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?

13

Replies

  • BishopWankapin
    BishopWankapin Posts: 276 Member
    AnvilHead wrote: »
    amandaeve wrote: »
    @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.

    And therein lies the lack of context. They're comparing middle-distance and Ironman triathlete competitors to couch potatoes. As if there's no middle ground of intensity between the two.

    Most people aspiring to higher fitness levels (I'd even say the vast majority) will never, ever hit the levels of intensity and frequency in their training that Ironman competitors do. There's a big difference between 450 minutes/week of Zumba, walking, light cardio and a few strength training sessions vs. 450 minutes/week of Ironman training.

    It's pure clickbait and headline hysteria, and the results of the "study" are irrelevant to about 99.9% of the population. Yet many people who aren't critical thinkers and get their 'information' from reading headlines will miss that point entirely and just take away "exercise is bad for you".

    giphy.gif
  • Wheelhouse15
    Wheelhouse15 Posts: 5,575 Member
    amandaeve wrote: »
    @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.

    7.5 hours per week, so about 65mins of walking a day would hit that mark.
  • PikaJoyJoy
    PikaJoyJoy Posts: 280 Member
    AnvilHead wrote: »
    amandaeve wrote: »
    @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.

    7.5 hours per week, so about 65mins of walking a day would hit that mark.

    And according to that article, walking 65 minutes a day would be the same as training 65 minutes per day for an Ironman triathlon, as far as being "bad for you". MmmHmmm.

    tenor.gif?itemid=5914304
  • Wheelhouse15
    Wheelhouse15 Posts: 5,575 Member
    edited February 2018
    So I decided to go a little deeper on this research and found that the conclusions of the study definitely do not jibe with what the tone of the article indicate. There are several risk factors in the development of cardiovascular disease (CVD), and this paper found elevated risk in one of those factors, specifically coronary artery calcification (CAC). Interestingly, after a bit more digging I found that CAC's link to CVD is reduced significantly and profoundly with the increase in fitness levels acc.org/latest-in-cardiology/journal-scans/2018/01/30/11/24/cardiorespiratory-fitness-coronary-artery-calcium-and-cvd

    So is the increase in CAC incidents in highly active subjects offset by the lower risk of contracting CVD with CAC? Probably more than enough to justify keeping fit by the looks of it. Sited in this study we have this quote:
    Coronary artery calcification and CR fitness are each predictors of CVD events independent of CV risk factors and in both high- and low-risk persons independent of age. In a previous study from the same group, LaMonte (2006) reported that CR fitness ≥10 MET was associated with a 75% reduction in coronary events. In healthy men, an increase in CR fitness of >1 MET would require regular moderate or intense exercise.

    Anyone else having a different conclusion here on what these two studies taken together mean?
  • canadianlbs
    canadianlbs Posts: 5,199 Member
    7.5 hours per week, so about 65mins of walking a day would hit that mark.

    zomgs i am in so much *kitten*. i probably died in my third or fourth year of bike commuting and just never realised it.

    good. i don't have to do that homework my accountant just told me to do. thank god for journalism.

  • Wheelhouse15
    Wheelhouse15 Posts: 5,575 Member
    edited February 2018
    7.5 hours per week, so about 65mins of walking a day would hit that mark.

    zomgs i am in so much *kitten*. i probably died in my third or fourth year of bike commuting and just never realised it.

    good. i don't have to do that homework my accountant just told me to do. thank god for journalism.

    Nope, you are a woman so your risk of CAC only increased slightly. If you are black (either sex) then you would have no increase, but you wouldn't know that from the way the article was featured. The increase they talk about was almost entirely an increase in one risk factor for one group (white men).

    Thanks god for thorough journalism!
  • canadianlbs
    canadianlbs Posts: 5,199 Member
    edited February 2018
    vingogly wrote: »
    This is neither an unethical nor an uncommon practice

    yeah, the fact that its' everywhere these days hasn't escaped me ;) my sister has been a journalism professor for umpty-ump years, and she told me she and her colleagues get approached on the regular and asked to pitch this kind of work to their students for the [unpaid] 'experience'. they strongly advise the students to stay out of it, too.

    i don't think it's unethical. it's just a depressingly low standard of actual journalism. but i expect the people who do it get paid peanuts for it too, so it's a bit of a loop.

    edit: i'm bored and procrastinating about the whole go-to-bed thing, so here you go:

    http://www.cracked.com/personal-experiences-2184-my-life-in-clickbait-former-content-mill-slave-speaks-out.html

  • Rosemary7391
    Rosemary7391 Posts: 232 Member
    edited February 2018
    PikaJoyJoy wrote: »
    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?

    As Anvil said right off the bat - "I won’t comment on 900 minutes of exercise per week without more context to frame it."

    It is rare that a majority of people will look at an actual study. That's how the China Study got away with cherry-picking things from other studies, as well as "stating facts" that turned out not to actually be facts or/and could not be supported by the data the author provided.

    In this specific case - the blog's linked study (the first study only because the 2nd linked study doesn't work) states those who participated did more than 3x the recommended PA guidelines (which is 150 minutes so they were doing 450+ minutes of exercise a week).

    The study doesn't go into just how strenuous the activity/activities these individuals were doing. They also don't mention diet (which I think plays just as important a factor) nor do they mention if any or all of the individuals tested had genetic factors/predisposition that increased the chances of coronary artery risk to begin with.

    The article purposefully ignores mentioning that the study results that showed an increase of risk lay with mostly white participants and that there was not any indication that black participants showed increase risk. And not sure about the "27%" number the article gave...I'm probably having a brain fart as to how they got that.

    The article mentions stress - but I think it's a bit far reaching to blame stress levels solely on exercise. The quote in there says that it would take decades of continued stress to develop - but how can they be sure of just how much of that was due to exercise? There are too many factors and I found it a bit iffy that the author of the MFP article tried to slip that in as back up for their headline.

    And so on....


    ETA: Before someone comes back with "it's the reader's responsibility..." - to a point I agree. But on the other hand there is that little thing called "writer's responsibility" that I think too many writers/journalists have forgotten more and more as they push their agendas.

    Your beef seems to be a lot of your own interpretation along with thinking it not a comprehensive analysis of the study. I'd agree with the last, but since they linked the study anyone that wanted to see it can. The rest seems to be you projecting (purposely ignores, don't mention .... which I think, mention's stress ... I think ...)

    But is anything in the article untrue?

    Actually, they can't. I haven't got $35.95 to buy the article and it isn't available through my institutional access. And they've linked it in such a way that the link is highly likely to break in forseeable future, with absolutely no further information that might help a reader in a couple of years from now find it.

    As I don't have access to the full article I can't check this out, but the MFP blog post mentions "27% higher risk of developing coronary heart disease". In the abstract they talk about a 27% increase in "coronary artery calcification", which is apparently distinct enough from "coronary heart disease" that they define acronyms for both terms. Is the figure the same for both? Does anyone know what the distinction is?
  • Lean59man
    Lean59man Posts: 714 Member
    People can become OCD about working out due to the endorphin release.

    It begins to consume their life.

    Not necessary to train so much.
  • Wheelhouse15
    Wheelhouse15 Posts: 5,575 Member
    Lean59man wrote: »
    People can become OCD about working out due to the endorphin release.

    It begins to consume their life.

    Not necessary to train so much.

    Wait? People LIKE exercise? :astonished:
  • Wheelhouse15
    Wheelhouse15 Posts: 5,575 Member
    PikaJoyJoy wrote: »
    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?

    As Anvil said right off the bat - "I won’t comment on 900 minutes of exercise per week without more context to frame it."

    It is rare that a majority of people will look at an actual study. That's how the China Study got away with cherry-picking things from other studies, as well as "stating facts" that turned out not to actually be facts or/and could not be supported by the data the author provided.

    In this specific case - the blog's linked study (the first study only because the 2nd linked study doesn't work) states those who participated did more than 3x the recommended PA guidelines (which is 150 minutes so they were doing 450+ minutes of exercise a week).

    The study doesn't go into just how strenuous the activity/activities these individuals were doing. They also don't mention diet (which I think plays just as important a factor) nor do they mention if any or all of the individuals tested had genetic factors/predisposition that increased the chances of coronary artery risk to begin with.

    The article purposefully ignores mentioning that the study results that showed an increase of risk lay with mostly white participants and that there was not any indication that black participants showed increase risk. And not sure about the "27%" number the article gave...I'm probably having a brain fart as to how they got that.

    The article mentions stress - but I think it's a bit far reaching to blame stress levels solely on exercise. The quote in there says that it would take decades of continued stress to develop - but how can they be sure of just how much of that was due to exercise? There are too many factors and I found it a bit iffy that the author of the MFP article tried to slip that in as back up for their headline.

    And so on....


    ETA: Before someone comes back with "it's the reader's responsibility..." - to a point I agree. But on the other hand there is that little thing called "writer's responsibility" that I think too many writers/journalists have forgotten more and more as they push their agendas.

    Your beef seems to be a lot of your own interpretation along with thinking it not a comprehensive analysis of the study. I'd agree with the last, but since they linked the study anyone that wanted to see it can. The rest seems to be you projecting (purposely ignores, don't mention .... which I think, mention's stress ... I think ...)

    But is anything in the article untrue?

    Actually, they can't. I haven't got $35.95 to buy the article and it isn't available through my institutional access. And they've linked it in such a way that the link is highly likely to break in forseeable future, with absolutely no further information that might help a reader in a couple of years from now find it.

    As I don't have access to the full article I can't check this out, but the MFP blog post mentions "27% higher risk of developing coronary heart disease". In the abstract they talk about a 27% increase in "coronary artery calcification", which is apparently distinct enough from "coronary heart disease" that they define acronyms for both terms. Is the figure the same for both? Does anyone know what the distinction is?

    I'm not seeing the charge for the article you mention. CAC is a risk factor in CVD but is not CVD. CAC occurs when there is a calcification (hardening) of the coronary artery and can lead to CVD but isn't CVD itself.
  • Rosemary7391
    Rosemary7391 Posts: 232 Member
    PikaJoyJoy wrote: »
    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?

    As Anvil said right off the bat - "I won’t comment on 900 minutes of exercise per week without more context to frame it."

    It is rare that a majority of people will look at an actual study. That's how the China Study got away with cherry-picking things from other studies, as well as "stating facts" that turned out not to actually be facts or/and could not be supported by the data the author provided.

    In this specific case - the blog's linked study (the first study only because the 2nd linked study doesn't work) states those who participated did more than 3x the recommended PA guidelines (which is 150 minutes so they were doing 450+ minutes of exercise a week).

    The study doesn't go into just how strenuous the activity/activities these individuals were doing. They also don't mention diet (which I think plays just as important a factor) nor do they mention if any or all of the individuals tested had genetic factors/predisposition that increased the chances of coronary artery risk to begin with.

    The article purposefully ignores mentioning that the study results that showed an increase of risk lay with mostly white participants and that there was not any indication that black participants showed increase risk. And not sure about the "27%" number the article gave...I'm probably having a brain fart as to how they got that.

    The article mentions stress - but I think it's a bit far reaching to blame stress levels solely on exercise. The quote in there says that it would take decades of continued stress to develop - but how can they be sure of just how much of that was due to exercise? There are too many factors and I found it a bit iffy that the author of the MFP article tried to slip that in as back up for their headline.

    And so on....


    ETA: Before someone comes back with "it's the reader's responsibility..." - to a point I agree. But on the other hand there is that little thing called "writer's responsibility" that I think too many writers/journalists have forgotten more and more as they push their agendas.

    Your beef seems to be a lot of your own interpretation along with thinking it not a comprehensive analysis of the study. I'd agree with the last, but since they linked the study anyone that wanted to see it can. The rest seems to be you projecting (purposely ignores, don't mention .... which I think, mention's stress ... I think ...)

    But is anything in the article untrue?

    Actually, they can't. I haven't got $35.95 to buy the article and it isn't available through my institutional access. And they've linked it in such a way that the link is highly likely to break in forseeable future, with absolutely no further information that might help a reader in a couple of years from now find it.

    As I don't have access to the full article I can't check this out, but the MFP blog post mentions "27% higher risk of developing coronary heart disease". In the abstract they talk about a 27% increase in "coronary artery calcification", which is apparently distinct enough from "coronary heart disease" that they define acronyms for both terms. Is the figure the same for both? Does anyone know what the distinction is?

    I'm not seeing the charge for the article you mention. CAC is a risk factor in CVD but is not CVD. CAC occurs when there is a calcification (hardening) of the coronary artery and can lead to CVD but isn't CVD itself.

    Thanks for that.

    The charge is on the first link from the article. I'm guessing you have access through a workplace somehow? I'm not suprised my university isn't subscribed, we don't do medicine.