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

[Queequeg]

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.

I think they are using the micro symbol incorrectly
"Recent attention has been given to subclinical hypothyroidism, defined as an elevation of TSH (4.5-10 uIU/L) with T4 and T3 levels still within the normal range."

 

[DaveFoster]

I think they are using the micro symbol incorrectly
"Recent attention has been given to subclinical hypothyroidism, defined as an elevation of TSH (4.5-10 uIU/L) with T4 and T3 levels still within the normal range."

Looks like you're right there.

 

[Drareg]

Again, you haven't made one scientific argument or presented any evidence to support your case but instead seem content to throw out more ad hominem attacks and false claims. So, do you have anything that supports Ray’s recommendation to raise metabolism, heart rate, temp or thyroid or are you just going to keep calling me a “wannabe genius” and cawing "strawman"?

In the meantime, you may want to work on your rhetoric. Calling everything a strawman doesn't make it so. Also repeating assertions over and over without evidence is not an argument. As for your scientific mentor, Jag, I already addressed his “points” but for some strange reason, haven't heard back from him. The Benefits Of Decreased Thyroid Function. Seems like working on your reading comprehension may also be a good idea.

Take your responses to me and apply them to yourself, I mentioned earlier this exact behaviour is you creating strawman after strawman to dodge your contradictions and a lame attempt to maintain face,the "wannabe be seen as genius" face.
I mentioned earlier what Peat has said on heart rate,you ignore this and still assert a strawman about Peats views on heart rate.
I have asked for your definitions on high metabolism relative to Peats work,you ignore this.
I have asked you define "scientific evidence", it's a pretty ambiguous term when we look at the history of cholesterol,resveratrol,estrogen and your best friend serotonin,this list goes on full of "scientific evidence".
What you define as scientific evidence are quotes from the "abstraction" of studies on Pubmed,studies you know little about yet accept them to be 100% refutation of Peat. Several issues with those studies have been pointed out to you yet you ignore them.
Can you tell us why you view high TSH is good for longevity without a full description of overall health of subjects in the studies? In particular the study on 80 years olds who made it to 100+ can we get a description of their overall health and also the medication they were taking?
This is another issue you ignore,the medication centarians are taking will be guaranteed to elevate TSH,why don't the researchers state this?

For me taking the TSH levels of somebody after 100 and claiming its the reason for longevity when they die shortly after is similar to claiming high TSH can cure cancer because it was elevated,aging being the disease for the centenarian in this case.

You have also laid a claim to extrapolating animal research to humans is no good,a few others on here claimed the same thing ignoring the years of research on animals and then applying it to humans,see penicillin and the multitude of other discoveries first tested on animals,the stupidity of this argument ,wanting and only noting studies on humans while ignoring said substances were originally tested on animals and then we moved forward accordingly,soon enough by the above Logic we will have nothing to test.
the whole point of what I'm saying here will lost on you relative to what Peat was implying.
It's the equivalent of ignoring the canary in the coal mine because it's not human.....

The bottom line in all of this is,you have no clue what Peat is saying.
Answer the points put to you,you asserted points throughout this thread,if you had any argument to refute Peat start a thread on it,start a thread on centenarians.

 

[Queequeg]

Take your responses to me and apply them to yourself, I mentioned earlier this exact behaviour is you creating strawman after strawman to dodge your contradictions and a lame attempt to maintain face,the "wannabe be seen as genius" face.
I mentioned earlier what Peat has said on heart rate,you ignore this and still assert a strawman about Peats views on heart rate.
I have asked for your definitions on high metabolism relative to Peats work,you ignore this.
I have asked you define "scientific evidence", it's a pretty ambiguous term when we look at the history of cholesterol,resveratrol,estrogen and your best friend serotonin,this list goes on full of "scientific evidence".
What you define as scientific evidence are quotes from the "abstraction" of studies on Pubmed,studies you know little about yet accept them to be 100% refutation of Peat. Several issues with those studies have been pointed out to you yet you ignore them.
Can you tell us why you view high TSH is good for longevity without a full description of overall health of subjects in the studies? In particular the study on 80 years olds who made it to 100+ can we get a description of their overall health and also the medication they were taking?
This is another issue you ignore,the medication centarians are taking will be guaranteed to elevate TSH,why don't the researchers state this?

For me taking the TSH levels of somebody after 100 and claiming its the reason for longevity when they die shortly after is similar to claiming high TSH can cure cancer because it was elevated,aging being the disease for the centenarian in this case.

You have also laid a claim to extrapolating animal research to humans is no good,a few others on here claimed the same thing ignoring the years of research on animals and then applying it to humans,see penicillin and the multitude of other discoveries first tested on animals,the stupidity of this argument ,wanting and only noting studies on humans while ignoring said substances were originally tested on animals and then we moved forward accordingly,soon enough by the above Logic we will have nothing to test.
the whole point of what I'm saying here will lost on you relative to what Peat was implying.
It's the equivalent of ignoring the canary in the coal mine because it's not human.....

The bottom line in all of this is,you have no clue what Peat is saying.
Answer the points put to you,you asserted points throughout this thread,if you had any argument to refute Peat start a thread on it,start a thread on centenarians.

More huffing and puffing with not one study to support your arguments, just more faith based ideology and assertions. I already spent enough time responding to Jag's superficial criticisms of the studies and don't really see the need to do so with yours since they aren't much better.

What is clear, is that you have a fetish with calling everything you disagree with a strawman. I am not sure you even know what that means, because right after saying that you hit me with at least three in a row.

I have asked you define "scientific evidence", it's a pretty ambiguous term when we look at the history of cholesterol,resveratrol,estrogen and your best friend serotonin,this list goes on full of "scientific evidence".

“The history of cholesterol,resveratrol,estrogen” have nothing to do with what we are debating. Strawman 1

Can you tell us why you view high TSH is good for longevity without a full description of overall health of subjects in the studies?

I never said “high TSH is good for longevity.” I am stating that there is no evidence that driving TSH down to the levels Ray recommends (<.4) is justified. Strawman 2

You have also laid a claim to extrapolating animal research to humans is no good, a few others on here claimed the same thing ignoring the years of research on animals and then applying it to humans,see penicillin and the multitude of other discoveries first tested on animals,the stupidity of this argument ,wanting and only noting studies on humans while ignoring said substances were originally tested on animals and then we moved forward accordingly, soon enough by the above Logic we will have nothing to test.

Once again putting words in my mouth. I said that you can’t extrapolate from metabolic studies on rodents to that of humans because they utilize mitochondrial uncoupling at a much higher rate than humans. This is why rodent's higher metabolism leads to increased longevity, the precise opposite of what human studies show. I never said that all animal research is not relevant to humans. Strawman 3.

And of course calling all of my arguments strawmen is really just another strawman argument of yours as well as a strong case of psychological projection.

I have posted several highly respected peer reviewed studies that argue against Ray's recommendations while you have not posted one study that supports it. Again, if someone is going to make a health recommendation, it is incumbent on that person to support it with evidence. It amazes me that you can’t seem to grasp that fact and think that your layman's criticism of the vast weight of scientific evidence would actually mean anything. The only thing you have proven so far is the limits of a science degree from Google and that you like to say "strawman."

And not to leave this one out.

Take your responses to me and apply them to yourself.

Is this your version of “I know you are but what am I?” You may want to save that one for the playground, Pee Wee.

 

[Giraffe]

I am stating that there is no evidence that driving TSH down to the levels Ray recommends (<.4) is justified.

Life Supporting Substances - It's Rain Making Time, 2011-07-04

RP: I pretty much go by a study that found that a population that had the lowest incidence of thyroid cancer had a TSH of 0.4 and below (where people are often still claiming that if you have a 2.0 TSH you're normal). But I think there is good evidence that health improves when you lower the TSH, down to somewhere in that range (less than 0.4).

Quick google search for "TSH thyroid cancer":

Lower levels of TSH are associated with a lower risk of papillary thyroid cancer in patients with thyroid nodular disease: thyroid autonomy may play a protective role

In our study group the prevalence of PTC in patients with serum TSH <0.4 μU/ml was significantly lower than in patients with no evidence of thyroid autonomy in MNG, but our data did not allow us to draw a definitive conclusion in patients with S/I nodules.

It is also widely recognized that PTC needs TSH to progress and become clinically evident. In this respect, it is important to underscore that the medical treatment of differentiated thyroid cancer has been based on the use of l-T4 to reduce serum TSH levels (Mazzaferri & Jhiang 1994, Mazzaferri 1999, Sipos & Mazzaferri 2008).

Come to think of it, I have never seen a study provide a list of medications the sample is taking.

Google "blood pressure riboflavin". You will find a study that lists how many blood pressure drugs the participants used. Have you checked the link here? "All patients taking medications known to modify thyroid function (antithyroid drugs, thyroxine, glucocorticoids, octreotide, dopamine, lithium, or amiodarone) were excluded."

 

[Queequeg]

Life Supporting Substances - It's Rain Making Time, 2011-07-04

RP: I pretty much go by a study that found that a population that had the lowest incidence of thyroid cancer had a TSH of 0.4 and below (where people are often still claiming that if you have a 2.0 TSH you're normal). But I think there is good evidence that health improves when you lower the TSH, down to somewhere in that range (less than 0.4).

Quick google search for "TSH thyroid cancer":

Lower levels of TSH are associated with a lower risk of papillary thyroid cancer in patients with thyroid nodular disease: thyroid autonomy may play a protective role

Google "blood pressure riboflavin". You will find a study that lists how many blood pressure drugs the participants used. Have you checked the link here? "All patients taking medications known to modify thyroid function (antithyroid drugs, thyroxine, glucocorticoids, octreotide, dopamine, lithium, or amiodarone) were excluded."

Lowering the risk of thyroid cancer, which is not a major killer (<2,000 per year), is not the same thing as improving general health or longevity. A TSH of less than 0.4 and the T4/T3 supplementation required to get there could be doing all sorts of other things that are not very good for us.

The study you posted is on patients who already have thyroid nodular disease. That’s a very specific group and the study’s finding doesn’t necessarily translate to the general population. But even if it did, that doesn’t automatically translate into improved health or longevity as I said above.

Again I would like to see a study that says that such a TSH < 0.4 increases longevity or overall health because all the studies I have seen say the opposite. The other study you linked to, looked at sick hospitalized elderly people, the majority of whom all had thyroid issues. Also the ages of all the patients were mixed together. Talk about confounding variables. The study basically found that the more messed up your thyroid is the greater chance you have of dying. You also have a greater chance of being old. I don't think this really supports Ray's recommendation to lower TSH to .4.

As for Drareg's point of not accepting a study until looking at a list of all the patients medicines, all studies have detailed inclusion criteria and put their patients through a screening process to remove any patients that have any issues or take any medicines that would alter the study outcomes. Drareg was asking for a list of all the medications the patients were taking, not just the ones excluded like you showed. This is impractical. As an example, the Baltimore study has over 1200 patients.

 

[Giraffe]

The study you posted is on patients who already have thyroid nodular disease. That’s a very specific group and the study’s finding doesn’t necessarily translate to the general population.

"Thyroid nodules are extremely common in young adults and children. Almost 50% of people have had one, but they are usually only detected by a physician during the course of a health examination or fortuitously discovered during the investigation of an unrelated condition."

Thyroid nodule - Wikipedia

 

[Giraffe]

The other study you linked to, looked at sick hospitalized elderly people, the majority of whom all had thyroid issues. Also the ages of all the patients were mixed together. Talk about confounding variables. The study basically found that the more messed up your thyroid is the greater chance you have of dying. You also have a greater chance of being old. I don't think this really supports Ray's recommendation to lower TSH to .4.

You tell others that they need to work on their reading comprehension?

A study that takes the TSH as a marker for something can't be correctly interpreted when patients that take thyroid-altering medication are not excluded, the medication not even mentioned. This is what @Drareg pointed out to you. My link was a reply to your statement that you "have never seen a study provide a list of medications the sample is taking".

Do you need to work on your reading comprehension, or are you purposely misconstruing my words?

 

[Queequeg]

"Thyroid nodules are extremely common in young adults and children. Almost 50% of people have had one, but they are usually only detected by a physician during the course of a health examination or fortuitously discovered during the investigation of an unrelated condition."
Thyroid nodule - Wikipedia

“Almost 50% of people have had one” is not the same as 50% of people currently have one. In other words the percent of people having a nodule at any one time is much lower. So a low TSH <.4 is not necessarily good advice for the general population most of whom do not have a nodule. But like I said above, thyroid cancer only kills <2,000 people per year so even if a low TSH is associated with low thyroid cancer risk for everyone, it doesn’t mean that a low TSH is beneficial for general health.

 

[Queequeg]

You tell others that they need to work on their reading comprehension?
A study that takes the TSH as a marker for something can't be correctly interpreted when patients that take thyroid-altering medication are not excluded, the medication not even mentioned. This is what @Drareg pointed out to you. My link was a reply to your statement that you "have never seen a study provide a list of medications the sample is taking".
Do you need to work on your reading comprehension, or are you purposely misconstruing my words?

No need to repeat the question twice. My reading comprehension is just fine though I am not so sure about yours because I already addressed your point. As for misconstruing words, it looks like you are doing that as well. You are quoting the wrong part of my response. I’ll repost the correct quote for you and provide some bolding to help you out.

As for Drareg's point of not accepting a study until looking at a list of all the patients medicines, all studies have detailed inclusion criteria and put their patients through a screening process to remove any patients that have any issues or take any medicines that would alter the study outcomes. Drareg was asking for a list of all the medications the patients were taking, not just the ones excluded like you showed. This is impractical. As an example, the Baltimore study has over 1200 patients.

It is standard protocol that a TSH study would exclude anyone using thyroid altering medication. That is probably the most basic inclusion criteria that a TSH study would have. Just because it was not explicitly stated in the abstract does not mean it wasn’t done and I think the criticism was just a convenient excuse to discredit the study’s results because Drareg disagreed with them.

Also in case you missed it again, the study you provided just listed the thyroid medications that were excluded and does not provide a full list of all the medications the patients were taking as Drareg wanted to see. So no I didn't misconstrue your words.

 

[Drareg]

More huffing and puffing with not one study to support your arguments, just more faith based ideology and assertions. I already spent enough time responding to Jag's superficial criticisms of the studies and don't really see the need to do so with yours since they aren't much better.

What is clear, is that you have a fetish with calling everything you disagree with a strawman. I am not sure you even know what that means, because right after saying that you hit me with at least three in a row.
“The history of cholesterol,resveratrol,estrogen” have nothing to do with what we are debating. Strawman 1
I never said “high TSH is good for longevity.” I am stating that there is no evidence that driving TSH down to the levels Ray recommends (<.4) is justified. Strawman 2
Once again putting words in my mouth. I said that you can’t extrapolate from metabolic studies on rodents to that of humans because they utilize mitochondrial uncoupling at a much higher rate than humans. This is why rodent's higher metabolism leads to increased longevity, the precise opposite of what human studies show. I never said that all animal research is not relevant to humans. Strawman 3.

And of course calling all of my arguments strawmen is really just another strawman argument of yours as well as a strong case of psychological projection.

I have posted several highly respected peer reviewed studies that argue against Ray's recommendations while you have not posted one study that supports it. Again, if someone is going to make a health recommendation, it is incumbent on that person to support it with evidence. It amazes me that you can’t seem to grasp that fact and think that your layman's criticism of the vast weight of scientific evidence would actually mean anything. The only thing you have proven so far is the limits of a science degree from Google and that you like to say "strawman."

And not to leave this one out. Is this your version of “I know you are but what am I?” You may want to save that one for the playground, Pee Wee.

You don't know what a strawman is,it means your making stuff up and refuting it like your claims of Peat telling people to push metabolism higher and higher,your now changing the argument again is there 2 of you maybe and your getting confused ?
I made an example about estrogen,serotonin studies etc and you make a strawman with this point to claim I had a strawman because they had nothing to do with what we are debating,this isn't strawman number 1,it's just your mania fuelled hubris creating another strawman as it is clear as day to any thinking functioning being the points on estrogen etc are within the context of the discussion,they are relevant to your claims that your studies are "respected" and "scientific" ,my points were in relation to your definition of "scienticific" ,you even quoted what I said and still responded like this!
So no,not strawman number 1,it's your mania fuelled hallucination and continuing strawman infinity.

You claim you never said high TSH is good for longevity yet you posted several studies as a claim for high TSH increasing longevity,your delusional at this point.
You can extrapolate studies from rodent metabolic studies to humans as has been done for years,your just making stuff up now,the studies with high metabolism on humans you should post,they are flawed in many cases for similar reasons to the other lame studies you posted on longevity.

Your wording here is an example of your hyperbole and hubris fuelled mania throughout this thread, "I have posted several highly respected peer reviewed studies that argue against Ray's recommendations while you have not posted one study that supports it."
Your studies do nothing to argue against Peats work,they have been brought into question,you ignore all points put to you and continue with mania and hubris,more hubris is believing you posted studies that refute Peats work.
Start a thread with your well respected "peer reviewed studies" we are desperate to see what you have picked up from your reading of the "vast weight of scientific evidence " instead of spending time hijacking this thread and changing what you require for your own argument throughout.
Do you even know what scientific evidence means? Are you just using the above words to maintain an aura of authority? The peer review system is flawless and should insure all studies including estrogen being good for Alzheimer's reach the public,statins from cholesterol came from peer reviewed studies,legit.

Your last 2 paragraphs are you projecting onto me,this is your behaviour and clear as day to anyone reading it,it's "wannabe seen as genius" 101 ,it's your subconscious telling you something.

 

[Drareg]

No need to repeat the question twice. My reading comprehension is just fine though I am not so sure about yours because I already addressed your point. As for misconstruing words, it looks like you are doing that as well. You are quoting the wrong part of my response. I’ll repost the correct quote for you and provide some bolding to help you out.


It is standard protocol that a TSH study would exclude anyone using thyroid altering medication. That is probably the most basic inclusion criteria that a TSH study would have.

Also in case you missed it again, the study you provided just listed the thyroid medications that were excluded and does not provide a full list of all the medications the patients were taking as Drareg wanted to see. So no I didn't misconstrue your words.

I didnt just ask specifically about thyroid meds.
Start a thread on your longevity patients relative to TSH and assert your "scientific"claims.

Your below quote is another example of your hubris,I thought you mentioned your studies are "well respected peer reviewed scientific studies".
Your reading abstracts of studies and coming in here full of hubris throwing around an authoritive tone with words like "scientific evidence","well respected peer reviewed" ,now you want everyone to take your word for it.
Other medication besides thyroid increase TSH,your ignoring this.
"Just because it was not explicitly stated in the abstract does not mean it wasn’t done and I think the criticism was just a convenient excuse to discredit the study’s results because Drareg disagreed with them."

Keeping the above quote from you in mind,below is another one form you. Will we just take the researchers word for it in the above quote?Not very "scientific".
"Again, if someone is going to make a health recommendation, it is incumbent on that person to support it with evidence."

 

[Drareg]

You tell others that they need to work on their reading comprehension?

A study that takes the TSH as a marker for something can't be correctly interpreted when patients that take thyroid-altering medication are not excluded, the medication not even mentioned. This is what @Drareg pointed out to you. My link was a reply to your statement that you "have never seen a study provide a list of medications the sample is taking".

Do you need to work on your reading comprehension, or are you purposely misconstruing my words?

The below quote is from queequeg earlier in the thread, his argument has been one big strawman since then,the use of terms like" scientific evidence" ,"peer reviewed" are lame attempts to sound authoritive with highly questionable studies.
He provides no evidence whatsoever for his claim in the quote below,when asked for context or definitions of the below terms he skirts around it.
He has since tried to change his argument yet won't start a separate thread with the differing argument.
"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"

The only dogma here is queequeg who is trying to create his own gospel based on his terms.
I'm still impressed queequeg doesn't believe Peat hasn't provided any evidence on metabolism,this is incredible.

 

[Drareg]

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.

It's impressive how you completely ignore @DaveFoster points to you and then create another strawman on Peat.
Your making it up as you go along,start a thread outling your points.

 

[Queequeg]

@Drareg
I am having a hard time taking you seriously as all you do is twist my words, lash out with obvious anger issues, and continue to call everything a strawman, the last one being especially ironic given that you are the one who is using them.

Until you post some evidence that supports yours and Ray’s claim, I am not going to bother refuting anymore of your barely comprehensible vitriol and unqualified scientific criticisms of the many studies I posted. Have a look at the 40 year, 1200 person Baltimore Longitudinal Study and see if that is up to your high standards of clinical research. High Basal Metabolic Rate Is a Risk Factor for Mortality: The Baltimore Longitudinal Study of Aging. And you accuse me “mania fuelled hubris;” Again, a science degree from Google can only take you so far.

 

[Drareg]

@Drareg
I am having a hard time taking you seriously as all you do is twist my words, lash out with obvious anger issues, and continue to call everything a strawman, the last one being especially ironic given that you are the one who is using them.

Until you post some evidence that supports yours and Ray’s claim, I am not going to bother refuting anymore of your barely comprehensible vitriol and unqualified scientific criticisms of the many studies I posted. Have a look at the 40 year, 1200 person Baltimore Longitudinal Study and see if that is up to your high standards of clinical research. High Basal Metabolic Rate Is a Risk Factor for Mortality: The Baltimore Longitudinal Study of Aging. And you accuse me “mania fuelled hubris;” Again, a science degree from Google can only take you so far.

All you mention here is what you are yourself and it's you twisting throughout this thread,you and everybody else is getting to see how toxic you are,not one of my points have you addressed or anybody elses points which make sense.
You have no credibility left,the depth of your projections are cherry picked flawed studies while ignoring contrary evidence.

Ray's claim? It was your deluded rant/claim which I quoted in the above post to @Giraffe which I addressed,your deluded hubris fuelled mania is twisting and projecting again like your doing with the study you have attached.
Your hubris is trying to create another argument by throwing in another study while ignoring points put to you,at what point will you start a thread ? or will you continue with regurgitation from flawed cherry picked studies?
Your other claim is nobody is going to be healthy with TSH under .4 ?

From the 40 year study you have been regurgitating from and trying to appear as genius, answer the following-

"Participants with known or suspected thyroid or adrenal dysfunction, as evidenced by history, drug use, or physical examination"
The above quote from the study indicates who they excluded and for what reasons,they didn't specify excluding participants on medication,gauging the socio economic status of participants from those periods im guessing some were taking medications,most of the participants were men,women live longer and more should be in this study for balance,it's Supposed to be a "well respected scientific study" ,both these points are obvious red flags.
The researches acknowledge other things can increase BMR so they are not blind to this,with that in mind where is the list of medications participants were taking?

Why wasn't was the weight/BMI of individual participants shown,the mean is no good in this case imo.
Want was the brain size of participants?
Patients were resting ,basal or resting not the same as daily energy expenditure something you are oblivious to,Peats current recommendations to people are spot on with this in mind.
Peat has spoken about variation between mice and their metabolic rates,you ignore this and continue with mania fuelled projections.
Where they digesting food?


What makes this study poor is using indirect calorimetry.
On top of the above the very act of having a mask strapped to your face will increase stress response in the body,being stuck in a "facility" they haven't slept in before is also an issue.
What was the ambient temperature where the indirect calorimeters was done? These are environmental factors and relevant even more so when testing older people.

"BMR declined with age at a rate that accelerated at older ages. Independent of age, participants who died had a higher BMR compared to those who survived."

The researchers hypothesised the following -"We hypothesized that pathology and accelerated aging increase the BMR because extra energy is required to counteract wide fluctuations in the homeostatic equilibrium (6)."
This was their assumption,if the subjects were fasting already in an aging state gauging the diets of those periods they would be using fat stores for energy,adrenalin and cortisol pumping through the system,the fat stores are hugely relevant here. These patients were fasted for 12 hours.
How can you be in a resting state while fasting? This is an another medical oxymoron.

"The cause of death was classified as “cardiovascular,” “cancer,” or other."
The above quote needs to clarify "other", this is ridiculous.

Self reported leisure and general activities will be exaggerated more so by the elderly.

"The cross-sectional part of this study used data from both sexes, whereas the longitudinal analyses were performed only in men".
This quote is hidden in the middle of the research,lol.


"Model 1 was adjusted for age, date of visit, race, weight, and BMI. Model 2 was also adjusted for smoking"
Can you clarify from above what methods/research were used for adjustment?

"The statistical procedure used for imputation was aregImpute in S-PLUS (version 6.2; Insightful, Seattle, WA), a method that uses a multiple imputation inference algorithm. This algorithm generates values for missing data based on all the available data collected longitudinally in each participant"
Can you clarify from above how the algorithm is generating values for missing data and more importantly why bother with this?

"The nature of the relationship between BMR and mortality was explored by looking at the functional form of the relationship of Martingale residuals and BMR. The Martingale residuals from a proportional hazards model reflect the discrepancy between the observed and expected mortality hazard, which corresponds to a measure of “excess mortality” (Figure 2) (34). Risk proportionality was tested by plotting Martingale residuals according to time"
I don't know much about martingale residuals algorithm but it's sounds a little "credit default swap", I'm guessing that somebody making slight input mistakes could easily cause discrepancies. The previous quote shows them using another algorithm to generate possibilities.

"Overall, 59.2% of men and 26.2% of women died over the follow-up period"
The follow up period? Why didnt they just keep following all participants until they died? This is ridiculous,1 month after the study ended several people could have died.

"The decedent participants were older at both the first and last evaluations, had lower creatinine excretion and muscle strength, were less physically active, and had a significantly higher waist circumference compared to those who were still alive at the end of the follow-up period (Tables 1 and and2).2). As people got older, BMR declined in both sexes independently of BMI (p < .0001). Nonetheless, men had higher BMR than did women across the life span (p < .0001) (Figure 1A)."
Are they serious with the above quote?rofl.

"Participants in the highest and those in the lowest BMR groups had higher mortality risk compared to those in the reference group (Table 4).
Low BMR has higher mortality Risk according to the researchers.

"The percentage of cardiovascular and cancer deaths were similar across the BMR groups."
Explain the above? Not exactly a poster for health now is it. They then try to skew these results by using "time to event analysis".

"Accordingly, higher BMR was associated with increased risk of mortality independent of age, weight, BMI, smoking status, total physical activity, muscle mass and strength, white blood cell count, diabetes, blood pressure, and calendar date."
See my previous bolded quote and apply to the above quote.

"These results are compatible with the notion that long-lived individuals are able to preserve a low energy metabolism, perhaps reflecting good health status."
I like the use of the word "notion" they use here,whereas you consider this "well respected peer reviewed scientific research"that supports your manic schizo type ever changing theories.
Perhaps reflecting good health status the researchers feel ,except for this quote -"The percentage of cardiovascular and cancer deaths were similar across the BMR groups."

"Noteworthy, an increase of 200 kcal in BMR in a normal individual (170 cm, 76 kg) with a baseline BMR of 32 kcal implied on average a 24% increased risk of mortality."
I will bet a fortune the above 24% claim is wrong.

"A potential clinical application of this concept stems from the hypothesis that an excessively high BMR, such as one caused by uncontrolled inflammation, is an early index of the perturbation of health status."
They have a context here in relation to excessive inflammation which you are not using.

"We acknowledge that the present study has limitations. The BLSA sample is not representative of the general population because it mostly includes highly educated individuals of high socioeconomic status who are considered healthy at study entry."
Impressive you don't acknowledge this for your "well respected peer reviewed scientific studies"

"Data were collected from 1958 through 1982. Women were enrolled in the study only from 1978. The longitudinal BMR evaluation based on the same methodology and performed in the same clinical setting at the Gerontology Research Center in Baltimore over a period of decades is a unique feature of the BLSA. However, we caution the readers about the difficulty of detecting early thyroid dysfunction based only on physical examination. During 1958–1982, thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH) radioimmunoassay or triiodothyronine (T3) determinations were not available for the BLSA participants, and later they were measured only in a subgroup."
Ridiculous,did they include any of this missing info in their statistical algorithm? Credit default swaps anyone?

I have no requirement for a scientific degree from Google,your mania fuelled hubris is coming through again with your demands for degrees,it's your call to authority, you are proof of how redundant the college system has become. The study from google search you attached explains your google degree projections you throwing around.

Your current argument is a requirement for a study from Peat that you specify, yet the studies you provide are inconclusive based on current understandings and research available,you don't have enough data to make anymore claims ,I say you but you don't have a clue what's going on,so let's say the researches supporting slowish metabolism as better for humans.
The above is a strawman by you.

 

[Drareg]

Some tables from the "peer reviewed well respected scientific evidence" in this case the not so long study of Baltimore participants.Keep in mind it's the mean.

Table 2 ,it tells us the following-
Men who survived -first visit mean age-38
Men who died -first visit mean age - 69

Men who survived -final status mean age -68
Men who died- final status mean age-79
********************************************
Women who survived-first visit mean age-47
Women who died-first visit mean age-67

Women who survived-final status mean age-67
Women who died/final status mean age -82

Can somebody explain this ? The older people had higher BMR.
Is the entire study not skewed by those age differences?

 

[Giraffe]

Can somebody explain this ? The older people had higher BMR.

Is the entire study not skewed by those age differences?

I think, how to make the metabolic rate comparable between individuals of different size and mass is a matter of debate. It seems, it is tricky, and it definitely can skew results. -- The BMR normally has the dimension [kcal / day] or [kcal / (kg * day)]. The authors of the Baltimore study don't explain what "BMI adjusted" (figure 1) means, and otherwise they express BMR in [kcal / m2 / h]. BMR is measured in a thermally neutral environment. Why do the authors of the Baltimore study think that the surface area matters, but not the metabolically active mass? It doesn't make sense to me.

I don't know where you see that the older people had higher BMR.**

** Edit: "The decedent participants were older at both the first and last evaluations, [...] and had a significantly higher waist circumference compared to those who were still alive at the end of the follow-up period (Tables 1 and 2)."

 

[Queequeg]

@Drareg So you still haven’t found any studies to support your faith based ideology. As for your last rant, I hope you were able to get out some of the frustrations you must be feeling. The sheer amount of anger and scorn coming from you is only matched by your lack of understanding about clinical research. You say I am filled with “deluded hubris fuelled mania” and then proceed to try to tear down one of the most respected and well funded studies on aging in the world. Why don't you post some of your studies so we can all learn how it should be done. Instead of trying to discredit it, you could try to actually learn something from it. Clinical studies rarely get any better than this. Baltimore Longitudinal Study of Aging |

Though you didn't get to use your favorite word "Strawman" until the very end, I am glad you wasted no time in creating yet another Strawman of your own.

Your other claim is nobody is going to be healthy with TSH under .4 ?

This is what I wrote:

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."

See the difference?

I appreciate the time you must have spent combing through the study, searching out potential flaws, typing up carefully considered arguments and thinking up all those multi adjective insults. With that in mind, you can rest assured that I will give your post and all of its many questions all the due consideration that they deserve.

What was the brain size of participants?

now that is priceless

 

[Queequeg]

I think, how to make the metabolic rate comparable between individuals of different size and mass is a matter of debate. It seems, it is tricky, and it definitely can skew results. -- The BMR normally has the dimension [kcal / day] or [kcal / (kg * day)]. The authors of the Baltimore study don't explain what "BMI adjusted" (figure 1) means, and otherwise they express BMR in [kcal / m2 / h]. BMR is measured in a thermally neutral environment. Why do the authors of the Baltimore study think that the surface area matters, but not the metabolically active mass? It doesn't make sense to me.

I did some digging and it seems that BMR can be expressed as kcal/m2/hr as well as by kcal/kg/hr. Body surface area is apparently a function of height and weight so it seems the /m2 is just a little more fancy. ASSESSMENT OF ENERGY EXPENDITURE

The BMR in figure 1 is adjusted for BMI.