3 ms·

> 13 physical education students Honestly I do not see how such study can lead to any conclusion besides that more studies are necessary. The problem is not ev

by _0w8t 3y ago

> 13 physical education students Honestly I do not see how such study can lead to any conclusion besides that more studies are necessary. The problem is not even the low N, but extreme bias of participant selection. I.e. the conclusion that high-ankle could be worse is only applies to students of physical educations. One just cannot generalize it beyond the given group.

freeone3000 3y ago
It’s feet, not a subjective experience survey. Unless you have reason to believe that their ankles work differently than other people’s.
- ordu 3y ago
  > Unless you have reason to believe that their ankles work differently than other people’s. I cannot agree with it. The goal of the study to show that there is no reason to believe that it works differently for different people. There are individual variations in ankles of different people and probably they use their ankles in different ways, because it is a result of reinforced learning mostly. Different people can settle in different local minima. The sample is homogenous, and it seems relevant to the results. Physical education students may have some special traits. They had chosen to become physical education students, so they we above average in physical activities, and then they spent years training their abilities. Moreover there can be a 10% of people with ankles working in a slightly different way and a study with 13 participants will not be able to notice it, even if such people become physical education students with the same probability as people overall, but they can represent 95% of physical education students or 0.1% of physical education students. There are studies that are based on an established theory and they can try for example to measure some constants or something. These studies can use reasoning like yours, they can rely on speculative arguments when proving validity. But it means that some previous study addressed the issue of the validity of the theoretical model. If we believed that the theoretical model of a human ankle is beyond any doubt then why to run the empirical study? We could run a computer simulation and get any results we want. But this study is even more early stage of research, and if my explanations are not good enough, then the quote from the article (emphasis is mine): > These findings provide preliminary evidence suggesting that wearing high-top shoes can, in certain conditions, induce a delayed pre-activation timing and decreased amplitude of evertor muscle activity, and may therefore have a detrimental effect on establishing and maintaining functional ankle joint stability. It is a pilot study, with the only achievement: they developed and tested methods for the follow-up study, which could take a several hundreds of participants and to test them without tuning its methods when something unexpected happen (if you do it is a bad sign of a bad science). I personally leaning towards a belief that the results of the study should hold for the majority of professional athletes, but I wouldn't bet for the rest of population.
- tatersolid 3y ago
  13 physical education students are definitely going to be way above median in ankle strength & flexibility. They’re also likely very young and less injury prone.

by _0w8t 3y ago

freeone3000 3y ago

It’s feet, not a subjective experience survey. Unless you have reason to believe that their ankles work differently than other people’s.

ordu 3y ago
> Unless you have reason to believe that their ankles work differently than other people’s. I cannot agree with it. The goal of the study to show that there is no reason to believe that it works differently for different people. There are individual variations in ankles of different people and probably they use their ankles in different ways, because it is a result of reinforced learning mostly. Different people can settle in different local minima. The sample is homogenous, and it seems relevant to the results. Physical education students may have some special traits. They had chosen to become physical education students, so they we above average in physical activities, and then they spent years training their abilities. Moreover there can be a 10% of people with ankles working in a slightly different way and a study with 13 participants will not be able to notice it, even if such people become physical education students with the same probability as people overall, but they can represent 95% of physical education students or 0.1% of physical education students. There are studies that are based on an established theory and they can try for example to measure some constants or something. These studies can use reasoning like yours, they can rely on speculative arguments when proving validity. But it means that some previous study addressed the issue of the validity of the theoretical model. If we believed that the theoretical model of a human ankle is beyond any doubt then why to run the empirical study? We could run a computer simulation and get any results we want. But this study is even more early stage of research, and if my explanations are not good enough, then the quote from the article (emphasis is mine): > These findings provide preliminary evidence suggesting that wearing high-top shoes can, in certain conditions, induce a delayed pre-activation timing and decreased amplitude of evertor muscle activity, and may therefore have a detrimental effect on establishing and maintaining functional ankle joint stability. It is a pilot study, with the only achievement: they developed and tested methods for the follow-up study, which could take a several hundreds of participants and to test them without tuning its methods when something unexpected happen (if you do it is a bad sign of a bad science). I personally leaning towards a belief that the results of the study should hold for the majority of professional athletes, but I wouldn't bet for the rest of population.
tatersolid 3y ago
13 physical education students are definitely going to be way above median in ankle strength & flexibility. They’re also likely very young and less injury prone.