Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Soylent: What Happened When I Stopped Eating For 2 Weeks

fourhourworkweek.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

361–370 of 372 posts

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

#361

Post by gnaritas »

foobarbazqux wrote: post #353
gnaritas wrote: post #336

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You know what else is psychologically healthy, not being forced to spend hours a day preparing and eating food. Not everyone enjoys the process and it's not psychologically healthy for those who don't, it's a pain in the ass. Guess what, some of us don't like other people that much either and can't stand the idea of having to regularly eat meals with them. Michael Pollan is a foodie and an English major, he has no cr…

Pollan is an investigative journalist more than anything. But whatever, it was just a pointer. There is quite a bit written out there about the psychological aspects of eating. I'll agree that Soylent is healthier fast food than McDonald's. I just won't agree that eating Soylent on a regular basis is as healthy as taking your time and sharing non-McDonald's meals with your friends and/or family. Everyone has friends…

I'm not talking about Soilent itself, but about Soilent like things. The chances that Soilent itself is good are pretty slim as its just some kid experimenting. However, there will come a product eventually that can completely replace food and be healthy, and many will embrace it with open arms because most of the time, fuel is just fuel, not an event. An hour a day is too much, and it isn't depriving us of anything; people will still be able to take pleasure in eating real food when they want to, they just won't be forced to at every meal.

And you're a bit disconnected from reality, no everyone does not have family and friends; you should think really hard about why you think they do and about how insensitive it is to presume that. Tons of people have no family left, and tons of people are friendless either by choice or not.

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

#362

Post by Shorel »

More people are hacking their diet, in other ways than simply changing the base ingredients but keeping the same macro ratios, and keeping the accepted nutrition guidelines. In other words, it is not much of an improvement over the status quo that's making the USA fat.

If Soylent fails, it is also because of the inherent failure with the accepted nutrition guidelines.

The other people who are hacking their diets, with great success, are commonly referred as the Keto community. We don't have “tired headaches” like the poster.

For us, 45g of fat and 400g of carbohydrates seem way too unhealthy. Make it the other way around and we can talk.

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

#363

Post by foobarbazqux »

gnaritas wrote: post #361
foobarbazqux wrote: post #353

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pollan is an investigative journalist more than anything. But whatever, it was just a pointer. There is quite a bit written out there about the psychological aspects of eating. I'll agree that Soylent is healthier fast food than McDonald's. I just won't agree that eating Soylent on a regular basis is as healthy as taking your time and sharing non-McDonald's meals with your friends and/or family. Everyone has friends…

I'm not talking about Soilent itself, but about Soilent like things. The chances that Soilent itself is good are pretty slim as its just some kid experimenting. However, there will come a product eventually that can completely replace food and be healthy, and many will embrace it with open arms because most of the time, fuel is just fuel, not an event. An hour a day is too much, and it isn't depriving us of anything;…

You're right, I was being insensitive. I'm sorry about that. I'm still curious though, why don't you like eating real food and sharing it with people?

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

#364

Post by helgeman »

precisioncoder wrote: post #356
helgeman wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Saying "If you don't enjoy what I enjoy there is something wrong with you" is a value judgement. Not seeing eating, or sex, or other commonly enjoyed activities as enjoyable (or simply not as priorities) does not mean you need to be fixed. Personally I love eating, but I would gladly have a substitute to take care of the nutrition aspect so I didn't have to bother about it and could eat a few times a week purely for…

I agree. There is nothing wrong with them in the sense that it needs to be fixed. And if they fixed a time problem for people who dont enjoy food. Fine. I still disagree with their approach and i think i have the right to state that without be labled as judgemental. I do actually have a friend who is the same way. He says he eats just to be not hungry. He couldnt care less about food. I dont like this attitude. But he is still my friend. There is a difference between pointing out a different opinion and being judgemental. Its just a small part of his persona anyway.

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

#365

Post by beagle3 »

will_work4tears wrote: post #355
beagle3 wrote: post #341

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think if anyone reasonable researches this they'll see that there is still some controversy on the issue (Studies show both sides). I've never heard of a study claiming B12 in animals in vivo is not synthesized by bacteria (or archaea). Care to give a reference? > sorry, It's a fallacy, but I don't like getting my "facts" from programmers and Wikipedia Programmers, ok. Wikipedia - why? and "dieticians and health…

"I've never heard of a study claiming B12 in animals in vivo is not synthesized by bacteria (or archaea). Care to give a reference?" That's not what I was referring to. I'm referring to the (implied) claim that the B12 synthisized in our gut by bacteria is available to us. Wikipedia doesn't support that claim, and Wikipedia is editable by anybody, so while it's mostly trustworthy, if a heavy portion of the editors ha…

> In a cursory search yesterday (a couple hours only) I found references on both sides of the fence claiming that we can use B12 synthisized in our gut, and about the same number of sources saying we couldn't.

If you can actually link to them, I would be grateful. I can only find yahoo-answers style discussions that claim people cannot.

> A guy with an axe to grind (vegan trying to defend/promote his lifestyle) or the fact that there seems to be no concensious in the sciencific community?

You are making an awful lot of assumptions about me. I'm not a vegan (I was for a few short years; I've been vegetarian for 35 though). And I more often in these discussions advocate against veganism and vegetarianism because even though they can be very healthy, most people do them wrong - and if you can't stand your ground with science in these discussions, you shouldn't be vegan.

And about consensus in the scientific community - I believe I have science backing me here, but let's put it aside - I gave two other examples in which the (so-called) scientific consensus is provably wrong (and others mentioned egg consumption). Personally, I'm not ignoring scientific consensus on everything and try to look at the details. Follow the common/average belief, and you get common/average results. If you like mediocrity, all power to you.

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

#366

Post by precisioncoder »

helgeman wrote: post #364
precisioncoder wrote: post #356

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Saying "If you don't enjoy what I enjoy there is something wrong with you" is a value judgement. Not seeing eating, or sex, or other commonly enjoyed activities as enjoyable (or simply not as priorities) does not mean you need to be fixed. Personally I love eating, but I would gladly have a substitute to take care of the nutrition aspect so I didn't have to bother about it and could eat a few times a week purely for…

I agree. There is nothing wrong with them in the sense that it needs to be fixed. And if they fixed a time problem for people who dont enjoy food. Fine. I still disagree with their approach and i think i have the right to state that without be labled as judgemental. I do actually have a friend who is the same way. He says he eats just to be not hungry. He couldnt care less about food. I dont like this attitude. But h…

I understand where you're coming from. It's hard to have friends with opinions that you think are wrong. One of the reasons that I'm taking the time to provide a counterview is because if the feedback is primarily negative people often feel ashamed of their attributes. I'm vegetarian and I receive primarily negative feedback for it. Same with being a geek, and a programmer. Due to how this affected with me when I was younger I tend to think that negative feedback for attributes without a clear negative should be kept to a minimum.

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

#367

Post by ekianjo »

raverbashing wrote: post #217
ekianjo wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You did not mention the placebo effect though. That's the largest weakness of such an experiment. Your brain may be convinced (without you being strictly conscious about it) that Soylent is good for you and trigger all kind of benefits that you assessed yourself. That's why clinical trials are running in double-blind modes, to remove as much as possible the placebo effect. A self-assessed experiment is, and will alwa…

Well, they can't use a placebo for that, you'll starve the placebo group. You could provide a different meal replacement powder and compare the results (provided the subjects don't know which one looks like what)

> You could provide a different meal replacement powder and compare the results

Yeah, you could at least do that.

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

#368

Post by ekianjo »

shanedanger wrote: post #234
ekianjo wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You did not mention the placebo effect though. That's the largest weakness of such an experiment. Your brain may be convinced (without you being strictly conscious about it) that Soylent is good for you and trigger all kind of benefits that you assessed yourself. That's why clinical trials are running in double-blind modes, to remove as much as possible the placebo effect. A self-assessed experiment is, and will alwa…

Obviously you didn't read the whole thing; search for the word "placebo" and you'll find my discussion of it under the section called "Potential Weaknesses In The Data".

I read the whole thing but I did not notice it as being very prominent, while it's the number ONE "FAIL" point of your experiment.

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

#369

Post by __--__ »

gnaritas wrote: post #336
foobarbazqux wrote: post #333

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Preparing food slowly and eating it slowly together with other people and enjoying the entire process is psychologically healthy. Michael Pollan has written extensively about this. It's not just about the nutrients.

You know what else is psychologically healthy, not being forced to spend hours a day preparing and eating food. Not everyone enjoys the process and it's not psychologically healthy for those who don't, it's a pain in the ass. Guess what, some of us don't like other people that much either and can't stand the idea of having to regularly eat meals with them. Michael Pollan is a foodie and an English major, he has no cr…

not being forced to spend hours a day preparing and eating food

For me, it's an hour, tops. That's lunch and dinner, I don't eat breakfast. It's probably the single highest cost/benefit ratio activity I engage in on a daily basis.

Saying that preparing and eating real food is "not psychologically healthy" is the dumbest thing I've read in quite some time. If you're an extrovert, eat with other people. If you're an introvert, eat alone and think. If you think that's psychologically damaging, how do you feel about meetings? Or maintaining other people's code? Or paying taxes?

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

#370

Post by __--__ »

foobarbazqux wrote: post #353
gnaritas wrote: post #336

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You know what else is psychologically healthy, not being forced to spend hours a day preparing and eating food. Not everyone enjoys the process and it's not psychologically healthy for those who don't, it's a pain in the ass. Guess what, some of us don't like other people that much either and can't stand the idea of having to regularly eat meals with them. Michael Pollan is a foodie and an English major, he has no cr…

Pollan is an investigative journalist more than anything. But whatever, it was just a pointer. There is quite a bit written out there about the psychological aspects of eating. I'll agree that Soylent is healthier fast food than McDonald's. I just won't agree that eating Soylent on a regular basis is as healthy as taking your time and sharing non-McDonald's meals with your friends and/or family. Everyone has friends…

I just won't agree that eating Soylent on a regular basis is as healthy as taking your time and sharing non-McDonald's meals with your friends and/or family.

Assuming you're an extrovert. I'm an introvert and I eat alone. Most days, it's the only time I get to be alone and recharge.

I guess I feel like Soylent is encouraging social isolation, and helping people to deprive themselves of the physical pleasure of eating.

Not everybody is wired the same. I know plenty of people who get no physical pleasure from eating. They look at those with food addiction and simply don't get the appeal. They'd rather be doing something productive/social/physical/recreational. I'm personally not one of those people, but I can understand where they're coming from. For some people, running marathons gives them a high bigger and better than any drug. I look at those people and simply don't get the appeal. :)

Post reply on HN