From the Nature published study itself:
“The scientific community assumes that the claims in a preclinical study can be taken at face value — that although there might be some errors in detail, the main message of the paper can be relied on and the data will, for the most part, stand the test of time. Unfortunately, this is not always the case. Although the issue of irreproducible data has been discussed between scientists for decades, it has recently received greater attention (see https://t.co/z17eWWRBMA) as the costs of drug development have increased along with the number of late-stage clinical-trial failures and the demand for more effective therapies.
Over the past decade, before pursuing a particular line of research, scientists (including C.G.B.) in the haematology and oncology department at the biotechnology firm Amgen in Thousand Oaks, California, tried to confirm published findings related to that work. Fifty-three papers were deemed 'landmark' studies (see 'Reproducibility of research findings'). It was acknowledged from the outset that some of the data might not hold up, because papers were deliberately selected that described something completely new, such as fresh approaches to targeting cancers or alternative clinical uses for existing therapeutics. Nevertheless, scientific findings were confirmed in only 6 (11%) cases. Even knowing the limitations of preclinical research, this was a shocking result.”
Reading abstracts to understand science?
Consider reading this series by @malcolmken if you truly want to understand “science”
https://t.co/YDYqSulIrq
And this essay by Dr. John Ioannidis, https://t.co/XIe6D7UPEh
If the goal is happiness and/or fulfillment, simplicity is usually the path.
Use tech to help understand an idea better without the tech.
Example: use a smartwatch to gain insight into how an activity affects heart rate, so you can discern the same sensation without the watch
Walking around the block not cutting it for you?
Walk longer, walk faster, add some weight (rucking), find a hill and walk up the hill.
Push a sled with weights, pull a sled with weights.
Walking is rarely not the answer.
Napoleon's definiton of a military genius was "The man who can do the average thing when everyone else around him is losing his mind."
Same in investing.
@stevemagness thoughts on high critical power/VO2max training ratios for general pop health, not looking for elite endurance.
I.e 200+lb CrossFitters w/5min mile
Glassman has written the adaptation for health is found @ higher intensity done more often than traditional 1x/week
The human story is roughly 200,000 years old. Until about 200 years ago we spent nearly 100% of the day outdoors.
The average person now spends 5% (~30min) of their day outdoors.
Easiest way to increase your time outdoors, go for a walk.
🚶🏻🌲
Mind - a walk can clear spinning thoughts or create clarity for an unsolved problem
Body - improves fitness & promotes longevity
Soul - bond with nature or socialize with family and friends
Walking is a rare cure all - unsurprising given it’s intrinsic to the human experience
Having trouble getting 10-20K steps due to work?
Park at the end of the lot and take the stairs.
Per @Michael_Easter, only 2% of people are doing this.
Eat the low hanging fruit first 🚶🏻
@Alan_Couzens Literally had this discussion with a patient in my Family medicine clinic today. I told him an hour a day of low intensity aerobic (walking) should be the real low end standard.
@danawhite As a physician nearly done with my training, doctors don’t receive education on fasting. Do with that what you will.
Fasting would put big pharma in a big financial hole.
@brianmackenzie@OxygenAdvantage any difference in utilizing BOLT test vs CO2 tolerance test on Shift/adapt website? Or are they perfectly interchangeable?