Jump to content

All Activity

This stream auto-updates     

  1. Yesterday
  2. Allright, after a few days of 90s and 100s, I'm back at it. 13Sx20R in 21:11. Avg HR 116, max 145. I'm thinking it's time to start adding sets or switch to the 10-15-25-50. No promises on that last one. lol
  3. But if you insist on wearing a cloth mask, every time you wash, dry and reuse it, you make it more ineffective than when it was new. Unlike the disposable surgical masks, cloth masks are often washed and dried repeatedly and used for a prolonged period of time. However, the study on the microscopic structure of the cloth masks showed that repeated washing and drying may reduce the quality of the cloth mask, by almost 20% after four such cycles. In the light of this evidence, it may be advisable to change the cloth masks regularly rather than repeated washing. Article
  4. These guys were a little kinder than I was about the recent meta-analysis but why, oh why, can't the rest of the news coverage of COVID be even this evenhanded? What's the best way to protect yourself when you're at risk of exposure to SARS-CoV-2? It seems like a simple question, but many of the options—face masks, lockdowns, social distancing, etc.—have been politically controversial. In addition, it has been difficult for public health authorities to maintain a consistent message, given our changing state of knowledge and their need to balance things like maintaining supplies of protective equipment for health care workers. But several months into the pandemic, we've started to get a clear indication that social isolation rules are helping, providing support for those policies. So, where do we stand on the use of masks? Two recent events hint at where the evidence is running. The first involves the retraction of a paper that appeared to show that mask use was ineffective. And the second is a meta-analysis of all recent studies on the use of protective gear against SARS-CoV-2 and its relatives SARS and MERS. It finds support for a protective effect of masks—as well as eye protection—although the underlying evidence isn't as strong as we might like. Ars Technica Article
  5. He could. Im not sure he has the bug yet though. I still have to push him just to do it.
  6. Last week
  7. First time ever using a kettlebell today. I did 100 swings according to the T-Nation 10, 15, 25, 50 (then repeat) progression that SA posted. Plenty of gas left in the tank, but I wanted to see what gets sore first before I start pushing it.
  8. But he's a 15 year old boy, so somehow he'll always recover in about 8 hours and his lifts will go up 5 lbs every session like clockwork. I miss those days.
  9. I supplement B12 although my wife is on this carnivore kick. I take it from a multi usually and just ran our but I have some superfoods green drink. Shes been on about how greens are bad, oxalates and all that. Might be a good convo for the nutritional forum. I do have to control how many B vitamins I take at once, they can get me jittery. I'm not generally exhausted and need to get my sleep adjusted if I will get serious. Part of it is mental, there is a certain amount of mental energy I consume dealing with non lifting pain. I'll keep an eye on it though. Back and Bi's today. Have to say, 3 days splits work for me. I was a total wreck for 3 days so we missed our regular day but we caught up. The mental milestone for getting these done is something I never thought I'd feel again.
  10. It depends, hes only 15 so hes just learning form and reps. He working with about 55 pds flat bench and he did 40 pd seated rows today. Soon enough I imagine though :)
  11. And then there is this robust bit of "science" that made headlines today. Our search identified 172 observational studies across 16 countries and six continents, with no randomised controlled trials and 44 relevant comparative studies in health-care and non-health-care settings (n=25 697 patients). Transmission of viruses was lower with physical distancing of 1 m or more, compared with a distance of less than 1 m (n=10 736, pooled adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0·18, 95% CI 0·09 to 0·38; risk difference [RD] −10·2%, 95% CI −11·5 to −7·5; moderate certainty); protection was increased as distance was lengthened (change in relative risk [RR] 2·02 per m; pinteraction=0·041; moderate certainty). Face mask use could result in a large reduction in risk of infection (n=2647; aOR 0·15, 95% CI 0·07 to 0·34, RD −14·3%, −15·9 to −10·7; low certainty), with stronger associations with N95 or similar respirators compared with disposable surgical masks or similar (eg, reusable 12–16-layer cotton masks; pinteraction=0·090; posterior probability >95%, low certainty). Eye protection also was associated with less infection (n=3713; aOR 0·22, 95% CI 0·12 to 0·39, RD −10·6%, 95% CI −12·5 to −7·7; low certainty). Unadjusted studies and subgroup and sensitivity analyses showed similar findings. Lancet Study So let's see...they lumped effectiveness studies of fitted N95 respirators in with studies of surgical and cloth masks....although multi-ply 12-16 layer masks rather unlike the single-ply models that most people are wearing around...I can't imagine how those results might be at all misleading.... And then their exhaustive review of the available literature was unable to turn up any randomized controlled trials like this one, and this one and finally this one (repeated from above) which indicated that the use of a cloth mask resulted in a 72% higher infection rate when compared to wearing a surgical mask and led the authors to conclude: "This study is the first RCT of cloth masks, and the results caution against the use of cloth masks. This is an important finding to inform occupational health and safety. Moisture retention, reuse of cloth masks and poor filtration may result in increased risk of infection." So watch out for publishing bias, keep your distance, the further apart the better, wear goggles apparently, and if you are going to wear a mask, don't wear a cloth one.
  12. Not sure. But I really like this one. Masks reduce COVID-19 transmission...between hamsters
  13. Is this one of your articles? https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/L20-0745 Retractions2 Jun 2020 Notice of Retraction: Effectiveness of Surgical and Cotton Masks in Blocking SARS-CoV-2
  14. So how much longer until he starts out-lifting you?
  15. Allright, quickie today. Another hot few days. Felt absolutely torched while doing this. Feel pretty good, now. 13Sx20R in 21:28. Avg HR 119, Max HR 160. Started with ~sub 60 second rests, and was doing 90s by the end.
  16. Have you had your B12 levels checked?
  17. Go for that longevity, even if your masculinity challenges it. lol
  18. 14Sx20R in 22:52 today. Avg HR 127, Max HR 160. Gonna hit my shoulders today. Maybe start with KB Clean&Press and move into DBs.
  19. Started week 3, the lifts arent difficult but these flare-ups wont end. Settled on the 3 day split. It gives me a lot of time to catch up. I suppose if I ever squat again, I'll add a 4th day but I like resting in between days. I can tell my nervous system is just taxed the next day. I'm tired, anxious, just general feel shitty. Chest looked like this: Flat 3 x 8 @95pds Inc DB 3x8 @30pds DB Flies 3x8 @15pds Overhead rope pulls 3x10@30pds V-bar pull dows 3x8@30pds Training the boy is going well. So from week 1 to week 3 I've added sets and slightly increased weight. Gives me a chance to teach him different exercises.
  20. No KB today after two days in a row, decided to go for a hike. Five miles in a pine forest. Our clothing, shoes, etc, ended up covered in pollen. This is random, but for 90% of my adult life I had terrible seasonal allergies. Every year it felt like the flu. Then one year, maybe 5 years ago, it all went away.
  21. I did a low-intensity KB workout today. Sets of 20 like usual, but enforced 90 second rests (more like 80-ish). Just needed to not push it so hard or far today and probably tomorrow, too. 11 sets of 20 in 20:30. Avg HR 114 max HR 152.
  22. Based on the RCTs we would conclude that wearing facemasks can be very slightly protective against primary infection from casual community contact, and modestly protective against household infections when both infected and uninfected members wear facemasks. However, the RCTs often suffered from poor compliance and controls using facemasks. Across observational studies the evidence in favour of wearing facemasks was stronger. We expect RCTs to under-estimate the protective effect and observational studies to exaggerate it. The evidence is not sufficiently strong to support widespread use of facemasks as a protective measure against COVID-19. Preprint Systemic Review Study
  23. It looks like cloth face masks probably do almost nothing to prevent infection...reducing viral penetration only by about 3% The rates of all infection outcomes were highest in the cloth mask arm, with the rate of ILI statistically significantly higher in the cloth mask arm (relative risk (RR)=13.00, 95% CI 1.69 to 100.07) compared with the medical mask arm. Cloth masks also had significantly higher rates of ILI compared with the control arm. An analysis by mask use showed ILI (RR=6.64, 95% CI 1.45 to 28.65) and laboratory-confirmed virus (RR=1.72, 95% CI 1.01 to 2.94) were significantly higher in the cloth masks group compared with the medical masks group. Penetration of cloth masks by particles was almost 97% and medical masks 44%. Moisture retention, reuse of cloth masks and poor filtration may result in increased risk of infection. BMJ Study
  24. This is true. However, the first post in this thread had an article with a dozen or so references indicating that actual surgical face masks are generally of little value in preventing viral transmission even when used by professionals in medical settings...I have to believe that the cotton home-made masks worn by the general public are probably even less so. The second post contains an interview with a widely cited expert in respiratory protection on the utility of mask-wearing. Her conclusion, repeated here is: "I just want [people who are wearing masks] to understand that [masks] aren’t very much more protective than if they weren’t wearing them. And they’re really not doing a whole lot of good for the people around them." OSHA also provides the following guidance on surgical masks...note these are typically made of melt-blown, non-woven material that is electrostatically charged to improve the capacity to capture small particles....this is not talking about a homemade mask that someone sewed out of a cotton tshirt or a bandana. (emphasis mine) Surgical masks are used as a physical barrier to protect the user from hazards, such as splashes of large droplets of blood or body fluids. Surgical masks also protect other people against infection from the person wearing the surgical mask. Such masks trap large particles of body fluids that may contain bacteria or viruses expelled by the wearer. Surgical masks are not designed or certified to prevent the inhalation of small airborne contaminants. These particles are not visible to the naked eye but may still be capable of causing infection. Surgical masks are not designed to seal tightly against the user’s face. During inhalation, much of the potentially contaminated air can pass through gaps between the face and the surgical mask and not be pulled through the filter material of the mask. Their ability to filter small particles varies significantly based upon the type of material used to make the surgical mask, so they cannot be relied upon to protect workers against airborne infectious agents. source Data indicates that the virus that causes COVID19 is widely distributed in both droplets and airborne aerosols, even by patients wearing masks. Even the US CDC, the agency recommending "cloth face coverings" as a response to COVID19, has the following to say about surgical masks, which again, are presumably more effective than a single-ply cloth face covering : Surgical masks, on the other hand, are not specifically designed to protect the wearer from airborne hazards. These devices limit the spread of infectious particles expelled by the wearer. They are used to help protect a sterile field, such as the area surrounding the site of a surgical incision, from contamination by particles expelled by the wearer, such as those generated by coughs or sneezes. Surgical masks also help provide a physical barrier to protect the wearer from splashes, sprays, or contact with contaminated hands. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulates surgical masks. The FDA regulations do not require surgical masks to form a seal against the user’s face or to have a level of filtration that provides the user protection from aerosol exposures. source So do masks make viral transmission more likely? Probably not. Do they catch large droplets expelled from someone sneezing or coughing? Almost certainly. Do they prevent people from touching their face with their hands? Maybe....some people seem to touch their faces more when wearing a mask in order to adjust the fit. Do they prevent an asymptomatic person from exhaling aerosolized viral particles into the air around him or other people from breathing in the same particles breathed out by others? IOW, do they protect me from you or you from me if neither of us is coughing or sneezing? No. Do they make the average person, the one who has a very small chance of catching this virus in the first place, and an even smaller chance of becoming seriously ill from it, more confident about going back to work and going to Walmart and spending money? Absolutely. So masks are a very useful tool in the management of this pandemic...just not for the reasons most people think.
  25. Earlier
  26. That study had symptomatic patients forcefully cough into a petri dish through their mask. The authors even admit it's not a great measure of whether or not it has much bearing on reducing transmission among asymptomatic people under normal daily activities. If the masks reduce transmission of viral droplets or reduce the distance that droplets travel after exhalation, they're going to bring R0 down. If we set the bar so high that only a perfect mask is acceptable (prevent infected, symptomatic patient from contaminating a petri dish with multiple active coughs directed at said petri dish) then we're going to miss a whole range of interventions that can significantly reduce the R0, or even reduce the viral load of those who are exposed.
  27. I think I finally snagged a kettlebell. 35lb one from Walmart.com of all places. $40 and shipping was free. Pleasant surprise after I was preparing to pay through the nose wherever I could find one in stock.
  1. Load more activity
×
×
  • Create New...