Re: Dr. Cannell: Unprecedented Warning About Cod Liver Oil

[Guest guest]

,

http://www.greenpasture.org/node/109

Here's an article that Dave Wetzel just posted about synthetic versus

natural vitamin A. It doesn't contain any evidence that synthetic A is

any different: in every case, it mentions health problems resulting

from *excessive* vitamin A. Of course, it is easy to overdose on

vitamin A if you are taking it in pill form. It's almost impossible to

overdose on it if you are getting solely from food sources. But it

does not follow that synthetic A is any worse than natural A ***at

appropriate doses***.

One other thing the article mentions is Accutane (isotretinoin). This

is a pharmaceutical derived from vitamin A. It is NOT vitamin A and it

should NOT be lumped in with " synthetic vitamin A " . (As an aside,

isotretinoin is one of the most wicked drugs ever made and I would

discourage anyone from using it!)

> I guess I'll have to revert back to common sense. Common sense says

> that vitamin A/D in a cod's liver is probably better for me than

> vitamin A/D manufactured in a chemical factory. Not to mention the

> fact that CLO can also contain synthetic vitamin E made from GMO soy

> beans.

>

> Or at least I was under the impression that on this list that kind of

> thinking was taken for granted. I believe the root source of many of

> our health problems is too much food that is broken apart and

> reassembled in giant factories when a natural alternative is readily

> available and usually better for us. Or am I accidentally posting on a

> synthetic vitamin manufacturing group? (joke)

Well, I understand how it could seem that way. I'm interested in the

truth, which doesn't always conform to common sense. Although I agree

that generally we should be getting as much of our nutrients from

whole, natural foods, sometimes that may not be possible for various

reasons.

The idea that synthetic X is different from natural X is problematic

from a chemical standpoint. If it's the same molecule, it's the same

molecule, or at least we should assume so in the absence of evidence

or a plausible theory. However, which other molecules are associated

with X in its natural food sources often affect how X is used. But

that does not mean that in every case, natural X is better than

synthetic X.

Tom

[Guest guest]

Tom and ,

> Here's an article that Dave Wetzel just posted about synthetic versus

> natural vitamin A. It doesn't contain any evidence that synthetic A is

> any different: in every case, it mentions health problems resulting

> from *excessive* vitamin A. Of course, it is easy to overdose on

> vitamin A if you are taking it in pill form. It's almost impossible to

> overdose on it if you are getting solely from food sources. But it

> does not follow that synthetic A is any worse than natural A ***at

> appropriate doses***.

One of the main issues with synthetic A is that it is sometimes made

water-soluble or emulsified. The vitamin A itself doesn't change -- I

think the change is made to the palmitate or whatever it is bound to.

This mainly translates into a higher dose, as you say, since

absorption and plasma concentrations are higher with these forms.

> One other thing the article mentions is Accutane (isotretinoin). This

> is a pharmaceutical derived from vitamin A. It is NOT vitamin A and it

> should NOT be lumped in with " synthetic vitamin A " . (As an aside,

> isotretinoin is one of the most wicked drugs ever made and I would

> discourage anyone from using it!)

As discussed in my Saturday conference lecture and in the article

coming out in the next Wise Traditions adapted from it, the evidence

strongly suggests Accutane is an anti-vitamin A compound whose primary

adverse effects come from its aggravation of vitamin A deficiency.

Chris

[Guest guest]

--- Tom Jeanne <tjeanne@...> wrote:

> The idea that synthetic X is different from natural X is problematic

> from a chemical standpoint. If it's the same molecule, it's the same

> molecule, or at least we should assume so in the absence of evidence

> or a plausible theory. However, which other molecules are associated

> with X in its natural food sources often affect how X is used. But

> that does not mean that in every case, natural X is better than

> synthetic X.

Tom, in addition, is it possible that in natural foods there are

slight variations of the active molecule that may play slightly

different roles in health? I'm not sure if this applies to vitamin A,

but I remember seeing discussion in that regard about vitamin D

recently, and there are certainly slight variations in vitamins E and

K, the other fat soluble vitamins.

IIRC, the WAPF recommendation is to get an A/D ratio of 10/1 for

optimal health. Studying isolated vitamin A doesn't make good sense

from what I've been reading here and elsewhere.