XFrequentist

This display with regularly-rotating high-quality pencil art could be a neat business. The comparison to wall art makes the hardware price look more reasonable, and you could offer a subscription to curated pieces or a network of artists' output.

Agree that it's a poor headline and that the fructose/Alzheimer's hypothesis is quite speculative, but I don't think calling it a "junk study" or gesturing at evidence hierarchies is particularly helpful.

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?

HIT is not HIIT, it's a completely different thing.

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.

YMMV, but I recommend more people try High Intensity Training (HIT). HIT explicitly contradicts several of the (well-supported) claims in the article, but I've personally found it effective, and I think there's a good case that it's a better fit for most lifestyles.

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.

> haven’t otherwise been studied in large enough populations to understand the ramifications of long-term glucose deficits in the human body

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!)

Wonder if you could use this for regular notes and do something interesting with a method of loci

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Method_of_loci)

Huh? COVID-19 is caused by SARS-COV-2, which was entirely unknown at the outset.

In contrast there are about 2k Monkeypox cases per year, still lots of unknowns but pandemic potential is near nil IMO.

This was a while ago, but IIRC there were some fairly major software-reliability rough edges (frequent crashing/bugs/etc). Beyond that the major shortcoming was that it was constrained to pdf's only, and that's only one part of my reading workflow.

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.

https://getpolarized.io/ seems like it's in the same space - it's a product I wanted to love, but was a bit clunky to use and didn't end up sticking in my workflow.

A choose-your-own-adventure format would be an interesting layer, since you could embed recall/understanding checks at each decision point.

I think this event qualifies as “well documented” by any reasonable standard, there was official public disclosure and an open investigation.

As one quick example, here’s a news clip including an interview with the Taiwanese health minister discussing details of the (then) ongoing investigation:

https://youtu.be/ecpNq0jz7cs

You can trivially find many more official statements about the event and subsequent investigation, if you like.

You’re missing something.

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.

I'm a native English speaker, but I'd love something like this for French, Spanish, or Mandarin! Any good products you're aware of?

IMO this is the best interpretation.

What other explanation is there for more than 100% of GME stock being sold short (genuine question)?

Like this? https://www.rationaleonline.com/

Very interesting observation, my own experience with GJP, metaculous, and other betting fora agree with this.

I wonder if an HN-like forum with prediction at its core would have legs? I always found the best comments in prediction tournaments at least as interesting as the actual estimates, but none of the platforms really support back-and-forth conversation.

These folks used a synthetic control to do the exact quasi experiment you described: https://www.iza.org/publications/dp/13319/face-masks-conside...

I think it would be valuable, I've actually had this idea (but not the competence/bandwidth to actually build it, alas).

It could become a platform for courses built around SRS, or learning materials like Michael Nielsen's mnemonic media: https://numinous.productions/ttft/ .

Epidemiologist here: you're right.

Testing resources are in short supply, so testing is being performed to guide clinical decisions (ie sick people) rather than public health/science (ie random sample).

The handful of serosurveys that have been performed have been quite valuable, but there aren't nearly enough.

Hopefully this changes as testing capacity ramps up.

As was I, terrible title.

Canada's CDC (Public Health Agency of Canada, my current employer) is looking for something along these lines:

https://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/101.nsf/eng/00029.html

>I read a bit I liked a while back about early feminism...

Link (and second recommendation) for the curious:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Tyranny_of_Structurelessne...

It's a noble plan, but have you considered the harm you could do to scientific progress - if such a plot were discovered, the negative publicity could set back gene drive science by decades.

The potential benefits of gene drives are so vast that (to me) this overwhelms other concerns (yes, even if you successfully eliminated all mosquito borne diseases).

I'd love to see (biting) mosquitos eradicated, but I've come to believe that the slow process of an "official" eradication program is ultimately superior (despite finding the humanitarian toll of delay sickening).

Happy to elaborate if it might help you think things through.

That's... rather poor behaviour on your part, no?

Great comment, I'm curious about all this too. I'd be interested in more precise data than my own vague n = 1 impressions!

I actually spent a fair bit of time delivering VO2 max tests to athletes (in a previous life as an exercise physiology lab volunteer).

This comment has me wondering if I still know any active researchers in this area, looking for ideas...

Fair to say the study results themselves (as opposed to the authors' assertion quoted in the gp) don't really pertain to the health effect of low carb/keto, at all (ie null rather than evidence for or against)?

Anecdatum, but I play competitive basketball on a very low carbohydrate diet (<20g/day), and feel just fine, so necessary seems necessarily false.

The missing concept (in the brief quote in your comment) might be "fat adaptation", which takes (in my experience) 2-4 weeks (details: http://www.artandscienceoflowcarb.com/the-art-and-science-of... )

One certainly can fuel activity with carbohydrates, but a fat-adapted person should have no trouble with physical activity on a (very) low carbohydrate diet. Interestingly, a fat-adapted athlete can still use carbohydrates for supplemental fuel before, during, or immediately following extreme exertion (no adaptation is required for short-term use of carbohydrates).

Definitely not "proven" to be dangerous, in fact evidence is more compatible with (low dose) nicotine being quite safe.

Best summary I'm aware of (note the many caveats): https://www.gwern.net/Nicotine

Ah cool! TIL