No, More Running Probably Isn’t Bad for You

But is that really the case? I get sick of hearing that "the sample size was too small" when no analysis is done of the statistical significance of the results. In this case, the difference between death rates for strenuous vs moderate runners was significant (by my calculation based on their 95% intervals).

Given the small sample size, there are still questions to be asked about the methods they used to correct for age, sex, etc. But still, outright dismissal based on small sample size is not reasonable. If the sample is big enough to give statistically significant results, that should be an a priori reason to accept the results.

In terms of this study, it means running four hours a week; probably 20 miles a week or more. That's not a level of activity that most people are in danger of crossing.

We don't need more poorly done, argumentative, non tech related research on a news site for computer programmers.

Can we please, please stop with the diets that have only been tried on mice and the exercise warnings. None of this in informative or even interesting, it's just trash tabloids masquerading as research that's pertinent to anyone's life.