@MollieTheMare's banner p

MollieTheMare


				

				

				
0 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 06 17:56:29 UTC

				

User ID: 875

MollieTheMare


				
				
				

				
0 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 06 17:56:29 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 875

The study you are thinking of is probably this one. I would highly recommend against interpenetrating this as all the benefits of strength training with just some side effects.

(1) They measured fat-free mass not muscle mass. Steroids like Tren make you uptake water in the muscles, you get "fullness" in the form of water when taking anabolics, but the study wasn't long enough to measure real substantial muscle growth. This also explains the cross-sectional area measurement. The water thing is just like a turbo version of what happens with creatine.

(2) The strength increase in the training non-steriod group was greater than the steroid only group. The additional strength in the steroid group is probably largely attributable to two factors

  • Slight increase in neural drive from steroids, this is nothing compared to long term strength training.
  • Better leverages from being bigger. Your muscles are class 3 levers, just being bigger means you can lift more weight. Getting stronger in this way is not necessarily good for you, you can achieve the same thing by getting supper fat.

This study does come up all the time, but it was wayyyy to short to conclude that you will gain more actual muscle not training on gear than resistant training. If you talk to any experienced bodybuilder who is open about steroids they all think training is still important. If you don't stimulate your body for specific muscle protein synthesis all you will do is end up looking freakish and ogre like, not jacked and fit looking.

The side-effects are also no joke, even if you don't care about potentially nuking your nuts, Tren in particular can absolutely make your mood terrible.

Finally, I have to say I'm skeptical you've tried enough actual resistance training to dismiss it as a better primary option. Six months is barely long enough to try one training method. Can you really say you've given your full effort to trying: traditional bro split style stuff, calisthenics, pure strength training, crossift style stuff, and circuit training? I saw below you are already talking about training twice a week. Starting strength can be done in three 60 minute sessions a week (if you can superset your warmups for upcoming exercises between working sets). Is that really too much to ask? If you eat enough the gains will be obvious. You could easily put 100 pounds on a novice squat in 6 months. Faster progress than that, aided by steroids, is enough to tear tendons off the bone.

I mean, it’s bird watching. I associate this hobby with innoffensive old people who stayed Episcopalian after it started using gay pride vestments, read the New York Times, and retired from their teaching job a few years ago thinking they should move to be with their grandkids but just don’t think it’s the right time.

This is a disturbingly precise description of one of the bird watching hobbyists I know. Makes you wonder.

I'm reminded of quote from Teller that goes: "von Neumann would carry on a conversation with my 3-year-old son, and the two of them would talk as equals, and I sometimes wondered if he used the same principle when he talked to the rest of us."

I think the sentiment is something like the most clever can find stimulation in anything, they don't have to restrict themselves to only the things that they think are the most erudite.

The closest thing I found from a quick search was “Education and Correctional Populations.” which gives, in circa approximately 1997, 2.4% of state inmates, 8.1% federal inmates, 22.0% general US population having a college degree or higher. No information on post-graduate degrees or specific crime. Though apparently the Bureau of Justice Statistics conducts regular surveys. Data is supposedly available at the link, but seems to be down.

Isn't the income for most convicted murderers zero? I guess it should be for the years trailing arrest. The Prison Policy Initiative has reports for both education and pre-incarceration incomes, I didn't look at all at the methodology. Median pre-incarceration income of all male 27-42 incarcerated people in 2014 dollars was $19,650 vs $41,250 for non-incarcerated men.

even in the 6 degrees F lows that Google says it has there

I don't think this is right. From the NOAA National weather service data portal, selecting Sioux Falls Area > Monthly summarized data > 2000-2023 > min temp > daily minimum, the mean minimum is -19°F with a max annual minimum of -5°F. Personally I draw the line for walking at 0°F. To me that's the point where a good hat and jacket aren't enough anymore. In sub 0°F conditions frostbite (or at least frostnip) is a real concern with any real time outdoors. I personal don't want to have to slather petroleum jelly all over my face in order to go buy some groceries.

The short version is the IRS knows about this trick and has a very successful record of prosecuting people who try to use it.

Slightly tangential, but relevant to the overall theme of the discussion the statement:

... sports where there testosterone does not give you an advantage

and

If men don't have any advantage in these sports...

Are not actually talking about the same thing. The 2019 report by usapowerlifting found that androgens like testosterone contribute about 10% to power-lifting total, where as male-female sex difference in total is 64%.

Somehow most of the discussion misses differences in motor neuron density, which primarily occur in the prenatal environment.

Just for completeness, it's probably worth mentioning that it's possible it is slightly more optimal to break up protein feeding into smaller boluses. This paper for example recommends four 0.4 g/kg/meal servings. For someone at 80 kg that puts the recommend size at 32 g.

Are you vegetarian? If so you will probably have to supplement, and there is an argument for going to >0.7 g/lbs lean body weight if you are primarily consuming "lower quality" sources.

If not, I can see how getting more than 150 grams could be difficult, but you should be able to hit 100 g eating mostly "normal" stuff. Two large eggs and 2 chicken sausage links ~40g. A 5 oz chicken breast should be at least 35 g. Another 5 oz of 93% lean ground beef is another 30g. That's already 105 grams not including supplements or incidental protein, i.e. if you had 1/2 cup of oats with breakfast that's another 5g. If you go out to eat and the macros aren't great, save enough calories for a casein shake before bed.

I know expecting people to show empathy for a (presumed) member of the enemy tribe is too much, but ffs we don't even actually know if she is in fact a woke liberal BLM-supporting enemy tribeswoman, we're just doing some sort of pseudo-Bayesian reasoning where she probably is so fuck her.

The argument that you should show empathy even to an enemy is noble, and I wish I had the generosity of spirit to really do it in this situation. I'm impressed by the people who still have to fortitude at this point in the culture war to do it.

That being said I don't think it's correct to say people cannot correct infer likely tribal affiliation in this case. In the canonical formulation blue tribe and red tribe do not necessarily perfectly align with political affiliation. Being a professional class, urban, person who cycles to work is already enough to fully establish blue tribe. Even if someone does occasionally vote Republican. In addition to that, her official gofundme, which admittedly is managed by her uncle, says:

...She holds racial justice and equity dear, and has dedicated her life to serving NYC's most challenged individuals.

That's enough to move from probably to almost certain in my book.

I'm not sure of a source that is both serious and targeted at layman. Awhile ago, possibly on a related forum, there was a thread discussing the pair of articles "Why Are Women Hot?" and "Dispelling Beauty Lies: The Truth About Feminine Beauty".

I'm pretty sure not everything claimed in those pieces is supported by the academic literature. There are a bunch of academic studies, though it's unclear how repeatable the results are. From memory, generally people prefer faces that are close to but not exactly symmetric. Composite images of population average faces score highly, but not highest, on attractiveness. People tend to approach a "8s" with traits they find particularly compelling rather than "10s."

If you have any interest in aviation, I highly recommend the Smithsonian Air and Space Udvar-Hazy Anex. It's the one out in the suburbs, but has a much larger collection than the one by the rest of the Smithsonians, including Space Shuttle Discovery, Enola Gay, and a SR-71. The one on the main Smithsonian campus does have the Wright Flyer and the Apollo 11 Command Module, though it at least used to be hard to get a good look because they were always swarmed with people.

Reminds me of this analysis, as well as the linked articles from the 2014 world cup which include the quote “only Messi has figured out how to win matches by moving less than everyone else.”

It's true of most sports though, the best players can predict the play before it happens. In tennis for example, the pros start moving for the balls trajectory before it is hit. I guess based on the opponents body and arm motion. Us unfortunate mortals are the ones who tend to play reactivity.

I'm also confused by this comparison, surely if you are going to pick a comparison this can't be the most dis-favorable to modern Jacksonville. The density is arguably higher, at least the buildings are taller.

It does show something I did think to myself last time I was in downtown Jacksonville though, the area has an absurd number of parking garages. I assume it's because I-95 is the most convenient way to get there.

I don't think "more" transit is the solution though. There's already several stations within close walking distance along downtown. But look at the top review for Central Station:

Not safe even if security is around they are useless, trams don't come on time. Doors closed on me twice which is dangerous at the same time consuming for commuters since tram time isn't accurate at all.

Interesting point. I do wonder what a comprehensive analysis of how you should value transit time and driving time for commuters would show. I wonder if there clean data on relative like/dislike of driving vs various quality metro systems.

I also don't think that even on safe and non-crowded trains you should value the time at full billable hour rate. Or that you should value the car time as total waste. Commuting by train requires walking time on either end that does not allow for reading, so on equal total commute time basis you don't yield the full time for semi-productive pursuits. Of the possible activities mentioned I think the closest analogs in a car are: talking with friends you are carpooling with, listing to audio books, listening to music, podcasts, or the news. I would concede there aren't close analogs to playing games or checking emails; though you might be able to take a call in a car but not on a train. I'm also unsure how much is lost from reading on the train vs audio book. Personally, the motion, sound from other commuters, and having to listen for the station call negate most of the advantages of reading over audio books for me.

This seems like a reasonably fair summary to me.

While I find many of the Urbanist arguments appealing — and have at times commuted by transit, bike, and foot — for me there are two big weaknesses. First, that we should prioritize possible efficiencies at full capacity over observed performance. Second, is the strength of irreversibly of the situation. It seems quite possible that pure car-oriented and pure transit-oriented transportation are relative equilibrium states, but the transition state is not equilibrium.

I think the two objections are related. Ranking trains over cars in efficiency in long-term thinking requires some optimism about actual ridership. If ridership is expected to remain low over the long term in the US, it is by definition not short-term thinking to deprioritize it.

If all that has to be done to make transit superior is (1) Convince people to abandon existing driving infrastructure. (2) Figure out how to contain the high costs of projects in the US. (3) Improve the strength of our institutions and management (4) Move forward transit spending to update all outdated systems. Then there is NOT a small potential barrier to cross from the O’Toole analysis world to the idealist Urbanist paradise world.

Three small side notes to round things out. I generally thought the DC metro system was one of the more pleasant metro experiences in the US, but even that wasn't free from people involved seemingly actively trying to make it worse (sorry for the source but you can check the twitter thread if you're skeptical of the slant). I also can't say there were never uncomfortable situations on the DC metro. Second, it is fair to consider the impact of transit on infectious disease. Some transit analyses try to discount the recent drop in ridership, but unless you think there will never be another infectious disease again it seems silly to call for relying on a transportation method that will either not be there when you need it or be a vector for the disease to spread. Third, I'm unwilling to defend minimum parking requirements, but in terms of reveled preference I do think it's quite possible American really do prefer car-centric neighborhoods. And those that do rightfully bear (at least part) of the cost of the preference.

This is exactly why people talk about biological sex, presenting sex, and gender. That does not change the definition of biological sex. Using the terms interchangeably does nothing for clarity. He, she, man, and woman when used colloquially are typically used with an associated gender. That gender is correlated with sex (when describing people in English), but does not necessarily have the same definition.

Reproductive issues in the form of infertility is not identical to sterility. Yes, the normal usage of man or woman would typically still hold. No, sterile people cannot become biological fathers or biological mothers.

Those four terms exist exactly to describe the cases in your bulleted list.

The correlation is strong. The r value is larger than 0.7 which is the threshold used to determine if a correlation is strong in the sciences, including biology.

Antifungal

Yes, the active ingredient, pyrithione zinc, is supposed to be anti-fungal. I think people are pretty sure it works for fungal acne, though I suspect it also helps with random dryness and itchiness. What causes dandruff after all, if not scalp dryness.

Edit: Personally, Head and Shoulders every day is too harsh for me. I also see you did mentioned acne in a different part of the thread. I think the other common remedy people try, not already on your list, is changing your pillow case every night or every other night. Some people use a fresh towel to wrap their pillow every night. If you have acne from oily skin, it's supposed to help keep your skin oils from clogging pores while you sleep. Fortunately I've never needed to try it, so no first hand experience on that one.

This. We need way more information to understand what's going on here.

including copious amounts of SPF to block out the sun

Are you 100% sure you do not have eczema, psoriasis, acne, or atopic dermatitis? If you do one of the standard treatments is phototherapy. Specifically UV phototherapy. The dose and spectrum are carefully controlled, but blocking 100% of UV may not be doing yourself any favors, given you seem to have some sort of condition. Of course UV can also damage your skin and cause skin cancer, so finding a knowledgeable dermatologist is highly recommended over blasting yourself with sun.

If you want to add another random item to your list though, some people report good results with dandruff shampoo. Like regular 2-in-1 classic head and shoulders. Just using it as body and face wash 1-2 times a week. Lather up, let dwell for 30-90 seconds, and rinse.

YMMV, but from the maybe two people I know who have researched it and tried both, hellochinese is probably slightly better than duolingo for Chinese.

I don't want to encourage more posts about the 'Hock,' but yes specificity is an important principle of training. Even an elliptical isn't optimal for training for serious hiking or mountaineering, IMO. If you have to train indoors I would say incline treadmill or StairMaster would be superior. Loaded with a vest or ruck for that matter. Actual training runs, under similar conditions and with full gear, would also be expected for someone seriously preparing for an expedition.

I hate to admit it, but I think I've read enough of these posts to gather what's being proposed is actually some sort of xcountry skiing or ski mountaineering trip. I'm not even sure where I would start for that if you don't have local ski trails open to you. I would say finding a gym with a skierg, but I'm pretty sure that simulates skate-skiing more than classic.

I find getting any sleep at all on the flights helps enormously on the other end. If I were unable to sleep on the first flight I would probably use a over the counter sleep aid like diphenhydramine for the second. If the meal service is right after takeoff I might eat, but I would brush teeth and try to sleep right after that. If the meal service is latter I wouldn't bother. To avoid being woken up for mid-flight service, try to make it as clear as possible you intend to sleep. Earplugs, blanket, eye-mask, etc. Assuming you are flying economy a neck pillow worn "backwards" can help with your head falling forward and snapping you back awake.

Pretty reasonable deadlift. Seems like a pretty elaborate setup if you pull like that every time. If you don't set up the same way every time, being more consistent with the setup for every set can help a bit.

For the definition used there, the terms are somewhat interchangeable. It's also not wrong to say real disposable income is below trend. On a cross-sectional basis, @Ben___Garrison cites the US as doing well, but vibes often have to do with expectations, which is along the time axis.

Failing to consider the longitudinal or integrated aspect of the indicators OP chose is the real fatal flaw with the analysis, and why there is such an incongruity with the claimed “goodness” of the indicators and the “badness” of vibes.

Addressing the four main points from the original post:

Unemployment is hovering near record lows

Being near record lows is very good for people desperately in need of any form of employment; it is not a sign of an overall healthy labor market. Unemployment being below the frictional rate means that people end up in positions that do not best utilize their talents.

Inflation has come way down and is now around 3.7%...

This is still 85% above the target rate. That means we’re continuing to move away from trend for long term price levels; might as well returning to trend.

GDP growth is surprisingly high for Q3 at 4.9%.

Yes, GDP growth has been surprisingly robust. Does anyone seriously take a single quarter as their landmark though? How many cheered 2023Q3 but also mourned the consecutive negative 2022Q1&2?

The stock market is also doing fairly well

It’s a bit odd to compare a forward-looking aggregation of people's outlooks and say it disproves another forward-looking aggregation of people's outlooks. That being said, the stock market must be greater than or equal to 10% of the previous high for the vast majority of its history; how is that an indicator of anything? If anything, the stock market being off its high but not cratered for a sustained period is an indicator of the opposite, that there are heterogeneous or uncertain outlooks for the future which lines up perfectly fine with vibes.

We then go into the fishing section. I have no idea why you would compare wages with inflation and not compare levels. No, wages have not caught up to prices, not even remotely close.

I personally am hopeful for a soft landing, for everyone’s quality of life, but it’s far too early to declare victory and say that inflation was tamed without any economic pain.

and will be half-assing them

The point of HIIT and circuit type workouts is that the high intensity makes up for the lack of total volume and specificity. If you are going to half-ass them you would almost certainly be better off either:

  1. Adding an additional short walk in your day
  2. Extending one of your short walks to a long walk during the day
  3. Substituting one of your daily walks with actual high intensity intervals 2-3 times a week. On a fan bike, erg, ski erg etc. if you are worried about joint impact. Like so intense you feel like throwing up.
  4. Adding conventional resistance training of some sort.
  5. Some combination of the above.

For item 4, calisthenics might be okay for your application, but barbells and machines tend to scale better. Given your goals, preserving skeletal muscle should be included in your plan. Your body has no other source of stored amino-acids to preserve heart and other organ tissue during periods when you are fasted . If your goal is to look trim, developing some lats and delts will make your waist look proportionally smaller from the front and back. Developing your chest and glutes will make your waist look proportionally smaller in profile.

Since no one mentioned it as an option yet, I've been surprisingly happy with the YouTube client FreeTube. It's a bit more cumbersome than using the browser directly, but I didn't want to risk any possibility of my primary google account getting somehow permanently flagged by their new tattler script. I'm sure they will block the API at some point, but until then... I also found out that youtube has not been showing me new videos by a decent fraction of the channels I am subscribed to, that still show up to the RSS based feed check FreeTube uses.

Long term I'm not sure what my plan is. I guess probably trying to watch fewer videos.