ಠ_ಠ I completely disapprove of this. Soylent is a fun idea, sure, but Rhinehart’s asking for $100k to launch a Soylent manufacturing company?! He hasn’t even done even the minimal crappy self-experiments he could’ve done very easily, like randomize weeks on and off Soylent! Nor, AFAIK, has he published any of the results from the early volunteers or anything, really. This is ridiculous.
Soylent costs more than my current diet, limiting gains
it is a priori highly likely to fail since we know for a fact that severe nutrition deficiencies can be due to subtle & misunderstood factors (see: the forgetting of scurvy cures) and that nutrition is one of the least reliable scientific areas
his work is even more likely than that to have problems because he hasn’t consulted the existing work on food replacements (yes, it’s a thing; how exactly do you think people in comas or with broken jaws get fed?)
given #2, the negative effects are likely to be subtle and long-term means that on basic statistical power grounds, you’ll want long and well-powered self-experiments to go from ‘crappy self-experiment’ to ‘good self-experiment’*
given the low odds of success (#2-3), the expensive powerful self-experiments necessary to shift our original expectations substantially due to long-term effects and subtlety (#4), and the small benefits (#1), the VoI is low here
my other self-experiments, in progress and planned, suffer from many fewer of Soylent’s defects, hence have reasonable VoIs (Specifically: I am or will be investigating Noopept, melatonin, magnesium l-threonate & citrate, coluracetam, meditation, Redshift, and lithium orotate.)
VoI current/planned self-experiments (#6) > VoI Soylent cloning/tweaking (#5)
hence, the opportunity cost of Soylent is higher than not, so I will continue my existing plans
* although see my reply to Qiaochu, at this point Rob isn’t even at the ‘crappy’ level
EDIT: as of June 2015, I would amend my list of complaints to de-emphasize #3 as it seems that Soylent Inc has revised the formulation a number of times, run it by some experts, and has now been field-tested to some degree; most of my self-experiments in #6 have since finished (right now the only relevant ones are another magnesium self-experiment, trying to find the right dosage, and nonrandomized bacopa ABA quasiexperiment); and for point #1, between increasing the protein in my diet and official Soylent lowering prices, now Soylent is more like 2x my current food expenditures than 3x+.
it is a priori highly likely to fail since we know for a fact that severe nutrition deficiencies can be due to subtle & misunderstood factors (see: the forgetting of scurvy cures) and that nutrition is one of the least reliable scientific areas
While this is true, I would expect that for many people, the main risk in Soylent would be one of overdosing on something rather than acquiring a deficiency. Soylent at least tries to provide everything that you need, while many people (me included) optimize their normal diet mainly based on criteria like cost and ease of preparation rather than healthiness. And even if we did optimize it for healthiness, your argument is essentially saying that we might very well screw up and acquire deficiencies even if we tried to ensure that we got everything that we needed.… and that argument can be applied to normal diets just as well as Soylent.
So anyone who uses the “there are lots of subtle ways of acquiring nutrition deficiencies and we might not know everything that one needs” argument against Soylent would first need to show why normal diets would avoid that argument any better.
And even if we did optimize it for healthiness, your argument is essentially saying that we might very well screw up and acquire deficiencies even if we tried to ensure that we got everything that we needed.… and that argument can be applied to normal diets just as well as Soylent.
I disagree. A random basket of foods, while likely deficient in something or other, will also likely change what it’s deficient in over time, while Soylent by definition will be consistently deficient. Even if regular food vs Soylent were both equally harmful, the harm from the regular food may be less due to the variability of it. Statistics analogy borrowing from Jaynes: total error in an sampling estimate can be broken down as random error vs systematic error/bias—but random errors gradually cancel out as the sample size increases, while systematic errors remain the same. Soylent is all systematic error.
So anyone who uses the “there are lots of subtle ways of acquiring nutrition deficiencies and we might not know everything that one needs” argument against Soylent would first need to show why normal diets would avoid that argument any better.
I sympathize with this argument, but the obvious counter-argument is that lots of people have eaten normal diets and have been observed not to, for example, die of scurvy. (On the other hand, they have been observed to, for example, get heart disease.)
I sympathize with this argument, but the obvious counter-argument is that lots of people have eaten normal diets and have been observed not to, for example, die of scurvy. (On the other hand, they have been observed to, for example, get heart disease.)
That’s true. But then again, once you consider that “normal diets” is really composed of countless of different combinations of foods ranging from “fast food only” to “making a constant effort to be trying out new foods all the time”, you could also use this as an argument for Soylent being probably safe. As in, “out of all the countless possible combinations of nutritional intakes that people live on, most don’t lead to anybody dying of scurvy, so if we specifically construct one new diet for the express purpose of providing everything that one needs, it doesn’t seem like it should kill you if all those diets that weren’t constructed with that in mind don’t kill you”.
Only if you are able to track the deficiency back to its cause. To reuse scurvy, how many realized that their deficiency was of fresh fruits and vegetables? As opposed to bad air or bacterial poisoning or whatever… If you felt the symptoms of rabbit starvation but had never heard of it or been told about it, would you realize what the problem was in your diet before you happened to eat something fatty and noticed your vague hunger was finally satisfied?
So anyone who uses the “there are lots of subtle ways of acquiring nutrition deficiencies and we might not know everything that one needs” argument against Soylent would first need to show why normal diets would avoid that argument any better.
We are adapted to obtain nutrients from food. Since we currently lack a good understanding of exactly what properties of food are nutritionally relevant, it seems unwise to replace natural food with artificial food.
Yes, processed foods are quite unnatural. But Soylent is even less natural than processed foods, so this is irrelevant in the present context.
From an evolutionary standpoint, legumes, milk, and grains are “artificial” food, at least for humans. Agriculture is a recent thing. Would you also endorse the Paleolithic diet movement?
(I do actually endorse the paleolithic diet as probably optimal at the moment and I agree with your central point—I just want to point out that even unprocessed modern diets are already rather unnatural.)
Which is an order of magnitude less than the 200,000 years that we’ve been anatomically modern—although who is to say that they didn’t gather wild grains back then, too.
Of course, even 10,000 years is more than enough time for evolution to change us.
it is a priori highly likely to fail since we know for a fact that severe nutrition deficiencies can be due to subtle & misunderstood factors (see: the forgetting of scurvy cures) and that nutrition is one of the least reliable scientific areas
I think you’re wrong about that. We have modern chemistry and we have animal experimentation at scale, which means that we can feed animals highly-refined diets to determine whether any essential nutrients are missing from our models. It would be extremely surprising if there were a vital nutrient we didn’t know about.
On the other hand, there are other failure modes besides forgetting a nutrient, like using an inactive or degraded input, contamination, or for that matter, making half the calories sugar. (Which they, um, did.) I really want a correctly-executed version of Soylent, but I won’t be eating anything from the first batches, because these guys really don’t fill me with confidence.
I agree food-replacements should be doable in theory and that the existing products shouldn’t be too terrible, but Soylent does not seem to be drawing well on the existing knowledge.
I really want a correctly-executed version of Soylent, but I won’t be eating anything from the first batches, because these guys really don’t fill me with confidence.
Personally, I’d like a good Soylent too. It’d be useful for my self-experiments, since it’d help tamp down variability from my diet and increase the statistical power. But Rhinehart is doing it all wrong.
I agree with most of what you are saying, however #2 is likely to be mitigated by his not going on a soylent-only diet. Thus there is a fair chance that many subtle overlooked deficiencies in the product will be masked by the “normal” meals he still eats fairly regularly. In your scurvy example, the minimum level of Vit C required (8-10 mg per day) is far lower than what you get from a typical diet (some 10 times that, apparently), so even if he completely removed it from his product, he’d probably get enough of it from his infrequent non-soylent meals. Though his example of forgetting sulfur is a bit worrying and is evidence against this.
Sure. But I’d point out that this observation (that you can hedge your bets) cuts against Soylent as well: while consuming regular food to limit your downside from deficiencies in Soylent should work for overprovisioned substances, you’re also limiting your upside since the more regular food you consume the less Soylent you must be consuming.
Depends on what you mean by “optimistic that this will work.” Presumably Eliezer at least thinks this is positive expected value (and so do I). That doesn’t have to be because he assigns a high probability to it having positive value, it could be because he assigns a moderate probability to it having moderately high positive value or because he assigns a low probability to it having extremely high positive value, etc.
When computing the expected value, keep in mind that Soylent displaces other food, so the actual cost (assuming the project meets its funding goals) is not $65 but $65 minus however much Eliezer would otherwise have spent on food in a week. For me, and I suspect for Eliezer as well, this number is more than $65, so Eliezer can think that the expected value of replacing his food with Soylent is somewhat negative and still think it’s a good idea to try it for a week. Soylent instead of other food also saves food preparation time in addition to saving money.
Depends on what you mean by “optimistic that this will work.”
I mean buying in at the $65 for a week level.
That doesn’t have to be because he assigns a high probability to it having positive value, it could be because he assigns a moderate probability to it having moderately high positive value or because he assigns a low probability to it having extremely high positive value, etc.
I’m trying to understand the “moderate probability” part. EY’s been on so many non-working diets; this is evidence against a dietary solution working, unless there’s a reason why Soylent isn’t in that reference class.
When computing the expected value, keep in mind that Soylent displaces other food, so the actual cost (assuming the project meets its funding goals) is not $65 but $65 minus however much Eliezer would otherwise have spent on food in a week.
Have you not come across “meal replacement diet” (which may be partial or total) until now? There is a bunch of articles about it in Google Scholars, not to mention the popular media.
I don’t understand. Soylent contains maltodextrin, oat powder, whey protein from milk, olive oil, various vitamins and minerals, whereas, Slim-Fast, for example, contains milk, milk protein concentrate, sugar, maltodextrin, canola oil, various vitamins and minerals, etc. How is one more like regular food than the other?
Considering the amount of time, effort, money, and pain you have been or are willing to put in to decrease your fatness, I want to make sure that you’ve actually considered what your evidence is for whatever benefits and costs you perceive in decreasing your fatness. I haven’t looked into studies in detail, but I think even reflecting on the discourse surrounding fat has a large effect on one’s probability estimate for ‘fat is evil’. By a noticeable (though not necessarily decisive) margin, I find the most plausible explanation for what little I know about fat to be that the world is crazy, people are mad and bigoted, fatness in itself does not on average cause any actionable (i.e. calling for large intervention) significant net loss of health, the medical community has failed to convincingly demonstrate such massive ill effects after controlling for other more plausible causes despite trying extremely hard to because it is privileging a false hypothesis, and that this research agenda is both motivated by and feeds into the aforementioned societal craziness.
(I claim that I’m not counter-other-optimizing-Eliezer_Yudkowsky / epistemic other-optimizing, but I suspect it’d be epistemic other-optimizing to insist you believe that.)
Low, since I do my cooking and cleaning in downtime when I can’t bear to read any more or do something productive; and I also favor recipes like giant crockpots of soup which are both dead-easy to make and consume.
Interesting, googling around a bit it looks like it is basically soybean oil, whey, and dextrose with vitamin powders. So pretty much the same as Soylent. I guess worries about bioavailability are overblown given that coma patients survive indefinitely, but then again, their mixture is adjusted daily based on blood work.
He has; for me, cooking is about three minutes of effort spread out over the course of fifteen minutes each day.
The main benefit to a Soylent-style diet is that you get all the micronutrients and so on that are normally locked away inside vegetables, which take an inordinate amount of time to prepare and consume, in one quick drinkable source, without any concerns about pesticides or fungi or so on.
that are normally locked away inside vegetables, which take an inordinate amount of time to prepare and consume
Use frozen pre-sliced vegetables. They’re usually competitive with, if not cheaper than, fresh produce; you save a lot of time preparing them; they taste just as good to me (and better, in instances where it takes a long time to eat your way through a purchase and the fresh vegetables are, shall we say, less than fresh by the time you eat them). You can easily dump them into crockpot recipes, or you can just put them in a bowl, microwave with some herbs/spices and butter, and reheat as necessary.
Agreed. I use frozen vegetables for anything I cook that has vegetables in it, but that’s pretty rare. Mostly I eat raw sliced sweet potatoes (where the time is in the peeling and slicing) and microwaved kale (which has gotten much less time consuming now that I buy the precut and prewashed version, rather than bunches).
I dislike kale, so no comments there, but why would you peel sweet potatoes? The skin tastes fine and I assume like regular potatoes has a lot of the nutrients in it. When I harvest my sweet potatoes, I just slice them.
The stuff you want is called Jevity. It’s a complete liquid diet that’s used for feeding tube patients (Ebert after cancer being one of the most famous). It can be consumed orally, and you can buy it in bulk from Amazon. It’s been designed by people who are experts in nutrition and has been used for years by patients as a sole food source.
Of course, Jevity only claims to keep you alive and healthy as your only food source, not to trim your fat, sharpen your brain, etc. But I’m fairly sure that has more to do with ethics, a basic knowledge of the subject, and an understanding of the necessity of double blind studies for medical claims than someone finding out the secrets to perfect health who forgot iron and sulfur in their supplement.
If a person is interested in Soylent for sake of saving money, then a similar product that costs more than ordinary food is automatically known not to work.
Hopefully, mass producing Soylent will drive down the price. As of now, it is close, but not cutting it as a total replacement for me. Temporay adoption on the other hand...
I would strongly recommend against doing this; a meal replacement shake designed by one guy simply won’t cover every possible nutrient/compound you’d need from food.
It’ll be healthier and more enjoyable just to eat actual food. Our understanding of nutrition is growing, but we’re not at the point where we can apply reductionism to food. Supplements are extremely effective as part of a diet, but we don’t know enough to make a diet completely based upon supplements.
If you’re going to go for meal replacement anyway, don’t choose soylent. His understanding of nutrition is mediocre at best; as an example, he put no cholesterol at all in his original formula (I have no idea if he’s updated it or not).
Food is good, but not that good. For instance, 95% of the time, I settle for eating something unhealthy and not particularly appetizing, because it is easy and quick to make. If I were cooking for someone else, this may be a different story. When I first read the Odyssey by Homer, my professor told me the Greek behaved as though sharing a meal was a spiritual experience, which is reflected in our culture (dinner dates, family meals, holidays etc.)
But as I currently do not eat with others on a regular basis, I think it would be of greater utility to go with whole food replacement, and eat with others on rare occasions, provided the cost for food replacement is low enough. Or I can explore new post-food psycho-social opportunities, which should be interesting in of itself.
I meant, until now, that the ONLY OPTIONS were “healthy diet” and “shit diet” under this schema. So “anything is better than a shit diet” is an odd claim to make.
Go to a pharmacy and ask about a complete liquid diet for someone who had jaw surgery? They should have stuff that’s pretty much Soylent, but more expensive and designed and tested by experts.
A quick & dirty Google search returns a recent paper, which lists Optifast, KicStart, and Optislim as brands “packaged and marketed as very-low-energy diets (VLED), defined as total dietary replacement with FMR [formulated meal replacements]”. The “Price per serve” of those brands, incidentally, is given as 1.87 to 2.99 AUD in table 1.
They also seem to be intended for weight loss, so you might want to augment your calories with normal, high-energy foods. Or maybe you can double up on servings, I dunno.
Edit: amusingly, all of these mixtures made by the pros also seem to be deficient in various nutrients. Most of the VLED brands don’t meet a “recommended dietary intake” or “adequate intake” baseline for protein, calcium, phosphorus, potassium or magnesium. Maybe you should nosh on some chicken, bananas, and a daily mineral supplement too?
I’m going to recommend something less specific—researching what’s going on with your metabolism, instead of trying things that seem to work for some fraction of other people.
These are some fast guesses—my impression is that it can take years [1] to track down this sort of thing. Also, I don’t know how much of this has already been done.
Start with five minutes thought. What does Eliezer know about his symptoms? Can anything be deduced by mulling over them?
I’d start with poking around to find out whether other people have the same pattern of symptoms. Does it have a medical name? What does medical research say about what works? What do people say about what works? Do the symptoms ever become better or worse? Does this correlate with something that could be experimented with?
Hire MetaMed, but also look for anecdotal information.
I’m going to recommend some caution about experiments—so far as I know, Eliezer has fairly good health. He’s got some energy problems, an inability to lose weight, reacts very badly to missing a meal, and doesn’t get any good from exercise. There’s a lot of room for making things worse.
I’m in substantial agreement with this, but I do think the bad reaction to missing a meal is enough to be of at least a little concern. On the other hand, the cultural issues around fat are weird and extreme enough that it could explain the lack of thought that’s gone into Eliezer’s efforts to lose weight.
[1] Something in the neighborhood of 2 years or more for people who report success. Original research takes time.
Total meal replacement shakes exist, although I have no idea about pricing. However, going down this route is basically ensuring sub-optimal nutrition. We know a ton about nutrition, but not enough to have an optimal diet without food.
Total meal replacement shakes exist, although I have no idea about pricing. However, going down this route is basically ensuring sub-optimal nutrition.
Very nearly every other diet is also sub-optimal. Most of them are quite probably worse than what we can do via supplementation.
I looked at what’s available in Finnish pharmacies, and they seem to be in the $20 a day ballpark mentioned elsewhere in the thread if you aren’t going to eat anything else.
It’ll be healthier and more enjoyable just to eat actual food
I tried that. It didn’t work.
Could you be more speciifc? (In particular with respect to macronutrient ratios, and whether you’ve ever been in ketosis and confirmed it with a blood or urine test.) I have a strong prior against people having tried all the things, even if they’ve tried to try them, since some of the strategies are easy to do incorrectly without realizing it.
Agreed; this is particularly true for things like creatine. But most Americans have cholesterol higher than recommended, and most of the health risks I’m seeing associated with low cholesterol are “if your cholesterol suddenly drops without a known cause, this is a warning sign for disease.” Is there something else I should be aware of?
[edit] Thought I should quote the relevant section of the DRIs:
All tissues are capable of synthesizing enough cholesterol to meet their metabolic and structural needs. Consequently, there is no evidence for a biological requirement for dietary cholesterol. Neither an Estimated Average Requirement (EAR), and thus a Recommended Dietary Allowance (RDA), nor an Adequate Intake (AI) was set for cholesterol.
Much evidence indicates a positive linear trend between cholesterol intake and low density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol concentration, and therefore an increased risk of coronary heart disease (CHD). A Tolerable Upper Intake Level (UL) was not set for cholesterol because any incremental increase in cholesterol intake increases CHD risk. It is recommended that people maintain their dietary cholesterol intake as low as possible, while consuming a diet that is nutritionally adequate in all required nutrients.
Dietary cholesterol and lipid cholesterol aren’t the same thing either, and just as your body can compensate for an intake of 0 cholesterol, it can likewise compensate for an intake of excess cholesterol.
It’s not clear to me yet why I should expect a cholesterol intake above 0 to have superior health outcomes to a cholesterol intake of 0. You don’t need to argue that the body can compensate for excess cholesterol; even perfect compensation would just mean that small intake is just as good as 0 intake. You need to argue that without intake, the body will produce a suboptimal amount of cholesterol. Is there any evidence of that?
I am tired of eating too, and have looked seriously into building it myself. It’s not clear yet whether doing it myself is worth the additional costs over outsourcing it to him; I think I can do significantly better, but doing it right is a significant amount of work.
I think he meant that someone else might use it even if it’s not worth it to you personally. Though if I’m reading your earlier comment right, the “work” referred to the recipe rather than the mixing and measuring, so that wouldn’t apply.
I think he meant that someone else might use it even if it’s not worth it to you personally.
If I decide to not do it myself, then of course I’ll post the ideas and send friendly emails to the guys at Soylent. But that doesn’t seem like a good move while uncertain about whether or not to compete with them.
if I’m reading your earlier comment right, the “work” referred to the recipe rather than the mixing and measuring
The recipe is part of the work, but the larger part of the work in doing it right would be replacing “the” recipe with a system for generating recipes and determining the quality of recipes.
The recipe is part of the work, but the larger part of the work in doing it right would be replacing “the” recipe with a system for generating recipes and determining the quality of recipes.
You can go as meta as you want, as long as the result is still a better recipe I still call it “work for the recipe” ;-)
I don’t think our knowledge of human physiology is sufficient to construct a complete food replacement from scratch. It will have to be personalized, anyway, and we need a lot more of basic research to get there.
I suspect most people considering Soylent aren’t exactly eating like Michael Pollan in the first place. Anecdotally, I know several people who subsist on diets of fast-food takeout washed down by multiple liters of soda. It seems credible that Soylent might at least provide better nutrition than that. The scorn directed at Soylent by many of the Hacker News commenters strikes me as misdirected given the relatively poor quality diet of many Americans.
I have used other commercially available meal replacement shakes in the past—most don’t even attempt to deliver complete nutrition beyond covering each of the major macronutrients (protein, carbohydrate, fat). There seems to be room for improvement and innovation in this market.
If they do encounter deficiency issues, they can simply reintroduce other foods without suffering catastrophic effects.
And how would they know? Let’s say a child develops a iodine deficiency—a common consequence is the drop in IQ, 10-15 points on the average. You think this will be detected in time to fix this? Let’s imagine—not an improbable scenario at all—that a deficiency of micronutrient X doubles or triples your risk of some old-age disease Y. By the time you’re diagnosed with Y it’s way too late to do anything.
I’d point out that iodine deficiency’s effect on IQ seems to be entirely prenatal—that is, there is a window of vulnerability during a human’s development, and once they’re past that, iodine deficiency no longer operates on IQ (for better or worse) and all that’s left are more minor effects like reducing goiters. Seems possible that a lot of nutrients are like that: main effects of deficiency are in childhood/infancy/prenatal.
Severe iodine deficiency tends to be much more common in diabetic patients, and hypothyroidism (most commonly caused by iodine deficiency or hashimoto’s thyroiditis) tends to be comorbid with diabetes.
By the time you’re diagnosed with Y it’s way too late to do anything.
OK, that’s probably true. It is also true in the case of deficiencies arising from a more conventional diet however. How frequently do micronutrient deficiencies occur under regular diets? How is the chance of timely detection and intervention affected by controlled intake in conjunction with deliberate ongoing monitoring versus an unmonitored ad libitum diet?
Let’s consider two contrasting propositions regarding diet and nutrition:
A) Consuming a varied diet of naturally occurring, unprocessed foods prevents micronutrient deficiencies.
B) Deliberately engineered supplementation prevents micronutrient deficiencies.
Before reading on, take a moment to consider how much confidence you have in proposition A versus B.
Since you introduced the example of iodine deficiency, let’s consider it in more depth. The Wikipedia page on iodine deficiency indicates: “According to World Health Organization, in 2007, nearly 2 billion individuals had insufficient iodine intake …”
Furthermore, this deficiency appears to be common even in wealthy industrialized countries where a wide variety of food is readily available: “In a study of the United Kingdom published in 2011, almost 70% of test subjects were found to be iodine deficient.”
The article proceeds to explain that iodine deficiency is addressed by deliberately and artificially introducing supplemental iodine into the food supply.
I’m shocked to learn just how widespread iodine deficiency is among people eating a “normal” diet (I would have guessed less than 10% prevalence). It seems like traditional diets do a startlingly poor job of avoiding this particular deficiency. I’m updating my beliefs in favor of proposition B over A in light of this data.
I’m shocked to learn just how widespread iodine deficiency is among people eating a “normal” diet (I would have guessed less than 10% prevalence).
The worst part is, a lot of that decline is from people trying to eat ‘healthy’ - and cut out as much salt as possible. Guess what the main source of iodine for people who can’t afford seafood for every meal is? Iodized salt.
(If you want US figures for deficiency, you can find some cites in my iodine page, or simply search for papers related to the long-running NHANES survey which is the main source of evidence.)
If you’re willing to guinea pig, please try this if you haven’t already. It’s short on macro-nutrients, but perhaps it would pair nicely with macro-nutrient focussed substitutes. I’m interested in comparisons between how these products compare to the actual constituent ingredients consumed normally, but don’t value the information enough to try it myself.
Rhinehart’s asking for $100k to launch a Soylent manufacturing company...This is ridiculous.
He plans to use some of the money to run formal clinical trials. See this video. As a matter of fact, Rob says in the same video that completely replacing food with Soylent is “not the intended use”, and also states that “I wasn’t trying to create something ideal; I was trying to create something better.” And, for me, and for a visible fraction of the world population, it probably succeeds in that goal. I hate eating lunch and I never eat anything nutritious, then, anyways. It probably would be a net improvement for me to replace breakfast with Soylent, too.
“Ridiculous” is the wrong word to use here. Rob got $200k in less than 24 hours after asking for $100k in one month, so the request wasn’t absurd (I’m aware of hindsight bias, here; I just noticed that the underestimation was vast). I think we should be taking a close look at what Rob is doing right, at this point. If you think his experiment is a waste of your time and you refuse to contribute to it, that is clearly completely fine. However, if you intend to condemn everyone who does not eat as well as you and who is more interested in self-experimentation, then that is ridiculous.
at this point Rob isn’t even at the ‘crappy’ level [of self-experimentation]
Well, let’s fix this. I bought a month’s supply of Soylent. What self-experimentation would you like me to do, that you don’t have the time/money/willingness to do yourself? Even with such a small amount, could you specify an experimental method I could follow that would at least be at your “crappy” level? I’d sincerely appreciate that, and I’d be happy to follow it.
(A major reorganization edit was made to the original comment.)
He plans to use some of the money to run formal clinical trials.
Promissory notes and jam tomorrow. He didn’t bother to run the most trivial experiments on himself, he hasn’t released information on the existing volunteers he mailed Soylent off to a while ago, and so I’m not optimistic about what clinical trials he’ll fund—especially considering that costs are always higher than one expects so he’ll have pressing demands on his funds (and why should he fund trials, when he already has so many geeks pressing funds on him already?)
I think “ridiculous” is the wrong word to use, here. The fact is, he got over $200k in less than 24 hours, so I think “rational” might be more appropriate.
Instrumentally rational, perhaps, but still ridiculous. It may not be too harmful snake oil, it may improve over time, but investment in it is still a bad idea and the evidence for its efficacy is non-existent. People giving him >$200k for this is ridiculous.
However, if you intend to condemn everyone who does not eat as well as you and who is more interested in self-experimentation, then that is ridiculous.
Who are these people even more interested in self-experimentation than me? I would be fascinated to see them. Are these the same people who can’t be bothered to post any info at all on their Soylent consumption? Or do simple experiments like randomize weeks? This does not sound like people interested in self-experimentation, this sounds like a flock of gullible sheep eagerly paying up for the latest gimmick and getting angry at people harshing on their groove. ‘Like, that’s your opinion man! Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the better!’
And, for me, and for a visible fraction of the world population, it probably succeeds in that goal. I hate eating lunch and I never eat anything nutritious, then, anyways. It probably would be a net improvement for me to replace breakfast with Soylent, too.
I highly doubt that. Look at Eliezer on this page. Do you really think Soylent is going to funge against eating candy and pizza for lunch?
He plans to use some of the money to run formal clinical trials.
Promissory notes and jam tomorrow.
As of 2015, even the vague pious hope of trials seems to have been long abandoned; apparently Rhinehart & Soylent are quite busy merely shipping and keeping things running...
Thanks for the reply. I had just finished editing my comment right as you were replying, and it’s much cleaner now. I’d really appreciate it if you looked at it again (even if everything you said still applies).
Of course blocking on weeks wouldn’t rule out long-term side-effects. (Nothing would, short of a multi-decade RCT to investigate all-cause mortality.)
My point was that he hasn’t even done that much. Yet, he is happy to blog about the 1 week he took off Soylent to fly to LA and how crappy he felt wandering around a strange city and how this proves normal food sucks...
Just because he hasn’t personally done much in the way of personal experimentation doesn’t mean he’s not riding on a large volume of experimental evidence. Just using RDA values and all known micronutrients (not that his history has exactly been stellar in actually doing so) should get him almost all the way to where he wants his product to be.
(I’m really dubious of the carbohydrate he uses, though.)
And provided people are willing to eat a meal or two outside the system, their cravings should guide them to whatever nutrients it is they’re lacking in.
So… I’m not sure I approve of the level of enthusiasm for the project that exists. But by the same token, I don’t think the extreme pessimism is warranted, either.
The concept is good, but the methodology could have been significantly better. It has lots of potential, and the real danger is limited to those that will be consuming ONLY Soylent for extended periods. Using it to replace a meal or two a day, and having a complete meal every day, shouldn’t be dangerous (I think).
What confuses me about the negativity is, what’s so bad about the current situation? The earliest of adopters will serve as a giant trial, and if there are problems they’ll come up there.
Also: people who intend to switch to JUST soylent should be monitored by a doctor or a nutritionist, at least for the first while. And post it either here or on the Solyent board. I am very interested to hear some anecdata.
What confuses me about the negativity is, what’s so bad about the current situation? The earliest of adopters will serve as a giant trial, and if there are problems they’ll come up there.
No, they won’t. Or, if they are interpretable as a trial, it’ll be as the worst epidemiological survey ever run—no blinding, no followup, response bias out the wazoo, attrition, expectancy and Hawthorne effects already built in etc etc. You name a bias, this (‘hand out goodies and hope someone will report problems’) will have it. You ever wonder why we have things like ‘evidence-based medicine’? It’s because when we hand out goodies and hope people will tell us how well it works, we get people grinding up tiger penises because nothing works better for fixing your virility problems! Everyone says so! And how could they be wrong, right?
To quote myself again from my G+ thread:
For [How many people will get sick/die?], there’s no way to tell. People get sick and die all the time. No one will be reporting systematically, which means that no matter how many datapoints you collect, your results will still be worthless because increased sample size only reduces random error, it doesn’t reduce systematic error which sets a floor on your result’s quality (see the ‘emperor of China’ bit in http://www.gwern.net/DNB%20FAQ#flaws-in-mainstream-science-and-psychology ) - and with a random release to enthusiasts like this, the systematic error/bias is going to be huge.
What do you expect will happen? Do you think lots of people are going to get very sick by going on a Soylent-only diet immediately, not monitoring their health closely, and ending up with serious nutritional deficiencies? That’s one of the more negative scenario, but I honestly don’t know how likely that is. I think people are likely to do at least one of three things:
Monitor their health more closely (especially on a soylent-only diet),
Only replace a few meals with Soylent (not more than, say, 75%),
Return to normal food or see a doctor if a serious deficiency occurs.
Then again, I may have too much confidence in people’s common sense. Rob is definitely marketing it as a finished product and a miracle solution.
I think there will be a range of issues from a few diehards hitting serious issues to people just having low-grade issues which they don’t notice because they won’t be randomizing blocks, effects similar to the hedonic treadmill will make it hard to compare over time, they’ll get initial benefits from the usual placebo/Hawthorne/overjustification effects, and subjective self-rating has many known loopholes where you can think you’re getting better even as you’re actually getting worse—but regardless of the exact distribution or what the worst-cases look like, we won’t know for the reasons I list above.
Instead, we’ll get another internet circle-jerk about how Soylent is awesome and the critics are wrong.
What would you like to see done differently? You mentioned the more thorough self-experimentation he could have done (really should have done), but there’s still someone else who could step up to the plate and do some self-testing.
Thorough studies? Those might also be done some time in the future, whether or not they’re funded by Rob (not sure about this point, there might not be an incentive to do so once it’s being sold).
Sure, Rob jumped the gun and hyped it up. But most of the internet is already a giant circle-jerk. Doesn’t stop people from generating real information, right?
Doesn’t stop people from generating real information, right?
That’s the damnable thing about these sorts of biases, it’s not clear to me whether one can compensate for the biases. If you pay attention to the ‘real information’, you may wind up learning what we might call anti-information—information that predictably and systematically makes your beliefs worse than your defaults.
This is the problem of the clever arguer: how do you, and can you, adjust for the fact that all the reports coming out about Soylent are so deeply error-prone (and now with the kickstarter, we get a delicious cherry on top of conflicts of interest)?
I would much rather have a handful of randomized self-experiments from some obscure blogger interested in a weird recipe he came up with than a forum of Soylent enthusiasts raving to each other that the latest formulation on sale is the greatest ever and telling each other that if you feel bad you should be eating your Soylent twice a day and not three times a day, don’t you know about intermittent fasting?, and also I ran 20 seconds faster today, so Soylent must be working for me!
Ok, I see what your concern is, with the hype around Soylent everyone’s opinion is skewed (even if they’re not among the fanboys).
You decided above that it wasn’t worth your time to try your own self-experiments with it. What if someone else were to take the time to do it? I like the concept but agree with the major troubles you listed above, and I have no experience with designing self-experiments. But maybe I’ll take the time to try and do it properly, long-term, with regular blood tests, noting what I’ve been eating for a couple months before starting, taking data about my fitness levels, etc. Of course, I would need to analyze the risk to myself beforehand.
What if someone else were to take the time to do it?
If they actually go through with it and write it up, that’s better than the status quo, yes. But if they don’t determine to go through with it and may give up, it’s another selection bias, specifically, publication bias (person A does a self-experiment but halfway through runs out of spare effort and abandons it; person B, by chance, gets better results and blogs about it etc).
To copy over my earlier G+ comment:
ಠ_ಠ I completely disapprove of this. Soylent is a fun idea, sure, but Rhinehart’s asking for $100k to launch a Soylent manufacturing company?! He hasn’t even done even the minimal crappy self-experiments he could’ve done very easily, like randomize weeks on and off Soylent! Nor, AFAIK, has he published any of the results from the early volunteers or anything, really. This is ridiculous.
See also Hacker News
Build a better one yourself? I’m tired of eating.
Factors why I have not and probably will not:
Soylent costs more than my current diet, limiting gains
it is a priori highly likely to fail since we know for a fact that severe nutrition deficiencies can be due to subtle & misunderstood factors (see: the forgetting of scurvy cures) and that nutrition is one of the least reliable scientific areas
his work is even more likely than that to have problems because he hasn’t consulted the existing work on food replacements (yes, it’s a thing; how exactly do you think people in comas or with broken jaws get fed?)
given #2, the negative effects are likely to be subtle and long-term means that on basic statistical power grounds, you’ll want long and well-powered self-experiments to go from ‘crappy self-experiment’ to ‘good self-experiment’*
given the low odds of success (#2-3), the expensive powerful self-experiments necessary to shift our original expectations substantially due to long-term effects and subtlety (#4), and the small benefits (#1), the VoI is low here
my other self-experiments, in progress and planned, suffer from many fewer of Soylent’s defects, hence have reasonable VoIs (Specifically: I am or will be investigating Noopept, melatonin, magnesium l-threonate & citrate, coluracetam, meditation, Redshift, and lithium orotate.)
VoI current/planned self-experiments (#6) > VoI Soylent cloning/tweaking (#5)
hence, the opportunity cost of Soylent is higher than not, so I will continue my existing plans
* although see my reply to Qiaochu, at this point Rob isn’t even at the ‘crappy’ level
EDIT: as of June 2015, I would amend my list of complaints to de-emphasize #3 as it seems that Soylent Inc has revised the formulation a number of times, run it by some experts, and has now been field-tested to some degree; most of my self-experiments in #6 have since finished (right now the only relevant ones are another magnesium self-experiment, trying to find the right dosage, and nonrandomized bacopa ABA quasiexperiment); and for point #1, between increasing the protein in my diet and official Soylent lowering prices, now Soylent is more like 2x my current food expenditures than 3x+.
While this is true, I would expect that for many people, the main risk in Soylent would be one of overdosing on something rather than acquiring a deficiency. Soylent at least tries to provide everything that you need, while many people (me included) optimize their normal diet mainly based on criteria like cost and ease of preparation rather than healthiness. And even if we did optimize it for healthiness, your argument is essentially saying that we might very well screw up and acquire deficiencies even if we tried to ensure that we got everything that we needed.… and that argument can be applied to normal diets just as well as Soylent.
So anyone who uses the “there are lots of subtle ways of acquiring nutrition deficiencies and we might not know everything that one needs” argument against Soylent would first need to show why normal diets would avoid that argument any better.
I disagree. A random basket of foods, while likely deficient in something or other, will also likely change what it’s deficient in over time, while Soylent by definition will be consistently deficient. Even if regular food vs Soylent were both equally harmful, the harm from the regular food may be less due to the variability of it. Statistics analogy borrowing from Jaynes: total error in an sampling estimate can be broken down as random error vs systematic error/bias—but random errors gradually cancel out as the sample size increases, while systematic errors remain the same. Soylent is all systematic error.
Hmm. I’ll grant that.
I sympathize with this argument, but the obvious counter-argument is that lots of people have eaten normal diets and have been observed not to, for example, die of scurvy. (On the other hand, they have been observed to, for example, get heart disease.)
That’s true. But then again, once you consider that “normal diets” is really composed of countless of different combinations of foods ranging from “fast food only” to “making a constant effort to be trying out new foods all the time”, you could also use this as an argument for Soylent being probably safe. As in, “out of all the countless possible combinations of nutritional intakes that people live on, most don’t lead to anybody dying of scurvy, so if we specifically construct one new diet for the express purpose of providing everything that one needs, it doesn’t seem like it should kill you if all those diets that weren’t constructed with that in mind don’t kill you”.
Not to mention, worst case scenario, if you experience a deficiency, you are still in civilization and may switch back to a normal diet.
Only if you are able to track the deficiency back to its cause. To reuse scurvy, how many realized that their deficiency was of fresh fruits and vegetables? As opposed to bad air or bacterial poisoning or whatever… If you felt the symptoms of rabbit starvation but had never heard of it or been told about it, would you realize what the problem was in your diet before you happened to eat something fatty and noticed your vague hunger was finally satisfied?
The wisdom of nature
Not sure how that applies here, even if we disregard the processed foods that many people live on also being quite unnatural.
We are adapted to obtain nutrients from food. Since we currently lack a good understanding of exactly what properties of food are nutritionally relevant, it seems unwise to replace natural food with artificial food.
Yes, processed foods are quite unnatural. But Soylent is even less natural than processed foods, so this is irrelevant in the present context.
From an evolutionary standpoint, legumes, milk, and grains are “artificial” food, at least for humans. Agriculture is a recent thing. Would you also endorse the Paleolithic diet movement?
(I do actually endorse the paleolithic diet as probably optimal at the moment and I agree with your central point—I just want to point out that even unprocessed modern diets are already rather unnatural.)
Although agriculture is only about 10,000 years old, humans have been gathering and eating wild grains for 30,000.
Which is an order of magnitude less than the 200,000 years that we’ve been anatomically modern—although who is to say that they didn’t gather wild grains back then, too.
Of course, even 10,000 years is more than enough time for evolution to change us.
I think you’re wrong about that. We have modern chemistry and we have animal experimentation at scale, which means that we can feed animals highly-refined diets to determine whether any essential nutrients are missing from our models. It would be extremely surprising if there were a vital nutrient we didn’t know about.
On the other hand, there are other failure modes besides forgetting a nutrient, like using an inactive or degraded input, contamination, or for that matter, making half the calories sugar. (Which they, um, did.) I really want a correctly-executed version of Soylent, but I won’t be eating anything from the first batches, because these guys really don’t fill me with confidence.
I agree food-replacements should be doable in theory and that the existing products shouldn’t be too terrible, but Soylent does not seem to be drawing well on the existing knowledge.
Personally, I’d like a good Soylent too. It’d be useful for my self-experiments, since it’d help tamp down variability from my diet and increase the statistical power. But Rhinehart is doing it all wrong.
I agree with most of what you are saying, however #2 is likely to be mitigated by his not going on a soylent-only diet. Thus there is a fair chance that many subtle overlooked deficiencies in the product will be masked by the “normal” meals he still eats fairly regularly. In your scurvy example, the minimum level of Vit C required (8-10 mg per day) is far lower than what you get from a typical diet (some 10 times that, apparently), so even if he completely removed it from his product, he’d probably get enough of it from his infrequent non-soylent meals. Though his example of forgetting sulfur is a bit worrying and is evidence against this.
Sure. But I’d point out that this observation (that you can hedge your bets) cuts against Soylent as well: while consuming regular food to limit your downside from deficiencies in Soylent should work for overprovisioned substances, you’re also limiting your upside since the more regular food you consume the less Soylent you must be consuming.
Guess we’re all stuck with Soylent then! In for $65.
See also: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5746844
I look forward to your self-experiments...
I’m curious why you’re apparently optimistic that this will work for you, when nothing else has.
Depends on what you mean by “optimistic that this will work.” Presumably Eliezer at least thinks this is positive expected value (and so do I). That doesn’t have to be because he assigns a high probability to it having positive value, it could be because he assigns a moderate probability to it having moderately high positive value or because he assigns a low probability to it having extremely high positive value, etc.
When computing the expected value, keep in mind that Soylent displaces other food, so the actual cost (assuming the project meets its funding goals) is not $65 but $65 minus however much Eliezer would otherwise have spent on food in a week. For me, and I suspect for Eliezer as well, this number is more than $65, so Eliezer can think that the expected value of replacing his food with Soylent is somewhat negative and still think it’s a good idea to try it for a week. Soylent instead of other food also saves food preparation time in addition to saving money.
I mean buying in at the $65 for a week level.
I’m trying to understand the “moderate probability” part. EY’s been on so many non-working diets; this is evidence against a dietary solution working, unless there’s a reason why Soylent isn’t in that reference class.
Obviously.
All of the other diets involve food?
Yep.
Have you not come across “meal replacement diet” (which may be partial or total) until now? There is a bunch of articles about it in Google Scholars, not to mention the popular media.
The meal replacements I’ve seen look a lot more like regular food than Soylent does.
I don’t understand. Soylent contains maltodextrin, oat powder, whey protein from milk, olive oil, various vitamins and minerals, whereas, Slim-Fast, for example, contains milk, milk protein concentrate, sugar, maltodextrin, canola oil, various vitamins and minerals, etc. How is one more like regular food than the other?
Considering the amount of time, effort, money, and pain you have been or are willing to put in to decrease your fatness, I want to make sure that you’ve actually considered what your evidence is for whatever benefits and costs you perceive in decreasing your fatness. I haven’t looked into studies in detail, but I think even reflecting on the discourse surrounding fat has a large effect on one’s probability estimate for ‘fat is evil’. By a noticeable (though not necessarily decisive) margin, I find the most plausible explanation for what little I know about fat to be that the world is crazy, people are mad and bigoted, fatness in itself does not on average cause any actionable (i.e. calling for large intervention) significant net loss of health, the medical community has failed to convincingly demonstrate such massive ill effects after controlling for other more plausible causes despite trying extremely hard to because it is privileging a false hypothesis, and that this research agenda is both motivated by and feeds into the aforementioned societal craziness.
(I claim that I’m not counter-other-optimizing-Eliezer_Yudkowsky / epistemic other-optimizing, but I suspect it’d be epistemic other-optimizing to insist you believe that.)
This did control for lots of stuff.
1 is based on assigning what value to your time?
Low, since I do my cooking and cleaning in downtime when I can’t bear to read any more or do something productive; and I also favor recipes like giant crockpots of soup which are both dead-easy to make and consume.
Do you have any pointers for finding info on #3? Searching around for various related terminology isn’t coming up with much.
Possible starting point: Parenteral nutrition
Interesting, googling around a bit it looks like it is basically soybean oil, whey, and dextrose with vitamin powders. So pretty much the same as Soylent. I guess worries about bioavailability are overblown given that coma patients survive indefinitely, but then again, their mixture is adjusted daily based on blood work.
It’s also given via IV, which means bioavailability via digestion wouldn’t apply.
o.O
My current diet runs me around $2-4 a day; Soylent is ~$10 a day, which is a significant increase. I expect gwern’s numbers are similar.
(I was about to ask about the value of the time spent cooking, but it turns out he’s already answered that.)
He has; for me, cooking is about three minutes of effort spread out over the course of fifteen minutes each day.
The main benefit to a Soylent-style diet is that you get all the micronutrients and so on that are normally locked away inside vegetables, which take an inordinate amount of time to prepare and consume, in one quick drinkable source, without any concerns about pesticides or fungi or so on.
Use frozen pre-sliced vegetables. They’re usually competitive with, if not cheaper than, fresh produce; you save a lot of time preparing them; they taste just as good to me (and better, in instances where it takes a long time to eat your way through a purchase and the fresh vegetables are, shall we say, less than fresh by the time you eat them). You can easily dump them into crockpot recipes, or you can just put them in a bowl, microwave with some herbs/spices and butter, and reheat as necessary.
Agreed. I use frozen vegetables for anything I cook that has vegetables in it, but that’s pretty rare. Mostly I eat raw sliced sweet potatoes (where the time is in the peeling and slicing) and microwaved kale (which has gotten much less time consuming now that I buy the precut and prewashed version, rather than bunches).
I dislike kale, so no comments there, but why would you peel sweet potatoes? The skin tastes fine and I assume like regular potatoes has a lot of the nutrients in it. When I harvest my sweet potatoes, I just slice them.
The stuff you want is called Jevity. It’s a complete liquid diet that’s used for feeding tube patients (Ebert after cancer being one of the most famous). It can be consumed orally, and you can buy it in bulk from Amazon. It’s been designed by people who are experts in nutrition and has been used for years by patients as a sole food source.
Of course, Jevity only claims to keep you alive and healthy as your only food source, not to trim your fat, sharpen your brain, etc. But I’m fairly sure that has more to do with ethics, a basic knowledge of the subject, and an understanding of the necessity of double blind studies for medical claims than someone finding out the secrets to perfect health who forgot iron and sulfur in their supplement.
Looks like it is 1c/cal. $20/day is not reasonable.
… for a product that’s actually clinically tested and pretty well known to work?
If a person is interested in Soylent for sake of saving money, then a similar product that costs more than ordinary food is automatically known not to work.
Hopefully, mass producing Soylent will drive down the price. As of now, it is close, but not cutting it as a total replacement for me. Temporay adoption on the other hand...
If convenience is the primary driver it is running into “I can eat out every meal every day” at those prices.
I would strongly recommend against doing this; a meal replacement shake designed by one guy simply won’t cover every possible nutrient/compound you’d need from food.
It’ll be healthier and more enjoyable just to eat actual food. Our understanding of nutrition is growing, but we’re not at the point where we can apply reductionism to food. Supplements are extremely effective as part of a diet, but we don’t know enough to make a diet completely based upon supplements.
If you’re going to go for meal replacement anyway, don’t choose soylent. His understanding of nutrition is mediocre at best; as an example, he put no cholesterol at all in his original formula (I have no idea if he’s updated it or not).
Food is good, but not that good. For instance, 95% of the time, I settle for eating something unhealthy and not particularly appetizing, because it is easy and quick to make. If I were cooking for someone else, this may be a different story. When I first read the Odyssey by Homer, my professor told me the Greek behaved as though sharing a meal was a spiritual experience, which is reflected in our culture (dinner dates, family meals, holidays etc.)
But as I currently do not eat with others on a regular basis, I think it would be of greater utility to go with whole food replacement, and eat with others on rare occasions, provided the cost for food replacement is low enough. Or I can explore new post-food psycho-social opportunities, which should be interesting in of itself.
Yes, it’s better than a shit diet. Pretty much anything is better than shitty diet, though.
My point is that Soylent will be suboptimal. Also, most of the claims they make can’t be substantiated.
So … what other options are you including in “anything”, exactly?
I think it goes without saying what I mean. Healthy diet > soylent > shit diet
I meant, until now, that the ONLY OPTIONS were “healthy diet” and “shit diet” under this schema. So “anything is better than a shit diet” is an odd claim to make.
Unless you know of another option?
Huh? Diets are on a spectrum, from shitty to healthy.
… good point. You’re right, Soylent isn’t going to be the highest possible thing on that scale.
I tried that. It didn’t work. If you have something specific to recommend that can replace meals instead of Soylent, speak up.
Go to a pharmacy and ask about a complete liquid diet for someone who had jaw surgery? They should have stuff that’s pretty much Soylent, but more expensive and designed and tested by experts.
Yup, and the magic search keywords here seem to be “total diet replacement”.
A quick & dirty Google search returns a recent paper, which lists Optifast, KicStart, and Optislim as brands “packaged and marketed as very-low-energy diets (VLED), defined as total dietary replacement with FMR [formulated meal replacements]”. The “Price per serve” of those brands, incidentally, is given as 1.87 to 2.99 AUD in table 1.
They also seem to be intended for weight loss, so you might want to augment your calories with normal, high-energy foods. Or maybe you can double up on servings, I dunno.
Edit: amusingly, all of these mixtures made by the pros also seem to be deficient in various nutrients. Most of the VLED brands don’t meet a “recommended dietary intake” or “adequate intake” baseline for protein, calcium, phosphorus, potassium or magnesium. Maybe you should nosh on some chicken, bananas, and a daily mineral supplement too?
I’m going to recommend something less specific—researching what’s going on with your metabolism, instead of trying things that seem to work for some fraction of other people.
Can you be more specific? How does one do that? Daily blood tests or something, and acquiring the knowledge to know what to measure and what it means?
These are some fast guesses—my impression is that it can take years [1] to track down this sort of thing. Also, I don’t know how much of this has already been done.
Start with five minutes thought. What does Eliezer know about his symptoms? Can anything be deduced by mulling over them?
I’d start with poking around to find out whether other people have the same pattern of symptoms. Does it have a medical name? What does medical research say about what works? What do people say about what works? Do the symptoms ever become better or worse? Does this correlate with something that could be experimented with?
Hire MetaMed, but also look for anecdotal information.
Exercise might be bad for some people.
I’m going to recommend some caution about experiments—so far as I know, Eliezer has fairly good health. He’s got some energy problems, an inability to lose weight, reacts very badly to missing a meal, and doesn’t get any good from exercise. There’s a lot of room for making things worse.
I’m in substantial agreement with this, but I do think the bad reaction to missing a meal is enough to be of at least a little concern. On the other hand, the cultural issues around fat are weird and extreme enough that it could explain the lack of thought that’s gone into Eliezer’s efforts to lose weight.
[1] Something in the neighborhood of 2 years or more for people who report success. Original research takes time.
Testosterone supplements should help with most of these issues.
Maybe. Blood tests first. And possibly research second.
Total meal replacement shakes exist, although I have no idea about pricing. However, going down this route is basically ensuring sub-optimal nutrition. We know a ton about nutrition, but not enough to have an optimal diet without food.
Very nearly every other diet is also sub-optimal. Most of them are quite probably worse than what we can do via supplementation.
I looked at what’s available in Finnish pharmacies, and they seem to be in the $20 a day ballpark mentioned elsewhere in the thread if you aren’t going to eat anything else.
I believe you can live off Boost for an indefinite period of time.
Made it really hard for me to poop normally.
Could you be more speciifc? (In particular with respect to macronutrient ratios, and whether you’ve ever been in ketosis and confirmed it with a blood or urine test.) I have a strong prior against people having tried all the things, even if they’ve tried to try them, since some of the strategies are easy to do incorrectly without realizing it.
This is actually a bad example; humans can produce cholesterol, and so the FDA does not recommend intake.
“Can produce” doesn’t mean optimal intake is 0.
Agreed; this is particularly true for things like creatine. But most Americans have cholesterol higher than recommended, and most of the health risks I’m seeing associated with low cholesterol are “if your cholesterol suddenly drops without a known cause, this is a warning sign for disease.” Is there something else I should be aware of?
[edit] Thought I should quote the relevant section of the DRIs:
Dietary cholesterol and lipid cholesterol aren’t the same thing either, and just as your body can compensate for an intake of 0 cholesterol, it can likewise compensate for an intake of excess cholesterol.
It’s not clear to me yet why I should expect a cholesterol intake above 0 to have superior health outcomes to a cholesterol intake of 0. You don’t need to argue that the body can compensate for excess cholesterol; even perfect compensation would just mean that small intake is just as good as 0 intake. You need to argue that without intake, the body will produce a suboptimal amount of cholesterol. Is there any evidence of that?
I’m tired of eating, preparing food and cleaing up afterwards.
And pooping. After saving time and money, this is my biggest hope from soylent.
I am tired of eating too, and have looked seriously into building it myself. It’s not clear yet whether doing it myself is worth the additional costs over outsourcing it to him; I think I can do significantly better, but doing it right is a significant amount of work.
Post your superior recipe to /r/soylent?
What information do you expect me to get from doing so that would help in making that decision?
I think he meant that someone else might use it even if it’s not worth it to you personally. Though if I’m reading your earlier comment right, the “work” referred to the recipe rather than the mixing and measuring, so that wouldn’t apply.
If I decide to not do it myself, then of course I’ll post the ideas and send friendly emails to the guys at Soylent. But that doesn’t seem like a good move while uncertain about whether or not to compete with them.
The recipe is part of the work, but the larger part of the work in doing it right would be replacing “the” recipe with a system for generating recipes and determining the quality of recipes.
You can go as meta as you want, as long as the result is still a better recipe I still call it “work for the recipe” ;-)
Fair! (Though I do want to make clear that part of my point is ensuring customization support is the backbone, rather than a feature added later.)
I don’t think our knowledge of human physiology is sufficient to construct a complete food replacement from scratch. It will have to be personalized, anyway, and we need a lot more of basic research to get there.
I suspect most people considering Soylent aren’t exactly eating like Michael Pollan in the first place. Anecdotally, I know several people who subsist on diets of fast-food takeout washed down by multiple liters of soda. It seems credible that Soylent might at least provide better nutrition than that. The scorn directed at Soylent by many of the Hacker News commenters strikes me as misdirected given the relatively poor quality diet of many Americans.
I have used other commercially available meal replacement shakes in the past—most don’t even attempt to deliver complete nutrition beyond covering each of the major macronutrients (protein, carbohydrate, fat). There seems to be room for improvement and innovation in this market.
The guinea pigs for Soylent aren’t going to be on a multi-month voyage across the ocean or the antarctic tundra without access to other food. If they do encounter deficiency issues, they can simply reintroduce other foods without suffering catastrophic effects. It takes a special kind of stubborn to really deprive yourself to the point of serious deficiency.
And how would they know? Let’s say a child develops a iodine deficiency—a common consequence is the drop in IQ, 10-15 points on the average. You think this will be detected in time to fix this? Let’s imagine—not an improbable scenario at all—that a deficiency of micronutrient X doubles or triples your risk of some old-age disease Y. By the time you’re diagnosed with Y it’s way too late to do anything.
I’d point out that iodine deficiency’s effect on IQ seems to be entirely prenatal—that is, there is a window of vulnerability during a human’s development, and once they’re past that, iodine deficiency no longer operates on IQ (for better or worse) and all that’s left are more minor effects like reducing goiters. Seems possible that a lot of nutrients are like that: main effects of deficiency are in childhood/infancy/prenatal.
When my iodine levels get low I develop symptoms of diabetes. Sushi can induce insulin shock/hypoglycemia in me.
It screws with my hunger and thirst levels as well.
Apparently I’m not alone, either; there seems to be some evidence that there’s a link between iodine and diabetes more generally.
Could you please post or link to it?
See for example https://www.mja.com.au/journal/1999/171/9/iodine-deficiency-ambulatory-participants-sydney-teaching-hospital-australia
and http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00257427
and http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1262363607702860
Severe iodine deficiency tends to be much more common in diabetic patients, and hypothyroidism (most commonly caused by iodine deficiency or hashimoto’s thyroiditis) tends to be comorbid with diabetes.
OK, that’s probably true. It is also true in the case of deficiencies arising from a more conventional diet however. How frequently do micronutrient deficiencies occur under regular diets? How is the chance of timely detection and intervention affected by controlled intake in conjunction with deliberate ongoing monitoring versus an unmonitored ad libitum diet?
Let’s consider two contrasting propositions regarding diet and nutrition: A) Consuming a varied diet of naturally occurring, unprocessed foods prevents micronutrient deficiencies. B) Deliberately engineered supplementation prevents micronutrient deficiencies.
Before reading on, take a moment to consider how much confidence you have in proposition A versus B.
Since you introduced the example of iodine deficiency, let’s consider it in more depth. The Wikipedia page on iodine deficiency indicates: “According to World Health Organization, in 2007, nearly 2 billion individuals had insufficient iodine intake …”
Furthermore, this deficiency appears to be common even in wealthy industrialized countries where a wide variety of food is readily available: “In a study of the United Kingdom published in 2011, almost 70% of test subjects were found to be iodine deficient.”
The article proceeds to explain that iodine deficiency is addressed by deliberately and artificially introducing supplemental iodine into the food supply.
I’m shocked to learn just how widespread iodine deficiency is among people eating a “normal” diet (I would have guessed less than 10% prevalence). It seems like traditional diets do a startlingly poor job of avoiding this particular deficiency. I’m updating my beliefs in favor of proposition B over A in light of this data.
The worst part is, a lot of that decline is from people trying to eat ‘healthy’ - and cut out as much salt as possible. Guess what the main source of iodine for people who can’t afford seafood for every meal is? Iodized salt.
(If you want US figures for deficiency, you can find some cites in my iodine page, or simply search for papers related to the long-running NHANES survey which is the main source of evidence.)
I got chewed out constantly growing up by -everybody- because of my salt intake.
Guess what happened to my salt cravings when I added an iodine supplement as an adult?
People don’t just screw themselves up on that one.
If you’re willing to guinea pig, please try this if you haven’t already. It’s short on macro-nutrients, but perhaps it would pair nicely with macro-nutrient focussed substitutes. I’m interested in comparisons between how these products compare to the actual constituent ingredients consumed normally, but don’t value the information enough to try it myself.
seems like way too little fat
He plans to use some of the money to run formal clinical trials. See this video. As a matter of fact, Rob says in the same video that completely replacing food with Soylent is “not the intended use”, and also states that “I wasn’t trying to create something ideal; I was trying to create something better.” And, for me, and for a visible fraction of the world population, it probably succeeds in that goal. I hate eating lunch and I never eat anything nutritious, then, anyways. It probably would be a net improvement for me to replace breakfast with Soylent, too.
“Ridiculous” is the wrong word to use here. Rob got $200k in less than 24 hours after asking for $100k in one month, so the request wasn’t absurd (I’m aware of hindsight bias, here; I just noticed that the underestimation was vast). I think we should be taking a close look at what Rob is doing right, at this point. If you think his experiment is a waste of your time and you refuse to contribute to it, that is clearly completely fine. However, if you intend to condemn everyone who does not eat as well as you and who is more interested in self-experimentation, then that is ridiculous.
Well, let’s fix this. I bought a month’s supply of Soylent. What self-experimentation would you like me to do, that you don’t have the time/money/willingness to do yourself? Even with such a small amount, could you specify an experimental method I could follow that would at least be at your “crappy” level? I’d sincerely appreciate that, and I’d be happy to follow it.
(A major reorganization edit was made to the original comment.)
Promissory notes and jam tomorrow. He didn’t bother to run the most trivial experiments on himself, he hasn’t released information on the existing volunteers he mailed Soylent off to a while ago, and so I’m not optimistic about what clinical trials he’ll fund—especially considering that costs are always higher than one expects so he’ll have pressing demands on his funds (and why should he fund trials, when he already has so many geeks pressing funds on him already?)
Instrumentally rational, perhaps, but still ridiculous. It may not be too harmful snake oil, it may improve over time, but investment in it is still a bad idea and the evidence for its efficacy is non-existent. People giving him >$200k for this is ridiculous.
Who are these people even more interested in self-experimentation than me? I would be fascinated to see them. Are these the same people who can’t be bothered to post any info at all on their Soylent consumption? Or do simple experiments like randomize weeks? This does not sound like people interested in self-experimentation, this sounds like a flock of gullible sheep eagerly paying up for the latest gimmick and getting angry at people harshing on their groove. ‘Like, that’s your opinion man! Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the better!’
I highly doubt that. Look at Eliezer on this page. Do you really think Soylent is going to funge against eating candy and pizza for lunch?
As of 2015, even the vague pious hope of trials seems to have been long abandoned; apparently Rhinehart & Soylent are quite busy merely shipping and keeping things running...
Thanks for the reply. I had just finished editing my comment right as you were replying, and it’s much cleaner now. I’d really appreciate it if you looked at it again (even if everything you said still applies).
Winning a popularity contest does not make one rational.
Formal clinical trials are hugely expensive (consider the price of bringing a new drug to the market—a large part of that cost is clinical trials).
Randomizing weeks on and off might not have captured the full effects of prolonged Soylent use (e.g. side-effects involving gut bacteria).
Of course blocking on weeks wouldn’t rule out long-term side-effects. (Nothing would, short of a multi-decade RCT to investigate all-cause mortality.)
My point was that he hasn’t even done that much. Yet, he is happy to blog about the 1 week he took off Soylent to fly to LA and how crappy he felt wandering around a strange city and how this proves normal food sucks...
Just because he hasn’t personally done much in the way of personal experimentation doesn’t mean he’s not riding on a large volume of experimental evidence. Just using RDA values and all known micronutrients (not that his history has exactly been stellar in actually doing so) should get him almost all the way to where he wants his product to be.
(I’m really dubious of the carbohydrate he uses, though.)
And provided people are willing to eat a meal or two outside the system, their cravings should guide them to whatever nutrients it is they’re lacking in.
So… I’m not sure I approve of the level of enthusiasm for the project that exists. But by the same token, I don’t think the extreme pessimism is warranted, either.
The concept is good, but the methodology could have been significantly better. It has lots of potential, and the real danger is limited to those that will be consuming ONLY Soylent for extended periods. Using it to replace a meal or two a day, and having a complete meal every day, shouldn’t be dangerous (I think).
What confuses me about the negativity is, what’s so bad about the current situation? The earliest of adopters will serve as a giant trial, and if there are problems they’ll come up there.
Also: people who intend to switch to JUST soylent should be monitored by a doctor or a nutritionist, at least for the first while. And post it either here or on the Solyent board. I am very interested to hear some anecdata.
No, they won’t. Or, if they are interpretable as a trial, it’ll be as the worst epidemiological survey ever run—no blinding, no followup, response bias out the wazoo, attrition, expectancy and Hawthorne effects already built in etc etc. You name a bias, this (‘hand out goodies and hope someone will report problems’) will have it. You ever wonder why we have things like ‘evidence-based medicine’? It’s because when we hand out goodies and hope people will tell us how well it works, we get people grinding up tiger penises because nothing works better for fixing your virility problems! Everyone says so! And how could they be wrong, right?
To quote myself again from my G+ thread:
What do you expect will happen? Do you think lots of people are going to get very sick by going on a Soylent-only diet immediately, not monitoring their health closely, and ending up with serious nutritional deficiencies? That’s one of the more negative scenario, but I honestly don’t know how likely that is. I think people are likely to do at least one of three things:
Monitor their health more closely (especially on a soylent-only diet),
Only replace a few meals with Soylent (not more than, say, 75%),
Return to normal food or see a doctor if a serious deficiency occurs.
Then again, I may have too much confidence in people’s common sense. Rob is definitely marketing it as a finished product and a miracle solution.
I think there will be a range of issues from a few diehards hitting serious issues to people just having low-grade issues which they don’t notice because they won’t be randomizing blocks, effects similar to the hedonic treadmill will make it hard to compare over time, they’ll get initial benefits from the usual placebo/Hawthorne/overjustification effects, and subjective self-rating has many known loopholes where you can think you’re getting better even as you’re actually getting worse—but regardless of the exact distribution or what the worst-cases look like, we won’t know for the reasons I list above.
Instead, we’ll get another internet circle-jerk about how Soylent is awesome and the critics are wrong.
What would you like to see done differently? You mentioned the more thorough self-experimentation he could have done (really should have done), but there’s still someone else who could step up to the plate and do some self-testing.
Thorough studies? Those might also be done some time in the future, whether or not they’re funded by Rob (not sure about this point, there might not be an incentive to do so once it’s being sold).
Sure, Rob jumped the gun and hyped it up. But most of the internet is already a giant circle-jerk. Doesn’t stop people from generating real information, right?
That’s the damnable thing about these sorts of biases, it’s not clear to me whether one can compensate for the biases. If you pay attention to the ‘real information’, you may wind up learning what we might call anti-information—information that predictably and systematically makes your beliefs worse than your defaults.
This is the problem of the clever arguer: how do you, and can you, adjust for the fact that all the reports coming out about Soylent are so deeply error-prone (and now with the kickstarter, we get a delicious cherry on top of conflicts of interest)?
I would much rather have a handful of randomized self-experiments from some obscure blogger interested in a weird recipe he came up with than a forum of Soylent enthusiasts raving to each other that the latest formulation on sale is the greatest ever and telling each other that if you feel bad you should be eating your Soylent twice a day and not three times a day, don’t you know about intermittent fasting?, and also I ran 20 seconds faster today, so Soylent must be working for me!
Ok, I see what your concern is, with the hype around Soylent everyone’s opinion is skewed (even if they’re not among the fanboys).
You decided above that it wasn’t worth your time to try your own self-experiments with it. What if someone else were to take the time to do it? I like the concept but agree with the major troubles you listed above, and I have no experience with designing self-experiments. But maybe I’ll take the time to try and do it properly, long-term, with regular blood tests, noting what I’ve been eating for a couple months before starting, taking data about my fitness levels, etc. Of course, I would need to analyze the risk to myself beforehand.
If they actually go through with it and write it up, that’s better than the status quo, yes. But if they don’t determine to go through with it and may give up, it’s another selection bias, specifically, publication bias (person A does a self-experiment but halfway through runs out of spare effort and abandons it; person B, by chance, gets better results and blogs about it etc).