[pron]

I'm sorry, but you've collected no data, only noise. Eating rice for 2 weeks would have produced similar effects. As to your subjective experience – it's probably 100% placebo.

If you want to call something an experiment, you should know how to conduct an experiment in that respective field. Your experiences only show how a product like Soylent induces magical thinking in its consumers.

If you want to produce a single data point with Soylent (that would hardly be relevant, as it would be a sampling size of one, but still, it would be one sampling of data rather than zero), eat nothing but Soylent for at least 6 months.

[hnaccount8888]

If you don't mind me asking, can you produce some food studies/experiments that are up to your standards, so I can get an idea of what one would look like?

[pron]

Most of those published in the New England, for example. Of course, one can substitute a shorter duration for a larger sample if the results are ver significant with a large effect. But if you have a sample size of 1, and want it to be data, however insignificant, rather than noise, you better keep at it for a while.

[shanedanger]

So something is not an experiment unless you do it for 6 months? :)

[danparsonson]

I don't think you read the parent comment properly.

Of course it was "an experiment" but that doesn't mean you can automatically draw useful or even valid conclusions from it. If I ate nothing but peas for a day, my "experiment" wouldn't say much (if anything) about the effects of a pea-only diet on the human body, but if I did it for a year, I might get some useful data. Except that would still only be the effects of peas on my body, and may not generalise to other humans anyway.