> For all the intellectual firepower of people in the tech community, there is a curious strain of anti-intellectualism that comes forth in projects like this

I think a lot of people in technology scene have a strong undercurrent of anti-authoritarianism and distrust of traditional institutions, this coupled with a philosophy that many of shortcomings of the world can be recast as problems of inadequate connectivity or insufficient technology is a big source of the phenomenon you described. At it's best it gives people a different perspective on how to change things for the better in the industry, at it's worst I think it manifests as full on anti-intellectualism.

I don't understand how this transfers through though.

Hypothetical Bob distrusts the medical industry and science, but then tKes fish oik supplements for heart health. Science tells us that fish oil has no benefit over placebo for heart health, and supplements are produced huge mega businesses who are out to make profit.

I know I am subject to my own biases, and I'm using an example where I am aware of my biases. But still, I don't get it.

Of course I don't have an answer. But I guess you'd have to ask how Bob might have become first conceived of the thought that fish oil supplements are good for heart health in the first place and ask why he puts faith in the source of that information. I think a lot of it is carried by word of mouth, which I think just innately tends to carry more weight with us as humans then the conclusions of some nameless scientists, but that's just speculation.

I strongly agree that having dieticians or nutritionists around would be helpful. I hope they have someone who understands the problems with the science.

Having said that it's harder to screw up the nutrition if you're eating real food rather than supplements, especially if it's a range of food.

It is a great idea and it's the kind of thing I'd be interested in. They'd have to be idiots if they provided a worse diet than the food I'm getting now.

Agreed, this is why we went with whole foods. I was already basically eating the ingredient list of MealSquares everyday.

Just because its whole foods doesn't make it inherently nutritious.

Additionally -- just because I eat all of the ingredients in a MealSquare every day, that doesn't mean that I can be health ONLY eating those ingredients every day

You're right about the lack of variety but you shouldn't discount this as a useful backup food.

Rubbish.

Firstly, nutrition science is not real science - we don't have a full understanding of how our body processes foods, etc to be able to model it properly. So it's not real science.

Secondly, having a balanced nutrition isn't nearly as complicated as you make it out to be. Variety and everything in moderation. Humans would have evolved to be able to live off a variety of different diets and foods. Most of our history involved a food shortage and so a very specific set of nutritional requirements would definitely not have been selected for.

> nutrition science is not real science - we don't have a full understanding of how our body processes foods, etc to be able to model it properly. So it's not real science.

So, does this mean science is happening only when we have total understanding of something? What have these physicists been doing all these years!? Of course we don't know it well enough. Science is pretty simple, though: cause and effect. If someone eats only celery, they will die (lack of calories). I don't know what you're talking about when you talk about "real science".

>Variety and everything in moderation

And this is exactly the point op is making. You don't get that variety by eating only these. So the options are:

1. Have total faith that their good enough for you to eat every day (and thus trust the makers)

2. Don't eat them at all (don't trust them)

OP wants to trust scientists, not just some guys making food in their kitchen. So he chooses the latter option.

See my replies below regarding "not real science". I'm happy to accept your point in that regard.

As for #1 and #2 - we've created a kibble/pellet formula for virtually every other animal on planet earth. Why not humans? Seems incredibly narrow minded to me.

Not to mention that the average american diet is atrocious so the bar for an improvement is pretty low.

It would be reasonable to trust us slightly more than all the bars with similar ingredients at the supermarket.

I tend to agree with you to some extent, although I have to take issue with this reasoning:

>we don't have a full understanding of how our body processes foods, etc to be able to model it properly. So it's not real science.

We don't have a full understanding of anything, but science is what lets us get closer. The problem I have with nutrition science is rather that a lot of its results are presented with far more confidence than the evidence bears.

Yes, I think we are on the same page.

We don't have a full understanding of fluid dynamics either, but we still fly in airplanes.

Perhaps my original statement was a bit strong. I guess I should say that our level of understanding is not proportionate to the types of conclusions we accept when it comes to food.

Compared to our understand of fluid dynamics, our understanding of nutrition is almost non-existent. Are eggs good for you? Should I drink cows milk? Do multivitamins do anything?

Any answer that a nutritionist would give you be couched in a whole list of qualifiers (if you have low cholesterol, if you're over the age of 65, etc) since you're asking questions about the interactions between very complicated systems like any good scientist should. If someone did give a binary answer to any of the questions you asked, they're probably wrong or trying to sell you something. Don't interpret that as lack of understanding, there is quite a bit known about human nutrition in the modern era.