Page 2 of 2 First 12
  1. #11

    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    New Zealand
    Kickboxing/MuaiThai (new)
    Quote Originally Posted by ChenPengFi View Post
    "Resistance" is one of the three interventions tested; Tai Chi, Resistance and Stretching.

    Noted. Miss read something that made me think they were combining the three rather than three entities. I withdraw my statement.

  2. #12

    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    I know jack **** about eastern healing and medicine, but I have a hard time believing that all the people who say it has helped them are full of ****.

  3. #13
    ChenPengFi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Hung Gar, Choy Lay Fut
    Quote Originally Posted by itwasntme View Post
    I guess I don't. I thought there just had to be more to it than what the paper laid out. My bad.
    Your first mistake was not reading thoroughly:
    (from your original link)
    This study has some limitations.
    First, given the behavior-based treatments, participants were aware of their intervention assignments. This awareness may have introduced biases in the results, since persons interested in participating may have had positive expectations about the benefits of exercise. Second, we did not include a nonexercise control group, so the net gain of tai chi training cannot be gauged.
    That in part addresses your blinding issue.

    Coincidentally, and the reason for the necro, i came across this article today where the author made the same mistakes.

    Now, in the original article, I mentioned something like �we would need some sort of double-blind squat study� in order to show if there are any real (special) benefits to having the ability to squat like a baby as adult, beyond those people like Olympic lifters who obviously need it in order to participate in their sport. Or, something to that effect. That part has been removed (from the original article) for the the following reason:

    At the time of writing that part into the article, I was well aware that you couldn�t �blind� an exercise (in a study) because it�s impossible to do an exercise without knowing it. Where I went wrong was that I assumed that a study like this could be done without informing the participants �why� they were squatting, or informing the observers who were analyzing each person what the specific criteria was they were looking for, as not to cognitively prime them to seek out and only take note of the things that fit the specific criteria.

    After posting this, my good friend Dr. Jose Antonio, who is well-versed on how exercise (and nutrition) oriented research studies are run, informed me that you would not get approval for an exercise-based research study that attempted to create a blind in this manner because the participants would have to be informed why they were doing the squats.

    The point is, not only was I wrong for simply assuming something and not checking my facts before I wrote it into an article that contained many things that I did take great time and energy in fact-checking. But I was also wrong because the criteria I proposed just did not line up with reality; the reality of how a study involving the squat could be done.

Page 2 of 2 First 12


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts

Log in

Log in