I finally understand what each phase of sleep “does” for the brain
Ha, just read an article on sleep that opened me a bit.
I didn’t realize the sleep controversy was more or less over:
Memory consolidation is now well known as the prime reason why we actually need sleep.
Metabolism only drops 5-10% when we are sleeping, so it’s kind of tough to argue that we’re conserving a lot of energy by sleeping.(Wikipedia cites an additional source on this.)
So there are 3 phases of sleep - non-rem or light sleep, REM sleep - where you dream, and deep sleep - from which it’s hardest to wake.
The same article said that non-rem sleep was useful for scrubbing short term memory and getting our brain ready to learn again. In contrast we know REM sleep is important in long term memory formation.
Just read this article that said :
During deep sleep, tissue is repaired and regenerated and you experience bone and muscle growth. Scientists believe that your immune system becomes stronger during deep sleep.
I have to wonder if the brain grows new neuronal connections during deep sleep as well. Ha just found an article that backs me there:
the amount of plasticity (connections between nerve cells) in the brain depends on the amount of deep sleep
So I think I finally understand what each phase of sleep “does” for the brain.
Light sleep is all about getting rid of less important short term memories and putting the brain in a position so that it’s more able to take things in - to work faster. Rem sleep is about remembering what’s important - putting things in long term memory. Deep sleep is about making new neuronal connections - and thus potentially new insights, based on what you’ve learned. Cool.
And all this sleep is necessary so that your brain functions properly. It kind of raises the question of why your brain can’t do these very basic things while it’s awake. Why can’t it do multiple things at once? Why did evolution make it so that these things happened more often during sleep. Perhaps it’s so that the brain when awake could better focus on being awake - active and full of alertness and attention on the task at hand - so that it could work faster than it otherwise could if it had to devote extra energy to the things it does during sleep - like purging unimportant memories, remembering what’s important, and making sense and making new connections based on what it’s learned…
Another question is why deep sleep should come first. I suppose it makes sense that if you’re going to make new connections, you don’t want the day’s short term memory scrubbed first as you want to integrate what you just learned with what you already know.
Cell Phone Radiation Could Hurt you in a few different of ways
So first, let’s go over the conventional argument that cell phones are safe…
So the radiation emitted by cell phones does not have enough energy to ionize atoms because its frequency is too low.
If the frequency of electromagnetic radiation is high enough, photons will have enough energy to ionize atoms … This becomes possible at a frequency just above that of visible light - ultraviolet light, and includes gamma radiation and x-rays. None of them are produced routinely by human technological gadgets.
Still you don’t have to disturb the brain at the atomic level to cause changes…
First of all, cell phones unquestionably heat up a small part of your brain - sort of similar to the way a microwave cooks via radiation. So what happens when you cook your brain a bit? As this site says
This thermal (heating) effect can cause headaches, fatigue, tissue swelling, tingling and other severe potential long-term damages.
Also, DNA can conduct electricity, and cell phones generate magnetic fields. So that might cause problems.
DNA damage (single- and double-strand breaks) was observed in the brain cells of rats exposed for two hours to a 60 Hz (cycles per second) magnetic field – the kind generated by household electric currents. This same type of DNA damage also occurred after a two-hour exposure to radiofrequency microwaves at power levels considered safe.
The researchers then found that this EMF-induced DNA damage could be blocked by treating the rats with antioxidants, including melatonin, immediately before and after exposure. Melatonin is a hormone secreted from the brain’s pineal gland. As a potent antioxidant, it effectively eliminates free radicals inside cells – suggesting that free radicals may play a role in the genetic damage caused by magnetic fields.
The effect of radiofrequency radiation on DNA could conceivably be more significant on neurons than on other cell types, because these nerve cells have a low capability for DNA repair, says Dr. Lai.
“Since nerve cells do not divide and are not likely to become cancerous, more likely consequences of DNA damage in nerve cells are changes in functions and cell death, which could either lead to or accelerate the development of neurodegenerative diseases.” (Glial cells, however, can become cancerous. These more numerous brain cells protect and support neurons.)[4]
He and Singh hypothesize that exposure to magnetic fields affects the balance of iron in brain cells, leading to an increase in free radicals.[5]
any abnormal electromagnetic field produces a stress response. After prolonged exposure, the body’s stress response system can be exhausted and the immune system compromised. In such a state, animals and humans could become more susceptible to cancer and infectious diseases.
Dr. Becker refers to experiments conducted in the early 1980s by the U.S. Air Force School of Aerospace Medicine that were reported in the September 1986 issue of Scientific American. Test animals were continuously exposed for long periods to microwaves at a power density twenty times lower than the safe thermal level. They developed a fourfold increase in cancers of the pituitary, thyroid, and adrenal glands – the primary organs through which the body mediates stress.
[The body gets easily stressed in response to magnetic fields.] … preliminary results showed that “the energy required to induce stress proteins with low frequency EM fields is 14 orders of magnitude lower than required by temperature increase.[19]
Another pathway by which living organisms are influenced by radiofrequency radiation in a non-thermal way may be through an alteration in the activity of important enzymes. Enzymes are crucial because they act as catalysts to accelerate hundreds of thousands of metabolic reactions that would otherwise take place far too slowly to sustain life. Enzyme reaction rate is therefore a key factor in biochemical processes.
A well-studied example is ornithine decarboxylase (ODC), an enzyme involved in the regulation of cell growth. High ODC activity is characteristic of the unregulated growth of tumor cells, and ODC activity is sensitive to both extremely low frequency magnetic fields and to radiofrequency fields.[20,21]
Scientists are learning more and more about intracellular communication pathways. Signals originating at the cell membrane initiate a production sequence of enzyme “cascades” within the cell. These signaling pathways are proving to be sensitive to weak EMFs.[22,23]
There is indeed evidence that the parts brain are stressed. At this article points out, glucose metabolism increases in the part of the brain close to the cell phone while a cell phone is being used. The article links to this report.
Results Whole-brain metabolism did not differ between on and off conditions. In contrast, metabolism in the region closest to the antenna (orbitofrontal cortex and temporal pole) was significantly higher for on than off conditions (35.7 vs 33.3 μmol/100 g per minute; mean difference, 2.4 [95% confidence interval, 0.67-4.2]; P = .004). The increases were significantly correlated with the estimated electromagnetic field amplitudes both for absolute metabolism (R = 0.95, P < .001) and normalized metabolism (R = 0.89; P < .001).
Conclusions 50-minute cell phone exposure was associated with increased brain glucose metabolism in the region closest to the antenna.
So increased glucose metabolism is evidence that something funky is going on in the part of your brain right next to the cell phone. We just don’t know what that is. The increase in metabolism may be related to the increase in oxidative stress as mentioned above. Oxidative stress can lead to cancer.
oxidative stress activates inflammatory pathways leading to transformation of a normal cell to tumor cell, tumor cell survival, proliferation, chemoresistance, radioresistance, invasion, angiogenesis
Oxidative stress can activate a variety of transcription factors including NF-κB, AP-1, p53, HIF-1α, PPAR-γ, β-catenin/Wnt, and Nrf2. Activation of these transcription factors can lead to the expression of over 500 different genes, including those for growth factors, inflammatory cytokines, chemokines, cell cycle regulatory molecules, and anti-inflammatory molecules.
So all in all, taking everything together, it’s an argument that since it isn’t really that hard to use a cell phone hands free, it feels like a relatively good idea.
Iodine from seaweed, not pills?
Yeah, it’s totally true that eating seaweed is probably a gentler way to protect yourself from radiation than taking iodine pills :)
Of course this info is relevant to the Japanese and not the United States, as there is not really a radioactive food concern here. Anyway…people are already buying seaweed in California…
Anyway, iodine pills have side effects which may include:
acne, loss of appetite, or upset stomach (especially during the first several days, as the body adjusts to the medication). More severe side effects which require notification of a physician are: fever, weakness, unusual tiredness, swelling in the neck or throat, mouth sores, skin rash, nausea, vomiting, stomach pains, irregular heartbeat, numbness or tingling of the hands or feet, or a metallic taste in the mouth
The LA times says:
A dose of potassium iodide contains about 100 mg of iodine [100000 mcg]
This article lists food based sources of iodine per 100g serving:
Different seaweeds contain varying amounts of iodine:
- 62900mcg Hijiki
- 7200mcg Dulse
- 3200mcg Wakame
- 2500mcg Kombu
- 1600mcg Nori
The article also lists other fish and mollusks and eggs and milk - which have lower values for iodine content (up to 340 mcg for Haddock, for example), so foods other than seaweed aren’t really going to help. Also, you can’t really eat enough salt or cod liver oil to really get a meaningful amount of iodine, because it’s unhealthy to eat that much salt or cod liver oil. I’ve also seen some misconceptions. For example, kale isn’t that high in iodine.
This means that if you want to get as much iodine as you would from a pill, you’d have to buy hijiki seaweed, and eat 1.5 or 2 servings. It’s pretty much your only option if you want a huge amount of iodine - unless there is another high iodine seaweed not on this list.
You also have to be sure about your source of seaweed. Some Australian seaweed has already tested positive for iodine. It’s a similar situation in canada. So if you’re a serious health nut, you should probably order your seaweed online. Here’s an example of one Maine company that will ship seaweed to you.
How to be a shrink without med school :)
Just read this…. Apparently psychologists can prescribe psychiatric drugs in some states - which is interesting because it essentially allows psychologists to do a doctor’s job and earn a doctors salary, if they complete a short masters program. By doing so they totally skip medical school and residency. I’m all for it. I actually feel like some doctors are overtrained, and if someone knows they want to be a shrink, they shouldn’t have to endure unrelated med school courses. The risk is that less capable people will be able to prescribe medicine, but with adequate testing, and certification, this problem should be eliminated. We need more shortcuts like this in society, I think…
How to Improve Universities
Just read Essay - The End of Tenure? - NYTimes.com
Some key excerpts:
tenured professors…here’s a crew (the complaint goes) who are guaranteed jobs for life, teach only a few hours a week, routinely get entire years off, dump grading duties onto graduate students …. dropping their workweek to a manageable dozen hours or so, all while making $100,000 or more a year. ….
university presidents, who can make upward of $1 million annually, gravely intone that the $50,000 price tag doesn’t even cover the full cost of a year’s education. (Consider the balance a gift!) Then your daughter reports that her history prof is a part-time adjunct, who might be making $1,500 for a semester’s work. There’s something wrong with this picture.
I actually agree with a lot of these points…
Teaching assistants do so much more than professors, and professors lecture and to me, a lot of the time seemed totally uninterested in teaching - at least compared to the research they were doing. I use the word lecture - because professors often talk at students rather than encourage discussion and thinking.
So…in an ideal world, professors would focus on research if they wanted to do that, and teaching if they wanted to do that… That way you don’t have these professors who love research but hate teaching (there are a bunch of them!)
The article cites Williams where 70% of the employees do nothing but teach. I like that model… I like the idea of going to a place where people do nothing but teach… If I wanted a Phd, I’d want to go to a place where the profs are passionate about research.
So I guess my point from reading this is that undergraduate education, and graduate education, ideally should become more segregated… ie that universities should hire “teaching-only” professors, and “research-only” professors…
I also think there should be some sort of bonus awarded to those with tenure in years in which they do good research - or earn certain recognition etc.
Is Milk Unhealthy?
So I got curious about milk and decided to do some searching….Here’s what I found…
I first came across this - it’s an amalgamation of a few anti-milk sites : “*ALL* cow’s milk (regular and ‘organic’) has 59 active hormones, scores of allergens, fat and cholesterol. … Of those 59 hormones one is a powerful GROWTH hormone called Insulin- like Growth Factor ONE (IGF-1). By a freak of nature it is identical in cows and humans. Consider this hormone to be a “fuel cell” for any cancer… (the medical world says IGF-1 is a key factor in the rapid growth and proliferation of breast, prostate and colon cancers, and we suspect that most likely it will be found to promote ALL cancers). … 80% of the protein in milk is casein. …Casein is a powerful allergen… a histamine that creates lots of mucus.”
I found more here : “IGF-1 is not destroyed by human digestion. Instead, IGF-1 is readily absorbed across the intestinal wall. Additional research has shown that it can be absorbed into the bloodstream where it can effect other hormones.” The same is likely true of other hormones.
The FDA counters some of those claims - saying not all of the IGF-1 is absorbed - and oral IGF-1 doesn’t seem to affect the blood circulating levels of IGF-1 in rats, and even if it were absorbed on average it would raise circulating IGF-1 levels by 2% - a very small number.
Yet that doesn’t explain data like this : “One study showed a 10% increase in the free levels of IGF-1 in subjects that drank milk; the controls showed no change.⁴ Analysis of the diets of more than 1,000 nurses revealed that the food most as- sociated with high IGF-1 levels was milk.⁵ Neither of these studies used milk from cows treated with rbGH.“
I found even more here : “IGF-1 levels rose in tandem with women’s intake of protein, especially from milk. There was no association between IGF-1 levels and vegetable protein intake. Yogurt, cheese, and ice cream also had no association with the hormone.” So the more milk you drink, the more milk hormones seep into your blood.
The counter argument is simply that the hormone increase people see is in response to the protein in the milk or some other component of the milk. This is definitely possible, and even somewhat likely…
On a broader note, all this data is just for this one hormone that we’ve studied a lot. Who knows about the others… dunno if I want to be consuming 59 hormones… Many of these hormones could be small molecules - and thus will be much more likely to be absorbed in the intestine than IGF-1 … and that’s actually more scary than IGF-1. To me, this is a major reason to cut back on milk.
The other key question as I see it is what causes the consumption of dairy products and meat products in this country? I think some of it is advertising and this misconception that we need much more protein than we actually do… I’m guilty of it too - I’ve eaten too much milk and meat and I need to cut back…

Me on Google+
Me on Quora