Slashdot Mirror


Soylent: No Food For 30 Days

Daniel_Stuckey writes "Senior Editor of Motherboard Brian Merchant went an entire month without eating regular food. Instead, the journalist whisked up a concoction called soylent, an efficient take on the future of nourishment and nutrition. Merchant says: 'It was my second day on Soylent and my stomach felt like a coil of knotty old rope, slowly tightening. I wasn't hungry, but something was off. I was tired, light-headed, low-energy, but my heart was racing. My eyes glazed over as I stared out the window of our rental SUV as we drove over the fog-shrouded Bay Bridge to Oakland. Some of this was nerves, sure. I had twenty-eight days left of my month-long all-Soylent diet—I was attempting to live on the full food replacement longer than anyone besides its inventor—and I felt woozy already. ... By the third week of Soylent, not eating food seemed normal. I saw a doctor, who said I was healthy; I was still losing weight, but nothing serious. Yet, given that a daily mixture of Soylent contains 2,400 calories, both Rob and Dr. Engel thought it was odd that I’d shed so much. Dr. Engel said that given my weight, height, and body mass, I should only require about 1,800 calories a day. I could still be adjusting to the new diet, or I could have such a hyperactive metabolism that before Soylent, I was tearing through hundreds of extra calories per day and staying trim.'"

440 comments

  1. It's People. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Seriously, it's people. He knows this, right?

    1. Re:It's People. by binarylarry · · Score: 4, Funny

      Soylent Green is people.

      This looks like Soylent Beige.

      --
      Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!
    2. Re:It's People. by theedgeofoblivious · · Score: 2, Funny

      Soylent Beige is beige people.

    3. Re:It's People. by ArcadeMan · · Score: 5, Funny

      Nope. It's old PC towers. Turns out, they DO blend!

    4. Re:It's People. by davester666 · · Score: 1

      We have found a way to deal with the stray cat and dog problem.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    5. Re:It's People. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No because that would mean soylent green is made from hulk, and that's just impossible, he would never agree to that.

    6. Re:It's People. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not if we make it up out of politicians, doctors, cops and other undesireables.

    7. Re:It's People. by nightsky30 · · Score: 2

      No, Soylent Hulk is hard, Soylent Norris is impossible.

    8. Re:It's People. by JeanCroix · · Score: 1

      Soylent Norris is possible, but it survives by eating YOU.

    9. Re:It's People. by jtmach · · Score: 1

      If I don't survive, tell my wife "Hello."

    10. Re:It's People. by Mike+Frett · · Score: 1

      What a coincidence! This was posted on Tuesday and we all know that Tuesday is Soylent Green day!.

    11. Re:It's People. by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Please be careful! Just one banker and you'll never get that taste out of your mouth ever again.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    12. Re:It's People. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure as hell can't be the keyboards. The Model M does not blend, or feel pity.

    13. Re:It's People. by ArcadeMan · · Score: 1

      In Soviet Russia, Model M mash blender!

  2. Brian Merchant by wrackspurt · · Score: 5, Funny

    A real people person ;)

    1. Re:Brian Merchant by evilviper · · Score: 4, Funny

      A real people person ;)

      "Soylent... the great taste of friends!"

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    2. Re:Brian Merchant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      A real people person ;)

      Maybe the guy lost weight because the Soylent green was made from the skinny people.

      You know what they say, you are what you eat.

    3. Re:Brian Merchant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      This soylent green tastes funny... oh look, the box says "May contain clowns".

    4. Re:Brian Merchant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      only if you believe that your are what you eat

    5. Re:Brian Merchant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This will forever change how you look at the phrase '(x%) post consumer product'.

  3. Or... by drater · · Score: 5, Insightful

    it could be that it's just flat out bad for you.

    1. Re: Or... by jo7hs2 · · Score: 2

      Yeah, kinda odd that was omitted as an option.

    2. Re:Or... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      obviously there are proteins and other nutrients in "real food" that this Soylent doesn't have, thus the weight lose with 2,400 cals., per day..

    3. Re:Or... by AlphaWolf_HK · · Score: 5, Informative

      The blood work tells you pretty well what is and isn't supposed to be in your body (if a given nutrient isn't carried in your blood serum, then nothing gets it)

      http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7c/Reference_ranges_for_blood_tests_-_by_mass.svg

      The only problem his had was being D deficient. I think D is one of the most expensive ones to test for (I heard it costs around $500) so I think if they included that in his blood work panel then they were probably very comprehensive in their testing.

      With that being the case, it probably is that this isn't (fully) healthy for you in that it doesn't satisfy your D requirements, but that is actually easy to address.

      There exists the possibility that this wouldn't satisfy every persons metabolic requirements as well (for example, some people need different amounts of electrolytes such as potassium and sodium than other people, which genetics are known to play a heavy role in) so if/when they do clinical tests they should also isolate based on race and do the same regular blood work throughout the trials.

      --
      Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK
    4. Re:Or... by Catskul · · Score: 2

      Dietary sources of D are almost always insufficient unless you live on only seafood. Sunlight is pretty much the only viable way to get enough D. Probably not diet related.

      --

      Im not here now... Im out KILLING pepperoni
    5. Re:Or... by AlphaWolf_HK · · Score: 2

      His D levels were pretty low from what I noticed on the blood chart that they showed on the video (they were hand written, which was kind of odd) so I am a bit doubtful that it is a sunlight issue (I paused it and frame stepped as it quickly panned over it.) Lack of sunlight alone isn't generally enough to cause that to such a degree. It may explain his depressive symptoms though.

      I'd say it's possible that his kidneys aren't doing everything correctly as they have direct influence of the D levels in your blood stream, but that is unlikely because his phosphorus, BUN, CO2, and creatinine levels looked normal (this is also a number that varies based on race, with blacks usually having significantly higher creatinine levels - note in the chart how they list eGFR separately for african americans.)

      Another concern though is his Uric Acid, which came in at 7.9 which is a little high but not dangerous (8.0 is top for reference range) which could indicate that this Soylent stuff might cause gout in his particular case. It's difficult to say without carrying on the study for longer than 30 days and seeing if that number changes or stays the same. Going up means change the recipe for sure.

      I might sound like I'm in the medical field (I've even had doctors tell me that I know some stuff that other doctors do not) but I'm not so take what I say with a grain of salt and not actual advice. I just know these things because managing my own health properly necessitates it, and being able to read my own blood work makes managing my own diet much easier. (It also helps that they print the reference ranges right on the chart; I'm not sure why they say these things are hard to understand as it seems like even an idiot could.)

      --
      Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK
    6. Re:Or... by mactoons · · Score: 1

      I imagine there are things in the blood that we may not even be aware of. It's tougher to find things you're not looking for. I wouldn't mind a 50/50 approach to meal replacements; I do enjoy a good meal.

    7. Re:Or... by Electricity+Likes+Me · · Score: 1

      Low vitamin D is incredibly common though - i.e. basically every office worker has low vitamin D. Not good, but our culture has certain effects.

    8. Re:Or... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are proteins and other nutrients missing in a cheese burger diet as well, but that doesn't make you loose weight.

    9. Re:Or... by uglyduckling · · Score: 2

      I'm not sure why they say these things are hard to understand as it seems like even an idiot could.

      They're hard to understand because there isn't a direct one-one relationship between intake and serum levels, and different substances have complex interactions that can take years of experience to properly understand. As a simple example, if you're low on sodium - take salt, right? Well if you eat table salt or inject sodium chloride your sodium will go up, but so will your chloride, which causes acidosis if it gets too high. The purest form of dietary management is parenteral (intravenous) nutrition, which is what people get in ICU/ITU when they can't eat or take gastric feeds. It's incredibly complex and very easy to get wrong.

    10. Re:Or... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think D is one of the most expensive ones to test for (I heard it costs around $500)

      At least where I live here in Europe vitamin D lab tests cost around €50, it's not a cheap parameter compared to others but definitely not in the $500 range.

    11. Re:Or... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only problem his had was being D deficient.

      So he wants the D?

    12. Re:Or... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A cheese burger diet would be fairly good protein wise (15g; assuming you are not a weight lifter that is ~30% of your RDA).

    13. Re:Or... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One doesn't get vitamin D directly from the sunlight: one gets the precursor of vitamin D from dietary sources, and sunlight transforms it into vitamin D.

    14. Re:Or... by Captain+Hook · · Score: 1

      Or that the shake doesn't contain anywhere near the calories it claims.

      --
      These comments are my personal opinions and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the other voices in my head.
    15. Re: Or... by DrXym · · Score: 1

      Why should "synthetic garbage" be any more detrimental to someone's health than organic or natural items? There are plenty of plants which in their wild variety, or in unprocessed or uncooked form can make people horribly sick.

    16. Re:Or... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you talking about vitamin D? If so, couldn't he just go outside for 15 minutes a day?

    17. Re: Or... by Dracolytch · · Score: 1

      Hemlock: It's 100% natural!

      --
      This sig has been enciphered with a one-time pad. It could say almost anything.
    18. Re: Or... by DrXym · · Score: 1

      With a side dish of castor beans and wild almonds for desert.

    19. Re:Or... by sandytaru · · Score: 1

      I had low vitamin D and it had nothing to do with diet. I'm fair skinned and burn easily and I avoid the sun like the plague. I was prescribed 10 minutes of sunshine a day by doctor in addition to massive doses of vitamin D to try to get my serum levels up.

      --
      Occasionally living proof of the Ballmer peak.
    20. Re: Or... by Kelbear · · Score: 1

      I don't think that "natural" is inherently better than "synthetic" either. Organic is just about meaningless to me.

      However, there are still tremendous gulfs in our understanding of human nutritional needs, and the guy in the article is completely relying upon a single food source for all his needs. That ascribes a level of confidence to this "soylent" that is far above all other foods, natural or synthetic. This allows no leeway for serendipitously meeting unknown or poorly understood nutritional needs through a mixed diet.

      I think the GP's position that synthetic foods can "never" take the place of of typical food is hyperbole, but I seriously doubt we've reached the level of understanding needed to achieve that goal today. Further, while there is no inherent reason why a "synthetic" food would be less nourishing than normal food, we have a wealth of empirical evidence (though poorly documented) that traditional foods provide the necessary nutrition for our current life expectancy. Synthetic foods (though better documented) just have less evidence, simply because they haven't been around as long in our diet yet. We shouldn't fear innovation, we should still proceed, just with reasonable skepticism. Admittedly, it seems a lot of people forget about the "reasonable" part in that skepticism.

    21. Re: Or... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you'd be surprised how much "synthetic garbage" is in your normal diet. Haven't you ever looked at the ingredients list on something and wondered what all the numbers are? Artificial colors and flavours. Have you ever drunk Coke or Pepsi? They use burnt caramel for flavoring and, not surprisingly, it's carcenogenic - there are strict limits on how much can be used in a product.

    22. Re: Or... by flyneye · · Score: 1

      Why should plastics leach estrogen-like chemicals into food? Wow, who was wrong about that one? It could be, that the data that needs to be followed is the lifetime of a group of human test subjects, which would be impractical for an inventor to bother to market. SOOOO, the way things work, is, YOU get to be the guinea pig along with a public that swallows the load the FDA spews from its pipe.
      You could answer your own question by reviewing evolution. What did we evolve to fuel ourselves with most efficiently? When you have the answer to that, you can experiment, take notes and reach the conclusion that I did. Natural foods in the right combination, increase your health, because we are set up to process them efficiently. Now I don't know how long you've been around, but, synthetic anything having anything to do with food has been a complete f**kup so far. Oh ,grocery stores are full of all sorts of examples of food/synthesis and the aisles are filled with the examples of people buying those products. Just watch who reaches for the margarine or reaches into the frozen section for that crap. The snack aisles are a howl! I'm sure Cargill or Monsanto would love to take credit for feeding the world on recycled cardboard and condoms with 7 essential vitamins, thanks anyway. More for you.
      Now, also, by studying those who came before us, we know they ate everything (at least once) and doing so passed data from generation to generation by word of mouth until civilizations could record it and pass it on. Today, we are aware of damn near every plant on the planet and what it is good or bad for. So, check before you eat, if in doubt, and make accommodations for any allergies you may encounter.

      --
      *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
    23. Re:Or... by AlphaWolf_HK · · Score: 1

      It seems pretty straightforward to me though, if you generally stick to the RDA levels then those numbers generally stay where they should, and then if they are low or high then I simply make dietary adjustments until they go where they should go. Your body is usually pretty good at making sure of it anyways (liver, kidneys, and other organs strictly regulate these from what I gather.)

      I had to do this to find out that I myself cannot safely consume 2,400mg of sodium per day - I actually need between 3g-3.5g per day for my sodium serum to stay normal. I found this out after being told by a doctor to try the Dash diet after reaching stage 4 kidney failure (Dash is from Mayo Clinic, who recommends 1.6g-2.3g,) only to become nauseous, and after reading my own blood work I noticed my sodium level was so low that it fell below the reference range. Eating a large bag of doritos fixed the nausea surprisingly fast (I was scheduled for blood work the next day after I noticed it, and for once my sodium level was perfectly normal after consuming 4g of sodium over a 6 hour period 8 hours prior to the blood being drawn.) The doctor didn't tell me to do that, but after I explained to him what happened he said sticking to 3g per day would be fine.

      Salt is 40% sodium, and it tastes horrible plain, so I'd figure it only natural that it wouldn't be your first choice.

      --
      Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK
    24. Re:Or... by limbodog · · Score: 1

      Except that doctor said he's healthy. Not clear what tests were performed. Was he malnourished? Was he vitamin deficient? Did he have normal insulin levels (did he have normal insulin levels beforehand)?

    25. Re: Or... by DrXym · · Score: 1

      Sorry but your response is not very rational. Foods should be regarded on their individual merits whether they are natural, processed, or "synthetic" (which usually just means processed). It is incredibly easy for someone to eat a bad oyster or be poisoned by a misidentified berry / mushroom or get a dose of ecoli / salmonella / botulin and suffer a serious, potentially fatal reaction. Implying that "natural" foods are in some way safer belies the reality that they aren't. In some ways they are far less safe because the quality from one batch to the next could be all over the shop. And allergies are not some modern phenomena either. Diagnostic tests are better. It's just in the good old days some kid who was coeliac (for example) would simply fail to thrive and be lumped in with other causes of high infant mortality.

    26. Re: Or... by flyneye · · Score: 1

      Yes, foods should be judged on their individual merits. Synthetic (which doesn't mean processed) lacks components and balance of the structure of natural food, this can be a dangerous oversight equal to finding a natural food to be slowly carcinogenic or such, with much more likelyhood. It would be foolish to trust the say-so of food company research, the buyable FDA, or even independent research that we weren't involved in personally. Given the state of corruption and malfeasance in the world of science today, you can't trust research anymore than a political campaign , even IF you could tell the difference.
      I am not just IMPLYING natural food is safer, I"M SAYING IT IN PLAIN EASY TO READ ENGLISH, so there will be no mistake. I KNOW natural food to be safe, you merely BELIEVE synthetic food is on someone elses say-so. Differentiate what you FEEL,THINK,KNOW and BELIEVE, this will clear a lot of confusion for you and others in the future.
      And yes ,of course, you couldn't find context for my allergy statement, making some fruitless point about furtherance of our state.
      Given a brief meta-view of mans progress( we discovered what we can and can't eat long before anyone uttered the word science), your statements are irrational. Synthetic food merely makes up lost time and effort in producing natural foods. Laziness. With todays Aquaponics, Hydroponics, and other methods, time, space, effort are small and can feed the world, cut your bills , help ensure your health and make unmistakably delicious meals.
      You can eat the packaging my food comes in if you like, I'll eat real food. Time will be your unfortunate proof.

      --
      *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
    27. Re: Or... by DrXym · · Score: 1
      ". I KNOW natural food to be safe, you merely BELIEVE synthetic food is on someone elses say-so. "

      That's an utterly absurd assertion. There are voluminous examples of "natural" vegetable and meat products which have caused outbreaks. e.g. Europe suffered a mass e.coli outbreak from cucumbers of all things that was estimated to have killed 53 people and sickened thousands more. Just one example of many.

      There is nothing inherently unsafe about synthetic products because it is a completely meaningless blanket term. For example, most preservatives are "synthetic" (produced by biochemical or strictly chemical processes) but they are put into foods to inhibit microbes which themselves can be extremely harmful.

      But you seem to believe that synthetic means carcinogenic and there is some conspiracy by corrupt scientists to push this stuff into foods. It's absurd.

    28. Re: Or... by flyneye · · Score: 1

      Sorry, but a history of synthetic products , especially preservatives show many more trial and errors producing unhealthy results, than hitting one out of the park. Meanwhile natural food has a much better track record. Synthetic can turn up carcinogenic, it can upset hormonal balances, it can affect brain chemistry, it can affect your organs and no one is the wiser til' it's too late. Sure, some appear to do their job, but with a fail rate that the jury is still out on.
      Perhaps we should feed prisoners these things for a lifetime and take note before offering them to the public.
      Feel free to guinea pig yourself out. I'll eat a nice healthy meal.

      --
      *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
  4. Daniel Tosh was right by JoeyRox · · Score: 4, Funny

    "We wonder why other countries hate us? I love that! We have a game show in our country called "Survivor." Thats a GAME in our country! ...You can win a million dollars for surviving on a place where people already live! Do you realize what kind of message that sends? Not a good one!"

    1. Re:Daniel Tosh was right by Austrian+Anarchy · · Score: 0

      "We wonder why other countries hate us? I love that! We have a game show in our country called "Survivor." Thats a GAME in our country! ...You can win a million dollars for surviving on a place where people already live! Do you realize what kind of message that sends? Not a good one!"

      The "Curb Your Enthusiasm" episode examining the interaction between various survivors is very thought provoking. And gut bustingly funny too.

      --
      Time Bomber the Book coming soon.
    2. Re:Daniel Tosh was right by vux984 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      You can win a million dollars for surviving on a place where people already live!

      Nevermind the camera crew that follows them around everywhere.

      I think that's on par with wilderness camping in your mom's basement.

    3. Re:Daniel Tosh was right by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 3, Insightful

      In poor countries, only the rich can afford to get fat.

      In rich countries, only the rich can afford to stay thin.

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    4. Re:Daniel Tosh was right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Real men camps in their mom's garden!

    5. Re:Daniel Tosh was right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Oh stop fooling yourself. Other countries don't hate you because you're rich or even wasteful. They hate you because Your Government Interferes With Their Country. Period.

    6. Re:Daniel Tosh was right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Only if the camera crew and the cast have the same accommodations. Otherwise, by that same logic, the living conditions of the wild animals featured in National Geographic must be "on par with wilderness camping in your mom's basement".

    7. Re:Daniel Tosh was right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How is this different than living in your mom's basement?

    8. Re:Daniel Tosh was right by slick7 · · Score: 4, Funny

      In poor countries, only the rich can afford to get fat.

      In rich countries, only the rich can afford to stay thin.

      Feed the homeless to the hungry, it's for the national security of the children.

      --
      The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
    9. Re:Daniel Tosh was right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I thought they hated us for what we allowed Lucas to do to Star Wars–specifically, but not limited to Jar Jar Binks.

    10. Re:Daniel Tosh was right by uvajed_ekil · · Score: 1, Interesting

      In poor countries, only the rich can afford to get fat.

      In rich countries, only the rich can afford to stay thin.

      Nice try at saying something catchy or clever there, but you are very, very wrong. Obesity is in fact a problem in some developing countries, due to poor nutrition (no lack of calories) and a lack of education and/or diet alternatives. And many of us po' folks in the west manage to stay thin on our own, by making informed decisions about what we eat.

      And since Daniel Tosh is in the title, I must mention that I think he's not only unfunny but more than a little date rapey, at best. As far as his comedic prowess, he is a master of the lowest common denominator. Sophomoric rubbish. That's not a compliment.

      --
      This is a hacked account, for which the owner can not be held responsible.
    11. Re:Daniel Tosh was right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obesity is in fact a problem in some developing countries...And many of us po' folks in the west manage to stay thin on our own

      Some people have also been to the moon, but it would be foolish to give that as a counter to an nontechnical statement of 'nobody goes to the moon'.

    12. Re:Daniel Tosh was right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They hate you because Your Government Interferes With Their Country. Period.

      Only the stupid people. And the same goes for stupid people in America as those outside it, blaming every person in the country for what a country's government does. Otherwise people hate Americans because some actually support what the government does, or because some have opposing view points, or because some are dicks.

    13. Re:Daniel Tosh was right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Only if the camera crew and the cast have the same accommodations. Otherwise, by that same logic, the living conditions of the wild animals featured in National Geographic must be "on par with wilderness camping in your mom's basement".

      That analogy only works if the crew is actually filming at the local zoo.

      Survivor is just a Popularity-Contest style game show set in an outdoor environment, none of them are actually "surviving".

    14. Re:Daniel Tosh was right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except the ones that hate us for not interfering in their country.

    15. Re:Daniel Tosh was right by ai4px · · Score: 1

      Oh stop fooling yourself. Other countries don't hate you because you're rich or even wasteful. They hate you because Your Government Interferes With Their Country. Period.

      I wish I had mod points to give you.... you've nailed it!

    16. Re:Daniel Tosh was right by burisch_research · · Score: 1

      Yup. In South Africa and Zimbabwe, obesity is a growing problem, and not related to income. It's probably related to the fact that people around here eat lots of maize meal.

      --
      char*f="char*f=%c%s%c;main(){printf(f,34,f,34);}";main(){printf(f,34,f,34);}
    17. Re:Daniel Tosh was right by couchslug · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "In rich countries, only the rich can afford to stay thin."

      Bullshit. You can eat a healthy diet and control calories cheaply. I shop at Walmart and local grocery stores (all that's available where I live), and since I quit all soda, all refined starches, all sweets, all juices (if I want juice I eat fruit) my grocery bill has dropped considerably. I eat about 1300 calories/day, including meat, fruit, fish and veggies. I no longer eat out, at all. No need, and because I don't eat vending machine food that's more money saved and less shit ingested.

      I dropped over 50lbs since July and feel great.

      The Americans who CHOOSE to stop being fatasses have an option. It's called PUT DOWN THE FUCKING FORK. Used exercise bikes are dirt cheap on Craigslist (expect a flood after every holiday season) and make for convenient cardio at home.

      If I can do it so can anyone else because I'm not special.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    18. Re:Daniel Tosh was right by ArsonSmith · · Score: 1

      "obesity is a growing problem"

      I see what you did there.

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
    19. Re: Daniel Tosh was right by Bill,+Shooter+of+Bul · · Score: 5, Funny

      So... Not only are you losing weight, you're saving money. If you keep this up ... You'll be thin and rich?

      --
      Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
    20. Re:Daniel Tosh was right by clarkkent09 · · Score: 2

      In many countries poor people not only eat healthier food but also tastier than most people here. It's amazing what you can make with a little bit of rice or pasta and some vegetables and spices for virtually no money if you know how to prepare it. In the US poor people will eat garbage fast food daily in their comfy sofa in front of a big screen TV and complain that they are fat because they are poor.

      --
      Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
    21. Re:Daniel Tosh was right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obesity is in fact a problem in some developing countries, due to poor nutrition (no lack of calories) and a lack of education and/or diet alternatives.

      But enough about America.

    22. Re:Daniel Tosh was right by Ultra64 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, it's not like we have a government of the people, by the people, and for the people.

    23. Re:Daniel Tosh was right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is actually true. I don't dislike norweigians or the swiss because they are very rich, have their own society set up pretty well or because they are free. I don't dislike the US for those reasons either. I do dislike US because US just fucking HAS TO meddle with everything it seems. Go home yankees. Let the world burn if it comes to that, you don't have to be a world police, nobody asked you to.

    24. Re:Daniel Tosh was right by dywolf · · Score: 1

      Hey look, it's Buzz Killington, and once again, he doesnt get the joke

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    25. Re:Daniel Tosh was right by BluBrick · · Score: 2

      Only if the camera crew and the cast have the same accommodations. Otherwise, by that same logic, the living conditions of the wild animals featured in National Geographic must be "on par with wilderness camping in your mom's basement".

      That analogy only works if the crew is actually filming at the local zoo.

      Survivor is just a Popularity-Contest style game show set in an outdoor environment, none of them are actually "surviving".

      Quite the opposite, in fact. They all survive - none of them actually fail to do so. Regardless of how much the actual death of contestants might increase ratings, the lawyers would never let the marketing team have their way on that one.

      --
      Ahh - My eye!
      The doctor said I'm not supposed to get Slashdot in it!
    26. Re:Daniel Tosh was right by fruey · · Score: 1

      A guy on the French version (Koh Lanta, it's called) did indeed die. The season was cancelled. It was a massive scandal, where the on call doctor committed suicide.

      It did not increase ratings, and it caused a lot of pain an heartache.

      http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-22001163

      --
      Conversion Rate Optimisation French / English consultant
    27. Re:Daniel Tosh was right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Then why not hate our government instead of its people. People of USA also hate their government, but as with any corrupt government, it won't change unless people are willing to sacrifice, and right now there's more to give up than to gain.

    28. Re:Daniel Tosh was right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is certainly true up to a point. The truly poor, however, do have less options and the very cheapest sources of calories in the US (particularly in poor areas) tend to be processed and unhealthy.
      I'd say that in rich countries, the very poor may well not be able to afford to stay thin. If you're unable to get to a real grocery store, your options are very limited.
      Having said that, most people are not very poor, and many people make appallingly bad food choices.

    29. Re:Daniel Tosh was right by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

      In many countries poor people not only eat healthier food but also tastier than most people here. It's amazing what you can make with a little bit of rice or pasta and some vegetables and spices for virtually no money if you know how to prepare it. In the US poor people will eat garbage fast food daily in their comfy sofa in front of a big screen TV and complain that they are fat because they are poor.

      Yeah..I don't get the poor eating fast food thing...it is notcheap to eat fast food!!??

      I rarely eat fast food, especially burgers. I've not been to a BK or a Wendy's in probably a couple years or more...I've been on the road lately, and stopped to have some. I got a couple of their new burgers (about $0.90 more than their regular burgers), a large fry, large drink and dessert...fscking cost me almost $16??!?!?

      The burgers were NOT large...not like they show on TV ( when did the Whopper shrink so much?). For $16, I could have bought plenty of good food at the grocery store and cooked something from scratch that would have fed me much more satisfyingly and healthier for at least 3-4 meals.

      Why don't poor people shop for veggies and the protein of the week on sale at the grocerys store and COOK? It is cheaper and healthier than eating garbage fast food.

      It is ignorance?

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    30. Re:Daniel Tosh was right by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Those pesky shysters don't let you have any fun!

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    31. Re:Daniel Tosh was right by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Oh, not to worry. Our biofuel craze should take care of that, by making corn SO expensive that at least the poor will soon be trim again.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    32. Re:Daniel Tosh was right by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Nah, we knew that you can't do jack against Lucas. But what we really hate you for is that you let your government get away with that crap, after all allegedly you can vote them in and out.

      And as long as you don't debunk that and people still believe that you're responsible for what your government does, this won't change.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    33. Re:Daniel Tosh was right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you don't have to be a world police, nobody asked you to

      So can we finally get out of the f'ckin UN? You know, that world body which would be even more of a joke if it didn't have the American military behind it.

    34. Re:Daniel Tosh was right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If I can do it so can anyone else because I'm not special.

      You're right. You're not special.

    35. Re:Daniel Tosh was right by wiggles · · Score: 1

      It's about calorie density, and calories per dollar.

      Crappy food is cheaper per calorie, is denser per calorie, is quick and easy, and you can eat more of it because it doesn't fill you up.

      See this and this.

    36. Re:Daniel Tosh was right by LordLimecat · · Score: 2

      They also complain when we dont.

    37. Re:Daniel Tosh was right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I eat about 1300 calories/day, including meat, fruit, fish and veggies.

      Either you are extremely small or you do very little physical activity. That is an extremely low caloric intake for anyone who's average size in the US if they're physically active at all. Congrats on losing the weight, but please be aware that there's a ton of studies showing extremely restrictive caloric "cuts" for dieting have low long term effectiveness for most people. 20% of your TDEE is the max most trainers and nutritionists would tell you to cut (TDEE: Total Daily Energy Expenditure, Wikipedia has more, including various ways of calculating your own - with varying margins for error).

      Also, consider eating a little more and becoming more physically active, skinny doesn't always mean healthy. I would argue a fat guy that's able to help me move furniture for an hour is in better shape than a skinny guy who cannot. YMMV, broad strokes of nutrition are scientifically settled, but we've been debating and testing the specifics for decades with little progress.

    38. Re:Daniel Tosh was right by fldsofglry · · Score: 1

      Why don't poor people shop for veggies and the protein of the week on sale at the grocerys store and COOK? It is cheaper and healthier than eating garbage fast food.

      It is ignorance?

      You need a grocery store to be able to buy anything to cook. I live in Cincinnati, OH and the poor places around me usually don't even have a grocery store. There are usually half a dozen fast food restaurants and usually a couple of gas stations/convenient stores. Good luck finding a vegetable there. Sometimes you can find apples or bananas sold individually though. I have lived in a couple of poor areas that have a proper grocery store with a produce section, but the selection and quality are suspect. With the food industry subsidies, it is actually cheaper to buy more processed foods and they keep longer.

      Could be ignorance, but my money is on these so called food deserts. The real question is: How and which came first, the ignorance or the food deserts?

    39. Re:Daniel Tosh was right by omnichad · · Score: 1

      Yeah..I don't get the poor eating fast food thing...it is notcheap to eat fast food!!??

      That's part of why they're poor.

    40. Re:Daniel Tosh was right by omnichad · · Score: 1

      And if they were smart, even paying for public transportation or hiring someone to drive you to a better grocery store is cheaper than shopping convenience stores and eating fast food.

    41. Re:Daniel Tosh was right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You never eat food with a fork. I'd say that's pretty special in the United States.

    42. Re:Daniel Tosh was right by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      In the US poor people will eat garbage fast food daily in their comfy sofa in front of a big screen TV and complain that they are fat because they are poor.

      I see you don't know any poor people. In the US, poor people can't afford fast food, comfy chairs, or big screen TVs. They eat the overpriced food available from convinience stores because they have no transportation to get to a real grocery, buy that food with LINK (no good at McDonalds, you need real money there), sit in a ratty twenty year old chair from Goodwill and watch a twenty five inch CRT with a free government digital tuner attached. And their only internet access is the library and their Obamaphone.

      You would NOT want to be poor.

    43. Re:Daniel Tosh was right by PraiseBob · · Score: 1

      Ignorance plays a big role, but also the low-income job structure. Many, if not most, people on the low income scale don't work a fixed schedule. They may work a double-shift one day, or pick up a shift unexpectedly when they thought they would have the day off.

      This in turn means they have a higher than expected paycheck for the week, and less energy for the rest of their day. The easy option in that scenario is to purchase a pre-prepared meal rather than spending the time & energy to fix their own.

      Now throw in other options like working the late shift one day, the early shift another, and you run into scenarios where it is difficult to maintain a standard time of day to prepare food, since your day to day routine and schedule isn't consistent.

      Even when cooking, it is easier to find the pre-processed meals in a box, since they take less time to prepare than cutting vegetables up, and for a large percentage of people, taste better than what they can make on their own.

    44. Re:Daniel Tosh was right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      And if they were smart, even paying for public transportation or hiring someone to drive you to a better grocery store is cheaper than shopping convenience stores and eating fast food.

      They're poor in time as well, poor people tend to work long hours and travel a bunch. They can afford less conveniences to ease this burden (e.g. after school care for 2 hours until they get home from work). Exhausted people pressed for time with very hungry children do not ride the bus for an hour each way, shop, cook and then feed them, they buy them a McDonald's cheeseburger for a buck.

      Does it suck? Yes. Is it less ideal? Yes. Could really disciplined people overcome this? Yes. But we're talking about the majority here, which will be made up of rather average people. We already know how average poor people behave. Arguing they "could" do better is like peeing into the wind. You're not going to get the results everyone would ideally want. Better to go with a an idea that works rather than the one you find morally superior. Moral superiority will merely result in little improvement and malnourished children.

    45. Re:Daniel Tosh was right by vux984 · · Score: 1

      Only if the camera crew and the cast have the same accommodations. Otherwise, by that same logic, the living conditions of the wild animals featured in National Geographic must be "on par with wilderness camping in your mom's basement".

      Only if the wild animals can turn to the cameraman and say "fuck this, my legs is infected, fly me home and to a hospital right now, this is over unless you want a lawsuit the likes of which will bankrupt this entire network."

    46. Re:Daniel Tosh was right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh bullshit. You're describing maybe 2% of the population that lives below the poverty line.

      And yes, Ive been poor, Ive been homeless. You sound like just another college kid whose understanding of poverty comes from a fucking lecture hall.

      Homeless people eat fast food all the fucking time - because its cheap (notice the prevalence of dollar menus?) and because homeless people dont have goddamn refrigerators or any other place to store food bought in the store.

    47. Re:Daniel Tosh was right by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but now you need to get a different /. handle.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    48. Re:Daniel Tosh was right by Flere+Imsaho · · Score: 1

      Sell your kids for food

      --
      It gripped her hand gently. 'Regret is for humans,' it said.
    49. Re:Daniel Tosh was right by couchslug · · Score: 1

      I do at least a half hour of exercycle cardio a day. I'm a mechanic and attending school for CNC machining and have plenty of energy. The diet is to burn off weight and it works, but cardio help even more and boost my energy levels. When I drop 20 more pounds I'll be at a reasonable BMI for 6'2" then eat maintenance and stay at 170-175 which I used to weight.

      Diets in general, and lifestyle changes in general, FAIL for most people because most people aren't determined. If I fail, that makes me a piece of shit. The grim reality is that most overweight people are doomed, but their success or failure doesn't help or hurt anyone else. If I fail, I deserve to suffer the consequences.

      Thing is, it feels terrific to return to much more comfortable weight ranges and I'm not really fond of food. If I could download the stuff without eating I'd be content. Others differ.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    50. Re:Daniel Tosh was right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's healthy about pasta?

    51. Re:Daniel Tosh was right by List+Lurker · · Score: 1

      "In rich countries, only the rich can afford to stay thin."

      Bullshit. You can eat a healthy diet and control calories cheaply. I shop at Walmart and local grocery stores (all that's available where I live), and since I quit all soda, all refined starches, all sweets, all juices (if I want juice I eat fruit) my grocery bill has dropped considerably. I eat about 1300 calories/day, including meat, fruit, fish and veggies. I no longer eat out, at all. No need, and because I don't eat vending machine food that's more money saved and less shit ingested.

      I dropped over 50lbs since July and feel great.

      The Americans who CHOOSE to stop being fatasses have an option. It's called PUT DOWN THE FUCKING FORK. Used exercise bikes are dirt cheap on Craigslist (expect a flood after every holiday season) and make for convenient cardio at home.

      If I can do it so can anyone else because I'm not special.

      LIKE!!

    52. Re:Daniel Tosh was right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hmm, let's see. 100g of cooked spaghetti: 155 calories, 0.9g of fat, 30.5g of carbs, 6g of protein.

      Combine with some stir fried broccoli, snow peas and mushrooms and served with tomato sauce (made with real San Marzano tomatoes, onions, garlic, olive oil and basil), and you have a nutricious and delicious meal.

      So, in short, pasta is fucking awesome. Just don't drown it in processed shit and call it mac 'n cheese. That's not pasta, that's garbage.

      Italians eat pasta by the metric fuckload and they seem to be doing alright. Know why? Because they also eat fuckloads of veggies, olive oil, fish, and use real cheese made from real milk from real cows that ate real grass.

    53. Re:Daniel Tosh was right by jwhitener · · Score: 1

      "Walmart and local grocery stores"

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_desert

      An extreme example is a city like Detroit. There are parts of the city where for miles and miles around you, the only places selling food are fast food places or 7-11/convenience stores. And there may be no easy public transportation routes out of the city to the richer suburbs to go shopping. So you better own a car, and then be prepared to drive after work in heavy traffic for an hour or more.

      But that isn't the only reason. There are matters of parenting and education also. You likely were armed already with some knowledge of cooking handed down to you by parents, or some level of education that made learning about cooking easy for you.

      I think you'd be surprised how foreign the concept of making a meal from scratch is for a surprisingly large percent of Americans.

    54. Re:Daniel Tosh was right by BluBrick · · Score: 1

      I'll just take that as the exception that proves the rule.

      --
      Ahh - My eye!
      The doctor said I'm not supposed to get Slashdot in it!
  5. Who was eating all those excess calories? by icebike · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Maybe the Gut bacteria found the soylent concoction particularly tasty and were eating more of it than the human, hence the weight loss.

    --
    Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    1. Re:Who was eating all those excess calories? by vux984 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Or more likely he was just dumping them out the other end because, for whatever reason, he couldn't absorb them.

    2. Re:Who was eating all those excess calories? by asmkm22 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      He probably went from an unregulated diet (random food when hungry, different foods each day, plus various snacks as desired, etc) to the highly-regulated soylent concoction (2,400 calories with no variation). It's surprising how much we eat if we add in all the little things that we don't really think about, like extra drinks or whatever.

      It's also possible his body simply became more efficient with handling the same number and type of calories each day, rather than store the excess due to normal daily variations in consumption.

    3. Re:Who was eating all those excess calories? by icebike · · Score: 2

      Well, that is the fate of gut bacteria, is it not? Seems they are "born" late in life.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    4. Re:Who was eating all those excess calories? by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 1

      >found the soylent concoction particularly tasty

      Or found it particularly not tasty and upped the FIAF instead: http://high-fat-nutrition.blogspot.com/2007/12/fiaf-whos-fat-is-it-anyway.html

      --
      I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
    5. Re:Who was eating all those excess calories? by erice · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Maybe the calories were not absorbed. He did say that "my stomach felt like a coil of knotty old rope, slowly tightening". His digestive system wasn't very happy and was likely dumping calories and nutrients out the other end without processing.

      People's ability to digest food and absorb it's nutrients is highly variable even without considering major digestive disorders like lactose intolerance and Celiac Disease. Even if it worked for the inventor, that doesn't mean it will work for you.

    6. Re:Who was eating all those excess calories? by icebike · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Pretty much covered by the first respondent.

      I had a friend in College from Australia. He found he always had digestive problems returning home for a visit after every semester. A semester was just long enough for his native flora to die off, and it took a day or three of cramps and trots (a bad case of the "dampass" as he called it) to get his gut primed again.

      So he got these pills from his doctor, who got them from the military, and would take them on the flight home. They were nothing more than "seed stock" for his gut. This was back in the 60s and apparently Australian Diet of that era was just enough different from American fare that some people had trouble adjusting.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    7. Re:Who was eating all those excess calories? by evilviper · · Score: 1, Funny

      Every order of Soylent comes with a FREE TAPEWORM!

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    8. Re:Who was eating all those excess calories? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      He went from a chaotic diet to a steady one. His body didn't try to store every calorie it could find because it no longer thought it was starving.

    9. Re:Who was eating all those excess calories? by CastrTroy · · Score: 4, Informative

      That's what most people forget about dieting, and where food labels are often misleading. Sure 1 cup of sugar contains the same number of calories as 2 cups of whole wheat pasta (according to Google). But the latter requires much more energy for your body to actually process, and it's questionable if you're body could even get at 100% of that energy, where as with sugar, it would be able to process it very efficiently.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    10. Re:Who was eating all those excess calories? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It is likely this mix was a lot higher fiber and a sudden shift in diet can cause stomach issues as the gut flora takes a couple of days to adjust. Multiple people who have done this with soylent typically see the stomach issues the first 2-3 days before it clears up and in this case he was also not drinking enough water according to his own account which was also causing some of his issues.

    11. Re: Who was eating all those excess calories? by smg5266 · · Score: 1

      If you rtfa you find out that the stomach issues were from dehydration and were quickly alleviated after a few glasses of water.

    12. Re:Who was eating all those excess calories? by viperidaenz · · Score: 3, Funny

      I don't care, sugar tastes better.

    13. Re:Who was eating all those excess calories? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He did say that "my stomach felt like a coil of knotty old rope, slowly tightening".

      This story seems to leave out what I've seen in other more detailed posts before. He screwed up the formula for the couple days and left a supplement or two out that he later fixed and that is what made it become more tolerable.

    14. Re:Who was eating all those excess calories? by swillden · · Score: 1

      It's also possible his body simply became more efficient with handling the same number and type of calories each day

      You mean less efficient.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    15. Re:Who was eating all those excess calories? by quantaman · · Score: 1

      Maybe the Gut bacteria found the soylent concoction particularly tasty and were eating more of it than the human, hence the weight loss.

      You actually just gave me a great idea for a weight loss pill that's simply a capsule filled with tapeworm eggs.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    16. Re:Who was eating all those excess calories? by z0idberg · · Score: 1

      I do believe that has already been thought of and implemented. I am not going to google for that shit and find out though.

    17. Re:Who was eating all those excess calories? by asmkm22 · · Score: 1

      Now that you mention it, that would be more accurate.

    18. Re:Who was eating all those excess calories? by rvw · · Score: 1

      I had a friend in College from Australia. He found he always had digestive problems returning home for a visit after every semester. A semester was just long enough for his native flora to die off, and it took a day or three of cramps and trots (a bad case of the "dampass" as he called it) to get his gut primed again.

      Same here when I go to France or Italy on holiday. The food is so different, and it takes about three to five days to adjust. I think it's mostly the bread that's much better, but I might be wrong.

    19. Re:Who was eating all those excess calories? by flirno · · Score: 1

      They used to do this in the late 19th and early 20th century. You can still find old newspapers with advertisements for weight loss pills that contained various parasites including tapeworms. Mind that during this period of time Coca Cola was being marketed as a universal medicinal cure all too.

      Maybe the Gut bacteria found the soylent concoction particularly tasty and were eating more of it than the human, hence the weight loss.

      You actually just gave me a great idea for a weight loss pill that's simply a capsule filled with tapeworm eggs.

    20. Re:Who was eating all those excess calories? by couchslug · · Score: 1

      "It's also possible his body simply became more efficient with handling the same number and type of calories each day, rather than store the excess due to normal daily variations in consumption."

      That happened to me while adapting to a low-calorie diet. The first three weeks SUCKED as I weaned off the carb/sugar "energy swing" cycle. Now I feel great and my fat is leaving rapidly.

      Eating shit for years can make for a stressful transition, but transition is worth it.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    21. Re:Who was eating all those excess calories? by JamieIanMacgregor · · Score: 1

      of maybe he has 5' of impacted faeces rope in his intestine... see rotten.com for more info. nsfw

  6. Calories by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    That might be because the whole calorie counting thing is pure BS. Its all about the glucides baby :) i can tear through 3 eggs + bacon for breakfast and I still lose weight.

    1. Re:Calories by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 2, Interesting

      >That might be because the whole calorie counting thing is pure BS.

      This.

      The absence of causality in the CI-CO = dW has been well established for centuries. It was lost briefly in a period between the 1970s and mid 2000s, but I think we're back on track mostly, provided that you don't listen to doctors.
       

      --
      I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
    2. Re:calories by manu0601 · · Score: 1

      Replying to myself: TFA says "The carbs are an oligosaccharid". Theses cannot be digested by human enzymes. Gut bacteria will break them, leaving some to the host, but the process will be slow, which means that will insulin will be stuck to base level.

    3. Re:calories by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > insulin remains low, and fat is burnt.

      And you become lipoprotein lipase's bitch

    4. Re:Calories by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      3 eggs + bacon is like 400-500 calories? That's a large glass of orange juice.

    5. Re: Calories by IrquiM · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      The 3 eggs and bacon is also the reason for the increased heart attack (STEMI) related emergency room visits for people under 45 the last couple of years.

      --
      This is blinging
    6. Re:Calories by LoRdTAW · · Score: 1

      "provided that you don't listen to doctors."

      Ugh, doctors. I saw an acquaintance post that a doctor lowered his calorie intake from 1600 to 1200 to reach a BMI of 30, what ever that means. He is trying to lose weight and had dropped a significant amount, over 100 lbs already. To me both the BMI and calorie counting is BS. How a trained medical professional can use both is baffling unless (s)he is a dinosaur stuck in their old ways.

    7. Re:calories by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >> insulin remains low, and fat is burnt.
      >
      >And you become lipoprotein lipase's bitch

      It's all fun and games until your leptin falls off a fucking cliff.

      http://itsthewooo.blogspot.com/search/label/Leptin

    8. Re:calories by evilviper · · Score: 1

      If the food does not rise blood glucose level (either because it is low carb, or because it contains carbs that take time to digest), insulin remains low, and fat is burnt.

      OR... his body is having a hell of a time processing it, it's going through him like Metamucil, and he's losing muscle mass.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    9. Re:Calories by kamapuaa · · Score: 3, Interesting

      BMI was intended as a look at an overall population, however it's generally a good representation of people without really unique body types or lots of muscle.

      If your friends had 100 pounds to lose, bringing up BMI worked well for him. BMI is a way of showing that he's what most people would consider obese. You wouldn't use it to decide whether to lose 5 pounds or not, but sure it's accurate to within 100 pounds.

      Counting calories is a very effective way to lose/gain weight. Sure you don't know *exactly* how many your body is burning, but if you don't lose or gain weight at 3000 calories, and maintain the same lifestyle, you can be sure that you will lose about a pound a week at 2500 calories, or gain a pound a week at 3500 calories/day. Sure not everybody wants to or has to do that, but it works.

      --
      Slashdot: providing anti-social weirdos a soapbox, since 1997.
    10. Re:Calories by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 1

      >3 eggs + bacon is like 400-500 calories? That's a large glass of orange juice.

      Well technically, orange juice is a bunch of fuctose and some fiber (if it's unfiltered) to help your gut bacteria make you fat.

      3 eggs + bacon is food.

      --
      I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
    11. Re: Calories by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No it isn't.
      FFS. We seem to have this discussion weekly on Slashdot.

      A little review of the literature: http://www.ketotic.org/2013/09/the-ketogenic-diet-reverses-indicators.html

      --
      I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
    12. Re:Calories by evilviper · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The absence of causality in the CI-CO = dW has been well established for centuries

      It's pure PHYSICS that if you need a certain number of calories, and if you do not consume enough, you will lose weight.

      There are several edge cases, things like fiber that your body can't digest (or lactose if you're in the unlucky few). And there are some that some that will suppress your appetite, versus those that stimulate it. But those DON'T MATTER at allon a strictly calorie controlled diet... that's only affects your un-monitored calorie consumption, or possibly your will-power at sticking to the stringent diet.

      Absolutely ZERO doctors or scientists will claim you can maintain a healthy weight without consuming the number of calories the math says you need. If there was ANY WAY to do that, the US Military would be paying HUGE amounts of money to get the secret formula that lets them transport half as much food, halfway across the planet (through war-zones) to feed all those hungry soldiers.

      The reverse isn't so strictly true, but honestly, there aren't THAT many examples of foods that don't properly digest (like fiber), or that stimulate your metabolism (like caffeine), and they neither cause HUGE effects, nor can they go unnoticed by the person who constantly running to the toilet, and/or who's sweating through winter and can't get to sleep.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    13. Re:Calories by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 1

      >> The absence of causality in the CI-CO = dW has been well established for centuries
      >
      >It's pure PHYSICS that if you need a certain number of calories, and if you do not consume enough, you will lose weight.

      That's what I said... CI-CO = dW
      But CI-CO => dW is obviously wrong because it doesn't work.
      and CI-CO = dW is obviously wrong because a change in weight can't force you to do anything.

      Please keep up.

      --
      I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
    14. Re: Calories by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In other words - it's that our current diet is so high in dietary SUGAR.

      Christ.

    15. Re:Calories by Boronx · · Score: 1

      It's pure PHYSICS that if you need a certain number of calories, and if you do not consume enough, you will lose weight.

      No it isn't. Calories aren't mass.

    16. Re:Calories by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      But a little rudimentary unit analysis suggests that it's bullshit. It's not a dimensionless constant, it's M / L^2. It doesn't even make sense - L^2? Are we paper people? Extruded prisms of constant width?

      What's the argument for the factor? What are the physical constants it depends on? What are the other Pi numbers in the system?

      Finally, does it even correlate well with anything, meaningfully?

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    17. Re:Calories by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's pure PHYSICS that if you need a certain number of calories, and if you do not consume enough, you will lose weight.

      No it isn't. Calories aren't mass.

      Einstein would disagree.

    18. Re:Calories by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but what is his blood pressure and resting heart rate? How far can he walk? How fast can he run? How much can he burn on a cycle for 15 minutes? How would he do on some basic strength exercises (bench, squat, curl, etc.).

      If our car lost weight but couldn't accelerate fast enough to merge into traffic or go more than a 50 miles without slowing down we'd want it fixed. Our bodies are sort of like engines. Why do we ignore the PERFORMANCE of our bodies?

    19. Re:Calories by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I once calculated my base metabolic rate, factored in exercise, and tracked everything I ate in terms of calories. There was variation on a day to day basis, but over the course of 4 months I lost weight at a rate that matched the calorie deficit rather quite closely. I was even able to taper off the calorie reduction and observe the slow-down in weight loss, again, sticking very close to the formula. I lost over 50 pounds that way and kept it off. Perhaps the calorie equation does not work for some people, but for me, who graphed the entire thing in a piece of commercial software, it worked almost exactly.

    20. Re:Calories by compro01 · · Score: 1

      BMI was intended as a look at an overall population, however it's generally a good representation of people without really unique body types or lots of muscle.

      Where "unique body types" make up a quarter of the population. That's how often the BMI scale miscategorizes people as over or underweight, compared to body fat percentage.

      It was a halfway useful number when it was invented a century and a half ago, but the flaw in the scaling factor becomes more and more evident the taller you go, and what was exceptionally tall a century ago is the average now.

      --
      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
    21. Re:Calories by TheLink · · Score: 1, Insightful

      It is bullshit at least for "diet" purposes since:
      1) Not all the calories are the same - try pumping diesel into a petrol car or vice versa, same calories very different effects. Compare long term effects of different ethanol-petrol ratios on your car. Human metabolism is even more complicated than a car's engine. Compare consuming 2000 calories of sugar water with consuming 2000 calories of protein mix.
      2) most conveniently forget to measure the _excreted_ calories - for example, how much you shit out. Even a 5% difference in individuals can become significant over time.
      3) There's also satiety factors. For "dieting" purposes different foods with the same amount of calories have different satiety.

      A partial truth can be just as damaging as flat out lies. And there have been plenty saying harmful bullshit like "a calorie is a calorie" when it's not so simple as that.

      --
    22. Re:Calories by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      BMI correlates well with heart disease. People like Michael Clark Duncan don't look fat, but still drop dead from heart disease.

    23. Re:calories by manu0601 · · Score: 1

      Well, I understand soylent supplies enough proteins so that the body will not have to burn muscle if it needs amino acids for neoglucogenesis.

    24. Re:Calories by camperdave · · Score: 2

      But a little rudimentary unit analysis suggests that it's bullshit.

      Unit analysis on miles per gallon works out to an area (inverse area, actually), but that doesn't mean its a bullshit figure.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    25. Re:Calories by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      That left-over dimensionality somehow characterizes human stature. It's incomplete, for exactly the reason GP-pointed out: it doesn't take into account things like muscle composition. It's not actually that bizarre, as a sibling poster points out: that number characterizes the pressure your feet, and therefore all other parts of your body, must handle.

      In fact, after thinking about BMI in this thread, I have more, rather than less, respect for the number.

    26. Re:Calories by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The absence of causality in the CI-CO = dW has been well established for centuries.

      No, the problem is not with the difference in calories in and out resulting in weight loss, the problem is the difficulty in figuring out what the calories in and out are. If some of the calories you eat are not absorbed, that is not evidence against that expression, that is evidence you are measuring CI wrong. If changing your calories in causes your metabolism to change or impacts your motivation to keep active, that is not evidence against the expression, it is evidence you are measuring CO wrong or making bad assumptions.

      There is only a short list of places the chemical energy that goes into your digestion system can go. Either it gets converted into heat & mechanical energy that is part of metabolism, it gets excreted still as chemical energy, or potentially gets used by microbes that may effectively be considered part of your total metabolism. Otherwise you're challenging basic physics, not biology (regardless of if you are saying it should be less than or greater than, anything that is not an equal sign).

      The difficult problem has been, and still is figuring out how to manage the CI and CO, whether it is on the psychological level (keeping yourself motivated to follow through on a diet and exercise), or on a more biochemical level of your body adjusting metabolism based on various dietary imbalances, or somewhere in between with a bad change of diet sapping you of energy or making exercise more difficult.

    27. Re:Calories by metlin · · Score: 2

      What utter nonsense.

      At the end of the day, you eat more than you burn = you gain weight; you burn more than you eat, you lose weight.

      Do we all burn calories equally? Not really -- our levels of activity, our genetic makeup, our body composition, and many other variables play a role in determining this.

      When I'm active, I can eat ~3500-4000 calories a day and I still stay in great shape. When I've fallen off the wagon, I will gain weight at ~2500 calories because I just turn into a lazy mash that couch surfs.

      Does blindly counting calories make sense? Of course not -- you have to figure out what *your* threshold is. How many calories do YOU need before you start losing/gaining weight and adjust it from that point on.

      But to discount counting calories in its entirety is just rubbish. Because ultimately, if you are not eating more than you burn, where is your body getting the excessive calories from?

    28. Re:Calories by TheRealMindChild · · Score: 1

      Sucrose, not fructose

      --

      "When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
    29. Re: Calories by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 1

      It's very plausible that sugar (I.E. sucrose) damages POMC cells that regulates appetite and energy expenditure during childhood, then the person grows up to be intolerant of carbs making them suffer from metabolic disorder. That's why fat Westerners (like myself) do well on low carb high fat diets, whereas low sugar societies (like the Japanese) stay skinny despite having lots of carbs later in life.

      There's quite a bit of evidence for that, but we need some large scale studies to be made to confirm it with more confidence.

      --
      I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
    30. Re:Calories by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh really are you telling me that mass and energy are unrelated? Because I know of a certain jew that might disagree.

    31. Re:Calories by gmhowell · · Score: 1

      BMI correlates well with heart disease. People like Michael Clark Duncan don't look fat, but still drop dead from heart disease.

      That's probably a result of his sarcoidosis (something the wikipedia article doesn't mention, but is easily googleable). The sarcoidosis can result in problems with many bodily systems. I've got the pacemaker/defibrilator to prove it :D

      --
      Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
    32. Re:Calories by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 1

      I stand corrected. I assumed it was mostly fructose due to it being fruit.

      But
      http://www.livestrong.com/article/267094-natural-sugars-in-oranges/

      --
      I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
    33. Re:Calories by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's incomplete, for exactly the reason GP-pointed out: it doesn't take into account things like muscle composition.

      Some would argue the opposite. It might be far from the best description of someone being too fat, but it is useful for various conditions the depend on stress on your skeleton, muscles and other systems from size. Some issues can pop up regardless if your weight is from muscle or fat.

    34. Re:calories by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you even know what an Oligosaccharide is? Maltose, sucrose and lactore are oligosaccharides too you know?
      Oligo+saccharide means multiple sugars, it means it is not a simple sugar, so yes we do have enzymes for many of them.
      You're probably thinking of polysaccharides for many of them such as chitin are not digestable.

    35. Re:Calories by evilviper · · Score: 2

      1) Car engines are extremely strict devices. Talk about turbines, stirling engines, or many others, and there's no problem changing fuels. Your body, similarly, is more than adaptive enough to digest extremely diverse foods, effectively. Steak and lettuce are about as far apart as you can get.

      2) I absolutely *did* address exactly this "output" silliness. Read my previous post again, more carefully.

      3) I also addressed this, and it's not relevant to this topic at all. In the more general case, I can say that it's only a small effect that definitely can be overcome with simple thought and will-power. But it is an interesting topic that certainly should get more study.

      People who claim there are huge differences in calories from foods are just as guilty of misinformation (I'd say even moreso) as those who over simplify it down to pur calorie counts and will power. And in this case, all the other factors you named are not relevant to the topic, in any case.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    36. Re: Calories by quantaman · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Not to go all ad-hominem but could you find a source supporting the Ketogenic diet that isn't called ketotic.org?

      It might be a great resource, and their literature review might be unbiased and very high quality. But they could also be a pair of diet evangelists outside of their field of expertise who are cherry picking and misrepresenting studies (intentionally or not).

      They could be completely accurate and reliable, but they've also got all the hallmarks of YAIC (Yet Another Internet Crank).

      --
      I stole this Sig
    37. Re:calories by quantaman · · Score: 1

      Summary notes that he lose weight at 2400 kcal/day, which is relatively high. This is not surprising: fat storage or burning is controlled by insulin, which is controlled in healthy subjects by blood glucose level. If the food does not rise blood glucose level (either because it is low carb, or because it contains carbs that take time to digest), insulin remains low, and fat is burnt.

      If the food doesn't raise blood glucose levels that means the calories get come from places other than simple carbohydrates, and those calories get broken down into what the body needs, and if there's extra it gets stored as fat.

      On what evidence do you base your claim that the same number of calories per day will make you thinner if they come from a source that doesn't raise blood glucose?

      --
      I stole this Sig
    38. Re:Calories by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OJ has about a 1.8:1.1:1.0 ratio of sucrose:fructose:glucose. Pretty similar to a lot of other sources of sugars, including some common blends of HFCS, once the sucrose has broken down.

    39. Re: Calories by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 2

      Sigh ... low carb is nonsense, it is a NAME.
      You have to understand what that NAME means.
      It does not mean low carb per se, it means: low sugar combined with low fat! If you eat carbs that can easy be converted into sugar *plus* a lot of fat, the fat is not digested but stored in your fat cells. That is a simple matter of insulin level in your blood.
      So this: That's why fat Westerners (like myself) do well on low carb high fat diets, whereas low sugar societies (like the Japanese) stay skinny despite having lots of carbs later in life. is complete nonsense and if you become fat or not has nothing to do with your age anyway.
      You eat low carb, so the fat is not put into the fat cells. The asians eat low fat AND low sugar, so AGAIN the fat is not put into fat cells, super simple.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    40. Re:Calories by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      It is only physics in universes where the human body cannot reduce it's work load to use less energy. Of course, you could mean that you keep reducing the number of calories as the body reduces workloads. There comes a point where you will lose weight, but it won't be pretty or healthy.

      And you are fooling yourself if you think that different people don't have widely different abilities to digest various foods. In fact, you are fooling yourself if you think that different people's bodies don't behave differently with regard to what gets burned vs. what gets stored with the calories they do digest.

    41. Re:Calories by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      Everybody eats more than they burn. Everybody.

    42. Re:Calories by AthanasiusKircher · · Score: 3, Informative

      Unit analysis on miles per gallon works out to an area (inverse area, actually), but that doesn't mean its a bullshit figure.

      That's because MPG is still related to a physical metric. You can see this better if you think of gallons per mile, whose units are (as you note) an area. Yes -- it would actually be an area precisely equivalent to a cross section of a long thin tube of gasoline stretched out to cover the distance your car goes on that amount of gas. MPG is just the reciprocal of that area. Just because you can't figure out how the units are physically meaningful doesn't mean that they don't actually have a physical representation or correlation to the measurement.

    43. Re:calories by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      On what evidence do you base your claim that the same number of calories per day will make you thinner if they come from a source that doesn't raise blood glucose?

      Teh internet!

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    44. Re:calories by m00sh · · Score: 1

      Summary notes that he lose weight at 2400 kcal/day, which is relatively high. This is not surprising: fat storage or burning is controlled by insulin, which is controlled in healthy subjects by blood glucose level. If the food does not rise blood glucose level (either because it is low carb, or because it contains carbs that take time to digest), insulin remains low, and fat is burnt.

      If the food doesn't raise blood glucose levels that means the calories get come from places other than simple carbohydrates, and those calories get broken down into what the body needs, and if there's extra it gets stored as fat.

      On what evidence do you base your claim that the same number of calories per day will make you thinner if they come from a source that doesn't raise blood glucose?

      Diabetic patients are told to eat low carb diets. Even people who have been fat all their life start following a strict low carb diet, they become thin.

      There was a discussion regarding some experiments on this. One doctor had diabetic patients that were getting too thin, "wasting away" as they said and wanted to put some meat on the bones. The doctors prescribed drinking olive oil shots. The patients didn't gain any weight. So, he doubled the amount of olive oil to be drunk like medicine. Still no weight gain. He doubled it again. Nothing again. At the end, patients were consuming over 2000 calories in olive oil shots and not gaining any weight (this in addition to their strict low carb diet for diabetes).

      The whole "insulin" as the fat hormone I think was popularized by the book "Good calories, bad calories" by Taubes. There is no scientific consensus about insulin though. Taubes does cite a lot of work on his book and one of the most dramatic is the topical fat bulbs at the site of insulin injections.

      Low-carb seems to be the best of all the weight loss diets when examined experimentally. There are a plethora of theories regarding why low-carb seems to be the best. Since low-carb diets were popularized by the diabetes doctor Atkins, there has been a strong suspicion that it is through insulin.

    45. Re:Calories by evilviper · · Score: 3, Interesting

      " It is only physics in universes where the human body cannot reduce it's work load to use less energy."

      Nope. Your body's "at rest" metabolism absolutely dominates. Even a high activity level only BARELY changes the number of calories you need. It takes something on the order of running marathons to significantly change your metabolism. The level of deviation from base metabolism is positively tiny, across a wide range of physical activity levels.

      " In fact, you are fooling yourself if you think that different people's bodies don't behave differently with regard to what gets burned vs. what gets stored with the calories they do digest"

      This is utter nonsense. There are a few variations, in the form of lactose intolerance and the like, but those are ridiculously obvious. The differences in burning calories versus storing them as fat are not between "people" but between body types. A morbidly obese person who stays on a diet will eventually get the same metabolism and behavior as the skinniest person. If there were these huge differences, they would have shown-up in the endless diestary studies that have been performed. Instead, EVERYONE'S bodies behaveexactly the same to identical diets (eventually). And as I said repeatedly, if you aren't getting enough calories, it is UTTERLY IMPOSSIBLE for your body to deposit excess fat. You can't build a house out of one sheet of plywood, no matter how much some crazy "diet expoert" has said so, peddeling snakeoilthat's so much more appealing than the boring a difficult calorie constricted diets, that you'll keep coming back, even as you see no lasting results.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    46. Re:calories by quantaman · · Score: 1

      Diabetic patients are told to eat low carb diets. Even people who have been fat all their life start following a strict low carb diet, they become thin.

      There was a discussion regarding some experiments on this. One doctor had diabetic patients that were getting too thin, "wasting away" as they said and wanted to put some meat on the bones. The doctors prescribed drinking olive oil shots. The patients didn't gain any weight. So, he doubled the amount of olive oil to be drunk like medicine. Still no weight gain. He doubled it again. Nothing again. At the end, patients were consuming over 2000 calories in olive oil shots and not gaining any weight (this in addition to their strict low carb diet for diabetes).

      The whole "insulin" as the fat hormone I think was popularized by the book "Good calories, bad calories" by Taubes. There is no scientific consensus about insulin though. Taubes does cite a lot of work on his book and one of the most dramatic is the topical fat bulbs at the site of insulin injections.

      Low-carb seems to be the best of all the weight loss diets when examined experimentally. There are a plethora of theories regarding why low-carb seems to be the best. Since low-carb diets were popularized by the diabetes doctor Atkins, there has been a strong suspicion that it is through insulin.

      Diabetics are an interesting piece of data but they're a slightly different case because they have a malfunctioning metabolism. I'd be curious to see what was happening with the olive oil case study though.

      AFAIK the studies indicate that low carb causes weight loss because people spontaneously eat fewer calories, and high protein seems to work better than low-carb.

      As for Taubes I'm actually very skeptical of his work, including how he's misrepresented and cherry picked tribal populations, suggested vegetarians were fat, and seems to have forgotten about Asia.

      The topical fat bulbs at the site of insulin injections prove what everybody agrees, that insulin is the mechanism that causes glucose to be stored as fat. But that's very different from insulin driving appetite or insulin injections increasing total body fat % in a healthy person. Insulin is mostly there to regulate blood glucose levels, saying insulin causes obesity is a bit like saying a car's engine is responsible for it speeding. It's a necessary component but the cause of the excessive speed is something else entirely (the driver). Researchers who study obesity don't believe insulin is a primary driver of obesity.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    47. Re:Calories by AthanasiusKircher · · Score: 1

      And you are fooling yourself if you think that different people don't have widely different abilities to digest various foods. In fact, you are fooling yourself if you think that different people's bodies don't behave differently with regard to what gets burned vs. what gets stored with the calories they do digest.

      You're right. However, the effects you mention are just not that significant. If you were talking about a factor of 2 or something, that might be significant. But no study has EVER shown something of that magnitude: where somebody has steady weight or slight gains at calorie input X, but lost weight by switching foods and eating 2X calories. It's simply impossible.

      Except for people with severe metabolic disorders, the effect of different foods is probably on the order of +/- 10% or so in terms of calorie extraction from diet depending on food type. For extreme diets, it might be a little more, but even if it varied by 20%, most people don't keep accurate enough weight and calorie intake records (along with constant physical activity levels) to see such a difference. Thus, calorie counts really are about the best first-order approximation to determine what will happen to your weight that we have.

      Now, this says nothing about whether a particular diet will make you feel full or be easier to adhere to etc. Different types of diets may give different psychological results which may make it harder or easier to lose (or gain) weight. But a number of comparative studies have not shown significant deviations in weight loss for constant calorie deficits on different diets. What you say is true, but the effect is simply not that big. The effect may seem bigger than it is because of different feelings of satiety for different foods, and because people tend to under/overestimate calorie content of foods based on those feelings, rather than actual calorie content.

    48. Re:Calories by tragedy · · Score: 1

      It's pure PHYSICS that if you need a certain number of calories

      Well yes, but you do have an "if" in there. It's conditional on how many calories you need. I should note that, in nutrition, kilocalories, also know as Calories, are used instead of calories. The Calorie/calorie difference has been the bane of anyone who knows a little physics trying to "prove" things in biology ever since someone thought it would be a good idea to give a unit and another unit worth a thousand times the first unit the same name, just with a capital letter on one of them (as another aside, even though nearly everyone has adopted the US definition of an "illion", the multiplie definitions of billion, trillion, etc. still cause problems from time to time).

      Anyway, the "if" relies on some pretty big statistical assumptions. In fact, how many Calories you need can vary based directly on how many you consume. For the typical, mostly idle modern person it's hard to get good numbers. You can get much better numbers for populations that are active all the time and operating at peak efficiency. So, yes, the part about needing to take in as much energy as you expend or you have to burn off reserves is completely accurate. It's just not very useful in this situation.

    49. Re:Calories by Belial6 · · Score: 2

      And as I said repeatedly, if you aren't getting enough calories, it is UTTERLY IMPOSSIBLE for your body to deposit excess fat.

      Nobody ever gets that few calories. If they did, there are all sorts of other health problems the person would be facing. So, you are repeating a hypothetical situation that never happens. Not with trim people. Not with fat people. Not with people who have made fitness the primary focus in their lives. About the only place that you might find this is in third world countries where people are literally starving to death.

    50. Re:Calories by evilviper · · Score: 1

      Nobody ever gets that few calories.

      That's nonsense. We're only talking about, say <2000kcal/day for an adult. Just try to show *anyone* who has gotten substantially fat on that kind of a diet. Your little imaginary dietary world is just that... imaginary and baseless.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    51. Re:Calories by Belial6 · · Score: 1
      That is silly. 20%, or even 10% would make all the difference in the world for most people.

      most people don't keep accurate enough weight and calorie intake records (along with constant physical activity levels) to see such a difference.

      because people tend to under/overestimate calorie content of foods based on those feelings, rather than actual calorie content.

      This is called confirmation bias. When you get the results you want assume the data to be true. When you don't, just assume the data is bad so that you can dismiss it.

    52. Re:calories by evilviper · · Score: 1

      I would hope so, but that assumes it's bio-available, and not getting flushed out right after he consumes it due to his difficulties digesting it.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    53. Re: Calories by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I'm sure you would also quote scientology.org to back up statements regarding how scientology is magnificent.

    54. Re:calories by sjames · · Score: 1

      His new-found running regimen and body fat analysis suggest he is not losing muscle mass.

    55. Re:Calories by Derec01 · · Score: 1

      Your post sounds... strangely dismissive of fact? Calorie counting provides a strict "less than or equals" to your intake. In most situations where acquaintances have failed at it, a pointed audit showed they were eating stuff that they didn't add to their list or didn't realize was so high calorie. You're still responsible, of course, for making sure those calories count for nutrition, but keeping a food journal has worked great for myself, my girlfriend, and several friends with good record keeping skills.

      I'm sorry calorie counting is BS to you, but if you hope to convince anyone, mind adding any evidence? My anecdotal evidence is at least as strong as yours.

      I mostly agree on BMI, but it can be a potentially useful metric, nothing more, nothing less, in some situations.

    56. Re:Calories by Derec01 · · Score: 1

      You're applying a standard of rigor to BMI that it was never intended to meet. Your unit analysis is beside the point. In any physical model, there'd be coefficients with units that would account for that unit mismatch anyway.

      It's a rough scaling argument, no more, no less, and *is* correlated with some diseases. When I say that large objects retain heat better than small objects, I compare that the surface losing heat for a sphere goes as the square of r, while its volume goes as the cube. Right there, I can come up with a measure that's just the inverse of an objects size. If that measure is very small compared to another object, I can roughly predict that it retains heat better, even if they aren't necessarily spheres. That's the extent and purpose of BMI.

    57. Re:Calories by Derec01 · · Score: 1

      Your example *doesn't* have a meaningful physical representation, with an emphasis on meaningful. The example you state has zilch to do with the process of converting gasoline to energy, which is the point of the metric.

    58. Re:Calories by Derec01 · · Score: 1

      Calories are derived from breaking down structured mass to differently structured, lower energy mass. If we know the maximum amount you can get from breaking down the mass, you have an upper limit.

      If your body can't get enough from that breakdown, then it will start breaking itself down and removing the remainder.

      If your body has excess mass around, it'll reserve parts it can break down later and store as fat.

      Is that detailed enough for you?

    59. Re:Calories by evilviper · · Score: 1

      Calories aren't mass.

      Right... We *ARE* assuming the person is *ALIVE*, and he or she is *EATING* these calories, as opposed to carrying them around as ballast.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    60. Re: Calories by n+dot+l · · Score: 2

      It does not mean low carb per se, it means: low sugar combined with low fat!

      That right there is absolutely key. Complex carbohydrates and small amounts of sugar consumed with lots of fiber are perfectly healthy. Starchy low-fiber foods are almost as bad as sugar (they're broken down into sugar very rapidly by the digestive system) for you, and sugar is outright terrible if it isn't properly moderated.

      If you eat carbs that can easy be converted into sugar *plus* a lot of fat, the fat is not digested but stored in your fat cells.

      It's worse than that. If your insulin levels spike high enough your fat cells will happily draw in sugar and make it into fat for long-term storage. Eat all sugar all the time and you'll get just as fat as if you eat a mix of fats and sugars.

      You're actually better off eating more fats than carbs (all things in balance, of course, carbohydrate-rich foods are great sources of the nutrients we need) since our bodies have evolved better regulatory systems to deal with fats than starches. And if you're going to eat a lot of carbs, make sure they're in a form that comes with a good amount of fiber, since it slows down digestion and reduces the sock of sugar your system would otherwise receive.

      That is a simple matter of insulin level in your blood.

      Insulin is probably the most important hormone when it comes to regulating hunger (I've heard this extended to mood in general, though I think that's reaching), metabolism, fat production and storage, and some stages of digestion. Fuck up your insulin levels bad enough for long enough and you'll become fat, lethargic, and eventually diabetic.

      Avoid foods which are high in sugar (or starch) and low in fiber. That combination is very common in modern cuisine, but it's been exceedingly rare for the bulk of our species' history, and we're not equipped to gracefully handle it. The digestive system processes the carbs too quickly, and that makes the pancreas overreact with insulin production. The hour or so following the sugar rush gets spent in a state of mild starvation since blood sugar has dropped faster than the body can remove the absurd amount of insulin it had to make (which means that the fat cells spend that time hoarding energy instead of releasing it for consumption) to deal with the sugar spike. The brain notices the low level of energy available in the bloodstream and response by switching hunger back on, despite the fact that the body's energy reserves would soon be released for consumption as insulin levels fall off.

      Desserts are awesome, of course, and not much is going to go wrong with you if you indulge in moderation. But if you do this constantly (constantly eating lots white breads, pastas, cookies, drinking sweetened drinks, etc), then you'd better be getting a ridiculous amount of exercise to offset the damage you're doing yourself.

      (Of course, people get fats for lots of other reasons besides sugar consumption. I'm not your doctor, I'm just some guy who's had to take care of diabetic friends and family members. If this advice doesn't work for you, see an actual doctor or dietitian. Imagine some other standard disclaimers here.)

    61. Re: Calories by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 0

      Well, as so many, you are in many things only half right.
      E.g. starch is not as bad as you think (especially italian pasta takes very long to get digested). The question with the many variations of starch is: how fast does it get into the blood stream and how fast/high does the insulin level rise *and* is it in combination with (lots of) fat.

      Also fat, why should I eat more fat than carbs? Does not make sense at all, it gets not digested ... but needs to pass through the body.
      Regarding hunger, there are minimum 3 stop indicators for your body, but unfortunately you can train away all three: last meal - is it still in your stomac, like a steak, you are not hungry; feeling of filling up during eating - if your stomac is full you should be no longer hungry; and insulin level - if the level is high enough you should feel satisfied.

      If this advice doesn't work for you
      You answered to the wrong person, you should have answered to my parent, perhaps?

      If *you* like to know the real stuff go here: http://www.montignac.com/en/the-montignac-method/

      And finally: fibres can be nasty as well. Meanwhile many people have gut bacteria (kinda catched from cows) that break fibres down into other carbs and hence somethign that has *zero* calories for me, has quite a lot for them.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    62. Re:Calories by kinnell · · Score: 2

      Counting calories is a very effective way to lose/gain weight. Sure you don't know *exactly* how many your body is burning, but if you don't lose or gain weight at 3000 calories, and maintain the same lifestyle, you can be sure that you will lose about a pound a week at 2500 calories, or gain a pound a week at 3500 calories/day. Sure not everybody wants to or has to do that, but it works.

      When you restrict calories in, the first thing that happens is your body lowers it's energy expenditure by making you tired and lowering non-essential processes in the body. Then it will catabolise muscle, because muscle is more expensive metabolically than fat. Only then will it start to lower fat. You will get to your target weight, but you will have less muscle mass (unhealthy in itself) burning less energy and a body which thinks it's in a state of famine and will drive you to binge eat to increase fat stores whenever food is available. In short you will lose weight but will set yourself up for even more weight gain in the future, or at least a lifetime of chronic stress inducing hunger. This is why 98% of people who do calorie restriction diets fail.

      --
      If I seem short sighted, it is because I stand on the shoulders of midgets
    63. Re:Calories by microTodd · · Score: 2

      Nope. Your body's "at rest" metabolism absolutely dominates. Even a high activity level only BARELY changes the number of calories you need. It takes something on the order of running marathons to significantly change your metabolism. The level of deviation from base metabolism is positively tiny, across a wide range of physical activity levels.

      I know I'm late to the game replying to your post, but is this true? This seems like the exact opposite of what I hear and read a lot. The concept of doing strength training for example, because "muscle burns more calories than fat". In other words, by building muscle you are increasing your RMR. Which is basically completely different than what you said.

      Or am I missing something? This is an honest question...I, like many USians, am trying to lose weight.

      --
      "You cannot find out which view is the right one by science in the ordinary sense." - C.S. Lewis on Intelligent Design
    64. Re:Calories by NoImNotNineVolt · · Score: 1

      A metabolized calorie is a metabolized calorie.

      Your first point is great. 2000 calories of sugar water and 2000 calories of protein mix will both turn into the very same 222 grams of fat if they're both fully metabolized and not expended. Of course, the sugar water is more likely to metabolize fully, but if anything, that's just support for the "it's just physics" argument. A metabolized calorie is a metabolized calorie, regardless of where it's from.

      Your second point really just hones in on what the issue is here: metabolism. If you eat some wood chips, they probably aren't getting digested, so you're not going to get the full caloric value out of them. That "insoluble fiber" isn't being metabolized, and you're shitting it all out. Of course, this just further confirms that a metabolized calorie is a metabolized calorie, regardless of where it's from.

      Your third point, however, has nothing to do with calorie counting and everything to do with psychology. "Satiety" doesn't have any impact on weight loss whatsoever. Whether you're not eating because you "feel full" or you're not eating because you're exercising your willpower, you're not eating. If you consume and metabolize 1000 calories because you feel like you're starving or you consume 1000 calories despite feeling full because you're a glutton, it's still 1000 calories. Satiety has no bearing on calories being calories.

      That being said, I lost a quarter of my body weight over the last few years with only moderate exercise and small changes in my diet. I had a great experience using the MyFitnessPal Android app to track my calorie intake and my exercise. This really helped me identify high-calorie foods that I could cut from my routine and healthier alternatives that are still delicious. After a couple months of calorie counting, I stopped, having learned enough about the foods I enjoy to be able to estimate calories on the fly. Nowadays, I don't even think of calorie content; I just continue with the healthier routine I established. I attribute my weight loss solely to my devotion to the "myth" that CI-CO = dW. Sure, some people might not metabolize everything they eat fully. But there's no way that you're getting more than 400 calories from 100 grams of sugar unless your stomach has turned from a chemical reactor into a nuclear one.

      --
      Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
    65. Re:Calories by camperdave · · Score: 1

      Yes -- it would actually be an area precisely equivalent to a cross section of a long thin tube of gasoline stretched out to cover the distance your car goes on that amount of gas.

      That's just a restatement of what I just said. Volume divided by distance(length) equals area. You could just as easily divide the volume of windshield washer fluid used by the distance travelled and get the cross section of the long thin tube of windshield washer fluid used on the trip.

      My point is that unit analysis doesn't necessarily tell you anything useful, and in fact can hide usefulness. Mileage is a case in point. A square metre of gasoline is meaningless measurement, but 10 litres/km is meaningful. Ditto with BMI. Just because a unit analysis reduces it to a meaningless kilograms per square metre measurement, doesn't mean that it is a meaningless figure. Perhaps a length unit got cancelled out, and what we're really looking at is a density figure (mass per unit volume) in disguise.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    66. Re:Calories by Anarchduke · · Score: 1

      Why would you complicate an easy answer with facts?

      --
      who prays for Satan? Who in 18 centuries has had the humanity to pray for the 1 sinner that needed it most? ~Mark Twain
    67. Re:Calories by dfghjk · · Score: 1

      "Counting calories is a very effective way to lose/gain weight."

      It is an effective way for SOME people to lose weight, specifically those whose weight regulation systems work the way they are supposed to. It's not true for everyone especially those who have the weight issues to begin with.

      It's always those who have no experience with problematic weight control that offer up simplistic grade-school weight loss "facts" on their way to dismissing others' very real problems. No one desires to be obese; it is a failure of the body to work properly not a weakness or character issue.

    68. Re:Calories by dfghjk · · Score: 1

      "It's pure PHYSICS that if you need a certain number of calories, and if you do not consume enough, you will lose weight."

      Anyone who thinks "pure PHYSICS" matters in this discussion is too ignorant to participate in the discussion. Come back when you have some life experience.

      Of course, it is impossible to know either the "certain number of calories" needed or the actual amount you consume so the whole point is irrelevant.

      It is much more interesting to consider what drives hunger and what causes a body that is overweight to continually trigger hunger. People also need to stop thinking of all food as equal. There's a lot more that's important than just calories, anyone who is stuck in such simplistic thinking doesn't know what weight problems are like.

    69. Re:Calories by dfghjk · · Score: 1

      "Your body's "at rest" metabolism absolutely dominates."

      But your body varies that based on what it perceives are survival circumstances. It has a number of mechanisms to preserve itself when faced with famine. Your body isn't an engine burning gas a constant rate.

      "This is utter nonsense."

      You are an idiot.

      "A morbidly obese person who stays on a diet will eventually get the same metabolism and behavior as the skinniest person."

      You are laughably wrong. You practice the science of "I don't have this problem therefore it doesn't exist".

      You wouldn't claim that an alcoholic suddenly stops being an alcoholic the moment he stops drinking and you wouldn't claim that the liver damage he may have accumulated over a lifetime of abuse is suddenly absent because he is sober. Same with obesity, diabetes, fatty liver, metabolic syndrome, whatever the problem(s) are. You need to stop being a fool and learn something.

      "And as I said repeatedly, if you aren't getting enough calories, it is UTTERLY IMPOSSIBLE for your body to deposit excess fat."

      Yeah, you should stop saying that. It makes you look stupid.

    70. Re:Calories by dfghjk · · Score: 1

      People can gain fat on 2000 calories a day. You only feel differently because you know nothing.

    71. Re:Calories by evilviper · · Score: 1

      But your body varies that based on what it perceives are survival circumstances.

      Yes, but that's just about the only exception, and it's merely a short-term effect.

      You are laughably wrong

      You're free to provide some evidence for your crazy assertions that go against basically all studies ever done. Otherwise, I'll be sure to ignore you and your trolling, as just one more sucker who fell for somebody's slick, expensive diet scam.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    72. Re:Calories by dfghjk · · Score: 1

      "This is called confirmation bias. When you get the results you want assume the data to be true. When you don't, just assume the data is bad so that you can dismiss it."

      and maybe it's because the data IS bad.

      The people who insist weight control is nothing other than a simple, algebraic formula are the ones dismissing "data". It is quite possible for a 10% change to have an effect for one person but that's not proof that everyone else is just weak.

    73. Re:calories by dfghjk · · Score: 1

      "On what evidence do you base your claim that the same number of calories per day will make you thinner if they come from a source that doesn't raise blood glucose?"

      This is a really good question, in fact a central one. Now that you know what the question is, you could actually research it rather than have someone on /. do it for you. It is not "his claim", it is a fundamental truth.

    74. Re:Calories by stdarg · · Score: 1

      Nobody is arguing against physics but the physics is only loosely related to "calorie counting."

      Calorie counting means you look at the food label and add up how many calories you ate. Then you go to the gym and the machines tell you how many calories you burned. Then you look at a chart on the internet for your age and weight and body type and daily activity level and it tells you how many calories you burned just existing.

      The reality is your diet has consequences for how you absorb energy from food, how you store energy in your body, and how you turn those energy stores back into energy to do work. If you're on a low carb diet and you're in ketosis and you "burn 1000 calories" on the treadmill, how many calories of steak do you have to eat to prevent yourself from losing weight? 1000? Nope, the chances of that being enough are incredibly low because digesting that steak and converting the fat and protein into energy is inefficient, plus in physics terms you burned more than 1000 calories on that jog because you breathed and sweated out a bunch of ketones that people on a high carb diet wouldn't have.

      If you had a device that accurately measured your internal energy stores and your energy output, then calorie counting would work, but we don't. (We do have the scale which measures the net change, but again that's not calorie counting.)

    75. Re:Calories by evilviper · · Score: 1

      Of course, it is impossible to know either the "certain number of calories" needed or the actual amount you consume so the whole point is irrelevant.

      Wow, that's just moronic...

      Any kid can take a few measurements, plug them into the function, and get a good calorie range for a given body.

      And EVERYTHING you buy has the calorie count right on it, so I have no idea why YOU find it impossible to know.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    76. Re:Calories by evilviper · · Score: 1

      Calorie counting means you look at the food label and add up how many calories you ate. Then you go to the gym and the machines tell you how many calories you burned. Then you look at a chart on the internet for your age and weight and body type and daily activity level and it tells you how many calories you burned just existing.

      No, you're vastly over-complicating things for absolutely no reason. Just start by recording how many calories you consumed before you start dieting. Then, if you want to lose weight, just slowly start to decrease the number of calories you consume. Going to the gym one day, versus not going the next, has a small enough effect to average out without crazy-close monitoring of yourself. It's really not necessary.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    77. Re:Calories by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is all true *IF*, and *ONLY IF*, you cut your caloric intake *drastically*. If you cut it *moderately*, then you simply stop adding fat to your system, and start to slowly burn the excess fat that you're trying to get rid of.

      If you normally eat 3000 calories/day, and you cut it to 1500 calories/day, you're going to be in for a world of hurt due to the results you describe.
      If you cut it to 2500 calories/day, you're going to get the results you *want*.

    78. Re: Calories by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 1

      >Not to go all ad-hominem but could you find a source supporting the Ketogenic diet that isn't called ketotic.org?

      I couldn't find one with a more comprehensive, transparent, honest enumeration of the evidence used in the argument.

      There is an objective truth out there somewhere, that exists independently of what you or anyone else thinks. The evidence is all you've got.

      --
      I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
    79. Re: Calories by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 1

      No I wouldn't. I can discern a difference.

      --
      I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
    80. Re:Calories by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope. Your body's "at rest" metabolism absolutely dominates. Even a high activity level only BARELY changes the number of calories you need. It takes something on the order of running marathons to significantly change your metabolism.

      You're so full of shit.

      1 mile traveled on foot = ~100 calories.

      Let's say a person's basil metabolic rate is 2000 calories. Now let's say that person works as a waiter and walks 3 miles at work. They are also a casual runner, so they run 3 miles in the morning.

      What do you know, this person burns 30% more calories than if they sat on the couch all day -- and they DON'T run marathons.

      I mean, fuck -- just walking two miles over the course of the day changes your required calories by 10%! Yeah, it's easier to change body composition through changes in diet/caloric intake than it is by adding/subtracting exercise, but to say that "Even a high activity level only BARELY changes the number of calories you need," is a gross exaggeration.

    81. Re:Calories by Boronx · · Score: 1

      That sounds like a physiological response and not one dictated by physics. There's no law of physics that the body has to store excess mass just because it has energy tied up in it, nor that it has to dump mass just because it transitions it to a lower energy state.

    82. Re:calories by quantaman · · Score: 1

      I asked because I've done the research previously and I know the scientific consensus says that for a healthy person in normal circumstances the macro nutrient balance doesn't really matter (at least when it comes to the ingesting the same number of calories).

      If he has evidence that argues against what I believe to be the consensus than I'm interested in hearing.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    83. Re:Calories by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      BMI was intended as a look at an overall population, however it's generally a good representation of people without really unique body types or lots of muscle.

      Muscle is not differentiable from fat for predicting lifespan. A 6' 230lb bodybuilder is taking just as many years off his life as any other average 6' 230lb person. Extra mass is simply unhealthy, and both would benefit by shedding 50lbs. Lots of people that think they have a "unique body type" or "lots of muscle", and therefore BMI is inapplicable to their special snowflake physique, but they are just wrong.

    84. Re:calories by manu0601 · · Score: 1

      TFA says Soylent contains aminoacids, which suggest this is absorption-ready proteins: no need it digest it further. I just hope the gut leave enough for gut bacteria!

    85. Re:calories by manu0601 · · Score: 1

      If the food doesn't raise blood glucose levels that means the calories get come from places other than simple carbohydrates, and those calories get broken down into what the body needs, and if there's extra it gets stored as fat.

      You assume that metabolic pathway yields and body expenses are the same in the two situations, and this is likely to be wrong. But you can check it on your own: eat low carbs for a few days. Your carb-addicted brain will hate it, but you will loose fat. Make sure you eat enough proteins, otherwise you will loose muscle too.

    86. Re:calories by quantaman · · Score: 1

      I don't deny that low-carb generally causes weight loss, I actually confirmed that in another comment. But the experiments I'm aware of suggest this is due to people eating fewer calories on a low-carb diet.

      Claiming that ingesting the same number of calories will cause you to lose weight if they come from non-carbs is a different claim entirely.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    87. Re:Calories by kamapuaa · · Score: 1

      You're making things up, there is no study on this. Anyway, a real bodybuilder is going to be using steroids enough to affect his lifespan.

      Nobody's going to look anything like a bodybuilder at 6' 230 pounds, unless they've been using steroids. A non-steroid user would be lucky to look ripped at 6' 200 pounds.

      --
      Slashdot: providing anti-social weirdos a soapbox, since 1997.
    88. Re:Calories by sjames · · Score: 1

      People who claim there are huge differences in calories from foods are just as guilty of misinformation

      Not really, no. The established calorie counts for foods are NOT based on human biology, it's done by simple calorimetry. That will only be accurate when you install a boiler in your gut. It fails entirely to account for absorbability, the fraction that gut flora will consume (which varies between people) and how much will be excreted largely unchanged. Those are all relevant here.

      Satiety is also relevant in the case of people without medical supervision using Soylent.

    89. Re:Calories by sjames · · Score: 1

      All of that has been debunked. You need a text book written from information in this millennium.

      The body can considerably alter the resting metabolism based on energy availability (this is uncontroversial). If physical activity has no significant effect on energy needs then exercise is useless for weight loss and a sedentary lifestyle shouldn't bring about obesity. Obviously, that is not the case, so that is beyond uncontroversial.

      If your caloric intake is sufficiently restricted you can't put on fat. Unfortunately, for some people, 'sufficient' is past the point of immune system dysfunction, listlessness and hair loss. Others won't even feel fatigued by the much lesser restriction they would require.

      More recently, we have evidence that switching out gut flora in mice will switch them from obese to normal and back again at will. There hasn't been enough time to gather evidence for humans, but with gut flora seeding (so-called fecal transplants) catching on for other conditions, we may have some incidental evidence soon.

    90. Re: Calories by sjames · · Score: 1

      Google it. yes, you'll have to skip at least half of the first page to get past the fads and such, but then you should find more credible sources.

    91. Re:Calories by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know, "I don't understand it so it must be bullshit" isn't a very logical way of looking at things.

    92. Re:Calories by mrchaotica · · Score: 2

      Nope. Your body's "at rest" metabolism absolutely dominates. Even a high activity level only BARELY changes the number of calories you need. It takes something on the order of running marathons to significantly change your metabolism. The level of deviation from base metabolism is positively tiny, across a wide range of physical activity levels.

      The difference between the "at rest" metabolism and "currently exercising" metabolism for the same person is small, but the difference between the "at rest" metabolism for someone who exercises regularly and the "at rest" metabolism for someone who doesn't is large. Changing the "at rest" metabolism is what the exercise is actually for.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    93. Re: Calories by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      So how do artificial sweeteners fit into all this?

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    94. Re:Calories by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He's only counting changes in metabolism due to activity alone. Discounting long-term body changes, you actually can't affect your calories burned that much.

      However, you are correct that metabolism does actually change according to the amount of muscle or fat you have, although it isn't as much as some people claim:

      http://muscleevo.net/muscle-metabolism/

    95. Re: Calories by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Depends on the sweetener.
      Some simply increase insulin leves just like sugar. That means they let fat be transported into fat cells.
      Others, like aspatam, increase the flooding of sugar (from starch) into the blood. That means starch/sugar that should be digested over 6 or more hours floods your blood in 1 hour. The high insulin levels then lead to depositing this sugar.
      Others like fructose have the same problem as fibres, many people can digest it because they have the gut bacterias for it. So it is treated by the body like prdinary carbs.
      Bottom line: artificial sweeteners mess your body so up, that you get weight regardless of "official cal count".
      Every obess person I know, only eats "low cal and low fat food and drinks diet coke". Officially they should die to starvation, but they gain weight.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    96. Re:calories by manu0601 · · Score: 1

      Here is an imaginary experiment.

      Day one, you eat a lot of carbs on breakfeast. Blood glucose and then insulin go to the sky. As a result, glucose in the blood is aggressively converted into fat. Your muscle will also burn glucose since it is available. 2 hours after breakfast, too much insulin caused so much glucose to be removed from the blood that you crash into hypoglycemia. Your brain is crying for glucose, either you eat again, or your body runs into power saving mode to leave some glucose for the brain. At lunch, your low glucose level pushes you to eat a lot of carbs again to fix the situation, and the cycle is started again.

      Day two, you eat a low carb breakfast. Insulin remains low, you do not make fat. Glucose from your breakfast remains available for your brain, and since insulin is low, fat is released and your muscles feed on it. At lunch your do not need to eat a lot of carbs to feel good again, and so does for the dinner.

    97. Re:calories by quantaman · · Score: 1

      Your imaginary experiment is actually unrelated to what I said.

      I've never denied that low-carb diets cause weight loss, and they do that due to spontaneous reduction in ingested calories. I explicitly and consistently said that ingesting same number of calories will have the same effect on body weight regardless of their source.

      And I don't believe the success of the low-carb diet is due to the mechanism from your thought experiment, protein triggers a rise in blood glucose that's comparable to carbs (think it comes from glucagon breaking down the protein into sugars), but most of the success of low carb diets seem to be because people replace the carbs with protein which is more satiating.

      Hunger is a lot more complicated than simple blood sugar, that's why we have hormones like insulin and glucagon, so our brain is able to regulate hunger appropriately.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    98. Re:calories by manu0601 · · Score: 1

      I explicitly and consistently said that ingesting same number of calories will have the same effect on body weight regardless of their source

      This is easy to debunk: paper contains a lot of calories, but eating 100g of paper a day will not make you fat. The same amount of calories from sugar will.

      protein triggers a rise in blood glucose that's comparable to carbs

      This is just wrong. Convertingaminoacids into glucose is a slow process, a high aminoacid intake will not create high blood sugar

      Hunger is a lot more complicated than simple blood sugar, that's why we have hormones like insulin and glucagon, so our brain is able to regulate hunger appropriately.

      And cortisol, and thyroid hormons, and leptin, and ghrelin... but that runs amok when your diet has nothing to do with what your body is designed for, and high carb diest does just that.

    99. Re:calories by quantaman · · Score: 1

      This is easy to debunk: paper contains a lot of calories, but eating 100g of paper a day will not make you fat. The same amount of calories from sugar will.

      I think we can assume that they're properly calculating calories as things we can digest?

      This is just wrong. Convertingaminoacids into glucose is a slow process, a high aminoacid intake will not create high blood sugar

      I overstated a bit, some of the glucose scores are comparable but the Insulin response is actually pretty comparable.

      The thing that does stand out is the satiety score, the winner in a land slide are starchy baked potatoes, they also win the glucose title as well! What's on the bottom as the least satiating things? Croissants, cake, peanuts, ice cream, basically things that are really yummy. One of the other reasons why low-carb works is it's hard to find really yummy things without carbs.

      And cortisol, and thyroid hormons, and leptin, and ghrelin... but that runs amok when your diet has nothing to do with what your body is designed for, and high carb diest does just that.

      So explain Japan and China eating loads of white rice, explain the Kuna, who eat almost as much white sugar as us.

      Sugar and white bread contribute to obesity, no one will argue that. But the story is far more complicated than high carb=>fat.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    100. Re:Calories by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      I think you are agreeing with me, and just reading my post out of context, but I'm not sure....

    101. Re:Calories by twebb72 · · Score: 1

      EVERYONE'S bodies behaveexactly the same to identical diets (eventually)

      Not true. Thyroid, autoimmune issues (certain diseases like Crohn's), gut flora,... can absolutely have a significant impact on metabolism or one's ability to properly digest foods. The body often compensates by either burning/storing more or less depending on certain circumstances. Even environmental conditions contribute to the big picture. Its an oversimplification of the metabolic process to say everyone responds the same to the same diet.

    102. Re:calories by manu0601 · · Score: 1

      I think we can assume that they're properly calculating calories as things we can digest?

      I would not bet on that, since the ability to digest varies among individuals, and is also influenced by other aliments in the meal (hint: fibers).

      On glucose vs insulin response: we know that some proteins will amplify the insulin response to glucose. This is well known for whey, for instance. But there there must be carbs in order to raise insulin. Eating meat, cheese and eggs will not raise blood glucose and insulin in any significant way. The wikipedia page notes protein-rich beans raise insulin, but beans also contains carbs.

      it's hard to find really yummy things without carbs.

      It's just because you are addicted and lack imagination :-)

    103. Re:calories by quantaman · · Score: 1

      I would not bet on that, since the ability to digest varies among individuals, and is also influenced by other aliments in the meal (hint: fibers).

      On glucose vs insulin response: we know that some proteins will amplify the insulin response to glucose. This is well known for whey, for instance. But there there must be carbs in order to raise insulin. Eating meat, cheese and eggs will not raise blood glucose and insulin in any significant way. The wikipedia page notes protein-rich beans raise insulin, but beans also contains carbs.

      Beef has an insulin score of 51 ± 16, pasta 40 ± 5, which contains more carbs?

      It's just because you are addicted and lack imagination :-)

      On a serious note the explanation I like the most is the palatability hypothesis. Basically the tastier a food is the hungrier you get and more you want to eat (when's the last time you got full eating ice cream?). I don't know how much of the obesity epidemic it's responsible for but it's certainly a factor. It's actually an effective approach if a disappointing one, it's hard to get fat eating bland tasteless food.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    104. Re:calories by manu0601 · · Score: 1

      Beef has an insulin score of 51 ± 16, pasta 40 ± 5, which contains more carbs?

      That result is interesting: I knew pasta contained resistant starch (counted as digestible calories, but not digested... unless your gut bacteria do it for you), but I did not imagine it was so low

      .

      That is a possible explanation for rice in Asia not feeding obesity, as you noted. What rice is it, how is it cooked, and are there resistant starch there?

    105. Re:Calories by metlin · · Score: 1

      Not when you're losing weight. Or did you think that people lost weight by eating more than they burn?

    106. Re:calories by quantaman · · Score: 1

      Beef has an insulin score of 51 ± 16, pasta 40 ± 5, which contains more carbs?

      That result is interesting: I knew pasta contained resistant starch (counted as digestible calories, but not digested... unless your gut bacteria do it for you), but I did not imagine it was so low

      .

      That is a possible explanation for rice in Asia not feeding obesity, as you noted. What rice is it, how is it cooked, and are there resistant starch there?

      The rice eaten in Japan is overwhelmingly white rice, which has a high insulin score and a crappy satiety score oddly enough.

      The baked potatoes got their crazy insulin score under the same conditions they got their crazy satiety score.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    107. Re:Calories by evilviper · · Score: 1

      It fails entirely to account for absorbability, the fraction that gut flora will consume (which varies between people) and how much will be excreted largely unchanged

      There is extremely little variability there, with a few notable exceptions like fiber.

      By all means, point me to a reliable scientific source that claims there is a non-insignificant difference in calorie absorption between health adults, in the medium to long-term (not just a quick gut flora adjustment).

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    108. Re:Calories by evilviper · · Score: 1

      If physical activity has no significant effect on energy needs then exercise is useless for weight loss and a sedentary lifestyle shouldn't bring about obesity

      That's 100% true. No experts on the planet will tell you to exercise for weight loss. They will ALL tell you to change your diet, though they might mention that some exercise would also be a good thing. You need to have extremely high physical activity, on the order of running a marathon, to burn enough calories to lose weight without dieting.

      Strange that you're happily asserting how wrong and out of date my information is, when you're trotting out this utter myth.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    109. Re:Calories by evilviper · · Score: 1

      1 mile traveled on foot = ~100 calories

      I'd put the number around HALF that, for a lighter person walking, as you're using, but that kind of calculation is vastly oversimplified and misleading.

      They are also a casual runner, so they run 3 miles in the morning.

      Well, that makes a hell of a lot of difference, and you're acting like it's a minor afterthought.

      and they DON'T run marathons.

      The person you've described is nearly running a marathon every single week, and WALKING a second marathon during that week as well.

      And your basic assumption of zero activity sitting on the couch, is not accurate. There have been studies of school-aged children that find even the most active school sports athletes don't burn ANY more calories than an inactive child. The energy you might have used up walking or running, will instead turn into lots of small twitches and movements over the course of a normal day.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    110. Re:Calories by sjames · · Score: 1

      Google or remain ignorant.

    111. Re:Calories by sjames · · Score: 1

      I trotted out nothing. I simply stated natural conclusions to your statement.

      However, I have NEVER heard a single 'expert' or successful dieter claim that diet without exercise even can work.

    112. Re:Calories by evilviper · · Score: 1

      That's an amazing display of ignorance, there. I suppose a fitting follow up, though.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    113. Re:Calories by evilviper · · Score: 1

      I understand. You've got nothing at all to back up you ridiculous claims.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    114. Re:calories by manu0601 · · Score: 1

      The rice eaten in Japan is overwhelmingly white rice, which has a high insulin score

      How do they cook it? IIRC, Vinegared rice is rinsed, which may remove some starsh. And vinegar is known to lower glycemic index.

    115. Re:Calories by I.+M.+Bur · · Score: 1

      The fact that muscle burns more calories then fat is true even when you are at rest. So when your body has more muscles, your RMR goes up, regardless of the actual physical activity performed.
      But obviously if you spend a lot of time at rest, your muscles will turn back to fat. (I know this is oversimplification.)

    116. Re:Calories by Belial6 · · Score: 2

      People with an anus do.

    117. Re:Calories by sjames · · Score: 1

      I see you have chosen ignorance. probably for the best, you clearly need to add some brain space for 'witty' insults.

    118. Re:Calories by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Reminds me of these two XKCD moments.

      http://what-if.xkcd.com/11/

      http://xkcd.com/687/

    119. Re:calories by quantaman · · Score: 1

      The rice eaten in Japan is overwhelmingly white rice, which has a high insulin score

      How do they cook it? IIRC, Vinegared rice is rinsed, which may remove some starsh. And vinegar is known to lower glycemic index.

      Even assuming ALL the rice they ate was with vinegar according to this paper that would lower the Glycemic Index by 20-40% (assuming you and the paper both mean the same thing with vinegar).

      That would bring the rice roughly in line with Mars bars.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    120. Re:calories by manu0601 · · Score: 1

      That puzzle is tricky! You did not address rice rinsing during cooking, but I do not know how widespread it is.

      We could imagine that there is a genetic adaptation to high carb intake, but there have been studies telling us that Japanese people can get fat when they move to US and adopt a western diet. That leads me to another idea: what about omega 3/omega 6 ratio?

      Arachidonic acid, an omega 6 found in cattle fed with soy, is transformed into eicosanoides that promote adipocye growth. EPA, an omega 3 found is fishes has the adverse effect. What is important here is not the content of a given meal, but the ration you have been eating for 6 months. I always though that omega 3/omega 6 ratio influence on fat accumulation was dwarfed by high carbs intake, but perhaps I was wrong here?

    121. Re: Calories by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The way they cite the studies, using "end-to-end citations" (quoting the actual papers to show to how / with what kind of support they bolster the claims) makes it fairly easy to evaluate their claims. See http://www.ketotic.org/p/apologia.html . Of course, that doesn't prevent cherry picking.

    122. Re:calories by quantaman · · Score: 1

      AFAIK micronutrients, or different types of fats, while important for general health, aren't a factor in obesity. It makes sense that our body could develop cravings if it was missing nutrient X and cause us to overeat, but as far as I'm aware there's no evidence for that.

      I think there's a couple factors that could explain why the Japanese get fat after adopting a western diet.

      1) Japanese food could be less fattening for other non-carb reasons. Western culture has spent the last 50 years creating foods designed to be as tasty and addictive as possible, chips, cookies, hamburgers, sugared breakfast cereal, soups with a heavy cream or butter base, basically foods with added sugar, salt, and fat. It's unsurprising that food designed to be as tasty as possible also lead us to overeat and get fat.

      2) Japanese culture is very anti-fat, they're fanatical about physical activity and have very strong social pressure to stay thin. It's shown that people get fat and thin with their friends. People move west, get surrounded by fat people, and the social pressure to stay thin is relaxed and the diet and lifestyle is more conducive to causing obesity.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    123. Re:calories by manu0601 · · Score: 1

      polyinsaturated fatty acids known as omega 3 and omega 6 are used by the body to produce Eicosanids. Those are signaling molecules that have strong effect on various body functions. From the wikipedia page:

      • PGD2 Promotion of sleep
      • TXA2 Stimulation of platelet aggregation; vasoconstriction
      • PGE2 Smooth muscle contraction;inducing pain, heat, fever; bronchoconstriction
      • 15d-PGJ2 Adipocyte differentiation
      • PGF2 Uterine contraction
      • LTB4 Leukocyte chemotaxis
      • PGI2 Inhibition of platelet aggregation; vasodilation; embryo implantation
      • Cysteinyl-LTs Anaphylaxis; bronchial smooth muscle contraction.

      A diet rich in omega 3 fatty acid from fishes will lower cancer risk (through reduction of inflamation), hearth attack risk (platelet aggregation), and... an fat storage, through inhibition of adipocyte differentiation.

    124. Re:calories by quantaman · · Score: 1

      The page mentions adipocyte differentiation but nothing I saw beyond that, and I did a quick search for papers linking fatty acids and reducing obesity but all I could find was mitigating the effects of obesity. Fatty acids could be a part of the puzzle but probably no more than a small part.

      There's only one factor that's common to all obese cultures, an industrialized population. Ancestoral populations, regardless of diet, have virtually no experience with obesity. The main answer must lie in processed food and lifestyle because those are the only two variables shared by all obese cultures.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    125. Re:calories by manu0601 · · Score: 1

      There are papers on the topic: http://scholar.google.fr/scholar?q=omega+3+obesity

      But keep in mind that we are not looking for a regimen to make an obese person thin, but an explanation why a long term high omega 3 / omega 6 ratio in the diet would make people burn more calories, instead of storing them as fat.

    126. Re:Calories by gmhowell · · Score: 1

      Why would you complicate an easy answer with facts?

      That's the way I (t)roll.

      A better example would have been Jim Fix, but there's probably more to that story as well.

      --
      Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
    127. Re:Calories by gmhowell · · Score: 1

      Oh, and also because the autopsy revealing Duncan's sarcoidosis came out right before I was hospitalized for what sarcoids did to the nerves surrounding and controlling my own heart. I always liked him as a person and actor, and the probability that he died of something that almost killed me struck a nerve (no pun intended).

      --
      Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
    128. Re:calories by quantaman · · Score: 1

      If the Japanese are eating more omega 3 that might be part of the explanation for why they have a lower rate of obesity, but if simple carbs are particularly fattening than the effect of the seafood would have to be massive to offset the rice they're ingesting. There's also low obesity rates in mainland China where they don't have access to seafood, and they don't really vary depending on whether the diet is rice heavy or meat meat heavy.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    129. Re:calories by manu0601 · · Score: 1

      As I said earlier, I always thought that surges of insulin were more responsible of fat accumulation than omega 3 / omega 6 ratio, but indeed we have to explore that idea.

      The important point is not the amount of omega 3, but the ratio. Arachidonic acid (AA) omega 6 will promote adipocytes proliferation, while eicosopentaendioic acid (EPA) omega 3 will not, and will be in competition with AA.

      As a result, you only get adipocyte promotion if your diet have high AA and low EPA. If you do not consume sea product but do not consume meat from soy-fed cattle either, you are in that situation.

      A note on cattle: the omega 3 / omega 6 ratio found in meat reflects how cattle is fed. Vegetals contains shorter polyunsaturated fatty acids: linoneic acid (LA) omega 6, and alpha-linolenic acid (ALA) omega 3. If you feed cattle with grass, it gets a 1/1 ratio of LA/ALA, and the meat will have a low AA/EPA ratio. If you feed cattle with soy, which contains more LA than ALA, meat will have a high AA/EPA ratio.

    130. Re:calories by quantaman · · Score: 1

      So that sounds like a reasonable mechanism but that's a long way from showing that it's a significant factor in the human population.

      If cattle feed does affect the fat ratios in a specific way that sounds like a potentially promising experiment. For a few months feed one group of participants with beef fed with grass and the other beef fed with soy, if your theory is correct the grass fed group should have a delectably lower body fat % by the end?

      --
      I stole this Sig
    131. Re:calories by manu0601 · · Score: 1

      I am sure you can find experiments where the omega 6 / omega 3 ration is shifted by dietary supplements, and the high omega 3 group loose fat.

      I am sure you can find studies showing that grass-fed cattle has a ratio shifted toward omega 3

      It will be difficult to find a paper with both experiment done at the same time, thought.

    132. Re:calories by quantaman · · Score: 1

      It doesn't have to cattle but an experiment where everything but the ratio was held constant would be ideal.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    133. Re:calories by manu0601 · · Score: 1

      In biology and medicine, it is hard to isolate one parameter. What happens is that you get many studies, and a meta-analysis study attempts to derive the conclusion you are looking for.

    134. Re:calories by quantaman · · Score: 1

      No argument here that's one of the reason I'm so skeptical about the insulin causing obesity theory. The arguments I see aren't even at the level of well done studies but arguments from the effectiveness of low carb diets and hypothesizing about metabolic mechanisms. I just see too much conflicting evidence and a lot of skepticism from researchers in the field.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    135. Re:calories by manu0601 · · Score: 1

      Not sure it is so irrelevant. Let us go back to the basics of the reasoning

      1) High insulin causes fat storage. Do thin carb-eating Janapanese makes this wrong? No they do not, as their insulin levels is not above other populations.

      2) reducing carbs lower insulin levels. Again, nothing proves this wrong

      3) reducing carbs cause fat loss. Many people tried and will tell you that it works. The fact that Japanese people are thin without having to reduce carbs does not make the thing invalid for western people. And there are other examples: People doing a lot of sport can also eat a lot of carbs without getting high insulin and fat: everything is burnt.

    136. Re:calories by manu0601 · · Score: 1

      1) High insulin causes fat storage. Do thin carb-eating Janapanese makes this wrong? No they do not, as their insulin levels is not above other populations.

      Well, in fact I neglected a way to eat a lot of carbs, get a high insulin and not make fat : this is the diabetes where adipocytes get resistant to insulin. It seems to be a problem in Asia.

  7. been there, done that. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    some people are going apeshit over the stuff. It's a revolution! They've apparently never been in a supermarket. There is a fucking aisle dedicated to ensure, slim fast, protein shakes, protein bars, etc. I guess it's not disruption if it was done 30 years ago.

    1. Re:been there, done that. by compro01 · · Score: 1

      Yes, but those are intended to replace one meal a day, not be your sole source of nutrition. They're nowhere near complete. That's what this tries to be, like current medical foods, but cheaper.

      --
      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
  8. calories by manu0601 · · Score: 2

    Summary notes that he lose weight at 2400 kcal/day, which is relatively high. This is not surprising: fat storage or burning is controlled by insulin, which is controlled in healthy subjects by blood glucose level. If the food does not rise blood glucose level (either because it is low carb, or because it contains carbs that take time to digest), insulin remains low, and fat is burnt.

  9. Soyent Beige by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

    Could have added some food coloring at least after choosing that name, given its provenance.

    But hey, if some Californian dude wants to starve himself by drinking some awful looking concotion, instead of eating, you know, actual food, then the sum total of knowledge gained from human scientific research will have increased by at least the words "what a fool".

    1. Re:Soyent Beige by alvinrod · · Score: 1

      Although a sample size of one doesn't make for a good study, some of the results that this person has seen can help us gain a better understanding about the product. For example, is it typical that a person consuming 2400 calories will lose weight, even though their body only needs about 75% of that to maintain its weight? That might indicate that the Soylent is not being digested well or that it's have some other effects on the body.

      At least this person took the time to document their experience. It's certainly added more to human knowledge than a snarky internet comment.

    2. Re: Soyent Beige by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can go all day on about 800 calories of meat, eggs, and cheese, and not feel poor. Hungry but not horrid.

      3000 calories of grain rich food (or fruit/veggies if you will) has a similar effect but I feel like death, and I'm full but hungry.

      All depends on wwhat you eat. I have to laugh at the simple m8nded people who say vegan is environmentally better due to it taking less land, only to watch them eat many more calories and still be ready for another meal a couple hours later. Doesn't seem eficient.

    3. Re: Soyent Beige by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have to laugh at the simple m8nded people who say vegan is environmentally better due to it taking less land, only to watch them eat many more calories and still be ready for another meal a couple hours later. Doesn't seem eficient.

      I am not a vegan but I have to laugh at you for not understanding that inefficiency compounds. This is a wild ass guess, but every calorie of meat you and I eat probably required least 100x more energy in animal feed.

  10. "no food" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh, please.. It's food, just not the chewy kind we usually stuff ourselves with.

  11. Nope! by kamapuaa · · Score: 3, Informative

    Dude is over six feet tall. There's no way his maintenance calories was only 1800, 2400 sounds right. For example, if he's a mildly active 170 pounder, this calculator says he should eat 2560 calories a day to break even. Sure maybe I'm guess wrong or he's not active or what have you, but 1800 isn't even in the realm of possibility.

    Surely, it's that eating measured amounts of a controlled substance forced him to measure his calories accurately...study after study show that people wildly mis-represent how many calories they consume.

    --
    Slashdot: providing anti-social weirdos a soapbox, since 1997.
    1. Re:Nope! by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      That calculator is based on someone swinging a hammer, not sitting on ass as most of us do

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:Nope! by kamapuaa · · Score: 2

      Calculator puts "light exercise" at "light exercise/sports 1-3 days/week." He's a journalist in his 20s and looks like a total hipster, he probably rides a fixie to the vinyl shop or what have you.

      --
      Slashdot: providing anti-social weirdos a soapbox, since 1997.
  12. It takes at least 3 months by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It takes at least 3 months to determine if a diet is having any effect on you and much longer to determine if it's positive or negative.

    In other words, this experiment shows nothing.

  13. Was the green one the tastiest? by argee · · Score: 1, Interesting

    According to Charlton Heston and Ernest Robinson ... it was.

    1. Re:Was the green one the tastiest? by tepples · · Score: 1

      According to the article, which I read when this story was in the Firehose, the name is based on the book before the Charlton Heston movie added the "people" plot.

  14. You do not only feed yourself by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    When you eat, you are not only feeding yourself. There is an entire ecosystem of bacteria that you are feeding.

    All that stuff that is NOT calories, can becomes calories, vitamins, and various other things, depending on your gut bacteria. That is one of the reasons to eat fiber, vegetables, and similar stuff. Gut bacteria is the reason why eating too much meat causes heart disease. Etc. etc.

    If you do not feed your gut bacteria, there may be consequences that neither you nor your doctor can understand. And these consequences could be long term and maybe not even easily reversible.

    As a summary and FYI, our shit is 50% bacteria (mostly e. coli.) by mass. That bacteria is more critical to our health than almost anything else. And that is why we still eat - to feed that bacteria. Otherwise, we could just live with intravenous system without the need for stomachs and related, messy plumbing.

    1. Re:You do not only feed yourself by sandytaru · · Score: 1

      So when they say "You are what you eat" it should really be, "Your gut bacteria are based on what you eat."

      --
      Occasionally living proof of the Ballmer peak.
    2. Re:You do not only feed yourself by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When you eat, you are not only feeding yourself. There is an entire ecosystem of bacteria that you are feeding.

      All that stuff that is NOT calories, can becomes calories, vitamins, and various other things, depending on your gut bacteria. That is one of the reasons to eat fiber, vegetables, and similar stuff. Gut bacteria is the reason why eating too much meat causes heart disease. Etc. etc.

      If you do not feed your gut bacteria, there may be consequences that neither you nor your doctor can understand. And these consequences could be long term and maybe not even easily reversible.

      As a summary and FYI, our shit is 50% bacteria (mostly e. coli.) by mass. That bacteria is more critical to our health than almost anything else. And that is why we still eat - to feed that bacteria. Otherwise, we could just live with intravenous system without the need for stomachs and related, messy plumbing.

      Stool is 75% water, 8.3% dead bacteria, 8.3% live bacteria, and 8.4% indigestible fiber.

    3. Re:You do not only feed yourself by cavebison · · Score: 1

      As a summary and FYI, our shit is 50% bacteria (mostly e. coli.) by mass

      BZZT! Thank you for playing.

      http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/203293/feces

      Normally, feces are made up of 75 percent water and 25 percent solid matter. About 30 percent of the solid matter consists of dead bacteria [...]

  15. Marketing Scam by teknopurge · · Score: 2, Insightful

    How is this different from any of the thousands of MRPs(Whey shakes, post workout shakes, etc.) already on the market? Sounds like a gimmicky marketing strategy.

    1. Re:Marketing Scam by Karganeth · · Score: 2

      whey shakes dont contain all the nutrients the human body requires

    2. Re:Marketing Scam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whey powder is protein, some amino acids and little else. Weight gainers are basically junk food in powder form. This seems to include ALL vitamins, minerals, amino acids, macro and some micro nutrients. Basically making a more complete diet than you can get from protein shakes and weight gainers.

    3. Re:Marketing Scam by teknopurge · · Score: 1

      You missed my point: there are literally thousands of powdered supplement mixes out there that contain all different types of blends/mixtures of various compounds, minerals, vitamins, amino, etc. there are even some that have whey, soy, casein, etc. as part of the blend.

    4. Re:Marketing Scam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Reread the parent and don't be so flippant about it. Those other shakes are designed to replace a meal here or there, but are not designed to be the only nutrition that you take in for long periods of time.

    5. Re:Marketing Scam by uvajed_ekil · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The difference, if you don't doing a quick search or taking a minute to RTFA, is that the substance in question is far more balanced. It is a complete nutrition solution, not a protein or vitamin supplement. Big difference. It looks like it works, and there's no reason it shouldn't completely satisfy a person's nutritional needs, but I like food way, way too much to use it by choice. Of course if I had no access to interesting food I might change my tune, but eating a variety of foods is very pleasurable to most people.

      --
      This is a hacked account, for which the owner can not be held responsible.
    6. Re:Marketing Scam by teknopurge · · Score: 1

      Oh, a "balanced" substance? That's never, ever, been thought of before in the food/dietary/fitness/supplement industry. The more I read the more it's just social marketing.

    7. Re:Marketing Scam by teknopurge · · Score: 1

      Shakeology from beachbody has been that for years now.

    8. Re:Marketing Scam by antifoidulus · · Score: 1

      Well, for starters I am pretty sure(though not 100% sure) that Dr. Weider doesn't include people as an ingredient in his whey protein shakesâ¦. but then again, I could be wrong.

    9. Re:Marketing Scam by uniquename72 · · Score: 3

      Check out the nearest meal replacement to this (Ensure) and compare costs, then realize why you're a dumbass.

      Seriously, there've been a hundred articles about this just in the past month. Read one.

    10. Re:Marketing Scam by Darinbob · · Score: 2

      You can essentially get this sort of substance from some medical suppliers. It's what they use to keep alive people in comas and other situations where normal food can't be used. I suspect something like it is used in "force feedings" as well. You don't need a 25 year old wannabe nutritionist to get this.

    11. Re:Marketing Scam by Chryana · · Score: 1

      The creator of this, Rob Rhinehart, is a software engineer, not a nutritionist or a dietician. His background is probably the reason why he got the idea to do that clever little marketing twist which geeks find appealing. Honestly, you make it sound like nobody ever had the idea to make a meal substitute. I'm not going to waste my time comparing costs with the meal replacement you mention, because I'm sure I could easily find something similar and cheaper, but you wouldn't accept the comparison because you don't know it.

    12. Re:Marketing Scam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Still nothing new about this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fortisip

      As a student we knew a guy who was on long term sick and had a pharmacist that gave him cases of this stuff past the best before date - admitedly it was augmented by 3 minute noodles and alcohol (at other point during the day - not as a meal) but largely survived on this for many months.

    13. Re:Marketing Scam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But they have ELECTROLYTES!!

    14. Re:Marketing Scam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please find it and link. Looking for ~2200 whole calories a day+all necessary nutrition at Soylent.

      In September 2013, Rhinehart said he would like to get Soylent down to a cost of US$5 per day.[15] As of April 2013, Rhinehart stated he was spending US$154.62 per month on Soylent, yielding a diet of 2,629 calories (11.00 kJ) per day[2] while a medical food such as Jevity would cost US$456 per month to get 2,000 calories (8.4 kJ)[1] and a family of four in the United States can purchase food for approximately US$584 per month (avoiding eating out).[8] Plumpy'nut, a peanut-based artificial diet for children starving in famines, costs less than US$10 per week (though Soylent is designed for healthy adults).[8]

    15. Re:Marketing Scam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure, at a single meal a day and $4/meal.

    16. Re:Marketing Scam by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      Ensure is $40 for 24 bottles, or ~8 days (im assuming 1 bottle = 1 meal?)
      Soylent is ~$60 for 1 weeks worth.

      I went in on this kickstarter too on a lark, but Im not sure I'd call it economical; home meals tend to be closer to $1-2 each vs the $3/meal for soylent.

    17. Re:Marketing Scam by sjames · · Score: 1

      Yes, but since it's a 'medical application', those are considerably more expensive. Enough that it is not a practical choice if you have the alternative of eating regular food.

      Even the ones marketed to consumers are considerably more expensive (for no good reason).

    18. Re:Marketing Scam by sjames · · Score: 1

      From their FAQ:

      Shakeology is a dietary supplement that when prepared with certain liquids, healthy ingredients, and/or fruit can contain enough calories to replace a meal. As with all dietary supplements, Shakeology is designed to supplement your healthy diet and not be the only source of nutrition throughout the day. Shakeology is not recommended to replace more than two meals per day.

      So, not complete. Meanwhile, at 3 servings a day (ignoring their instructions), it would run you $380 + the extras you have to add per month instead of $255.

      In other words, it is a supplement, not a replacement.

    19. Re:Marketing Scam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From their site:

      Is Shakeology "certified" as a meal replacement?

      Shakeology is a dietary supplement that when prepared with certain liquids, healthy ingredients, and/or fruit can contain enough calories to replace a meal. As with all dietary supplements, Shakeology is designed to supplement your healthy diet and not be the only source of nutrition throughout the day. Shakeology is not recommended to replace more than two meals per day.

    20. Re:Marketing Scam by uvajed_ekil · · Score: 1

      That means this is even more intriguing than I initially thought. Things like Ensure are not intended to be complete, every meal, every day meal replacements, though it looks like Soylent could be. And your info means it also looks like it is becoming affordable. I'm American and spend a lot more than $154/month on food, though that would still be beyond steep in some locales. But soylent is still in its infancy, so when scaled up dramatically the cost should come down even further. It does not sound particularly desirable to me personally today, but in tough times it could literally be a life saver. I'd certainly take it over starvation if reasonably nutritious food suddenly became unavailable.

      --
      This is a hacked account, for which the owner can not be held responsible.
    21. Re:Marketing Scam by Khashishi · · Score: 1

      $60 is quite expensive, but it is still a new product and has yet to be mass produced. It should have the potential for a dramatically cheaper production cost. The price, of course, is determined by the market and not the production cost.

  16. Nothing new by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So... oat flour, corn sugar (maltodextrin), rice protein and olive oil plus a bunch of vitamins and minerals. I don't see how this is much different from those powered breakfast drinks and things like ensure.

  17. Fat, Sick and nearly dead - already done by Gothmolly · · Score: 1

    Some Australian guy already did this, and the movie is on Netflix.

    --
    I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
    1. Re:Fat, Sick and nearly dead - already done by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The movie is now streaming for free on his site.

    2. Re:Fat, Sick and nearly dead - already done by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you watch the film? Because what that guy did is called a juice fast. Maybe the same ballpark as this, but not very close.

  18. Soylent Yellow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

    If you ate Soylent Yellow made from Chinese people, would you be hungry again in an hour?

  19. Other meal-replacements? by evilviper · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I don't see how "soylent" is superior to any of the other meal-replacements we've had for the past half-century. In fact, with all the problems people have had adjusting to the soylent diet, it sounds like the old ones were vastly superior.

    I've known people who have survived entirely off of items like reliable old Nutrament, after surgical procedures made it too difficult for them to eat *any* solid foods for weeks... I've seen nurses preparing some generic forms of Carnation Instant Breakfast (powder), as meals for their feeble patients. And I've seen kids eating nothing but lots of chocolate milk for days at a time. With none of those do you need to FORCE yourself to consume them, nor do you get gastrointestinal distress after a couple days of use, and you certainly don't waste 1/3rd of the calories you consume.

    Of course 30-days is really going to be too short of a time-frame to determine the long-term suitability of any meal-replacement. A little bit of up-front weight-loss sounds like a good thing for a few days, but *months* of losing weight would be a clear sign of a major show-stopping problem with the concoction. The same goes for the nutritional balance, as 30 days without fruits and vegetables won't show obvious medical signs, but would be obvious after months as your whole body turns strange colors...

    It seems the only thing Soylent has going for it, is clever marketing and extreme claims, with a name that grabs reporter's attention.

    --
    Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    1. Re:Other meal-replacements? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not only does it taste god awful, but you would have to deal with the lack of variety for life. Soylent is also inefficient according to this article, so I'm going to stick with eating a variety of everything.

    2. Re:Other meal-replacements? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      . And I've seen kids eating nothing but lots of chocolate milk for days at a time.

      And that's how you get Cirrhosis.

    3. Re:Other meal-replacements? by Bite+The+Pillow · · Score: 1

      Carnations and ensure give you calories if you are not getting enough, but a lot is just sugar. Not good for long term nutrition.
      Significant changes to any diet can cause these symptoms, and other articles have stressed the importance of staying comfortable, especially during the first few days.
      Sounds like you are predisposed to disagree. With that in mind, do a bit more reading. There are legit attacks to be made, but you went for easily countered blathering instead.
      Consider the population who consumed "the old ones" compared to the soylent market and your points break down.

    4. Re:Other meal-replacements? by evilviper · · Score: 1

      a lot is just sugar. Not good for long term nutrition

      There's nothing wrong with sugar. Just comparable to eating a starchy potato. It's just bulk calories.

      Consider the population who consumed "the old ones" compared to the soylent market and your points break down.

      Didn't bother to read? I listed a full range of ages and health levels. There is no market Soylent can be targeting that doesn't have substantial overlap.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    5. Re:Other meal-replacements? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The entire point/end goal of soylent is an *affordable* meal replacement substance. That shit you linked is nowhere near affordable for the vast majority of humanity, nor are any of the existing meal replacement options.

      Your comment merely shows (like most I've read so far that say "I don't get it" or "it's been done before") that you didn't even take 30 seconds to Google the stuff or RTFA.

    6. Re:Other meal-replacements? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bullshit you have "seen kids eating nothing but lots of chocolate milk for days at a time" and yet they did not "get gastrointestinal distress".

      You don't have to be a nutritionist to figure out what the situation is gonna be after a couple of days on nothing but chocolate milk.

    7. Re:Other meal-replacements? by Khashishi · · Score: 1

      One big difference for me as vegan is that these other meal replacements typically contain milk.

    8. Re:Other meal-replacements? by evilviper · · Score: 1

      The entire point/end goal of soylent is an *affordable* meal replacement substance. That shit you linked is nowhere near affordable

      Except EVERYTHING I mentioned is cheaper than Soylent...

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
  20. I'm not overly fussy about hygiene, but... by Bitsy+Boffin · · Score: 1

    I'm not usually one to particularly worry about sterile environments etc, "clean enough to be healthy, dirty enough to be happy", but seriously, that factory, and the practices in general, just, nope. That's food poisoning just waiting to happen right there.

    --
    NZ Electronics Enthusiasts: Check out my Trade Me Listings
    1. Re:I'm not overly fussy about hygiene, but... by sahonen · · Score: 1

      The product being shipped to customers is not being produced in that warehouse. The warehouse in the article was for prototyping. The facility the consumer version is being produced in is an FDA regulated and inspected facility.

      --
      Make me a friend and I'll mod you up
  21. This isn't new by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    The thing that bugs me the most about this product is that the press is acting like it's something new and unique.

    It's not. This sort of thing has been around at least 50 years or so.

    Back in the late1950s/early 1960's, scientists from NASA didn't know for sure if man could even swallow in zero-gee. So they concocted a liquid meal that could be pumped into the astronaut's stomach via a gastronasal tube. Now the astronauts didn't want to be fed by a plastic tube going up their nose and into the stomach. And after several Soviet and US flights, it was proved that you can eat and swallow just fine in zero-gee.

    The research didn't go to waste. Gastroenterologists and nutritionists became interested in the mixture for special needs patients. Patients that were born with malformed intestines, patients that had lost large parts of their intestines due to disease or injury, patients that couldn't swallow normally, stuff like that. These medical food products have been around for a long time.

    Google words like "Vivonex", "Tolerex", "Peptemine", and "elemental diet." Think Ensure, but broken down even more. Not proteins, but amino acids that can be directly absorbed by even the smallest portion of active intestine.

    It's a shame journalists today don't bother doing research. Or maybe they aren't journalists? Maybe they're actually spin doctors hoping to cash in?

    1. Re:This isn't new by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Journalists today have it bad. There is so much more information out there today that when you miss something people just assume you're lazy. Maybe the did find those other instances of a similar concept but felt it was irrelevant in this case and would just bloat their piece?

    2. Re:This isn't new by sjames · · Score: 1

      And absolutely none of those are practical as voluntary replacement for food due to cost. For example, at the Walgreen's price, the Peptamin would cost you $2100/month to get adequate calories. If you add something else to the diet to pump up the calories, it then costs you 'only' $1050/month.

      The big difference is that the products you suggest are targeted at people who have no choice about it (and generally who are in poor health and under medical supervision) while Soylent is targeted as an alternative for healthy people.

      I'm not making any claims one way or the other about how well Soylent actually meets that goal, but the goal is obviously different.

  22. Ahem by garompeta · · Score: 5, Funny
    "but if I had any money or a girlfriend I would probably eat out more often"

    lol, that explains a lot

    1. Re:Ahem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "but if I had any money or a girlfriend I would probably eat out more often"

      lol, that explains a lot

      Are we sure he's referring to food here? Apart from, you know, tuna and/or tacos.

    2. Re:Ahem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Soylent whoosh.

  23. "Starving Your Way to Vigor" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This was an article by Steve Hendricks published in Harper's that involves the history of fasting and the authors experience eating nothing for 3(+?) weeks.

    Needless to say, if a person can adapt to no food for 3 weeks, 30 days is not enough to evaluate a minimalist diet.

    1. Re:"Starving Your Way to Vigor" by camperdave · · Score: 1

      I ate nothing for a 40 day period a while ago. I lost a lot of weight. When I started eating again, I put it right back on. Bottom line, if you want to permanently change your weight, you must permanently change what you eat. Of course, that fact doesn't sell diet books.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    2. Re:"Starving Your Way to Vigor" by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Bottom line, if you want to permanently change your weight, you must permanently change what you eat. Of course, that fact doesn't sell diet books.

      There are lots of books explaining exactly this :D

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
  24. How is this different from a feeding tube? by moosehooey · · Score: 1

    Some people have to live a specially-prepared supplement through a tube, sometimes for years. How is this any different?

    1. Re:How is this different from a feeding tube? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Other than the formula being a bit different it is very similar.

      A lot of meal replacement drinks aren't meant to be the sole source of food. This stuff is supposed to be able to be the sole nutrition source just like the stuff they use for feeding tubes. The biggest differences are you can get this outside of the medical field (the carnation formula for feeding tubes is different than what they do for instant breakfast), soylent is supposed to be cheaper and 'open source' as they will tell you all of the ingredient and amounts in the mix.

    2. Re:How is this different from a feeding tube? by sjames · · Score: 1

      It's cost is more inline with regular food and it is designed to support an active and healthy adult.

  25. Cheeseburger in paradise! by RogueWarrior65 · · Score: 1

    But at night I'd had these wonderful dreams
    Some kind of sensuous treat
    Not zucchini, fettucini or Bulgar wheat
    But a big warm bun and a huge hunk of meat!

    1. Re:Cheeseburger in paradise! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But a big warm bun and a huge hunk of meat!

      I wish I could meet a guy like that...

    2. Re:Cheeseburger in paradise! by John.Banister · · Score: 1

      Mama's little baby loves soy-lent, soy-lent
      ...

  26. Re:Macro Nutrients... by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1, Insightful

    As I recall there's not even any insoluable fiber in the stuff. Pass.

    --
    My God, it's Full of Source!
    OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  27. I don't always troll by dale.furno · · Score: 1

    but the comments on the vice.com article are just insane. Do people really buy into this crap?

  28. Jevity 1.5 -- no solid food for 18 months. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    Due to a medical condition I've been living on a liquid food, Jevity 1.5 for over a year and a half. I take in about 1700 calories a day through a tube into my stomach, have maintained a steady 145 for the whole time.

    Not having food or drink was very hard at first, a form of torture almost. Be gradually I accepted it. I still spend a good bit of time watching cooking videos. Used to watch the Food Channel for hours a day, something I NEVER did before all food was denied to me.

    There are actually some benefits here. My entire food shopping, preparation, intake, and clean up takes about 1/2 hour per day. So I have more time for other things, including watching cooking videos.

  29. Vice investigates Soylent, finds rats and mold by mrmeval · · Score: 1

    http://pandodaily.com/2013/11/12/vice-investigates-soylent-finds-rats-and-mold/

    It's being sold as a supplement so they don't have to prepare it in a facility that meets FDA rules for food preparation.

    This is a typical food fad fraud organization.

    --
    I'd go on a Vegan diet but the delivery time from Vega is too long. --brownkitty
    1. Re:Vice investigates Soylent, finds rats and mold by sahonen · · Score: 2

      The actual product being shipped to customers is being prepared in a fully FDA certified and inspected facility. The place where they were making the prototype formula was just that - a place for prototyping.

      --
      Make me a friend and I'll mod you up
    2. Re:Vice investigates Soylent, finds rats and mold by x0ra · · Score: 1

      Then put this on camera, I did bookmarked Soylent to get some when they will ship international, but after the investigation, NO MORE. Damage done.

  30. Subtracting fiber by tepples · · Score: 2

    And this is why Weight Watchers subtracts 4 calories per gram of dietary fiber before dividing by 35 to get the PointsPlus value. It's also how low-carbohydrate foods during the Atkins fad could get away with mentioning attractive "net carb" counts in large type absent an official FDA definition of "low carb".

    1. Re:Subtracting fiber by icebike · · Score: 0

      Atkins wasn't a fad, just ahead of its time, and in fact its now called by by a different name and low carb diets are finally accepted as the only real and rational way to lose weight.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    2. Re:Subtracting fiber by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

      and low carb diets are finally accepted as the only real and rational way to lose weight.

      You forgot to include some citations for that extremely broad and wholly unsubstantiated claim.

    3. Re:Subtracting fiber by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As far as I have heard the most real and rational way to lose weight is to eat healthy, eat less, and exercise. A low carb diet is in no way required.

    4. Re:Subtracting fiber by sandytaru · · Score: 2

      The original Atkins diet could cause a dangerous crash. The more modern form you mentioned is a bit more cautious about reducing carbs. And while it's true we eat way too many processed and refined grains in the Western diet, there's nothing wrong with unprocessed whole grains like quinoa.

      --
      Occasionally living proof of the Ballmer peak.
    5. Re:Subtracting fiber by tepples · · Score: 1

      I guess low-carb is an attempt to "eat healthy" by not causing the pancreas to pump out excessive insulin.

    6. Re:Subtracting fiber by Anarchduke · · Score: 1

      Other than eating less and exercising, you mean.

      --
      who prays for Satan? Who in 18 centuries has had the humanity to pray for the 1 sinner that needed it most? ~Mark Twain
    7. Re:Subtracting fiber by icebike · · Score: 1

      Other than eating less and exercising, you mean.

      You have done the math, right?

      You can exercise all you want. It won't and can't make much difference at all.
      The overwhelmingly vast majority of calories burned by the human body are burned in just living.
      So the diet and exercise mantra comes down to just diet.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    8. Re:Subtracting fiber by vux984 · · Score: 1

      The overwhelmingly vast majority of calories burned by the human body are burned in just living.

      Buf it you burn 2000 calories just by living, and eat 2500, then 500 calories worth of exercise makes a huge difference.

      And will have a much better effect on your overall health than just cutting your diet down by 500 calories.

      Weight and health are related, but simply controlling your weight by reducing calorie intake won't make you healthy.

    9. Re:Subtracting fiber by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can diet all you want. You won't put on any muscle mass without resistance training.

      When it comes down to it, people don't care about weight nearly as much as body fat percentage.

    10. Re:Subtracting fiber by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can exercise all you want. It won't and can't make much difference at all.
      The overwhelmingly vast majority of calories burned by the human body are burned in just living.
      So the diet and exercise mantra comes down to just diet.

      Please stop lying. Or at least put out some numbers so people can see how little acquaintance with "the math" you actually have despite trying to lecture others about it.

      For example, an easily found online calculator (google "daily energy expenditure") tells me that I burn about 4200 calories daily "just living". (If you, dear reader, do the same and come up with a much smaller result, it is because I am a very tall and heavy person and you probably are not). After about 9 months of serious work on an exercise bike, I can now pretty easily do 800 cal in a ~50 minute workout. That's almost 20% more calories burned per day. You're trying to make it sound like this is an inconsequential rounding error or something. It isn't, and I'm living proof: I haven't hugely altered my diet and I've dropped about 35 pounds since I began.

      And for the record, when I say "serious", keep in mind that I don't work out every day yet (that's my target, but I'm not there), and at the beginning I wasn't able to put the bike on its max resistance setting, do as long a session, or do more than 2 sessions a week.

      If nothing else, your claim is incoherent and wrong because what those calculators don't tell you is that when you exercise, you put on muscle mass, and you end up burning more energy "just living" than you do if you have poor muscle tone. You don't have to work out much to gain these benefits. Also, there are many other reasons to get fit. In my case it's noticeably helped with symptoms that are almost certainly early signs of diabetes (blurry vision, peripheral neuropathy), and has eliminated fluid retention in my legs that was causing painful ankle swelling etc.

      It can cause counterintuitive results. My rate of weight loss was high at the beginning but plateaued in recent months. I've noticed that I'm still observably losing fat (increasing visibility and definition of veins in my skin, belt's getting loose, etc.) even though the scales aren't showing much progress. I believe this is because I've been adding lots of leg muscle mass as I get stronger and more fit. I'm pretty much okay with that! Also, I am probably going to need to pay more attention to diet as time goes on, just to reduce my calorie intake to track my weight.

      I'm sure it's possible to lose weight just through diet, but claiming that this is the only way, that exercise does nothing, etc., is just stupid.

  31. Isn't this ketosis? by jbeach · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The early stage of wooziness and cloudiness, and then the later stage of alertness because his body has switched to burning fat cells? So the caloric intake doesn't matter, unless and until he hits more than 25g of carb a day?

    I'm sure the product keeps him from starving to death; I'm just not seeing how his doctor saw the fat loss and other things as such a mystery. Is there something I'm missing here?

    --
    The Invisible Hand of the Free Market is what punches workers in the nuts.
    1. Re:Isn't this ketosis? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where does it say that he's only eating 25g of carbs a day?

    2. Re:Isn't this ketosis? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you're right.

      He exactly described the effects I had when I regulated my diet and reduced carbs in favour of vegetables and fat. No snacking and not eating food that raises blood glucose quickly at the beginning wasn't very pleasant but after a year of such eating (which basically became a habit) I'm 15kg lighter than I was before, my blood test are perfect and I feel more energetic than I remember I was before the switch.

    3. Re:Isn't this ketosis? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, soylent is way more than 25g of carbs.

    4. Re:Isn't this ketosis? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have that twice a week when fasting for a day on 600 calories.
      I tend to eat slow burning carps, meat and vegetables on those days.

    5. Re:Isn't this ketosis? by GrumpySteen · · Score: 1

      I prefer my carp (and all other fish) to be unburned.

    6. Re:Isn't this ketosis? by swb · · Score: 1

      This was my thinking.

      I went low carb about 2 years ago and the transition was similar to what he reported. I remember feeling hungry with a slight upset stomach, but when I'd start eating I'd just feel kind of full and not want to eat. After a couple of weeks this went away and I seem to have adjusted.

      I dropped about 20 pounds and basically kept up the diet, trying to stay as low carb as practical (like not sweating the 2g sugar in a couple of tablespoons of salsa for example).

      Occasionally due to circumstances I have a run of carby food and I will notice that a couple of days of this and when I get back to low carb eating I have a kind of induction experience for a day or so where I have the same kind of icky, hungry-but-can't-really-eat sort of feeling.

    7. Re:Isn't this ketosis? by Reziac · · Score: 1

      Clearly you've never had planked carp.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
  32. Food isn't just calories! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    You need stuff like proteins, complex carbohydrates and vitamins to function. Food is not just fuel (calories), it's the building materials needed to conduct running repairs and repel nasties and it took millions of years of evolution to get to where we are now in terms of efficiency. OK, scientific research can lead to cures of specific diseases, etc, but the idea that we can replcace our millenia-old diet with some foul brown sludge is a leap too far for me.

    1. Re:Food isn't just calories! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, despite what the Paleo advocates would have you believe, Homo Sapiens Sapiens has only walked the Earth for a couple of hundred thousand years. We either integrated through breeding or killed off the competition a bit after that. Millions of years of evolution for our species is simply disingenuous. Soylent offeres carbs, fiber, aminos, vitamins, and minerals, please learn the product before you dismiss it. I'm not defending Soylent as the answer, I'm just saying it's probably the best that's been offered at this price point, so far. I'd love to see a full-blown MRP at $5/day, Soylent or otherwise. As it sits, it's just under $10/day and claims to offer the good stuff at that price. I like to enjoy food and have no intention of replacing evry meal with Soylent, but I did pre-order a batch just to see how good it is for the rest of the time.

      *The part about breeding into extinction or killing off is still subject to debate, with evidence in both camps. I personally, being a horny, violent, devious bastard assume it was some combination of the two.

  33. Already available by Animats · · Score: 1

    If you want an all-in-one food, it's available. Most drug stores stock "liquid nutrition" drinks which offer a balanced diet. In Japan, such products are popular. Calorie Mate, from Otsuka Pharmaceutical Company Ltd. "Handy solid type Balance protective foods which gives your lips. Each 100-kcal serving contains Protein, Lipid, Carbohydrate, 6 different types of minerals, 11 different vitamins, Contains dietary fiber." Popular with Japanese salarymen who eat lunch at their desks.

    1. Re:Already available by neurovish · · Score: 1

      Well, if it's good enough for Solid Snake, then it can't be too bad. Way better than eating snakes if I remember right.

    2. Re:Already available by sjames · · Score: 1

      You'll need to drink 20-25 bottles a day to get enough calories. It's about $3/bottle on amazon. That'll be about $1800/month. It's also not actually claimed to be a complete food replacement, just something for when you're busy at lunch.

  34. BMI * gravity = pressure by tepples · · Score: 3, Informative

    It's not a dimensionless constant, it's M / L^2.

    Once you multiply the mass by gravity to get weight, you end up with F / L^2, or pressure units. Assuming the length and width of your feet are proportional to the rest of your body, BMI is proportional to the pressure between the ground and your feet. (Unless, of course, you have no feet.)

    1. Re:BMI * gravity = pressure by AthanasiusKircher · · Score: 4, Informative

      Once you multiply the mass by gravity to get weight, you end up with F / L^2, or pressure units. Assuming the length and width of your feet are proportional to the rest of your body, BMI is proportional to the pressure between the ground and your feet.

      Absolutely right. Which means BMI might be a good measure of potential for diseases and disorders highly correlated with excess downward "pressure" within the body -- joint problems in the legs, back problems, foot issues, perhaps some circulation issues, etc.

      But it's not used for that generally: instead, it's compared to how much bodyfat one has to determine things like "obesity." Except obesity is usually correlated with a three-dimensional addition of fat onto the body frame, not a two-dimensional one. That leads to the obvious conclusion that the formula will overestimate adiposity (fatness) for tall people, while underestimating it for short people.

      My theory has been that the ONLY reason this formula ever got any attention at all is because that very defect makes it applicable for both average men and average women. Women naturally tend to have slightly higher bodyfat than men, and they also are shorter on average. That means that the formula will give similar results in predicting adiposity for women and men of average height. But it will be TERRIBLE for predicting it correctly for men who are short and as tall as the average woman, or women who are as tall or taller than the average man.

      All of this does come from basic unit analysis.

  35. SOYlent? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sounds like it's got soy in it. That stuff is an allergen. No wonder his stomach went in knots.

  36. Re:Macro Nutrients... by dwywit · · Score: 3, Informative

    I was wondering about that - doesn't lack of fibre lead to an increase in colon cancers?

    I don't think the "inventor" has given enough thought to the complex dance of gut flora (good and bad), macro and micro-nutrients, and the sheer diversity of humans. One size does NOT fit all. For example, if you're somewhat prone to colon cancer (genetically), a healthy diet of conventional food with lots of fibre may be all that's keeping that cancer from developing.

    What about the decrease in effort for the digestive system to process "soylent". Wouldn't your digestive tract eventually weaken and degrade from not having enough work to do?

    At least he doesn't advocate giving up conventional food completely.

    --
    They sentenced me to twenty years of boredom
  37. Why all the negativity? by bledri · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I love food, and I love sharing meals with friends. But many of my meals are purely functional. It would be awesome if there was a meal replacement for those purely functional meals. I hate everything currently on the market that I've tried, it's all too sweet and usually has a strange aftertaste (presumably because of artificial sweeteners or flavors.) If I could replace about 50% of my meals with something like Soylent and still be healthy, I'd do it in a heartbeat.

    I have no idea if Soylent is a viable meal replacement, nor if it's any better than what's already on the market. But I hope it is.

    --
    Some privacy policy Slashdot.
    1. Re:Why all the negativity? by x0ra · · Score: 1

      There is already plenty of solutions on the market. You can get all the supplement/meal replacement you need for a healthy diet, INCLUDING VITAMIN D, from cod liver oil, from fitness stores. Soylent is mostly marketing based.

    2. Re:Why all the negativity? by cactopus · · Score: 1

      I totally agree with this. I'd eat an occasional pizza, mexican, mac n' cheese, or Indian meal as a treat and totally live on this kind of thing. I'd like to see it in dry biscuit or cookie form or perhaps gelatin too. I don't always want to drink my meals. Maybe even as a 3D-printing paste... or... solid biscuits and paste-filling (sandwich)

    3. Re:Why all the negativity? by evilviper · · Score: 1

      You want a liquid meal replacement that's not sweet?

      I have good news! Have you ever heard of this thing called "milk"? Looking at whole milk, 150kcal/8oz means you need about 36 oz of it to replace a meal. More if you're large, less if you'll be doing other snacking and drinking something other than water between "meals". And you can even go overboard, and mix powered milk into your liquid milk... That's the basic component of Carnation Instant Breakfast and similar.

      Also, you're free to dilute meal-replacement drinks with water (or milk) if you find them too rich or thick, and you'd be amazed how little you need to go from super-sweet to tasteless. I guarantee you won't even do 2:1. That will reduce aftertaste as well.

      I agree about the horrible (after)taste of Ensure, Boost, and other popular products right now, but there are many great-tasting ones, too. Toping my list is Nutrament, esp Vanilla:

        http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0015552FM/

      Second would be basic chocolate, strawberry, or vanilla powder, like Ovaltine, Nesquik, but I prefer store brands.

      Third would be meal powders like Carnation Instant Breakfast, and all the store brands with the same purpose. Since you mix it yourself, you can mix as much milk and water into it as your taste buds allow.

      And I'd dare say none of those have any nasty aftertastes like the non-dairy meal replacement drinks.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    4. Re:Why all the negativity? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cod liver oil is expensive and has no carbs/protein. It's a supplement, having it as a meal replacement would mess you up. Whole milk is a much better answer.

    5. Re:Why all the negativity? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have no idea if Soylent is a viable meal replacement, nor if it's any better than what's already on the market. But I hope it is.

      Reason I ordered it. Okay, the real reason is that it's called Soylent.

      YOU'VE GOT TO TELL THEM. SOYLENT GREEN IS PEEEEOOOOPLE.

      Ahem.

      But seriously? Half the time I'm too damned lazy to cook, and end up nuking something. Anything nukable is pretty much terrible for you. I have no intention of giving up glorious steak on the weekend - but if I'm in the middle of IT fuckery, I plan to grab some blended homo sapiens sapiens rather than a microwavable gutbomb.

    6. Re:Why all the negativity? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fortisip

      There's plenty of fully nutritionally balanced meals-in-shake out there.

    7. Re:Why all the negativity? by Tom · · Score: 1

      I love food, and I love sharing meals with friends. But many of my meals are purely functional. [...] I hate everything currently on the market that I've tried,

      This.

      Love going out to share a meal with friends, hate having to eat alone at home. It just sucks, it's purely fuel intake, and if I can strip it down to a no-thought process, I'd do it in an instant.

      The thing is that everything you can buy ready-made is crap. A look at the ingredients list and you don't want to eat it anymore if you know anything about food at all.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    8. Re:Why all the negativity? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I love food, and I love sharing meals with friends. But many of my meals are purely functional. It would be awesome if there was a meal replacement for those purely functional meals.

      Me too. Have you Tried this stuff?

    9. Re:Why all the negativity? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have tried the Hacker School modified Soylent recipe for 3 days, not consecutive days, and Soylent was not my only source of food for those 3 days. I liked it as a breakfast replacement, as I never have time to make breakfast during the week.

      Cost for a 2,000 calorie day's worth of this mix cost me $4.55 per day and if I bought some of the ingredients in kilo, 4 pound or 50 pound bags I could get it down to $2.97 a day. That isn't counting the discount for subscribing to some ingredients on Amazon.

      There were days when I was hungry but couldn't decide what I wanted to eat and I drank a portion of the drink mix instead. If you did that every time instead of grabbign a bag of chips or candy bar or frozen burrito or something you might be better off and the stuff keeps pretty well, though I use a BlenderBottle whisk ball in the 2 Nalgene bottles I use to help mix it up because ingrediants will separate over time.

      trouble@tekfactory.com

  38. For something aimed for the poor... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    $255 per month, for a single person, seems kind of expensive to me.
    Not to mention... why bother doing stories on this now, we can't even buy the thing even if we wanted to (well, yes, you can, but won't be getting anything until 2014, and US only)

    1. Re:For something aimed for the poor... by x0ra · · Score: 1

      Because VICE is a US magazine, aimed at a mainly-US audience L

  39. Yuck by Powercntrl · · Score: 1

    Shit, even when you're broke there's always the dollar menu. I'd take McDonalds over a glass of snot, any day. I do have to wonder about his dating prospects. "Uh, hey baby, want to come back to my place and drink a glass of that food from The Matrix?" Yeah, that's a pickup line for the ages.

     

    --

    ---
    DRM is like antifreeze, to the MPAA/RIAA it's sweet, to the consumers it's poison.
    1. Re:Yuck by ae1294 · · Score: 1

      I think they just got rid of the dollar menu and changed it to the dollar and moar menu where shit costs more than 1$....

    2. Re:Yuck by Anarchduke · · Score: 1

      coincidentally, shit is all they serve there

      --
      who prays for Satan? Who in 18 centuries has had the humanity to pray for the 1 sinner that needed it most? ~Mark Twain
    3. Re:Yuck by sjames · · Score: 1

      You'll die young if you use the dollar menu as a food replacement.

    4. Re:Yuck by sahonen · · Score: 1

      Read the guy's blog. He eats "normal" food on social occasions, or when he just feels like experiencing a certain taste. Soylent is just supposed to be about the vast majority of meals you eat where it's just about fueling your body so you can get on with more important things.

      --
      Make me a friend and I'll mod you up
  40. Hate to be pedantic, but how is this "not food?" by RandomUsername99 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Do the ingredients here have non-food plant or animal sources? Are they actually made of completely synthetic chemicals? If not, then how is this considered *not food* as opposed to *extremely processed,* food fortified with synthetic vitamins, with most food-like characteristics stripped from it? I don't get it.

  41. I hate these stories by ralphaostrander · · Score: 1

    When I can buy a six pack at wally world let me know.

  42. Thanks to NASA by TheSeatOfMyPants · · Score: 4, Informative

    Exactly -- NASA created the first complete liquid diet (called Vivonex 100) way back in the late 1950s for astronauts. It became a core treatment for infants &kids in a dangerous "failure to thrive" state due to malabsorption or malnutrition (often due to GI defects) and prodded companies to start producing commercial nutrition-replacement beverages. IMHO it's a good example of how NASA's research has helped everyday regular people and even (as in my case)saved lives.

    --
    Now mostly at Usenet:comp.misc & SoylentNews.org (it's made of people!)
    1. Re:Thanks to NASA by sandytaru · · Score: 1

      The latest version of this is like a concentrated peanut butter, called "Plumpy Nut." I giggle every time I hear about it.

      --
      Occasionally living proof of the Ballmer peak.
  43. Change the name... by yep · · Score: 1

    "Soilin' It" sounds like a more fit name for this drink...

  44. I doubt the number of 1800 by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

    To get below 2200 is pretty impossible, regardless of your body build and daily activity.

    --
    Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    1. Re:I doubt the number of 1800 by Shados · · Score: 1

      1800 for women is a pretty common target number. 2000 for inactive men. So that looks right.

    2. Re:I doubt the number of 1800 by sandytaru · · Score: 1

      I've gone as low as 1200/day before. It's depressing, but doable. You eat a lot of raw vegetables. You swap out regular bread for reduced calorie 100% whole wheat (mmm, good carbs.) You get your proteins from only lean sources like eggs and whitefish. You drink fat free milk and black coffee.

      --
      Occasionally living proof of the Ballmer peak.
    3. Re:I doubt the number of 1800 by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      And you did not lose weight? Then how did you walk around :D

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    4. Re:I doubt the number of 1800 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, it isn't. Consider an older person with an already small frame and other health complications, such as Crohn's disease, IBS, or other sorts of intolerances to wheat or dairy. For someone over 60 that is around 5 feet tall and weighs 100 pounds, the daily calorie intake is much lower than someone 6'4", 200 lbs and 30 years old.

    5. Re:I doubt the number of 1800 by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      No one is "inactive" 24h, except he is in a coma :D

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    6. Re:I doubt the number of 1800 by Shados · · Score: 1

      I guess I should have said "sedentary"?

      Basically, the typical person at their desk all day that doesn't train or have to deal with kids and stuff.

  45. Phytoestrogens by umask077 · · Score: 1

    Soy contains phytoestrogens, There have been incidents in which men eating mostly soy have started to develop breasts. Wonder if that's a problem with soylent.

    --
    --- Always remember. 99.36% of all statistics are inaccurate.
    1. Re:Phytoestrogens by airdweller · · Score: 1

      I think - even if that were true - you'd need to literally live on soy to get that effect.

  46. Re:Macro Nutrients... by invalid-access · · Score: 1

    Actually with no fiber, you won't.

  47. Minor observations- by meburke · · Score: 2

    The need for carbohydrates has never been established. True, the body needs fuel, but the body can burn fats and protein. The brain is actually designed to run more efficiently on ketones than sugars. People have lived healthily for years on meat-only and mostly meat diets. However, if you don't take in carbs you pretty much need fats and oils for fuel.

    I'm more worried about the soy content than anything else; There seems to be strong evidence that lots of soy is antagonistic to testosterone balances.

    As for vegetarianism: http://www.amazon.com/The-Vegetarian-Myth-Justice-Sustainability/dp/1604860804 . This is a great basis for lively discussion from a former vegan.

    --
    "The mind works quicker than you think!"
  48. We are getting by ruir · · Score: 1

    a slashdot advertisement almost every day.

  49. Food is fuel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As long as you get the nutrients you need, its doesn't matter what form it takes. I would rather get those nutrients from a delicious varied diet than drink a few glasses of chalk water daily.

  50. Re:Other alternate food sources. by Farmer+Tim · · Score: 1

    You've never had hot dogs?

    --
    Blank until /. makes another boneheaded UI decision.
  51. In Soviet Russia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A U.S. and Russian General are discussing troops rations. The Russian says: "Every day, each soldier consumes 1500 Calories". "Oh yeah?" says the American. "Well, our troops consume 3000 Calories a day." "This is not possible," replies the Russian, "how can one man eat entire sack of potatoes?"

  52. Vitamins? by Selur · · Score: 1

    Aren't there some Vitamins in it? Don't we need those?

  53. Re:Hate to be pedantic, but how is this "not food? by BlackPignouf · · Score: 1

    Note that he also survived 30 days with only H2O and a N2 O2 mixture.

  54. This looks fucking horrible by rebelwarlock · · Score: 1

    I enjoy eating food, and these assclowns are trying to replace the concept of food with nasty liquid. I consider this a direct assault on my person.

    1. Re:This looks fucking horrible by Thunder6ix · · Score: 1

      Well, at least the government isn't forcing you to consume it... yet.

  55. What Soylent is made of ? by codeusirae · · Score: 1

    Does Rhinehart know what soylent was made of in the original story. ref

    1. Re:What Soylent is made of ? by neurovish · · Score: 1

      Yes, soya and lentils. I don't think you'll find the the original story on IMDB.

  56. Rats, mold, closed source, psychology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe some of the negativity is based around the reporter's description of a rat leaving the food processing area, and receiving packages which are mouldy.

    If a company that has food creation/production as it's prime purpose allows this failure in quality, can you trust the rest of their claims?

    Some of the negativity may also be around a closed source model of nutrition (how can I tell what's in the foodstuffs that make up 100% of my nutrition? would I trust one company to be a monopoly on such an essential aspect of my survival?), and I suspect also around the social / psychological aspects of food preparation and consumption.

  57. Re:Contrary to popular ignorant believe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    LOL. You just made my day, sir or madam. :)

  58. used to think that too by nten · · Score: 1

    I got down to a healthy weight by counting calories (or so I thought). Much later, I decided I wanted to lose more and see my sixpack, so I divided my caloric intake by 3... and gained 25lbs. I'm now overweight again. That is impossible I thought, thermodynamics works! But I realized I was sleeping almost 12hrs a day, and barely moving the rest of it. It seems fairly clear that at least *my* body can save energy. The military studies that indicate the body will not enter starvation mode until you hit 6% body fat no matter how little you eat only worked that way because the soldiers maintained the same level of daily activity. They were forced to. You have to monitor your calories expended, it can vary. The previous time I had lost weight, I had been doing a lot of weight lifting just before cutting calories, and I think my lost weight was a combination of losing a huge amount of muscle mass, and the high number of calories burned by that resting muscle that I had built. So now I'm off building muscle again and eating the number of calories I would expend if I were the weight I want to be, so that I asymptote down to that weight.

    --
    refactor the law, its bloated, confusing and unmaintainable.
    1. Re:used to think that too by evilviper · · Score: 1

      I decided I wanted to lose more and see my sixpack, so I divided my caloric intake by 3... and gained 25lbs. I'm now overweight again [...] It seems fairly clear that at least *my* body can save energy.

      It's well-known that such a severe, sudden dietary restriction will cause such effects, but only in the short-term. More gradual transition is far safer/healthier. And over a longer-term, those effects wear off, as they must. Not to mention much of it is water-weight, not actually fat, so physics need not be defied...

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    2. Re:used to think that too by dfghjk · · Score: 1

      "The military studies that indicate the body will not enter starvation mode until you hit 6% body fat..."

      Military studies are only concerned with young, healthy men. Obese people are commonly in "starvation mode" despite their body fat. That's why they are obese and that's why calorie counting won't matter for them. The underlying failure has to be fixed, not their "character flaws".

  59. I saw something similar in the 80s by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I remember a similar story from the late 80s on Australian version of 60 minutes. A couple in the United States were living on a diet of raw chemicals mostly in capsule or powder forms formulated based on the scientific knowledge of the time meet all nutritional needs of the person. I have occasionally wondered what happened to the couple. I never heard about them again and the practice didn't seem to take off.

  60. Not liking the 100% liquid diet ... by oztiks · · Score: 2

    Dont get me wrong. I practically live on home made juices. But for the life of me, I need solids. So many people are in the same boat with these new wonder diets that are out there, detox or whatever. Many eventually drop the wonder diet because of IBS. I see this no different, sure treat it as a partial suppliment. Like I said cant get enough juice but atleat 1 solid per day ... otherwise the stomach gets lazy because it doesnt need to break anything down, from there it only goes down hill.

    1. Re:Not liking the 100% liquid diet ... by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Well, there is nothing wrong with mixing a few solids into the whole deal. There's plenty of "food" out there with little to any nutritional value.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  61. I agree... plenty others already on the market. by Zeorge · · Score: 1

    Also, unless this guy has fabricated some new chemical that is his food replacement (which he hasn't) then he is using what eveyrone else is using but in different proportions (maybe). It's pretty much a known science what the body needs as far as carbs, protein, vitamins, and minerals are. Ensure and its variants are fairly decent meal replacements (and come in flavors). For dry powder, I like Tru-Food Vegan (http://www.nowfoods.com/Tru-Food-Vegan-Berry-Flavor-2-2lbs.htm) and Vega also makes their version as do many others. These have been on the market way longer and have a reputation. Not some guy who got a million from kickstarter to do exactly the same thing.

  62. I've been eating less than 2200 pretty easily by PeterM+from+Berkeley · · Score: 1

    It's not impossible, I've been doing it for about 5 months and I've lost 22lbs. I actually have been eating about 2000kcal/day but exercising for about 500, for a net calorie of 1500kcal/day.

    I weighed 181lbs and now weigh 158.4 lbs, I'm five feet 8 inches tall.

    I can tell you I can more or less comfortably eat less than 1800 kcal/day at the cost of being sort of hungry, not VERY hungry. I assure you it's quite doable. I like the exercise though because it lets me eat more.

    All you have to do is not eat junky food, eat more of the less calorie dense foods like fruits and vegetables, and have other things to do in life other than eat--these make managing hunger on less than 2000 calories/day really, really doable. It also helps to track EVERYTHING you eat.

    I would call it "moderately hard" not "pretty impossible", and it gets easier when you're talking about 2200 instead of 1800kcal/day.

    --PM

    1. Re:I've been eating less than 2200 pretty easily by MozeeToby · · Score: 1

      I think he meant a target intake of 1800, rather than actually eating that amount. An adult male, over 6ft, there's no way 1800 Calories is going to maintain his weight, closer to 2500 I would bet.

    2. Re:I've been eating less than 2200 pretty easily by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Yeah, my parent claimed he had around 1800 kcal/day (or could ...) and would not lose weight.

      Ofc you can eat as few as you want ... you only need vitamines if you want to fast.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
  63. Joints, circulation, and "diabesity" by tepples · · Score: 1

    BMI might be a good measure of potential for diseases and disorders highly correlated with excess downward "pressure" within the body -- joint problems in the legs, back problems, foot issues, perhaps some circulation issues, etc.

    And a lot of these problems are comorbid with obesity or with the type 2 diabetes mellitus that is in turn comorbid with obesity.

    Except obesity is usually correlated with a three-dimensional addition of fat onto the body frame, not a two-dimensional one.

    At a constant height, body fat is added to the cross-section. I guess that's part of the rationale for the ballpark guess that is BMI.

    But it will be TERRIBLE for predicting it correctly for men who are short

    Is there a better obesity metric that is as convenient to measure as BMI?

    1. Re:Joints, circulation, and "diabesity" by AthanasiusKircher · · Score: 1

      At a constant height, body fat is added to the cross-section. I guess that's part of the rationale for the ballpark guess that is BMI.

      Except the "cross-section" has height too. A 6'8" man with a giant beer belly compared to a 5'0" man with a giant beer belly not only adds cross-sectional area, but also a larger "height" over the stomach area where the excess weight is distributed. It's not like short men have a rounded belly, but taller men have a giant bulging rubber tire around the waist and flat upper abs! The bulge is roughly the same shape in 3-dimensions, excepting of course extreme cases (dwarfism, etc.).

      Is there a better obesity metric that is as convenient to measure as BMI?

      Sure -- how about using height cubed instead of height squared? Or, more likely, the best exponent probably falls between 2 and 3, since you're somewhat right that mass doesn't quite increase cubically when height does. Maybe it's 2.7 or maybe it's 2.3, and I'm sure epidemiological studies could easily come up with the best figure to correlate to bodyfat. And have two separate scales for men and women, just like doctors do for actual bodyfat measurements.

      It still won't take into account things like muscle mass vs. fat and body type, but at least it doesn't have a built-in dimensional problem that skews diagnosis whenever you get more than a few inches off of average.

      Aside from improving the BMI formula with a simple exponent change, they could also just use another simple measurement. Lots and lots of recent studies have shown that even taking a waist measurement (or a waist-to-hip ratio) is more accurate at predicting disease than the idiotic BMI formula.

      I mean, how screwed up is that? If a formula that can be used with a simple tape measure -- like "if your waist is more than X inches, you're at higher risk," regardless of height, weight, or whatever -- is significantly better than some more complex formula involving squaring numbers and division and accurate scales, why the heck are we still using BMI?!?

  64. stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When referring to food, the term "hacking" already has a meaning - and it's not a good one.

    This is an old and unbelievably bad idea. Does anyone read history anymore?

    btw - I was a PhD at Stanford, so by the rules of "the valley" I have instant credibility. Cower at my awesome hubris!!!

  65. Not Soylent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Soylent (red) was made of [b]soy[/b]beans and [b]lent[/b]ils.
    Soylent (green) is people.

  66. Snake oil! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Come and get your snake oil!
    Guaranteed to lose weight or your money back.
    Only pay for postage and packing!

    My cause drowsiness, fatigue, measles, mumps, unhapiness, the vapours, premature ejaculation, nosebleed, shinsplints, haermorhoids, hare lip, gigantism, ingrowing toenail, flu, syphilis, impetigo, unexplained lesions, a limp, breast growth in men, breast reduction in women, farting, hysteria and baldness.

  67. Not good by Reliable+Windmill · · Score: 1

    I doubt this product can cover all the micronutrients your body needs. Fats, fibers, proteins and some vitamins aren't enough. Live entirely off of this stuff, and you're in for dementia at an early age.

    --
    Signature intentionally left blank.
  68. Re:Other alternate food sources. by captjc · · Score: 1

    Yes, I will be the first to say, Let us all start eating more pussy!

    --
    Slow Down Cowboy! It's been 1 hour, 47 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment
  69. Re:Contrary to popular ignorant believe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and yet burning calories is a means of weight loss. If you do nothing but burn more calories in a day than you consumed, this amazing thing happens: you lose weight! Takes 5 weeks for the change to occur but it is 100% proven to work.

  70. $60 vs. $500... r.e. vitamin-D test. by Fubari · · Score: 1

    Just for fun, here's a test ( "Vitamin-D-25-Hydroxy-Blood-Test" ) for about $60.
    test writeup excerpt: "You should know your Vitamin D blood level. Life Extension offers a reliable vitamin D blood test at a fraction of what most commercial blood labs charge. Optimal blood levels of vitamin D are often far greater than the standard reference range."
    Just as an aside, in case you haven't had your bloodwork done, it can be a useful benchmark health-wise. "Blood Tests A to Z"
    Ordering a test this way may be less headache than talking a doctor or insurance company into doing the same.
    Some things to consider for Women and Men.

    btw - I have no stake in LEF.ORG, I just find their tests and articles useful. Since we are talking Vitamin-D, for example, if you know anyone supplementing calcium then this is worth reading: "Brittle Bones and Hardened Arteries: The Hidden Link".

  71. Calories by minyard · · Score: 1

    The thermodynamic model of representing food as energy measured as calories is about as wrong as the stork model for reproduction. Sure a stork could physically bring a baby, but it's just not how things work. One way a body decides whether to store fat is insulin response. How exactly do calories account for that?

  72. Calories by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The simple equation for computing calories needed by a given person based on their weight, height and gender has been long debunked.

    I don't think I could do longer than a day without "real" food. Ugh. I hope I die before soylent is necessary.

  73. Soylent Green by cwsumner · · Score: 1

    Just in case you don't know, in the book, Soylent Green was discovered to be made out of People !
    Bad choice of names...