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