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

221–230 of 608 posts

Re: Soylent Campaign

#221

Post by loupeabody »

I'm going to put $65 up for this as I've been eager to try Soylent since it first popped up on HN.

Clearly this is a very controversial topic, but the general attitude for most of the supporters (myself included) appears to be that if no serious negative effects have been exposed from consuming Soylent in three months, it must be safe to try.

Is there any possibility that consuming Soylent for a while (say, a week to a month) and then stopping cold-turkey could be significantly harmful to one's digestion? Maybe? I guess we'll find out when the first round of supplies is consumed.

Another thing, props on the campaign and having already been funded, but let's hope the next promo video does less to seem like a run-of-the-mill infomercial... :\

Re: Soylent Campaign

#222

Post by salemh »

katbyte wrote: post #200
vecinu wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a very good point and very observant. I too am highly skeptical of ALL of these claims. My main gripe with Soylent (ever since I first saw it here on HN a month ago) is that they are making cooking seem like a horrible chore that nobody wants to do. Shopping is convenient because I go whenever I have time and only buy exactly what I need. At the same time, I also ensure I only buy the best ingredients I can at…

As much as i love cooking, there are times where i would love something that is quick and healthy. not to say soylent is that, just that it would be nice.

Not sure whats wrong with blending some protein powder (ON is tasty), a full avocado, spinach if your feeling frisky, whole-milk if your feeling more frisky (higher fats / a bit more protein) for a near-meal replacement (near, nothing compares to whole foods).

~400 cals or so.

Or taking it further with blending/vitamixing (so you keep the fiber) veggies.

I thought this was the most hilarious article I've read. And it was not sarcastic...

Re: Soylent Campaign

#223

Post by josh2600 »

w1ntermute wrote: post #160
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.

> trust the Soylent folks more than I trust myself purchasing frozen meals in a grocery store. That's a strawman. You're ignoring the fact that those frozen meals are made by companies who have more experience in the food industry than these 4 clowns combined a million times over. I am MUCH more afraid of the Soylent guys' sheer ignorance than I am of any profit-motivated negligence on the part of large frozen meal c…

Ad Hominem attacks don't strengthen your argument.

From what I can tell, the Soylent team appears to be pursuing their goals in an admirably scientific fashion. Although there's quite a bit of work to do, I recall an article from a couple of days ago on HN that was talking about the wonderful work the big guys are doing. This quote from General Mills is priceless:

>In a public comment posted on the FTC website, our friends at General Mills pointed out that under the IWG guidelines, the most commonly consumed foods in the US would be considered unhealthy. Specifically, according to General Mills, “of the 100 most commonly consumed foods and beverages in America, 88 would fail the IWG’s proposed standards.” [1]

I understand your disagreement, I disagree with your ad hominem attack and think that there may be some merit to the Soylent team and their claims, especially when taken in light of the General Mills comments.

[1]http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/2013/05/19/de...

Re: Soylent Campaign

#224

Post by alex_c »

I read this initially assuming it to be a clever spoof on the whole startup / crowdsourcing scene, because of the name: pick something that is obviously a joke product ("Soylent Green is people!") and run with it - start piling on impressive claims, include startup-y backgrounds for the founders, and be really vague about what the product actually is. Given my initial interpretation, I thought the "Is soylent vegan available yet" FAQ was particularly hilarious.

Then I started reading the HN comments, and initially assumed them to be tongue-in-cheek replies running with the joke: the typical "this is why it won't work", the usual "this is why it's a bad idea", the inevitable "it's actually amazing, stop being so negative". But that gradually stopped making sense the further I read, with people appearing to take it way too seriously for a simple spoof.

So thanks HN, you've managed to confuse me completely. This might be a sign I've been spending too much time here lately.

Re: Soylent Campaign

#225

Post by samatman »

angkec wrote: post #43
Xanza wrote: post #29

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 sudde…

Yeah I remembered he claimed to be able to control the monthly cost for around $103 and I got pretty excited over that. Now I'm disappointed to see the price rose to $230. I guess it is time to really find out where my own mix went wrong: I feel the irresistible urge to eat a ton a few days after I'm on my own mix.

Don't forget the null hypothesis: you're feeling the urge to eat because we evolved to eat solids and you're not.

Re: Soylent Campaign

#227

Post by justincormack »

DanBC wrote: post #183
rcvassallo wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> 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?

Most pet food is made by a few manufacturers. They have a lot of labs testing and refining different recipes. There are foods for fat pets; foods to clean teeth; food for kidney health. Pet foods have considerable number of patents. Talk to British people about dog excrement, and there are people of a certain age who remember dog poo being white and furry. People want a food that produces a nice firm stool, that's ea…

Indeed there used to be whole areas of Usenet devoted to the mystery of white dogshit and why it had gone away....

Re: Soylent Campaign

#228

Post by tinco »

jckt wrote: post #206
Eliezer wrote: post #194

I'm in for $65, because I've run out of patience with everyone wisely nodding caution and not trying to solve the problem themselves. Like a lot of metabolically disadvantaged people, I feel betrayed and tossed off a cliff by a society that doesn't understand and doesn't care. You want to know how desperate we are? Read this: http://www.shaman-australis.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=35... That's the next alternative…

Do you mind explaining why Soylent is the solution for metabolically disadvantaged people as opposed to a "traditionally balanced diet"?

Because the idea of being being metabolically disadvantaged is that you can't eat a traditionally balanced diet.

Soylent has none of the complex/unnecessary/unhealthy chemical substances tradional diets (milk,bread,nuts,fish) have that are the frequent object of intolerances.

Re: Soylent Campaign

#229

Post by Eliezer »

jckt wrote: post #206
Eliezer wrote: post #194

I'm in for $65, because I've run out of patience with everyone wisely nodding caution and not trying to solve the problem themselves. Like a lot of metabolically disadvantaged people, I feel betrayed and tossed off a cliff by a society that doesn't understand and doesn't care. You want to know how desperate we are? Read this: http://www.shaman-australis.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=35... That's the next alternative…

Do you mind explaining why Soylent is the solution for metabolically disadvantaged people as opposed to a "traditionally balanced diet"?

Because we tried your traditionally balanced diet, the high-protein diet, the high-fat diet, the paleo diet, the improved paleo diet, the four-hour diet, and yes, exercise, and nothing worked. (Shangri-La resulted in 20 pounds of very easy weight loss then stopped working and never worked again.) Maybe Soylent won't work either, but the concept behind Soylent seems dissimilar to all of those diets along dimensions in which they are similar to each other, so I'm going to try it.

Re: Soylent Campaign

#230

Post by prodigal_erik »

dvanduzer wrote: post #185
DanBC wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Soylent got a fact wrong. Either they deliberately misreported something; in which case they're lying while trying to raise money. Or they made a mistake. And if they get something this simple wrong why should I trust them when they're making something that I'm supposed to be able to live on?

PBS and Science Magazine allegedly got some facts wrong. Regardless, the WHO is talking about three billion indoor fires in primitive homes. In most of these cases, there is no distinction between a "cooking stove" and "heating stove" and whether these families require heating year round or not, cooking is not a seasonal activity. Splitting hairs on this point is dumb, though. The point of citing it at all is to illu…

Soylent is not going to reduce the death toll from indoor stoves if those people have to continue using their stoves to stay warm (even if not also to cook). To make grandiose claims is to risk undermining legitimate ones.
Post reply on HN