What I am arguing against is that people are discussing the results as if they mean something. In other words, the stats have provided a false veneer of legitimacy while ignoring all sorts of validity issues. The caveat "validity issues aside" simply means that the data and any conclusions from them should be ignored. Just because you can teach a kid to add two rotten apples doesn't mean eating them will taste any better.
I don't think that these data are completely useless. Certainly as quantitative estimates they are meaningless, but I think that they are qualitatively informative about the population of climbers whom the data are drawn. For instance, I think we can say that among 5.10–5.12 climbers in this population, there probably is no strong relationship between climbing level and weight lifting behavior.
Jay
Either we're talking past each other, you think I'm just wrong, or you think the issue of instrument validity is not important. The point is, that if you are doing survey research, before even considering whether the statistics were handled appropriately*, researchers consider whether the data was collected appropriately with a valid instrument. This data fails on both those counts. So any interpretation is clutching at straws.
* I find it funny that no one has questioned your conversion of the grades. I'm not saying that to rile you up, or say I disagree with it or that a different conversion would change the results. But do grades really differentiate a linear rate? It's an interesting question.
The point is, that if you are doing survey research, before even considering whether the statistics were handled appropriately*, researchers consider whether the data was collected appropriately with a valid instrument.
Exactly that was done. Earlier in the thread. If you missed it, go back and re-read it. Or maybe you never read that in the first place? Perhaps your whole issue can be explained by taking the end of the thread out of context.
So next time I stay in my apartment and do 100 pullups, 300 situps and do some squats and lunges(without weights) , Im going to call up my buddy and say " hey you want to come over and lift weights?"
I cant wait to see the look on his face when he shows up and sees that I dont own any weights.
Lifting your body weight is lifting weight. Your muscles can't tell the difference between weight from your body vs weight from an outside object, choss. Trust me on this.
So next time I stay in my apartment and do 100 pullups, 300 situps and do some squats and lunges(without weights) , Im going to call up my buddy and say " hey you want to come over and lift weights?"
I cant wait to see the look on his face when he shows up and sees that I dont own any weights.
Lifting your body weight is lifting weight. Your muscles can't tell the difference between weight from your body vs weight from an outside object, choss. Trust me on this.
Yeah, but i_h8_choss was talking about lifting w8's, not weights. I think that is something different.
The point is, that if you are doing survey research, before even considering whether the statistics were handled appropriately*, researchers consider whether the data was collected appropriately with a valid instrument.
Exactly that was done. Earlier in the thread. If you missed it, go back and re-read it. Or maybe you never read that in the first place? Perhaps your whole issue can be explained by taking the end of the thread out of context.
GO
Where was it done? If I'm being redundant then I'm happy to opt out of the discussion. I think the bigger issue is that it's easier to discuss p-values than validity because most people remember stats 101, a primer on research methods is usually a 501 course, so ...
To address your points: I'm the first to discuss "bias" (on page 2; and that was dismissed); and the second to discuss "validity," and the first to use it to discuss whether or not any of the data input is worth analyzing it in the first place. The only one who has even attempted to address my points is Jay. Let me know if I've missed something in my re-read.
So next time I stay in my apartment and do 100 pullups, 300 situps and do some squats and lunges(without weights) , Im going to call up my buddy and say " hey you want to come over and lift weights?"
I cant wait to see the look on his face when he shows up and sees that I dont own any weights.
Lifting your body weight is lifting weight. Your muscles can't tell the difference between weight from your body vs weight from an outside object, choss. Trust me on this.
Yeah, but i_h8_choss was talking about lifting w8's, not weights. I think that is something different.
Oh, right. It's true, I don't know anything about w8's.
What I am arguing against is that people are discussing the results as if they mean something. In other words, the stats have provided a false veneer of legitimacy while ignoring all sorts of validity issues. The caveat "validity issues aside" simply means that the data and any conclusions from them should be ignored. Just because you can teach a kid to add two rotten apples doesn't mean eating them will taste any better.
I don't think that these data are completely useless. Certainly as quantitative estimates they are meaningless, but I think that they are qualitatively informative about the population of climbers whom the data are drawn. For instance, I think we can say that among 5.10–5.12 climbers in this population, there probably is no strong relationship between climbing level and weight lifting behavior.
Jay
Either we're talking past each other, you think I'm just wrong, or you think the issue of instrument validity is not important.
I think that you need to define "validity." I have already stated that the external validity of the data is poor; that to try to generalize the results to the population of US climbers, or world-wide climbers, etc. would be absurd. Where we differ is whether the data is useful at all. I think it is. I think it suggests, like I said, that there is no strong relation between climbing grade and lifting among 5.10–5.12 climbers in whatever the population is that would take this survey. If there were a strong relation, then there would have to be an equally strong bias to obscure it in this data, and I doubt that such a strong bias exists.
So next time I stay in my apartment and do 100 pullups, 300 situps and do some squats and lunges(without weights) , Im going to call up my buddy and say " hey you want to come over and lift weights?"
I cant wait to see the look on his face when he shows up and sees that I dont own any weights.
Lifting your body weight is lifting weight. Your muscles can't tell the difference between weight from your body vs weight from an outside object, choss. Trust me on this.
Angry's question was "what do you do in the weightroom?" (or w8room)
But I don't go to any weightroom. I do climbing specific exercises in my own home in order to support my climbing. I thought there was a difference. My bad. When I was in high school I had a gym membership and lifted weights 5 times a week. Somehow, this current workout seems different.
I call it exercise, you call it lifting. Whatever, no biggie. But when Im asked if I lift weights, Im still going to say NO!
There are so many things that are unclear, it's one of the reasons why I declared this thread a mess when I posted it.
1. Is any and all resistance exercise weight training or must iron (or at least a bowflex) be present?
2. What is meant by grades? Some people hail from overgraded choss, other from sandbagged walls. Some will try a route dozens if not more times in the effort to send, others try to onsight everything and refuse to try a route more than 3 times. Trad vs. Sport. 11- is a world away from 11+.Others claim to climb the hardest they've toproped with 10 falls, camhead subtracts 20 grades from his claim (3.10b?) Blah Blah Blah.
It's just an idea. I quick informal poll. I do think it would be interesting to get 3 groups of 100 climbers each and test. Of course, should the climbing only group climb more minutes than the other two groups or is any lifting in addition to the climbing?
If anything, this thread shows that we'll never really know and people will do what they want.
I find it funny that no one has questioned your conversion of the grades. I'm not saying that to rile you up, or say I disagree with it or that a different conversion would change the results. But do grades really differentiate a linear rate? It's an interesting question.
As I stated in my original post, "The purpose of the analysis was to see if there was a relationship between reported climbing grade and type of weight training." That is, the variable of interest was the reported grade itself, not the difficulty it is supposed to represent. If the hypothesis involved the difficulty represented by the grade, then the question of how to scale the grade becomes relevant, but that was not the hypothesis.
Jay
(This post was edited by jt512 on Nov 20, 2009, 9:54 PM)
2 /
1%
