What is supposed to be missing from the following American Heart Association's journal "Stroke"? See detail.

What was the article? I work 10 hour days all the time.

Here’s what is missing. A website with references to “Stroke” and French study.

I heard that on the news yesterday. The study said that people who routinely work long hours, 10 hour days for more than 50 days per year, are at a higher risk for having a stroke, especially if they do this for more than 10 years.

You can read more about it here:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/06/190620100045.htm

It’s a flawed study based upon self-reporting questionnaires and retrospective analysis, but it’s still interesting. All it shows is that there is a mild statistical correlation between people who self-report working long hours and stroke (and I don’t see where “stroke” is defined as there are multiple types of “stroke”). Correlation does not equal causation.

I forgot to post the link. For those who prefer to only click on urls:
https://www.heart.org/en/news/2019/06/20/long-workdays-over-many-years-may-add-up-to-higher-stroke-risk

@Caravanfan Right. Also, some jobs are not realy work they’re almost playing, for example music radio hosting choosing which songs to play. And on the other extreme how about heavy manual labor in 90 degree days, and/or brain work (trying to come up with a vaccine for Ebola ASAP) but still very stressfull anyway, and the ones in between those 2 extremes.

The authors don’t ever cite how they came to the definition for “long hours”, which reeks of data mining.

I don’t know if they can anyway, The term long is subjective. People who hate their jobs would say it’s long 35hr./week is too long and people who would do it even if they win a loto because they love it so much would say it’s that it’s _fine__ or _not long at all.

What I mean is that they should have described why they defined their predictor variable in that way. Such as, “Previous research has shown…” or “There was an obvious differentiation in the data when dichotomized by…”. Without explaining why they used that cutoff, it would appear that they just tried a bunch of different “long” definitions until they found something that was significant.

I understand your point @flo, but from a research perspective everything must be justified. Even when it seems obvious.

@Cupcake “but from a research perspective everything must be justified. Even when it seems obvious.” And my point is there is nothing they can point at that can help justify it, imo. And that’s because whether a person may end up with stroke etc., is not just about the length hours of work, but various other things like diet excercise what goes in the lungs, etc., And it’s soooo unlikely, to have people (subjects of research) with the same/similar diet, the same/similar amount/kind of excercise, same/similar what goes in the lungs etc. And they do mention excercise diet etc., but they end up with…. long hours at work.