Such_Saturation
Member
- Joined
- Nov 26, 2013
- Messages
- 7,370
He worked with air conditioning control systems and he applied the concepts to the body. It's just what he says.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Click Here if you want to upgrade your account
If you were able to post but cannot do so now, send an email to admin at raypeatforum dot com and include your username and we will fix that right up for you.
40 mcg T4/10mcg T3 also helps.
My understanding is he does a consultation specific to the individual, but then the email is published and perhaps taken out of context. So the 40/10 is a suggestion, but it could be different for each of us. For me, 40/10 works great, though as you point out, my liver is humming along decently. Lots of instant coffee seems to have helped me. Right now, I'm upping my K2-MK4 to see what happens higher in the therapeutic window.sweetpeat said:I have elevated liver enzymes and possible (undiagnosed) fatty liver, so that’s why I’m finding thyroid supplementation (esp. t4) to be a challenge. I’m currently in the middle of the K2/caffeine two-week protocol. Hopefully things will improve in many areas if I can get my liver humming along decently.
40 mcg T4/10mcg T3 also helps.
Isn’t this too much t3 all at once? I’m not trying to be argumentative; just curious. I’ve seen this in Peat’s writings also. Why does he say to take small physiological doses, but then say it’s ok to take 10mcg at a time? Anyone know?
I think in the body's attempts to maintain homeostasis in many parameters for optimal function, it makes sense that it must have either a range or a set point that it is aiming for all the time for each one. Some of them may be interdependent.narouz said:Such links to a guy who talks about "set points."
That has been intriguing to me for a while,
but I've never really had an understanding of what they are.
I did hear Peat one time briefly mention set points
when he was discussing bag breathing/carbon dioxide.
I guess part of my resistance, though,
is that I also heard Matt Stone pontificating about them rather gaseously,
and not saying much of anything I could understand,
so...I think that put me off "set points" a bit....
tara said:I think in the body's attempts to maintain homeostasis in many parameters for optimal function, it makes sense that it must have either a range or a set point that it is aiming for all the time for each one. Some of them may be interdependent.narouz said:Such links to a guy who talks about "set points."
That has been intriguing to me for a while,
but I've never really had an understanding of what they are.
I did hear Peat one time briefly mention set points
when he was discussing bag breathing/carbon dioxide.
I guess part of my resistance, though,
is that I also heard Matt Stone pontificating about them rather gaseously,
and not saying much of anything I could understand,
so...I think that put me off "set points" a bit....
I'm pretty sure CO2 set point has been legitimately and repeatedly shown to be a valid concept, and that CO2 set point can be changed, either lower by chronic hyperventilation, or higher by enough reduced breathing or bag-breathing or CO2 supplementation etc over time, and that it is also affected by any measures that improve (or worsen) CO2 production in cells (eg T3, adequate sugar supply, etc).
Many many chemical and biological processes in the body function at their best only at particular optimal temperature, CO2 levels, pH levels, blood glucose levels, conductivity levels, etc, and the body does what it can to maintain them.
I have read about RIchfield's protocol, but not used it (I don't think I fit the criteria he suggests it is most useful for). I believe a number of people who said it worked for them, but who knows how many tried it and failed (like anything based on anecdotal evidence). I found fascinating and plausible, if not proven, his idea that the body could get one or more bad frights, and at some level perceive that normal body temperature is not safe, and so drop into a lower set point, and that you can help it relearn that normal body temp is safe by forcing it up, and demonstrating that it is survivable and eventually preferable. It also makes sense to me, and I think this is consistent with what I've read from Peat, that forcing body temp up to normal for extended periods would allow a whole lot of processes to begin to function properly again, so that eventually the whole body has a better chance to maintain all it's functions including maintaining its own temperature.
I know lots of people measure body temp as an indicator of metabolic health, and that from time to time people talk of the importance of keeping hands and feet warm, and that Peat has talked about the value of keeping warm and the estrogenic effects of low body temp. But Richfield and a few of his successful followers are the only ones I've come across who seem to use temperature as their main lever for improving overall metabolism. Without necessarily knowing enough or agreeing with his thyroid supplementaion recommendations, the overall idea of forcibly holding the body at the normal healthy temperature makes as much sense to me theoretically as directly targetting CO2 to raise its set point, or supplementing magnesium or progesterone, or oversupplying food for a while to let the body know it's safe to raise metabolism now because the famine's over, etc.
I was surprised by one of the success stories I read, where a women had successfully raised her temperature set point, and improved a number of difficult symptoms, but was still maintaining herself on a low calorie diet (I can't remember the detail, but I think she was talking well under 2000 cals, IIRC). I couldn't quite see how this could work, but according to her story it did.
I would guess that if you can maintain the normal temperature by physical environmental means (eg hot showers and warms rooms and clothes), this would probably be safer than using excessive amounts of T3. I think Richfield says it doesn't always seem to be possible without the T3, and I have no basis for assessing this.
sweetpeat said:I have elevated liver enzymes and possible (undiagnosed) fatty liver, so that’s why I’m finding thyroid supplementation (esp. t4) to be a challenge.
Is this a thing? If it is we should make screen capture movies of playing lumosity, to prove how well uncoupling works on the brain!Such_Saturation said:I did the 25mcg T4 test yesterday and it converted really well, I ... set new records on lumosity.
tara said:I think in the body's attempts to maintain homeostasis in many parameters for optimal function, it makes sense that it must have either a range or a set point that it is aiming for all the time for each one. Some of them may be interdependent.narouz said:Such links to a guy who talks about "set points."
That has been intriguing to me for a while,
but I've never really had an understanding of what they are.
I did hear Peat one time briefly mention set points
when he was discussing bag breathing/carbon dioxide.
I guess part of my resistance, though,
is that I also heard Matt Stone pontificating about them rather gaseously,
and not saying much of anything I could understand,
so...I think that put me off "set points" a bit....
I'm pretty sure CO2 set point has been legitimately and repeatedly shown to be a valid concept, and that CO2 set point can be changed, either lower by chronic hyperventilation, or higher by enough reduced breathing or bag-breathing or CO2 supplementation etc over time, and that it is also affected by any measures that improve (or worsen) CO2 production in cells (eg T3, adequate sugar supply, etc).
Many many chemical and biological processes in the body function at their best only at particular optimal temperature, CO2 levels, pH levels, blood glucose levels, conductivity levels, etc, and the body does what it can to maintain them.
I have read about RIchfield's protocol, but not used it (I don't think I fit the criteria he suggests it is most useful for). I believe a number of people who said it worked for them, but who knows how many tried it and failed (like anything based on anecdotal evidence). I found fascinating and plausible, if not proven, his idea that the body could get one or more bad frights, and at some level perceive that normal body temperature is not safe, and so drop into a lower set point, and that you can help it relearn that normal body temp is safe by forcing it up, and demonstrating that it is survivable and eventually preferable. It also makes sense to me, and I think this is consistent with what I've read from Peat, that forcing body temp up to normal for extended periods would allow a whole lot of processes to begin to function properly again, so that eventually the whole body has a better chance to maintain all it's functions including maintaining its own temperature.
I know lots of people measure body temp as an indicator of metabolic health, and that from time to time people talk of the importance of keeping hands and feet warm, and that Peat has talked about the value of keeping warm and the estrogenic effects of low body temp. But Richfield and a few of his successful followers are the only ones I've come across who seem to use temperature as their main lever for improving overall metabolism. Without necessarily knowing enough or agreeing with his thyroid supplementaion recommendations, the overall idea of forcibly holding the body at the normal healthy temperature makes as much sense to me theoretically as directly targetting CO2 to raise its set point, or supplementing magnesium or progesterone, or oversupplying food for a while to let the body know it's safe to raise metabolism now because the famine's over, etc.
I was surprised by one of the success stories I read, where a women had successfully raised her temperature set point, and improved a number of difficult symptoms, but was still maintaining herself on a low calorie diet (I can't remember the detail, but I think she was talking well under 2000 cals, IIRC). I couldn't quite see how this could work, but according to her story it did.
I would guess that if you can maintain the normal temperature by physical environmental means (eg hot showers and warms rooms and clothes), this would probably be safer than using excessive amounts of T3. I think Richfield says it doesn't always seem to be possible without the T3, and I have no basis for assessing this.
I think Peat has talked about the importance of keeping warm, both overall and in extremities. When asked about far infrared saunas, I think he responded that the far infrared does not have the restorative effect on cytocrome C oxidase that near-infrared through orange has, but that the heat itself could be beneficial. He has said about exercise that people may feel better for exercise because it raises their body temperature, but that having a hot bath has this effect too.Philomath said:Thank you Tara, that's very interesting. I wonder why Dr. Peat has never mentioned set points and forced temperature raising. I suppose he could be alluding to it with the epsom salt baths, light exposure and wearing clothes to bed. Perhaps he does not see the significance of heating on it's own but as part of a comprehensive modality.
visionofstrength said:Is this a thing? If it is we should make screen capture movies of playing lumosity, to prove how well uncoupling works on the brain!Such_Saturation said:I did the 25mcg T4 test yesterday and it converted really well, I ... set new records on lumosity.
visionofstrength said:Peat does mention that keeping yourself warm is another way to increase metabolism, especially your head and feet at night when you are sleeping, if only because of increased enzyme efficiencies.
Peat and Broda Barnes suggest that you test body temp again after your breakfast, just to see if it actually goes down, as it does with hypothyroidism.nikotrope said:visionofstrength said:Peat does mention that keeping yourself warm is another way to increase metabolism, especially your head and feet at night when you are sleeping, if only because of increased enzyme efficiencies.
My wake-up temps are under 97.7F even if one hour after I am already at 98.6 or higher so I didn't think it was because of a metabolism problem.
I have tried to sleep in a warmer room, with more bed sheets and with more layers on my upper body but it didn't work. After seeing your quote I realized I didn't try to keep my socks and pants on during the night. I tried 2 days ago and woke-up at 98.2F! And again last night 98.2F!
I already have a pretty good sleep so I don't think it will improve anything there. But if it can improve other things I will keep my socks on when I sleep!
VoS posted a good quote about this recently:tara said:He has also talked about the structural temperature of water, and the effect estrogen has on it - I think this might relate to temperature set point - estrogen excess lowers body temperature.
Ray Peat said:Temperature regulation apparently involves some nerve cells that sense temperature very accurately, and change their activity accordingly. Water has a remarkably high heat capacity, meaning that it takes a relatively large amount of heat to change its temperature. The "disappearing heat" is being consumed by structural changes in the water. Proteins have the same sort of structural complexity as water, and together they can make effective temperature transducers, "thermometers." (Other substances tend to undergo major structural changes only as they melt or vaporize. The famous "liquid crystals" have a few distinct structural phases, but cytoplasm is like a very subtle liquid crystal.) The "thermostat cells" are actually responding to a degree of internal structure, not to the temperature in the abstract. So things that change their internal structure will modify their temperature "set-point."
Increased estrogen causes an animal to lower its temperature, and it probably does this by increasing the "structural temperature" of the thermostat cells, "melting" their internal structure. Progesterone causes the animal to increase its temperature, and it apparently does this by increasing the structure/decreasing the structural temperature of the thermostat cells. If you put ice in the thermostat, the room gets hot.