Neuronal myelination, good swimming technique and it’s relation to capital efficiency

Neuronal action potential propagation follows a very similar technique to swimming. In a sense it follows the same principles:

1. Power stroke
2. Glide

and so on.

In swimming, during the power stroke, it results in less aerodynamic performance and hence a large amount of friction and energy loss. However, the energy generated by the power stroke more than compensates for the loss of kinetic energy due to friction. With this in mind, it would be the most efficient to maintain the glide position as much as possible to conserve energy and only utilise the power stroke when necessary.

In neurons, in the nodes of Ranvier, there is a massive rush of ions into the axons, powering the ions forward and increasing the velocity of diffusion. However, due to the lack of myelination in the area, this leads to some degree of ion leak, which means that the velocity of the ions would have otherwise slowed down in the unmyelinated areas. However, the rush of ions at the nodes of Ranvier is able to more than compensate for the lack of myelination in this area.

In both situations, we observe the common pattern in that to generate a greater movement force, we have to suffer in innate inefficiencies in that power stroke, which leads to greater energy loss. Therefore, this presents two scenarios depending on what we want to optimise for:

1. To conserve energy, we should minimise the rate of power strokes. This ensure that is minimal inefficiency loss from the power strokes, and ensuring that there is minimal friction during movement. This often manifests in the form of a longer glide phase. As a result, for the same number of power strokes, we would be able to travel a further distance. In other words, for the same amount of energy expended, we are able to travel further.
2. To maximise speed, we should maximise the rate of the power strokes. Although the power stroke results in more friction being generated, there is still a net gain in kinetic energy from the power stroke. Therefore, to generate the fastest speed possible, we utilise as many power strokes as possible to try to accumulates as much net speed gain as possible. Of course, it reaches an equilibrium where higher velocity leads to higher friction and at some point, an even faster power stroke generates negative net change in velocity and hence we should stop there.

This concept can be applied to many different fields including thermodynamics in chemistry (activation energies and exothermic/endothermic reactions) or even capital efficiency in venture capital investing.

The approach in growing a company lies between two conundrums:

1. Capital efficiency
2. Rate of growth

These two conundrums are similar to the ‘conserve energy’ and ‘maximise speed’ concepts we mentioned before. To maximise the rate of growth, we would spent large amounts of money on customer acquisition, giving discounts etc. This is extremely capital inefficient spending because it does not lead to a better product and such growth will not continue once the spending has stopped. This method increases velocity but also increases friction and energy loss. In contrast, spending money on improving the product will enable for longer term organic growth potential, which is much more capital efficient. However, the former results in much faster growth and quick establishment of market dominance, while the latter is a very slow and feedback-driven iterative process.