Re: Pls Help ASAP -- Vitamin A intake in NAPD

December 26, 2005

I have NAPD but haven't read the whole thing. Do you know that he

specifically mentions absolute intake of vitamin A or are you asking

someone to read between the lines and make some estimations? The index

points to a few things including seasonal variation in dairy foods and

deficiencies but I don't see anything about total average intakes.

Tom

Masterjohn wrote:

>I don't have NAPD -- can anyone figure out what the absolute intake of

>vitamin A was from the groups Price studied? IOW, his estimate of in

>mcg or IU rather than comparison to Americans?

>

>Thanks!

>Chris

>

>--

>Dioxins in Animal Foods:

>A Case For Vegetarianism?

>Find Out the Truth:

>http://www.westonaprice.org/envtoxins/dioxins.html

>

><HTML><!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC " -//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN "

" http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd " ><BODY><FONT

FACE= " monospace " SIZE= " 3 " >

>IMPORTANT ADDRESSES

><UL>

> <LI><A

HREF= " / " >NATIVE

NUTRITION</A> online</LI>

> <LI><A HREF= " http://onibasu.com/ " >SEARCH</A> the entire message

archive with Onibasu</LI>

></UL>

><PRE><A

HREF= " mailto: -owner " >LIST OWNER:</A>

Idol

>MODERATORS: Heidi Schuppenhauer

> Wanita Sears

></PRE>

></BODY>

></HTML>

>

December 26, 2005

On 12/26/05, L. Jeanne <t.l.jeanne@...> wrote:

> I have NAPD but haven't read the whole thing. Do you know that he

> specifically mentions absolute intake of vitamin A or are you asking

> someone to read between the lines and make some estimations? The index

> points to a few things including seasonal variation in dairy foods and

> deficiencies but I don't see anything about total average intakes.

Tom,

I don't think he does. I would like any information from the book

that could possibly be used to estimate this. Even if he cites some

external source that might contain the figures but does not actually

give the figures, so that it would be possible to track down the

original source, that would be great. Just anything.

I know he said they had something like 4 times what the average

American was taking in, but have no idea what he thought the average

American was taking in! But if he gives any indicate of average

American intake at the time, that could be used to estimate the

primitive intake.

Anything so much as a hint along the path would be greatly

appreciated. I'm writing an article for WT that the deadline is

basically right now, on vitamin A and bone health, and it is my

thought that the ratio of A to D is critical here and I need to know

what we are to consider the ideal amount of A within the Price

framework to be able to make any sense of this.

Thanks!

Chris

--

Dioxins in Animal Foods:

A Case For Vegetarianism?

Find Out the Truth:

http://www.westonaprice.org/envtoxins/dioxins.html

December 26, 2005

Chris

>Just anything.

>

I will look here shortly and get back witchou on the vit A thing, but

why on earth don't you have NAPD? My copy from amazonland has pages

falling out already from lousy binding (just a fluke I am sure). Don't

you think you should have the book? Have you been naughty and deprived

it from Santa? I can get you a copy if you don't have it. But wait,

other girls with baited breath may want to beat me to the punch. Advise.

Deanna

December 26, 2005

>-----Original Message-----

>From:

>[mailto: ]On Behalf Of Masterjohn

>I know he said they had something like 4 times what the average

>American was taking in,

10 times actually. That was for the fat-soluble vits. 4 times for calcium

and other minerals.

http://www.westonaprice.org/basicnutrition/characteristics.html

If I have any time tonight I'll try to look and see if there are any clues.

But I might not be able to get to it till the morning.

There's an online version of the book, BTW, at the soil and health library,

IIRC. But I think you have to submit a request form to get access to it and

I don't think access is granted immediately.

Suze Fisher

Lapdog Design, Inc.

Web Design & Development

http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg

Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine

http://www.westonaprice.org

----------------------------

“The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause

heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times.” --

Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt

University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher.

The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics

<http://www.thincs.org>

----------------------------

December 26, 2005

....girls with baited breath...

whoa. what an image.

B.

December 26, 2005

On 12/26/05, Deanna Wagner <hl@...> wrote:

> I will look here shortly and get back witchou on the vit A thing, but

> why on earth don't you have NAPD? My copy from amazonland has pages

> falling out already from lousy binding (just a fluke I am sure). Don't

> you think you should have the book? Have you been naughty and deprived

> it from Santa? I can get you a copy if you don't have it. But wait,

> other girls with baited breath may want to beat me to the punch. Advise.

Well when I first read it, I didn't want to wait for it, so I took it

out of the UMass library. Then I took it out recently, but had to

return it. I can get it easily on a few days notice, although it

would be good to have.

Chris

--

Dioxins in Animal Foods:

A Case For Vegetarianism?

Find Out the Truth:

http://www.westonaprice.org/envtoxins/dioxins.html

December 26, 2005

On 12/26/05, Suze Fisher <s.fisher22@...> wrote:

> >I know he said they had something like 4 times what the average

> >American was taking in,

>

> 10 times actually. That was for the fat-soluble vits. 4 times for calcium

> and other minerals.

> http://www.westonaprice.org/basicnutrition/characteristics.html

Thanks Suze. I was thinking it was 10 times for the minerals and 4

times for the minerals but obviously flip-flopped them. This has

always been frustrating that these relative amounts are quoted. They

are relative to Price's theory that dental caries are a disease of

malnutrition, but they are irrelevant to deciding how much cod liver

oil to take or what we should be eating in general.

> If I have any time tonight I'll try to look and see if there are any clues.

> But I might not be able to get to it till the morning.

Thanks!

> There's an online version of the book, BTW, at the soil and health library,

> IIRC. But I think you have to submit a request form to get access to it and

> I don't think access is granted immediately.

Right I tried looking for that and couldn't get access when I tried,

but I didn't realize that you could email them and get permission. I

only tried surfing for it. I'll look into it.

Thanks for any help everyone!

Chris

p.s. This is irrelevant but I turn 24 tomorrow. :-D

--

Dioxins in Animal Foods:

A Case For Vegetarianism?

Find Out the Truth:

http://www.westonaprice.org/envtoxins/dioxins.html

December 26, 2005

Oh and nice to see you around Deanna. It's not necessary but thanks

for the offer! It didn't even occur to me to ask for it for

Christmas. Just didn't think of it.

Chris

On 12/26/05, Masterjohn <chrismasterjohn@...> wrote:

> On 12/26/05, Deanna Wagner <hl@...> wrote:

>

> > I will look here shortly and get back witchou on the vit A thing, but

> > why on earth don't you have NAPD? My copy from amazonland has pages

> > falling out already from lousy binding (just a fluke I am sure). Don't

> > you think you should have the book? Have you been naughty and deprived

> > it from Santa? I can get you a copy if you don't have it. But wait,

> > other girls with baited breath may want to beat me to the punch. Advise.

>

> Well when I first read it, I didn't want to wait for it, so I took it

> out of the UMass library. Then I took it out recently, but had to

> return it. I can get it easily on a few days notice, although it

> would be good to have.

>

> Chris

>

> --

> Dioxins in Animal Foods:

> A Case For Vegetarianism?

> Find Out the Truth:

> http://www.westonaprice.org/envtoxins/dioxins.html

>

--

Dioxins in Animal Foods:

A Case For Vegetarianism?

Find Out the Truth:

http://www.westonaprice.org/envtoxins/dioxins.html

December 26, 2005

>Oh and nice to see you around Deanna. It's not necessary but thanks

>for the offer! It didn't even occur to me to ask for it for

>Christmas. Just didn't think of it.

>

Hopefully we will have it for you one way or another very soon.

Thanks for the welcome back.

Deanna

December 26, 2005

>-----Original Message-----

>From:

>[mailto: ]On Behalf Of Masterjohn

>Thanks Suze. I was thinking it was 10 times for the minerals and 4

>times for the minerals but obviously flip-flopped them.

So a grand total of 14 times for the minerals? ;-D

Suze Fisher

Lapdog Design, Inc.

Web Design & Development

http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg

Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine

http://www.westonaprice.org

----------------------------

“The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause

heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times.” --

Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt

University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher.

The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics

<http://www.thincs.org>

----------------------------

December 26, 2005

On 12/26/05, Suze Fisher <s.fisher22@...> wrote:

> >Thanks Suze. I was thinking it was 10 times for the minerals and 4

> >times for the minerals but obviously flip-flopped them.

>

> So a grand total of 14 times for the minerals? ;-D

LOL. I'm not going to try to say it again. Let's just say I had it

flip-flopped. Haha.

Chris

--

Dioxins in Animal Foods:

A Case For Vegetarianism?

Find Out the Truth:

http://www.westonaprice.org/envtoxins/dioxins.html

December 27, 2005

Price writes that he did determine definite quantities of fat-soluble vits.

in the primitive diets, but he said the data was too voluminous to include

in the book. He writes that it would be more informative to discuss the

ratios of body-building and repairing material in several of the primitive

diets as compared to the modern foods. But he does say the info on specific

amounts will be published in detail in a more technical report. I'm sure

that doesn't help you NOW, but wouldn't it be great to get a hold of that

report!

However, the following info still may be of use to you. Price writes that

many humans typically don't even absorb HALF the minerals present in food.

So in order to compare primitive mineral intakes with the intake of

Americans, Price took the amounts of *minimum requirements* as set forth by

the US Dept. of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, bulletin R 409 and

DOUBLED them to arrive at an amount to compare to primitive intakes of the

same minerals. He then gives the exact amount of these doubled minerals

before proceeding to compare these amounts with the amounts eaten by the

primitives. (Interestingly the Eskimo consumed 49 times(!) the iodine than

this doubled amount! In any case, he goes through the mineral amounts

ingested by several of the groups and after each list of mineral intake he

writes that they consumed at_least_10_times_the_fat_soluble_vitamins. He

wrote this for EVERY group. He is talking about the amount relative to the

minimum_requirements for these vits as set forth by the Labor Dept bulletin,

not the actual amount in processed food. So, if you can get ahold of the

Labor Dept. bulletin R 409, you can calculate some exact amounts that the

primitives consumed as minimum intake of fat-soluble vits (all the ones he

discusses consumed AT LEAST 10x the bulletin's amount). He also writes that,

while the primitive foods provided AT LEAST 4x the minerals of the Labor

Dept's minimum requirement, the modern foods did not even MEET the minimum

requirements. In some cases the primtive intake was much higher. Many groups

interestingly, consumed very high amounts of iron, sometimes 20 or more

times higher than the Labor Dept's minimum requirement. (50!!! times higher

for the Australian Aboriginies). It is a bit confusing though, because he

then writes that the primitive foods containd x amount more of a mineral

than " the displacing foods of the white man " . But I guess these are based on

minimums too and are not exact amounts since the modern foods didn't even

MEET the min. requirements as set forth by the Labor Dept.

If you get a copy of NAPD, this info is on pp. 274-76.

Good luck with the article!

P.S. to Deanna: my copy of NAPD has a weak binder too - several pages have

torn loose. Maybe they are poorly bound in general.

Suze Fisher

Lapdog Design, Inc.

Web Design & Development

http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg

Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine

http://www.westonaprice.org

----------------------------

“The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause

heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times.” --

Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt

University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher.

The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics

<http://www.thincs.org>

----------------------------

December 27, 2005

On 12/27/05, Suze Fisher <s.fisher22@...> wrote:

>

> Price writes that he did determine definite quantities of fat-soluble vits.

> in the primitive diets, but he said the data was too voluminous to include

> in the book. He writes that it would be more informative to discuss the

> ratios of body-building and repairing material in several of the primitive

> diets as compared to the modern foods. But he does say the info on specific

> amounts will be published in detail in a more technical report. I'm sure

> that doesn't help you NOW, but wouldn't it be great to get a hold of that

> report!

>

> However, the following info still may be of use to you. [snip]

Thanks Suze. That helps a little. I wonder if I can get ahold of that report.

In any case my issue is that the studies quite clearly indict vitamin

A from food and not just supplements, but they also quite clearly

indicate that vitamin D is ameliorative of the effect of vitamin A but

do not bother to pursue this very much, nor do they pursue the

implications of the universal vitamin D deficiency in all of the test

subjects they are looking at. The studies, especially the Nurse's

Health Study, went through surprising efforts to distinguish vitamin A

from food from that from supplements, doing every thing we could

possibly criticize a study for not doing. Yet neither they nor anyone

else bothered to mention that in addition to the Scandinavian

countries having a higher A intake and fracture rate, they are also

more northern in lattitude and probably have a vitamin D deficiency of

greater magnitude for a greater proportion of the year. I do not

understand why all studies recognize the ameliorative effect of D but

do not pursue it as of much significance when in fact its significance

is probably massive, crucial, and absolutely central to the issue.

Vitamin D intake can't reasonably be estimated from Price or anyone

else because it doesn't just come from food. But I'm thinking that I

would just use the Vitamin D Council's recommendations. I have to

check my notes, but I think he says that in the absence of sunlight,

you usually need 4000 IU/day, or even better I could use 25 (OH) D

levels if there are any studies that happened to deal with serum

levels that used that test.

But I need Price's estimation of A intake in case the issue is A to D ratio.

But there are two issues: it could be that D must meet a ceratin

threshold, after which excess A does not matter, but that in a state

of D deficiency the negative effect of A becomes activated; or it

could be that A and D have to be in a certain proportion. Actually a

more likely explanation would be that A and D serum levels have to be

in certain ratios, and that when intake is below serum saturation

level the intake is very important, whereas once the serum is

essentially saturated with both nutrients an excess of either becomes

more or less irrelevant.

Thanks for your help!

Chris

--

Dioxins in Animal Foods:

A Case For Vegetarianism?

Find Out the Truth:

http://www.westonaprice.org/envtoxins/dioxins.html

December 27, 2005

You can search the actual text of NAPD on Amazon:

*http://tinyurl.com/87g5p*

Click " Search inside this book " below the image.

Unfortunately the search feature doesn't appear to allow phrases...so

searching for " vitamin a " , even with the quotation marks, returns all

the instances of " vitamin " in the book. Not terribly useful. But the

good news is you can see pretty much any page in the book by searching

for various terms.

I don't have time to help you out anymore tonight but good luck finding

the info you need and I can't wait to read your next WT article.

Tom

December 27, 2005

On 12/26/05, Masterjohn <chrismasterjohn@...> wrote:

> On 12/26/05, Deanna Wagner <hl@...> wrote:

>

> > I will look here shortly and get back witchou on the vit A thing, but

> > why on earth don't you have NAPD? My copy from amazonland has pages

> > falling out already from lousy binding (just a fluke I am sure). Don't

> > you think you should have the book? Have you been naughty and deprived

> > it from Santa? I can get you a copy if you don't have it. But wait,

> > other girls with baited breath may want to beat me to the punch. Advise.

>

> Well when I first read it, I didn't want to wait for it, so I took it

> out of the UMass library. Then I took it out recently, but had to

> return it. I can get it easily on a few days notice, although it

> would be good to have.

>

> Chris

I would suggest getting two copies, so maybe you might want to take

Deanna up on her offer. I have a hardback version for my permanent

library that I want to pass on as a part of whatever family legacy I

leave, and a paperback version for regular reading and research. Well

worth the investment.

I know you have read NAPD, so this is only tangentially related to you

(since you don't have a copy of it), but I am always surprised by the

number of people who hold major opinions on huge issues but have never

read the major source works.

Diehard evolutionists who have never read Darwin (and so are unaware

of his warning that someone could read his work/data and come to

entirely different conclusions); population control folks who have

never read Malthus (and so don't know for example that he made a major

mistake in his first edition, which caused an extreme about face in

the second edition), libertarians who have never read Mises' Human

Action or Rothbard's Magnum Opus (and thus are unaware of a couple of

very important differences between the two *and* just how broad and

multifaceted the whole subject is) and diehard WAPers who have never

read NAPD (and thus at times *distort* his message/work when they

think they have run across something his observations didn't address

nutritionally.

I don't think it is necessary to start with any of these authors but

certainly at some point along the journey they should be read.

Otherwise you end up operating, IMO, intellectually speaking, with one

hand tied behind your back.

Plus, as C.S. pointed out in his amazing introduction to St.

Athanasius' _On the Incarnation_, it is far better to read the source,

and often far easier, and far more educational, and even

inspirational, than to read all the commentaries/interpretations about

or based on the source with the myriad of accretions peculiar to the

age the commentator is writing in. Like taking in a huge breath of

academic and spiritual fresh air.

Nourishing Traditions is great, and somewhat more accessible than

NAPD, but I think everyone dedicated to the WAP paradigm should read

it at least once. But I can tell you it is the repeat readings where

you glean some of the best insights from his work.

--

Life isn't static. People change. Circumstances

change. What may have been true six months

or a year ago may no longer be true now.

Maybe a loved one got sick and died at a

tender age...Maybe they ran into an old high

school buddy who still looks great...At any rate

what they couldn't hear before rings true to them

now. So don't despair. Stick to the task. You will

eventually find yourself surrounded by people who

do care about good food and see it as a

legitimate avenue to great health.

Winning the War on Good Food

http://www.warongoodfood.com

December 27, 2005

>Yet neither they nor anyone

>else bothered to mention that in addition to the Scandinavian

>countries having a higher A intake and fracture rate, they are also

>more northern in lattitude and probably have a vitamin D deficiency of

>greater magnitude for a greater proportion of the year. I do not

>understand why all studies recognize the ameliorative effect of D but

>do not pursue it as of much significance when in fact its significance

>is probably massive, crucial, and absolutely central to the issue.

>

>Vitamin D intake can't reasonably be estimated from Price or anyone

>else because it doesn't just come from food. But I'm thinking that I

>would just use the Vitamin D Council's recommendations. I have to

>check my notes, but I think he says that in the absence of sunlight,

>you usually need 4000 IU/day, or even better I could use 25 (OH) D

>levels if there are any studies that happened to deal with serum

>levels that used that test.

>

While it's true that arctic people don't get sun for much of the year,

light-skinned Scandinavians do synthesize vitamin D better than

dark-skinned people. Their traditional diets also would be full of

vitamin A & D rich animal foods. Price didn't notice rickets/fractures

in the Alaskan Eskimos living under similar geographic conditions. They

dried fish in the summer for consumption in winter.

Here is what he does say on rickets:

" It was early discovered in the history of mineral utilization that one

of the most striking manifestations was involved in rickets; and since

the therapeutic use of ergosterol that had been exposed to ultraviolet

radiation resulted in the rapid healing of rickets, being comparable to

exposure of the individual to sunlight or suitable artificial radiation,

that substance was given the name vitamin D and was assumed to have

total responsibility for mineral utilization in bone and tooth formation

and maintenance " - NAPD p. 425

He then goes on to describe using activator x butter oil to treat

rickets in rats. It may be a helpful place in the book, or I might be

off on a tangent (again).

Deanna

http://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/vitamind.asp

Rickets is more prevalent among immigrants from Asia, Africa, and Middle

Eastern countries for a variety of reasons [15

<http://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/vitamind.asp#en15>]. Among immigrants,

vitamin D deficiency has been associated with iron deficiency, leading

researchers to question whether or not iron deficiency may impair

vitamin D metabolism [15

<http://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/vitamind.asp#en15>]. Immigrants from

these regions are also more likely to follow dress codes that limit sun

exposure. In addition, darker pigmented skin converts UV rays to vitamin

D less efficiently than lighter skin [15

<http://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/vitamind.asp#en15>].

15 - Wharton B and Bishop N. Rickets. The Lancet 2003;362:1389-1400.

December 27, 2005

On 12/27/05, Deanna Wagner <hl@...> wrote:

> While it's true that arctic people don't get sun for much of the year,

> light-skinned Scandinavians do synthesize vitamin D better than

> dark-skinned people.

That's is made moot by the fact that vitamin D is not available at all

from the sun for at least a portion of the year beginning at 35

degrees lattitude, and that the more north from that point, the

greater a proportion of the year the " vitamin D winter " takes up. At

the lattitude of Boston, it is 4 months, so north of boston (forgive

me, Frost) it would be a proportionally longer part of the year. When

there is sufficient UVb radiation available (which depends on the

angle the sunlight hits the earth), the skin tone becomes operative,

but without the UVb it is inoperative.

> Their traditional diets also would be full of

> vitamin A & D rich animal foods. Price didn't notice rickets/fractures

> in the Alaskan Eskimos living under similar geographic conditions. They

> dried fish in the summer for consumption in winter.

I don't really understand your point. The studies we're looking at

aren't looking at Scandinavians on their traditional diets. They're

looking at modern people. I think it goes without saying that all of

the people Price studied in NAPD on traditional diets who he

considered in good health had excellent skeletal health, even if he

didn't look for fracture rates specifically, but we're not talking

about NAPD. We're talking about people now.

> Here is what he does say on rickets:

>

> " It was early discovered in the history of mineral utilization that one

> of the most striking manifestations was involved in rickets; and since

> the therapeutic use of ergosterol that had been exposed to ultraviolet

> radiation resulted in the rapid healing of rickets, being comparable to

> exposure of the individual to sunlight or suitable artificial radiation,

> that substance was given the name vitamin D and was assumed to have

> total responsibility for mineral utilization in bone and tooth formation

> and maintenance " - NAPD p. 425

>

> He then goes on to describe using activator x butter oil to treat

> rickets in rats. It may be a helpful place in the book, or I might be

> off on a tangent (again).

That's a tangent, but thank you! :-)

Chris

--

Dioxins in Animal Foods:

A Case For Vegetarianism?

Find Out the Truth:

http://www.westonaprice.org/envtoxins/dioxins.html

December 27, 2005

Masterjohn wrote:

> On 12/27/05, Deanna Wagner <hl@...> wrote:

>

>>While it's true that arctic people don't get sun for much of the year,

>>light-skinned Scandinavians do synthesize vitamin D better than

>>dark-skinned people.

>

> That's is made moot by the fact that vitamin D is not available at all

> from the sun for at least a portion of the year beginning at 35

> degrees lattitude, and that the more north from that point, the

> greater a proportion of the year the " vitamin D winter " takes up. At

> the lattitude of Boston, it is 4 months, so north of boston (forgive

> me, Frost) it would be a proportionally longer part of the year. When

> there is sufficient UVb radiation available (which depends on the

> angle the sunlight hits the earth), the skin tone becomes operative,

> but without the UVb it is inoperative.

did you consider that your statements above logically depend on

some " average " value for UV-catalyzed vitamin D production in human

skin, and that Scandinavians would necessarily have a higher value

(i.e., ability to produce D from lower light) due to their

lighter-than-average skin? To say " vitamin D is not available at all

from the sun " for part of the year above 35 degrees latitude is to make

an extremely sweeping statement, and I don't see how that could apply to

everyone.

Tom

December 27, 2005

> did you consider that your statements above logically depend on

>some " average " value for UV-catalyzed vitamin D production in human

>skin, and that Scandinavians would necessarily have a higher value

>(i.e., ability to produce D from lower light) due to their

>lighter-than-average skin? To say " vitamin D is not available at all

>from the sun " for part of the year above 35 degrees latitude is to make

>an extremely sweeping statement, and I don't see how that could apply to

>everyone.

>

Well, the Inuit kept their dark skin probably because their diet was so

rich in vitamin D. But light skin IS an adaptation to living above

about 40 degrees north or south of the equator. Just because the sun is

out of range for a few months obviously has NOT been so disastrous in

terms of humans storing enough D for dark times. If that were true,

people would never have stayed at such latitudes permanently.

Also, some modern people do still eat a traditional diet. Here in the

US we may see the worst of the worst in terms of eating, but there are

those who do eat healthfully around the globe. Do the bones of

Scandinavians of the past show fracture? It seems to me that these

rates of bone disease actually follow pretty closely with dairy

consumption, which is a modern phenomenon in such regions.

Deanna

December 27, 2005

On 12/27/05, L. Jeanne <t.l.jeanne@...> wrote:

> did you consider that your statements above logically depend on

> some " average " value for UV-catalyzed vitamin D production in human

> skin, and that Scandinavians would necessarily have a higher value

> (i.e., ability to produce D from lower light) due to their

> lighter-than-average skin? To say " vitamin D is not available at all

> from the sun " for part of the year above 35 degrees latitude is to make

> an extremely sweeping statement, and I don't see how that could apply to

> everyone.

While I don't know the specific mechanics of it, I don't see why you

see an issue with it. If there is no UV-b portion of the spectrum

available during this part of the year, and UV-a is not sufficient for

the conversion, then it is entirely logically consistent to believe in

a vitamin D winter.

And I sure hope that the Vitamin D Council knows what they're talking

about. I'm assuming their information is accurate. They would have

to be fools to let something like that slip by, since in the same

lectures and articles that I've ever heard or read, the fact that skin

tone makes a major difference and the fact that such a thing as a

vitamin D winter exists over much of the globe are always mentioned

side by side. I've never read a single article or attended a single,

wether by WAPF, Vitamin D Council, Mercola, Krispin Sullivan, etc,

where one of these is mentioned and the other isn't. Granted, that's

probably because they are all looking to the Vitamin D Council for the

information, another reason I hope that trust is justified.

Anyway, although this is moot given the above, I've never seen an

example of which research is biased in favor of blacks. Research is

basically always biased in favor of whites.

Chris

--

Dioxins in Animal Foods:

A Case For Vegetarianism?

Find Out the Truth:

http://www.westonaprice.org/envtoxins/dioxins.html

December 27, 2005

On 12/27/05, Deanna Wagner <hl@...> wrote:

> Well, the Inuit kept their dark skin probably because their diet was so

> rich in vitamin D. But light skin IS an adaptation to living above

> about 40 degrees north or south of the equator. Just because the sun is

> out of range for a few months obviously has NOT been so disastrous in

> terms of humans storing enough D for dark times. If that were true,

> people would never have stayed at such latitudes permanently.

You and are both aware this is a tangent, right? In any case,

you betray the relevance of the last two sentences with your first.

The traditional diets were rich in vitamin D!!!

> Also, some modern people do still eat a traditional diet. Here in the

> US we may see the worst of the worst in terms of eating, but there are

> those who do eat healthfully around the globe.

Is it not safe to assume that the people who are experiencing an

increased rate of fractures are not eating a diet that is suited to

their situation and their body?

> Do the bones of

> Scandinavians of the past show fracture?

Why would it matter? I don't know, but I don't see the relevance.

The point is that Scandinavians have a higher rate of fracture NOW

then the rest of Europe, and that this is being blamed on their higher

intake of vitamin A right now. And my point is that those who are not

eating a vitamin D-rich diet are MORE deficient in D than those in all

lattides south, because on modern diets or plant-dominated diets there

is no compensation in D-rich food for the lack of UVb exposure, and

since A and D are antagonists in some senses then their state of D

deficiency may be making this harmful effect of the A operative.

> It seems to me that these

> rates of bone disease actually follow pretty closely with dairy

> consumption, which is a modern phenomenon in such regions.

Well obviously that wasn't true for the Swiss that Price studied, but

Europe eats dairy, yet it is the Scandinavians who have the higher

rate of fracture, and within Scandinavian countries it is vitamin A

that is correlated with fracutres and in the Nurse's Health Study it

was vitamin A whether from food or supplements that was correlated.

I'm sure that autoimmune diseases from dairy could play a role, but

what is it that you object to about D deficiency playing a role? I

mean according to the D Council basically almost EVERYONE in modern

society is D-deficient, and this necessarily MUST be truer to both a

greater portion of the population and a greater magnitude in terms of

how low the serum 25 (OH) D levels go at higher lattitudes simply

because there are no modern diets supplying 4000 IU/day of D, which is

what the D Council says is necessary to maintain optimal serum levels

during true vitamin D winters in which there is none coming in from

the sunlight, and their position is also that D storage is sufficient

to replace dietary intake during such winters.

I just don't understand why you are objecting to this reasoning. Are

you questioning the well-established role of vitamin D in bone health?

Are you suggesting that vitamin D status is largely adequate? I

mean, the fact that nearly everyone has deficient serum levels of D is

something that *everyone* in the loose circle of remotely WAPF-related

people have been saying for all the years I've been involved. Mercola

says something like 85% of his patients are deficient in serum 25 (OH)

D when they come in, for example.

Chris

>

> Deanna

>

December 27, 2005

By the way, it occurred to me that perhaps the communication problem

here is that Deanna and (maybe?) didn't attend the WAPF

conference. Those of us who were there are familiar with two things:

First, everyone saw Cannel's lecture on vitamin D, so they are

familiar with the vitamin D winter, the widespread and near universal

inadequacy of serum D levels in modern populations, and so on.

Second, they saw Norman 's lecture of vitamin A, and are aware,

then, why I am writing this article, because of the issue with A and

bone health.

So I apologize if I was reacting as if either of you two should have

already known this, I guess I may have been figuring that those on

this list would have that general background. When in fact only some

of the people on the list were actually there.

Chris

--

Dioxins in Animal Foods:

A Case For Vegetarianism?

Find Out the Truth:

http://www.westonaprice.org/envtoxins/dioxins.html

December 27, 2005

Hmm, well I hadn't considered the possibility that at certain times of

year there could be ZERO UVB rays reaching the earth. I assumed that

even in the dead of winter in higher latitudes, SOME UVB was reaching

the earth, just not an appreciable amount, and thus the " vitamin D

winter " was an arbitrary definition. But if it is indeed the case that

literally no UVB is reaching the earth whatsoever in winter in certain

places, then you are right, since it doesn't matter how dark or light

one's skin is if there is none.

However, even if that is true, I'm skeptical that the non-arbitrary

definition applies to everyone. Let's take the point in the late winter

or spring when suddenly a few UVB rays start reaching the earth again.

At such a low dosage, a person with light skin might be starting to get

significant vit D production, but a person with dark skin would not be

getting any D production at all. Thus my point still stands that your

statement was uselessly general in that it grouped people of all skin

tones into one. (In fact, isn't it generally agreed that the sole

evolutionary purpose of lighter skin was to allow greater vitamin D

production at higher latitudes? Now I'm confusing myself because this is

getting circular...)

I apologize for the tangential vitamin D discussion. If you don't have

time to discuss vit D that's fine, the article is more important. :-)

Tom

Masterjohn wrote:

>On 12/27/05, L. Jeanne <t.l.jeanne@...> wrote:

>

>> did you consider that your statements above logically depend on

>>some " average " value for UV-catalyzed vitamin D production in human

>>skin, and that Scandinavians would necessarily have a higher value

>>(i.e., ability to produce D from lower light) due to their

>>lighter-than-average skin? To say " vitamin D is not available at all

>>from the sun " for part of the year above 35 degrees latitude is to make

>>an extremely sweeping statement, and I don't see how that could apply to

>>everyone.

>>

>

>While I don't know the specific mechanics of it, I don't see why you

>see an issue with it. If there is no UV-b portion of the spectrum

>available during this part of the year, and UV-a is not sufficient for

>the conversion, then it is entirely logically consistent to believe in

>a vitamin D winter.

>

>And I sure hope that the Vitamin D Council knows what they're talking

>about. I'm assuming their information is accurate. They would have

>to be fools to let something like that slip by, since in the same

>lectures and articles that I've ever heard or read, the fact that skin

>tone makes a major difference and the fact that such a thing as a

>vitamin D winter exists over much of the globe are always mentioned

>side by side. I've never read a single article or attended a single,

>wether by WAPF, Vitamin D Council, Mercola, Krispin Sullivan, etc,

>where one of these is mentioned and the other isn't. Granted, that's

>probably because they are all looking to the Vitamin D Council for the

>information, another reason I hope that trust is justified.

>

>Anyway, although this is moot given the above, I've never seen an

>example of which research is biased in favor of blacks. Research is

>basically always biased in favor of whites.

>

>Chris

>

December 27, 2005

On 12/27/05, L. Jeanne <t.l.jeanne@...> wrote:

> However, even if that is true, I'm skeptical that the non-arbitrary

> definition applies to everyone. Let's take the point in the late winter

> or spring when suddenly a few UVB rays start reaching the earth again.

> At such a low dosage, a person with light skin might be starting to get

> significant vit D production, but a person with dark skin would not be

> getting any D production at all.

Since I'm not familiar with the primary research, I can't certify that

what's being said would meet my own definitions, but if I were

defining the " vitamin D winter, " it would begin and end when those few

rays are not present. The fact that outside of that " vitamin D

winter " there is a broad spectrum of D synthesis rates is accpeted by

me and everyone and for any practical purpose irrelevant to this

discussion, which concerns specifically the time during which D

synthesis is unavailable and that difference becomes inoperative.

Although, putting aside that point for a minute, even this transition

point, which it seems to me you are only bringing up to try to salvage

your original moot point, will not bring the serum levels into optimal

range, which is the important issue here. Even if in the dead of the

vitamin D winter one could synthesize physiologcial negligble amounts

of D from sunlight, or even non-negligible yet sub-optimal levels, the

basic principle of the vitamin D winter, in which substantial amounts

of vitamin D from food becomes necessary, would stand.

> Thus my point still stands that your

> statement was uselessly general in that it grouped people of all skin

> tones into one.

I can not comprehend how you can possibly perceive the statement as

" useless. " First, if it is true that such a thing as the " vitamin D

winter " exists, and that the UVb is not present, then the skin tone no

longer becomes the limiting factor. The skin tone is only the

limiting factor insofar as the inhibitory effect of melanin is greater

in magnitude than that of the absence of UVb. Once the UVb is absent

to a degree that its absence has an effect greater in magnitude than

the presence of melanin, than the latter ipso facto becomes

inoperative and all skin tones ARE for this purpose grouped into one.

In any case, it is your point that is moot for the simple reason that

native Scandinavians are light-skinned. So it is quite unlikely that

anyone testing D synthesis rates in Scandinavian countries would

cherry-pick the equatorially skinned folk who may happen to have

emigrated there for that purpose. And, as I pointed out in the last

email, bias in research tends to lean towards using white people as a

standard rather than black. So even if there were a racial bias built

into the calculations, which you have implied but shown no evidence

even suggesting, then I will point out, equally speculatively, that

just by probability the bias would be more likely to favor the

circumstance of light-skinned people, and accounting for the bias

would be more likely to favor my point than yours.

Then again, it would make more sense to dispense with the speculation

about biases, and either accept the Vitamin D Council's view or

someone post some evidence countering it or at least some evidence

that there is an opposition view, which I have yet to encounter.

> (In fact, isn't it generally agreed that the sole

> evolutionary purpose of lighter skin was to allow greater vitamin D

> production at higher latitudes? Now I'm confusing myself because this is

> getting circular...)

Sure. This is not in any way circular, and this point is perfectly

consistent with the idea of a vitamin D winter at certain lattitudes

-- precisely because there is variation OUTSIDE of the vitamin D

winter. So, not only does the vitamin D winter increase in proportion

to the total time as you move north or south of 35 degrees lattitude,

in which case the difference of skin tone is inoperative, but the UVb

availability for the REST OF THE YEAR also diminishes, in which case

the difference in skin tone is *very* important and maximally

operative. So, it is the non-vitamin-d-winter portion of the year

that confers the evolutionary advantage of lighter skin,

notwithstanding the vitamin D winter itself. The fact that there is

one portion of the year in which light-skinned and dark-skinned people

both receive no vitamin D from sunlight does not negate the fact that

for the rest of the year the light-skinned people receive more.

> I apologize for the tangential vitamin D discussion. If you don't have

> time to discuss vit D that's fine, the article is more important. :-)

No, that's fine. I just wanted to make sure that the different points

that have been raised weren't being confused with each other.

Chris

--

Dioxins in Animal Foods:

A Case For Vegetarianism?

Find Out the Truth:

http://www.westonaprice.org/envtoxins/dioxins.html

December 28, 2005

>By the way, it occurred to me that perhaps the communication problem

>here is that Deanna and (maybe?) didn't attend the WAPF

>conference. Those of us who were there are familiar with two things:

>

>First, everyone saw Cannel's lecture on vitamin D, so they are

>familiar with the vitamin D winter, the widespread and near universal

>inadequacy of serum D levels in modern populations, and so on.

>

>Second, they saw Norman 's lecture of vitamin A, and are aware,

>then, why I am writing this article, because of the issue with A and

>bone health.

>

No need to apologize. I didn't attend the conference, but such

information on vitamin D winter is not classified and is easily

accessible elsewhere . But yes, I did realize the tangent. However,

the topic is of interest to me, a Scot-Swede.

Deanna

Sign In

Re: Pls Help ASAP -- Vitamin A intake in NAPD

Recommended Posts

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Join the conversation

Activity