Soylent: What Happened When I Stopped Eating For 2 Weeks • Hacker News Board

Re: Soylent: What Happened When I Stopped Eating For 2 Weeks

#171

Post by kybernetikos » Wed, Aug 21, 2013, 7:17 AM UTC

marze wrote: post #143

obstacle1 wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Imagine if there was a new drug that gave the mental benefits the guy reported after two weeks of use and saved you money too. I found this drug that makes me feel way relaxed and totally content with the world. I don't do anything while on the drug, 'cause life's great just sitting here on the couch. As a consequence of sitting on my couch enjoying my great life, I don't spend any money, so I'm totally saving compa…

"recommending we throw out any pretensions of objectivity or science or knowledge in favor of "do what you feel"." Not so. Mental agility, weight, blood pressure are all easy and inexpensive to track. A person's perception of how well they slept, overall feeling of well being, etc., can also be tracked if they are careful to quantify and record them. I think you underestimate the power of carefully recorded data, whi…

Often, a strong expectation that a person will do well on a particular regime is enough to cause that person to do well on that particular regime. And I'm talking about measurable, physical changes.

I'd like to see some proper triple-blind studies involving people who haven't strongly invested themselves in the outcome.

Re: Soylent: What Happened When I Stopped Eating For 2 Weeks

#172

Post by oblique63 » Wed, Aug 21, 2013, 7:18 AM UTC

nbouscal wrote: post #127

hcarvalhoalves wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There are a few that are complete diet replacements, mostly used for medical purposes, but the fact that they're designed for patients who can't eat means that there is a lot of room for improvement given Soylent's different target market. There's no difference. The point is that those are expensive because getting a concoction of nutrients that doesn't damage you in the long term is hard .

Of course it's hard, I don't think anyone has claimed it's easy. For some reason this subject hits a nerve with some people really, really hard (Aside: it's actually really fascinating to think about why that is. Health concerns are definitely not enough to explain the level of vitriol.). Those people then tend to use some really disingenuous arguments against Soylent. For example, I can't say how many times I've see…

I agree. I'm fairly convinced that the nutritional world is in a dark age right now, and I wouldn't be surprised if all those problems you listed continue til long after I'm gone.

I don't advocate for soylent, but I'm not against it either, and that's only because I honestly don't know what to make of any meal replacement. Right now, making claims like potentially curing world hunger are much too premature when factoring in how little we know (i.e. we literally wouldn't know when we had such a cure if it slapped us in the face); thus I wouldn't be surprised if much of HN is backlashing based on those marketing claims. If instead it was billed less like a product, and more like a long-term research project into the intricacies of nutrition, then I know I would've backed it (and it would've made it a lot clearer that you're investing for a chance to be a guinea pig, rather than paying to be a consumer of a life-altering product). Because despite the fact that MRPs have been in constant research by other companies, a fresh open engineering perspective would still be welcome. They still have a chance to pivot that way, but some stuff like what's in this reddit thread, is a bit concerning: http://www.reddit.com/r/TrueReddit/comments/1jvsie/the_man_w... I don't particularly like the attitude of the comment, but it does make some good points.

Re: Soylent: What Happened When I Stopped Eating For 2 Weeks

#173

Post by ars_technician » Wed, Aug 21, 2013, 7:20 AM UTC

obstacle1 wrote: post #145

jurassic wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's the big deal? What this guy is eating already is definitely above average in quality. A Chipotle burrito bol (fresh whole ingredients, sans tortilla) is a legit meal. Other than dental impacts from the carbonation, health hysteria about diet soda and aspartame has been debunked. I don't know about the take-out Thai, but at least it's real food and not some preservative-laden packaged food product from the groc…

One burrito bowl can contain something like 75% of your daily sodium intake. The calorie:vitamin ratio is also terrible. Go play around with their nutrition calculator [1]. It's fast food. [1] - http://www.chipotle.com/en-us/menu/nutrition_calculator/nutr...

>One burrito bowl can contain something like 75% of your daily sodium intake.

So? It's not like he's eating two of those a day.

Re: Soylent: What Happened When I Stopped Eating For 2 Weeks

#174

Post by ars_technician » Wed, Aug 21, 2013, 7:22 AM UTC

lysol wrote: post #96

jurassic wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's the big deal? What this guy is eating already is definitely above average in quality. A Chipotle burrito bol (fresh whole ingredients, sans tortilla) is a legit meal. Other than dental impacts from the carbonation, health hysteria about diet soda and aspartame has been debunked. I don't know about the take-out Thai, but at least it's real food and not some preservative-laden packaged food product from the groc…

Even the veggie burrito bol is in the 800 range for calories, and based on how employees heap stuff on, much more than that. It's really two meals' worth of food. Even the highest quality starch and fat filled meal is still a starch and fat filled meal. The health hysteria over aspartame hasn't really been fully debunked, there are still countless conflicting studies about the effects of aspartame, one of the more re…

>Soda may or may not be bad for you, but it's certainly empty calories.

Not diet soda. There are NO calories in it. It's not "empty calories". With your level of ignorance, I'm surprised you haven't poisoned yourself.

>Even the veggie burrito bol is in the 800 range for calories, and based on how employees heap stuff on,

The calorie counts have to be based on the average serving size, or they will be fined by the FDA for lying.

Re: Soylent: What Happened When I Stopped Eating For 2 Weeks

#175

Post by ars_technician » Wed, Aug 21, 2013, 7:25 AM UTC

graeme wrote: post #47

malbs wrote: post #35

The guy claim himself to be a "mildly out of shape 28 year old", and then state: "I consider myself a pretty health-conscious person. No alcohol. No meat. Slow-carbs when possible. Run three miles, three times a week. Pull-ups, push-ups on the days I don’t run" which indicates he's more active than 90% of the population (I just made that stat up) I was irritated from that point on-wards.

You can do all that and be 'mildly out of shape'. It depends on what your model is. Compared to the average person, he's more fit, but the average person is rather unfit, so it's a poor comparison. I think 'out of shape' out to be an objective measure, not a relative measure.

>I think 'out of shape' out to be an objective

And you would be wrong. It's completely subjective. There is no quantifiable definition of 'in shape' other than fat %.

Re: Soylent: What Happened When I Stopped Eating For 2 Weeks

#176

Post by bambax » Wed, Aug 21, 2013, 7:25 AM UTC

jurassic wrote: post #59

cup wrote: post #6

Soylent 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…

What's the big deal? What this guy is eating already is definitely above average in quality. A Chipotle burrito bol (fresh whole ingredients, sans tortilla) is a legit meal. Other than dental impacts from the carbonation, health hysteria about diet soda and aspartame has been debunked. I don't know about the take-out Thai, but at least it's real food and not some preservative-laden packaged food product from the groc…

Cooking a real meal for one person takes less than 15 minutes each time, so that's a maximum of 30 minutes per day (lunch+dinner) + maybe 5 other minutes for breakfast, depending on ingredients (bread+butter+orange juice=zero cooking).

I was also amazed by the cost of his daily diet: $24 per day, excluding restaurants on weekends?!? I eat natural, 'normal' food for much less than $10 per day, and I live in one of the most expensive cities in the world.

PS That said, I'm intrigued by Soylent and would like to try it -- although not at its current price point.

Re: Soylent: What Happened When I Stopped Eating For 2 Weeks

#177

Post by iopq » Wed, Aug 21, 2013, 7:28 AM UTC

columbo wrote: post #82

md224 wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll just say this: I hate cooking, and ordering delivery every night, while easy, isn't ideal (cost, etc.). Eating delicious, real food every once in a while is a great treat, but why the hell do I have to put so much energy into this ritual of choosing/preparing/acquiring meals every single day of my life ? Sometimes I just don't want to be hungry, and I don't really care how I get not-hungry. I'm withholding judge…

Why wait for soylent? Bag of flaxmeal, Bananas ,Oats ,Yogurt Mixed Nuts, Raisins, Power bar Blend & drink the first four, munch on the nuts & raisins during the day, have the occasional power bar, take a multivitamin and toss in a nice diverse meal once a week to catch anything else and... profit?

You probably won't hit 120g of protein like soylent does and it will be expensive for you

Re: Soylent: What Happened When I Stopped Eating For 2 Weeks

#178

Post by stiff » Wed, Aug 21, 2013, 7:42 AM UTC

It's very, very naive to think that you can simply put all the recommended dosages of vitamins and macro-/micro- elements into a single shake and have it fulfil all the nutritional needs. You need enzymes to digest food, specific enzymes and specific chemical conditions for absorbing specific nutrients, and you can not intake all nutrients from a single portion of food because, well, physics happens. There is a fundamental need of the human body for variety in food intake. You can get some idea of how complicated this gets from reading papers on some commonly known patterns of nutrient interaction, like copper+zinc:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3625315

http://jn.nutrition.org/content/130/5/1378S.full

Re: Soylent: What Happened When I Stopped Eating For 2 Weeks

#179

Post by bparsons » Wed, Aug 21, 2013, 7:48 AM UTC

Most people's diets are horrible. It is really hard to eat anything even close to balanced-- especially if you eat out at different restaurants quite often.

So, even if these guys don't really know what they are doing, even someone with the most basic understanding of nutrition could concoct something, that if consumed in the prescribed portion each day, would be better than what 90% of the population is eating.

Users are controlling their calories, getting a mix of micro-nutrients, with their ratio of macro-nutrients set up at a reasonable proportion.

If this business continues, I would imagine that different proportions of macro and micro nutrients would be offered depending on the consumers health profile and nutrition goals.

Re: Soylent: What Happened When I Stopped Eating For 2 Weeks

#180

Post by skore » Wed, Aug 21, 2013, 7:52 AM UTC

marze wrote: post #130

nonchalance wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If your aim is for improved mental function, more energy, less health problems, etc., you don't need to know how to interpret any obscure tests. You'll know. Perception is different from reality, as exemplified by an Apple anecdote: http://www.asktog.com/TOI/toi06KeyboardVMouse1.html We’ve done a cool $50 million of R & D on the Apple Human Interface. We discovered, among other things, two pertinent facts: - Test s…

No doubt people can misjudge things. With health changes, I think it is often easier to see changes in the negative direction, like the author when he stopped the soylent trial. If the changes are great enough in magnitude to be obvious, then you know you're on to something. Also, measures like weight and computer mental agility tests can be quite reliable if you are consistent in your testing, and they aren't subjec…

Responding to the edit:

> Below, skore is skeptical that a person can notice a significant change to their own health.

Yes, a point which still stands.

> Roberts studies rats, and he is the ultimate human rat.

No, Robert might be the ultimate rat conducting experiments on himself. He cannot be his own lab rat, he can only be running his own asylum.

> He records many subjective measures qualitatively, and feels he has made some significant discoveries doing so.

That sums it up perfectly. I suppose all this boils down to is whether you want your science science-y or feel-y. I prefer the science science. Because while I trust them in many things, I don't trust human emotions when making important decisions that are supposed to influence millions over millions of other humans.

I don't know Seth Roberts and I hope I don't come across as overly disrespectful. I'm not saying that it's impossible to make scientific discoveries this way. The problem is that any discovery you make is N=1 and as far away from a double-blind trial as it can be. So this might be an important tool to pre-select what you want to concentrate your actual science on.

But as with the Soylent stuff, I would never in a million years base my own health decisions on some quantified self guy on the internet.