Hunting might give you a heart attack

[Buckeye_Nut]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070817/hl_nm/deer_risk_dc_1;_ylt=AkDkW1dqJ6VIGcTvWx8u8XgE1vAI

"NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - Deer hunting could be a dangerous endeavor for men with heart disease or risk factors for it, research findings suggest."

This is another fun worthless study for the "Duh?" category. Yes, guns are evil and they will kill you, but not exactly how you might think.

Those docs at the William Beaumont Hospital are brilliant. LOL Imagine that.... strenuous activity putting strain on your heart? Go figure?

 

[Sheep]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070817/hl_nm/deer_risk_dc_1;_ylt=AkDkW1dqJ6VIGcTvWx8u8XgE1vAI

"NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - Deer hunting could be a dangerous endeavor for men with heart disease or risk factors for it, research findings suggest."

This is another fun worthless study for the "Duh?" category. Yes, guns are evil and they will kill you, but not exactly how you might think.

Those docs at the William Beaumont Hospital are brilliant. LOL Imagine that.... strenuous activity putting strain on your heart? Go figure?

You quoted the heading... This is what you SHOULD have done..

In a study of 25 middle-aged male deer hunters, researchers found that the activities inherent to hunting -- like walking over rough terrain, shooting an animal and dragging its carcass -- sent the men's heart rates up significantly.

In some cases, this led to potentially dangerous heart-rhythm disturbances, or diminished oxygen supply to the heart.

Seems valid to me. My grandpa has a weak heart, so we don't let him do anything physical anymore. This is nothing more then a precautionary warning stating that hunting is harder on your body then you think, and if your susceptible to heart disease, or have a weak heart, you shouldn't participate.

SheepStar

 

[Johnd]

Yeah. What the report fails to reveal is that most "hunters" that become overexerted in the bush are not really hunters at all. They're hobbyists...not triathaletes.

Much like the shooters that accidentally shoot other hunters during the heat of the game (like Cheney...sheeesh. shoots his partner in the face...the face ). They're usually city boys that go into the bush once or twice a year. Is it any wonder these things happen? Hunting is a great sport and can be quite a workout. Any nitwit that fails to prepare for that fact, is just that: a nitwit.

 

[OttoMatic]

This is another fun worthless study for the "Duh?" category. Yes, guns are evil and they will kill you, but not exactly how you might think.

You might think the study is a waste of time, or obvious, but it didn't say anything about guns killing anyone. Why put your irrelevant-to-the-story political opinion in there?

FWIW, I'm gun-agnostic, but I'm pro-hunting.

 

[Adam]

FWIW, I'm gun-agnostic...

So, does that mean that you doubt the existence of guns?

 

[Johnd]

So, does that mean that you doubt the existence of guns?

Haaa! I think we all know what he meant, but you're a quick one Adam!

 

[Buckeye_Nut]

Shhh...this is top secret, but I'll tell you about a new scientific study that is nearing completion. They've spent 10's of thousands of $$$ on this study, so this is pretty exciting stuff. I also hear the finest of the medical community have gathered for this exciting ground breaking project.

They have discovered that Shoveling and clearing 4ft of snow(by hand) from your driveway is linked to causing heart attacks. Apparently, the same smoking gun is to blame, and strenuous activity is linked to greater heart attack risk.

Brilliant...who'da thunk?

My point being, these are very comical and entertaining studies, and they're worthy of a few laughs. If I was a benefactor giving money to one of these medical organizations performing these worthless studies, I'd demand a refund. Even so, it's very entertaining for me when these big "Scientific Revelations" are reported in the news as if something new was discovered.

Ok duh.... so lets say you're middle aged, overweight, etc, etc, etc, etc.... did we really need a scientific study to warn us that dragging a 200lb deer carcass 2 miles across country might be considered a health risk?

Am I the only one who sees these "so called" studies as comical?

 

[Adam]

BN, my impression is that you think that people are wasting time and money researching topics that are already obvious, and you also think that people are then reporting the obvious as if it's groundbreaking. Fair enough.

I'd just like to throw out three thoughts (that aren't groundbreaking):

1) What is obvious to some is not always obvious to all
2) The obvious is not always true
3) The truth is not always obvious

What seems like meaningless research to some people is not always that. Research is typically meant to expand our knowledge or confirm a theory. I'm glad that we as a species aren't content with proceeding forward simply on what was "obvious."

 

[mtrycrafts]

Or, hunting with Cheney might get you killed

 

[stratman]

Or, hunting with Cheney might get you killed

Or driving with Ted Kennedy!

 

[mtrycrafts]

Or driving with Ted Kennedy!

That's another subject nothing to do with hunting, unless you are driving with him to go hunting But, that might be a concern for the opposite sex, no?

 

[stratman]

That's another subject nothing to do with hunting, unless you are driving with him to go hunting But, that might be a concern for the opposite sex, no?

RIGHT ON. Or how about a female deer? As a passanger? The Kennedys were into the exotic!

 

[dem beats]

BN, my impression is that you think that people are wasting time and money researching topics that are already obvious, and you also think that people are then reporting the obvious as if it's groundbreaking. Fair enough.

I'd just like to throw out three thoughts (that aren't groundbreaking):

1) What is obvious to some is not always obvious to all
2) The obvious is not always true
3) The truth is not always obvious

What seems like meaningless research to some people is not always that. Research is typically meant to expand our knowledge or confirm a theory. I'm glad that we as a species aren't content with proceeding forward simply on what was "obvious."

This is all true. But I would like darwins law to continue sir. Informing and protecting the people who cannot tell that dragging, as stated, 200 pounds of lifeless tissue, is against my theory of survival of the non stupid.

I'm not saying to kull them, just allow them to do as the dodo's in ice age. These are the same people who had Y2k water and tin's of food but no can opener.

I'm reminded of the "here's your sign" skin from bill engvall(sp)

 

[jonnythan]

200 pounds of lifeless tissue

Someone here has never touched an animal larger than a dog

 

[mikeyj92]

BN, my impression is that you think that people are wasting time and money researching topics that are already obvious, and you also think that people are then reporting the obvious as if it's groundbreaking. Fair enough.

I'd just like to throw out three thoughts (that aren't groundbreaking):

1) What is obvious to some is not always obvious to all
2) The obvious is not always true
3) The truth is not always obvious

What seems like meaningless research to some people is not always that. Research is typically meant to expand our knowledge or confirm a theory. I'm glad that we as a species aren't content with proceeding forward simply on what was "obvious."

But the fact that money is wasted to research blatently obvious facts is what is killing me. Hunting is strenuous. Duh. Do we need an expensive study to tell us this? Does the general public not know that if you have a weak heart (for whatever reason) you should avoid any stressful physical activity?

This is akin to the "Warning: HOT" message on cups of coffee from fast food joints now. Was there a study done to prove that coffee from McD's was hot and could burn you, therefore a warning message was required for the galactically stupid to avoid them burning themselves?

The wastefulness of resources that are much better spent elsewhere is rediculous.

 

[Audioholics]

What seems like meaningless research to some people is not always that. Research is typically meant to expand our knowledge or confirm a theory.

Or spend people's hard-earned money, or tax-dollars, or grants, or otherwise.

Studies like this are for people who refuse to use common sense and need to be told everything they "ought" to be doing or not doing. The research title is suspect only because they could have chosen from among 100s of other activities. To spend ANY money on this sort of stuff is to throw common sense out the window. I don't care for politicizing things to the nth degree, but if you pick up a paper there is slant to almost everything...

Heck even my editorials and news items have slant to attract greater attention and get people to read them.

Just food for thought...

 

[samsungson]

My last Dirt Bike Enduro race, a guy in his 60's was doing it and died.

He probably died with a smile on his face and died doing what he liked!!

BUT 60+ years old, 85 - 95 degree weather and not so easy terrain? Time to relax. Death will jump up and bite ya!!

 

[Adam]

But the fact that money is wasted to research blatently obvious facts is what is killing me.

Some things sound obvious to some of us, or they just seem like common sense. I get that. I really do. However, what's obvious to you (or me, or anyone) is not obvious to everyone, and may even be wrong.

Why spend time and resources trying to prove that the Earth is not flat? We all know that it is. It's obvious. Earth is also the central point of the universe, without question. What are these telescopes, and why are you doing studies of those points of light?

This is akin to the "Warning: HOT" message on cups of coffee from fast food joints now. Was there a study done to prove that coffee from McD's was hot and could burn you, therefore a warning message was required for the galactically stupid to avoid them burning themselves?

Ahh, the McD's coffee story. A very misunderstood court case. I'm not poking fun, BTW. Many people misunderstood what brought that case about and why the woman who burned herself received so much money. However, it did happen for a reason. I'm not a lawyer, so I won't try to explain it. However, when my friend who is a lawyer explained it to me about ten years ago (when I thought it was just a case of a stupid woman suing McD's), it all made perfect sense as to why it happened - and it was not because the woman was either stupid or even interested in suing McD's.

EDIT: I wasn't trying to single out mikeyj92's comments, BTW. I just hadn't read up far enough to see that other people were disagreeing. Sorry about that, mikeyj92.

 

[mikeyj92]

EDIT: I wasn't trying to single out mikeyj92's comments, BTW. I just hadn't read up far enough to see that other people were disagreeing. Sorry about that, mikeyj92.

No offense taken bud. No worries.

I was just taking liberties with that coffee case and it's rediculousness and atributing an imaginary "case study" that would happen to confirm that, indeed, without a doubt, hot coffee is hot.


Why did the woman who burned herself receive any money at all? Was it a faulty cover/lid? It had to be more than the fact it was hot coffee, right? I hope...

 

[jonnythan]

Why did the woman who burned herself receive any money at all? Was it a faulty cover/lid? It had to be more than the fact it was hot coffee, right? I hope...

The coffee was extremely hot, much much hotter than it should have been - 185 degrees, a temperature which is "unfit for human consumption" according to McDonald's and is hot enough to cause full-thickness (3rd degree) skin burns in as little as two seconds. Their justification was that people buy coffee intending to consume it later, at home or at the office, despite the fact that their own research indicated otherwise. If the coffee had been at a temperature that was fit for consumption, she wouldn't have had 6% of her skin literally burned and destroyed all the way through.

The woman attempted to settle with McDonald's for just medical costs of $20,000, but they would only go as high as $800.

The *jury* awarded her $200,000 compensatory damages and then decided another $2.7 million in punitive damages to punish McDonald's. The judge reduced the total to $640,000, but on appeal the woman agreed to settle for a currently undisclosed amount of less than $600,000.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald's_coffee_case
http://www.centerjd.org/free/mythbusters-free/MB_mcdonalds.htm
http://www.atla.org/PressRoom/FACTS/frivolous/McdonaldsCoffeecase.aspx