Bingo! Thanks @Graham [ATTACH] Interesting that they used the 12-week data for fitness rather than the 52-week data... Cherry-picking?
I would be inclined to agree. If they are unwilling to release the data or fully disclose the methods they used to obtain it, then we are forced...
Granted. In my day was 20 years ago, so I would hope things have changed by now! Update: I've checked the Lancet Illustrators guide. As long as...
@BruceInOz @Luther Blissett Please be aware that taking the values from the graphs printed in The Lancet is not going to be accurate. All graphs...
Thanks @Graham - do you know whether they combined those two calculations in some way to obtain the score they used for the graph? The ranges are...
We need to stop trying to get the data to fit and actually find out what they did!
I think you're not allowing for brackets. I get 0.5273.
That's coz you're forgetting to divide by the %HRR
An A for effort there @Esther12 ! However: - Total step height will be 0.4m (because there are two steps of 20cm each to alight). - The "x 20"...
I think Graham's already done that. But I'm not sure it helps without knowing what they did.
Re: Step test and other 'objective' measures I need to get all my bits together on this. I realised that I had a convo with @Graham (and Bob)...
That's because you were too busy talking about cardigans! :p
I'm not sure whether we have enough information to do that yet. But I can make a start, if you think that would be useful. I'll put together...
Just the results from the Mediation paper. Here is the graph: [ATTACH] They were getting scores of between 1.5 and 2, whereas the James equation...
All you have to do is use the data from the Petrella paper itself, which I did in my excel version. It simply doesn't work. You don't get anything...
You only have to read the Petrella paper properly to realise that this is never going to work anyway. They studied *healthy* older adults. As soon...
I've done a sample in Excel: [ATTACH] The problem is that the equation assumes that if you are younger, you are automatically fitter. That's not...
The problem then with the version they have used is that it is not adjusted for age, sex or BMI, which means it is only really useful for looking...
But why would they reference Petrella, and then use a more ambiguous measure of fitness? This is one of the main problems with trials using tests...
But that's not the one they used. Here are the Petrella equations: [ATTACH] Compared with the equation quoted by @Sasha:
Separate names with a comma.
