5 ms·

"The idea that human nutrition can be boiled down to a minimal list of ingredients that are the only things you should eat is nonsense." why?

ekianjo 13y ago
Because nothing is simple in life, our bodies are complex, and there's Wikipedia if you have tons of super broad questions like that.
- forgot-my-pass 13y ago
  I'm not saying whether or not Soylent is the real deal. But I don't understand why you think it's not possible to come up with an optimal combination of input (food) into our bodies that maximizes it's output (longevity?).
  - ekianjo 13y ago
    First, longevity is not the main output of the human body. At least there's no single output. What if Soylent is good for your brain but detrimental to certain organs? Or the opposite? I have a biochemistry background and from what I know the digestive process is extremely complex and still certain parts are not fully understood. So I highly doubt a bunch of whiz kids can find the optimal formula for food without any scientific background, sufficient research and proper studies to support the claims they make. Plus, it's not like there are no variations from one person to another in terms of what you need in terms of nutrition. We know genetic differences exist, in some parts of the world you have deficiencies of certain enzymes to break down some types of food, and so on. By the way, if you want a simple diet, you can probably live on rice and bread alone (mostly). You don't need to stuff your body with some shit people have no experience with. Rice/Bread may not be a very good diet but it satisfies a number of nutritional requirements and we know for a fact people can live (maybe not very well) on such diets (because they did for a fairly long amount of time).
    - foobarbazqux 13y ago
      Don't forget that enjoying meals with other people and having direct connections to the earth and the people who produce your food is socially and emotionally healthy. The psychological damage to most people due to a strict Soylent diet would be significant, and psychological stress causes physical health problems.
      - ekianjo 13y ago
        I agree with you but that has nothing to do with the point being discussed here in this particular sub-thread.
        foobarbazqux 13y ago
        So if someone is looking for optimal food inputs with respect to longevity, I think it's relevant to point out that how you eat may be almost as important as what you eat. That's all, really.
- eksith 13y ago
  Complexity is not, has never been, and will likely never be an insurmountable barrier to learning more about it. Let's take an individual example: The brain. It's very complex, has an extremely large number of variations from human to human and nuances of operation. And yet that hasn't stopped neurologists from trying to unlock, simulate and stimulate its every function. There's no reason nutrition can never boiled down to the sum of the ingredients in some form (hopefully a form that tastes better and isn't liquid). And let's face it, Soylent (in a way) tries to basically be liquid Tofu. That said, In that regard, I completely agree with autarch's take on the article content itself. I also don't like it that the article started off with a preconceived bias: "Rhinehart, a 24 year old software engineer, believes he’s solved the befuddling food conundrum, and has named his product Soylent. It is intended to replace your entire diet — one food to solve it all." Emphasis where "software engineer" was underlined. So what if he's a software engineer? It doesn't mean his profession precludes him from learning about nutrition.
- SilasX 13y ago
  Kinda like why human flight is impossible?
- jowiar 13y ago
  We've made things fly - even all the way to space. We've transplanted organs. We've developed vaccines that eradicated diseases. We are making progress towards deciphering the genome. What once required a library the size of a city block can now fit in your pocket. You can have a conversation with someone on the opposite side of the planet. Or even someone who isn't on the planet. Nothing is simple in life, and our bodies are complex. But if you EVER ask me the question: "Will people figure it out?" Unless the speed of light factors into the discussion, I'm putting my money on "yes" every single time.
  - ekianjo 13y ago
    I'm not saying anything is impossible. But all the solutions we find are usually complex and not easy. A phone is complex. A computer is complex. Transistors are complex. Organs transplant is complex. So why do we expect the answer to food to be a simple bunch of ingredients mixed together?
    - jowiar 13y ago
      A simple bunch of ingredients mixed together? Isn't that basically a recipe by definition. Or a diet? Getting a bunch of ingredients and turning it into something nutritious just isn't particularly difficult. Finding such a combination that is both nutritious and palatable is the challenge. The interesting bit with soylent is not that it is a fantastically revolutionary recipe. One could probably concoct something out of rice, beans, and a brassica cultivar that would serve the purpose of being a complete human diet just fine. Rather, it's people saying "I'm going to give up the pleasure I get from food in exchange for removing whatever distress the uncertainty in deciding what I'm going to eat causes me." It's a mental hack, not a culinary one. Are you're willing to make that trade? The culinary and scientific problems just aren't that difficult on the scale of culinary or scientific problems, but I don't think most people would be willing to do it.
      - ekianjo 13y ago
        > A simple bunch of ingredients mixed together? Isn't that basically a recipe by definition. No, the usual recipe of a daily meal is way more complex than the composition of Soylent in terms of the variety of elements/proteins you get.
w1ntermute 13y ago
http://www.priceplow.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/pathway-of-human-metabolic-processes-as-currently-understood.png http://www.priceplow.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/pat...
- Yver 13y ago
  I didn't realize that you could respond with image macros on HN. Ok, so it's a complicated image. The first thing I thought is it looks like the schema of a simple arithmetic operation in a processor. Meaning that it looks complicated, but it doesn't tell us anything. I see dots and lines and pretty colors, but I don't see an argument.
  - w1ntermute 13y ago
    > it looks complicated, but it doesn't tell us anything That's because the vast majority of the detail has been omitted in order to make it look pretty. Here is a slightly more detailed version: http://primalmeded.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/metabolism.jpg http://primalmeded.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/metabolism.jp... And another: http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-MJisxWVfZPA/UEF_-1krN-I/AAAAAAAAr9s/PQMfuCq_phg/s1600/Metabolic_Pathways_for_plotter_landscape_quantized.png http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-MJisxWVfZPA/UEF_-1krN-I/AAAAAAAAr9... For more info, read Principles of Biochemistry: http://www.amazon.com/Lehninger-Principles-Biochemistry-David-Nelson/dp/071677108X http://www.amazon.com/Lehninger-Principles-Biochemistry-Davi... (and if you aren't familiar with organic chemistry: http://www.amazon.com/Organic-Chemistry-1st-Edition-ebook/dp/B006YXBI4Y/ http://www.amazon.com/Organic-Chemistry-1st-Edition-ebook/dp...)
- epmatsw 13y ago
  This doesn't seem like a good argument. You could provide a diagram of a modern car that would be just as complex as a section of this image, but I don't think anyone would argue that it's inherently impossible to understand the necessary inputs to that.
  - ekianjo 13y ago
    You are asking a totally different question. It's not about understanding the inputs, it's the claim that the inputs can be super simple and can ensure your body still work as normal.

ekianjo 13y ago

Because nothing is simple in life, our bodies are complex, and there's Wikipedia if you have tons of super broad questions like that.

forgot-my-pass 13y ago
I'm not saying whether or not Soylent is the real deal. But I don't understand why you think it's not possible to come up with an optimal combination of input (food) into our bodies that maximizes it's output (longevity?).
- ekianjo 13y ago
  First, longevity is not the main output of the human body. At least there's no single output. What if Soylent is good for your brain but detrimental to certain organs? Or the opposite? I have a biochemistry background and from what I know the digestive process is extremely complex and still certain parts are not fully understood. So I highly doubt a bunch of whiz kids can find the optimal formula for food without any scientific background, sufficient research and proper studies to support the claims they make. Plus, it's not like there are no variations from one person to another in terms of what you need in terms of nutrition. We know genetic differences exist, in some parts of the world you have deficiencies of certain enzymes to break down some types of food, and so on. By the way, if you want a simple diet, you can probably live on rice and bread alone (mostly). You don't need to stuff your body with some shit people have no experience with. Rice/Bread may not be a very good diet but it satisfies a number of nutritional requirements and we know for a fact people can live (maybe not very well) on such diets (because they did for a fairly long amount of time).
  - foobarbazqux 13y ago
    Don't forget that enjoying meals with other people and having direct connections to the earth and the people who produce your food is socially and emotionally healthy. The psychological damage to most people due to a strict Soylent diet would be significant, and psychological stress causes physical health problems.
    - ekianjo 13y ago
      I agree with you but that has nothing to do with the point being discussed here in this particular sub-thread.
      - foobarbazqux 13y ago
        So if someone is looking for optimal food inputs with respect to longevity, I think it's relevant to point out that how you eat may be almost as important as what you eat. That's all, really.
eksith 13y ago
Complexity is not, has never been, and will likely never be an insurmountable barrier to learning more about it. Let's take an individual example: The brain. It's very complex, has an extremely large number of variations from human to human and nuances of operation. And yet that hasn't stopped neurologists from trying to unlock, simulate and stimulate its every function. There's no reason nutrition can never boiled down to the sum of the ingredients in some form (hopefully a form that tastes better and isn't liquid). And let's face it, Soylent (in a way) tries to basically be liquid Tofu. That said, In that regard, I completely agree with autarch's take on the article content itself. I also don't like it that the article started off with a preconceived bias: "Rhinehart, a 24 year old software engineer, believes he’s solved the befuddling food conundrum, and has named his product Soylent. It is intended to replace your entire diet — one food to solve it all." Emphasis where "software engineer" was underlined. So what if he's a software engineer? It doesn't mean his profession precludes him from learning about nutrition.
SilasX 13y ago
Kinda like why human flight is impossible?
jowiar 13y ago
We've made things fly - even all the way to space. We've transplanted organs. We've developed vaccines that eradicated diseases. We are making progress towards deciphering the genome. What once required a library the size of a city block can now fit in your pocket. You can have a conversation with someone on the opposite side of the planet. Or even someone who isn't on the planet. Nothing is simple in life, and our bodies are complex. But if you EVER ask me the question: "Will people figure it out?" Unless the speed of light factors into the discussion, I'm putting my money on "yes" every single time.
- ekianjo 13y ago
  I'm not saying anything is impossible. But all the solutions we find are usually complex and not easy. A phone is complex. A computer is complex. Transistors are complex. Organs transplant is complex. So why do we expect the answer to food to be a simple bunch of ingredients mixed together?
  - jowiar 13y ago
    A simple bunch of ingredients mixed together? Isn't that basically a recipe by definition. Or a diet? Getting a bunch of ingredients and turning it into something nutritious just isn't particularly difficult. Finding such a combination that is both nutritious and palatable is the challenge. The interesting bit with soylent is not that it is a fantastically revolutionary recipe. One could probably concoct something out of rice, beans, and a brassica cultivar that would serve the purpose of being a complete human diet just fine. Rather, it's people saying "I'm going to give up the pleasure I get from food in exchange for removing whatever distress the uncertainty in deciding what I'm going to eat causes me." It's a mental hack, not a culinary one. Are you're willing to make that trade? The culinary and scientific problems just aren't that difficult on the scale of culinary or scientific problems, but I don't think most people would be willing to do it.
    - ekianjo 13y ago
      > A simple bunch of ingredients mixed together? Isn't that basically a recipe by definition. No, the usual recipe of a daily meal is way more complex than the composition of Soylent in terms of the variety of elements/proteins you get.

w1ntermute 13y ago

http://www.priceplow.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/pathway-of-human-metabolic-processes-as-currently-understood.png http://www.priceplow.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/pat...

Yver 13y ago
I didn't realize that you could respond with image macros on HN. Ok, so it's a complicated image. The first thing I thought is it looks like the schema of a simple arithmetic operation in a processor. Meaning that it looks complicated, but it doesn't tell us anything. I see dots and lines and pretty colors, but I don't see an argument.
- w1ntermute 13y ago
  > it looks complicated, but it doesn't tell us anything That's because the vast majority of the detail has been omitted in order to make it look pretty. Here is a slightly more detailed version: http://primalmeded.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/metabolism.jpg http://primalmeded.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/metabolism.jp... And another: http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-MJisxWVfZPA/UEF_-1krN-I/AAAAAAAAr9s/PQMfuCq_phg/s1600/Metabolic_Pathways_for_plotter_landscape_quantized.png http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-MJisxWVfZPA/UEF_-1krN-I/AAAAAAAAr9... For more info, read Principles of Biochemistry: http://www.amazon.com/Lehninger-Principles-Biochemistry-David-Nelson/dp/071677108X http://www.amazon.com/Lehninger-Principles-Biochemistry-Davi... (and if you aren't familiar with organic chemistry: http://www.amazon.com/Organic-Chemistry-1st-Edition-ebook/dp/B006YXBI4Y/ http://www.amazon.com/Organic-Chemistry-1st-Edition-ebook/dp...)
epmatsw 13y ago
This doesn't seem like a good argument. You could provide a diagram of a modern car that would be just as complex as a section of this image, but I don't think anyone would argue that it's inherently impossible to understand the necessary inputs to that.
- ekianjo 13y ago
  You are asking a totally different question. It's not about understanding the inputs, it's the claim that the inputs can be super simple and can ensure your body still work as normal.