Surprised my old team at the Beeb fell for that one back in February. I regularly used to spike crap like that.
Interesting that the journal is blaming the media. I’d guess that if I had the original press release from the journal or the university in my hands, it would highlight that particular finding, given that pretty much the entire media ran with it.
A lot of health media are generalists, and sadly not skilled at looking much further than the press release. This is far from ideal, but academic institutions and publications know this, and share the responsibility for this kind of story when they pick the ‘sexy’ angle when trying to publicise a pretty run-of-the-mill study.
The main finding of the study is that moderate exercise helps you live longer. Dog bites man. The tenuous secondary ‘finding’ was that strenuous exercise may unexpectedly offer no overall benefit. Man bites dog – so much more attractive to newsdesks.
Here’s the conclusion from the abstract. When they stick a misleading angle into the final summing up sentence, they can’t complain too bitterly when journalists fall for it.
The findings suggest a U-shaped association between all-cause mortality and dose of jogging as calibrated by pace, quantity, and frequency of jogging. Light and moderate joggers have lower mortality than sedentary nonjoggers, whereas strenuous joggers have a mortality rate not statistically different from that of the sedentary group.