[Official] Introducing Soylent 1.1


#141

Don’t let the pretentious anti-science foodies win! Stick to sucralose. The day that Soylent switches to “organic honey” or another of the suggestions of this community, I think we can officially declare this project a failure.

But speaking of pretentious foodies, any chance we’ll see those price points dropping? As an “engineering solution” to food, it’s not very cost-effective at the moment, unless compared to eating out every day or buying all-organic or other such nonsense.

I also feel like there’s likely a correlation between the current premium price point and the number of community members decrying the use of sucralose. Right now anti-science organic food nonsense is extremely popular with the upper-middle-to-upper classes! Broadening your base might just find you people more inclined to look at food realistically as opposed to romantically.


#142

Look at the studies mentioned in article and refute the studies if they are found lacking.


#143

Its all black and white to you isnt it. So when somebody says something against GMO or asks to decrease any other ingredients, it automatically means organic to you?


#144

@asympt and @david_rahrer, a) the reason i posted here is because this seems to be the most active, and b) i did not find the threads/discussions about these topics (GMO). I posted on other threads too about other things i wanted to talk about, just saying…

Edit…looks like a new thread has been created about problems. I will take these topics over there.


#145

‘‘There’s no evidence that phytoestrogens act like estrogens in the body at all,’’ ??

Phytoestrogens are present in numerous dietary supplements and widely marketed as a natural alternative to estrogen replacement therapy http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3074428/


#146

http://discourse.soylent.me/t/gmo-foods-cause-cancer-stomach-inflammation-and-more/4056


#147

If you actually read that meta-analysis, you’ll see that while they modulate the body’s estrogen, they don’t act in the same manner as human estrogen. Taking in a lot of phytoestrogens does not result in an estrogen overdose or contribute to the “feminization” (seriously, it blows my mind that you even said this) of human males.

That all said, considering Japan is known for having some of the longest lifespans in the world, doesn’t have an obesity epidemic, and is one of the most high tech societies on the planet, and they consume a tonne of soy, I’m really not too concerned.


#148

i never implied they act in the exact same manner as estrogen. I was implying estrogenic effects. Also i didnt talk about estrogen ‘overdose’ did i? And the more soy is consumed the more estrogenic effects. Dont put words in my mouth.

Japanese also take in a lot of green tea, all kinds of fish, etc so how can we say they are healthy only because of soy?


#149

Rob once wrote an article with a section discussing GMO foods. You can find it here: http://robrhinehart.com/?p=572 Here is an excerpt:

Genetically modified foods are of course heavily regulated by the USDA and FDA and are completely safe. In fact, controlling the evolution of a food is likely much safer than trusting it to evolve on its own, which could produce any number of toxins or allergens.

If Rob is actually still in charge of the whole Soylent thing, I would not get my hopes up on ever seeing a version of Soylent without GMOs. (Also, notice in that article, it mentions that many GMOs actually improve the nutritional value of the food. So, using GMOs may actually be increasing the quality of Soylent.)

Also, serious research aside, do you know how much soy the typical Japanese person consumes? If soy products had enough estrogen mimicking substances to cause “feminization,” we would have strong scientific proof of it (there would be no room for controversy). Phytoestrogens are called that because of chemical similarities to estrogen, not because they mimic the hormone in the human body (in fact, according to the first paragraph on the subject on Wikipedia, many phytoestrogens bind to estrogen receptors, blocking estrogen and causing antiestrogenic effects). There is some evidence that some phytoestrogens can weakly mimic estrogen, but so far there is no evidence that this has any significant impact on humans (though, there may be a reason for concern in male infants, who may be more susceptible ). Also, might I suggest looking at the Wikipedia page on this subject, under the subheading “Males.” It cites three sources discussing research that has shown that phytoestrogens have no feminizing effects on male humans. (There is no conclusive research on females. Some studies have shown an effect protecting against breast cancer, but some in vitro studies show that there might be an extremely small risk of causing cancer, at least in the presence of other chemicals commonly used in in vitro studies. Note that none of these studies have tested with the very small amounts normally consumed by humans, even in Soylent, and Japanese people, who consume far more soy than nearly anyone else, have a much lower cancer rate than Americans.)

As far as bioavailable nutrients go, I am with you on that one.

Note that for many people, price is a major factor. Perhaps the highest value application of Soylent is in providing decent nutrition to the poor. Few poor people can afford healthy food, even on food stamps (in a large degree because the government makes poor people spend absurd amounts of time jumping through hoops to keep their welfare benefits). If you have several hours a day to prepare food from scratch, it is possible to get food costs down to $1.00 a person per meal, and less in some areas. Some people can afford to pay extra for prepared foods, but Soylent is not designed to be a great tasting prepared food alternative. It is supposed to be a cheap food replaces that reduces labor and cost. Soylent is not designed to be a luxury food, and it is certainly not designed to avoid all of the substances that are common targets of scare tactics. It is nice to see the reduction in sucralose, though there is no evidence that it is harmful to most people. Note that the point was not to reduce something that is potentially harmful, but rather to alter the flavor. Without real evidence that GMOs are harmful though, I do not expect the recipe to be changed just because a few people are afraid of them. Likewise with the phytoestrogens. As some people mentioned earlier in this thread, the composition of Soylent is based on science and research. If the recipe was altered every time someone wanted a change that is based on fear or personal preference instead of scientific evidence, it would quickly become very unhealthy and extremely expensive.


#150

Like i already said japanese drink a lot of green tea, eat a lot of fish, also more vegetables, smoke less etc…all of these play a role in low cancer rates. Dont cite japanese or any other populations because a lot of things are different in the diet of different populations.


#151

I believe the point was that if the phytoestrogens had a strong effect, it would be noticeable, even with the noise of their other healthy habits. The fact that those healthy habits overshadow any possible effects of phytoestrogens is a good sign to me, that its not significant enough to be a concern.


#152

Every time I have researched GMOs, I find plenty of studies about their harmful effects, and nearly every one concludes that there are none. I have found a single instance of a confirmed harmful effect from a GMO. I think it was a specific variety of GMO corn, and it contained a toxic chemical, which may or may not have been introduced due to the genetic modifications (sufficient selective breeding or a badly timed natural mutation can cause the same thing, and this may even be more likely than with deliberate genetic alterations). It got into public circulation as a result of poor testing, and the FDA hammered the company responsible. Note that to date, this seems to be the only known instance where genetic modification might have caused toxicity. I have not found any other evidence of testing that showed that a normally non-toxic food product had become toxic as a result of deliberate genetic modifications.

In case anyone thinks that GMO somehow adds something harmful to the food, let me explain something: Genetic modification of food has been happening for millienia. Even before humans existed, foods evolved through a natural process of genetic modification. Since humans have started agriculture, selective breeding has been the primary source of genetic modification in foods, and most modern food plants (and domesticated animals) barely even resemble the original plants that ancient humans started with. Deliberate genetic modification is nothing more than a more deliberate and focused way of altering the properties of our food. There is a very small risk that we could cause side effects that are harmful, but as I mentioned, only one instance has been found in thousands or millions of genetically modified products. In that case, even marginally responsible testing would have prevented it from ever reaching the public. Since that incident, the FDA has been extremely vigilant about making sure complete testing is done. GMOs receive perhaps more extreme rigor in regulation than any evidence justifies. In fact, I would hazard a guess that GMOs are so well tested that they are probably safer than non-GMO and even organic alternatives. (Which have gone through entirely unregulated and untested genetic changes.)


#153

The only one of those studies that even claims to have evidence for an actual causal relationship is #3. All the rest are either “we can detect bits of what you eat in various parts of your body (but have no evidence that it has any effect let alone a harmful one)” or “we found a correlation between a thing and a bad thing and we want to make you think that correlation = causation so that you will read/fund/click on our stuff”

One study about gluten sensitivity wouldn’t convince me or many scientifically literate people here even if it were a well-done study, compared to the hundreds of other studies finding no harmful effects. However, it’s not even a well-done study. They haven’t addressed whether you find more, equal, or less variance in gluten sensitivity triggering with a range of strains of conventional crops compared to a range of strains of GMO. i.e. they haven’t established if it is simply that different strains of crops (whether achieved through conventional breeding or not) have different levels of triggering, or if it is something specific to GMO strains.

I’m not trying to pick on you. I’d genuinely like to know what all the “GMOs are bad” fuss is about. But the studies in that article are either bad studies, or good studies that are making much MUCH weaker claims than what the article is trying to imply.


#154

Who’s putting words in whose mouth?


#155

I prefer “Horse Killing Farts” as one of the guys from The Verge or wherever reported after trying one of the early versions for a week :slight_smile:


#156

$2.89 per meal is pretty cheap to me (($250 for a month/31 days)/3 meals a day) although it does sound like a lot initially, but think about how much you spend at the supermarket every week/few weeks/month, guaranteed it’s about $300 or more.

I agree that all this non-GMO, hoity-toity BS is a little ridiculous. They’re not going to be able to please everyone, so I say make it for the majority as someone mentioned above, for those that want Vegan/Non-GMO/Organic/Natural they should just make it themselves since they’re clearly the minority.


#157

Well, obviously $255 is for 28 days.
Not $250 for 31 days.


#158

I was just going off of what I remembered from the Kickstarter page. Kind of dumb that a “months” supply is 28 days considering only 1/12 of the year only has 28 days, 30 days would make more sense. Changing that around upped the price a whopping 15 cents, up to $3.04 a meal. You can’t even get (most) fast food that cheap!


#159

Devil’s advocate mode on.

  1. Difference is 35 cents per meal to be exact.
  2. 3/48 of the month in year has only 28 days, not 1/12
    Devil’s advocate mode off.

As I remember logic from 28 days: it’s 4 weeks. So people with subscription will receive 13 shipments of 52 weeks worth of Soylent, covering whole year evenly.
I think it’s pretty simple and fair to people who will start their month in February in contrast with March, but still happened to pay the same for different amount of Soylent.


#160

What? How do you get the difference to be 35 cents? Also what are you talking about 3/48 months in the year? There are only 12 months in a year, one of which (February) has 28 days, all the rest have either 30 or 31 days. I see where you’re getting the 13 shipments over 52 weeks though.