3 ms·

Of course it's hard, I don't think anyone has claimed it's easy. For some reason this subject hits a nerve with some people really, really hard (Aside: it's ac

Of course it's hard, I don't think anyone has claimed it's easy. For some reason this subject hits a nerve with some people really, really hard (Aside: it's actually really fascinating to think about why that is. Health concerns are definitely not enough to explain the level of vitriol.). Those people then tend to use some really disingenuous arguments against Soylent. For example, I can't say how many times I've seen people dismissing Rob as "having spent a couple weekends reading Wikipedia". Well, no, he spent quite a significant amount of time reading textbooks and journals, getting a pretty reasonable grounding in the science. It's also not like it's his first time studying science, seeing as he is an engineer, yet somehow people are actually describing him and Soylent as "anti-intellectual". Obviously he didn't go through a traditional degree program in nutrition, but I've seen what comes out of a lot of those traditional degree programs, and that's really not much of an argument against him. It's especially fascinating to see this backlash in a community like HN, where most of us work in a field that has done a lot to cast off the traditional model. A lot of our role models didn't go through those traditional degree programs either, yet something about nutrition makes people completely freak out. Yes, I get it, nutrition is complex and we know relatively little about it. Yes, I get it, if you screw up on nutrition people's lives are at risk. And yet, as Rob often points out, nobody was up in arms yelling at him when he was eating a terrible diet of pizza rolls and fast food. I find it really hard to believe that Soylent could be worse for you than that. Sorry for going off on a bit of a rant, obviously I've thought about this all for a while.

ars_technician 13y ago
It hits a nerve because it's being advertised as a candidate for full-time meal replacement. Pizza rolls and fast food are not, so the comparison between the two is a false equivalency. >Obviously he didn't go through a traditional degree program in nutrition, but I've seen what comes out of a lot of those traditional degree programs, and that's really not much of an argument against him. That's another false equivalency. Nutritional programs do not produce scientists, but not being in a nutritional program doesn't suddenly make you a scientist. >Well, no, he spent quite a significant amount of time reading textbooks and journals, getting a pretty reasonable grounding in the science. It's also not like it's his first time studying science, seeing as he is an engineer Engineers do not practice the type of science required to develop new food/drugs. Where are the long term studies across various demographics with double-blind tests? The lack of those is what makes this "anti-intellectual".
- nbouscal 13y ago
  > Pizza rolls and fast food are not, so the comparison between the two is a false equivalency. They may not be advertised as a full-time meal replacement, but they are certainly used as such by a non-negligible number of people. Nobody is up in arms about that fact. > not being in a nutritional program doesn't suddenly make you a scientist. Nowhere did I claim any such thing. > Engineers do not practice the type of science required to develop new food/drugs. I wasn't claiming that they do, I was simply claiming that it's not his first time hearing what the scientific method is. He's not a complete foreigner to the field, though many people have cast him as such. > Where are the long term studies across various demographics with double-blind tests? How do you propose to accomplish this? This is exactly why nutrition is such an undeveloped science. You can't reasonably test hypotheses in the field, predominantly for ethical reasons (forcing someone to eat nothing but fast-food is clearly unethical). Double-blind is also pretty much impossible in most scenarios, e.g. Soylent vs. McDonalds. The lack of rigorous double-blind studies isn't because of anti-intellectualism, it's because those studies are completely impractical. The best we can do is have volunteers try it out and provide anecdotal evidence. It isn't rigorous and it isn't scientific, but so far the results are all positive.
oblique63 13y ago
I agree. I'm fairly convinced that the nutritional world is in a dark age right now, and I wouldn't be surprised if all those problems you listed continue til long after I'm gone. I don't advocate for soylent, but I'm not against it either, and that's only because I honestly don't know what to make of any meal replacement. Right now, making claims like potentially curing world hunger are much too premature when factoring in how little we know (i.e. we literally wouldn't know when we had such a cure if it slapped us in the face); thus I wouldn't be surprised if much of HN is backlashing based on those marketing claims. If instead it was billed less like a product, and more like a long-term research project into the intricacies of nutrition, then I know I would've backed it (and it would've made it a lot clearer that you're investing for a chance to be a guinea pig, rather than paying to be a consumer of a life-altering product). Because despite the fact that MRPs have been in constant research by other companies, a fresh open engineering perspective would still be welcome. They still have a chance to pivot that way, but some stuff like what's in this reddit thread, is a bit concerning: 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... I don't particularly like the attitude of the comment, but it does make some good points.
- nbouscal 13y ago
  I'm sure there are still problems that we'll need to solve. That said, how else are we going to solve them? It's not like the nutrition field is going to suddenly start figuring this stuff out, at least judging from its past record. I feel pretty confident that Soylent is at least a better diet than fast food, and the best way to continue improving it is to have data to work with.

ars_technician 13y ago

It hits a nerve because it's being advertised as a candidate for full-time meal replacement. Pizza rolls and fast food are not, so the comparison between the two is a false equivalency. >Obviously he didn't go through a traditional degree program in nutrition, but I've seen what comes out of a lot of those traditional degree programs, and that's really not much of an argument against him. That's another false equivalency. Nutritional programs do not produce scientists, but not being in a nutritional program doesn't suddenly make you a scientist. >Well, no, he spent quite a significant amount of time reading textbooks and journals, getting a pretty reasonable grounding in the science. It's also not like it's his first time studying science, seeing as he is an engineer Engineers do not practice the type of science required to develop new food/drugs. Where are the long term studies across various demographics with double-blind tests? The lack of those is what makes this "anti-intellectual".

nbouscal 13y ago
> Pizza rolls and fast food are not, so the comparison between the two is a false equivalency. They may not be advertised as a full-time meal replacement, but they are certainly used as such by a non-negligible number of people. Nobody is up in arms about that fact. > not being in a nutritional program doesn't suddenly make you a scientist. Nowhere did I claim any such thing. > Engineers do not practice the type of science required to develop new food/drugs. I wasn't claiming that they do, I was simply claiming that it's not his first time hearing what the scientific method is. He's not a complete foreigner to the field, though many people have cast him as such. > Where are the long term studies across various demographics with double-blind tests? How do you propose to accomplish this? This is exactly why nutrition is such an undeveloped science. You can't reasonably test hypotheses in the field, predominantly for ethical reasons (forcing someone to eat nothing but fast-food is clearly unethical). Double-blind is also pretty much impossible in most scenarios, e.g. Soylent vs. McDonalds. The lack of rigorous double-blind studies isn't because of anti-intellectualism, it's because those studies are completely impractical. The best we can do is have volunteers try it out and provide anecdotal evidence. It isn't rigorous and it isn't scientific, but so far the results are all positive.

oblique63 13y ago

I agree. I'm fairly convinced that the nutritional world is in a dark age right now, and I wouldn't be surprised if all those problems you listed continue til long after I'm gone. I don't advocate for soylent, but I'm not against it either, and that's only because I honestly don't know what to make of any meal replacement. Right now, making claims like potentially curing world hunger are much too premature when factoring in how little we know (i.e. we literally wouldn't know when we had such a cure if it slapped us in the face); thus I wouldn't be surprised if much of HN is backlashing based on those marketing claims. If instead it was billed less like a product, and more like a long-term research project into the intricacies of nutrition, then I know I would've backed it (and it would've made it a lot clearer that you're investing for a chance to be a guinea pig, rather than paying to be a consumer of a life-altering product). Because despite the fact that MRPs have been in constant research by other companies, a fresh open engineering perspective would still be welcome. They still have a chance to pivot that way, but some stuff like what's in this reddit thread, is a bit concerning: 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... I don't particularly like the attitude of the comment, but it does make some good points.

nbouscal 13y ago
I'm sure there are still problems that we'll need to solve. That said, how else are we going to solve them? It's not like the nutrition field is going to suddenly start figuring this stuff out, at least judging from its past record. I feel pretty confident that Soylent is at least a better diet than fast food, and the best way to continue improving it is to have data to work with.