4 ms·

Or - there is a confounding factor that makes people both sharp and willing to exercise.

sooheon 10y ago
This is the most common one line reply to any study, and it's a pet peeve of mine. If you actually read past the headline, you'd see this was not a population study, but a review of experimental ones, where your "confounding factor" is literally the fact that experimenters asked people to exercise. Please, be skeptical of studies, but don't be so arrogant to presume authors aren't capable of the most elementary scientific reasoning.
- aaron-lebo 10y ago
  That's not arrogance, only good science. You'd be surprised how many "obvious" things get through peer review.
  - sooheon 10y ago
    If you read the study and point out a flaw, thank you for your contribution. If you make a zero effort "observation" which makes it clear you didn't even skim the abstract, you're adding nothing of value.
    - aaron-lebo 10y ago
      You're right. It's not arrogance though, just laziness?
      - deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
      - sooheon 10y ago
        Sure, that too. Just cause I'm feeling extra pedantic, I'll point out that of those who are too lazy to click the link (the majority of people, including me most days), there is a small subset who presume their uninformed comment can dismantle the entire study--the arrogant.
      - dagw 10y ago
        Laziness would be not bothering to comment
      - delecti 10y ago
        It's laziness to not click and read the link, it's arrogance to think that your criticism is valid in light of the results of your laziness. I also didn't read the link, but I'm also not critiquing the study.
- acchow 10y ago
  that experimenters asked people to exercise. Where are you reading this? The article is about the meta review here http://bjsm.bmj.com/content/early/2017/03/30/bjsports-2016-096587 http://bjsm.bmj.com/content/early/2017/03/30/bjsports-2016-0... Even if you're right, it still doesn't remove the confounding factors. Let's assume you're right and each study has a control group that doesn't exercise (for.... x years...? seems ridiculous) and an experimental group which exercises regularly. But then...unhealthy people wouldn't be able to be in the latter group because they can't exercise regularly. I humbly submit "healthiness" as a possible confounding factor contributing to both "sharp mind" and "ability to exercise" (and thus be in the experimental group). Not sure where healthiness would come from - genetics? Diet? Less stress?
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - sooheon 10y ago
    I'm reading this in the same place you linked. It's a meta study of experimental studies, where experimenters ask otherwise sedentary people to be subject to "exercise interventions" (it's in the title...). Observations weren't for years AFAIK, studies over 4 weeks were eligible and an effect was observed. Edit: as for your confounding effect, it doesn't strike at the heart of the study. The study finds that actually doing exercise improves your cognitive function. Not that there are "sharp" people and "active" people and these tend to go together. Whether or not you're sharp or healthy to begin with, doing "exercise intervention" will improve your cognition.
- mike_ivanov 9y ago
  Disclosure: I actually skimmed the linked article for subheaders, found things like "Brain boost" and "Heavy shopping bags". Started reading, stopped at "T'ai Chi" - this is where I lost interest assuming that it was one of those sensationalist pseudoscience pieces. Guilty as charged.

This is the most common one line reply to any study, and it's a pet peeve of mine. If you actually read past the headline, you'd see this was not a population study, but a review of experimental ones, where your "confounding factor" is literally the fact that experimenters asked people to exercise. Please, be skeptical of studies, but don't be so arrogant to presume authors aren't capable of the most elementary scientific reasoning.

aaron-lebo 10y ago
That's not arrogance, only good science. You'd be surprised how many "obvious" things get through peer review.
- sooheon 10y ago
  If you read the study and point out a flaw, thank you for your contribution. If you make a zero effort "observation" which makes it clear you didn't even skim the abstract, you're adding nothing of value.
  - aaron-lebo 10y ago
    You're right. It's not arrogance though, just laziness?
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
    - sooheon 10y ago
      Sure, that too. Just cause I'm feeling extra pedantic, I'll point out that of those who are too lazy to click the link (the majority of people, including me most days), there is a small subset who presume their uninformed comment can dismantle the entire study--the arrogant.
    - dagw 10y ago
      Laziness would be not bothering to comment
    - delecti 10y ago
      It's laziness to not click and read the link, it's arrogance to think that your criticism is valid in light of the results of your laziness. I also didn't read the link, but I'm also not critiquing the study.
acchow 10y ago
that experimenters asked people to exercise. Where are you reading this? The article is about the meta review here http://bjsm.bmj.com/content/early/2017/03/30/bjsports-2016-096587 http://bjsm.bmj.com/content/early/2017/03/30/bjsports-2016-0... Even if you're right, it still doesn't remove the confounding factors. Let's assume you're right and each study has a control group that doesn't exercise (for.... x years...? seems ridiculous) and an experimental group which exercises regularly. But then...unhealthy people wouldn't be able to be in the latter group because they can't exercise regularly. I humbly submit "healthiness" as a possible confounding factor contributing to both "sharp mind" and "ability to exercise" (and thus be in the experimental group). Not sure where healthiness would come from - genetics? Diet? Less stress?
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- sooheon 10y ago
  I'm reading this in the same place you linked. It's a meta study of experimental studies, where experimenters ask otherwise sedentary people to be subject to "exercise interventions" (it's in the title...). Observations weren't for years AFAIK, studies over 4 weeks were eligible and an effect was observed. Edit: as for your confounding effect, it doesn't strike at the heart of the study. The study finds that actually doing exercise improves your cognitive function. Not that there are "sharp" people and "active" people and these tend to go together. Whether or not you're sharp or healthy to begin with, doing "exercise intervention" will improve your cognition.
mike_ivanov 9y ago
Disclosure: I actually skimmed the linked article for subheaders, found things like "Brain boost" and "Heavy shopping bags". Started reading, stopped at "T'ai Chi" - this is where I lost interest assuming that it was one of those sensationalist pseudoscience pieces. Guilty as charged.