GoBe calorie counter wearable put to the test | Hacker News Reader

GoBe calorie counter wearable put to the test

bbc.co.uk

35 pointscallum8516 comments

First off, when it comes to calorie counting, all people really need is a relative measure in the same order of magnitude. You don't have to care about the exact number of calories you're consuming to 3 significant digits. Really, it just suffices to know if you've changed relative to some baseline with just a bit more accuracy than one significant digit.

Also, as I've said before, what this sort of "stretching" in mobile apps is telling us, is that we need more sensors. We've done pretty well with getting the full potential of accelerometer, touch screen, and GPS. Of course, we could do better with more data. I would love to have the ability to directly measure the onset of stage 4 sleep, as in the old Zeo sleep monitor. I am borderline to Narcolepsy, which means that I get very little stage 4 sleep compared to the average person. (As shown in my sleep studies and was well corroborated by the Zeo.)

The author of this article is very gullible. Here's how the scam works. George Mikaberydze estimated how many calories were in the thing he was eating, and covertly passed this information to an accomplice. The accomplice gave that information to a server, making it appear on the device.

Yeah. Requirement #1 for any test like this is, it happens in a Faraday cage.

He could input it himself. It wouldn't take much, just some motion on the wrist to input.

But they are actually shipping the product! Such a scam would not last long. Usually scamers avoid ever actually shipping.

> But they are actually shipping the product! Such a scam would not last long.

I agree that the scam will not last long.

you are holding it wro^^^^needs more calibration

I have to admit, I am sceptical myself.

I am familiar with using bioimpedance, and in particular it has been used to guestimate someone's % of bodyfat since forever. I am also aware that it is highly inaccurate doing so [0].

So someone taking an already inaccurate technology and claiming that they're using it at the cellular level (and by extension claiming that eating changes every cell in your body) is going to make me sceptical.

The BBC's test helps a little, but the fact the BBC weren't able to use their own person, test over a longer period, or even gather the results themselves means it has less legitimacy. Cheating isn't impossible given the scenario (*although I have absolutely no evidence they did so)...

Honestly I hope this technology is legitimate. It would be really incredible (particularly has it requires no new/special hardware, just a software update). However until they're able to fund even a single independent study, even a relatively small one, I am going to stay well away (and consider it snake-oily).

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bioelectrical_impedance_analys...

edit: Random thought: The article claimed the device slowly counted up for over 2 hours, then the person had to leave immediately after it hit its goal. Couldn't they have just programmed it to simply add approx. 40 calories every 10 minutes until the magic number was "found" then leave before it shot past that figure? Did it actually settle at the 510 ish figure or did they just end it at that point? The article is unclear.

My reading was, they scheduled 2.5 hours, and he left at that point. So, maybe it did shoot past at the 3 hour mark (or not). Perhaps not lilly white honesty, but it seemed reasonable to me.

For people thinking that this is awesome, the device has received considerable criticism as being total "bullshit".

PandoDaily ran several articles[1][2] about how the device claims to do the impossible - specifically, "caloric intake" and probably "stress level".

Personally, I do think the device is snake-oil and it's better to get a Basis or a Fitbit.

[1] http://pando.com/2014/03/31/as-more-experts-dispute-gobes-bu... [2] http://pando.com/2014/07/03/weird-after-admitting-to-pando-i...

"Carbs from the meal convert to glucose, and the glucose goes to the cells. When glucose goes into the cells, water goes out - that means the water balance changes. The bioimpedance sensor used measures this water flow, in and out."

How can this account for water differences produced from drinking water?

Maybe it can't. However, I'm not sure it really makes all that much difference. I really doubt most people need even two significant digits of precision to monitor their diets. It would be enough to take a baseline and note changes to about one part in 15. However, one can't market that degree of precision. The American public naively demands unreasonable levels of precision as a proxy for quality. I wouldn't be surprised if such considerations have influenced GoBe marketing.

My guess based on the article would be it is not just looking at a spot change but at an overall curve, and considers the shape of the curve too (e.g. the comment about it getting flatter depending on the amounts of fat and protein).

So, I'd guess the shape for water intake might be so radically different it can be cancelled out. Just a guess, doing the (perhaps) scamsters' work for them, though...

The measurement seems to be strongly tied to glucose and hydration. I'd be interested in results after eating low-carb meals (e.g. nuts or steak) or in a state where glycogen stores are depleted (after exercise, fasting).

The device and its software are based on assumptions. Fair enough. It makes for convenient measurement if it works.

Does anyone know if some of the more radical/fringe diets might break the assumptions of such an approach? For example, the intermittent fasting and keto diets come to mind because they claim to put the body into a state whereby fats are burned "first" or in a manner not normally achieved with "normal" modes of eating.

That is considered a "test" for such extraordinary claims? LoL seriously? wow... there really is no min. requirement for jounalism.

So < 10% discrepancy and they didn't wait for it to fully finish registering? Given that and the fact that calorie labels are presumably not precise(e.g., every Snickers isn't exactly the same), this seems pretty exciting. I've been trying not to get too excited about this device because of all of the negative press, but this is very promising.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com