Are you disappointed in BoingBoing?
6 Likes
I don’t think your response is really fair. The guy put some effort into explaining his stance. I really hope we don’t turn into one of those communities that just insults people who go against the grain with 'lol u mad bro?". I get the random misspelled, ranting, Drudge Report trolls, but this guy has some good points.
Edit: Realized that in this day and age I need to explicitly add that I don’t necessarily agree with his points.
1 Like
They are experimenting for sure. 
i totally agree that science is not just the domain of degrees and anyone can do proper science.
that being said…I’d like to think that science also includes things like measuring and recording various outcome factors (weight, bone density, whatever) and having a control group, probably with a double blind setup to remove bias. (@wsmcneil better explains what i see the difference as here.)
I’m actually fine with them experimenting, and heck if they sold it as that, and experimental food product, then i don’t really see a problem with people knowingly experimenting with their own bodies.
ammonia is ammonia. people make the same mistake with natural vitamin c vs synthetic, even though they are molecularity identical.
i think their likely point is modern synthetic fertilizers don’t contain all the trace elements contributing to soil depletion and less nutritious foods because they are lower in the same trace elements. natural fertilizers replenish the soil and also contain bacteria and fungi that are symbiotic to plants, and increase the nutrient uptake of many plants while reducing harmful varieties hence reducing the need for certain fungicides or other plant spray treatments. so plants grown on depleted soil using chemical fertilizers are chemically less complex because they are depleted in their mineral content. at least i think that was the general concept they were trying to relay. 
cheers.
4 Likes
I’ll just drop this here:
TL;DR version: There is no hygiene whatsoever around the packing. I understand they’ve moved since this, but for someone to think that what’s shown here in the packing room is ever ok is nuts.
The quick hits:
- A rat running around.
- A “packing room” full of open bins and people dressed in street clothes.
- Ingredients of dubious origin (no evidence of testing to ensure they’ve gotten what they’ve ordered…)
- No masks or breathing apparatus for those packing the powders.
- Powders being measured volumetrically (instead of by weight).
It’s just a shit show.
Every nutritionist I’ve ever spoken to about this stuff starts off by laughing in your face, and they (if they’re patient) will outline why it’s a stupid idea full of hubris.
12 Likes
Well the problems are common between the two. In fact one of those links. Maybe it was your NIH one, or it might have been the Respectful Insolence one points out that fermented soy products in particular, of the whole foods sort. Contain a disproportionately large amount of the major compounds of concern. Genistein. Which is present in both whole fresh soy and in processed soy derivatives. So the reality of it is that its going to vary. Some processed soy derivatives will have high levels of compounds that are still of concern. But so will some not so processed whole soy products. And the overall consensus seems to be that there is little in the way of real world outcomes in one way or the other.
You’re basically making the shill argument. Which ignores the fact that the supplement industries, whole/organic food industry, alt med, and Diet industries are all HUGE money making operations. Bad information abounds on all sides. Particularly when it comes to diet. Its very difficult to design and carry out effective studies on human diet and nutrition. And as a result its trivially easy to manipulate results to push you’re particular point of view. Industry studies from any angle aren’t typically worth looking at. But clean medical studies, done by universities. Funded by the NIH. ETC exist and by looking at as many of them as you can. Or finding well regarded, credible sources that do you can get a good read on field wide understandings of a given subject and sort through the BS. I try to do that when ever I can.
Did you read the comment he’s replying to? Its pretty laden with insults.
2 Likes
What redesigned said. Of course Ammonia is Ammonia. But the other stuff that is naturally present isn’t introduced in the lab, because why would you? There’s an ear of corn, our job is done. Anything fuzzy like “complexity” isn’t a nail, so my hammer is useless, so it’s uninteresting.
3 Likes
We’re in the middle of “nerds” interested in a cargo cult understanding of science and offering a nutritional product, you seem to defend this behavior based on your allegiance to a subculture and defining “fake nerds”. That doesn’t really reflect on Boingboing but your own self-image.
3 Likes
Well he did state he logged in after some time to specifically complain…[quote=“Rindan, post:94, topic:88402”]
I popped in to see BoingBoing for the first time in a long time and I forgot why I stopped visiting BoingBoing,
[/quote]
And it isn’t like we are bashing on the DIY mentality as much as marketing the product that is apparently improperly researched, causes issues, and well how is it all that different than all the other meal replacement things out there that have years of proper testing and research behind them.
7 Likes
Dude, you’re all over the place with this, I don;t even know what you are disagreeing with me about.
Agree 100%. (Except with your blanket faith in universities and government).
Former Monsanto vice-president Michael Taylor is now a senior adviser to the US Food and Drug Administration – going from a corporation that aggressively promotes its genetically modified crops to a body that advises on food safety.
The Obama administration is littered with former Monsanto employees who are now in positions of power. Islam Siddiqui, vice-president of Monsanto-funded lobby group CropLife is now a negotiator for the US Trade Representative on agriculture. Roger Beachy, a former director of a Monsanto-funded plant science centre has become the director of the National Institute of Food and Agriculture.1
http://discovermagazine.com/2007/oct/sciences-worst-enemy-private-funding
Which is exactly how I arrived at a healthy skepticism for processed soy, and now stay conscious of how much of it, and in what form, it is a part of my diet.
That other dude posted further and got personally insulting after I defended him, support withdrawn,
I’ll just stick to my Olestra, thank you.
6 Likes
I’m sorry, this whole thing has got me thinking: what’s ‘controllable diarrhea?’
12 Likes
You get more than 5 seconds ago warning?
12 Likes
I’m not “assuming” industrial processing is inefficient. Soy protein isolate is made by drawing out the oil using hexane refined from crude oil. You can make tofu using renewable power - you can’t make soy protein isolate the same way. The specific advantages of soy protein isolate are that it isn’t oily, while the disadvantages are that it necessarily uses non-renewable resources, oh, and it allows the ecologically damaging scale of meat farming currently happening.
My point wasn’t that it’s inefficient at all. My point was that it uses non-renewable resources simply so you don’t have to think about what you’re eating, which is how we got into this whole mess with meat farms shitting up the countryside in the first place.
3 Likes
You maintain that processed soy is unhealthy/unsafe. My disagreement is that that’s not inline with the consensus from actual medical professionals, And that the situation is a lot messier than you seem to think. Soy of any sort: safe. Some evidence that a certain amount of soy in the diet is beneficial for cancer risk. Particularly with actual soy and not extracted compounds as part of a balanced diet. Some remaining concern that a particular compound in all forms of soy, processed or not. May interfere with certain breast cancer meds.
re the highly processed and supplement comments there does not seem to be anything particular about soy that makes these bad. but it’s general good advice backed up by medical knowledge. supplements of any sort should be avoided. Because they’re unregulated, frequently tainted and seldom do what they say on the box. And highly processed products tend to lack certain critical nutrients, or have disproportionate levels of some you want to be careful with. Like fat and salt. Or in the case of derivatives only provide the single thing they’re meant to supplement in a form that might not be too useful. There’s nothing specific to soy about any of that. Highly processed beef, corn, mushrooms have the same issues. As do most “superfoods”.
Eta: I should clarify I’m not dismissing your position entirely. So far as I’m aware it’s got it’s origins in legit science. And there were reasons to be concerned. It’s just that more recent research hasn’t really supported the original worries or findings. And some have shown benefits. The original concerns were about all soy as well.
So it remains possible if not probable. And there are specific circumstances in need of more checking.
3 Likes
wow, that video was a fascinating worthwhile watch…thank you!
the “startup bros” doesn’t inspire confidence, lol. soylent chalk full of bro-trition.
my favorite quotes from the founder:
“why are humans eating leaves those are for animals.” (what are humans again?)
“a lot of people see food as this essential thing, but i don’t really think that is based in evidence.” (ummm…really?)
yikes…the reporter’s soylent batch was visibly contaminated with mold. blech. but not surprising under those conditions. also worth noting the 10lbs in 30 days of lost body weight.
the video did mention new facilities and they have changed the formulation, but the philosophy driving them remains the same.
9 Likes
Especially given the extremely unfortunate name - I still don’t understand that. It’s like naming a maternity hospital after King Herod, or calling your restaurant Long Pig.
7 Likes
I’m frankly not sure what it is. I don’t actually use it; I am a picky eater, and I have a feeling I would take one taste and reject it no matter how healthy it is. I’m an old-school North American Carnivore Cow-eater, and I know it is killing both the world and myself, and I have made my peace with it.
But I get where the Soylent guys are coming from, and I am uncomfortable holding them to a higher standard that we hold the rest of the food industry to. (I guess it’s food. you eat it. I can’t think of a more appropriate category). Yes, it is news-worthy that their recent formulations seem to make a small percentage of the population sick - and their reaction to it is also news-worthy. People still go to Chipotle too. But to roundly condemn them for not being ‘real’ scientists, which was my initial objection, is … well, wrong. You might not like what their results are - but that’s no reason for ad-hominem attacks against them. (not you specifically, Ryuthrowstuff, I mean in general).
I object to the very damaging pre-supposition that science is something only done by some sort of elite class. That’s wrong, and it sends the world down a very ugly path. The best science is usually done by educated, dedicated men and women who have devoted their lifetimes to it - but valid science can and is being done by children in backyards, blue collar workers in garages, and yes, by software engineers trying to bring a product to market. The fact that money is involved doesn’t invalidate science - there is always money involved. Science is not a degree or a credential or a social class - it is a methodology that anyone can embrace and utilize to better understand the world. That was the point of the XKCD comic - the only difference between “Trial and Error” and “real science” is the degree of rigor involved.
To call what the Soylent crew are doing “not science” is to lump them in with the Astrologers, the Homeopaths, the Faith Healers and the telephone psychics. It is misleading to an uninformed reader, and unfair to the Soylent crew. If you want to attack their methodology, there are certainly places it could (and has been) improved, but to claim it’s not science at all is disingenuous.
1 Like
He’s not. I agree with some of your points, but best to pull your sources from PubMed.
4 Likes
They are certainly not of the same quality, but they both embody the essence of science - test, refine, repeat. I would much rather have a doctor who is unsure about what I am sick with to try to find the right drugs with educated guesswork and trial and error than have him suggest I pray or wear a magnetic bracelet to align my chakras. That’s my objection to people pointing at Soylent and saying “not science” - No, astral projection, the horoscope, and lucky clovers are not science. Soylent’s methodology might stand improvement, but they are at least in the ballpark.
1 Like
It’s snark, like naming a brand “Death Cigarettes”. Explicitly acknowledging and owning the comparison you know people are going to immediately draw.
PS. I would eat at a BBQ joint named “Long Pig”. Sounds fun.
1 Like
