Group Rationality Diary, August 16-31

therufs

This is the public group instrumental rationality diary for August 16-31.

It's a place to record and chat about it if you have done, or are actively doing, things like:

Established a useful new habit

Obtained new evidence that made you change your mind about some belief

Decided to behave in a different way in some set of situations

Optimized some part of a common routine or cached behavior

Consciously changed your emotions or affect with respect to something

Consciously pursued new valuable information about something that could make a big difference in your life

Learned something new about your beliefs, behavior, or life that surprised you

Tried doing any of the above and failed

Or anything else interesting which you want to share, so that other people can think about it, and perhaps be inspired to take action themselves. Try to include enough details so that everyone can use each other's experiences to learn about what tends to work out, and what doesn't tend to work out.

Thanks to cata for starting the Group Rationality Diary posts, and to commenters for participating!

Next diary: September 1-15

Immediate past diary: August 1-15

Rationality Diaries archive

This is the public group instrumental rationality diary for August 16-31.

It's a place to record and chat about it if you have done, or are actively doing, things like:

Established a useful new habit

Obtained new evidence that made you change your mind about some belief

Decided to behave in a different way in some set of situations

Optimized some part of a common routine or cached behavior

Consciously changed your emotions or affect with respect to something

Consciously pursued new valuable information about something that could make a big difference in your life

Learned something new about your beliefs, behavior, or life that surprised you

Tried doing any of the above and failed

Or anything else interesting which you want to share, so that other people can think about it, and perhaps be inspired to take action themselves. Try to include enough details so that everyone can use each other's experiences to learn about what tends to work out, and what doesn't tend to work out.

Thanks to cata for starting the Group Rationality Diary posts, and to commenters for participating!

Next diary: September 1-15

Immediate past diary: August 1-15

Rationality Diaries archive

coleman 1/2 gallon jug holding gel packs chilled to 50f(10c) degrees. Gel packs held with both hands for 3-4 minutes in between working sets of squats.

based on the following papers: http://corecontrolcooling.com/scientific-research/peer-reviewed-scientific-studies/palm-cooling-delays-fatigue-during-high-intensity-bench-press-exercise-2/

http://www.avacore.com/sites/default/files/Grahn_Dillon_Heller_JBE_2009.pdf

the first study details using vacuum cooling for traditional resistance exercise, the second details using non vacuum cooling compared to vacuum cooling in general heightened core temperature conditions.

Numbers on non vacuum cooling:

by 0.80 +-.3°C n= 12 with cooling only, and by 1.00 +-.2°C n= 12 with cooling and subatmospheric pressure Fig. 3a

indicating 80% effectiveness without vacuum.

there is however a cohort issue:

A more detailed analysis revealed that cooling-alone treatment yielded two discrete Tes response patterns, one resembling that of cooling with subatmospheric pressure and one resembling that of no cooling Fig. 3b. In 8 of the 12 subjects, Tes decreased by 1.00.3°C with cooling-alone compared with 1.00.2°C with cooling and pressure differential and 0.30.2°C with no cooling control treatment. In these eight subjects, post hoc t-tests revealed that the data from cooling alone were signiﬁcantly different from control p= 0.001 but was not signiﬁcantly different from the cooling with pressure differential p= 0.53. In 4 of the 12 subjects, Tes decreased by 0.50.2°C with cooling-alone, compared with 0.90.2°C with cooling and a pressure differential and 0.50.1°C with control treatment. For these four subjects cooling-alone and control treatments were not different p = 0.38, while cooling-alone and cooling with a pressure differential trended to be different p= 0.07

The non-vacuum test was single hand. Cooling of both hands looks to be around a 44% increase in effectiveness, which I'm hoping translates to non-vacuum cooling.

indicating 80% effectiveness without vacuum.

! I was under the impression that that vacuum was what made this effective, but difficult to do without professional equipment. If it's not necessary, that significantly opens this up.

80% effectiveness is not quite right- you would need to subtract off the control cooling first, and I think it's better to report it as "8 out of 12 did not see a benefit from vacuum cooling over non-vacuum cooling, and 4 out of 12 did not see a benefit from non-vacuum cooling over no cooling," than the roughly equivale... (read more)