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

111–120 of 608 posts

Re: Soylent Campaign

#111

Post by chasing »

ancarda wrote: post #101
chasing wrote: post #65

"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." Bull-fucking-shit. This is a product made by four twenty-somethings, none of whom appears to have a background in nutrition or any kind of health studies. To trust your health to these people would be fucking stupid. Jesus. Also:…

Several people have tried the recipe and can vouch for it. If you don't like it, don't buy it.

The study you cite confirming their claims sounds bulletproof.

Re: Soylent Campaign

#112

Post by mongol »

nemo1618 wrote: post #99

I think HN's hatred of Soylent has been increasing exponentially as we get closer to a mass-market release. What's with all the negativity? If you don't like it, don't buy it -- easy as that. It may not be the perfect product, but at least it's pushing some boundaries. I, for one, am excited to get my hands on a batch and let the results speak for themselves.

Hacker News would be very quiet if no-one commented and everybody made their purchasing decisions in quiet. This is a controversial diet, it is not clear if it is viable food replacement and it can affect your health, especially what are the effects long-term? Their page pitches environmental concerns, and I find that ridiculous. Are they serious that they aim for Soylent to be a large part of what people eat globally in the future?

Re: Soylent Campaign

#113

Post by peterwwillis »

3825 wrote: post #102
peterwwillis wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They've got to be violating some kind of FDA rules. Like what? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_and_Drug_Administration#Fo... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_of_food_and_dietary_... "The Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994 mandated that the FDA regulate dietary supplements as foods, rather than as drugs. Therefore, dietary supplements are not subject to safety and efficacy testing and there a…

You can't make blanket statements like "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." because people might think they can eat Soylent and nothing else. I won't say they are breaking the law. All I am saying is they need a lot of clinical trial to cover their butts in court.

False. There is no law that requires them to qualify "structure or function claims". They can claim it makes you 200 feet tall, and it doesn't matter, because it is not a drug and it has nothing to do with listing ingredients on the label.

However, false advertising claims are handled by the FTC. I suggest you talk to them before the FDA.

edit: For a court case to be effective the plaintiff has to prove that the product does not work; the burden of proof is not on the manufacturer, according to FDA regulations. Depending on wording this could require a long testing period with many people for a judge to take it seriously.

Re: Soylent Campaign

#114

Post by breadbox »

3825 wrote: post #102
peterwwillis wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They've got to be violating some kind of FDA rules. Like what? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_and_Drug_Administration#Fo... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_of_food_and_dietary_... "The Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994 mandated that the FDA regulate dietary supplements as foods, rather than as drugs. Therefore, dietary supplements are not subject to safety and efficacy testing and there a…

You can't make blanket statements like "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." because people might think they can eat Soylent and nothing else. I won't say they are breaking the law. All I am saying is they need a lot of clinical trial to cover their butts in court.

It's true, though -- under current law, you get a free pass for the majority of evidential requirements just by calling your product a "supplement". As long as they don't explicitly state that it can cure something specific (see e.g. Airborne, which made that mistake), the above wording you quoted isn't much different from the junk you see all over labels in health food stores.

Re: Soylent Campaign

#116

Post by pron »

Guys, please don't do this. We've met at YC, and I think you are great guys, but some things in the video are false.

Soylent is definitely not "perfectly tailored to your body" and it probably isn't "everything the body needs", for the simple reason that nobody has any idea what the body needs, let alone how to tailor a perfect diet. Nutrition research is extremely complex and fraught with false findings. When John Ioannidis said that most medical research findings are false he singled out nutrition and genetics as the most problematic fields.

False advertising this particular product can be dangerous because a lot of people get obsessed about diet and health, and tend to cling to whatever subset of findings they happen to have heard, and then treat the whole thing religiously.

Some nutritional deficiencies become apparent only after years and then possibly only in people with a certain genetic makeup.

You are targeting a population that adopts health fads like they were the ten commandments, and are trying to sell a product that has properties you can't possibly know. Please stop because you may inadvertently hurt people.

Re: Soylent Campaign

#118

Post by ChuckMcM »

Afforess wrote: post #66
ChuckMcM wrote: post #47

Limited market appeal (folks who eat to live vs live to eat) and it lacks the credibility of a clinical study done under the supervision of folks who have the experience to evaluate the results. So in that way it is simply another "look, eating this probably won't kill you, at least not quickly." product. There are many of these introduced and produced every year. That said, to the extent that this guy can get tracti…

The same could be said for a McDonalds.

True, and perhaps one of the classic examples of a product like this is "Instant Breakfast" which claims to be the equivalent of breakfast but something you can prepare and eat quickly.

There are markets for this kind of stuff though, like military foodstocks (MREs) or disaster supplies if there is a decent shelf life. But those products have some interesting (at least to me) testing cycles they have gone through.

Re: Soylent Campaign

#119

Post by chasing »

evv wrote: post #87
Afforess wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow, it's like the "Hacker News Is Depressing" Article didn't happen. I trust the Soylent folks more than I trust myself purchasing frozen meals in a grocery store. It's hard to be worse than that benchmark.

Its not like one article would change the behavior of everyone on here. HN has pessimism in its culture, and most of the best comments are the critical ones.

I find criticism to be much more helpful (usually) than cheers. For what it's worth.

Re: Soylent Campaign

#120

Post by shurcooL »

I really hope they're able to ship to Canada soon. :( I just donated $50 to the cause until then.

I believe in the general cause so much, that even if there's only 1% something good will come out of this particular project, I'll happily take that chance.

Post reply on HN