Looks like a blog for a class project that a student is doing at Penn State: “Revisiting Soylent”
In my first blog I came to the conclusion that Soylent was not for me, and that it shouldn’t really be for anyone, but at this point I don’t really know. Seeing more legitimate tests done would help me more accurately determine which side of the Soylent debate I take.
What is the Soylent debate? Sounds spooky.
quitting food cold turkey is very difficult for people and that is what Soylent suggests we do
Actually for the past while, Soylent has recommended not completely replacing all your nutrition with Soylent.
An experiment I’d like to see done with Soylent is to test the contrast of men and women. Two groups of men, two groups of women, one group of men is a control, they can eat whatever they please, the other drinks Soylent strictly for every meal, and same with the two groups of women.
Wouldn’t this be the same as simply having a mixed group of men and women, and then separating the men’s and women’s results at the end? Why the need to create separate men’s and women’s groups? In fact, why even the need for a control group? If the control group is simply eating normal food, then doesn’t that apply to basically every normal person? Ask a person off the street how they feel, and that’s your control group.
You can’t draw conclusions based on a sample size of 2! (-___-)
Of course you can!
I talked to two people about peanuts today.
One of them was allergic to peanuts.
I concluded that half of the human race is allergic to peanuts!
Why does everyone think you need to go 100% soylent instead of say… breakfast and lunch, and a more normal dinner.
Why do people assume there are only two sides to every issue?
The right side and the wrong side?
You see everything in black and white.