Skip to main content

A Response to the NYT's article, Switch Sports After Injury? Never!

The Well blog on the NY times published an article, Switch Sports After Injury? Never! which I responded to:

Although I appear as a single-sport person to many, I've always had a bit of a need for change, and paired with my inevitable stress injuries that came from just running, or biking, or rowing, I gladly changed sports before I did serious damage. Even then, my relatively extensive training knowledge - I was certified as a personal trainer through ACE in the early 90's - taught me the need to training hard-easy, with intervals days followed by something longer and lighter, as well as active recovery.

I recently met someone who claimed to play four (4) hours of aggressive tennis almost daily. He related that he had developed a nagging injury and wanted to know my suggestion for resolving it. When I suggested he should takes some days easy, or replace tennis with weight-training, he was adamant that he could mange with his current regimen of icing and stretching, even though it was required every day he played and has not actually solved his problem. I would assign his inability to change to parts ego, social expectation, and pleasure. He was very proud to tell me about his 'fitness' regimen, particularly considering his age, also as a way to give his wife some free time, and as a pleasurable, intense activity.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Behave: The Biology of Humans at Our Best and Worst by Robert M. Sapolsky My rating: 5 of 5 stars I finished reading this crying. It is a work of neurobiology, social science, anthropology, and history, but ultimately it is a work of great humanity, suggesting ways that humans, our groups, our systems, and our societies can be made better. View all my reviews

A Journey — if You Dare — Into the Minds of Silicon Valley Programmers

My responses in a NY Times comment section for the book, Coders: The Making of a New Tribe and the Remaking of the World by Clive Thompson : #1 - Link Although I've been a software developer for 15 years, and for longer alternating between a project manager, team lead, or analyst, mostly in finance, and now with a cancer center, I found it funny that you blame the people doing the coding for not seeing the harm it could cause. First, most scientific advancement has dark elements, and it is usually not the science but how it is used and sold by business people that is the problem. This leads to the second problem, in that it is not coding that is in itself problematic, but specifically how technology is harnessed to sell. It is normal and desirable to track users, to log actions, to collect telemetry, so as to monitor systems, respond to errors, and to develop new features, but that normal engineering practice has been used to surveil users for the purpose of selling. Blaming

Don't learn to code. Learn to think.

A response to  Don't learn to code. Learn to think. : Below is is my usual response when I see an article stating that everyone should learn to code:  Rather than programming, it is more important to impart the thinking of computer science (CS) than a specific implementation. Programming can be an end point for some students, but it is likely that programming itself will be increasingly automated, so that one needs more the general concepts common in CS. Even then, programming itself is to some degree a grunt task that one progresses beyond:  The following are typical components of a CS degree: algorithms & flowcharting systems thinking logical systems and set theory object-orientation & patterns probability, statistics, mathematics All of the above can be useful in an increasingly automated and data-driven world.