7 ms·

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, the

by 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.

by basseq 10y ago

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.