4 ms·

You might be right but the solution is to educate people, not to feed them a powdery substance of dubious nutritional value.

oblique63 13y ago
This is true, but the problem is that the education out there is highly fragmented, polarizing, hand-wavy, and/or impractical most of the time. If you have an idea for what this education might look like, I guarantee you there will be no shortage of "experts" to counter-act your ideas from numerous different viewpoints, each with surprisingly valid points of their own. The fact that nobody likes to admit is that nutrition is still a large 'black box' in the human system, and we only know a handful of basic correlations that involve it. Macro nutrients aren't nearly as important as 'low carb' dieters like to think they are; glycemic index and blood sugar levels aren't nearly as important as some others like to think they are; similar story for acidity and all kinds of other theories. Then for caloric intake, most arguments stand on top of the high-horse of having the most scientific backup and leave it at that, without ever giving much practical information. No, exercise is not an efficient way to burn calories; and No, just because a diet is backed by some misguided theory does not mean it's not a significantly more practical approach to take. However, because there is such polarization, nobody ever reaches a consensus for what's a good practical (!) approach to eating healthy that's actually backed up by significant data. Personally, I don't see this happening anytime soon either, at least not until we discover everything there is to know about human digestion (and that includes developing the understanding of the relatively 'new' microbiome as well).
- jacques_chester 13y ago
  So let me see if I have you right. 1. Nutrition is an ongoing research project. 2. Therefore wilful ignorance is better than being versed in what is currently understood.
  - oblique63 13y ago
    That's distorting my words and ignoring the effects of polarization. I said I agreed with education. What I have a problem with is the black/white attitude almost every nutrition course has. It was more of a plea for people to cooperate and work together rather than the appeal to ignorance that you seem to be accusing me of. I only wrote the comment so that other learners can be a bit more open minded about the current state of understanding before taking everything they learn in nutrition books/courses at face value. Trying to paint my nuanced argument in such a bleak light is exactly the type of needless polarization I'm frustrated with.
    - jacques_chester 13y ago
      I agree with cooperating more, but the marketing juggernaut is clearly what Soylent has been and will remain. Numerous nutritionists have reached out and been rebuffed. I don't take that as a good sign.
      - oblique63 13y ago
        > Numerous nutritionists have reached out and been rebuffed. That's interesting. What were they saying? Any sources? Personally, I don't care about soylent, because like I said, it feels a bit premature to try and make heads/tails out of any meal-replacement plans anyway. But yeah, given that they were marketing themselves as 'consulting with nutritionists' (I believe, could be wrong though), that's interesting. Either way, it's important to note that Nutritionist != Dietician != Scientist/Researcher.
        jacques_chester 13y ago
        Sorry, you're right, I used "nutritionist" when I mean "dietitian". As for a source of one such account: http://www.reddit.com/r/TrueReddit/comments/1jvsie/the_man_who_thinks_he_never_has_to_eat_again_is/cbj3120 http://www.reddit.com/r/TrueReddit/comments/1jvsie/the_man_w...
        _bishizel 13y ago

oblique63 13y ago

This is true, but the problem is that the education out there is highly fragmented, polarizing, hand-wavy, and/or impractical most of the time. If you have an idea for what this education might look like, I guarantee you there will be no shortage of "experts" to counter-act your ideas from numerous different viewpoints, each with surprisingly valid points of their own. The fact that nobody likes to admit is that nutrition is still a large 'black box' in the human system, and we only know a handful of basic correlations that involve it. Macro nutrients aren't nearly as important as 'low carb' dieters like to think they are; glycemic index and blood sugar levels aren't nearly as important as some others like to think they are; similar story for acidity and all kinds of other theories. Then for caloric intake, most arguments stand on top of the high-horse of having the most scientific backup and leave it at that, without ever giving much practical information. No, exercise is not an efficient way to burn calories; and No, just because a diet is backed by some misguided theory does not mean it's not a significantly more practical approach to take. However, because there is such polarization, nobody ever reaches a consensus for what's a good practical (!) approach to eating healthy that's actually backed up by significant data. Personally, I don't see this happening anytime soon either, at least not until we discover everything there is to know about human digestion (and that includes developing the understanding of the relatively 'new' microbiome as well).

jacques_chester 13y ago
So let me see if I have you right. 1. Nutrition is an ongoing research project. 2. Therefore wilful ignorance is better than being versed in what is currently understood.
- oblique63 13y ago
  That's distorting my words and ignoring the effects of polarization. I said I agreed with education. What I have a problem with is the black/white attitude almost every nutrition course has. It was more of a plea for people to cooperate and work together rather than the appeal to ignorance that you seem to be accusing me of. I only wrote the comment so that other learners can be a bit more open minded about the current state of understanding before taking everything they learn in nutrition books/courses at face value. Trying to paint my nuanced argument in such a bleak light is exactly the type of needless polarization I'm frustrated with.
  - jacques_chester 13y ago
    I agree with cooperating more, but the marketing juggernaut is clearly what Soylent has been and will remain. Numerous nutritionists have reached out and been rebuffed. I don't take that as a good sign.
    - oblique63 13y ago
      > Numerous nutritionists have reached out and been rebuffed. That's interesting. What were they saying? Any sources? Personally, I don't care about soylent, because like I said, it feels a bit premature to try and make heads/tails out of any meal-replacement plans anyway. But yeah, given that they were marketing themselves as 'consulting with nutritionists' (I believe, could be wrong though), that's interesting. Either way, it's important to note that Nutritionist != Dietician != Scientist/Researcher.
      - jacques_chester 13y ago
        Sorry, you're right, I used "nutritionist" when I mean "dietitian". As for a source of one such account: http://www.reddit.com/r/TrueReddit/comments/1jvsie/the_man_who_thinks_he_never_has_to_eat_again_is/cbj3120 http://www.reddit.com/r/TrueReddit/comments/1jvsie/the_man_w...
        _bishizel 13y ago