5 ms·

>Diet is still not well understood, and current science, IMO, is too soft of a foundation upon which to build a complete meal replacement on Well, the thing is

>Diet is still not well understood, and current science, IMO, is too soft of a foundation upon which to build a complete meal replacement on Well, the thing is that there are all sorts of micronutrients and less "quantified" benefits that are derived from eating whole foods. A product like Soylent will cover the primary nutrients well, but will likely miss the mark with regard to truly replicating how we are supposed to eat. But, here's the thing: given our lifestyles, costs, and industrialized system of processed food production, so few people eat a consistent diet of chemical-free, healthy whole foods. Just drinking Soylent to avoid the chemicals in our current food supply alone may be sufficient to improve one's diet. TLDR; relative to the crap that comprises most diets, Soylent will likely (and sadly) be better for the majority.

quasque 13y ago
> so few people eat a consistent diet of chemical-free, healthy whole foods. Just drinking Soylent to avoid the chemicals in our current food supply Everything is made from chemicals. Which ones are you referring to?
- unclebucknasty 13y ago
  What's up with the pedantic replies to my comment? I think we all agree that everything is made from chemicals.
  - quasque 13y ago
    Yes but which ones in the food supply is your complaint with?
    - unclebucknasty 13y ago
      To ensure that this doesn't devolve further into pedantic details about specific chemicals, let me move back to the overarching point and ask you a question: Is it your assertion that there are no chemical additives in the food supply that are harmful?
      - quasque 13y ago
        Which ones are you stating are harmful? It's not pedantic to ask if you have any good examples of the chemicals you are complaining about. Derailing the conversation with complaints of pedantry is, however, rather unhelpful.
        unclebucknasty 13y ago
        >It's not pedantic to ask if you have any good examples of the chemicals you are complaining about. Sure it is when it's not the point. If you're really stuck there, then just re-read my comment without the word "chemical". You'll find no impact on my point. So, if you disagree with my actual assertion (which seems to be the case, judging from your other comments on the topic), then you might address them, if you weren't being pedantic. >Derailing the conversation with complaints of pedantry is, however, rather unhelpful. Actually, I am complaining about others derailing the conversation with pedantry. Important difference. But, I see that you are unwilling to answer the simple on-topic question that would address all of this; that being, are you asserting that there are no harmful chemicals in the food supply? Carry on with the downvotes and faux discussion.
        quasque 13y ago
        I'm not asserting that there are no harmful chemicals at all in the food supply, just asking you which ones you consider the most problematic and widespread throughout our food network. (I didn't downvote anything in this thread, by the way.)
        unclebucknasty 13y ago
        >I'm not asserting that there are no harmful chemicals at all in the food supply Good enough. We can stop there. This is a discussion about Soylent and its potential benefits/risks. That it seeks to avoid chemical additives is one potential benefit that I posited in the comment that spawned this fork. This is the only reason the word "chemical" entered the discussion. In all honesty, I am not really interested in enumerating a list of problematic food additives. Perhaps you'd like to post another submission?
dragonwriter 13y ago
> few people eat a consistent diet of chemical-free, healthy whole foods "chemical-free, healthy whole foods" is a nonsense phrase. Particularly "chemical-free foods". Not only is everything made of chemicals, but the whole point of foods is their behavior as reactants in chemical reactions.
- unclebucknasty 13y ago
  Are you purposely being pedantic? Or are you really having trouble differentiating what I mean by "chemical-free" foods from the literal fact that everything consists of chemicals? EDIT: Removed snark.
  - dragonwriter 13y ago
    > Or are you really having trouble differentiating what I mean by "chemical-free" foods from the literal fact that everything consists of chemicals? You obviously mean something other than "chemical" when you say chemical, but there isn't any really clear definition of what it is. AFAICT, when people use this phrasing, they are appealing to one of a wide array of different (but stylistically similar) mythologies that some point in the past had the ideal level of technical involvement with food, but using language that is completely inappropriate, probably because it creates the impression that there is a real objective concrete differentiation that doesn't actually exist -- that there is some well-defined category of "bad thing" that is being excluded when that is the farthest thing from the case. Although, sometimes, the inappropriate language seems to be used instead just to make it impossible to discuss the whole subject meaningfully, since any disagreement with what is actually said is treated as missing the point obscured by the language -- which is never actually clarified so that it can be addressed.
    - unclebucknasty 13y ago
      >AFAICT, when people use this phrasing, they are appealing to one of a wide array of different (but stylistically similar) mythologies... So, then you knew all the while that I was obviously referring to certain chemical additives and not just chemicals. Yet, you replied with the obvious statement that "everything is made of chemicals". This kind of pedantry is what really makes meaningful discusion difficult. >sometimes, the inappropriate language seems to be used instead just to make it impossible to discuss the whole subject meaningfully, since any disagreement with what is actually said is treated as missing the point obscured by the language No. The reason it was impossible to discuss meaningfully is not because of how "any disagreement [was] treated". It's because you didn't actually disagree. Instead, you interpreted the comment literally and complained about it being a "nonsense phrase", even when you understood perfectly well what was meant. You then went on a tangent about chemicals and how they work. If, instead, your assertion is that there are no harmful chemicals in our food supply or that there is no difference between eating organic foods vs. processed foods with chemical additives, then you should have stated as much. All of this is tangential to the main point, however, which is that, while Soylent may not be the perfect food replacement, it is likely a step up for most people whose diets are suboptimal for any number of reasons.

quasque 13y ago

> so few people eat a consistent diet of chemical-free, healthy whole foods. Just drinking Soylent to avoid the chemicals in our current food supply Everything is made from chemicals. Which ones are you referring to?

unclebucknasty 13y ago
What's up with the pedantic replies to my comment? I think we all agree that everything is made from chemicals.
- quasque 13y ago
  Yes but which ones in the food supply is your complaint with?
  - unclebucknasty 13y ago
    To ensure that this doesn't devolve further into pedantic details about specific chemicals, let me move back to the overarching point and ask you a question: Is it your assertion that there are no chemical additives in the food supply that are harmful?
    - quasque 13y ago
      Which ones are you stating are harmful? It's not pedantic to ask if you have any good examples of the chemicals you are complaining about. Derailing the conversation with complaints of pedantry is, however, rather unhelpful.
      - unclebucknasty 13y ago
        >It's not pedantic to ask if you have any good examples of the chemicals you are complaining about. Sure it is when it's not the point. If you're really stuck there, then just re-read my comment without the word "chemical". You'll find no impact on my point. So, if you disagree with my actual assertion (which seems to be the case, judging from your other comments on the topic), then you might address them, if you weren't being pedantic. >Derailing the conversation with complaints of pedantry is, however, rather unhelpful. Actually, I am complaining about others derailing the conversation with pedantry. Important difference. But, I see that you are unwilling to answer the simple on-topic question that would address all of this; that being, are you asserting that there are no harmful chemicals in the food supply? Carry on with the downvotes and faux discussion.
        quasque 13y ago
        I'm not asserting that there are no harmful chemicals at all in the food supply, just asking you which ones you consider the most problematic and widespread throughout our food network. (I didn't downvote anything in this thread, by the way.)
        unclebucknasty 13y ago
        >I'm not asserting that there are no harmful chemicals at all in the food supply Good enough. We can stop there. This is a discussion about Soylent and its potential benefits/risks. That it seeks to avoid chemical additives is one potential benefit that I posited in the comment that spawned this fork. This is the only reason the word "chemical" entered the discussion. In all honesty, I am not really interested in enumerating a list of problematic food additives. Perhaps you'd like to post another submission?

dragonwriter 13y ago

> few people eat a consistent diet of chemical-free, healthy whole foods "chemical-free, healthy whole foods" is a nonsense phrase. Particularly "chemical-free foods". Not only is everything made of chemicals, but the whole point of foods is their behavior as reactants in chemical reactions.

unclebucknasty 13y ago
Are you purposely being pedantic? Or are you really having trouble differentiating what I mean by "chemical-free" foods from the literal fact that everything consists of chemicals? EDIT: Removed snark.
- dragonwriter 13y ago
  > Or are you really having trouble differentiating what I mean by "chemical-free" foods from the literal fact that everything consists of chemicals? You obviously mean something other than "chemical" when you say chemical, but there isn't any really clear definition of what it is. AFAICT, when people use this phrasing, they are appealing to one of a wide array of different (but stylistically similar) mythologies that some point in the past had the ideal level of technical involvement with food, but using language that is completely inappropriate, probably because it creates the impression that there is a real objective concrete differentiation that doesn't actually exist -- that there is some well-defined category of "bad thing" that is being excluded when that is the farthest thing from the case. Although, sometimes, the inappropriate language seems to be used instead just to make it impossible to discuss the whole subject meaningfully, since any disagreement with what is actually said is treated as missing the point obscured by the language -- which is never actually clarified so that it can be addressed.
  - unclebucknasty 13y ago
    >AFAICT, when people use this phrasing, they are appealing to one of a wide array of different (but stylistically similar) mythologies... So, then you knew all the while that I was obviously referring to certain chemical additives and not just chemicals. Yet, you replied with the obvious statement that "everything is made of chemicals". This kind of pedantry is what really makes meaningful discusion difficult. >sometimes, the inappropriate language seems to be used instead just to make it impossible to discuss the whole subject meaningfully, since any disagreement with what is actually said is treated as missing the point obscured by the language No. The reason it was impossible to discuss meaningfully is not because of how "any disagreement [was] treated". It's because you didn't actually disagree. Instead, you interpreted the comment literally and complained about it being a "nonsense phrase", even when you understood perfectly well what was meant. You then went on a tangent about chemicals and how they work. If, instead, your assertion is that there are no harmful chemicals in our food supply or that there is no difference between eating organic foods vs. processed foods with chemical additives, then you should have stated as much. All of this is tangential to the main point, however, which is that, while Soylent may not be the perfect food replacement, it is likely a step up for most people whose diets are suboptimal for any number of reasons.