Glucose loading cures everything?
-
@S-Holmes interesting, did you ever use cynoplus? In my wife’s working with Danny, he suggested that some T4 was supportive of liver health. Your symptoms sound like low blood sugar/glycogen storage symptoms. Glucose to the rescue?
-
@evan-hinkle this is not to say, cynoplus to the exclusion of cynomel, but in conjunction with.
-
@evan-hinkle I take a 4 mcg dose of Idealabs Tyronene daily now. But nothing I have done seems to help as much as glucose (so far).
-
Wouldn't you get thiamine deficiency from eating pure dextrose?
-
This post is deleted! -
This post is deleted! -
@Insomniac said in Glucose loading cures everything?:
Does anyone have an opinion on that woman from the case study eating 2lbs of sugar/glucose on top of her regular diet for 5 months? Can that be right?
@Insomniac said in Glucose loading cures everything?:
By 5 th appointment she was taking between 200 and 240 grams 4 times per day, which eliminated all symptoms. She continued on this dose for 5 months, at which time all symptoms had been eliminated for a month and she discontinued use of glucose apart from occasional doses of 20 to 40 grams during times of high stress. Neuropsychological test scores at the time of completion of treatment ranged from the 84 th to the 97 th percentile.
How did a 63 year old woman eat that much for 5 months? Eating nearly 3200 cals of dextrose powder per day and she's certainly diabetic after 5 months. It's not impossible but it's hard to imagine a doctor telling someone to gain weight like that.
Seems possible to me, but only depending on a lot of missing information.
They may have been that hungry (and that thirsty) after commencing this "protocol". Discarding most of the calories by polyuria. And all or part of what was being "normalised" was cerebral edema. Without continuing the "regular diet" and drinking more, they may experience osmotic diuresis and weight loss. Possibly. It would mess them up.
If it works, it works. But it seems to me like a very disgraceful way to go about it.
This is all quite interesting none the less. Cardiac, renal and pulmonary function are very interlinked (well, it all is but...).
-
They don't like fructose. I wonder why.
And they don't like caffeine. Hmm.
-
This post is deleted! -
@Insomniac said in Glucose loading cures everything?:
Can someone who isn't diabetic lose a large amount of glucose through the urine if they take enough?
Yes.
Osmotic diuresis is a "normal" "kind" of "overflow". It's conditional. And there are more reasons than overconsumption for blood elevation in "diabetes".
(More than happy for someone to come in here, tell me I'm wrong and school me.)
-
This post is deleted! -
Why does this make sense to me? If, due to repeated stress/aging, the body is no longer able to feed the brain via gluconeogenesis, eating a normal healthy diet, and you must have a fully functioning brain to be well and to restore that vital process, why not deliver pure fuel to the brain to aid recovery? If the brain can't recover, the body will never recover. Now the $64,000 question. Will this therapy actually work? I won't know for sure until I test it out. (Day 5).
-
But there's some sort of concert going on.
@ThinPicking said in Are Polls a Good Idea?:
Is it actually possible to substitute in either direction. Maybe just a temporary lack of control and engagement in some. Many ways a person can delude themselves. Misappropriate their condition and capability.
I don't know. So this isn't an objection. I'll be creating some posts on the subject at some point.
https://www.mdpi.com/1424-8220/22/23/9115
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7075501/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10002343/
https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/STROKEAHA.123.040499
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0306987719307145
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1568163721002865
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00278/full -
If glucose loading works, it hasn't been properly explained why it works.
When tissues cannot absorb and metabolize glucose, why does glucose loading work nonetheless. Perhaps it's because when blood glucose gets high, it triggers the polyol pathway, where glucose is converted to fructose. Unlike glucose, fructose is more easily absorbed and metabolized by tissues.
The question would arise "Why not simply take fructose? The answer is that fructose feeds gut microbes more readily and this can cause some gut problems.
Still, Stephens only focuses on glucose loading as a simple answer to brain lacking the energy to power itself. At least that is the impression I get, and I did not finish watching the video because I felt it is a waste of time. I felt he owes it to his audience explaining the role of having enough tissue oxygenation to fully use glucose to produce energy. Has he done this? He may know this, but he rather prefers to make his case for glucose loading by oversimplifying the case for glucose loading. He must look down on the mental capacity of his audience. Or he may just be practical, seeing his audience as cretins due to the brain already made inutile by lack of glucose.
Temporal thinking is the faculty that’s
engaged by an enriched environment, but it’s
wrong to call it “thinking,” because it’s simply
the way organisms exist... - Ray Peat Nov 2017 Newsletter -
This post is deleted! -
@yerrag I don’t have a definitive answer, but in his lectures he suggests that the glucose is digested in the small intestine, (prior to reaching potential issue with microbes in the large intestine-not sure where SIBO would come into play there).
He also mentioned in a lecture that in order to better understand why it works he would need volunteers for spinal taps and one other procedure, (I forget) that obviously no one is volunteering for. I personally wonder if using a radioactive substance in mice would lend any clarity on the how or why?
Personally I’m “lucky” to have suffered with poor dental health for years, and as such as soon as glucose goes in my mouth, my teeth get harder, whiter, and shiny/smooth. I’m not sure if this suggests that uptake or “digestion” is even taking place in the mouth, prior to the small intestine, but it’s what I’m experiencing, so I thought I’d throw it out there.
-
I don't know. I've been dextrosed 300g day for 4 days and it changed me. I sleep well, I don't get sugar crashes anymore but man kills my appetite. I eat way less and I don't lose weight, maybe it's water weight from insulin spikes?
-
@evan-hinkle said in Glucose loading cures everything?:
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.
What difficulty did you have with sugar that led you to dextrose Evan?
-
@yerrag said in Glucose loading cures everything?:
When tissues cannot absorb and metabolize glucose, why does glucose loading work nonetheless. Perhaps it's because when blood glucose gets high, it triggers the polyol pathway, where glucose is converted to fructose. Unlike glucose, fructose is more easily absorbed and metabolized by tissues.
Evan also mentions hydration of his eyes and better sleep some way up. Along with the teeth thing. My best bet remains that it's resolving a kind of edema. Drawing in structure, raising metabolism, which also produces structured water inherently. I would say filling in edema with structural components, but he also reported some welcome weight loss.
I just wonder at what cost. If this isn't created by or refined from nature. Why not the fructose. Or why would there be a preference for this.
-
@yerrag said in Glucose loading cures everything?:
Still, Stephens only focuses on glucose loading as a simple answer to brain lacking the energy to power itself. At least that is the impression I get, and I did not finish watching the video because I felt it is a waste of time. I felt he owes it to his audience explaining the role of having enough tissue oxygenation to fully use glucose to produce energy. Has he done this? He may know this, but he rather prefers to make his case for glucose loading by oversimplifying the case for glucose loading. He must look down on the mental capacity of his audience. Or he may just be practical, seeing his audience as cretins due to the brain already made inutile by lack of glucose.
Also I had the same difficulty continuing his interview with Torrens. Had to persevere.
