alternative energy creation
For most of the history of biology, plants and animals have been thought of as autotrophs and heterotrophs, respectively. “Autotrophs” are those organisms which provide their own food sources. Plants do this by capturing sunlight and doing a process called photosynthesis. (Carbon dioxide + Water → Carbohydrates + Oxygen) “Heterotrophs” are organisms which consume other organisms for food. Thus, whether animals are herbivores, omnivores or carnivores, they are eating other organisms to acquire their energy.
For most of biology, we have generally classified organisms into these categories. But with some exceptions we have called “photoheterotrophs” or “mixotrophs.” Most corals, for example, can both synthesize energy from sunlight as well as consume organisms like plankton. Another example is the Venus flytrap and other insect-eating plants that can derive energy both from sunlight and from the organisms they consume. More examples include some types of non-sulfur bacteria, heliobacteria, many types of plankton, and even many types of insects. But of course, humans have always been conceptualized as purely “heterotrophs.” We need to eat plants and animals of various kinds to get our energy.
Hundreds of studies have now found that human cells—the mitochondria in our cells—do actually produce more ATP when exposed to red/NIR light! And it even goes further than that… A recent study has actually found that other organisms—including mammals that are biologically very similar to humans (like rodents and pigs)—have now been shown to be capable of taking up chlorophyll metabolites into their mitochondria, and using those metabolites to capture sunlight energy and amplify cellular energy production!
The research suggests that some animals can use these chlorophyll metabolites to speed up the rate of energy production and increase the overall volume of ATP produced by fairly large amounts in many cases. This revolutionary discovery was published in 2014 in the Journal of Cell Science in a study titled “Light-harvesting chlorophyll pigments enable mammalian mitochondria to capture photonic energy and produce ATP.”
Here is a chunk of the abstract from this fascinating study, where researchers succinctly summarized their findings: “Sunlight is the most abundant energy source on this planet. However, the ability to convert sunlight into biological energy in the form of adenosine-59-triphosphate (ATP) is thought to be limited to chlorophyll-containing chloroplasts in photosynthetic organisms. Here we show that mammalian mitochondria can also capture light and synthesize ATP when mixed with a light-capturing metabolite of chlorophyll.”
Ref: Sommer A.P. et al. (2015). Light Effect on Water Viscosity: Implication for ATP Biosynthesis
For most of the history of biology, plants and animals have been thought of as autotrophs and heterotrophs, respectively. “Autotrophs” are those organisms which provide their own food sources. Plants do this by capturing sunlight and doing a process called photosynthesis. (Carbon dioxide + Water → Carbohydrates + Oxygen) “Heterotrophs” are organisms which consume other organisms for food. Thus, whether animals are herbivores, omnivores or carnivores, they are eating other organisms to acquire their energy.
For most of biology, we have generally classified organisms into these categories. But with some exceptions we have called “photoheterotrophs” or “mixotrophs.” Most corals, for example, can both synthesize energy from sunlight as well as consume organisms like plankton. Another example is the Venus flytrap and other insect-eating plants that can derive energy both from sunlight and from the organisms they consume. More examples include some types of non-sulfur bacteria, heliobacteria, many types of plankton, and even many types of insects. But of course, humans have always been conceptualized as purely “heterotrophs.” We need to eat plants and animals of various kinds to get our energy.
Hundreds of studies have now found that human cells—the mitochondria in our cells—do actually produce more ATP when exposed to red/NIR light! And it even goes further than that… A recent study has actually found that other organisms—including mammals that are biologically very similar to humans (like rodents and pigs)—have now been shown to be capable of taking up chlorophyll metabolites into their mitochondria, and using those metabolites to capture sunlight energy and amplify cellular energy production!
The research suggests that some animals can use these chlorophyll metabolites to speed up the rate of energy production and increase the overall volume of ATP produced by fairly large amounts in many cases. This revolutionary discovery was published in 2014 in the Journal of Cell Science in a study titled “Light-harvesting chlorophyll pigments enable mammalian mitochondria to capture photonic energy and produce ATP.”
Here is a chunk of the abstract from this fascinating study, where researchers succinctly summarized their findings: “Sunlight is the most abundant energy source on this planet. However, the ability to convert sunlight into biological energy in the form of adenosine-59-triphosphate (ATP) is thought to be limited to chlorophyll-containing chloroplasts in photosynthetic organisms. Here we show that mammalian mitochondria can also capture light and synthesize ATP when mixed with a light-capturing metabolite of chlorophyll.”
Ref: Sommer A.P. et al. (2015). Light Effect on Water Viscosity: Implication for ATP Biosynthesis
snacking is stupid
Prior to 1977, not only did we eat more dietary fat and fewer refined grains, we also ate less often. There were no official recommendations to change our eating patterns but we did, which probably has contributed to the obesity crisis. The National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) study* in 1977 found that most people ate three times per day: breakfast, lunch, and dinner. If you wanted an after-school snack, your mom said, “No, you’ll ruin your dinner.” If you wanted a bedtime snack, she just said no. Snacking was considered neither necessary nor healthy. A snack was a treat, to be taken only very occasionally. Yet now, we are often told that eating more frequently will help weight loss. No scientific data supports this assumption, and it has gained respectability only through mindless repetition. At first glance, it sounds pretty stupid. And it sounds stupid because it is stupid.
Prior to 1977, not only did we eat more dietary fat and fewer refined grains, we also ate less often. There were no official recommendations to change our eating patterns but we did, which probably has contributed to the obesity crisis. The National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) study* in 1977 found that most people ate three times per day: breakfast, lunch, and dinner. If you wanted an after-school snack, your mom said, “No, you’ll ruin your dinner.” If you wanted a bedtime snack, she just said no. Snacking was considered neither necessary nor healthy. A snack was a treat, to be taken only very occasionally. Yet now, we are often told that eating more frequently will help weight loss. No scientific data supports this assumption, and it has gained respectability only through mindless repetition. At first glance, it sounds pretty stupid. And it sounds stupid because it is stupid.
Reference: *Popkin BM, Duffey KJ. Does hunger and satiety drive eating anymore? Am J Clin Nutr. 2010; 91: 1342–7.)
energy needs of the body
The body needs a continuous supply of glucose to fuel energy metabolism. To maintain tight glucose homeostasis—stability within a corridor of about 70 to 90 mg/dl—the body converts digested nutrients into cellular energy from carbohydrates or synthesizes glucose in the liver from fatty and amino acids by means of gluconeogenesis. These processes complement and back each other up in case any one raw nutrient—carbohydrates, fats, or protein—is temporarily unavailable. While fasting and at relative rest, a 155 lbs (70 kg) individual requires approximately 200 g (7 oz) of glucose during a 24-hour period. The formula to calculate the demand for your particular weight is 2 mg of glucose per kg of body weight for each minute (2 mg/kg/min). These 200 g, are, of course, approximate. The actual number changes depending on the body and outside temperature, levels of additional physical and intellectual activity, and some other factors. “Additional” means above and beyond the body’s regular functionality, such as heart function, breathing, walking, vision, hearing, thoughts, etc. Obviously, the additional activities increase energy needs, and that’s why exercise, physical as well as intellectual, will accelerate commensurate weight loss. Beyond the glucose for energy metabolism, the body needs a continuous supply of fatty and amino acids to build new cells, synthesize hormones, enzymes, vitamins, and other critical substances. Those needs are called plastic, organic, or replacement, meaning to rebuild or to replace dead cells and the substances lost with feces, urine, perspiration, and exhaled air.
If you consume more than the 200 g glucose needed daily, the body will convert the excess into body fat. That’s how you gain fat. The rate of conversion is approximately 1 g of fat for 3 g of glucose. That’s 9 “fat” calories divided by 4 “carbs” calories plus a liberal allotment for the energy required for consumption, digestion, and conversion.
If you consume less than 200 g glucose, the body will “burn” fat to compensate for the shortage at a rate of about 1 gram of fat for every 2 grams of glucose. That’s how you lose fat. Dr. Atkins incorrectly called this process ketosis, because the ketones are the intermediary product of the biochemical reactions which convert fatty acids into cellular energy. The correct name is lipolysis.
Before converting body fat into glucose, the body utilizes fatty acids derived from food. Thus, if you have too much fat in the diet, the body will not “burn” its own fat until disposing of all fat from food. That means consuming above 75 g of dietary fat stops the loss of body fat dead in its tracks.
If you consume less than 75 g of fat, the body will “draw” its own fat to produce enzymes, hormones, vitamins, cell membranes, and other essential substances. That’s how you are losing fat.
If you consume more than 75 g of fat, the body will dispatch the excess right under your skin. That’s how you gain fat.
If you consume less than 53 g of protein, the body will break muscle tissue into the amino acids needed for building cells, neurotransmitters, hormones, digestive enzymes, and other essential structures and substances. The process is called “muscle wasting.” You certainly can lose weight this way, but, for obvious reasons, it isn’t a desirable weight loss, and it isn’t a loss of fat.
If you consume more than 53 g proteins, the body will convert certain excesses into muscle tissue. The stronger the muscles, the more protein they will take. You gain weight that way, but this isn’t from fat, and it is a very desirable weight. However, if you don’t have strong muscles (just like most women and children), the excess will get converted into glucose, and the excess glucose will get converted into body fat. And that’s how you gain body fat from overeating protein.
you need the D
One of the many problems with the Western diet is that it’s lacking key micronutrients that we need to create hormones, specifically vitamin D, which is essential for testosterone production. As you read earlier, almost everyone is now deficient in vitamin D because of our overavoidance of UV light. This is likely a major reason behind the decrease in testosterone levels. A study published in 2010 looked at the vitamin D and testosterone levels of more than two thousand men over the course of a full year. The results showed that men with healthy vitamin D levels had more testosterone and lower levels of sex hormone binding globulin (SHBG) than the men who were vitamin D deficient. SHBG binds to hormones so your cells can’t use them. If you have too much of it, your testosterone levels will drop.
E. Wehr et al., “Association of Vitamin D Status with Serum Androgen Levels in Men,” Clinical Endocrinology 73, no. 2 (August 2010): 243–48, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2265.2009.03777.x.
your kale is full of metal
Kale and other brassica vegetables such as cabbage are exceptionally good at taking up thallium from soil. A 2006 peer-reviewed paper by Czech researchers confirms this to be true of kale,1 and a 2013 study from China found the same issue in green cabbage.2 In fact, brassicas are so effective at soaking up thallium that in 2015 Chinese researchers found they could use green cabbage to purify soil of thallium.3 In other words, the cabbage soaked up all the thallium in the soil, leaving the soil itself toxin-free. Think about that the next time someone offers you a kale smoothie or coleslaw made with conventionally grown cabbage!
J. Pavlíčková et al., “Uptake of Thallium from Artificially Contaminated Soils by Kale (Brassica oleracea L. var. acephala),” Plant, Soil and Environment 52, no. 12 (December 2006): 484–91, https://doi.org/10.17221/3545-PSE.
Yanlong Jia et al., “Thallium at the Interface of Soil and Green Cabbage (Brassica oleracea L. var. capitata L.): Soil-Plant Transfer and Influencing Factors,” Science of the Total Environment 450–51 (April 15, 2013): 140–47, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2013.02.008.
Zenping Ning et al., “High Accumulation and Subcellular Distribution of Thallium in Green Cabbage (Brassica oleracea L. Var. Capitata L.),” International Journal of Phytoremediation 17, no. 11 (2015): 1097–104, https://doi.org/10.1080/15226514.2015.1045133.)
kill senescent cells
fisetin, a polyphenol found in seaweed and strawberries. One study showed that high doses of fisetin could kill up to 50 percent of senescent cells in a particular organ.1 While research on how to use fisetin to most effectively destroy zombie cells isn’t complete, research indicates that it is a cognitive enhancer.2 This is likely thanks to its direct antioxidant activity and ability to increase levels of other antioxidants in your cells. More antioxidants equals less oxidative stress and more energy throughout the body, including your brain!
1.“Animal Data Shows Fisetin to Be a Surprisingly Effective Senolytic,” Fight Aging!, October 3, 2018, https://www.fightaging.org/archives/2018/10/animal-data-shows-fisetin-to-be-a-surprisingly-effective-senolytic/.
2.Pamela Maher, “How Fisetin Reduces the Impact of Age and Disease on CNS Function,” Frontiers in Bioscience (Scholar Edition) 7 (June 1, 2015): 58–82, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25961687.)