Clearing Receptors 101

[hulksmash]

Lmfao. So very true hahaha



This is what I was hinting at, thanks Widehips for explaining it in more detail.

Doc-I know you're the same as me and an advocate for Occam's razor.

1. People think the human body is a linear model, thus examples such as receptor "cleansing" allows them to better work their linear human model. This shows how retarded people are.

2. People want things to blame for their shit response/physique/etc..thus, "my receptor sites are just clogged! Easily replace that with other nonsense examples I listed.

Number 2 is the MAIN reason we see so much bullshit in the gym life.

Agree, Doc?

 

[DocDePanda187123]

That's correct...He's still not even half as cool as he thinks IMHO.

Upregulation/downregulation is referring to the actual number of androgen receptors in the cell. Studies that I have read supporting downregulation that were done in vivo (experimentation done with a living organisim) were referring to zero androgen levels as the control, or subnormal at the least...not supraphysiological levels. It is my understanding however, that estrogen can lead to downregulation which is why it's so important to control the aromatization process.

There are dozens of research articles available on the subject, many of which are FAR to complicated for the layman to interpret. Here is one of many.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8499343

Doc-I know you're the same as me and an advocate for Occam's razor.

1. People think the human body is a linear model, thus examples such as receptor "cleansing" allows them to better work their linear human model. This shows how retarded people are.

2. People want things to blame for their shit response/physique/etc..thus, "my receptor sites are just clogged! Easily replace that with other nonsense examples I listed.

Number 2 is the MAIN reason we see so much bullshit in the gym life.

Agree, Doc?

I think ppl are misinformed and listen to the wrong sources not that they're necessarily retarded (some might be though lol) but yes I agree. I think the issue here is as Everyone has mentioned in this thread...confusing receptor sensitivity with regulation. I certainly agree with Occam's razor though.

It's good to see you back Hulk.

 

[TheBlob]

Dude nothing but a post like this to convince me im retarded. So can I recap to make sure im following. Clearing receptors= not an issue. Receptor sensitivity=issue. Car model only true to the point where he starts gibbering about stalled vehicles. So his model Would kinda sorta look like the longer the drive in is open and the more the orders are filled the more food it takes to satiate the customers? (Did that make sense to you)

 

[Tadger]

This article is complete garbage. The whole analogy of the cars and parking spaces is completely wrong. Receptors are not reused... simply not the way it works. Sterol based hormones diffuse across the cell membrane on their own. Sterol based molecules are small enough that they can move right through the lipid bi-layer no problem. Once inside the cell, they kinda just bounce around until they bump into the binding site on an appropriate receptor. The androgen receptor is the one we are concerned with here. The hormone-receptor complex is then moved via active transport, into the nucleus of the cell. Here is where the hormone-receptor complex binds with ribosomes, and a bunch of mRNA is produced. This is where the different nuances of the individual compounds we use kinda come into play (well... that, along with some limited extra-receptor mediated response), the different proteins will cause slightly different amounts and types of proteins to be produced which is where the little differences we notice with different drugs. Either way, the mRNA goes on to eventually produce the different proteins we wanted it to. Here is where the article really falls apart. Once complete, the whole hormone-receptor complex is broken down and the raw materials are reused. New receptors are constantly being produced to replace the used ones. The number of receptors is only part of the equation here. You would intuitively think that the more receptors bound to androgen, the more effect you'd see. That's not necessarily the case. As several of the other boys pointed out, there is a difference between receptor count and the cell's sensitivity to a hormone. You can see a whole lot of empty receptors, and still a very dramatic effect from a small amount of hormone... or vise versa, lots of bound receptors and very little effect. The strength of the response is controlled by many different factors, and receptor count is only a small part of it.

Either way... this cleaning your receptors stuff is complete and udder garbage.

 

[TheBlob]

HA HA Tadger where have you been all my life, your a friggn genious, you explained that in a way very easy to nderstand. And it made cross referencing your information quite easy because some of the more complicated medical information is hard for me to understand.

 

[Gt500face]

Great thread, thanks.