3 ms·

No, More Running Probably Isn’t Bad for You

12 points by JeremyNT 12y ago

xsmasher 12y ago
The use of the term "strenuous" running is also misleading; it may make people think that "running hard" is harmful. In terms of this study, it means running four hours a week; probably 20 miles a week or more. That's not a level of activity that most people are in danger of crossing.
swatow 12y ago
The article claimed that the (original) article's conclusions about strenuous running were suspect because they were based on 2 deaths out of a sample of 40. But is that really the case? I get sick of hearing that "the sample size was too small" when no analysis is done of the statistical significance of the results. In this case, the difference between death rates for strenuous vs moderate runners was significant (by my calculation based on their 95% intervals). Given the small sample size, there are still questions to be asked about the methods they used to correct for age, sex, etc. But still, outright dismissal based on small sample size is not reasonable. If the sample is big enough to give statistically significant results, that should be an a priori reason to accept the results.
- peteypao 12y ago
  "But still, outright dismissal based on small sample size is not reasonable." The burden of proof, in my mind, is the one making the claim.
  - swatow 12y ago
    As I said, statistical significance is a prima facie argument for the claim. If someone wants to dispute it, they need to show why the alleged statistical significance does not support the claim. The statistical significance trumps the sample size, unless someone can show otherwise.
shittyanalogy 12y ago
All of this, all of it, is excruciatingly stupid. There are not enough people for a reasonable conclusion, the arguing is amongst a bunch of people who don't understand statistics or that this is an extremely hard subject to study and one in which the results are very person specific. We don't need more poorly done, argumentative, non tech related research on a news site for computer programmers. Can we please, please stop with the diets that have only been tried on mice and the exercise warnings. None of this in informative or even interesting, it's just trash tabloids masquerading as research that's pertinent to anyone's life.

12 points by JeremyNT 12y ago

The use of the term "strenuous" running is also misleading; it may make people think that "running hard" is harmful. In terms of this study, it means running four hours a week; probably 20 miles a week or more. That's not a level of activity that most people are in danger of crossing.

swatow 12y ago

The article claimed that the (original) article's conclusions about strenuous running were suspect because they were based on 2 deaths out of a sample of 40. But is that really the case? I get sick of hearing that "the sample size was too small" when no analysis is done of the statistical significance of the results. In this case, the difference between death rates for strenuous vs moderate runners was significant (by my calculation based on their 95% intervals). Given the small sample size, there are still questions to be asked about the methods they used to correct for age, sex, etc. But still, outright dismissal based on small sample size is not reasonable. If the sample is big enough to give statistically significant results, that should be an a priori reason to accept the results.

peteypao 12y ago
"But still, outright dismissal based on small sample size is not reasonable." The burden of proof, in my mind, is the one making the claim.
- swatow 12y ago
  As I said, statistical significance is a prima facie argument for the claim. If someone wants to dispute it, they need to show why the alleged statistical significance does not support the claim. The statistical significance trumps the sample size, unless someone can show otherwise.

shittyanalogy 12y ago

All of this, all of it, is excruciatingly stupid. There are not enough people for a reasonable conclusion, the arguing is amongst a bunch of people who don't understand statistics or that this is an extremely hard subject to study and one in which the results are very person specific. We don't need more poorly done, argumentative, non tech related research on a news site for computer programmers. Can we please, please stop with the diets that have only been tried on mice and the exercise warnings. None of this in informative or even interesting, it's just trash tabloids masquerading as research that's pertinent to anyone's life.