5 ms·

"We do not view processed foods as inherently bad or unhealthy. We believe that the nutritional value of a foodstuff - regardless of whether it is prepared in a

"We do not view processed foods as inherently bad or unhealthy. We believe that the nutritional value of a foodstuff - regardless of whether it is prepared in a factory, a restaurant, or at a backyard barbecue - is a direct consequence of the variety of nutrients that it provides and their context within one's overall diet." from- https://faq.soylent.com/hc/en-us/articles/203709619-Soylent-Approach-to-Nutrition https://faq.soylent.com/hc/en-us/articles/203709619-Soylent-...

paulcole 10y ago
Wait, so the makers of a processed food find nothing inherently wrong with processed food? Color me convinced. I also enjoy saying "Numerous scientific studies have suggested..." while linking to none.
- shuntress 10y ago
  I agree that page is not a thorough proof of their case. It seems to be intended to just outline, at a high level, their point of view. You are saying you disagree that the constituent components of an egg are the source of its nutritional value? Do you suggest that something inside a chicken imbues in the egg ephemeral nutritional properties that our digestive system cannot extract from an equally proportioned mix of fat/cholesterol/protein/etc that was produced in a man-made factory rather than a hen?
  - paulcole 10y ago
    Due to lack of training and education, I don't claim to have any knowledge of nutritional science. The makers of Soylent, on the other hand, are pretty good at making broad sweeping nutritional claims without bothering to back them up with legitimate science.
    - shuntress 10y ago
      I don't think that 'The nutritional value of a food is based on it's composition.' is too wild a claim.
      - m_t 10y ago
        I have almost no knowledge in nutrition. But I know we absorb things differently depending on what we found them in. We absorb protein differently if they come from mat or from vegetables. We absorb calcium differently if it comes from milk or from a pill. So in that case, I think think that assuming the nutritional value of some food comes only from its composition is a claim that needs serious backing.
krisdol 10y ago
Well, I mean why would the Soylent FAQ say anything otherwise? Nutritionists disagree. It's not some hippie new age anti-industry opinion, it's a fact. In fact, this is such a stupid oversimplification that any amount of critical thinking can debunk it. There is a lot more to food that the net nutrition intake you have at the end of the day. The actual, physical composition of the food determines how quickly you body digests it, which in turn affects your energy levels, appetite, and mood. Your body does not digest apple juice the same way as it does raw apples, even if both have the same exact ingredients. You won't feel the same after a smoothie as you will after the same ingredients delivered raw. One method of intake gives you a short, high burst of energy followed by steeper drop off, while the raw form provides gentler changes and is less likely to spike your blood sugar. All of this interacts with your psychology, your metabolism, and your physical and mental energy. This is like saying I can safely fast for 4 days once If I eat 6000 calories worth of [insert food/drink] today. You might survive for 4 days but good luck not tearing up your body and feeling like a ghost by then. More-processed foods are not inherently "bad" or "unhealthy", but they are inherently worse and less healthy than less-processed foods (generally). They contribute to shorter periods of feeling satiated and longer low-energy periods. You will crave processed food more frequently and in greater quantities than raw food.
- kazagistar 10y ago
  Your consequences of processed food does not seem to be actually be anything inherent to processed food. If there is some chemical (likely fiber in your examples?) that is causing one form of food to have a different effect from another, then that can be artificially processed into the food as well. The real issue with processed foods tends to be that their goal is isolating the tasty by removing the healthy. If you actually set up the correct goals, then there is no particular reason why "natural foods" could not have their effects artificially replicated or improved upon.
- blacksmith_tb 10y ago
  Not to invalidate your argument, but clearly people fast for much longer than 4 days without food, for example "At the age of 74 and already slight of build, Mahatma Gandhi, the famous nonviolent campaigner for India's independence, survived 21 days of total starvation while only allowing himself sips of water." [1] 1: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-long-can-a-person-sur/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-long-can-a-pe...

paulcole 10y ago

Wait, so the makers of a processed food find nothing inherently wrong with processed food? Color me convinced. I also enjoy saying "Numerous scientific studies have suggested..." while linking to none.

shuntress 10y ago
I agree that page is not a thorough proof of their case. It seems to be intended to just outline, at a high level, their point of view. You are saying you disagree that the constituent components of an egg are the source of its nutritional value? Do you suggest that something inside a chicken imbues in the egg ephemeral nutritional properties that our digestive system cannot extract from an equally proportioned mix of fat/cholesterol/protein/etc that was produced in a man-made factory rather than a hen?
- paulcole 10y ago
  Due to lack of training and education, I don't claim to have any knowledge of nutritional science. The makers of Soylent, on the other hand, are pretty good at making broad sweeping nutritional claims without bothering to back them up with legitimate science.
  - shuntress 10y ago
    I don't think that 'The nutritional value of a food is based on it's composition.' is too wild a claim.
    - m_t 10y ago
      I have almost no knowledge in nutrition. But I know we absorb things differently depending on what we found them in. We absorb protein differently if they come from mat or from vegetables. We absorb calcium differently if it comes from milk or from a pill. So in that case, I think think that assuming the nutritional value of some food comes only from its composition is a claim that needs serious backing.

krisdol 10y ago

Well, I mean why would the Soylent FAQ say anything otherwise? Nutritionists disagree. It's not some hippie new age anti-industry opinion, it's a fact. In fact, this is such a stupid oversimplification that any amount of critical thinking can debunk it. There is a lot more to food that the net nutrition intake you have at the end of the day. The actual, physical composition of the food determines how quickly you body digests it, which in turn affects your energy levels, appetite, and mood. Your body does not digest apple juice the same way as it does raw apples, even if both have the same exact ingredients. You won't feel the same after a smoothie as you will after the same ingredients delivered raw. One method of intake gives you a short, high burst of energy followed by steeper drop off, while the raw form provides gentler changes and is less likely to spike your blood sugar. All of this interacts with your psychology, your metabolism, and your physical and mental energy. This is like saying I can safely fast for 4 days once If I eat 6000 calories worth of [insert food/drink] today. You might survive for 4 days but good luck not tearing up your body and feeling like a ghost by then. More-processed foods are not inherently "bad" or "unhealthy", but they are inherently worse and less healthy than less-processed foods (generally). They contribute to shorter periods of feeling satiated and longer low-energy periods. You will crave processed food more frequently and in greater quantities than raw food.

kazagistar 10y ago
Your consequences of processed food does not seem to be actually be anything inherent to processed food. If there is some chemical (likely fiber in your examples?) that is causing one form of food to have a different effect from another, then that can be artificially processed into the food as well. The real issue with processed foods tends to be that their goal is isolating the tasty by removing the healthy. If you actually set up the correct goals, then there is no particular reason why "natural foods" could not have their effects artificially replicated or improved upon.
blacksmith_tb 10y ago
Not to invalidate your argument, but clearly people fast for much longer than 4 days without food, for example "At the age of 74 and already slight of build, Mahatma Gandhi, the famous nonviolent campaigner for India's independence, survived 21 days of total starvation while only allowing himself sips of water." [1] 1: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-long-can-a-person-sur/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-long-can-a-pe...