I don't advocate for or against liquid diets necessarily - and I realize this is overtly a throwaway account - but this sounds pretty pseudo-sciency to me, anecdote notwithstanding.
There is still so much science to do related to food, we just do not have a good grasp of all the nutrients your body needs and what allows you to absorb those nutrients the best. One form of protein from a plant can have completely different absorption rates than that of protein from a cow, its a complete crapshoot to try and blaze a trail with processed staple food products due to the lack of understanding we have of nutrition, and its going to take decades of research to even start to unravel the mysteries of the human bodies digestion system.
I have to agree. I'm not saying that people on liquid diets don't have digestion problems, but the liquid diet alone likely didn't cause it.
Even if you eat no food, you'll still have bowel movements as your intestines shed cells and mucus. If you have a colostomy done (intestines no longer connect to your rectum) you'll still pass small small amounts of stool out the normal way (anus).
Your bowels are muscle. Like any muscle, if it doesn't get used much, it wastes. Just because you're passing some stool, doesn't mean you're in good digestive shape, no more than an irregular heartbeat is healthy "because at least the heart is beating"
What does "good digestive shape" even mean? I've never heard of "digestive muscle wasting" in any of the medical literature. Your digestive muscles are smooth muscle (different from the heart) that are autonomically innervated (more than just food stimulates them).
The fact that people have gone on extended fasts and then broke them without much trouble suggests a "breakdown" of digestive function is a weak argument.
I would say that a change in the biome of the digestive tract is probably more responsible for any digestive upset after breaking a fast than "muscle breakdown".
"Somone would to that? Just go on the internet and tell lies?"
I grew up with AOL chatrooms. I will believe whatever someone presents about themselves up to the point at which it leave the magic circle of the internet.
"Not putting solid food into your system for long periods of time will destroy your ability to digest solid food when you start refeeding"
That is an unscientific statement based on no citation.
Top it off, I have personally lived of Soylent for a year. I go out to eat only a couple times a month and I do not die from horrendous suffering everytime. In fact, nothing changes.
Dear down voters: it should be obvious that just because smoking is not literally guaranteed to destroy your lungs, and you can find plenty of counter examples, it's still a very good idea to warn people that "smoking will destroy your lungs".
And it would have been a good idea to do that back in the 50s when doctors were calling it safe without the science to back up their claims. "You have no evidence" is what you say to justify avoiding something suspect, not what you say to justify consuming it!
Sure, counterexample: my grandfather. Hyperbolic claims like "it will destroy your lungs" are counterproductive in the long run; far better to give a measured, accurate description of the actual level of danger.
The comment I responded to was mockingly talking about dying with the original wasn't. It was being smarmy when the original was talking cleanly. Abusing someone for lack of science when you're being snarky is a footgun.
My point is that if you are chiding someone for a lack of quality, you shouldn't use even less quality to do so.
At bare minimum, include some citation here.