Water bills are lower.
Wow, how much is he spending on water for this to be a tangible benefit?
This Man Thinks He Never Has to Eat Again
201–210 of 516 posts
Re: This Man Thinks He Never Has to Eat Again
#202I think this is one of those "Whatever floats your boat" kind of things. For me, as with others, eating is something I enjoy, not a chore, and I look forward to food. Also, I'm not sure how one's social interactions work in this world, especially since so much that is tied around food.
I look forward to food, but not paying $8 a day to eat lunch from one of two crappy places I can easily get to from work. Nor the weight gain that comes from them. Obviously I could pack a lunch, but I hate that shit. If this could actually sustain me I would consider it for breakfast/lunch with a real dinner. Clearly I could probably get away with an off the shelf replacement for those meals though...
Eh, see, I don't mind that, and I actually enjoy cooking and experimenting in my spare time. Its not something that I want to replace, you know?
Re: This Man Thinks He Never Has to Eat Again
#203>Soylent contains all of the nutritive components of a balanced diet, but with just a third of the calories... This worries me. It's not a misquote, either. From his blog^0 : >...I get all the nutrition and energy I need with about 1/3 the calories the average American consumes... The average American consumes 2,757 calories^2 . There's a term called the Basal Metabolic Rate. It is the amount of calories your body ne…
His "What's In Soylet" [0] article provides a little insight. Carbohydrates (200g) 200 * 4 kcal = 800 kcal Protein (50g) 50 * 4 kcal = 200 kcal Fat (65g) 65 * 9 kcal = 585 kcal That's a total of 1585 calories. [0]: http://robrhinehart.com/?p=424
The average American eats a lot, but not 5000 calories!
Re: This Man Thinks He Never Has to Eat Again
#204Earlier quoted context omitted.
I saved for ~18 months, then spent two years driving from Alaska to Argentina, because I wanted to. I blogged the whole time at http://theroadchoseme.com All the financial details are at http://theroadchoseme.com/the-price-of-adventure You'll be interested to note I only spent $1200/mo on the road, which is almost exactly what I was spending month-to-month to go to work every day. I'm currently back working as a Soft…
Nice. I'm more or less in the same boat in that I'm trying to save some money but don't want to spend so much time working to do it. The problem is that most companies are looking for long-term employees, so it's more difficult to find something on a shorter term.
What's wrong with signing on as a full-time employee then quitting a few years later?
My company has fired many loyal full-time employees in the last 18 months with very minimal notice, so I feel no compunction about doing the same.
Re: This Man Thinks He Never Has to Eat Again
#205> because "soylent" is the name of a wafer made out of human flesh and fed Bit of nerd pedantry: this is incorrect. "Soylent" is the name of a type of processed food. There are different kinds made from various things. "soylent green" is a new variety introduced in this category that is supposedly made from kelp (or something like that) but is famously made from something else entirely. It's actually a pretty apt nam…
It may be apt, but it's a stupid name from a marketing perspective because of the associations it brings to mind. I noticed how eager he was to correct the record about the term "soylent", demonstrating a common blind spot among technical people. He should be focused on persuasion but is wasting attentional resources on pedantry and ego stroking.
Ah, but he's not selling it, or even publishing a list of the nutrients on his blog.
Re: This Man Thinks He Never Has to Eat Again
#206Earlier quoted context omitted.
You sound like an industry-insider explaining why a new startup will fail. "They're too young!" "They don't have the experience" "We've devoted our LIVES to figuring this out, one kid in his basement didn't do it in a few weeks!" Etc etc No offense but we've heard the exact same thing about every successful idea. And what's more: People look at the human GI totally wrong anyway. They think, what can I put in to get t…
Did you read his blog? He's claiming it cured his skin disease, gave him mental superpowers, has him in the best shape of his life, it gives him more energy, it tastes great, and costs $150 a month. Reads like a sleazy wonderpill ad.
Did you read his blog? That's an extreme exaggeration of what he said.
Re: This Man Thinks He Never Has to Eat Again
#207Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the point is that doing these things is a welcome distraction from work. Eating becomes a chore when you could be doing something better.
Yeah, but then that better thing becomes a chore, when you do it all day every day.
That's why you fill your life up with lots of varied "better things" so no one of them becomes a chore.
Even if they somehow did, you can just pick new "better things". The drain of buying/cooking/eating/cleaning up food is you can't easily opt out.
Re: This Man Thinks He Never Has to Eat Again
#208I wonder how it tastes with rum?
Re: This Man Thinks He Never Has to Eat Again
#209Earlier quoted context omitted.
> You sound like an industry-insider explaining why a new startup will fail. I certainly don't want to rain on some new visionary's parade, but I spend a lot of time tracking folks who I consider to be the real visionaries in this field. As in we are currently in the midst of the greatest revolution in human health of our lives, and this guy is running in the wrong direction. We're seeing astonishing results with die…
> "Extraordinary claims, extraordinary proof, or GTFO." > "I see this guy's protocol as nothing but poisonous in the long run." You place a burden of evidence on him that you yourself in this very post violated on a number of occasions. You CANNOT call his diet poisonous simply because you disagree with it. You admitted it yourself: > "Current research is showing that we are only just beginning to gain understanding…
> You place a burden of evidence on him that you yourself in this very post violated on a number of occasions. You CANNOT call his diet poisonous simply because you disagree with it.
Nutrition science is in its infancy. It's clear that the complexity of the interaction of food as it is digested and interacting with our organism has barely had the surface scratched. Also, if you look at the rise of processed foods along with obesity, diabetes, and other health problems that have increased over the past century it's clear that there are some serious problems, and they haven't been explained conclusively by this or that macro-nutrient trend.
So given the state of the evidence, a vague evolutionary assertion that whole foods are generally healthier than a distilled diet of completely isolated nutrients is not granola flag-waving woowoo nonsense, it's a perfectly reasonable belief based on imperfect evidence.
Put another way, the idea the ability to construct a perfect diet given the knowledge we have is likely to fail due to the overwhelming number of unknown details that simply aren't an issue when you're eating whole foods.
If this guy wants to experiment on himself than I'm happy to reap the benefits, but I do believe it's risky. Let's not whitewash common sense just because of "a lack of data". The fact that we have imperfect data does not make all approaches equal, and the fact that this guy is an engineer and wants to follow a scientific approach does automatically make his ideas superior to someone who holds certain nutritional beliefs for slightly more hand-wavy reasons.
Re: This Man Thinks He Never Has to Eat Again
#210When consuming all vitamins and minerals together, some cancel each other out. I tried Googling some articles to back up what I'm saying. Unfortunately, there is nothing presented in a pretty pre-packaged form. So go with this. e.g.: CTRL + F "vitamin C supplements can destroy dietary vitamin B12" and "Potassium" here: http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/druginfo/natural/926.html He may not be absorbing all the nutrie…
"I believe a body absorbs naturally occurring things like protein, carbs, and fat better than when it is isolated"
I will ask my farmer great-uncle to ask his cow owning friends about this, and one of my wedding guests is/was a veterinarian and he'll likely have a lot to say. I will say based on evidence that humans Might be the only animal who require nutrition isolation, because I am unaware of any practice like this with livestock or pet nutrition. Now I do have personal experience that some farmers "mix their own" a cup of this to a sack of that to a spoon of this and shake it up, but others just use premix, and as far as I've personally seen even the home-mixer livestock farmers might custom mix but they then feed the same stuff every day. I'm intentionally excluding mammals drinking milk, I've read this guys blog and I think we can safely assume he's a young human but well past weaning.
I don't know anyone raising pets with nutritional segregation, and I've never heard of them accused of animal cruelty and never seen malnourished housecats because they've eaten the same food for many years.