The problem is that many of these things aren't "backed by science", but instead are "suggested to have a possible link to greater outcomes by small studies that establish a need for more research into the subject". He often takes a single paper that suggests a link and says "great! I'll do that every day from now on, on top of everything else I do."
Beyond the fact that he is an n of 1, him taking on 20+ of these strategies at the same time makes any positive or negative outcomes that he experiences uninterpretable as a case study.
Let's say he sees an improvement in his blood tests from month a to month b. Was that because of supplement X? Supplement Y? Because he slept more? Because he exercised more? Because he used Z machine? You'd never know.
Science needs replication and controlled variables. He is doing neither.
I mean does something have to be 100% backed by all experts to be valid to do? Does it need 100% certified and guaranteed helpful for it to be worth doing?
Hes just taking things that may be helpful. Is he claiming to be a control study or is he just saying, this might be helpful ima try it.
Why is the expectation of this random guy to be a controlled case study? I dont live my life that way, im assuming youre not living your life as a controlled case study either
I cant seem to find that. All I am seeing is hin post about the things he does and the results. And then making a supplement company and podcast.
Maybe some advice isnt actually useful, but doesnt seem to actually be doing anything wrong or bad as far as I can tell.
Ive seen him say hes am experiment of trying to optimize a bunch of things health wise, but where does he say he is a valid study for any individual thing?
But then that contradicts the point you made earlier... (paraphrasing you) "it doesn't need to be done in a controlled lab environment by qualified scientists to be sciency." ... I mean, clearly what this guy does isn't sciency in that sense.
Okay, maybe he never has overtly claimed to be a valid controlled case study or anything - acknowledged - but the fact that he sells supplements makes me suspicious.
I meant as what he does to be backed by science doesnt mean he himself has to be a controlled experiment.
Hes a dude who's weird about health and wants to document the process and results. But he doesnt owe it to anyone to be a study in an individual factor.
Maybe his supplements suck, I personally wouldnt think any benefit if not 0 is worth the costs. But even that isnt any worse than any influencer or YouTuber who starts a snack brand
But even that isnt any worse than any influencer or YouTuber who starts a snack brand
I agree... and most of those people also deserve to be hit upside the head with a shovel a few times. (Mind you, I wouldn't do that, nor advocate for it, nor help anyone else do it, but it is what they deserve.)
4
u/BangarangRufio Jul 06 '26
The problem is that many of these things aren't "backed by science", but instead are "suggested to have a possible link to greater outcomes by small studies that establish a need for more research into the subject". He often takes a single paper that suggests a link and says "great! I'll do that every day from now on, on top of everything else I do."
Beyond the fact that he is an n of 1, him taking on 20+ of these strategies at the same time makes any positive or negative outcomes that he experiences uninterpretable as a case study.
Let's say he sees an improvement in his blood tests from month a to month b. Was that because of supplement X? Supplement Y? Because he slept more? Because he exercised more? Because he used Z machine? You'd never know.
Science needs replication and controlled variables. He is doing neither.