Well, my estimates for long-term consequences would probably be:
Soylent is fine to consume occasionally -- 98% Soylent is fine to be a major (but not sole) part of your diet -- 90% Soylent is fine to be the sole food you consume -- 10%
Given that you didn’t mention otherwise, I assumed that you were mostly going off priors in the absence of much domain-specific knowledge, as ThrustVectoring was. I haven’t read enough of your posts to accurately gauge how heavily to weight your opinion—if my assumption is incorrect, I’d appreciate it if you would let me know.
There is no data about long-term effects of Soylent. Everyone has only priors and nothing but priors. By the way, “domain-specific knowledge” is a prior as well.
I am not sure how are you going to gauge the proper weighting for people’s opinions. This is the internet, after all. If I tell you “I’m highly credentialed. Just trust me” :-D will that satisfy you?
On a bit more serious note I prefer arguments that stand on their own, regardless of their source (and its credibility or lack thereof). In fact, nutrition is such a screwed-up field that I would probably downgrade opinions from someone who claims to be a nutritionist...
This is the internet, after all. If I tell you “I’m highly credentialed. Just trust me” :-D will that satisfy you?
Eh; it would be medium-strength evidence. Even though I have no way to verify what you say, I don’t think that you have any real incentive or motive to deceive me (given that simple trolls are unlikely to amass >2K karma). :P
(I think we’ve exhausted the usefulness of this subthread, so I probably won’t respond to any replies—tapping out.)
Um. Probably lack of noticeable health/fitness problems. But yes, it’s a vague word. On the other hand, the general level of uncertainty here is high enough to make a precise definition not worthwhile. We are not running clinical trials here.
By the way, the vagueness of “major … part of … diet” is a bigger handwave here :-/
Probably lack of noticeable health/fitness problems.
The more I read about nutrition the more I come to the conclusion that most diets do have effects. Some advantages and some disadvantages.
I thing there a good chance that A diet without any cholesterol might reduce some hormone levels and some people who look hard enough might see that as an issue.
The first one sounds underconfident (at least if you don’t count people allergic or intolerant to one of the ingredients, nor set a very high bar for what to call “fine”).
The first one can be read as saying that 2% of people occasionally drinking Soylent will have problems because of that. That doesn’t sound outlandish to me.
Well, my estimates for long-term consequences would probably be:
Soylent is fine to consume occasionally -- 98%
Soylent is fine to be a major (but not sole) part of your diet -- 90%
Soylent is fine to be the sole food you consume -- 10%
What are your credentials w.r.t. nutrition?
My credentials are my posts.
I don’t do arguments from authority.
Given that you didn’t mention otherwise, I assumed that you were mostly going off priors in the absence of much domain-specific knowledge, as ThrustVectoring was. I haven’t read enough of your posts to accurately gauge how heavily to weight your opinion—if my assumption is incorrect, I’d appreciate it if you would let me know.
There is no data about long-term effects of Soylent. Everyone has only priors and nothing but priors. By the way, “domain-specific knowledge” is a prior as well.
I am not sure how are you going to gauge the proper weighting for people’s opinions. This is the internet, after all. If I tell you “I’m highly credentialed. Just trust me” :-D will that satisfy you?
On a bit more serious note I prefer arguments that stand on their own, regardless of their source (and its credibility or lack thereof). In fact, nutrition is such a screwed-up field that I would probably downgrade opinions from someone who claims to be a nutritionist...
Eh; it would be medium-strength evidence. Even though I have no way to verify what you say, I don’t think that you have any real incentive or motive to deceive me (given that simple trolls are unlikely to amass >2K karma). :P
(I think we’ve exhausted the usefulness of this subthread, so I probably won’t respond to any replies—tapping out.)
What exactly do you mean with fine?
Um. Probably lack of noticeable health/fitness problems. But yes, it’s a vague word. On the other hand, the general level of uncertainty here is high enough to make a precise definition not worthwhile. We are not running clinical trials here.
By the way, the vagueness of “major … part of … diet” is a bigger handwave here :-/
The more I read about nutrition the more I come to the conclusion that most diets do have effects. Some advantages and some disadvantages.
I thing there a good chance that A diet without any cholesterol might reduce some hormone levels and some people who look hard enough might see that as an issue.
The first one sounds underconfident (at least if you don’t count people allergic or intolerant to one of the ingredients, nor set a very high bar for what to call “fine”).
The first one can be read as saying that 2% of people occasionally drinking Soylent will have problems because of that. That doesn’t sound outlandish to me.