link to the study:
Link to an article summing it up:
link to the study:
Link to an article summing it up:
From the summary (link1):
They conclude that most mineral and vitamin supplements have no clear benefit, might even be harmful in well-nourished adults, and should not be used for chronic disease prevention.
Those supplements are harmful due to overdosage, especially of Vitamin E and Beta Carotene. Above proper nutrition, there is no additional benefit.
From The Summary article (link2):
Most supplements do not prevent chronic disease or death, their use is not justified,
They criticize the false promises made by the supplement companies. Evil Marketing! Behold, even with Soylent V10.0, you will die eventually:
The message holds especially true for most supplement users in Canada, the U.S. and other developed countries who show no evidence of vitamin deficiencies, Appel said.
What do they recommend?
Appel suggested that rather than spending money on vitamin supplements, people should:
Eat more fruits and vegetables.
Reduce how much trans fat, saturated fat and sodium they eat.
Cut back on calories.
Increase physical activity.
Activity, proper calories, no crap added, all Nutrients in proper dosage. Soylent currently is state of the Art. But not better then a sophisticated fresh vegetable balanced diet. Just more convenient.
That is likely, but not at all settled.
I just meant, that you shouldn’t expect giant leaps in health, compared to a “good” standard diet. But the title of the Thread suggested exactly this.
Watch Soylent v10.0 end up making people immortal, proving you wrong!
This is in reference to use of vitamin supplements to combat chronic disease. This is not new news; we’ve known for a while that vitamins do not necessarily help with chronic disease. But there are still some people who think that vitamin megadoses can be a cure-all. I’m specifically thinking of the people who still think Linus Pauling was right about vitamin C.
That said, we know that lack of vitamins and minerals can cause some diseases or conditions, e.g. scurvy, rickets, pellagra, goiter, etc. We know that vegans have to be especially careful to get enough B12 because if they don’t, they get sick. Basically, we know that vitamins and minerals are required in our diet. They are required.
Yup, that study makes no sense whatsoever within the context of hundreds of other studies affirming the necessity of all vitamins and minerals this study shits on.
It’s probably meant for clueless Americans who buy supplements next to their already adequate food intake.
:trollface: Profanity, and attacking the very culture that produced the makers of Soylent. And probably every piece of hardware and software he’s using to communicate on this forum. I love big picture thinkers!
Also, this study was in the context of adults who already get their RDA of micros. The study’s conclusion is simple and without prejudice against any particular groups: going above and beyond the RDA through supplementation has no clear benefits, especially in the context of disease prevention.
Oh leave the poor kid alone, he is just upset that Soylent isn’t being shipped outside the US yet.
Did the study say how much over taking the supplements would put their testers?
or turn you into something like a Super Saiyan or Hulk
Quit replying. It’s quite clear s/he’s here to troll, we’re all just making it worse by engaging.
The article is a journal editorial, not a research paper, and it’s a summary of meta-analyses, I guess you could call it a meta^2-analysis. Without looking into the individual analyses being aggregated, let’s see…
2 different papers:
Adherence to the intervention was high
The trial was limited by high rates of nonadherence and dropouts.
Interesting variance in participant behavior! How researchers get noncompliance numbers, or even manage noncompliance, is an interesting question.
Ultimately I think the summary is not very useful when it isn’t specific about what supplements and how much - are we looking at apples and oranges? Savvy readers have to look into what they were summarizing to figure out if this makes sense.
I’m not even certain that this is a study that really hits the range of what soylent aims to do.
It seems that taking a multivitamin does not prevent cancer, heart disease, or other chronic illnesses. That is the premise of the article. And of course not, vitamin deficiencies have nothing to do with those diseases - which are caused by high sodium, saturated fat, and simple carbohydrate based diets as mentioned in the article. Adding more crap on top of an already crap diet doesn’t make it less crappy. (elegant, I know)
Soylent is trying to replace the pre-existing crap with better crap, thereby making it less crappy. That is, it seeks to use less sodium, better fats, and better carbs to provide a nutritionally complete diet that doesn’t taste awful. Makes sense?
(off topic) An interesting side note, I’ve known more than a few people who think that taking a multivitamin provides moral licensing to eat anything they want. It will be interesting to see if partial-soylent diets give people license to just eat even worse food outside of soylent.
looks around shiftly [quote=“Bgleaso1, post:15, topic:10505, full:true”] It will be interesting to see if partial-soylent diets give people license to just eat even worse food outside of soylent.
looks around shiftily
I do 2/3 meal replacement, and I’ve felt more pressure to stay on target for that third meal. Based on my weight loss, though, it seems like I tend to burn about 2300 calories per day. Now that I’ve lost a significant amount of weight, that 500 calorie deficit has started to turn into a 500 calorie cheese, beer and junk food budget.
I have this sense that I’m still being perfectly healthy because I’m getting the vitamins I need from the rest of it… but you never know