Personalized soylent


#1

According to Ayurveda only one kind of nutrition does not fit all.
The food recommended for those suffering from Vata/Pitta/Kapha imbalance varies, not only in terms of ingredients but also finer details like temperature which affects the metabolic rate.
I doubt that prolonged consumption of the same formula will result in convergence of the dosha makeup of several different people because food is not the sole driving force in a person’s dosha makeup.
Furthermore, the nutritional needs of a top 10 tennis player like David Ferrer differ from those of a top chess
player with ELO of 2800+ who rarely exercises his body, or a dimwit who doesn’t exercise much of anything.

Therefore in my opinion the future of soylent is to take into account a person’s existing cell makeup and production of personalized nutrition. A person’s blood composition or even the DNA structure may need to be taken into consideration.
If that is too ambitious at a minimum soylent production could be geared for the person’s dosha mix.
This is what will separate a leader in this new engineered food sector from imitators and those who bite the dust, in the not so distant future.


#2

For sure individualized Soylent would be the ultimate goal but also for sure we’re at least decades away from having the knowledge and technology to figure that out. At this point we don’t even know what various hundreds of chemicals in fruits and vegetables do on a population level, much less on the much harder to determine individual level.

And I’m pretty sure Soylent isn’t going to start using Ayurveda or any other thousands of year old medicine systems anytime soon.


#3

Decades away?
I saw on these forums a reference to a site that aims to do something similar.
The big drawback of their offering is that the nutrient mix is left up to the user to define.
As for me, I have no idea what nutrient mix is right for me and how to change it over time.
This is a R&D intensive area where a well funded company can make strides and leave
competitors behind.


#4

I hope you’re right but it’s my impression that it’s more complicated than that. I mean, figuring out what is the optimal kind of food for every different individual genome, and not only that but also for each genome in its particular environment with its particular lifestyle? So if we’ve figured it out for you for today and then tomorrow you change jobs that result in you getting less exercise and then we have to figure out anew your optimal diet?

Maybe I’m being overly perfectionist about this. If we can figure out “These people have these handful of genes so they need more magnesium whereas those people have something else so they need less iron” then that’s helpful and a step but the ultimate goal of figuring out what every single gene does is a ways off.


#5

Kinda relevant; worth keeping an eye on:

http://nusi.org/


#6

RL’s Soylent is based on science; if you want a soylent-type food based on Ayurveda, you’ll probably need to find a different maker.


#7

Really?
Ayurveda was not the emphasis of my original feedback.
I’m a whitey guy who doesn’t blindly believe in Ayurveda, in fact I disagree with the use of ghee (clarified butter) as food (in modern times) which is advocated by Ayurveda. But you can’t dismiss thousands of years of accumulated knowledge as pseudo science.

The notion that 1 nutritional formula fits all types of people is rather preposterous and is redolent of quackery rather than science. Even so I’m getting my first soylent 1.4 shipment this week and will put it to a test.


#8

If Ayurveda wasn’t the emphasis, it might have helped if your example didn’t bring up dosha three times. You do suggest that, “at a minimum soylent production could be geared for the person’s dosha mix.”

When you start a thread with, “According to Ayurveda…” I don’t think it unreasonable for responders to respond to that. :smiley:

You might want to check and contribute to Choose-able Versions of Soylent You’d Like To See, it shares the concept of more “personalized” versions. I think everyone agrees that one set of nutrients is not perfect for every individual.


#9

I’ve heard of an initiative like that but I don’t think it was that organization. The fact that nutrition science is rather badly done has been an open secret for a very long time. “Eggs are perfect food”, “No, eggs are the equivalent of smoking”.

I’m looking forward to whatever NUSI can find out. They make an important point about comparing the stats from the 70s and now. I lived in the 70s and they weren’t a haven of good habits and virtuous lifestyles. And yet, it’s true that obesity was comparatively rare. Even the “fat kid” didn’t usually have the dimensions that are common today.

I have my own thoughts. Food that has been fed growth hormones and antibiotics. Work that involves sitting in one place all the time (not even going to the file room because all that is on one’s terminal). A degree of temperature controlled environments that we didn’t really have in the 70s. But those are just opinions. Real research is overdue.

But it will be tough. For one thing, the research involves finding subjects that are happy to have their food intake controlled and/or measured. And having their output analyzed and measured.

Eve


#10

Traditional knowledge that has been confirmed by the scientific method is called “science”. And when it is, I’m certain RL will take it into account.


#11

I would bet that even ayurvedic practioners wouldnt consider this quackery.


#12

More often than not that is usually a safe bet. Note that even if something is correct, that doesn’t mean it isn’t pseudo science.