Glucose Utilization in Relation to an Ingested Meal

[Fonz]

Fonz and I go way back.

Ok on the starting BG, but as usual the other questions are not answered which were:

Protein wouldn't even be digested in that time frame let alone be converted to glucose nor have any evidence it was. IN fact, if glucose is present, it's doubtful if any protein would be converted to glucose BECAUSE gluconeogenisis CANNOT occur at the same time!

HOw much glucose did the liver pull and then keep glucose out of the loop and how would you know if it did or didn't?

Thats Prt II animal...and of course its going to be one hell of a mental problem to conquer.

I´m drawing up some potential schmatics diagrams right now. And the math and bio-chemical components look downright scary let me tell you.

I´ll give it my best shot though...but its going to be at least 2 months.

If this model actuall comes to fruition, we can use it to predict how other supplements would affect the human body.(Which would be the ultimate purpose of this)

Fonz

 

[kbrkbr]

Fonz, is this a precurser to your ALA delivery study?

Really looking forward to that one.

 

[Animal]

Cool then and it'll be an interesting read.

 

[Andy13]

Thats Prt II animal...and of course its going to be one hell of a mental problem to conquer.

I´m drawing up some potential schmatics diagrams right now. And the math and bio-chemical components look downright scary let me tell you.

I´ll give it my best shot though...but its going to be at least 2 months.

If this model actuall comes to fruition, we can use it to predict how other supplements would affect the human body.(Which would be the ultimate purpose of this)

Fonz

Don't ignore me Fonz.!

I want to see last part of your manuscript! It is ESSENTIAL.

There is a lot of 'novel' in your experiment.. I would lower critisism considerably if some of the inferences and methods were cited.


If this were someone else, I would have to explain the importance of citations in scientific manuscripts.. I don't have to tell you this..

Andy

 

[Fonz]

Don't ignore me Fonz.!

I want to see last part of your manuscript! It is ESSENTIAL.

There is a lot of 'novel' in your experiment.. I would lower critisism considerably if some of the inferences and methods were cited.


If this were someone else, I would have to explain the importance of citations in scientific manuscripts.. I don't have to tell you this..

Andy

Give me a day...its almost 8 PM here in Spain...I´ll dig them up for you tommorrow. I promise.

Fonz

 

[Generic MALE]

Wow. Are you planning on there being any real practical application to this theory, I mean - any real point to this? Otherwise it certainly is a nice, interesting and elaborate way to fill free time when you have lots of it.

I don't trust your glucose measurements-especially your T2 hours. What unit, what machine, are you using?

Also, the conversion of protein and fats to glucose is not a direct conversion - it takes energy to run the process, much of which comes from glucose - so glucose is used in the process of converting amino acids into glucose. We all know the brain runs on glucose, and finds many ways to keep levels constant including producing it from sources like protein - but converting protein to glucose requires energy. Its not a closed system of straight and simple conversion in which all the product ends up as available glucose in the blood stream this explains part of the reason for "The rest was lost to unknown variances."

Also digestion is an inexact process. Much will be undigested, most in the stool, etc. We don't digest and assimilate perfectly.

Determining which tissues will preferentially use glocuse, or "To write a mathematical formula that will predict where exactly the glucose that was ingested actually goes..albeit the fat, muscle, liver, cells, oxidized, brain, etc " - is going to need a stretch of the imagination. Using radio tagged glucose one could trace its path through the body - but it will vary depending on the person and activities. If the person is reading, drawing or watching TV or other such visual activity it will go to the visual or occipital cortex, the parietal association areas and the prefrontal and frontal cortices. If they are doing math or using repetitive digits it will go to the reticular activating system in the pons and midbrain., or perhaps the left parietal lobe for the recall of math facts and in memory storage areas. And that is just the brain - which runs on glucose.

muscle preferentially use fat for less intense activities - as well how much the muscles will preferentially use glucose will depend on their muscle types - those with a preponderance of slow twitch oxidative muscle fibers will use less glucose than those with a proponderance of fast twitch fibers. So you won't be able to right an equation without variables that fits some ideal "human".

maybe I am stupid I just see no real point to this.

 

[Fonz]

I don't trust your glucose measurements-especially your T2 hours. What unit, what machine, are you using?

maybe I am stupid I just see no real point to this.

I was using 2 calibrated glucometers.

For example,

I took 2 samples,(fictitious)

Glucometer one with a reading of 60mg/dl
Glucometer two with a reading of 65mg/dl

As I specified and stated(And you most likely didn't bother reading), if the readings by both glucometers were off by more than 10%, I would repeat the whole reading again.

But an exerpt from my study:

"Blood Glucose monitors used:

Principal: CVS Prestige Smart system. Serial Number: 6429796
Back-up: Glucotrend 2. Serial Number: GH022114809

Every original 1st reading by the principal Blood Glucose monitor(CVS) was checked by the back-up Glucometer(Glucotrend 2) to eliminate inconsistencies. I set the bar at + or – 10% of the original reading. If more or less than 10%, I repeated the specific dosaging for the supplement or combination of supplements being tested. I also measured my bodytemp to see if some of the supplements possessed thermogenic qualities.

Thermometer: Philips SensorTouch. Accurate to +-0.1C Type: HF 37C CE 0344"

Since you obviously do no understand the principle of error gates I will explain them.

Glucometer one: 60mg/dl

Glucometer two: 65mg/dl

10% of 60mg/dl is 6mg/dl.

So, the error gate for the first glucometer reading is (54mg/dl - 66mg/dl)

10% of 65mg/dl is 6.5mg/dl

So, the error gate for the second glucometer reading is (58.5mg/dl - 71.5mg/dl)

Now, you have two error gates:

(54mg/dl - 66mg/dl)
(58.5mg/dl - 71.5mg/dl)

Since the reading for glucometer one: 60mg/dl was within BOTH error gates, the statistical probability of it being flawed was exceedingly low.

(54mg/dl - 71.5mg/dl): Final error Gate

Actual measurement: 60mg/dl

(54mg/dl - (34.28%) - 60mg/dl - (65.72%) - 71.5mg/dl )

From above, the actual variances can be re-adjusted to give the most statistically accurate reading using two simultaneous glucometers...its very easy.

60mg/dl - 6(0.3428) + 11.5(0.6572) = 65.501mg/dl or 66mg/dl
(truncated to the nearest whole number)

I did this for every measurement, so you can imagine the time it took.

And if you lack the foresight to see what a mathematical anatomical model of blood+nutrient flow would do for the science of supplementation than you really are stupid(no offense of course).

Fonz

 

[Generic MALE]

Not stupid enough to believe your study...LOL. regardless of your babble, the fact is a blood glucose reading of 40 mg/DL or less (such as you achieved at T2) is a clinical alert for brain damage. I am not joking this is just a medical fact.

Page 333-334 of A MANUAL OF LABORATORY AND DIAGNOSTIC TESTS by Francis Fishbach, 5th edition, published by Lippincott states " Clinical alert : 1) If a person with known or suspected...[edited].... 4) Panic values - critical values: a) less than 40 mg/dl - possible brain damage. b) Greater than 470 mg/DL - possible coma".

If the data is correct, and you do indeed regularly have blood sugar around 40 mg/dl - which is a medical panic value for brain damage - I think we have explained the results of your study, and the value of your research.

The fact you went from 90 (mid normal values) to 40 (near brain damage levels) to 74 (low normal) as you state also casts a very dubious cloud over your results - regardless of the amount of complicated psuedo scientific jargon you toss around.

I have worked in medicine enough to know if your blood sugar was around 40 procedures would be initiated to preserve your brain. I also know its likely not going to jump back up to 74 unaided.

I also know enough that your results should be no surprise.

Fonz, I have read your stuff for years. You have some respect on the boards and have contributed a good bit in helping people have healthier lives, although often promoting overuse.... but this is some of the sorriest "scientific research" I have seen. You have made suggestions on the boards that are at times sound and healthy, and conversely you have also promoted some seriously dangerous practices over the years - not the least of which was your previous involvement on a women's anorexia and bulemia board at another site discussing weight loss with women who were participating in potentially lifethreatening weight loss methods.

I believe you did the blood tests etc..I don't think you are faking the results, but anyone with any clinical experience would shake their head and chuckle. The 40 is just not all that believable.

If indeed the 40 mg/DL is happening than your endocrine system is dangerously imbalanced and you could end up with serious brain damage. It would not be a surprise that your hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal-pancreatic axis would be messed up considering your have done things like 150 mg of anavar a day and other exhorbitant practices nearly non stop for years - and you are only in your twenties. I mean seriously, your skeleton only recently reached full maturity - and you are pouring near record amounts of AAS through it like you were simply a disposal system.

40 mg/Dl and you are risking brain damage. That is not a masked insult, it is as nearly factual as a person can get with evidenced based medicine. Hardly anything in medicine has been as researched as long or as much as blood glucose. If your blood sugar is going from 90 to 40 to 74 as you claim, something is really wrong. Dangerously wrong.

However, despite your efforts to have something that can be likened to respectable, careful, standardized lab methods - I imagine its simply error on your part.

 

[Fonz]

If the data is correct, and you do indeed regularly have blood sugar around 40 mg/dl - which is a medical panic value for brain damage - I think we have explained the results of your study, and the value of your research.

I have worked in medicine enough to know if your blood sugar was around 40 procedures would be initiated to preserve your brain. I also know its likely not going to jump back up to 74 unaided.

If indeed the 40 mg/DL is happening than your endocrine system is dangerously imbalanced and you could end up with serious brain damage. That is not a masked insult, it is as nearly factual as a person can get with evidenced based medicine. Hardly anything in medicine has been as researched as long or as much as blood glucose. If your blood sugar is going from 90 to 40 to 74 as you claim, something is really wrong. Dangerously wrong.

If you have worked in medecine and you don't know about the bodies own negative feedback loop for low insulin/blood sugar then I suggest you go back to school and re-read some books about endocrinology.

When insulin levels(Normally pretty much directly related to Blood sugar levels) in a healthy adult(or athlete in my case) reach approx. 30mg/dl, INSULIN IS AUTOMATICALLY RELEASED from the beta cells in the Islet of Langerhans in the pancreas no matter what. This is the bodies own feedback loop for low insulin levels. If the body didn't do this, insulin levels would plummet even further and you would pass out into a comatose state and most likely die. So, after the pancreas releases the insulin, insulin levels return back to a normal state(depending on the person...normally (60-90mg/dl))This of course does not apply to Type I or Type II diabetics. This release of insulin by the pancreas when insulin levels reach approx. 30mg/dl has already been shown to happen in deep, deep ketosis, in regards to people following ketogenic type diets, or athletes after an exceedingly strenous workout where they have both wiped out their muscle glycogen and liver gycogen.

Ketosis = Insulin levels < 60mg/dl

Lower limit for a healthy adult = 30mg/dl

Upper limit = Varies...But I have seen 150mg/dl in a healthy adult.

What you need to do is read up on ketogenic type diets, because you fail to understand a whole hell of a lot of the concepts.

I have done BodyOpus type diets and 1:1 ratio F ones and know them backwards and forwards. I studied them for over 3 years. So, unless you can come up with a better rebuttal then that, you better go hit the books ASAP.

Fonz

 

[Generic MALE]

As I specified and stated(And you most likely didn't bother reading

Well, I must admit I probably did not read it all that thoroughly. You are probably right.

After seeing the initial test results (which just aren't believable as being accurate), I did not see much reason to carefully labor through it all or click the links. I mean the credibility was laughably destroyed early on.

I finish a rotation today and so will have a bit more time to spare. If opportunity presents itself I may take the time to hammer through it and pick apart the details as you request. I am not sure what the good of that is, as pointing our flaws in your research probably won't spur better efforts in the future, nor will it make much difference in the lives of guys who would do anything including shoot cow flop into their necks if it meant they thought they would get a bit larger. Like your study it would be an exercise in futility, but if I can convince myself it would be fun to pick it apart I might.