Insulin Does Not Increase Muscle Protein Synthesis Rate

HuckingFuge

Member
If your referring to me I did reply to your cholesterol question and was quite specific about the answer.

What do you believe a total cholesterol level is all that's needed to determine what therapy is optimal or even indicated?



you tell me. all I got from you was ranting. I didn't see an answer for all the ranting.
 

Dr JIM

Member
Whatever I haven't the time, bc you have not posted a single shred of evidence to support any of the GARBAGE your spewing.

Moreover your making a fool out of yourself posting all this misinformed drivel.

You have not learned anything since you entered Meso several months ago. congratulations.
 
Last edited:

Dr JIM

Member
Lol you guys just need to walk away. We know this isn't ever going to go anywhere.


You got that right V bc Huck demonstrated this level of ignorance long ago and some things NEVER change.

"And some people ya just can't help, ....... bc that's the way he wants it so he gets it"
 
cholesterol meds haven't saved any lives. people still die from clogged arteries while taking cholesterol meds, BP meds and what ever else they are prescribed. the medical industry preaches lives are saved and the sheep believe it. they are giving cholesterol meds to people that do not even have high cholesterol. carbs, insulin, and shitty diets are to blame for clogged arteries, not cholesterol.

I would like to read some honest fucking research. I've not done that in a long time, cause everyone has an agenda now days.

The relationship between serum cholesterol and heart disease is perfectly log-linear (at least down to cholesterols of 150 or so), with correlation coefficients exceeding 0.95 in multiple studies (r2 around 0.9). Epidemiologically, heart disease mortality rises starting at about cholesterol 160 (total) or LDL about 100 in men.

You think you can manage your high cholesterol with diet alone? Ask @Dr JIM how successful his high cholesterol patients have been when trying to lower their cholesterols with dietary therapy. I suspect he'll say not very. All doctors will tell you the same thing, and that's why their patients get the pills. It has nothing to do with pharmaceutical companies influencing doctors, either - it's human nature. The diet needed to get LDL below *safe* levels is too strict for MOST people to adhere to. We're genetically programmed to like calories - lots of calories. Nature places more importance on the avoidance of starvation than dying of an MI at 60.

You want some honest research that shows statins save lives? Here you go: The Scandinavian Simvastatin Survival Study looked at 4444 people with coronary disease and with cholesterols between 220 and 300. They were all given dietary treatment, and then further divided more or less equally into drug treatment vs non drug treatment groups. Addition of Simvastatin to diet lowered cholesterols by 25%, MI mortality by 42%, total cardiac mortality by 35%, and total mortality by 30%. NOTHING like this has ever been done with dietary therapy.


Lancet. 1995 May 20;345(8960):1274-5.
Baseline serum cholesterol and treatment effect in the Scandinavian Simvastatin Survival Study (4S)

Abstract
We examined the relation between the risk of major coronary events (coronary death and non-fatal myocardial infarction) and baseline cholesterol levels in patients with coronary heart disease, randomised to placebo or simvastatin therapy in the Scandinavian Simvastatin Survival Study (4S). The relative risk reduction in the simvastatin group was 35% (95% CI 15-50) in the lowest quartile of baseline low-density-lipoprotein cholesterol and 36% (19-49) in the highest. Simvastatin significantly reduced the risk of major coronary events in all quartiles of baseline total, high-density-lipoprotein, and low-density-lipoprotein cholesterol, by a similar amount in each quartile.
 

Dr JIM

Member
Dietary modification is about as effective for hypercholesterolemia as it is for weight loss, lol!

But what's more important is some 95% of patients are flat out LAZY and say look doc "can't ya just give me something". Most people are NOT willing to work to be healthy, they want others to manage that aspect of their life FOR THEM, and that's one reason Big Pharma is so BIG!

The HMG CoA R drugs considering the extent of use and their efficacy have an EXCELLENT safety record, Lipitor in particular.

For someone to call them "a joke" without defining what that means, is being biased, misinformed and an ignorant fool!
 

Dr JIM

Member
The relationship between serum cholesterol and heart disease is perfectly log-linear (at least down to cholesterols of 150 or so), with correlation coefficients exceeding 0.95 in multiple studies (r2 around 0.9). Epidemiologically, heart disease mortality rises starting at about cholesterol 160 (total) or LDL about 100 in men.

You think you can manage your high cholesterol with diet alone? Ask @Dr JIM how successful his high cholesterol patients have been when trying to lower their cholesterols with dietary therapy. I suspect he'll say not very. All doctors will tell you the same thing, and that's why their patients get the pills. It has nothing to do with pharmaceutical companies influencing doctors, either - it's human nature. The diet needed to get LDL below *safe* levels is too strict for MOST people to adhere to. We're genetically programmed to like calories - lots of calories. Nature places more importance on the avoidance of starvation than dying of an MI at 60.

You want some honest research that shows statins save lives? Here you go: The Scandinavian Simvastatin Survival Study looked at 4444 people with coronary disease and with cholesterols between 220 and 300. They were all given dietary treatment, and then further divided more or less equally into drug treatment vs non drug treatment groups. Addition of Simvastatin to diet lowered cholesterols by 25%, MI mortality by 42%, total cardiac mortality by 35%, and total mortality by 30%. NOTHING like this has ever been done with dietary therapy.


Lancet. 1995 May 20;345(8960):1274-5.
Baseline serum cholesterol and treatment effect in the Scandinavian Simvastatin Survival Study (4S)

Abstract
We examined the relation between the risk of major coronary events (coronary death and non-fatal myocardial infarction) and baseline cholesterol levels in patients with coronary heart disease, randomised to placebo or simvastatin therapy in the Scandinavian Simvastatin Survival Study (4S). The relative risk reduction in the simvastatin group was 35% (95% CI 15-50) in the lowest quartile of baseline low-density-lipoprotein cholesterol and 36% (19-49) in the highest. Simvastatin significantly reduced the risk of major coronary events in all quartiles of baseline total, high-density-lipoprotein, and low-density-lipoprotein cholesterol, by a similar amount in each quartile.

Hey HUCK "just Google it" bc that form of evidence is considered Level ONE; definitely helpful an one in which the benefit clearly outweighs the risks in properly selected patients.

Now post some of that evidence you referred to earlier which supports your BULLSHIT that cholesterol lowering agents are a "joke"!
 

HuckingFuge

Member
The relationship between serum cholesterol and heart disease is perfectly log-linear (at least down to cholesterols of 150 or so), with correlation coefficients exceeding 0.95 in multiple studies (r2 around 0.9). Epidemiologically, heart disease mortality rises starting at about cholesterol 160 (total) or LDL about 100 in men.

You think you can manage your high cholesterol with diet alone? Ask @Dr JIM how successful his high cholesterol patients have been when trying to lower their cholesterols with dietary therapy. I suspect he'll say not very. All doctors will tell you the same thing, and that's why their patients get the pills. It has nothing to do with pharmaceutical companies influencing doctors, either - it's human nature. The diet needed to get LDL below *safe* levels is too strict for MOST people to adhere to. We're genetically programmed to like calories - lots of calories. Nature places more importance on the avoidance of starvation than dying of an MI at 60.

You want some honest research that shows statins save lives? Here you go: The Scandinavian Simvastatin Survival Study looked at 4444 people with coronary disease and with cholesterols between 220 and 300. They were all given dietary treatment, and then further divided more or less equally into drug treatment vs non drug treatment groups. Addition of Simvastatin to diet lowered cholesterols by 25%, MI mortality by 42%, total cardiac mortality by 35%, and total mortality by 30%. NOTHING like this has ever been done with dietary therapy.


Lancet. 1995 May 20;345(8960):1274-5.
Baseline serum cholesterol and treatment effect in the Scandinavian Simvastatin Survival Study (4S)

Abstract
We examined the relation between the risk of major coronary events (coronary death and non-fatal myocardial infarction) and baseline cholesterol levels in patients with coronary heart disease, randomised to placebo or simvastatin therapy in the Scandinavian Simvastatin Survival Study (4S). The relative risk reduction in the simvastatin group was 35% (95% CI 15-50) in the lowest quartile of baseline low-density-lipoprotein cholesterol and 36% (19-49) in the highest. Simvastatin significantly reduced the risk of major coronary events in all quartiles of baseline total, high-density-lipoprotein, and low-density-lipoprotein cholesterol, by a similar amount in each quartile.


that is funny my cholesterol was 220 when I got out of the Army back in 90 and I'm not dead yet. my BP runs 128/80. I've done way more AAS than you guys preaching to me about how great these meds are.

35% isn't a very good reduction. they are just speculating the reduced risk of major coronary events. you guys take your cholesterol meds. I'll keep doing what I'm doing.
 

Dr JIM

Member
1) Were other know anabolic hormones such as TT and GH controlled for ?

2) How and at what dose was insulin administered and is it reproducible or practical in a real time setting?

3) Was the influence of Amino Acids, as anabolic agents, accounted for ?

4) What methodology was utilized to determine what effect insulin had on PS?

5) What was the duration of therapy and would an attenuated response been anticipated (bc of the development of IR) with longer "therapy"?

I posted this article not to refute Dr Scally's citation but to confirm it, since SP doses of insulin were suggested as potentially anabolic . . . . .. . . . . . . but is it practical?

Oops will download the article when I'm at my computer rather than limited by this iPhone.


Here is the article I mentioned. NOTE the title heading EXTREME HYPERINSULINEMIA ........... that's VERY important bc the insulin levels necessary to demonstrate an "anabolic" benefit were at least ONE THOUSAND fold greater (range 7000 to 12,000 uIU/ml) than "normal fasting insulin levels" of less than 5 uIU/ml!
 

Attachments

  • Hyperinsulinemia and PS.pdf
    111.7 KB · Views: 12
Last edited:

Dr JIM

Member
If you read the points it says insulin and amino acids increase protein synthesis but this was attributed to the amino acids and not insulin itself.

Yep and the study I just posted CONTROLLED for the effect AA themselves have on PS. That's right Amino Acids THEMSELVES enhance PS.

But the amount of insulin required to enhance PS would no doubt cause marked hypoglycemia and probably the eventual development of IR, IMO
 

HuckingFuge

Member
Here is the article I mentioned. NOTE the title heading EXTREME HYPERINSULINEMIA ........... that's VERY important bc the insulin levels necessary to demonstrate an "anabolic" benefit were at least ONE THOUSAND fold greater (range 7000 to 12,000 uIU/ml) than "normal fasting insulin levels" of less than 5 uIU/ml!



your research is flawed, cause I can show you 1000 BB that would tell you other wise.
 

Dr JIM

Member
And that, my friend, is why all 1000 of them bodybuild instead of performing medical research. They are right where they belong- in the gym and not a lab.

Yep and thank God the majority of them would admit they are not qualified to judge whether research of this nature is "flawed" bc they "achieved benefits" from insulin;................................ while using GH at 5-10 IU/day, a three stack high dose AAS cycle consisting of TT, Tren and D-Bol, consuming 100 grams of protein/day and HCG three times a week .....................,.................. heck anyone with half a brain knows those drugs would not disguise the "beneficial effects of insulin" !

LMAO!
 

Sponsored Links

Latest posts

Top