Specialty For Biohacking

[NeuroD]

Biohacking? This sounds like an episode of orphan black or something. 

 

 

Sounds a little too pseudo-sciencey for me.

 

I get what you guys mean, but its just an umbrella term. Theres lots of nonsense out there, but there are also legitimate "hacks" both inside and outside popular science.

 

It's the fields of high performance/augmented performance. This ranges from the basic/but impactful/but often neglected things like common deficiencies (ie: vitamin D), all the way to the really cool stuff coming out about TDCS. Ignoring the pseudo-science parts, this sort of "personal optimization" is out there. A lot of it is real and its not going to disappear any time soon, its going to be the area of greatest growth in personalized medicine. IMHO anyways.

[ralk]

I get what you guys mean, but its just an umbrella term. Theres lots of nonsense out there, but there are also legitimate "hacks" both inside and outside popular science.

 

It's the fields of high performance/augmented performance. This ranges from the basic/but impactful/but often neglected things like common deficiencies (ie: vitamin D), all the way to the really cool stuff coming out about TDCS. Ignoring the pseudo-science parts, this sort of "personal optimization" is out there. A lot of it is real and its not going to disappear any time soon, its going to be the area of greatest growth in personalized medicine. IMHO anyways.

 

Not sure linking a source that clearly says "there is no good evidence for TDCS in healthy individuals" really reinforces your point that this field isn't pseudoscience

 

Trying to stay out of the Vitamin D stuff... there's clear evidence in some populations, but available research indicates we might be over-recommending Vitamin D supplementation, rather than under-recommending it. It's a point of controversy even for supposedly at-risk individuals. In generally well-functioning, otherwise healthy, non-elderly adults, hard to say there's any benefit whatsoever to Vitamin D supplementation, even in those who may have lower levels on bloodwork (which, as it turns out, is a lot of people). 

[Scorbix]

I get what you guys mean, but its just an umbrella term. Theres lots of nonsense out there, but there are also legitimate "hacks" both inside and outside popular science.

 

It's the fields of high performance/augmented performance. This ranges from the basic/but impactful/but often neglected things like common deficiencies (ie: vitamin D), all the way to the really cool stuff coming out about TDCS. Ignoring the pseudo-science parts, this sort of "personal optimization" is out there. A lot of it is real and its not going to disappear any time soon, its going to be the area of greatest growth in personalized medicine. IMHO anyways.

I don't mean to sound harsh, but this whole idea of biohacking seems, again, very unscientific. High performance? Augmentened performance? Performance in what exactly and for what purpose.

 

If you've been accepted into a medical school I would urge you to pick a specialty that actually practices evidence-based medicine, because there doesn't seem to be any in whatever this biohacking is. If you have more information about what biohacking is and the evidence to support any of it I would be very interested to learn more.

[NeuroD]

Not sure linking a source that clearly says "there is no good evidence for TDCS in healthy individuals" really reinforces your point that this field isn't pseudoscience

 

Trying to stay out of the Vitamin D stuff... there's clear evidence in some populations, but available research indicates we might be over-recommending Vitamin D supplementation, rather than under-recommending it. It's a point of controversy even for supposedly at-risk individuals. In generally well-functioning, otherwise healthy, non-elderly adults, hard to say there's any benefit whatsoever to Vitamin D supplementation, even in those who may have lower levels on bloodwork (which, as it turns out, is a lot of people). 

Oh geez...I'll admit I just linked to the wikipedia page but I haven't read it recently. It's citation for "no good evidence" is relatively recent, and one that I haven't read. Here's the meta-analyis on TDCS for others that stumble across this thread. Also, I didn't Vitamin D supplementation was controversial, even my family doc was very pro Vitamin D...don't ruin my placebo!

 

Looks like I got sucked into all the cool hype. Oh well, PhD's sometimes make fools of themselves when they step outside their narrow field.

 

I still want to learn pursue something that will allow me incorporate/research "legitimate" personalized medicine. I think ploughboy's advice (Is there an area of human endeavour, or an organ system that really fascinates you above all others? Then pick your speciality based on that) makes more sense now.