My 16-month theanine self-experiment

2025-03-093:08817435dynomight.net

randomized and blinded, N=1

The internet loves theanine. This is an amino acid analog that’s naturally found in tea, but now sold as a nutritional supplement for anxiety or mood or memory.

Many people try theanine and report wow or great for ADHD or cured my (social) anxiety or changing my life. And it’s not just the placebo enthusiast community. This hacker news thread is full of positive reports, and gwern uses it regularly.

But does it really work?

Biologically speaking, it’s plausible. Theanine is structurally related to the neurotransmitter glutamate (theanine = C₇H₁₄N₂O₃, glutamate = C₅H₈NO₄-). For some reason, everyone is obsessed with stupid flashy dopamine and serotonin, and no one cares about glutamate. But it’s the most common neurotransmitter and theanine is both metabolized into glutamate and seems to itself have various complicated effects on glutamate receptors.

Of course, there are lots of supplements that could act on the brain, but are useless when taken orally. That’s because your brain is isolated from your circulatory system by a thin layer of cells that are extremely picky about what they let through. But it appears that theanine can get through these cells and into the brain.

So that sounds good. But do these low-level effects actually lead to changes in mood in real humans? When I looked into the academic research, I was surprised by how weak it was. Personally, on these kinds of issues, I find the European Food Safety Authority to be the single most trustworthy scientific body. They did an assessment in 2011 and found:

Claim Result
Improvement of cognitive function cause and effect relationship has not been established
Alleviation of psychological stress cause and effect relationship has not been established
Maintenance of normal sleep cause and effect relationship has not been established
Reduction of menstrual discomfort cause and effect relationship has not been established

Examine is an independent website that’s respected for summarizing the scientific literature on health and supplements. They looked into if theanine helped with various things, like alertness, anxiety, and attention. In all cases found low quality evidence for near zero effect.

A 2020 review of eight randomized double-blind placebo controlled trials found that theanine might help with stress and anxiety. While this review seems generally good, I found it to be insufficiently paranoid. One study they review found that theanine worked better than alprazolam (xanax) for acute anxiety. The correct response would be, “That’s impossible, and the fact that normal scientific practices could lead to such a conclusion casts doubt on everything.” But the review sort of takes it at value and moves on.

After 2020, the only major trial I could find was this 2021 study that took 52 healthy older Japanese people and gave them theanine (or placebo) for 12 weeks. They tested for improvements in a million different measures of cognitive functioning and mostly found nothing.

Why I did this

I’ve long found that tea makes me much less nervous than coffee, even with equal caffeine. Many people have suggested theanine as the explanation, but I’m skeptical. Most tea only has ~5 mg of theanine per cup, while when people supplement, they take 100-400 mg. Apparently grassy shade-grown Japanese teas are particularly high in theanine. And I do find those teas particularly calming. But they still only manage ~25 mg per cup. (Maybe it’s because tea is better than coffee?)

Still, I’ve supplemented theanine on and off for more than 10 years, and it seems helpful. So after seeing the weak scientific evidence, I thought: Why not do a self-experiment?

Theanine seems ideal because it’s a supplement with short term effects. So you can test it against placebo. (Try that with meditation.) And you can build up a large sample using a single human body without waiting weeks for it to build up in the body before each measurement.

Everyone agrees theanine is safe. It’s biologically plausible. While academic studies haven’t proven a benefit, they haven’t disproven one either. Given the vast anecdotal evidence, I saw a chance to stick it to the stodgy scientific establishment, to show the power of internet people and give the first rigorous evidence that theanine really works. Stockholm, prepare thyself.

What I did

First, I needed placebos. This was super annoying. The obvious way to create them would be to buy some empty capsules and fill some with theanine and others with some inert substance. But that doesn’t sound fun. Isn’t the whole idea of modernity that we’re supposed to replace labor with capital?

So I went searching for a pair of capsules I could buy off the shelf, subject to the following constraints:

  1. Capsule A contains 200 mg of theanine.
  2. Capsule B contains something with minimal acute effects on anxiety, stress, memory, concentration, etc.
  3. Capsule B contains something I don’t mind putting into my body.
  4. Both capsules are exactly the same size and weight.
  5. Both capsules are almost but not quite the same color.
  6. Both capsules are made by some company with a history of making at least a modest effort to sell supplements that contain what they say they contain, and that don’t have terrifying levels of heavy metals.
  7. The capsules themselves aren’t made from the skin and bones and connective tissues of dead animals (personal preference).

After a ludicrous amount of searching, I found that NOW® sells these veggie capsules:

Capsule A: 200 mg L-Theanine

Capsule B: 25 mcg (1,000 IU) Vitamin D

These are exactly the same size, exactly the same weight, exactly the same texture, and very close in color. They’re so close in color that under warm lighting, they’re indistinguishable. But under cold/blue lighting, the vitamin D capsules are slightly more yellow. Vitamin D might have some effects on mood, but no one seems to claim that they’re acute, that you’d feel them within an hour.

For dosing, I decided to take a capsule whenever I was feeling stressed or anxious. Some people worry this invalidates the results. Not so! I’m still choosing randomly, and this better reflects how people use theanine in practice.

Theanine is often recommended for reducing anxiety from caffeine. While I didn’t explicitly take caffeine as part of this experiment, I had almost always taken some anyway.

Statistically, it would have been best to randomize so I had a 50% chance of taking theanine and a 50% chance of taking vitamin D. But I decided that would be annoying, since I was taking these capsules when stressed. So I decided to randomize so I got theanine ⅔ of the time and vitamin D ⅓ of the time.

Randomization was very easy: I took two theanine capsules and one vitamin D capsule and put them into a little cup. I then closed my eyes, shook the cup around a bit and took one. I then covered the cup with a card.

capsules

This picture shows one vitamin D capsule (top) and two theanine capsules.

For each trial, I recorded my subjective starting stress level on a scale of 1-5, then set an alarm for an hour, which is enough to reach near-peak concentrations in the blood. After the alarm sounded (or occasionally later, if I missed it) I recorded the end time, my end stress level, and my percentage prediction that what I’d taken was actually theanine. Then, and only then, I looked into the cup. If the two remaining pills were different colors, I’d taken theanine. If not, it was vitamin D.

After ~14 months, I got frustrated by how slowly data was coming in. This was the first time in my life I’ve had too much chill. At that point, I decided to start taking the capsules once or twice a day, even if I wasn’t stressed. I’ll show the transition point in the graphs below.

Ultimately, I collected 94 data points, which look like this:

Date Start time Start stres End time End stress Prediction Result
Nov 18, 2023 9:38 AM 3.5 10:45 AM 2.2 80% T
Nov 19, 2023 9:40 AM 2.8 10:41 AM 2.9 75% T
Feb 28, 2025 4:58 PM 2.1 5:58 PM 1.8 75% D
Mar 3, 2025 6:12 PM 2.1 7:12 PM 2.0 61% T

What are the results?

Bad.

Here are the raw stress levels. Each line line shows one trial, with the start marked with a tiny horizontal bar. Note the clear change when I started dosing daily:

Thoughts

Ooof.

My stress level did usually go down, at least provided I was stressed at the start. But it went down regardless of if I took theanine or not. And I was terrible at guessing what I’d taken.

Why did my stress decrease when I took vitamin D? Maybe it’s the placebo effect. But I suspect it’s mostly reversion to the mean: If you mark down the times in your life when you’re most stressed, on average you’ll be less stressed an hour later. You can see some evidence for this in that stress tended to decrease more when it started at a higher level.

So, eyeballing the above figures, theanine doesn’t appear to do anything. (We can argue about statistics below.) Why? I think these are the possibilities:

  1. Theanine works, but I got fake theanine.
  2. Theanine works, but vitamin D works equally well.
  3. Theanine works, but I was unlucky.
  4. Theanine works, but I’m disembodied and unable to report my internal states.
  5. Theanine works on some people, but not me.
  6. Theanine doesn’t work.

It’s hard to disprove the idea that theanine works. But I tell you this: I expected it to work. And I really tried. For almost 100 trials over 16 months, I paid attention to what I was feeling and tried to detect any sign that I’d taken theanine, even if it wasn’t a change in stress. I could detect nothing. Even after months of failure, I’d often feel confident that this time I could tell, only to be proven wrong.

So, cards on the table, here are my made-up probabilities for each of the possible explanations:

Explanation belief
Fake theanine 3%
D equally good 1%
Unlucky 6%
Disembodied 15%
Not on me 20%
Doesn’t work 55%

Should I have been surprised by these results? Well, the scientific literature on theanine hasn’t found much of an effect. And the only other good self-experiment on theanine I’ve found is by Niplav, who found it did slightly worse than chance and declared it a “hard pass”.

What about other blinded self-experiments with other substances? They’re surprisingly scarce, but here’s what I could find:

Stimulants work! But for everything else…

I particularly encourage you to read the sleep support post. He was confident it worked, he’d recommended it to lots of friends, but it totally failed when put to the test.

I’ve seen many other self-experiments (including for theanine), but they’re non-blinded and I’d be doing you a disservice if I liked to them. People often mention that hypothetically this means the results aren’t scientific, but treat it like a small niggling technicality. It’s not.

So I propose a new rule: Blind trial or GTFO.

I know many people reading this probably use and like theanine. Maybe it works for you! But given the weak academic results, and given the fact that I actually did a blinded experiment, I think you now have the burden of proof. Doing this kind of test isn’t hard. If you’re sure theanine (or anything else) works, prove it.

Appendix: OK fine let’s argue about statistics

Do you demand p-values? Are you outraged I just plotted the data and then started talking about it qualitatively?

I think faith in statistics follows a U-shaped curve. By default, people don’t trust them. If you learn a little statistics, they seem great. (Particularly if you’re part of a community that’s formed a little cult around one set of statistical practices and convinced each other that they’re more reliable than they are.) But if you learn a lot of statistics, then you realize all the assumptions that are needed and all the ways things can go wrong and you become very paranoid.

If you want p-values, I’ll give you p-values. But first let me point out a problem.

While I was blinded during each trial, I saw the theanine/D result when I wrote it down. Over time I couldn’t help but notice that my stress dropped even when I took vitamin D, and that I was terrible at predicting what I’d taken. So while this experiment is randomized and blinded, the data isn’t independent or identically distributed. If I did this again, I’d make sure I couldn’t see any outcomes until the end, perhaps by making 100 numbered envelopes, putting three capsules in each, and only looking at what was left at the end.

But if you want to compute p-values anyway, OK! Here are the basic numbers for the trials when I took theanine:

Variable Substance Mean 95% C.I. p
start stress theanine 2.480 (2.361, 2.599)  
end stress theanine 2.181 (2.104, 2.258)  
Δ stress theanine -0.299 (-0.392, -0.205) 2.00×10⁻⁸
Predicted T theanine 68.4% (66.2%, 70.5%)  

Stress went down, p < .0000001. But here are the the numbers for vitamin D:

Variable Substance Mean 95% C.I. p
start stress vitamin D 2.350 (2.173, 2.526)  
end stress vitamin D 2.025 (1.936, 2.114)  
Δ stress vitamin D -0.325 (-0.453, -0.197) 2.44×10⁻⁵
Predicted T vitamin D 72.9% (69.7%, 76.1%)  

Stress also went down.

Finally, here’s the difference between theanine and vitamin D, computed with a two-sided t-test with unequal variance:

Variable Substance Mean 95% C.I. p
start stress theanine - D 0.130 (-0.095, 0.354) 0.254
end stress theanine - D 0.156 (0.0165, 0.296) 0.029
Δ stress theanine - D -0.026 (-0.201, 0.148) 0.764
Predicted T theanine - D -4.5% (-8.5%, -0.5%) 0.029

Technically, I did find two significant results. But the second row says that end stress was slightly higher with theanine than with vitamin D, and the last row says that I gave slightly higher probabilities that I’d taken theanine when I’d actually taken vitamin D.

Of course, I don’t think this means I’ve proven theanine is harmful. I just think this confirms my general paranoia. To a first approximation, if it ain’t visible in the raw data, I ain’t going.

just look at the data

Speaking of raw data, you can download mine here.


Read the original article

Comments

  • By mg 2025-03-098:2614 reply

    This is great. The author defines their own metrics, is doing their own A/B tests and publishes their interpretation plus the raw data. Imagine a world where all health blogging was like that.

    Personally, I have not published any results yet, but I have been doing this type of experiments for 4 years now. And collected 48874 data points so far. I built a simple system to do it in Vim:

    https://www.gibney.org/a_syntax_for_self-tracking

    I also built a bunch of tooling to analyze the data.

    I think that mankind could greatly benefit from more people doing randomized studies on their own. Especially if we find a way to collectively interpret the data.

    So I really applaud the author for conducting this and especially for providing the raw data.

    Reading through the article and the comments here on HN, I wish there was more focus on the interpretation of the experiment. Pretty much all comments here seem to be anecdotal.

    Let's look at the author's interpretation. Personally, I find that part a bit short.

    They calculated 4 p-values and write:

        Technically, I did find two significant results.
    
    I wonder what "Technically" means here. Are there "significant results" that are "better" than just "technically significant results"?

    Then they continue:

        Of course, I don’t think this
        means I’ve proven theanine is harmful.
    
    So what does it mean? What was the goal of collecting the data? What would the interpretation have been if the data would show a significant positive effect of Theanine?

    It's great that they offer the raw data. I look forward to taking a look at it later today.

    • By matthewdgreen 2025-03-0911:5912 reply

      This is an N=1 trial. Dressing your N=1 trial up with lots of pseudo controls and pseudo blinding and data collection does not make it better. In fact: putting this much effort into any medication trial makes it much more likely that you’re going to be incentivized to find effects that don’t exist. I think it’s nice that the author admits that they found nothing, but statistically, worthless drugs show effects in much better-designed trials than this one: it’s basically a coin toss.

      • By robwwilliams 2025-03-0912:166 reply

        Complete injustice to this lovely study. Why do you say unblinded? Why do you insult a time series study as “dressing up with lots of data”? Would you rather see less data? Or are you volunteering to be test subject #2? Show us how to do it right Dr. M.!

        In my opinion this is an exemplary N=1 study that is well designed and thoughtfully executed. Deserve accolades, not derision. And the author even recognizes possible improvements.

        Unlike most large high N clinical trials this is a high resolution longitudinal trial, and it is perfectly “controlled” for genetic difference (none), well controlled for environment, and there is only one evaluator.

        Compare this to the messy and mostly useless massive studies of human depression reviewed by Jonathan Flint.

        https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36702864/

        • By grafmax 2025-03-0913:581 reply

          I think social media discussions of science would be better informed by the concept of a ‘hierarchy of evidence’.

          Anecdotal data, n=1 trials of varying quality, correlations studies, double blind studies (with small and large cohorts), studies without attempted replication and studies with heavy replication - they are all provide evidence of varying quality and can inform the holistic scientific picture. They can all serve a purpose such as inspiring further research, providing fodder for meta analyses, etc. It simply isn’t true that gathered evidence ought to be casually discarded if it doesn’t attain the highest levels of the hierarchy of evidence. Neither is it true that some small study showing (or not showing) some supposed effect should drastically change all our lifestyle habits. The truth lies somewhere in the middle. The concept of a hierarchy of evidence can help us navigate these apparently mixed signals so prevalent in popular science discussions.

        • By jrootabega 2025-03-0914:591 reply

          If he said unblinded at some point, it could have been because the study author looked into the cup to determine which substance had been taken too soon. The subject should have had no knowledge of what was taken until the entire 16-month trial was over.

          We should avoid extreme polarization of our judgments in general. The study deserves some amount of praise for things it did somewhat well (like the method of blinding which is clever, but not applicable to everyone), and criticism for things it did not do well, such as designing your own study methodology for your own mood. That alone will affect the results. Simply RUNNING an experiment can affect your mood because it's interesting (or even maybe frustrating). The subject probably felt pride and satisfaction whenever they used their pill selection technique, which could improve mood on its own. Neither accolades nor complete derision are appropriate, although trying to claim too strong a result from this study is kinda deserving of derision if you claim to be science-minded.

          The study was well-meaning and displayed cleverness.

          • By robwwilliams 2025-03-0916:121 reply

            And that is exactly the point made in the target post by the author. He explicitly raised that criticism himself. Double kudos for self-criticism. You will not find many conventional science publications pointing out: “Shucks, we could have done this a better”.

            • By jrootabega 2025-03-0916:191 reply

              The ancestor post is neither a "Complete injustice" nor "derision" nor an "insult", and it doesn't warrant a hostile mocking reply. Its tone could have been gentler, but it wasn't that bad. And the study doesn't really deserve "accolades", it deserves to be recognized for whatever it does well. Such polarization of tone and vocabulary doesn't accomplish much, and I'll even propose that it actually prevents good things from happening. It is good that the author is aware of, and acknowledges, the problems in the study. What other studies and journals have done wrong doesn't make the author or study more deserving of praise.

              Also, you asked why he said "unblinded", and I think you now have the answer to that.

              • By robwwilliams 2025-03-101:56

                Yes, perhaps. But please tell me you have read the original post. It is thoughtful, self-deprecatory, careful, well analyzed, and upfront about limitations and possible improvements.

                Re-reading such a negative critique of a solid home-brew experiment is unwarranted. There are several word here worth red flags.

                >This is an N=1 trial. Dressing your N=1 trial up with lots of pseudo controls and pseudo blinding and data collection does not make it better. In fact: putting this much effort into any medication trial makes it much more likely that you’re going to be incentivized to find effects that don’t exist. I think it’s nice that the author admits that they found nothing, but statistically, worthless drugs show effects in much better-designed trials than this one: it’s basically a coin toss.

        • By levocardia 2025-03-0918:571 reply

          Because....

          >While I was blinded during each trial, I saw the theanine/D result when I wrote it down. Over time I couldn’t help but notice that my stress dropped even when I took vitamin D, and that I was terrible at predicting what I’d taken

          That is not blinding

          • By sgc 2025-03-0919:502 reply

            I would have taken a well-calibrated photo of the cup each time without looking, maybe with a color card in the bottom, and only entered results at the end of the trial.

            Given that there is no documentation of whether the events during the hour of test time were more or less stressful than those before it, and no taking the time of day, diet and exercise, sleep, location (quiet island or next to a construction site), etc into account, the data seems useless.

            As a note, I have no idea why he bothered trying to guess what he had taken. What possible value could that have in this type of experiment?

            Perhaps the correct course of action would be to ask for feedback in the design phase of an N=1 trial, especially a longer one, to avoid some basic mistakes.

            • By fc417fc802 2025-03-102:101 reply

              If your sample is blinded yet you consistently guess correctly, then presumably either 1. you failed at blinding or 2. there is a strong and discernible effect, regardless of what your other metrics might say (your other metrics could always be flawed after all).

              > no documentation of whether the events during the hour of test time were more or less stressful than those before it, and no taking the time of day, diet and exercise, sleep, location

              Assuming the blinded samples are uniformly randomly distributed, and assuming the study goes on long enough, then you'd expect that stuff to average out.

              But I agree, it should be recorded nonetheless. That way you can verify at the end that it did, in fact, average out as you expected. If it didn't then your data is invalid.

              • By sgc 2025-03-110:551 reply

                He has 94 data points. Not nearly enough to average out so many potentially confounding variables, and there is no way to know they would. That will be the case in almost all N=1 experiments. Perhaps he takes the pill at the onset of stress, and stress almost always tends to build afterwards. This would be a probable case for many people trying to use theanine in this way. I could never accept that we should presume it would average out, and thus I consider logging potentially confounding variables essential to a valid experiment of this type of uncontrolled experiment. Your hypothesis would be much more relevant in a larger experiment of course.

                • By fc417fc802 2025-03-111:281 reply

                  > Perhaps he takes the pill at the onset of stress, and stress almost always tends to build afterwards.

                  That would not be a problem regarding the averaging I referred to, although it could well pose a problem for measurement depending on how it interacted with the selected metrics.

                  Note that the averaging I refer to is not regarding all possible values of some metric, but rather any discrepancy in the distribution of metrics which we expected to follow the same distribution between the sample and the control.

                  I think maybe there's a misunderstanding? It seems that we both agree that a variety of additional variable should be logged. I was not suggesting to omit them, but rather to use discrepancies in them to detect fundamental issues with the data or study design. I would also expect larger studies to do the same where possible.

                  At 94 data points it is entirely possible that there would be outliers that would have averaged out for a larger N but did not. In such a scenario the presence of such outliers should then be taken to indicate a problem with the data (ie the more discrepancies you observe, the less you should trust the data).

                  • By sgc 2025-03-1112:36

                    I was mainly saying I don't understand why you were indicating we should presume or expect they would average out in an N=1 experiment. Even in much larger experiments that is not reliably the case. Science would be relatively easy if there were not a lot of noise in the real world. So, to be clear, my concern is mainly one of scale - the experiment is far too restricted to overlook this: the smaller the experiment, the more important this type of information. Perhaps you were not saying that such averaging might be possible in an N=1 experiment and I misread, since it seems that you comment here indicates a different point.

                    I of course agree that logging them is basic scientific methodology - in order to detect issues with the experiment, and even hopefully to see the signal through the noise.

            • By kqr 2025-03-0921:491 reply

              > As a note, I have no idea why he bothered trying to guess what he had taken. What possible value could that have in this type of experiment?

              It gives a hint of how well the blinding worked.

              • By sgc 2025-03-100:26

                Yes, that is a good point. But it also causes him to continuously think about indicators to determine what he has taken. He is constantly trying to punch the veil on this "blind" study instead of doing everything he can to avoid that. Are they really the exact same weight? Do they really feel the same in his hand, mouth and throat? Does one have a slightly different taste - after all, no filling process will leave the outside of the capsule 100% free of powder, etc? Very subtle differences could manifest themselves over 16 months.

        • By eth0up 2025-03-103:451 reply

          If you ever wonder why some folks with a fair amount of potential and something to offer keep to themselves, this isn't the worst example.

          I think most people could criticize the carbon out of a corpse if they themselves weren't being criticized into one.

          If we devolved from apes, maybe apes devolved from piranhas.

        • By throwup238 2025-03-0920:11

          > Why do you say unblinded?

          It’s unblinded because the subject is preparing the concoction under study. There is no way they can create a blind experiment if they’re the ones preparing the control. The placebo effect is nothing if not pernicious and cunning, able to exploit even the most subtle psychological signal - like minuscule differences in the amount of powder in a capsule.

          Blinded studies have independent doctors prepare and dispense the candidate drug so they know whether its the real thing or a placebo, but their patients dont. In double blinded studies, neither the doctor nor the patient have any idea about what they’re getting because a third party prepares the drugs.

      • By brothrock 2025-03-0915:112 reply

        N=1 is addressed, see outcome predictions. N=1 comes with caveats, of course, but a study like this, with a proven harmless supplement, should be welcomed and praised.

        It is clearly a step forward from what you can watch about theanine on YouTube or TikTok. I consider this a work of citizen science. While it should not be taken for more than it is, it’s a great example of how someone can experiment without a high burden.

        • By matthewdgreen 2025-03-0918:50

          N=1 studies aren’t evil. They’re just pretty close to the entire history of pre-modern medicine that led us to bad evidence. My concern here is not that someone is sharing their opinions, it’s the fact that the person doing this explicitly heaps derision on the “placebo people” (or some other phrasing) and then heaps praise on other people doing N=1 studies and proceeds to do one. This stuff all needs to be treated with humor, good faith, and then extreme skepticism about any result it produces.

        • By ryandrake 2025-03-0915:54

          That's a pretty low bar though. OK, it's one step up from a monetized YouTube video that boils down to "It works--Trust me, bro." I still wouldn't really call it citizen science.

      • By derlvative 2025-03-0914:252 reply

        Noooooo you can’t just run independent experiments you need institutions and phds and bureaucracy and gold plating nooooo

        • By CamperBob2 2025-03-0917:351 reply

          These smug pilots have lost touch with the down-to-earth lives and concerns of ordinary passengers like us. Let's see a show of hands: who thinks I should fly the plane?

          • By eru 2025-03-103:231 reply

            You should link to the source of your quote.

            • By CamperBob2 2025-03-105:391 reply

              Arguably so, but all I can find are other plagiarized copies. :-P

              The New Yorker's paywall has successfully obscured the origin of the joke, so that's on them, as far as I'm concerned.

              • By eru 2025-03-108:491 reply

                Yes.

                Well, instead of an actual web link, you could just mention that it's from the New Yorker.

                • By CamperBob2 2025-03-1016:40

                  "It's from the New Yorker. The most important magazine of our time. Probably the most important magazine that ever was."

                  (From a vaguely-remembered 1990s-era ad campaign that I thought was excruciatingly self-indulgent at the time, but which evidently worked.)

        • By smohare 2025-03-0916:241 reply

          It’s not about elitism. It’s that there are so many confounding factors that even a well-informed approach makes such a study comtain very little of value

          Comments like yours expose a particularly distasteful amount of hubris.

          • By derlvative 2025-03-1013:03

            You don’t like it you don’t have to read the blog article. I assure you are not the intended audience. For the rest of us it provided valuable insight.

      • By wslh 2025-03-0913:54

        In science, an n=1 experiment isn’t discarded; instead, it adds information that can guide future experiments.

      • By jrootabega 2025-03-0915:12

        Hell, I'd say it's an 0<=N<1 because it involves subjective mood reporting, and there was no participant who was not contaminated by flaws in the methodology.

      • By episteme 2025-03-0912:151 reply

        You could argue that this N is the only N that matters though.

        • By malfist 2025-03-0912:342 reply

          Not too me though. Especially not to me if I'm trying to decide to supplement l-theanine

          • By ryandrake 2025-03-0915:551 reply

            Right. The only N that you can draw any conclusions about is the author himself. So, why even publish it? The "results" are not applicable to anyone reading it. This is the health version of the software industry's "It works on my system!"

            • By episteme 2025-03-0917:14

              Publish it is quite a loaded word here. Almost every blog or post you read is from the point of view of a single person. There's nothing wrong with him putting his experience out into the world.

      • By cortesoft 2025-03-0920:12

        N=1 trial is great if you are trying to figure out what works for you as an individual

      • By Enginerrrd 2025-03-1017:03

        >Dressing your N=1 trial up with lots of pseudo controls and pseudo blinding and data collection does not make it better.

        This is only an appropriate criticism in so far as you want to make conclusions about theanine as an intervention in the broader population.

        It is however, perhaps much BETTER than large N trials if the author wishes to draw conclusions about how theanine affects THEM.

      • By altcognito 2025-03-0914:531 reply

        Why do you say pseudo blinding, it seems like it is blind in that the author doesn’t know if he is taking the test or not.

        Now you can argue that there isn’t enough time between samples, or he needs more subjects but he was blind to whether he was taking it that day or not.

        • By jrootabega 2025-03-0915:04

          If the author felt good on a particular day for whatever reason, and then learned they had taken the active substance, their reports are contaminated forever. It works the other way, too. It works any way you slice it.

      • By bonestamp2 2025-03-0923:53

        > This is an N=1 trial

        Sure, OP addressed that and said it would be especially useful more people did it and "if we find a way to collectively interpret the data".

      • By tomrod 2025-03-0915:22

        Aye. Completely agree. Path dependence matters, which is why you can't just look at pre/post action.

      • By azeirah 2025-03-0917:461 reply

        Any experiment you perform on yourself has N=1. Self-science isn't as robust as gold standard double blind blablabla PhD trials, but come on.

        How else are you going to find out whether a particular diet or medication works for you specifically? It's ALWAYS N=1.

        • By hartator 2025-03-0917:56

          And a honest n=1 is better than a double blind n=1000 but outcome-interested study. It’s so easy to make data tell the story you want.

    • By K0balt 2025-03-0912:281 reply

      Citizens science used to be much more common and there were several publications initially built around the concept. Unfortunately, the idea has all but been obliterated by inadequate public education and the chronic lack of time that now embattles the middle classes.

      • By luqtas 2025-03-0913:012 reply

        fortunately* citzen science was replaced by solid methods... this is a long fancy self reported post on a metric that is easily figured out by biomarkers (stress levels). what's the consequences if the author decided to make some claim about a substance?

        • By K0balt 2025-03-100:462 reply

          I think you are ignoring the fact that citizen science was alive and very well up into the 1980s. It was never a replacement for professional science, but rather citizen scientists often observed things that were deemed worth of follow-up by academic researchers.

          Citizens scientists rarely post “facts” but rather interesting avenues for research or further investigation. Part of being an educated citizen scientist is to understand the limitations of your knowledge, data, and methods.

          Quacks and cranks, on the other hand, are always making grand new “discoveries” lol.

          Anyone who has a decent education can make observations apply the scientific method. I say this coming from a family of actual scientists from molecular biology to particle physics, who will tell you the same, and also give credit to the multitude of citizen scientists who have done just that.

          As for myself, I’ll stick to engineering.

          • By luqtas 2025-03-102:25

            i think anyone researching whatever in their home is doing 'science'

            but this isn't the case! i linked in an answer to my post what science knows when measuring stress... it's far away from a self-reported subjective question

            i think the problem is whatever you post on the internet is politic. it may have a huge reach, and so far so good people trying far from lethal doses of theanine. now, what if an influencer wants to make their stuff look intellectual and go buy pure caffeine? how about the people coming after wards?

            one thing is a 3D-print project at your garage on keyboards ergonomics, home automation, another is rock-climbing gear and another is substances with reachable lethal doses where the masses can buy (not the case here but again, i cited caffeine but there's much more). the author has a stellar presentation but they seriously researched what science does when measuring stress? they didn't even considered The Perceived Stress Scale (PSS), which is used on professional research. i stand against public posts with badly methods (or the complete lack of research) suppressed by fancy graphics on substance use/abuse. i also bet isn't that hard to buy empty pills with opaque color

          • By Suppafly 2025-03-1016:531 reply

            >I think you are ignoring the fact that citizen science was alive and very well up into the 1980s.

            Some version of that still exists among people with a naturalist bent recording observations of reptiles, birds, plants, etc. But yeah, we don't really have backyard chemists analyzing things anymore.

            • By K0balt 2025-03-1023:32

              Astronomy also has an important citizen-science component, and many discoveries are made by amateur astronomers each year.

              Another interesting aspect of citizen science is replication of existing scientific research, Often with experimental modifications that make the experiment much more approachable for amateurs. Sometimes this even leads to process improvements that facilitate industrial application.

        • By luqtas 2025-03-0915:28

          couldn't edit but here it's how science measure stress: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8434839/

    • By kqr 2025-03-0910:561 reply

      > So what does it mean? What was the goal of collecting the data? What would the interpretation have been if the data would show a significant positive effect of Theanine?

      I think what the author is saying is that for them to bother with theanine on a permanent basis, it would have to have shown an effect large enough to be apparent just from plotting.

      In other words, they mean technical significance as opposed to clinical significance. A small effect can be statistically verifiable without being meaningful in practice.

      • By mg 2025-03-0911:11

            an effect large enough to be
            apparent just from plotting
        
        And how large is that? Without putting a number on it, how do we come to the conclusion that the effect is not large enough? That it didn't show in their sample of data points could have been just random chance.

        But before we take the measured effects at face value, I think it's important think about them more. They report significant p values of their success in predicting if the capsule holds Theanine and also for the effect of the capsule when it holds Theanine. Both negative correlations. My first thought reading this is that the Placebo tasted more like Theanine and thinking they took Theanine had a positive effect on the outcome.

    • By gus_massa 2025-03-1013:34

      >> Technically, I did find two significant results.

      The problem is that he is comparing two very different things, the level when he took the pill and the level one hour after that. So it's not surprising that they are different. Let's imagine a very very very stupid experiment, where the problem is more obvious.

      Does Coca Cola or Pepsi improve luck? N=1000000, double blind randomized controlled trial.

      1) Each subject flips a coin. tail=0, head=1.

      2) They drink a glas of soda, 50% Coke or 50% Pepsi, that is served in a hidden place and nor the subject or the experimenter know which one.

      3) They roll a dice (an usual one, D6)

      Results:

      * Average before Coke = 0.5002

      * Average after Coke = 3.5005

      * Average before Pepsi = 0.5004

      * Average after Pepsi = 3.5003

      So the conclusion is that Coke improves the average (p<1E-a-lot) and Pepsi improves the average (p<1E-a-lot). Both are "technically" statistically significant (but it's caused by a horrible experiment design).

      Unsurprisingly, the difference in the average after drinking Coke or Pepsi is not statistically significant (p<.something).

      (I'm too lazy to run a simulation now, but it's not difficult to get realistic averages and p values.)

      In conclusion, the useful result is the comparison of the anxiety after taking both drugs, not the difference of before and after taking them.

      As the article says:

      >> So I propose a new rule: Blind trial or GTFO.

    • By angg 2025-03-1616:50

      > https://www.gibney.org/a_syntax_for_self-tracking

      Loved reading this as I have been on a similar self tracking journey of my own.

      I am curious about your thoughts on mobile support? Specifically, have you implemented anything to make adding/editing events while away from your computer easier? Or perhaps you feel it is not important for your use case?

      Personally, I've found that being able to log an event in an instant, or just on a whim, is invaluable for capturing the sort of data I care about tracking the most (like what I just ate or my mood), and I find too much friction causes many events simply go unlogged as they almost always feel too unimportant or mundane in retrospect to keep a mental note of and track later.

      I started out with a text file system similar to yours but I've since begrudgingly resorted to google forms for most of my tracking needs. It's nice that I can arbitrarily add and remove fields while still keeping everything relatively structured and parseable, and it does have (albeit inferior) revision history. But I dislike not having ownership and control over where my data is stored and absolutely *dread* waiting for the form to load every time I want to log an event, especially on mobile.

    • By quijoteuniv 2025-03-0913:181 reply

      I think is great that folk self observe, and that is a key to a lot, everyone ought to find what works for themselves, however there is a tendency to want to fix things with pills. There is a fundamental error there, if successful you might damp your symptoms but then you start a Whac-A-Mole (whac-a-symptom) but you are not looking at the root. The problem will come in another form. Have you consider that the symptom is a defence mechanism ?What about Taichi, mindfulness ness practices, yoga why not a study on that? It is definitely more work… than taking some pills. No I am not against taking supplements. But ultimately is a workaround you are not fixing the bug

      • By Forgeties79 2025-03-0913:312 reply

        I’m not sure if this is your intention, but I take issue with the implication that “pills” (aka “medication” and “medicine,” “pills” has a generally negative connotation) aren’t often the solution to the root problem.

        It is great if you can solve things with diet, mindfulness, etc. But sometimes you need medical intervention and yes sometimes that means you need to take medication in the form of pills. There are millions of people who need that regardless of how they change their lifestyle or regulate their emotions/mental health without them.

        Basically I don’t like the idea that you are implying medication is a bandaid and not ever the actual solution. If I misreading your comment my apologies

        • By quijoteuniv 2025-03-0914:041 reply

          This is good point, thank you, lot of people needs medicine, and i am glad they are accesible. My point goes more towards this: Imagine someone runs a marathon everyday, after a couple of months, start experiencing pain and inflammation. Do they need painkillers or do they need to ask themselves why they are running a marathon everyday? I am not against taking some painkillers as long as you also ask yourself the question. Do i really need to run a marathon everyday? I do not want to cure disease with yoga, no, but you should give it a go, whatever works for you, self observe, train a bit, walk in the forest, surf, meditate. Wellbeing cannot be achieved only with medicine.

          • By Forgeties79 2025-03-0915:03

            Fair point! Thanks for clearing that up for me

        • By Jerrrrrry 2025-03-0915:361 reply

          The strawman sentiment of "no medication ever" is a pretty easy take to herald against.

          The nuanced truth is that our medical industry is flawed; since most illnesses are defined by their set of apparent symptoms (with most root causes not fully understood) the standard approach is to treat "symptoms" with medicines with sides effects rivaling the original ailment!

          What if the lack of proper diet ('proper' varies wildly with populations), drugs/alcohol, sleep, stress, and exercise were the originating cause? Rushing to the medication treatment without fixing those vitals first eliminates the opportunity.

          Our bodies have much more adaptive self-healing resilience properties innate to our species development than our own species hubris seems to acknowledge. And most people severely underestimate the importance big four.

          • By Forgeties79 2025-03-1616:48

            I think calling my comment a strawman is a little unfair given the way he wrote it seemed pretty unequivocal at first. Once they clarified their stance I understood it better and was perfectly fine accepting that’s not what they meant.

    • By robwwilliams 2025-03-0911:592 reply

      “Technically” here could imply “not corrected for multiple tests”. But the typical qualifier I use is “nominally significant” when I don’t apply an correction for multiple tests.

      Or “not using a one-way t test”.

      The most appropriate null hypothesis in this lovely study is “does theanine REDUCE anxiety”, not “does theanine change anxiety either up or down”.

      What impressed me most is the suggestion for an improved experimental design to remove his temporal drift by using 100 pre-loaded envelopes and only decoding the results at the end.

      • By azalemeth 2025-03-0912:081 reply

        > The most appropriate null hypothesis in this lovely study is “does theanine REDUCE anxiety”, not “does theanine change anxiety either up or down”.

        I disagree with this. You have a prior belief that theanine might reduce anxiety; if you wanted to you could codify that subjective belief and perform some variety of Bayesian hypothesis test [1] and compute a Bayes factor. The main reason that one-sided tests are advocated for is power; that is often the same as having a prior belief in disguise. Why not quantify it?

        However, scientifically, if the data conclusively show that "theanine increases anxiety" that is a meaningful, non-artefactual result: it is hugely important to be sensitive to the answer 'you are wrong' and may well ironically spur development in a direction to help understand what is going on. I personally think that one sided tests are best avoided except in the case where it is physically impossible to have an effect in the other direction. Examples of this are rare, but they do occasionally exist.

        [1] https://mspeekenbrink.github.io/sdam-book/ch-Bayes-factors.h...

        • By robwwilliams 2025-03-0913:16

          Sure. I can see your point, but the most reasonable posterior probability of the null given the biohacker community’s belief is one-tailed. This also gives more power to reject the null.

      • By ac29 2025-03-0916:39

        > The most appropriate null hypothesis in this lovely study is “does theanine REDUCE anxiety”, not “does theanine change anxiety either up or down”.

        Neither of those is a hypothesis, which require a prediction not just a question.

        The null hypothesis for this experiment would be "Theanine has no effect on stress".

    • By jvanderbot 2025-03-0914:27

      Really fantastic.

      I've been using theanine for a long time, but never for any of these purported benefits. And the benefits I do use it for would be near impossible to measure. I just use it to make a over-caffinated monkey brain state tend toward a "lock-in" mental state. That's super hard to measure, and just as likely the theanine is a trigger for a mental deep dive that could just as well be sugar. But the ritual works, and that's what's important to me. It just took the intial "It helps mellow out caffeine for deep focus" idea to establish the ritual.

      Science? No. Effective? Yeah, I think so.

    • By stevage 2025-03-0911:43

      They were looking for a clear effect. they did not find one.

    • By ninetyninenine 2025-03-0915:43

      >Pretty much all comments here seem to be anecdotal.

      The entire blog post was anecdotal.

    • By kortilla 2025-03-0910:193 reply

      Well the issue is that an experiment with 1 person can’t prove much because you can’t have a control group.

      Too much other stuff is changing in a single persons life that could account for all observed side effects.

      You also have latent side effect issues. A person could smoke for 10 years, not smoke for another 10, and then conclude that smoking doesn’t cause cancer. Then they get lung cancer 20 years later.

      Excellent data and statistics is not sufficient for a good experiment

      • By mg 2025-03-0910:418 reply

        An experiment of 1 person can very well produce useful data.

        It depends on the setup of the experiment.

        Imagine an experiment where a person's thumb gets randomly hit with either a hammer or a feather once per day. And they then subjectively rate the experience. After 1000 days of collecting data, I doubt that we would wrongly come to the conclusion that the hammer treatment leads to the nicer outcome.

        The setup of the Theanine experiment which is the basis of this thread looks good on first sight. I have the feeling that the interpretation could use more thought though.

        • By chiefalchemist 2025-03-0911:301 reply

          Yes and no. The issue with a self-administered experiment is that becomes part of the experiment. Does the self-administration and the associated thoughts and beliefs affect the results? It’s not like the experimentor can issue a placebo to themselves.

          • By dublinben 2025-03-0913:58

            >It’s not like the experimentor can issue a placebo to themselves.

            TFA describes a protocol for doing just that. The author randomly selected between the treatment dose and placebo. They didn't reveal the choice until after the effect should be complete so they could record the results.

        • By chkgk 2025-03-0912:101 reply

          A problem I see is that you can never be sure that it also works for other people. Just because one person reacts to a specific treatment does not mean that people on average react to the treatment in the same way. That’s the problem of having a sample size of 1. In other words: We cannot say much about whether the effect generalizes to a larger population from knowing that it has an affect on just one person.

          • By yimby2001 2025-03-0914:08

            It’s very possible that some things can be good for one person and not for another. Should we only ever have drugs that can help everyone?

        • By Suppafly 2025-03-1016:57

          A similar, actually useful, experiment is the one where a guy cracked the knuckles of only one hand for several years and found no ill effects from doing so compared to the other hand with non-cracked knuckles.

        • By pbhjpbhj 2025-03-0911:28

          Then you find {imagining scenarios} that the bruising causes some effect that 'inoculates' against heart disease, or the feather carries a pathogen that later induces dementia??

        • By tomalbrc 2025-03-0911:091 reply

          What a weird take, in 99.999% of cases you don’t have such a black/white contrast

          • By mg 2025-03-0911:17

            Sure. But even when you add noise to the described experiment, you get useful data.

            That is the point I am making: Experiments of a single person can be useful.

            The critics of single person experiments usually come up with examples vastly different than the Theanine experiment described here. With long term experiments which are only conducted once. But the Theanine experiment was looking for a short term effect and can be conducted many times. The hammer experiment I made up would be an extreme example of this type of experiment which leads itself well to be conducted by a single person.

            What I am trying to point out is that if you are a skeptic, it would be better to try and find weaknesses in the experiment at hand. Not making up completely different experiments.

        • By VerdisQuo5678 2025-03-0914:41

          i hope your 1 person isn't a masochist

      • By Zak 2025-03-0915:09

        The experiment answers a useful question: does theanine have a strong, acute anti-stress effect on the experimenter?

        Effect size is the key element of this question. If the substance was alprazolam (Xanax) instead of theanine, we would almost certainly see a strong effect here. The same would be true for heroin, ethanol, or cocaine.

        It's not trying to test whether there might be a strong effect for most people or whether there are any side effects. Other experiments have been done with theanine seeking to answer those questions; the answers appear to be no and no.

      • By eru 2025-03-103:24

        > Too much other stuff is changing in a single persons life that could account for all observed side effects.

        > You also have latent side effect issues. A person could smoke for 10 years, not smoke for another 10, and then conclude that smoking doesn’t cause cancer. Then they get lung cancer 20 years later.

        But that's not the actual experiment here. Your criticism is invalid. The author randomised every day which supplement to take.

        That's pretty close to a blocked design.

    • By silent_cal 2025-03-1116:08

      From what I've seen, most scientists don't even publish their raw data.

    • By brodo 2025-03-0910:121 reply

      Your self-tracking syntax looks neat. How do you track if you are not in front of a computer?

      • By mg 2025-03-0910:251 reply

        I write into a text file on my phone. And later move those lines into the file on my computer.

        It's a bit cumbersome, but not too much. But yeah, I look forward to when I finally get around to writing an app for it.

        • By bosie 2025-03-0914:041 reply

          do you use an app and shortcuts (or something similar) to speed this up?

          • By mg 2025-03-0914:081 reply

            On the phone I don't.

            In Vim, I use multiple shortcuts that I made for this use case.

            • By yjftsjthsd-h 2025-03-0915:21

              You can use vim via termux, which is nice when you already have things in version control.

              Alternatively, may I suggest the DailyLog app in F-Droid?

    • By aszantu 2025-03-098:34

      I found, I take Abt. 4 days to react to stuff. Except for those cheap cooking oils, I get migraines within a time-frame of about 3 hrs.

  • By grumpy-de-sre 2025-03-098:4911 reply

    For anyone looking for a sleep supplement, before you go down the rabbit hole of Theanine, Mg, etc. Try an OTC Azelastine or Fluticasone nasal spray for a month.

    Turns out my chronic poor quality, restless sleep was a dust mite allergy that I should have figured out and treated a decade ago. Would wake up with a stuffy nose and very dry mouth but didn't have too many issues during the day. I was allergic to my bed.

    Been using antihistamines, and a dehumidifier for several months now and sleeping better than I have in years. Given how extremely common mite allergies are there's got to be a lot of folks with undiagnosed issues here.

    • By wenc 2025-03-099:155 reply

      You should consider a dust mite vacuum with UV. I bought one on Amazon (this one but you can check YouTube reviews for others).

      https://www.amazon.com/JIGOO-Vacuum-Cleaner-Dust-Sensor/dp/B...

      I was surprised how much dust this thing picked up (my sheets get washed often, but it’s hard to clean the mattress itself). Back in the day people used to sun dry their mattresses but no one does that these days.

      This dust mite vacuum picked up half a canister of gunk from my dead skin and environmental dust that has accumulated over the years (and it has a light scattering sensor that tells you how much dust is being sucked up). My nose was clear after sleeping on a vacuumed bed. I now vacuum my bed once a week, and it has really helped.

      Vacuuming your bed and other fabric surfaces also feels therapeutic. For me, it’s like watching one of those powerwashing videos. You feel cleansed after.

      • By seabass-labrax 2025-03-0910:172 reply

        Vacuuming one's bed makes complete sense to me, but what is special about the model you linked to that makes it specifically a 'mattress' vacuum cleaner? Many canister vacuum cleaners are more powerful and can be used elsewhere in the home too (with a different attachment for hygiene, of course). There's the UV light, but I can't see how this is effective when used only for short periods of time. The dust won't be removed with it and the mites will withstand it too.

        Not wanting to make you feel bad about your purchase, but is there something unique about this kind of device that gives it an edge over conventional vacuum cleaners?

        • By wenc 2025-03-0911:57

          You can use a conventional vacuum if it has enough suction (most of these dust mite vacuums are rated at 13 kPa, a sweet spot for extraction without damaging fabric), and if you don’t mind using the same vacuum attachment on other surfaces. These also have rotating polyurethane fins that go close to the surface which helps in agitation — most vacuum attachments have plastic brushes which I suppose will do the job but possibly slightly less effectively.

          It’s not a mattress vacuum so much as a dust mite vacuum that can be used on couches, fabric chairs etc. It’s also handheld and is specialized for the job, so it’s more ergonomic to hold.

          The UV I can’t really vouch for but can’t hurt. I personally would not run a conventional vacuum on my mattress because I use the same vacuum on less hygienic surfaces, but if you have a dedicated attachment why not — I feel it would be less effective (because in my experience, the suction is often diminished when you use an attachment) but have no data. If you have a high end vacuum this is less of a factor, but most low end vacuums like Hoovers aren’t designed to deliver full suction with attachments.

          I’m happy with my purchase because I feel that given it’s small size, I’m more likely to vacuum more frequently. I’m less likely to want to bust out the big vacuum.

        • By chiefalchemist 2025-03-0911:213 reply

          I jumped on the idea but then immediately came to the same conclusion. Now I’m thinking I stick with the vac(s) I have, but get a separate UV. And UV the bed while I’m working. Maybe?

          Your thoughts?

          • By grumpy-de-sre 2025-03-0911:244 reply

            Get a mattress encasement, it's like a HEPA filter bag for the mattress (cuts off the mites food supply and preventing allergens becoming airborne).

            Skips the whole trying to clean porous foam problem.

            • By pbhjpbhj 2025-03-0911:422 reply

              I read that mites can't survive temperatures above 60C, and wondered then about just a big plastic bag around the item then fill it from a hot air source (hair dryer, fan heater)?

              I think the problem would be temperature control, as you don't want to damage the item, but need to maintain an even, specific air temperature, you'd need turbulence. Then vacuum clean afterwards.

              Maybe a wallpaper remover style device with a hot air source instead of steam??

              • By grumpy-de-sre 2025-03-0911:471 reply

                Yeh I've thought about whether it'd be possible/safe to use something like an "overclocked" electric blanket to sterilize the mattress daily.

                They also need humidity (~50% RH), hence why I got the dehumidifer, which has definitely knocked them back.

                • By qiine 2025-03-0912:542 reply

                  I got the exact same idea sadly most electric blanket i could find on amazon where kinda small and had disappointingly low heating power...

                  • By grumpy-de-sre 2025-03-0914:11

                    Pretty much my conclusion as-well.

                    I guess they just don't want folks giving themselves burns during sleep.

                    AliExpress as always is tempting [1], but you'd have to be incredibly careful about regulating temperature [2] and adding safety interlocks that'd make falling asleep with it active, or forgetting to turn it off impossible.

                    1. https://www.aliexpress.com/item/1005007963462500.html

                    2. Don't blame me when your house burns down, I warned you.

                  • By mkatx 2025-03-0921:541 reply

                    Look into something like flexwatt tape. Maybe run it during the day when your not sleeping. In my mind, they probably use something similar inside heated blankets with some kind of limiter/thermostat.

                    Do your research though!! I'm not sure if flexwatt tape could ignite your mattress, but you would definitely want to know for sure yourself beforehand!

                    There are ways to control heat though; I'm familiar with using flexwatt tape with reptile enclosures, hooked up to a thermostat with a probe in the habitat for temp control. Maybe some math, like desired_temp = watts_supplied * feet_of_fw_tape, where the watts_supplied is the independent variable you adjust based on the required feet_of_fw_tape for your mattress to get the dependent variable desired_temp. Probably include a fail safe, but I'm no electrician, proceed at your own risk.

                    They do sell self contained fire extinguishers you can hang on your ceiling that deploy automatically at a certain temperature, ideally putting out fire sources they are hung above. Nice to have around for things like this.

                    • By qiine 2025-03-1010:01

                      nice another project to the pile ;p

              • By Suppafly 2025-03-1017:02

                >I read that mites can't survive temperatures above 60C, and wondered then about just a big plastic bag around the item then fill it from a hot air source (hair dryer, fan heater)?

                People do something similar to kill bedbugs, I think they make specialized equipment to do so, but it might just be something like an off the shelf heat gun.

            • By wenc 2025-03-0912:021 reply

              Just a data point. I have a mattress encasement which has never been removed (I got it to protect against bedbugs). Dust (dead human skin) still accumulates on the surface. It might not go into the mattress, but it will be on the surface. Since the encasements are never meant to be removed, vacuuming the mattress (with encasement on) still makes sense.

              • By chiefalchemist 2025-03-0914:361 reply

                I asked above as well, but since you have direct experience, what do you have between the plastic and you? Aside from the fitted sheet? Wouldn’t a regular mattress cover just attract mites as well?

                • By wenc 2025-03-0923:17

                  It’s just the fitted sheet.

                  The encasement I have is actually not a plastic wrap but a zippered tight weave synthetic fabric (polyester).

                  https://a.co/d/3ut09wO

                  It’s suppose to prevent bedbugs and others from setting up shop inside the mattress but the surface is fair game. The idea being it’s easier to clean the surface than the insides.

                  I have had the encasement for years. No problems with humidity but I also live in a less humid area (41-45% rh all year round).

                  So a dust mite vaccuum still makes sense.

                  Also interesting fact: dust mites themselves are harmless to humans. It’s their fecal matter (after digesting our dead skin) that are allergens.

            • By chiefalchemist 2025-03-0914:341 reply

              Ok. What do you put between the plastic and the sheets? A standard mattress cover? Won’t the mites just go there as that’s where the dead skin, etc will be?

              The plastic would also trap heat between me and it.

              • By seabass-labrax 2025-03-0920:251 reply

                As someone who uses a plastic mattress cover I can answer your question: yes, if you let dust build up, mites can and do start to live on the fitted sheet that you put around the mattress cover. However, it is of course easier to wash just the fitted sheet than to remove dust from within a mattress, so I think that a cover is still beneficial.

                I'm not sure what you mean by trapping heat - once there are two normal cotton fitted sheets around it, I don't feel the plastic mattress cover at all.

                • By sizzle 2025-03-0922:58

                  This causes mold by trapping humidity. Had to throw out a latex mattress be careful with full plastic.

            • By sizzle 2025-03-0922:56

              This causes mold on mattresses due to humidity. I had to throw out a latex mattress.

          • By seabass-labrax 2025-03-0920:41

            Obviously there are different species of dust mites, but the ones I'm familiar with are nearly invincible. They are able to cling onto smooth surfaces even with a vacuum cleaner right over them. I've noticed that they are 'directional' in their grip though: when the vacuum cleaner is behind their direction of travel, they'll hold fast, but if you move the vacuum in front of them they'll be sucked up. Thus, drawing the vacuum nozzle back and forth repeatedly seems to me to be essential for reliably getting rid of them.

            As for UV, I have no idea. They seem to survive on surfaces that get exposed to sunlight though windows, but apparently glass blocks most UV radiation. You'll have to make a new post with your results if you try it :)

          • By shellfishgene 2025-03-1110:40

            I doubt a bit of UV on a vacuum does anything to a mite. They're kinda like spiders with a hard shell after all. One study [1] found you need one hour of hard UV-C exposure to kill most mites. That would probably also degrade the textiles and foam of your mattress, and probably does not even reach most mites/eggs in between threads and foam pores.

            1 https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3609379/

      • By grumpy-de-sre 2025-03-099:291 reply

        Got to say after figuring this out I am tempted to ditch the western style mattress and replace it with something like a Japanese futon. I assume it'd be much easier to wash.

        In the meantime I need to purchase a mattress encasement, I put one on my pillow and that alone helped a bunch.

        Long term maybe desensitization is an option but I'm too lazy for that atm.

        • By MaKey 2025-03-0912:24

          I did a desensitization and it helped a little bit. Despite the regular washing and using a dust mite vacuum I'm still having a hard time getting good sleep though. At least my nose isn't bloody in the morning anymore, so I guess that's something.

      • By bgnn 2025-03-0923:051 reply

        In my country we used to use woolen matresses, which would be completely emptied and washed twice a year, and the wool would be dried in the sun for a good two days, then whipped with a long stick for couple hours, and then filled back in the washed cover again. Nowadays it's very rare unfortunately.

        • By grumpy-de-sre 2025-03-109:55

          Great example of forgotten cultural wisdom, absolutely would have reduced dust mite pressure.

      • By cassepipe 2025-03-0913:46

        It's just a vacuum with an HEPA filter, correct ?

        I had the same experience, it just occurred to me that I could vaccum the mattress with the for-textile head and was really surprised with the amount of dust and its texture (transparent dust holder is satisfying hehe)

      • By newhotelowner 2025-03-0921:12

        Is there a reason to get this over a waterproof bed bug protector? Which you can wash.

    • By Aurornis 2025-03-0914:58

      > Would wake up with a stuffy nose and very dry mouth

      I would suggest people look for this symptom first before jumping onto nasal corticosteroids.

      Fluticasone and others have low systemic absorption and low side effects in theory, but there are several studies that found some suppression of the HPA axis similar to taking small doses of oral corticosteroids like prednisone. The effect is small, but I wouldn’t suggest trying it out as a 1-month experiment unless you have specific symptoms of stuffy nose in the mornings.

    • By hammock 2025-03-0915:15

      “Before trying a basic mineral with no side effects, try a corticosteroid for a whole month”

      ??? You have that backwards.

    • By strontian 2025-03-0916:175 reply

      nice! I recently got dust mites out of my home completely, and it was a miraculous upgrade to my health, including several symptoms that are outside the definitions of allergic asthma/eczema/rhinitis.

      One important thing people are missing about dust mite allergy is the many ways in which they directly damage your immune system and body, outside of the usual frame of "allergies" which is based on type 2 hypersensitivity.

      This article is a great introduction to the harms they cause at the molecular level: https://www.jacionline.org/article/S0091-6749(18)30848-0/ful...

      I also wrote a free guide to help people get dust mites out of their house:

      https://dustmiteguide.com

      • By ovalanche 2025-03-0917:141 reply

        I’m really glad to see this side discussion on dust mite allergy happening here. I’ve had dust mite allergy since childhood, and I even had adenoid removal surgery at age ~7 to address it. Nothing seems to help.

        I think dust mite allergy imitates some of the symptoms of sleep apnea, because your nasal passage gets blocked at night, waking you in a similar way to choking.

        I’ve reached my mid-30s, largely ignoring the symptoms, but over the past few months I’ve been experiencing a truly terrible bout of insomnia.

        I think it’s time to take the allergy seriously again. I’ll follow your guide and make some changes. If I could suggest an improvement to your guide: it may be useful to have a section (perhaps chapter 5?) on symptom relief. I’ve had friends say that a neti pot works wonders, for example.

        Either way thanks for posting!

        • By grumpy-de-sre 2025-03-0917:33

          There's an interesting "subcategory" of sleep apnea under the moniker of UARS. I'm pretty confident that a big chunk of folks in that community actually have allergenic rhinitis (or structural issues).

          I actually had a home sleep study done before I figured out it was allergies. Came back negative for OSA but my RIP [1] band data showed a lot of paradoxical breathing and flow limitation indicating significant respiratory effort. So more or less struggling to breathe all night long.

          The poor sleep quality really destroys your quality of life.

          1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Respiratory_inductance_plethys...

      • By natdempk 2025-03-0921:351 reply

        Appreciate the resource -- I think my biggest question from reading it: How can you actually tell if you have dust mite problems? How can you tell if they've gotten better or not? How can I tell if I've hit a point where things are about as good as they're going to get? etc.

        • By strontian 2025-03-1018:13

          I have asthma symptoms from dust mites, and discovered that sniffing items creates a reaction in my lungs that is pretty sensitive to the amount of allergen in the item. Dust mite allergens also have a distinct but subtle smell you can learn.

          Regarding whether or not your health issues are caused by dust mites, if you have any of the allergic disease, or if you have a tested dust mite allergy, it is likely they are causing problems. Disease severity is also associated with dust mite exposure.

          Basically, the worse you have allergies, the more likely it's dust mites.

          It's an almost certainty you home has dust mites and their allergens, unless you live in a very dry climate.

          My advice is to create conditions in your house in which dust mites cannot thrive, which is relatively easy to verify with hygrometers. Over time, this will lead to lead to lower allergen levels, particularly if you are proactive about removing the ones that are currently there.

      • By Projectiboga 2025-03-101:26

        Another simple hack is to exit your outside the home outer clothes when you get home. There are virulent extra allergic dust mites, that has really helped my family. And these products can help with laundry at lower temps and harder to launder items. https://elfbrands.com/collections/elf-brands

      • By jrgoff 2025-03-112:332 reply

        I tried to send a message to your the feedback email address on your dustmite guide site but gmail told me it was undeliverable because the address was not found.

        What I emailed about was asking what you meant by biweekly for washing bedding - is that twice a week or every other week?

        • By strontian 2025-03-1121:44

          In the early days, populations of eggs and protonymphs are high and perhaps you haven't learned to control humidity in different weather conditions, washing 2x a week will be effective imho.

          But if you can maintain low humidity for a longer periods, the dust mite populations in your home will go down and frequent washing will be less important.

        • By strontian 2025-03-1121:31

          thanks for letting me know my email fwding is not working. Twice a week. Be sure to wash as hot as your machine can do. I found that the highest setting on my front loading LG washer does 158f and is more effective than the next hottest setting.

      • By yard2010 2025-03-0919:34

        I have to write this here it might help someone: I had the worst case of mite allergy since childhood - no smells let alone no breathing from my nose. 5 years ago I started immunotherapy - my good dr basically injected me with the allergen every week for 1-2 years. After that, I got a monthly injection with the max dosage for like a year. I haven't had this allergy ever since. I can smell again and breathe from my nose. My dr has healed this awful disease.

        Modern medicine sometimes works like magic. If you have this disease know that you don't have to suffer this bs. Try to fix it with the help of your dr.

    • By riedel 2025-03-0913:532 reply

      Antihistamines could even work without any allergy since they are typically used as mild sleeping aids. They are also used often off-label for stress reduction. [0]

      [0] https://fherehab.com/learning/surprising-antihistamine-anxie...

      • By grumpy-de-sre 2025-03-0913:591 reply

        I find the steroids even more effective but they seem to exacerbate my anxiety after a few days though. Still haven't figured that out.

        With regular use antihistamines quite quickly lose their drowsiness effects. But it's definitely a nice side effect for sleeping challenged folks. Azelastine is a second generation antihistamine so not particularly drowsiness inducing.

        One of the interesting Azelastine quirks, is it's apparently somewhat antiviral [1].

        1. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38140540

        • By piombisallow 2025-03-0919:15

          Cortisone is the main stress hormone, of course it makes you anxious

      • By amelius 2025-03-0914:502 reply

        > Prolonged use can lead to increased tolerance, reduced effectiveness, and potential side effects.

        https://www.health.harvard.edu/mind-and-mood/should-i-worry-...

        > Theoretically, these drugs might increase the risk of dementia by blocking a particular brain neurotransmitter or increasing brain inflammation. In the past decade, several studies have suggested that these pills might increase the risk of dementia, while other studies have found no risk. And all the studies are inherently flawed.

        • By grumpy-de-sre 2025-03-0915:031 reply

          Only Anticholinergic drugs appear to be associated dementia (but as noted the evidence is very weak).

          Older first generation antihistamines such as Diphenhydramine (Benadryl), Doxylamine (Nyquil) have substantial Anticholinergic activity.

          A lot of the second generation antihistamines have no significant Anticholinergic activity, eg. Azelastine.

          Benadryl and Nyquil are terrible drugs. Why they haven't been phased out is beyond me. At least Azelastine is now OTC in the USA.

          • By yard2010 2025-03-0919:271 reply

            Correct me if I'm wrong, desloratadine won't pass the BBB so I guess it shouldn't cause dementia

            • By grumpy-de-sre 2025-03-0922:53

              Desloratadine is considered to have a low anticholinergic burden, and of course not crossing the BBB readily should reduce risks further.

              But it is one of the more anticholinergic second gen antihistamines, make of that what you will, still miles behind something like Benadryl. Fexofenadine is apparently a less anticholinergic alternative.

        • By Projectiboga 2025-03-104:20

          I think that was Diphenhydramine (benadryl) that may have that long term risk via being an Anticholinergic.

    • By webninja 2025-03-211:56

      An air purifier has the same effect and doesn’t require inhaling chemicals. With one i’d back to breathing through my nose instead of through my mouth.

    • By IlPeach 2025-03-099:082 reply

      Thanks, but I'm still missing how I would properly diagnose myself. These symptoms might be all too common ... Anything more reliable?

      • By grumpy-de-sre 2025-03-099:23

        You can always go to an allergist for a skin prick test.

        I'd say hallmark symptom would be chronic night time congestion worsening while in bed (an area of the house that has a very high density of mite allergen).

        But running a bit of differential diagnosis on this,

        * Inflammatory & Allergic Conditions (allergic/non-allergic rhinitis, chronic rhinosinusitis, turbinate hypertrophy, nasal polyps).

        * Obstructive Sleep Apnea (do a STOP-BANG).

        * Structural Blockages & Airway Obstructions (deviated septum, adenoid/tonsil hypertrophy, nasal valve collapse, turbinate hypertrophy).

        * Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease (GERD/LPR).

      • By collin128 2025-03-099:15

        An allergy clinic can run these tests for you.

        Been doing immunotherapy for allergies for 3 years and it is a complete game changer. Last year was the first year I could breathe through my nose for the entire year. No more stuffy months.

    • By vharish 2025-03-0911:501 reply

      Wouldn't changing the matress help? Also, if you using a pillow, consider keep them under the sun every few days. You can even keep the matress under the sun, maybe on the terrace if you have access to it. Pillows can also be washed as well.

      Telling you from my own experience. It could work for you if you haven't tried already.

      • By grumpy-de-sre 2025-03-0911:55

        There's sweet FA sun for six months out of the year here in central europe so not a viable option.

    • By Projectiboga 2025-03-101:18

      You are aware of mattress covers for Dust Mites? And there is an enzyme additive for laundry. Finally a hand steamer for upholstered stuff. I had bad hives from allergies to them, and a medical resident suggested a clearing of all fabric in my life, as best as I could.

    • By FollowingTheDao 2025-03-0911:152 reply

      I have asthma triggered by Volatile Organic Compounds. I good activated charcoal room air filter did wonders for me.

      • By cassepipe 2025-03-0913:52

        Incidentally, the author made an (counter-)review of air purifiers : https://dynomight.net/ikea-purifier/

        I got the IKEA purifier with the activated charcoal filter after reading that

      • By grumpy-de-sre 2025-03-0911:23

        Indoor air quality these days is particularly awful.

        Was reading that house dust is actually a major source of microplastics aswell.

    • By chiefalchemist 2025-03-0911:19

      Thanks for this idea. Can you recommend a particular model? A quick search found mostly just vacs. I have a vac(s). Perhaps I just get in the habit of treating my bed with UV?

  • By grvbck 2025-03-0916:062 reply

    While this may not be a perfectly executed study, the "N=1 trial" part is not the problem.

    There have been numerous medical and scientific studies with N=1, known as N-of-1 trials. These trials are very useful in chronic conditions where symptoms are stable and measurable, allowing for multiple crossover periods to assess treatment effects accurately.

    Also…don't forget all the medical discoveries based on self-experimentation:

    Werner Forssmann performed the first heart catheterization on himself. He got the Nobel prize.

    Barry Marshal injected himself with heliobacter pylori to prove that it causes stomach ulcers. Also got the Nobel prize.

    Jessie Lazear allowed himself to be bitten by mosquitoes infected with yellow fever to prove his hypothesis that mosquitoes were the vector for transmission. No Nobel prize, but he did contract the disease, thus proving his hypothesis…before dying from yellow fever two weeks later.

    • By gs17 2025-03-0919:401 reply

      >Werner Forssmann performed the first heart catheterization on himself. He got the Nobel prize.

      In case anyone else was confused how it would be possible to perform heart surgery on yourself, he did it through a vein in his arm, which is still incredibly impressive:

      >In 1929, he put himself under local anesthesia and inserted a catheter into a vein of his arm. Not knowing if the catheter might pierce a vein, he put his life at risk. Forssmann was nevertheless successful; he safely passed the catheter into his heart.

      He also had to trick the operating-room nurse into thinking he was operating on her.

      • By pjot 2025-03-0920:26

        Through the arm, I believe, is still the way it’s performed today!

    • By me-vs-cat 2025-03-0917:41

      Nobel candidates cannot be deceased.

HackerNews