Back in the early 90's, when we used to have the national news on TV during dinner, there was a little blurb to the effect of "Scientists recommend selenium in your diet." My dad, wanting something sweet after dinner, was quick with "you know what's got seleium? Butterfingers." And then he got up and grabbed a mini Butterfingers candy bar that we had stashed in the pantry. So after that, the running joke was "I need some selenium" as justification for having that particular sugary treat.
Exercise also helps clear lymph from most of the body which seems to help the brain clear it while sleeping, at least anecdotally. See also this comment:
I think you'd have to be more specific than "exercise" as heavy resistance training activates mTor and not AMPK. If memory serves they are mutually exclusive and cannot be activated simultaneously. Low intensity exercise, such as walking and easy running stimulates AMPK - as does extended fasting.
During covid, my 70 y.o. mom started going on long walks (like five miles) and fasting. Mostly out of boredom, she self-isolated.
I noticed that she is a lot sharper now. Previously, she would forget something in a conversation or ask twice. Now she is absolutely here and if we for example discuss some video, she mentions details that I overlooked.
Some really smart researcher applied clinical trial data to make a calculator to guesstimate what different intensities and durations of exercise will activate AMPK to various levels:
Pardon my ignorance and zero background in this, but, taking advantage of this fresh thread ... could someone explain
What is the degree of relevance of mice testing and humans gaining insight from such tests?
Almost all threads of this nature revolve around mice. As a layman and the "HN effect" I seem to be drawing enlightenment for self-improvement from such threads. How wrong am I?
So it is the standard preliminary test subject. Preliminary being a key word, things get tested in them first for plausibility but those findings usually need to be reconfirmed in an actual human study.
The first thing is that they're mammals. You might be able to get cheap chickens for example, do experiments on them, but they're birds, they're not mammals. In terms of how similar to us they are, the most similar thing is he could find would be chimpanzees or so, and great apes in that general category, dogs and cows would be more similar to us than mice, mice and rats are probably about the same, and then there are things that are older like opossums, they would be a worse fit than mice. And they are social animals like we are.
Mice are cheap because they are good at making more of themselves, and at this point you can buy them fantastically inbred—genetically nearly uniform, a bunch of them all the same age.
The short life span is the third killer feature, obviously when you do human studies you have to follow us around for 40 years if you want us to get old, free mouse you just follow him for 2 years. Other than that, it's mostly just that they're mostly domesticated, so you don't have to worry about them biting you or anything. They are small and easy to handle and when you need a larger creature there are rats available.
You will notice that they are less used for certain other things, so for example if you wanted to test biomedical devices that you insert into a body, maybe something that you clamp around an artery, for those sorts of things the smallness really gets in the way... Then you might see cow or horse studies or whatever, something with bigger arteries that you can clamp this thing on.
It would be irresponsible to decide what supplements you are supplementing with based only on mouse studies. It would not be extremely irresponsible—there is a decent chance that if it were actively going to kill you then that would have appeared in the mouse studies—but it's still generally irresponsible in a milder fashion. In the sense that you are kind of throwing the dice with your health rather than making an informed decision. But I mean it's a better habit than smoking I guess so do whatever floats your boat?
We often see therapies that work on mice but that don't translate to humans, but I wonder how many treatments that would be super effective for humans were discarded because they didn't work in mice.
We would probably see some effect on the mice even if it was not a strong one. When we say that something worked on mice but not humans, it usually means that the effect on humans was insufficient to be worthwhile, but we can see it. It may be worthwhile exploring further. If we saw even a small effect in mice, it might suggest an area to do further research.
For example in a rat experiment.
Aged rats with osteoporosis.
2 groups, control and vitamin K2-MK4 group.
Deliberate fracture to one of the limbs.
1st 3 days k2-mk4 group receive 119mg/k/d then nothing.
Control group got no K2-MK4.
12 weeks later, fracture is still visible on xray in control group.
12 days later, fracture is not visible on xray in k2-mk4 group.
What most people dont know is rats have a gene different to other mammals so they can repair their bones more quickly.
If you dont know that last sentence, you could be forgiven for rushing out and consuming 119mg/kg/d of k2-mk4 when a bone fracture occurs, even though K2-MK4 hardens bones, and Jap gp's have been prescribing between 45-90mg of K2-mk4 to post menopausal women with osteoporosis for years now.
Its like creatine, its got a pain killing effect comparable to the horse drug Bute, and a metabolised form of creatine is creatinine hydrochloride which kills both gram positive and gram negative bacteria in a dose dependent manner.
Meat eaters consume the most amount of creatine compared to vegetarians, and this dietary difference shows the brain concentrates creatine when short supply which then leads credence to Prof Bruce Ames Triage Theory. With certain injuries muscles catabolise to release creatine like with burns. Cooking meat can reduce creatine by 30% which explains why husky owners see about a 20% increase in performance when their dogs are fed a raw diet of meat.
Govt legislation also limits the health claims someone selling supplements can make, even if they have scientific studies like this to back up a claim.
One could argue Govt legislation makes it illegal to have rude health and would suggest health is used to control people.
Human experiments are expensive, a cheap one in the UK will cost upwards of £250,000, its big business, so pfizer, moderna, Astra Zeneca etc hit the jackpot with Covid for a revenue increase!
Edit: I'm not qualified in anything because I refuse to adhere to university teaching programs, which are just opinions of some people who have control over what we get taught, irrespective of its relevance because to date noone can truly be classed as an expert as noone currently can live for ever!
I've been out of the industry for a while, is Selenium still a thing that people use or do we not do that kind of testing anymore? I was assigned a junior SDET role long ago and I really struggled to find any use out of the testing I was doing for Selenium. It seemed extremely useless and only there to satisfy the requirements for the PM to show to the shareholders on progress.
However, I'll admit it wasn't really a good tech company nor was I even half interested in the work because, let's be real it's really monotonous and tedious especially if css selectors get changed all the time by the dev team.
> A low intake of selenium is associated with increased cardiovascular mortality. This could be reduced by supplementation with selenium and coenzyme Q10.
What's unclear about the phrasing in this quote is... does "low intake" mean people who don't get enough selenium, thus their intake is low, or, does it mean that supplementing with low doses of selenium.
Exercise also promotes changes in norepinephrine (noradrenaline), dopamine and few other neurotransmitters, some of which are known to affect focus and cognition.
There were studies showing/suggesting dopamine's relation to neurogenesis. Linked study mentions SEPP1 which can be found in dopaminergic axons so I maybe read too much from it but chained this as: exercise -> dopamine -> other goodies -> ... -> profit
The article that I posted as the OP explains the mechanism of exercise-induces neurogenesis but seems to have nothing to do with hericium's suggestion of monoamines.
Selenium is extremely toxic, similar to arsenic. Both are necessary micronutrients in mammalian biology but this requirement is easily satisfied by traces in water and soil entering the food supply. Deficiency typically only occurs at the intersection of significant medical issues limiting the ability to absorb them and consuming food limited to the rare locales where soil and water is unusually depleted in these elements and therefore absent from the food supply.
Supplementing selenium carries risk with very little reward. It is unlikely that you need more selenium than you are already getting with a normal, modern diet.
Eat 1 or 2 brazil nuts a day, and you should get plenty of selenium. Apparently eating more than 5 a day can cause selenium poisoning, so probably do some reading before eating too many.
The last time I bought brazil nuts I was eating them by the handful. I had no idea about any of this. I just like brazil nuts. I guess I made it ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
There are a lot of reputable suppliers of various nutrition supplements. You can go on Amazon and search for products shipped and sold by Amazon, and as long as you pick a brand that is recognized then you should be good.
Note that Selenium has been found to have toxicity at higher amounts. 200 mcg should be good once per day, but you should be aware of any signs of toxicity or interactions.
Eating Brazil nuts regularly is probably overkill for people without a serious deficiency. Selenium is commonly available in many foods in decent amounts, including cheese and beans. A cheese quesadilla with beans will get you a good spike of selenium in one sitting.
You can google other foods containing selenium and put together your own preferred selenium-rich meal.
