> If you're regularly saying "my urine's dark, I must be dehydrated" you should probably be visiting a doctor.
um, well, maybe, but it is accurate (and interestingly, a bit more Bayesian) to say "Hmmm... my urine appears to be darker than it was previously. Without evidence supporting a competing hypothesis, this is most likely because I'm relatively closer to the lower end of normal total body volume". Competing hypotheses include rhabdomyolysis, acute renal injury, chronic renal injury, and all the many things that cause those sorts of end organ damage.
I know HN has at least on board-certified nephrologist lurking around. perhaps he'll chime in.
source: I'm a physician.
Also, I think Noekes raises some very interesting points. I'm a little concerned by the tone of this article, though overall I'm glad the author made the effort to write it. Things like saying Noekes only found 6 instances of heat exhaustion found in the setting of long-distance running are suspect. Doing a lit review is suspect, and in a case like heat exhaustion, it's very tricky to demonstrate the literature reflects the population. Do you really think every patient with heat exhaustion after a marathon got a case report written up? I don't.
Have a read of the original article. It questions that whole premise that losing salts is a problem. IMHO, the evidence in that area is limited and often contradictory.
The evidence in this whole field is pretty scant really. For example, most people think electrolytes help with exercise induced cramps, and yet the only thing with any evidence to support its use is actually pickle juice (!). There is very little evidence to show electrolytes help with cramping in trained athletes.
I'm highly dubious of the article, mainly because it's copywritten to sell a book.
Whilst you're right, the evidence is thin to suggest a lack of sodium is the cause of EAMCs, the recommended treatment is often fluids high in electrolytes.
> Notably, affected athletes often present with normal or somewhat elevated serum electrolyte levels, even if they are "salty sweaters," because of hypotonic sweat loss and a fall in intravascular volume. However, recovery and maintenance of water and sodium balance with oral or intravenous salt solutions is the proven effective strategy for resolving and averting exercise-associated muscle cramps that are prompted by extensive sweating and a sodium deficit. 
So whilst there might be a multitude of causes of EAMCs, there seems to be a singular treatment for it. The main hypothesised causes are dehydration, electrolyte depletion or altered neuromuscular control - which is likely caused by electrolyte imbalances.
The article authors claim "Science: There is no scientific evidence that shows sodium (or other electrolyte) deficits in those with muscle cramping." is patently false. There is evidence that sodium deficits increase EAMCs, but so does dehydration (meaning increased serum sodium concentrations), and the main risk indicator is over-exertion.
Yes there's contradictory evidence. However, if you did a generalized study trying to find out why hydraulic pistons seize you would find that there's contradictory evidence because too much and too little hydraulic fluid can seize it, and overworking it can too. Trying to claim there's only one cause is naive.
It's true it is written to sell a book, but Noakes is a pretty well known sports scientist (perhaps the best known sports scientist in the world?), and a new book by him is likely to gain interest organically.
As well as the increasingly popular "central governor" theory in sports science, he also "invented" the Paleo diet. While I think the Paleo diet's benefits are overstated, there is little doubt that it set a trend towards diets that are more focused on choosing foods that have a high satiability index.
The sports medicine perspective along the same lines with respect to all humans other than rich modern westerners would be interesting. Or primates in general.
There would seem to be an obvious life / reproduction advantage in not a body not suiciding by sweating out all the salt, which makes the doctor's argument intuitively appealing.
Infinite water bottles and infinite sugar and infinite salt might or might not help performance, but they're surely not natural, interesting for all non-creationists to consider that all our ancestors evolved specifically not to consume those commercial products... Even if it does help short term (maybe) the long term effects of poking the bear and informal screwing around with tightly coupled systems by consuming enormous doses of unnatural stuff in stressful situations does need to be looked into.
Yeah, I used pickle juice on the Adelaide Dirty Dozen (4000m+ climbing in 140km). It worked for me, and I have a tendency to cramping. But I also took salt when I felt twinges as well as the pickle juice, so I can't say for sure.
I think the flaws in the thinking with these studies that try to test altruism, and other "odd" behaviours according to Game Theory is that we've become so far removed from where these behaviours originally evolved.
The aberration is that we live in densely populated areas where selfishness is a possible behaviour.
Our social-limit is estimated at around 500 people. Surnames developed around the 13th century in Britain, before that it was patronyms meaning we could recognise people via association. This is still common in rural areas, my wife's grandfather likes to travel to car shows, he's told people down in the US to just ask for him by name. He lives in a rural part of Canada and sure enough, people will reach him because everyone knows him.
Altruism works, because for the majority of human history the people you chose to help or not to help were also the people who would sooner or later face the same decision. One instance of uncooperative behaviour would render you persona non grata. Your neighbour needs help thatching his roof after a storm, do you help? Game Theory keeps saying "no, because you could steal his land!" reality says "yes, because if he doesn't die from exposure, which he most likely won't, then he won't help you round up your goats when your fence breaks and they'll eat all your crops and you'll likely starve to death in the winter".
The simple fact is most people are willing to do "favours" with no questions asked, and with no expectation of payment except "being owed one". The classic is helping a friend move. There's absolutely no reason to help someone move, until you need to so you earn the help in advance, and when someone breaks the trust the response is normally "I'm never helping that asshole again."
I think you've got to be careful when making a claim that working longer means you live longer.
Ignoring that this is anecdotal, but you're comparing across generations, upbringings, etc.
Our society is prolonging the lives of our weakest members, not our strongest. We've got centennials whose only visit to a hospital has been for childbirths.
My grandmother has outlived her fraternal twin by over a half century, plus a couple other siblings. My mother hasn't outlived any siblings.
Our grandparents are of a generation when vaccines were just beginning, and our parents are mostly of the generation where they were well in place and widely used. My grandad was born before penicillin was discovered.
Comparing between generations isn't possible, because we compare between vastly different medical practise. It's highly improbable that a child born at 30 weeks will live as long as a child born at 40 weeks.
A less healthy individual is more likely to take retirement early due to poor health. It's then poor logic to go on to claim retiring makes you less healthy.
Poor health makes retirement more likely. No one in ill health who could retire is going to work into their deathbed when they can retire and spend more time with their family members and doing their hobbies.
One of my neighbours retired after her kids finished school and moved out. She's in far better health than her husband who worked until retirement age. So anecdotes are really irrelevant. He survived the Russian invasion of Prussia.
If work related stress shortens your life span, and even isolated high stress incidents are correlated with shortened life span. What effect does having your farm commandeered by German Artillery and then shelled into rubble by Russians have on your lifespan? My guess is, not good.
I'm a writer. As much as I work on my craft, when I sit down and put my fingers on the keys I'm not doing any of it. 95% of what I write I have no conscious decision in making.
I remember completely scrapping a 1500 word piece, rewriting the whole piece and resubmitting it to my editor. He was amazed I did it so quickly, I was quite disturbed I'd written the whole thing with barely an iota of conscious thought going into it.
I don't think I'm riding shotgun for my consciousness, I think I'm a kid in the back of the wagon.
I'm glad to hear that. I write by reading a page or two where I left off, then starting to type. What comes out is often a surprise to me. Of course there's much editing afterward, but the story happens 'by itself'.
Also a writer. The first time I was given a writing prompt as a timed exercise I was surprised by what I came up with. If I'd sat and thought of what to write I never would have written what I wrote in a five minute unthinking flurry.
In my opinion, once a year would be the upper limit on rereadability of a work.
I'm a fast reader, not so much in the speed reading sense, but in the sense of a hunter on the Serengeti plains. I don't need to be fast, just determined enough to get the kill. I used to read in every available free moment, and that was before ebooks.
My thing is that I'm the info-sponge. I started reading Harry Potter and the Philosophers Stone when I was 16 -- for context, I've wanted to be a writer since I can remember -- and thought it was simple so I put it down and forgot about it.
At 26 I picked up the book again -- a new novel I started skewed itself YA, so YA I started reading -- and remembered it, so was skipping 5 pages at a time until I zeroed in on the page.
The book I've read most for enjoyment is Mort, which I read once when I was almost a teen, once when I was fifteen and again a decade later. I don't know how I could do that many rereads, because a reread to me already has this sense of Deja Vu where it's like a clone of me is sat in the room reading the story to me, as I'm remembering me reading the story and not just reading the story.
It's entirely different from the perspective of a writer. I've reread my own work a dozen times with ease, but only what I'm working on. Going back to old discarded and forgotten works is like visiting my own grave. So I don't know how much value there would be in reading something a hundred times.
I mean it's easy to say for a script, which works out to about a page (250 words) per minute. So a two hour movie is 120 pages, or 30,000 words. I mean even then you'd be looking at an almost two week endeavour at a normal reading pace. Now the bible, you'd be looking at a year long endeavour. About 31 weeks of continuous reading. No sleeping, no eating, just reading, just stupid.
All it produces is the same as being able to recite the lines of a TV show seconds before the actor on screen says it. Your comprehension isn't any better, I still missed jokes in Simpsons episodes I've seen too many times to count, because I lacked the capability to understand better than my maximum present ability.
So if you speed read everything, maybe rereading when your comprehension is low just adds detail like when a video stream improves in quality. However, I read with a near 100% comprehension level so rereading doesn't even feel like diminishing returns, it just feels like meaningless grunt work. If you had a clean floor and then mopped it, what improvement would you get via mopping it again? After that, you won't even see an improvement from the 3rd mopping to the 100th, and I'm sure several times in between you're going to be wondering why there's suds streaks everywhere.
RCMP have said fairly clearly on a couple of occasions that they have no interest in prosecuting individual offenders for piracy. They took down a tracker, stated explicitly that individuals who had downloaded from it had nothing to worry about, and funnily enough nothing ever came of it.
Stephen Harper is about the likeliest person to get a bill through to illegalize downloading, and the most we've got out of him so far is one that actually made it financially unviable for media companies to attempt to sue individual downloaders by capping penalties so low you couldn't even make money using a paralegal in small claims court.
With the election looming, and the economy seemingly committing seppuku just in time to wreck his ability to beat the economy drum like he did last election. So there's a strong possibility he's going to be out, and I don't think the other parties have any interest in passing any new copyright laws.
That might assuage the franchisee somewhat, but there is still the effective loss of revenue from that particular hotel as well as indirect costs the franchisee will have to bear, such as lost business and time spent dealing with FCC enforcement actions.