StatCrunch logo (home)

Report Properties
Thumbnail:

from Flickr
Owner: cjuego97
Created: Apr 30, 2017
Share: yes
Views: 1970
 
Results in this report
 
Data sets in this report
 
Need help?
To copy selected text, right click to Copy or choose the Copy option under your browser's Edit menu. Text copied in this manner can be pasted directly into most documents with formatting maintained.
To copy selected graphs, right click on the graph to Copy. When pasting into a document, make sure to paste the graph content rather than a link to the graph. For example, to paste in MS Word choose Edit > Paste Special, and select the Device Independent Bitmap option.
You can now also Mail results and reports. The email may contain a simple link to the StatCrunch site or the complete output with data and graphics attached. In addition to being a great way to deliver output to someone else, this is also a great way to save your own hard copy. To try it out, simply click on the Mail link.
Nutrition and Weight Loss
Mail   Print   Twitter   Facebook

Nutritional Data Set

Data set 1. Nutritional Data for Fast Food 2017   [Info]
To analyze this data, please sign in.

Abstract/Introduction:

Fast food restaurants are ideally popular for their flavorful, quick-to-serve foods that taste good and are primarily inexpensive. On the contrary, these foods tend to be cheap due to the ingredients being used that contain high fat and sugar content, and refined grains instead of healthy constituents like vegetables and whole grains. As researched from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), a double-patty hamburger is, on average, 354 calories. To investigate this, nutritional data of hamburgers from ten popular fast food restaurants were collected to ultimately determine, “Do fast food chains serve more calories, on average, with their advertised hamburgers than the typical hamburger?” With this, my null hypothesis (HO) is μ=354 and my alternate hypothesis (HA) is μ>354, where μ is the true mean caloric count for hamburgers served at each fast food restaurant.

 

Analysis:

Based on the boxplot of the ten fast food chains, Whataburger edged out Hardees for serving the hamburgers with the highest caloric count with a median value of 830 calories. Although, Sonic’s SuperSonic with Mayo burger item toppled the competition with a caloric count of 1240, while White Castle’s The Original Slider had the lowest caloric amount with 140 due to its small serving size of 63 grams. Wendy’s turned out to be the restaurant with the largest spread in terms of IQR, but Sonic had the largest range. McDonald’s, arguably the preeminent fast-food chain in the industry, was centered slightly lower than Dairy Queen, but both had a slightly normal distribution throughout. Although Burger King is skewed right, opposite of Carl’s Jr., the middle 50% of both distributions are identically aligned with each other. There were no outliers as observed in the boxplot. As seen by the boxplot and summary statistics, each fast food chain, other than White Castle, had a higher median/mean value of caloric amount in their hamburgers than the average hamburger as revealed by USDA. The summary statistics show that White Castle is the only restaurant with a mean of 244 calories and a standard deviation of 107, which is lower than the average hamburger.

Result 1: Boxplot (calories)   [Info]
Right click to copy

Result 2: Summary Stats (calories)   [Info]
Summary statistics for Calories:
Group by: Fast Food Restaurant
Fast Food RestaurantnMeanVarianceStd. dev.Std. err.MedianRangeMinMaxQ1Q3
Burger King6626.66667105706.67325.12562132.731986908202201040270850
Carl's Jr.8686.7571683.071267.7369494.6593056907183021020471925
Dairy Queen6571.6666716256.667127.5016352.052324570390380770520620
Hardee's7804.2857157228.571239.2249490.41852882064050011405501030
In-N-Out Burger3513.3333320433.333142.9452182.529456480280390670390670
Jack in the Box859070742.857265.9752994.0364675257502801030395785
McDonald's6508.3333344696.667211.4158686.310164525510240750290720
Sonic6690108200328.93768134.288256809103301240390820
Wendy's7662.85714100057.14316.3181119.557016708402501090290940
Whataburger7738.5714395080.952308.35199116.54618308003101110400990
White Castle524411480107.1447647.916594220260140400160300

A parametric independent sample t-test will be performed to determine whether the advertised burgers of fast food chains have more calories than the typical hamburger on USDA (354 calories). Conditions necessary for inference were met: the data samples were collected in random and independent of one another, and the sampling distribution was approximately normal with a sample size of 69 as stated by the Central Limit Theorem (n>30). The null hypothesis (HO)is μ=354 and the alternate hypothesis (HA) is μ>354, where μ is the true mean caloric count for hamburgers served at each fast food restaurant. The test-statistic turned out to be 7.98 with degrees-of-freedom equaling 68 (conservative estimate). Moreover, the sample mean was 620.20 with the standard error being 33.37. With this, the p-value concluded to be less than 0.0001. The probability of obtaining a result equal to or more extreme than what was actually observed is less than 0.0001 (.01%), when the null hypothesis is true.

Result 3: One Sample T (calories)   [Info]
One sample T hypothesis test:
μ : Mean of variable
H0 : μ = 354
HA : μ > 354

Hypothesis test results:
VariableSample MeanStd. Err.DFT-StatP-value
Calories620.202933.366213687.9782173<0.0001

Conclusion:

Since the p-value obtained was less than 0.0001, I would reject the null hypothesis (HO) based on a 0.05 significance level, being that the p-value was less than 0.05 (0.00001<p-value<0.0001). There is sufficient evidence to conclude that the true mean caloric count for hamburgers served at each fast food restaurant is greater than the average hamburger as researched by USDA. Possible issues that may have affected the validity of the experiment include sampling variability and measurement errors. The data collected did not represent every fast food chain that serves hamburgers in the world, meaning that there is a tendency for the sample statistic to not match the entire population. In addition, the data collected for each hamburger per fast food restaurant may differ in size and shape due to how they are served each time, resulting in variability. To improve study procedures, nutritional data of hamburger caloric count should be recorded from a larger sample size of fast food chains upwards of 100 restaurants to ensure decreased sampling variability and that each hamburger observed be identically compared with another to guarantee accuracy if the study were to be repeated.

 

Weight Loss Program Data Set

Data set 2. Weight Loss Program   [Info]
To analyze this data, please sign in.

Abstract/Introduction:

Carrying on from the data collected of ten popular fast food chains, 31 subjects who regularly ate at these restaurants decided to change their lifestyle habits and improve their physical health by participating in an 8-week weight loss program. With this program, the individuals ate healthier by basing their diets off fruits, vegetables, lean meats, and whole grains. In addition, the subjects performed daily physical activities such as hiking, swimming, and weight lifting. Data was recorded during the 8-week weight loss program, noting down each of the 31 individuals’ weights before and after the program. The question to be answered with this is, “Of the 31 individuals tested, did the 8-week weight loss program show a substantial difference in weights before and after the program?” My null hypothesis (HO) is μD=0 and my alternate hypothesis (HA) is μD≠0, where μD is the true average difference between the subjects’ weights before and after the 8-week program.  

 

Analysis:

Based on the chart of the individuals’ weights, most of the subjects lost a considerable amount of weight, many of which were in the double digits. However, there were some individuals who actually gained weight during the program which were subjects #5, #16, #20, #22, and #27. The normal quantile quantile plot showed a fairly normal distribution with the correlation equaling 0.916 and the points lining up to an approximately straight line. On the contrary, there were a few points that were a little extreme from the plot which may raise questions on the validity of the study. The sample statistics revealed that with a sample size of 31, the mean weight of the individuals before the program was 196.03 lbs. with a standard deviation of 38.06, while the mean weight of the individuals after the program was 189.06 lbs. with a standard deviation of 35.93.

Result 4: Chart Weight Loss   [Info]
Right click to copy

Result 5: QQ Plot   [Info]
Right click to copy

A match paired T hypothesis test along with a paired T confidence interval will provide a indication of how scattered two sets of measurements are. With this, one can conclude whether there are one or two distributions. The statistical paired t-test procedures gives a better simulation as the data from before and after the weight loss program can be presented in pairs. The data was then analyzed as a two-tailed t-test, at the 0.05 significance level. Conditions necessary for inference were met: the data samples were collected in random and independent of one another, and the sampling distribution was approximately normal shown by the normal quantile quantile plot with a sample size of 31 as stated by the Central Limit Theorem (n>30). With a 95% confidence interval for the difference in weights before and after the program, μD= μ1- μ2 where the mean of the difference is between weight before and weight after. The 95% C.I. concluded that with a degree-of-freedom equaling 30 (conservative estimate), the interval is 6.97 (mean) ± t0.025 x 1.57 (standard error), resulting in a final interval of (3.77,10.16). We can be 95% confident that μ, the true population average in weights before and after the program, lies between 3.77 lbs. and 10.16 lbs. Since zero is not a plausible value of the population mean difference, there is strong evidence to conclude that the weight loss program helped the individuals lose weight during those 8 weeks.

Result 6: Paired T Confidence Interval   [Info]
Paired T confidence interval:
μD = μ1 - μ2 : Mean of the difference between Weight Before and Weight After
95% confidence interval results:
DifferenceMeanStd. Err.DFL. LimitU. Limit
Weight Before - Weight After6.96774191.5654082303.770751810.164732

To more formally conclude this result, a matched pair T hypothesis test would reveal how dispersed the measured weight values are.  My null hypothesis (HO) is μD=0 and my alternate hypothesis (HA) is μD≠0, where μD is the true average difference between the subjects’ weights before and after the 8-week program. The test statistic turned out to be 4.45 with degrees-of-freedom equaling 30 (conservative estimate). Furthermore, the sample mean was 6.97 with the standard error being 1.57. With this, the p-value concluded to be 0.0001. The probability of obtaining a result equal to or more extreme than what was actually observed is 0.0001 (.01%), when the null hypothesis is true.

Result 7: Paired T test   [Info]
Paired T hypothesis test:
μD = μ1 - μ2 : Mean of the difference between Weight Before and Weight After
H0 : μD = 0
HA : μD ≠ 0

Sample statistics:
SamplenMeanStd. dev.
Weight Before31196.0322638.064405
Weight After31189.0645235.934139

Hypothesis test results:
DifferenceMeanStd. Err.DFT-StatP-value
Weight Before - Weight After6.96774191.5654082304.45107020.0001
Differences stored in column, Differences.

Conclusion:

Since the p-value obtained was 0.0001, I would reject the null hypothesis (HO) based on a 0.05 significance level, being that the p-value was less than 0.05 (0.00001<p-value<0.0005). There is sufficient evidence to conclude that the true average difference between the subjects’ weights before and after the 8-week program does not equal zero. Relating back to the 95% confidence interval, both statistical procedures determined that the 8-week weight loss program showed a significant difference between the 31 individuals’ weights before and after the study. Possible issues that may have affected the validity of the experiment include measurement errors and biases such as volunteer bias/social desirability bias. The data collected may have varied by whether the subjects observed were compensated for their time participating in the study and whether the subjects tended to state their weights to what is socially acceptable. To improve study procedures, each individual should be determined to perform the 8-week program with no extrinsic rewards and should be able to track their diets/workouts daily.

HTML link:
<A href="https://www.statcrunch.com/5.0/viewreport.php?reportid=68702">Nutrition and Weight Loss</A>

Comments
Want to comment? Subscribe
Already a member? Sign in.

Always Learning