61–70 of 151 posts
Shouldn't the chemistry hide the usage of calories by the brain? It gets basically a supply run at night - when its washed with lymph, sugar supplied and then subsists on that for new memory formation and computation with small scale supplies delivered during the day via the blood stream? So a hard thinking experience should show up downstream as calorie usage during the following sleep?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Chess lol. Playing a competitive arena FPS a the highest levels will get your brain cooking.
Don't know what's here to 'lol' about chess. Are you implying chess isn't cognition intensive?
I've also been interested for some time in how metabolism works and wanted to debunk the popular myth for my friends that exercise burns a lot of calories, since I was under the impression that around 80% of energy we burn is just by "living" - breathing and thinking. Reading this article I'm a little confused by the author's conflation of brain energy and the energy expenditure of the body as a whole. In the beginni…
> debunk the popular myth for my friends that exercise burns a lot of calories Can you expand on that please? Because I can tell you as a matter of fact that when I go for a run for an hour I burn well over 800 calories.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Second anecdote, I take between 10 and 15 grams. I don’t experience cognitive effects at lower doses (though my weightlifting endurance is still higher on lower doses). I also don’t eat meat so don’t have any incidental consumption
That seems like a lot to take daily. Most studies have settled on loading isn’t needed and 5g/day is enough. I just take 5g/day with my morning coffee/water.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's a big sandwich :) Big Mac = 580 Cal. I'm going to eat lunch one way or another and for me it's going to be under 800. Skipping meals isn't really a good choice, imo, but ok.
You need to eat roughly somewhere between 1300 and 2000 Cal every day to maintain your weight even if you are doing to exercise at all. If you want to lose weight, it's far easier to remove 800 Cal from your diet, at least time wise, then it is to exercise 800 Cal's worth every day. Either way, if you're losing weight at any appreciable rate, you will feel hungry (at least if it's not chemically induced in some way,…
That I absolutely agree with and so do my legs ;)
I only found the suggestion that exercise _doesn't_ burn calories a bit weird.
> you will feel hungry
That I also agree with... all this talk of sandwiches!
Holy 3-6mg of caffeine per kg is a shit ton. That’s 2-4 cups of coffee for me!
I found the AI writing of this post to really detract from its message. Give your agent meaningful writing samples of your own work and use those as a ‘style transfer’ basis for blog posts to get something far more true to your own voice.
Or please just put the prompt in a blog post instead.
The website owner didn't even bother to check for hallucinated links, though https://journals.physiology.org/doi/full/10.1152/japplphysio... does exist and somewhat backs up the clickbait headline, so it would be satisfying comeuppance if the mods could just replace the submission accordingly.
I've also been interested for some time in how metabolism works and wanted to debunk the popular myth for my friends that exercise burns a lot of calories, since I was under the impression that around 80% of energy we burn is just by "living" - breathing and thinking. Reading this article I'm a little confused by the author's conflation of brain energy and the energy expenditure of the body as a whole. In the beginni…
Depends on your level of exercise. I often cycle 100km per day and can tell you if I ate only the 2000 kcal I hypothetically need I would go into a strong deficit.
Is anyone here able to offer an explanation for why our brains are able to do really complex tasks without using much energy, at least compared to AI systems?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Usually, I can easily tell bad AI slop, because it is just that - sloppy - the bullet points, the 'delving' and all that. But how can you tell this article was also AI-tainted? On a second skim, I can sort of sense some of it - the bulletpoint-enthusiasm, the idiosyncratic segues (?) that link sections/paragraphs of the text. But it didn't trigger for me immediately, or cause me concern..? I'm worrying that soon, I w…
You really couldn't tell? The overly dramatic transitions all over the place is such an obvious tell: > Here's the part that surprised me: Might as well have said "here's the kicker" and used emojis instead of bullets. Maybe you can share your reading sites as you seem rather undrrexposed to not recognize this immediately lol. Edit: I mean come on man, how can you not tell?! I'm still cringing from this one: > The in…
Maybe AI is being trained on my writings.
Edit: Maybe because I was raised in the 80s, but this style of "asking a question to introduce a topic" was very common back then.