Originally Posted by
TromboneAl
maybe these guys would have lived 12 years longer than the rest of us had they not performed all this extreme training. That's entirely reasonable.
Is it? I don't see why.
The TdF study showed that the ex-pros not only outlived the general population by 6 years, they also had 33% lower rate of deaths from cardiovascular causes. That's a pretty good indicator that vigorous exercise doesn't cause long-term heart problems.
The genetic variations that lead to excellent cycling performance -- e.g. specific body shapes, higher natural hematocrit levels -- do not necessarily increase longevity. Determining which physiological factors do contribute to longevity, or how lifelong moderate exercisers compare to life-long vigorous exercisers, would all require... the kinds of studies you're criticizing.
I also don't see how scientific research, when conducted in good faith, is the core problem. E.g. the "MMR vaccine causes autism" claim was not originated by honest science; the initial paper was actually fraudulent. The refusal to let go of the fraudulent claim is not perpetuated by science, but by a refusal to accept the subsequent research.
Journalists can get things wrong, but that's not the fault of the scientists. (They can also get things right.) And whatever "bad science" is produced, it has a good chance of being tested and falsified.