The CNN article is fairly reliable overall. It builds credibility by referencing a study published in the British Journal of Sports Medicine, a peer-reviewed journal known for its rigorous standards. This adds a solid foundation, especially since the study is supported by prior research and expert commentary from public health professionals. The inclusion of methodological details, such as the use of accelerometers for activity measurement, strengthens its scientific basis.
Moreover, the article balances its claims by acknowledging potential limitations. It points out that the projections for life expectancy gains are theoretical and based on older activity data, which may not fully reflect current trends. Such transparency increases the reliability of the information, as it openly addresses the study's constraints rather than presenting overly definitive conclusions.
However, the article does have flaws. For instance, it doesn’t sufficiently discuss other critical factors like diet, genetics, or socioeconomic influences that might also impact longevity. Additionally, while the findings are promising, they rely heavily on modeling, which may oversimplify the complexity of real-world behaviors and health outcomes, causing lack of reliability in a rather complex real-world situations.
Lastly, similar arguments can be found in other articles, increasing its reliability. For example, essay from Reimers published by National Library of Medicine goes through 11 studies to give the conclusion that being active can extend 0.4 to 4.2 years of life expectancy. The reliability of the publisher, the large coverage of studies, and the scientific conclusion, admitting different in exact years all increase the reliability of this article.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3395188/