3 ms·

Why are so many people discussing the evidence here? If one seriously believes the BMJ would let a questionable study be published, think again. I'm not saying

by guylhem 14y ago

Why are so many people discussing the evidence here? If one seriously believes the BMJ would let a questionable study be published, think again. I'm not saying everything that is published in high quality peer reviewed journals is absolutely true, but it is subject to so much scrutiny that is unlikely to have an evident flaw in the reasoning, or at least some that is not properly mentioned in the article or letters to the editor. Which leads us back to why are so many here angry at the conclusion - because many answer seem emotionally charged. Among the tools offered to you to try to increase your lifespan, and especially the "high quality" years, is physical effort. There is even a very positive message there - you don't have to be in a perfect physical form, or do sports, to get the gains- muscle mass alone is enough. If you have had health problem, say broken bones, reduce mobility, pain, whatever, you can still get some of the positive advantages of muscle mass with weight training - which can be done at home, in a gym, anywhere. You may not get as much benefits as somebody fully healthy (ex: if you hip is not working, it will be a problem to train both legs, etc.) but it is still better than nothing!!! Exercice, as in improving the muscle mass, is well known to have positive health effects. If one does not exercise, the blame is not to be put on the lack of time, but rather on the lack of proper prioritization.

jack9 14y ago
> If one seriously believes the BMJ would let a questionable study be published, think again. All studies are questionable. A good study is scrutinized, not qualified based on who issues them. This is not a double blind study (it's rather impractical to perform) and the conclusions are carefully worded. To say it's unlikely to have evident flaws, misses the point. > Exercice, as in improving the muscle mass, is well known to have positive health effects. THIS is NOT well known. You state a popular belief with a dubious lack of constraints. How long and how much lifting does it take to put a 200lb 35yr old adult male into heart failure? What about a 90yr adult malw? The specific evidence is lacking. Everyone who casually talks about musclemass thinks it's a tautological generalization, because they heard it from a doctor making a practical generalization for a patient (who's likely already sick). This study provides some (or not, depending on interpretation) specific evidence. Some regressions still need to be performed on the data to remove uncertainty and provide useful bands of data.

by guylhem 14y ago

jack9 14y ago

> If one seriously believes the BMJ would let a questionable study be published, think again. All studies are questionable. A good study is scrutinized, not qualified based on who issues them. This is not a double blind study (it's rather impractical to perform) and the conclusions are carefully worded. To say it's unlikely to have evident flaws, misses the point. > Exercice, as in improving the muscle mass, is well known to have positive health effects. THIS is NOT well known. You state a popular belief with a dubious lack of constraints. How long and how much lifting does it take to put a 200lb 35yr old adult male into heart failure? What about a 90yr adult malw? The specific evidence is lacking. Everyone who casually talks about musclemass thinks it's a tautological generalization, because they heard it from a doctor making a practical generalization for a patient (who's likely already sick). This study provides some (or not, depending on interpretation) specific evidence. Some regressions still need to be performed on the data to remove uncertainty and provide useful bands of data.