Posts from Academy of Sciences of Heroesland

Hmm.
You see, the problem is that a person is essentially a saprophytic animal, and we can't take that away from them.

Oh, food substitutes. Awesome. I'm interested in people who actually use only them, their health, and a comparative analysis. Preferably with more details and scientific evidence.

Added 1 minute ago
He-he-he-he-he.
And why doesn't the dying Wikipedia write about food substitutes, but only websites that sell them?
Or does it write, but is my Google broken?

They significantly reduce lifespan.

I'm interested in people who actually only use these, their health, and a comparative analysis.

Gentlemen, where is the proof that these people live worse lives than we do and die earlier? Or is this just speculation?

Gentlemen, where is the proof that these people live worse lives than we do and die sooner? Or is this just speculation?

This is not speculation; this is medicine.
Besides, Google is your friend – these substitutes cannot completely replace food (many products state this directly).

Statistics show this. Take the same Turczynski, for example – a very strong and healthy man, but what a fate he had... A normal person's heart simply cannot withstand such stress. Plus, few people continue to exercise until old age, and here the key is that as soon as they stop exercising, that's it, they're done. At best, health problems begin.
Of course, I'm talking about professional sports, but hormones are even worse. You can't disrupt the hormonal balance of the body.

I read about them, and there's no mention of any hormones anywhere. Also, it's not definitively known whether Turczynski consumed meal replacements (and if so, which ones?). Furthermore, there's evidence that these meal replacements CAN be used INSTEAD of food, which contradicts Tengro's claim.

Regarding hormonal balance, it's important not to disrupt it.
It was precisely due to this disruption that Alan Turing, the greatest cryptographer and algorithmist of his time, died prematurely.
//The British government, because Turing's sexual preferences were not "heavenly blue," decided to "correct" him and pumped him with hormones.

Added 1 minute ago

I've read about it, and nowhere does it mention anything about hormones. Also, it's not definitively known whether Turchinsky consumed food substitutes (and if so, what kind?). Furthermore, there's evidence that these substitutes CAN be used INSTEAD of food, which refutes Tengro's claim.

Instead of _completely_ replacing all food, they can't; Google more carefully.

And yes, Sat, WHY do you need food substitutes? After all, GMOs that reproduce cheaply and yield a good harvest could feed many people...

Added 4 minutes ago

And with minimal control, GMOs won't send hormonal balance to the Great Old Ones

How about gene modifiers that reproduce cheaply and yield a good harvest, allowing many to be fed...

This is for animals. People need normal, high-quality nutrition.

Instead of _completely_ everything - they can't, Google more carefully.

I don't know where you were Googling, but this was enough for me:

Description - Food Substitutes

Food substitutes are not just sports protein or carbohydrate supplements, but complete food substitutes. This is high-quality, dietary nutrition that contains all the essential vitamins, micronutrients, and minerals, but significantly fewer calories than a regular breakfast, lunch, or dinner.

Regarding hormonal balance, by the way - it really shouldn't be disrupted.

Again about hormones. Provide proof of where it says they contain hormones

Oh, I see that the conversation has turned to biochemistry. I'll try to add my humble two cents as someone who has about ten biochemistry lectures a week and spends a few more hours in the lab. Firstly, what exactly is food? For us, food performs two main functions: energetic and plastic. The first is the provision of substances (primarily carbohydrates, and to a lesser extent fats; proteins are used for this only in extreme cases) that are oxidized and provide energy for muscle contraction, nerve cell function, and many other processes, i.e., maintaining our life at the moment. This is essentially the purpose of introducing glucose. The second function is the replacement of the organic matter that makes up our body (primarily proteins) with newly synthesized material. If we neglect the second function and consume, say, only glucose, we can certainly survive, but it won't lead to anything good. Similarly, if we eat only proteins, it will be difficult for the body to break them down, and there will be many byproducts and other things... This is a simplified explanation, and we could talk about this for a very long time. And, of course, a whole complex of vitamins, micro- and macroelements is also needed, without which things will also be difficult. Secondly, let's say we create a mega-pill containing everything a person needs for complete nutrition. But it's far from certain that all of this will be absorbed in our intestines. Natural food contains many components that are not actually needed, but improve digestion – such as cellulose, pectin, etc. Plus, different substances can interfere with each other's absorption, especially vitamins and microelements. And thirdly, there is a concept called stereoisomerism of biomolecules. I don't want to go into detail (I have enough of that in university :rolleyes:), but in chemical synthesis, a racemic mixture (a mixture of isomers) is obtained, which is very difficult to separate, while in living organisms, there is a strictly defined form. Scientists have not yet learned to do what living creatures have been doing with great precision for millions of years. So, if we are to obtain missing food resources from somewhere, it should not be from chemical synthesis, but from transgenic bacteria or plants, which is what scientists are currently doing in an attempt to feed the starving part of humanity. Of course, there are also nuances and drawbacks here... *anticipates a GMO debate*

What about that? GMOs are good, GMOs are right.

Added 4 minutes later
"This is for animals. People need normal, high-quality food." Oh, and of course, people won't be able to eat killed animals. At this point, it doesn't matter if we efficiently feed any of the links in the "plant-animal-human" chain; we solve the problem. And Vish explained in detail above why it's better to eat more or less reasonable natural things than synthetic products.

Lord, well, if there are no hormones in it, that’s good. But I still wouldn’t eat that stuff: our chemistry teacher told us not to eat reagents :D Natural proteins are better now: science hasn’t yet learned how to produce complex artificial ones.

So, if we need to obtain missing food resources from somewhere, it should be from transgenic bacteria or plants, not from chemical synthesis.

I'm not entirely sure, but I think the manufacturers of food substitutes aren't so foolish as to not use natural ingredients at all.

Again, who is teaching at the departments now? Mostly old Soviet conservatives with bouts of senility. My classmates and I were often amused by the nonsense they talked.

I'm not entirely sure, but I think the manufacturers of food substitutes aren't so stupid as to not use natural ingredients at all.

Whoa, hold on a second. These "old Soviet conservatives with bouts of senility" aren't found in technical universities. And, as a rule, they know more than the average student in such a university. If you have doubts about Vishmaster's sources, provide your own. What Vishmaster says is quickly verified and does not contradict _WORKING_ science, ergo, there's no "senility" here. Well, or for you, all of science is senility because it's outdated and doesn't understand that "Einstein is a loser, Tesla is a god." In that case, you are deeply mistaken.

I’m not saying that science is nonsense. I just wanted to say that some older people are clearly “burnt out”; they’ll either be carried out of the lecture hall, so to speak, “feet first,” or something similar. This happened even when I was a student. The fact that they know more than an average student is simply their personal experience and assumptions; the rest can be found in books. But the amount of arrogance! They claim that they’ve invented something at their department that “the Americans haven’t even dreamed of yet.” Believe me, I’ve been through this. And yes, I studied at a technical university, if that matters.

Again, who are the professors teaching now? Mostly old Soviet conservatives with bouts of senility, as a rule. My friends and I were often amused by the nonsense they spouted.

At our institute, very intelligent people teach, and they are remarkably well-versed in their field of knowledge. And conservatism is not something they suffer from. Our physics seminar leader has a wonderful perspective on his subject; his favorite phrase is: "Today, we will calculate it this way. Tomorrow... we'll see!"

The fact that they know more than the average student is simply due to their personal experience and assumptions; everything else can be found in books. But look at all that arrogance! They claim that they've invented something at their department that "those Americans haven't even dreamed of yet." Believe me, I've been through that. And yes, I studied at a technical university, if that matters.

No, Lord, this is still student-level knowledge. You probably haven't tried talking to them about topics unrelated to the university curriculum. If you did, you would realize that they know more than just the program.