The Benefits Of Decreased Thyroid Function

[Mjhl85]

They claim it takes months to heal so I'm still in the healing process as the reason for quitting was a massive panic attack that seemed to last days. Coffee makes me crazy so it was a good decision. I could talk for hrs, run around like crazy, etc. So now I have more even energy. Still have good temps and pulse. Sleep is mostly good with .5mg cypro. No more strange periods of serious low mood. I am not someone that gets depressive thoughts unless my body chemistry is off. Zero cramping bowel movements that were common while drinking coffee. I think it was a trigger for me. Zero indigestion/nausea. Can tolerate drinking water now. No more craving for it either which is amazing. I've had serious caffeine cravings for years and years. I also don't drink coke anymore, that was a serious craving as well.

Glad to hear the good change. I was wondering if its caffeine specifically for you or coffee but then you answered the ques.

 

[PakPik]

I get more and more the impression that most apparent contradictions brought up in this thread and many others on metabolic rate and thyroid function (is more = better?) arise from assuming thyroid function equals metabolic rate, and assuming that high metabolic rate equals better cellular/body function. None of those equivalences are true. One could have hypermetabolism and low thyroid function simultaneously. Also one could be hypermetabolic due to very poor tissue health/chronic injury.

1. Higher metabolic rate/Hypermetabolism can coexist with hypothyroidism. This is because there are hormones other than thyroid that can increase the metabolic rate; these are the hormones typically associated with the stress response: cortisol, adrenaline, etc. As Broda Barnes said, "corticosteroids.... raise metabolism a little and do so independently of the thyroid. But, of far greater significance, they depress thyroid function." Therefore, it would be no paradox that higher BMR may sometimes be associated with poor health if this is due to chronic high stress hormones and the induced hypothyroidism. It can be perfectly possible.

2. Hypermetabolism is frequently seen in people whose bodies are in an almost out-of-control or chronic state of body injury. This is commonly due to ongoing infections, trauma, etc. For example, burns and brain trauma can induce an increase in metabolic rate even to the point of hypermetabolism . Chronic irritation due to infections and the subsequent tissue damage can do it as well. According to William Koch, there can also be hypermetabolism that is induced by hyperthyroidsm that is induced by an energy-starved tissue somewhere in the body. The high metabolic rate here is a consequence of the damaged tissues, therefore can be correlated with bad health. Therefore, no paradox there.

The following is by W. Koch's book The survival factor in viral and neoplastic diseases, pages 43 and 257. He illustrates a case of high production of thyroid hormones and explains it out as the body intentionally trying to force an energy-starved tissue to use energy. He sees -at least in the cases described- an elevated BMR as an indicator of "the inability to use the energy of ATP".

NOTE: None of what has been mentioned above should be taken to mean that hypometabolism or the extreme opposite things are therefore good. While there are people (as explained above) whose bodies get increased metabolism/hypermetabolism from stresses such as infections, trauma, chronically energy-starved tissues, etc..., there are also people whose bodies respond the opposite way: they become hypometabolic, low production of stress hormones, low production of energy, etc..., from a chronic stress situation. I see the latter (hypometabolism) is frequently an adaptive measure to help this person's body break down less fast when facing the threat of complete body breakdown (I believe that an adaptive hypometabolic response is what happens in Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/CFS), because sustaining a high metabolism rooted in pathological reasons breaks down and threatens the organs much more and faster than turning on adaptive mechanisms such as adaptive hypometabolism does [Edit to add: this doesn't negate that maladaptive, pathological blocks to metabolism occur in M.E/CFS, in fact, this disease is most probably a combination of adaptive and pathological influences].

The take home point of all that metabolic rate, either low or high, can be a consequence of pathological states, and oftentimes a person with the pathologically high fares worse than the pathologically low.

Does having a higher temperature automatically assume that one has a higher metabolic rate ? Cortisol and adrenaline can maintain the body temperature at a level that appears to be a normal metabolic rate. When in fact, the stress hormones are artificially maintaining body temperature.

As mentioned above, and according to Broda Barnes, stress hormones can genuinely increase metabolism. This paper also illustrates that fact: both the metabolic rate is increased and there can be a CNS-driven increase in body temp Medscape: Medscape Access

many on this site are trying to get their temperature up believing it is a good proxy for metabolism.

It may be a good proxy for metabolism, but definitely not a good proxy for health, since as seen above, pathologic states can and often increase the metabolic rate and /or temps.

In short, I think there are not that many adults today that truly have low TSH because of robust thyroid-driven metabolisms. I think a large number of people might have high body temperatures, high heart rates, and low TSH because of excess stress hormones. That's why it makes sense that studies are showing that these factors are associated with higher mortality.

I agree. Also, the high metabolism can be as well a consequence of high tissue damage which may or may not be accompanied by high stress hormones (damaged cells can easily become hyperactive and demonstrate excessive and inappropriate excitation/stimulation).

- Thyroid hormones increase inflammation and oxidative stress.

This may be good or bad, depending on context.

- "inflammation (and T Cell proliferation) is closely tied to metabolism (the production of energy). This means the higher our metabolism, the more inflammation we experience."

This is not always true. There can be high metabolism+immunosuppression and there can be high metabolism+proinflammatory state. There can also be robust/capable immune system+good health, as well as a suppressed inflammatory immunity+profibrotic antiinflammatory immunity+bad health state.

Capable pro-inflmmatory immunity does not equal bad
Immunosuppresion does not equal good
"Anti-inflammatory" immunity can also harm tissues
High metabolism does not imply either proinflammatory capability/activity or immunosuppression
High metabolism does not equal bad nor good.

It all depends.

- "mTOR, which increases metabolism, also increases our immune system and inflammation."

Again, this is not always bad or always good. It depends on the why's and the how's.

 

[lollipop]

I get more and more the impression that most apparent contradictions brought up in this thread and many others on metabolic rate and thyroid function (is more = better?) arise from assuming thyroid function equals metabolic rate, and assuming that high metabolic rate equals better cellular/body function. None of those equivalences are true. One could have hypermetabolism and low thyroid function simultaneously. Also one could be hypermetabolic due to very poor tissue health/chronic injury.

1. Higher metabolic rate/Hypermetabolism can coexist with hypothyroidism. This is because there are hormones other than thyroid that can increase the metabolic rate; these are the hormones typically associated with the stress response: cortisol, adrenaline, etc. As Broda Barnes said, "corticosteroids.... raise metabolism a little and do so independently of the thyroid. But, of far greater significance, they depress thyroid function." Therefore, it would be no paradox that higher BMR may sometimes be associated with poor health if this is due to chronic high stress hormones and the induced hypothyroidism. It can be perfectly possible.

2. Hypermetabolism is frequently seen in people whose bodies are in an almost out-of-control or chronic state of body injury. This is commonly due to ongoing infections, trauma, etc. For example, burns and brain trauma can induce an increase in metabolic rate even to the point of hypermetabolism . Chronic irritation due to infections and the subsequent tissue damage can do it as well. According to William Koch, there can also be hypermetabolism that is induced by hyperthyroidsm that is induced by an energy-starved tissue somewhere in the body. The high metabolic rate here is a consequence of the damaged tissues, therefore can be correlated with bad health. Therefore, no paradox there.

The following is by W. Koch's book The survival factor in viral and neoplastic diseases, pages 43 and 257. He illustrates a case of high production of thyroid hormones and explains it out as the body intentionally trying to force an energy-starved tissue to use energy. He sees -at least in the cases described- an elevated BMR as an indicator of "the inability to use the energy of ATP".

View attachment 4352 View attachment 4353 View attachment 4354


NOTE: None of what has been mentioned above should be taken to mean that hypometabolism or the extreme opposite things are therefore good. While there are people (as explained above) whose bodies get increased metabolism/hypermetabolism from stresses such as infections, trauma, chronically energy-starved tissues, etc..., there are also people whose bodies respond the opposite way: they become hypometabolic, low production of stress hormones, low production of energy, etc..., from a chronic stress situation. I see the latter (hypometabolism) is frequently an adaptive measure to help this person's body break down less fast when facing the threat of complete body breakdown (I believe that an adaptive hypometabolic response is what happens in Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/CFS), because sustaining a high metabolism rooted in pathological reasons breaks down and threatens the organs much more and faster than turning on adaptive mechanisms such as adaptive hypometabolism does.

The take home point of all that metabolic rate, either low or high, can be a consequence of pathological states, and oftentimes a person with the pathologically high fares worse than the pathologically low.


As mentioned above, and according to Broda Barnes, stress hormones can genuinely increase metabolism. This paper also illustrates that fact: both the metabolic rate is increased and there can be a CNS-driven increase in body temp Medscape: Medscape Access

It may be a good proxy for metabolism, but definitely not a good proxy for health, since as seen above, pathologic states can and often increase the metabolic rate and /or temps.



I agree. Also, the high metabolism can be as well a consequence of high tissue damage which may or may not be accompanied by high stress hormones (damaged cells can easily become hyperactive and demonstrate excessive and inappropriate excitation/stimulation).


This may be good or bad, depending on context.

This is not always true. There can be high metabolism+immunosuppression and there can be high metabolism+proinflammatory state. There can also be robust/capable immune system+good health, as well as a suppressed inflammatory immunity+profibrotic antiinflammatory immunity+bad health state.

Capable pro-inflmmatory immunity does not equal bad
Immunosuppresion does not equal good
"Anti-inflammatory" immunity can also harm tissues
High metabolism does not imply either proinflammatory capability/activity or immunosuppression
High metabolism does not equal bad nor good.

It all depends.



Again, this is not always bad or always good. It depends on the why's and the how's.

@PakPik you are back I missed your AWESOME posts. Again this one is amazing
:-D

 

[PakPik]

Thank you @lisaferraro , I'm glad you found the info interesting. :)

 

[Mito]

I get more and more the impression that most apparent contradictions brought up in this thread and many others on metabolic rate and thyroid function (is more = better?) arise from assuming thyroid function equals metabolic rate, and assuming that high metabolic rate equals better cellular/body function.

So are you saying that to make the claim that a "higher metabolic rate equals better cellular/body function", (which is my understanding of Peat's philosophy), we first need to qualify it by assuming no trauma, infections, etc. and low/normal stress hormones?

Isn't the ultimate goal (according to Peat) to attain "complete cellular respiration" and run it as fast as possible? This then provides the cells with the energy they need to do whatever their specific function (immune, digestion, nerve, muscle,etc.) is supposed to be?

Definition of "complete cellular respiration" being what is depicted in figure below:

Or am I not understanding what Peat is saying correctly?

 

[Queequeg]

So are you saying that to make the claim that a "higher metabolic rate equals better cellular/body function", (which is my understanding of Peat's philosophy), we first need to qualify it by assuming no trauma, infections, etc. and low/normal stress hormones?

Isn't the ultimate goal (according to Peat) to attain "complete cellular respiration" and run it as fast as possible? This then provides the cells with the energy they need to do whatever their specific function (immune, digestion, nerve, muscle,etc.) is supposed to be?

Definition of "complete cellular respiration" being what is depicted in figure below:

View attachment 4366

Or am I not understanding what Peat is saying correctly?

I would just add that Ray also believes that increased metabolism leads to lower ROS production due to a shift towards uncoupled mitochondrial oxidation. This is seen in small animals but I am unaware of this being shown to be the case for humans. I would be curious to know @PakPik's thoughts on this as well.

 

[PakPik]

So are you saying that to make the claim that a "higher metabolic rate equals better cellular/body function", (which is my understanding of Peat's philosophy), we first need to qualify it by assuming no trauma, infections, etc. and low/normal stress hormones?

Yeah, that essentially follows from the evidence I shared: many assumptions need to be made beforehand for that claim to be true.

Isn't the ultimate goal (according to Peat) to attain "complete cellular respiration" and run it as fast as possible? This then provides the cells with the energy they need to do whatever their specific function (immune, digestion, nerve, muscle,etc.) is supposed to be?

Definition of "complete cellular respiration" being what is depicted in figure below:

***Note: when I say Complete/Incomplete respiration it means Complete/Incomplete use of the whole respiratory-oxidative apparatus (which includes Oxidative Phosphorylation). Uncoupled respiration is in that sense Incomplete***

For Mr. Peat attaining good cellular respiration is "the" fundamental goal, right? The problem is that he doesn't always seem to define cellular respiration the way you just did. When he says "the system can run as fast as he wants... oxidizing at full speed", is he pointing to your definition of cellular respiration that uses the whole of the respiratory apparatus, or is he pointing to another definition, i.e an incomplete cellular respiration? or does it not matter to him if it's complete or not?

Well, from the Peat quote you shared (here The Benefits Of Decreased Thyroid Function) it seems he basically considers fast oxidation a good thing, regardless of where this fast oxidation comes from (i.e it doesn't matter if it comes from the incomplete, uncoupled respiration or the complete respiration like that you've defined). He also says there that uncoupled/incomplete respiration is good because it produces much less free radicals. So for Peat, fast oxidation of fuel is the goal, and it doesn't matter if the mechanism is complete or incomplete respiration (in fact he speaks highly of uncoupled respiration, which is incomplete).

I don't know much about biochemistry (please, not too technical questions for me ), but it doesn't sit well with me to kinda throw complete and incomplete respiration in the same bag -they are way too different-. We can't make generalizations without taking into account their differences (they have different whys and hows). In fact, when reading Koch it soon becomes evident that he considers complete respiration optimal, it basically equals cellular health (that is, complete respiration of fuel -i.e through the use of the complete respiratory apparatus- is a characteristic of healthy cells, and restoring complete respiration in a sick cell restores its health). Conversely, Koch considers incomplete respiration both a cause and a consequence of cellular pathology, whether this incompleteness is due to inducers of uncoupling or any other kind of blocks in the respiratory steps. He also sees the formation of free radicals as a very important, absolutely necessary feature of "oxidations of the highest quality". There are several disagreements with Peat already.

Moreover, the energizing of the cell is a multiple step process according to Koch. Let us call it the "Cellular Energization Process". It has 3 steps: We first have to produce energy, then transport it and finally the cell has to accept or use it. The bottom line is it doesn't suffice to produce energy, even tons of it if the tissues can't use it, or even worse, if the increase in energy production is a reaction to a block in energy use in tissues then this increase is invariably due to pathological reasons and itself becomes pathological due to the massive breakdown it causes in the person while still failing to energize the tissues (<------ perfect illustration of pathological high metabolism or BMR).

Understanding the "steps" will hopefully clarify what I just mentioned

[NOTE: Koch is specifically talking about humans; according to him, for organisms such as bacteria and little animals this is different]

Steps of the human "Cellular Energization Process"

Step 1: Energy production by the following systems
a. A lower quality energy producing system (The Krebs cycle). According to Koch, the Krebs cycle is of far less efficiency compared to what he calls "The High Efficiency Process (see "b."). The O/R potential provided by the Krebs/TCA cycle isn't powerful enough to guarantee the integrity of a human cell and doesn't offer protection in the face of pathogenic/environmental challenges. According to Koch, too much reliance on the Krebs cycle "supports" the development of pathologies in the cell.

b. A higher quality energy producing system. This would be the complete respiratory apparatus of the human cell. I suspect he is specifically referring to the Electron Transport Chain plus the Oxidative Phosphorylation occurring there, or at the very least the ETC, including Oxidative Phosphorylation, makes part of that system -he didn't use this term since the ETC was just discovered in the 1961 [EDIT: I realized he indeed mentioned the ETC in his 1961 book, page 289]. As mentioned previously, this higher quality oxidation system has the production of free radicals as a main feature -a characteristic of the ETC with Oxidative Phosphorylation-. Moreover, the high O/R potential provided by the complete respiratory apparatus is compatible with maintaining excellent functioning of the human cell and defending them against pathogenic/environmental challenges.

Step 2: Energy transport

This concerns the transport of the ATP molecule within the cell, from one site to another.

Step 3: Energy acceptance and use by the Energy acceptance system

Step 3 includes at least the following:

- Acceptance of energy (i.e ATP) by the Functional Carbonyl Groups (FCGs) of the Energy Accepting System. One such Functional Carbonyl Group condenses with the amine of the ATP molecule (thus "accepts" it).
- Liberation of (chemical) energy from the Hydrolysis of ATP to ADP by ATP-ase. There's some info on Wikipedia: ATP hydrolysis - Wikipedia​

Here he refers to the doors of this system as "the FCG [functional carbonyl groups] of energy acceptance"

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

It's evident that an increase of energy production by itself is meaningless to Koch. It is BOTH the production and actual usage/acceptance of energy that matters. So increasing the metabolism through uncoupling or any other mechanism of incomplete respiration may seem therapeutic for a human being temporarily, but in reality according to Koch's explanations it eventually intensifies and perpetuates the energy problem since it doesn't engage the "high quality" oxidative apparatus and such apparatus is CRUCIAL for the REAL energization of the cell to take place (free radicals and all). This real energization takes place when Step1+Step2+Step3 are satisfied. Anything blocking the "High quality energy producing system" (Step1) at any point or blocking the "Energy acceptance system" (Step3) from receiving the energy would therefore be pathological to the cell. If any kind of block happens then the body may ramp up a "reactive response" in order to increase energy production (which increases the metabolic rate), such as Koch nicely sums up:

​

And finally, this is how bad it can get for a patient when this reactive response gets out of control:

​

I can't prove if Koch was right or wrong but what he says makes sense and is coherent with what I've read and analysed so far.

My big conclusion so far, inspired by Koch et. al:

High metabolism means good health when it is a consequence of healthy cells thriving (i.e cells able to meet without blockage Step1+Step2+Step3 of the energization process); High metabolism is pathological when it is a reactive response by the body due to unhealthy cells dying of energy starvation (i.e cells that fail to meet any of the steps). ​

******All the quotes by Koch were taken from the book The Survival Factor In Neoplastic and Viral Diseases

I would just add that Ray also believes that increased metabolism leads to lower ROS production due to a shift towards uncoupled mitochondrial oxidation. This is seen in small animals but I am unaware of this being shown to be the case for humans. I would be curious to know @PakPik's thoughts on this as well.

Koch views uncoupling as a no-no for a human (please see my response to the gentleman above) . He makes a big distinction between humans and other creatures. I like his explanations, and although I am no expert, they make sense to me and are coherent with what I've read/observed so far. He also is said to have had a huge rate of cures and improvements in patients, so he was onto something.

 

[Queequeg]

Koch views uncoupling as a no-no for a human (please see my response to the gentleman above) . He makes a big distinction between humans and other creatures. I like his explanations, and although I am no expert, they make sense to me and are coherent with what I've read/observed so far. He also is said to have had a huge rate of cures and improvements in patients, so he was onto something.

That is my understanding too. I think many people who have sub clinical hypothyroidism or low metabolism would benefit from bumping up their metabolism but I haven't found any evidence that this should be taken as generic advice for everyone. The papers which RP cites for his idea that increasing metabolism is beneficial because of increased uncoupling were based on rodents or other small animals. Their metabolic requirements are very different than ours due to their need to generate more body heat per gram and therefore uncoupling is an adaptive trait. I think uncoupling in humans i.e. inefficient metabolism is not an adaptive trait for healthy humans but as you say may signal that something else is wrong in the body.

 

[Mito]

The problem is that he doesn't always seem to define cellular respiration the way you just did. When he says "the system can run as fast as he wants... oxidizing at full speed", is he pointing to your definition of complete cellular respiration, or is he pointing to another definition, i.e an incomplete cellular respiration? or does it not matter to him if it's complete or not?

Ray talks a lot about the production of carbon dioxide being a very important part of the cellular respiration process for maximal health. In his writings he talks about the "carbon dioxide producing energy-efficient state." Maybe Ray's definition would include cellular mitochondrial respiration that produces the maximum amount of carbon dioxide (and minimal lactic acid)? I'm not sure how that fits in with Koch's ideas?

He also says there that uncoupled/incomplete respiration is good because it produces much less free radicals.

Ray does say that but it seems to be because of the carbon dioxide production (and PUFA reduction).
"When mitochondria are “uncoupled,” they produce more carbon dioxide than normal, and the mitochondria produce fewer free radicals." "One effect of the high rate of oxidation of the uncoupled mitochondria is that they can eliminate polyunsatured fatty acids that might otherwise be integrated into tissue structures, or function as inappropriate regulatory signals." (Protective CO2 and aging.)

It's evident that an increase of energy production by itself is meaningless to Koch. It is BOTH the production and actual usage/acceptance of energy that matters.

Does Ray talk about this step (energy "acceptance and use")?

If any kind of block happens then the body may ramp up a "reactive response" in order to increase energy production (which increases the metabolic rate)

How can we determine if our metabolism is increasing to compensate for a blockage in one of the of steps in the cellular respiration process?

 

[PakPik]

Ray talks a lot about the production of carbon dioxide being a very important part of the cellular respiration process for maximal health. In his writings he talks about the "carbon dioxide producing energy-efficient state." Maybe Ray's definition would include cellular mitochondrial respiration that produces the maximum amount of carbon dioxide (and minimal lactic acid)? I'm not sure how that fits in with Koch's ideas?

Ray does say that but it seems to be because of the carbon dioxide production (and PUFA reduction).
"When mitochondria are “uncoupled,” they produce more carbon dioxide than normal, and the mitochondria produce fewer free radicals." "One effect of the high rate of oxidation of the uncoupled mitochondria is that they can eliminate polyunsatured fatty acids that might otherwise be integrated into tissue structures, or function as inappropriate regulatory signals." (Protective CO2 and aging.)

I'm relatively new to Koch. I learned about him from Peat, and Peat speaks highly of him. This is what I understand so far:

While I haven't read every single article by Mr. Peat, I have read many of them and I have listened to most interviews to get the clear idea that his physiological goal is maximizing CO2 production through mitochondrial oxidative metabolism. But when he talks about "fast oxidation" he is O.K with whether the mechanism for it is the higher quality oxidation from the complete respiratory apparatus (the one that includes the Electron transport chain + oxidative phosphorylation) or from a lower quality oxidation from an incomplete apparatus (in fact Peat talks very positively regarding uncoupling, he seems to favor it because CO2 is greater there than in complete apparatus respiration).

From my previous post, it's evident that's a huge incompatibility with Koch. Koch is not concerned by how much of a fast oxidizer a person is but if the cells are actually being energized. A full, "high quality oxidation" process, where there's zero block in any part of the respiratory apparatus is a requisite for this real energization. If Peat favors the uncoupled state -which it's clear to me he does-, then he is favoring what Koch called the "lower quality energy producing system", which in Koch's world is both a cause and a consequence of serious problems with cellular energization and cellular health. Any favoring of uncoupling will inevitably lead to more and more reliance on the TCA (a.k.a Krebs) cycle, which is Koch's "lower quality producing system".

For Koch, the taking over of energy production by the Krebs TCA Cycle -again, which uncoupling leads to- means bad news. Let's remember what Koch said: the Krebs TCA cycle is a "highly inefficient" process, "nicely adapted to the lower forms of life", but for a human a reliance on it "supports viral and neoplastic processes".

Moreover, the uncoupling effect (by Nitrophenol, at least as explained by Koch) is brought by a blockage in the "energy acceptance system".

So, uncoupling satisfies both these:

(a) It is due to a blockage in one of the energization steps (in the case of nitrophenol it is Step3, i.e the energy acceptance system of the cellular energization process)
(b) It causes a progressive reliance on the Krebs TCA cycle for production of energy (i.e ATP)​

But both (a) and (b) are pathological for Koch, both are causes and consequences of cellular disease. So, no, relying on uncoupled metabolism is not healthy for a human according to Koch.

Regarding lactate minimization. That's a clear goal for both Peat and Koch. Peat's favored uncoupled respiration -evidently pathological in Koch's view-, is said to minimize lactate. Koch's favored "high quality oxidation", which uses the complete respiratory apparatus, is basically incompatible with lactic acid production, since according to Koch fermentation is a low grade process that is activated when oxidation of fuel is hindered in particular by a block in the FCG (functional carbonyl group) [EDIT: this is assuming the glycolytic system is functioning well; in some rare instances it doesn't, hindering lactate production]. So, the real energization of a cell will minimize lactic acid production.

The question is: Is the -presumed- lowering of lactate by uncoupled mitochondrial respiration able to make up for all of its associated problems? From what I see, probably not -and definitely not according to Koch-.

Regarding high CO2. I haven't read Koch advocate high CO2 as a goal explicitly, but a cell that performs in "high quality oxidation" mode should produce an healthy abundance of it. No problem with CO2 production there. So I don't see anything wrong in that respect regarding complete apparatus oxidation.

If it comes from uncoupled metabolism in humans, I'm not sure that huge amounts of CO2 are able to make up for its problematic nature of (as I explained above based on Koch). Is the high CO2 able to make up for all those pathological causes and consequences associated to uncoupled metabolism in humans? I can't prove it, but I gather from Koch's point of view, it won't.

Finally, high amounts of CO2 may have different meaning to little animals vs. humans. Effects in humans haven't been studied enough, as well.

Regarding PUFA reduction. In case uncoupling helps reduce the PUFAs, again, does that make up for its problematic nature in humans? Once again, I can't prove it, but it all points to that it can't. And PUFA are necessary for the cell in Koch's view -you wouldn't want to run out of a prudent amount of PUFAs-.

**NOTE**: please notice Koch worries about a reliance on uncoupled metabolism, he is not talking about any physiological low level of uncoupling that may occur in a healthy human.

[In case there's any doubt, here is a straight-forward explanation on how uncoupling tremendously increases the TCA (a.k.a Krebs) cycle:]

Does Ray talk about this step (energy "acceptance and use")?

I've never come across anything suggesting that by Peat. He is very concerned about oxidizing at full speed (i.e high energy production, regardless of it being low or high quality, in fact seemingly favoring Koch's "low quality energy production system" type), but he hasn't talked to my knowledge that there must be an acceptance of energy for this to be meaningful. I get the impression he equates fast oxidation of fuel to the whole energization of the cell, but if there's anything to suggest that's not the case, please let me know.

Honestly, I was quite surprised at Koch's explanations of cell energization, and in case he is right, it fills a lot of holes in my understanding and help me explain many of the apparent paradoxes and endless debates on metabolism, etc...

How can we determine if our metabolism is increasing to compensate for a blockage in one of the of steps in the cellular respiration process?

Really important question. My educated guess would be that if one could measure in a lab how reliant the metabolism is on the Krebs TCA cycle vs. Oxidative Phosphorylation (which basically would reflect the degree of uncoupling and of low quality oxidation, low cellular health status) then one could determine whether the high metabolism comes from pathology or not. I bet there are lab tests that would measure metabolites to give an idea of that. As I said before: for Koch, a reliance on the Krebs TCA cycle (which is a natural consequence of uncoupling) indicates poor energization of the tissues.

 

[AJC]

@PakPik

Very cool and interesting posts. In one of the quotes Koch says something to the effect that the pathogens/microbes are "burned up" in full and proper cellular oxidation, just the same way that our fuel substrates are. To me this is saying that it is not our immune system that is destroying the microbes, but our mitochondria through respiration. Did you find any other quotes regarding this aspect of cellular respiration, and is this your understanding of what he was saying as well?

 

[PakPik]

@PakPik

Very cool and interesting posts. In one of the quotes Koch says something to the effect that the pathogens/microbes are "burned up" in full and proper cellular oxidation, just the same way that our fuel substrates are. To me this is saying that it is not our immune system that is destroying the microbes, but our mitochondria through respiration. Did you find any other quotes regarding this aspect of cellular respiration, and is this your understanding of what he was saying as well?

Hi AJC,
Yes indeed, that's what's proposed and explained in that book. The problem is that the needed respiration is not "any" cellular respiration, but specifically the one meeting all the steps of the cellular energization process, which includes an intact, fully functioning respiratory apparatus and an unhindered energy acceptance system. Humans no longer have those systems intact and always running optimally, and also, the more we age and/or the more toxic exposures we have -he gives special relevance to toxic amines-, the more "blocks" to that process accumulate and integrate inside the cells energization systems. IF Koch is right, then that leads me to believe that the immune system as we know it (white blood cells, etc) is (ideally) sort of the back up plan for dealing with pathogenic influences and insults, and I venture to say it has become the "main" one since our body system and the planet, shall I say, have gotten more and more perturbed with each passing generation.

 

[BigYellowLemon]

Sure, at least much better than I used to feel back circa 2009 - 2011. Working 12 hours a day vs not being able to do much beyond staring at the screen of a computer for a few hours is probably the best indicator. Not that working 12 hours a day is healthy, so that needs to change as well but sometimes we don't have much choice when supporting family is involved.

What do you usually eat nowadays, still low-fat? Your ESR level was insane, 0 is like a newborn baby. Does eating any fat mess with your blood tests?

Wish your family the best.

 

[mayweatherking]

What do you usually eat nowadays, still low-fat? Your ESR level was insane, 0 is like a newborn baby. Does eating any fat mess with your blood tests?

Wish your family the best.

0 esr level... respect, jesus christ.

 

[mayweatherking]

Some B vitamins and Vitamin K/D daily, vitamin E (weekly), pregnenolone/progesterone/DHEA/androsterone (as needed). Methylene blue at dose 1mg before bed, but I often forget to take it. On the weeks when I think I have not been taking much MB, I take aspirin twice a week at a dose of 1g. No thyroid unless feeling dire need for it. Some cyproheptadine or metergoline if feeling exhausted or about to come down with some "bug" (pretty much same with thyroid and often I take one or the other but not both). That's pretty much it.

can you explain the reasoning for cyprohepadine and/or thyroid if you come down with a "bug"? i also believe i am dealing with the same as of recently. (flu like symptoms, obviously endotoxin i'm thinking from what i read on your thread on flu being endotoxin), but I say so because I'm surprised you didn't mention anti biotics here.

 

[haidut]

can you explain the reasoning for cyprohepadine and/or thyroid if you come down with a "bug"? i also believe i am dealing with the same as of recently. (flu like symptoms, obviously endotoxin i'm thinking from what i read on your thread on flu being endotoxin), but I say so because I'm surprised you didn't mention anti biotics here.

As I posted in a few past threads, cyproheptadine is a potent anti-viral capable of stopping even Ebola, HIV and rabies viruses. Also, it is a serotonin and endotoxin antagonist, and soemtimes what we think is he flu is simply reaction to endotoxin. So, it seems to cover all/most bases for symptoms of a "bug", which can be a virus or bacterial "bug" endotoxin release.

 

[PakPik]

That is my understanding too. I think many people who have sub clinical hypothyroidism or low metabolism would benefit from bumping up their metabolism but I haven't found any evidence that this should be taken as generic advice for everyone. The papers which RP cites for his idea that increasing metabolism is beneficial because of increased uncoupling were based on rodents or other small animals. Their metabolic requirements are very different than ours due to their need to generate more body heat per gram and therefore uncoupling is an adaptive trait. I think uncoupling in humans i.e. inefficient metabolism is not an adaptive trait for healthy humans but as you say may signal that something else is wrong in the body.

Thanks for your input. There's truth to what you say. Regarding thyroid, even Broda Barnes said in his hypothyroidism book that thyroid medication was not a cure all, and that it was not what everyone needed. I totally agree that there shouldn't be any generic advice regarding thyroid. Many people do get worse with it. I believe the person's history and current physiological state should be taken into account when deciding on metabolic interventions, and I believe keeping in mind Koch's postulates and observations would be helpful in doing that -I find his approach focused on targeting and correcting root causes that avoids a high fake-energy state sensible.

 

[Drareg]

Thanks for your input. There's truth to what you say. Regarding thyroid, even Broda Barnes said in his hypothyroidism book that thyroid medication was not a cure all, and that it was not what everyone needed. I totally agree that there shouldn't be any generic advice regarding thyroid. Many people do get worse with it. I believe the person's history and current physiological state should be taken into account when deciding on metabolic interventions, and I believe keeping in mind Koch's postulates and observations would be helpful in doing that -I find his approach focused on targeting and correcting root causes that avoids a high fake-energy state sensible.

The enzymes around thyroid have little known about them,deiodinase, there are studies on here about them.
It seems like they are expressed by other means not just thyroid,if you have over expression of one of the enzymes it would make supplementation hit and miss,I haven't found evidence of T3 correcting them entirely.
Why the over expression? Enzyme expression is still hugely complex.

Quick introduction on the gospel of Wikipedia.
Deiodinase - Wikipedia

 

[PakPik]

The enzymes around thyroid have little known about them,deiodinase, there are studies on here about them.
It seems like they are expressed by other means not just thyroid,if you have over expression of one of the enzymes it would make supplementation hit and miss,I haven't found evidence of T3 correcting them entirely.
Why the over expression? Enzyme expression is still hugely complex.

Quick introduction on the gospel of Wikipedia.
Deiodinase - Wikipedia

Hi Dareg,
I am very aware of the issue of enzymes, but whatever happens with them (either increase or decrease in expression) is a result of a more fundamental problem/issue. My comments are tackling those more fundamental issues. The subject the gentlemen and I were discussing was how high metabolic rate (either by thyroid or otherwise) can be both a cause and consequence of serious cellular damage in certain physiological states. You may check out the entire conversation and explanations starting here : The Benefits Of Decreased Thyroid Function

 

[mayweatherking]

As I posted in a few past threads, cyproheptadine is a potent anti-viral capable of stopping even Ebola, HIV and rabies viruses. Also, it is a serotonin and endotoxin antagonist, and soemtimes what we think is he flu is simply reaction to endotoxin. So, it seems to cover all/most bases for symptoms of a "bug", which can be a virus or bacterial "bug" endotoxin release.

yes... i agree with you... i developed flu like symptoms last week and i remember your thread about endotoxin causing the flu.. I tested it by eating a bomboo shoots salad with salt and vinegar.. and it worked by lowering my sinus pressure.. although, it was not potent enough to get rid of it which is understandable.. the symptoms returned in probably an hr or two


Didn't know that about Cypro though.. very interesting