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

DaveFoster

Member
Joined
Jul 23, 2015
Messages
5,027
Location
Portland, Oregon
@Queequeg Peat mentions propranolol as a curative measure for a rapid heart caused by hyperthyroidism, and it slows the T4 to T3 conversion. Hyperthyroidism is assuredly a clinical problem; I don't think anyone disputes that.
 

Drareg

Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2016
Messages
4,772
A study from the ,"well respected peer reviewed scientific" Baltimore longitudinal study on aging.
They used cox proportional hazard models in this study.

RAY PEAT WRONG AGAIN!!!!!


"Previous reports have suggested that estrogen replacement therapy (ERT) in women may exert a protective effect on their risk of developing Alzheimer's disease (AD). We investigated this relationship in the Baltimore Longitudinal Study of Aging (BLSA), a prospective multidisciplinary study of normal aging conducted by the National Institute on Aging. The sample consisted of 472 post- or perimenopausal women followed for up to 16 years in the BLSA. We documented ERT prospectively at each BLSA visit, and we categorized women who had used oral or transdermal estrogens at anytime as ERT users. We used Cox proportional hazards models with time-dependent covariates to estimate the relative risk of developing AD after ERT as compared with women who had not used estrogen replacement. Approximately 45% of the women in the cohort had used ERT, and we diagnosed 34 incident cases of AD (NINCD/ADRDA criteria) during follow-up, including nine estrogen users. After adjusting for education, the relative risk for AD in ERT users as compared with nonusers was 0.46 (95% CI, 0.209–0.997), indicating a reduced risk of AD for women who had reported the use of estrogen. Our data did not show an effect for duration of ERT usage. Our finding offers additional support for a protective influence of estrogen in AD. Randomized clinical trials are necessary to confirm this association, which could have significant public health impact."



http://www.neurology.org/content/48/6/1517.short
 

Drareg

Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2016
Messages
4,772
Another study from the ,"well respected peer reviewed scientific" Baltimore longitudinal study on aging.

Guess what- RAY PEAT WRONG AGAIN!!!!!-- why? Well because this is one of the most "well respected peer reviewed scientific studies" ever done with 1200 subjects(victims),that's why!!!

"Objective: This study examines the influence of age and current estrogen replacement therapy (ERT) on common carotid arterial (CCA) stiffness in women. Methods: The subjects comprised 172 women (age 55.6±16.4 years) from the Baltimore Longitudinal Study of Aging, including 37 current postmenopausal ERT users. The ERT users included 18 women taking estrogen alone and 19 women taking estrogen and progesterone. Bilateral CCA were examined by B-mode carotid ultrasonography, and the stiffness index was defined as the logarithm of the ratio of systolic to diastolic blood pressure (BP) divided by the fractional diameter increase during the cardiac cycle. Results: The stiffness index increased linearly with age (r=0.69, p<0.001), and was lower in ERT users than in postmenopausal nonusers (8.0±2.0 vs 9.7±3.1, p<0.01). Furthermore, the effects of age (β=0.67, p<0.0001) and ERT (β=−0.23, p<0.001) on the stiffness index persisted after adjustments for systolic BP (β=0.23, p<0.01), diastolic BP (β=−0.26, p<0.001) and other cardiovascular risk factors (model r2=0.59, p<0.0001). The stiffness index was similar in both ERT users with and without progesterone and lower than in postmenopausal nonusers (p<0.05) after considering the age effects. Conclusion: Age-associated increases in CCA stiffness are reduced by postmenopausal ERT."



Influence of age and postmenopausal estrogen replacement therapy on carotid arterial stiffness in women | Cardiovascular Research
 

HDD

Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2012
Messages
2,075
I: We have a number of questions that have come in by email. Two of them are pretty similar. One is ‘What would you recommend to a young person who is studying biology? He has a degree in English. And the other is ‘What research can we trust?’


RP: Oh well, don’t trust anything! Read it carefully and think about what they are doing and even think about who they are and what they are trying to do. For example, I recently saw some discussion of the anti-cancer drug called Bucain and some English researchers offered to give it an objective test and the producer enthusiastically agreed. But then when he learned what they were going to do he said, “Well, no I want some independent evaluation” and they wrote articles in Lancet saying that the producer was unwilling to submit it to an objective test.But when I looked at their 200 previous publications they wereabsolutely aligned with the cell toxic chemotherapy industry and they were going to test his substance in violation of the standard research procedures for the European Union and that got into the literature as the producer of the substance being unwilling to have an objective test – where they were the ones trying to put it through a non-objective situation. Reading about the history of the person making the claim is part of the process of finding out what they doing and looking at the nature of their work and nine times out of ten will show that they had some ulterior motive.Probably Gilbert Ling is a good place to reorient to how the biological community works and how they have ignored Ling for almost 60 years now and I have looked at the literature citing Ling and see that someone misquoted and totally misstated what Ling said, his misquotation went down through about a dozen repetitions in which people claiming to have read Ling were simply quoting a misstatement about Gilbert Ling so that one error led to deliberate misrepresentations of Gilbert Ling’s work so when you really pay attention to Gilbert Ling what you aredoing is seeing a lot of corruption in the biological community.

https://raypeatforum.com/community/...know-patients-student-and-discovery-docx.765/
 

Queequeg

Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2016
Messages
1,191
@Queequeg Peat mentions propranolol as a curative measure for a rapid heart caused by hyperthyroidism, and it slows the T4 to T3 conversion. Hyperthyroidism is assuredly a clinical problem; I don't think anyone disputes that.
I don’t think I ever said that Ray thinks hyperthyroidism isn't a problem.
 

Queequeg

Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2016
Messages
1,191
I've never seen him say everyone should increase their metabolism, heart rate, temps, or thyroid if they are already in a good range and in good health, or that it is advisable in general to push metabolism to hyperthyroid levels.
His idea of euthyroid is a little different from mainstream.
The methods he recommends for assessing thyroid function do not align with the overly simplified methods used by most drs. He proposes methods that help distinguish between metabolism elevated by stress hormones and metabolism running on thyroid hormones. I guess you've read his article describing why the current standard TSH range is not founded on good evidence.
I agree that in some cases Ray would think that doing so would be unwise, such as someone who is malnourished or has other health issues. But it does seem to me that he believes that most people would benefit by getting their temps, heart rate, or thyroid to a sweet spot that is generally higher than what most people currently have. I think most of the followers on RPF are all trying to do that. I am not fundamentally opposed to the idea but would like to see some clinical evidence that this would lead to improved health outcomes.

I do agree with his methods of assessing thyroid but what I don’t get is his belief that most would benefit from driving TSH down to 0.4. He seems to have gotten this from a study that shows that people with thyroid nodules experience less thyroid cancer with such a low TSH. But as I wrote earlier in the thread, I don’t think that this proves that everyone should have that as a goal. Especially since many other studies say that a higher but still normal TSH is protective.

from RP email exchange:
"think it's best to keep the TSH around 0.4"
"[temperature] should get up to about 98.5 "by mid-morning."
"I think 85/minute resting is a good average. For the last 35 years I have tried to keep it averaging a little over 90."
 
Last edited:

Drareg

Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2016
Messages
4,772
I: We have a number of questions that have come in by email. Two of them are pretty similar. One is ‘What would you recommend to a young person who is studying biology? He has a degree in English. And the other is ‘What research can we trust?’


RP: Oh well, don’t trust anything! Read it carefully and think about what they are doing and even think about who they are and what they are trying to do. For example, I recently saw some discussion of the anti-cancer drug called Bucain and some English researchers offered to give it an objective test and the producer enthusiastically agreed. But then when he learned what they were going to do he said, “Well, no I want some independent evaluation” and they wrote articles in Lancet saying that the producer was unwilling to submit it to an objective test.But when I looked at their 200 previous publications they wereabsolutely aligned with the cell toxic chemotherapy industry and they were going to test his substance in violation of the standard research procedures for the European Union and that got into the literature as the producer of the substance being unwilling to have an objective test – where they were the ones trying to put it through a non-objective situation. Reading about the history of the person making the claim is part of the process of finding out what they doing and looking at the nature of their work and nine times out of ten will show that they had some ulterior motive.Probably Gilbert Ling is a good place to reorient to how the biological community works and how they have ignored Ling for almost 60 years now and I have looked at the literature citing Ling and see that someone misquoted and totally misstated what Ling said, his misquotation went down through about a dozen repetitions in which people claiming to have read Ling were simply quoting a misstatement about Gilbert Ling so that one error led to deliberate misrepresentations of Gilbert Ling’s work so when you really pay attention to Gilbert Ling what you aredoing is seeing a lot of corruption in the biological community.

https://raypeatforum.com/community/...know-patients-student-and-discovery-docx.765/

Peat and Ling have laboratory experience, their not just piecing together abstracts from othe researchers papers,they understand the logistics and more importantly techniques used.
They also understand the culture that surrounds the laboratory which is vital,people need to publish to stay significant and to get funded,this is not going to help.
The power researchers pushing a certain a point of view have to stifle opposing research is alarming.
It's essentially a religion when you add in the hubris to deny what quantum physics has highlighted.

Have you seen the price increases of Lings books on Amazon? The user on Amazon "nearfine" is always at this.
I will start a seprate thread on it,books that cost 20 dollars are now over 300 dollars.
 

Drareg

Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2016
Messages
4,772
I agree that in some cases Ray would think that doing so would be unwise, such as someone who is malnourished or has other health issues. But it does seem to me that he believes that most people would benefit by getting their temps, heart rate, or thyroid to a sweet spot that is generally higher than what most people currently have. I think most of the followers on RPF are all trying to do that. I am not fundamentally opposed to the idea but would like to see some clinical evidence that this would lead to improved health outcomes.

I do agree with his methods of assessing thyroid but what I don’t get is his belief that most would benefit from driving TSH down to 0.4. He seems to have gotten this from a study that shows that people with thyroid nodules experience less thyroid cancer with such a low TSH. But as I wrote earlier in the thread, I don’t think that this proves that everyone should have that as a goal. Especially since many other studies say that a higher but still normal TSH is protective.

from RP email exchange:
"think it's best to keep the TSH around 0.4"
"[temperature] should get up to about 98.5 "by mid-morning."
"I think 85/minute resting is a good average. For the last 35 years I have tried to keep it averaging a little over 90."

Your ongoing fallacy is a claim fo clinical evidence while ignoring the clinical evidence you posted is clearly flawed at this point when we look at the techniques used to test BMR in the studies you posted.

You don't have enough "clinical evidence" to assert your claims as factual, the term "clinical evidence" is brought into question when we look at the methods and techniques used for the research you posted,also when we look at the information they don't tell us.
There are clear empirical contradictions to the studies you posted.
To form hypothesis you must look at what evidence you have and move forward,Peat is reasonable with the evidence currently available to assert the claims he makes.
You and other WSAG's on here jump through this cliche hoop when asserting your claims,it's essentially rigidity,you want "clinical evidence" when clinical evidence is formed via hypothesis!
Their is even a good argument for Peats work not being hypothesis but currently theory,Peats work is definitely more theory than the Baltimore longitudinal study of aging.
This mentality of said WSAG's is identical to religious hubris,perfectly suited to the current medical(religious) establishment.

Note the wording in Peats responses,your manic stream of consciousness clearly can't process it,said stream of consciousness has also created the "sweet spot" strawman.
"Around .4"
"Good average"

Your still not going to bother to look at the papers linked about ongoing arguments with TSH ? If bothered you will see cases of elderly people and every age in between with TSH ranges under/and around .4 and doing fine,this is the reason they want the ranges changed.
 
Joined
Nov 21, 2015
Messages
10,501
one thing I know. I've watched a lot of programs and read about very old people. As people age, their pulse slows, their metabolism slows, their thyroid slows. They lose lean mass.

For me, I want to keep my my lean mass, I want to keep my HR, my metabolism and my thyroid good and healthy. I just want to slow down the aging process.
 

Queequeg

Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2016
Messages
1,191
one thing I know. I've watched a lot of programs and read about very old people. As people age, their pulse slows, their metabolism slows, their thyroid slows. They lose lean mass.

For me, I want to keep my my lean mass, I want to keep my HR, my metabolism and my thyroid good and healthy. I just want to slow down the aging process.
I also want to keep my HR, metabolism and thyroid healthy as well. I am just not sure that trying to jack them up to RP recommended levels is the way to go. IMO lots of Ray's evidence comes from anecdotal experience in which unhealthy people had benefited from raising heart rates or temperatures. I am sure that is true for them but that is not the same as saying these steps would be good for everyone.
 

Queequeg

Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2016
Messages
1,191
To form hypothesis you must look at what evidence you have and move forward,Peat is reasonable with the evidence currently available to assert the claims he makes.
You and other WSAG's on here jump through this cliche hoop when asserting your claims,it's essentially rigidity,you want "clinical evidence" when clinical evidence is formed via hypothesis!
Their is even a good argument for Peats work not being hypothesis but currently theory,Peats work is definitely more theory than the Baltimore longitudinal study of aging.
I think you may wish to double check your ideas on how the scientific method works. Clinical evidence is not formed via hypothesis. And I thought your comments couldn't get any worse. smh
Note the wording in Peats responses,your manic stream of consciousness clearly can't process it,said stream of consciousness has also created the "sweet spot" strawman.
"Around .4"
"Good average"
Strawman again?
 
Last edited:

Drareg

Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2016
Messages
4,772
I think you may wish to double check your ideas on how the scientific method works. Clinical evidence is not formed via hypothesis. And I thought your comments couldn't get any worse. smh

Strawman again?


Another hubris fuelled WSAG response,your Baltimore study you claim to be clinical research is an observational study,they state this on their website,specifically it's not clinical,your deluded hubris has no bottom.
 

Queequeg

Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2016
Messages
1,191
Another hubris fuelled WSAG response,your Baltimore study you claim to be clinical research is an observational study,they state this on their website,specifically it's not clinical,your deluded hubris has no bottom.
I guess ignorance has no bottom as well. An observational study is a form of clinical research.
"There are two main types of clinical studies: clinical trials (also called interventional studies) and observational studies."
Learn About Clinical Studies - ClinicalTrials.gov

you may find this helpful as well
The Scientific Method - Steps to Great Science Fair Projects for Kids
 
Last edited:

Ahanu

Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2015
Messages
432
IMO lots of Ray's evidence comes from anecdotal experience in which unhealthy people had benefited from raising heart rates or temperatures.
just because peat gives additional anectodes doesnt mean that he bases his arguments on it. that would be very stupid indeed. you must think pretty low of him? maybe you give him a little bit more credit and ask yourself why studies like the baltimore one didn´t change his mind.
 

Queequeg

Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2016
Messages
1,191
just because peat gives additional anectodes doesnt mean that he bases his arguments on it. that would be very stupid indeed. you must think pretty low of him? maybe you give him a little bit more credit and ask yourself why studies like the baltimore one didn´t change his mind.
Not true. I think very highly of him and his advice. I also take seriously his advice to not trust anyone and check out the evidence for myself. I would think he would want all of us to do the same. In my opinion he developed his ideas on the good effects of increasing metabolism from studies on rodents due to their higher levels of mitochondrial uncoupling. I think he is mistaken in applying those to humans who do not have such a high level of uncoupling.
 

Ahanu

Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2015
Messages
432
I also take seriously his advice to not trust anyone and check out the evidence for myself.
sounds good! i didn´t get the impression that you did that with the baltimore study, though.
 

Queequeg

Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2016
Messages
1,191
sounds good! i didn´t get the impression that you did that with the baltimore study, though.
I think you had the best criticism of that study in that it would have been good to know the cortisol levels. But as I wrote I still don't think it would have made much of a difference as patients with major adrenal issues where excluded. I haven't heard any other critiques that made me doubt the study's conclusions or methods in anyway. Plus my questions are not just based on that one study. All metabolic studies on humans and large animals all seem to say that higher metabolisms lead to a shorter longevity. Only the studies on certain small animals show the opposite due to uncoupling. The same could be said of the studies on thyroid, temp and heart rate. I don't think it is likely that all of these studies are so flawed that they got the general direction of the relationships to health completely wrong.
 
Last edited:

WestCoaster

Member
Joined
Aug 31, 2016
Messages
130
Location
Vancouver, BC
Well I've said this before and I'll say it again: The longest living population on the planet is the Okinawan people. My Gf's routes are in Okinawa and I'm very familiar with their diet. The traditional diet is low calorie and mildly ketogenic. Their metabolisms run generally slow, heart rate slow, and tend to have colder hands and feet than your average westerner. Their stress is very low. I have also said on many occasions, for every study you find supporting one thing, you can usually find a study that contradicts it. So then your left scratching your head with the only evidence of real world situations, and sorry to say folks, the reality is (and the Okinawan people prove it), low calorie with a slowed down metabolism supports longevity. On the flip side, steroids rapidly increase metabolism by increasing Testosterone. As people should know, steroid users tend to die quicker; this shouldn't even be debateable.
 

Tenacity

Member
Joined
Mar 12, 2016
Messages
844
Well I've said this before and I'll say it again: The longest living population on the planet is the Okinawan people. My Gf's routes are in Okinawa and I'm very familiar with their diet. The traditional diet is low calorie and mildly ketogenic. Their metabolisms run generally slow, heart rate slow, and tend to have colder hands and feet than your average westerner. Their stress is very low. I have also said on many occasions, for every study you find supporting one thing, you can usually find a study that contradicts it. So then your left scratching your head with the only evidence of real world situations, and sorry to say folks, the reality is (and the Okinawan people prove it), low calorie with a slowed down metabolism supports longevity. On the flip side, steroids rapidly increase metabolism by increasing Testosterone. As people should know, steroid users tend to die quicker; this shouldn't even be debateable.

Yet the oldest verified living person is not Okinawan, how do you explain that?
 

Giraffe

Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2015
Messages
3,730
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.
Thyroid Status, Disability and Cognitive Function, and Survival in Old Age
Thyroid Status and Renal Function in Older Persons in the General Population

After 4 years 61% of the people with low and normal TSH were still alive vs. 76% of those with high TSH. The ratio of men was 65% higher in the groups with low and normal TSH. The mortility did not differ between low (< 0.3) and normal TSH. Survivors had a higher T3/T4 ratio than non-survivors. Low T3 was associated with increased mortality, disability, lower cognitive function and depression. A small percentage took T4 and/or antithyroid drugs, other drugs are not reported. The cause of death is reported as "CVD" or "other". At age 88 blood samples were taken again, and some individuals who have been hyperthyroid at the first examination were hypo at the second or vice versa, 95% were considered to have normal thyroid function vs. 85% at baseline.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom