Guest guest Posted September 9, 2008 Report Share Posted September 9, 2008 >But T3 is easily converted from T4 by [as I understand it] a very large majority of patients. So I'm having a hard time understanding why someone would want to take T3 as well as T4 if all they need is T4. > Hi , Again, your 'understanding' is untrue. Unforotunately, T3 is NOT easily converted from T4 by a large minority of hypothyroid sufferers. There are many conditions that may reduce the conversion of T4 to T3, e.g. aging, obesity, disease, stress, exercise, malnutrition, etc., potentially reducing the efficacy of a T4 alone treatment, and in which a natural or synthetic T4/T3 treatment may be more effective. There are also toxic substances such as phenols, cadmium, and mercury and medications such as propranolol, amiodarone and several others that may interfere by inhibiting the T4 to T3 conversion. Deficiencies in hormones, such as T3 itself, TSH, growth hormone, insulin, cortisone and certain trace elements such as selenium, iron, zinc, copper, iodine partially block this essential conversion step for thyroid function. On the other hand, excess hormones such as glucocorticoids, ACTH, oestrogens and some trace elements may slow down the conversion of T4 to T3. References can be provided here http://www.tpa-uk.org.uk/resp_bta_armour.pdf <http://www.tpa-uk.org.uk/resp_bta_armour.pdf> Sheila Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 9, 2008 Report Share Posted September 9, 2008 Hi, Sheila. Do you have a link perhaps to the source of your information; thanks. In any event, T2 is a hormone product, so unless it is rendered inert in the conversion process it seems logical that it could have some effect. Whether this effect is beneficial AFAIK has not been established. Especially given that some of the research addressed using 100 times or 400 times as much T2 as T3; when I suspect the content of T2 compared to T3 in Armour is an order of magnitude or two less than that of T3. That means that to have the same effect as actual medication you would have to take 1000 to 10,000, or 4000 to 40,000 times as much Armour to get that effect. I think... But I may have misunderstood that; as another part of the research suggests that T3 is only 13% more effective in TSH suppression than T2. Part of the research seemed to address the question as to how much TSH was suppressed by T2 as compared to T3. While interesting I don't understand the rationality of this test as for using it as a medication. I don't understand suppression of TSH to be the goal of standard [or even alternative] hypothyroidism treatment; it's just what naturally happens when you have sufficient thyroid hormones [pituitary feedback mechanism]. I do know that TSH suppression is discussed as being beneficial [to almost zero] in some cases; but I didn't understand the suppression itself being the desired effect, but rather evidence that proper medication had been achieved. That being said I don't think it's accepted by a lot of allopathic practitioners. As for the other effects, I don't know enough medical science to understand whether they may be medical helpful or not. But at least the research addresses the questions I've had about how Armour _might_ have beneficial results for those who do not have a T4 to T3 conversion problem. But I'm afraid a lot of the research is beyond my educational level. I can only [somewhat] understand it when it's translated into Engli, er, I mean AMERICAN by someone like Chuck. [ggg] Regards, .. .. > Posted by: " campaigner77 " sheilaturner@... > <mailto:sheilaturner@...?Subject=%20Re%3A%20hey%20guys%20need%20ur%20h\ elp> > campaigner77 <campaigner77> > > > Tue Sep 9, 2008 2:57 am (PDT) > > > Hi , > > > > > " And basically AFAIK T1 and T2 are waste products with no known > benefit. " > > Just like you - many endocrinologists also believe there is little (or > no) known benefit or information about the other thyroid hormones 3, > 5-diiodo-l-thyronine (T2) and monoiodothyronine (T1). This is not the > case and because I appreciate your need for references, here are some. > > The manufacturers of Armour (Forest Pharmaceuticals) have done no > studies into the specific amount of T2, T1, calcitonin or any other > `T' hormones that are naturally occurring in the desiccated > thyroid. Nothing has been removed in the processing. Because no studies > have been done, this does not mean that T3,T1 and calcitonin are not > active. > > There may be advantages to using Armour that are not related to its T3 > content. Broda observed some patients treated with syntheticT4/T3 > combination continued to experience residual symptoms, particularly dry > skin and oedema. Both symptoms resolved in 1-2 months when the treatment > was changed to Armour. (1) This observation suggests a third active > substance is secreted by the thyroid gland. The most likely candidate is > diiodotyrosine(T2). Although little was known about the function of this > compound in humans, the widely held assumption that it is metabolically > inert may be incorrect. In a study of guinea pigs, oral administration > of T2 prevented alterations in thyroid and pituitary function induced by > oophorectom (2). Administration of T2 also accelerated the metamorphosis > of tadpoles and enhanced the growth of the protozoan Tetrahymena. (3, 4) > > Whole thyroid extracts contain T4 and T3, and also T2 and T1, which also > have hormonal activity.(5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17) > As seen already, T2 is very active in its metabolic effects.(5) > > T2 has been shown to increase hepatic oxygen consumption by about 30%. > The authors of the study discovered that out of T4, T3 and T2, only T2 > was active in stimulating rapid hepatic oxygen consumption. They > concluded that it acts rapidly and directly through activation of the > mitochondria.(6) > > In another study, T3 and T2 were compared in terms of Resting Metabolism > (RM) and on the oxidative capacity of tissues that are metabolically > active (liver, muscle tissue, brown adipose tissue or BAT, and heart). > What they found was that T2 had a dose-dependent effect, which increased > RM and oxidative capacity. They found the greatest response to T2 was in > the liver and in BAT. The effects again occurred rapidly and > independently of protein synthesis. They stated that their results > suggested isomers like T2 could be direct mediators of thyroid hormone > regulation on energy metabolism.(7, 8) A further study found increased > hepatic oxidative capacity and thought this was due to a direct action > upon the mitochondria by T2.(9) Other studies had similar findings.(10, > 11) > > Yet another study showed the same thing: increased oxidative capacity > and energy expenditure, causing the authors to suggest that T2 and T3 > displayed similar effects.(12) T2 was also shown to have a similar > effect to that of T3 on lipid metabolism with T2 actually doing a little > better in some tissue.(13) > > Although there is little research in humans, some does exist. In one > study, using human mononuclear blood cells, it was found that T2 > increased the rate of respiration significantly.(15) So, the efficacy > appears to have been established. Can it significantly inhibit TSH like > T3 and T4? The studies are conflicting, but one thing seems to be > prevalent amongst them all - TSH inhibition isn't nearly as severe > with T2 as it is with T3.(14) > > One study showed that T2 is 13% less inhibitory on TSH levels, as > compared to T3.(15) > > In yet another study, T3 and T2 suppressed TSH to similar levels; > however, it took 15 mcg/100g body weight per day of T3 to accomplish > this, while it took 200 mcg/100g body weight per day of T2 to accomplish > the same thing. This means it took about 13 times more T2 to exert the > same effect on TSH as T3.(16) > > When researchers in another study administered 100 ug/kg of T3 and > 800-1600 ug/kg of T2 the following occurred: T3 rapidly decreased serum > TSH levels to within minimal levels after 24 hours. Seventy-two hours > after application, TSH levels were still significantly lower than > control levels. As far as the T2, TSH levels were transiently reduced > and reached their lowest point at 24 hours and increased afterwards. > Basal levels were reached 72 hours after an application. What they found > after analysing the data was that there seemed to be a trend for a > dose-dependent suppression of TSH by T2, which did not reach statistical > significance. Furthermore, it appears as though it took 100 times more > T2 than T3 to finally exert the same amount of TSH inhibition. Even > using 400 times more T2 than T3, it appears that T3 only allows TSH to > be inhibited to just a slight degree less than T2.(17) > > Refs: > > 1) BO. " Is there a third hormone in the thyroid gland? Which > preparation should be used for treatment? " J Int Acad Prev Med 1982; > November:38-39. > > 2) Loeser A. " Thyroid and ovary " . Journal of the American > Medical Association 1935;104: 870. > > 3) Morse M. " The effective principle in thyroid accelerating > involution in frog larvae " . J Biol Chem 1914;19:421-429 > > 4) Csaba G, Nemeth G. " Enhancement of the sensitivity of > Tetrahymena to a second hormonal influence by hormone > pre-treatment " . Acta Biol Med Ger 1980;39:1027-1030 > > 5) Shames, RL, Shames, KH, Thyroid Power: 10 Steps to Total Health, > Harper Publishers, New York, 2001. > > 6) Rothfeld, G.S., Romaine, D.S., " Thyroid Balance: Traditional and > Alternative Methods for Treating Thyroid Disorders " , Media > Corporation, Avon, Massachusetts, USA, 2003. > > 7) Brownstein, D., Overcoming Thyroid Disorders, Medical Alternatives > Press, 2002. > > 8) Lombardi, A.Lanni, A.Silvestri,E. de Lange, P.Goglia, F.Moreno,M. 3, > 5Diiodothyronine: Biological Actions and Therapeutic Perspectives. > pp.255-265 (11) > > 9) Lanni A et.al. " 3,5-diiodo-l-thyroxine (T2) reduces adiposity and body > weight gain in rats by increasing fatty acid ocidation " . Abstracts.2004. > European thyroid Association Annual Meeting. > > 10) Goglia et al. FEBS Letters. 452, 115-120 (1999) > > 11) Lombardi et al. Biochem J. 330, 521-526 (1998). > > 12) Lombardi et al. Endocrinology. 141, 1729-1734 (2000) > > 13) Ball et al. J Molec Endocrinology. 19, 137-147 (1997). > > 14)Assunta Lombardi, Antonia Lanni, Pieter de Lange, Elena Silvestri, > Paola Grasso, lba Senese, Goglia and Moreno. " Acute > administration of 3,5-diiodo-l-thyronine to hypothyroid rats affects > bioenergetic parameters in rat skeletal muscle mitochondria " .FEBS > Letters, Volume 581, Issue 30, 22 December 2007, Pages 5911-5916 > > 14) J. Kvetny. Horm. Metab. Res. 24:322-325, 1992. > > 16) Moreno M, et al. " Effect of 3, 5-Diiodo-L-thyronine on thyroid > stimulating hormone and growth hormone serum levels in hypothyroid > rats. " Life Sciences, Volume 62, No.26, pp. 2369-2377, 1998. > > 17) Horst C, et al. " 3, 5-Di-iodo-L-thyronine suppresses TSH in rats in > vivo and in rat pituitary fragments in vitro. " J Endocrinol 1995 > May;145(2):291-7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 9, 2008 Report Share Posted September 9, 2008 Hi, Sheila. It seems what we have are a difference in our concept of the numbers who cannot convert T4 to T3; as well as the numbers who may benefit from Armour for other reasons. My basic suggestion for a few percentage points is based upon the total doses of each sold; and is certainly NOT a number arrived at by any credible research means. I read the material at the link below [and incidentally got the answer to my question as to the source of your material in a previous post]. I seem to understand the material in at least one place to suggest that possibly about a third of patients might benefit from taking Armour over taking T4 alone. Is that the consensus of your group? .. .. > Posted by: " campaigner77 " sheilaturner@... > <mailto:sheilaturner@...?Subject=%20Re%3A%20hey%20guys%20need%20ur%20h\ elp> > campaigner77 <campaigner77> > > > Tue Sep 9, 2008 3:06 am (PDT) > > > >But T3 is easily converted from T4 by [as I understand it] a very > large majority of patients. So I'm having a hard time understanding why > someone would want to take T3 as well as T4 if all they need is T4. > > > Hi , > > Again, your 'understanding' is untrue. Unforotunately, T3 is NOT easily > converted from T4 by a large minority of hypothyroid sufferers. There > are many conditions that may reduce the conversion of T4 to T3, e.g. > aging, obesity, disease, stress, exercise, malnutrition, etc., > potentially reducing the efficacy of a T4 alone treatment, and in which > a natural or synthetic T4/T3 treatment may be more effective. > > There are also toxic substances such as phenols, cadmium, and mercury > and medications such as propranolol, amiodarone and several others that > may interfere by inhibiting the T4 to T3 conversion. > > Deficiencies in hormones, such as T3 itself, TSH, growth hormone, > insulin, cortisone and certain trace elements such as selenium, iron, > zinc, copper, iodine partially block this essential conversion step for > thyroid function. > > On the other hand, excess hormones such as glucocorticoids, ACTH, > oestrogens and some trace elements may slow down the conversion of T4 to > T3. > > References can be provided here > http://www.tpa-uk.org.uk/resp_bta_armour.pdf > <http://www.tpa-uk.org.uk/resp_bta_armour.pdf> > <http://www.tpa-uk.org.uk/resp_bta_armour.pdf > <http://www.tpa-uk.org.uk/resp_bta_armour.pdf>> > > Sheila Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 9, 2008 Report Share Posted September 9, 2008 , You wrote: > > ... Part of the research seemed to address the question as to how much TSH > was suppressed by T2 as compared to T3. While interesting I don't > understand the rationality of this test as for using it as a > medication.... You may have your Ts scrambled. T3 is about 100-200 times as active (measured by causing TSH to decrease) as T2, depending on how much TSH suppression is involved. It is about as active on the TSH as RT3. You are quite right about the amount in Armour, though. It is tiny. Last time we looked that up, it was clear that there is more T2 and calcitonin in a glass of cow's milk or a hamburger. Chuck Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 10, 2008 Report Share Posted September 10, 2008 ....and the size of the atom ? Sheila > You are quite right about the amount in Armour, though. It is tiny. Last > time we looked that up, it was clear that there is more T2 and > calcitonin in a glass of cow's milk or a hamburger. > > Chuck > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 10, 2008 Report Share Posted September 10, 2008 Maybe I did have them scrambled; because that's what I thought I was saying... Thanks, > You may have your Ts scrambled. T3 is about 100-200 times as active > (measured by causing TSH to decrease) as T2, depending on how much TSH > suppression is involved. It is about as active on the TSH as RT3. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 10, 2008 Report Share Posted September 10, 2008 Sheila, You wrote: > > ...and the size of the atom ? Most atoms are about 10^-10 m in diameter. However, there is still less T2 and calcitonin in a dose of Armour than in your average meal. If that has no meaning to you, then it is clear why you keep claiming that these ingredients add some magic potency to the dessicated tissue. Chuck Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.