In particular, the story does a great job quantifying the potential risks of running and of comparing the likelihood of injury from running to those for walking.
The United States is facing an epidemic of overweight and obesity, with more than one-third of U.S. adults now qualifying as obese. Increasing the amount of exercise we get can play a major role in reducing overweight and obesity, and both running and walking are popular exercise activities. This story will help people make an informed choice as to which might benefit them better.
According to Nielsen Scarborough data from Spring 2016, more than 64 million Americans reported running or jogging for exercise, and the CDC estimates that more than 145 million U.S. adults include walking as part of their exercise routine.
The story does not mention costs, but both walking and running are inexpensive and widely accessible, so we’ll rate this N/A.
However, cost does play a role here, albeit minor, so we think the story would have been stronger if it had included a couple points: Most running experts acknowledge that wearing cheap (often lower-quality) running shoes increases the likelihood of injury, and even those who are walking for exercise need shoes that provide good arch and ankle support. Also, many people do not live in neighborhoods conducive to outdoor exercise (from high traffic and/or pollution, or safety issues), and end up spending money at a gym or on buying a treadmill.
This was a tough call–the story does an impressive job of discussing various benefits of both walking and running and of comparing the health benefits of the two types of exercise. Yet, they were very general takeaways, and we wanted to know more specifics. For example:
Even five to 10 minutes per day of jogging at around 6 miles per hour can reduce the risk of death from cardiovascular disease and other causes.
We wondered by how much does it reduce the risk of death from heart disease?
The story does a very good job of quantifying the potential risks of running and of comparing the likelihood of injury from running to those for walking.
The writer demonstrates an appreciation of the quality of the evidence, noting that she began by looking for randomized control trials and systematic reviews, which are the highest-quality studies. Not every study to which the story links appears to have been a randomized control trial or a systematic review, but all were high-quality studies.
The story avoids disease-mongering. It seems to have been targeted to audiences who already understand the health risks of inactivity, but nonetheless, a sentence or two about the danger of a sedentary lifestyle would have been of benefit.
The story includes independent sources, and there were no potential conflicts of interests that we could detect.
The point of the story is to compare the health benefits and risks of walking versus running, and it does that effectively.
While it’s certainly true that some people in the United States might have a harder time finding space places to run or walk, it’s reasonable to argue that both activities are available to most everyone.
Humans have been walking and running for our entire history on the planet, and the story doesn’t claim to be discussing any new approach.
The story is not reliant on a news release. The author clearly put significant time and effort into doing the background research needed to answer the question she began with, which was what the scientific research says about the benefits and risks of walking versus running for exercise.
Vox’s story competently compares the risks and benefits of walking vs. running, using multiple high-quality studies as the basis for its conclusions. In particular, the story does a great job quantifying the potential risks of running and of comparing the likelihood of injury from running to those for walking.
The United States is facing an epidemic of overweight and obesity, with more than one-third of U.S. adults now qualifying as obese. Increasing the amount of exercise we get can play a major role in reducing overweight and obesity, and both running and walking are popular exercise activities. This story will help people make an informed choice as to which might benefit them better.
According to Nielsen Scarborough data from Spring 2016, more than 64 million Americans reported running or jogging for exercise, and the CDC estimates that more than 145 million U.S. adults include walking as part of their exercise routine.
The story does not mention costs, but both walking and running are inexpensive and widely accessible, so we’ll rate this N/A.
However, cost does play a role here, albeit minor, so we think the story would have been stronger if it had included a couple points: Most running experts acknowledge that wearing cheap (often lower-quality) running shoes increases the likelihood of injury, and even those who are walking for exercise need shoes that provide good arch and ankle support. Also, many people do not live in neighborhoods conducive to outdoor exercise (from high traffic and/or pollution, or safety issues), and end up spending money at a gym or on buying a treadmill.
This was a tough call–the story does an impressive job of discussing various benefits of both walking and running and of comparing the health benefits of the two types of exercise. Yet, they were very general takeaways, and we wanted to know more specifics. For example:
Even five to 10 minutes per day of jogging at around 6 miles per hour can reduce the risk of death from cardiovascular disease and other causes.
We wondered by how much does it reduce the risk of death from heart disease?
The story does a very good job of quantifying the potential risks of running and of comparing the likelihood of injury from running to those for walking.
The writer demonstrates an appreciation of the quality of the evidence, noting that she began by looking for randomized control trials and systematic reviews, which are the highest-quality studies. Not every study to which the story links appears to have been a randomized control trial or a systematic review, but all were high-quality studies.
The story avoids disease-mongering. It seems to have been targeted to audiences who already understand the health risks of inactivity, but nonetheless, a sentence or two about the danger of a sedentary lifestyle would have been of benefit.
The story includes independent sources, and there were no potential conflicts of interests that we could detect.
The point of the story is to compare the health benefits and risks of walking versus running, and it does that effectively.
While it’s certainly true that some people in the United States might have a harder time finding space places to run or walk, it’s reasonable to argue that both activities are available to most everyone.
Humans have been walking and running for our entire history on the planet, and the story doesn’t claim to be discussing any new approach.
The story is not reliant on a news release. The author clearly put significant time and effort into doing the background research needed to answer the question she began with, which was what the scientific research says about the benefits and risks of walking versus running for exercise.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
“A new STAT analysis shows the effort has been marked by disorder and disorganization, with huge financial resources wasted...If the goal was to optimize the likelihood of figuring out the best treatment options, the system is off course” https://www.statnews.com/2020/07/06/data-show-panic-and-disorganization-dominate-the-study-of-covid-19-drugs/
For breakfast, @GarySchwitzer swallows 2 observational studies with an anti-irritant chaser. https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2020/06/for-breakfast-give-me-2-observational-studies-and-an-anti-irritant/#.XvtqMk8i5e8.twitter
Comments
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
Our Comments Policy
But before leaving a comment, please review these notes about our policy.
You are responsible for any comments you leave on this site.
This site is primarily a forum for discussion about the quality (or lack thereof) in journalism or other media messages (advertising, marketing, public relations, medical journals, etc.) It is not intended to be a forum for definitive discussions about medicine or science.
We will delete comments that include personal attacks, unfounded allegations, unverified claims, product pitches, profanity or any from anyone who does not list a full name and a functioning email address. We will also end any thread of repetitive comments. We don”t give medical advice so we won”t respond to questions asking for it.
We don”t have sufficient staffing to contact each commenter who left such a message. If you have a question about why your comment was edited or removed, you can email us at feedback@healthnewsreview.org.
There has been a recent burst of attention to troubles with many comments left on science and science news/communication websites. Read “Online science comments: trolls, trash and treasure.”
The authors of the Retraction Watch comments policy urge commenters:
We”re also concerned about anonymous comments. We ask that all commenters leave their full name and provide an actual email address in case we feel we need to contact them. We may delete any comment left by someone who does not leave their name and a legitimate email address.
And, as noted, product pitches of any sort – pushing treatments, tests, products, procedures, physicians, medical centers, books, websites – are likely to be deleted. We don”t accept advertising on this site and are not going to give it away free.
The ability to leave comments expires after a certain period of time. So you may find that you’re unable to leave a comment on an article that is more than a few months old.
You might also like