Glucose Utilization in Relation to an Ingested Meal

[Fonz]

Author : Fonz

Summary : Mathematical Analysis of blood flow and glucose flow and what haoppens to the ingested glucose.

Glucose Utilization Article (By Fonz) Part I

This is a bit complicated, but please bear with me.

Imagine you consume a meal with carbohydrates, fats, and proteins. So, the original polynomial equation becomes, for the total ingested glucose load becomes:

Glucose Ingested =

(Grams of Carbohydrates) * (1.0) + (Grams of Protein * (0.58) + (Grams of Fat * (0.1)

The equation can be explained in this fashion:

- Carbohydrates convert to glucose with 100% efficiency
- Protein converts to glucose with approx. 58% efficiency because
there are glucogenic and ketogenic amino-acids. (Keep in mind
that glutamine is glucogenic and comprises close to 61% of the
amino-acid pool in the blood stream).
-Fat converts to glucose at a 10% conversion rate due to the
glycerol chain at the end of the triglyceride(fat) molecule.

This equation just represents the total glucose load ingested by a person during a meal containing all macro-nutrients, Fats, proteins, and carbohydrates.

EXCERPT OF MY GLUCOMETRIC ANALYSIS

I’ll now take a small excerpt from my Glucometric Analysis, which you can find at CEM and at EF.

Standardized Meal(Bread) = 500Kcal 6g Fat 14.3g Protein 98g Carbs

According to the equation represented above:

Total Glucose derived from ingested meal =

(98g carbohydrates * 1.0) + ((14.3g protein * (0.58)) + (6g fat * (0.1)) = 98g + 8.29g + 0.6g = 106.89g total glucose ingested.

Supplement #1: Placebo

Person was me(Fonz).

Weight: 82Kg(180.8lbs)
Blood Volume(Explained below) = 6200ml

(T = 0 hrs)
Initial BG Measurement: 48mg/dl Temp:37.3C (99.1F)

(Eat Food as described above)

(T+1hr) Measurement: 90mg/dl Temp: 37.2C (99F)

(T+2hrs) Measurement: 40mg/dl Temp: 36.8C (98.2F)

(T+3hrs) measurement: 74mg/dl Temp: 37.1C (98.8F)

(T+4hrs) Measurement: 72mg/dl Temp: 37.2F (99F)

Area under positive BG Curve (Taking initial BG measurement as the horizontal) =

21 + 17.64 + 11.47 + 24 + 1 = 75.11 mg/dl (squared)

Area under initial BG measurement (negative):0.64 + 0.47 = 1. 11 mg/dl (squared)

Therefore the Total Area = 75.11 + 1.11 = 76.22 mg/dl (squared)

The total Area under the Blood Glucose Curve was 76.22 mg/dl (squared) after the standardized meal. A normal person of 70Kg has 5000ml of blood volume. The blood volume then increases in increments of 0.6L per 6Kg of body weight. So, since I was the test subject, my standard weight was 82Kg(180.8lbs), and had therefore 6.2L or 6200ml of blood. So therefore, I had 76.22mg of glucose per dl(squared) in my blood in any given cross-sectional area of my blood vessels.

Here is where it gets interesting:

Blood Flow Analysis:

Since a blood vessel has a cross-sectional area, 1 decilitre = 0.1 Litres. This is the latter amount of fluid/blood which travels through the cross-sectional of the blood vessel. Finding out the flow rate of the cross-sectional area of the given blood vessel flow can be done this way: Flow Rate = 1 decilitre = 0.1L = 100g(Assume that the density of blood is very close to 1g/ml) Therefore, The Area of the blood vessel = (Pi * Radius(squared)). Taking this into account, the Mass Flow-rate = 100g * Area of the blood vessel. Then, we can surmise that the Mass Flow-rate = 100g * Pi * radius of cross-sectional blood vessel(squared). From reference books one can determine that the average sized blood vessel that carries blood, oxygen and nutrients etc… to parts of the human anatomy in any normal healthy person can be surmised to be approx: 3.5cm in diameter.

Now, one can derrive the radius of the cross-sectional area of the blood vessel where the volume of blood flow saturated with the ingested glucose is flowing. This number is approximately 1.75cm.. Note: The measurement by the blood glucose machine is an area because the volumetric flow rate equation inside a fluidic cross-sectional area is due to the fact that the blood vessel is a circular area(like a hose) not a straight line. If one where to use their imagination think of a line of bread crumbs(glucose in this case) going through a circular hose with a specific diameter. Now, the cross-sectional area of a blood vessel can be calculated as (A) = Pi * Radius(squared) . Since we can take the radius of an average sized blood vessel of a healthy male to be 1.75cm(See above). Then, the cross-sectional area of the blood vessel becomes: Cross-sectional Area of Blood vessel = Pi * ( 1.75cm)(1.75cm) = 9.6211 cm(squared).

Calculations:

So, the total area under the blood glucose curve as seen in the excerpt of my old glucometric analysis above is 76.22mg/dl(squared). But as a decilitre = 0.1L. 0.1L(squared) = 10000ml(squared). 10000ml(squared) being equal to 100 decilitres. From this, the new data becomes that glucose travels at 76.22mg per 10000ml of blood(which is equal to 100dl or 10L) after the ingestion of my aforementioned glucose load.. But, since my total blood volume was 6.2L(See the excerpt of my glucometric analysis) we can now surmise that the blood loaded with glucose goes through blood vessels with a cross-sectional area of approximately 9.6211cm(squared). Therefore, the total glucose travelling through the blood vessels of the body approximately after the initial glucose load is (76.22mg glucose per 10 Litres of blood). In 6.2L of blood(6200000mg), the amount of glucose present in the blood would be 76.22mg * (6.2L/10L)) = 47.2564mg of total glucose flowing around my entire blood plasma vessel structure. But now, we have to do the last part, and that is factor in the cross-sectional area of the blood vessels. From the blood flow analysis section: Mass flow-rate across a circular cross-section of a blood vessel = Mass(glucose(mg)) * Area(cm(squared)).

Therefore, Mass flow-rate = 47.2564mg (glucose) * 9.6211 cm(squared)

But now, we have to change dimensions:

a) 0.0472564g = 47.2564mg
b) 1 cm (squared) = 1.0 * 10exp(-4) metres squared.
Then, 1cm(squared) = 1.0 * 10exp(-6) metres cubed.
Therefore, 9.6211 cm(squared) = 9.6211 * 1.0 * 10exp(-4) metres squared = 0.0009621 metres squared.
Therefore ultimately, 9.6211cm(squared) = 9.6211 * 1.0 * 10exp(-6) = 0.000009621 metres cubed.

Now using the dimensions we have derived previously:
(From my previous Glucometric Analysis)

Standardized Meal(Bread) = 500Kcal 6g Fat 14.3g Protein 98g Carbs

According to the equation I described above:

Total Glucose derived from ingested meal = 98g + 8.29g + 0.6g = 106.89g total glucose

Total glucose inside my blood supply after initial glucose load was: 47.2564mg of glucose. Total cross-sectional Area of an average blood vessel in cubic metres = 0.000009621. Now, one metre cubed = 1000Litres, therefore 0.000009621 metres cubed = 0.009621L. Which this can then be changed to decilitre format, or 0.09621dl. So, therefore total linear area of blood is 0.09621dl And the glucose mass was 47.2564mg

Therefore, we are ready for the final phase.

Total Glucose content = 47.2564mg
Total Area Blood = 0.09621 decilitres.

But, we have to reduce the final equation to the standard mg/dl to compare glucose variances and losses. Therefore, the final standard blood glucose measurement through a blood vessel becomes (47.2564mg/0.09621dl). Which if reduced proportionally in order for dl = 1(constant), you get: BG(measurement) for the entire body = (47.2564*10.3939)mg/dl = 491.178mg/dl

Now, the glucose load(initial) was 106.89g = 106890mg
Amount of blood plasma in my body = 6.2L = 62dl
Therefore, the BG measurement(whole body should read)(106890mg/62dl) = 1724.03mg/dl

Discussion:

There seems to be a discrepancy between the blood glucose level in the blood supply T=4hrs after ingestion of the standardized meal(491.178mg/dl), and what was measured by the initial glucose load after ingestion of the standardized meal( 1724.03mg/dl). This seems to suggest that the orally ingested macro-nutrient meal described beforehand of a specific glucose load, was then diverted to the different organs of the body, - such as the muscle cells, fat cells, liver cells, oxidized for fuel, brain cells, etc… This I believe can be explained by the differential in the initial glucose load per unit blood after the ingestion of the original meal(in decilitres): 1724.03mg/dl, and then the subsequent drop in measured blood glucose levels afterwards(in decilitres): 491.178mg/dl.

These two numbers: Initial: 1724.03mg/dl and Final: 491.178mg/dl, indicate that (100% - (491.178/1724.03) * 100%) = 71.51% of the original glucose load was used by the body for various uses. The rest was lost to unknown variances. Converting it to grams, we get:

Initial load: 106.89g Glucose Final(measured) in blood vessels: 30.453g Glucose

The discrepancy being (106.89g – 30.453g) = 76.437g. Therefore, only 76.437g of glucose out of 106.89g of ingested glucose was used by the body under normal conditions.

This represents a rather curious discrepancy.

Author's Comments : It is more of a Part I article. part II will be far more complex. 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...

Fonz

 

[Green Hornet]

Whoa dude I feel like I am back in General Biology two, my sophmore year in college. Lets throw in some atp conversion and get some people really confused. It has been a while since I looked at anything like that. I will have to go back and read it again to make sure I followed it correctly.

 

[Fonz]

Whoa dude I feel like I am back in General Biology two, my sophmore year in college. Lets throw in some atp conversion and get some people really confused. It has been a while since I looked at anything like that. I will have to go back and read it again to make sure I followed it correctly.

Its just part I, Part II will be incredibly harder.

Fonz

 

[macrophage69alpha]

Its just part I, Part II will be incredibly harder.

Fonz

an understatement

 

[theALPHAone]

Good Stuff

 

[Animal]

x

 

[Animal]

You also can't say that protein was in fact converted to glucose to be a part of the glucogenic yld. If it where whole protein iw ouldn't even be digested for your little experimental time frame let alone be converted to glucose!

Isn't there a blood vessel which carries blood from the stomach to the liver? If the liver then pulled the glucose, there would NEVER be that amount of glucose going into general circulation.

And how in the hell did you get your BG to 48 when in all your ala experiments the lowest was 66?

 

[Andy13]

Animal, meet Fonz.

Fonz, meet Animal..

With that,

Fonz- I really respect your propensity. I mean REALLY. The kind of ridicule you will experience for presenting a quasi-scientific study is the same that I have received for mine: 3-day DNP, front-end loading, exponential decay models of AAS, among others.. It makes me appreciate the kind of adversity Schrodinger faced with his models.

But you know what? A quasi-scientific study is better than relying on some dude saying "uh.. I took ALA, and it wurked good fer me."

So I applaud your efforts....

However, one part of your manuscript is missing.. And I cannot accept it without this… I'll give you a hint... It comes very last...

Andy

 

[Fonz]

You also can't say that protein was in fact converted to glucose to be a part of the glucogenic yld. If it where whole protein iw ouldn't even be digested for your little experimental time frame let alone be converted to glucose!

Isn't there a blood vessel which carries blood from the stomach to the liver? If the liver then pulled the glucose, there would NEVER be that amount of glucose going into general circulation.

And how in the hell did you get your BG to 48 when in all your ala experiments the lowest was 66?

There were two experiments done animal:

The first one was ALA vs R-ALA and did not include a placebo.

This is the one you were referring to.

First series of BG testing

The second one was far more comprehensive and included a placebo, along with comparisons of CLA,GLA, ALA, R-ALA, and AlCar, and even temperature variations.

Second Series of BG Testing

Look at the second one not the first one.

Fonz

 

[Animal]

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?

 

[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.

 

[Generic MALE]

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.

LOL...well it certainly does sound like you have done alot of reading of pop science best sellers. Keep it up you just might be the next Dr. Phil.

Really though your understanding of what is actually proven about insulin and what it does is sorely lacking.

 

[Fonz]

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.

The whole point of this board(and others) is to criticize and pick apart studies in order to make them more accurate.

Don't think I'll get offended...quite the opposite, I won't be. I'm actually looking forward to reading your analysis. This isn't a popularity game, (I'm not here to be King of the Hill), its a discussion about a theoretical paper based on a glucometric study. And that with a LOT of comments from knowledgeable people we can refine and polish further into a precise paper.

Fonz

 

[Generic MALE]

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.

Lower limit for a healthy adult = 30mg/dl

I am mostly just saving this for later, in case you decided to go back and edit this post, because I wanted to go over this later when I have more time.

However one comment now - where in the hell do you get that 30 mg/dl is a healthy level for a normal adult? If you can give me one credible medical source I would be amazed. I would bet a bottle of calcium D glucurate (60 pills 500 mg) that you cannot find an accepted source (not some pulp best seller from Barnes and Nobles quick sale rack) that agrees with this. Sure people can survive 30 mg/DL - but 30 mg/dl is in NO WAY a normal variant. That is just crazy.

 

[Generic MALE]

This is a serious question - could you point me to some reading I could do about how insulin raises blood sugar?

 

[Fonz]

This is a serious question - could you point me to some reading I could do about how insulin raises blood sugar?

Stop trying to patronize me because I'm not in the mood.

Insulin LOWERS blood sugar. It sweeps all the nutrients in the bloodstream into the cells(Muscle, fat,liver)

At the same time GLUCAGON levels(In direct correlation to insulin levels...the relationship is an inverse one). If insulin levels increase, glucagon levels decrease....and if insulin levels decrease, glucagon levels increase.

But, the 30mg/dl insulin level feedback loop is the exception to this rule.

When Insulin levels drop to such low levels(30mg/dl), Glucagon levels are very high, and the body initiates a feedback loop where it releases a burst of insulin autmatically, which increases insulin levels, and therefore lowering lowering glucagon levels....which drops you out of danger.
In ketogenic diets, this happens when the dieter reaches a state of such deep Ketosis(Insulin levels of 30-40mg/dl), that the body immediately releases insulin, which increases insulin levels... which then reduces glucagon levels drastically, kicking you out of ketosis.

So, the answer to your question is that:

Yes, insulin CAN raise blood sugar in a very special case....as I have explained above.

Fonz

 

[riptorn]

One of the best games of Elite fitness Tennis I have seen ,keep up the work boys it is all very interesting

 

[Generic MALE]

Stop trying to patronize me because I'm not in the mood.

I really was not trying to be patronizing. I was just wanting a credible reference in regards to your ideas.

Oy vey Fonz. I am not sure what to even say in response to this most recent post of yours regarding glucagon and insulin. *sigh*

I may respond to this later, but ...whew...what does one say to the idea that by reducing glucagon, when someone has marked hypoglycemia it will somehow benefit them? You do know that glucagon injections are used in medicine to save someones life when they have marked hypoglycemia, because it raises blood sugar....right? I mean, it is commonly accepted in the medical world that a surge of insulin when someone is severely hypoglycemic is very dangerous if not lethal. Its also accepted that giving glucagon (not dropping it) is a correct medical strategy.

I looked in perhaps half a dozen standard medical texts today and could not find 30 mg/dl as a normal variant in any of them - not even for neonates.

I am impressed with the depth of your thoughts. I may not be understanding this-heck, I never even use words like "polynomial". I will try to stay open minded as you present your ideas. Maybe you will revolutionize medicine and bb'ing. *shrug* Who knows. Maybe medicine has it all wrong.

 

[Andy13]

lol..

What a circus..

 

[Andy13]

Hey Fonz-- Still 8am in Spain?

 

[Fonz]

Hey Fonz-- Still 8am in Spain?

I'm in the US now.

Fonz

 

[Andy13]

I'm in the US now.

Fonz

Well let's have it then...

 

[Fonz]

Name the citations you want then, and I'll look back for the links. I still remember them.

Fonz

 

[Andy13]

Forget it............

Learn how to write a scientific manuscript.

 

[Animal]

Thank you generic male!

You should surely know by know that you aren't going to get any of the studies or a straight answer from the superfriends around here!

 

[ProtienFiend]

so Fonz did a study and GM tore it apart... can anyone back either of these bros up?

 

[GoldenDelicious]

anyone with a smidge of medical background can see that fonz is bordering on insanity. and that is not a masked insult either. i come right out and insult people from my experiences with fonz, this is honestly my opinion

generic male is on the ball, and fonz is out with the pixies, as usual.

if you were in my pharmacy with 30mg/dL id be questioning if you could actually think to swallow the orange juice id be trying to get in your mouth with one hand, and unwrapping your emergency glucagon shot with the other

there is no study here. just the dawdlings of a near imbecile. i wont even start on explaining why i think this, honestly, because i would have to design the study from the ground up, explaining why i would want to include each aspect of the protocol, when in truth, just reading the title of the study and trying to fathom why anyone would want to do it. it is utterly ridiculous, and you could find more than you would ever want to know on the topic in your local library.

piece of advice fonz, and im not being a bastard. you have the body, but you dont have the brains. just shut your mouth and look pretty, and at least the girls will like you. because if you ever lose your physical conditioning youre well and truly up shit creek

 

[75th]

Bump for more information.

 

[Biochemist214]

Not to flame on Fonz but this thing has nothing to do with a real study. 95% of it is merely elementary school math ( can you say pi * radius^2?) and basic unit conversions with Fonz trying his hardest, as usual I might add, to make it sound complicated to the basic juice heads. Not to mention the things GeneralMale has already said...which about covers the remaining 5%.

LOL at the guy saying "Feels like general biology...my sophmore year at college". Did you even read the thing?

Anyway, Fonz has written some good stuff too, but this time there's nothing there.

 

[Fonz]

anyone with a smidge of medical background can see that fonz is bordering on insanity. and that is not a masked insult either. i come right out and insult people from my experiences with fonz, this is honestly my opinion

generic male is on the ball, and fonz is out with the pixies, as usual.

if you were in my pharmacy with 30mg/dL id be questioning if you could actually think to swallow the orange juice id be trying to get in your mouth with one hand, and unwrapping your emergency glucagon shot with the other

there is no study here. just the dawdlings of a near imbecile. i wont even start on explaining why i think this, honestly, because i would have to design the study from the ground up, explaining why i would want to include each aspect of the protocol, when in truth, just reading the title of the study and trying to fathom why anyone would want to do it. it is utterly ridiculous, and you could find more than you would ever want to know on the topic in your local library.

piece of advice fonz, and im not being a bastard. you have the body, but you dont have the brains. just shut your mouth and look pretty, and at least the girls will like you. because if you ever lose your physical conditioning youre well and truly up shit creek

LOL........shows how much you know.

Insulin levels of a healthy adult in the 30mg/dl, will initiate a feedback loop where insulin gets released NO MATTER what from the pancreas, that will increase insulin levels within the body.

Do you know where this information comes from?

From Medline and several dozen books that have studied what happens when a person fasts(not food, just water/electrolytes).

Also, you may want to look at the research done on Epileptic children by the John Hopkins Institute for Epilepsia. They are kept in DEEP KETOSIS(3:1 and sometimes 4:1 fat/Pro ratio's) for YEARS...and they have blood tests taken weekly. Deep Ketosis for thse children reduces their seizures drastically...most likely due to the switch from glucose to ketone bodies as the brain's and bodies main source of fuel. And the magic number of 30mg/dl is there....but guess what? YOU HAVE TO GO READ A BOOK. Not go to google and hit search. Information like this is not on google, but rather in intranet archives.

Your problem is, you have not read the literature, and you pretend like you have. Well I have read, many 1000's of books on the literature I am speaking about, and what you manage to do with your little diatribes is amuse me.

And my little essay is Part I...a start. Just a small little inkling of what happens to ingested food. The mathematics are simple..yes. But they will not be in Part II. I doubt even 50 people on the boards will understand the math in Part II. Specially after we add supplements, which adds yet another complex variable.

Go back to trashology......you're nowhere near my intellectual capacity..nor will you ever be..so go back to the morons at trashology and revel in your own glorious stupidity.

Fonz

 

[guards]

interesting