
Exercise Biology
2.3K posts

Exercise Biology
@ExerciseBiology
The Science of Exercise & Nutrition. Evidence-based 'opinions' & 'expertise"





High-flow oxygen for the win in acute hypoxic respiratory failure Trial confirms practice & previous studies Less intubation: -NNT 17 with benefits emerging by day 1 & plateauing by day 4 Less perceived shortness of breath: -NNT 7 for improvement in dyspnea -5 point benefit on a 100-point visual scale nejm.org/doi/10.1056/NE…








My debate with Ayurveda practitioner Vaidya Vasundhara Sadineni is happening on 14th March, 2026 (this Saturday) at 3PM on Neuronz YouTube channel. youtube.com/c/neuronz I am prepared. But also brushing up on data and studies....while my opponent is also gearing up for the debate like this....🥲 instagram.com/vasuvedaoffici…


A new randomized, double-blind trial found that taking omega-3s daily for 3 months significantly improved stress, anxiety, depression, sleep quality, and everyday memory in adults with severe psychological distress. A simple daily intervention (500mg EPA and 250mg DHA) improved nearly every psychological measure the researchers tested.


Still can’t get over this article by Anish. It’s better than all of the coverage of Vinay combined over the last year. Whipped up on a Saturday morning after an intense week, no less. Genuinely interested to hear any specific, substance-based critiques or additional information others think is important.


@dnunan79 @BoussageonR @LGHemkens @RecoveryDoctor @GuyattGH @AnilMakam @dnunan79 Hallo, here is your unroll: threadreaderapp.com/thread/2030157… Enjoy :) 🤖

@dnunan79 @LGHemkens @RecoveryDoctor @GuyattGH @AnilMakam Thank you, David, for this detailed response, which helps me move forward in my thinking! I will respond point by point. If EBM does not indicate which decision to make, then we should refer to "evidence-informed medicine" rather than "evidence-based medicine." EIM vs. EBM!





A greatly under-appreciated side effect of niche academic debate on twitter is that everyone else (aka gen public) can see it too. While other docs rightly call out obvious misinformation, John comes out and says well actuallyyyyyy, if you look at the data, he’s not *actually* wrong! See?! What others see: hmm Aseem Malhotra is making sense… hey look an esteemed cardiologist using papers to support Aseem Malhotra’s claim, looks legit! 🤔 Do you think people realize the nuance that the actual problem (the “fuss”) is not that data itself but the fact that it is being intentionally misused to push a dangerous and misleading narrative that might influence people who actually need their statin the most, to stop taking them? No. Why should they either? John could have used this opportunity to really highlight that, but he didn’t. Interesting. The problem is not the data, it is the messaging and narrative.





















