[deeth_starr_v]

Agreed, while the intentions of Soylent are probably sincere, when I first heard about it my response was "nope nope nope".

My parents were hippies and we grew/raised most of our food when I was a kid. But my grandparents had embraced the new space-age diet: margarine in place of butter, tang instead of orange juice, kraft instead of cheese, etc. I thought it tasted awful compared to real food.

As we have found out, some food choices like trans fats have an impact on health. There's really too much noise in the nutrition related data to draw wide ranging conclusions. But buyer beware.

For me I think the safest option is the "whole foods" (Polan) route. For me it would be "eat what your grand-grand parents ate". I was even a vegetarian and eating fake-meats and then realized I was just eating chemicals. So I started eating meat again.

Edit: Changed wording on first sentence

[refurb]

and then realized I was just eating chemicals

You do realize that everything you eat is chemicals, right?

[hammock]

I hate this argument. Usually people are talking about synthetic or non-naturally occurring compounds ancillary to the reason for eating the food.

In other words, are you eating processed cheese for the protein, or for the potassium sorbate? Only one of these is a "chemical" is the vernacular.

[humanrebar]

> Only one of these is a "chemical" is the vernacular.

The vernacular is wrong in this case and encourages ignorance. "Preservatives", "dyes", "perfumes", "thickeners", and "artificial sweeteners" are all words that everyone understands. We can say "artificial ingredients" instead if we want a catch all. The English language is really expressive.

"Chemicals" is a buzzword used a lot by hucksters to push sales through pseudoscience. We must demand better and more specific reasoning than "chemicals" if we want the words "shown by science" to be meaningful as well.

[ajmurmann]

To add to your point, many of these "chemicals" aren't even all that artificial. Some thickeners for example come from algae and gave been in use since centuries just in different countries. Looking at some traditional food like ham they are incredibly processed we just are used to it.

[deeth_starr_v]

My point was basically about food breaking down in a system (our gut). We have some knowledge about this. But not much.

[deeth_starr_v]

I apologize for using "chemicals" rather than using correct terms. I was just using it as a shorthand for something grown vs something made.

Edit: This seems to be your argument, that engineered is the same as non-engineered. Because they are all the same basic building blocks. Right?

[derefr]

How do you feel about orange juice manufacturing? They take "something grown", fractionally distil it apart into tanks of purified constituent molecules, and then create a drink by mixing stuff from those tanks together.

Is the result of this process "grown"? "Made"? "Engineered"? All of the above?

[humanrebar]

> ...that engineered is the same as non-engineered

I was just saying the vague and abused "chemicals" is a bad descriptor. It's fair to rail against "manufactured", "under-researched", or "engineered" ingredients.

[deeth_starr_v]

Yes, I get that using the word "chemicals" is problematic. I understand that food is made up of the same proteins, fats, etc.

When I hear hucksters marketing organic, GMO, or Soylent. I'm always cautious. Caveat emptor.

Edit: I'm not anti-GMO. Nor the concept of Soylent. But I use a headset rather than hold my phone up to my head. Even though there's no definitive proof we can get cancer from smart phones. I just think there is additional risk here.

Edit: Also, your "chemicals" point is like arguing that Global Warming doesn't exist because it's snowing today. It's true, but not relevant to the discussion.

[BHSPitMonkey]

Plenty of naturally-occurring compounds found in various plants and animals are toxic for humans to consume. To say that naturally-occurring foods are inherently better for us to eat requires an awful lot of cherry-picking (no pun intended).

[hammock]

Right, and we don't eat them....what's your point

[lambdadmitry]

We do. The most obvious example is read meat (which is now officially designated cancerogene), a bit less obvious is various "natural" herbal medications that induce renal failure [1] and cancer [2]. People consumed those substances for centuries, only to find out recently that they are harmful.

[1]: https://www.hindawi.com/journals/crim/2015/150204/

[2]: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/1343598/Chinese-herb-...

[stale2002]

Your grand grand parents probably died of polio or something, so I am not sure if taking their advice on health is a good idea.

[aetherson]

Polio is not a disease caused by malnutrition. Also, your ancestors probably did not die of it -- it mostly affected young people, so people who died from it usually didn't have descendants.

Quibbling aside, health in general was certainly much worse in our great-grandparents' days, but for those who weren't straight up underfed, nutrition was probably not worse. I'm not sure it was as magically better as some would have you believe, but there is decent evidence that traditional diets were more-or-less fine, and that the modern diet has something wrong with it.

[projektfu]

Most of the impetus for Federal nutrition programs in the US was because of the large number of malnourished and unfit to serve draftees in WW1.

[deeth_starr_v]

No, a heart attack at 48 and cancer at 91. This data tells you little

Edit: Sorry, misread. All I know is my great grandfather was a pony express rider and got colon cancer

[tomc1985]

It's only bad advice if they died of malnutrition

[hammock]

>"eat what your grand-grand parents ate"

Not possible, unfortunately. Meat and vegetables are so totally different now. For example meats are raised on GM corn and antibiotics, altering their balance of omega 3's, impact on gut health, and other things. While today's vegetables are massively decremented in micronutrients- and may have less arsenic-based pesticide residue than your greatgrandparents', but more of other pesticides.

[metamet]

They still exist. Eat locally from farmers. All my beef is grass fed (which have higher omega 3's), for example.

And if you can't because of where you live, there's a good chance neither could your grandparents had if they lived there as well.

[leshow]

Or you could take an omega-3 supplement and eat normal beef. There isn't much evidence to show that grass-fed beef has any measurable effect on health.

[cabinguy]

There isn't much evidence to show that supplements do either.

[deeth_starr_v]

Agreed, research here is that supplements don't have an impact.

Edit: For pregnant women and others for sure. But in the general population no

[iopq]

Well, fish oil does have SOME evidence behind it.

[lambdadmitry]

However, there is strong evidence that any type of beef may cause cancer.

[metamet]

I am pretty sure this isn't true.

The advanced glycation end products from overcooked/burnt meat have been shown to, but not meat itself.

[theoh]

Better to eat how your great grandparents would have eaten if they lived somewhere notorious for long, healthy lives.

There's such a gap between Soylent and something like Wendell Berry's ideas:

https://www.ecoliteracy.org/article/wendell-berry-pleasures-...

People do mention that in relation to Soylent, encouragingly (whether it's altogether right or not). Historical perspective is very important.

[leshow]

Do you have any evidence? I'd love to see a comparison of nutrients in produce over the decades.

[Scottn1]

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/soil-depletion-an...

[briandear]

Any peer reviewed, legitimate studies that suggest GM corn causes problems with beef? It's popular to critique GM, but it often seems like a knee-jerk reaction rather than based on actual scientific studies. And by studies, I don't mean an article in Mother Jones, but actual science.

[SimbaOnSteroids]

I mean it tastes better but that's not peer reviewable, the major issue currently is that the microbiom of a cow's digestive track really can't handle corn that well and as a result methane output of the live stock skyrockets contributing more drastically to anthropomorphic climate change.

[paulcole]

yeah, the apples of today are so different from my grandpa's apple that a bottle of soy sludge is a much better choice nutritionally.

[jboggan]

Learn to hunt. Its rewards go beyond better personal nutrition.

[Lambdanaut]

> Not possible, unfortunately

My wife raises our livestock and garden while I work. Yesterday I had a sandwich and I know where every ingredient came from(our yard). Look, it's not impossible. It just requires you to look outside of your modern context.

[vkou]

You grow, thresh, and mill your own grain? That must be a lot of work.

[komali2]

My great grandparents ate nothing but potatos, no thanks.

[deeth_starr_v]

What's your point? My great grandparents were Italian and Irish.

[komali2]

Eating only potatos isn't healthy, why would I emulate their diet?

[CaptainZapp]

I would add:

And refrain from "food" that comes with a version number. But that's just me.

[sneak]

Orange juice, from your example, is pretty bad for you, especially compared to the low glycemic index carbohydrates found in things like Soylent.

File under "false dichotomy".

[iopq]

Glycemic index means nothing. Cake has a low glycemic index (someting like 30, depending on fat content). Oatmeal has a higher glycemic index (55). Does that mean we should stop eating oatmeal and substitute it with cake?

[akgerber]

Meat is chemicals too. Just more complex ones, usually.

[deeth_starr_v]

Yes. It's like comparing snow to climate.

[chaostheory]

I agree with you.

For everyone else, I just want to add that there is a place for things like Soylent, beyond the marketing. We're most likely not going to be able to continue our current method producing food cheaply. I could be wrong but things like Soylent will probably be the future that mitigates this issue for a lot of people.

[deeth_starr_v]

Yeah, meat/food substitutes are likely central to our population growth rate, but let's be intellectually honest. I'm not sure it'll work. I'm really hopeful the meat substitutes will pan out. We haven't figured out cancer yet. You're betting on us figuring out food?

Edit: because cancer is complex, the same a food and nutrition

[chaostheory]

> You're betting on us figuring out food?

Things like Soylent are already here. It's not vaporware. Yes it's not perfect or ideal but it's an answer to really inefficient food production whose water and nutrient needs aren't sustainable for a growing population.

[unclebucknasty]

>it's an answer to really inefficient food production whose water and nutrient needs aren't sustainable...

But, is it? The ingredients include oats, grapeseed oil, soy derivates, and whey. I'm sincerely having trouble seeing how this represents more efficient food production.

In fact, it would seem to be less efficient from that perspective: it still requires the resources for crops/farming, derives isolates from foods that are otherwise more whole (what happens to the rest?), then adds a degree of processing that requires still more resources.

Isn't it more efficient to just eat whole foods rather than extracts from various foods that, by definition, require energy/processing to obtain and must leave some waste in the process?

Maybe it's more convenient from the consumer's perspective, but I don't see how it solves the production problems you suggest.

[iopq]

Well, for example, you shouldn't eat soy derivatives that haven't been processed. This is why fermented soy products have been popular - they are more easily digested by humans. Raw soybeans are actually toxic.

[unclebucknasty]

Yeah, that's a different topic.

[deeth_starr_v]

I'm not calling it vaporware. We don't understand clearly about our gut bio/digestion/food absorption. It'd be great to hear an expert on this chime in, but my guess they would say "we don't know yet".

I'm not telling you to not eat Soylent or that it won't potentially be great for the human race. But again, we don't know.

Edit: fixed wording Edit: What if they get something wrong like including trans fats? I know this a "playing to fear" argument, but there is a long history of industrial foods being not healthy. It just takes a new generation of suckers to come of age.

[derefr]

People have been eating imperfectly for millenia and keeping on nevertheless. How many billion (trillion?) Chinese peasants, across history, do you think ate only rice their entire lives?

Sure, said peasants probably had vitamin A deficiency—but they managed to live long, mostly-healthy lives despite that. Which is my point: we don't need to get "food" perfect in order to ensure that 10x as many people as today can live "long, mostly-healthy lives." It's not unethical to feed starving people food that's missing some micronutrient we aren't yet aware of, because they'll still be better off than if they were starving. The human body is hardy.

[iopq]

Those peasants also ate a lot of vegetables because they couldn't afford meat. Vegetables that have beta-carotene, like bok choy.