science

Note: I am currently (Mar ’18) no longer including potato juice in my diet. I consumed it regularly for a few months over the preceding summer, and it facilitated a feeling of well-being that I hadn’t felt for some time. The preparation process is laborious, tedious, time-consuming, and expensive, and so with the new knowledge in hand, that I can — it’s possible — feel a certain way, I instead ventured to find more elegant solutions to achieve similar ends.

When my digestion got bad last year, like real bad, at the nadir of my eliminatory existence, when I couldn’t poop for three–four days, I decided to cut at once from my approved foods list — diet — any foods and food products that could pose even remote challenge to digest. Namely, that meant starches were off the board because of the endotoxin thing, and also spices and additives — like ascorbic acid, citric acid, natural and artificial flavors — words on labels I was purposefully ignoring on prepackaged goods, like applesauce and salsa, to maintain a tattered thread of sanity about my dietary intake — I eliminated these in caution of potential inflammatory responses to them. Variable overload. I realize this may sound extreme but I viewed my condition as such.

So, because I committed to this change which involved not eating a bunch of foods I was previously eating, and there was a nutritional deficit to supersede, I combed tediously through every single Ray Peat clip for ideas consumable, specifically those pro-digestive, and one curious substance disclosed with reserved enthusiasm™ by Ray on several occasions is potato juice. Cooked potato juice, to be specific. When Ray mentions something in a positive light, it’s often worthwhile to investigate oneself.

Why potato juice cooked? My understandings are elementary and rudimentary — Bio III drop-outs bump heads — but the thought is that cooked potato juice is uniquely rich in amino acids and keto acids. Naturally-occurring ammonia in the body transaminates the keto acids into even more amino acids as needed; in total ergo there are many aminos.

What is special about amino acids? Well, (dons rainbow-colored propellor beanie and pocket protector), amino acids are the “building blocks” of proteins and dietary proteins must be digested — scientific term: degraded — into amino acids before they can be utilized by the body for its muscles and tissues and whatnot. So some correlation can be made between amino acids equaling proteins.

The amino acid composition of a potato, in actuality, when accounting for transamination, is rich — on the level of egg yolk — and the bioavailability of its nutrients — which includes vitamins and minerals too — is high when the potato is prepared tactically.

And why not just bite into a raw potato? Okay — to be honest I’ve not looked deeply into this matter but from what I understand, raw potatoes contain toxic leave-me-alone!-type chemical compounds — because they would rather not be exhumed and eaten, like most plants — however those chemicals can be to some extent deactivated by heat, though possibly not by a lot, but still, and of course there is the starch, which, even when cooked, can be troublesome for individuals’ GI tracts to process; I imagine the raw starch has got to be worse on the gut. Plus who in their right mind wants to chew through a mound of raw potatoes?

All this is to say cooked potato juice is an easy-to-consume, easy-to-digest concentrate high in vitamins, minerals, and protein. The nutrition of X pounds of potatoes is condensed into a much more approachable volume of broth.

Pinch Me!

But what does it do?? Why expatiate at such depth?

The reason I’ve felt so inclined to scribble a word or three on the esoteric matter of potato juice is that I’ve found it to be an incredible skin rejuvenator. Like, unbelievably effective, for me, at least. The first time I didn’t totally botch cooking the juice, it hit me with this reverberant bliss, not so dissimilarly from a first drunk or first high, and I thought to myself, “This does something.” (Most foods/supplements/damn-sure-to-improve-your-health-products don’t do anything. Efficaciousness is rare.) I knew I needed to try it again.

My face, in particular, just feels tight after consuming the juice. It provides this near-instantaneous facelift. I look younger. And I feel virile, too; the areas of the body with the thinnest epidermal layer more noticeably exude ephebic elasticity; along with the face that includes the genitalia. I’m a whole new me. And this happens with rather resigned predictability too.

The effect is analogous to a receding hairline returning, or thinning hair thickening. That’s how strongly I feel about it.

Has the juice improved my digestion? No, I cannot substantiate that notion. On the contrary, it acts upon me as a laxative at times, which I will admit is a relief when my bowels are not moving though obviously not optimal; however, the epidermal revivification I perceive as a stupendously positive aftereffect and I look very much forward to cooking up a batch of the juice at least once, usually twice, sometimes thrice, per week.

And because I found few resources that explained the preparation process in detail, which is not as straightforward as it may seem and is easy to mess up, I thought I’d share my current, somewhat refined technique among interested readers. With that introduction over and clever homograph in tow, let’s cook.

Ingredients

• Potatoes (~8 lbs unpeeled weight) (large size)
• Salt (a few pinches) (preferably Morton C&P)

Prep time: ~30 minutes — Cook time: ~1 hour

A comprehensive link list of kitchen tools is located below.

Instructions

Step 1: Choose Potatoes

Larger potatoes are more efficiently manipulated and thus take less time than smaller potatoes to peel and cut. I’ve bought smaller potatoes for, like, science and regretted it every time. Feel free to experiment but I think you’ll soon side with the inanity that bigger is better.

I don’t think the variety of potato matters much — e.g., waxy v. starchy — because the starch will be almost entirely removed in the end product and nutritional data suggests homogeneity between species, but waxy potatoes tend to be smaller and thus less wieldy so you’ll by default spring for all-purpose/Idaho/starchy/floury varieties. Sweet potatoes are different critters altogether; I am unfamiliar with them and would hesitate to recommend you juice up a batch.

Walmart sells 8-lb bags of jumbo Russets for $4.52 currently. That is 57¢/pound. Cheap! They work though I’d not eat them in an un(highly)processed state. They’re often green and/or carry an astringent smell raw. Mutants be damned.

Organic potatoes I’ve found rare to come by — my local Whole Foods doesn’t even carry them right now; they are a seasonal item — and at a reasonable price point, if they are to be found. Suggestion: Pick out the best-looking and -smelling conventionals available in your area.

Step 2: Peel Potatoes

This isn’t necessary, per se, but I do it. And I think you should too. I often come across bruises and other abnormalities underneath the skin that I’d rather not make their way into my juice. The skin itself is suspect for containing toxins and pesticides if not “certified organic.” You may as well be thorough when investing the time here.

I peel each potato, give it a quick rinse to remove any crud, then set it aside in my 5-qt stainless steel bowl. Once the bowl is mostly filled, I know I’ve got a good amount to juice and that will not boil over in my 3-qt saucepan.

Step 3: Cut Potatoes

If using a juicer, cut into whatever girth length-wise strips that will fit down the chute. I don’t own a juicer but I imagine yay size is sensible:

If using a blender, cut into small chunks like this:

And drop them into your blender carafe with an inch or two of water:

Step 4: Extract Juice

If using a juicer, you should know what to do.

If using a blender, you will blend to a smooth consistency and then extract the juice from the resulting potato smoothie in some fashion. I came up with a low-tech man-powered pressing rig using an LSHP filter cloth and three S.S. bowls:

I push hard against the wall, squeezing the two bowls together, compacting the mash, and juice oozes down into the third bowl. Yield seems okay. It is a laborious procedure though. For the non-neanderthalic: a hydraulic press will extract more juice with less effort (the JP Factory juice press is what I am eyeing up currently; please do further my shallow insight into this area).

Step 5: Triple-Filter Juice

I will at this point wash my blender carafe and filtering equipment to give the starch in the juice a moment to settle, then:

1. Pour the juice through the sieve into the saucepan,
2. Pour the juice back through the sieve into the S.S. bowl, and
3. Again pour the juice through the sieve into the saucepan.

Wash the empty apparatuses out/off after each step and — importantly! — discard the wispy bubbly gunk down the sink.

The reason to remove the overt starch now is that if cooked, the starch will gelatinize, stick to the bottom of the pan, and burn. Not good.

Step 6: Low Simmer for ~1 Hour

The objective here is to bring the juice to a low simmer so it will cook and reduce but not allow it boil over. The juice will want to boil over. It undergoes some kind of compositional change and will volumetrically proliferate with rabid abandon under too-high heat, which high heat is a relatively low heat.

Through trial and error I’ve determined where to tune the dial on my electric stove so that an eventual simmer will be reached without overflow. Your stove will probably be different and I’m mad jealous if you’ve got gas. (Electric blows.) Keep a close eye on the liquid the first few times you temper it until you’ve got a gauge on its ebullience.

I cook without a lid because of the aforementioned boiling-over issue and I want juice to reduce. And about the “simmer”: it’s more of an active current you’re looking for. The liquid won’t bubble unless the heat is turned way up.

Now, I don’t know if ~1-hours cooking time is optimal. That’s simply a measure I bumped into on the web and the juice — by the end, a broth more like — tends to turn out better when I let it go for an hour-plus. Perhaps this is a matter of concentration and taste. Or maybe a higher percentage of toxins fall to the heat the longer it goes. I lack certainty. All I know is that the boiling-over effect seems to cease at around one half of one hour.

Salt can be added during this process but exercise restraint; it’s easy to over-salt the solution because it will reduce in volume by, like, half. It’s probably more prudent to salt afterward.

Finally, a double-boiler can be used, I guess? That approach is mentioned briefly in this interview @ ~41:48. I haven’t tried cooking the juice that way myself for lack of proper equipment and reasoning why a runny liquid warrants double-boiling.

Update! — I cobbled together a makeshift double-boiler last night and the result was … pretty similar! Major difference: The precipitate didn’t coalesce as thoroughly so not as much could be filtered out; however, the precipitate didn’t taste as bad. It was tolerable. So if that part — still unidentified — is to be consumed, then double-boiling makes sense. The broth tasted more watery as opposed to burnt, I suppose. It wasn’t as strong as it is from single-boiling.

Another Update! — If the burner is set to super low, lower than I have photographed here, as in low enough that the precipitate will not be much agitated by the heat, it — the precipitate — will congeal more thoroughly and sink. This is the fabled scrambled-egg substance, and it is consumable. Cooking time should be extended correspondingly, and the next step, filtering, becomes unnecessary.

Step 7: Filter into Stainless Steel Bowl

Pour the hot broth through the fine-mesh sieve and into the stainless steel bowl and sprinkle some salt in if you would like. More sediment precipitates during cooking, and it’s pretty gross-looking (and -tasting) so we want to remove it, though the mesh of the sieve is not fine enough to filter it all out. You can allow the particles to settle in the bowl and then decant to separate them. I’ve tried using a coffee filter to achieve this end but found the process to be terribly inefficient.

I find the stainless steel bowl critical because its low heat capacity allows the juice to cool to consumable temperature relatively quickly. Broth poured straight into a glass Mason jar, for example, will stay tongue-scorchingly hot for what seems like forever.

Step 8: Enjoy!

The end result is a potatoey broth very rich in vitamins, minerals, and protein. The nutrition from however many pounds of potatoes went into this. It’s potent stuff. I am very content sipping it as is like a soup. I find the flavor fine. I suppose you could add fresh herbs or well-cooked mushrooms or whatever you fancy to jazz it up.

Readers! — What are your experiences with potato juice? Have any of the steps been unclear? Do you suggest any improvements to this recipe? I am but one person sharing his thoughts and perceptions. Collaborate with me!

In particular, I am curious whether the broth will refrigerate or freeze well; I always sluuuurp it down immediately.

Update! — I’ve now both refrigerated the broth (for one and two days) and frozen it (for one day). The frozen broth tasted way fresher. So I recommend freezing if not consuming it all immediately!

Also, hydraulic juice press aficionados: Help! What model is best?

Tools

• Potato Peeler: Kuhn Rikon
• Stainless Steel Bowls: Vollrath 47935
• Blender: Vitamix 5200 — though I imagine pretty much any blender will be able to adequately atomize potatoes.
• Juice Press Cloth: PURE LSHP
  • Two stainless steel bowls can serve as a makeshift hydraulic press in combination with the cloths if you’re physically capable and have the proper wall/countertop space. Most readers — and even I — will want to look into hydraulic presses (maybe the Welles or JP Factory) if going this non-juicer route. Norwalk and PURE are expensive all-in-one options.
• Juicer: I had been window-shopping the Omega VSJ843 and Tribest Slowstar before settling to use my already-owned Vitamix. Those models seemed to be the easiest to operate and clean and would yield a fair yield. The ease of operation and sanitization are heavy considerations, in my mind at least. Juicers can be a bitch to operate and maintain. The blender + hydraulic press combo will produce the highest yield, if that’s what you’re after.
• Fine-Mesh Sieve: Rosle 7.9-Inch Fine-Mesh Kitchen Stainless Steel Strainer
• Saucepan: Cuisinart MCP193-18N
  • While this saucepan is adequate, clad construction is inappropriate and overkill for application here. Disc-bottom would be preferable. The Demeyere Atlantis 3.2-quart is on my if-I-win-the-lottery-or-am-somehow-otherwise-bequeathed-with-a-fortuitous-financial-windfall list. Any old stock pot would work fine, too.

nl.wikipedia.org

Did you know that the horse, generally regarded as one of the most robust animals on the planet, breathes almost exclusively through its nose? It is physically incapable of mouth breathing unless it suffers from an anatomical abnormality. [1][2][3]

Though I learned that tidbit after completing a majority of the research for this article, I think it is a testament that nature has designed mammals with an intent for optimal respiration through the nostrils.

The purpose of this piece is to investigate whether conscious nasal breathing during exercise, specifically that of the anaerobic type, might be beneficial over oronasal or mouth breathing in terms of performance and recovery.

Aerobic exertion relates to my findings as well.

Explanations

The Meathead’s Explanation

Working out creates acidity. Acidity creates fatigue. Oxidation neutralizes acidity. Nasal breathing is better at oxidation than mouth breathing. Therefore nasal breathing should in theory reduce fatigue and speed recovery better than mouth breathing.

The Enthusiast’s Explanation

One of the penalties of kinetically induced metabolic excitation (i.e. exercise) is H⁺ and lactate production (the accumulation of which being more marked in the case of intense physical activity).

The buildup of these two byproducts creates acidity which the body wants to balance by raising its pH back up to normal levels. Acidity also inhibits glycolysis, the process by which most energy is generated under anaerobic conditions. These factors contribute to the feeling of fatigue.

The path of least resistance for restoring pH is through hyperventilation, which by definition is when the body expels more carbon dioxide (CO₂) than is produced. Hyperventilation typically occurs through the mouth (and not the nose).

However, a lower pH and higher concentration of CO₂ foster more willing delivery of oxygen throughout the body, as per the Bohr effect. Oxidation by definition offsets reduction (i.e. acidity), and also converts lactate back into pyruvate, a building block of energy production.

By nasal breathing, CO₂ is not dispelled as disparately and though airflow is constricted, limiting the rate at which oxygen can be assimilated into the bloodstream compared to mouth breathing, the oxygen that is inhaled is more efficiently distributed to fatigued tissues which should in theory improve athletic performance and recovery, with practice of the technique.

The Know-It-All’s Explanation

High intensity exercise, which often (but not always) recruits fast-twitch (aka type II) muscle fibers, stimulates glycolysis to synthesize ATP for energy in predominance over oxidative phosphorylation because glycolysis is able to produce ATP at a faster rate to fulfill acute energy demands, though oxidative phosphorylation is the preferential and more cost-efficient pathway of energy production within the body. [4][6]

Fermentation (i.e. reduction) of pyruvate to lactate oxidizes NADH back to NAD⁺ for reuse in glycolysis. (Pyruvate and NAHD themselves are products of glycolysis.) NAD⁺ is available in limitation, hence the need to regenerate it. [6]

Lactate is thus a byproduct of glycolysis. Hydrolysis of ATP generated by glycolysis releases H⁺ which accumulates in the muscle along with the lactate. [4][6][7]

Some of the H⁺ is buffered in the muscle and some diffuses into the blood in exchange for Na⁺ or along with lactate through monocarboxylate transporters (MCTs). This then decreases pH in the blood (because of the influx of H⁺ and plasma lactate, lowered HCO₃^– concentration, and thus increased amounts of CO₂ from H₂CO₃ dissociation) and as a consequence, the body wants to raise its pH back up to maintain homeostasis. [7] This acidity specifically inhibits phosphofructokinase, an enzyme that catalyzes a key regulatory step of glycolysis, and also impairs the utilization of glucose. [8][9][10][11][12][13] This is partly what causes fatigue and in a way shows the self-regulation of these mechanisms to protect the body from overexertion.

The path of least resistance for raising pH is by eliminating plasma CO₂, which is vaporized in the alveoli and exhaled by the lungs. [7][14] Its dismissal is hastened by hyperventilation, which happens primarily by breathing through the mouth.

This helps restore pH, though CO₂ is essentially displaced as lactate is produced, which is undesirable as lactate is not as synergetic with oxygen in the way carbon dioxide is through the Bohr effect. [14]

Another method by which pH can be leveled is consumption of the glycolytic byproducts, which is advantageous because this produces energy. The protons can be used in cellular respiration and the lactate can be oxidized back to pyruvate for use in metabolic processes as well. [9][15][16][17][18]

As a side note, I find the interconnection here rather elegant; the heart is able to utilize the built up plasma lactate for energy, which thus allows it to pump harder and increase blood flow to tissues that have a pressing need for oxygen. [19][20]

Mouth breathing is advantageous over nasal breathing in that it allows for increased airflow, which lets an individual reach higher levels of exercise intensity presumably because of the combination of higher oxygen consumption and lower carbon dioxide retention, both of which help balance acidity. [1][21][22][23][24] The cost of this is that it is inefficient when compared to nasal breathing due to the Bohr effect, which means energy is wasted to achieve similar results of oxidation and subsequently I would imagine fatigue sets in sooner as this is a stressful state of physiology. [21][25] If maintained, CO₂ concentrations will likely further deplete, making oxygen delivery even poorer, exacerbating the effect, suggesting this is a mechanism to be avoided when possible and used only for short durations.

Therefore nasal breathing is preferential for its energy efficiency which should in theory better promote oxidative metabolism of glycolytic byproducts, increase available ATP, and thus lessen fatigue and speed recovery from athletic endeavors.

Practical Suggestions

I believe there are a few simple takeaways to be gleaned from this science that can easily be applied to improve the efficacy of one’s training.

1. Consciously make an effort to breath through your nose at all times, as in 24/7, to develop mastery of the nasal breathing technique. [26]
2. During high intensity activity, allow yourself frequent breaks to fully regain control of your breathing and allow your heart rate to reset before continuing. Don’t keep pushing while you are winded.
3. Nasal strips can help improve airflow, which appears to be the limiting factor in the exercise intensity one can achieve solely through nose breathing. [1][27][28] (That limiting of intensity could be construed as a positive, however.) Nasal resistance does actually reduce on its own during exercise, too. [29][30]

Concerns

First and foremost, this is undoubtedly a simplified view of energetic processes and I do not claim to have that deep a grasp on the subject matter. There may be mistakes in my understanding and presentation above.

Secondly, I think there is ample evidence that shows mouth breathing allows for a higher respiratory rate than nose breathing. Whether the influx of oxygen or exhalation of carbon dioxide is the more relevant factor, I am not sure, but the increased flow rate of mouth breathing does allow exercise to reach a higher intensity.

However, unless you are a professional athlete and your livelihood hinges upon you sucking for air while putting your body through extreme stress, then do it when necessary, but for the rest of the population, if you are reaching the point where you must breathe through your mouth, I think that’s a sign you are training too hard.

What I am unclear about here though is exactly how oxygen is utilized when mouth breathing becomes a necessity at maximal intensity. It is delivered less efficiently, and I would assume certain metabolic processes take priority over others in terms of needing that oxygen. I am guessing oxidative phosphorylation is preferential over lactate consumption in this situation, which might help explain the lactate paradox. [9][14] This warrants further investigation.

Thirdly, by forcing nasal breathing during high intensity exercise, I have a feeling the body might be exposed to a more acute period of acidity as compared to mouth breathing because of the lower but more efficient ventilatory rate of nasal breathing. By mouth breathing, my hunch is that the body’s pH is restored more gradually as it is the less effective but more voluminous technique. There may be consequences associated with this, if my assumptions are correct.

Related Topics

Altitude

At high altitude, there is a belief that red blood cell production is stimulated to compensate for the relative scarcity of oxygen in the air, and that this is the primary cause for performance gains associated with altitude training. [31][32]

However, others postulate that the positive effects of altitude training are mostly due to other factors, such as an adaptation to a more economic utilization of oxygen. [33] This claim seems to be supported by the lactate paradox, which shows “reduced production of lactic acid at a given work rate at high altitude.” [14] Lactate levels should not be reduced if increased red blood cell mass was the predominant factor in performance increase because carbon dioxide plays such a role in oxygen delivery.

Building one’s tolerance of nasal breathing is probably comparable to physiological adaptations of high altitude.

Baking Soda

Sodium bicarbonate (i.e. baking soda) raises blood pH which helps buffer acidic buildup, delaying the onset of fatigue. [34] (Excessive acidity impairs energetic pathways.) [8][9][10][11][12][13]

It also increases PCO₂, allowing O₂ to be delivered more readily to fatigued muscles because of the Bohr effect, though the increase in pH may initially offset the increase in carbon dioxide concentration, limiting the phenomenon. [34]

Aerobic Exercise

As all this translates to aerobic exercise, the main principle still stands: nasal breathing improves the delivery of oxygen. Oxidative phosphorylation, the preferential metabolic pathway of the body, is more efficient than glycolysis and relies on O₂ availability. Thus, sufficiently supplying an increased demand for oxygen during low intensity activity is important as well.

Those interested in endurance exercise may want to read about lactate threshold and note how it relates to oxidation.

Temperature

Unmentioned here is that metabolic processes create heat. Thus when one exercises, extra energy is spent and body temperature rises. This typically is compensated for by the dissipation of heat through the skin to maintain a functional core temperature. [35] When one’s internal temperature becomes too high, performance suffers (and the risk of serious biological harm onsets). [36]

I have yet to delve deep into the literature on this subject matter, but as it relates to respiration, I think the goal is still ultimately to promote energy efficiency, and excessive heat retention should be viewed as the result of an obstruction, namely the temperature of the outside environment. [37]

It is unclear if there is an optimal ambient temperature for which to exercise, but marathon results show a progression of improved performance all the way down to 41 °F. [38] (Data presumably hasn’t been interpreted below that number.)

My guess would be that the lowest temperature one can tolerate without impediment of motor functioning is the best in terms of maximizing potential.

I am unsure about the relationship between respired air temperature and pulmonary gas exchange (it may again be influenced by the Bohr effect), but nasal breathing warms air better than mouth breathing, though tidal volume lessens with cold air. [39][40][41] Glycogenolysis is also reduced at lower temperatures, suggesting improved oxygenation. [42][43]

Alas, this is a topic for another day.

References

[1]: Hinchcliff KW, Kaneps AJ, Geor RJ. Equine Exercise Physiology, The Science of Exercise in the Athletic Horse. Elsevier Health Sciences; 2008:170.

“Horses maintain nasal breathing, normally, throughout exercise and rely on capacitance vessel constriction and contraction of upper airway dilating muscles to minimize airflow resistance.”

[2]: Holcombe SJ, Derksen FJ, Stick JA, Robinson NE. Effect of bilateral blockade of the pharyngeal branch of the vagus nerve on soft palate function in horses. Am J Vet Res. 1998;59(4):504-8.

“DDSP [(dorsal displacement of the soft palate)] creates flow-limiting expiratory obstruction and may be caused by neuromuscular dysfunction involving the pharyngeal branch of the vagus nerve. It may alter performance by causing expiratory obstruction and by altering breathing strategy in horses.”

[3]: Holcombe SJ. Neuromuscular Regulation of the Larynx and Nasopharynx in the Horse. Proceedings of the Annual Convention of the AAEP. 1998;44:28.

“Based on clinical observation, it has been suspected that horses might open-mouth breathe during episodes of dorsal displacement of the soft palate. Transoral breathing would be a unique feature of this syndrome because horses generally are obligate nasal breathers.”

[4]: Kravitz L. Lactate: Not Guilty as Charged. 2003. Available at: http://www.unm.edu/~lkravitz/Article%20folder/lactate.html. Accessed November 25, 2013.

“Fast-twitch muscle fibers have fewer mitochondria (where cell respiration occurs as well as the uptake of protons) than slow-twitch, or aerobic endurance fibers. Thus, during high-intensity resistance training, because of the extensive use of the fast-twitch fibers (with few mitochondria and less uptake of protons) there is a greater accumulation of protons, causing acidosis.”

“Robergs et al. (2004) show through detailed chemical reactions that lactic acid is not produced in the body. Rather, lactate is the product of a side reaction in glycolysis.”

“The utility of anaerobic glycolysis to a muscle cell when it needs large amounts of energy stems from the fact that the rate of ATP production from glycolysis is 100 times faster than from oxidative phosphorylation.”

“All cells have plenty of ADP and P_i because these are the hydrolysis products of ATP. However, the amounts of NAD⁺ are limited, and therefore NADH must be oxidized back to NAD⁺.”

[6]: Robergs RA, Ghiasvand F, Parker D. Biochemistry of exercise-induced metabolic acidosis. Am J Physiol Regul Integr Comp Physiol. 2004;287(3):R502-16.

“Every time ATP is broken down to ADP and Pi, a proton is released. When the ATP demand of muscle contraction is met by mitochondrial respiration, there is no proton accumulation in the cell, as protons are used by the mitochondria for oxidative phosphorylation and to maintain the proton gradient in the intermembranous space. It is only when the exercise intensity increases beyond steady state that there is a need for greater reliance on ATP regeneration from glycolysis and the phosphagen system. The ATP that is supplied from these nonmitochondrial sources and is eventually used to fuel muscle contraction increases proton release and causes the acidosis of intense exercise. Lactate production increases under these cellular conditions to prevent pyruvate accumulation and supply the NAD⁺ needed for phase 2 of glycolysis.”

[7]: Péronnet F, Aguilaniu B. Lactic acid buffering, nonmetabolic CO₂ and exercise hyperventilation: a critical reappraisal. Respir Physiol Neurobiol. 2006;150(1):4-18.

“Hydrolysis of ATP generated by glycolysis, rather than glycolysis per se, releases H⁺ in the muscle (Robergs et al., 2004).”

“A portion of the muscle H⁺ load is removed by metabolic and fixed physicochemical buffers, and by the reduction in muscle bicarbonate concentration, while another portion leaves the cell in exchange with Na⁺ or along with lactate through MCTs. Plasma lactate and H⁺ concentration thus increase. Although fixed physicochemical buffers in the blood (Cerretelli and Samaja, 2003) remove a portion of the H⁺ load, plasma pH decreases, reducing the concentration of bicarbonate in the blood, and the CO₂ released appears in the expired gas.”

[8]: Stine ZE, Dang CV. Stress eating and tuning out: Cancer cells re-wire metabolism to counter stress. Crit Rev Biochem Mol Biol. 2013;48(6):609-19.

“A fall in pH also inhibits phosphofructokinase activity. The inhibition of phosphofructokinase by H+ prevents excessive formation of lactic acid (Section 16.1.9) and a precipitous drop in blood pH (acidosis).”

[9]: Phypers B. Lactate physiology in health and disease. Continuing Education in Anaesthesia, Critical Care & Pain. 2006;6(3):128-132.

“To support an increase in glycolysis, NAD+ from the conversion of pyruvate to lactate, is required. The activity of phosphofructokinase (PFK) is rate limiting.”

“Impairment of oxidative pathways during lactate production results in a net gain of H+ and acidosis occurs. (Oxidative phosphorylation during severe exercise prevents acidosis despite massive lactate production.)”

“Mitochondria-rich tissues such as skeletal and cardiac myocytes and proximal tubule cells remove the rest of the lactate by converting it to pyruvate.”

“With severe exercise, type II myocytes produce large amounts of lactate […] This provides some of the increased cardiac energy requirements (Fig. 4).”

[10]: Peak M, Al-habori M, Agius L. Regulation of glycogen synthesis and glycolysis by insulin, pH and cell volume. Interactions between swelling and alkalinization in mediating the effects of insulin. Biochem J. 1992;282 ( Pt 3):797-805.

“It is concluded that glycogen synthesis and glycolysis are both stimulated by cell swelling and inhibited by acidification, under certain conditions, but glycolysis is more sensitive to inhibition by acidification and glycogen synthesis to stimulation by swelling. Consequently, simultaneous swelling and acidification is associated with inhibition of glycolysis and stimulation of glycogen synthesis. Stimuli that cause swelling and alkalinization activate both glycogen synthesis and glycolysis, alkalinization being more important in control of glycolysis and swelling in control of glycogen synthesis. Both cell swelling and alkalinization are components of the mechanism by which insulin controls glycogen synthesis and glycolysis.”

[11]: Bevington A, Brown J, Pratt A, Messer J, Walls J. Impaired glycolysis and protein catabolism induced by acid in L6 rat muscle cells. Eur J Clin Invest. 1998;28(11):908-17.

“In skeletal muscle, metabolic acidosis stimulates protein degradation and oxidation of branched-chain amino acids. This could occur to compensate for impairment of glucose utilization induced by acid.”

[12]: Uchida K, Matuse R, Toyoda E, Okuda S, Tomita S. A new method of inhibiting glycolysis in blood samples. Clin Chim Acta. 1988;172(1):101-8.

“The maintenance of hydrogen ion concentration in blood samples at pH 5.3-5.9 immediately inhibits glycolysis. This effect is due to the inhibition of all glycolytic enzymes, as shown by measurement of various glycolytic intermediates.”

[13]: Rovetto MJ, Lamberton WF, Neely JR. Mechanisms of glycolytic inhibition in ischemic rat hearts. Circ Res. 1975;37(6):742-51.

“The major factors that accounted for the glycolytic inhibition in the ischemic heart compared with the anoxic heart appeared to be higher tissue levels of lactate and H+ in the ischemic tissue. […] It is concluded that accumulation of lactate represents a major factor in the inhibition of glycolysis that develops in ischemic hearts.”

[14]: Peat R. Altitude and Mortality. 2006. Available at: http://raypeat.com/articles/aging/altitude-mortality.shtml. Accessed November 25, 2013.

“Lactate paradox: The reduced production of lactic acid at a given work rate at high altitude. Muscle work efficiency may be 50% greater at high altitude. ATP wastage is decreased.”

“The idea of the “oxygen debt” produced by exercise or stress as being equivalent to the accumulation of lactic acid is far from accurate, but it’s true that activity increases the need for oxygen, and also increases the tendency to accumulate lactic acid, which can then be disposed of over an extended time, with the consumption of oxygen. This relationship between work and lactic acidemia and oxygen deficit led to the term “lactate paradox” to describe the lower production of lactic acid during maximal work at high altitude when people are adapted to the altiude. Carbon dioxide, retained through the Haldane effect, accounts for the lactate paradox, by inhibiting cellular excitation and sustaining oxidative metabolism to consume lactate efficiently.”

“The loss of carbon dioxide from the lungs in the presence of high oxygen pressure, the shift toward alkalosis, by the Bohr-Haldane effect increases the blood’s affinity for oxygen, and restricts its delivery to the tissues, but because of the abundance of oxygen in the lungs, the blood is almost completely saturated with oxygen.”

“At high altitude, the slight tendency toward carbon dioxide-retention acidosis decreases the blood’s affinity for oxygen, making it more available to the tissues. It happens that lactic acid also affects the blood’s oxygen affinity, though not as strongly as carbon dioxide. However, lactic acid doesn’t vaporize as the blood passes through the lungs, so its effect on the lungs’ ability to oxygenate the blood is the opposite of the easily exchangeable carbon dioxide’s. Besides dissociating oxygen from hemoglobin, lactate also displaces carbon dioxide from its (carbamino) binding sites on hemoglobin. If it does this in hemoglobin, it probably does it in many other places in the body.”

[15]: Brooks GA. The lactate shuttle during exercise and recovery. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 1986;18(3):360-8.

“Most (75%+) of the lactate formed during sustained, steady-rate exercise is removed by oxidation during exercise, and only a minor fraction (approximately 20%) is converted to glucose.”

“Of the lactate which appears in blood, most of this will be removed and combusted by oxidative (muscle) fibers in the active bed and the heart.”

“However, as the muscle respiratory rate declines in recovery, lactate becomes the preferred substrate for hepatic gluconeogenesis. Practically all of the newly formed liver glucose will be released into the circulation to serve as a precursor for cardiac and skeletal muscle glycogen repletion. Liver glycogen depots will not be restored, and muscle glycogen will not be completely restored until refeeding.”

[16]: Brooks GA. Mammalian fuel utilization during sustained exercise. Comp Biochem Physiol B, Biochem Mol Biol. 1998;120(1):89-107.

“The concept of a ‘lactate shuttle’ is that during hard exercise, as well as other conditions of accelerated glycolysis, glycolytic flux in muscle involves lactate formation regardless of the state of oxygenation. Further, according to the lactate shuttle concept, lactate represents a major means of distributing carbohydrate potential energy for oxidation and gluconeogenesis. In humans and other mammals, the formation, distribution and disposal of lactate (not pyruvate) represent key steps in the regulation of intermediary metabolism during sustained exercise.”

[17]: Mazzeo RS, Brooks GA, Schoeller DA, Budinger TF. Disposal of blood [1-13C]lactate in humans during rest and exercise. J Appl Physiol. 1986;60(1):232-41.

“It was concluded that, in humans, 1) lactate disposal (turnover) rate is directly related to the metabolic rate, 2) oxidation is the major fate of lactate removal during exercise, and 3) blood lactate concentration is not an accurate indicator of lactate disposal and oxidation.”

[18]: Brooks GA. Cell-cell and intracellular lactate shuttles. J Physiol (Lond). 2009;587(Pt 23):5591-600.

“Lactate is actively oxidized at all times, especially during exercise when oxidation accounts for 70–75% of removal and gluconeogenesis for most of the remainder. Working skeletal muscle both produces and uses lactate as a fuel, with much of the lactate formed in glycolytic fibres being taken up and oxidized in adjacent oxidative fibres. Because it is more reduced that its keto-acid analogue, sequestration and oxidation of lactate to pyruvate affects cell redox state, both promoting energy flux and signalling cellular events.”

[19]: Prestwich KN. Removal of Lactic Acid — Oxidation and Gluconeogenesis. 2003. Available at: http://college.holycross.edu/faculty/kprestwi/exphys/lecture/ExPhysEx2Lect_pdf/ExPhys_03_M08_lac_remove.pdf. Accessed November 25, 2013.

“It is as if aerobic glycolysis started in the muscle and finished in the heart.”

[20]: Børsheim E, Bahr R. Effect of exercise intensity, duration and mode on post-exercise oxygen consumption. Sports Med. 2003;33(14):1037-60.

“In the recovery period after exercise there is an increase in oxygen uptake termed the ‘excess post-exercise oxygen consumption’ (EPOC), consisting of a rapid and a prolonged component.”

[21]: Morton AR, King K, Papalia S, Goodman C, Turley KR, Wilmore JH. Comparison of maximal oxygen consumption with oral and nasal breathing. Aust J Sci Med Sport. 1995;27(3):51-5.

“The percentage decrease in maximal ventilation with nose-only breathing compare to mouth and mouth plus nose breathing was three times the percentage decrease in maximal oxygen consumption. The pattern of nose-only breathing at maximal work showed a small reduction in tidal volume and large reduction in breathing frequency. Nasal breathing resulted in a reduction in FEO₂ and an increase in FECO₂. While breathing through the nose-only, all subjects could attain a work intensity great enough to produce an aerobic training effect (based on heart rate and percentage of VO₂ max).”

[22]: Niinimaa V, Cole P, Mintz S, Shephard RJ. The switching point from nasal to oronasal breathing. Respir Physiol. 1980;42(1):61-71.

“Twenty of the 30 subjects (normal augmenters) switched from nasal to oronasal breathing at submaximal exercise[…]”

[23]: Tanaka Y, Morikawa T, Honda Y. An assessment of nasal functions in control of breathing. J Appl Physiol. 1988;65(4):1520-4.

“Dead space and airway resistance were significantly greater during nose than during mouth breathing.”

“It is suggested that a loss of nasal functions, such as during nasal obstruction, may result in lowering of CO₂, fostering apneic spells during sleep.”

[24]: Tanaka Y, Honda Y. Nasal obstruction as a cause of reduced PCO₂ and disordered breathing during sleep. J Appl Physiol. 1989;67(3):970-2.

“End-tidal PCO₂ during nose-obstructed sleep was lower than that during nose-open sleep in all of the subjects.”

[25]: Hall RL. Energetics of nose and mouth breathing, body size, body composition, and nose volume in young adult males and females. Am J Hum Biol. 2005;17(3):321-30.

“Nose breathing was found to be more energetically efficient in most but not all subjects, but additional research is needed to explore this finding further.”

[26]: Thomas S. A., Phillips, V., Mock, C., Lock, M., Cox, G. and Baxter, J. (2009) The effects of nasal breathing on exercise tolerance. Liverpool conference centre: Chartered Society of Physiotherapy Annual Congress 2009, Liverpool conference centre, 16th and 17th October 2009.

“Nasal breathing was possible at 85% of maximum workload suggesting that people are capable of nose breathing at much higher intensities than they would normally chose to do, suggesting a potential for nose breathing training interventions even with normal healthy individuals.”

[27]: Geor RJ, Ommundson L, Fenton G, Pagan JD. Effects of an external nasal strip and frusemide on pulmonary haemorrhage in Thoroughbreds following high-intensity exercise. Equine Vet J. 2001;33(6):577-84.

“The external nasal strip appears to lower the metabolic cost of supramaximal exertion in horses.”

[28]: Tong TK, Fu FH, Chow BC. Nostril dilatation increases capacity to sustain moderate exercise under nasal breathing condition. J Sports Med Phys Fitness. 2001;41(4):470-8.

“Exercise time to exhaustion in NBFNS [(nasal breathing with fake nasal strip)] trial, which was 23.6+/-6.7% less than the CON [(oronasal breathing)] value, increased 31.9+/-12.3% under NBENDS [(nasal breathing with external nasal dilator strip)] condition. [….] Nasal breathing reduces the sustainability of moderate exercise measured under oronasal breathing condition. Nostril dilatation increases the capacity to sustain moderate exercise under nasal breathing condition.”

[29]: Olson LG, Strohl KP. The response of the nasal airway to exercise. Am Rev Respir Dis. 1987;135(2):356-9.

“Exercise causes a fall in nasal resistance that may be due to sympathetic vasoconstriction in the nasal mucosa.”

[30]: Fregosi RF, Lansing RW. Neural drive to nasal dilator muscles: influence of exercise intensity and oronasal flow partitioning. J Appl Physiol. 1995;79(4):1330-7.

“The results suggest that during incremental exercise 1) changes in AN EMG activities are highly correlated with changes in nasal VI, 2) turbulent flow in the nose may be the stimulus for the switch to oronasal breathing so that total pulmonary resistance is minimized, and 3) the correlation between nasal airflow and neural drive to the AN muscles is probably mediated by mechanisms that monitor airway resistance.”

[31]: Levine BD, Stray-gundersen J. Point: positive effects of intermittent hypoxia (live high:train low) on exercise performance are mediated primarily by augmented red cell volume. J Appl Physiol. 2005;99(5):2053-5.

[32]: Chapman R, Levine BD. Altitude Training for the Marathon. Sports Medicine. 2007;37(4):392-395.

“While the results of many early studies on the use of altitude training for sea level performance enhancement have produced equivocal results, newer studies using the ‘live high, train low’ altitude training model have demonstrated significant improvements in red cell mass, maximal oxygen uptake, oxygen uptake at ventilatory threshold, and 3000m and 5000m race time.”

[33]: Gore CJ, Hopkins WG. Counterpoint: positive effects of intermittent hypoxia (live high:train low) on exercise performance are not mediated primarily by augmented red cell volume. J Appl Physiol. 2005;99(5):2055-7.

[34]: Singer RB, Deering RC, Clark JK. The acute effects in man of a rapid intravenous infusion of hypertonic sodium bicarbonate solution. II. Changes in respiration and output of carbon dioxide. J Clin Invest. 1956;35(2):245-53.

“During the infusion of sodium bicarbonate, arterial pH, arterial and alveolar PCO₂, total ventilation, and rate of elimination of CO₂ were significantly increased above control levels.”

“Following the infusion, the rate of CO₂ elimination returned to the control level, but arterial pH was still elevated despite a steady fall toward the control range.”

[35]: Maughan RJ. Temperature regulation during marathon competition. Br J Sports Med. 1984;18(4):257-60.

“During hard physical exercise, metabolic rate may rise 10 or 15-fold, and this rate of heat production may be sustained for several hours. For the exercising individual, therefore, cold exposure does not normally represent a serious challenge to the body’s homeostatic mechanisms, but the problems of heat loss when exercising at a high ambient temperature may be acute.”

“It is also important to remember that, although it is the core body temperature which is regulated, it is the temperature of the skin relative to that of the environment which determines whether heat is gained or lost.”

[36]: González-alonso J, Teller C, Andersen SL, Jensen FB, Hyldig T, Nielsen B. Influence of body temperature on the development of fatigue during prolonged exercise in the heat. J Appl Physiol. 1999;86(3):1032-9.

“These results demonstrate that high internal body temperature per se causes fatigue in trained subjects during prolonged exercise in uncompensable hot environments. Furthermore, time to exhaustion in hot environments is inversely related to the initial temperature and directly related to the rate of heat storage.”

[37]: El helou N, Tafflet M, Berthelot G, et al. Impact of environmental parameters on marathon running performance. PLoS ONE. 2012;7(5):e37407.

“Air temperature is the most important factor influencing marathon running performance for runners of all levels.”

[38]: Ely MR, Cheuvront SN, Roberts WO, Montain SJ. Impact of weather on marathon-running performance. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2007;39(3):487-93.

“There is a progressive slowing of marathon performance as the WBGT [(Wet Bulb Globe Temperature)] increases from 5 to 25 degrees C. This seems true for men and women of wide ranging abilities, but performance is more negatively affected for slower populations of runners.”

[39]: Paczesny D, Rapiejko P, Weremczuk J, Jachowicz R, Jurkiewicz D. [Air temperature measurements in nasal cavities and oral cavity]. Otolaryngol Pol. 2007;61(5):864-7.

“The air inspired through the nose and oral cavity is heated during respiration. For typical external conditions (T = 22 degrees C i RH = 50%) the nose heats inspired air 1,5 times better then oral cavity (short time range of measurement approximately 1 min.). Heat from expired air is recovered for both nasal cavities and oral cavity. Nasal cavities respiration ability for heat recovery from expired air is 3 times higher then oral cavity respiration.”

[40]: Burgess KR, Whitelaw WA. Effects of nasal cold receptors on pattern of breathing. J Appl Physiol. 1988;64(1):371-6.

“The results confirm the previous observation that cold air breathed through the nose inhibits ventilation in normal subjects and show that this is not related to an increase in flow resistance.”

[41]: Keck T, Lindemann J. Numerical simulation and nasal air-conditioning. GMS Curr Top Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2010;9:Doc08.

“Heating and humidification of the respiratory air are the main functions of the nasal airways in addition to cleansing and olfaction. Optimal nasal air conditioning is mandatory for an ideal pulmonary gas exchange in order to avoid desiccation and adhesion of the alveolar capillary bed.”

[42]: Febbraio MA, Snow RJ, Stathis CG, Hargreaves M, Carey MF. Blunting the rise in body temperature reduces muscle glycogenolysis during exercise in humans. Exp Physiol. 1996;81(4):685-93.

“These results suggest that glycogenolysis in contracting skeletal muscle is reduced during exercise when the rise in body core temperature is attenuated. These changes in carbohydrate metabolism appear to be influenced by alterations in muscle temperature and/or sympatho-adrenal activity.”

[43]: Febbraio MA, Snow RJ, Hargreaves M, Stathis CG, Martin IK, Carey MF. Muscle metabolism during exercise and heat stress in trained men: effect of acclimation. J Appl Physiol. 1994;76(2):589-97.

“Muscle glycogenolysis and percentage of type I muscle fibers showing glycogen depletion were greater (P < 0.05) in the PRE ACC [(40 degrees C and 20% relative humidity before acclimation)] than in the RTT [(20 degrees C and 20% relative humidity)] trial.”

I had no intention of ever learning this much about Joy Division or pulsars, but because of my apt to be a law abiding citizen, I was forced to research the about the ubiquitous design made popular by the British band and artist Peter Saville for a t-shirt project I’m heading on SixPrizes.

In short, I thought it would be cool to make a spoof off this t-shirt:

AllPosters

However, I know from experience that you’ve got to be very careful when “borrowing” ideas from other people. In order to make sure the t-shirt parody project would get off without a hitch, I needed to make sure that I could get around the copyrights that Joy Division or Peter Saville may have on the design.

So I did the first thing anyone else would do… I checked ole trustworthy: Wikipedia. The free encyclopedia has a section about the packaging of the “Unknown Pleasures” album that gives the following information:

The front cover image comes from an edition of the Cambridge Encyclopedia of Astronomy, and was originally drawn with black lines on a white background.^[13] It presents successive pulses from the first pulsar discovered, PSR B1919+21—often referred to in the context of this album by its older name, CP 1919.^[13] The image was suggested by drummer Stephen Morris^[13] and the cover design is credited to Joy Division, Peter Saville and Chris Mathan.

From this description, I assumed that the Saville took diagrams from the book and superimposed them on top of one another to make the cool looking image.

But upon further research, this page from the Cambridge Encyclopedia of Astronomy surfaced:

Joy Division Central

He straight up used the exact image for their album cover! I guess you could say there is some artistic thought expressed by inverting the colors and choosing the positioning, but it’s the same exact image!

Wikipedia

I was dumbfounded when I discovered this. Here I was all stressing about copyright infringement… but now it looks like the image itself might have been infringed upon already!

I had to do some more research to find out more about the pulsar to find its true origin…

It turns out the diagram actually first appeared in a January 1971 issue of Scientific American, and is credited to Jerry Ostriker (thanks to this page for that info, though I’m not convinced Ostriker was the one that published the image).

Here’s what it looked like in that magazine:

hauntedGeographies

hauntedGeographies

The image then made a second cameo in Graphis Diagrams in 1974:

hauntedGeographies

And finally, it appeared in the Cambridge Encyclopedia of Astronomy in 1977, which is where Joy Division drummer Stephen Morris saw the design:

hauntedGeographies

This brings me back to my original purpose for doing this research, and that was to find out if the image is copyright protected.

I went straight to the source and tried e-mailing Peter Saville to see if he had any comment on the matter. I wasn’t really expecting to get a response, but to my surprise his assistant Alice sent a prompt reply:

Hi Adam,

I write on behalf of Peter.
We understand the image as copyright free.
So believe you are liberty to do as you wish.

My best,

Alice

Now we’re on to something… I don’t necessarily take their word that the famous peaks and valleys are in the public domain (as I’m sure he’s made quite a pretty penny of them), but here are the facts:

• The pulsar itself was first discovered in 1967 by Jocelyn Bell Burnell
• The image of its radio pulses first appeared in an American Scientific in 1971
• It’s not clear whether the research team that discovered the pulsar created the graph, or if Ostriker (or someone else) just pieced together the data

There is a 1968 research paper listed on the CP 1919 aka PSR B1919+21 Wiki page, but I’m unable to access it, and I don’t have the original Scientific American magazine to read the description.

That 1968 paper could potentially include the graph, and I am unsure about Ostriker being the one that published the image because the American Scientific article has no mention on his publications page.

[EDIT: I found the Scientific American reference on this page instead, so that story checks out. I’m still not sure if Ostriker created the diagram or not.]

What makes it most confusing legal-wise is that I can’t tell if an American or non-American created the diagram, as each of those scenarios would have a different boding on the copyright law.

I’m not even sure if the image itself is protectable… it’s essentially plotted data, but there could be a case made that it’s arranged in a unique matter.

Then if it qualifies for copyright there are a bunch of different scenarios that could be gone through depending on the year it was published, where it was published, if proper copyright formalities were taken, etc…

---

Overall though, I’d say it’s a pretty safe assumption to treat the image as if it’s in the public domain. It’s been on the cover of a fairly popular album that’s been selling for over 30 years now. If someone was going to drop the law hammer, it would have happened by now.

The only way I can see getting in trouble for using it is if you were marketing a product as a collaboration with Joy Division or Peter Saville. As long as you make it clear there’s no connection, you’re golden.

All that… for a spoof t-shirt. What time does the bar close?

EDIT: The story unravels…

I got in contact with Jeremiah P. Ostriker, who as far as I could tell was the first person to publish the image. Here’s what he had to say about it:

Dear Adam Capriola,

First, I doubt that I created the image but most likely obtained it from a published source.

I think it highly unlikely that I own copywrite to the image but if I do I am happy for it to be used in any way that would increase public education.

best wishes,

jpo

So Mr. Ostriker does not appear to have created it. After hearing this I took a closer look at the second picture above from Scientific American, and this is what I can depict in the caption:

EIGHTY SUCCESSIVE PERIODS of the first pulsar observed, CP1919 (Cambridge pulsar at 19 hours 19 minutes right ascension), are stacked on top of one another using the average period of 1.33730 seconds in this computer-generated illustration produced at the Arecibo Radio Observatory in Puerto Rico. Although the leading edges of the radio pulses… [can’t decipher the rest]

I can’t believe I missed that earlier. The image was computer generated at the Arecibo Radio Observatory in Puerto Rico. I wish I actually owned the issue of Scientific American so I could read the full caption and see if the article gives any credits, but that’s some information to work with.

(I’m actually somewhat tempted to buy the SA issue on this site for $17.95…)

Facts at this point:

• The pulsar itself was first discovered in July 1967 by Jocelyn Bell Burnell of Ireland
• The image first surfaced (as far as I know) in January 1971
• The image was produced at the Arecibo Radio Observator sometime between then

There is one article that was published in February 1968 that could contain the image, but it’s doubtful. That article is located here and gives the following abstract and note:

Unusual signals from pulsating radio sources have been recorded at the Mullard Radio Astronomy Observatory. The radiation seems to come from local objects within the galaxy, and may be associated with oscillations of white dwarf or neutron stars.

1. Mullard Radio Astronomy Observatory, Cavendish Laboratory, University of Cambridge

This makes it extremely unlikely the illustration appeared in that 1968 publication as there is no mention of Arecibo (which is where the image was produced), so its appearance in the January 1971 issue of Scientific American is in all likelihood the first place it appeared for public consumption.

However… the question still remains: who owns the rights to the image (if anyone)?

Assuming the image was produced at the Arecibo Radio Observatory, here are some facts about said establishment:

• It is currently operated by Cornell University under cooperative agreement with the National Science Foundation (meaning it receives substantial government funding).
  • The exact quote from the Arecibo website is “A Facility of the NSF operated by Cornell University” which seems to suggest that NSF owns it and contributes major funding.
• Arecibo received funding from the NSF as far back as 1967 according to this NASA article.
• The original plan for the observatory was proposed to ARPA (now DARPA) in 1958 and subsequently a contract for building arrangements was signed between Cornell University and the Air Force Cambridge Research Laboratory (meaning it was government funded from the start).

With that in mind, copyright law does not protect works by government officers or employees as done part of their official duties (hat tip).

What is not clear to me is whether the persons working at Arecibo would be considered government workers… it seems like Cornell operates the facility, but most of it is paid for by the government.

More than likely, the people working there are considered contractors or grantees, and they ARE able to copyright their work.

Wrapping Things Up

I guess the last piece to the puzzle is whether or not whomever created the image formally copyrighted it. The image would have been produced between 1968 and 1970, and as per law at the time, it would have had to be published with a copyright notice to receive protection (unlike today where works are automatically protected).

The images above from Scientific American do not appear to have to have a © (copyright symbol), the word copyright, or date, which would have been required back then for protection.

Since image seems to have first been published in Scientific American and it’s missing those key elements, this leads me to be fairly confident the image is in the public domain.

I wish I had a copy of the January 1971 Scientific American, Graphis Diagrams, and Cambridge Encyclopedia of Astronomy to double check if they give any copyright credits for the image, but if they don’t list an author, then it’s pretty much fair game.

I’m uncertain that the image was for sure first published in SA, and without the actual magazine the only reference I have is that it was produced at the Arecibo Observatory. Ostriker had to have obtained the diagram from SOMEWHERE, and if it was previously unpublished before his article, I guess him publishing it without a copyright notice or date has to mean it is public domain.

Otherwise whomever actually first published the image would have likely pushed legal action. And even if they didn’t ever publish it, unpublished work is automatically copyright protected so again, the original author would have likely filed a suit.

In closing, it would be nice to have an original copy of those 3 aforementioned works in front of me to see if they list any copyright, but with the information I’ve been able to gather, that’s the most logical conclusion I can come up with.

tl;dr

The image was first published in the US without a copyright (as far as I can tell) in the year 1971, so therefore it is in the public domain for failure to comply with copyright formalities of the time.

If you ever want to use the image for your own personal benefit, just make sure it’s clear you have no connection with Joy Division, Peter Saville, et al.

Update – December 28, 2012

I’ve received a message from F.X. Timmes of Arizona State University with a theory about the possible origin of the image:

it was common in the late 1960’s and early 1970’s to show stacked
timing profiles of pulsars as a way to visually analyze the subpulse
structures for patterns. my bet is that in 1969 or 1970 a summer intern
pulled the software crank on the latest data coming off the telescope
to produce what was a run-of-the-mill plot. somehow it got picked up …

Case closed?

Update – January 25, 2015

Dr. Paul Abbott, physics professor of The University of Western Australia, has reached out with information regarding resources which were unavailable to me:

Hi Adam:

A friend, Simon Tyler, posted a link to your interesting blog post on the History of Joy Division’s “Unknown Pleasures” album art. As I have access to journal archives, I thought I’d check some things that you could not.

First, on the Scientific American January 1971 issue (not American Scientific as you had in two placed in your blog):

1. The rest of the missing Figure caption reads:

Although the leading edges of the radio pulses occur within a few thousandths of a second of the predicted times, the shape of the pulses is quite irregular. Some of this irregularity in radio reception is caused by the effects of transmission through the interstellar medium. The average pulse width is less than 50 thousandths of a second.

2. Unlike the hardcopy that you showed, and about which you wrote

The images above from Scientific American do not appear to have to have a © (copyright symbol), the word copyright, or date, which would have been required back then for protection.

and

The image was first published in the US without a copyright (as far as I can tell) in the year 1971, so therefore it is in the public domain for failure to comply with copyright formalities of the time.

the online archive has

© 1970 SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, INC

printed on the bottom of page 53 (see attached).

3. The bibliography (page 122 of the same issue) lists the following references for Ostriker’s article

THE NATURE OF PULSATING STARS. Introductions by F. G. Smith and A. Hewish. Macmillan & Co., Ltd., 1968.

ON THE NATURE OF PULSARS, 1: THEORY. J. P. Ostriker and J. E. Gunn in The Astrophysical Joumal, Vol. 157, No. 3, Part 1, pages 1395-1417; Septem­ber, 1969.

ON THE NATURE OF PULSARS, III: ANAL­YSIS OF OBSERVATIONS. J. E. Gunn and J. P. Ostriker in The Astrophysical Joumal, Vol. 160,No. 3,Part 1, pages 979-1002; June, 1970.

However, our library doesn’t have a copy of Smith et al. (1968) and the 2 issues of The Astrophysical Joumal are not in the (online) journal archives, but both are by Ostriker, and he appears to not claim the image.

Regarding the 1968 Nature paper:

You wrote

That 1968 paper could potentially include the graph, and I am unsure about Ostriker being the one that published the image because the American Scientific article has no mention on his publications page.

I’ve checked the Nature paper and it does not include the graph.

Finally, a search for the images in Google Images does give the original source, but turns up some interesting examples of the use of this (copyrighted) artwork (appended below).

Cheers,
Paul

Update – February 19, 2015

It looks like F.X. Timmes was right: Jen Christiansen, art director of Scientific American, has completed the search and found (and interviewed!) the mystery man behind image the in this fantastic piece. Harold Craft, a Cornell graduate student working at Arecibo in 1970, captured what has since transcended into an iconic plot.