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

How Soylent Ships a Trillion Calories per Month

stackshare.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–237 of 237 posts

Re: How Soylent Ships a Trillion Calories per Month

#231

Post by JoeAltmaier »

mistermann wrote: post #226
geon wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exercise is great and all, but diet is faaaaaar more important for weight loss.

Indeed, this chart shows caloric burn for various activities, the body is very efficient: http://www.thehealthyeatingguide.com/calorie-burning-chart/

It entirely depends on your effort level. To say 'biking' burns 530 calories per hour seems precise. But a racer can burn 5000 calories. And you can burn everywhere in between those numbers, depending on your exertion level and the course.

Re: How Soylent Ships a Trillion Calories per Month

#232

Post by JoeAltmaier »

crusso wrote: post #211
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.

While your are correct in a fundamental physics way, you might be ignoring the details of human chemistry and its resulting psychology impact. There's are reasons for the relatively recent obesity epidemic. Those reasons are rooted in the misguided dietary recommendations to reduce fat in favor of increasing carbs. https://www.thebairs.net/2015/05/recommended-reading-why-we-...

These reasons are rooted in everybody sitting on their butt 23 hours a day, and not really exercising at all even when 'working out'.

Re: How Soylent Ships a Trillion Calories per Month

#233

Post by mistermann »

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #231
mistermann wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed, this chart shows caloric burn for various activities, the body is very efficient: http://www.thehealthyeatingguide.com/calorie-burning-chart/

It entirely depends on your effort level. To say 'biking' burns 530 calories per hour seems precise. But a racer can burn 5000 calories. And you can burn everywhere in between those numbers, depending on your exertion level and the course.

Agreed - however, cutting caloric intake requires far less effort, and doing so via certain diets is far easier than others.

Re: How Soylent Ships a Trillion Calories per Month

#234

Post by mcdougle »

a8da6b0c91d wrote: post #49
mcdougle wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that's how most people do it, and the founder has implied in the past that it's kind of how he intends/expects it. The biggest criticism of Soylent seems to be "Who would ever want to give up food for all meals forever?" when that's not really what the point is.

Well then what is the point? If you're eating one or two balanced real meals a day, eating something ready-made for the calories is very easy and cheap. There's no need for anything like soylent. Have a coke and a pickled egg for lunch everyday.

A Coke and a pickled egg isn't exactly healthy.

The founder said in his first blog post about the subject that, prior to pursuing his Soylent idea, he was eating a lot of fast food and frozen burritos.

Of course, if you're just looking for a cheap, quick hunger fix, those things will work. As will a candy bar, bag of chips, etc. But if you're trying to eat healthy, it's kinda tough to find something that's also quick, convenient, and filling. Soylent solves that problem.

Re: How Soylent Ships a Trillion Calories per Month

#235

Post by a8da6b0c91d »

mcdougle wrote: post #234
a8da6b0c91d wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well then what is the point? If you're eating one or two balanced real meals a day, eating something ready-made for the calories is very easy and cheap. There's no need for anything like soylent. Have a coke and a pickled egg for lunch everyday.

A Coke and a pickled egg isn't exactly healthy. The founder said in his first blog post about the subject that, prior to pursuing his Soylent idea, he was eating a lot of fast food and frozen burritos. Of course, if you're just looking for a cheap, quick hunger fix, those things will work. As will a candy bar, bag of chips, etc. But if you're trying to eat healthy, it's kinda tough to find something that's also quick…

A coke and an egg is perfectly healthy. A coke is ~150 allergen free calories, with a useful dose of sodium and some caffeine. An egg is a good bolus of protein, minerals, and vitamins. The only way I'd consider that combo unhealthy is if the person in question happens to have an egg albumin allergy. On the other hand, soylent has glaring problems with its ingredient list. I would never eat it and consider it garbage.

Re: How Soylent Ships a Trillion Calories per Month

#236

Post by crusso »

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #232
crusso wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While your are correct in a fundamental physics way, you might be ignoring the details of human chemistry and its resulting psychology impact. There's are reasons for the relatively recent obesity epidemic. Those reasons are rooted in the misguided dietary recommendations to reduce fat in favor of increasing carbs. https://www.thebairs.net/2015/05/recommended-reading-why-we-...

These reasons are rooted in everybody sitting on their butt 23 hours a day, and not really exercising at all even when 'working out'.

You say that as though exercising like a competitive athlete is necessary for good health or weight maintenance. It isn't. It's much simpler to understand the insulin cycle and work with it rather than against it.

Re: How Soylent Ships a Trillion Calories per Month

#237

Post by JoeAltmaier »

mistermann wrote: post #233
JoeAltmaier wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It entirely depends on your effort level. To say 'biking' burns 530 calories per hour seems precise. But a racer can burn 5000 calories. And you can burn everywhere in between those numbers, depending on your exertion level and the course.

Agreed - however, cutting caloric intake requires far less effort, and doing so via certain diets is far easier than others.

Apparently not, considering the vast industry around gaming just that activity.
Post reply on HN