It is commonly believed that the purpose of insulin receptors is to enable serum glucose to enter into the body's cells, but -- on the contrary -- the purpose of insulin receptors is to keep glucose out of certain cells at certain times.
Insulin receptors are present in the cell walls of muscle, fat, and liver tissue, but they are not present in the tissues of the brain. Insulin receptors are not needed in the brain; glucose enters brain cells without them.
If glucose can enter brain cells without the aid of insulin receptors, then glucose should be capable of entering any cells without the intervention of insulin receptors. The purpose of insulin receptors is therefore to retard the entry of glucose into selected cells.
This interpretation makes sense. In order to provide the brain with an adequate concentration of serum glucose, which is its only supply of energy, the insulin receptors in the tissues of less critical organs can be closed in order to divert glucose to the brain when necessary.
Eugene Paul
Saturday, October 15, 2011
Friday, September 30, 2011
Détente with John & Ken
Referring to the title above, détente means a relaxation of tension, and John & Ken are two outrageously funny individuals who have a political talk show on radio station KFI in Los Angeles. It is my own idea that John & Ken create détente; they would undoubtedly deny it, humorously, for hours on end.
John & Ken ridicule public miscreants who deliberately create problems for the country in order to satisfy their own devious political agendas. Other talk show hosts complain vociferously about miscreants in the opposing political party, thereby increasing stress levels in their listeners. But John & Ken howl with laughter while they expose and ridicule any and all miscreants that come to their attention. The result is a very therapeutic détente.
In a recent incident, California Governor Jerry Brown, who is a Democrat, complained to the New York Times that the California Republican Party is controlled by John & Ken and three other individuals. John & Ken had a field day with that story, trying to decide whether they were part of a secret cabal. They decided that they were, so they arranged for a secret telephone conference with the three other members of the cabal. The secret conference was aired live on KFI radio, much to the high amusement of the entire cabal.
Eugene Paul
John & Ken ridicule public miscreants who deliberately create problems for the country in order to satisfy their own devious political agendas. Other talk show hosts complain vociferously about miscreants in the opposing political party, thereby increasing stress levels in their listeners. But John & Ken howl with laughter while they expose and ridicule any and all miscreants that come to their attention. The result is a very therapeutic détente.
In a recent incident, California Governor Jerry Brown, who is a Democrat, complained to the New York Times that the California Republican Party is controlled by John & Ken and three other individuals. John & Ken had a field day with that story, trying to decide whether they were part of a secret cabal. They decided that they were, so they arranged for a secret telephone conference with the three other members of the cabal. The secret conference was aired live on KFI radio, much to the high amusement of the entire cabal.
Eugene Paul
Friday, November 12, 2010
The True Disbeliever
I understand the statistical argument for extraterrestrial life: "We know that life exists on Earth; there are probably megazillions of Earth-like planets in the universe; therefore, there are almost certainly many other life-bearing planets". (Incidentally, although Earth is an Earth-like planet, I am not aware that any new life is being created here now.)
But so far no one has given an informed probability for extraterrestrial life, which can easily be explained by our uncertainty as to the number of Earth-like planets. But if there are a mere one billion Earth-like planets in the universe, how do we calculate the probable number of life-bearing planets? Under what circumstances does life come into being? What is life anyway?
If the universe is teeming with extraterrestrial life, why hasn't ET landed on the White House lawn with an invitation to join the Galactic Union (GU)? My own answer: an action is motivated by emotional mental processes that establish the desirability of that action. If Earth-like planets are commonplace, why would any intelligent ET go out of its way to get here? I grew up on science fiction, too, but it is just fiction based on Earthling experience.
Furthermore, we have no tangible evidence that life exists anywhere but here. You can draw an infinite number of lines through a single point, just as you can imagine an infinite number of other worlds like ours.
Exactly what do we know about life on other planets? Nothing.
Eugene Paul
But so far no one has given an informed probability for extraterrestrial life, which can easily be explained by our uncertainty as to the number of Earth-like planets. But if there are a mere one billion Earth-like planets in the universe, how do we calculate the probable number of life-bearing planets? Under what circumstances does life come into being? What is life anyway?
If the universe is teeming with extraterrestrial life, why hasn't ET landed on the White House lawn with an invitation to join the Galactic Union (GU)? My own answer: an action is motivated by emotional mental processes that establish the desirability of that action. If Earth-like planets are commonplace, why would any intelligent ET go out of its way to get here? I grew up on science fiction, too, but it is just fiction based on Earthling experience.
Furthermore, we have no tangible evidence that life exists anywhere but here. You can draw an infinite number of lines through a single point, just as you can imagine an infinite number of other worlds like ours.
Exactly what do we know about life on other planets? Nothing.
Eugene Paul
Saturday, June 19, 2010
Toward an understanding of insulin resistance
The body's regulation of insulin and glucose are involved in three related diseases: types 1 and 2 diabetes and metabolic syndrome. Insulin resistance is considered to be a pathological condition that causes type 2 diabetes and metabolic syndrome; insulin resistance is not involved in type 1 diabetes.
Insulin is a hormone that enables glucose, which is the body's primary source of energy, to pass from the bloodstream into each cell through a protein structure in its wall called an insulin receptor. If the supply of insulin is inadequate, as in type 1 diabetes, glucose cannot pass through the receptor into the cell. And even if the supply of insulin is adequate, its action on receptors can be prevented by insulin resistance, as in type 2 diabetes and metabolic syndrome.
Type 1 diabetes is characterized by very high levels of blood sugar (serum glucose), which can be reduced successfully by regular injections of insulin.
Type 2 diabetes is also characterized by high levels of blood sugar, which can be reduced successfully by regular injections of insulin or, less successfully, by the regular use of pharmaceutical drugs; insulin injections are inconvenient and potentially dangerous.
Metabolic syndrome, which was discovered recently by Stanford endocrinologist Gerald Reaven, is characterized by slightly elevated levels of blood sugar and very high levels of blood insulin.
According to Dr. Reaven, some individuals are capable of overcoming insulin resistance by producing prodigious quantities of insulin, which avoids type 2 diabetes but results in metabolic syndrome. Individuals who cannot overcome insulin resistance by producing large quantities of insulin merely have type 2 diabetes. Both metabolic syndrome and type 2 diabetes are serious diseases, and it is believed that metabolic syndrome may eventually evolve into type 2 diabetes if the pancreas loses its capacity to produce abnormally large quantities of insulin.
We come at last to the nature of insulin resistance, which is considered to be the cause of either the dangerously high levels of blood sugar (hyperglycemia) in type 2 diabetes or else of the dangerously high levels of compensatory insulin (compensatory hyperinsulinemia) in metabolic syndrome. Insulin resistance is considered to be a defect in the insulin receptor or in the insulin itself. The thinking is as follows: insulin must work with insulin receptors in order for glucose to pass from the bloodstream into the cells, thereby reducing blood sugar levels to normal. I believe this thinking is wrong.
It is known now that insulin receptors are only present in the cells of certain kinds of tissue (e.g., muscle and fat), while the cells of other tissues (e.g., the kidneys, red blood cells, and -- most notably -- the brain) allow glucose to enter through their walls freely without any need for insulin receptors or insulin.
Suddenly the picture changes completely. Glucose can enter cells freely without the 'help' of insulin! Of what use, then, is the insulin/insulin receptor mechanism, which is what makes insulin resistance possible? It becomes obvious that this mechanism is actually designed to permit insulin resistance to occur. Therefore, insulin resistance, per se, must be normal, not pathological.
If insulin resistance is normal, then what purpose could it serve? Without insulin receptors, all cells in the body would have to allow glucose to enter their cells freely. Every organ in the body -- including the brain -- would receive the same amount of glucose. But the brain, which uses 25% of the body's glucose supply, cannot function without enough glucose; we know that severe hypoglycemia can cause coma and death.
During starvation, the supply of glucose is so diminished that the body begins to metabolize its own protein to survive. More glucose can be preserved in the bloodstream by insulin resistance, which prevents glucose from being 'wasted' on nonessential tissues such as skeletal muscle and fat. And the body can only survive as long as there is an adequate supply of blood sugar for the brain.
In short, I believe that insulin resistance is a natural survival mechanism designed to preserve life by preventing serum hypoglycemia.
Eugene Paul
Insulin is a hormone that enables glucose, which is the body's primary source of energy, to pass from the bloodstream into each cell through a protein structure in its wall called an insulin receptor. If the supply of insulin is inadequate, as in type 1 diabetes, glucose cannot pass through the receptor into the cell. And even if the supply of insulin is adequate, its action on receptors can be prevented by insulin resistance, as in type 2 diabetes and metabolic syndrome.
Type 1 diabetes is characterized by very high levels of blood sugar (serum glucose), which can be reduced successfully by regular injections of insulin.
Type 2 diabetes is also characterized by high levels of blood sugar, which can be reduced successfully by regular injections of insulin or, less successfully, by the regular use of pharmaceutical drugs; insulin injections are inconvenient and potentially dangerous.
Metabolic syndrome, which was discovered recently by Stanford endocrinologist Gerald Reaven, is characterized by slightly elevated levels of blood sugar and very high levels of blood insulin.
According to Dr. Reaven, some individuals are capable of overcoming insulin resistance by producing prodigious quantities of insulin, which avoids type 2 diabetes but results in metabolic syndrome. Individuals who cannot overcome insulin resistance by producing large quantities of insulin merely have type 2 diabetes. Both metabolic syndrome and type 2 diabetes are serious diseases, and it is believed that metabolic syndrome may eventually evolve into type 2 diabetes if the pancreas loses its capacity to produce abnormally large quantities of insulin.
We come at last to the nature of insulin resistance, which is considered to be the cause of either the dangerously high levels of blood sugar (hyperglycemia) in type 2 diabetes or else of the dangerously high levels of compensatory insulin (compensatory hyperinsulinemia) in metabolic syndrome. Insulin resistance is considered to be a defect in the insulin receptor or in the insulin itself. The thinking is as follows: insulin must work with insulin receptors in order for glucose to pass from the bloodstream into the cells, thereby reducing blood sugar levels to normal. I believe this thinking is wrong.
It is known now that insulin receptors are only present in the cells of certain kinds of tissue (e.g., muscle and fat), while the cells of other tissues (e.g., the kidneys, red blood cells, and -- most notably -- the brain) allow glucose to enter through their walls freely without any need for insulin receptors or insulin.
Suddenly the picture changes completely. Glucose can enter cells freely without the 'help' of insulin! Of what use, then, is the insulin/insulin receptor mechanism, which is what makes insulin resistance possible? It becomes obvious that this mechanism is actually designed to permit insulin resistance to occur. Therefore, insulin resistance, per se, must be normal, not pathological.
If insulin resistance is normal, then what purpose could it serve? Without insulin receptors, all cells in the body would have to allow glucose to enter their cells freely. Every organ in the body -- including the brain -- would receive the same amount of glucose. But the brain, which uses 25% of the body's glucose supply, cannot function without enough glucose; we know that severe hypoglycemia can cause coma and death.
During starvation, the supply of glucose is so diminished that the body begins to metabolize its own protein to survive. More glucose can be preserved in the bloodstream by insulin resistance, which prevents glucose from being 'wasted' on nonessential tissues such as skeletal muscle and fat. And the body can only survive as long as there is an adequate supply of blood sugar for the brain.
In short, I believe that insulin resistance is a natural survival mechanism designed to preserve life by preventing serum hypoglycemia.
Eugene Paul
Thursday, March 11, 2010
What is the Cause of Evolution?
A friend sent me a copy of a review (apparently from the February 2009 issue of a publication called Choice) of a book written by Susan Jacoby, entitled The age of American unreason. The reviewer wrote:
But [the book] ... offers a sharply argued defense of reason, logic, science, ... If the anti-evolution fervor of religious fundamentalism is the US's most glaring example of irrationalism, ...
Eugene Paul
But [the book] ... offers a sharply argued defense of reason, logic, science, ... If the anti-evolution fervor of religious fundamentalism is the US's most glaring example of irrationalism, ...
Strictly speaking, neither anti-evolution fervor nor anti-anti-evolution fervor are in the scientific tradition, which never quite believes any theory. Personally, I find the idea of progressive evolution to be in conflict with the idea of natural selection, and the latter seems more reasonable to me than the former. Namely, the idea that life was destined to progress from simple organisms to ever more complex organisms, culminating in homo intelligenticus, might appeal to some religious and social thinkers, but it seems irrational in the absence of an observed cause of this particular effect.
Natural selection, as I understand it, is the idea that different kinds of organisms may happen to be better equipped to cope with hostile new environments than other kinds of organisms. Those that are sufficiently well equipped will survive, while those that are not so well equipped will not survive. There is no guarantee that any organism will be sufficiently well equipped to survive. It may be, I might add, that those organisms that can cope marginally in a hostile new environment might eventually experience mutations that would permit them to cope more (or less) favorably.
Eugene Paul
Lord Russell's Amœbæ
Yesterday a recently retired philosopher friend quoted Bertrand Russell on the subject of evolution:
One day Lord Russell placed his hand under the objective lens of a powerful microscope and discovered to his delight that his own body consisted of trillions of amœbæ.
I used to hear the blighter talk on the radio, and I was always amused by his halting, stammering pattern of speech, which I attributed to the profundity of his thought. Now I know that his difficulty lay in arriving at an amœbic consensus.
Eugene Paul
"Evolution from amoeba to man is generally considered to be progress, but whether the amoeba agrees with this opinion is not known."
One day Lord Russell placed his hand under the objective lens of a powerful microscope and discovered to his delight that his own body consisted of trillions of amœbæ.
I used to hear the blighter talk on the radio, and I was always amused by his halting, stammering pattern of speech, which I attributed to the profundity of his thought. Now I know that his difficulty lay in arriving at an amœbic consensus.
Eugene Paul
Academic Mysticism
In thinking about evolution the other day, it occurred to me that I do not actually understand causality. Accordingly, I looked in at the Wikipedia monograph on Causality to see how much was already understood about that subject, and in so doing I came upon yet another infernal 'paradox':
The Paradox of the Grand Hotel
Consider a hypothetical hotel with countably infinitely many rooms, all of which are occupied – that is to say every room contains a guest. One might be tempted to think that the hotel would not be able to accommodate any newly arriving guests, as would be the case with a finite number of rooms. Etc., etc., etc.
Anticipated amusement turned to anger which soon became outrage. Why do academic mystics tie themselves into knots by making absurd assumptions and then marvelling at the paradoxical results?
The paradox is summarized in the monograph on Infinity as follows:
The paradoxical nature of infinity is illustrated by the idea of a grand hotel, with infinitely many rooms—all of which are occupied by guests—but can nevertheless manage to accommodate a new guest by moving each existing guest over, one by one, to other rooms.
A hotel with an infinitely large number of rooms, each large enough to contain a guest, would have to be infinitely large. But the only universe that we have ever experienced appears to be finite in size. It appears, therefore, that the paradoxical Grand Hotel could not exist because it could not fit inside the universe.
Infinity is a concept encountered in mathematical theory (1/0 = ∞) and in science fiction, but not in reality, or I'm very much mistaken.
Eugene Paul
The Paradox of the Grand Hotel
Consider a hypothetical hotel with countably infinitely many rooms, all of which are occupied – that is to say every room contains a guest. One might be tempted to think that the hotel would not be able to accommodate any newly arriving guests, as would be the case with a finite number of rooms. Etc., etc., etc.
Anticipated amusement turned to anger which soon became outrage. Why do academic mystics tie themselves into knots by making absurd assumptions and then marvelling at the paradoxical results?
The paradox is summarized in the monograph on Infinity as follows:
The paradoxical nature of infinity is illustrated by the idea of a grand hotel, with infinitely many rooms—all of which are occupied by guests—but can nevertheless manage to accommodate a new guest by moving each existing guest over, one by one, to other rooms.
A hotel with an infinitely large number of rooms, each large enough to contain a guest, would have to be infinitely large. But the only universe that we have ever experienced appears to be finite in size. It appears, therefore, that the paradoxical Grand Hotel could not exist because it could not fit inside the universe.
Infinity is a concept encountered in mathematical theory (1/0 = ∞) and in science fiction, but not in reality, or I'm very much mistaken.
Eugene Paul
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
