Really mfp, really?

amandaeve

Is Too Much Exercise as Bad as Not Enough? What do you all think of this article recently published in the mfp blog?
http://blog.myfitnesspal.com/much-exercise-bad-not-enough/

Personally, I see it as another mainstream media attempt at making sure everyone in the world thinks they are doing life wrong. I get so sick of premature research pushed by media as gospel. After reading for a little while, you get skeptical of all research as it becomes so full of contradictions and qualifiers. But perhaps I only feel defensive because I regularly exercise 900 minutes a week. What do you think?

AnvilHead

I won’t comment on 900 minutes of exercise per week without more context to frame it. As far as the MFP blog, I’m not sure how much control they have over the content, whether it’s pushed to them from other sources or what, but it’s often as full of woo as a Dr. Oz show. I don’t even bother reading it after some of the clickbait garbage I’ve seen in it.

lemurcat12

amandaeve wrote: »

Personally, I see it as another mainstream media attempt at making sure everyone in the world thinks they are doing life wrong.

Pretty much.

I think the things we know are largely common sense -- be active, try to avoid unnecessary or excess stress, eat your vegetables, eat some protein, don't eat too much.

Most of the studies that get pushed for clicks have a ton of caveats or really aren't that significant. If you have a happy exercise routine going, who cares, ignore ridiculous articles about how exercising too much (as if people didn't exercise basically all day long through most of our history) is going to give you cancer or whatever.

Also, I totally agree with AnvilHead on the blog.

Heather4448

The blog is a joke.

Alatariel75

The blog is a steaming pile of tripe.

Azdak

Well, I think the subject of “teh blog” has been adequately covered.

amandaeve

Good to know, I never really read the blog before. Don't think I'm going to start.

GaleHawkins

https://webmd.com/men/features/exercise-addiction#1

At least the question has been around for a while.

jbruced

I read the linked article and recalled something about this issue that I had read last year. The article I read last year was about ultra endurance athletes especially the runners doing over 100 miles at a time. Cardiac remodeling as the heart adapts to the work load creates problems with the electrical system of the heart leading to poor heart function. There is also the problem of fibrosis as mentioned in the OP's linked article again resulting in poor heart function. Runners may recall Jim Fixx who died of cardiac problems. It was my thinking at the time that he suffered from arrhythmias although at that time we didn't know as much as we do now about cardiac remodeling. Again the stuff I read last year was about hardcore ultra endurance athletes--people really pushing the extremes.

Wheelhouse15

First rule of media, if the headline ends in a question mark the statement was BS. I guess the natural thing to point out is that exercise is a stressor and that any stressor in too great a dosage will cause issues. Most people wouldn't have the time or drive to get to extremes.

cmriverside

.

Wheelhouse15

jbruced wrote: »

I read the linked article and recalled something about this issue that I had read last year. The article I read last year was about ultra endurance athletes especially the runners doing over 100 miles at a time. Cardiac remodeling as the heart adapts to the work load creates problems with the electrical system of the heart leading to poor heart function. There is also the problem of fibrosis as mentioned in the OP's linked article again resulting in poor heart function. Runners may recall Jim Fixx who died of cardiac problems. It was my thinking at the time that he suffered from arrhythmias although at that time we didn't know as much as we do now about cardiac remodeling. Again the stuff I read last year was about hardcore ultra endurance athletes--people really pushing the extremes.

Yes, thickening of the heart walls causes issues of signals passing between chambers, but it's rare for natural athletes to experience this, but steroid users have been known to have such issues, recently pro bodybuilder Dallas Mccarver died at the age of 26 of a massive heart attack and his heart was almost 3x the weight it should have been. He was over 300lbs on stage and this alone was really not healthy.

If you read up on Jim Fixx's family background you'll see that he probably prolonged his life through running as well.

As for the ultra guys, I'm not sure I've seen any evidence of them having heart issues, do you have any information on increased risk or mortality? I'm curious because I've also wondered if that's even a healthy thing to think about let alone do!

stanmann571

1. The blog does in fact suck
2. There is a point where too much of a good thing isn't good. 70 minutes a day every day with no rest is probably pretty close to that point. Especially if all of that is moderate-high intensity work. If that's low-moderate, probably not. I'm not saying that an hour a day is too much, but it surely can be. Especially if you're an otherwise relatively sedentary person(as most Americans now are)

Need2Exerc1se

I don't see anything wrong with the blog. It's posed as a question and clearly states that all data is preliminary and interpretations are just theories. What is wrong with sharing data when it's presented exactly for what it is.

jennybearlv

Need2Exerc1se wrote: »

I don't see anything wrong with the blog. It's posed as a question and clearly states that all data is preliminary and interpretations are just theories. What is wrong with sharing data when it's presented exactly for what it is.

The problem with articles like these is how easily they are misinterpreted by those who don't think critically or read past the headlines. My family has too many of such people. Somebody will sort of read this article then tell me I had better be careful with all that running I do because it is bad for my heart! Such misinterpretations will then get spread through communities of like-minded people who will seriously think it is perfectly fine to be a couch potato, because running is now bad for your heart.

Wheelhouse15

Need2Exerc1se wrote: »

I don't see anything wrong with the blog. It's posed as a question and clearly states that all data is preliminary and interpretations are just theories. What is wrong with sharing data when it's presented exactly for what it is.

It's deceptive, people tend to read the headlines, forget that it's a question and don't understand the difference between weak evidence and strong support. They think anything published is somehow "proof". This is a deliberate attempt to mislead people, and not only that, it makes people distrustful of real scientific evidence because they didn't realize that what they were getting fed was either very specific or contradicted by most evidence.

PikaJoyJoy

AnvilHead wrote: »

I won’t comment on 900 minutes of exercise per week without more context to frame it. As far as the MFP blog, I’m not sure how much control they have over the content, whether it’s pushed to them from other sources or what, but it’s often as full of woo as a Dr. Oz show. I don’t even bother reading it after some of the clickbait garbage I’ve seen in it.

^This sums up everything I think about the MFP blog.

Need2Exerc1se

Wheelhouse15 wrote: »

Need2Exerc1se wrote: »

I don't see anything wrong with the blog. It's posed as a question and clearly states that all data is preliminary and interpretations are just theories. What is wrong with sharing data when it's presented exactly for what it is.

It's deceptive, people tend to read the headlines, forget that it's a question and don't understand the difference between weak evidence and strong support. They think anything published is somehow "proof". This is a deliberate attempt to mislead people, and not only that, it makes people distrustful of real scientific evidence because they didn't realize that what they were getting fed was either very specific or contradicted by most evidence.

Whoa! So no one should publish anything that is 100% true unless they do so at a kindergarten level because people tend to have poor reading skills? Sorry, I am not on board with that and never will be.

Wheelhouse15

Need2Exerc1se wrote: »

Wheelhouse15 wrote: »

Need2Exerc1se wrote: »

I don't see anything wrong with the blog. It's posed as a question and clearly states that all data is preliminary and interpretations are just theories. What is wrong with sharing data when it's presented exactly for what it is.

It's deceptive, people tend to read the headlines, forget that it's a question and don't understand the difference between weak evidence and strong support. They think anything published is somehow "proof". This is a deliberate attempt to mislead people, and not only that, it makes people distrustful of real scientific evidence because they didn't realize that what they were getting fed was either very specific or contradicted by most evidence.

Whoa! So no one should publish anything that is 100% true unless they do so at a kindergarten level because people tend to have poor reading skills? Sorry, I am not on board with that and never will be.

So that's what you got from my post? You've just demonstrated what I was referring too.

AnvilHead

Need2Exerc1se wrote: »

Wheelhouse15 wrote: »

Need2Exerc1se wrote: »

I don't see anything wrong with the blog. It's posed as a question and clearly states that all data is preliminary and interpretations are just theories. What is wrong with sharing data when it's presented exactly for what it is.

It's deceptive, people tend to read the headlines, forget that it's a question and don't understand the difference between weak evidence and strong support. They think anything published is somehow "proof". This is a deliberate attempt to mislead people, and not only that, it makes people distrustful of real scientific evidence because they didn't realize that what they were getting fed was either very specific or contradicted by most evidence.

Whoa! So no one should publish anything that is 100% true unless they do so at a kindergarten level because people tend to have poor reading skills? Sorry, I am not on board with that and never will be.

That's exactly the point. The garbage they're publishing isn't "100% true", or even close to it. Most of it is the kind of ridiculous weight loss woo you see in magazines on the newsstands.

JoRocka

the point in case part of this demonstration has been... .delightful.