Geez Dean, if you were really on the one true golden path you would know that "NEVER" means something completely different to what it does for lost souls who are not worthy enough to know true enlightenment!

So, muscles never use ATP produced through glycolysis (anaerobic respiration)? Whether the glucose used in this glycolysis comes from glycogen or the blood.Actually, since ATP displaces actin from the myosin head, ATP is required for muscle relaxation (where myosin is in its high-energy conformational state). The contraction begins with actin binding myosin and ends with the formation of a low energy actomyosin complex. The complex is broken by ATP binding... and the high energy conformation of myosin regenerated by ATP hydrolysis. So much for the 'fuel'... BUT... WHATEVER!And ADP is never re-converted to ATP using glucose via glycolytic substrate level phosphorylation? Since pyruvate not destined to hit that infamous cycle (due to lack of that stuff we breathe) is reduced to lactic acid (lactate)... isn't this why our muscles get sore? Or is this just another "old fairytale"?

And, I suppose the ATP production which does use FFA's via the ETS can be accomplished without oxygen? And, I suppose no mitochondria are present in this phenomenon? And, of course acetyl-CoA can ONLY come from FFAs, huh? Have we gone too deep into the black box for ya there Bear? This is pretty BASIC biochem, ya know!

I don't know it all and I have never claimed to. There are plenty of people around here, including you, that know much more about chemistry and biology than me. What I do have though is a good sense of reality, common sense and am an analytical person who likes to learn more by questioning things before just taking a persons word on the matter. Some people on here have taken up your regime without asking too many questions, got tests to get some basline biomarkers to see where they started and later to see where ended up. Some people here could take up your regime and may cause them serious health problems... are you that confident that limiting entire food groups is not going to cause harm to anyone here? You don't even ask them to be catious.



The problems you experienced in the past should make people catious about your eating regime. Though diet will never prevent all diseases, many people eating the foods that you say are toxic and should not be consumed, are at much advanced ages than you are. You dismiss all old and recent research on how plants are benifial in preventing many age associated diseases, did you ever question your diet once after these health problems in the past?

People that I believe have more of a say on how to live a healthy life are centenarians, particularly from the islands around japan since they have an unusually high number of centenarians and super centenarians. This is what one women ate who reached 116 "she ate a fairly traditional diet of fish, local vegetables and soy products, and drank green tea" - and this sort of diet is something common among those that are living a long time.

Their diet helped them get them to these extreme ages. They are all food groups that you say should be elimated from peoples diet. Read this to see one or two super centenarians diets Look here



I have not been doing it that long, I started when I was 20. I know more than the average person but I don't claim to know everything about diet either. Most of what I know about the body and health is self taught using the internet and books such as "Molecular biology of the cell" As I progress through my Biomedical Degree then I'll learn lots more

I am sensible and know enough to keep myself quite healthy. I've asked you before if you would share you lab results (if you have any). Like FBC, Lipids, Glucose, Insulin, CRP, thyroid, renal function, liver function and possibly various level of nutrients. But you say that it's none of my business... and thats right I guess it's not, but since your diet is so good, then why would someone find it so hard to share their lab results. It would atleast show some how well your body is coping with such a radical diet regime and give it more credit?

Most of my grandparents lived a bad lifestyle, high bmi, and smoking all their life.. Yet they still lived upto 85~ . So I don't find it remarkable that you have made it 47 years on this diet. (my Great/grandparents never suffered major diseases years prior to their death (lung cancer))

Why thank you!



Indeed you did. Of course, these sources would have to include every standard metabolism text or biochem reference work. They MIGHT all be shown to be bogus by your references, which are....ah, my bad. You don't have any.



But I explained why! What part of my explanation was too hard? I'll try it again, in simpler terms: bullshit needs to be set straight.



I do!



Wouldn't it be awful if that sort of thing were going on? Next thing you know, we'd have people bragging about their IQs and who knows where it would end?

Meanwhile, I guess we have to add to your list of introspective physiology results the claim that dietary protein isn't broken down to amino acids. After all, if they were you'd know it, right?

Wow.

Even reasonably intelligent people (some others forfeited all claim to that title long ago) are now engaging in nothing more than Bear baiting. I'm just waiting for "Oh yeah? Your mother!" to make an appearance, and the regression will be complete.

... Or that GNG does not play a role in glucose homeostasis on a carnivorous diet or in carnivorous animals...

My compliments to the person who had the foresight to move this thread into the war zone!

He or she has my vote for LC-Forum "Mod of the Year" award.

It was a team "vision" .


Doreen

One cannot blame carb consumption on the current obesity epidemic in the USA and UK. Millions upon billions the world over eat carbs and are not obese. Excess (calorie) consumption and refined carb consumption are to blame as well as the sedentary nature of modern man.

You know a few good mother jokes is just what we need to lighten the mood around here!!

I think its more like "I'm rubber, you're glue..."

Maybe the time spent sniping and counter sniping on this thread would be better spent jogging?

It's actually a peptide, just like many other neurotransmitters like serotonin, prolactin, etc. Only cortisol is a steroid like the sex hormones. The distinction between proteins and peptides is somewhat arbitrary, and insulin is right on the cusp at around 50 amino acids.

What's the point of this anyway?

Bear, how will I know when I meet people smarter than me, other than that they will tell me so? I was always taught that "smart" manifested itself as reasoned and inquisitive, not pedantic and abusive. see, if you were really as smart as you claim, you would be curious about why I take this position on cancer, instead of your insistence on stare decisis et non quieta movere.

I will continue to correct you every time you attempt to give people advice about cancer. Your advice is misguided and dangerous and borne of personal dread and fear. The "black box" approach suits the medical profession so that they can continue to practice their hideously ineffective and exorbitantly expensive withcraft without an explanation, on pliant patients at a time when they are too terrified to question them.

When you are prepared to debate this subject with me, and not obfuscate over survival vs. morbidity, and do some root cause analysis, not black-boxing, I'm ready.

A correction: I have been using the term "gluconeogenesis" to refer only to the production of glucose from protein, a process that has an efficiency of 58%. In fact, the term also refers to the production of glucose from glycerol.

Under prolonged fasting conditions, which partly mimic eucaloric zero carb intake*, about 75% of the GNG-produced glucose is from protein; the remainder is from glycerol.

*Key difference between fasting and a calorically adequate zero carb diet is, of course, that in the eucaloric diet the protein doesn't have to come from muscle tissue if there's adequate dietary protein.

References? You want references? We don't need no stinkin' references! I did it using theBear's method of introspective research. I ate a chunk of meat and EXPERIENCED the GNG!

Fair enough. Evolution in process.

Another interpretation, which also takes into consideration the sweetness taste buds that we have and the fact that sweet flavors are liked, could be that in our evolutionary past carbs were both scarce and valuable. That would explain the tendency both to like them and to store them readily.