DaveFoster
Member
@Queequeg Peat mentions propranolol as a curative measure for a rapid heart caused by hyperthyroidism, and it slows the T4 to T3 conversion. Hyperthyroidism is assuredly a clinical problem; I don't think anyone disputes that.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Click Here if you want to upgrade your account
If you were able to post but cannot do so now, send an email to admin at raypeatforum dot com and include your username and we will fix that right up for you.
I don’t think I ever said that Ray thinks hyperthyroidism isn't a problem.@Queequeg Peat mentions propranolol as a curative measure for a rapid heart caused by hyperthyroidism, and it slows the T4 to T3 conversion. Hyperthyroidism is assuredly a clinical problem; I don't think anyone disputes that.
I agree that in some cases Ray would think that doing so would be unwise, such as someone who is malnourished or has other health issues. But it does seem to me that he believes that most people would benefit by getting their temps, heart rate, or thyroid to a sweet spot that is generally higher than what most people currently have. I think most of the followers on RPF are all trying to do that. I am not fundamentally opposed to the idea but would like to see some clinical evidence that this would lead to improved health outcomes.I've never seen him say everyone should increase their metabolism, heart rate, temps, or thyroid if they are already in a good range and in good health, or that it is advisable in general to push metabolism to hyperthyroid levels.
His idea of euthyroid is a little different from mainstream.
The methods he recommends for assessing thyroid function do not align with the overly simplified methods used by most drs. He proposes methods that help distinguish between metabolism elevated by stress hormones and metabolism running on thyroid hormones. I guess you've read his article describing why the current standard TSH range is not founded on good evidence.
I: We have a number of questions that have come in by email. Two of them are pretty similar. One is ‘What would you recommend to a young person who is studying biology? He has a degree in English. And the other is ‘What research can we trust?’
RP: Oh well, don’t trust anything! Read it carefully and think about what they are doing and even think about who they are and what they are trying to do. For example, I recently saw some discussion of the anti-cancer drug called Bucain and some English researchers offered to give it an objective test and the producer enthusiastically agreed. But then when he learned what they were going to do he said, “Well, no I want some independent evaluation” and they wrote articles in Lancet saying that the producer was unwilling to submit it to an objective test.But when I looked at their 200 previous publications they wereabsolutely aligned with the cell toxic chemotherapy industry and they were going to test his substance in violation of the standard research procedures for the European Union and that got into the literature as the producer of the substance being unwilling to have an objective test – where they were the ones trying to put it through a non-objective situation. Reading about the history of the person making the claim is part of the process of finding out what they doing and looking at the nature of their work and nine times out of ten will show that they had some ulterior motive.Probably Gilbert Ling is a good place to reorient to how the biological community works and how they have ignored Ling for almost 60 years now and I have looked at the literature citing Ling and see that someone misquoted and totally misstated what Ling said, his misquotation went down through about a dozen repetitions in which people claiming to have read Ling were simply quoting a misstatement about Gilbert Ling so that one error led to deliberate misrepresentations of Gilbert Ling’s work so when you really pay attention to Gilbert Ling what you aredoing is seeing a lot of corruption in the biological community.
https://raypeatforum.com/community/...know-patients-student-and-discovery-docx.765/
I agree that in some cases Ray would think that doing so would be unwise, such as someone who is malnourished or has other health issues. But it does seem to me that he believes that most people would benefit by getting their temps, heart rate, or thyroid to a sweet spot that is generally higher than what most people currently have. I think most of the followers on RPF are all trying to do that. I am not fundamentally opposed to the idea but would like to see some clinical evidence that this would lead to improved health outcomes.
I do agree with his methods of assessing thyroid but what I don’t get is his belief that most would benefit from driving TSH down to 0.4. He seems to have gotten this from a study that shows that people with thyroid nodules experience less thyroid cancer with such a low TSH. But as I wrote earlier in the thread, I don’t think that this proves that everyone should have that as a goal. Especially since many other studies say that a higher but still normal TSH is protective.
from RP email exchange:
"think it's best to keep the TSH around 0.4"
"[temperature] should get up to about 98.5 "by mid-morning."
"I think 85/minute resting is a good average. For the last 35 years I have tried to keep it averaging a little over 90."
I also want to keep my HR, metabolism and thyroid healthy as well. I am just not sure that trying to jack them up to RP recommended levels is the way to go. IMO lots of Ray's evidence comes from anecdotal experience in which unhealthy people had benefited from raising heart rates or temperatures. I am sure that is true for them but that is not the same as saying these steps would be good for everyone.one thing I know. I've watched a lot of programs and read about very old people. As people age, their pulse slows, their metabolism slows, their thyroid slows. They lose lean mass.
For me, I want to keep my my lean mass, I want to keep my HR, my metabolism and my thyroid good and healthy. I just want to slow down the aging process.
I think you may wish to double check your ideas on how the scientific method works. Clinical evidence is not formed via hypothesis. And I thought your comments couldn't get any worse. smhTo form hypothesis you must look at what evidence you have and move forward,Peat is reasonable with the evidence currently available to assert the claims he makes.
You and other WSAG's on here jump through this cliche hoop when asserting your claims,it's essentially rigidity,you want "clinical evidence" when clinical evidence is formed via hypothesis!
Their is even a good argument for Peats work not being hypothesis but currently theory,Peats work is definitely more theory than the Baltimore longitudinal study of aging.
Strawman again?Note the wording in Peats responses,your manic stream of consciousness clearly can't process it,said stream of consciousness has also created the "sweet spot" strawman.
"Around .4"
"Good average"
I think you may wish to double check your ideas on how the scientific method works. Clinical evidence is not formed via hypothesis. And I thought your comments couldn't get any worse. smh
Strawman again?
I guess ignorance has no bottom as well. An observational study is a form of clinical research.Another hubris fuelled WSAG response,your Baltimore study you claim to be clinical research is an observational study,they state this on their website,specifically it's not clinical,your deluded hubris has no bottom.
just because peat gives additional anectodes doesnt mean that he bases his arguments on it. that would be very stupid indeed. you must think pretty low of him? maybe you give him a little bit more credit and ask yourself why studies like the baltimore one didn´t change his mind.IMO lots of Ray's evidence comes from anecdotal experience in which unhealthy people had benefited from raising heart rates or temperatures.
Not true. I think very highly of him and his advice. I also take seriously his advice to not trust anyone and check out the evidence for myself. I would think he would want all of us to do the same. In my opinion he developed his ideas on the good effects of increasing metabolism from studies on rodents due to their higher levels of mitochondrial uncoupling. I think he is mistaken in applying those to humans who do not have such a high level of uncoupling.just because peat gives additional anectodes doesnt mean that he bases his arguments on it. that would be very stupid indeed. you must think pretty low of him? maybe you give him a little bit more credit and ask yourself why studies like the baltimore one didn´t change his mind.
sounds good! i didn´t get the impression that you did that with the baltimore study, though.I also take seriously his advice to not trust anyone and check out the evidence for myself.
I think you had the best criticism of that study in that it would have been good to know the cortisol levels. But as I wrote I still don't think it would have made much of a difference as patients with major adrenal issues where excluded. I haven't heard any other critiques that made me doubt the study's conclusions or methods in anyway. Plus my questions are not just based on that one study. All metabolic studies on humans and large animals all seem to say that higher metabolisms lead to a shorter longevity. Only the studies on certain small animals show the opposite due to uncoupling. The same could be said of the studies on thyroid, temp and heart rate. I don't think it is likely that all of these studies are so flawed that they got the general direction of the relationships to health completely wrong.sounds good! i didn´t get the impression that you did that with the baltimore study, though.
Well I've said this before and I'll say it again: The longest living population on the planet is the Okinawan people. My Gf's routes are in Okinawa and I'm very familiar with their diet. The traditional diet is low calorie and mildly ketogenic. Their metabolisms run generally slow, heart rate slow, and tend to have colder hands and feet than your average westerner. Their stress is very low. I have also said on many occasions, for every study you find supporting one thing, you can usually find a study that contradicts it. So then your left scratching your head with the only evidence of real world situations, and sorry to say folks, the reality is (and the Okinawan people prove it), low calorie with a slowed down metabolism supports longevity. On the flip side, steroids rapidly increase metabolism by increasing Testosterone. As people should know, steroid users tend to die quicker; this shouldn't even be debateable.
Thyroid Status, Disability and Cognitive Function, and Survival in Old AgeEven though The study on 85 year olds was refuted by jag another question begs ,what was the cause of death for example? The mean annual death reference leaves me wanting to see the actual tables for this and timeline,why do they word in this manner for such a small number?
"High TSH rates had 16 deaths out of 264 ,The majority with normal or low TSH levels had 193 deaths in 1698 person-years of FU". Strange way to put it ,the timeline of deaths have needs to be seen here.