[jdkuepper]

Thanks for the post-

It would be interesting to see some more detailed N=1 studies posted regarding Soylent. In particular, I'd be very interested in seeing a blood lipid profile, blood pressure readings, and blood glucose readings before and after to see its effects on key markers for metabolic syndrome.

I'm not opposed to the idea of engineered food (it would certainly be convenient), but I'm not convinced that the same macronutrient profile is ideal for everyone. My other big concern is that there's potential harm in the lack of diversity - e.g. "unknown unknowns" so to speak.

Unfortunately, the field of nutrition is not very WELL studied despite the high NUMBER of studies published, so I won't pretend that I have a better answer than Soylent to the problem with nutrition in society. It's good to see that people are at least working on the problem in creative ways, so long as they aren't harming anyone.

[bbarn]

"I'm not convinced that the same macronutrient profile is ideal for everyone. "

Yeah, this is my big problem with all of this. In fact, given the known differences in gut fauna that localized cultures/diets have, it's pretty much a fact. Different people process different foods differently.

I agree with your assertion that quantity of nutrition "studies" doesn't provide quality. Most nutrition studies seem to be done with the goal of proving X diet is better than Y, sponsored and paid for by X.

[myrryr]

if People can take a massive range of macronutrients. Seriously, if soylent was going to be a problem, then people would have to be FAR more careful about what they eat then they are now.

It all reminds me of the perfect is the enemy of good arguments.

Is soylent perfect? Most likely not, is it better then the vast majority of people are eating? that wouldn't be a high bar to jump, and I think it jumps it easily.

[tracker1]

More recent studies seam to lean towards once you get a minimum level of protein in your diet, the rest of it is just calories... though ketosis vs carb burning is another difference. That said, most people are not on a keto based diet. So, get your protein in (1/3 to 1/2 your lean weight in pounds as grams of protein), and from there have whatever you want to hit your caloric needs.

Even when trying to lose wieght, making sure you hit your minimum protein requirements is important... my only suggestion to someone taking a reduced amount of soylent is that they really should supplement extra protein into their diet. Especially if exercising as they are likely losing a lot of muscle with the fat loss, which is probably not the desired result.

[jdkuepper]

I have an interesting anecdote related to ketosis: I was in nutritional ketosis for three months to test its effects on my body. My ketones were consistent with being in the ketotic state, but my LDL-P and triglycerides skyrocketed with no meaningful improvement in HDL. It's debatable whether this is "bad" for you without inflammation (atherosclerosis relies on both), but I certainly wasn't comfortable with the elevated levels and went out of ketosis.

Saturated fat sensitivity seems to have been my issue (VERY difficult to be on that diet without high levels of saturated fat) and I'm now on a low-carb monounsaturated fat diet that has dramatically improved my blood lipids.

So, for me at least, I would have to disagree with "the rest is just calories" statement. I think too many people are trying to simplify nutrition with a single book, diet, or pill, when in reality, it's a complex system that might very well be impossible to predict.