神经科学与心理学2020pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
间歇性禁食增加小鼠海马神经发生
Intermittent fasting increases hippocampal neurogenesis in mice
专业 · 约 40 分钟读完前置知识：海马神经发生基础、小鼠实验/动物模型、禁食与代谢生理
导读
这篇论文在小鼠中研究间歇性禁食对成年海马神经发生的影响，标题给出的结论是禁食会增加海马神经发生。它把“禁食”与海马新生神经元联系起来，但具体机制和能否外推到人仍需谨慎解读。
HN 关注点：HN 读者围绕“间歇性禁食”定义模糊、热量限制/限时进食的混杂因素、动物模型外推以及个人禁食体验展开讨论。
HN 评论精选
这几条评论里：质疑 2 补充 1 亲历 1
补充补充解释“成年海马神经发生”这一核心概念。
给好奇的人解释一下：成年海马神经发生是指从成年神经干细胞生成新的功能性 DGCs，通过中间祖细胞和神经母细胞的扩增，以及这些新神经元整合进现有神经回路的过程。
ahmedfromtunis查看英文原文
For anyone wondering: > Adult hippocampal neurogenesis is a process that describes the generation of new functional DGCs from adult neural stem cells through the amplification of intermediate progenitors and neuroblasts, as well as the integration of these new neurons into the existing neural circuits. Source: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41380-018-0036-2#:~:text=Adult%20hippocampal%20neurogenesis%20is%20a,into%20the%20existing%20neural%20circuits.
质疑指出“间歇性禁食”术语含糊，影响讨论的精确性。
我觉得很多人用“间歇性禁食”这个词时含义并不一样。如果这里有更精确的术语，我们就能更清楚地沟通了。
netfl0查看英文原文
I feel like the term intermittent fasting is used by many folks to mean different things. It would be nice if there were more precise terminology here so we could communicate more clearly.
亲历分享极端水禁食的亲历体验，并提醒不要贸然模仿。
大多数有储备的人可以很久不进食，只靠水加维生素和矿物质也能安全撑几个月。我做过只喝水的禁食（有记录）；专注力方面的精神收益很难用语言描述，和微剂量不同，后者会给你虚假的能力感。长时间禁食让我看到接近“快不行了”时身体释放的能量，像为最后冲刺去找食物做准备。发现 IF 后我就不再做这种极端饮食了；IF 效果类似但波动没那么极端、可长期坚持，也不至于进医院（事后看肾结石更像是旧问题）。2013 年还没有 IF 流行，我只能依据狗和大鼠间歇禁食更长寿的理论。免责声明：这是我做过最极端的，别从它开始；7 天或 2 周足以，但两周后很容易过头。
DyslexicAtheist查看英文原文
Most people (especially those who have built up some "reserves") can survive for a long time without food and would safely last months on just liquid. (treated water or herbal tea + some vitamins & minerals). I did a water only fast which is documented here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16533514 The mental benefits in terms of ability to concentrate are hard to put into words. It's different than with micro-dosing which gives you a false sense of your abilities. The long fast showed me what kind of energy gets unlocked when we feel like we're close to snuffing it. It's like the body gets ready for a final push so that you can hunt and find food. I stopped doing these crazy type of diets after discovering IF. IF gives me a similar result (the highs and lows on the graph are less extreme but at least it's sustainable) without landing myself in hospital (in retrospect the kidney stones were most likely legacy/cruft that needed to be refactored anyway, and who knows what kind of cancers or other long term illnesses my body "ate" while I pushed him that hard). I understand this is all pretty mental to read but back in 2013 there was no IF and all I had was the theory that dogs and rats that were kept on an IF survived longer. !!! Disclaimer: this is the most extreme one I ever done so please don't start out with this if you want to try... try 7 days or 2 weeks are enough time to do some extreme diet. But don't go overboard - which is way too easy after 2 weeks because you'll be so high on your own achievement and you won't feel hunger. It'll feel like you're able to continue for 2 or 3 months. (you won't). the key is in recognizing this and to quit regardless! Also knowing your own body is key. E.g. if you do sports and have a 20 year history of pushing yourself to extremes probably yes. But I understand why doctors bail and give the "blanket advise" that this is irresponsible. !!!
质疑从热量限制混杂、禁食时段、昼夜节律和动物模型外推等角度提出方法学质疑。
需要注意的细节：没有说明这些饮食是等热量还是低热量，可能因为没测。限时和热量限制是两种不同压力源，其他条件相同时压力与神经退行性效应正相关。也许只有等热量的间歇禁食才说明 BDNF 增加和海马神经发生。禁食时间是很具体的昼夜节律片段：15:00–07:00，所以这项研究只是跳过晚餐而非早餐。这很重要，因为清晨醒来皮质醇更高，身体应激反应不同；胰岛素机制对禁食的反应也随时段变化。动物模型的局限已被提及，而时间和“生长脑区”的生物经济成本问题会放大这种局限。小鼠和人的脑化指数相近，但神经细胞大小在两者间恒定，因此创建/维护成本也恒定。同样的担忧适用于每种动物身体能储存多少天能量。因此是否制造新脑细胞的底层计算可能大不相同。例如人类可能需要更长（如多日）禁食才触发此效应。
acituan查看英文原文
Details to pay attention to; - It is not stated if the diets are isocaloric or hypocaloric; probably because it wasn't measured. Timing restrictions and calorie restrictions are two different stressors on the body, and all else being equal stress is positively correlated with neurodegenerative effects. It might as well be only isocaloric intermittent fasting is indicative of BDNF increase and hippocampal neurogenesis. - Fasting time is a very specific slice of the circadian rhythm; between 15:00–07:00, so this study is only skipping dinner and not breakfast. This is important because body has different stress responses early in the morning (we wake up with higher cortisol levels) and our insulin mechanism also reacts differently to food deprivation based on time of the day. - Limits of animal models already mentioned, and I think it is particularly compounded around the concerns around timing and bioeconomics of growing brain regions. Mice and humans have similar encephalization quotients, but size of neural cells are constant between both, so is the cost to create or upkeep them. Same concern goes for the number of days of energy each animals bodies can store. So the underlying calculus to make new brain cells or not might be vastly different. For example maybe humans need to undergo a much longer (e.g. multiday) fast before this effect kicks in.
相关资源
从这篇论文所有 HN 讨论帖的全部评论里整理出来的链接。
历次讨论
- 2020Hacker News 讨论帖211 分 · 120 评
同领域还值得读
神经科学家能理解微处理器吗？（2017）
Could a Neuroscientist Understand a Microprocessor? (2017)
提出一个思想实验：把神经科学常用的分析方法（损伤实验、电生理、功能定位等）应用到一个我们完全了解其原理的工程系统——6502 微处理器（运行游戏）上，检验这些方法能否真正“理解”…
神经科学与心理学2017 · 411 分 · 135 评进阶 · 约 60 分钟编辑精选大脑衰老呈现非线性转变，提示中年“关键窗口”
Brain aging shows nonlinear transitions, suggesting a midlife "critical window"
这篇 PNAS 论文研究大脑衰老的非线性变化，发现大脑老化并非匀速进行，而是在中年（约 40-60 岁）存在一个关键的"临界窗口期"，此时干预可能有效。
神经科学与心理学2025 · 295 分 · 159 评进阶 · 约 75 分钟编辑精选社交网络中大规模情绪传染的证据（2014）
Evidence of massive-scale emotional contagion through social networks (2014)
这篇 2014 年发表于 PNAS 的论文研究了 Facebook 上约 70 万用户的信息流中，减少正面或负面内容是否会传染性地影响用户自己发布内容的情绪。
神经科学与心理学2020 · 285 分 · 72 评入门 · 约 45 分钟编辑精选裸盖菇素使人类大脑去同步化
Psilocybin desynchronizes the human brain
这篇 Nature 研究用个体化的 fMRI 精密成像追踪受试者服用裸盖菇素（psilocybin）前后的脑功能连接变化，发现药物会造成大范围的脑网络「去同步化」，尤其是默认模式…
神经科学与心理学2024 · 273 分 · 259 评进阶 · 约 60 分钟编辑精选对智力的赞扬会削弱儿童的动机与表现（1998）
Praise for Intelligence Can Undermine Children's Motivation (1998)
这篇 1998 年的经典论文（Dweck 等人）通过实验研究表扬方式对儿童动机的影响：夸孩子“聪明”（表扬智力）会让他们回避挑战、害怕失败，而表扬努力则更能培养坚持性。
神经科学与心理学2016 · 253 分 · 155 评入门 · 约 45 分钟编辑精选