I came across the slime mould article some time ago via the Marginal Revolution blog. I do not find it in the least convincing. It seems to me they have their theory, then cherry pick and misinterpret all evidence to fit.
In short, totally agree with what you're saying here.
My personal thoughts on the many errors in the SMTM theory here should you be interested: https://www.livenowthrivelater.co.uk/2021/09/is-the-obesity-epidemic-a-mystery-part-1/
https://www.livenowthrivelater.co.uk/2021/09/is-the-obesity-epidemic-a-mystery-part-2/
I came across the slime mould article some time ago via the Marginal Revolution blog. I do not find it in the least convincing. It seems to me they have their theory, then cherry pick and misinterpret all evidence to fit.
My personal thoughts on their theory here: https://www.livenowthrivelater.co.uk/2021/09/is-the-obesity-epidemic-a-mystery-part-1/
https://www.livenowthrivelater.co.uk/2021/09/is-the-obesity-epidemic-a-mystery-part-2/
There are certainly some good aspects to the book.
The exercise selection for example covers all major muscle groups, and the progressions go from easy enough for the most unfit, to hard enough for most mere mortals. (As noted, the easiest squat progression is ridiculous, clearly just added so all exercises had the same number of steps).
The book is also entertaining, as are all the dragondoor books (same publisher as Pavel Tsatouline's books, just switch the Russian goulag schtick for US prison...).
It's about as far from rational/evidence based as you can get though.
That's not to say it's not a decent program. I am a fan of calisthenics for the convenience and safety. The debate about reps, sets and rest periods is far from settled. No firm evidence to either confirm or contradict the recommendations in the book.
My biggest gripe is the dogmatic "this is the best way to train, all other ways are stupid" type attitude which is the scourge of the fitness world.
Nb definitely the one arm handstand press up is very aspirational. There are some freaky beasts out there that can do it though.
Check-out simonster on YouTube for the limits of calisthenics if you want some inspiration.
I personally like to distinguish between activity, training and exercise.
Exercise being movement done purely for health. It should be safe and effective.
Activity is movement done for another reason. Could be practical (cycling to work), or recreational (playing sport). Typically has similar effects to exercise, but comes with injury risks.
Training is practicing specific movements to get better at a certain activity.
People tend to confuse all of these, unsurprisingly, and end up doing things like crossfit "because exercise is good for you"...
People also tend to have strong beliefs about which is "best". Really it's a matter of personal preference/values.
Ah sorry. There was no reference to that in this post so had no idea.
I think the main flaw in his argument comes from his belief that more exercise always = better health / increased longevity.
The evidence on the other hand indicates that health benefits come from a very modest amount of exercise. Daily waking plus maybe a short session of resistance training once a week.
As you start to increase volume and intensity, health and longevity benefits not only tail off, but can actually start to decline. (Especially if you're doing flic flacs and land on your head).
I personally enjoy strenuous physical activity, and being strong and athletic. I therefore do more than the minimum required for health.
If people choose not to exercise though, who's to say that's not the right choice for them? Doing something you hate on a daily basis your entire life in order to make it longer might not be the most rational choice.
There's a belief that "stick at it and you'll learn to live it, I did and so do all my gym buddies". This overlooks the possibility of survivorship bias though.
"Does anyone think that Anki is better than real life use for learning? Or is it perhaps more of a (possibly imperfect) substitute for when one cannot avail themself of a real life usage setting to apply what they have learned?"
I doubt it. Anki is one (very useful) tool, that's all.
It's not meant as a substitute but an adjunct.
You need to also practice speaking, listening, reading and writing.
Nb The book fluent forever is the best resource I've come across for language learning. His process for anki card creation is also very good (using images/never using your native language to avoid translating).
Also, get yourself a Korean lover. Sure to help!
This is a perennial topic as it's incredibly difficult to study.
You can't do a double blind RCT on the effects of eating / not eating x on longevity.
As a result you're limited to short term clinical studies and epidemiological data. Both of which come with their own set of problems.
The official dietary guidelines are based on the best available science but there's still plenty of things we don't know for sure.
There's also issues of risk communication which further confuses things.
Processed meats for example are classed as a probable carcinogen based on observational data. You'll often see it stated that consuming processed meats increases your risk of colon cancer by 20% which sounds horrific. But that's relative risk.
The data actually shows that people who eat zero processed meat have a lifetime risk of colon cancer of 5%, whereas those that consume the highest levels (>50g per day) have a risk of 6%.
So while it's quite possibly true that there is a causal link and it's not just confounding factors, it's hardly a terrifying statistic, though the headlines typically make it sound like having a slice of bacon is akin to smoking a pack of cigarettes.
All cause mortality? I very much doubt it'll protect you from car accidents or bear attacks.
Far more likely that people that people that take such supplements do so as they're health conscious and any perceived benefits are halo effect.
Eat a balanced diet, include skin, bone and shellfish and you'll get more than enough of both plus lots of other nutrients.
I switched from veganism to eating small amounts of pasture raised meat for these reasons.
The lives of well treated livestock do seem to be a net positive and considerably better on average than those of wild animals. Less stress, less suffering, quick and painless death.
There are some arguments for reforesting/rewilding pasture land, but even if this were done populations of large herbivores still need to be controlled.
One way to do this is reintroduce wolves, which I'm not against, but I still think death by human is the more humane option.
It doesn't many much sense to me to say it's bad for humans to kill and eat animals humanely so instead condemn them to be torn apart by wolves!