[m_d]

I have a great deal of respect for self-experimenters, no matter how crazy they seem.

That said, I'd like to see him compare two months of Soylent to two months of eating solid meals with a similar nutritional profile. Most of the benefits he has experienced are probably just a result of extremely well-balanced diet, not anything specifically related to Soylent.

[gnaritas]

> Most of the benefits he has experienced are probably just a result of extremely well-balanced diet

That's rather the point of Soylent, to deliver a well balanced diet.

> not anything specifically related to Soylent.

This statement makes little sense, he merely claimed Soylent was a way to achieve good nutrition, not that it was magic.

[gwern]

> That's rather the point of Soylent, to deliver a well balanced diet.

Comparing a well-balanced diet with Soylent is not a waste of time: if nothing else, it's evidence for the debate about whether all the micronutrients and random stuff in 'real' food is subjectively noticeable in the short-term or whether you really can get away with just macronutrients and a few other chemicals.

[gnaritas]

I don't see how what you said related in any way to what I said. Where did I say anything was a waste of time?

[jongraehl]

To recap, m_d wishes to see a comparison at the same protein+fat+carbs (normal non-junk food) vs. soylent.

gnaritas objects.

gwern supports m_d.

gnaritas has an opportunity to qualify his objection, but chooses not to.

(fwiw, I'm also extremely interested in all manner of "are there valuable yet-to-be-identified substances in real food" experiments.)

[gnaritas]

Bad recap, I didn't object, try again.

[uptown]

Or perhaps anybody that eats somewhat healthy and runs 7 miles (a day?) is likely to be in pretty good health.

[resu_nimda]

His main issues with solid food are the time and energy devoted to acquiring, preparing, and eating it. This cuts down on all of that, as well as cost.

Nutritionally, being equivalent to a well-balanced diet meets his goals.