10 ms·

There seem to be basically two arguments against "exercise pills." 1) Self-discipline is virtuous in and of itself. We shouldn't develop alternative ways to co

There seem to be basically two arguments against "exercise pills." 1) Self-discipline is virtuous in and of itself. We shouldn't develop alternative ways to control weight and/or maintain muscle tone without controlling food intake and exercise, because that undermines the tangible rewards of virtue. 2) Biology is extremely complicated, and the drug that keeps you compact and muscular in your 40s might end up promoting the growth of cancerous tumors all over your body in your 60s. (As happened to the older mice who received high doses of GW501516.) I don't agree at all with the first argument. The second one is alarming enough that I'm not going to be the first or even the millionth person in line to obtain these compounds through grey-market channels and dose myself. Similarly, I would love a drug cocktail that prevents the unwanted physical effects of aging, but I'll let other people blaze a trail with human trials (clinical or self-experimentation.)

arnarbi 9y ago
> I don't agree at all with the first argument What if some of the commonly known positive effects of exercise, such as battling depression, are actually psychological effects of that discipline and motivation rather than physical fitness? I find it hard to argue this can't be the case.
- lagadu 9y ago
  Nobody is suggesting that a pill should replace exercise in all scenarios; most of us do it because it's damn enjoyable which is why there are so many different forms. Depression is a problem that would exist regardless, the difference is that with a pill existing depressive people would only be depressed instead of depressed and suffering from the other problems caused by lack of exercise.
- philipkglass 9y ago
  Then that would be another point in favor of actually exercising, if the pills don't hit enough of the same biological systems to mimic the anti-depressive effect. I'm not rejecting any benefits of exercise that can be empirically demonstrated. I just want to distinguish "X has historically been the best way to achieve Y" from "X is virtuous, and should not be neglected even if technical progress provides easier ways to achieve Y." There is virtue in working hard to achieve good outcomes, but not in working harder than actually necessary to achieve those same outcomes. (If you want to do things a harder way than strictly necessary because it's a fun pastime for you, that's fine too. Then the experience itself rather than the end state is what you are seeking.)
  - arnarbi 9y ago
    Ah fair enough, I misunderstood. I agree doing things for the sole reason of being virtuous doesn't make sense. Although I do think the origin of "virtue" is because some things had good general effects, but nobody was able to explain why or how. Of course the concept has been abused since then.
    - edanm 9y ago
      Some societies found it virtuous to kill anyone not of the right race/religion. Some societies found/find it virtuous to genitally mutilate women. I'm not sure we can come up with a principled way to distinguish the "good" kind of virtuous from the "bad" kind of virtuous without just deciding by ourselves what is virtuous and what isn't, at least to some degree.
      - costcopizza 9y ago
        Yeah, but 'some' is different than most. It's pretty dang universal to feel "good" after putting in effort to achieve something.
- watwut 9y ago
  If that would be true, then anything that requires discipline and motivation would help with depression. That is not the case - regular washing dishes or reading or most crafts don't have the same reported effect. That being said, the help with depression is not because you become physically fit. Exercise works even if you train in an ineffective way. It has more to do with chemistry (e.g. endorphins) in your brain then with overall result.
- otakucode 9y ago
  Well, it's not germane to the discussion. The issue of whether there are positive psychological consequences of discipline and motivation and whether there are positive moral implications of virtue are completely unrelated topics. Pancakes taste good with maple syrup, but it doesn't do much to address the thing the first argument actually says. In terms of ways in which "discipline" and "motivation" might provide benefits such as battling depression... I could see arguments both for and against as plausible. Feeling that restrictions on your actions are entirely of your own choosing is tremendously helpful at reducing the negative consequences of harmful stimulus, that is supported by research. I am unaware of any research that says it can actually tip the needle the other direction and make a negative stimulus into a positive, but it could be possible. Then again, there are a billion other ways in which our volition is infringed upon on a daily basis by society flagrantly which probably contribute far more to depression and anxiety and similar problems than anything minor like what limits you might put on yourself, so taking away just that bit should probably not be a noticeable change. The problem most people have with "virtue" arguments (and I share in this) is that if there is a REASON something should be avoided, then the reason suffices. If there is no reason, then you are inherently wrong to advocate that other people avoid it. And trying to paper over the situation with societal shame is just repugnant.
  - r00fus 9y ago
    The discussion is about benefits of exercise being replaced by a pill. Whether the mood/psychological benefits come (or don't) with the pill as opposed to exercise, I think is germane to the discussion.
lagadu 9y ago
The first argument is flat-out ridiculous. The same argument could be used against farming or housing or even building communities. The second is very real and of course requires us to tread very carefully but shouldn't be a reason to stop investigating something.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- wutbrodo 9y ago
  It's ridiculous, but it's ubiquitous (and thus worth bringing, at least to acknowledge its existence in the discourse and decision making around this topic). Most people simply don't think very hard, and "no pain no gain" virtue arguments are apparently deeply ingrained in most people's approach to things like this.
coldtea 9y ago
> I don't agree at all with the first argument. Makes sense (not agreeing). The whole culture of modern society is all about not agreeing with such arguments. That is, finding any idea of value in some authenticity that shouldn't be replicated technologically, silly.
- philipkglass 9y ago
  I'm almost regretting including item 1, because the percentage of HN commenters who embody that attitude appears to be much lower than in comment sections on other parts of the web. Anecdotally, I can tell you that a significant minority of modern humans who comment on news articles are just furious about actual or projected technological advances that allow people to prevent e.g. obesity or pregnancy without relying on strenuous mental and/or physical discipline. That's why I mentioned it.
  - XorNot 9y ago
    I have no idea why you're getting down voted here and I agree completely - see the reactions to the mere existence of Soylent as a concept.
  - wutbrodo 9y ago
    I mean, you're not wrong. If I'm reading his comment correctly, coldtea holds exactly the view you're describing.
    - coldtea 9y ago
      Somebody has to. "Let's do X just because we can" has often lead us to more trouble than merely not doing X. Especially when we half-understand X and what it affects. Case in point, as others mentioned, albeit positively, Soylent.
      - wutbrodo 9y ago
        Just so we're clear, I wasn't saying that negatively. Just pointing out that the parent commenter's assumption was backwards.
reasonattlm 9y ago
A better argument against this line of development is that it is demonstrably expensive and low-yield. There are far better R&D approaches to maintaining health over the course of aging, but they get a tiny fraction of the effort lavished on exercise and calorie restriction mimetics, despite the continued absence of concrete therapeutic outcomes resulting from all of that investment. The reason for this is probably that exercise and calorie restriction mimetic research dovetails well with the real underlying scientific goal of mapping metabolism, where as better approaches tend to bypass this need for mapping, focusing instead on well-known forms of damage that cause age-related decline.
colordrops 9y ago
3) There other benefits to exercise, including stretching and loosening joints and ligaments, building coordination and body awareness, mental benefits, etc. Sweating has benefits as well. I'd find it really hard to imagine that some pill that mucks with metabolism or muscle growth or some other single dimension would cover even a small portion of the benefits of exercise.
- scarmig 9y ago
  There are lots of benefits, and it's very unlikely a pill, or even a cocktail of pills, could emulate all those benefits. That said, if you found a safe pill that would merely give the cardiovascular benefits of exercise, or help elderly patients maintain muscle mass, or move obese people to just being overweight, it would be worth tens or hundreds of billions of dollars.
  - stilltrenning 9y ago
    I mean steroids mostly cover this already. You get cardiovascular benefits from drugs like anadrol which increase hgc. Steroids are used for muscle preservation in burn victims, I bieve it's anavar but could be wrong on that. On some steroids you can eat thousands of calories and not gain fat. Trenbolone is one which is quite popular for that and is used to get lean and dry. Now are they safe? Not in any large or prolonged dosage. Aging is another which people look to HGH and other similar growth hormones. Run in small doses 2-4iu a day you'll see a lot of benefits without the weird side effects.
- chiefalchemist 9y ago
  Yes and no. Look around. When, as the article mentions, the option is no pill vs some pill that helps in some way; for most people the pill makes sense. As it is today, many people could alter their diets and improve their health. Yet they do not. In an ideal world this pill makes little sense. But our First World world of today is far from ideal. Put another way, they say that worldwide more people die from eating too much than not eating enough.
  - 9y ago
watwut 9y ago
1.) People who exercise because they want to look good or like it are no more virtuous. That is pretty much an equivalent of saying that if you spend hours choosing just the right dress and makeup, you are more virtuous. I exercise because I enjoy it and partly to look better. I really don't think it makes me more virtuous then, say, fat people who don't exercises, but are overall nicer or more helping to people around then I am. Or simply people who read more book then I am or people who teach kids in their free time or whatever.
- megablast 9y ago
  That shows more your lack of understanding of the word virtuous than anything. If something is hard, takes a long time to do and makes you better you are right to feel virtuous.
drzaiusapelord 9y ago
I still lean on item 1 being the most correct. I know modern society is built on a "do anything" approach but in reality we're under the gun of biology and evolution and as such only certain behavioral patterns are actually successful. I found losing weight and staying fit got a lot easier when I focused on discipline instead of quick fixes like Atkins. There's an art to pushing back on that neurological trigger craving that dopamine shot and it can be learned. (Of course, if a pill comes out to help you with that trigger, then we're golden). Or more practically, a way to produce leptin and ghrelin in the body so hunger and craving response goes way down. I'm not saying I'm "against" the pill, but no pill is going to magically erase 1,000+ calories of over-eating or clear out all the awful things excess sugar and other carbs may do. It may certainly mitigate them, but like the person I know who got lapband surgery eventually found out, his eating just adapted to his new limitations (ice cream, sweets, etc dont take much room and are very high energy) and he gained weight after a while. We'll pop the pill, eat like pigs, and be at the same weight or higher after a while. I imagine if this becomes a mass market medicine, its effective applications will be outside of weight control and more towards helping people achieve a certain level of fitness especially those with limited mobility or illness. Its not something you're going to buy able to buy over the counter for 'free' workouts. The same way you can't buy testosterone or steroids OTC.
nsxwolf 9y ago
1) will never happen, so, bring on the pill!
derefr 9y ago
I find #1 funny, in that appetite and "self-discipline" seem to be biologically inversely correlated in at least some sense. Boost dopamine (such as with the old amphetamine-based "diet pills"), and you get more control over your impulses... but also your appetite goes away, so you don't even need to exert control over it. Lower dopamine (such as with a typical antipsychotic), and you get hungry, but also find it harder to override your impulses in general. (If you're curious, this is thought to help in psychosis because "skepticism"/"being realistic" is one of the lower-level impulses that dopamine overrides.) If self-discipline were virtuous, would the "best" exercise pill be one that only enhances self-discipline (with no stimulant-like side-effects)—and thus makes it easy to be one of those people who just "decide to exercise and eat healthy" and end up doing so? Or would people likely still consider that "cheating" in some sense? And if so, do you think such people would be able to be convinced at that point that they're literally just measuring the "virtue" of people's genetics, rather than of their choices?
- wickawic 9y ago
  This line of reasoning is why giving children (or anyone, really) medication for moderate behavioral problems is an ethical gray area. If there is a pill that helps an unruly-but-otherwise-healthy kid sit still and stay focused, do you have them take it? At what point does an element of your personality become a medical issue?
  - cvsh 9y ago
    Also why are issues past an arbitrarily-drawn "medical" line the only ones we can treat via medication? No one thinks working out should be illegal. So why should doing the same thing via other means be illegal? Maybe it's the lingering Protestant-work-ethic-laced morality of the U.S., but we seem to be disproportionately likely to exaggerate the dangers of anything that seems like a drug, relative to things that don't seem like drugs (even when they clearly are -- i.e., alcohol).
    - keganunderwood 9y ago
      Or sugar because apparently we don't need fructose in our diet at all.
deepnotderp 9y ago
The situation with GW was really interesting, the study had incredibly high doses, but I don't doubt that they had reasons for pulling the drug, although I'm sure WADA pressure didn't help.
stevenwoo 9y ago
There is another argument, these pills don't seem to do anything for bone density even though the article suggested it for astronauts lower bone density - it appears to be an entirely muscular effect. If one has to exercise to help build bone density anyways ( a concern for anyone who wants to have a healthy life after 40) the pill if it worked would only eliminate one component of an exercise regime.
x0x0 9y ago
I think 2a is 20 minutes per day of exercise produces known benefits with known risks. It's not like it's an exercise pill or nothing. It's crazy to me that people are willing to take drugs that would require 70 year clinical trials to understand their safety rather than putting in 20 minutes per day of work...
ycombinete 9y ago
In argument 1: I agree with the premise: "Self-discipline is virtuous per se." I don't agree with the argument that follows: "We shouldn't develop alternates."
saiya-jin 9y ago
1) Do you exercise regularly? I don't mean some easy 'jogging' at most 2x per week, I mean some proper +-daily hard workouts where you end up sweaty and catching your breath regularly. This regime brings what you write, and more, much more. Mostly on the mental side (don't shy away from physical suffering that hard workouts bring). But also physical - great cardio system, stronger joints, tendons, ligaments, tougher bones. This pill would go exactly in opposite direction. We already have similar, albeit not the same thing - anabolic steroids. They help retain and gain muscle mass way above what normal body would do, using least required strength principle. Not very popular among general population, for good reasons
Shivetya 9y ago
with regards to #2, it is controlling its use that will be problematic. seems far too often new methods to reduce fats and sugars in foods becomes a inhibitor remover for too many. remember the horror stories from olestra's introduction, people shoving tons of chips because they were guilt free down their maws only to have digestive issues

arnarbi 9y ago

> I don't agree at all with the first argument What if some of the commonly known positive effects of exercise, such as battling depression, are actually psychological effects of that discipline and motivation rather than physical fitness? I find it hard to argue this can't be the case.

lagadu 9y ago
Nobody is suggesting that a pill should replace exercise in all scenarios; most of us do it because it's damn enjoyable which is why there are so many different forms. Depression is a problem that would exist regardless, the difference is that with a pill existing depressive people would only be depressed instead of depressed and suffering from the other problems caused by lack of exercise.
philipkglass 9y ago
Then that would be another point in favor of actually exercising, if the pills don't hit enough of the same biological systems to mimic the anti-depressive effect. I'm not rejecting any benefits of exercise that can be empirically demonstrated. I just want to distinguish "X has historically been the best way to achieve Y" from "X is virtuous, and should not be neglected even if technical progress provides easier ways to achieve Y." There is virtue in working hard to achieve good outcomes, but not in working harder than actually necessary to achieve those same outcomes. (If you want to do things a harder way than strictly necessary because it's a fun pastime for you, that's fine too. Then the experience itself rather than the end state is what you are seeking.)
- arnarbi 9y ago
  Ah fair enough, I misunderstood. I agree doing things for the sole reason of being virtuous doesn't make sense. Although I do think the origin of "virtue" is because some things had good general effects, but nobody was able to explain why or how. Of course the concept has been abused since then.
  - edanm 9y ago
    Some societies found it virtuous to kill anyone not of the right race/religion. Some societies found/find it virtuous to genitally mutilate women. I'm not sure we can come up with a principled way to distinguish the "good" kind of virtuous from the "bad" kind of virtuous without just deciding by ourselves what is virtuous and what isn't, at least to some degree.
    - costcopizza 9y ago
      Yeah, but 'some' is different than most. It's pretty dang universal to feel "good" after putting in effort to achieve something.
watwut 9y ago
If that would be true, then anything that requires discipline and motivation would help with depression. That is not the case - regular washing dishes or reading or most crafts don't have the same reported effect. That being said, the help with depression is not because you become physically fit. Exercise works even if you train in an ineffective way. It has more to do with chemistry (e.g. endorphins) in your brain then with overall result.
otakucode 9y ago
Well, it's not germane to the discussion. The issue of whether there are positive psychological consequences of discipline and motivation and whether there are positive moral implications of virtue are completely unrelated topics. Pancakes taste good with maple syrup, but it doesn't do much to address the thing the first argument actually says. In terms of ways in which "discipline" and "motivation" might provide benefits such as battling depression... I could see arguments both for and against as plausible. Feeling that restrictions on your actions are entirely of your own choosing is tremendously helpful at reducing the negative consequences of harmful stimulus, that is supported by research. I am unaware of any research that says it can actually tip the needle the other direction and make a negative stimulus into a positive, but it could be possible. Then again, there are a billion other ways in which our volition is infringed upon on a daily basis by society flagrantly which probably contribute far more to depression and anxiety and similar problems than anything minor like what limits you might put on yourself, so taking away just that bit should probably not be a noticeable change. The problem most people have with "virtue" arguments (and I share in this) is that if there is a REASON something should be avoided, then the reason suffices. If there is no reason, then you are inherently wrong to advocate that other people avoid it. And trying to paper over the situation with societal shame is just repugnant.
- r00fus 9y ago
  The discussion is about benefits of exercise being replaced by a pill. Whether the mood/psychological benefits come (or don't) with the pill as opposed to exercise, I think is germane to the discussion.

lagadu 9y ago

The first argument is flat-out ridiculous. The same argument could be used against farming or housing or even building communities. The second is very real and of course requires us to tread very carefully but shouldn't be a reason to stop investigating something.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
wutbrodo 9y ago
It's ridiculous, but it's ubiquitous (and thus worth bringing, at least to acknowledge its existence in the discourse and decision making around this topic). Most people simply don't think very hard, and "no pain no gain" virtue arguments are apparently deeply ingrained in most people's approach to things like this.

coldtea 9y ago

> I don't agree at all with the first argument. Makes sense (not agreeing). The whole culture of modern society is all about not agreeing with such arguments. That is, finding any idea of value in some authenticity that shouldn't be replicated technologically, silly.

philipkglass 9y ago
I'm almost regretting including item 1, because the percentage of HN commenters who embody that attitude appears to be much lower than in comment sections on other parts of the web. Anecdotally, I can tell you that a significant minority of modern humans who comment on news articles are just furious about actual or projected technological advances that allow people to prevent e.g. obesity or pregnancy without relying on strenuous mental and/or physical discipline. That's why I mentioned it.
- XorNot 9y ago
  I have no idea why you're getting down voted here and I agree completely - see the reactions to the mere existence of Soylent as a concept.
- wutbrodo 9y ago
  I mean, you're not wrong. If I'm reading his comment correctly, coldtea holds exactly the view you're describing.
  - coldtea 9y ago
    Somebody has to. "Let's do X just because we can" has often lead us to more trouble than merely not doing X. Especially when we half-understand X and what it affects. Case in point, as others mentioned, albeit positively, Soylent.
    - wutbrodo 9y ago
      Just so we're clear, I wasn't saying that negatively. Just pointing out that the parent commenter's assumption was backwards.

reasonattlm 9y ago

A better argument against this line of development is that it is demonstrably expensive and low-yield. There are far better R&D approaches to maintaining health over the course of aging, but they get a tiny fraction of the effort lavished on exercise and calorie restriction mimetics, despite the continued absence of concrete therapeutic outcomes resulting from all of that investment. The reason for this is probably that exercise and calorie restriction mimetic research dovetails well with the real underlying scientific goal of mapping metabolism, where as better approaches tend to bypass this need for mapping, focusing instead on well-known forms of damage that cause age-related decline.

colordrops 9y ago

3) There other benefits to exercise, including stretching and loosening joints and ligaments, building coordination and body awareness, mental benefits, etc. Sweating has benefits as well. I'd find it really hard to imagine that some pill that mucks with metabolism or muscle growth or some other single dimension would cover even a small portion of the benefits of exercise.

scarmig 9y ago
There are lots of benefits, and it's very unlikely a pill, or even a cocktail of pills, could emulate all those benefits. That said, if you found a safe pill that would merely give the cardiovascular benefits of exercise, or help elderly patients maintain muscle mass, or move obese people to just being overweight, it would be worth tens or hundreds of billions of dollars.
- stilltrenning 9y ago
  I mean steroids mostly cover this already. You get cardiovascular benefits from drugs like anadrol which increase hgc. Steroids are used for muscle preservation in burn victims, I bieve it's anavar but could be wrong on that. On some steroids you can eat thousands of calories and not gain fat. Trenbolone is one which is quite popular for that and is used to get lean and dry. Now are they safe? Not in any large or prolonged dosage. Aging is another which people look to HGH and other similar growth hormones. Run in small doses 2-4iu a day you'll see a lot of benefits without the weird side effects.
chiefalchemist 9y ago
Yes and no. Look around. When, as the article mentions, the option is no pill vs some pill that helps in some way; for most people the pill makes sense. As it is today, many people could alter their diets and improve their health. Yet they do not. In an ideal world this pill makes little sense. But our First World world of today is far from ideal. Put another way, they say that worldwide more people die from eating too much than not eating enough.
- 9y ago

watwut 9y ago

1.) People who exercise because they want to look good or like it are no more virtuous. That is pretty much an equivalent of saying that if you spend hours choosing just the right dress and makeup, you are more virtuous. I exercise because I enjoy it and partly to look better. I really don't think it makes me more virtuous then, say, fat people who don't exercises, but are overall nicer or more helping to people around then I am. Or simply people who read more book then I am or people who teach kids in their free time or whatever.

megablast 9y ago
That shows more your lack of understanding of the word virtuous than anything. If something is hard, takes a long time to do and makes you better you are right to feel virtuous.

drzaiusapelord 9y ago

I still lean on item 1 being the most correct. I know modern society is built on a "do anything" approach but in reality we're under the gun of biology and evolution and as such only certain behavioral patterns are actually successful. I found losing weight and staying fit got a lot easier when I focused on discipline instead of quick fixes like Atkins. There's an art to pushing back on that neurological trigger craving that dopamine shot and it can be learned. (Of course, if a pill comes out to help you with that trigger, then we're golden). Or more practically, a way to produce leptin and ghrelin in the body so hunger and craving response goes way down. I'm not saying I'm "against" the pill, but no pill is going to magically erase 1,000+ calories of over-eating or clear out all the awful things excess sugar and other carbs may do. It may certainly mitigate them, but like the person I know who got lapband surgery eventually found out, his eating just adapted to his new limitations (ice cream, sweets, etc dont take much room and are very high energy) and he gained weight after a while. We'll pop the pill, eat like pigs, and be at the same weight or higher after a while. I imagine if this becomes a mass market medicine, its effective applications will be outside of weight control and more towards helping people achieve a certain level of fitness especially those with limited mobility or illness. Its not something you're going to buy able to buy over the counter for 'free' workouts. The same way you can't buy testosterone or steroids OTC.

nsxwolf 9y ago

1) will never happen, so, bring on the pill!

derefr 9y ago

I find #1 funny, in that appetite and "self-discipline" seem to be biologically inversely correlated in at least some sense. Boost dopamine (such as with the old amphetamine-based "diet pills"), and you get more control over your impulses... but also your appetite goes away, so you don't even need to exert control over it. Lower dopamine (such as with a typical antipsychotic), and you get hungry, but also find it harder to override your impulses in general. (If you're curious, this is thought to help in psychosis because "skepticism"/"being realistic" is one of the lower-level impulses that dopamine overrides.) If self-discipline were virtuous, would the "best" exercise pill be one that only enhances self-discipline (with no stimulant-like side-effects)—and thus makes it easy to be one of those people who just "decide to exercise and eat healthy" and end up doing so? Or would people likely still consider that "cheating" in some sense? And if so, do you think such people would be able to be convinced at that point that they're literally just measuring the "virtue" of people's genetics, rather than of their choices?

wickawic 9y ago
This line of reasoning is why giving children (or anyone, really) medication for moderate behavioral problems is an ethical gray area. If there is a pill that helps an unruly-but-otherwise-healthy kid sit still and stay focused, do you have them take it? At what point does an element of your personality become a medical issue?
- cvsh 9y ago
  Also why are issues past an arbitrarily-drawn "medical" line the only ones we can treat via medication? No one thinks working out should be illegal. So why should doing the same thing via other means be illegal? Maybe it's the lingering Protestant-work-ethic-laced morality of the U.S., but we seem to be disproportionately likely to exaggerate the dangers of anything that seems like a drug, relative to things that don't seem like drugs (even when they clearly are -- i.e., alcohol).
  - keganunderwood 9y ago
    Or sugar because apparently we don't need fructose in our diet at all.

deepnotderp 9y ago

The situation with GW was really interesting, the study had incredibly high doses, but I don't doubt that they had reasons for pulling the drug, although I'm sure WADA pressure didn't help.

stevenwoo 9y ago

There is another argument, these pills don't seem to do anything for bone density even though the article suggested it for astronauts lower bone density - it appears to be an entirely muscular effect. If one has to exercise to help build bone density anyways ( a concern for anyone who wants to have a healthy life after 40) the pill if it worked would only eliminate one component of an exercise regime.

x0x0 9y ago

I think 2a is 20 minutes per day of exercise produces known benefits with known risks. It's not like it's an exercise pill or nothing. It's crazy to me that people are willing to take drugs that would require 70 year clinical trials to understand their safety rather than putting in 20 minutes per day of work...

ycombinete 9y ago

In argument 1: I agree with the premise: "Self-discipline is virtuous per se." I don't agree with the argument that follows: "We shouldn't develop alternates."

saiya-jin 9y ago

1) Do you exercise regularly? I don't mean some easy 'jogging' at most 2x per week, I mean some proper +-daily hard workouts where you end up sweaty and catching your breath regularly. This regime brings what you write, and more, much more. Mostly on the mental side (don't shy away from physical suffering that hard workouts bring). But also physical - great cardio system, stronger joints, tendons, ligaments, tougher bones. This pill would go exactly in opposite direction. We already have similar, albeit not the same thing - anabolic steroids. They help retain and gain muscle mass way above what normal body would do, using least required strength principle. Not very popular among general population, for good reasons

Shivetya 9y ago

with regards to #2, it is controlling its use that will be problematic. seems far too often new methods to reduce fats and sugars in foods becomes a inhibitor remover for too many. remember the horror stories from olestra's introduction, people shoving tons of chips because they were guilt free down their maws only to have digestive issues