Basically, people with poor oral hygiene are more likely to develop Alzheimer's than people with good teeth.
You might have heard about a similar study that found a link between oral hygiene and heart disease. The theory, at least in that case, is that bad oral hygiene causes chronic long-term inflammation throughout the body, not just in your gums. This might increase risk of heart disease. Without looking at the data, I would guess that the same theory applies to Alzheimer's and maybe other diseases. The usual caveat about correlation != causation applies of course.
?? If Alzheimer's is related to memory & executive functioning(probably is) then the people who are likely to develop Alzheimer's are likely to have poor oral hygiene.
Oral hygiene is a good proxy for people who know it's important, but somehow still forget. A solid proxy for executive functioning decline, executive functioning in general, working memory, and a cluster of other things.
There are a few neuroscientists on HN. Can someone chime in on this? Does the "computationally intensive" approach that the Europeans appear to be taking, i.e. relying on lots of computer simulations of the brain to increase our understanding of it, seem like a viable one? Is it indeed premature, as the article suggests, for us to attempt to simulate the human brain (or even just parts of it)?
Scroll down to "an actual case". Mind you, AFAICT, they didn't travel to the 'zone of death' intentionally to commit a crime; but, having committed a crime there, they did attempt to use this defense.
Regarding vitamin D, I would add that the only way to make sure your vitamin D level is sufficient is to get tested. Relying on the DRI alone will leave some people insufficient. I expect that many Soylent users will be insufficient and maybe deficient in vitamin D, not because of any failing on Soylent's part, but because this is already true for a random selection of the non-Soylent-using population. Dark-skinned individuals, obese individuals, and people with very little sun exposure (or living at a high latitude) are more likely to be deficient.
Practically speaking, this means: during your next annual physical, make sure your doctor tests your vitamin D along with your other bloodwork. The correct test is called 25(OH)D. Your insurance should cover it. (I am making an assumption about how privileged most HNers are.) Aim for a blood level of 30-40 ng/mL. <20 ng/mL is deficient, >=30 is sufficient, while >40 is probably pushing it, i.e. observational studies suggest that mortality starts to increase slightly around that point. A level greater than 50 ng/mL is almost certainly excessive, though still not close to toxicity. Some people argue for supplementing enough vitamin D to achieve higher blood levels (>40 ng/mL), but IMO the evidence doesn't support doing this and it might be harmful.
They claim that the overall glycemic index (with fiber, etc.) is "rather low", but I can't find fasting vs. postprandial glucose readings that would substantiate this. By itself, maltodextrin has a rather high GI. I do see that Rhinehart posted about this concern a while back:
...but does anyone have more recent info? Without more data, diabetics and prediabetics should best avoid this for now.
edit: A clarification - blood glucose testing won't actually tell you the product's GI, of course. And the important number to look at is glycemic load, but that is easy to calculate given GI. The Soylent folks have not yet shared the GI afaik. (They would need to send it to a lab for testing.) Diabetics should already be monitoring their glucose levels anyway, so I assume they will figure out pretty quickly if this stuff spikes their blood sugar. It's not something you would want to replace all your meals with if that is the case!
Whether or not you are diabetic, it would be a good idea to go to your doctor and get complete bloodwork done before you start using this if you are planning to drink the stuff on a daily basis and especially if you replace the majority of your meals. Get tested for the sort of things they check when you get a physical, but within a few months leading up to the point you start Soylenting. Test again 6-12 months after you start and compare the numbers, then kindly make a spreadsheet or something and share your results.
Not that I think Soylent is a good idea, but a nutritionist is not a well defined profession or qualification in the way the a medical doctor is.
So if the people involved in this project consider themselves qualified in the field of nutrition, I don't see how that makes them different to anyone else speaking or giving advice on the subject.
A big organization with lots of money doesn't automatically make a group of people a legitimate authority on anything. After all, you can get all sorts of qualifications in things that are clearly quackery, e.g. homeopathy.
That's false a dietitian has several requirements and while less than a doctor it's on par with a RN. Initial collage level education + test + continuing education credits. http://www.eatright.org/Public/content.aspx?id=6442472286
A problem here is that the Supreme Court is, by its nature, not very tech-savvy. FTA:
The justices expressed varying levels of sophistication about cellphones. Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Kagan and Alito seemed most comfortable talking about the technology. They are, perhaps not coincidentally, the four youngest justices.
On the other hand, 75-year-old Justice Stephen Breyer, who is given to self-deprecation on the bench, gamely tried to engage the Justice Department's Dreeben in a discussion about encryption technology. "I don't know what kind of phone you have, Justice Breyer," Dreeben said.
Breyer replied: "I don't either because I can never get into it because of the password."
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/264164.php
Basically, people with poor oral hygiene are more likely to develop Alzheimer's than people with good teeth.
You might have heard about a similar study that found a link between oral hygiene and heart disease. The theory, at least in that case, is that bad oral hygiene causes chronic long-term inflammation throughout the body, not just in your gums. This might increase risk of heart disease. Without looking at the data, I would guess that the same theory applies to Alzheimer's and maybe other diseases. The usual caveat about correlation != causation applies of course.