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

Soylent 2.0

blog.soylent.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 235 posts

Re: Soylent 2.0

#31

Post by gnoway »

deanstag wrote: post #2

Some time back, i had read about a very noticeable flatulence issue for soylent drinkers. Was that ever addressed?

I've been a Soylent drinker since 1.0. I've had 1.0, 1.1, 1.3 and 1.4.

The biggest formula change in terms of flatulence for me was 1.3 -> 1.4. They dropped the fiber substantially and replaced some of the oats (and most of the maltodextrin) with isomaltulose. I'm still gassy but it's nothing like 1.0/1.1, where I had uncomfortable levels of gas approximately 100% of the time.

Re: Soylent 2.0

#32

Post by anentropic »

conorh wrote: post #23

I tried Soylent 1.5 for about a month (not as my sole food source, but for maybe one meal a day), but I was unable to adjust to it well, my stomach was just constantly upset and I didn't feel great after eating it. I then tried Nutren 1.5 [1] thinking it might be different, but same effect for me, so I guess it is just me. I'm going to try 2.0 again, maybe I'll do it in smaller doses at first and see if I can adjust…

why? why not just eat good food? !

Re: Soylent 2.0

#33

Post by mahouse »

coherentpony wrote: post #27
tom_usher wrote: post #22

Can someone explain to me the appeal of this product? Why would anyone choose to drink a nondescript sludge over the plentiful ways we can get good, enjoyable & healthy food? I can certainly appreciate the science behind it - this would be a great boon to helping feed those that are less fortunate, but from what I can see that doesn't appear to be the aim of the company.

Lifestyle? IIRC, the creator of Soylent had a busy lifestyle and as a result barely had time to cook or eat and that's why he created Soylent.

If your lifestyle does not give you time to cook, you should try to change it, instead of inventing that mud.

Re: Soylent 2.0

#35

Post by Zikes »

tom_usher wrote: post #22

Can someone explain to me the appeal of this product? Why would anyone choose to drink a nondescript sludge over the plentiful ways we can get good, enjoyable & healthy food? I can certainly appreciate the science behind it - this would be a great boon to helping feed those that are less fortunate, but from what I can see that doesn't appear to be the aim of the company.

I've been using Soylent as an occasional meal replacement, not a complete food replacement. In a decent thermos it works well to replace my breakfast, lunch, or dinner with minimal fuss, and is cheaper than eating out when I don't feel like cooking.

Re: Soylent 2.0

#36

Post by will_work4tears »

codebeaker wrote: post #8
EarthLaunch wrote: post #4

Given that soy is one of the common allergens, this sounds amazing (especially with it being high-fat which matches modern nutritional science) except for the soy. They should make one called "Soylent -1.0" or something. Are there any alternatives?

I also am consistently disappointed by their reliance on wheat and soy proteins, I'm allergic (IgE) to both and struggle horribly to find typical office-lunch type food I can eat. Also being in the EU it's very difficult and expensive to procure Soylent anyway, even the alt. recipes as all of the Amazon shopping lists link to the US stores. Particularly the typical 3lb bag of flour, a couple of bucks in the US store…

It's not liquid, but Quest bars taste pretty good, and are gluten free and free of soy proteins. It's not quite the same as soylent, of course, there's no real added vitamins and minerals, but it makes a decent lunch (I eat 1 or 2 every day for lunch - two a day during the week, one a day on the weekend).

Re: Soylent 2.0

#37

Post by mrfusion »

feld wrote: post #13

My first thought whenever I see soylent is that we have studies proving that we can't replace breast milk with baby formula. Some of that is due to immune system being passed on to the infant, but we haven't yet mastered the nutritional content of real food to the point where we can confidently say it's safe to eat Soylent or another similar product regularly. It takes me back to the whole issue with processed dog fo…

What should we be feeding dogs?

Re: Soylent 2.0

#38

Post by vdaniuk »

feld wrote: post #13

My first thought whenever I see soylent is that we have studies proving that we can't replace breast milk with baby formula. Some of that is due to immune system being passed on to the infant, but we haven't yet mastered the nutritional content of real food to the point where we can confidently say it's safe to eat Soylent or another similar product regularly. It takes me back to the whole issue with processed dog fo…

> it's [not] safe to eat Soylent or another similar product regularly.

As opposed to what? Eating organically grown vegetables and fruits, nuts, mushrooms and oceanic fish? Sure.

But that is definitely not a diet of most people even in developed, rich countries. And while we can't say confidently it's safe to eat Soylent, we absolutely can claim that most human diets are really, really harmful.

I bet Soylent would be much less harmful (if at all) than eating fast food, pizza with red meats fortified by antibiotics and hormones.

Re: Soylent 2.0

#39

Post by xutopia »

feld wrote: post #13

My first thought whenever I see soylent is that we have studies proving that we can't replace breast milk with baby formula. Some of that is due to immune system being passed on to the infant, but we haven't yet mastered the nutritional content of real food to the point where we can confidently say it's safe to eat Soylent or another similar product regularly. It takes me back to the whole issue with processed dog fo…

I can't trust them. They have 0g of cholesterol yet it's an important part of a healthy diet. This rings of "marketing diet" to me.
Post reply on HN