4 ms·

Poster is correct -- this article is complete BS. The steps mentioned are of course great to do and would increase bloodflow to the brain (which has definite po

by psyklic 18y ago

Poster is correct -- this article is complete BS. The steps mentioned are of course great to do and would increase bloodflow to the brain (which has definite positive effects). But, saying that the steps increase neurogenesis (and even speculating that this is a good thing) is completely unproven.

gruseom 18y ago
this article is complete BS [...] completely unproven That's a little harsh. Not everything unproven is BS. I didn't get the impression that the author was "saying that the steps increase neurogenesis". What he said was that there are findings to that effect about rats, and that he was "hopeful that these results also apply to humans". The main point is that he's curious and wants to try something. That experimental spirit deserves the label "scientific" more than your blanket judgmentalness does. Incidentally, it wasn't too long ago that people in the name of "science" were stomping all over anyone who dared to suggest that "neurogenesis" might even exist. So I find your comment ironic. Edit: the real problem with the proposed experiment is that its title is misleading, since it includes no way to measure anything about neurogenesis.
- psyklic 18y ago
  That's fair. If this is his or her motivation for doing good things, all the better. Well ... there was a scientific debate over whether neurogenesis existed (in adult humans). I wouldn't say they were "stomping all over anyone" ;-)
  - gruseom 18y ago
    I have to agree that my metaphor was heavy handed (heavy footed?), but I distinctly remember how this was not a debate, but a dogma. People who suggested brain cells could regenerate were ridiculed. Everyone "knew" they couldn't (everyone "scientific" that is). The reason I remember it so clearly is that it was an early example in my experience of seeing dogma in what other people called science. The idea that brain cells would have some special non-regenerating status struck me instinctively as preposterous. It was a great example of how people turn "We have not observed X" into "X never happens", and from there it's a tiny step to "People who believe in X are nutcases". On a parenthetical note, I haven't yet got around to reading Kuhn but the basic idea there strikes me as profoundly correct. When the majority consciousness isn't ready to acknowledge a phenomenon, it simply doesn't "exist". Evidence can change received opinion, but only if a shift in majority consciousness occurs first. (That's how I understand Kuhn's paradigms anyway.)
xiaoma 18y ago
Aerobic exercise at least has been shown to cause neurogenesis. Not only that, but it's associated with changes in total brain mass. http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=aerobic%20neurogenesis&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=ws http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=aerobic%20neur...

by psyklic 18y ago

gruseom 18y ago

this article is complete BS [...] completely unproven That's a little harsh. Not everything unproven is BS. I didn't get the impression that the author was "saying that the steps increase neurogenesis". What he said was that there are findings to that effect about rats, and that he was "hopeful that these results also apply to humans". The main point is that he's curious and wants to try something. That experimental spirit deserves the label "scientific" more than your blanket judgmentalness does. Incidentally, it wasn't too long ago that people in the name of "science" were stomping all over anyone who dared to suggest that "neurogenesis" might even exist. So I find your comment ironic. Edit: the real problem with the proposed experiment is that its title is misleading, since it includes no way to measure anything about neurogenesis.

psyklic 18y ago
That's fair. If this is his or her motivation for doing good things, all the better. Well ... there was a scientific debate over whether neurogenesis existed (in adult humans). I wouldn't say they were "stomping all over anyone" ;-)
- gruseom 18y ago
  I have to agree that my metaphor was heavy handed (heavy footed?), but I distinctly remember how this was not a debate, but a dogma. People who suggested brain cells could regenerate were ridiculed. Everyone "knew" they couldn't (everyone "scientific" that is). The reason I remember it so clearly is that it was an early example in my experience of seeing dogma in what other people called science. The idea that brain cells would have some special non-regenerating status struck me instinctively as preposterous. It was a great example of how people turn "We have not observed X" into "X never happens", and from there it's a tiny step to "People who believe in X are nutcases". On a parenthetical note, I haven't yet got around to reading Kuhn but the basic idea there strikes me as profoundly correct. When the majority consciousness isn't ready to acknowledge a phenomenon, it simply doesn't "exist". Evidence can change received opinion, but only if a shift in majority consciousness occurs first. (That's how I understand Kuhn's paradigms anyway.)

xiaoma 18y ago

Aerobic exercise at least has been shown to cause neurogenesis. Not only that, but it's associated with changes in total brain mass. http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=aerobic%20neurogenesis&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=ws http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=aerobic%20neur...