There is an association between watching lots of TV and a shorter lifespan

  • metta

    Posts: 39126

    Aug 27, 2011 5:26 AM GMT

    There is an association between watching lots of TV and a shorter lifespan

    http://yourlife.usatoday.com/fitness-food/story/2011/08/Too-much-TV-may-take-years-off-your-life/50000352/1
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 27, 2011 5:31 AM GMT
    metta8 said
    There is an association between watching lots of TV and a shorter lifespan

    http://yourlife.usatoday.com/fitness-food/story/2011/08/Too-much-TV-may-take-years-off-your-life/50000352/1


    It's not a causal study - and consistent with the hyperventilating one might expect from the media. It probably has more to do with sitting on a couch than it does with tv as the article points out itself.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 27, 2011 5:36 AM GMT
    riddler78 said
    metta8 said
    There is an association between watching lots of TV and a shorter lifespan

    http://yourlife.usatoday.com/fitness-food/story/2011/08/Too-much-TV-may-take-years-off-your-life/50000352/1


    It's not a causal study - and consistent with the hyperventilating one might expect from the media. It probably has more to do with sitting on a couch than it does with tv as the article points out itself.
    I would venture to say that If I told you that the sky 'looked' blue, you'd argue that too.. You just cant possibly NOT have to have the last word can you? Do you know what that type of person is called?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 27, 2011 5:40 AM GMT
    TropicalMark said
    riddler78 said
    metta8 said
    There is an association between watching lots of TV and a shorter lifespan

    http://yourlife.usatoday.com/fitness-food/story/2011/08/Too-much-TV-may-take-years-off-your-life/50000352/1


    It's not a causal study - and consistent with the hyperventilating one might expect from the media. It probably has more to do with sitting on a couch than it does with tv as the article points out itself.
    I would venture to say that If I told you that the sky 'looked' blue, you'd argue that too.. You just cant possibly NOT have to have the last word can you? Do you know what that type of person is called?


    There's nothing to argue here. Did you bother to read the study? Or is that too "intellectually honest" for you? Are you saying that the title and Metta's conclusion is intellectually honest?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 27, 2011 1:03 PM GMT
    jprichva said
    riddler78 saidThere's nothing to argue here. Did you bother to read the study? Or is that too "intellectually honest" for you? Are you saying that the title and Metta's conclusion is intellectually honest?

    No, no.....I think what Mark is saying that you're an obnoxious know-it-all of limited intelligence but boundless and undeserved self-regard.



    Lol - that's ironic coming from a blowhard like you that serves as possibly the best example other than ArtDeco that age does not confer wisdom, I'll take that in the spirit it was given ;).
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 27, 2011 1:10 PM GMT
    jprichva said
    riddler78 saidThere's nothing to argue here. Did you bother to read the study? Or is that too "intellectually honest" for you? Are you saying that the title and Metta's conclusion is intellectually honest?

    No, no.....I think what Mark is saying that you're an obnoxious know-it-all of limited intelligence but boundless and undeserved self-regard.

    Are you serious? On what objective basis to assess intelligence? As far as self-regard, he deals with economic and political concepts and only injects his own credentials if specifically challenged. Would your "assessments" change if his politics were more to your liking?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 27, 2011 1:20 PM GMT
    TropicalMark said
    riddler78 said
    metta8 said
    There is an association between watching lots of TV and a shorter lifespan

    http://yourlife.usatoday.com/fitness-food/story/2011/08/Too-much-TV-may-take-years-off-your-life/50000352/1


    It's not a causal study - and consistent with the hyperventilating one might expect from the media. It probably has more to do with sitting on a couch than it does with tv as the article points out itself.
    I would venture to say that If I told you that the sky 'looked' blue, you'd argue that too.. You just cant possibly NOT have to have the last word can you? Do you know what that type of person is called?


    Gee, Mark. He made a really innocuous comment. (I thought the same thing when I read it. I have found some of riddler's comments yesterday and today pretty noncontroversial, so it is not fair to jump on him for it.

    He made a reasonable comment that did not deserve that.



    He happens to be on a roll of good threads today (see the San Francisco historical photo archive thread he posted.


  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 27, 2011 1:21 PM GMT
    It's more an issue of a sedentary life vs. an active life.
    Only sensationalized by use of "television", heck, you could have substituted "video game playing for hours on end" or "surfing the net" or "realjock usage" - LOL
  • CAtoFL

    Posts: 834

    Aug 27, 2011 1:31 PM GMT
    I hate to get in the middle of the usual bickering, but from a research standpoint, riddler is correct on this. This study does not prove causality - i.e., that Act A (watching excessive amounts of TV) yields result B (a shorter lifespan). Instead, it merely observes that A and B seem to exist in direct proportion.

    Few would argue that an hour watching TV while sitting on the couch eating pizza equates to an hour of watching TV while on a cardio machine at the gym. If I burn 500 calories at the gym while watching TV, it would be ridiculous to claim that TV watching burns calories. Yet in that instance, there would be a correlation.

    Other lifestyle variables also need to be considered. For example, obesity might lead to excessive TV watching. And again, considering causality, excessive TV watching might lead to obesity.

    As the article says, "other experts cautioned that the study did not show that TV watching caused people to die sooner, only that there was an association between watching lots of TV and a shorter lifespan".

    There is good research and there is bad research. This is the type of research seemingly created to get on the evening news and to earn the study's 'researchers' some notoriety. At the VERY best, the study needs to be recast considerinng more lifestyle variables employed to generate an honest multi-variate analysis.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 27, 2011 1:48 PM GMT
    CAtoFL saidI hate to get in the middle of the usual bickering, but from a research standpoint, riddler is correct on this. This study does not prove causality - i.e., that Act A (watching excessive amounts of TV) yields result B (a shorter lifespan). Instead, it merely observes that A and B seem to exist in direct proportion.

    Few would argue that an hour watching TV while sitting on the couch eating pizza equates to an hour of watching TV while on a cardio machine at the gym. If I burn 500 calories at the gym while watching TV, it would be ridiculous to claim that TV watching burns calories. Yet in that instance, there would be a correlation.

    Other lifestyle variables also need to be considered. For example, obesity might lead to excessive TV watching. And again, considering causality, excessive TV watching might lead to obesity.

    As the article says, "other experts cautioned that the study did not show that TV watching caused people to die sooner, only that there was an association between watching lots of TV and a shorter lifespan".

    There is good research and there is bad research. This is the type of research seemingly created to get on the evening news and to earn the study's 'researchers' some notoriety. At the VERY best, the study needs to be recast considerinng more lifestyle variables employed to generate an honest multi-variate analysis.

    Absolutely correct. In the past in other discussions, I have provided links to a paper and also a simple 12 chart PowerPoint, both discussing correlation versus causation. As you might expect, didn't make too much of an impression here. The guys who don't know the difference wouldn't take the trouble to learn.
  • ATXnative

    Posts: 240

    Aug 27, 2011 2:04 PM GMT
    Hahah, what a bunch of queens. Way to get COMPLETELY off topic to satisfy your needs guys.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 27, 2011 2:06 PM GMT
    riddler78 said
    metta8 said
    There is an association between watching lots of TV and a shorter lifespan

    http://yourlife.usatoday.com/fitness-food/story/2011/08/Too-much-TV-may-take-years-off-your-life/50000352/1


    It's not a causal study - and consistent with the hyperventilating one might expect from the media. It probably has more to do with sitting on a couch than it does with tv as the article points out itself.


    Exactly this. It's correlated but doesn't cause a shorter life span. It's just, if you're sitting on your buns all day watching tv, you probably aren't getting enough exercise or eating right which would reduce your life expectancy.
  • CAtoFL

    Posts: 834

    Aug 27, 2011 2:36 PM GMT
    socalfitness saidAbsolutely correct. In the past in other discussions, I have provided links to a paper and also a simple 12 chart PowerPoint, both discussing correlation versus causation. As you might expect, didn't make too much of an impression here. The guys who don't know the difference wouldn't take the trouble to learn

    Exactly. In Statistics, I would teach this as "ants don't cause picnics".

    You might hold ten straight picnics where ants show up. There is an 'association' then between having a picnic and ants. But picnics don't cause ants and ants don't cause picnics. :-)
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 27, 2011 2:45 PM GMT
    CAtoFL saidsocalfitness saidAbsolutely correct. In the past in other discussions, I have provided links to a paper and also a simple 12 chart PowerPoint, both discussing correlation versus causation. As you might expect, didn't make too much of an impression here. The guys who don't know the difference wouldn't take the trouble to learn

    Exactly. In Statistics, I would teach this as "ants don't cause picnics".

    You might hold ten straight picnics where ants show up. There is an 'association' then between having a picnic and ants. But picnics don't cause ants and ants don't cause picnics. :-)

    Never heard that one, very funny! But more seriously, many will dismiss that example as being too obvious or contrived and say it doesn't apply in "real life discussions" where they try and further their point, even though there is no basis for doing so.

    Different case, but reminded me of a professor who was trying to help a neighbor decide on some issue that affected his community. The two issues could be called A and C. The professor created for discussion an issue B. Neighbor definitely preferred A over B and also B over C. Professor asked neighbor if that helped him decide between A and C. Neighbor said no because B was not real.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 27, 2011 4:13 PM GMT
    jprichva said
    riddler78 saidThere's nothing to argue here. Did you bother to read the study? Or is that too "intellectually honest" for you? Are you saying that the title and Metta's conclusion is intellectually honest?

    No, no.....I think what Mark is saying that you're an obnoxious know-it-all of limited intelligence but boundless and undeserved self-regard.

    Well at least ONE intelligent person here understood exactly why the comment was made.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 27, 2011 7:15 PM GMT
    TropicalMark said
    jprichva said
    riddler78 saidThere's nothing to argue here. Did you bother to read the study? Or is that too "intellectually honest" for you? Are you saying that the title and Metta's conclusion is intellectually honest?

    No, no.....I think what Mark is saying that you're an obnoxious know-it-all of limited intelligence but boundless and undeserved self-regard.

    Well at least ONE intelligent person here understood exactly why the comment was made.


    Said one stupid person to someone even stupider ;)
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 27, 2011 7:21 PM GMT
    riddler78 said
    TropicalMark said
    jprichva said
    riddler78 saidThere's nothing to argue here. Did you bother to read the study? Or is that too "intellectually honest" for you? Are you saying that the title and Metta's conclusion is intellectually honest?

    No, no.....I think what Mark is saying that you're an obnoxious know-it-all of limited intelligence but boundless and undeserved self-regard.

    Well at least ONE intelligent person here understood exactly why the comment was made.


    Said one stupid person to someone even stupider ;)
    Said the object of the remark.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 27, 2011 7:24 PM GMT
    riddler78 said
    jprichva said
    riddler78 saidThere's nothing to argue here. Did you bother to read the study? Or is that too "intellectually honest" for you? Are you saying that the title and Metta's conclusion is intellectually honest?

    No, no.....I think what Mark is saying that you're an obnoxious know-it-all of limited intelligence but boundless and undeserved self-regard.



    Lol - that's ironic coming from a blowhard like you that serves as possibly the best example other than ArtDeco that age does not confer wisdom, I'll take that in the spirit it was given ;).


    Uhm did you actually just say that? You do know this is very bad self-defense mechanism to be using on here.. as it says more about your own lack of wisdom than about his or Art Deco's
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 27, 2011 7:56 PM GMT
    Especially watching Joy Behar. After a few nites of her trainwreck of a show, you'll wish you were dead. Thus, it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 27, 2011 8:30 PM GMT
    Well if we could get that time back, we would spend it watching TV anyhow, so whats the issue?

    I've been awaiting to see Obama's hope and change, but it's not been positive to watch..........