I found the AI writing of this post to really detract from its message. Give your agent meaningful writing samples of your own work and use those as a ‘style transfer’ basis for blog posts to get something far more true to your own voice.
Or please just put the prompt in a blog post instead.
Who would read a blog post that just says "Think of a topic that users of an app for monitoring blood oxygen might be interested in, do a web search for related articles and synthesize them into a blog post. Make sure to draw on your own personal experience to make it more engaging"? I'm sure the actual ad at the bottom had more human effort put into it than this article.<p>The website owner didn't even bother to check for hallucinated links, though <a href="https://journals.physiology.org/doi/full/10.1152/japplphysiol.91324.2008" rel="nofollow">https://journals.physiology.org/doi/full/10.1152/japplphysio...</a> does exist and somewhat backs up the clickbait headline, so it would be satisfying comeuppance if the mods could just replace the submission accordingly.
It's well-structured and the message is clear. Are we intentionally prompting LLM to write badly now? Do we have to <i>manually write bad essays</i> to avoid AI accusation?
It's just so cliche. The dramatic transitions which introduce things that aren't as important as the transition itself. The flow is very AI, short dramatic responses to a previous question that's also not "groundbreaking" enough to warrant such a style. It's just hard to unsee these things. Idk man, I guess if you like it, that's great but I <i>cringe</i> when I read this and I never finish reading because I assume the author put in minimal effort so why should I?
There's confidently hallucinated citations, which makes it bad writing either way.
Usually, I can easily tell <i>bad</i> AI slop, because it is just that - sloppy - the bullet points, the 'delving' and all that.
But how can you tell this article was also AI-tainted?
On a second skim, I can sort of sense some of it - the bulletpoint-enthusiasm, the idiosyncratic segues (?) that link sections/paragraphs of the text.
But it didn't trigger for me immediately, or cause me concern..?<p>I'm worrying that soon, I will have to hunt for non-AI essays by them just being worse written/more 'crude' and not as eloquently written as an AI would do :-/
Basically, seeking out "authentic human slop".
It's very clear to me on its face that it's AI, but not "obvious as the sky is blue" others seem to be implying. I would dislike the writing style even if it weren't AI.<p>For the record, an AI detector that appears to have put work into reliability and that I trust very much from my own testing, Pangram (<a href="https://www.pangram.com" rel="nofollow">https://www.pangram.com</a>), says this is 100% AI generated. I've used it plenty before when experimenting with AI-collab writing, both fiction and non-fiction, and it's frustratingly accurate in identifying what is and isn't my contribution. I have since largely given up trying to do AI-collab writing, because no matter how nice the writing looks in the moment, it always reeks when read closely, or on later days.
Here's the part that really stood out for me. Not one thing but the other thing that isn't really noteworthy.<p>(Also have a look at Wikipedia how to identify signs of ai writing.)
Passages like this one suggest that maybe it was an AI rewrite, rather than from scratch:<p>> I experienced this pattern without understanding it. My Tuesday evening interval sessions, scheduled after long workdays, consistently felt worse than my Saturday morning sessions. I blamed sleep, stress, hydration. Those all matter, but the research suggests the cognitive load itself was a primary culprit.
The sentences are all roughly the same length too
You really couldn't tell? The overly dramatic transitions all over the place is such an obvious tell:<p>> Here's the part that surprised me:<p>Might as well have said "here's the kicker" and used emojis instead of bullets. Maybe you can share your reading sites as you seem rather undrrexposed to not recognize this immediately lol.<p>Edit: I mean come on man, how can you <i>not</i> tell?! I'm still cringing from this one:<p>> The incremental cost of actually thinking hard? Almost nothing.<p>Edit II<p>"This isn't <i>one</i> study"<p>Dum dum dum. Sooo dramatic. 100% slop.
> The incremental cost of actually thinking hard? Almost nothing.<p>Wait you can tell from this that it's written by a LLM? I think <i>you're</i> written by a LLM...
Hmmm... I write like this.<p>Maybe AI is being trained on my writings.<p>Edit: Maybe because I was raised in the 80s, but this style of "asking a question to introduce a topic" was very common back then.
Or better, style-transfer the training data, and retrain the model.
Why is this AI writing accusation necessary? Plenty of humans write this way. Have you ever read pre-AI content marketing articles? If you've learned a bunch content marketing advise then you'll see those patterns that you now associate with "AI writing" were already all over the place. Baity titles like "Why it's bad that X did Y" or "<explanation of the problem>. Want to be freed from worrying about this? Use $OUR_BRAND", urgh, once you learn those patterns you can't unsee it.<p>Granted, you don't like to like this style of writing, I don't either. But you don't have to auto-accuse AI writing either. Also, there's nothing wrong with using AI to rephrase a manually written text for better readability, plenty of people use AI for that too rather than writing the entire thing.
I wanted to test my theory that "don't use cliche'd language" helps with that, but incredibly the essays ChatGPT is giving me today don't have any of the tells. How do I get it to give me slop?<p>I asked "Can you give me a short essay on the history of fire." Maybe the type of writing requested has a massive effect on the language used?
Possibly. As for this blog post and for most slop the prompt itself will contain the material. The material will be very short.<p>"Here is one paragraph of an idea, an abstract of a report. Write a blog post."<p>Whereas a "history of fire" contains no article in the prompt and so might have more material from its own auto complete database to draw from.
Or just fucking write it yourself!
I've also been interested for some time in how metabolism works and wanted to debunk the popular myth for my friends that exercise burns a lot of calories, since I was under the impression that around 80% of energy we burn is just by "living" - breathing and thinking.<p>Reading this article I'm a little confused by the author's conflation of brain energy and the energy expenditure of the body as a whole. In the beginning they mention:<p>> "Your brain consumes roughly 20 to 25% of your body's total energy at rest"<p>while later they say:<p>> "Even chess grandmasters, who sit for hours in states of intense concentration, burn only about 1.67 calories per minute while playing, compared to 1.53 calories per minute at rest"<p>That second figure seems to refer to whole-body expenditure, not just the brain. And intense cognitive work doesn't happen in a metabolic vacuum - there's increased cerebral blood flow, elevated sympathetic nervous system activity, changes in heart rate variability, hormonal shifts (cortisol, adrenaline). These all have systemic metabolic costs that go beyond the glucose the neurons themselves consume. So the "it's just a banana and a half" framing might be undercounting by quietly switching between brain-only and whole-body measurements.<p>Also somewhat related - the link to businessinsider about chess grandmasters is broken, but another very interesting rabbit hole here is how energy expenditure is actually measured. A lot of what consumer devices and even many studies report is based on proxy biomarkers like heart rate, HRV, weight, age, and sex, run through linear regression models. True calorimetry (indirect via gas exchange, or direct in a metabolic chamber) is expensive and impractical outside lab settings. That means the precise calorie figures cited with such confidence - the "100 to 200 extra calories" from a day of thinking, or the per-minute burn rates of chess grandmasters - likely carry wider error bars than the article suggests. We don't really have a great way to measure real-world energy expenditure accurately at the individual level, which makes me a bit cautious about the neat narrative of "thinking is calorically cheap, full stop."<p>That said, the core point about adenosine accumulation and perceived exertion affecting training quality is fascinating and well-supported — that part of the article is genuinely useful regardless of the calorie accounting.
> debunk the popular myth for my friends that exercise burns a lot of calories<p>Depends on your level of exercise. I often cycle 100km per day and can tell you if I ate only the 2000 kcal I hypothetically need I would go into a strong deficit.
100km is a lot of exercising...
> if I ate only the 2000 kcal I hypothetically need I would go into a strong deficit<p>Right, and that's kind of my point - the "2000 kcal" figure is itself part of the problem. It's a rough global average that doesn't account for your sex, age, weight, body composition, activity level, or even climate. It's a number on a food label, not a physiological reality for any specific person.<p>And even if you could nail down your actual total daily energy expenditure, calorie counting treats all calories as equal, which they aren't. Your body spends 20-30% of the energy in protein just to digest and metabolize it, compared to 5-10% for carbohydrates and 0-5% for fat. So 100 kcal of chicken breast and 100 kcal of butter are not metabolically equivalent - your body nets significantly less usable energy from the protein. This is the thermic effect of food, and it alone accounts for roughly 10% of your total daily energy expenditure.<p>Speaking of which - basal metabolic rate (just keeping your organs running, blood circulating, cells maintained) accounts for about 60-70% of total daily energy expenditure. Add the thermic effect of food on top and you're at roughly 70-80% of your energy budget spent before you even stand up from bed [1]. Physical activity - including your 100km rides - typically makes up the remaining 20-30%, though obviously that range is wide and shifts dramatically for endurance athletes.<p>So yes, of course people who cycle 100km need more fuel. Nobody is disputing that. My point is that most people vastly overestimate how many calories exercise burns relative to what their body spends just existing, and they use kcal as a universal unit of nutritional value when the body's actual energy extraction varies significantly by macronutrient composition. People optimizing purely on calorie numbers are working with a model that's far rougher than they think.<p>And this whole picture gets worse with wearables pushing calorie counts front and center. You see it all the time - "my wearable shows that i burned 300 kcal with that activity so it zero outs that sweet thing I ate earlier that was also 300 kcal" That's wrong on multiple levels - the device estimate is inaccurate to begin with, the thermic processing of that pastry isn't equivalent to the "300 kcal" on its label, and your body doesn't do neat arithmetic like that anyway. But with every fitness app and smartwatch plastering a big kcal number on your workout summary, it's becoming the default way people think about food and exercise, and it's reinforcing exactly the wrong mental model.<p>[1]: <a href="https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/body/basal-metabolic-rate-bmr" rel="nofollow">https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/body/basal-metabolic-r...</a>
> doesn't account for [...] activity level<p>That specific aspect might end up irrelevant for dieting, which is <i>exciting</i> since it flies in the face of intuition. It seems that when it comes to long-term modes of existence (as opposed to, say, the one day of the marathon) the "activity level" doesn't really affect how much energy your body uses.<p>> In this study, we used the doubly-labeled water method to measure total daily energy expenditure (kCal/day) in Hadza hunter-gatherers to test whether foragers expend more energy each day than their Western counterparts. As expected, physical activity level, PAL, was greater among Hadza foragers than among Westerners. Nonetheless, average daily energy expenditure of traditional Hadza foragers was no different than that of Westerners after controlling for body size.<p><a href="https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0040503" rel="nofollow">https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal...</a>
> debunk the popular myth for my friends that exercise burns a lot of calories<p>Can you expand on that please?
Because I can tell you as a matter of fact that when I go for a run for an hour I burn well over 800 calories.
I think OP may be referring to the idea that the total number of calories burned in a day doesn't meaningfully change under a workout regime. Working out does burn calories, but after a few session your body starts to compensate by burning less calories in other areas (e.g. immune and reproductive system). The net result is close to zero, except in very demanding workout regimes.<p>I don't have the background to fully evaluate how true that is. I read "Burn" by Herman Pontzer, which at least makes a very good case for it.
So this is about <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exercise_paradox" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exercise_paradox</a><p>I seems like it's only part of the story. If you increase exercise but also increase calorific input to match then you won't lose weight. But, the laws of energy conservation being what they are, I don't think anyone disputes that if you very significantly increase exercise but also maintain calorific input then you will lose weight as the energy must come from somewhere and there are only so many optimisations your body can make. You could of course maintain exercise levels and reduce calorific input for a similar effect, ignoring health benefits of exercise. Take an extreme case, Michael Phelps. He used to eat 12,000 cal a day because of the hours he spent swimming. Certainly not a small guy but pretty lean! So I'm totally prepared to accept there are bounds to all these statements but I still think I couldn't finish an 800 cal sandwich for lunch hehehe.<p>By the way, I feel the Wikipedia page there uses a lot of words suggesting that the paradox isn't at all fully understood and that there could be compensating mechanisms we aren't aware of. But I'm not in a position to dig deeper.
> I don't think anyone disputes that if you very significantly increase exercise but also maintain calorific input then you will lose weight<p>This is exactly what is disputed by the link you posted. They measured <i>directly</i> the energy expenditure (the number of calories burned by respiration) in a high-activity hunter-gatherer tribe, and in relatively low-activity industrialized societies, and found they were almost the same. So the number of calories the people consumed was not measured or relevant (and must also have been roughly the same if neither group was actively gaining weight).
Yep, pretty much exactly what I meant.<p>And also that the calorimetry from wearables is highly flawed and it seems to that we don't have super accurate data and what sort of activities burn the most energy.<p>I am also a big opponent of folks that start equating the "my wearable shows that i burned 300 kcal with that activity so it zero outs that sweet thing I ate earlier that was also 300 kcal" which is wrong on so many reasons but with a lot of workout apps and devices pushing the (inaccurate) kcal count front and center becomes more and more a of a thing.
> Can you expand on that please? Because I can tell you as a matter of fact that when I go for a run for an hour I burn well over 800 calories<p>Sure - how did you arrive at the 800 kcal figure? Most likely a wearable or an app, and those estimates are based on rough linear regressions from weight, age, sex, and heart rate - not actual calorimetry. The error margins on those numbers are significant, but the devices present them with false precision that makes people treat them as ground truth.<p>Even setting accuracy aside, the framing is the issue. Your basal metabolic rate - just keeping your organs running, blood circulating, cells maintained - accounts for 60-70% of your total daily energy expenditure. Add the thermic effect of food (~10%) and you're at roughly 70-80% of your energy budget spent before you even lace up your shoes [1]. Exercise typically makes up the remaining 20-30%. So that hour of running, while genuinely beneficial for a hundred other reasons, is a relatively small slice of your total daily burn. And not all calories are equal on the intake side either - your body spends 20-30% of the energy in protein just to digest it, compared to 0-5% for fat, so "800 kcal burned = 800 kcal of anything eaten" doesn't hold up.<p>That's what I mean by "myth" - not that exercise burns zero calories, but that the popular mental model of "I ran for an hour so I earned X calories of food" is built on inaccurate measurements, treats all calories as interchangeable, and overweights exercise relative to what your body spends just existing. Curious though - do you track your intake with the same rigour, and if so, do you find the numbers actually add up in practice?<p>[1]: <a href="https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/body/basal-metabolic-rate-bmr" rel="nofollow">https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/body/basal-metabolic-r...</a>
I think it sort of depends on how you look at it. If 800 is an hour of running - that's probably "a lot" for quite a few people. But 800 is also just a sandwich. Which isn't all that much.<p>So if you view this from a time use perspective, just skipping that sandwich is way better than running for an hour. And many people can't spare an hour a day just to make up for a sandwich. Hence - "not a lot" - Its too expensive time-wise for the caloric balance effect it provides. Just skip the sandwich instead.
What kind of sandwiches are you eating? 800 calories is a ridiculously large sandwich.<p>Even Tesco's bacon & egg triple is only 550 : <a href="https://www.tesco.com/groceries/en-GB/products/260422235" rel="nofollow">https://www.tesco.com/groceries/en-GB/products/260422235</a><p>I'm struggling to find anything I'd describe as a sandwich come close to 800 calories.
I agree with the general message, but I'm curious what ingredients go in your 800 calorie sandwich. That's more than a double Big Mac with 4 patties (780 kcal)!
That's a big sandwich :)<p>Big Mac = 580 Cal.<p>I'm going to eat lunch one way or another and for me it's going to be under 800. Skipping meals isn't really a good choice, imo, but ok.
You need to eat roughly somewhere between 1300 and 2000 Cal every day to maintain your weight even if you are doing to exercise at all.<p>If you want to lose weight, it's far easier to remove 800 Cal from your diet, at least time wise, then it is to exercise 800 Cal's worth every day.<p>Either way, if you're losing weight at any appreciable rate, you <i>will</i> feel hungry (at least if it's not chemically induced in some way, such as chemo or GLP-1 inhibitors or similar). That's just something you have to get used to if you want to lose weight.
This is well-intentioned but I think it oversimplifies in ways that can actually be harmful. "Just get used to being hungry" is rough advice to give people - chronic hunger is one of the main reasons diets fail, and framing weight loss as a willpower contest against hunger ignores that satiety is heavily influenced by _what_ you eat, not just how much. A 400 kcal meal of protein, fat, and fiber will keep you full for hours; 400 kcal of simple carbs will leave you hungry again in 45 minutes, in part because of the insulin and blood glucose dynamics involved.<p>The calories in/out model isn't wrong exactly, but it's so reductionist that it becomes misleading in practice. It omits hormonal responses (insulin, leptin, ghrelin), the thermic effect differences between macronutrients (your body burns 20-30% of protein calories just processing them vs 0-5% for fat), gut microbiome composition, sleep quality, stress hormones, meal timing, and individual metabolic variation. Two people eating identical calorie counts can have very different outcomes. Telling someone "just eat less and accept the hunger" without any of that context can set them up for a miserable yo-yo cycle - or worse, a disordered relationship with food.
For cardio sure but for weight training you're burning calories and tearing muscle fibres to increase size/strength. Also depending on the running you're doing, you're likely staying fitter.<p>Sure it's easier to fast but you're missing out on the other benefits associated with exercise.
> If you want to lose weight, it's far easier to remove 800 Cal from your diet, at least time wise, then it is to exercise 800 Cal's worth every day.<p>That I absolutely agree with and so do my legs ;)<p>I only found the suggestion that exercise _doesn't_ burn calories a bit weird.<p>> you will feel hungry<p>That I also agree with... all this talk of sandwiches!
How can you know this "as a matter of fact"? Because your not-a-healthcare-device sportswatch tells you so?
Not running, but in cycling we have power meters, and some workouts (eg 2 x 20' threshold) will definitely burn in the range of 800 calories in an hour. The energy measured by the power meter for this workout is 800 kJ for me (my threshold being around 260W). Now it turns out the conversion factor from kJ to calories is 1/4, but the body is only 25% efficient when producing calories for cycling, meaning one has to burn 4x the amount measured by the power meter. So that's 800 calories for this kind of workout, for me. I wouldn't be surprised if runners of similar fitness doing similar workouts had the same energy expenditure.
But you’ve never directly measured calorie expenditure while running, so how can you be certain?
Chess lol. Playing a competitive arena FPS a the highest levels will get your brain cooking.
I have noticed that the reverse is also true: a heavy workout makes it more difficult to think hard afterwards.
Shouldn't the chemistry hide the usage of calories by the brain? It gets basically a supply run at night - when its washed with lymph, sugar supplied and then subsists on that for new memory formation and computation with small scale supplies delivered during the day via the blood stream? So a hard thinking experience should show up downstream as calorie usage during the following sleep?
Was expecting the article to mention creatine which interacts with ATP. It's a supplement that's so well studied that almost everyone should take it, even if you don't workout at all.
In my experience it has helped tremendously with mental endurance (n=1 but there are some studies that support it, especially in older people with cognitive decline).
Creatine ruins my sleep
Find myself getting up multiple times a night to pee.<p>Even once is rare unless I've been out drinking for the night.
Creatine monohydrate (and seemingly HCL too, though not tested long term) kind of makes me constipated. I'd like to take it, because I lift weights quite often, but it just messes with my stomach too much.
How much are you taking?
Second anecdote, I take between 10 and 15 grams. I don’t experience cognitive effects at lower doses (though my weightlifting endurance is still higher on lower doses). I also don’t eat meat so don’t have any incidental consumption
What are the cognitive effects?
That seems like a lot to take daily. Most studies have settled on loading isn’t needed and 5g/day is enough.<p>I just take 5g/day with my morning coffee/water.
Most creatine studies focus on the effects of creatine on physical activity, especially wrt resistance training.<p>Rhonda Patrick has made several YouTube videos about creatine and you can find more information about creatine at her website - <a href="https://www.foundmyfitness.com/topics/creatine" rel="nofollow">https://www.foundmyfitness.com/topics/creatine</a>.<p>One of her creatine videos mentions that your muscles will take up ingested creatine faster than the brain. So for any creatine to make its way to the brain, your muscular creatine stores must be topped up first.<p>I think dosage would depend on the amount of daily physical activity. If you work out a lot, you'd have to replenish your muscular creatine stores before the brain could access any/much.<p>She also mentions boosting creatine dosage after bouts of mental exertion.
> I also don’t eat meat<p>This is probably an important difference from the average participant of those studies.
If you're taking your coffee hot wouldn't that denaturate the creatine?
5 grams a day, personally, based on a large body of evidence that it is a good amount.
Is anyone here able to offer an explanation for why our brains are able to do really complex tasks without using much energy, at least compared to AI systems?
The brain relies on discrete, sparse events in space <i>and</i> time to handle computation.<p>Most of the computation and learning that occurs is attributable to the relative timing of spiking events. A lot of information can be encoded in the delay between 2 spikes. The advantage of biology is that there is no explicit quantization of the time domain that must occur. Biology gets to do a lot of things "for free". Simulating causality in a computer in a similar way requires a priority queue and runs like ass by comparison.
The way neurons and synapses work you spend a lot of energy keeping them ready to fire. How often they actually fire is a smaller cost compared to maintaining them in ready state.<p>We end up using 100W (2000kcal/day) for the whole body, or about 20W for the nervous system alone (though a nervous system alone wouldn't be able to survive). That's comparable to what a modern laptop uses. Sure, that laptop can't run a large LLM at any reasonable speed, but it can do basic math far better than my brain. By a comically large margin. Just a consequence of the very different architectures chosen
Current AI systems aren't biomimicry; they run a simulation of something vaguely similar to neurons. This is rather like "why does it take more processing power to emulate a PS2 than the original PS2 had".
Because computers use digital circuits which are not allowed to make mistakes, i.e., they amplify each signal during every step as it passes through the system.
My thinking was that its sort of like an engine spinning at idle vs when the gear's engaged, in either case the engine is still spinning and using fuel, just more so when its engaged, as opposed to an electric motor.<p>I know the metaphor isn't exact, it's just how i thought of it.
Why would they not be? A brain and a computer are completely different things. They don’t do the same thing and they don’t work the same way at all.<p>"Artificial neuron" was a useful metaphor at the beginning, but they really are a very simplified model based on what some people understood of neurology back then. They are not that useful to get insights into how actual neurons work.
Completely different architectures and mechanisms. Machine learning draws inspiration from some biology concepts, but implements it in different way.
If I'm not in flow state focusing on some programming problem, my brain is still going a million miles a minute pontificating about 10 different threads of nonsense at once. So I could see where focusing on one task doesn't actually burn any more energy, it just pulls in all those other workers and puts them to work on one thing.
This is explained in the article.
Creatine really helps with “energy”.<p>Found myself practically stop longing for sweets during programming; have more energy during workouts (135 KG bench press and all the other stuff).<p>5 g daily is what considered to saturate your muscles.<p>Some report that any additional helps cognitive tasks (but I haven’t seen definitive studies besides the sleep deprivation).<p>I take 7.5 g
The product that this article is advertising seems to be pretty inaccurate and their marketing seems to be burying that information.<p>The big copy on the front page says:<p>> Your Apple Watch *tracks* VO2 Max—one...<p>While you have to read through FAQ where you see:<p>> The watch *estimates* your cardio fitness during outdoor activities and stores it in Apple Health, which our app reads automatically.<p>All emphasis are mine.<p>I think it's a little disingenuous to sell this as "Your VO2 Max, finally visible" when it's actually just an estimate from a watch, based on biomarkers. When the real VO2 is measured in a lab with a more involved equipment.<p>A 2025 validation study involving 30 participants found that Apple Watch underestimated VO2 max by a mean of 6.07 mL/kg/min (95% CI 3.77–8.38) when compared to indirect calorimetry, the gold standard method. The mean absolute percentage error (MAPE) was 13.31%, and the limits of agreement showed considerable variability ranging from -6.11 to 18.26 mL/kg/min [1]. Another 2024 study found similar results, with the Apple Watch Series 7 showing a MAPE of 15.79% and poor reliability (ICC = 0.47) [2].<p>[1]: <a href="https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0323741" rel="nofollow">https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371%2Fjourn...</a><p>[2]: <a href="https://biomedeng.jmir.org/2024/1/e59459" rel="nofollow">https://biomedeng.jmir.org/2024/1/e59459</a>
Quadruple espresso + some good deathcore solves this pretty nicely for me.
Yes, this is what I have noticed as well.<p>Willpower is limited. Hard workout means intense cognitive effort is much harder to pull off.
I train in the morning so it looks like I avoid this completely. Also the calculator at the end... Just assume an Apple watch.
Holy 3-6mg of caffeine per kg is a shit ton. That’s 2-4 cups of coffee for me!
<a href="https://vo2maxpro.com/blog/does-caffeine-improve-vo2-max" rel="nofollow">https://vo2maxpro.com/blog/does-caffeine-improve-vo2-max</a><p>They list a study and more info on that page. Probably why almost all pre-workouts include caffeine. Some push for 300mg per serving.<p>Yohimbe gives some weird heart effects also.
That doesn’t seem a lot to me at all, and coffee seems to have health benefits up to doses exceeding that.<p><a href="https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12348139/" rel="nofollow">https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12348139/</a>
yeah that's a ridiculous amount. I'd be so jittery there's no way I'd be able to workout after taking that much. If I have more than one cup of coffee in a single sitting I get so anxious I can't even take proper deep breaths.
4 cups of coffee is considered a lot?
Seven for my ~140kg arse. Not sure how healthily this scales.