MollieTheMare
No bio...
User ID: 875
MollieTheMare
5mo ago
I think I would propose Camp Fire as the, at lease progressive leaning, equivalent.
Notable alumni:
- Senator Elizabeth Warren (D Mass.)
- Senator Amy Klobuchar (D Minn.)
- Senator Dianne Feinstein (D Calif.)
- Gov. Kate Brown (D Oregon.)
A few left or progressive leaning celebrities and semi-notables in there as well. A couple of (R)'s too, to be fair.
MollieTheMare
5mo ago
In some ways I think it's better they didn't make a millions sequel movies. Knowing how cinema developed now, there's a decent chance they would have ruined what is truly sublime source material.
With respect to your link, the score and sound were top notch. I'm still impressed how much justice they did to the role music plays in the books. Midshipmen Geoghegan appears something like three times in The Yellow Admiral, but I still think about
MollieTheMare
5mo ago
I see three major drawbacks to bands:
-
The increments are too large. Exercises span resistances from like 5 Lbs-250 Lbs for a modestly trained person. Some exercises you may be only able to increment by 1-2lbs per period. So you would need an absurd amount of bands for full coverage. Compare this to a barbell where you can get 1/4# plates, or a suspension trainer/rings where the resistance can be changed infinitesimally by changing the angle you are pulling at.
-
You need a surprisingly strong anchor point, as strong as you would need for a suspension trainer. At the point where you are installing anchors in your house, there are better options. Recall how Harry Reid somehow managed to blind himself in one eye using bands. I don't recall if this was part of the cover story for his pancreatic cancer now that I'm thinking about it though. My point is that a band going flying off and crippling you is at least plausible enough story for a US Senator.
-
The force curve is exactly backwards of what would be effective for hypertrophy stimulus. Most of the literature indicates the greatest stimulus occurs near the stretched position for a muscle. This is when the band is least extended for most exercises, also the point of least resistance a la Hooke's law.
They are very convenient and cheap, and I do use them to warm up sometimes, but aren't generally considered very good for serious training. Well, unless you are an elite powerlifter who subscribes to westside style accommodating resistance. But then you're far too advanced for anything here.
MollieTheMare
5mo ago
I've seen badass PT Marines who can do 20 pullups fail to deadlift their own bodyweight.
Like literally you've seen someone who you know can do 20 pullups fail to deadlift their own body weight? Or just like with poor form? I'm trying to understand how that's possible, like worst case they should be able to row that weight and stand up just pivoting around a bar that is already at waist height. I've seen people that can can do 20 pushups who cant deadlift their own bodyweight, but that's a totally different part of the kenetic chain.
All that being said, I do tend to agree, which is why I used fahves in my example below. I didn't want to be too dogmatic about it, because other stuff can work. My rough view of the literature is that somehow it even suggest that it 'should' work just a well or better. My not very well supported theory, on why the other stuff seems to work less well than the laboratories studies suggest is that normal people have no idea exactly how hard you have to go to reach true failure in rep ranges > 10. Like a 20 rep set of squats to total failure feels uncomfortable at rep 6, starts noticeably slowing down at 8, feels like your legs are going to explode at 12, feels like you're going to vomit at 15, feels like you're going to vomit blood at 18, and requires entering the shadow realm the last rep or two. The lab studies that indicate higher rep ranges work tend to at least have a undergraduate telling the participants to keep going if they obviously have reps left in the tank. From casual observation, I think unprompted most people stop at very uncomfortable which can be very far from failure in high rep ranges.
I do actually recommend the starting strength book as well as practical programing. The big advantage being the novice linear progression is pretty idiot proof, or more charitably novice proof. I was a little bit surprised that it's no longer on the fitness wiki, because it used to be the go to suggestion for beginners on their fitness journey.
MollieTheMare
5mo ago
Or at another limit, endurance runners do literally thousands of reps of swinging their arms per workout but I would still expect someone who does 100 chin-ups a week to have a bigger upper body.
Manual laborers do tend to have good general physical preparedness and work capacity, so I would expect someone who does manual labor to be able to make better gains if they do resistance train. Only because they can handle more tonnage (sets x reps x weight / week) and more effective volume (hard sets / week). I wouldn't expect that much more on a volume equated basis beyond the selection effect mentioned by @Mewis.
MollieTheMare
5mo ago
Doing both goals is possible if you are a novice. In that case I would recommend sticking to the 5-20 rep range and focusing on clean technique. Pushing to true muscular failure is probably not necessary, I don't interpret this as a license to totally slack off though. I would just stop at technical failure or 1-2 reps shy, normally this is perceived as "hard." Especially for people who have never trained hard before.
The terminology used here is... slightly non-standard. The dominant factor for losing fat or gaining muscle, assuming hard resistance training, is energy or caloric balance. If you are not a novice, and you would like to do both, you will either have to separate the goals into distinct periods or (not recommended though @self_made_human might provide a counter argument) hop on anabolics.
@Mewis's description agrees with my own interpretation of the consensus on muscle building stimulus. It's not clear there is an upper bound for the number of reps where hypertrophy stimulus stops, but below 50-60% of one rep max weights getting anywhere close to an effective distance from failure is very difficult. For example, say we define an effective set as within 4 reps of muscular failure. Choosing a weight of 1/2 of 1RM might be anywhere from 20-100 reps for true muscular failure. This is the first problem with very low weights, choosing a target to hit is very hard. Now say the true number of clean reps to failure is 50, reps 40-46 are all going to feel horrible. If you stop at 40 though, we likely haven't gotten 'close enough' to failure to deliver a quality stimulus. This is despite doing a lot of mechanical work/volume. Compare to targeting 80% of 1RM. the number of reps to failure is likely 7 or 8. If you do 5 reps you are for sure within 4 reps of true failure. So you deliver a higher quality stimulus while having to do less total tonnage. At 30% of 1RM your not really targeting muscles in the anabolic or even anti-catabolic sense. You would probably be better off with a different modality of training, like an elliptical or something.
For completeness, for pure strength the 3-5 rep range is generally considered the Goldilocks zone (with occasional singles, doubles, and higher rep work).
My interpretation of @ulyssessword is that we can either reject or assume @f3zinker was being hyperbolic when he said:
Doesn't know the value of 10M USD with 7 years of compounding.
Because the value of 10M USD today, that we can access in 7 years, with 7 years of compounding (in a reasonable asset selection, etc.), is 10M today. It's tautological. There's no calculation involved. It's the same as saying "Doesn't know the value of 10M USD."
A slightly uncharitable interpretation is @f3zinker was taking a cheap shot that people are too stupid to understand compounding, and @ulyssessword was taking a cheap shot that the person complaining about people being too stupid to understand compounding doesn't even understand the time value of money.
The investing aspect of the original scenario was irrelevant to the value of the initial compensation, but presumably the hold and investment was meant to work around the fact that the person in the original scenario might not have the cognitive skills, knowledge, or life experience (yet?) to manage a nest-egg of that size wisely. I suppose some would argue that most people don't have those skills and thus this things like separate retirement accounts, trust funds, pensions, social welfare programs, etc.
Edit: To further clarify, I do actually think it's confusing because people in the investing world almost exclusively talk about present value when they say "value" unless future value is specified. In every-day usage people can be very slopy about the difference, and it doesn't help that things like the lottery jackpot are quoted in pre-tax future value terms. I'm also not making the claim that the uncharitable interpretation is what either poster actual intended, I'm trying to explain why there would even be a back and forth on the topic.
MollieTheMare
5mo ago
Are you sure you are not confusing the Future Value with the Present Value? The present value of $x today, is x. It's future value is the present value compounded over the hold period.
The discount rate you should use to convert between the two should probably be your expected rate of return. If you really want to get into it, it's possible that the expected rate of return and your personal discount rate are different. If you believe even in a very weak form of the Capital Asset Pricing Model though, you should still discount that excess return back to the risk-free rate, because the difference should explained by the difference in risk (Lots of details about the Capital Market Line omitted). Or, put another way, all assets have the same effective discount rate to a risk-neutral measure. The conversion should not depend on the assets you plan to hold over the period.
MollieTheMare
6mo ago
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.
MollieTheMare
6mo ago
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.
MollieTheMare
6mo ago
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.
Looks like that 15% for bottom ash is what's expected, though from some reading it heavily depends on the composition of the waste that's being burned.
In a modern incineration plant (https://www.icevirtuallibrary.com/doi/full/10.1680/jcien.17.00042) it looks like they expect 150 kg/t or 15% (table 4) for bottom ash. The amount of fly ash is much less, did OP transpose the composition of fly and bottom ash? They reference 15–20 kg/t in the report. So I think OP of by ~ 100x on the fly ash particle count. Then did he include the 99% efficient scrubbers?
e.g. 1 ton of waste -> 20 kg of fly ash. 20 kg x 565 (n/kg) -> 11,300 high estimate of plastic particles in the fly ash. (1 - 0.99) x 11,300 -> 113 high estimate particles per tone waste after scrubbing? (decimal points, commas for 1000's separators)
Table 2 might also be of interest, contains expected emitted "Total organic carbon" and "dust." Though in mg/m^3.
Also, a modern multi-stage scrubber with electrostatic, wet, and filtration like in Amager Bakke should be much higher efficiency than 99% Also, I think @slothlikesamwise is correct you should be able to see appreciable plastic micro particle emissions counted as PM or dust in the flue gas monitoring, as well as environmental sensors around the plant.
Edit: I see OP did calculations in terms of waste tonnage. I converted my calculation to be the 565 n/kg from OP link 2.
MollieTheMare
6mo ago
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.
MollieTheMare
6mo ago
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.
MollieTheMare
6mo ago
That Greg Nuckols article is not actually correct that those tables are not based on actual data. ExRx and the derived symmetric strength standards have the note (emphasis mine): "Tables for the basic barbell exercises are based on nearly 70 years of accumulated performance data and are not predicted or regression derived." So the standards are arbitrary, but in my experience they are pretty accurate if you look around a normal commercial gym.
Using body weight ratios is nonsensical because strength potential scales allometicly, just like is says in the Nuckols article. This is why Wilks and Sinclair coefficients exist.
I also highly doubt 1.5xBW bench is as hard as 1xBW press for the average person. Walk into any commercial gym and you'll find 200ish pound dudes reping a 315# bench. I think I've seen an in-person 200# OHP in a normal gym maybe once.
People who have never hit a body-weight press are typically astonishingly poorly calibrated on how difficult it is to improve an already advanced press. Even advanced lifters can likely put 5-10#s on their bench with a dedicated cycle of Smolov JR. An additional 10# on an advanced level press can literally take years or never happen.
MollieTheMare
6mo ago
Since your relative preference for those factors is probably somewhat subjective, I would argue there isn't really any advantage to a very complex model. Assuming the offers are somewhat similar, you can probably just use a linear model and assign coefficients to roughly match your preference. Kind of like a decision matrix or this example. I would just put everything in dollar units since that's probably the actual thing that's up for negotiation. Then negotiate for the highest dollar equivalent compensation. The whole exercise uses an absurdly simplistic model with made up numbers, but is probably more accurate than just winging it. It's not even very wrong, in the sense that you can expand most reasonable functions with a first order Taylor series in the relevant variables about the point of interest.
MollieTheMare
6mo ago
Deaths of despair (drug overdoses, suicides) - this is the easiest data point to gather
Isn't this exactly the point of the 2015 article and subsequent media coverage that coined the term "deaths of despair"? Like, can't you just replicate the methodology, update the plots, and see if the trend continues? I guess there is the complication that the numbers would have been disrupted by COVID.
The other points are going to be really difficult to disentangle for effects from access, diagnostic criteria, population shifts, social attitudes to seeking care, etc.
MollieTheMare
7mo ago
Sounds like your well on your way. Even if it was 12 years ago the muscle memory for riding a bike is very weirdly persistent... Still recommend the video for a very rough description of how the dynamics work, somewhere around the 2:20 mark. If you ever have trouble with the getting started part I recommend this page.
MollieTheMare
7mo ago
The bike thing is cool. If you have a good place to ride bikes can be insanely fun.
I don't know how experienced your friend is in teaching adults to ride, or how far you've gotten. But assuming you're still at the literally learning how to balance the bike stage you might consider taking the peddles off and lowering the saddle to use it as a balance bike for a hour or two. Demonstrated here starting from 5:28, but the whole video is worth watching if you are brand new to riding a bike. I don't think adults learn it that much slower than kids, they just tend to have more fear since they are falling from higher. If you are a beginner in the new to the trail sense he also has a good series, would also recommend KyleAprilRideMTB in that case.
MollieTheMare
7mo ago
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:
- Adding an additional short walk in your day
- Extending one of your short walks to a long walk during the day
- 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.
- Adding conventional resistance training of some sort.
- 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.
MollieTheMare
7mo ago
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.
MollieTheMare
7mo ago
I do think this would be an interesting experiment to test on yourself. Not a medical doctor, but in case the capsules you use are different than @DuplexFields maybe shoot for 10,000 IU a day. Maybe split 50:50 between when you wake up and lunch time. Reduce by 30%-50% if you have GI problems.
Edit: Since OP might be European, I mean ten thousand IUs not 10.
MollieTheMare
7mo ago
I didn't get too much of a rant impression.
I have tracked macros when serious about training, so I know at least some of the pain that surrounds common prepared foods. I've always kept at least some carbs around workouts though, but was curious about potentially using Keto if I ever do a hard fat loss phase again.
The only person I have know personally that has for sure done Keto proper, with ketone strips and all, staid on for about 3 months. They seemed to get good results, but I don't think they thought it was sustainable to stay in ketosis for a longer period.
MollieTheMare
7mo ago
I think this is sort of part of what I was trying to ask OP about. It seems to me, most people use the term keto somewhat informally. I can't find the source, but somehow I had the impression that being in ketosis for very long periods (like a year) could affect mood and cognitive function. In practice though, it doesn't seem like a lot of people actually maintain ketosis year round. I could definitely see how if you went full ketosis for 12ish week weight loss periods, ate at maintenance relatively low carb, and optionally cycled up to higher carbs when fueling high training loads, that could work very well for people. OP are you testing with keytone strips? And if yes, what's your plan for after you finish your initial weight loss?
This. We need way more information to understand what's going on here.
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.
More options
Context Copy link