Acute exercise increases expression of telomere protective genes in heart tissue(ncbi.nlm.nih.gov)
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Acute exercise increases expression of telomere protective genes in heart tissue
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28166612
85 comments
How much exercise this should be in humans?
This study is looking at one specific mechanism by which exercise may be helpful in improving some aspect of your health. It's not especially useful to look at just this study though, as it doesn't actually link to any outcomes (the telomere protective expression may or may not actually reduce your risk for cardiovascular disease).
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
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
Do you happen to know if the crucial thing here is "regular" excercise? As in, is it in important to spread out the excercise over the 5 days?
Would doing the 2h30 min excercise over say, 2 or 3 days per week, amount to the same benefit?
Would doing the 2h30 min excercise over say, 2 or 3 days per week, amount to the same benefit?
from what i understand (not being in any way a professional in any related field), its best to even split it up during the day. 15min early, 15min late is better than 30min in a block?
so i'd assume that short times more often is better
so i'd assume that short times more often is better
> 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 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.
> the less likely you are to cause an oxygen-depleted state
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?
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?
Basic physics. Assuming you are generally healthy, your body is not usually in an oxygen-depleted state. Therefore it will take some amount of time in a state of increased oxygen use to cause oxygen depletion. Therefore, "the shorter your exercise, ... the less likely you are to cause 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).
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).
For endurance athletes like your marathon runner, this is certainly the case. Strength and power athletes can certainly expend far more energy in a shorter time than someone who is less fit. It's a bit of a paradox where the better shape you are in, the sooner you can tire yourself out. From everything I've read, it certainly seems possible to reach oxygen depletion in a very short period of time.
https://mobile.nytimes.com/blogs/well/2016/04/27/1-minute-of...
https://mobile.nytimes.com/blogs/well/2016/04/27/1-minute-of...
There's not much evidence for that, and some evidence that heart health is improved by sustained submaximal exercise. In my experience the best improvements I have sustained in overall fitness have been from either very short, very brutal exercise (NOT just splitting up a dose of 30 minutes into easy sections) or from chilling out for 40-60 minutes at comparatively easy pace. The latter has been something that you can do all the time; the harsh interval training is something that seems to work in 2-3 week bursts with time off afterwards.
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...
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...
Thank you for the link!
Anything sure is bound to be better than nothing, I limit my sessions to 1 hour but alternate between doing an hour of constant excercise at a slower speed (I'm a swimmer), and doing shorter burts of intensive excercise but then taking a minute or two break after 2 lanes.
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)
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)
The study says that the effect wore off in less than an hour. I suspect (though they couldn't test this) that the effect lasts as long as your are exercising and stops quickly when you stop.
At least when trying to increase muscle mass, you'd want to do short periods of intense exercise, rather than a longer period with lower intensity.
Thanks a lot for the Healthcare Triage link!
Not yet known; this research was only performed on mice so far.
Literally no way of knowing since they studied MICE not HUMANS. If you want to exercise your mouse though it might be useful...
I've assumed for a very long time that the purpose of telomeres was to prevent cancer mutations from killing a complex organism, since the resulting growth would be limited to X generations where X is the number of telomeres on the mutated strand of DNA, and then die without those cells being able to divide again.
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.
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.
TLDR; exercise
The pithy response is of course, "Exercise improves health. In other news, water is wet". But of course that's too simplistic ... this kind of research is awesome. Anything that can help us understand these mechanisms are one step closer to a literal fountain of youth.
> one step closer to a literal fountain of youth
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.
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.
If, via this research (and heaps of handwaving), we can invent a water fountain that dispenses something that make you live longer. Then we have invented a literal fountain of youth.
Too complicated. Why not just hurl young people out of tubes on an ongoing basis? True, some passers-by will suffer fatal injuries from the impact of juvenile bodies, but literary fountains of youth have always had the possibility of unexpectedly killing off people who drink from them too often, so their unexpected deaths will be ironically satisfying. I can think of worse ways to go.
at what point does a word get used so commonly in an incorrect form that it becomes, literally, the new definition?
We're past that point.
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.
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.
What word currently means what "literally" used to mean (ie non-metaphorically)? I'm fine with words changing their meanings but in this case it seems to needlessly leave a hole in the language.
Literally. Literally literally means literally in many contexts.
Hmm, what word means it unambiguously?
Words like exact and actual (and unambiguous; compare the literal truth to the unambiguous truth).
Of course, they can be used sarcastically or ironically or whatever so the meaning can't be unambiguous.
Of course, they can be used sarcastically or ironically or whatever so the meaning can't be unambiguous.
Except we also have research the suggests acute exercise raises the risk of adverse CV events[1]. So you just can't assume "Oh if I work super hard then I'll only see benefits." There are liabilities here and understanding balance and what works for you is what's going to matter. Studies like this just draw in the Ray Kurzweil 'live forever' crowd, hence it at the top of HN. They aren't comprehensive and may have nothing to with human health at all and probably don't add anything to our practical knowledge of exercise.
[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-...
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3298928
[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-...
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3298928
> CONCLUSIONS: Exercise acutely increases the risk of adverse CV events, with greater risk associated with vigorous intensity. The risks of an adverse CV event during and immediately after exercise are outweighed by the health benefits of vigorous exercise performed regularly. A key challenge remains the identification of occult structural heart disease and inheritable conditions that increase the chances of lethal arrhythmias during exercise.
I'd bet any amount of money that this data already exists in some form and so re-inventing the wheel - haha - with this study was not particularly useful. Like the parent comment says, water is wet. When you exercise stuff changes. What most biologists never do is point out all the things that don't change. That's how we'd see how special it is in this case that telomeres change.
Ok so me-too apps like yet another photo sharing app is not cool, but me-too incremental biomedical research is cool.
Good to know we are all about innovation here.
Good to know we are all about innovation here.
In science, "me-too research" is also known as "replication", and it's one of the pillars of the scientific method. There should be more of it, not less (as recent crisis have shown). "Incremental research" is 99.999% of what scientists do. Charles Darwin and Albert Einstein are very, very, very unusual scientists. That's a good sign, by the way -- if science was suffering major paradigm shifts every day, that would mean that no stable knowledge was being produced.
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"?
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"?
Just a quick note pointing out that also Darwin and Einstein did 99.9% incremental research. Natural selection and evolution were well known concepts before the Origin of the Species, and so it was relativity. What Darwin and Einstein provided was just small steps forward, and a LOT of perspective over what was already there.
You don't even know if this is "me-too" — you just "bet" it is, and then hedge the description with "incremental," which allows that it might actually add something. There is literally no factual substance to the complaint. Your objection here is so shallow that the word "shallow" implies more depth than it actually has.
Ok so my 20 years in the field means nothing to trolls. I can live with that.
[deleted]
For anyone interested, a friendly plug for Dr Rhonda Patrick[1], who podcasts and speaks on nutrition, exercise, aging and telomeres in particular.
1. https://www.foundmyfitness.com/
1. https://www.foundmyfitness.com/
Yuck. Just the normal nutrition crap with no real studies to back up the claims. The biochemistry may be sound to a point but the conclusions about ageing and positive health effects of "x, y, and z" are there on the hyperbole. Zero respectable publications where they show that people with "diet x" are healthier than the average population.
I wouldn't be so sure, she names plenty of studies. Don't be so quick to judge.
Something about the design of that site makes me immediately suspicious and less likely to listen to anything she has to say.
Based on a quick skim she seems more credible than, say, Mehmet Oz (okay, low bar, but bear with me). She seems to have an academic background relevant to the stuff she talks about, and I don't see any obvious sign that she's shilling the usual crap like proprietary supplements, weird exercise equipment/programs, homeopathy, etc..
I tend to stick to her YouTube channel, podcasts, and Twitter feed. You're right, her website is not doing her any favors. But she's a biologist, not a web developer. Hence, going directly to her content sources seems to be the best option.
I assumed someone else is handling her website stuff, so that just means they should try not to make it look like a scam site (subscribe popups on entry, and colorized "cancer" and other keywords). But maybe it's just targeted at different demographics, I don't know.
The first time I heard about her was listening to Tim Ferriss Podcast. She is knowledgeable and know her thing, but I agree her website doesn't inspire trust.
The favicon is an avocado. snert. Yeah I get that exact same vibe too.
Yikes, so not only is it poor quality research but they are shilling for commercial stuff?
How would we check these results in humans? Can we safely biopsy someone's heart?
biopsies of the heart can be done, but only for compelling reasons. it carries non-trivial risk to the individual.
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...)
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...)
I would think for research purposes autopsies would give you better data than biopsies, and without any risk.
no. more practical to use proxies (this is the hard part) from more readily available tissues like the blood.
It is hard for me to understand why a mouse study in a low-impact journal is at the top of HN.
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/...
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/...
Hypothesis: when it comes to "off-topic" (i.e. non-programming) subjects on HN, and especially science, articles are posted with essentially random levels of novelty/importance/truth, and then a random set of individuals drawn from a population of 99.9% non-experts in that particular field upvotes, comments (or not) on each particular story. This implies amount of upvoting is mainly uncorrelated with importance of story.
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.)
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.)
Seems like a corollary to the Gell-Mann amnesia effect:
“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.”
“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.”
Looking at this article, and the one about the supposed use of falcons as anti-drone measures, makes me think about the whole "fake news" thing.
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!
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!
For the record, I just read about the use of eagles (not falcons, though they are kept at falconries in France) in combating drones in a daily newsletter I highly respect. Here is the article they cite: http://en.rfi.fr/wire/20170220-born-killers-french-army-groo...
I guess I don't understand how at least the anti-drone eagles can be considered "fake news."
I guess I don't understand how at least the anti-drone eagles can be considered "fake news."
Do you honestly think a bird is a good solution to deal with what is, to the bird, a whirling blade flying death machine? I also saw people pushing the story about millions of wind powered devices to freeze the arctic, it's just impractical nonsense on the face of it.
I think you're using an older definition, wherein "fake news" means unworthy of attention. In recent weeks and months, "fake news" has been used by President Trump and others to mean factually incorrect.
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.
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.
Simply, current definition "fake news" == propaganda
Anything someone doesn't like can be considered "fake news".
I don't understand the downvotes; maybe Hacker News isn't for me anymore.
Don't understand the downvotes. I had similar feelings (I remember astroturfing articles about how safe nuclear power is after the Fukushima incident on the top of HN).
To be fair, those articles were right. The problem with nuclear energy is not a lack of caution...
I'm not sure if Fukushima has caused even ten deaths, total.
I'm not sure if Fukushima has caused even ten deaths, total.
I cannot find the article anymore, but there was one about "Why I'm not concerned about Fukushima" (directly after the incident) that was completely wrong (false information about the security infrastructure etc. there) and also saying the incident would be resolved in a couple of days.
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.
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.
I remember that exact article you mention, because I was posting lots of updates about Fukushima when it happened and being called an alarmist until the scale of the problem became clear.
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.
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 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.
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).
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).
I'm afraid I don't really know what to suggest on developing consensus systems. the only thing I can bring to mind right now is a rather dry but worthwhile book called Adversarial Legalism by Robert Kagan which I think has a lot to say about the psychology of disputation in the US and (indirectly) how our whole system of governance has become so politicized.
Was this the article?
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...
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...
Thanks so much. Perfect!
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2318980
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, ... ).
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, ... ).
So you think the articles were right? Be careful with over generalization ...
What about https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2318980 ?
Thanks @ j_s for finding the article.
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...
;)
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...
;)
Maybe not immediately. However, radiation tends to take a while for its damage to appear. Especially since Fukushima is still leaking radiation into the ocean afaik
13 from the incident alone.
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...
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...
Telomeres have been a nerd snipe (https://xkcd.com/356/) for hackers for as long as (if not longer) than Aubrey DeGrey has been claiming we're all going to live forever.
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.
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.
Ah but we do! Guns, germs, bombs.
They had me at "telomere" <3
Out of pure curiosity, what does this mean in english?
Telomeres are protective regions of DNA at the end of chromosomes. They get shorter when a cell divides and that shortening is believed to be responsible for some of the symptoms of aging.
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.
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.
Exercise is good for you.
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.
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.
What does "acute exercise" mean?
When DNA is copied the machine that does the copying must be already bound to the one of the strands of the two-stranded DNA. Physically, this means that the very first few bases of the DNA do not get copied by the machine, because the first few bases act instead as a 'handle' for the copying machine to grab onto the data. Imagine if you could not simultaneously read and copy the data of a running program, and you wanted to copy the entire running operating system (you cannot shut down a cell) - you'd have to figure out a kind of 'scratch space' to keep a few versions of the copy program that you knew you would lose during they copy operation. Over time, the amount of scratch space reserved for the DNA to use to bootstrap its copying decreases. Ultimately, if there is not enough room for the DNA copy machine to bind to DNA without actually mis-copying useful DNA (other parts of the operating system outside the scratch space), a cell will shut down and go into a stasis mode called senescence. This is one of the major causes of aging as we know it.
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.
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.
This is by far the most simplest yet lucid explanation ive read about telomeres. Thank you for writing
Nothing.
Study in mice, not replicated, touching several hype topics (teleomeres), most likely totally irrelevant.
Study in mice, not replicated, touching several hype topics (teleomeres), most likely totally irrelevant.
In other news, smoking is bad for your lungs!
"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.