25 ms·

You sound like an industry-insider explaining why a new startup will fail. "They're too young!" "They don't have the experience" "We've devoted our LIVES to fig

by criley 14y ago

You sound like an industry-insider explaining why a new startup will fail. "They're too young!" "They don't have the experience" "We've devoted our LIVES to figuring this out, one kid in his basement didn't do it in a few weeks!" Etc etc No offense but we've heard the exact same thing about every successful idea. And what's more: People look at the human GI totally wrong anyway. They think, what can I put in to get the best results? When in reality, the human GI evolved to support an extremely broad range of inputs as it's most significant factor. With humans all over the earth eating an extremely disparate diet pre-civilization (and even post), the most significant factor of the human GI was it's ability to handle the wide variety of chemically diverse inputs and provide a consistent, reliable output. So why do you approach this, which is nothing more than a new input, and claim that the output is going to be different? Dangerous? Impossible? Seems to me like you're indignant with a touch of ego: "How dare he pretend to do my job. It's an insult to me that he is doing this!" That's the feeling I get from you reading this post.

halcyondaze 14y ago
> People look at the human GI totally wrong anyway. They think, what can I put in to get the best results? When in reality, the human GI evolved to support an extremely broad range of inputs as it's most significant factor. That doesn't mean that there isn't something you can put in to get the best results for yourself.
- criley 14y ago
  That doesn't mean that there isn't something you can put in to get the best results for yourself. My point is that there are likely very many things you can put in to achieve a similar optimal result.
yanowitz 14y ago
I think that's a total misreading of the criticisms. This actually is a hard problem and the science well short of consensus. The surface area of the problem seems to grow every year as scientists publish new research. That seems like a good indication that the odds of this (relatively) uninformed approach being a great one is low.
- criley 14y ago
  I don't, I have a BS in Biology and these kind of disruptive ideas are exciting to me. After spending years studying biochemistry and nutrition, I realize that a lot of evidence is out there is crap. Nutrition isn't some old-guard field with a hundred years of solid decided science weighing it down. In my opinion it's like genetics, a fast moving, exciting field full of interesting ideas and disruptive possibility. Quite frankly, our understanding of the human GI and human nutrition is still rather pathetic, and a lot of the "common wisdom" is based on misinformation and bad evidence.
  - Shorel 14y ago
    The common wisdom of 100-150 years ago is not as bad as common wisdom from 1980. Anna Karenina, Part Two, chapter 19: "He had no need to be strict with himself, as he had very quickly been brought down to the required light weight; but still he had to avoid gaining flesh, and so he eschewed farinaceous and sweet dishes."
    - criley 14y ago
      I can pull out quotes of Greek philosophers or Egyptians extolling the virtues of lifelong exercise and moderation in food... that's not quite the common wisdom I'm thinking of!
- Shorel 14y ago
  Of course it is a hard problem. It is a mix of politics and economics and ethics and a very small probability of doing any real experimentation on other people. So far I have more faith in Internet communities doing self-experimentation than with big corporation-sponsored studies.
- Kim_Bruning 14y ago
  The novel aspect here is that his experimental methodology looks promising; not that he has some magic silver bullet.
baak 14y ago
Did you read his blog? He's claiming it cured his skin disease, gave him mental superpowers, has him in the best shape of his life, it gives him more energy, it tastes great, and costs $150 a month. Reads like a sleazy wonderpill ad.
- criley 14y ago
  In my personal experience, optimal nutrition creates what I would, in jest, refer to as "superpowers". When I compare my mental and physical state under optimal conditions to under poor conditions, there is a dramatic difference in me. This, to me, is also why for many athletes, their performance doesn't begin on the field but rather it begins with their food intake. I don't trust the data he provided because it isn't rigorous, reviewed or even analyzed at all. But I'm curious, regardless.
  - gerad 14y ago
    Disagree. Many elite athletes are not super scientific about their food choices [1]. Instead they eat what they crave. The human body is pretty good at figuring out what it needs nutritionally. That being said, there is a lot that is important off of the field (e.g. sleep, stretching, etc). Just nutrition is fairly low on that list. [1] http://www.active.com/triathlon/ironman/Articles/Nutrition-Tips-From-Ironman-Athletes http://www.active.com/triathlon/ironman/Articles/Nutrition-T...
    - cgh 14y ago
      As much respect as I have for triathletes, they aren't really representative. Food choices are incredibly important for athletes in weight class-limited sports (eg wrestling) or where muscular hypertrophy is important (eg powerlifting). Gymnastics is another one. Believe me when I tell you that coaches have diet absolutely dialed in for many classes of athlete.
      - Dylan16807 14y ago
        Is this actually a disagreement, though? Doing a hyper-specific sport act like that is much less natural than being a triathlete.
Retric 14y ago
As a side note, look into what rescue organisations feed to starving people. There are a few options that area all cheap and vary effective at bringing people back from starvation. With that said, the question becomes what's the goal. Is it to cover the bases while keeping room left over for desert? Is it to find something better than the average western diet? Because, while perfection is going to depend on your DNA and activity levels finding a good baseline substitute for breakfast and lunch is vary possible. PS: Now if you read what was written then this is sounding a lot like a 'fad' food with wondrous super powers. But, there are fairly good substitutes out there that cover most bases.
lilsunnybee 14y ago
I doubt he's taking the manner by which nutrients are best absorbed into account. Having everything in a liquid suspension is likely not ideal, and could result in a dangerous deficiency. Just because someone can survive on something doesn't mean they're getting good nutrition. Humans have adapted to eat many types of food, but that doesn't mean everyone was equally as healthy, disease-resistant, etc.
- hirenj 14y ago
  I'd agree here – given the nature of the digestive system, and the different things that are absorbed at different points across the digestive tract, I'd say that throwing it all in, ready for the body to soak up is probably a bad idea. Further, you don't really know what the hell you're doing to all 100 trillion of the little beasties living in your gut by drinking that stuff. We're really a very carefully balanced system for homeostasis and shortcuts rarely appreciate the subtlety and complexity of the system they are shortcutting.
pfraze 14y ago
I think what he's lamenting is a lack of appreciation for the history and nuance of the field, and the presumption by software engineers that everyone else is too mired in old-world thinking to do the obviously-successful thing. From my perspective, both sides of this argument have supporting examples, and neither takes a clear lead. I would say that hackers who throw together disruptive successes tend to be innovating on market capture, not underlying technology, otherwise they wouldn't have quite as much success without proper education. (Either that, or the hacker is working in Information Tech, where they do have insider knowledge.) That said, market-capture should equate to commercial success, so it does matter. I just don't think it's directly correlated to the innovation you're suggesting. As for the ability of the natural genius to emerge without formal training, of course that's possible-- and increasingly likely thanks to the Web-- but it's still rare enough that I'm skeptical of the claim.
base698 14y ago
Here is a little summary of what he's saying: The only things we really know about nutrition are related to diets that cause obvious problems quickly. Ie, we know vitamin-c is needed because it causes scurvy. What we know now and are learning is that there are possibly thousands of other interactions and nutrients needed for diet that are more subtle. We do not yet have a complete model for this, and probably won't for a few more decades. Therefore, anything made now will be insufficient because we know our current model is flawed.
- papsosouid 14y ago
  >What we know now and are learning is that there are possibly thousands of other interactions and nutrients needed for diet that are more subtle. And the evidence to support this claim is what exactly? People keep acting like nutrition is magic and involves lots of pixie dust. It is not. We have a very thorough understanding down to the exact chemical reactions occurring. Anything he is missing that would cause damage only seen after 50+ years is also causing that same damage to millions of other people as we speak.
saidajigumi 14y ago
> You sound like an industry-insider explaining why a new startup will fail. I certainly don't want to rain on some new visionary's parade, but I spend a lot of time tracking folks who I consider to be the real visionaries in this field. As in we are currently in the midst of the greatest revolution in human health of our lives, and this guy is running in the wrong direction. We're seeing astonishing results with dietary remediation of a vast array of conditions that were previously considered unrelated. And this isn't just "remedial eating", it's discovering that our current ways of eating are killing us but that diet can likewise help heal us. It's a Khunian revolution out of "the pill and the scalpel" mindset and into a deeper understanding of root causes of wide classes of disease and general unhealthiness in 21st century society. I must certainly be writing in an aggressive posture, for which I'll apologize. I'll have to account my overenthusiasm to the long-term health and well-being of literally everyone I've ever met being at stake. Current research is showing that we are only just beginning to gain understanding of the complexity and health of the GI. An analogy is that our GI and GI microbiota are essentially a recently discovered vital organ. One which the industrialized western diet (now well exported globally) has been systematically destroying. Diet has direct and immense impact on GI health, which in turn impacts such matters as: chronic systemic inflammation, autoimmunity, hyperinsulinism, neurotransmitter production (a vast amount of which happens .. in the gut!), hunger signalling, and more. I don't have time to put the references in here that this deserves, but I'll leave you all with this to whet appetites, as it were. Dr. Terry Wahls, "Minding Your Mitochondria": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLjgBLwH3Wc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLjgBLwH3Wc Watch that, so my bluntness to follow makes sense. I see this guy's protocol as nothing but poisonous in the long run. He's off and created yet another processed food product that must be assumed to fail to meet the needs of the human body. Current research hammers home the idea that we don't yet have a complete and constructive model of nutrition, so why in the heck should I believe a nonspecialist that claims otherwise? Extraordinary claims, extraordinary proof, or GTFO.
- criley 14y ago
  >"Extraordinary claims, extraordinary proof, or GTFO." >"I see this guy's protocol as nothing but poisonous in the long run." You place a burden of evidence on him that you yourself in this very post violated on a number of occasions. You CANNOT call his diet poisonous simply because you disagree with it. You admitted it yourself: >"Current research is showing that we are only just beginning to gain understanding of the complexity and health of the GI." So no offense, but you have literally no ground to say that this is poisonous in the short OR long term, no evidence to back that up, and you cannot rely on a field that cannot support your view. You have a view on this, congratulations, but it is nothing more than a well-informed opinion. It is not fact, it is not supported by fact and as you've admitted -- it CANNOT at this point be supported by fact that does not yet exist. Even your link to a TEDX (aka, unvetted content) states upfront: "This talk is a personal narrative and is not yet backed by larger experimentation." I'm sorry, but you've been consistently and narrow-mindedly against what the OP has put forth. You dismiss his views for their lack of credibility but turn around and post sources that themselves have no credibility (admit to being anecdotal). You seem to have picked what is correct and are now looking for evidence to support your preconceived notion. You also seem to be falling for the naturalism fallacy by pretending that since his food is "pill and scalpel" it is therefore wrong/bad. Just my conclusions: obviously he hasn't posted data or even analyzed it, but you present many issues in your posts that I disagree with more strongly than what he puts forth (and I'm not a layman).
scott_s 14y ago
They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown. - Carl Sagan Sure, he could be on to something. But we also need an enormous amount of skepticism when evaluating it, just as we do when evaluating any large claim. What pings my radar is that we're still trying to understand how our body processes "whole food" as opposed to vitamins in supplement form.
- BystanderX 14y ago
  If only they were as reasonable stating this as you.
- qu4z-2 14y ago
  In fairness, Columbus was also wrong. If they hadn't happened across the Americas, they would all have died. India was nowhere near where he thought it was, and almost exactly where the common knowledge of the time (and Eratosthenes) said it was. Sorry. It's just a pet peeve of mine when people think Columbus was somehow right, or even worse, that people believed the world was flat pre-Columbus. EDIT: To be clear, I'm not implying you think that, but it seems to be implied in the Sagan quote that Columbus was something other than completely wrong in his assessment of the situation (or possibly lying 'cause he wanted to explore the other side of the world. He certainly seems to have been brave enough)
  - ekianjo 14y ago
    And Colombus believed, till his death, that he had reached India. He never realized this was another continent altogether.
    - alttab 14y ago
      And he ate more than soylent.
yasth 14y ago
Except this isn't new software. There is an actual answer to what this purports to be, i.e. a complete nutritional food. It is a very hard question to answer, and even if you had the absolute top minds of the industry making a food source in this manner you'd be provably messing up badly as recently as ten years ago. You'd probably be messing up today but we don't even know how at the moment. I mean look at the warnings on what is basically the next step, TPN http://www.merckmanuals.com/professional/nutritional_disorders/nutritional_support/total_parenteral_nutrition_tpn.html?qt=&sc=&alt= http://www.merckmanuals.com/professional/nutritional_disorde... . He is basically drinking almost exactly this. Look at all those scary scary warnings. Some of them are IV dependent, but things like "Metabolic bone disease, or bone demineralization (osteoporosis or osteomalacia), develops in some patients given TPN for > 3 mo. The mechanism is unknown. Advanced disease can cause severe periarticular, lower-extremity, and back pain. Temporarily or permanently stopping TPN is the only known treatment." and such are probably some odd nutrient problems. Any nutritionist will tell you that there just isn't a great long term complete meal replacement. If this guy has one that is great, but he has done nothing to prove it yet. I mean he isn't even completely replacing meals, and has only been doing it for 6 weeks. Which is shorter than some people have done entirely cabbage based diets. Heck he could have subsisted on beer for this long. ( http://blogs.menshealth.com/health-headlines/the-beer-diet/2011/04/30 http://blogs.menshealth.com/health-headlines/the-beer-diet/2... ) It is sort of like some blog post claiming to have solved scaling and not actually had any real workload. I mean sure it doesn't look completely broken at a glance, but it hasn't been shown to even work yet. Come back in a year or two when you've dealt with some load (or merely a couple years of drinking the same thing in this case).
- klipt 14y ago
  Yeah, it seems to me that the first problem with not giving your GI tract food is that it could make your GI tract atrophy. (His blog suggests he barely poops on this diet.) As much as I share the fantasy of perfectly balanced, easy to prepare "bachelor chow", I hope he doesn't damage himself.
  - Evgeny 14y ago
    I hope he doesn't damage himself Bad as it sounds, I hope he does. That would be the equivalent of "failing fast", I guess. Here's the worse outcome: he goes happily for some time, inspires some people to follow his lead, the group grows ... 5 or 10 years down the line - bam, they all end up with some irreparable damage to their health ...
reinhardt 14y ago
You sound like a software dilettante explaining why (formal) education is obsolete. "So what if it's a triple nested loop, hardware is cheap" "Encapsulation? Relational algebra? Who cares about this CS mumbo jumbo just show me teh codez". No offence but we've heard the exact same thing from every amateur that "learned programming" by toying with Wordpress or Jquery copypasta.
- Kim_Bruning 14y ago
  There are also a lot of smart and thoughtful coders who are self-taught, however. It depends on your approach, your mental toolkit, and how much self-discipline you have to recognize that what you are doing is crap and how to learn more.
wamatt 14y ago
>When in reality, the human GI evolved to support an extremely broad range of inputs as it's most significant factor. While we can agree that innovation should not be stifled, the idea that we can determine the processes by which the body utilizes nutrients and their interdependent effects, after a few months of research, is utterly hubristic. I often make the claim that the human body (other animals are close too) exhibits one of the highest levels of complexity out of all the known systems in the universe, far exceeding the complexity of man mad systems. I challenge anyone to put forward a counter-example... I've been researching nutrition for 5 years and read hundreds of papers on PubMed and, involved with QS (quantified self) and life extension movements, track my bloodwork in Google Spreadsheets etc. You may be wondering, why would someone invest such an extraordinary amount of time (1000+ man hours) an energy in this topic? Well I used to think very differently about my health. As a young strong-willed software developer, I arrogantly assumed like many before I knew it all in my teenage years. My mental model of the body, was not dissimilar to your current views on GI (the body will just handle whatever you throw at it). As a result after 10 years of eating badly I ended up with a chronic disease (Psoriatic Arthritis). Being a teenager I knew better and ate anything I wanted, which specifically was an extreme diet consisting entirely of pasta, milk and coke. Because that's what my body "wanted". Now I'm in my 30's and undoing the damage, but I've learned that this system really is complicated, more so than a rocket or microprocessor. You're right in the sense that the body can tolerate it for a while, but it's not designed to cope with abuse over a period of many years. Eventually you will pay the price. Even now though, I wouldn't consider myself an "expert", although some of my peers might. But I have learned enough know when someone is out of their depth. This guy is well intentioned but that does not mean he's justified in making such grandiose claims. For example he says "Vitamin D" and "Vitamin K", without acknowledging various forms exist. For example he says he takes "Vitamin D(400IU):" What exactly is 'Vitamin D'? Cholecalciferol (D3) [1] is quite different from Ergocalciferol (D2)[2] D3 levels are particularly important when talking about overall health. Or take "Vitamin K" for example, are we talking about the philoquinone (K1) [3] or the menaquinone (K2) [4] group? Even if then, if one is talking Vitamin K2, there are various menaquinones forms so is he suggesting Mk4, mk7 or some other form? [5]. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cholecalciferol http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cholecalciferol [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ergocalciferol http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ergocalciferol [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phylloquinone http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phylloquinone [4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitamin_k2 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitamin_k2 [5] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10084398 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10084398
coldtea 14y ago
>You sound like an industry-insider explaining why a new startup will fail. "They're too young!" "They don't have the experience" "We've devoted our LIVES to figuring this out, one kid in his basement didn't do it in a few weeks!" Etc etc No offense but we've heard the exact same thing about every successful idea. We also heard the exact same thing about every kook, and his idea of a "perpetual motion engine", "cold fusion in my backyard" etc idea. And that has happened far too many more times than the "successful idea" thing -- so much, that "the idea being shot down by critics" && "it being successful" case is like statistical noise. Which is also true about your startup example. Most startups DO fail. A staggering majority of them actually.
sheri 14y ago
Impossible? No, but not very probable either. I am not an expert on human physiology, but I presume it is very complex, and doesn't lend itself to hobbyists making large breakthroughs. If tomorrow I read an article saying a biologist has solved P = NP, I would treat that with a lot of skepticism. It is possible that he gained enough expertise to do so, but given that some very smart people have been spending a good portion of the lives on this, I wouldn't consider it likely.
Loic 14y ago
Side note for comprehension, if like me you wonder: GI means GastroIntestinal. It is used in the comments both as adjective but also to refer to the whole gastrointestinal track and connected organs.
jt2190 14y ago
You're supposing that the criticism is of Rob Rhinehart's abilities and character, but it's a critique of Rhinehart's nieve belief that the problem he's solving is a simple one.

by criley 14y ago

halcyondaze 14y ago

> People look at the human GI totally wrong anyway. They think, what can I put in to get the best results? When in reality, the human GI evolved to support an extremely broad range of inputs as it's most significant factor. That doesn't mean that there isn't something you can put in to get the best results for yourself.

criley 14y ago
That doesn't mean that there isn't something you can put in to get the best results for yourself. My point is that there are likely very many things you can put in to achieve a similar optimal result.

yanowitz 14y ago

I think that's a total misreading of the criticisms. This actually is a hard problem and the science well short of consensus. The surface area of the problem seems to grow every year as scientists publish new research. That seems like a good indication that the odds of this (relatively) uninformed approach being a great one is low.

criley 14y ago
I don't, I have a BS in Biology and these kind of disruptive ideas are exciting to me. After spending years studying biochemistry and nutrition, I realize that a lot of evidence is out there is crap. Nutrition isn't some old-guard field with a hundred years of solid decided science weighing it down. In my opinion it's like genetics, a fast moving, exciting field full of interesting ideas and disruptive possibility. Quite frankly, our understanding of the human GI and human nutrition is still rather pathetic, and a lot of the "common wisdom" is based on misinformation and bad evidence.
- Shorel 14y ago
  The common wisdom of 100-150 years ago is not as bad as common wisdom from 1980. Anna Karenina, Part Two, chapter 19: "He had no need to be strict with himself, as he had very quickly been brought down to the required light weight; but still he had to avoid gaining flesh, and so he eschewed farinaceous and sweet dishes."
  - criley 14y ago
    I can pull out quotes of Greek philosophers or Egyptians extolling the virtues of lifelong exercise and moderation in food... that's not quite the common wisdom I'm thinking of!
Shorel 14y ago
Of course it is a hard problem. It is a mix of politics and economics and ethics and a very small probability of doing any real experimentation on other people. So far I have more faith in Internet communities doing self-experimentation than with big corporation-sponsored studies.
Kim_Bruning 14y ago
The novel aspect here is that his experimental methodology looks promising; not that he has some magic silver bullet.

baak 14y ago

Did you read his blog? He's claiming it cured his skin disease, gave him mental superpowers, has him in the best shape of his life, it gives him more energy, it tastes great, and costs $150 a month. Reads like a sleazy wonderpill ad.

criley 14y ago
In my personal experience, optimal nutrition creates what I would, in jest, refer to as "superpowers". When I compare my mental and physical state under optimal conditions to under poor conditions, there is a dramatic difference in me. This, to me, is also why for many athletes, their performance doesn't begin on the field but rather it begins with their food intake. I don't trust the data he provided because it isn't rigorous, reviewed or even analyzed at all. But I'm curious, regardless.
- gerad 14y ago
  Disagree. Many elite athletes are not super scientific about their food choices [1]. Instead they eat what they crave. The human body is pretty good at figuring out what it needs nutritionally. That being said, there is a lot that is important off of the field (e.g. sleep, stretching, etc). Just nutrition is fairly low on that list. [1] http://www.active.com/triathlon/ironman/Articles/Nutrition-Tips-From-Ironman-Athletes http://www.active.com/triathlon/ironman/Articles/Nutrition-T...
  - cgh 14y ago
    As much respect as I have for triathletes, they aren't really representative. Food choices are incredibly important for athletes in weight class-limited sports (eg wrestling) or where muscular hypertrophy is important (eg powerlifting). Gymnastics is another one. Believe me when I tell you that coaches have diet absolutely dialed in for many classes of athlete.
    - Dylan16807 14y ago
      Is this actually a disagreement, though? Doing a hyper-specific sport act like that is much less natural than being a triathlete.

Retric 14y ago

As a side note, look into what rescue organisations feed to starving people. There are a few options that area all cheap and vary effective at bringing people back from starvation. With that said, the question becomes what's the goal. Is it to cover the bases while keeping room left over for desert? Is it to find something better than the average western diet? Because, while perfection is going to depend on your DNA and activity levels finding a good baseline substitute for breakfast and lunch is vary possible. PS: Now if you read what was written then this is sounding a lot like a 'fad' food with wondrous super powers. But, there are fairly good substitutes out there that cover most bases.

lilsunnybee 14y ago

I doubt he's taking the manner by which nutrients are best absorbed into account. Having everything in a liquid suspension is likely not ideal, and could result in a dangerous deficiency. Just because someone can survive on something doesn't mean they're getting good nutrition. Humans have adapted to eat many types of food, but that doesn't mean everyone was equally as healthy, disease-resistant, etc.

hirenj 14y ago
I'd agree here – given the nature of the digestive system, and the different things that are absorbed at different points across the digestive tract, I'd say that throwing it all in, ready for the body to soak up is probably a bad idea. Further, you don't really know what the hell you're doing to all 100 trillion of the little beasties living in your gut by drinking that stuff. We're really a very carefully balanced system for homeostasis and shortcuts rarely appreciate the subtlety and complexity of the system they are shortcutting.

pfraze 14y ago

I think what he's lamenting is a lack of appreciation for the history and nuance of the field, and the presumption by software engineers that everyone else is too mired in old-world thinking to do the obviously-successful thing. From my perspective, both sides of this argument have supporting examples, and neither takes a clear lead. I would say that hackers who throw together disruptive successes tend to be innovating on market capture, not underlying technology, otherwise they wouldn't have quite as much success without proper education. (Either that, or the hacker is working in Information Tech, where they do have insider knowledge.) That said, market-capture should equate to commercial success, so it does matter. I just don't think it's directly correlated to the innovation you're suggesting. As for the ability of the natural genius to emerge without formal training, of course that's possible-- and increasingly likely thanks to the Web-- but it's still rare enough that I'm skeptical of the claim.

base698 14y ago

Here is a little summary of what he's saying: The only things we really know about nutrition are related to diets that cause obvious problems quickly. Ie, we know vitamin-c is needed because it causes scurvy. What we know now and are learning is that there are possibly thousands of other interactions and nutrients needed for diet that are more subtle. We do not yet have a complete model for this, and probably won't for a few more decades. Therefore, anything made now will be insufficient because we know our current model is flawed.

papsosouid 14y ago
>What we know now and are learning is that there are possibly thousands of other interactions and nutrients needed for diet that are more subtle. And the evidence to support this claim is what exactly? People keep acting like nutrition is magic and involves lots of pixie dust. It is not. We have a very thorough understanding down to the exact chemical reactions occurring. Anything he is missing that would cause damage only seen after 50+ years is also causing that same damage to millions of other people as we speak.

saidajigumi 14y ago

> You sound like an industry-insider explaining why a new startup will fail. I certainly don't want to rain on some new visionary's parade, but I spend a lot of time tracking folks who I consider to be the real visionaries in this field. As in we are currently in the midst of the greatest revolution in human health of our lives, and this guy is running in the wrong direction. We're seeing astonishing results with dietary remediation of a vast array of conditions that were previously considered unrelated. And this isn't just "remedial eating", it's discovering that our current ways of eating are killing us but that diet can likewise help heal us. It's a Khunian revolution out of "the pill and the scalpel" mindset and into a deeper understanding of root causes of wide classes of disease and general unhealthiness in 21st century society. I must certainly be writing in an aggressive posture, for which I'll apologize. I'll have to account my overenthusiasm to the long-term health and well-being of literally everyone I've ever met being at stake. Current research is showing that we are only just beginning to gain understanding of the complexity and health of the GI. An analogy is that our GI and GI microbiota are essentially a recently discovered vital organ. One which the industrialized western diet (now well exported globally) has been systematically destroying. Diet has direct and immense impact on GI health, which in turn impacts such matters as: chronic systemic inflammation, autoimmunity, hyperinsulinism, neurotransmitter production (a vast amount of which happens .. in the gut!), hunger signalling, and more. I don't have time to put the references in here that this deserves, but I'll leave you all with this to whet appetites, as it were. Dr. Terry Wahls, "Minding Your Mitochondria": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLjgBLwH3Wc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLjgBLwH3Wc Watch that, so my bluntness to follow makes sense. I see this guy's protocol as nothing but poisonous in the long run. He's off and created yet another processed food product that must be assumed to fail to meet the needs of the human body. Current research hammers home the idea that we don't yet have a complete and constructive model of nutrition, so why in the heck should I believe a nonspecialist that claims otherwise? Extraordinary claims, extraordinary proof, or GTFO.

criley 14y ago
>"Extraordinary claims, extraordinary proof, or GTFO." >"I see this guy's protocol as nothing but poisonous in the long run." You place a burden of evidence on him that you yourself in this very post violated on a number of occasions. You CANNOT call his diet poisonous simply because you disagree with it. You admitted it yourself: >"Current research is showing that we are only just beginning to gain understanding of the complexity and health of the GI." So no offense, but you have literally no ground to say that this is poisonous in the short OR long term, no evidence to back that up, and you cannot rely on a field that cannot support your view. You have a view on this, congratulations, but it is nothing more than a well-informed opinion. It is not fact, it is not supported by fact and as you've admitted -- it CANNOT at this point be supported by fact that does not yet exist. Even your link to a TEDX (aka, unvetted content) states upfront: "This talk is a personal narrative and is not yet backed by larger experimentation." I'm sorry, but you've been consistently and narrow-mindedly against what the OP has put forth. You dismiss his views for their lack of credibility but turn around and post sources that themselves have no credibility (admit to being anecdotal). You seem to have picked what is correct and are now looking for evidence to support your preconceived notion. You also seem to be falling for the naturalism fallacy by pretending that since his food is "pill and scalpel" it is therefore wrong/bad. Just my conclusions: obviously he hasn't posted data or even analyzed it, but you present many issues in your posts that I disagree with more strongly than what he puts forth (and I'm not a layman).

scott_s 14y ago

They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown. - Carl Sagan Sure, he could be on to something. But we also need an enormous amount of skepticism when evaluating it, just as we do when evaluating any large claim. What pings my radar is that we're still trying to understand how our body processes "whole food" as opposed to vitamins in supplement form.

BystanderX 14y ago
If only they were as reasonable stating this as you.
qu4z-2 14y ago
In fairness, Columbus was also wrong. If they hadn't happened across the Americas, they would all have died. India was nowhere near where he thought it was, and almost exactly where the common knowledge of the time (and Eratosthenes) said it was. Sorry. It's just a pet peeve of mine when people think Columbus was somehow right, or even worse, that people believed the world was flat pre-Columbus. EDIT: To be clear, I'm not implying you think that, but it seems to be implied in the Sagan quote that Columbus was something other than completely wrong in his assessment of the situation (or possibly lying 'cause he wanted to explore the other side of the world. He certainly seems to have been brave enough)
- ekianjo 14y ago
  And Colombus believed, till his death, that he had reached India. He never realized this was another continent altogether.
  - alttab 14y ago
    And he ate more than soylent.

yasth 14y ago

Except this isn't new software. There is an actual answer to what this purports to be, i.e. a complete nutritional food. It is a very hard question to answer, and even if you had the absolute top minds of the industry making a food source in this manner you'd be provably messing up badly as recently as ten years ago. You'd probably be messing up today but we don't even know how at the moment. I mean look at the warnings on what is basically the next step, TPN http://www.merckmanuals.com/professional/nutritional_disorders/nutritional_support/total_parenteral_nutrition_tpn.html?qt=&sc=&alt= http://www.merckmanuals.com/professional/nutritional_disorde... . He is basically drinking almost exactly this. Look at all those scary scary warnings. Some of them are IV dependent, but things like "Metabolic bone disease, or bone demineralization (osteoporosis or osteomalacia), develops in some patients given TPN for > 3 mo. The mechanism is unknown. Advanced disease can cause severe periarticular, lower-extremity, and back pain. Temporarily or permanently stopping TPN is the only known treatment." and such are probably some odd nutrient problems. Any nutritionist will tell you that there just isn't a great long term complete meal replacement. If this guy has one that is great, but he has done nothing to prove it yet. I mean he isn't even completely replacing meals, and has only been doing it for 6 weeks. Which is shorter than some people have done entirely cabbage based diets. Heck he could have subsisted on beer for this long. ( http://blogs.menshealth.com/health-headlines/the-beer-diet/2011/04/30 http://blogs.menshealth.com/health-headlines/the-beer-diet/2... ) It is sort of like some blog post claiming to have solved scaling and not actually had any real workload. I mean sure it doesn't look completely broken at a glance, but it hasn't been shown to even work yet. Come back in a year or two when you've dealt with some load (or merely a couple years of drinking the same thing in this case).

klipt 14y ago
Yeah, it seems to me that the first problem with not giving your GI tract food is that it could make your GI tract atrophy. (His blog suggests he barely poops on this diet.) As much as I share the fantasy of perfectly balanced, easy to prepare "bachelor chow", I hope he doesn't damage himself.
- Evgeny 14y ago
  I hope he doesn't damage himself Bad as it sounds, I hope he does. That would be the equivalent of "failing fast", I guess. Here's the worse outcome: he goes happily for some time, inspires some people to follow his lead, the group grows ... 5 or 10 years down the line - bam, they all end up with some irreparable damage to their health ...

reinhardt 14y ago

You sound like a software dilettante explaining why (formal) education is obsolete. "So what if it's a triple nested loop, hardware is cheap" "Encapsulation? Relational algebra? Who cares about this CS mumbo jumbo just show me teh codez". No offence but we've heard the exact same thing from every amateur that "learned programming" by toying with Wordpress or Jquery copypasta.

Kim_Bruning 14y ago
There are also a lot of smart and thoughtful coders who are self-taught, however. It depends on your approach, your mental toolkit, and how much self-discipline you have to recognize that what you are doing is crap and how to learn more.

wamatt 14y ago

>When in reality, the human GI evolved to support an extremely broad range of inputs as it's most significant factor. While we can agree that innovation should not be stifled, the idea that we can determine the processes by which the body utilizes nutrients and their interdependent effects, after a few months of research, is utterly hubristic. I often make the claim that the human body (other animals are close too) exhibits one of the highest levels of complexity out of all the known systems in the universe, far exceeding the complexity of man mad systems. I challenge anyone to put forward a counter-example... I've been researching nutrition for 5 years and read hundreds of papers on PubMed and, involved with QS (quantified self) and life extension movements, track my bloodwork in Google Spreadsheets etc. You may be wondering, why would someone invest such an extraordinary amount of time (1000+ man hours) an energy in this topic? Well I used to think very differently about my health. As a young strong-willed software developer, I arrogantly assumed like many before I knew it all in my teenage years. My mental model of the body, was not dissimilar to your current views on GI (the body will just handle whatever you throw at it). As a result after 10 years of eating badly I ended up with a chronic disease (Psoriatic Arthritis). Being a teenager I knew better and ate anything I wanted, which specifically was an extreme diet consisting entirely of pasta, milk and coke. Because that's what my body "wanted". Now I'm in my 30's and undoing the damage, but I've learned that this system really is complicated, more so than a rocket or microprocessor. You're right in the sense that the body can tolerate it for a while, but it's not designed to cope with abuse over a period of many years. Eventually you will pay the price. Even now though, I wouldn't consider myself an "expert", although some of my peers might. But I have learned enough know when someone is out of their depth. This guy is well intentioned but that does not mean he's justified in making such grandiose claims. For example he says "Vitamin D" and "Vitamin K", without acknowledging various forms exist. For example he says he takes "Vitamin D(400IU):" What exactly is 'Vitamin D'? Cholecalciferol (D3) [1] is quite different from Ergocalciferol (D2)[2] D3 levels are particularly important when talking about overall health. Or take "Vitamin K" for example, are we talking about the philoquinone (K1) [3] or the menaquinone (K2) [4] group? Even if then, if one is talking Vitamin K2, there are various menaquinones forms so is he suggesting Mk4, mk7 or some other form? [5]. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cholecalciferol http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cholecalciferol [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ergocalciferol http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ergocalciferol [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phylloquinone http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phylloquinone [4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitamin_k2 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitamin_k2 [5] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10084398 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10084398

coldtea 14y ago

>You sound like an industry-insider explaining why a new startup will fail. "They're too young!" "They don't have the experience" "We've devoted our LIVES to figuring this out, one kid in his basement didn't do it in a few weeks!" Etc etc No offense but we've heard the exact same thing about every successful idea. We also heard the exact same thing about every kook, and his idea of a "perpetual motion engine", "cold fusion in my backyard" etc idea. And that has happened far too many more times than the "successful idea" thing -- so much, that "the idea being shot down by critics" && "it being successful" case is like statistical noise. Which is also true about your startup example. Most startups DO fail. A staggering majority of them actually.

sheri 14y ago

Impossible? No, but not very probable either. I am not an expert on human physiology, but I presume it is very complex, and doesn't lend itself to hobbyists making large breakthroughs. If tomorrow I read an article saying a biologist has solved P = NP, I would treat that with a lot of skepticism. It is possible that he gained enough expertise to do so, but given that some very smart people have been spending a good portion of the lives on this, I wouldn't consider it likely.

Loic 14y ago

Side note for comprehension, if like me you wonder: GI means GastroIntestinal. It is used in the comments both as adjective but also to refer to the whole gastrointestinal track and connected organs.

jt2190 14y ago

You're supposing that the criticism is of Rob Rhinehart's abilities and character, but it's a critique of Rhinehart's nieve belief that the problem he's solving is a simple one.