Every hour of TV viewing increases your chances of an early death, according to a new study by Baker IDI Heart and Diabetes Institute in Melbourne, Australia. Every one-hour program you sit through raises your odds for dying from heart attack or stroke by 18 percent, from cancer by 9 percent, and from other health problems by 11 percent, the researchers found. Although excessive TV viewing has been previously linked to health issues, this study is the first to tie the popular past-time to actual death rates.
I am very much afraid that this is typical of studies released early to the popular press.
Well, maybe not quite typical, as it obviously a well thought out study, and an attempt was made to control as many variables as possible - so it was certainly above normal on that. But the conclusions were typical. Correlation = Causality. This is a junk conclusion and leads to improper or even dangerous reactions from all levels of the population.
If the point was to prove that increased sitting lead to decreased life expectancy, then further controls for things like amount of sitting involved at work, at hobbies and simiar activities were needed. There appears to have been no effort (at least as reported in the popular press) to control or study these.
When I took statistics, back when cars had wooden wheels, this was called a clinical study. Our Prof cautioned about putting too much weight on them. They were a great way to find commonality or correlation, but didn't prove it. His example:
rye + water = hangover
scotch + water = hangover
bourbon + water = hangover
conclusion: water causes hangovers.
The obvious correlation is not always the causal link.
In my humble but lovable opinion it's not sitting that leads to death, early or other wise, it's living that kills you.
Think about how many people sit for a living. This may actually answer the question "what in hell is wrong with congress"? Is the only difference having a TV in front of you? What about a CRT, flat panel display (or several), books, manuals, various forms of paperwork?
Every body has a 'study' and every one is valid, right? Just like the East Anglia Climate Research Unit that (virtually) invented data out of thin air for their "study" and conclusion and insist to this moment that it's valid. Sorry, I just don't trust these kinds of claims any more.
Loading ...
Sitting Kills, Finds TV-Habits Study
Posted by: Pam Baker January 14, 2010 10:21 AMEvery hour of TV viewing increases your chances of an early death, according to a new study by Baker IDI Heart and Diabetes Institute in Melbourne, Australia. Every one-hour program you sit through raises your odds for dying from heart attack or stroke by 18 percent, from cancer by 9 percent, and from other health problems by 11 percent, the researchers found. Although excessive TV viewing has been previously linked to health issues, this study is the first to tie the popular past-time to actual death rates.
Well, maybe not quite typical, as it obviously a well thought out study, and an attempt was made to control as many variables as possible - so it was certainly above normal on that. But the conclusions were typical. Correlation = Causality. This is a junk conclusion and leads to improper or even dangerous reactions from all levels of the population.
If the point was to prove that increased sitting lead to decreased life expectancy, then further controls for things like amount of sitting involved at work, at hobbies and simiar activities were needed. There appears to have been no effort (at least as reported in the popular press) to control or study these.
When I took statistics, back when cars had wooden wheels, this was called a clinical study. Our Prof cautioned about putting too much weight on them. They were a great way to find commonality or correlation, but didn't prove it. His example:
rye + water = hangover
scotch + water = hangover
bourbon + water = hangover
conclusion: water causes hangovers.
The obvious correlation is not always the causal link.
Think about how many people sit for a living. This may actually answer the question "what in hell is wrong with congress"? Is the only difference having a TV in front of you? What about a CRT, flat panel display (or several), books, manuals, various forms of paperwork?
Every body has a 'study' and every one is valid, right? Just like the East Anglia Climate Research Unit that (virtually) invented data out of thin air for their "study" and conclusion and insist to this moment that it's valid. Sorry, I just don't trust these kinds of claims any more.