3 ms·

I bet a spreadsheet that thoroughly analyzed the profitability of going out for a run every day would also find a negative ROI.

by epgui 5y ago

thedatabase 5y ago
I'm never running again!
robbedpeter 5y ago
Then you'd lose that bet. Running, even just a little, results in such clear improvements to general health and lowering of all cause mortality that the spreadsheet creator would have to work really hard to push the effects into the negative, and anything you did to frame running as a negative would be trivially dismissed.
- csours 5y ago
  People who can run every day are much healthier than people who can't run every day. People who continue to be able to run every day beyond middle age are exceptionally healthy compared to their peers. It's really hard to disentangle the cause from the effect. Between that and running injuries, car/bike accidents, skin cancer, etc, it probably wouldn't be tooo hard to show that running is not worth it. Mind you, I'm NOT MAKING THAT ARGUMENT, I'm just saying it's probably easier to do than you imagine.
  - librarianscott 5y ago
    Um, there actually are peer-reviewed studies which address things like running and health. For example, "The Influence of Running on Lower Limb Cartilage: A Systematic Review and Meta‐analysis," Sports Medicine (2022) 52:55–74 [1] One conclusion is "Results suggest that cartilage recovers well from a single running bout and adapts to repeated exposure. Given that moderate evidence indicates that running does not lead to new lesions, future trials should focus on clinical populations, such as those with osteoarthritis." My understanding is the evidence for walking is much stronger than running given the assumption that an "active lifestyle" is a goal, rather than just living longer. [1]: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-021-01533-7 https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-021-01533-7
  - isitmadeofglass 5y ago
    > It's really hard to disentangle the cause from the effect. I have to laugh. No it’s not. It’s not like healthy people just from the fact that they are healthy have some odd quirk of occasionally randomly tripping into a 30min run without any say in the matter. Regular running causes an improvement in health. Improved health does not cause regular running.
    - epgui 5y ago
      I'm a life scientist: it's true that physical exercise has a causal effect on positive health outcomes. However, if you believe demonstrating cause is simple, you don't know enough about science or statistics. It's extremely difficult.
- epgui 5y ago
  My comment was purely rhetorical, and that was partly my point. The other part of my point is that no matter how carefully you try to account for the costs and benefits of some activity, there are intangibles and benefits that are extremely difficult to convert into dollars (much like the value of a human life when expressed in dollars). (My comment was not an attempt to refute or disprove the main thesis, but I do think it's important to step back and ask: "what's the point of education? is the point just to make a profit?")
- amelius 5y ago
  I honestly think spreadsheet makers could argue both sides without problems.
lucb1e 5y ago
Might just be me, but I genuinely wish there was reliable data on everything like this. I'd love to know that someone did a proper study, found that it's not damaging to the knees if you're between BMI such-and-such and run between x and y kilometers every day, that it has health benefits a, b and c, but that of course you have to invest time amount z which one might use also for swimming which then has another value. Then you can just weigh what you enjoy more against the benefits. Lots of people do things they know is bad for them, more data hasn't stopped anyone from making their own decision, while I do see the potential benefits. The argument you're making seems to just dismiss the idea without substantiating why it's not important to try and factor in all the factors to reach a conclusion.
thetallstick 5y ago
Actually, I think this is a decent thought experiment. IMHO it would depend a lot of what is included and not included and what definition of profitability we used. For example, if I spent less money would that also count as more profitable? Does it also take into consider what activity was replaced by running? Spending 30 min less on HN and replacing it with running, or just moderate walking, could very well result in less expenses if one takes medical spending into consideration. And I think that's what Caplan is asking people to do. Go over his definitions and what was included and see if it makes sense.

I bet a spreadsheet that thoroughly analyzed the profitability of going out for a run every day would also find a negative ROI.

by epgui 5y ago

I bet a spreadsheet that thoroughly analyzed the profitability of going out for a run every day would also find a negative ROI.

thedatabase 5y ago

I'm never running again!

robbedpeter 5y ago

Then you'd lose that bet. Running, even just a little, results in such clear improvements to general health and lowering of all cause mortality that the spreadsheet creator would have to work really hard to push the effects into the negative, and anything you did to frame running as a negative would be trivially dismissed.

csours 5y ago
People who can run every day are much healthier than people who can't run every day. People who continue to be able to run every day beyond middle age are exceptionally healthy compared to their peers. It's really hard to disentangle the cause from the effect. Between that and running injuries, car/bike accidents, skin cancer, etc, it probably wouldn't be tooo hard to show that running is not worth it. Mind you, I'm NOT MAKING THAT ARGUMENT, I'm just saying it's probably easier to do than you imagine.
- librarianscott 5y ago
  Um, there actually are peer-reviewed studies which address things like running and health. For example, "The Influence of Running on Lower Limb Cartilage: A Systematic Review and Meta‐analysis," Sports Medicine (2022) 52:55–74 [1] One conclusion is "Results suggest that cartilage recovers well from a single running bout and adapts to repeated exposure. Given that moderate evidence indicates that running does not lead to new lesions, future trials should focus on clinical populations, such as those with osteoarthritis." My understanding is the evidence for walking is much stronger than running given the assumption that an "active lifestyle" is a goal, rather than just living longer. [1]: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-021-01533-7 https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-021-01533-7
- isitmadeofglass 5y ago
  > It's really hard to disentangle the cause from the effect. I have to laugh. No it’s not. It’s not like healthy people just from the fact that they are healthy have some odd quirk of occasionally randomly tripping into a 30min run without any say in the matter. Regular running causes an improvement in health. Improved health does not cause regular running.
  - epgui 5y ago
    I'm a life scientist: it's true that physical exercise has a causal effect on positive health outcomes. However, if you believe demonstrating cause is simple, you don't know enough about science or statistics. It's extremely difficult.
epgui 5y ago
My comment was purely rhetorical, and that was partly my point. The other part of my point is that no matter how carefully you try to account for the costs and benefits of some activity, there are intangibles and benefits that are extremely difficult to convert into dollars (much like the value of a human life when expressed in dollars). (My comment was not an attempt to refute or disprove the main thesis, but I do think it's important to step back and ask: "what's the point of education? is the point just to make a profit?")
amelius 5y ago
I honestly think spreadsheet makers could argue both sides without problems.

lucb1e 5y ago

Might just be me, but I genuinely wish there was reliable data on everything like this. I'd love to know that someone did a proper study, found that it's not damaging to the knees if you're between BMI such-and-such and run between x and y kilometers every day, that it has health benefits a, b and c, but that of course you have to invest time amount z which one might use also for swimming which then has another value. Then you can just weigh what you enjoy more against the benefits. Lots of people do things they know is bad for them, more data hasn't stopped anyone from making their own decision, while I do see the potential benefits. The argument you're making seems to just dismiss the idea without substantiating why it's not important to try and factor in all the factors to reach a conclusion.

thetallstick 5y ago

Actually, I think this is a decent thought experiment. IMHO it would depend a lot of what is included and not included and what definition of profitability we used. For example, if I spent less money would that also count as more profitable? Does it also take into consider what activity was replaced by running? Spending 30 min less on HN and replacing it with running, or just moderate walking, could very well result in less expenses if one takes medical spending into consideration. And I think that's what Caplan is asking people to do. Go over his definitions and what was included and see if it makes sense.