Carl-Richard

Hmm... "The Effects of Sprint Interval vs. Continuous Endurance Training on Physiological And Metabolic Adaptations in Young Healthy Adults": https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4327385/ HMMM... the endurance runners had a 12.6% increase in in VO2 max while the sprinters had a 18.8% increase. So I guess that answers my question (yeah yeah, it's one study with limited generalizability, blah blah blah, I just wanted to bring it up ). Also, a Quora submission: https://www.quora.com/Do-sprinters-or-marathon-runners-have-stronger-hearts So I guess I was onto something with that as well Other than that, I've been sprinting for about two months now and I love it. I only do it 1.75 times a week though (I already lift weights every other day, i.e. 3.5 days a week, and I run on every second off-day, i.e. 3.5/2 = 1.75). That means I can say I work out 3.5+1.75 = 5.25 times a week, which sounds like a lot to be honest (which is on top of my 3 daily 10-minute walks after each meal). At the same time, I deliberately reduced my resting times in the gym (for most of my lifts) down to 90 seconds (down from who the fuck knows; 3-5 minutes?), mostly for time efficiency reasons, but I also think it adds a bit of cardio, which is nice (and it certainly goes more naturally with my newfound cardiovascular health).

So I tried jogging 20 minutes 3 times a week sometime last year, but I stopped because it made me feel drained and weak, and actually significantly more anxious. I figured it had to do with increased levels of cortisol, which also decreases levels of testosterone (or so they say). So I started thinking: how can I gain the benefits of cardiovascular exercise (e.g. increased blood flow to the brain) while limiting the systemic load that seems to cause elevated cortisol? Well, that is when I started doing 10-minute walks after every meal, but it's obviously not the same as vigorous cardiovascular exercise (but it has its own set of benefits), so I was a bit stuck for a while trying to find a suitable alternative. Then just recently, I stumbled across the idea of sprint training. As the video claims, sprint training is associated with a massive increase in testosterone, rather than a slight decrease with long-distance cardio (according to some studies). So I started doing that recently, and it certainly made me more mentally sharp (but I probably should've eased myself into it, because I got a migraine and a lung infection the day after my 2nd sprint session; I never get migraines anymore and I rarely ever get sick either). So there is a definitely a systemic load aspect, just by the fact that it likely weakened my immune system, but also I noticed a slight increase in anxiety. Maybe that is just how my brain is supposed to work. Maybe lifting weights without cardio puts me in a bit of a too mentally tranquil hyper-anabolic state, and that the place where my brain works the best is for some reason more prone to anxiety (and maybe it's just circumstantial and up to me to fix it, like social awkwardness). On the other hand, I did not feel weak or drained like when I did 20-minute jogs. Another fun benefit is that you don't get that annoying burning sensation in your calves and soreness the day after (or at least I don't; maybe my fast-twitch muscle fibers are adapted to that level of strain from regular weight training). I've also tried to think about why jogging for 20 minutes should lead to a higher systemic load in the first place, or the kind of systemic load that significantly elevates levels of cortisol, more so than sprint training (and weight training). I think it has something to do with rest times: Let's say you run for 20 minutes straight, which involves a constant elevated heart rate, constant strain on the muscles, and constant recruitment of the respiratory system. It's essentially telling your body "this isn't going to end, we need more resources", hence you start tapping into the stress response; start secreting cortisol, increasing blood sugar levels, increasing energy to the muscles, etc. On the other hand, if you sprint for 20 seconds and rest for 4 minutes (like suggested in the video), your respiratory system doesn't really engage before the last couple of seconds of the sprint, and then you let your muscles relax and let your heart rate drop almost back down to resting heart rate before the next set. It's similar for weight training, where you'll rest for maybe half of that time, but it's even less demanding for your respiratory system, so the stress response is even less. And why should the recruitment of particularly the respiratory system lead to that type of systemic load and stress response involving particularly cortisol? Well, because the respiratory system is arguably the main system that feeds every organ in your body. If that system gets taxed, then you would need an equivalently global response to address it, which would be hormones like cortisol that e.g. elevate the global levels of glucose that impact all bodily tissues. I'm of course not a physiology expert, so I would like to hear some of your guys' input: is my reasoning for why I prefer sprint training (and weigh training) over long-distance cardio scientifically sound? Is even the studies listed in the video scientifically sound? Was my negative reaction to the 20-minute jogs just because I wasn't adapted to it and that it's something I could've adapted to over time? What is the best option for cardiovascular health: sprints, high-intensity interval training, long-distance cardio, a combination, or something else? By the way, I highly recommend walking 10 minutes after every meal. It's relaxing and refreshing, and my immune system has never been stronger (but a possible confound could be zinc tablets; take those too ).

What do you see?

Great minds think alike

@Yimpa I feel bad joking now He just wants advice. My advice: most girls aren't like guys where one touch or one line can make you horny or DTF. You need the vibe, the style, the eye, the smile, walking with her for a mile. It's like a rap in a way: if you don't have the rhymes, the flow, the surprise — it's not rap, it's speech, which means no peach. Lol tell me if that landed or horribly bombed.

Really? 😱 I'm more interested in what OP has to say

Why touch? Seems highly inefficient. Why not just say "I want to fuck, do you?"

Sat, chit, ananda; Brahman, Shiva, Shakti; emptiness, form, energy; computation, algorithm, implementation; spacetime, structure, function. There are many ways to slice it, but all of it is God. Now, I think what you're thinking about is some almighty disembodied voice speaking to you inside your mind. Is that possible? Yes. Is it God? It's not any more God than anything else. But if it's for example a voice inspiring you to be your highest self, then you can call it God in that sense.

You are right now.

26, from Norway, balding at the speed of light

I was expecting schizotypal to be dominant, but I guess not. Compulsive, avoidant, schizoid and hypomaniac seems about right. My mom is pretty compulsive and my dad has bipolar disorder, so that makes sense

@Schizophonia 100% vouch for the antisocial 😂

The things you say are so oddly specific that it couldn't be made up, but at the same time it sounds like it could've been made up.

You basically skipped 3/5 of his criteria, but OK

A YouTube channel asked a question: "If you're told to press a button for $100,000, but the catch is that pressing it means a random person on the planet gets a one-way ticket to the afterlife, would you cash in?" As of the moment writing this topic, the answers were: While you can doubt the sincerity of these answers (especially because the channel that posted it has an audience that would be prone to make extreme statements for comedic effect), I think the numbers aren't actually too far from the norm. Now, you can also doubt the accuracy of self-report, especially because you would probably expect less people to actually go through with it than merely reporting that they would go through with it (due to seriousness of the action). Nevertheless, it think the numbers do reflect reality to some extent. Even if the numbers were highly in favor of "no", I think this topic is still worth talking about. How do we approach these people? How do we instill a sense of moral responsibility in them? Assuming they're capable of rational thought, are there any arguments that are likely to work? I posed a question to the comment section which tries to provide such an argument: Then I followed it up by a thought experiment exploring the question further were they to still answer yes: Essentially, I was trying to prove that what they interpret as self-concern actually cannot be distinguished from care for others. In a sense, their self-concern involves caring for other people, which is a natural human tendency. The question is just how far the circle of concern extends, and the thought experiment is also constructed to show that this circle of concern is arbitrary. In reality, if you care about other people (which you most likely do), there is no principled reason to care about one person over another (or at least that is the argument, which may or may not be entirely true, but at least it makes you think). The reason you would act to the contrary is merely because you act that way, not because of some principled stance (although you can feel free to prove me wrong; I actually intuit it's not fully correct, I'm just not sure how). So far, I've not gotten any signs of serious engagement, but do you think the argument sounds convincing? Are there any flaws in it? Were you yourself affected by the argument somehow? Also, feel free to share any of your own arguments if you have any.

Which is why Western society, individualism and the nuclear family is so toxic, because it places almost all people at a distance and withdraws the things that compel you to care for them (physical proximity, emotional attunement, etc.). Of course, it's not only the worldview that is to blame for that, but also the world that has become so big and interconnected. Back during pre-modern tribal societies, presumably all the people in the tribe were cared for, but at the same time, anything outside wasn't even considered "people", but it was less of a problem because the world was smaller and less interconnected (less clashing between people who don't care about the other). And you can't put the genie back in the bottle: the world will keep growing and keep getting more interconnected, unless of course there is some collective effort to perturb that growth in some way. Either way you look at it, unless you want a collective organism that is divided against itself, like millions of cancerous tumors leeching on its host until the host dies and everybody dies, you have to evolve your circle of concern to the whole organism.

Yes, as long as you want to survive at a baseline level (eating food, buying clothes, polluting, consuming electricity), you will probably contribute to the death of something or someone, and much of that is unavoidable, but it's indirect, statistical, butterfly effect type stuff. Now, pushing the button is something you can avoid, it is direct, not merely statistical, not butterfly effect type stuff. By actively making that choice, you're not aiming to rise above and improve the things that are currently unavoidable and harmful, but you're actively making it worse, which is a sin.

Alien Consciousness V2 - interview with a real alien from inside Area 51.

MeTuLL

I've always wondered why the fractal patterns or distortion effects (particularly the ones embedded in physical textures) look exactly the way they do or why they happen at all, but now I'm wondering why a substance would produce more mental imagery than other perceptual effects

About the Western canon, why an arbitrarily defined period like that should represent the development of music seems a bit reductionistic. String instruments have existed longer than keyboard instruments Besides, cross-pollination is a thing: Yngwie Malmsteen was heavily inspired by classical music, Allan Holdsworth wanted his guitar to sound like a saxophone (and Malmsteen adores Holdsworth; secondary cross-pollination 😊).

By saying "more" vs. "less", I'm implying a spectrum, not a dichotomy. I was making the point that he is exactly that brilliant combination of inspiration and culture. He made one video where he imitated some guitarists, but he is known for his improvisation.

Microenchephaly, like Beetlejuice. Small brain 😊

Yet you would also agree that people are prone to a lack of introspection, self-deception and inner conflict (and external pressures) which could obscure the ideal expression of their values. For example, if I was angry one day and hit somebody I love, that doesn't mean hitting people is something I particularly value. Same with answering questions like these.

Imagine judging brilliance by obscurity 😂 I know of even more obscure players who measure up to them and beyond. Are classical piano players who "study the Western canon" usually associated with improvisation? I think musical improvisation is just a particularly pure example of the type of inspiration I'm talking about. It can often work in tandem with structure and discipine quite brilliantly, and some of that is externally determined. But you have to be very careful to not let the external influences become too dominant, because that could kill the muse. That certainly applies more to less artistically creative pursuits (right-brained) and more intellectual pursuits (left-brained). You can notice when a guitar player has primarily "studied" themselves to learning the instrument vs. someone who has tapped into pure inspiration. Their playing becomes quite robotic, clumsy, unrefined, uninteresting (probably more the case for guitar than piano because of the differences in dynamics, e.g. bending). Still, it's always a balance, and it's actually possible to be highly inspired while also being highly cultured (Guthrie Govan has a video where he imitates like 20 guitar players almost identically). The trick is just to stay inspired.