Chapter 7: Energy Metabolism

Welcome to Last Minute Lecture.

This free chapter overview is designed to help students review and understand key concepts.

These summaries supplement not replaced the original textbook and may not be redistributed or resold.

For complete coverage, always consult the official text.

Welcome back to the Deep Dive.

Okay, picture this.

Explorers trying to make it to North Pole.

They're hauling these massive sleds, right?

Loaded with over 1 ,400 pounds of stuff.

Wow, that's a huge amount.

It is.

And guess what the single heaviest item is?

Food.

And not just any food.

A 50 .50 mix of ground beef and get this pure lard.

Pure lard.

That really paints a picture, doesn't it?

The sheer weight of the fuel needed just to keep, well, two people and their dogs going in that kind of extreme environment.

It really makes you stop and think.

It absolutely does.

That really sets up our big question for today's Deep Dive.

Why do animals, those explorers, their dogs, us, why do we need so much food energy?

And maybe even more puzzling, why constantly?

Why can't we just fuel up once and reuse that energy?

Those are really fundamental questions about life itself and that's exactly what we're diving into today using the great insights from the animal physiology text by Hillwise and Anderson.

Our mission really is unpack these core ideas of energy metabolism.

We want to understand the physiological machinery behind it, see how different animals have come up with different energy strategies, and maybe touch on how scientists actually measure all this stuff.

And hopefully use some cool real world examples to make it all click.

Exactly.

Lots of biological examples to bring it to life.

Okay, so where do we start?

Maybe with the idea that animals are, well, incredibly organized.

Yeah, that's a perfect starting point.

Animals are these highly organized systems.

And what's kind of mind blowing is that even though the atoms in our bodies are constantly being swapped out with the environment,

that organization, that structure, it persists.

It's pretty amazing, isn't it?

How does that persistence, that order square with something like, say, the second law of thermodynamics?

I always think of that as things tending towards disorder.

Right, that's the crux of it.

The second law states that in an isolated system, one totally cut off from its surroundings, no energy or matter going in or out, change always, always moves towards more randomness, more disorder, more entropy.

Okay, but are animals really isolated systems?

It feels like we're always interacting with the world.

That's the key.

We're not isolated.

Think about this analogy.

Imagine water flowing in a totally sealed copper pipe.

Initially, the water molecules have this nice ordered directional movement, right?

Okay, yeah.

But over time, collisions happen, friction happens, that ordered energy of flow gets degraded into just random movement of molecules.

Heat, the water slows down, the pipe gets a tiny bit warmer, and eventually everything stops.

Order becomes disorder.

Ah, okay.

So if we were isolated like that pipe, our blood would stop flowing.

Those vital ion gradients across our cell membranes would just disappear, basically chaos.

Precisely, internal chaos, which leads inevitably to death.

So animals must be open systems.

We absolutely have to constantly bring in energy from the outside, from food, just to maintain that essential internal organization to keep the blood pumping, build molecules, maintain those gradients.

It's a constant energy input to fight off that universal tendency towards disorder.

Got it.

So we need energy.

And the book talks about different forms, chemical, electrical, mechanical, and heat.

Are they all equally useful for, well, keeping us organized?

That's a really important distinction.

They're definitely not created equal in terms of physiological work.

The energy locked in chemical bonds, like in our food, that's the star player, it's totipotent, meaning it can be converted to power all forms of physiological work.

Like the master key.

Exactly, the master key.

It can build proteins, contract muscles, send nerve signals, you name it.

Okay, but what about electrical and mechanical energy?

They can do some work.

Electrical energy moves ions, generates nerve impulses, mechanical energy pumps blood, moves limbs, but they can't do everything.

You can't say build a complex enzyme using just mechanical force.

They aren't totipotent.

Right.

And then there's heat.

Ah, heat.

Molecular kinetic energy, just the random jiggling of atoms.

And here's a critical point.

Animals cannot use heat to perform physiological work.

Wait, really?

Why not?

Heat is energy, isn't it?

It is energy.

But to get useful work from heat, you need a temperature difference.

Think of a steam engine hot steam expands against a cooler area to push a piston.

But within our cells, the temperature is basically uniform.

There's no gradient to harness.

So that random jiggling, while it's energy, can't be directed to do organized work like building a molecule or contracting a muscle.

So whenever we convert energy from one form to another, say chemical to mechanical, some of it inevitably ends up as this unusable heat.

Exactly.

Energy transformations are always inefficient.

Some high -grade energy, like chemical, electrical, or mechanical, gets degraded into low -grade heat at every step.

So like the book's analogy of the explorer in quicksand, every move they make to use energy just sinks them deeper because some energy is lost.

That's a great visual for it.

Think about converting glucose to ATP, the cell's energy currency.

About 30 % of the energy in glucose is lost as heat right there.

Then when a muscle uses ATP to contract, maybe 70 -75 % of that energy is lost as heat.

Wow, that's a lot of loss.

It is.

So life is inherently thermodynamically wasteful in a sense.

That high -grade chemical energy from food gets used,

transformed, and ultimately degraded into heat, which we can't reuse for work.

And that's why those explorers needed sleds full of lard and beef.

Because the energy is constantly flowing through us and being lost as heat, we need a continuous input of new chemical energy from food just to keep the whole system running as a one -way street.

Precisely.

Energy isn't recycled within the animal.

It flows in as chemical energy, powers physiological work, and flows out largely as heat.

Continuous input is nonnegotiable.

Okay, so we need this constant flow of energy.

Once an animal eats food, where does that absorbed energy actually go?

What's the breakdown?

Right.

So first you have the ingested chemical energy in the food, but not all of that gets used.

Some passes through and leaves as fecal chemical energy.

What the animal actually takes into its body tissues is the absorbed chemical energy.

That's the energy pool it has to work with.

And this absorbed energy gets channeled into three main functions,

like figure 7 .2 and the text shows nicely.

What's the first one?

First up is biosynthesis.

This is literally building the body, making proteins, lipids, other complex molecules.

Some of this energy stays locked up as chemical energy in those new tissues.

Think growth or storing fat for later.

So building muscle or fat reserves.

Exactly.

Or producing things that leave the body, like milk or gametes or even shed skin or exoskeletons.

Those all carry chemical energy away.

But, and this is important, the process of biosynthesis itself with all its complicated biochemical steps is inefficient.

It always generates heat.

Huh.

So even building things costs energy that gets lost as heat.

Interesting.

What's the second category?

That's maintenance.

This covers all the ongoing processes needed just to keep the body functional and intact.

Things like circulating blood, breathing, nerve function, keeping cells repaired, gut movements.

The basic running costs.

That's pretty much.

And the energy used for maintenance.

With very few tiny exceptions, it's all eventually degraded to heat.

Think about your heart pumping blood.

Chemical energy goes to ATP heat loss.

ATP drives muscle contraction, more heat loss.

The mechanical energy pushes the blood, but friction in the vessels turns that mechanical energy into, you guessed it, heat.

This is sometimes called internal work.

Okay.

So biosynthesis and maintenance both generate heat.

What's the third use?

The third one is generating external work.

This is when the animal applies mechanical forces to something outside its body.

Like a mouse running or me riding a bike.

Exactly.

A bird flying, a fish swimming, a person lifting something.

Again, the process of generating that muscle force releases a lot of heat inside the body.

Now, if that external work stores energy like the bicyclist gaining potential energy going uphill, that stored energy can potentially be recovered.

But for most movement, especially horizontal movement like the mouse running, the mechanical energy applied to the outside world quickly dissipates as heat due to friction and air resistance.

So it really seems like heat production is just unavoidable for any living animal.

Absolutely universal.

All living animals produce heat.

You mentioned cold blooded animals earlier, like fish or frogs.

They still produce heat metabolically.

They just don't produce it very quickly and they aren't well insulated, so they don't typically warm up much above their surroundings.

But the heat is definitely being generated.

It's an inevitable consequence of being alive and using energy.

Which loops right back to needing constant food.

Because that chemical energy keeps getting turned into heat.

Okay, this makes sense.

Now, how do scientists actually measure this, this rate of energy use?

We call it metabolic rate, right?

Yes, metabolic rate.

It's defined as the rate at which an animal converts chemical energy into heat and external work.

And like we just discussed, heat is usually the biggest part of that equation.

It's typically measured in units like calories per hour or joules per second, which is watts.

And knowing this rate is crucial for things like, well, figuring out how much food those Arctic explorers needed.

Definitely.

That's the first big reason it matters.

It determines food requirements, especially for adults where growth isn't a huge factor.

But it also tells us more.

Like what?

Well, it's a measure of the overall intensity of living.

It quantifies the sum total of all the physiological activity happening in the animal.

And third, from an ecological perspective, an animal's metabolic rate tells us how much energy it's draining from the ecosystem's resources, how fast it's degrading that useful chemical energy.

Okay, so how do they measure it?

Is it like putting an animal in a really fancy thermos?

Sometimes, yeah, that's basically the idea behind direct calorimetry.

You directly measure the heat leaving the animal's body.

The classic example, which is amazing for its time, is Lavoisier's ice calorimeter back in the 1700s.

Ice calorimeter?

How did that work?

He put an animal like a guinea pig inside a chamber surrounded by ice.

The heat the animal produced melted the ice, and he collected and measured the meltwater.

Since he knew how much heat it takes to melt a gram of ice, he could calculate the animal's heat output, its metabolic rate.

That's brilliant.

But it sounds kind of cumbersome, especially for, say, a moose.

Exactly.

It can be technically challenging and expensive, which is why indirect calorimetry is much more common these days.

Instead of measuring heat directly, it measures something else that's proportional to heat production.

A proxy.

Right.

And the most widely used indirect method is respirometry measuring the animal's respiratory gas exchange.

Usually, that means measuring how much oxygen it consumes.

Okay.

Oxygen consumption.

How does breathing relate directly to heat?

The basic principle is that when animals metabolize food, essentially burn it, using oxygen, the amount of heat released is related pretty predictably to the amount of oxygen used up in the process.

It's similar to burning fuel outside the body.

But wait, does it matter what kind of food the animal's burning?

Like fats versus carbs?

Ah, yes.

You've hit on a key detail.

It does matter.

The exact amount of heat produced per liter of oxygen consumed varies slightly, depending on whether the primary fuel is carbohydrates, lipids, or proteins.

Table 7 .1 in the text lays this out.

Carbs give a bit more heat per unit of O2 than fats do, for instance.

So how do scientists deal with that?

How do they know what the animal is burning?

This is where it gets really clever.

They can measure both oxygen consumption, O2 ints, and carbon dioxide production, CO2 out.

The ratio of CO2 produced to O2 consumed is called the respiratory quotient, or RQ, and the RQ value acts like a signature telling you what fuel is being used.

If the RQ is close to 1 .0, the animal is mostly burning carbohydrates.

If it's down around 0 .7, it's primarily burning lipids.

Protein metabolism gives an intermediate RQ.

So by measuring the RQ, researchers can choose a more accurate conversion factor to calculate heat production from the oxygen consumed.

That's pretty neat.

It's like getting a peek under the metabolic hood.

It really is.

Now sometimes, for simplicity, researchers might just use an average conversion factor.

Assuming a typical mixed diet, this is often easier, but it introduces a bit of error if the animal's diet or what it's actually burning is skewed heavily towards fat or carbs.

Exactly.

You might get an error of maybe 5 to 8 percent, which, depending on the research question, might be perfectly acceptable.

It's often a tradeoff between achieving maximum precision and practical considerations like cost and complexity.

But overall, respirometry is powerful.

It's relatively easy, it captures the energy used for aerobic work, and it neatly excludes the metabolism of microbes living in the gut.

Is there any time when measuring oxygen isn't a good reflection of total metabolism?

The main limitation is during significant anaerobic metabolism.

Like during a really intense, short sprint, muscles can generate ATP without using oxygen for a brief period.

Respirometry wouldn't capture that anaerobic energy release accurately.

Gotcha.

You mentioned there was another indirect method, too.

Yes.

The material balance method.

This is quite different.

You carefully measure the chemical energy content of all the food an animal eats over a period, say, a few days or weeks.

And then you measure the chemical energy content of all its feces and urine produced over that same period.

The difference energy in minus energy out in waste represents the energy the animal actually consumed or metabolized.

Seems logical.

Energy in minus energy out equals energy used.

Are there catches?

The main complications are accurately accounting for any energy stored as growth, new body tissue during that period, and also accounting for other minor losses like shed hair or skin.

Because of this, it's really best suited for determining long -term average metabolic rates, not the kind of second -by -second changes you might see with activity.

Right.

So different tools for different timescales.

Sure.

We know what metabolic rate is and how to measure it.

What are the big things that make it go up or down?

Well, the two major players are usually physical activity moving around, burns a lot more energy than sitting still, obviously, and the temperature of the environment, especially for animals that regulate their body temperature.

Makes sense.

But the book also mentions things like eating food itself.

Yes, that's a fascinating one called specific dynamic action or SDA.

It's also known as the calorogenic effect of feeding.

Basically, your metabolic rate goes up for a while after you eat a meal, even if you're just resting.

Is that like feeling warm after a big Thanksgiving dinner?

That's a perfect example.

Especially after a high protein meal like turkey, that feeling of warmth is in the heat generated by SDA.

Why does that happen?

Why does processing food cost extra energy?

The energy cost seems to be mainly associated with the cellular processing of the absorbed nutrients after they enter the body.

Particularly for proteins, there's a significant energy cost involved in dealing with the amino acids, like synthesizing urea to get rid of excess nitrogen.

The size of the SDA effect is proportional to the size of the meal, and protein generally causes the biggest effect, sometimes burning off 25 -30 % of the energy value of the protein consumed.

Wow.

Is that related to something called diet -induced thermogenesis?

It's related, yeah.

Diet -induced thermogenesis, or DIT, refers more to a longer -term increase in metabolic rate that can happen with chronic overeating.

People are studying it in relation to obesity, but its precise connection to the immediate post -meal SDA is still being worked out.

Interesting.

With all these factors, changing metabolic rate, activity, temperature, eating style, how can scientists make fair comparisons between different animals, or even track changes in one animal over time, save for health reasons?

That's where standardized measurements come in.

You need to measure metabolic rate under very specific, controlled conditions, so you can compare apples to apples, so to speak.

Okay.

What are those conditions?

For homeo terms, mammals and birds, animals that maintain a stable internal body temperature, the standard is the basal metabolic rate, or BMR.

To measure BMR, the animal must be,

one, in its thermo -neutral zone, the range of outside temperatures where it doesn't have to spend extra energy staying warm or cooling down, two, fasting, so the SDA from the last meal is over, and three, resting comfortably.

The bare minimum energy cost of living for a warm -blooded animal at rest in a comfortable temperature.

Exactly.

And for poikulophotherms, animals like fish, amphibians, reptiles, whose body temperature varies with the environment we use the standard metabolic rate, or SMR, the conditions are similar.

The animal must be fasting and resting, but the crucial difference is that SMR is always specific to a particular body temperature.

Right, because their rate changes so much with temperature.

Precisely.

So you always have to state the temperature when reporting an SMR value.

A lizard's SMR at 20 degrees Celsius will be very different from its SMR at 30 degrees Celsius.

Got it.

BMR for homeotherms, SMR for poikulotherms, both under resting, fasting conditions.

Okay, now let's shift gears a bit to something that really blew my mind when I was reading about it.

Metabolic scaling.

How metabolic rate changes with body size.

Ah, yes.

Allometry.

It's one of the most fundamental patterns in physiology.

It seems intuitive that a bigger animal needs more energy, but the relationship isn't straightforward, is it?

The book uses that great vole versus rhino example.

Right.

The tiny meadow vole versus the massive white rhino both eat plants.

The rhino clearly eats vastly more food in total each day.

But, and this is the kicker relative to its body weight, the vole eats way, way more, like six times its body weight per week compared to maybe a third of its body weight for the rhino.

So right away that tells you energy don't just scale up directly with size.

Absolutely not.

If we look at the whole body metabolic rate, like BMR or SMR, it definitely increases as animals get bigger.

A rhino's total BMR is much higher than a vole's, but it increases less than proportionally to body weight.

Meaning a 100 gram animal doesn't have 10 times the metabolic rate of a 10 gram animal.

Correct.

It's significantly less than 10 times.

And this leads to the really counterintuitive part.

The weight specific metabolic rate, the energy used per gram or kilogram of body tissue,

actually decreases as body size increases.

So a gram of elephant tissue burns less energy than a gram of nose tissue.

Much less.

It's a very consistent pattern across the animal kingdom.

Your average 70 kilogram human produces maybe only 10 % as much heat per gram of tissue as a tiny mouse does.

How do scientists express this non -proportional relationship mathematically?

They use an alimetric equation, which usually looks like this.

M is the metabolic rate, W is the body weight, and A and B are constants determined from data for a specific group of animals.

Okay.

M, A, W, B.

What's the significance of A and B?

A reflects the overall metabolic intensity for that group.

Think of it as the metabolic rate of a hypothetical one gram animal in that group.

Mammals have a much higher A value than reptiles, for example, reflecting their higher overall metabolism.

But the really interesting part is B, the exponent.

What about B?

B describes how metabolic rate scales with size.

If metabolism were directly proportional to weight, B would be 1 .2.

But it's consistently less than 1 .0 across incredibly diverse animal groups.

Mammals, birds, fish, insects, crustaceans.

For resting metabolic rates, B typically clusters around 0 .7, maybe 0 .75.

So that exponent being less than one is the mathematical reason why weight -specific rate goes down.

Exactly.

Because if M equals A, W, B, then the weight -specific rate, M, W, equals A, W, B, 1.

Since B is around 0 .7, B, W, 1 is around minus or equal to 0 .3.

A negative exponent means the value decreases as W increases.

It's a neat mathematical confirmation of the pattern.

Plotting M versus W on log -log graph paper makes this relationship appear as a straight line, which is super useful for analysis.

This scaling must have huge consequences for how animals are built and how they function, right?

Down to the cellular level?

Oh, absolutely.

It rippens through their entire physiology.

Because small animals have such high weight -specific metabolic demands, think about what that means for oxygen delivery.

Their hearts and lungs have to work harder relative to their size.

Precisely.

Heart size and lung size tend to be roughly proportional to body size across mammals.

But a mouse needs to deliver much more oxygen per gram of tissue than an elephant.

So, the mouse's heart has to beat incredibly fast, and its breathing rate is much higher.

We're talking hundreds of beats per minute for a shrew, compared to maybe 30 for an elephant.

Wow.

And does this difference show up even inside the cells?

It does.

Studies show that tissues from small mammals, like their muscles, actually have a higher density of mitochondria, the cellular powerhouses, compared to the same tissues from large mammals.

It reflects that higher energy turnover needed per gram.

And ecologically, this is wild.

The book mentioned that a bunch of mice could need as much food as one deer of the same total weight.

It sounds crazy, but it's true, at least in terms of their basal needs.

Because of the much higher weight -specific BMR of mice, a population of mice weighing, say, 70 kg in total would require roughly the same amount of food energy to meet their basal metabolic needs as a single 70 kg deer.

This profoundly affects how energy flows through ecosystems and the biomass of different -sized animals that an environment can support.

And it even affects things like how animals handle toxins or drugs.

Yes, because metabolic rate influences intake rates, food, water, air, and also the rates at which substances are processed and eliminated.

A smaller animal generally receives a higher dose of an environmental toxin per gram of body weight, but it might also metabolize and excrete certain drugs much faster than a larger animal, which is critical for veterinarians determining dosages.

Okay, this alimetric scaling seems incredibly consistent, this B exponent around 0 .7.

Is there a definitive, agreed -upon reason why metabolism scales this way?

A single mechanism.

You know, it's almost embarrassing for physiology, but after more than a century of research, the answer is no.

There isn't one universally accepted mechanistic explanation for why B is consistently around 0 .7 or 0 .75.

It remains one of the big unsolved puzzles.

Really, but what about the surface area idea?

That smaller animals have more surface area relative to their volume, so they lose heat faster and need a higher metabolism.

Rubner's surface law.

Right, that was the dominant theory for a long time, proposed by Max Rubner in the 1880s.

It makes intuitive sense for mammals and birds, right?

Heat is lost across surfaces.

Geometry tells us surface area scales with mass to the power of 23 or 0 .67, which is close to the observed metabolic exponent.

There are two main problems.

First, that the best statistical analyses consistently show that the actual exponent B is usually significantly higher than 0 .67, often closer to 0 .75.

It's solve difference, but statistically meaningful.

But the bigger, more fundamental issue is that Rubner's law, being based on heat loss for thermoregulation, cannot explain why the same alimetric scaling applies to poikilotherms, the fish, amphibians, reptiles that don't use their metabolism to maintain a high body temperature.

They show the same scaling exponent, roughly 0 .7, for their standard metabolic rates.

So a theory based on heat loss just can't be the universal explanation if it doesn't apply to a huge chunk of the animal kingdom.

Ah, that's a crucial point.

If it doesn't work for fish, it can't be the whole story.

So what are the current ideas?

People are exploring other avenues.

Some theories focus on limitations imposed by internal transport systems, like the circulatory system, delivering oxygen and nutrients.

The idea is that the fractal -like geometry of these branching networks might impose a staling limit on metabolic rate.

Others look at cellular -level processes.

But honestly,

there's still intense debate and no single consensus explanation.

It's a fascinating ongoing quest.

Wow, a real mystery hiding in plain sight.

Okay, let's loop back quickly to those North Pole explorers and their lard.

Why specifically fats or lipids for that extreme energy need?

It comes down to energy density.

Lipids simply pack more punch per pound.

They contain at least twice as much energy per gram as carbohydrates or proteins.

So for situations where weight and bulk are critical, like hauling supplies across the Arctic, or for a bird migrating thousands of miles, fat is the most efficient way to store and transport fuel.

Makes sense.

More bang for your buck, or rather your pound.

And how efficiently animals actually get that energy out of the food matters too, right?

The absorption.

Absolutely.

That's energy absorption efficiency.

It's the percentage of the energy in the ingested food that actually gets absorbed into the body.

And it varies hugely depending on the animal and the food.

Like humans can't digest cellulose from plants.

Right.

Our absorption efficiency for cellulose is basically zero.

But a cow with its specialized digestive system and gut microbes can absorb maybe 50 % or more of the energy in cellulose through fermentation.

That difference is a huge evolutionary adaptation, allowing herbivores to thrive on plant matter.

And finally, what about using that absorbed energy for growth?

How efficient is that process?

That's growth efficiency.

And it's usually looked at as the percentage absorbed energy that gets converted into new body tissue.

There are different ways to calculate it, gross versus net.

But the really key pattern is that growth efficiency typically declines dramatically with age.

So young animals are much better at turning food into body mass than older ones.

Much better.

The book uses the example of Pacific sardines.

In their first year, they might channel over 18 % of the energy they absorb into growth.

But by the time they're six years old, that drops to maybe only 1%.

Most energy is going into maintenance and reproduction.

And that has practical implications, like in farming.

Definitely.

It's a major reason why animals raised for meat, like broiler chickens or pigs, are typically slaughtered relatively young.

They're still in that phase of high growth efficiency.

It becomes less economically efficient to feed them once that efficiency drops off.

Fascinating.

So as we wrap up this deep dive, looking at everything from thermodynamics to Arctic explorers to microscopic mitochondria, it really drives home the idea that energy is like the universal currency of life.

It truly is.

That's such a powerful concept from the text.

Whether you're studying nerve impulses, muscle contractions, growth, population dynamics, ecosystem energy flow, it can all be quantified and compared using the common unit of energy.

It allows us to see the costs and tradeoffs inherent in all biological processes.

It's this constant energetic calculation happening at every level.

It gives you a whole new appreciation for just staying alive.

Okay.

So for our final provocative thought for you, our listener, we've talked a lot about the energy cost of physical activity and just basic maintenance, but what about the energy cost of thinking?

What stands out to you about the human brain's energy budget?

That's a great one to ponder.

It raises an important question because our brains are incredibly energy hungry organs, right?

They account for about 20 % of our resting metabolic rate, a huge chunk of our daily calories just keeping the lights on upstairs.

20 % just at rest.

Yeah.

But here's the really intriguing, perhaps slightly disappointing part if you are hoping to think yourself thin.

Engaging in intense mental effort like solving complex math problems, learning a new language,

really focusing increases the brain's energy consumption by a surprisingly tiny amount.

Tiny.

Like how tiny?

We're talking maybe an increased equivalent to the energy in like half a peanut over an hour of hard thinking.

Peanuts.

Something like that.

So while the brain is a massive energy drain overall, the additional cost of intense cognitive work is almost negligible.

Thinking hard, unfortunately, is not an effective weight loss strategy.

Well, that's certainly food for thought, even if it doesn't burn much fuel.

Thank you so much for joining us on this deep dive into the fascinating world of animal energy metabolism.

We really hope you've gained a new perspective on the incredible energetic processes that power all life around us and within us.

It's been a pleasure digging into these concepts.

And as always, thank you, our listeners, for being part of the Last Minute Lecture family.