<p>A few thoughts:</p>

<h3>Brain training</h3>

<blockquote>
  <p>A lot of articles stress the importance of having to train the brain </p>
</blockquote>

<p>Much of this literature is used to sell computer games and crossword puzzles. In a recent review, Owen et al (2010) concluded that the proposed benefits of brain training lack empirical support. There is a vast literature which suggests that practice is the basis of skill acquisition but that skill acquisition tends to be focused on what is practised. Thus, if you want to get skilled at crossword puzzles, then do crossword puzzles; if you want to get good at a computer game, practice the computer game.</p>

<h3>Learning and normal function</h3>

<blockquote>
  <p>(By training the brain, I mean the cognitive faculty of the brain for learning 
  things and not brain's normal functions) </p>
</blockquote>

<p>Learning is a normal function of the brain.</p>

<h3>Brain as muscle</h3>

<blockquote>
  <p>since the brain is a muscle and training it would improve its cognitive > abilities.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>As mentioned by @John, <em>brain as muscle</em> is a metaphor. The brain does forget things, and forgetting can be adaptive. Thus, if you want to maintain or develop particular skills, then you should practice them. </p>

<h3>Limit to brain training</h3>

<blockquote>
  <p>Since using anything beyond a limit is detrimental to it, is there a theoretical 
  limit to the use of brain beyond which it would be detrimental to the brain?</p>
</blockquote>

<p>This seems like a big question. There is plenty of research on <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatigue_%28medical%29">fatigue</a> and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stress_%28biology%29">stress</a> which would suggest that getting adequate rest is important to maintaining optimal cognitive functioning. </p>

<h3>References</h3>

<ul>
<li>Owen, A.M. and Hampshire, A. and Grahn, J.A. and Stenton, R. and Dajani, S. and Burns, A.S. and Howard, R.J. and Ballard, C.G. (2010). Putting brain training to the test. Nature, 465, 775-778.</li>
</ul>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-06-07T23:29:35.943Z
2012-06-07T23:29:35.943Z
Jeromy Anglim
<p>Intensive stimuli may trigger epileptic shocks in some individuals. At least prolonged epileptic shocks may damage neurons, I'm not sure about short epileptic shocks. So the answer is yes, using your brain eg. your extended visual system to process excessively intensive visual stimuli may cause epileptic shocks and thus be detrimental to the brain.</p>

<p>However, as far as I know, visual stimuli are not able to cause epileptic shocks to everyone (susceptibility to epilepsy is a requirement), so I'm not sure if there is any proven way how by you could cause brain damage only by brain function (without aid of any voluntary motoric movements) in <em>any</em> individual. </p>

<p>As intensive visual and auditory stimuli are a part of our natural environment - whereas lack of stimuli (sensory deprivation) is an unnatural state - I think triggering epileptic shocks by intensive stimuli can not be considered only as a self-caused way of damaging the brain.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-06-07T18:33:24.300Z
2012-09-14T14:28:36.600Z
2012-09-14T14:28:36.600Z
nrz
<p><code>nrz</code> is on the right track with the epilepsy example.  One of the limiting factors in the use of our brain is the amount of free molecules of the neurotransmitter glutamate.  Having too much free glutamate can cause a phenomenon known as <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excitotoxicity">excitotoxicity</a>.  This phenomenon is also seen in conditions such as stroke, where damaged cells release their entire load of glutamate due to hypoxic damage.</p>

<p>Once glutamate has been bound with a post-synaptic cell, it must be taken up by neuroglia (supporting cells), which are present in great number in the surrounding milieu, metabolized into glut*amine* (inactivated), and recycled for repackaging and reuse in the neighboring neurons [1].</p>

<p>In the case of epilepsy (or in the theoretical case of your question, overusing your brain), the glial cells proliferate rapidly, which paradoxically causes a <em>slowing</em> of the transformation of glutamine back into glutamate.  This is presumably a homeostatic mechanism[1].  </p>

<p>So, from my own reckoning, it would seem like a rapid increase in function would cause excitotoxic damage in the short term, and lead to a slowdown in the metabolism of fresh transmitter in the long.  Granted, there are other transmitters that are active in the cortex, but glutamate is the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glutamic_acid#Neurotransmitter">most abundant</a>.</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>[1] Coulter, D.A., Eid, T. (2012)  Astrocytic Regulation of Glutamate Homeostasis
  in Epilepsy. Glia., 2012 May 16. doi: 10.1002/glia.22341. [Epub ahead of print]   </p>
</blockquote>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-05-09T10:29:53.030Z
Is the reference available online and for free?
draks ...
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-05-10T01:14:59.150Z
@draks That I'm not sure about.  You can find the article through it's DOI, at http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/glia.22341.  J Neurosci only has 1 year moratorium before articles become open-access, so there's probably a wealth of related articles about this that are open at this point.
Chuck Sherrington
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-05-10T01:16:19.960Z
(I just checked an it is available free in PDF form at that address -- DOIs are just permanent index entries that will redirect you to the source of the article even if the URL moves)
Chuck Sherrington
CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-06-10T11:04:17.280Z
2012-06-10T11:04:17.280Z
Chuck Sherrington
<p>A lot of articles stress the importance of having to train the brain (By training the brain, I mean the cognitive faculty of the brain for learning things and not brain's normal functions) since the brain is a muscle and training it would improve its cognitive abilities.</p>

<p>Since using anything beyond a limit is detrimental to it, is there a theoretical limit to the use of brain beyond which it would be detrimental to the brain?</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-02-26T17:02:34.413Z
@OrionDarkwood: [That's a misconception.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_percent_of_brain_myth)
Nick Stauner
CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-06-07T15:38:19.417Z
Brain is **not** a muscle any more than it is a bone, liver or stomach. Brain is brain, its own type of organ.
nrz
CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-06-07T16:17:54.090Z
That the brain is a muscle is only a metaphor: Use it or else it degrades.
John Pick
CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-06-07T17:22:21.060Z
No, however since we do only have control over a small potion of our mind there is no way for us to "access" the true potential of our minds at our current level. We have to either "access" this potential via evolution or technology.
OrionDarkwood
<neuroscience><philosophy-of-mind>
Theoretical limit to the use of mental faculty of the brain
Ubermensch
# Theoretical limit to the use of mental faculty of the brain

(Asked by: username_0 on 2012-06-07)

A lot of articles stress the importance of having to train the brain (By training the brain, I mean the cognitive faculty of the brain for learning things and not brain's normal functions) since the brain is a muscle and training it would improve its cognitive abilities.

Since using anything beyond a limit is detrimental to it, is there a theoretical limit to the use of brain beyond which it would be detrimental to the brain?

**Tags:** neuroscience, philosophy-of-mind

> **Comments:**
> **username_2**: Brain is **not** a muscle any more than it is a bone, liver or stomach. Brain is brain, its own type of organ.  
> **username_3**: That the brain is a muscle is only a metaphor: Use it or else it degrades.  
> **username_4**: No, however since we do only have control over a small potion of our mind there is no way for us to "access" the true potential of our minds at our current level. We have to either "access" this potential via evolution or technology.  
> **username_1**: @username_4: [That's a misconception.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_percent_of_brain_myth)  

---

## 3 answers

### Answer by username_6 on 2012-06-10. Score: 9 | Accepted answer

`username_2` is on the right track with the epilepsy example. One of the limiting factors in the use of our brain is the amount of free molecules of the neurotransmitter glutamate. Having too much free glutamate can cause a phenomenon known as [excitotoxicity](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excitotoxicity). This phenomenon is also seen in conditions such as stroke, where damaged cells release their entire load of glutamate due to hypoxic damage.

Once glutamate has been bound with a post-synaptic cell, it must be taken up by neuroglia (supporting cells), which are present in great number in the surrounding milieu, metabolized into glut\*amine\* (inactivated), and recycled for repackaging and reuse in the neighboring neurons [1].

In the case of epilepsy (or in the theoretical case of your question, overusing your brain), the glial cells proliferate rapidly, which paradoxically causes a *slowing* of the transformation of glutamine back into glutamate. This is presumably a homeostatic mechanism[1].

So, from my own reckoning, it would seem like a rapid increase in function would cause excitotoxic damage in the short term, and lead to a slowdown in the metabolism of fresh transmitter in the long. Granted, there are other transmitters that are active in the cortex, but glutamate is the [most abundant](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glutamic_acid#Neurotransmitter).

> [1] Coulter, D.A., Eid, T. (2012) Astrocytic Regulation of Glutamate Homeostasis
> in Epilepsy. Glia., 2012 May 16. doi: 10.1002/glia.22341. [Epub ahead of print]

> **Comments:**
> **username_7**: Is the reference available online and for free?  
> **username_6**: @draks That I'm not sure about.  You can find the article through it's DOI, at http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/glia.22341.  J Neurosci only has 1 year moratorium before articles become open-access, so there's probably a wealth of related articles about this that are open at this point.  
> **username_6**: (I just checked an it is available free in PDF form at that address -- DOIs are just permanent index entries that will redirect you to the source of the article even if the URL moves)  

---

### Answer by username_2 on 2012-06-07. Score: 9

Intensive stimuli may trigger epileptic shocks in some individuals. At least prolonged epileptic shocks may damage neurons, I'm not sure about short epileptic shocks. So the answer is yes, using your brain eg. your extended visual system to process excessively intensive visual stimuli may cause epileptic shocks and thus be detrimental to the brain.

However, as far as I know, visual stimuli are not able to cause epileptic shocks to everyone (susceptibility to epilepsy is a requirement), so I'm not sure if there is any proven way how by you could cause brain damage only by brain function (without aid of any voluntary motoric movements) in *any* individual.

As intensive visual and auditory stimuli are a part of our natural environment - whereas lack of stimuli (sensory deprivation) is an unnatural state - I think triggering epileptic shocks by intensive stimuli can not be considered only as a self-caused way of damaging the brain.


---

### Answer by username_5 on 2012-06-07. Score: 6

A few thoughts:

### Brain training

> A lot of articles stress the importance of having to train the brain

Much of this literature is used to sell computer games and crossword puzzles. In a recent review, Owen et al (2010) concluded that the proposed benefits of brain training lack empirical support. There is a vast literature which suggests that practice is the basis of skill acquisition but that skill acquisition tends to be focused on what is practised. Thus, if you want to get skilled at crossword puzzles, then do crossword puzzles; if you want to get good at a computer game, practice the computer game.

### Learning and normal function

> (By training the brain, I mean the cognitive faculty of the brain for learning
> things and not brain's normal functions)

Learning is a normal function of the brain.

### Brain as muscle

> since the brain is a muscle and training it would improve its cognitive > abilities.

As mentioned by @John, *brain as muscle* is a metaphor. The brain does forget things, and forgetting can be adaptive. Thus, if you want to maintain or develop particular skills, then you should practice them.

### Limit to brain training

> Since using anything beyond a limit is detrimental to it, is there a theoretical
> limit to the use of brain beyond which it would be detrimental to the brain?

This seems like a big question. There is plenty of research on [fatigue](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatigue_%28medical%29) and [stress](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stress_%28biology%29) which would suggest that getting adequate rest is important to maintaining optimal cognitive functioning.

### References

* Owen, A.M. and Hampshire, A. and Grahn, J.A. and Stenton, R. and Dajani, S. and Burns, A.S. and Howard, R.J. and Ballard, C.G. (2010). Putting brain training to the test. Nature, 465, 775-778.


---

