Re: another question/Chuck/sorry

[Guest guest]

Venizia,

You wrote:

>

> Everything I am reading says that ones needs to be off T4 and just

> take T3 but my doctor said I need to be on T4 with an Rt3 issue...

Sometimes just increasing the T3 input is sufficient.

> ...I told him what I am reading is that Rt3 comes from T4 and his comment

> was that the Rt3 was coming from the animal product of the Armour I

> was taking....

Unless he means something else by RT3, this confuses the basic

biochemistry of the thyroid. There is very little RT3 in Armour. Forest

Pharmaceuticals doesn't even list it. Instead, RT3 is made exclusively

by deiodination of T4, mostly in the liver but also a little in other

peripheral tissues, just as T3 is made from T4.

RT3 is actually an isomer of T3. Ideally the ratio of T3 to RT3 in your

blood should be about 10:1. It should be greater than this in Armour,

because Forest adds T3 to insure the T4:T3 ratio is fixed.

The connection with adrenal function is that cortisol (and

glucocorticoids in general) suppresses the conversion of T4 to T3 in

favor of RT3. The theory of RT3 dominance is that RT3 mimics this

suppressing aspect of cortisol and can actually continue the RT3 excess

after the cortisol subsides. However, there is no scientific evidence I

know of to support this explanation.

OTOH, there are other things besides cortisol that affect conversion.

Presumably something in the feedback loops makes excess conversion to

RT3 continue. Until this changes, the best strategy is to simply cut the

supply of T4 in favor of T3. This is also what recommends.

The problem with cutting T4 to zero and relying on T3 alone, is that

this bypasses all those feedback controls in binding and conversion that

regulate metabolism. Your remaining control is how much T3 you absorb,

although your system can accommodate small excesses by increasing

deiodination of T3 to T2. That lack of control might be a good argument

to keep some T4 intake, but not that RT3 is in Armour.

Curiously, RT3 is also deiodized to T2.

Chuck

[Guest guest]

My ratio was 10.5. That was dividing the Rt3 result with the t3

result. I wonder if he is meaning something else by Rt3. Because when

I asked for the Reverse T3 test he said that it was an old test than

some other test he wanted to run, I can't remember the name of it. I

know I e-mailed to you about it at the time. I am seriously thinking

of going back to my primary doctor and forget all this with him.

Thanks Chuck

Venizia

> >

> > Everything I am reading says that ones needs to be off T4 and just

> > take T3 but my doctor said I need to be on T4 with an Rt3 issue...

>

> Sometimes just increasing the T3 input is sufficient.

>

> > ...I told him what I am reading is that Rt3 comes from T4 and his

comment

> > was that the Rt3 was coming from the animal product of the Armour I

> > was taking....

>

> Unless he means something else by RT3, this confuses the basic

> biochemistry of the thyroid. There is very little RT3 in Armour. Forest

> Pharmaceuticals doesn't even list it. Instead, RT3 is made exclusively

> by deiodination of T4, mostly in the liver but also a little in other

> peripheral tissues, just as T3 is made from T4.

>

> RT3 is actually an isomer of T3. Ideally the ratio of T3 to RT3 in your

> blood should be about 10:1. It should be greater than this in Armour,

> because Forest adds T3 to insure the T4:T3 ratio is fixed.

>

>

[Guest guest]

Venizia,

He is probably thinking of the resin uptake test, which indeed is an

obsolete way to find how much T3 is bound. They sometimes call this an

RUT3 or R-T3 test for short. The better way to do this today is to just

measure FT3 directly.

This meaning does make some sense of his statement that your " RT3 "

problem comes from the animal product in Armour. It means he thinks you

are having a sensitivity reaction that increases binding of T3. He may

not even be considering Reverse T3.

I'm not sure what your ratio of 10.5 means. It may come from the fact

that the resin only takes up globulin bound to T3 and ignores the

albumin part.

T3/ReverseT3 should indeed be about 10:1, but if he is actually

measuring total binding, the ratio of T3/FT3 should be more like 100:1.

Chuck

>

> My ratio was 10.5. That was dividing the Rt3 result with the t3

> result. I wonder if he is meaning something else by Rt3. Because when

> I asked for the Reverse T3 test he said that it was an old test than

> some other test he wanted to run, I can't remember the name of it. I

> know I e-mailed to you about it at the time. I am seriously thinking

> of going back to my primary doctor and forget all this with him.

>

[Guest guest]

When considering the ratio, It is dividing the Rt3 number from the Ft3

number and that is how one finds the ratio. The ratio for Rt3 & Ft3

should be more than 20. With my numbers of Rt3 of 389 and Ft3 of 4.5

the ratio is 10.5.

If he is thinking this a RUT3...the test was a Reverse T3. So, I asked

him for a reverse T3, got the results for a reverse T3 but he is

thinking it is a RUT3? Well how do I sort this out with him? Because

for the protocol for reverse T3 IS no T4 only T3... Not sure how to

sort this out with him.

Venizia

>

> Venizia,

>

> He is probably thinking of the resin uptake test, which indeed is an

> obsolete way to find how much T3 is bound. They sometimes call this an

> RUT3 or R-T3 test for short. The better way to do this today is to just

> measure FT3 directly.

>

> This meaning does make some sense of his statement that your " RT3 "

> problem comes from the animal product in Armour. It means he thinks you

> are having a sensitivity reaction that increases binding of T3. He may

> not even be considering Reverse T3.

>

> I'm not sure what your ratio of 10.5 means. It may come from the fact

> that the resin only takes up globulin bound to T3 and ignores the

> albumin part.

>

> T3/ReverseT3 should indeed be about 10:1, but if he is actually

> measuring total binding, the ratio of T3/FT3 should be more like 100:1.

>

> Chuck

>

>

> >

> > My ratio was 10.5. That was dividing the Rt3 result with the t3

> > result. I wonder if he is meaning something else by Rt3. Because when

> > I asked for the Reverse T3 test he said that it was an old test than

> > some other test he wanted to run, I can't remember the name of it. I

> > know I e-mailed to you about it at the time. I am seriously thinking

> > of going back to my primary doctor and forget all this with him.

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Venizia,

You definitely took the resin uptake test and not the reverse T3 test.

The usual reference range for ReverseT3 is 0.21-0.55 nmol/l. The ratio of

FT3/RT3 has a reference range of 0.0087 - 0.0257. If you invert that you get a

reference for RT3/T3 of 38.9 to 115, not 20.

In contrast, a low resin uptake ratio of 10 rather than 20, indicates you have a

globulin binding problem. I'm pretty sure that's what he's thinking and the test

he ordered.

Chuck

> When considering the ratio, It is dividing the Rt3 number from the Ft3

> number and that is how one finds the ratio. The ratio for Rt3 & Ft3

> should be more than 20. With my numbers of Rt3 of 389 and Ft3 of 4.5

> the ratio is 10.5.

>

> If he is thinking this a RUT3...the test was a Reverse T3. So, I asked

> him for a reverse T3, got the results for a reverse T3 but he is

> thinking it is a RUT3? Well how do I sort this out with him? Because

> for the protocol for reverse T3 IS no T4 only T3... Not sure how to

> sort this out with him.

>

> Venizia

>

>

>

> >

> > Venizia,

> >

> > He is probably thinking of the resin uptake test, which indeed is an

> > obsolete way to find how much T3 is bound. They sometimes call this an

> > RUT3 or R-T3 test for short. The better way to do this today is to just

> > measure FT3 directly.

> >

> > This meaning does make some sense of his statement that your " RT3 "

> > problem comes from the animal product in Armour. It means he thinks you

> > are having a sensitivity reaction that increases binding of T3. He may

> > not even be considering Reverse T3.

> >

> > I'm not sure what your ratio of 10.5 means. It may come from the fact

> > that the resin only takes up globulin bound to T3 and ignores the

> > albumin part.

> >

> > T3/ReverseT3 should indeed be about 10:1, but if he is actually

> > measuring total binding, the ratio of T3/FT3 should be more like 100:1.

> >

> > Chuck

> >

> >

> > >

> > > My ratio was 10.5. That was dividing the Rt3 result with the t3

> > > result. I wonder if he is meaning something else by Rt3. Because when

> > > I asked for the Reverse T3 test he said that it was an old test than

> > > some other test he wanted to run, I can't remember the name of it. I

> > > know I e-mailed to you about it at the time. I am seriously thinking

> > > of going back to my primary doctor and forget all this with him.

> > >

> >

>

>

[Guest guest]

Venizia,

You definitely took the resin uptake test and not the reverse T3 test.

The usual reference range for ReverseT3 is 0.21-0.55 nmol/l. The ratio of

FT3/RT3 has a reference range of 0.0087 - 0.0257. If you invert that you get a

reference for RT3/T3 of 38.9 to 115, not 20.

In contrast, a low resin uptake ratio of 10 rather than 20, indicates you have a

globulin binding problem. I'm pretty sure that's what he's thinking and the test

he ordered.

Chuck

> When considering the ratio, It is dividing the Rt3 number from the Ft3

> number and that is how one finds the ratio. The ratio for Rt3 & Ft3

> should be more than 20. With my numbers of Rt3 of 389 and Ft3 of 4.5

> the ratio is 10.5.

>

> If he is thinking this a RUT3...the test was a Reverse T3. So, I asked

> him for a reverse T3, got the results for a reverse T3 but he is

> thinking it is a RUT3? Well how do I sort this out with him? Because

> for the protocol for reverse T3 IS no T4 only T3... Not sure how to

> sort this out with him.

>

> Venizia

>

>

>

> >

> > Venizia,

> >

> > He is probably thinking of the resin uptake test, which indeed is an

> > obsolete way to find how much T3 is bound. They sometimes call this an

> > RUT3 or R-T3 test for short. The better way to do this today is to just

> > measure FT3 directly.

> >

> > This meaning does make some sense of his statement that your " RT3 "

> > problem comes from the animal product in Armour. It means he thinks you

> > are having a sensitivity reaction that increases binding of T3. He may

> > not even be considering Reverse T3.

> >

> > I'm not sure what your ratio of 10.5 means. It may come from the fact

> > that the resin only takes up globulin bound to T3 and ignores the

> > albumin part.

> >

> > T3/ReverseT3 should indeed be about 10:1, but if he is actually

> > measuring total binding, the ratio of T3/FT3 should be more like 100:1.

> >

> > Chuck

> >

> >

> > >

> > > My ratio was 10.5. That was dividing the Rt3 result with the t3

> > > result. I wonder if he is meaning something else by Rt3. Because when

> > > I asked for the Reverse T3 test he said that it was an old test than

> > > some other test he wanted to run, I can't remember the name of it. I

> > > know I e-mailed to you about it at the time. I am seriously thinking

> > > of going back to my primary doctor and forget all this with him.

> > >

> >

>

>

[Guest guest]

Chuck,

I got a copy of the Reverse T3 test result and it says " Reverse T3 " It

doesn't say anything about an uptake test. The dividing of the two

numbers is from on the Rt3 group. She says that is how you get

the ratio of the two to see how bad the situation is anything under 20

is not good. I will just ask him what the heck he ordered, I guess.

Thanks for you help,

Venizia

> > >

> > > Venizia,

> > >

> > > He is probably thinking of the resin uptake test, which indeed

is an

> > > obsolete way to find how much T3 is bound. They sometimes call

this an

> > > RUT3 or R-T3 test for short. The better way to do this today is

to just

> > > measure FT3 directly.

> > >

> > > This meaning does make some sense of his statement that your " RT3 "

> > > problem comes from the animal product in Armour. It means he

thinks you

> > > are having a sensitivity reaction that increases binding of T3.

He may

> > > not even be considering Reverse T3.

> > >

> > > I'm not sure what your ratio of 10.5 means. It may come from the

fact

> > > that the resin only takes up globulin bound to T3 and ignores the

> > > albumin part.

> > >

> > > T3/ReverseT3 should indeed be about 10:1, but if he is actually

> > > measuring total binding, the ratio of T3/FT3 should be more like

100:1.

> > >

> > > Chuck

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > > > My ratio was 10.5. That was dividing the Rt3 result with the t3

> > > > result. I wonder if he is meaning something else by Rt3.

Because when

> > > > I asked for the Reverse T3 test he said that it was an old

test than

> > > > some other test he wanted to run, I can't remember the name of

it. I

> > > > know I e-mailed to you about it at the time. I am seriously

thinking

> > > > of going back to my primary doctor and forget all this with him.

> > > >

> > >

> >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Venizia,

Well, different labs use different numbers. That of course is why we ask

for specific ranges whenever someone shares labs. I did find one lab

that specified that 25-35% of FT3 should bind to the resin in an uptake

test. That comes close to your 20% cutoff better than ReverseT3, since

the FT3 number there is the portion that is reacted with another

reagent. It is proportional to FT3, but it is not the same.

OTOH, here is a recent paper (2005) that measured T3 and RT3 by mass

spectroscopy:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL & _udi=B6TH2-4H5DYCY-1 & _user=1\

0 & _rdoc=1 & _fmt= & _orig=search & _sort=d & view=c & _acct=C000050221 & _version=1 & _urlVers\

ion=0 & _userid=10 & md5=482659b5c1f892b5752bf84d075e28fc#bib25

Their result for the normal ratio of T3 to RT3 in serum is 4.5, and they

say this agrees with results from the previous decade. So again, if FT3

is about 1% of T3, this says that the norm you give as 20 should be

either 1/4.5 = 0.22 (RT3/T3) or 1/0.045 = 22.2 for (RT3/FT3). If that is

what your test is actually measuring, then I would expect a HIGH ratio

to indicate an RT3 excess. It could be low just from taking a T3

medication or from low binding. Is that what you think you have?

Chuck

>

>

> Chuck,

>

> I got a copy of the Reverse T3 test result and it says " Reverse T3 " It

> doesn't say anything about an uptake test. The dividing of the two

> numbers is from on the Rt3 group. She says that is how you get

> the ratio of the two to see how bad the situation is anything under 20

> is not good. I will just ask him what the heck he ordered, I guess.

>

> Thanks for you help,

> Venizia

>

>

> > > >

> > > > Venizia,

> > > >

> > > > He is probably thinking of the resin uptake test, which indeed

> is an

> > > > obsolete way to find how much T3 is bound. They sometimes call

> this an

> > > > RUT3 or R-T3 test for short. The better way to do this today is

> to just

> > > > measure FT3 directly.

> > > >

> > > > This meaning does make some sense of his statement that your " RT3 "

> > > > problem comes from the animal product in Armour. It means he

> thinks you

> > > > are having a sensitivity reaction that increases binding of T3.

> He may

> > > > not even be considering Reverse T3.

> > > >

> > > > I'm not sure what your ratio of 10.5 means. It may come from the

> fact

> > > > that the resin only takes up globulin bound to T3 and ignores the

> > > > albumin part.

> > > >

> > > > T3/ReverseT3 should indeed be about 10:1, but if he is actually

> > > > measuring total binding, the ratio of T3/FT3 should be more like

> 100:1.

> > > >

> > > > Chuck

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > My ratio was 10.5. That was dividing the Rt3 result with the t3

> > > > > result. I wonder if he is meaning something else by Rt3.

> Because when

> > > > > I asked for the Reverse T3 test he said that it was an old

> test than

> > > > > some other test he wanted to run, I can't remember the name of

> it. I

> > > > > know I e-mailed to you about it at the time. I am seriously

> thinking

> > > > > of going back to my primary doctor and forget all this with him.

> > > > >