4 ms·

"recommending we throw out any pretensions of objectivity or science or knowledge in favor of "do what you feel"." Not so. Mental agility, weight, blood press

by marze 13y ago

"recommending we throw out any pretensions of objectivity or science or knowledge in favor of "do what you feel"." Not so. Mental agility, weight, blood pressure are all easy and inexpensive to track. A person's perception of how well they slept, overall feeling of well being, etc., can also be tracked if they are careful to quantify and record them. I think you underestimate the power of carefully recorded data, which is at the core of the quantified self movement.

obstacle1 13y ago
Here is what you said earlier: >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. The above directly contradicts your most recent reply, since it obviously precludes the possibility of any meaningful quantification. "Screw the tests, you'll know" is precisely the opposite of objective analysis. We'll know what? Nothing objective, that's for sure. Since you appear to be arguing both for and against quantified self-style living in this thread, I can't help but wonder what your angle is. Are you actually just arguing for Soylent? Your position makes no sense, but you're enthusiastically defending the product, and you've done it in prior threads about Soylent, too.
- marze 13y ago
  I'm not arguing for Soylent, but arguing that people should personally test out low-risk dietary changes and see for themselves if they help. Many argue against Soylent by arguing that we need some careful studies before anyone should try it. I think that is overkill for a food product like Soylent. As for how to tell if Soylent or anything else is helping you, big changes should be obvious, smaller changes would require careful quantified-self style tracking to detect. Sorry if I wasn't more clear, but by obscure test I'm referring to blood work and other harder to interpret tests. Easy to interpret tests are reaction time, weight, fast arithmetic tests for mental agility, as well as recording qualitative feelings of health quantitatively, in a consistent and rigorous manner. Edit: As for this article on the Soylent trial, my take was it had "some promising initial signs given the short duration of the trial". Hardly blind enthusiasm.
kybernetikos 13y ago
Often, a strong expectation that a person will do well on a particular regime is enough to cause that person to do well on that particular regime. And I'm talking about measurable, physical changes. I'd like to see some proper triple-blind studies involving people who haven't strongly invested themselves in the outcome.

by marze 13y ago

obstacle1 13y ago

Here is what you said earlier: >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. The above directly contradicts your most recent reply, since it obviously precludes the possibility of any meaningful quantification. "Screw the tests, you'll know" is precisely the opposite of objective analysis. We'll know what? Nothing objective, that's for sure. Since you appear to be arguing both for and against quantified self-style living in this thread, I can't help but wonder what your angle is. Are you actually just arguing for Soylent? Your position makes no sense, but you're enthusiastically defending the product, and you've done it in prior threads about Soylent, too.

marze 13y ago
I'm not arguing for Soylent, but arguing that people should personally test out low-risk dietary changes and see for themselves if they help. Many argue against Soylent by arguing that we need some careful studies before anyone should try it. I think that is overkill for a food product like Soylent. As for how to tell if Soylent or anything else is helping you, big changes should be obvious, smaller changes would require careful quantified-self style tracking to detect. Sorry if I wasn't more clear, but by obscure test I'm referring to blood work and other harder to interpret tests. Easy to interpret tests are reaction time, weight, fast arithmetic tests for mental agility, as well as recording qualitative feelings of health quantitatively, in a consistent and rigorous manner. Edit: As for this article on the Soylent trial, my take was it had "some promising initial signs given the short duration of the trial". Hardly blind enthusiasm.

kybernetikos 13y ago

Often, a strong expectation that a person will do well on a particular regime is enough to cause that person to do well on that particular regime. And I'm talking about measurable, physical changes. I'd like to see some proper triple-blind studies involving people who haven't strongly invested themselves in the outcome.