Comment by mmastrac | Hacker News Reader

Comment by mmastrac | Hacker News Reader

> Rob Rhinehart, to compress all the nutrition the human body needs to live into one single, easily digestible formula, like the twenty-first-century version of manna. But that is fundamentally the opposite of the way we increasingly want to eat in America and in much of the developed world.

Uh, speak for yourself.

I order Soylent from time-to-time. It's a nice way to simplify about 75% of my meal prep, while remaining healthy and helping me avoid constant snacking. If I was on my own I'd consider 100% Soylent.

You don't need three gourmet meals a day. Food is a convenient social activity, but it's not the only one.

So many issues with this article, but this one...

> the persistent effect that progress in food processing has had on our taste buds, as we amp up artificial flavors in an attempt regain the natural flavor we have stripped from our food with technology

If you'd ever had Soylent, you'd realize that it's entirely the opposite of an "amped-up, artificial flavour". It's not bland - it has a light flavour that isn't offensive no matter how much you drink.

> while remaining healthy

Thats yet to be seen. This food is a processed as you can get, I have my doubts that it will be good for you in the long term.

"We do not view processed foods as inherently bad or unhealthy. We believe that the nutritional value of a foodstuff - regardless of whether it is prepared in a factory, a restaurant, or at a backyard barbecue - is a direct consequence of the variety of nutrients that it provides and their context within one's overall diet."

from- https://faq.soylent.com/hc/en-us/articles/203709619-Soylent-...

Wait, so the makers of a processed food find nothing inherently wrong with processed food? Color me convinced.

I also enjoy saying "Numerous scientific studies have suggested..." while linking to none.

I agree that page is not a thorough proof of their case. It seems to be intended to just outline, at a high level, their point of view.

You are saying you disagree that the constituent components of an egg are the source of its nutritional value?

Do you suggest that something inside a chicken imbues in the egg ephemeral nutritional properties that our digestive system cannot extract from an equally proportioned mix of fat/cholesterol/protein/etc that was produced in a man-made factory rather than a hen?

Due to lack of training and education, I don't claim to have any knowledge of nutritional science.

The makers of Soylent, on the other hand, are pretty good at making broad sweeping nutritional claims without bothering to back them up with legitimate science.

I don't think that 'The nutritional value of a food is based on it's composition.' is too wild a claim.

I have almost no knowledge in nutrition.

But I know we absorb things differently depending on what we found them in. We absorb protein differently if they come from mat or from vegetables. We absorb calcium differently if it comes from milk or from a pill.

So in that case, I think think that assuming the nutritional value of some food comes only from its composition is a claim that needs serious backing.

Well, I mean why would the Soylent FAQ say anything otherwise? Nutritionists disagree. It's not some hippie new age anti-industry opinion, it's a fact.

In fact, this is such a stupid oversimplification that any amount of critical thinking can debunk it. There is a lot more to food that the net nutrition intake you have at the end of the day. The actual, physical composition of the food determines how quickly you body digests it, which in turn affects your energy levels, appetite, and mood. Your body does not digest apple juice the same way as it does raw apples, even if both have the same exact ingredients. You won't feel the same after a smoothie as you will after the same ingredients delivered raw. One method of intake gives you a short, high burst of energy followed by steeper drop off, while the raw form provides gentler changes and is less likely to spike your blood sugar.

All of this interacts with your psychology, your metabolism, and your physical and mental energy.

This is like saying I can safely fast for 4 days once If I eat 6000 calories worth of [insert food/drink] today. You might survive for 4 days but good luck not tearing up your body and feeling like a ghost by then.

More-processed foods are not inherently "bad" or "unhealthy", but they are inherently worse and less healthy than less-processed foods (generally). They contribute to shorter periods of feeling satiated and longer low-energy periods. You will crave processed food more frequently and in greater quantities than raw food.

Your consequences of processed food does not seem to be actually be anything inherent to processed food. If there is some chemical (likely fiber in your examples?) that is causing one form of food to have a different effect from another, then that can be artificially processed into the food as well.

The real issue with processed foods tends to be that their goal is isolating the tasty by removing the healthy. If you actually set up the correct goals, then there is no particular reason why "natural foods" could not have their effects artificially replicated or improved upon.

Not to invalidate your argument, but clearly people fast for much longer than 4 days without food, for example "At the age of 74 and already slight of build, Mahatma Gandhi, the famous nonviolent campaigner for India's independence, survived 21 days of total starvation while only allowing himself sips of water." [1]

1: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-long-can-a-pe...

It's hard to compress so much information in to single page resources that people can skim in internet arguments.

Though they do address things like blood sugar in similar articles: https://faq.soylent.com/hc/en-us/articles/212769503-Glycemic...

Of course it's not perfect. Could you do better by meticulously cataloging your intake, painstakingly measuring everything you cook, and going the extra mile to determine the exact source of all your food? Yeah probably. My time is worth more to me than that. I would rather waste my time on things other than making sure I am perfectly nourished.

How long had humans gone eating crude bread, grilled meat, and stuff they found on the ground? Now we have processing techniques more advanced than 'Make it hot' and we live longer now than ever before.

At least Soylent, as a company, is very up-front with their goals and concerns. They just sent me a message telling me not to eat the Soylent Bars I bought (Jokes on them I already threw them out because they are gross)

Also, Unless you eat the core and the seeds I think an apple and the quantity of apple juice you can make by squeezing one apple are probably going to be digested in a similar fashion. I get your point, I just don't think that is a good example.

Actually you can survive a year, if you build up enough energy storage.

http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2012/07/24/3549931.ht...

>.. but they are inherently worse and less healthy than less-processed foods (generally)

this is such a stupid oversimplification that any amount of critical thinking can debunk it.

The growth in our brain size is related to when we first figured out how to process (cook) food.

Lots of food is only considered edible once it's been processed. Look at wheat. Without the great length we go to mill flour, it's completely indigestible.

I think the Apple Juice example is a poor one, as it takes many apples to make one serving of apple juice, and you're leaving out the pulp, etc. This is exactly what we are talking about when we say that the composition matters, not how processed it is. You have to care what the process is, not just that its "processed".

As is the majority of food Americans eat anyway.

This argument screams Naturalist/Appeal to nature fallacy:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy

The argument is an appeal to nature. In the context of food, though, this argument has been anything but a fallacy in the past. It's not unreasonable to question whether a single-source producer of processed food stuffs is safe for everyone when consuming large quantities over a large period of time.

Do they know why their bars are making people sick, yet? What more subtle issues (contamination or formulaic deficiency) could be lurking, now, or in the future? It's clearly a risk, even with a lot of engineering know-how, especially this early in the game.

To take it a step further: Is it immoral to eat whole foods for all 3 meals a day?

Research has shown we get most of the nutrients we need from our first meal (of whole foods) each day. We only need calories from that point on. Shouldn't we then just try to get the most efficient form of calories, so long as those calories don't do harm? Leave the other 2 nutrient-rich meals for the rest of the world.

He frames it as "this is not what Americans want." But just because we can increasingly eat 3 nutrient-rich meals doesn't mean we should. In fact, it means the opposite -- that we should give those meals away because we can.

But starvation and malnutrition are generally not caused by lack of production, right? I think distribution and economic issues are usually at fault. So eating less doesn't help anyone, except maybe yourself.

> Research has shown we get most of the nutrients we need from our first meal (of whole foods) each day.

Not disagreeing but this is the first I've heard of this. Do you have any sources on hand?

I had some the other day. The liquid drink tastes like slightly sweet cornbread batter. Not bad, not great.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com