2 ms·

They've done the analysis: meta-analysis of random controlled trials , see https://www.bmj.com/content/384/bmj-2023-075847 https://www.bmj.com/content/384/bmj-2

by canucker2016 3y ago

They've done the analysis: meta-analysis of random controlled trials , see https://www.bmj.com/content/384/bmj-2023-075847 https://www.bmj.com/content/384/bmj-2023-075847 "Exercise is an effective treatment for depression, with walking or jogging, yoga, and strength training more effective than other exercises, particularly when intense. Yoga and strength training were well tolerated compared with other treatments. Exercise appeared equally effective for people with and without comorbidities and with different baseline levels of depression."

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
mattmaroon 3y ago
That’s a meta analysis (which is always a solid indicator of pseudoscience) of studies that are not really controlled because A.) you have to actually do the exercise, which means the people who don’t may simply not do so because their mental illness is worse or at least different than the ones who do. 2. If you’ve ever read the attempts to quantify various mental illnesses, they’re extremely unscientific and borderline laughable if you’ve ever known a few people who suffer from them. What we call “depression” affects so many people in so many ways that in the future, it’s likely it will become a category of diseases with many different individual names. One of my exes medicated her depression by working, one by calling off work, for example. One would have (and did) do lots of exercise, one did not, and there’d be no way to quantify either on any simple scale. 3.) It’s obviously neither double nor single blind. You can’t not know if you’re exercising, and the researcher can likely tell which are which to a decent degree just by looking at them. All a meta analysis of a bunch of non-controlled studies really tells you is the prevailing pre-sentiment among the researchers of a topic. Which, really, isn’t nothing (they’re more likely to guess correctly than a random person) but it’s far from an actual controlled study. And I still stand by that there’s no way you could realistically say this study indicates causation with any certainty. Though that never stops people in the social sciences I guess.
- Jtsummers 3y ago
  > And I still stand by that there’s no way you could realistically say this study indicates causation with any certainty. Though that never stops people in the social sciences I guess. That's a fair statement if the authors actually claimed to have identified a causal relationship. They don't, here's their conclusion: >> Our research demonstrates that physical fitness, particularly in cardiorespiratory and muscular fitness domains, is associated with the risk of developing mental disorders in youth. Given the increasing incidences and prevalence of these mental disorders in children and adolescents, our study contributes valuable evidence to the burgeoning field of research exploring the connection between physical fitness and mental health. This finding underscores the need for further research into targeted physical fitness programs, which hold significant potential as primary preventive interventions against mental disorders in children and adolescents.
  - mattmaroon 3y ago
    True, I guess they’re not making a concrete claim about which was which.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

mattmaroon 3y ago

That’s a meta analysis (which is always a solid indicator of pseudoscience) of studies that are not really controlled because A.) you have to actually do the exercise, which means the people who don’t may simply not do so because their mental illness is worse or at least different than the ones who do. 2. If you’ve ever read the attempts to quantify various mental illnesses, they’re extremely unscientific and borderline laughable if you’ve ever known a few people who suffer from them. What we call “depression” affects so many people in so many ways that in the future, it’s likely it will become a category of diseases with many different individual names. One of my exes medicated her depression by working, one by calling off work, for example. One would have (and did) do lots of exercise, one did not, and there’d be no way to quantify either on any simple scale. 3.) It’s obviously neither double nor single blind. You can’t not know if you’re exercising, and the researcher can likely tell which are which to a decent degree just by looking at them. All a meta analysis of a bunch of non-controlled studies really tells you is the prevailing pre-sentiment among the researchers of a topic. Which, really, isn’t nothing (they’re more likely to guess correctly than a random person) but it’s far from an actual controlled study. And I still stand by that there’s no way you could realistically say this study indicates causation with any certainty. Though that never stops people in the social sciences I guess.

Jtsummers 3y ago
> And I still stand by that there’s no way you could realistically say this study indicates causation with any certainty. Though that never stops people in the social sciences I guess. That's a fair statement if the authors actually claimed to have identified a causal relationship. They don't, here's their conclusion: >> Our research demonstrates that physical fitness, particularly in cardiorespiratory and muscular fitness domains, is associated with the risk of developing mental disorders in youth. Given the increasing incidences and prevalence of these mental disorders in children and adolescents, our study contributes valuable evidence to the burgeoning field of research exploring the connection between physical fitness and mental health. This finding underscores the need for further research into targeted physical fitness programs, which hold significant potential as primary preventive interventions against mental disorders in children and adolescents.
- mattmaroon 3y ago
  True, I guess they’re not making a concrete claim about which was which.