4 ms·
This has been discussed before: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29849033 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29849033 It's a very, very bad study. If you
by tgv 5y ago
This has been discussed before: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29849033 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29849033
It's a very, very bad study. If you want to know how bad: it would lend equal support to the hypothesis "everyone's heart rate drops 4.8bpm in one day".
- taran_narat 5y agoI agree, there are too many confounders to draw a conclusion from this, a lot of the things in this study could be just down to random chance.
- gibspaulding 5y agoJeesh, I wondered about that confounding variable but dismissed it, thinking surely they would have the sense to split their subjects so that half did 440 the first day and half did 432 the first day. It seems completely unsurprising that one would be slightly more relaxed the second day than the first. Edit: In another comment someone mentions that this study was split the way I would have expected so hopefully they did account for schedule at least. Unfortunately I'm not seeing an easy way to access the whole paper to verify.
- OscarCunningham 5y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sci-Hub https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sci-Hub