Why I post less "science" than I used to

This blog has recently been on a bit of a simplicity kick.  I've been  pointing out how desperate we all are for novelty - because we are desperate for immediate results - and how that makes us vulnerable to all sorts of hype and fad approaches to diet and exercise.   The basics - good sleep, real food, daily activity, strength training, stand up straight - are boring but effective.

Each of these elements however also comes with a bunch of sectarianism and argument.  Sleep - in total darkness, with no electronics within 10 metres; real food - paleo or not paleo, high carb, low fat, etc etc etc; daily activity - run or don't run...if you run it better be in minimal shoes POSE style and sitting is toxic; strength training - is vital....but it needs to be SuperSlow (TM), you need to do barbell squats (!) or take note of the unique physical properties of kettlebells; posture - do you Gokhale?

I've been there with all of these trends....and am finding it harder to get as excited about any of it anymore.  I don't think there is any magic (apart from consistency on the basics.  And strength training can do wonderful things)

It doesn't mean that all this debate is not important - it is - but what is more important is simply that people do something. (and do it safely)

Anyway, that was not what I was going to write.

I wanted to point to this piece, which explains why I am less prone to posting random links to scientific abstracts than I used to be.   People throw abstracts at each other in these arguments, yet sometimes these studies do not even say what the combatants think that they do.

Hey, eff-tard with the abstract link. Yeah. You

The rate at which psuedo-information flies around has now reached epic proportions. And not in a good way.

I have been that eff-tard