View Full Version : Psychological Distress and Psychological Development


mildadhd
05-04-14, 10:37 PM
It is well known that chronic psychological distress influences psychological development.

While it is not known for sure, if chronic distress causes specific emotional health issues.

Chronic distress is known to make emotional health issues more likely and also may worsen the severity of psychological health issues, that some people struggle with throughout life, including ADHD.

This thread is meant to explore how chronic distress may influence the expression and severity of emotional health issues, resulting in a more emotionally hypersensitive temperament at birth, (but not limited to).

As well as discussing homeostatic promoting eustressful environments, that may help prevent and help lessen the chance of exposure to chronic emotional distress, throughout life, especially for a person born with a more hypersensitive temperament.

(The link below is meant for a guide and example for discussion, but not limited to)


P

Abstract:

Because of the complex causal factors leading to depression, epigenetics is of considerable interest for the understanding effect of stress in depression.

Dopamine is a key neurotransmitter important in many physiological functions, including motor control, mood, and the reward pathway.

These factors lead many drugs to target Dopamine receptors in treating depressive disorders.

In this review, we try to portray how chronic stress as an epigenetic factor changes the gene regulation pattern by interrupting Dopamine signaling mechanism.


Keywords: epigenetics, chronic stress, dopamine signaling, depression

Epigenetic Effect Of Chronic Stress On Dopamine Signaling And Depression (http://www.la-press.com/epigenetic-effect-of-chronic-stress-on-dopamine-signaling-and-depressi-article-a3529)

Amtram
05-04-14, 10:42 PM
I read the linked article. The full text. It is not a piece of research, it is a hypothetical piece that leaves out quite a bit of essential information and has no experimental evidence whatsoever to support it. Nor does it specify what "gene expression" would be more likely even in a speculative way.

mildadhd
05-04-14, 11:43 PM
I read the linked article. The full text. It is not a piece of research, it is a hypothetical piece that leaves out quite a bit of essential information and has no experimental evidence whatsoever to support it. Nor does it specify what "gene expression" would be more likely even in a speculative way.

Can you show me any examples of changes in gene sequences, showing that changes are not epigenetic?

Can you show anyone how ADHD is genetic, with the same expectations that you request from others?

This thread is not about Non-Mendelian inheritance verses Mendelian inheritance.

It's about both, Non-Mendelian inheritance and Mendelian inheritance.


P

mildadhd
05-05-14, 12:29 AM
Epigenesis


"Epigenesis: This biological principal suggests that individual development arise from gradual, individualized differentiation of each organism, a process that is now being understood at a genetic level.

While the mammalian genome (successive DNA base pairs) establishes the primal template for body and brain construction (genotype), a more complex and variable process of gene-expression controls the production of the final organismic forms (phenotype).

It is recognized that these developmentally variable "epigenetic" processes enable differential expressions of the genotype, allowing environmental control over the final phenotypes.

The biochemistry of epigenetics involves modifications in the degree to which gene expression can be controlled by histone methylation and related changes of nuclear chromatin, which provide for fine-tuning of patterns and intensities of gene expressions during development, along with the mechanisms by which gene expressions can be amplified or silenced."

-Panksepp/Biven





"From the Couch to the Lab: Trends in Psychodynamic Neuroscience", (Box 9.1 Definitions) p 146.



i!i

SB_UK
05-05-14, 03:53 AM
In this review, we try to portray how chronic stress as an epigenetic factor changes the gene regulation pattern by interrupting Dopamine signaling mechanism.

It's nice to see it written - but intuitively.

anhedonia is defined as the inability to experience pleasure from activities usually found enjoyable

Anhedonia can be a characteristic of mental disorders including mood disorders; Disturbing mood changes may occur resultant to stressful life events ... ...

It's not really challenging to suggest that chronic stress depresses mood alters the body's ability to feel 'happy'.

If I were going to guess a mechanism - it'd just be cortisol and adrenaline resistance syndromes from being under constant stress; greater difficulty in arousal (SNS resistance) reflects itself in reduced dopaminergic circuit activity.

So -
chronic stress - high levels of cortisol and high levels of adrenaline/noradrenaline - leading to a down-regulation in cortisol and adrenaline receptors - meaning that we've lost sensitivity in these systems. It takes 'more' to elicit the same level of receptor signalling.

In fact - it looks as though somebody has worked all of this out:
The low arousal theory is a psychological theory explaining that people with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and antisocial personality disorder[1] seek self-stimulation by excessive activity in order to transcend their state of abnormally low arousal.

But as ever - we need to identify what the environmental DISTRESSOR is in order to prevent the chain of events.

What is distressing the ADDer ?
I think that anybody who has any exposure to an ADDer will know.

Competitive schooling and Competitive workplace where nothing useful is learnt nor conducted; teaching and work need to be overhauled in order to make an ADDer (actually human-friendly) world; all that's required is for us to eradicate the use of money/separate the need for money from survival (food+shelter).
I'd wager that ADD (distress) will increase as the school and workplace become ever more competitive under all nations' collapsing economies - driven by an ageing population (in time) everywhere.

-*-

Barliman asked the question - is ADD the 'stress sensitive' under stress, or just people under increasing stress ?
Well - it doesn't matter.
It's the same outcome whether ADD represents the stress sensitive under (maybe low actual levels) of stress ? as it is for an increasingly stressful (money increasingly hard to obtain) situation causing distress to more and more people ?

The question becomes - at what point do we just do something about the DIstressor, and stop getting so wound up in the actual mechanism by which stress operates to destroy our functioning ?

SB_UK
05-05-14, 04:43 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downregulation_and_upregulation
At high plasma concentrations, the number of surface receptors for insulin is gradually reduced by the accelerated rate of receptor internalization and degradation brought about by increased hormonal binding. The rate of synthesis of new receptors within the endoplasmic reticulum <- epigenetic effect on (reduced) gene expression maybe (physiological homeostasis operating via an epigenetic mechanism to re-establish equilibrium?) and their insertion in the plasma membrane do not keep pace with their rate of destruction. Over time, this self-induced loss of target cell receptors for insulin reduces the target cell’s sensitivity to the elevated hormone concentration.So the basic story is chronically high levels of hormone -> result in -> chronically low levels of receptor.

Have never fully understood the mechanism by which this occurs.

Since receptor expression is involved - why not suggest that epigenetic modification of hormone/neurotransmitter RECEPTOR upon elevated hormone/neurotransmitter is the mechanism ?

Not having the exact mechanism doesn't invalidate the mechanism (ie receptor downregulation upon elevated ligand levels).

What am I trying to suggest ?

Of course chronic stress/chronically elevated hormones and neurotransmitters will exert longlasting effects via resistance syndromes.

A resistance syndrome means that it takes 'more' ligand to have the same effect.

The SNS is all about arousal.

Chronic distress operating via the SNS will definitely result in standard activities producing less arousal -> less dopamine -> anhedonia.

However however however - all of that is fairly obvious.

We need to stop the ADDer being distressed.

Anybody with half a mind will be distressed when FORCED to do something that they do not want to do, can't understand why they're doing it, can explain why it's unwise to engage in whatever they're forced to do.

There is only 1 compulsion in life.

Having to earn money to survive.

Eliminate the relationship between money and happy survival and we're there.

Money imparts a compulsion, and through reward reinforcement people DO things which aren't actually morally appointed; from birth where you're stressed because you're thrown into a nursery at 3 months, to education to workplace to premature death before hitting retirement age
- the commonality is the reward reinforcement of really thick behaviours by money.

Eliminate money - and assist people in working towards personal reward - and you'll be there.

-*-

Now - how do you reverse resistance syndromes ?

We all know that eg a ketogenic diet can reverse pre-diabetes.

IE reduce the levels of hormone/neurotransmitter and sensitivity returns (increased receptor expression) - most likely by an epigenetic route.
Very importantly - epigenetics can increase OR decrease expression of a system.

So - all we need to do is to place ourselves in a highly DIstress free environment and cortisol/SNS sensitivity will ?epigenetically? re-appear.

All that I haven't worked out is whether EUstress eg exercise which also employs the SNS should be halted also- I, don't think so - it makes intuitive sense that as much EUSTRESS and as little DISTRESS should render a system optimally sensitive:
eg http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17530938
Interval training exercise (scientifically proven to drive aerobic fitness) helps asthmatics (SNS and cortisol resistant).

SB_UK
05-05-14, 04:57 AM
OK - have to admit that this low arousal ADDer can nearly find some interest in connecting physiological homeostasis with epigenetics.
So - homeostasis restores balance using epigenetic modification.

That idea's monstrous to dissect - you need too much data for any given experiment - and may not know what the data means - as it'll mean something dependent based on the context ie an acetylation here will mean something different if there's methylation there ... ... best to take the simple rule of physiology restoring homeostasis by up/down regulation - and to surmise from there.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downregulation_and_upregulation
An example of downregulation is the cellular decrease in the number of receptors to a molecule, such as a hormone or neurotransmitter, which reduces the cell's sensitivity to the molecule. This phenomenon is an example of a locally acting negative feedback mechanism.

You cannot conquer this system by any intervention other than eliminating DIstress and maximising EUstress; you won't know the likely effect of anything on your system - as up/downreg. ripples through a connected system.

That's nearly interesting - it means that near everything is going to have an effect on the genome - tweaking it one way or the other - dependent on the relative ratios of ligand/receptor in any given system.

But what's really interesting ?
Everything that follows a world without money - as people are FORCED to do something personally rewarding - if social activation of the reward system is required - which it is (in view of the selfish reward system losing its main player - money).

SB_UK
05-05-14, 05:37 AM
So - we've epigenetics as


the mechanism of development,
the mechanism by which physiology operates (restores homeostasis) and
the mechanism by which epigenetic marks are accumulated which result in a low energy organism (thrifty gene-ome/hist-ome) being selected - and emerging in the shape of the ADDer (stress sensitive).

Don't distress the stress-sensitive - everything that we associate with chronic stress occurs - just much more easily.


The ADDer isn't education-unable/work-shy
- education needs to makes sense as does work.

Now - one of the greatest problems I've had - is work out whether we lack + (stimulation) or whether we need + (stimulation) as stress relief.
As far as I can see - we've a very special reward system which produces no reward in the world we're in.
And so we lack stimulation and suffer stress from engaging in DIstressful pursuits.

IE - the two are so heavily intertwined in producing the symptomatology of ADD.

But of course - we can push all of the above aside - by simply working out how to activate the ADDer's reward system.
To which the answer 'd be the EUstressful physical world (aerobic fitness) and EUstressful mental world (doing something which brings personal reward - will be consistent with morality**).

** scientifically proven (Steven Pink) to result from attaining autonomy, mastery and purpose.
in "The truth of what motivates us".

IE becoming really good at something that matters.

-*-

So pursue becoming really good at something that matters rather than money and its friends (addictive reward system)
- and eventually with completion of mind / pair-bonding
- you won't need to activate the reward system using any behaviour (whether selfish or social).

Freedom from having to do anything; mere existence is enough <- The meaning of life.

SB_UK
05-05-14, 06:32 AM
- and eventually with completion of mind / pair-bonding


Also - loss of attraction for blood glucose elevation (sweet foods) also occurs at this stage.

This is PARTICULARLY noteworthy - because it's essential that we adopt a ketogenic/blood glucose maintaining diet to ensure healthy ageing.
Simply - sweet, starchy and high protein via Insulin/IGF-1/GH sits at the base of all of the common diseases afflicting man.

Underlying all common disease is inflammation - and as we know ketosis is anti-inflammatory.

So - we've a general 'protocol' for life - which will ensure a long, meaningful and healthy life.

But what's the difference between ADDer and nonADDer ?
Minor - in that nonADDer gets to choose selfish OR social route towards freedom from material attachment.

ADDer doesn't get the choice - and gets no real satisfaction from pursuit of the selfish route.

The black irony is that we'll appear to be hooked on the same sortsa' addictive chemicals - but that's simply DIstress alleviation in order to allow us to comply.

Increased self medication / DIstress alleviating primitive reward system activators required in those who're (ironically) programmed to transcend that reward mechanism.

It's a little confusing - and is why it's necessary to differentiate + reward (ie motivational) from stress relief (ie necesary to retain sanity) - whilst noting that they're (superficiailly from the outside) going to look as though they're identical.

So and finally:
A Summary of this and the last 5 posts.
Psychological Distress and Psychological DevelopmentVery very simply EUstress physical / psychological -> proper development/completion.
DIstress physical / psychological -> deranged development/ failure in completion.

The point being that we need to identify DIstressors and EUstessors - and they're fairly obvious if we all think about them for a while ie what should a rational individual hate but needs to do in our current society [Distressor], what do you rationally suspect is good for you/others [EUstressor].
Surely people know (forgetting the details of what the following mean - all described in other posts) - that a certain profile of exercise, diet and morality are good for you
- and that sedentary existence, fast food and defining oneself on others' failure (competition) is not.

Epidemiology can help - but the simple answer in 2 words is a more efficient aerobic vessel, and as detailed (knowledge) a moral (a globally logical structure with a specification of what's best for the individual/species with a strong emphasis on what's best for the species is best for the individual) structure of mind.

Amtram
05-05-14, 11:01 AM
Can you show me any examples of changes in gene sequences, showing that changes are not epigenetic?

Can you show anyone how ADHD is genetic, with the same expectations that you request from others?

This thread is not about Non-Mendelian inheritance verses Mendelian inheritance.

It's about both, Non-Mendelian inheritance and Mendelian inheritance.


P

Can you show me that there are changes in gene sequences in the first place? Can you show that epigenetics has no effect on gene sequences? Your questions are based upon an idea that contradicts factual information, so the answer to both of those is "No."

The evidence that ADHD is genetic consists of a huge volume of information and research, and more being found every day. I currently have journal access if I ask nicely, but since it would be unethical (and possibly illegal) to provide you with the details, so all I could do would be to point you to so many abstracts that you wouldn't have time to read them all. But here are some free full-text articles from Nature Molecular Psychiatry that you might want to look at:

http://www.nature.com/mp/journal/v17/n10/full/mp2011138a.html
http://www.nature.com/mp/journal/v19/n3/full/mp201316a.html
http://www.nature.com/mp/journal/v19/n1/full/mp2012161a.html
http://www.nature.com/mp/journal/v17/n7/full/mp201159a.html
http://www.nature.com/mp/journal/v15/n6/full/mp200957a.html

This is only the open full-text papers in only one publication that relate directly to genetics of ADHD, and I went back only to 2009. However, they represent the trend of discovery.

They also are papers supported by research that have been cited by other researchers, rather than a review paper on a hypothesis. This thread started off as a discussion of that review paper, and further misconstrued the already flawed conclusion of that paper.

I don't demand anything of others that I don't already demand of myself - I will look at all the information that is available to me, search for more clarification from scientists who specialize in the relevant field, learn what I don't understand, and change my opinion when provided with robust data that contradicts what I thought I knew.

If you state something that is incorrect or lacking in critical data, then you should expect that its flaws will be noticed. Rather than digging in your heels and insisting that all who disagree are simply being oppositional, you should view it as a learning opportunity. This way, you will either find better information to support your view, or learn better information and abandon an incorrect view.

Amtram
05-05-14, 11:11 AM
So - we've epigenetics as


the mechanism of development,
the mechanism by which physiology operates (restores homeostasis) and
the mechanism by which epigenetic marks are accumulated which result in a low energy organism (thrifty gene-ome/hist-ome) being selected - and emerging in the shape of the ADDer (stress sensitive).



You can prove anything you want if you redefine scientific terms. It's so much easier than sticking to the evidence.

The first is somewhat correct - it is a mechanism of development, but it operates on a molecular level, so it is a mechanism of cellular development.

The second makes no sense. Homeostasis is a chemical process, primarily active in the endocrine system, and as such is a function of balancing hormones and metabolism. There's no need to even bring epigenetics into it. Most of the evidence of epigenetic change from stresses to the endocrine system (the few that have been discovered) exhibit in subsequent generations, not in the individual.

The third is simply an assumption that has no solid data behind it.

SB_UK
05-05-14, 11:26 AM
The point is - that if physiology (homeostasis,negative feedback,negative/positive regulation) is to work - then it's plausible that it employs epigenetic modification at the level of the gene promoter and its associated histone.
IE physiology operates by turning a dimmer switch up or down - it's even more attractive than flicking a light switch - because presumably there are grades of up and down regulation from promoter and histone modification.

That'd be a REALLY neat mechanism - which I've never heard (previously) suggested.

mildadhd
05-05-14, 02:04 PM
Amtram,

This is not a genetic verses phenetic, thread.

It's about the phene (epiphenesis) influencing the gene (epigenesis).

I think the phene came before the gene.

Phenetics can function without the mammalian genetics.

But the mammalian genetics can't function without the phenetics.

I have a few links that I would like to discuss with those interested.



Mental illness suspect genes are among the most environmentally responsive (http://www.nih.gov/news/health/feb2012/nimh-02.htm)

“Developmental brain disorders may be traceable to altered methylation of genes early in life,” explained Barbara Lipska, Ph.D., a scientist in the NIH’s National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH)


“This new study reminds us that genetic sequence is only part of the story of development.

Epigenetics links nurture and nature, showing us when and where the environment can influence how the genetic sequence is read,” said NIMH director Thomas R. Insel, M.D.


P

Amtram
05-05-14, 02:05 PM
Not suggested because it makes no sense. It's completely implausible that a process that moves chemicals around the body would create cells or that a process that creates cells would modulate a chemical process. Epigenetics doesn't need hormones, and hormonal regulation doesn't need epigenetics. It wouldn't be a "neat mechanism" at all, because it would require us abandoning a massive amount of well-documented and verified biological knowledge in favor of something without precedent.

mildadhd
05-05-14, 02:34 PM
Not suggested because it makes no sense. It's completely implausible that a process that moves chemicals around the body would create cells or that a process that creates cells would modulate a chemical process. Epigenetics doesn't need hormones, and hormonal regulation doesn't need epigenetics. It wouldn't be a "neat mechanism" at all, because it would require us abandoning a massive amount of well-documented and verified biological knowledge in favor of something without precedent.


Change begets change.

Epigenetics: The Science of Change. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1392256/)

The word “epigenetic” literally means “in addition to changes in genetic sequence.” The term has evolved to include any process that alters gene activity without changing the DNA sequence, and leads to modifications that can be transmitted to daughter cells (although experiments show that some epigenetic changes can be reversed). There likely will continue to be debate over exactly what the term means and what it covers.

Many types of epigenetic processes have been identified—they include methylation, acetylation, phosphorylation, ubiquitylation, and sumolyation. Other epigenetic mechanisms and considerations are likely to surface as work proceeds. Epigenetic processes are natural and essential to many organism functions, but if they occur improperly, there can be major adverse health and behavioral effects...







P

Amtram
05-05-14, 02:56 PM
That's not an explanation of how something implausible would work. Does the subtle re-balancing of hormones throughout the endocrine system produce new cells as an integral part of the process? No. Ergo, biological homeostasis is not epigenetic.

In addition, it has also been well demonstrated that actual changes to epigenetic instructions happen almost exclusively before birth, with a few less significant but still documented in neonate lab animals. You're still putting forth an idea that has more research disproving it than supporting it.

SB_UK
05-05-14, 03:15 PM
It's about the phene (epiphenesis) influencing the gene (epigenesis).


Sum of Phene (Physiol.) operating through Sum of Epi/gene.

Physiology and the entire genome/histome just got really exquisitely attractive.

Life was so dull when people thought that the human genome sequence (and other genome sequences) heralded the end.

It merely heralds the start of our comprehension of how exquisite a system - completely immune to any form of artificial chemical intervention - our human material world system is.

The system needs to be operated within environmental guidelines just as a car can't be driven over a swamp.

ADDers get this sinking feeling in current society.

And that's not even including the mind and spirit - which are going to be just as sophisticated - but each in a different way.

SB_UK
05-05-14, 03:24 PM
If the phene is a chemical reaction - then it would have preceded some gene coming along which encoded the enzyme to catalyze that reaction.

So the chicken came before the egg.

SB_UK
05-05-14, 03:39 PM
“Developmental brain disorders may be traceable to altered methylation of genes early in life,” explained Barbara Lipska, Ph.D., a scientist in the NIH’s National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) Quote:
“This new study reminds us that genetic sequence is only part of the story of development.

Epigenetics links nurture and nature, showing us when and where the environment can influence how the genetic sequence is read,” said NIMH director Thomas R. Insel, M.D. So the thought that comes to mind is that there are phases when growth occurs.

Growth will involve the co-ordinated use of various genes.

The 'favourableness' of the environment at the moment will alter the set-point (epigenetically) of the genes involved in growth ie growth retardation or growth promotion ... ... presumably too much / too little will both set expression of the gene to too low or too high -

- and these epigenetic settings will then manifest themselves later, when these genes come to be used in other processes.

Don't know about this idea - but am attracted to the idea of a setting being placed on a gene when it's first involved in a growth spurt (of whichever system it's responsible for growing)
- and the setting that is placed on the system - manifesting itself later on in life as an aberrant (too little / too much) expression
- dependent on how the setting (dimmer switch) was set environmental context dependent on first usage.

Why attracted to this idea ?
Because then we've consistency ie in the Dutch Hunger Winter study - low nutrition programs - if the epigenetic system were completely free - exposure to plentiful food would reverse a metabolic efficiency phenotype.

Want to somehow 'fix' expression of growth based systems on environmental context when any such systems (the various genes involved in a growth spurt in some system) are first used.

Don't know about this though.

So periods of growth/differentiation as the periods in which a stable environment is required to imprint a favourable epigenetic profile ?

Whether adverse growth restricting or adverse growth promoting (both potentially resulting in pathology) presumably would involve the metabolic/energetic environment of any such system.

mildadhd
05-05-14, 03:54 PM
If the phene is a chemical reaction - then it would have preceded some gene coming along which encoded the enzyme to catalyze that reaction.

So the chicken came before the egg.

Because of inheritance, I would not want to speculate which came first,( EDIT) when considering mammalian psychological brain development.

See-saw relationships over a long period of time.

No mammal exists by itself anyway.

Although Bertrand Russell was partly wright, by choice.

I can be equal to others, if and only if, I am not equal to myself.



P

mildadhd
05-05-14, 04:31 PM
Don't know about this idea - but am attracted to the idea of a setting being placed on a gene when it's first involved in a growth spurt (of whichever system it's responsible for growing)
- and the setting that is placed on the system - manifesting itself later on in life as an aberrant (too little / too much) expression
- dependent on how the setting (dimmer switch) was set environmental context dependent on first usage.




Thanks SB_UK, I wonder your opinion..



Early stress establishes a lower "set point" for a child internal stress system: such a person becomes stressed more easily than normal throughout her life.

Dr. Bruce Perry is Senior Fellow at the Child Trauma Academy in Houston, Texas, and former Director of Provincial Programs for Children's Mental Health in Alberta.

As he points out, "A child who is stressed early in life will be more overactive and reactive.

He is triggered more easily, is more anxious and distressed.

Now, compare a person--child, adolescent or adult--whose baseline arousal is normal with another whose baseline state of arousal is at a higher level.

Give them both alcohol: both may experience the same intoxicating effect, but the one who has this higher physiological arousal will have the added effect of feeling pleasure from the relief of that stress.

It's similar to when with a parched throat you drink some cool water: the pleasure effect is much heightened by the relief of thirst" (*26)



-Gabor Mate M.D., "In The Realm Of Hungry Ghosts", p 196-197


P

Amtram
05-05-14, 04:35 PM
So the thought that comes to mind is that there are phases when growth occurs.

Yes.

Growth will involve the co-ordinated use of various genes.

No. It is a process that is built into our genes and is an ongoing process. It is an example of heritable epigenetics.

The 'favourableness' of the environment at the moment will alter the set-point (epigenetically) of the genes involved in growth ie growth retardation or growth promotion ... ... presumably too much / too little will both set expression of the gene to too low or too high -

No. This assumption goes against everything we've discovered so far about epigenetics. And "growth" is not the equivalent of "gene expression".

- and these epigenetic settings will then manifest themselves later, when these genes come to be used in other processes.

This makes no sense in the context of everything else you're saying, although it would be somewhat supportable if removed from that context.

Don't know about this idea - but am attracted to the idea of a setting being placed on a gene when it's first involved in a growth spurt (of whichever system it's responsible for growing)
- and the setting that is placed on the system - manifesting itself later on in life as an aberrant (too little / too much) expression
- dependent on how the setting (dimmer switch) was set environmental context dependent on first usage.

It's very nice that you're attracted to this idea, but it has no basis in reality. Epigenetics is not philosophically malleable. Perhaps it would work in the context of a science fiction novel about an alien race with a completely different biology from life on earth.


Because then we've consistency ie in the Dutch Hunger Winter study - low nutrition programs - if the epigenetic system were completely free - exposure to plentiful food would reverse a metabolic efficiency phenotype.

This is not what was found in this study, or the ones that followed it. More recent studies point to the epigenetic changes in the fathers' sperm cells which changed gene expression in only the children who were conceived during the starvation period, which is reinforced by other studies showing that the following generation returned to the norm. And your conclusion is in need of support - if one thing happens after something, it does not automatically mean that the opposite thing will happen after something different.

Want to somehow 'fix' expression of growth based systems on environmental context when any such systems (the various genes involved in a growth spurt in some system) are first used.

We can't always get what we want. And this is a tall order. If you start with "let's completely redefine what epigenetics is and how it works and when it happens and then use that to explain the conclusion I want to reach," then you've got something. However, that's not really a viable approach.

Amtram
05-05-14, 04:37 PM
Thanks SB_UK, I wonder your opinion..





-Gabor Mate M.D., "In The Realm Of Hungry Ghosts", p 196-197


P

Not epigenetics.

mildadhd
05-05-14, 04:43 PM
SB_UK

I could be partly be wrong about Bertrand Russell's choosing his "choices".

Because his mother died when he was 2 and his father when he was three.

Which could explain partly his sensitive side, and the comfort he got from his tabacco pipe?

Which he did say he would surely die without.



P

Amtram
05-05-14, 04:48 PM
Perhaps he should have tried using pyramid power instead.

mildadhd
05-05-14, 05:12 PM
SB_UK

I need your help understanding the different medical dosage effects of glucocorticoid therapy

It seems that longer term high exposure to glucocorticoid therapy may be bad ,and low exposure to glucocorticoid therapy short term may be good?

I'm wondering about longer term over exposure to un-visible unintentional adoption/anxiety/depression, like, distress, which occurs over a long period of time, especially during the perinatal stage and early critical period of of psychological development before 4*, when these biological mechanisms are setting set points relation to the environment, sometimes for the very first time.



Prolonged glucocorticoid therapy causes serious side effects (Rhen and Cidlowski, 2005). Osteoporosis, metabolic syndrome, impaired development, and blunted growth all limit chronic use of glucocorticoids. Patients receiving long-term glucocorticoid treatment experience redistribution of body fat from the extremities to the trunk and face. Neural and psychological disturbances, such as psychosis, depression, and euphoria, can occur. To reduce these untoward actions of glucocorticoids, the lowest dosage with therapeutic efficacy, intermittent administration, and localized routes of administration have been implemented with some success (Buttgereit et al., 2005).

http://pharmrev.aspetjournals.org/content/58/4/782.long#title3

Amtram
05-05-14, 06:28 PM
I need help understanding how any of this has anything to do with anything that's reality-based. I mean, even philosophy is supposed to have something to do with reality, and this discussion is founded on a completely fictional concept based on wishful thinking.

I wonder how glucocorticoid therapy would be relevant to the OP, and how that last sentence is supposed to be interpreted. I can't even. . .

mildadhd
05-05-14, 07:48 PM
I need help understanding how any of this has anything to do with anything that's reality-based. I mean, even philosophy is supposed to have something to do with reality, and this discussion is founded on a completely fictional concept based on wishful thinking.

I wonder how glucocorticoid therapy would be relevant to the OP, and how that last sentence is supposed to be interpreted. I can't even. . .

All the research you posted in this thread so far acknowledges both environmental factors and genetic factors.

Why don't you?


P

Amtram
05-05-14, 09:35 PM
Because there are specific ways that they work, and these mechanisms are well known. If you make up stuff about how they might work that are in direct contradiction to they way they have been clearly demonstrated to actually work, then you're just bouncing around pointless ideas.

If you attribute things to epigenetics, then you should understand how epigenetics works. If you attribute things to epigenetics that are not epigenetic, then you should find out how they work and stop trying to fit them into an epigenetic model.

So far, in this thread, so many things that are impossible or at least improbable have been proposed as likely that there's really little reason to take any of the suppositions seriously.

We might as well be asking how alien abduction affects genetic expression or whether cortisol will allow us to re-grow limbs. Seriously, that's how far out some of these things sound.

mildadhd
05-05-14, 10:08 PM
Originally Posted by SB_UK View Post
If the phene is a chemical reaction - then it would have preceded some gene coming along which encoded the enzyme to catalyze that reaction.

So the chicken came before the egg.



Sorry I got (and getting) carried away. :)

I was thinking more like the atmosphere before the mammal. :)

or, atmosphere before the TreeBrain. :)

I heard Cosmos(TV show) that humans and trees share the same DNA? :)



If I remember correctly, uracil can be "made" in space like conditions?

What came first uracil or thymine?

Where does surface tension and other things that would be required for atmospheric air pressure to exist, fit in the development of genes? :)

Maybe epiphenetics would be a better term to describe environmental factors, influencing epigenetics?

Not sure, interested in your thoughts.

Environment in the beginning, then a mutual back and forth relationship with a gene.



I was wondering if it was possible the RNA came first?

Interestingly, tested by Mythbusters, a bullet can be shot from a gun, in vacuum.

Considering things do bump into each other at high rates of speed, etc

Still the environment must be appropriate for the fire to keep burning.

But not burn to much.

And forest fires do start naturally.

The combination of natural factors working together for life to exist on earth as we know it, are so delicate, it is mind boggling to think they are all interacting at the same time.

Fire, Water, Air, Earth... (Phenetic examples)

Makes genetics kind of interesting.

Makes me wonder what is the relationship between endophenotypes and epiphenetics and epigenetics.

Is the DNA back bone made up of sugar and phosphate?

Add some hydrogen, nitrogen oxygene, etc (not exactly sure, added for disscussion.

I am getting carried away, can't handle the seriousness anymore, I must have fun to learn.

Phenetic Fundamentalism Catma


P

mildadhd
05-05-14, 10:19 PM
I wonder what conditions in space are required for earth atmospheric conditions to exist?

I used to worry that space was flammable, that would have sucked when the first rocket went to space, if it was.

Would have been quite the explosion, maybe space was flammable before the big bang?




:)

Lunacie
05-05-14, 11:10 PM
Sorry I got (and getting) carried away. :)

I was thinking more like the atmosphere before the mammal. :)

or, atmosphere before the TreeBrain. :)

I heard Cosmos(TV show) that humans and trees share the same DNA? :)


Nope.

All DNA molecules are made from the same four chemical building blocks called nucleotides.
What is different is how these four nucleotides in DNA are arranged.

It’s their sequence that determines which proteins will be made.
The way the nucleotides are arranged, and the information they encode,
decides whether the organism will produce scales or leaves – legs or a stalk.

If we had the same DNA as trees, we would be trees. Or trees would be human.

read more: http://earthsky.org/?p=433

mildadhd
05-06-14, 02:32 AM
Nope.

All DNA molecules are made from the same four chemical building blocks called nucleotides.
What is different is how these four nucleotides in DNA are arranged.

It’s their sequence that determines which proteins will be made.
The way the nucleotides are arranged, and the information they encode,
decides whether the organism will produce scales or leaves – legs or a stalk.

If we had the same DNA as trees, we would be trees. Or trees would be human.

read more: http://earthsky.org/?p=433

Are we reading the same link?

There are pretty obvious differences between plants and animals, but – at the chemical level – the cells of all plants and all animals contain DNA in the same shape – the famous “double helix” that looks like a twisted ladder. What’s more, all DNA molecules – in both plants and animals – are made from the same four chemical building blocks – called nucleotides.


P

SB_UK
05-06-14, 09:55 AM
Failed post = http://www.addforums.com/forums/blog.php?b=12347

-*-

Psychological distress arises from 'wanting'.
If an individual didn't want anything (was happy without anything) - then the individual 'd be happy through existence.
Not wanting anything is different to not wanting anything by virtue of depression ie the state of not wanting anything would need to be truly (rationally) desired.
Not wanting anything reflects securing sufficient reward without invoking the reward which comes from material world factors (money, power, food, sex).

Presumably stress applies throughout physical growth - to drive completion in growth.
Presumably stress applies throughout mental growth - to drive completion in growth.

So - stress is the sign, in a developing system - that it's not there yet.

Stress in the context of cortisol has a very definite growth controlling feature.

Stress (sufficient) as a mechanism of achieving the most efficient optimal form.

-*-

What separates positive stress from negative stress ?
Presumably the subject controls positive stress, and is controlled (resistance syndromes) by negative stress.
So - acute versus chronic, volitional versus imposed - separating eustress and distress.

Whether on the physical level - aerobic exercise - the individual wants to get better.
Or on the informational level - playing an instrument - the individual likewise wants to get better.

Noting that playing an instrument can be eustressful to some and distressful to others - dependent ... ...

Eustressful stimuli which are acute and individual-controlled.

But you don't need a 'well stocked' mind to be either perfectly aerobic or eg a great musician, artist ... ... the mind has to be globally logically consistent
- but it need not contain (though is allowed to contain) much information at all.

Generally our society worships 'mind' more than 'aerobic nature, artistic nature'
- when mind's a conduit from one to the other ?

Psychological distress - surely from incomplete minds attempting goals which complete minds can see are impossible to achieve ie you'll never succeed - so why bother.

Trying to fix the legal system ... ...
Rational genetic modification of a living system (in view of the systems nature of phsyiology/epigenetics) ... ...

are both bound to fail.

-*-

So a life destined to failure in striving towards the perfect aerobic reaction vessel, perfect artist.

Can't be done.

Completion of mind (generally science led) (enlightenment) as one operates towards optimising aerobic nature / artistic nature (bith social behaviours) - noting that completion of mind isn't compatible when one attempts to pursue any form of anti-social activity (pursuit of eg money, power, sex) - because the mind when complete is moral - ie you can't develop a moral structure of mind whilst pursuing (vigorously) anti-social goals ... ... ... anyway - at point of enlightenment, we are granted freedom from stress (because we've completed our growth trajectory) and will propel ourselves no longer towards a perfection - which we know we can never reach.

-*-

So - summarising - Excellence in sports, science, art until our mind/body growth cycles complete - whereupon we're free to (I think) live the ketogenic lifestyle (transcended the blood glucose elevation reward system because growth cycle complete and so glucocorticoid (in its guise as motivator towards completion) ended) which has been shown to be protective against all common diseases blighting mankind.

SB_UK
05-06-14, 10:21 AM
So what is ADHD ?

It's people born into a personal betterment and not a 'competition' based reward system -- ie properly social as opposed to anti-socail behaviour defined.
Whereby - customization towards personal betterment (art/science/exercise) is a path to enlightenment (completion of mind) - however where taking the other path (the nonADDer has the choice between antisocial and social) - and the mind will be addled instead of balanced.

Since we are our reward system - and the ADDer's is consistent with social behaviour - we can call ADDers emergence of a social organism.

Noting that if you place individual who seek personal betterment in a world where only vicious competitive practices are permitted (school,work - everywhere really - socail life where people compare cars, holidays, paycheques ... ... ...)
- then we BREAK.

So - the three candidates I've mentioned underlying ADHD
social organism - definitely <- defining oneself against beating others is ridiculous.
fast-track to global logical consistency - ie AND as opposed to OR minds - pretty sure <- requires the individual to connect information from lowest to highest evolutionary levels - from fundamental substance to mind/social structure formation.
energy efficient - appears to be the way <- rely on appetite - will be fine as long as individual is free from distress.
[insulin sensitive]

That's a pretty decent innings by evolution - as soon as somebody realises all of this and permits a new collaborative infrastructure to all planetary citizens - which supports the individual in their own personal efforts towards artistic,scientific and aerobic physical body excellence ... ... prior to enlightenment and doing whatever takes your fancy.

The point of life is to be happy.

This requires us to grow (completion in mind) up.

Amtram
05-06-14, 11:44 AM
Nope.

All DNA molecules are made from the same four chemical building blocks called nucleotides.
What is different is how these four nucleotides in DNA are arranged.

It’s their sequence that determines which proteins will be made.
The way the nucleotides are arranged, and the information they encode,
decides whether the organism will produce scales or leaves – legs or a stalk.

If we had the same DNA as trees, we would be trees. Or trees would be human.

read more: http://earthsky.org/?p=433

We share a lot of the same DNA because all life on earth descended from the same single-celled creatures. But even our closest primate relatives are slightly different from us.

Amtram
05-06-14, 11:48 AM
So much wishful thinking. Learning, not so much. I have fun learning things that have facts to back them up. If the fun comes from making up scenarios that can't possibly exist, it may be fun, but it's not learning.

Lunacie
05-06-14, 12:30 PM
Does every living thing have DNA? Yes.
Does every living thing have the same DNA? I still say Nope

mildadhd
05-06-14, 12:45 PM
So much wishful thinking. Learning, not so much. I have fun learning things that have facts to back them up. If the fun comes from making up scenarios that can't possibly exist, it may be fun, but it's not learning.

Amtram,

What specifically is the problem, please give a specific example?

P

mildadhd
05-06-14, 01:09 PM
Does every living thing have DNA? Yes.
Does every living thing have the same DNA? I still say Nope

Maybe I should have said the same genetic code. (same building blocks, etc)

Thanks, I learned that I could have been, clearer.




P

Amtram
05-06-14, 01:22 PM
Essentially, everything that's been speculated about regarding epigenetics and genetics, which I've already addressed. If these things worked the way they've been described, the only living things on earth would be plants, jellyfish, coral, certain species of worms, and single-celled organisms.

Part of the epigenetic process includes cell death. If your neurons are replacing themselves with "epigenetically new and improved" neurons, then the old ones die. With those deaths, all the axonal connections and synapses die along with them, leaving the new neuron with a single axon, floating freely, having to start all those connections from scratch. Every creature with a brain in which neurons replaced themselves in the same way as other cells in the body would regularly lose portions of sight, smell, hearing, taste, and touch. Memories would disappear, including important ones like what's food and what's poison. Personalities would change daily, sometimes drastically. The ability to stand, walk, run, perform fine motor tasks, would vary unpredictably. Understanding and producing speech would come and go, and sleep would become patternless.

This may not be as much fun to learn as what you've been exploring, but at least it's factual.

mildadhd
05-06-14, 01:51 PM
Essentially, everything that's been speculated about regarding epigenetics and genetics, which I've already addressed. If these things worked the way they've been described, the only living things on earth would be plants, jellyfish, coral, certain species of worms, and single-celled organisms.

Part of the epigenetic process includes cell death. If your neurons are replacing themselves with "epigenetically new and improved" neurons, then the old ones die. With those deaths, all the axonal connections and synapses die along with them, leaving the new neuron with a single axon, floating freely, having to start all those connections from scratch. Every creature with a brain in which neurons replaced themselves in the same way as other cells in the body would regularly lose portions of sight, smell, hearing, taste, and touch. Memories would disappear, including important ones like what's food and what's poison. Personalities would change daily, sometimes drastically. The ability to stand, walk, run, perform fine motor tasks, would vary unpredictably. Understanding and producing speech would come and go, and sleep would become patternless.

This may not be as much fun to learn as what you've been exploring, but at least it's factual.

Let's take this step by step.

Amtram,

What specifically is the problem, please give a specific example?

P


Give one specific example, please?

P

mildadhd
05-06-14, 02:16 PM
(4:00) "Stress also plays a role, in shaping the epigenome"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oqAbymytqdU

Amtram
05-06-14, 02:54 PM
Let's take this step by step.




Give one specific example, please?

P

I've taken it step by step and given countless specific examples. Obviously, no matter what I do, it will never reach the constantly moving goalposts, and you deliberately ignore it regardless. Please tell me what the point is of repeatedly answering your questions only to have you insist that your questions have not actually been answered?

Fortunately, I do not consider this a complete exercise in futility, because while some people actively resist understanding, there are many out there reading but not commenting who actually do get it. I hope you realize, though, that what you may appear to be presenting here is not an example of an inquisitive mind, but of someone who is oppositional because he holds a grudge. This will generally not persuade others to take up the banner.

SB_UK
05-06-14, 04:11 PM
Physiology is stress management.

Amtram
05-06-14, 04:47 PM
phys·i·ol·o·gy

[fiz-ee-ol-uh-jee] Show IPA
noun 1. the branch of biology dealing with the functions and activities of living organisms and their parts, including all physical and chemical processes.

2. the organic processes or functions in an organism or in any of its parts.

Well, I suppose that means that digesting chocolate is stress management. That works for me.

mildadhd
05-06-14, 07:30 PM
phys·i·ol·o·gy

[fiz-ee-ol-uh-jee] Show IPA
noun 1. the branch of biology dealing with the functions and activities of living organisms and their parts, including all physical and chemical processes.

2. the organic processes or functions in an organism or in any of its parts.

Well, I suppose that means that digesting chocolate is stress management. That works for me.

Actual I think eating chocolate could be considered a form of self medication.



P

mildadhd
05-06-14, 07:42 PM
I've taken it step by step and given countless specific examples. Obviously, no matter what I do, it will never reach the constantly moving goalposts, and you deliberately ignore it regardless. Please tell me what the point is of repeatedly answering your questions only to have you insist that your questions have not actually been answered?

Fortunately, I do not consider this a complete exercise in futility, because while some people actively resist understanding, there are many out there reading but not commenting who actually do get it. I hope you realize, though, that what you may appear to be presenting here is not an example of an inquisitive mind, but of someone who is oppositional because he holds a grudge. This will generally not persuade others to take up the banner.

Post #43 (http://www.addforums.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1645268&postcount=43)

I'm wondering why you have no comment on my video post above?

I actually agree with your comments to a certain degree.

I have been semi-ignoring you ,for about a week now.

You only seem to have one view, your own, and everyone else is wrong.

Since I agree with the parts you call epigenetic and you disagree with the parts I call epigenetic.

There is not much I can really say.

Everyone learns different, you stated your personal opinions about how you learn.

And seem to think that I should be exactly like you, and I have no other options, but yours?

I don't think you actually post much research to back your opinions.

The research you post, always says both environments and genes.

You avoid being specific in my opinion.



Why don't we just agree to ignore each other, I semi started about a week ago?





P

Amtram
05-06-14, 08:05 PM
Nope, sorry. I don't ignore people who promulgate false information. Goes against the grain for me to let falsehood be given a platform that implies legitimacy. I don't ignore anything that amounts to fake medicine.

BTW, when you read my peer-reviewed, published journal articles, I'll watch your youtube videos. I just got a great one, a twin study that went on for more than 12 years and included a couple thousand pairs of twins and concluded that the common element was genetic, because the environmental factors were diverse, while the genetic factor was unique. But I guess that's nothing compared with a youtube video.

Amtram
05-06-14, 08:08 PM
BTW, I disagree with you on your views on epigenetics because they are completely at odds with the evidence. Again, I value the conclusions of scientific researchers who specialize in epigenetics over those that are based on speculation and wishful thinking and directly contradict the findings derived from rigorous research. I disagree with geocentrists and moon landing deniers, too.

mildadhd
05-06-14, 08:12 PM
The reason why I decided to ignore you and some of your buddies, was when some of your team ripped me a new one, over and over, in several threads.(many of them my own)

Then some buddies comes along and say, "I know about cognitive therapy starting at 18 months" or "I am really surprised how well behavioral therapy works for parents."or "family process", etc (paraphrasing)

And not one person who ripped me all those times, said anything negative to there buddies.

We have endophenotypes now, we can admit to un-visible uninttentional adoption/anxiety/depression, like, distress, that makes things worse and treat people who are suffering from emotional distress.

Hooray that is my only goal, I never wanted to argue with anyone.

I have always agreed with genetic components/predisposition and medication use.

No matter how some people try to paint a different picture.




P

mildadhd
05-06-14, 08:45 PM
Nope, sorry. I don't ignore people who promulgate false information. Goes against the grain for me to let falsehood be given a platform that implies legitimacy. I don't ignore anything that amounts to fake medicine.

BTW, when you read my peer-reviewed, published journal articles, I'll watch your youtube videos. I just got a great one, a twin study that went on for more than 12 years and included a couple thousand pairs of twins and concluded that the common element was genetic, because the environmental factors were diverse, while the genetic factor was unique. But I guess that's nothing compared with a youtube video.

I don't disagree with most of the factors you present.

But you ignore the environmental factors, in the research you present.

Your twin studies ignore the same environment the twins shared, before they where born.

If you admited the possible toxic levels of cortisol crossing the placenta during adoption prenatal distress, then your twin studies would be invalid, because you can't rule out the obvious prenatal distress of the adoption itself.

Any woman who is giving up her baby must be distressed, I don't know how anyone could argue about that.

We have discussed all of these topics several times.

I don't know what to say anymore, except you should really ignore me, to.



P

Amtram
05-06-14, 08:57 PM
I ignore "environment," undefined, as an umbrella term, used as a reason without explanation. It means nothing. Specifically defined environmental factors, in which a correlation can be clearly shown, are useful and valid. I pay close attention to those, because they are relevant. Give me something specific that can actually be examined and be shown to even have a correlation, and it has meaning. "Environment" as a catchall has no meaning. "Air" is environment. "Food" is environment. "City" and "Town" and "Village" are environment. I feel completely justified in ignoring factors that are so vaguely defined that they cannot be shown to have any relevance. I also feel justified in ignoring factors that have been tested and been shown to have no relevance. Or things that are biologically implausible and therefore unworthy of consideration in the first place.

I contend that ignoring things like the above is acceptable, while ignoring facts is not.

Amtram
05-06-14, 09:00 PM
Oh, and don't tell me about being bullied by "my gang." Of the few things I actually despise, hypocrisy is at the top of the list. Do you think you have no part whatsoever in my decision to resign as a supermod? In case you don't, I have some stuff I saved in my documents that I'd be happy to share.

Amtram
05-06-14, 09:09 PM
But you ignore the environmental factors, in the research you present.

Clear evidence that you have not read a single study I've shared.

Your twin studies ignore the same environment the twins shared, before they where born.

That's in the studies, too.

If you admited the possible toxic levels of cortisol crossing the placenta during adoption prenatal distress, then your twin studies would be invalid, because you can't rule out the obvious prenatal distress of the adoption itself.

If you showed me evidence that this is what happens, I would have to consider it. That has not happened.

Any woman who is giving up her baby must be distressed, I don't know how anyone could argue about that.

Any woman who is pregnant and has other children or a mother-in-law giving her advice or people other than her husband insisting that they be allowed in the delivery room is distressed, too.

mildadhd
05-06-14, 09:10 PM
Oh, and don't tell me about being bullied by "my gang." Of the few things I actually despise, hypocrisy is at the top of the list. Do you think you have no part whatsoever in my decision to resign as a supermod? In case you don't, I have some stuff I saved in my documents that I'd be happy to share.


I don't know what your talking about, but, thanks for showing everyone your true agenda.

I am using the ignore option now, don't want any part of what your expressing.

Let's be clear, I have never made it my agenda to chase/harrasse you or anyone else around, ever.

And don't remember ever being accused of such things?

Please stop harrassing me, with your admitted personal agenda.

Bye

P

mildadhd
05-06-14, 09:16 PM
This thread is closed for me.

P

Lunacie
05-06-14, 10:08 PM
This thread is closed for me.

P

Which just means you will open yet another (or two or three more) on the same topic.

Just use the ignore feature and keep this thread working if you think the topic is worthwhile.

sarahsweets
05-07-14, 05:03 AM
Am I missing something here? You mean there are teams now? Who scored? Who one the match? Was it a draw? In order to have good sportsman like behavior you must be able to acknowledge that the team or person you played was just as good as you,had valid points, and a killer goal kick! Or headbutt.......or throw in. Just sayin'.




The reason why I decided to ignore you and some of your buddies, was when some of your team ripped me a new one, over and over, in several threads.(many of them my own)

Then some buddies comes along and say, "I know about cognitive therapy starting at 18 months" or "I am really surprised how well behavioral therapy works for parents."or "family process", etc (paraphrasing)

And not one person who ripped me all those times, said anything negative to there buddies.

We have endophenotypes now, we can admit to un-visible uninttentional adoption/anxiety/depression, like, distress, that makes things worse and treat people who are suffering from emotional distress.

Hooray that is my only goal, I never wanted to argue with anyone.

I have always agreed with genetic components/predisposition and medication use.

No matter how some people try to paint a different picture.




P

SB_UK
05-07-14, 05:28 AM
Epigenetics can only apply at a single cell level.
So - one cell will have one genome and one histome - and whatever the state of the genome (CpG methylation reducing transcription) or histome (as evidenced by HDACi - the balance between growth (life) and death of a cell) - will determine transcriptional / cell cycle behaviour.

However humans are multicellular.

So we need to regulate individual cellular functionality using a control system which takes into account all of the other cells of the body.

The autocrine, paracrine, endocrine and nervous systems can orchestrate the body as a system comprising discrete (cellular) elements.

However - what is the key aspect of the neuro- and endocrine- systems
- that is the negative feedback loop.

And what is it that the neuro- and endocrine- systems attempt to maintain - physiology, homeostasis, balance.

Environmental factors -> affect physiological functioning (whether balance needs to be restored) -> affect neuro and endocrine systems (through neuro and endocrine resistance syndromes) -> affect histone modifications through altering a cell's position in its own balance between life and death -> altering transcription at the genomic level (ie placing the cell into a pro-growth or pro-death state).

And what does physiology, homeostasis, balance attempt to maintain:
all of the elements required for aerobic respiration (blood glucose, ionic gradients, water levels, temperature, pH ... ...)

So - we've physiology operating through neuroendocrinology operating through genome/histone epigenetics
- ALL to ensure homeostasis.

What is homeostasis really ?
Just an ideal environment for mitochondrial aerobic respiration.

So - we're going to distress our system as we use agents (salt in diet), high GI agents in diet, foods which leave an acidic ash when digested
- which 'deviate' homeostasis from its ideal set-point.

IE chronic distressors defined as agents which deviate our internal biochemical milieu away from eg a specific pH, a specific blood glucose level, defined ionic concentrations, defined temperature
- will 'harness' physiology operating through neuro/endocrinology and cellular epigenetics to alter the milieu to make it as optimal as it 'can' be for aerobic respiration.
Noting - that it won't be optimal.

So - we'll observe effects like epigenetic down-regulation in neural and endocrine receptors to heightened levels of neurotransmitters and hormones eg insulin resistance (downregulation of receptors) to persistently elevated blood glucose levels ie our body is attempting to make a bad situation 'good'.

But there's only so much it can do - before these modifications result in pathological consequences (T2D, obesity).

What's the take-home message ?
To maintain health we really want to live a life as close to what we know as the perfect physiological internal biochemical milieu.

What is that ?
Simply -
-- eat vegetables (proper food) as ionically balanced - as soon as we introduce salt we're going to stress our system
-- have a look at the list of foods which leave an alkaline ash (blood pH 7.4) - which happens to be fresh vegetables
-- stabilize blood glucose levels - eliminate foods with high GI - tendency to ketosis where blood glucose levels are spared and stabilized
-- eliminate factors which result in blood glucose spikes - ie distress through cortisol [this has to apply at the physical AND psychological levels ie to permit people to do the right thing]
-- live in a house which is properly heated/insulated - to prevent adaptations to chronic cold exposure (noting acute cold exposure is OK - mitochondrial biogenesis)
-- aerobic fitness will help to maintain blood glucose levels

ie maintain physiological set-point prevent disease from genetic (genome/histome) modifications which precede (if chronically applied) disease.

SB_UK
05-07-14, 07:57 AM
So - since we've a set of ideal parameters ie blood glucose, ionic, pO2
- variation - either up or down may exert itself through homeostasis in actual epigenetic change.

This places the interesting aspect of the genome/epigenome (transcription, cell cycle control) as being in effect wholly subservient to the environment.

If a drunk driver dies in a car accident from (clearly) being drunk and incapabable of handling a vehicle - is there any real point in investigating the vehicle (epigenetic modifications) for state.
No.

Environment first - the rest will follow.

Maintain physiology [natural living] combats pathophysiology.

The single largest contributor to unnatural living is synthetic chemistry ie fake food, fake sugar drinks, fake herbal supplements, fake medications.

They're all distressing a system which wants to maintain physiological set-point in all physiological parameters - which tends towards being an optimal internal milieu for aerobic respiration.

SB_UK
05-07-14, 09:52 AM
So - since environment controls physiology controls neuro/endocrine sensitivity controls epigenome
- so epidemiology should be sufficient to point us towards a distressful-free existence.

Adopt that lifestyle and you'll be without disease.

Bottom line
-1- global equality through eliminating money, individual ownership of things
-2- an optimal aerobic lifestyle - requiring a certain profile of food/exercise
-3- elimination of psych. distress - which'll occur naturally through the interventions listed directly above (no corporations bullying you into taking their poison, no governments bullying you into nationalistic wars).

The only other factor required will be education - which will simply need to take people towards wisdom, and which alongside teaches skills which're worth (which the student enjoys learning and can apply meaningfully) towards (whilst learning/applying) getting personal reward - in a world where external reward (money) is no longer applicable.

Personal reward (doing something) not Financial reward until the need for reward is lost upon enlightenment/pair-bond completion - whereupon simply practice mitochondrial respiration/biogenesis by sitting on a beach all day.
Why ever not ?
You have completed your appointed metamorphic cycle.

- and are (thereby) free.

School's out for EVER.

daveddd
05-10-14, 08:04 AM
Am I missing something here? You mean there are teams now? Who scored? Who one the match? Was it a draw? In order to have good sportsman like behavior you must be able to acknowledge that the team or person you played was just as good as you,had valid points, and a killer goal kick! Or headbutt.......or throw in. Just sayin'.

yes

its a specific reason several members stopped posting here

unfortunately some very insightful members

who's insight had them functioning very well in life

Lunacie
05-10-14, 11:37 AM
Am I missing something here? You mean there are teams now? Who scored? Who one the match? Was it a draw? In order to have good sportsman like behavior you must be able to acknowledge that the team or person you played was just as good as you,had valid points, and a killer goal kick! Or headbutt.......or throw in. Just sayin'.

Right, it doesn't matter how many valid points the first team makes (the largest team)
... the second team (the smallest team) ignores those points completely.

The reason why I decided to ignore you and some of your buddies, was when some of your team ripped me a new one, over and over, in several threads.(many of them my own)

And says "I'm going to start a new game!"* Same teams playing, same outcome.


* new game = new thread