rfoshee
- 16 comments
- 0 likes given
- 3 likes received
Bio not provided
Sounds like a totally unnecessary distraction, to be honest. As a Soma backer myself, I didn't think twice about this email from the CEO when I got it. In fact, I didn't care that they were going, they are simply doing something they feel is right. The people complaining about this -- which I suspect is probably 1 or 2 people at most -- probably think that Soma is a one or two-man operation that solely depends on these funds from Kickstarter rather than a company that was already set up and in place, with VC backing already. This sounds like complaining for complaining's sake to me.
@WholeisticFit The findings aren't anything new, really. From what I know, other scientists and dietitians have known this for a few decades (discovered through other means). The problem with the study isn't it's small size, it's the misreporting people are doing on it. The study looked at the effect of fructose but everyone is tying it to HFCS although HFCS isn't discussed in the study itself (though it is mentioned, once, in a footnote for another study). The other problem with the misreporting is that people are now going to be proclaiming fructose is bad for you despite the fact that fructose is found in almost *every* fruit and vegetable, so it can lead to some very skewed public information.
As this article itself points out, extra sugar (not necessarily fructose) is added to pretty much everything. That's the bad part of the reporting I've been reading: everyone is equating everything on the same level and leaving out very important information. What the study says is easy: fructose causes a neurological response. What everyone's reporting says is now thanks to this study, fructose is terrible for you. Everything is left out about how fructose isn't bad for you or that it's contained in hundreds of food items naturally. I think most people are basing their articles on the study's abstract rather than reading the whole thing (which, of course, costs quite a bit of money to get) or basing their articles on other ones they've read (the likely case).
@ShanaLebowitz @Delve Into Health Most of what the paper says -- it's a meta-analysis, not a study -- is that they found correlations that overweight (a vague identifier, even in the confines of BMI) people lived on average 6% longer, but took into account almost no other bio-markers or other potential causes of death (or living). People with a healthy BMI can suffer from the same CVDs as those with 'overweight' through Grade 3 Obese BMIs, although the likelihood is much smaller. Subcutaneous at itself does serve many good functions in the body, such as organ fat that helps to protect against bruising, but there's a big different between maintaining a healthy fat ratio to being overweight. Most dietitians want people to focus on a better fat-to-muscle ratio because they understand where fat is useful and why, or where it's harmful (i.e. fatty liver disease, something typically only obese people get).
The study has many flaws, such as the overreliance on a single flawed metric like BMI. Remember, two people that weigh 220lbs at 5'11" will have the same BMI (they'd be at the upper-end of the 'overweight' scale, just a few decimal points from Grade 1 Obese), even if one is "fat" whereas the other is a bodybuilder. Using a single metric throws them both into the same category even though they're on the opposite ends of the health spectrum. A sensible doctor certainly would not tell the bodybuilder they need to lose weight or anything because their BMI is high, he could tell they're already fairly healthy, whereas the "fat" patient would receive a much different consultation.
Flegal published a similar study in 2005 -- expanded on in 2007 -- which was similarly flawed and discussed in the community and it seems that her and her team are continuing to focus correlational outcomes rather than causational ones.
Is it a healthier choice...than? This is like half a question.
@Staleek I never said it didn't play a part in our evolution, I pretty clearly said meat, diet, and other factors contributed to cranial development. But what the study says and what this article says are two very different things entirely. This article says quite clearly:
"One study suggests that the high calories found in meat helped fuel the development of the human brain."
But the study says that meat appears to have helped encephalization in ancient Homo species compared to other species in Carnivora, but meat was not the only factor. The study authors say their data is not conclusive and readily admit that other factors contributed greatly to humans developing such large brains. They do not say "meat consumption is quite certainly the reason we have larger brains than chimpanzees" but this article surely tries to say exactly that. You can go and read the study yourself to see that, it's not that long, just 11 short pages.
@SagarJacky I believe you may need to study up on anthropology and archaeology a bit more. Ancestral Homo species spent considerable amounts of time foraging for food, just as modern foraging bands do. If food wasn't foraged, it was hunted, and both took quite a bit of time to gather especially in quantities to feed more than one person. Not to mention ancient Homo had to figure out what foods were going to kill them or not, plant or otherwise. It took dozens of generations before they had mastered what local foods were safe to eat, even in a single foraging area.
Cooked meat contains no more nutrients and calories than raw meat does, it typically contains _less_ due to fat cooking off (and weighs less due to liquid loss). It doesn't suddenly become more calorically dense just because it's cooked and it certainly gains no more nutrients -- you can't add extra iron or protein just by cooking it. Our jaw muscles didn't get smaller because we ate meat, they lost mass over time due to less reliance on eating hard, fibrous foods that required considerable amounts of chewing. After all, the Neanderthals had a similar, if not identical, diet to other Homo species living at the same time and they had jaws and jaw musculature much larger than H. sapiens sapiens.
Much of the research in the last 10-15 years has put forth that larger brain capacities in humans and our ancestors was always multi-factored. It is not influenced by a single factor but is a correlate of many of the things that differentiates us from our closest ape relatives. Bipedal locomotion, advanced forelimb mobility, language development, social complexity, diet, and others have all factored into our enlarged cranial capacities, even though our brains *now* are smaller than that of our ancestors. This study also has a very limited range as its findings do not seem to correlate to other carnivorous non-human mammals such as whales, dolphins, penguins, etc. Comparatively, whales are huge and have proportionately sized brains, but it's not over-developed; contrast that with dolphins who have massive brains -- just like humans -- for their morphology. But common to all three species is their primary diet of meat.
One question I have about this study is the following statement:
"In addition to its relationship with overall encephalization, diet also appears to be related to the relative volume of one of our measured brain regions, the cerebellum and brain stem, which is significantly larger in insectivores than in carnivores "
Did they take into account body morphology differences? Or locomotive differences? Body positioning has a great effect on development of systems, i.e. apes have over-developed brain stems and enlarged foramen magnum because their skulls sit on their spinal columns much differently than ours.
But at least in the end, the study authors state that diet and a whole host of other factors played a huge part in encephalization in our species, their data simply was not wholly conclusive.
Mashable is hardly a bastion of journalism, let alone electoral journalism. I'm sure they just cobbled together bits of other posts and slapped their name on it.
Of course, Husted doing a data dump like this late on Friday night of a patch that was in the works for roughly two months but only put it in place four days prior to the election is suspect timing. Not saying -- or implying -- that they're trying to tweak votes but they (the SoS) had plenty of time to test this and put it in place . Why they waited until such a time should be the real inquiry.
@zachary sniderman OK, that definitely makes more sense, haha.
I'm curious as to why you'd use a picture of Phelps from 2008 to talk about his performance in 2012.
@lschwech Thanks, I have devoted a significant amount of time to self-quantification and measure a lot of data on a daily basis to see how things are going. The HRM functions well as a compliment to me turning everything into exercise so I track as much as possible from lifting to running to strongman to cutting the grass.
I actually stumbled across measuring rest by feel vs time mostly as a way to make my workouts shorter. There isn't any point in resting for 3 minutes between sets if I'm doing warm-ups or weights light enough to not fully tax my lactic acid pathways. Our bodies recover much faster than our heads do, they know when they're ready to go better than we understand.
@KenOkada I assume they are missing because they focus on making people stronger rather than better looking and sexier and aside from Everett and Starett and Boyle, much of this list is geared towards looking sexier.
@lschwech I use one every time I'm in the gym or when I'm running. While I know it doesn't do much for gauging work output for weightlifting, I use my HRM to more accurately track caloric burn and as a marker for rest time between sets. I find it more useful, personally, to time my rest periods by feel/heart rate than by time -- e.g. rest until HRM hits 115BPM rather than waiting X minutes. That and the caloric output aids me in tracking why some sessions are more productive than others when the only changing variable is intensity rather than volume, that aids in giving me a better idea of how much post-workout protein I should consume in the next 24 hours or so.
This is pretty much only relevant for aerobic-specific exercises. An HRM has little efficacy on anaerobic exercises since it's much more difficult to correlate a faster or slower heart beat to work output effects. Not to mention it's almost impossible to regulate your heart rate while squatting or pressing since the rate of the heart is more affected by breathing (or lack thereof), blood pressure ramping up very quickly, and you can't regulate this by slowing down or you'll probably miss your rep.
@nathanielmott The difference is this company's aim is to make money and pay people, which in and of itself is admirable. However, something like Mixcloud is exactly what Stein originally set out to do and it *is* used by some of the world's top DJs today. The only real difference between the two comes down to one thing: who wants to make money.
@SandorSommer And you're absolutely right. There are decades worth of studies showing that post-exercise workout recovery using whole foods trumps frankenfood supplments time and time again. All the proof we need and have ever needed was to look at bodybuilders in the 70s and prior who didn't have 100,000,000,000,000 supplements to choose from. They had some vitamin pills, some steroids, and food. That's it.
There's a reason powerlifters and bodybuilders have sworn by the GOMAD -- gallon of milk a day -- principle for decades: it works 100% of the time.
Many researchers have concluded that consuming 1.2-2.0g of protein per kilogram of bodyweight post-workout as soon as possible maximizes protein uptake into the body via energy production pathways. This value is different for everyone because everyone is a different weight and trains at different intensities, just saying "take 20g immediately" is terrible advice and isn't founded on the research from PubMed that's linked to. That study specifically states that 20g was most efficient for their sample size of "6 healthy young men", an incredibly tiny sample size that's not representative of population size whatsoever. That research was chosen because it gave the results the author was looking for.