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

171–180 of 608 posts

Re: Soylent Campaign

#171

Post by w1ntermute »

pogden wrote: post #166
cal2 wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> I still manage to do okay choosing my own food at the grocery store

That's because the FDA regulates food. Read The Jungle[0] if you want to know how things were before the FDA existed. These guys need to understand that biotech is nothing like tech and shut this shit down before they kill someone.

There's a good reason why you don't see uneducated teenagers "disrupting" the food and drug industries. This isn't like creating Tumblr.

0: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Jungle

Re: Soylent Campaign

#172

Post by iaskwhy »

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…

What if it does kill someone?

Re: Soylent Campaign

#173

Post by hapkins »

Out of curiosity, if Soylent really does provide every nutrient the body requires, would that mean a user would no longer have to defecate?

My reasoning is if every nutrient is absorbed and used, there is no physical waste left, and all toxins and byproducts would be expelled through urine.

Re: Soylent Campaign

#174

Post by ModusPonies »

sp332 wrote: post #57
volandovengo wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Really?? From all the comments about this idea/execution/etc, this is what you chose to focus your attention on?!

Yes, a claim that 0.2% of the world population dies every year from their own stoves caught my attention. The WHO report is striking to me, because that's a lot of people dying from causes they don't understand and don't see coming.

0.02%, actually, but your point stands.

Re: Soylent Campaign

#175

Post by Zimahl »

pogden wrote: post #166
cal2 wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The difference is that the burritos, ramen, and freezer pizza don't make claims about being "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."

Re: Soylent Campaign

#177

Post by sp332 »

ModusPonies wrote: post #174
sp332 wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, a claim that 0.2% of the world population dies every year from their own stoves caught my attention. The WHO report is striking to me, because that's a lot of people dying from causes they don't understand and don't see coming.

0.02%, actually, but your point stands.

Ah man, I even double-checked and still messed up :p

Re: Soylent Campaign

#178

Post by rcvassallo »

gcb0 wrote: post #25
batgaijin wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

>> claiming you can go on and on on just one food source for long periods of time without extensive testing is just irresponsible.

How can pets tolerate eating the same food for a long period of time? Most cat and dog owners get one brand of food for their pet and stick with it for years at a time.

Are our digestive systems really that different?

Re: Soylent Campaign

#179

Post by jckt »

steveklabnik wrote: post #138
Judson wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They use a whey protein - I don't believe the formula contains soy.

Doesn't whey protein contain lactose?

Lactose intolerance is not an allergy to lactose. Most people are actually lactose-intolerant -- in most of history people around the world simply had no need to drink milk after the toddler stage, and those who are truly lactose-tolerant tend to be of Nordic/Scandinavian ancestry, IIRC. Those who are labelled lactose-intolerant (though that itself is a spectrum) can handle a pint of milk a day.

Re: Soylent Campaign

#180

Post by mindstab »

Personally as a 20 something first worlder earning decent money in tech I am interested in this. So part of me wishes they'd kept the advertising focused on that. Because claiming to be able to tackle world hunger with this "long shelf life, easy to prepare, and efficient no waste" product is disingenuous unless they plan on lowering prices > 10x the listed kickstarter rewards. I'm sorry white kids of America but world hunger is a little more complicated than just waiting for you to come along with a powder. Your product will not end subsistence farming. You want to know why? Take a look outside and around for a change, travel, or read for a MINUTE: as pointed out elsewhere "Almost half the world — over three billion people — live on less than $2.50 a day"[1] ($17.50 / week). Your $65/week product... not going to even register for them. So good luck, I mean it, I'm interested in this product because I kind of eat out too much and not well, and this can be a good product, but maybe reign in the marketing kids because it's sounding nearly offensively naive when you start talking about ending world hunger with this rich kids product for food.

[1] http://www.globalissues.org/article/26/poverty-facts-and-sta...

Post reply on HN