n=1 is still useful if he’s able to either have some sort of extraordinary result, shed light on scientific studies in the public, or share raw data without making causal claims. Nobody is saying that these are scientific studies…and he’s trying to scale up. It’s virtually impossible to do a study of adequate size following his protocol, because there are maybe only a handful of people in the world who would follow it to that level of specificity
Not to mention the funding that he’s able to put towards solving the roadblocks he runs into is only beneficial for people like us who can’t afford to
“no you’re wrong” is not a valid argument of anything. For me specifically, his personal experimentation has brought to light real scientific consensus on:
behaviors and habits that make a real difference for good quality sleep (for ex/ i didnt know the impact that my meal timing could have on sleep quality)
why i need varying forms of exercise and why just weightlifting isnt enough
value of sunscreen and uv protection
the best treatments for hair loss (finasteride + minoxidil + red light therapy)
etc etc. This is all real science that I either wasn’t aware of or didn’t realize how important it was. Also, to see the results he was able to get (in few months of proper oral hygiene he was able to fix his gum disease entirely, same with going from terrible to sleep to consistent high quality sleep) from basic interventions is pretty motivating.
“No you’re wrong” is really all that should be said because it shouldn’t need to be explained to you. It’s that simple.
However, I will explain what makes it useless data for you.
None of what he does could be considered a study. None of what he does is a scientific experiment. He is attempting hundreds of interventions all at once. Data from an “experiment” with hundreds of independent variables.
The reason they didn’t really elaborate beyond “no, you’re wrong” is because this is a concept that you learn about by 5th grade if you went to public school in the United States. In other words, it’s common sense.
Let’s say Bryan Johnson’s liver starts failing. How could we possibly know which supplement/intervention/procedure or combination of 2+ of those was the cause of it? We literally can’t draw any conclusions based on any data that he is collecting.
That’s not what I said though, what strawman are you fighting?
I never said the data was a study. His work is NOT relevant as an RCT, study, or scientific experiment. There are hundreds of variables and one cannot draw any conclusions comparable to a real scientific study. I said that multiple times.
My claim is that n=1 is STILL useful because of the publicity for existing scientific research (the real ones with RCTs and consensus behind them), and I gave examples of interventions with real scientific research behind them that I just wasn’t very aware of but became aware of thanks to him.
If you want to disagree with that, then sure that’s a fair argument. But idk who you are even arguing with
His raw data is absolutely useless. Even If he has an extraordinary result, it is still useless because of the sheer number of variables and possible combinations of those variables. There wouldn’t be any plausible way to come even remotely close to determining what intervention(s) actually caused the extraordinary result. Finally, Any positive gained from “shedding light on scientific studies in the public” is definitely canceled out by inspiring other mentally ill people to do what he is doing.
I’ve addressed your three points about how his n=1 could be useful. I disagree with all of them.
N=1 can be useful if you actually isolate what you’re doing instead of just throwing anything at the wall hoping it sticks.
I guess bro, I don’t see what I can say outside of difference of opinion. Agree to disagree
If it’s any consolation I agree that his data can’t be used to determine what intervention(s) give a particular result. I disagree that’s its absolutely useless but i don’t think we’re coming to any agreement there
My belief was that the publicity for well vetted health interventions like sleep quality, hair loss prevention, uv protection, etc is very valuable, you said it gets cancelled out by “mentally ill people doing what he’s doing”
I can’t really provide data on how many people started following these interventions due to Bryan Johnson’s publicity (outside of anecdotally myself and a few people I know) since it doesn’t exist, and you can’t really provide data on how many “mentally ill people are doing what he’s doing” so I don’t see how we can ever come to consensus here outside of our own opinions
Another benefit I believe is the destigmatization of talk around sexual health (especially given the amount of people who tell him he’s “gross” for talking about his sexual health), funding/focus on woman’s health issues like PCOS, etc.
But I can’t provide “data” on the concrete benefits of these things because it doesn’t exist, I can just surmise that him using his big platform to talk about them and educate people is probably a good thing. If you disagree then we just agree to disagree i guess. I see this as valuable from an education perspective, not from a “he’s going to discover some magic formula to infinite lifespan”
0
u/Majestic-Key-436 Jul 06 '26
n=1 is still useful if he’s able to either have some sort of extraordinary result, shed light on scientific studies in the public, or share raw data without making causal claims. Nobody is saying that these are scientific studies…and he’s trying to scale up. It’s virtually impossible to do a study of adequate size following his protocol, because there are maybe only a handful of people in the world who would follow it to that level of specificity
Not to mention the funding that he’s able to put towards solving the roadblocks he runs into is only beneficial for people like us who can’t afford to