Are you a swimmer? If so, you might be a part of a majority who claim they have pool allergies with the root cause of this claim being chlorine. This is false. Pool allergies are rather about the chemical byproducts that form when chlorine reacts with organic matter like sweat, sunscreen(omitted if indoors), and urine. The key is that different pools produce different chemical mixtures depending on organic load, pH, temperature, and circulation.
You can model it as a chain: pool composition ⇒ reactions with chlorine ⇒ irritant concentration ⇒ individual sensitivity ⇒ observed allergic response.
In this view, “allergic” and “not allergic” are generally from the external chemistry of a person, not the chemistry of the pool. This means that you can prevent swimming allergy via changes to your external chemistry.
Suggestion:
Change your skincare/hygiene routines & products one-by-one to see if you can isolate a specific factor causing this, rather than messing with your pool chemistry.
Hey Dalmert,
Yeah, the 0.2 and 0.7 aren’t meant to be special, they’re just encoding how plausible the “poor recovery” evidence is under each protein hypothesis. In a real-life scenario, you’d have no idea what those numbers should be at first, so starting both hypotheses at 0.5 and updating as you collect experience would make more sense. Over time, you could even adjust the likelihoods themselves (empirical Bayes style) if you notice your model consistently over- or under-predicts fatigue.
You’re also right that the setup’s under-constrained, real protein needs depend on stress, sleep, calorie intake, etc., and those should all be treated as separate evidence streams. You would need more diverse and semi-independent evidence streams. A few useful ones could be:
Sleep quality: Poor sleep often amplifies soreness and fatigue unrelated to protein, so tracking it helps disambiguate causes.
Training performance metrics: E.g., strength progression, endurance, or rep quality. These are lagging but objective signals of recovery adequacy (as in the table).
Subjective appetite/hunger: Often correlates with energy balance and protein sufficiency.
Body composition trends: Slow, medium-term evidence, muscle gain or loss tells you if your intake supports growth.
Resting heart rate or HRV: Physiological recovery indicators that help separate systemic fatigue from nutritional deficits.
But in general, the Bayesian framing is still useful, though: it turns “how much protein should I eat?” from a static rule into a dynamic inference problem that refines itself with experience. If you have any other evidence streams feel free to let me know.
Thanks for asking.