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

161–170 of 235 posts

Re: Soylent 2.0

#161

Post by sp332 »

[deleted] wrote: post #150
superplussed wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

[deleted]

Do you have a source? All I can find is a wikipedia page saying that beef has quite high protein digestibility score, and a statement that most animal proteins have sufficient levels of essential amino acids.

Re: Soylent 2.0

#162

Post by JohnTHaller »

Soylent 2.0 (liquid) is being sold alongside Soylent 1.5 (powder). The powder will continue to be sold. The liquid currently costs a little over 20% more per kcal. It's also important to note that the liquid is being sold as 400kcal is a serving (X bottles at 400kcal each) while the powder is being sold as 500kcal/16 oz prepared is a serving (X meals at 500kcal each with 4 meals to a pouch/28 meals to a box). At the 400 kcal serving size, the 28 meal box of powder would become 35 servings of equivalent calories to the liquid. Getting 2 boxes with 14 pouches to be 2 weeks worth of food is easier and takes up far less storage space than getting 72 bottles of liquid for the equivalent amount of food.

We use Soylent powder right now. Had it for breakfast this morning. The taste is really neutral... it tastes like a bland cereal, so you can add things to if if you want. It's helped us lose weight. It's helped us keep food costs down. And it's helped us enjoy the meals we do eat. We use it as a supplement for 1 or 2 meals a day.

Re: Soylent 2.0

#163

Post by adwn »

enlightenedfool wrote: post #157
megaman22 wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would argue that most vegan diets are unhealthy. You have to work damned hard to get the same nutrients that are readily available in animal products.

You could just argue, but the country I come from has millions of vegetarians who are as healthy as animal eating and live as long.

> [...] millions of vegetarians who are as healthy as animal eating [...]

Note that megaman22 said "vegan", not "vegetarian".

Re: Soylent 2.0

#164

Post by marmaduke »

philippnagel wrote: post #145
Dorian-Marie wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks, here is their website: http://mymana.eu/ I couldn't buy Soylent (I'm in France), so I made one myself based on what I learned in the DIY Soylent community: https://diy.soylent.com

I occasionally replace a meal with Mana (e.g. when I am busy, lazy, etc.). If anyone wants a small review, just ask.

yep, I'm interested in somethign to replace lunch at work: do you find it filling/satisfying? Do you drink warm or cold? What keeps you from drinking it more often?

Re: Soylent 2.0

#165

Post by [deleted] »

sp332 wrote: post #161
[deleted] wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[deleted]

Do you have a source? All I can find is a wikipedia page saying that beef has quite high protein digestibility score, and a statement that most animal proteins have sufficient levels of essential amino acids.

[deleted]

Re: Soylent 2.0

#166

Post by ccarter84 »

dangrossman wrote: post #136
ph0rque wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wasn't it $3+ per meal before? EDIT: You're right, you need 1 and 2/3 of a bottle to drink the equivalent of a meal... sneaky sneaky, Soylent!

The powder was $9.11 per 2000 calories on subscription. The drinks are $12.10 per 2000 calories.

That's...significantly more expensive than I thought it would be per day.

Re: Soylent 2.0

#167

Post by darkmighty »

pizza234 wrote: post #153
DickingAround wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If anything, I don't understand the worries people have about replacing 95% of their entire diet with a well-engineered food. In the past people lived on a single or very small number of crops. In our current time we know people who live entirely on fast food or delivery pizza. The human body is more resilient than we give it credit for and having soilent is likely better than what we'd be giving it otherwise.

Conceptually it wouldn't be different than satisfying 95% of sexual needs with well-engineered sex dolls; then also satisfying 95% of the fitness needs with well-engineered electrical muscle stimulators; then also satifying 95% of the romantic needs with a well-engineered dating app. And so on. I wouldn't define myself "worried" of this, but I find utterly banal (infinitely misable, to be honest) that the existential…

I like this implication; it's hard to define meaningful and consistent goals to ourselves when we are relieved of our usual constraints to get pleasure/satisfaction (our means are basically eat food, socialize, have sex, practice sport, consume culture) -- how do we distinguish fundamentally means to ends?

To illustrate, extend Soylent to a more general Hapiness drink. If you took it, you'd be instantly and lastingly satisfied, allowing you to do work and stay very productive without the need to "waste time" socializing, practicing sports or w/e -- and suppose this satisfaction is indeed indistinguishable or better from activity-borne satisfaction. Would we choose to consume it, and why not, fundamentally?

Re: Soylent 2.0

#168

Post by rayalez »

I looked through the thread and I see too many negative comments.

Guys, let's take a minute to appreciate how freakin' amazing Soylent is. It's like a space food every kid dreams about. It is insanely convenient. It can solve so many problems in the world.

Thank you, Soylent team, I wish you luck, your startup is amazing!

Re: Soylent 2.0

#169

Post by seizethecheese »

With regard to the liquid vs. powdered debate. Why don't they ship bottles with powder inside? Consumers can then add water and shake. Seems like the best of both worlds. This would work for a variety of products as well like dish soap or shampoo.

Re: Soylent 2.0

#170

Post by tom_usher »

moistgorilla wrote: post #133
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.

Every person in this thread who is "shocked" why anyone would want soylent is using this whole "good healthy REAL food" bs and it's honestly nauseating. It reminds me of advertising for "artisanal" products and it also reminds me of people complaining about how the world is too fast paced and you need to slow down and get some fresh air. No, I don't. Anyway, your post in particular made me pull the trigger on buying…

Sorry for the nausea - it's only after posting that I realised I could have been less antagonising. It's good to hear your opinions though.
Post reply on HN