How did you measure the increase in LBM? This requires very advanced technical equipment. My suspicion is that you have noticed an increase in muscle volume and assumed it to be an increase in muscle mass. Those are largely due to water retention and increased blood flow. They revert quite quickly after you stop exercising for about a week.
Does ability to lift weight also decrease in about a week? I was recently out of town for over two weeks and came back with the ability to lift roughly the same amount I was able to prior to leaving.
My DEXA scans seem roughly correlated with the amount of weight I can do in my regular sets, which has increased about 50-70% depending on which muscle group you are talking about.
This is with heavy resistance training 3 times a week and Pilates once a week.
A good portion of the strength related to any specific lift is CNS adaptation up until a certain point (and most new lifters won't hit that threshold for quite some time), so strength on a lift you've been doing regularly isn't necessarily a good indicator. Building muscle will of course increase your strength too, but I've doubled my squat since getting back into lifting while certainly not doubling the muscle mass of the respective muscles.
Fair enough. I didn’t mean a 1:1 correlation in 50% on a Dexa means 50% more strength, just would expect my lifting ability to go down if I lost muscle mass (or if it were water weight to begin with). Neither have decreased much if at all during breaks, so I’m fairly convinced it’s “real” so to speak.
Looking through my weightlifting app my best tracked exercise (leg press) increased about 250% from start with a 60% (roughly, speaking from memory) increase in lean muscle mass as measured by a DEXA scan. If I remember when back from dog walks tonight I’ll update that with a real number off the actual data.
I was a total newb at lifting though, so those early gains came quite quickly.
I am curious as this is a concern I have for long term health.
Depends how you look at it. Admitting you are in over your head, that you cannot do justice to an ideal and choosing to step aside (despite market demand being secured), could be seen as an act of humility, as an act of respect and reverence.
I don’t really have the energy to debate it in detail, but I wanted to let you know that personally I found the article extremely insightful. In fact, I ended up reading two other in-depth articles written on the same site. I can see what he’s pointing at and why the angle is worth writing and reading about.
It’s not explained so I have no idea where AI is involved, which makes this all the more alarming. I would seriously ask anyone considering the use of computer generated information in healthcare to do some soul searching and ask themselves if literally people’s lives are worth prolonging this bubble.
I would be wary to put AI functionality in my app, especially if it is a medical or health app.
It looks like the intentions are good, but it reminds me of some indie hacker with zero AI (apart from wrapper apps) or therapist background offered “therapist AI”.
Some people don’t understand how much garbage AI outputs, and these people might not be skeptical enough when it comes to taking medical advice from gpt
This isn’t the place to go into detail, but the author mainly argues against a Western conceptualisation of Buddhism, which is sadly divorced from the original meaning. If you want to study Buddhism, don’t rely on people reinterpreting it for a Western audience; go right to the source and try to understand what the old masters and the sutras are talking about.
What you're saying is true, and every paragraph in this is wrong, but I would like to offer a tangential argument in favor of studying the Western conceptualization of Buddhism.
The first sentence here is no coincidence, that "Buddhism seems remarkably compatible with our scientifically oriented culture." This is because early Western science developed with a strong influence of secular Buddhism in the form of Pyrrhonism, which informed and merged over time with the Empirical school that led to the modern scientific method.
Western audiences should understand how secular Buddhism is not a new aspect of their civilization but a fundamental pillar of it. This does not mean that understanding the secular aspects will inform someone on the religious aspects, but it is a cultural starting point.
Beyond that, I would only consider sources like the author of this piece as a good source of common misunderstandings to investigate.
It will never stop being funny to me how you can take an argument in American politics, directly apply it to the opposite side, and it will still be mostly true.
I'm a Free Speech advocate in general, but after a decade of Censorship, Cancel Culture, and Shadow-banning of Conservatives (which Twitter DENIED they were doing, the entire time), I'm fully in favor of a full decade of payback from Elon. Let that sink in.
That you had previously spent a good chunk of time arguing on HN in favor of free speech at all costs, only to turn around and wish for speech to be removed from those who you disagree with, is... wow. Literally nothing you have said can be taken in good faith or at face value at this point.
--OR-- Free Speech is about what the Gov't can do.
Like the Democrats said for the past 10 years, platforms should be free to disallow 'bad' content. For 10 years Democrat-run Twitter treated Conservatives VERY badly. Now the only difference is "The Tables Have Turned".
I hope Elon also follows the Democrat example by setting up Federal Gov't (headed by Trump) direct access to a portal on X.com (Twitter) which lets the Conservatives do what the Democrats were doing, and ban people form the platform for PURELY POLITICAL reasons. If it was legal when ya'll did it, it's legal when we do it.
I just want to point and shame this top-voted comment [0] that dismissed with the characteristic self-assurance of the armchair specialist the very possibility of it; and all the users who upvoted it, purely because it sounded like a “rational opinion”; and all the users who impulsively downvoted my post which provided partial evidence to the contrary.
They are forcing reboots, but they aren't communicating with each other to force reboots, as the article was speculating, and as the commenter was arguing against. Instead, it's just a 72-hour clock.
Also, they were calling the networking hypothesis "far fetched" and "pretty unlikely", not "impossible". I had also considered that hypothesis far-fetched, because it wouldn't just need the existence of local communication, it would also need a special protocol, trigger conditions, false-positive prevention, etc., all for that one feature.
The vehement tone was unwarranted and encouraging an attitude of self-assured “common sense” is very problematic, when there are many agents, both commercial and political, who can use it to avoid suspicion about their closed source ecosystems.
> Please don't post insinuations about astroturfing, shilling, brigading, foreign agents, and the like. It degrades discussion and is usually mistaken.
reply