You’re just trying to be antagonistic now. It’s the data sets. He shows what is beneficial, what’s increasing his longevity. It’s not that hard to comprehend. What decreases issues, what increase years a live on this planet.
Why would you attack someone who’s trying to help find what helps people live longer?
Longer? And it’s not just him, his son also participates and yes you can change your lifestyle and try results and see if it’s affective for him. That’s still data.
"He shows what is beneficial, what’s increasing his longevity. "
How?
How would we know his longevity has increased and not decreased?
How would we know which of the myriad of variables, or which combination of variables,
was responsible for the increase (or decrease)?
Not following the scientific method, won’t produce useful data. As someone said, anecdotes.
Here’s the deal: those markers are proxies for health. But there have been numerous cases (Alzheimers research is particularly full of them, but it’s widespread in many biological systems) where changing the proxy marker does nothing to change the underlying condition. Causality doesn’t work like that. You think it’s A causes B, but in fact it’s Z causes A by one causal chain, and Z causes B by (potentially) another. So there’s your guy’s first fallacy.
The second is to conduct multiple trials in parallel on the same subject. Then, even if a change in the proxy variable actually means a change in health, you have no reliable way to untangle which factor or combination of factors was responsible for the change.
Third, a sample size of 1 or 2 is fucking stupid. It makes it impossible to tell if any measurements collected are releveant, or even repeatable. It also makes it impossible to tell if any fluctuation was random or actually caused by something you are trying to measure. And if you’re trying to measure an actual effect, you need a control group to compare it against. He has none.
Source: I was educated as a statistician and my focus was on experimental design in bio-science and pharma.
So, even assuming good will on this guy’s part, he’s a hobbyist doing junk science. If he really cared about helping humankind, he should have asked someone who knows how to do experiments to advise him on how to set up his protocols.
Yes, I understand, annual medical checkups including blood tests, ekg, eeg, etc. provide readings and measurement that measure an individuals general health. That was not the focus of the question.
The how I am asking is how measurements of his condition tell us which of the multiple concurrent changes he made are effective and which had no effect, or perhaps even a negative counter effect? How is this providing useful data?
Not at all. But seeing hobbysts and/or attention seekers pretend to do science when they’re not, that’s annoying. And if it misleads others, it could get someone hurt or killed.
Or extend their life, because they do consuming junk food and start trying to be healthy. It’s so easy to live a unhealthy life, at least this guy is trying to put people on the right direction.
You guys seem offended that he’s trying to be healthy and it’s weird. I don’t understand your agenda. Unless you work for the fast food companies and don’t like the idea of people but eating junk food.
On a basic level people could just stop eating junk food. Nothing he’s offering is life threatening, however eating harmful food_is_
No, you don’t understand science.
“But worthless data is still data!”
On the plus side, we now have at least some evidence that Bryan Johnson is on Lemmy! 🤣
You’re just trying to be antagonistic now. It’s the data sets. He shows what is beneficial, what’s increasing his longevity. It’s not that hard to comprehend. What decreases issues, what increase years a live on this planet.
Why would you attack someone who’s trying to help find what helps people live longer?
Can’t do that with a sample size of one, because there isn’t a comparison to know if it is longer or not.
Longer? And it’s not just him, his son also participates and yes you can change your lifestyle and try results and see if it’s affective for him. That’s still data.
"He shows what is beneficial, what’s increasing his longevity. " How?
How would we know his longevity has increased and not decreased? How would we know which of the myriad of variables, or which combination of variables, was responsible for the increase (or decrease)? Not following the scientific method, won’t produce useful data. As someone said, anecdotes.
By taking readings and measurements of the human body. Seeing if your in an increased healthy state.
There are markers which shows the health of the body.
Here’s the deal: those markers are proxies for health. But there have been numerous cases (Alzheimers research is particularly full of them, but it’s widespread in many biological systems) where changing the proxy marker does nothing to change the underlying condition. Causality doesn’t work like that. You think it’s A causes B, but in fact it’s Z causes A by one causal chain, and Z causes B by (potentially) another. So there’s your guy’s first fallacy.
The second is to conduct multiple trials in parallel on the same subject. Then, even if a change in the proxy variable actually means a change in health, you have no reliable way to untangle which factor or combination of factors was responsible for the change.
Third, a sample size of 1 or 2 is fucking stupid. It makes it impossible to tell if any measurements collected are releveant, or even repeatable. It also makes it impossible to tell if any fluctuation was random or actually caused by something you are trying to measure. And if you’re trying to measure an actual effect, you need a control group to compare it against. He has none.
Source: I was educated as a statistician and my focus was on experimental design in bio-science and pharma.
So, even assuming good will on this guy’s part, he’s a hobbyist doing junk science. If he really cared about helping humankind, he should have asked someone who knows how to do experiments to advise him on how to set up his protocols.
Yes, I understand, annual medical checkups including blood tests, ekg, eeg, etc. provide readings and measurement that measure an individuals general health. That was not the focus of the question.
The how I am asking is how measurements of his condition tell us which of the multiple concurrent changes he made are effective and which had no effect, or perhaps even a negative counter effect? How is this providing useful data?
Because specific treatments work in specific areas.
Sleeping for the brain, general body rejuvenation.
Antioxidants the heart, there are many experiments going on. But health could be attributed to certain treatments.
Sometimes we don’t know the full extent of the affects of treatment over the whole body.
But key aspects can change with certain treatments.
To see if there’s a net positive affect as well.
Sleeping for the brain, general body rejuvenation.
We already know sleep is important and lack of sleep causes or exacerbates multiple conditions. Will his next breakthrough be stay hydrated homie?
*Antioxidants the heart, there are many experiments going on. But health could be attributed to certain treatments. *
Again how? With multiple treatments at once, how do you attribute to a certain treatment and not another, or multiple?
Sometimes we don’t know the full extent of the affects of treatment over the whole body.
And the methodology being used will provide no helpful data to help gain that knowledge.
But key aspects can change with certain treatments.
Again how? With multiple treatments at once, how do you attribute to a certain treatment and not another, or multiple?
To see if there’s a net positive affect as well.
Ibid
Removed by mod
Ha, and now you’re attacking me. So you don’t really have an argument, you’re just slandering people.
It’s pretty telling that many comments on here are just attacking this guy. I wonder if bots are being used to try and smear this guy.
Fast food companies don’t want people to stop eating fast food.
Does getting healthy offend you?
Not at all. But seeing hobbysts and/or attention seekers pretend to do science when they’re not, that’s annoying. And if it misleads others, it could get someone hurt or killed.
Or extend their life, because they do consuming junk food and start trying to be healthy. It’s so easy to live a unhealthy life, at least this guy is trying to put people on the right direction.
You guys seem offended that he’s trying to be healthy and it’s weird. I don’t understand your agenda. Unless you work for the fast food companies and don’t like the idea of people but eating junk food.
On a basic level people could just stop eating junk food. Nothing he’s offering is life threatening, however eating harmful food_is_
It’s time for your dick injection, Bryan.
Weird that you’re attacking someone who’s trying to help people.
Are you being paid by the fast food industry?
To smear and try and debase people who are trying to show people how to be healthier and happier?
So you can keep making money and hurting the population
One would think a billionaire is keeping on making money much more than anyone who has a legitimate critique of his methodlogy.
Or they want to critic it because it’s affecting their bottom line ie fast food industry.
He’s just gone on Netflix. And now he’s receiving a lot of hate.
Sorry about your illiteracy
They are offended by money and penises, and especially the two combined. Might as well let it go.