Who's Better - Today's Stars or Yesteryear's Stars?

[Orion Bailey]

I'm not saying it's not valid, I just like to make sure the studies are getting more of the majority, rather than a small group of people that could skew to help them.

Thanks Stats class. lol.

Im with ya.

 

[Denny Crane]

Kerr in today's game would be a Kyle Korver

Or a J.R. Smith, who starts for a division championship team.

 

[BigGameDamian]

Put Lillard and C.J. in 80s/90s NBA on the same team just like now. Would they be dominating the gaurd position?

 

[bodyman5000 and 1]

Edited. I lose when I argue with irrational people.

I just started this thread and was thinking someone needs a Midol, not naming any names. I just quoted this as it is how far i got until I thought shit was out of hand.

 

[BigGameDamian]

Put Lillard and C.J. in 80s/90s NBA on the same team just like now. Would they be dominating the gaurd position?

What? You guys afraid to say the ward......NO?

 

[Rhal]

What? You guys afraid to say the ward......NO?

They certainly would. Defenses were more physical with the hand checking int he past but with the amount of 3's they would jack up there efficiency would be great. Also different type of athlete now then even 20 years ago, the amount of advanced training everyone has Dame/CJ would run circles around half the league.

 

[BonesJones]

Bumping all the current threads to the top

 

[Bandwagonfansince77]

Whenever I look at a study, the first thing I want to see is the sample size. If the sample size is too small, I don't find it valid, IMO.

(my usual is < 1,000 I throw it out).

Do you have a link to this?

Depends on the type of study. Some studies do not need a sample size of >1000 in order to make valid observations. I understand you said "usual", so there are times where you might consider a study with <1000 sample size, just clarifying that <1000 sample size isn't necessarily a reason to dismiss a study.

 

[Strenuus]

Depends on the type of study. Some studies do not need a sample size of >1000 in order to make valid observations. I understand you said "usual", so there are times where you might consider a study with <1000 sample size, just clarifying that <1000 sample size isn't necessarily a reason to dismiss a study.

True, the type of study is important. But, when it involves a large number of people (like a country), it should be mandatory to have a certain criteria to be met to be valid.

Lets put it this way, for almost any study, they should have > 100. A study with 15 people is just a waste of a time to be published, IMO. And I'm surprised they are.

 

[jlprk]

Here is my contradiction and its based on facts... not opinion. But it has helped to form my opinion, but I must be a fucking idiot for having it....

Obesity Rates: Then And Now
Approximately 10 percent of U.S. adults were classified as obese during the 1950s. In 2011 to 2012, however, the CDC reported approximately 35 percent of U.S. adults were obese; the prevalence of obesity among American adults has more than tripled within the last six decades.

National surveys of childhood obesity weren't recorded before 1963; however, the rate of childhood obesity in the U.S. began to rise in the 1980s. In 1980, 7 percent of children ages 6 to 11 were obese; in 2012, the rate was nearly 18 percent. In adolescents –12 to 19 years of age– the increase in obesity rates was more striking, climbing from 5 to 21 percent during the same period.

This is based off a study.

I don't need a survey. It's obvious to the eye that people under age 40, especially under 25, are fatter than they were decades ago. Free school lunches and breakfasts have a lot to do with it. Last week a survey said that women are fatter than men, but that's not new. I remember a survey in the 60s that said that women's asses are much wider than men's. Women blame past pregnancies, but usually are already fatter before the first pregnancy.

In colder areas, people are more husky. The difference in men is obvious when you move from California to the Northwest, or when you look at Canadians.

 

[Denny Crane]

It's quite clear that the cause of mass obesity is sugar added to our foods by the manufacturers.

When I was growing up, there was no obesity epidemic. Then, based upon, you know, science, the prevailing wisdom became that fat in our diet caused high rates of heart disease and stroke. So our food was altered to remove the fat. It tasted like shit, so they added sugar. The result is obesity.

It's becoming clear to those who are revisiting the "science" that sugar is toxic and that the most anyone should eat is 6 tsp per day. The western diet is something like 22 tsp per day. When I say toxic, I mean it causes all sorts of actual disease, including non-alcoholic fatty liver disease. Yep, sugar causes the same damage as drinking alcohol. But as Robert Lustig says, you can only drink yourself under the table once a day, but you can eat and eat and eat and overdose on the sugar.

http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2014/aug/24/robert-lustig-sugar-poison