Higher Fat Ratio Predicts Moderately Lower Loneliness for Population
Contents
Mike Sinn
PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR
Mike Sinn

Variables

A
Fat Ratio 1802
A
Loneliness 604

Categories

A
Physique 41
A
Emotions 2028

Actions

A
Join Study
A
Your Data

Tags

Low Confidence
Weak Effect Size
Negative Relationship
Population Study
cause image gauge image effect image
Participants reported a 11.1% average decrease in Loneliness following above average Fat Ratio.
Abstract

Abstract

Loneliness was generally 11.55% lower than average after 35.2 percent of Fat Ratio per 7 days.

Aggregated data from 2 study participants suggests with a LOW degree of confidence (p=0.133, 95% CI -0.65 to -0.093) that Fat Ratio has a moderately negative predictive relationship (R=-0.372) with Loneliness.

The highest quartile of Loneliness measurements were observed following an average 33 percent Fat Ratio.

The lowest quartile of Loneliness measurements were observed following an average 35 percent of Fat Ratio.

After an onset delay of 0 seconds, Loneliness is typically 6% lower than average over the 7 days following around 35 percent Fat Ratio.

Objective

Objective

The objective of this study is to determine the nature of the relationship (if any) between Fat Ratio and Loneliness. Additionally, we attempt to determine the Fat Ratio values most likely to produce optimal Loneliness values.
Participant Instructions

Participant Instructions

Fat Ratio Automatic Import of Fat Ratio via Withings

A Get Withings here and use it to record your Fat Ratio. Then, A import your data here .

Manual Recording Option

A Create a reminder for Fat Ratio here and record it daily by enabling notifications or using A the reminder inbox here .


Manual Recording Option

A Create a reminder for Loneliness here and record it daily by enabling notifications or using A the reminder inbox here .

Design

Design

This study is based on data donated by 2 participants. Thus, the study design is equivalent to the aggregation of 2 separate n=1 observational natural experiments.

Data Analysis

Data Analysis

Fat Ratio Pre-Processing

No minimum allowed measurement value was defined for Fat Ratio. No maximum allowed measurement value was defined for Fat Ratio. No missing data filling value was defined for Fat Ratio so any gaps in data were just not analyzed instead of assuming zero values for those times.

Loneliness Pre-Processing

Loneliness measurement values below 1 out of 5 were assumed erroneous and removed. Loneliness measurement values above 5 out of 5 were assumed erroneous and removed. No missing data filling value was defined for Loneliness so any gaps in data were just not analyzed instead of assuming zero values for those times.

Predictive Analytics

It was assumed that 0 seconds would pass before a change in Fat Ratio would produce an observable change in Loneliness.

It was assumed that Fat Ratio could produce an observable change in Loneliness for as much as 7 days after the stimulus event.

Statistical Significance

Statistical Significance

Using a two-tailed t-test with alpha = 0.05, it was determined that the change in Loneliness is not statistically significant at a 95% confidence interval. This suggests that the Fat Ratio value does not have a significant influence on the Loneliness value.

After treatment, a 11.1% decrease (-0.323 out of 5) from the mean baseline 2.37 out of 5 was observed. The relative standard deviation at baseline was 12.65%. The observed change was 0.92593 times the standard deviation.

A common rule of thumb considers a change greater than twice the baseline standard deviation on two separate pre-post experiments may be considered significant. This occurrence would have only a 5% likelihood of resulting from random fluctuation (a p-value < 0.05).

Data Sources

Data Sources

Fat Ratio data was primarily collected using Withings. Withings creates smart products and apps to take care of yourself and your loved ones in a new and easy way. Discover the Withings Pulse, Wi-Fi Body Scale, and Blood Pressure Monitor.

Loneliness data was primarily collected using QuantiModo. QuantiModo allows you to easily track mood, symptoms, or any outcome you want to optimize in a fraction of a second. You can also import your data from over 30 other apps and devices. QuantiModo then analyzes your data to identify which hidden factors are most likely to be influencing your mood or symptoms.

Limitations

Limitations

As with any human experiment, it was impossible to control for all potentially confounding variables. Correlation does not necessarily imply causation. We can never know for sure if one factor is definitely the cause of an outcome. However, lack of correlation definitely implies the lack of a causal relationship. Hence, we can with great confidence rule out non-existent relationships. For instance, if we discover no relationship between mood and an antidepressant this information is just as or even more valuable than the discovery that there is a relationship.

We can also take advantage of several characteristics of time series data from many subjects to infer the likelihood of a causal relationship if we do find a correlational relationship. The criteria for causation are a group of minimal conditions necessary to provide adequate evidence of a causal relationship between an incidence and a possible consequence.

Criteria For Causal Inference

Strength (A.K.A. Effect Size)

A small association does not mean that there is not a causal effect, though the larger the association, the more likely that it is causal. There is a moderately negative (R = -0.3715) relationship between Fat Ratio and Loneliness.

Consistency (A.K.A. Reproducibility)

Consistent findings observed by different persons in different places with different samples strengthens the likelihood of an effect. Furthermore, in accordance with the law of large numbers (LLN), the predictive power and accuracy of these results will continually grow over time. 20 paired data points were used in this analysis. Assuming that the relationship is merely coincidental, as the participant independently modifies their Fat Ratio values, the observed strength of the relationship will decline until it is below the threshold of significance. To it another way, in the case that we do find a spurious correlation, suggesting that banana intake improves mood for instance, one will likely increase their banana intake. Due to the fact that this correlation is spurious, it is unlikely that you will see a continued and persistent corresponding increase in mood. So over time, the spurious correlation will naturally dissipate.

Specificity

Causation is likely if a very specific population at a specific site and disease with no other likely explanation. The more specific an association between a factor and an effect is, the bigger the probability of a causal relationship.

Temporality

The effect has to occur after the cause (and if there is an expected delay between the cause and expected effect, then the effect must occur after that delay). The confidence in a causal relationship is bolstered by the fact that time-precedence was taken into account in all calculations.

Biological Gradient

Greater exposure should generally lead to greater incidence of the effect. However, in some cases, the mere presence of the factor can trigger the effect. In other cases, an inverse proportion is observed: greater exposure leads to lower incidence.

Plausibility

A plausible bio-chemical mechanism between cause and effect is critical. This is where human brains excel.

Based on our responses so far,

0 humans feel that there is a plausible mechanism of action for a relationship between Fat Ratio and Loneliness.

0 humans feel that any relationship observed between Fat Ratio and Loneliness is coincidental.

Coherence

Coherence between epidemiological and laboratory findings increases the likelihood of an effect. It will be very enlightening to aggregate this data with the data from other participants with similar genetic, diseasomic, environmentomic, and demographic profiles.

Experiment

All of human life can be considered a natural experiment. Occasionally, it is possible to appeal to experimental evidence.

Analogy

The effect of similar factors may be considered.

Plausibility

Plausibility

A plausible bio-chemical mechanism between cause and effect is critical. This is where human brains excel. Based on our responses so far, 0 humans feel that there is a plausible mechanism of action and 0 feel that any relationship observed between Fat Ratio and Loneliness is coincidental.

Relationship Statistics

Property Value
Cause Variable Name Fat Ratio
Effect Variable Name Loneliness
Sinn Predictive Coefficient 0.067341522595234
Confidence Level LOW
Confidence Interval 0.2787
Forward Pearson Predictive Coefficient -0.3715
Critical T Value 1.7305
Average Fat Ratio Over Previous 7 days Before ABOVE Average Loneliness 33 percent
Average Fat Ratio Over Previous 7 days Before BELOW Average Loneliness 35 percent
Duration of Action 7 days
Effect Size moderately negative
Number of Paired Measurements 20
Optimal Pearson Product 0.30860793359764
P Value 0.13336
Statistical Significance 0.12
Strength of Relationship 0.2787
Study Type population
Analysis Performed At 2021-08-30
Number of Participants 2

Fat Ratio Info

Property Value
Variable Name Fat Ratio
Aggregation Method MEAN
Analysis Performed At 2020-10-09
Duration of Action 7 days
Kurtosis 11.53441254787
Mean 21.956504458737 percent
Median 21.654810416667 percent
Number of Aggregate Predictors 1644
Number of Aggregate Outcomes 158
Number of Measurements 16661
Number of Measurements (including those generated by tagged, joined, or child variables) 11132
Public true
Onset Delay 0 seconds
Standard Deviation 3.6716201216785
Unit Percent
User Variables 37
UPC 795186416775
Variable Category Physique
Variable ID 1875
Variance 39.258453973033

Loneliness Info

Property Value
Variable Name Loneliness
Aggregation Method MEAN
Analysis Performed At 2020-10-11
Duration of Action 24 hours
Kurtosis 1.7882861897431
Maximum Allowed Value 5 out of 5
Mean 3.1872105042017 out of 5
Median 3.1930393382353 out of 5
Minimum Allowed Value 1 out of 5
Number of Aggregate Predictors 437
Number of Aggregate Outcomes 167
Number of Measurements 3446
Number of Measurements (including those generated by tagged, joined, or child variables) 3182
Public true
Onset Delay 0 seconds
Standard Deviation 0.39907362842154
Unit 1 to 5 Rating
User Variables 404
UPC 783324854602
Variable Category Emotions
Variable ID 89438
Variance 0.44549918243977