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

How I Ate No Food for 30 Days

motherboard.vice.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 297 posts

Re: How I Ate No Food for 30 Days

#271

Post by talles »

aianus wrote: post #177
talles wrote: post #109

This is, IMO, the stupidest thing ever. Why just WHY give up on food? Cooking and enjoying food is one of our essential pleasures in life; I just can't see myself replacing it to some hipster matrix-like shake of nutrients. Just no thank you. Anyway the title feels a lot misleading for someone that is used to do water fast. That is truly 'eating no food', and some do it for lengths of 30 days (yes it's safe for most…

Some people really hate the whole process of shopping, cooking, and eating. Or, at least, they're tired of spending hours every day on it. Can you really not think of anything you'd rather do with your time?

Sure, of course. Nowadays every single piece of 'time' is invaluable to be productive, to get rich, to achieve something.

But we lose the pleasure in the process. Sure, I'm not able to cook a pleasant meal on midweek as I do on my weekends. But that doesn't mean that I'm going to the extreme of blending all up and feed myself with a straw. Finding a balance is the way to go.

Re: How I Ate No Food for 30 Days

#272

Post by JoeAltmaier »

jlgreco wrote: post #64
nightski wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What about all of the foods in the grocery store than can kill you over years if eaten as a primary source of a diet? Are those considered "safe"? * Not trying to advocate Soylent. Just trying to point out that there are a lot of foods in the grocery store that can kill over time (and many are marketed as full meals intended to be eaten regularly).

Eaten that way? Obviously no, they are not safe. That is why you should never suggest that they are eaten that way.... Don't eat only pears; It would be a stupid and dangerous thing to do. You know why Soylent is receiving more criticism than pears? Because unlike pear vendors, they are suggesting that you eat their product that way.

There is an entire category of foods meant to be eaten as 'meal replacements', sold in grocery stores etc. Google it. Soylent is perhaps the best of the lot; its tailorable to your activity level etc. And yes you can eat Soylent for an extended time and feel better than if you ate McD's all the time, which millions of people do and yes, they live to tell about it.

The criticism is overheated and silly. Eat what you like, everybody else does. Lets cut out the unsolicited advice and scare tactics, it sounds silly and timid.

Re: How I Ate No Food for 30 Days

#273

Post by JoeAltmaier »

timr wrote: post #129
tolmasky wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its funny because we already live in this dystopia and you simply don't notice it because the plastic food we eat "looks real" and "tastes good". What is the difference between the completely artificial hamburger people get at McDonalds and Soylent? The fact that its basically "molded" to look like the real food we used to eat? The reality is that we long ago crossed the line into having a society that mostly eats ab…

Ah yes...the "McDonald's is bad, so let's feed people glop instead" argument. How about this: let's help people get access to, appreciate, and learn how to prepare "real" food, instead of jumping to the lowest common denominator. That's what I'd call "disruption".

You said that, and its silly. Nobody's 'feeding people glop', Soylent is a choice. Strident complaints are out of place.

Go ahead and learn to prepare 'real' food, that's your choice.

Re: How I Ate No Food for 30 Days

#274

Post by gtaylor »

nsxwolf wrote: post #186
gtaylor wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are also those of us that derive no joy from eating. Eating is an inconvenience to me. I have zero sweet tooth, and I don't have many cravings for specific foods. I'd rather be doing any number of other things, like reading, working out, yard/car work, calling up family, etc. I work for myself (and work reasonable hours). Of course, all of this anecdotal, but the point is that this isn't a dystopia scenario for…

With all due respect, deriving no joy from eating sounds like an eating disorder of some kind. It's like a basic part of you is not functioning.

No disrespect intended, but you are way off here. I eat, and eat more healthy than most, it's just not something I get excited about.

Re: How I Ate No Food for 30 Days

#275

Post by gtaylor »

oftenwrong wrote: post #161
gtaylor wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are also those of us that derive no joy from eating. Eating is an inconvenience to me. I have zero sweet tooth, and I don't have many cravings for specific foods. I'd rather be doing any number of other things, like reading, working out, yard/car work, calling up family, etc. I work for myself (and work reasonable hours). Of course, all of this anecdotal, but the point is that this isn't a dystopia scenario for…

So what do you eat? Do you blend everything into a homogeneous sludge?

My diet isn't anything out of the ordinary, I just don't get very excited about it.

Re: How I Ate No Food for 30 Days

#276

Post by gtaylor »

avenger123 wrote: post #197
gtaylor wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are also those of us that derive no joy from eating. Eating is an inconvenience to me. I have zero sweet tooth, and I don't have many cravings for specific foods. I'd rather be doing any number of other things, like reading, working out, yard/car work, calling up family, etc. I work for myself (and work reasonable hours). Of course, all of this anecdotal, but the point is that this isn't a dystopia scenario for…

Have you ever looked into getting any testing done with regards to your sense of taste? It would be interesting to see if this is an issue for you.

I've suspected this is probably part of it, but wouldn't know where to begin proving/testing it. At this point, I'm not sure I even care.

There are some definite positives, though. I'm not tempted at all by junk food/soft drinks.

Re: How I Ate No Food for 30 Days

#277

Post by lowboy »

obstacle1 wrote: post #236
lowboy wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A scam? Hardly. The only "scammy" thing was overreaching claims about how it's "optimized perfectly" and the like. And from what I've heard, they've toned that down. We haven't cracked the human body, but there is science that supports Soylent.

>there is science that supports Soylent. Since you made the claim, what specifically is the science that supports Soylent? I assume you can provide references to peer-reviewed stuff, given the nature of your claim, and I look forward to reading it.

IIRC, they've been working with nutritionalists and doctors to continually check on how Soylent is affecting its testers.

I'm too lazy to find the sources, so feel free to dismiss my claim.

Re: How I Ate No Food for 30 Days

#278

Post by chrislipa »

pionar wrote: post #122
nightski wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The food industry as a whole is one big hack, even with it's fancy regulations and bureaucracy. People are dying constantly due to the failures of the industry. It is nice to see fresh ideas.

>People are dying constantly due to the failures of the industry. Wait, what? Not even anywhere near true[1]. The CDC says 3,000 people in the US die every year from foodborne illnesses. That's .1%, one-tenth of a percent. I'd say that's a pretty good track record. [1] http://www.cdc.gov/foodborneburden/

3,000 people out of ~300MM in the US is not one tenth of a percent.

Re: How I Ate No Food for 30 Days

#279

Post by rdl »

I'd kill (well, pay up to $600/mo) for a low-carb version of Soylent. Even if he made it in a (clean) residential kitchen, although I'd prefer if RFI did it under contract.

Even better if you could get monthly blood analysis and then have your Soylent customized for you.

SoylentPro, perhaps.

Re: How I Ate No Food for 30 Days

#280

Post by JohnTHaller »

nsxwolf wrote: post #250
JohnTHaller wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

McDonalds only recently (last year) stopped using 'pink slime' in their burgers: http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/mcdonald-confirms-no-lo...

"Pink slime" is meat. If it had been invented by a molecular gastronomist, we'd be heralding it as an exciting, innovative gourmet food. But the media-invented pejorative nickname "sounds gross", therefore that is scientific proof that it's not "real food" and will kill you.

When people think of 'hamburger', they think of ground beef. Just ground beef. And maybe some spices.

They don't think of the chemical process involved in factory processing the normally inedible bits of a cow into a slimy pink goop (see where the name came from?) and then mixing that in with their ground beef at a specific percentage to avoid getting into trouble.

Post reply on HN