Bipolar - It's not a bug, it's a feature - <AUTHOR> http://slajax.com/2012/12/12/bipolar-a-feature-not-a-bug.html <comment><USER2> If your mania does not reach the point of psychosis, and your depressive episodes aren't debilitating or suicidal, good for you. Many sufferers of bipolar disorder are not so fortunate. To say that "it is only a negative thing if you allow it to be" is flippant and naive.

<comment><AUTHOR> You are absolutely correct. To imply that would be incredibly naive. Especially if the assumption that I have not reached those extremes were correct.

I would in no way assume that my approach is a blanket solution for anyone or everyone. To the contrary, it is not a solution (I said I have not beaten it, and I may never well), but this post is my personal experience for dealing with an "illness" that has been very challenging in my life. I can only account for the factors of my experiences which luckily were functional enough for this approach to do some good.

Those factors did indeed include a lot of debilitating and suicide episodes during my teen years but I chose not to write about suicide because it's a much deeper subject and somewhat detracts from the point I hoped to make. But in the interested of full disclosure, yes I had struggled with suicide daily until I changed my thinking.

The reason I said "it's only a negative thing if you allow it to be" is that when I stopped thinking of it as "suffering" I found the core catalyst for change that allowed me to dismiss suicide as an option and maintain that rationale until I could apply other measures and stabilize my situation longer term.

At it's core the illness affects your rationale by way of your moods and I feel it's important to address the fact that someone who is "suffering" implicitly has a negative perspective and will continue to suffer without positivity.

Thanks for your comment.

<comment><USER2> And thanks for the response. I think this more nuanced explanation of what you meant adds a lot to the message that is missing from the article.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> All of the psychiatric professionals (nurses, consulting pschiatrists, academics) I have met with socially over the past few months (5 from 3 countries, within a leisure/travelling context) agreed heartily with the fundamental point I always put forward to them that mental illness (as defined as the set of all mental states apparently differing from some abstract "norm") is a flawed one.

My take is that if a person can 'function' (ie. not get nabbed by police, jailed and/or extradited) in modern society, with reasonable personal comfort and fulfilment and without relying overwhelmingly on others, then it is incorrect to describe them as "ill".

PS. It's normal feel unhappy or unfulfilled with nine-to-five (or nine) modern lifestyles; they're not natural. My advice to others is to never consider yourself depressed (and NEVER begin an antidepressant habit); instead consider yourself poorly matched to society's defaults, and try to change pace or place.

<comment><AUTHOR> I think that's good advice and I'm glad to know I'm not the only one who see's a different side of the coin. Thanks for your response.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Have you ever tried to explore the "Some kid said something to me about being selfish and my self worth instantly shattered" situation with someone who does Innerchild / Regression therapy? They would eventually explore other childhood relationships, etc. and how they affected you. And sorry if I missed you saying it. I jumped around in your post, read a lot of it though.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thats ok, I'm rather long winded, and there was even stuff I omitted.

I don't have a lot of experience with therapy that I can easily recall. I did a lot of therapy around the time when the "some kid" situation originally occurred as it became apparent to my parents something was up with me, but I was <10 years old. I remember spending a lot of time with therapists trying to figure out the symptoms over the next few years, but it was all very confusing and no one (including me) really had a handle on it. As I started to get older, things escalated so it was harder and harder for them to get me to even go so I ended up with a lot of fragmented treatment and I was mis-diagnosed for probably 10 years or so I would say. So between that and the fact that a lot of those years were a manic blur, I can't say I really recall any therapy of value especially anything like inner child or regression therapy.

I would definitely entertain the idea of doing this now because even to this day there are certain triggers (said or done, implicit or explicit) that will have the same affect. Luckily I can usually self-diagnose those episodes within the first 10 minutes and adjust as it's fairly dramatic and obvious to me that something has changed biologically. It's the cycles that scale more slowly that I find it a lot harder to identify and throttle, but luckily they don't surface very often in a more serious manner then irritability or obsession. These are the cycles (the feature) that I try to use to my advantage due to the perceived increase in cognitive focus that I feel I experience.

I will do some research about this type of therapy, I'm all for any approach that helps me to understanding my triggers better.

<comment><USER4> I'd highly recommend Innerchild/Regression Therapy. You basically explore different subpersonalities that may have become dominant, usually as a means of a defense/coping mechanism that's no longer beneficial / serves you, and that kicks in when you're younger from different relationships / situations that happen - however where you didn't have the guidance or support to help you figure it out then; Subpersonalities such as perfectionism, worry, the fixer, caretaker, etc.. These should all be interconnected and allowed to come in and out of play when appropriate - whereby when they're dominant, they influence all of how we see the world, and affect all of our behaviours.

It's great you're very self-aware, though it's helpful having someone else doing the guiding - you can let go of the having to be thinking (using your mind), and therefore your full attention can go to feeling (being in your body) and then responding, releasing, and then viewing a situation in a different light (along with some other things) - and letting go emotionally as well. The process will allow those memories to exist, and be connected to everything, to be processed/settled (in your body) instead of repressed (in your mind; which then doesn't allow those triggers to exist).

I do have a contact that might know someone who's out West in the style of therapy - or at least maybe be able to point to a resource to look at; I'm in Ontario currently - may end up having an office in Vancouver someday though. Follow me on Twitter and I can DM you what I find out? @mattamyers

P.S. I'm rather long-winded, often, too. :)

<comment><AUTHOR> Great to hear from another Canadian. I have followed you.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Thank you for posting this. As someone going on Paxil (day 5) and struggling with intense anxiety/depression every morning, I really appreciated reading someone else's experience.

<comment><AUTHOR> You are very welcome.

My advice (even though you didn't ask for it) is let the Paxil do it's thing for a while then start implementing exercise and nutritional adjustments into your routine once you are feeling normalized.

Treat it like an A/B test if you can. Think about the long term and try to find a routine that will work for you consistently. If you find something, talk to your doctor about coming off the medication to see if your routine continues to help without the meds. Make sure you only do it with the support of your doctor though, the with drawl from Paxil can be enough to put you back into a depression. From what I recall it wasn't too pleasant.

Good luck!

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> I just wanted to say thanks for writing this.

<comment><AUTHOR> You are welcome.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: What non-work task have you automated? - <AUTHOR> Previous thread - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15451442 <comment><USER2> Wrote a browser automation script to notify me when rooms suddenly become available at a hotel.</comment>


Activision forced Al Lowe to cancel his Leisure Suit Larry source code auctions - <AUTHOR> https://www.pcgamer.com/activision-forced-al-lowe-to-cancel-his-leisure-suit-larry-source-code-auctions/ <comment><USER2> Same delightful company that baked gambling into games for young audiences, for which they may yet face criminal charges.

[https://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2018-05-10-belgian- ga...](https://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2018-05-10-belgian-gambling- commission-lays-out-recommendations-over-illegal-loot-boxes)

Hopefully the EFF and Al Lowe can get them for violating _his_ copyright on some decades old code re-used in "their" games.

<comment><USER3> _Hopefully the EFF and Al Lowe can get them for violating his copyright on some decades old code re-used in "their" games._

I haven't heard about this. Source?

<comment><USER2> I'm not saying it exists but their argument is Activision own other Sierra titles like King's Quest, and the LSL code includes decades-old code copied from those decades-old games.

It would make sense that the opposite is true and when Sierra made their many sequels they copied from the LSL code as convenient too.

<comment><USER3> _It would make sense that the opposite is true and when Sierra made their many sequels they copied from the LSL code as convenient too._

How does that mean that Activism violated his copyright? Since Sierra sold Leisure Suite Larry, they acquired at least _some_ rights to it.

Without looking at the paperwork, a claim that Activism violated his copyright is pure, unadulterated FUD.

So it seems like the following.

 _Same delightful company that baked gambling into games for young audiences, for which they may yet face criminal charges._

 _[https://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2018-05-10-belgian- ga...](https://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2018-05-10-belgian-gambling- commission-lays-out-recommendations-over-illegal-loot-boxes) _

Off-topic ad hominem.

 _Hopefully the EFF and Al Lowe can get them for violating his copyright on some decades old code re-used in "their" games._

FUD.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Copyright laws seem really out of date.

They were originally established to protect individual authors from theft from publishers. In fact, here's the first line of the US copyright office's description of the laws: "It is a principle of American law that an _author of a work_ may reap the fruits of _his or her_ intellectual creativity for a limited period of time."

The irony is that the publishers have since bypassed the intent of the laws by just buying all the author's rights before being published.

Yes, I know. Activision owns the copyrights. But, the principle intent of the laws was to reward individuals, not huge corporations.

<comment><USER5> In this instance Activision doesn't even know if they own the copyright to anything in the auction. They think they might and forced him to take it down just in case.

<comment><USER6> Not quite. There could be "shared code", in which case the publisher has...

and here you're expecting me to say "every right". But I won't.

Because what the publisher has, is in fact, an obligation.

You see, if you think someone is infringing on your copyright, and you ignore it, you open yourself up to more egregious infirngement by others. Of course, I'm not a lawyer, but that's my understanding of the situation.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> If he owns a legally made copy of the source code, and I accept that's a big if, then he is perfectly within his rights to sell that single copy under the first sale doctrine.

It's a shame that this bit of history will likely end up lost.

<comment><USER8> Or it'll surface in a torrent or file sharing site...</comment></comment>


More than 300 teams competing for $1M AI prize from Medicare - <AUTHOR> https://www.cmschallenge.ai/ <comment><AUTHOR> With that kind of money, CMS should have expected lots of submissions, even though the application process itself was pretty involved and required a lot of work.</comment>


Ask HN: How can one make good money without a career? - <AUTHOR>

Serious question. I'm only 23 but I don't think school is for me just being honest.
I do want to work my butt of though I'm not some lazy bump who feeds of government money.
I thought about doing Oil field work like in North dakota is that a good route? maybe get my CDL and work out in the fields. I don't mind tough labor. But I've also been hearing oil rigs are shutting down not sure if that's true. <comment><USER2> School isn't for everyone. If only more people realized that, and stopped confusing education with schooling, the world would be better off!!

I'd check out both stuff that Mike Rowe has written/talked about. Also, James Altucher. You have _LOTS_ of options.

I am a college graduate. I think it was/is largely a waste of time and money. I regret the nearly $50K of debt I incurred to get that degree. If I had it to do over, I'd have done it VERY differently.

</comment><comment><USER3> Options seem to boil down to two: \+ seasonal gigs like firefighting in northwest woodlands \+ setting up some sort of passive revenue stream

plant some seeds and start asking your friends what their dream day-to-day- preoccupations would be. "do what you love and the money will come" is a cool thing to keep in mind. basically you just gotta find some sort of need in our global society and do your best to address it. money is an extra on our system of giving help to each other. it might take time to feel out your passion and your niche but it's worth the inquiry, and the best way to start is to help others do the same. if everyone hooked up someone with a task they could do, how wonderful that chain reaction could be. that said, be creative, read a bunch of diverse books and resources and try and feel out where your creativity thrives. spend some time thinking about someone you know who needs a job or money or a gig or whatever and give them some heartfelt advice. everyone you help is like a bridge you build. sorry for the rant, hope it helps.

</comment><comment><USER4> The price of oil has halved in the past few months that's why the rigs are in trouble.

You can still learn skills like programming without schooling.

I do suggest looking into getting educated in basic finance and basic accounting to teach yourself principles of investment, so the good money you make won't be eroded over the years by inflation. (Which basically means, the price of things go up every year, by more than how much interest the bank gives you on your money, so over time your money can buy less and less things.)

One semester of one finance subject and one semester of one accounting subject would probably do.

Net Present Value, Portfolio theory, diversification, and enough accounting to read financial statements from companies listed on the share market.

But don't buy shares for the next few years - I think there will be a crash coming soon enough.

<comment><USER5> There is always a crash coming ...

Are you sure the next crash that knocks N% off the market won't come after the market has risen a further N+x% while your money is on the sidelines?

Are you sure you can time the bottom of the crash well enough to know when to jump back in?

If the answers to those questions are 'yes' then great, otherwise a steady investment strategy for the long haul can just ignore the short term fluctations.

<comment><USER4> Yes, I entered the stock market in Dec 2008, and now contemplating when to exit.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Good question to ask when you are just 23. School will make it easy for you as you grow old. Self discipline is the key. Keep your expenses as low as possible and work hard, save money and finish school. There will be many a time you will be thankful that you finished school.

</comment><comment><USER7> If the issue is that you just don't want a "career" \- that's easy to solve.

Just get whatever job you can get, try it for a bit, then quit and move onto the next.

Who cares if oil rigs are shutting down, go get a job there and work until you are bored and move on.

</comment><comment><USER8> I have a friend from high school who is a petroleum engineer; he travels all over the world.

I once worked with a guy who worked in Saudi oil. He said it was real easy to get that work and that it paid well.

</comment><comment><USER9> School maybe not for you, but you better start learning somethings.

</comment><comment><USER10> Real estate maybe? Flipping houses or renting. Might be tough to get into in terms of initial capital required.</comment>


CrossFit's Dirty Little Secret - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/p/97bcce70356d <comment><USER3> To be honest, Crossfit has quite a few dark secrets. This one, though, can kill you.

What are crossfit's dark secrets?

First and foremost, well, it's terrible. The programming coming from HQ is just plain awful. There are many programs out there now (Outlaw, Competitors WOD, CF Football etc) that fill the gap and actually give decent programming, but the programming from crossfit.com is really, really bad.

Did you know that ALL the athletes that competed at the Crossfit games do not use crossfit.com WODs as the base of their programming? It's true. Go and check it out. What does this tell you? That crossfit, the programming, is all bullshit. The elite athletes use strength training as the basis of their programming and complement that with met cons as they get closer to the games.

There is also a culture that promotes things like rips (ripping your hands, say during a deadlift), or rope burns or other types of stupid things as badges of honor. You can't go a few days on /r/crossfit without seeing someone mention their ripped hands with pride. This is dumb and promotes the wrong things.

And beyond that, frankly, high-rep olympic lifts, high-rep box jumps (DON'T JUMP DOWN! Seriously, trust me on this), and general bad form is ok in the name of better times. These are begging for injuries.

TL;DR - Crossfit is dumb.

<comment><USER4> I've been CrossFitting for over 6 years, owned an affiliate for 4 years, and founded the largest independent CrossFit-style competition series in the country (as far as I know).

This author hasn't been to a well-managed gym or worked with more experienced coaches. The same is likely true of those who get rhabdo. They have exposed themselves to more than their body can handle physically, as a result of poor coaching, and/or poor decision making.

I've seen high rep pullups and high rep weighted squats cause Rhabdo in people (not at my gym). I've also seen thousands of people do those same movements (in a safe way) and not get injured. Any good coach shouldn't be exposing clients to those things that expose clients to injury or death.

A responsibility of any gym owner/trainer is to protect clients from injury. If you go to a gym (CrossFit or not) that programs things that expose you to to any kind of injury, then you should absolutely leave. Coaches should be aware of the risks.

If you attempt to lift too much weight, do too many reps, do things with bad form, of course you exposure yourself to injury. I hope rational people would consider that CrossFit is a very effective fitness program, and, despite its criticism, is something that produces amazing results in people if done properly.

Interestingly, my biggest injury was from a heavy single clean and jerk. I've never had Rhabdo and done tons of high rep stuff, but stay away from high rep box jumps, deads, pullups and other silly things. I do enjoy high rep oly lifting in CrossFit and I total 180kg as a 69kg oly lifter. They are completely different movements; to think otherwise is just dumb.

TL;DR - people who are irrational are dumb.

<comment><USER5> > _I 've been CrossFitting for over 6 years, owned an affiliate for 4 years, > and founded the largest independent CrossFit-style competition series in the > country (as far as I know)._

Ah, the No True Crossfit Gym argument.

Everyone always seems to come from the one _good_ Crossfit gym where correct form is emphasised. Where the coaches are wonderful. And so on.

The point is: trainees very rarely have the knowledge, qualification or experience to know if they are being taught properly.

It's like martial arts schools, everyone's Sensei or Sifu is an international badass.

The central problem is that CFHQ don't do quality control. Ostensibly because of a libertarian outlook, but I can't help but notice that it allows them to 1. milk the fad while it's booming and 2. better insulate themselves from lawsuits.

<comment><USER4> Our gym is not perfect, but we set standards and have a mission to serve clients in the most effective way possible.

What if HQ has good goals and it's not about "milking," but exposing people to a more effective fitness methodology?

Personally, I believe that quality is going to drive the success or failure of CrossFit, and that's why we (and many other successful gyms) have been very devoted to making sure quality is a driver in our service.

<comment><USER5> > _What if HQ has good goals and it 's not about "milking," but exposing > people to a more effective fitness methodology?_

Their behaviour can too easily be constructed into a very negative picture.

I can see Crossfit going one of two ways:

Either it will reach a high water mark and settle down to a steady-state condition. More people are coming into Crossfit, but in many markets there's a saturation of affiliates. Gyms with overheads like full-time, well-trained coaches will be partly driven out by cheaper operations with a CF1 certificate.

Alternatively, someone will construct a successful legal argument that Crossfit is a franchise operation. A subsequent class action lawsuit will turn them into a smoking hole in the ground.

On the upside, millions of people will have learnt that exercising is fun. That is definitely a positive outcome.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Rehash from five years ago? Doesn't this guy know that the new scandal is high-rep box jumps?

The "dirty secret" of Crossfit is that they don't do much to actively ensure the quality of local affiliates, and therefore the brand doesn't always mean much. My personal experiences have all been great, and my coaches have always been extremely safety-conscious, but in light of the nasty things I read on the internet, I wouldn't encourage anyone to blindly trust whatever local Crossfit affiliate happens to pop up down the block. Rather than thinking of Crossfit as a guarantee of a certain standard of quality, think of it as an approach to fitness that is interpreted in various ways by coaches of varying competence.

Also keep in mind that the coach can't always see when you need to ease up or stop. Sometimes they can, but they can only see what is apparent on the outside; they can't feel what you feel.

<comment><USER7> Re: Quality assurance, this was on reddit couple days ago

[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8up6A4QesU](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8up6A4QesU)

<comment><USER8> Interestingly enough this video was posted to the FB group of the CrossFit gym I go to... a gym I chose because of the quality of programming and emphasis on technique and mobility. There's no bravado there.

Here was one coach's response:

"Haha, this video is infamous! It's the "proof" that critics of CrossFit use to try and show that the entire sport is dangerous and that we don't know what we're doing. There are definitely examples in the video of athletes losing their midline, and going heavier than they safely should, but the point that is completely overlooked is that these athletes are trying classic strongman lifts for probably the very first time. The lift they're practicing is called the continental clean and, believe it or not, they're doing it more right than wrong. It's an awkward lift that's used for cleaning axle bars that are too fat to grip and clean conventionally. Anyone trying that for the first time will look similarly awkward. It's part of learning something new. Whoever originally shot and posted this video never meant for it to be taken as a typical crossfit class full of elite athletes. It's just a video of a group of people who aren't afraid to try something new, regardless of where are on the learning curve they had to start."

<comment><USER9> The coach's response is not reassuring. Anyone trying it for the first time should start with a weight light enough that they can hold the correct form and not lose control.

<comment><USER10> Absolutely. I'm grateful that our coaches always tell us (and other new people) to do bar sets, and even do the workout lifts with either PVC or the light bar only when we are still mastering form. Safety > all.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I hate reading articles like this because it's trying to tell you that CrossFit culture is all about pushing yourself until you've practically killed yourself doing all sorts of crazy and whacky weight lifting. 99% of the time, the problem isn't CrossFit, it's the coaches. If you're at a good gym (or box as it's called), the coaches know how to scale workouts for the athletes so they won't get hurt, and they're programming workouts so that people aren't killing themselves constantly.

Where CrossFit is to blame is its low barrier to entry to becoming a coach/affiliate owner. All you need is a weekend of your time, $1000, a passing score on a super simple test, and you get to call yourself an "L1 CrossFit Trainer." They don't advise you to immediately go start training people, but there are plenty of boxes that will let you jump in and start coaching classes. It's gotten so popular now that there are bad affiliates popping up out there that have horrible programming that hurt people, and then articles like this get written, and then everyone thinks that's all CrossFit is.

When you take the L1 CrossFit Trainer course, they have a whole section about "Uncle Rhabdo." It's a very rare thing that occurs when you do a whole lot of isometric exercises (like strict pull ups where you come down real slow) when you're not used to them. It's not a rabid thing that is 100% going to happen if you do CrossFit.

<comment><USER12> Well put. Evaluating "CrossFit" is difficult by design---HQ wants boxes to be almost completely autonomous. The best statement of CrossFit's philosophy is Greg Glassman's "World-Class Fitness in 100 Words"[1]. There's nothing there about doing lots of poor quality reps as quickly as possible.

I began my CrossFit career at San Francisco CrossFit and thought it was the best thing ever. Part of each session focused on mobility. Bad reps were not tolerated. It was like a daily seminar on how to maintain, tune, and fix the human machine. The skills I learned will benefit me greatly as I age.

Then I had to move, and I saw the dark side of CrossFit. Inept trainers with poor attitudes, encouraging speed and weight with no concern for proper body mechanics. I work out on my own now, practicing skills I learned at SFCF.

Bottom line: it's the box that matters.

[1] "Eat meat and vegetables, nuts and seeds, some fruit, little starch and no sugar. Keep intake to levels that will support exercise but not body fat. Practice and train major lifts: Deadlift, clean, squat, presses, C&J, and snatch. Similarly, master the basics of gymnastics: pull-ups, dips, rope climb, push-ups, sit-ups, presses to handstand, pirouettes, flips, splits, and holds. Bike, run, swim, row, etc, hard and fast. Five or six days per week mix these elements in as many combinations and patterns as creativity will allow. Routine is the enemy. Keep workouts short and intense. Regularly learn and play new sports. " \-- [http://www.crossfit.com/cf-info/start- how.html](http://www.crossfit.com/cf-info/start-how.html)

<comment><USER13> > Part of each session focused on mobility.

I'd hope so at SFCF. You ever get to work with KStar? Jealous.

<comment><USER12> Every Tuesday morning! It was awesome.

Kelly's sessions in particular always had a theme. For example: we might practice Turkish Getups for 10 minutes, focusing on shoulder stability. Then the "WOD" might be alternating dumbbell push press and 400m sprints. The idea was to pay attention to shoulder position and stability even as the sprints exhausted us.

All of the coaches were (are) great teachers. It was about so much more than simply getting a workout in. It felt like we did everything for a reason. Combine that with awesome, supportive people (everyone shakes hands with anyone they don't already know before every session) and a killer location (a parking lot under the Golden Gate Bridge)---it was magical.

This is why it's silly to make judgements about "CrossFit". CrossFit is a fine system/philosophy/whatever. Find a box with a good atmosphere where you can learn things from people who know more than you do. It's like anything else.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Ignoring the fact that there is no true definition of what crossfit is (which is a problem in and of itself), this isn't even the biggest issue with crossfit.

The biggest issue is that the training philosophy is not ground in any kind of science whatsoever (ie: that mixing conditioning and strength training in one workout somehow combines for an increased effect on both).

CrossfitHQ also promotes a concept of "all around fitness" which is, quite frankly, bullshit. A marathon runner and a powerlifter are both very fit, but for different things. Having a training program that does not start with explicit goals and work towards those goals is idiotic. And for most people, who want to be somewhat cardiovascularly conditioned and aesthetically toned, crossfit is far from the quickest or safest way to get to those goals. Even the "good gyms" that emphasize form still seem to have completely nonsensical programming.

Finally, you can be sure that crossfitHQ in particular is bullshit because they have a motto of "forging elite athletes" and yet not a single elite athlete from a single sport follows crossfitHQ's WODs. The only acceptable reason to do it is because it can be fun, and if that's what you're into more power to you. But it's not an effective or safe form of training no matter how you cut it.

<comment><USER15> I don't see that as a big problem. Just getting folks to actually workout is 99% of the battle. CrossFit seems very good at that.

<comment><USER14> You're getting downvoted but I think that's a fair point. I think I addressed it though: that fits into the fun aspect.

Unfortunately if you get folks to workout and then they injure themselves, as frequently happens in crossfit, you have other problems too.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> When I first started doing weights, my father and his brother both drilled one piece of advice into my head: training too much is worse than not training at all. After reading this article, I'm grateful for it!

<comment><USER6> Overtraining is a phenomenon that is universally recognized from from football to marathon running to bodybuilding to gymnastics. Crossfit's stated philosophy is about developing fitness to support one's enjoyment of life, but like competitive sports, they fetishize results. Everything is measured and counted, and they encourage people to record and track their progress. Some people miss the point and end up fetishizing pain and effort instead, but to do that they have to overlook both the stated philosophy and the day-to-day focus on improvement.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Wow, I thought they were kidding about the clown cartoon, but no: (pdf) [http://library.crossfit.com/free/pdf/38_05_cf_rhabdo.pdf](http://library.crossfit.com/free/pdf/38_05_cf_rhabdo.pdf)

<comment><USER18> Not to mention the highly casual way the talk about the condition and how _they_ caused it!

Someone needs to sue them. For a lot of money. Maybe they'll get it through their thick skulls that it's not cool, or funny.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> The title of this article is one of the most misleading I've ever seen. It implies that rhabdomyolysis is little known and covered up. But later the author admits that it's not little known. "How, I wondered, is it possible that the layperson exercise instructor is on a first-name basis with a serious, yet rare medical condition?" Why does he do this? Because being sensationalist draws clicks.

This article is a microcosm of everything that is wrong with mainstream media. It takes something quite rare and spins a narrative designed to incite fear, making you think that these horrible things are happening much more frequently than they actually are.

I'm no stranger to intense exercise. As a competitive swimmer at a young age, I knew what it meant to push myself to the limit. It wasn't until 2007 when I started CrossFit that I was ever educated about rhabdomyolysis. But I'd much rather be educated than ignorant. Everything in life has risk. And strangely enough, things that are more worthwhile seem to typically involve more risk. Is exercise risky? Of course. But not exercising carries its own set of risks.

As for me, I'll stick with exercise. And for that, CrossFit makes more sense than anything else I've ever seen.

<comment><USER20> I think you might have missed the point. To the general public and other sports/activities it's little known. Yet here is a Johnny guy lay person Xfit instructor who knows what is ailing the person before she even tells him. Why would a guy guess right on something so rare?

<comment><USER19> Because "Johnny guy lay person" was educated. If it was a secret that CrossFit was trying to cover up, then he wouldn't have known.

<comment><USER20> The "Dirty Little Secret" is they know their users are vulnerable to this otherwise very rare condition.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> This reminds me a little of the "Ban PitBulls" argument. If we got rid of all PitBulls then wanna be gangsta's would go to Rottweilers then Dobermans then German Shepards etc.

CrossFit is tapping into and flourishing with a certain mindset of folks for whom this extreme form of punishment is desirable. Probably better to understand that and help folks dial it back a little vs thinking getting rid of CrossFit would solve the problem.

<comment><USER21> Problem for whom? If people enjoy it, and don't agree with your assessment of the program as punishment, then what's the issue?

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> The vast majority of Crossfitters are not at a level of physical fitness and mental toughness that would put them at risk of rhabdo after a WOD. They'd throw in the towel long before "meeting Uncle Rhabdo" under most normal circumstances.

However, certain external factors can affect the risk - high humidity, heat, improper hydration, and poor nutrition can significantly increase the chance of catching rhabdo from a workout. It sounds like the subject of this post got caught up in the competitiveness of the workout, turned a deaf ear to what her body was telling her that day, and paid the price for it. It's a mistake that many inexperienced athletes make when thrust into a competitive setting, and most of the time only ends with "meeting Pukey" or some really bad DOMS the next morning, but the specifics of this circumstance (pushup-overhead couplet sounds like a stupidly dangerous WOD, plus a "warm Texas evening") lead to a significantly worse outcome.

<comment><USER23> Don't underestimate the power of peer pressure when it comes to physical activities. It's one of the main draws of Crossfit, and probably the strongest force for these people when they push themselves too far.

When you're working out with someone who you barely know, or may have just met, who doesn't know what to expect and doesn't know their own limits, and is trying to keep up with everyone around them, you have a recipe for someone pushing themselves too far to a dangerous extent, whether the outcome is rhabdo, a tear, or some other injury. Most desk jockies (myself included sometimes) don't take the proper care that you need when you try and start moving a body that sits idle for 8-10 hours a day.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> TL;DR: I got rhabdo from crossfit last year. My CPK was 100,000 and I spent 5 days in the hospital. I wasn't overweight but I wasn't fit when I got it, and I got it during the first day of a beginner course.

Ask me anything.

</comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment>

I did crossfit for a couple of months in 2010 and loved it, but I had to stop since I moved to a new apartment and the gym times wouldn't work with the longer commute. I always wanted to go back, so in June 2012 I started up again, taking the two-week beginner course (I wasn't in the best shape and I wanted to ease into it).

During the first day back, we went through a lot of basic movements and listened to the instructor talk about what crossfit was like. In the hour-long class, we spent the last ten minutes talking about rhabdomyolysis; what it is, the symptoms, the danger, common ways to get it, etc.

The workout of the day was tabata squats (20 seconds of as many BW reps, then 10 seconds of rest, repeat 8 times for a total of 4 minutes and 2:40 of exercising), tabata pushups, and tabata situps.

The squats were the one that got me.

The next morning, I couldn't walk, but that was expected since it was my first day back. I pushed myself quite hard (knowing what crossfit was like), but I wasn't competing with the people in my class, I was competing with myself. I took it easy and rested.

The day after that, I couldn't really bend my legs because of the extreme soreness, and walking down the stairs was neigh impossible. It took a while, but I took the subway to the office where there's a gym with a stationary bike, as slow biking was the only thing that would ease the soreness in my quads.

After 6 hours at work, periodically biking and reading online, I noticed my urine was coca-cola colored, and that it was the telltale sign of rhabdo. I knew that because the crossfit instructor drilled it into my head two days earlier.

I looked online for a hospital that my insurance covered, took a cab, checked myself in saying I had rhabdo, and I began a 5-day stay where I received lots of saline solution (1000ml 6x a day, IIRC) to help flush the myoglobin out of my body. Luckily for me, the hospital saw a lot of cases of rhabdo from not crossfit members, but prisoners. They have little else to do than workout extremely hard, and the hospital saw dozens of prisoners a year.

My creatine kinase was almost 100,000 (excess myoglobin is the problem, but high creatine kinase is a proxy for high myoglobin, and CPK levels are commonly checked). TFA is right in that the normal is < 100\. IIRC, the doctors estimated I dissolved 5 lbs of muscle tissue into my bloodstream to get a CPK that high. I was bored in the hospital so I charted my CPK to determine when they'd release me: [http://imgur.com/18HYKNr](http://imgur.com/18HYKNr)

</comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment>

Many tests afterwards showed my kidneys are fine, and I haven't noticed (or read about) what the TFA describes as "flabbiness" or some sort of water retention in my legs. I also haven't noticed that my legs are weak; on the contrary, after lots of biking over bridges my legs are stronger than my squat days (at least when it comes to endurance, not power).

TFA is being a bit sensationalist and anecdotal about rhabdo being crossfit's "dirty little secret." To add another anecdote into the fire, everyone I know that does crossfit knows what rhabdo is, and rhabdo is mentioned in beginner classes multiple times; not only what it is, but the symptoms, what to do when you get it, and how, if left untreated, myoglobinuria can lead to acute renal failure and death.

I haven't been to crossfit in over a year, but TBH I'm itching to go back. I'm the kind of personality that will really push myself hard – probably harder than most – but now I know a little better and will hold back a tiny bit, especially when doing high reps of low weight.

</comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment>

Update: My first crossfit experience was at Crossfit Virtuosity in Brooklyn, NY and I got rhabdo at The Black Box in NYC.

Also, my memory isn't so great as I thought. I took the class on a Friday and, that same night, moved into a new apartment. The combination of crossfit and carrying lots of boxes/furniture on the same day was probably the cause.

<comment><USER25> That's scary. Thanks for sharing.

I'm an amateur bodybuilder and I workout alone. Over the years I have contemplated joining Crossfit (mostly for the comradery aspect), but the insane level of cult mentality has made me shy away from it every time. Articles like this just drive home the point.

My friend Jane, who is a physical therapist, specializes in exercise injuries. She once confided in me that local Crossfitters form by far the largest percentage of her repeat customer-base. She said she finds the level of irrationality unbelievable, in that the same people will come to her in a lot of pain and _brag_ about their injury on the one hand, and _beg_ her to fix them up quickly so they can go back to Crossfit ASAP. Then they will come back in a few months with a different injury but the exact same mindset.

<comment><USER6> _Over the years I have contemplated joining Crossfit (mostly for the comradery aspect), but the insane level of cult mentality has made me shy away from it every time._

That's a good reason to shun a particular location or instructor, but I and a lot of other people have had completely opposite experiences. If the workouts interest you, I encourage you to give it a try and see what the instructors are like. Maybe ask Jane where her patients work out and go someplace else.

<comment><USER25> >>That's a good reason to shun a particular location or instructor, but I and a lot of other people have had completely opposite experiences.

Before I posted that, I knew that a Crossfitter would respond and defend Crossfit. That is the level of cult-like irrationality I am talking about: looking at statistics (such as the ones about much higher incidence of Rhambo in Crossfitters) and responding with anecdotal evidence like, "well, my experiences are very different!"

<comment><USER6> After you went out of your way to thank someone for an anecdote that confirmed your bias, you'll have to forgive me for believing that you're reacting to my point of view, not the nature of my evidence. All I said is that you should see for yourself and trust your own judgment. To quote myself, "they don't do much to actively ensure the quality of local affiliates.... I wouldn't encourage anyone to blindly trust whatever local Crossfit affiliate happens to pop up down the block."

<comment><USER25> >>After you went out of your way to thank someone for an anecdote that confirmed your bias...

You sound hopelessly confused. We are not discussing anecdotes. We are discussing actual statistics provided in the original article that clearly showed Crossfit to have much higher rates of injuries and potentially-fatal medical conditions.

When you put the burden on new people to figure out whether their affiliates are high quality, you are blaming the victim. Most beginners are not capable of accurately assessing whether the types of workouts done in Crossfit and the manner in which they are done are healthy or not. What they do is read reviews of the gym on the Internet and see all the five-star raves, then visit the gym and see everyone cheering each other on and having a good time, and think, "hey this is cool, I want to be a part of it too!" Are they supposed to know about normally ultra-rare conditions like rhabdo? Or should Crossfit do its fucking job and keep its affiliates in check?

<comment><USER26> I know the article's title calls rhabdo a secret but if you read the article - and the comment at the top of this thread - you'll notice that Glassman and every CrossFit coach I've ever met talks about it all the time. In fact, I bet you can't find one person who does CrossFit who doesn't know what it is.

<comment><USER25> >>you'll notice that Glassman and every CrossFit coach I've ever met talks about it all the time.

Look dude, the problem is not that they don't talk about it. The problem is that they make people do complex exercises in a manner that significantly increases risk of rhabdo and a ton of other injuries _despite knowing about those risks_. This is irresponsible at best and grossly negligent at worst.

There is a way to lift weights in a safe and responsible manner. Crossfit not only refuses to teach its clients that, but also builds and encourages a culture where injuries become badges of honor. _That_ is what makes it a cult.

<comment><USER27> FWIW,it can absolutely be that way, and I have visited at a few gyms that I would never go back to. I also know that at my gym, if a coach notices you breaking proper form at all they immediately work with you on it, or have you back down an bit be it in speed or weight.

I am in no way saying that the bad behaviors described above, and you can absolutely get a cult like mindset focused around entirely the wrong thing. I would also say that I think some of the nature of the workout strategies in general may attract these kind of behaviors.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> Crossfit charges 1000 bucks to certify that you understand the movements and general philosophy and 3000 bucks a year to use the "Crossfit" name. That's it. Each gym is only as bad as the trainers and/or person writing the programming. People got rhabdo before Crossfit and they'll get it when the fad dies down. The only thing I hate more than fanatical crossfiters is (are?) fanatical crossfit haters.

</comment><comment><USER5> As an Olympic-style Weightlifter and coach, I hold the usual reservations about Crossfit. The insensible use of the competition lifts for high repetitions, the bonkers programming, the creepy culture, the pack of drongoes at HQ, the deliberate absence of quality control.

However, it has two positive features, in my eyes:

1\. It gets lots of people up off their backsides and working hard. A lot of folk don't realise how much they can really do if they _want_ to do it. The flipside of Crossfit's sometimes overblown culture is that it forms a strong social environment for most trainees to motivate them to keep it up.

2\. It has introduced millions of people to Weightlifting and a lot of those people defect to the sport proper.

In the English-speaking world Crossfit has been a massive shot in the arm for Weightlifting and Powerlifting. They've gone from being struggling niche sports 10 years ago to seeing an unparalleled period of growth.

The current generation of Crossfitters won't make much of an impact on the elite levels of Weightlifting. But their children might.

In the long run, and despite the butchering of the lifts that goes on in many gyms, Crossfit might be the best thing that ever happened to my sport.

</comment><comment><USER29> Reading about CrossFit makes me a little queasy: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CrossFit#Body_weight_exercises](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CrossFit#Body_weight_exercises). A lot of these things don't seem very good for you. I feel like this stuff is going to come back to bite you in the ass in 20-30 years...

I personally would stick to basic weightlifting. You can get an intense 30-45 minute workout, don't put tons of pressure on your knees, and most importantly the long-term effects are very well-studied.

</comment><comment><USER30> I had rhabdomyolysis in high school after an intense afternoon of running around in the cold. Let me describe the pain:

* everytime I breathe in or down I felt like screaming

* moving almost any part of my body even an inch made me scream

* my urine was dark red

All my life I've had above normal pain tolerance from another chronic illness but it took rhabdomyolysis to really break me--quite literally. Ultimately it resulted in being put in a stretcher as I screamed my ass off.

It took a lot of morphine to find any relief and dialysis to fully recover.

<comment><USER24> My experience with rhabdo involved no pain (outside of really sore muscles).

I am not a doctor, but I think what you experienced was what rhabdo leads to if untreated: myoglobinuria (kidneys poisoned due to excess myoglobin) which then leads to acute renal failure (kidneys fail).

The normal treatment for rhabdo is intravenous saline (I had 5 days of saline), whereas myoglobinuria or acute renal failure require dialysis, since your kidneys have shut down.

In any case, that sounds absolutely frightening in the worst way imaginable. Any long-lasting side effects?

<comment><USER30> That sounds about right. Mine had gotten much worse by the time we took action, mostly because we confused it for my other illness during the early stages.

And thank you for crediting saline. I became a saline "addict" myself. We were told to get home health to give IV at any sign of red urine.

This was almost exactly 10 years ago. I've been well since.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> This article seems a little sensationalist. Just because a journal had an article about it with a cartoon attached doesn't mean they've adopted as a "mascot" or make light of the condition.

My wife has been doing crossfit full-force for almost a year (including some competitions [1]). Along with previous standard workouts and diet changes, she's lost 60+ lbs over the past 2 years. And she's getting pretty buff.

She's never heard of rhabdomyolysis.

Every exercise/activity has some risks. If anything, I'd say crossfit puts you at risk for other injuries (back, joints, heat exhaustion at competitions, etc.).

[1] My wife at a recent competition. A male competitor here fainted and had to go to the ER: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FnQ8ZDSmg70](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FnQ8ZDSmg70)

<comment><USER6> _Just because a journal had an article about it with a cartoon attached doesn 't mean they've adopted as a "mascot" or make light of the condition._

Unfortunately, that part is real. There were two unofficial mascots, Pukey the Clown and Rhabdo the Clown. If you puked during class, you "met one of the clowns." The clowns were celebrated on t-shirts, murals, etc. That was dumb, but it was eventually recognized as dumb, and it was stopped. Of course it provided grist for the first round of "Crossfit exposé" coverage, which has consistently attempted to portray Crossfit as a cult in which people uncritically worship ideas that are obviously problematic to anyone who hasn't been brainwashed.

There's a little bit of truth to that, in that many of the coaches are enthusiastic, rah-rah cheerleader types who don't take a critical approach to much of anything. However -- and this is a BIG however -- that is true of every approach to physical fitness I've ever been exposed to. Like other types of training, Crossfit has its share of smart and critical people as well, and they do their best to improve the practice of Crossfit and identify and fix problems.

<comment><USER5> > _Like other types of training, Crossfit has its share of smart and critical > people as well, and they do their best to improve the practice of Crossfit > and identify and fix problems._

The problem is that none of these people work at Crossfit HQ and CFHQ goes out its way to excommunicate them.

<comment><USER6> That's one reason it's actually a good thing that the affiliates are so loosely regulated. Everyone respects Mark Rippetoe, no matter if they entirely agree with his assessment of Crossfit or not, and everyone knows that Greg Glassman is a second-rate jackass (even if they give him credit for popularizing the idea of Crossfit in the first place.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> The biggest problem with Crossfit is that it promotes excessive amount of exercises under time pressure, which really is a dangerous combination. People die in competetive sports all the time. Its very rare but still, there are people dieing doing marathons, thriathlons, crossfit, biking and even less taxing endurance sports like football(soccer). Its rarer than rhabdo but excessive stress on your cardiovascular system can kill you (cardiac arrest, heart attack etc) especially if your heart isnt 100% healthy (and most young people have never made a check on their heart).

No reason to panic though, its very very rare, but it happens and thus it should be noted that excessive excersise (in whatever shape or form) just isnt risk free.

</comment><comment><USER33> Not a crossfitter but if they actively warn about the risk of rhabdo and have a cartoon (however poor taste some people may find it) then how is that a 'dirty little secret'?

<comment><USER5> It isn't, but it makes for great link-bait.

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> I have a lot of coworkers that injured themselves doing CrossFit. I don't understand why CrossFit is such a trend in the tech industry.

It seems like an easy way to hurt yourself.

Simply go to the gym and do your own workout...

<comment><USER35> The popularity in tech could certainly explain the large number of people embarrassing themselves here with their boneheaded defense of what is just another for profit company.

<comment><USER36> Implying for profit things are all bad?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> Veterans to CrossFit are not immune, nor are good movers/fit athletes in general.

I've been doing CrossFit for six years, this past December during a 'holiday' WOD I got nailed by acute rhabdo in my right arm.

It took many months of rehab and different body work techniques to get things back to normal. Very, very, painful process.

Honestly, the workout wasn't out of whack with a tougher than normal day. It was for me, however something that put me out of commission for five months.

Lesson learned.

</comment><comment><USER38> Oh really? Overexertion is bad? Tell me more!

There are a ton of things wrong with crossfit like their insistence of doing skill lifts for time. But training too much? That's actually your choice.

</comment><comment><USER39> "Any" exercise done in excess can trigger this. I suppose Crossfit's characteristics make it easier for it to happen

"You're supposed to push yourself to the limit, but when you hit the limit and pay the price, you're the idiot who went too far." Isn't it? There are several "coaches" that only know how to push people but have _no regards_ for personal limits

Diet can also cause rhabdomyolysis [http://www.ergo- log.com/vegerhabdo.html](http://www.ergo-log.com/vegerhabdo.html) (in this case, because of lack of protein - not necessarily because of vegetarianism)

</comment><comment><USER40> This apparently happens in p90x as well. The culture of mostly unathletic people trying to do extremely athletic things without any training beforehand is foolish and stupid.

The one thing p90x gets more right than apparently Crossfit does is the videos tell you to take breaks and go at your own pace. If you cant do 50 pushups in 90 seconds, do what you can. "do your best, forget the rest." is the refrain Tony uses, which is a lot smarter than telling people to push beyond their limits no matter what their body tells them.

</comment><comment><USER41> I am thankful for crossfit because it introduced me to powerlifting. But I quickly realized I liked the strength portions a lot more than the AMRAP (as many rounds as possible) and other timed workouts.

The official line is "you're only competing with yourself," but in practice that's not the case. Especially when there's a whiteboard and everyone knows what the various times/number of reps are. Trying to force anything with a strong technique component (like olympic lifts) into a time based or number of reps based competition just seems like a bad idea.

Also, with the wide variety of WODs, it's hard to track progress. Yeah, the workouts repeat, but if you only do something a couple times a year it's hard to keep track of progress.

I ended up doing Starting Strength instead. I got my squat from about 80lbs to 245, and then 295 with some intermediate programming. I almost never got sore - only a little sore after the first couple workouts, or if I missed a week or two. I'm currently trying to figure out how to integrate cardio and lifting, which is one thing that crossfit has going for it, but I liked powerlifting workouts a lot more than crossfit.

</comment><comment><USER42> Pretty impressive that most diets fail and it is so easy to go the gym and not do much, this is pretty much one of the few stand out exceptions that can motivate people to the point of hurting themselves. Seems like a success if a little more precautions were added to avoid this one issue.

</comment><comment><USER43> Every single article I read on medium is near worthless.

</comment><comment><USER44> What's different about CrossFit from regular exercise? It doesn't give a summary of what it is or how it's different. That makes me scared that all exercise has this risk, especially lifting weights, which I enjoy. Is that true?

<comment><USER45> The main difference I see is that CrossFit is presented as a sport in and of itself, rather than a way to train for other sports.

Your second point is not true if you follow the most basic guidelines for making sure you have good form and don't overtrain. It's the culture of competing against others to finish a set workout quickly that distinguishes crossfit, that both motivates people to train harder, makes people who like competition enjoy tough and normally dull workouts and also leads to bad form and overtraining.

<comment><USER46> Olympic lifting, running, rowing, swimming, and more are all sports in which the main for of training is doing the sport.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER47> Good lord, what is with all the Crossfit hate? I've been an avid crossfiter for over 3 years and I've never once had an injury. As with all workouts, you need to listen to your body. It doesn't matter who prescribes them - <USER2> it be Crossfit, Men's Health or GQ Magazine, your general practitioner, Tony Robbins, or your best friend BodyBuilder Bob. Listen to your body. If something hurts, stop. If you're too sore to move, rest. If you're hungry, eat.

All this talk about Crossfit being the problem is b.s. You have a choice.

</comment><comment><USER48> Same thing here. Got it in 2007 on my 2nd day w/ a physical trainer after being a lazy slob for several years. Physical trainer said his method was "push to failure" and it was the proper way to learn my limits and establish a routine. My CK was over 110,000 and I spent a week in the hospital. It was painful and no fun at all. Doctors were surprised I left the hospital with both kidneys. Long term effect, for me, was nothing. Got a rough education though and now approach my physical fitness with a lot of caution.

</comment><comment><USER49> From the article: "It's so rare that one study reported the overall annual incidence of rhabdomyolysis to be 0.06%"

Crossfit reports only 5 cases up till May 2005: [http://library.crossfit.com/free/pdf/38_05_cf_rhabdo.pdf](http://library.crossfit.com/free/pdf/38_05_cf_rhabdo.pdf)

I wonder how the numbers stack up after taking into account only the population that does some form of exercise.

</comment><comment><USER50> Lots of smart people here and no one is looking for real data, including the author of this article.

My bet is that rhabo:crossfit is similar to crashes:airplanes - you don't hear about all the people that do crossfit and simply get into shape without serious injury (most everyone who does crossfit).

Do more people get rhabdo doing crossfit than concussions playing football or torn ACLs playing basketball? Doubt it.

</comment><comment><USER51> I don't get why this is on the top of hacker news. I'm getting this impression that most hackers are ripped crossfit dudes/gals.

</comment><comment><USER52> When in doubt, just do regular time-tested strength training and you'll be fine. Works 100% of the time, 0 bull.

</comment><comment><USER53> I wonder if I could get office workers to shift rubble for me in the evenings and get them to pay for the privilege as a fitness craze. I have never really understood paying to lift things, you might as well do an evening shift doing order picking at a warehouse.

</comment><comment><USER54> Most people don't come nearly close enough to working so hard they damage themselves. Since the overwhelming majority of people don't work hard enough, the fact that CrossFit pushes people is a good thing.

</comment><comment><USER55> Unrelated to the actual post, I have seen that with pages on medium the images load first and then after about 4seconds the text loads. Its a rather long wait for the text to load. Did any one else see that?

<comment><USER56> That's the typical behavior of pages that use Web Fonts. The text doesn't show until the font has downloaded.

<comment><USER55> Thanks! Did not know that.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER57> 10 pages to say: if you over train, it's dangerous for your health. Crossfit mentality pushes for over training, over exhaustion.

thanks.

</comment><comment><USER58> It should be mentioned that it normally only occurs when well trained people stop working out for a couple of weeks and then get into it again at full speed.

If you are used to working out hard, you won't get rhabdomyolysis.

So if you're pretty fit but stopped working out for a while, get into it with moderation!

To everyone else: don't be scared of rhabdomyolysis and work out!

<comment><USER59> Well, there you have it folks - the story in the article is obviously the fault of the very fit physical therapist having no idea and just carelessly blowing up her own arms. Can't possibly happen to _you_!

</comment></comment><comment><USER60> hi there i'm a journalist in the Uk and looking for someone who'd be willing to be interviewed about this? If anyone is up for it please email me email@example.com</comment>


The HTML5 test – How well does your browser support HTML5? - <AUTHOR> http://html5test.com/ <comment><USER2> Codec support isn't HTML5 support. Also, since when was MP3 audio/mpeg3 (which is tested)? The test should be for audio/mpeg. I know Chrome supports MP3.

<comment> loup-vaillant That was an explicit choice: "In some cases the tests go beyond the specification." Given the current battle over codecs right now, I think this is a good choice.

<comment><USER3> That doesn't change the fact that the correct MIME type of mp3 _IS_ audio/mpeg, not audio/mpeg3. It is a defect to test for audio/mpeg3.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I don't agree with the video ratings - codec support isn't defined in the HTML5 specification. It's not really fair to give a rating based on unspecified decisions.

There's still a big debate about who's wrong and right, why should this test get involved? Surely some people will just see that Chrome gets 30/30 and think that Firefox/Safari are thus inferior.

</comment><comment><USER5> Internet Explorer 8: 19/160

<comment><USER6> Same with the Platform Preview 9.00.7745.6019

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> It'd be more useful to have this list for all browsers, rather than just the one you happen to be using.

<comment><USER8> Table of overall scores for different browsers: <http://rakaz.nl/2010/03/the- html5-test.html>

<comment><USER9> I love the scores posted, I also love that I don't see any above me (Chrome 5.0.371.0) (yet), but I'd like to see a bit of a better breakdown. Anyone know of some info on some of the conflicts, like I'm missing a few in User Interaction, but I don't know who isn't. Or other html5 statistics sites, since the topic is a pretty common trend right now.

Edit: (Like this: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_layout_engines_(H...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_layout_engines_\(HTML_5\)) in case its useful to anyone)

I agree on the fact that there should be some differentiation between current html5 and proposed, (and that this site is hilarious: <http://isgeolocationpartofhtml5.com/>), as well as some of the downfalls of scoring codec support that the author has mentioned, I think I like the out of 155 idea where chrome can go above it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> This test seems kind of silly because it's testing things that aren't even close to becoming standards. Take Web SQL: <http://dev.w3.org/html5/webdatabase/>

The current version this test is based off, was put up this month by Google. Just a few months ago, SQL wasn't even in a draft document.

Personally, I think it's destructive to put tests up on drafts that are so highly volatile. The biggest CSS bug in IE6 was because the initial definition of the box model was ambiguous about measuring width vs padding.

</comment><comment><USER11> Where are WebSockets?

<comment><USER9> Isn't WebKit the only engine to support them now, and isn't in not formalized yet? But I think KAAZING would make support easily feasible without direct built in support so I'm not too concerned with including it in the score.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> NCSA Mosaic 2.7b6: None existant

</comment><comment><USER13> WebKit nightly r57408: 137/160

<comment><USER14> r56990 — 143

<comment><USER9> How does that work? It went backwards? And WebKit in what browser?

<comment><USER15> WebKit nightlies: <http://nightly.webkit.org/>

And they probably enabled or disabled some features, based on what they're working on.

For awhile (or, a few days, at least), Safari release was faster than WebKit nightlies on SunSpider, since they were working on strings in SFX (or something like that. Point I'm making is, release was faster and the slowdown was in the strings test).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> N900 default browser: 55

I'm pretty surprised at that. I expected higher due to it's Firefox roots.

</comment><comment><USER17> I thought I will get a zero. But this site doesn't work in Lynx.

<http://www.yellowpipe.com/yis/tools/lynx/lynx_viewer.php>

</comment><comment><USER18> The tests for "section", "nav", "article", etc. fail in Firefox because it report them as "HTMLUnknownElement" not because they can't be really used and styled like any other element.

</comment><comment><USER19> wow, chrome on linux scores 137. Higher than the latest firefox!

<comment><USER20> Current chrome-unstable (5.0.371.0dev) on Linux scores 142.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> H.264 codec support is NOT part of HTML5.

</comment><comment><USER21> Safari on iPod Touch (3.1.3 OS): 113

<comment><USER22> Android (Nexus One): 118

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> This proves HTML5 has a very long ways to go before replacing all 3rd party plugins.

</comment><comment><USER24> OmniWeb 5.10.2 sneaky peek (v622.11 r128512): 113 (not in the rakaz.nl list)

</comment><comment><USER25> Whatever version of Iron that I'm using on Linux: 118.

</comment><comment><USER26> IPad Safari: 115

</comment><comment><USER27> 142/160 Chrome 5.0.371.0 dev on OSX

</comment><comment><USER28> Firefox 3.6.3: 101/160

Chrome 5.0.342.7 beta: 137/160

<comment><USER29> Webkit Nightly: 133/160

<comment><USER30> Firefox nightly: 102

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> Mozilla Firefox 3.6.3: 101/160

<comment><USER32> Latest, ie Gecko/20100410 Minefield/3.7a5pre 20100410 (well almost latest): 102

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> w3m and links: Des not run.

</comment><comment><USER34> I got 138 with Epiphany.

</comment><comment><USER35> Safari 4.0.5: 115/160

<comment> j-g-faustus Other OS X alternatives (on OS X 10.5):

Opera 10.10: 38/160

Firefox 3.6.3: 101/160

Chrome 5.0.342: 137/160

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> Midori 0.1.9

117/160

</comment><comment><USER37> Safari 4.0.5 / OS X 10.6.3/x86 - 120/160.

I believe various configuration settings might affect the score.

</comment><comment><USER38> Chrome 5.0.342.9 beta: 137/160

<comment><USER39> Chrome 5.0.371.0 dev: 142/160</comment></comment>


The Angry Evolutionist - <AUTHOR> http://www.newsweek.com/id/216140

<comment><USER2> >It would be so nice if those who oppose evolution would take a tiny bit of trouble to learn the merest rudiments of what it is that they are opposing.

Sigh. This depresses me more than anything else about the creationists I've met: the stubborn, aggressive, unapologetic ignorance in which they happily cloak themselves.

<comment><USER3> Trust me, it depresses some creationists too.

<comment><USER4> Which ones?

<comment><USER5> Probably those that don't deny evolution. I think they are more the "intelligent design" camp. I'm not terribly familiar with what the labels mean.

<comment><USER4> Intelligent design, as far as I understand, argues that there is (must be) a conscious and deliberate designer. It doesn't specify who.

Most evolutionists think that intelligent design is a creationist conspiracy to teach creationism under a different name and re-branded as a scientific theory. It is usually presented as a conflicting theory.

<comment><USER6> I'd say it's more like cognitive dissonance on the part of educated creationists. They have to reconcile the fact that they live in the modern world with the fact that they believe in something that has no place in it.

<comment><USER4> I don't see a flood of educated creationists embracing intelligent design in its common forms.

<comment><USER6> No? In my experience intelligent design proponents tend to be better educated than plain old creationists. Moreover in environments where most people embrace science, you are much more likely to find an IDer than a creationist. Intelligent design makes it possible for people to keep their crufty notions without feeling like troglodytes. But since it really is just a slim veneer of jingoist science, on some level they still feel insecure about it, which is why they need official institutions to recognize it.

Of course there some people who consciously use intelligent design to get creationism back into the classroom, but I don't think that the majority of people who subscribe to it are so calculating.

Never ascribe to malice what can be adequately explained by psychology.

<comment><USER4> Now I'm curious. Are there any real biologists promoting this?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I always wonder why people care so much about this. There isn't a good reason why this would ever matter to someone. If your case is strong make it and move on. Most people don't have sufficient background in science to understand much of physics or math these days but no one really gets mad about that. The truth is the truth and it settles itself in the end. I'm yet to hear of a single chair of a biology department of any major university who doesn't agree with contemporary evolutionary theory and people in the US have doubted evolution since it was first introduced. There isn't some looming threat to science and no one needs to get so upset about this.

I'm a follower of Jesus who believes in angels but I don't have a super strong belief about evolution either way. I'll probably teach evolution to my kids who I plan on homeschooling and encourage them to consider how this might fit with a world view that includes God. Believing or not believing in evolution is just not a central issue to most people following Jesus. I've never met anyone who this is a big issue for. I guess they're out there but it's never really seemed like this massive issue for people.

<comment><USER8> (Disclaimer: I'm reading HN because I'm procrastinating work on my Ph.D. thesis...on an evolutionary model ;-)

 _There isn't a good reason why this would ever matter to someone._

How's this for a reason why it should matter: You pay taxes, as do your neighbors. When you pay those taxes, you expect them to pay for things you feel are worth while. You also vote, and you will probably vote for people who you are confident will steer those tax dollars to projects you feel are worth while.

I'm a scientist (or at least, I am for now...I don't think I'll be able to make a living at it for much longer. I'll have to get a "real" job). Most of the research I do is funded, directly or indirectly, by tax dollars. When the people who value evolution and an understanding of the biological world had their way, a lot of money was steered toward funding that sort of research. Then, people who didn't accept evolution came into power. They steered money away from this sort of research, and into fighting wars of aggression. For nearly the past decade, funding has remained flat (after doubling in the preceding 5 years...a rate which was probably too fast, but that's a whole 'nother story).

Why would you care about my research? Well, I research evolution. Specifically, I'm interested in how to determine what factors will function as selective pressures _a priori_. Why is that important? Remember last April when OMG SWINE FLU!!!1!!11 Do you remember the pundits and professors and learned people of all sorts that got on the TV and the radio? Do you remember the hosts of all those show asking: Now what? How bad? And do you remember that nobody could give a straight answer?

You know why they couldn't give a straight answer? It's not so much because the don't know why the flu might be more or less severe. There's been a lot of research into that lately, and we have a good idea what mutations might make the flu a killer, and which are mostly harmless. No, the reason they couldn't give you a straight answer is because which of those mutations would be acquired, and in what proportions, depends on evolution, on selective pressures...and we can't predetermine what those selective pressures will be! Maybe we could, if you'd be ok giving some tax dollars to fund evolution research, or at least vote for people who would be ok with that.

Oh, and for the entrepreneurs that will predictably say that I shouldn't rely on the government for funding, and that I should instead count on the private sector? Here's the deal I'll offer you (and I think you'll be hard pressed to find a better offer): I give you a 5% probability that the research I will do in the next, say, 40 years, at a cost of only $15mil a year, will lead to being better able to predict where the next pandemic might occur. Would you fund me? Or, more importantly, could you find a government that would allow us to keep that information as a trade secret until the original investment of $600mil (adjusted for 40 years of inflation, of course) was recouped?

/rant _phew_...now about that thesis...

<comment><USER9> (^ that was the longest comment i ever read on HN)

there is one thing that i don't understand about evolution.

if evolution is true than human, bear, elephant, and any-big-animal-that- exist-today-except-whale should be the "biggest" thing that happened today, after evolving. but, why there is exist monstrous animal like t-Rex, whale, mammoth, etc. ?

EDIT: for anyone who could not see my face when typing this, "that was the longest comment i ever read on HN" is a compliment, not a sarcasm.

<comment><USER10> Natural selection states that the most fit for survival will survive. When applied to evolution, it means that humans were better-suited for survival than t-rexes.

Think about it like this: A T-Rex has to eat a lot of food to survive. What happens when there is a shortage of food? The T-Rex can kill and eat just about anything, but it need s a lot of it to survive. Humans aren't as fit to kill things as T-Rexes, but they are smarter, and they don't need to eat as much, and they can survive on plants too. Humans could grow and store food, so they survived. Dinosaurs weren't smart enough to grow or store food, so they had to eat when they found food, or not eat. They didn't survive.

(Please, nobody 'correct' me by saying that a meteor killed the dinosaurs. For this example, it was their small brains.)

<comment><USER11> "humans were better-suited for survival than t-rexes"

A bizarre statement, given that the two never existed at the same time.

Yes, it was indeed a meteor that killed almost all the dinosaurs (except a group of theropods that had evolved wings and survive to this day). Evidently the shrew-like mammals of the time were better suited to the post-impact environment. We evolved from them.

<comment><USER9> so, every body know that meteor killed almost all the dinosaurs. but no body is telling me ? it's some kind of public secret or what ?

<comment><USER11> Apparently.

The first major clue is the presence of iridium (a metal common in asteroids) at exactly the right place in the rocks (the Cretaceous-Tertiary or "KT" boundary, dating to 65 million years ago, which is also when non-avian dinosaurs went extinct). That was discovered around 1980 by Alvarez et al.

Further research has led us to the Chicxulub crater near the Yucatan Peninsula as the impact site.

Now you know.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Believing in angels and believing in evolution evolution are not mutually exclusive. The statement is misleading. Most people believe in evolution, not creationism. Those who do believe in creationism have detached themselves from logic and reality, so there's _no point_ in arguing with them.

</comment><comment><USER13> I've read this calling Dawkins 'angry' a few times already and the stupid sensationalism bothers me: I've never seen him "angry", neither have I come across a written rant; he's always pretty calm.

</comment><comment><USER14> Derek Bickerton dissects Dawkins (and others) nicely:

[http://beyondscienceversusreligion.blogspot.com/2009/09/four...](http://beyondscienceversusreligion.blogspot.com/2009/09/four- guys-against-god-5-richard-dawkins.html)

[http://beyondscienceversusreligion.blogspot.com/2009/09/four...](http://beyondscienceversusreligion.blogspot.com/2009/09/four- guys-against-god-6-dawkins-vgod-20.html)

Bickerton's blog "Beyond science versus religion":

[http://beyondscienceversusreligion.blogspot.com/2009/09/miss...](http://beyondscienceversusreligion.blogspot.com/2009/09/mission- statement.html)

From Bickerton's mission statement:

[He has an] "unwavering commitment to seek out bullshit and destroy it in all of its varying forms and disguises" [shades of the Augean stables!].

"This blog goes beyond the currently escalating struggle between science and religion, seeking new ways to reconcile them ... We'll go fearlessly where neither atheists nor believers have gone, submitting both sides to searching criticism they have not yet received. Earlier posts feature shortcomings of the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse--Harris, Hitchens, Dawkins, Dennett--but then the religious get their turn."

</comment><comment><USER15> To be clear, I am squarely on Dawkins's side, I am not a Creationist, or a follower of any religion. What Dawkins is saying makes perfect sense to me. Having said that, I have often found it curious the number of times I have seen Dawkins interviewed or read his writings, he does tend to talk down to his foes or use a rather snide style. I can totally understand that he must be very frustrated by now that the completely logical position he has championed for so long garners a surprising amount of rejection in certain circles.

However, if he truly feels that "It would be so nice if those who oppose evolution would take a tiny bit of trouble to learn the merest rudiments of what it is that they are opposing." he might do well to take a different tone in his writings.

If however, he is really just preaching to the converted, then this would likely explain the tone that he often seems to take.

</comment><comment><USER16> This is one of those debates/issues that is not going to be solved on HN, is more likely to generate heat than light, and thus is probably more appropriate for some other forum.

<comment><USER17> I agree, this has nothing to do with hackernews and is only serving to isolate people.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> The fact that we share so much of our genetic code with other animals shows that we are linked in some way.

<comment><AUTHOR> This doesn't follow since in a creationist view it is possible that the more similar the animals, the more similar their DNA.

However, one can make a very strong argument for evolution by looking at non- functional parts of DNA. For example, our DNA contains a program for producing vitamin C but it doesn't work. A similar program in other animals does work.

<comment><USER19> Interesting - I haven't heard about non-functional vitamin C-producing program before... Could you point to an article/book with some details about it?

<comment><AUTHOR> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudogene>

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Dawkins is awesome. The man cares enough to educate and debunk myths. I wish all academics had such passion and devotions to their craft.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> While evolution is true, it doesn't explain the most interesting aspects of life -- namely, consciousness and (apparent) free will.

This is an enormous gap in understanding and it would be nice if Dawkins were to acknowledge this more in his talks. Evolution doesn't really explain life.

<comment><USER21> Perhaps life has no explanation. Perhaps the fact that every person who tries to understand life reaches a different "answer" implies that life is life to be life, and that any other meaning is personal in nature.

Evolution is describing something objective—it describes _how_ something happens. You're looking for the subjective realm of philosophy.

<comment><AUTHOR> Consciousness is a real phenomenon. Although it is a subjective experience, the fact that it exists is entirely objective.

<comment><USER22> The fact that a single, first-person consciousness exists is entirely objective. To the best of my knowledge, there is no scientific way to go about verifying the consciousness of others; despite this (and despite the traditional "lack of evidence _is_ evidence of lack" bent of Popperian science), most people work from a default assumption that other people have an existence somewhat similar to their own.

<comment><USER23> > The fact that a single, first-person consciousness exists is entirely > objective.

I wouldn't describe my consciousness as 'single or 'first-person. It often runs multiple threads, and by no means exclusively thinks of itself in the first-person.

Additionally, it really doesn't identify with this body much more than, say, this house or computer. My consciousness isn't 'human any more than it's "ranch-style" or 'x86. Our language has already adopted inorganic technologies as extensions of ourselves (e.g. I say "I'll come over" which expands to "I'll come over in my car").

<comment><USER24> You might be interested in Thomas Nagel's "What is it like to be a bat?" which takes the opposite stance to you, i.e. that bat consciousness is inseparable from being a bat (and analogously, human).

See e.g. <http://www.consciousentities.com/bats.htm></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>