The next focusIR Investor Webinar takes places on 14th May with guest speakers from Blue Whale Growth Fund, Taseko Mines, Kavango Resources and CQS Natural Resources fund. Please register here.
Do you understand how digital phenotyping would work?
Hex thanks for the link to a heart rate sensor. Can you explain how its a competitor?
Case closed because you can't find a legitimate competitor more like? Sorry for backing an unprecedented scientifically rigorous approach to categorising people into digital phenotypes, lead by a leading R&D organisation Hex. All info available in the public domain. What would you back In this wearable sector then if you wish to bring it up?
Great so they don't use Mifflin St Jeor so your example was redundant. And what they do use, only they have access to it. "the accuracy of IMEC's algorithms to retrieve physiological parameters which provide us with a unique selling point". Case closed?
Where does CloudTag imply use of Mifflin St Jeor Hex? Considering its pretty open in declaring it only measures HR during specific exercise routines? Answer this explicitly
Thanks Hex, just ignore the live demo video then on the company website. You haven't defended your example so I guess that's you conceding.
The only way you could journey down the HR to kcal route with scientific rigour is with regular measurements separating fat from lean mass. Defend the viability of that If you wish... That's your only way out from this
Thanks Hex314, well then that confirms your scientific illiteracy then! You still clinging to your 24 hour HR monitoring example calculations is just hilarious. You are still not accounting for the +/-15% inaccuracy for 24 hour energy expenditure that your preferred weight loss wearable would suffer from when using the faulty BMR formula (based on Mifflin St Jeor) that you proposed in your example. You truly are out of your depth here and still cannot explicitly make your point and explain how Cloudtag has implied use of Mifflin St Jeor. It simply has not and you are pushing your limited scientific knowledge of the matter onto the company's offering. As I said, it's not possible for any wearable device to use that formula and make any weightloss claims. This is really is quite sad coming from the same person who has the audacity to say "smart people doing dumb things". Especially shallow understanding of what is required in exercise for weight loss. Search metabolic efficiency training for weightloss.
Hex I'm not following or are you really arguing this is up for interpretation? Refuse to admit you are wrong or are you currently out of your depth? Not one sentence on the main website nor on this website you have linked backs up your interpretation. You cannot demonstrate from your links where CloudTag has implied use of a Mifflin St Jeor (or similar) equation. You also cannot identify a wearable manufacturer using this formula and making weight loss claims. There's a reason for this and I explained it. Your shallow understanding is highlighted by the quote you did use - "�ECG heart rate monitor that helps you create your own personalised weight loss program". Consider Amit's 'live demo' on the company website where he states weight is used for BMI calculation and that the heart rate accuracy during exercise is key for metabolic efficency training - i.e. Personalised weight loss program. I can use your own links to highlight your assumption - "From what I can see, the USP of the�CloudTag Trackwill be its HRM accuracy and the weight loss thing � but it seems like the company already know this..� And... "constantly adapts to your fitness" Don't forget - "the accuracy of imec�s algorithms to retrieve physiological parameters which provides us with a unique selling point." If you refute this also then we are left with empirical evidence that you are scientifically illiterate.
Where have CloudTag implied they are using a Mifflin St Jeor formula or similar using bodyweight to derive BMR? If you don't see it now then I think you are not understanding what is being shown to you - feel free to ask if you don't understand. I'm fed up of you looking completely in the wrong direction.
Hex in this post I shall overlook blockchain entirely*. I hope that your reply to this will be gracious and do the same. Let's focus on your example in Tuesday 15th May 14:30's post and the posts following that defend it. You ignored hints for deeper reading (Metabolic adaptation +/-15% 24 hour EE alongside https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5081410/ ) with "I don't see anything in those articles opposing my points." � Sunday 20th May 13:38. (1) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3673773/ (2) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2809965/ Link (1) as an introduction to reality. Note table 1. Link (2) is funnily enough aimed at you � "Specifically, we shall discuss the practice of using body weight as a denominator in analyzing energy balance to overestimate the role of energy expenditure.� The equations you rely on for "HR -> kcal" use bodyweight as a denominator in case you were not aware. If that's not clear here is the exact incorrect assumption you've been making, from link (2) � "To compensate for the often dramatic differences of body mass in lean and obese models, and perhaps to estimate energy expenditure at a cellular level, investigators have resorted to normalizing energy expenditure reported as oxygen consumption (VO2) to body weight. This approach assumes that lean and adipose tissues contribute equally to VO2; however, while adipose tissue is not metabolically inert, it contributes relatively little to the total energy expenditure of an organism compared with lean mass. Furthermore, this distortion in estimates of energy expenditure will increase in proportion to the accumulation of lipid in the adipocyte as obesity increases." Interesting � "as obesity increases.". Don't worry there�s many a name on Table 1 of Link (2) with the same amount of "robust lateral thinking" as you. To quote link (2) again � "The letter by Himms-Hagen should have significantly reduced the publication of studies that employed similar methods; however, the extensive list of high-profile publications since 1997 in which changes in adiposity have been erroneously attributed to modulations in energy expenditure indicates that the problem continues (Table 1). Consequently, these conclusions as to how various metabolic pathways contribute to obesity phenotypes through modulation of energy expenditure impair progress in this area." Is there anything you'd like to reconsider? Are you sure you actually know what's happening here? *It's something we could perhaps carry on if you could reply explicitly to points 2, 3 and 4 with associated number-matching links in my Sunday 20th May 11:48 post.
Apologies Hex for my incoherent post structure. Each numbered point relates to the numbered link above it. i.e "1." = "1." i.e. Link 1 for Metabolic adaptation... +/- 15% 24 hour EE - something you have overlooked with your GCSE PE level example. I didn't misquote your post, hex314. Please don't be so shy when it comes to IoT security. Happy digging!
I see you�ve been busy digging this weekend Hex. As before, I�m out of rope but here�s a spare shovel. 1. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5081410/ 2.1 Metabolic adaptation +/- 15% 24 hour EE 2. https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1608/1608.05187.pdf A few more smart people doing dumb things 3. https://www.owasp.org/index.php/OWASP_Internet_of_Things_Project#tab=IoT_Attack_Surface_Areas List of attack surfaces in IoT 4. http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-adv.html&r=1&p=1&f=G&l=50&d=PG01&S1=20180115425.PGNR.&OS=dn/20180115425&RS=DN/20180115425 One step closer to implementing one of the most fascinating use-cases for Proof-of-Work so far 5. http://www.onitor.com/article-future-of-health.html �Individuals take control of their health data� � 17 December 2016 1. Friday 18th May 13:01, 2 different premises implying both are equal. 2. Wednesday 9th May �Blockchain to the rescue�. Thursday 10th May �Proof of work is only really needed for trust-less structures, such structures are not needed here� Saturday 19th May �Changing datastore doesn�t solve those problems�. 3. Can you think of a better way to address this extensive list? 4. Refer to second paragraph of link 2�s conclusion. 5. Friday 18th May �always arriving late to the party�. Is there anything at all you�d like to reconsider Hex?
I'm sorry Hex, was it the format of my 19:09 post? Which part/s of it confused you? You're more skilful with rope than I had imagined! DougB I admire your patience.
DougB re: BOT, yes.
Hex, this is becoming painful. I'm out of rope after this. 13:01 post, sentence by sentence: 1. Again implies >1. Incorrect. 2. Was that really what I implied to be your incorrect assumption? No. 3. No, actually you were not. Incorrect. 4. Paraphrased but I'll give you that one. 5. Did you now? If I say prove it you'll just repeat the same example? 6. What? Suddenly there are two different premises and the context of your post disappears into the abyss. :P Seems you want to remain in category 2. You could even refer to the link I posted for a partial answer. Skim reading I'm afraid won't cut it. RE: blockchain I presume you also choose not to explore in depth. Wrong assumptions taken in what I meant regarding the crypto token. Cybersecurity in IoT devices? Still silence from you in that department I notice. Perhaps you may also want to revisit nonces. You may have slipped up in what they 'need to be'.
Hex, I presume you didn't understand that those questions were me metaphorically handing you a rope. There was an opportunity for you to take some time to brush up on the subjects you've spoken about but you chose not to. In the past 2 weeks you have showcased a shallow understanding of the topics you discussed and how they relate to the company, resorting to pseudotechnical insights (re:blockchain and 'trust systems') and the bending of science (the GCSE PE level 'example' with little relevance 'here'). The majority of your posts lose context almost immediately due to the huge amount of assumptions made (despite your craving for referencing website links). You've made it clear also that you are unaware of many of these technical assumptions you have made by the way you have answered - perhaps blind to them due to said shallow understanding. With regards to your repetitive point on blockchain/medical data you have weaved through a minefield of yet more assumptions to end up barking up the wrong tree. I note that you conveniently omit any mention of the crypto token (and associated advances in access control elsewhere) and shy away from PoW-related security. Dare I ask you to come up with a better alternative? In addition, despite opportunities given to say something balanced regarding CTAG you decided to, as usual, consistently produce a solely negative outlook. HITS despite his antisocial ego, can remain balanced (and humourous at times). What is your reason not to be? It does lead you to being in one of two categories: 1. Agenda to promote a negative outlook/just bitter - knowingly bending science in a public domain? 2. Simply benighted, trolling not just others reading but yourself by composing these under-researched irrelevant conclusions despite holding no position. Far too many errors in your posts to address individually - I don't have the time. Here is a good starting point for you should you wish to create a third category. Note: starting point. Analysis of energy metabolism in humans: A review of methodologies https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5081410/ Initially your 'smart people doing dumb things' comment made me laugh. In light of the above it's just sad.
Hex, Again I must commend your dedication here. Would you please clarify what you mean in the first sentence of your 15:26 Thursday post? Also I would really appreciate if you could walk me through the assumptions made in the latter part of the sentence? I.e. Not needed here... where? Noting your 19:52 post on the same day, has Cloudtag not made any correct technical decisions? And your 20:40 post... If you'd please give more detail (as much as possible) behind sections a) and b) to further your point I'd really appreciate it! Especially the first sentence of a) and final sentence of b).
Hex, thank you for your valuable insight. You have amazing dedication regurgitating certain research despite holding no financial interest! This level of curiousity must be overwhelming at times.. Could I please tap into it with a few questions? Why was CloudTag referenced in the security section of the Petras IoT report? Who are all these people with FREng after their name on page 45? What's a nonce? If you could help me out with your eye for detail I'd be very grateful. Post of the year (so far) goes to DougB at Friday 18:25. It was close between a few others of his. Sorry HITS, your efforts have been noticed. There's still time! "I have the best words" - D. Trump