Posted by Larry Hoover on April 14, 2007, at 13:08:06
In reply to Re: Is phenylethylamine neurotoxic? » Larry Hoover, posted by falconman on April 14, 2007, at 11:11:49
> Obviously between individuals there are huge variables to consider; but within one individuals bio-chemical environment, are you suggesting that the length of time that a med stays effective is directly proportional to the amount it structurally differs (on a molecular level) to the particular endogenous chemical that it resembles or that it is linked to in some way?
No, nothing like that. If the change is in a single atom, it can make a bioactive substance resistant to breakdown, for example, substantially increasing its activity. In contrast, some drugs have powerful effects that we simply cannot yet relate to structure, as they differ so much from the natural substance that they somehow mimic that we see no relationship whatsoever. There are structure/property relationships that we can predict, but there are some properties that we cannot yet relate to structure despite substantial efforts. And I meant this time-dependency thing to be a population variable; a statistic.
For an individual, a drug poops out or it doesn't, and it does so one time only. It's a binary system, with an observable state. Populations, on the other hand, exhibit incidence rates.
Foreign-ness I meant in a vague way. We've created chemicals not seen in nature. We also use chemicals as drugs which are rarely seen in food, but can be found in nature.
> If it is structurally very similar (or evan identical as in the case of some steroids for example) its effects are likely to be more prolonged than if its 'more foreign', and in this case feedback mechanisms/receptor alterations are brought into play much more rapidly?
Steroid drugs can cross the line in my definition, just like I mentioned for niacin, as both are endogenous. Dose/intent then becomes the issue, not the substance per se.
Hormones (or essential nutrients) at physiological doses (i.e. within normal range for a healthy person) would normalize feedback, in turn. The further from physiological one pushes the dose, the greater the feedback resistance. Of course, we can totally overwhelm the body's capacity to regulate a system via feedback, which would bring the *use* more in line with my definition of drug.
> I'm sure there are no hard fast rules for any of this. There's probably a different set of rules for different endogenous chemicals, which are dependant upon the unique 'mechanical systems' that they are a part of.
Getting back to phenylethylamine/phenylalanine, that's why I first raised the issue of discontinuous use, because the rules of that system would work against continuing efficacy from chronic supplementation. An individual might find phenylethylamine to be neurotoxic, despite population evidence that it is not. Both can be true, at the same time. Neither one invalidates the other.
One could argue that one might have phenylethylamine deficiency, from deficiency of the precursor. Or, phenylethylamine resistance, resulting from adaptive responses to normal amounts of PEA. I consider the argument moot, if the point is to feel the difference from ingesting some phenylalanine. I purposely sidestep considering what is "normal", in the first place. Normal, too, is arbitrary, and depends on all kinds of assumptions.
> I'm going round in circles now, probably the beer.
What circles? There are conditions upon which a statement holds true, and others upon which it is false. Questioning the conditions of the argument is precisely what is required to comprehend the nuances of meaning.
> Man utd vs Watford FA cup semi-final on its way. Don't feel you have to reply I just find this exremely interesting.
> CheersI hope you enjoy the game, with or without exogenous phenylalanine. Exogenous ethanol already in good supply... ;-)
Lar
poster:Larry Hoover
thread:749466
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20070413/msgs/749789.html