Giraffe
Member
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2015
- Messages
- 3,730
I didn't ask you to ignore those studies. I asked you to read them, and decide for yourself if the assumptions made there make sense, and if the data support the claims that were made.Are we to believe that every one of these studies, which all have a consistent conclusion, are so fundamentally flawed that we should ignore them. I am not so sure that many of your criticisms would support such a conclusion
Studies do not "all have a consistent conclusion". If you read studies, you will find references to studies that came to different conclusions.
People compensate for low thyroid function with high amounts of cortisol and adrenaline. Studies, that check for temperature or heart rate or oxygen consumption, but not for stress hormones or elevated FFA or whether the oxygen is efficiently used or wasted, do get some sort of results, and they call it metabolism, but stress metabolism is not what Peat means when he talks about the benefits of a higher metabolic rate.For example, you asked “has any of the studies controlled the participants for adrenaline levels or thyroid status (including T3)?”
That's big of you!I will let you present your concerns with incorrect covariate assumptions and covariate selections since you are making the charge. I am sure the scientists, peer reviewers, and publications would all like to know as well.
For example, a common covariate is the cholesterol level. The current dogma says that high cholesterol is a risk factor for atherosclerosis, heart disease and stroke. Hypothyroidism causes hypercholerestolemia, and both can be corrected with supplementing thyroid hormones. If you introduce cholesterol as a covariate in a multi-hazard model which is supposed to describe the relation between heart disease and thyroid status, you distort the results.