Activity Trackers May Undermine Weight Loss Efforts, Says Study (sciencedaily.com)

schwit1 quotes a report from New York Times: Wearable activity monitors can count your steps and track your movements, but they don't, apparently, help you lose weight. In fact, you might lose more weight without them. The fascinating finding comes from a study published today in JAMA that found dieting adults who wore activity monitors for 18 months lost significantly fewer pounds over that time than those who did not. The results suggest that activity monitors may not change our behavior in the way we expected (warning: may be paywalled), and raise interesting questions about the tangled relationships between exercise, eating, our willpower and our waistlines. Specifically, the study found that participants who used wearable devices reported an average weight loss of 7.7 pounds, compared to the 13 pounds lost by those who didn't use the devices and only used health counseling. "While usage of wearable devices is currently a popular method to track physical activity -- steps taken per day or calories burned during a workout -- our findings show that adding them to behavioral counseling or weight loss that includes physical activity and reduced calorie intake does not improve weight loss or physical activity engagement. Therefore, within this context, these devices should not be relied upon as tools for weight management in place of effective behavioral counseling for physical activity and diet," said John Jakicic, the study's lead researcher and chair of Pitt's Department of Health and Physical Activity.

Comments

The Self Reward Syndrome

[Anonymous Coward]

"According to this app, today I burnt 500 calories more than yesterday! I can now eat a whole pizza guilt free"
Mystery solved.

Re:The Self Reward Syndrome

[William Robinson]

My personal experience is, activities in the morning are more effective for weight loss. I used to walk ~4km in the evening for more than a year, but did not result in weight loss. But when switched to morning walk, I could see results in couple of months.

Probably it has something to do with glucose/sugar levels, which is lowest in the morning. Probably, the apps do not consider some such facts.

Re:The Self Reward Syndrome

[quantaman]

My personal experience is, activities in the morning are more effective for weight loss. I used to walk ~4km in the evening for more than a year, but did not result in weight loss. But when switched to morning walk, I could see results in couple of months.

Did you walk before or after supper? If it was after supper perhaps you just convinced yourself that you worked up an appetite and ate enough calories to compensate for the walk.

With the morning walk if you walked before breakfast you probably didn't increase consumption to compensate, and if it was after you were probably satisfied enough to wait for lunch.

In either case the determining factor was more likely a mental one then a biological one.

Probably it has something to do with glucose/sugar levels

Probably not

Re:The Self Reward Syndrome

[EEPROMS]

I used to go to the gym 3-4 times a week and do all the exercises etc and lost next to bugger all weight but I did get bigger muscles. The issue is to lose weight there are two simple rules, don't eat anything with a high GI (carbs) index and don't eat too much. If you avoid bread and cakes, beer (I drink spirits now), snacks etc all things high in carbs you will find the weight just falls off. Also reward yourself at least once a week with a sinful dinner setting and that way you don't get bored. Yes exercise should still be in the picture but is a wast of time if you don't get rid of the carbs,

Re:The Self Reward Syndrome

[plover]

As much as this explanation appears to make sense, like anything in a social study, the results are likely virtually meaningless at the individual level. How any one person reacts to a tracker will not be predictable.

Success at improving someone's health will always be based entirely on the motivation of the person, not on which electronic toys they wear or which brand of granola they gnaw upon. Perhaps they'll find a correlation where buying Garmin branded devices is indicative of people who are more motivated than people who buy Apple branded devices, but that certainly doesn't mean buying a Garmin or an Apple will alter your chances of success.

I participated in a clinical activity tracker study earlier this year. There were so many holes in the testing methodology that I'm not sure the results will be worth the PDF they'll be printed on. Yet they'll be publishing results soon enough, and no doubt will contribute to the collective misinformation already encompassing the 'get healthy' rackets.

Re:The Self Reward Syndrome

[geekmux]

"According to this app, today I burnt 500 calories more than yesterday! I can now eat a whole pizza guilt free" Mystery solved.

Since a single slice of pizza can be upwards of 500 calories, this "mystery" is more of a math deficiency than some broken reward system.

Successful weight loss almost always comes down to simple math; burn more calories than you consume.

Odd how we allegedly need a billion dollars worth of weight-loss "solutions" marketed to us to figure this out, which given the financial reward to outright lie on surveys like this to boost sales, I wouldn't be surprised if these results are reversed next week with a study sponsored by the makers of Apple Watch and Fitbit. Obesity is a societal problem that has far outgrown any valid excuses, and humans are desperate to try damn near anything, sometimes with disastrous results (e.g. fen-phen)

Re:The Self Reward Syndrome

[TheRaven64]

Successful weight loss almost always comes down to simple math; burn more calories than you consume.

Which is a really good way to make yourself very ill. Hint: If the only thing that you're tracking is calories, then you're likely to have too much of some and too little of other things that you need.

Re:The Self Reward Syndrome

[JaredOfEuropa]

Sounds like Atkins, which has worked quite well for me. But it appears that almost anyd diet helps people lose weight for a while, regardless of what foods it actually allows. Perhaps it's due to these diets forcing people to pay much more attention to what's in their food and how many calories it has. "Wow, this much fat and sugar in this microwave dinner? I'll grab something else".

Speaking of drinks: my doctor told me I had better cut down on my alcohol intake, so I did. No other change in diet, but I started to lose weight, slowly but steadily. Alcohol in any form is pretty fattening, and even an all-whisky diet will give you a "beer gut". I started to drink low ABV beers (Brewdog makes one called "Nanny state", it's actually tasty as opposed to most others); it hasn't affected my weight. Beers in themselves won't make you fat contrary to popular belief; it's mostly the alcohol that does it (obviously beer won't fit in a low-carb regimen).

Re:The Self Reward Syndrome

[geekmux]

Successful weight loss almost always comes down to simple math; burn more calories than you consume.

Which is a really good way to make yourself very ill. Hint: If the only thing that you're tracking is calories, then you're likely to have too much of some and too little of other things that you need.

I wholeheartedly agree with you. A goal of overall health which includes diet and exercise is the proper way to manage the human body. That said, respecting the simple math is a key component of that. Exercising for 2 hours every day becomes rather pointless if you "reward" yourself with an extra-large pizza for a midnight snack in utter defiance of simple math or proper diet.

I was also addressing the gimmicks and methods that are marketed today that seem to defy the basic common-sense approach to weight management. Get-thin-quick diet fads tend to distort this, or allow humans to use excuses to not exercise. The sad reality is I sometimes wonder if this is not by design, as it almost always manufactures a consistent demand based on feeding the roller coaster cycle.

Re:The Self Reward Syndrome

[tburkhol]

Circadian rhythms, entrained both to light and activity, are starting to look pretty important to metabolism of consumed food. They're definitely important to the consumption of food, in that mucking up the internal clock results in overeating (in animal models). Body weight is not a simple arithmetic of calories eaten - calories exercised.

Re:The Self Reward Syndrome

[houghi]

the results are likely virtually meaningless at the individual level. How any one person reacts to a tracker will not be predictable.

That will always be the case with anything that involves more than 3 things. This type of defense is used in e.g. people who deny climate change and also with those who do not like caccinations.

OTOH most people (here) will understand that an increqse in an average will be significant, as long as the test group is large enough. And by "most" I mean that there will be people who do not know it, Yet on average more people on /. do understand it than not. There will be people who think binary and for them it will mean if it is not everybody, than it is nobody. That is not how the real world works.

The issue with publishing things is often not that what they publish is wrong, but that people who re-print it will jump to conclusions.

Re:The Self Reward Syndrome

[Anonymous Coward]

Or alternatively - people who wear a monitor feel they're doing something about the problem, and relax a bit.
But the monitor does nothing on its own. People without such as "support" don't get that false feeling of accomplishment, and keep trying to do something instead.

Also, the really stupid out there think it is all about getting good numbers. So they cheat in various ways, putting the pedometer on their dog, or write down inflated figures. The sort of cheating that occationally got them a good grade on a school project. Now they habitually cheat with the activity reports, and act all surprised when the expected weight loss didn't happen. Then they bitch about how the method "doesn't work", which apparently is their true goal. Judging from behaviour.

Re:The Self Reward Syndrome

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course a study doesn't predict individuals behavior. What it does is determines if the device itself, on average, *modifies* individual behaviors with a result in more or less weight loss. This study, and the one you participated in will provide meaningful insight into whether or not fitness trackers inherently help people lose weight or if *other factors* are more important than the tracking part.

This does not mean you should not go buy a fitness tracker or that it can't help. But it does mean that just throwing one on won't help for the average person and you better try to determine and know that on average a person loses less weight when they wear one.

I personally think the correlation / causation goes even deeper when it is not a study. Those that self select into using fitness trackers appear to me to be people who feel the need to document their physical activity to prove to themselves that they do in fact work out and target arbitrary "calories burned" numbers. The problem is these trackers are terrible. I wore one and it would say I had burned 2,000 calories by mid-afternoon if I was working in the yard. Maybe I did burn 2,000 calories, but this sort of activity is normal and when you get something like 200 cals or less per mile ran, working in the yard looks like over 10 miles.

I think tracking ALL activity is confusing to those who never paid attention and makes people think they are suddenly doing all this "working out" that was previously just part of their every day routine. This can be used to justify NOT actually going for that run or to the gym because they burned so many calories walking around the art fair or whatever, that they previously would have not though of as a workout at all.

Re: The Self Reward Syndrome

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, it basically is consumed calories - expenses calories. Thays

Re:The Self Reward Syndrome

[Anonymous Coward]

It only makes you ill if you cut good foods and not bad foods or cut too much.

Math is math though. It is impossible to lose weight if you eat more than you burn, even if all of those calories are "healthy".

Weight loss is more complicated and harder in practice because your body is not designed to lose weight but weight GAIN is simple: you are eating more than you burn.

Re: The Self Reward Syndrome

[parkinglot777]

Actually, it basically is consumed calories - expenses calories. Thays

It depends on how you define "consume" and "expense." If you define "consume" as eating, and "expense" as activities then it is too simple. Each person body could absorb nutrient from consuming food at a different rate. Also, each person could spend different calories on the same activity (metabolism). Besides, certain disrupt in normal routine of eating (e.g. Anorexia) could change the system (different metabolism rate) in your body. Thus, you oversimplify the way of how calories work with human body.

Re:The Self Reward Syndrome

[TheRaven64]

It is impossible to lose weight if you eat more than you burn, even if all of those calories are "healthy".

That's assuming that 'eat' and 'digest' are equivalent. They're not, and various things affect the efficiency of your digestive system. It's perfectly possible to eat a lot more calories than your body absorbs (though it's not possible to eat fewer unless you learn to photosynthesise).

Re:The Self Reward Syndrome

[Half-pint HAL]

Sounds like Atkins, which has worked quite well for me.

That's a large leap. The grandparent was talking about cutting out high GI foods, Atkins promotes cutting out all carbohydrate. Ketosis is a pretty extreme state to get yourself in, and there's really no need to worry about low GI carbohydrates. And if exercise is part of your weight-loss regime, you do really need to have a reasonable carbohydrate intake.

Re:The Self Reward Syndrome

[Anonymous Coward]

There's a saying in the fitness world; You can't unrun your fork.

Pretty straight forward. Altho there are a lot of people out there who recommend "eating up" on your days of exercise. This only seems to work if you're doing serious training and that's an unfortunate fact that is often left out. People just getting into the mode of "exercise" that was considered a normal day's activity for the generation before them seem to act like taking the steps instead of the elevator is the same thing as real training. This is the same reason we hear so much about protein now. Yeah, the protein thing is a big deal if you're doing endurance training and you're at 4% body fat but for fat asses such as myself who are over the 20% body fat level it's just not that big of a deal and 20 minutes of HIITs and 45 minutes of resistance training doesn't hurt anyone on a normal 2000 calorie diet.

Re:The Self Reward Syndrome

[Half-pint HAL]

As much as this explanation appears to make sense, like anything in a social study, the results are likely virtually meaningless at the individual level. How any one person reacts to a tracker will not be predictable.

That's an overstatement. What the results cannot do is state categorically that "you won't get fitter with a fitbit". But they're a starting point for an informed decision. When you're engaged in behaviour modification, you have to first be aware of your behaviour, and that includes being aware of tendencies that you may (or may not) have which are likely to affect your behaviour. Knowing something about the psychological effects of wearing a fitness tracker allows you to modify your use of it/attitude towards it and (hopefully) achieve better results.

Re: The Self Reward Syndrome

[Anonymous Coward]

You're missing a big factor from your equation: calories excreted. I started taking Metformin for diabetes, and was surprised when I lost 25 pounds without effort. The extra calories went, unmeasured, through my kidneys. If you're not measuring the calories in your excrement, you cannot talk about calories- in-versus-calories-out.

Re:The Self Reward Syndrome

[Half-pint HAL]

It is impossible to lose weight if you eat more than you burn, even if all of those calories are "healthy".

Not necessarily true. For a while, I was on a "grazing" regime, as it had been advised both by a doctor as a method of managing my heartburn (heartburn often being triggered by filling up the stomach, or by eating on an empty stomach) and by a trainer in my local gym as a means of losing weight. The trainer's assertion was that the human body only starts to metabolise food to bodyfat when the stomach is nearly empty. If your stomach isn't empty at all during the day (you need to let it empty at night, though) there's no trigger to the body to save some of the calories for later.

Now I can't say for sure that this is true -- it could be that I only lost weight doing this because I retrained my reaction to hunger -- but I lost a surprising amount of weight surprisingly quickly.

Re:The Self Reward Syndrome

[hey!]

As much as this explanation appears to make sense, like anything in a social study, the results are likely virtually meaningless at the individual level. How any one person reacts to a tracker will not be predictable.

This is true. As someone who successfully used an activity logger as part of a self-designed program in which I lost about 100 pounds, I have some perspective on the matter. That doesn't have the same value as data from a controlled study of course, but which is nonetheless useful in curtailing premature generalizations one would make from such a study.

My success puts me in a tiny minority of people, which has always been the problem all along: almost any rationally plausible program of weight loss works, but when you put the white-hot light of science on it most people don't lose much. And what they do lose they quickly gain back. Sustainable weight loss is an atypical result because it requires the indefinite sustenance of an unnatural behavior pattern. So what this study shows is that activity trackers do not by themselves modify patient behavior, which does not surprise me in the least. Given the low level of success it's almost a foregone conclusion that in a study like this you'll get negative results, or positive results that don't stand up to scrutiny. We need to study the outliers more first.

My doctor says the reason I have had success where others have not is that I am the most data-oriented patient she's ever had. Which I should be; data has been my life work. And that gives me another perspective, which is this: the vast majority of people do not understand how to interpret data and use it effectively to achieve their goals.

For example, I weigh myself daily. This would discourage most people and make them give up, because even when you're on a successful weight loss trajectory your weight goes up over the prior day almost half the time. But I also take an electronic body fat percentage. The body fat numbers are very imprecise, but together with the weight measurement they show me that when my weight goes up dramatically in one day, my body fat percentage goes down. This in turn correlates pretty closely to variations in my salt intake (I log everything I eat) over the past 24 hours. What my data says is that daily swings in my weight are almost 100% due to hydration.

For me this kind of data-intensive approach works, and I don't have any problem carrying on with it for the rest of my life. It would be intolerable for the average person I suppose, but I suspect many people here might be more like me than average. This is body composition hacking.

Here's a pro tip for using your activity tracker: find something you do every day by habit; something that's easy and rewarding to do. Maybe it's going on Facebook or Slashdot. Make a pact with yourself never to do that thing until your activity tracker shows you've reached a certain percentage of your daily goal. Why does this work? Because our lives our governed by unconscious habit. To establish a new habit, you need to find a behavioral trigger, ideally something which naturally happens. This is the point at which you can hack the new behavior into your automatic daily routine.

Another pro tip: weight loss is like steering a supertanker; you can't make it turn on a dime one way or the other. This is a lifetime process, so don't get discouraged by a week or even a month of fat gain. Just make sure you see it happening, which will come out in the numbers before you're forced to buy new clothes.

Re:The Self Reward Syndrome

[Anonymous Coward]

You missed the point of "Successful weight loss", meaning a person actually losing weight. If anyone wants to lose weight the ONLY thing they need to do is count calories. Health is a completely different matter and easily managed with off the shelf supplements. Millions of people give up hope on losing weight each year because they are lied to by being told they need to "eat a healthy diet", pure bullshit, they need to eat 1,000 calories a day and burn off a 1,000 calories a day with exercise. It DOES NOT MATTER what the 1,000 calories are in order for the person to lose weight. Simple as that. Calories in / calories out.

Re:The Self Reward Syndrome

[nospam007]

"I used to go to the gym 3-4 times a week and do all the exercises etc and lost next to bugger all weight but I did get bigger muscles."

IOW you did lose fat, which normally is the goal for people on a diet.

Losing weight is only helpful for jockeys and astronauts.

Re:The Self Reward Syndrome

[religionofpeas]

The trigger to save food to body fat is high insulin. Conversely, the trigger to release body fat for energy is low levels of insulin. https://www.researchgate.net/f... If you graze throughout the day, insulin will be constantly elevated, inhibiting fat release from storage. This is especially true if you graze on carbs.

Re:The Self Reward Syndrome

[Ol Olsoc]

My personal experience is, activities in the morning are more effective for weight loss. I used to walk ~4km in the evening for more than a year, but did not result in weight loss. But when switched to morning walk, I could see results in couple of months.

Probably it has something to do with glucose/sugar levels, which is lowest in the morning. Probably, the apps do not consider some such facts.

From a lifetime spent battling weight, I concur that morning exercise is best. I suspect that it primes the metabolism to run a little faster? Evening exercise never did much for me other than maintain muscle tone.

The body does some strange things as well. Trying to lose weight in late summer or fall is horridly difficult. I don't know if the body is preparing for winter or what, triggered by the shortening days, but I had to be in fighting trim for Hockey season by August, or else let the season wear it off around the beginning of the new year.

Re: The Self Reward Syndrome

[Ol Olsoc]

Actually, it basically is consumed calories - expenses calories. Thays

Nope. A calorie doesn't even signify food. And there's metabolism.

Re:The Self Reward Syndrome

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is that most people on a diet typically associate weight with fat. When they don't lose much weight, they get frustrated and go off the diet because there is just no easy way to measure fat vs muscle.

Re:The Self Reward Syndrome

[Anonymous Coward]

Since a single slice of pizza can be upwards of 500 calories, this "mystery" is more of a math deficiency than some broken reward system.

All things in moderation. A single medium pizza (8 slices) has around 2000 calories, give or take a couple hundred for the toppings. Deep dish tends to add calories and thin crust has fewer, just from the difference in bread of course. So, you could eat just one medium pizza per day and not gain weight. But that also requires that you don't have any pop to go with it (160 calories per can) or other sides, and also no extra cheese or sauce. No desserts either, obviously.

The main entree of a meal usually isn't the problem. It's all the sides and drinks that get piled on. Drink a couple beers after work? Just as bad as Coke. Add a muffin to your morning double-double coffee? You may as well have a doughnut. Supersize your fries and drink? You just doubled your intake.

Dieting is just too hard, and good food is just too tempting. That's the real reason for the obesity epidemic and why all of these "lose weight fast" scams make so much money. We're lazy, impatient, and estimate our calorie intake on the low side. So we do just enough to feel like we're on the path to losing weight and then immediately throw all of our work out the window just because our stomachs rumble a little bit.

Re: The Self Reward Syndrome

[Anonymous Coward]

I have to agree. I'm not nearly as anal regarding intake tracking, but keep to a specific set of rules regarding that intake.

What I expect to see is a certain amount of loss over time. I do track the daily bits, but I avoid being discouraged by them.

65lbs lost so far, but it's not a fast process and neither did I expect it to be.

Re:The Self Reward Syndrome

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is that most people on a diet typically associate weight with fat. When they don't lose much weight, they get frustrated and go off the diet because there is just no easy way to measure fat vs muscle.

Sure there is: take circumference measurements. If you're working out regularly, but don't seem to be losing weight, start measuring your neck, arm, chest, belly, hip, and leg circumferences. They're changing, even if your weight doesn't change.

Or get a scale that also measure body composition. Sure, they're not going to give you a highly accurate measure, but you want to establish a trend-line. If you're working out and your weight isn't changing, then your composition must be - you're adding muscle and shedding fat, which means your body fat % will be declining.

Or just look in the mirror. Seriously, if I took 20 pounds of fat off you and replaced it with 20 pounds of muscle, you'd notice. Take a photo of yourself in the mirror every few weeks, and compare how you look over time.

Background: I'm a 42 year old fat-body who's gone from 365 to 215 in the last 2.5 years. I'm still not where I want to be, but I'm a hell of a lot better than I was. Also, as a side benefit, corrected high blood pressure (180 / 120 was my highest 'resting' reading - now regularly measure ~ 115 / 75, with a heart rate of 65), jacked up blood glucose (borderline diabetic), and high cholesterol (~200 of whatever units they use to measure), and I haven't felt this good since my early 20's.

I don't care who you are, if you're exercising and not losing weight, there's plenty of other easy ways to see your progress.

Re:The Self Reward Syndrome

[chihowa]

There's a pretty damn easy way to measure fat vs muscle and most people (especially those of the opposite sex) are pretty good at doing so. Even if you're a big lad who still has more visible fat than muscle, any increase in muscle makes a noticeable difference in the way you look and move.

A friend of mine who was pretty big and soft started climbing with me and you could start seeing the difference pretty quicly. Most people can tell the difference between big and soft and big and and strong. You also start feeling better, which helps keep your motivation up. Exercise is only part of a complete weight loss regimen, but it's worth doing on its own, too. It's been the best medicine for my chronic crippling depression.

Re:The Self Reward Syndrome

[shadowrat]

Losing weight is only helpful for jockeys and astronauts.

not according to BMI.

Re: The Self Reward Syndrome

[hey!]

Good for you. Slow weight loss is easier to maintain, not the least because the new habits have longer to become ingrained.

Re:The Self Reward Syndrome

[Anonymous Coward]

It isn't as meaningless as you might think. From what I can see, this is just a special case of the general psychological principle of perverse incentive.
These devices and apps give their user rewards based on a (usually severely) flawed measure of activity. So to increase the reward, rather than to lose weight, the user has to trigger whatever it is that registers as activity more, which the user will usually do in such a way as to consume the least amount of effort, while consuming extra food to compensate.
Going by experience, I'd say the old fashioned analogue scale combined with some sort of small prize for hitting lots of reasonably set targets works best. The scale itself will cost you about € 10 and the prizes don't have to be huge either for this to work. Often people only need a nudge.

Re:The Self Reward Syndrome

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, because looking in the mirror to determine your body fat percentage is as accurate as stepping on a scale...

Re:The Self Reward Syndrome

[Anonymous Coward]

Was about to say this.
Ignore the numbers, look in the mirror once in a while, and pay attention to how you feel.
Getting in shape changed almost everything about my life, and I think my wife is even happier about it than I am.

Re: The Self Reward Syndrome

[tnk1]

Actually, I think there is a significant benefit to simplifying the concept down to consume and expense.

Yes, there are differences in body chemistry, activity level, and other things that alter the exact rate of fat burning or weight loss.

However, taking all of that into account for something as simple as dropping 10-30 pounds is probably overkill and more likely to be discouraging, and even enabling of maintaining an unhealthy weight and consumption pattern.

If you chart all of that out, it's just a range of uncertainty, but you can very easily overwhelm that range by making sure you find the level where you are definitely going to lose weight.

In the end, if you don't put it in your mouth, it doesn't become fat that is stored on you. Period. We're not plants, we don't generate simple sugars from sunlight (and even plants need to absorb nutrients to do that).

Calories is certainly not a perfect measurement of what causes weight, but it doesn't have to be. It is useful as a measure of what goes into generating weight. If your body needs calories, it is going to make sure it gets them. Unless you have a severe endocrine issue, your body is going to override any and all other processes to ensure that it can burn something for energy, and if it doesn't get it from what you ingest, it will go to the fat stores, as that is what they are there for. This happens for some people faster than others, but it will inexorably happen if you maintain your calorie intake budget.

More than half the time, I feel we over complicate things like diet. The major issue with weight isn't knowing what to do to lose it, it is maintaining the willpower to do what it takes when it makes us uncomfortable.

For instance, working out is great, but it isn't the most important way to lose weight. Your average calorie usage for a good hour long jog can be easily made up for by less than one minutes worth of jamming something in your mouth. You totally *should* work out, because fitness isn't just about weight, but you can lose weight even by being a sedentary slug. You might even have more success while doing it while sedentary if you are inclined to want to "reward" yourself work working out hard. Working out is supposed to be its own reward.

You should consider weight loss to be a budgetary matter, not a complicated matter of hormones, activity level and particular types of foods. You need to consider things like fitness and nutrients, but most of those things merely are there to try and differentiated the same low calorie diet from other diets so that they can charge you more money. By all means, find out the right amount of omega-3 fatty acids to ingest, just make sure you do it as part of a diet where you are eating less than your weight maintenance in calories with a consistent meal plan.

And consistency is important, because if you find a meal plan that works for you, hammer that shit for all it is worth. This is where your issues with metabolism rates come into it. Certain meals will cause you to gain more per ingested calorie than others. So you could gain more weight with one meal of 500 calories than another meal that also has 500 calories. But bear in mind, no matter which meal you pick, if you have a meal that causes you to burn more per day than you ingest, you will lose weight. The meal plan only varies the *rate* of weight loss and perceived return over a limited interval. So if you find a 500 calorie meal that fills you up, and causes you to still lose weight faster than the other 500 calorie meal, you will want to consistently work that more efficient meal if you have found it.

But in the end, do not over-analyze it. That is what the diet industry wants you to do. It's a trap.

Re:The Self Reward Syndrome

[Anonymous Coward]

What does accuracy have to do with anything? Accurate numbers are needed by jockeys and astronauts; the rest of us just need perceived progress.

Re:The Self Reward Syndrome

[Anonymous Coward]

The rest of us can't perceive the difference in 1% of body fat without measurement. This all goes back to the point that without an easy measurement you will never be able to convince people to stop using weight to track their weight loss. Because weight loss is not the same as muscle gain.

Re: The Self Reward Syndrome

[religionofpeas]

Slow weight loss is also easier to abandon because you're getting frustrated with lack of progress.

Re:The Self Reward Syndrome

[Anonymous Coward]

So, the problem that you're presenting here, which is a very common belief, is that exercise is necessary for weight loss. But from your own suggestions, it's evident that exercise actually interferes with weight loss. Keep in mind that muscle gain is not the same thing at all. You can absolutely lose weight without any exercise at all. Take it from me, who lost 60 lbs in one year (5 lbs per month every month) just from eating less and watching what I ate without any exercise whatsoever.

Exercise is extremely good to get, but when your goal is weight loss not seeing the needle move at all is very frustrating no matter how much you look in the mirror, particularly when you're looking at the difference between 30% body fat and 25%. Body fat percentage is just one more value that most people don't understand and always believe they don't have as much of as they actually do. This is why so many people fail to return to the gym. They don't see progress on their weight, and that's all that matter to a weight-loss mentality.

Re:The Self Reward Syndrome

[Anonymous Coward]

Also "hey, if I swing my arm while sitting it counts that as walking!"

Re: The Self Reward Syndrome

[ewibble]

`In that case now we know all this. We shouldn't have an obesity epidemic right? We know much more about calorie intake and expenditure than we knew 100 years ago. We are all the right weight right?

The fact is that you can force the yourself to loose weight this way, but doing it permanently is extremely hard, your metabolism adapts and slows down to compensate, you cannot do exercise, or maintain a diet you don't like for the rest of your life. We naturally try to conserve energy.

We have been counting calories for at least 30 years now. What we have been doing is clearly not working for the vast majority of people, it is time we took a look at it and found a better way. My personal belief (although not scientifically proven) is we should be designing walk -able communities, that exercise is just a part of life. And making healthy food more convenient and satisfying. A salad may even be tasty but not after eating did I think I was full.

Re: The Self Reward Syndrome

[tnk1]

Knowing how to do something does not translate into it happening all the time. And there are a lot of caveats about calorie counting that are extremely important. You can definitely do it wrong. It is a simple concept, but it can cause a serious mindset shift about food in order to make it possible to implement it.

First off, calorie counting is effective, but can be *hard*. Which is to say, while you can technically eat almost anything you want (within the set limits), if you don't space things out correctly, you feel hungry and miserable all the time. This tends to make cheating something that you want to do, and feel justified in. That's why, as I said, we also have to break the habit of fewer, but bigger meals and eat more often during the day.

Also, if you eat to comfort yourself or deal with issues as a coping mechanism, then restriction of what you eat takes away something that helps you cope. That by itself can turn any realistic diet into something that cannot be managed by the subject of the diet. They then try to do something that allows them to "eat all they want and the pounds just melt away", where the emphasis is on "eat whatever you want" to ensure that those people don't feel they ever have to stop.

Second, the diet industry keeps trying to sell the quick and easy path to weight loss. Some of those do work to some extent, but are often cost prohibitive and bland. Most people realize that this sort of thing is a sham, and often when it is *not* a sham, they're basically doing caloric restriction with their meals to begin with. Ultimately, whether they work or not, the marketing for diets is there to program you to believe that there isn't a simple way to lose weight, "its too hard" or it will "take too long". America has been bombarded with messages telling people how hard dieting is in the interests of trying to make a particular product seem easier or cost-effective in comparison. This affects the mindset of those trying to lose weight on a massive scale.

As far as permanent weight loss, you do need to maintain a high level of consistency in what you eat, and realize that there are times when you do consume more when you don't realize it. Holiday parties are a well known diet killer, but simply going drinking at bars can pack on the pounds quickly, and many people don't consider that to be "eating". If you calorie count, you can do all those things, with the understanding that if it took you 5 weeks to lose 5 pounds, losing the 5 pounds from your holiday party or your drinking binge will now take 5 weeks to get back there.

Also, there is a role for activity, especially for weight maintenance purposes, so I don't disagree with your inclination to do more walking and provide those opportunities and I encourage you to advocate for it. Walking is a very good activity. But it's not going to end the obesity epidemic.

Take note, if you are 250 lbs, and you walk one mile at 17-24 minutes a mile, you will lose about 133 calories. That's less than one can of Pepsi, and a handful of candy can easily add up to that or more. The amount of calories burned is less as you get smaller and more as you start out at a higher weight. The major problem is, especially for those who are 250lbs or more, walking isn't something they can do easily. Their weight is hard on their knees, and while they burn more per mile than the smaller person, they pay for it disproportionately. And to do that one mile, they will take longer. That's why I cannot, and do not believe you can use activity, short of perhaps something like marathon preparation, as something that will cause you to significant weight unless you also control intake.

It is true that today we walk much less, but we also eat a lot more. Walking by itself isn't going to do it alone. If you go by the European example, they walk more, but their portion sizes are also smaller as well, especially compared to the ridiculous sizes that US food portions can get to. Together, that means generally thinner European

Re:The Self Reward Syndrome

[plover]

First, congratulations on dropping 100 pounds! That is a remarkable achievement for anyone.

Next, I think our stories sound somewhat similar. I, too, look at data and outcomes, and as I know I'm lazy, I'm constantly turning to technology to make the mundane business of data logging as painless as possible. I have a wifi connected scale that also measures body fat, and logs every reading automatically. I weigh myself daily. And yes, I also recognized that lots of people get discouraged by the daily up and down fluctuations in weight. My motivation there is to look at the three month chart, and to see the weight line steadily descending into a healthier range. It doesn't matter that this morning I was up a pound over the previous day when the overall trend line is still on a good trajectory. Every individual measurement shows a bump up or down from the previous day; the insignificance of any one day's measurement is obvious to anyone when looking at the data in aggregation.

I also have logged everything (well, everything except for a few days while on a vacation) I have eaten since I started this journey. What helps me there is a smartphone app that scans barcodes, looks up foods in a crowdsourced database, and populates the day's journal with the data. Yes, I do have to evaluate and select the data more carefully than I'd like, but it's still easier than typing in a pile of numbers. Knowing what went in enables me to stop before I reach the day's limit. Being honest with the data is critical there. So far it seems that I could maintain this pace indefinitely, but I do see how it occasionally requires returning to the touchstone of motivation.

I know that nutrition info is always an average; so I don't get all worried about exact portion sizes, or logging a few carrots or lettuce unless they exceed a reasonable threshold. I'm interested only in a good outcome, not precision in data measurements. Along with this I do know that I have to either carefully log or avoid certain types of foods entirely - sweets and snacks are not something I can write off as not worth logging.

The activity tracker study was a bit odd. I am interested and motivated to use technology and data to drive positive changes, but I ironically ended up in their control group. So I wore their tracker, but did not have access to their step counts. I continued to wear the personal tracker I've worn for the past three years, but in the interest of the study I deliberately ignored it. After the study ended, I looked and could see that my daily counts were averaging much lower than they were when I was actively trying to meet a daily step goal. Incidentally, I also discovered that the wrist-worn tracker is far less accurate in step-counting than the hip-worn tracker.

One of the biggest hurdles I had to overcome at the beginning of this was entrusting my personal health data to random companies operating cloud services. How do I know that my data won't be used against me in some way? But I decided that my long-term health concerns had to trump the fears of unknown (and possibly imaginary) consequences.

Another thing that is important to me is that I don't have a plan, but a goal. I didn't start with an artificial "drop 60 pounds by New Years" resolution; instead I know I have to continue to lose weight until I reach the target weight my doctor and I agreed to. So far, I've lost 50 pounds in the past 7 months, with about 15 to go. And as long as the one month slope of the weight line remains negative, I have high confidence I'll get there.

Finally, buying new clothes was not nearly as motivating as afterwards when I emptied my closet and donated every single stitch of old clothes to a local charity. Now I know that if I gain weight, it's going to cost me a fortune to buy a size larger! :-)

Re:The Self Reward Syndrome

[Anonymous Coward]

So, the problem that you're presenting here, which is a very common belief, is that exercise is necessary for weight loss. But from your own suggestions, it's evident that exercise actually interferes with weight loss.

No, it doesn't, unless you're a jockey or in some other vanishingly-small field of work where your weight is literally your most important qualifying characteristic. For most people, weight loss = "look better", "feel better", "actually be healthier" - it is a means to an end, not a goal in and of itself. If you want to try to define the goal of "weight loss" as narrowly as you have, then it's obvious that the best solution for most people who want weight loss as fast as possible is to have elective leg and arm amputations, and dehydrate themselves to the point of passing out.

Keep in mind that muscle gain is not the same thing at all. You can absolutely lose weight without any exercise at all

Yes, and in doing that, a lot of the weight you lose will be muscle, which is: a) unhealthy for you in the long run, and b) actually lowers your resting metabolic rate, making it harder to lose weight, or maintain your new lower weight.

Take it from me, who lost 60 lbs in one year (5 lbs per month every month) just from eating less and watching what I ate without any exercise whatsoever.

And I'm quite certain that if we actually measured key characteristics about your body, we'd find that a significant portion of that weight you lost was muscle, which very well may have left you *less* healthy, *less* attractive, and feel *less* good than when you started. And THAT is the point - fixating on weight is stupid, except as a secondary indicator of health, attractiveness, and well-being. This is well known, and well documented, so that anybody who can't put two and two together is simply looking for an excuse to remain a fat, unhealthy fuck.

Exercise is extremely good to get, but when your goal is weight loss

If your goal is literal weight loss, and that weight loss is not in service of anything else, then you are a retard. If your goal is NOT literal weight loss, but to improve your looks, well-being, or health, then "weight loss" is not the primary goal, and you should not fixate on weight as a primary indicator of your success in achieving that goal.

not seeing the needle move at all is very frustrating no matter how much you look in the mirror, particularly when you're looking at the difference between 30% body fat and 25%.

Funny, I have a string of selfies I took during my weight loss. At my highest, my body fat % was 42%. There's a MARKED difference if you look at 5% body fat intervals - eg., 37%, 32%, 27%, and so on. For somebody who weighs 200 pounds, that's a 10 pound fat loss, and a 10 pound muscle gain, assuming you stay exactly the same weight. If you can't see that 10% change on your body, you're simply not looking.

Body fat percentage is just one more value that most people don't understand and always believe they don't have as much of as they actually do. This is why so many people fail to return to the gym. They don't see progress on their weight, and that's all that matter to a weight-loss mentality.

By your own assertion, people who care about weight loss shouldn't be going to the gym - so by your tortured logic, they should see MUCH better results not going to the gym. Yet, that's not the case. Why, do you suppose?

The reason so many people fail to return to the gym is that they have bad habits that they're not willing to break, and they think that 3 weeks of exercise is going to counteract 20 years of shitty lifestyle. The people who think they're going to "just diet a little and lose a bit of weight" are engaged in band-aid thinking, rather than root-cause fixes. The way to get healthy is to change your lifestyle: exercise more (cardio & weights), eat healthy food, keep yourself hydrated, and get plenty of rest.

Re:The Self Reward Syndrome

[Xyrus]

Carbs, protein, fat...bullshit.

Fad diets, special exercise programs, etc. only causes weight loss in one area: your wallet. How much weight you lose is governed by physics. If you consume fewer calories than you burn, the weight comes off. Period. It doesn't matter if you got the calories from eating a candy bar or from eating a salad.

Your body is not a perpetual motion machine. Calories are calories. Eat less, exercise more.

Re:The Self Reward Syndrome

[Anonymous Coward]

The rest of us can't perceive the difference in 1% of body fat without measurement.

The rest of us also can't perceive the difference in 1% of body weight without measurement. What's your point?

This all goes back to the point that without an easy measurement

Such as... a scale that gives you an inaccurate (but consistent) easily trended measure of body fat?
Such as... a simple tape measure that measures the circumference of your neck, chest, belly, hips, arms and legs?
Such as... buying new pants because the old ones are suddenly too big?
Such as... using a new hole on your belt because you're suddenly smaller?

will never be able to convince people to stop using weight to track their weight loss. Because weight loss is not the same as muscle gain.

You seem to the be the one perversely fixated on weight loss as literally meaning only a loss in actual measured weight. If you asked someone, "would you be happy if you weighed the same now, but had 5% less body fat and 5% more muscle?" I don't think you'd hear too many complaints. People who say they want to "lose weight" do not mean it in the literal sense of "I must lose 5 pounds, by any means necessary." As I said above, if that was the motivation, then they could accomplish it in a moment by amputating an arm or a leg.

Re: The Self Reward Syndrome

[Anonymous Coward]

Slow weight loss is also easier to abandon because you're a fat, lazy fuck who wasn't ever serious about being healthy in the first place.

FTFY.

Re: The Self Reward Syndrome

[josquin9]

I thought "calories" were a measure of tastiness.

Hence my mother's diet advice: If it tastes good, spit it out.

Re: The Self Reward Syndrome

[hey!]

Like I said, only a minority of people have what it takes to do this. You have to (a) make everything easy as possible for yourself and yet (b) have patience and be prepared for intermediate failure.

Re:The Self Reward Syndrome

[hey!]

I continued to wear the personal tracker I've worn for the past three years, but in the interest of the study I deliberately ignored it. After the study ended, I looked and could see that my daily counts were averaging much lower than they were when I was actively trying to meet a daily step goal.

Yes! All the data in the world does you no good if you don't look at it.

I think underlying most people's failure is an irrational aversion to anything that smacks of failure. They turn a weight rebound -- which is a normal thing -- into a failure; and then they give up. If you're a data nut you see it as an interesting episode. Does this mean what I'm doing is pooping out? Or am I getting sloppy, or adjusting in other ways. You need a hacker's mentality and that includes a high tolerance for setbacks.

Re:The Self Reward Syndrome

[AlexSasha]

This +1000 If you are willing to exercise and eat home made simple food, weight will be lost. It's not complicated.

Re: The Self Reward Syndrome

[Ol Olsoc]

I thought "calories" were a measure of tastiness.

Hence my mother's diet advice: If it tastes good, spit it out.

Must resist...........come on Ol! - resist!!!....... ARRRRGH!!!!!!

Re: The Self Reward Syndrome

[geekmux]

You're missing a big factor from your equation: calories excreted. I started taking Metformin for diabetes, and was surprised when I lost 25 pounds without effort. The extra calories went, unmeasured, through my kidneys. If you're not measuring the calories in your excrement, you cannot talk about calories- in-versus-calories-out.

I've heard of some shitty excuses to not exercise, but this takes the cake.

Re: The Self Reward Syndrome

[parkinglot777]

Simplified information is a two-edged-sword. There is a thin line between enough and oversimplify information. Oversimplified information often time leads to misconception.

It is true that simple information would benefit people in the way that they can easily understand what is going on. However, keep reiterating the simplified information without giving more depth (educate consumers) when needed is a huge problem. People nowadays take information as is because they are overloaded with information. When they are fed with information that is simple enough, they will take it as is and then move on to other thing else. As a result, the simple information leads to misconception. Similarly, I agree that over-analyze/over-thinking could lead to negative results as well.

The thing is that I did not say anything about one should over analyze information in my reply. I simply said that the statement of GP said is too simple and should not be taken as is. I gave more information on what should be looked into, but did not say how deep one should do. I can't answer how far one should go because it all depends on the person. I am sorry that I did not include the statement of not being over-thinking when one wants to do more research on it.

Re:The Self Reward Syndrome

[Anonymous Coward]

The best way to lose weight - be hungry. If you eat you are not hungry so you must eat less. The longer you can stay hungry the more the body will mobilize its stored fat reserves.It will not matter what you eat so long as you are hungry.

There is no easy road to weight loss.

And of course the JAMA doesn't have an interest

[Gojira Shipi-Taro]

in having people consult physicians at a cost in every single thing that they do for health. That can't possibly have anything to do with this.

Re:And of course the JAMA doesn't have an interest

[AK Marc]

The study was about people with "behavioral counseling [increased] physical activity and reduced calorie intake" with and without trackers.

Without, someone might push harder, with, they may quit an activity sooner after hitting some goal.
Or they are ignoring the counseling and trusting the tracker.

The study doesn't have enough groups to be "valid" to discuss the validity of fitness trackers.

Where is the group with a meal plan and a fitness tracker? Not there. How about a group with no plans, goals, or direction? Is the "control" group for weight-loss professional counseling, meal plans, and physical activity plans? How about a control group that's "lose weight, 'cause you should" and see how they track?

A control group C1 that has no plan or tracker, group E1 with tracker only, group C2 with paper plans handed out at the beginning and no counselor, group E2 with a tracker and paper plan, E3, with plan, tracker, and counselor, and C3, plan, counselor, no tracker.

Comparing all the groups across would give a better idea of the impact of a fitness tracker in multiple scenarios.

Re:And of course the JAMA doesn't have an interest

[Anonymous Coward]

JAMA is a journal. They did not conduct the research. I think "biased media" is getting to your head.

Re:And of course the JAMA doesn't have an interest

[Anonymous Coward]

Bollocks. You don't need to change 800 variables to test the influence of one.
In fact if you want to test the effect of one, you probably should only change one.

Re:And of course the JAMA doesn't have an interest

[AK Marc]

The study didn't isolate one, but mixed it in with other things. Yes, that was the only variable, but a variable in a field of confounds that weren't corrected for. You have to fully identify confounds and correct them. This study obviously didn't, thus is irreparably flawed, thus gives no useful information.

Re:And of course the JAMA doesn't have an interest

[tburkhol]

The study didn't isolate one, but mixed it in with other things. Yes, that was the only variable, but a variable in a field of confounds that weren't corrected for.

This study directly tested whether an activity tracker is a beneficial addition to weight loss counseling. It didn't ask whether that counseling itself is effective, and it didn't ask whether a counselor is more effective than a brochure. It didn't ask whether a counselor is more effective than a personal trainer. It didn't ask whether a monitor is always beneficial/harmful under all conditions. It didn't ask whether activity monitors interact with various forms of intervention.

Just because they didn't do the comprehensive study you would like to see done, or the study you inferred from the popular-press summary of their study, does not mean their study is flawed. It means you have a different question.

Re:And of course the JAMA doesn't have an interest

[bluefoxlucid]

The issue is "Activity trackers make you lose less weight!" There's discussion about how we get activity trackers to help us lose weight, but that may be doing the exact opposite.

Problem: most people don't have weight loss counseling. They have an activity tracker and nothing else, or they have nothing but their own wits. Does the activity tracker group lose more weight than the self-driven group?

This NYT article suggests the activity tracker users will lose less weight; yet the study didn't investigate that.

Re:And of course the JAMA doesn't have an interest

[h4ck7h3p14n37]

This study directly tested whether an activity tracker is a beneficial addition to weight loss counseling.

No, that's not what they did. That's what the OP is complaining about, there's no control group.

All participants were placed on low-calorie diets, prescribed increases in physical activity, and received group-counseling sessions on health and nutrition.
...At the first six-month mark, participants were divided into two subgroups: one that continued health-counseling sessions on a monthly basis and another that received a wearable device to monitor diet and physical activity.
...However, those who received health counseling throughout the study lost nearly twice as much weight as those who used wearable devices for three-quarters of it.

The group that got fitness trackers also stopped participating in the health-counseling sessions.

The conclusion that people using fitness trackers lose less weight isn't valid. Maybe the health-counseling sessions caused people to lose more weight? There should have been a group of people that got both fitness trackers and counseling.

Re:And of course the JAMA doesn't have an interest

[Anonymous Coward]

Having some councilor judge you, vs a watch judge you. People are probably going to want to try to please the human councilors more. Hardly a surprising result.

Re:And of course the JAMA doesn't have an interest

[AK Marc]

Most people who use an activity tracker don't also have a personal trainer. As such, the study is invalid. They tested an edge-case, and the media (And you) are extrapolating a single data point into a broad absolute.

Re:And of course the JAMA doesn't have an interest

[Entrope]

Why do you believe "[t]he group that got fitness trackers also stopped participating in the health-counseling sessions"? According to the paper, "at 6 months, both interventions added telephone counseling sessions, text message prompts, and access to study materials on a website". It says the intervention staff had access to the fitness tracker data during those telephone sessions. The key difference appears to be whether participants (who completed the study) self-reported their diets and physical activity, or used the device alone.

OR

[Anonymous Coward]

Or those That would buy an Activity Tracker to lose weight are not as committed as those who don't?

Re:OR

[mark-t]

Actually, yes... this is exactly right.

Re:OR

[ShanghaiBill]

Or those That would buy an Activity Tracker to lose weight are not as committed as those who don't?

Nope. The activity trackers were randomly assigned to study participants. They were not self selecting. RTFA.

Re:OR

[jbmartin6]

Of course, the study participants were self-selecting.

Works for me

[Anonymous Coward]

I got a fitbit and I lost 6 pounds so far.

Re: Works for me

[Anonymous Coward]

Surely fitbits cost more than 6 pounds in the uk?

Re: Works for me

[Half-pint HAL]

Thanks to Brexit and the tanking exchange rate, they cost about £6 more each week than the week before...

Trackers do not track

[Anonymous Coward]

What you eat nor do they have any way of tracking your insulin sensitivity which has a much larger magnitude of effect on results of exercise and weight loss.

On top of this those that have a large amount of weight to lose probably get frustrated by actually seeing numbers showing what a little effect exercise without diet modification has on weight amongst many other nuances. No surprises here, strapping on a health tracker will not make you lose weight.

Paid for by Weight Watchers

[justcauseisjustthat]

I love science, but in the next year there will be research that states fitness trackers change lives and make major impact on weight loss. It seems that research around human health and psychology are more prone to extremes.

Re:Paid for by Weight Watchers

[tburkhol]

Already done. Previous versions of this study, involving different time points, different reference interventions, and different sample sizes have shown trackers are beneficial or not helpful. Big surprise, the whole story is more complicated than a headline.

There's a huge psychological component to all of this - that's why there is such a wide array of diets that work, exercises that work, good trainers and bad trainers. You can imagine ways where the tracker could be used as a crutch or an excuse.

In this study, they had counselors talk to their subjects and recommend an exercise regimen. I can imagine people with the trackers, very able to quantify total daily activity, might count some of their routine activity against the recommended exercise, thus do less exercise. In a previous group-based intervention, I can imagine people competing to get the best numbers, thus doing more activity (and, it turns out, trackers are beneficial over group activity alone).

Also worth pointing out that they don't have huge changes - these are people who lost 10 pounds in 2 years, where the tracker-delta is 5 pounds. "Helps" or "Hurts" is a pretty small effect, regardless.

Better gadget

[ooloorie]

A better gadget for losing weight is... A scale

Re:Better gadget

[TheRaven64]

Sometimes. Most people don't actually want to lose weight though, they want to lose fat. If you exercise a bit more, you'll likely lose some fat and put on some muscle. Muscle is denser than fat, so your weight may go up for a little while, and the scale will make you feel like it isn't working.

Re:Better gadget

[religionofpeas]

Use a scale for the weight, and a tape measure for your waist.

Re:Better gadget

[ooloorie]

If you exercise a bit more, you'll likely lose some fat and put on some muscle.

That's wishful thinking. Putting on significant amounts of muscle requires more than "exercising a bit more", and not usually the kinds of exercises people do for weight loss; it doesn't happen by accident. If you do that, you'll already know how to track your progress (calipers, tape measures, maximum lift, etc.) in addition to using a scale.

Re:Better gadget

[__aaclcg7560]

The scale at my gym maxed out at 350 pounds. For years the scale also thunked when I got on. When I reduced my calorie intake to 1,500 calories per day, the scale stopped thunking but didn't budge below 350 pounds. This month it showed that I weighed 348 pounds.

Re:Better gadget

[Anonymous Coward]

Sometimes. Most people don't actually want to lose weight though, they want to lose fat. If you exercise a bit more, you'll likely lose some fat and put on some muscle. Muscle is denser than fat, so your weight may go up for a little while, and the scale will make you feel like it isn't working.

Some scales can measure fat percentages:

* http://thesweethome.com/reviews/the-best-bathroom-scales/#ourpicksmart

Most scales do this by sending a small electrical signal, and so if most of your fat is above your belly button, the current won't register it accurately. If most of your fat (that you are hopefully losing) is on your hips/thighs, then you'll get more accurate readings. The same thing applies with hand-held units: they most measure upper-body fat. Ideally a weight with a small hand-held device would have total cross-body measurements.

Alternatively callipers can give pretty good readings if you're okay with low-key solutions. For most people they're good enough, but less convenient.

Re:Better gadget

[__aaclcg7560]

Putting on significant amounts of muscle requires more than "exercising a bit more", and not usually the kinds of exercises people do for weight loss; it doesn't happen by accident.

I went from 325 pounds to 400 pounds when I lifted weights at the gym for a year. I lost fat and gained muscle, but not in the right way. After I stopped lifting weights, my weight settled down to 350 pounds and that's my weight for the last ten years. Although I've been on a low carb diet for the last five years, I reduced my calorie intake to 1,500 calories per day two months ago. This month I weighed 348 pounds.

Re:Better gadget

[Anonymous Coward]

An even better gadget for losing weight is... a smaller plate.

Re:Better gadget

[ooloorie]

I went from 325 pounds to 400 pounds when I lifted weights at the gym for a year. I lost fat and gained muscle, but not in the right way

Unless you did hydrostatic or X-ray body composition testing, how would you know? You're saying that you put on more than 75 pounds of muscle, and that seems unlikely. You may be able to gain 10-20 pounds of muscle per year if you work really hard.

Although I've been on a low carb diet for the last five years, I reduced my calorie intake to 1,500 calories per day two months ago. This month I weighed 348 pounds.

Even if you keep that up consistently, it's probably going to take you about three years to get down to 200 pounds.

In any case, tracking your progress is a good way of seeing whether whatever you're doing is working. And it's probably best to stick with aerobic exercise, if not for any other reason that you won't be tempted to attribute lack of progress to gaining muscle.

Re: Better gadget

[Anonymous Coward]

I've been LCHF about 6 months now, it works for me. I'm curious how you went 5 years without much change. Do you test your glucose and ketone blood levels?

Re:Better gadget

[__aaclcg7560]

Unless you did hydrostatic or X-ray body composition testing, how would you know?

The scale and mirror didn't lie. I gained weight, lost fat and added muscle mass. Trying to find 4XL shirts was a bitch. Now I'm a borderline XL/2XL.

Even if you keep that up consistently, it's probably going to take you about three years to get down to 200 pounds.

It's better to go slow and consistent.

And it's probably best to stick with aerobic exercise, if not for any other reason that you won't be tempted to attribute lack of progress to gaining muscle.

I'm trying to master the rowing machine at the gym.

Re: Better gadget

[__aaclcg7560]

I'm curious how you went 5 years without much change.

Plateaued from eating the same food and doing the same exercise for five years. Started mixing up things this year.

Re:Better gadget

[Anonymous Coward]

BINGO!

>Muscle is denser than fat, so your weight may go up for a little while, and the scale will make you feel like it isn't working.

Remember people, you should be 'feeling' via your actual efforts & its effect on your daily life, not feeling up or down based on numbers.

Re: Better gadget

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm curious how you went 5 years without much change.

Plateaued from eating the same food and doing the same exercise for five years. Started mixing up things this year.

Me again, thanks for answering. I plateaued simply from increasing to 35g carbs daily. Back on track after switching back to 25g/day and sometimes just fasting. My body just does not handle carbohydrates and insulin well.

Don't listen to the guy saying gaining 10-20lbs lean muscle per year is really hard. Maybe for him (or most people) it is. I can manage 5 lbs per month without much effort beyond normal - 3 workouts per week and few extra ounces of meat every day. 75# in a year is more then I have experienced, but not implausible, and that wasn't really my goal anyway. People are not all the same. And to preempt the inevitable "you're just gaining fat" comments, the DXA scan results are hard to refute. That data clearly shows more lean mass and less fat mass. (And by simple observation, strength abilities are higher while needing to buy clothes with a smaller waistband.) As much as some people want to believe the over-simplified fairy tale of "calories-in, calories-out", it just doesn't fit reality.

You mentioned rowing. I recently started running to mix things up. Never could before, too much pain. Turns out a little studying and mobility work on the hips was all I really needed. Tight muscles and tissues pulled me into bad positions that would cause foot/knee/back pain quick. Have you read any of Dr Kelly Starrett's books?

Re:Better gadget

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, but I'm going to call bullshit on this. Elsewhere, you declared yourself to be 5'10, and 47 years old. Given that, your Resting metabolic rate is somewhere in the 2200-2400 calorie / day range. There is no way you were eating only 2000 calories a day, exercising like mad, and you still put on 75 pounds of muscle.

If you LITERALLY put on 75 pounds of muscle, that would jack your metabolic rate sky-high, which would mean your base metabolic rate would end up far in excess of your 2000 calorie intake, which would result in you shedding pounds of fat much more rapidly.

However, if we grant your assertion that cutting 500 cal / day allowed you to lose 2 pounds in 2 months, then you're asserting that your base metabolic rate is approximately 1600 cal / day. If that's the case, then you were PUTTING ON WEIGHT, not maintaining a steady weight for 10 years. 2 pounds in 2 months means you have an energy deficit of ~115 calories per day.

Your numbers, in short, do not add up in the reality we live in. Also - at 348, there is zero chance you're a size XL/2XL as you claim below, unless you like really tight shirts, and are composed of 50% solid metal.

My best guess is that your "2000 calorie a day" diet excluded a whole shitload of stuff that you were eating, but didn't track because it made you feel bad. Your new "1500 calorie / day" diet is likely the same - 1500 calories that you track, plus another 500 - 1000 that you aren't paying attention to.

Re:Better gadget

[rpavlicek]

A better gadget for losing weight is... A scale

Or try getting a full body (accurate) scan instead (DXA):
https://www.bodyspec.com/what-...

Re:Better gadget

[Anonymous Coward]

Even if you keep that up consistently, it's probably going to take you about three years to get down to 200 pounds.

THREE years? He's losing a pound a month, and he weighs 348. That means it'll take him 148 months (12 years, 4 months) to reduce his weight down to 200 pounds. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but three years is underselling it a bit.

And it's probably best to stick with aerobic exercise, if not for any other reason that you won't be tempted to attribute lack of progress to gaining muscle.

Worst advice ever. Aerobic exercise alone won't help you maintain or gain muscle. Weights will help you build muscle, and building muscle will also raise your base metabolic rate, which means you'll actually burn more calories just standing there than you would otherwise. Better advice is for him to continue a mixture of lifting and cardio, and stop pretending that "weight loss" alone is an important metric.

Re: Better gadget

[Anonymous Coward]

Base metabolic rate is highly influenced by insulin levels, plus quite a few other factors.

You can't just plug in a height and weight and know it by magic. You can get a good estimate for most people, same way as BMI is good enough for most people.

Re: Better gadget

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure, but you CAN plug in the values he's claimed and do some math:

1 pound lost = ~3500 calories.

7000 calories deficit over 2 months = ~117 calories per day deficit.

He claims he's eating only 1500 calories per day, which means his claimed base metabolic rate is 1617 calories per day, in order to lose 2 pounds in 2 months. And, he's not exercising at all - if he were exercising on 1500 calories per day, he'd have lost a hell of a lot more than 2 pounds in 2 months, even including muscle gain.

He then claimed he was eating 2000 calories per day, but somehow, his weight shot up 75 pounds in a year, because "magic." At his claimed caloric intake, with absolutely ZERO exercise, he had a caloric surplus over a year of ~42 pounds worth of weight gain. He would have gained weight - but he also claims he was working out, and "losing fat and gaining muscle" - which means that he is claiming he put on MORE than 75 pounds of muscle in a single year. On that caloric intake.

He also then claimed that after he stopped exercising, at 2000 calories a day, he maintained a consistent weight for 10 years, at the same caloric intake level that somehow magically allowed him to gain 75 pounds of pure muscle in a year.

This does not happen in the real world, I don't care WHAT your insulin levels are.

Re: Better gadget

[__aaclcg7560]

Sure, but you CAN plug in the values he's claimed and do some math:

Your calculations are seriously flawed. I'm not adorable the butterball you're looking for.

He claims he's eating only 1500 calories per day, which means his claimed base metabolic rate is 1617 calories per day, in order to lose 2 pounds in 2 months.

My current diet is 1,500 calories per day. According to various calculators, I need to eat 4,000 calories per day to maintain my weight at 350 pounds. I haven't eaten 4,000 calories per day since I stopped lifting weights 15 years ago.

And, he's not exercising at all - if he were exercising on 1500 calories per day, he'd have lost a hell of a lot more than 2 pounds in 2 months, even including muscle gain.

I work out on the weekends, trying to master the rowing machine. Before that I was on the treadmill and elliptical machines for years.

He then claimed he was eating 2000 calories per day, but somehow, his weight shot up 75 pounds in a year, because "magic."

I gain 75 pounds 15 years ago when I spent a year at the gym working four or five times a week and eating 4,000 calories per day to burn off fat and gain muscle weight. It's called bodybuilding. Unfortunately, I did it the wrong way and it wasn't sustainable.

He also then claimed that after he stopped exercising, at 2000 calories a day, he maintained a consistent weight for 10 years, at the same caloric intake level that somehow magically allowed him to gain 75 pounds of pure muscle in a year.

After I stopped lifting weights for a year and returned to a normal 2,000 calorie per day diet, I lost 50 pounds in muscle mass. I went from a 4XL to a borderline XL/2XL in t-shirts.

This does not happen in the real world, I don't care WHAT your insulin levels are.

Thank God I don't live in the real world. It sounds boring.

Re: Better gadget

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't listen to the guy saying gaining 10-20lbs lean muscle per year is really hard. Maybe for him (or most people) it is. I can manage 5 lbs per month without much effort beyond normal - 3 workouts per week and few extra ounces of meat every day.

It *is* really hard. The average "natural" bodybuilder can put on 1-2 pounds of lean mass per month with a "perfect" training routine, diet, rest, hydration, etc. As a beginner. They fairly quickly reach the point of diminishing returns, where they have to work much harder to both maintain and grow from their current baseline.

Is it possible that you gained 5 lbs per month for a month or two? Sure, conceivable. Is it likely you can *sustain* that rate for more than a month or two, without steroids? Absolutely not. There are some things that are beyond physiological possibility, and asserting you can sustain body mass gain at that rate is ludicrous.

As an example: the guy who plays "The Mountain" on Game of Thrones took about 7 years to get to his current size - a gain of nearly 160 pounds - he was ~230 pounds when he started lifting, and now he weights a bit under 400 pounds. And that's with a 5-6 thousand calorie per day diet, and relentless training, and a frame that's literally MADE for building & holding muscle. Never mind the possibility that he used "enhancing" substances to help him on the way.

Did you gain lean mass while working out? Sure - but don't forget that also includes water weight, plus changes in bone density, both of which can make massive differences in your calculated lean body mass. Those increases are not sustainable at a linear rate, unless something is very, very wrong with your body.

Re: Better gadget

[Anonymous Coward]

My current diet is 1,500 calories per day. According to various calculators, I need to eat 4,000 calories per day to maintain my weight at 350 pounds. I haven't eaten 4,000 calories per day since I stopped lifting weights 15 years ago.

This is utter tripe. 5'10, 47 years old, weighing 350 pounds, and your assertion is that your *daily caloric intake of 1500 calories per day* is sufficient to allow you to only lose 2 pounds in 2 months. This equates to a base metabolic rate of 1617 calories, assuming NO exercise. However, you're no doubt trying to convince us that you've somehow magically only lost 2 pounds on the scale, but converted significant weight by burning fat, and adding muscle. Average newbie can expect to gain 1-2 pounds per month of muscle, assuming sufficient nutrition and hardcore training. There is no way that a 1500 calorie per day diet is providing "sufficient" nutrition for you to gain 1-2 pounds per month of muscle, even over a couple months. Again - average bodybuilder will consume 1 gram of protein per pound of bodyweight to achieve significant gains. If what you're eating is literally *pure* protein, that accounts for 1400 of your 1500 calorie per day diet.

Again - there is simply NO WAY that your assertions are true. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Impossible claims are impossible to prove, so you should probably stop trying.

I gain 75 pounds 15 years ago when I spent a year at the gym working four or five times a week and eating 4,000 calories per day to burn off fat and gain muscle weight. It's called bodybuilding. Unfortunately, I did it the wrong way and it wasn't sustainable.

Sorry champ, but what you call "bodybuilding," most people call "eating too much and getting fat." There is no way you gained 75 pounds in a single year, and gained all of it as lean mass. No bodybuilder ever has accomplished this, at least without ruining themselves with steroids and every other performance enhancer you can think of. It's likely that you ate 4000 calories a day, got significantly fatter, and a little bit stronger, and somehow managed to convince yourself that all the weight you put on was muscle. It was not.

You sound like the closest you've ever been to "bodybuilding" is reading the cover of Men's Fitness - the male equivalent of Vogue - while waiting to pay for your groceries. You know, the cover which promised you a secret method to "gain 10 pounds of muscle in 8 weeks!" Pro tip: these magazines prey on simpletons who believe anything they read. It's worse in your case, because you apparently just read the cover.

Here's a free tip: If you are 5'10, and weigh 348 pounds, and are not an exceedingly well paid professional athlete, you are fat. Not muscular. You did not ever gain 75 pounds of muscle, you did not ever lose 50 pounds of muscle. Your claims are laughably absurd.

Re: Better gadget

[__aaclcg7560]

Average newbie can expect to gain 1-2 pounds per month of muscle, assuming sufficient nutrition and hardcore training.

You're making another assumption. When I worked at a restaurant job for three years in my early twenties, I rode my bicycle 20 miles per day. My average weight during that time was 325 pounds. Today my legs are still all muscle.

There is no way that a 1500 calorie per day diet is providing "sufficient" nutrition for you to gain 1-2 pounds per month of muscle, even over a couple months.

I'm trying to LOSE WEIGHT, not GAIN MUSCLE. I reduced my calorie intake to 1,500 calories per day and lost a few pounds.

Here's a free tip: If you are 5'10, and weigh 348 pounds, and are not an exceedingly well paid professional athlete, you are fat.

Of course, I'm fat. That's why I'm on a diet and work out at gym. I'm also a highly paid asshole, which is why I work in IT.

Re: Better gadget

[Anonymous Coward]

You're making another assumption. When I worked at a restaurant job for three years in my early twenties, I rode my bicycle 20 miles per day. My average weight during that time was 325 pounds. Today my legs are still all muscle.

The assumptions I'm making are the most-generous most in-your-favor assumptions I can reasonable make. They STILL don't allow your claims to comport with physical reality. Nobody puts on muscle at the rate you claim, with a calorie intake at the rate you claim. It's physiologically impossible.

I'm trying to LOSE WEIGHT, not GAIN MUSCLE. I reduced my calorie intake to 1,500 calories per day and lost a few pounds.

Your goal is irrelevant. The problem with your story is that YOUR NUMBERS DO NOT MAKE SENSE OR ADD UP IN ANY WAY THAT RELATES TO REALITY. Given your well-above-average size and claimed activity levels and muscle mass, there is simply no way your bmr is as low as you claim. You would have to have the BMR of a toddler to only lose 2 pounds in 2 months with the caloric intake, muscle mass, and activity levels you're talking about having.

I'm also a highly paid asshole, which is why I work in IT.

I'm pretty sure you'd be an asshole no matter where you worked. And from the pissing and moaning you've done here in the past about your help desk gigs and difficulty finding jobs after being outsourced, I'm pretty sure the "highly paid" thing is just about as real as your "75 pounds of muscle gained in just a year."

Re: Better gadget

[__aaclcg7560]

The assumptions I'm making are the most-generous most in-your-favor assumptions I can reasonable make.

Your assumptions are shit.

I'm pretty sure you'd be an asshole no matter where you worked.

Someone has to get the job done.

And from the pissing and moaning you've done here in the past about your help desk gigs and difficulty finding jobs after being outsourced, I'm pretty sure the "highly paid" thing is just about as real as your "75 pounds of muscle gained in just a year."

I've never been outsourced from any job in the last 20+ years of my IT career. I'm a contractor. I do contract work. The contract can last one day to one year. I'm currently two years into a five-year contract for government IT that's fully paid for by your tax dollars. That also includes paid federal holidays, 20 Paid Time Off (PTO) days, healthcare/dental/vision and 401k. If the Republicans shut down the government tomorrow, I'll still be working since I'm an essential employee.

-- Abraham Lincoln

[Anonymous Coward]

"Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!"

        -- Abraham Lincoln

added sugar to our foods is causing obesity

[Gravis Zero]

You don't need a diet with a fancy name, more willpower or agonizing exercise to lose weight. The basic problem is that sugar is chemically addictive and it's being added to all of our foods. You are constantly in withdraw (strung out) which reduces the amount of energy you have and thus get less exercise. The sugar industry has been suppressing science for half a century and they have finally gone too far because the general population is dying from sugar induced illnesses.

FYI: the reason people lose weight by abstaining from eating foods that are carbohydrates is because it's hard to add sugar to meat and vegetables but it's very easy to add it to carbohydrates.

Re:added sugar to our foods is causing obesity

[dohzer]

My aunt who adds tomato sauce (ketchup) to everything would like to argue with your meat-sugar difficulty claim. ;)

Re:added sugar to our foods is causing obesity

[Anonymous Coward]

sounds like my grandfather. ketchup on or in EVERYTHING.. tacos? ketchup not taco sauce; steak? ketchup not steak sauce or au jus; sloppy joes? mostly ketchup. eggs? hard boiled, soft boiled, scrambled, fried, omelette, poached? makes no difference, of course it's ketchup! spaghetti? pizza? not complete without a little ketchup. his "famous" home made salsa even is mostly ketchup! (and no it is not quite as bad as it sounds, either). about the only thing he doesn't put ketchup on is his morning corn flakes or his night time saltine crackers crumbled in warm milk... and of course his beer, never mess with his cheap old milwaukee swampwater.

I think that they are missing the point

[mark-t]

It seems self-evident that the most effective weight loss will be from people who have found the will to do so within themselves, but the point of a tracker is to *give* some additional incentive to someone who would otherwise not have done the work at all, or may have stopped substantially sooner, lacking an unambiguous, objective, and quantitative measurement of how much work they have actually done.

For truly fair comparison, one should evaluate how much weight people with a weight-loss tracker lose compared to the average person who may not even exercise at all.

Re:I think that they are missing the point

[AmiMoJo]

The problem is that they focus you on the wrong thing. Exercise is good for general health, but not fit weight loss. Reduced calorie intake is the only way to really lose significant amounts of weight.

Re:I think that they are missing the point

[redmid17]

It seems self-evident that the most effective weight loss will be from people who have found the will to do so within themselves, but the point of a tracker is to *give* some additional incentive to someone who would otherwise not have done the work at all, or may have stopped substantially sooner, lacking an unambiguous, objective, and quantitative measurement of how much work they have actually done.

For truly fair comparison, one should evaluate how much weight people with a weight-loss tracker lose compared to the average person who may not even exercise at all.

That's a pretty fucking stupid sentence to write. How is that a fair comparison? People trying to lose weight vs not? Let's take a measure of people trying to stay alive vs people trying to kill themselves. That's about as useful of a measurement. Dead people lose weight much faster than live people. Go to bed. Sober up. Stop posting for a while maybe?

Re:I think that they are missing the point

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry sir, but I've read enough developing research articles on-line to know the true reason for being over weight are gut bacteria that magically generate more matter than a person eats. This is /., here the laws of thermodynamics don't apply when it comes to obesity.

Re:I think that they are missing the point

[mark-t]

First of all, bear in mind I was not suggesting comparing the people that use trackers to people that do *not* lose any weight, I was suggesting comparing them to the *average* amount of weight lost by an obese person that did not use a tracker... some of these people may very lose a lot of weight (and according to this study, apparently more weight than people that use weight loss trackers), but many more of them will not.

Secondly, you miss my point, which is that people who are using weight loss trackers are still likely to be vastly more effective at weight loss than this aforementioned average obese person. The point of comparing them is to not show that the numbers might be similar, but to show that the results are just as skewed to one side as the comparison of people who use weight loss trackers to other people that are effectively losing weight without trackers.

Re:I think that they are missing the point

[sexconker]

If you look at it that way (i.e., not at the whole picture) plants "generate more matter" than they "eat". From light!!

Re:I think that they are missing the point

[Anonymous Coward]

"How is that a fair comparison? People trying to lose weight vs not?"

Well people are trying to lose weight all the time, even without exercise.

Re: I think that they are missing the point

[zmooc]

Even that would be nonsense since muscles weigh more than fat tissue and people that properly exercise are likely to gain muscles and thus weight. For that reason, weight loss is not a meaningful indication of anything except for people that have the physique of a big sea mammal and thus are mostly fat anyway. Proper research should include diet and body fat percentage. Also, in general exercising more without losing much weight is already a big win for the health of most people. Stupid research like this only demotivates them because it fails to include all factors that are relevant to their health.

Re:I think that they are missing the point

[Sique]

But that's not what that study was about. According to the NY Times text, 500 people were selected and put on a weight loss regime for six month, and each of them lost weight. Then they got split in two groups where one group keeps track of the weight loss regime via a website and another one via the tracker. And the tracker people lost significantly less weight during the next year.

Re:I think that they are missing the point

[religionofpeas]

Another way to reset this is to lower insulin levels through a low-carb/moderate protein/high fat diet, possibly in combination with periods of fasting.

Re:I think that they are missing the point

[Carewolf]

Sorry sir, but I've read enough developing research articles on-line to know the true reason for being over weight are gut bacteria that magically generate more matter than a person eats. This is /., here the laws of thermodynamics don't apply when it comes to obesity.

Stop being anti-factual. Gut bacteria changes homone levels and can break the metabolism. IF you have a working self-balancing metabolism, you can overeat and not gain weight, the like majority of non-Americans can. Unfortunately it is mostly broken in Americans for some reason, and in a growing minority of people elsewhere.

Re:I think that they are missing the point

[LoneTech]

While caloric intake is one possible way to force weight loss, it's not the only possibility. Restricting carbohydrate intake alone will reduce insulin production, preventing fat buildup and enabling fat burn. Short term, that leads to faster weight loss. Mid term, either method is about equally effective. Long term, caloric deficits can lead to true starvation. Excessive carbohydrates are a seriously contributing factor in obesity, diabetes, and more (the ketogenic diet was developed as an epilepsy treatment). Probably most relevant in this context, avoiding carbs is a lot easier to sustain as a rule than never eating your fill.

Re:I think that they are missing the point

[religionofpeas]

The laws of thermodynamics always apply, but that doesn't mean you can ignore the processes that happen inside a body. People have done experiments with modified mice, where their fat cells have higher resistance to giving up fat (you can do that with genetic changes, or by injecting them with insulin). If you put these mice on a calorie restricted diet, they still get fat, but their internal organs will waste away. If you restrict calories even more, they'll die from starvation, even though they are still carrying a ton of fat. Similar things happen in people that have metabolic syndrome. The fat cells become reluctant to give up fat, even when the other cells in the body are starving. The urge to eat becomes stronger and stronger, and will ultimately overcome any level of willpower.

Re:I think that they are missing the point

[geekmux]

It seems self-evident that the most effective weight loss will be from people who have found the will to do so within themselves, but the point of a tracker is to *give* some additional incentive to someone who would otherwise not have done the work at all, or may have stopped substantially sooner, lacking an unambiguous, objective, and quantitative measurement of how much work they have actually done.

For truly fair comparison, one should evaluate how much weight people with a weight-loss tracker lose compared to the average person who may not even exercise at all.

To point a finer point on this issue, I think the deficiency in the study has to do with the groups involved.

They may have found two groups who have a common goal (weight loss), but I'm willing to bet that the group who went out of their way to consult with a health counselor have FAR more motivation to achieve the goal of overall health rather than the group who buys step-counting gimmicks and starves themselves to death, resulting in temporarily hitting a specific number on the scale.

Overall health goals are FAR more complex than mere weight loss. Most are too lazy or set in their ways to actually change their lifestyle, which is the main reason people get stuck on the weight-loss roller coaster forever. It's no surprise get-thin-quick diet gimmicks comprise a multi-billion dollar industry. They know human behavior.

Re:I think that they are missing the point

[serviscope_minor]

The problem is that they focus you on the wrong thing. Exercise is good for general health, but not fit weight loss. Reduced calorie intake is the only way to really lose significant amounts of weight.

Well, OK trivially the only way to lose weight is to start consuming fewer calories than you burn.

However, the mechanism for that is not so easy. For quite a lot of people, having some exercise regime is a helpful past of losing weight. If merely eating less were easy, no one would be fat.

Re:I think that they are missing the point

[Anonymous Coward]

absolute crap

Re: I think that they are missing the point

[Anonymous Coward]

So your saying if hit a weight loss plateau to eat sh*t? Sounds about right given tje various protein and healtg supplements on the market.

Re:I think that they are missing the point

[Half-pint HAL]

To point a finer point on this issue, I think the deficiency in the study has to do with the groups involved.

They may have found two groups who have a common goal (weight loss), but I'm willing to bet that the group who went out of their way to consult with a health counselor have FAR more motivation to achieve the goal of overall health

I think that everyone in the study was consulting with a counsellor, and that's how they got onto the study. I may be wrong, but that's what the study seems to be describing....

It's the wearer not the device.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's classic self-selection bias. Fatties who never stand a chance of losing weight because of weak minds and lack of discipline buy these devices (i.e. still looking for a quick fix), and then they yo-yo like they always have.

Re:It's the wearer not the device.

[Sique]

That's not what this study was about. They didn't look for people who were already using trackers. They were assigning trackers or not to people they selected before and already had on a weight loss regime.

Weight numbers are not the only indicators

[rayk_sland]

Where's the information on additional muscle mass brought on by increased physical activity?

Re:Weight numbers are not the only indicators

[dbIII]

The people getting significant muscle that way don't give a shit about weight because they know it isn't the only metric. BMI charts are not for those people.

However for those with a lot less exercise weight is not a bad metric since their amounts of muscle are low and staying fairly constant.

Makes sense to me!

[Octorian]

Activity trackers are not a useful tool for increasing your amount of regular physical activity. That's not really what they're designed for.
They are, however, a useful tool for quantitatively bragging about your physical activity on Twitter and Facebook :-)

Re: Makes sense to me!

[Anonymous Coward]

The summary, at least, is flawed. I do own a fitbit and use it constantly, but not for weight loss. It's a $150 gadget that allows me to view vital stats and - as a frugal person - a reminder to be active.

I barely lose weight during the winter when I switch to a low calorie diet. I do thin out, though, as I prepare for the next summer season.

Also, health benefits are not solely on weight loss. That's ridiculous. However, I will concede that with or without a tracker, a person has to want to get fit. To lose weight, calories in vs. calories out. Diet is more important. Luckily, my Fitbit has an app I can use to easily calculate my calories in and out with an easy readout. See: No math required.

Re: Makes sense to me!

[Anonymous Coward]

I barely lose weight during the winter when I switch to a low calorie diet. I do thin out, though, as I prepare for the next summer season.

I read this comment and immediately thought you were not a human, but a hibernating bear. Odd description.

Luckily, my Fitbit has an app I can use to easily calculate my calories in and out with an easy readout. See: No math required.

Part of the point of this survey was perhaps to determine if devices like a Fitbit will create a false sense of achievement, so I wonder how well you would fare when you don't have something on your wrist used to "calculate" your calories. And you do use it for weight loss. You've just labeled it weight management.

Re: Makes sense to me!

[Anonymous Coward]

Bears put on weight for the winter not lose it.

As for your question: I do about the same for weight loss. In the military I never used any gadgetry to stay motivated. I had fluctuations in weight depending on my command (forced pt vs. voluntary). When it came to voluntary, I was notably less likely to be fit except right before our biannual fitness exams.

I stay more consistent with being fit with the Fitbit.

Re: Makes sense to me!

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps I'm a special snowflake, but I also don't discuss my workouts or diet etc. with anybody, except for cases like this. Heck, each device brand gives different estimations on calories burned. My fitbit shows an extra 300 calories a day burned versus the same time last year for the same routine. Software updates.

I wouldn't say a false sense of accomplishment but poor accuracy /bad math can cause poor results.

Re: Makes sense to me!

[Tesen]

Perhaps I'm a special snowflake, but I also don't discuss my workouts or diet etc. with anybody, except for cases like this. Heck, each device brand gives different estimations on calories burned. My fitbit shows an extra 300 calories a day burned versus the same time last year for the same routine. Software updates.

I wouldn't say a false sense of accomplishment but poor accuracy /bad math can cause poor results.

Exactly. I used the app "Lose It" to drop huge amounts of weight several years ago to track calorie/carb count and with reasonable exercise; due to meds and health reasons I have put on weight again and are back at the point to lose it. If I compare Fitbit vs. Lose It calorie estimates on food, waaaay different. I am about to switch back to Lose It, but then I lose the combined steps, heart rate and calorie intake in one place... which sucks.

I also use http://nutritiondata.self.com/ a lot last time to help plan meals in advance etc; instead of putting random ingredients I think I know stats about in my food, I plan my meals around using that site last time for nutrient tracking (understand it is just a guide).

Re:Makes sense to me!

[Anonymous Coward]

I think everyone is different. I and the spouse both have fitbits. She is down 20 some odd lbs on the year and I am down 15ish. Neither one of us are on facebook and we only have ourselves and a couple of close family members/friends linked through the fitbit app because we are all collectively trying to better ourselves. For some people yes it is nothing more than a bragging tool. For me it is a constant reminder that no my lard butt doesn't need a piece of cake and to take a break from shitposting online and walk around a bit. But to each their own.

Re: Makes sense to me!

[goose-incarnated]

I barely lose weight during the winter

Bears put on weight for the winter not lose it.

Can you tell the difference between "doing something for winter" and "doing something during winter"?

Changed wife's and mine's

[Anonymous Coward]

Pretty awesome for us. Guess we're one of the rare lucky ones. And vaping got us off cigs.

Re:Changed wife's and mine's

[sexconker]

We get it, you vape.

Wrong metrics

[excelsior_gr]

Trackers measure parameters like steps and calories and bring them out of context. If you ate 500 kcal worth of chocolate right before the workout, then burning 500 kcal will do little in terms of fat reduction. You don't work out to burn the fat while you exercise, you work out to change your metabolism so that you burn fat while you don't exercise. Trackers won't reward you for doing muscle training (no steps involved!) although building muscle is awesome for losing weight (give your body enough mitochondria and you'll practically lose weight while you sleep!). Trackers are a fun gadget, but of more entertainment value than anything else.

Interesting article

[93 Escort Wagon]

I think I'll ponder it for a while over a pint of Ben & Jerry's.

Confirmed what I knew from experience...

[XSportSeeker]

Biased view I guess, but I got an activity tracker free with my previous phone, and also tried using some apps for that.
Even though I initially liked monitoring things, it soon became a chore, and something that was acting against my routines.
Not only it's extra time spent NOT doing any exercises, after a while no one cares anymore (including yourself), or it becomes a matter of trying to overcome your stats rather than simply exercising as routine or health. This deviation of objective acts against the activity itself.

But I'm always saying this is a personal accessment that should not be generalized for the experience of others.

Re:Confirmed what I knew from experience...

[Anonymous Coward]

I used to do long distance cycling without any fancy tracking gadgets (including music). It was the only time I had to clear my head and just enjoy my environment. I would give myself location based goals (i.e. ride to city X), but that's about it. I noticed the more trackers I used, the less fun it became and the shorter I would ride. It's like people that game for achievements rather than just enjoying the game.

So, if you are monitored, you lose more

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok, so I read this as both groups lost weight, it's just that those who used people instead of devices lost more.

Perhaps this has more to do with accountability (and the inherent high cost of using "supervision") than it does with devices.

No body fat percentages.

[tacarat]

It could have been that they went off the weight only and didn't even use cheap calipers. Fitness trackers also lend themselves certain types of exercise, so they can become limiting too. Too many unaddressed variables.

Re:No body fat percentages.

[Anonymous Coward]

RTFStudy. There are your body fat percentages.

Re:No body fat percentages.

[tacarat]

You're right. I glossed over that. BMI isn't quite the same, but close enough. Calipers would have been better.

Follow a low carbohydrate, high protein, diet

[Anonymous Coward]

It's very easy to lose weight, cut out the carbohydrates, (sugars starchy foods, bread, potatoes, sweetcorn, etc.) and substitute protein, especially fatty protein (e.g. a steak, a burger patty with cheese but without eating the bun) with green leafy veg for vitamins.

It's the basis of the Atkins diet, and it works. You feel full for longer and can skip meals. The protein does not convert to fat, but it does fill you up a lot longer.

Exercise does not work, it burns too few calories. Calorie counting does not work. If counting your calories does not work, how do you thinking counting steps? 5000 extra steps only burns around 200 calories for an average man. You're just trying to keep track of inaccurate micro details.

A couple significant problems

[93 Escort Wagon]

- The two groups both received counseling only for the first six months. After that, one group continued to receive monthly counseling, while the other just used a "fitness device". The way the summary (and the linked story) are written seemingly implies both groups were receiving counseling the entire time, which is false.

- The device used in this study sounds like something the researchers cobbled together. The researchers also "made a web site" where participants could review the data from the device. This does not really seem comparable to even fairly cheap modern fitness trackers, where feedback and data are easily obtained anytime the user wants. These guys really should have used brand name off the shelf commercial trackers if they really wanted to validate their conclusions.

All in all, this study seems to have some significant problems.

this is easy (as an ex-runner)

[Anonymous Coward]

Because the "progress and exercise" is quantified, uses reward themselves with a snack.

That doesn't jive with today's popular culture.

[Hylandr]

It's not currently popular to hold ourselves accountable for our actions and accomplishments, or lack thereof.

We need a device for this or an app for that as a constant reminder of our outwardly conscientious self-righteousness.

" Ohhh look at me participating in the Portland free bike program with my thousand dollar iphone riding as slow as I can, Oh the irony... "

Before the apple phanboi's attack here's the proof:
http://www.zdnet.com/article/h...

Re:That doesn't jive with today's popular culture.

[bluefoxlucid]

That might work for depressed people. I have no rewards mechanism, or at least it seems that way, and so I'm entirely motivated by pain, loss, and sheer boredom. I've never identified a sense of accomplishment and find sex largely a nerve-racking experience with a pay-off that, while enjoyable, isn't encouraging (it's impossible to motivate me via flirtation, but I'll definitely go for a free blowjob with no investment on my part if I'm not otherwise diverted--I'm not losing my 300-day Duolingo streak just to jump the last chance I'll have to get some head in the next 4 or 5 years).

Typically, punishment is a poor motivator. I get nothing done because I only really modify my behavior to avoid consequences; for most people, you need to create reinforced behaviors through structured rewards, else they'll basically coast through life complaining nothing gets done, like me.

Re:Winston Churchill

[Anonymous Coward]

And spiders!

So...

[Anonymous Coward]

I have a watch on both hands thinking I would lose double the weight. Does this mean I have to do real exercise?

Different targets

[Chrisq]

If you are told "walk five miles a day" you will walk an additional five miles. If you are told "walk 10,000 paces a day" you will walk as much as you need to top up the steps from wandering around, random movements, etc. up to 10,000

Re:Different targets

[Thyamine]

Yes. This is something I've noticed with friends who wear them. I hear how many steps they walked, but I don't know anyone that took a baseline of how many steps they walk normally. If you are already walking 8000 steps a day, then walking 10,000 isn't that big a deal (I'm making up numbers). They really need to build in a deficit to show 'you are below your daily average' vs just a raw total that may make you feel more productive than you really were.

Alternative hypothesis

[GerryHattrick]

- is that the sort of people who buy trackers are the sort of people who think they can 'buy' their way to weight loss. Running is free, 'eating less' actually makes savings.

Sample of one...

[fatmal]

Since getting a fitness tracker & scales (fitbit in my case) I lost 18kgs (just shy of 40lbs for our 'merkin friends) in 10 months, and have kept that weight off for more than a year. I do NOT attribute this to the devices, but to a change in diet & activity levels. The tracker & scales did provide targets, and maybe some motivation to keep hitting targets. In my case, 15,000 steps, 10km's & 60 minutes activity a day.

It may now be time to change my username :-)

(!fat)mal

I look in the mirror four times a day

[Anonymous Coward]

but don't get well defined abs.

The tracker becomes the "effort"

[Anonymous Coward]

By using a tracker people may be fooling themselves, possibly subconsciously, that they are "doing work" when in fact simply using a tracker is obviously not going to have any weight loss effects itself.

Sigh

[ledow]

Because of many reasons, but one of them is that you stop when the thing says you've hit your target exercise amount etc.

Totally useless.

The other day colleagues were talking about the same thing. I mentioned that my phone is set to "get me fit" on Samsung Health apps.

For context, I do NO exercise whatsoever. I'm a lazy bum who's as skinny as hell, in that respect.

The "target" it set me - I've "achieved" it every single day since I got the phone. Without even trying. Literally just walking around the office each day in normal activity. I'm not trying - I see no need - but literally just ordinary things I do every day make me seem "fit" by the default settings that someone who bought into the fad would probably accept as a LONG-TERM target.

And then I drop my phone when I'm at home so it can't monitor that, so technically I'm probably doing TWICE as much as it recommends. Without doing anything.

Everyone else I asked said the same, even those fitness fanatics. They don't use the apps because the recommendations are so low they "achieve" them every single day whereas they are quite happy to then go on three or four hour runs after work too. If you just relied on the activity trackers and apps, you'll stop midway through the day even if you're constantly upping the recommendations, and then think you're doing something special.

And it just gives you an excuse - "I did better today than yesterday, I might as well stop". If the tracking wasn't there, you'd probably say "I'm still feeling good, I'll give it another half-hour" or whatever.

And, let's be honest, the reason I have the app in the first place is to measure my heart rate for a laugh. I really don't care when it goes out of the recommended box, I just like measuring it as a gimmick. The activity trackers are all the same, so you can "boast" that you've done 10,000 steps today or whatever.

I do 20,000 steps every single day without trying or being in an active profession (I work in an IT office, ffs!).

Stop posting stupid theories

[Anonymous Coward]

900 people theorizing why this might be the case and apparently not one of them read the goddamn article.

"the data from the monitors shows that those wearing the technology generally exercised less than those in the other group."

It's not a mystery for you idiots to unravel. The basic reason is explained in the article.

Exercise doesn't cause weight loss

[Anonymous Coward]

There has been a ton of research that shows that exercise is a terrible way to try to lose weight. It's healthy for you to do some light regular cardio but anything beyond that doesn't help longevity or general well being.

Weight loss is 100% what you put in your mouth. There are many diets that work (High fat, high veg, low carb works fantastically for me and got me from obese to perfect weight) but the research shows (beyond just this cited study) that participants who exercise more lose less weight.

Re: And of course the JAMA doesn't have an interes

[Entrope]

Do you also deny that man has had an effect on the earth's climate, simply because climate science didn't identify and correct for each confounding variable in the climate system?

Actually

[Anonymous Coward]

They do help. They track activity throughout the day and tell me how much I've walked/calories I've burned. If I haven't burned enough, I feel inclined to work harder to get to my goal. What I will say is that tracking activity isn't a means to an end. I use activity tracking and calorie intake tracking. Both of these data tracking tools help to regulate what I eat and tells me where I can improve from day to day overall.

So, suck it "studies". Be a real live person everyone - not a number.

Re:Winston Churchill

[mpercy]

And quicksand.

How so?

[gosand]

Please, explain.

Perhaps you were hoping for a Funny mod.

Knowing your weight, or your physical activity level, means nothing about weight loss. Nothing.
If anyone has any interest in weight loss or getting healthier, should learn more about the science behind our bodies. "Exercise more and lose weight" isn't the answer. Calories-in/Calories-out is a small portion of the story, at best. Low-fat is dangerous. Portion control is a red herring. Fad diets are stupid.

Fat accumulation is mainly driven in our bodies by hormones, most notably insulin. Learn how that works and what affects it. That's it.

Look at human history - allllll the way back. Do you think any of these fads helps us survive as humans? Do you have ANY idea how many generations of people have lived? How did they do it without scales and digital trackers?

Re:How so?

[ooloorie]

Fat accumulation is mainly driven in our bodies by hormones, most notably insulin. Learn how that works and what affects it. That's it.

Lucky, then, that you can influence hormone levels through what you eat, how much you eat, and how much you exercise.

Knowing your weight, or your physical activity level, means nothing about weight loss. Nothing.

Knowing your weight means determining whether the dietary changes you made in order to lose weight are working. That's important because different bodies react differently to diets and exercise.

Calories-in/Calories-out is a small portion of the story,

No, they are actually the entire story: every food calorie that has been absorbed by your body either needs to be burned or stored (primarily as fat).

Look at human history - allllll the way back. Do you think any of these fads helps us survive as humans? Do you have ANY idea how many generations of people have lived? How did they do it without scales and digital trackers?

Most of those generations lived in an environment of food scarcity and they frequently starved. And obesity isn't usually going to kill you before your reproductive period is over, which is why evolution has erred on the side of gaining weight. (They also lived without antibiotics, but that doesn't mean that antibiotics are useless.)

Perhaps you were hoping for a Funny mod.

Desperately.

Re:How so?

[gosand]

Fat accumulation is mainly driven in our bodies by hormones, most notably insulin. Learn how that works and what affects it. That's it.

Lucky, then, that you can influence hormone levels through what you eat, how much you eat, and how much you exercise.

You can lose weight and keep it off by changing your diet alone. The others influence it, but to much lesser degrees. If you change WHAT you eat the amount (in quantity or calories) is largely irrelevant. Exercise is good for you, but you don't have to kill yourself trying to "burn off calories"

Knowing your weight, or your physical activity level, means nothing about weight loss. Nothing.

Knowing your weight means determining whether the dietary changes you made in order to lose weight are working. That's important because different bodies react differently to diets and exercise.

Again, hung up on the old "diet and exercise" shtick. Diet, YES - but not "dieting". You don't need a scale to know or help you lose weight.

Calories-in/Calories-out is a small portion of the story,

No, they are actually the entire story: every food calorie that has been absorbed by your body either needs to be burned or stored (primarily as fat).

*sigh* It's like a finger pointing away to the moon. Don't concentrate on the finger or you'll miss out on all the heavenly glory.

Look at human history - allllll the way back. Do you think any of these fads helps us survive as humans? Do you have ANY idea how many generations of people have lived? How did they do it without scales and digital trackers?

Most of those generations lived in an environment of food scarcity and they frequently starved. And obesity isn't usually going to kill you before your reproductive period is over, which is why evolution has erred on the side of gaining weight. (They also lived without antibiotics, but that doesn't mean that antibiotics are useless.)

You really haven't looked at the numbers, have you? Let's roughly estimate.... over 2.5 million years of human evolution, if the average lifespan was 50 years that means that within 100 years there would be 3 full generations. (year 0 - 50 is one, year 25 - 75 is two, year 50 - 100 is three). 2.5MM / 100 = 25,000 * 3 generations = 75,000 generations. [and they overlap, since at year 100, the next generation would have started already] And would be just one "family", which would have obviously grown and spread over time, so if I thought about it longer and harder I am thinking the number would be bigger. So you're saying "most of these generations lived in an environment of food scarcity and they frequently starved". What is this based on? On the fact there were no McDonalds? From what we can tell, we as a people only started agriculture 10,000 years ago. That is a tiny, miniscule part of 2.5 million years! How did we as humans not only survive, but THRIVE and evolve during this time? It wasn't because we could get fat. It was because we weren't relying on grains, starches, processed fats (like vegetable/bean oils) and sugars for fuel. Our bodies haven't adapted to these things well enough yet, which is why we have so much sickness today. (heart disease, obesity, diabetes, cancer, ....) The bad science, pseudo-science, and pure lies behind our dietary guidelines are making us sicker and sicker.

Re:How so?

[ooloorie]

You can lose weight and keep it off by changing your diet alone. The others influence it, but to much lesser degrees. If you change WHAT you eat the amount (in quantity or calories) is largely irrelevant.

You're confusing a diet strategy with physiological facts. Changing your diet can be effective because you feel full with fewer calories and because you can avoid rapid rises in blood glucose. Calorie counting often fails because hunger is a strong drive and people tend to cheat, so they take in more calories than they count (or should).

But whatever tricks you use to reduce calorie intake, ultimately, your weight is still determined by your balance of calories; physiologically, the only two things that happen with calories that you absorb are that you burn them or that you store them as fat.

Diet, YES - but not "dieting". You don't need a scale to know or help you lose weight.

You need a scale simply to know whether whatever you are doing is actually working: there are many ways in which you can change your diet, and some of them work for some people, and others work for others. You won't know which one is working for you if you don't check.

Exercise is good for you, but you don't have to kill yourself trying to "burn off calories"

Stop putting things into quotes that I didn't actually say. I said that exercise "influences hormone levels". That is, the amount of calories you burn off with exercise is not that important; what is important is the improvements in mood and physiological changes it causes.

Re:How so?

[gosand]

You're confusing a diet strategy with physiological facts. Changing your diet can be effective because you feel full with fewer calories and because you can avoid rapid rises in blood glucose. Calorie counting often fails because hunger is a strong drive and people tend to cheat, so they take in more calories than they count (or should).

It's not about tricking your body into feeling full. You touched on it when you said glucose. It's about regulating your hormones. The most effective way to do that is through your diet! I know because I have been doing it for four years. Low-carb, high-fat (saturated), no grains (or grain products), or sugar, NO restrictions or even consideration of calories. I lost 15 lbs in the first month and it has stayed off. (I was only 170) No rigorous exercise plan. Joint pain - gone. Back pain - gone. I am not starving myself, I am not hungry. I am often in a mild state of ketosis, or can get there easily. Without 'punishing' myself. I can fast for 24 hours and feel great. I am telling you, calories are a red herring. They play a role, but if you focus on what is important, you can ignore them.

Stop putting things into quotes that I didn't actually say. I said that exercise "influences hormone levels". That is, the amount of calories you burn off with exercise is not that important; what is important is the improvements in mood and physiological changes it causes.

Exercise is great for you, and does influence hormone levels. But you can lose weight without it, it is not required. You can get healthy without it. Your diet is so much more important than exercise in losing weight and being healthy. I didn't mean that to be me quoting you, it was me quoting the phrase "burn off calories" because that phrase is misleading and very simplistic statement around a complex system. Moreover, it's not necessary! Because people think that you have to exercise heavily to burn burn burn away fat. You don't. The oft prescribed "diet and exercise" rarely works because exercising makes you hungry. (work up an appetite) So you eat more (usually carbs) and that gets stored as fat. It's a never-ending cycle, a battle. It doesn't have to be. All you have to do is retrain your body to not rely on carbs for energy. THEN it will use your fat as energy and you will lose it. It's how we came to be, it's in our genes. It's not starvation, it's not tricks. It's pure and simple science.

Re:How so?

[ooloorie]

It's not about tricking your body into feeling full. You touched on it when you said glucose. It's about regulating your hormones. The most effective way to do that is through your diet! I know because I have been doing it for four years. Low-carb, high-fat (saturated), no grains (or grain products), or sugar, NO restrictions or even consideration of calories.

Physiologically, all that matters is your caloric intake vs your energy expenditure. If you get 1500 calories (and otherwise have no deficiencies), it doesn't matter what those calories come from, you'll lose the same amount of weight. In the lab or weight loss clinics or institutional settings, any diet based on caloric restrictions and defined exercise works. In the real world, for many people, low-carb, high-fat diets seem to work better, but there are numerous other factors and individual variations.

If you reduce carbs far enough, you may be shifting your body into ketosis, which changes the analysis somewhat. Ketosis is different from merely a low-carb diet and generally quite effective for weight loss. Some people tolerate it well, while others don't. You can test whether that applies to you with a blood test.

Because there is so much variation and so many possibilities, the most important thing to do is to keep track of what you are doing with your diet and measure its effect. A scale is a good instrument for that. If you are also building muscle, add a pair of calipers and a tape measure. If you're actively trying to achieve ketosis, you should verify that it's working with a regular blood test.

Exercise is great for you, and does influence hormone levels. But you can lose weight without it, it is not required

I never said it was "required". But it is certainly useful for many people, and it may be essential for some. One of the functions of exercise is that it depletes the glycogen stores in muscles: after exercise, glucose will get stored not as fat, but as glycogen. That gives you a safety margin for carb intake. That is, if you exercise before meals, you don't have to be as strict about reducing your carb intake.

Clickbait titles

[mpercy]

"participants who used wearable devices reported an average weight loss of 7.7 pounds, compared to the 13 pounds lost by those who didn't use the devices and only used health counseling"

Undermines?

Both A (fitbit) and B (counseling) are better than doing nothing (as well as many other alternatives), but A is somewhat less effective than B on average.

Now if people with a fitbit had gained 7.7 pounds...

Good news!

[jbmartin6]

This is good news for all of us who feared the health insurers would try to incentive us to wear tracking devices in exchange for lower premiums.

Counting vs uncounted.

[Anonymous Coward]

I've always figured that by tracking activity when people are NOT actively exercising, they give people the illusion that they are more active. Before: "I only exercised for 20 minutes last week" After: "Look at all those steps, I don't NEED to go out and exercise." All those steps were there before, but they didn't get "counted"

Weight loss fallacy

[orev]

It's incredible that in 2016 people still think (and even do scientific research!) on the idea that exercise helps you lose weight. EXERCISE DOES NOT HELP YOU LOSE WEIGHT in any significant amount. Weight loss is at least 85% what and how much you eat. Exercise can help somewhat, but it has very little bearing. Exercise is extremely important for overall health, but weight loss is not one of the benefits.

Re:Weight loss fallacy

[religionofpeas]

It is true that you can't outrun a bad diet, but exercise can be very helpful in a combination with a good diet.

Re: And of course the JAMA doesn't have an interes

[religionofpeas]

At least for the climate system, the scientist go out of their way to try to identify and correct as much confounding variables as possible, whereas in this research they have hardly tried at all.

Re: And of course the JAMA doesn't have an interes

[bluefoxlucid]

They actually do correct for confounding variables.

13 Pounds in 18 Months?

[0xG]

Trivial for an obese person weighing hundreds of pounds.
WOTAM.

To change your body, do this:

[Beardo the Bearded]

Eat better. Sleep more.
Pick up heavy things and put them down again.
Do cardio with enough intensity that your clothes are wet.
Drink only water.

Keep doing this for the rest of your life.

I'm under 350 pounds, 5'-10" and 47-YO...

[__aaclcg7560]

I initially lost weight when I was forced to go on a low-carb diet with my father when he lived with me for two months after he got out of the hospital in 2011. After he moved back home, I stuck to the diet but I didn't lose any more weight. I was 350 pounds for the last five years. That didn't change until I started counted calories and reduced my calorie intake to 1,500 per day two months ago. I'm now under 350 pounds. I recently got a stopwatch to keep track of my time on the rowing machine at the gym.

Re:I'm under 350 pounds, 5'-10" and 47-YO...

[Anonymous Coward]

Eating 2000 calories a day will still cause weight loss for you. Anything less then your current metabolic calorie requirements will cause weight loss.

Re:I'm under 350 pounds, 5'-10" and 47-YO...

[__aaclcg7560]

Eating 2000 calories a day will still cause weight loss for you.

Eating 2,000 calories didn't work for me. The magic number is 1,500 calories.

Anything less then your current metabolic calorie requirements will cause weight loss.

According to one calculator, I need to eat 4,000 calories or so per day to maintain my weight at 350 pounds. The problem with that number is that I haven't had a 4,000 calorie day in 15 years. When I changed my diet to drop from 2,000 calories to 1,500 calories per day, I've started losing weight.

Re:Winston Churchill

[__aaclcg7560]

And Romulans bearing gifts.

JAMA study authors don't even lift

[xiando]

If you want to look better then there's one proven solution which works and has proven itself throughout the centuries since ancient Greece: Lifting weights. Can some "tracker" on your arm measure how much you lift? No, obviously not. These idiotic devices also supposedly track your calorie intake. If you lift and reduce your intake then you won't gain muscle and look like a skeleton. In summery, these devices are useless and those who buy them are wasting money they should be spending on gym memberships and protein rich food. Fatties should get off their asses and lift, not waste money on idiotic technology.

More like bad, p-hacked study.

[denzacar]

First of all, let's forget the wearable devices. Cause study participants sure did.

Out of 24 months, they wore them on average 170 days. That's about the quarter of the time.
And that's median value. They actually wore them 68-347 days.
Oh... and it's only 80% of the "wearable device" group (i.e. technology-enhanced weight loss intervention group) members that were using said devices.
Also, when they were using monitors, median values was 241.1 minutes per day (99.3-579.1).

I.e. Monitors were mostly ignored.

Of the 237 participants randomized to enhanced intervention, 191 participants received the wearable device that was a component of the intervention starting after month 6 and wore the device for 1 day or longer (median days worn, 170.0 [25th-75th percentile: 68.0-347]).
On days that the device was worn, the median wear time was 241.1 min/d (25th-75th percentile: 99.3-579.1).

Secondly, groups were not random.
They took a group of people they KNEW were leaning towards underperforming and lazyness and gave them monitors (which they ignored) - while the higher performing "standard" group was selected to self-monitor.

For first six months both groups had the same regimen.
They were one group, with similar, self-reported baselines for physical exercise.
Then, AFTER six months, during which they've gathered data - researchers formed two groups.

One group had 118.8 minutes less of light physical exercise per week when compared to the other group.
Same group had 98.6 minutes less of medium-to-vigorous physical exercise, per week.
354.3 minutes less of metabolic equivalents of medium-to-vigorous physical exercise, per week.
76 minutes of 10+ minutes sessions of medium-to-vigorous physical exercise, per week.

They gave that group the monitors.
Negative trends continued, as expected, though the differences between the groups WERE decreasing with time.
But by the end of the study, differences in various exercise durations was still around 30 minutes in favor of "standard" group.

I.e. Researchers selected for lazy people with a tendency to overestimate personal physical performance - and gave them devices which should promote lazy behavior.
Lo and behold - people with devices performed worse.

It's like dividing a class of students into those with higher grades and those with lower grades.
Then giving those with lower grades computers and those with higher grades pencils to keep notes while studying French.
Then publishing a study titled something like "Computers - a detriment to education".

Re:More like bad, p-hacked study.

[Anonymous Coward]

They begin with this:

"The mean weight loss from baseline to month 24 in the standard intervention group was projected to be approximately 3.4 kg at 24 months, with these estimates based on data from prior weight loss studies that included young adults."

Which makes me wonder why the standard intervention group lost 5.9kg where the enhanced group lost 3.5kg.
(See table 2 in the JAMA article)

Also, is it normal for the majority of weight change to come from bone mass?

Exercise and weight loss

[AnotherBlackHat]

It's an oft repeat meme that if you exercise more, you'll lose weight.
"Oft repeated", however, does not mean "correct".

MOD PARENT UP.

[Anonymous Coward]

Parent needs to be modded up.

Re: And of course the JAMA doesn't have an interes

[AK Marc]

Nope. And cigarettes have never been proven to cause cancer, yet I believe that as well. There's at least reasonable evidence for those, even if the studies are flawed.

This is a case of someone deliberately doing a flawed study to find the opposite of "common sense" in a appeal to get punished and get attention from morons, like yourself.

True story

[bobmajdakjr]

I am fatter today than i was 3mo ago when I got this iPhone with a step counter. Study confirmed.

Re: And of course the JAMA doesn't have an interes

[Entrope]

That's because climate scientists can't do randomized studies. Participants in this study were randomly assigned to either a standard intervention group or an enhanced intervention group. As far as studies in social science go, that isn't a very small group, and the idea is that with enough members in each group, uncontrolled variables (which one may or may not be able to identify) average out. Do you think the randomization failed to average things out? Exactly what confounding variables do you think they should have tried to identify and correct for? Be sure to explain how they should correct for each.

Re: And of course the JAMA doesn't have an interes

[Entrope]

Climate scientists do not identify and correct for all the confounding variables, which is what AK Marc apparently demands of scientific studies (otherwise they are "irreparably flawed").

Re: And of course the JAMA doesn't have an interes

[Entrope]

Ah. You're a name-calling hypocrite who doesn't have a clue how randomized clinical trials work.

A similar thing happened with smart grid

[Anonymous Coward]

I worked on a smart-grid trial, where homes were fitted with displays that could show energy use by cost for various appliances in the home. The theory was that when you could see that running the dishwasher was about to cost you 18c or a night with the air conditioner was $5 then you'd think twice about doing it and energy utilisation would decline.

What actually happened is that energy use *increased* by about 20% because people would say '$5 so I can sleep well in the heat tonight? Bargain!!'

Re: And of course the JAMA doesn't have an interes

[AK Marc]

I have run clinical trials. You are the one that has no clue how they work, and who resorts to name calling to avoid supporting your incorrect opinion wrongly asserted as fact.

One of the exercises done to get the degree was to generate a "scientifically valid" study that proves the opposite of another "scientifically valid" study. So, we formed a survey where a question was asked and 75% (or more) said "no", and another survey where the identical survey question was asked with a 75% (or better) "yes" answer. The exercise in futility was "proof" that "scientifically valid" doesn't mean it's actually valid or useful. Finding ways to deliberately manipulate results was required for those going into fields that ran trials, so you'd avoid those errors, and could recognize them in others.

It'll stay off longer, that's my bet.

[Anonymous Coward]

My bet?

In a diet, without a monitor, people worry they're not making any progress and overdo it. They avoid too much, which makes what is lost so tempting to have some of and...

With a monitor people know they're making some progress and have a moderate amount of what else they enjoy. The effort continues, and weight stays off.

Give it time, this is my bet.

Re: And of course the JAMA doesn't have an interes

[Entrope]

Spare us your disconnected anecdotes. Specifically how do you think relevant, uncontrolled variables affected the outcome of this study? Like most blowhards, you have so far avoided being specific about the things you whine about. Please show that you aren't just a blowhard.

Re: And of course the JAMA doesn't have an interes

[bluefoxlucid]

Nobody identifies and corrects for all confounding variables; learn about risk.

Hacker Diet is All You Need

[Anonymous Coward]

https://www.fourmilab.ch/hackdiet/

Re: And of course the JAMA doesn't have an interes

[AK Marc]

Diet plans were given to all people in the study. There was no group without a diet plan. The exercise goals were different for the non-fitbit group than the fitbit group.

So specifically, there was no control group without a diet plan. Nor were the control group and fitbit group isolated to a single variable.

Like most blowhards, you have avoided specifics.I started with specifics, and you attacked me personally. You don't listen to specifics, so you have proven yourself a blowhard.

Re: And of course the JAMA doesn't have an interes

[Entrope]

I wasn't the one who said "You have to fully identify confounds and correct them. This study obviously didn't, thus is irreparably flawed, thus gives no useful information." My first comment was a way of calling bullshit on that claim (by AK Marc) -- but you proceeded to totally miss the point.

Re: And of course the JAMA doesn't have an interes

[Entrope]

Having a control group without a diet plan would have been stupid. It would not have helped resolve the hypothesis (that fitness trackers help people lose more weight than the traditional self-monitoring of diet and exercise), and it would have reduced the power of the experiment by reducing the group sizes.

Why do you think the exercise goals were different for the two groups in this study? The "Physical Activity" section of the paper does not describe any difference in the prescribed regimen -- only, as I remarked above, on the method used to measure and record their exercise (and diet). As far as I can tell, you're flat wrong about the number of free variables.

You're already in a hole. Stop digging it deeper.