23 ms·

I'm all for people having the freedom to eat whatever they want and I really like the quantified self aspect of seeing how diet affects how they feel and metric

I'm all for people having the freedom to eat whatever they want and I really like the quantified self aspect of seeing how diet affects how they feel and metrics of health, but I have to say the author grossly does not understand the medical tests he had done and misinterprets the data. I'm not going to comment on the drink, but rather on his misunderstanding of medicine. First, EGFR is not "Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor", rather is it estimated glomerular filtration rate, which is a metric of kidney function and is derived entirely from age, sex, and Cr. Second, all his labs are normal, well within the range of normal and stay normal after two weeks. There is normal daily fluctuation (for example, my Cr will probably go from 1 to 1.2 just by not drinking water for a day) which the labs show. All the changes he mention in his metabolic panel does not even register to me as changes and most likely would happen had he ate a regular diet. Third, the body is a powerfully homeostatic system, even had he not ate for two weeks, most of the labs he got would stay the same. Recently, on HN there was the article of the guy who didn't eat for a year - his BMP would have been similar. The only potentially reasonable medical test to get would have been the lipid panel, which stayed grossly the same. Finally, a DEXA scan is really silly in this scenario. It's for old ladies and others at risk for osteoporosis. Your bones are a large of reservoir that it wouldn't put a dent on your Ca levels even if you had no Ca for two weeks, and even if it did, it would not show up as a meaningful change on a DEXA scan.

ekianjo 13y ago
> First, EGFR is not "Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor" I LOLed at that one. He clearly didn't get the acronym and went for one of the cancer mutation indicator seen in several lung cancers.
- typicalrunt 13y ago
  Even funnier, the first sentence in the Wikipedia entry for EGFR states: This article is about a cell surface receptor. For estimated measure of kidney function (eGFR), see Glomerular filtration rate. The author could have taken a few minutes to research both the EGFR for cell surface receptor and the kidney function measure and come to a reasonably good conclusion as to which one is used on the lab tests. Instead...
anigbrowl 13y ago
Comments like this are why I read HN, and why it's often so valuable to read the comments before the article. Thanks for sharing your insights.
- plainOldText 13y ago
  I think it's even better to read the comments after reading the article. Here's a possible flow: 1. Read the article 2. Analyze. Establish your position/beliefs 3. Read the comments 4. Adjust your beliefs in the light of new evidence :)
  - anigbrowl 13y ago
    I'm not in a position to do step 2 on this subject, as I'm not sufficiently into nutrition or medicine or judge the claims in the article independently, and for a non peer-reviewed source addressing what looks like a food fad, there's a good chance that it won't be worth my time to repair that deficiency.
    - oblique63 13y ago
      I believe the parent's point wasn't the accuracy of the information you'd be receiving, but just the exercise of evaluating conflicting viewpoints and coming out more enlightened as a result of it. Believe it or not, being able to apply that anywhere (as opposed to just thinking you can) is a skill, and skills need practice. It's an important part of thinking critically, and it can easily be lacking in a lot of very smart people. EDIT: It wasn't my intention to offend if that was the reason behind the downvotes. It wasn't about anybody specifically, I was just trying to elaborate on a slippery slope issue that seems to be common among smart people.
      - plainOldText 13y ago
        I think you've captured the essence of the point I was trying to make, well.
      - anigbrowl 13y ago
billybob255 13y ago
Just a little more on DEXA scans; it might be a little much for someone like the blogger, but they are valuable for measuring central adiposity.
cabinguy 13y ago
DEXA scans can be used to accurately measure body fat, too.
- andyakb 13y ago
  Right. I would wager money that this is why they were suggested; to measure muscle preservation
w1ntermute 13y ago
One of the best parts about this whole Soylent debacle is getting to watch well-known people make complete fools of themselves by commenting on things that they clearly know absolutely nothing about, but still feel like they have the right to make authoritative statements on.
- jacques_chester 13y ago
  Funnily enough, that's the whole pitch for Soylent. "I'm just a smart guy with a fresh pair of eyes who spent a few weekends reading undergrad textbooks and skimming pubmed". Not: "we're a large company with deeply-interested professionals who've made this their life's work, our own multi-million dollar labs and decades of accumulated experience in the development, testing, validation and manufacture of temporary food substitutes". Because that's boooorrrrinnnng. Basically it's getting buzz because of novelty (to people who didn't know there were existing products) and homophily (Rhinehart is "one of us"). The actual product is at this point nearly completely tangential to the marketing. It's a bit like a dietitian bursting in and saying "I've invented a new thing, I call it 'computertalk'. What you do is you 'type' your 'instructions' into your computer. It's going to change everything, you won't need programmers any more!"
  - smacktoward 13y ago
    But can your computertalk run in the cloud? Please advise.
    - jacques_chester 13y ago
      Give me a million dollars and I will ship you a box full of randomly chosen words. You can see if they evaporate. That's a cloud, right?
    - scarecrowbob 13y ago
      FWIW this is an analysis of the rhetoric, not the science. As such, I think it's pretty accurate. It's like noting that with Rush Limbaugh advertising you get appeals to what he personally does or enjoys using, whereas on NPR advertising you get vague references to strange sounding companies.... you don't need to know about dietary supplements or supply chain management to understand the rhetorical distinctions.
ParkerK 13y ago
>Finally, a DEXA scan is really silly in this scenario. It's for old ladies and others at risk for osteoporosis. Actually, DEXA can be used for very accurate calculations of body fat %, so it could be used to show how much lean body mass (as opposed to fat) the author lost.
marze 13y ago
Nice job missing the forest but spotting a few trees. I see some promising initial signs given the short duration of the trial. Imagine if there was a new drug that gave the mental benefits the guy reported after two weeks of use and saved you money too. It would be front page news. The guy doesn't claim to be a medical expert, he just did his best to report the results of a bunch of miscellaneous tests that were suggested to him. With a drug for which if you took 40x the daily dose you might die, or a drug that might cause significant harmful side effects at normal dose, you need careful studies to prove a benefit and quantify risks. With a dietary change, the risks are orders of magnitude lower. I'd be surprised if the average American wouldn't improve their nutritional status doing this for a while, with an existing diet likely low in magnesium, copper, zinc, vitamin c and d and probably more. The need for careful studies is greatly reduced for a food product like this one. People can try it, report how they feel. If other think is worth trying, they can see exactly how it works for them by giving it a try. That is the power of self experimentation.
- alphaoverlord 13y ago
  Again, my first paragraph is: > I'm all for people having the freedom to eat whatever they want and I really like the quantified self aspect of seeing how diet affects how they feel and metrics of health, but I have to say the author grossly does not understand the medical tests he had done and misinterprets the data. I'm not going to comment on the drink, but rather on his misunderstanding of medicine. I'm not trying to refute what he says about how he feels, whether that saves him money, or his mental ability - those aren't my areas of expertise. I do know a little about medical tests, and I think it's valid to point out that he clearly does not and how the results he reports are either incorrect or irrelevant. I'm just suggesting you shouldn't consider his medical tests in deciding how good this product is. I have no horse in this race, but I'll tell you if this racetrack is not standard regulation. Self experimentation might be useful, but only if you understand the metrics you measure and whether it's stochastic noise or meaningful results.
  - marze 13y ago
    "Self experimentation might be useful, but only if you understand the metrics you measure and whether its stochastic noise or meaningful results." I feel you miss the whole point of self experimentation. If your aim is for improved mental function, more energy, less health problems, etc., you don't need to know how to interpret any obscure tests. You'll know. A low-risk food product (such as this) can simply be trialed in a n=1 trial. If the results are positive, great. If not, go back to what you were doing before. All the studies in the world only suggest how something might work for you. It is only the n=1 test that matters.
shanedanger 13y ago
"the author grossly does not understand the medical tests he had done and misinterprets the data" As the author himself, I can corroborate your statement that I don't understand medical tests as well as a trained physician. :) However, the point of the post was to present the data so others could interpret / draw conclusions. I gave my observations and perspective, but I made every attempt to indicate the potential weaknesses in my experiment. I do hope people don't lose miss the forest for the trees here. The EGFR thing is regrettable. Thanks for pointing it out!
- ekianjo 13y ago
  You did not mention the placebo effect though. That's the largest weakness of such an experiment. Your brain may be convinced (without you being strictly conscious about it) that Soylent is good for you and trigger all kind of benefits that you assessed yourself. That's why clinical trials are running in double-blind modes, to remove as much as possible the placebo effect. A self-assessed experiment is, and will always be, meaningless.
  - sgarman 13y ago
    After reading the opening paragraph and seeing how excited the author was to try this I couldn't help to think about the placebo effext. With all the bogus diets out there they show results in 2 weeks and then fail miserably I can't help to think longer testing periods are needed.
  - raverbashing 13y ago
    Well, they can't use a placebo for that, you'll starve the placebo group. You could provide a different meal replacement powder and compare the results (provided the subjects don't know which one looks like what)
    - stcredzero 13y ago
      We don't need to re-research nutrition starting from verification of macronutrients. The placebo could be an imbalanced mix of macronutrients. That way, you would expect malnutrition, not starvation.
richcollins 13y ago
Dexa scan is used to measure body composition in this case.
venomsnake 13y ago
Can you give more details about the article "not eating for a year". I can't seem to find it, and I don't know how it is possible to maintain the nitrogen balance for so long.

ekianjo 13y ago

> First, EGFR is not "Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor" I LOLed at that one. He clearly didn't get the acronym and went for one of the cancer mutation indicator seen in several lung cancers.

typicalrunt 13y ago
Even funnier, the first sentence in the Wikipedia entry for EGFR states: This article is about a cell surface receptor. For estimated measure of kidney function (eGFR), see Glomerular filtration rate. The author could have taken a few minutes to research both the EGFR for cell surface receptor and the kidney function measure and come to a reasonably good conclusion as to which one is used on the lab tests. Instead...

anigbrowl 13y ago

Comments like this are why I read HN, and why it's often so valuable to read the comments before the article. Thanks for sharing your insights.

plainOldText 13y ago
I think it's even better to read the comments after reading the article. Here's a possible flow: 1. Read the article 2. Analyze. Establish your position/beliefs 3. Read the comments 4. Adjust your beliefs in the light of new evidence :)
- anigbrowl 13y ago
  I'm not in a position to do step 2 on this subject, as I'm not sufficiently into nutrition or medicine or judge the claims in the article independently, and for a non peer-reviewed source addressing what looks like a food fad, there's a good chance that it won't be worth my time to repair that deficiency.
  - oblique63 13y ago
    I believe the parent's point wasn't the accuracy of the information you'd be receiving, but just the exercise of evaluating conflicting viewpoints and coming out more enlightened as a result of it. Believe it or not, being able to apply that anywhere (as opposed to just thinking you can) is a skill, and skills need practice. It's an important part of thinking critically, and it can easily be lacking in a lot of very smart people. EDIT: It wasn't my intention to offend if that was the reason behind the downvotes. It wasn't about anybody specifically, I was just trying to elaborate on a slippery slope issue that seems to be common among smart people.
    - plainOldText 13y ago
      I think you've captured the essence of the point I was trying to make, well.
    - anigbrowl 13y ago

billybob255 13y ago

Just a little more on DEXA scans; it might be a little much for someone like the blogger, but they are valuable for measuring central adiposity.

cabinguy 13y ago

DEXA scans can be used to accurately measure body fat, too.

andyakb 13y ago
Right. I would wager money that this is why they were suggested; to measure muscle preservation

w1ntermute 13y ago

One of the best parts about this whole Soylent debacle is getting to watch well-known people make complete fools of themselves by commenting on things that they clearly know absolutely nothing about, but still feel like they have the right to make authoritative statements on.

jacques_chester 13y ago
Funnily enough, that's the whole pitch for Soylent. "I'm just a smart guy with a fresh pair of eyes who spent a few weekends reading undergrad textbooks and skimming pubmed". Not: "we're a large company with deeply-interested professionals who've made this their life's work, our own multi-million dollar labs and decades of accumulated experience in the development, testing, validation and manufacture of temporary food substitutes". Because that's boooorrrrinnnng. Basically it's getting buzz because of novelty (to people who didn't know there were existing products) and homophily (Rhinehart is "one of us"). The actual product is at this point nearly completely tangential to the marketing. It's a bit like a dietitian bursting in and saying "I've invented a new thing, I call it 'computertalk'. What you do is you 'type' your 'instructions' into your computer. It's going to change everything, you won't need programmers any more!"
- smacktoward 13y ago
  But can your computertalk run in the cloud? Please advise.
  - jacques_chester 13y ago
    Give me a million dollars and I will ship you a box full of randomly chosen words. You can see if they evaporate. That's a cloud, right?
  - scarecrowbob 13y ago
    FWIW this is an analysis of the rhetoric, not the science. As such, I think it's pretty accurate. It's like noting that with Rush Limbaugh advertising you get appeals to what he personally does or enjoys using, whereas on NPR advertising you get vague references to strange sounding companies.... you don't need to know about dietary supplements or supply chain management to understand the rhetorical distinctions.

ParkerK 13y ago

>Finally, a DEXA scan is really silly in this scenario. It's for old ladies and others at risk for osteoporosis. Actually, DEXA can be used for very accurate calculations of body fat %, so it could be used to show how much lean body mass (as opposed to fat) the author lost.

marze 13y ago

Nice job missing the forest but spotting a few trees. I see some promising initial signs given the short duration of the trial. Imagine if there was a new drug that gave the mental benefits the guy reported after two weeks of use and saved you money too. It would be front page news. The guy doesn't claim to be a medical expert, he just did his best to report the results of a bunch of miscellaneous tests that were suggested to him. With a drug for which if you took 40x the daily dose you might die, or a drug that might cause significant harmful side effects at normal dose, you need careful studies to prove a benefit and quantify risks. With a dietary change, the risks are orders of magnitude lower. I'd be surprised if the average American wouldn't improve their nutritional status doing this for a while, with an existing diet likely low in magnesium, copper, zinc, vitamin c and d and probably more. The need for careful studies is greatly reduced for a food product like this one. People can try it, report how they feel. If other think is worth trying, they can see exactly how it works for them by giving it a try. That is the power of self experimentation.

alphaoverlord 13y ago
Again, my first paragraph is: > I'm all for people having the freedom to eat whatever they want and I really like the quantified self aspect of seeing how diet affects how they feel and metrics of health, but I have to say the author grossly does not understand the medical tests he had done and misinterprets the data. I'm not going to comment on the drink, but rather on his misunderstanding of medicine. I'm not trying to refute what he says about how he feels, whether that saves him money, or his mental ability - those aren't my areas of expertise. I do know a little about medical tests, and I think it's valid to point out that he clearly does not and how the results he reports are either incorrect or irrelevant. I'm just suggesting you shouldn't consider his medical tests in deciding how good this product is. I have no horse in this race, but I'll tell you if this racetrack is not standard regulation. Self experimentation might be useful, but only if you understand the metrics you measure and whether it's stochastic noise or meaningful results.
- marze 13y ago
  "Self experimentation might be useful, but only if you understand the metrics you measure and whether its stochastic noise or meaningful results." I feel you miss the whole point of self experimentation. If your aim is for improved mental function, more energy, less health problems, etc., you don't need to know how to interpret any obscure tests. You'll know. A low-risk food product (such as this) can simply be trialed in a n=1 trial. If the results are positive, great. If not, go back to what you were doing before. All the studies in the world only suggest how something might work for you. It is only the n=1 test that matters.

shanedanger 13y ago

"the author grossly does not understand the medical tests he had done and misinterprets the data" As the author himself, I can corroborate your statement that I don't understand medical tests as well as a trained physician. :) However, the point of the post was to present the data so others could interpret / draw conclusions. I gave my observations and perspective, but I made every attempt to indicate the potential weaknesses in my experiment. I do hope people don't lose miss the forest for the trees here. The EGFR thing is regrettable. Thanks for pointing it out!

ekianjo 13y ago
You did not mention the placebo effect though. That's the largest weakness of such an experiment. Your brain may be convinced (without you being strictly conscious about it) that Soylent is good for you and trigger all kind of benefits that you assessed yourself. That's why clinical trials are running in double-blind modes, to remove as much as possible the placebo effect. A self-assessed experiment is, and will always be, meaningless.
- sgarman 13y ago
  After reading the opening paragraph and seeing how excited the author was to try this I couldn't help to think about the placebo effext. With all the bogus diets out there they show results in 2 weeks and then fail miserably I can't help to think longer testing periods are needed.
- raverbashing 13y ago
  Well, they can't use a placebo for that, you'll starve the placebo group. You could provide a different meal replacement powder and compare the results (provided the subjects don't know which one looks like what)
  - stcredzero 13y ago
    We don't need to re-research nutrition starting from verification of macronutrients. The placebo could be an imbalanced mix of macronutrients. That way, you would expect malnutrition, not starvation.

richcollins 13y ago

Dexa scan is used to measure body composition in this case.

venomsnake 13y ago

Can you give more details about the article "not eating for a year". I can't seem to find it, and I don't know how it is possible to maintain the nitrogen balance for so long.