Glucose loading cures everything?
-
This post is deleted! -
@Insomniac so I listened to this with a somewhat open mind, (unfortunately I can’t help but judge this particular guy when I see/hear him - just something seems off putting to me) but it seems like he hasn’t actually listened to Dr Stephens, and I say this because Dr Stephens intends glucose to be a temporary therapy. Once you correct the effects of a glucose limiting injury you stop taking glucose. In the video, Smith says, maybe temporarily glucose could have a positive effect, (like filling glycogen stores) but long term any sugar powder is going to be bad. It seems to me, that this is exactly what Dr Stephens is suggesting… indicating that perhaps Smith has not looked too deeply into it.
-
This post is deleted! -
The protocol has merit, and is ironically becoming a full circle moment for the RPF. Dr. Stephens and Ray are touching in the same idea but from different perspectives.
It’s odd nobody considered dextrose years ago instead of blowing themselves up on table sugar.
As for Garrett, that’s his canned response for new ideas unless you drown him with research papers like what happened with niacin. He’s established his ecosystem and isn’t going to upset the apple cart.
-
@Jaffe I’ve been thinking the same thing. Like the elephant in the room is this is essentially Peat’s work with a minor nuance. Loading glucose instead of fixing oxidative phosphorylation so you can make glucose without gluconeogenesis.
FWIW, I always had trouble with digestion, and so it just makes sense to me to take glucose directly. Though like usual, I’m sure Peat’s approach is more appropriate and obviously respectful to the elegance of life.
-
I also have a history of sports related head trauma, terrible digestion, random mood swings, sub clinical hypothyroidism. My early experience with dextrose has been very promising.
-
This post is deleted! -
@Insomniac said in Glucose loading cures everything?:
except that it sounds too good to be true
You have good ears in my opinion. Because it's manufactured by hydrolytic and enzymatic process. Although someone could make a case that extraction of sugar is similar. I wouldn't personally.
Honey contains it unbonded, but it's often if not always heavier in fructose. And other stuff.
I get the feeling something is underlying all of this. I think it's this...
@ThinPicking said in Glucose loading cures everything?:
Which led me to think it might be osmotic.
Or rather, hydrodynamic.
But I would say that. I've occasionally schizo-posted about fluid dynamics for a while, and other people nudged me there. Maybe it's something else.
-
Also Torrens posted this yesterday. And had posted previously an indication he had perspiration issues.
And sure enough...
https://www.google.com/search?q=epilepsy+fluid+balance+study
-
@Jaffe said in Glucose loading cures everything?:
It’s odd nobody considered dextrose years ago instead of blowing themselves up on table sugar.
I think because Ray said that you should never take glucose without some fructose (was it because of the insulin spike? I cannot remember), so Ray advocated that sugar could be therapeutic but has never, as far as I know, advocated for using just dextrose/glucose. May somebody correct if I'm wrong about this.
-
This post is deleted! -
This post is deleted! -
@Insomniac said in Glucose loading cures everything?:
Dextrose is cheap, easy and all my food tastes better. It even cures structurally damaged brains and has no downside at all except that it sounds too good to be true.
Missing/deformed tissue is a limitation. He makes this point in one of his presentations that’s been shared on RPF.
-
This post is deleted! -
I stole this gem from the RP forum. (Finally! A discussion I'm actually interested in over there.) Hope they don't mind.
-
@S-Holmes If I tried to consume that much glucose eating other carbs and sucrose I would gain way too much weight. I'm reading that people are seeing their blood sugar levels drop while doing the glucose loading protocol. Very encouraging.
-
This post is deleted! -
@S-Holmes It makes sense to me. If your brain is well fed, it can stop signalling the body to release/make more fuel, which can't get into the brain anyhow (due to stress and injuries). So the glucose stops the cascade by nourishing the brain, bypassing the digestive process and going directly to the brain where it's needed.
I've seen a more scientific explanation and will try and find it.
-
@Insomniac I wonder if a person could fix a lot of health issues living on Mexicola and brewers yeast (plus B12 since it has none) for a while. Lol. (Not going to try it!)
-
@Insomniac fructose converts to glucose in an oxidative metabolism. This is what I think is the missing piece for everyone here and at the RPF.
Most people come to Peat from carnivore, keto, fasting, etc. Those diets guarantee gluconeogenesis because the brain needs glucose to function, (the body too, but certainly the brain). Once you’ve converted from a high carb to a low or no carb diet you have manufactured a “glucose limiting injury.” This is the term used my Stephens. So, Stephens suggests you cannot recover without glucose, (possibly) or Peat suggests you can’t recover without restoring oxidative phosphorylation. THE PROBLEM IS: almost no one has used cynomel/cynoplus for three months with consistency. Peat spoke regularly about how T4 only doesn’t work, but it typically prescribed. Peat spoke frequently about NDT not working because it wasn’t standardized and you didn’t know what you were getting. But let’s face it, it’s a big leap to ask someone from keto/carnivore/fasting/veganism to trust big pharma and take thyroid hormone. I don’t blame anyone, it took me 5 years to finally take cynoplus, (and it’s the only thyroid that has worked for me).
So, you need oxidative phosphorylation, (thyroid supplementation) or glucose. 2 options, same outcome.
