o****p
发帖数: 51 | | d**********0
发帖数: 13081 | 2 In their report, they suggest: "Long-term strenuous endurance exercise may
induce pathological structural remodelling of the heart and arteries."
这话说的很严重啊。。 这可能么？ | J******n
发帖数: 1466 | 3 老美的中年人国家标准还是每周至少5小时的运动呢！文章也并没说减少运动对成年人
胆固醇等其他方面的影响，这类的文章太多了，其实实际意义不大！ | R*****s
发帖数: 41236 | 4 remodelling又不一定是坏事，变得越来越强大，减少心血管病的危险，不是挺好..
【在 d**********0 的大作中提到】
: In their report, they suggest: "Long-term strenuous endurance exercise may
: induce pathological structural remodelling of the heart and arteries."
: 这话说的很严重啊。。 这可能么？
| R*****t
发帖数: 2115 | 5 谢谢分享这篇文章，是一个提醒。下面转载的是反驳这篇文章内容和结论的。两篇文章
一起读，很有意思。
“The (Supposed) Dangers of Running Too Much”
What the data says, and what it doesn't.
By Alex Hutchinson;
Published February 3, 2015 （Runner's World)
My goodness, is it February already? It's been several months since the last
round of articles warning that running too much will kill you–must be time
for another one. What's that? No new data to publish? That's no problem, we
'll just republish the same data. The media never bothers to check these
things, and always reports it as if it were brand new.
The new article is published in the Journal of the American College of
Cardiology, analyzing data from the Copenhagen City Heart Study. (And here,
on cue, is one of the requisite newspaper articles: "Fast running is as
deadly as sitting on the couch, scientists find.") The exact same data was
published back in 2012 in the American Journal of Epidemiology. This time
the authors are the same, but with the addition of James O'Keefe, who has
been an author on pretty much every single one of the "running will kill you
" studies.
As far as I can tell, the only new thing in the study (aside from the fact
that a few more people have died) is that in addition to looking at hours of
jogging per week, number of jogging days per week, and self-reported pace,
they added a fourth category that combines the other three for an overall
rating of "light," "moderate," or "vigorous" jogger.
So what do the numbers tell us? If you're interested in an overall take on
the current status of research into the potential cardiac dangers of too
much exercise, I suggest you check out my comprehensive post from last year,
which includes a discussion of the Copenhagen data. I'll add a few more
detailed thoughts here.
First of all, I want to reiterate that the study is worth paying attention
to, and we should take the results seriously if and when the data reaches
any reasonable threshold of statistical significance. At this point, though,
they're nowhere near that threshold. The main problem is that sample sizes
are large in the "less exercise" groups, which means they have a
statistically significant reduction in mortality, but they are tiny in the "
more exercise" groups, which means they don't have a statistically
significant reduction in mortality. This allows the authors to make the
shamefully disingenuous argument that "strenuous joggers have a mortality
rate not statistically different from that of the sedentary group"–which is
almost a foregone conclusion, given that the sample size is less than a
tenth as large.
The simplest and most objective way to make this point is simply to show the
raw data. Here are the number of participants in each group, along with the
number who died (of any cause) during the follow-up period:
QUANTITY OF JOGGING
•Sedentary: 413 / 128
•< 1 hour/week: 640 / 20
•1-2.4 hours: 286 / 4
•2.5-4 hours: 122 / 3
•> 4 hours: 50 / 1
FREQUENCY OF JOGGING
•Sedentary: 413 / 128
•< 1 time/week: 323 / 5
•2-3 times: 474 / 7
•>3 times: 84 / 5
JOGGING PACE
•Sedentary: 413 / 128
•Slow: 178 / 7
•Average: 704 / 15
•Fast: 201 / 6
Now, you can search through those numbers looking for patterns. Does your
risk really go up if you run more than 2.5 hours, but then go down again if
you run more than four hours? Of course not. These are not real patterns,
because we're talking about one, two, three, or at most five or six deaths.
No matter how interesting or important the question is, you can't torture
these numbers enough to force them to reveal the answers. They're simply not
there.
What about the combined metric of "light, moderate, or strenuous" jogger?
Here's a look at those numbers:
•Sedentary: 413 / 128
•Light: 576 / 7
•Moderate: 262 / 8
•Strenuous: 40 / 2
Yes, the conclusion of the study (that "strenuous" jogging is as bad as
being sedentary) is based on two deaths over more than a decade of follow-up
. (Thank goodness a third person didn't die, or public health authorities
would be banning jogging.)
In reality, of course, the statistical challenges are even more complex than
what's shown here. For example, the sedentary control group had an average
age of 61.3, whereas the various running groups had an average age in their
late 30s and 40s. So the comparison of death rates has to rely on imperfect
statistical adjustment. You'll notice that 31 percent of the sedentary
subjects died during the decade or so of follow-up, compared to 5 percent of
the strenuous joggers, who had an average age of just 37.0 at the start of
the study. The researchers argue that this means the "hazard ratio" is about
the same, but that requires an awful lot of assumptions about why people
die in their 30s or 40s versus why they die in their 60s and 70s. Of course,
with only two deaths in the strenuous group, it's impossible to perform any
sub-analysis on different causes of death. Did the joggers die of heart
disease, as the paper suggests they should, or were they hit by a car or
struck down by cancer? We have no idea.
The same issue arises with gender: 43.1 percent of the sedentary group was
male, and 49.1 percent of the light joggers, but 80.0 percent of the
strenuous joggers. Again, the researchers "adjust" for gender, but it's not
an apples-to-apples comparison, especially since the groups are so
dramatically different in several traits.
Seriously, to publish this data once was legitimate. (In the original paper,
researchers didn't make all sorts of claims based on the sub-analysis of
jogging dose.) To publish the same data a second time, this time making
stronger claims about a "U-shaped" curve based on two (TWO!!!) deaths, is...
well, you can make up your own mind. The data is right there. | d****i
发帖数: 4354 | 6 谢兔姐破除迷信!
last
time
we
【在 R*****t 的大作中提到】
: 谢谢分享这篇文章，是一个提醒。下面转载的是反驳这篇文章内容和结论的。两篇文章
: 一起读，很有意思。
: “The (Supposed) Dangers of Running Too Much”
: What the data says, and what it doesn't.
: By Alex Hutchinson;
: Published February 3, 2015 （Runner's World)
: My goodness, is it February already? It's been several months since the last
: round of articles warning that running too much will kill you–must be time
: for another one. What's that? No new data to publish? That's no problem, we
: 'll just republish the same data. The media never bothers to check these
| d**********0
发帖数: 13081 | 7
也同谢兔姐破除迷信。。
【在 d****i 的大作中提到】
: 谢兔姐破除迷信!
:
: last
: time
: we
| R*****t
发帖数: 2115 | 8 To州长和丁丁：不用谢。第一篇论文提醒运动不要走极端，原意是好的。但是，不科学
地分析和使用资料，危言耸听，那就欠佳了。
【在 d****i 的大作中提到】
: 谢兔姐破除迷信!
:
: last
: time
: we
| t*********t
发帖数: 4766 | 9 传话游戏.原文的图.自己看吧。lol
【在 o****p 的大作中提到】
: http://www.bbc.com/news/health-31095384
| m**k
发帖数: 18660 | 10 人数太少了.
还有.不跑步的居然有那么多人死了..这些都啥年龄.和身体啊..
【在 t*********t 的大作中提到】
: 传话游戏.原文的图.自己看吧。lol
| d**********0
发帖数: 13081 | 11 我说怎么这个网页上没有图呢。
http://www.bbc.com/news/health-31095384
如果有图的话， 稍微看下就知道数据有问题。
【在 t*********t 的大作中提到】
: 传话游戏.原文的图.自己看吧。lol
| R*****s
发帖数: 41236 | 12 这年头，各种伪科学满天飞啊..上次连WSJ不也出来凑热闹么..
【在 d**********0 的大作中提到】
: 我说怎么这个网页上没有图呢。
: http://www.bbc.com/news/health-31095384
: 如果有图的话， 稍微看下就知道数据有问题。
| s***i
发帖数: 503 | |
|
