Stress Hormones in Context

[S-VV]

Some ideas that came to mind:

An organism is always searching for a dynamic equilibrium (homeostasis) between itself and the environment (i.e. input = output). The lack of homeostasis directly threatens survival because it leads to the slowing down of life sustaining processes in one way or another.

The adaptation of the body to external factors is so important that in hospitals, most life-threatening situations are preceded with “compensated”, meaning the patient isn’t going to die, or “uncompensated”, meaning you probably need to start preparing a bed in the ICU.

Alterations in the environment, or stressors, place a demand on the body, and fulfilling that demand will return the body to homeostasis. The cumulative demands on the body are called the allostatic load.

When a stress cannot be compensated with the normal means of the body, adaptive mechanism spring into action. These mechanisms, broadly mediated by a series of related “stress hormones”, will improve short term survival at the cost of long term structure and function.

When an organism is engaged in an “allostatic struggle” with its environment, artificially supressing stress hormones will lead to detrimental results, unless the stressor is also removed. This is illustrated, for example, in Hans Selye`s experiments, where increasing cortisone in rats promotes short term survival.

All stress mediators can have positive effects, for example:

-Cortisol: Increasing blood glucose, decreasing excessive or unproductive inflammation, promoting pathogen tolerance

-Serotonin: Promotes protective torpor, adaptation to insurmountable social stress, enables to cope with chronic social defeat.

-Nitric Oxide: Increased vasodilation, blocks Complex IV leading to more O2 availability for other tissues

-Oestrogens: Increases intracellular water retention that can improve resistance to shock, promotes cell division via stabilization of mitotic apparatuses, maybe can “delete” epigenetic alterations

-Angiotensin II & Aldosterone: Increase kidney GFR and Na+ retention

-Acetyl-Choline: Decreases ATP expenditure via activation of parasympathetic efferents

-Endogenous opioids/cannabinoids: Analgesia, euphoria, oppose inflammation

However, over the long-term stress mediators damage the body, sometimes permanently. This is because the “supraphysiological” stress-resistance comes at the price of diverting available energy to essential processes, shutting down non-essential functions, generalized catabolism, decreased energy consumption etc.

Many people feel better with cortisol, SSRIs, low-carb diets, high intensity exercises and so on, while trying cyproheptadine (anti-serotonin), methylene blue (anti-NO), 17b-HSD inhibitors (anti-cortisol), clonidine (anti-adrenergic), aromatase inhibitors (anti-oestrogen) and other anti-adaptive hormone substances, leads to feeling acutely worse. This makes sense, because shutting down adaptive processes while still being subjected to the same allostatic load will lead to worse outcomes short-term, while it can reduce degeneration long-term, if the organism doesn’t cease to function due to allostatic overload.

 

[Atman]

Where is the part which is supposed to be anti-Peat?
In principle, this is pretty much his perspective.
I don't get it.

 

[Comstock]

Where is the part which is supposed to be anti-Peat?
In principle, this is pretty much his perspective.
I don't get it.

I think Peat focuses on addressing stress hormones with food or maybe drugs, but that is probably as futile as a normal doctor trying to address pain with Tylenol.

I think there should be more of a focus on getting to the root cause of stress hormone production, and that is usually tied to the physical environment. Food can bridge the gap until you fix your environment, but if you never actually change your environment, the stressful assault will eventually overcome any food.

 

[gaze]

I think Peat focuses on addressing stress hormones with food or maybe drugs, but that is probably as futile as a normal doctor trying to address pain with Tylenol.

I think there should be more of a focus on getting to the root cause of stress hormone production, and that is usually tied to the physical environment. Food can bridge the gap until you fix your environment, but if you never actually change your environment, the stressful assault will eventually overcome any food.

the root cause is hypothyroidism. stress from diet and environment causes hypo, and hypo causes these stress hormones to become constant. it is definitely not futile to focus on the diet aspect, as it will help with dealing with the environment

 

[Comstock]

the root cause is hypothyroidism. stress from diet and environment causes hypo, and hypo causes these stress hormones to become constant. it is definitely not futile to focus on the diet aspect, as it will help with dealing with the environment

To clarify, focussing on food while forgetting about the environment is futile. I feel like people focus on food like it will solve everything.

 

[gaze]

To clarify, focussing on food while forgetting about the environment is futile. I feel like people focus on food like it will solve everything.

Yea, bad weather, bad jobs, bad relationships, heavy metals, bad air quality are all worth changing, however for most people its just not practical. At least focusing on food provides on opportunity to take initiative on your health, because avoiding all the toxins in the food supply and providing the body with sufficient nutrition will make it much easier to handle all those other things in the environment. Not everyone can move to rural Mexico and live in a utopia, we kind of have to just fair the best we can in our situation because of our social and economic responsibilities in our current environment.

 

[S-VV]

Where is the part which is supposed to be anti-Peat?
In principle, this is pretty much his perspective.
I don't get it.

Some of the implications can be anti-Peat.

For example, Ray talks about a stress mediator driven positive feedback loop that gets caught in a negative steady state, but I don't know yet if this is really the case. This is an important issue, because I believe there are many situations where lowering stress hormones can be harmful, even if you supply Peat-approved protective factors. Ray on the other hand is almost always in favor of lowering the stress mediators.

 

[Comstock]

Yea, bad weather, bad jobs, bad relationships, heavy metals, bad air quality are all worth changing, however for most people its just not practical. At least focusing on food provides on opportunity to take initiative on your health, because avoiding all the toxins in the food supply and providing the body with sufficient nutrition will make it much easier to handle all those other things in the environment. Not everyone can move to rural Mexico and live in a utopia, we kind of have to just fair the best we can in our situation because of our social and economic responsibilities in our current environment.

I agree mostly. However, I don't think it has to be as difficult as moving to rural Mexico. You can move to rural anywhere, be relatively close to a population center for good food, and set your home up with good lighting. If you have the funds to build a small home, that would allow you to avoid major VOCs and other toxins.

 

[JKX]

Some of the implications can be anti-Peat.

For example, Ray talks about a stress mediator driven positive feedback loop that gets caught in a negative steady state, but I don't know yet if this is really the case. This is an important issue, because I believe there are many situations where lowering stress hormones can be harmful, even if you supply Peat-approved protective factors. Ray on the other hand is almost always in favor of lowering the stress mediators.

Perhaps the thread title should read: stress hormones out of context? ?

Which implications exactly? In what context do you believe lowering stress hormones to be harmful? That makes the assumption that lowering stress doesnt lead to an increase in protective sterols. The only context for such a response would be hypothyroidism. Do you believe a child ellicits the same extent of stress reaction compared to an adult? The peak response might be similar, but the duration is markedly lower. There's a reason thyroid, preg, prog and dhea are strongly anti-stress, anti-catabolic, anti-aging, youth promoting and present in far greater quantities in healthier (and generally, younger) individuals.

The stress hormones have purpose, sure. Their effects are designed to maintain the functionality of an organism under short term stress episodes, as you state. Rays perspective is that chronically elevated stress hormones are harmful, and you dont appear to be arguing against that either? He recommends taking pregnenolone to reduce cortisol... to normal levels. This does not mean that you suddenly stop producing cortisol in response to stress. With healthy thyroid function and healthy protective sterol production stress response durations are minimised or eliminated and optimal health maintained.

Is your argument that stress hormones are essential for adaptation? If so, why? And what is adaptation? Is adaptation even required, necessary or is it a degenerative state induced by suboptimal response to a stressful environment? If so then what state would promote an optimal response? I'd argue thats the state of youth...the state Ray promotes.

 

[mrchibbs]

Perhaps the thread title should read: stress hormones out of context? ?

Which implications exactly? In what context do you believe lowering stress hormones to be harmful? That makes the assumption that lowering stress doesnt lead to an increase in protective sterols. The only context for such a response would be hypothyroidism. Do you believe a child ellicits the same extent of stress reaction compared to an adult? The peak response might be similar, but the duration is markedly lower. There's a reason thyroid, preg, prog and dhea are strongly anti-stress, anti-catabolic, anti-aging, youth promoting and present in far greater quantities in healthier (and generally, younger) individuals.

The stress hormones have purpose, sure. Their effects are designed to maintain the functionality of an organism under short term stress episodes, as you state. Rays perspective is that chronically elevated stress hormones are harmful, and you dont appear to be arguing against that either? He recommends taking pregnenolone to reduce cortisol... to normal levels. This does not mean that you suddenly stop producing cortisol in response to stress. With healthy thyroid function and healthy protective sterol production stress response durations are minimised or eliminated and optimal health maintained.

Is your argument that stress hormones are essential for adaptation? If so, why? And what is adaptation? Is adaptation even required, necessary or is it a degenerative state induced by suboptimal response to a stressful environment? If so then what state would promote an optimal response? I'd argue thats the state of youth...the state Ray promotes.

+1

 

[KTownSatfats]

+1

+2

 

[Bad Linhat]

+2

+3

 

[Momado965]

+3

+4

 

[S-VV]

Which implications exactly? In what context do you believe lowering stress hormones to be harmful? That makes the assumption that lowering stress doesnt lead to an increase in protective sterols. The only context for such a response would be hypothyroidism.

Lowering stress hormones doesn't mean lowering stress, and therefore there is no guarantee that when the internal mediators are lowered, protective factors will kick in.

The stress hormones have purpose, sure. Their effects are designed to maintain the functionality of an organism under short term stress episodes, as you state

Ray has many times implied that in his framework adaptive mediators don't have any meaningfully positive role when they are activated simultaneously, even in the short term. Here is a quote of his from the newsletter "Recharging the System":

"Couldn't it be that organisms simply aren't perfect, and that some things are just systematically screwed up? That is, an organism has a certain strength, resistance, or adaptive capacity, but if it finds itself in conditions that are too difficult, then processes that never did anything to aid survival might develop, as several individually valid defensive maneuvers start to interfere with each other"

Is your argument that stress hormones are essential for adaptation? If so, why? And what is adaptation? Is adaptation even required, necessary or is it a degenerative state induced by suboptimal response to a stressful environment? If so then what state would promote an optimal response? I'd argue thats the state of youth...the state Ray promotes.

There is no one argument, but a collection of ideas I found interesting to contemplate and discuss, especially the implications that develop when one considers the possible positive role of chronic elevations in stress hormones. For example, that lowering chronically elevated stress hormones may lead someone to feel worse, or that changing the environment may be more beneficial than pharmacologically changing the internal milleu of the body.

 

[JKX]

Lowering stress hormones doesn't mean lowering stress, and therefore there is no guarantee that when the internal mediators are lowered, protective factors will kick in.



Ray has many times implied that in his framework adaptive mediators don't have any meaningfully positive role when they are activated simultaneously, even in the short term. Here is a quote of his from the newsletter "Recharging the System":

"Couldn't it be that organisms simply aren't perfect, and that some things are just systematically screwed up? That is, an organism has a certain strength, resistance, or adaptive capacity, but if it finds itself in conditions that are too difficult, then processes that never did anything to aid survival might develop, as several individually valid defensive maneuvers start to interfere with each other"


There is no one argument, but a collection of ideas I found interesting to contemplate and discuss, especially the implications that develop when one considers the possible positive role of chronic elevations in stress hormones. For example, that lowering chronically elevated stress hormones may lead someone to feel worse, or that changing the environment may be more beneficial than pharmacologically changing the internal milleu of the body.

I think you perhaps mean lowering stress hormones doesnt lower stressors? For example thyroid can help maintain normal metabolism in winter but the stress influence from winter remains regardless? The stress response may remain, but I dont think that means it can't be mitigated. That'd be a pretty bleak way to look at things!

Stress is just a bodily response, a chemical reaction. From this perspective lowering stress hormones does mean lowering stress, because you would be lowering the harmful response. Cortisol is catabolic, lowering cortisol would lower the degree of catabolism, therefore lowering the total stress the organism is being subject to.

I think stressors can always be mitigated regardless of the stressor remaining in place. I think the main problem people run into is simply hypothyroidism. With sufficient progesterone, cortisol won't be produced in damaging amounts in the first place. The stressor remains present, but its potentially harmful effects do not manifest. Progesterone being anti-catabolic, cortisol being the opposite.

I guess the main point you're making is that unless the root cause stressor is removed then attempting to mediate the stress response will never prove fully restorative? I somewhat agree and somewhat disagree.

I'm of the opinion that anything that lowers stress will improve thyroid function to some degree, including glycine and cypro. But that does not mean the improved thyroid function resulting from the glycine or cypro would be sufficient to counteract the sum total of the external stressors. This may require thyroid or a surrogate or several other interventions.

Changing the environment is definately one way of removing a major stressor. No argument there. Is it more beneficial than say supplementing thyroid? I don't think it's possible to determine the exact route out of a stressful state for an individual because it's specific to that individual. A young person may only require a single small dose of progesterone. However, with advancing age several interventions may still not prove to be fully restorative.

 

[S-VV]

I'm of the opinion that anything that lowers stress will improve thyroid function to some degree, including glycine and cypro. But that does not mean the improved thyroid function resulting from the glycine or cypro would be sufficient to counteract the sum total of the external stressors. This may require thyroid or a surrogate or several other interventions.

I think there are many situations where thyroid won't kick in, unless the whole web of stress mediators is artificially shut down. If thyroid does rise, or even if provided exogenously, I believe that its effects are limited, and it will probably lead to a kind of "protective inhibition" situation, where a person may feel with less energy.

The whole idea about re-thinking stress hormones came from reading many people who after staring thyroid are feeling worse, with even lower temperatures than before starting, and some tachycardia. The situation seems like the body is really trying not to respond to thyroid, or at least responding in a different way than was expected.

Stress is just a bodily response, a chemical reaction. From this perspective lowering stress hormones does mean lowering stress, because you would be lowering the harmful response. Cortisol is catabolic, lowering cortisol would lower the degree of catabolism, therefore lowering the total stress the organism is being subject to.

This is true for some forms of stress, at some point we have to take the ghost out of the machine. For a stressor of the "informational" kind, blocking the transduction would equate to eliminating the stressor by attenuating its perception at various levels, for example the social stress of rejection, anticipation of a future hypothetical threat etc...

However, there are many stressors that cannot be eliminated by reducing its transduction/perception, for example hypoglycemia, hypo/hyperthermia, hypo/hyperosmosis, most kinds of toxins, unfolded proteins, red light deficiency etc... These stressors are environmental and are damaging to the cell in a kind of structural way. Its is true that some peaty protective factors (and I'm all for them) like pregnenolone/progesterone (microtubule stabilisation), niacinamide (NAD+ increase), methylene blue, tocopherol, bright light etc. also act structurally and to some extent neutralise the threat , but if these protective factors are not enough, then stress mediators have to kick in to avoid immediate damage.

Right now I think of the stress hormones/mediators as a kind of mode of being that allows for supraphysiological energy generation and cell survival at lower energy levels, at the cost of long term damage. Implied here is that the organism has a limited threshold for "clean" energy generation and survival, past which normal mediators become ineffective at dealing with a demanding stressor.

I guess the main point you're making is that unless the root cause stressor is removed then attempting to mediate the stress response will never prove fully restorative? I somewhat agree and somewhat disagree.

Yeah, if the environmental stressor cannot be eliminated, and all the structural protective factors have been supplied, I believe it is best not to artificially suppress stress hormones, unless one can replicate their effect in a safer/less destructive manner. Suppressing them may actually be harmful if no alternative is provided.