So are we not supposed to preemptively hydrate when performing intense exercise in adverse conditions?

For instance, I've done 40-60 min cycling time trials (or any prolonged FTP effort really) in 30-35c+ (ambient) weather and have noticed that if I don't properly hydrate, I'll stop sweating part way through which can lead to a loss of performance. I've never noticed cramps but I can lose up to 4-6 lbs of water over a hard 2 hr ride in the heat. Since I sweat a lot when I workout, the heat doesn't bother me too much but I do need to drink more. Is it possible our brains are not tuned to quickly respond to a rapid loss of water, like during a hard cardio workout? Therefore, drinking water when you feel thirsty might only be a good recommendation when you're performing at low- to moderate-levels of exertion.

I agree that most people are likely not dehydrated but not consuming water during a hard cardio workout seems like bad advice.

lucky760's reasoning is sound.

Anyone that has researched and/or trained on weapon on weapon defense, in this case knife vs. firearm knows the Tueller's Drill. It has been a standard for over thirty years. Basically,

The Tueller Drill is a self-defense training exercise to prepare against a short-range knife attack when armed only with a holstered handgun.
Sergeant Dennis Tueller, of the Salt Lake City, Utah Police Department wondered how quickly an attacker with a knife could cover 21 feet (6.4 m), so he timed volunteers as they raced to stab the target. He determined that it could be done in 1.5 seconds. These results were first published as an article in SWAT magazine in 1983 and in a police training video by the same title, "How Close is Too Close?"[1]
A defender with a gun has a dilemma. If he shoots too early, he risks being charged with murder. If he waits until the attacker is definitely within striking range so there is no question about motives, he risks injury and even death. The Tueller experiments quantified a "danger zone" where an attacker presented a clear threat.[2]
The Tueller Drill combines both parts of the original time trials by Tueller. There are several ways it can be conducted:[3]
The "attacker and shooter are positioned back-to-back. At the signal, the attacker sprints away from the shooter, and the shooter unholsters his gun and shoots at the target 21 feet (6.4 m) in front of him. The attacker stops as soon as the shot is fired. The shooter is successful only if his shot is good and if the runner did not cover 21 feet (6.4 m).
A more stressful arrangement is to have the attacker begin 21 feet (6.4 m) behind the shooter and run towards the shooter. The shooter is successful only if he was able take a good shot before he is tapped on the back by the attacker.
If the shooter is armed with only a training replica gun, a full-contact drill may be done with the attacker running towards the shooter. In this variation, the shooter should practice side-stepping the attacker while he is drawing the gun.
Mythbusters covered the drill in the 2012 episode "Duel Dilemmas". At 20 feet the gun wielder was able to shoot the charging knife attacker just as he reached the shooter. At shorter distances the knife wielder was always able to stab prior to being shot. (Wikipedia)

That a firearm, particularly a handgun, will instantly incapacitate an individual is not a working concept and is fallacious. Variables such as adrenaline and drugs are attributable. Shot placement is trumps. Anything but a CNS. central nervous system, shot is not efficacious in safely stopping the threat. Not an easy or sure target sans movement, stress, etc.

Law enforcement put their lives and safety in harm's way every day. They are not there to die needlessly. An individual with suicide by cop or a LEO's death in mind is a serious threat to be dealt with with prejudice.

By the way, research knife wounds vs. handgun wounds. There is much data, ER, medical examiner, law enforcement. The deadly seriousness of knife wounds are well documented.

Tasers...I would not want to risk my life behind one or anyone about whom I care.

wiki says

"In the early 21st century, the premier TT racing bikes complete the Snaefell course at an average speed exceeding 120 mph (190 km/h). Record holders include David Jefferies who set a lap record of 127.29 mph (204.85 km/h) in 2002. This was surpassed by John McGuinness during the 2004 TT on a Yamaha R1 setting a time of 17 min 43.8 s; an average lap speed of 127.68 mph (205.48 km/h). McGuinness lowered this even further at the 2007 TT, setting a time of 17:21.99 for an average speed of 130.354 mph (209.784 km/h) becoming the first rider to break the 130 mph limit on the Snaefell Mountain circuit. The most successful rider was Joey Dunlop who won 26 times in various classes from 1977 to 2000. For 2009, the Manx government added a new event to the June race schedule. The Time Trial eXtreme Grand Prix (TTXGP) was billed as the first zero-emissions motorcycle race. While any technology could enter, as a practical matter zero emissions means electric.[34]"

The rules for this should have required at least a token check of the inner surface of the tire. Unless you know you got snakebit (puncture caused by hitting a curb with underinflated tires), changing a flat without inspecting the inner surface is a waste of time and tubes.

There should also be a patch kit time trial. I can do it in under 10 mins in real conditions, and I'm sure others can do it in under 5.>> ^Tojja:

- 30 seconds spent identifying/removing source of puncture (glass/wire/thorn) saves many minutes of rework when you get another puncture a minute later from the bastard wire strand you didnt look hard enough for

>> ^jmzero:

I don't like this. I don't like that this kind of behavior is rewarded with attention or seen as elite. This isn't the "top level" of rock/mountain climbing - it is an offshoot.
The danger isn't vague theoretic risk, it's very real and people die every year in predictable, preventable falls (that often get labelled "freak accident" or something only out of respect for the dead).
If you want to be an elite climber, then take harder routes or race/time-trial with proper safety equipment. I'd hate to think that young climbers might feel like this is the "next step" in their progress. It isn't. You can be the best climber without taking this kind of risk. This kid's "per trip survival chance" is probably quite high, but odds often catch up with you if you persist in dangerous behavior (ropes or not, but your odds are better with appropriate equipment). Sometimes you get too confident and make a mistake. Sometimes you don't make a mistake, and you get wiped out by something out of your control.
The climbers I know respect these people, but not what they do. I feel the same.


More people die in their kitchens each year. We accept that. Accidents happen. There is never going to be a lot of people doing this. I don't see him trying to inspire copycats. This is his risk to take and his alone.

In an age where you can't do anything without a fucking risk assessment I applaud this man. He proves that humans can do amazing things.

I don't like this. I don't like that this kind of behavior is rewarded with attention or seen as elite. This isn't the "top level" of rock/mountain climbing - it is an offshoot.

The danger isn't vague theoretic risk, it's very real and people die every year in predictable, preventable falls (that often get labelled "freak accident" or something only out of respect for the dead).

If you want to be an elite climber, then take harder routes or race/time-trial with proper safety equipment. I'd hate to think that young climbers might feel like this is the "next step" in their progress. It isn't. You can be the best climber without taking this kind of risk. This kid's "per trip survival chance" is probably quite high, but odds often catch up with you if you persist in dangerous behavior (ropes or not, but your odds are better with appropriate equipment). Sometimes you get too confident and make a mistake. Sometimes you don't make a mistake, and you get wiped out by something out of your control.

The climbers I know respect these people, but not what they do. I feel the same.

>> ^Mcboinkens:

>> ^westy:
>> ^Mcboinkens:
<em>>> <a rel="nofollow" href='http://videosift.com/video/Who-is-this-guy-and-what-lab-was-he-built-in#comment-1063403'>^Seric</a>:<br />I wonder how good he would be if he'd spent that time learning real drums <IMG class=smiley src="http://static1.videosift.com/cdm/emoticon/blank.gif"><BR></em>
Yeah, you kind of shot yourself in the foot. He's using a real drum set, not to mention he is using very advanced drumming techniques. He probably learned to played the drums as a kid and then just found this game as a fun way to learn to play new, complex songs.
Furthermore, you should keep up with the new Rock Band coming out. The goal is shifting from just a fun way to chill with friends to actual tutorials on the instruments. The guitar is actually getting 6 strings with fingersensing technology, and it WILL teach those that want to learn to play, with enough effort of course. On the drums, the ride, crash, and high-hat will have different locations charted than the snare and toms, further enhancing gameplay.
Also, Westy, the analogy you made to racing virtually and for real is extremely off. The two focus on completely different things, one is mastering the course and memorizing lines, the other is having a solid team to tune your car, quick thinking out on the course, knowing the course AND dealing with the G's.

You do reolise that G forces are only relivent in F1 and indy car maby some of the other high speed single seaters and evan then you could easily train for that over a year ? other than the phisical strain Gforces actual make driving a car ALLOT ESEAR as you can feal what the car is doing where as in a game you have to go of the stearing collom alone.
you allso reolise that the teams in f1 pritty much compelaty set the car up for the driver ?
You do know that Driving simulators are not just used for learning the layout of the track right? and that in f1 since testing time is so limited drivers themselfs spend a huge amount of time in the simulator testing the teems setups and car modificatoins that the mechanics have done for them ?
Have you ever played a sim racing game ? top sim racers have to do far more tweeking and car set up than a real driver would ever be exspecvted to do , allso sim drivers Drive FAR FAR tighter than a real world driver ever would litraly 100% on the limit to the millimeter.
sim racing is allso far closer and requires more race craft than the vast majorty of other pro forms of racing , due to the fact you can see far less and people are driving closer to the limmit , i dont know if u ever watch f1 but 90% of the grid hardly push the limit interms of race craft.
The largest fundimental factor that stops incredably tallented sim racers compeating in the real world is CASH pure and simple , you have to be a ritch basterd to race and thats without getting anny money back.
Things are slowly changing though , seems that more and more scoller ships are opaning up offering top level sim racers the chance to race in the real world
http://www.ferrari.com/Engli
sh/Formula1/News/Headlines/Pages/100901_F1_Maranello_unveils_new_online_simulator.aspx


I won't waste too much time responding, but you are basically spouting bullshit. NASCAR drivers take 2-3 Gs on turns, and that's about as low as it gets in racing. Your point on teams setting up the cars actually furthers my point. Virtual drivers that set up their own cars are not mechanics, they just get numbers off of the internet and in-game time trials. The true mechanics don't do it that way.
Furthermore, you are incorrect when you assume that driving simulators they use are video games. They cost thousands of dollars and are inside of model cars that can represent true G force feelings.
On to the next point, virtual drivers can get exact drive-lines down because they are not exposed to real racing conditions. Sitting on a couch moving a thumbstick is not the same as turning a steering column in the middle of a track. Less pressure too. Screw up on XBOXLive? Just quit. Screw up in real life and you lose what could be your career, car, or just money in general.
Granted, there may be 1 or 2 sim drivers that could actually compete(and do well ), but like I said, your anology comes nowhere close to Rock Band drums vs. real drumsets. Anyway..


Im sorry but your the one talking out your arse , The point was regardless of how many G you exsperance anything below GP2,and most drivers would be fine with it given a month to get used to it. allso annything below GP2 and the G's make driving easer than sim racing not harder , as it allows you to feel what the car is doing.


Lets focus on road racing as I don't know or care that much about nascar.

to specificity answer your points

1) Red bull use Rfactor pro which is likely to be fairly simular (going by what the people that make Rfactor have said) to normal r factor it just outputs more data and gives the team far better data as to what effect there modifications have made.

Lets bare in mind that all the top sim racers pretty much use Rfactor as there default simulator

Allso there is enough steering collom feed back in Iracing ,Rfactor , Netcar pro to alow a driver to become a significantly better driver by training on it so long as they are using annything above a g25 for input. ITS NOT SIMPLY A CASE OF LEARNING RACING LINES , simulators like Rfactor , Iracing give enoughf feel for you to drive reactively , They allso simulate close racing and sim racers will get to exsperance more racing with other people and as a rsult develop more race craft faster . Remember when all the poker players came from online and totaly dominated real world poker players , this was simply due to the fact that they played thousends more hands than evan vintage poker players , this is what will and has happend with top end sim racers. the onyl difference is you have to be a ritch basterd to get into motor sport in the first place this is why sim racers dont often trasnfer its a totaly riged sport controled by the ritch of the world , but this is slowly chainging.

2) The sole resoin that sim racers drive to the limit is that it dosent cost them annything to crash the car repatedly to find the limit , once they have found it they can pritty much stick to it.

ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME WHY THE FUCK WOULD I BE TALKING ABOUT xbox360 ? THERE ARE NO GAMES EVAN CLOSE TO SIMULATOR STANDERD ON THE 360 WHY WOULD YOU EVAN BRING THIS UP WTF?

3) There are a good number of top sim racers that would rape the vast majorty of real world drivers , they are far more or equaly skiled than real world drivers they just have never had the money to drive in real life. If you consider there are probably only what 1000 top level competative road drivers , the top 20 sim racers would be able to compete with 80% of the gird in F1 and they represent the best of the best.

[redacted]

Cool clip! *music

I'm going to get ME soon for the 360, heard it's worth it for the time trials.

I think that saying 'this game has eight hours of gameplay' would be like me going out and buying a racing game with a story mode, playing through the story mode and declaring the story mode to be the entirety of gameplay.

Much like racing games Mirror's Edge is about moving fast, much like racing games it also possesses a time trial mode as well as a story mode. The time trial mode is one of the best elements of the game, combining the innovative gameplay mechanics of Mirror's Edge with the classic mechanics of racing games, such as timing, track memorization, alternate paths, etc. The first time trial saw me going from five minutes to 53 seconds, a good five seconds too slow to make the fastest world time, which is another brilliant concept. Something about having the world's best time dangling a mere five seconds ahead of you every time you finish the course drives you to go right back into that time trial to go for the gold.

The main story line has a number of terrible or frustrating moments in it, but it also reaches amazing heights where things just click. Your grip on your controller will grow slack, it will tumble from your hands, and you will say 'I can't believe I just did that'. That being said, the terrible moments can cause the controller to be flung from your body in rage, but the innovation visible in the game has been enough for most of the people I know who have played the game forgive it most of its drawbacks.

Is it a fantastic game? No. Is it a terrible one? Certainly not. Is it worth spending the $60.00? Not quite, but maybe $50.00.

The story part of the game is short, but it's not the real meat of the game. The time trials are where most of the fun of the game is. At least if you like doing the same level over and over obsessively trying to shave a few seconds off your time.

So I really wouldn't recommend this game to most people. But I really do love it.