Talk:Power Balance/Archive 1

Ineffective

Here is a study conducted by the American Council on Exercise demonstrating that these devices are not effective, if anyone wants to incorporate it into the article: https://www.acefitness.org/certifiednews/images/article/pdfs/ACEPowerBalanceStudy.pdf

There is also a nice overview here: http://www.devicewatch.org/reports/power_balance.shtml —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.177.1.210 (talk) 15:56, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Eficacy Disputes

The article currently has the section Efficacy Disputes, however, there does not seem to be any dispute. All of the studies and editorials presented show that the device does not work except for via a placebo effect. I propose to change the heading to Evidence of Effectiveness. Also, the section is long and details to excess a few low quality studies, but delegates the higher-quality and newer evidence to the end. I propose that the section be re-written and chronologically ordered, or ordered based on quality of the evidence, and made more concise. I will do this, but I am giving notice in case anyone objects.Puhlaa (talk) 17:27, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

For what its worth I agree with cleaning up this section and the title change. AIRcorn (talk) 02:25, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Proposal to delete 'criticisms' section

During my re-organization of this article I moved all of the non-MEDRS and POV sources into a single section entitled criticisms. I have brought the proposal to delete this material here first in case some editors object. I suggest that this section be deleted because:

1. The section arguably violates WP:NPOV
2. The sources are not very good according to WP:MEDRS (not peer-reviewed, self-published vanity press)
3. The information contained in the section is redundant because we have real research cited in the Evidence section as well as court-decisions described in the Legal issues section that are far better sources to describe the current state of holographic bracelets.

Puhlaa (talk) 16:54, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not wild about this. It doesn't violate NPOV: having a medically ineffective bracelet without any mention of criticism is not somehow more neutral than one that does. I would suggest instead refactoring the criticism section to something like 'reactions' noting that while Power Balance has had some celebrity endorsements, it has also had criticism. This could then lead into the section on evidence. This way we can keep the public reception including critical reception. I may have a go at refactoring it later. Criticism still has historical interest even if WP:MEDRS-compliant sources of evidence become available, if only because it may be yet another case of "duh, the skeptical movement predicted yet again that the idea was stupid and ineffective and, wow, it really is stupid and ineffective–who woulda thought?!". —Tom Morris (talk) 19:34, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your response Tom Morris. I was not convinced that the self-published opinions of individual critics is worthy encyclopaedic material when there are better sources available that conclude the same thing. Moreover, statements about applied kinesiology and other pseudoscience seem intentionally placed to make a broader point (WP:coatracking?), and are not really related to the article directly (are they?). Regardless, its was only my opinion, I agree with you that the section could be improved and retained rather than deleted entirely. I am happy to see what you choose to do with the section as far as refactoring. In addition to your specific comments on how to improve the section, my thoughts would also be to retain all attribution and remove any text that appears to be coatracking and not specific to the bracelets. Regards Puhlaa (talk) 20:16, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Placebo vs Does not Work

I see that it has been changed to "works no better than a placebo". I'm not sure this is an improvement and accurate. Welcome opinions, but I liked it better before. Sgerbic (talk) 02:55, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Sgerbic, thanks for your comment regarding my recent edit. With regard to accuracy, there are 4 blinded, controlled studies sourced in the 'Evidence' section; those read:

1. Researchers from RMIT conclude "no difference in balance between people using a real holographic wristband and those wearing a placebo"
2. On October 28, 2010 Olympic champion gymnast Dominique Dawes concludes "no benefit for those that had a real holographic bracelet compared to those who had a placebo".
3. In December 2009, an informal double-blind test found "any effect of the holograms is too small to measure against the placebo effect."
4. A study at the University of Wisconsin found "no effect, compared to the placebo"

Thus, I believe that I have changed the lede to accurately summarize the sources described in the body of the article. I am, however, assuming that the body of the article acurately represents the sources used. Puhlaa (talk) 04:33, 13 October 2012 (UTC)