Wow, this presentation has more holes than a piece of Swiss cheese. The guy is just TOO biased in favor of exercise to see it. If you do a critical, objective and detailed analysis of everything he said here, you'll see that he's actually PROVING that exercise is bad. It's hilarious that he doesn't realise it because of how blinded he is by his bias towards "exercise being good". I'll save this video, actually. It's an excellent demonstration of everything that can go wrong in "science", and why we absolutely shouldn't pay as much attention to these "studies". For example, when the guy talks about the left ventricle thing, he shows a table and explains that the increment in left ventricular size caused by exercise is not reversed by detraining. However, he somehow misses the glaringly obvious fact that he just proved that exercise DOES CHANGE the structure of the heart. Yet he is too biased to see that artificially changing the structure of our hearts AGAINST NATURE, has to be bad; or at least, scientists shouldn't be so quick to conclude that that's a good thing. Imagine you do something that irreversibly changes the size of your eyes. Would you consider that a good thing to happen to you? Wouldn't you be extremely worried instead? And holes like this, or even bigger ones, are interspersed into the entire presentation. Another HUGE hole, for example, is the healthy-subject bias, which is STRONG in this presentation. The guy shows graph after graph comparing "people who exercise" to "people who don't exercise" to directly conclude that exercise has benefits. The thing is that he doesn't realise that those "people who exercise" are generally "health-conscious" and there are A LOT OF OTHER THINGS they do too (like quit smoking or drinking alcohol, having better sleep habits, etc.), and these are things that the "people who don't exercise" DON'T do. Another point that this guy misses completelyis the fact that all the "benefits of exercise" he listed at the beginning are actually conditions caused by OTHER things, like a bad diet. For example, he says that exercise is wonderful because it lowers your blood pressure, but for that to be beneficial first you need you blood pressure to be abnormally high, and that simply won't happen if you just eat the right foods. And the same applies to all the "benefits of exercise" he listed. If you eat healthy, you won't have to exercise "to lower your blood pressure", and by not exercising you are also not mutating your left ventricle or unnaturally changing the phisiology of your heart. Oh, and something that was SO OBVIOUS it made the guy look even DUMB to me was when said that the deaths during marathons occurred in predisposed people (i.e., people who already had heart problems), and that exercise was the TRIGGER and not THE CAUSE 🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️😂. How does he not realise that exercise being the trigger very probably means that exercise was the cause?? That's like saying that when someone jumps off a cliff and dies the jumping was the trigger but not the cause of the death... Oh, my God. How does he not see it? Also, for example, when you have a stomach illness you are predisposed to symptoms, right? Well, in that situation, if you eat something that's bad for your stomach per se, that will trigger the symptons, right? Doesn't that mean that the same thing could cause a person with a healthy stomach to eventually suffer from the same condtion as you?? And there are more holes yet. As I said, this presention is laughable. If you analyse everything objectively, the message you'll get is that exercise IS bad, which is the truth, but is not what the guy intends to communicate.
Thanks for making this available
6:26
Wow, this presentation has more holes than a piece of Swiss cheese. The guy is just TOO biased in favor of exercise to see it. If you do a critical, objective and detailed analysis of everything he said here, you'll see that he's actually PROVING that exercise is bad. It's hilarious that he doesn't realise it because of how blinded he is by his bias towards "exercise being good".
I'll save this video, actually. It's an excellent demonstration of everything that can go wrong in "science", and why we absolutely shouldn't pay as much attention to these "studies".
For example, when the guy talks about the left ventricle thing, he shows a table and explains that the increment in left ventricular size caused by exercise is not reversed by detraining. However, he somehow misses the glaringly obvious fact that he just proved that exercise DOES CHANGE the structure of the heart. Yet he is too biased to see that artificially changing the structure of our hearts AGAINST NATURE, has to be bad; or at least, scientists shouldn't be so quick to conclude that that's a good thing. Imagine you do something that irreversibly changes the size of your eyes. Would you consider that a good thing to happen to you? Wouldn't you be extremely worried instead?
And holes like this, or even bigger ones, are interspersed into the entire presentation.
Another HUGE hole, for example, is the healthy-subject bias, which is STRONG in this presentation. The guy shows graph after graph comparing "people who exercise" to "people who don't exercise" to directly conclude that exercise has benefits. The thing is that he doesn't realise that those "people who exercise" are generally "health-conscious" and there are A LOT OF OTHER THINGS they do too (like quit smoking or drinking alcohol, having better sleep habits, etc.), and these are things that the "people who don't exercise" DON'T do.
Another point that this guy misses completelyis the fact that all the "benefits of exercise" he listed at the beginning are actually conditions caused by OTHER things, like a bad diet. For example, he says that exercise is wonderful because it lowers your blood pressure, but for that to be beneficial first you need you blood pressure to be abnormally high, and that simply won't happen if you just eat the right foods. And the same applies to all the "benefits of exercise" he listed. If you eat healthy, you won't have to exercise "to lower your blood pressure", and by not exercising you are also not mutating your left ventricle or unnaturally changing the phisiology of your heart.
Oh, and something that was SO OBVIOUS it made the guy look even DUMB to me was when said that the deaths during marathons occurred in predisposed people (i.e., people who already had heart problems), and that exercise was the TRIGGER and not THE CAUSE 🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️😂. How does he not realise that exercise being the trigger very probably means that exercise was the cause?? That's like saying that when someone jumps off a cliff and dies the jumping was the trigger but not the cause of the death... Oh, my God. How does he not see it? Also, for example, when you have a stomach illness you are predisposed to symptoms, right? Well, in that situation, if you eat something that's bad for your stomach per se, that will trigger the symptons, right? Doesn't that mean that the same thing could cause a person with a healthy stomach to eventually suffer from the same condtion as you??
And there are more holes yet. As I said, this presention is laughable. If you analyse everything objectively, the message you'll get is that exercise IS bad, which is the truth, but is not what the guy intends to communicate.