N=1?

Options
chelny
chelny Posts: 179 Member
in Food and Nutrition
Could someone please define this for me? I think I understand what is meant based on the context, but I’m not sure. Thanks

Replies

  • chelny
    chelny Posts: 179 Member
    Options
    Thanks!
  • paperpudding
    paperpudding Posts: 8,995 Member
    Options
    What do you mean by the most bias toward eating methodologies??

    I don't think I have any bias toward any particular eating methodology - I certainly don't follow any particular diet method myself - ie not clean eating, not keto, not paleo etc

    And I use the term N=1 sometimes - basically meaning the conclusion or experiment applies only to one person, myself.

    Eg skipping breakfast leads to fatigue and nausea by mid morning, N =1.
    Ie it applies to me.

    OP! The term derives from study terminology where you might see an experiment about medication effectiveness, for example, and see the term N = 1000.( or whatever)
    Meaning the size of people involved was 1000.
    Generally the larger the sample size, the more likely the conclusion can be applied as a general population rule.
  • NovusDies
    NovusDies Posts: 8,940 Member
    Options
    paperpudding wrote: »
    What do you mean by the most bias toward eating methodologies??

    I don't think I have any bias toward any particular eating methodology - I certainly don't follow any particular diet method myself - ie not clean eating, not keto, not paleo etc

    And I use the term N=1 sometimes - basically meaning the conclusion or experiment applies only to one person, myself.

    Eg skipping breakfast leads to fatigue and nausea by mid morning, N =1.
    Ie it applies to me.

    OP! The term derives from study terminology where you might see an experiment about medication effectiveness, for example, and see the term N = 1000.( or whatever)
    Meaning the size of people involved was 1000.
    Generally the larger the sample size, the more likely the conclusion can be applied as a general population rule.

    Did I single you out without realizing it? Did I forget to say it wasn't a hard and fast rule? I was sure I said that which meant it didn't apply to all posters. I was referring mainly to people who believe that IF and/or keto can perform miracles that should, in some cases (or many cases), be attributed to weight loss.
  • apullum
    apullum Posts: 4,838 Member
    Options
    NovusDies wrote: »
    paperpudding wrote: »
    What do you mean by the most bias toward eating methodologies??

    I don't think I have any bias toward any particular eating methodology - I certainly don't follow any particular diet method myself - ie not clean eating, not keto, not paleo etc

    And I use the term N=1 sometimes - basically meaning the conclusion or experiment applies only to one person, myself.

    Eg skipping breakfast leads to fatigue and nausea by mid morning, N =1.
    Ie it applies to me.

    OP! The term derives from study terminology where you might see an experiment about medication effectiveness, for example, and see the term N = 1000.( or whatever)
    Meaning the size of people involved was 1000.
    Generally the larger the sample size, the more likely the conclusion can be applied as a general population rule.

    Did I single you out without realizing it? Did I forget to say it wasn't a hard and fast rule? I was sure I said that which meant it didn't apply to all posters. I was referring mainly to people who believe that IF and/or keto can perform miracles that should, in some cases (or many cases), be attributed to weight loss.

    I was confused by the comment too, because I thought it meant "People who use the term N=1 on the forums are biased toward certain ways of eating." That may be how @paperpudding was reading it.

    However, I've read enough of your posts that I was pretty sure that wasn't what you meant, so I assumed you meant "People often use personal anecdotes on the forums to argue that certain ways of eating are better than others," which I think is true.

    I can see where the confusion came from, but I think you are both actually on the same page :)
  • NovusDies
    NovusDies Posts: 8,940 Member
    Options
    I probably should have been more clear. I was fairly sleep deprived yesterday.

    Not to mention... message board.
  • paperpudding
    paperpudding Posts: 8,995 Member
    Options
    Yes it read that way to me.

    No I didnt think you were singling me out, I just didnt understand what you meant and couldnt see the connection myself
    and used myself as an example of someone who sometimes uses the term and the sort of thing I might say it with.

    and explained terminology further to OP and any other readers.

  • NovusDies
    NovusDies Posts: 8,940 Member
    Options
    paperpudding wrote: »
    Yes it read that way to me.

    No I didnt think you were singling me out, I just didnt understand what you meant and couldnt see the connection myself
    and used myself as an example of someone who sometimes uses the term and the sort of thing I might say it with.

    and explained terminology further to OP and any other readers.

    I was trying to further explain how n=1 was not to be taken as firm evidence but I guess it was left too open for interpretation. That won't be the first or last time that happens.
  • psychod787
    psychod787 Posts: 4,088 Member
    Options
    Lol.... I get strange looks from people when I say n=1 at the gym. Lol
  • chelny
    chelny Posts: 179 Member
    Options
    Motorsheen wrote: »
    At least it's not Toilet Paper Math.....



    toiletpapernumbers.jpg

    MFP needs a "funny" or laughing reaction.
  • kshama2001
    kshama2001 Posts: 27,898 Member
    Options
    apullum wrote: »
    NovusDies wrote: »
    paperpudding wrote: »
    What do you mean by the most bias toward eating methodologies??

    I don't think I have any bias toward any particular eating methodology - I certainly don't follow any particular diet method myself - ie not clean eating, not keto, not paleo etc

    And I use the term N=1 sometimes - basically meaning the conclusion or experiment applies only to one person, myself.

    Eg skipping breakfast leads to fatigue and nausea by mid morning, N =1.
    Ie it applies to me.

    OP! The term derives from study terminology where you might see an experiment about medication effectiveness, for example, and see the term N = 1000.( or whatever)
    Meaning the size of people involved was 1000.
    Generally the larger the sample size, the more likely the conclusion can be applied as a general population rule.

    Did I single you out without realizing it? Did I forget to say it wasn't a hard and fast rule? I was sure I said that which meant it didn't apply to all posters. I was referring mainly to people who believe that IF and/or keto can perform miracles that should, in some cases (or many cases), be attributed to weight loss.

    I was confused by the comment too, because I thought it meant "People who use the term N=1 on the forums are biased toward certain ways of eating." That may be how @paperpudding was reading it.

    However, I've read enough of your posts that I was pretty sure that wasn't what you meant, so I assumed you meant "People often use personal anecdotes on the forums to argue that certain ways of eating are better than others," which I think is true.

    I can see where the confusion came from, but I think you are both actually on the same page :)

    Yes, I went through exactly the same thought process.

    The first time I read it I thought it meant "People who use the term N=1 on the forums are biased toward certain ways of eating."

    But being familiar with the poster I gave it a second read and also concluded he meant "People often use personal anecdotes on the forums to argue that certain ways of eating are better than others," which I think is true.

Categories