its a vitamin drink made of processed and highly processed foods. they have to sell this to public and make it work. the nutrients in this product are readily available in super food green powders like field of greens. am i missing something?
Those superfoods don’t come anywhere near complete nutrition - Soylent has it all, carbs, proteins, oils, and micros. The convenience and utility of the product save all sorts of time and opportunity cost that regular food (even healthy, well supplemented food) eats up.
Buy a month’s worth, carry your packets with you, mix, and eat on the go. It doesn’t get easier.
food substitutes and manufactured supplements may contain nutrients essential for normal body functioning, but because digestion is a complex process and there is not a simple linear relationship between nutrient ingestion and nutrient absorption, the assumption that these nutrients will be absorbed and ultimately helpful to the body can be disputed. foods high in nutrients are not always helpful. processed foods high nutrients can be harmful to the body and some very harmful when used long-term. example of these in simple forms are table salt, refined sugar, and refined and processed grains. examples of these in more complex forms are energy or protein bars, sports drinks, most cereals and commercially made breads.
This Field of Greens?
If so, it’s not the same kind of product and does not attempt to solve the same problem as Soylent. It’s probably not a bad product, although I am turned off by the high amount of focus on the organic/raw/vegan/greenness of it. Again, not because that’s bad, but because the color of the food and its provenance is not as important to me as the actual nutrition contained within it.
Before you argue any more, I encourage you to research the subject deeply. These people have endocrinology PHDs from prestigious institutions, biology experts, and nutrition experts galore backing and helping finetune the product. Thanks for taking an interest!
i have researched the subject. like i said, it’s a processed product at the end of the day. maybe this will be great for a country with vast famine or an occasional “on the go” meal here for someone pressed for time. but to think you will just as much if not more nutrients as a raw/organic diet its silly. to think that this will replace food all together is nonsense. it is however a very interesting product worth looking into and maybe a move in the right direction.
lets wait to see what the long term effect are
There’s no support for your position, scientifically - once digested, that nutrient soup is pretty much the same whether it comes from raw nuts and leafy greens or if it’s “processed.” The term lacks specificity and doesn’t have the particular broad meaning you seem to apply to it.
Whether or not food is “processed” doesn’t matter, from everything we know about nutrition. Digestion and metabolism go much deeper than that nonspecific appelation. However, you have your opinion, and seem determined to stick to it, despite the wealth of readily available information here on these forums. You are welcome to your opinion, but please keep in mind, in order to give it any credence, we require proof. If you have a specific opinion on the subject, we are more than willing to entertain it, and discuss its merits. If there is science backing your opinion, this community is amazingly able to adapt its views and incorporate honest new information into their worldview.
Your discussion has been had before, but I encourage you to bring your science to the table. A new voice is always welcome, and if they bring good, honest information with reliable science backing it up, all the better. Thanks for bringing it up!
If by processed you meant made in a factory, you would be correct. But then, by that definition, what ISN’T processed now a days? As @jrowe47 said, they have experts in nutrition, metabolism, biology, biochemistry etc. backing this product, who they run their recipe past. If anything is wrong, medically and scientifically, it gets fixed. There is no scientific reason that it can’t replace food all together.
How would you define long term? To the US government, a stock you hold for one year or more gets filed under the ‘long term’ tax bracket. If you agree that one year is long term, Rob has been on a mostly Soylent diet for what, 11 months, almost 12 now? If not a year, then what would you consider long term? You usually get over a cold in a few days, bones typically heal in what, about a month depending on severity of the break? It takes ~9 months from conception to birth of a child.
My point is; if Soylent wasn’t going to work, and was bad for people, Rob would have stopped consuming it already, the myriad of DIY soylent users would have had a more negative feedback warning us off. Most of the negative feedback (if i dare call it that) wasn’t against the product itself, but the individual’s DIY recipe lacking in an ingredient, or having a bad experience with a specific ingredient.
If you, @erikJP, have links to any scientific sources backing up your arguments, the rest of us could review them and dissect them, and provide additional content. So far, the only people who are against Soylent, seem to be nutritionists who haven’t studied the metabolic pathways, and people who don’t know the whole story behind digestion and nutrient absorption (aka. lay people/persons).
This is a good point, and shouldn’t be dismissed as alarmism – different nutrients do affect each other’s absorption rates, etc. And in fact, it has been directly addressed by Rosa Labs, in their choice to bring in professional nutritionists and scientists. As I understand it, Soylent has come a long way from the initial “well, we should need X amount of this, Y amount of this… then we’re good, right?” of Rob’s first kitchen experiment; the complex relationship of different aspects of nutrition are being paid their dues, and there are real experts looking over the components. Hopefully this goes at least a little ways toward addressing concerns of nutritional balance
I’d post a link to the blog post where actual names are discussed, but my internet is being a little odd at the moment, and I can’t load the blog archives.
The researchers, scientists, dietitians, and nutritionists that Soylent employees have a much deepr understanding of what they are doing than you do.
While that may be true, that’s no reason not to question the product. It’s important to bring up issues like the complexity of digestion and dig in. Insights and discovery are not restricted to academia and professionals.
Discussions like this, if @erikJP decides to drive it, can lead to shared discovery of new aspects of nutrition. It’s easy to dismiss, because what he’s saying has been said before, but I think that if he brings a good argument to the table, is well worth our time.
Tbh, I strongly doubt that too many folks really have a comprehensive view of nutrition. Our classical university education favors linear and cause-effect thinking, but nutrition is a complex, non-linear system.
What mankind knows about nutrition is quite crude and often wrong. Just have a look at the vitamin supplements: Hailed for decades, and since 2002 we find out that they actually lead to more cancer! We actually NEED (some) free radicals to suppress cancer! Too bad most nutritionists (?) still sing that old song about the evil free radicals.
But such is the nature of science and doubt is science. If you blindly believe that Soylent has hired the geniuses of the trade than you behave anti-scientific and somewhat naive.
Besiches, where should all these super-competent experts Soylent hired have come from? Have they been hiding in the bushes until summoned or does Soylent have tons of money to hire the best of the best of the best? Surely not. So I assume that Soylent has people that are like all other people: Dedicated, hard-working, in good spirits and with good intentions, yet fallible, linear-thinking and error-prone as we all are.
TL;DR: Things are too complex, to treat them with Excel charts.
You’re mistaken - They have a doctor of endocrinology, a PhD, several biological science baccalaureates, some nutrition science experts, the CEO of CytoSport, and about a dozen more experts in the field. It’s not a matter of a couple guys in a basement somewhere whipping up a spreadsheet of ingredients and shouting “Eureka!”
There’s hard science involved. They’ve got individuals who understand mapping complex metabolic pathways and the effects of different nutrients affecting eachothers uptake. They have people with degrees in nutritional science, with access to all the studies and papers and learning the world has to offer.
I don’t think they hired the geniuses of the trade. I think they are the geniuses of the trade. No other scientists, companies, or individuals out there have offered anything like it. Even the best known meal replacement drink is a toxic mess with no long term nutrition potential and toxic levels of fructose as their primary carb source.
Sry, but I got a PhD myself and I know they all cook with water. Lots of PhD-holders in you-name-it told us that Vitamin supplements are good and reduce cancer (in fact, this was pushed by the Pauli himself, double unshared winner of the Nobel prize in two seperate disciplines … you don’t get much fatter than that).
And doctors/scientists have pushed the nutrition pyramid, which is utter BS.
In fact, all science that is later proven wrong was done by PhDs and experts. You should not trust them too much, they are subject to trends and fashion and errors.
So while I have great respect for the people working at this (I do!), I do believe nutrition to be far more complex than just mixing together ingredients that have been tested in /ceteris-paribus/-studies (= linear, cause-effect, non-complex).
But I am eager to give it a shot and see, what happens. But if anyone here thinks that there could be one food to feed them all, he will most likely be wrong. There is not one medicine to cure them all from a given illness (race-targeted medicine being the latest hype), there is not one training method to strenghten them all (different people react differently to different training regimes), there is not one song to soothe them all.
To paraphrase Life of Brian: We are all individuals, but me. I am not.