I often get the impression that many people find biochemistry off-putting because the terminology is unfamiliar, but really it's not as complex as it sounds
Here are the definitions of a few terms I commonly use as an example:
Upregulation = an increase in the number of receptors, or production of signalling molecules like hormones or neurotransmitters
Neurogenesis = the creation of new neurons or connections between neurons
Epigenetics = the regulation of how genes are expressed, almost like a bookmarking system that highlights or limits the expression of certain genes
Anabolism = the process of synthesis or building up in biology
Catabolism = the process of metabolism or breaking down in biology
Bioavailability = what percentage of a substance is actually absorbed by the body, for example 50% of a drug might be absorbed orally while 100% is absorbed by injection
Ligand = a substance that binds to a specific receptor, ie serotonin is a ligand of the serotonin receptor
Binding affinity = how effectively a substance binds to a given receptor, usually correlated with how effectively it activates or inhibits the receptor
Agonist = a substance that activates a given receptor
Antagonist = a substance that inhibits a given receptor
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Unbound iron in biology triggers a cascade of ROS formation known as a Fenton reaction, which ends in the creation of hydroxyl radicals (some of the most damaging free radicals possible)
This is why the body works to keep iron bound at all times, to protect itself
Iron metabolism is the body relies heavily on copper as an electron donor/acceptor, converting iron back and forth from the soluble ferrous form to the insoluble ferric form
This allows free iron to be absorbed and transported in the ferric form so it doesn't oxidize
Iron is then converted back to the ferrous form to be loaded into different protein structures, for example hemoglobin, where it acts as an oxygen transporter
Retinol is used to synthesize transferrin, which transports and clears free iron
Pine pollen is thought to work as an adaptogen primarily through its content of phytoandrogens (androsterone, androstenedione, testosterone, etc)
These androgens are not well absorbed orally, making pine pollen only weakly androgenic, however, I believe I have a solution to this
There are only two viable methods for the absorption of the hormone component of pine pollen
1. Topical application as a gel or something similar (I found only very expensive one example of this) 2. Sublingual absorption, which is far as I can tell has never been optimized
It's fairly simple to use a tincture or something similar sublingually, but sublingual androgen absorption is still very limited unless they're complexed with an absorption enhancer
The best compound for this purpose seems to be hydroxyproply-beta cyclodextrin (HPBC)
I think I'm going to start experimenting an extended 5-7 day fast every 3-4 months
(thread)
When we constantly consumed carbohydrates and protein, pathways like mTOR and protein kinase A are activated
While this stimulates anabolic growth cascades like PI3K/Akt, it inhibits the catabolic detox process of autophagy which clears damaged cells and mitochondria
Once carbohydrates stores are cleared and insulin drops, mTOR is inhibited and catabolic pathways like AMPK are activated
Growth hormone is also increased 3-5x due to its inverse relationship with insulin, and this is thought to stimulate stem cell growth in the organs
Carnitine versus androgen administration in the treatment of sexual dysfunction, depressed mood, and fatigue associated with male aging pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15072869/
This trend of treating anything that sounds remotely new age as "anti-science" is really ridiculous
EMF an easy example, people who've never read a single piece of the literature on its health effects assume they know better than researchers who spent years actually studying it
It's one thing to disagree on the interpretation of a set of scientific data, but people will dismiss entire subjects they've never researched at all, just because they read an article "debunking" it written by someone who didn't really bother researching it either
That said, I also think many fringe nutrition/health communities fall into the opposite trap of thinking a small portion of the research is representative of the whole field, reinforced by the echo chamber effect of social media