On Tue, 6 Jun 2000 07:54:22 -0400, Todd Moody <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:

>.. Lyle is allowing for a period of adaptation, after which
>the brain's ability to use ketones is greater.
But I'm shure it isn't really tested.
You can count, how much carbohydrate you eat, and estimate how much
energy the brain uses. But only roughly estimate, how much
glucose comes from degraded protein, and how much from ketones, then.

>> In glucagon times when blood sugar comes from the glycogen-reserves
>> (or neo..) only the brain dishes on it.
>
>I'm not sure.  I think muscle glycogen is also gradually
>replenished.  People on zero-carb diets do eventually regain the
>ability to do high-intensity exercise, but it takes time. ..

This would even elevate the actual glucose needs for the muscles.

Off list-topic somehow, but:
>> >Always read Wittgenstein with a candy bar nearby. Wovon man nicht
>> >reden kann, davon muss man schweigen.

I attempt to translate as:
"Things you cannot speak about, you have to be silent about".
Involves (in my humble interpretation):
1.there *are* some things it is not possible to speak about
 I think that's not so self-evident. e.g. was how feelings are experienced.
2.it was possible to be silent "about" or "of" something.
 I think tells, that some kind of non-verbal processing of something exists.
 e.g. "lets be silent about the mystery that i survived that accident".

I think it does *not* mean how it may look first place, like
"keep quiet, if you don't know about something".
This i'd translate to
"Worueber Du nicht Bescheid weisst, solltest Du nicht reden"
(But maybe this would be also wise).

>But we speak about them all the time on this list.

We also speak about things we do not know or understand only partially.
But things which it is *possible* to speak about.
Probably the only way to aquire new information.


Ok now about brain energy:
>>.. The resting consume i read about was 25 watts.
>> (25*60*60*24 = 2160000 WattSeconds = kjoule per day) (=516kcal).

>PET scans show increased energy utilization in parts of the brain
>that are "busy", which shows that heavy thinking (Schwer denken?)
>indeed burns more calories than daydreaming.  But it doesn't burn
>*that* much fuel, or there would be no fat philosophers.
("schwer denken" is in my feeling impossible,but closer to "tired thinking"
 I'd translate "intensives (nach-)denken" or "starke Kopfarbeit")

A firend of mine just stated, that he had leared in school in
physics that the brain has a peak energy intake of 100 watts.
For the whole day (impossible), this made 2000kcal then.
For a half day of activity this made 1000
plus 250 for the rest = 1250 brain kcal per day.
Shouldn't be a problem to eat that in additional carbohydrates
(but very hard in form of protein).
Easily possible that the abundant availability of usable carbohydrates
(wheat not sugar) did make head-workers in the society possible.

As you are a head-worker it may be a good idea to better fall into ketosis,
so that you can support your brain with fats (which are very dense).
If you decide to reduce you carb intake below the actual brain
requirements. Which seems to be somehow between say 500kcal and 1250 kcal
(plus some additional percentages for the insulin-up time).

It took me 2 dates to get this posting out. Wait, 3 dates now.

>Here's the Insulin Index piece:
Thanks for that information.
I'll need some time of quiet processing of it..

Amadeus S.