Mastication and Glycemic Index - A plea for crunchy bars


#1

I found this article with links to some interesting papers:

tl;dr version:

  1. Chewing is somehow connected with memory, and not chewing causes decreased memory performance. Soylent has no chewing; therefore a diet solely of Soylent could lead to decreased memory performance.
  2. Soylent is so finely powdered that it hits the body all at once, instead of being absorbed slowly. Thus it has a relatively high glycemic load. So Soylent consumption could lead to type 2 diabetes.

Not mentioned (probably because the article’s author didn’t buy Soylent) is how hard the powder is to measure out; I often end up making Soylent clouds, which in the worst case could make a dust explosion.

I’m not qualified to judge these claims, but it would be nice to a crunchy-bar form of Soylent, both for convenience in measuring (i.e. - no measurement needed) and these possible health reasons.


#2

correlation does not imply causation :slight_smile:

That is in regard to the study about chewing.


#3

Soylent has a high fiber content which lowers it’s glycemic load. And people with a normal insulin response have recorded the effects of Soylent and found nothing abnormal.

The chewing thing is old, and was responded to by the community a while back, but I don’t know what the topic was, off hand. Regardless, many Soylenters chew gum or eat normal food on the side, which turns the chewing thing a non-issue regardless.


#4

Not to mention that the chewing study was an animal study. Humans have a lot more sources of mental stimulation than chewing.


#5

I just use http://www.lumosity.com/
I are smarter just for sharing the link! ( :stuck_out_tongue: )


#6

Real Clear Science is not a proper science journal. The “Real Clear” brand is the umbrella for a partisan-right news aggregator; they started out as Real Clear Politics and expanded from there. I don’t consider it a credible primary source for hard science.


#7

The article from Real Clear Science referred to scientists who “poured through” stacks of info. No. they didn’t. To intensely go through is to “pore” not to pour like a river would.


#8

Perhaps they were using the research papers to filter their coffee?


#9

70% of posts on discourse:

OP: article about something vaguely related to soylent
PROBLEM WITH SOYLENT

Responder 1: article is bad because logic
r2: article is bad because source
r3: already been discussed on discourse (thinly veiled annoyance)
r4: posts totally ridiculous quote from article
r5: jokes
r6-100: more jokes.

optional second ending:
r6-100: extremely passionate argument, possible death threats. “religion of food” is mentioned.


#10

That “mastication” stuff will make you go blind.


#11

This sounds about right. My first response is also related to “already been discussed on discourse”. Where my response is basically the conclusion of our discussion.


#12

The nerve…the unmitigated gall of attempting to help by linking to a topic that is similar to the one being discussed. You sir are sure to receive many death threats for this.
Now that I’ve shared this joking/sarcastic post do I get some death threats too?