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

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

#221

Post by MDS100 » Wed, Aug 21, 2013, 9:58 AM UTC

goostavos wrote: post #162

beagle3 wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's true, from both the "for" and "against sides". Anyone who things that only happens on one of the sides should check their confirmation bias. And no, this is not an "every opinion deserves equal airtime" claim. The vast majority of nutrition and health experts draw on a mix of science, pseudo science and superstition, and assume it is all science. (Quick check: Think salt intake causes hypertension? That dietar…

As a young-ish person with hyper tension who was told to cut back on the salt, I would love to see you back up your claims. Could you link to a few relevant medical studies?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salt#Recommended_intake

Have a look at the relationship between potassium/nacl and Blood pressure.

TLDR: Focus on unprocessed foods and foods you like that are rich in potassium. Lower your bodyfat percentage and exercise in same fashion regularly.

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

#222

Post by rsynnott » Wed, Aug 21, 2013, 10:01 AM UTC

marze wrote: post #107

alphaoverlord wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Again, my first paragraph is: > I'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. I'm not tryin…

"Self experimentation might be useful, but only if you understand the metrics you measure and whether its stochastic noise or meaningful results." I feel you miss the whole point of self experimentation. 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. A low-risk food product (such as this) can simply be trial…

> you don't need to know how to interpret any obscure tests. You'll know.

You mean like the people who take homeopathic 'medicine'? They know. They're wrong, but they know.

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

#223

Post by beagle3 » Wed, Aug 21, 2013, 10:06 AM UTC

goostavos wrote: post #162

beagle3 wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's true, from both the "for" and "against sides". Anyone who things that only happens on one of the sides should check their confirmation bias. And no, this is not an "every opinion deserves equal airtime" claim. The vast majority of nutrition and health experts draw on a mix of science, pseudo science and superstition, and assume it is all science. (Quick check: Think salt intake causes hypertension? That dietar…

As a young-ish person with hyper tension who was told to cut back on the salt, I would love to see you back up your claims. Could you link to a few relevant medical studies?

http://www.menshealth.com/mhlists/food_myths/Salt_Causes_Hig... was the first google answer. I am on a phone and can't do a real search, but the gist is: there's a small percentage of the population (estimates I am familiar with are 5-20%) for which, once hypertension appears, it IS related to salt intake. However, in general it's a sodium potassium balance.

Analogy: peanut allergy is not caused by peanuts. But if you have it, you should avoid peanuts. It is possible that your hypertension is related to salt intake, in which the advice to cut back on salt is a good advice. But that's not generally true - not any more than general the advice to avoid peanuts is good.

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

#224

Post by rsynnott » Wed, Aug 21, 2013, 10:15 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…

> Not everybody has 5 hours a day or a stay-at-home wife to cook their Whole Foods organic produce into a masterpiece of nutrition.

I'm guessing from this that you've never cooked in your life?

(Hint: Pretty much nobody cooks five hours a day unless it is their job. I mostly cook for myself, and I don't think I've ever really spent more than 30 minutes of active work on it).

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

#225

Post by helgeman » Wed, Aug 21, 2013, 10:18 AM UTC

precisioncoder wrote: post #206

helgeman wrote: post #195

The main issue i have with this is not wether it works or not. Even if it would be as healthy as the healthiest foods you could cook and it would therefore "work" i still would despise this. Why? First off I think somethings simply do not need to be fixed. The making, eating and sharing of food is one of life's greatest pleasures. It is like saying .. well how can i fix this this sex thing? its taking too much of my…

The great thing about life is that we can make our own choices. I don't think judging other people based on the decisions they make is a healthy attitude. The more we provide new options for people the more diversity in human experience we create and that is often beneficial. Guess who didn't choose to partake in sex despite plenty of opportunity: Nikola Tesla. Of course he never did anything important...

I am not sure where you are coming from or if you got my point. If you do not enjoy food/sex or whatever doesnt mean you are not a genius and can actually be important. The one thing doesnt have anything to do with the other.

I would still argue that these people are a minority and that there is actually something wrong with them, instead of there is something wrong with our consumption of food.

Of course if you dont find pleasures in these activities you wont feel sick or bad about it. But you should consider that this is not a problem that a lot of people face because most of them actually enjoy eating.

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

#226

Post by vidarh » Wed, Aug 21, 2013, 10:20 AM UTC

jacques_chester wrote: post #148

nbouscal wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not at all. Say, for example, that I'm replacing fast food. In that scenario Soylent costs less money, takes less time (don't have to go to the fast food place, less time actually eating), is almost certainly healthier, and won't make me feel like crap afterwards. At this point I can't think of any way to continue extending the sex analogy that doesn't get a bit too off-color.

Apart from being calorically dense and salty, fast food is still food . Ordinary food, even fast food, contains an abundance of complex nutrients, some of which are only poorly understood. Companies with actual dietitians and biologists and millions of dollars and labs and decades of lead time haven't been able to create a total replacement for food. There are too many variations in what different people need, too ma…

> haven't been able to create a total replacement for food.

Haven't they? I've seen this claim repeatedly in debates about Soylent, but I've never seen it substantiated other than by pointing to marketing claims on related meal replacement products, which may be motivated very much in part by there not being any real benefits to claiming it is a full food replacement, coupled with a lot of potential downsides such as the risk of lawsuits, increased scrutiny by the FDA, etc.

Maybe they haven't been able to. Or maybe they haven't tried (as opposed to try to make something "close enough" for suitability for medical use or occasional meal replacement). Or maybe they have been able to, but there's simply not enough additional revenue potential compared to the potential costs and risks of making the claim.

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

#227

Post by mysterywhiteboy » Wed, Aug 21, 2013, 10:22 AM UTC

goostavos wrote: post #162

beagle3 wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's true, from both the "for" and "against sides". Anyone who things that only happens on one of the sides should check their confirmation bias. And no, this is not an "every opinion deserves equal airtime" claim. The vast majority of nutrition and health experts draw on a mix of science, pseudo science and superstition, and assume it is all science. (Quick check: Think salt intake causes hypertension? That dietar…

As a young-ish person with hyper tension who was told to cut back on the salt, I would love to see you back up your claims. Could you link to a few relevant medical studies?

As someone else in the same position (young and mild hypertension) I too was told to cut back. I am a CS PhD and have no medical/nutritional background. Everything I know came from Google, PubMed, and my GP - so (for want of a better phrase) take what I say with a pinch of salt ;)

The causal relationship between salt and blood pressure appears to have historically been under debate. I don't however think it should be so readily dismissed as not backed by "Science". In fact the evidence appears to suggest that there is now little to debate.

A study called INTERSALT [1] in the late 1980s appears to have muddied the waters, and is often brought up. It supported the causal link - but was subsequently seen to be the victim of poor statistical analysis.

This seems to have been the theme of those arguing pro-salt, finding flaws in studies. Fair game - but it doesn't disprove the link. More recently though the general consensus seems to be that a long term reduction sodium has a measurable and beneficial impact on BP[2]. A key study in demonstrating the link was the DASH-Sodium study, a randomized controlled trial [3].

The Harvard School of Public Health has some great articles[4][5] discussing the "Salt Debate" and points to a number of papers.

Personally, having taken time to read (and understand what I can), I think the evidence supporting is pretty compelling so have reduced the levels of sodium in my diet.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersalt_study [2] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23558162 [3] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11136953?dopt=Citation [4] http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/2010/07/10/its-t... [5] http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/salt-and-heart-d...

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

#228

Post by rlpb » Wed, Aug 21, 2013, 10:37 AM UTC

w1ntermute wrote: post #41

alphaoverlord wrote: post #9

I'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…

One of the best parts about this whole Soylent debacle is getting to watch well-known people make complete fools of themselves by commenting on things that they clearly know absolutely nothing about, but still feel like they have the right to make authoritative statements on.

Nevertheless, I'm pleased that they're trying. In today's Internet age, there's no reason that the things they clearly know absolutely nothing about can't be made wider known, and they're helping to make that happen.

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

#229

Post by ogig » Wed, Aug 21, 2013, 10:42 AM UTC

When Soylent is talked about here i'm surprised by the amount of people who seems to like the idea. I couldn't understand why would anyone, at anytime pick a Soylent meal over something else. Then i read this article and see the picture of the author's normal everyday food, and reading the comments here others say this is in fact an average American diet.

I don't want to sound harsh, but you are missing something big about life if you dismiss the pleasure of tasty food, the social moment of eating, and health benefits of a varied, natural diet.

I'm from Spain, eating is important here. It's something beyond nutrition, is about people. You sit at the table while chatting and enjoying the taste of the seasonal ingredients. There are gastronomic events during the whole year, and having conversations about this or that thing you ate, or a new restaurant found, is common. Some of my life "best moments" were around a table.

To my eyes Soylent proposal is akin to replace the sexual act from reproduction just because it's a waste of time.

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

#230

Post by enscr » Wed, Aug 21, 2013, 10:53 AM UTC

Soylent completely discounts the act of chewing. It's not needed for the mechanical action, but for its chemical benefits. Maybe they can ship a chewing toy or something with the crinky bags :)

http://whfoods.org/genpage.php?tname=dailytip&dbid=337