Harvard Medical Student Consumes 720 Eggs in 30 Days, Shedding Light on N=1 Science Trend

Harvard medical student Nick Norwitz, who holds a doctorate in physiology from Oxford, recently embarked on a personal health experiment that captured public attention. In just one month, he ate 720 eggs—an average of 24 per day—and observed an 18 percent drop in his LDL cholesterol levels, commonly called “bad cholesterol.”

He wasn’t advocating an extreme egg diet. Nor is the science behind this experiment revolutionary—research has already shown that dietary cholesterol doesn’t significantly impact blood cholesterol for most people. Still, the story went viral. Many interpreted it as a green light to enjoy more eggs. However, the full takeaway of the experiment went beyond diet.

Norwitz’s experiment highlights a growing trend in the scientific community, where individuals and researchers alike are turning to personalized, real-world experiments, often called N=1 studies, to answer pressing health questions. Eating two dozen eggs a day for a month was an easily digestible way to help people better understand a complex dietary phenomena—and make it interesting as well.

This approach represents a notable shift from conventional research, offering a new way for medical science to engage the public and empower people to take charge of their health.

That’s precisely the point: It’s about finding what works specifically for you.

The Limitations of Traditional Research

For decades, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have been the gold standard for determining which drugs, devices, and surgical procedures doctors should use. These studies find averages across large groups of people. While RCTs have helped identify better treatments, they often overlook important individual differences. For example, someone who is stressed or eats poorly may respond very differently to a treatment than someone who exercises daily.

Related Stories

This one-size-fits-all model underscores the limitations of traditional research in addressing the complexity of individual health. People often find themselves prescribed treatments—proven effective in large populations—that may not suit their unique biology.

“What is lost is specificity and individuality,” Norwitz said. As a result, treatments that emerge from these trials—such as statins for cholesterol or medications for blood sugar control—may only benefit a small fraction of the population.

Norwitz believes the future of health research lies in a more individualized approach.

N=1 Science: A Personalized Approach

Personalized science, or N=1 experimentation—a study with just one participant—offers an alternative to population-based research. Instead of drawing conclusions from large groups, N=1 studies focus on the individual, allowing people to directly test how specific interventions affect their unique health profiles.

“N=1 is the future,” Michael Snyder, a leading genetics professor at Stanford Medicine, told The Epoch Times in an email. “We are all different, and now we can collect a lot of data on a single person to make very specific recommendations,” he added.

By tracking personal metrics—such as blood sugar, cholesterol, or body weight—people can monitor the impact of interventions like dietary changes, exercise routines, or medications and adjust based on their individual responses.

For example, someone managing irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) could experiment with dietary modifications—like eliminating specific trigger foods—and then monitor symptoms such as bloating or discomfort. By consistently tracking these symptoms, they can identify which foods or habits improve or worsen their condition and adjust their approach accordingly.

Snyder emphasized the importance of knowing your personal health baselines, which allows for early detection of health issues or optimization of wellness strategy. “Longitudinal data are essential,” he said.

N=1 science empowers people to become “citizen scientists,” experimenting and refining their health choices to find what works best for their own bodies.

How Technology Fuels Personalized Experiments

The growth of N=1 science is largely driven by technological advancements that enable people to collect and analyze their own health data. A few decades ago, tracking personal health metrics required specialized equipment or lab tests. Now, devices like the Oura Ring, Fitbit, and continuous glucose monitors allow for continuous health monitoring from home.

Wearable devices track everything from sleep patterns to heart rate, while apps such as MyFitnessPal and Cronometer allow users to log meals and monitor their daily nutrient intake. This constant flow of data empowers individuals to make more informed decisions about their health and to tweak their interventions based on real-time feedback.

One key innovation is the rise of home lab tests, which measure biomarkers such as blood sugar, cholesterol, and inflammation. Companies like InsideTracker and EverlyWell provide comprehensive home-testing kits, offering detailed insights into individual health.

As these technologies continue to evolve, the barriers to conducting personal experiments are quickly diminishing, making N=1 science increasingly accessible to the broader public.

Making Science Accessible to Everyone

Norwitz’s viral egg experiment wasn’t just a study of cholesterol—it was also an experiment in how science is communicated in the digital age. Using platforms like YouTube, Norwitz transformed a routine self-experiment into a captivating narrative that resonated with a wide audience. His approach shows how science, when presented in an engaging and relatable way, can motivate others to conduct their own health investigations.

Many people already experiment with their health, often without realizing it—whether they’re trying out new diets, exercise routines, or intermittent fasting. With a bit more rigor and awareness, these personal trials can become meaningful scientific endeavors, according to Norwitz. The key, he said, is for individuals to adopt a trial-and-error approach to their health, testing different strategies, measuring their outcomes, and adjusting based on the results.

Norwitz’s work is part of a larger cultural shift toward making science more accessible. Researchers are increasingly using social media, podcasts, and video platforms to bypass traditional academic gatekeepers and share their findings directly with the public. This approach enables millions who might never read an academic journal to engage with scientific research in a more accessible way.

Risks and Challenges of N=1 Science

While N=1 science provides valuable insights tailored to personal experiences, it is important to recognize its limitations and potential risks. These challenges often accompany the very platforms that facilitate the sharing of personal findings with others.

While social media makes science more relatable, it also risks oversimplifying or sensationalizing complex health information. Norwitz recognizes that once a bold experiment goes public, it can be misinterpreted or distorted, with catchy headlines frequently compressing complex findings into simplistic messages.

“I only have so much control over the narrative once it’s out there,” he said, acknowledging that the responsibility for accurate interpretation lies partly with the broader community.

N=1 science lacks the rigor and control of traditional randomized controlled trials. Personal experiments can be influenced by placebo effects, bias, and confounding variables, making it difficult to draw definitive conclusions.

For this reason, N=1 science should be seen as complementary to traditional research methods rather than a replacement. Scientists like Norwitz are navigating this fine line, using social media as a tool to make science accessible without compromising its integrity. The key, he said, is to engage people in meaningful conversations that spark curiosity and promote critical thinking about health.

Financial Barriers to Advancing N=1 Science

Despite the growing enthusiasm for N=1 science and personalized medicine, funding remains a major barrier to its progress. Traditional medical research frameworks predominantly favor large, pharmaceutical-sponsored studies over personalized approaches, such as lifestyle medicine and metabolic health interventions.

“Who makes money if I show people how to reverse diabetes with diet?” Norwitz asked. While pharmaceutical companies have strong financial incentives to develop and market drugs, interventions focused on lifestyle changes lack comparable profit models. As a result, research in areas like metabolic health is often sidelined in favor of drug development, he added.

Norwitz said he was keenly aware of these funding challenges and thinks scientists should adapt to the realities of the modern funding landscape. “If you publish a paper and no one reads it, was it even published?” he said, adding that traditional academic paths reliant on publications and citations are no longer sufficient for securing meaningful support. Particularly in underfunded areas like lifestyle medicine, scientists must be creative in attracting attention and resources.

This is where the power of social engagement comes into play, Norwitz said. By turning his experiment into a viral moment, he attracted potential funders who might not have otherwise supported his research.

“I’m not going to get, as a 20-something, $10 million from the NIH to do a metabolic study, but I could get it from a private donor if I have a social media presence and they like what I do,” he noted.

How He Did It: The 720-Egg Experiment

Norwitz set out to test how consuming extreme levels of dietary cholesterol would affect his LDL, or “bad,” cholesterol. For 30 days, Norwitz consumed 24 eggs per day—an average of one egg per hour—totaling 720 eggs and 133,000 milligrams of cholesterol.

For the first two weeks, his diet was low-carb and high-fat, similar to a ketogenic regimen, with no significant carbs. Despite the high cholesterol intake, his LDL dropped by 2 percent during the first two weeks, aligning with research that shows dietary cholesterol doesn’t significantly impact blood cholesterol for most people. For the final two weeks, Norwitz added 60 grams of net carbs a day, mainly from fruits like bananas and berries. This small change led to an 18 percent drop in his LDL by the end of the month.

As a lean-mass hyperresponder—a small subset of lean people who experience elevated LDL on a low-carb diet—Norwitz used this experiment to explore how his body reacts to such high cholesterol intake. Typically, lean-mass hyperresponders see a rise in LDL as part of a metabolic pattern that includes high HDL, or “good cholesterol,” and low triglycerides. However, as his experiment showed, even small amounts of carbs can significantly reduce LDL in this group, shedding light on how diet affects cholesterol in individuals with unique metabolic responses.

How You Can Apply N=1 Science in Your Life

The rise of N=1 science isn’t just for researchers or health care professionals—it’s an approach anyone can adopt. By paying close attention to how your body responds to changes in diet, exercise, or medication, you can become the scientist of your own health journey.

“Science isn’t afforded to just those who have formal training,” Norwitz said. “Science is a process that every single human being can engage in,” he added.

“There isn’t one ‘best’ approach,” Norwitz said



Source link