turkeygizzard

I was going to say, AI has really enabled my hardware projects recently. I've found incorrect output is less common with the newest models - and they're capable of drawing decent diagrams too which can really help me sanity check some of their ideas. I've also had some success with asking it to cite sources where possible, so I get lots of useful links into robotics forums like chief delphi and similar which also help sure up the math

The Physiology of Climbing. If it looks interesting to you let me know and I can send you a copy!

The Physiology of Climbing. I can mail you a free copy once I get back home this weekend - I’d love any feedback!

To be clear, I aimed to avoid prescribing certain routines through most of the book. I wanted to basically provide a knowledge foundation for readers to evaluate routines or create their own. So instead of saying eg you should campus board, I try to explain that power has to be trained separately from max strength if you care about increasing power

Shameless self promotion but this is exactly how I ended up writing a book on strength training for climbing, just pursuing every rabbit hole I could.

I was ready to self publish but found a publisher who was interested. I had to make some changes to make it more readable, but you might have luck approaching publishers yourself

The title seems a bit hyperbolic compared to the article. It does briefly mention cardiovascular risk, but I was able to immediately find a meta-analysis showing no correlation.

If the gripe is with processed foods containing protein, then sure maybe there's a risk compensation argument, but personally speaking I buy Halo Top when I'm craving ice cream, not as a way to avoid eating chicken.

I also imagine that the target audience for these products are people who are relatively active and in that case the ideal protein consumption numbers are generally accepted to be significantly higher than the 0.8g/kg cited in the article.

Really appreciate you sharing your perspective. I recently wrote a book as a passion project and have been sitting anxiously on a contract. I'm not concerned about the money (I don't think my book will be a huge thing). My main motivation for going trad is the credibility as you somewhat alluded to. Do you think this is misguided on my part? Basically just so I can point at it in the future and say "a professional in the industry thought my book was worth printing with their name on it"

Not published yet sadly. I'm close to signing a contract with a publisher that would see it get released in the summer. I've contemplated self-publishing though so it can see the light of day sooner

Yeah, I think the least controversial takeaway is that you can afford to have a large protein shake immediately after workout. I personally don't think you need to. But this study and some others indicate that muscle responds best to protein consumption when it's in some post-exercise state (but it's unclear if that state is 30 minutes or 3 hours or longer etc). I'd say it's more important to focus on your overall daily consumption rather than the timing of it

Wow, I've only read the abstract so far but this basically goes against all conventional research on this topic AFAIK. I read probably ~50 papers on this topic (maximal protein dosing) and emailed a few researchers about it as I was writing a book. I believe the saturation point for a relative dose for a single meal is generally held to be ~0.25g per kg of bodyweight. Of course, there are some obvious observable issues with this belief given that there are people who practice intermittent fasting and have no issues building muscle, so it'll be really interesting to see if this study replicates

EDIT: After skimming the paper, I don't see anything immediately wrong with it. But there are some important nuances to note: the subjects were all fasted and given milk protein (casein in milk protein is known to take longer to absorb than pure whey protein which is a popular choice for these studies), and the measurements were made after an hour of exercise. This would skew the results towards more protein sensitivity than in normal settings where a person is pretty much always somewhat well-fed and not always eating after exercise. This is still encouraging because the results for post-exercise protein metabolism have still indicated a much lower limit than a 100g dose. Their report that oxidation rates didn't increase significantly is also notable since the belief has generally been that excess protein is oxidized and burned for energy instead of being incorporated into muscle. However, it would've been nice for them to include a 50g group as well to see if the dose-response relationship was really still linear between 25-50-100

Ultimately, this result seems encouraging for increasing post-exercise protein consumption for muscle gain, but we shouldn't discount the fact that the subjects were fasted before exercise. It would be interesting to see this study prolonged over the course of a day with further protein ingestions to see if the area-under-the-curve of muscle protein synthesis would eventually equalize in both groups, or if the larger immediately-post-exercise dose made a lasting difference. Existing research seems to not indicate such an "anabolic window". I might speculate that there is a daily limit for protein ingestion, but it doesn't matter if you hit that limit in one meal or five. That said, I have previously come across a paper that found medium-sized, spaced out doses to be more effective than infrequent large doses and overly frequent small doses, so there's still more to discover here

That's not what it means. This is a style of writing common in some academic fields where when they measure multiple qualities, they'll present them in the abstract next to each other in parentheses rather than repeat full sentences.

You should read "All else being equal, those highest on cognitive ability experience a 22% (53.2%) increase in the probability of realism (pessimism)" as as a 22% increase in realism and a 53.2% increase in pessimism

I haven't read the paper beyond this one section - but I plugged this question into GPT-4 and got a similar response. However, if I used military time (replacing noon with 12:00 as well), then GPT does get it right. Granted, it still hedges much more than any normal person would. But basically I wonder if it's struggling especially with the 12-hour clock concept

Embarrassing / dumb q, but how do you actually get to talking with them in a meaningful way? I can imagine with repeats, it's easier to build up rapport, but I don't think I've ever hit it off so strongly with someone at a coffee shop that we exchange info after one interaction (mine here aren't super social fwiw)

Thank you for articulating this. I remember similar problems and arguments arising after RNNs and CNNs became massively successful. People argued that training larger models would be infeasible for several reasons that all were made moot by Attention Is All You Need. Somebody seems to always figure out a new approach