5 ms·

It’s hard for many to accept, so I’m going to state the results again: Those people who used the wearable tech for 18 months lost significantly less weight than

It’s hard for many to accept, so I’m going to state the results again: Those people who used the wearable tech for 18 months lost significantly less weight than those who didn’t. In the IDEA trial, those who employed the technology were no more physically active than those who didn’t. They also weren’t more fit. Let's say that again. They also weren’t more fit. You're ignoring empirical evidence. If what you say is true, they'd be more fit. I've got one too, but if you accept this article as true it looks like it turns out at best it's no more than a pretty bangle, at worst makes you think you're doing more than you are.

ambulancechaser 10y ago
i'm not sure where you are correcting the person you are responding to. It all seems consistent to me.
- mattmanser 10y ago
  He says it "enables" him, the data shows it does not. It has a negative effect on weight and no effect on fitness. If anything, it is damaging and according to this article, you should get rid of them.
  - basseq 10y ago
    On the average, you're right. People with Fitbits still lost weight, but less than the "control" group. So if the presence of a Fitbit is the only variable, then Fitbits have a negative impact. The study wasn't set up to test that one variable, so I'd be wary drawing such strong conclusions. Your point is that the title is misleading. It's not that fitness devices don't make you more fit. It's that they make you less fit. And that's a big difference. Individual "enablement" could be an outlier. I'd love to see a distribution of weight loss results in this study.
    - mattmanser 10y ago
      The article title is quite gentle compared to what's actually said in the article. But that wasn't my point. The article draws the strong conclusion that fitness trackers are useless based on a study. The author compares them to fad diets, sold to the public before they're even properly tested. Now they've been tested and they don't work. But when I came to this comment thread, the top comment is extolling how wonderfully enabling fitbits are apart from you just gotta have will power. According to one guy. The article flatly contradicts his stance. According to the study results, on average, even the people with willpower got no fitter. I doubt he read the article, I doubt anyone down voting anything I said did either.
      - cbanek 10y ago
        First, you assume too much. I'm not a guy. While I did read the article, I didn't read the underlying studies, mostly because they aren't freely available. The way the studies are done though, each person has professional help monitoring diet, and a nurse. I've been through these kinds of programs before personally, and while the people are great, they are more checking in with you and making you accountable, which drives results. Obviously someone making a diet plan for you does no good if you don't follow it, just like how cardio doesn't do much for you if you aren't pushing your heart rate up. In the article, the first study, called inconclusive, actually said that people with pedometers were more physically active. Really, experimental method means everything. In the article, they say one group lost 14 pounds, and one on average lost 7. Over 2 years. That's honestly not a lot of weight lost (1 lb per month or less), and they didn't provide any statistics other than the average, which is typically misleading (some probably gained weight, some probably lost a lot of weight). What you're saying is basically a study said when you measure something, you get worse at it. As if the Heisenberg uncertainty principal is at play. What I'm saying is that a tracker is a tool, and how and why you use that tool is incredibly important. Just like how you could say most people who buy a home gym don't use it, so therefore obviously buying a home gym makes you fat. I believe I also said in my original comment, which you obviously read but missed the part where I said people could be treating this as an undeserved pat on the back. In all of this, the experimental method is everything. Articles like this are written in a very fluffy style, making conclusions about causation that I find dubious.
LeifCarrotson 10y ago
Empirical evidence on an average does not mean that an individual anecdote is false. I can echo cbanek's finding - I've been a competitive runner for 15 years, and there's a small inflection point in my results about 5 years ago when I got a GPS watch and heart-rate monitor. I was training and racing to the best of my abilities with the tools I had before, and when I got more abilities with the watch, I did better. I suspect the difference is that some use the device as a crutch rather than a tool.
Cpoll 10y ago
The abstract doesn't give enough information, so I'm connecting the dots. This may be addressed in the text... It sounds like all the participants were put on a program, and then some were additionally were given a smartwatch (which negatively impacted their results). But I can't see how you can conclude from there that the smartwatch won't help for individuals that are NOT on a program. A potential explanation is that the watch has a moderating effect: it gives you an excuse to stop exercising once you hit your daily target, the more calorie tracking you do, the less you err on the side of caution, etc. Under that hypothesis, a smartwatch is still better than no program + no smartwatch.
- brlewis 10y ago
  You are largely correct, except the wearable tech was not a smart watch. It was a 2010-era fitness tracker one straps onto the arm. Definitely nowhere in the "pretty bangle" category. I think wearers would be less active because they wouldn't want to be seen in public with it. A more detailed answer here: http://www.mobihealthnews.com/content/despite-reports-your-fitbit-likely-wont-hinder-your-weight-loss-efforts http://www.mobihealthnews.com/content/despite-reports-your-f...

ambulancechaser 10y ago

i'm not sure where you are correcting the person you are responding to. It all seems consistent to me.

mattmanser 10y ago
He says it "enables" him, the data shows it does not. It has a negative effect on weight and no effect on fitness. If anything, it is damaging and according to this article, you should get rid of them.
- basseq 10y ago
  On the average, you're right. People with Fitbits still lost weight, but less than the "control" group. So if the presence of a Fitbit is the only variable, then Fitbits have a negative impact. The study wasn't set up to test that one variable, so I'd be wary drawing such strong conclusions. Your point is that the title is misleading. It's not that fitness devices don't make you more fit. It's that they make you less fit. And that's a big difference. Individual "enablement" could be an outlier. I'd love to see a distribution of weight loss results in this study.
  - mattmanser 10y ago
    The article title is quite gentle compared to what's actually said in the article. But that wasn't my point. The article draws the strong conclusion that fitness trackers are useless based on a study. The author compares them to fad diets, sold to the public before they're even properly tested. Now they've been tested and they don't work. But when I came to this comment thread, the top comment is extolling how wonderfully enabling fitbits are apart from you just gotta have will power. According to one guy. The article flatly contradicts his stance. According to the study results, on average, even the people with willpower got no fitter. I doubt he read the article, I doubt anyone down voting anything I said did either.
    - cbanek 10y ago
      First, you assume too much. I'm not a guy. While I did read the article, I didn't read the underlying studies, mostly because they aren't freely available. The way the studies are done though, each person has professional help monitoring diet, and a nurse. I've been through these kinds of programs before personally, and while the people are great, they are more checking in with you and making you accountable, which drives results. Obviously someone making a diet plan for you does no good if you don't follow it, just like how cardio doesn't do much for you if you aren't pushing your heart rate up. In the article, the first study, called inconclusive, actually said that people with pedometers were more physically active. Really, experimental method means everything. In the article, they say one group lost 14 pounds, and one on average lost 7. Over 2 years. That's honestly not a lot of weight lost (1 lb per month or less), and they didn't provide any statistics other than the average, which is typically misleading (some probably gained weight, some probably lost a lot of weight). What you're saying is basically a study said when you measure something, you get worse at it. As if the Heisenberg uncertainty principal is at play. What I'm saying is that a tracker is a tool, and how and why you use that tool is incredibly important. Just like how you could say most people who buy a home gym don't use it, so therefore obviously buying a home gym makes you fat. I believe I also said in my original comment, which you obviously read but missed the part where I said people could be treating this as an undeserved pat on the back. In all of this, the experimental method is everything. Articles like this are written in a very fluffy style, making conclusions about causation that I find dubious.

LeifCarrotson 10y ago

Empirical evidence on an average does not mean that an individual anecdote is false. I can echo cbanek's finding - I've been a competitive runner for 15 years, and there's a small inflection point in my results about 5 years ago when I got a GPS watch and heart-rate monitor. I was training and racing to the best of my abilities with the tools I had before, and when I got more abilities with the watch, I did better. I suspect the difference is that some use the device as a crutch rather than a tool.

Cpoll 10y ago

The abstract doesn't give enough information, so I'm connecting the dots. This may be addressed in the text... It sounds like all the participants were put on a program, and then some were additionally were given a smartwatch (which negatively impacted their results). But I can't see how you can conclude from there that the smartwatch won't help for individuals that are NOT on a program. A potential explanation is that the watch has a moderating effect: it gives you an excuse to stop exercising once you hit your daily target, the more calorie tracking you do, the less you err on the side of caution, etc. Under that hypothesis, a smartwatch is still better than no program + no smartwatch.

brlewis 10y ago
You are largely correct, except the wearable tech was not a smart watch. It was a 2010-era fitness tracker one straps onto the arm. Definitely nowhere in the "pretty bangle" category. I think wearers would be less active because they wouldn't want to be seen in public with it. A more detailed answer here: http://www.mobihealthnews.com/content/despite-reports-your-fitbit-likely-wont-hinder-your-weight-loss-efforts http://www.mobihealthnews.com/content/despite-reports-your-f...