Serotonin

[Kasper]

Oh sorry. My mistake. Now I see what you mean. If I google it, they say everywhere that premature ejuculation is a sign of low serotonin. But I can't find any evidence besides that selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors treat premature ejucalation, that is why I wrote it that way. But maybe those website are taking the wrong conclussions, and it just not a symptom of low serotonin.

 

[Suikerbuik]

Oh yes I can, 'answers' are quite easy but obviously not what you want to hear maybe..

"Could vegetables high in cadmium (maybe take the juice only) lower serotonin?

For everything you look for an answer you will find an answer:

This work was designed to analyze the effects of cadmium on the regulatory mechanism of prolactin in cadmium-exposed rats. Adult male rats were given cadmium at a dose of 25 ppm of cadmium chloride (CdCl2) in the drinking water for 1 month. At the end of the treatment, the rats were killed at six different time intervals throughout a 24 h cycle to measure circulating prolactin levels and dopamine and serotonin content in the median eminence and in both anterior and posterior pituitary. Control and cadmium-exposed animals exhibited significant time of day-dependent variations in plasma prolactin levels and in dopamine and serotonin concentration in all analyzed tissue. Cadmium exposure did not modify the mean values of the hormone around the clock but it modified the amplitude of the secretory peaks at 08:00 and 12:00 h. Cadmium decreased dopamine content in the median eminence, while increased its content in the posterior pituitary and induced a phase advanced peak at 20:00 h. On the other hand, serotonin content was not modified in the median eminence. Only differences in specific time points were observed, while serotonin concentration in anterior and posterior pituitary were increased in cadmium-treated rats. Differences in time peaks were also observed. The negative correlation between plasma prolactin and dopamine content in pituitary, and between plasma levels of the hormone and serotonin content in posterior pituitary, disappeared in cadmium-treated animals.

link

Serotonin stays the same or increases in thus study. This study also makes clear that even different tissues will have different levels of serotonin even at different time intervals! So the already bloodvalue isn't say not much, but even specific tissue concentrations can and do vary and are time dependant (circadian rhythm I guess)! It's also obviously also influenced by other receptors and molecules. In study you mentioned they seemingly thought they ruled out possible mechanisms, not so sure..

Anyway the same as for nuts not every substance isn't necessarily ONLY bad, but you have see it in context. So cadmium lowers serotonin?? What about possible chance for developing for cancer or other detrimental effects that are certainly not wanted?

How far can we go with lowering serotonin?

Your body is so extremely smart Kasper. You won't go too low in serotonin just by following Peat's advice. The body when healthy will make all it needs and if not healthy it will strive to meet it's needs. If it's not healthy (or too low) don't look for a cause at serotonin, but clear the underlying cause unless you have genetic predisposition, although I still doubt this.. genetics and phenotype still can't really be linked in most cases..

Is premature education a sign that you go too far in lowering serotonin?

Mmmh, I don't know much about this. But certainly more involved if you ask me, see previous answer.

Why does glucose raise serotonin in rats?

It's glucose ONLY in water. What if you do glucose with sodium and water?? Glucose with protein?? Glucose with fat?? Every modification most likely lead to different results.

 

[Blossom]

Suikerbuik has provided you with multiple links and much food for thought. It may come down to either continuing to eat in a Peat inspired fashion, since you report feeling better this way, while you continue to seek understanding or just going with the more mainstream approach since you seem to believe in that science a bit more at this time. For me personally I continue to understand Peat's work more and more all the time. I've stuck with a Peat inspired approach despite all the confusion in medicine and science simply because I felt better doing so but maybe that would have been different if I had been in reasonable health. You can find contradictory evidence for everything and I for one didn't have time to wait for medicine and science to catch up with Peat. If the information you posted feels true for you then you should probably follow a lifestyle that is in alignment with the findings of those studies. I believe you will find the answers you seek in time and that sometimes the process of discovery is healing in itself. Peat is the reason I was able to figure out how to save my own life from a probable serotonin secreting tumor so obviously I am biased. You most likely don't have that level of urgency so taking your time to figure out what seems to make the most sense for you is probably wise.

 

[Kasper]

Maybe I just don't really believe in health theory. Just because, I mean, Ray Peat have studied this for years, but so has Natasha Campbell Mcbride, and so has Mercola, and so has Weston Price, and so has Thijs Klompmaker. And so have thousand of more conventional scientist.

If I read stuff of Thijs Klompmaker (his diet contains 4L of OJ, sugar, raw fish and egg yolks), the stuff he writes, seems pretty sound to me. His theory about why his diet treats depression by high serotonin levels, his theory why calcium is bad, his theory why raw fish is excellent, well, he studied that for 20 years, well... who am I to think I know better...

Then I read, Ray Peat, well the stuff he writes seems also pretty sound, he is thought about that stuff for even more than 20 years, but he says the exact opposite, high sugar diets treats depression by low serotonin levels, and he explains why calcium is so freaking good for you... Who am I to think I know better ...

Then I read stuff from Natasha Campbell Mcbride, where she explains why Sauerkraut is so freaking good for you, why saukerkraut detoxifies toxic estrogens in your gut. Well.. also sounds pretty sound ...
Then I read stuff from Mercola why UVB light is so freaking good for you ...
Then I read stuff from Buteyko, why running with nose breating only is so freaking good for you...
Then I read stuff from Ray Peat, that says that UVB light and running are bad...

I mean, who am I, to think I know better than people that studied this stuff for years, and years. That is my problem. I'm not trying to tell you guys that serotonin and nuts are good. I don't know.

I don't know why I opened those topics. Maybe I was more curious how you guys react if I present studies that contradict ray peat view points. More like, do they have doubts about Ray Peat theories? Do they really understand it?

But anyway, as I told, I hate thinking and talking about health theory, it's too complicated, too much different views, too much speculation, too much arrogant **** asses that think they know stuff. I will continue what I've done for the last year, and that is not thinking about health theory, but just listening to my own body, measuring consistently things I believe indicate good health, and just don't care if I feel good because I'm low in serotonin or high in serotonin.

If some moderator wants to close those 2 topics, I'm fine with that.

 

[Blossom]

I think a good general rule is to stay away from people trying to sell you something when it comes to your health. Peat is the only one out there I know of not doing that but he is freely sharing his knowledge so we can all make better health decisions if we chose to do so.

 

[j.]

Then I read stuff from Ray Peat, that says that UVB light and running are bad...

Part of the problem might be that you don't even read carefully. Ray Peat doesn't say UVB is bad, he says it's bad in some contexts, like sunbathing at noon in the summer if you have a high level of PUFA in your tissues. He mentions that a lot of the damage from the sun occurs due to a high level of PUFA in the body.

I'm surprised that a math student believes he can understand things by reading very superficially, which of course implies thinking very little.

If you applied the same effort and care for math as for health related issues, I'm surprised you haven't failed your classes and been kicked out of the school.

 

[Kasper]

Did I somewhere say I think that I can understand things by reading superficially ? Are you reading my post superficially ?

I don't always read carefully. And sure that article of Ray Peat I didn't read carefully. Actually I think I got it from some discussion at Danny Roddy's website, where they where discussing if incandescent lights may be better then direct sun light because of the harmful UV lights of the sun.

I read math carefully, very carefully, but I don't have the time to do the same with all those health articles. If I would really study all those articles of all those experts the way I study math. It would surely take me several months 50 hours a week. The reason, I don't feel like doing this is, because what will I gain from it ? Maybe I conclude from all this that Ray Peat argument are very weak, that it is all speculation, and that he takes his conclusions way too easily... That is what some good friend of me concluded that studied biochemistry and biology, and studied the material of Ray Peat in great detail.

Maybe I will come to the same conclussion, maybe, but I still feel great on Ray Peat's diet. So what does it matter ? Maybe I feel great, for completely different reason Ray Peat suggest. I don't really care.

 

[Blossom]

Have you looked at the references he sites at the end of each article? I haven't noticed anyone else who does that. You may not be ready for Peat at this point in your life and if that's the case it's okay. I would eat the way you feel best and the way you feel best about eating. Most people on the forum have recovered from some pretty debilitating conditions and we are all here for the most part to encourage and support one another by sharing our experiences. I don't think you will find anyone who can definitively convince you a that Peat is right for you. I know why his work is right for me but I don't really know you therefore I can't convince you his work is right for you. I believe everyone can learn something and make health improvements by studying his work but each person has to do their own study and come to their own understanding.

 

[haidut]

If serotonin is bad:
1. Why do selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors treat premature ejucalation effectively ? This is a very objective measurement. Is premature ejaculation a sign of good health then ?
2. And glucose is good. Why then does glucose water raise serotonin in rats:

3. [A major decrease in 5-hydroxyindoleacetic acid was found in cortex and hippocampus in rats exposed to cadmium during lactation]http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0892036296002188 So maybe cadmium has positive effects ?
4. [Serotonin in mammals is made by two different tryptophan hydroxylases: TPH1 produces serotonin in the pineal gland and the enterochromaffin cells, while TPH2 produces it in the raphe nuclei and in the myenteric plexus. Genetically altered mice lacking TPH1 develop progressive loss of heart strength early on. They have pale skin and breathing difficulties, are easily tired, and eventually die of heart failure.][http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC263847/]

I actually wanted to make a whole list about topics like
cold exposure/omega-3/melatonin/cortisol/cooked protein/amphetamines/exercise/acidbase theory/sleep duration/gut flora/nuts etc. all things where I just have questions.

Studies that I read in the last 5 years, or experiences that I have, that just don't fit in the ray peat theory. But reading those studies again takes quite some time... Maybe another day.

Kasper, you have some good points and I will try to answer as best as I can. However, I think you do need to broaden your perspective rather than just looking selectively for things that do not agree with Peat.

1. SSRI have a known effect of desensitizing, sometimes permanently, by destroying nerves. That applies to both mental function and mechanical stimulation like coitus (leading to ejaculation). With that in mind - yes, you can "treat" your premature ejaculation with SSRI. But it comes with the price of strongly reduced ability to experience pleasure from sex, and if you overdo the SSRI you will NOT be able to ejaculate at all! In the lucky event that you dose right, when you do ejaculate, the force of the ejaculate will be greatly diminished. For you, it will likely feel more like you are leaking than ejaculating. Does that sound like a drug that improves health? Ejaculation is a spinal reflex, so if its force diminishes, it means you have damaged nerves in your spinal column. Translation = not a good thing! Premature ejaculation is likely caused by high estrogen, and adrenalin making the nerves in your spinal column chronically overexcited and unable to relax. Anti-adrenalin drugs like clonidine relieve the symptoms WITHOUT destroying your ability to..hmhm..blast (rather than leak) and enjoy it too! Here is something for you to consider:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16193073

"...Spinal cord transection at a thoracic level activates fictive ejaculation (FE) in the male rat. It has earlier been demonstrated that fictive motor patterns may be activated by pharmacological means and that the noradrenergic system seems to be particularly efficient in triggering locomotor fictive patterns in spinal animals. These data suggest that an increased noradrenergic tone, either by blockade of presynaptic alpha2-adrenoceptors or by stimulation of postsynaptic alpha1-adrenoceptors, results in the activation of the SGE. Present findings provide the evidence that the SGE might be importantly influenced by the noradrenergic system, which exerts a facilitatory control on the expression of the genital motor pattern of ejaculation."

2. Sugar water in the picture you listed did NOT raise serotonin. It raised levels of 5-HIAA, which is a serotonin metabolite. This could mean many things, but one of the consensus points is that it hints to increased turnover of serotonin. Increased turnover could mean high synthesis and high rate of disposal of serotonin. It could also mean normal synthesis and high rate of disposal of serotonin. In one case, brain serotonin levels stay about the same while in the other they are actually lower. So, the sugar water is good after all! Without the researchers actually killing the rats and examining the brains directly, there is no telling what the serotonin levels were. Search PubMed for "HIAA" and you will see that some people count higher HIAA levels as indication of "lower brain serotonin" while others just say "increased turnover", and still some others say "increased serotonin". So, I am afraid neither you nor I have enough info to answer the question what effect on serotonin the sugar water had.

3. The study concludes that there was a disturbance of the serotonergic system. I don't have access to the full study, so I don't know what else led the researchers to conclude that other than the lower serotonin and lower 5-HIAA. It could be that cadmium lowers serotonin but as you see the conclusion of the study was not positive, so I need to see what else was measured that is not reflected in the abstract. Either way, cadmium is estrogenic and carcinogenic so if I were you I would not load up on cadmium.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22011313
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21473385
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20957345
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20711721
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19236889

4. The TPH-1 and THP-2 knockout rodents are mutants, and as such cannot really be used a model of healthiness. Keep in mind, those are animals that had one or more genes artificially removed so by definition they are not well-evolved to live in our environment. In regards to their heart problems, I will tell you that high serotonin is a confirmed risk factor for heart fibrosis and heart failure, and anti-serotonin drugs are currently all the rage for treating the conditions. Just search PubMed for "serotonin heart fibrosis" or "serotonin heart failure" and you will see for yourself. All pharma companies are scrambling to come up with drugs have selective anti-serotonin activity. I can't remember which serotonin "receptor" was mostly expressed in the heart, but all of the experimental drugs target it. Search Wikipedia for serotonin receptors and check them out one by one. I think they go from 5-HT1 to 5-HT7.
So, to summarize - high serotonin is implicated in the same conditions which your mutants died from. Maybe too low and too high is not good, maybe it's something else entirely. To me a good test would be to see what happens to normal rats that are fed lifelong supply of pCPA (inhibitor of TPH-1) and also some inhibitor of TPH-2 so that their overall serotonin levels could be low for a long time. Since such a test has not been done, here is one study to consider, using BCAA. BCAA kind of acts like a combination of TPH-1 and TPH-2 - i.e. inhibits the absorption of tryptophan and this results in decreased serotonin synthesis. Hint: it extended lifespan.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20889128
http://www.thespec.com/news-story/21721 ... ice-life-/

All in all, good questions but keep in mind the multitude of factors here. I spent some time around people working on rodent trials. Most of them have a very specific goal, usually tied to the interests of the Principal Investigator (PI) sponsoring them. If that happens to be "show that serotonin is good" then that's what they will produce using very creative techniques, and sometimes dishonesty. Not saying this is the case here, just saying that studies only give you so much. In my opinion they should be a small percentage of the factor forming your views. Ray wrote once that "if the ultimate knowledge is experimental, then the ultimate human faculty must be the one that experiences". So, my advice for you is to look for what works vs. what's published. Observe around you people on serotonin drugs (usually SSRI). Do they look healthy? Can you remember how they looked before they got on SSRI? Since you are in Europe, here are some other things to consider:

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style ... 47526.html

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2007 ... eandhealth
"...In Germany, Prozac was initially refused a licence after trials resulted in 16 attempted suicides, two of which were successful. The SSRIs have made hundreds of court appearances. The first big case was in 1989, when Joseph Wesbecker walked through the Standard Gravure printing plant in Louisville, Kentucky with an AK47, killing eight employees, then himself. Wesbecker had been on the newly licensed Prozac less than a month and had become increasingly agitated. The families of those killed sued Eli Lilly but agreed to a secret settlement. More followed. After six days on Prozac, Patricia Williamson, 60, killed herself in her bath in Texas while her husband ate breakfast downstairs. Eli Lilly settled out of court. Don Schell had been on Seroxat (marketed as Paxil in America) for 48 hours when he shot his wife, his daughter, his nine-month-old granddaughter and himself at his home in Wyoming. Schell's son-in-law was awarded $8m by manufacturers SmithKline. In the UK, Reginald Payne, a retired teacher from Cornwall, suffocated his wife then he jumped off a cliff after 11 days on Prozac. His sons issued court proceedings against Eli Lilly. In Losing a Child, Linda Hurcombe describes the impact of her 19-year-old daughter Caitlin's suicide. Caitlin, from rural Shropshire, had asked her GP for Prozac, as she was feeling down; she had also heard it could help her lose weight. She had marked the subsequent days in her diary 'PZ Days'. David Healy, who has testified as an expert witness against both Eli Lilly and SmithKline, estimates SSRIs can produce suicidal thoughts in one in 500 users.

Anyways, I am ending my rant. I think you have some good starting points to research further. When you go to PubMed and search, try to look at the "related" studies that appear to the right. Often you will find contradictions to pretty much every study out there. So, it should serve as a reminder that at best things are confusing, and at worst some of them are fraud, until you figure it out for yourself. I will conclude with another favorite Peat aphorism of mine: "Ideally, things should never make sense, until suddenly they make perfect sense".

 

[juanitacarlos]

I don't know why I opened those topics. Maybe I was more curious how you guys react if I present studies that contradict ray peat view points. More like, do they have doubts about Ray Peat theories? Do they really understand it?

That really pisses me off. Stop playing games Kasper. Post questions because you genuinely want an answer because you have taken the time to research and can't come up with a conclusion yourself. Not because you want to get a reaction out of people.

Do you honestly think we are unaware of alternate research?

 

[Kasper]

That really pisses me off. Stop playing games Kasper. Post questions because you genuinely want an answer because you have taken the time to research and can't come up with a conclusion yourself. Not because you want to get a reaction out of people.

I honestly don't understand your problems are ttramone.
I don't force anyone to do anything for me.
I'm just asking question, if you don't want to answer them, and feel like I should answer them myself, well just don't answer.. just go to another topic...
If you find the question interesting, and want to share your opinion about it, well go ahead.
I feel like you and j. are trying to create problems that don't exist. Just relax...

I find the answer of haidut very interesting. And I'm reading it and the study he links for the last couple of hours.
I should actually learn my exams now, but I couldn't resist.
If I didn't asked this question, we didn't get this great post of haidut.
And yes, I have another agenda as well, I also find it interesting that some people not only scream they understand Ray Peat, and call your stupid if you doubt it,
but actually did take their reserach to some different level, respect haidut, and inspiring.

Do you honestly think we are unaware of alternate research?

Did I say that ? I just wanted to know how you guys handle alternate research, do you ignore it, do you think about it, do you doubt ray peat, are you really able to understand why this alternate research may be wrong ? That is something I'm wondering, but I didn't realize that when I asked this question, sometimes you do things unconciously.

 

[j.]

I just wanted to know how you guys handle alternate research

There are 1200 people in the forum. So probably there is one person for every possible way.

That said, calling the stuff you posted about nuts "research" is pretty generous. It's more accurate to call it propaganda through statistical manipulation.

 

[Such_Saturation]

I don't know.

I don't know why I opened those topics. Maybe I was more curious how you guys react if I present studies that contradict ray peat view points.

I think that's an AWESOME reason. Now I'm also curious after witnessing this thread.

just listening to my own body, measuring consistently things I believe indicate good health, and just don't care if I feel good because I'm low in serotonin or high in serotonin

That's also awesome.

P.S. SSRIs make you unable to orgasm after a while, so I'm guessing that's why they cure the opposite problem.

 

[Spokey]

I had to watch someone close to me suffer from serotonin syndrome. It's not pretty and is known to cause hemorrhagic strokes, which aligns with much of what Peat says. And the whole time this individual was suicidal. So much for the happy hormone.

Myself, I suffered from depression for many years, so feel I can say with reasonable certainty the serotonin hypothesis is a bust.

 

[Wilfrid]

I agree with most of the forum members on this.
But after reading the works of Fuad Lechín and the results he got with both serotonin enhancing (mainly p-5HT) or blocking drugs (depending of the patient's disease), all became very confusing.
Ray was probably one of the few to warn against the negative health impact of excess (f-5HT, I think) serotonin...but Fuad Lechín clearly proved through his clinical results that enhancing, for example, platelet serotonin (p-5HT), but, yeah, not plasma serotonin ( f-5HT), could, sometimes, certainly play an important therapeutic ( even life saving) role too.
One could easily have high free serotonin while in the mean time having low platelet serotonin; here lies, I think, the difference between correlation and causality.

http://www.joplink.net/prev/200407/08.html.

This distinction between free (or plasma) serotonin and platelet serotonin are rarely made in scientific studies regarding serotonin's adverse health effects on humans and/or rodents.
Lechín's works, though not very well known, could not be ignore.

http://www.lechin.com/
One of his books could be find on Library genesis.com, for those who have interest in.

May be Kasper raised a good topic anyway.
That being said, I would never play the russian roulette with L-tryptophane or 5HTP or whatever....

 

[deliciousfruit]

1. SSRI have a known effect of desensitizing, sometimes permanently, by destroying nerves. That applies to both mental function and mechanical stimulation like coitus (leading to ejaculation). With that in mind - yes, you can "treat" your premature ejaculation with SSRI. But it comes with the price of strongly reduced ability to experience pleasure from sex, and if you overdo the SSRI you will NOT be able to ejaculate at all! In the lucky event that you dose right, when you do ejaculate, the force of the ejaculate will be greatly diminished. For you, it will likely feel more like you are leaking than ejaculating. Does that sound like a drug that improves health? Ejaculation is a spinal reflex, so if its force diminishes, it means you have damaged nerves in your spinal column. Translation = not a good thing! Premature ejaculation is likely caused by high estrogen, and adrenalin making the nerves in your spinal column chronically overexcited and unable to relax. Anti-adrenalin drugs like clonidine relieve the symptoms WITHOUT destroying your ability to..hmhm..blast (rather than leak) and enjoy it too! Here is something for you to consider:

Does that mean PSSD can be permanent?

 

[Perry Staltic]

@Suikerbuik

Then I can only conclude, okay, so serotonin has also positieve effects in at least mice.

Serotonin is essential to life. It is a very good molecule. But like anything, once homeostasis is disrupted it can cause problems.

Edit: derp... got sucked into an old thread lol