13 comments

[ 2.9 ms ] story [ 48.3 ms ] thread
Should you be continually trying to beat your personal best or raising your trough performance level. What's a better approach in the long game of life?
Probably to practice being calm and relaxed, and to build deeper relationships with other people.
Very true. If you add the words twitter, peak performance, and about 500 words - that thought could be published.
Did I read that correctly?

Not only did talking about twitter come before talking about exercise, but both sections deserved 3 paragraphs each?

Yeah that article was getting good and then told me the best time to check tweets.
But I don't use twitter. I guess thats a health risk!
If I get up at 10am and go to sleep at 2am, should I just move the schedule they show forward 2 hours and it'll apply to me?
Growing body of research? Most, if not all, of this stuff was determined decades ago, circadian rhythms are far from a new idea. This is a lazy rehash of some of the more respectable findings from the scientific end of 60s/70s new-ageism.
I've been thinking about something along these lines for a while. A few months ago the science fiction writer William Hertling wrote an interesting blog post that, among other things, predicts we will have implantable computers by 2030.

http://www.feld.com/wp/archives/2012/06/how-to-predict-the-f...

It strikes me that this will enable a whole range of behavior optimization based on the computer having access to info provided by your body chemistry.

Before you get your hopes too far up, here's a bunch of sci-fi writers trying to predict 2012 in 1987.

http://www.writersofthefuture.com/time-capsule-predictions

Humans are horrible at predicting future trends beyond a couple of years.

True, but Hertling has a good track record and limits his predictions to computer capacity based on Moore's law.
Lung capacity is average 18% higher at 5pm than midday :: optimal time to smoke
Can we please stop posting these pop science fluff articles that read like Men's Health ads and have little to no information on real science.