Chris Masterjohn: Hormones Are Never In Charge

[Evolutionarily]

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8m-hnJiw_I

Hormones matter, but they are never in charge. Their abnormalities are never the root cause of anything.

All hormones do is communicate the biochemistry of one tissue to the biochemistry of another tissue.

Certainly an interesting perspective; unfortunately I am not knowledgeable enough to analyze it from a Peat perspective, so posting for discussion.

 

[Dave Clark]

Yeah, well it doesn't matter 'what's in charge', it matters what is optimal and balanced. There are too many studies showing what happens in age when good hormones get low, and his idea that fixing underlying nutrition to get hormone balance may be sound, but in this world today, a pipe dream. And, if bringing balance or optimizing the good hormones means bringing them up exogenously, so be it.

 

[GTW]

Yeah, well it doesn't matter 'what's in charge', it matters what is optimal and balanced. There are too many studies showing what happens in age when good hormones get low, and his idea that fixing underlying nutrition to get hormone balance may be sound, but in this world today, a pipe dream. And, if bringing balance or optimizing the good hormones means bringing them up exogenously, so be it.

True, the bottom line is the result. Who's in charge is a valid approach inter alia, among others.
If I recall, he highlighted glycine and the role in various conditions.

 

[Dave Clark]

True, the bottom line is the result. Who's in charge is a valid approach inter alia, among others.
If I recall, he highlighted glycine and the role in various conditions.

We know hormones become low and dysfunctional with age. DHEA, testosterone, etc. go down, and things that undermine those good hormones like aromatase, cortisol, estrogen, etc. go up. Areas in our brain that produce dopamine, like the substantia nigra produce 13% less every decade of life, etc.
To suggest that just getting our basic nutrition and deficiencies fixed is going to stop that is naïve at best. Some people will be dissuaded by hormone intervention that could correct things like cortisol, estrogen, PTH, etc., by thinking all they have to do is fix their nutrition, by listening to him.
That is what I mean about 'being in charge', it isn't just about being in charge, it is about what your body needs to function optimally.

 

[GTW]

We know hormones become low and dysfunctional with age. DHEA, testosterone, etc. go down, and things that undermine those good hormones like aromatase, cortisol, estrogen, etc. go up. Areas in our brain that produce dopamine, like the substantia nigra produce 13% less every decade of life, etc.
To suggest that just getting our basic nutrition and deficiencies fixed is going to stop that is naïve at best. Some people will be dissuaded by hormone intervention that could correct things like cortisol, estrogen, PTH, etc., by thinking all they have to do is fix their nutrition, by listening to him.
That is what I mean about 'being in charge', it isn't just about being in charge, it is about what your body needs to function optimally.

If you don't like the results complain about the method. Medicine institution and politics have that in common.
In the end they are all clues that lead an individual to make an informed guess and try something as an intervention and remedy.
What you or Masterjohn mean by in charge is peripheral and not constructive.

 

[Dave Clark]

If you don't like the results complain about the method. Medicine institution and politics have that in common.
In the end they are all clues that lead an individual to make an informed guess and try something as an intervention and remedy.
What you or Masterjohn mean by in charge is peripheral and not constructive.

Let's get something straight, I didn't define 'in charge', he did. His suggestion that fixing nutrition will allow your body to compensate for any of the hormonal deficiencies, may be true, but clinically has not shown to be the case. I am out on this thread.

 

[nomoreketones]

His main point was that in many cases the body will lower hormones levels on purpose to compensate for another problem in the body. Exogenous hormones being used to raise hormone levels can, in these cases, make the underlying problem worse.

 

[PopSocket]

His main point was that in many cases the body will lower hormones levels on purpose to compensate for another problem in the body. Exogenous hormones being used to raise hormone levels can, in these cases, make the underlying problem worse.

^^^ Exactly. Not only lower but higher hormones are a calculated response to some issue that is not easy to identify. Lower can indeed be due to deficiencies so the body lets say decides to increase rt3/lower t3 due to thiamine/magnesium/selenium or several deficiencies. Lowering rt3/upping t3 or increasing metabolism artificially with stimulants only causes more problems.

So the question is what causes age related hormonal decline because it seems nutrition and energy metabolism are just a part of the problem. Anyone thinking that perfect nutrition will keep hormones up when they are 80+ are I think mistaken.

 

[TheSir]

We know hormones become low and dysfunctional with age. DHEA, testosterone, etc. go down, and things that undermine those good hormones like aromatase, cortisol, estrogen, etc. go up. Areas in our brain that produce dopamine, like the substantia nigra produce 13% less every decade of life, etc.
To suggest that just getting our basic nutrition and deficiencies fixed is going to stop that is naïve at best. Some people will be dissuaded by hormone intervention that could correct things like cortisol, estrogen, PTH, etc., by thinking all they have to do is fix their nutrition, by listening to him.That is what I mean about 'being in charge', it isn't just about being in charge, it is about what your body needs to function optimally.

The thing is, it is not possible to get an imbalanced body to function optimally with hormonal interventions. This is very much because hormones are not in charge, and it is exactly why it matters that they are not in charge. If hormones were in charge, hormonal interventions would cure diseases by the downstream effects of their application. After getting hormones right, everything else would fall in place.

Unfortunately, this is not the case. Hormones are never used to cure diseases. They are only used to manage symptoms. This can improve one's quality of life for an indefinite period of time, but it will not result in optimal physiological function. Instead, hormonal treatments will gradually imbalance the body further.

The most fundamental layer of the body consists not of hormones, but of minerals. Minerals create the form of our bodies. Peat wrote about the intricate relationship between form and energy, and how they generate each other. Linus Pauling argued that all diseases can be traced back to mineral deficiencies. Minerals form the engine in which hormones, neurotransmitters, enzymes, and so on, are created and operate. Hence in the end our health is determined by our mineral status.

Any attempt to cure a disease should thus revolve around fixing the underlying mineral foundation of the body. It is when you fix the foundation that the upper layers will fall in place effortlessly. Hormonal issues are routinely cured for good with mineral focused approaches. This is done all the time in HTMA, for example.

Ultimately, one has to decide whether they want instant improvement at the risk of delayed degeneration of health, or gradual improvement towards a deeper and less transient level of healing.

 

[PopSocket]

The thing is, it is not possible to get an imbalanced body to function optimally with hormonal interventions. This is very much because hormones are not in charge, and it is exactly why it matters that they are not in charge. If hormones were in charge, hormonal interventions would cure diseases by the downstream effects of their application. After getting hormones right, everything else would fall in place.

Unfortunately, this is not the case. Hormones are never used to cure diseases. They are only used to manage symptoms. This can improve one's quality of life for an indefinite period of time, but it will not result in optimal physiological function. Instead, hormonal treatments will gradually imbalance the body further.

The most fundamental layer of the body consists not of hormones, but of minerals. Minerals create the form of our bodies. Peat wrote about the intricate relationship between form and energy, and how they generate each other. Linus Pauling argued that all diseases can be traced back to mineral deficiencies. Minerals form the engine in which hormones, neurotransmitters, enzymes, and so on, are created and operate. Hence in the end our health is determined by our mineral status.

Any attempt to cure a disease should thus revolve around fixing the underlying mineral foundation of the body. It is when you fix the foundation that the upper layers will fall in place effortlessly. Hormonal issues are routinely cured for good with mineral focused approaches. This is done all the time in HTMA, for example.

Ultimately, one has to decide whether they want instant improvement at the risk of delayed degeneration of health, or gradual improvement towards a deeper and less transient level of healing.

Minerals are super important but I don't buy the idea that they are fundamental and that they are the answer.

I think Water is more fundamental and the quality of the water inside the body depends on many many factors - electron flow, EMF, toxins, mineral balance,hormones ... so many things that are part of the material science. Water could get a lot more esoteric and other factors come in like emotions and life force energy.

 

[TheSir]

Minerals are super important but I don't buy the idea that they are fundamental and that they are the answer.

I think Water is more fundamental and the quality of the water inside the body depends on many many factors - electron flow, EMF, toxins, mineral balance,hormones ... so many things that are part of the material science. Water could get a lot more esoteric and other factors come in like emotions and life force energy.

Interesting point. I do understand where you are coming from and why it would be apt to call water (or perhaps oxygen?) the most fundamental layer of our biology in the general context of life. In my earlier post, however, I was talking more in the context of nutrition.

Consider that water is a medium rather than a building block. It creates neither energy nor structure, it only enables pre-existing structures to do their job. Due to its inability to create anything, water alone can not be used to cure diseases. All diseases in which dehydration is implicated are really diseases of mineral imbalance, as you are not going to retain water or keep it in the correct form without minerals and the electricity generated by them. From here follows that electron flow is mineral dependent. EMF & toxin resistance is mineral dependent as well. Thus minerals determine water's ability to maintain its structure in presence of offenders.

This is why I don't see water as being foundational in the same creative sense as minerals. Water is more like something that glues everything together. It's fundamental as in necessary, but not fundamental as in foundational -- a foundation has to be created and water can not create (hence water being feminine, since you like esotericism).

 

[Hans]

There are too many studies showing what happens in age when good hormones get low, and his idea that fixing underlying nutrition to get hormone balance may be sound, but in this world today, a pipe dream.

Why only a pipe dream?

And, if bringing balance or optimizing the good hormones means bringing them up exogenously, so be it.

He discusses how doing that can put additional stress on cells that don't have the nutrients to produce energy in the first place.

We know hormones become low and dysfunctional with age. DHEA, testosterone, etc. go down, and things that undermine those good hormones like aromatase, cortisol, estrogen, etc. go up. Areas in our brain that produce dopamine, like the substantia nigra produce 13% less every decade of life, etc.
To suggest that just getting our basic nutrition and deficiencies fixed is going to stop that is naïve at best.

Why? It's one of the main reasons why it happens.

That is what I mean about 'being in charge', it isn't just about being in charge, it is about what your body needs to function optimally.

Yes your body needs vits and minerals to work properly.

Let's get something straight, I didn't define 'in charge', he did. His suggestion that fixing nutrition will allow your body to compensate for any of the hormonal deficiencies, may be true, but clinically has not shown to be the case. I am out on this thread.

It been shown not to be true? Where?

 

[PopSocket]

Interesting point. I do understand where you are coming from and why it would be apt to call water (or perhaps oxygen?) the most fundamental layer of our biology in the general context of life. In my earlier post, however, I was talking more in the context of nutrition.

Consider that water is a medium rather than a building block. It creates neither energy nor structure, it only enables pre-existing structures to do their job. Due to its inability to create anything, water alone can not be used to cure diseases. All diseases in which dehydration is implicated are really diseases of mineral imbalance, as you are not going to retain water or keep it in the correct form without minerals and the electricity generated by them. From here follows that electron flow is mineral dependent. EMF & toxin resistance is mineral dependent as well. Thus minerals determine water's ability to maintain its structure in presence of offenders.

This is why I don't see water as being foundational in the same creative sense as minerals. Water is more like something that glues everything together. It's fundamental as in necessary, but not fundamental as in foundational -- a foundation has to be created and water can not create (hence water being feminine, since you like esotericism).

I do understand your point too. I am also still struggling to get to the bottom of health and in no way I am trying to say I know the answer. Minerals are definitely up there right next to water in terms of importance.

Seems to me that zinc,magnesium, copper, calcium etc are just inorganic metals that need some unifying intelligence possessing medium to govern their actions/as you said/. It seems like water is the medium and it dictates what happens next. Most probably picking up a frequency signal from another dimension ???

When I look at old people over 90-100 yo - I see a dehydrated system that is losing form. Can't imagine pushing raw oysters and liver though the mouth could change much in terms of re-hydration and stabilizing the form, no matter the amount of proper nutrition or mineral balance. Haven't tried it myself though.

 

[Nfinkelstein]

His main point was that in many cases the body will lower hormones levels on purpose to compensate for another problem in the body. Exogenous hormones being used to raise hormone levels can, in these cases, make the underlying problem worse.

this is so true. practical example: endotoxins resulting in elevated stress hormones --- it would be a mistake to try to address the hormones, first address the LPS and associated bacteria.

 

[gd81]

Hormones matter, but they are never in charge. Their abnormalities are never the root cause of anything.

That's just absurd to me. I'm not surprised he'd say it though.

It's just the standard orthodox view of hormones which says they are mere 'chemical messengers' and are relegated to obscurity. It should be obvious reading everything Ray has written how inappropriate that is.

Masterjohn doesn't have a clue, hence why he's just another workout-diet health bro.

 

[Waynish]

Lol he's reading off his screen... He can't just talk about it like he knows about it? Most people on this forum could probably even do that...

 

[Pete Rey]

Hormones are never used to cure diseases. They are only used to manage symptoms. This can improve one's quality of life for an indefinite period of time, but it will not result in optimal physiological function.

This whole thing sounds like a chicken or the egg problem to me. I don't know of any disease with an actual cure to begin with. Hormones are probably the closest thing to that, at least for any degenerative disease. The whole point of their use is an attempt to optimize physiological function. Improving quality of life indefinitely sounds pretty darn optimal to me.

Diet is important, sure. But try to get a man to "cure" his type 2 diabetes (just for example) through diet alone, and then give him some testosterone and let him sort the diet out in time. I'll bet on the success of #2 and the failure of #1 any day.

 

[gd81]

Exactly. The idea that so many problems can and should be attacked with just diet and exercise is part puritanism part ignorance, which is why it's an idea that's right at home in the health sphere. If it works for somebody, great but in many people it won't. I spent years doing that and only got worse, as many others have experienced. Not a fun time.

 

[youngsinatra]

I believe Chris Masterjohn is on a dangerous path at the moment. I have a bad gut feeling about the material he is so actively posting about lately.
He has been talking about identifying metabolic genetic defects with some extensive, likely very expensive genetic testing that he now offers to find out what „bottlenecks“ you have in energy production and giving you a specific supplement plan to fix your health. His waitlist is already full. I feel sorry for all those desperate chronically sick people, likely spending a small fortune on his new program because it ignites a spark of hope in them…

Just my 2 cents on this..

And I would like to see evidence that diet and nutrients fix or reverse type 1 diabetes, primary hypothyroidism, hyperthyroidism, addisons disease, cushings syndrome or primary hypogonadism.

Many on this forum are not even able to fix their more „simple“ diseases like IBS or depression with diet and nutrients.

 

[Waynish]

Instead of spinning your wheels on these things called hormones that no one has ever seen with their eyes, even through a microscope - perhaps take for a fresh start... I have a simple question regarding the estrogenic substance (diosgenin, also in soybean oil) one can extract from wild yams which somehow makes the anti-estrogen they're calling progesterone ("bioidentical" a la "progest-e"). The entire paradigm is twisted and constantly excused and new findings that somehow never require a fresh start, just a rejiggering and refitting so as to maintain these entrenched ideas. Now we have a short list of invisible inanimate things - molecules like estrogen, serotonin, and dopamine - down to which we're able to reduce all biological problems and successes. Though the folks with the most access to the health promoting molecules in this list are not able to do any sort of surprising physical transformations or demonstrations of supernormal health. These metabolic experts give themselves rest from extreme dieting and damaging exercises and then credit their mental concepts rather then rest from self destruction for their healing. What a mess!