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. > Ro

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.