>Analysis showed that 65.6% of women who took extra Vitamin D had a spontaneous vaginal delivery, or “natural” delivery, compared to 57.9% in the placebo group.

That would be a much better title.

The current title is almost meaningless.

Doesn't really say what's the cause. Is it because isolation causes increased heart failure, or is it because because they are less likely to be helped or taken to hospital since there is no-one to help them.

>Unfortunately I could not see that the study controlled for that.

We have hundreds if not thousands of studies around weight, fat gain and calories.

There is no reason to think that this situation is magically different than RCT on the subject.

Metabolism isn't going to be able to explain the difference. It's just the calories consumed by boys hasn't reduced that much.

Why is the half-life different when a neutron bound in a nuclei?

They try and make it seem really clear cut for example they say this is misinformation

>It is safe to eat fruits and vegetables that have been washed with soap or diluted bleach

But I found this suggesting it's fine.

>In addition to sanitizing food contact surfaces, chlorine bleach
>
>solutions may be used for sanitizing raw fruits and vegetables during
>
>the washing or peeling process
>
>https://ucfoodsafety.ucdavis.edu/sites/g/files/dgvnsk7366/files/inline-files/26437.pdf

>Can you diet and exercise your way out of a gene that causes cholesterol management problems?

Diet and exercise are arguably even more important for people with these genes.

Interesting, it seems to line up with the fact exercise and good diet, are linked to lower cholesterol levels are also linked to lower dementia risk/symptoms.

Exercise was more effective than all medicines tested.

>For the AD portrait, the top three scoring treatments for reversing AD expression with little effect on exacerbating AD expression were for exercise.

From <https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-22179-z#Sec2>

Exercise is associated with lower dementia risk.

>These data suggest that aerobic exercise is associated with a reduced risk of cognitive impairment and dementia; it may slow dementing illness.
>
>https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3258000/

Diet is associated with lower levels of dementia.

>In this 20-year follow-up study, neither adherence to conventional dietary recommendations nor to modified Mediterranean diet were significantly associated with subsequent reduced risk for developing all-cause dementia, AD dementia, VaD or AD-pathology. https://n.neurology.org/content/early/2022/10/12/WNL.0000000000201336>

>MIND diet, a hybrid of the Mediterranean diet and the Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension diet, is associated with a slower cognitive decline and lower risk of Alzheimer’s disease (AD) dementia in older adults.
>
>https://content.iospress.com/articles/journal-of-alzheimers-disease/jad210107

While some people experience a short term high, your brain requires exercise to work and function properly.

So if you aren't exercising that means your brain isn't working properly, which may surface in mental illness such as depression.

So I suspect that doing some exercise get's your brain working properly, hence being a more permanent fix to some mental health issues.

Just set a nice minimum to do. So if you just can't bring yourself to do a really long session at the gym miles away, then decide to just do a 10min jog, or 5min walk, or 10 burpees, etc.

Get yourself in the habit of doing just a bit of exercise each day.

>I find it hard to believe that moving rigorously for a while completely alters your mental state.

You brain requires exercise to work properly. If you aren't exercising then your brain isn't working properly. It's not a big jump to go from brain not working properly and poor mental state.

I like to think of it like this. Your brain is just another body part and needs exercise to work and function properly.

If you aren't exercising then your brain isn't working properly, and it might in fact be impossible for any amount of therapy/drugs to make you better.

So even if you don't get any direct change in mental state, you should be exercising in order to get it working properly. You are then in a much better position for other treatments to work.

This study is just more evidence of the benefits of exercise. Other studies show that exercise is just as effective as medicine.

>Four trials (n = 300) compared exercise with pharmacological treatment and found no significant difference (SMD -0.11, -0.34, 0.12). From https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24026850/

>But given two competing unfalsified theories, what we call "true" is given by simplicity considerations.

Sounds like some weird philosophical definition of "true" rather than anything anyone in science would understand.

>I always feel it isn't quite right to say that Newtonian physics is wrong.

I like to use Newtonian physics as an example of how new physics doesn't mean the previous theory was "wrong". In the low speed limit the Einstein equations for special relativity just become the Newtonian equations.

So in the low speed limit in which Newtonian equations of motion were tested, they are "right".

>Find a study that says that sleeping pills are better for you than a glass of wine

Neither are good, both are depressants and have a negative impact on sleep.

CBT is the go to treatment and has the best results compared to sleeping pills.

Studies show there is no amount of alcohol that is healthy.

Also alcohol interferes with sleep. So it's actually bad to use alcohol as a sleep aid, since it reduces the quality of sleep.

Sleep is completely different than just being unconscious. In some stages of sleep your brain is more active than when you are awake, so taking a depressant which reduces brain activity negatively interferes with sleep.

Doing static stretches before a workout has been show to be bad.

Also I don't think there is any evidence that limbering will reduce muscle soreness.

I mean by definition, or experiment if you squeeze the air out of a plastic bottle the volume would reduce. I would post a picture, but seriously pretty much every person who has every interacted with a plastic bottle would know that squeezing it would reduce the volume.

Are you a real person or are you some kind Chat GPT AI that has never actually touched a plastic bottle?

Edit: I'm tempted to post a LPT about how you shouldn't bother engaging with people who don't think the volume in a plastic bottle reduces if you squeeze the air out of it.

Edit 2: Just do the experiment, empty two bottle half way, squeeze the air out of one so there is pretty much no air/space left. Leave for a few days then see if there is any difference in fizziness.

Edit 3: Evidence the the volume reduces when you squeeze the air out https://qph.cf2.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-3d07ddd8eb1f5d84fb83848a9bdc144f.webp

>The CO2 doesn't go "into the air" it goes "out of the soda"

If there is no where for it to go to, then it can't go "out of the soda". Are you suggesting it goes into the plastic bottle? But then how do unopened bottle of soda stay fizzy?

>If you placed that in an open vacuum with no air at all it would go flat even faster because of the pressure differentiall.

How the hell is there an open vacuum if they have squeezed out the air?

>Squeezing a bottle didn't reduce its volume

Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you mean but squeezing a bottle reduces the volume. Just try squeezing a bottle to remove the air and tell me how the volume hasn't reduced.

Just post a picture of a bottle you have squeezed, removing the air that has the same volume.

I think I agree with pretty much everything you said, but it seems like that supports the idea of removing any air or space for the CO2 to escape to.

By squeezing out the air you are effectively removing the volume of 1 atmosphere pressure for the CO2 to escape to. With the extreme case you are effectively increasing the atmospheric pressure to many magnitudes/infinite.

>The gas still inside the soda is going to continue coming out of solution until it reaches equilibrium with the pressure in the bottle but a lot more gas will have to come out before that happens because there is less air inside the bottle to begin with.

Go out to where? It's gong to have to overcome the pressure of the physical bottle, which is going to be way over 1.

Let's use the example of a metal bottle, how does a drink go flat in a metal bottle without any air in it? You don't even need a metal bottle, just use a normal unopened bottle, how does a normal bottle of coke go flat? It doesn't since there is only a tiny amount of air for the CO2 to go into.

What's your explanation for how an unopened bottle of coke doesn't go flat?

I'm pretty sure that it would prevent the drink from going flat, based on my knowledge of chemistry.

Please can you explain why you don't think it would help.

Your body has various clocks and mechanism. So various hormones such as melatonin and just stuff like temperature control your circadian rhythm.

Basically you have biological clocks that control you.

Like mechanical clocks, it's not perfect and can drift and get longer.

So your body uses things like getting bright light in the morning, exercise, meal times, lack of bright light in the evening, etc. to set and calibrate your circadian rhythm.

I'm sure there are other definitions, but I use something like free will is about "the ability to make voluntary actions in line with your desires free from external coercion/influence".

Free will is key in morality and justice, so I like to understand how the courts define and use it. Lets use a real life example of how the Supreme Court considers free will.

&#x200B;

>It is a principle of fundamental justice that only voluntary conduct – behaviour that is the product of a free will and controlled body, unhindered by external constraints – should attract the penalty and stigma of criminal liability.
>
>https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/1861/index.do

In the case of R. v. Ruzic

>The accused had been coerced by an individual in Colombia to smuggle cocaine into the United States. He was told that if he did not comply, his wife and child in Colombia would be harmed.

The Supreme Court found that he didn't smuggle the cocaine of his own free will. He didn't do it in line with his desires free from external coercion. Hence he was found innocent.

&#x200B;

Compare that to the average case of smuggling where someone wants to make some money and isn't coerced into doing it. If they smuggle drugs then they did it of their own "free will" and would likely be found guilty.

You can also see how the courts aren't using the libertarian definition in Powell v Texas, where they tried a defence that it wasn't of their own free will since they were an alcoholic. While this argument shows they didn't have libertarian freewill, they did have compatibilist free will, hence they were found guilty.

So even if you are a hard determinist, you would need to use this idea around coercion(that the courts call free will). Even if you don't use free will by name you would have to use the concept.

>If I have to choose between one evil and another, then I prefer not to choose at all.”

Isn't this essentially the Trolly problem, If a trolly was going to kill a thousand people then Geralt wouldn't pull the switch to kill one person instead.

&#x200B;

Also I hate the use of torture. It kind of suggest through the backdoor that torture works. It's a framing where it makes it look like torture could be morally good, but in fact it's an impossible hypothetical.

>should a political leader order the torture of a terrorist in order to find out the location of a series of bombs that will harm innocent citizens?

&#x200B;

>For utilitarians (the specific targets of Williams’s critique), it doesn’t matter that Jim has to kill someone—what matters is that either twenty people will die, or one will die, and it is far better that only one dies. Williams’s point was that it clearly does matter, especially to Jim, that to secure this optimal state of affairs Jim has to kill somebody.

I'm not sure it's a valid criticism of utilitarianism. If no-one would want to live in a world where they had to kill someone then that would be taken into account into any utilitarian calculations. Although I think most people would rather someone live with the guilt of killing than having more dead people.

&#x200B;

>Even if there is something noble about Geralt’s desire to avoid getting his hands dirty,

I don't think there is anything Nobel about Geralt’s position, it's just small minded and selfish.