Re: More junk science

In article <[email hidden]>,

Ylan Segal said:

octogenarian said:

Wonder how much Olympians (non-Druggies) compare? Could it be diet or
low body mass that made the most difference?

Posted on Tue, Nov. 15, 2005

Exercise can add nearly four years to life, study says

By Rob Stein

Washington Post

[rest of article cut]

What makes this junk science? Is there something particular about this
study that you object to? The way it was conducted? The conclusions?

Often, the newspaper report about a study makes it seem like there are
lots of holes. For example, you think, maybe the people who are
healthier are able to exercise more, while the people who are too sick
to exercise die early. Or maybe it's not the exercise, but the diet or
the BMI or something else.

In practice, if you read the actual journal article, they've often
controlled for most or all of these variables, but that's too
complicated to make it into a press release about the study.

If you're skeptical, you can always track down the journal article.

--Harold Buck

"I used to rock and roll all night,
and party every day.
Then it was every other day. . . ."
-Homer J. Simpson

Harold Buck said:

Often, the newspaper report about a study makes it seem like there are
lots of holes. For example, you think, maybe the people who are
healthier are able to exercise more, while the people who are too sick
to exercise die early. Or maybe it's not the exercise, but the diet or
the BMI or something else.

In practice, if you read the actual journal article, they've often
controlled for most or all of these variables, but that's too
complicated to make it into a press release about the study.

If you're skeptical, you can always track down the journal article.

--Harold Buck

In other words, he has no idea, and is just talking through his
[censored]. No surprise for Buck.

"TheBillRodgers!" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In other words, he has no idea, and is just talking through his
[censored]. No surprise for Buck.

The newspaper always "dumb it down" to make it readable for the masses.
If they attempted a formal scientific review no one would get past the
first paragraph. As Harold suggested, if you want know the details go
read the article.

As for the A-hole designation, you rank number 1 through 50 .

-DF

On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 18:21:56 GMT, "Doug Freese" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

As for the A-hole designation, you rank number 1 through 50 .

But DF, which one? You can't make up your mind? You DF.

Harold Buck said:

Often, the newspaper report about a study makes it seem like there are
lots of holes. For example, you think, maybe the people who are
healthier are able to exercise more, while the people who are too sick
to exercise die early. Or maybe it's not the exercise, but the diet or
the BMI or something else.

In practice, if you read the actual journal article, they've often
controlled for most or all of these variables, but that's too
complicated to make it into a press release about the study.

That is exactly why I asked the OP (octagenarian) about his labeling of
the report as "junk science". From just reading the article posted to
this ng, I really can not form an opinion on the validity of the study
(either way).

Quoted message said:

If you're skeptical, you can always track down the journal article.

It doesn't really matter to me. I always figured that people who
exercise regularly and take care of themselves have a better chance of
leaving a healthy, long life. The actual value of 3.x years of life
extension for some people living in Massachusetts is sort of
meaningless, isn't it?

--
Ylan

Look, common sense tells you that someone who runs 30' for 5days weekly
will live longer than couch potatoes. Don't assume that the new breed
of white-coats have controls for their experiments. Case in point is
the recent study that obese people lived longer than lean ones! Then
there is the one on SUV being safer, only that it ignored the fact that
the below 25 crowd could not afford driving Explorers.

Any study that Joe-Six-Pack can tell you without second thought is junk
science.

octogenarian said:

Look, common sense tells you that someone who runs 30' for 5days weekly
will live longer than couch potatoes. Don't assume that the new breed
of white-coats have controls for their experiments.

I haven't assumed anything about the original study. I just wanted to
know why you thought it was junk science.

Quoted message said:

Case in point is
the recent study that obese people lived longer than lean ones! Then
there is the one on SUV being safer, only that it ignored the fact that
the below 25 crowd could not afford driving Explorers.

Those do seem like funky conclusions.

Quoted message said:

Any study that Joe-Six-Pack can tell you without second thought is junk
science.

And now my question is now answered: You think it's junk because it
caught the attention of some reporter and you think that the conclusions
are likely to be quoted improperly by a guy who is obsessed about either
his abdominal muscles or his beer (I don't know to which Mr. Pack you
are referring to) 🙂

--
Ylan

"The universe is not required to be in
perfect harmony with human ambition"
- Attributed to Carl Sagan

Ylan Segal said:

The actual value of 3.x years of life
extension for some people living in Massachusetts is sort of
meaningless, isn't it?

Well yes, but only because we are in a LIVING HELL! And nobody wants
to live longer here.

On 15 Nov 2005 12:30:15 -0800, "octogenarian" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Look, common sense tells you that someone who runs 30' for 5days weekly
will live longer than couch potatoes. Don't assume that the new breed
of white-coats have controls for their experiments. Case in point is
the recent study that obese people lived longer than lean ones!

All one needs to do to settle this, is take a walk through any
hospital. Do you see any skinny, healthy, workout, runner types? No.
Just fat slobs toking on cigarettes.

"Ylan Segal" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

The actual value of 3.x years of life
extension for some people living in Massachusetts is sort of
meaningless, isn't it?

Not if they're are still driving.

-DF

Dave,

A better study with cleaner boundaries would be Olympian's life span
Vs. mere mortals. My guess is that they all have qualify life longer.
Question is how much longer for medalists Vs qualifiers, or runners Vs
weightlifers etc.

Of course, Nike sees no econ reasons to finance such a study.

TheBillRodgers! said:

Ylan Segal said:

The actual value of 3.x years of life
extension for some people living in Massachusetts is sort
of meaningless, isn't it?

Well yes, but only because we are in a LIVING HELL! And nobody
wants to live longer here.

Wow, your baseball and football teams start losing, your Senator Botox
gets beat by a lower primate with a little help from Diebold, and now
you're all bummin' big time, huh?

Hey, console yourselves that at least you're not in Ottawa, where the
summers are warm and the winters cold... and your sports team and
senators are one and the same!

octogenarian said:

Any study that Joe-Six-Pack can tell you without second thought is junk
science.

But what about the old-wive's tales that Joe-Six-Pack spreads, and then
a scientist looks at numbers and/or conducts a study and finds
Joe-Six-Pack is wrong. It has happened.

Controlled studies and epidemiological studies are different kinds of
studies. Some questions lend themselves to one type of study, and others
are more suited for the other type.

Dot

--
"A winner is just a loser who tried one more time." -Captain George M.
Moore, Jr., United States Air Force (retired),
http://www.avdlm.com/press.php?page=stories&storyid=1

On 15 Nov 2005 20:53:33 -0800, "Charlie Pendejo" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Wow, your baseball and football teams start losing,

Waddaya mean? The NY yankees did ok.

Quoted message said:

That is exactly why I asked the OP (octagenarian) about his labeling of
the report as "junk science".

Or the article in the NY Tnmes today about a German heart study finding
heart rates and blood pressure increases during roller coaster rides.
The Euros must have cash to burn for such obvious studies.

Quoted message said:

Look, common sense tells you that someone who runs 30' for 5days weekly
will live longer than couch potatoes.

When I was growing up "extreme" exercise was thought to damage the
body,
especially for females. Women werent allowed in many of the longer
competitions until the 1980s. People thought runinning might cause
heart attacks.
There is still concern that lots of exercise might wear out joints
faster
or burn out the mitochrondia (Ken Cooper). I am looking forward to
studies
of long term runners (> 30 years) to see whether any of this happens.
The leading edge of the running boom is now into its 38th year.

Thought you were joking:

Study Identifies Heart Patient's Best Friend

By LAWRENCE K. ALTMAN
Published: November 16, 2005
DALLAS, Nov. 15 - ...

In a separate study reported here on Tuesday at the annual meeting of
the American Heart Association, German scientists found that riding
roller coasters may set off dangerously abnormal heart rhythms in
people with heart disease. ..