oarfish

Yeah, fortunately went away. For me it would always appear after like 30s of being on the page, meaning I would have to reload all the time while reading comments. Effective way for me to break out of the mindless scrolling though. I'm almost said they unfucked it.

It seems rather obvious that skipping breakfast is not causally related to obesity, rather it maybe correlates with other behaviors that are.

nope

in place of animal protein

makes it sound like this is unrelated to soy specifically and more about displacing less healthful things (like higher saturated fat and caloric animal sources)

Everyone's back is screwed up

its bad framing to label this as "degenerative" and "screwed up" as nowadays we learn that there are probably more age-related. As you say, they correlate very poorly with pain.

Most people don't exercise to preserve muscle mass and function and especially don't do full range of motion resistance training, most of this is probably preventable.

This is well known for spine issues in general: MRI is super unspecific, and the older you get, the more interesting things you can find on the scans. Even if you're fully asymptomatic. So such findings are now better reframed as age-related changed rather than pathologies. The fact that every radiologist will highlight different things also doesn't help.

This is in fact one reason why you don't want an MRI if the outcome does not change what you do (i.e. sports related injuries or non specific low back pain). You will just nocebo yourself into thinking you have problems that are not real, because the belief in the answer donut is so strong.

My understanding is that it doesnt even do that, because it creates false negatives for the so called skinny fat body type: significant visceral fat mass, which is what we are concerned about, but not much muscle or peripheral fat mass, thereby not being flagged by BMI screens, even though they are at risk.

Does it? I think strength may be related to pain if you're very weak, and statistically there are big confounders (i.e. people who are weak also have other conditions that exacerbate pain experience). But past a certain point I don't think the evidence suggests that strength itself is protective. Otherwise, competitive lifters would never experience back pain for instance, but they still do. Pain is multifactorial, and strength is not the only determinant by far.

Adhesions are not really a thing as far as i know. Biggest priority is strength and cardiovascular training and maintaining a good body composition and stress level. Then I'd think about stretching.

Luckily there is no such thing as "correct posture".

I guess it's technically cool, but one should be aware that there is no such thing as "good posture" or no accepted definition that lends itself to good science. slouching isnt bad, remaining in the same posture for a long time is, or at least it can lead to discomfort. people that sit up straight all the time still get back pain. i slouch all the time and i don't. The popular attachment to specific configurationa of your joints that look aeathetically acceptable os orthorexia, not science.

never heard of that, sounds wild. Any source for this?

Great, your one of the few. Statistics are pretty clear that most people cannot willpower their way out of their food seeking behaviours. They are to a large extent not under your concious control.

correcting satiety signaling on a chemical level more directly addresses the problem in those folks.

yes, the food environment is the main problem, in a way, but only because it punishes having a certain set of chemical and lifestyle parameters and rewards others.

Daher habe die Bundesnetzagentur die CUII gebeten, die Überprüfung mutmaßlich urheberrechtsverletzender Seiten künftig gerichtlich vornehmen zu lassen.

this is not a requirement, they're just asking. The BNetzA just wants to not deal with it apparently.

See also the recent CCC talk: https://media.ccc.de/v/39c3-cuii-wie-konzerne-heimlich-webse...

In many ways those are the same thing up to a point. Although strength is probably more predictive of health than muscle size.

I live in a population where 90% of physical therapists will do placebo manual treatments and susbcribe to unscientific ideas about imbalances and "moving wrong".

My point is that there is nothing a priori about it, its just a question of what your goal is, what you are adapted to do and how the resistance curve of the movement is set up.

If you have a cardiovascular system that can grind through 20RM squat sets and you like it, go off. It'll be hard for most people due to the large amount of muscle mass recruited, but on the other hand, if you can load a lateral raise 5RM with acceptable range of motion, why the hell not. It just doesn't work well with dumbbells in particular.

thats a different thing tho. the term "stretch mediated hypertrophy" is used loosely in many places and i think originally refers to really just hypertrophy caused by the stretch. iirc the lengthened partial gains are not thought to be caused by this mechanism.

akshually theres quite some interesting data on this. it has been shown that stretching alone can indeed produce hypertrophy (in birds and humans), but the required protocols are so intense that you wont want to do them (i think its hours in incredibly uncomfortable positions), so dynamic exercise still wins.

One would also expect it not to do as much for strenght, since adaptations are somewhat specific to the training.

these days your better of not reading that, probably. bunch of outdated and bad advice coming from that corner.

Perfect form isnt a thing, its all a matter of what joint positions you are adapted to produce or reduce force in. So the problem with form breakdown isnt that the position you end up in is dangerous (no, rounding your back some is not bad), but that you are not prepared for the stress in that position.

Its unfortunate that people say deadlifting "wrong" causes injury, while the evidence does not support it. People should not be turned off from lifting heavy by such statements.

Why?

Most people don't build up to such a stimulus, so its not surprising if its uncomfortable, if all youve ever done is 20 rep sets.

Volume itself is meaningless. The only thing that matters is the intensity of the workout

Not true at all, its well documented that volume is the biggest predictor of progress. there is obviously an intensity floor, and when its not feasible logistically to stack on more volume, intensity is your other knob. But to say volume doesnt matter is an odd claim, maybe i misunderstand.

you want the maximum intensity with minimum volume to have less wear and tear

Not a helpful way of thinking about exercise induced adaptations. unless you are doing pro athlete amounts of training, would ignore this completely.

The podcast is where the real meat is, not all of it is on youtube. Best way to innoculate you against bullshit.

Depends, its also an indicator of novelty, and that by itself isnt useful. Once you are used to a movement and training volume, getting sore is difficult unless you ramp up the volume continuosly.

id say, never being sore at all is maybe a sign you dont do enough for optimum results, but frequently being sore means the load is too high. And for health outcomes it probably matters less.

No one claims you can do nothing, exercise has numerous benefits that extend beyond hypertrophy or even strength. i think the point is that you have way less control over the outcome than youd like, because individual responses vary so wildly. You can improve your odds by ticking the usual boxes and finding and following a custom program that works for you, but none of that is going to make as big of a difference than your genetic base.

I think there was a study last year or so that investigated whether protein rich meals actually made people consume less calories, and i think it didnt really, despite the fact that it feels more satiating and the TEF is also higher than for carbs.

So i think for long term weight changes it doesnt really help, at least not via its satiety response. Probably more through displacing other stuff from the diet and improved body composition.

Not true, no one is symmetrical or fully balanced in strength. outside of extreme cases, so called imbalances arent a problem on a population level, at least as far as we know today.

Yes, because the stimulus is novel if youve never done yoga before (e.g. a bunch of isometrics). That is not an indication of it being useful exercise for the outcomes of interest.