It's not getting any cooler here!

I would be wary of this study. It seems a worthy attempt at establishing something but I'm not sure exactly what. A 30 year study period brings lots and lots of variables into play. This methods statement in particular troubles me: "Weekly resistance training duration and aerobic exercise duration were assessed using validated questionnaires at baseline and biennially thereafter. Cox proportional hazard models were used to estimate hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI)." Validated Questionnaires - What could they possibly be asking? (e.g.) How do you feel? Do your joints aches? Do you feel better than you did six months (or 30 years) ago? If this is how they established their findings then they have used qualitative data (which is absolutely acceptable) but somehow transposed that into quantitative data by asking something along the lines of "on a scale of 1 - 10 how do you feel?" Using that in the way they have would be a problem for the reasons I've summarised below: Hazard Plots - Usually based on extrapolated failure rate data (e.g. how many cycles can a window be opened and closed before it's likely to break, what does the shape of the Hazard Plot (HP) look like? Are the (e.g.) windows more likely to fail earlier or later?) I can't see how data from a questionnaire can be relevant in a HP. It's like saying 8 out of 10 owners say their cats preferred Whiskers so if I HP that data I will see some valuable trend. At no point were the cats ever asked. Confidence Intervals (CI) - The higher the CI, then the more confidence there is in the validity of the data. Questionnaire data is very likely to have a lot of outliers because it's a how do you feel type approach and will have no repeatability across participants. A "9" for me may be a "6" for someone else etc. Therefore a 95% confidence interval seems VERY high. In perspective they used CI during the pandemic to try and demonstrate how many people were likely to become ill. Typically the data presented showed 85% CI and it was based on data coming back from the field. The lower CI was set because there were so many different ways of counting COVID related cases. Consequently the numbers were ok as a guide to keep us informed but it made the numbers pretty unreliable. Can you imagine trying to predict the effect of exercise frequency based on how do you feel type questions?

Indirectly Mike changed my life. I'd trained the "Arnold way" for nearly a decade before Mike emerged. I was (still am) a massive fan of Arnold's physique but even after so many years training like him most people were surprised when I told them I was a bodybuilder. It really used to upset me. When I read Mike's ideas and digested his analogies I found that they just made sense and for the first time ever I could explain how exercise worked. I had nothing to lose by trying it anyway. My progress was instant and a top bodybuilder sought me out to tell me how much I was improving. That was it. I never went back to what Arnold promoted. Although I later learned most of Mike's early views came from Arthur Jones, I believe that if I hadn't switched to Heavy Duty - it wasn't even called that back then - I would probably have spent even more years making poor progress in my workouts. In total I only met Mike face to face twice. Once at a seminar in London in 1980, I still have the ticket stub, and once for a workout in California a few days before he died but talked with him for many hours on the phone. By all accounts Ray had mellowed in later years. I've heard many stories of his aggression but he was always polite, kind and helpful to me the times I spoke to him. Maybe his health concerns changed him.

@Lawrence Neal 😂

Just on Mike - contrary to what is often said on the internet and implied in Little's biography, Mike and Arnold were not enemies in later years. While I was chatting to Mike, Arnold rang to check he was ok and whether he needed anything. I was there. That isn't invention. I think that was a class move by Arnold and I can't view that as an interaction that would take place between two men who supposedly disliked each other.

@Dan Deadman Very slowly! Thanks for your interest 😊