Forums >Health and Nutrition>WSJ: Landmark running study defunded
http://www.wsj.com/articles/a-study-that-can-help-in-the-long-run-1423784002?mod=WSJ_GoogleNews
NIH defunds an important longitudinal study about runners.
It's a shame this study was defunded. However, I think the writer's notion that industry should fund the study has it's own perils.
Hip Redux
Next up - a study from the National Dairy Council on why milk is good for you... oh wait, they've already done that.
And are those questions of "intense importance"? Somehow I doubt data on "longevity conferred per mile" would be in anyway meaningful.
Damn.
Next up - a study from the National Dairy Council on why milk is good for you... oh wait, they've already done that. And are those questions of "intense importance"? Somehow I doubt data on "longevity conferred per mile" would be in anyway meaningful.
Ordinarily, I would concur with you.
However, given the spate of recent high profile "research" suggesting that higher mileage is bad for you, I think it important to have balanced research being done (especially in the age of "outcomes-based" healthcare).
Kalsarikännit
This demise would come just when the study was poised to answer questions of intense interest to runners:
Not interested, don't care. It doesn't matter if they conclude that running is good or bad, will make my hair shinier, my breath fresher, or that despite all those miles, I will in fact, eventually die. I run because I like running. I really don't give a damn what any study says. It's not relevant to why I run.
I want to do it because I want to do it. -Amelia Earhart
I don't know that I agree with the premise that it would benefit the running industry to fund something like this. Would a research paper touting the already well accepted benefits of exercise really help the running industry more than say some cool ads? And to Oski's point, wouldn't their funding it actually reduce it's credibility if they stood to benefit from the conclusions.
Its a bummer the study is losing its funding and it would be cool to see the research for research's sake, but I don't agree with throwing it on the running industry.
Runners run
Feeling the growl again
I think the data would be interesting, and it is true that the study is at a critical juncture where the value of the data will increase non-linearly each year the study is kept active.
That said, I have more than a passing familiarity with the grant environment and there is a lot of awfully good research that is losing funding. Last I heard the cancer center where I used to work had a lot of empty lab space because cancer researchers could not get the grants to afford the space. A lot has changed in the academic grant environment over the past 15 years.
"If you want to be a bad a$s, then do what a bad a$s does. There's your pep talk for today. Go Run." -- Slo_Hand
I am spaniel - Crusher of Treadmills
old woman w/hobby
This demise would come just when the study was poised to answer questions of intense interest to runners: Not interested, don't care. It doesn't matter if they conclude that running is good or bad, will make my hair shinier, my breath fresher, or that despite all those miles, I will in fact, eventually die. I run because I like running. I really don't give a damn what any study says. It's not relevant to why I run.
This^
steph
You might just say, I want to do it because I want to do it. (Winky face.) And, yeah.
Dave
With respect to all, I don't think the importance of funding this type of research has to do primarily with it's effect (or lack thereof) over whether we as individuals choose to run or not. (I'm with you all--I'm going to run long, regardless. )
I'm more interested in how data like these impact the policy decisions of those that set insurance rates, reimbursements, and quality measures. To wit: if some future policy wonk decides one day to include long distance training as a behavior on which to base insurance rates/bonuses on, I'd rather there were some good data published on which to base their assessment. (That's not quite so far fetched as it seems, as my insurance company gave monetary bonuses for activities like completing a marathon.)
Right now, O'Keefe and the "long distance training confers no benefit" crowd dominate the news with their flawed studies. It's nice to have good data to counter such things because policy makers like numbers, and some are easily misled in the wrong direction at times.
Good Bad & The Monkey
Many of these studies are high profile because they are controversial band because news agencies love to publish stories that appeal to couch potatoes who can use them to look down their noses at the fit. Most of the studies have substantial methodological flaws, and make no scientific impact.
This is all totally different than the NIH budget (and other science agencies' budgets) getting eviscerated over the past 10+ years by a congress that is increasingly hostile to science, favoring instead ideology. The study in the WSJ article is once victim of this. There are many many victims of a diminished budget out there for science. All that is left is industry. And it is possible to do good, objective research with industry funding, just as it is possible to do bad, biased research with public funding.
I'm running somewhere tomorrow. It's going to be beautiful. I can't wait.
Poor baby
I would agree with the last half of the last sentence, not so sure about the first half of that sentence.
(The Koch brothers funding studies disputing human caused climate change, etc.) The anti science mood here in the US (reflected quite dramatically in the US house of representatives) is one of the many things that worry me.
I said, "And it is possible to do good, objective research with industry funding".
Just because it is possible does not mean all industry-funded research is good or objective.
But with the right controls in place, it is possible. And the controls are well-established.
Yes.
The anti science mood here in the US (reflected quite dramatically in the US house of representatives) is one of the many things that worry me.
It doesn't matter if they conclude that running will make my hair shinier, my breath fresher.
It probably would be really awesome for you if running did do those things, though.