

No, More Running Probably Isn’t Bad for You - JeremyNT
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/06/upshot/no-more-running-probably-isnt-bad-for-you.html

======
swatow
The article claimed that the (original) article's conclusions about strenuous
running were suspect because they were based on 2 deaths out of a sample of
40.

But is that really the case? I get sick of hearing that "the sample size was
too small" when no analysis is done of the statistical significance of the
results. In this case, the difference between death rates for strenuous vs
moderate runners was significant (by my calculation based on their 95%
intervals).

Given the small sample size, there are still questions to be asked about the
methods they used to correct for age, sex, etc. But still, outright dismissal
based on small sample size is not reasonable. If the sample is big enough to
give statistically significant results, that should be an _a priori_ reason to
accept the results.

~~~
peteypao
"But still, outright dismissal based on small sample size is not reasonable."

The burden of proof, in my mind, is the one making the claim.

~~~
swatow
As I said, statistical significance is a prima facie argument for the claim.
If someone wants to dispute it, they need to show why the alleged statistical
significance does not support the claim. The statistical significance trumps
the sample size, unless someone can show otherwise.

------
xsmasher
The use of the term "strenuous" running is also misleading; it may make people
think that "running hard" is harmful.

In terms of this study, it means running four hours a week; probably 20 miles
a week or more. That's not a level of activity that most people are in danger
of crossing.

------
shittyanalogy
All of this, all of it, is excruciatingly stupid. There are not enough people
for a reasonable conclusion, the arguing is amongst a bunch of people who
don't understand statistics or that this is an extremely hard subject to study
and one in which the results are very person specific.

We don't need more poorly done, argumentative, non tech related research on a
news site for computer programmers.

Can we please, please stop with the diets that have only been tried on mice
and the exercise warnings. None of this in informative or even interesting,
it's just trash tabloids masquerading as research that's pertinent to anyone's
life.

