Introductions - An Irish triathlete

Hi All,

I'm an Irish triathlete whose doing a PhD. in Exercise Physiology in Trinity College Dublin. I really joned this forum to invite forum members to help me with a study I'm conducting in relation to training methods in cycling and other sports. I have placed a post on post on the road cycling section, but I'd be delighted for anybody to take some time to help me out. Check out 'cycling survey' on the the road cycling section.

Thanks,
Aubrey.

http://www.tcd.ie/Physiology/exercisesurvey

Your survey seems to have been moved to

"Shameless Promotions!"

I STRONGLY object to everyone over 65 being lumped into one category. Your bias is showing. I will not complete the survey based on this defect.

By having everyone over 65 in one category, you have:

1. Denigrated those over 65 as if they don't really matter, and age differences in exercising after 65 are really of no interest to you.

2. You may be missing important information, i.e., we have a person on this forum who is 84, rides 2,000 miles per year with one leg. Your survey would never pick up that he is 84, and he might as well be 65.

I liked the survey.
Nice to see the Irish sports included - hurling and gaelic football.

I don't mind the age groups. I am lumped together with the arthritic and senile 29-year-olds... :D

I liked the survey.
Nice to see the Irish sports included - hurling and gaelic football.

I don't mind the age groups. I am lumped together with the arthritic and senile 29-year-olds... :D

All the other age groups are divided in ranges of 4-5 years (I don't know why the spacing is different and not consistent), while when you get to 65 the spread is from 65 - whatever the oldest person is - i.e., 95 or 85 or whatever. A possible 35 year division.

Of course you didn't mind them- they were appropriate for your age group.

But I doubt you know what the focus of the survey and study is.
Perhaps the over-65s are given little or no "weight" in the study and that's the reason?
The statistical data for active over-65s is bound to be low compared to the other age groups, anyway... You have to be well out of any margins of error...

But I doubt you know what the focus of the survey and study is.
Perhaps the over-65s are given little or no "weight" in the study and that's the reason?
The statistical data for active over-65s is bound to be low compared to the other age groups, anyway... You have to be well out of any margins of error...

Then a well-designed study would stop at 65, and not ask those over 65 to respond.

Come on - why are you defending the author when you know that she/he should have parsed all age groups equally or not included them?

A sloppy study - typical of so many PhD studies that you see.

Again, if the number of survey takers in that age group is expected to be very low, then they could very well be included, but as a larger group.

Let's see if Aubrey responds...

Again, if the number of survey takers in that age group is expected to be very low, then they could very well be included, but as a larger group.

Let's see if Aubrey responds...

If the incidence of responders is low, she always has the option of lumping them together after she gets her data. However, by not asking in appropriately age-defiend groups, she misses out on some potential for very interesting data. For example, suppose she found a large number of folks active in the 70-75 range, but none in the 65-69 range. She will never know of this quirk without having the groups properly age divided.

Ah well, but at least she looks good... :D