• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

The Verge editor subsists on nothing but a nutritional shake for one month

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jesus, no cholesterol? They're not worried about long term health, are they?



Why wasn't that guy at the "plant" wearing a beard net? I wouldn't drink this stuff because they don't run a clean facility.

because the plant is a warehouse full of rats, the product they buy to make the mix comes from amazon.com
 
The social and pleasurable aspects of eating are why I think that, in places like the US, something like this might eventually come to substitute one or two meals out of the day, but not all three.

Is there much in any of these reviews or studies about weight loss, gain, or maintenance?
 

Casimir

Unconfirmed Member
The social and pleasurable aspects of eating are why I think that, in places like the US, something like this might eventually come to substitute one or two meals out of the day, but not all three.

Is there much in any of these reviews or studies about weight loss, gain, or maintenance?

I use a protein shake designed for patients to augment my regular food intake in order to keep my weight in check. Mostly because I often don't have time to go to the gym regularly and I don't really intend to limit myself to a health conscious diet. This is all under medical supervision though. It tastes like generic powdered chocolate milk. I have no complaints.
 
Another blogger whining about how a nutritional drink made them feel lonely for a month. I feel like most of the people who complain or wax poetic about the social implications of soylent are really missing the point. It's a cheap, easy to prepare source of all your necessary nutrition. Simple as that.
 
Are there any existing meal replacement products that don't cost a ton and aren't all sugar?

I'd love to drink something easily prepared for breakfasts daily that's healthy and cheap.

I usually use plain lowfat Greek yogurt with milk and just a small amount of raspberry jam or honey for flavor but I hate having to wash the blender.
 
D

Deleted member 17706

Unconfirmed Member
Jesus, no cholesterol? They're not worried about long term health, are they?

I'm sure they think that they've figured out exactly what they need for optimal health. The creator even admitted to only having a rudimentary understanding of nutrition.
 
On the scale that we are today? I don't think that is true.

The only reason westernized societies continue to exist in the way it does today is because modern medicine allows people to stay alive despite a barrage of horrible illnesses.

We also never had populations of this size. Maybe that's the only issue and the frequency of the diseases hasn't gone up. Well except diabetes, but I don't think soylent would cause that.
 

pj

Banned
Glucerna brand has low sugar and has a carb mix that doesn't spike blood sugar levels as much since it is made for diabetics. Very few people are going to use Soylent as a complete meal replacement, so that's why I'm offering suggestions that can be found almost anywhere right now.

Glucerna provides 1/10 of your daily caloric intake and costs about $1.50 a bottle on amazon.

Most people won't be eating nothing but soylent, but a lot will be using it to replace 1 or 2 complete meals during the day. I personally intend on replacing breakfast and lunch with soylent. To do that with glucerna I'd have to drink 6 bottles at a cost of $9. If you are looking for a relatively healthy mid day snack then I'd say go for Glucerna. For full meals it makes no sense.


Zefah said:
Eh... compare the ingredients in Soylent and Slimfast. There's quite a bit of overlap.

The first ingredient of slim fast is sugar

http://www.amazon.com/dp/B0008IVPB2/?tag=neogaf0e-20
 
If you created a super wonder powder that can replace all food, why would you ever name it after something in a movie infamous for being made of people?
 

J-Rzez

Member
They need to take a few different routes for this.

1. As a food replacement for starving, poor nations

2. Another version which is targeted for weight loss

3. A "on the go" supplement.

2 and 3 have been done, but they need to actually improve on these significantly.


Right now, it's too costly. Sure, things are different where you live, but for an example I just got back from the grocery store with my fiance and our bill was $115, which will last us nearly two weeks, had some snacks, and some misc items like foil and toiletries.

Also, I'm concerned about where they're getting the "nutrients" from. Heavily processed/chemical compositions? Not sure I'm about that.
 
D

Deleted member 17706

Unconfirmed Member

And the first ingredient of Soylent is Maltodextrin, which I absolutely would not want to consume unless I'm purposefully trying to trigger a massive release of insulin after a huge glycogen depleting workout or something. I absolutely would not want to consume it multiple times per day on a regular basis.

I certainly wasn't defending Slim Fast as some kind of health food. I just think it has a lot in common with Soylent.

We also never had populations of this size. Maybe that's the only issue and the frequency of the diseases hasn't gone up. Well except diabetes, but I don't think soylent would cause that.

I don't think there's very much reason to think that the size of the population is the causative factor. The percentages of the "disease of civilization" I mentioned have skyrocketed. You see them pop up time and time again over history as populations westernize and begin consuming large amounts of sugar, flour, and other processed goods.

I also do not see why Soylent would *not* lead one down the path towards diabetes. It's extremely high in carbohydrate and its primary ingredient is one of the most insulinogenic foods available.
 

Laekon

Member
I have nothing to back this up but I feel that you couldn't really survive long term with out a lot of the unknowns in regular food. There is bacteria and mold on vegetables that are probably necessary for our long term survival. Plus other macro nutrients that don't really work after being turned into a powder. I don't think we know nearly as much as we think we do when it comes to what our bodies really use.

If this is just for every once in awhile then there is no reason to talk about this crap. There are already tons of meal replacements and the 100% daily nutritional part doesn't matter if you are eating other things for the majority of your calories.
 
I would be paranoid that it has some long-term health consequences that weren't foreseen. Also I can eat real food for less than $10 a day.

Still cool, though.
 

Zona

Member
Dislike of eating is a sign of depression.

Well I will admit to suffering that affliction I will testify that food has never been an important park of my life. It's nice on occasion as a treat, sushi BBQ etc., and as a social activity, but outside of those contexts its not something that means much to me personally. Flavor is nice but I lack the passion for it I have for say books.

That's only thanks to modern medicine's ability to keep people alive with treatment and drugs.

Or do you think that all of these folks with diabetes, heart disease and cancer would be doing just fine on their own?

The second part of that is exactly my point. Without modern medicine and knowledge all those people would have died young. Yes there's a lot of pop science health advice that's useless but I'll take a peer reviewed study by the AMA over "100K years" of human eating habits any day.
 

A Fish Aficionado

I am going to make it through this year if it kills me
Whe second part of that is exactly my point. Without modern medicine and knowledge all those people would have died young. Yes there's a lot of pop science health advice that's useless but I'll take a peer reviewed study by the AMA over "100K years" of human eating habits any day.
So you wouldn't eat ruby red grapefruit? Or use IV nutrition if you were in the hospital? That's a recent invention. It's the flawed argument of antiquity, plus the natural fallacy.
 

Zona

Member
So you wouldn't eat ruby red grapefruit? That's a recent invention. It's the flawed argument of antiquity, plus the natural fallacy

I have likely expressed my views poorly. I'm arguing against the nature fallacy, and by extension argument of antiquity. Personally I'd eat a vat grown steak if the research said it was safe and it tasted right.
 

A Fish Aficionado

I am going to make it through this year if it kills me
I have likely expressed my views poorly. I'm arguing against the nature fallacy, and by extension argument of antiquity. Personally I'd eat a vat grown steak if the research said it was safe and it tasted right.

Ah, cool.

When people say that nutrition hasn't gotten better over time, they're crazy. It's not just modern medicine, but modern agriculture that has allowed us this insane production of food. That has also created fast and junk food, and it has nothing to do with nutrition labels or advice. People ignore those things.
 

wenis

Registered for GAF on September 11, 2001.
This sounds terrible. I love cooking for myself and the people around me. I could never replace cooking or going out for a meal for sludge. Yeesh.
 
D

Deleted member 17706

Unconfirmed Member
The second part of that is exactly my point. Without modern medicine and knowledge all those people would have died young. Yes there's a lot of pop science health advice that's useless but I'll take a peer reviewed study by the AMA over "100K years" of human eating habits any day.

That's fine.

I'm not arguing that something is good because it's natural. There are all sorts of bad natural stuff out there.

My argument is that the field of nutrition has a lot of really poor science going on and should be treated with a healthy dose of skepticism. I have a hard time putting much faith in official recommendations that are based off conjecture over faulty epidemiological studies and have proven to be largely misguided.
 
D

Deleted member 17706

Unconfirmed Member
I don't think we know nearly as much as we think we do when it comes to what our bodies really use.

This is absolutely true and the correct way to approach issues like this, in my opinion.

We know a lot about certain mechanisms and enzymatic pathways and such in the body, but there is still a ton that we can only make educated guesses about at best. Always be skeptical of someone who claims to have it all figured out.
 

muu

Member
Soylent isolates you from the social aspect of eating? What stopped this poor sap from eating with colleagues/friends/loved ones -- just that he sips on some soylent instead of whatever others are eating? He's basically making his own lunch, and I'd say he's got one hell of a conversation piece that could go with it.
 
D

Deleted member 17706

Unconfirmed Member
Soylent isolates you from the social aspect of eating? What stopped this poor sap from eating with colleagues/friends/loved ones -- just that he sips on some soylent instead of whatever others are eating? He's basically making his own lunch, and I'd say he's got one hell of a conversation piece that could go with it.

Most people don't typically go out to eat with friends and just get water while everyone else eats a proper meal.
 
Soylent isolates you from the social aspect of eating? What stopped this poor sap from eating with colleagues/friends/loved ones -- just that he sips on some soylent instead of whatever others are eating? He's basically making his own lunch, and I'd say he's got one hell of a conversation piece that could go with it.

A conversation piece for maybe all of one meal, big whoop. And bringing your own food to a restaurant is a social faux pas.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom