This analysis should be taught in medical school. As a retired professor, I can tell you that our medical students are not taught about how to approach and analyze manuscripts. This particular article is a great example of trying to be more important than its actual data and findings would support AND it has a politically correct bias, it appears.
We have heard the phrase “knowing enough to be dangerous” in terms of medicine, but we also need to think about it in terms of research.
I am seeing all sorts of people saying “it’s a meta-analysis, the very highest form of evidence” and such. But many do not understand how to examine the data critically. We know the buzzwords, but not the deeper meaning of research methods (including appropriate statistical approaches) and interpretation.
This is not for the purpose of being a contrarian, or to find an interpretation that agrees with one’s philosophy. Rather, it is to ensure that we are not misinterpreting scientific findings in general.
As I have written previously, a peer-review paper is the beginning of a conversation, not the end. No study is perfect, and we must interpret the evidence in light of the shortcomings. Sometimes, the shortcomings are minor, sometimes they are major, and sometimes they make a study so flawed that it is essentially meaningless.
In this case, I am not saying the study itself is terrible, but rather the results answer one question (effects on recreation-level fitness), and many are inappropriately extrapolating them to answer a completely separate question (about elite competitive performance).
Thanks. My critique is not the only critique of the study. Many have expressed lots of concern over the statistical analyses. While I often do find issues with inappropriate statistics in peer-review literature, I didn't get that far with this study, since the validity of it was very weak (i.e., extrapolating recreational level fitness data to elite athlete performance).
I would be interested to your initial thoughts on why the study was flawed.
The BJSM study is a meta-analysis; one of >50 different studies. So, there is no one single consent form; it's from various studies.
I'm not too concerned about the research participants behaving differently to bias the results of the underlying studies. I do believe that the GAHT they undertook will cause a detriment to their physical performance; again that is biological.
But, my bigger point is that these studies represent basic physical fitness in the general population (or mildly trained individuals). These were not elite athletes, and the results from this study cannot be meaningfully applied to elite athletes, let alone be used to recommend policies related to competitive sport.
There is one study that did look at athletes; I will break that down separately.
This analysis should be taught in medical school. As a retired professor, I can tell you that our medical students are not taught about how to approach and analyze manuscripts. This particular article is a great example of trying to be more important than its actual data and findings would support AND it has a politically correct bias, it appears.
Thank you for the kind remarks.
We have heard the phrase “knowing enough to be dangerous” in terms of medicine, but we also need to think about it in terms of research.
I am seeing all sorts of people saying “it’s a meta-analysis, the very highest form of evidence” and such. But many do not understand how to examine the data critically. We know the buzzwords, but not the deeper meaning of research methods (including appropriate statistical approaches) and interpretation.
This is not for the purpose of being a contrarian, or to find an interpretation that agrees with one’s philosophy. Rather, it is to ensure that we are not misinterpreting scientific findings in general.
As I have written previously, a peer-review paper is the beginning of a conversation, not the end. No study is perfect, and we must interpret the evidence in light of the shortcomings. Sometimes, the shortcomings are minor, sometimes they are major, and sometimes they make a study so flawed that it is essentially meaningless.
In this case, I am not saying the study itself is terrible, but rather the results answer one question (effects on recreation-level fitness), and many are inappropriately extrapolating them to answer a completely separate question (about elite competitive performance).
Really helpful, especially for me as I got the conclusion correct but missed the details of why the study was wrong about its claimed conclusion.
Thanks. My critique is not the only critique of the study. Many have expressed lots of concern over the statistical analyses. While I often do find issues with inappropriate statistics in peer-review literature, I didn't get that far with this study, since the validity of it was very weak (i.e., extrapolating recreational level fitness data to elite athlete performance).
I would be interested to your initial thoughts on why the study was flawed.
Can we also assume that the participants knew the purpose of the study? It would be helpful - and telling - to see the informed consent.
The BJSM study is a meta-analysis; one of >50 different studies. So, there is no one single consent form; it's from various studies.
I'm not too concerned about the research participants behaving differently to bias the results of the underlying studies. I do believe that the GAHT they undertook will cause a detriment to their physical performance; again that is biological.
But, my bigger point is that these studies represent basic physical fitness in the general population (or mildly trained individuals). These were not elite athletes, and the results from this study cannot be meaningfully applied to elite athletes, let alone be used to recommend policies related to competitive sport.
There is one study that did look at athletes; I will break that down separately.
Yes, I get your primary point, I just find it hard to believe that the participants don’t see the bigger picture.