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

And that is something I didn't think of. Thanks that. Still doesn't make me or anyone an idiot for not thinking of this or disagreeing if I did.
I did post a rebuttal to your rebuttal based off child obesity though.

 

Im at work. I cant do an extensive search. I just click on the first link on google. lol.

 

Bout as good as you can say it.

 

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?

 

http://www.livestrong.com/article/384722-how-much-have-obesity-rates-risen-since-1950/

 

They didn't link a survey, nor do a survey... I don't find it credible. I've seen amazing surveys that I was like "WOW, this has to be true" to then see that they surveyed 70 people.

 

Ill do more research tonight. I'm fairly confident its a valid study and at least in America, we have become more obese and have more body fat on average. At birth? I don't know, but soon after?... pretty sure its valid.

 

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.

 

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

 

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.

 

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.

 

Bumping all the current threads to the top

 

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.

 

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.