Yeah, ideally the pill would be able to make you feel full as well as satisfying the body's nutritional needs.
I think the problem with a pill would be the filling sensation.
Our bodies are used to large quantities of food (compared to a pill that is), so I'm not sure a pill is the best idea and it remains to be proven that this shake is.
Here's a rather depressing "article" where all I see is someone nay-saying with no evidence for all the criticisms. Criticisms informed by clear evidence and a display of knowledge would be so helpful in response to this kid's idea... and instead we get this junk.
http://www.businessinsider.com/rob-rhinehart-food-substitute-eating-disorder-2013-3
Historically attempts which are also "science based" have been failures. The body is designed to process, not just absorb. That's basic physiology. I can see a potential benefit for certain disease states and temporary diet management. Otherwise it's a disaster waiting to happen. The gut isn't a passive absorber but responds to food which regulates a good many things. The flora of the gut is going to be thrown off. What's going to happen to his clotting mechanism long term? "Rarely takes a poop" is a good enough reason on its own for dismissing it as an everyday alternative. He might as well say that he's found all the ingredients needed for life, tosses them in a blender and applies a spark to the result and believes life will result. After all is all there. Biology fail
The flipside to me is that this kid is putting himself through it and keeps getting checked out by doctors regularly. He's certainly not the first, but his goal is efficiency first and foremost and that simple idea is intriguing and worth exploring. Apparently the first group of test subjects is also having good results. He even had a good dentist visit.
I find too many people are just dismissive without solid reasoning. The pun seems too appropriate, but people just seem to have gut reactions and run with them and there's all this nay-saying without enough science/evidence to support it.
I get what you're saying but my objections are science based. If his fecal production is minimal that means his colon is being subjected to higher levels of toxins for longer. That results in an increased chance of colon cancer. That's hard to dismiss. Short term? Sure, but I'll bet it has long term issues.
Not sure why this is getting news. There are tons of patients who, for various reasons, get fed via a nastrogastric or gastric tube. They get a solution that is nutritionally dense and tends to provide the necessary caloric intake + vitamins/minerals. Common brands include Jevity, Osmolite, This science is old as dirt.
There's also pure IV nutrition
Do you have any data to support this?
I am still confused as well, as I mentioned earlier, he's simply reinventing the wheel and it's blowing people's minds?...
Health care is what I do. I'm sure you can do a lit search, but my knowledge on this topic goes beyond the Internet therefore I don't have links. That doesn't change what I know, but please look for yourself. Increased exposure to toxins in the colon has never proved beneficial.
the article does look bad but he has a point: this guy has no scientific background and is ignoring assimilation, interactions, degradation of food, the fact that the bowels are an organ made to get real food and if you don't shit often enough you can get cancer.Here's a rather depressing "article" where all I see is someone nay-saying with no evidence for all the criticisms. Criticisms informed by clear evidence and a display of knowledge would be so helpful in response to this kid's idea... and instead we get this junk.
http://www.businessinsider.com/rob-rhinehart-food-substitute-eating-disorder-2013-3
Health care is what he does, too, he is a physician. Certainly we are asked to provide evidence when making a fairly bold statement of "xxx increases risk of xxx." Such a well known fact should have published data, and I believe MoOo would just like to see it, as would I. Would be a good piece of information for us to have.
If you are asking if I have proof that his procedure causes cancer of course not. The body does produced toxins which need to be eliminated. I don't think you need a link for that. He admits that he deficates little but his metabolism will not have changed in this regard. That creates a basis of concern. That's a theoretical concern but even if it proves incorrect it changes nothing. What rigorous studies have been done to prove that what he does is safe long term? It's not for us to prove him wrong but for him to use science to prove he's right.
That's how science and medicine works. Proof means something. Until then no rational provider could possibly endorse. He may be a physician but he's forgotten how the real scientific world works.
If you are asking if I have proof that his procedure causes cancer of course not. The body does produced toxins which need to be eliminated. I don't think you need a link for that. He admits that he deficates little but his metabolism will not have changed in this regard. That creates a basis of concern. That's a theoretical concern but even if it proves incorrect it changes nothing. What rigorous studies have been done to prove that what he does is safe long term? It's not for us to prove him wrong but for him to use science to prove he's right.
That's how science and medicine works. Proof means something. Until then no rational provider could possibly endorse. He may be a physician but he's forgotten how the real scientific world works.
I agree the onus is on him to prove that what he is doing is beneficial or at least safe. But we also can't randomly speculate as to possible harms without some basis in known human physiology or existant data.
I think it's a little too simple to simply say "the body produces toxins, he is not pooping as much, thus he is at increased risk for colon cancer." Do you know specifically which "toxins" are created in the body that must be eliminated? Perhaps his diet alters the production of such toxins and his decreased bowel movements reflects decreased stool production (which is likely the case given that he is now taking in very little roughage).
I tried looking in pubmed for any data on use of tube feeds with rates of colon cancer (which is the closest thing I can think of to his situation) but havent found anything. There is some data to suggest chronic constipation is at least linked with increased incidence of colon cancer, but that data is full of caveats and likely doesnt apply in his case (since his diet is drastically different and may not really count as constipation)
If I said or implied that cancer is a certainty then I amend that. Lets say that in other cases where toxins are in long term contact with mucosa there's been increased incidence of cancer.
The digestive system is often thought of as an absorber of nutrients and eliminator of waste. That's a very simplistic and incorrect view.
link to abstract
The GI tract is now recognized having significant impact on the immune system. That wasn't known many years ago. What are the long term changes in flora and their effects?
Remember that colorectal cancer is an example. My problem is that people are taking an engineers view of this. Add all the nutrients and voila! Biological systems have never proven that simple and will never be. Consequently I have reservations based on more than "it can't work". I think the person who is attempting to popularize this is doing a great disservice and I expect a book "How to stop eating" or some such thing along with a commercial venture to package and sell. As one who saw how DES, a "perfectly safe" medication turned out I'm not cutting this guy any slack. It's my professional imperative to be highly skeptical.