Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Soylent: An Offbeat Food Idea Investors Are Taking Seriously

npr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 63 posts

Re: Soylent: An Offbeat Food Idea Investors Are Taking Seriously

#51

Post by MrDosu »

6d0debc071 wrote: post #35
MrDosu wrote: post #22

People that cannot produce a nutritous tasty meal for under 3 dollars within a few minutes need to take a cooking class, not get fed brown powder.

> People that cannot produce a nutritous tasty meal for under 3 dollars within a few minutes -shrug- Assuming the brown powder thing works out, why would I want to? It's not like I've ever got much pleasure from eating.

You are defintely missing out. Food and it's preparation is without a doubt one of the things that lead us humans to develop the tool making abilities that make us what wwe are today. Food has always been the most primal and important cultural aspect of any epoch in our history. It can be hard to get into when you have not been properly introduced to food culture (e.g. your mother fed you a TV dinner and a passive cigarette every evening), but it is one of THE aspects of being human.

Re: Soylent: An Offbeat Food Idea Investors Are Taking Seriously

#52

Post by netcan »

chroem wrote: post #45
netcan wrote: post #9

I'm not sure if there's something I'm missing about soylent, but it seems to me like the most remarkable thing in the soylent story is that the company is a product of the tech startup culture. The product itself fits (in my mind) in the nutritional supplements / meal replacements category and wouldn't have ordinarily gotten the attention of HN and startup investors.* I wonder if this is an anomaly or first blood. Ma…

I think you may be confusing the term "tech startup" with "web development startup." This isn't inspired by tech startups, it is a tech startup. It bothers me how people equate technology with the web. I guess the Saturn V was a useless piece of crap because it didn't use the latest web stack.

I don't think I am.

Technology is a tricky word (is twitter a new technology?) to define clearly, even for a limited context. We got used to lumping together companies creating technologies with those building on big new technologies like the internet. So, an online store could still be called a tech startup (or dotcom or web startup)

But, imagine this exact same product coming from a company similar to one of the existing nutritional supplement companies. Would you call it a tech startup?

We're dealing with subjective definitions obviously, but I think this is substantially different. One thing that stands out is that there is no good answer to the question "why now?"

Re: Soylent: An Offbeat Food Idea Investors Are Taking Seriously

#53

Post by MrDosu »

jkscm wrote: post #44
MrDosu wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I totally agree that cooking can take significantly longer then "a few minutes", but there is plenty to be had in terms of a quick meal. For me the most worrying part is when the creator of the supplement is stated to have no time for meal preparation due to his work. It is ok to just eat a quick sandwich or a joghurt/fruit combo every once in a while, but if you cant spend some time on proper meals your life is goin…

What about shopping for groceries? Salad and some vegetables lose taste and vitamin after a few days. Even if keep it in the fridge. If you want to eat fresh and healthy food you will have to go shopping more often. Food spoilage can be an issue too. I can't imagine how how much food has been thrown into the garbage because it looked untasty.

This is all just part of food education on how to properly store your products. Some people living in remote areas are prefectly fine living on a diet of fresh produce going shopping every other month, while some buy their food every day. It is not really a limiting factor, more of an excuse.

Re: Soylent: An Offbeat Food Idea Investors Are Taking Seriously

#54

Post by DanBC »

scrabble wrote: post #48
DanBC wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> as an alternative to products like Boost and Ensure. You specifically mention people with medical needs: What does Soylent do that isn't done by existing meal replacements? What extras does Soylent bring? Or is it just nice to see more products in that segment? I guess with the investment Soylent could employ qualified dietitians or nutritionists to write information for medical professionals, and to answer questio…

In recent history I've had multiple family members suffer from long, drawn out illnesses ending in death. In these cases they generally get tired of what they're drinking and don't want to drink it anymore. It's nice to see more products in that segment for people in that state, so there's the possibility of more variety because I feel like people with medical needs have additional desires from their food/drink other…

But the existing meal replacements come in a variety of flavours, including sweet or savoury. They come in a variety of textures, thick yoghurty to milk-shake, to thin. They can be eaten hot or cold.

So, uh, what does Soylet add? Just one more extra bit of variety?

Re: Soylent: An Offbeat Food Idea Investors Are Taking Seriously

#55

Post by Cthulhu_ »

DanBC wrote: post #4
scrabble wrote: post #2

I think this idea will appeal to people who can't eat -- such as those with cancer -- as an alternative to products like Boost and Ensure. I can't see myself or any of the people I know replacing food with a drink, but I definitely see room in the meal replacement market. Best of luck to Soylent.

> as an alternative to products like Boost and Ensure. You specifically mention people with medical needs: What does Soylent do that isn't done by existing meal replacements? What extras does Soylent bring? Or is it just nice to see more products in that segment? I guess with the investment Soylent could employ qualified dietitians or nutritionists to write information for medical professionals, and to answer questio…

I don't know Boost / Ensure, but given how they seem to be (based on the parent) sold as a medical food replacement, I can imagine they're rather expensive.

I wouldn't call Soylent cheap, though - $65 a week for one person is quite a lot if you're on a tight budget, and it doesn't scale to family-size who can be cheaper off by buying and cooking food in bulk. Wouldn't feed my kids slop like this either tbh (and I'm pretty sure that they would rebel (if I had them and tried to feed them this for any duration of time)).

Re: Soylent: An Offbeat Food Idea Investors Are Taking Seriously

#56

Post by 6d0debc071 »

nodata wrote: post #37
6d0debc071 wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> People that cannot produce a nutritous tasty meal for under 3 dollars within a few minutes -shrug- Assuming the brown powder thing works out, why would I want to? It's not like I've ever got much pleasure from eating.

Then you need to eat better food!

You might be right, but how do I find it?

I've been to restaurants that are supposedly decent, and I don't think there's anything off about my cooking - others seem to find it palatable enough, (though whether they'd tell me or not if they didn't is questionable.) I've tried cooking with expensive ingredients and cheap ingredients - and there's a difference in texture but not really much in the taste.

It's not like I can't recognise tastes but the response is just, 'Meh. Oh, yeah it's food flavoured like [whatever]. That stuff you eat so you don't die.'

Re: Soylent: An Offbeat Food Idea Investors Are Taking Seriously

#57

Post by 6d0debc071 »

scrabble wrote: post #50
6d0debc071 wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> People that cannot produce a nutritous tasty meal for under 3 dollars within a few minutes -shrug- Assuming the brown powder thing works out, why would I want to? It's not like I've ever got much pleasure from eating.

If this is the case, why haven't you replaced the food you eat with currently available meal replacement shakes?

Didn't realise they existed until quite recently, variety of prices and use cases - research still ongoing as to what would actually work, and not eat into my purse too much, if taken as a significant part of the diet.

A lot of them seem to be a few hundred k-calories a serving, and even if you had three a day that's still not going to push you up to anywhere near the 2000 or so you need. I'm not sure what the effects of taking multiples of your recommended vitamin intakes for them would be either, since a fair few of them claim to provide 100% of your RDA per serving.

Basically, I don't know enough yet. (Google is fairly unhelpful, throwing out shakes to lose weight rather than as realistic meal substitutes.) But it's an area I'm looking into.

Re: Soylent: An Offbeat Food Idea Investors Are Taking Seriously

#58

Post by pothibo »

confluence wrote: post #24
pothibo wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Normal food at 5$ a day? Not sure which part of the world you live in, but if it's in North America/Europe I call b.s without evidence. You can't run on Ensure/Fortsip/Sustagen's only without having consequences.

See here: http://www.cnpp.usda.gov/Publications/FoodPlans/2013/CostofF... , thanks to HN user fennecfoxen

Did you read the footnote?

Thrifty and low cost plan are not healthy meals whatsoever and it's highly optimized food consumption. Waste do exist. This report is disingenuous

Re: Soylent: An Offbeat Food Idea Investors Are Taking Seriously

#59

Post by nodata »

6d0debc071 wrote: post #56
nodata wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then you need to eat better food!

You might be right, but how do I find it? I've been to restaurants that are supposedly decent, and I don't think there's anything off about my cooking - others seem to find it palatable enough, (though whether they'd tell me or not if they didn't is questionable.) I've tried cooking with expensive ingredients and cheap ingredients - and there's a difference in texture but not really much in the taste. It's not like I…

Take steak for example. Cheap steak needs sauce. Good steak on the other hand is spoilt by sauce, a good steak tastes amazing on its own.

Take standard supermarket vegetables: nothing special there. Know someone who grows them themselves? Try them. Taste the difference? Suddenly vegetables are worth eating again.

Take a bad dessert: it's got all the right ingredients, but it tastes meh. You've just ingested half your daily calories eating meh. Now try a good dessert: omg how did they do this.

That's the difference.

Re: Soylent: An Offbeat Food Idea Investors Are Taking Seriously

#60

Post by drifting »

hmsimha wrote: post #49
RunningDroid wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are aware that Calcium blocks the absorption of Iron[1], and that it blocks absorption of manganese, magnesium, zinc, fluoride, and phosphorus.[2] The people making Soylent are testing the mix on themselves first, and having blood tests done regularly to make sure they aren't harming themselves in the long run. [1] http://discourse.soylent.me/t/interaction-of-for-instance-ir... [2] http://discourse.soylent.me/t/…

I'm glad to see I'm not the first person to consider the interaction, but (correct me if I'm wrong) none of the people addressing this are actually involved with the development of Soylent, right? And yes, I realize there are people getting blood tests. The human body can be surprisingly resilient, and whether or not the deficiency is in iron or something else, it may take a long time to present. My main objection is…

I think the person who is making soylent has been testing it for 6 years. There have been bumps along the way (ie: deficient on nutrients), but that is why it is still essentially in alpha/beta. They aren't saying it is perfect yet and so I don't see the reason to assume so
Post reply on HN