Soylent 2.0 • Hacker News Board

Re: Soylent 2.0

#121

Post by Someone1234 » Mon, Aug 03, 2015, 2:52 PM UTC

ejcx wrote: post #106

jcfrei wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What worries me is that soylent is 20% based on soy. Some studies indicate that eating a heavily soy based diet leads to increased estrogen levels. Which can have negative side effects regardless of your gender. [0]: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3074428/ [1]: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0303720711...

There's a lot of misinformation about soy and estrogen levels. This[0] is required reading for soy [0] http://examine.com/faq/is-soy-good-or-bad-for-me/ Ps thanks sol (the owner of examine)

I read your link. I didn't see what you were implying is "misinformation" if anything the link only supports that there is legitimate concerns about soy and that the only group to benefit are women with low estrogen levels (postmenopausal).

Also the article says things like: "[lowers] LDL and Total Cholesterol" but doesn't dive into the fact that lowering your total cholesterol is bad for your health. Since there is good and bad cholesterols, if you lower everything you're damaging your health (see the 1980s obsession with lowering all cholesterols for example). But, yes, lowering LDL alone is good as far as we know.

I don't think day to day people need to be actively avoiding soy, or heck even not having the occasional soy based meal. But we're talking about a meal replacement diet based almost entirely on soy, that's a big deal, and the health implications cannot just be glossed over.

If anything your link has made more more concerned about the impact of a purely Soylent diet on all groups except postmenopausal women who may benefit.

Re: Soylent 2.0

#122

Post by jonathancordeau » Mon, Aug 03, 2015, 2:53 PM UTC

explorigin wrote: post #51

Selling bottles is really terrible from an environmental perspective. It's sort of the same problem as bottled water. Now we have a lot of plastic bottle trash instead of the pouches that pack down flat and provide much more product/waste ratio. Plastic bottles are more recyclable but recycling bins are still not common in my area of the country (although we recycle at home). There is also the increased fuel costs of…

Soylent 2.0 seems to lose? Soylent as a sustainable nutrition source in areas where it's far superior to what little nutrition may be available, is less likely stable in liquid form. It's a shame, as this seemed to be one of the greatest promises of the brand beyond convenience. Not sure what the differentiation is anymore, amongst other MRP's such as Phood.

Re: Soylent 2.0

#123

Post by tdaltonc » Mon, Aug 03, 2015, 2:53 PM UTC

zeteo wrote: post #114

jcfrei wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What worries me is that soylent is 20% based on soy. Some studies indicate that eating a heavily soy based diet leads to increased estrogen levels. Which can have negative side effects regardless of your gender. [0]: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3074428/ [1]: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0303720711...

>What worries me is that soylent is 20% based on soy. Some studies indicate that eating a heavily soy based diet leads to increased estrogen levels Here's what they have to say about this [1]: >There are some public concerns about high consumption of soy, but Rhinehart is quick to dismiss them. "Because we’re not using whole soy, we’re just using the protein isolate…the isoflavone levels are much lower than what they…

It's like people think that they know some nutritional secret that soylent hasn't thought of. I take them on their word that they're taking this seriously and every time I read a comment about "Soylent is so clueless! How could they have thought of 'X'?!" then I google "soylent X" and find an extremely detained post explaining how they're taken 'X' in to account.

Re: Soylent 2.0

#124

Post by secstate » Mon, Aug 03, 2015, 2:54 PM UTC

Just looking at the product page makes me feel like I'm in a PKD short story.

Re: Soylent 2.0

#125

Post by ph0rque » Mon, Aug 03, 2015, 2:54 PM UTC

gh02t wrote: post #118

ph0rque wrote: post #82

Having tried soylent in powder form before, I came to the conclusion that on the 3D scales of convenience, taste, and price, it just wasn't far enough in the desirable region (low price, high convenience, and good taste) that I was ready to buy any more of it. With Soylent 2.0, that seems to have changed: it's more convenient (no more mixing needed) EDIT: but higher-priced. I'm looking forward to trying it again (not…

> Hopefully the taste has improved Yeah, to me the powder is absolutely wretched tasting on its own without adding stuff. I've heard people say they like it plain, but I gag just thinking about it.

I didn't have any negative feelings toward the taste of soylent 1.x. However, I did realize just how much I enjoy the taste of real, good food.

Re: Soylent 2.0

#126

Post by tdaltonc » Mon, Aug 03, 2015, 2:55 PM UTC

pramalin wrote: post #94

Soy is a big no within the Paleo diet group I know. This is because it's potent with Phytic acid which binds to other nutrients and turn them into waste. Consumers beware.

They've considered that: http://discourse.soylent.com/t/phytic-acid-not-enough-of-it-...

Re: Soylent 2.0

#127

Post by hiou » Mon, Aug 03, 2015, 2:56 PM UTC

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…

There are plenty of very healthly adults raised on formula. There is not strong evidence either way and your comment is a great example of how fringe and trend chasing nutrition can be. The same can be said for soylent and probably every other diet fad out there. Will it kill you? No. Is it the secret to eternal health and well being? Also no. So tired of diet fads on HN.

Re: Soylent 2.0

#128

Post by fizzbatter » Mon, Aug 03, 2015, 2:56 PM UTC

nsxwolf wrote: post #109

fizzbatter wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Couldn't agree more. I completely admit that Soylent is not perfect, and i am also a little worried of the (many?) aspects of nutrition that we're unaware of. But many people live on Fast Food, which scares me far far more than Soylent does. But just because something is not perfect, does not warrant the very odd zealotry that i see for "normal" food and against Soylent (and like products). It's honestly, flat out bi…

It's because you're deleting an entire dimension of human experience and saying it's normal. People who don't like food seem abnormal. It's like asexuality. It takes people aback to hear that a person has no sexual interest of any kind.

If you're simply explaining why you think that people have that reaction, then that's a very good assertion - appreciate the input.

If you're posing an argument, then imo, you're largely mistaken. Most (needs citation) people don't use Soylent-like products to remove a positive human experience. They remove the "human experiences" that they already struggled with, and don't want.

For example, I'm not skipping out on meals with my family and loved ones. Those are social interactions, the food is just something to prompt the social interaction.

However, when i'm alone in my house getting ready for work - I don't think these are part of this "human experience" you refer to.

I suppose you could say removing a bad human experience is still removing a human experience, but then.. why are we arguing in favor of those bad experiences?

Re: Soylent 2.0

#129

Post by tdaltonc » Mon, Aug 03, 2015, 2:57 PM UTC

xutopia wrote: post #39

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.

https://diy.soylent.com/wiki/other-nutrients

Re: Soylent 2.0

#130

Post by sp332 » Mon, Aug 03, 2015, 3:02 PM UTC

superplussed wrote: post #105

jcfrei wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What worries me is that soylent is 20% based on soy. Some studies indicate that eating a heavily soy based diet leads to increased estrogen levels. Which can have negative side effects regardless of your gender. [0]: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3074428/ [1]: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0303720711...

This sentence gave me pause: "The protein source is soy, which contains an ideal ratio of amino acids for excellent nutrition ..." You can argue the merits of one protein source over another, but I think to declare any non-animal protein source as "ideal" in any way would require some evidence to be presented. Unfortunately, it shows that they are glossing over the hard decisions that have to be made in creating a pr…

I thought it was pretty common knowledge. Whole civilizations depend on soy protein. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soy_protein#Nutrition "Based on this method, soy protein is considered to have a similar equivalent in protein quality to animal proteins. Egg white has a score of 1.00, soy concentrate 0.99, beef 0.92, and isolated soy protein 0.92."