iwant2know

Sorry, poor wording again. One of the claims of sellers of L-arginine (and ultimately nitric oxide) is that it speeds up recovery time post-workout, thereby allowing you to workout more often. The claim the mechanism is the vasodilation. My question assumes the first is plausible/true (let's pretend it is for argument sake). The question is whether or not vasoconstriction from a drug like caffeine in any way limits recovery time after an intense workout. I hope that makes mose sense. Again sorry for improper wording. Laymen can be lame men sometimes.

Interesting. That's the kind of information I'm seeking. Thank you for a straight forward answer (and citing sources!) How about the effects of vasoconstrictors such as caffiene on exercise? I've read that the adrenal response from caffiene produces moderate performance enhancement during exercise (http://link.springer.com/article/10.2165%2F11536870-000000000-00000, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21411838). However are there any studies on how caffiene affects recovery after exercise? Thanks again for the help!

.....I'm not sure where you're getting that. Yes I know L-Arginine is not NO. At no point was that something I was trying to assert. Perhaps I worded it wrong. I'll own that. I'm a lay-person on this subject, which is why I came here. I'm not looking for snarky responses. Let's just be cool, okay? Let me reiterate what I want to know: What I am curious to know is how does the introduction of a vasoconstrictor like caffiene (standard household dosage from coffee) affect the vasodilation effect from nitric oxide.

Right, I do get that regarding NO==gas. I'm not meaning inhibit whether or not it can inhibit NO production. I mean can coffee/tea/pop/etc... inhibit NO's vasodilation effects? This is even more of interest since I trust you when you say the rate of NO production is "not huge". Would the presence of a vasoconstrictor like caffiene prevent NO from it's vasodilation? Have there been any studies performed?

I'm interested in supplementing my fitness with L-Argenine (nitric oxide). I've done a little reading (Oh wow look...an uninformed lay person who has read "a little bit" on a topic) about how nitric oxide is a vasodilator, which lends to its effectiveness. What I wonder though is how effective NO is when there is presence of a vasoconstrictor, such as caffiene in the sysm. Does consuming caffiene inhibit nitric oxide's effectiveness?

I am one of many Americans with a few extra pounds here and there (actually more than a few). I read recently that insulin (that which is naturally produced by the pancreas) inhibits the use of fat as an energy source. This causes our bodies to store fat rather than metabolize it. I wanted to know if there have been any studies on the average length of time insulin is in the body. Let's assume this is for non-diabetic human males. Does anyone know the answer, or know of any such studies regarding this issue? Thanks.

As I recall back from my high school health and biology classes, the human body produces insulin in order to regulate glucose. However I read recently that insulin stops the use of fat as an energy source. I was amazed by this information. I used to consume copious amounts of sugary (high fructose corn syrup actually) drinks. Since reading this I have cut back drastically. I want to know more about this. Are there any data showing how long it takes (in non-diabetic individuals) for insulin to lower back to the "fat burning level"? For example, if I consume a 12oz can of Coca Cola, how long will it take for the anti-fat burning effects to wear off?

Well, do we really feel pain, or is it simply our brains processing damage detection/hazard avoidance?

All very interesting theories/opinions. You've definitely given me things to think about. When I referred to myself as "less than ideal" I was only doing that so as to "make fun of myself" like how a fat comedian would. Of course what I really am referring to is the eugenics experiments in WW2 (good catch Edtharan!!) Of course "social darwinism" like that has happened many times in the past. It will be interesting for sociologists and psychologists to examine the new people group that is created once we finally have the first confirmed human clone.

This brings about the metaphysical question of "what is emotion?" I've heard scientists refer to emotion as nothing more than a reaction to stimuli. In other words, we laugh at a funny joke as a means of processing the data. We cry at the funeral of a loved one because that's how we process that sort of data. Now I'm not entirely sure that's how I see emotions, but you gotta admit it's an interesting perspective. EDIT: I suppose "means" isn't the right word. I meant to say that we emote externally what is being processed internally.

Let me start out by saying that I recognize these are rather controversial questions. By me asking these questions, please do not assume that I believe in/condone this sort of thinking. I am merely asking scientific questions. Taking Herbert Spencer's theory regarding survival of the fittest and Charles Darwin's theory on natural selection, we see how animals select ideal mates through which to propagate their offspring. It follows that animals that are not ideal have a greater difficulty finding a mate. It is similar as well to how stronger specimens will commonly dominate territory, food chain, mates, etc.... Humans behave differently though. Humans take care of the weaker specimens and shape the environment to suit them (a.k.a. wheelchair ramps, hand rails, special education classes, treating physical and mental illness with medication, etc...). For now let's please not have any political/moral/ethical replies. My questions are: 1. Are there any species other than humans that behave in this way? (assisting the weaker/less-ideal specimens, catering mating with less than ideal mates, etc...) 2. Are we ultimately dooming our own evolution by keeping unfavorable genetics in circulation? (Let us assume myself as "genetically unfavorable". I'm 5'8", 200 lbs, not athletic, and not exceptional at anything. I'm about as average as they come. My family has a history of breast cancer, heart disease, and Asperger syndrome).

By no means. In fact what I said was My personal preference is Windows XP running on an IBM compatible computer. I personally (there's that word again) feel that Macintosh is of no valid use other than providing economic competition to Microsoft. Apple is the Yin to the otherwise exponentially more powerful/efficient/economically sound/etc... Yang that is Microsoft. However, with my opinion stated, people may use whatever they prefer. Being outnumbered by my siblings in the Windows vs. Macintosh debate (I'm the only one that uses Windows) I tend to keep my opinions to myself at family gatherings. Furthermore I don't mind supporting Mac from an IT perspective. It helps to keep me sharp.

I often laugh at people that say "oh Macs are better for graphical art, 3D rendering, etc.... Now before I spark a mindless debate over what's better, Mac or "PC" (which in itself is a fallacy because Apple computers are personal computer, a.k.a. "PCs") let me explain where I'm going with this. My point is that the function of whatever you're doing is only as good as the software powering it. One of the big selling points for Macintosh is that it comes with all sorts of software already installed. Of course you and I know that this is basic software like office suite stuff, email, browser, a few games, and whatever else. However anymore it's hard to get a Windows platform machine without the same deal. Even if you need to pay for a license of MS Office, there are excellent alternatives online that are either open source or freeware (Open Office and Google Documents to name a couple). I personally prefer Open Office to MS Office any day, but that's just me. Furthermore if you want to get into specific things like 3D graphics and animation, that software doesn't automatically come on a Macintosh. If I wanted to get into high end 3D rendering and animation I'd look to purchasing licenses for Lightwave and/or Maya. Since the software is available for both Mac and Windows, then it's pretty much the same thing. The interfaces are pretty much the same (from what I am guessing at least. I'm not into 3D rendering and stuff) and how efficiently it processes is based on the available hardware. Now if I wanted to make a full length feature film with 3D rendered graphics, I'd invest in a computer that is specifically designed and optimized for that purpose. Why? Because PCs (including Macintosh. See my definition above) are hybrid technologies. Hybrid technologies, though making things convenient, often end up becoming lesser quality machines (see the airplane car below for example) Sure this vehicle may be able to get you around all those suckers stuck in traffic on the freeway, but it lacks the fuel economy and horsepower of a regular car, and it lacks the speed and maneuverability of an airplane. The end result becomes a vehicle that is not particularly good at being either a car or an airplane. If you want to go on a vacation your money is better spent on airfare and renting a car at your flight destination. Truth is that Windows & Macintosh can do the same stuff. I see no reason for someone to switch from a Windows platform to a Macintosh, or visa versa. Computers are computers, and the wise IT support staff should be acquainted with both. Just use what you love.

Well at least in the United States it's anyone and everyone who has something to gain from such rhetoric (politicians in the upcoming elections, automobile manufacturers, the organic food industry, etc...). That's why I came here. I'm not interested in the politics or the rhetoric. I just want the simple (or not so simple) scientific facts. If the fact of the matter happened to be "We don't know" then that at least is still a fact. I'm so sick and tired of the fallacies used by people on both sides of the argument. I personally think comments like "global warming doesn't exist" or "humans have no role in the rise of global temperatures" are useless without a sound scientific basis. This discussion has been most enlightening for me.

Arguments aside, thank you all for the data. That is what I was wanting to see. As for water vapor I've never heard anyone support the claim that it causes warming. If anything shouldn't it act as a sort of cooling agent? Maybe I'm all off base there, so I apologize. Not too long ago I had also heard that the Sun has been producing excess "solar activity." Now what that means I'm not entirely sure. However it seems to me that extra solar activity would surely be a cause of global warming (since it's what makes us warm in the first place). Has there been any data to suggest this?