Look at this!

KM · 11-06-2009, 09:48 PM

The graph at the bottom represents the cellular process when a neuron is stimulated.

Anyone who can tell me what's completely wrong about the graph deserves a pat on the back. I was looking at this and was like, "please tell me this person's dyslexic".

I'm freakin' pissed right now. Goes to show you how unreliable certain internet sources can be.

Kev

**Zack** · 11-06-2009, 10:38 PM

I'm pretty sure the sodium and potassium ions are backwards, but it's been a while since i took physiology lol

if that's correct i'll gladly take the pat on the back though

KM · 11-06-2009, 11:15 PM

Reps. EDIT: You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Zack again.

Exactly - which explains the rest of the graph. The entire graph is backwards! It's pretty much saying that hyperpolarization (the stoop down before the incline) precedes depolarization, which is just plain idiocy lol.

**Zack** · 11-07-2009, 01:13 PM

**HawaiianPride.** · 11-07-2009, 02:08 PM

Good job Zack and KM. Not gonna lie here, this flew right over my head lol. I tried to analyze it, but my brain just didn't click. Great post bro.

**robbyybt** · 11-07-2009, 11:28 PM

Hey atleast its online, my a&p class at college has two books (both costing $200 btw). One says aerobic respiration produces 32 atp, the other says its 38 atp haha.

If anyone can tell me whats wrong with both of these, then they can have a pat on the back lol

KM · 11-08-2009, 01:43 PM

All for the pat on the back...

32 doesn't make sense, especially when talking about aerobic respiration. It's the most efficient way to create the maximum amount of energy when O2 is available, so why would there only be 32? Perhaps the author was talking about the difference in ATP produced between glycolysis and AR? But even that doesn't make sense, really. Maybe you misread the two books and it said that 32 out of 36 ATP (or 34? -- don't remember) per glucose molecule, are created during the chemiosmosis effect?

I just looked online and found this: "38 ATP: 4 from substrate-level phosphorylation; 34 from oxidative phosphorylation."

I have no idea what that is saying, but I do know it is relevant.

Also, if you look at the process mathematically, 32 just doesn't fit the bill.

**robbyybt** · 11-08-2009, 04:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KM

All for the pat on the back...

32 doesn't make sense, especially when talking about aerobic respiration. It's the most efficient way to create the maximum amount of energy when O2 is available, so why would there only be 32? Perhaps the author was talking about the difference in ATP produced between glycolysis and AR? But even that doesn't make sense, really. Maybe you misread the two books and it said that 32 out of 36 ATP (or 34? -- don't remember) per glucose molecule, are created during the chemiosmosis effect?

I just looked online and found this: "38 ATP: 4 from substrate-level phosphorylation; 34 from oxidative phosphorylation."

I have no idea what that is saying, but I do know it is relevant.

Also, if you look at the process mathematically, 32 just doesn't fit the bill.

Nope i read it right, basically 38 are created per glucose but 2 are used up during the process so only 36 are effectively created. Where 32 came from we will never know???

KM · 11-08-2009, 05:44 PM

LOL! I'm clueless on that one, dude.

**EastCoast Highlander** · 11-09-2009, 01:41 AM

jeeze...you people and your brains...

Teran · 11-09-2009, 04:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EastCoast Highlander

jeeze...you people and your brains...

LOL...

Even though I was able to follow the thread to a certain extent...I was thinking the same damm thing

**Freak** · 11-09-2009, 11:00 AM

Yep its 36. That has been a big debate before.

KM · 11-09-2009, 09:33 PM

What I really found comical about the image I posted above was that the visual-demonstration of a neural impulse directly contradicts the graphical image below it. If action potential moves accordingly, why would mV (the -70) be lower?

It should look like this:

Which would make sense, right? If anyone else is interested in this aspect of physiology, let me know and we can continue this discussion :)