= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
As a general rule taking health advice from youtube video's bad.
I would doubt that the 12% adverse responders is a controlled result.
In response to
Exercise isn't necessarily good for people
"I would doubt that the 12% adverse responders is a controlled result."
Exactly, especially when you consider a study that suggests a large portion of the population changes their dietary patterns, usually for the worse, after they begin exercise. So it is possible that the adverse responders began to up their caloric and fatty intake. Hopefully they controlled for change in diet and health at baseline, but considering the rigor of most studies, I doubt it.
Source: http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/04/16/does-exercise-make-you-overeat/
In response to
Exercise isn't necessarily good for people
It seems the results show on that some actually get worse, but I wouldn't say this is a firm conclusion that some should avoid exercise altogether. The problem with most experimental studies on exercise is that many use an across-the-board regimen for all participants that isn't customized to the individual. So, if one participant gets 30 mins a day at 70% of HRmax then all do. It is probable that some who get worse may need less or more exercise, greater or lesser intensity, resistance as opposed to aerobic, etc.
In response to
The Power of Pomodoros
I can imagine some abusing this technique for things that add little value to their lives but many feel have to get done, such as dusting their fan blades or making their office as neat (as opposed to efficient) as possible. Also, people who are already lazy may choose simpler tasks when applying this technique, as opposed to mentally draining tasks such as studying or improving set skills. Perhaps their should be an addendum to prioritizing goals that provide value (monetary, personal growth, etc.) within the 25 minute mark.
This post sort of reminds me of this study: http://www.apa.org/research/action/smarter.aspx
" As compared to the control group, students who learned about intelligence's malleability had higher academic motivation, better academic behavior, and better grades in mathematics "
I suspect that belief that one can self-improve one's intelligence is partially explain by genetics as well. Another example of a trait that correlates with both behavior and intelligence is openness. Openness correlates with personal growth, need for cognition and crystallized intelligence (and certain facets correlated with fluid intelligence), so a predisposition to want to improve oneself may cause one to search for ways to do it. I also noticed that many people who eat well and exercise regularly are very knowledgable of its effects on cognition and positive mood, so there could be a predisposition for self-improvement and desiring exercise.
If intelligence can be partially explain by behavioral factors that enhance one's intelligence, then it also leaves room for improving it as well. (can these behaviors be taught, or does the average person just give up?)
In response to
Post ridiculous munchkin ideas!
If you want to increase your pulling strength without much effort, get a pullup bar and put it in a doorway in your home. Then just make a habit of doing pullups every time you walk by. This is remarkably effective. I've been doing this for two weeks and have seen significant improvement.
It's important to actually have it on a doorway at all times. Ours was sitting in a closet for several months, and during that time, I used it maybe twice. In the past two weeks, with it actually on a doorway and requiring no effort for me to set up and start using it, I've been doing ~5 chinups every day. (The number has been going up as I've gotten better at it; I'm looking forward to when I can actually do dead-hang pullups.)
I think a general policy of decreasing the startup cost of doing things you want to do is a useful one. Rewarding yourself helps too, but sometimes you just need to lower the activation energy.
For someone who is overweight, and a lot of people are, losing weight is also a great way to increase your pullup quantity. (not to mention a host of other health benefits) Though, some would argue that it is easier to just gradually build your strength to do pullups than to drop 20-30 lbs.
Data: Wikipedia claims E/I is very correlated with E, S/N is very correlated with O, F/T fairly correlated with A, J/P fairly correlated with C and somewhat correlated with O, and Neuroticism isn't measured in MBTI. So this backs up your claim that P/J doesn't measure any concrete "thing".
Clicking through the citation gives that N is not well-correlated with anything in men (a tiny bit with E/I), and somewhat correlated with the F/T in women. Also F/T has a small effect on extraversion in men, but it's S/N and J/P which has the effect on women.
This abstract follows the Wikipedia excerpt:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0191886996000335
Anyone heard of this effect being replicated? It seems awfully steep (17 point drop?) to be believed. I ask because ideally we want to maximize cognition to maximize workplace and personal success, and this seems very detrimental to many people who are in lower-status positions within the hierarchy. It also may explain why some people seem to perform worse when their boss is hovering over them. If this is true, then there is some truth when people say, "Don't worry about what others are thinking".
An alternate explanation: It is possible that those with lower baseline IQ experience more fatigue after taking a mentally stimulating test, so that they experience a greater drop in cognition when taking another one back-to-back. Did the researchers reveal the times between the paper-and-pencil test and the computer-based one? The article doesn't say.
EDIT: The paper is free and is found below. Apparently the computer-based test was taken soon after based on the wording of the authors. I wish the test was given the day after to control for mental fatigue. Too bad, seems like they were on to something there.
http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/367/1589/704.full
The "manipulators" usually don't know that they're manipulating.
Evidence? I think there is an instinctual nature to it, but I think they're aware.
The people who aren't aware are the "intelligent".
Some people have that natural motivation for social dominance, some don't, and both sides tend to model the other guy using themselves as the archtype. This makes the dominators fight harder, and the social pacifists fight not at all, not even perceiving that they are being attacked.
Being able to manipulate other people doesn't seem to protect them from being manipulated in the same ways.
I'd just call that losing to someone who is better.
I suspect that a lot of people who aren't socially dominant in the traditional sense optimize for prestige (higher education to gain income, advertising intellect by getting a Phd, picking up an instrument, etc.) , which can be status enhancing, and thus still a display of dominance.
Of course, since the average person cares about social jockeying, sychophantism, and wit at the expense of others, it may help to learn some of these skills if your goal is to move up in the workplace.
A quick search doesn't support this. That's from the interesting post here, data from a longitudinal study starting in the 1930s.
Based on that link, I was a little surprised that openness decreases income. Considering its correlation with crystallized knowledge, I would have expected no effect or a positive one.
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
Some of the results from the lecture weren't connected to eating in an obvious way. What was checked was blood pressure, VO2max, muscle growth, and blood sugar/iinsulin.
It's conceivable that the last would be affected by eating more high-glycemic food, and that muscle mass might be negatively affected if exercise was lowering some people's appetites too much.
Actually, the study you cite doesn't mention that some people ate worse food, just more, and it's merely enough that they maintained a stable weight.
I didn't say the study mentioned it, I said that dietary patterns can change due to exercise. The link didn't say what they ate or didn't to maintain their weight, and I can imagine that increasing your total calories consumed can't be completely safe even if it is just for weight maintenance. That is why researchers need to control for changes in diet, changes in overall health unrelated to exercise (people do get diseases for various reasons, as I can imagine would be common to a group of previously sedentary participants), etc., to make sure adverse health changes are directly caused by exercise itself.
Of course, without a link to the papers themselves, it is hard to say how properly controlled the experiments were.
If these variables weren't properly accounted for, then overall the data should give cause to concern, but is still inconclusive.