My N=1 got me off 100 units of insulin a day in 4 shots, BP medicine and diabetic medicine. Not to mention losing 100 pounds that I did not need. Lost the knee and back pain. That was over 5 years ago. Got my active life back. John
Healthy people are those who live in healthy homes on a healthy diet; in an environment equally fit for birth, growth, work, healing, and dying... Healthy people need no bureaucratic interference to mate, give birth, share the human condition and die." Ivan Dominic Illich
You're challenging the power hierarchy of the "experts" so it's not a surprise that there are some haters. I'd expect efforts to smear your character and question your credibility coming shortly after. You're promoting logical thinking for the layman and a self-reliance that threatens the power dynamic of the "elitist". And I'm here for it. Stay curious Nick!
My n=1 science experiment began at the age of 72 when the doctor uttered the words ‘pre-diabetes’. With research, the Standard American Diet was identified as the root cause of my obesity and so a strict ketogenic diet was adopted. Within 3 months my HbA1C dropped from 6.7 to 5.2 and weight dropped effortlessly. Now at the venerable age of +77 my weight is 65 lbs (30kg) lower, with no oral meds. A very successful experiment!
1000s of N=1 anecdotes are far more informative than 1000s of pieces of data of an epidemiological study asking what people 'may' have eaten in the last year.
This may seem reasonable at face value, but it is not accurate. Once you start collating 1000 case reports to draw a conclusion, you have an N=1000 observational study. Not a case controlled science trial, and very much the same as an epidemiological study.
@@jack_batterson Certainly I agree they may not be any more accurate but they will at least be more informative about their different stories that may resonate with others with similar symptoms and suggest possible remedies/treatment etc. I'd suggest some bright enterprising spark starting a web site broken down into a variety of ailments, symptoms,etc and opening it up to N=1s. As it is N=1s are scattered all round the internet and seen by few people who may be interested about other people with similar medical problems and how they tried to fix them. There may already be such a site but I have never seen it.
Even if it's 1000, no one can recall what they they ate last year - most can't remember last week! Come onnnn! Also, let's be real: most of those studies are bias and cannot be replicated when people try them on themselves. This is why people are getting excited about this: they hear about it, try it, it does what it says it would. If it didn't, they'd stop doing it and complain. Simple.
I am a classic outlier. Some statistics, yes, I fit neatly into. Average height, weight, shoe size, blah, blah, etc. Important health stuff, including how much anesthesia I can tolerate in surgery…I have to spend time advocating for my N=1 tolerance so the professionals don’t OD me. My first experiment on myself, after a small heart issue, was to take a 30-day challenge to remove sugar from my diet. The results were miraculous!
From a guy interested in “root cause analysis” (yea a retired engineer, big Dave Feldman fan) thank you Nick for your work attempting to drag medical research into the light…
This really is the only way to go. I just had to stop animal based keto at 9 weeks (from a 12 week experiment) because of tendon pain from crazy high LDL. I discovered I'm a Hyperresponder, I discovered I can't tolerate high LDL. (My HDL and Tri stayed normal). This is INVALUABLE! I can now speak from actual experience. So when I heal with plants, it will not be guessing. In that 9 weeks of animal based keto though, I lost 6 pounds, eliminated sugar headaches, arthritis, moodiness, etc., but yea, tendon pain... It's a thing. Thank you for showing us what we can do for ourselves and our health. 😊
Interesting. Can you please cite a paper? I only found research showing this issue with BMI >70. That’s a very big person with huge stresses on their tendons, totally different than a LMHR with a BMI
The pushback against N=1 science is principally the same as the pushback against individual access to the Bible → scientists and priests sought to preserve their power and prestige as gatekeepers to "knowing".
@nicknorwitzPhD The parallels are striking. The Catholic church was adamantly against translating the Bible into languages other than Latin because, as time passed, fewer and fewer people could read Latin. That meant more and more power to "know" and interpret was put into the hands of the "certified experts" of religion (priests). Similarly, many in acedemia and science actively produce texts that might as well be in ancient Latin based on how difficult it is for the common person to read, understand, and interpret the content. Producing dense, jargon-riddled, impenetrable texts is almost like a point of pride for the "certified experts" in science. Access to understanding religious knowledge was gatekept by "certified experts" based on making texts unreadable by the common person. Access to understanding "the science" is gatekept by "certified experts" based on making the texts unreadable by the common person. Elitism, gatekeeping, power, money.
The mechanism of the human organism is the same for 99.9% of us. The parameters for that organism is different in each individual. This is not each individual being different. The mechanism is the same, but that mechanism has millions of "tunable" parameters and those are all adjusted slightly differently. The goal of any global model is to model the mechanism, not a specific instance in time of that mechanism. That said, N=1 is absolutely useful to one individual at one period of time as it can allow developnent of a useful "instance model" that can make accutate predictions over a relatively small set of pertinent inputs over some temporal scope. This doesn't mean we should abandon N={some large value} studies, but those studies need to he properly done science (i.e. in service of either data collection to support development of a hypothesis or testing a hypothesis of mechanism) and the medical community needs to learn to recognize the difference and not improperly cite studies intended to aid in developing hypothesis as if they are the type intended to *test* hypothesis (the latter being the type that substantiates mechanism). To cite studies improperly, is *not* science (and is all too frequent in the medical field).
I was curious about Macadamia Nut Butter (inspired by you) and gave it a try last week. My n=1 experiment got top marks for taste and scrumptiousness but I concluded that zero fibre conferred a greater benefit. 6 months Keto/7 months Carnivore. And the now predictable, but amazing: "got my life back"
Keep up the great content! I think the US and the world is in health revolution and some “scientists” don’t like it! The more i read and listen to podcast and youtube videos the clearer it has become that what we are eating and doing is hurting us as a species. My N=1 experience was I had been on a big calorie deficit and working out to lose weight but i was eating chicken fingers, fries, snacks and other processed foods and i could barely lose weight. This year i focused on what I was eating and weight has fell off almost too fast. Down 27lbs this year and it’s all thanks to eating organic beef, chicken, eggs, cooking my own whole potatoes and avoiding oils, high fructose corn syrup and other processed foods. Sure i occasionally snack or have fast food but it is less than 1-2 times a month. I am having to keep upping my calories to try and maintain my weight. So keep up the interesting experiments and videos and thanks for being a voice for the citizen scientists!
As a type one diabetic..I do this all the time. make slight adjustments to my insulin to get time in range etc..as close to 100 percent time in range..there is no way my doc can tell me exactly how much to take.. each person is different. And my needs vary a bit from day to day and over time. Stay curious everyone
I was told 17 years ago when I was diagnosed with Hashimoto's that I would have to take thyroid supplements for the rest of my life, and that there were suspicions of what caused it but nothing they could say definitively. Up until late last year I have watched the dose creep up. I have been reducing my medication doing nothing else but eating a whole foods, mainly animal based diet. This included cutting out all seed oils and processed foods that are loaded up with a bunch of chemicals that are the real drivers of disorders and chronic disease conditions (including restaurant meals that are just as bad as the commercial stuff you buy in the grocery store) plus going organic. I have had 3 medication reductions so far and another 2 to go before I can hopefully get off medication entirely.
My N=1, 3 years battle from 400lbs to 185lbs, first Vegetarian then Mediterranean keto then Carnivore. All while learning more about my body and mind in 3 years than I had in 30.
We are all citizen scientists. As a someone with a rare cancer and a community of fellows, we are all conducting n of one studies and sharing outcomes. One friend with palatal mucosal melanoma has discovered the power of a high phenolic olive oil, a clean low carb diet, and opdualog on preserving her quality of life while eliminating the cancer. There are many motivations but health is clearly an important measure of success….
Lol I've been doing N=1 science on myself and my family for decades now. I trained as a biochemist so it came naturally to me. After the Covid debacle, whatever small faith I had left in institutional "science" is completely gone. I'm in my late 60s now, down 70 pounds from my highest weight, in great physical shape, and you'd envy my blood work if you saw it. I did one of those biological age calculators and apparently I'm functioning like a 32 year old. I expect to live for decades more, if I don't get hit by a truck along the way. I eat mostly organic and very low carb, take tons of supplements, exercise 4-5 times a week. You can do it too!
I think the only real argument against N = 1 science would be the placebo or nocebo effect and being sure you can tell that your results come from what you're doing. Isn't that the whole purpose of double-blinding an experiment after all? Double-blinded, randomized, controlled trials can be crazy expensive, though, and we'll never be able to do enough of those for long enough periods of time.
I guess these defensive critics don't get N=1 true power. If they where to read the comments of this video they would see N=1 experiments where people solved health problems by finding what works for them. Just from these comments, there are stories of people improving their health. It should make them curious what are the mechanisms at play. To just dismiss what someone has experienced rather than trying to understand the why just cases them to shut down. As a industrial technician I always listen to what the machine operators said, often it would not make sense or sounds impossible. But as I dove deeper into the system it would start to make sense and boom a solution.
"As an industrial technician", I have also experienced an attitude of superiority and even contempt from MDs I have consulted for gastrointestinal issues whenever I kept pushing to find the root cause rather than just accepting a treatment for symptoms. We know from experience in our own jobs how just making symptoms less noticeable without resolving their cause never turns out well in the end. .
This channel is incredibly important and I’m glad it’s getting so much attention. Scrolling through TikTok there is a lot of appeal to authority and straight misinformation among many so called nutritionists, dieticians and fitness influencers. Their whole argument is look at these meta analysis papers and dismissing any other evidence that doesn’t support their bias. The whole eat whatever you want as long as it’s under you daily calorie needs is getting old and is in most cases dangerous advice. Thank you for your efforts and enthusiasm for experimentation.
Prof. Christopher Gardner conducted a locked metabolic ward study comparing calorie controlled Mediterranean diet to a calorie controlled ketogenic diet. They got identical results in both groups. Some people lost a lot of weight, most people lost one or two pounds a week(which is what the diets were designed to do) and a few poor slobs in BOTH cohorts gained weight like champs. My doctors had me on a calorie controlled Mediterranean diet for YEARS and I continued to gain weight. I actually had one R.D. say, "You're delusional, you have no idea what you're stuffing in your fat face." That is an accurate quote, it is branded deep in my traumatised brain. Patient blaming is an ugly thing. I'm just the poor slob that gains weight on a Mediterranean diet. I switched to a high-protein ketogenic diet, lost 200+ pounds, along with my 24/7 oxygen feed, my CPAP device, four insulin shots per day, high blood pressure medication, liver support medication, thyroid medication, and oral hypoglycaemic medication. I just wish I'd had the courage of my convictions earlier. Perhaps I could have avoided diabetic retinopathy (I only have 20% vision remaining to me in one eye). On the National Weight Loss Registry (a data base of people who have lost 30+ pounds and kept it off for over year) the stories are all over the map. People have succeeded with carnivore, Keto, vegan (even vegan keto), calorie counting, primal eating, anti-inflammatory diets; every diet you can think of has worked for somebody. There is so much individual variability that N of 1 experimentation is the ONLY path to success!
Another great video expressing how a lot of us feel but in a more polished way. That is what I hope the n=1 topic can be like in the future. We need more individuals doing the same thing to better their health but taken seriously by the rest of the medical community and supported with objective tests and curiosity by medical experts. Thanks again Nick and bless you on your important work.
My parents and I are practically a case study. They both eat the standard modern diet with all the starches, grains, vegetables and plant oils and moderate meats with more of an emphasis on white meat and fish. My father has heart disease and diabetes and mother has been overweight much of her adult life until she recently pivoted more toward low carb and animal foods. Me? I was on a similar path while subsisting on processed junk foods and the same sorts of foods my father eats now and was obese by 13-14. Now at nearly 30 I'm visible abs and veiny biceps lean, with an athletic resting HR, normal range blood pressure and a good hip to waist ratio. No diabetes, obesity or heart disease in sight. I eat carnivore most of the time and just make exceptions when I'm socializing during the weekends. Beat my supposed "genetics".
I'll provide a detailed explanation of N=1 science, which is an important concept in research methodology. N=1 science refers to a research approach that focuses on studying a single individual or subject in depth, rather than using large sample sizes typical in traditional scientific research. Here are the key characteristics: 1. Definition - N=1 represents a single case or subject of study - It involves intensive, detailed observation and analysis of one specific instance or individual - The research concentrates on understanding unique characteristics, processes, or variations within that single unit 2. Key Features - Emphasizes individual variation and unique characteristics - Allows for highly personalized and detailed exploration - Often used in fields like: - Medical case studies - Psychological research - Personalized medicine - Rare disease investigations - Behavioral and cognitive studies 3. Methodology - Involves comprehensive, longitudinal tracking - Uses multiple data collection methods - Focuses on detailed documentation and analysis - May include qualitative and quantitative approaches - Seeks to generate deep insights about the specific subject 4. Strengths - Provides in-depth understanding of individual experiences - Useful for exploring rare or unique phenomena - Can generate hypotheses for future research - Valuable in contexts where large sample sizes are difficult to obtain 5. Limitations - Findings may not be generalizable - High risk of bias - Limited statistical power - Difficult to draw broad conclusions While N=1 science has specific constraints, it remains a valuable approach in certain research contexts, particularly when studying unique or complex individual cases.
Keep doing what you're doing. If anyone is claiming something is 100% causal and any one person can show that isn't true for them then that case study needs explored. And at some point it's not n=1 anymore if multiple people are reporting the same thing or able to reproduce the same outcome. Yet people would rather bury their heads in the sand and ignore that data because they're so invested in the current paradigm. I suppose at least we should be thankful we aren't accused of being heretics and burned at the stake. If Einstein had never just personally questioned our knowledge of gravity we wouldn't be where we are today. Stay curious.
Another reason N=1 is critical; the “Entourage Effect”. There are no, and there will never be any, human randomized control trials on the effects of combining 4-dozen different supplements, dietary interventions and exercise protocols to determine which works best for you. Two many variables, way too expensive. The Entourage Effect recognizes that throughout nature multiple “molecules” combine to produce unique effects only in tandem that are not necessarily predicted by the individual known qualities of each molecule on a stand-alone basis. Since the existence of both beneficial and detrimental entourage effects are very real, but no large human studies can realistically be conducted to determine which is more or less beneficial to individuals with differing genetics, age ranges, gender, maladies, exercise or lifestyles, the ONLY way to determine what works best for a given individual is N=1.
As who knows who really said: "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results." There is so much outdated ineffective nutritional recommendations being provided to us by doctor and advisors that stick to the same old stuff... and we already know does it not work for us. So why not try more up-to date approaches by ourselves? :) It might take decade(s) before mainstream picks things up. Why would i have to wait?
Please don’t misinterpret Nick’s message that only anecdote matters because that is not what Nick is saying. N=1 should form part of a holistic approach that includes scientific data.
I am definitely an N=1 person(didn’t realize I was a scientist). I don’t speak on things I didn’t try myself. I didn’t suffer from any debilitating issue that drove my health journey. It has always been aesthetic and performance driven. I have been eating “carnivore” since about 2007 before it was a thing(only difference was it was raw bison with honey and butter). Have been carnivore as we know it today since 2017. My favorite benefits since meat products only is body recomposition, appearance (people always guessed my age as older previously, now it’s the opposite), performance, I no longer get congested when I have a cold and my absolute biggest win, I NO LONGER NEED TO USE DEODORANT. Previous to now my super sweaty armpits would have stunk up the place an hour after bathing if I didn’t use deodorant.
America has the most expensive and least effective (in lifespan) healthcare among most developed countries. Yet the elites of government and medicine want to maintain status quo for power and money. IMO, there is simply no other logical explanation. I am an N=1 success in battling pre diabetes and metabolic disease. And it was not until I took control of my condition beyond my doctor’s desire for me to take more meds. And now, I have the power of the best N=1 by wearing one of the new OTC CGM’s and can see direct results of the foods I eat, exercise, etc.. before Sept 2024, non diabetics could not get a CGM, as docs wouldn’t prescribe them and insurance would not cover them - all because of the FDA overlords protecting us.
I think you forgot the quotation marks on "protecting" us. (What has been protected is the profits of everyone who benefits financially from everybody else being unhealthy.) .
Thank you Nick. N=1 is a way of life for some chronic diseases, like type 1 diabetes. Seems like the big difference between acute and chronic illness is that the former is guided by reaction and the other is addressed with process. it is much more like de-bugging a program.
Science is just a tool to study questions. It doesn't matter how many subjects are included; the key is how to use the results. With N=1 science, you can't generalize the results to other people, which is what people are doing all the time. For example, someone might say, "xxx diet helped me a lot, so everyone should eat xxx diet." Basically, all the online non-scientist creators are reasoning based on their anecdote. I think this point is what other scientists are criticizing. Additionally, N=1 science only exists under N ≥ 30 science. Without N ≥ 30 science, people have no clue what hypothesis to test on themselves, and it could be dangerous to blindly test something. To get a little nerdy, the old guys in academia just can't let go of their frequentist mindset. N is not a problem when you use Bayesian methods for scientific reasoning. Many years ago, computers couldn't handle this kind of computation, but now it is super easy. The old farts just don't want to learn another way of thinking. Keep doing the good work! The old farts definitely feel annoyed!
My primary Dr. is a VA bureaucrat interested in symptom management. So I fell into N=1 medicine out of a desperation for better health. One of the keys I use to test; Is the cure more expensive than the test? So many times, doing the cure and seeing how my body reacts will tell me more than just the test and then occurring the cost the remedy too. Example; I suspected I have a histamine intolerance. The prospects of getting my Dr. to run the tests were far more expensive than testing by taking an antihistamine. Then ordering a supplement called DAO and seeing how my body reacts. Thus eliminating the 'academic' and all the headache that would introduce into my life. Turns out my suspicions were correct.
VA doctors are more controlled by bureaucrats than they should be. Even if they understand things differently their reviews by the "boss" make them too the mark. Like with mine who "needed to" prescribe a statin for me just to keep the boss off his back .. of course I don't take them, they get tossed, this was to keep the him in the good graces of that bureaucrat.
Those who invalidate N=1 where 1 may equal self by definition lack the ability to question their own thought processes. The most important instrument of science, in my opinion, is a properly tuned self.
Yup. Science would probably advance a lot if more people spent time trying to prove themselves wrong instead of trying to ridicule others to defend their position.
While i agree with you on the N=1 science being science, it is important to perform things properly for it to be actual science. That includes proper sample sizes, variable eliminations methods and insuring you're not actually harming or endagering yourself by expermients that could potentially kill you.
No one I know endorsing n=1 is suggesting citizens can do everything--I wouldn't know a saturated fat from an unsaturated one, even if I could borrow an electron microscope and figure out how to turn it on--but they are suggesting you can operate in the realm of shared information and improve your health by trial and error. As long as you don't over-claim what you know as a result, you're doing good empirical science.
Nick, a couple of observations. 1. N=1 might also be called an anecdote. But that isn't bad. I understand much of Jungian psychology came from observation of the psychologists own children. 2. Anecdotes are important parts of the scientific process because they are hypothesis generating. 3. Sometimes treatments work for 5% or 50% or 95% of patients. An important question is why some patients react one way and others react differently. 4. Perhaps more fundamentally, I wonder whether in some sciences, like physics, N=1 is not as helpful than in other areas of inquiry, like nutrition science. The speed of a falling object without friction may have a more universal answer than the effect of broccoli on different peoples guts. 5. I wanted to make five points because it is never good to just have four points.
I, as a clinician, examine and treat every patient as N=1. I do not follow an algorithmic protocol that some bureaucrats with no clinical experience, have cobbled together from poor “science” data. Every person is different, albeit similar physiology, but an individual that needs to be assessed as such - otherwise I should be replaced by an AI bot.
Yeah, challenging their dogma may threaten their research $ and status. The $ follow the dogma in many fields of science, and it *seems* many scientists develop a bit of an ego with age. You seem to be relentlessly behind this n=1 cause, I imagine this helps you see those who are curious skeptics versus the ego skeptics etc. Keep up the good work 👍
Some are resistant to developing a toxic ego despite being tremendously accomplished by standard metrics. I admire these people... are they for this way or is it something I their environment that makes them morally resilient?
I don't have a CGM; It would be useful, but I might still need a prescription (hey, I'm in Canada); at least, Levels is not available here. Either way, they cost a bunch of money, and a lot of us have tight budgets! (Sometimes you can get coverage, but only if you're a type 2 diabetic) At the same time, I found a continuous *ketone* meter (CKM), that was not crazy expensive, on the Canadian amazon site. (I was very surprised) It doesn't make sense to wear one all the time, but I hope to gain some insights within the 2-week window, so I can continue to apply these lessons after the meter has expired.
@@nicknorwitzPhD You bet! When I first tested it, versus my smuggled-in Keto-Mojo, it was pretty close. It gave 15% higher values kind of thing. I tested just now (7 days in of 14 total), my CKM show 1.8 mmol/L, and two reading with the Keto-Mojo showed 2.3 and 2.1 mmol/L. So now it's a bit lower. I can see trends, so even if it's not totally precise, I think it has value. At least now I have an idea of what my body is doing overnight!
That's right. And this path is also the only path that can improve our health problem - keyword chronic diseases. No politician can "make America healthy again". The concept from above can only fail if it is not supported at the same time from below. The best thing that politicians can do is to support the grassroots movement as best as possible, which enables people to become the captains of their own health again. Barrier-free access to constant glucose monitors, barrier-free access to keto clinics and advice centers, creating a situation in which the health insurance companies make a profit when patients get healthier and not when they get sicker - that is what politicians can do. Nothing more. The rest has to come from below - and it will come from below.
Doctors do N=1 science all the time. A patient presentscwith certain symptoms - say high blood pressure. The doctor will prescribe a certain medication, say a calcium channel blocker, and ask the patient to come back in three months. If blood pressure is down to normal and the patient has no adverse side effects, all good. If blood pressure is still too high, then maybe an increased dose will be tried, or combination with another drug. If side effects are a problem, a different medication will be prescribed. And so on. Medicine is intrinsically empirical, because although we all have the same systems in our bodies the exact way they interact is different for everyone.
You left out self-absorbed A-holes .. LOL!! Thanks again Nick! Oh, I have a curious question. Today's wheat has many issues and "everyone" stresses to avoid it. Now my question. Einkorn wheat, know as ancient wheat, has a very different composition. And yes I know carbs turn to sugars. BUTT (there is always a butt). If a person were to add (limited) this wheat to their diet is this grain just flat out a bad idea also?
I wouldn't say it's a bad idea. I definitely don't think carbs (or wheat) are bad by virtue of being carbs/wheat. It's about metabolic context and personal sensitivities.
Excellent N=1 breakdown. On a completely unrelated note, why does your microphone have a distracting blue light on it? I can't believe a product like this would be manufactured with a glaring light built into it.
Hey Nick, I have a question that's outside of this video. Im on the carnivore diet for about 2 months, however I broke it a couple of times.My question is this: When not doing much carnivore is very easy to do with 1-2 meals per day and I feel good, however I noticed today when I went into a deeper study session even tho I ate a little ago, I craved a lot more food and carbs at that, what would be to correct move to do in your opinion in this situation whilist maintaining the diet?
I think it might help if you explained how you view the role of n=1 science in the context of science as a whole. For example, I'd be surprised if you wanted to do away with randomised controlled trials altogether.
PS Ralph Steinman's Nobel did not start with n=1 science. It was awarded (posthumously) for his discovery of dendritic cells, well before he was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer.
True science is repeatable. If your N = 1 result is repeatable by others it becomes stronger. A poorly designed and controlled study with 100K subjects and weak associative results is still garbage.
The published studies can inform individual interventions, but at the end of the day the N = 1 is the most powerful for that 1... for most things... not all things...
You're simply blowing up their "I'll rest on my laurels" work/world view. It's a self preservation response wrapped up in their egos. Lashing out, jealousy and assholery ensue. You should feel proud.
There is always some kind of every day N=1 science with my own nutrition journey to a more healthy weight , but one problem I always encounter it's an interpretability of my observations. Do I get it correctly or there is something else at play, I always trying to be more cautious before jumping into conclusions, but it's engineer inside me, other people can step on even on more rakes during this journey.
There are already different lenses through which we can interpret data. That's true for any study. So we draw what conclusions we can, update "the model" and then test it with the next experiment. The more rigor and controls you apply, the faster the process progresses, in general.
Hi Nick, would like to hear your opinions on the "Circulating Ketone Bodies, Pyruvate, and Citrate and Risk of Cognitive Decline, Structural Brain Abnormalities, and Dementia" article on Aging and Desease 11/8 .
@@nicknorwitzPhD He had some interesting (controversial) takes on cellular biology. No expert here, just an auto tech! Thought maybe your open mindedness has come across him. Thanks!
Individual trial and error examples are not science. They are case studies and offer simple observations. You have misrepresented science. I'm a fan of trial and error, but I don't delude myself into thinking I'm employing the scientific method.
We might have to disagree here. Certainly you need some more structure and rigor... but hypothesis -> trail -> data assessment --> new hypothesis etc. is science whether it's applied to 1 Million or 1.
It's a case study if you're trying to build a body of knowledge that applies to the general population. But if you're trying to get data on a population of 1 then it seems more reasonable. If for example a drug is found to be effective in 70% of the population and it's not working for you, the doctor wouldn't tell you well it should because it does for most people when in your own case (n=1) it's not working. Generalizing to the general population is different ballgame. The methods are the same though.
@@nicknorwitzPhD The case of Barry Marshall is a great story. Brilliant. However, there is no control. How do we know his ulcer wasn't caused by the stress of giving himself an infection? Or eating too many Oreos? 😉 His example is a case study which is useful for generating a testable hypothesis. (And, yeah, he deserved a Nobel.) Yes, an N=1 study can be designed (You've done a few 👍), but those should not be confused with rigorous methods for determining cause and effect. At best they demonstrate likely cause and effect for that one case. Which is a lot like trial and error.
My N=1 got me off 100 units of insulin a day in 4 shots, BP medicine and diabetic medicine. Not to mention losing 100 pounds that I did not need. Lost the knee and back pain. That was over 5 years ago. Got my active life back. John
Awesome work! Good for you!
Things that you'll never miss.👍
Healthy people are those who live in healthy homes on a healthy diet; in an environment equally
fit for birth, growth, work, healing, and dying... Healthy people need no bureaucratic interference
to mate, give birth, share the human condition and die." Ivan Dominic Illich
You're challenging the power hierarchy of the "experts" so it's not a surprise that there are some haters. I'd expect efforts to smear your character and question your credibility coming shortly after. You're promoting logical thinking for the layman and a self-reliance that threatens the power dynamic of the "elitist". And I'm here for it. Stay curious Nick!
Logic ... how dare we!
My n=1 science experiment began at the age of 72 when the doctor uttered the words ‘pre-diabetes’. With research, the Standard American Diet was identified as the root cause of my obesity and so a strict ketogenic diet was adopted. Within 3 months my HbA1C dropped from 6.7 to 5.2 and weight dropped effortlessly. Now at the venerable age of +77 my weight is 65 lbs (30kg) lower, with no oral meds. A very successful experiment!
1000s of N=1 anecdotes are far more informative than 1000s of pieces of data of an epidemiological study asking what people 'may' have eaten in the last year.
It's about appropriately matching the question to the methodology and drawing reasonable conclusions based on the data at hand.
This may seem reasonable at face value, but it is not accurate.
Once you start collating 1000 case reports to draw a conclusion, you have an N=1000 observational study. Not a case controlled science trial, and very much the same as an epidemiological study.
@@jack_batterson Certainly I agree they may not be any more accurate but they will at least be more informative about their different stories that may resonate with others with similar symptoms and suggest possible remedies/treatment etc. I'd suggest some bright enterprising spark starting a web site broken down into a variety of ailments, symptoms,etc and opening it up to N=1s. As it is N=1s are scattered all round the internet and seen by few people who may be interested about other people with similar medical problems and how they tried to fix them. There may already be such a site but I have never seen it.
Even if it's 1000, no one can recall what they they ate last year - most can't remember last week! Come onnnn! Also, let's be real: most of those studies are bias and cannot be replicated when people try them on themselves. This is why people are getting excited about this: they hear about it, try it, it does what it says it would. If it didn't, they'd stop doing it and complain. Simple.
@@jack_batterson... But without the manipulating and 'adjusting' of data. Not to mention the funding playing a big role.
N=1 is our best defense against a corrupt medical and pharmacy system. Only you can improve and change yourself. Great job Nick, thanks.
Things certainly need restructuring. Thanks for listening and engaging.
I am a classic outlier. Some statistics, yes, I fit neatly into. Average height, weight, shoe size, blah, blah, etc. Important health stuff, including how much anesthesia I can tolerate in surgery…I have to spend time advocating for my N=1 tolerance so the professionals don’t OD me.
My first experiment on myself, after a small heart issue, was to take a 30-day challenge to remove sugar from my diet. The results were miraculous!
We're all outliers in some respect or another... it's about figuring out what those are
From a guy interested in “root cause analysis” (yea a retired engineer, big Dave Feldman fan) thank you Nick for your work attempting to drag medical research into the light…
This really is the only way to go. I just had to stop animal based keto at 9 weeks (from a 12 week experiment) because of tendon pain from crazy high LDL.
I discovered I'm a Hyperresponder, I discovered I can't tolerate high LDL. (My HDL and Tri stayed normal).
This is INVALUABLE! I can now speak from actual experience. So when I heal with plants, it will not be guessing.
In that 9 weeks of animal based keto though, I lost 6 pounds, eliminated sugar headaches, arthritis, moodiness, etc., but yea, tendon pain... It's a thing.
Thank you for showing us what we can do for ourselves and our health. 😊
Interesting. Can you please cite a paper? I only found research showing this issue with BMI >70. That’s a very big person with huge stresses on their tendons, totally different than a LMHR with a BMI
The pushback against N=1 science is principally the same as the pushback against individual access to the Bible → scientists and priests sought to preserve their power and prestige as gatekeepers to "knowing".
Interesting analogy...
@nicknorwitzPhD The parallels are striking.
The Catholic church was adamantly against translating the Bible into languages other than Latin because, as time passed, fewer and fewer people could read Latin. That meant more and more power to "know" and interpret was put into the hands of the "certified experts" of religion (priests).
Similarly, many in acedemia and science actively produce texts that might as well be in ancient Latin based on how difficult it is for the common person to read, understand, and interpret the content.
Producing dense, jargon-riddled, impenetrable texts is almost like a point of pride for the "certified experts" in science.
Access to understanding religious knowledge was gatekept by "certified experts" based on making texts unreadable by the common person.
Access to understanding "the science" is gatekept by "certified experts" based on making the texts unreadable by the common person.
Elitism, gatekeeping, power, money.
@@Hertz2laugh As a Catholic, i believe your analogy is fairly accurate.
Individual bodies are different, and how each reacts to changes what they eat and how they live. N=1 great topic
The mechanism of the human organism is the same for 99.9% of us. The parameters for that organism is different in each individual. This is not each individual being different. The mechanism is the same, but that mechanism has millions of "tunable" parameters and those are all adjusted slightly differently. The goal of any global model is to model the mechanism, not a specific instance in time of that mechanism. That said, N=1 is absolutely useful to one individual at one period of time as it can allow developnent of a useful "instance model" that can make accutate predictions over a relatively small set of pertinent inputs over some temporal scope.
This doesn't mean we should abandon N={some large value} studies, but those studies need to he properly done science (i.e. in service of either data collection to support development of a hypothesis or testing a hypothesis of mechanism) and the medical community needs to learn to recognize the difference and not improperly cite studies intended to aid in developing hypothesis as if they are the type intended to *test* hypothesis (the latter being the type that substantiates mechanism). To cite studies improperly, is *not* science (and is all too frequent in the medical field).
Thanks. I agree. You'll be seeing more of it.
I was curious about Macadamia Nut Butter (inspired by you) and gave it a try last week. My n=1 experiment got top marks for taste and scrumptiousness but I concluded that zero fibre conferred a greater benefit. 6 months Keto/7 months Carnivore. And the now predictable, but amazing: "got my life back"
"And the now predictable, but amazing: "got my life back" -- happy for you!
Keep up the great content! I think the US and the world is in health revolution and some “scientists” don’t like it! The more i read and listen to podcast and youtube videos the clearer it has become that what we are eating and doing is hurting us as a species. My N=1 experience was I had been on a big calorie deficit and working out to lose weight but i was eating chicken fingers, fries, snacks and other processed foods and i could barely lose weight. This year i focused on what I was eating and weight has fell off almost too fast. Down 27lbs this year and it’s all thanks to eating organic beef, chicken, eggs, cooking my own whole potatoes and avoiding oils, high fructose corn syrup and other processed foods. Sure i occasionally snack or have fast food but it is less than 1-2 times a month. I am having to keep upping my calories to try and maintain my weight. So keep up the interesting experiments and videos and thanks for being a voice for the citizen scientists!
As a type one diabetic..I do this all the time. make slight adjustments to my insulin to get time in range etc..as close to 100 percent time in range..there is no way my doc can tell me exactly how much to take.. each person is different. And my needs vary a bit from day to day and over time. Stay curious everyone
I've gotten my LDL down from 942 to 688 in just under seven months, and the downward trend is continuing. Hoping for the Nobel nomination!
I was told 17 years ago when I was diagnosed with Hashimoto's that I would have to take thyroid supplements for the rest of my life, and that there were suspicions of what caused it but nothing they could say definitively. Up until late last year I have watched the dose creep up. I have been reducing my medication doing nothing else but eating a whole foods, mainly animal based diet. This included cutting out all seed oils and processed foods that are loaded up with a bunch of chemicals that are the real drivers of disorders and chronic disease conditions (including restaurant meals that are just as bad as the commercial stuff you buy in the grocery store) plus going organic. I have had 3 medication reductions so far and another 2 to go before I can hopefully get off medication entirely.
My N=1, 3 years battle from 400lbs to 185lbs, first Vegetarian then Mediterranean keto then Carnivore. All while learning more about my body and mind in 3 years than I had in 30.
My N = 1 got me to do keto with IF, HIIT, resistance and VO2max training and allowed me to heal myself from prostate cancer
Amen. Managing your health and physical training are both N=1 activities. People shouldn’t delegate these activities to the high priests.
Such wisdom NICK , keep it up , your viewers appreciate your great mind
Stay curious!
StayCurious
We are all citizen scientists. As a someone with a rare cancer and a community of fellows, we are all conducting n of one studies and sharing outcomes. One friend with palatal mucosal melanoma has discovered the power of a high phenolic olive oil, a clean low carb diet, and opdualog on preserving her quality of life while eliminating the cancer. There are many motivations but health is clearly an important measure of success….
Lol I've been doing N=1 science on myself and my family for decades now. I trained as a biochemist so it came naturally to me. After the Covid debacle, whatever small faith I had left in institutional "science" is completely gone. I'm in my late 60s now, down 70 pounds from my highest weight, in great physical shape, and you'd envy my blood work if you saw it. I did one of those biological age calculators and apparently I'm functioning like a 32 year old. I expect to live for decades more, if I don't get hit by a truck along the way. I eat mostly organic and very low carb, take tons of supplements, exercise 4-5 times a week. You can do it too!
My N=1 reduced my prescriptions down to 1 and even supplements reduced. My docs are scratching their heads as all my labs are all improving. 😊
I think the only real argument against N = 1 science would be the placebo or nocebo effect and being sure you can tell that your results come from what you're doing. Isn't that the whole purpose of double-blinding an experiment after all? Double-blinded, randomized, controlled trials can be crazy expensive, though, and we'll never be able to do enough of those for long enough periods of time.
I guess these defensive critics don't get N=1 true power. If they where to read the comments of this video they would see N=1 experiments where people solved health problems by finding what works for them. Just from these comments, there are stories of people improving their health. It should make them curious what are the mechanisms at play. To just dismiss what someone has experienced rather than trying to understand the why just cases them to shut down. As a industrial technician I always listen to what the machine operators said, often it would not make sense or sounds impossible. But as I dove deeper into the system it would start to make sense and boom a solution.
"As an industrial technician", I have also experienced an attitude of superiority and even contempt from MDs I have consulted for gastrointestinal issues whenever I kept pushing to find the root cause rather than just accepting a treatment for symptoms. We know from experience in our own jobs how just making symptoms less noticeable without resolving their cause never turns out well in the end.
.
Well said. I so believe this and practice N=1 myself.
Lovely Debi!
Franklin didn’t do a meta-analysis of thousands of lightning studies. :)
This channel is incredibly important and I’m glad it’s getting so much attention. Scrolling through TikTok there is a lot of appeal to authority and straight misinformation among many so called nutritionists, dieticians and fitness influencers. Their whole argument is look at these meta analysis papers and dismissing any other evidence that doesn’t support their bias. The whole eat whatever you want as long as it’s under you daily calorie needs is getting old and is in most cases dangerous advice. Thank you for your efforts and enthusiasm for experimentation.
Thanks for this comment. Appreciate it. Decent insights therein…
Modern science - where a study with 20 mice in a lab carries more weight than accounts from actual humans living in real environments.
Prof. Christopher Gardner conducted a locked metabolic ward study comparing calorie controlled Mediterranean diet to a calorie controlled ketogenic diet. They got identical results in both groups. Some people lost a lot of weight, most people lost one or two pounds a week(which is what the diets were designed to do) and a few poor slobs in BOTH cohorts gained weight like champs. My doctors had me on a calorie controlled Mediterranean diet for YEARS and I continued to gain weight. I actually had one R.D. say, "You're delusional, you have no idea what you're stuffing in your fat face." That is an accurate quote, it is branded deep in my traumatised brain. Patient blaming is an ugly thing. I'm just the poor slob that gains weight on a Mediterranean diet. I switched to a high-protein ketogenic diet, lost 200+ pounds, along with my 24/7 oxygen feed, my CPAP device, four insulin shots per day, high blood pressure medication, liver support medication, thyroid medication, and oral hypoglycaemic medication. I just wish I'd had the courage of my convictions earlier. Perhaps I could have avoided diabetic retinopathy (I only have 20% vision remaining to me in one eye). On the National Weight Loss Registry (a data base of people who have lost 30+ pounds and kept it off for over year) the stories are all over the map. People have succeeded with carnivore, Keto, vegan (even vegan keto), calorie counting, primal eating, anti-inflammatory diets; every diet you can think of has worked for somebody. There is so much individual variability that N of 1 experimentation is the ONLY path to success!
Another great video expressing how a lot of us feel but in a more polished way. That is what I hope the n=1 topic can be like in the future. We need more individuals doing the same thing to better their health but taken seriously by the rest of the medical community and supported with objective tests and curiosity by medical experts. Thanks again Nick and bless you on your important work.
Thanks Sterling for joining in the journey.
My parents and I are practically a case study. They both eat the standard modern diet with all the starches, grains, vegetables and plant oils and moderate meats with more of an emphasis on white meat and fish.
My father has heart disease and diabetes and mother has been overweight much of her adult life until she recently pivoted more toward low carb and animal foods. Me? I was on a similar path while subsisting on processed junk foods and the same sorts of foods my father eats now and was obese by 13-14.
Now at nearly 30 I'm visible abs and veiny biceps lean, with an athletic resting HR, normal range blood pressure and a good hip to waist ratio. No diabetes, obesity or heart disease in sight. I eat carnivore most of the time and just make exceptions when I'm socializing during the weekends. Beat my supposed "genetics".
I'll provide a detailed explanation of N=1 science, which is an important concept in research methodology.
N=1 science refers to a research approach that focuses on studying a single individual or subject in depth, rather than using large sample sizes typical in traditional scientific research. Here are the key characteristics:
1. Definition
- N=1 represents a single case or subject of study
- It involves intensive, detailed observation and analysis of one specific instance or individual
- The research concentrates on understanding unique characteristics, processes, or variations within that single unit
2. Key Features
- Emphasizes individual variation and unique characteristics
- Allows for highly personalized and detailed exploration
- Often used in fields like:
- Medical case studies
- Psychological research
- Personalized medicine
- Rare disease investigations
- Behavioral and cognitive studies
3. Methodology
- Involves comprehensive, longitudinal tracking
- Uses multiple data collection methods
- Focuses on detailed documentation and analysis
- May include qualitative and quantitative approaches
- Seeks to generate deep insights about the specific subject
4. Strengths
- Provides in-depth understanding of individual experiences
- Useful for exploring rare or unique phenomena
- Can generate hypotheses for future research
- Valuable in contexts where large sample sizes are difficult to obtain
5. Limitations
- Findings may not be generalizable
- High risk of bias
- Limited statistical power
- Difficult to draw broad conclusions
While N=1 science has specific constraints, it remains a valuable approach in certain research contexts, particularly when studying unique or complex individual cases.
Keep doing what you're doing.
If anyone is claiming something is 100% causal and any one person can show that isn't true for them then that case study needs explored. And at some point it's not n=1 anymore if multiple people are reporting the same thing or able to reproduce the same outcome.
Yet people would rather bury their heads in the sand and ignore that data because they're so invested in the current paradigm. I suppose at least we should be thankful we aren't accused of being heretics and burned at the stake.
If Einstein had never just personally questioned our knowledge of gravity we wouldn't be where we are today. Stay curious.
I like this comment and sentiment
Another reason N=1 is critical; the “Entourage Effect”. There are no, and there will never be any, human randomized control trials on the effects of combining 4-dozen different supplements, dietary interventions and exercise protocols to determine which works best for you. Two many variables, way too expensive. The Entourage Effect recognizes that throughout nature multiple “molecules” combine to produce unique effects only in tandem that are not necessarily predicted by the individual known qualities of each molecule on a stand-alone basis. Since the existence of both beneficial and detrimental entourage effects are very real, but no large human studies can realistically be conducted to determine which is more or less beneficial to individuals with differing genetics, age ranges, gender, maladies, exercise or lifestyles, the ONLY way to determine what works best for a given individual is N=1.
Thanks for Sharing
As who knows who really said: "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results." There is so much outdated ineffective nutritional recommendations being provided to us by doctor and advisors that stick to the same old stuff... and we already know does it not work for us. So why not try more up-to date approaches by ourselves? :) It might take decade(s) before mainstream picks things up. Why would i have to wait?
Please don’t misinterpret Nick’s message that only anecdote matters because that is not what Nick is saying.
N=1 should form part of a holistic approach that includes scientific data.
I am definitely an N=1 person(didn’t realize I was a scientist). I don’t speak on things I didn’t try myself. I didn’t suffer from any debilitating issue that drove my health journey. It has always been aesthetic and performance driven. I have been eating “carnivore” since about 2007 before it was a thing(only difference was it was raw bison with honey and butter). Have been carnivore as we know it today since 2017. My favorite benefits since meat products only is body recomposition, appearance (people always guessed my age as older previously, now it’s the opposite), performance, I no longer get congested when I have a cold and my absolute biggest win, I NO LONGER NEED TO USE DEODORANT. Previous to now my super sweaty armpits would have stunk up the place an hour after bathing if I didn’t use deodorant.
Interesting "biggest win" ... and you've gotten no complaints?
Nope. The sweat problem has diminished by my estimation 95% or more. My pits truly smell fresh all day long. Don’t know how but I’m not complaining.
Thank you, Nick! N=1 ❤
Nick, they're bullying us. Go get 'em!
America has the most expensive and least effective (in lifespan) healthcare among most developed countries. Yet the elites of government and medicine want to maintain status quo for power and money. IMO, there is simply no other logical explanation. I am an N=1 success in battling pre diabetes and metabolic disease. And it was not until I took control of my condition beyond my doctor’s desire for me to take more meds.
And now, I have the power of the best N=1 by wearing one of the new OTC CGM’s and can see direct results of the foods I eat, exercise, etc.. before Sept 2024, non diabetics could not get a CGM, as docs wouldn’t prescribe them and insurance would not cover them - all because of the FDA overlords protecting us.
I think you forgot the quotation marks on "protecting" us. (What has been protected is the profits of everyone who benefits financially from everybody else being unhealthy.)
.
Thank you Nick. N=1 is a way of life for some chronic diseases, like type 1 diabetes. Seems like the big difference between acute and chronic illness is that the former is guided by reaction and the other is addressed with process. it is much more like de-bugging a program.
Nicely put.
Science is just a tool to study questions. It doesn't matter how many subjects are included; the key is how to use the results. With N=1 science, you can't generalize the results to other people, which is what people are doing all the time. For example, someone might say, "xxx diet helped me a lot, so everyone should eat xxx diet." Basically, all the online non-scientist creators are reasoning based on their anecdote. I think this point is what other scientists are criticizing.
Additionally, N=1 science only exists under N ≥ 30 science. Without N ≥ 30 science, people have no clue what hypothesis to test on themselves, and it could be dangerous to blindly test something.
To get a little nerdy, the old guys in academia just can't let go of their frequentist mindset. N is not a problem when you use Bayesian methods for scientific reasoning. Many years ago, computers couldn't handle this kind of computation, but now it is super easy. The old farts just don't want to learn another way of thinking.
Keep doing the good work! The old farts definitely feel annoyed!
My primary Dr. is a VA bureaucrat interested in symptom management. So I fell into N=1 medicine out of a desperation for better health. One of the keys I use to test; Is the cure more expensive than the test? So many times, doing the cure and seeing how my body reacts will tell me more than just the test and then occurring the cost the remedy too. Example; I suspected I have a histamine intolerance. The prospects of getting my Dr. to run the tests were far more expensive than testing by taking an antihistamine. Then ordering a supplement called DAO and seeing how my body reacts. Thus eliminating the 'academic' and all the headache that would introduce into my life. Turns out my suspicions were correct.
VA doctors are more controlled by bureaucrats than they should be. Even if they understand things differently their reviews by the "boss" make them too the mark. Like with mine who "needed to" prescribe a statin for me just to keep the boss off his back .. of course I don't take them, they get tossed, this was to keep the him in the good graces of that bureaucrat.
"I fell into N=1 medicine out of a desperation for better health" ... so many like this... too many.
Those who invalidate N=1 where 1 may equal self by definition lack the ability to question their own thought processes. The most important instrument of science, in my opinion, is a properly tuned self.
Interesting thoughts. Thanks for sharing.
Yup. Science would probably advance a lot if more people spent time trying to prove themselves wrong instead of trying to ridicule others to defend their position.
I mean....if N=1 results in the same outcome time after time after time.....isn't that actually the DEFINITION of science?
While i agree with you on the N=1 science being science, it is important to perform things properly for it to be actual science.
That includes proper sample sizes, variable eliminations methods and insuring you're not actually harming or endagering yourself by expermients that could potentially kill you.
The plural of anecdote turns out to be data after all.
Newton defined optics and almost blinded himself from N=1 research
Do tell more...
Show me a man who has not made a mistake and I'll show you a man who has learned nothing.
@@bohdanburban5069 Great quote
No one I know endorsing n=1 is suggesting citizens can do everything--I wouldn't know a saturated fat from an unsaturated one, even if I could borrow an electron microscope and figure out how to turn it on--but they are suggesting you can operate in the realm of shared information and improve your health by trial and error. As long as you don't over-claim what you know as a result, you're doing good empirical science.
I agree :)
Nick, a couple of observations. 1. N=1 might also be called an anecdote. But that isn't bad. I understand much of Jungian psychology came from observation of the psychologists own children. 2. Anecdotes are important parts of the scientific process because they are hypothesis generating. 3. Sometimes treatments work for 5% or 50% or 95% of patients. An important question is why some patients react one way and others react differently. 4. Perhaps more fundamentally, I wonder whether in some sciences, like physics, N=1 is not as helpful than in other areas of inquiry, like nutrition science. The speed of a falling object without friction may have a more universal answer than the effect of broccoli on different peoples guts. 5. I wanted to make five points because it is never good to just have four points.
I don't understand, n=1 science is what doctors used to practice, when we had real doc's.
I, as a clinician, examine and treat every patient as N=1. I do not follow an algorithmic protocol that some bureaucrats with no clinical experience, have cobbled together from poor “science” data. Every person is different, albeit similar physiology, but an individual that needs to be assessed as such - otherwise I should be replaced by an AI bot.
Yay!! I am engaged in the N=1 movement. We can always improve if we stay curious 😊
Diet/treatment is not a one size fits all solution. Fantastic video and great info!😎
Thanks Jay.
Very powerful and moving video.
It’s how science developed.
👍👌
I'm sure this gramma doesn't agree with everything in your life, but, I like what you have to say here. Thank you.
Yeah, challenging their dogma may threaten their research $ and status.
The $ follow the dogma in many fields of science, and it *seems* many scientists develop a bit of an ego with age.
You seem to be relentlessly behind this n=1 cause, I imagine this helps you see those who are curious skeptics versus the ego skeptics etc.
Keep up the good work 👍
Some are resistant to developing a toxic ego despite being tremendously accomplished by standard metrics. I admire these people... are they for this way or is it something I their environment that makes them morally resilient?
I don't have a CGM; It would be useful, but I might still need a prescription (hey, I'm in Canada); at least, Levels is not available here. Either way, they cost a bunch of money, and a lot of us have tight budgets! (Sometimes you can get coverage, but only if you're a type 2 diabetic)
At the same time, I found a continuous *ketone* meter (CKM), that was not crazy expensive, on the Canadian amazon site. (I was very surprised) It doesn't make sense to wear one all the time, but I hope to gain some insights within the 2-week window, so I can continue to apply these lessons after the meter has expired.
LMK how your tests with the CKM go. I've tried a few and none have been very accurate, sadly.
@@nicknorwitzPhD You bet! When I first tested it, versus my smuggled-in Keto-Mojo, it was pretty close. It gave 15% higher values kind of thing. I tested just now (7 days in of 14 total), my CKM show 1.8 mmol/L, and two reading with the Keto-Mojo showed 2.3 and 2.1 mmol/L. So now it's a bit lower. I can see trends, so even if it's not totally precise, I think it has value. At least now I have an idea of what my body is doing overnight!
@@nicknorwitzPhD Oh, I'm using the SiBio KS1 after watching the youtube video "This Continuous Ketone Monitor is a GAMECHANGER: SiBio CKM Review"
That's right. And this path is also the only path that can improve our health problem - keyword chronic diseases. No politician can "make America healthy again". The concept from above can only fail if it is not supported at the same time from below. The best thing that politicians can do is to support the grassroots movement as best as possible, which enables people to become the captains of their own health again. Barrier-free access to constant glucose monitors, barrier-free access to keto clinics and advice centers, creating a situation in which the health insurance companies make a profit when patients get healthier and not when they get sicker - that is what politicians can do. Nothing more. The rest has to come from below - and it will come from below.
I agree with your third sentence as a probability statement. 🍟
I'd be happy to ne another of your n=1 success stories.
For me there is nothing except N=1, as even the Keto gurus have let me down with their high-protein hype, causing me a lot of damage 😒
All academics believe they are high intelligence but in fact have only learned a trade....
You should find out about all the n=1 for self treatment for the big C
Need more humility in the realm in general...
Doctors do N=1 science all the time. A patient presentscwith certain symptoms - say high blood pressure. The doctor will prescribe a certain medication, say a calcium channel blocker, and ask the patient to come back in three months. If blood pressure is down to normal and the patient has no adverse side effects, all good. If blood pressure is still too high, then maybe an increased dose will be tried, or combination with another drug. If side effects are a problem, a different medication will be prescribed. And so on. Medicine is intrinsically empirical, because although we all have the same systems in our bodies the exact way they interact is different for everyone.
I listen to Dr. Tom Rogers, (Performance Medicine) Dr. Nathan Goodyear (Brio Medical) They do not lie.
Don't know those names... yet...
@nicknorwitzPhD You are doing humanity a great service, thank you 👍
@@DCGreenZone very kind of you :)
@@nicknorwitzPhD I tried to point you to where the "bodies aren't buried" and I've been cut off, or course. One email is all I would need.
N = 1 worked for me. Now metabolically healthy after several decades of being overweight then obese.
🙌🙌🙌🙌
You left out self-absorbed A-holes .. LOL!! Thanks again Nick!
Oh, I have a curious question. Today's wheat has many issues and "everyone" stresses to avoid it. Now my question. Einkorn wheat, know as ancient wheat, has a very different composition. And yes I know carbs turn to sugars. BUTT (there is always a butt). If a person were to add (limited) this wheat to their diet is this grain just flat out a bad idea also?
Tough to find a grain grown in the USA that wasn't either treated with Glyphosate during growing or had Glyphosate sprayed on as a dessicant, ugh.
I wouldn't say it's a bad idea. I definitely don't think carbs (or wheat) are bad by virtue of being carbs/wheat. It's about metabolic context and personal sensitivities.
Excellent N=1 breakdown. On a completely unrelated note, why does your microphone have a distracting blue light on it? I can't believe a product like this would be manufactured with a glaring light built into it.
YES!!!!! STAY CURIOUS!!!!
You get it Michael!
Hey Nick, I have a question that's outside of this video. Im on the carnivore diet for about 2 months, however I broke it a couple of times.My question is this: When not doing much carnivore is very easy to do with 1-2 meals per day and I feel good, however I noticed today when I went into a deeper study session even tho I ate a little ago, I craved a lot more food and carbs at that, what would be to correct move to do in your opinion in this situation whilist maintaining the diet?
Haters hate themselves, not you! For you, the are just jealous.
I think it might help if you explained how you view the role of n=1 science in the context of science as a whole. For example, I'd be surprised if you wanted to do away with randomised controlled trials altogether.
PS Ralph Steinman's Nobel did not start with n=1 science. It was awarded (posthumously) for his discovery of dendritic cells, well before he was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer.
True science is repeatable. If your N = 1 result is repeatable by others it becomes stronger. A poorly designed and controlled study with 100K subjects and weak associative results is still garbage.
Should we prioritize personal experiences over traditional scientific methods when making decisions about our health ?
The published studies can inform individual interventions, but at the end of the day the N = 1 is the most powerful for that 1... for most things... not all things...
Nick, keep your fire burning!!
Dracarys!
You're simply blowing up their "I'll rest on my laurels" work/world view. It's a self preservation response wrapped up in their egos. Lashing out, jealousy and assholery ensue. You should feel proud.
I'm calling Oxford English about 'assholery' ... lol
There is always some kind of every day N=1 science with my own nutrition journey to a more healthy weight , but one problem I always encounter it's an interpretability of my observations. Do I get it correctly or there is something else at play, I always trying to be more cautious before jumping into conclusions, but it's engineer inside me, other people can step on even on more rakes during this journey.
There are already different lenses through which we can interpret data. That's true for any study. So we draw what conclusions we can, update "the model" and then test it with the next experiment. The more rigor and controls you apply, the faster the process progresses, in general.
Hi Nick, would like to hear your opinions on the "Circulating Ketone Bodies, Pyruvate, and Citrate and Risk of Cognitive Decline, Structural Brain Abnormalities, and Dementia" article on Aging and Desease 11/8 .
Any thoughts about joining RFK Jr.?
I can no longer speak, the algo is upset. Near impossible to contact you.
This is a powerhouse of a video!!
Nick love your work! Curious on your thoughts on the work of Harold Hillman?
Sorry don’t know that name
@@nicknorwitzPhD He had some interesting (controversial) takes on cellular biology. No expert here, just an auto tech! Thought maybe your open mindedness has come across him. Thanks!
You are an inspiration!
Thanks so much :)
Bravo Nick!
Thanks Glenn.
👍🏼
👍
❤️
Heart back at you :)
👏well done.
Results speak for themself. Even if you try and get a heart attack it's never guaranteed!
Don't do that!
I guess doctors should stop practicing on n=1 and give all of their patients the same medications.
Individual trial and error examples are not science. They are case studies and offer simple observations. You have misrepresented science. I'm a fan of trial and error, but I don't delude myself into thinking I'm employing the scientific method.
We might have to disagree here. Certainly you need some more structure and rigor... but hypothesis -> trail -> data assessment --> new hypothesis etc. is science whether it's applied to 1 Million or 1.
It's a case study if you're trying to build a body of knowledge that applies to the general population. But if you're trying to get data on a population of 1 then it seems more reasonable. If for example a drug is found to be effective in 70% of the population and it's not working for you, the doctor wouldn't tell you well it should because it does for most people when in your own case (n=1) it's not working. Generalizing to the general population is different ballgame. The methods are the same though.
@@nicknorwitzPhD The case of Barry Marshall is a great story. Brilliant.
However, there is no control. How do we know his ulcer wasn't caused by the stress of giving himself an infection? Or eating too many Oreos? 😉
His example is a case study which is useful for generating a testable hypothesis. (And, yeah, he deserved a Nobel.)
Yes, an N=1 study can be designed (You've done a few 👍), but those should not be confused with rigorous methods for determining cause and effect. At best they demonstrate likely cause and effect for that one case. Which is a lot like trial and error.