The Peptide CommonsEst. May 2024
Independent. We sell nothing and are affiliated with no manufacturer or pharmacy. Every moderation action is logged in public
Research Methods · N-of-1 designs

Pre-registering a personal experiment, seriously — a second dataset

DM
d.moreauTL2Regular2 Nov 2025#1

Posting this under the heading it deserves: Pre-registering a personal experiment, seriously — a second dataset Everything below is what sits behind that.

I have seen STEP 8 (JAMA, 2022) cited in support of a claim I do not think it supports, twice this month, so I would like to work through what it actually shows.

My reading is that the trial is sound for its own question and is being stretched to answer a different one. I might be wrong about that, which is why this is a topic rather than a correction.

What I would like from this discussion: someone who disagrees with me to say why, with the section of the paper they are relying on.

8 likes 9mo
VK
v.kirchnerTL2 Moderator9 Nov 2025#2

Sample size in n-of-1: you are the sample. Repeated measurements (weekly weighings, daily mood scores) increase the power to detect a real effect even though n=1.

12 likes 9mo
AF
a.finnegan_rdTL2Dietitian14 Nov 2025#3

Washout periods: after stopping a medication, how long does it take for the effect to wash out? For compounds with a week-long half-life, roughly a month is needed to reach baseline. Using that washout period in a before-after design strengthens the inference.

0 likes 8mo
CV
c.vasquezTL2 Moderator19 Nov 2025#4
d.moreau, post #1: Posting this under the heading it deserves: Pre-registering a personal experiment, seriously — a second dataset Everything below is what sits behind that. I have seen STEP 8 ( JAMA , 2022) cited in support of a claim I do not think it supports, twice this month, so I would like to work through what it actually shows. My reading is that… Go to post

Practical note that does not fit anywhere else. Whatever you conclude from this topic, write down what you did and when. The single most useful thing in your own records is not any individual result; it is that they are dated and consecutive.

0 likes in reply to #1 8mo
CL
customs_ledgerTL323 Nov 2025#5
PO
p.ostergaardTL2 Moderator27 Nov 2025#6

Worth separating two things that post #2 runs together.

Designing a personal experiment that could actually change your mind: that is the standard for an n-of-1 design. An experiment designed so that any result confirms what you already believed has not changed anything.

7 likes 8mo
LE
logbook_erinTL3Regular1 Dec 2025#7
p.ostergaard, post #6: Worth separating two things that post #2 runs together. Designing a personal experiment that could actually change your mind: that is the standard for an n-of-1 design. An experiment designed so that any result confirms what you already believed has not changed anything. Go to post

Thank you for the correction. I have edited my earlier post with a note rather than silently, so the thread still makes sense to read. The error was mine and it was the kind that comes from remembering a figure instead of looking it up.

25 likes in reply to #6 8mo
SG
s.girardTL2 Moderator5 Dec 2025#8
d.moreau, post #1: Posting this under the heading it deserves: Pre-registering a personal experiment, seriously — a second dataset Everything below is what sits behind that. I have seen STEP 8 ( JAMA , 2022) cited in support of a claim I do not think it supports, twice this month, so I would like to work through what it actually shows. My reading is that… Go to post

When to run an n-of-1: this design works when you want to know whether a treatment works for you, not whether it works in general. For that purpose, it is efficient.

0 likes in reply to #1 8mo
CO
c.okaforTL3Regular9 Dec 2025#9

For anyone arriving from a search: the marked solution above is the direct answer, and the replies underneath it add the caveats that make it safe to use.

11 likes 8mo
KA
k.asanteTL2 Moderator12 Dec 2025#10

Confounding in personal experiments: other things change when you start a medication (season, exercise, diet, stress). Documenting those confounders helps you understand their contribution to the result.

24 likes 8mo
QZ
q.zhao_qaTL315 Dec 2025#11
ES
e.steinerTL2 Moderator19 Dec 2025#12
logbook_erin, post #7: Thank you for the correction. I have edited my earlier post with a note rather than silently, so the thread still makes sense to read. The error was mine and it was the kind that comes from remembering a figure instead of looking it up. Go to post

Statistical analysis of n-of-1 data: comparing before versus after with a t-test or similar is one approach. Plotting the data visually is another. Both are valid.

6 likes in reply to #7 7mo
KO
k.otieno_statsTL3Statistician22 Dec 2025#13

Generalisability: a robust n-of-1 result applies to you. It does not tell you much about whether the effect generalises to others similar to you, much less to people different from you.

1 like 7mo
NI
n.ibarraTL2 Moderator25 Dec 2025#14

post #13 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different.

I disagree with the reply above, and I think the disagreement is substantive rather than terminological.

The distinction being drawn does not survive when you look at the published data for this specific question. I would be glad to be shown wrong on this, because the version I am arguing against is more convenient.

0 likes 7mo
PN
p.novotnyTL2Regular28 Dec 2025#15

I read post #13 twice before replying, because I had assumed the opposite.

Confounding in personal experiments: other things change when you start a medication (season, exercise, diet, stress). Documenting those confounders helps you understand their contribution to the result.

10 likes 7mo
MB
m.balogunTL2 Moderator1 Jan 2026#16

This follows post #13 rather than contradicting it.

Statistical analysis of n-of-1 data: comparing before versus after with a t-test or similar is one approach. Plotting the data visually is another. Both are valid.

3 likes 7mo
UC
unit_conversionTL3Regular4 Jan 2026#17
customs_ledger, post #5: post #4 is right about the mechanism and I think understates the practical bit. Stopping rules: decide in advance when you will stop measuring (after a defined duration, after a defined number of measurements, or after a defined condition is met). Not deciding in advance means stopping when the result satisfies you, which is bias. Go to post

Practical note that does not fit anywhere else. Whatever you conclude from this topic, write down what you did and when. The single most useful thing in your own records is not any individual result; it is that they are dated and consecutive.

0 likes in reply to #5 7mo
IL
i.lehtinenTL2 Moderator7 Jan 2026#18

Objective versus subjective measures: subjective measures (how you feel) are vulnerable to bias. Objective measures (weight, strength on a specific exercise) are less vulnerable but not immune.

31 likes 7mo
W
WendelboeTL2Member10 Jan 2026#19

Blinding: blinding yourself (not knowing which condition you are in) removes expectation bias. This is hard to do with these compounds (the appetite suppression is hard to miss) but partial blinding is possible (measuring something objective without knowing whether you took it today).

6 likes 7mo
ZS
z.szaboTL2 Moderator13 Jan 2026#20

Picking up post #17: that is the part I would want checked first.

Washout periods: after stopping a medication, how long does it take for the effect to wash out? For compounds with a week-long half-life, roughly a month is needed to reach baseline. Using that washout period in a before-after design strengthens the inference.

1 like 6mo
RS
r.szaboTL2 Moderator16 Jan 2026 · edited#21

I disagree with the reply above, and I think the disagreement is substantive rather than terminological.

The distinction being drawn does not survive when you look at the published data for this specific question. I would be glad to be shown wrong on this, because the version I am arguing against is more convenient.

31 likes 6mo
GP
g.pemberton_ukTL3Regional · UK18 Jan 2026#22

Coming back to post #20, because the follow-up matters more than the original answer.

Sample size in n-of-1: you are the sample. Repeated measurements (weekly weighings, daily mood scores) increase the power to detect a real effect even though n=1.

0 likes 6mo
RN
r.nakamuraTL2 Moderator21 Jan 2026#23
logbook_erin, post #7: Thank you for the correction. I have edited my earlier post with a note rather than silently, so the thread still makes sense to read. The error was mine and it was the kind that comes from remembering a figure instead of looking it up. Go to post

post #22 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different.

Generalisability: a robust n-of-1 result applies to you. It does not tell you much about whether the effect generalises to others similar to you, much less to people different from you.

6 likes in reply to #7 6mo
DT
dexa_twice_yearlyTL3Regular24 Jan 2026#24
k.otieno_stats, post #13: Generalisability: a robust n-of-1 result applies to you. It does not tell you much about whether the effect generalises to others similar to you, much less to people different from you. Go to post

When to run an n-of-1: this design works when you want to know whether a treatment works for you, not whether it works in general. For that purpose, it is efficient.

16 likes in reply to #13 6mo
AI
a.iyerTL2 Moderator27 Jan 2026#25

Stopping rules: decide in advance when you will stop measuring (after a defined duration, after a defined number of measurements, or after a defined condition is met). Not deciding in advance means stopping when the result satisfies you, which is bias.

23 likes 6mo
RM
r.mcalisterTL3Regular30 Jan 2026#26

Designing a personal experiment that could actually change your mind: that is the standard for an n-of-1 design. An experiment designed so that any result confirms what you already believed has not changed anything.

0 likes 6mo
SB
s.balogunTL2 Moderator1 Feb 2026#27
p.ostergaard, post #6: Worth separating two things that post #2 runs together. Designing a personal experiment that could actually change your mind: that is the standard for an n-of-1 design. An experiment designed so that any result confirms what you already believed has not changed anything. Go to post

post #26 is right about the mechanism and I think understates the practical bit.

Generalisability: a robust n-of-1 result applies to you. It does not tell you much about whether the effect generalises to others similar to you, much less to people different from you.

3 likes in reply to #6 6mo
FD
f.demirTL2Regular4 Feb 2026#28

Worth separating two things that post #24 runs together.

When to run an n-of-1: this design works when you want to know whether a treatment works for you, not whether it works in general. For that purpose, it is efficient.

10 likes 6mo
NK
n.kaufmannTL2 Moderator7 Feb 2026#29

Washout periods: after stopping a medication, how long does it take for the effect to wash out? For compounds with a week-long half-life, roughly a month is needed to reach baseline. Using that washout period in a before-after design strengthens the inference.

0 likes 6mo
VS
vial_slopeTL3Regular10 Feb 2026#30

Blinding: blinding yourself (not knowing which condition you are in) removes expectation bias. This is hard to do with these compounds (the appetite suppression is hard to miss) but partial blinding is possible (measuring something objective without knowing whether you took it today).

3 likes 6mo