Could somebody please explain very simply ...

[SteelWeaver]

... what happens to get from glycolysis to oxidation. One stupid textbook says "Oxygen combines with the cellular lactic acid to resynthesize more glycogen" - but it doesn't give the steps.

The other, better, textbook says, basically that oxygen must be present in sufficient quantities for pyruvate, the end-product of glycolysis, to be transported to the mitochondria to enter the Krebs cycle, instead of turning to lactic acid. It doesn't explain the stupid textbook's statement, though.

I don't see at which point these two statements connect. Which is it - pyruvate, or lactic acid? Or both? And what does oxygen do?

Gave up science VERY long ago, and don't know anything about this stuff - please help - SIMPLE is best.

 

[KBgrl]

i tried and failed ..... i thumbed through some books for u right now and found some "textbook explanations".... shit could be in latin for all i know

sorry honey...
bump for Steel

 

[VooDoo Lady]

umm..........NO, I can't answer that in a complicated OR a simple way.....but I can bump for you

 

[wilson6]

Steel,

Why do you need to know this and what are you getting at?

There are no simple answers to this and if you're not versed in biochem, you'll get lost.

lactate can have various fates including conversion to glucose but probably not glycogen unless you're a rat

oxygen must be present to get rid of the H from NADH to make water and generate ATP aerobically, and if NADH is high then lactate which takes up the H from NADH in glycolysis to keep it running (short-term) cannot be converted back to pyruvate.

W6

 

[MS]

Hmmmm, what Wilson6 said. If you want to see the nitty gritty, try http://www.expasy.ch/cgi-bin/show_thumbnails.pl

If you click on each little square in the grid, you can see it all in great detail.

A simplified version can be viewed here http://biotech.icmb.utexas.edu/glycolysis/glycohome.html

OR http://esg-www.mit.edu:8001/esgbio/glycolysis/dir.html

Have fun

 

[ccc]

I have been exposed to this topic no fewer than 4 times in my college career, and I still dont get it!

 

[wilson6]

"One stupid textbook says "

BTW, there are no "stupid" textbooks.

W6

 

[wyst]

There are poorly written ones, though.

 

[SteelWeaver]

Hey - thanks everyone!!

MS - those URLs are GREAT! (The first one's kind of scary, but I have mechanisms for fear).

Steel,

Why do you need to know this and what are you getting at?

There are no simple answers to this and if you're not versed in biochem, you'll get lost.

W6

"Certified Personal Trainer" course LOL! No ulterior motive, promise! I figured last year if I had to do this myself, and was serious about training, I'd better LEARN something about how my body works, so as to more easily manipulate the variables. Little did I know ...

I did biochem in high school, but that was a long time ago. I have a tiny foundation though.

BTW, there are no "stupid" textbooks.

What if they're written by Fred Hatfield? Yes yes, I see your point - but this guy glosses so much detail, and then spends half the book talking about "the one and only time this experiment was ever carried out, and it happened to be on ME" etc, etc, let me blow my own horn one more time, I squatted 1000 lbs. Fine - we know already. The ISSA course - good if you know nothing, and fine as a primer, but as soon as you start reading the NSCA's Essentials of Stength Training and Conditioning, you realise the gap ...

Anyway, thanks for the info, and ccc, I'm glad to hear I'm not the only one.

wyst - right on!

 

[wilson6]

"What if they're written by Fred Hatfield?"

I see your point there. I was thinking along the lines of a 500 level college textbook. Some are not well written, but not stupid. It is usually the student that has the problem.

W6