4 ms·
I don't know what you think you're saying. A third of the total effect size is a lot. Nobody denies that the volume of food is going to be a significant driver
by klmadfejno 6y ago
I don't know what you think you're saying. A third of the total effect size is a lot. Nobody denies that the volume of food is going to be a significant driver of your weight change. The issue being debated is that the composition matters, and it does.
And for what its worth, I'd imagine the effect size to be even stronger for weight gain.
- AareyBaba 6y ago"The paper you linked does not say what you think it says" "I don't know what you think you're saying" Let your reasoning speak for itself. The unnecessary snark diminishes the point you are trying to make.
- klmadfejno 6y agoThat's fine. The point of those particular statements is to say that they are not only factually incorrect, but not even self consistent, which is intrinsically snarky. We're not in a formal debate.
- bena 6y agoThe total effect was statistically significant, but still not great. The difference is about 1 or 2 pounds over a couple of months (when intake was controlled). The conclusion of the study was stated in the study. It says what it says. And what it says is that calories are pretty much fungible.
- klmadfejno 6y agoThe difference between statistically significant and meaningfully different is an important distinction. It's not the one you're making. The 1 or 2 pounds is out of the average prediction of 6 pounds, which is set by the arbitrary conditions of the particular setting. The correct way to think of it is a third of the total effect size. The study is NOT saying the macronutrient composition controls, in any general condition, 1 to 2 pounds.
- bena 6y agoSorry, I meant to imply that the difference in total weight loss was about one to two pounds.