We are pleased to announce that as of March 4, 2025, an updated Rich Text Editor has been introduced in the MyFitnessPal Community. To learn more about the changes, please click here. We look forward to sharing this new feature with you!
Back to strict logging or nah?
Replies
-
wilson10102018 wrote: »CarvedTones wrote: »wilson10102018 wrote: »Humans are not constructed to run on paved surfaces and maybe nowhere. A casual runner (noncompetitive) suffers on average 2 injuries per year requiring medical attention or lost work. That is about an 5 injuries per 1000 hours. The range is 2.5 to 12.5 in the literature. There are sheet metal shops that have 200,000 injury free hours. Meaning that running is about 1000 times more dangerous than working in a sheet metal shop. If it saves your life from cardiac surgery recovery, good for you. To lose weight, its a stupid move.
"The literature" - please provide a link.
Abstract found here: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1439399
I think maybe you should read the abstract. The main issue caused by these injuries, as defined in the abstract, is that they temporarily stop the person from running. Only 5% of them cause the injured person to miss work, and as few as 20% according to one estimate cause the injured person to seek help from a doctor. The majority are resolved by simply RUNNING LESS for a brief period of time.
Not running in order to avoid an injury which might stop you from running seems kind of pointless to me, especially since there are huge additional benefits to running, such as a massive improvement in cardiovascular health.1 -
rheddmobile wrote: »wilson10102018 wrote: »CarvedTones wrote: »wilson10102018 wrote: »Humans are not constructed to run on paved surfaces and maybe nowhere. A casual runner (noncompetitive) suffers on average 2 injuries per year requiring medical attention or lost work. That is about an 5 injuries per 1000 hours. The range is 2.5 to 12.5 in the literature. There are sheet metal shops that have 200,000 injury free hours. Meaning that running is about 1000 times more dangerous than working in a sheet metal shop. If it saves your life from cardiac surgery recovery, good for you. To lose weight, its a stupid move.
"The literature" - please provide a link.
Abstract found here: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1439399
I think maybe you should read the abstract. The main issue caused by these injuries, as defined in the abstract, is that they temporarily stop the person from running. Only 5% of them cause the injured person to miss work, and as few as 20% according to one estimate cause the injured person to seek help from a doctor. The majority are resolved by simply RUNNING LESS for a brief period of time.
Not running in order to avoid an injury which might stop you from running seems kind of pointless to me, especially since there are huge additional benefits to running, such as a massive improvement in cardiovascular health.
All of my posts above have been subject to the comment I made regarding cardiac health.
But, as a serious cardiac patient (I had a 25% EF in my recent Echo) consulting with the very top cardiologists at the Cleveland Clinic, I have a lot of info. And, I'm not going to trouble you with what I think are the facts since the effects of cardio exercise on a general population is nothing more than informed speculation based on extrapolation from actual clinical tests of patients recovering from cardiac procedures. I will simply point you to the populations of the longest living persons on the planet, most of whom do exactly ZERO cardio exercise. At best, cardio exercise will permit the aging to engage in activities comfortably that might exhaust their not exercising peers.
6 -
wilson10102018 wrote: »rheddmobile wrote: »wilson10102018 wrote: »CarvedTones wrote: »wilson10102018 wrote: »Humans are not constructed to run on paved surfaces and maybe nowhere. A casual runner (noncompetitive) suffers on average 2 injuries per year requiring medical attention or lost work. That is about an 5 injuries per 1000 hours. The range is 2.5 to 12.5 in the literature. There are sheet metal shops that have 200,000 injury free hours. Meaning that running is about 1000 times more dangerous than working in a sheet metal shop. If it saves your life from cardiac surgery recovery, good for you. To lose weight, its a stupid move.
"The literature" - please provide a link.
Abstract found here: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1439399
I think maybe you should read the abstract. The main issue caused by these injuries, as defined in the abstract, is that they temporarily stop the person from running. Only 5% of them cause the injured person to miss work, and as few as 20% according to one estimate cause the injured person to seek help from a doctor. The majority are resolved by simply RUNNING LESS for a brief period of time.
Not running in order to avoid an injury which might stop you from running seems kind of pointless to me, especially since there are huge additional benefits to running, such as a massive improvement in cardiovascular health.
All of my posts above have been subject to the comment I made regarding cardiac health.
But, as a serious cardiac patient (I had a 25% EF in my recent Echo) consulting with the very top cardiologists at the Cleveland Clinic, I have a lot of info. And, I'm not going to trouble you with what I think are the facts since the effects of cardio exercise on a general population is nothing more than informed speculation based on extrapolation from actual clinical tests of patients recovering from cardiac procedures. I will simply point you to the populations of the longest living persons on the planet, most of whom do exactly ZERO cardio exercise. At best, cardio exercise will permit the aging to engage in activities comfortably that might exhaust their not exercising peers.
Our society engages in exercise because our lifestyles don't promote the constant moderate physical activity common to all of the long-lived populations. We have to compensate for that shortfall.
It's cool that you personally are against this, but I'm not quite getting your zeal in promoting your viewpoint as a universal standard.
3 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »wilson10102018 wrote: »rheddmobile wrote: »wilson10102018 wrote: »CarvedTones wrote: »wilson10102018 wrote: »Humans are not constructed to run on paved surfaces and maybe nowhere. A casual runner (noncompetitive) suffers on average 2 injuries per year requiring medical attention or lost work. That is about an 5 injuries per 1000 hours. The range is 2.5 to 12.5 in the literature. There are sheet metal shops that have 200,000 injury free hours. Meaning that running is about 1000 times more dangerous than working in a sheet metal shop. If it saves your life from cardiac surgery recovery, good for you. To lose weight, its a stupid move.
"The literature" - please provide a link.
Abstract found here: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1439399
I think maybe you should read the abstract. The main issue caused by these injuries, as defined in the abstract, is that they temporarily stop the person from running. Only 5% of them cause the injured person to miss work, and as few as 20% according to one estimate cause the injured person to seek help from a doctor. The majority are resolved by simply RUNNING LESS for a brief period of time.
Not running in order to avoid an injury which might stop you from running seems kind of pointless to me, especially since there are huge additional benefits to running, such as a massive improvement in cardiovascular health.
All of my posts above have been subject to the comment I made regarding cardiac health.
But, as a serious cardiac patient (I had a 25% EF in my recent Echo) consulting with the very top cardiologists at the Cleveland Clinic, I have a lot of info. And, I'm not going to trouble you with what I think are the facts since the effects of cardio exercise on a general population is nothing more than informed speculation based on extrapolation from actual clinical tests of patients recovering from cardiac procedures. I will simply point you to the populations of the longest living persons on the planet, most of whom do exactly ZERO cardio exercise. At best, cardio exercise will permit the aging to engage in activities comfortably that might exhaust their not exercising peers.
Our society engages in exercise because our lifestyles don't promote the constant moderate physical activity common to all of the long-lived populations. We have to compensate for that shortfall.
It's cool that you personally are against this, but I'm not quite getting your zeal in promoting your viewpoint as a universal standard.
He sounds like one of my friends who believes that the heart only has so many beats in it, and doing cardio exercise uses them up faster.
6 -
Ben_Likes_Beer wrote: »I've been able to maintain near enough 75kg for the last couple of months without logging, but now I want to get down to 72 for a cycle event at the end of January. I wonder if I need to start back in with the full on calorie counting or if I'll get there just by pumping up the burn? The training program I'm starting will pump it up a bit anyway.
Depends on you. I haven't tracked anything in years and have no issue dropping weight if/when I want/need to. I usually put on 8-10 Lbs over the winter due in large part to my activity level dropping and it comes back off in the spring when I start putting in more miles on my bike and get back into training for various cycling events. I put on about 5 Lbs in late summer/early fall this year while nursing an injury...I'm taking it off now by just cutting back on some snacking.2 -
Lol this post has gone off the deep end.
OP it's up to you... Depends how committed you are to reaching your goal. If you're just kind of like "meh, I'd like to lose the weight but if I don't it's fine" then you could try doing it without the logging.2 -
wilson10102018 wrote: »Exercise creates a false sense of calorie entitlement. Think of this same process for budgeting money for those who overspend. The "exercise calories" are like supplementing the budget with scratch off lottery cards. It just trains you to think the calorie plan is just flexible. Any level of exercise above normal daily in order to increase food intake is a fools errand.
So if someone wins a lot of money playing scratch off lotto cards they shouldn't add that money to their budget?1 -
Ben_Likes_Beer wrote: »Near the beginning of WW1 all British soldiers were issued with steel helmets. The War Office was shocked to discover the number of reported head injuries increase drastically. panicking they began to issue a recall of the helmets. Then they realized that the number of DEATHS had decreased by the same amount. Those soldiers had survived with head injuries rather than dying.
Statistics are all about context and interpretation.
Context and interpretation? You expect us to think about the data and question what it means?4 -
I don't think even Ric Flair could keep up with all of the 'woo's in this thread1
-
nutmegoreo wrote: »Ben_Likes_Beer wrote: »Near the beginning of WW1 all British soldiers were issued with steel helmets. The War Office was shocked to discover the number of reported head injuries increase drastically. panicking they began to issue a recall of the helmets. Then they realized that the number of DEATHS had decreased by the same amount. Those soldiers had survived with head injuries rather than dying.
Statistics are all about context and interpretation.
Context and interpretation? You expect us to think about the data and question what it means?
Good God no, what do you think this is...?!3 -
TavistockToad wrote: »nutmegoreo wrote: »Ben_Likes_Beer wrote: »Near the beginning of WW1 all British soldiers were issued with steel helmets. The War Office was shocked to discover the number of reported head injuries increase drastically. panicking they began to issue a recall of the helmets. Then they realized that the number of DEATHS had decreased by the same amount. Those soldiers had survived with head injuries rather than dying.
Statistics are all about context and interpretation.
Context and interpretation? You expect us to think about the data and question what it means?
Good God no, what do you think this is...?!
I try not to think, and would prefer to keep it that way. :laugh:1 -
wilson10102018 wrote: »Exercise creates a false sense of calorie entitlement. Think of this same process for budgeting money for those who overspend. The "exercise calories" are like supplementing the budget with scratch off lottery cards. It just trains you to think the calorie plan is just flexible. Any level of exercise above normal daily in order to increase food intake is a fools errand.
If you use MFP to set your calorie goal, exercise, but don't eat back any exercise calories, you are not using MFP the way it was designed to be used.
Unlike other sites which use TDEE calculators, MFP uses the NEAT method (Non-Exercise Activity Thermogenesis), and as such this system is designed for exercise calories to be eaten back. However, many consider the burns given by MFP to be inflated and only eat a percentage, such as 50%, back. Others, however, are able to lose weight while eating 100% of their exercise calories.
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/818082/exercise-calories-again-wtf/p12 -
I injure myself in the kitchen at least a few times a year, usually minor cuts and burns that happened when I didn't follow basic safety measures. They have very little effect on my daily life and no long term health effects. Occasionally people even die while they're cooking, often because they also didn't follow basic safety measures or attempted things they weren't properly prepared to do. According to the "logic" in this thread, cooking is far too dangerous and no one has any business doing it. The very fact that our skin is susceptible to cuts or burns shows that humans are poorly equipped to be cooking.4
-
I injure myself in the kitchen at least a few times a year, usually minor cuts and burns that happened when I didn't follow basic safety measures. They have very little effect on my daily life and no long term health effects. Occasionally people even die while they're cooking, often because they also didn't follow basic safety measures or attempted things they weren't properly prepared to do. According to the "logic" in this thread, cooking is far too dangerous and no one has any business doing it. The very fact that our skin is susceptible to cuts or burns shows that humans are poorly equipped to be cooking.
That's exactly right, now lets go get our bubbles and go about our business...
I run over 10 miles every week, guess i'm due any day now for my legs to fall off
1 -
wilson10102018 wrote: »Exercise creates a false sense of calorie entitlement. Think of this same process for budgeting money for those who overspend. The "exercise calories" are like supplementing the budget with scratch off lottery cards. It just trains you to think the calorie plan is just flexible. Any level of exercise above normal daily in order to increase food intake is a fools errand.
There's nothing "false" about the calorie burned through exercise. Why would you recommend (as I hope you do) someone with an active job eat more than someone who has a desk bound job while ignoring the impact to our calorie needs from energy used for intentional exercise?2
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 394.6K Introduce Yourself
- 44K Getting Started
- 260.5K Health and Weight Loss
- 176.1K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.7K Fitness and Exercise
- 444 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153.1K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 4.1K MyFitnessPal Information
- 16 News and Announcements
- 1.3K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.8K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions