I just wasted 2 hours writing about this, and I can't release it. The text is just luminously, stupidly angry. Basically one long threat with numbers in it. It's the single worst article I've read in years. I will content myself with this: let's thug it.https://twitter.com/jamesheathers/status/1142863287526277120 …
-
Show this thread
-
We never got to this article. The herculanean efforts of
@sTeamTraen@OmnesResNetwork and@Research_Tim aside, there's only so much you can do. We stopped at FIFTY. ARTICLES. with errors and we were losing the will to live.pic.twitter.com/MRuFpANqe5
1 reply 0 retweets 12 likesShow this thread -
So let's get to it now. We don't even need error detection tools. It's a study on cracker consumption. Everyone gets small packets or large packets. Same total.pic.twitter.com/jpnoK80oSU
2 replies 0 retweets 4 likesShow this thread -
So, people ate from 0 (no crackers) to 400 calories, and this sub-group of overweight people (n=15) ate Mean=383 cals, SD=159? THIS IS IMPOSSIBLE, unless they were eating OTHER PEOPLE'S CRACKERS.pic.twitter.com/lixBfGL9wf
5 replies 1 retweet 31 likesShow this thread -
Which isn't mentioned. It's implied that the calorie intake was calculated just by # of crackers per person after the experiment ("After watching the 22‐min show, participants completed questionnaires, and the remaining crackers were counted to calculate their caloric intake.")
2 replies 0 retweets 8 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @jamesheathers
It looks like they describe 2 methods of calculating caloric intake, participants were also asked about their perceived cracker eating so it could just be that they've misreported everything as wellpic.twitter.com/slZ8fdD6H2
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @GidMK @jamesheathers
Actually, that might explain all the findings - overweight people might just be more likely to underestimate consumption when you put it in small boxes. That'd completely undermine the narrative, so double win I guess
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @GidMK
That's EVEN WORSE. You have the actual, easily measured units there - one cracker = 28 calories or some shit, it's on the packet, and then assuming they don't smuggle them out in their cheek pouches like a goddamn squirrel, then they are content to GUESS what was eaten???
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @jamesheathers @GidMK
We must have some kind of misunderstanding here. I'm too tired from stomping around the house muttering about justice all day to figure this out now.
1 reply 0 retweets 5 likes
They muddle the terminology in the paper at least twice, it's very unclear how they calculated calories eaten so there's definitely a mistake somewhere
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.