(Q).
For active people, regular training is as important part of maintaining and increasing fitness. About the only real downside to regular exercise is the transient toll it takes on the body after a hard training session. The pain and soreness after training needs sufficient time to recover from before another hard session can be performed. A very plausible theory pushed for many years is that the post-exercise oxidative stress in the body is the primary cause of the muscle damage and fatigue experienced. If you could reduce this oxidative stress, then it would allow quicker recovery, and then more time spent training. What this theory ignores though is that oxidative damage is a natural part of how the body adapts to stressful exercise, allowing the body to repair and grow stronger to allow higher levels of performance in the future. A small scale study has previously found that trained and untrained individuals who dose up on antioxidant supplements impair important exercise training adaptations such as improved insulin sensitivity and production of oxidative stress defence proteins. Now researchers have extended this study by looking at the effect of antioxidants in trained female runners, and published their findings in the European Journal of Sports Science. Twenty-three well trained female runners took part in three separate 3-week training blocks where they took either 1 gram of vitamin C, blackcurrant juice, or a placebo drink for each of the training blocks. Each of the dietary interventions involved drinking a similar volume of fruit drink of a total of half a litre per day split over the morning and evening. The training performance of each runner was carefully measured at the beginning and end of each 3-week treatment period. The runners stuck to a set training schedule which allowed a more accurate assessment of any changes in performance over the training period. Who did a study mentioned in the text find had impaired important exercise training adaptations like insulin sensitivity? A. those who dose up on antioxidant supplements B. those who take steroids C. not enough information D. those who take multivitamins
(A).
A

(Q).
Recently the news broke that Microsoft are acquiring GitHub. Effusive opinions flowed from all directions: some saw the acquisition as a sensible fit for Microsoft to better support developers, and some saw it as a tyrant getting their grubby fingers on open source's ecosystem. I am thrilled for Microsoft and GitHub for many reasons, and there will be a bright future ahead because of it, but I have been thinking more about the reaction some of the critics have had to this, and why. I find it fascinating that there still seems to be a deep-seated discomfort in some about Microsoft and their involvement in open source. I understand that this is for historical reasons, and many moons ago Microsoft were definitely on the offensive against open source. I too was critical of Microsoft and their approach back in those days. I may have even said 'M$' instead of 'MS' (ugh.) Things have changed though. Satya Nadella, their CEO, has had a profound impact on the company: they are a significant investor and participant in open source across a multitude of open source projects, they hire many open source developers, run their own open source projects (e.g. VSCode), and actively sponsor and support many open source conferences, events, and initiatives. I know many people who work at Microsoft and they love the company and their work there. These are not microserfs: they are people like you and me. Things have changed, and I have literally never drunk Kool-aid; this or any other type. Are they perfect? No, but they don't claim to be. But is the Microsoft of today a radically different company to the Microsoft of the late nineties. No doubt. Still though, this cynicism exists in some. Some see them as a trojan horse and ask if we can really trust them? A little while ago I had a discussion with someone who was grumbling about Microsoft. After poking around his opinion, what shook out was that his real issue was not with Microsoft's open source work (he was supportive of this), but it was with the fact that they still produce... John believes that A. Fred was not a good guest B. not enough information C. Fred was his friend D. Fred was married
(A).
A

(Q).
Exciting news everyone, BIOeffect has now officially launched in Australia. The BIOeffect EGF serum is creating a huge storm world wide. It was first launched in Iceland last year (as it is made by the Icelandic company Sif Cosmetics) and within 6 months of the release it is estimated that 1 in 5 Icelandic women over the age of 30 have purchased the serum. When it was released in France, the serum sold out in the first week at the famous concept store in Paris, Colette. Now, we can finally get it here in Australia and I believe that it will be launching in the US shortly. The serum is highly scientific, and based on reviews around the world, it really appears to work. I have been using it for a week now and my angry line down the middle of my forehead is already seeming less angry. I will post a review once I have been using it for a month or so. If you want to purchase the serum, it is available from the BIOeffect Australia website or if you are looking for updates or reviews on the product then you can either like their Facebook page or follow them on Twitter. So, who is now busting to try the serum? Well, to celebrate the launch, the wonderful people behind BIOeffect Australia, Melanie and Kym, have agreed to sponsor a giveaway of some amazing BIOeffect products. First prize will be one full sized bottle of the amazing BIOeffect serum. This bottle alone is worth $180.00!! In addition there will be two runners up prizes of a 3ml travel sized bottle of the serum. These are worth $40.00 each! Entering the competition is simple. All you need to do is have a read of my article, The science behind the BIOeffect EGF Serum explained, and make a comment on that article about what excites you the most about the serum. Are you like me and are blown away by the science? Is it the fact that independent clinical trials are proving that the serum works? Or is there something else that has grabbed you? Please tell me. What is probably true of the narrator? A. He used to have an angry line down his forehead B. not enough information C. He was angry D. He had dry skin
(A).
A