Reistance training — moreso than cardiovascular exercise — can improve sleep quality and duration. Both have significant effects on daytime mood and cognition. A good exercise program incorporates both resistance and cardiovascular exercise.
It's important to keep cortisol low, and over-exercise can cause cortisol to spike – as does depression in general, hence the sleeping difficulties many depressed people experience. Likely that's why resistance training and HIIT are more helpful in this case as there is less built up of stress hormones.
I've been diagnosed with moderate to severe depression, and I'm a trial runner and do CrossFit. It's a balancing act to find strength and feeling capable through sport without increasing insomnia and early waking, likely because of cortisol spikes.
Sport does more for me than antidepressants, which have little effect than making me feel tired all the time. I've gone through a whole battery of them with little success and I've become quite critical of them. But I'm lucky to generally like sport and eat pretty healthily; I can imagine for others that can be an extra stressor they really don't need.
Thanks this is new to me (I'm mostly a cardio guy), didnt' know there was any difference in sleep quality/duration between cardio and lifting. They both help sleep btw it just turns out according to recent research resistance training helps more.
Both are need though for a healthy lifestyle and I think cardio is actually more accessible for most people; I'm gonna count brisk walking as cardio for most people and that's the most accessible type of excercise everyone but the extremely debilitated can do.
I don’t like anecdotal evidence, but for myself I was running regularly but still experiencing suboptimal sleep. I started resistance training again and my sleep immediately got better.
I'm down with that , resistance training is clearly good. Cardio is also clearly good (both groups had better sleep than the group that didn't do any cardio). People should just do something, even walking birskly. We should all simply try to move and/or lift things.
Great comment. I had forgotten how much better things were in terms of visual indicators. Slick looking design should never come at the expense of usability.
The gobbledygook you posted, “ properties get leveraged, instrumentalized, and securitized, with derivative products, speculation, and all sorts of incentives that you don't normally want operating in the arena of housing”, is just that, gobbledygook.
Just because a buyer as Inc. behind its name doesn’t give it magical powers to set market prices.
If you think it does, then please explain it to us like we are really slow.
It’s not gobbledygook. I think for most people it’s hard to grasp the scale of the entire industries outside of their area of professional expertise so you can look at some numbers here:
Finally, basic preventative health care — at least for children — could save more than it costs when we take into account the overall economic effects of poor health outcomes. We should consider making it an entitlement.
If medical care is a for-profit industry, wouldn't it be in their interest to reduce preventative care, especially for children, so they will have overall greater health care needs (and bills!) later on?
Individual doctors and nurses etc may very well want people to get good treatment, especially children. But they are just the hired labor, the owners of the medical services and insurance industries just want the money and so likely lobby for the worse outcomes. It also has the bonus of further tying people to their employers who offer health plans making them more pliant workers.
No, health insurers are motivated to keep their premium payers healthy and have a long track record of funding programmes to improve the health of the population. Think about how insurance works. Where I live they paid for the creation of outdoor gyms.
> Individual doctors and nurses etc may very well want people to get good treatment, especially children
It's individual doctors and nurses who are most incentivized to over-treat. They make more money the more healthcare is consumed. It's insurers who have an incentive to keep healthcare costs under control. A big part of the reason US health insurance is so expensive compared to the rest of the world is that Americans stage a massive freakout every time insurers try to control costs. It's a cultural thing and done by both Democrats and Republicans, look at how they call the UK's NICE committee a "death panel".
You realize it would cost a significant resources to make the “accommodations” you are suggesting? Money, despite what you may believe, doesn’t grow on trees. Given the range of worthy competing interests where the money could be spent, the university likely had no practical choice but to take it offline, lest it face the bad press and wrath of Progressives.
You remind me of people who insist every single new apartment must be ADA compliant instead of a reasonable percentage throughout the city. Another example is banning SROs on the grounds they are “inhumane”. The moral purity results in less housing and forcing people to live in the cars or on the street.
Our society is better when the things that are available are available to everyone, not just the privileged. I don't see why accommodations for the disabled are considered some unnecessary burden; they should be considered a cost of doing business, for everyone who does business.
This wasn't business. There were no profits to divert into making better subtitles.
And the ratio of effort between making a recording versus making a recording and then manually subtitling it is completely out of whack compared to the ratio you have in full produced works. There's a reasonable level of accommodation, and the reasonable level is below a doubling in costs.
I'm someone that would significantly raise the subtitling requirements on youtube if I could. But in this case I just don't feel it.
I shouldn't have used the term "business," because that made people think that I was referring more to economics instead of "doing the right thing even when the right thing is slightly more expensive." Look, UC Berkeley is a public university and they have to adhere to certain rules around disabilities and accommodations. It's well established law at this point; the ADA is 35 years old. They should know this, and they should be able to comply. To take down the videos suggests laziness and ignorance on Berkeley's part.
> doing the right thing even when the right thing is slightly more expensive
And that's why I made the argument that it wasn't slightly more expensive. It's possible it would have cost more to add subtitles than the entire rest of the project combined.
I think it's fair to mandate subtitles when there's a certain level of budget. I don't think it's a good idea to unconditionally mandate subtitles.
> UC Berkeley is a public university and they have to adhere to certain rules
In their normal course of action. I don't think this side project was plugged in to the core tasks of the university.
Shutting it down counts as lazy but what do you want a project with minimal budget to do?
We're not shaming other universities for not putting courses online. We're only shaming one that did it "badly" and then gave up. That's unfair. Every other university that doesn't fund similar subtitles and uploads should get the same reaction.
And by "badly" I mean it still had okay subtitles, just not particularly good ones.
reply