# Meal replacement.



## ftr (Sep 10, 2017)

Has anyone here tried or is currently on a meal replacement regimen? Soylent seems to be the most popular meal replacement. Something about it appeals to me. I am currently doing Intermittent fasting, (eating daily calories in a few hour window). I am tired of going to the grocery store and figuring out what to eat each day. I just want to get my calories easily and forget about it and focus on other things. Does anyone else feel the same?


----------



## marcwormjim (Sep 11, 2017)

Going by the expressed attitudes: Yes. Soylent is for you. You can also stock up on supplies to make your own in one shopping trip. 

This may be unrelated, but I really hate people.


----------



## vansinn (Sep 11, 2017)

You don't really need meat. We're build for a vegan/vegetarian diet, which changes when mom'n'dad starts teaching us to become carnivores - based on advertisements on foods, intended to make people buy those, for keeping the food industry busy.

Soy products are interesting, but do keep your diet varied to avoid using soy products all the time. I'm a vegan-something, not religious about it, just ~90% or so. I sublement with fish and other sea foods and on occasion, chicken, but totally keep off beef and especially pork.
Do some searches on vegan/vegetarian and bio-organic foods, and you'll easily find ways to get a healthy diet, even covering proteins.

BTW, did you know that roundabout 17 billion animals are killed yearly just to allow sinking our teeth into halfways fermented, treated with chemicals to slowdown this process, so-called meat?


----------



## CrazyDean (Sep 11, 2017)

I'm not going to get into a meat/vegan debate, but I will not eat soy. A lot of cheap protein-rich foods contain soy. However, the protein quality of soy is low compared to meats. This means that you need a larger portion of soy to reach your daily requirements.

Also, soy increases estrogen production. Unless you have low estrogen already, I would stay away.

Don't take my word for it, do some research.


----------



## marcwormjim (Sep 11, 2017)

In light of recent posts, I recommend not eating anything, at all.


----------



## Ebony (Sep 11, 2017)

vansinn said:


> We're build for a vegan/vegetarian diet



This is not true. All the current anatomical and physiological evidence suggest that the Homo genus have developed as omnivores. Even the vegan and vegetarian scientists (disregarding fanatics) agree with this as a fact of science.



vansinn said:


> BTW, did you know that roundabout 17 billion animals are killed yearly just to allow sinking our teeth into halfways fermented, treated with chemicals to slowdown this process, so-called meat?



It is not the eating of animals that is the problem, it is the scale on which it must function due to human overpopulation. But you can say that about anything, be it rosewood fingerboards, nickel batteries, pet amphibians or airline travel.
The solution is always rationing, which in turn always end up dealing with socioeconomic status. Only rich people will eat healthy meat in the future because, as you point out, the cheap, over-industrialized meat is a hazard to peoples health and will in time (like trans fats and smoking before it) be uncovered and slowly faced out one social class after another until it is as outdated as deepfried rhino.


----------



## Ebony (Sep 11, 2017)

ftr said:


> Has anyone here tried or is currently on a meal replacement regimen?



Check out Dr Berg. He has some very good, healthy shakes that function as meal replacements. I can personally recommend them.


----------



## bostjan (Sep 11, 2017)

I've been vegetarian for fifteen years. I disagree with anyone who says that humans are definitely meant to be herbivores. Prehistoric humans ate whatever they could manage to get.

That said, a vegetarian diet is 100% manageable with modern convenience. I don't miss meat at all. But then, I never really did. I suppose if you try vegetarian and miss meat, you probably aren't going to stay vegetarian indefinitely, but, give it a try and see what you think.


----------



## bpprox22 (Sep 11, 2017)

vansinn said:


> You don't really need meat. We're build for a vegan/vegetarian diet, which changes when mom'n'dad starts teaching us to become carnivores - based on advertisements on foods, intended to make people buy those, for keeping the food industry busy.



Why do we have canine teeth then? *cough cough* to eat meat *cough*

Disclaimer: I’m a meat eater and don’t mind if you are vegan for moral/ethical reasons. However, I have a problem with people who misrepresent scientific literature to further their agenda or to "scientifically" validate their decisions.

I agree with CrazyDean. I stay far away from soy.


----------



## smokiekouki (Sep 11, 2017)

Ya'll crazy, I'm grilling a porterhouse tonight lol


----------



## Ebony (Sep 11, 2017)

bpprox22 said:


> I stay far away from soy.



Count me in on that one aswell. There is a reason why people in Asia ferment their soy (tempeh, miso, natto etc) and we don't. They've eaten it since the dawn of time and have it embedded in their culture with all the necessary knowledge of how to eat it, whilst we use it to spike hybrid-culture takeaway crap and cheapen fabricated trash-meals. There are simply too many cases of estrogen-problems in conjunction with increased soy-consumption for it to be a coincidence.


----------



## bostjan (Sep 11, 2017)

The estrogen thing is horseshit. Soy does not contain estrogen. Yes, it contains a chemical sort-of-kind-of like estrogen. You know what contains actual estrogen? Cows.

Fighting junk science with more junk science just makes us all full of junk. 

Human health relies on a balanced diet. You aren't going to get that from eating a big gelatinous blob of tofu for every meal, but truth be told, Americans (and Europeans, to a lesser extent) eat too much meat, in general, but also too much grain/starch. A more varied diet of fresh fruits, vegetables, whole grains, pulses, some meat and some dairy is as good as it gets. Eating lots of white bread, potatoes, deep-fried chicken and fatty cuts of beef is pretty close to the worst diet.


----------



## ftr (Sep 11, 2017)

The soy aspect doesn't appeal to me at all either. I was just giving an example of Soylent, because it is the most popular and the purpose of it is what I am interested in. I was thinking of trying to find an alternative to Soylent which doesn't have soy as a primary ingredient. I am not too knowledgeable of all of the meal replacement options right now.


----------



## Ebony (Sep 11, 2017)

bostjan said:


> The estrogen thing is horseshit. Soy does not contain estrogen. Yes, it contains a chemical sort-of-kind-of like estrogen. You know what contains actual estrogen? Cows.
> Fighting junk science with more junk science just makes us all full of junk.



The pharmacokinetics of all the phytoestrogens in soy is not near the point of true understanding yet and yes, alot of it _is _probably horseshit, but that doesn't make it junk science nor does it magically remove all the problems associated with it. 
It is, as most other things we "know", a developing story.


----------



## bostjan (Sep 11, 2017)

Ebony said:


> The pharmacokinetics of all the phytoestrogens in soy is not near the point of true understanding yet and yes, alot of it _is _probably horseshit, but that doesn't make it junk science nor does it magically remove all the problems associated with it.
> It is, as most other things we "know", a developing story.


You missed my main point, though. If you care so much about estrogen, then, by the same logic, you'd have to cut out any meat from female animals.


----------



## Ebony (Sep 11, 2017)

bostjan said:


> You missed my main point, though. If you care so much about estrogen, then, by the same logic, you'd have to cut out any meat from female animals.



Didn't miss it. The problem seems to be specific kinds of the stuff that trigger specific reactions, not the entire concept of ingesting sexhormones. 
Going by the logic you propose, women who worry about testosterone would have to avoid meat from male animals.


----------



## bostjan (Sep 11, 2017)

It's not the logic I proposed. It's the logic you used when you argued that "estrogen-problems" result from "soy-consumption." You can't have it both ways- so either it matters in every case, or it doesn't matter at all.


----------



## TedEH (Sep 11, 2017)

To get back on topic, I know some guys who tried the soylent thing a while ago, and it seemed to go well for them, but they both stopped for whatever reason. One was just doing it out of curiosity and got bored of it, I think. The other, I don't know for sure, but I *think* he was told by a personal trainer to change his diet, so he dropped the soylent thing and started just following the advice of the trainer instead (which had to do with upping how much he ate in the first place).



bostjan said:


> Human health relies on a balanced diet.


I'm far from being a vegetarian, but I can appreciate that I think a lot of people eat a lot more meat than they "need". I actually get into arguments about it from people who insist I need to eat more meat, because it's "not healthy not to eat some meat every day", according to them. I made some pretty major dietary changes a couple of years ago (along with some other lifestyle changes), and a big part of it was scaling back how much meat and pasta I eat. I still have some kind of meat maybe 2-3 days out of the week, but it's not every day. The majority of my diet now is fruit/veg/etc., and I arguably still go through a lot of bread, but I'm probably in the best state of health I can ever remember being in. I don't think my health improved specifically because of less meat, but rather because of more variety, (and smaller portion sized overall).

I don't think people eat too much meat because "meat is bad", I think people eat too much meat because they eat too much in general.


----------



## Ebony (Sep 11, 2017)

bostjan said:


> It's not the logic I proposed. It's the logic you used when you argued that "estrogen-problems" result from "soy-consumption." You can't have it both ways- so either it matters in every case, or it doesn't matter at all.



What you just typed makes no sense at all. If soy creates SPECIFIC estrogen-problems in the body thru a not-fully-understood chain of events due to its effect on CERTAIN types of estrogen-functions in the body automatically means I say "soy increases estrogen in the body, therefore it is bad because too much estrogen is bad because that is what blogger X told me"?


----------



## bostjan (Sep 11, 2017)

Ebony said:


> What you just typed makes no sense at all. If soy creates SPECIFIC estrogen-problems in the body thru a not-fully-understood chain of events due to its effect on CERTAIN types of estrogen-functions in the body automatically means I say "soy increases estrogen in the body, therefore it is bad because too much estrogen is bad because that is what blogger X told me"?


So, your argument is:

1. A person eats soy.
2. ?????
3. Estrogen problems.

That's pretty specific. [sarcasm]

Anyway, there is no estrogen-based harm in eating soy.

(sources: 
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0089288
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11880595
http://www.precisionnutrition.com/soy-latest-research)


----------



## Ebony (Sep 11, 2017)

Too specific because it isn't necessarily a problem related to the _amount_ of ingested estrogen?
Ok...agree to disagree and all that stuff.


----------



## Drew (Sep 11, 2017)

Ebony said:


> Too specific because it isn't necessarily a problem related to the _amount_ of ingested estrogen?
> Ok...agree to disagree and all that stuff.


As an unbiased observer, you know what would go a long way here? Some sort of peer-reviewed scientific paper demonstrating, to a reasonably small p-value, that there is a relationship between soy consumption and estrogen issues. Science is pretty good when it comes to confirming this stuff, after all.


----------



## Drew (Sep 11, 2017)

ftr said:


> I just want to get my calories easily and forget about it and focus on other things.





marcwormjim said:


> This may be unrelated, but I really hate people.


marcwormjim, I hear you, man. 

I work out and eat a fairly decent diet because I enjoy food. The idea of someone just wanting to get the day's eating out of the way and focus on other things seems totally alien to me.


----------



## bostjan (Sep 11, 2017)

Drew said:


> As an unbiased observer, you know what would go a long way here? Some sort of peer-reviewed scientific paper demonstrating, to a reasonably small p-value, that there is a relationship between soy consumption and estrogen issues. Science is pretty good when it comes to confirming this stuff, after all.





bostjan said:


> So, your argument is:
> 
> 1. A person eats soy.
> 2. ?????
> ...



Already posted two to the contrary (plus one that's more of a white-paper/essay). I still have not heard a reasonable explanation from anyone as to why eating something the body might mistakenly treat like estrogen if it isn't metabolized properly causes huge problems, yet eating something that actually contains estrogen itself would not cause a similar problem. My personal opinion is that neither one is a problem. I think that's a pretty safe assertion, based on the simple logic linking the two and the studies I had already posted.

The main reason I'm jumping on this, is these guys come into a thread about a dude thinking of going vegetarian and try to scare him away from it by parroting rumours started by the dairy industry ages ago to spook people away from soy milk, that have been debunked time and time again, but don't even really want to engage in the discussion once it comes down to evidence, logic, or scientific studies published in, well, anything. That's just sort of the age we live in, though. I'm sure @Ebony doesn't mean anything by it, and this user probably firmly believes the anecdotes that have been told, but doesn't want to discuss the validity of the assertion, even if it's given as health advice.


----------



## Ebony (Sep 11, 2017)

https://www.westonaprice.org/health...ing-adverse-effects-of-dietary-soy-1939-2008/
http://americannutritionassociation.org/newsletter/downside-soybean-consumption0
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2010/12/04/soy-dangers-summarized.aspx

Here are some papers of varying degrees of credibility (like yours) that suggest soy can be a bad thing. 
Take it how you like, like I've alluded to many times now neither you or I have the answers as this is not an exact science yet.

And please refrain from assuming that I believe in "anecdotes" or that I'm "parroting" what I've heard anymore than you do. 

I do not hesitate to be involved in meaningful debate, but you and me going at this is not a meaningful debate given how neither of us (presumably) are experts in this field and all we can do is throw contradictory studies in each others face.
Like you, I simply share my opinion based on what I believe to be closest to the truth.


----------



## bostjan (Sep 11, 2017)

The first link is a tabulation of other data about soy, some of it is very very old, some of the newer data is positive.
The source is Weston Price, a non-profit organization that has firmly supported the dairy industry for decades. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weston_A._Price_Foundation ) The 1983 study that pertains to the phytoestrogen you mentioned was actually done by testing real estrogen on animals, and then inferring that the same thing happens with soy milk in human babies. That's the kind of science this organization is concerned with bolstering. That's fine, but read the data there and then go to the actual primary sources they cited, and see if you can still support your conclusion from earlier.

The second link is completely irrelevant. Click on it and search for "soy" zero results. I even searched the site using the search box and got nothing.

Your third source is extremely controversial among nutritionists and among the medical community in general: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Mercola. His "myths" section of his page is full of contradictions.

So, no, not a single thing there that supports your argument. Do you want to try again? Maybe this time, make sure the links take me where I am supposed to go, or, if they did work properly, maybe read the article you posted to make sure it contains the words "soy" and "estrogen."

I say you use anecdotes, based off of your own posts.

Did you look at the links I posted at all?

And why can't we have a meaningful debate by reading each other's articles? I never mentioned any credentials nor the lack thereof. I've studied nutrition science at the college level, and I have a BS in Physics and Mathematics with minors in Biology and Chemistry, MS in Solid State Physics and an ABD is Physics. I have not published any papers about the metabolites of soy in any scholarly journals, but I have written papers about it for undergraduate courses in nutrition. I assure you that secondary research like that is still plenty valid enough for a discussion, assuming that there is some discern used in understanding the credentials of the sources.


----------



## Drew (Sep 11, 2017)

Ebony said:


> https://www.westonaprice.org/health...ing-adverse-effects-of-dietary-soy-1939-2008/
> http://americannutritionassociation.org/newsletter/downside-soybean-consumption0
> http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2010/12/04/soy-dangers-summarized.aspx
> 
> ...


So, again, no horse in this race....

...but bostjan is posting links to scientific journals, where articles are first submitted to peer review, and studies are held to very robust standards.

Yours? The former is basically a list of summaries, no links to the underlying studies, posted by an alternative diet advocacy source that's run afoul of the FDA for advocating (with no scientific basis) a raw milk diet, according to Wikipedia. The second seems to just go to the association's official website, but despite the formal sounding name has no association with any of the US government nutritional science organizations, and little net presence to begin with (I don't see anything on wikipedia). The third bostjan has already addressed.

So, if none of us are experts, shouldn't we _defer_ to the experts? I.e. - the ones actually doing hard science on the subject? You describe this as a matter of "sharing your opinion of what you believe to be closest to the truth." It isn't. It's neither a matter of opinion, nor is it one of belief. It's one of what can be empirically proven.

tl;dr - science works. Maybe we should listen to it.


----------



## marcwormjim (Sep 12, 2017)




----------



## CrazyDean (Sep 12, 2017)

Well, i am guilty of passing along information from what I've "heard", mainly from bodybuilding and strength training circles. While I do still believe soy has low biological value (BV) and should not be used as a primary source of protein, I retract my previous statement about soy raising estrogen levels. 

While I hold a BS in physics, I find biology to be quite tedious and difficult to read when it comes to scientific articles. There's simply too much being referenced that I already don't understand. Anyway, I did read an article which is relevant to my own interests. 

https://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/willbrink4.htm


----------



## Drew (Sep 12, 2017)

CrazyDean said:


> Well, i am guilty of passing along information from what I've "heard", mainly from bodybuilding and strength training circles. While I do still believe soy has low biological value (BV) and should not be used as a primary source of protein, I retract my previous statement about soy raising estrogen levels.


How science is SUPPOSED to work.   

My main problem with soy is this - unless it's fermented into something I can dip my sushi into or use as the base for a marinade or glaze for steak tips, I just don't like it all that much.


----------



## CrazyDean (Sep 13, 2017)

Drew said:


> How science is SUPPOSED to work.
> 
> My main problem with soy is this - unless it's fermented into something I can dip my sushi into or use as the base for a marinade or glaze for steak tips, I just don't like it all that much.



Again, I've never intentionally shied away from soy. It's biggest problem for me is the low BV. Basically, I have a protein goal to meet every day. One gram of soy is not worth as much as one gram of whey. So, I need more of it which leaves me fewer calories overall to work with. Also, soy protein doesn't mix as well in a shake. At least, not the ones I've had.

I have noticed that when I'm in the grocery store and see some product shouting at me "8G OF PROTEIN!!!", it's usually soy because soy protein is cheap.


----------



## Drew (Sep 13, 2017)

CrazyDean said:


> Again, I've never intentionally shied away from soy. It's biggest problem for me is the low BV. Basically, I have a protein goal to meet every day. One gram of soy is not worth as much as one gram of whey. So, I need more of it which leaves me fewer calories overall to work with. Also, soy protein doesn't mix as well in a shake. At least, not the ones I've had.
> 
> I have noticed that when I'm in the grocery store and see some product shouting at me "8G OF PROTEIN!!!", it's usually soy because soy protein is cheap.


I just work out so I can eat for taste, so I don't even really pay much attention to that stuff. Which is why I found the OP so dumbfounding.


----------



## MFB (Sep 13, 2017)

Drew said:


> I just work out so I can eat for taste, so I don't even really pay much attention to that stuff. Which is why I found the OP so dumbfounding.



The problem with cooking is 20 mins of prep/cooking, and another 10 for clean-up for 5-10 mins of delicious eating. It's one of the worst returns for your efforts


----------



## Drew (Sep 13, 2017)

MFB said:


> The problem with cooking is 20 mins of prep/cooking, and another 10 for clean-up for 5-10 mins of delicious eating. It's one of the worst returns for your efforts


Dude, I enjoy the _shit _out of cooking. The OPPORTUNITY of cooking is the 60 minutes of prep cooking and dicing shit up and searing and sautéing and cranking some tunes while your kitchen smells delicious.


----------



## mongey (Sep 13, 2017)

FWIW

I had a mate who was about 135kg drop about 30kg just doing a meal replacement, shake thing .lasted a few months then he missed eating real food and put it all back


----------



## mongey (Sep 13, 2017)

Drew said:


> Dude, I enjoy the _shit _out of cooking. The OPPORTUNITY of cooking is the 60 minutes of prep cooking and dicing shit up and searing and sautéing and cranking some tunes while your kitchen smells delicious.


don't forget the beer to drink while doing it


----------



## bpprox22 (Sep 13, 2017)

I feel the same way about prepping/cooking as I do with mowing the lawn: If I have time to do it, I enjoy the hell out of the experience and "me" time. If I'm on a time crunch to get other things done it's just another inconvenience.

@Drew The only thing I don't like about the amazing smells while cooking (and eating immediately after) is that it usually makes my taste buds less sensitive to the flavor of the food that I'm working hard to prepare


----------



## vansinn (Sep 14, 2017)

To my knowledge, soy has no estrogen issues; however, using soy products to replace most anything in the so-called ordinary diet will result in a too one-sided diet, and this could be why some/many jumps off the soy-replacing-meat diet.

I had a totally clean-living yogish/tantrish GF (yumyum ) back in the days, who used soy as a meat replacer. While I'm mostly a vegan/vegetarian thingy, this totally knocked me off, taste/feel wise.
I believe this diet thing is mainly a matter of studying what we really need, and when composing a diet, refrain from adhering to the foods advertizement the food industry tries to put into our heads, in order to sell their, often, crap products.
(I'll stand by my former statement about humans not designed as a meat eater. Peace)


----------



## marcwormjim (Sep 14, 2017)

Not all of us were designed, Frankenstein.


----------



## odibrom (Sep 14, 2017)

Science is not a repository of knowledge, Science is an idea of methodology, therefore it contains no truth because knowledge is constantly evolving and growing. Men use the word science to justify their inner agenda in both ways, that's why one finds contradictory papers on this or that subject, specially where there is big money involved... it's the new religion!... Food, energy (oil and the shit) and health (pharms, mostly) are the 3 most controversial subjects because of the money they move daily.

Meal replacements as a daily base is a bad idea because of the limited source of nutrients. In the end, one will get sick of the same tastes and textures day after day, and then will jump back to whatever was doing before. It will create an emptiness in your body/soul system that then must be fulfilled violently.

One should study how his/hers own body reacts to what food one eats and that's where some physical and mental activity comes into play. One should also know what are the bases of a balanced diet (generally speaking the more sources of food, the better) and then experiment with attention to cause and effect. A healthy body is a better food lab than an unhealthy one, so get some exercise going.

This so say that there is no better diet than the one *CONSCIENTIOUSLY *made by each individual. Conscience is *KEY* to what we eat, not blind beliefs on some paper. Please also note that most results of independent studies made with the science methodology deliver pretty reliable results. but in the end, it is not science per se, it is a man made study, with all the faults it has.

Then, after one finds how food works on his/hers body there is another chapter which is to know deeply where each food comes from, how it is produced and how its production affects the surrounding areas, from a small to a larger scale, global in the end. This is to enlarge our conscience about food, as it will deepens how one interacts with it and therefore how one's body will absorb/process it (which is the most important part of this).

Unfortunately, most of us, humans, do not have single clue about this needed consciousness on food. It is a learned reflex by copying what others do and not asking why. Those who not think by themselves, will choose fast food as a daily source of energy. Nothing wrong with it, but please do your thing on another planet, ok?


----------



## bpprox22 (Sep 14, 2017)

I literally just shit my pants and left it there for 34 minutes after reading that ^


----------



## Drew (Sep 14, 2017)

odibrom said:


> Science is not a repository of knowledge, Science is an idea of methodology, therefore it contains no truth because knowledge is constantly evolving and growing. Men use the word science to justify their inner agenda in both ways, that's why one finds contradictory papers on this or that subject, specially where there is big money involved... it's the new religion!... Food, energy (oil and the shit) and health (pharms, mostly) are the 3 most controversial subjects because of the money they move daily.


I'll say this as nicely as I can. 

Science is a methodology for determining the truth and falsehood of a given hypothesis. When a hypothesis is accepted, that is because ithas been determined that it is NOT false. To then argue that because science is a method and not a series of facts, you can ignore any scientific conclusions you don't like, conveys a _vast_ lack of understanding about the scientific method, and is the basis of non-scientific "pseudoscience." 

If something is accepted science, it's because it's been proven not to be false. If you want to decide it's something you want to decide is false, then the onus is on you to _prove_ that it's false, or what you're doing isn't engaging in science, it's engaging in superstition.


----------



## Drew (Sep 14, 2017)

mongey said:


> don't forget the beer to drink while doing it


Damn straight. 


bpprox22 said:


> I feel the same way about prepping/cooking as I do with mowing the lawn: If I have time to do it, I enjoy the hell out of the experience and "me" time. If I'm on a time crunch to get other things done it's just another inconvenience.
> 
> @Drew The only thing I don't like about the amazing smells while cooking (and eating immediately after) is that it usually makes my taste buds less sensitive to the flavor of the food that I'm working hard to prepare


That's where the beer comes in!


----------



## TedEH (Sep 14, 2017)

odibrom said:


> Science [...] contains no truth


The point of science is not to "contain" truth, it's to expose it.



odibrom said:


> it's the new religion!


I've made the "science is comparable to religion" argument before, because I think there are some fair parallels to draw, but not ones that discredit the things we've established as fact. Sure, there's a layer of trust ("faith" if you absolutely must) involved since the average person is not in a position to personally verify everything, but that's also the point of things like peer review. I agree insofar that you shouldn't be taking something as an absolute truth because "that's what science says!" - because science doesn't say things. Scientists say things, science does not. And yes, some of those scientists are wrong - because they're people and people aren't perfect. What science gives us is evidence and data, and it falls on us to interpret those results and hopefully come to some kind of consensus. Even if we're wrong a significant amount of the time, it's still the best approximation of the truth we've got (sketchy/manipulative interpretations aside).

There's this concept of the half-life of knowledge - and I'm fuzzy on the details - but part of it is the suggestion that somewhere around half of what we claim to "know" becomes wrong or obsolete every 45-ish years. I'm sure the numbers are meaningless, but I believe the core idea of it. Lots of our knowledge is just plain wrong. We don't know which of that knowledge is wrong, but some of it definitely is. So, do I blindly trust all established scientific knowledge? Absolutely not. But at the same time I recognize its value as a process and as a means to get as close to the truth as possible. I don't foolishly dismiss science either.



odibrom said:


> One should study


But that would be science.


----------



## bostjan (Sep 14, 2017)

odibrom said:


> One should *study* how his/hers own body reacts to what food one eats and that's where some physical and mental activity comes into play. One should also *know* what are the bases of a balanced diet (generally speaking the more sources of food, the better) and then *experiment* with attention to cause and effect.


(I extended the quote and added bold)


TedEH said:


> But that would be science.





The Dictionary said:


> Science: *noun.* The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.


----------



## odibrom (Sep 14, 2017)

The thing with internet statements is that most won't read the whole thing and react on the first argument, oh boy.

My point is not to discredit the science methodology, but to question the results delivered by scientists, which are humans with all the benefits and faults. Questioning is a form of understanding if things make sense to us or not and, at its inner core, the drive of science itself.

Food is a subject that goes deep within ourselves and therefore should not to be taken lightly based only on facts from this or that source, may them be scientifically accepted papers or empirical cultural heritage. Science doesn't exclude data, scientists do because of processing power, of themselves or the instruments they use to "make science". There's yet to be done a full study on the "correct human diet" (if there is such thing) for there are huge number of variables at play, so much that it's hard to number them. I'll list, however, 2 that science cannot compute or measure completely:

Cultural heritage has a direct implication on how local DNA evolves and adapts to what is received as energy. Cultural heritage is not only tradition, is also DNA heritage. It is known DNA doesn't contain only how one grows or the color of its eyes, DNA is adaptable to the environment (to some extent, obviously). I know that some populations are vegetarian for centuries while others aren't. Have the food science studies acknowledged them? I doubt it very much. What is the sample of data used, where was it "harvested"? Does it accounts for other source variables?
Feelings, how can science measure the joy one feels on eating this or that food. How can science quantify how much "the pleasure one gets from food" affects the levels of absorption of its nutrients? Food isn't only nutrients and fiber, it's love and care, but is that science quantifiable?
This to say that what scientists say is not necessarily "the truth", for in this matter there is no truth, only the one that applies to our needs as individuals. That's my point on this. Trust your science, do it correctly, understand how your body reacts and absorbs nutrients in food. Everything is related, therefore the need to acknowledge where and how food is produced. If one get into this like "because it is an accepted paper that says this or that", you missed the entire point of it.

Again, Science is not knowledge, for that there are libraries, science is a path and on food, one must be his/hers own mad lab scientist. However, to become that, one must study what have already been discovered. Know the rules so you know how to bend them to your needs.


----------



## Drew (Sep 14, 2017)

odibrom said:


> The thing with internet statements is that most won't read the whole thing and react on the first argument, oh boy.
> 
> My point is not to discredit the science methodology, but to question the results delivered by scientists, which are humans with all the benefits and faults. Questioning is a form of understanding if things make sense to us or not and, at its inner core, the drive of science itself.



In that case, maybe it's not such a hot idea to open an argument by questioning the validity of scientifically-derived conclusions, no?


----------



## bostjan (Sep 14, 2017)

I think maybe I can agree with your gist, on at least some levels, but some of your points are just not really speaking to me. Rather than go into specifics, maybe it'd just be best to say, in general, that picking on a profession, or category of professions, over a) some things you assumed, but haven't looked into (e.g. "Have the food science studies acknowledged [vegetarian cultures]? I doubt it very much.") and show no interest in looking into, simply because it is easier for you to assume that the entirety of food science is bogus and b) some things you sweepingly generalize without any regard for correctness of fact (e.g. "Food isn't only nutrients and fiber, it's love and care, but is that science quantifiable?").

Why not take the approach of:

1. Someone put a lot of work into this scientific study. Maybe I should give it enough respect to read it before I dismiss it.
2. Science in general is a peer-reviewed process. If I disagree with something in a journal, I should do a search to see if other authors brought this up. If not, maybe I should contact the original authors for clarification or maybe to add a new dimension to the study.
3. Biology is a complicated science with a lot of variables. Maybe Different people react to different foods differently, as they often do, so perhaps I can read the paper to see what kind of sampling was done, or what methods are explained. If there is a potential bias toward a genetic trait common in one culture, but not another, perhaps I should follow step 2 above to address that issue.
4. Saying that there is more to this than what two or three studies can possibly cover, I should point that out, rather than encourage people to generally ignore scientific works. Scientific works can be used as a tool, even if they do not cover specifically my body or the intricate biochemistry of my phenotype.


----------



## TedEH (Sep 14, 2017)

You jumped from this:


odibrom said:


> there is no better diet than the one *CONSCIENTIOUSLY *made by each individual


to saying that the best diet should be chosen based on:


odibrom said:


> Feelings [...] "the pleasure one gets from food" affects the levels of absorption of its nutrients


If the conversation is about whether or not your diet should be chosen taking into account how your quality of life improves when you eat stuff you like, then sure, maybe... but your metabolism doesn't care how much you love your food. Not in that sense. Maybe mood can affect your metabolism in some way, for reasons that we could study scientifically, but love doesn't change the dietary properties of your lunch.


----------



## odibrom (Sep 14, 2017)

@Drew the problem is exactly there: conclusions, means ending of something. As in every answer there are risen questions, it is a never ending process. All I'm saying is don't stay at the papers to justify your choices of food.

@bostjan 
1. Yeah, but that doesn't mean it is "the truth", only that it is a limited vision/version/perspective of it. One should question it, always, for that is the way of science, is it not?
2. Yeah... and I could tell you some stories on that, on how much so called "science" is "made" worldwide by peers review. Generally speaking it is still, by far the best way, but people are people and I don't trust them... most of times...
3. All true, but isn't it what I've said before? Don't take for granted what papers say? Question and question some more...?
4. Again, did I say not to trust scientific work? I believe my point is to question it, as it is the academic duty. The thing is that people often don't do that regarding to food, they blindly go after of whatever cultural thing is going on and that's the hard part of it, even scientists. There are many many papers reviewed by peers (or so they say) that are totally biased towards some perspective.

Consider this: "making" science costs money and money must come from some source, for some labs it is tax money, for others it can also be privately funded. This is a big science bias, for tax money is limited and therefore, scientists will fight for their slice. Competition is no science in my book. This sort of competition biases the science itself, because of its money driven sustainability. If on the other hand science is privately funded, then there's an agenda behind that probably also biases its own funded science. Obviously and fortunately not everything goes this way, but a huge part of goes. From this, how does one understands what is or not biased? one has to read all and became a specialist himself... I'm sorry, I don't have that time.

Again, all these papers are important, all this work makes the wheel go round and that is important, far more than the alternative which is nothing being studied. Again, I'm sorry if I'm distrustful, it is me. And as far as I am concerned, my first argument was not to discredit scientific papers on this matter, but to not take them as "the truth", for there are many in this matter.

@TedEH you're getting good at taking things out of context... good for you!

:::::

Me out, take care and eat consciously, truly and deeply consciously.


----------



## TedEH (Sep 14, 2017)

I dunno what I took out of context. The context is a conversation about nutrition science, and my point was that how much you enjoy what you're eating has nothing to do with nutrition.


----------



## bostjan (Sep 14, 2017)

@odibrom When you say that science "contains no truth" in response to sources I posted, you are politely telling me that my evidence is garbage. As for saying you do not trust scientific work, I have to kind of laugh, because, well, that's exactly what you said before and are still saying after you denied saying it.
It's true that corporations self-publish a lot of studies. Actually, those sorts of paid studies can end up in peer-reviewed journals, but 995 times out of a thousand, they are self-published or published in non-peer-reviewed sources, because the process is more difficult to corrupt than most people who never published think. And that wasn't even where my point landed, because there are tons of ways to get a rebuttal paper published.
Anyway, it's clear that you are doing what works for you. There are plenty of paths that lead to the same result. If you or anyone else doesn't want to eat soy because of the taste or amino acid balance or amount of carb or even plain old superstition, there are still plenty of other options that are healthy to eat. I just took exception at the advice given that was based on what I consider a false claim, and I made my case for why I felt that was not the best advice.
As for case studies, I've been eating soy for decades, and I'm ferfectly pine.


----------



## odibrom (Sep 15, 2017)

@bostjan the thing is, my first post here was after yours, not in response to what you posted! There is a big difference, I did not quote you so why did you assume I was replying to your specific post or bashing its pointed studies? I stand by my post, I read it a few times before hitting the reply button. I think it is clear that I'm not discrediting science, only saying that, in this food subject, it is far from being... consensual, as is on other matters like "Is the Earth round or flat"?

I stand for conscience on the process of eating and knowledge of food, how it interacts with one's body, day by day. We are in a constant change, cells die every day to make place for other cells, our moods change accordingly and by other factors external to ourselves. We should eat accordingly to our biological needs as well as our psychological ones. Everyone knows the difference of eating a pizza alone and with friends. Given the same pizza, which feels better? Why? How will one's body react to that feeling? This is just an example.

There was nothing in my first post in this thread going against or in favor of soy or its subproducts, only against fast food and against meal replacement products (and posture) as a daily source of energy and whatever nutriente there are to absorb. Fasting, on the other hand is quite healthy if done with conscience and care, it is told (by some scientific studies that I cannot post since I tend to loose track of these things) it resets our defense mechanisms. Take that with a grain of salt...

Generally, I run away from soy, not because of what have been spoken about it, but because of MONSANTO and BEYER. GMOs are spoken to be the "science solution for hunger". Yes, what they do not say is that the hunger they are referring to is the one of their already large pockets. I cannot trust non organic soy, so I do not eat it outside my home. Yes, I do eat TOFU weekly, and Tempeh whenever I can, and Natô (sorry, don't know how to spell it) and even its beans and sprouts but ONLY if they are certified organic. Since most of these soy based meal replacement products are not organic, I run from them, I won't even look at them.

Mr. @TedEH, it is clear that you misread my posts and reacted with your impulse. I stated that our moods interfere with the absorption of nutrients, which is the key thing in eating, absorbing nutrients. If I'm sad, my body won't absorb my food as well as when I'm happy, because my inner chemistry is changed from its supposed neutral balance. Our moods and feelings interfere deeply with our nutrient absortion, not with the nutrients that exist in the food we eat.

If one eats too much calcium, kidneys will suffer, however, dairy companies are constantly selling their "+calcium" products as a "science solution" for bone dis-calcification. Guess what, it won't help if one keeps on having an overall acidic food source... sodas / soft drinks, suggar and animal grease in excess (excess kills everything, btw), over processed industrial junk food, just to name a few.

Conscience isn't against science, the word itself contains the word science in it and its prefix means "with", so conscience goes for "with science"... is it so hard to understand?


----------



## bostjan (Sep 15, 2017)

odibrom said:


> @bostjan the thing is, my first post here was after yours, not in response to what you posted! There is a big difference, I did not quote you so why did you assume I was replying to your specific post or bashing its pointed studies? I stand by my post, I read it a few times before hitting the reply button. I think it is clear that I'm not discrediting science, only saying that, in this food subject, it is far from being... consensual, as is on other matters like "Is the Earth round or flat"?



Oh, ok, but I mean, I posted a couple scientific papers; you didn't quote me, but your post was directly about dietary science and you mentioned:


> Conscience is *KEY* to what we eat, not blind beliefs on some paper. Please also note that most results of independent studies made with the science methodology deliver pretty reliable results. but in the end, it is not science per se, it is a man made study, with all the faults it has.


So, I think you might see where I could get that impression.  Sorry I made the wrong assumption. I generally try not to assume to much, but I slip up every now and again.

Also, your idea of eating things that you crave is a huge thing. There are plenty of diets out there that incorporate that. The thing is, if no one expounds on that rough idea, people might say "I'm craving a bag of ten fast-food burgers," and then eat it, expecting that following up on the craving is healthy. I very much believe that cravings happen for good reason, but there are always healthy and unhealthy alternative to dealing with the same craving. Maybe a craving for a chocolate bar is a craving for something sweet (energy) or maybe it's a craving for polyphenol antioxidants. So, perhaps that dark chocolate granola would fulfill the craving just as well as the Wonka Bar in the impulse aisle, for example. And maybe the key to getting to that point is just to listen more attentively to your cravings. I would guess most people have forgotten how to, and maybe it'd take some practice to get back up to speed.


----------



## TedEH (Sep 15, 2017)

odibrom said:


> it is clear that you misread my posts and reacted with your impulse. I stated that our moods interfere with the absorption of nutrients, which is the key thing in eating


Except that's not what you said. This is what you said:


odibrom said:


> "the pleasure one gets from food" affects the levels of absorption of its nutrients


That has nothing to do with your mood. This reads as "food that tastes good to you will be absorbed better". If you meant to say mood, then just say mood.

It's also far from being "the key thing". If you live off of ice cream and chips, no amount of being in a good mood is going to make that healthy. Neither will not being able to enjoy a meal replacement product negate it's nutritional value, whatever that might already be.

If I'm misinterpreting your point... then I don't understand what you're trying to say, other than that you have a certain distrust for science.


----------



## odibrom (Sep 15, 2017)

DISCLAIMER: I have a problem, I'm not English native, so there may be some miss spellings and difficulties in idea articulation. I do not possess your vocabulary knowledge. Please acknowledge that before jumping on me with blazing guns and that kind of atitude.

@bostjan you are almost to the point I am trying say about eating. One can read all papers, but in the end it is one's conscience on eating that will dictate the results. There are scientific paper that say our thoughts change our DNA... (yeah, I'm not going to change my eye color from within because I want to, maybe with colored lens or some crazy fancy aesthetic surgery) and other studies relate cancer to the way one deals with his/hers feelings and thoughts. We are a psychosomatic system, which means that we shouldn't only see the chemistry behind food. The human body can accomplish many incredible things based on the thought and force of will and those aren't only Parkour or acrobatic stunts. Many are within our selves and relate to how we process the absorbed nutrients. Again, and as stated in my first post here, a healthy body is a better lab for testing than an unhealthy one and that can be accomplished through physical activity (which we all agree on, right?). To eat with conscience, one should in fact study the chemistry behind food, but also how it affects one's body needs and feels. If too much alcohol messes with one's thoughts, what will do too much meat, or rice, or apples? Just because a paper might say that broccoli helps fight cancer (it does, doesn't it?) it doesn't mean one should rush to eat broccoli at all one's meals. That attitude might even trigger cancer, eventually not because of the broccoli itself, but because of the agrotoxic substances used to grow the broccoli in less time than it should have (just an example, and a silly one btw). Conscience in eating goes all this way and that's what I'm for.

@TedEH let me break it down to you: "the pleasure one gets from food" affects your mood right? How does that not affect how one's body will absorb the food's nutrients? Obviously it doesn't affect the initial nutrient value of the food itself. If one doesn't eat enough vitamin, one will get sick. Making a meal out of ice cream and chips isn't eating consciously in my book, but it does wonders sometimes. About the "key thing" in that sentence, it is related to absorbing nutrients and that's where conscience breaks in. There is no point in eating lots of protein if one's body can't process/absorb it and give the protein the expected use. Eating too much protein is also related to health problems btw (oh, excess yeah said it before). Eating with conscience is also knowing when we are exceeding our body limits. Nothing wrong with meal replacement products if used when needed (once in a while), but not on a daily base, IMO. I'm not distrustful of science per se, only of men and their agendas which many times are hidden under the cloak of a "scientific paper" like those of MONSANTO and BAYER (not Beyer as previously written, sorry about that).

:::

Scientific knowledge is, IMO, in its first steps on food, not consensual and mostly biased towards something like beliefs or agendas. Most papers focus entirely on food's chemistry only (which is a major thing btw), but food is ecological and environmental (how does it grow, etc.), is a social thing also, is moody, it is love and care. Not accounting these is bypassing a huge part of the process that make us what we are and how we eat. The love/energy put into cooking transforms how one absorbs its nutrients, not only the previously read paper.

In about 1931 Otto Warburg (please google him) stated "no disease, including cancer, can exist in an alkaline environment" (I think he got a Nobel prize on that) however most humans are constantly feeding themselves with the acidic food sources almost 100 years later, scientists included (I personally know huge number of them, doctor included). Later on, the macrobiotic movement explored the acidic versus alkaline food balance, favoring the later towards healthy eating.

I'm no saint, I do eat some junk once in a while, but I do it consciously, I know what I'm eating and that changes the way my body reacts to this kind of food, extracting what it needs and discarding what it doesn't. It becomes a meditation thing and food is or should be IMO something alike. Peace out.


----------



## bostjan (Sep 15, 2017)

Honestly, I don't think I have a problem understanding your language, but it simply comes down to some of your ideas with which I simply cannot agree.

Dr. Warburg's quote is too often misrepresented in exactly the way you just did - as if having a high pH means that you don't get cancer. No. It doesn't work that way. He never linked cancer occurrence to pH. And, in fact, saying that no disease can live in an alkaline environment is like saying that no disease can live inside of an active volcano. It's true, but healthy tissue cannot live in that environment either.

If you are going to drop a bomb like 


odibrom said:


> There are scientific paper that say our thoughts change our DNA...and other studies relate cancer to the way one deals with his/hers feelings and thoughts.


, then that forces me to ask (knowing where this is going) for the papers. If I can cure cancer by simply wishing it so, then that really begs the question "So...people who die of cancer *don't* wish that they didn't have cancer?!?!" which is kind of silly, but in my mind, just points out how silly the initial statement is in the first place.

And, I am sorry to have to bring this up, but dude, most of the stuff you are saying is peppered with new age pseudoscience that has already been thoroughly debunked. I thought that most of these ideas withered away in the 2000's, but here we are going through it again. I wonder if there is something to that.


----------



## TedEH (Sep 15, 2017)

odibrom said:


> let me break it down to you


Mood does not affect how you absorb nutrients at any scale that negates any other nutritional science. There is proper nutritional science behind how things like cheat meals can be beneficial for things like weight loss, and it has nothing to do with how you feel. I mean, you can argue that there's a psychological impact of letting yourself cheat in order to stay motivated to keep up a diet or something, which will, in a super roundabout way, help you in the long run- but on a very base level, that doesn't transform an unhealthy meal into a healthy one. The phsycological aspect has nothing to do with nutrition.

I mean, I get it that there's a lot of psuedo-science and sketchy interpretations of the data out there. I agree insofar that you shouldn't jump on every health trend and clickbait article claiming that you'll "lose weight with this super-food that doctors don't want you to know about". There's tons of misinformation out there under the guise of "science".

The trick is to not just substitute that psuedo-science with other pseudo-science, or just throw out all nutrition science in favor of winging it.


----------



## odibrom (Sep 15, 2017)

@bostjan I didn't say that thoughts could cure cancer, that was your argument interpretation, I said that they may be related to cancer (among a great number of other things). As for alkaline environment and Dr Otto, yeah, not sure I said one should go for high value pH, but if you say so. As for those papers, yeah, sorry, can't help you there, lost their track a long time ago.

Maybe my thoughts are based on new age pseudoscience that have already been debunked and I missed it, may be not. I've been happy with my lifestyle for quite some time and I'm as healthy as anyone else. I do see the official medicine doctor regularly and do my health blood tests regularly with everything measured within the expected values. Maybe I failed to pass on my idea of going beyond what scientific papers say, on testing them right or wrong for each one of you, yeah, that's on me. Sorry.

@TedEH You did not read from me that our mood transforms bad nutrition meals into good ones, only that it affects how one's body absorbs its nutrients for better or worst. I also stated that meal replacement products are ok within some margins, but not to have them as source of everything food related as a daily base. Yeah, psychological aspects do not interfere with the quality of what one eats (never wrote that), only with how one absorbs the food's nutrients. If one only eats junk, there is no psychological mambo jambo that will help on transforming water into wine... is there? I also do not agree that meal replacement products should be used for weight loss, though they may deliver fast results. One doesn't get fat from day to night, why does every body +1 want to get thin within the hour? (yeah, very exaggerated time values here, but I'm sure you get the point).

So, peace out and enjoy your meal. I surely will enjoy mine, conscientiously, not winging it btw (which was not me saying)...


----------



## TedEH (Sep 15, 2017)

I do think there's some language barrier issues in this discussion. I disagree that mood affecting absorption is significant at all. Call it an opinion.

To get back on topic though-
I think it's safe to say that, despite there being a lot of details involved, be they scientific or otherwise, there's a lot of room for what you can/can't get away with to reach nutritional goals. Or at least there seems to be. I see no reason why meal replacement's can't be used in the way OP wanted. Again, I'm no expert though.


----------



## AxeHappy (Sep 16, 2017)

On the estrogen/Soy issue:

People do realise that oral steroids have to alter the atomic structure of the hormone to make it survive digestion in the stomach? The amount of estrogen containing food one would have to consume to have enough hormone survive to have an effect enough to disrupt the homeostasis of the body would likely cause the stomach to rupture. 

That being said, our body does process protein from plant sources worse than animal sources, so if you're looking for the best protein per calorie some sort of animal source is the whey () to go.


----------



## bostjan (Sep 19, 2017)

Let's beat a dead horse with some high school chemistry, shall we?

According to the most pessimistic studies on soy protein, EC50 (50% of the people with that much in their blood stream have some measurable effect) of genistein as an estrogen receptor antagonist might be as high as 7.62 nM. That sounds profound, but let's do the maths.

Genistein weighs 270.24 g/mol. Say an 80 kg man contains 64 L of water as solvent, so 7.62 nmol/L x 64 L = 487.68 nmol.
487.68 nmol x 270.24 g/mol = 131.79 mg per person.
3 oz of tofu contains 10 mg of genistein. So, if I injected 13 3 ounce servings of tofu directly into my blood stream, I would start growing boobs, according to that study (keeping in mind that this was my worst-case scenario, i.e., other studies give higher concentrations). Even if I ate two servings of tofu at every meal, the half-life of the chemical would assure that the amount in my bloodstream would never come close to EC50.

Ok, different story, concentrated soy protein. Depending on how the protein is isolated, 3.5 oz of soy protein can contain anywhere from 5.3 mg to 52.8 mg of genistein. Doing three meal replacements in a day does put your intake over the lowest concentration limit. The body will metabolize enough of the protein between meals to keep you below EC50, but if you are particularly sensitive to the chemical, and you metabolize it slower than usual and the worst case study is correct, AND you are consistently taking in the protein supplements that contain the maximum amount of the chemical, then you would be affected. So there is something there. But it's based on all of the worst case scenarios. Still, that is honestly something to think about.

So, if you don't like soy, stay away from it because there are other options. If you have any concerns about the action of chemicals in soy that have been (arguably) identified as estrogen antagonists, and you are doing meal replacements, then it could be a concern. Since there are other non-soy options, it might be worth biting the bullet and getting those, or, alternatively, look into the soy protein you are obtaining and research whether or not any steps were taken to keep genestein concentrations down. At the minimum concentration of 5.3 mg/serving, I really don't think there is any circumstance short of being acutely allergic to it, where you should have anything to worry about.


----------



## Drew (Sep 19, 2017)

odibrom said:


> In about 1931 Otto Warburg (please google him) stated "no disease, including cancer, can exist in an alkaline environment" (I think he got a Nobel prize on that) however most humans are constantly feeding themselves with the acidic food sources almost 100 years later, scientists included (I personally know huge number of them, doctor included). Later on, the macrobiotic movement explored the acidic versus alkaline food balance, favoring the later towards healthy eating.



This is one of those quotes that gets pulled out of context a lot, however. The problem is, no _life_ can exist in an alkaline environment, either. Sure, a basic solution will kill cancer... But if I'm a cancer patient, it'll kill me along with it. Chugging a bottle of drain cleaner isn't a very effective way of preventing disease, you know?


----------



## bostjan (Sep 19, 2017)

Wait a minute...

How did every thread get spammed yesterday with testosterone supplements, going back to 2005, but not this one?!


----------



## KnightBrolaire (Sep 19, 2017)

When I was in really good shape I was pretty much just eating fruits/veggies/lean meats like turkey or chicken. If you want some extra variety or to feel more full, add some beans to your diet, they're high in protein/fiber. Meal prepping is really the most cost effective way to get leaner. I was living off of lettuce wraps filled with grilled chicken and whatever veggie toppings I wanted for years. I try to limit my carb intake only because bread/tortillas/beer is calorie dense.


----------



## bpprox22 (Sep 19, 2017)

Also, quinoa is a nice variety option to eat with any meal. It's a complete source of protein (contains the 9 essential amino acids), contains a moderate amount of fiber, and cooks easy.


----------



## CrazyDean (Sep 19, 2017)

So, back to soylent...I looked over the ingredients again. They are obviously pandering to people who want to be told that they're eating/doing the right thing. Personally, I don't trust any company who refuses to simply state their nutrition. Don't sugar-coat it, just be honest. Call it fat, not "lipids", like it's a good thing suddenly. I remember seeing someone call their carbs, "energy" some years ago. This kind of thinking just creates distrust from your customer.

Also, there sure seems to be a lot of ingredients for such a bland drink. By looking at the first few ingredients, it seems to be comprised mostly of oil and soy protein. I'm very skeptic about this, maybe it's just too weird and new for me.


----------



## marcwormjim (Sep 20, 2017)

I'm just surprised no one's yet put on their lab coat to recommended prayer as a hamburger-alternative.


----------



## MFB (Sep 20, 2017)

marcwormjim said:


> I'm just surprised no one's yet put on their lab coat to recommended prayer as a hamburger-alternative.



Actually, to replace hamburgers you need to have the full plate of thoughts _and prayers_, not just prayers


----------



## bostjan (Sep 20, 2017)

[record scratch]Wait, there is an actual product called "Soylent?!" Have they not seen the movie? 

What's next? "The Stuff" frogurt? ... "Hufu?!"


----------



## KnightBrolaire (Sep 20, 2017)

bostjan said:


> [record scratch]Wait, there is an actual product called "Soylent?!" Have they not seen the movie?
> 
> What's next? "The Stuff" frogurt? ... "Hufu?!"


I think they thought it was an ironic name. I thought it was funny when I saw it was named that. SOYLENT GREEN IS PEOPLE


----------



## Drew (Sep 20, 2017)

bostjan said:


> [record scratch]Wait, there is an actual product called "Soylent?!" Have they not seen the movie?
> 
> What's next? "The Stuff" frogurt? ... "Hufu?!"


Soma, anyone?


----------



## bostjan (Sep 20, 2017)

Drew said:


> Soma, anyone?


As in a perikaryon, or as in the drug from..._oh I forget which Huxley novel_, or as in the Smashing Pumpkins' song?

EDIT: Was it _Brave New World?_


----------



## TedEH (Sep 20, 2017)

^ I was thinking the game the came out not too long ago, but I don't think that's the reference either.


----------



## KnightBrolaire (Sep 20, 2017)

bostjan said:


> As in a perikaryon, or as in the drug from..._oh I forget which Huxley novel_, or as in the Smashing Pumpkins' song?
> 
> EDIT: Was it _Brave New World?_


it was brave new world.


----------



## AxeHappy (Sep 21, 2017)

The name comes from the Novel that the Soylent Green movie is loosely based off of.


----------



## Drew (Sep 21, 2017)

marcwormjim said:


> I'm just surprised no one's yet put on their lab coat to recommended prayer as a hamburger-alternative.


One like = one hamburger. One share = side of fries.


----------



## bostjan (Sep 21, 2017)

Drew said:


> One like = one hamburger. One share = side of fries.


If you ever want to hurl, google " Mitsuyuki Ikeda burger." That guy has some interesting ideas on what to use to replace hamburger meat (and, I believe, it is satire).
...and we'll see how North Korea fares now that the White House has called for a ban on sending their hungry "thoughts and prayers."


AxeHappy said:


> The name comes from the Novel that the Soylent Green movie is loosely based off of.


_Make Room! Make Room!_? IIRC, soylent is not really that much of a key plot point in the series.


----------



## AxeHappy (Sep 21, 2017)

Yup, that's the one. The creator has been quite open about that being where the name comes from. 

Supposedly the whole food shortage and feeding the world and environmental issues and whatnot. One can argue about whether Soylent actually achieves the goals it claims to (It doesn't really), but that is the thought process behind the name.


----------

