Rapid Running Research Roundup (5 min or less)

แชร์
ฝัง
  • เผยแพร่เมื่อ 4 ธ.ค. 2024

ความคิดเห็น • 3

  • @MyFatAdaptedLife
    @MyFatAdaptedLife 9 วันที่ผ่านมา +1

    At the risk of picking nits (not at you, of course, but at the results), these four papers were meta-analyses of other studies rather than fully-randomized trials with control groups. Study #1 Interesting that the researchers did not consider dynamic stretching. Study #3 the researcher was funded by Puma and Saucony. Just saying. Thanks for another entertaining duscussion.

    • @RunningNPAdventures
      @RunningNPAdventures  9 วันที่ผ่านมา +1

      Absolutely. I didn’t take it that way. I do wonder about meta analysis and systemic review. I’m sure whatever point needs to be made can be with enough studies mixed in. Also, saves the researchers from doing a RCT. That said, it reminds me of the quality of evidence pyramid from school. The systemic reviews are just above RCTs. 2. I hear ya on the COI. I think there’s many grants out there. Nike funded their big 4% study. Interesting that the same researcher worked the Nike study and also this one here (Wouter Hoogkamer) good ethical research and researchers run a clean shop.
      This highlights how it’s important to not just take it all with a grain of salt but to look at the whole issue. Go where the evidence leads. Great stuff. Always happy to entertain 😀🤡

    • @MyFatAdaptedLife
      @MyFatAdaptedLife 8 วันที่ผ่านมา

      @RunningNPAdventures Through all their shortcomings, meta-analyses are, at least, better than epidemiological studies, which are woefully unreliable.