Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

Soylent?? ...Really???

Hrvoje Simic said:
It would be beneficial to perceive this quote from that article as idiocy.
Click to expand...

Why? I'm actually curious. It seems that that is fairly accurate. We don't NEED fruits, meat etc we just need the nutrients they contain.
 
Scott Crawley said:
I'm re-reading this, drinking a beer and I'm thinking: Good at it? Fuck that, he doesn't look anything like an opossum!
Click to expand...

The turkey buzzards must have agreed with you because they had an intervention with the little guy and he's no longer doing it.
 
buzzard.jpg


Duuuh... Squirrel!
 
Last edited:
Zak Brickett said:
Why? I'm actually curious. It seems that that is fairly accurate.
Click to expand...

Not sure what makes it seem fairly accurate, but it just seems that way.
It is idiocy.

Due to bombardment with information in this digital age, it is not uncommon to be exposed to these types of ridiculous nonsense, served as facts by someone pressing "publish" without any responsibility towards its environment. This sometimes tends to get people confused, so hopefully this won't be perceived as disrespectful comment towards anyone assuming the validity of that article. In this case the idiocy starts with one electrical engineer with tunnel vision, exhibiting extreme case of guesswork about what's outside that tunnel. Neither this is a "scientist" nor that site has anything to do with professional journalism with those types of claims.

Going into detail in order to provide firm arguments on why this is a complete idiocy would necessitate a fairly long talk about something which sadly seems in many cases forgotten in today's "modern" living, yet was well known throughout whole human history in most civilizations and is still known in a lot of parts of this planet unaffected with extreme urbanization, as well as in rural environments even in highly developed countries. In short, you can ask a farmer, fisherman, hunter, botanist or anyone deeply understanding or living off the land i.e. being in direct contact with- and having sensibility to- nature, what do they think about replacing real food with some of its compounds combined into goo.

Creating compounds from basic components to re-create the nutrients is based on the assumption that a human with a microscope, computer and a Petri dish has fully understood all there is around him and is capable of perfectly re-creating it, which not only is an enormous arrogance but also playing with a box of matches next to an open fuel tank.

Compounds of food are combined into certain order. That order has been perfected by billions of years of evolution. Nutritive value of those compounds and its effect to human organism depends not only on the compounds themselves but on their order and inter-relations.

Compounds in food are in direct or indirect relation to energy coming from Sun's rays and chemical nutrition of the soil. The further they are away from the Sun or the soil, by time period or chemical process, their nutritive value and health effect on organism which ingests it is lower. "Lower" value on that scale does not stop at "very little value", the scale ends at the opposite of "healthy".

Natural food makes a person feel full at the right moment, processed food doesn't because it's lacking value and balance and leads people to over eating. Fresh food smells nicer. Tastes better. Taste and smell are there to attract the living entity, a one link in the chain, to intake that food, a food which is a living organism, to absorb the life energy of that living organism into itself and perpetuate the circle of life.

Gluing fake taste on garbage may fool the taste buds but doesn't fool the organism and its microcosmos of countless living entities re-building that organism 24/7 throughout its whole life span. Without all the elements, their essence and their balance the organism compensates. When it compensates it sends signals to its owner from subconscious realm of metabolism up into its consciousness informing it that the current route is damaging. If the owner hops over to the drug store and takes medications to hide the signals, the body continues to compensate with continuously enlarging price. It can compensate only for so long, until it reaches a limit. After which balance is lost, which leads to illness, medically definable or not, whether visible now or in its offspring.

In further similar examples, with "alternatives" such as these, I suggest asking the author to present a proof of such claims by exposing own child to a 10 year treatment with promoted options.
 
Hrvoje Simic said:
Not sure what makes it seem fairly accurate, but it just seems that way.
It is idiocy.



Due to bombardment with information in this digital age, it is not uncommon to be exposed with these types of ridiculous nonsense, served as facts by someone pressing "publish" without any responsibility towards its environment. This sometimes tends to get people confused, so hopefully this won't be perceived as disrespectful comment towards anyone assuming the validity of that article. In this case the idiocy starts with one electrical engineer with tunnel vision, exhibiting extreme case of guesswork about what's outside that tunnel. Neither this is a "scientist" nor that site has anything to do with genuine journalism with those types of claims.

Going into detail in order to provide arguments on why this is a complete idiocy, would necessitate a fairly long talk about something which sadly seems in many cases forgotten in today's "modern" living, yet was well known throughout whole human history in most civilizations and is still known in a lot of parts of this planet, not affected with extreme urbanization, as well as in rural environments even in highly developed countries. In short, you can ask a farmer, fisherman, hunter, botanist or anyone deeply understanding or living off the land i.e. being in direct contact with- and having sensibility to- nature, what do they think about replacing real food with its some of its compounds combined into goo.

Creating compounds from basic components to re-create the nutrients is based on the assumption that a human with a microscope, computer and a Petri dish has fully understood all there is around him and is capable of perfectly re-creating it, which not only is an enormous arrogance but also playing with a box of matches next to a fuel tank.

Compounds of food are combined into certain order. That order has been perfected by billions of years of evolution. Nutritive value of those compounds and its value to human organism depends not only on the compounds themselves but on their order and inter-relations.

Compounds in food are in direct or indirect relation to energy coming from Sun's rays and chemical nutrition of the soil. The further they are away from the Sun or the soil, by time period or chemical process, their nutritive value and health effect on organism which ingests it is lower. Natural food makes a person feel full at the right moment, processed food doesn't because it's lacking value and balance and leads people to over eating. Fresh food smells nicer. Tastes better. Taste and smell are there to attract the living entity, a one link in the chain, to intake that food, a food which is a living organism, to absorb the life energy of that living organism into itself and perpetuate the circle of life.

Gluing fake taste on garbage may fool the taste buds but doesn't fool the organism and its microcosmos of countless living entities re-building that organism 24/7 throughout its whole life span. Without all the elements, their essence and their balance the organism compensates. When it compensates it sends signals to its owner from subconscious realm of metabolism up into its consciousness informing it that the current route is damaging. If the owner hops over to the drug store and takes medications to hide the signals, the body continues to compensate with continuously enlarging price. It can compensate only for so long, until it reaches a limit. After which balance is lost, which leads to illness, medically definable or not, whether visible now or in its offspring.

In further similar examples, with "alternatives" such as these, I suggest asking the author to present a proof of such claims by exposing own child to a 10 year treatment with promoted options.
Click to expand...

I still think this stuff might be better than a lot of other stuff we eat and drink. As it seams like they are at least trying to make a product thats good for us unlike others...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bHhCP5ad-zM
 
Hrvoje Simic said:
Not sure what makes it seem fairly accurate, but it just seems that way.
It is idiocy.

Due to bombardment with information in this digital age, it is not uncommon to be exposed with these types of ridiculous nonsense, served as facts by someone pressing "publish" without any responsibility towards its environment. This sometimes tends to get people confused, so hopefully this won't be perceived as disrespectful comment towards anyone assuming the validity of that article. In this case the idiocy starts with one electrical engineer with tunnel vision, exhibiting extreme case of guesswork about what's outside that tunnel. Neither this is a "scientist" nor that site has anything to do with professional journalism with those types of claims.

Going into detail in order to provide firm arguments on why this is a complete idiocy would necessitate a fairly long talk about something which sadly seems in many cases forgotten in today's "modern" living, yet was well known throughout whole human history in most civilizations and is still known in a lot of parts of this planet unaffected with extreme urbanization, as well as in rural environments even in highly developed countries. In short, you can ask a farmer, fisherman, hunter, botanist or anyone deeply understanding or living off the land i.e. being in direct contact with- and having sensibility to- nature, what do they think about replacing real food with some of its compounds combined into goo.

Creating compounds from basic components to re-create the nutrients is based on the assumption that a human with a microscope, computer and a Petri dish has fully understood all there is around him and is capable of perfectly re-creating it, which not only is an enormous arrogance but also playing with a box of matches next to an open fuel tank.

Compounds of food are combined into certain order. That order has been perfected by billions of years of evolution. Nutritive value of those compounds and its effect to human organism depends not only on the compounds themselves but on their order and inter-relations.

Compounds in food are in direct or indirect relation to energy coming from Sun's rays and chemical nutrition of the soil. The further they are away from the Sun or the soil, by time period or chemical process, their nutritive value and health effect on organism which ingests it is lower. "Lower" value on that scale does not stop at "very little value", the scale ends at the opposite of "healthy".

Natural food makes a person feel full at the right moment, processed food doesn't because it's lacking value and balance and leads people to over eating. Fresh food smells nicer. Tastes better. Taste and smell are there to attract the living entity, a one link in the chain, to intake that food, a food which is a living organism, to absorb the life energy of that living organism into itself and perpetuate the circle of life.

Gluing fake taste on garbage may fool the taste buds but doesn't fool the organism and its microcosmos of countless living entities re-building that organism 24/7 throughout its whole life span. Without all the elements, their essence and their balance the organism compensates. When it compensates it sends signals to its owner from subconscious realm of metabolism up into its consciousness informing it that the current route is damaging. If the owner hops over to the drug store and takes medications to hide the signals, the body continues to compensate with continuously enlarging price. It can compensate only for so long, until it reaches a limit. After which balance is lost, which leads to illness, medically definable or not, whether visible now or in its offspring.

In further similar examples, with "alternatives" such as these, I suggest asking the author to present a proof of such claims by exposing own child to a 10 year treatment with promoted options.
Click to expand...

Thank you for elaborating. I guess I just see this as the first step. At some point all the ingredients, how they need to be ingested and in what combination etc etc will be figured out. It really is just science. There's no magic that's involved. Will this drink figure it out? No. Could it lead to a better understanding of what our bodies need and/or lead to the next upgraded version of the drink. Maybe. I do agree that the creator of this seems a little naive, thinking basically his first swing is hitting it out of the park and that it's just about the chemicals and downplaying the more hidden factors, but I still like what he's trying to accomplish.

Like a few people have said here, I'll try some for breakfast/lunch for a little while. Are you going to open my cabinets and see cobwebs on my bowls and just rows and rows of powdered space meals? Certainly not. Not while there are buffalo wings available in this world.
 
This isn't new. Body builders have been creating bodies through science for decades. This is just another formula for feeding a body in lieu of the body builder's formulas for building a body. And while it may not be considered a substitute for nourishment, it could certainly work for maintenance. I wouldn't be afraid to use it in a pinch, but certainly not as my main choice for sustenance.
 
huge potential for famine stricken areas. Few cases of powder and some water. Though usually lack of water is the problem to begin with....
 
Hrvoje Simic said:
In short, you can ask a farmer, fisherman, hunter, botanist or anyone deeply understanding or living off the land i.e. being in direct contact with- and having sensibility to- nature, what do they think about replacing real food with some of its compounds combined into goo.
Click to expand...

I've seen plenty of farmers and fishermen who eat really unhealthy food and die young due to heart disease. I used to fish and I have professional fisherman friends... they have absolutely no special insight into nutrition. In fact I have a professional fisher friend who will probably try this.

Hrvoje Simic said:
Compounds of food are combined into certain order. That order has been perfected by billions of years of evolution. Nutritive value of those compounds and its effect to human organism depends not only on the compounds themselves but on their order and inter-relations.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. Most of the foods we eat didn't even exist billions of years ago. A banana is good for you but in its current form is a relatively recent invention. Our bodies are really good at extracting nutrition from new and unusual foods. The diet of someone in China is vastly different from Africa. But both live perfectly fine.


Hrvoje Simic said:
Natural food makes a person feel full at the right moment, processed food doesn't because it's lacking value and balance and leads people to over eating. Fresh food smells nicer. Tastes better.
Click to expand...

Tastes better? I think flowerless chocolate cake is about as tasty as something gets and it's not at all fresh.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_poisonous_plants
These are also generally not terribly nutritious but very fresh!
 
Graeme Nattress said:
The ingredients read like heart-attack in a glass.

Graeme
Click to expand...

I agree.

I spent several years studying metabolic diseases and carbohydrate intake always came up as the primary culprit. In the grand scheme of things, dietary carbohydrate intake is not a requirement for human health. Graeme, are you familiar with Owsley Stanley? I corresponded with him before his passing and he completely changed my view in regards to what humans are built to eat. Wheat, Corn, sugar and other starchy vegetables are some of the most nutritionally devoid yet most prevalent foods in most peoples diet. They are also some of the most inflammation inducing, partly due to the insulin release required to metabolize them.

Low carbohydrate diets are quite the fascinating topic!

Elsie N said:
This isn't new. Body builders have been creating bodies through science for decades.
Click to expand...

Yep! Tons of calories, tons of protein and a pinch of anabolics.
 
Alex Frausto said:
I agree.

I spent several years studying metabolic diseases and carbohydrate intake always came up as the primary culprit. In the grand scheme of things, dietary carbohydrate intake is not a requirement for human health. Graeme, are you familiar with Owsley Stanley? I corresponded with him before his passing and he completely changed my view in regards to what humans are built to eat. Wheat, Corn, sugar and other starchy vegetables are some of the most nutritionally devoid yet most prevalent foods in most peoples diet. They are also some of the most inflammation inducing, partly due to the insulin release required to metabolize them.

Low carbohydrate diets are quite the fascinating topic!
Click to expand...

Alex, while I agree with you about wheat, corn, (refined) sugar etc., I have to disagree that carbohydrates are the culprits in disease.

I refer you to the Michael Mosely writings and his PBS offerings that report how too much protein is what causes IGF-1 (Insulin-like Growth Factor) to create a condition of continual cell division within a body.

While most would just consider this to be a high metabolic state, and therefore a good thing, research has proven different. Different in that having a constant state of cell division means the body doesn't have time to repair the mutations or damaged sequences of DNA. Lowering the IGF-1 circulating in the body allows the body to slow down cell division and instead repair the cells that have copied errors to their DNA in the past.

The method that seems to be the easiest, that is, requires less discomfort, is fasting for two random days out of 7 and eating pretty much whatever you like the other 5 days. The data shows that this can achieve a halving of the levels of IGF-1 in as little as five weeks time, and continuing this program can cut ones risk of heart attack, stroke, diabetes and some cancers to extremely low levels of risk. This is apparently achieved by letting a body's machinery take a rest from cell division while letting it do maintenance on the cells at hand.

Good fats, good carbohydrates, and reasonable amounts of protein eaten on the 5-2 diet plan is the path to healthy eating, IMO (and in the opinion of many others... the NIH scoffed at this information at first and trumped up some silly side effects like causes bad breath, for instance, which I haven't found to be true BTW. They have recently endorsed the plan when they learned the population paid no attention to their first statement and are instead adopting it in large numbers in Great Britain.)

BIG EDIT: I misidentified Britain's NHS as NIH, which is of course the National Institute of Health here in the U.S.
 
Last edited:
I have a question geared primarily for those who believe this sort of thing is better for the environment, but it is open to any who can answer.

From what sources are his processed nutrients and such derived? Are they not extracted from existing food stuffs? If so, how much additional energy will it take to produce Soylent and process the resultant waste? Where or how do you recover that additional energy?

Is this a more environmentally friendly way to nurture people?
 
Article on intermittent fasting here worth a read: http://www.zoeharcombe.com/2013/04/the-2-day-diet/

It would appear from here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12223429 there's a small correlation between protein intake and IGF-1, and that only through malnutrition does IGF-1 drop significantly "Although protein-calorie malnutrition is known to decrease IGF-I levels, few published studies have related diet to IGF-I levels in well-nourished humans".

Fortunately low carb diets are really just high fat diets and "Higher fat intake, in particular saturated fat, was associated with lower levels of IGFBP-3.". The issue, as always, is getting enough fat in your diet.

Graeme
 
Scott Crawley said:
I have a question geared primarily for those who believe this sort of thing is better for the environment, but it is open to any who can answer.

From what sources are his processed nutrients and such derived? Are they not extracted from existing food stuffs? If so, how much additional energy will it take to produce Soylent and process the resultant waste? Where or how do you recover that additional energy?

Is this a more environmentally friendly way to nurture people?
Click to expand...

I can't attest to how he gets his ingredients, but one thing that stands out is that there should be no waste. That is, I think a person can figure out what portion is right for him or her and will only stir up that amount. On the other hand, cooking a meal or eating meals at a restaurant have waste built in. And waste, as we all know, not only costs to produce but to get rid of as well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top