Soylent

[S6k9GNh0]

Would you try it? I won't be pre-ordering but after the first wave of shipments and reviews, I'm definitely considering it.

https://campaign.soylent.me/soylent-free-your-body

[chrisname]

Yes, I'd try it, but I don't understand what people are so excited about. Don't they know that hospitals have been using medical food to feed patients who can't be given solid food for decades? Not to mention that the existing medical foods are better because they're designed by people with actual knowledge about human nutrition, not some software engineer who thinks mixing raw chemicals in a pot is science, and that dietary science is as simple as figuring out the exact quantities of each nutrient the body requires and consuming them all together in one go.

It would probably be fine if you used it to replace one or two meals per day, but it's not viable in the long term if you don't eat actual food. Human beings didn't evolve drinking all their nutrients in pure chemical form, we evolved extracting them from solid food. Nutrients work synergistically -- for example, it's fairly common knowledge that vitamin C aids iron absorption, whereas this genius didn't even think to include iron at first -- and in specific ratios that are found in real foods. If it was that simple, there wouldn't be increased morbidity in people who take multivitamins so they don't have to eat vegetables. But there is, because it's not that simple. You don't absorb nutrients properly from non-food sources, that's why they usually recommend you take it with a meal, and that you don't use it as a substitute for a proper diet. Personally, I take a daily multivitamin as a sort of "safety net".

It's wishful thinking and/or stupidity. But yes, to answer your question, I would try it.

[3qX21hU5]

It wouldn't be for me. I prefer eating actual food and making food that tastes good. I would hate to see a world where every meal would be the same liquid meal.

I could see why it others might like it but personally I couldn't stand it.

[ne555]

It's a little expensive for fodder.

I don't like the idea of being completely ignorant about what I eat. The traditional knowledge about what things are edible, and how much we should eat, is discarded and instead we deposit our trust on these merchants that tell us what are our needs and that their product solves them.

I don't really care, but there was little information about how the product is elaborated and where the ingredients come from. (objections about the procedures and their impact on the environment)

There is more in a meal than just get nutrients. Dinners also relax and improve relationships (¿have you played The Sims?)
The "don't have enough time to cook so let's invent something that is made in twenty seconds" is kind of sad.

So after a 10 min research, I'll reject it.


Like the name, gotta read the book | watch the movie

Disclaimer: this post suffered the Ellen Feiss's syndrome

[S6k9GNh0]

chrisname:

1. So wait... you would try it but you think its stupid and even wrote a paragraph about it.

2. There are actually people who do *not* eat and only drink water while injecting food through an IV. It's apparently popular in California.

3. How we receive nutrients and how those nutrients are broken down are rather a controversial matter. You state your own opinion of the matter, but I'm almost certain that if I searched hard enough, I could find someone who says the exact opposite on every single point you made.

4. I personally think that our dietary system is a lot more flexible than what most people believe. If some people can live off constant fast food and general garbage (in which case they often still skimp out on essential nutrition), why can't they live off sources of Soylent?

5. There has not been a lot of research put into general food replacements. Nestle has meal-replacements for those who are searching to lose weight but does in such an extreme way, it requires medical attention before health products can be received. http://www.nestle-nutrition.com/Public/Default.aspx

On the other hand, Abbot sells Jevity (http://abbottstore.com/jevity) which is for tube-fed patients. Some people choose to use this as a replacement for food and drink water. Unfortunately, it's terribly expensive, especially if you require more calories due to work and so on.

I really doubt you'll be able to find anything concerning the impossibility of replacing meals with something like Soylent. Nobody cares too as most people would probably not want to have such a dull diet.

I dunno though. I'm no expert. I can google the matter, that's about my limitation at the moment.

[chrisname]

computerquip wrote:

So wait... you would try it but you think its stupid and even wrote a paragraph about it.

I said it would be stupid to think that it's anything new or that it's viable as a long-term substitute for food. I said it would probably be fine if you replaced one or two meals with it as a matter of convenience. It's just dumb to think that nutrition is as simple as putting the exact quantities of various nutrients together and expecting your digestive system to extract the exact same quantities later. It doesn't work like that. It's not sustainable in the long-term: even Rhinehart only lived on Soylent alone for a month. After six months to a year, he most likely would have had the beginnings of serious health problems due to vitamin and mineral deficiencies. So it can't be sold as a "food substitute". At best, it's a meal replacement, and meal replacements are decades old.

There are actually people who do *not* eat and only drink water while injecting food through an IV. It's apparently popular in California.

Popular =/= healthy.

How we receive nutrients and how those nutrients are broken down are rather a controversial matter

I wrote:

it's fairly common knowledge that vitamin C aids iron absorption

It's also known, albeit maybe not commonly, that calcium blocks fat absorption. If the presence or absence of one nutrient can alter the absorption of another, then it follows that there isn't a linear relationship between nutrients put in and nutrients taken out. It is known that the presence or absence of one nutrient can alter the absorption of another (e.g. vitamin C and iron, or calcium and fat), therefore there isn't a linear relationship between nutrients in and nutrients out. There are interactions between nutrients, which means that it can't be as simple as putting the right nutrients all in together.

I'm almost certain that if I searched hard enough, I could find someone who says the exact opposite on every single point you made

I'm sure you could, but that has no bearing on whether I'm right or wrong. I'm sure you could also find someone who would tell you that the sun rotates around a flat earth. So, what exactly is your point? That what I'm saying is "just my opinion"? Well, yeah, I'm the one typing it. Or that I "could be wrong"? So could anyone. So could be the person who says the exact opposite. And they would be, because their opinion isn't grounded in evidence.

If some people can live off constant fast food and general garbage (in which case they often still skimp out on essential nutrition)

They're probably getting the bare minimum of the nutrients you need to survive. I can almost guarantee their health is not optimal, though. The effects may not be readily apparent, but take another look at them when they're 50 or 60 ([edit] in all likelihood, you would probably see noticeable deleterious health effects by the age of 30 if the person kept up a diet based around fast food and didn't get their micronutrients).

why can't they live off sources of Soylent?

They probably can, and it would probably even be a step up from a constant stream of fast food, but it's still not healthy.

I really doubt you'll be able to find anything concerning the impossibility of replacing meals with something like Soylent. Nobody cares too as most people would probably not want to have such a dull diet.

http://techcrunch.com/2013/05/03/silicon-valley-tries-to-reinvent-food-literally/

Stadler [PhD and registered dietician] warns that although we know many of the essential nutrients in food, we don’t know everything and there’s a strong possibility that an elemental diet like this could miss something critically important. “I would not promote this type of diet to the general public, as there are many ways that it can go wrong, especially if consumed long-term,” she says.

http://www.livescience.com/27908-soylent-meal-replacement.html

But is Soylent a healthy replacement for a balanced, varied diet?

No, said Joy Dubost, a registered dietitian and spokeswoman for the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics. "I don't think it's sustainable," Dubost told LiveScience. "You need a healthy eating plan for life."

A fundamental flaw in Rhinehart's plan is his assumption that the human body needs only chemicals and elements to survive. "He doesn't get into whole grains at all," Dubost said, adding that Soylent's fiber count (5 grams) may be inadequate. "Not all fibers are the same."

Aside from Soylent being too high in sodium (2.4 g) and too low in potassium (3.5 g), Dubost said it's important to remember that foods like fruits and vegetables have nutrients in proportions and amounts that work in synergy, making proper digestion and intake of critical nutrients easy.

The highlighted sections are pretty much exactly what I already said.

There's also the fact that Rhinehart claims that he doesn't defecate much any more. I think he said about once per week. That is also not healthy: http://www.bmj.com/content/343/bmj.d6617

Finally, his claims that he magically got better at everything can almost certainly be entirely explained by (1) placebo effect and (2) that he started to exercise, which he hadn't done so before. Exercise is known to have a multitude of health benefits including pretty much everything he described: http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/exercise/HQ01676

[edit] There's also what Zereo and ne555 said, that a meal is about more than just getting fuel and nutrients in the modern era. It's also about enjoyment and bonding with other people over a meal. Soylent doesn't provide that. Not only that, but the monotony is a problem for people trying to lose weight who have become addicted to food. There's not enough satisfaction for it to be sustainable for such a person, who most probably doesn't have the strongest will (if they did, they probably wouldn't need to lose weight in the first place).

That being said, I do see benefits to using it to replace one or two meals per day, just so long as you eat real food most days as well (which Rhinehart says that he does). In particular, it would be useful for athletes as a pre- or post-workout meal, or for people who don't have time to make breakfast, or for people who would be eating fast food otherwise. Far more important is how cheap it is: I think he said he spends about $150 per month on it, which is impressive considering the amount of energy and its nutritional value, which, albeit far from optimal, is much better what people in many third world countries are eating (and first world countries too, for that matter, although for us, poor nutrition is down to laziness, ignorance or poor self-control rather than lack of availability).

So, in short, it has its benefits, I just don't get what all the excitement is about because it isn't new or very impressive, and it isn't sustainable as a total replacement of food in the long term (more than just a month or two).

[LB]

I hate having to eat, it's a hassle, it's distracting, it wastes time, and it's easier to do wrong than to do right. This looks like the product for me.