3 ms·

>One additional problem of soylent: the designers assume we need a steady inejection of the same macronutrients every time we eat. We know positively that this

>One additional problem of soylent: the designers assume we need a steady inejection of the same macronutrients every time we eat. We know positively that this is false. Bodybuilders have long known that carbohydrates are more effective after a workout. As with increased protein after a workout. We don't "know" this. There is strong anecdotal evidence showing that it MIGHT be true. But Alan Aragon, Lyle McDonald, and others (including those in the IF community) dispute this claim. I would caution a rebuttal to what we "don't know" with Soylent with what "we know" which may not even be true. As for my unsolicited opinion, who gives a shit if they make it and people eat it. Tim Ferriss is usually a shill for ridiculous products and information (like his Four Hour Anything crap), but he makes good points about Soylent needing to rebrand and change how they advertise. You can't just make a bunch of claims that it's all the body needs because it fits XYZ macronutrient panels (even though they are very, VERY likely correct - the laws of physics don't get trumped by biology, sorry) for the simple reason that the FDA will wield the banhammer with extreme prejudice. But no one is being coerced to use the stuff, so who cares?

graeme 13y ago
You're right. I hesitated with that line, and should have said "we suspect" rather than we know. Constant macronutrient ratios treat the body as a linear system. I doubt the body does best on a constant injection of the same nutrients. But I don't actually know that.
- icelancer 13y ago
  I don't know either, but I strongly, strongly suspect the laws of thermodynamics are more important than the nuances of human biology, such as they may be. Human biology has done exceedingly well in ridiculously varying conditions. I really doubt that a long lasting lack of X nutrient is going to kill someone. The defining characteristic of human biology is that we live despite tons of variations in diet, activity level, and exogenous conditions like water purity, temperature, humidity, etc. The human body is damn good at figuring out what to do with an incredibly diverse array of energy sources. It is not fragile AT ALL. But again, my beef with Soylent is that they make wild claims that might not be accurate. And so what, really? Every other supplement manufacturer does the same damn thing - and worse. See also: Any "growth hormone" supplement, deer antler spray, etc.

graeme 13y ago

You're right. I hesitated with that line, and should have said "we suspect" rather than we know. Constant macronutrient ratios treat the body as a linear system. I doubt the body does best on a constant injection of the same nutrients. But I don't actually know that.

icelancer 13y ago
I don't know either, but I strongly, strongly suspect the laws of thermodynamics are more important than the nuances of human biology, such as they may be. Human biology has done exceedingly well in ridiculously varying conditions. I really doubt that a long lasting lack of X nutrient is going to kill someone. The defining characteristic of human biology is that we live despite tons of variations in diet, activity level, and exogenous conditions like water purity, temperature, humidity, etc. The human body is damn good at figuring out what to do with an incredibly diverse array of energy sources. It is not fragile AT ALL. But again, my beef with Soylent is that they make wild claims that might not be accurate. And so what, really? Every other supplement manufacturer does the same damn thing - and worse. See also: Any "growth hormone" supplement, deer antler spray, etc.