5 ms·

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 nutrien

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.
      - JoeAltmaier 11y ago
        We know this about nutrition: activity burns calories at extremely predictable rates. Food has calories at extremely predictable densities. Physics works. And see? Even these fundamental facts about physics get disputed/denied by the nutrition nuts.
        whatusername 11y ago
        I'll bite. We measure calories in food by burning it in a lab and calculating the exact energy given off. Very precise. What we don't measure is how many pieces of that cob of corn I ate for dinner will pass through to my stool. And I'll accept the comment that activities burn calories at predictable rates (they don't across populations -- look at exercise adaptation) but they can per individual. But treating the consumption of calories and the expenditure of calories as independent variables seems foolish. For an absurd comparison -- do you think my Caloric consumption over the next 24 hours would be identical if I consumed 10 calories of chocolate or 10 calories of amphetamines? Physics works. A calorie is a calorie. But pretending that the human body treats all calories the same as a calorometer seems foolish.

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.
    - JoeAltmaier 11y ago
      We know this about nutrition: activity burns calories at extremely predictable rates. Food has calories at extremely predictable densities. Physics works. And see? Even these fundamental facts about physics get disputed/denied by the nutrition nuts.
      - whatusername 11y ago
        I'll bite. We measure calories in food by burning it in a lab and calculating the exact energy given off. Very precise. What we don't measure is how many pieces of that cob of corn I ate for dinner will pass through to my stool. And I'll accept the comment that activities burn calories at predictable rates (they don't across populations -- look at exercise adaptation) but they can per individual. But treating the consumption of calories and the expenditure of calories as independent variables seems foolish. For an absurd comparison -- do you think my Caloric consumption over the next 24 hours would be identical if I consumed 10 calories of chocolate or 10 calories of amphetamines? Physics works. A calorie is a calorie. But pretending that the human body treats all calories the same as a calorometer seems foolish.