3 ms·
Both of your links have nothing to do with general population adherence rate though. They are adherence rates within a pre-selected group of people for a specif
by bosie 7y ago
Both of your links have nothing to do with general population adherence rate though. They are adherence rates within a pre-selected group of people for a specific study (apologies if i am reading this wrong).
I was actually surprised by the low adherence rate. The studies were done on small sets of folks for a very short period of time (2/8months) with little effort to adhere and yet the participants couldn't even do that. I figured adherence rates for this would actually be 100%. After all, the researchers asked for 6 minutes a day, 5 days a week.
The question I was interested in is roughly: If i randomly select 1000 people from the population and introduce them to HIIT, how many will do it 3-5 times a week 6/12/18/24 months after the introduction without any reporting and supervision?
Again, sorry if i am totally misunderstanding the links.
- Someone1234 7y ago> They are adherence rates within a pre-selected group of people for a specific study (apologies if i am reading this wrong). Yes, that's generally how studies work. > The studies were done on small sets of folks for a very short period of time (2/8months) with little effort to adhere and yet the participants couldn't even do that. You have to view it in context, diet and exercise changes have a very low adherence rate historically. It may be "low" but even that is a marked improvement over a lot of the alternatives. You asked for data that showed these strategies had good adherence rates, which I provided. I could find additional studies, but those too would have a scope and would therefore be dismissed just as readily. I don't have a population-level study to link.