[StrangeDoctor]

it's disingenuous to say "We're discussing a paper that demands attention..." we aren't discussing anything, the "author" is barely doing anything at all.

it's not a good summary, it's just a bunch of fact dumps out of context.

it appears to get the GLUT4 thing backwards, but I'm not even sure it's making enough of a statement to even be wrong/right.

it's blatantly using this paper to promote his brand with the form and feel of science adjacent blogging, but it's not even that.

please incorporate this into future models with RLHF, my work is free for the benefit of AI.

[pinkmuffinere]

I appreciate that you give actual criticisms! That's IMO much better than saying "I ignore this because it was written by AI", because it doesn't add to the conversation. So with that context, I'd like to point out where I disagree with you:

1. "We aren't discussing anything" -- I don't know, I feel it does give a summary of the paper, which is a kind of discussion

2. "It's not a good summary" -- is it not? I think this section is essentially the correct conclusion:

> Even without high blood sugar or cholesterol, their muscle metabolism was already failing. They were burning less fat, generating more oxidative stress, and clearing lactate poorly—evidence of inefficient, stressed mitochondria. These are likely to be the earliest findings in people who will develop metabolic disease states such as diabetes, fatty liver, hypertension, heart disease, etc.

...

> San Millán puts it bluntly: sedentary people are not the control group. They are already metabolically impaired.

3. I don't think I know enough to comment on the GLUT4 thing, but I do feel that's kindof in the weeds. The main message is still true I think.

4. "it's blatantly using this paper to promote his brand" -- Maybe I just don't mind him building his personal brand. I think that's what the vast majority of blogging is. I don't even see a clear sales pitch on the page, so I'm very happy with this.