from- https://faq.soylent.com/hc/en-us/articles/203709619-Soylent-...
I also enjoy saying "Numerous scientific studies have suggested..." while linking to none.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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".
1: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-long-can-a-pe...