Wait, why is this trimming controversial? The original paper is a little mediocre (would be down for generic criticism of relying on it), but this trimming seem

Wait, why is this trimming controversial? The original paper is a little mediocre (would be down for generic criticism of relying on it), but this trimming seems to match the main drive of it. Just read the paper, and the association is pretty clear there: fewer hours of sleep means more injuries. P = ~0.006 rr=.8 per hour of additional sleep. That’s not a huge effect size, but I find that pretty believable from my lived experience. Lol, yes, p values, but does anyone think less sleep makes them more coordinated? I don’t allow myself to drive long distances on less than 6h sleep based on my prior experience having tried. For a lay audience explaining the data for the left most point would be hard. Why is 5h of sleep less injurious than 6h? Could be random chance (only 160 students in the study). Could be that those players are worse (coach pulls sleepy kid off the field). I doubt the most uncharitable interpretation of Walker’s trimming is correct (people who sleep 5h/night are better at sports and less likely to be injured). This particular criticism rings hollow to me.