The Benefits Of Decreased Thyroid Function

[Drareg]

Hi Dareg,
I am very aware of the issue of enzymes, but whatever happens with them (either increase or decrease in expression) is a result of a more fundamental problem/issue. My comments are tackling those more fundamental issues. The subject the gentlemen and I were discussing was how high metabolic rate (either by thyroid or otherwise) can be both a cause and consequence of serious cellular damage in certain physiological states. You may check out the entire conversation and explanations starting here : The Benefits Of Decreased Thyroid Function

I've read the thread,I was clearly quoting your last comment.
From what I have read none of you of are speaking about the diodinase in this thread,this seems like something that needs tackling and you haven't done that,diodinase enzymes could be expressed differently in other areas depending on PUFA content of certain areas for example.

Nitrophenol is a poisonous substance,the perceptions made on cellular health after using this stuff is bizarre to me,why don't you ask Peat if he is OK to use nitrophenol to uncouple instead of aspirin or caffeine.
Has the entire "block"theory come from studies on nitrophenol?


In Kochs study about increased energy output with the patient wasting away and his speculations about blocks being the cause,does he state how many calories the patient was receiving?

 

[DaveFoster]

Some B vitamins and Vitamin K/D daily, vitamin E (weekly), pregnenolone/progesterone/DHEA/androsterone (as needed). Methylene blue at dose 1mg before bed, but I often forget to take it. On the weeks when I think I have not been taking much MB, I take aspirin twice a week at a dose of 1g. No thyroid unless feeling dire need for it. Some cyproheptadine or metergoline if feeling exhausted or about to come down with some "bug" (pretty much same with thyroid and often I take one or the other but not both). That's pretty much it.

Thanks for laying that out. I was expecting you to take Lapodin.

 

[haidut]

Thanks for laying that out. I was expecting you to take Lapodin.

I do sometimes when the bug is combined with constipation as in that case I strongly suspect endotoxin as the reason.

 

[Queequeg]

You claim you get attacked when you are shown evidence for thyroid function increasing longevity,none of you who come here can take your studies being matched with studies and evidence to the contary,you then start with the cliches of "peat disciples" "dogmatic" etc.
The ridiculousness of yours and others that everybody needs to knock back thyroid to blow metabolism through the roof for longevity cause Ray Peat said so is the most cliched argument of the wannabe seen as geniuses that sign up here.
This is essentially what you and others do,read some studies and books that may contradict Peats work,come here and regurgitate them with little coherent narrative other than this says Peat is wrong even when it's clear as day many topics are not getting funded,the overall funding is going to "specific research"and the overall picture of cell physiology is not entirely clear,on top of that Peats views clearly evolve and leave room for change,with the tables clearly tilted in relation to studies funded you still get shown evidence that refutes your claims.
Its the same thing with basing arguments/studies on the premise of a certain belief on how a cell works,perceptions of many results are skewed because of this,look at the nonsense posted on here about cell permeability under the guise of "I'm refuting Peat" when Peat and many others bring the influence of measurements techniques of cell permeability into question and rightfully so.

You claim you've seen little evidence but you've seen some right?
How do you explain people who are living to old age with razor sharp minds that have good thyroid function? Peat takes thyroid by all accounts,can you explain why he is over 80, in good health and highly intelligent.

The "I'm a genius and smarter than Peat brigade" came here to highlight all the anecdotes of thyroid not working for so many,basing their strawmans against Peat on this evidence while ignoring the obvious success with the use of it.
What makes your comments and others even more ridiculous is that Peat is not saying heart rate has to specifically at a certain rate,he gave examples recently on this via email,I believe.

Never do any of you start a thread about why you think Peat is wrong and refute him,this is what cracks me up,all of you just hijack threads with random studies, somebody claimed to refute Peat recently and claimed this study he was posting would be ignored by the dogmatic Peat followers on here,the study was sponsored by pro PUFA companies.

So please start your thread refuting Peats work and let his disciples question it.

So who let out the flying monkeys? I should thank you though for proving my point. Your whole post is just one long ad hominem attack peppered with a few logical fallacies and as usual not one bit of scientific evidence to support your claim. There are several peer reviewed studies posted in the thread that show that increased metabolism, temperatures, heart rates, and thyroid function all lead to worse health outcomes. I have said several times, that I am open to being proven wrong but would like to see some counter evidence. The best you can do is say well Ray is old and seems to be doing pretty well. Seriously? And you’re laughing at me?

As far as hijacking the thread, I think that was you with your little rant. The thread is titled “The benefits of Decreased Thyroid Function” not let’s see who can throw the best hissy fit.

 

[Queequeg]

Not so sure that an internet temper tantrum qualifies. Ironic though that you are using Obama to make your point.

 

[DaveFoster]

Not so sure that an internet temper tantrum qualifies. Ironic though that you are using Obama to make your point.

It would be even more ironic on the Trump thread.

In a few of his interviews, Peat mentions the pro-inflammatory roles of the TSH hormone itself (barring all of the other pituitary hormones.) If you want to make the argument that low thyroid function could be protective, then there either needs to be 1) an argument that inflammation is beneficial; or 2) an argument that protection from inflammation occurs in those with a high TSH.

Check out the thread from haidut's post two posts up from this one. He has a couple studies concerning the relationship between cortisol and TSH.

 

[Queequeg]

I would add to your points this thread below and also the fact that the American Endrocinology Society recently lowered the upper range of "normal" TSH from 6.5 down to 3. I doubt they did such a dramatic change of course just for kicks. There is a proposal to further lower that limit down to 2, which is what the thread below found to be the desired upper limit.
Optimal Levels Of TSH Are Much Lower Than Official Guidelines

I am not arguing that subclinical hypothyroidism isn't a problem and that the endocrinologists know what they are doing. I am saying that there is no evidence that driving TSH down to 0.4 like Ray recommends is a good idea.

from the study
"Although limited in sample size, our findings demonstrate that a positive relationship exists between TSH and cortisol that is maintained down to a TSH level of 2.5 uIU/L (but not below)."

 

[Queequeg]

It would be even more ironic on the Trump thread.

In a few of his interviews, Peat mentions the pro-inflammatory roles of the TSH hormone itself (barring all of the other pituitary hormones.) If you want to make the argument that low thyroid function could be protective, then there either needs to be 1) an argument that inflammation is beneficial; or 2) an argument that protection from inflammation occurs in those with a high TSH.

Check out the thread from haidut's post two posts up from this one. He has a couple studies concerning the relationship between cortisol and TSH.

That's a bit reductionist, no? The best way to make any scientific argument is to run a clinical trial and see what the data says. That is what has been done over and over again with thyroid.

 

[Waynish]

Yep, and by wasteful I think the reference is to the thermodynamic definition of wasteful - i.e. higher ratio of heat/energy as a result of the food metaboism.

I don't get how this could apply in organisms at all unless some were overheating. The only case of overheating I know of is fever - and the other side of the reaction of "too much energy" doesn't connect for me either.

 

[haidut]

I don't get how this could apply in organisms at all unless some were overheating. The only case of overheating I know of is fever - and the other side of the reaction of "too much energy" doesn't connect for me either.

The more heat you produce the better the entire chain glycolysis-Krebs-ETC is working. If the supply of NADH exceeds what the ETC can handle, the UCP get activated and some of the energy gets converted to heat. If you are stuck in glycolysis, you won't produce much heat even though you have plenty of NADH floating around. Younger and/or healthier people (<25yo) have a body temp that is on average 2 degrees higher than say someone in their 50s.

 

[Drareg]

So who let out the flying monkeys? I should thank you though for proving my point. Your whole post is just one long ad hominem attack peppered with a few logical fallacies and as usual not one bit of scientific evidence to support your claim. There are several peer reviewed studies posted in the thread that show that increased metabolism, temperatures, heart rates, and thyroid function all lead to worse health outcomes. I have said several times, that I am open to being proven wrong but would like to see some counter evidence. The best you can do is say well Ray is old and seems to be doing pretty well. Seriously? And you’re laughing at me?

As far as hijacking the thread, I think that was you with your little rant. The thread is titled “The benefits of Decreased Thyroid Function” not let’s see who can throw the best hissy fit.

This is what you have been doing throughout this thread,one big strawman after another,this response is another attempt to run away from addressing points put to you from the "abstracts" of studies you posted.

The points I put to you still stand,your jumping through the cliche responses the other wannabe geniuses do to dodge points put to you.

 

[Drareg]

Again, the best you can do is offer up some half baked criticisms of one or two of the several studies on the subject. I have asked for just one published paper that backs up what Ray is claiming and all you guys keep doing is nit picking at the many many studies that show the opposite. It’s funny how all the science is rigged or flawed when it doesn’t support your ideology but I bet you would be very happy to link to a high school science project if you agreed with its outcome. And by the way Jag didn’t refute anything but his own scientific background. And I guess by extension, now yours as well.

This is another strawman and littered with hyperbole like the last response to dodge the points put to you.
The straw an is another classic from "wannabe seen as genius"cliche response with claiming the science is rigged or flawed when I don't agree with the outcome.
Read through the responses made to you and respond accordingly to each point,others have done this to your points.

You have done nothing to address Jags points as they bring everything you say into question.

 

[Waynish]

Just keep stating your differing cases. Don't get discouraged! :)

 

[Queequeg]

This is what you have been doing throughout this thread,one big strawman after another,this response is another attempt to run away from addressing points put to you from the "abstracts" of studies you posted.
The points I put to you still stand,your jumping through the cliche responses the other wannabe geniuses do to dodge points put to you.

This is another strawman and littered with hyperbole like the last response to dodge the points put to you.
The straw an is another classic from "wannabe seen as genius"cliche response with claiming the science is rigged or flawed when I don't agree with the outcome.
Read through the responses made to you and respond accordingly to each point,others have done this to your points.
You have done nothing to address Jags points as they bring everything you say into question.

Again, you haven't made one scientific argument or presented any evidence to support your case but instead seem content to throw out more ad hominem attacks and false claims. So, do you have anything that supports Ray’s recommendation to raise metabolism, heart rate, temp or thyroid or are you just going to keep calling me a “wannabe genius” and cawing "strawman"?

In the meantime, you may want to work on your rhetoric. Calling everything a strawman doesn't make it so. Also repeating assertions over and over without evidence is not an argument. As for your scientific mentor, Jag, I already addressed his “points” but for some strange reason, haven't heard back from him. The Benefits Of Decreased Thyroid Function. Seems like working on your reading comprehension may also be a good idea.

 

[Waynish]

In the Peat paradigm, wouldn't a decreased metabolism be protective in nutrient deplete environments?

 

[schultz]

In the Peat paradigm, wouldn't a decreased metabolism be protective in nutrient deplete environments?

Presumably. In the EFAD studies the rats getting an EFAD diet got scaly tail disease. Ray has said this was because of a b-vitamin deficiency and possibly a few minerals (zinc perhaps?). The rats getting PUFA were healthier because they had slower metabolisms and needed less micro nutrients.

 

[Waynish]

Presumably. In the EFAD studies the rats getting an EFAD diet got scaly tail disease. Ray has said this was because of a b-vitamin deficiency and possibly a few minerals (zinc perhaps?). The rats getting PUFA were healthier because they had slower metabolisms and needed less micro nutrients.

Indeed, so while that doesn't imply we should slow our metabolisms as a strategy. But doesn't imply that we should probably test for some "complete nutrient environment" before spiking our metabolisms? I'm not sure what tests would qualify as such, though.

 

[schultz]

Indeed, so while that doesn't imply we should slow our metabolisms as a strategy. But doesn't imply that we should probably test for some "complete nutrient environment" before spiking our metabolisms? I'm not sure what tests would qualify as such, though.

I guess that would be ideal, but difficult for most people and probably not necessary. This is where refined foods can be problematic. I try to balance refined sugar intake with things like liver (vitamins), coffee and coconut water (minerals) and even things like Energin and fat soluble vitamins. Some kind of vegetable broth would probably work as well, but I don't get around to making this very much.

I think a good exercise is to log your food for a week and see what micro's you are and are not getting. I tell my family to do this but they don't seem to care. Before taking all kinds of wacky supplements, one should first make sure they are getting the basic micro nutrients. My guess is all kinds of people are walking around chronically getting under the RDA for at least few micros.

 

[Drareg]

Indeed, so while that doesn't imply we should slow our metabolisms as a strategy. But doesn't imply that we should probably test for some "complete nutrient environment" before spiking our metabolisms? I'm not sure what tests would qualify as such, though.

Probably best not to look at it like your spiking metabolism as per the definitions of this thread.
Your metabolism won't be going too well with a nutrient deficiency,adding anything potent on top of that will make you feel very uncomfortable regardless of your heart rate,temps etc.
The argument of Peat says just spike metabolism to the max and all will be ok is a lazy strawman by those claiming to understand what Peats view is ,it's made by several members and will probably be repeated in the future by new members.

A metabolism that is coherent with your current environment is probably a better way to view it,if you like some on here do ,try to look for a magic limitless pill from reading Peat while not changing the environment or your perceptions toward it,your will still have issues.
There is denial on this forum by some whose believes/perceptions and general way of living being maybe the main cause of their issues,many want a pill to go back and dominate/deal with their environment, the crux of Peats writings are about the dysfunctional environments pressing into people and shaping them.

 

[Drareg]

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.

It's impressive you right the above and then claim Peat has few if any studies to support his view yet you admit not knowing much about his work and then try to dodge this obvious point with a blanket statement like "if you agree with the bioenergtic concepts of cellular respiration and physiology that Ray writes about, then it does make sense intuitively".

Can you clarify exactly what studies you feel Peat doesn't have relative to your perceptions of his work rather than lazy posting links to what I'm guessing is a website you are involved with and trying to promote.
It's also looks like another alternative-alternative to the alternative health even though his claims says it not,his about page basically says he is better than everyone and kind of covers every question a critical thinker would have about somebody's selling something,fine example of contemporary mania mode,he even claims to be a critical thinker!
What we have here is copy and paste information overload and books for sale,this guy would sell children for money. He's even got a special iherb code for his fans.

It's sad that he is basically taking his ideas and studies posted for. this forum like a few others are doing and looking to profit for himself,he is copy and pasting from many studies posted on here and a few other websites.

"At the age of 25, Joe was sick, broke, and unemployable", now joe is still sick,stealing people's hard earned cash in exchange for platitudes and recommendation for every supplement you could possibly take,joe doesn't care because he is entitled to his dream of being a cliche millionaire with red Ferrari etc and doesn't care who gets screwed in the way,joe fuelled on mania and still loosing his hair.