New York Post: Watching musical theater is as good for you as half an hour’s exercise, a study says.
Scientists monitored an audience at a “Dreamgirls” show.
Heart rates doubled as the drama and songs intensified, peaking before the interval and finale.
6 comments:
People always like to take scientific studies and boil them down to catchy headlines with bold claims, but that doesn’t make that accurate. I find it very hard to believe that watching a musical is actually comparable to 30 minutes of exercise. Sure, maybe at some points some people’s heart rates increase to the same rate that would be the case were they exercising, but that isn’t the same thing. I suspect that a lot of these findings were taken out of context for the sake of making a catchy article, regardless of the accuracy of the claim. Plus, if you wanted the benefits of 30 minutes of exercise, actually exercising for 30 minutes would be both faster and cheaper than going to see a musical. This headline is just creating an idea that musical-goers who don’t like exercising want to hear, but stretching findings to make them seem like bolder claims than they really are doesn’t help anyone.
I agree with Julian - while this title may seem flashy, it's in reality not all that substantial or groundbreaking a claim. Basically it says that your heart rate increases drastically when a musical gets emotional or when a show is at it's climax, which is exactly what it's SUPPOSED to do when your body undergoes a physical response to feeling scared, excited, or in suspense. And the title is also misleading because the article never even says outright that you can watch a musical and say you exercised, like the title's wording implies. Instead, it just says that "these [heart rate] levels are “optimal” for stimulating cardio fitness and boosting stamina." In other words, it's where you would want to be IF you were exercising, not that the heart rate boost itself gave health benefits. If it did, I would probably be able to run a marathon with the amount of shows and exciting movies I've seen in my life.
This article is an interesting finding of a rise in heart rate for the same amount of time as a normal workout though during a workout though not because of the statistics. It’s interesting how someone would think to equate the rise in heart rate to get the benefits of a workout. The article specifically says that the heart rate of their volunteers raised 50 to 70 percent above the subjects’ normal heart rate during a 28-minute interval. The same is true with a roller coaster. If someone were to ride a roller coaster for 28 minutes then their heart rate would do a similar thing. This article should be titled ‘the science proving that watching a show is visceral’. The data gathered proves that an audience member in the sample size provided has a physical reaction. When I look at the source being The New York Post, it all makes sense. The Post is known for its outrageous headlines with misleading claims. If I was reading a theatrically minded newspaper or even The New York Times, this article would be more the physical reaction and audience experience rather than making a strange claim of how watching a show is equal to a workout. This article was a good reminder not to trust every source you read and that not everything relates.
This article doesn't actually link to the study it claims to be reporting on. the supposed source for the British Heart Foundation's policy on optimal heart rate actually links to an article on the Sun's webpage about keeping off the weight in winter. I was actually unable to find hide nor hair of the original study besides this article. Even if the study was linked to the page, the article fails to mention any reciprocal studies or peer review. The study described also used a population of twelve volunteers, which is far too small a sample size to generalize the findings to a large population (low external validity - for those who have studied research before). The study most certainly didn't account for factors like race, class, age, and sex - which vary among participants and could affect the findings. Not to mention - there are much more complex mechanisms at work when you exercise besides an increased heart rate. What about the release of endorphins? What about the tearing and reconstruction of muscles? What about respiratory rates? To quote the only comment on the original published article: this article is "Utter Bollocks".
I have to admit I am slightly confused to the author’s claim in their title. As some of the comments before mine have mentioned, I completely agree that these findings were absolutely taken out of context. It is a commonly known fact that when listening to music, our heart rates often respond to the tempos of said songs, similarly to how our muscles will slightly react to watching the bodies of dancers move. I have no problem with the claim that our heart rates might reach a level that is considered desirable during a 30 minute workout, but I do not believe that the rest of our bodies will reap the same benefits as it would from actually going to the gym. I think that this article did make an interesting claim in terms of our heart rate’s reaction to watching a musical, but perhaps a different title would properly convey the reality of the study.
I have real problems with this article. If what is says is true I should be as skinny as pencil. In reality I am not surprised at all. I am usually so invested in a really good show I probably would have an elevated heart level. I think it would also depend on the show itself. I doubt just any show like GiGi for example could get anyone’s heart rate up. Either way I don’t see myself loosing weight while watching a show on Broadway. Now walking and more times than not running from a matinee to an evening show across Time Square, now that might draw a sweat. Maybe if i have a tech week and an opening night once a week I would get a full exercise out in one night at the theatre. But until then ill still be here hating myself for not going to the gym more often.
Post a Comment