Eugene, I also agree with your post comments. But, I’m still steamed that such a rediculous article made the news stands.

You see, the reason I got so ticked off was that on Thursday a client walked to me and said, “Well, I guess your weight loss theory is wrong. At least I got stronger than the women in the article.”

As one might imagine, I went tearing down the street, frantically prowling the newsstands for a copy of the Times (after our session, of course).

The article is reasonably well written, and for a pro-cardio piece, is fair. But it is not unbiased. And most of all, it is misleading, and that is my problem with it.

1) A scientist who sits in his office and publishes great papers without actually performing the basic science research directly. The problem with this, if it’s the case? The P.I. rarely sees the science applied and is basing judgements predominantly on theoretical knowledge. Is Kraemer this type of scientist? I don’t know for sure. . . . but for him to make a statement as he apparently has is pretty dangerous, especially when there’s living proof of the contrary with many of our well-educated, hard-working clients.

2) A newspaper journalist/editor misquoting or inaccurately presenting information received from a source. What if Kramer’s words were taken out of context? Lord knows that happens rather regularly.

3) A journalist who has no clue how to analyze scientific data and/or cross check variables from multiple studies to see if the results of one study REALLY DO corroborate with the results of another. It seems (based on the bullet points that Eugene highlighted) that this journalist came up with her own conclusions based on bits and pieces of data from differing studies simply for the benefit of her story. Never mind the fact that, for all intents and purposes, the data from one study had nothing to do with the other(s).