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

[Guest guest]

Skin tone/hair color really may come into play with Scandinavians (and

other northwestern Europeans), as they have the lightest complexion on

the planet for their latitude. Fascinating stuff. This is an

interesting link for anyone into the paleo etiology of human skin tone.

Cool maps, but some of the reasoning is a bit of a stretch (like cave

art necessarily showing true human skin tone).

http://www.backintyme.com/Essay021215.htm

" Only one spot on the globe enables economically competitive grain

production above the 55th parallel. It is where the warm Gulf Stream

washes into the North and Baltic Seas, keeping temperatures moderate

despite dim near-Arctic sunlight. Around the planet, only circum-Baltic

farmers could switch to a grain diet devoid of vitamin D, in a place

where sunlight also lacked UV. And so, the extreme of the paleness

adaptation is found only within 600 miles of this unique spot on earth. "

>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.

>

Thirty-five degrees and above is quite a hunk of land to be

considering. I have heard 40 in these vitamin D references, but 35

includes north Africa, Syria and ALL of Europe. Where is this 35 degree

latitude coming from? The conference? Because it is not a number I

have seen used. The second citation below states that vitamin D can be

synthesized in the dead of winter at 34 degrees N.

http://lpi.oregonstate.edu/infocenter/vitamins/vitaminD/

" In latitudes around 40 degrees north or 40 degrees south (Boston is 42

degrees north), there is insufficient UVB radiation available for

vitamin D synthesis from November to early March. Ten degrees farther

north or south (Edmonton, Canada) this " vitamin D winter " extends from

mid October to mid March. According to Dr. Holick, as little as

5-10 minutes of sun exposure on arms and legs or face and arms three

times weekly between 11:00 am and 2:00 pm during the spring, summer, and

fall at 42 degrees latitude should provide a light-skinned individual

with adequate vitamin D and allow for storage of any excess for use

during the winter with minimal risk of skin damage (35)

<http://lpi.oregonstate.edu/infocenter/vitamins/vitaminD/drefs.html#ref35>. "

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve & db=PubMed & list_uids=2\

839537 & dopt=Citation

" Latitude and season affect both the quantity and quality of solar

radiation reaching the earth's surface, especially in the UVB region of

the spectrum, but little is known about how these influence the ability

of sunlight to synthesize vitamin D3 in skin. A model has been developed

to evaluate the effect of seasonal and latitudinal changes on the

potential of sunlight to initiate cutaneous production of vitamin D3.

Human skin or [3 alpha-3H]7-dehydrocholesterol exposed to sunlight on

cloudless days in Boston (42.2 degrees N) from November through February

produced no previtamin D3. In Edmonton (52 degrees N) this ineffective

winter period extended from October through March. Further south (34

degrees N and 18 degrees N), sunlight effectively photoconverted

7-dehydrocholesterol to previtamin D3 in the middle of winter. These

results quantify the dramatic influence of changes in solar UVB

radiation on cutaneous vitamin D3 synthesis and indicate the latitudinal

increase in the length of the " vitamin D winter " during which dietary

supplementation of the vitamin may be advisable. "

Deanna

[Guest guest]

On 12/28/05, Deanna Wagner <hl@...> wrote:

> Thirty-five degrees and above is quite a hunk of land to be

> considering. I have heard 40 in these vitamin D references, but 35

> includes north Africa, Syria and ALL of Europe. Where is this 35 degree

> latitude coming from? The conference? Because it is not a number I

> have seen used. The second citation below states that vitamin D can be

> synthesized in the dead of winter at 34 degrees N.

Which is perfectly consistent with 35 N being the nothern cutoff point

for where the vitamin D winter begins. Yes, I got the figure from Dr.

Cannel's lecture at the conference, who is the president of the

Vitamin D Council.

> http://lpi.oregonstate.edu/infocenter/vitamins/vitaminD/

> " In latitudes around 40 degrees north or 40 degrees south (Boston is 42

> degrees north), there is insufficient UVB radiation available for

> vitamin D synthesis from November to early March.

So a 4-month vitamin D winter suddenly appears? If the vitamin D

winter extends gradually in relationship to lattitude, obviously it

begings at least several degrees lattitude before where it captures

1/3 of the whole year.

Chris

--

Dioxins in Animal Foods:

A Case For Vegetarianism?

Find Out the Truth:

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

[Guest guest]

>Which is perfectly consistent with 35 N being the nothern cutoff point

>for where the vitamin D winter begins.

>

Oh, I think you could be right. There is definitely some function of

latitude where the zenith angle begins to cut the UVB down. But there

are a number of other factors besides season, time of day and latitude

that influence uvb irradiance on earth's surface - cloud cover,

pollution, altitude and changes in the ozone column to name a few.

>Yes, I got the figure from Dr. Cannel's lecture at the conference, who is the

president of the

>Vitamin D Council.

>

Oh. I assume then that his 35 degree number comes from observation. He

could be the president of fruitcakes anonymous for all I care - his

authority means nothing in terms of whether or not his information is

accurate, with all due respect for the man.

Vitamin D deficiency is an issue for a lot of people. The idea that

vitamin A is the culprit in bone problems makes me kinda happy that I

don't take cod liver oil (preferring whole foods generally).

Apparently, beta carotene is not a problem with this A antagonism

thing. Vitamin D can be toxic too, so I don't think upping both is

necessarily a good thing (the old some is good, more must be better

hogwash). Sullivan does post a warning about vitamin D toxicity on the

WAPF website too.

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

This paper gets into the Swedish vitamin A toxicity fracture connection

(I started at page 35) and may actually be of some help to you.

http://www.diva-portal.org/diva/getDocument?urn_nbn_se_uu_diva-4677-1__fulltext.\

pdf

Anyhoo, good luck in your research.

Deanna

[Guest guest]

One thing I forgot: where is all the vitamin A coming from in the

Scandinavian diet? Is it supplements, fortification or from food?

D

>

>

[Guest guest]

On 12/28/05, Deanna Wagner <hl@...> wrote:

>

> >Which is perfectly consistent with 35 N being the nothern cutoff point

> >for where the vitamin D winter begins.

> >

> Oh, I think you could be right. There is definitely some function of

> latitude where the zenith angle begins to cut the UVB down. But there

> are a number of other factors besides season, time of day and latitude

> that influence uvb irradiance on earth's surface - cloud cover,

> pollution, altitude and changes in the ozone column to name a few.

Those can affect the UVB when the first three factors allow some

amount of UVB to be present, but once the first three act to eliminate

the UVB they become moot.

> >Yes, I got the figure from Dr. Cannel's lecture at the conference, who is the

president of the

> >Vitamin D Council.

> Oh. I assume then that his 35 degree number comes from observation. He

> could be the president of fruitcakes anonymous for all I care - his

> authority means nothing in terms of whether or not his information is

> accurate, with all due respect for the man.

I agree, but you asked where it came from, so I told you. So far

everything you've provided seems to agree. I doubt it is coincidence

that it was 34 degrees lattitude at which the abstract you cited said

UVB-induced D synthesis was found all year long, and 35 degrees at

which Cannel said the vitamin D winter, defined as some period of time

of any given duration that bars UVB-induced D synthesis completely,

begins.

> Vitamin D deficiency is an issue for a lot of people.

It is an issue for most people, according to all of the doctors who

bother to look for it, that I have read so far, and who keep up with

the more precise research on optimal rather than " normal " 25 (OH) D

levels.

> The idea that

> vitamin A is the culprit in bone problems makes me kinda happy that I

> don't take cod liver oil (preferring whole foods generally).

That makes little difference. Liver is a whole food and would be

worse than CLO because it doesn't contain much D.

I don't understand how I have suddenly caused you to jump to the

mainstream position, which is basically directly contrary to what

we've all been thinking within this community, and which can't be

reconciled to Price's observation of much higher intakes of A

associated with superb skeletal structure. My intention is to try to

reconcile this information, and I've spilled the beans a little in

this thread. It seems ironic and confusing to me that yesterday you

didn't think vitamin A was an issue, and today, apparently from my

inadvertent argument, you are agreeing with the position on vitamin A

that I'm hoping to disprove.

I don't mean to make that sound egocentric. You can believe whatever

you want obviously. But in pointing out what some researchers are

saying, I didn't mean to argue for their viewpoint, hence all the

stuff about vitamin D.

> Apparently, beta carotene is not a problem with this A antagonism

> thing.

That's because beta carotene is almost worthless as a form of vitamin

A. It has its own toxic properties, including reducing vitamin A

status in some tissues.

> Vitamin D can be toxic too, so I don't think upping both is

> necessarily a good thing (the old some is good, more must be better

> hogwash).

Of course it's hogwash that if some is good, more is better, if you

take that to have no qualifications, but more is quite certainly

better to a certain point and then ceases to be true or becomes worse

thereafter. That there is a U-shaped curve for benefit is true, but

it would be fallacy to take this qualitative truism and then apply the

quantitative assumption that " normal " intakes are " optimal " and

constitute the point after which more becomes worse rather than

better. The research clearly indicates that vitamin D intakes and

serum statuses are too low, not optimal or too high.

> Sullivan does post a warning about vitamin D toxicity on the

> WAPF website too.

>

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

I'm not going to look at it again right now, but when I read Sullivan

earlier she was essentially describing anecdotes of hypervitaminosis D

in her own practice, which doesn't negate the benfit of high D intakes

for the vast, vast majority -- almost everyone -- who don't have that

condition. I think she went overboard in promoting D toxicity

paranoia when she came out with the original warning, although it is

certainly wise to heed the possibility. And yes if you can afford it

it makes sense to test a few times to see to what serum level your

intake is bringing you.

> This paper gets into the Swedish vitamin A toxicity fracture connection

> (I started at page 35) and may actually be of some help to you.

>

>

http://www.diva-portal.org/diva/getDocument?urn_nbn_se_uu_diva-4677-1__fulltext.\

pdf

Thank you. I know I have something by this author in the papers I've

gotten but haven't looked through yet, but in case this is something

different I've bookmarked it.

> Anyhoo, good luck in your research.

Thank you.

Chris

--

Dioxins in Animal Foods:

A Case For Vegetarianism?

Find Out the Truth:

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

[Guest guest]

On 12/28/05, Deanna Wagner <hl@...> wrote:

> One thing I forgot: where is all the vitamin A coming from in the

> Scandinavian diet? Is it supplements, fortification or from food?

It's mostly the high rate of fortification, from what I've read, but I

haven't read the Scandinavian study. But the Nurse's Health Study

found eating liver itself to increase fracture risk.

Chris

--

Dioxins in Animal Foods:

A Case For Vegetarianism?

Find Out the Truth:

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

[Guest guest]

>That makes little difference. Liver is a whole food and would be

>worse than CLO because it doesn't contain much D.

>

>

Maybe so, but the good news is I eat more salmon, tuna and sardines than

liver. But I do consume some sort of organ once a week. I just don't

remember to take supps like cod liver oil. They go rancid before I use

them, and I hate to waste so I have stopped buying. Maybe I will buy a

small bottle if we have a long cloudy spell. But don't forget, I am

just shy of 33 N. Yesterday I spent the noon hour jogging a few miles

and then doing some martial arts training with ds out on the patio ...

in 80 degree sunny weather, mind you. No worries for me on D!

>I don't understand how I have suddenly caused you to jump to the

>mainstream position, which is basically directly contrary to what

>we've all been thinking within this community, and which can't be

>reconciled to Price's observation of much higher intakes of A

>associated with superb skeletal structure. My intention is to try to

>reconcile this information, and I've spilled the beans a little in

>this thread. It seems ironic and confusing to me that yesterday you

>didn't think vitamin A was an issue, and today, apparently from my

>inadvertent argument, you are agreeing with the position on vitamin A

>that I'm hoping to disprove.

>

>

I may be jumpy, ok. So I can't wait until you shed better light on this

whole schmeel. And that snippet from Price was about treating rickets

with butter oil, which I believe is higher in A than D. Of course, the

fractures in Scandinavian countries are undoubtedly in elderly. Vitamin

A is not fully understood, but it is important in bone formation.

Perhaps overdosing over time is coming into play here later on. I

dunno. I do try to keep an open mind, mind you.

>I don't mean to make that sound egocentric. You can believe whatever

>you want obviously. But in pointing out what some researchers are

>saying, I didn't mean to argue for their viewpoint, hence all the

>stuff about vitamin D.

>

>

I don't take my nutritional information on faith. I am glad you brought

it up. DH is very Scandinavian and has a family history of bone

problems with aging. Thus you aroused my interest. No egocentrism is

noted on your part, and if I have helped you stay up later to get this

all sorted out to produce a fine article by deadline, then I am happy

;-) . It is just interesting to see the vit. A correlation with

fractures; you brought it up and it *seems* to be an issue for one

reason or another.

Deanna

[Guest guest]

On 12/28/05, Deanna Wagner <hl@...> wrote:

>

>

> >That makes little difference. Liver is a whole food and would be

> >worse than CLO because it doesn't contain much D.

> Maybe so, but the good news is I eat more salmon, tuna and sardines than

> liver. But I do consume some sort of organ once a week.

I fail to see how this is good news. I don't understand why you are

jumping to conclusions based on this one study with so many unanswered

questions, the clear indication from other research that diets rich in

organ meats are beneficial to health, and the fact that you are not

post-menopausal. I think eating organ meats once a week is probably a

good idea. I don't know how to interpret the research on vitamin A

just yet, but I don't think jumping to the conclusion that one should

limit organ meats is justified at this point. If it is, then even

once a week is too much.

> I just don't

> remember to take supps like cod liver oil. They go rancid before I use

> them, and I hate to waste so I have stopped buying. Maybe I will buy a

> small bottle if we have a long cloudy spell.

I've never noticed CLO going rancid, but I use it steadily. If you

use it regularly, you can by a keep-fresh sealing thing like they have

for wine that would solve the problem.

> But don't forget, I am

> just shy of 33 N. Yesterday I spent the noon hour jogging a few miles

> and then doing some martial arts training with ds out on the patio ...

> in 80 degree sunny weather, mind you. No worries for me on D!

No, the issue would be A. If my suspicions are correct, your

presumably good D status would make it safe and beneficial to have the

extra A. But that's just my suspicion at this point.

> I may be jumpy, ok. So I can't wait until you shed better light on this

> whole schmeel. And that snippet from Price was about treating rickets

> with butter oil, which I believe is higher in A than D.

I think the main benefit Price saw in the butter oil was the X Factor,

which at the time was just being called vitamin D. I'm not sure what

the A to D ratio in it is.

> Of course, the

> fractures in Scandinavian countries are undoubtedly in elderly. Vitamin

> A is not fully understood, but it is important in bone formation.

> Perhaps overdosing over time is coming into play here later on. I

> dunno. I do try to keep an open mind, mind you.

Well the issue in terms of mechanism seems to be understood at least

half-decently. Vitamin A supports osteoclast activity and inhibits

osteoblast activity. An optimal amount of vitamin A activity is

needed to slow the growth of bone matrix so that the mineralization of

that matrix keeps up with its growth, thus providing for optimal bone

mineral density.

There is a U-shaped curve for serum retinol levels. Vitamin A needs

to pair up with vitamin D. Serum 25 (OH) D levels are almost

universally too low, so it may be the case that the peak of the

U-curve for serum retinol changes depending on the serum 25 (OH) D

that accompanies it. That's my current working hypothesis. I'm still

looking for whether I can find evidence to support it or contradict

it.

> >I don't mean to make that sound egocentric. You can believe whatever

> >you want obviously. But in pointing out what some researchers are

> >saying, I didn't mean to argue for their viewpoint, hence all the

> >stuff about vitamin D.

> I don't take my nutritional information on faith.

Neither do I. At the same time, it is impossible for me to personally

investigate every claim. It is most efficient and sensible to

personally investigate the controversial claims, or the ones that are

irreconcilable to other evidence I know about. Cannel's claims are

consistent with everything I've seen on the subject and I have never

once seen anything to contradict him. On the other hand, the newer

ideas on vitamin A and bone health are irreconcilable to Price's

observations of superb skeletal health among folks consistently

consuming A-rich diets. So for that reason I'm investigating the

latter rather than the former.

The great thing about a forum like this, of course, is that I can

share my findings with you and you can share yours with me, and thus

we can each benefit from each other's research efficiently. However,

barring you showing me any type of synopsis of research contradicting

Cannel, since I have finite time, I will have to, for the time being,

take Cannel's claims " on faith. " Once someone shows me there is ample

reason to think there is controversy over his claims, then I will

consider it to warrant some personal investigation.

I'm not suggesting you should take Cannel's claims as gospel truth,

but at the same time there is no reason to reinvent the wheel and

refuse to believe anything unless you have done the whole research

from scratch.

> I am glad you brought

> it up. DH is very Scandinavian and has a family history of bone

> problems with aging. Thus you aroused my interest. No egocentrism is

> noted on your part, and if I have helped you stay up later to get this

> all sorted out to produce a fine article by deadline, then I am happy

> ;-) . It is just interesting to see the vit. A correlation with

> fractures; you brought it up and it *seems* to be an issue for one

> reason or another.

It is an issue. I just don't see it as simple as this or that amount

of vitamin A is bad. I think there is more to the picture.

Chris

--

Dioxins in Animal Foods:

A Case For Vegetarianism?

Find Out the Truth:

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

[Guest guest]

>I don't understand why you are

>jumping to conclusions based on this one study with so many unanswered

>questions, the clear indication from other research that diets rich in

>organ meats are beneficial to health, and the fact that you are not

>post-menopausal.

>

Hey, how in the world do you think you know about my menopausal status?

Huh? Huh? Just joking. I'll reply more later, but I am not worried

about this or that nutrient in this or that quantity, order or whatnot.

I am behaving as best I can as one of Price's natives. IOW, I eat

instincto with some basic guidance from books and a really good

repertoire of foods/cultures to choose from. I have really dense bones

from exercise, myself. And you already know my cardio stats.

I collect old books as you may know. (Yes , I have _The Origin

of Species_ and _The Descent of Man_, among others). The wisdom found

in many traditional books and those never written comes from living in

tune with nature. These guys never knew this nutrient or that, how they

mixed or whathaveyou. And heck, we still haven't got it all figured.

But they lived real well while they lived. That's what I would like: to

live well while I live. Don't you worry none, I won't get too hung up

on my A to D ratios or anything. I figure eating the grass fed animals,

marine creatures and organic in season produce is enough, with a touch

of coconut for my seemingly semi-tropical existence. I found a great

old Indonesian cookbook the other day whilst DS was finding worthy

coinage for his collection. They have brains recipes galore. How are

brains stacked for A & D? But I ramble.

Deanna

[Guest guest]

On 12/28/05, Deanna Wagner <hl@...> wrote:

> Hey, how in the world do you think you know about my menopausal status?

> Huh? Huh? Just joking.

Oh, you're right I don't. I forgot that menopause can happen pretty young.

Chris

--

Dioxins in Animal Foods:

A Case For Vegetarianism?

Find Out the Truth:

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

[Guest guest]

Chris-

>p.s. This is irrelevant but I turn 24 tomorrow.

Happy belated and irrelevant birthday!

-

[Guest guest]

Haha, thanks!

Chris

On 1/2/06, Idol <Idol@...> wrote:

> Chris-

>

> >p.s. This is irrelevant but I turn 24 tomorrow.

>

> Happy belated and irrelevant birthday!

>

>

>

>

> -

>

>

>

>

> <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 " >

> <B>IMPORTANT ADDRESSES</B>

> <UL>

> <LI><B><A

HREF= " / " >NATIVE

NUTRITION</A></B> online</LI>

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

archive with Onibasu</LI>

> </UL></FONT>

> <PRE><FONT FACE= " monospace " SIZE= " 3 " ><B><A

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

Idol

> <B>MODERATORS:</B> Heidi Schuppenhauer

> Wanita Sears

> </FONT></PRE>

> </BODY>

> </HTML>

>

[Guest guest]

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

> 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.

Unfortunately, we have been laboring under this illusion for months

now, assuming that he was actually comparing the primitive dietaries

to the modern American recommendations, when, in fact, he was not.

Now that I have finally obtained Bulletin R 409, which DOES contain

quantitative information on vitamin A consumption of Americans and

recommendations in numerical units, I finally reread this section of

_NAPD_ (from some computer files I have, which don't include the

supplement that was added in the 1945 edition) and realized that he

was not, in fact, comparing these figures at all!

If you go back and reread that section, you'll see he was comparing

the primitive to modern diets for each group. This isn't exactly

clear from the text itself, and I only realized it because he provides

data on a number of minerals that are not included in Bulletin R 409,

such as magnesium, copper, and iodine.

Now, I have some actual data for four groups -- Inuit, North American

Indians, Hebrides, and Swiss Alps -- from what are apparently the

" more technical reports " that Price published. If you look in those,

he reports on magneisum, copper and iodine for the Inuit and North

American Indians, which was published later thant he data for the

Hebrides and Swiss Alps, which do not contain data on those three

minerals. The latter only have calcium, phosphorus, and iron.

In any case, if you look in these reports, he shows primitive and

modern diets for each group, and you can see the numbers he gives in

_NAPD_ are in well accord with making these specific comparisons. The

Inuit, for example, were consuming 2.14 g of calcium (assuming a 3,000

calorie diet, though they consumed 3-4,000 he says) on the primitive

diet and 390 mg of calcium on the modern diet. Thus, they were

consuming 5.49 times as much calcium on the primitive diet compared to

the modern diet, which is what it says in _NAPD_. (Actually, it says

5.4, so I think he just rounded it wrong.) On a 4,000 calorie diet,

they'd be consuming 2,85 grams of calcium.

On the other hand, if he was comparing the numbers to the

recommendations in Bulletin R 409, which we were thinking before, we

would calculate that they were consuming 3.7 grams of calcium, which

is a clear overestimation.

So the fact that the numbers add up when comparing the primitive

versus modern numbers for each specific group in the extra-NAPD

publications he made and the fact that Bulletin R 409 does not contain

several minerals that he includes in _NAPD_, makes it clear that he's

comparing primitive versus modern for each group in that paragraph.

If you re-read the text, you can see in hindsight how this is possible:

" It is of interest that the diets of the primitive groups which have

shown a very high immunity to dental caries and freedom from other

degenerative processes have all provided a nutrition containing at

least four times these minimum requirements; whereas the DISPLACING

NUTRITION OF COMMERCE [he doesn't say " whereas Americans are

consuming, " or " whereas Americans are recommended to consume, " ]

consisting largely of white-flour products, sugar, polished rice,

jams, canned goods, and vegetable fats, have invariably failed to

provide even the minimum requirements. In other words the foods of

the native Eskimos contained 5.4 times as much calcium as the

DISPLACING FOODS OF THE WHITE MAN . . . "

So, where does that leave us for vitamin A?

The extra-NAPD reports are of no use quantitatively, because for the

Alps/Hebrides, he lists " the fat-soluble vitamins " as " low, " " high, "

or " very high, " and in the Inuit/Indian publication he lists them with

a series of up to five " + " signs.

This was standard for documents of about that time. The first vitamin

A tests did not indicate quantities but only if A was present in the

food or not, and the first quantitative tests would have preceded

conclusive acceptance of how to correlate the tests with specific

units like the International Unit (which is actually based on

physiological activity rather than chemical tests, but now it is

agreed on how many micrograms of isolated vitamin A equals how many IU

and so on).

Bulletin R409 gives the recommendation of 3,000-4,000 Sherman units

per day, which I have used another source to convert to 4200-5600 IU

per day, and notes that 6.8% of Americans were consuming under 2800 IU

per day, 31.5% were consuming between 2800 and 5600 IU per day, 43.8%

were consuming between 5600 and 11,200 IU per day, and 17.8% were

consuming over 11,200 IU per day.

Unfortunately, none of this really helps us because Price wasn't

comparing these directly. However, if Americans were eating what he

considered " modern diets " at the time, then we could conclude they

were getting at least 28,000 IU a day, which is 10 times what the

poorest of the poor were getting in Bulletin R 409 (no one had intakes

this low unless they had less than $1.80 to spend on food a day), and

probably more like 28,000 to 56,000 IU, which is 10 times what the

next and more numerous group up was taking in.

That group also has the calcium range that the modernized Swiss,

Inuit, and Indians were taking in, and the phosphorus range than all

four modernized groups were taking in, supporting that guess.

Additionally, he says that the Inuit got 200 calories a day from seal

oil, which was " several times as high as ordinary cod liver oil. " If

we can wager a guess that " ordinary " cod liver oil is something like

15,000 IU per tablespoon, which is about 135 calories or so, and is

therefore a little over 22,000 IU per 200 calories, and the seal oil

is " several times that, " then the Inuit may have been taking in a good

60,000 IU of vitamin A per day from seal oil.

Nevertheless, this is all just best-guess data at this point.

Chris

--

The Truth About Cholesterol

Find Out What Your Doctor Isn't Telling You:

http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com