home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: alt.support.diet
- Path: sparky!uunet!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!ucla-cs!ucla-mic!MVS.OAC.UCLA.EDU!CSMSCST
- From: CSMSCST@MVS.OAC.UCLA.EDU (Chris Thomas)
- Subject: Re: Health Factors
- Message-ID: <19921123115542CSMSCST@MVS.OAC.UCLA.EDU>
- Sender: MVS NNTP News Reader <NNMVS@MVS.OAC.UCLA.EDU>
- Nntp-Posting-Host: mvs.oac.ucla.edu
- References: <1992Nov23.162847.10049@unocal.com>
- Date: 23 Nov 92 11:55:56 PST
- Lines: 28
-
- In article <1992Nov23.162847.10049@unocal.com>, on 23 Nov 1992 16:28:47 GMT,
- stgprao@st.unocal.COM (Richard Ottolini) writes:
-
- >
- >
- >The long term benefit of various health factors are dubious. Studies change
- >emphasis from week to week. For example, 20/20 on TV last week examined a
- >study of centarians in US Georgia and found the only health factor most had
- >followed was a good, stress free psychological outlook. Many lots of fat,
- >smoked, didn't exercise.
- >
-
- Right. Which is exactly anyone who understands research design
- doesn't do research that way. You end up talking to exactly the
- wrong people. Rather that looking at who smokes (is overweight,
- has high BP, whatever) and has survived, you need to look at how
- many people with that condiditon didn't survive. To quote an
- example I've used before, the 20/20 report is like interviewing
- that woman skydiver from a number of years ago whose parachute
- failed to open, but who landed in a lake and survived. One would
- get a very misleading idea of the the survival rate of jumping
- out of planes without parachutes unless one also collected
- statistics on some of the other people who've tried it.
-
- -- Chris Thomas (CSMSCST@MVS.OAC.UCLA.EDU)
-
- "How much easier it is to be critical
- than to be correct." -- Disraeli
-