4 ms·

I can't believe how sick I am of hearing some "scientist" finding a result against what many people _know_ works. If "science" can prove anything then what is

I can't believe how sick I am of hearing some "scientist" finding a result against what many people _know_ works. If "science" can prove anything then what is the solution here? Does everything have to be a battle?

tokai 4y ago
I guess we should just accept that spinach is immensely rich in iron, that prayers work, and you can jinx the outcome of pro sport with comments said in front of the telly. When has the crowd ever been wrong.
thomascgalvin 4y ago
They aren't saying IF doesn't work, they're saying IF doesn't work better than other strategies, for the population as a whole. IF works very well for some people, and there's no reason for them to stop using it. Other people feel like garbage when they IF, and end up binging; they should not use IF. Nobody's trying to take IF away from you, they're just pointing out that it isn't a magic bullet for everyone. The headline is garbage though, as is tradition.
apwheele 4y ago
Like most science reporting, the headline is a bit over-the-top, but the article is pretty straightforward. You need to consider here the control/counter-factual -- [time fasting + restricted calories] vs [restricted calories]. And both groups lost on average a decent amount of weight, it was just about the same weight on average. Personally I do fasting as a mechanism to restrict calories (I would definitely snack more at night). It is ok if it doesn't have other metabolism benefits. I will say I think the certainty in the interviewed scientists is a wee bit strong for my taste. There is obviously quite a bit of potential treatment heterogeneity in the population (i.e. some things work for some people and not for for others, behavioral interventions are hard). This looks like a high quality small N for a decent followup, but you can't really look variance in treatment effects for only a few hundred observations. So definitely does not invalidate any personal experimentation someone has done and shown to be effective for themselves.

tokai 4y ago

I guess we should just accept that spinach is immensely rich in iron, that prayers work, and you can jinx the outcome of pro sport with comments said in front of the telly. When has the crowd ever been wrong.

thomascgalvin 4y ago

They aren't saying IF doesn't work, they're saying IF doesn't work better than other strategies, for the population as a whole. IF works very well for some people, and there's no reason for them to stop using it. Other people feel like garbage when they IF, and end up binging; they should not use IF. Nobody's trying to take IF away from you, they're just pointing out that it isn't a magic bullet for everyone. The headline is garbage though, as is tradition.

apwheele 4y ago

Like most science reporting, the headline is a bit over-the-top, but the article is pretty straightforward. You need to consider here the control/counter-factual -- [time fasting + restricted calories] vs [restricted calories]. And both groups lost on average a decent amount of weight, it was just about the same weight on average. Personally I do fasting as a mechanism to restrict calories (I would definitely snack more at night). It is ok if it doesn't have other metabolism benefits. I will say I think the certainty in the interviewed scientists is a wee bit strong for my taste. There is obviously quite a bit of potential treatment heterogeneity in the population (i.e. some things work for some people and not for for others, behavioral interventions are hard). This looks like a high quality small N for a decent followup, but you can't really look variance in treatment effects for only a few hundred observations. So definitely does not invalidate any personal experimentation someone has done and shown to be effective for themselves.