36 Comments

Here's a guy's story the day after he got the Moderna covid vax...it's wild!

https://rattibha.com/thread/1567930080608882694

Expand full comment
Sep 7, 2022·edited Sep 8, 2022

I'm curious if anyone here noticed that the Biden admin ordered doses of the bivalent vaccine before the FDA issued its rubberstamped approval?

What is the point of the FDA any more?

FDA = faulty data administration

Expand full comment

A minor point, I've always thought that "trekking up Everest" referred to hiking to and around base camp. If you are going to 29,000 feet, you are climbing Everest, two different things. Where do you live? For Americans, that 17,000 feet could be very different for someone living in NY as compared to CO. (For what it's worth)

Expand full comment

You guys don't know how to have fun.

Points taken though.

Expand full comment

Exercise science, like all the health sciences, are applied sciences. We look at how various interventions impact the body. The answer to almost any question relating to exercise is "it depends". It depends on the individual's health status, age, gender, experience, injury/health history, etc. It is rarely a blanket "yes" or "no", which is why one size fits all mandates during covid irked me. Sure, we know exercise is good for everyone. But, heavy squats are probably not good for the elderly, but perfectly suitable for a 20 year old. Maybe body weight squats or getting up and down from a seated position is a suitable adaptation for an elderly person...same movement, different intensity. More often than not however, I find we look for excuses not to exercise, not to put stress on the body, not to force it to adapt. We are highly capable, highly adaptable, beings meant to be put under stress to force adaptation. That is all exercise is...a stress to the body forcing it out of homeostasis to elicit a positive adaptation...increased strength, muscle mass, bone density, endurance, heart/lung capacity, etc.

Expand full comment

Therefore, it's called REsearch. We were guilty of this at the university lab I played a small part in decades ago.

(rinse & repeat)

Expand full comment

Mainstream reporting of research is colossally stupid. This is not news.

I'm more curious about the mountain climbing while pregnant thing. What was the story? A female Sherpa stayed on the job all through her pregnancy and had a healthy delivery? If so, there would be very cool things to learn from that story without leaping to narrative flights of fancy.

Expand full comment
Sep 6, 2022·edited Sep 6, 2022Liked by Adam Cifu, MD

Most of this boils down to the human need to simplify complex issues. It is hard for the human brain to comprehend the complexity of systems, the interdependence, the myriad connections. No one wants to hear - ‘Your longevity may depend on several factors, some out of your control’. No one will read that article. It is much easier for the brain to focus on one thing - and that’s why ‘eat radishes and live long’ is an article that will be read.

Everyone wants simple answers to complex problems. See : masks :)

Expand full comment
Sep 6, 2022Liked by Adam Cifu, MD

Saw a headline a couple of days ago. Climate change may cause kidney stones. Wondering how the author was gonna tie that together, I read the whole article. Finally the last paragraph splains it. Warm weather can cause dehydration, which can lead to kidney stones.

Everything is clickbait. But most people just scroll & read headlines, and that’s how they are getting their “knowledge”.

Expand full comment

I want to comment on your main point, confounding variables. This is an absolutely basic tenet of science and I can’t understand why so called scientists aren’t more vocal about it. Perhaps because in many cases it makes their conclusions worthless? Another surprise is the extent to which scientists make a big deal out of correlation, which then becomes implied causation in the press. Correlation is meaningless. Even if you get a “statistically significant” result, how do you have any new knowledge? It doesn’t tell you why or how the effect occurred in some subjects and not others. Perhaps our current “scientific” methods actually tell us very little about what’s really going on.

Expand full comment

I think there is a rather simple, and obvious explanation for that article

The NYT, being the beacon of woke that it is, simply cannot resist writing an article that somehow disproves the silly notion that being pregnant is some kind of physical impediment that uniquely applies to women. Its not possible to cancel pregnancy so this is the next best thing. I'm not surprised that they wrote it - mostly surprised anyone reads it

Expand full comment

I agree that the studies are bad and reporting is even worse. However, critiquing the the whole health and excercise journalism from the accuracy perspective is in my opinion misguided. Changing human behavior is very hard and thus the influence of any of those studies and their reporting is likely not that big or negative. If anything, somebody maybe takes up a new sport or tries a new diet for a while. If it works for them its great, if not they will stop. The effect, therefore, is that it gives people motivation and new ideas to try something "healthy". I would guess the net effect of that is positive, since they do at least something, even if the science that was reported is not entirely accurate.

Expand full comment