Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Soylent Campaign

campaign.soylent.me

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 608 posts

Re: Soylent Campaign

#21

Post by obviouslygreen »

Afforess wrote: post #2

Looking forward to this. There has been a lot of FUD, and I think some of it is valid, so I'm choosing the 1 week supply option to give it a try. I'd like to replace 1 of my meals each day with this, I hate having to deal with cooking and cleaning up in small temporary apartments.

Be very, very careful. Ideally, if you can afford it, have a doctor evaluate your health (particularly blood chemistry) before and then after a few weeks. Not only would it be useful to you, it'd be informative to everyone considering this.

Re: Soylent Campaign

#23

Post by jckt »

jere wrote: post #12

>Soylent is perfectly balanced and optimized for your body and lifestyle, meaning it automatically puts you at an optimal weight, makes you feel full, and improves your focus and cognition. Citation needed. I'm a big fan of n=1, but making these kinds of claims supported by anecdote and then asking for money based on those claims is ridiculous.

Also, the quotations from the early adopters...they could at least say who said those things, never mind whether or not they actually said them.

Re: Soylent Campaign

#24

Post by rosser »

DanBC wrote: post #7
Afforess wrote: post #2

Looking forward to this. There has been a lot of FUD, and I think some of it is valid, so I'm choosing the 1 week supply option to give it a try. I'd like to replace 1 of my meals each day with this, I hate having to deal with cooking and cleaning up in small temporary apartments.

I hope you enjoy it! It'd be interesting to hear how you get on. If you decide you don't like soylent there are a bunch of other products from other more mainstream manufacturers. Fortisip and Ensure are the two brands I'm most familiar with, but there are others. Fortisip do wide range of different style products (shake, juice, yoghurt, and 'savory'.) But it's an acquired taste. I'm not sure why they have two traili…

You might want to avoid Ensure. In a test where it was used in place of the standard glucose solution for an oral glucose tolerance test, it caused 2 hour blood glucose levels over 180 mg/dl in some subjects.

Sure, it's marketed as having a low glycemic index — but the GI of chocolate cake and ice cream is even lower...

Re: Soylent Campaign

#25

Post by gcb0 »

batgaijin wrote: post #20
gcb0 wrote: post #8

Still doesn't answer how this is much different than just another kind of diet shake.

Most diet shakes aren't marketed as being fully nutritious. This has all the vitamins your body craves; as in I think you could eat this forever with no side effects, but that (to my knowledge) has never been tested with diet drinks (because they can claim that it's your responsibility to get the right nutrients).

So, it's a diet shake where the company is liable?

Man, i'm dying to be able to live on shakes (I already do, protein shakes and soluble fiber when i'm out of time) but claiming you can go on and on on just one food source for long periods of time without extensive testing is just irresponsible.

Re: Soylent Campaign

#26

Post by gojomo »

ceejayoz wrote: post #13

It's a pity no one on the team has any experience in a relevant field, and the "Is it safe?" answer is absurd. You could say the same thing to deem cigarettes safe.

Indeed, the hand-waving and un-attributed testimonials are of the same class of support usually provided for ideas like Breatharianism:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breatharianism

Re: Soylent Campaign

#27

Post by [deleted] »

gojomo wrote: post #15

I'm glad such eccentric projects are pursued – they're how progress happens – but it's still the case that... (a) Both the 1973 Charlton Heston movie and mixed, some-negative health connotations of the word 'soy' make the chosen name for the product problematic. (b) The argument for its safety – "We have been testing Soylent on ourselves for several months and the data shows it to have a positive nutritional benefit"…

[deleted]

Re: Soylent Campaign

#28

Post by christianrahn »

I'm extremely interested in this...concept.

But for someone trying to hack nutrition this way, you would think they would open the ingredients, or at least offer research sources.

Knowing the contents of Soylent isn't going to stop anyone from buying it (convenience), but it would allow people to understand some of these bold claims.

Re: Soylent Campaign

#29

Post by Xanza »

I'm actually really pissed off at this product -- as with many, I've had both high hopes and reservations since the start of this whole ordeal.

With me being a college student with a VERY limited budget I get very little nutrition that's needed for my body to operate normally. I was so turned on to this product because it was initially advertised to cost the creator between $50 and $100 per month. Now, all of a sudden it's going to cost me $230 just to get started.

It's starting to sound more and more like a scam; I'm pretty livid.

Re: Soylent Campaign

#30

Post by deathcakes »

I can't help but feel that this is such an 'engineers' solution to something that isn't really a problem - whilst I agree that a cheap, reliable and efficient way to feed a lot of people is something that the world is sorely in need of, I can't understand why someone would opt for this through choice and not necessity.

Which is nothing more than a failure of my imagination, of course, and I'm not seriously suggesting that anyone who does is defective in any way, but I feel like most of life's greatest pleasures come directly from the preparation and consumption of food. To want to get rid of these pleasures in the name of efficiency is a strange argument to my mind.

I'm 100% behind the vat grown meat brigade on this one.

Post reply on HN