Can a person lose weight without stunting his/her brain growth?

Similar question to OPs, but would someone's ability to learn be lower on days that they are fasting?

>Being fat is not good for your intelligence whatsoever.

The idea is having slightly higher caloric count so the body does not stunt growth due to food intake. Example can be with undernourishment's relationship with both height and brain size. Theoretically this is a full-range correlation instead of a magical calorie deficit threshold which enables growth stunting. With this we can presume that undergoing a caloric deficit to lose body fat will also stunt brain growth. However, your point with body fat affecting the brain negatively (also a result of a caloric surplus) gives a factor indicating a certain point where one's body fat amount is too high. From this we can conclude past a certain body fat % (perhaps 25%-ish?) one should aim to lose body fat past an age where one's brain is fully developed past the teenage years (23-25 years of age).

No, you more than likely have glycogen stored in your liver

Yes. Using protein and fats as energy is less efficient than having glucose in the brain. Your critical thinking skills and memory will be lessened.

I was under a high deficit (1000-1500) for a month (including workouts) and I usually felt quite tired and it was somewhat hard to study

No. As another user stated, you have plenty of liver glycogen as a buffer, lipolysis will take of the rest. Stress hormones and lower insulin levels might actually make you sharper.

>lipolysis will take of the rest
See:
>Stress hormones and lower insulin levels might actually make you sharper.

Pretty sure this is incorrect. There was a study done which shown that stress lowers scores on IQ tests.

>Pretty sure this is incorrect. There was a study done which shown that stress lowers scores on IQ tests.
Empirically, it's correct. For me, anyway. There's a range wherein your learning and working memory is greatly increased. There's only a rapid falloff with heavy physical exertion, else you remain relatively uncrippled.

IQ tests aren't a good metric for this. It's not about the functionality of the brain as a whole, it's just about the relation between certain subsystems relative to a given task.

IQ measures the overall brain's effectiveness in critical thinking. Stress causing one to perform poorly overall on an IQ test leaves no room for 'certain subsystems' bar only memory. From here you can only argue that stress may increase one's memory, but that is all.

The central nervous system only uses glucose along with your red blood cells while the rest of the body would use fats and proteins. The only exception is ketosis which then the brain will use ketones which do have powerful antioxidant properties and have shown to help spare brain tissue after trauma. This is why if possible you should not eat or induce insulin until 24 hours after a concussion. Assuming no other outstanding medical complication like low glucose levels in a diabetic.

That being said plenty of people do feel worse and find it harder to study while dieting but that's more so due to them not being use to the sensation.

Do you actually have studies backing this up? I highly doubt a 500 calorie deficit would stunt growth and neural development whatsoever.

Also keep in mind the neurogenic properties of cardiovascular exercise is much more scientifically sound than this concept. Though I'm not saying they are mutually exclusive practices.

>but that is all.
Naive heuristic is worthless heuristic.

>The central nervous system only uses glucose along with your red blood cells while the rest of the body would use fats and proteins

Incorrect. Otherwise never ending carbohydrates your brain would literally shut down. Without an abundance of glucose the body uses fat and protein for energy; of which also affects, and is used for, the brain however inefficient.

Explanation of the system:
>antranik.org/the-catabolism-of-fats-and-proteins-for-energy/

More specifically:
>antranik.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/catabolism.png

>Do you actually have studies backing this up? I highly doubt a 500 calorie deficit would stunt growth and neural development whatsoever.

A 500 calorie deficit performs an overall stunt of growth. Not seeing this correlation isn't a necessity for a peer-reviewed study but rather you being retarded. People like you being in the scientific community who have no critical thinking skills is a hilarious result of factors such as SAT's being changed to measure rote memorization rather than intelligence. A tangent but this is a clear, wide-spread phenomena.

*never having

Everyone on Veeky Forums has an iq of 150+

And a penis that could double as a rudimentary limb.

Did you seriously just link me a basic ass cellular respiration link and not even understand how those mechanisms work? It's common knowledge that red blood cells and the brain can only use glucose as fuel supplies due to their extreme specificity and the fact that only glucose can pass through the blood brain barrier to get to the neurons and glial cells. Red blood cells do not have mitochondria so that's why they must use glucose. Just scroll down to the metabolism part of the damn Wikipedia page en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_brain

>People like you being in the scientific community who have no critical thinking skills is a hilarious result of factors such as SAT's being changed to measure rote memorization rather than intelligence.

You say this after not realizing that the entire point of the storage system of glucose in the form of glycogenesis and and it's pairing release glycogenolysis is because certain important parts of the body must use glucose for their energy supply. If anyone is missing the big picture it's you.

>Isn't necessary
IE you're too lazy to actually look up studies and instead rely on what you assume is common sense like some Freudian psychologist.

>Just scroll down to the metabolism part of the damn Wikipedia page en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_brain

"Brain metabolism normally relies upon blood glucose as an energy source, but during times of low glucose (such as fasting, exercise, or limited carbohydrate intake), the brain will use ketone bodies for fuel with a smaller need for glucose."

Oh wow look at that you're wrong via your own wikipedia sourcing.

>If anyone is missing the big picture it's you.

Love the use of a run-on sentence trying to infer knowledge of a 'big picture'. The brain uses lactate and ketone bodies when glucose is scarce. So, thusly, you are incorrect. About the 500 caloric deficit observe a simple logical example:

1. You want to build a wall with 50 bricks
2. You only have 30 bricks, however.
3. You then build a wall that is only large to an extent of 30 bricks

So difficult to understand, really

Ok now I'm pretty sure you're just trolling or underage. That's exactly what I said in >The central nervous system only uses glucose along with your red blood cells while the rest of the body would use fats and proteins. The only exception is ketosis which then the brain will use ketones which do have powerful antioxidant properties and have shown to help spare brain tissue after trauma.

To your other point, catabolic and anabolic processes happen in the body all the time however just because you are in a calorie deficit does not mean the body will cease a important function such as brain development when it can used stored energy and cease other less important functions instead. This is where research would come to see if this is true or not or if other unforeseen factors are in play.

>...just because you are in a calorie deficit does not mean the body will cease a important function such as brain development

This is implying higher brain functioning is deemed an important feature regarding natural selection. This is as an being more important than using reserves for muscle mass more-so than brain cells which may lead to 120+ IQ. Either case this is speculative.

>This is where research would come to see if this is true or not or if other unforeseen factors are in play.

Starvation to a point your body simply would not have the materials to fully grow the body. This has been hinted for via studies for undernourishment. One aspect is the affecting IQ's by comparing the average IQ of the African ethnicity in the USA compared to a starving population of Uganda (~20 IQ point difference). This is alongside height differences of humans living on islands being lesser due to a lack of food. Good read on over malnourishment can be provided via WHO:

>who.int/nutrition/publications/en/childgrowth_database_overview.pdf

This is of course data on children; however, their example is merely an extrapolation of what may occur also in adults. (aside height via bones can being able to grow longer)

>That's exactly what I said in

"It's common knowledge that red blood cells and the brain can only use glucose as fuel supplies due to their extreme specificity and the fact that only glucose can pass through the blood brain barrier to get to the neurons and glial cells."

Exactly we do not know if it would be considered too important or if it would be no higher on the totem pole in terms of keeping constant development than other bodily functions which is why I said you can not just got at this or anything else that deals with the human body with a simplistic view that is not back up by actual studies. You are just speculating in the dark and wasting your time if one of your assumptions is wrong.

And being on a small 500 calorie deficit to lose a respectable amount of weight then going on matience all while receiving FDA approved food is not even close to the same as starving children whose little food they do get is not very nutritious.

Look I'm done this is ridiculous argument. My first post addressed the ketone fact and even stated how this is knowledge is used in real life in the hope it might help some user. I simply did not think to readdress this because I had already addressed this fact and you stated it was wrong.

And you're ridiculous to think a minor malnourshment does not affect growth. Not having enough fats and protein one's brain will not grow to the furthest potential. This is just as much as not eating protein one's muscles will not grow to their furthest potential. You're an educated idiot.

But if you're not anorexic then you do have plenty of stored fats in your adipocytes and glycogen in your liver and muscles, though the glycogen in the muscles is used only in the muscles but I digress.

In other words, these stored sources of energy can easily make up for many days worth of food but does the body use these storage factors and keeps production high in all forms? Do certain processes take precedence over others and if so where does brain development fit on this? Or does the entire system go into a equivelent of an energy saver mode? Also does just a slight deficit for a small amount of time cause these effects or does the deficit need to be large and/or last a long time?

If you cannot see why despite all these factors is it necessary to do research and not just base assumptions on what you assume is right based in your common sense then you are simply beyond my help.

I don't think it's the weight so much as the diet.
the obese tend to eat crappy convenience food, and thus are hindered by that.

>...these stored sources of energy can easily make up for many days worth of food but does the body use these storage factors and keeps production high in all forms?

The body does not use fat storage nor muscle for reasons pertaining to growth factors. Fat is only used for cushioning, energy, and heat. Growth comes from recently digested food. This is why when there is a caloric deficit your body overall has less to use and grow with. Your body uses maintenance calories for the purpose energy. A deficit means that the body needs more materials in order to further grow. Your questions make sense on an assumption that the body breaks down other parts in order to grow others.

You peaked my interest with this statement. Can you provide a source? It does not make since considering that in my competitive powerlifting days many studies such as this

>ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9309627

Showed that beginngers who have some bodyfat on them can still build muscle while losing weight for a decent amount of time as shown here. While this isn't addressing the nervous system these people are still growing while being in a deficit.

But even if your statement is true this still would not be a problem if it was the case that those who are non anorexic subjects could potentially just use their stored fats and glucose to be used in all other non growth related systems and whatever food is ingested could then be used for the growth related processes if these growth related processes are higher on a totem pole like importance scale.

Of course the biggest problem that I haven't bother to bring up is even if there is a slight decrease in growth of a system does that even equate to a noticeable difference in abilities? This is especially true in the brain where things are insanely complicated. Intelligence is not correlated with increase surface area except to the extreme or potentially dealing with ratios compared to ones own brain but instead it seems to be more important how much neural pruning occurs and how much desired connections are reinforced.

I'm sure you noticed on the news how a man with hydroplasty had lost 90% of his cerebral cortex but still was able to maintain a respectable IQ of around 80. My point being growth and size is not the most important feature to intelegence and I know for a fact that neural pruning and reinforced connections happen no matter what your calorie intake otherwise you would never be able to learn at all while on a diet. Would it happen even more so in a non dieting mind? I don't know.

I just realized the link I grabbed out of my bookmarks does not provide a free full version. Use this one instead.

care.diabetesjournals.org/content/26/11/2977

Sleep thigh pupper

>Intelligence is not correlated with increase surface area except to the extreme

A rough determinate relationship between cranial capacity and intelligence is 0.3:

onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ajpa.1330400314/abstract

Intelligence comes from the size of the brain and how well connected the brain is. Example can be that two individuals have different sized brains. If both individuals had equally-connected minds the one with the larger brain would be more intelligent. However, if the larger brain had less capable wiring the less-large brain could potentially be more intelligent. Overall though, brain size is correlated with both intelligence and good nutrition.

>I'm sure you noticed on the news how a man with hydroplasty had lost 90% of his cerebral cortex but still was able to maintain a respectable IQ of around 80.

Gorillas have scored roughly around 80. Gorillas' brain cell count-to-size ratio would probably be around the same amount as this individual. Would not consider 80 exactly respectable.

>While this isn't addressing the nervous system these people are still growing while being in a deficit.

Did not think of that possibility. Remember reading something similarly. Yes, the body using body fat for energy could make-up for the deficit enough for the body to use newly introduced protein for muscle synthesis. With this in mind the idea of brain growth under a certain deficit leaves a gray area. Also keeping in mind that brain growth accounts for ~30% of intelligence so this would be worth studying.

At first I was a little skeptical about that study due to both not being able to find a free version to look into and the fact that the date is from a time of unreliable brain measurement tools. However, I came across a part of a book that references that meta-analysis and much more recent studies which all found even stronger correlations for brain size and IQ

>books.google.com/books?id=LlZKRp_MYvgC&pg=PA129&lpg=PA129&dq=Leigh van Valen 1974 meta analysis&source=bl&ots=mS9hy2UMaE&sig=yi1RR14wU1NbJiCYecygvMqJSEg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwih3uvhoYbOAhVB7CYKHcJxCu8Q6AEINTAD#v=onepage&q=Leigh van Valen 1974 meta analysis&f=false

I especially find it interesting with the one study which found the extremely high correlation in male subjects and how the correlation was no longer statistically significant when only white matter was measured. I'll have to look into the other studies to see if these observations held true.

You were for sure right on that. Thank you for correcting me.

Facebook IQ tests don't count. Also, you're an outlier, you neckbeard. Outliers don't mean shit.

24% body fat is perfectly normal and nothing to be worried about. you can go as high as 30 and as low as 10-12 without noticing any effects on your cognitive functions. now stop being a little bitch and lift those fucking weights, you "150+ IQ" faggot.