Sherry said:
I have no understanding of statistics
Statistics an be learned.
Quoted message said:but especially after recent elections
can see how statistics are often skewed and don't mean squat.
They tend to be used for a purpose. That's different
from being meaningless. It's worse in a way.
Quoted message said:So I view the 5% number that keeps showing up with cynicism.
Good. Let's see the hard data. Where are the studies
and how did they categorize the entries?
Quoted message said:I have to wonder how they came up with that number?
Good. You're headed in the right direction.
Quoted message said:Everybody who ever failed at a diet is part of the 95?
Nope. First it's only among the ones counted and there's
no way to count everyone. Second if you keep trying and
eventually succeed you then become a success number not
a failure number.
Quoted message said:And only those who never failed in the 5%?
Nope. If you failed for 10 years and then succeeded for
the next 10, you would have been counted in the 95 for
the first ten and in the 5 for the next ten.
Quoted message said:Or does somebody switch people from the
failure column to the success column and back again?
Exactly. Also there must be some amount of time from
the start of a diet until you've been on it long enough
to be considered successfull at keeping it off. Let's
say they picked two years. Folks who have never been
on a diet go in the "not part of the percentage, never
dieted" list. Folks who started under two years ago
go in the "not part of the percentage, not on diet long
enough to be able to judge success or failure". Folks
who are two+ years past starting who've quit or failed
or regained it all go in the "part of the percentage,
failed their diet" list. Folks who are two+ years past
starting who still have weight off go in the "part of the
percentage, suceeded on their diet" list.
Quoted message said:See what I mean? Statistics make no sense
They only don't make sense when you haven't considered
what they mean.
Think about a counting system like I described above.
You're 20 when you first start your diet. Ages 0-20
you aren't counted because you never dieted. You start
and quit. Ages 21-22 you've dieted too recently to be
able to judge sucess of failure. Ages 23-24 you're in
the failed group. Age 25 you start again and this time
you stick with it. Ages 25-26 once again you are too
new in your plan to be counted. Ages 27 on until you
fail you're in the success count.
Keep trying and keep failing you're in the failed
list. But keep trying and find a way to stick with it
you end up in the succeed list.
I want to see the study and I want to see their tables
of hard data.
Quoted message said:the continual reassurance that most of us here will
be failures probably has some self-fulfilling prophecy
aspects for some.
Sure. Without good self respect some are tempted to
use the failure of others as an excuse. But there's
also the issue of objectivity. If 95% failed by doing
the obvious, exactly how much sense does it make to
try the obvious? If only the serious 5% succeed, does
that mean you shouldn't try or does it mean you should
get serious?
Quoted message said:I'd love to see how "they" came up with such a number,
who "they" considered, etc.
Absolutely. Even more important, I want to know what
that 5% have in common.
Quoted message said:If I was considering starting a difficult
battle against my weight and was continually told I'd probably fail anyway,
I'd probably not bother.
Unless I was told that there are methods to put myself
in that 5%. I know all sorts of loss methods work. I
want to know maintenance methods work.
Quoted message said:Especially considering that, if there are 100
posters here and 5 long-term successes, I haven't got a chance.
This is where your claim of not knowing statistics come in.
They don't work that way. Do what works and you become a
personal example of the 5%. Get enough people to copy you
and you could push the number ot 6% or higher.
