I recently watched this that has scholarly sources backing it up:
Firstly, I think the way isomaltulose was painted as if it is glucose or fructose in disguise is disingenuous, especially given he called it a “masterful marketing technique.” The base components of something are not all that matters. How they are processed by the body are and the resultant health effects are what matters.
It’s a disaccharide meaning your body needs to expend energy and time to break it down (slow releasing) so it is not the same as taking raw glucose. If they had put glucose and fructose on the package it would have been a lie since a product with isomaltulose vs just straight up glucose/fructose would have entirely different effects on your health. This rebuttal of mine is correct?
But let’s move onto Canola Oil.
This is from his cited 1993 study: “Our data indicate that when an oil high in monounsaturated fatty acids, such as canola oil, is incorporated into the die.” i.e. It’s the erucic acid in Canola Oil that is the problem and that has been identified for the shortened lifespan of pigs and mice in studies since the 70s. Many studies on rats tried to extrapolate the findings to humans, except humans digest erucic acid (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1277456/). We’re able to cope with much higher concentrations with little or no ill effect (much higher does not mean it cant kill us in significant amounts though). That and modern seeds used for consumer grade rapeseed oil (i.e. canola oil) have very low levels of erucic acid anyway (0.4-4% which I think varies by state in the US).
Also from the study cited “The purpose of the current study was to assess the effects of consuming oils relatively high in monounsaturated or polyunsaturated fatty acids as part of anNCEP Step 2 diet” and if I’m reading this right the study used canola oild with 10-15% erucic acid. This then isn’t even available on the market anymore if that is the case precisely because of studies like the one cited in the video. So the entire point on Canola Oil appears moot. If the nutrient profile is ok and it plays well with the other ingredients during digestion then there’s no need to fear canola oil being as high as it is in Soylent. And the point may well be doubly-moot because Soylent doesn’t even have that much canola oil since most of it is actually algal oil… and then it dawned on me. And here my confusion begins.
Algal oil was replaced with high oleic oil, meaning oil high in monounsaturated fat meaning… oil high in erucic acid?
Anyway, this seems to suggest my rebuttal that oil is no longer high in erucic acid may be moot since the study the video cites only mentions monounsaturated fats. Erucic acid isn’t the only MUFA so the fact that Soylent explicitly uses high oleic oil seems the study is indeed directly relevant to Soylent. So I’m back to square one and have basically run in a circle to nowhere and now figure I’d get community input.
I have yet to read into the Malodextrin study mentioned in the video.