The diet-blog has an article about a Fun eXercise Bike, or FXB, for your Nintendo Wii. Basically it's an exercise bike that interfaces with video games, an example they cite on the Amazon site includes Mario Cart.
The Diet-Blog site blasts it because it's an "excuse to spend more hours in front of the TV screen in the name of exercise." From the posting: "What ever happened to fresh air and riding real bikes outside? Why does every aspect of life need to be centered around the magic glowing box?"
I enjoy riding my bike outside. But I also enjoy my stationary bike, and have put far more miles on it. Why?
A) Weather. It's bloody cold out there right now. And the weather in here is pretty stable, thank you.
B) Hassle. I have to pack my bike to drive somewhere and ride it. There are hardly any bike trails in the area, and riding on the road guarantees that at some point I'm going to get hit.
C) Information. Stationary bikes are pretty good at tracking speed, distance, and probably aren't terribly off in their calories burned ratings. Pony up more money for a bike computer and get it set properly and you can get more information from your regular bike too, but it's still more hassle.
D) Maintenance. "Real" bikes take "real" maintenance. I don't remember having to clean and mend a chain on a stationary bike. Or clean it. Or scrape dog crap off the tires before putting it in the van.
E) Routine. I need routine. I crave routine. Biking outdoors means commitment to riding in rain, snow, sleet, wind, hail...unless you change that routine. Biking on a stationary bike? Not so much. I can count on my stationary bike being ready to go when I am. My regular bike needs to have tires checked, and the weather can't be in the 90's or in the 30's. Sorry, I'm just not that hard core.
So is there something wrong with this Wii bike? I don't think so. It's a way to encourage exercise, and it costs $99 while my regular "real" bike was around $400, and "real" bikes can easily run into the thousands (I'd love to try out a nice recumbent bike sometime...)
We live in an age where exercise is artificial. People in gyms are pumping hunks of iron, steel and aluminum and riding fake bikes and walking and running on treadmills that go nowhere. There are people who decide to get up and "go for a walk" to get exercise during the week.
In the past, people were "pumping" rocks and lumber and carrying crops and food for animals. They walked because it was the only way to get from the house to the store and back. People didn't set out to exercise. They didn't have a bloody choice in the matter.
It used to be that exercise was a side effect of trying to survive. Today it's a scheduled activity. Why complain about what form it comes in as long as you get the exercise?
Showing posts with label technology. Show all posts
Showing posts with label technology. Show all posts
Friday, December 11, 2009
Wednesday, June 3, 2009
Weight Loss Surgery...Without Scars?
Good Morning America had a bit on this morning about a weight loss surgery that, within a couple years, may replace some of the bariatric procedure options we have now.
Kosmix is our friend; I found this CNN article that discusses using "natural orifices" for surgery. In other words, they create a mini-pouch in your stomach by lowering a flexible stapler and tools through your throat. You wake up with a sore throat. Usually you can go back to work soon after waking.
The CNN bit discusses natural orifice surgery in general more than the bariatric aspect...I'll admit that I got a little squeamish seeing that doctors are removing gall bladders through vaginas. I didn't know what to think when it said that for men the penis was considered as an orifice through which to operate on internal organs but the point of entry was too small...what are they implying?
At any rate, the bariatric surgery was said to lose less weight than current Roux-En-Y surgery, probably because it lacks the malabsorbtion aspect of removing part of your intestine. This is far more like (and has similar success rates to) lap-band procedures since it's just restricting your food intake with a smaller food pouch. Since it does involve stapling and cutting, I guess it's like the Roux without En Y...
Kosmix is our friend; I found this CNN article that discusses using "natural orifices" for surgery. In other words, they create a mini-pouch in your stomach by lowering a flexible stapler and tools through your throat. You wake up with a sore throat. Usually you can go back to work soon after waking.
The CNN bit discusses natural orifice surgery in general more than the bariatric aspect...I'll admit that I got a little squeamish seeing that doctors are removing gall bladders through vaginas. I didn't know what to think when it said that for men the penis was considered as an orifice through which to operate on internal organs but the point of entry was too small...what are they implying?
At any rate, the bariatric surgery was said to lose less weight than current Roux-En-Y surgery, probably because it lacks the malabsorbtion aspect of removing part of your intestine. This is far more like (and has similar success rates to) lap-band procedures since it's just restricting your food intake with a smaller food pouch. Since it does involve stapling and cutting, I guess it's like the Roux without En Y...
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Your Medical Care and How IT May Kill You
I just finished reading a very interesting article on how electronic records...mandated for hospitals by the federal government in coming years...nearly killed the author of the article.
I added this blurb for a couple reasons. First, I just spent about four days in the hospital having RNY surgery and I spent nearly a month in a hospital suffering from pancreatitis and gallstones. In both cases, at two different hospitals, I had a consistent experience; I typically saw doctors once or twice a day, and nurses (and their assistants) were on a rotating schedule to check on me and in both cases it was the nurses that made me feel the most comfortable and seemed to be working, from my point of view, as advocates for my care. The author attributed his saving grace to be a nurse who worked on his behalf to correct errors and try getting medication to help him (and his wife sneaking his medications to him).
Second, while his article is a scathing review of the current generation of IT technologies for turning patient healthcare into electronic records, even he acknowledged that the shortcoming isn't necessarily with the IT as much as it is IT vendors not creating systems that fulfill the needs of the doctors. He lays the blame at the feet of the IT departments, vendors, and ISV's who make the varioius software packages.
I would argue that it is not just the vendors, but the users. I don't think they know what they really need or want. Most people, asked to specify what they want in a car, will not know truly all the things they want in the car. I can barely remember all the things I need to take with me on a trip for the weekend. How can most people remember or know all the things they'd need with a system as complex and encompassing as medical software that is supposed to meed the needs of everyone working in the hospital?
Third, in reading his account of what happened to him it seemed as if the doctors "fighting the system"...the poor data model...were still kind of stupid in their actions, computerized list or not. He had several alarms go off that no one replied to. That's not a computer problem. He had people ignoring what he already knew...such as the effectiveness of the Albuterol in alleviating pain...and doctors that simply were not listening. The people "fighting the system" to help the guy were nuts for not listening to the patient in the first place and not exercising good common sense!
Read the article. What do you think?
I added this blurb for a couple reasons. First, I just spent about four days in the hospital having RNY surgery and I spent nearly a month in a hospital suffering from pancreatitis and gallstones. In both cases, at two different hospitals, I had a consistent experience; I typically saw doctors once or twice a day, and nurses (and their assistants) were on a rotating schedule to check on me and in both cases it was the nurses that made me feel the most comfortable and seemed to be working, from my point of view, as advocates for my care. The author attributed his saving grace to be a nurse who worked on his behalf to correct errors and try getting medication to help him (and his wife sneaking his medications to him).
Second, while his article is a scathing review of the current generation of IT technologies for turning patient healthcare into electronic records, even he acknowledged that the shortcoming isn't necessarily with the IT as much as it is IT vendors not creating systems that fulfill the needs of the doctors. He lays the blame at the feet of the IT departments, vendors, and ISV's who make the varioius software packages.
I would argue that it is not just the vendors, but the users. I don't think they know what they really need or want. Most people, asked to specify what they want in a car, will not know truly all the things they want in the car. I can barely remember all the things I need to take with me on a trip for the weekend. How can most people remember or know all the things they'd need with a system as complex and encompassing as medical software that is supposed to meed the needs of everyone working in the hospital?
Third, in reading his account of what happened to him it seemed as if the doctors "fighting the system"...the poor data model...were still kind of stupid in their actions, computerized list or not. He had several alarms go off that no one replied to. That's not a computer problem. He had people ignoring what he already knew...such as the effectiveness of the Albuterol in alleviating pain...and doctors that simply were not listening. The people "fighting the system" to help the guy were nuts for not listening to the patient in the first place and not exercising good common sense!
Read the article. What do you think?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
