So I have outlined this theory in like 2 threads and some people there who seem smart said they liked the meta-theory. So it's about time I lay it out here for you guys to discuss it and most likely refute it! Sorry, its a bit long.
To my person: Haven't read a whole lot of papers or stuff like that, just got most of my knowledge (which is basically non existent when it comes to micro-level stuff) from the forum. This is extremely meta theory level, and in a way surely very naive and over simplified (which arguably could have benefits as an approach, considering how science works nowadays).
One thing that has bugged me was the forums use of the word "stress". What does a stressor really do? The concept is too broad to understand anything with it. One user said "lack of energy" which I like.
Another thing I never understood was: Why do some of us keep being hypothyroid, even if we eat like 5000 calories for example and a highly nutrient dense diet? Meanwhile some people have a third of that fuel and ideal temperatures. I suppose this forums answer would be that the "stressors" like PUFA interact on a chemical level with our body compositions in a way that makes it impossible to raise temperature, even though we have the fuel to do so in this case (or do we not?). This forums answer, if I understand it correctly, would be that our bodies want to raise their temperatures, but can't, because of the stuff that happens on a cellular level stopping energy circulation. Hypothyroidism is thus rendered a disease.
My theory is that hypothyroidism (and any metabolically compromising reaction) is a response, not a disease. A response to a cancer threat induced by our carcinogenic environment.
Why do I believe this?
In order to heal from the damages hypothyroidism for example causes, we would have to re-enter an anabolic state, and well, stop being hypothyroid. Hypothyroidism is the exact reason we are not anabolic, and cannot heal. Yet we are unable to escape hypothyroidism and catabolism, sometimes even despite eating so much quality food, resting so much etc. Maybe there is a reason for that that doesn't come down to our bodies being completely helpless about overcoming it on a chemical/cellular level. Maybe, there is even further "stress" in regeneration/anabolism, maybe even potentially deadly stress?
catabolism = breaking down, hypothyroidism, low metabolism, but ultimately also starvation
anabolism = growth, regeneration, but ultimately also cancer (in presence of carcinogenics, which I theorize, every metabolic "stressor" directly or indirectly is)
When I looked into cancer more questions came up and I finally formed the following idea based on the anabolism/catabolism comparison above:
What if we are hypothyroid/metabolically compromised to keep cancer at bay? What if hypothyroidism induces a catabolic state as a form of natural, light chemo therapy to do that?
Anecdotally, I noticed that there seems to be a paradox in cancer: People who look young for their age (before being put on chemo) seem to be at higher risk of getting cancer to me, or at the very least, not at a lower risk than people looking older (which you would think indicates poorer health and thus higher cancer risk).
Makes sense, because looking young/healthy indicates anabolism (regeneration), and anabolism is not only necessary for regeneration, but also for regeneration gone wrong: cancer cell growth. Worse regeneration, no (or lower risk of) cancer.
What if these peoples response to the cancer threat our environments pose are not adequate in that they are kept in an anabolic state in which their metabolisms are great, but they are in turn at risk of getting a deadly disease?
Every attempt to methylate our DNA to rejuvenate it is a cancer risk, if carcinogenics are present.
What if not getting cancer is the reason we are hypothyroid? What if, evolutionary speaking, hypothyroidism is a response to a death threat in which not dying is priority 1, and having a highly functioning metabolism priority 2, that we have to allow by removing carcinogenics ("stressors")?
This would mean artificially boosting metabolism (e.g. through synthetic thyroid) despite not reducing "stressors"/carcinogenics (which would be the natural way of "allowing" higher metabolism and regeneration) would increase cancer risk.
Thyroid Hormones and Cancer: A Comprehensive Review of Preclinical and Clinical Studies
"However, a large body of evidence suggests that subclinical and clinical hyperthyroidism increase the risk of several solid malignancies while hypothyroidism may reduce aggressiveness or delay the onset of cancer."
T3 levels in relation to prognostic factors in breast cancer: a population-based prospective cohort study
"We have previously found a positive association between prospectively measured levels of triiodothyronine (T3) and breast cancer incidence as well as breast cancer mortality."
@lampofred also theorized that lower temperaturs keep pufa in tissue more stable
ray on methylation among other things:
Protective CO2 and aging
Feel free to not only criticize, but also expand on the theory.
To my person: Haven't read a whole lot of papers or stuff like that, just got most of my knowledge (which is basically non existent when it comes to micro-level stuff) from the forum. This is extremely meta theory level, and in a way surely very naive and over simplified (which arguably could have benefits as an approach, considering how science works nowadays).
One thing that has bugged me was the forums use of the word "stress". What does a stressor really do? The concept is too broad to understand anything with it. One user said "lack of energy" which I like.
Another thing I never understood was: Why do some of us keep being hypothyroid, even if we eat like 5000 calories for example and a highly nutrient dense diet? Meanwhile some people have a third of that fuel and ideal temperatures. I suppose this forums answer would be that the "stressors" like PUFA interact on a chemical level with our body compositions in a way that makes it impossible to raise temperature, even though we have the fuel to do so in this case (or do we not?). This forums answer, if I understand it correctly, would be that our bodies want to raise their temperatures, but can't, because of the stuff that happens on a cellular level stopping energy circulation. Hypothyroidism is thus rendered a disease.
My theory is that hypothyroidism (and any metabolically compromising reaction) is a response, not a disease. A response to a cancer threat induced by our carcinogenic environment.
Why do I believe this?
In order to heal from the damages hypothyroidism for example causes, we would have to re-enter an anabolic state, and well, stop being hypothyroid. Hypothyroidism is the exact reason we are not anabolic, and cannot heal. Yet we are unable to escape hypothyroidism and catabolism, sometimes even despite eating so much quality food, resting so much etc. Maybe there is a reason for that that doesn't come down to our bodies being completely helpless about overcoming it on a chemical/cellular level. Maybe, there is even further "stress" in regeneration/anabolism, maybe even potentially deadly stress?
catabolism = breaking down, hypothyroidism, low metabolism, but ultimately also starvation
anabolism = growth, regeneration, but ultimately also cancer (in presence of carcinogenics, which I theorize, every metabolic "stressor" directly or indirectly is)
When I looked into cancer more questions came up and I finally formed the following idea based on the anabolism/catabolism comparison above:
What if we are hypothyroid/metabolically compromised to keep cancer at bay? What if hypothyroidism induces a catabolic state as a form of natural, light chemo therapy to do that?
Anecdotally, I noticed that there seems to be a paradox in cancer: People who look young for their age (before being put on chemo) seem to be at higher risk of getting cancer to me, or at the very least, not at a lower risk than people looking older (which you would think indicates poorer health and thus higher cancer risk).
Makes sense, because looking young/healthy indicates anabolism (regeneration), and anabolism is not only necessary for regeneration, but also for regeneration gone wrong: cancer cell growth. Worse regeneration, no (or lower risk of) cancer.
What if these peoples response to the cancer threat our environments pose are not adequate in that they are kept in an anabolic state in which their metabolisms are great, but they are in turn at risk of getting a deadly disease?
Every attempt to methylate our DNA to rejuvenate it is a cancer risk, if carcinogenics are present.
What if not getting cancer is the reason we are hypothyroid? What if, evolutionary speaking, hypothyroidism is a response to a death threat in which not dying is priority 1, and having a highly functioning metabolism priority 2, that we have to allow by removing carcinogenics ("stressors")?
This would mean artificially boosting metabolism (e.g. through synthetic thyroid) despite not reducing "stressors"/carcinogenics (which would be the natural way of "allowing" higher metabolism and regeneration) would increase cancer risk.
Thyroid Hormones and Cancer: A Comprehensive Review of Preclinical and Clinical Studies
"However, a large body of evidence suggests that subclinical and clinical hyperthyroidism increase the risk of several solid malignancies while hypothyroidism may reduce aggressiveness or delay the onset of cancer."
T3 levels in relation to prognostic factors in breast cancer: a population-based prospective cohort study
"We have previously found a positive association between prospectively measured levels of triiodothyronine (T3) and breast cancer incidence as well as breast cancer mortality."
@lampofred also theorized that lower temperaturs keep pufa in tissue more stable
ray on methylation among other things:
Protective CO2 and aging
Feel free to not only criticize, but also expand on the theory.
Last edited: