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

Soylent Campaign

campaign.soylent.me

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 608 posts

Re: Soylent Campaign

#181

Post by raddoc »

As a physician with a degree in biochemistry, I am no expert but will throw in a few thoughts.

1) All foods are broken down into their respective molecular constituents (free fatty acids, glucose, amino acids, etc) through a series of enzymatic reactions. These nutrients are ultimately absorbed through the wall of the bowel or what remains passes as feces. This is true whether you are eating lettuce, ribs, a slice of bread, or this soylent product.

2) Frankly, I see no difference in this product from any other meal replacement powder available in bulk at any nutrition store. If we ever see a nutrition label, I suspect it will look strikingly similar to Slim Fast.

Re: Soylent Campaign

#182

Post by brown9-2 »

Afforess wrote: post #70
chasing wrote: post #65

"Soylent is perfectly balanced and optimized for your body and lifestyle, meaning it automatically puts you at an optimal weight, makes you feel full, and improves your focus and cognition." Bull-fucking-shit. This is a product made by four twenty-somethings, none of whom appears to have a background in nutrition or any kind of health studies. To trust your health to these people would be fucking stupid. Jesus. Also:…

Wow, it's like the "Hacker News Is Depressing" Article didn't happen. I trust the Soylent folks more than I trust myself purchasing frozen meals in a grocery store. It's hard to be worse than that benchmark.

Would you mind saying how they won your trust? Have you tried the product?

Re: Soylent Campaign

#183

Post by DanBC »

rcvassallo wrote: post #178
gcb0 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, it's a diet shake where the company is liable? Man, i'm dying to be able to live on shakes (I already do, protein shakes and soluble fiber when i'm out of time) but claiming you can go on and on on just one food source for long periods of time without extensive testing is just irresponsible.

>> claiming you can go on and on on just one food source for long periods of time without extensive testing is just irresponsible. How can pets tolerate eating the same food for a long period of time? Most cat and dog owners get one brand of food for their pet and stick with it for years at a time. Are our digestive systems really that different?

Most pet food is made by a few manufacturers. They have a lot of labs testing and refining different recipes.

There are foods for fat pets; foods to clean teeth; food for kidney health.

Pet foods have considerable number of patents. Talk to British people about dog excrement, and there are people of a certain age who remember dog poo being white and furry. People want a food that produces a nice firm stool, that's easy to clean up. Anything too loose and they think the pet is ill (even if it isn't).

There's a lot of money in pet food.

Notice, also, that pet food is often a mix of biscuits and meat, or just meat, or just biscuits. These are solid foods. Water is extra. No-one so far has taken the nutrients a pet needs and blended these into a glop.

Re: Soylent Campaign

#184

Post by Afforess »

Xanza wrote: post #164
Afforess wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

...compared to eating out. His comparison was eating out almost every meal. $230 is cheaper than grocery shopping for a month for a lot of people too.

I'm a college student -- I live off of ramen noodles, and whatever I can steal at my parents house. $230 per month simply isn't in my budget. I was excited because ramen isn't healthy, in fact I've gained about 30-40lbs because it's basically all I eat; and it's becoming a serious health issue.

I understand - but why are you mad? He never misrepresented the costs, you misinterpreted them.

Re: Soylent Campaign

#185

Post by dvanduzer »

DanBC wrote: post #145
volandovengo wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Really?? From all the comments about this idea/execution/etc, this is what you chose to focus your attention on?!

Soylent got a fact wrong. Either they deliberately misreported something; in which case they're lying while trying to raise money. Or they made a mistake. And if they get something this simple wrong why should I trust them when they're making something that I'm supposed to be able to live on?

PBS and Science Magazine allegedly got some facts wrong. Regardless, the WHO is talking about three billion indoor fires in primitive homes.

In most of these cases, there is no distinction between a "cooking stove" and "heating stove" and whether these families require heating year round or not, cooking is not a seasonal activity.

Splitting hairs on this point is dumb, though. The point of citing it at all is to illustrate how big they are thinking. They want to solve the entire world's food problem. Isn't that scale of vision why we're all here?

Re: Soylent Campaign

#186

Post by scottjad »

eof wrote: post #107

Without going on with the almost certainly absurd claim you can be perfectly healthy, indefinitely, eating one shake.. There does seem to be a lot of interest, I think mostly from people interested in the saving of time and still getting good nutrition. To those people, I highly recommend green protein smoothies. They aren't cheap, really, but they are fast and done right they taste good and will take an otherwise me…

My favorite green smoothie (lacks protein, I'll have to try the pea protein):

2 large handfuls of fresh spinach or kale, 1 apple or 6 strawberries, 1 banana, 1 tbsp ground flaxseed, 1 large handful of ice, 1-2 cups of water, 1/4 cup unsweetened almond milk

I prefer to drink it with a straw.

Re: Soylent Campaign

#187

Post by fredsters_s »

w1ntermute wrote: post #153
cal2 wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It appears as if only one of the founding individuals has a degree in anything remotely pertaining to nutrition (David Renteln, degree in "Human Evolutionary Biology"). Speaking as a biochemist who works in the biotech industry, this looks to be like a gigantic train wreck just waiting to happen. At first glance, I would be convinced these individuals know very little about the science behind their product. They all…

As someone else in biotech, I agree with your sentiment. I would advise the guys behind this to go back to making social networking and photo sharing apps and leave biotech to those who know what they're doing. You can't just say "oops" and apologize when you put someone in the hospital, or worse. It's not like if someone hacks your Instagram account.

You are EVERYthing that is wrong with startups. I would advise you to quit criticising the audacity of a team that is trying to change the world for the better. How many startups can legitimately say that?!

Re: Soylent Campaign

#188

Post by tzs »

If you want to see why this is a terrible idea if you care about your health, with plenty of cites to peer-reviewed science, read "In Defense of Food" by Michael Pollan.

Re: Soylent Campaign

#190

Post by steveklabnik »

jckt wrote: post #179
steveklabnik wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doesn't whey protein contain lactose?

Lactose intolerance is not an allergy to lactose. Most people are actually lactose-intolerant -- in most of history people around the world simply had no need to drink milk after the toddler stage, and those who are truly lactose-tolerant tend to be of Nordic/Scandinavian ancestry, IIRC. Those who are labelled lactose-intolerant (though that itself is a spectrum) can handle a pint of milk a day.

I understand that, but the claim is "lactose free," not "lactose intolerant people can drink this."

For example, vegans would care about this.

Post reply on HN