5 ms·
You say it’s reasonably well researched. What long running randomized trials in humans have shown it to be healthy? I’m legitimately curious.
by iamdamian 6y ago
You say it’s reasonably well researched. What long running randomized trials in humans have shown it to be healthy? I’m legitimately curious.
- ThrowawayR2 6y agoWhat I mean by reasonably researched is that the nutritional science behind the ingredient choices seems defensible; you're welcome to read Soylent's own material on that. Sorry if I was unclear about that. As for long running randomized trials, sure, there aren't any. However, none of the hidden deleterious effects the author suggests might happen have been observed in consumers over the past three years since the article was published (that I know of), so, if there is a problem, it's really subtle.
- iamdamian 6y agoHaving a background in health, I can confidently say that the human body has surprising relationships to the nutrients that go into it. The specific composition and timing of nutrient delivery to various systems in the body can have a dramatic effect on health, and so taking a first principles approach (as opposed to an evidence-based approach) can be very dangerous in the context of human health. IMO the burden of proof for whether something is truly healthy for a human being over the course of their lifetime is on the new product rather than lack of evidence to the contrary. Just my two cents’, and I think reasonable people can disagree.
- m0zg 6y agoWe've been running long term trial on eggs and butter for hundreds of years, and we still don't know if they're healthy or not. The opinion flips in polarity every 5 years or so. What makes you believe long term trials would establish something conclusive here?
- iamdamian 6y agoI would venture that it’s necessary but potentially not sufficient.