3 ms·
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 disa
by 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 agoDue 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 agoI don't think that 'The nutritional value of a food is based on it's composition.' is too wild a claim.
- m_t 10y agoI 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.