Headlines about exercise only tell part of the story
Sometimes the media makes a valid (if obvious) point, but in an unnecessarily alarmist way. I read one such article recently, titled "Contrary to popular belief, more exercise isn't always better."
Well, that statement is certainly true...it's not better in every case. But it is better in most cases. Which is why it was so frustrating to see this headline--knowing that most people will never bother to read the "fine print" buried beneath it: that there's an increase in cardiovascular deaths in heart attack survivors who exercise to excess. (In other words the headline should have been: "For heart attack survivors, more exercise isn't always better".)
The article went on to specify that the "highest levels of exercise" were deemed unsafe and risky. But in people who ran under 30 miles or walked less than 46 miles a week, there was a significant reduction in death risk. (Um, how many recent heart attack survivors are running more than 30 miles a week?)
Nevertheless, the study's main conclusion was to avoid vigorous exercise every day. To which I can only say--DUH! Of course you should avoid vigorous exercise every single day!
But I find it infuriating when articles (like this one) that actually suggest exercising in moderation are couched with misleading "exercise can kill you" headlines and generalizations. The study this latest article was referring to only applies to an extremely specific population--heart attack survivors who are routinely engaging in extreme exercise.
Bottom line: Never use research like this as an excuse not to get moving. Of course, if you've had a heart attack (or even if you haven't) you may not want to scale a mountain or start training for a triathlon. But there's absolutely no reason why you shouldn't, at minimum, be going for a brisk walk every single day.
Sometimes the media makes a valid (if obvious) point, but in an unnecessarily alarmist way. I read one such article recently, titled "Contrary to popular belief, more exercise isn't always better."
Well, that statement is certainly true...it's not better in every case. But it is better in most cases. Which is why it was so frustrating to see this headline--knowing that most people will never bother to read the "fine print" buried beneath it: that there's an increase in cardiovascular deaths in heart attack survivors who exercise to excess. (In other words the headline should have been: "For heart attack survivors, more exercise isn't always better".)
The article went on to specify that the "highest levels of exercise" were deemed unsafe and risky. But in people who ran under 30 miles or walked less than 46 miles a week, there was a significant reduction in death risk. (Um, how many recent heart attack survivors are running more than 30 miles a week?)
Nevertheless, the study's main conclusion was to avoid vigorous exercise every day. To which I can only say--DUH! Of course you should avoid vigorous exercise every single day!
But I find it infuriating when articles (like this one) that actually suggest exercising in moderation are couched with misleading "exercise can kill you" headlines and generalizations. The study this latest article was referring to only applies to an extremely specific population--heart attack survivors who are routinely engaging in extreme exercise.
Bottom line: Never use research like this as an excuse not to get moving. Of course, if you've had a heart attack (or even if you haven't) you may not want to scale a mountain or start training for a triathlon. But there's absolutely no reason why you shouldn't, at minimum, be going for a brisk walk every single day.
No comments:
Post a Comment