If the receptor theory is wrong, why do we get tolerance to drugs?
#1
Especially caffeine, it's quite frustrating because when I start it after a long time of abstinence I get very high and euphoric, but after 3 days I feel almost nothing anymore from it.

What do you think about the receptor theory? https://raypeatforum.com/community/threa...tors.3372/
#2
(12-15-2016, 01:03 PM)Arborescence Wrote: Especially caffeine, it's quite frustrating because when I start it after a long time of abstinence I get very high and euphoric, but after 3 days I feel almost nothing anymore from it.

What do you think about the receptor theory? https://raypeatforum.com/community/threa...tors.3372/

I could be off in this, but I see caffeine being more like a toxin or a scary event that happens to you. The liver (and/or kidneys) dumps nutrients into circulation for you to deal with the event and neutralize the threat. When another event happens the next day, or in a few hours, you do not have that same cache of nutrients to call on anymore. This could be where battle fatigue comes from.

I find that when my liver (and/or kidneys) are topped up, it sends a signal as a thirst for coffee. This happens at differing time lengths. Hypothetically, the worst thing one could do is drink coffee or coke "regularly," as your underlying nutrients are not taken in exactly the same each day.
#3
(12-15-2016, 01:03 PM)Arborescence Wrote: Especially caffeine, it's quite frustrating because when I start it after a long time of abstinence I get very high and euphoric, but after 3 days I feel almost nothing anymore from it.

What do you think about the receptor theory? https://raypeatforum.com/community/threa...tors.3372/

How much caffeine or coffee are you drinking? i just keep drinking coffee until I feel high. I don't really measure the amount. Sometimes just a few ounces or so seems to do it, other times I seem to need a quart or more. 

We don't know enough to understand how it works. Receptor theory is just a cultural fabrication of the pharmaceutical industry. It's not that there is no such thing as a receptor, it's just that there are many, many more "receptors" (or kinds of receptors) and conditions on receptors than we know about. The cell and the tissue are regulated in whole not in atomized parts. 

This is where I understand Ray Peat's view on receptors:

Quote:Theories based on “transmitter” substances and “receptors” are favored by the drug industry, but that kind of thinking is hardly better than the belief in demons and their exorcism. If an herbal tea cures depression because the demon doesn’t like its smell, at least the patient never has to abandon a remedy because a tea patent has expired.

In the world of “neurotransmitters” and “receptors,” there is ample room for the development of speculative mechanisms of drug action. Serotonin [for example] is regulated by the rate of its synthesis and degradation, by its uptake, storage, and release, and by its transporters, and its effects are modified by a great variety of receptors, by the number of these receptors, and by their binding affinities and competitive binders. “Different receptors” are defined by the effects of chemicals other than serotonin; this means that serotonin itself hypothetically gains some of the properties of every substance that shows some binding competition with serotonin. This complexity (*note 1) has made it possible to argue that a given condition is caused by either an excess or a deficiency of serotonin.

*Note 1: I don’t want to imply that the receptor theory is wrong just because it allows for the introduction of innumerable experimental artifacts; it is primarily wrong because it is tied to the profoundly irrelevant “membrane theory” of cell regulation.
My avatar: William Blake, Vision of Strength
[img]http://i.imgur.com/7sD2Hod.jpg[/img]
#4
Because the theory is proposed to explain what we know happens, which is tolerance to drug's effects (and of course the drug's effects themselves). Various effects cause tolerance, NMDA receptor activation, Nitric oxide activation, Calmodulin, Delta-FosB etc. That and receptor internalization and desensitization and endocytosis.... Explaining this without receptors is near impossible, and for right now I don't care to theorize about anything else than the receptor theory since it's easiest to understand. I will, however, eventually start more in-depth research about all this stuff. Until then I just regard Ray Peat's opinion on receptors as just that, an opinion.
  


Forum Jump: