Hip Redux
Probably the most convoluted article on running ever
Running is the same as walking except it isn't. Alrighty then.
running is bad for you
Probably the most convoluted article on running ever Running is the same as walking except it isn't. Alrighty then.
this has me skeptical from the beginning: " herpetologist-turned-statistician" **think**
Oh here's a gem:
With that in mind, I asked Williams—a runner himself—if he'd recommend the more vigorous activity. He declined to answer. "I'm not really an exercise advocate," he said. "I don't really care if people exercise or not. But I do care about good science."
Don't call me Buttercup!
I'm with Williams. I'm not an exercise advocate, either. I just like to run. =)
Slow and steady wins the.... wait a second! I've been lied to!
Research on frogs I'm sure is just like research on running.
What is convoluted about it? The author asserts that all exercise provides equivalent health benefits when you factor in the total amount of energy expended during the exercise. So if your energy expenditure is "n" while walking and "n x 2" while running, you'll get the same health benefits from walking as you do from running if you walk for twice as long.
Short term goal: 17:59 5K
Mid term goal: 2:54:59 marathon
Long term goal: To say I've been a runner half my life. (I started running at age 45).
I'm not tracking with the outrage here. The whole point was that there is conflicting information about running versus walking and I think the author does a good job of walking us through it.
And analyzing a running data set is pretty much like analyzing a frog data set. It's quite common for a scientist to develop data analysis skills in one area and then become a statistician or apply those skills to an entirely different area. Maybe he should call himself a statistical biologist or biological statistician to make it sound better. I have some engineering colleagues who have published sports science papers in respected journals. Completely outside their original area, but in getting a PhD you've learned data analysis skills that are pretty broadly applicable.
And saying he's not an advocate of exercise but just a scientist analyzing data is exactly what you want a scientist to say.
I get what he's saying. He basically concluded that "exercise is good for you" and you need to do more of the easy stuff to equal the hard stuff. Well, uh, duh?
But if we're going to get into the details of the studies - it's also confusing because the article talks about different data points - cardiovascular/heart vs. weight in terms of "health". They are different things but related to fitness. Fundamentally, I disagree with the statement of "Losing weight is not the same thing as getting fit". So while you may gain weight if you walk and not run (the first study), your health would be effected equally by both if you actually did enough walking to equal running (second study, but since people don't, see the results of first study). Uh huh.
So - the "corrected" data between walkers and runners (1:2 ratio) is useless because in practice, if walkers need to walk for twice as long to get the same results as runners, then are they really doing that? Or are they walking for the time they have available, which is likely the same amount of time runners have? Statistics is one thing, reality another. And the first study already proved that habitual walkers gained more weight...so.... Running is just like walking, so long as you do twice as much walking, and ignore the metabolic gains of running. Oy.
Additionally, no other factors were included in the study - "for example, the runners could have been eating less overall, or they could have been more inclined to exaggerate their workouts."
His data set is skewed, since they were people who actually signed up for the study, not based on anything else - "middle-aged subscribers to exercise magazines". And the fact that he could use the same data to come to two different conclusions regarding "fitness" only proves that you can prove anything if you know statistics.
So poorly designed study to come up with "people should exercise more". Good deal.
MTA - I was thinking about this in the shower (don't ask, who knows why lol). It's like saying (a extreme analogy) - "Grilled chicken and big macs are the same, so long as you only eat half the big mac. And if we ignore your cholesterol levels." lol