I think this is important.

[rtamesis]

It's only one study, and the results aren't statistically significant.

In 1590 Galileo Galilei dropped some balls to the ground from the Leaning Tower of Pisa. Two balls of different masses, but of similar shape and density that were released together hit the ground at the same time. However, it's only one study, and the results aren't statistically significant either.

[ShuffleUp]

This was an interesting finding that showed a group of regular marathoners had more arterial calcification than the "control" group of symptomatic sedentary people. Quite remarkable. Bet that isn't what they thought they'd find.

http://www.medpagetoday.com/MeetingCoverage/ACC/19091

[unruhschuh]

In 1590 Galileo Galilei dropped some balls to the ground from the Leaning Tower of Pisa. Two balls of different masses, but of similar shape and density that were released together hit the ground at the same time. However, it's only one study, and the results aren't statistically significant either.

my brain hurts

[Jefferson]

In 1590 Galileo Galilei dropped some balls to the ground from the Leaning Tower of Pisa. Two balls of different masses, but of similar shape and density that were released together hit the ground at the same time. However, it's only one study, and the results aren't statistically significant either.

The results were incredibly statistically significant, the bigger ball should have fallen way before the smaller ball. And you think no one repeated that study themselves when they heard about it?

[kwerk]

In 1590 Galileo Galilei dropped some balls to the ground from the Leaning Tower of Pisa. Two balls of different masses, but of similar shape and density that were released together hit the ground at the same time. However, it's only one study, and the results aren't statistically significant either.

And then Galileo did it a bunch more times, came up with a theory as to why it was happening, and further observations fit into the theory.

I'm sure the person who did this study was shocked to find that the results matched up with his preconceived opinions.

[gordonrumble]

In 1590 Galileo Galilei dropped some balls to the ground from the Leaning Tower of Pisa. Two balls of different masses, but of similar shape and density that were released together hit the ground at the same time. However, it's only one study, and the results aren't statistically significant either.

Fallacy of false equivalency.

The point that there's a reasonable chance that the results of the study don't actually follow reality is a good one.

[tfarny]

Yes, but it's a rather simplified, contrived way to do so. You pick a completely arbitrary significance threshold, and then pretend that anything that's above the threshold is unquestionable truth, and everything below the threshold is completely baseless random noise. Why not just directly report the probability rather than crudely thresholding it?

That's it - P values are great, it's the .05 or .01 threshold that is arbitrary and fairly useless. And, it's not that the study effect size was massive, or that it "proves" anything - but it is a highly suggestive piece of evidence that, at the least, long slow cardio ain't the best thing you can do for your body, and may turn out to be not be very good for you.

[ARoden]

Didn't the first marathoner say 'Nike' and then keel over dead?

[Rob Miller]

Unfortunately, the way exercise is presented to the general population leads one to believe that more miles is better.

This is the pervasive mind set... the more "cardio" the better. And it's not just tabloid-reading, average Joes and Janes. It's semi serious athletes and students of exercise physiology repeating what they've heard... repeating what they've been taught. Even in cases where the sport itself produces excellent cardio-respiratory endurance (like tennis, football, basketball or surfing) it is often still suggested and recommended to train that physical quality.

Whether one is training for health or training for a specific sport, the common mentality probably sees an average of 80% conditioning and 20% resistance training ratio as beneficial. Whatever the ratio may be, it's upside down on it's head when the general population begins thinking about what kind of exercise program they're going to use for the benefit of their health. And a far as more serious athletes go in regard to training for their ball sport or even off season marathoners for that matter, it's senseless to invest that much effort in a physical quality with so little persistence as cardiovascular endurance.

[Rusty9]

The difference being that a ball is only being acted on by two forces gravity and air resistance. a body is being acted on by many many factors- genetics, previous training, previous levels of inactivity, regularity of activity, intensity of activity. even if every individual picked said they trained the same distances at the same intensity this is based off their perception(intensity) and would not be infallable.