Anyone else low on Vitamin A?

[wabi-sabi]

I just got some lab results back from my doctor and it turns out I'm quite low on Vitamin A, despite thinking I eat a good diet. Seems I may not be absorbing what I am eating. Has this happened to anyone else? I'm very curious about the whole malabsorption thing.

 

[pamojja]

I never tested before supplementing preformed vitamin A. And only after titrating above 20.000 IU per day gave me a incredible health-benefit. In that my infrequent psoriasis outbreaks ceased completely. By now have tested it 3 times (retinol 425-831; retinol binding protein 30-60 lab normal ranges):

year vitA  RBP  A/RBC intake(avg. for previous 3 years)
     µg/l  mg/l   ≥7   µg/d

2012  501   44   11.4   1,3
2015  597   53   11.4   5,4
2018  705   47   14.9   6,7

Calculated (though already many years ago) that I got in average about 0.13 µg/d retinol from diet, and in avg. about 4.6 µg/d from supplements. Beta-carotene 1.5 µg/d RE from supplements, and 1.3 µg/d RE from diet.

 

[wabi-sabi]

Thanks @ pamojja. Although now I have to admit I am feeling glum again. My doc said a level of 34 was too low, but looking at medline, a normal level is 15-60, so I am not deficient at all. He also recommended I stop with the allergy meds supposedly causing stomach troubles (like not absorbing! which isn't actually a problem!). Now I am having lots of allergy symptoms (nothing dangerous, just itchy eyes, sore throat, and plugged up ears). I had a moment of hope about feeling better with new supplements and now its gone again.

 

[pamojja]

My doc said a level of 34 was too low, but looking at medline, a normal level is 15-60, so I am not deficient at all.

We really don't know what 'normal' serum levels are. Since in general they are determined by each lab by taking the middle 95% of all their tested persons as normal, and the higest and lowest 2,5% to mean abnormal. But obviously more than only 5% sick get it ever tested!

Therefore these discrepancies: My lab stating 42-83 as normal (by which you clearly would be deficient), but medline stating 15-60 only.

Since we are getting less and less nutrients from natural foods, in this random way determined 'normal' becomes lower and lower. We don't even now what 'normal' would have been a 100 years ago before the SAD -, cutting out most organ meats - and no serum testing avialable at that time.

Since 'normal' really doesn't mean nothing more than a statistical construct constantly lowered by deterioriating nutritional status in the general population, some look at clinical experience for more 'optimal' reference ranges. Others for what is found in the science literature. Like for example labtestanalyzer.com, which came up with these ranges:

ug/dL

Low < 19.99
Sub-Optimal 20 - 29.99
Optimal 30 - 80
Supra-optimal 80.01 - 95
High > 95.01

And also my experimental experience confirms, that incredible health benefits can acrue with optimal ranges - like in my case at about 70 ug/dl (double your level). Which also exemplifies that 'optimal' ranges can be entirely individual. Only found out with contining experimenting by each oneself.

 

[wabi-sabi]

Thanks @pamojja that makes me feel better and more hopeful. I am sure my doc is looking at clinical experience rather than medline. And honestly, that's why I go to the (real) doctor instead of just trying to figure myself out with Dr. Google. Thanks for reminding me of that. And my doc keeps telling me I should be eating liver. I'm trying...