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. T

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.