This archived forum used to be called 'Peatarian' (in reference to Ray Peat).

Journal club: Reducing cellular glucose uptake promotes vascular dysfunction and neurodegeneration in mouse model

GLUT1 reductions exacerbate Alzheimer's disease vasculo-neuronal dysfunction and degeneration
Nature Neuroscience (2015)
Published online 02 March 2015

Of note, David Perlmutter, who promotes the idea that grains & carbohydrates cause Alzheimers, is on the author list. Seems like he is open to new ideas and avenues.

asked Mar 3, 2015 by Bukowski

1 Answer

The Glut1 receptor/transport channel is a fiction of chemiosmotics, that serves the profit-seeking of pharma companies looking to exploit this fiction with lucrative patents.

Frequent sips of pulp-free juice made from ripe oranges should work just as well, with urea, magnesium bicarbonate and sodium chloride, and electron-withdrawing nutrients to reduce the brain edema, and regenerate the brain tissue.

answered Mar 3, 2015 by visionofstrength

There is a great abundance of studies on the effects of glucose transporters and other membrane transport proteins and ion channels, from knockout, knockdown, gene-transfer and pharmacologic studies. They all show the same picture and that is, that these proteins are relevant and important for membrane transport, electrical conduction and cell function. These are real results, not fiction. The Ling hypothesis on the other hand seems more like fiction to me, given the utter lack of both supporting and explaining evidence.

I also dont think its helpful mixing this with any supposed corporate or commercial interests to bring down the point. I can imagine numerous concepts how the Ling hypothesis could be exploited commercially, just like it is done today with several other alternative health hypotheses (homeopathy, herbal medicine, asian medicine, obscure diets, etc.).

This more seems like a question of popularity and public demand to me. Where there is demand, supply will eventually develop to fill it. Commercialism just makes sure that the demand is reinforced and stimulated with marketing and other methods to keep the cycle going.

I would bet that scientists like Gilbert Ling and Harold Hillman as well as mainstream cell biologists would agree that glut1 is a protein which exists and is involved in the entry of glucose into the cell's cytoplasm (due to some of the experiments Bukowski alludes to above). I think the disagreement, I would guess, would be over whether glut1 is a "transporter" or if it's involved, directly or otherwise, with the adsorption of glucose to intercellular binding sites (this seems to be the basic Ling/Hillman model). However, such a disagree seems somewhat irrelevant to the conclusions of the study in question. Just my opinion anyway.

CB, could you do me a favor and look at I've been through it and I can't find a flaw in it. But I'd like to know what you think if you have some free time?

ms, I don't have access to the whole study that CB points to, but from what I see in the abstract, the reasoning is full of assumptions about how cell physiology works, which Ling has refuted. For example, the article suggests that the passage of glucose through the plasma membrane is, inherently, the rate limiting step in the use of glucose [as others also have, Roden, 2004].)

As Andrew Kim has taken the time to describe,, there are a few issues with this scheme.

For one, in the absence of insulin, glucose freely passes through the plasma membrane and into the cell’s cytoplasm, such that at equilibrium, the glucose concentration inside the cell is 20 to 30 percent of the glucose concentration in the blood (Randle & Smith, 1958a, 1958b). Two, the evidence that there’s a defect of sorts in the glucose transporters in diabetes is conspicuously sparse. And three, glycogen tends to accumulate in insulin resistant tissues, indicating a block on glucose use downstream of the glucose phosphorylation step upon arrival into the cell by way of the previously mentioned glucose transporters (Sakamoto & Holman, 2008).

As Ling himself suggests, at, there cannot be real progress in the sciences until we have an understanding of the underlying physics of cell physiology. The MRI, for example, never would have been invented had it not been for Ling's (and Damadian's) association-induction hypothesis.

CB, to your point about exploitation by pharma companies. Their entire asset base of pharma patents is built on the quicksand of chemiosmotics. When chemiosmotics falls, all those patents fall.

Pharma companies would have no interest in starting over again with new fields of patents, even if they could, based on open source molecules that have prior art going back thousands of years.

Thanks Vos, yes I should do that in more detail.

@ms, I'd be interested in your views of the science at, too?

Ling summarizes all criticisms known at the time and their rebuttal here:

I am just commenting for any/all updates on this thread. :-)