Search results

Bingo! Thanks @Graham 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 to take it at face value, and forced to make assumptions about it. That's why transparency is so much more advisable than trying to hide the data...

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 they get the graphs in eps (or another vector-based) format, they can reproduce them fairly accurately. But I know from experience that mistakes still...

@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 are redrawn, so are at best an approximation. I've already mentioned this to @Graham - but I think he said he managed to get the data from elsewhere (a...

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 very specific, and don't match anything we've tried so far. I have a pdf of the Petrella paper...

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" refers to the fact that you are supposed to do this exercise 20 times (up the 2 steps and down again). - Petrella estimated that the time will be...

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) about this 2 years ago that I had forgotten about (I then got distracted by the CFQ). @Tom Kindlon made comments on the Protocol in BMC Neurology that...

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 something for a blog - then it will make it easier to discuss if everything's all in one place. Our main problem is that the only place the step test...

Just the results from the Mediation paper. Here is the graph: They were getting scores of between 1.5 and 2, whereas the James equation gives scores <1.0 (unless you are young and fit), and the VO2max estimate from Petrella et al will give scores of between 20 and 30. And as you all say, if...

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 like the numbers shown in the Mediation paper, and if you actually play with the James equation, it doesn't seem to give any consistent reflection of...

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 as they put non-healthy people into their models, they got garbage out - the graphs clearly show they lost all correlation. This was never going to...

I've done a sample in Excel: The problem is that the equation assumes that if you are younger, you are automatically fitter. That's not going to be the case if you are ill. Surely? If you self-pace and go slower, you get a much lower score. Also, the results I'm getting don't bear any...

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 at change in fitness within the individual who has been measured, and not across a group. Also, it is supposed to be a submaximal test, where did...

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 that they don't then provide details for. Often they can't, because the tests they use have been copyrighted, but it clobbers any attempts at...

But that's not the one they used. Here are the Petrella equations: Compared with the equation quoted by @Sasha: