[chjohasbrouck]

One problem with products like Soylent is that the nutrition label is used for marketing, and as a result they consciously engineer the product to optimize for that.

Nutrition facts labels and recommended daily intakes vary by country, and they're backed up by a lot of bad science and guessing games.

Consider that the USDA recently lifted their recommended maximum intake of cholesterol from 300mg/day (1.5 eggs/day) to no upper limit at all (after 50 years), or that study after study has failed to find any significant benefit from taking daily multivitamins (and to the contrary has found that taking too many, or the wrong kind, can cause liver damage), or that every sugary breakfast cereal and energy drink would seem quite healthy if all you looked at was the nutrition facts label.

I don't think nutrition facts labels are particularly meaningful, so a product sold almost entirely on the basis of how strictly it conforms to those government recommendations isn't of much interest to me.

If you're Soylent, you also have to lean heavily on government recommendations as a form of insurance against lawsuits. There's a lot of risk in encouraging people to eat only your food for every meal of the day, and being able to tell a judge that your product closely adhered to government recommendations is undoubtedly helpful in various litigation scenarios, but I don't think that necessarily forms a good foundation for what people should be eating.

[antisthenes]

> that every sugary breakfast cereal and energy drink would seem quite healthy if all you looked at was the nutrition facts label.

That is factually false, since their labels do quite accurately reflect that they consist of nothing more than carbs (and a bit of protein, for some cereals). I'm not sure how one would come to a conclusion that energy drinks are good for you from their nutrition label, unless you're assuming sugars, artificial colorings, taurine and caffeine are all healthy compounds.

[chjohasbrouck]

Those are just two product categories well-known for their manipulation of the nutrition facts label, and there are definitely millions of consumers that think they confer health benefits as a result of how the nutrition facts label was manipulated.

Most people think VitaminWater is healthy, and feel like they're doing something good for their body when they drink it. They'd probably be more discerning and come to a better conclusion about that product if you completely removed its nutrition facts label.

[unprepare]

thats because of how the products are marketed, not the nutrition label.

people think vitamin water is healthy because its called vitamin water. because the flavors are called things like "immune booster" "essential" "multi-v" and because they give descriptions on exactly what ailment this drink is designed to combat.

putting 1/2 cup as the serving size for ice cream is manipulating a nutrition label to sell more product, putting truthful information on the label and advertising your product as health food anyways is just dishonest marketing.

[stevenwiles]

You don't seem to understand the difference between marketing on the package and the nutrition label. Do you acknowledge these are different?

[dpritchett]

Some people don't balk at the sight of a mostly-grain ingredients list. Lots of people aren't into macronutrients.

[antisthenes]

It's interesting that one of the first books I read as a child ~5-6 years old was describing how a human body works.

It had a full chapter on macro-nutrients.

[force_reboot]

Maybe I'm just a third level contrarian, but I don't think one can reject mainstream advice on, for example, saturated fat simply because the USDA changed their mind on cholesterol.

Mainstream medical sources have never claimed to have strong evidence on the link between dietary cholesterol and heart disease, mortality etc. However since the link between serum cholesterol and these things is so string, it seemed prudent to advise limiting dietary cholesterol. However no, with more negative studies, this advice no longer makes sense. But at no point was limiting dietary cholesterol claimed to be as high of a priority as limiting saturated and trans fats.

That said, apart from saturated fats, total calories and protein (for people looking to build muscle) I don't think the rest of the label is useful for most people.

[JohnTHaller]

Which of these looks healthy? http://imgur.com/a/pDRTh

[cowpewter]

All three horrify me. I'm a type 2 diabetic though, and read labels pretty close, especially for carb/sugar content.

[cheald]

If I had to eat one of those blindly it'd be the bottom middle. Gotta balance those macros.