"Higher Metabolism, Temperature And Pulse And Lower TSH Associated With Higher Mortality"

DaveFoster

Member
Joined
Jul 23, 2015
Messages
5,027
Location
Portland, Oregon
I'm pretty certain countries that favor substantial dairy intake over countries that don't are going to be consuming higher amounts of calcium. The only other decent source is bone-in fish. Greens would need to be eaten in substantial amounts to equal dairy calcium intake. Bone broth in fact contains very little calcium. It's pretty well established that some of the countries with the highest dairy consumption have the highest osteoporosis. That in itself doesn't mean dairy is to blame, but something is clearly very wrong with these diets, and low osteoporosis rates can be found with lower calcium consumption, meaning other factors are probably more important that total calcium intake (hormones, vitamin k2, magnesium, antinutrients, etc). Considering the problems excessive calcium intake can cause, I'd rather focus on the other factors, which I think are more likely the problem.
Of course calcium isn't the only factor, but that sounds like China study logic; just because French people use butter, and they're not fat doesn't mean anything one way or another.

There's issues with the casein protein (A1 vs A2); there's issues with the estrogen in the milkfat (which probably harms bones contrary to popular opinion); there's a dozen other metabolic factors that apply to most developed nations (pollution, prescription drug use, water fluoridation, mineral depletion, PUFA intake, lack of activity or excessive cardiovascular exercise, psychological stress, aging populations).

Almost all calcium studies show positive effects on bone, so if you want to argue against dairy, then that's another story, but calcium is generally protective.
 

Queequeg

Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2016
Messages
1,191
I mean't TSH and using formulas and charts to convert BMR to Kcal. instead of using oxygen consumption which the study didn't mention it's measurements.
And you say I am not reading the studies? “Participants were housed on a ward and underwent indirect calorimetry in fasting, resting state for the two following mornings between 7:00 and 9:00 AM in a temperature-controlled room. BMR was estimated from basal O2 consumption and CO2 production measured by the open-circuit method described by Shock and Yiengst (25) and Tzankoff and Norris (26).” High Basal Metabolic Rate Is a Risk Factor for Mortality: The Baltimore Longitudinal Study of Aging
If TSH isn't an accurate measurement of thyroid function for the individual how would it be an accurate measurement for a large scale study ? This is a ridiculous argument.
Its not ridiculous at all. Say TSH has a 10 or 20% inaccuracy. This would not dramatically change the outcome of the study but would greatly affect an individual who is one of the 10%. In additionmost of the studies used FT3 and FT4 measures as well.
No offense but when I look at a scientific study those things aren't the determining factors of me deciding whether a study is questionable or not.
If you think the 50 year long 1200 subject Baltimore Study is worthless then I am not sure what study would ever meet your high standards. Again could it be that the main “determining factor” you are using is whether or not the results fit your beliefs.
So if the higher BMR participants were significantly younger than the lower BMR participants. And the study explicitly stated as people get older their BMR decreases. Then how do we known that those who had a higher BMR didn't die later in life with a lower BMR ? I believe the mean age for the highest BMR was 49 and a half. But the mean age for the lowest BMR was 63 years. Thats a 14 year difference. Meaning that when they died they were probably significantly older than 49 years of age, therefore with a lower BMR when measured for the study.
High Basal Metabolic Rate Is a Risk Factor for Mortality: The Baltimore Longitudinal Study of Aging
That's not how a longitudinal study works.
thanks for proving my point
Not sure what your point is or why you are only focusing on metabolism. Ray is recommending that changes in all four metrics, metabolism, body temp, TSH, and heart rate would lead to better health outcomes. The evidence says otherwise.
C:\Users\joe\AppData\Local\Temp\msohtmlclip1\01\clip_image001.gif

So what your saying is that you posting studies stating that calorie restriction caused longevity was not a remark to those people who try to increasing their metabolic rate and therefore have to sustain by eating more calories ?
No. I am saying that a known method for life extension causes the opposite effect on biomarkers than what Ray is recommending. From the Baltimore study “Recent studies in animal models suggest that caloric restriction increases life span and has beneficial effects on biological parameters that are recognized risk factors for mortality, such as insulin resistance and body temperature (1418). It is remarkable that in both animals and humans caloric restriction causes a reduction of BMR that is independent of changes in body composition (16,19,20). On the contrary, conditions characterized by pro-inflammatory status and immunological activation, which are strong predictors of mortality, are associated with an increased BMR attributable, at least in part, to bioenergetic dysregulation (21,22). Taken as a whole, these observations suggest that higher BMR may be associated with higher mortality.”
On one hand you state that you think it's curious that people have the most problems with research results they don't agree with . On the other had you state yourself that you are not going through the rest of the other criticisms because you didn't see anything that you would agree with. That's hypocritical.
That’s a logical fallacy.
No one is saying that all science is rigged. Peat has specifically stated that science has been ideological condition to fit into a paradigm that supports preconceived ideas. You posted obscure studies on how having a low metabolic rate is healthy. But did you bother to read any of them ? I In the introduction ( including the Baltimore longitudinal study the one you posted) they always reference the the mechanistic ideas of the rate-of-living theory by Raymond Pearl in which an organism has a predetermined energy expenditure.

This proves my argument that the scientific study you posted was questionable because it quotes Pearl in a way that made him look as if any of his ideas were scientific in nature rather than metaphysical.

In reality, you and the authors of the study are making the less scientific argument in this case. Due to the ideological undertones of your argument.
They were giving a history of the thinking behind the subject under investigation, something many studies do. They do not state they agree with it or not but rather let their data guide their conclusions. But by quoting one researcher you disagree with somehow proves your point? Now who’s being unscientific or ideological?
Speaking of uncoupling, do you know what substances increase mitochondrial uncoupling, Thyroid, aspirin, DNP all things that increase body temperature and metabolism.

So, by your own argument, the reason why Rodent research concludes that a higher metabolic rate is associated with a longer lifespan is due to mitochondria uncoupling. But the facts show that thyroid and aspirin increase mitochondria uncoupling proving Peat's argument that having a higher metabolic rate can cause a longer lifespan.
Another fallacy

Quoting from the peatarian

“Having a higher metabolic rate, temperature or pulse or a TSH below 0.45 is associated with increased all-cause mortality. The underlying cause of these association is unclear. High metabolism or suppressed TSH can be a consequence of stress and elevated stress hormones, but also of high thyroid hormone action. The biomarker studies suggest that a slightly suppressed thyroid function may be protective, especially in elderly people. This effect may or may not be explained by the nutrient-sparing effects of hypothyroidism in populations prone to malnutrition.

Given the lack of trials that show that increasing temperature and pulse by dietary measures or suppressing TSH with thyroid medication actually improves health, any broad recommendation to do should be stated in a careful manner. People need to be aware that they conduct a personal experiment when pursuing such hypotheses, especially when doing so for long periods of time.

All in all, it seems adequate to say that there is a narrow range between both hypo- and hypermetabolism that is associated with health in the long term.”
 
Last edited:

Peater Piper

Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2016
Messages
817
Of course calcium isn't the only factor, but that sounds like China study logic; just because French people use butter, and they're not fat doesn't mean anything one way or another.

There's issues with the casein protein (A1 vs A2); there's issues with the estrogen in the milkfat (which probably harms bones contrary to popular opinion); there's a dozen other metabolic factors that apply to most developed nations (pollution, prescription drug use, water fluoridation, mineral depletion, PUFA intake, lack of activity or excessive cardiovascular exercise, psychological stress, aging populations).

Almost all calcium studies show positive effects on bone, so if you want to argue against dairy, then that's another story, but calcium is generally protective.
What I'm saying is calcium seems a bit overrated in the scheme of things when the countries with the highest calcium intakes are still developing high rates of osteoporosis, and looking at dairy specifically is fair, because that's the major calcium source for many countries. If it's actually protecting those populations from even more substantial osteoporosis, then throwing more calcium at it isn't the answer, fixing the underlying problem is. None of this even gets into the other potential problems with supplemental calcium. There's safer options, imo.
 

Queequeg

Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2016
Messages
1,191
Why don't you experiment with subjective well-being? Does coffee make you feel good? It does for a lot of people, and it's directly thermogenic, raises dopamine, and opposes estrogen, all associated with higher oxygen consumption.

You can just look at the self-medication for something like coffee; older people drink more coffee, so they're self-medicating to raise their metabolic rate, but you don't need to tell them that. It feels good!

I'm not saying this proves anything, but it's something to keep in mind. The cornerstone of wisdom lies in observation.
In the words of Rick James, cocaine is a hell of a drug. It makes people feel good as well. Studies on n=1 only go so far.
 
Last edited:

Queequeg

Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2016
Messages
1,191
What I'm saying is calcium seems a bit overrated in the scheme of things when the countries with the highest calcium intakes are still developing high rates of osteoporosis, and looking at dairy specifically is fair, because that's the major calcium source for many countries. If it's actually protecting those populations from even more substantial osteoporosis, then throwing more calcium at it isn't the answer, fixing the underlying problem is. None of this even gets into the other potential problems with supplemental calcium. There's safer options, imo.
Ray spoke about this and mentioned that the dairy producing countries are mostly at higher latitudes with significantly less sunshine. Their low vitamin D levels are probably the reason that dairy isn't helping them so much
 

DaveFoster

Member
Joined
Jul 23, 2015
Messages
5,027
Location
Portland, Oregon
In the words of Charlie Murphy, cocaine is a hell of a drug. It makes people feel good as well. Studies on n=1 only go so far.
Cocaine doesn't have over one-hundred studies backing up its effectiveness as a cardioprotective, hypolipidemic, hepatoprotective, hypoglycemic, anticarcinogenic, antidepressive, ergogenic, cognitive enhancing, antiparkinson, anti-obesity, agent.
 

Queequeg

Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2016
Messages
1,191
Cocaine doesn't have over one-hundred studies backing up its effectiveness as a cardioprotective, hypolipidemic, hepatoprotective, hypoglycemic, anticarcinogenic, antidepressive, ergogenic, cognitive enhancing, antiparkinson, anti-obesity, agent.
My point wasn't about coffee, which I know is well studied, but rather to point out the obvious issues with your statement "Why don't you experiment with subjective well-being?" You need both subjective well being as well as scientific data. Its the scientific evidence for what Ray is recommending that I am asking for. I also personally didn't feel much difference when I was taking thyroid or worried about my body temperatures.
 

DaveFoster

Member
Joined
Jul 23, 2015
Messages
5,027
Location
Portland, Oregon
My point wasn't about coffee, which I know is well studied, but rather to point out the obvious issues with your statement "Why don't you experiment with subjective well-being?" You need both subjective well being as well as scientific data. Its the scientific evidence for what Ray is recommending that I am asking for. I also personally didn't feel much difference when I was taking thyroid or worried about my body temperatures.
I disclaimed that by saying it doesn't prove anything. Giving a thyroid supplement to someone with a very low TSH is a bad idea. All Peat's arguing is that the euthyroid range is slightly to the left of what the medical establishment thinks it is.

I can see your point; I think you're saying that a higher TSH has some protective effects later on in life. The "everything has a purpose" argument.

In reality, a huge hole in the "high TSH is better argument" has to do with the fact that high testosterone is associated with risk-taking, and a good thyroid will increase DHT and testosterone concentrations. I can just throw these kinds of arguments out there, but they don't really mean anything.

Also heart rate and temperature together is a proxy for oxygen consumption in the body.
 

Queequeg

Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2016
Messages
1,191
I disclaimed that by saying it doesn't prove anything. Giving a thyroid supplement to someone with a very low TSH is a bad idea. All Peat's arguing is that the euthyroid range is slightly to the left of what the medical establishment thinks it is.
Ray recommends trying to get TSH levels to below 0.4. I would say that is very low.
I can see your point; I think you're saying that a higher TSH has some protective effects later on in life. The "everything has a purpose" argument.
No, I am saying that I would like to see evidence from human trials that raising metabolism, heart rate, temperatures or thyroid function is good general advice. I have only seen solid evidence for the opposite approach.
 

DaveFoster

Member
Joined
Jul 23, 2015
Messages
5,027
Location
Portland, Oregon
No, I am saying that I would like to see evidence from human trials that raising metabolism, heart rate, temperatures or thyroid function is good general advice. I have only seen solid evidence for the opposite approach.
I don't think you're going to find lifelong epidemiological trials without co-morbidity.
 

Queequeg

Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2016
Messages
1,191
I don't think you're going to find lifelong epidemiological trials without co-morbidity.
not sure what you mean as every lifelong trial would have co-morbidities and confounding variables.
 

DaveFoster

Member
Joined
Jul 23, 2015
Messages
5,027
Location
Portland, Oregon
not sure what you mean as every lifelong trial would have co-morbidities and confounding variables.
Most do. Epidemiological studies aren't worthless, but their 'corrections' need to be scrutinized.
 

DaveFoster

Member
Joined
Jul 23, 2015
Messages
5,027
Location
Portland, Oregon
@Queequeg Here's a quote I found while reading one of Dr. Peat's articles.

Preventing and treating cancer with progesterone.

"Aging, infection, trauma, prolonged cortisol excess, somatostatin, dopamine or L-dopa, adrenaline (sometimes; Mannisto, et al., 1979), amphetamine, caffeine and fever can lower TSH, apart from the effect of feedback by the thyroid hormones, creating a situation in which TSH can appear normal or low, at the same time that there is a real hypothyroidism."

The article covers the erroneous approach of measuring thyroid function (and basal oxygen consumption) using only TSH. Studies that exclusively measure TSH to gauge thyroid function should be considered inadequate, regardless of their conclusions.
 

Queequeg

Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2016
Messages
1,191
@Queequeg Here's a quote I found while reading one of Dr. Peat's articles.

Preventing and treating cancer with progesterone.

"Aging, infection, trauma, prolonged cortisol excess, somatostatin, dopamine or L-dopa, adrenaline (sometimes; Mannisto, et al., 1979), amphetamine, caffeine and fever can lower TSH, apart from the effect of feedback by the thyroid hormones, creating a situation in which TSH can appear normal or low, at the same time that there is a real hypothyroidism."

The article covers the erroneous approach of measuring thyroid function (and basal oxygen consumption) using only TSH. Studies that exclusively measure TSH to gauge thyroid function should be considered inadequate, regardless of their conclusions.
I realize that TSH is not the best way to diagnose thyroid for an individual. You may happen to be one of the people where TSH doesn't correlate to thyroid function. However I don't think we can ignore these studies just because they didn't do an RP approved thyroid work-up. Many of the studies use FT3 and FT4 as well as TSH. The three tests, and I would argue the TSH test alone, are good enough to use as their errors do not add that much more to the studies overall margin of error.
 

Drareg

Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2016
Messages
4,772
:hahahaha
When I brought this subject up before, I felt as if I had walked through the looking glass or looked behind the curtain. There is an element of religious belief about this and if you dare question it you get attacked like what happened above.

I have seen little evidence that increasing thyroid hormone to get your TSH as low as possible, as RP recommends, is actually healthy for you. But I have seen a lot of evidence that it is fairly unhealthy for you. The same could be said for raising your temperatures and metabolism. The evidence in humans is that lower metabolisms and heart rates are associated with longer lifespans.

As far as the goal being an efficient metabolism, raising your temperatures and eating more is actually the sign of a less efficient metabolism.

Here is a thread were its been brought up before:
"Higher Metabolism, Temperature And Pulse And Lower TSH Associated With Higher Mortality"

You claim you get attacked when you are shown evidence for thyroid function increasing longevity,none of you who come here can take your studies being matched with studies and evidence to the contary,you then start with the cliches of "peat disciples" "dogmatic" etc.
The ridiculousness of yours and others that everybody needs to knock back thyroid to blow metabolism through the roof for longevity cause Ray Peat said so is the most cliched argument of the wannabe seen as geniuses that sign up here.
This is essentially what you and others do,read some studies and books that may contradict Peats work,come here and regurgitate them with little coherent narrative other than this says Peat is wrong even when it's clear as day many topics are not getting funded,the overall funding is going to "specific research"and the overall picture of cell physiology is not entirely clear,on top of that Peats views clearly evolve and leave room for change,with the tables clearly tilted in relation to studies funded you still get shown evidence that refutes your claims.
Its the same thing with basing arguments/studies on the premise of a certain belief on how a cell works,perceptions of many results are skewed because of this,look at the nonsense posted on here about cell permeability under the guise of "I'm refuting Peat" when Peat and many others bring the influence of measurements techniques of cell permeability into question and rightfully so.

You claim you've seen little evidence but you've seen some right?
How do you explain people who are living to old age with razor sharp minds that have good thyroid function? Peat takes thyroid by all accounts,can you explain why he is over 80, in good health and highly intelligent.

The "I'm a genius and smarter than Peat brigade" came here to highlight all the anecdotes of thyroid not working for so many,basing their strawmans against Peat on this evidence while ignoring the obvious success with the use of it.
What makes your comments and others even more ridiculous is that Peat is not saying heart rate has to specifically at a certain rate,he gave examples recently on this via email,I believe.

Never do any of you start a thread about why you think Peat is wrong and refute him,this is what cracks me up,all of you just hijack threads with random studies, somebody claimed to refute Peat recently and claimed this study he was posting would be ignored by the dogmatic Peat followers on here,the study was sponsored by pro PUFA companies.
:hahahaha
So please start your thread refuting Peats work and let his disciples question it.
 

DaveFoster

Member
Joined
Jul 23, 2015
Messages
5,027
Location
Portland, Oregon
:hahahaha

You claim you get attacked when you are shown evidence for thyroid function increasing longevity,none of you who come here can take your studies being matched with studies and evidence to the contary,you then start with the cliches of "peat disciples" "dogmatic" etc.
The ridiculousness of yours and others that everybody needs to knock back thyroid to blow metabolism through the roof for longevity cause Ray Peat said so is the most cliched argument of the wannabe seen as geniuses that sign up here.
This is essentially what you and others do,read some studies and books that may contradict Peats work,come here and regurgitate them with little coherent narrative other than this says Peat is wrong even when it's clear as day many topics are not getting funded,the overall funding is going to "specific research"and the overall picture of cell physiology is not entirely clear,on top of that Peats views clearly evolve and leave room for change,with the tables clearly tilted in relation to studies funded you still get shown evidence that refutes your claims.
Its the same thing with basing arguments/studies on the premise of a certain belief on how a cell works,perceptions of many results are skewed because of this,look at the nonsense posted on here about cell permeability under the guise of "I'm refuting Peat" when Peat and many others bring the influence of measurements techniques of cell permeability into question and rightfully so.

You claim you've seen little evidence but you've seen some right?
How do you explain people who are living to old age with razor sharp minds that have good thyroid function? Peat takes thyroid by all accounts,can you explain why he is over 80, in good health and highly intelligent.

The "I'm a genius and smarter than Peat brigade" came here to highlight all the anecdotes of thyroid not working for so many,basing their strawmans against Peat on this evidence while ignoring the obvious success with the use of it.
What makes your comments and others even more ridiculous is that Peat is not saying heart rate has to specifically at a certain rate,he gave examples recently on this via email,I believe.

Never do any of you start a thread about why you think Peat is wrong and refute him,this is what cracks me up,all of you just hijack threads with random studies, somebody claimed to refute Peat recently and claimed this study he was posting would be ignored by the dogmatic Peat followers on here,the study was sponsored by pro PUFA companies.
:hahahaha
So please start your thread refuting Peats work and let his disciples question it.
giphy.gif
 

Drareg

Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2016
Messages
4,772
As you can see below, it's not true that all the studies focused on TSH or only on old people. These studies looked at variety of independent variables and their effects on longevity, including basal metabolic rate, heart rate, temperature and TSH. All showed the opposite of what Ray is claiming.

As I tried to explain to @mayweatherking, science works best by looking at one independent variable at a time to see its effects on a selected dependent variable. If you had to control for every variable in a human study like he seems to suggest, you could never have any human trials. Luckily you don't have to as confounding variables are dealt with either statistically or by proper sample selection. And again, just because TSH can be manipulated by other means or isn't always the best diagnostic of thyroid does not mean it can't be used as a proper measure of thyroid function. It is still strongly correlated with thyroid function and so is properly used for scientific research on thryoid.
Ray makes a very unorthodox claim that higher metabolisms, higher heart rates, higher temperatures, and/or higher thyroid function are healthful yet no one can seem to provide any scientific evidence for this. If we are just going to take his word for it and reject any study that states otherwise, than we are no longer discussing science but are debating religious dogma.

Higher metabolism, temperature and pulse and lower TSH associated with higher mortality

"Ray makes a very unorthodox claim that higher metabolisms, higher heart rates, higher temperatures, and/or higher thyroid function are healthful yet no one can seem to provide any scientific evidence for this. If we are just going to take his word for it and reject any study that states otherwise, than we are no longer discussing science but are debating religious dogma".

Can you define what is "very orthodox" ? Would it be the current mainstream who recommend substances that boost serotonin levels with SSRI's without measuring blood levels of serotonin before hand?

Can you define what you construe as higher relative to what Peat is saying?
Are you serious with the comment about no scientific evidence for this? Because you use the term higher thyroid function there again......
We are not debating religious dogma,your debating your own projections,your hallucinating.

Most of the Centarians died shortly after those studies ,looked at from another angle you have proved what you are claiming is not the case! These centarians were progressively freezing,the progression to death was at its peak,these studies offer no indication of the centarians current state of health/Social class etc from what I see.

Even 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.

The first quote is the title which implies a certain result,the second quote then tells us being relative of centenarians qualified as an independent correlate of thyroid parameters because lower levels of FT3,FT4 and TSH were found in centerians children,nieces and nephews.
I would really need to se the rest of this study because I'm not sure if they have monitored the children and relatives of centerians up until they became centerians? Or is just still the 60-85 year olds?
What is an "oldest-old subject" is this a "scientific"term for older-older-no really old people? It's like a news editor came up with this headline or one of Mario draghi or Janet yellen central bank statements.
Where is the proof in this abstract of ft3 and ft4 levels negatively being associated with age? The study just measured centerians relatives thyroid levels.
"A cross-section analysis of FT3 age-related changes in a group of old and oldest-old subjects, including centenarians' relatives, shows that a down-regulated thyroid function has a familial component and is related to longevity."


"FT3 and FT4 levels were negatively associated with age. Lower levels of FT3, FT4 and TSH were found in centenarians' children and nieces/nephews with respect to age-matched controls. Indeed, being a relative of centenarians qualified as an independent correlate of thyroid parameters"
 

haidut

Member
Forum Supporter
Joined
Mar 18, 2013
Messages
19,798
Location
USA / Europe
"Ray makes a very unorthodox claim that higher metabolisms, higher heart rates, higher temperatures, and/or higher thyroid function are healthful yet no one can seem to provide any scientific evidence for this. If we are just going to take his word for it and reject any study that states otherwise, than we are no longer discussing science but are debating religious dogma".

Can you define what is "very orthodox" ? Would it be the current mainstream who recommend substances that boost serotonin levels with SSRI's without measuring blood levels of serotonin before hand?

Can you define what you construe as higher relative to what Peat is saying?
Are you serious with the comment about no scientific evidence for this? Because you use the term higher thyroid function there again......
We are not debating religious dogma,your debating your own projections,your hallucinating.

Most of the Centarians died shortly after those studies ,looked at from another angle you have proved what you are claiming is not the case! These centarians were progressively freezing,the progression to death was at its peak,these studies offer no indication of the centarians current state of health/Social class etc from what I see.

Even 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.

The first quote is the title which implies a certain result,the second quote then tells us being relative of centenarians qualified as an independent correlate of thyroid parameters because lower levels of FT3,FT4 and TSH were found in centerians children,nieces and nephews.
I would really need to se the rest of this study because I'm not sure if they have monitored the children and relatives of centerians up until they became centerians? Or is just still the 60-85 year olds?
What is an "oldest-old subject" is this a "scientific"term for older-older-no really old people? It's like a news editor came up with this headline or one of Mario draghi or Janet yellen central bank statements.
Where is the proof in this abstract of ft3 and ft4 levels negatively being associated with age? The study just measured centerians relatives thyroid levels.
"A cross-section analysis of FT3 age-related changes in a group of old and oldest-old subjects, including centenarians' relatives, shows that a down-regulated thyroid function has a familial component and is related to longevity."


"FT3 and FT4 levels were negatively associated with age. Lower levels of FT3, FT4 and TSH were found in centenarians' children and nieces/nephews with respect to age-matched controls. Indeed, being a relative of centenarians qualified as an independent correlate of thyroid parameters"

I would add to your points this thread below and also the fact that the American Endrocinology Society recently lowered the upper range of "normal" TSH from 6.5 down to 3. I doubt they did such a dramatic change of course just for kicks. There is a proposal to further lower that limit down to 2, which is what the thread below found to be the desired upper limit.
Optimal Levels Of TSH Are Much Lower Than Official Guidelines
 

Queequeg

Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2016
Messages
1,191
"Ray makes a very unorthodox claim that higher metabolisms, higher heart rates, higher temperatures, and/or higher thyroid function are healthful yet no one can seem to provide any scientific evidence for this. If we are just going to take his word for it and reject any study that states otherwise, than we are no longer discussing science but are debating religious dogma".

Can you define what is "very orthodox" ? Would it be the current mainstream who recommend substances that boost serotonin levels with SSRI's without measuring blood levels of serotonin before hand?

Can you define what you construe as higher relative to what Peat is saying?
Are you serious with the comment about no scientific evidence for this? Because you use the term higher thyroid function there again......
We are not debating religious dogma,your debating your own projections,your hallucinating.

Most of the Centarians died shortly after those studies ,looked at from another angle you have proved what you are claiming is not the case! These centarians were progressively freezing,the progression to death was at its peak,these studies offer no indication of the centarians current state of health/Social class etc from what I see.

Even 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.

The first quote is the title which implies a certain result,the second quote then tells us being relative of centenarians qualified as an independent correlate of thyroid parameters because lower levels of FT3,FT4 and TSH were found in centerians children,nieces and nephews.
I would really need to se the rest of this study because I'm not sure if they have monitored the children and relatives of centerians up until they became centerians? Or is just still the 60-85 year olds?
What is an "oldest-old subject" is this a "scientific"term for older-older-no really old people? It's like a news editor came up with this headline or one of Mario draghi or Janet yellen central bank statements.
Where is the proof in this abstract of ft3 and ft4 levels negatively being associated with age? The study just measured centerians relatives thyroid levels.
"A cross-section analysis of FT3 age-related changes in a group of old and oldest-old subjects, including centenarians' relatives, shows that a down-regulated thyroid function has a familial component and is related to longevity."


"FT3 and FT4 levels were negatively associated with age. Lower levels of FT3, FT4 and TSH were found in centenarians' children and nieces/nephews with respect to age-matched controls. Indeed, being a relative of centenarians qualified as an independent correlate of thyroid parameters"

Again, the best you can do is offer up some half baked criticisms of one or two of the several studies on the subject. I have asked for just one published paper that backs up what Ray is claiming and all you guys keep doing is nit picking at the many many studies that show the opposite. It’s funny how all the science is rigged or flawed when it doesn’t support your ideology but I bet you would be very happy to link to a high school science project if you agreed with its outcome. And by the way Jag didn’t refute anything but his own scientific background. And I guess by extension, now yours as well.
 
Last edited:

DaveFoster

Member
Joined
Jul 23, 2015
Messages
5,027
Location
Portland, Oregon
I am not arguing that subclinical hypothyroidism isn't a problem and that the endocrinologists know what they are doing. I am saying that there is no evidence that driving TSH down to 0.4 like Ray recommends is a good idea.

from the study
"Although limited in sample size, our findings demonstrate that a positive relationship exists between TSH and cortisol that is maintained down to a TSH level of 2.5 uIU/L (but not below)."
That's 1/1000 of 0.25 mIU/L, equal to 0.0025 mIU/L (the guideline for TSH). It's equal to a TSH of 0.0025, considered clinical hyperthyroidism as of Jan. 2017.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom