Very good point. Top that off with the fact that mechanical work does not and cannot predict metabolic work correctly (take a look through some biomechanical modeling literature if you're interested for more info) and you've got a pretty ill-conceived study.
-Dan
The system used to measure physical activity is also raucously stupid. It's been shown over and over in biomechanical literature that mechanical work does not and cannot predict metabolic work. Combine that with the fact that the apparatus hasn't been validated well for upper body use, and the 6 kid sample size, and you've got a worthless study of poor design that absolutely should not have been published.
Just building on your good start of criticism:)
Slashdot Mirror
Very good point. Top that off with the fact that mechanical work does not and cannot predict metabolic work correctly (take a look through some biomechanical modeling literature if you're interested for more info) and you've got a pretty ill-conceived study. -Dan
The system used to measure physical activity is also raucously stupid. It's been shown over and over in biomechanical literature that mechanical work does not and cannot predict metabolic work. Combine that with the fact that the apparatus hasn't been validated well for upper body use, and the 6 kid sample size, and you've got a worthless study of poor design that absolutely should not have been published. Just building on your good start of criticism :)