Amusing, but one man’s modus ponens is another man’s modus tollens. We know that nicotine has many performance benefits; to jump from a recommendation to use nicotine—which seems perfectly justified to me! - to a recommendation to smoke tobacco is not a matter of cherrypicking but ignoring what is actually being shown.
For that matter, this seems suspiciously like applause lights, with the implicit argument ‘smoking is bad, hence any recommendation to smoke refutes the method or sources used to produce the recommendation’.
Do we actually know that smoking hurts athletic performance on net, or are we just going with the general massive current social prejudice against smoking? After all, gymnasts or ballerinas were notorious for smoking, or so The Simpsons had lead me to believe. And the review’s point that elite athletes rarely smoke could just be due to athletes’ self-image and the aforementioned social pressures (and their failure to embrace nicotine is not evidence, given that the review spent a good chunk of the intro deriding widespread athletic use of proven-worthless & dangerous methods like altitude training).
A family member of mine used to work for Cirque du Soleil. Apparently, those Russian guys who pull off incredible feats of strength and concentration chain smoke while not on stage.
If you want to get athletic benefits from nicotine, the obvious solution is to get it from patches or any other source that doesn’t crud up your lungs. Smokers have perpetually lowered blood oxygen content, something that would be disadvantageous to nearly any athlete.
I agree, however I don’t think “smoking is bad” is much of an applause light here. A real applause light would be if the post needlessly referenced things like map and territory.
Amusing, but one man’s modus ponens is another man’s modus tollens. We know that nicotine has many performance benefits; to jump from a recommendation to use nicotine—which seems perfectly justified to me! - to a recommendation to smoke tobacco is not a matter of cherrypicking but ignoring what is actually being shown.
For that matter, this seems suspiciously like applause lights, with the implicit argument ‘smoking is bad, hence any recommendation to smoke refutes the method or sources used to produce the recommendation’.
Do we actually know that smoking hurts athletic performance on net, or are we just going with the general massive current social prejudice against smoking? After all, gymnasts or ballerinas were notorious for smoking, or so The Simpsons had lead me to believe. And the review’s point that elite athletes rarely smoke could just be due to athletes’ self-image and the aforementioned social pressures (and their failure to embrace nicotine is not evidence, given that the review spent a good chunk of the intro deriding widespread athletic use of proven-worthless & dangerous methods like altitude training).
A family member of mine used to work for Cirque du Soleil. Apparently, those Russian guys who pull off incredible feats of strength and concentration chain smoke while not on stage.
If you want to get athletic benefits from nicotine, the obvious solution is to get it from patches or any other source that doesn’t crud up your lungs. Smokers have perpetually lowered blood oxygen content, something that would be disadvantageous to nearly any athlete.
I don’t know why you’re being downvoted; perhaps for restating part of what I said.
I agree, however I don’t think “smoking is bad” is much of an applause light here. A real applause light would be if the post needlessly referenced things like map and territory.
The review was not written for LW.