In the de Guia article, correlation analyses were used throughout to make inference. There were a several interesting findings that I would like you to discuss a bit further. There are 3 components to...

In the de Guia article, correlation analyses were used throughout to make inference. There were a several interesting findings that I would like you to discuss a bit further. There are 3 components to this discussion.

Component 1)

The first has to do with reconciling the results from Figure 2 and Table 2. Figure 2 depicts 8 analyses that show 8 different statistically significant correlations between different measures and Protein levels of NAMPT and Table 2 shows the relationship between VO2peak and muscle NAMPT abundance. From the paper it seems suggest on the one hand there are several different variables that each have a statistically significant association with the outcome whereas the second analysis seems to suggest that only VO2peak is associated with the outcome.

Please discuss how these two possibly conflicting results/analyses can be understood.

Component 2)

Pleasediscuss one of the two following:

• In the concluding paragraph the authors state, “In conclusion, we report that aerobic and resistance exercise training increases NAMPT protein abundance in skeletal muscle of humans independent of age” please describe what analysis they performed to justify this statement.

• In the abstract on the first page of the article the authors end by saying, “Collectively, exercisetraining reverses the age-dependent declinein skeletal muscle NAMPT abundance, and our findings highlight the value of exercise training in ameliorating age-associated deterioration of skeletal muscle function.” Please explain what analysis they performed to justify this statement.

Component 3)

Finally, please discuss your thoughts about the findings of this paper. Do you believe the conclusions – if you answer yes (that you believe the conclusions)– please describe what parts of the design and analysis were done well and therefore support the conclusions? If you answer no (that you do not believe the conclusions) please describe what parts of the design and analysis were done poorly (or could have been done better) and therefore make the conclusions less reliable.