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

201–210 of 235 posts

Re: Soylent 2.0

#201

Post by rayalez »

brandonmenc wrote: post #199
rayalez wrote: post #168

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!

> let's take a minute to appreciate how freakin' amazing Soylent is Soylent just markets a standard weight gainer as a total food replacement. Not sure why this is "freakin' amazing."

> Soylent just markets a standard weight gainer as a total food replacement.

I do not understand why people think it's okay to make such assertions without backing them up. Is it not obvious to you that this statement is just plain false?

If you think Soylent lacks something to be a total food replacement, or have any constructive criticism - please share it with us. But don't just throw random silly things out there.

Re: Soylent 2.0

#202

Post by yazaddaruvala »

tom_usher wrote: post #87
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…

I wouldn't call it zealotry, but probably resistance to change. As with anything new and interesting, it's easy to insert a fictional future scenario that takes away what makes our personal lives rich and enjoyable. I love to cook but it's all a bit sci-fi and uncomfortable to think that we'll all have our government mandated NutriSludge dispensed twice a day so we can all stop worrying about cooking and work harder.

I'm sure you do understand, but it just doesn't come across from your answer. From the perspective of people not quite as fortunate as yourself:

The quote wouldn't be "we'll all have our government mandated NutriSludge dispensed twice a day so we can all stop worrying about cooking and work harder".

It'll be, "before the government started helping, we lived off food stamps and food banks, but it was never enough. You always see those ads on TV, how growing children need their milk, and it would make me cry. My children deserved better, but I just wasn't able to provide it for them. They were always cold and getting sick. There was one winter my son couldn't go to school because it was too cold for him to leave his bed. Now that we get NutriSludge all three of them are looking healthier, I can't believe my youngest is good at sports. I've even been able to spend more time on myself, and I can work harder! I've actually been able to hold down this job. My kids even have the energy to look into part time jobs. I'm so happy the government is finally helping. I don't even like thinking about those times anymore."

Re: Soylent 2.0

#203

Post by anon3_ »

DarkTree wrote: post #119
anon3_ wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly, you don't want protein. You want whey. These guys don't quite know what they're talking about. Or there smart and playing the sheep like a fiddle. My fear is that these guys are laughing their way to the bank suckering people into this stuff.

whey is protein. It's the protein derived from dairy products. Also, I think the founder, Rob Rhinehart, is genuinely trying to make a good product that benefits consumers. Whether the results show these benefits or not, does not mean he is "laughing himself to the bank".

I can't edit it, but I meant you don't want soy.

Re: Soylent 2.0

#204

Post by Renevith »

normloman wrote: post #58
nightcracker wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Price and laziness. It's a lot cheaper than eating out, and (often) a bit cheaper than cooking yourself. On top of that, it's a lot easier to just shake a bottle and eat than to cook.

It may be faster than cooking for yourself, but not always cheaper. http://www.watchusthrive.org/Libraries/Resources_Documents/B...

Soylent actually competes pretty well on price too! The calories on those recipes range from 140 to 386 per $1 serving. That's $5-14 for 2000 calories, while the new Soylent formula is $12. (Slightly more if you don't subscribe, slightly less if you get the powder formula instead of pre-mixed.)

Plus, the recipe cost assumptions must be pretty generous to get to $1. One of the recipes calls for 1 pound of ground beef and makes 6 servings. The flyer for my local discount grocery has the ground beef at $4.50, but the nicer grocery nearer to me is already over $6 just for the meat, let alone two cans of tomato sauce, some pasta, some carrots, shredded cheese... I'll bet in a real-world test of those recipes, Soylent would beat the average cost.

Re: Soylent 2.0

#205

Post by tdaltonc »

DanBC wrote: post #184
tdaltonc wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Really? I saw Soylent claim to "put you in perfect health", and claim to be suitable for anybody. Both of those are dangerous, scumbag, claims. Soylent has not retracted those claims. They did quietly drop them though.

That's what iterative improvement looks like. You make mistakes, then you stop making them.

Re: Soylent 2.0

#206

Post by ConceptJunkie »

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…

I've been using Soylent for breakfast for about a year now. I really like it, and it's nice not to have to worry about breakfast which occurs at a time of day I am not interested in food preparation. I save that for the weekend when I enjoy cooking.

The rest of the time, I eat "regular food".

Re: Soylent 2.0

#207

Post by tugberkk »

I am truly sorry, but I see this as sad. People thinking of supplements healthier than whole foods, and actually claiming and defending it.

First of all, what kind of macronutrients you need and how much, may depend on yours and your ancestors habitat. Paul Chek claims this, and says some are protein types, some are carb types. We all know some people who are more tolerable to carbohydrates.

Second of all, all these values depends on 'some' research (which I am sure almost none of us read them thoroughly), and 'some' baseline 'requirements'.

People claimed cholesterol was bad, some still do, and now they say no no, it is ok and good. People sad yolk is bad, now they say it is good. You get my point. This product is based on the 'realities' of today, but it is shown as a 'great' replacement, where I think 'any' replacement is not and cannot be as good as the original.

I really believe Soylent may be a key to solve hunger in some very poor countries, but right now it is just being marketed as a supplement/replacement.

I also did not like the marketing approach, such as

>>"Soylent 2.0 frees customers from crowded lunch lines at fast food restaurants and ends feelings of mid-morning hunger after inadequate breakfasts".

So this is an alternative to a fast-food, as I see it. No offense, but I would rather see true information about nutrition and eating, than a replacement for the wrongs we do. Just my 2 cents.

Re: Soylent 2.0

#209

Post by SpikeDad »

Anyone who "pre-orders" from Soylent is a bozo. They say September and if their initial launch is any indication that will quickly become 1Q 2016 and then Mid 2016.

Re: Soylent 2.0

#210

Post by jimrandomh »

Premixed Soylent makes a lot of sense. Ideally, I'd like to see them enter the convenience store market; highway rest stops, for example, are a place where it's very hard to get something nutritionally trustworthy, so in that context I'd choose Soylent every time, and would pay a premium for it.

In the meantime, I hope they keep the powder around for awhile. I find it very useful to pack a few bags while travelling to patch over logistics problems, and premixed soylent can't do that because it's too heavy to take in your luggage.

Post reply on HN