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

331–340 of 608 posts

Re: Soylent Campaign

#331

Post by rosser »

tree6014 wrote: post #320
[deleted] wrote: post #239

[deleted]

I read his blog posts leading up to this and liked the idea. So, I decided to try it myself. After many revisions, I finally figured out a good way of doing it and it ended up being more expensive than just eating regular grilled chicken, sweet potatoes, etc. He is using Maltodextrin for carbs. It likely contains Glutamic Acid and has a horrible glycemic index. You might as well eat sugar. I don't know what he is usi…

Believe it or not, consuming the toxins contained in whole foods makes us more robust.

This is similar to the phenomenon where children who grow up desperately poor and literally living in dirt have a markedly lower rate of autoimmune diseases than first world kids.

Re: Soylent Campaign

#332

Post by atdrummond »

tree6014 wrote: post #320
[deleted] wrote: post #239

[deleted]

I read his blog posts leading up to this and liked the idea. So, I decided to try it myself. After many revisions, I finally figured out a good way of doing it and it ended up being more expensive than just eating regular grilled chicken, sweet potatoes, etc. He is using Maltodextrin for carbs. It likely contains Glutamic Acid and has a horrible glycemic index. You might as well eat sugar. I don't know what he is usi…

Where are you getting your CFM whey that it is so expensive?

http://www.truenutrition.com/p-1100-whey-protein-isolate-cfm... Per gram of protein, this is far cheaper than organic chicken.

http://www.truenutrition.com/p-947-whey-protein-isolate-cold...

If you're willing to try Cold Filtration, you can purchase it for $9.40/lb.

This doesn't include the 5% off coupons that TN has year round. (AND028 is my personal one.)

Re: Soylent Campaign

#333

Post by collypops »

Rob has been testing (and modifying) Soylent for mere months. He has a bunch of human Guinea Pigs that have been testing various mixes for mere weeks. How is a Kickstarter-esque campaign the logical next step?

It sounds like the guys behind this are impatient, overconfident and reckless. Worse than that, they're preying on those caught up in how fashionable crowd-funding is these days. I doubt very much that a website like Kickstarter would actually get behind a project like this, which is why they've had to roll their own website.

If these guys had a background in Bromatology and did their due diligence before launching this campaign, I'd be skeptical. Just imagine how confident I am, given the reality.

Re: Soylent Campaign

#334

Post by shubb »

[deleted] wrote: post #312
shubb wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sitting this one out for a year. I expected Rob to run longer and more detailed trails than it appears he has. As in a few hundred people eating nothing but Soylent for a year. There will be problems with the initial manufacture, and he highlights them in the risks section. But I notice the lack of anyone from say a pharma QC background who would be able to control the risk of overdosing on an ingredient by prope…

[deleted]

Actually, reading this, I can see your point. It's all very well to say 'other people can test this out', but the possible consequences are pretty bad. Thanks.

As I say, I'm waiting a year before having anything to do with this. But I hope it is okay. Because I'd like the product, but also because someone will eat it for a year now.

Re: Soylent Campaign

#335

Post by sillysaurus »

scarmig wrote: post #329
fc2 wrote: post #302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Very eloquent arguments, you've thoroughly convinced me.

Just to be clear, you're embarrassing yourself because multivitamins are the modern equivalent of magical totems of other civilizations that we patronizingly mock. Or, to reach more into our own history, they're the modern snake oil.

multivitamins are the modern equivalent of snake oil

You'll need to post some sort of citation in order to convince anyone of that.

Re: Soylent Campaign

#336

Post by scott_s »

fc2 wrote: post #290
w1ntermute wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you think that a sample of 1 is enough to validate the safety of this substance, then you need to just stop commenting on this article. You have absolutely no idea how science works.

It is not a "substance". This is basically a multivitamin mixed in with some fluor, some whey protein and some olive oil. You only need common sense to validate the safety.

"Safe to consume along with a regular diet" is different than "safe to consume as your entire diet."

Re: Soylent Campaign

#337

Post by cabalamat »

[deleted] wrote: post #318
anonymoushn wrote: post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rather than have everyone in this thread call someone from your list of food scientists at UBC, perhaps you could call one and post the conversation for us. This would be a bit less time consuming for the food scientists.

[deleted]

> I've demonstrated a simple way to do some due diligence. If people haven't done this themselves, then they are being fools. It's a harsh word, but that's the correct usage.

Have you eaten any food today? I assume you have or intend to. How many scientists did you consult before you did so? If it was none, then you haven't done your due diligence, and you're a fool. It's harsh to say so, but it's your own fault if you suffer ill-health through your laziness and stupidity.

Re: Soylent Campaign

#338

Post by w1ntermute »

sillysaurus wrote: post #322
w1ntermute wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If a multivitamin works then this works too. God, you are just embarrassing yourself now. Please just stop.

God, you are just embarrassing yourself now. Please just stop. Actually, he's not. He's presenting an argument. You're presenting a personal attack. What's distressing is that you're being upvoted for it.

> What's distressing is that you're being upvoted for it.

Because I'm right, and he's wrong. For fuck's sake, everyone on here needs to educate themselves about the basics of nutrition before commenting on something they don't understand.

What you have here is a bunch of 20-something coders, most of whom don't know jack shit about cooking or biology but wish they didn't have to think about cooking so they could spend more time working on their Rails or iPhone apps, getting excited that one of their own has "disrupted" a new industry.

In reality, it's just another example of the blind leading the blind. But failures in the food industry don't just end with a site shutting down and some commenters on HN complaining about losing their favorite service while some others explain why it didn't survive. They can end with people in the hospital or in the grave.

Re: Soylent Campaign

#339

Post by [deleted] »

sillysaurus wrote: post #330
[deleted] wrote: post #318

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[deleted]

No. I've demonstrated a simple way to do some due diligence. If people haven't done this themselves, then they are being fools. You're willing to dismiss everyone as being fools for not taking the time to do what you're proposing, yet you won't do what you're proposing and post the results.

[deleted]

Re: Soylent Campaign

#340

Post by antihero »

[deleted] wrote: post #318
anonymoushn wrote: post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rather than have everyone in this thread call someone from your list of food scientists at UBC, perhaps you could call one and post the conversation for us. This would be a bit less time consuming for the food scientists.

[deleted]

Mate we don't just have access to random experts. Do us a favour and support the shit you are saying.
Post reply on HN