Wiki Contributions

Comments

They are probably too long but at one point I ran this exercise with Master of Orion and Stardew Valley

I agree with you that UBI is the solution to 98% of labor condition issues, and that's a major reason I support it. But some fields pay primarily in some other currency (impact, social status, connections), so you'd also need UBsocialsupport, UBfeelingImattertotheworld, etc. 

An incomplete and poorly vetted list:

  • calorie counting[1] or restrictive diets:
    • harder to get a full swath of micronutrients
      • osteoporosis
      • fatigue
      • worse brain function
    • muscle loss
    • durable reduction[2] in resting metabolic rate 
    • weakened immune system
    • generally lower energy
    • electrolyte imbalance. I believe you have to really screw up to get this, but it can give you a heart attack. 
  • stimulants
    • too many are definitely bad for your heart
  • excess exercise
    • injuries
    • joint problems- especially likely at a high weight
  • ozembic
    • We don't know what they are yet but I'll be surprised if there are literally zero
  • Problems you can get even if you do everything right
    • something something gallbladder
    • screws with your metabolism in ways similar to eating excess calories or fat
      • increase in cholesterol
      • chatGPT says it increases type 2 diabetes. That's surprising to me and if it happens it's through complicated hormonal stuff. 
  • Regain: everything bad about high weight, but worse. 
  1. ^

    People will probably bring up the claim that low calories extend lifespan. In the only primate study I'm aware of, low-cal diets indeed reduced deaths from old age, but increased deaths from disease and anesthesia. 

  2. ^

    I think some of the reduction just comes from being lighter, which is inconvenient but not a problem. But it does seem like people who lose and regain weight have a lower BMR than people who stayed at the same weight. 

  • Most efforts to lose weight are only temporarily successful (unless using medicine or surgery).

 

Weight science is awful, so grain of salt here, but: losing weight and gaining it back is thought to be more harmful than maintaining a constant weight, especially if either of those was fast. It's probably still good if you get to a new lower trajectory, even if that trajectory eventually takes you to your old weight, but usually when I hear about this it's dramatic gains over a fairly short period. 

Over on EAF Caleb said tentative no to releasing the emails, and wants more time to think

It's not just cars- helmets protect you if you tip over or crash into something. That happens at much higher speeds on bikes and scooters than while walking. 

yeah, top 10 or even just top 5. 

I wonder if dramatically shrinking the review's winners' circle would help? Right now it feels huge to me. 

As someone who runs a lot of self-experiments and occasionally helps others, I'm disappointed in but sympathetic to this approach. People are complicated: the right thing to do probably is try a bunch of stuff and see what sticks. But people really, really want the answer to be simple, and will round down complicated answers until they are simple enough, then declare the original protocol a failure when their simplification doesn't work.  

I think it would be valuable for George to write up the list of interventions they considered, and a case report on how he fine tuned the procedure for himself. Possibly valuable enough to pay for it. But I think he's doing the right thing by refusing to write out a formal protocol at this stage. 

I don't think a fluff test is appropriate for a list titled "if you weren't such an idiot...". The whole point is that the advice is obvious[1] but people are nonetheless failing to implement it.

  1. ^

    And I'm annoyed that some of the advice fails that test. Feels like smuggling in assumptions.

Load More