More pseudo-science from Tim. Sigh.
Let's sum this up. Tim Ferriss, an unethical hacker, is trying to drum up an unpopular opinion of a popular product in order to profit in some way.
Soylent: What Happened When I Stopped Eating For 2 Weeks
11–20 of 372 posts
Re: Soylent: What Happened When I Stopped Eating For 2 Weeks
#12I'm still reading this, but this paragraph just made me incredibly frustrated:
"...The white stuff that was mixed into the tan stuff was floating to the top and congealing together... So I just started just scooping them out... I’m pretty sure the white chunks were the rice protein, and perhaps something else important."
You're the first review of Soylent, and you throwing away blobs because ...? It looked icky? This is a meal replacement focused on giving you exactly what your body needs, and it just seems like a terrible move to throw 'what your body needs' away.
Re: Soylent: What Happened When I Stopped Eating For 2 Weeks
#13I'm all for people having the freedom to eat whatever they want and I really like the quantified self aspect of seeing how diet affects how they feel and metrics of health, but I have to say the author grossly does not understand the medical tests he had done and misinterprets the data. I'm not going to comment on the drink, but rather on his misunderstanding of medicine. First, EGFR is not "Epidermal Growth Factor R…
> First, EGFR is not "Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor"
I LOLed at that one. He clearly didn't get the acronym and went for one of the cancer mutation indicator seen in several lung cancers.
Re: Soylent: What Happened When I Stopped Eating For 2 Weeks
#14Soylent aside, im amazed at how terrible his traditional normal days meal is? I mean hes eating a processed breakfast subsitute in the morning, take away mexican food with a soft drink for lunch and more take away for dinner. You don't need to be a nutritionist to know thats going to have a terrible impact on his life later down the track. Postnote: Now that Ive read the whole article, I wonder if all the benefits he…
Is a protien shake for breakfast really that bad? I have not been able to find a breakfast food that's quick, tastes ok, and isn't high in carbs.
Re: Soylent: What Happened When I Stopped Eating For 2 Weeks
#15I'm all for people having the freedom to eat whatever they want and I really like the quantified self aspect of seeing how diet affects how they feel and metrics of health, but I have to say the author grossly does not understand the medical tests he had done and misinterprets the data. I'm not going to comment on the drink, but rather on his misunderstanding of medicine. First, EGFR is not "Epidermal Growth Factor R…
Comments like this are why I read HN, and why it's often so valuable to read the comments before the article. Thanks for sharing your insights.
Re: Soylent: What Happened When I Stopped Eating For 2 Weeks
#16I enjoy eating more than I enjoy most other things I do, so saving time by not eating in order to spend more time doing other stuff doesn't really appeal...
Oh well. I guess there must be people out there who spend all their time doing things more fascinating and enjoyable than eating a tasty meal.
Re: Soylent: What Happened When I Stopped Eating For 2 Weeks
#17More pseudo-science from Tim. Sigh.
More one-liners from lazy skeptics. Sigh.
Re: Soylent: What Happened When I Stopped Eating For 2 Weeks
#18You don't just do a test for 2 weeks and expect to find something significant out of it. Go for one year, 2 years and then let's find out what really happens then.
eating right shows visible results in a week (ie physical change and mental changes), every time - IMO thats significant.
2 years shows if this is sustainable/etc.
note: i'm not saying solyent is eating right. its hard to define what eating right is, but basically no soda, no processed foods (well, solyent sort of is:P), etc.
Re: Soylent: What Happened When I Stopped Eating For 2 Weeks
#19More pseudo-science from Tim. Sigh.
This is completely scientific.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience
> Pseudoscience is a claim, belief, or practice which is presented as scientific, but does not adhere to a valid scientific method, lacks supporting evidence or plausibility, cannot be reliably tested, or otherwise lacks scientific status.[1] Pseudoscience is often characterized by the use of vague, contradictory, exaggerated or unprovable claims, an over-reliance on confirmation rather than rigorous attempts at refutation, a lack of openness to evaluation by other experts, and a general absence of systematic processes to rationally develop theories.
Re: Soylent: What Happened When I Stopped Eating For 2 Weeks
#20I just posted this to Tim's Blog: --------------------- It seems probable that soylent is better than much of the manufactured food on the market. It also seems unlikely that soylent is better than quality whole food. I take Nassim Taleb's approach. We don’t know what we don’t know about food. I’d like to address two of Shane’s points. I'm listing the objections Shane raises, then his reply: Shane's first point: Obje…
>That’s not a good reason to not try to innovate. Innovation only really works if you're solving a problem. I don't really see much of a problem with our food/nutrition system as is. Yes, there are parts of the world where people are starving, so maybe there is an application for this there, but if the aim is to test this product out in the Bay Area, I don't really see it going anywhere. I could be wrong, but that's…
Apparently the target market is lazy people who don't like food. And let's be honest, nearly everyone likes real food.
Keto works great for weight loss, and moderation is usually sufficient for a healthy maintenance diet. Loaded with carbohydrates as it is, Soylent is particularly uninteresting for anyone trying to reduce body fat.