The Benefits Of Decreased Thyroid Function

[Mito]

The Benefits of Decreased Thyroid Function - Selfhacked

Joe Cohen's (Selhacked) article is contrary to one of Ray Peat's most fundamental philosophies regarding metabolism.

Summary of key points (quotes from link above):

- Thyroid hormones increase inflammation and oxidative stress.
- "inflammation (and T Cell proliferation) is closely tied to metabolism (the production of energy). This means the higher our metabolism, the more inflammation we experience."
- "mTOR, which increases metabolism, also increases our immune system and inflammation."
- "Perhaps the worst effect of thyroid hormones is that they increase the worst kind of free radical: superoxide. It does this by increasing the energy production of immune cells (and others)."
Not only does it increase superoxide, but it also decreases the enzyme to break down superoxide. That’s probably the reason why lower thyroid hormone levels are associated with longevity"
- "I would much rather people take TRH for a sluggish thyroid, although it is quite expensive"

Has anyone experienced adverse effects from increased thyroid function/increased metabolism?

 

[Atman]

The Benefits of Decreased Thyroid Function - Selfhacked

Joe Cohen's (Selhacked) article is contrary to one of Ray Peat's most fundamental philosophies regarding metabolism.

Summary of key points (quotes from link above):

- Thyroid hormones increase inflammation and oxidative stress.
- "inflammation (and T Cell proliferation) is closely tied to metabolism (the production of energy). This means the higher our metabolism, the more inflammation we experience."
- "mTOR, which increases metabolism, also increases our immune system and inflammation."
- "Perhaps the worst effect of thyroid hormones is that they increase the worst kind of free radical: superoxide. It does this by increasing the energy production of immune cells (and others)."
Not only does it increase superoxide, but it also decreases the enzyme to break down superoxide. That’s probably the reason why lower thyroid hormone levels are associated with longevity"
- "I would much rather people take TRH for a sluggish thyroid, although it is quite expensive"

The benefits of beeing dead:
-zero inflammation
-zero oxidative stress

Why do you even subject yourself to such articles?

Has anyone experienced adverse effects from increased thyroid function/increased metabolism?

Yes, I got demented, aggressive, depressed and unable to digest fat, because I was so stupid and let my cholesterol fall below 150mg/dl.
But Peat always warned about that, so I have noone to blame but me.

 

[Agent207]

I agree with him, and I think he did a good exposure about it.

Obviously there's a sweet spot on metabolic rate for optimal health benefits / trade offs balance, and I guess its highly individual.

I would say keeping a baseline metabolic rate from your 20's with tsh <2 should be OK. Some of the signs I use to observe within people with higher than normal metabolic rate are -along with them being unable to put on weight wathever they eat- is a clear accelerated aging appearance. Same happens with hypos though.

Anyway this is gonna be a hardly imparcial subject to debate here; the general mindset is the higher the better, and otherwise should be the root of all evils.

 

[Mito]

Why do you even subject yourself to such articles?

I used to watch a lot of Joe's Youtube videos before I discovered Ray Peat's work. He has some good ones including one on LLLT. I still read some of his stuff from time to time as he comes across in his videos as a very detailed non-dogmatic researcher.

 

[Gl;itch.e]

I agree with him, and I think he did a good exposure about it.

Obviously there's a sweet spot on metabolic rate for optimal health benefits / trade offs balance, and I guess its highly individual.

I would say keeping a baseline metabolic rate from your 20's with tsh <2 should be OK. Some of the signs I use to observe within people with higher than normal metabolic rate are -along with them being unable to put on weight wathever they eat- is a clear accelerated aging appearance. Same happens with hypos though.

Anyway this is gonna be a hardly imparcial subject to debate here; the general mindset is the higher the better, and otherwise should be the root of all evils.

Peat would definitely disagree with all this. Higher metabolic rate with commensurate feeding also comes with increased tissue turnover and repair. Should make for better skin and appearances of youthfulness.

 

[XPlus]

@Giraffe

Ha-ha! I take off when the merits of a low pulse and beta carotene are praised. No name calling!

Sounds like someone decided to post about your favorite topic

 

[Drareg]

I agree with him, and I think he did a good exposure about it.

Obviously there's a sweet spot on metabolic rate for optimal health benefits / trade offs balance, and I guess its highly individual.

I would say keeping a baseline metabolic rate from your 20's with tsh <2 should be OK. Some of the signs I use to observe within people with higher than normal metabolic rate are -along with them being unable to put on weight wathever they eat- is a clear accelerated aging appearance. Same happens with hypos though.

Anyway this is gonna be a hardly imparcial subject to debate here; the general mindset is the higher the better, and otherwise should be the root of all evils.

No the general mindset here isn't the higher the better,this is your projection,you do this regularly like the others claiming to refute Peat with lame strawmans.
You are not the slightest bit impartial,anybody reading your posts will see this quickly,your a PUFA apologist.

 

[Mito]

the general mindset is the higher the better, and otherwise should be the root of all evils.

Yes I have noticed that some here seem to be of that mindset. And I if you agree with the bioenergtic concepts of cellular respiration and physiology that Ray writes about, then it does make sense intuitively. However there doesn't seem to be a lot of human studies supporting this view. I'm fairly new to Ray's ideas so I'm still trying to wrap my head around this concept.

 

[jb116]

I agree with him, and I think he did a good exposure about it.

Obviously there's a sweet spot on metabolic rate for optimal health benefits / trade offs balance, and I guess its highly individual.

I would say keeping a baseline metabolic rate from your 20's with tsh <2 should be OK. Some of the signs I use to observe within people with higher than normal metabolic rate are -along with them being unable to put on weight wathever they eat- is a clear accelerated aging appearance. Same happens with hypos though.

Anyway this is gonna be a hardly imparcial subject to debate here; the general mindset is the higher the better, and otherwise should be the root of all evils.

No that is not accurate.
It's not the higher the better, but the more efficient the better.

 

[Giraffe]

@Giraffe

Sounds like someone decided to post about your favorite topic

So I'll take a day off today. Thanks for alerting me.

 

[Agent207]

No that is not accurate.
It's not the higher the better, but the more efficient the better.

The more efficient the better, RIGHT! that's what I agree with. But I doubt most here do agree with that, prior to "the higher the better".

In physics the efficiency uses to be matched within a sweet spot, far from the extremes (regarding single variable performance).

 

[Agent207]

No the general mindset here isn't the higher the better,this is your projection,you do this regularly like the others claiming to refute Peat with lame strawmans.
You are not the slightest bit impartial,anybody reading your posts will see this quickly,your a PUFA apologist.

Anyone that shows any single bit of disagreement on Peat's veredict about pufa will be an infidel by you. Then OK, you can call me a "pufa apologist" if you think so. I'm fine with that.

 

[Mjhl85]

The more efficient the better, RIGHT! that's what I agree with. But I doubt most here do agree with that, prior to "the higher the better".

True

 

[DaveFoster]

The more efficient the better, RIGHT! that's what I agree with. But I doubt most here do agree with that, prior to "the higher the better".

In physics the efficiency uses to be matched within a sweet spot, far from the extremes (regarding single variable performance).

Not necessarily efficient, but metabolic inefficiency.

The body self-regulates in the presence of excess thyroid hormone by increasing sensitivity to adrenaline and raising estrogen through SHBG. Hypothetically, if you could reduce these regulatory biomarkers, then people might be able to get away with a pulse of 100 or 110 (and the temperature that coincides with that,) but this doesn't really mean anything.

A pulse of 90 is perfect; any higher probably increases mortality.

 

[Makrosky]

Anyone that shows any single bit of disagreement on Peat's veredict about pufa will be an infidel by you. Then OK, you can call me a "pufa apologist" if you think so. I'm fine with that.

For the record : I don't consider you a PUFA apologist. And what the **** would happen if you would be a PUFA apologist ? I like your posts. I like ALL posts that challenge Peats ideas.

 

[Mito]

It's not the higher the better, the more efficient the better.

As far as the goal being an efficient metabolism, raising your temperatures and eating more is actually the sign of a less efficient metabolism.

Resting heart rate can be a good indicator of metabolic rate (assuming normal cortisol/adrenaline). Can metabolic efficiency be measured? For example if person A has a RHR=70/temperature=98.6 and person B has RHR=80/temperature=98.6, would you say person A has a more efficient metabolism?

 

[Peater Piper]

So for what it's worth, just had my thyroid values measured again. All within the Peat standards. I'd still consider my health crummy. This is absolutely not a defense for or against thyroid function and longevity, but there does seem to be this general idea that if your thyroid function is excellent, everything else will fall into place. Unfortunately that doesn't seem to be the case.

 

[InChristAlone]

Peat believes that if you maintain weight on 1700 calories then surely you have a low metabolism. But I am questioning a lot of these beliefs lately. What if having to eat 3k calories to maintain metabolism is not so good of a thing? I'd like to be able to eat 2000 and sleep through the night and maintain temp and pulse. Having to eat a boat load of food to keep adrenaline down doesn't seem like a good goal to have.

 

[TubZy]

I don't agree with OP's post, but say even if it did decrease longevity, I would chose a faster thyroid/metabolism over hypo any day even if it did decrease longevity. Would be such a crap quality of life being hypo.

 

[DaveFoster]

I don't agree with OP's post, but say even if it did decrease longevity, I would chose a faster thyroid/metabolism over hypo any day even if it did decrease longevity. Would be such a crap quality of life being hypo.

Indeed, you'd look like a tree.