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?
Replies
-
@canadianlbs -Infopollution is my new favorite word!!!!2
-
@canadianlbs -Infopollution is my new favorite word!!!!
We need to make this happen.4 -
PikaJoyJoy wrote: »@canadianlbs -Infopollution is my new favorite word!!!!
We need to make this happen.
along with email-assault.
Enough with the emails every time you have a thought. Please and thank you.5 -
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.7 -
2 -
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.
It's not a shocking and offensive concept. The point was that the article had no context as to what consisted of overexercise nor did it provide sufficient data to point the finger that being active/exercising for more than an hour a day was the sole cause of the increases found.
The forums are littered with questions about "If I workout 6 days a week, will walking my dog for an hour be too much?" "How much is too much exercise?" "I heard exercising for more than hour a day is bad. Should I stop?"
Without context in an article posted on a website about fitness and health whose community has a large number of people who are still unsure and clueless - they will over worry of these things and either make it an excuse not to do something or start broadcasting it as fear mongering, not realizing that they probably don't fall into this category.
Especially as there are people who lead or want to lead active lifestyles that would have them exercising or doing something that could be considered exercise for more than 7-8 hours a week.5 -
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.3 -
As such, they'll misconstrue whatever nebulous "study" they can find to support histrionic titles to keep people clicking.
4 -
@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.3
-
@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".10 -
@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".
3 -
@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".
Us "a calorie is a calorie"
Them "But you will die if you only eat oreos and twinkies"
Us "where did we say you would ONLY eat oreos and twinkies"
them "DEATH I SAY! DEATH AND SCURVEY!
21 -
@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.
4 -
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?
"STRESS HORMONES
It’s also possible that exercising too much releases cortisol, the stress hormone, which increases inflammation that can cause plaque to build up in the arteries, narrowing blood vessels and increasing the risk of a heart attack.
“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.”"
What I quoted above from the article I think can be a concern of everyone who gets a lot of exercise from any source.
That being said I see no need for "thought police" for people who have the skill sets required to get to any MFP article or post. I find the need for some to control the reading materials of others to be over the top. I knew one doctor that was a control freak then he lost his ability to focus he turned into just a plain old freak when he kept trying to control others. It helped me to see the folly of trying to control others in the long run.
This discussion I expect would read about the same if the question had been, "Is Too Many Calories as Bad as Not Enough? Some one would be putting down someone else.
MFP has the task to be all things to all all people hence not everything posted in forums or blogs even apply to other posters. Use what may apply and ignore what may only apply to another is one option. Live and let live.12 -
Wheelhouse15 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.5 -
@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".
Us "a calorie is a calorie"
Them "But you will die if you only eat oreos and twinkies"
Us "where did we say you would ONLY eat oreos and twinkies"
them "DEATH I SAY! DEATH AND SCURVEY!
It's sad that this is actually the format within the first half of the page of those threads.6 -
Wheelhouse15 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.
3 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »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?
"STRESS HORMONES
It’s also possible that exercising too much releases cortisol, the stress hormone, which increases inflammation that can cause plaque to build up in the arteries, narrowing blood vessels and increasing the risk of a heart attack.
“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.”"
What I quoted above from the article I think can be a concern of everyone who gets a lot of exercise from any source.
That being said I see no need for "thought police" for people who have the skill sets required to get to any MFP article or post. I find the need for some to control the reading materials of others to be over the top. I knew one doctor that was a control freak then he lost his ability to focus he turned into just a plain old freak when he kept trying to control others. It helped me to see the folly of trying to control others in the long run.
This discussion I expect would read about the same if the question had been, "Is Too Many Calories as Bad as Not Enough? Some one would be putting down someone else.
MFP has the task to be all things to all all people hence not everything posted in forums or blogs even apply to other posters. Use what may apply and ignore what may only apply to another is one option. Live and let live.
Exercise is a stressor, there is a "J" curve so the potential for harmful affects is there. However, the AF mortality rate would also be important to see, also differentiating the types and intensities of exercise etc. This is really getting more to something that I wasn't worried about. The research itself wasn't something that most of us cared about but rather the alarmism.
Thanks for brining out the Nazi reference and exaggerating every legitimate concern as being a "control freak" issue. Nobody ever said there should be a requirement for a post, but there should be basic journalism standards for official site content at the very least. Unless this site is nothing more than a marketing and data mining vehicle for a large company with interest that stop with what makes people purchase goods and services from them.
However, if there is never any debate, sharing of oppions and disagreeing and debating issues from many different points of view then what is the point of a forum anyway? We can just passively read articles anywhere and Google for whatever we want to look at.
7 -
Wheelhouse15 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.
Mail carriers are so dead!
5 -
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?
3 -
Wheelhouse15 wrote: »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.
4 -
canadianlbs wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »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!
3 -
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
3 -
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?
I do between 15 and 30 hours of training a week, depending on the season.
Personally I think these articles are worthless at best. At worse they are just helping people making excuses.6 -
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?
I do between 15 and 30 hours of training a week, depending on the season.
Personally I think these articles are worthless at best. At worse they are just helping people making excuses.
So when did you have your first heart attack? 5 -
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?
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?4 -
People can become OCD about working out due to the endorphin release.
It begins to consume their life.
Not necessary to train so much.2 -
-
Rosemary7391 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?
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.1 -
Wheelhouse15 wrote: »Rosemary7391 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?
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.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.2K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.1K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 420 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.9K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.5K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions