How Soylent Ships a Trillion Calories per Month • Hacker News Board

Re: How Soylent Ships a Trillion Calories per Month

#201

Post by smackfu » Sat, Jun 06, 2015, 12:35 PM UTC

refurb wrote: post #149

tetraodonpuffer wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

it depends on where you live, over here a medium sized bunch of organic kale is $2.99 at whole foods by itself, and $0.20 won't get you that many oats, let alone honey or cinnamon. The advantage of things like Soylent is that the price is the same no matter where you live, whether you are in a small town with great produce where it's cheap or whether you live in an expensive downtown with limited access.

I don't know how anyone can afford to shop at Whole Foods! If you want fresh veggies and fruit for cheap, go find an Asian supermarket. If you walk in and realize you're the only non-Asian, then you're in the right place. I can easily buy enough fruits and vegetables to last a week for $15. We're talking multiple serving of both for lunch and dinner for 7 days.

If there's not much of an Asian population, Asian supermarkets aren't nearly as common and so not very convenient.

Re: How Soylent Ships a Trillion Calories per Month

#202

Post by smackfu » Sat, Jun 06, 2015, 12:38 PM UTC

jimrandomh wrote: post #35

fweespeech wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

http://www.mealsquares.com/nutrition-facts.html 2000 calories of it is 130% of your daily saturated fat...and 126% of total fat. Eh. Soylent you could get away with eating it all day [theoretically]. MealSquares you need to supplement with other foods due to the fact content or you'll end up screwing your health with that much saturated fat. http://www.heart.org/HEARTORG/GettingHealthy/NutritionCenter... Additionally…

The right amount of saturated fat to eat is a major controversy, and I think you're promoting incorrect beliefs here.

It's funny how every single part of nutrition seems to be a major controversy.

Re: How Soylent Ships a Trillion Calories per Month

#203

Post by Nrsolis » Sat, Jun 06, 2015, 12:43 PM UTC

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #199

Rainymood wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>It's like trying to control your weight by calories - calories are the roughest, least precise way to decide what you need to eat >Please people, do your research You're being contradictory here. Your body obeys the laws of physics. Losing weight is LITERALLY calories in Being healthy and losing weight are two different things that often overlap. >(are you literally burning your food in fire when you digest it?) Wha…

There's this strange opinion circulating that the calories don't matter. It stems from an observation that some calories 'stick' more readily than others. From that, they leap to the conclusion that calories are meaningless. I'm with you - physics rules. No matter what calories you consume, fewer is better for weight control. But don't try to argue with these folks. They can't acknowledge even the obvious boundary ca…

There is some anecdotal evidence that varying macronutrient levels affect hormone levels in significant ways.

Screwing with hormone levels is a great way to affect the metabolism rate and lipid storage capability of the human body. That's what bodybuilders have been doing for decades. Steroid use is the ultimate manifestation of that school of thought.

The truth is that we know very very little about nutrition because doing controlled double-blind studies on human subjects is very very difficult. Bodybuilders are probably the best population to study because of the self-experimentation angle.

Re: How Soylent Ships a Trillion Calories per Month

#204

Post by tardolympics » Sat, Jun 06, 2015, 12:43 PM UTC

curiously wrote: post #181

Remember water? How you used to drink it? So tedious right? You have to gulp so many times and sometimes it dribbles down to your chin ruining your shirt. Don't you wish you could just snort water? I mean now you can! One line of water is equivalent to drinking 3 cups of water. Why waste time drinking water like an idiot when you can snort it and get the same amount? I mean it's a no brainer honestly if you think abo…

Have you already started a kickstarter campaign? The time savings alone would make me 10x more productive!

Re: How Soylent Ships a Trillion Calories per Month

#205

Post by JoeAltmaier » Sat, Jun 06, 2015, 12:50 PM UTC

Nrsolis wrote: post #203

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's this strange opinion circulating that the calories don't matter. It stems from an observation that some calories 'stick' more readily than others. From that, they leap to the conclusion that calories are meaningless. I'm with you - physics rules. No matter what calories you consume, fewer is better for weight control. But don't try to argue with these folks. They can't acknowledge even the obvious boundary ca…

There is some anecdotal evidence that varying macronutrient levels affect hormone levels in significant ways. Screwing with hormone levels is a great way to affect the metabolism rate and lipid storage capability of the human body. That's what bodybuilders have been doing for decades. Steroid use is the ultimate manifestation of that school of thought. The truth is that we know very very little about nutrition becaus…

We know this about nutrition: activity burns calories at extremely predictable rates. Food has calories at extremely predictable densities. Physics works.

And see? Even these fundamental facts about physics get disputed/denied by the nutrition nuts.

Re: How Soylent Ships a Trillion Calories per Month

#206

Post by MarcusVorenus » Sat, Jun 06, 2015, 12:52 PM UTC

branchless wrote: post #200

cblock811 wrote: post #79

The value prop that people will save money is kind of funny to me. My diet: Breakfast: Oatmeal, honey, cinnamon $0.20 Lunch: Large Salad(spinach, carrot, tomato, cucumber, mushroom, bell pepper, sometimes almonds) $2.50 Dinner: Steamed Veggies and Seared Tilapia (kale, carrot, tomato, capers, tilapia) $3.50 If people just budged properly they would be fine. That being said, I'm curious to try soylent and have purchas…

I just find it totally disturbing. Who are these people who want to eat this because it's faster so they can work more? It's like a forum of aliens. I have nothing in common with them. It really made me feel repelled by some of the replies. To be human is to want to eat fine food and to play. To be inhuman is to want to consume calories so you can work longer. Yuk and yuk.

> Who are these people who want to eat this because it's faster so they can work more?

Or maybe they eat this so they can play more? I just find it totally disturbing that you've chosen eating food as one of your primary sources of entertainment. You must be a really boring person.

Re: How Soylent Ships a Trillion Calories per Month

#207

Post by pharke » Sat, Jun 06, 2015, 12:55 PM UTC

branchless wrote: post #200

cblock811 wrote: post #79

The value prop that people will save money is kind of funny to me. My diet: Breakfast: Oatmeal, honey, cinnamon $0.20 Lunch: Large Salad(spinach, carrot, tomato, cucumber, mushroom, bell pepper, sometimes almonds) $2.50 Dinner: Steamed Veggies and Seared Tilapia (kale, carrot, tomato, capers, tilapia) $3.50 If people just budged properly they would be fine. That being said, I'm curious to try soylent and have purchas…

I just find it totally disturbing. Who are these people who want to eat this because it's faster so they can work more? It's like a forum of aliens. I have nothing in common with them. It really made me feel repelled by some of the replies. To be human is to want to eat fine food and to play. To be inhuman is to want to consume calories so you can work longer. Yuk and yuk.

Speaking as someone who consumes one and sometimes two meals out of the usual three prepared in a simple liquid form in order to save time on food prep, it has a perfectly rational backing that fits in with most of the other activities engaged in by normal humans. Saving the time I would normally spend preparing and eating breakfast and lunch makes sense because it allows me to work more during that time so that I can finish my overall workload sooner which in turn gives me more time in the evening and on weekends to follow the pursuits that I really enjoy, of which cooking and enjoying fine food is one.

I liken it to having an interest in and owning high performance cars. Driving a beautiful and powerful car in your off-time is a perfectly valid pursuit but using the same car for your daily commute resulting in more time spent in transit and the irritation of bumper to bumper gridlock and delays in exchange for the extra time 'enjoying' your car makes no sense if you can simply jump on a train or subway and skip the traffic even if that experience is rather more bland in comparison.

We shouldn't eat to live and nor should we live to eat.

Re: How Soylent Ships a Trillion Calories per Month

#208

Post by JoeAltmaier » Sat, Jun 06, 2015, 12:55 PM UTC

branchless wrote: post #200

cblock811 wrote: post #79

The value prop that people will save money is kind of funny to me. My diet: Breakfast: Oatmeal, honey, cinnamon $0.20 Lunch: Large Salad(spinach, carrot, tomato, cucumber, mushroom, bell pepper, sometimes almonds) $2.50 Dinner: Steamed Veggies and Seared Tilapia (kale, carrot, tomato, capers, tilapia) $3.50 If people just budged properly they would be fine. That being said, I'm curious to try soylent and have purchas…

I just find it totally disturbing. Who are these people who want to eat this because it's faster so they can work more? It's like a forum of aliens. I have nothing in common with them. It really made me feel repelled by some of the replies. To be human is to want to eat fine food and to play. To be inhuman is to want to consume calories so you can work longer. Yuk and yuk.

Come on - as the founder of Soylent wrote, I like to go to movies too. But not three movies a day.

There are many things in life that are interesting and fun. For some its their startup job. Everyone coming to HN should understand that.

Re: How Soylent Ships a Trillion Calories per Month

#209

Post by whatusername » Sat, Jun 06, 2015, 1:21 PM UTC

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #205

Nrsolis wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is some anecdotal evidence that varying macronutrient levels affect hormone levels in significant ways. Screwing with hormone levels is a great way to affect the metabolism rate and lipid storage capability of the human body. That's what bodybuilders have been doing for decades. Steroid use is the ultimate manifestation of that school of thought. The truth is that we know very very little about nutrition becaus…

We know this about nutrition: activity burns calories at extremely predictable rates. Food has calories at extremely predictable densities. Physics works. And see? Even these fundamental facts about physics get disputed/denied by the nutrition nuts.

I'll bite.

We measure calories in food by burning it in a lab and calculating the exact energy given off. Very precise. What we don't measure is how many pieces of that cob of corn I ate for dinner will pass through to my stool.

And I'll accept the comment that activities burn calories at predictable rates (they don't across populations -- look at exercise adaptation) but they can per individual. But treating the consumption of calories and the expenditure of calories as independent variables seems foolish. For an absurd comparison -- do you think my Caloric consumption over the next 24 hours would be identical if I consumed 10 calories of chocolate or 10 calories of amphetamines?

Physics works. A calorie is a calorie. But pretending that the human body treats all calories the same as a calorometer seems foolish.

Re: How Soylent Ships a Trillion Calories per Month

#210

Post by JoeAltmaier » Sat, Jun 06, 2015, 1:31 PM UTC

whatusername wrote: post #209

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We know this about nutrition: activity burns calories at extremely predictable rates. Food has calories at extremely predictable densities. Physics works. And see? Even these fundamental facts about physics get disputed/denied by the nutrition nuts.

I'll bite. We measure calories in food by burning it in a lab and calculating the exact energy given off. Very precise. What we don't measure is how many pieces of that cob of corn I ate for dinner will pass through to my stool. And I'll accept the comment that activities burn calories at predictable rates (they don't across populations -- look at exercise adaptation) but they can per individual. But treating the con…

All correct, agreed. What it means is, there is some level of exercise that will consume enough calories to exhaust ready supply. Then weight loss occurs.

The silliness begins when folks start to bargain. How little exercise can I get away with? How can I eat a lot and not gain weight? Its this lazy concern that occupies everybodys thoughts and behaviors. They write whole books about it.

When in fact, if they'd get off their lazy butts and exercise, really exercise, they could forget about all those details. Physics could work for them.

And by exercise I mean ride that bike 20 miles over the lunch hour. With some stiff hills involved. Really exert yourself. But few want to do that. They want to ride a recumbent 5 miles on the flat and then eat 3 hamburgers. And complain that exercise clearly doesn't work because they're not losing weight.

Its astonishing how little exercise most folks have ever done in their lives. I'd go this far: most folks have never exercised. They've warmed up, and then stopped when they hit the point their muscles feel it. I know this - I've taken folks hill-riding and had them stop. "Something's wrong. I feel funny. My heart rate is up and my muscles are complaining". They'd never gotten aerobic in their entire lives, and were afraid of the feeling.