Thanks @DavidPS I am some how not surprised! Arginine anything is a major risk.

@DavidPS said in The Impact of Alpha-Ketoglutarate (AKG) on Skeletal Muscle Health and Exercise Performance:

Alpha-ketoglutarate

Did you happen to see if L-Arginine a-Ketoglutarate is just as beneficial?
I should rephrase, in other words do studies delineate on the amino acid conjugated?

@Luke I know a bit about SEO, and believe it, the more links the more "popularity" signaling to g$$gle

@Mauritio calm down? I'm afraid if I get any calmer I won't have a pulse. It's just a reminder, like I said. Do what you like.

Just another reminder, every time you guys link to that imposter forum, it makes it stronger and more present for G00gle.

lowtoxinforum DOT com/threads/niclosamide-for-fat-loss-uncoupling.42781

This format would be better. A step beyond that would be not to mention its name at all and have an abbreviation perhaps. Such as:

LTF DOT com/threads/niclosamide-for-fat-loss-uncoupling.42781

@cs3000 I think the glucose aspect is a balanced view of it, IF we are truly considering real progesterone, in a real woman who is pregnant. The key point here is it is not a total metabolic derangement, as even the study points out it is not at the insulin signaling level.

The second thing to keep in mind is, fatty acid composition of the organism is not being considered. In the sciences, most of these experiments don't consider these factors.

If the organism is not corrupted with PUFA throughout its tissues, Life does its thing. And it does it through a mechanism to allow the most abundance of glucose for the fetus. Are we to think that pregnancy ends Life? That doesn't make much sense. So I think the problem of dismissal of fatty acid composition, coupled with the use of PROGESTIN in the actual experiments can allow them to reach an end point they are starting with in the first place. They are reaching, and it is to imply a specific villainized idea about progesterone. That is the reason the verbiage and nomenclature is always mixed up and tricky. IF they want to make something clear, why wouldn't the language be clear!

Once again, for those who doubt it, even in that first study, if you go diving and find the reference for the supplemental material, it shows you they ONLY used progestins as well as confounders of ESTROGEN! The idea of true progesterone is merely suggestive as they allude to it. They are otherwise still using progestin. It reads:

"Mice were exposed to Estradiol (E2, 5 mg) and progesterone (P4, 1 mg), versus vehicle (n=3) or untreated (n=3) control, daily for 14 days (controls were pooled). The hormones were dissolved in sesame oil, and delivered subcutaneously.

Let's say we are assuming their implications of suggesting progesterone is bad for the heart, what then would have been an actually better approach? To monitor a population of women, collect information on the average diets, show your metabolic focal point, BUT then demonstrate actual health issues that arise from that. This way we know or at least acknowledge we are trying to know the causes (diet, exposures, etc) as well as if there is a real health issue that results from it. Otherwise you are merely pointing to a physiological, Life is Life process, and implying the rest.

@natureman lol fun for all

@BroJonas Any time my friend.

My world and perspective was changed, starting around 2014 finding Peat and changing my thinking. Along with that my long-time ailment, gone.

@BroJonas Yes, indeed. P4 refers to medroxyprogesterone acetate, which is in fact a progestin. NOT progesterone. The clowns then use other big pharma poisons to passively show they are still the hero, like mifepristone to oppose the progestins actions and say "look progesterone is a real devil."

@wester130 Endothelium is comprised of eNOS. Young people are expected to have good levels. The detrimental form that is a mediator of stress and directly causes tissue breakdown and inflammation is the inducible iNOS.