I like coffee, but this is relatable.
Exercise is key!
Meta Platforms ($META) CEO Mark Zuckerberg has said he avoids coffee and caffeine, preferring to maintain his energy without relying on stimulants.
Zuckerberg has described caffeine and similar substances as āchemicalsā that can interfere with how his body naturally operates.
Instead of using coffee to power through long workdays, he focuses more heavily on exercise, sleep and maintaining a consistent routine.
The approach stands out in the technology industry, where coffee and energy drinks are often closely associated with long hours and demanding schedules.
Zuckerberg has emphasized physical activity as an important part of staying focused and energized, incorporating regular workouts into his routine.
His habits reflect a broader preference for managing energy through lifestyle choices rather than temporary boosts from stimulants.
For professionals accustomed to relying on caffeine, Zuckerbergās routine highlights an alternative approach centered on fitness, consistency and managing energy levels more deliberately.
The broader takeaway is that productivity does not necessarily require more stimulation. For Zuckerberg, maintaining performance appears to be more about how he structures his body and routine throughout the day.
K retweeted
Losing body fat is good for health. But there is a side of it that rarely gets mentioned.
Many pollutants we pick up from the environment, like older pesticides and industrial chemicals called organochlorines, dissolve in fat. Once they are in the body, they get stored in fat tissue and can stay there for years.
When fat is broken down for energy during weight loss, some of these stored chemicals come back out into the blood.
In one study, adults with obesity followed a reduced-calorie diet for 15 weeks. Afterward, every organochlorine the researchers detected was higher in the blood. The more weight people lost, the bigger the rise.
Another study looked at people who lost weight by dieting or after bariatric surgery. Blood levels of these chemicals went up in both groups. A year after surgery, people had lost nearly half their body weight, and total levels in the blood had risen almost fivefold. The rise matched how much weight was lost.
This matters because these chemicals aren't harmless. A separate study found that people with higher amounts of certain stored pesticides in their fat had a greater risk of developing metabolic problems over 10 years.
This is not a reason to avoid losing weight. In a sense, fat tissue has been doing a protective job by keeping these chemicals away from more sensitive organs. And researchers still don't know whether the temporary rise in the blood causes long-term harm.
If someone is losing a large amount of weight, especially quickly, it's worth knowing that what was stored in their fat doesn't simply disappear. It passes through the blood on the way out.
š¤ Made with AI
K retweeted
Last year, several of you pointed me to Over the Garden Wall, Patrick McHale's 2014 Cartoon Network series. It's ten short episodes about two brothers lost in a dark wood on Halloween. It turns out to be one of the most complete explorations of the in-between I've seen in pop culture, closer to the first canto of Dante than you'd expect from a cartoon. In this video (link below) I discuss the symbolism in the show. Please note that it contains spoilers.
K retweeted
This paper answers why you can't think straight even when you're not touching your phone.
Researchers from UT Austin and UC San Diego published a paper that explains every unfinished task, every reread paragraph, and every afternoon that vanished.
It's called "Brain Drain."
they took 520 people and gave them tests of memory and problem solving.
the only difference was where their phone was.
on the desk, face down. in their pocket or bag. or in another room.
every phone was on silent. no buzzing. no notifications.
And the results are wild.
the people whose phones were in another room did significantly better than the people whose phones sat face down on the desk.
the closer the phone, the worse they scored.
then they ran it again and made half of them turn their phones completely off.
it didn't matter.
off and face down on the desk still drained the brain.
the paper revealed a brutal paradox:
most people said they weren't thinking about their phone at all.
75.9% said its location didn't affect their performance "at all."
they were wrong.
your brain spends energy just to not pick it up. a quiet, constant effort to ignore the most interesting object in the room.
that effort comes from the same tank you use to think.
and the more dependent people were on their phones, the bigger the hit.
you are not distracted because you're weak.
you are distracted because the most powerful attention machine ever built is sitting three inches from your hand.
the fix is almost insultingly simple.
put it in another room.
K retweeted
Cell phone addiction is an absolute thermonuke to the brain and nobody 'takes it seriously' because it is not clear that there is any solution in a world where the revealed preference of everyone across the globe, regardless of income, race, age, any factor whatsoever, would rather be on their phone than do *anything* else. Deciding "I use this too much" and meaningfully altering one's behaviour doesn't seem to have much success for any of the very small minority of people with the sentience or self-reflection to realize how bad it is. Most people seem to think of it as an unproductive habit at most, rather than an addiction. Any attempt to speak seriously about this is met with derision, accusations of pretentiousness. There is no real solution to it. The future of human cognition fifty years down the line is horrifying if you stop and think about it for even a moment.
@FCisnotScience @FCisnotComm
I came across an interview with FC proponent Joe Infranco promoting his book. In the interview, he said he was open to debating someone from ASHA. I wonder if this offer might be open to any FC critic.
K retweeted
We've had some comments about the Clever Hans effect and comparing people to horses. Maybe this blog post will help:
facilitatedcommunication.orgā¦
Genetic potential certainly plays a role in something developing into what it is.
Environments will help, hinder, provoke and facilitate change.
This is a good point of response. Still, we cannot ignore the current landscape of young people continuing to grow up under the influence of tech devices and social media. The answer lies in the development.
There is an important point hereābut also a false dichotomy.
Problematic social-media use can produce or amplify inattention, and clinicians absolutely should ask about it before labeling every distracted young person with ADHD.
But demonstrating an environmental contribution does not disprove a neurodevelopmental one.
The relationship may also be bidirectional: an attentionally vulnerable brain may be especially attracted to rapid-reward digital environments, while those environments may further impair attention.
The real clinical question isnāt āADHD or TikTok?ā
It is: What is producing this particular personās inattentionāand what is maintaining it?
Our diagnostic categories are maps. Biologyāand environmentāare the territory.
Indeed. After I was given an ADHD diagnosis a few years ago, I started to wonder what was really true and what was really to blame. I heard from friends and acquaintances who were diagnosed both before and after me, and I couldn't help but wonder about factors of social contagion
This is creepy as hell.
I suppose it's easy for people to write this off as a problem of mental illness because accepting the possibility of such a degree of invasiveness from technology / weaponry is a scary thought indeed.
It's interesting coming from a religious background where you are taught to "follow the spirit" (i.e., you are trained to listen for the "still small voice") who will give you spiritual promptings (i.e., thoughts and impressions) about any number of things.
It's a weird world we live in where people can go crazy.
But what is making people go crazy?
Magical thinking?
Deception?
Infiltration?
Denial?
I've noticed this in past conversations with a few people. I wonder what underlying philosophical / spiritual beliefs are to blame.
Is it a misapprehension of what technology is, of what certain technologies or tools are?
A few notes about The Lord of the Rings that people suddenly seem to be misrepresenting:
The One Ring is NOT "just a tool"
It was infused with the evil of the being that crafted it
The only way to deal with it is to completely destroy it
youtu.be/WoIgX-i2hSs?t=460
I haven't read the Catcher in the Rye, but this review is telling. Phoniness, disillusionment, resistance to the norms of a decaying societyāthese are is relatable themes.
youtu.be/GF64afzlAQ0?si=irupā¦
