Jonathan Fass wrote about it on Facebook. Check the links he posted.
A few months ago, I was asked to contribute to this article from Jezebel responding to D.H. Kiefer's post ""Why Women Should Not Run." http://jezebel.com/women-who-run-are-ho ... -490603839
I looked at all 80+ sources that D.H. Kiefer listed as evidence to support his claims. What did I find? Exactly what Examine.com's Sol Orwell and Skip Bouma found when they did their own rebuttal article a bit later (which goes into far more detail than the Jezebel article does): http://gokaleo.com/2013/06/11/women-and-running/
So what was the big issue here and how could 80 different scientific studies somehow be wrong? In a word: lies.
D.H. Kiefer isn't the first person to use what is called the "Proof by Verbosity" fallacy, or "a situation where the premises given to an argument are too complicated and abundant to be dealt with in a reasonable manner," either: unfortunately, it happens all of the time when individuals looking to support an unproven pet-bias will go to great lengths to provide "overwhelming" argument that appears to be solid based on the amount of information alone.
Perhaps not surprisingly, this happens ALL OF THE TIME. Take this example, from a relatively popular approach in the manual therapies and rehabilitation world: Graston Techniques:http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/the-graston-technique-inducing-microtrauma-with-instruments/ From this excellent article, we see the way that not only lay-people are lied to in the example of D.H. Kiefer's post, or Charlie Weingroff's unvalidated claims that were debunked in Episode 7 of The Strength of Evidence Podcast, but how professionals are duped into believing that certain approaches are validated scientifically when no such thing exists:
"Research listed on Graston Technique Website:
The website lists articles in the popular press, poster presentations, and testimonials, but only 3 citations that appear to be acceptable evidence from peer-reviewed journals. I will call them (1) (2) and (3). A closer look reveals that they are not what they seem.
(1) and (2) are listed as having been published in the “Journal of the American College of Sports Medicine.” There is no such journal. They obviously meant the journal Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise which is the official journal of the American College of Sports Medicine. Study (2), by Sevier et al., was not listed in the table of contents of that journal for the issue cited (Vol 27, No. 5, 1995) and was not found by searching the journal’s entire website. It was also not listed on PubMed. If such an article exists, it apparently was not published in a peer-reviewed journal, and certainly not in the journal they say it was published in.
(1) is listed as having been published in the “Journal of the American College of Sports Medicine” in 1995. It was indeed published in the journal Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, but it was not published in 1995 as the citation indicates, but in 1997. It is, in fact, the same study as (3). The citation for (3) is the only correct one.
So the company’s own website offers us only one scientific article from a 12-year-old peer-reviewed study, and it turns out to be a controlled study of 20 rats."
Always be suspicious, always think skeptically :)
The ironic thing is that I think that traditional endurance cardio is a waste of time. I just think the article is bad.