Cell Theory as a Central Axiom for Health
Two competing theories at the end of the 19th century - 1. Membrane, and 2. Protoplasmic
As always, this is not medical advice, and reading this does not form a client relationship with me - your health is your responsibility.
Today's newsletter will include an update on my intuitive fat-loss phase and a discussion on part 1, chapter 1 of Dr. Gilbert Ling's "In Search of the Physical Basis of Life."
Intuitive Fat-loss phase end of week four update
On Monday, 24 October, I averaged 113.6lbs. So, I am down another 0.4lbs or 0.35% for week 4. I am glad to see some loss given how packed last week was, including a rehearsal and wedding for my twin brother and a family friend's baby shower. I again will posit the time I spent at maintenance and in a caloric surplus has made this fat-loss phase successful!
Most must complete a prolonged maintenance phase if they have spent the last "x-number" years attempting to lose fat. Many will need to reverse diet before to bring their calories up to a sufficient level such that they are getting the RDAs from food to a zeroeth order approximation. Many ask me why I use "sufficient" vs. giving an actual number. The reason for not giving a "hard number" is that what is sufficient for me may not be for you. Therefore, people must find their own needs via personal experimentation and optimization. With the understanding that conditions are dynamic. I understand delaying a fat-loss phase can be difficult for many, especially psychologically, given our conditioning to be thin or "toned." However, usually what most women are referencing with the "toned" look is having sufficient muscle. Without that muscle, a fat-loss phase will typically result in a "skinny-fat" look.
A significant issue with the "skinny-fat" physiology depends on how catabolic you were before starting your fat-loss phase; you will have lost even more muscle. Then many gain back a lot of fat, not muscle, when coming off a diet - especially if they had to diet on low calories. Then they go into another fat-loss phase to get rid of the fat they put back on, leading to more muscle loss. And the cycle repeats - we are spinning our wheels.
I used to do this too, and instead of looking how I wanted to, I progressively increased my fat mass and decreased my muscle mass. Then I was in and out of recurring rhabdomyolysis and rapidly lost a lot of muscle. Building that muscle requires that the overall anabolic : catabolic environment be greater. Of course, there is always some level of anabolism and catabolism occurring in the body. That is why the overall ratio between the two is essential. A good gauge of a positive anabolic : catabolic environment is when one's biofeedback markers are all in the green. How long it takes to get the biofeedback markers in green will depend on how many are currently in the red. However, after working with many, 6 -9 mos are usually needed - many may build some muscle and lose fat mass along the way. From there, the body seems primed to build muscle - especially in an "untrained" individual. Six months to two years may seem like a long time, but if you have been in this cycle for the last 20+ years, imagine where you would be if you committed to something similar for some time. Spending time on maintenance also applies to men - their different hormone ratios can protect them more from muscle loss. However, I think we also see men's "protective edge" is failing in many.
Going into week five, I am dropping another 45min zone 2 cardio day so that I will be down to two per week! I have been able to increase the weight I use following Paul's programming each week, so that has been a huge plus! Usually, in a fat-loss phase, one tries to maintain the weight lifted. I cannot say enough how straightforward this process has been.
Next week's substack will include my plan for coming out of this fat-loss phase.
Part 1: Opposing Concepts in Cell Physiology: History and Background
"Both the biologist and the crossword solver need to keep constantly in mind the past history and current state of the 'whole map,' to erase ideas once considered attractive and reasonable but now proven untenable, and to replace them with better ones more compatible with the big picture." - Dr. Gilbert Ling.
I have briefly mentioned Dr. Gilbert Ling's work in my other substacks. Unfortunately, many find his work too "scientific" - too many plots, equations, terminology, etc. Because of this, many turn to Dr. Gerald Pollack's work as a more "layman" introduction. This is not to belittle Dr. Pollack's work, as he has done a significant service refining and extending Drs. Gilbert Ling, A.S. Troshin, Mae-Wan Ho, and other researchers' work. My plan with these next Substacks is to make Dr. Ling's work more accessible to you all.
Dr. Ling's 1984 "In Search of the Physical Basis of Life" has been a foundational book in guiding my approach to health. I have noted how his book removed the "collective weight of the health world off my shoulders" - as his quote describes above, my "map" was remarkably refined and focused. With every reading, I learn more and feel more at ease about how to best view and affect health. My reduction in stress surrounding health is because, before reading, my body exhibited all of these seemingly disconnected things that were beginning to "fail." The book gave me a firm anchor I could trace back to elicit the most beneficial change. I hope to share this view and the collective ease with you over the following months. I will also continue to discuss more topics that appear to be outside of the book. However, when it comes to issues in health, the ideas put forth by Ling, Troshin, Szent-Gyorgyi, etc., have become my "starting point."
As an aside, before we begin. Many reference Dr. Ling et al.’s work and evoke quantum mechanics, etc. I do not think this is consistent as even Dr. Ling remarks:
“[T]he physicists James and Coolidge in 1933 used very elaborate wave-mechanical methods to predict almost exactly the properties of hydrogen molecules. It seemed that all of chemistry could be completely understood in terms of physics. But only in principle. The reality is that after another fifty years, one still cannot use wave-mechanical or other sophisticated methods to predict correctly even the prominent differences between the acid dissociation constants of the simple organic compound acetic acid (pKa = 4.76) and its derivative trichloroacetic acid (PKa < 1). Instead, less elegant methods, first entirely empirical ones and later deductive ones (see Section 6.3), were developed by chemists to provide very useful ways of predicting the behavior of many organic chemical compounds. Undoubtedly, biologists also must evolve their own special branch and vocabulary of physics. Yet they must do so within the confines of the basic language of physical laws”.
As such, I caution following the work of those who claim to understand Ling, structured water, etc., when they group these theories with claims about quantum mechanics. When it comes to quantum mechanics, most of these people are not able to describe things like the “double-slit experiment”, which also brings into question their understanding of quantum theory and experiments. I am not claiming quantum mechanics is without error as the deBroglie-Bohm pilot wave theory and somewhat recent experimental results with silicon droplets (hydrodynamic quantum field theory - things do not seem to be as “random” as once thought) elucidate. All that to say, quantum mechanical theory is defined in specific ways. As such, using terms from the theory to advance oneself is disingenuous, and most do not use the terms how the theory describes them. [\end rant… for now]
Chapter 1: The Early History of Cell Physiology
1. Many assume we have known about the axioms central to modern health for a long time.
The 1600s: advancements in physiology and biology due to the light/ optical microscope. Different lenses were used prior.
1830s: the cell theory - cells are the basic units of life held together via simple adhesion forces. * This idea used maceration techniques, which does raise many questions *. Before the cell theory, cells were considered "inseparably bound in sheets of tissues."
1835: the "protoplasm." - when removed, the protoplasm did not mix with water but, over time, "leaves only a faint irregular residue." * The description of a "faint irregular residue" is how I see hormones and neurotransmitters - a marker of what "was." More on this later. * The protoplasm includes the cytoplasm, organelles, and nucleus.
1861: colloids diffuse slowly; crystalloids diffuse rapidly.
1877: the plasma membrane theory was proposed due to "the resistance of diffusion of sugars and salts." There were prior proposed theories that included a membrane encasing a simple solution. However, the plasma membrane theory included the dependence "on the size of the permeating molecule relative to the size of the membrane pores, but also on the solubility of the molecule in the membrane material."
2. The end of the nineteenth century (so the 1800s...) saw two emerging theories:
a. The first centered around colloidal chemistry, named the protoplasm doctrine.
b. The second was a membrane-osmotic theory, where inside the membrane, the cell water and solutes, like K+ (potassium), "exist in a physical state like that of the dilute aqueous solution of their environment."
"In the membrane theory, the cell interior is regarded as merely a dilute solution and it is a microscopically thin membrane that sets the cell interior apart from the external environment. In what may be called the protoplasmic or bulk phase theory of the living cell, the entire cell substance, the protoplasm, has unusual properties owing to its colloidal attributes, and it is the nature of this protoplasm that keeps the cell apart from its environment."
At the conclusion of chapter one, you may wonder what cell theory has to do with your “z-symptom.” I hope you will continue to come back every week to see the story unfold into an alternative view of why your symptoms exhibit themselves as they do and how to go about addressing your health.
Please comment below if you have read any of Dr. Ling’s work or if you have any questions about chapter one!
The following are definitions based on how I think Ling is using the words:
Adhesion forces: when things cling to one another
Aqueous: contains water, usually as the solvent
Axioms: a universally recognized truth
Colloids: larger suspended particles, unlike a solution; light/ optical microscopes can see the particles
Crystalloids: like salt and sugar
Cytoplasm: everything in the living cell minus the nucleus
Diffuse: moves from a region of higher to lower concentration
Dilute: add more solvent
Dissolved: solute goes into a solution
Maceration: different techniques used to break things down
Microscope: here, an optical instrument used to see smaller things; light microscopes use lenses and light
Molecule: something like glucose, fatty acids, Na+, etc.
Nucleus: contains the nuclear DNA that proteins are made from
Organelles: structures in a living cell
Permeate: to pass through
Physiology: the biological function of living organisms and their parts
Plasma membrane: material that separates the intracellular space from the extracellular
Pores: a hole
Protoplasm: the cytoplasm + nucleus
Solubility: dissolving ability
Solution: a homogenous mixture that contains a solvent and solute. Its properties resemble the solvent because it makes up most of the solution. However, light/ optical microscopes cannot see the particles.
Solute: like dissolving NaCl (salt) in water (solvent)
Solvent: dissolving a solute in