Sprint research runs into a credibility gap
Sprint research runs into a credibility gap
复制标题
Sprint 研究存在可信度差距
作者：
K. Rice
根据A.J.Tatem和他的同事的说法，以男性为例(2156年奥运会上的重大短跑？《自然》431,525；2004年)。作为50岁以上女子跳高世界和欧洲纪录的保持者，我必须说，这个统计预测在体育界引起了许多笑声。作者给出了线性回归线，并指出该模型与非线性方法没有显著不同。我愿意相信这一点。但在数据集和模型背后的逻辑上，很多批评都是可能的。数据集非常小：每届奥运会只有一个短跑成绩，结果差异很大。取每年最好的10个的平均值可以提供40倍以上的数据，导致的偏差要小得多，并清楚地显示出非线性(参见www.antenna.nl/weia/progressie.html)。一个合乎逻辑的批评是这样的：运动员可以通过三次训练而不是一周两次的训练来大幅提高，并可以通过增加第四次训练来进一步提高，以此类推--但每增加一次训练，进步都会比之前的小。因此，这项运动作为一个整体将表现出类似的非线性改善。然而，当统计数据显示，
take men, according to A. J. Tatem and colleagues (“Momentous sprint at the 2156 Olympics?” Nature 431, 525; 2004). As the holder of the world and European highjump records for women over 50, I must say that this statistical prediction has been greeted with much laughter in athletic circles. The authors show linear regression lines and state that this model does not differ significantly from nonlinear approaches. I’m prepared to believe that. But much criticism is possible on both the data set and the logic behind the model. The data set is very small: only one sprint result per Olympiad, with a large variation in results. Taking the mean of the best 10 per year provides 40 times more data, leads to much less deviation and clearly shows nonlinearity (see www.antenna.nl/weia/Progressie.html). A logical critique goes like this: an athlete can improve greatly by training three times instead of twice a week and can improve further by adding a fourth training session, and so on — but each additional session will give less improvement than the one before. It follows that the sport as a whole will show a similar nonlinear improvement. When statistics, nevertheless, correspondence