I was interviewed today by a writer for Wired Online. She said the Shangri-La Diet forums resembled open-source software. It’s a good point; at the SLD forums, a large number of people from all over the place are slowly but surely improving the diet (which is essentially an engineering problem). Because of their improvements, the paperback is about 10% different from the hardback. I’m not a weight-control expert; the people who contribute to the SLD forums are even less so.
The SLD forums can also be compared to a clinical trial of the diet. A large chunk of SLD forum posts are about how well the diet is working, which is what clinical trials are about. A clinical trial of the Shangri-La Diet (or almost anything) requires experts. Only weight-control experts could raise the money (hundreds of thousands of dollars) and have access to the necessary facilities. Anyone can start a forum.
Which is better? In two ways, a clinical trial is better than forums evaluation: 1. (major) You keep track of everyone who starts the trial. 2. (minor) Better measures. More accurate scales, blood tests, standardized food tracking. In six ways, forums evaluation is better than a clinical trial. 1. (major) More realistic. For example: the diet is more flexible, each dieter uses his or her own brain power to figure out what to do. 2. (major) Better reporting of side effects (both positive and negative). With forums, more brainpower goes into their detection. 3. (major). More transparent. Anyone can read the forums to find out what happened. Raw data from clinical trials is almost never available. 4. (major) Speed. Forums are much faster. 5. (major) Cost. Forums are much cheaper. 6. (major) Openness. Anyone can report his/her results on the SLD forums. Clinical trials, on the other hand, are closed to almost everyone.
I use both Firefox (open source) and Internet Explorer (not open source). But I use Firefox far more.
“Weight loss experts”? Does it even make sense to use the phrase non-ironically or without scare quotes or the phrase “so-called” in front of it? Doesn’t expertise that relates to some demonstrable end imply success and knowledge about how to gain that end? In a field that has a 96+% failure rate is there such a thing as genuine expertise? Before the Wright brothers, were there “flight experts”? Don’t we now look back upon the writings and claims of so-called experts in field prior to their achievement of success with amusement and view them as rather child-like? Someone who knows more history than I do can generate analogies…
“Before the Wright brothers, were there ‘flight experts’?” Very interesting question. I would guess not, but surely there were transportation experts who said human flight was impossible. Like the president of IBM who said there was a world market for “three, maybe four” computers.
“Like the president of IBM who said there was a world market for “three, maybe four” computers.”
Or maybe not:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_J._Watson#Famous_misquote
Although Watson is well known for his alleged 1943 statement: “I think there is a world market for maybe five computers,” there is no evidence he ever made it. /…/
I see as a major benefit of the forums that they are adaptive/evolutionary, looking for better strategies, while a trial answers well-defined questions about fixed strategies. The forums allow individuals to try different strategies and share the results, which then allows others to try things that are working, and generates ideas about still new things to try.
Thanks for the correction, Observer.