4 ms·

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

by 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...
shuntress 10y ago
It's hard to compress so much information in to single page resources that people can skim in internet arguments. Though they do address things like blood sugar in similar articles: https://faq.soylent.com/hc/en-us/articles/212769503-Glycemic-Data https://faq.soylent.com/hc/en-us/articles/212769503-Glycemic... Of course it's not perfect. Could you do better by meticulously cataloging your intake, painstakingly measuring everything you cook, and going the extra mile to determine the exact source of all your food? Yeah probably. My time is worth more to me than that. I would rather waste my time on things other than making sure I am perfectly nourished. How long had humans gone eating crude bread, grilled meat, and stuff they found on the ground? Now we have processing techniques more advanced than 'Make it hot' and we live longer now than ever before. At least Soylent, as a company, is very up-front with their goals and concerns. They just sent me a message telling me not to eat the Soylent Bars I bought (Jokes on them I already threw them out because they are gross) Also, Unless you eat the core and the seeds I think an apple and the quantity of apple juice you can make by squeezing one apple are probably going to be digested in a similar fashion. I get your point, I just don't think that is a good example.
wodenokoto 10y ago
Actually you can survive a year, if you build up enough energy storage. http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2012/07/24/3549931.htm http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2012/07/24/3549931.ht... >.. but they are inherently worse and less healthy than less-processed foods (generally) this is such a stupid oversimplification that any amount of critical thinking can debunk it.
Tyr42 10y ago
The growth in our brain size is related to when we first figured out how to process (cook) food. Lots of food is only considered edible once it's been processed. Look at wheat. Without the great length we go to mill flour, it's completely indigestible. I think the Apple Juice example is a poor one, as it takes many apples to make one serving of apple juice, and you're leaving out the pulp, etc. This is exactly what we are talking about when we say that the composition matters, not how processed it is. You have to care what the process is, not just that its "processed".

by krisdol 10y ago

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...

shuntress 10y ago

It's hard to compress so much information in to single page resources that people can skim in internet arguments. Though they do address things like blood sugar in similar articles: https://faq.soylent.com/hc/en-us/articles/212769503-Glycemic-Data https://faq.soylent.com/hc/en-us/articles/212769503-Glycemic... Of course it's not perfect. Could you do better by meticulously cataloging your intake, painstakingly measuring everything you cook, and going the extra mile to determine the exact source of all your food? Yeah probably. My time is worth more to me than that. I would rather waste my time on things other than making sure I am perfectly nourished. How long had humans gone eating crude bread, grilled meat, and stuff they found on the ground? Now we have processing techniques more advanced than 'Make it hot' and we live longer now than ever before. At least Soylent, as a company, is very up-front with their goals and concerns. They just sent me a message telling me not to eat the Soylent Bars I bought (Jokes on them I already threw them out because they are gross) Also, Unless you eat the core and the seeds I think an apple and the quantity of apple juice you can make by squeezing one apple are probably going to be digested in a similar fashion. I get your point, I just don't think that is a good example.

wodenokoto 10y ago

Actually you can survive a year, if you build up enough energy storage. http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2012/07/24/3549931.htm http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2012/07/24/3549931.ht... >.. but they are inherently worse and less healthy than less-processed foods (generally) this is such a stupid oversimplification that any amount of critical thinking can debunk it.

Tyr42 10y ago

The growth in our brain size is related to when we first figured out how to process (cook) food. Lots of food is only considered edible once it's been processed. Look at wheat. Without the great length we go to mill flour, it's completely indigestible. I think the Apple Juice example is a poor one, as it takes many apples to make one serving of apple juice, and you're leaving out the pulp, etc. This is exactly what we are talking about when we say that the composition matters, not how processed it is. You have to care what the process is, not just that its "processed".