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

351–360 of 372 posts

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

#351

Post by nbouscal »

ars_technician wrote: post #169
nbouscal wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

It hits a nerve because it's being advertised as a candidate for full-time meal replacement. Pizza rolls and fast food are not, so the comparison between the two is a false equivalency. >Obviously he didn't go through a traditional degree program in nutrition, but I've seen what comes out of a lot of those traditional degree programs, and that's really not much of an argument against him. That's another false equival…

> Pizza rolls and fast food are not, so the comparison between the two is a false equivalency.

They may not be advertised as a full-time meal replacement, but they are certainly used as such by a non-negligible number of people. Nobody is up in arms about that fact.

> not being in a nutritional program doesn't suddenly make you a scientist.

Nowhere did I claim any such thing.

> Engineers do not practice the type of science required to develop new food/drugs.

I wasn't claiming that they do, I was simply claiming that it's not his first time hearing what the scientific method is. He's not a complete foreigner to the field, though many people have cast him as such.

> Where are the long term studies across various demographics with double-blind tests?

How do you propose to accomplish this? This is exactly why nutrition is such an undeveloped science. You can't reasonably test hypotheses in the field, predominantly for ethical reasons (forcing someone to eat nothing but fast-food is clearly unethical). Double-blind is also pretty much impossible in most scenarios, e.g. Soylent vs. McDonalds.

The lack of rigorous double-blind studies isn't because of anti-intellectualism, it's because those studies are completely impractical. The best we can do is have volunteers try it out and provide anecdotal evidence. It isn't rigorous and it isn't scientific, but so far the results are all positive.

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

#352

Post by nbouscal »

oblique63 wrote: post #172
nbouscal wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 facto…

I'm sure there are still problems that we'll need to solve. That said, how else are we going to solve them? It's not like the nutrition field is going to suddenly start figuring this stuff out, at least judging from its past record. I feel pretty confident that Soylent is at least a better diet than fast food, and the best way to continue improving it is to have data to work with.

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

#353

Post by foobarbazqux »

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…

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

I'll also agree that spending hours a day preparing food sucks. That's for professional chefs and stay-at-home spouses to choose. But a maximum average of an hour total per day is pretty reasonable in my opinion.

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

#354

Post by pron »

hnaccount8888 wrote: post #280
pron wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sorry, but you've collected no data, only noise. Eating rice for 2 weeks would have produced similar effects. As to your subjective experience – it's probably 100% placebo. If you want to call something an experiment, you should know how to conduct an experiment in that respective field. Your experiences only show how a product like Soylent induces magical thinking in its consumers. If you want to produce a singl…

If you don't mind me asking, can you produce some food studies/experiments that are up to your standards, so I can get an idea of what one would look like?

Most of those published in the New England, for example. Of course, one can substitute a shorter duration for a larger sample if the results are ver significant with a large effect. But if you have a sample size of 1, and want it to be data, however insignificant, rather than noise, you better keep at it for a while.

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

#355

Post by will_work4tears »

beagle3 wrote: post #341
will_work4tears wrote: post #273

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 don't have an axe to grind in this argument, so I'm not even going to bother digging that deep, but I'm not entirely convinced. I'm not a meat eater for the sole purpose of getting B12 and dont' try to convince vegans to eat meat with such sad arguments, so I hardly care what the tru…

> 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 have a bias, it's going to show in an article that is heavyily political/quasi-relisious like veganism. Or vice versa if Wikipedia editors are heavily carnivorous (e.g Atkins) and hate vegans or something like that.

"Been vegetarian for over 35 years (only a few years of those vegan, but not having a B12 source in almost any)."

Well, I don't know you, and can only assume you aren't lying or bending the truth, so I'll say that it is possible you are an outlier. 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.

Who to believe in such a hot, political topic. 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?

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

#356

Post by precisioncoder »

helgeman wrote: post #225
precisioncoder wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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 pleasure.

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

#357

Post by precisioncoder »

helgeman wrote: post #272
precisioncoder wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

Another thing: "I don't think judging other people based on the decisions they make is a healthy attitude." What would be a healthy attitude to judge others by?

A healthy attitude to judge others by is if they are causing direct harm to others. I think murder is wrong, violence towards others is wrong, or controlling others who seek a different lifestyle through social or legal pressures is wrong.

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

#358

Post by asdasf »

Retric wrote: post #337
asdasf wrote: post #326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except that most people get a significant amount of manganese from their water, thus putting them at risk. This is what I said in my post, which you should read before you reply to.

Sorry, assuming you drink water still. does not read as assuming your water has unusual concentrations of Manganese. Even still, known heathrisks relate to breathing excesive Manganease as it's normally excreted though the gut not the urine. Edit: If it's really bothering you. Ambient manganese concentrations in seawater have been reported to range from 0.4 to 10 μg/l (ATSDR, 2000), with an average of about 2 μg/l (B…

It doesn't need to be unusually high levels, that's the point. You are already half way to the TUL just from ensure.

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

#359

Post by asdasf »

lsc wrote: post #345
asdasf wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How about actually clicking the links in those search results. Nothing in the first few pages even attempts to provide a food replacement. None of them provide 100% of known essential nutrients. You will develop a vitamin deficiency consuming any of those exclusively. That is in no way accomplishing what soylent claims to do.

>None of them provide 100% of known essential nutrients. You will develop a vitamin deficiency consuming any of those exclusively. That is in no way accomplishing what soylent claims to do. Personally? I dismiss those claims as marketing fluff. I am not competent to evaluate those claims; I'm not saying that the guy is lying or anything, soylent may in fact be perfect. I don't know. but the claims sound so out there…

I am not talking about claims, I am talking about the nutrition info required to be provided by law. We know that there are a bunch of chemical compounds we call "vitamins" which are required to maintain our health. Soylent provides 100% of all of them. Meal replacement drinks do not.

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

#360

Post by Retric »

asdasf wrote: post #358
Retric wrote: post #337

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry, assuming you drink water still. does not read as assuming your water has unusual concentrations of Manganese. Even still, known heathrisks relate to breathing excesive Manganease as it's normally excreted though the gut not the urine. Edit: If it's really bothering you. Ambient manganese concentrations in seawater have been reported to range from 0.4 to 10 μg/l (ATSDR, 2000), with an average of about 2 μg/l (B…

It doesn't need to be unusually high levels, that's the point. You are already half way to the TUL just from ensure.

No, the high end of the 99th percentile is 800 μg/l or .8mg/ liter. 2 liters per day of water is 1.6mg/ day and the TUL is 11mg/ day. Thus adding 50% from ensure and 1.6 / 11 = 14.5% from unusually high water levels is at worst 64.5% TUL and again not a problem.
Post reply on HN