This is the one thing that makes me so angry about the state of AR/VR/XR. Human bodies are made to move when we work - not strenuously, not non-stop, but consistently and with some amount of vigor. Spatial software design represents an AMAZING opportunity to re-tune digital work processes to be movement-oriented, while still productive and efficient. Compare digital sculpting in ZBrush and Media Molecule's Dreams.

It's maybe harder to envision a similar transformation for people dealing with data or communication for a living, but is it out of the realm of possibility? It shouldn't be, for anyone who who might compare common GUIs to interfaces like VIM and Emacs. The former are the unhappy compromise between the latter and the as-yet-to-be-created spatial interfaces that would be coming if the Bigs would stop trying to outmaneuver each other, and just create them.

I am tired of trying to manage my photo library on a small laptop screen or monitor, with a single pointer. Let me summon them to my physical space and manipulate, stack, sort them, and more, with split controllers or my actual hands. I promise that my brain and body and your wallet will be much, much happier.

This post claims: the good news is, this is reversible. But is that so? Is it also proven to reverse things in all cases? I would imagine there are caveats, and things are not that rosy in reality.

The reason I am asking because if the answer is "None. It can only keep the symptoms from worsening" then it's not really reasonable to expect people with such physiological situation to become active again.

They will most probably need to put in much more effort to achieve much smaller gain compared to a healthy individual, which is as I said is unreasonable. Especially because some people simply have worse genetics and or social circumstances which they might not be able to change.

So I appreciate these findings, but how I read this: you need to be aware of this to prevent the ill effects. And I doubt the reversible claim (although I have not much of an argument to corroborate that).

1) the internet is mostly made up of spaces where the median opinion is vanishingly rare among actual humans.

2) the median internet opinion is that of a person who is deep into the topic they're writing about.

The net result is that for most topics, you will feel moderate to severe anxiety about being "behind" about what you shuld be doing.

I'm 40, and I'm active. I ran a half marathon last weekend. I spent 5 hours climbing with my kids this weekend. My reaction to these articles, emotionally, was "I'm probably going to die of heart disease," because my cholesterol is a bit high and my BMI is 30. When I was biking 90 miles a week, my VO2 max was "sub-standard."

Let's assume this information is true. That's OK. It's all dialed up to 11, and you don't have to do anything about it right now.

I have a real-life friend whose hobby is studying this stuff. His recommendations boil down to:

- 1/week 20 minutes HIIT: 5 minutes warmup, 3x(2 minutes high intensity + 3 minutes low intensity) blocks.

- 1/week strength training focused on large muscle groups.

- 12,000 steps per day walking (HIIT excluded).

According to his reading of the literature, this gives you the best bang for your buck in terms of all-cause mortality avoidance. Most of the studies in this area are correlational, not randomized controlled trials, so it's hard to be sure. But I can vouch for his diligence in trying to get to the bottom of this. I've been following his program since January with reasonably good results over my already-active baseline.

His website is https://www.unaging.com/, and honestly it's a bit hard to recommend because he's definitely playing the SEO game: the articles are often repetitive of each other and full of filler. And the CMS seems janky. (I would tell you to find his older articles before he started optimizing for SEO, but, it seems like the CMS reset all article dates to today.) But, if you have patience, it might be worthwhile.