A farce? Fake news? I'm confused. Especially given the name choice...SOYLENT?? at least it's not green?
:? :? :? :?
http://foxnewsinsider.com/2013/08/05/could-soylent-powder-replace-solid-food
Hmm, Can't tell anymore.
World has gotten too strange.
I mean, labgrown meat is a thing now, so why not this?
It's for real. I've read about the guy.
http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/rob-rhinehart-no-longer-requires-food
It sounds neat, although the drawback is that it hardens into a paste after a day and the prep time seems like longer than it takes to just make a meal. Still could have some cool benefits once worked out, though.
One problem he will face is that medicine doesn't exactly agree on what nutrients we need and not everyone is the same in that regard.
AS CHEAP AS A CUP OF COFFEE
The sounds of blind ignorant privilege... a cup of coffee in the US costs more than most poor people have for their daily food budget.
And where do these nutrient isolates come from? Oh yeah, from food.
HE IS MAKING FOOD. Just a particularly processed and sterile form of food.
Contrary to his misguided belief, the body is an amazingly efficient machine for processing the nutrients from food.
With efficient sustainable farming practices we could even feed four billion MORE people than are already on the planet. We have food production and distribution problems, but inability to produce the food we need is not one of them. I have the feeling that pretty much everyone on the planet would rather go vegetarian than switch to a diet of Soylent.
QuoteOne problem he will face is that medicine doesn't exactly agree on what nutrients we need and not everyone is the same in that regard.
It would seem to be a fairly simple exercise to alter the required levels of nutrition. In many ways it seems quite close to nutriotion shakes and the like you would give to those undergoing radio/chemotherapy or the like.
To be blunt, I'd probably be the target market for this product. I'm fairly apathetic about eating at most times. When I do bother it tends not to be "healthy". At some point there will probably be visible indications of these things and this product would probably prevent/eliminate that.
I'd quite like to see this get to market really.
QuoteHE IS MAKING FOOD. Just a particularly processed and sterile form of food.
Kinda. Like I mentioned above it's probably closer to a high nutrition drink than food. In fact, he states it tastes sweet which is quite typical of such drinks.
There's another similar product that junkies use when detoxing as it provides practically everything the body needs and these people have typically been deprived of all these things for quite some time.
Either way, I still think of that matrix scene whenever he describes the drink.
Quote from: Junkenstein on August 07, 2013, 03:25:29 PM
QuoteOne problem he will face is that medicine doesn't exactly agree on what nutrients we need and not everyone is the same in that regard.
It would seem to be a fairly simple exercise to alter the required levels of nutrition. In many ways it seems quite close to nutriotion shakes and the like you would give to those undergoing radio/chemotherapy or the like.
To be blunt, I'd probably be the target market for this product. I'm fairly apathetic about eating at most times. When I do bother it tends not to be "healthy". At some point there will probably be visible indications of these things and this product would probably prevent/eliminate that.
I'd quite like to see this get to market really.
Human beings can survive, and even do OK, on a less-than-optimal diet (hey, I lived on cheeseburgers for a month and felt fine http://cheeseburgerexperiment.blogspot.com/), but scientists don't really understand nutrition that well, and on top of that the lack of enzymes and fiber in such a product seems like a recipe for future gut health problems including cancer.
Quote from: Junkenstein on August 07, 2013, 03:29:28 PM
QuoteHE IS MAKING FOOD. Just a particularly processed and sterile form of food.
Kinda. Like I mentioned above it's probably closer to a high nutrition drink than food. In fact, he states it tastes sweet which is quite typical of such drinks.
There's another similar product that junkies use when detoxing as it provides practically everything the body needs and these people have typically been deprived of all these things for quite some time.
Either way, I still think of that matrix scene whenever he describes the drink.
Liquid food is also food. Any significant calorie and nutrient source is a food. Protein shakes are food, that is why they call them "meal replacement". Sort of like how milk is food. The semantic distinction that it is food which you drink does not make it magically "not food".
Quotefood
/fo͞od/
Noun
Any nutritious substance that people or animals eat or drink, or that plants absorb, in order to maintain life and growth.
Synonyms
nourishment - fare - nutriment - aliment - pabulum
Quote from: Junkenstein on August 07, 2013, 03:29:28 PM
Either way, I still think of that matrix scene whenever he describes the drink.
Me too! Runny eggs. Also Farscape food cubes.
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on August 07, 2013, 03:06:29 PM
With efficient sustainable farming practices we could even feed four billion MORE people than are already on the planet. We have food production and distribution problems, but inability to produce the food we need is not one of them. I have the feeling that pretty much everyone on the planet would rather go vegetarian than switch to a diet of Soylent.
From a brief skim of his blog I get the impression that the feeding the poor was a marketing/attention grabbing afterthought to his 'I must never eat solids again' obsession. I didn't even think about the wasted byproduct of isolating the nutrients.
Quote from: McGrupp on August 07, 2013, 03:38:02 PM
Quote from: Junkenstein on August 07, 2013, 03:29:28 PM
Either way, I still think of that matrix scene whenever he describes the drink.
Me too! Runny eggs. Also Farscape food cubes.
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on August 07, 2013, 03:06:29 PM
With efficient sustainable farming practices we could even feed four billion MORE people than are already on the planet. We have food production and distribution problems, but inability to produce the food we need is not one of them. I have the feeling that pretty much everyone on the planet would rather go vegetarian than switch to a diet of Soylent.
From a brief skim of his blog I get the impression that the feeding the poor was a marketing/attention grabbing afterthought to his 'I must never eat solids again' obsession. I didn't even think about the wasted byproduct of isolating the nutrients.
Plus, this has been done before, in the 1940's. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clifford_Clinton
QuoteClifford E. Clinton (August 3, 1900 – November 20, 1969) was a California restaurateur who founded Meals for Millions, one of two parent organizations of Freedom from Hunger, in 1946.
In 1944, Clinton asked Dr. Henry Borsook, a Caltech biochemist, to develop a food supplement that would provide proper nutritional values while costing no more than five cents per meal. Clinton offered $5,000 of his own money to finance the research. In less than one year, Dr. Borsook had developed Multi-Purpose Food (MPF), a high-protein food supplement that could be made for just three cents per meal. This led to the founding of Meals for Millions as a not-for-profit organization in 1946. During the next ten years, 6.5 million pounds of MPF were distributed to relief agencies in 129 countries, including the United States.
Clifford E. Clinton, was also owner of a restaurant named Clifton's Cafeteria, which still exists today in Los Angeles, CA.
I had a vintage can of MPF, until my ex left it at his roommate's house.
So basically, the guy is making expensive protein shakes. Why people are even writing articles about it is beyond me.
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on August 07, 2013, 03:42:20 PM
So basically, the guy is making expensive protein shakes. Why people are even writing articles about it is beyond me.
Yeah that pretty much covers it. There's the shiny "SCIENCE!" part where it's actually good (or at least not bad) for you, and it doesn't seem to make crazy health claims like slimming drinks do. Appreciate the correction on the sloppy thinking about food too.
Clifford Clinton seems much cooler than the soylent guy.
I think this guy got picked up by calling it 'soylent' and making the ridiculous 'no food' claim. (which I kinda knee jerked into buying myself.)
I guess no one will be impressed by my watermaker invention. It runs on ice.
The guy needs to be reminded how excess protein can strain your kidneys.
Quote from: Junkenstein on August 07, 2013, 04:46:16 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on August 07, 2013, 03:42:20 PM
So basically, the guy is making expensive protein shakes. Why people are even writing articles about it is beyond me.
Yeah that pretty much covers it. There's the shiny "SCIENCE!" part where it's actually good (or at least not bad) for you, and it doesn't seem to make crazy health claims like slimming drinks do. Appreciate the correction on the sloppy thinking about food too.
That's how they suck you in, all right; I seriously resent bad/sensationalist science writers, which is almost all of them.
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on August 07, 2013, 03:42:20 PM
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"... :aaa: 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)
Quote from: :regret: on August 07, 2013, 12:26:54 PM
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.
Quote from: GrannySmith on August 08, 2013, 05:32:29 AM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on August 07, 2013, 03:42:20 PM
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"... :aaa: 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)
Quote from: :regret: on August 07, 2013, 12:26:54 PM
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.
:crankey: 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.)
Skin, nose, and ears can be fucking DELICIOUS.
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
QuoteA 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_
QuoteThe 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
Quote from: GrannySmith on August 15, 2013, 09:21:36 AM
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
QuoteA 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_
QuoteThe 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/
QuoteThere 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
Quote from: GrannySmith on August 15, 2013, 09:21:36 AM
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
QuoteA 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_
QuoteThe 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.
Quote from: McGrupp on August 15, 2013, 02:17:23 PM
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/
QuoteThere 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. :argh!: 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. :evilmad: Aaaaaanyway :) I'll sign up for data checking, though if he's right, i can imagine it getting me into trouble :lulz:
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.
Quote from: TALK TO ME ABOUT YOUR GENITALS on August 15, 2013, 06:52:01 PM
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 :)
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
QuoteSince 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.
Quotebut 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?"
QuoteHow 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.
QuotePeople 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.
Quote from: McGrupp on August 23, 2013, 04:51:02 PM
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
QuoteSince 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.
Quotebut 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?"
QuoteHow 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.
QuotePeople 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
:facepalm:
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?
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.
QuoteRob 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.
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.
Quote from: McGrupp on August 23, 2013, 05:31:15 PM
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.
QuoteRob 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.
By that logic, MILK is a magickle famine cure-all! Never eat again!
I HAVE THE CURE FOR FAMINE, IT'S CALLED FOOD.
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.
:lulz:
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!!!!
SCIENCE has determined that somehow, infants are able to survive and even grow WITHOUT FOOD for the first six months of their lives. How do they do it??
Also, his claim that it's "FDA approved".
It's FOOD. Its not like it has passed some special FDA process, it's JUST A FUCKING VEGETARIAN PROTEIN SHAKE FFS.
Not to mention that the feedtube stuff that goes in your nose has been around for decades. No one thinks that that isn't food.
It's the way the guy fucks with definitions of things that drives me nuts. Also stuff like this:
QuoteThe idea of "real food" is just snobbery.
If he made it out of rocks or dirt I would be impressed. Liquifying real food =/= synthetic
Quote from: McGrupp on August 23, 2013, 06:01:38 PM
Not to mention that the feedtube stuff that goes in your nose has been around for decades. No one thinks that that isn't food.
It's the way the guy fucks with definitions of things that drives me nuts. Also stuff like this:
QuoteThe idea of "real food" is just snobbery.
If he made it out of rocks or dirt I would be impressed. Liquifying real food =/= synthetic
Yeah, it's obnoxious.
Now, if he'd just straight-up said "it's an inexpensive nutritionally complete vegetarian protein shake" I might actually have gotten excited about it, because I totally drink protein shakes for lunch sometimes when I'm on campus and tight on time, and those things cost like $4 and have way too much sugar in them.
The outlandish claims are just toooo much, though. It makes me hope his venture crashes and burns.