6 ms·

I haven't seen any compelling evidence that Soylent is healthy, given that there are not even agreed upon RDA for most nutrients or macro nutrients.

MCRed 11y ago
Further, not all people are the same, so "healthy" actually varies from person to person. In at least one area this is dramatic: Some people are insulin sensitive and some are insulin resistant. I looked at the nutrition label on soylent. It might be healthy for insulin sensitive people, who generally tend to be naturally skinny. But this would be a terrible thing for someone who is insulin resistant to consume. It has a very high amount of carbs and fat, which means that your body will see the carbs, blood sugar will spike the insulin will spike very high to compensate (since you're resistant you need more of it to get your blood sugar down) and the high levels of insulin tell the body to start storing fat... consequently making you fatter. Unfortunately, so much of the diet science assumes everyone is the same, and ignores the insulin sensitivity factor (and I bet there are several other factors going on as well that aren't understood.)
paulsutter 11y ago
Are you arguing that you haven't seen compelling evidence that /any/ food or diet is healthy, given that there are not even any agreed upon RDA for most nutrients or macronutrients? I'd suggest comparing the nutrition of Soylent to the nutrition of actual meals we eat when we don't have time for a proper meal. Since that's how many people use it.
- bitL 11y ago
  For one, there will be a fiber deficiency if you stick with Soylent only. It's like juicing every day - strip fruits of most of the fiber, release immediate sugar into blood and welcome diabetes with open arms! The whole concept of Soylent feels to me like a typical reductionist approach - let's mix some stuff together and all will be good. It's like trying to control your weight by calories - calories are the roughest, least precise way to decide what you need to eat (are you literally burning your food in fire when you digest it?) and completely ignores your metabolism characteristics and state of your health. It's like measuring programming capabilities by the number of lines written, yet we still somehow stick with it when planning our diets. Please people, do your research, don't endanger your health by following what look like trendy geeky diets!
  - Rainymood 11y ago
    >It's like trying to control your weight by calories - calories are the roughest, least precise way to decide what you need to eat >Please people, do your research You're being contradictory here. Your body obeys the laws of physics. Losing weight is LITERALLY calories in < calories out. Being healthy and losing weight are two different things that often overlap. >(are you literally burning your food in fire when you digest it?) What a silly remark ... of course not. "Fire is the rapid oxidation of a material in the exothermic chemical process of combustion, releasing heat, light, and various reaction products.[1] Slower oxidative processes like rusting or digestion are not included by this definition." (Wikipedia) >It's like measuring programming capabilities by the number of lines written, yet we still somehow stick with it when planning our diets. Comparing apples with oranges.
    - JoeAltmaier 11y ago
      There's this strange opinion circulating that the calories don't matter. It stems from an observation that some calories 'stick' more readily than others. From that, they leap to the conclusion that calories are meaningless. I'm with you - physics rules. No matter what calories you consume, fewer is better for weight control. But don't try to argue with these folks. They can't acknowledge even the obvious boundary cases: eating nothing inevitably leads to losing weight.
      - Nrsolis 11y ago
        There is some anecdotal evidence that varying macronutrient levels affect hormone levels in significant ways. Screwing with hormone levels is a great way to affect the metabolism rate and lipid storage capability of the human body. That's what bodybuilders have been doing for decades. Steroid use is the ultimate manifestation of that school of thought. The truth is that we know very very little about nutrition because doing controlled double-blind studies on human subjects is very very difficult. Bodybuilders are probably the best population to study because of the self-experimentation angle.
        11y ago
kentt 11y ago
By healthy I mean that for lunch everyday I have 500 calories of something nutritious. This is more healthful than going our for lunch and overeating or grabbing fast food. I might be setting the bar pretty low there, but that was often my habit. Given that it's the habit of of about 80% of my co-workers I don't think that's too out of the ordinary. I agree with you though, it does concern my that I'm eating powder for 2 meals per day and that might not go well for me in the long term.

MCRed 11y ago

Further, not all people are the same, so "healthy" actually varies from person to person. In at least one area this is dramatic: Some people are insulin sensitive and some are insulin resistant. I looked at the nutrition label on soylent. It might be healthy for insulin sensitive people, who generally tend to be naturally skinny. But this would be a terrible thing for someone who is insulin resistant to consume. It has a very high amount of carbs and fat, which means that your body will see the carbs, blood sugar will spike the insulin will spike very high to compensate (since you're resistant you need more of it to get your blood sugar down) and the high levels of insulin tell the body to start storing fat... consequently making you fatter. Unfortunately, so much of the diet science assumes everyone is the same, and ignores the insulin sensitivity factor (and I bet there are several other factors going on as well that aren't understood.)

paulsutter 11y ago

Are you arguing that you haven't seen compelling evidence that /any/ food or diet is healthy, given that there are not even any agreed upon RDA for most nutrients or macronutrients? I'd suggest comparing the nutrition of Soylent to the nutrition of actual meals we eat when we don't have time for a proper meal. Since that's how many people use it.

bitL 11y ago
For one, there will be a fiber deficiency if you stick with Soylent only. It's like juicing every day - strip fruits of most of the fiber, release immediate sugar into blood and welcome diabetes with open arms! The whole concept of Soylent feels to me like a typical reductionist approach - let's mix some stuff together and all will be good. It's like trying to control your weight by calories - calories are the roughest, least precise way to decide what you need to eat (are you literally burning your food in fire when you digest it?) and completely ignores your metabolism characteristics and state of your health. It's like measuring programming capabilities by the number of lines written, yet we still somehow stick with it when planning our diets. Please people, do your research, don't endanger your health by following what look like trendy geeky diets!
- Rainymood 11y ago
  >It's like trying to control your weight by calories - calories are the roughest, least precise way to decide what you need to eat >Please people, do your research You're being contradictory here. Your body obeys the laws of physics. Losing weight is LITERALLY calories in < calories out. Being healthy and losing weight are two different things that often overlap. >(are you literally burning your food in fire when you digest it?) What a silly remark ... of course not. "Fire is the rapid oxidation of a material in the exothermic chemical process of combustion, releasing heat, light, and various reaction products.[1] Slower oxidative processes like rusting or digestion are not included by this definition." (Wikipedia) >It's like measuring programming capabilities by the number of lines written, yet we still somehow stick with it when planning our diets. Comparing apples with oranges.
  - JoeAltmaier 11y ago
    There's this strange opinion circulating that the calories don't matter. It stems from an observation that some calories 'stick' more readily than others. From that, they leap to the conclusion that calories are meaningless. I'm with you - physics rules. No matter what calories you consume, fewer is better for weight control. But don't try to argue with these folks. They can't acknowledge even the obvious boundary cases: eating nothing inevitably leads to losing weight.
    - Nrsolis 11y ago
      There is some anecdotal evidence that varying macronutrient levels affect hormone levels in significant ways. Screwing with hormone levels is a great way to affect the metabolism rate and lipid storage capability of the human body. That's what bodybuilders have been doing for decades. Steroid use is the ultimate manifestation of that school of thought. The truth is that we know very very little about nutrition because doing controlled double-blind studies on human subjects is very very difficult. Bodybuilders are probably the best population to study because of the self-experimentation angle.
      - 11y ago

kentt 11y ago

By healthy I mean that for lunch everyday I have 500 calories of something nutritious. This is more healthful than going our for lunch and overeating or grabbing fast food. I might be setting the bar pretty low there, but that was often my habit. Given that it's the habit of of about 80% of my co-workers I don't think that's too out of the ordinary. I agree with you though, it does concern my that I'm eating powder for 2 meals per day and that might not go well for me in the long term.