Soylent?? ...Really???

[Scott Crawley]

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.

I was referring to the waste created and energy required on the production side, not so much for consumption.

Maltodextrin is a highly processed food derivative. To produce it requires a great deal of energy and generates waste. Is it more energy efficient to just eat corn, or to first grind it, mix it with adjuncts, cook it, separate the maltodextrin and throw away that which is left over? Is this environmentally sound or responsible? Is it natural? Is that the way humans were meant to eat?

Oat Powder, Whey Isolate and Powdered Soy Lecithi​n also require energy to produce, and that production generates additional waste.

These expenditures must be taken into account when figuring the net cost.

 

[Elsie N]

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

Graeme, I read a good ways down the article and immediately dismissed it as micro-management. For one thing, they were dealing only with women as I understood it, they instructed the participants what to eat and how much of it, it seems. And lastly, they were concentrating on weight loss as the measuring stick.

The Mosely piece got input from people deeply involved in aging research and through study of a genetic cohort of people, in Ecuador I think... not sure, who are small in stature but genetically blessed with low IGF-1 levels, are pretty much immune to the main causes of death in the western world.

My own anecdotal observations make it hard, if not impossible, to accept any disputing of the 5-2 feed/fasting method of achieving good health and longevity. I do consider that types of food eaten during both the fasting days and feed days are important, but should be tailored to the individual for highest efficiency.

And yes, I believe that fat is important to the efficiency of the plan... and for me, that may include the occasional spoonful of solidified olive oil + coconut oil straight from the refrigerator. '-)

 

[Elsie N]

I was referring to the waste created and energy required on the production side, not so much for consumption.

...

But consumption drives production... or at least, it should. Here is a link to a pdf that clearly shows how 40% of what we produce ends up in landfills. www.nrdc.org/food/files/wasted-food-ip.pdf

 

[Graeme Nattress]

Graeme, I read a good ways down the article and immediately dismissed it as micro-management. For one thing, they were dealing only with women as I understood it, they instructed the participants what to eat and how much of it, it seems. And lastly, they were concentrating on weight loss as the measuring stick.

"Health" is not terribly objective, but weight loss could be seen as an objective proxy for over-all health. Life-span is objective, but it also makes for (hopefully) very long studies.... The major issue with dietary research is the lack of good studies. It's worth reading some of the other articles on her blog because she goes into how bad some studies are, how "diet recall questionnaires" are used (and abused) and how useless they are.

The Mosely piece got input from people deeply involved in aging research and through study of a genetic cohort of people, in Ecuador I think... not sure, who are small in stature but genetically blessed with low IGF-1 levels, are pretty much immune to the main causes of death in the western world.

Be keen to read if you have some links you can find on this.

And yes, I believe that fat is important to the efficiency of the plan... and for me, that may include the occasional spoonful of solidified olive oil + coconut oil straight from the refrigerator. '-)

I need some good recipes for fat bombs...

Graeme

 

[Elsie N]

"Health" is not terribly objective, but weight loss could be seen as an objective proxy for over-all health. Life-span is objective, but it also makes for (hopefully) very long studies.... The major issue with dietary research is the lack of good studies. It's worth reading some of the other articles on her blog because she goes into how bad some studies are, how "diet recall questionnaires" are used (and abused) and how useless they are.

Yes, I do agree that a proper weight is a viable proxy for over-all health and as you said, life span in humans is a long-term, never-ending study. For that reason, sometimes we have to put our faith in studies done using nematodes like C. Elegans or mice studies that hopefully translate to humans. I applaud the blogger in question for questioning studies because in my observations, too many of them deal with one specific target instead of dealing with the interactions of many targets, if not the whole of the entity. I would have read more but I'm just not very good at reading long passages. I probably have ADD... not to mention a touch of SUB, DIV, and at times, the dreaded MULT. '-)

Be keen to read if you have some links you can find on this.

I know it is important to substantiate ones strongly held beliefs with accessible proof. That said, I don't have links. Everything I know about the 5-2 diet research is from the hour long Michael Mosely program that aired on PBS. And even that recollection is sketchy but IIRC, he interviewed an Italian researcher named Valther (first name, I think) from a highly respected research facility in LA, another Italian researcher named Luigi from Washington University in St Louis, a female researcher from an institution in Chicago, and another researcher at some govt. research facility in Maryland, I believe.

The LA research explored the benefits of fasting for four days straight about once a month, the St. Louis research focused on Calorie Restriction (approximately 1900 calories per day of fruits and veggie types of meals), the Chicago theme was for alternate day feeding and fasting, but eating about 25% of normal calorie meals on fast days, and the govt. researcher in Maryland was the one who, although primarily involved in the alternate feed/fast approach, recommended the 5-2 method of fasting in order to make it more easy to adhere to. The Maryland research was primarily devoted to the effects of fasting and diet in regard to Alzheimer's Disease. One study with mice showed how adding high fructose corn syrup to the mouse drinking water hurried up the progression to Alzheimer's. This was meant to symbolize what drinking soft drinks do to the brain.

I need some good recipes for fat bombs...

Graeme

Here's my favorite... Peanut Butter (the one with only peanuts in the ingredient list) with a dollop of the Olive Oil/Coconut Oil mixture I mentioned previously, then drizzled with molasses followed by a healthy dose of PURE Maple syrup. Then crumble up a small to medium sized Ginger Snap cookie into the mix and stir vigorously. Take an hour to eat and enjoy while surfing Reduser. '-)

EDIT: After reading once for content, I just now re-read your post for comprehension and realized you were asking for a specific link to the under-sized people in South America (or Central America in case I got the country wrong.) As I said, my only reference material is the Michael Mosley piece but I do recall it was the segment with Valther from LA whose research involved him spending time with that group of people.

 

[Graeme Nattress]

As much as I love Maple Syrup (why do you think I moved to Canada ? ) that'd be way too much sugar for us. Most I've seen do the peanut butter and the coconut oil. I think I'm going to look at the high fat cocoa powder too and then find something sweet but not sugary?

Fasting of course will get your body to move to burning ketones rather than glucose, and using our fat stores rather than relying on carbohydrates for glucose. That's pretty much the goal of a LCHF diet anyway... Could we just be talking about two different ways to achieve the same thing?

Graeme

 

[Hrvoje Simic]

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.

Quote did not include assertions about one's knowledge of nutrition, but standpoints on this subject likely present in larger number with people with more sensibility, understanding and appreciation towards natural principles, compared to an average person in highly urbanized environment who is taken away from the nature. A larger study with more participants would be more helpful for more objective perception.

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.

Quote mentioned order and inter-relations of compounds of food. Not the food itself. Structure, ratios, balance.

Banana's form is irrelevant to the organism as it is chewed prior to digestion. The structure of its compounds and their balance isn't. Whenever it appeared in its current form, banana did not appear out of nothing or fall from outer space on King Kong's sidewalk, it is just another link in a chain of the evolution of life forms.

Yes bodies are good at extracting nutrition of foods. As long as the rules for their operation are obeyed.
Food supplement is not food, just like ingredients on the table do not guarantee a quality and nourishing cuisine, and like human organs stuffed in a skin wrapper would not make a man.

The diet of someone in China is vastly different from Africa. But both live perfectly fine.

And they do so because their metabolism is based on the food around them. Real food. The one growing, walking, running, swimming or flying. Maybe even crawling. Nourished by the Sun and the Earth. Growing stronger every day. Fighting and adapting. Being alive.

In that option Nature with few billion years of experience combining life forms on this planet is stirring the pot of elements.
Not a one 30 y.o. Being with highly limited powers and a bunch of assumptions, while greatly oversimplifying and underestimating his own constitution and complexity as well as of every other Human Being, by perceiving a human body as just another machine.

One might draw a conclusion that this may be related to the fact that in those environments drug supermarkets are not that common, desirable or necessary to be able to relax, sleep, focus, digest, have sex or conceive.

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

Yes. Fresh food tastes better than the SAME food which is not fresh. In most cases.

Not sure how to address the chocolate cake in a perfect example as there is no fresh chocolate cake growing on trees to compare, and its compounds introduce tons of variables preventing a proper comparison. It does taste very good, though.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_poisonous_plants
These are also generally not terribly nutritious but very fresh!

The purpose of this link is unclear.

 

[Elsie N]

As much as I love Maple Syrup (why do you think I moved to Canada ? ) that'd be way too much sugar for us. Most I've seen do the peanut butter and the coconut oil. I think I'm going to look at the high fat cocoa powder too and then find something sweet but not sugary?

Fasting of course will get your body to move to burning ketones rather than glucose, and using our fat stores rather than relying on carbohydrates for glucose. That's pretty much the goal of a LCHF diet anyway... Could we just be talking about two different ways to achieve the same thing?

Graeme

Your reference to the cocoa powder caused me to go looking for this information I read just a few days ago. I think you will find it confirms your choice. As for something sweet but not sugary... I highly recommend coconut sugar (low glycemic index) and to a lesser degree because I don't know quite as much about it, Acerola, which is a cherry derivative that has a lot of antioxidant activity and some sweetening properties as well.

I once used Stevia as a sweetener but just drifted away from it for no particular reason. I hold the belief that the body thinks in other places than the brain and if your body doesn't like something you are feeding it, it will find a way to signal you. I prefer to act on the subtle signals rather than wait for the really painful ones, like illness, before acquiescing to my body's demands.

But rather than looking at caloric intake as a complicated thing and identifying what is burned and how, I see these processes taking place differently in each individual.

But I believe if we approach the problem from a fasting viewpoint... i.e. from the simple standpoint of being a resting period for our cells to cease cell division and allowing our individual bodies to utilize our built-in DNA repair mechanisms, that is a model that should fit all targets.

 

[Graeme Nattress]

I don't know about Coconut sugar though - it's just glucose/fructose, so I have no idea why (perhaps it's fibre content? http://authoritynutrition.com/coconut-sugar/ or perhaps just a poor study?)

Graeme

 

[Elsie N]

I don't know about Coconut sugar though - it's just glucose/fructose, so I have no idea why (perhaps it's fibre content? http://authoritynutrition.com/coconut-sugar/ or perhaps just a poor study?)

Graeme

I think he is just doing his due diligence and questioning everything, even how some things are measured. I don't think he offers any substantive proof that what he questions is wrong. And in the end, he even sort of back-handedly endorses the product when in conclusion he says:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Bottom Line

Coconut sugar is no miracle food. It is very similar to regular table sugar, although the manufacturing process is more natural and it also contains some minor amounts of nutrients to go with it.
If you’re going to use coconut sugar, then use it sparingly. It is slightly “less bad” than regular sugar, but definitely not something you should eat every day.
I’m going to have to put coconut sugar is in the same boat as honey. It is healthier than refined sugar, but definitely worse than no sugar at all.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But from my own personal experience, I find that once one gets used to eating low amounts of sugar, a small amount easily satisfies ones need for sugar. I seldom use more than a teaspoon of the coconut sugar in anything and probably do not use it more than once a day... even when I eat oatmeal I sweeten that with raisins which probably translate into fructose as well. I think fructose as a natural component of a food is safe and even healthy. It's the high-fructose from corn syrup that I believe is dangerous and anathema to our bodies.

 

[Scott Crawley]

I'm not sure where we are failing to communicate, but we are talking about two different things.

If this highly processed food replacement is to be an environmentally superior alternative to whole food, it's life cycle from production through consumption to disposal must be more energy efficient and create less waste than the real food it is meant to replace.

If it were possible to compare the nutritional value of a serving of this formula to a nutritional equivalent serving of real, whole food, my bet is that the whole food will be far more energy efficient to produce and create less waste by a large margin.

But consumption drives production... or at least, it should. Here is a link to a pdf that clearly shows how 40% of what we produce ends up in landfills. www.nrdc.org/food/files/wasted-food-ip.pdf

 

[Elsie N]

I'm not sure where we are failing to communicate, but we are talking about two different things.

If this highly processed food replacement is to be an environmentally superior alternative to whole food, it's life cycle from production through consumption to disposal must be more energy efficient and create less waste than the real food it is meant to replace.

If it were possible to compare the nutritional value of a serving of this formula to a nutritional equivalent serving of real, whole food, my bet is that the whole food will be far more energy efficient to produce and create less waste by a large margin.

I disagree that the whole food will be more energy efficient. For starters, as I pointed out before that we throw away 40% of what we produce, I don't see why anyone would throw away even 1% of the powdered food, since it should last indefinitely if properly stored.

That gives the powdered food an immediate advantage over the whole foods that end up in landfills. That means that the whole foods have to have an enormous advantage during production and processing.

My intuition tells me that instead of an advantage, taking all these phases into account, the processed food will actually be the way that has the production + processing advantage.

EDIT: Oh, and by the way, eat a whole food meal and then eat a processed food meal and then turn around and check your stool after sitting on the throne. This may only be important to the sewage managers, but less stool in the pool is mo' bettah!

 

[Scott Crawley]

There are ways to reduce the whole food in the landfill issue. Part of that involves producing less and another part lies in sourcing locally. Those two actions drastically reduce the associated energy costs. If your processed food derivatives begin with whole foods and then you expend additional resources to process them, and you transport them further... then you will have to show a substantial savings someplace else to balance that equation. I'm not seeing it in your example.

We should also not forget to consider the types of energy and waste involved with each mode of eating. Much of the energy to produce whole food is solar and human, particularly if it is not transported long distances. The energy to manufacture and package processed foods is largely petro-chemical. Whole food waste in a landfill is fertilizer while the packaging for maltodextrin, powdered soy and whey and Soylent are not. That packaging requires additional energy to process at the landfill while organic wastes of whole foods does not.

I hesitate to even address the sewage idea, but much of that is roughage. Our bodies require roughage. No amount of Soylent is going to change that.

I disagree that the whole food will be more energy efficient. For starters, as I pointed out before that we throw away 40% of what we produce, I don't see why anyone would throw away even 1% of the powdered food, since it should last indefinitely if properly stored.

That gives the powdered food an immediate advantage over the whole foods that end up in landfills. That means that the whole foods have to have an enormous advantage during production and processing.

My intuition tells me that instead of an advantage, taking all these phases into account, the processed food will actually be the way that has the production + processing advantage.

EDIT: Oh, and by the way, eat a whole food meal and then eat a processed food meal and then turn around and check your stool after sitting on the throne. This may only be important to the sewage managers, but less stool in the pool is mo' bettah!

 

[Elsie N]

There are ways to reduce the whole food in the landfill issue. Part of that involves producing less and another part lies in sourcing locally.

I do see things differently. You lose the economies of scale when you produce food locally in small groups.

But putting that aside and assuming you are correct, you are addressing ways that we could reduce whole food production costs instead of the original premise of which of the two methods of food production is more cost efficient from beginning to end.

Those two actions drastically reduce the associated energy costs. If your processed food derivatives begin with whole foods and then you expend additional resources to process them, and you transport them further... then you will have to show a substantial savings someplace else to balance that equation. I'm not seeing it in your example.

Whole foods are the ones that are top heavy on processing costs. That is, while it is considered processing on the part of the powdered food, it is called preparation when talking about whole foods.

And if you've ever cooked or watched food being prepared, you know there is not only a lot of labor involved but cooking aids like oil, utensils (the cost of millions of woks and frying pans and pressure cookers etc. have to be amortized into the equation) potable water for cooking and then cleaning up (that stuff isn't free, you know) and things like cooking ranges, barbeque pits, crock pots... these all go into the millions of homes that prepare meals. The Powder People only need a small fraction of these items to fix their meal and the factory that produces the powder has its machinery set up to do this one thing and likely does it efficiently in order to keep costs down and profits up.

Restaurants are probably more efficient at providing whole food meals but they always over produce and over-plate, so much goes into the garbage. Transportation costs are really a small part of the cost due to that same economies of scale. I believe that to be why we can get apricots from Turkey, cherries from Peru etc., out of season.

We should also not forget to consider the types of energy and waste involved with each mode of eating. Much of the energy to produce whole food is solar and human, particularly if it is not transported long distances. The energy to manufacture and package processed foods is largely petro-chemical. Whole food waste in a landfill is fertilizer while the packaging for maltodextrin, powdered soy and whey and Soylent are not. That packaging requires additional energy to process at the landfill while organic wastes of whole foods does not.

Scott, I think you have this vision of a Farmer's Market as being where food comes from. In the wider world, whole food doesn't come without packaging of some sort. Sometimes it is cardboard, sometimes it is in (petro-chemical) plastic wrapping. Sometimes it is in a can with Bisphenol A lining or plastic bottles with BPA used in the manufacture.

What I'm saying is that it is much more efficient to deliver a whole food with extended freshness life (you can dry and powder a banana gone brown, yet is still viable but you can't get anyone to buy it in a grocery store so you throw it away) to a central drying and powdering plant (you can use the sun to do most of the drying) and then ship it out as a non-perishable powder to customers with the water removed, making it cheaper to ship. Water is then restored to the product locally and probably in lesser amounts.

I hesitate to even address the sewage idea, but much of that is roughage. Our bodies require roughage. No amount of Soylent is going to change that.

The "bodies require roughage" mantra is so 1950s. A small amount, perhaps... but nothing like many of the fiber promoters think we need. Again, I'm working from memory here and do not have a link to back it up, but one study I read probably a year ago, maybe less, clearly stated that our gut adapts to our food intake. That is, if you look down and you can't see your... toes, your internal gut is oversized. But even over a short period of time if you reduce the amount of "stuff" you send through your gut, your gut will respond by actually losing volume while still continuing to do its job the way it was meant to do. This does not of course, take into account visceral fat that is outside your gut... the good news is you can reduce that with the 5-2 fasting regimen.

 

[Scott Crawley]

What good is economy of scale when you produce 40% more than you can use and spend a ton of money in fuel driving all of that trash around?

I do see farmer's markets as a more viable way to feed ourselves.

I appreciate our difference of opinion. I am making an effort to live differently. Good luck keeping healthy without enough roughage... really, good luck with that. :beer:

I do see things differently. You lose the economies of scale when you produce food locally in small groups.

But putting that aside and assuming you are correct, you are addressing ways that we could reduce whole food production costs instead of the original premise of which of the two methods of food production is more cost efficient from beginning to end.



Whole foods are the ones that are top heavy on processing costs. That is, while it is considered processing on the part of the powdered food, it is called preparation when talking about whole foods.

And if you've ever cooked or watched food being prepared, you know there is not only a lot of labor involved but cooking aids like oil, utensils (the cost of millions of woks and frying pans and pressure cookers etc. have to be amortized into the equation) potable water for cooking and then cleaning up (that stuff isn't free, you know) and things like cooking ranges, barbeque pits, crock pots... these all go into the millions of homes that prepare meals. The Powder People only need a small fraction of these items to fix their meal and the factory that produces the powder has its machinery set up to do this one thing and likely does it efficiently in order to keep costs down and profits up.

Restaurants are probably more efficient at providing whole food meals but they always over produce and over-plate, so much goes into the garbage. Transportation costs are really a small part of the cost due to that same economies of scale. I believe that to be why we can get apricots from Turkey, cherries from Peru etc., out of season.





Scott, I think you have this vision of a Farmer's Market as being where food comes from. In the wider world, whole food doesn't come without packaging of some sort. Sometimes it is cardboard, sometimes it is in (petro-chemical) plastic wrapping. Sometimes it is in a can with Bisphenol A lining or plastic bottles with BPA used in the manufacture.

What I'm saying is that it is much more efficient to deliver a whole food with extended freshness life (you can dry and powder a banana gone brown, yet is still viable but you can't get anyone to buy it in a grocery store so you throw it away) to a central drying and powdering plant (you can use the sun to do most of the drying) and then ship it out as a non-perishable powder to customers with the water removed, making it cheaper to ship. Water is then restored to the product locally and probably in lesser amounts.



The "bodies require roughage" mantra is so 1950s. A small amount, perhaps... but nothing like many of the fiber promoters think we need. Again, I'm working from memory here and do not have a link to back it up, but one study I read probably a year ago, maybe less, clearly stated that our gut adapts to our food intake. That is, if you look down and you can't see your... toes, your internal gut is oversized. But even over a short period of time if you reduce the amount of "stuff" you send through your gut, your gut will respond by actually losing volume while still continuing to do its job the way it was meant to do. This does not of course, take into account visceral fat that is outside your gut... the good news is you can reduce that with the 5-2 fasting regimen.

 

[Elsie N]

...

I do see farmer's markets as a more viable way to feed ourselves.

I appreciate our difference of opinion. I am making an effort to live differently. Good luck keeping healthy without enough roughage... really, good luck with that. :beer:

I agree on the Farmer's Markets thing, as long as you know and trust the farmer...

I also respect your opinion on this matter and just consider this to have been nothing more than a lively debate that others can view and choose which side of the issue suits them best.

If it seems I am proselytizing in order to "save humanity", well, that's just not true. I am however trying to make others aware that in the event of some unimagined catastrophe they don't have to have as much food as they've been eating to get by. This benefits me because I won't have as much competition from food hogs trying to maintain their status quo and will be more likely to have enough food to fulfill my needs. '-)

Just a side note... if FEMA had dropped Soylent to the people stranded during Katrina instead of the high energy MREs (Meals Ready to Eat that Soldiers are fed) then they would have satisfied their hunger and thus would not have seen people fighting others like animals in order to get as much food as they could, and the toilets in the Superdome would not have backed up all over everything.

All that said, I will not be a Soylent customer, but I will continue to use powdered things in my diet as outlined in a previous post.

 

[Elsie N]

Well, I've just learned that both Soylent and whole food will soon be moot.

I think I saw this on Star Trek years ago.

 

[Scott Crawley]

Well, I've just learned that both Soylent and whole food will soon be moot.

I think I saw this on Star Trek years ago.

There you go.