The Benefits Of Decreased Thyroid Function

[Diokine]

Is there any information in the article put out by Joe at SelfHacked that is incorrect? Maybe misleading to someone who isn't as informed, but I completely agree with what it is saying. I hardly ever recommend someone take thyroid supplement, and it is absolutely not a panacea.

I think attacking the fact that he is providing a service for pay is a little disingenuous, he also has a lot of valuable information for free. He is operating in the same style of self-experimentation that we all are, and he's been quite successful at it. His website has a lot of information condensed in an easy to find format, and most of it is fairly solid.

As far as lowered thyroid status increasing longevity - entirely plausible. It's hard to get a comprehensive picture of what's going on metabolically focusing only on thyroid.

 

[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.

Even more fascinating you allude to evidence you require from Ray Peat yet the article you link has statements like this-
"Joe’s experience: I’ve noticed that whenever I’m in a hyperthyroid state, I’m more sensitive to an autoimmune attack. When I induce hypothyroidism, I’m immune to such an attack, so there might be an advantage to being hypothyroid".
What? Ray Peat experience won't work for you? You love joe more? The rest of the paragraph is joe copy and pasting things he has no clue about but that doesn't matter his anchor is in.

Joes quote below is a link to a study where they were trying estraidol to treat none loss from T3.
"Thyroid hormones can also elevate cytokines like IL-6. The more thyroid hormone there is, the higher IL-6 gets (R)."

Joes paragraphs below ,the first 2 are copy and paste with a link to estrogen for bone loss salesmen,the final 2 paragraphs are where joes genius insight comes in,from the 2 studies cooy and pasted Joes genius could deduce guys that thyroid hormones cause inflammation,our bodies according to Joe are smart to lower thyroid hormones a bit so inflammation is reduced,this guys is called HOMEOSTASIS.HOMEOSTASIS.
"Thyroid hormones can also elevate cytokines like IL-6. The more thyroid hormone there is, the higher IL-6 gets
Inflammatory cytokines like macrophage inflammatory protein 1alpha and IL-1beta contribute to hypothyroidism. However, an increase in pro-inflammatory cytokines such as TNF-alpha and nitric oxide synthase may be caused by increased T3 (R).
Thyroid hormones are potent activators of metabolism. We feel a boost of energy, but our chronic inflammation also goes up.
When we have chronic inflammation, the body is smart to lower our thyroid hormones a bit so that the inflammation is reduced. It’s called homeostasis."

The studies joe posts below are actually links to another website,a touch lazy from joe who tells us he only deals with first hand legislate studies from the source,funnily enough one of those studies for longevity was inspired by research on animals models. On top of that these studies are wide open to issues,calorie restrictions etc we don't know unless we access the full,study which joe doesn't bother with hence the link to another questionable website
It makes sense from this study alone for joe that lower thyroid hormones are associated with longevity,the only thing that makes sense joe is mania for money makes you believe whatever sells.
"Increased oxidative stress may accelerate aging, so it makes sense that lower thyroid hormone levels are associated with longevity (R). In a cross-sectional study, longevity correlates with higher TSH levels, and lower T3 and T4 levels among people who live exceptionally long (beyond 89 years for males and 91 years for female) (R)."

Joe goes on then to recommend when to take thyroid but first guys try the lectin avoidance diet(bulletproof coffee anyone)This is the main hook in joes spiel,sell his book first as this may cure these factual account of information.
Keep in mind joe only posts studies of first quality and not questionable at all,selling estrogen for boneless is perfectly logical because their a studies backing this guys.
What evidence do you have for all the people he claims work for him who claim to have PHD's and MD's ?

 

[Drareg]

Is there any information in the article put out by Joe at SelfHacked that is incorrect? Maybe misleading to someone who isn't as informed, but I completely agree with what it is saying. I hardly ever recommend someone take thyroid supplement, and it is absolutely not a panacea.

I think attacking the fact that he is providing a service for pay is a little disingenuous, he also has a lot of valuable information for free. He is operating in the same style of self-experimentation that we all are, and he's been quite successful at it. His website has a lot of information condensed in an easy to find format, and most of it is fairly solid.

The information that is wrong from the link posted is recommending research papers where the authors believe you can reverse bone loss by using estrogen ,that's wrong for a start.
Everybody who gets attracted to his website are there because they are not informed and ripe to be taken financially by joe.
Joe does recommend thyroid in that article,re-read it,you seem to have a bias,did you buy from him or work there? I ask because you say you never recommend somebody take thyroid?

People may self experiment here but the forum is not charging money for consultations or selling Ray peat forum books,it's built on free dialogue,better way to put it,ongoing developing improving free dialogue,not without issues,things are dramatic here because of political views and religious views,always topics that create potent divides.
I think recommending every supplement under the sun with a majority copy and paste articles is disengenous in particular to people who are desperate and sick as it is.

His valuable information is free,where do you think he copy and pastes it from? Most of its solid when he copy and pastes,his own deductions are mania fuelled Imo.

Your comments on thyroid are a strawman,similar to what is going on throughout this thread on thyroid.

Can you clarify his success? As in financial? Popularity? Credit Dave apsrey he inspired these models popping up everywhere.

 

[Queequeg]

Is there any information in the article put out by Joe at SelfHacked that is incorrect? Maybe misleading to someone who isn't as informed, but I completely agree with what it is saying. I hardly ever recommend someone take thyroid supplement, and it is absolutely not a panacea.

I think attacking the fact that he is providing a service for pay is a little disingenuous, he also has a lot of valuable information for free. He is operating in the same style of self-experimentation that we all are, and he's been quite successful at it. His website has a lot of information condensed in an easy to find format, and most of it is fairly solid.

As far as lowered thyroid status increasing longevity - entirely plausible. It's hard to get a comprehensive picture of what's going on metabolically focusing only on thyroid.

Your comments on thyroid are a strawman

Oh no you dittent

 

[Mito]

Can you clarify exactly what studies you feel Peat doesn't have relative to your perceptions of his work

I was responding to @Agent207 's comment "the general mindset is the higher the better, and otherwise should be the root of all evils". I haven't come across any human studies suggesting that the higher (metabolism) the better for preventing and/or reversing disease.

I'm guessing is a website you are involved with and trying to promote.

I have zero involvement with the selfhacked website (or any website for that matter) and I have no intentions or motivations to promote it.

 

[Mito]

Even more fascinating you allude to evidence you require from Ray Peat

You are trying to infer way too much from my statement. I don't require anything from Ray Peat. I'm just trying to learn and understand as much as I can from him and others on this forum.

What evidence do you have for all the people he claims work for him who claim to have PHD's and MD's ?

I don't have any desire to defend Joe. In fact I agree with some of your criticisms of the information on his site.

 

[nikolabeacon]

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.

Key. He even have A one statement where hE says that healthy organism in healthy environment almost have no need for its own hormones.. its Pure energy flow through the body :)

 

[AJC]

Key. He even have A one statement where hE says that healthy organism in healthy environment almost have no need for its own hormones.. its Pure energy flow through the body :)

Yeah... wish I knew how that part of things worked.

 

[nikolabeacon]

Yeah... wish I knew how that part of things worked.

"The healthy organism in a healthy environment, in a Vernadsky sense, something that's making good energy available, in that condition you hardly need your hormones, the flow of energy is the whole thing. And the way you use the energy, the proper application of your differentiated state, that has all of the functions that the hormones can be used for." And that"something" thats making good energy available is some kind of blisfull state or ecstasy wich produces qualigen and dynagen energy that makes you dont have sense of your own weight( lightness , healthiness, vitality) or when levitative forces prevail over gravity...( similar to state of small childrens)....highest(para)psyhological or (meta)physical state ....for example When living life with truly loved partner....doing what you love... surounded by happy people and healthy environment ...full life. Or When you are scientis/inventor who is discovering something or artist who is composing/ creating ...In wild places in nature ( or near the healthy wild river, sea,, or at dawn or sunrise) there are lot of that life energy that radiates and nurish The body .. In current half destroyed environment/ system....hardly possiblle...that is why hE says that system is the most TOXIC thing for Us. And this should force Us to push all our energy in radical change of comformist living.

 

[Drareg]

I was responding to @Agent207 's comment "the general mindset is the higher the better, and otherwise should be the root of all evils". I haven't come across any human studies suggesting that the higher (metabolism) the better for preventing and/or reversing disease.

I have zero involvement with the selfhacked website (or any website for that matter) and I have no intentions or motivations to promote it.

I have asked many times about yours and others definition of "higher metabolism" in relation to Ray Peats work,you don't seem to see your points are blatant and an obvious strawman.

Your intial post sounds like promotion for selfhacked when you add your comment about the general mindset on here,I don't believe it's a general mindset on here,it certainly isn't Peats,people are looking into general discourse throughout threads on this forum without context and getting impressions that forum members want thyroid as high as it can go,this is ridiculous.

 

[Drareg]

Key. He even have A one statement where hE says that healthy organism in healthy environment almost have no need for its own hormones.. its Pure energy flow through the body :)

The rumours of Hindus who stood on one leg for decades as they had no need to interact anymore as they were all.

 

[Mito]

Your intial post sounds like promotion

I understand that's how you see it, but that was not my motivation for the post.

I don't believe it's a general mindset on here

Okay fair enough.

I have asked many times about yours and others definition of "higher metabolism" in relation to Ray Peats work...people are looking into general discourse throughout threads on this forum without context and getting impressions that forum members want thyroid as high as it can go,this is ridiculous.

I stated my interpretation "higher metabolism" in relation to Ray Peats work in this post here: The Benefits Of Decreased Thyroid Function

 

[Drareg]

I understand that's how you see it, but that was not my motivation for the post.
Okay fair enough.
I stated my interpretation "higher metabolism" in relation to Ray Peats work in this post here: The Benefits Of Decreased Thyroid Function

You have interpreted incorrectly,he is not saying run your metabolism as high as possible,in relation to your interpretation of the words "as possible" is what needs to be defined.

 

[tara]

How about efficient at maintaining an optimal temperature range (98.6-99) since that seems incredibly import for reasons you've described above. So the lowest RHR and or lowest caloric intake that maintains this optimal temperature range.

That seems like a reasonable part of it. Might also want to include some other parameters like
- without chronically elevated stress hormones
- while able to perform 'normal' tasks (or some other way of saying you can still get on with living your life)

My big conclusion so far, inspired by Koch et. al:

High metabolism means good health when it is a consequence of healthy cells thriving (i.e cells able to meet without blockage Step1+Step2+Step3 of the energization process); High metabolism is pathological when it is a reactive response by the body due to unhealthy cells dying of energy starvation (i.e cells that fail to meet any of the steps).

Nice summary.

From my previous post, it's evident that's a huge incompatibility with Koch. Koch is not concerned by how much of a fast oxidizer a person is but if the cells are actually being energized. A full, "high quality oxidation" process, where there's zero block in any part of the respiratory apparatus is a requisite for this real energization. If Peat favors the uncoupled state -which it's clear to me he does-, then he is favoring what Koch called the "lower quality energy producing system", which in Koch's world is both a cause and a consequence of serious problems with cellular energization and cellular health. Any favoring of uncoupling will inevitably lead to more and more reliance on the TCA (a.k.a Krebs) cycle, which is Koch's "lower quality producing system".

I'm wondering if this really is such a conflict between their ideas. I'm not sure that I've read or understood enough of Peat's writing, or understand the details of cellular energy production well enough to be confident about it, but my recollection of Peat mentioning uncoupling in a positive light includes reference to young people and their 'wasteful' metabolism. In this context, isn't he talking about people who's energy production is running so effectively that they are producing all the energy (ATP) their cells need, and plenty of CO2, and they still have capacity to spare for 'wasteful' uncoupling on top of that? In this context, no cells or tissues are being deprived of energy by incomplete oxidation involved with uncoupling? That's different from a situation where someone is having trouble producing enough energy (and CO2), which is likely the case in various disease states - in this context, wouldn't one want to avoid the waste, and have ones energy production be as efficient as possible until one can meet the bodies actual needs? Has Peat said uncoupling would be useful in this situation?

I think many people who have sub clinical hypothyroidism or low metabolism would benefit from bumping up their metabolism but I haven't found any evidence that this should be taken as generic advice for everyone.

This makes sense to me.
And it seems quite consistent with what I've read from Peat so far. He seems to advise people who have signs of low thyroid function, as determined by a combination of signs and symptoms, to address this, sometimes by supplementing thyroid, and often by improving diet and other lifestyle factors.

So, do you have anything that supports Ray’s recommendation to raise metabolism, heart rate, temp or thyroid

I've never seen him say everyone should increase their metabolism, heart rate, temps, or thyroid if they are already in a good range and in good health, or that it is advisable in general to push metabolism to hyperthyroid levels.
His idea of euthyroid is a little different from mainstream.
The methods he recommends for assessing thyroid function do not align with the overly simplified methods used by most drs. He proposes methods that help distinguish between metabolism elevated by stress hormones and metabolism running on thyroid hormones. I guess you've read his article describing why the current standard TSH range is not founded on good evidence.

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.

Yes, I think so too. I think he's also mentioned situations like being stranded on an island with little food and not knowing when rescue might come.
Presumably that ability to lower metabolism in response to famine as got various bits of the human species through some hazardous bottlenecks over the millenia.

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.

This is one reason why I would be wary of supplementing thyroid, or using other tactics to increase metabolism, for anyone who is chronically undernourished. Peat has talked about 'generous nutrition'. From a practical PoV, I think that's a good reason for eating a fairly wide variety of foods, including some that are known to be micronutrient-rich like liver, leaf broth, oranges etc depending on what is available and tolerable for the individual - that should improve the odds of getting the various minerals covered. And probably a good reason for not using refined sucrose or similar as the major source of calories, since it can displace more mineral and vitamin-rich foods.

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.

This makes sense to me.

 

[Mito]

Moreover, the energizing of the cell is a multiple step process according to Koch . It has 3 steps: We first have to produce energy, then transport it and finally the cell has to accept or use it.

I wonder if Koch's "Step 3" is related to the cell's decision during the Krebs (TCA) cycle on whether or not to "fully" break down Acetyl CoA into ATP via the electron transport chain? At the 16:00 mark of this video, Chris explains what the mitochondria does when it decides it can't produce or accept (for whatever reason) all the energy that would be created via the ECT? He talks about oxidant/antioxidant signaling mechanisms whereby the cell tries to limit energy coming in and/or adapt to be able to accept the energy (i.e. create more mitochondria). As you stated, these energy metabolism mechanics were not fully understood during Koch's time. I could be way off on what Koch is talking about, but when I was watching this part of the video I thought about your explanation about Koch's cell energy steps.

 

[pboy]

im pretty sure thyroid is always good to have for perspective and feeling relatively satisfied nutritionally if nothing else and to know at least youre coming from a truthful non stressed perspective from internal factors, but if you are obstructed in life or impeded it might end up being frustrating and then it would take a different kind of skill to prevent 'hits' from lot of energy with not much able to output it or exactly how you want then if that makes sense...sometimes life might seem easier to people who have kind of made themselves more 'lame' so to speak or sold out a bit or just that don't care as much...or go at a slow pace cause they realize they are in a situation that is oppressive to an extent, so they just do what they do then drink at the end of the night. As long as they aren't bad people or insidious I cant be mad at them for that or whatever, or if they dotn contribute to further obstruction but yea recently in life its like well id never purposefully lower thyroid id feel like I'm escaping or something but living in a world that is very hierarchical, slow sometimes or oppressive and then you have a lot of unbound forward energy those factors can be something to contend with but is it better to be real and present or slow things down and fit in or whatever, its a weird thing...like the easiest things in the world can become huge obstacles if your heart isn't in it or you feel as if (at least for me) somehow its feeding an oppressor to do the thing...like being forced in to school and doing work as example, where as the same material would be easy and more enjoyable If it was done in own time for a good or necessary reason or if one was compelled from within rather than forced and in a rather hierarchical setting that wasn't that humane or natural. But I'm pretty sure its never a bad thing to have more thyroid or an adequate amount...maybe going way above adequate in some settings might not be ideal or make things more intense but like to be adequate at least probably, well I can almost say definitely, is a good thing...I don't think promoting other things instead is better. It might seem soothing easy or good to promote things that lower nervous energy but would not that stuff add up or start effecting someone if kept to long especially if done on purpose by the person?

 

[PakPik]

I wonder if Koch's "Step 3" is related to the cell's decision during the Krebs (TCA) cycle on whether or not to "fully" break down Acetyl CoA into ATP via the electron transport chain? At the 16:00 mark of this video, Chris explains what the mitochondria does when it decides it can't produce or accept (for whatever reason) all the energy that would be created via the ECT? He talks about oxidant/antioxidant signaling mechanisms whereby the cell tries to limit energy coming in and/or adapt to be able to accept the energy (i.e. create more mitochondria). As you stated, these energy metabolism mechanics were not fully understood during Koch's time. I could be way off on what Koch is talking about, but when I was watching this part of the video I thought about your explanation about Koch's cell energy steps.

Hi Mito, I also was reminded of Koch when I saw that video. But I quickly realized that what Masterjohn is explaining is concerned with the Energy Producing System (Step 1) and not the other steps, at least not directly.
At the 16:00 mark, Chris is focused specifically on the inability to "handle the demand placed on the mitochondria to make that ATP" (his words), which is a problem of production/Step 1 not of acceptance/Step 3. Conversely, a problem in Acceptance/Step 3 does not imply a problem in production of ATP/Step 1 either. In fact Koch argues that oftentimes the body tries to respond to a problem in Acceptance/Step 3 by intensifying ATP production/Step 1 as an adaptation or compensation. That is a very different scenario to what Chris is talking about.

Chris does mention that another reason for shutting down mitochondria energy production would be that the person does "not need any ATP" (his words), but he doesn't elaborate on that -too bad! I'm wondering what he meant-. If what he meant by that is that the cell is so perfectly energized that it can give some vacation time to its ATP producing machinery, storing any excess of fuel source as fat, well that would agree with Koch (this is the scenario where the cell is so healthy it accepts and uses without issue any ATP produced, so it is a highly efficient cell).

 

[Mito]

Step 3: Energy acceptance and use by the Energy acceptance system

Chris does mention that another reason for shutting down mitochondria energy production would be that the person does "not need any ATP" (his words), but he doesn't elaborate on that -too bad!

Maybe Koch's step 3 was referring to insulin resistance? Masterjohn from https://chrismasterjohnphd.com/2016...-insulin/?_sf_s=insulin+resistance#transcript "So in making this executive decision, I believe that one of the main drivers of insulin response is cellular energy overload, such that the cell says yes, I see these signals that are telling me that it’s in the body’s interest for me to take in more energy and to do something with that energy such as store it or metabolize it, so that it can produce useful fuel. But at this particular time, in this particular context I don’t have the capacity to take in any more energy in a healthy way, and therefore I am not going to take it in."

 

[PakPik]

Hi Mito,

Maybe Koch's step 3 was referring to insulin resistance? Masterjohn from https://chrismasterjohnphd.com/2016...-insulin/?_sf_s=insulin+resistance#transcript "So in making this executive decision, I believe that one of the main drivers of insulin response is cellular energy overload, such that the cell says yes, I see these signals that are telling me that it’s in the body’s interest for me to take in more energy and to do something with that energy such as store it or metabolize it, so that it can produce useful fuel. But at this particular time, in this particular context I don’t have the capacity to take in any more energy in a healthy way, and therefore I am not going to take it in."

First off, for the sake of clarity let me point out there's a problem with the terminology used by Masterjohn. When he says "capacity to take in more energy" the "energy" term is misused there: he's referring there to fuel substrate/energy substrate, not energy (i.e ATP) itself. Please see my full *Caution* comment at the end.

To answer your question: No, not as far as I know, at least not directly. Insulin makes the cell take up sugar, so this is one of the very first steps of Step 1 "Energy Producing System". Then the cellular ATP-producing system produces ATP from the sugar accepted thanks to insulin, etc. All of that belongs to Step 1. Next, Step 2 transports such energy. So when you get to Step 3 the Energy, i.e ATP, has already been made and transported. A problem with Step 3 would be having trouble accepting/using the already made ATP, which is different to the scenario Masterjohn is referring to in the quote: ATP hasn't had the chance to be made (out of the substrates coming in), because its production is being blocked (by blocking the entry of the susbtrates) as a safeguard measure due to some problem in the ATP making machinery -which belongs to Step 1-.

He even says "I see these signals that are telling me that it’s in the body’s interest for me to take in more energy and to do something with that energy [Note: "energy" term here is in reality "energy substrate"] such as store it or metabolize it, so that it can produce useful fuel", so this means his scenario is not the case where the cell has so much ATP that Step 3 can't handle so much ATP coming in. The cell he is describing is starving from ATP because it can't produce it -at least because it has a faulty Step 1- yet at the same time it it is intentionally blocking the production of ATP out of the incoming substrates -in the case discussed the substrate is sugar- because it can't handle putting the ATP-producing machinery to work without getting further damage. The resulting insulin resistance/reluctance to accept and convert energy substrates to ATP is a safeguard measure, he explains. This problem just depicted with Step 1 doesn't automatically imply a problem with Step 3 (there may be one, there may not be).

(*Caution*: since we're discussing quotes by Masterjohn, I'd like to point out that at first I had some confusion when watching his video/reading him since he uses the term "ENERGY" for both the energy substrates -i.e sugar, fat, etc...- AND Energy/ATP itself. Biochemically speaking it is NOT correct to call sugar, fat, etc... "Energy", they should be called "Energy Substrate" ,"Fuel Substrate" or "Source of energy", whereas the term "Energy" should be reserved for ATP. His discourse has inconsistencies from that incorrect usage of the term, so it's good to have clarity when he is referring to the substrates Vs. when he is referring to ATP when he says "Energy". If I am not wrong, it is in the nutritionists field that energy substrates are called energy, but that's not accurate; unfortunately they say things like "Bread is energy", for example.)

 

[Mito]

First off, for the sake of clarity let me point out there's a problem with the terminology used by Masterjohn. When he says "capacity to take in more energy" the "energy" term is misused there: he's referring there to fuel substrate/energy substrate, not energy (i.e ATP) itself. Please see my full *Caution* comment at the end.

Thanks, yes I think I was blurring the two, FUEL (mainly from carbs and fat) and ENERGY (ATP). So when Masterjohn talks about insulin resistance being a cellular "energy" overload problem, what he really means is that it is a cellular "fuel" overload problem. One thing I guess I don't understand is how does a cell use energy (ATP)? By what mechanisms? We know how it uses fuel, glycolysis/TCA cycle/ETC. Koch's step 3 seems to be how the cell/tissue/body takes up and uses ATP for functions.