On 11/17/2017 1:11 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-11-16 16:56, John B. wrote:


Well, I can't say for you but my hips are 85 years old and still
working :-) And "Old" John Kelly was still running 50 miles a week and
entering a race a month or more when he was in his 70's. "Young" John
Kelly (no relative) was still running marathons in his 60's.


I know. Grandpa never wore a safety belt in his car yet lived.


Fauja Singh, born 1 April 1911) is a British Sikh centenarian marathon
runner of Punjabi Indian descent.Â* On 16 October 2011, Singh became
the first 100-year-old to finish a marathon, completing the Toronto
Waterfront Marathon in 8:11:06.[

Ed Whitlock, at 85, set his latest distance-running record, completing
the Toronto Waterfront Marathon in 3 hours 56 minutes 34 seconds and
becoming the oldest person to run 26.2 miles in under four hours.

Harriette Thompson, 92, became the oldest woman to complete a marathon
on Sunday when she finished the San Diego Rock 'n' Roll Marathon in
7:24:36. She surpassed the record set by Gladys Burrill, who ran
9:53:16 at the 2010 Honolulu Marathon, 19 days after her 92nd
birthday, when she was 74 days younger than Thompson is now.

Yup it is a sure thing that running is bad for you.


My great grandpa lived to almost 103 and regularly smoked big stinking
stogies. The kind where I started to cough from just being in the same
room. So according to your "logic" cigar smoking is perfectly ok for the
health?

The above is a great example of arguing by anecdote. And I'm continually
amazed by the huge numbers of people who think one anecdote is all
that's needed to determine a universal truth. Joerg's a master at that.

For any one anecdote, it's possible to find an opposing anecdote. But
this doesn't faze the argue-by-anecdote fans. They have supreme
confidence that the anecdote _they_ prefer is the only valid one.

Should we gather data on hazards in a disciplined way from a large
sample, striving for minimal bias? Should we analyze the data as deeply
as we can, accounting for confounding factors? Should we examine the
actual magnitudes of any results, rather than treating results as a
binary, pass-fail item? Should we examine any related benefits as well
as the detriments or hazards? Should we examine data on other hazards,
to put our results in context?

The anecdote guys say "Naw. That's too much trouble. My grandpa..." or
"... my riding buddy..." or "... one time I ..." And that's all that
matters in their minds.

--
- Frank Krygowski