4 ms·

From the actual study: "8-week weight losses for ICT were 3.1% vs. 2.2% for sham. A marginally significant effect was observed for gamification to reduce the i

From the actual study: "8-week weight losses for ICT were 3.1% vs. 2.2% for sham. A marginally significant effect was observed for gamification to reduce the impact of ICT." This seems like a small effect for eight weeks of work. And gamification backfiring makes me worry this is all noise.

imtringued 7y ago
1% is significant if it trains long term behaviour. Losing 2.2% in 8 weeks is useless if it is unsustainable if you will fall for the processed food trap again and regain your weight.
- brownbat 7y ago
  > 1% is significant if it trains long term behaviour. Or maybe it can be added to other effects, or maybe the techniques can be refined from here. You're absolutely right there are a dozen reasons small effects can still be important. Sometimes it's just p-hacking though, or otherwise unreplicable studies. That's worth considering too. I think we'd both welcome more research, maybe especially over longer terms.
benj111 7y ago
Didn't see any mention of a control, so could just be down to the classes beforehand. Nevertheless 2%-3% weight loss without 'dieting' is surely good, it's at least additive to normal dieting, and perhaps even more effective in that it can help in overcoming craving. Plus what rate of weight loss do you think is acceptable. Losing 25% of your bodyweight in a week may be the 'in thing', but it isn't necessarily healthy or sustainable.
- projektfu 7y ago
  Sham is the control
- brownbat 7y ago
  > Plus what rate of weight loss do you think is acceptable. Great question, I estimated the math before the last post but let me unpack it so people can correct me. If a man is avg US height of 5'9" with an obese BMI of 35 and weight of 240, then 0.5% to 2% each week would fit standard medical guidelines for effective dieting. At that weight you can easily fluctuate by 1% each day. So we have an eight week effect that is in total less than 1% over sham, a difference on par with standard daily noise and reasonable weekly goal. This is why there's a replication crisis in health research. Also, sham is a misleading control here if we're actually interested in weight loss. Why not control for any diet at all? Even use the same time each day going for a walk, or probably even meditating on weight loss strategies, at this improvement rate the advantage will melt away. Sham is defensible if you don't actually care about weight loss, but in that case weight shouldn't be your metric. Best case is it's a horribly misleading study design.
victor106 7y ago
Avoiding Sugar intake is not just about weight loss though. It’s also about controlling immediate glucose spikes. Which of course could be correlated with weight

imtringued 7y ago

1% is significant if it trains long term behaviour. Losing 2.2% in 8 weeks is useless if it is unsustainable if you will fall for the processed food trap again and regain your weight.

brownbat 7y ago
> 1% is significant if it trains long term behaviour. Or maybe it can be added to other effects, or maybe the techniques can be refined from here. You're absolutely right there are a dozen reasons small effects can still be important. Sometimes it's just p-hacking though, or otherwise unreplicable studies. That's worth considering too. I think we'd both welcome more research, maybe especially over longer terms.

benj111 7y ago

Didn't see any mention of a control, so could just be down to the classes beforehand. Nevertheless 2%-3% weight loss without 'dieting' is surely good, it's at least additive to normal dieting, and perhaps even more effective in that it can help in overcoming craving. Plus what rate of weight loss do you think is acceptable. Losing 25% of your bodyweight in a week may be the 'in thing', but it isn't necessarily healthy or sustainable.

projektfu 7y ago
Sham is the control
brownbat 7y ago
> Plus what rate of weight loss do you think is acceptable. Great question, I estimated the math before the last post but let me unpack it so people can correct me. If a man is avg US height of 5'9" with an obese BMI of 35 and weight of 240, then 0.5% to 2% each week would fit standard medical guidelines for effective dieting. At that weight you can easily fluctuate by 1% each day. So we have an eight week effect that is in total less than 1% over sham, a difference on par with standard daily noise and reasonable weekly goal. This is why there's a replication crisis in health research. Also, sham is a misleading control here if we're actually interested in weight loss. Why not control for any diet at all? Even use the same time each day going for a walk, or probably even meditating on weight loss strategies, at this improvement rate the advantage will melt away. Sham is defensible if you don't actually care about weight loss, but in that case weight shouldn't be your metric. Best case is it's a horribly misleading study design.

victor106 7y ago

Avoiding Sugar intake is not just about weight loss though. It’s also about controlling immediate glucose spikes. Which of course could be correlated with weight