Slashdot Mirror
Sedentary Lifestyle Study Called 'A Raging Dumpster Fire' (arstechnica.com)
Ars Technica's health reporter argues that a new study suggesting sitting will kill you "is kind of a raging dumpster fire. It's funded by Big Soda and riddled with weaknesses -- including not measuring sitting." An anonymous reader quotes this report:
Let's start with the money: It was funded in part by Coca-Cola... [I]t's hard to look past the fact that this is exactly the type of health and nutrition research Coke wants. In fact, Coca-Cola secretly spent $1.5 million to fund an entire network of academic researchers whose goal was to shift the national health conversation away from the harms of sugary beverages. Instead, their research focused on the benefits of exercise -- i.e., the health risks of sedentary and inactive lifestyles. The research network disbanded after The New York Times published an investigation on the network's funding in 2015...
It didn't actually measure sitting... In their words, "Our study has several limitations. First, the Actical accelerometer cannot distinguish between postures (such as sitting vs. standing); thus, we relied on an intensity-only definition of sedentary behavior." The "intensity-only" definition of sedentary behavior is based on metabolic equivalents, basically units defined by how much oxygen a person uses up doing various activities. But those definitions are also not cut and dried. There are no clear lines between lying down, sitting, standing in place, or light movement... Then there's the participant data: It's not representative -- like, at all... At the time of wearing the accelerometer, the most active group's mean age was 65. The mean age of the least active group: 75.
Groups were assigned based on just a week's worth of data -- or less. And the people placed in the least-active group were already more likely to be smokers, to have diabetes and hypertension, and to have a history of coronary heart disease and stroke.
It didn't actually measure sitting... In their words, "Our study has several limitations. First, the Actical accelerometer cannot distinguish between postures (such as sitting vs. standing); thus, we relied on an intensity-only definition of sedentary behavior." The "intensity-only" definition of sedentary behavior is based on metabolic equivalents, basically units defined by how much oxygen a person uses up doing various activities. But those definitions are also not cut and dried. There are no clear lines between lying down, sitting, standing in place, or light movement... Then there's the participant data: It's not representative -- like, at all... At the time of wearing the accelerometer, the most active group's mean age was 65. The mean age of the least active group: 75.
Groups were assigned based on just a week's worth of data -- or less. And the people placed in the least-active group were already more likely to be smokers, to have diabetes and hypertension, and to have a history of coronary heart disease and stroke.
sudo rm -r -f --no-preserve-root /
What passes for scientific research is just a game of getting grant money. Publish some results. Repeat ad nauseam. Just don't upset the powers that be.
Look at climate change - just as long as your abstract and conclusion say what the church of the left wants you to say, your research and paper will be well funded. Deviate a little and you get excommunicated.
Apparently someone has a seriously big chip on their shoulder.
Exactly how does funding a study that indicates you should do something that is healthy for you a complete and utter sham?
It is not Coca Cola's job to criticise themselves. There are plenty of people out there that will do that regardless.
Caution: Contents under pressure
There should be a great big disclaimer on any medical research post that is funded by a processed foods company. What realistically does any company expect other than an outcome where it makes their product more marketable?
I get it. Coca Cola is shifting the blame away from sugary drinks. This study also is loaded with junk science. But ... isn't this basically a forgone conclusion anyway?
I mean do we really need a study regardless of source of funding or quality of science to tell us that sitting on our asses isn't healthy? You don't need to study that directly when you look at all the other health science out there, and the fact that it was funded by Coca Cola doesn't change the fact either.
I frankly don't care that the funding came from a sugar drink company, it wasn't assessing the effect of sugar. I'm sad that the study was junk, but frankly I don't care much that the attention was shifted from drinks providing science is done.