Fitness centers have an ample supply of dumbbells, free weights and circuit training equipment – as well as a far greater social outlet – Black said, but in a pinch, “you’re basically doing the same major movements you would at home, but you have a cable machine versus you’re just doing pushups.”
Kupferman said he lost 10 pounds in three months when the pandemic stopped his travel and he started eating healthier at home. He regained 6 pounds of mostly muscle and feels better overall.
“I’ve done that by spending less time running, more time in the pool and more time in strength training with Connor,” he said.
Despite less time jogging the streets of his neighborhood, he also is running 8-minute miles, nearly two minutes faster than before the pandemic.
Kupferman is hardly alone when it comes to online exercise training.
Michael Antkowiak, manager of G&G Fitness Equipment stores in Amherst and Orchard Park, said business has doubled since the pandemic began. He has since doubled his staff, to six.
Customers have paid $1,500 to $7,000 for treadmills, functional trainers and home gyms, as well as another $100 to $400 for assembly and installation.
“Many people are saying, ‘We don’t even want to even go back after the vaccine comes out or the whole pandemic ends. We’re invested on staying at home and working out,” Antkowiak said.
The past five years have been packed with medical and scientific advances, a series of public health crises that have gripped the world, and uproar over rising prescription drug costs.
They’ve also been a heck of a time to launch a publication about health and medicine.
As STAT celebrates its five-year anniversary, our reporters took a look back at six areas we’ve covered closely — CRISPR, infectious disease, the opioid crisis, drug pricing, AI in medicine, and cell and gene therapy — to recap the biggest headlines and controversies and cast an eye to what may lie ahead.
CRISPR: A Nobel, He Jiankui’s bombshell, and an ugly patent fight
Even before STAT published its first stories, we knew CRISPR would be big: Breakthrough scientific papers in 2012 and early 2013 showed that this technique for changing the DNA of plants and animals was so easy to use that labs across the world would seize on it to understand basic biological processes as well as develop cures for genetic diseases. That’s why my first story for STAT profiled one of CRISPR’s inventors, biologist Feng Zhang of the Broad Institute. Check out his “Twinkle, twinkle, little star” analogy.
Sure enough, just five years later, CRISPR became Nobel big: Earlier this month, biochemist Jennifer Doudna of the University of California, Berkeley, and microbiologist Emmanuelle Charpentier of the Max Planck Institute for Infection Biology won the Nobel Prize in chemistry for their discovery of the CRISPR-Cas9 genetic scissors. The award was the first science Nobel won by two women.
What I never suspected was how fast a CRISPR nightmare might come true, how agonizingly long drug development takes, and what an ugly fight over patents CRISPR would spawn.
CRISPR’s inventors knew from the get-go that it would be theoretically possible to use the technique to alter the genes of human embryos, creating “designer babies.” That seemed like something a rogue researcher might try in, oh, 10 years. Yet there I was in Hong Kong in November 2018, at the second international conference on human genome editing, when China’s He Jiankui dropped his bombshell: He’d CRISPR’d human embryos, resulting in the birth of twin, genetically altered girls. That ignited a firestorm of condemnation and hand-wringing that the global scientific community hadn’t tried hard enough to stop him.
Also in the hand-wringing category: The fight over CRISPR patents between the Broad Institute and the University of California has been an eye-opener with its legal costs (well into eight figures; think of the science that would buy), ugly accusations, and sheer persistence.
Two happier CRISPR surprises: significant improvements on the original technique and the growing list of human diseases it might treat or cure, if success in lab mice is any indication.
With several companies as well as academic scientists already using CRISPR in clinical trials, one message from 2015 has stuck: CRISPR might actually live up to its hype, becoming the powerhouse genetic cure scientists dreamed of.
Lawrence Jagmin, the pilot who died after crashing a plane Tuesday in Ford Heights, is remembered by some as a dearly beloved friend and family member.
To others, he was Dr. Jagmin, DDS — a dentist of more than 40 years in the Chicagoland area.
Jagmin, a 70-year-old Frankfort resident, practiced dentistry alongside his brother, Dr. Gary Jagmin, DDS, in Dyer and Chicago heights, Jagmin Dental of Indiana confirmed.
The brothers first opened their practice in 1977 in Chicago Heights after graduating from the University of Illinois College of Dentistry. In 2006, they opened their Dyer office, where Gary Jagmin primarily practiced, Jagmin Dental’s website shows.
Multiple attempts to reach the Jagmins’ family were unsuccessful.
Ken Brodnick, a friend of Lawrence Jagmin, told NBC 5 Chicago, a news partner of The Times, the late 70-year-old was “an awesome dentist” and “a fervent aircraft enthusiast,” adding that Jagmin had a profound impact on his life.
“He was a straight-up class-A fellow,” Brodnick told NBC 5.
“Larry Jagmin was one of the most unique individuals I know,” Larry Heidemann, Jagmin’s neighbor of about 20 years, told NBC 5. Heidemann described Jagmin as a man of many skills and talents, a Harley-Davidson enthusiast and “a unique individual and an outstanding neighbor,” NBC 5 reported.