3 ms·

Again, my first paragraph is: > I'm all for people having the freedom to eat whatever they want and I really like the quantified self aspect of seeing how diet

Again, my first paragraph is: > I'm all for people having the freedom to eat whatever they want and I really like the quantified self aspect of seeing how diet affects how they feel and metrics of health, but I have to say the author grossly does not understand the medical tests he had done and misinterprets the data. I'm not going to comment on the drink, but rather on his misunderstanding of medicine. I'm not trying to refute what he says about how he feels, whether that saves him money, or his mental ability - those aren't my areas of expertise. I do know a little about medical tests, and I think it's valid to point out that he clearly does not and how the results he reports are either incorrect or irrelevant. I'm just suggesting you shouldn't consider his medical tests in deciding how good this product is. I have no horse in this race, but I'll tell you if this racetrack is not standard regulation. Self experimentation might be useful, but only if you understand the metrics you measure and whether it's stochastic noise or meaningful results.

marze 13y ago
"Self experimentation might be useful, but only if you understand the metrics you measure and whether its stochastic noise or meaningful results." I feel you miss the whole point of self experimentation. If your aim is for improved mental function, more energy, less health problems, etc., you don't need to know how to interpret any obscure tests. You'll know. A low-risk food product (such as this) can simply be trialed in a n=1 trial. If the results are positive, great. If not, go back to what you were doing before. All the studies in the world only suggest how something might work for you. It is only the n=1 test that matters.
- nonchalance 13y ago
  > If your aim is for improved mental function, more energy, less health problems, etc., you don't need to know how to interpret any obscure tests. You'll know. Perception is different from reality, as exemplified by an Apple anecdote: http://www.asktog.com/TOI/toi06KeyboardVMouse1.html http://www.asktog.com/TOI/toi06KeyboardVMouse1.html We’ve done a cool $50 million of R & D on the Apple Human Interface. We discovered, among other things, two pertinent facts: - Test subjects consistently report that keyboarding is faster than mousing. - The stopwatch consistently proves mousing is faster than keyboarding. This contradiction between user-experience and reality apparently forms the basis for many user/developers’ belief that the keyboard is faster.
  - marze 13y ago
    No doubt people can misjudge things. With health changes, I think it is often easier to see changes in the negative direction, like the author when he stopped the soylent trial. If the changes are great enough in magnitude to be obvious, then you know you're on to something. Also, measures like weight and computer mental agility tests can be quite reliable if you are consistent in your testing, and they aren't subject to misinterpretation or wishful thinking. Edit: Below, skore is skeptical that a person can notice a significant change to their own health. I respectfully disagree. Check out the blog of Seth Roberts. He is a professor who is involved in the quantified self movement. He records many subjective measures qualitatively, and feels he has made some significant discoveries doing so. I won't try to summarize anything here, but anyone interested can read for themselves on his blog. Roberts studies rats, and he is the ultimate human rat.
    - skore 13y ago
      > then you know you're on to something No, no you don't. That's the whole point of doing scientific experiments. Your brain is very, very, extremely bad at judging objectively. Any subjective "test" is simply no test at all. > Also, numbers like weight and computer mental agility tests also can be quite reliable if you are consistent in your testing... That's a pretty big 'if', plus a 'can' and a 'quite'. > ...and they aren't subject to misinterpretation or wishful thinking That's the whole point of the OT in this discussion thread. They very much clearly are subject to misinterpretation. A zillion factors can impact weight and "mental agility". People aren't lab rats because they don't live in labs and aren't rats.
    - skore 13y ago
      Responding to the edit: > Below, skore is skeptical that a person can notice a significant change to their own health. Yes, a point which still stands. > Roberts studies rats, and he is the ultimate human rat. No, Robert might be the ultimate rat conducting experiments on himself. He cannot be his own lab rat, he can only be running his own asylum. > He records many subjective measures qualitatively, and feels he has made some significant discoveries doing so. That sums it up perfectly. I suppose all this boils down to is whether you want your science science-y or feel-y. I prefer the science science. Because while I trust them in many things, I don't trust human emotions when making important decisions that are supposed to influence millions over millions of other humans. I don't know Seth Roberts and I hope I don't come across as overly disrespectful. I'm not saying that it's impossible to make scientific discoveries this way. The problem is that any discovery you make is N=1 and as far away from a double-blind trial as it can be. So this might be an important tool to pre-select what you want to concentrate your actual science on. But as with the Soylent stuff, I would never in a million years base my own health decisions on some quantified self guy on the internet.
- rsynnott 13y ago
  > you don't need to know how to interpret any obscure tests. You'll know. You mean like the people who take homeopathic 'medicine'? They know. They're wrong, but they know.
- homosaur 13y ago
  This right here is how patent medicines and the like continue to sell. Placebo is powerful.

marze 13y ago

"Self experimentation might be useful, but only if you understand the metrics you measure and whether its stochastic noise or meaningful results." I feel you miss the whole point of self experimentation. If your aim is for improved mental function, more energy, less health problems, etc., you don't need to know how to interpret any obscure tests. You'll know. A low-risk food product (such as this) can simply be trialed in a n=1 trial. If the results are positive, great. If not, go back to what you were doing before. All the studies in the world only suggest how something might work for you. It is only the n=1 test that matters.

nonchalance 13y ago
> If your aim is for improved mental function, more energy, less health problems, etc., you don't need to know how to interpret any obscure tests. You'll know. Perception is different from reality, as exemplified by an Apple anecdote: http://www.asktog.com/TOI/toi06KeyboardVMouse1.html http://www.asktog.com/TOI/toi06KeyboardVMouse1.html We’ve done a cool $50 million of R & D on the Apple Human Interface. We discovered, among other things, two pertinent facts: - Test subjects consistently report that keyboarding is faster than mousing. - The stopwatch consistently proves mousing is faster than keyboarding. This contradiction between user-experience and reality apparently forms the basis for many user/developers’ belief that the keyboard is faster.
- marze 13y ago
  No doubt people can misjudge things. With health changes, I think it is often easier to see changes in the negative direction, like the author when he stopped the soylent trial. If the changes are great enough in magnitude to be obvious, then you know you're on to something. Also, measures like weight and computer mental agility tests can be quite reliable if you are consistent in your testing, and they aren't subject to misinterpretation or wishful thinking. Edit: Below, skore is skeptical that a person can notice a significant change to their own health. I respectfully disagree. Check out the blog of Seth Roberts. He is a professor who is involved in the quantified self movement. He records many subjective measures qualitatively, and feels he has made some significant discoveries doing so. I won't try to summarize anything here, but anyone interested can read for themselves on his blog. Roberts studies rats, and he is the ultimate human rat.
  - skore 13y ago
    > then you know you're on to something No, no you don't. That's the whole point of doing scientific experiments. Your brain is very, very, extremely bad at judging objectively. Any subjective "test" is simply no test at all. > Also, numbers like weight and computer mental agility tests also can be quite reliable if you are consistent in your testing... That's a pretty big 'if', plus a 'can' and a 'quite'. > ...and they aren't subject to misinterpretation or wishful thinking That's the whole point of the OT in this discussion thread. They very much clearly are subject to misinterpretation. A zillion factors can impact weight and "mental agility". People aren't lab rats because they don't live in labs and aren't rats.
  - skore 13y ago
    Responding to the edit: > Below, skore is skeptical that a person can notice a significant change to their own health. Yes, a point which still stands. > Roberts studies rats, and he is the ultimate human rat. No, Robert might be the ultimate rat conducting experiments on himself. He cannot be his own lab rat, he can only be running his own asylum. > He records many subjective measures qualitatively, and feels he has made some significant discoveries doing so. That sums it up perfectly. I suppose all this boils down to is whether you want your science science-y or feel-y. I prefer the science science. Because while I trust them in many things, I don't trust human emotions when making important decisions that are supposed to influence millions over millions of other humans. I don't know Seth Roberts and I hope I don't come across as overly disrespectful. I'm not saying that it's impossible to make scientific discoveries this way. The problem is that any discovery you make is N=1 and as far away from a double-blind trial as it can be. So this might be an important tool to pre-select what you want to concentrate your actual science on. But as with the Soylent stuff, I would never in a million years base my own health decisions on some quantified self guy on the internet.
rsynnott 13y ago
> you don't need to know how to interpret any obscure tests. You'll know. You mean like the people who take homeopathic 'medicine'? They know. They're wrong, but they know.
homosaur 13y ago
This right here is how patent medicines and the like continue to sell. Placebo is powerful.