6 ms·
The founder of Soylent has repeatedly pushed his product as a solution for world hunger, unhealthy diets in the first world, and poor time management. I think c
by giaour 9y ago
The founder of Soylent has repeatedly pushed his product as a solution for world hunger, unhealthy diets in the first world, and poor time management. I think critiquing the product on those terms is fair.
- deeth_starr_v 9y agoAgreed, while the intentions of Soylent are probably sincere, when I first heard about it my response was "nope nope nope". My parents were hippies and we grew/raised most of our food when I was a kid. But my grandparents had embraced the new space-age diet: margarine in place of butter, tang instead of orange juice, kraft instead of cheese, etc. I thought it tasted awful compared to real food. As we have found out, some food choices like trans fats have an impact on health. There's really too much noise in the nutrition related data to draw wide ranging conclusions. But buyer beware. For me I think the safest option is the "whole foods" (Polan) route. For me it would be "eat what your grand-grand parents ate". I was even a vegetarian and eating fake-meats and then realized I was just eating chemicals. So I started eating meat again. Edit: Changed wording on first sentence
- chaostheory 9y agoI agree with you. For everyone else, I just want to add that there is a place for things like Soylent, beyond the marketing. We're most likely not going to be able to continue our current method producing food cheaply. I could be wrong but things like Soylent will probably be the future that mitigates this issue for a lot of people.
- deeth_starr_v 9y agoYeah, meat/food substitutes are likely central to our population growth rate, but let's be intellectually honest. I'm not sure it'll work. I'm really hopeful the meat substitutes will pan out. We haven't figured out cancer yet. You're betting on us figuring out food? Edit: because cancer is complex, the same a food and nutrition
- chaostheory 9y ago> You're betting on us figuring out food? Things like Soylent are already here. It's not vaporware. Yes it's not perfect or ideal but it's an answer to really inefficient food production whose water and nutrient needs aren't sustainable for a growing population.
- deeth_starr_v 9y agoI'm not calling it vaporware. We don't understand clearly about our gut bio/digestion/food absorption. It'd be great to hear an expert on this chime in, but my guess they would say "we don't know yet". I'm not telling you to not eat Soylent or that it won't potentially be great for the human race. But again, we don't know. Edit: fixed wording Edit: What if they get something wrong like including trans fats? I know this a "playing to fear" argument, but there is a long history of industrial foods being not healthy. It just takes a new generation of suckers to come of age.
- derefr 9y agoPeople have been eating imperfectly for millenia and keeping on nevertheless. How many billion (trillion?) Chinese peasants, across history, do you think ate only rice their entire lives? Sure, said peasants probably had vitamin A deficiency—but they managed to live long, mostly-healthy lives despite that. Which is my point: we don't need to get "food" perfect in order to ensure that 10x as many people as today can live "long, mostly-healthy lives." It's not unethical to feed starving people food that's missing some micronutrient we aren't yet aware of, because they'll still be better off than if they were starving. The human body is hardy.
- iopq 9y agoThose peasants also ate a lot of vegetables because they couldn't afford meat. Vegetables that have beta-carotene, like bok choy.
- unclebucknasty 9y ago
- akgerber 9y agoMeat is chemicals too. Just more complex ones, usually.
- deeth_starr_v 9y agoYes. It's like comparing snow to climate.
- refurb 9y agoand then realized I was just eating chemicals You do realize that everything you eat is chemicals, right?
- hammock 9y agoI hate this argument. Usually people are talking about synthetic or non-naturally occurring compounds ancillary to the reason for eating the food. In other words, are you eating processed cheese for the protein, or for the potassium sorbate? Only one of these is a "chemical" is the vernacular.
- humanrebar 9y ago> Only one of these is a "chemical" is the vernacular. The vernacular is wrong in this case and encourages ignorance. "Preservatives", "dyes", "perfumes", "thickeners", and "artificial sweeteners" are all words that everyone understands. We can say "artificial ingredients" instead if we want a catch all. The English language is really expressive. "Chemicals" is a buzzword used a lot by hucksters to push sales through pseudoscience. We must demand better and more specific reasoning than "chemicals" if we want the words "shown by science" to be meaningful as well.
- deeth_starr_v 9y agoYes, I get that using the word "chemicals" is problematic. I understand that food is made up of the same proteins, fats, etc. When I hear hucksters marketing organic, GMO, or Soylent. I'm always cautious. Caveat emptor. Edit: I'm not anti-GMO. Nor the concept of Soylent. But I use a headset rather than hold my phone up to my head. Even though there's no definitive proof we can get cancer from smart phones. I just think there is additional risk here. Edit: Also, your "chemicals" point is like arguing that Global Warming doesn't exist because it's snowing today. It's true, but not relevant to the discussion.
- ajmurmann 9y agoTo add to your point, many of these "chemicals" aren't even all that artificial. Some thickeners for example come from algae and gave been in use since centuries just in different countries. Looking at some traditional food like ham they are incredibly processed we just are used to it.
- hammock 9y ago>"eat what your grand-grand parents ate" Not possible, unfortunately. Meat and vegetables are so totally different now. For example meats are raised on GM corn and antibiotics, altering their balance of omega 3's, impact on gut health, and other things. While today's vegetables are massively decremented in micronutrients- and may have less arsenic-based pesticide residue than your greatgrandparents', but more of other pesticides.
- metamet 9y agoThey still exist. Eat locally from farmers. All my beef is grass fed (which have higher omega 3's), for example. And if you can't because of where you live, there's a good chance neither could your grandparents had if they lived there as well.
- leshow 9y agoOr you could take an omega-3 supplement and eat normal beef. There isn't much evidence to show that grass-fed beef has any measurable effect on health.
- cabinguy 9y agoThere isn't much evidence to show that supplements do either.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- deeth_starr_v 9y agoAgreed, research here is that supplements don't have an impact. Edit: For pregnant women and others for sure. But in the general population no
- iopq 9y agoWell, fish oil does have SOME evidence behind it.
- stale2002 9y agoYour grand grand parents probably died of polio or something, so I am not sure if taking their advice on health is a good idea.
- aetherson 9y agoPolio is not a disease caused by malnutrition. Also, your ancestors probably did not die of it -- it mostly affected young people, so people who died from it usually didn't have descendants. Quibbling aside, health in general was certainly much worse in our great-grandparents' days, but for those who weren't straight up underfed, nutrition was probably not worse. I'm not sure it was as magically better as some would have you believe, but there is decent evidence that traditional diets were more-or-less fine, and that the modern diet has something wrong with it.
- projektfu 9y agoMost of the impetus for Federal nutrition programs in the US was because of the large number of malnourished and unfit to serve draftees in WW1.
- deeth_starr_v 9y agoNo, a heart attack at 48 and cancer at 91. This data tells you little Edit: Sorry, misread. All I know is my great grandfather was a pony express rider and got colon cancer
- tomc1985 9y agoIt's only bad advice if they died of malnutrition
- komali2 9y agoMy great grandparents ate nothing but potatos, no thanks.
- deeth_starr_v 9y agoWhat's your point? My great grandparents were Italian and Irish.
- komali2 9y agoEating only potatos isn't healthy, why would I emulate their diet?
- sneak 9y agoOrange juice, from your example, is pretty bad for you, especially compared to the low glycemic index carbohydrates found in things like Soylent. File under "false dichotomy".
- iopq 9y agoGlycemic index means nothing. Cake has a low glycemic index (someting like 30, depending on fat content). Oatmeal has a higher glycemic index (55). Does that mean we should stop eating oatmeal and substitute it with cake?
- CaptainZapp 9y agoI would add: And refrain from "food" that comes with a version number. But that's just me.
- ng12 9y agoThe Soylent of today doesn't claim that though. It says right on bottle that it can replace a meal but it should not replace every meal. In that respect it's not much different than Ensure or other meal supplements.
- paulcole 9y agoTheir website definitely claims that Soylent is a complete substitute for all food.
- ng12 9y agoWhere do you see that? It only claims it's a meal substitute, which it is. The only other recommendation I could find was this: > As a nutritionally complete food source, Soylent should be considered a food product just like any other. You can include Soylent in your diet for as long as you’d like, in any amount that suits your needs. There is no right or wrong amount of Soylent to eat - the whole idea is to find a balance that works for you.
- staticassertion 9y agoAnd Soylent can be fine for those things. It's simple to see that it's faster than cooking a meal. Does that mean you'll spend that time better? No. It's simple to see that your calories are measured out for you - does that mean you won't eat more than you should? No. Both examples had underlying issues that Soylent did not solve, because it never could. Doesn't mean it can't solve those same problems for others.
- Romanulus 9y agoJust because someone is too far gone to get help from a product that _CAN_ help doesn't mean it is the fault of the product. *edit: clarity.