Activity Trackers May Undermine Weight Loss Efforts, Says Study (sciencedaily.com) 210
schwit1 quotes a report from New York Times: Wearable activity monitors can count your steps and track your movements, but they don't, apparently, help you lose weight. In fact, you might lose more weight without them. The fascinating finding comes from a study published today in JAMA that found dieting adults who wore activity monitors for 18 months lost significantly fewer pounds over that time than those who did not. The results suggest that activity monitors may not change our behavior in the way we expected (warning: may be paywalled), and raise interesting questions about the tangled relationships between exercise, eating, our willpower and our waistlines. Specifically, the study found that participants who used wearable devices reported an average weight loss of 7.7 pounds, compared to the 13 pounds lost by those who didn't use the devices and only used health counseling. "While usage of wearable devices is currently a popular method to track physical activity -- steps taken per day or calories burned during a workout -- our findings show that adding them to behavioral counseling or weight loss that includes physical activity and reduced calorie intake does not improve weight loss or physical activity engagement. Therefore, within this context, these devices should not be relied upon as tools for weight management in place of effective behavioral counseling for physical activity and diet," said John Jakicic, the study's lead researcher and chair of Pitt's Department of Health and Physical Activity.
The Self Reward Syndrome (Score:5, Insightful)
"According to this app, today I burnt 500 calories more than yesterday! I can now eat a whole pizza guilt free"
Mystery solved.
Re: (Score:2)
Probably it has something to do with glucose/sugar levels, which is lowest in the morning. Probably, the apps do not consider some such facts.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
My personal experience is, activities in the morning are more effective for weight loss. I used to walk ~4km in the evening for more than a year, but did not result in weight loss. But when switched to morning walk, I could see results in couple of months.
Did you walk before or after supper? If it was after supper perhaps you just convinced yourself that you worked up an appetite and ate enough calories to compensate for the walk.
With the morning walk if you walked before breakfast you probably didn't increase consumption to compensate, and if it was after you were probably satisfied enough to wait for lunch.
In either case the determining factor was more likely a mental one then a biological one.
Probably it has something to do with glucose/sugar levels
Probably not [blogspot.ca]
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, it basically is consumed calories - expenses calories. Thays
It depends on how you define "consume" and "expense." If you define "consume" as eating, and "expense" as activities then it is too simple. Each person body could absorb nutrient from consuming food at a different rate. Also, each person could spend different calories on the same activity (metabolism). Besides, certain disrupt in normal routine of eating (e.g. Anorexia) could change the system (different metabolism rate) in your body. Thus, you oversimplify the way of how calories work with human body.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, I think there is a significant benefit to simplifying the concept down to consume and expense.
Yes, there are differences in body chemistry, activity level, and other things that alter the exact rate of fat burning or weight loss.
However, taking all of that into account for something as simple as dropping 10-30 pounds is probably overkill and more likely to be discouraging, and even enabling of maintaining an unhealthy weight and consumption pattern.
If you chart all of that out, it's just a range o
Re: (Score:2)
`In that case now we know all this. We shouldn't have an obesity epidemic right? We know much more about calorie intake and expenditure than we knew 100 years ago. We are all the right weight right?
The fact is that you can force the yourself to loose weight this way, but doing it permanently is extremely hard, your metabolism adapts and slows down to compensate, you cannot do exercise, or maintain a diet you don't like for the rest of your life. We naturally try to conserve energy.
We have been counting calo
Re: (Score:2)
Knowing how to do something does not translate into it happening all the time. And there are a lot of caveats about calorie counting that are extremely important. You can definitely do it wrong. It is a simple concept, but it can cause a serious mindset shift about food in order to make it possible to implement it.
First off, calorie counting is effective, but can be *hard*. Which is to say, while you can technically eat almost anything you want (within the set limits), if you don't space things out corr
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, it basically is consumed calories - expenses calories. Thays
Nope. A calorie doesn't even signify food. And there's metabolism.
Re: (Score:2)
I thought "calories" were a measure of tastiness.
Hence my mother's diet advice: If it tastes good, spit it out.
Re: (Score:2)
My personal experience is, activities in the morning are more effective for weight loss. I used to walk ~4km in the evening for more than a year, but did not result in weight loss. But when switched to morning walk, I could see results in couple of months.
Probably it has something to do with glucose/sugar levels, which is lowest in the morning. Probably, the apps do not consider some such facts.
From a lifetime spent battling weight, I concur that morning exercise is best. I suspect that it primes the metabolism to run a little faster? Evening exercise never did much for me other than maintain muscle tone.
The body does some strange things as well. Trying to lose weight in late summer or fall is horridly difficult. I don't know if the body is preparing for winter or what, triggered by the shortening days, but I had to be in fighting trim for Hockey season by August, or else let the season wear it
Re:The Self Reward Syndrome (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Speaking of drinks: my doctor told me I had better cut down on my alcohol intake, so I did. No other change in diet, b
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like Atkins, which has worked quite well for me.
That's a large leap. The grandparent was talking about cutting out high GI foods, Atkins promotes cutting out all carbohydrate. Ketosis is a pretty extreme state to get yourself in, and there's really no need to worry about low GI carbohydrates. And if exercise is part of your weight-loss regime, you do really need to have a reasonable carbohydrate intake.
Re: (Score:2)
"I used to go to the gym 3-4 times a week and do all the exercises etc and lost next to bugger all weight but I did get bigger muscles."
IOW you did lose fat, which normally is the goal for people on a diet.
Losing weight is only helpful for jockeys and astronauts.
Re: (Score:2)
Losing weight is only helpful for jockeys and astronauts.
not according to BMI.
Re:The Self Reward Syndrome (Score:4)
There's a pretty damn easy way to measure fat vs muscle and most people (especially those of the opposite sex) are pretty good at doing so. Even if you're a big lad who still has more visible fat than muscle, any increase in muscle makes a noticeable difference in the way you look and move.
A friend of mine who was pretty big and soft started climbing with me and you could start seeing the difference pretty quicly. Most people can tell the difference between big and soft and big and and strong. You also start feeling better, which helps keep your motivation up. Exercise is only part of a complete weight loss regimen, but it's worth doing on its own, too. It's been the best medicine for my chronic crippling depression.
Re: (Score:2)
Carbs, protein, fat...bullshit.
Fad diets, special exercise programs, etc. only causes weight loss in one area: your wallet. How much weight you lose is governed by physics. If you consume fewer calories than you burn, the weight comes off. Period. It doesn't matter if you got the calories from eating a candy bar or from eating a salad.
Your body is not a perpetual motion machine. Calories are calories. Eat less, exercise more.
Re:The Self Reward Syndrome (Score:5, Insightful)
As much as this explanation appears to make sense, like anything in a social study, the results are likely virtually meaningless at the individual level. How any one person reacts to a tracker will not be predictable.
Success at improving someone's health will always be based entirely on the motivation of the person, not on which electronic toys they wear or which brand of granola they gnaw upon. Perhaps they'll find a correlation where buying Garmin branded devices is indicative of people who are more motivated than people who buy Apple branded devices, but that certainly doesn't mean buying a Garmin or an Apple will alter your chances of success.
I participated in a clinical activity tracker study earlier this year. There were so many holes in the testing methodology that I'm not sure the results will be worth the PDF they'll be printed on. Yet they'll be publishing results soon enough, and no doubt will contribute to the collective misinformation already encompassing the 'get healthy' rackets.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
As much as this explanation appears to make sense, like anything in a social study, the results are likely virtually meaningless at the individual level. How any one person reacts to a tracker will not be predictable.
That's an overstatement. What the results cannot do is state categorically that "you won't get fitter with a fitbit". But they're a starting point for an informed decision. When you're engaged in behaviour modification, you have to first be aware of your behaviour, and that includes being aware of tendencies that you may (or may not) have which are likely to affect your behaviour. Knowing something about the psychological effects of wearing a fitness tracker allows you to modify your use of it/attitude towa
Re: (Score:2)
As much as this explanation appears to make sense, like anything in a social study, the results are likely virtually meaningless at the individual level. How any one person reacts to a tracker will not be predictable.
This is true. As someone who successfully used an activity logger as part of a self-designed program in which I lost about 100 pounds, I have some perspective on the matter. That doesn't have the same value as data from a controlled study of course, but which is nonetheless useful in curtailing premature generalizations one would make from such a study.
My success puts me in a tiny minority of people, which has always been the problem all along: almost any rationally plausible program of weight loss works,
Re: (Score:2)
First, congratulations on dropping 100 pounds! That is a remarkable achievement for anyone.
Next, I think our stories sound somewhat similar. I, too, look at data and outcomes, and as I know I'm lazy, I'm constantly turning to technology to make the mundane business of data logging as painless as possible. I have a wifi connected scale that also measures body fat, and logs every reading automatically. I weigh myself daily. And yes, I also recognized that lots of people get discouraged by the daily up an
Re: (Score:2)
Yes! All the data in the world does you no good if you don't look at it.
I think underlying most people's failure is an irrational aversion to anything that smacks of failure. They turn a weight rebound -- which i
Re: (Score:2)
Good for you. Slow weight loss is easier to maintain, not the least because the new habits have longer to become ingrained.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Like I said, only a minority of people have what it takes to do this. You have to (a) make everything easy as possible for yourself and yet (b) have patience and be prepared for intermediate failure.
Re: (Score:3)
"According to this app, today I burnt 500 calories more than yesterday! I can now eat a whole pizza guilt free" Mystery solved.
Since a single slice of pizza can be upwards of 500 calories, this "mystery" is more of a math deficiency than some broken reward system.
Successful weight loss almost always comes down to simple math; burn more calories than you consume.
Odd how we allegedly need a billion dollars worth of weight-loss "solutions" marketed to us to figure this out, which given the financial reward to outright lie on surveys like this to boost sales, I wouldn't be surprised if these results are reversed next week with a study
Re: (Score:3)
Successful weight loss almost always comes down to simple math; burn more calories than you consume.
Which is a really good way to make yourself very ill. Hint: If the only thing that you're tracking is calories, then you're likely to have too much of some and too little of other things that you need.
Re: (Score:3)
Successful weight loss almost always comes down to simple math; burn more calories than you consume.
Which is a really good way to make yourself very ill. Hint: If the only thing that you're tracking is calories, then you're likely to have too much of some and too little of other things that you need.
I wholeheartedly agree with you. A goal of overall health which includes diet and exercise is the proper way to manage the human body. That said, respecting the simple math is a key component of that. Exercising for 2 hours every day becomes rather pointless if you "reward" yourself with an extra-large pizza for a midnight snack in utter defiance of simple math or proper diet.
I was also addressing the gimmicks and methods that are marketed today that seem to defy the basic common-sense approach to weight
Re: (Score:2)
It is impossible to lose weight if you eat more than you burn, even if all of those calories are "healthy".
That's assuming that 'eat' and 'digest' are equivalent. They're not, and various things affect the efficiency of your digestive system. It's perfectly possible to eat a lot more calories than your body absorbs (though it's not possible to eat fewer unless you learn to photosynthesise).
Re: (Score:2)
It is impossible to lose weight if you eat more than you burn, even if all of those calories are "healthy".
Not necessarily true. For a while, I was on a "grazing" regime, as it had been advised both by a doctor as a method of managing my heartburn (heartburn often being triggered by filling up the stomach, or by eating on an empty stomach) and by a trainer in my local gym as a means of losing weight. The trainer's assertion was that the human body only starts to metabolise food to bodyfat when the stomach is nearly empty. If your stomach isn't empty at all during the day (you need to let it empty at night, thoug
Re: (Score:2)
More like bad, p-hacked study. (Score:2)
First of all, let's forget the wearable devices. Cause study participants sure did.
Out of 24 months, they wore them on average 170 days. That's about the quarter of the time.
And that's median value. They actually wore them 68-347 days.
Oh... and it's only 80% of the "wearable device" group (i.e. technology-enhanced weight loss intervention group) members that were using said devices.
Also, when they were using monitors, median values was 241.1 minutes per day (99.3-579.1).
I.e. Monitors were mostly ignored.
Of the 237 participants randomized to enhanced intervention, 191 participants received the wearable device that was a component of the intervention starting after month 6 and wore the device for 1 day or longer (median days worn, 170.0 [25th-75th percentile: 68.0-347]).
On days that the device was worn, the median wear time was 241.1 min/d (25th-75th percentile: 99.3-579.1).
Sec
Paid for by Weight Watchers (Score:3)
Better gadget (Score:2, Funny)
A better gadget for losing weight is... A scale
Re:Better gadget (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's wishful thinking. Putting on significant amounts of muscle requires more than "exercising a bit more", and not usually the kinds of exercises people do for weight loss; it doesn't happen by accident. If you do that, you'll already know how to track your progress (calipers, tape measures, maximum lift, etc.) in addition to using a scale.
Re: (Score:2)
Putting on significant amounts of muscle requires more than "exercising a bit more", and not usually the kinds of exercises people do for weight loss; it doesn't happen by accident.
I went from 325 pounds to 400 pounds when I lifted weights at the gym for a year. I lost fat and gained muscle, but not in the right way. After I stopped lifting weights, my weight settled down to 350 pounds and that's my weight for the last ten years. Although I've been on a low carb diet for the last five years, I reduced my calorie intake to 1,500 calories per day two months ago. This month I weighed 348 pounds.
Re: (Score:2)
Unless you did hydrostatic or X-ray body composition testing, how would you know? You're saying that you put on more than 75 pounds of muscle, and that seems unlikely. You may be able to gain 10-20 pounds of muscle per year if you work really hard.
Re: (Score:2)
Unless you did hydrostatic or X-ray body composition testing, how would you know?
The scale and mirror didn't lie. I gained weight, lost fat and added muscle mass. Trying to find 4XL shirts was a bitch. Now I'm a borderline XL/2XL.
Even if you keep that up consistently, it's probably going to take you about three years to get down to 200 pounds.
It's better to go slow and consistent.
And it's probably best to stick with aerobic exercise, if not for any other reason that you won't be tempted to attribute lack of progress to gaining muscle.
I'm trying to master the rowing machine at the gym.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm curious how you went 5 years without much change.
Plateaued from eating the same food and doing the same exercise for five years. Started mixing up things this year.
How so? (Score:2)
Please, explain.
Perhaps you were hoping for a Funny mod.
Knowing your weight, or your physical activity level, means nothing about weight loss. Nothing.
If anyone has any interest in weight loss or getting healthier, should learn more about the science behind our bodies. "Exercise more and lose weight" isn't the answer. Calories-in/Calories-out is a small portion of the story, at best. Low-fat is dangerous. Portion control is a red herring. Fad diets are stupid.
Fat accumulation is mainly driven in our bo
Re: (Score:2)
Lucky, then, that you can influence hormone levels through what you eat, how much you eat, and how much you exercise.
Knowing your weight means determining whether the dietary changes you made in order to lose weight are working. That's important because different bodies react diffe
Re: (Score:2)
You can lose weight and keep it off by changing your diet alone. The others influence it, but to much lesser degrees. If you change WHAT you eat the amount (in quantity or calories) is largely irrelevant. Exercise is good for you, but you don't have to kill yourself trying to "burn off calories"
Again, hung up on the old "diet and exercise" shtick. Diet, YES - but not "dieting". You don't need a scale to know or help you lose weight.
*sigh* It's like a finger pointing away to the moon. Don't concentrate on the finger or you'll miss out on all the heavenly glory.
You really haven't looked at the numbers, have you? Let's roughly estimate.... over 2.5 million years of human evolution, if the average lifespan was 50 years that means that within 100 years there would be 3 full generations. (year 0 - 50 is one, year 25 - 75 is two, year 50 - 100 is three). 2.5MM / 100 = 25,000 * 3 generations = 75,000 generations. [and they overlap, since at year 100, the next generation would have started already] And would be just one "family", which would have obviously grown and spread over time, so if I thought about it longer and harder I am thinking the number would be bigger. So you're saying "most of these generations lived in an environment of food scarcity and they frequently starved". What is this based on? On the fact there were no McDonalds? From what we can tell, we as a people only started agriculture 10,000 years ago. That is a tiny, miniscule part of 2.5 million years! How did we as humans not only survive, but THRIVE and evolve during this time? It wasn't because we could get fat. It was because we weren't relying on grains, starches, processed fats (like vegetable/bean oils) and sugars for fuel. Our bodies haven't adapted to these things well enough yet, which is why we have so much sickness today. (heart disease, obesity, diabetes, cancer, ....) The bad science, pseudo-science, and pure lies behind our dietary guidelines are making us sicker and sicker.
Re: (Score:2)
I think that they are missing the point (Score:3)
It seems self-evident that the most effective weight loss will be from people who have found the will to do so within themselves, but the point of a tracker is to *give* some additional incentive to someone who would otherwise not have done the work at all, or may have stopped substantially sooner, lacking an unambiguous, objective, and quantitative measurement of how much work they have actually done.
For truly fair comparison, one should evaluate how much weight people with a weight-loss tracker lose compared to the average person who may not even exercise at all.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that they focus you on the wrong thing. Exercise is good for general health, but not fit weight loss. Reduced calorie intake is the only way to really lose significant amounts of weight.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that they focus you on the wrong thing. Exercise is good for general health, but not fit weight loss. Reduced calorie intake is the only way to really lose significant amounts of weight.
Well, OK trivially the only way to lose weight is to start consuming fewer calories than you burn.
However, the mechanism for that is not so easy. For quite a lot of people, having some exercise regime is a helpful past of losing weight. If merely eating less were easy, no one would be fat.
Re: (Score:2)
If you look at it that way (i.e., not at the whole picture) plants "generate more matter" than they "eat". From light!!
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry sir, but I've read enough developing research articles on-line to know the true reason for being over weight are gut bacteria that magically generate more matter than a person eats. This is /., here the laws of thermodynamics don't apply when it comes to obesity.
Stop being anti-factual. Gut bacteria changes homone levels and can break the metabolism. IF you have a working self-balancing metabolism, you can overeat and not gain weight, the like majority of non-Americans can. Unfortunately it is mostly broken in Americans for some reason, and in a growing minority of people elsewhere.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It seems self-evident that the most effective weight loss will be from people who have found the will to do so within themselves, but the point of a tracker is to *give* some additional incentive to someone who would otherwise not have done the work at all, or may have stopped substantially sooner, lacking an unambiguous, objective, and quantitative measurement of how much work they have actually done.
For truly fair comparison, one should evaluate how much weight people with a weight-loss tracker lose compared to the average person who may not even exercise at all.
That's a pretty fucking stupid sentence to write. How is that a fair comparison? People trying to lose weight vs not? Let's take a measure of people trying to stay alive vs people trying to kill themselves. That's about as useful of a measurement. Dead people lose weight much faster than live people. Go to bed. Sober up. Stop posting for a while maybe?
Re: (Score:2)
First of all, bear in mind I was not suggesting comparing the people that use trackers to people that do *not* lose any weight, I was suggesting comparing them to the *average* amount of weight lost by an obese person that did not use a tracker... some of these people may very lose a lot of weight (and according to this study, apparently more weight than people that use weight loss trackers), but many more of them will not.
Secondly, you miss my point, which is that people who are using weight loss tracke
Re: I think that they are missing the point (Score:2)
Even that would be nonsense since muscles weigh more than fat tissue and people that properly exercise are likely to gain muscles and thus weight. For that reason, weight loss is not a meaningful indication of anything except for people that have the physique of a big sea mammal and thus are mostly fat anyway. Proper research should include diet and body fat percentage. Also, in general exercising more without losing much weight is already a big win for the health of most people. Stupid research like this o
Re:I think that they are missing the point (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
It seems self-evident that the most effective weight loss will be from people who have found the will to do so within themselves, but the point of a tracker is to *give* some additional incentive to someone who would otherwise not have done the work at all, or may have stopped substantially sooner, lacking an unambiguous, objective, and quantitative measurement of how much work they have actually done.
For truly fair comparison, one should evaluate how much weight people with a weight-loss tracker lose compared to the average person who may not even exercise at all.
To point a finer point on this issue, I think the deficiency in the study has to do with the groups involved.
They may have found two groups who have a common goal (weight loss), but I'm willing to bet that the group who went out of their way to consult with a health counselor have FAR more motivation to achieve the goal of overall health rather than the group who buys step-counting gimmicks and starves themselves to death, resulting in temporarily hitting a specific number on the scale.
Overall health goals
Re: (Score:2)
To point a finer point on this issue, I think the deficiency in the study has to do with the groups involved.
They may have found two groups who have a common goal (weight loss), but I'm willing to bet that the group who went out of their way to consult with a health counselor have FAR more motivation to achieve the goal of overall health
I think that everyone in the study was consulting with a counsellor, and that's how they got onto the study. I may be wrong, but that's what the study seems to be describing....
Makes sense to me! (Score:5, Informative)
Activity trackers are not a useful tool for increasing your amount of regular physical activity. That's not really what they're designed for. :-)
They are, however, a useful tool for quantitatively bragging about your physical activity on Twitter and Facebook
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps I'm a special snowflake, but I also don't discuss my workouts or diet etc. with anybody, except for cases like this. Heck, each device brand gives different estimations on calories burned. My fitbit shows an extra 300 calories a day burned versus the same time last year for the same routine. Software updates.
I wouldn't say a false sense of accomplishment but poor accuracy /bad math can cause poor results.
Exactly. I used the app "Lose It" to drop huge amounts of weight several years ago to track calorie/carb count and with reasonable exercise; due to meds and health reasons I have put on weight again and are back at the point to lose it. If I compare Fitbit vs. Lose It calorie estimates on food, waaaay different. I am about to switch back to Lose It, but then I lose the combined steps, heart rate and calorie intake in one place... which sucks.
I also use http://nutritiondata.self.com/ [self.com] a lot last time to help
Re: (Score:2)
I barely lose weight during the winter
Bears put on weight for the winter not lose it.
Can you tell the difference between "doing something for winter" and "doing something during winter"?
Wrong metrics (Score:2)
Trackers measure parameters like steps and calories and bring them out of context. If you ate 500 kcal worth of chocolate right before the workout, then burning 500 kcal will do little in terms of fat reduction. You don't work out to burn the fat while you exercise, you work out to change your metabolism so that you burn fat while you don't exercise. Trackers won't reward you for doing muscle training (no steps involved!) although building muscle is awesome for losing weight (give your body enough mitochond
Interesting article (Score:2)
I think I'll ponder it for a while over a pint of Ben & Jerry's.
A couple significant problems (Score:4, Informative)
- The two groups both received counseling only for the first six months. After that, one group continued to receive monthly counseling, while the other just used a "fitness device". The way the summary (and the linked story) are written seemingly implies both groups were receiving counseling the entire time, which is false.
- The device used in this study sounds like something the researchers cobbled together. The researchers also "made a web site" where participants could review the data from the device. This does not really seem comparable to even fairly cheap modern fitness trackers, where feedback and data are easily obtained anytime the user wants. These guys really should have used brand name off the shelf commercial trackers if they really wanted to validate their conclusions.
All in all, this study seems to have some significant problems.
That doesn't jive with today's popular culture. (Score:2)
It's not currently popular to hold ourselves accountable for our actions and accomplishments, or lack thereof.
We need a device for this or an app for that as a constant reminder of our outwardly conscientious self-righteousness.
" Ohhh look at me participating in the Portland free bike program with my thousand dollar iphone riding as slow as I can, Oh the irony... "
Before the apple phanboi's attack here's the proof:
http://www.zdnet.com/article/h... [zdnet.com]
Re: (Score:2)
That might work for depressed people. I have no rewards mechanism, or at least it seems that way, and so I'm entirely motivated by pain, loss, and sheer boredom. I've never identified a sense of accomplishment and find sex largely a nerve-racking experience with a pay-off that, while enjoyable, isn't encouraging (it's impossible to motivate me via flirtation, but I'll definitely go for a free blowjob with no investment on my part if I'm not otherwise diverted--I'm not losing my 300-day Duolingo streak jus
Different targets (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Alternative hypothesis (Score:2)
Sigh (Score:2)
Because of many reasons, but one of them is that you stop when the thing says you've hit your target exercise amount etc.
Totally useless.
The other day colleagues were talking about the same thing. I mentioned that my phone is set to "get me fit" on Samsung Health apps.
For context, I do NO exercise whatsoever. I'm a lazy bum who's as skinny as hell, in that respect.
The "target" it set me - I've "achieved" it every single day since I got the phone. Without even trying. Literally just walking around the of
Clickbait titles (Score:2)
"participants who used wearable devices reported an average weight loss of 7.7 pounds, compared to the 13 pounds lost by those who didn't use the devices and only used health counseling"
Undermines?
Both A (fitbit) and B (counseling) are better than doing nothing (as well as many other alternatives), but A is somewhat less effective than B on average.
Now if people with a fitbit had gained 7.7 pounds...
Good news! (Score:2)
Weight loss fallacy (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
To change your body, do this: (Score:2)
Eat better. Sleep more.
Pick up heavy things and put them down again.
Do cardio with enough intensity that your clothes are wet.
Drink only water.
Keep doing this for the rest of your life.
I'm under 350 pounds, 5'-10" and 47-YO... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Eating 2000 calories a day will still cause weight loss for you.
Eating 2,000 calories didn't work for me. The magic number is 1,500 calories.
Anything less then your current metabolic calorie requirements will cause weight loss.
According to one calculator, I need to eat 4,000 calories or so per day to maintain my weight at 350 pounds. The problem with that number is that I haven't had a 4,000 calorie day in 15 years. When I changed my diet to drop from 2,000 calories to 1,500 calories per day, I've started losing weight.
JAMA study authors don't even lift (Score:3)
Exercise and weight loss (Score:2)
It's an oft repeat meme that if you exercise more, you'll lose weight.
"Oft repeated", however, does not mean "correct".
Re: (Score:2)
Re:OR (Score:4, Informative)
Or those That would buy an Activity Tracker to lose weight are not as committed as those who don't?
Nope. The activity trackers were randomly assigned to study participants. They were not self selecting. RTFA.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:And of course the JAMA doesn't have an interest (Score:5, Informative)
Without, someone might push harder, with, they may quit an activity sooner after hitting some goal.
Or they are ignoring the counseling and trusting the tracker.
The study doesn't have enough groups to be "valid" to discuss the validity of fitness trackers.
Where is the group with a meal plan and a fitness tracker? Not there. How about a group with no plans, goals, or direction? Is the "control" group for weight-loss professional counseling, meal plans, and physical activity plans? How about a control group that's "lose weight, 'cause you should" and see how they track?
A control group C1 that has no plan or tracker, group E1 with tracker only, group C2 with paper plans handed out at the beginning and no counselor, group E2 with a tracker and paper plan, E3, with plan, tracker, and counselor, and C3, plan, counselor, no tracker.
Comparing all the groups across would give a better idea of the impact of a fitness tracker in multiple scenarios.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: And of course the JAMA doesn't have an interes (Score:2)
Do you also deny that man has had an effect on the earth's climate, simply because climate science didn't identify and correct for each confounding variable in the climate system?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is a case of someone deliberately doing a flawed study to find the opposite of "common sense" in a appeal to get punished and get attention from morons, like yourself.
Re: (Score:2)
The issue is "Activity trackers make you lose less weight!" There's discussion about how we get activity trackers to help us lose weight, but that may be doing the exact opposite.
Problem: most people don't have weight loss counseling. They have an activity tracker and nothing else, or they have nothing but their own wits. Does the activity tracker group lose more weight than the self-driven group?
This NYT article suggests the activity tracker users will lose less weight; yet the study didn't investig
Re: (Score:2)
This study directly tested whether an activity tracker is a beneficial addition to weight loss counseling.
No, that's not what they did. That's what the OP is complaining about, there's no control group.
All participants were placed on low-calorie diets, prescribed increases in physical activity, and received group-counseling sessions on health and nutrition.
...At the first six-month mark, participants were divided into two subgroups: one that continued health-counseling sessions on a monthly basis and another that received a wearable device to monitor diet and physical activity.
...However, those who received health counseling throughout the study lost nearly twice as much weight as those who used wearable devices for three-quarters of it.
The group that got fitness trackers also stopped participating in the health-counseling sessions.
The conclusion that people using fitness trackers lose less weight isn't valid. Maybe the health-counseling sessions caused people to lose more weight? There should have been a group of people that got both fitness trackers and counseling.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We get it, you vape.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
However for those with a lot less exercise weight is not a bad metric since their amounts of muscle are low and staying fairly constant.
Re: (Score:2)
My aunt who adds tomato sauce (ketchup) to everything would like to argue with your meat-sugar difficulty claim. ;)
Re: Works for me (Score:3, Funny)
Surely fitbits cost more than 6 pounds in the uk?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And quicksand.
Re: (Score:2)