Gareth Morgan at AAT@groups.io

As a swimmer, you have half the mortality risk of other athletes. "... in a 32-year long study, Professor Steven Blair, University of South Carolina, discovered that swimming confers previously unsuspected health benefits far in excess of those provided by other forms of exercise. In a study of more than 40,000 men, ages 20 to 90, he found that swimmers were 50 percent less likely to die during the study period than were walkers or runners."

On Fri, 16 Dec 2022 07:24:21 -0800 (PST), "littor...@gmail.com"
<littoral.homo@gmail.com> wrote:

>Gareth Morgan at AAT@groups.io
>
>As a swimmer, you have half the mortality risk of other athletes.
>"... in a 32-year long study, Professor Steven Blair, University of South Carolina,
>discovered that swimming confers previously unsuspected health benefits far in
>excess of those provided by other forms of exercise. In a study of more than
>40,000 men, ages 20 to 90, he found that swimmers were 50 percent less likely
>to die during the study period than were walkers or runners."

Open access article:
https://scholarworks.bgsu.edu/ijare/vol2/iss3/3/

So, what's wrong with that research?

Pandora wrote:

> https://scholarworks.bgsu.edu/ijare/vol2/iss3/3/
>
> So, what's wrong with that research?

: In conclusion, swimmers have lower mortality rates in comparison
: with those who were sedentary, walkers, and runners.

He's not saying there's anything wrong with it, only that it suggests our
bodies are better adapted to swimming than running.

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/703678017382285312

Pandora wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Dec 2022 07:24:21 -0800 (PST), "littor...@gmail.com"
> <littoral.homo@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Gareth Morgan at AAT@groups.io
>>
>> As a swimmer, you have half the mortality risk of other athletes.
>> "... in a 32-year long study, Professor Steven Blair, University of South Carolina,
>> discovered that swimming confers previously unsuspected health benefits far in
>> excess of those provided by other forms of exercise. In a study of more than
>> 40,000 men, ages 20 to 90, he found that swimmers were 50 percent less likely
>> to die during the study period than were walkers or runners."

Notice how mv doesn't tell where this quote comes from... Not
from a journal article ;)

> Open access article:
> https://scholarworks.bgsu.edu/ijare/vol2/iss3/3/
>
> So, what's wrong with that research?

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2010-jul-19-la-he-swimming-20100719-story.html
Swimming with the fittest?
JULY 19, 2010
....
"So I was thrilled when I opened the May-June 2010
issue of Swimmer and found an article about a 2008
study by Steven Blair, a leading exercise scientist
from the University of South Carolina.

"This study, which involved 40,547 men ages 20-90 who
completed health exams between 1971 and 2003, found
that “swimmers had lower mortality rates than those
who were sedentary, walkers or runners.” The study
was funded by the National Institutes of Health and
the National Swimming Pool Foundation and was
published in a new peer-reviewed journal, the
International Journal of Aquatic Research and
Education.

"It was the first time anybody had compared the
long-term benefits of swimming with other activities —
and my sport won.
....
"Blair himself, in a telephone interview, is cautious.
The 13-year study, he says, does “show that swimmers
have lower death rates” than sedentary people, walkers
and runners. “That’s what the data show.” But swimmers
being more fit than runners? “It doesn’t quite make
sense to me,” he says with a laugh.

"Over the course of the study, 1,336 of the 20,356
runners (or 6.6%) had died, compared with only 11 of
the 562 swimmers (1.9%). “That small number of
[swimmer] deaths could lead to erroneous
conclusions,” he says.

In addition, the study was “observational” — that
is, the researchers simply followed the different
groups of people over time to see how they fared,
as opposed to randomly assigning them to different
interventions.

"“My guess is that there were a lot of differences
in the people who chose to be swimmers,” says Steven
Woloshin, a professor of medicine at the Dartmouth
Institute who analyzes the interpretation of
scientific studies.
....
"In another 2008 study using treadmill tests and other
measures of cardiorespiratory fitness, Blair’s team
showed that while runners, both men and women, were the
most fit, “the general pattern of fitness distributions
was similar for swimmers and runners.”

"On the downside, one of the chief benefits of swimming —
being weightless in the water, a boon for aching joints
— is also a disadvantage.

“Swimming does not build bone,” says Dr. Michael Holick,
an osteoporosis expert at the Boston University School
of Medicine. “It’s pounding the pavement that is
translated to hip and spine bone strength. Even
treadmills and elliptical machines are not the same,” he
says."
....

Interesting: "runners, both men and women, were the
most fit" and "swimming does not build bone" ;)

From the pdf

https://scholarworks.bgsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1247&context=ijare

"A large majority of participants were White and from
middle or upper socioeconomic strata"
Does not appear to be very diverse...

"There were 15,883 sedentary men, 562 swimmers,
3,746 walkers, and 20,356 runners"

Only 562 swimmers? Versus over 20,000 runners?

"A major limitation of the analyses is the small
number of deaths in swimmers (n = 11), although
one would expect that the small number would
lead to wide confidence intervals and reduce the
possibility of finding significant differences
between swimmers and the other activity groups.
The study population was limited to predominantly
White, well-educated, middle- to upper-class men.
This limits the generalizability of the study’s
findings, although it should not affect the
study’s internal validity. Moreover, there is no
compelling reason to assume that the benefits of
swimming would be lower in other socioeconomic
groups."

I do not see where they give frequency of exercise,
that is, how many times per week for these physical
activities. How many times per week on average did
a swimmer go swimming or a runner go running? How
far for each activity?

A sample of 562 swimmers versus 20,356 runners? How is
this comparable?

Primum Sapienti wrote:

> "Over the course of the study, 1,336 of the 20,356
> runners (or 6.6%) had died, compared with only 11 of
> the 562 swimmers (1.9%).

And...

> Interesting: "runners, both men and women, were the
> most fit" and "swimming does not build bone" ;)

Sure beats the crap out of not dying, doesn't it?

"Well my grandfather died, but he sure was fit!"

"My grandfather isn't fit at all. He's still alive though..."

Wow. I can see your point. Not really. But i'm trying to be
supportive here... in my own way. Sort of like how dying
is healthier, in your own way!

I cherish our time together.

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/703957678535376896

On Sat, 17 Dec 2022 11:27:30 -0800 (PST), JTEM is so reasonable
<jtem01@gmail.com> wrote:

>Pandora wrote:
>
>> https://scholarworks.bgsu.edu/ijare/vol2/iss3/3/
>>
>> So, what's wrong with that research?
>
>: In conclusion, swimmers have lower mortality rates in comparison
>: with those who were sedentary, walkers, and runners.
>
>He's not saying there's anything wrong with it, only that it suggests our
>bodies are better adapted to swimming than running.

Swimmers consitute only 1.4% of the total sample, while runners,
walkers, and sedentary ('sitters') are 50.2%, 9.2%, and 39.2%
respectively (table 1). Such an unbalanced, highly biased sample is a
recipe for weird results.
The Hazard Ratio (HR) for sedentary vs swimmers is 0.49, walkers vs
swimmers 0.52, and for runners vs swimmers it's 0.54 (table 2).
This result would suggest that exercise in the form of walking or
running practically has no health benefits compared to a sedentary
lifestyle, while abundant research has shown that even a little
exercise makes a difference. Also look at the wide 95% confidence
intervals (0.30, 0.98 in the case of runners vs swimmers).
This result would also suggest that we're better adapted at swimming
than at walking, while bipedalism is the defining adaptation of
hominins. :-)

Op zondag 18 december 2022 om 13:18:53 UTC+1 schreef Pandora:

> >> https://scholarworks.bgsu.edu/ijare/vol2/iss3/3/

> >: In conclusion, swimmers have lower mortality rates in comparison
> >: with those who were sedentary, walkers, and runners.
> >He's not saying there's anything wrong with it, only that it suggests our
> >bodies are better adapted to swimming than running.

> Swimmers consitute only 1.4% of the total sample, while runners,
> walkers, and sedentary ('sitters') are 50.2%, 9.2%, and 39.2%
> respectively (table 1).

My little little boy, nobody denies that humans are terrestrial today. Grow up!
It's only clear - except to idiots (not like you?) - that our Pleistocene ancestors spent a lot of time in the water, collecting e.g. shellfish,
google e.g. "shell engravings joordens munro".

On Sun, 18 Dec 2022 05:01:27 -0800 (PST), "littor...@gmail.com"
<littoral.homo@gmail.com> wrote:

>Op zondag 18 december 2022 om 13:18:53 UTC+1 schreef Pandora:
>
>
>> >> https://scholarworks.bgsu.edu/ijare/vol2/iss3/3/
>
>> >: In conclusion, swimmers have lower mortality rates in comparison
>> >: with those who were sedentary, walkers, and runners.
>> >He's not saying there's anything wrong with it, only that it suggests our
>> >bodies are better adapted to swimming than running.
>
>> Swimmers consitute only 1.4% of the total sample, while runners,
>> walkers, and sedentary ('sitters') are 50.2%, 9.2%, and 39.2%
>> respectively (table 1).
>
>My little little boy, nobody denies that humans are terrestrial today. Grow up!
>It's only clear - except to idiots (not like you?) - that our Pleistocene ancestors
>spent a lot of time in the water, collecting e.g. shellfish,
>google e.g. "shell engravings joordens munro".

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/269102248_Homo_Erectus_at_Trinil_on_Java_Used_Shells_for_Tool_Production_and_Engraving

"We conclude that the Trinil Pseudodon assemblage reflects the remains
of shellfish collecting and processing by H. erectus along the banks
of a river."

Yeah, but it doesn't say how they collected those shellfish.
When you google something like "clam digging" you hardly ever see
anyone diving, because you don't have to. See for example:
https://eu.azcentral.com/in-depth/entertainment/dining/2021/08/18/clam-digging-arizona-rivers-cambodian-tradition/7790182002/

....

> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/269102248_Homo_Erectus_at_Trinil_on_Java_Used_Shells_for_Tool_Production_and_Engraving
> "We conclude that the Trinil Pseudodon assemblage reflects the remains
> of shellfish collecting and processing by H. erectus along the banks
> of a river."
> Yeah, but it doesn't say how they collected those shellfish.

My little little little boy, you're becoming more+more childish:
only fananatic idiots believe that heavy-boned, flat-footed mammals with valgus knees, long femoral necks, very wide pelvises, very short toes etc. could run fast.
There's 0 evidence that erectus did not dive for e.g. shellfish: large lungs, larger brains (LC-PUFAs e.g. DHA), external nose, stone tools, shell engravings, island colonizations, coastal fossilization etc.etc.
You're simply too stupid to give us 1 single little reason why they should not have dived!
Grow up!
Inform at least a little bit before trying to say something,
e.g. google "human evolution verhaegen".

Pandora wrote:

> Swimmers consitute only 1.4% of the total sample, while runners,
> walkers, and sedentary ('sitters') are 50.2%, 9.2%, and 39.2%
> respectively (table 1). Such an unbalanced, highly biased sample is a
> recipe for weird results.

So you're switching gears. We're moving from "Sure they died, but they
were healthier!" to "Further study is needed."

And it may indeed require further study but the initial results do show
what he claimed.

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/703957678535376896

littor...@gmail.com wrote:
> ...
>
>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/269102248_Homo_Erectus_at_Trinil_on_Java_Used_Shells_for_Tool_Production_and_Engraving
>> "We conclude that the Trinil Pseudodon assemblage reflects the remains
>> of shellfish collecting and processing by H. erectus along the banks
>> of a river."
>> Yeah, but it doesn't say how they collected those shellfish.
>
> My little little little boy, you're becoming more+more childish:
> only fananatic idiots believe that heavy-boned, flat-footed mammals with valgus knees, long femoral necks, very wide pelvises, very short toes etc. could run fast.
> There's 0 evidence that erectus did not dive for e.g. shellfish: large lungs, larger brains (LC-PUFAs e.g. DHA), external nose, stone tools, shell engravings, island colonizations, coastal fossilization etc.etc.
> You're simply too stupid to give us 1 single little reason why they should not have dived!
> Grow up!
> Inform at least a little bit before trying to say something,
> e.g. google "human evolution verhaegen".
>

https://www.ahotu.com/calendar/marathon/netherlands

I suggest you attend one of those races and tell them
they aren't able to run...

Primum Sapienti wrote:

> I suggest you attend one of those races and tell them
> they aren't able to run...

Do you not know what is and is not a valid "Argument?"

It's confirmed. The study does say what he claimed it said,
even you didn't deny it. What you said was that further study
was needed.

So you're upset that he quoted the study we have and not
the study that doesn't exist...

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/705742582064496640

JTEM is so reasonable wrote:
> Primum Sapienti wrote:
>
>> I suggest you attend one of those races and tell them
>> they aren't able to run...
>
> Do you not know what is and is not a valid "Argument?"
>
> It's confirmed. The study does say what he claimed it said,
> even you didn't deny it. What you said was that further study
> was needed.
>
> So you're upset that he quoted the study we have and not
> the study that doesn't exist...

This study?

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2010-jul-19-la-he-swimming-20100719-story.html
Swimming with the fittest?
JULY 19, 2010
....
"So I was thrilled when I opened the May-June 2010
issue of Swimmer and found an article about a 2008
study by Steven Blair, a leading exercise scientist
from the University of South Carolina.

"This study, which involved 40,547 men ages 20-90 who
completed health exams between 1971 and 2003, found
that “swimmers had lower mortality rates than those
who were sedentary, walkers or runners.” The study
was funded by the National Institutes of Health and
the National Swimming Pool Foundation and was
published in a new peer-reviewed journal, the
International Journal of Aquatic Research and
Education.

"It was the first time anybody had compared the
long-term benefits of swimming with other activities —
and my sport won.
....
"Blair himself, in a telephone interview, is cautious.
The 13-year study, he says, does “show that swimmers
have lower death rates” than sedentary people, walkers
and runners. “That’s what the data show.” But swimmers
being more fit than runners? “It doesn’t quite make
sense to me,” he says with a laugh.

"Over the course of the study, 1,336 of the 20,356
runners (or 6.6%) had died, compared with only 11 of
the 562 swimmers (1.9%). “That small number of
[swimmer] deaths could lead to erroneous
conclusions,” he says.

In addition, the study was “observational” — that
is, the researchers simply followed the different
groups of people over time to see how they fared,
as opposed to randomly assigning them to different
interventions.

"“My guess is that there were a lot of differences
in the people who chose to be swimmers,” says Steven
Woloshin, a professor of medicine at the Dartmouth
Institute who analyzes the interpretation of
scientific studies.
....
"In another 2008 study using treadmill tests and other
measures of cardiorespiratory fitness, Blair’s team
showed that while runners, both men and women, were the
most fit, “the general pattern of fitness distributions
was similar for swimmers and runners.”

"On the downside, one of the chief benefits of swimming —
being weightless in the water, a boon for aching joints
— is also a disadvantage.

“Swimming does not build bone,” says Dr. Michael Holick,
an osteoporosis expert at the Boston University School
of Medicine. “It’s pounding the pavement that is
translated to hip and spine bone strength. Even
treadmills and elliptical machines are not the same,” he
says."
....

Interesting: "runners, both men and women, were the
most fit" and "swimming does not build bone" ;)

From the pdf

https://scholarworks.bgsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1247&context=ijare

"A large majority of participants were White and from
middle or upper socioeconomic strata"
Does not appear to be very diverse...

"There were 15,883 sedentary men, 562 swimmers,
3,746 walkers, and 20,356 runners"

Only 562 swimmers? Versus over 20,000 runners?

"A major limitation of the analyses is the small
number of deaths in swimmers (n = 11), although
one would expect that the small number would
lead to wide confidence intervals and reduce the
possibility of finding significant differences
between swimmers and the other activity groups.
The study population was limited to predominantly
White, well-educated, middle- to upper-class men.
This limits the generalizability of the study’s
findings, although it should not affect the
study’s internal validity. Moreover, there is no
compelling reason to assume that the benefits of
swimming would be lower in other socioeconomic
groups."

I do not see where they give frequency of exercise,
that is, how many times per week for these physical
activities. How many times per week on average did
a swimmer go swimming or a runner go running? How
far for each activity?

A sample of 562 swimmers versus 20,356 runners? How is
this comparable?

Primum Sapienti wrote:

> Interesting: "runners, both men and women, were the
> most fit"

Interesting that "Most fit" is associated with more likely to die.

Very interesting.

"He was very fit. That's why he died."

Again, I am being supportive towards you, in the same way
that you claim "More likely to die" is "More fit."

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/707620975420850176

JTEM is so reasonable wrote:
> Primum Sapienti wrote:
>
>> Interesting: "runners, both men and women, were the
>> most fit"
>
> Interesting that "Most fit" is associated with more likely to die.
>
> Very interesting.

That's what the author said. Ironic, eh? :=DDD

> "He was very fit. That's why he died."
>
> Again, I am being supportive towards you, in the same way
> that you claim "More likely to die" is "More fit."

The study only included a few swimmers, 562 vs over TWENTY
THOUSAND runners. Now, how about actually including MORE swimmers?
Watch their mortality rate...

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2010-jul-19-la-he-swimming-20100719-story.html
Swimming with the fittest?
JULY 19, 2010
....
"So I was thrilled when I opened the May-June 2010
issue of Swimmer and found an article about a 2008
study by Steven Blair, a leading exercise scientist
from the University of South Carolina.

"This study, which involved 40,547 men ages 20-90 who
completed health exams between 1971 and 2003, found
that “swimmers had lower mortality rates than those
who were sedentary, walkers or runners.” The study
was funded by the National Institutes of Health and
the National Swimming Pool Foundation and was
published in a new peer-reviewed journal, the
International Journal of Aquatic Research and
Education.

"It was the first time anybody had compared the
long-term benefits of swimming with other activities —
and my sport won.
....
"Blair himself, in a telephone interview, is cautious.
The 13-year study, he says, does “show that swimmers
have lower death rates” than sedentary people, walkers
and runners. “That’s what the data show.” But swimmers
being more fit than runners? “It doesn’t quite make
sense to me,” he says with a laugh.

"Over the course of the study, 1,336 of the 20,356
runners (or 6.6%) had died, compared with only 11 of
the 562 swimmers (1.9%). “That small number of
[swimmer] deaths could lead to erroneous
conclusions,” he says.

In addition, the study was “observational” — that
is, the researchers simply followed the different
groups of people over time to see how they fared,
as opposed to randomly assigning them to different
interventions.

"“My guess is that there were a lot of differences
in the people who chose to be swimmers,” says Steven
Woloshin, a professor of medicine at the Dartmouth
Institute who analyzes the interpretation of
scientific studies.
....
"In another 2008 study using treadmill tests and other
measures of cardiorespiratory fitness, Blair’s team
showed that while runners, both men and women, were the
most fit, “the general pattern of fitness distributions
was similar for swimmers and runners.”

"On the downside, one of the chief benefits of swimming —
being weightless in the water, a boon for aching joints
— is also a disadvantage.

“Swimming does not build bone,” says Dr. Michael Holick,
an osteoporosis expert at the Boston University School
of Medicine. “It’s pounding the pavement that is
translated to hip and spine bone strength. Even
treadmills and elliptical machines are not the same,” he
says."
....

Interesting: "runners, both men and women, were the
most fit" and "swimming does not build bone" ;)

From the pdf

https://scholarworks.bgsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1247&context=ijare

"A large majority of participants were White and from
middle or upper socioeconomic strata"
Does not appear to be very diverse...

"There were 15,883 sedentary men, 562 swimmers,
3,746 walkers, and 20,356 runners"

Only 562 swimmers? Versus over 20,000 runners?

"A major limitation of the analyses is the small
number of deaths in swimmers (n = 11), although
one would expect that the small number would
lead to wide confidence intervals and reduce the
possibility of finding significant differences
between swimmers and the other activity groups.
The study population was limited to predominantly
White, well-educated, middle- to upper-class men.
This limits the generalizability of the study’s
findings, although it should not affect the
study’s internal validity. Moreover, there is no
compelling reason to assume that the benefits of
swimming would be lower in other socioeconomic
groups."

I do not see where they give frequency of exercise,
that is, how many times per week for these physical
activities. How many times per week on average did
a swimmer go swimming or a runner go running? How
far for each activity?

A sample of 562 swimmers versus 20,356 runners? How is
this comparable?

Primum Sapienti wrote:

> The study only included a few swimmers, 562

So YOU CONFIRM there was a study, this study THAT YOU CONFIRM shows
exactly what the good Doctor said it shows and... and... and what personal
defect is causing you to argue against *Any* of this?

You literally are just contradicting.

"Yeah, sure, you're right. It does say exactly what you cited. That's why I'm
saying it doesn't but it does! I just have this compulsion to contradict you."

You "Argue" against things you know to be true.

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/709313954911027200

JTEM is so reasonable wrote:
> Primum Sapienti wrote:
>
>> The study only included a few swimmers, 562
>
> So YOU CONFIRM there was a study, this study THAT YOU CONFIRM shows
> exactly what the good Doctor said it shows and... and... and what personal
> defect is causing you to argue against *Any* of this?
>
> You literally are just contradicting.
>
> "Yeah, sure, you're right. It does say exactly what you cited. That's why I'm
> saying it doesn't but it does! I just have this compulsion to contradict you."
>
> You "Argue" against things you know to be true.
>

This study which I posted about in last December and this January?

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2010-jul-19-la-he-swimming-20100719-story.html
Swimming with the fittest?
JULY 19, 2010
....
"So I was thrilled when I opened the May-June 2010
issue of Swimmer and found an article about a 2008
study by Steven Blair, a leading exercise scientist
from the University of South Carolina.

"This study, which involved 40,547 men ages 20-90 who
completed health exams between 1971 and 2003, found
that “swimmers had lower mortality rates than those
who were sedentary, walkers or runners.” The study
was funded by the National Institutes of Health and
the National Swimming Pool Foundation and was
published in a new peer-reviewed journal, the
International Journal of Aquatic Research and
Education.

"It was the first time anybody had compared the
long-term benefits of swimming with other activities —
and my sport won.
....
"Blair himself, in a telephone interview, is cautious.
The 13-year study, he says, does “show that swimmers
have lower death rates” than sedentary people, walkers
and runners. “That’s what the data show.” But swimmers
being more fit than runners? “It doesn’t quite make
sense to me,” he says with a laugh.

"Over the course of the study, 1,336 of the 20,356
runners (or 6.6%) had died, compared with only 11 of
the 562 swimmers (1.9%). “That small number of
[swimmer] deaths could lead to erroneous
conclusions,” he says.

In addition, the study was “observational” — that
is, the researchers simply followed the different
groups of people over time to see how they fared,
as opposed to randomly assigning them to different
interventions.

"“My guess is that there were a lot of differences
in the people who chose to be swimmers,” says Steven
Woloshin, a professor of medicine at the Dartmouth
Institute who analyzes the interpretation of
scientific studies.
....
"In another 2008 study using treadmill tests and other
measures of cardiorespiratory fitness, Blair’s team
showed that while runners, both men and women, were the
most fit, “the general pattern of fitness distributions
was similar for swimmers and runners.”

"On the downside, one of the chief benefits of swimming —
being weightless in the water, a boon for aching joints
— is also a disadvantage.

“Swimming does not build bone,” says Dr. Michael Holick,
an osteoporosis expert at the Boston University School
of Medicine. “It’s pounding the pavement that is
translated to hip and spine bone strength. Even
treadmills and elliptical machines are not the same,” he
says."
....

Interesting: "runners, both men and women, were the
most fit" and "swimming does not build bone" ;)

From the pdf

https://scholarworks.bgsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1247&context=ijare

"A large majority of participants were White and from
middle or upper socioeconomic strata"
Does not appear to be very diverse...

"There were 15,883 sedentary men, 562 swimmers,
3,746 walkers, and 20,356 runners"

Only 562 swimmers? Versus over 20,000 runners?

"A major limitation of the analyses is the small
number of deaths in swimmers (n = 11), although
one would expect that the small number would
lead to wide confidence intervals and reduce the
possibility of finding significant differences
between swimmers and the other activity groups.
The study population was limited to predominantly
White, well-educated, middle- to upper-class men.
This limits the generalizability of the study’s
findings, although it should not affect the
study’s internal validity. Moreover, there is no
compelling reason to assume that the benefits of
swimming would be lower in other socioeconomic
groups."

I do not see where they give frequency of exercise,
that is, how many times per week for these physical
activities. How many times per week on average did
a swimmer go swimming or a runner go running? How
far for each activity?

A sample of 562 swimmers versus 20,356 runners? How is
this comparable?

Primum Sapienti wrote:

> This study which I posted

Okay, this rudimentary stuff so try real hard to follow along...

1. The good Doctor made a claim: Swimming, better!

2. You produced a cite PROVING that the good Doctor wasn't
making anything up, there is one or more studies that say
exactly what he is saying.

3. What you did, and keep doing -- proving the good Doctor
right -- is pointed out to you ad nauseam.

4. You "Don't get it." You say things like "More studies are
needed" thinking this is French or Latin for "The study didn't
find what it found."

You're emotionally invested in being right and, more importantly,
the good Doctor being wrong. This is typical troll behavior. And,
the heavy emotions blind you to fact, wall you off from reason the
same way people say things when they are angry that they'd
never ordinarily say, or how men are always confused of "Thinking
with our dicks."

If you disengaged emotionally you might be able to make a decent
point now and then.

Consider it.

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/710781751785619456

JTEM is so reasonable wrote:
> Primum Sapienti wrote:
>
>> This study which I posted
>
> Okay, this rudimentary stuff so try real hard to follow along...
>
> 1. The good Doctor made a claim: Swimming, better!
>
> 2. You produced a cite PROVING that the good Doctor wasn't
> making anything up, there is one or more studies that say
> exactly what he is saying.
>
> 3. What you did, and keep doing -- proving the good Doctor
> right -- is pointed out to you ad nauseam.
>
> 4. You "Don't get it." You say things like "More studies are
> needed" thinking this is French or Latin for "The study didn't
> find what it found."
>
> You're emotionally invested in being right and, more importantly,
> the good Doctor being wrong. This is typical troll behavior. And,
> the heavy emotions blind you to fact, wall you off from reason the
> same way people say things when they are angry that they'd
> never ordinarily say, or how men are always confused of "Thinking
> with our dicks."
>
> If you disengaged emotionally you might be able to make a decent
> point now and then.
>
> Consider it.

Consider this... again... which completely pulls the rug out
from under the good "doctor" (a doctor in what? something in
the DENTAL field as I recall)

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2010-jul-19-la-he-swimming-20100719-story.html
Swimming with the fittest?
JULY 19, 2010
....
"So I was thrilled when I opened the May-June 2010
issue of Swimmer and found an article about a 2008
study by Steven Blair, a leading exercise scientist
from the University of South Carolina.

"This study, which involved 40,547 men ages 20-90 who
completed health exams between 1971 and 2003, found
that “swimmers had lower mortality rates than those
who were sedentary, walkers or runners.” The study
was funded by the National Institutes of Health and
the National Swimming Pool Foundation and was
published in a new peer-reviewed journal, the
International Journal of Aquatic Research and
Education.

"It was the first time anybody had compared the
long-term benefits of swimming with other activities —
and my sport won.
....
"Blair himself, in a telephone interview, is cautious.
The 13-year study, he says, does “show that swimmers
have lower death rates” than sedentary people, walkers
and runners. “That’s what the data show.” But swimmers
being more fit than runners? “It doesn’t quite make
sense to me,” he says with a laugh.

"Over the course of the study, 1,336 of the 20,356
runners (or 6.6%) had died, compared with only 11 of
the 562 swimmers (1.9%). “That small number of
[swimmer] deaths could lead to erroneous
conclusions,” he says.

In addition, the study was “observational” — that
is, the researchers simply followed the different
groups of people over time to see how they fared,
as opposed to randomly assigning them to different
interventions.

"“My guess is that there were a lot of differences
in the people who chose to be swimmers,” says Steven
Woloshin, a professor of medicine at the Dartmouth
Institute who analyzes the interpretation of
scientific studies.
....
"In another 2008 study using treadmill tests and other
measures of cardiorespiratory fitness, Blair’s team
showed that while runners, both men and women, were the
most fit, “the general pattern of fitness distributions
was similar for swimmers and runners.”

"On the downside, one of the chief benefits of swimming —
being weightless in the water, a boon for aching joints
— is also a disadvantage.

“Swimming does not build bone,” says Dr. Michael Holick,
an osteoporosis expert at the Boston University School
of Medicine. “It’s pounding the pavement that is
translated to hip and spine bone strength. Even
treadmills and elliptical machines are not the same,” he
says."
....

Interesting: "runners, both men and women, were the
most fit" and "swimming does not build bone" ;)

From the pdf

https://scholarworks.bgsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1247&context=ijare

"A large majority of participants were White and from
middle or upper socioeconomic strata"
Does not appear to be very diverse...

"There were 15,883 sedentary men, 562 swimmers,
3,746 walkers, and 20,356 runners"

Only 562 swimmers? Versus over 20,000 runners?

"A major limitation of the analyses is the small
number of deaths in swimmers (n = 11), although
one would expect that the small number would
lead to wide confidence intervals and reduce the
possibility of finding significant differences
between swimmers and the other activity groups.
The study population was limited to predominantly
White, well-educated, middle- to upper-class men.
This limits the generalizability of the study’s
findings, although it should not affect the
study’s internal validity. Moreover, there is no
compelling reason to assume that the benefits of
swimming would be lower in other socioeconomic
groups."

I do not see where they give frequency of exercise,
that is, how many times per week for these physical
activities. How many times per week on average did
a swimmer go swimming or a runner go running? How
far for each activity?

A sample of 562 swimmers versus 20,356 runners? How is
this comparable?

Can jdumb answer that last question?

Op vrijdag 3 maart 2023 om 17:18:16 UTC+1 schreef JTEM is so reasonable:
> Primum Sapienti wrote:
>
> > This study which I posted
> Okay, this rudimentary stuff so try real hard to follow along...
>
> 1. The good Doctor made a claim: Swimming, better!
>
> 2. You produced a cite PROVING that the good Doctor wasn't
> making anything up, there is one or more studies that say
> exactly what he is saying.
>
> 3. What you did, and keep doing -- proving the good Doctor
> right -- is pointed out to you ad nauseam.
>
> 4. You "Don't get it." You say things like "More studies are
> needed" thinking this is French or Latin for "The study didn't
> find what it found."
>
> You're emotionally invested in being right and, more importantly,
> the good Doctor being wrong. This is typical troll behavior. And,
> the heavy emotions blind you to fact, wall you off from reason the
> same way people say things when they are angry that they'd
> never ordinarily say, or how men are always confused of "Thinking
> with our dicks."
>
> If you disengaged emotionally you might be able to make a decent
> point now and then.
>
> Consider it.

:-)

Consider?? I'm afraid this is already too difficult for worshippers of Santa Savanna.

Primum Sapienti wrote:

> The 13-year study, he says, does “show that swimmers
> have lower death rates” than sedentary people, walkers
> and runners. “That’s what the data show.”

So the good Doctor was right, as you once again testify.

To take this further, though clearly not far enough for the
likes of you, any distinction you imagine between "Lives
longer" and "More fit" is lost on normal people.

"Why, yes, as a matter of fact he IS dead. But that doesn't
mean he's less fit."

Yes. Yes it does.

So the good Doctor was 100% correct, he accurate quoted
the cite and the cite does confirm the data.

...and you STILL complain!

You have to be suffering from emotional difficulties, as
intellectual inadequacies alone could not account for your
behavior.

Blessing.

-- --

https://uapro.tumblr.com/post/713343256368381952/conspiracy-time-ii