Meta-note: Judging by the feedback I got, the last article in this series was probably a little out of my depth in terms of what I’m able to explain in a clear and at least somewhat entertaining way. I’m trying something different with the format of this article to make a bit more readable, but because of that I might at a later time re-format the article again if things don’t work out.
Thank you. I really appreciate the detailed analysis that you present. And I fret a lot about bias in science, so it is nice to have someone to articulate the various ways that it skews results.
But of course, I can’t comment without disagreeing with something. : )
I think your seat belt analogy missed the mark. The point about not finishing a diet is that it is hard. If a large number of people can’t finish something and if trying the activity half way and quitting is actually detrimental to your health, then I think it is reasonable to suggest to people that they shouldn’t try. If you have a 10% chance of succeeding with a +5 reward and a 90% chance of not succeeding with a -1 penalty, then from a public health perspective, it is something that should be discouraged. Of course, changing those numbers a little and having proper representative populations for diet studies could quickly change that conclusion. I offer them only as an illustration.
To strain the seatbelt analogy, it would be like a seatbelt that you had to hold on to for it to work, but if you let go, you would be more damaged than if you just let your body hang loose. Of course, seatbelts are “effective” if you use them correctly, but if most people aren’t capable of using them correctly, are they really a tool that should be promoted?
Thank you. I really appreciate the detailed analysis that you present. And I fret a lot about bias in science, so it is nice to have someone to articulate the various ways that it skews results.
But of course, I can’t comment without disagreeing with something. : )
I think your seat belt analogy missed the mark. The point about not finishing a diet is that it is hard. If a large number of people can’t finish something and if trying the activity half way and quitting is actually detrimental to your health, then I think it is reasonable to suggest to people that they shouldn’t try. If you have a 10% chance of succeeding with a +5 reward and a 90% chance of not succeeding with a -1 penalty, then from a public health perspective, it is something that should be discouraged. Of course, changing those numbers a little and having proper representative populations for diet studies could quickly change that conclusion. I offer them only as an illustration.
To strain the seatbelt analogy, it would be like a seatbelt that you had to hold on to for it to work, but if you let go, you would be more damaged than if you just let your body hang loose. Of course, seatbelts are “effective” if you use them correctly, but if most people aren’t capable of using them correctly, are they really a tool that should be promoted?
Request for comment: SlimeMoldTimeMold and their explanation on the obesity epidemic?