CrossFit Discussion Board  

Go Back   CrossFit Discussion Board > Community > Community
CrossFit Home Forum Site Rules CrossFit FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Community Catch all category for CrossFit community discussion.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 07-10-2005, 06:57 PM   #1
Charlie Reid
Member Charlie Reid is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: San Diego  CA
Posts: 233
I just watched "what the bleep do we know?"...a movie on quantum theory and battling the question of reality. I highly suggest everyone go out and rent this. Really fascinating, especially those not exposed to quantum theory/mechanics/physics.

Anyways, there was a fascinating part about how we age and how our physiology can change based on our mental state. If we are feeling down or depressed, our cells reflect this by decreasing protein synthesis. Certain protein receptor sites shut down, not allowing important receptor chains to allow the cell to function optimally. The mechanism in which we age is primarily due to decreased protein synthesis by the cell. When our skin becomes less elastic, for example, this is due to a lack of elastin (a protein). And if a continued state of depression or even slight mental illness is continued, the cells will reproduce daughter cells to have the same inability to absorb certain helpful amino acid sequences that allow for proper protein synthesis and optimal cell function.

This is just a small testament to how gaining control of one's mind and remaining stress-free/mentally fit is so important to training. After all, how good is nutrition if our cells are too sick to even absorb the nutrients we are giving it?
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-11-2005, 08:14 AM   #2
Barry Cooper
Member Barry Cooper is offline
 
Barry Cooper's Avatar
 
Profile:
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Louisville  KY
Posts: 2,188
I saw that movie too, and meant to post something, and frankly forgot. I'm glad you did. My question was on the accuracy of what he said (the dude with the fire behind him). Specifically, he said that addictions of all sorts (this part is a bit fuzzy, that movie did not quite tie all the bits together, but raising questions is useful too), begin in the mind, and express themselves with specific biochemicals.

Because the blood and body are flooded with these chemicals, the cells "decide" to make more receptor sites for these "depression" or "sex", or "anger" or whatever biochemicals/neuropeptides, and less for protein synthesis, with the result over time of aging. The implication is that emotional "addiction" (defined as anything you can't stop) causes aging.

The further implication, and he raises this as an interesting possibility, is that it doesn't matter so much exactly what we eat, as what we DO with what we eat (i.e. the capacity of our bodies to completely digest the food), which in turn is conditioned by our predominant mental and emotional states.

Anyone who knows, I too would be curious as to his contention about the receptor sites in particular.
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-11-2005, 08:59 AM   #3
Ted Williams
Member Ted Williams is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: San Jose  CA
Posts: 381
I really hated that movie...not to rain on anyone's parade. I smelled BS and started digging online. Apparently a lot of people thought the same thing. It turns out that the movie was funded by Ramtha's spiritual group (one of the people being "interviewed")..which I find more than highly suspect.

Here's an interesting review I just looked up this morning:

http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/1014/p12s01-almo.html

Check out some of the reviews on IMDB to see some other key points shot down by other folks. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0399877/

I don't disagree that how we feel and think we feel affects us...but the whole protein cell receptor thing is malarchy.

Ted
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-11-2005, 10:27 AM   #4
Barry Cooper
Member Barry Cooper is offline
 
Barry Cooper's Avatar
 
Profile:
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Louisville  KY
Posts: 2,188
I have gone around and around on a local site on some of these issues with folks, and have concluded that the PROCESS by which these things are discussed is fundamentally flawed in almost all instances because of strong emotional connections to outcomes, which are related to strongly held a priori epistomological assumptions.

Phrased another way: I don't want to discuss 9/10s of the content of the movie. The one thing I am curious about, and which should not be overly contraversial, is the following contention:

1) There are a finite number of receptor sites on human cells.
2) There are a diversity of neuropeptides and other chemical "things" that can dock at these sites.
3) Over time, it is possible to develop "preferential" connections, i.e. the site is more likely to attract one type of biochemical "thing" than another, for example adrenaline or some other neuropeptide related to an emotion, versus another protein which directly nourishes the cell. Phrased another way, strong emotions, expressed consistently, can affect cellular nutrition.
4) This preference can be passed down cellular "generations" as a sort of memory.

Reading this, actually, I can't see how scientists can do other than form informed opinions on the topic. We are still figuring out basic things like how ice melts: http://www.livescience.com/forcesofn...discovery.html

Still, I would be interested in the feedback on this specific idea from the biochemists/doctor types. Ignore the rest of the movie. That discussion is not one I want to do here.
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-11-2005, 12:30 PM   #5
Charlie Reid
Member Charlie Reid is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: San Diego  CA
Posts: 233
I couldnt get the links to work, but i will definitely check that out. I do have a problem, and still hold a general disdain, when a lot of these scientists and professionals mix in a lot of mysticism with their science.
The most interesting part of the movie though was the part about cell physiology. I'd be interested in reading more about this, but i dont know of any books that talk about this theory of neuropeptides and cell receptors being affected by the mental state. The guy that talked about this most in the movie was a chiropractor who happened to have his master's in anatomy/physiology (maybe neurophysiology if i remember correctly).
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-11-2005, 01:23 PM   #6
Barry Cooper
Member Barry Cooper is offline
 
Barry Cooper's Avatar
 
Profile:
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Louisville  KY
Posts: 2,188
I would think that would be directly up the alley of psychoneuroimmunologists. That's a pretty young field, but it's been around at least 20 years or so, I think.
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-11-2005, 02:56 PM   #7
Chuck Pelowski
Member Chuck Pelowski is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Lubbock  TX
Posts: 88
> Specifically, he said that addictions of all sorts...begin in the mind, and express themselves with specific biochemicals.

I haven't seen the movie, but this sounds very backwards. Take alcohol addiction, for example. It is a basic assumption that people become alcoholics because they are biochemically predisposed toward alcoholism. That is, addiction starts biochemically and is expressed in the mind. Studies show that adopted sons of alcoholic fathers are four times more likely to become alcoholics themselves, while children of non-alcoholic parents adopted into alcoholic familes are not any more likely to suffer from alcoholism. Furthermore, studies of twins seperated at birth, while anecdotal at best, have shown that alcoholism is more prevelant in children of alcoholic parents, even though each twin was raised in a different environment. While scientists have not found an "alcoholism gene" (they thought they did in 1990), these studies seem to indicate that addiction is more a result of NATURE than NURTURE.
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Forging Mental fitness, by Jim Decker Jennifer Conlin Community 6 11-06-2006 11:57 AM
Mental Recovery Michael McMahon Injuries 2 07-04-2006 11:18 AM
Mental Health Benefits of Functional Fitness Robert Dobo Community 10 06-05-2006 06:41 PM
More Mental Training Barry Cooper Community 8 03-18-2006 06:22 AM
Mental fatigue Greg Battaglia Fitness 28 03-09-2006 06:50 AM


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:23 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
CrossFit is a registered trademark of CrossFit Inc.