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

161–170 of 608 posts

Re: Soylent Campaign

#161

Post by ceejayoz »

ancarda wrote: post #124
chasing wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The study you cite confirming their claims sounds bulletproof.

I don't see you citing anything. Also, I never confirmed or denied their "claims", I simply stated others have tried it and it's not going to "kill" you or anything. Your original post's attitude seemed to imply it was almost risky to consume this as it's made by people aged "20 or so". Not only do I find your age discrimination shocking, I also take issue with your sarcastic tone. If you want evidence, I can think o…

A week long study? Scurvy takes months. Other deficiencies can take years. "We tried it on ourselves for a few months" is not evidence of anything.

Re: Soylent Campaign

#162

Post by jonathanjaeger »

Ghostp4nts wrote: post #109
jonathanjaeger wrote: post #33

Would be nice if you put nutrition facts on the campaign page. I wouldn't buy without seeing those. Here is what I found ("What's In Soylent?"): http://robrhinehart.com/?p=424 The macronutrient breakdown based on calories per gram is 50% carbs, 13% protein, 37% fat, if I'm not mistaken. I'd rather have a bit more protein and a bit less fat, personally.

You might "rather" have more protein and less fat but you have no clue if that is what you need. If they market the product as a dietary supplement, then they will not have to list nutrition facts and will be able to say this is a "Proprietary Blend". This is a very common practice among supplement companies and can be witnessed by going to your local GNC.

Protein shakes and meal replacements almost always show the amount of protein/fat/carbs. Usually they reserve these "secretive" proprietary blends for creatine, NO3, caffeine, and similar muscle-building or preworkout supplements. I see what you're getting at it, and I agree they might not have to list it, I just think it would be nice to know and perhaps would increase trust.

I'm in the same camp as the author, saying that people overestimate the harm of fat. I don't think I need 56 grams of fat in a serving of soylent, though. Let's assume I want to maintain my bodyweight and need about 2500-3000 calories to do so given the amount I exercise. Two servings of soylent will give me 1600 calories from carbs, 400 calories from protein, and 1008 calories from fat. Maybe that's fine, but maybe it's not ideal. I guess I'd like to know. I think it's a stretch to say I have no clue what I need. Maybe I don't know what I need to survive, in terms of a bare minimum, but I know what I need to maintain my weight in terms of calories.

Re: Soylent Campaign

#163

Post by marknutter »

jckt wrote: post #157
marknutter wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That to me doesn't sound like a recommendation to actually replace every single meal for that month. Rather, it's a unit of measurement that provides better context than simply giving the number of kilograms of powder you'll be receiving. Even so, I don't think it would be harmful to do it for an entire month anyways, and I doubt very many people will be that hardcore about it. It will work perfectly as an occasional…

Perhaps. There seems to be a lot of people who seem to have thought what I thought, though. Maybe it would be better if they gave an all-out disclaimer saying that, "no, Soylent cannot be considered as a replacement for your balanced diet"? From his blog, he really did seem to push the idea of making Soylent his only food -- IIRC he felt like that the traditional idea of eating from a lot of different sources was str…

Yeah, I agree they should state that. He did mention a few times that he eats normal meals when he wants to, but even at that it was only a few times a week. If I buy the stuff I'm likely to only replace my breakfasts and lunches and continue having dinner with my family.

Re: Soylent Campaign

#164

Post by Xanza »

Afforess wrote: post #100
infinitone wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Precisely this. I remember when I first read the creator's blog post and how little it costs to make. Now I come and see it costs about the same amount it costs me to purchase food for a week.

...compared to eating out. His comparison was eating out almost every meal. $230 is cheaper than grocery shopping for a month for a lot of people too.

I'm a college student -- I live off of ramen noodles, and whatever I can steal at my parents house. $230 per month simply isn't in my budget. I was excited because ramen isn't healthy, in fact I've gained about 30-40lbs because it's basically all I eat; and it's becoming a serious health issue.

Re: Soylent Campaign

#165

Post by mey »

revelation wrote: post #98
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.

I'm fine with being positive on the next fun cat photo sharing service, no evil has ever come from that, but they are advertising this as a complete replacement for all your meals without even telling as much as whats in it. That, frankly, should be illegal, and it probably is.

I suggest start here http://robrhinehart.com/?p=298 and check out the continuation of his experiment at http://robrhinehart.com/?p=424

Re: Soylent Campaign

#166

Post by pogden »

cal2 wrote: post #108
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:…

It appears as if only one of the founding individuals has a degree in anything remotely pertaining to nutrition (David Renteln, degree in "Human Evolutionary Biology"). Speaking as a biochemist who works in the biotech industry, this looks to be like a gigantic train wreck just waiting to happen. At first glance, I would be convinced these individuals know very little about the science behind their product. They all…

I don't have a scientific background but I still manage to do okay choosing my own food at the grocery store. Soylent doesn't have to be the pinnacle of human nutrition, it just has to be better than burritos and ramen and freezer pizza.

Re: Soylent Campaign

#167

Post by create_account »

While their high level goals (eliminate hunger, reduce stress on agricultural and environmental resources) are laudable, this project suffers from the same arrogance of doctors in the 1960s who said mother's milk was primitive and could be replaced by artificial formula.

Now, in hindsight, we know what a mistake that was, as natural breast milk contained compounds which decreased various cancer and health risks.

I cannot help but think they are going down the same road.

Re: Soylent Campaign

#168

Post by Kell »

revelation wrote: post #98
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.

I'm fine with being positive on the next fun cat photo sharing service, no evil has ever come from that, but they are advertising this as a complete replacement for all your meals without even telling as much as whats in it. That, frankly, should be illegal, and it probably is.

Hu? Not telling you what's in it ? Isn't the recipe open sourced and extensively discussed on their website ?

Like here for example : http://robrhinehart.com/?p=424 ?

Re: Soylent Campaign

#169

Post by soulashell »

Kuiper wrote: post #148
3825 wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

>people might think they can eat Soylent and nothing else. Isn't that the intent? Rob Rhinehart (creator) lived for a period of one month eating Soylent and nothing else. My understanding is that Soylent is intended to be a meal replacement , not a supplement of some kind.

He's still eating Soylent, and has been consuming it for now 4 months I think.

Re: Soylent Campaign

#170

Post by ancarda »

drtse4 wrote: post #158
ancarda wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see you citing anything. Also, I never confirmed or denied their "claims", I simply stated others have tried it and it's not going to "kill" you or anything. Your original post's attitude seemed to imply it was almost risky to consume this as it's made by people aged "20 or so". Not only do I find your age discrimination shocking, I also take issue with your sarcastic tone. If you want evidence, I can think o…

Are you serious? Even not eating for a week will not kill you and i would not call a link to a forum and a 5 minutes video, "sources". At the moment, other than the blog of one of the founders there is not much to read about this. What about some specialists taking a look at this before start selling it?

Rob wants to put this through proper clinical trials: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTkuvppi334

As of now it hasn't existed for more than a few months so it's a little hard to give sources for trying it for "years".

Additionally, Rob strongly suggests NOT eating it every day.

As for problems arising months (or years), there's also a post about that too: http://robrhinehart.com/?p=570

Post reply on HN