Why Does Ray Still Take Thyroid?

jyb

Member
Joined
Nov 9, 2012
Messages
2,783
Location
UK
dd99 said:
post 117317 https://redlightman.com/blog/red-light- ... hyroidism/

This guy recommends infrared for thyroid, holding it 15-30cm away. He says that if you want to use red light for thyroid, you have to really ramp up the wattage

Interesting page on red light. There's quite a few other pages like this on red light that I've found or seen posted on this forum. I should keep track of them.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

dd99

Member
Joined
Apr 26, 2014
Messages
434
jyb said:
post 117322
dd99 said:
post 117317 https://redlightman.com/blog/red-light- ... hyroidism/

This guy recommends infrared for thyroid, holding it 15-30cm away. He says that if you want to use red light for thyroid, you have to really ramp up the wattage

Interesting page on red light. There's quite a few other pages like this on red light that I've found or seen posted on this forum. I should keep track of them.
He's a pro-Peat guy - wouldn't be surprised if he's on the forum.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Marvel

Member
Joined
Sep 4, 2014
Messages
43
JRMoney15 said:
post 80345 I don't know if he still does but I'm assuming. But if he does, why? I can't imagine him needing it, especially if he drinks coffee. I'm sure he has been PUFA free for long enough.

It's just a food supplement in the end. If you were eating the whole animal you would be consuming thyroid.

i.e. it's biologically apposite
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Strongbad

Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2015
Messages
291
icecreamlover said:
post 117305
It was my understanding that low level lasers were best no? But they're hard to come by? Interested in your thoughts

BTW, I also use it from time to time on the testes...it definitely works :)

When it comes to targeting specific illness / body parts then low level lasers are the best. But low light red LEDs produce similar results, too. low 600nm-ish, like 630 to 660nm, is great for skincare, wrinkle removal, hairloss etc. 830nm is the best for thyroid but is rarely available so 850nm is usually used, instead. 650nm-660nm and 830-850nm can be used on testes, but I prefer 660nm because 850nm is overkill IMO for testes.

I avoid blue LEDs like a plague. red LEDs are the way to go.

ecstatichamster said:
I use that LED device in the link. The bigger one. I'm doing 8 minutes per side on my thyroid area, about 1 inch away, every other day. I have so far not seen any results but I will try for 10 or 20 sessions. I've done about 5 so far.

I noticed you already have participated in this thread: Red light therapy / LLLT cures hypothyroid?

Have you covered the light-sensor on the panel? I know this is a dumb question, but the panel would not turn on unless the light-sensor thinks it's dark outside. Once it's covered, you'll see that there's a faint of dim red light coming out of the LEDs. Your smartphone however, can catch the infrared just fine, so if you're not sure if the LEDs light is on, turn on your phone and take a selfie. It'll be very visible.

I'd recommend taking only 3 sessions per week, 15 minutes per session every other day. There will be weeks when you can end up taking 4 sessions instead of 3. I highly recommend you to take a day break and stick with 3 sessions. It's very tempting to take as many session since it's very similar to supplementing (ie. more caffeine is better) but in this case, your body needs to heal as much as to receive treatment.
s
When I refer to 15 minutes per session, I simply rest my chin on top of the panel while it's beaming straight to my neck, about 1-2 inches away just like you. I make sure the beam covers the entire front-neck area where the thyroid is. I don't do thyroid sides. I beam it all at once. It's easy to do this while watching TV lol.

It also seems that the therapy works on some people while it doesn't on others. I don't know if thyroid supplementation affects the outcome of the therapy since I didn't take thyroid supplement during lllt weeks. At this point, it won't hurt to keep doing the therapy beyond 5 weeks unless it wreaks your health in some ways. I doubt it, though unless you didn't fill your glycogen with food prior to therapy session or if you expose yourself to lllt too long, way beyond 15 minutes.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

burtlancast

Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2013
Messages
3,263
docall18 said:
post 116631 In fairness I don't think Ray Peat is a very good advertisement for his diet etc.

He looks old for his age, has grey receded hair and speaks in a weak frail voice. He also doesn't come across as a charasmatic guy with a humming metabolism.

Ray's 79.
He doesn't look good because he doesn't take care anymore of his looks.
But his mind's still sharp, as one can hear in his recent interviews.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
R

ratcheer

Guest
honeybee said:
post 116871
docall18 said:
post 116801

Trump says it as it is, he also has his own money and is not a puppet on a string.

Like Ray Peat he is anti-establishment, and is demonized by main-stream media.

He is in no way like Peat. Please. Read some more and educate yourself and stop listening and letting the bobble heads on tv do your thinking for you.

I find there is a lot of "Peat is 'anti-establishment' therefore he's a whacked out conspiracy theorist like me" thinking surrounding Peat forums. As you say, he is NOT like Trump in the least - that guy LOST 90% of the wealth he inherited (so much for his business chops), and "saying what it is" is not an excuse to be an ***hole. Trump isn't "saying what it is" anyway - he's just saying what gets him media attention.

But in the larger picture, I find this correlation between "anti-establishment" and conspiracy theorism really interesting (and also disappointing and slightly frightening, but still). In an email exchange I asked Peat about this (related to anti-vaxxers, but more general) and, to paraphrase, he said that often what looks like evil intent is just great stupidity.

Personally, I think a lot of conspiracy theories - which a fraught with a massive coverups by shadowy yet all powerful puppet masters - are just juvenile parental issues. People are still trying to overcome their problems about becoming independent and are tilting at windmills 'out there', rather than within.

Where it's a problem is that it blinds people to real problems in the world. We can't deal with international politics if it's seen as a shadowy "them" controlling every move. We can't fix issues with vaccines if people obsess how "they" are controlling all the research. We can't even solve murders if instead of looking for and examining evidence we pounce on "false flag" hysteria.

A lot of this is of course fueled by today's media. Basically, if you get your news from TV or talk shows, you're being sold a view that has been bought and paid for; you aren't "anti-establishment" at all and if you think you have Secret information, you don't.

Anyway, Peat. He's an independent thinker, sure. But he actually THINKS. He reads research (that conspiracy theorists claim is rigged btw), he has an extensive and liberal education. He knows the world is more complex than many here imagine. He often uses "them" and "they" in the third person plural - but by no means is he identifying some uber cabal of evil masterminds.

Ok. Longer than I expected, and rather ad libbed. I may expand and post a better version another time.

Apologies if I got the quote nesting mixed up. It might take me a while to fix.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

BobbyDukez

Member
Joined
Dec 15, 2015
Messages
5
dd99 said:
post 117271 I've said before, we're too hung up on his looks. My mum is 79, my Dad is 73 and my in laws are mid 70s. They all look about a decade younger than Dr Peat. My Dad still works full time as a professor, my mum does Pilates every day, paints, walks up hills - my in laws walk and cycle everywhere and travel constantly. All four of them are fit and active and mentally sharp. They don't eat anything like a Peat 'diet'. They all eat a lot of starch and vegetables, animal proteins only a few times a week, not much fruit and virtually no dairy.

If I were to base my adherence to a Peat 'diet' on his looks, I would run a mile. But he is brilliant and mentally sharp and I think his research has the ring of truth to it.

What do your relatives' daily diet look like?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

burtlancast

Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2013
Messages
3,263
ratcheer said:
Anyway, Peat. He's an independent thinker, sure. But he actually THINKS. He reads research (that conspiracy theorists claim is rigged btw), he has an extensive and liberal education. He knows the world is more complex than many here imagine. He often uses "them" and "they" in the third person plural - but by no means is he identifying some uber cabal of evil masterminds.

Well said.

People today are way too quick to associate words like fraud, malfeasance, manipulation, crimes, aggravated homicide, and "deserve the death penalty" with the term "conspiracy".

:ninja

It remains to be seen whether a government can be made to stop giving public funds to corporations, and instead, to begin enforcing the law against them--and against those in the agencies who participated in
their crimes.
In the U.S., the death penalty is sometimes reserved for "aggravated homicide." If those who kill hundreds of thousands for the sake of billions of dollars in profits are not committing aggravated homicide, then it must be that no law written in the English language can be objectively interpreted, and the legal system is an Alice in Wonderland convenience for the corporate state.

At the highest level, when the agency is presented with clear evidence of fraud or malfeasance, the final response is that the agency doesn't handle complaints by individuals. I have been forced to believe that something more than incompetency is involved when officials refuse to say in writing things they have told me orally, and when they make misstatements in writing, or make deletions from documents provided under the Freedom of Information Act. And these are the guys that "work for us."

Estrogen marketing involves manipulation of the mass media and the medical media.

Thousands of well-meaning teachers and physicians helped to spread and perpetuate the fraudulent ideas originating with the corrupt pharmaceutical industry. (The U.S.Dept. of Justice and FBI found fraud in connection with research on diuretics, but it didn't affect the FDA's approval.)
After Tom Brewer's work (which built on R. Ross' and M. B. Strauss's 1935 work, and many other studies in the 1940s and 1950s), the FDA's continued approval of those drugs could only be characterized as malfeasance. (In 1834, J. Lever recognized that malnutrition and restricted salt intake could cause
eclampsia. "Cases of puerperal convulsions," Guy's Hospital Reports vol. 1, series 2, 495-517, 1843.) By 1950, there was sufficient knowledge available for controlling this disease of estrogen-excess, but the mere concept of too much estrogen was anathema to the industry-agency conspirators.

Let's keep quiet,cool down and not jump to premature conclusions, people.

:2cents
 

dd99

Member
Joined
Apr 26, 2014
Messages
434
BobbyDukez said:
post 117686
dd99 said:
post 117271 I've said before, we're too hung up on his looks. My mum is 79, my Dad is 73 and my in laws are mid 70s. They all look about a decade younger than Dr Peat. My Dad still works full time as a professor, my mum does Pilates every day, paints, walks up hills - my in laws walk and cycle everywhere and travel constantly. All four of them are fit and active and mentally sharp. They don't eat anything like a Peat 'diet'. They all eat a lot of starch and vegetables, animal proteins only a few times a week, not much fruit and virtually no dairy.

If I were to base my adherence to a Peat 'diet' on his looks, I would run a mile. But he is brilliant and mentally sharp and I think his research has the ring of truth to it.

What do your relatives' daily diet look like?
To expand on the bolded bit, a lot of bread, potatoes and rice, they all drink tea (black and green) throughout the day (my Dad and father in law also have a strong coffee in the morning), they eat meat max 2 or 3 times in a week, fish probably once or twice (except my mum, who eats salmon every day and no meat), a lot of veggies, not much fruit, a bit of cheese, salami, but not much. My mum and father in law eat porridge once a day. They all eat yogurt - and not the low lactic acid kind.

None of them eats much PUFA, except what naturally occurs in foods. My in laws eat two (huge) cakes (like, 20 pieces) a week on weekends that my mother in law bakes (she's an amazing baker), so a lot of flour, butter and sugar. (Their family has been eating two huge cakes a week since my wife was a toddler and she has turned out slender - finds it hard to gain fat.)

The way I see it, they all grew up in an age with vastly fewer environmental toxins, so they adapted to eating that way. They could all stand to eat more gelatinous cuts, but it hasn't seemed to have affected them. None of them eats liver or much shellfish.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom