5 ms·
Thanks for the response. I do think there is a big difference between routine checks of a mole and daily quantifying of a biometric signal that is of questionab
by janice1999 2y ago
Thanks for the response. I do think there is a big difference between routine checks of a mole and daily quantifying of a biometric signal that is of questionable use outside elite sports or specific illnesses. My point about nocebos is that people can take data, knowledge of potential side-effects for example, and cause themselves ill effects by worrying about them. I can easily imagine some of my friends checking their perfectly healthy but noisy glucose levels and worrying that there is something wrong. I guess it's about mindset (mostly curiosity?) for self-quantifiers.
- vineyardmike 2y agoOh yes, continuous glucose monitoring is totally overkill for most people. I just wanted to try it out because it’s a hobby. But yearly blood work or similar should be fine for anyone who wants it IMO. Well, anything that is measuring-only I think should be available to anyone who wants it TBH. I think you need to go in with the right perspective, and I think the setting of doctors only offering tests when there is something wrong sets the tone that they catch dangerous things. Imagine if blood testing were available at gyms (not a suggestion, just an example) - the data would be viewed very differently. Imagine if doctors’ offices had treadmills, you’d view exercise very differently too. If your X metric is a bit outside of a normal range, it doesn’t mean you’re going to die or you can’t handle some biological function (generally). It means it may be more strenuous for your body, or you’re predisposed to issues when something else goes wrong, or your body is simply a bit outside “normal”. It’s like someone who is really tall - being tall is “not normal” but it’s generally recognized as not deadly, despite the reality that certain health issues are correlated with abnormal height.