Maternal Glucose Level And Male Blastocysts (Chances Of Having A Boy)

Joined
Apr 5, 2018
Messages
88
"In their original paper, Trivers and Willard were not yet aware of the biochemical mechanism for the occurrence of biased sex ratios. Eventually, however, Melissa Larson et al. (2001)[3] proposed that a high level of circulating glucose in the mother's bloodstream may favor the survival of male blastocysts. This conclusion is based on the observed male-skewed survival rates (to expanded blastocyst stages) when bovine blastocysts were exposed to heightened levels of glucose. As blood glucose levels are highly correlated with access to high-quality food,[4] blood glucose level may serve as a proxy for "maternal condition"


Sexual dimorphism among bovine embryos in their ability to make the transition to expanded blastocyst and in the expression of the signaling molecule IFN-τ

"Sexual dimorphism among bovine embryos in their ability to make the transition to expanded blastocyst and in the expression of the signaling molecule IFN-τ"

"However, in either tissue culture medium 199, which contains 5.5 mM d-glucose, or in synthetic oviductal fluid, in the presence but not in the absence of added glucose, significantly fewer female than male embryos were able to progress from the morula/early blastocyst stage to more advanced stages of development. It is possible that the differences between male and female embryos both in their production of IFN-τ and in their ability to progress in development in glucose-rich media are manifestations of phenomena that occur in vivo and provide plasticity in embryo selection during early pregnancy."


Reminds me of this:
RAY PEAT: Obstetricians, as recently as old people that I knew, old doctors in the 1970’s were still aware of the fact that their so-called diabetic mothers very often had extremely precocious babies. I talked to one woman who was told to go on a reducing diet because of her previous pregnancies. She had had very high blood sugar, and I asked her how that baby had turned out. She said, "Oh, he taught himself to read when he was two years old. When he was four he was already wearing adult hat sizes”, which is basically an extension of what Zamenhof demonstrated with chicken embryo development. Sugar is the limiting factor, usually, in brain development. In the 1970’s, doctors were looking for new diseases to treat, and diabetes was extended to include the very completely new concept of gestational diabetes. And where a 130 blood sugar had been considered very healthy for a pregnant woman, they now wanted to restrain the level of blood sugar during pregnancy. And they started calling it a disease. “gestational diabetes”, that really was just a healthy pregnancy in most cases.

So the secret to having prodigal sons, and lots of them, is to make sure your wife has plenty of sugar? :D


 

haidut

Member
Forum Supporter
Joined
Mar 18, 2013
Messages
19,798
Location
USA / Europe
So the secret to having prodigal sons, and lots of them, is to make sure your wife has plenty of sugar?

...and have you wife take niacinamide, as it is not only the availability of glucose in the blood but its entry into the cell and metabolism, which also depends on potassium. So, copious amounts of orange juice may cover all angles.
Other things that have been found to increase chance of male fetus are aspirin, DHEA, and having intercourse as soon as ovulation starts.
Thanks for this, great study.
 

Aymen

Member
Joined
Jul 18, 2017
Messages
596
Location
Tunisia
Boy Or Girl? It's In The Father's Genes

Summary:
A study of hundreds of years of family trees suggests a man's genes play a role in him having sons or daughters. Men inherit a tendency to have more sons or more daughters from their parents. This means that a man with many brothers is more likely to have sons, while a man with many sisters is more likely to have daughters.

your thoughts ?
 

burtlancast

Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2013
Messages
3,263
RAY PEAT: Obstetricians, as recently as old people that I knew, old doctors in the 1970’s were still aware of the fact that their so-called diabetic mothers very often had extremely precocious babies. I talked to one woman who was told to go on a reducing diet because of her previous pregnancies. She had had very high blood sugar, and I asked her how that baby had turned out. She said, "Oh, he taught himself to read when he was two years old. When he was four he was already wearing adult hat sizes”, which is basically an extension of what Zamenhof demonstrated with chicken embryo development. Sugar is the limiting factor, usually, in brain development. In the 1970’s, doctors were looking for new diseases to treat, and diabetes was extended to include the very completely new concept of gestational diabetes. And where a 130 blood sugar had been considered very healthy for a pregnant woman, they now wanted to restrain the level of blood sugar during pregnancy. And they started calling it a disease. “gestational diabetes”, that really was just a healthy pregnancy in most cases.


Except high blood sugar is associated with major congenital malformations, especially in long standing diabetic mothers.

Not everything as rosy Ray likes to portray.


So the secret to having prodigal sons, and lots of them, is to make sure your wife has plenty of sugar? :D

And plenty of Vitamin D.

 
Joined
Feb 1, 2016
Messages
384
Location
NY
Except high blood sugar is associated with major congenital malformations, especially in long standing diabetic mothers.

Not everything as rosy Ray likes to portray.

And plenty of Vitamin D.
...A slightly increased risk of major congenital malformations, plus that is only in mothers diagnosed with gestational diabetes, the treatment for the diabetes could just as well be the cause of the malformations. I would say ingesting sugar should be considerably safer than ingesting exogenous hormones, whether insulin or "vitamin" D.
 

burtlancast

Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2013
Messages
3,263
...A slightly increased risk of major congenital malformations, plus that is only in mothers diagnosed with gestational diabetes, the treatment for the diabetes could just as well be the cause of the malformations.

"An association between diabetes mellitus in women and congenital malformations in their offspring has been suspected since the nineteenth century. In 1885, LeCorché reported two infants of diabetic mothers with hydrocephalus."
Malformations in Infants of Diabetic Mothers


I would say ingesting sugar should be considerably safer than ingesting exogenous hormones, whether insulin or "vitamin" D.

Yep.

"We didn't see a single adverse effect (at 4000 UI supplementation). It was absolutely safe, and we saw a lot of improved outcomes. The risk of preterm labor was vastly decreased and so was the risk of other complications of pregnancy."
Study: Pregnant women should get more vitamin D - CNN.com
 

rei

Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2017
Messages
1,607
And where a 130 blood sugar had been considered very healthy for a pregnant woman, they now wanted to restrain the level of blood sugar during pregnancy.

This is exactly the kind of thinking that surrounds modern diabetes treatment and prevention. Somehow people have convinced themselves that transient hyperglycemia is bad and strive for the body to maximally freak out and produce copious amounts of insulin in response to detecting carbs to prevent it from happening. Even when that is the definition of hyperinsulinemia. A sign that the body is unable to utilize the carbs passively and must use force to drive it into insulin sensitive cells. This results in insulin sensitive cells becoming overworked/resistant and decreasing their insulin sensitivity = insulin resistance. And then when patient comes back the doctor starts to wonder why their fasting blood glucose has started to rise. When the answer is simply that due to the constant insulin spikes the insulin receptors downregulate, the liver does not "see" the insulin and thus fasting blood glucose starts rising. At this point most doctors put you on insulin injections which is a slow death sentence.

So the known ill health effects of high fasting blood glucose have without any evidence been extrapolated to militaristic glucose control at all times. When the truth is that every glucose molecule utilized without insulin goes to strengthening the organism while one utilized using insulin goes towards draining the organism from some energy in an effort to putting on fat for the winter.
 

Lyall

Member
Joined
Jan 11, 2017
Messages
52
Location
Sigil
And where a 130 blood sugar had been considered very healthy for a pregnant woman, they now wanted to restrain the level of blood sugar during pregnancy.

This is exactly the kind of thinking that surrounds modern diabetes treatment and prevention. Somehow people have convinced themselves that transient hyperglycemia is bad and strive for the body to maximally freak out and produce copious amounts of insulin in response to detecting carbs to prevent it from happening. Even when that is the definition of hyperinsulinemia. A sign that the body is unable to utilize the carbs passively and must use force to drive it into insulin sensitive cells. This results in insulin sensitive cells becoming overworked/resistant and decreasing their insulin sensitivity = insulin resistance. And then when patient comes back the doctor starts to wonder why their fasting blood glucose has started to rise. When the answer is simply that due to the constant insulin spikes the insulin receptors downregulate, the liver does not "see" the insulin and thus fasting blood glucose starts rising. At this point most doctors put you on insulin injections which is a slow death sentence.

So the known ill health effects of high fasting blood glucose have without any evidence been extrapolated to militaristic glucose control at all times. When the truth is that every glucose molecule utilized without insulin goes to strengthening the organism while one utilized using insulin goes towards draining the organism from some energy in an effort to putting on fat for the winter.
How would the body utilize carbs...passively?
 

rei

Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2017
Messages
1,607
Continuously in all cells. Without insulin. Transient hyperglycemia is a signal to the cell of abundant energy, causing them to ramp up their metabolism. If this continues too long (high fasting glucose) the cell becomes overworked, stops following the signal to protect itself.
 

Yggr

Member
Joined
Jun 16, 2016
Messages
64
Am I correct in assuming then that would require a very tight knowledge on how many carbs you’re eating per meal or how many carbs you can tolerate per meal? As I understand things any carbohydrate load barring incredibly small ones would increase glycemia.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom