Strenuous exercise is bad for you...or maybe not actually.

ultraman1

think there may of been some bluff about this a few weeks ago
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-32160231#?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

robinph

He is correct that people should have ignored his headline statement and looked at the actual statistics and then they would have instantly spotted that it was all nonsense. But why was he deliberately trying to mislead people and the media then?

Don't suppose he could get grant funding based on how many media outlets publish links to his papers? Or could that just be me making stuff up.

plodder

I think he's covering his embarrassment by claiming that at least the data wasn't faked (which it wasn't). But, the conclusions were still wrong if he was saying that strenuous exercise is bad for you. Just shows not all research is of the same quality.

average_runner

ultraman1 wrote: »

think there may of been some bluff about this a few weeks ago
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-32160231#?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

Its in the daily mail also, but oddly, they had article saying the opposite on sat:rolleyes:

robinph

plodder wrote: »

I think he's covering his embarrassment by claiming that at least the data wasn't faked (which it wasn't). But, the conclusions were still wrong if he was saying that strenuous exercise is bad for you. Just shows not all research is of the same quality.

+1

He must have been forced into making this retraction of his headline statement from the report. It really didn't take much to see it was a load of rubbish, but for him to claim surprise that a report where the evidence was "two people died of unknown reasons" and the conclusion of the equivalent correlation of "leaving the house on a Tuesday is 173% more dangerous than a Wednesday" and that the media then went along with what he claimed in that headline is ridiculous. He knew it was rubbish, but deliberately tried to fool people.

vanderlyle

It shouldn't have been misunderstood. If you normally read papers you could say 'Ah! This is not good statistically - this is too thin.'

i.e. I lied to you but you're the fool for believing it. Ar$ehole.