1,187 karma · joined March 11, 2014
https://www.PricePlow.com
Glad people like Ronnie James Dio didn't wimp out at their dreams because they weren't tall. But how many Ronnie James Dio's have we not had a chance to enjoy because they thought less of themselves? I hate it.
I fully respect that you have figured this out (because you're absolutely not wrong), but have you ever considered trying to become a top-tier male? Like, throw in a serious year or two of hard work, weightlifting, social skills improvement, cooking, grooming, study, wardrobe, etc etc, to see how the other side lives?
It's not "easy", but now I'm just wondering... since you've figured out that modern society has nothing to offer such men, which most men will NEVER truly understand, why not become the opposite?
That's a nice ironic load of bull right there.
Times have definitely changed. Whey is in everywhere, even in oreos. Demand got out of control cerca 2012, which led to all the spiking.
One of the major instant shockwaves to the market was the launch of Gatorade Recovery drinks. And that was on top of the general movement towards high-protein diets (a good thing). Took the market quite a while to recover from that, pardon the pun.
Regarding your question... if you have a high-protein diet, it's a nice convenience to throw a scoop or two in. You ever try to get 225-250g protein per day without using shakes, day in and day out? Gets tiring.
TL;DR is that companies were putting cheap filler aminos like taurine and glycine into protein powders, which would pass as nitrogen on a "protein" test, but they were far cheaper and less effective than actual whey protein.
A lot of times the companies would think they were getting legit raw materials, but if they didn't test their incoming raws (illegal per cGMP), they could easily get screwed by the cheap crap coming in from China.
It's expensive to test for ($2000 for a full amino panel), but once the bad guys started getting discovered, the class action lawsuits hit hard. One multi-million dollar settlement's already been public.
Olive oil companies are wise not to get caught doing this, especially the bigger ones with deep pockets (a class-action lawyer's dream). Always test your incoming and outgoing product. If you blindly trust that overseas manufacturer's lab tests, get ready to get destroyed.
[1] https://blog.priceplow.com/protein-scam-amino-acid-spiking
Are you willing to bet your life that this is all they do? Are you willing to bet your life that those general hypotheses are the only reasons why fruits and vegetables make nearly everyone live longer?
Do you think these engineers truly understand food, or is it possible that there are things we don't know, just like we didn't understand omegas decades ago?
I don't claim to fully know what's going on when I eat berries. Nobody does. But I see extremely strong statistics showing one thing, and Soylent has been marketed in the complete opposite direction, and that is dangerous.
Honestly I don't care what people do. But I care what is marketed to inexperienced consumers.
Some ideas proposed with several sources cited:
* Antioxidants and polyphenols from fruits and vegetables – like Vitamin C, carotenoids, and flavonoids – have been linked to lower cardiovascular disease rates. They’re known to prevent cholesterol and other lipids from oxidizing in the arteries.[14]
* Concentrations of another group of antioxidants, alpha carotene and beta carotene, are also elevated when eating fruits and vegetables[15,16]
* Fruits and vegetables slightly decrease blood pressure[16,17]
* Fruits and vegetables typically contain good doses of magnesium and potassium, both already linked to lower mortality rates[18,19,20]
* Vitamin C, carotenoids, lycopene, and other phytochemicals/phytonutrients (likely some that we haven’t yet discovered) were explained as the success from one mortality study[21]
(https://blog.priceplow.com/vegetables)
Lots of that stuff is not in Soylent. It's not very difficult to be awfully certain in my confidence in eating fruits and vegetables.
Again. Soylent's marketing has been extremely dangerous, and your link reinforces that point. Their haphazard marketing yielded unintended consequences, and they shouldn't be rewarded for it.
So this has everything to do with it. There's more to diet than numbers, yet if you're on a pure Soylent diet, you're clearly not getting some relatively-unknown things that are almost conclusively beneficial to your body.
Absence of proof is not proof of absence. Eat your fruits and vegetables or, statistically speaking, your cardiovascular system will eventually suffer.
Soylent's marketing puts a lot of otherwise smart people at serious long-term health risk.
But one thing they sure get right is how to market to a niche: all you guys and readers of tech news sites.
It'll be successful, but let's not make it out to be something pioneering, because it's most definitely not.
Anyone who's doing full-Soylent really needs to read this massive meta-analysis:
There is a ton of incentive for guys like this to scale big, and they can bootstrap it pretty easily once they have a profitable method. On the other hand, it's much tougher for a brand like Consumer Reports to do the same, because the effort is so much greater and the ROI is so much smaller. You simply don't make much money when you're un-selling stuff, and it's an eternal game of whack-a-mole fighting off scams.
So the "good guys" who would rage against these rip-offs end up thinking smaller, perhaps going after just one thing, like why this skin care offer is a scam. You get lost in the noise because you're stuck in a swamp of other evildoer affiliates who are more greatly incentivized to lie. Ultimately, there's very few systematic tools out there that can encompass on the number of niches his network can, and visibly tell the truth about them all.
Further, once a doer of good who's scaling starts to see success, the power begins to corrupt, and aligning with profitable evils becomes difficult to resist.
I see this problem at all levels, especially in corrupt governments. It just feels like we are currently systematically broken as a species. Good people may or may not be outnumbered, but we're most definitely out-powered.
Gist is that tongue cleaning yields less bacteria (that's one major cause of bad breath), but they still recommend both brushing and tongue cleaning since the reduction of tongue bacteria didn't reduce plaque. I never claimed that it did though.
Tongue scrapers are cheap and awesome. It's amazing what kind of disgusting stuff you'll scrape off that thing. I'll nearly guarantee you better breath unless you have some serious other problems, like periodontitis.
A second source on elderly: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16677187
"These results suggest that tongue care is essential for preventing oral disease and needs to be part of any oral care programme in elderly people."
On the note of tongues, using a tongue scraper is a great way to get rid of nasty bacteria that causes bad breath and spreads to the rest of the teeth/gums. Cheap and effective.
They definitely and easily see a difference seen between those who floss and brush and those who just brush.
Also, those who use Sonicare, especially when used properly around the gumlines, also tend to have healthier mouths than those who brush with an old brush.
The one thing that can throw a wrench in this whole thing is smoking. Smokers' mouths are disgusting basically no matter what.
Point being, I love research, but I trust those who put their hands in tens of thousands of mouths more than skeptics on ArsTechnica article comments.
That said, they should get more studies done.
You could also be a bad flosser, so even the study could be flawed.
"When your barber starts giving you stock tips, it's time to sell"
This is due to safer cars, no doubt.
I'd love to see some stats between 2008 and 2015, which I believe would show the abundant increase in distracted drivers thanks to smart phones.