8 ms·
How the Turner twins are mythbusting modern technical apparel
- embedding-shape 7mo ago> Today, their biometrics are tracked by ingestible sensor pills that monitor core temperature from the inside out I wonder if those are pills they've developed themselves, or if it's an existing product available to consumer?
- suzzer99 7mo agoI've read about them being used in other studies.
- XorNot 7mo agoI feel like downplaying 1.8 degrees C of performance is a weird choice in the article. 1.8 degrees C is a huge temperature change in biology. Human bodies keep thermal equilibrium in a margin smaller then that.
- ropable 7mo agoI didn't quite clock what they meant in that paragraph. I'm pretty sure that a 1.8 degree drop in body temp is approaching hypothermia.
- fellowniusmonk 7mo agoAlso: Freezing right away when you stop moving at 8k altitude? I was just skiing at 11k and it never even crossed my mind.
- ghaff 7mo agoNot right away. But a lot depends on the wind.
- jhellan 7mo agoThe article says meters, not feet.
- MagnumOpus 7mo agoYes. They were talking about 8,000 metres of altitude. (Talking about Mallory should have been a clue too.)
- Scarblac 7mo ago8k meters. There is no place at 11k where you can ski.
- idontwantthis 7mo agoYou could be on skis they might make it harder to control your parachute.
- skithrowyouknow 7mo agoMy friend skis make it easier to use your parachute https://youtu.be/3CDyQXtBGBw?si=YMXZOqvkCLaaLamy&t=1457 https://youtu.be/3CDyQXtBGBw?si=YMXZOqvkCLaaLamy&t=1457
- manarth 7mo agoPeople who paraglide often launch (and land) on skis and can then use thermals to ascend above their launch site. No-one's flying to 11,000m though! (The highest recorded paraglider flight was 10,054m – unintentional, got sucked into a cumulonimbus cloud updraft - also lost consciousness).
- adonovan 7mo agoAlso weird phrasing: "a staggering 1.8 degrees" begs the reader to think of it as a large number (which in fact it is, as you point out) yet their intent seems to be, ironically and paradoxically, to diminish it.
- altairprime 7mo agoI felt like that’s more like a rhetorical device for shorthand-saying “one might expect a ten or twenty degree difference based on modern marketing”, and I’m annoyed the article didn’t say that because it’s a pretty good point delivered rather poorly.
- alistairSH 7mo agoA 20* swing in body temp would render you dead…
- bryanrasmussen 7mo agoOne might expect to be dead if following Modern marketing guidelines.
- altairprime 7mo agoYep! That's what makes marketing against the imaginary foil of death so impactful: the alternative, "if not for our technical fabric, you'd have to fluctuate between zero and six layers of fabric based on exertion, humidity, inclement weather, and personal thermal comfort", is a lot less manipulative than "wear our fabric or die before the peak". Sure, it's true that you have to wear something or die (unless you're a statistical anomaly, anyways), but marketing based on glove weight doesn't cause as many sales as marketing based on frostbite.
- alistairSH 7mo agoYeah, for "real" mountaineering, weights a concern, but not as much as "I don't my limbs to freeze off". For my use cases (backpacking/bikepacking), it's all about the weight. But, I tend not to camp when it drops below 40*F (I do, but I have a travel trailer for that).
- jldugger 7mo ago> the data showed that on summit night, the average body temperature difference between the twin in modern down and the twin in complicated layers of silk, wool, and gabardine was a staggering 1.8°C. > “In a hundred years, you’ve gained—arguably—one degree of efficiency per 50 years,” Ross reveals. Depending on where the baseline is, 1.8 degrees could be huge! But more importantly, heat dissapation is a non-linear function. The warmer you are relative to your environment, the more energy is lost. While Shackleton's kit forms a lower baseline, it probably makes sense to imagine how some imaginary perfect vacuum insulated sleeping bag would perform.
- margalabargala 7mo agoThis whole article is kind of a straw man anyway. Warmth of clothing isn't actually what people care about. What people care about, and what the article does not mention, is warmth per unit weight.
- stevejb 7mo agoTheir bar graph showed that in almost every category except for accessories, the weights were pretty much identical.
- margalabargala 7mo ago"Pretty much identical" Add up the numbers in the bar graph and you'll see that the old gear sums to two kilograms heavier than the modern gear.
- deleted 7mo ago[deleted]
- foxglacier 7mo agoAdd body weight and the old gear sums to about three percent heavier than the modern gear. I'd say total weight matters more than gear weight alone, doesn't it?
- ChrisMarshallNY 7mo agoThat's pretty cool. They talk about how getting period clothes basically required custom work. Must be pricey.
- tenuousemphasis 7mo agoThere was a time not all that long ago that the most expensive thing most people owned was clothing.
- IAmBroom 7mo ago"Dear Mother: school is fine. I'm getting good grades. Please send money for a new tunic, as I have torn my only one. Love, John" - gist of an actual 15th-century letter home from a university student.
- eucyclos 7mo agoMy wife studied costume design with a focus on historical European garments a few years back. Fascinating field! And yes, when you can't mass produce clothing it goes up in price massively. Most mass produced clothing costs slightly more than the fabric, but even a very fast couturier will spend hours on a single piece. On top of that, it's one of those industries where price sensitivity inverts at the upper end.
- robocat 7mo ago> it's one of those industries where price sensitivity inverts at the upper end What does that mean?
- eucyclos 7mo agoCustom clothing is used to signal wealth, so past a certain point, more expensive actually becomes more desirable. It happens when something is supply constrained and a costly signal. Universities are the classic example, Harvard would never lower its prices to be more appealing than Yale.
- obsidianbases1 7mo agoI thought weight would be where the modern wear performed best. More surprisingly, the footwear of yore was apparently lighter
- pinkmuffinere 7mo ago> During their simulation of Mallory’s Everest expedition, the data showed that on summit night, the average body temperature difference between the twin in modern down and the twin in complicated layers of silk, wool, and gabardine was a staggering 1.8°C. The human body self-regulates, and is pretty sensitive to dramatic temperature swings. So, conditioned on the fact that they both survived the adventure, we should expect their temperature differences to be relatively small. This doesn't mean the clothing is great, it means [their body] + [their clothing] is adequate. Additionally, I'm not a doctor but 1.8 C is not small compared to normal human variation! Normal body temperature ranges between 36 and 37 C, a "high fever" starts around 39 C [0], and hypothermia is anything below 35 C [1]. The comfortable range of human temperature is 1 deg C, and the "outside of this is concerning" range is only 4 C wide. 1.8 C is quite big from that perspective. [0] https://www.health.harvard.edu/diseases-and-conditions/treating-fever-in-adults https://www.health.harvard.edu/diseases-and-conditions/treat... [1] https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/hypothermia/symptoms-causes/syc-20352682 https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/hypothermia/s...
- ginko 7mo agoNot to be a stickler (ok I like being a stickler) but temperature delta, especially deltas between degrees celsius, should be given in kelvin. A 1.8K difference makes sense. A 1.8C difference would be 274.8 kelvin!
- hn_throwaway_99 7mo agoThat makes no sense. A difference between a read of 37C and 38.8C is still 1.8C.
- sneak 7mo agoThe idea that full grown identical twins are identical humans for purposes of analysis is also fundamentally flawed. Just because they share DNA and look the same doesn’t mean anything about their relative health, fitness, metabolic rates, etc.
- nephihaha 7mo agoIt means that they are much closer than other human beings would be. Many studies have been done on identical twins for various purposes.
- deleted 7mo ago[deleted]
- jancsika 7mo agoKey paragraph: > The data proves that the gear of the past is capable, but it has a narrower operating window. If you stop moving in Mallory’s kit at 8,000 meters, you will freeze quickly. Modern gear buys you a safety margin if you become static.
- intrasight 7mo agoThat was the key takeaway for me as well and is very consistent with articles I've read in the past about mountaineers with gear that was adequate except when it was not - and that can make the difference between life and death.
- chis 7mo agoWe’ve had the ability to make water/wind-proof garments long before Gore-Tex. The crucial thing is that Gore-Tex is water vapor permeable. So it has a way better ability to shed excess heat without needing to take off a layer. Traditional materials still have a place though. Material science has not beaten down feathers or wool yet, for the most part.
- mmooss 7mo ago> Gore-Tex is water vapor permeable. So it has a way better ability to shed excess heat without needing to take off a layer. It's a way to shed water: Wearing waterproof, non-breathable layers often is worse than not, because the moisture your body releases and that gets trapped soaks you from the inside as surely and rapidly as the rain. (Maybe it's a bit warmer.)
- IAmBroom 7mo ago> The crucial thing is that Gore-Tex is water vapor permeable. While dry, or intermittently wettened (so it can still shed water). Numerous independent tests show that it doesn't breathe at all, once the surface is fully wet. Also, Gore-Tex is no longer best-in-class amongst rain-shedding breathable fabrics; it simply has name recognition. To be fair, few things do breathe once their surface wets... but wool's surface is so convoluted by the twisty, hydrophobic threads that it rarely gets fully wet on the surface.
- jancsika 7mo agoImportant-- when they say "cotton" in the article they're talking about gabardine cotton as a water repellent layer. Neither one of these dudes is wearing cotton base layers, midlayers, socks, etc. It's too slow to evaporate moisture which can cause blisters on feet and rapid drop of body temperature drop in cool/cold weather.
- jolmg 7mo agoIf I look at the Wikipedia article for gabardine, it's supposed to be tightly woven wool, which makes more sense to me since the exterior of the fibers are supposed to be hydrophobic. Kind of confused at the existence of gabardine made of cotton which is hydrophilic... Polyester seems like it would be cheaper and more effective... Maybe in the past it was the economical choice, but cotton gabardine is still sold today. Seems like the worst material choice for gabardine of today, but maybe I'm wrong.
- hammock 7mo agoGabardine is a type of weave, irrespective of material. Classic trench coats are cotton gabardine
- croisillon 7mo agonice pics, nice font, pity the text went through translopification
- Gigachad 7mo agoCouldn't help but think the same. Clearly they went through a lot of work to do the experiment and take all these pics, and then it's all let down by such bad text.
- dekhn 7mo agoabsolutely terrible writing.
- deleted 7mo ago[deleted]
- nephihaha 7mo agoI've seen worse. I found the premise interesting at least.
- eagsalazar2 7mo agoI remember sleeping in old canvas tents - in the heavy rain - on boyscout camping trips around seattle as a kid. I remember waking up in a puddle, cotton lined bag soaked through, not being dry even after 12 hours of laying it out after the rain stopped. By comparison my RIE UL2 is 100x, no 1000x better in every single way. Same for my 15 degree duck down mummy. Are sweaters better now than then?? I don't know, maybe. But seriously, get out of here with the general notion that 19** is within a hundred miles of good modern backpacking gear. About boots, unless you are in snow, boots are scam. Period full stop with whatever expansive definition you want to use. Comfy $30 sneakers from Big 5 are great. I do have some trail running shoes I use personally that cost me about $100. I'm sure they had great options 100 years ago.
- no-name-here 7mo ago> $30 sneakers from Big 5 Big 5 seems to be a western US sporting goods chain. I wonder if there's an equivalent in other parts of the country? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_5_Sporting_Goods https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_5_Sporting_Goods
- relaxing 7mo agoYes, big box sporting goods stores exist outside the west coast. They’re quite common, in fact.
- meroes 7mo agoI find sneakers uncomfortable on rocks. The heavy sole of boots is worth the trade off if n anything rocky.
- eternauta3k 7mo agoHigher boots can prevent twisting your ankle when you're tired at the end of a long day.
- IAmBroom 7mo ago"Julia Child's recipes aren't within a hundred miles of modern cooking, because I used to burn ramen in a hotpot in college." Your scouting experience was in no way, shape, nor form like Mallory's expeditions. He knew a few things 12-year-old you didn't. And these guys have tested their theories; you have not.
- ehaveman 7mo agoreally interesting - except the charts are impossible to read for colour blind people.
- jauntywundrkind 7mo agoOn the one hand I think critical assessment & deep review is vital. But this feels so not far from anti-Wayland pro-X11/Xorg grumblers. You'll hook 15% of people by being against the modern world. Theres a niche demanding rejection of modernity, current offering. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47448328 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47448328 There are some valid areas of investigation. I want deep critique. But mostly it's just noise, is filler, to give people their outlet against reasonability. Mostly it's not serious. It doesn't have to be: these marks want to believe. And alas alas, that 15% of fans you have against modernity: they are hot to go be loudly obnoxious against any and everything new or popular. They will be unreasonably loud for you. How humanity copes with basically anti-informed vice-signalling is our most outstanding problem of the 21st century, is our noospheric challenge.
- eternauta3k 7mo agoWrong thread?
- jauntywundrkind 7mo agoNo, I think there is a common thread, of there being a vocal loud minority that exists purely as the protest vote. I forget the quotes, but, like, 5% of people will poop or vote against anything. Just because. There's some dark dark dark part of human nature, that clings to feeling oppressed, that envisions itself as victim, unfairly passed over. And that can gain wild popularity exploiting this emotion. I really wish I could look at these Turner twins and see more. I want to believe their interest is genuine. But they are locking in a viewership market, just like Lunduke locks in being a rank piece of tar about everything Linux. Hopefully their motives are more pure, but it sort of doesn't matter what the motives are, if your whole existence revolves around a blanket rejection of modernity & what is, if your appeal is mostly just going to spark codenscending barely informed outrage from the typical basket of deplorables. Not everyone has to fall into that category, but finding a way to have moderation, to temper your stance, such that you don't end up becoming a cause celebre for incredibly pestilential negative energies on the planet is absolutely essential. Turners seem extremely close to that bespoke alter reality world, that people will wrap around themselves. Just like so so so many other protest votes, that these silent majorities recognize as intelligent & smart, and how that breaks people's souls, that their fixated hatred has anyone using it. Getting to mantle up & feel zeal that the world is wrong, and you and your small tribe see the mistakes of the world truly, that everyone else is a fool. These voices are so loud, so rarely correct, are cause of such mad din, stealing the good energies and inquiries of the world.
- aidenn0 7mo agoSo other than being easier to use, cheaper to buy, lighter, and warmer: modern apparel isn't any better than old apparel.
- rationalist 7mo agoIt appears the only drawback in the article, was moisture.
- IAmBroom 7mo agoWhich is your greatest enemy in cold weather. Seriously, I'll take -5 C and dry over +5 C and rainy, if I don't have protection from the rain. Any day. Or over sweaty clothes and +5 C.
- imhoguy 7mo agoI wish microplastics pollution was mentioned.
- fmajid 7mo agoIt's more profitable to manufacture than using expensive natural materials like silk, wool or leather.
- dehrmann 7mo ago> On the vast, blinding expanse of the Greenland Ice Cap But not double-blinding. If I were the twin in the retro gear, I'd subconsciously be trying harder to try to make a point.
- imhoguy 7mo agoPlus according to recent research being twins with same DNA doesn't mean they have same body parameters today, especially as one experienced traumatic event in juvenile age. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetics
- aetherspawn 7mo agoI was wondering if they’ve taken into account that one of the test subjects had a prior fractured vertebrae (and the other not). I know a lot of time has passed, but I expect that it would probably never be possible to fully recover from an injury like this? And therefore there would be differences in overall fitness between them? For example … skeletal and muscular compensation. Nerve damage. Damage to lymph system due to surgeries.
- rkagerer 7mo agoDid anyone else feel like something is off with this content? Like it was written as an ad or something?
- l33tbro 7mo agoIt's utter LLM shite. You can always tell, amongst other things, by the clunky headings. Eg, "The Catalyst: A Broken Neck".
- Nition 7mo agoIt's such an interesting premise that I was especially disappointed to start reading and see all the usual signs of it being written by ChatGPT.
- jsdalton 7mo agoIt’s AI.
- tigen 7mo agoIf you like this stuff, have a look at the Vikings and their logistical problems. https://www.quora.com/While-at-the-sea-what-did-Vikings-do-for-protection-from-the-weather https://www.quora.com/While-at-the-sea-what-did-Vikings-do-f...
- gorgoiler 7mo ago”[The twins] realized they possessed the ultimate scientific tool: a perfect control subject and a perfect variable. Ross wore modern kit while Hugo wore historic replicas. Any difference in performance could be attributed solely to the gear, not genetics.” It’s a great idea and these men are undoubtedly incredible athletes, but I’m not sure “ultimate” and “perfect” are the right words here. A killjoy would bring up double-blinding or n>1 and I don’t want to sap the fun out of this being about an interesting people-centric piece. There’s no mention though of a more basic trick: having them alternate clothes every expedition or season! Pfizer it ain’t, but it would still take it up a notch on the scale of interesting/fun to “ultimate/perfect”.
- modeless 7mo agoThis video on the subject of testing old vs. new camping gear is pretty interesting: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Us6AVVkx_8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Us6AVVkx_8
- dtj1123 7mo agoThis is a massive oversimplification. The challenges of technical gear are: 1. managing active body temperature by radiating heat effectively 2. managing passive body temperature by retaining heat effectively 3. managing internally generated moisture by allowing evaporation 4. managing externally generated moisture by preventing absorption 5. minimising weight 6. maximising toughness This article talks about point 1 as though it's the entire story, but maintaining a comfortable active body temperature is by far the easiest point. You can do it with a tshirt under most circumstances. Wools do have an advantage with regard to point 3, which is why a lot of technical gear is now made of merino wool. The entire selling point of goretex is that it provides a reasonable degree of 3 whilst giving an excellent degree of 4, which is simply not possible with antique gear. Modern technical gear is genuinely incredible stuff, it's possible to pack something that will keep you warm and dry down to 8°C in a space less than a large cup of coffee and a weight less than a glossy magazine. Not to mention that from a scientific perspective, experimenting on a single pair of twins adds essentially zero statistical power to the results. This is theatre.
- bwv848 7mo agoFun experiment, but it doesn’t really prove anything. On a good day, elite runners like Tyler Andrews can run up Mera and more difficult peaks with minimal gear. Next time, try testing them on a cold, windy, and wet ridgeline traverse.
- arbirk 7mo agoIs that an iPad?
- snowwrestler 7mo agoOne of them used an iPad and one used parchment to take notes.
- orangewindies 7mo agoFor really low temperatures some of the traditional materials work really well. For example, at -30 °C you don't need a waterproof shell but you want something that's very windproof and breathable. So at the British Antarctic Survey in the late 90s we were still using cotton Ventile[0], it's tough and effective. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ventile https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ventile
- some_random 7mo agoThis is the ultimate refutation of the article in my opinion, the people who do this stuff professionally are still using traditional materials where they make sense. We did not forget about wool as a species.
- eleveriven 7mo agoIdentical twins is a neat idea, but it still feels like a very small sample size for drawing broader conclusions about "a century of innovation"
- tclancy 7mo ago> “We had a midlife crisis at 17,” Ross explains. “Life got put in perspective.” > They needed to live and test their limits. They started by rowing the Atlantic to raise funds for Spinal Research, a UK-based charity they’ve worked with for years. Going to guess the sample size for identical twins who never needed to work is even lower.
- world2vec 7mo agoAwful llm writing for what it seems to be some sort of ad but I can't quite figure out what's the ad for...
- Terretta 7mo agoYep: Now, here’s the fun bit for gear geeks like us: it’s not cosplay; it’s rigorous historical reconstruction. … Their rule is strict: materials must be 100% natural—wool, silk, cotton, fur, and leather. No rule against LLMs, or for rigorous human writing.
- IAmBroom 7mo agoThe twins didn't write this.
- exq 7mo ago> it’s not cosplay; it’s rigorous historical reconstruction ... Taking it at face value, this is more theatre than science for a few reasons: - twins don't magically mean two identical bodies - food intake has a much greater effect from thermogenesis than most laymen realize; I don't see that the two men consumed the same diet at the same meal times each day, nor does the article mention what they ate at all? - no control for their own body quirks, they should swap gear every so often - the focus seems to be on warmth and moisture management, but in a weird way. Was the historical gear twin actually cold on summit day, or are we just assuming warmer=better? Warmth alone is useless. In my circles, good gear performs well at the intersection of performance(warmth per weight for insulation, as high moisture vapor transmission rate with as low cubic feet per minute airflow per weight for windshells, ability to shed external moisture while avoiding internal moisture buildup per weight for outer weather layers, breathability and speed of drying per weight for base layers) crossed with durability and your price point. >Modern gear allows for a “set and forget” mentality No the heck it doesn't!!! Every climber, long distance backpacker, and mountaineer reading this article surely got hit with a blast of Gell-Mann Amnesia just like I did. Layering for active and static usage and frequent adjustments to clothing/gear according to changes in body temperature and weather are still very much part of the game! If you're comparing the pinnacle of gear tech 100 years ago to today, you can't compare to generic off the shelf Patagonia and Arcteryx clothing. A more apt comparison would be a modern ultralight kit with bespoke gear made by cottage companies like Timmermade. I posit the primary function of modern gear is not that it performs better as a rule, rather it weighs less while performing the same or better. Other commenters have minimized the weight savings of 2kg with modern gear. As someone who regularly backpacks in winter conditions, I must say 2 kilos is a LOT of weight to shrug your shoulders at. It's over two full days of food at 4,000 calories per day. It's more than my snowshoes and spikes weigh combined! I think this may sound smart and counterfactual to common knowledge as a layman, but to anyone who regularly goes outdoors in extreme conditions, this article and experiment is horseshit.
- Terretta 7mo ago> I think this may sound smart and counterfactual to common knowledge as a layman, but to anyone who regularly goes outdoors in extreme conditions, this article and experiment is horseshit. LLM slop in a nutshell.
- deleted 7mo ago[deleted]
- DeathArrow 7mo agoI generally prefer natural materials for both look and feel. If I wear hiking boots with Gore-Tex in the summer, my feet will sweat and boil. But hiking boots with leather lining are much more comfortable.
- sam_goody 7mo agoTL;DR Modern gear is actually much better than what they wore a few generations ago. More flexible, waterproof, requiring less thought, better and overall lighter. Even with lots more effort and investment, there remains a significant difference between two brothers when one insists on wearing recreated ancient gear. Well, whadaya know! But I bet you didn't know that you can find modern pro hiking shoes that are even heavier than the old ones they recreated!
- blacklion 7mo agoConclusions in article are strange. 1) 1.8⁰C on body is very big difference, it is like difference between person who is slightly warm and one who barely can move because of cold. It is huge. 2) Tone like «we are victims of marketing, we can use simple equipment instead of high-tech one» is in same article as «Custom boots for Mallory were been developed for many month». Yep, very simple equipment, of course.
- CyberDildonics 7mo agoPeople are trying to pick this apart technically instead of realizing it's an AI generated ad.
- CWuestefeld 7mo agoI'm waiting for an article that explains what it means for my pants or my belt to be "tactical".