XFrequentist
Joined 16 years ago
Joined 16 years ago
Theory (almost) always precedes evidence, and coming up with a novel, biologically-plausible explanation for a common ailment is absolutely a valid, useful scientific contribution.
Your general point, that drawing firm conclusions would be radically premature, is spot on. I just stiffen up a bit when I encounter "RCT or GTFO" type arguments; where in the world do you think the ideas for which RCT to run come from?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-intensity_training
I'm specifically advocating for HIT resistance training, 1x/wk, as a highly efficient method to gain strength.
The book "body by science" is a great deep dive, it's simple enough but the underlying physiology is pretty interesting.
[ETA: Just to clarify, HIT is different from the more widely-known HIIT. This wikipedia article[1] is a good introduction, and the book "Body By Science" is an excellent deeper dive.]
I'm a 40-ish male with a long history of resistance training, and have tried many variations of sets/reps/volume/rest etc over the years.
For a few years now I've been doing a version of HIT, basically single sets (to failure), no (or little) rest between sets, full-body training once a week, supervised by a trainer. It sucks, but it's over quickly.
It's great. I'm significantly stronger than I've been in many years, have remained injury-free throughout (rare for me), and play competitive basketball several times a week without issue (beyond my inconsistent shooting).
The article cites its sources, has solid (for exercise science) evidence backing its claims, and is pretty convincing - if you're a college student with plenty of time, and you're seeking to maximize muscle growth, then yes there's a good case that you should do several workouts a week with more rest between sets.
However, if you're a working stiff who just wants to get it done efficiently, HIT is much easier to fit in a busy schedule. I think it's worth considering for the median person reading fitness articles on HN.
For most people, I suspect HIT is essentially just as effective as the type of protocol advocated in the article, but that's just a hunch and not a claim I could support with anything beyond personal experience.
How's the "long-term glucose surplus" control group doing?
(Kind of kidding, but it's not obvious why the "less exogenous glucose" condition would be a priori the risky one!)
In contrast there are about 2k Monkeypox cases per year, still lots of unknowns but pandemic potential is near nil IMO.
For a while I was trying to sync a Zotero library (since I need citation management when writing papers), and do all my academic reading (which is mostly pdf's) in Polar, but it was just a bit too much overhead to stick with.
As one quick example, here’s a news clip including an interview with the Taiwanese health minister discussing details of the (then) ongoing investigation:
You can trivially find many more official statements about the event and subsequent investigation, if you like.
The author is saying that there was a lab leak involving delta, not that delta originated via a lab leak.
The latter claim would indeed be a red flag, but the former is just describing a very well-documented event.