Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Really mfp, really?
Replies
-
Rosemary7391 wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »Rosemary7391 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »PikaJoyJoy wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »I don't see anything wrong with the blog. It's posed as a question and clearly states that all data is preliminary and interpretations are just theories. What is wrong with sharing data when it's presented exactly for what it is.
It's deceptive, people tend to read the headlines, forget that it's a question and don't understand the difference between weak evidence and strong support. They think anything published is somehow "proof". This is a deliberate attempt to mislead people, and not only that, it makes people distrustful of real scientific evidence because they didn't realize that what they were getting fed was either very specific or contradicted by most evidence.
Whoa! So no one should publish anything that is 100% true unless they do so at a kindergarten level because people tend to have poor reading skills? Sorry, I am not on board with that and never will be.
That's exactly the point. The garbage they're publishing isn't "100% true", or even close to it. Most of it is the kind of ridiculous weight loss woo you see in magazines on the newsstands.
I'm referring only to the link in the OP as that's the only blog I've read. What in that article isn't true or is misleading?
As Anvil said right off the bat - "I won’t comment on 900 minutes of exercise per week without more context to frame it."
It is rare that a majority of people will look at an actual study. That's how the China Study got away with cherry-picking things from other studies, as well as "stating facts" that turned out not to actually be facts or/and could not be supported by the data the author provided.
In this specific case - the blog's linked study (the first study only because the 2nd linked study doesn't work) states those who participated did more than 3x the recommended PA guidelines (which is 150 minutes so they were doing 450+ minutes of exercise a week).
The study doesn't go into just how strenuous the activity/activities these individuals were doing. They also don't mention diet (which I think plays just as important a factor) nor do they mention if any or all of the individuals tested had genetic factors/predisposition that increased the chances of coronary artery risk to begin with.
The article purposefully ignores mentioning that the study results that showed an increase of risk lay with mostly white participants and that there was not any indication that black participants showed increase risk. And not sure about the "27%" number the article gave...I'm probably having a brain fart as to how they got that.
The article mentions stress - but I think it's a bit far reaching to blame stress levels solely on exercise. The quote in there says that it would take decades of continued stress to develop - but how can they be sure of just how much of that was due to exercise? There are too many factors and I found it a bit iffy that the author of the MFP article tried to slip that in as back up for their headline.
And so on....
ETA: Before someone comes back with "it's the reader's responsibility..." - to a point I agree. But on the other hand there is that little thing called "writer's responsibility" that I think too many writers/journalists have forgotten more and more as they push their agendas.
Your beef seems to be a lot of your own interpretation along with thinking it not a comprehensive analysis of the study. I'd agree with the last, but since they linked the study anyone that wanted to see it can. The rest seems to be you projecting (purposely ignores, don't mention .... which I think, mention's stress ... I think ...)
But is anything in the article untrue?
Actually, they can't. I haven't got $35.95 to buy the article and it isn't available through my institutional access. And they've linked it in such a way that the link is highly likely to break in forseeable future, with absolutely no further information that might help a reader in a couple of years from now find it.
As I don't have access to the full article I can't check this out, but the MFP blog post mentions "27% higher risk of developing coronary heart disease". In the abstract they talk about a 27% increase in "coronary artery calcification", which is apparently distinct enough from "coronary heart disease" that they define acronyms for both terms. Is the figure the same for both? Does anyone know what the distinction is?
I'm not seeing the charge for the article you mention. CAC is a risk factor in CVD but is not CVD. CAC occurs when there is a calcification (hardening) of the coronary artery and can lead to CVD but isn't CVD itself.
Thanks for that.
The charge is on the first link from the article. I'm guessing you have access through a workplace somehow? I'm not suprised my university isn't subscribed, we don't do medicine.
No, I just accessed it through home, but I accessed it through the link given in Gale's post above, he might have had a better link.0 -
Wheelhouse15 wrote: »So I decided to go a little deeper on this research and found that the conclusions of the study definitely do not jibe with what the tone of the article indicate...
3 -
Wheelhouse15 wrote: »So I decided to go a little deeper on this research and found that the conclusions of the study definitely do not jibe with what the tone of the article indicate...
IKR!1 -
Wheelhouse15 wrote: »Rosemary7391 wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »Rosemary7391 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »PikaJoyJoy wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »I don't see anything wrong with the blog. It's posed as a question and clearly states that all data is preliminary and interpretations are just theories. What is wrong with sharing data when it's presented exactly for what it is.
It's deceptive, people tend to read the headlines, forget that it's a question and don't understand the difference between weak evidence and strong support. They think anything published is somehow "proof". This is a deliberate attempt to mislead people, and not only that, it makes people distrustful of real scientific evidence because they didn't realize that what they were getting fed was either very specific or contradicted by most evidence.
Whoa! So no one should publish anything that is 100% true unless they do so at a kindergarten level because people tend to have poor reading skills? Sorry, I am not on board with that and never will be.
That's exactly the point. The garbage they're publishing isn't "100% true", or even close to it. Most of it is the kind of ridiculous weight loss woo you see in magazines on the newsstands.
I'm referring only to the link in the OP as that's the only blog I've read. What in that article isn't true or is misleading?
As Anvil said right off the bat - "I won’t comment on 900 minutes of exercise per week without more context to frame it."
It is rare that a majority of people will look at an actual study. That's how the China Study got away with cherry-picking things from other studies, as well as "stating facts" that turned out not to actually be facts or/and could not be supported by the data the author provided.
In this specific case - the blog's linked study (the first study only because the 2nd linked study doesn't work) states those who participated did more than 3x the recommended PA guidelines (which is 150 minutes so they were doing 450+ minutes of exercise a week).
The study doesn't go into just how strenuous the activity/activities these individuals were doing. They also don't mention diet (which I think plays just as important a factor) nor do they mention if any or all of the individuals tested had genetic factors/predisposition that increased the chances of coronary artery risk to begin with.
The article purposefully ignores mentioning that the study results that showed an increase of risk lay with mostly white participants and that there was not any indication that black participants showed increase risk. And not sure about the "27%" number the article gave...I'm probably having a brain fart as to how they got that.
The article mentions stress - but I think it's a bit far reaching to blame stress levels solely on exercise. The quote in there says that it would take decades of continued stress to develop - but how can they be sure of just how much of that was due to exercise? There are too many factors and I found it a bit iffy that the author of the MFP article tried to slip that in as back up for their headline.
And so on....
ETA: Before someone comes back with "it's the reader's responsibility..." - to a point I agree. But on the other hand there is that little thing called "writer's responsibility" that I think too many writers/journalists have forgotten more and more as they push their agendas.
Your beef seems to be a lot of your own interpretation along with thinking it not a comprehensive analysis of the study. I'd agree with the last, but since they linked the study anyone that wanted to see it can. The rest seems to be you projecting (purposely ignores, don't mention .... which I think, mention's stress ... I think ...)
But is anything in the article untrue?
Actually, they can't. I haven't got $35.95 to buy the article and it isn't available through my institutional access. And they've linked it in such a way that the link is highly likely to break in forseeable future, with absolutely no further information that might help a reader in a couple of years from now find it.
As I don't have access to the full article I can't check this out, but the MFP blog post mentions "27% higher risk of developing coronary heart disease". In the abstract they talk about a 27% increase in "coronary artery calcification", which is apparently distinct enough from "coronary heart disease" that they define acronyms for both terms. Is the figure the same for both? Does anyone know what the distinction is?
I'm not seeing the charge for the article you mention. CAC is a risk factor in CVD but is not CVD. CAC occurs when there is a calcification (hardening) of the coronary artery and can lead to CVD but isn't CVD itself.
Thanks for that.
The charge is on the first link from the article. I'm guessing you have access through a workplace somehow? I'm not suprised my university isn't subscribed, we don't do medicine.
No, I just accessed it through home, but I accessed it through the link given in Gale's post above, he might have had a better link.
I think that's a different article.0 -
Rosemary7391 wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »Rosemary7391 wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »Rosemary7391 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »PikaJoyJoy wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »I don't see anything wrong with the blog. It's posed as a question and clearly states that all data is preliminary and interpretations are just theories. What is wrong with sharing data when it's presented exactly for what it is.
It's deceptive, people tend to read the headlines, forget that it's a question and don't understand the difference between weak evidence and strong support. They think anything published is somehow "proof". This is a deliberate attempt to mislead people, and not only that, it makes people distrustful of real scientific evidence because they didn't realize that what they were getting fed was either very specific or contradicted by most evidence.
Whoa! So no one should publish anything that is 100% true unless they do so at a kindergarten level because people tend to have poor reading skills? Sorry, I am not on board with that and never will be.
That's exactly the point. The garbage they're publishing isn't "100% true", or even close to it. Most of it is the kind of ridiculous weight loss woo you see in magazines on the newsstands.
I'm referring only to the link in the OP as that's the only blog I've read. What in that article isn't true or is misleading?
As Anvil said right off the bat - "I won’t comment on 900 minutes of exercise per week without more context to frame it."
It is rare that a majority of people will look at an actual study. That's how the China Study got away with cherry-picking things from other studies, as well as "stating facts" that turned out not to actually be facts or/and could not be supported by the data the author provided.
In this specific case - the blog's linked study (the first study only because the 2nd linked study doesn't work) states those who participated did more than 3x the recommended PA guidelines (which is 150 minutes so they were doing 450+ minutes of exercise a week).
The study doesn't go into just how strenuous the activity/activities these individuals were doing. They also don't mention diet (which I think plays just as important a factor) nor do they mention if any or all of the individuals tested had genetic factors/predisposition that increased the chances of coronary artery risk to begin with.
The article purposefully ignores mentioning that the study results that showed an increase of risk lay with mostly white participants and that there was not any indication that black participants showed increase risk. And not sure about the "27%" number the article gave...I'm probably having a brain fart as to how they got that.
The article mentions stress - but I think it's a bit far reaching to blame stress levels solely on exercise. The quote in there says that it would take decades of continued stress to develop - but how can they be sure of just how much of that was due to exercise? There are too many factors and I found it a bit iffy that the author of the MFP article tried to slip that in as back up for their headline.
And so on....
ETA: Before someone comes back with "it's the reader's responsibility..." - to a point I agree. But on the other hand there is that little thing called "writer's responsibility" that I think too many writers/journalists have forgotten more and more as they push their agendas.
Your beef seems to be a lot of your own interpretation along with thinking it not a comprehensive analysis of the study. I'd agree with the last, but since they linked the study anyone that wanted to see it can. The rest seems to be you projecting (purposely ignores, don't mention .... which I think, mention's stress ... I think ...)
But is anything in the article untrue?
Actually, they can't. I haven't got $35.95 to buy the article and it isn't available through my institutional access. And they've linked it in such a way that the link is highly likely to break in forseeable future, with absolutely no further information that might help a reader in a couple of years from now find it.
As I don't have access to the full article I can't check this out, but the MFP blog post mentions "27% higher risk of developing coronary heart disease". In the abstract they talk about a 27% increase in "coronary artery calcification", which is apparently distinct enough from "coronary heart disease" that they define acronyms for both terms. Is the figure the same for both? Does anyone know what the distinction is?
I'm not seeing the charge for the article you mention. CAC is a risk factor in CVD but is not CVD. CAC occurs when there is a calcification (hardening) of the coronary artery and can lead to CVD but isn't CVD itself.
Thanks for that.
The charge is on the first link from the article. I'm guessing you have access through a workplace somehow? I'm not suprised my university isn't subscribed, we don't do medicine.
No, I just accessed it through home, but I accessed it through the link given in Gale's post above, he might have had a better link.
I think that's a different article.
It looks like the research paper is the same one even if the source is different. It was taken from the long running CARDIA study. Oh, and shockingly the final conclusion was the following:In summary, these results showed that white individuals who participated in 3 times the recommended guidelines for PA over 25 years had higher odds of developing coronary subclinical atherosclerosis by middle age. Collectively, these data suggest that the biological mechanisms associated with increased CAC and high levels of PA deserve further evaluation. Likewise, the impact of modestly higher levels of CAC in aging, highly active individuals on CV outcomes also deserves further attention.
Hardly Earth shattering but exactly what should be concluded.
Looking at this paired with the other study I sited referring to the reduction of incidents of CVD developing from those with CAC who exercise at high frequency it's very likely that those who do not exercise frequently are still at higher over all risk of developing CVD form CAC even though their risk of developing CAC itself is slightly lower.
Hmm, that would actually be the opposite of what the headline would suggest....4 -
Wheelhouse15 wrote: »Rosemary7391 wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »Rosemary7391 wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »Rosemary7391 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »PikaJoyJoy wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »I don't see anything wrong with the blog. It's posed as a question and clearly states that all data is preliminary and interpretations are just theories. What is wrong with sharing data when it's presented exactly for what it is.
It's deceptive, people tend to read the headlines, forget that it's a question and don't understand the difference between weak evidence and strong support. They think anything published is somehow "proof". This is a deliberate attempt to mislead people, and not only that, it makes people distrustful of real scientific evidence because they didn't realize that what they were getting fed was either very specific or contradicted by most evidence.
Whoa! So no one should publish anything that is 100% true unless they do so at a kindergarten level because people tend to have poor reading skills? Sorry, I am not on board with that and never will be.
That's exactly the point. The garbage they're publishing isn't "100% true", or even close to it. Most of it is the kind of ridiculous weight loss woo you see in magazines on the newsstands.
I'm referring only to the link in the OP as that's the only blog I've read. What in that article isn't true or is misleading?
As Anvil said right off the bat - "I won’t comment on 900 minutes of exercise per week without more context to frame it."
It is rare that a majority of people will look at an actual study. That's how the China Study got away with cherry-picking things from other studies, as well as "stating facts" that turned out not to actually be facts or/and could not be supported by the data the author provided.
In this specific case - the blog's linked study (the first study only because the 2nd linked study doesn't work) states those who participated did more than 3x the recommended PA guidelines (which is 150 minutes so they were doing 450+ minutes of exercise a week).
The study doesn't go into just how strenuous the activity/activities these individuals were doing. They also don't mention diet (which I think plays just as important a factor) nor do they mention if any or all of the individuals tested had genetic factors/predisposition that increased the chances of coronary artery risk to begin with.
The article purposefully ignores mentioning that the study results that showed an increase of risk lay with mostly white participants and that there was not any indication that black participants showed increase risk. And not sure about the "27%" number the article gave...I'm probably having a brain fart as to how they got that.
The article mentions stress - but I think it's a bit far reaching to blame stress levels solely on exercise. The quote in there says that it would take decades of continued stress to develop - but how can they be sure of just how much of that was due to exercise? There are too many factors and I found it a bit iffy that the author of the MFP article tried to slip that in as back up for their headline.
And so on....
ETA: Before someone comes back with "it's the reader's responsibility..." - to a point I agree. But on the other hand there is that little thing called "writer's responsibility" that I think too many writers/journalists have forgotten more and more as they push their agendas.
Your beef seems to be a lot of your own interpretation along with thinking it not a comprehensive analysis of the study. I'd agree with the last, but since they linked the study anyone that wanted to see it can. The rest seems to be you projecting (purposely ignores, don't mention .... which I think, mention's stress ... I think ...)
But is anything in the article untrue?
Actually, they can't. I haven't got $35.95 to buy the article and it isn't available through my institutional access. And they've linked it in such a way that the link is highly likely to break in forseeable future, with absolutely no further information that might help a reader in a couple of years from now find it.
As I don't have access to the full article I can't check this out, but the MFP blog post mentions "27% higher risk of developing coronary heart disease". In the abstract they talk about a 27% increase in "coronary artery calcification", which is apparently distinct enough from "coronary heart disease" that they define acronyms for both terms. Is the figure the same for both? Does anyone know what the distinction is?
I'm not seeing the charge for the article you mention. CAC is a risk factor in CVD but is not CVD. CAC occurs when there is a calcification (hardening) of the coronary artery and can lead to CVD but isn't CVD itself.
Thanks for that.
The charge is on the first link from the article. I'm guessing you have access through a workplace somehow? I'm not suprised my university isn't subscribed, we don't do medicine.
No, I just accessed it through home, but I accessed it through the link given in Gale's post above, he might have had a better link.
I think that's a different article.
It looks like the research paper is the same one even if the source is different. It was taken from the long running CARDIA study. Oh, and shockingly the final conclusion was the following:In summary, these results showed that white individuals who participated in 3 times the recommended guidelines for PA over 25 years had higher odds of developing coronary subclinical atherosclerosis by middle age. Collectively, these data suggest that the biological mechanisms associated with increased CAC and high levels of PA deserve further evaluation. Likewise, the impact of modestly higher levels of CAC in aging, highly active individuals on CV outcomes also deserves further attention.
Hardly Earth shattering but exactly what should be concluded.
Looking at this paired with the other study I sited referring to the reduction of incidents of CVD developing from those with CAC who exercise at high frequency it's very likely that those who do not exercise frequently are still at higher over all risk of developing CVD form CAC even though their risk of developing CAC itself is slightly lower.
Hmm, that would actually be the opposite of what the headline would suggest....
I still can't find it... nevermind. I'm probably being blind!
I'm not suprised at all by your last line. I mean, really, if someone snapped up a sentence of a private conversation in a different language, translated it and broadcast it far and wide, would we really be suprised when people got the wrong end of the stick about the conversation? Not saying research should be private; but the effect of poor science journalism is pretty similar. They pick up a snippet of the scientific discourse and attempt to translate it; no wonder so many misunderstandings abound.3 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »PikaJoyJoy wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »I don't see anything wrong with the blog. It's posed as a question and clearly states that all data is preliminary and interpretations are just theories. What is wrong with sharing data when it's presented exactly for what it is.
It's deceptive, people tend to read the headlines, forget that it's a question and don't understand the difference between weak evidence and strong support. They think anything published is somehow "proof". This is a deliberate attempt to mislead people, and not only that, it makes people distrustful of real scientific evidence because they didn't realize that what they were getting fed was either very specific or contradicted by most evidence.
Whoa! So no one should publish anything that is 100% true unless they do so at a kindergarten level because people tend to have poor reading skills? Sorry, I am not on board with that and never will be.
That's exactly the point. The garbage they're publishing isn't "100% true", or even close to it. Most of it is the kind of ridiculous weight loss woo you see in magazines on the newsstands.
I'm referring only to the link in the OP as that's the only blog I've read. What in that article isn't true or is misleading?
As Anvil said right off the bat - "I won’t comment on 900 minutes of exercise per week without more context to frame it."
It is rare that a majority of people will look at an actual study. That's how the China Study got away with cherry-picking things from other studies, as well as "stating facts" that turned out not to actually be facts or/and could not be supported by the data the author provided.
In this specific case - the blog's linked study (the first study only because the 2nd linked study doesn't work) states those who participated did more than 3x the recommended PA guidelines (which is 150 minutes so they were doing 450+ minutes of exercise a week).
The study doesn't go into just how strenuous the activity/activities these individuals were doing. They also don't mention diet (which I think plays just as important a factor) nor do they mention if any or all of the individuals tested had genetic factors/predisposition that increased the chances of coronary artery risk to begin with.
The article purposefully ignores mentioning that the study results that showed an increase of risk lay with mostly white participants and that there was not any indication that black participants showed increase risk. And not sure about the "27%" number the article gave...I'm probably having a brain fart as to how they got that.
The article mentions stress - but I think it's a bit far reaching to blame stress levels solely on exercise. The quote in there says that it would take decades of continued stress to develop - but how can they be sure of just how much of that was due to exercise? There are too many factors and I found it a bit iffy that the author of the MFP article tried to slip that in as back up for their headline.
And so on....
ETA: Before someone comes back with "it's the reader's responsibility..." - to a point I agree. But on the other hand there is that little thing called "writer's responsibility" that I think too many writers/journalists have forgotten more and more as they push their agendas.
Your beef seems to be a lot of your own interpretation along with thinking it not a comprehensive analysis of the study. I'd agree with the last, but since they linked the study anyone that wanted to see it can. The rest seems to be you projecting (purposely ignores, don't mention .... which I think, mention's stress ... I think ...)
But is anything in the article untrue?
Something can be technically true, but still irresponsibly misleading. That is I think in large part what is wrong with the diet and fitness industry, and honestly with science reporting in general. They find a tiny little factoid in a study, and construct a click-bait article round it, that while technically not being "untrue" does a great disservice to the reader.
I would agree with that. I just don't see it in this article. Even the headline doesn't suggest it's proven fact.
When writing an article about interesting but preliminary research what else could be done to make the masses understand that it is interesting but preliminary?2 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »PikaJoyJoy wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »I don't see anything wrong with the blog. It's posed as a question and clearly states that all data is preliminary and interpretations are just theories. What is wrong with sharing data when it's presented exactly for what it is.
It's deceptive, people tend to read the headlines, forget that it's a question and don't understand the difference between weak evidence and strong support. They think anything published is somehow "proof". This is a deliberate attempt to mislead people, and not only that, it makes people distrustful of real scientific evidence because they didn't realize that what they were getting fed was either very specific or contradicted by most evidence.
Whoa! So no one should publish anything that is 100% true unless they do so at a kindergarten level because people tend to have poor reading skills? Sorry, I am not on board with that and never will be.
That's exactly the point. The garbage they're publishing isn't "100% true", or even close to it. Most of it is the kind of ridiculous weight loss woo you see in magazines on the newsstands.
I'm referring only to the link in the OP as that's the only blog I've read. What in that article isn't true or is misleading?
As Anvil said right off the bat - "I won’t comment on 900 minutes of exercise per week without more context to frame it."
It is rare that a majority of people will look at an actual study. That's how the China Study got away with cherry-picking things from other studies, as well as "stating facts" that turned out not to actually be facts or/and could not be supported by the data the author provided.
In this specific case - the blog's linked study (the first study only because the 2nd linked study doesn't work) states those who participated did more than 3x the recommended PA guidelines (which is 150 minutes so they were doing 450+ minutes of exercise a week).
The study doesn't go into just how strenuous the activity/activities these individuals were doing. They also don't mention diet (which I think plays just as important a factor) nor do they mention if any or all of the individuals tested had genetic factors/predisposition that increased the chances of coronary artery risk to begin with.
The article purposefully ignores mentioning that the study results that showed an increase of risk lay with mostly white participants and that there was not any indication that black participants showed increase risk. And not sure about the "27%" number the article gave...I'm probably having a brain fart as to how they got that.
The article mentions stress - but I think it's a bit far reaching to blame stress levels solely on exercise. The quote in there says that it would take decades of continued stress to develop - but how can they be sure of just how much of that was due to exercise? There are too many factors and I found it a bit iffy that the author of the MFP article tried to slip that in as back up for their headline.
And so on....
ETA: Before someone comes back with "it's the reader's responsibility..." - to a point I agree. But on the other hand there is that little thing called "writer's responsibility" that I think too many writers/journalists have forgotten more and more as they push their agendas.
Your beef seems to be a lot of your own interpretation along with thinking it not a comprehensive analysis of the study. I'd agree with the last, but since they linked the study anyone that wanted to see it can. The rest seems to be you projecting (purposely ignores, don't mention .... which I think, mention's stress ... I think ...)
But is anything in the article untrue?
Something can be technically true, but still irresponsibly misleading. That is I think in large part what is wrong with the diet and fitness industry, and honestly with science reporting in general. They find a tiny little factoid in a study, and construct a click-bait article round it, that while technically not being "untrue" does a great disservice to the reader.
I would agree with that. I just don't see it in this article. Even the headline doesn't suggest it's proven fact.
When writing an article about interesting but preliminary research what else could be done to make the masses understand that it is interesting but preliminary?
Well, I guess the easiest way would be to phrase it the way it is often phrased in more conservative journals and that's something along the line of, "New research shows a possible link to heart disease and excessive exercise". Not as flashy but does set up the reader to understand that what they are reading is just a first step in the process.
There is plenty of evidence in psychological research that show clearly that headlines create filters and influence both understanding and recall of the details of the article.1 -
Wheelhouse15 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »PikaJoyJoy wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »I don't see anything wrong with the blog. It's posed as a question and clearly states that all data is preliminary and interpretations are just theories. What is wrong with sharing data when it's presented exactly for what it is.
It's deceptive, people tend to read the headlines, forget that it's a question and don't understand the difference between weak evidence and strong support. They think anything published is somehow "proof". This is a deliberate attempt to mislead people, and not only that, it makes people distrustful of real scientific evidence because they didn't realize that what they were getting fed was either very specific or contradicted by most evidence.
Whoa! So no one should publish anything that is 100% true unless they do so at a kindergarten level because people tend to have poor reading skills? Sorry, I am not on board with that and never will be.
That's exactly the point. The garbage they're publishing isn't "100% true", or even close to it. Most of it is the kind of ridiculous weight loss woo you see in magazines on the newsstands.
I'm referring only to the link in the OP as that's the only blog I've read. What in that article isn't true or is misleading?
As Anvil said right off the bat - "I won’t comment on 900 minutes of exercise per week without more context to frame it."
It is rare that a majority of people will look at an actual study. That's how the China Study got away with cherry-picking things from other studies, as well as "stating facts" that turned out not to actually be facts or/and could not be supported by the data the author provided.
In this specific case - the blog's linked study (the first study only because the 2nd linked study doesn't work) states those who participated did more than 3x the recommended PA guidelines (which is 150 minutes so they were doing 450+ minutes of exercise a week).
The study doesn't go into just how strenuous the activity/activities these individuals were doing. They also don't mention diet (which I think plays just as important a factor) nor do they mention if any or all of the individuals tested had genetic factors/predisposition that increased the chances of coronary artery risk to begin with.
The article purposefully ignores mentioning that the study results that showed an increase of risk lay with mostly white participants and that there was not any indication that black participants showed increase risk. And not sure about the "27%" number the article gave...I'm probably having a brain fart as to how they got that.
The article mentions stress - but I think it's a bit far reaching to blame stress levels solely on exercise. The quote in there says that it would take decades of continued stress to develop - but how can they be sure of just how much of that was due to exercise? There are too many factors and I found it a bit iffy that the author of the MFP article tried to slip that in as back up for their headline.
And so on....
ETA: Before someone comes back with "it's the reader's responsibility..." - to a point I agree. But on the other hand there is that little thing called "writer's responsibility" that I think too many writers/journalists have forgotten more and more as they push their agendas.
Your beef seems to be a lot of your own interpretation along with thinking it not a comprehensive analysis of the study. I'd agree with the last, but since they linked the study anyone that wanted to see it can. The rest seems to be you projecting (purposely ignores, don't mention .... which I think, mention's stress ... I think ...)
But is anything in the article untrue?
Something can be technically true, but still irresponsibly misleading. That is I think in large part what is wrong with the diet and fitness industry, and honestly with science reporting in general. They find a tiny little factoid in a study, and construct a click-bait article round it, that while technically not being "untrue" does a great disservice to the reader.
I would agree with that. I just don't see it in this article. Even the headline doesn't suggest it's proven fact.
When writing an article about interesting but preliminary research what else could be done to make the masses understand that it is interesting but preliminary?
Well, I guess the easiest way would be to phrase it the way it is often phrased in more conservative journals and that's something along the line of, "New research shows a possible link to heart disease and excessive exercise". Not as flashy but does set up the reader to understand that what they are reading is just a first step in the process.
There is plenty of evidence in psychological research that show clearly that headlines create filters and influence both understanding and recall of the details of the article.
I'm skeptical that anyone that didn't understand wording like "The science is still early but ", "Dr. Bufalino suspects it might be", "It’s also possible that ", "There is no direct cause and effect.", or "One explanation would be" would suddenly be enlightened by that. But perhaps they would.4 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »PikaJoyJoy wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »I don't see anything wrong with the blog. It's posed as a question and clearly states that all data is preliminary and interpretations are just theories. What is wrong with sharing data when it's presented exactly for what it is.
It's deceptive, people tend to read the headlines, forget that it's a question and don't understand the difference between weak evidence and strong support. They think anything published is somehow "proof". This is a deliberate attempt to mislead people, and not only that, it makes people distrustful of real scientific evidence because they didn't realize that what they were getting fed was either very specific or contradicted by most evidence.
Whoa! So no one should publish anything that is 100% true unless they do so at a kindergarten level because people tend to have poor reading skills? Sorry, I am not on board with that and never will be.
That's exactly the point. The garbage they're publishing isn't "100% true", or even close to it. Most of it is the kind of ridiculous weight loss woo you see in magazines on the newsstands.
I'm referring only to the link in the OP as that's the only blog I've read. What in that article isn't true or is misleading?
As Anvil said right off the bat - "I won’t comment on 900 minutes of exercise per week without more context to frame it."
It is rare that a majority of people will look at an actual study. That's how the China Study got away with cherry-picking things from other studies, as well as "stating facts" that turned out not to actually be facts or/and could not be supported by the data the author provided.
In this specific case - the blog's linked study (the first study only because the 2nd linked study doesn't work) states those who participated did more than 3x the recommended PA guidelines (which is 150 minutes so they were doing 450+ minutes of exercise a week).
The study doesn't go into just how strenuous the activity/activities these individuals were doing. They also don't mention diet (which I think plays just as important a factor) nor do they mention if any or all of the individuals tested had genetic factors/predisposition that increased the chances of coronary artery risk to begin with.
The article purposefully ignores mentioning that the study results that showed an increase of risk lay with mostly white participants and that there was not any indication that black participants showed increase risk. And not sure about the "27%" number the article gave...I'm probably having a brain fart as to how they got that.
The article mentions stress - but I think it's a bit far reaching to blame stress levels solely on exercise. The quote in there says that it would take decades of continued stress to develop - but how can they be sure of just how much of that was due to exercise? There are too many factors and I found it a bit iffy that the author of the MFP article tried to slip that in as back up for their headline.
And so on....
ETA: Before someone comes back with "it's the reader's responsibility..." - to a point I agree. But on the other hand there is that little thing called "writer's responsibility" that I think too many writers/journalists have forgotten more and more as they push their agendas.
Your beef seems to be a lot of your own interpretation along with thinking it not a comprehensive analysis of the study. I'd agree with the last, but since they linked the study anyone that wanted to see it can. The rest seems to be you projecting (purposely ignores, don't mention .... which I think, mention's stress ... I think ...)
But is anything in the article untrue?
Something can be technically true, but still irresponsibly misleading. That is I think in large part what is wrong with the diet and fitness industry, and honestly with science reporting in general. They find a tiny little factoid in a study, and construct a click-bait article round it, that while technically not being "untrue" does a great disservice to the reader.
I would agree with that. I just don't see it in this article. Even the headline doesn't suggest it's proven fact.
When writing an article about interesting but preliminary research what else could be done to make the masses understand that it is interesting but preliminary?
Well, I guess the easiest way would be to phrase it the way it is often phrased in more conservative journals and that's something along the line of, "New research shows a possible link to heart disease and excessive exercise". Not as flashy but does set up the reader to understand that what they are reading is just a first step in the process.
There is plenty of evidence in psychological research that show clearly that headlines create filters and influence both understanding and recall of the details of the article.
I'm skeptical that anyone that didn't understand wording like "The science is still early but ", "Dr. Bufalino suspects it might be", "It’s also possible that ", "There is no direct cause and effect.", or "One explanation would be" would suddenly be enlightened by that. But perhaps they would.
I agree, but headlining does make a difference and today there are a lot of inside-out headlining designed to catch your eye but often aren't really consistent with the content. This is always something I object to because it is a shady practise to drive eyeballs and clicks.2
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions