Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.

Really mfp, really?

24

Replies

  • PikaJoyJoy
    PikaJoyJoy Posts: 280 Member
    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.

    Have to agree with what Wheel said on both counts. In no way did he say that everything had to be 100% true. Just when things get published (especially on a trusted site) without any actual basis IN truth - their reader base will still take it as 100% true without looking up on it with a discerning eye and understanding that the blog is not really moderated well and anything from actual science to snake oil can be put on there.
  • Need2Exerc1se
    Need2Exerc1se Posts: 13,575 Member
    AnvilHead 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.

    I'm referring only to the link in the OP as that's the only blog I've read. What in that article isn't true or is misleading?
  • jbruced
    jbruced Posts: 210 Member

    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! ;)
    I had not previously read about Jim Fixx's family background nor his personal medical history. I just now read a brief Wikipedia article which supports your view that he probably did prolong his life through running and other lifestyle changes; along with the genetic predisposition he had. Based on the autopsy results my thoughts on the cause of his death were incorrect.

    As for the articles I read last year, the indication was of evidence of heart problems developing but I don't recall that there were any specific deaths noted. One of the articles was from a university in England. I didn't get to finish reading the article. At the time I was following a cyclist named Mark Beaumont who circumnavigated the planet in 78 days and 14 hours if I recall his time correctly. I was trying to read up on how these people could train themselves for these types of efforts when I came across articles about the effects of this kind of ultra endurance activities.

    Thanks for the heads up on Jim Fixx. I learned something I did not know.
  • amandaeve
    amandaeve Posts: 723 Member
    @canadianlbs -Infopollution is my new favorite word!!!!
  • PikaJoyJoy
    PikaJoyJoy Posts: 280 Member
    amandaeve wrote: »
    @canadianlbs -Infopollution is my new favorite word!!!!

    We need to make this happen.
  • BishopWankapin
    BishopWankapin Posts: 276 Member
    giphy.gif
  • Wheelhouse15
    Wheelhouse15 Posts: 5,575 Member
    vingogly wrote: »
    Jodi Helmer is a freelancer who sells articles to many websites and newsletters on a number of topics. Freelancers who make a living by writing articles for blogs collect information from various sources, and package it for sale. Here is her portfolio:

    http://www.jodihelmer.com/portfolio/

    MFP is trying to provide interesting articles to members by buying from freelancers like her without having to hire writers and an editorial staff. This is neither an unethical nor an uncommon practice - UnderArmour isn't in the business of writing health and medical articles. Many medical professionals buy articles like this for their websites and newsletters.

    What the associated research in the referenced articles says is that people who do three times the recommended amount of exercise a day over a 25 year period have a statistically significant higher risk of cardio disease in middle age. To be blunt, more than 450 minutes of exercise a week, is an effing lot of exercise. Since the article is probably tl;dr material for a lot of people, here's some salient points:
    “The science is still early but we’re starting to see concerns about cardiovascular abnormalities in endurance athletes,” notes Dr. Vincent Bufalino, a cardiologist and national spokesperson for the American Heart Association. … Dr. Bufalino suspects it might be an overuse injury similar to runners who suffer from knee pain and injuries after years of pounding the pavement. “The heart has to work excessively to keep up with that level of exercise,” he explains. “The heart muscle thickens to deal with the demand of the increased output.” … “There is no direct cause and effect. You don’t run a race and develop heart issues,” says Dr.  Bufalino. “It takes years, probably decades, to develop.”… he suggests staying within the recommended federal guidelines of 150 minutes of moderate-intensity physical activity every week and getting regular heart health screenings.

    In other words, use moderation in exercise just as you do in eating. Why is that a shocking and offensive concept? Seriously, people on this forum will find any excuse to get their undies in a bunch.

    Although I certainly appreciate the well measured and thoughtfully written post, you did, in fact, miss the point of our concerns. It was to do with hysterics in headlining and general helpfulness of the post and not a debate on the writer herself or if the research was problematic.

    I have no issue with anything you addressed but they were straw men.
  • BishopWankapin
    BishopWankapin Posts: 276 Member
    giphy.gif

    As such, they'll misconstrue whatever nebulous "study" they can find to support histrionic titles to keep people clicking.

    giphy.gif
  • amandaeve
    amandaeve Posts: 723 Member
    @vingogly Let us not forget people who inadvertently "exercise" on work time. You could exceed 450 minutes in a blink having a labor or other physical career. Not necessarily unhealthy. 450 minutes a week is not necessarily an "effing lot", depending on what you do and how acclimated you are to the activity.