Cohort 3 · Deep Dive
Thirty-five enrolled, eighteen completed. Where gender-differentiated models came from.
Problem
On June 15, 2023 I started Trial 3 — the first cohort run with all three program versions operating in parallel (on-body sensors, IgE allergy panels, and exome-NGS-driven dietary and workout recommendations). It is the most thoroughly documented of my cohorts and the one that changed how the program was built. What did it actually find?
Solution
35 enrolled. 18 completed. Compliance — not science — is the rate-limiting step.
| Dimension | Cohort 3 |
|---|---|
| Enrolled | 35 |
| Completed | 18 |
| Dropout rate | ~49% |
| Gender | ~60% female · ~40% male |
| Of the women over 35 in this cohort | All had had at least one child |
Male outcomes (first 45 days):
| Measure | Result |
|---|---|
| Nominal weight loss | ~10% |
| Participants exceeding 20% weight loss | 3 |
| HRV improvement, working out 5×/week | 10%+ |
| HRV improvement, >170 bpm for 30+ min × 2 sessions/wk | 20%+ |
Female outcomes (first 45 days):
| Measure | Result |
|---|---|
| Nominal weight loss (early) | ~5% |
| Participants exceeding 15% weight loss | 4 |
| HRV improvement | Generally higher than male cohort, except… |
| …in women with prior structured race >45 min in last 3 years | Already near-ceiling; less HRV headroom. |
Discussion
Two big takeaways reshaped the program.
First, men and women needed different models. Not a cosmetic difference — a structural one. The HRV dose-response was shaped differently. Early weight-loss kinetics were different. Prior structured athletic history changed women's responses in a way that did not symmetrically show up for men. Going forward, the program required formal models segmented by age, gender, and prior structured athletic history.
Second, compliance is the rate-limiting step. 49% dropout is not a finding about the science; it is a finding about the shape of a consumer longevity program. The interventions worked for the people who stayed. The delta between "this protocol works" and "this protocol works for you" is almost entirely about adherence infrastructure — calendar discipline, coaching, public accountability, the right friction in the right places. This is the strongest argument I can make for the § 5.3 Full-Stack tier for people who genuinely struggle with compliance.
170 bpm for 30+ minutes × 2 sessions/week → 20%+ HRV result is the cleanest dose-response signal we got in the whole experiment. It is also the reason § 4.3 HIIT is structured the way it is.
See Also
- § 6.3 · Segment Findings — the age × gender breakdown across the trials
- § 6.1 · Aggregate Results — how Cohort 3 rolled up into the headline numbers