/d at year 3 follow-up. Many oily and supplemented foods contain vitamins A and D. The Recommended Dietary Allowance for vitamin A is 700–900 µg/d for men and women, with a tolerable upper intake of 3000 µg/d (41). The mean intake of total vitamin A in this study was 6400 µg/d, which is greater than the upper intake recommended. The issue is whether the effect of vitamin A on bone health occurs at the usual levels of retinol and vitamin D intakes experienced by most persons.

In the United States, milk and ready-to-eat cereals serve as the predominant food sources of vitamin D. Milk, however, is not uniformly consumed in the United States, and the amount of vitamin D added to milk may not be adequate to increase circulating 25-hydroxyvitamin D concentrations. In addition, only a few eligible milk products are fortified with vitamin D, such as a few brands of yogurt (42). Furthermore, the racial-ethnic groups at greatest risk of vitamin D insufficiency consume less milk and ready-to-eat cereals than do their white counterparts (43).

The mean intake of vitamin D in this study was 11 µg/d, which is a little higher than the current US recommendation for women aged 51–70 y (400 IU, equivalent to 10 µg/d) and lower than the recommendation for women aged 70 y (600 IU, equivalent to 15 µg/d) (44). The calcium requirement in older women is 1200 mg/d, which is similar to the mean intake of calcium found in our study (1236 mg/d). The findings in this study could therefore have implications for reducing the risk of osteoporotic fracture and for optimizing nonskeletal tissue function on the basis of dietary and supplemental intakes of vitamin A, vitamin D, and calcium.

[FunkOdyssey]

Excellent post Dmitri. I personally use a 2:1 ratio of Vitamin A to Vitamin D. There is probably a relatively large range of intakes that would be acceptable, I'm not sure what would be optimal though. Might be worth consulting the information on the Weston Price website again -- they've been way ahead of the curve on everything related to fat-soluble vitamins, having come to your conclusion above many years ago.

[Dmitri]

Excellent post Dmitri. I personally use a 2:1 ratio of Vitamin A to Vitamin D. There is probably a relatively large range of intakes that would be acceptable, I'm not sure what would be optimal though. Might be worth consulting the information on the Weston Price website again -- they've been way ahead of the curve on everything related to fat-soluble vitamins, having come to your conclusion above many years ago.

I think I'll have to look at those. Though if I remember clearly those Weston price studies (posted a few weeks ago) suggested a much lower A to D intake, while this study shows higher A to D intake was not detrimental as the Vitamin D Council advocated not too long ago.

[FunkOdyssey]

You have the Weston Price A to D thing backwards, they've long advocated cod liver oil which has something like an 8:1 ratio of A to D.

[Dmitri]

You have the Weston Price A to D thing backwards, they've long advocated cod liver oil which has something like an 8:1 ratio of A to D.

Hmm, I must have been thinking of the D council's paper? The 8:1 ratio seems a bit excessive especially for those taking 10,000 IU of D3; I doubt there are long term studies of such massive D and A dosages?

[FunkOdyssey]

It seems excessive to me too, I like to allow absolute intake of each vitamin to influence the equation as well. Hence my 2:1 regimen.

[stephen_b]

It seems excessive to me too, I like to allow absolute intake of each vitamin to influence the equation as well. Hence my 2:1 regimen.

Yeah, I'm at 1:1 A to D myself, but I may let myself be talked up.

I came across this posting at The Daily Lipid, referring to PMID 19022954. The posting says:

Overall, then, we see that both vitamins are needed for optimal health. Vitamin A alone did nothing to benefit the kidneys or the lungs. Vitamin Dalone caused a remarkable reduction in the ability of carcinogens associated with cigarette smoke to induce lung cancer but itself caused kidney stones. When vitamin A was combined with vitamin D, lung cancer was improved just as much, and the kidney calcification was completely eliminated. Moreover, the activation of vitamin K-dependent proteins in the kidney was much stronger with both vitamins than with neither treatment, suggesting that the vitamin A not only "antagonizes" vitamin D toxicity in the kidney, but that the two vitamins synergistically improve kidney health.

...

The data in the Tufts study suggest that vitamins D and A both increase the turnover of vitamin K2, but that vitamin A has a special effect of curbing the huge increase in the need for vitamin K2 in the kidney. Thus, vitamin A both calms the waves rocking the boat of vitamin D toxicity while helping to steer the ship at the same time, navigating the passengers to safety.

It looks like the cancer was induced in the study's mice for the purpose of testing how the vitamin interventions would affect it.

StephenB

[nameless]

I'm at around 1:1 too (supplement-wise, not sure dietary-wise). But via supplements the A comes mostly from the small amount of mixed carotenes from my multi.

I never really investigated Retinol that much. Besides fish livers, what is the main dietary source?

Edited by nameless, 05 May 2009 - 11:19 PM.

[Dmitri]

It seems excessive to me too, I like to allow absolute intake of each vitamin to influence the equation as well. Hence my 2:1 regimen.

What would a 2:1 ratio look like if you were taking 2,000 IU of D3? I looked over your lyme thread and it appears you use 10,000 IU of A and 5,000 IU of D3 but that doesn't seem like a 2:1 ratio based on what I found online; unless you changed your regimen since that posting or I'm interpreting the formulas wrong (never liked math)?

Edited by Dmitri, 06 May 2009 - 03:20 AM.

[Dmitri]

It seems excessive to me too, I like to allow absolute intake of each vitamin to influence the equation as well. Hence my 2:1 regimen.

Yeah, I'm at 1:1 A to D myself, but I may let myself be talked up.

I came across this posting at The Daily Lipid, referring to PMID 19022954. The posting says:

Overall, then, we see that both vitamins are needed for optimal health. Vitamin A alone did nothing to benefit the kidneys or the lungs. Vitamin Dalone caused a remarkable reduction in the ability of carcinogens associated with cigarette smoke to induce lung cancer but itself caused kidney stones. When vitamin A was combined with vitamin D, lung cancer was improved just as much, and the kidney calcification was completely eliminated. Moreover, the activation of vitamin K-dependent proteins in the kidney was much stronger with both vitamins than with neither treatment, suggesting that the vitamin A not only "antagonizes" vitamin D toxicity in the kidney, but that the two vitamins synergistically improve kidney health.

...

The data in the Tufts study suggest that vitamins D and A both increase the turnover of vitamin K2, but that vitamin A has a special effect of curbing the huge increase in the need for vitamin K2 in the kidney. Thus, vitamin A both calms the waves rocking the boat of vitamin D toxicity while helping to steer the ship at the same time, navigating the passengers to safety.

It looks like the cancer was induced in the study's mice for the purpose of testing how the vitamin interventions would affect it.

StephenB

Interesting study and I’m beginning to see the rational for taking numerous supplements (though mega-doses are still in question). Like certain CR proponents and researchers I was one of those who had doubts about using them due to lack of supporting evidence, but these new studies show that perhaps previous research produced unsuccessful results because they failed to take into account how vitamins interact with each other and how they could work together in a synergy; through enhancing benefits or reducing the toxicity of each other. Therefore, studies that only examined the benefits or risks of Vitamins by administering them alone were likely bond to fail.

[kismet]

I'm not going to supplement any vitamin A derivative with the study data we have. There's good interventional (animal, epidemiologic & mechanistic) data suggesting the use of (moderate doses of) vitamin D without vitamin A, not the other way round, not any other way. I haven't seen any convincing studies to the contrary. The cautious approach is to base supplementation on interventional data, not speculation. I know it's boring...

Isn't vitamin A abundant in a more healthy diet? Furthermore you get some absorption from retinoid use. I'd probably consider tomato paste (like suggested by Fredrik for its skin benefits) and different carotenoids first.

The rat study looks interesting, but it's useless without dosing information. Anyone care to investigate the ratios and amounts used? The study doesn't tell us whether dietary vitamin A would be enough for that synergy, or does it?
BTW, if the evolutionary approach on which many of you base your vitamin D mega-dosing (any blood level >50ng/ml) is right, then vitamin A you get from a natural ("paleo") diet should be enough to optimise vitamin D metabolism. You can't have it both ways without one approach being flawed.
EDIT: Reading the comments I see that Masterjohn argues that liver is rich in vitamin A. Our ancestors presumably consumed liver & other organs?... that may cover the paleo angle after all.

Edited by kismet, 06 May 2009 - 06:42 PM.

[david ellis]

Vitamin A has been discussed numerous times and many believe we should not be supplementing it due to studies showing toxic/adverse effects. However, looking through some studies on pubmed it seems that many of those used Vitamin A alone, which could likely compromise the results. There's been further research that shows Vitamin A and D antagonize each other, one depleting the other and vice versa; in other words both prevent each others toxicity.Therefore what concerns me is that I see many taking 5,000 - 10,000 IU of D a day without supplementing A. If D in fact reduces A, would getting A from diet alone be enough with such high D dosages?

Dmitri, if you are talking about neutralizing each other in the blood, I have some data points. I took 25K of beta-carotene/day and ended up with high blood levels of beta-carotene and Vitamin A. I also supplemented about 6K/day of Vitamin D.

Vitamin A was .76 mg/L with .29-1.05 95% reference limits(about 1/2 way thru the 5th quintile).
Beta-carotene was 1.18 mg/L with .10-2.71 95% reference limits(about 1/2 way thru the 5th quintile).
Vitamin D was 65 ng/mL with 10-64 95% reference limits.

My doctor is happy that my D is 65 ng/mL. I am going to halve the beta-carotene by taking one every other day. That should put me in the middle of the A range, and make the ratio almost 2:1.





Corrected the Vit D down from 10K to 6K.

Edited by david ellis, 06 May 2009 - 08:30 PM.

[Dmitri]

Vitamin A has been discussed numerous times and many believe we should not be supplementing it due to studies showing toxic/adverse effects. However, looking through some studies on pubmed it seems that many of those used Vitamin A alone, which could likely compromise the results. There's been further research that shows Vitamin A and D antagonize each other, one depleting the other and vice versa; in other words both prevent each others toxicity.Therefore what concerns me is that I see many taking 5,000 - 10,000 IU of D a day without supplementing A. If D in fact reduces A, would getting A from diet alone be enough with such high D dosages?

Dmitri, if you are talking about neutralizing each other in the blood, I have some data points. I took 25K of beta-carotene/day and ended up with high blood levels of beta-carotene and Vitamin A. I also supplemented about 10K/day of Vitamin D.

Vitamin A was .76 mg/L with .29-1.05 95% reference limits(about 1/2 way thru the 5th quintile).
Beta-carotene was 1.18 mg/L with .10-2.71 95% reference limits(about 1/2 way thru the 5th quintile).
Vitamin D was 65 ng/mL with 10-64 95% reference limits.

It seems not smart for me to take twice the A as I do the D. My doctor is happy that my D is 65 ng/mL. I am going to halve the beta-carotene by taking one every other day. That should put me in the middle of the A range, and make the ratio almost 1:1. Should I rethink this?

I wouldn't know what to tell you; I started the thread in order to get input from members who take high D3 dosages as to what a good A to D ratio they would recommend. As I told funk on an earlier post, there seems to be no long term studies on D3 and Vitamin A supplemental intakes at such high dosages which is why he sticks to lower ranges. I myself only take 2,000 IU of D3 so my A intake wouldn't be as high as yours. In fact I don't supplement A, my source comes from homemade salads (Spinach, lettuce, red cabbage) and a multi that contains 5,000 IU of Palmitate (though I only take the multi 3 or 4 days a week). I'm still debating whether or not I should use supplemental A (I found one that has 5,000 IU of natural A).

Anyway, I'm surprised by the lack of interest in the thread by strong proponents of supplemental use such as Duke; perhaps he would know more about your issue?

[david ellis]

Sorry Dimitri,
I realized I gave the wrong number for Vit D supplementation so I corrected my post.

[stephen_b]

The rat study looks interesting, but it's useless without dosing information. Anyone care to investigate the ratios and amounts used? The study doesn't tell us whether dietary vitamin A would be enough for that synergy, or does it?

Converstions:
1 IU vitamin D = 0.025 mcg
1000 IU vitamin A = 300 mg
They had 4 groups of mice (not rats). One was control, one got just D, one just A, and one D and A. The D dosage was 2.5 mcg/kg (100 IU/kg) and the A dosage was 15 mg/kg (50 IU/kg). Making a simplifying assumption of a factor of ten conversion between mice and people, that would come to 6818 IU vitamin D and 3409 IU of vitamin A for a 150 pound (68.2 kg) person, or a ratio of 1:2 vitamin A to vitamin D.

BTW, if the evolutionary approach on which many of you base your vitamin D mega-dosing (any blood level >50ng/ml) is right, then vitamin A you get from a natural ("paleo") diet should be enough to optimise vitamin D metabolism. You can't have it both ways without one approach being flawed.
EDIT: Reading the comments I see that Masterjohn argues that liver is rich in vitamin A. Our ancestors presumably consumed liver & other organs?... that may cover the paleo angle after all.

Yes, exactly.

I'm a little surprised that more A wasn't used. I hope this starts a trend of more research in to the best amounts of these vitamins. I have a hunch that keeping the kidneys in top condition is more important for longevity than may be appreciated (by top condition I mean more than just the absence of kidney disease).

StephenB

Edited by stephen_b, 07 May 2009 - 04:05 AM.

[Dmitri]

I'm not going to supplement any vitamin A derivative with the study data we have. There's good interventional (animal, epidemiologic & mechanistic) data suggesting the use of (moderate doses of) vitamin D without vitamin A, not the other way round, not any other way. I haven't seen any convincing studies to the contrary. The cautious approach is to base supplementation on interventional data, not speculation. I know it's boring...

Isn't vitamin A abundant in a more healthy diet? Furthermore you get some absorption from retinoid use. I'd probably consider tomato paste (like suggested by Fredrik for its skin benefits) and different carotenoids first.

The rat study looks interesting, but it's useless without dosing information. Anyone care to investigate the ratios and amounts used? The study doesn't tell us whether dietary vitamin A would be enough for that synergy, or does it?
BTW, if the evolutionary approach on which many of you base your vitamin D mega-dosing (any blood level >50ng/ml) is right, then vitamin A you get from a natural ("paleo") diet should be enough to optimise vitamin D metabolism. You can't have it both ways without one approach being flawed.
EDIT: Reading the comments I see that Masterjohn argues that liver is rich in vitamin A. Our ancestors presumably consumed liver & other organs?... that may cover the paleo angle after all.

How much Vitamin A do those healthy foods really contain though? According to Whole Foods 1 cup of carrots contains 34,000+ IU of Vitamin A, but is it really Vitamin A or beta carotene? I thought Vitamin A was only present in animal sources and that vegetable sources contained beta-carotene? There's also the issue of how much of that is actually converted to A in the body. I agree with you about being cautious with large dosages though.

Here's WF list of foods high in Vitamin A: http://www.whfoods.c...n...nt&dbid=106

[stephen_b]

How much Vitamin A do those healthy foods really contain though? According to Whole Foods 1 cup of carrots contains 34,000+ IU of Vitamin A, but is it really Vitamin A or beta carotene? I thought Vitamin A was only present in animal sources and that vegetable sources contained beta-carotene? There's also the issue of how much of that is actually converted to A in the body. I agree with you about being cautious with large dosages though.

Stephan at the Whole Health source blog I believe has written that the absorption of beta carotene from veggies varies widely, and is at about a tenth of what you'd get from animal source vitamin A. More absorption is achieved when more fats are eaten with the vegetables. I don't have a reference for that.

On his latest blog, I read about a recent study that "examined the relationship of vitamin A to osteoporosis in the context of vitamin D intake":

In other words, only women with a low vitamin D intake (less than 440 IU per day) had an increased likelihood of fracture at high vitamin A intakes (more than 8,000 IU per day). This is consistent with the hypothesis that an above-average intake of vitamin A only increases the risk of osteoporosis in the presence of low vitamin D, and that vitamin D deficiency, not vitamin A excess, is the true problem.

StephenB

Edited by stephen_b, 07 May 2009 - 01:03 PM.

[Dmitri]

How much Vitamin A do those healthy foods really contain though? According to Whole Foods 1 cup of carrots contains 34,000+ IU of Vitamin A, but is it really Vitamin A or beta carotene? I thought Vitamin A was only present in animal sources and that vegetable sources contained beta-carotene? There's also the issue of how much of that is actually converted to A in the body. I agree with you about being cautious with large dosages though.

Stephan at the Whole Health source blog I believe has written that the absorption of beta carotene from veggies varies widely, and is at about a tenth of what you'd get from animal source vitamin A. More absorption is achieved when more fats are eaten with the vegetables. I don't have a reference for that.

On his latest blog, I read about a recent study that "examined the relationship of vitamin A to osteoporosis in the context of vitamin D intake":

In other words, only women with a low vitamin D intake (less than 440 IU per day) had an increased likelihood of fracture at high vitamin A intakes (more than 8,000 IU per day). This is consistent with the hypothesis that an above-average intake of vitamin A only increases the risk of osteoporosis in the presence of low vitamin D, and that vitamin D deficiency, not vitamin A excess, is the true problem.

StephenB

Thanks for that information, and that last part is in agreement with the article I posted on Vitamin A intake and fractures on the first post. I don't think I have anything to worry about then considering I don't eat that much meat to begin with.

[Dmitri]

It seems excessive to me too, I like to allow absolute intake of each vitamin to influence the equation as well. Hence my 2:1 regimen.

Yeah, I'm at 1:1 A to D myself, but I may let myself be talked up.

StephenB

How much Vitamin A & D are you taking? I bought an A & D supplement (5,000 IU and 400 IU as fish liver oil) today for my mother who had lasik surgery recently. I thought Vitamin A would help her considering it's good for eye health. I do plan to use it myself with my 2,000 IU of D3 from carlson labs (which my mother also takes).

[stephen_b]

How much Vitamin A & D are you taking?

vitamin A from cod liver oil: 5-10k IU/day
vitamin D3 oil gelcap: 7500 IU/day (blood levels at 62 ng/ml)
vitamin K: 2-5 mg/day, either the Thorne drops or Carlsons that I mix into oil
Vitamin E: Jarrow familE two caps.

My inclination would be to let the vitamin D dosage guide the vitamin A dosage.

StephenB

[Dmitri]

Vitamin A has been discussed numerous times and many believe we should not be supplementing it due to studies showing toxic/adverse effects. However, looking through some studies on pubmed it seems that many of those used Vitamin A alone, which could likely compromise the results. There's been further research that shows Vitamin A and D antagonize each other, one depleting the other and vice versa; in other words both prevent each others toxicity.Therefore what concerns me is that I see many taking 5,000 - 10,000 IU of D a day without supplementing A. If D in fact reduces A, would getting A from diet alone be enough with such high D dosages?

Dmitri, if you are talking about neutralizing each other in the blood, I have some data points. I took 25K of beta-carotene/day and ended up with high blood levels of beta-carotene and Vitamin A. I also supplemented about 6K/day of Vitamin D.

Vitamin A was .76 mg/L with .29-1.05 95% reference limits(about 1/2 way thru the 5th quintile).
Beta-carotene was 1.18 mg/L with .10-2.71 95% reference limits(about 1/2 way thru the 5th quintile).
Vitamin D was 65 ng/mL with 10-64 95% reference limits.

My doctor is happy that my D is 65 ng/mL. I am going to halve the beta-carotene by taking one every other day. That should put me in the middle of the A range, and make the ratio almost 2:1.

Corrected the Vit D down from 10K to 6K.

Looking over the thread I realized that I did not ask if your doctor was happy with the Vitamin A levels? You mention cutting down on beta-carotene, is that based on a doctor's recommendation or your own conjecture?

[stephen_b]

Looking over the thread I realized that I did not ask if your doctor was happy with the Vitamin A levels? You mention cutting down on beta-carotene, is that based on a doctor's recommendation or your own conjecture?

I haven't discussed this issue with my doctor. I just don't take a multivitamin, so no carotenes there. I do eat lots of veggies though.

Stephen

[david ellis]

Looking over the thread I realized that I did not ask if your doctor was happy with the Vitamin A levels? You mention cutting down on beta-carotene, is that based on a doctor's recommendation or your own conjecture?

My doctor's recommendation.

[Dmitri]

Looking over the thread I realized that I did not ask if your doctor was happy with the Vitamin A levels? You mention cutting down on beta-carotene, is that based on a doctor's recommendation or your own conjecture?

My doctor's recommendation.

I see and is beta-carotene the best form of A one should take? I'm a bit weary about using beta-carotene especially after reading certain studies that point out that it may actually be detrimental. For that reason I bought natural Vitamin A (from fish liver oil), but I know some supplement companies use Palmitate in multis, so I'm confused as to what form I should really be using.

[david ellis]

I did not supplement Vitamin A and used Beta-carotene because I understood that my body would not convert enough to overdose on A. Well evidently I did not bump into the level where conversion stops. And I ended up in the fith quintile for both Vitamin A and Beta-carotene. My doctor thought cutting the dose in half getting me somewhere underneath the halfway point in the reference range for Vitamin A and beta-carotene would be a good idea.

Whether beta-carotene is better or not than Vitamin A I do not know. We did not discuss that. It is possible that multis have palmitate because it is safer.

I am wondering if its a coincidence that my optimum Vit A/Vitamin D ratio is 2. I wonder if the optimum ratio is 2 for everyone. For it to be true for everyone, everyone would have to have the same response to both Vitamin A and Vitamin D. I know the response for Vitamin D is definitely not the same for everyone, but I don't know that everyone responds differently to Vitamin A.

I see and is beta-carotene the best form of A one should take? I'm a bit weary about using beta-carotene especially after reading certain studies that point out that it may actually be detrimental. For that reason I bought natural Vitamin A (from fish liver oil), but I know some supplement companies use Palmitate in multis, so I'm confused as to what form I should really be using.

[Gal220]

Has anyone come to any new revelations on this ratio?

 

Weston price documented the diet of several cultures and many of them were getting 50,000 IU + daily of vit A - Link , Link2 (scroll down few pages)

 

Chris Masterjohn thinks the ratio is 4-8, but the data is coming from chicken studies - Link

 

 

I would think Japan, Alaska, or anywhere with a high fish diet would be consuming enormous amounts of vit A, even today.

 

The ratio is tricky in general, as many people probably have high vitamin d levels in the summer and taper off dramatically towards January, especially above Tennessee.

However the fish diet would continue to give at least some vit D year round, maybe 600IU daily, but that would be dwarfed by the 50k IU of vit A.

 

[advo1236]

In my opinion, if your blood sample shows no deficiency of vitamins, it is not advisable to take supplements. A high ratio of vitamins can cause health issues.

[Gal220]

In my opinion, if your blood sample shows no deficiency of vitamins, it is not advisable to take supplements. A high ratio of vitamins can cause health issues.

 no deficiency, according to whom? -  It would seem most primitive cultures across the board consumed 50k IU of vitamin A, whereas the upper limit today is set at 10k.  And much less is recommended.  Maybe these cultures stored lots of excess vit A in the liver like the polar bear - brilliant illustration from the naval handbook - link 

 

Interesting comparison in this picture between 2 girls, I would like to see more to know it isnt just happenstance - link

 

"The “primitive” Seminole girl (left) has a wide, handsome face with plenty of room for the dental arches. The “modernized” Seminole girl (right) born to parents who had abandoned their traditional diets, has a narrowed face, crowded teeth, and a reduced immunity to disease.

 

The importance of good nutrition for mothers during pregnancy has long been recognized, but Dr. Price’s investigation showed that indigenous people understood and practiced preconception nutritional programs for both parents. Many tribes required a period of premarital nutrition, and children were spaced to permit the mother to maintain her full health and strength, thus assuring subsequent offspring of physical excellence. Special foods were often given to pregnant and lactating women, as well as to the maturing boys and girls in preparation for future parenthood. Dr. Price found these foods to be very rich in fat soluble vitamins A and D nutrients found only in animal fats."

Weston Price interview - link

"Dr. Romeg had been for 35 years caring for both the native people and the settlers who inhabited the seaport trading villages. Price wrote that Romeg told him that in those 35 years, he'd never seen a single case of cancer among the native people living in remote areas 

 

Dr. Romeg said that when the native Alaskans began eating these refined foods, they became subject to all of the diseases the white men suffered with-dental disease at first, then rheumatoid arthritis and tuberculosis, and after a few years, cancer. Romeg said that he had taken to sending the sick ones back to their native villages, far from the white man's foods, where they often recovered."

Edited by Gal220, 17 August 2020 - 02:09 PM.