Yup. It does. I just needed someone to give me a jumpstart. Thanks
guys. Here's another thought - keep in mind that I understand the
need for the rats to be homogenius -- but given that people for the
most part come from many different lines (Male, female, different
races etc) I wonder if they have different branches in the rats'
family trees for comparison purposes. Or do they start from ground
zero and the variants are environmentally created. Just musing. I'm
not a simpleton. I just play one on the internet.

On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 12:29:44 -0800, "Cheri" <gserviceatinreachdotcom>
wrote:

>I didn't know that, but it makes sense.
>
>Cheri
>
>
>Alice Faber wrote in message ...
>>In article >,
>> Priscilla Ballou > wrote:
>>
>>> In article >,
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> > On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 11:48:11 -0500, Susan >
>>> > wrote:
>>> >
>>> > >x-no-achive: yes
>>> > >
>>> > >Alan Moorman wrote:
>>> > >
>>> > >> And, there is a question about this:
>>> > >>
>>> > >> is a fast, high spike which comes and goes quickly better or
>>> > >> worse for you than...
>>> > >>
>>> > >> a long, slow rise in your bG?
>>> > >>
>>> > >> Does ANYONE really know if 45 minutes of high is worse for
>>> > >> you than 3 hours of medium?
>>> > >>
>>> > >> I doubt it.
>>> > >>
>>> > >> Someone, undoubtedly will respond saying something like: "It
>>> > >> stands to reason that......"
>>> > >>
>>> > >> Or: "Common sense says.........."
>>> > >>
>>> > >> But, has ANYONE ever researched this?????
>>> > >>
>>> > >>
>>> > >> Alan Moorman
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > > From phlaunt.com/diabetes
>>> > >
>>> > >Prolonged Exposure to Blood Sugars Over 140 mg/dl (7.8 mmol/L)
>Kills
>>> > >Human Beta Cells
>>> > >Another series of experiments on beta cells grown in culture
>showed that
>>> > >there is a threshold over which the damage to beta cells caused by
>>> > >exposure to elevated blood sugars becomes irreversible. It found
>that
>>> > >amount of damage cells sustained in genes that produced insulin
>depended
>>> > >on the concentration of glucose they were exposed to. The effect
>was
>>> > >continuous, not a threshold effect--meaning that the more glucose
>the
>>> > >cell was grown in, the more function it lost.
>>> > >
>>> > >In a second experiment, the same researchers took cells damaged by
>>> > >exposure to high blood sugars and moved them to media that had a
>lower
>>> > >concentration of blood sugar. They found the cells could survive
>and
>>> > >recover after being moved to a growth medium containing a much
>lower
>>> > >concentration of glucose, but only if the switch was made before a
>>> > >certain amount of time had passed. Once the cells had been exposed
>to
>>> > >glucose for that fatal time period, they could no longer be
>revived.
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > >In an email to me, R. Paul Robertson, one of authors of this study
>>> > >wrote, "I think the glucose toxic effects begin when blood glucose
>gets
>>> > >above 140 and probably earlier." However, he also explained that
>while
>>> > >studies with diabetic rats could better quantify the blood sugar
>levels
>>> > >at which this irreversible damage occurs, these rats cost $200
>apiece
>>> > >and a lot of rats would be required. So such a project is not
>planned
>>> > >for any time soon.
>>> >
>>> > $200 Lab Rats? Are they getting these creatures from the same
>>> > supplier the US Govt uses to procure toilet seats? Yipes. In all
>>> > seriousness. Why would a lab rat cost so much? Someone please
>>> > educate me on this one.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > <snip - see original post for credits>
>>>
>>> They're probably carefully bred so their genetic makeup doesn't cause
>>> erroneous results in studies.
>>>
>>
>>Exactly. There are specific lines. And it's important for such a study
>>that all of the lab rats be of the same line.
>>
>>--
>>AF
>>"Non Sequitur U has a really, really lousy debate team."
>> --artyw raises the bar on rec.sport.baseball
>