Acute exercise increases expression of telomere protective genes in heart tissue
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
The article does not appropriately adjust for multiple testing, and therefore none of its claims are well supported except the JNK2 decrease in post-exercise mice.
Full article is available at http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/store/10.1113/EP086189/asset/...
Something about how this is the quality of material we choose to promote among ourselves, the need for a critical eye when analyzing news, and how spreading fake stuff must be like shooting fish in a barrel.
Not the most joyful thoughts to start a morning!
I'm not sure if Fukushima has caused even ten deaths, total.
The other articles also stated very optimistic outcomes related to when the land would be usable again and when the situation would be controlled. Just to remind you: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2017/02/08...
A robot will stop operating in ca. 2 hours with these levels, a robot ... "Nothing to see here, radioactivity is no issue. Fukushima is doing great." This is NOW ... not last year or before. Please come and help clean up, if radioactivity is no issue for you and you feel it is safe to go there. I think Tepco pays quite well.
Edit: making clear that the radiation leak with the highest values has been measured a couple of days ago.
Some Perspective On The Japan Earthquake
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2319629
Or maybe this one that it links to:
Why I am not worried about Japan’s nuclear reactors
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2318980
Archive of the deleted story: http://web.archive.org/web/20110314205955/https://morgsatlar...
has the text I was referring to. yet, I remembered it was hosted on another website (without comments etc. and no wordpress blog). Read the highest rated comment "The article is mostly correct. ..." No, this article was astroturfing, most of the info was false (especially regarding the security measures in place in Fukushima, ... ).
On the other hand, objectors to nuclear power frequently overstate the danger - which is not to say that a meltdown every 10 years is acceptable, but that it's so difficult to get buy-in for any nuclear initiative that it ends up creating a siege mentality whenever something does go wrong. I feel like the problem with nuclear isn't so much the technology itself as the social/organizational failures that compound any operational problem.
It does really bother me that when nuclear facilities have minor incidents where the problems are properly identified, solved and documented, anti-nuclear activists still get upset and claim things are being covered up. When success (in safety procedure) is treated much the same way as failure, is it any wonder that actual failures are often poorly handled?
I feel this points to the need to abandon adversarial approaches to truth-seeking and public oversight and look for more cooperative ones. Adversarial systems are really easy to game and tend to result in over-simplifications of complex problems which are then exploited in turn. Meanwhile the public - whose general lack of awareness on the scientific details is entirely rational, because we shouldn't all need to be experts on reactor safety in order to enjoy the benefits of electricity - ends up in the situation of not knowing who to believe because there is a lot of bullshit coming from both sides, and opting instead to do nothing, resulting in predictable infrastructural decay.
I agree, but know little about the topic. Do you have any information on information dissemination and consensus (which naturally would extend to governing systems to some degree) that are less adversarial? I'm a big believer in capitalism and competition (with appropriate controls) for some systems, but free markets only work efficiently when the information is good. Broken information systems lead to poorly functioning markets (in the general term of market, which in this case could be public policy decisions or elections).
not sure how many homeless people died (as they were sent there to clean up the mess) as an aftermath of the incident.
Yet, maybe you think that's acceptable. http://www.reuters.com/article/us-fukushima-workers-idUSBRE9...
Read the HN comments and then read https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20266-how-josef-oehme... http://www.salon.com/2011/03/15/josef_oehmen_nuclear_not_wor...
;)
I guess I don't understand how at least the anti-drone eagles can be considered "fake news."
Something being a bad idea or stupid or impractical doesn't make it factually incorrect, i.e., does not make it fake news under the new definition.
The article asserts several facts, among them:
- birds of prey are often already kept near airports to scare birds away from the runway to reduce accidents during takeoff and landing.
- the French air force has an experiment running with 4 eagles to train them to attack small drones, in addition to their normal scarebird duties.
- the French air force thinks the experiment is promising enough to order a second group of 4 eagles.
If those facts are correct, it is not "fake news." It is a silly puff piece about something that is not important, because it will almost certainly never turn into anything beyond an experiment.
Short summary: research in this area is interesting, especially if it's done right, but it doesn't mean we have any reliable interventions to increase mortality.
This could be tested by drawing a sample of N highly rated articles and N non-highly rated articles on both programming and on some other field (say cancer research), having an expert in each field score the articles in each group (highly and non-highly rated) in their field, and then compare the rating distributions for the two fields. According to the above hypothesis, on programming the distribution in the highly-rated group will be more peaked relative to the non-highly-rated articles, than in the other field.
(There probably needs to be some manual de-duplication etc. in the initial selection of the four groups.)
“Briefly stated, the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect is as follows. You open the newspaper to an article on some subject you know well. In Murray's case, physics. In mine, show business. You read the article and see the journalist has absolutely no understanding of either the facts or the issues. Often, the article is so wrong it actually presents the story backward—reversing cause and effect. I call these the "wet streets cause rain" stories. Paper's full of them. In any case, you read with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors in a story, and then turn the page to national or international affairs, and read as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more accurate about Palestine than the baloney you just read. You turn the page, and forget what you know.”
Good to know we are all about innovation here.
Keeping in mind that we are talking about extending the healthy lifespan of human beings -- that could be the people you love -- who cares about "being cool"?
I think you mean "Literally one step closer to a metaphorical fountain of youth." Or, in other words, the literal journey is literally the reward.
A slang synonym of "literally" is "very". It suggests something is so similar to the thing it's compared against, it ought to literally be that thing. It's a humorous exaggeration, humorous because the object in question is obviously not the other object.
No doubt, some users of this form are unaware of its original definition. Yet others are fully aware of the original definition and thus use it to upset pedants on Internet forums.
Language evolves and always will; does anyone think the English dictionary arrived on the scene mostly finished? If people understand your meaning, it must be some kind of language.
Of course, they can be used sarcastically or ironically or whatever so the meaning can't be unambiguous.
[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27017149
http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/115/17/2358
http://www.runnersworld.com/newswire/heart-risk-marathoners-...
"Lifestyle Changes Lengthen Telomeres" http://www.drmirkin.com/public/ezine092913.html
The study, by Dr. Dean Ornish, was published in "The Lancet Oncology" 17 September 2013 issue.
It's more useful to look at studies that have looked at actual outcomes (e.g. reducing the incidence of heart attack or stroke, etc). In those cases, the bulk of the evidence points to 30 minutes a day, 5 days a week of moderate exercise (e.g. a brisk walk or jog) being the best 'bang for your buck'. There are certainly gains to be made by going beyond that, but the curve falls off pretty sharply, and you can get almost all the (proven) benefits of exercise at that level.
EDIT: I would suggest this YouTube video from Healthcare Triage on the benefits of exercise that are supported by good research: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SFBBjynBpSw
Would doing the 2h30 min excercise over say, 2 or 3 days per week, amount to the same benefit?
so i'd assume that short times more often is better
I wouldn't assume this. The logical end of this is to split your exercise into many tiny bursts throughout the day. But it's likely that sustained output is an important part of exercising. The shorter your exercise, the less likely you are to get your heart into an elevated range, the less likely you are to cause an oxygen-depleted state (which encourages vascular growth), the less likely you are to use a significant portion of your free glucose (which is important for insulin sensitivity), etc.
I don't know where the threshold is, but it seems like a bad idea to assume that shorter, more often is better. It likewise seems like a bad idea to assume that longer blocks are better (or just as good). Any exercise is far better than none, but there is a lot of support for ~30 minutes ~daily being extremely valuable. Absent evidence, I'd be hesitant to assume that some other arbitrary division of exercise would yield the same results.
I don't know if this is a safe assumption either. What makes you think it would take more than a few minutes of acute exercise to reach an oxygen depleted state?
Depending on your fitness level and exercise level, it will take more or less time to put you into this state. An overweight, sedentary person sprinting will be there pretty much instantly. A marathon runner walking briskly won't get there in any amount of time. But all things being equal, more time exercising will be more likely to put you into an oxygen-depleted state (and glucose depleted state, and elevated heart rate).
https://mobile.nytimes.com/blogs/well/2016/04/27/1-minute-of...
Anything is a lot better than nothing, but there is some evidence that there are all sorts of good effects from a longer session once in a while.
The other thing about phasing in short brutal intervals for a few weeks and mostly doing Long Slow Distance ("LSD") is that it's either over quickly or it's quite pleasant. I get most of the exercise in the more painful 'middle' of this continuum from sport.
EDIT: here's the article that got me interested in LSD style training. https://www.elitefts.com/education/training/echocardiography...
Either way, I think it's easier to go for an hour 3 times a week, than doing half an hour each day. (would become a bit more pricey, and I'd lose the time of going to the pool and back each day. Not as easy to combine with other responsibilities imo)
So while I believe the study will likely hold up; I do wonder why exercise adds telomeres. One answer is that exercise reduces cancer risk (it will get you to bed on time, mostly) so the body optimistically adds teleomeres. Alternatively, and perhaps more likely, exercise may trigger more cell division (for purposes of repair, all exercise causes some damage, to collagen if nothing else) so the extra telomeres are added as compensation in order to return to status quo cap on allowed cell divisions; maintaining the preventative but not actually extending it.
This study says exercise causes heart cells to produce more of certain proteins that protect the telomeres (in mice).
The study didn't actually measure telomere lengths or lifespan, but having more of these proteins might prevent telomere shortening and slow cardiac aging.
More specifically, intense exercise seems to protect the length of the heart's telomeres, which are the ends of your DNA strands and shorten as you get older. They are linked to the effects of aging, so delaying their shortening would seem to indicate delaying the effects of aging.
Telomerase is a protein machine that adds more blank bases to the ends of DNA so that the DNA copying machinery can act for longer without shorting the DNA to the point of senescence (it increases the size of the scratch partition at the tips of your chromosomes, called 'telomeres'). Because the length of your telomeres is proportional to your age, the protein machine that lengthens your telomeres is likely helping you age less quickly.
Here it is found that exercise likely stimulates the production of that lengthening protein, Telomerase, in the heart. This study is a mechanistic study - it provides useful evidence for how various proteins interact under particular conditions. It was not designed to provide proscriptive behavioral advice for how to live longer. But given that heart failure is currently a major cause of death, understanding how to lengthen the heart's useful life would allow us to understand how to lengthen many humans' lives.
Current technologies would let us introduce DNA to cells that would direct them to produce more Telomerase, but these techniques are still mostly used in the lab and are only used clinically in the most extreme of cases because though we know exactly what kind of DNA code we would want to inject, we still have a great deal of difficulty injecting the code into a safe location that won't disrupt other critical running programs. But ultimately it is expected that we will be able to adjust the amounts of these proteins in particular tissues outside of their endogenous regulation in an effort to prevent disease, heart failure, and otherwise correct misregulations.
Study in mice, not replicated, touching several hype topics (teleomeres), most likely totally irrelevant.
untilHellbanned described the better way -- ideally, there would be some sort of biomarker in the blood that serves as a proxy for the level in the heart. But how do you find it and validate it? It's challenging (at best...)