Evidence Brief · three experiments
Troy's reports and repeated measurements tell one story from three angles: how he moves, what a vehicle does to his seated body, and how his heart rate responds over time.
Experiment 1 · ambulation · 55 matched days
Troy reports that walking starts a disabling pelvic and hip pain cycle, while controlled Mall skating does not. On all 55 matched dates, walking produced more repeated up-and-down motion.
Mall skating measured 62.4% lower repeated vertical motion than pain-limited walking: about 0.052 g versus 0.138 g. Walking was higher on every matched date. The Walking vs Skating page carries the paired graph and useful-distance result.
Experiment 2 · transportation
The vehicle supplies motion that Troy's body must absorb. He reports more discomfort in some later ParaTransit arrangements than in the earlier workable taxi/sedan accommodation. Reviewed Bus and Front Seat records differed in one localized shaking measure; other measures were less certain. May 23 and corrected October 2 show different ride patterns.
Experiment 3 · longitudinal physiology
WHOOP recorded 161 ParaTransit sessions. Activity-average heart rate reached at least 100 bpm in 33; session peaks reached at least 150 bpm in 11. A peak is not sustained time above a threshold. The Science page shows all reviewed threshold counts and explains why seated transportation and vigorous useful skating are different contexts.
This is a repeated N-of-1 record: one person measured many times under different real-world conditions. Pain is Troy's report; sensors independently measure accompanying motion and physiological response. It answers an individualized question and does not claim everyone responds the same way. Detailed methods and exploratory findings are in the Observatory.
Verified N-of-1 evidence · generated from reviewed publication projections
WALKING VS SKATING · FUNCTION + MECHANICS
Mall skating versus pain-limited Walking. Corrected RMS, jerk and shock direction: 55/55 dates. Walking/PT A2 per self-mile: 4.37× (95% interval 3.92–4.87).
Walking vs Skating details →TRANSPORTATION · MAY 23 BUS
92:53 ride; function/pain remains separately governed, with no timing inferred. Late episode 24 min; RMS >P90 22 min, jerk >P90 22 min. Next SDNN +54.25 ms (#1/29); HR +10.09 bpm (#2/32).
May 23 extreme case in context →LONGITUDINAL · WHOOP PARATRANSIT
2025-01-10 to 2026-08-29; median activity mean HR 87 bpm. Session maximum HR ≥150 bpm in 11 sessions. Maxima are not pain thresholds.
Longitudinal and vehicle context →AI · VERIFIED HELD-OUT EVIDENCE
Mall/PT mechanical-state distinction. The separate five-date holdout repeated the mechanical return direction 5/5; method convergence within this N-of-1 record.
AI scope, nulls and methods →FUNCTIONAL CONTEXT · LONGITUDINAL ACTIVITY HR
These source-specific activity summaries provide context; they are not matched distributions.
Vigorous skating: high HR can accompany intentional cardiovascular work → self-generated propulsion → useful mobility.
Seated ParaTransit: I first noticed unexpectedly high heart rate while sitting in transportation, rather than while generating locomotor work. That observation motivated this transportation-burden analysis.
Across 161 governed sessions and 112 dates, median activity-mean HR was 87 bpm. Activity means reached ≥100 bpm in 33/161; session maxima reached ≥100/130/140/150 bpm in 126/32/20/11 sessions.
100 bpm is a subject-specific investigation reference, not a universal clinical pain threshold. HR does not itself measure pain. Function/pain, mechanics and physiology remain separate evidence tracks.
Open Evidence Observatory Projection values, contracts and source hashes