Category: personal science

Flaxseed Oil Alleviates Psoriasis and Lichen Planus

Seth Roberts17 Comments

Two months ago I wrote that camelina oil might be a good source of omega-3. A few days ago, a reader named Evelyn Majidi commented as follows:

Based on this suggestion, I ordered camelina oil from the good farmers in Saskatchewan and began taking it using the same dose (3T/day) that I had been taking of flaxseed oil for relief of psoriasis and lichen planus. Unfortunately, the slow but sure improvement I had been experiencing over the past year with flaxseed oil stopped immediately and after a week my skin and mouth began to deteriorate. After using about 1/4 of a bottle of the new oil I went back to flaxseed and am delighted to report that I am [again] having good results with it. Since both of my conditions wax and wane without any reason identified by medical science I cannot state that it was simply the flaxseed oil that has led to this success. Based on my experience, however, I intend to continue taking the oil regularly and I recommend that others with psoriasis or lichen planus try it. For me, two tablespoons a day were not enough, I needed three tablespoons of the oil to see a change. I don’t think it advisable to take capsules, you’d need to take too many to equal 3T of oil.[emphasis added]

Psoriasis is a skin disease that usually involves “thick, red skin with flaky, silver-white patches called scales”. Lichen planus is “an itchy rash on the skin or in the mouth”. To give some idea of how common they are, psoriasis has 36 million Google hits; lichen planus 1-2 million. (“Heart disease” has 64 million.)

Eveyln’s experience provides four pieces of evidence that suggest flaxseed oil (FSO) improved her psoriasis and lichen planus:

  1. When she started taking FSO at 3 T/day, they started improving. They did not improve with 2 T/day.
  2. Over the first year of FSO, she saw steady improvement in both in place of the usual up and down.
  3. When she replaced FSO with another oil, which she hoped would be better, the results were the opposite of what she wanted: The improvement stopped and the two conditions got worse.
  4. When she switched back to FSO, the improvement resumed.

I can think of no plausible alternative to the conclusion that FSO helped. There is plenty of other evidence that supports this conclusion: the evidence that omega-3 is anti-inflammatory, FSO is high in omega-3, most of us don’t get enough omega-3, and so on, including my own experience. You could write a book about the evidence that supports it. (Evelyn tried flaxseed oil because of reports on this blog that it improved/cured bad gums.)

In any case, the conclusion that FSO reduces psoriasis and lichen planus is new, in the sense that FSO (or another source of omega-3) is not a popular treatment for either condition. Here are about 16 treatments for psoriasis, including topical corticosteroids. None includes omega-3. Here are eight “lifestyle and home remedies” for psoriasis, including “take daily baths” (seriously, Mayo Clinic Staff?). None includes omega-3. After going through about forty-odd treatments, I found a reference to fish oil: “Other research has suggested that taking oral fish oil supplements containing 1.8 to 3.6 grams of eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) a day may bring improvement.”

Same thing for lichen planus. FSO is not a popular treatment.

If you take flaxseed oil or other omega-3 source to treat psoriasis or lichen planus, I hope you will let me know what happens.

Butter and Arithmetic: How Much Butter?

Seth Roberts25 Comments

I measure my arithmetic speed (how fast I do simple arithmetic problems, such as 3+ 4) daily. I assume it reflects overall brain function. I assume something that improves brain function will make me faster at arithmetic.

Two years ago I discovered that butter — more precisely, substitution of butter for pork fat — made me faster. This raised the question: how much is best? For a long time I ate 60 g of butter (= 4 tablespoons = half a stick) per day. Was that optimal? I couldn’t easily eat more but I could easily eat less.

To find out, I did an experiment. At first I continued my usual intake (60 g /day). Then I ate 30 g/day for several days. Finally I returned to 60 g/day. Here are the main results:

The graph shows that when I switched to 30 g/day, I became slower. When I resumed 60 g/day, I became faster. Comparing the 30 g/day results with the combination of earlier and later 60 g/day results, t = 6, p = 0.000001.

The amount of butter also affected my error rate. Less butter, less errors:

Comparing the 30 g/day results with the combination of earlier and later 60 g/day results, t = 3, p = 0.006.

The change in error rates raised the possibility that the speed changes were due to movement along a speed-accuracy tradeoff function (rather than to genuine improvement, which would correspond to a shift in the function). To assess this idea, I plotted speed versus accuracy (each point a different day).

If differences between conditions were due to differences in speed-accuracy tradeoff, then the points for different days should lie along a single downward-sloping line. They don’t. They don’t lie along a single line. Within conditions, there was no sign of a speed-accuracy tradeoff (the fitted lines do not slope downward). If this is confusing, look at the points with accuracy values in the middle. Even when equated for accuracy, there are differences between the 30 g/day phase and the 60 g/day phases.

What did I learn?

1. How much butter is best. Before these results, I had no reason to think 60 g/day was better than 30 g/day. Now I do.

2. Speed of change. Environmental changes may take months or years to have their full effect. Something that makes your bones stronger may take months or years to be fully effective. Here, however, changes in butter intake seemed to have their full effect within a day. I noticed the same speed of change with pork fat and sleep: How much pork fat I ate during a single day affected my sleep that night (and only that night). With omega-3, the changes were somewhat slower. A day without it made little difference. You can go weeks without Vitamin C before you get scurvy. Because of the speed of the butter change, in the future I can do better balanced experiments that change conditions more often.

3. Better experimental design. An experiment that compares 60 g/day and 0 g/day probably varies many things besides butter consumption (e.g., preparing the butter to eat it). An experiment that compares 60 g/day and 30 g/day is less confounded. When I ate less butter, I ate more of other food. Compared to a 60 g/0 g experiment, this experiment (60 g/30 g) has less variation in other food. Another sort of experiment, neither better nor worse, would vary type of fat rather than amount. For example, replace 30 g of butter with 30 g of olive oil. Because the effect of eliminating 30 g/day of butter was clear, replacement experiments become more interesting — 30 g/day olive oil is more plausible as a sustainable and healthy amount than 60 g/day.

4. Generality. This experiment used cheaper butter and took place in a different context than the original discovery. I discovered the effect of butter using Straus Family Creamery butter. “One of the top premium butters in America, ” says its website, quoting Food & Wine magazine This experiment used a cheaper less-lauded butter (Land O’Lakes). Likewise, I discovered the effect in Berkeley. I did this experiment in Beijing. My Beijing life differs in a thousand ways from my Berkeley life.

The results suggest the value of self-experimentation, of course. Self-experimentation made this study much easier. But other things also mattered.

First, reaction-time methodology. In the 1960s my friend and co-author Saul Sternberg, a professor of psychology at the University of Pennsylvania, introduced better-designed reaction-time experiments to study cognition. They turned out to be far more sensitive than the usual methods, which involved measuring percent correct. (Saul’s methodological advice about these experiments.)

Second, personal science (science done to help yourself). I benefited from the results. Normal science is part of a job. The self-experimentation described in books was mostly (or entirely) done as part of a job. Before I collected this data, I put considerable work into these measurements. I discovered the effect of butter in an unusual way (measuring myself day after day), I tried a variety of tasks (I started by measuring balance), I refined the data analysis, and so on. Because I benefited personally, this was easy.

Third, technological advances. Twenty years ago this experiment would have been more difficult. I collected this data outside of a lab using cheap equipment (a Thinkpad laptop running Windows XP). I collected and analyzed the data with R (free). A smart high school student could do what I did.

There is more to learn. The outlier in the speed data (one day was unusually fast) means there can be considerable improvement for a reason I don’t understand.

The Genomera Buttermind Experiment.

Assorted Links

Seth Roberts11 Comments
  • Scientific heresy, a lecture by Matt Ridley mostly about climate change. “Jim Hansen of NASA told us in 1988 to expect 2-4 degrees [of warming] in 25 years. We are experiencing about one-tenth of that.”
  • The continuing influence of Jane Jacobs. “Rouse spoke first, recalling the words of Daniel Burnham, “Make no little plans, for they have no magic to stir men’s blood,” he said. Jacobs followed and began, “Funny, big plans never stirred women’s blood. Women have always been willing to consider little plans.””
  • A self-experimental study of lactose intolerance. ” I came across an article that pointed out that levels of [lactase, the enzyme that digests lactose] peak in the morning and evening hours. So I experimented with having either ricotta products or a half cup of milk with my supper. It worked like a charm, and sure enough, if I tried having any between 11 AM and about 4 PM, I would get sick.”
  • A rather dramatic Google bug. Google the phrase “first let them get sick”. You will be told there are hundreds of thousands of results — perhaps 250,000. Look through them and you will see the correct number is much less (recently, 47).
  • Lorrie Moore reads one of my favorite short stories, “Day-Old Baby Rats” by Julie Hayden. “[In a confessional:] ‘I have missed Mass.’ ‘How many times?’ ‘Every time.’”

Thanks to Dave Lull and Nile McAdams.

Is Health Data Ever Harmful?

Seth Roberts16 Comments

In yesterday’s post I described how searching the medical literature helped me avoid a dangerous surgery with no obvious benefit. The surgeon I consulted, who recommended the surgery, said that published evidence backed her up. I could not find that evidence, however. Others found evidence that contradicted her recommendation.

Among the comments on that post were similar stories: Searching/reading the medical literature had been helpful. Learning what had happened (in research studies) was better than relying on an expert (a doctor). Here is an example:

A little over two years ago, I was “depressed”. My psychiatrist wanted to prescribe an SNRI [serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor]. I related, once again, my poor experience with an SSRI and asked for evidence that an SNRI would be any more effective. He said there was evidence that SSRIs [selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors] worked. I pointed out the 2004 meta-analysis that showed no meaningful difference between SSRIs and placebos. Then I asked whether there was any better evidence for SNRIs. Since he wasn’t able to provide any, I told him that since we know that extremely low Vitamin D blood levels, poor diet, no exercise, and no social life can cause depression (all things I had at the time), I’ll try fixing those things first and then resort to drugs if that fails. It did not fail and I quit seeing him.

None of the stories in the comments described the opposite outcome: Knowing the data made things worse.

Are there exceptions? Is it always helpful (or at least not harmful) to know what happened (i.e., know research outcomes)? Has anyone reading this had an experience where knowing health research data was harmful?

Dr. Eileen Consorti and Patient Power

Seth Roberts30 Comments

My alternative to Testing Treatments (199 pages), I said recently, is three words: Ask for evidence. Ask your doctor for evidence that their recommendation (drugs, surgery, etc.) is better than other possibilities. A few years ago, I asked Dr. Eileen Consorti, a Berkeley surgeon, for evidence that the surgery she recommended (for a hernia I couldn’t detect) was a good idea. Surgery is dangerous, I said. What about doing nothing?

To reread what I’d written about this (here and here), I googled her. I learned she has a blog. It contains only one post (June 21, 2011). That post is only seven words long. I also learned she has two very similar websites (here and here). Both use her full name and title where most people would use she. Perhaps I caused the blog and websites.

Here’s what happened:

1. In 2008, during a routine physical, my primary-care doctor finds that I have a hernia, so small I hadn’t noticed it. He says I should see Dr. Consorti. Do I need surgery for something so small? I ask. Ask her, he says.

2. Dr. Consorti examines my hernia. She recommends surgery (that she would perform). Why? I ask. It could get worse, she says.

3. Eventually I realize that’s a poor reason. Anything can get worse. Influenced by Robin Hanson, I speak to Dr. Consorti: Surgery is dangerous. What about doing nothing? Is there evidence that the surgery you recommend is beneficial? Dr. Consorti says, yes, there is evidence supporting her recommendation. She says I can find it (studies that compared surgery and no surgery) via Google.

4. I try to find the evidence. I use Google and PubMed. I can’t find it. My mom, who used to be a medical librarian at UC San Francisco, is an expert at this. She has done thousands of medical searches. She too cannot find any studies supporting Dr. Consorti’s recommendation. Moreover, she finds an in-progress study that compares surgery for my problem with doing nothing. Apparently some researchers think doing nothing may be better than surgery.

5. I tell Dr. Consorti that my mom and I couldn’t find the studies she said exist. Dr. Consorti says she will find them. She will let me know when she’s found them and make copies. I can pick them up at her office.

6. Months pass. I call her office twice. No response.

7. In August 2008, I blog about Dr. Consorti’s continuing failure to produce the studies she seemed sure existed.

8. A reader named kirk points out “ what looks like a relevant hernia study“. It concludes: “Watchful waiting is an acceptable option for men with minimally symptomatic inguinal hernias. Delaying surgical repair until symptoms increase is safe.” This argues against Dr. Consorti’s recommendation. No one points out studies supporting her recommendation.

9. Two weeks after my post, someone who appears to be Dr. Consorti replies. She’s busy. She has 30 new patients with cancer. She terms my question “scientific curiosity”. She says “I will call you once I clear my desk and do my own literature search.”

10. More than a year passes. In 2010, I receive a call from Dr. Consorti’s office. An assistant asks me to remove my blog post about her failure to provide the studies. Why? I ask. It makes her look bad, he says. He says nothing about inaccuracy. I say I would be happy to amend what I wrote to include whatever Dr. Consorti wants to say about it. The assistant asks if I have any “further questions” for her. No, I say. The conversation ends.

11. A little later, I realize I do have a question. In 2008, during the conversation when I asked Dr. Consorti for evidence, I had said surgery is dangerous. In response, she had said no one had died during any of her surgeries. By 2010, I realized that such an answer was seriously incomplete. Many bad things can happen during surgery. Death is only one bad outcome. How likely were other bad outcomes? Dr. Consorti hadn’t said. She knew about these other bad effects much better than I did, yet, in a discussion of the safety of surgery, she hadn’t mentioned them. By not mentioning them, she made surgery sound safer than it actually is. Why had she not mentioned them? That’s my question. I call Dr. Consorti’s office and reach the person who had called me. I ask my question. As I wrote ,

He tried to answer it. I said I wanted to know Dr. Consorti’s answer. Wait a moment, he said. He came back to the phone. He had spoken to “the doctor”, he said. She wasn’t interested in “further dialogue”. She would contact a lawyer, he told me.

I haven’t heard from her since then.

This story illustrates a big change. As recently as twenty years ago, the doctor-patient balance of power was heavily weighted toward the doctor, in the sense that the doctor exerted considerable influence on the patient (e.g., to have surgery). One reason, Robin Hanson has emphasized, is human nature: The more fearful we are, the more we trust. Patients are often fearful. Another reason for the power imbalance was information imbalance. The doctor knew a lot about the problem (had encountered many examples, had read a lot about it). The patient, on the other hand, knew almost nothing and could not easily learn more.

During the last twenty years, of course, this has changed dramatically. Patients can easily learn a great deal about any health problem. Google, PubMed, on-line forums, MedHelp, CureTogether, and so on. The story of Dr. Consorti and me illustrates what a difference the new access to information can make.

Personal science (science done to help yourself) has two sides. One is: collect data. My self-experimentation is an example. To improve my health, I gathered data about myself. It worked. My skin improved, I lost weight, slept better, improved my mood, and so on. The other side is: use data already collected. That’s what I did here. My search for data (including my mom’s search) showed that data already in existence (including the absence of evidence supporting surgery) contradicted Dr. Consorti’s recommendation. My search was not biassed against her recommendation. I didn’t care whether she was right or wrong. I just wanted what was best for me. As Feynman said, science is the opposite of trusting experts — including doctors. My first glimpse of the power of self-experimentation was when it showed me that one of the two medicines my dermatologist had prescribed didn’t work.

Overtreatment is an enormous problem in America. Overtreated by Shannon Brownlee and Overdiagnosed by H. Gilbert Welch, Lisa Schwartzl and Steve Woloshin are recent books about it. Overtreatment could easily be why Americans pay far more for health care than people in any other country yet die earlier than people in many countries. A large fraction of our health care may do more harm than good. A common view is that the incentives are wrong. As one commenter put it, pay for treatment, you get treatment. The solution, according to this view, is to change the incentives. That’s a good idea but will not happen soon. I believe overtreatment can be reduced now. You can (a) ask for evidence (as I did) and (b) search for evidence (as I did). The difference in lifespan between America and other countries suggests this might add years to your life.

I would like to find out what happens when people ask for evidence and/or search for evidence. Please send me your stories or post them in the comments.

More Two days after I posted this, Dr. Consorti replied to this post and the earlier one with essentially the same comment, which is here.

The Willat Effect: More Consequences

Seth Roberts24 Comments

A month ago I bought three identical tea pots to compare tea side by side. I hoped to take advantage of the Willat Effect (side-by-side comparisons create connoisseurs) to become a tea connoisseur.

It worked. Side-by-side tea comparisons are fun, easy, and have taught me a lot. When I drink tea I notice more and like it more. I do about three comparisons per day. I blogged about the first results here. The most useful idea about these comparisons came from Carl Willat himself: Compare the same tea brewed differently (e.g., different amounts of tea, different brewing times, different water temperatures). Most of my comparisons vary amount of tea or brewing time.

These many comparisons have had several effects:

1. Yeah, I’m a snob. No more cheap tea. Yeah, I’m more nerdy about it.

2. I bought a scale (Camry EHA901, $12 in America) with a precision of 0.01 gram. No more heaping teaspoons. Mostly I use 1.5 grams of tea with about 170 ml water. For dense tea, 1.5 grams is roughly 1 teaspoon. Standard-size teabags contain about 2 g of tea.

3. Much different brewing times than recommended. The black tea I have now is Ahmad Tea English Tea No. 1 (in spite of the name, not expensive). The tin says “infuse 4-6 minutes.” I used to brew it (and all black tea) 5 minutes, now I prefer less than 3 minutes. I found that 2.75 minutes is better than 3 minutes. Around 3 minutes it starts getting bitter — I never noticed! Another example is American Tea Room‘s Choco Late, which contains cacao husks, vanilla, and rooibos. The package says brew 5 minutes. I prefer 30 minutes — 30 minutes tastes better than 20 minutes, I have found several times.

4. To make the comparisons as sensitive as possible I want to start with equal tea pots, so I need to clean them well after each use. This became boring. I could eliminate cleaning by using tea bags. I bought ordinary-size empty tea bags. Side-by-side comparisons (same tea, bagged versus loose) showed they made the flavor much worse. Too bad I’d bought 200. I bought much larger tea bags to use as liners rather than bags. That worked fine — no cleaning needed, taste just as good. However, they are too large, so I shorten them. The concept of a disposable tea liner (instead of tea bag) seems to be new. I cannot find any for sale. My connoisseurship has not only caused me to spend much more on tea, it has made me want an interesting new product. Tea pot makers could sell liners specially designed for their pots. Continuing revenue, like razor blades.

5. I stopped adding artificial sweetener (e.g., Splenda) to black tea. Now I prefer it without sweetener. I continue to add cream to black tea. This is the most surprising and intriguing change. Maybe sweetness is a distraction from the complexity of the flavor (which I now notice more and derive more pleasure from), but creaminess is not. I imagine the same thing is behind Richard Stallman’s “If it is tea I really like, I like it without milk and sugar.” And maybe the same thing is behind all sorts of artistic expression that strike outsiders as harsh and unpleasant. A few years ago I went to a BAM (Brooklyn Academy of Music) concert and was stunned how unpleasant it was. Yet the composer (who performed it) surely enjoyed it.

Regular readers know I think connoisseurship evolved because it increased technological innovation. My experience so far supports this. Thanks to the Willat Effect, I am more of a connoisseur. As a result of this change, I am spending more on high-end artisanal goods (expensive tea) and precision manufacturing (precision scale) and I want a new product (disposable tea liners).

People think of connoisseurs as having higher standards. The word connoisseur seems to mean exactly that. Iin some obvious ways, they do. Yet the sweetener change (I no longer want sweetener) is in a way a lowering of standards. Sweetness is pleasant. I no longer require, or even want, my tea to be sweet. As far as I can tell, something like this is true throughout the arts. Connoisseurs make unusual demands, yes, but in some ways they are easier to please than non-connoisseurs. Indie films are less pleasant than mainstream films. Yet film connoisseurs like them more. To most people, indie films are also much cheaper and more experimental than mainstream films. By supporting them — by preferring them — film connoisseurs are supporting innovation. The connoisseurs have lowered their standards for film in the sense that they can enjoy cheaper films. A friend of mine attends the San Francisco International Film Festival each year. He enjoys it. I wouldn’t. The SF film festival films don’t cost much, yet they have a certain innovative quality. (I”m not a film connoisseur, I barely understand it.) The source of pleasure has shifted from conventional sources (plot, music, dialogue, gorgeous actors, sets, and landscapes) to something else, perhaps novelty and complexity.

 

 

 

Brain Surprise! Why Did I Do So Well?

Seth Roberts9 Comments

For the last four years or so I have daily measured how well my brain is working by means of balance measurements and mental tests. For three years I have used a test of simple arithmetic (e.g, 7 * 8, 2 + 5). I try to answer as fast as possible. I take faster answers to indicate a better-functioning brain.

Yesterday my score was much better than usual. This shows what happened.

My usual average is about 550 msec or more; my score yesterday was 525 msec. An unexplained improvement of 25 msec.

What caused the improvement? I came up with a list of ways that yesterday was much different than usual, that is, was an outlier in other ways. These are possible causes. From more to less plausible:

1. I had 33 g extra flaxseed last night. (By mistake. I’m not sure about this.)

2. The test came at the perfect time after I had my afternoon yogurt with 33 g flaxseed. When I took flaxseed oil (now I eat ground flaxseed), it was clear that there was a short-term improvement for a few hours.

3. Many afternoons I eat 33 g ground flaxseed with yogurt. Yesterday I ground the afternoon flaxseed an unusually long time, making made the omega-3 more digestible.

4. I did kettlebells swings and a kettlebell walk about 2 hours before the test. These exercises are not new but usually I do them on different days. Yesterday was the first time I’ve done them on the same day. I’m sure ordinary walking improves performance for perhaps 30 minutes after I stop walking.

5. I had duck and miso soup a half-hour before the test. Almost never eat this.

6. I had a fermented egg (“thousand-year-old egg”) at noon. I rarely eat them.

7. I had peanuts with my yogurt and ground flaxseed. Peanuts alone seem to have no effect. Perhaps something in the peanuts improves digestion of the omega-3 in the flaxseed.

8. I started watching faces at 7 am that morning instead of 6:30 am or earlier.

Here are eight ideas to test. Perhaps one or two will turn out to be important. Perhaps none will.

After I made this list, I read student papers. The assignment was to comment on a research article. One of the articles was about the effect of holding a warm versus cold coffee cup. Holding a warm coffee cup makes you act “warmer,” said the article. Commenting on this, a student said she thought it was ridiculous until she remembered going to the barber. She sees the person who washes her hair (in warm water) as friendly, the barber as cold. Maybe this is due to the warm water used to wash her hair, she noted. This made me realize another unusual feature of yesterday: I had washed my hair in warm water longer than usual. I think I did it at least 30 minutes before the arithmetic test but I’m not sure. In any case, here is another idea to test. I found earlier that cold showers slowed down my arithmetic speed.

This illustrates a big advantage of personal science (science done for personal gain) over professional science (science done because it’s your job): The random variation in my life may suggest plausible new ideas. As far as I can tell, professional scientists have learned almost nothing about practical ways to make your brain work better. You can find many lists of “brain food” on the internet. Inevitably the evidence is weak. I’d be surprised if any of them helped more than a tiny amount (in my test, a few msec). The real brain foods, in my experience, are butter and omega-3. Perhaps my tests will merely confirm the value of omega-3 (Explanations 1-3). But perhaps not (Explanations 4-8 and head heating).

Even More About The Willat Effect

Seth Roberts9 Comments

I have had tea daily for the last ten years, ever since I discovered the Shangri-La Diet. A few weeks ago, I started doing side-by-side comparisons of similar teas or the same tea prepared two ways (e.g., different brewing times). Would the Willat Effect make me a tea connoisseur?

Since then I have done at least one side-by-side comparison every day. It’s almost as easy as making an ordinary cup of tea and a lot more fun. These comparisons have taught me more about tea preparation than the previous ten years. I’ve learned:

1. The black tea I have (an Earl-Grey variant) tastes better when brewed for 3.5 minutes than 4.0 minutes.

2. The black tea tastes better when I use 1.5 grams of tea than when I use 2.0 grams of tea. (After starting these comparisons, I bought a scale for weighing tea.)

3. One of the green teas I have tastes better when “rinsed” for 30 seconds before brewing 1 minute than when simply brewed for 1 minute. In China, this preference (rinse green tea before brewing) is common. I was reminded of it by this comment and Paul Jaminet’s post about tea. Black tea is different, as I noted earlier.

4. I have a caffeine-free tea blend called Choco Late made of cacao husks, vanilla, and rooibos. The package says brew 5 minutes. Which is nonsense. It tastes better (fuller, more rounded) when brewed 30 minutes than when brewed 15 minutes. (I’ve noticed the same thing with caffeine-free chai blends. Enormous brewing times, like 60 minutes, produce much better results than short times.)

5. My most interesting discovery is when I brew Choco Late for 30 minutes it tastes so good I no longer want to sweeten it. It is pleasant enough already and sweetness would distract from the complexity, fullness, and slight bitterness. (At first I wrote “lovely complexity, fullness …”) I was shocked when I noticed this. It has never happened before.

This tea-selling website mentions the Willat Effect under the heading “Do you want to be a tea connoisseur?” I hope this means the idea will spread among the fancy-food community. They have a lot to gain from better understanding of how to make people connoisseurs. Many times I have asked people in that community what makes someone a connoisseur? The usual answer is education. In my case, Willat-Effect comparisons (side-by-side comparisons of similar teas) were far more powerful than reading about tea, drinking a variety of teas, going on tea tours, going to ordinary tea tastings (where you taste a wide range of teas), and talking about tea with experts. I have been to five or six Fancy Food Shows and have visited thousands of booths. Exactly one booth offered side-by-side comparisons of similar products. It was their product made with and without a special ingredient.

Willat-Effect comparisons are mini-science. They aren’t quantitative but they include three other things central to science: 1. Close comparisons. This is the essence of experimentation. 2. You don’t know the answer. 3. You care about the answer.

Bipolar Disorder: Good Results With Blue-Blocker Glasses

Seth Roberts10 Comments

At the Shangri-La Diet forums, Anima writes:

I have been diagnosed with ADHD and Bipolar II disorder. I am also a Non-24, a chronic circadian rhythm disorder where one’s body thinks a day is longer than 24 hours. . . .I’ve been using amber safety glasses (around $3 in the hunting section of the sporting goods store) for dark therapy. I put them on 3 hours before I want to go to sleep. They block blue light, allowing dark therapy without the dark. I also wear an eye mask while I sleep. The glasses make me look like a big weirdo, but they really work. It’s easier to get to sleep, and they prevent hypomania (the milder form of mania that people with Bipolar II experience) better than any medication I have tried. It makes sense that almost anyone could benefit from them, because our ancestors were not exposed to blue light after dark.

She makes many other interesting observations, such as how she kept her cat from waking her up too early.

I don’t have trouble falling asleep but this makes me wonder what effect blue-blocker glasses would have if I wore them regularly at night. Nowadays I carry them in my backpack in case I have to be exposed to fluorescent light at night, such as on the subway. Even though I avoid fluorescent light at night, I still get blue light at night from my laptop screen. I have thought it is too weak to matter because using f.lux (which reddens the screen at night) made no clear difference. I can test this idea again by wearing blue-blocker glasses. I have been using a Zeo to measure my sleep, which may help me notice changes.

At Genomera, Michael Nagle and Eri Gentry are doing a study of the effect of blue-blocker glasses on sleep.

Assorted Links

Seth Roberts2 Comments

  • Interview with me on Jimmy Moore’s Livin’ La Vida Locarb
  • This article about natto helped its author win a prize for best newspaper food column
  • great QS talk about self-measurement by John Sumser. “It all started when I quit smoking. Bad idea. Since I quit smoking in 2004, every quarter for 7 years it has rained shit on me.”
  • In a QS talk, I compare the Quantified Self movement and the paleo movement.
  • Chinese high-school students in America: Not what was promised. Lack of “rigor” has benefits, as I have blogged: “Dismayed by the school’s [poor] college placement record, Chen considered transferring. Instead, he began to enjoy himself. Because his courses were undemanding, he had time for friends and outside interests. He took four Advanced Placement tests on his own.“I’ve developed my personality a lot,” Chen said. “Everything turned out for the best.””
  • If you read The China Study by T. Colin Campbell, a pro-vegetarian book, you may remember the big role played by some casein experiments with rats. Rats that ate a low-casein (= low animal-protein) diet were supposedly in better health than rats that ate a high-casein (= high animal-protein) diet. In this article Chris Masterjohn shows how misleading that was. “One thing is certain: low-protein diets depressed normal growth, increased the susceptibility to many toxins, killed toxin-exposed animals earlier, induced fatty liver, and increased the development of pre-cancerous lesions when fed during the initiation period of chemical carcinogenesis.”

Thanks to Janet Chang.