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?
amandaeve
Posts: 723 Member
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?
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?
16
Replies
-
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.17
-
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.11 -
The blog is a joke.6
-
The blog is a steaming pile of tripe.6
-
Well, I think the subject of “teh blog” has been adequately covered.16
-
Good to know, I never really read the blog before. Don't think I'm going to start.3
-
https://webmd.com/men/features/exercise-addiction#1
At least the question has been around for a while.8 -
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.5
-
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.9
-
.
2 -
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!
3 -
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)5 -
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.9
-
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.15 -
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.10 -
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.
3 -
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.11 -
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.17 -
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.6 -
the point in case part of this demonstration has been... .delightful.8
-
Wheelhouse15 wrote: »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.
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.2 -
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.
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?4 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »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.
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.9 -
PikaJoyJoy wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »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.
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?6 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »PikaJoyJoy wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »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.
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?
9 -
PikaJoyJoy wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »PikaJoyJoy wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »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.
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?
Exaaaactly.7 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »PikaJoyJoy wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »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.
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?
Something can be technically true, but still irresponsibly misleading. That is I think in large part what is wrong with the diet and fitness industry, and honestly with science reporting in general. They find a tiny little factoid in a study, and construct a click-bait article round it, that while technically not being "untrue" does a great disservice to the reader.9 -
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.Wheelhouse15 wrote: »
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!
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.
1 -
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.Wheelhouse15 wrote: »
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!
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.
No problem, I'm glad you did a bit of follow up research. I understand the myths around Fixx's death would be natural because he was a prominent running advocate, at a time when people didn't run for fun, and died while running. That's going to raise a lot of eyebrows!
If you are interested in some interesting endurance events you might want to look up a Canadian named Rick Hansen and his Man in Motion Tour. He suffered from a spinal injury that left him paralized then he travelled around the world in his wheelchair to raise money for spinal cord research. It's a true testiment to the spirit of humanity.
5 -
PikaJoyJoy wrote: »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.
not to mention . . . just litter. clutter. garbage. not even counting whether it's pernicious or not, it's JUNK. the amount of content lying around that just doesn't contain enough meaningfulness to justify the space it takes up . . . we need a new phrase for the digital age. something like "info-pollution".
and finally, good ol' good journalism. passing on sloppy hearsay just for the sake of flapping one's gums isn't journalism. it's blether.
12
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions