Steve Gibson & Leo Laporte Discuss Leo's Trial of Soylent 2.0


#1

Embedded YouTube clip (if the embedding doesn’t work, try this link and fast forward to 48m45s)

It’s unfortunate that Steve has not researched the product much more than @rob 's initial video, and all that was really achieved was spreading FUD. Still, I suppose there’s hope eventually he might read some of the informed discussion on this site, as he is a reasonably intelligent man.


#2

No poop? I must be doing it wrong…

Sigh…

  1. All these commentators who assume the goal is 100% food replacement need a smack on the side of the head.
  2. All these commentators who assume the crap the average American eats is supplying more essential nutrients than Soylent need a smack on the side of the head.

#3

Steve seems to have faith (despite his “decade of research”) that there is some nutrient X in non-Soylent food that “we have no idea about.” He even seems to imply that a dog can’t live on dog food alone for the same reason. :neutral_face: Leo seems more amenable to the idea, at least.


#4

really the problem is defining what “average American” means.

I used to eat chicken nuggets, fries, bbq, and burgers almost exclusively because I only eat what I like…I am a picky eater. People have their own definitions of what average means…


#5

There are differences for individuals of course, but you can tell what a national/local population eats by what food gets bought from there. That’s how epidemiologists determine what large scale population diets are like. Some americans eat like this and some like that, but you can tell the average by the total foodstuffs that get bought in america. That’s the difference between average and median, median is actually one of the data points in the middle, average is the whole data set being added up and divided to create a number that’s not actually one of the original data points.


#6

I can’t believe this guy is still around.

http://attrition.org/errata/charlatan/steve_gibson/

Have no idea if he’s changed or learned anything since the early 00’s, but I’ve never taken him seriously. Maybe he’s grown?


#7

Ok, perhaps a poor choice of words on my part.

And you think that’s more nutritionally complete than Soylent? This is exactly my point… Many people (myself included) didn’t eat the nutritionally balanced, healthy, fresh, unprocessed diet that guys like this assume we are (and are thus missing some important nutrient while consuming Soylent.)

I seriously doubt my previous (mostly Mexican food) diet was more complete than Soylent.


#8

I pretty much listen to his show each week, which i find to be a good round up of the weeks security related news. sure sometimes his take on things is a little edgy and controversial, but in general he seems to know what he’s talking about. Occasionally he gets something a little wrong (don’t we all) but is always quick to correct himself.

When it comes to nutrition, he has spent a lot of time researching it, mainly for his own health. if you want to know where he’s coming from, if you have the time, here are a few links that might be worth listening to.

The Sugar Hill Part 1

The Sugar Hill Part 2

The Sugar Hill Part 3


#9

Thanks. No offense, but I won’t be reading anything from Steve. I spent way too much time arguing with idiots about raw sockets. I have no intention of ever patronizing that guy. I hope he has improved since then, but that ship has sailed for me.


#10

I am interested in the topic… But don’t really have time or bandwidth to stream 3 hours of this… Could you summarize “Sugar Hill?”

I’m guessing the usual insulin response stuff and the dangers of sugars and refined carbs (which I’ve read plenty about). Just curious if they have any new take on it?


#11

There is a limitation to that though: Many of us buy healthy food and it just sits in the refrigerator rotting.


#12

That food isn’t for eating. People buy it so that the grocery store cashiers won’t judge them. I’ll never again make the mistake of buying just ramen at a grocery store(my favorite brand was producing a new version I didn’t like so I wanted to stock up on what was left of the old version; I don’t eat ramen often.)


#13

That’s what I’m using Soylent for. I think a lot of other people are too.


#14

Summary from Gibson’s Web site:

[quote] Choose to NEVER eat calorie-dense carbohydrate… any form of rice, any form of
corn, any form of potato, and anything made from wheat: bread, donuts, cookies, crackers, chips, pretzels, and everything else. In other words, any grain- or starch-based food.[/QUOTE]

Basically, demonize all carbs.


#15

Sorry, wasn’t meaning to imply there was anything wrong with 100%… I’m 85-90%… but doesn’t the data show many more or 25%-75%?


#16

Basically, demonize all carbs.
[/quote]

mmmmmmmmmm… Donuts.


#17

The data we have is flawed, it only comes from polls posted on this forum so there’s a strong selection bias and small n. However, it does show 35% of respondents use Soylent for 75-100% of their meals. With the release of 2.0, honestly I expect that number to go up. The powder was something you put up with because of all the advantages, the liquid is a real pleasure to drink.


#18

True… but that could work both ways. There may be many out there who just take Soylent for breakfast or lunch at work… who never mix a full 2000kcal batch. These people see it as a convenience and may not be hard core enough (like you or me) to hang out on this discourse… (They may also be a key target demographic for 2.0)


#19

Yes I was agreeing with you. I was merely stating that “average” is a very subjective word (in fact in mathematics it average could be: mean, median, mode) and that the commentors that you were talking about mostly are referring to people who are not picky eaters and actually try to eat healthy.

Remember people tend to live near people who live in similar socioeconomic situations, neighborhoods are for all intents and purposes divided by income levels for the most part. So therefore they think that the average person eats moderately healthy, when in fact most eat extremely unhealthy.