Is this a joke?

[GrannySmith]

So basically, the guy is making expensive protein shakes. Why people are even writing articles about it is beyond me.

Well, I guess because he called it "Soylent"...    not ALL advertisement is helpful, to me he's just starting a debate on "synthetic" food.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0070723/

on the health issues, it's a bit early now to find the articles (need coffee first) but i'll come back with evidence that isolated nutrients are NOT good for you. (for example the "famous" result that carrots protect from lung cancer but beta-carotene increases your chances to get it)

Hmm, Can't tell anymore.
World has gotten too strange.
I mean, labgrown meat is a thing now, so why not this?

This is very different from lab grown (cloned) meat. They are planning to grow muscle tissue which, in my opinion, is more preferable to eat than fat and cartilage, that is the skin, noses, and ears you get in regular sausages and minced meat.

[Reginald Ret]

So basically, the guy is making expensive protein shakes. Why people are even writing articles about it is beyond me.

Well, I guess because he called it "Soylent"...    not ALL advertisement is helpful, to me he's just starting a debate on "synthetic" food.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0070723/

on the health issues, it's a bit early now to find the articles (need coffee first) but i'll come back with evidence that isolated nutrients are NOT good for you. (for example the "famous" result that carrots protect from lung cancer but beta-carotene increases your chances to get it)

Hmm, Can't tell anymore.
World has gotten too strange.
I mean, labgrown meat is a thing now, so why not this?

This is very different from lab grown (cloned) meat. They are planning to grow muscle tissue which, in my opinion, is more preferable to eat than fat and cartilage, that is the skin, noses, and ears you get in regular sausages and minced meat.

Don't mess with my sausages!
(I don't have nuanced opinions about food. I want lots of meat with or without bits in it.)

[LMNO]

Skin, nose, and ears can be fucking DELICIOUS.

[GrannySmith]

Ah what was i thinking, i actually agree with both of you and i love ears, noses etc in minced meat and sausages. I even love grilled lamb brain---mmmh, nature's pâté! What i REALLY don't like is the hormones and the antibiotics. And I don't known how they grow lab grown meat so i shouldn't really support that (or not), sorry. The point is: i hate protein shakes, and i'm sort of convinced that isolated vitamins are bad for you... but this is more of a gut feeling than a scientific opinion:

I did promise you a paper on how much better are carrots in comparison with beta-carotene (which more often than not increases the incidence of lung cancer in smokers), but as it is a huge problem in medical statistics, there are papers showing all sort of results. Before you say that this is normal, that is statistics after all (you never get a "perfect representative sample"),the situation is actually worse than one would expect...
for example:
http://www.nature.com/nrd/journal/v10/n9/full/nrd3439-c1.html

A recent report by Arrowsmith noted that the success rates for new development projects in Phase II trials have fallen from 28% to 18% in recent years, with insufficient efficacy being the most frequent reason for failure

and
http://lifescivc.com/2011/03/academic-bias-biotech-failures/#0_undefined,0_

The unspoken rule is that at least 50% of the studies published even in top tier academic journals – Science, Nature, Cell, PNAS, etc... – can't be repeated with the same conclusions by an industrial lab. In particular, key animal models often don't reproduce.  This 50% failure rate isn't a data free assertion: it's backed up by dozens of experienced R&D professionals who've participated in the (re)testing of academic findings.

and the list of papers bashing medical statistics goes on....no wonder there's this huge confusion in the public about what is actually good for you and what not. In the mind of the patient the doctors are getting mixed up with the witch doctors. But can one blame them? AAAHhhh, so there, medical statistics you disappoint me once more

[McGrupp]

Ah what was i thinking, i actually agree with both of you and i love ears, noses etc in minced meat and sausages. I even love grilled lamb brain---mmmh, nature's pâté! What i REALLY don't like is the hormones and the antibiotics. And I don't known how they grow lab grown meat so i shouldn't really support that (or not), sorry. The point is: i hate protein shakes, and i'm sort of convinced that isolated vitamins are bad for you... but this is more of a gut feeling than a scientific opinion:

I did promise you a paper on how much better are carrots in comparison with beta-carotene (which more often than not increases the incidence of lung cancer in smokers), but as it is a huge problem in medical statistics, there are papers showing all sort of results. Before you say that this is normal, that is statistics after all (you never get a "perfect representative sample"),the situation is actually worse than one would expect...
for example:
http://www.nature.com/nrd/journal/v10/n9/full/nrd3439-c1.html

A recent report by Arrowsmith noted that the success rates for new development projects in Phase II trials have fallen from 28% to 18% in recent years, with insufficient efficacy being the most frequent reason for failure

and
http://lifescivc.com/2011/03/academic-bias-biotech-failures/#0_undefined,0_

The unspoken rule is that at least 50% of the studies published even in top tier academic journals – Science, Nature, Cell, PNAS, etc... – can't be repeated with the same conclusions by an industrial lab. In particular, key animal models often don't reproduce.  This 50% failure rate isn't a data free assertion: it's backed up by dozens of experienced R&D professionals who've participated in the (re)testing of academic findings.

and the list of papers bashing medical statistics goes on....no wonder there's this huge confusion in the public about what is actually good for you and what not. In the mind of the patient the doctors are getting mixed up with the witch doctors. But can one blame them? AAAHhhh, so there, medical statistics you disappoint me once more

I'm not surprised. I'm sharing those 2 articles in the lab.  Unfortunately it's not uncommon to see this sort of thing. Worse yet is when the drug companies get involved. If the trials aren't going the way they like they will often either misreport the data, remove key information, or simply abandon the trial (which gives them an excuse for not publishing)

I'm not sure how much support this is getting but there is a movement to force companies to publish their full drug trials.

http://www.alltrials.net/2013/drug-companies-have-a-year-to-publish-their-data-or-well-do-it-for-them/

There is now a proposal, backed by the British Medical Journal (BMJ) and PLOS Medicine, to ask drug companies to publish and correct all data – including on medicines already in circulation – within the next year. Otherwise independent scientists will begin doing it themselves.

Volunteer researchers – currently being signed up – will be able to pick an invisible or distorted trial, write to the drug's sponsor and ask them to make it visible or correct the record – and drug companies will be given a year to do it.

If the company doesn't respond within 30 days or turns the offer down, friendly journals will publish the paper and a longer one for the regulators.

I like their slogan. "Publish your data, or we will."  I hope it gains traction.

The jist of what they are doing is in the first article but for a more indepth look here is another one (It is long and dry reading):
http://www.bmj.com/content/346/bmj.f2865

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Ah what was i thinking, i actually agree with both of you and i love ears, noses etc in minced meat and sausages. I even love grilled lamb brain---mmmh, nature's pâté! What i REALLY don't like is the hormones and the antibiotics. And I don't known how they grow lab grown meat so i shouldn't really support that (or not), sorry. The point is: i hate protein shakes, and i'm sort of convinced that isolated vitamins are bad for you... but this is more of a gut feeling than a scientific opinion:

I did promise you a paper on how much better are carrots in comparison with beta-carotene (which more often than not increases the incidence of lung cancer in smokers), but as it is a huge problem in medical statistics, there are papers showing all sort of results. Before you say that this is normal, that is statistics after all (you never get a "perfect representative sample"),the situation is actually worse than one would expect...
for example:
http://www.nature.com/nrd/journal/v10/n9/full/nrd3439-c1.html

A recent report by Arrowsmith noted that the success rates for new development projects in Phase II trials have fallen from 28% to 18% in recent years, with insufficient efficacy being the most frequent reason for failure

and
http://lifescivc.com/2011/03/academic-bias-biotech-failures/#0_undefined,0_

The unspoken rule is that at least 50% of the studies published even in top tier academic journals – Science, Nature, Cell, PNAS, etc... – can't be repeated with the same conclusions by an industrial lab. In particular, key animal models often don't reproduce.  This 50% failure rate isn't a data free assertion: it's backed up by dozens of experienced R&D professionals who've participated in the (re)testing of academic findings.

and the list of papers bashing medical statistics goes on....no wonder there's this huge confusion in the public about what is actually good for you and what not. In the mind of the patient the doctors are getting mixed up with the witch doctors. But can one blame them? AAAHhhh, so there, medical statistics you disappoint me once more

A huge part of the point of publishing is so that other researchers can reproduce your study and find out whether the findings are reproducible, validating the original study, or irreproducible, potentially invalidating the original study.

[GrannySmith]

I'm not surprised. I'm sharing those 2 articles in the lab.  Unfortunately it's not uncommon to see this sort of thing. Worse yet is when the drug companies get involved. If the trials aren't going the way they like they will often either misreport the data, remove key information, or simply abandon the trial (which gives them an excuse for not publishing)

I'm not sure how much support this is getting but there is a movement to force companies to publish their full drug trials.

http://www.alltrials.net/2013/drug-companies-have-a-year-to-publish-their-data-or-well-do-it-for-them/

There is now a proposal, backed by the British Medical Journal (BMJ) and PLOS Medicine, to ask drug companies to publish and correct all data – including on medicines already in circulation – within the next year. Otherwise independent scientists will begin doing it themselves.

Volunteer researchers – currently being signed up – will be able to pick an invisible or distorted trial, write to the drug's sponsor and ask them to make it visible or correct the record – and drug companies will be given a year to do it.

If the company doesn't respond within 30 days or turns the offer down, friendly journals will publish the paper and a longer one for the regulators.

I like their slogan. "Publish your data, or we will."  I hope it gains traction.

The jist of what they are doing is in the first article but for a more indepth look here is another one (It is long and dry reading):
http://www.bmj.com/content/346/bmj.f2865

i *love* the idea of open data - it's like writing out your proof in a pure maths article, as opposed to just claiming that you have proved it. In the first link he sounds really angry, as if he thinks that there is a huge conspiracy behind it - which might or might not be, i have no clue. What bothers me is that, i think, the study designs are often wrong. They forgot/hid variables. And when hid, then not necessarily because they're biased one way or the other, but because they're lazy, or because there's no appropriate test made for those variables/study design. Or they just used the wrong test. The mistakes one finds in medical papers can be hilarious. Or - most commonly of all, they took a sample of 50 people in 10 groups and ran 500 tests ON THE SAME DATA.  But fine, okay, those things maybe not so much in large studies. But doctors publish "little" papers like that, that took a nice sample that could tell them something little but useful, and made it rubbish by running 5 million tests on it.  Aaaaaanyway    I'll sign up for data checking, though if he's right, i can imagine it getting me into trouble 

By the way, he made a really good point in the article about the "not publishing"-bias. If you flip a coin and you tell nobody about the times it brings tails, then everyone thinks your coin only brings heads.

A huge part of the point of publishing is so that other researchers can reproduce your study and find out whether the findings are reproducible, validating the original study, or irreproducible, potentially invalidating the original study.

True, though the mistakes they make there are not from a statistical fluke, like it is with physics for example, but because the above mentioned mistakes/biases. And I don't mean to bash on doctors, they hardly take any serious statistics/study design courses and the pressure to publish is HUGE while having to work crazy overtimes. I'm glad I'm a mathematician instead - easy job

[McGrupp]

Update:  The novelty of this guy's craziness has officially worn off for me. Evidently he is going to be filthy rich.
http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/rob-rhinehart-interview-soylent-never-eat-again

Since we last talked to him, Rob and Soylent have become famous. His project has been derided as "dangerous", "ludicrous", and "a red flag for a potential eating disorder" by nutrition experts. Fortunately for Rob, the supporters of Soylent have been generous: a crowdfunding project for his fancy health goo raised almost $800,000 in under 30 days. Now Rob is the CEO of the Soylent Corporation; his hobby has officially turned into a career. His management team might look like the kind of technically-minded nerds who'd want to consume most of their meals in the form of a beige, odourless powder mix, but they're also the potential forefathers of a famine cure.

but they're also the potential forefathers of a famine cure.

NO NO NO.  No one in any of his interviews has asked the obvious question "Doesn't this food take more food to make than you are getting back?"

How is Soylent different from other meal-replacement drinks on the market already?
A lot of things will give you calories, but nothing so far has been designed to be something you can live off. There are no food replacements on the market.

There are. It's called food.

People are inundated with terrible, conflicting advice. Nutrition is unfortunately a field where everyone thinks they're an expert. I am not, and I don't need to be.

.......On the plus side. There may be a market for my Ice->Water transmogrifier.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Update:  The novelty of this guy's craziness has officially worn off for me. Evidently he is going to be filthy rich.
http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/rob-rhinehart-interview-soylent-never-eat-again

Since we last talked to him, Rob and Soylent have become famous. His project has been derided as "dangerous", "ludicrous", and "a red flag for a potential eating disorder" by nutrition experts. Fortunately for Rob, the supporters of Soylent have been generous: a crowdfunding project for his fancy health goo raised almost $800,000 in under 30 days. Now Rob is the CEO of the Soylent Corporation; his hobby has officially turned into a career. His management team might look like the kind of technically-minded nerds who'd want to consume most of their meals in the form of a beige, odourless powder mix, but they're also the potential forefathers of a famine cure.

but they're also the potential forefathers of a famine cure.

NO NO NO.  No one in any of his interviews has asked the obvious question "Doesn't this food take more food to make than you are getting back?"

How is Soylent different from other meal-replacement drinks on the market already?
A lot of things will give you calories, but nothing so far has been designed to be something you can live off. There are no food replacements on the market.

There are. It's called food.

People are inundated with terrible, conflicting advice. Nutrition is unfortunately a field where everyone thinks they're an expert. I am not, and I don't need to be.

.......On the plus side. There may be a market for my Ice->Water transmogrifier.

AUGH


So, he wants us to grow food, process it to separate out the nutrient components, and then recombine it into a perishable recipe that is allegedly "nutritionally complete" (let's just never mind that nobody really agrees on what "nutritional completeness" is) and this is supposed to lead to a famine cure how?

[McGrupp]

They never seem to get around to the fixing famine part of his plan. I just love that he thinks drinking somehow makes it not food. Also processing it makes it not food. By that logic a cake is synthetic food.

Rob claimed that by drinking it every day he'd never have to eat again. Given that starvation is a fairly major problem in the world at the moment and the planet's population will likely surpass 9 billion by 2050, Rob's invention seems like an important one.

emphasis mine

Eating and drinking are identical processes! I'm more upset at the people who threw this guy $800,000 in 30 days.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Also, chewing is good for your teeth and jaws. Not chewing anything for years on end, which he seems to be proposing, will eventually fuck shit up.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

They never seem to get around to the fixing famine part of his plan. I just love that he thinks drinking somehow makes it not food. Also processing it makes it not food. By that logic a cake is synthetic food.

Rob claimed that by drinking it every day he'd never have to eat again. Given that starvation is a fairly major problem in the world at the moment and the planet's population will likely surpass 9 billion by 2050, Rob's invention seems like an important one.

emphasis mine

Eating and drinking are identical processes! I'm more upset at the people who threw this guy $800,000 in 30 days.

Yeah it's pretty much the STUPIDEST FUCKING SHIT EVER. Augh.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

By that logic, MILK is a magickle famine cure-all! Never eat again!

I HAVE THE CURE FOR FAMINE, IT'S CALLED FOOD.

[Cain]

Coca-Cola:  scientifically* proven to solve famines and form a nutritionally balanced meal!

*validity of science may not agree with western imperialist concepts of empirical science.  Please consult your nearest postmodernist for clarification.

[McGrupp]

 

Me: I'm going to perform a magic trick. I simply place this fruit into a blender. Push the button and.......

Rob: OMG WHERE DID THE FOOD GO!!!!