On the New York Times Wellness Section

I'm not a huge fan of Gretchen Reynolds' articles on wellness in @nytimes. A lot of her reporting is taking low-level evidence from recent issues of various medical journals with unremarkable results and over-extrapolating their conclusions. The Times has a far-reaching audience and I'm surprised Reynolds has been getting away with what I find to be irresponsible science reporting to the general population. _ Her most recent article, "Keep It Moving" uses verbiage that suggests prolonged sitting basically negates the benefits of exercise. But the study she cites has a sample size of n=7. The subjects were all men. It only takes place over the course of 8 days. I'm trying to get a full text of the study but I'm curious if the researchers selected for similar effectors of metabolism between groups like lean muscle mass, non-exercise activity thermogenesis (N.E.A.T.), diet, etc. We already know that active lifestyles are preferable to sedentary ones--why report on a non-impactful low-level research article which will probably lead readers into thinking sitting will "undo" the effects of exercise? _ I don't think there's anything really "wrong" with the actual study itself--the researchers aren't necessarily overdrawing conclusions the same way Reynolds is. The title of the article says it all--"Prolonged Sitting Negatively Affects Postprandial Triglyceride Lowering Effect of Acute Exercise"--a very specific outcome is being measured following a bout of acute exercise in the short term. This message is largely different from what Reynolds seems to convey. I know it's not easy to translate dry, nuanced scientific research into easily-digestible articles for the general public to read but @nytimes can do better. Reynolds has been doing this for years. #RantOver

A photo posted by PhysioStrength (@physiostrengthnyc) on