>Glycation is a natural, non-enzymatic chemical process where excess sugar molecules spontaneously bond with proteins, lipids, or DNA in the body>This reaction forms unstable intermediate structures that eventually turn into permanent Advanced Glycation End-products (AGEs).>AGEs cross-link structural proteins like collagen and elastin, making them rigid, weak, and brittleSo excess sugar i.e. any carbohydrate you eat, since any other sugar your body needs you can make on your own from animal fats and protein (there are no essential carbohydrates), literally damages your protein structures (literally every part of your body including your eyes)>advanced glycation end products (AGEs) significantly affect eye tissue by promoting protein cross-linking, oxidative stress, and inflammation>AGEs are harmful compounds formed when proteins or lipids combine with sugars in the bloodstream through a non-enzymatic reaction called glycation. Because many eye structures contain long-lived proteins with slow turnover rates, they are particularly vulnerable to AGE accumulation over time
>>17066808It's not from "excess sugar" it's from any sugar at all. Some amount of it will bind to random molecules and create AGEs.Carbs have the advantage of being the most efficient source of energy for every cell in the body. Plus, a high-fat diet is not without issues too: it obviously requires more oxygen, doesn't have localized storage like glycogen, and can form plaques in arteries as well (in the same sense that AGEs are a longer-term issue).Of course, naturally the body has mechanisms to clear out both plaque and AGEs, these mechanisms simply degrade as you age, like all things.
>>17067043Some of those compounds are chemically stable, relatively speaking. Google is funding research towards synthetic enzymes that can break them down safely.
>>17067043>Carbs have the advantage of being the most efficient source of energy for every cell in the bodyhow is that true if the randle cycle inhibits sugar from being uptaken?>and can form plaques in arteries as wellplaques are not made of fat and fat doesn't causa plaques anyway, that's just made up nonsense inflammation causes damage to tissue and protein, calcium and cholesterol go there to try to fix the damage created by inflammation >doesn't have localized storage like glycogenand? protein and fat are converted to sugar if needed
>>17067076>how is that true if the randle cycle inhibits sugar from being uptaken?What does the randle cycle have to do with my statement? I'm just saying that glycolysis is more oxygen-efficient than β-oxidation.>fat doesn't causa plaques anywayExperimentally, people on high-fat diets have more plaque buildup when their arteries are scanned.>>doesn't have localized storage like glycogen>and?See above where I mentioned that carbs are the most efficient energy source. You don't want to be shuttling around more fatty acids than you need to when your body is already oxygen-starved.>protein and fat are converted to sugar if neededThis is slow and cannot keep up with acute muscle demands for fuel, which is why glycogen exists in the first place.
bump
Your question was answered already, no need to bump
>>17067088>What does the randle cycle have to do with my statement? I'm just saying that glycolysis is more oxygen-efficient than β-oxidation.reductive thinking it doesn't matter if it's burned quicker if thanks to the randle cycle it's blocked from entering the cells and stays in the bloodstream damaging tissue like the kidneys
>>17067088>Experimentally, people on high-fat diets have more plaque buildup when their arteries are scanned.reductive thinking no high fat low to no carbs people were tested"high fat diets" could mean anything including high carb high fat, and under the randle cycle it makes sense that if you eat less fat while still having carbohydrates you will have less (nut not no) issuesalsoseed oil fats are completely different from animal fats, as proven by carnivore diet people not burning under their sun since their tissue lipids have been replaced by more stable versions
>>17067088>You don't want to be shuttling around more fatty acids than you need to when your body is already oxygen-starved.why would it be oxygen starved? just breathe and iron takes care of the rest>This is slow and cannot keep up with acute muscle demands for fuel, which is why glycogen exists in the first place.complete and utter nonsense. bodybuilder carnivores existence alone disproves that if the maasai, inuit, and other carnivore groups that obviously have "acute muscle demands for fuel" weren't enough https://m.youtube.com/@CarnivoreMusclePRO
Oh it's one of these carnivore types
>>17069179feel free to discuss the sciencehttps://youtu.be/Grpuf5H0a4whttps://youtu.be/7heML7OwVYg
>>17067088>I'm just saying that glycolysis is more oxygen-efficient than β-oxidation.In a low carb state free fatty acids are available for most tissue and glycerol, lactate and some types of aminos are available for gluconeogenesis, so in a lower insulin state, musculoskeletal tissue is preserved so the high ammonia production and loss of AKG doesn't happen. You can't use diabetic or SAD dieter studies to generalise in every diet.Plus, gluconeogenesis is a hydrolysis enzymatic process in which the Gibbs free energy involved is close to zero, so is not an energy stressor either, while normal glycolysis requires heaps more of Gibbs free energy
>>17069285>in a lower insulin state, musculoskeletal tissue is preserved so the high ammonia production and loss of AKG doesn't happen.Not really what I'm referring to. Glycolysis requires less O2 per ATP molecule produced compared to β-oxidation.>the Gibbs free energy involved is close to zeroYes? But the glucose produced by gluconeogenesis still has to be broken down again later by glycolysis so I don't really see what you're trying to say here...
>>17069179Yes.
>>17066808"Friends of frogs"
Bumping
>>17068845And I even politely responded to your follow-up that made no sense.
>>17066808Is it possible to naturally have green skin?
>>17073509well that was quite nice of your sir, thank you
>>17066808Ugly frog
>>17077007
>>17078367Sad frog
>>17066808It is not as simple as "carb vs protein" because AGEs are not just formed by sugar, they are the result of sugar binding with protein or lipids via glycation. Meat cooked with dry heat that underwent the maillard reaction is going to have a far greater AGE content than something like boiled whole grains. If you are eating highly processed carbs on the other hand, especially ones which are baked in oil, then yes that is going to be very high in AGEs. Roasted nuts are some of the foods with the highest levels of all, and aged cheeses like parmesan have incredibly high counts as well. If you want to reduce AGE intake you need to carefully consider the cooking methods you are using, so instead of cooking with oil and dry heat you should be cooking with water and water vapor instead. You can also marinate meat in lemon juice or vinegar for half an hour to an hour before cooking to further reduce AGE consumption.
>>17066808>why isn't a very low carbohydrates diet the standard?Maybe you should think about how your post would make the investors feel. What would they feed the slaves?
>>17079857
