07-01-20 05:50 PM - Post#899823    

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/01/well/move/ how-we-get-stronger.html?surface=home-discove ry-vi-prg&...

I am joking, but it is about a paper which studied strength development in ( only) 2 female macaques. As people here already know, you can get stronger without getting bigger.


This is a link to the NYT article. Here is the actual paper.

. https://www.jneurosci.org/content/jneuro/early/ 2020/06/29/JNEUROSCI.1923-19.2020.full.pdf

Edited by Donald123 on 07-01-20 05:54 PM. Reason for edit: No reason given.

07-01-20 06:46 PM - Post#899824    

interesting comment on the article which seems right to me:

"These experimental results, while interesting, fail to significantly add to information already well-known by exercise physiologists and trainers, and they were conducted at the cost of significant pain and suffering in these monkeys. The monkeys underwent multiple invasive brain surgeries in which the skin and muscles of their heads were cut into and a part of the skull was removed in order to insert electrodes into their brains. Additionally, they were fitted with headpieces that were surgically attached to their skulls to hold them immobile during the experiments, and they were killed at the end of these experiments. It's high time that we stop glorifying curiosity based experiments that cause unjustified animal suffering and take a critical look at how we treat other sentient beings."

07-02-20 12:54 AM - Post#899837    

Thanks—I didn’t see that. I only skimmed the NYT article.

I didn’t realize that the experiment was this cruel and I agree that it shouldn’t have been done.

07-03-20 11:38 AM - Post#899896    

Believe it or not, animals are better protected under the law in research than humans.

07-03-20 05:49 PM - Post#899904    

• MrDave100 Said:

Except, they are allowed to be killed at the end of the experiments. I don't mind if there's a significant benefit to humans that cannot be obtained in other ways, but not sure it was worth it in this case ...

Easy strength for monkeys
07-08-20 07:39 PM - Post#900108    

They should put the dead monkey bodies to good use after their experimenting's done. Sure, maybe stuffed chimp toys with very shocked looks on their faces.

"You been bumming me smokes for months and now you're gonna do what?"

Life's too short to worry about longevity.

Edited by Neander on 07-08-20 07:40 PM. Reason for edit: No reason given.

Re: Easy strength for monkeys
07-09-20 03:10 AM - Post#900121    

• Neander Said:

hahahahaha

'You can throw in the towel or use it to wipe the sweat off your face and keep going' 'Well ain't this place a geographical oddity? Two weeks from everywhere.' Ulysses Everett McGill

07-09-20 10:19 AM - Post#900136    

The NY Times has this up today, too.

How did I know this before this study?

Nervous System THEN Hormonal Cascade.

I have known this for decades. Is this common knowledge or is this something I knew with my intuition?

Daniel John Just handing down what I was handed down... Make a Difference. Live. Love. Laugh. Balance work, rest, play and pray (enjoy beauty and solitude) Sleep soundly. Drink Water. Eat veggies and protein. Walk. Wear your seat belt. Don’t smoke. Floss your teeth. Put weights overhead. Pick weights off the floor. Carry weights. Reread great books. Say thank you

07-13-20 11:56 PM - Post#900271    

• Dan John Said:

Do we know how you know that you know?

I don't know

I feel a bit uneasy about animal studies (although also, I eat meat). But I think there's room to push back a little bit on the "we already know this" argument... without going to the paper itself (or the extant literature) a lot of science is about fleshing out specifics rather than broad proof of concept. So, specifically where do these neural effects take place, how much, under what conditions...

07-14-20 09:57 AM - Post#900278    

• Dan Christensen Said:

And a lot of science is: “everyone on earth already know this, but you and I don’t fully understand the forty billion variables affecting the process, Dr. Jones, so let’s tweak one of them and watch nothing happen, then publish an article about it and apply for a new NSF grant.”

The scientific method isn’t holy. It’s only useful insofar as good questions are asked.

07-14-20 10:24 AM - Post#900280    

I'd note that far more science than currently happens actually SHOULD be stuff we already 'know'.

The point of it is that results need to be replicable which means they need to be, you know, replicated.

ESPECIALLY in exercise science (and actually, it's worse in psychology) this doesn't happen as much as it probably should.

07-14-20 01:00 PM - Post#900291    

That’s a great point and an extremely important insight.