WashPost Article on Strength Training

JMW <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

He's just blowing smoke. There's no pat answer. However, Tipton

and

Quoted message said:

Wolfe did a nice review in the January 2004 issue of Journal of

Sports

Quoted message said:

Sciences, which started with Lemon's 1991 review article and
progressed from there. Basically, their conclusion was what I have
been saying for quite a while:

[1] "[T]here are few convincing outcome data to indicate that the
ingestion of a high amount of protein (2-3 g/kg/day) is necessary."

[2] "Acute studies suggest that for any given amount of protein, the
metabolic response is dependent on other factors, including the

timing

Quoted message said:

of ingestion in relation to exercise and/or other nutrients, the
composition of ingested amino acids and the type of protein."

Tipton KD, Wolfe RR. Protein and amino acids for athletes. J Sports
Sci. 2004 Jan;22(1):65-79.

FWIW the full text is available as a requestable sample here:
http://journalsonline.tandf.co.uk/link.asp?id=lu8lp24f50t78u3c

Matthew

AT said:

JMW <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

He's just blowing smoke. There's no pat answer. However, Tipton

and

Quoted message said:

Wolfe did a nice review in the January 2004 issue of Journal of

Sports

Quoted message said:

Sciences, which started with Lemon's 1991 review article and
progressed from there. Basically, their conclusion was what I have
been saying for quite a while:

[1] "[T]here are few convincing outcome data to indicate that the
ingestion of a high amount of protein (2-3 g/kg/day) is necessary."

[2] "Acute studies suggest that for any given amount of protein, the
metabolic response is dependent on other factors, including the
timing
of ingestion in relation to exercise and/or other nutrients, the
composition of ingested amino acids and the type of protein."

Tipton KD, Wolfe RR. Protein and amino acids for athletes. J Sports
Sci. 2004 Jan;22(1):65-79.

FWIW the full text is available as a requestable sample here:
http://journalsonline.tandf.co.uk/link.asp?id=lu8lp24f50t78u3c

I have the full text, sans graphs. FWIW, I have a lot of the articles
from the underlying studies by Tipton and Wolfe, too. Some folks
(e.g., Lyle) will argue about the significance of timed pulses of
dietary proteins and/or amino acids, but I think there is substantial
merit to that aspect. There is also merit to considering the quality
of the protein (EAA content), the speed of protein breakdown and
absorption in the gut, and the combination of the protein/EAAs with
heavy resistance training and insulin response from simple sugars.
Given what we know now, the old formula of X grams/kg/day as determined
by nitrogen balance is a pretty blunt instrument.

DZ said:

Blair P Houghton said:

DZ said:

Blair P Houghton <[email hidden]> wrote:
> In general, any chemical process that can be driven by increasing
> the concentration of a solute will be pushed harder by increasing
> the concentration of that solute. And the only chemical processes I
> know of that can't are those for which the other reactants are
> already fully consumed.

This is utter nonsense. Look up substrate inhibition.

Here. You look it up.
http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/biology/enztech/inhibition.html

Pay attention to two bottom curves in Figure 1.9 there - these are the
cases of prominent substrate inhibition. That is, instead of the
reaction being "pushed harder by increasing the concentration of that
solute" like you claim above the reaction rate peaks and then goes
down.

That is, the reaction rate goes down as the substrate concentration
increases.

And what did I say?

Did I say that the concentration of inhibitors would be increased
while you were increasing concentration?

Or did I qualify my statement with this clause: "that
can be driven by increasing the concentration of a solute"?

By increasing the concentration of the inhibitor at the same
time as you increase the concentration of the reactant, you
are creating a different paradigm.

And you've snipped the part where I explained that graph to you.

But don't fret. Brink would have thrown up his heavyhands and
posted some gun-nut boilerplate by now.

--Blair
"Probably what he's followed up with."

WillBrink said:

Can you imagine what would happen in a biological system if there was no
substrate inhibition and or rate limiting reactions? Would be a total
mess.

Not unlike your posts.

--Blair
"Pay attention and stop thinking
you're the only one thinking."

Blair P Houghton said:

DZ said:

Blair P Houghton said:

DZ wrote:
>Blair P Houghton <[email hidden]> wrote:
>> In general, any chemical process that can be driven by increasing
>> the concentration of a solute will be pushed harder by increasing
>> the concentration of that solute. And the only chemical processes I
>> know of that can't are those for which the other reactants are
>> already fully consumed.
>
>This is utter nonsense. Look up substrate inhibition.

Here. You look it up.
http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/biology/enztech/inhibition.html

Pay attention to two bottom curves in Figure 1.9 there - these are the
cases of prominent substrate inhibition. That is, instead of the
reaction being "pushed harder by increasing the concentration of that
solute" like you claim above the reaction rate peaks and then goes
down.

That is, the reaction rate goes down as the substrate concentration
increases.

And what did I say? Did I say that the concentration of inhibitors
would be increased while you were increasing concentration? Or did
I qualify my statement with this clause: "that can be driven by
increasing the concentration of a solute"? By increasing the
concentration of the inhibitor at the same time as you increase the
concentration of the reactant, you are creating a different
paradigm. And you've snipped the part where

You are still confused. The "reactant" IS the "inhibitor" in these
types of reactions.

DZ said:

Blair P Houghton said:

DZ said:

Blair P Houghton <[email hidden]> wrote:
> DZ wrote:
>>Blair P Houghton <[email hidden]> wrote:
>>> In general, any chemical process that can be driven by increasing
>>> the concentration of a solute will be pushed harder by increasing
>>> the concentration of that solute. And the only chemical processes I
>>> know of that can't are those for which the other reactants are
>>> already fully consumed.
>>
>>This is utter nonsense. Look up substrate inhibition.
>
> Here. You look it up.
> http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/biology/enztech/inhibition.html

Pay attention to two bottom curves in Figure 1.9 there - these are the
cases of prominent substrate inhibition. That is, instead of the
reaction being "pushed harder by increasing the concentration of that
solute" like you claim above the reaction rate peaks and then goes
down.

That is, the reaction rate goes down as the substrate concentration
increases.

And what did I say? Did I say that the concentration of inhibitors
would be increased while you were increasing concentration? Or did
I qualify my statement with this clause: "that can be driven by
increasing the concentration of a solute"? By increasing the
concentration of the inhibitor at the same time as you increase the
concentration of the reactant, you are creating a different
paradigm. And you've snipped the part where

You are still confused. The "reactant" IS the "inhibitor" in these
types of reactions.

Go reread that site. You didn't understand it.

--Blair
"I did."

Blair P Houghton said:

DZ said:

You are still confused. The "reactant" IS the "inhibitor" in these
types of reactions [substrate inhibition]

Go reread that site.
[http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/biology/enztech/inhibition.html]
You didn't understand it.
--Blair "I did."

Here is a concise definition of substrate inhibition: "Catalytic
reaction rate inhibition BY SUBSTRATE", which occurs at elevated
substrate levels.

The reactant (substrate) in such reaction is itself inhibiting the
reaction "substrate -> product" catalyzed by the enzyme.

You are confusing "substrate inhibition", e.g.
http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/substrate_inhibition
with "product inhibition", e.g.
http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/product_inhibition

More to the point, none of regulated reactions would allow increased
reaction efficiency when more substrate is added past the point of the
optimal concentration. Your simplistic notion of biochemical reactions
"add more fuel - get more fire" is incorrect.

It's Ok to be wrong. Get over it and move on.

DZ said:

Blair P Houghton said:

DZ said:

You are still confused. The "reactant" IS the "inhibitor" in these
types of reactions [substrate inhibition]

Go reread that site.
[http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/biology/enztech/inhibition.html]
You didn't understand it.
--Blair "I did."

Here is a concise definition of substrate inhibition: "Catalytic
reaction rate inhibition BY SUBSTRATE", which occurs at elevated
substrate levels.

The reactant (substrate) in such reaction is itself inhibiting the
reaction "substrate -> product" catalyzed by the enzyme.

You are confusing "substrate inhibition", e.g.
http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/substrate_inhibition
with "product inhibition", e.g.
http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/product_inhibition

More to the point, none of regulated reactions would allow increased
reaction efficiency when more substrate is added past the point of the
optimal concentration. Your simplistic notion of biochemical reactions
"add more fuel - get more fire" is incorrect.

It's Ok to be wrong.

Not for Blair. His history in MFW, as well as in other newsgroups,
demonstrates that he will continue to double-talk, move the parameters
of the discussion, and do anything possible to avoid admitting that he
was wrong, mistaken, or otherwise in error. If none of that works,
he'll simply move into gratuitous insults. Blair will not concede
that he was wrong.

Quoted message said:

Get over it and move on.

Never gonna happen.

DZ said:

Blair P Houghton said:

DZ said:

You are still confused. The "reactant" IS the "inhibitor" in these
types of reactions [substrate inhibition]

Go reread that site.
[http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/biology/enztech/inhibition.html]
You didn't understand it.
--Blair "I did."

Here is a concise definition of substrate inhibition: "Catalytic
reaction rate inhibition BY SUBSTRATE", which occurs at elevated
substrate levels.

The reactant (substrate) in such reaction is itself inhibiting the
reaction "substrate -> product" catalyzed by the enzyme.

Reactant and substrate are two different things.

Which is why you can compute a ratio of them in the graph
at the bottom of that webpage.

In order to cause the inhibtion, you have to increase the
inhibitor along with the reactant.

That's what it says.

Quoted message said:

You are confusing "substrate inhibition", e.g.
http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/substrate_inhibition
with "product inhibition", e.g.
http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/product_inhibition

I'm not confusing them. I didn't bring them up, I didn't
impose any assumptions on them, and I didn't try to define
them.

You're making up your own problems.

Quoted message said:

More to the point, none of regulated reactions would allow increased
reaction efficiency when more substrate is added past the point of the
optimal concentration. Your simplistic notion of biochemical reactions
"add more fuel - get more fire" is incorrect.

False. You're misunderstanding all of chemistry.

Your ridiculous notion of biochemical reactions in which
you increase one reactant WHILE HOLDING THE OTHERS CONSTANT
(I've never removed that qualification from my argument,
while you seem to be ignoring it) and DON'T get more
product is a violation of the laws of thermodynamics.
Which are the basis of all chemical reactions.

Quoted message said:

It's Ok to be wrong. Get over it and move on.

I suggest you apply that to yourself. I'll be the first to
tell you when I'm wrong.

--Blair
"I'll be the only one in this room
competent to judge it, clearly."

JMW said:

DZ said:

Blair P Houghton said:

DZ wrote:
>You are still confused. The "reactant" IS the "inhibitor" in these
>types of reactions [substrate inhibition]

Go reread that site.
[http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/biology/enztech/inhibition.html]
You didn't understand it.
--Blair "I did."

Here is a concise definition of substrate inhibition: "Catalytic
reaction rate inhibition BY SUBSTRATE", which occurs at elevated
substrate levels.

The reactant (substrate) in such reaction is itself inhibiting the
reaction "substrate -> product" catalyzed by the enzyme.

You are confusing "substrate inhibition", e.g.
http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/substrate_inhibition
with "product inhibition", e.g.
http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/product_inhibition

More to the point, none of regulated reactions would allow increased
reaction efficiency when more substrate is added past the point of the
optimal concentration. Your simplistic notion of biochemical reactions
"add more fuel - get more fire" is incorrect.

It's Ok to be wrong.

Not for Blair. His history in MFW, as well as in other newsgroups,
demonstrates that he will continue to double-talk, move the parameters
of the discussion, and do anything possible to avoid admitting that he
was wrong, mistaken, or otherwise in error. If none of that works,
he'll simply move into gratuitous insults. Blair will not concede
that he was wrong.

I suppose you wouldn't believe me if I told you that you are
lying through your teeth.

No, of course not. Nor would you admit it if you did.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Get over it and move on.

Never gonna happen.

When I'm wrong I admit it. That's clear from all of my history.

--Blair
"Go prove some."

Blair P. Houghton said:

JMW said:

DZ said:

Blair P Houghton <[email hidden]> wrote:
> DZ wrote:
>>You are still confused. The "reactant" IS the "inhibitor" in these
>>types of reactions [substrate inhibition]
>
> Go reread that site.
> [http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/biology/enztech/inhibition.html]
> You didn't understand it.
> --Blair "I did."

Here is a concise definition of substrate inhibition: "Catalytic
reaction rate inhibition BY SUBSTRATE", which occurs at elevated
substrate levels.

The reactant (substrate) in such reaction is itself inhibiting the
reaction "substrate -> product" catalyzed by the enzyme.

You are confusing "substrate inhibition", e.g.
http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/substrate_inhibition
with "product inhibition", e.g.
http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/product_inhibition

More to the point, none of regulated reactions would allow increased
reaction efficiency when more substrate is added past the point of the
optimal concentration. Your simplistic notion of biochemical reactions
"add more fuel - get more fire" is incorrect.

It's Ok to be wrong.

Not for Blair. His history in MFW, as well as in other newsgroups,
demonstrates that he will continue to double-talk, move the parameters
of the discussion, and do anything possible to avoid admitting that he
was wrong, mistaken, or otherwise in error. If none of that works,
he'll simply move into gratuitous insults. Blair will not concede
that he was wrong.

I suppose you wouldn't believe me if I told you that you are
lying through your teeth.

"See, Blair, it's okay to admit that you were wrong. You should try
it, as you were ridiculously wrong here."
-- Lance Freezeland, alt.sports.baseball.stl-cardinals, May 24,
2003

"I found out the hard way that Blair hates to admit he's wrong. In
fact, he can't admit he's wrong. He seems to think he knows something
about everything. So he sticks his foot in his mouth, and then
forevermore he stubbornly insists he's right and refuses to
acknowledge contradictory arguments, no matter how well-grounded in
the facts."
-- sigvid, az.general, March 24, 1998

"Blair cannot admit when he's wrong, even when this JVV guy has him
dead to rights. Instead, he sidesteps the issue by changing the
subject or coming up with another insult."
-- Essoman100, alt.sports.baseball.az-diamondbacks, October 15,
1999

"Some thoughts from Blair P. Houghton. BPH is a Troll. And a poor
loser. But never wrong."
-- Sppedy, rec.bicycles.misc, November 27, 2004

"TRANSLATION: 'My opinions should be universally regarded as fact
because I am never wrong. And when I am wrong, I am only being
sarcastic.' -Blair P. Houghton"
-- MoManProducts, alt.journalism.gonzo, January 26, 2001

In article <[email hidden]>,

JMW said:

Blair P. Houghton said:

JMW said:

DZ <[email hidden]> wrote:
>Blair P Houghton <[email hidden]> wrote:
>> DZ wrote:
>>>You are still confused. The "reactant" IS the "inhibitor" in these
>>>types of reactions [substrate inhibition]
>>
>> Go reread that site.
>> [http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/biology/enztech/inhibition.html]
>> You didn't understand it.
>> --Blair "I did."
>
>Here is a concise definition of substrate inhibition: "Catalytic
>reaction rate inhibition BY SUBSTRATE", which occurs at elevated
>substrate levels.
>
>The reactant (substrate) in such reaction is itself inhibiting the
>reaction "substrate -> product" catalyzed by the enzyme.
>
>You are confusing "substrate inhibition", e.g.
>http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/substrate_inhibition
>with "product inhibition", e.g.
>http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/product_inhibition
>
>More to the point, none of regulated reactions would allow increased
>reaction efficiency when more substrate is added past the point of the
>optimal concentration. Your simplistic notion of biochemical reactions
>"add more fuel - get more fire" is incorrect.
>
>It's Ok to be wrong.

Not for Blair. His history in MFW, as well as in other newsgroups,
demonstrates that he will continue to double-talk, move the parameters
of the discussion, and do anything possible to avoid admitting that he
was wrong, mistaken, or otherwise in error. If none of that works,
he'll simply move into gratuitous insults. Blair will not concede
that he was wrong.

I suppose you wouldn't believe me if I told you that you are
lying through your teeth.

"See, Blair, it's okay to admit that you were wrong. You should try
it, as you were ridiculously wrong here."
-- Lance Freezeland, alt.sports.baseball.stl-cardinals, May 24,
2003

"I found out the hard way that Blair hates to admit he's wrong. In
fact, he can't admit he's wrong. He seems to think he knows something
about everything. So he sticks his foot in his mouth, and then
forevermore he stubbornly insists he's right and refuses to
acknowledge contradictory arguments, no matter how well-grounded in
the facts."
-- sigvid, az.general, March 24, 1998

"Blair cannot admit when he's wrong, even when this JVV guy has him
dead to rights. Instead, he sidesteps the issue by changing the
subject or coming up with another insult."
-- Essoman100, alt.sports.baseball.az-diamondbacks, October 15,
1999

"Some thoughts from Blair P. Houghton. BPH is a Troll. And a poor
loser. But never wrong."
-- Sppedy, rec.bicycles.misc, November 27, 2004

"TRANSLATION: 'My opinions should be universally regarded as fact
because I am never wrong. And when I am wrong, I am only being
sarcastic.' -Blair P. Houghton"
-- MoManProducts, alt.journalism.gonzo, January 26, 2001

Perhaps Blair will now supply even a single post where he admits he was
wrong...when monkeys fly out of my butt.

--
Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/

Blair P Houghton said:

DZ said:

Blair P Houghton said:

DZ wrote:
>You are still confused. The "reactant" IS the "inhibitor" in these
>types of reactions [substrate inhibition]

Go reread that site.
[http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/biology/enztech/inhibition.html]
You didn't understand it.
--Blair "I did."

Here is a concise definition of substrate inhibition: "Catalytic
reaction rate inhibition BY SUBSTRATE", which occurs at elevated
substrate levels.

The reactant (substrate) in such reaction is itself inhibiting the
reaction "substrate -> product" catalyzed by the enzyme.

Reactant and substrate are two different things.

Let's check an introductory chemistry textbook,
http://www.cem.msu.edu/~reusch/VirtualText/intro1.htm

"Reactant or Substrate: The organic compound undergoing change in a
chemical reaction."
(http://www.cem.msu.edu/~reusch/VirtualText/react1.htm)

Quoted message said:

Which is why you can compute a ratio of them in the graph
at the bottom of that webpage.

You insist on falsehoods everyone can verify. Let's check that graph,
to see what it really is: Fig 1.9,
http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/biology/enztech/inhibition.html The graph shows
dependence of reaction rate rate on the ratio of substrate
concentration to Michaelis constant, Km. That CONSTANT is a
characteristic of a reaction specific to a particular enzyme.

Quoted message said:

In order to cause the inhibtion, you have to increase the
inhibitor along with the reactant.

No. See above. We're talking about substrate inhibition
(i.e. inhibition by substrate) in the reaction

substrate -> substrate-enzyme complex -> product.

Quoted message said:

That's what it says.

It doesn't. I'm going to stop now because it's getting really tedious.

Proctologically Violated©® said:

Blair,
You are a blazing idiot.
You mouthe the words, probably mispronounce them, and f'sure don't
understand them.
DZ and JMW are largely correct.
You are trying to split hairs with a butter knife, and you can't even see
the hairs to begin with.

Is this coming from the troll who still hasn't admitted
that he claimed exercise doesn't burn fat?

Thought so.

--Blair
"Your credibility is so negative
it improves your opponent's."

WillBrink said:

Perhaps Blair will now supply even a single post where he admits he was
wrong...when monkeys fly out of my butt.

I don't doubt monkeys fly out of your butt every day Will.

But I don't accept dares from trolling dirtbags.

So I don't accept dares from you.

--Blair
"Go look it up yourself."

DZ said:

[...]

Okay, I missed that Km is a constant. I'd skimmed to the
picture and assumed it was a concentration of the enzyme.

But look again at what the graph actually says. It still
supports my original statement.

Reduction in the rate of reaction is not reversal of the
reaction.

In order to reduce the rate of reaction, you HAVE to
add more of the reactant, in this case to tie up more of
the enzyme.

But in so doing you also produce more of the product.

The only time you would stop producing more of the
product is when the enzyme is fully consumed in being
bound to multiple instances of the reactants.

Self-inhibitioin would explain the diminishing returns
shown for increasing protein intakes.

Which I had already said are shown to occur.

--Blair
"Tell Will that yams aren't inhibited
even when they're made into whey."

Blair P. Houghton said:

--Blair
"Just admit you're intellectually
dishonest."

Ah, the irony ...

On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 04:17:14 GMT, Blair P. Houghton <[email hidden]> gave us:

Quoted message said:

JMW said:

Blair P. Houghton said:

JMW <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>Not for Blair. His history in MFW, as well as in other newsgroups,
>demonstrates that he will continue to double-talk, move the parameters
>of the discussion, and do anything possible to avoid admitting that he
>was wrong, mistaken, or otherwise in error. If none of that works,
>he'll simply move into gratuitous insults. Blair will not concede
>that he was wrong.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I suppose you wouldn't believe me if I told you that you are
lying through your teeth.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

"See, Blair, it's okay to admit that you were wrong. You should try
it, as you were ridiculously wrong here."
-- Lance Freezeland, alt.sports.baseball.stl-cardinals, May 24,
2003

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

"I found out the hard way that Blair hates to admit he's wrong. In
fact, he can't admit he's wrong. He seems to think he knows something
about everything. So he sticks his foot in his mouth, and then
forevermore he stubbornly insists he's right and refuses to
acknowledge contradictory arguments, no matter how well-grounded in
the facts."
-- sigvid, az.general, March 24, 1998

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

"Blair cannot admit when he's wrong, even when this JVV guy has him
dead to rights. Instead, he sidesteps the issue by changing the
subject or coming up with another insult."
-- Essoman100, alt.sports.baseball.az-diamondbacks, October 15,
1999

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

"Some thoughts from Blair P. Houghton. BPH is a Troll. And a poor
loser. But never wrong."
-- Sppedy, rec.bicycles.misc, November 27, 2004

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

"TRANSLATION: 'My opinions should be universally regarded as fact
because I am never wrong. And when I am wrong, I am only being
sarcastic.' -Blair P. Houghton"
-- MoManProducts, alt.journalism.gonzo, January 26, 2001

Quoted message said:

People claiming I won't admit I'm wrong are not proof I never do it.

Quoted message said:

Try again, or admit you're intellectually dishonest.

Quoted message said:

BTW, I proved Freezeland wrong,

Hardly. What you did was predict that Miguel Batista would be
declared "utterly innocent" by the MLB appeals process and that he
would not serve a single day of suspension. I called for a 20 game
suspension. When Batista received (and served) a 10 game suspension,
you declared victory, stating "10 days is closer to 0 than 20 days is.
I win."

When I reminded you that "I seem to remember you also saying that
Batista would not serve a day," your brilliant response was "I seem to
remember you saying you liked the taste of my foreskin."

I'd say that JMW here has you pegged, Houghton.

--
Lance

"In a world filled with hate, prejudice, and protest,
I find that I too am filled with hate, prejudice, and
protest." -- Bob Gibson

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Blair P Houghton said:

DZ said:

Blair P Houghton said:

DZ wrote:
>Blair P Houghton <[email hidden]> wrote:
>> DZ wrote:
>>>You are still confused. The "reactant" IS the "inhibitor" in these
>>>types of reactions [substrate inhibition]
>>
>> Go reread that site.
>> [http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/biology/enztech/inhibition.html]
>> You didn't understand it.
>> --Blair "I did."
>
>Here is a concise definition of substrate inhibition: "Catalytic
>reaction rate inhibition BY SUBSTRATE", which occurs at elevated
>substrate levels.
>
>The reactant (substrate) in such reaction is itself inhibiting the
>reaction "substrate -> product" catalyzed by the enzyme.

Reactant and substrate are two different things.

Let's check an introductory chemistry textbook,
http://www.cem.msu.edu/~reusch/VirtualText/intro1.htm

"Reactant or Substrate: The organic compound undergoing change in a
chemical reaction."
(http://www.cem.msu.edu/~reusch/VirtualText/react1.htm)

Quoted message said:

Which is why you can compute a ratio of them in the graph
at the bottom of that webpage.

You insist on falsehoods everyone can verify. Let's check that graph,
to see what it really is: Fig 1.9,
http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/biology/enztech/inhibition.html The graph shows
dependence of reaction rate rate on the ratio of substrate
concentration to Michaelis constant, Km. That CONSTANT is a
characteristic of a reaction specific to a particular enzyme.

Quoted message said:

In order to cause the inhibtion, you have to increase the
inhibitor along with the reactant.

No. See above. We're talking about substrate inhibition
(i.e. inhibition by substrate) in the reaction

substrate -> substrate-enzyme complex -> product.

Okay, I missed that Km is a constant. I'd skimmed to the picture
and assumed it was a concentration of the enzyme. But look again at
what the graph actually says. It still supports my original
statement. Reduction in the rate of reaction is not reversal of the
reaction. In order to reduce the rate of reaction, you HAVE to add
more of the reactant, in this case to tie up more of the enzyme.

But in so doing you also produce more of the product.

The reaction rate (Y axis) is in fact measured by the increase in
molar concentration of the product of that reaction per unit
time. That the curve has a peak at the optimal substrate concentration
means that LESS product is produced past that point.

DZ said:

The reaction rate (Y axis) is in fact measured by the increase in
molar concentration of the product of that reaction per unit
time. That the curve has a peak at the optimal substrate concentration
means that LESS product is produced past that point.

There's one thing that would make that work.

Taking enzyme out of the system by overwhelming it with
reactant might allow the reaction to proceed in reverse
at a higher rate.

No. Doesn't work. As long as you're still adding reactant
you're still forcing what's left of the enzyme to move
the reaction forward.

Unless the reverse reaction can proceed without the
catalyst, you can't get the product to decompose into
the reactants.

So adding reactant can have diminishing returns, as it's
partially consumed in binding with enzyme. But some of
it will still be catalyzed by enzyme into product,
producing more product, not less.

--Blair
"His logic or mine. It's your
choice, and emotion is the wrong
reason to choose."