"Higher Metabolism, Temperature And Pulse And Lower TSH Associated With Higher Mortality"

[Queequeg]

okay... but what if the people didn't eat enough calcium? do you think that would effect their longevity at all? unfortunately, we don't have the answer to that question.

The test subjects would have the same variations in dietary calcium as that of the general population so it wouldn't matter.

 

[mayweatherking]

The test subjects would have the same variations in dietary calcium as that of the general population so it wouldn't matter.

And the general population doesn't get enough calcium.... not enough magnesium either if you really want to get into it... so that will tell you that they are running higher on prolactin...... higher prolactin and lower TSH is a recipe for stress hormones.... estrogen don't discriminate


Calcium, the most abundant mineral in the body, is required for many important functions. About 99% of the body’s calcium is found in bones and teeth, where it is essential for formation and maintenance of strong bones and teeth. The remaining 1% of calcium is found in the blood, muscle and other tissues, and has important roles in blood clotting, muscle function, nerve transmission, and blood pressure. Calcium has been identified as a nutrient of concern in the 2010 Dietary Guidelines for Americans (1). Data from What We Eat In America, NHANES 2009-2010 indicated that 42% of Americans did not meet their Estimated Average Requirements for calcium as recommended by the Institute of Medicine (2). This report presents data on the dietary and supplemental calcium intake of the U.S. population as reported in What We Eat In America, NHANES 2009-2010 and the contribution of foods and beverages to calcium intake.

https://www.ars.usda.gov/ARSUserFiles/80400530/pdf/DBrief/13_calcium_intake_0910.pdf

Despite the role of magnesium in maintaining health, much of the U.S. population has historically not consumed adequate amounts of magnesium. Furthermore, significant racial or ethnic disparities in magnesium intake exist. Our objective was to provide more recent data about magnesium intake in the U.S. population. We analyzed the 24-h dietary recall data from 4257 participants aged >or=20 y from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 1999-2000. The median intake of magnesium was 326 mg/d (mean 352 mg/d) among Caucasian men, 237 mg/d (mean 278 mg/d) among African American men, 297 mg/d (330 mg/d) among Mexican American men, 237 mg/d (mean 256 mg/d) among Caucasian women, 177 mg/d (mean 202 mg/d) among African American women, and 221 mg/d (mean 242 mg/d) among Mexican American women. Among men and women, Caucasians had significantly higher mean intakes of dietary magnesium than African Americans but not Mexican Americans. Magnesium intake decreased with increasing age (P for linear trend = 0.035 for Caucasians; P for linear trend <0.001 for African Americans and Mexican Americans). Men had higher intakes of magnesium than women for each of the three race or ethnic groups (P < 0.001 in each group). Caucasian men, African American men and Caucasian women who used vitamin, mineral or dietary supplements consumed significantly more magnesium in their diets than did those who did not. Substantial numbers of U.S. adults fail to consume adequate magnesium in their diets. Furthermore, racial or ethnic differences in magnesium persist and may contribute to some health disparities.

Dietary magnesium intake in a national sample of US adults. - PubMed - NCBI

 

[Peater Piper]

And the general population doesn't get enough calcium.... not enough magnesium either if you really want to get into it... so that will tell you that they are running higher on prolactin...... higher prolactin and lower TSH is a recipe for stress hormones.... estrogen don't discriminate

The calcium consumption in some long-lived populations is absurdly low, and if you look at osteoporosis rates, some of the countries with the highest dairy consumption have the highest rates, so I think looking at calcium consumption in terms of absolute amounts is pretty useless. Obviously there's the calcium to phosphorus ratio to think about, and I'm not so sure total phosphorus isn't also a factor. Low phytic acid and phosphorus consumption will lower calcium requirements, which is probably how some of these populations get away with it, even thrive on it, although beans would seem to be counter-productive, but they're a common food source. Also, calcium can worsen magnesium deficiency, and since magnesium plays a role in calcium placement, that's a big concern. Also need to consider all the fat soluble vitamins...

 

[Giraffe]

Smoking tobacco lowers TSH.

Anorexia nervosa, too.

 

[mayweatherking]

The calcium consumption in some long-lived populations is absurdly low, and if you look at osteoporosis rates, some of the countries with the highest dairy consumption have the highest rates, so I think looking at calcium consumption in terms of absolute amounts is pretty useless. Obviously there's the calcium to phosphorus ratio to think about, and I'm not so sure total phosphorus isn't also a factor. Low phytic acid and phosphorus consumption will lower calcium requirements, which is probably how some of these populations get away with it, even thrive on it, although beans would seem to be counter-productive, but they're a common food source. Also, calcium can worsen magnesium deficiency, and since magnesium plays a role in calcium placement, that's a big concern. Also need to consider all the fat soluble vitamins...

that's really interesting. i didn't know that high dairy consumption would lead to osteoporosis. what do you think the cause of that is? due to the low magnesium intake? maybe vit D status also?

 

[Queequeg]

And the general population doesn't get enough calcium.... not enough magnesium either if you really want to get into it... so that will tell you that they are running higher on prolactin...... higher prolactin and lower TSH is a recipe for stress hormones.... estrogen don't discriminate


Calcium, the most abundant mineral in the body, is required for many important functions. About 99% of the body’s calcium is found in bones and teeth, where it is essential for formation and maintenance of strong bones and teeth. The remaining 1% of calcium is found in the blood, muscle and other tissues, and has important roles in blood clotting, muscle function, nerve transmission, and blood pressure. Calcium has been identified as a nutrient of concern in the 2010 Dietary Guidelines for Americans (1). Data from What We Eat In America, NHANES 2009-2010 indicated that 42% of Americans did not meet their Estimated Average Requirements for calcium as recommended by the Institute of Medicine (2). This report presents data on the dietary and supplemental calcium intake of the U.S. population as reported in What We Eat In America, NHANES 2009-2010 and the contribution of foods and beverages to calcium intake.

https://www.ars.usda.gov/ARSUserFiles/80400530/pdf/DBrief/13_calcium_intake_0910.pdf

Despite the role of magnesium in maintaining health, much of the U.S. population has historically not consumed adequate amounts of magnesium. Furthermore, significant racial or ethnic disparities in magnesium intake exist. Our objective was to provide more recent data about magnesium intake in the U.S. population. We analyzed the 24-h dietary recall data from 4257 participants aged >or=20 y from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 1999-2000. The median intake of magnesium was 326 mg/d (mean 352 mg/d) among Caucasian men, 237 mg/d (mean 278 mg/d) among African American men, 297 mg/d (330 mg/d) among Mexican American men, 237 mg/d (mean 256 mg/d) among Caucasian women, 177 mg/d (mean 202 mg/d) among African American women, and 221 mg/d (mean 242 mg/d) among Mexican American women. Among men and women, Caucasians had significantly higher mean intakes of dietary magnesium than African Americans but not Mexican Americans. Magnesium intake decreased with increasing age (P for linear trend = 0.035 for Caucasians; P for linear trend <0.001 for African Americans and Mexican Americans). Men had higher intakes of magnesium than women for each of the three race or ethnic groups (P < 0.001 in each group). Caucasian men, African American men and Caucasian women who used vitamin, mineral or dietary supplements consumed significantly more magnesium in their diets than did those who did not. Substantial numbers of U.S. adults fail to consume adequate magnesium in their diets. Furthermore, racial or ethnic differences in magnesium persist and may contribute to some health disparities.

Dietary magnesium intake in a national sample of US adults. - PubMed - NCBI

So are you saying that if everyone had adequate calcium and magnesium intake then the proven inverse relationship between thyroid, metabolism, temperature, and heart rate vs longevity would somehow magically reverse itself. The study you quoted shows that 42% of Americans are not getting enough calcium. If what you are saying is true then the 58% of Americans who do get enough calcium would show a positive relationship of thyroid to longevity and that would more than offset the negative relationship found in every human trial. Unfortunately this is not what the data shows.

I would love to believe that increasing metabolism, temp, heart rate, thyroid is the cure-all for everyone but I have yet to see any studies that prove this to be so. Of course it may work for some, but unless you can find some research that proves it for the overall population, I don't think it is very good advice for optimal health.

 

[Mito]

I would love to believe that increasing metabolism, temp, heart rate, thyroid is the cure-all for everyone but I have yet to see any studies that prove this to be so. Of course it may work for some,

The article linked in the original post, warns "Perhaps the worst effect of thyroid hormones is that they increase the worst kind of free radical: superoxide."

But is Ray saying that if you have the proper (not just any) antioxidants then you don't get this bad side effect (superoxide, etc.) of free radicals with increased thyroid (and metabolism)?
From Thinking Outside The Box – Cancer Treatments KMUD - Ask Your Herb Doctor – (2014)

Andrew Murray: In general Vitamin C and Vitamin E are very safe and do work very effectively.

Ray Peat: That's because they are electrically tuned to exactly a certain role or for a group of roles in the cell. And if you put in dynamite instead of alcohol you can have the same overall energy expense but it isn't under control. Some of the anti-oxidants that they're selling are more like dynamite and they don't fit into the system and so they aren't helpful at all. And when the good antioxidants are working properly, the system can run as fast as it wants practically, oxidizing at full speed, and there are examples of experiments in which as you add thyroid hormone or a chemical that uncouples the production of ATP from simply the burning of oxygen and fuel, as you rev up the oxidizing process, you get fewer and fewer free radical productions.

 

[DaveFoster]

that's really interesting. i didn't know that high dairy consumption would lead to osteoporosis. what do you think the cause of that is? due to the low magnesium intake? maybe vit D status also?

It doesn't.

Calcium, dairy products and osteoporosis. - PubMed - NCBI

"Osteoporosis is a multifactorial disorder in which nutrition plays a role but does not account for the totality of the problem. 139 papers published since 1975 and describing studies of the relationship of calcium intake and bone health are briefly analyzed. Of 52 investigator-controlled calcium intervention studies, all but two showed better bone balance at high intakes, or greater bone gain during growth, or reduced bone loss in the elderly, or reduced fracture risk. This evidence firmly establishes that high calcium intakes promote bone health. Additionally, three-fourths of 86 observational studies were also positive, indicating that the causal link established in investigator-controlled trials can be found in free-living subjects as well. The principal reason for failure to find an association in observational studies is the weakness of the methods available for estimating long-term calcium intake. While most of the investigator-controlled studies used calcium supplements, six used dairy sources of calcium; all were positive. Most of the observational studies were based on dairy calcium also, since at the time the studies were done, higher calcium intakes meant higher dairy intakes. All studies evaluating the issue reported substantial augmentation of the osteoprotective effect of estrogen by high calcium intakes. Discussion is provided in regard to the multifactorial complexity of osteoporotic response to interventions and to the perturbing effect in controlled trials of the bone remodeling transient, as well as about how inferences can validly be drawn from the various study types represented in this compilation."

 

[mayweatherking]

So are you saying that if everyone had adequate calcium and magnesium intake then the proven inverse relationship between thyroid, metabolism, temperature, and heart rate vs longevity would somehow magically reverse itself. The study you quoted shows that 42% of Americans are not getting enough calcium. If what you are saying is true then the 58% of Americans who do get enough calcium would show a positive relationship of thyroid to longevity and that would more than offset the negative relationship found in every human trial. Unfortunately this is not what the data shows.

I would love to believe that increasing metabolism, temp, heart rate, thyroid is the cure-all for everyone but I have yet to see any studies that prove this to be so. Of course it may work for some, but unless you can find some research that proves it for the overall population, I don't think it is very good advice for optimal health.

that was one example.... ray peat's work covers a wide variety of areas where if certain things aren't met, then stress hormones will increase. yes, getting enough calcium and magnesium would be one that could offset that. also, vitamin d status? sugar intake? getting enough light? i mean, if you want a one stop shop solution, then you will not find it here. saying that boosting metabolism alone will increase your health is not what ray is saying. you need the backup to do it. you need backup from a wide array of areas in order to do it. even if your vitamin D is low, that one thing is low and everything else is covered, then your magnesium won't be retained, your potassium won't be retained, and if you decrease your TSH through taking thyroid hormone, you are actually going to increase your stress hormones a lot because your potassium and magnesium are not there to buffer the the blood sugar increases, and your going to be burning fat for energy.

out of curiousity, if you don't think that boosting metabolism is good, what is your other option? you won't eat any sugar? sugar is really what would be good for boosting metabolism at the end of the day, would you just avoid it? then you would probably increase stress hormones.

i know well experienced peaters who do not use thyroid hormone.... i dont think it's a necessity... ray is also like 78 years old... it's another thing to consider why he takes it...

It doesn't.

Calcium, dairy products and osteoporosis. - PubMed - NCBI

"Osteoporosis is a multifactorial disorder in which nutrition plays a role but does not account for the totality of the problem. 139 papers published since 1975 and describing studies of the relationship of calcium intake and bone health are briefly analyzed. Of 52 investigator-controlled calcium intervention studies, all but two showed better bone balance at high intakes, or greater bone gain during growth, or reduced bone loss in the elderly, or reduced fracture risk. This evidence firmly establishes that high calcium intakes promote bone health. Additionally, three-fourths of 86 observational studies were also positive, indicating that the causal link established in investigator-controlled trials can be found in free-living subjects as well. The principal reason for failure to find an association in observational studies is the weakness of the methods available for estimating long-term calcium intake. While most of the investigator-controlled studies used calcium supplements, six used dairy sources of calcium; all were positive. Most of the observational studies were based on dairy calcium also, since at the time the studies were done, higher calcium intakes meant higher dairy intakes. All studies evaluating the issue reported substantial augmentation of the osteoprotective effect of estrogen by high calcium intakes. Discussion is provided in regard to the multifactorial complexity of osteoporotic response to interventions and to the perturbing effect in controlled trials of the bone remodeling transient, as well as about how inferences can validly be drawn from the various study types represented in this compilation."

interesting.. yes the long term studies are not very good at information gathering honestly...

 

[jaguar43]

As you can see below, it's not true that all the studies focused on TSH or only on old people. These studies looked at variety of independent variables and their effects on longevity, including basal metabolic rate, heart rate, temperature and TSH. All showed the opposite of what Ray is claiming.

As I tried to explain to @mayweatherking, science works best by looking at one independent variable at a time to see its effects on a selected dependent variable. If you had to control for every variable in a human study like he seems to suggest, you could never have any human trials. Luckily you don't have to as confounding variables are dealt with either statistically or by proper sample selection. And again, just because TSH can be manipulated by other means or isn't always the best diagnostic of thyroid does not mean it can't be used as a proper measure of thyroid function. It is still strongly correlated with thyroid function and so is properly used for scientific research on thryoid.

Science also works best by allowing reasonable and reliable measurements of the subject at hand. If the metabolic rate is measured incorrectly, then posting studies proving an argument based on those measurements should be criticized.

Ray makes a very unorthodox claim that higher metabolisms, higher heart rates, higher temperatures, and/or higher thyroid function are healthful yet no one can seem to provide any scientific evidence for this. If we are just going to take his word for it and reject any study that states otherwise, than we are no longer discussing science but are debating religious dogma.

If the scientific community can't accurately diagnose hypothyroidism correctly, then how can you expect it to accurately measure the basal metabolic rate in research regarding longevity. You ignore the historical basis of the medical/scientific establishment in relation to the development of research regarding metabolism, thyroid, and longevity.

Higher metabolism, temperature and pulse and lower TSH associated with higher mortality

• In a prospective study in men with around 40 years of follow-up, a higher basal metabolic rate was independently associated with a higher mortality compared to average metabolic rates. Low metabolic rates were not significantly associated with higher mortality (Figure: Mortality plotted according to quartiles of metabolic rate). High basal metabolic rate is a risk factor for mortality: the Baltimore Longitudinal Study of Aging. - PubMed - NCBI

This same study stated the following....

Participants with BMR > 36.4 kcal/m2/h and high mortality risk were relatively younger (49.5 ± 13.2 years), had significantly higher BMI and white blood cell count, and were more likely to be smokers than were those in the reference group (Table 5)

According to them, the highest BMR subjects had significantly higher BMI measurements. This is a paradox, having a higher metabolic rate usually is associated with a lower BMI. But if the participants with the lower BMR's had lower BMI then its possible that there were real physiological differences between the participants and other variables played a role in mortality. They didn't state the figures regarding their oxygen consumption or co2 consumption since I suspect they use some equation or table to convert the BMR in Kcal's.

They also stated that the higher BMR group were relatively younger than the participants with the lower BMR. However, the same studied stated that as people get older their BMR decreases. Therefore, the higher BMR subject's could have had a lower BMR when they died compared to the lower BMR group since they were measured at a younger age. This study is questionable at best.

In the same study, a higher temperature was associated with increased mortality compared to people with a lower temperature over 25-years of follow-up (Figure: X-axis: Survival time (yrs), Y-axis: Cumulative survival; plotted for higher or lower body temperature). Biomarkers of caloric restriction may predict longevity in humans. - PubMed - NCBI

Mice that have been genetically engineered to have a 0.3 to 0.5°C lower body temperature have an increased life span compared to normal mice despite having the same caloric intake. Transgenic mice with a reduced core body temperature have an increased life span. - PubMed - NCBI

Does having a higher temperature automatically assume that one has a higher metabolic rate ? Cortisol and adrenaline can maintain the body temperature at a level that appears to be a normal metabolic rate. When in fact, the stress hormones are artificially maintaining body temperature.

As for the association between calorie restriction and longevity. Peat has mention this many times in his writings.

Several things relating to calorie-restricted diets are not generally known. First, in 1987, Schroeder found that the re-moval of toxic heavy metals from the diet had the same effect as caloric restriction. Second, although underfed animals grow more slowly, their metabolism is not necessarily depressed. (In fact, animals on a low protein diet have a higher rate of oxygen consumption than do the animals that eat a more normal diet.) - Generative Energy page 114

Although Clive McKay's studies of life extension through caloric restriction were done in the 1930s, only a few studies have been done to find out which nutrients' restriction contributes most to extending the life span. Restricting toxic heavy metals, without restricting calories, produces about the same life-extending effect as caloric restriction. Restricting only tryptophan, or only cysteine, produces a greater extension of the life span than achieved in most of the studies of caloric restriction. How great would be the life-span extension if both tryptophan and cysteine were restricted at the same time?

Gelatin, stress, longevity

In a prospective study in male and females with average 11 years of follow-up, a higher 24 hour energy expenditure was associated with higher mortality from diseases. Higher energy expenditure in humans predicts natural mortality. - PubMed - NCBI

The study tries to prove it's argument that mortality is associated with a higher metabolic rate.What they did show instead was that the Pima Indians suffer terribly from alcoholism and obesity and that these things are more likely to contribute to mortality than a high metabolic rate .

Death due to alcohol-related causes predominated in both groups. As shown in Supplemental Table 1 (published on The Endocrine Society's Journals Online web site at http://jcem.endojournals.org), baseline characteristics did not differ between SG-1 and DS-1, although individuals in DS-1 were slightly older

I think the authors thought they were clever enough to use a homogenous sample from a homogenous group like the pima indians. It's interesting how this study references the Baltimore Longitudinal Study of Aging for certain statistical information. It reminds me of the twin studies in which one study tries to reference the other and tries to overcome the criticism of the previous studies by using different methods or samples. Unfortunately they, like this study, are not very convincing.

In a 16-year follow-up study, an elevated resting heart rate in men without cardiovascular disease is associated with an increased all-cause mortality, even when adjusting for cardiovascular risk factors. A lower resting heart rate wasnt associated with higher mortality (Figure: All-cause mortality according to groups of resting heart rate). Elevated resting heart rate, physical fitness and all-cause mortality: a 16-year follow-up in the Copenhagen Male Study. - PubMed - NCBI

This study doesn't represent an accurate view of the metabolic rate because the resting heart rate does not represent the metabolic rate. Therefore it doesn't disprove Peat's ideas.

In a prospective study of 52.674 participants with median 8.8 years follow-up, a TSH under 0.45 mIU/L is associated with increased all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality and atrial fibrillation compared to a TSH between 0.45 to 4.49 mIU/L Subclinical Hyperthyroidism and the Risk of Coronary Heart Disease and Mortality

• In two cross-sectional studies of long lived individuals, longevity was associated with lower fT3 and fT4 and higher TSH values Familial longevity is associated with decreased thyroid function. - PubMed - NCBI A cross-section analysis of FT3 age-related changes in a group of old and oldest-old subjects, including centenarians' relatives, shows that a down... - PubMed - NCBI
• A genetic polymorphism that leads to higher TSH is associated with longevity Genetic predisposition to elevated serum thyrotropin is associated with exceptional longevity. - PubMed - NCBI
• In a prospective study of 85-year olds with 4-years of follow-up, a TSH over 4.8mIU/L is associated with significantly lower mortality compared to subjects with average or suppressed TSH levels. Low serum T4 combined with high TSH was also associated with lower mortality. Mortality in a complete 4-year follow up of 85-year-old residents of Leiden, classified by serum level of thyrotropin and thyroxine. - PubMed - NCBI
• Centenarians had a higher TSH compared to younger controls. No differences in fT4 values were found. Extreme longevity is associated with increased serum thyrotropin. - PubMed - NCBI
• Italians "oldest-old (90-107 years) had a higher TSH, lower fT3/fT4 ratio and lower serum zinc and selenium than adult or elderly control subjects. Blood micronutrient and thyroid hormone concentrations in the oldest-old. - PubMed - NCBI

None of these studies deserve attention because they specifically state that TSH is an accurate measurement of metabolism. This has been debunked, TSH is not an accurate measurement of metabolic rate.


Since you like to throw studies around let me return the favor.

Contrary to expectations there were significant positive relationships between lifespan and daily energy expenditure, residual energy expenditure and metabolic intensity (energy expenditure per gram body mass). In this cohort of mice, living fast was associated with dying more slowly.

Living Fast, Dying When? The Link between Aging and Energetics

We found a positive association between metabolic intensity (kJ daily food assimilation expressed as g/body mass) and lifespan, but no relationships of lifespan to body mass, fat mass or lean body mass. Mice in the upper quartile of metabolic intensities had greater resting oxygen consumption by 17% and lived 36% longer than mice in the lowest intensity quartile. Mitochondria isolated from the skeletal muscle of mice in the upper quartile had higher proton conductance than mitochondria from mice from the lowest quartile. The higher conductance was caused by higher levels of endogenous activators of proton leak through the adenine nucleotide translocase and uncoupling protein-3. Individuals with high metabolism were therefore more uncoupled, had greater resting and total daily energy expenditures and survived longest – supporting the ‘uncoupling to survive’ hypothesis.

http://www.abdn.ac.uk/staffpages/uploads/nhy468/Age Cell 2004.pdf

These studies have generated some data that support the original rate of living theory and other data that conflict. In particular several studies have shown that manipulating animals to expend more or less energy generate the expected effects on lifespan (particularly when the subjects are ectotherms). However, smaller individuals with higher rates of metabolism live longer than their slower, larger conspecifics. An addition to these confused observations has been the recent suggestion that under some circumstances we might expect mitochondria to produce fewer free radicals when metabolism is higher–particularly when they are uncoupled. These new ideas concerning the manner in which mitochondria generate free radicals as a function of metabolism shed some light on the complexity of observations linking body size, metabolism and lifespan.

Body size, energy metabolism and lifespan. - PubMed - NCBI

The mean metabolic rate was significantly positively correlated with longevity in both sexes. A component of metabolic rate which is independent of body size may also be positively correlated with longevity.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0531556567900332

 

[Queequeg]

that was one example.... ray peat's work covers a wide variety of areas where if certain things aren't met, then stress hormones will increase. yes, getting enough calcium and magnesium would be one that could offset that. also, vitamin d status? sugar intake? getting enough light? i mean, if you want a one stop shop solution, then you will not find it here. saying that boosting metabolism alone will increase your health is not what ray is saying. you need the backup to do it. you need backup from a wide array of areas in order to do it. even if your vitamin D is low, that one thing is low and everything else is covered, then your magnesium won't be retained, your potassium won't be retained, and if you decrease your TSH through taking thyroid hormone, you are actually going to increase your stress hormones a lot because your potassium and magnesium are not there to buffer the the blood sugar increases, and your going to be burning fat for energy.
out of curiousity, if you don't think that boosting metabolism is good, what is your other option? you won't eat any sugar? sugar is really what would be good for boosting metabolism at the end of the day, would you just avoid it? then you would probably increase stress hormones.

i know well experienced peaters who do not use thyroid hormone.... i dont think it's a necessity... ray is also like 78 years old... it's another thing to consider why he takes it...

I wouldn’t be so quick to dismiss human trial results just because the test subjects ate a normal diet and weren’t RP optimized. Ray bases a lot of his recommendations on just such studies as there aren’t any available on RP followers. For me, I would like to see some studies that back up what he is recommending. Otherwise this particular emphasis on raising metabolisms and temperatures is more like faith based nutrition.

As for sugar, I eat my share of ice-cream, dark chocolate, and fruit spreads but I don’t go out of my way to swill down packages of pixy stix.

 

[mayweatherking]

I wouldn’t be so quick to dismiss human trial results just because the test subjects ate a normal diet and weren’t RP optimized. Ray bases a lot of his recommendations on just such studies as there aren’t any available on RP followers. For me, I would like to see some studies that back up what he is recommending. Otherwise this particular emphasis on raising metabolisms and temperatures is more like faith based nutrition.

As for sugar, I eat my share of ice-cream, dark chocolate, and fruit spreads but I don’t go out of my way to swill down packages of pixy stix.

i see.... well i mean, the only way to lower your metabolism would be to avoid sugar and carbs, and if you do that, you will have increase stress hormones, so i'm not sure how that would be good...

 

[Queequeg]

Science also works best by allowing reasonable and reliable measurements of the subject at hand. If the metabolic rate is measured incorrectly, then posting studies proving an argument based on those measurements should be criticized.

Why do you say that they measuring metabolic rate incorrectly? In the Baltimore study they measured O2 and CO2 respiration to derive a measure of metabolism. This is pretty standard.

If the scientific community can't accurately diagnose hypothyroidism correctly, then how can you expect it to accurately measure the basal metabolic rate in research regarding longevity. You ignore the historical basis of the medical/scientific establishment in relation to the development of research regarding metabolism, thyroid, and longevity.

I’ve discussed this already. TSH is a perfectly acceptable measurement of thyroid function for a large scale study. It’s not a 100% accurate when used on an individual basis but its accuracy is well within the margin of error required for a study. I don’t know why you are conflating thyroid function and metabolic rate or keep saying that scientists can’t measure metabolic rate or thyroid function. Whatever you think is the proper way to do so, I am positive that the methods used in the studies highly correlate with your preferred method and are good enough for a study.

This same study stated the following....According to them, the highest BMR subjects had significantly higher BMI measurements. This is a paradox, having a higher metabolic rate usually is associated with a lower BMI. But if the participants with the lower BMR's had lower BMI then its possible that there were real physiological differences between the participants and other variables played a role in mortality. They didn't state the figures regarding their oxygen consumption or co2 consumption since I suspect they use some equation or table to convert the BMR in Kcal's.

They also stated that the higher BMR group were relatively younger than the participants with the lower BMR. However, the same studied stated that as people get older their BMR decreases. Therefore, the higher BMR subject's could have had a lower BMR when they died compared to the lower BMR group since they were measured at a younger age. This study is questionable at best.

This was an enormous study with over 1,000 subjects and done over a 50 year time frame. This study is not "questionable at best" but actually the longest running, best funded and most valuable study in the US on aging.

BMR is positively correlated with BMI. There is no paradox so your first paragraph is just not true. Similarly BMR and BMI drops off with age so it’s to be expected that the higher BMR group was younger. I am not sure I understand your criticism that this expected result would cause.

Does having a higher temperature automatically assume that one has a higher metabolic rate ? Cortisol and adrenaline can maintain the body temperature at a level that appears to be a normal metabolic rate. When in fact, the stress hormones are artificially maintaining body temperature.

This is a study on the relationship between body temperature and longevity. Not sure why you are conflating it with metabolism. The two however are directly correlated as many on this site are trying to get their temperature up believing it is a good proxy for metabolism.

As for the association between calorie restriction and longevity. Peat has mention this many times in his writings.
Several things relating to calorie-restricted diets are not generally known. First, in 1987, Schroeder found that the re-moval of toxic heavy metals from the diet had the same effect as caloric restriction. Second, although underfed animals grow more slowly, their metabolism is not necessarily depressed. (In fact, animals on a low protein diet have a higher rate of oxygen consumption than do the animals that eat a more normal diet.) - Generative Energy page 114

Although Clive McKay's studies of life extension through caloric restriction were done in the 1930s, only a few studies have been done to find out which nutrients' restriction contributes most to extending the life span. Restricting toxic heavy metals, without restricting calories, produces about the same life-extending effect as caloric restriction. Restricting only tryptophan, or only cysteine, produces a greater extension of the life span than achieved in most of the studies of caloric restriction. How great would be the life-span extension if both tryptophan and cysteine were restricted at the same time? Gelatin, stress, longevity

I am not sure what the issue is. The paper is just pointing out certain biomarkers from calorie restriction such as lower temperature and lower metabolism that are also associated with longevity. I don’t think Ray has ever said that calorie restriction doesn’t work as it has be proven to increase longevity over and over.

I am not going to go through the rest of the other criticisms but just will say that I didn’t see any that I would agree with. I have seen lots of people try to discredit studies on this forum for some very questionable reasons. But its curious that its always the studies whose results they don't agree with that seem to have the most problems. I know it’s fashionable to think that science is rigged but the truth is that most of the peer reviewed scientific studies published in the top journals are well intentioned, well designed and provide reasonably reliable results. If they didn’t then Ray wouldn’t have much to do as he spends his days reading them. Where the process breaks down is that the unprofitable or inconvenient results are ignored by the medical mafia and never shared with the general public.

As for your studies showing high metabolisms lead to increased longevity, these are all done on rodents or small animals. Read the Speakman paper. It does a good job explaining why this is so. As I said above it is due to mitochondrial uncoupling which takes place more prominently in smaller animals.

 

[Queequeg]

i see.... well i mean, the only way to lower your metabolism would be to avoid sugar and carbs, and if you do that, you will have increase stress hormones, so i'm not sure how that would be good...

I am not trying to lower my metabolism. I am just not worried about raising it.

 

[lampofred]

I am not trying to lower my metabolism. I am just not worried about raising it.

Here's how I understand it:

TSH is only capable of diagnosing primary hypothyroidism in the case that the thyroid itself isn't working. Many people may be both hypothyroid and have a low TSH (this is me). High cortisol and stress in general both decrease TSH and lower metabolism because the body wants to keep TSH low. TSH is low only when your body doesn't want to raise your overall metabolism, but it doesn't have as much to do with the overall metabolic rate itself. In other words, TSH is useful to understand the gap between where your hypothalamus wants the overall metabolism at and where it actually is. If TSH is high, your hypothalamus wants to raise metabolism from where it currently is, and if it is very low, it wants to decrease metabolism relative to where it currently is. But TSH by itself cannot give much info as to where to metabolism is at relative to a standard.

Going by what I wrote above, then TSH is most likely low in a large portion of the adult population because of stress. Low TSH because of stress = higher mortality. TSH might also be low because of widespread thyroxine supplementation which will lower metabolism or cause free radical damage if it is either not being converted into T3 by the liver or if nutrients, vitamins, and minerals are not enough to support the additional thyroid hormone (which is the case in 90% of people receiving thyroid from their doctor who don't know anything about thyroid-friendly nutrition).

Other markers like heart rate and temperature can be high because of stress hormones.

In short, I think there are not that many adults today that truly have low TSH because of robust thyroid-driven metabolisms. I think a large number of people might have high body temperatures, high heart rates, and low TSH because of excess stress hormones. That's why it makes sense that studies are showing that these factors are associated with higher mortality.

Granted, this is all just my theorizing. I have absolutely no scientific evidence to back it up...

 

[jaguar43]

Why do you say that they measuring metabolic rate incorrectly? In the Baltimore study they measured O2 and CO2 respiration to derive a measure of metabolism. This is pretty standard.

I mean't TSH and using formulas and charts to convert BMR to Kcal. instead of using oxygen consumption which the study didn't mention it's measurements.

I’ve discussed this already. TSH is a perfectly acceptable measurement of thyroid function for a large scale study. It’s not a 100% accurate when used on an individual basis but its accuracy is well within the margin of error required for a study. I don’t know why you are conflating thyroid function and metabolic rate or keep saying that scientists can’t measure metabolic rate or thyroid function. Whatever you think is the proper way to do so, I am positive that the methods used in the studies highly correlate with your preferred method and are good enough for a study.

If TSH isn't an accurate measurement of thyroid function for the individual how would it be an accurate measurement for a large scale study ? This is a ridiculous argument.

This was an enormous study with over 1,000 subjects and done over a 50 year time frame. This study is not "questionable at best" but actually the longest running, best funded and most valuable study in the US on aging.

No offense but when I look at a scientific study those things aren't the determining factors of me deciding whether a study is questionable or not.

BMR is positively correlated with BMI. There is no paradox so your first paragraph is just not true. Similarly BMR and BMI drops off with age so it’s to be expected that the higher BMR group was younger. I am not sure I understand your criticism that this expected result would cause.

So if the higher BMR participants were significantly younger than the lower BMR participants. And the study explicitly stated as people get older their BMR decreases. Then how do we known that those who had a higher BMR didn't die later in life with a lower BMR ? I believe the mean age for the highest BMR was 49 and a half. But the mean age for the lowest BMR was 63 years. Thats a 14 year difference. Meaning that when they died they were probably significantly older than 49 years of age, therefore with a lower BMR when measured for the study.

High Basal Metabolic Rate Is a Risk Factor for Mortality: The Baltimore Longitudinal Study of Aging

This is a study on the relationship between body temperature and longevity. Not sure why you are conflating it with metabolism. The two however are directly correlated as many on this site are trying to get their temperature up believing it is a good proxy for metabolism.

thanks for proving my point

I am not sure what the issue is. The paper is just pointing out certain biomarkers from calorie restriction such as lower temperature and lower metabolism that are also associated with longevity. I don’t think Ray has ever said that calorie restriction doesn’t work as it has be proven to increase longevity over and over.

So what your saying is that you posting studies stating that calorie restriction caused longevity was not a remark to those people who try to increasing their metabolic rate and therefore have to sustain by eating more calories ?

I am not going to go through the rest of the other criticisms but just will say that I didn’t see any that I would agree with. I have seen lots of people try to discredit studies on this forum for some very questionable reasons. But its curious that its always the studies whose results they don't agree with that seem to have the most problems. I know it’s fashionable to think that science is rigged but the truth is that most of the peer reviewed scientific studies published in the top journals are well intentioned, well designed and provide reasonably reliable results. If they didn’t then Ray wouldn’t have much to do as he spends his days reading them. Where the process breaks down is that the unprofitable or inconvenient results are ignored by the medical mafia and never shared with the general public.

On one hand you state that you think it's curious that people have the most problems with research results they don't agree with . On the other had you state yourself that you are not going through the rest of the other criticisms because you didn't see anything that you would agree with. That's hypocritical.

No one is saying that all science is rigged. Peat has specifically stated that science has been ideological condition to fit into a paradigm that supports preconceived ideas. You posted obscure studies on how having a low metabolic rate is healthy. But did you bother to read any of them ? I In the introduction ( including the Baltimore longitudinal study the one you posted) they always reference the the mechanistic ideas of the rate-of-living theory by Raymond Pearl in which an organism has a predetermined energy expenditure.

Based on these data and observing the shorter life span of Drosophila melanogaster bred in an abnormally warm environment, Pearl (1928) hypothesized that living organisms have an ‘inherent vitality’ that is depleted proportionally to their rate of growth and energy expenditure, and suggested that “the duration of life varies inversely as the rate of energy expenditure during its continuance”

High Basal Metabolic Rate Is a Risk Factor for Mortality: The Baltimore Longitudinal Study of Aging

This proves my argument that the scientific study you posted was questionable because it quotes Pearl in a way that made him look as if any of his ideas were scientific in nature rather than metaphysical. Thats the argument Peat makes in this next quote.

"God set the clockwork universe in motion, and left it to run down." Early in this century, Raymond Pearl argued that the "rate of living" governed the life-span, so that "fast living" meant a short life. He based his argument on cantaloupe seeds: the faster they grew, the sooner they died. This was because he didn't give them anything but water, so they had to live on their stored energy; if they grew quickly, obviously they ran out of stored energy sooner. I have never heard that described as a stupid idea, but I think politeness is sometimes carried too far. In the clock analogy, or the seed analogy, the available energy is used up.

The problem of Alzheimer's disease as a clue to immortality Part 1

In reality, you and the authors of the study are making the less scientific argument in this case. Due to the ideological undertones of your argument.

As for your studies showing high metabolisms lead to increased longevity, these are all done on rodents or small animals. Read the Speakman paper. It does a good job explaining why this is so. As I said above it is due to mitochondrial uncoupling which takes place more prominently in smaller animals.

Speaking of uncoupling, do you know what substances increase mitochondrial uncoupling, Thyroid, aspirin, DNP all things that increase body temperature and metabolism.

Results are consistent with the idea that thyroid hormones activate the uncoupling of oxidative phosphorylation through various mechanisms involving inner membrane proteins and lipids. Increased uncoupling appears to be responsible for some of the hypermetabolic effects of thyroid hormones. ATP synthesis and turnover reactions are also affected. There appear to be complex relationships between mitochondrial proton leak mechanisms, reactive oxygen species production, and thyroid status. As the majority of studies have focused on the effects of thyroid status on rat liver preparations, there is still a need to address fundamental questions regarding thyroid hormone effects in other tissues and species.

Thyroid hormone effects on mitochondrial energetics. - PubMed - NCBI


T3 seems to be unique in having the ability to stimulate the expression and activity of UCP3 and this may be related to the capacity of T3 to activate the integrated biochemical processes linked to UCP activity, such as those related to fatty acids, coenzyme Q and free radicals.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S001457930300320X

These data are diagnostic of mitochondrial uncoupling. The results reported here provide the first direct in vivo evidence that uncoupling protein-3 has the potential to act as a molecular determinant in the regulation of resting metabolic rate by T(3).


Uncoupling protein-3 is a molecular determinant for the regulation of resting metabolic rate by thyroid hormone. - PubMed - NCBI

The hypothesis that the damaging effect on the stomach mucosa of salicylic acid and its derivatives is ascribable to an uncoupling of oxidative phosphorylation has been investigated by testing of mitochondria isolated from the corpus gland area of mini-pig gastric mucosa. Mitochondria, influenced by salicylate or acetylsalicylate (0.7-5.6 mmol/l), demonstrated increased respiration rate, decreased respiratory control ratio, and decreased P/O ratio when tested in vitro. Uncoupling of oxidative phosphorylation occurred at a salicylate concentration between 3.5 and 5.6 mmol/l.

Salicylate- and aspirin-induced uncoupling of oxidative phosphorylation in mitochondria isolated from the mucosal membrane of the stomach. - PubMed - NCBI

In summary, UCP3gene transcription is activated by thyroid hormone treatment in vivo, and this activation is mediated by a TRE (thyroid hormone response element) in the proximal promoter region. Such regulation suggests a link between UCP3 gene expression and the effects of thyroid hormone on mitochondrial function in skeletal muscle.

Thyroid hormones directly activate the expression of the human and mouse uncoupling protein-3 genes through a thyroid response element in the proximal promoter region | Biochemical Journal

So, by your own argument, the reason why Rodent research concludes that a higher metabolic rate is associated with a longer lifespan is due to mitochondria uncoupling. But the facts show that thyroid and aspirin increase mitochondria uncoupling proving Peat's argument that having a higher metabolic rate can cause a longer lifespan.

 

[Ahanu]

Interesting thread. I think there is enough science to seriously doubt the rate of living theory:
In a 2007 analysis it was shown that, when modern statistical methods for correcting for the effects of body size and phylogeny are employed, metabolic rate does not correlate with longevity in mammals or birds.[12]

That does by it self not say that peat is right, of course. But he has made some pretty good points. It could also be that longevity depends on something that is still unknown.

Apart from Science: is there anyone with 37 temps and all the other signs of a healthy metabolism that would would want to change that? I cant imagine this. the benefits feel just to good. Living with 36 for example is just half the fun. Though, I would not call that even a high metabolism. It is just a normal metabolism. Peat is stressing the importance to support the organism so that it can function properly. High metabolism or better normal metabolism is what will happen by itself when we do that. in fact just stopping with the things that suppress the metabolism..PUFA`s and other stressors is sometimes all one need.

 

[Queequeg]

Here's how I understand it:

TSH is only capable of diagnosing primary hypothyroidism in the case that the thyroid itself isn't working. Many people may be both hypothyroid and have a low TSH (this is me). High cortisol and stress in general both decrease TSH and lower metabolism because the body wants to keep TSH low. TSH is low only when your body doesn't want to raise your overall metabolism, but it doesn't have as much to do with the overall metabolic rate itself. In other words, TSH is useful to understand the gap between where your hypothalamus wants the overall metabolism at and where it actually is. If TSH is high, your hypothalamus wants to raise metabolism from where it currently is, and if it is very low, it wants to decrease metabolism relative to where it currently is. But TSH by itself cannot give much info as to where to metabolism is at relative to a standard.

Going by what I wrote above, then TSH is most likely low in a large portion of the adult population because of stress. Low TSH because of stress = higher mortality. TSH might also be low because of widespread thyroxine supplementation which will lower metabolism or cause free radical damage if it is either not being converted into T3 by the liver or if nutrients, vitamins, and minerals are not enough to support the additional thyroid hormone (which is the case in 90% of people receiving thyroid from their doctor who don't know anything about thyroid-friendly nutrition).

Other markers like heart rate and temperature can be high because of stress hormones.

In short, I think there are not that many adults today that truly have low TSH because of robust thyroid-driven metabolisms. I think a large number of people might have high body temperatures, high heart rates, and low TSH because of excess stress hormones. That's why it makes sense that studies are showing that these factors are associated with higher mortality.

Granted, this is all just my theorizing. I have absolutely no scientific evidence to back it up...

What you say may be true, or it may be true for some but not for all or it could be complete rubbish. We have no idea. I am simply asking for the evidence.

 

[DaveFoster]

What you say may be true, or it may be true for some but not for all or it could be complete rubbish. We have no idea. I am simply asking for the evidence.

Why don't you experiment with subjective well-being? Does coffee make you feel good? It does for a lot of people, and it's directly thermogenic, raises dopamine, and opposes estrogen, all associated with higher oxygen consumption.

You can just look at the self-medication for something like coffee; older people drink more coffee, so they're self-medicating to raise their metabolic rate, but you don't need to tell them that. It feels good!

I'm not saying this proves anything, but it's something to keep in mind. The cornerstone of wisdom lies in observation.

 

[Peater Piper]

It doesn't.

Calcium, dairy products and osteoporosis. - PubMed - NCBI

"Osteoporosis is a multifactorial disorder in which nutrition plays a role but does not account for the totality of the problem. 139 papers published since 1975 and describing studies of the relationship of calcium intake and bone health are briefly analyzed. Of 52 investigator-controlled calcium intervention studies, all but two showed better bone balance at high intakes, or greater bone gain during growth, or reduced bone loss in the elderly, or reduced fracture risk. This evidence firmly establishes that high calcium intakes promote bone health. Additionally, three-fourths of 86 observational studies were also positive, indicating that the causal link established in investigator-controlled trials can be found in free-living subjects as well. The principal reason for failure to find an association in observational studies is the weakness of the methods available for estimating long-term calcium intake. While most of the investigator-controlled studies used calcium supplements, six used dairy sources of calcium; all were positive. Most of the observational studies were based on dairy calcium also, since at the time the studies were done, higher calcium intakes meant higher dairy intakes. All studies evaluating the issue reported substantial augmentation of the osteoprotective effect of estrogen by high calcium intakes. Discussion is provided in regard to the multifactorial complexity of osteoporotic response to interventions and to the perturbing effect in controlled trials of the bone remodeling transient, as well as about how inferences can validly be drawn from the various study types represented in this compilation."

I'm pretty certain countries that favor substantial dairy intake over countries that don't are going to be consuming higher amounts of calcium. The only other decent source is bone-in fish. Greens would need to be eaten in substantial amounts to equal dairy calcium intake. Bone broth in fact contains very little calcium. It's pretty well established that some of the countries with the highest dairy consumption have the highest osteoporosis. That in itself doesn't mean dairy is to blame, but something is clearly very wrong with these diets, and low osteoporosis rates can be found with lower calcium consumption, meaning other factors are probably more important that total calcium intake (hormones, vitamin k2, magnesium, antinutrients, etc). Considering the problems excessive calcium intake can cause, I'd rather focus on the other factors, which I think are more likely the problem.