1. Read the following and post one comment about a topic we've discussed in AP Stats.
2. Search another article about this study. Read it and post the link.
3. Read at least one other student's comment and comment on it.
It is clear that this study while it may be valid is not the end of research into this topic.There are clearly too many lurking variables within the idea of how sitting decreases you lifespan to simply nail down an arbitrary number like 21 minutes.also they cite large number of people in their studies, but more people involved does not make it a better study. This study is by far not conclusive on anything
Link to more on topic : http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/sitting/AN02082
I agree that there are many lurking variables, but I do believe that this study does show that there is some correlation between sitting and life expectancy. Yes there needs to be more studies, but it definitely is forming some conclusion soon to be found.
You guys noticed the difference in sitters and non-sitter right? Assuming the numbers are true, I didn't think that they were very significant at all. I forget the numbers, but they were along the lines of "someone who sits 6+ hours a day their entire life will die 5 years earlier than a person who doesn't." That is A LOT of sitting compared to the other person, and I don't feel that 5years is that much in the grand scheme of things. This is data, no doubt. And it is worth looking at, but I don't find these results startling enough for the article to preach the "dangers of sitting."
I agree with Nikolai, I feel that this article brings up strong points about the dangers of sitting. They don't really back up their findings of 21.8 minutes is taken off your life for every hour of television. I feel that the researchers need to look at lurking variables, such a s preexisting heart conditions, before they generalize in big groups like they did in this study. More research needs to be done on this topic before anything can be said with certainty.
Karl, I agree with you because there are too many lurking variables in this study. This data of 21 minutes can not be confirmed form just one study. More studies should be conducted on this topic in the future
Kenny and Karl, I agree with both of you that there are too many lurking variables in this study and that more research needs to be done. 21.8 minutes is a very exact number for a very vague study. In addition, since no one knows how long they are going to live for it makes it difficult to know how many years are taken away due to sitting. More studies must be done in order to have more accurate results.
This experiment is valid and brings up valid points about how sitting can hurt your body. However, there are two many lurking variables to prove the data that was recorded. To decrease a life span by 21 minutes due to one experiment is incorrect. I thought the experiment was a good idea, it should now have other experiments on the same topic stemming off of it. This will give the data a more accurate read.
This article adresses a very important problem in our society today. The amount of sitting both young adults and adults do per day is disgusting, and I think the affects are both apparent and expanding. Since they don't give any exact numbers, you cannot know how accurate the data in the study is and you cannot be sure that there are no lurking variables. I definitely believe that this is a topic that needs multiple studies done, and I think this is a step in the right direction.
Although this article brought up several valid points about people being inactive and sitting too often, it does not give enough data to support this study. I do believe there is a correlation between the amount of time people spend sitting and life expectancy. However, I do not believe this article thoroughly and accurately addressed the effects of sitting. Decreasing your life by 21.8 minutes for every hour you sit seems unbelievable; there are many lurking variables that go along with this study. This study has potential, but it needs to be more accurate in order for people to listen and make a change.
It seems as though many of the participants in the study had other factors that could cause a decrease in their life expectancy. Many participants smoked or were overweight. Also, participants that were more likely sit for hours at a time, were also more likely to eat unhealthy food, smoke, not exercise, etc. Overall, there are too many lurking variables in this experiment, and with that, I find the figure presented to be hard to believe.
I agree with Alex. The sample of this survey makes this survey inaccurate. With all of the lurking variables, the sample in this study could easily be over-representing certain individuals.
Here is a link to more information on this topic: http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2012/07/09/study-excessive-sitting-cuts-life-expectancy-by-two-years
In this experiment, survey sampling was done with a voluntary response bias. This means that the members of the sample being studied were self-selected volunteers. However, response biases can easily affect the results of a statistical survey such as this if respondents answer questions in the way they think the questioner wants them to answer rather than according to their true beliefs. Even though there were almost 12,000 Australian adults being surveyed, that doesn't make the survey results any more reliable. If the survey sample does not accurately represent the population, the results of the experiment can easily be faulty.
I feel that one of the biggest problems with this study is a control group. It is just that, a study. People's lives vary so vastly, that reduced life expectancy of individuals can hardly be predicted by how much Television they watch. If you could implement a better control group, then the results would be more reliable. For example, if I could make someone live their entire life with 6hrs of TV a day, then take that same person and make them live the exact same life, minus the TV, we would have implemented control into what has now become an experiment.
"According to researcher, Steven Blair, sitting for six hours a day or more makes you 40 percent more likely to die than someone who sits less than 3 hours a day."
HAHAHAHA!!! Sorry to break it you guys, but I'm almost positive that 100% of people die! Today I learned that I can be immortal if I don't sit down! In all seriousness though, this is an example of...bad statistics.
Similar to Haley, I believe that this sample is very bias. The people who took part in this survey were volunteers so it would not include a large population that may not feel comfortable taking part in the survey or did not hear about it, etc. Also, only surveying 12,0000 Australian adults does not include a wide variety of people around the world. There could have been many factors that related to weight issues such as smoking.
It is clear that this study while it may be valid is not the end of research into this topic.There are clearly too many lurking variables within the idea of how sitting decreases you lifespan to simply nail down an arbitrary number like 21 minutes.also they cite large number of people in their studies, but more people involved does not make it a better study. This study is by far not conclusive on anything
ReplyDeleteLink to more on topic
: http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/sitting/AN02082
Nikolai,
DeleteI agree that there are many lurking variables, but I do believe that this study does show that there is some correlation between sitting and life expectancy. Yes there needs to be more studies, but it definitely is forming some conclusion soon to be found.
You guys noticed the difference in sitters and non-sitter right? Assuming the numbers are true, I didn't think that they were very significant at all. I forget the numbers, but they were along the lines of "someone who sits 6+ hours a day their entire life will die 5 years earlier than a person who doesn't." That is A LOT of sitting compared to the other person, and I don't feel that 5years is that much in the grand scheme of things. This is data, no doubt. And it is worth looking at, but I don't find these results startling enough for the article to preach the "dangers of sitting."
DeleteI agree with Nikolai, I feel that this article brings up strong points about the dangers of sitting. They don't really back up their findings of 21.8 minutes is taken off your life for every hour of television. I feel that the researchers need to look at lurking variables, such a s preexisting heart conditions, before they generalize in big groups like they did in this study. More research needs to be done on this topic before anything can be said with certainty.
ReplyDeleteLink:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/24/sitting-at-work-why-its-dangerous-alternatives_n_1695618.html
Karl, I agree with you because there are too many lurking variables in this study. This data of 21 minutes can not be confirmed form just one study. More studies should be conducted on this topic in the future
DeleteKenny and Karl, I agree with both of you that there are too many lurking variables in this study and that more research needs to be done. 21.8 minutes is a very exact number for a very vague study. In addition, since no one knows how long they are going to live for it makes it difficult to know how many years are taken away due to sitting. More studies must be done in order to have more accurate results.
DeleteThis experiment is valid and brings up valid points about how sitting can hurt your body. However, there are two many lurking variables to prove the data that was recorded. To decrease a life span by 21 minutes due to one experiment is incorrect. I thought the experiment was a good idea, it should now have other experiments on the same topic stemming off of it. This will give the data a more accurate read.
ReplyDeleteLink: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-19910888
Kenny,
DeleteI agree with you that while the study is valid we can not give it an arbitrary number like 21 minutes
This article adresses a very important problem in our society today. The amount of sitting both young adults and adults do per day is disgusting, and I think the affects are both apparent and expanding. Since they don't give any exact numbers, you cannot know how accurate the data in the study is and you cannot be sure that there are no lurking variables. I definitely believe that this is a topic that needs multiple studies done, and I think this is a step in the right direction.
ReplyDeleteLink:
http://healthland.time.com/2012/07/10/get-up-sitting-less-can-add-years-to-your-life/
I agree with you. I believe that the idea of this study is great, but the exact figure of 21.8 minutes is questionable.
DeleteI agree with you as well. These statistics are believable because of the increasing health issues related to weight and heart issues among this age.
DeleteAlthough this article brought up several valid points about people being inactive and sitting too often, it does not give enough data to support this study. I do believe there is a correlation between the amount of time people spend sitting and life expectancy. However, I do not believe this article thoroughly and accurately addressed the effects of sitting. Decreasing your life by 21.8 minutes for every hour you sit seems unbelievable; there are many lurking variables that go along with this study. This study has potential, but it needs to be more accurate in order for people to listen and make a change.
ReplyDeleteLink:
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2012/07/09/study-excessive-sitting-cuts-life-expectancy-by-two-years
It seems as though many of the participants in the study had other factors that could cause a decrease in their life expectancy. Many participants smoked or were overweight. Also, participants that were more likely sit for hours at a time, were also more likely to eat unhealthy food, smoke, not exercise, etc. Overall, there are too many lurking variables in this experiment, and with that, I find the figure presented to be hard to believe.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Alex. The sample of this survey makes this survey inaccurate. With all of the lurking variables, the sample in this study could easily be over-representing certain individuals.
DeleteHere is a link to more information on this topic:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2012/07/09/study-excessive-sitting-cuts-life-expectancy-by-two-years
In this experiment, survey sampling was done with a voluntary response bias. This means that the members of the sample being studied were self-selected volunteers. However, response biases can easily affect the results of a statistical survey such as this if respondents answer questions in the way they think the questioner wants them to answer rather than according to their true beliefs. Even though there were almost 12,000 Australian adults being surveyed, that doesn't make the survey results any more reliable. If the survey sample does not accurately represent the population, the results of the experiment can easily be faulty.
ReplyDeletehttp://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303343404577516853567934264.html
I feel that one of the biggest problems with this study is a control group. It is just that, a study. People's lives vary so vastly, that reduced life expectancy of individuals can hardly be predicted by how much Television they watch. If you could implement a better control group, then the results would be more reliable. For example, if I could make someone live their entire life with 6hrs of TV a day, then take that same person and make them live the exact same life, minus the TV, we would have implemented control into what has now become an experiment.
ReplyDeletehttp://sportsmedicine.about.com/od/Exercise-Metabolism-Energy/qt/Too-Much-Sitting-Can-Harm-Your-Health.htm
"According to researcher, Steven Blair, sitting for six hours a day or more makes you 40 percent more likely to die than someone who sits less than 3 hours a day."
HAHAHAHA!!! Sorry to break it you guys, but I'm almost positive that 100% of people die! Today I learned that I can be immortal if I don't sit down! In all seriousness though, this is an example of...bad statistics.
Similar to Haley, I believe that this sample is very bias. The people who took part in this survey were volunteers so it would not include a large population that may not feel comfortable taking part in the survey or did not hear about it, etc. Also, only surveying 12,0000 Australian adults does not include a wide variety of people around the world. There could have been many factors that related to weight issues such as smoking.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.naturalnews.com/sitting.html