3 ms·
The author, perhaps inadvertently, describes a confounding issue in the study that validates his claims. Namely, the issue stems from the author's description o
by dkinventor 10y ago
The author, perhaps inadvertently, describes a confounding issue in the study that validates his claims. Namely, the issue stems from the author's description of how fitness trackers are useful in the initial stages of a diet/exercise plan in order to help establish a routine. However, the study that the author cites gave the fitness trackers to participants 6 months into the study, when hopefully some plan has been established. This would seem to negate one of the key benefits of fitness trackers espoused by the author. Is it explained why the fitness trackers are given later on as opposed to at the beginning?
- lolc 10y agoAssuming that trackers have this habit-building effect: While we then would expect the effect to have have been larger if they'd handed out the trackers at the beginning of the study, some participants should have benefited from this effect even mid-study. One hypothesis here is that the trackers provided a frame of reference that anchored participants to some goal like 10'000 steps daily while the participants who had less direct feedback were free to expand their goals as their fitness improved. Some things seem much more arduous to me when I track progress while doing them.