Cardio kills? WTF??

2»

Replies

  • Azdak
    Azdak Posts: 8,281 Member
    Here's is another example of "bias" -- and why you have to look at all factors when you critically evaluate articles:

    The author, a radiologist, describes his ranking of the most accurate diagnostic tests to detect heart disease:

    "So to detect any atherosclerosis of the coronary arteries in a population, the best practical test would be CCTA."


    I did a little reading on CCTA and came up with another quote from a study on the benefits of CCTA as a screening tool, from the Annals of Internal Medicine, March 2011

    "At this time, the standard of care, risk-factor assessment by clinical risk factors and potentially calcium scoring in the intermediate-risk group, is the most optimal strategy that we have."

    This is not to say that one is right and the other is wrong. It just points out that a radiologist is convinced that a radiology-based diagnostic test is the best, and an internal medicine specialist says the data suggests that, overall, the screening methods preferred by their specialty is the "optimal strategy".

    Basically, both groups believe in the tools that they are most familiar with. The same goes for people who are convinced that resistance training is "best" and those who feel the same about cardio.

    The truth is almost never an absolute.
  • Azdak
    Azdak Posts: 8,281 Member
    I'm a biology professor who's main area of teaching is human anatomy and physiology and whose research background includes muscle structure and function (admittedly in crabs, not humans). I would ignore a poorly written report like this for the following reasons:

    (1) I don't see clear references to primary source literature that I can track down. That make's this blog post speculative, regardless of the author's degree or credentials.
    (2) If the original paper found no significant difference between the highly and non-highly active individuals, this means there is NO DIFFERENCE. In order to be published the original research had to go through an anonymous peer review process that would scrutinize their statistics. This cannot be dismissed out of hand.
    (3) In the limited bio posted for the blogger of this article I see nothing to indicate he has any expertise in cardiology or inflammatory vascular disease. (An M.D. or Ph.D. does not make someone an expert in everything...when my primary care doctor wanted me to get a full cardiac workup he sent me to a cardiologist, not an ENT, OB, or neurologist!)
    (4) Even if the blogger has a thread of a point, it sounds to me like it applies to people who engage in extreme cardio training (i.e. people who run multiple marathons each year) and not to people doing cardio to maintain physical health. Some of his core concepts are reasonable, but only apply meaningfully in the extremes.

    Finally, this guy has an axe to grind. If he were presenting honest science he would not dismiss statistical testing and he would include complete data sets with sample sizes. In this blog, he cherry picks data that support his points. When you see a blogger throwing around claims without full data sets or clear references, you shouldn't give it any attention.

    In defense of the author of the blog, the link included in the original post started you on page 2 of the blog post.

    This link should take you to page 1:

    http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/p-nu/201103/cardio-may-cause-heart-disease-part-i

    The author does provide a link to the actual study he is discussing--and it's actually the full study, not just an abstract.

    The original study did appear in a peer-reviewed journal. The blog author is a radiologist and seems to have the requisite skill and training in that area. He is a self-professed "skeptic", which was my first red flag. I am all in favor of skepticism, but skepticism without self-reflection is as blind a path as any and nothing in this guy's background or writings suggests he possesses even an ounce of self-awareness or is capable of applying his "skepticism" to his own seemingly rigid ideological beliefs (I saw the "paleo" love and muscle-headedness coming a mile away). I

    I would try to detach the actual research article cited from the blogger's interpretation. I don't know that the research deserves to be associated with "Kurt" the radiologist.
  • Azdak
    Azdak Posts: 8,281 Member
    If this was in a book, i would probably believe it 100 times more than i do reading it on some bizzare psychology website.

    I hate all these conflicting theories!!!!!!!!

    Do weights, not cardio!!

    Do Cardio, no weights!!!!

    Eat more!! Eat less!!

    Shut up!! F**k off!!

    :bigsmile:

    I don't know that Psychology Today could be considered a "bizarre ...website". Granted, it's more like the "Good Housekeeping" version of the profession, but hardly out of the mainstream.

    Fitness and health sells. And popular media is always looking for a "hook", so controversy is emphasized. The general public is equally to blame as they all too often demand simple, "magic" solutions to complicated questions. Unfortunately, unicorns are in short supply.
  • Melinda1987
    Melinda1987 Posts: 130
    THANK YOU ALL!! What phenomenal feed back! You are all right - and am happy that there was no ranting or vicious criticisms. The article kinda threw me for a loop. I think my Inner Critic just wanted a reason to not exercise, and I was determined to NOT give her one. I can see now that the article has a small point - that HOURS & HOURS of cardio in a day could be damaging to the heart. If I ever get to the point where I can do THAT much cardio in a day, I'll take the article into consideration. Right now I'm happy to do 30 mins or an hour tops.

    I also acknowledge that strength training is important too. Especially to people like me who have osteoporosis. It's something I intend to add soon, I am just trying to get used to the concept of exercising at all first.

    Thanks again for all the great posts!
    ~Melinda
  • kenlad64
    kenlad64 Posts: 377 Member
    [/quote]
    _____________________________________________________________________________________________
    I don't know that Psychology Today could be considered a "bizarre ...website". Granted, it's more like the "Good Housekeeping" version of the profession, but hardly out of the mainstream.

    Fitness and health sells. And popular media is always looking for a "hook", so controversy is emphasized. The general public is equally to blame as they all too often demand simple, "magic" solutions to complicated questions. Unfortunately, unicorns are in short supply.
    [/quote]
    _____________________________________________________________________________________________

    Thank you for sharing and presenting your information in a sensible, mature manner. Your insight is always appreciated.
  • hpsnickers1
    hpsnickers1 Posts: 2,783 Member
    THANK YOU ALL!! What phenomenal feed back! You are all right - and am happy that there was no ranting or vicious criticisms. The article kinda threw me for a loop. I think my Inner Critic just wanted a reason to not exercise, and I was determined to NOT give her one. I can see now that the article has a small point - that HOURS & HOURS of cardio in a day could be damaging to the heart. If I ever get to the point where I can do THAT much cardio in a day, I'll take the article into consideration. Right now I'm happy to do 30 mins or an hour tops.

    I also acknowledge that strength training is important too. Especially to people like me who have osteoporosis. It's something I intend to add soon, I am just trying to get used to the concept of exercising at all first.

    Thanks again for all the great posts!
    ~Melinda

    I missed your signature. See? You already know what to do. Your body will let you know when you have done too much.
  • freerange
    freerange Posts: 1,722 Member
    Read this.

    http://members.rachelcosgrove.com/public/The_Final_Nail_in_the_Cardio_Coffin.cfm
  • korgscrew
    korgscrew Posts: 99 Member
    _____________________________________________________________________________________________
    I don't know that Psychology Today could be considered a "bizarre ...website". Granted, it's more like the "Good Housekeeping" version of the profession, but hardly out of the mainstream.

    Fitness and health sells. And popular media is always looking for a "hook", so controversy is emphasized. The general public is equally to blame as they all too often demand simple, "magic" solutions to complicated questions. Unfortunately, unicorns are in short supply.
    [/quote]

    It's just the way I vent! :-)

    My girlfriend is a Psychologist and I didn't mean it bizarre in that respect, what I meant was why this information is on a Psychology website, also why isn't it mainstream news?!

    I agree that the health and fitness is a multi million pound/dollar/euro giant!

    My point is that any Tom **** or Sven can write about anything on the Internet.

    While the Internet maybe more up to date than books, doesn't make it true!
    _____________________________________________________________________________________________

    Thank you for sharing and presenting your information in a sensible, mature manner. Your insight is always appreciated.
    [/quote]
This discussion has been closed.

Categories