[WoodenChair]

> I have a PhD from a top institution

I'm sorry but any comment that starts out "I have a PhD from a top institution" reeks of Appeal to Authority: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

Then you appeal to science without actually citing any science, but yet more anecdotal data and thoughts from your own mind.

Your arguments are just not very strong because they're all coming from your own experience and thoughts. Your qualifications in exercise and academia (especially on a partially anonymous internet forum) do not make your thoughts any more valuable than anyone else's here without resources to back them up.

[sternocleidom]

I cited my scientific qualifications to demonstrate that I am uniquely positioned to assess the quality and scope of the scientific research we are discussing and - crucially - the interpretations thereof.

Most on HN lack the background knowledge and training to usefully interpret a review article like this, let alone a journalistic simplification. Yes, I cite "thoughts from my own mind", a mind which has spent years researching this theme.

You're wondering why I don't cite any articles contradicting the claims of the review article? That's because this paper already cites many published peer-reviewed works, only to dismiss their findings. You'd know this if you actually read the paper and had the background and training to properly interpret it!

It's an interesting review. The main idea of the paper is that we shouldn't jump to conclusions so quickly when thinking that strenuous exercise can increase risk of short-term illness. The authors point out some logical and mechanistic fallacies of past studies.

I take issue with the interpretation that most people will have after reading - that strenuous exercise will not increase risk of getting sick. I know firsthand that this is not the case in truly elite athletes. But, for many people this may be true. It's important to be specific however, when discussing scientific matters, which is why I contributed my thoughts

[WoodenChair]

> ...I am uniquely positioned to assess the quality and scope of the scientific research we are discussing...

> Most on HN lack the background knowledge and training to usefully interpret a review article like this, let alone a journalistic simplification.

It seems like you can't help but belittle the audience you're replying to. It comes across as if you're saying "I'm the elite academic talking down to all of you plebs." You may have some good ideas but your tone and arrogance suck. And I think you'd be surprised by the "academic qualifications" of many of the people on HN. Many in this audience are perfectly capable of understanding the article. You're not "unique."

[sternocleidom]

You're right, I was honestly just testing out an elitist writing style to see what the responses would be like. It's a challenge to argue on semi-anonymous forums, and it's interesting seeing how tone plays out. It's been a good discussion for sure.

[danmg]

His argument is that it's inherently hard to do exercise science research because of selection biases and sample sizes. This is a fairly reasonable statement.

The problem is confounded because of conflicts of interest. Either the investigators are being remunerated by a commercial interest or the investigators are hoping to establish a commercial entity.

It's not uncommon for a study to come out with interesting results and conclusion only to be found to be completely unreproducible. It takes a while for this to happen, and even then, people are confused over who is right.

Also, linking to the wiki page for a logical fallacy is a very passive aggressive swipe and low quality.