Was Mona Lisa Hyperthyroid?

[BingDing]

The current issue of AgingMatters is about hypothyroidism. Written by Rick Wilkinson, MD, who says his mentor about thyroid was Broda Barnes.

The title refers to a Dr. Samuel Levine, who was impressed with the brightness and quickness of hyperthyroid people and maintained that they "had bright, sparkling eyes and appeared to be interesting people, because personality is conveyed largely through the eyes". He opined that the Mona Lisa has fascinated us for centuries because of her eyes.

Interesting observations, I think, and both likely with some merit.

Dr. Levine took 3 grains of Armour thyroid every day for thirty years, apparently to stay on the hyperthyroid side of normal. The article talks about dosing towards "slightly hyperthyroid" deliberately, which is pretty Peat.

What I thought reading this is that the medical vocabulary has evolved in the context of disease, and "hypo" and "hyper" are pretty crude tools to discuss optimum or ideal thyroid function. Obviously no one wants to go into clinical hyperthyroidism, but .... getting closer might be the ideal no matter what you call it.

The article also says TSH can vary dramatically over 24 hours, which is news to me. He cites two cases where "the TSH was drawn every few minutes". Not sure what that means, but one case had about 0.3 to 2.0 and the other had about 1.0 to 5.0, over 24 hours. Wilkinson asks the logical question of what number should be used.

And often women have damaged pituitary glands after childbirth, which makes TSH levels an (even more) unreliable indicator of thyroid function.

There is some interesting discussion of the history of learning about thyroid, and a strong case that hypothyroidism and atherosclerosis are closely related. (I think that's right, don't want to say it wrong).

 

[ilovethesea]

So interesting! What are the downsides to being slightly hyperthyroid anyway? I know Ray has said it can help to control some cancers. And that what my GP always warns me about it causing osteoporosis is not true. (Even if it did, I think I would happily trade off osteoporosis in my 80s in order to feel good now!)

It makes sense that a hyper person would be more attractive and vital... if you google image search pictures of hypothyroid people, it's very depressing. I see people like that all around me - in my family, on the streets. Very sad.

What really makes me angry is how doctors always deliberately under-dose people with thyroid. When I used to bother with endos, they were always reducing my dose just when I'd start to feel a little bit better. (**** endos. I no longer waste my time with them.) Anyway, they think the worst possible thing could be getting too much thyroid, when in fact it's the opposite! It's just astounding to think of how many people's lives are sub-optimal because of this.

 

[BingDing]

I met with my new doc to go over lab tests today. Looking at thyroid numbers, all in the normal range, he commented that he liked to see free T3 above 3.5 pg/mL and mine was 3.4, and remarked he thought the higher half of the normal range was good because "old people pull the average down and young people pull the average up" (true).

So I told him about Dr. Levine and his 3 grains/day to keep thyroid in the high range, my doc said he is fine with that and gave me a script for Armour NDT (to try out as I see fit, apparently).

My takeaway is that if a person is replete in minerals and vitamins and has a generally well functioning metabolic system, deliberately dosing thyroid toward the high side could be a plus, a charge, sort of like LSD without the strychnine.

Or whatever, you get the idea.

 

[Such_Saturation]

She is slightly puffy and the hair is quite thin. Perhaps Cushing's with bouts of thyroid release?

 

[Light]

The current issue of AgingMatters is about hypothyroidism. Written by Rick Wilkinson, MD, who says his mentor about thyroid was Broda Barnes.

The title refers to a Dr. Samuel Levine, who was impressed with the brightness and quickness of hyperthyroid people and maintained that they "had bright, sparkling eyes and appeared to be interesting people, because personality is conveyed largely through the eyes". He opined that the Mona Lisa has fascinated us for centuries because of her eyes.

Interesting observations, I think, and both likely with some merit.

Dr. Levine took 3 grains of Armour thyroid every day for thirty years, apparently to stay on the hyperthyroid side of normal. The article talks about dosing towards "slightly hyperthyroid" deliberately, which is pretty Peat.

What I thought reading this is that the medical vocabulary has evolved in the context of disease, and "hypo" and "hyper" are pretty crude tools to discuss optimum or ideal thyroid function. Obviously no one wants to go into clinical hyperthyroidism, but .... getting closer might be the ideal no matter what you call it.

The article also says TSH can vary dramatically over 24 hours, which is news to me. He cites two cases where "the TSH was drawn every few minutes". Not sure what that means, but one case had about 0.3 to 2.0 and the other had about 1.0 to 5.0, over 24 hours. Wilkinson asks the logical question of what number should be used.

And often women have damaged pituitary glands after childbirth, which makes TSH levels an (even more) unreliable indicator of thyroid function.

There is some interesting discussion of the history of learning about thyroid, and a strong case that hypothyroidism and atherosclerosis are closely related. (I think that's right, don't want to say it wrong).

Hi,
I hope you don't mind that i'm resurrecting an old thread, but I was just wondering what "slightly hyperthyroid" would mean, and a search brough up your post.
BTW, the article you posted moved here: The epidemic of low thyroid diseases | Aging Matters Magazine - I assume that's the same one you referred to.
The article says he took 3 grains of Armour but doesn't say what his temperature/pulse was, I wonder what would be the upper limit for those.

Peat mentions hyperthyroid rats that died of malnutrition:
(from Osteoporosis, harmful calcification, and nerve/muscle malfunctions)

In an experiment, rats were given a standard diet, to which had been added 1% Armour thyroid, that is, they were made extremely hyperthyroid. Since their diet was inadequate (later experiments showed that this amount of thyroid didn't cause growth retardation when liver was added to the diet) for their high metabolic rate, they died prematurely, in an apparently undernourished state, weighing much less than normal rats.

So when they ate sufficient nutrients there were no harmful effects?
Do you think it's possible to take very high amounts of thyroid, have very high levels of energy - but without irritability - and as long as you replenish all the necessary nutrients you could maintain that for years and years?

 

[BingDing]

Hi @Light, sorry I just saw your post. RP wrote that liver was all that was needed to prevent the harm, it seems to me that can be extrapolated to general good nutrition.

The "normal" range of T3 is 2-5, I forget the units, where 5 is what a healthy young person has and 2 is what a healthy old person has. My thinking is that it's better to be closer to 5 than closer to 2, and there is no meaningful difference between 4.8 and 5.3, for example. I think you can dose to the high normal range and maintain that for years with adequate nutrition, as long as PUFA is kept low.

 

[Light]

Thanks :)

 

[Ella]

2 is what a healthy old person has.

I think a healthy old person would be higher than 2.