4 ms·

You know unless you take into account humans aren’t machines and are terrible at precision and consistency.

• throwaway22032 3y ago
  I don't understand what we are discussing anymore. Perfect adherence ignores those things by definition. I think it's actionably useful to distinguish between "this doesn't work" and "people find it hard/impossible to do this".
  • solarmist 3y ago
    Except perfect adherence is a fantasy even in 99.9% of studies. I feel like we’re in a transition period where science is staring to take the human into account as part of what is possible. And I encourage that. Form nutrition to economics. Humans are not fully rational. This is normal and expected. Except in science apparently. Yes, if you are NASA you can fully account for calories perfectly, but outside of at least a hospital environment is it a fantasy.
    • deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]