I really wish for the executives pushing AI to be sentenced for life!

Right on! Best of luck to you

Again no pressure or expectations or anything, just throwing some stuff out there for whoever may be curious - The basic thing with exercise selection is you want to make sure “the big six” are represented somewhere in your routine each week. These are movement patterns, and not specific exercises with specific implements (you could use bodyweight, or dumbbells, or barbells, or a machine, or rig up one of your resistance bands, or a bucket of water, or a big rock, etc.)

The big six are namely:

Horizontal push (like a bench press, or a chest fly, or pushups)

Horizontal pull (like a seated row)

Vertical push (like an overhead press)

Vertical pull (like pull-ups, or lat pulldowns)

Squat (like goblet squats, or lunges)

Hinge (like deadlifts, RDLs, back extensions, or hip thrusts)

There’s really about a thousand ways to set up for each of these! You’ll notice that any “proven” program you find online will have something from each category. You probably also want to add some core (crunches, leg lifts) and some cardio like the other user suggested. Stuff like bicep curls, leg extensions, and other single joint isolation movements are great if you want to focus a particular area. Not a huge priority though if you’re tight on time

The main thing is, whatever the specific exercises you end up going with - you want these movements to be performed safely, but at the same time still be quite challenging, so make sure to carefully check a technique video if you have any doubts. You also want a way to “scale” the movement over time as you get stronger

Rule of thumb is you want to aim for a resistance you can perform at least ten repetitions with, and when you get strong enough to where you can do like 17 or 18 reps then increase the resistance a little bit and start the process over. Most people will notice this process starts to slow down a lot after a year or two - there’s really no pressure to keep chasing higher numbers after this point unless you just really love pushing yourself!

Oh, and you also probably want to perform 2 or 3 sets of each exercise before moving on to the next.

There’s tons of valid ways to progress but this one is pretty foolproof. After a few months, if you’re very confident with a movement pattern you can start using heavier rep ranges like 8-12 or 6-10. Or you can go lighter if it’s more convenient for your setup. Pretty much any rep range works between 5 and 30

And yeah for food basically just get your veggies, reasonable amount of carbs and fats, and shoot for a decent protein goal, usually like 70-100g per day is plenty, it’s okay to go higher though if that feels better. Eat a little more or a little less food overall if you want your weight to go up or down. Be really really really careful with any nutritional suggestions that are more complicated than that. There’s an unlimited amount of scammers out there, unfortunately, who will try to sell you on various schemes

Definitely, yeah you didn’t say anything wrong! I just try to aim for max clarity on the point. I hear frequently from trainees IRL and people on various forums that they thought they didn’t need to train lower body because it was already covered by running or whatever.

It’s become a pet peeve of mine so I try to nip it in the bud whenever possible!

Cardio is good for almost everyone (ramp into it slowly if it’s been many years!). I would note however that while the benefits overlap, they are not the same. I focus my outreach on resistance training (anaerobic exercise) primarily because it’s often overlooked and misunderstood. I would hope nobody walks away from this thinking they can do either resistance training or sessions on an exercise bike and achieve all the same health outcomes

Not sure if you’re genuinely asking at the end there, but you’re probably not doing anything wrong!

As someone who is not a doctor (check with one and go with what they say): you’re at the age where sarcopenia starts accelerating rapidly. And from your description it sounds like the most likely cause for your symptoms. It affects basically everyone so this is somewhat of a safe assumption

The good news is you can pretty much totally reverse all the effects with resistance training and a couple diet changes to support your training. What we’ve found is that many people even up into their 80’s can be restored to strength similar to that of an average (untrained) 30 year old. Which is a supermassive win in terms of quality of life and independence

The bad news is that about 90% of people hear “exercise and eat healthy” and just roll their eyes like it’s a cliché, unobtainable ideal that everyone knows they should do but nobody does. Or they think they are already doing it, but they don’t realize they need resistance training specifically. It’s also common for people to believe they have somehow “missed the boat” on training because they aren’t twenty anymore (I’ve even heard 28 year olds say this).

But the therapeutic dose for training is very attainable. Don’t need to become a gym bro. Don’t need to obsess over gains. Like 2x a week, one hour each, could probably get it done in 40 mins once you really know what you’re doing. And it’s very worth doing, you get back the time investment about tenfold just from the increase in energy

But yeah, just wanted to throw it out there for you or for anybody feeling the same way who might end up thinking they want to give training a chance! For disclosure I am a trainer at a local gym but I don’t have an online service or anything to sell on lemmy. As such I’m happy to answer any questions and offer suggestions on how to get started

Can you elaborate on the coffee soda? Is that just if you mix coffee and soda?

That’s not just a fabulous insight, it’s a powerful revelation!

My tag for them is “Biologist Whisperer”, I like yours better tho lmao. I can only imagine the context

It’s comedic actually, your “literally all of biology” is exposed as being an indefensible fringe whack job, and you hand wave it away without further comment. I guess this was always the road you were destined to take, as with all pseudo-intellectual hucksters who are incapable of providing receipts

As for your continued inflexible adamance that there are perfectly binary biological absolutes, you are almost too dense to believe lol. They even have a graph that explains it for you. I can appreciate the low effort nature of how you are trying to save face with ctrl+f, but at some point scientific integrity demands you actually sit down to understand a topic, rather than just draw transphobic constellations over individual sentences

Since we are apparently moving now to our closing arguments by addressing our readers, against all odds, we have ended up in agreement. I also encourage readers to go check out the drivel you posted for themselves. The morons seeking a safe space in their little right wing echo chamber will be thrilled to hear their beliefs uncritically asserted at them, and anyone with a brain will be equally amused at how badly the author humiliates himself both in the paper and elsewhere online.

I’m glad we were able to conclude things so amicably, enjoy your holiday weekend (if you happen to be an American)!

Most humiliating trash I’ve ever read, thank you! A ridiculous and indecipherable attempt at science. He randomly states nonsense circular reasoning without citation, and he also frequently cites random non-scientific opinion fluff articles from transphobes. How bizarre.

Ah, and wouldn’t you know it. The author is an explicitly transphobic right wing podcaster, who prattles on endlessly about the “social contagion” of “transgenderism” and cries like a little baby about how he has been “unfairly” excluded from the broader scientific community.

In conclusion - because you may need this spelled out for you - a single error ridden opinion piece by a discredited loser does not invalidate the overwhelming consensus of experts. By literal whining self proclamation his views are unrepresentative of the consensus of experts.

My intuition was obviously correct all along, but thank you for proving definitively that your views amount to nothing more than 100% science themed transphobic propaganda.

Where are you sourcing that from?

Literally the meta analysis I already linked. The consensus of experts is that gametes are bimodal. You should try listening to scientists if you care so much about science lol

Apologies for the confusion, I am not accusing you personally of participating in the previous wave of transphobic remarks

I am explaining to you that you are the result of their talking points. Quite literally. Similar to how widespread homophobia evolved into more focussed transphobia in recent times as homosexuality became obviously less acceptable. (All of the exact same talking points that used to apply to gay people now are used for trans people (they’re violent, they’re going after your kids, etc.))

So when I say “you now concede”, this is not to imply that your point of view has per se personally changed, but rather to highlight the absurdity of the history of your point (absolutist biological binaries) in the context from which it came.

What was once immutably “literally the field of biology” (XX & XY) was in the course of this modern conversation openly conceded, only for you to use the same incorrect logic to assert a new so called immutable truth. It is the latest in a long chain of “immutable truths” that have been disproven.

If you incorrectly believe you are not a part of that chain, it is because you don’t realize your “truth” was not delivered to you by scientists, but by transphobes. Biologists were confused and surprised when this new discourse took off.

Your point is invalid because you’re talking about how sex came to be.

bzzzzzt wrong! This is the type of stuff I’m talking about lol. You see “evolutionary biologists” (and I assume skip over half the other words I say? Baffling) and you assume we are discussing the distant past. Evolution hasn’t stopped. Literally the first sentence of my original post cements the reality that people are born today which defy your “UNBREAKABLE LAWS OF BIOLOGY”, yet are categorized incorrectly. By you. Because you have no idea what you’re talking about

Why is it so favored?

Literally go look at the meme again lol. Your perspective is totally backwards. You’re asking the wrong questions. It’s like saying the ocean only contains water. We show you the fish and you say “Irrelevant; fish are mostly made of water.”

It’s nonsensical. To its core. I hope one day you grow capable of turning back from the path you now walk.

p.s. here’s what real biologists are saying, btw. It’s the complete opposite of what you’re saying. Found that very interesting. Have fun cherry picking!

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37156506/

There’s no “you openly concede”

Listen buddy, you’ve obviously had a busy couple of days with your science themed transphobic tirade, so I understand it can be hard to remember all the things you yourself wrote. I know it might feel like a lifetime has passed, but this is actually you from only from two comments ago:

Sex is *determined* in humans by chromosomes (and is rather messy, as you note).

Look at you. You were so young. It feels like just yesterday you were openly conceding that chromosomal arrangement is not binary, but rather, “messy”

Then, given your ridiculous non sequitur dismissal of my point, I’m willing to accept that perhaps you simply misunderstood what I wrote, similar to how you misunderstand “literally the entire field of biology”.

Out of curiosity, do you assume nobody on this website is or is friends with a biologist?

I agree, and actually I noted the similar effects of social media on people’s minds in general.

Right like at the most fundamental level, the main issue lies not in the inherent nature of a tool but in how it’s applied. Just as you noted with video content, you can either rot your mind with shorts or prune your algorithm to do amazing things for you like help you learn an instrument.

When you view tools merely as an input/output system like this, the nature of the tool itself is not relevant. There would be utterly no difference in this case between performing a standard web query, or having an llm collate links for you.

Given this, the question then becomes, “well, is it actually possible for AI be used in an equivalently responsible manner?”

My contention is that it is not, and the people using it for these purposes (including yourself) are incorrect about the nature of the output they think they are achieving. For example, it’s been established that AI use worsens worker productivity in general. Their numbers literally get worse, and we can also see the truth of these studies manifest in the sweeping failure of every company everywhere to realize any financial benefit from the adoption of AI tools.

The crazy thing is that these very same people will often incorrectly report that their productivity has in fact improved. Really think about for a minute. Their numbers are worse as a matter of material fact, but they believe they are working more efficiently than ever before, sometimes by ridiculous margins of 50% or more.

With that in mind, now consider what may be happening to you if you rely on AI for immeasurable things. If you rely on it to organize information, for example, with the goal of becoming well informed and making good decisions. You claim to know when it’s leading you astray, and can course correct, but…are you sure that merely being sure about that is sufficient to protect you? (Since fallacies are on the mind today, check out the toupee fallacy).

To me, demonization has nothing to do with it. When a new drug comes to market I am skeptical. As information comes to light I accept or reject it based on that information. This process is what helps us differentiate between beneficial new drugs (like Ozempic is turning out to be) or complete scams like a recent workout pill that shall remain unnamed that, despite heavy marketing, ultimately does nothing besides causing liver failure down the road. Of note: despite being proven to do nothing, there are countless anecdotes of people trying it who reported amazing additional gains in the gym.

Just be careful out there, is all I’m saying. To be honest you don’t appear particularly brain rotted to me at the moment. Hopefully this admission absolves me somewhat of the aura of self fulfilling prophecy in that regard. My hostility in general is not directed at a particular “flag” (such as AI use, political affiliation, consumer habits, and so on) but at dishonesty and the absence of integrity when discussing them. If we sacrifice these things, we have no protection whatsoever from those who seek to scam us, as they can trivially exploit us using whatever ground we conceded

To be honest with you, at the time I literally just got the vibe they were pro AI based on their defensiveness as well as their evident inability to participate in basic conversation, which is a hallmark of AI induced enfeeblement. I went with my gut, in other words

Ah, and my gut was correct. A quick look through their posting history just from this week reveals they use AI and are looking forward to its further inclusion in Firefox. Half their comments generally are defending AI tech giants, including minimizing the environmental and privacy concerns.

My 2c on a different topic - open minded people don’t try to discredit you on a technicality while actively shoehorning you into it and ignoring your actual words. I don’t detect the faintest hint of willingness to learn, either. We’re talking about the same person?

You are factually incorrect, willfully ignoring my point, and you don’t even appear to know who you’re talking to, confusing me with an above poster in this conversation.

Your misattribution of a specific fallacy as well as your refusal to engage in the actual topic will endure as a mark of shame against you, and I will add you as yet another example in the list of pro-AI outcomes I have observed. Cheers

I am intimately familiar with the fallacy. You don’t know how to apply it. I have presupposed nothing.

You can see very clearly from the structure of my post that the brain rot I am referring to is established via anecdote. It is my direct experience. This is obviously low quality evidence by itself for the establishment of my conclusion as a broader fact, and we could absolutely go down that road and start linking to the actual cognitive decline studies if you wanted

But my ‘argument’ is simply not structured as a begging the question fallacy. I am literally saying that I have personally observed that all AI users I encounter are “wife beaters”, and am proceeding with my analogy from there

“Given that we have identified a group of wife beaters, and you dislike the term ‘wife beater’, how can we better phrase it to improve domestic abuse interventions?” Does not become a begging the question fallacy just because you disagree with the initial classification of who is a wife beater

I don’t think it is, nor do I think name dropping random fallacies without engaging with the topic makes for particularly good conversation. If you have issues with OP’s phrasing it would benefit all of us moving forward if we found a better way to talk about it, yes?

The lung capacity of smokers is deficient, yes? Is the mere fact offensive? Should we just not talk about how someone struggling to breathe as they walk up stairs is the direct result of their smoking?

What would the inoffensive way of phrasing it be?

Genuinely every single pro-AI person I’ve spoken with both irl and online has been clearly struggling cognitively. It’s like 10x worse than the effects of basic social media addiction. People also appear to actively change for the worse if they get conned into adopting it. Brain rot is apparently a symptom of AI use as literally as tooth rot is a symptom of smoking.

Speaking of smoking and vaping, on top of being bad for you objectively, it’s lame and gross. Now that that narrative is firmly established we have actually started seeing youth nicotine use decline rapidly again, just like it was before vaping became a thing

Nobody is born with a body organized around producing a third gamete size

You say that because you incorrectly categorize genetic variations as a failed attempt at one of two binary options. It’s circular reasoning. You’re looking for a binary to sort things into, so regardless of the underlying truth, you sort everything into it.

Like all smoking gun “binary” sex characteristics transphobes have honed in on over the years, we’re only talking about it because they arrived there from working backwards towards it. Just a few years ago all of these same talking points were “biological truth” regarding chromosomes (which you now openly concede are not reliable sex determinants)

A thorough investigation of gametes reveals that like everything else in biology that’s paired off, it’s bipolar in nature rather than binary (strongly gathered up into two categories but with outliers and exceptions).

Even ignoring gamete manifestation in all other species, which there is no reason to do other than to try and make a transphobic point, just among humans genetic variation occurs somewhat regularly. This is the basic principle that makes evolution possible, and it’s why other species have such insane gamete setups such that that gamete size cannot be used universally to determine sex.

Ah but I forget we’re still just talking humans. Evolutionary scientists reveal that the simple reason intermediate gamete sizes do not proliferate in our species is because they have historically been outcompeted. This fact could not be true if there were no bodies born with a third gamete type

An additional issue with this whole train of thought is the baseless presumption that normal biological variation precludes someone who was “supposed to be female” from producing the small gamete. It’s literally the meme we’re looking at in the OP: where the vast majority fits neatly into two categories, but if you were to try to work backwards from there and say everything must fit into those categories, you will have deprived yourself of even the most fundamental biological truths that describe our universe, and on a personal note, you will have deprived yourself of what makes biology beautiful.