Thanks for your insights and suggestions, Jim. However, I need to disagree on the futility of N-of-1. It is exactly the non-translatability of RCT results to the individual that necessitates N-of-1 if an individual wants to find out which interventions are suitable. Cholesterol is certainly not an indicative biomarker for effects, as it is too inaccurate as a risk predictor in the first place, and too slow to respond. The biomarker of choice for vascular function, and hence the rate of vascular aging is PWV, for example. I have elaborated about this marker in an earlier post (https://medium.com/read-or-die-hq/enviable-longevity-is-your-true-north-vascular-age-should-be-your-navi-a462fdb27d3c)

RCTs fail to inform the individual reliably about what to expect from any type of intervention. You'll find more on N-of-1 if you follow the links in the post.