russy_russ
Active member
I know what will happen. I know you can't base an opinion from one research study; there are many. But, believe what you wish; it's a waste of my time to continue debating.
Insulin binding to fat cell receptors
- Thread starter Burner
- Start date
I know what will happen. I know you can't base an opinion from one research study; there are many. But, believe what you wish; it's a waste of my time to continue debating.
strategicmove
Legend
Absolutely!
strategicmove
Legend
You can be all the Einstein you want! Ah! This thread has become too banal. No substance in sight. Your style of argument reminds me of someone that is too poor to paint, but too proud to whitewash!
russy_russ
Active member
Or I just don't care enough to argue? I have more important things to do :wave2:
strategicmove
Legend
I have my doubts! There is nothing to argue. It would help a lot, if you stopped propagating dangerously misleading statements. Carbohydrates are not neutral on fat cells. Carbohydrates can induce an increase in adipose-cell size. This is a solidly well established concept. To maintain otherwise is misleading, but to insist otherwise is dangerous. And do not say people should believe what they want because this is not a topic in Theology!
russy_russ
Active member
I said earlier they CAN in other mammalian species, and in some rare instances in humans. My claims are backed--I'm not pulling random non-sense out of my a**. People can either choose believe or not (this is how the world works, people choose to believe and put faith in ideas and not in others); whichever doesn't affect me negatively nor positively. So, why would I care if you believe it or not?
I'm finished with this thread. So what you will, in the end I know I'm correct.
Cinn
Member
So all of the glucose that is supposedly excreted...where is it being excreted?
russy_russ
Active member
where do you think?
Cinn
Member
Do you realize how much bacterial overgrowth there would be in the gut if that much glucose actually made it out in that fashion?
Mulletsoldier
Binging on Pure ****ing Rage
It is a simple matter of evolutionary adaptation: de novo lipogenesis is an anti-famine mechanism used to convert low-yield, relatively high process-requirement energy [remembering that glucose -> glycogen conversion is long, takes energy and water, and is comparatively heavy and voluminous] to high-yield, relatively low process-requirement energy.
Quite frankly, this is not merely a matter of cellular biology, but physiology as a whole: even a cursory knowledge of the body's predominant pathways of energy homeostasis [nor/epinephrine, cortisol, T3, and Insulin/Glucagon - of course, this is focusing on the macro, and not the micro of PI3K/Akt dependent pathway of glucose homeostasis, AMPk and so forth] points to the fact that the reversible catalyzing from glucose --> triglycerides [in the reverse, glycerol to glucose, but that is neither here nor there] is highly involved in energy homeostasis as a whole.
Our bodies are the portrait of efficiency, and to suggest we excrete massive portions of nutrients is incorrect. By whatever mechanism - beneficial "muscle-building processes" and adipocyte hypertrophying/proliferating alike - our bodies are built to store energy; such is why we hypertrophy our adipocytes so easily. (Remembering that the diet for the general population circa ~4000 B.C., and onward is characterized by relative abundance from our ancestors; our bodies are built to store energy as a function of high energy requirements + low intake throughout the first 185, 000 years of our history.) In plain fact, de novo lipogenesis is a primary mechanism of this "future storage", so to speak.
Save for certain pathological states, we do not 'excrete' glucose. If we excreted glucose in the magnitude you are speaking about, russ, you would be reaching for a dialysis machine, not a Sandow. (And this is focusing on the cellular level. Such inordinately high BGlu and/or Urine Glucose could be indicative of a massive range of pathological states from HIV to gastrointestinal malignancies such as impermeability or malabsorption to renal failure (kidneys may "recycle" excess glucose)).
Quite frankly, this is not merely a matter of cellular biology, but physiology as a whole: even a cursory knowledge of the body's predominant pathways of energy homeostasis [nor/epinephrine, cortisol, T3, and Insulin/Glucagon - of course, this is focusing on the macro, and not the micro of PI3K/Akt dependent pathway of glucose homeostasis, AMPk and so forth] points to the fact that the reversible catalyzing from glucose --> triglycerides [in the reverse, glycerol to glucose, but that is neither here nor there] is highly involved in energy homeostasis as a whole.
Our bodies are the portrait of efficiency, and to suggest we excrete massive portions of nutrients is incorrect. By whatever mechanism - beneficial "muscle-building processes" and adipocyte hypertrophying/proliferating alike - our bodies are built to store energy; such is why we hypertrophy our adipocytes so easily. (Remembering that the diet for the general population circa ~4000 B.C., and onward is characterized by relative abundance from our ancestors; our bodies are built to store energy as a function of high energy requirements + low intake throughout the first 185, 000 years of our history.) In plain fact, de novo lipogenesis is a primary mechanism of this "future storage", so to speak.
Save for certain pathological states, we do not 'excrete' glucose. If we excreted glucose in the magnitude you are speaking about, russ, you would be reaching for a dialysis machine, not a Sandow. (And this is focusing on the cellular level. Such inordinately high BGlu and/or Urine Glucose could be indicative of a massive range of pathological states from HIV to gastrointestinal malignancies such as impermeability or malabsorption to renal failure (kidneys may "recycle" excess glucose)).
Mulletsoldier
Binging on Pure ****ing Rage
And not to mention the debilitating urinary tract infections which either caused and/or are because of such high urinary glucose.
Cinn
Member
I ignored that option since the renal threshold would mean serum levels are high enough to be considered diabetic or the person is in renal failure. I'm sure he knew that, though. :lick:
Mulletsoldier
Binging on Pure ****ing Rage
That was my first thought as well. Hence the dialysis v., Sandow comment, ha!