109 ms·

Agreed, 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

Agreed, 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 ago
I 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 ago
  Yeah, 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 ago
      I'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 ago
        People 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 ago
        Those peasants also ate a lot of vegetables because they couldn't afford meat. Vegetables that have beta-carotene, like bok choy.
    - unclebucknasty 9y ago
      >it's an answer to really inefficient food production whose water and nutrient needs aren't sustainable... But, is it? The ingredients include oats, grapeseed oil, soy derivates, and whey. I'm sincerely having trouble seeing how this represents more efficient food production. In fact, it would seem to be less efficient from that perspective: it still requires the resources for crops/farming, derives isolates from foods that are otherwise more whole (what happens to the rest?), then adds a degree of processing that requires still more resources. Isn't it more efficient to just eat whole foods rather than extracts from various foods that, by definition, require energy/processing to obtain and must leave some waste in the process? Maybe it's more convenient from the consumer's perspective, but I don't see how it solves the production problems you suggest.
akgerber 9y ago
Meat is chemicals too. Just more complex ones, usually.
- deeth_starr_v 9y ago
  Yes. It's like comparing snow to climate.
refurb 9y ago
and then realized I was just eating chemicals You do realize that everything you eat is chemicals, right?
- hammock 9y ago
  I 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 ago
      Yes, 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 ago
      To 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 ago
  They 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 ago
    Or 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 ago
      There isn't much evidence to show that supplements do either.
      - deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
      - deeth_starr_v 9y ago
        Agreed, 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 ago
        Well, fish oil does have SOME evidence behind it.
stale2002 9y ago
Your 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 ago
  Polio 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 ago
    Most 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 ago
  No, 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 ago
  It's only bad advice if they died of malnutrition
komali2 9y ago
My great grandparents ate nothing but potatos, no thanks.
- deeth_starr_v 9y ago
  What's your point? My great grandparents were Italian and Irish.
  - komali2 9y ago
    Eating only potatos isn't healthy, why would I emulate their diet?
sneak 9y ago
Orange 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 ago
  Glycemic 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 ago
I would add: And refrain from "food" that comes with a version number. But that's just me.

chaostheory 9y ago

I 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 ago
Yeah, 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 ago
    I'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 ago
      People 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 ago
        Those peasants also ate a lot of vegetables because they couldn't afford meat. Vegetables that have beta-carotene, like bok choy.
  - unclebucknasty 9y ago
    >it's an answer to really inefficient food production whose water and nutrient needs aren't sustainable... But, is it? The ingredients include oats, grapeseed oil, soy derivates, and whey. I'm sincerely having trouble seeing how this represents more efficient food production. In fact, it would seem to be less efficient from that perspective: it still requires the resources for crops/farming, derives isolates from foods that are otherwise more whole (what happens to the rest?), then adds a degree of processing that requires still more resources. Isn't it more efficient to just eat whole foods rather than extracts from various foods that, by definition, require energy/processing to obtain and must leave some waste in the process? Maybe it's more convenient from the consumer's perspective, but I don't see how it solves the production problems you suggest.

akgerber 9y ago

Meat is chemicals too. Just more complex ones, usually.

deeth_starr_v 9y ago
Yes. It's like comparing snow to climate.

refurb 9y ago

and then realized I was just eating chemicals You do realize that everything you eat is chemicals, right?

hammock 9y ago
I 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 ago
    Yes, 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 ago
    To 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 ago
They 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 ago
  Or 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 ago
    There isn't much evidence to show that supplements do either.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    - deeth_starr_v 9y ago
      Agreed, 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 ago
      Well, fish oil does have SOME evidence behind it.

stale2002 9y ago

Your 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 ago
Polio 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 ago
  Most 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 ago
No, 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 ago
It's only bad advice if they died of malnutrition

komali2 9y ago

My great grandparents ate nothing but potatos, no thanks.

deeth_starr_v 9y ago
What's your point? My great grandparents were Italian and Irish.
- komali2 9y ago
  Eating only potatos isn't healthy, why would I emulate their diet?

sneak 9y ago

Orange 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 ago
Glycemic 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 ago

I would add: And refrain from "food" that comes with a version number. But that's just me.