
The Neurogenesis Experiment: Six ways to stimulate neuron growth - JasonNY
http://mwinkelmann.com/2008/12/the-neurogenesis-experiment/
======
dilanj
Disregarding Neurogenesis, this guy is attempting all-at-once to,

1\. Stop smoking, that is from almost chain smoking to none.

2\. Start running 4km a day - I've done this, takes incredible amount of
effort.

3\. Lift etc. every evening - Not as hard as 2, but close.

4\. Start meditating - if you do the proper way, incredibly hard.

5\. Avoid junk food - difficulty depends, but sounds like he does consume
pizza or Ben&Jerry’s daily.

I'd love to seem him succeeding in the 'coming weeks', but he won't. It'll
take years at least.

He'll get linked though.

~~~
dejb
Yes I think the withdrawal effects from quitting smoking and likely to dwarf
everything else. After several weeks the conclusion of his experiment is
likely to be that 'Neurogenesis' makes you angry, anxious and unable to
concentrate.

------
delackner
People have spent so much time talking themselves into schemes to motivate to
do what is very simple: exercise, eat, drink, play. In moderation. It doesn't
matter if you like bacon, it matters if you eat 6 strips every morning. It
won't make you smarter to run 3k every day for a month, then quit in
frustration. Just find a variety of physical hobbies you LIKE doing, and you
won't need to psyche yourself into doing it. In disclosure, I (on a regular
basis) bicycle, walk, run, climb, and dance. It doesn't feel like work,
because they are all make me feel good. If you don't like doing anything
physical, I don't know what to say to you but that you need to accept that you
_are_ your body. It is not just a thing that connects your hands to the
keyboard.

------
a-priori
Let me be the first to say, "sources please". Adult neurogenesis in humans is
largely speculative, which leads me to think you're confusing it with
neuroplasticity. Also, mood is regulated by neurotransmitters, especially
serotonin. If neurogenesis is involved, that would be news to me.

That said, your steps are either harmless or beneficial, so I don't see a
problem with this "experiment".

~~~
psyklic
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
_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
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
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.)

------
gruseom
_There is, unfortunately, pretty good evidence that caffeine inhibits
neurogenesis._

Yikes. What is this evidence?

~~~
swapspace
On both wikip and google, everything finally seem to point to this paper:
<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17400186>

~~~
tocomment
How accurate is that? Has it been reproduced? Should I stop drinking coffee?

~~~
likpok
It depends what you use coffee for. Given that the brain adapts very quickly
to caffeine, you lose most benefits from the stimulant effect if you drink
constant amounts (and there's a point at which you lose all benefit, even if
you start drinking ridiculous amounts of it).

So, it's probably not worth it if you drink it regularly, because it doesn't
make you much more alert in the steady-state.

This is unrelated to the other issues it may have.

