181–190 of 247 posts
I wonder if this guy realizes his teeth are going to fall off. Since he has very little chewing action, the gums and underlying bone are going to go soft and eventually the teeth are going to begin falling off. But who cares, right? He doesn't really need his teeth. He should be prepared to accept a new and maybe uncommon physical shape.
"I also stopped running 7 miles, which is really unnecessary and potentially harmful to the heart and joints" Source?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not a biologist but many vitamins are water soluble. They may stay in your body long enough but chances are you'll urinate most of the unnecessary vitamins out.
This is in fact why multi-vitamin pills are a useless generic habit. Vitamins are trace compounds/elements by nature, and your body is very careful to eliminate excesses (since they can catalyze all sorts of side-reactions which can be otherwise harmful). The classic example is if you take multi-vitamins, you usually have noticeably different colored urine. That's no coincidence.
You'd have to also declare that it's impossible for people avoid these vitamins in everyday life before they became useless.
However, I though the general advice was to make sure you get your vitamins from your normal diet (as you'll get other benefits too).
> Some people tell me going "ketogenic", or reducing carbs is healthy. I am now skeptical of this claim as lowering carbs makes me feel hungry and tired, and the drink taste less sweet. Perhaps it would be possible after an unpleasant transition period, but I don’t see the ultimate gain... Their advice seems to fall in line with the paleo/primal philosophies—in a nutshell: man only started eating a significant amount…
10k years is plenty enough: http://www.salon.com/2013/03/10/paleofantasy_stone_age_delus... In fact, 10k years is enough for dogs to have evolved to digest carbs a lot better. There's even specific genes that are known to help that.
The paleo hypothesis is that we haven't adapted to carbs to the point that they don't cause disease. Carbs aren't dangerous enough to kill us before we reproduce, so why would we expect the genes to be selected out?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not a biologist but many vitamins are water soluble. They may stay in your body long enough but chances are you'll urinate most of the unnecessary vitamins out.
This is in fact why multi-vitamin pills are a useless generic habit. Vitamins are trace compounds/elements by nature, and your body is very careful to eliminate excesses (since they can catalyze all sorts of side-reactions which can be otherwise harmful). The classic example is if you take multi-vitamins, you usually have noticeably different colored urine. That's no coincidence.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thank you.
Did you really need someone to point that out for you or were you being difficult?
Via Wonkblog: For those of us who generally don’t like food, consider it an annoyance, and yearn for a way to avoid eating it, Soylent sounds immensely promising. But is it safe? Surprisingly, the answer from nutrition experts seems to be, “Yeah, probably.” Jay Mirtallo is a professor of pharmacy at Ohio State and the immediate past president of American Society for Parental Enteral Nutrition, which focuses on the sc…
And that's the question that's gone unasked, because we're focusing (understandably) on the health implications first: Could Soylent be scalably produced to feed 10% or more of the world's population? Would the material prices skyrocket in response to demand? Let's set aside the physiological consequences for a moment, what are the potential economic and environmental ramifications of Soylent?
The current costs are also way too high. Most of the world survives on much less than $150 a month for food. I spend less than $150 and i live in the USA.
Sorry, but after reading the following (elsewhere on that blog), I'm hard-pressed not to dismiss this as an elaborate troll. "I read a book on Number Theory in one sitting, a Differential Geometry book in a weekend, filling up a notebook in the process."
The whole thing is hilarious. Sorry, but nutrition is not like math or C++, where you can teach it to yourself by googling things and reading textbooks. Has he even read the massive body of research on food replacement in the form of parenteral and enteral nutrition? For those people it's a matter of life or death, since many patients are incapable of eating. They have to do a lot better than he does.
Given the complete crap that many people eat and manage to live on, his attempt to educate himself and take control of his nutrition this way is worthy of respect and emulation - not derision.
I'm confused. Is soylent the same thing as soylent green? In which case, this is a satirical post (but I don't find it very funny)... If not, isn't soylent just about the worst possible name for a real food product (with unknown/nonspecific ingredients), because of the movie?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As stated in Steko's quote above, that costs ~4x as much as soylent. Note also that the numbers for soylent don't include packaging or shipping. If you made a commercial version with preservatives etc. the price might be comparable.
I am still skeptical of that stement: the medical cost of Abott's product is high. That does not mean the manufacturing cost is high. In fact, as I mentioned, I think the margins are what is extremely high. The packaging of this is ubiquitous in many many other products (milk, juice, etc) and I am sure is a very very low cost factor.
Also consider that Soylent isn't primarily optimized for price, but for quality nutrition and taste.
ALSO consider that anything normally paid for by medical insurance has hugely inflated prices... Abott's probably costs a fraction of Soylent's cost to make. The rest is profit.