"Find the sentence in the article in which the journalist notes the other possible explanation for the finding; this explanation may or may not be interesting but it is probably the truth."
A minor point, I've always thought that "trekking up Everest" referred to hiking to and around base camp. If you are going to 29,000 feet, you are climbing Everest, two different things. Where do you live? For Americans, that 17,000 feet could be very different for someone living in NY as compared to CO. (For what it's worth)
Exercise science, like all the health sciences, are applied sciences. We look at how various interventions impact the body. The answer to almost any question relating to exercise is "it depends". It depends on the individual's health status, age, gender, experience, injury/health history, etc. It is rarely a blanket "yes" or "no", which is why one size fits all mandates during covid irked me. Sure, we know exercise is good for everyone. But, heavy squats are probably not good for the elderly, but perfectly suitable for a 20 year old. Maybe body weight squats or getting up and down from a seated position is a suitable adaptation for an elderly person...same movement, different intensity. More often than not however, I find we look for excuses not to exercise, not to put stress on the body, not to force it to adapt. We are highly capable, highly adaptable, beings meant to be put under stress to force adaptation. That is all exercise is...a stress to the body forcing it out of homeostasis to elicit a positive adaptation...increased strength, muscle mass, bone density, endurance, heart/lung capacity, etc.
My heavy squats have indeed been reduced to standing from a sitting position couple of sets daily. Maintaining my balance and not using hands is now the challenge. I'm 82, YMMV.
At least I don't need a lift chair and hope I never will if I can just slow the atrophy some. I certainly have great admiration for the 90+ lady who is still able to play in the bowling area.
Mainstream reporting of research is colossally stupid. This is not news.
I'm more curious about the mountain climbing while pregnant thing. What was the story? A female Sherpa stayed on the job all through her pregnancy and had a healthy delivery? If so, there would be very cool things to learn from that story without leaping to narrative flights of fancy.
Sherpa are better adapted to altitude than most. So are Tibetans, many of whom leave China through high passes - too high for Chinese troops to effectively guard. It is in part the hemoglobin delivering O2 to tissues more readily, but this article spells out so much more.
This is what I was interested in. I find the adaptation of localized populations like this fascinating- in this case, it immediately made me wonder how their differences in oxygenation impact fetal development, especially brain development.
I was wondering the same thing re: fetal development; trekking in Nepal is an interesting adventure in so many ways. Sherpa are amazingly well adapted to their environment, we struggled to get up an over Thorung La pass (maybe about 17,500 feet amsl) - the Sherpa lit cigarettes near the top. However, the life in the mountains is hard, and medical care is expensive and difficult - life expectancy is low. We are spoiled in the lowlands. I would never recommend that sort of elevation in pregnancy unless one is Sherpa or Tibetan. Even then it likely would be hard on the system. Take care.
Most of this boils down to the human need to simplify complex issues. It is hard for the human brain to comprehend the complexity of systems, the interdependence, the myriad connections. No one wants to hear - ‘Your longevity may depend on several factors, some out of your control’. No one will read that article. It is much easier for the brain to focus on one thing - and that’s why ‘eat radishes and live long’ is an article that will be read.
Everyone wants simple answers to complex problems. See : masks :)
Agreed, on top of that, the article that says 'regular, moderate exercise along with avoiding processed foods is likely to increase your lifespan' will be passed over for 'pregnant woman leaping over grand canyon while giving birth is a model for women everywhere'. People gravitate toward shinty things, for better or worse.
Saw a headline a couple of days ago. Climate change may cause kidney stones. Wondering how the author was gonna tie that together, I read the whole article. Finally the last paragraph splains it. Warm weather can cause dehydration, which can lead to kidney stones.
Everything is clickbait. But most people just scroll & read headlines, and that’s how they are getting their “knowledge”.
There is no world where you will run a randomized trial of the ecological imbalance of an entire planet and these relationships have already been observed in other epidemiological settings under non climate-change stressors
I want to comment on your main point, confounding variables. This is an absolutely basic tenet of science and I can’t understand why so called scientists aren’t more vocal about it. Perhaps because in many cases it makes their conclusions worthless? Another surprise is the extent to which scientists make a big deal out of correlation, which then becomes implied causation in the press. Correlation is meaningless. Even if you get a “statistically significant” result, how do you have any new knowledge? It doesn’t tell you why or how the effect occurred in some subjects and not others. Perhaps our current “scientific” methods actually tell us very little about what’s really going on.
Yeah, its a bit of a rub there. I wouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater though. Vinay is always harping on double blind randomized trials and really that is the solution to the problem. It can bridge the correlation/causation gap. At least this is my understanding. True science requires those two parts and they are skipping the second part in lots of "churnalism", as they say.
RCTs aren't any sort of panacea. They can be gamed through clever design and they lack extrinsic validity. And most doctors don't understand what p-values actually mean, which is a bigger problem. And most doctors don't bother to read any discussion of study limitations.
Also results need to be replicated. And apparently there is a replication crisis now. Probably because so many trying to confirm their hypothesis, rather than test it via falsification.
I think there is a rather simple, and obvious explanation for that article
The NYT, being the beacon of woke that it is, simply cannot resist writing an article that somehow disproves the silly notion that being pregnant is some kind of physical impediment that uniquely applies to women. Its not possible to cancel pregnancy so this is the next best thing. I'm not surprised that they wrote it - mostly surprised anyone reads it
I agree that the studies are bad and reporting is even worse. However, critiquing the the whole health and excercise journalism from the accuracy perspective is in my opinion misguided. Changing human behavior is very hard and thus the influence of any of those studies and their reporting is likely not that big or negative. If anything, somebody maybe takes up a new sport or tries a new diet for a while. If it works for them its great, if not they will stop. The effect, therefore, is that it gives people motivation and new ideas to try something "healthy". I would guess the net effect of that is positive, since they do at least something, even if the science that was reported is not entirely accurate.
I know a guy who decided to take the carnivore diet to the extreme of eating only pemmican, which resulted in a flaming case of scurvy and weeks in a hospital.
I'm with grape soda on this one. No one can now if it has a net positive net negative or net neutral effect. There is no public health justification for promoting sloppy science and deception. Truth matters.
I disagree. Whole swaths of people were scared of salt and stayed away from eggs because of “science” reporting. Is running really heathy if you blow out your knees?
Walking doesn't blow out the knees, nor does running on an elastic surface nor if you run in such a manner as to take most of the concussion in the muscles. I used to run and have no knee problems, despite being elderly.
Here's a guy's story the day after he got the Moderna covid vax...it's wild!
https://rattibha.com/thread/1567930080608882694
I'm curious if anyone here noticed that the Biden admin ordered doses of the bivalent vaccine before the FDA issued its rubberstamped approval?
What is the point of the FDA any more?
FDA = faulty data administration
A minor point, I've always thought that "trekking up Everest" referred to hiking to and around base camp. If you are going to 29,000 feet, you are climbing Everest, two different things. Where do you live? For Americans, that 17,000 feet could be very different for someone living in NY as compared to CO. (For what it's worth)
You guys don't know how to have fun.
Points taken though.
Exercise science, like all the health sciences, are applied sciences. We look at how various interventions impact the body. The answer to almost any question relating to exercise is "it depends". It depends on the individual's health status, age, gender, experience, injury/health history, etc. It is rarely a blanket "yes" or "no", which is why one size fits all mandates during covid irked me. Sure, we know exercise is good for everyone. But, heavy squats are probably not good for the elderly, but perfectly suitable for a 20 year old. Maybe body weight squats or getting up and down from a seated position is a suitable adaptation for an elderly person...same movement, different intensity. More often than not however, I find we look for excuses not to exercise, not to put stress on the body, not to force it to adapt. We are highly capable, highly adaptable, beings meant to be put under stress to force adaptation. That is all exercise is...a stress to the body forcing it out of homeostasis to elicit a positive adaptation...increased strength, muscle mass, bone density, endurance, heart/lung capacity, etc.
My heavy squats have indeed been reduced to standing from a sitting position couple of sets daily. Maintaining my balance and not using hands is now the challenge. I'm 82, YMMV.
At least I don't need a lift chair and hope I never will if I can just slow the atrophy some. I certainly have great admiration for the 90+ lady who is still able to play in the bowling area.
Therefore, it's called REsearch. We were guilty of this at the university lab I played a small part in decades ago.
(rinse & repeat)
Mainstream reporting of research is colossally stupid. This is not news.
I'm more curious about the mountain climbing while pregnant thing. What was the story? A female Sherpa stayed on the job all through her pregnancy and had a healthy delivery? If so, there would be very cool things to learn from that story without leaping to narrative flights of fancy.
Sherpa are better adapted to altitude than most. So are Tibetans, many of whom leave China through high passes - too high for Chinese troops to effectively guard. It is in part the hemoglobin delivering O2 to tissues more readily, but this article spells out so much more.
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1700527114 The rest of us are less well adapted, and do well to remember that.
This is what I was interested in. I find the adaptation of localized populations like this fascinating- in this case, it immediately made me wonder how their differences in oxygenation impact fetal development, especially brain development.
I was wondering the same thing re: fetal development; trekking in Nepal is an interesting adventure in so many ways. Sherpa are amazingly well adapted to their environment, we struggled to get up an over Thorung La pass (maybe about 17,500 feet amsl) - the Sherpa lit cigarettes near the top. However, the life in the mountains is hard, and medical care is expensive and difficult - life expectancy is low. We are spoiled in the lowlands. I would never recommend that sort of elevation in pregnancy unless one is Sherpa or Tibetan. Even then it likely would be hard on the system. Take care.
You too. Thanks for the excellent reference. It is good reading.
Most of this boils down to the human need to simplify complex issues. It is hard for the human brain to comprehend the complexity of systems, the interdependence, the myriad connections. No one wants to hear - ‘Your longevity may depend on several factors, some out of your control’. No one will read that article. It is much easier for the brain to focus on one thing - and that’s why ‘eat radishes and live long’ is an article that will be read.
Everyone wants simple answers to complex problems. See : masks :)
Speaking of systems, this is a brilliant piece on Systems Thinking.
https://thesystemsthinker.com/making-the-jump-to-systems-thinking/
Agreed, on top of that, the article that says 'regular, moderate exercise along with avoiding processed foods is likely to increase your lifespan' will be passed over for 'pregnant woman leaping over grand canyon while giving birth is a model for women everywhere'. People gravitate toward shinty things, for better or worse.
Saw a headline a couple of days ago. Climate change may cause kidney stones. Wondering how the author was gonna tie that together, I read the whole article. Finally the last paragraph splains it. Warm weather can cause dehydration, which can lead to kidney stones.
Everything is clickbait. But most people just scroll & read headlines, and that’s how they are getting their “knowledge”.
Dehydration?? Increasing heat/ humidity in some places? These are already linked to increases in global temperature and kidney stones...
There is no world where you will run a randomized trial of the ecological imbalance of an entire planet and these relationships have already been observed in other epidemiological settings under non climate-change stressors
We may need to cover that article!
I want to comment on your main point, confounding variables. This is an absolutely basic tenet of science and I can’t understand why so called scientists aren’t more vocal about it. Perhaps because in many cases it makes their conclusions worthless? Another surprise is the extent to which scientists make a big deal out of correlation, which then becomes implied causation in the press. Correlation is meaningless. Even if you get a “statistically significant” result, how do you have any new knowledge? It doesn’t tell you why or how the effect occurred in some subjects and not others. Perhaps our current “scientific” methods actually tell us very little about what’s really going on.
Correlation is an indicator that a Bayesian study needs to be done.
Yeah, its a bit of a rub there. I wouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater though. Vinay is always harping on double blind randomized trials and really that is the solution to the problem. It can bridge the correlation/causation gap. At least this is my understanding. True science requires those two parts and they are skipping the second part in lots of "churnalism", as they say.
And many studies aren't publishing raw data, which is a HUGE problem.
RCTs aren't any sort of panacea. They can be gamed through clever design and they lack extrinsic validity. And most doctors don't understand what p-values actually mean, which is a bigger problem. And most doctors don't bother to read any discussion of study limitations.
As proof that most doctors don't read study limitations, most doctors believe that the RECOVERY trial applies to outpatient treatment with HCQ.
Also results need to be replicated. And apparently there is a replication crisis now. Probably because so many trying to confirm their hypothesis, rather than test it via falsification.
I think there is a rather simple, and obvious explanation for that article
The NYT, being the beacon of woke that it is, simply cannot resist writing an article that somehow disproves the silly notion that being pregnant is some kind of physical impediment that uniquely applies to women. Its not possible to cancel pregnancy so this is the next best thing. I'm not surprised that they wrote it - mostly surprised anyone reads it
Anybody who has climbed over 10k feet would know it gets very, very hard fast.
I agree that the studies are bad and reporting is even worse. However, critiquing the the whole health and excercise journalism from the accuracy perspective is in my opinion misguided. Changing human behavior is very hard and thus the influence of any of those studies and their reporting is likely not that big or negative. If anything, somebody maybe takes up a new sport or tries a new diet for a while. If it works for them its great, if not they will stop. The effect, therefore, is that it gives people motivation and new ideas to try something "healthy". I would guess the net effect of that is positive, since they do at least something, even if the science that was reported is not entirely accurate.
I know a guy who decided to take the carnivore diet to the extreme of eating only pemmican, which resulted in a flaming case of scurvy and weeks in a hospital.
Dried meat is a problem, but cooked meat is fine, I would imagine.
I'm with grape soda on this one. No one can now if it has a net positive net negative or net neutral effect. There is no public health justification for promoting sloppy science and deception. Truth matters.
I disagree. Whole swaths of people were scared of salt and stayed away from eggs because of “science” reporting. Is running really heathy if you blow out your knees?
Walking doesn't blow out the knees, nor does running on an elastic surface nor if you run in such a manner as to take most of the concussion in the muscles. I used to run and have no knee problems, despite being elderly.
You said it: IF
IF one is prudent...