Soylent Month Three • Hacker News Board

Re: Soylent Month Three

#191

Post by jere » Fri, Apr 26, 2013, 1:51 PM UTC

conjecTech wrote: post #130

jere wrote: post #47

>We don’t live anything like our ancestors. We don’t work like them, talk like them, think like them, travel like them, or fight like them. Why on earth would we want to eat like them? >After three months I should be finding deficiencies, and I did . I started having joint pain and found I fit the symptoms of a sulfur deficiency. I like the doublethink here. Reductionism works fine except when it doesn't. And surely…

>When you try to invent your own environment to live in, there's a good chance you won't be well adapted to that environment. I guess this statement would necessarily include wearing clothes, living in houses, using glasses, taking antibiotics, and anything else we do to actively counter forces of nature. I'd say we do quite well at that. I'd like to point out that the rest of that paragraph is simply a strawman argu…

>That is like saying the programming behind an API is simplistic because the API only consists three functions.

Actually, that's pretty close to my argument. I'm not saying the mechanisms underlying a transistor are simple. I've taken (and struggled with) a microelectronics course. I have a good idea how complex they are.

I'm saying that the metrics for success are really simple because we have designed it to fit a very simple logical abstraction. If you want to make a better transistor, the process might be extremely complicated, but it couldn't be simpler to test what you have and see if it's correct.

On the other hand, it's simple to make food (I should, however, stop and point out that when Rhinehart is "making food", mostly what he's doing is mixing together other existing foods. Of course that is simple.) But it's orders of magnitude more complex to analyze the result of that food than doing the same for a transistor. Because now instead of plugging a black box we understand into another black box that we understand, you're plugging your invention into the human digestive system. Not only do you have to consider the interaction with human parts, you also have to consider dozens of species of gut bacteria. I don't think that is simple and I think anyone who claims that it is is quite confused.

Re: Soylent Month Three

#192

Post by jgrahamc » Fri, Apr 26, 2013, 1:53 PM UTC

There's no science here. This so-called experiment is worthless IMHO.

Feeding people all-liquid diets to keep them alive is well known. That's what happens to coma patients and lots of work in creating enteral nutrition products has been done. Given that people's lives depend on this that's a good place to start (take a look at, for example, Jevity [3]). And the people who make that stuff worry about keeping your gastrointestinal system working, the right balance of everything needed to keep a (in this case, sick) person alive, how to keep the product from spoiling, etc.

So, he's not creating something new.

The other argument against the existing products is price. Here's a quick comparison. He claims that it costs him $155 per month [1]. If he were to live on Jevity 1.5 he'd need to drink 4.2 cans per day at a cost of $57/24 per can (it's sold in packs of 24 cans [2]) or $9.98 per day which is roughly $300 a month. (If he ups the kcal to 2,000 a day from the 1,500 he was on then he'd need to drink 5.6 cans a day which is $400 a month).

So, he'd be spending 2 to 2.5 times what he currently is. But he'd be spending it on a product that's been quality controlled and tested.

Is there any indication that he can fundamentally change the economics of this type of food? I don't think so. Especially when you factor in all the work that the makers of Jevity etc. are doing at that price point (the QA, the distribution, the packaging).

And certainly not enough to meet all his other goals about solving world hunger.

If a market for soylent emerges then I'd imagine that companies that make things like Jevity would step in. Oh wait, they already do. There's Ensure etc.

Also, there's so much other crap in his blog posts about how soylent lasts forever [4], how no one need muscles anyway [5], how even stopping eating soylent for a week led to massive cognitive problems [5], that it's hard to take the whole thing seriously.

And then there's this [1]: "I for one would not miss the stereotype of the housewife in the kitchen. Providing diverse, palatable, and nutritious meals for an entire family every day must be exhausting. What if taking a night off didn't mean unhealthy pizza or expensive take out? How wasteful society has been with its women! The endless hours spent cooking and cleaning in the kitchen could be replaced with socializing, study, or creative endeavors."

Ah yes, soylent is not only going to solve world hunger, make us more healthy, save time, make us more creative, save money: it's going to emancipate women!

But there's more [5]: "We no longer live in a hunter-gatherer society. I have no use for bulging biceps. No one in the United States plows fields or hammers steel. It has all been automated. We need mental strength. We need creativity, patience, discipline, and humility. If people had more self-control obesity would take care of itself. Perhaps companies would be more productive if managers had more humility and employees had more discipline."

Yes, soylent will result in an increase in humility and all those fat people who lack self-discipline will be thin.

Hooray.

[1] http://robrhinehart.com/?p=298

[2] http://www.abbottstore.com/jevity+reg/jevity-15-cal-8-oz-can...

[3] http://abbottnutrition.com/brands/products/jevity-1_5-cal

[4] http://www.soylent.me claims it 'lasts for years'

[5] http://robrhinehart.com/?p=570

Re: Soylent Month Three

#193

Post by corresation » Fri, Apr 26, 2013, 2:23 PM UTC

NuZZ wrote: post #131

corresation wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He isn't pushing it as a product Everything has been pivoting into a kickstarter campaign. He is trying to turn this into a business. Which is all very weird. There are a number of "nutritionally complete" meal supplements on the market. I do not understand why this particular one, with rather quackish supporting claims, gets attention here.

I think if you thought about it for a moment you would realize that he is appealing to the concept of hacking. In this case, hacking diet, something everyone on this site can relate to. This is why it gets attention. I'm on the fence as to whether I'll to wait and see how this turns out, with his volenteer base or to even hit up the Kickstarter to try it myself, as I personally am at a pivot point where I could chang…

I think if you thought about it for a moment you would realize that he is appealing to the concept of hacking

Absolutely. Timothy Ferriss has made good bank doing something similar, hacking various aspects of his life.

What earns criticism, though (this is a discussion board, and we aren't here to blanket applaud everything), is the pseudo-science: The "I ate a normal meal and my cognitive process degraded, etc". There is zero scientific validity to those claims, and they give it the rank stench of snake oil (again, exactly like energy bracelets, good aura, or the tactics of the anti-immunization crowd). It may be entirely well-meaning, but such are a million quack remedies and claims.

Re: Soylent Month Three

#194

Post by minimize_me » Fri, Apr 26, 2013, 3:07 PM UTC

bsimpson wrote: post #94

mistercow wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But the whole point is that soylent is moderation. Everything in it is balanced, so if you eat only soylent, then (in theory) you shouldn't be getting too much of anything. >It's likely that he's chosen at least one ingredient that is harmless in moderation, but is detrimental to your health over time. Why do you believe that that is likely? >It's also quite possible that there are other things he's underdosing on an…

Because there probably hasn't ever been a person who consumed a particular batch of refined nutrients for nearly every meal, and we don't know nearly enough about how the body processes food considering how long we, as a species, have been eating it. Admittedly, I don't know much about what's in soylent, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if it turns out that eating refined XXX powder in every meal is bad for you, wh…

"Because there probably hasn't ever been a person who consumed a particular batch of refined nutrients for nearly every meal"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Gorske

Re: Soylent Month Three

#195

Post by SoftwareMaven » Fri, Apr 26, 2013, 3:13 PM UTC

dpcx wrote: post #182

SoftwareMaven wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If proper studies were done on this, we could actually know if it is better or worse than burgers and pizza. From what I know of how the human body works (serious amateur interest), I'm exceedingly doubtful. I really believe the combination of long-term liquid diet and an extreme uniformity of diet will be the cause of significant health problems. I also think we will find a bunch of "nanonutrients" that are critical…

> There is no easy answer today for nutrition. If there was, the thousands of food technicians working everywhere from universities to food companies to NASA and the military would have already come up with it. They all have compelling reasons to try. You have to start somewhere[1]... [1]: http://xkcd.com/397/

I would say a century of study of this specific topic is "starting somewhere". Now, while I believe Zombie Feynman would go far, far more hungry in a group of nutritionists than he would in a group of string theorists, it doesn't mean that there isn't a lot more knowledge than what is contained in a single, undergrad text book (witness the lack of sulfur) that espouses thinking to has begun to be significantly altered by new science in the last decade. To completely ignore that isn't "starting somewhere", it's blindfolding yourself, spinning a few times, and stumbling off.

I'm all for experiments with n=1 in nutrition (I do it all the time), but call it what it is. Don't pretend that, even if it works for six months or a year on you, that you really have any info that is relevant to the rest of the world. Increasing his n with others is a good start, but it will still take 50 years or more to know if this stuff is poison or panacea.

Re: Soylent Month Three

#196

Post by darkxanthos » Fri, Apr 26, 2013, 3:21 PM UTC

longone wrote: post #104

darkxanthos wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I recently started using a meal replacement shake as my primary food source and this is exactly how I respond to the nay sayers. The same thing happened when I became a vegetarian (how will you get your protein??). When you do something abnormal like this people tend to have ill thought out emotional reactions. The biggest valid criticism is the QA process. But it's an issue with all meal replacement shakes.

May I ask specifically which meal replacement shake are you using? Which brand or are you making it or something?

yeah! I'm using something called "ultimate meal": http://www.amazon.com/The-Ultimate-Life-Meal-powder/dp/B0001...

Re: Soylent Month Three

#197

Post by mamoswined » Fri, Apr 26, 2013, 6:00 PM UTC

zacharyvoase wrote: post #189

* “Bacon is high in Oleic acid, the principal component of adipose (fat) tissue so it is great for increasing body fat.[...] By the way, an acid is anything that donates protons. Only a few have corrosive properties like sulfuric acid, and bases can be corrosive too.” So now I'm thinking, ‘does this guy even know what fats are, or how fat digestion, assimilation and metabolism works?’. * “We no longer live in a hunte…

"I have no use for bulging biceps."

For the past two years, I've relied on the fact that I walk a lot to take care of my exercise needs. But last year I started experiencing crippling neck and shoulder pain. A visit to the doctor and a referral to a physical therapist revealed that my upper body had atrophied to an alarming extent. Strength in the upper body affects your posture among other things. Muscle mass also affects your metabolism in a positive way. Now that I'm rebuilding I feel much better.

Plus I look better!

Re: Soylent Month Three

#198

Post by glomph » Sat, Apr 27, 2013, 12:15 AM UTC

jgrahamc wrote: post #192

There's no science here. This so-called experiment is worthless IMHO. Feeding people all-liquid diets to keep them alive is well known. That's what happens to coma patients and lots of work in creating enteral nutrition products has been done. Given that people's lives depend on this that's a good place to start (take a look at, for example, Jevity [3]). And the people who make that stuff worry about keeping your gas…

Jevity: "May be used for oral feeding of patients with altered taste perception."

Made me laugh. Not that I have any reason to think it tastes worse than his.

Re: Soylent Month Three

#199

Post by mrb » Sat, Apr 27, 2013, 8:32 AM UTC

rdouble wrote: post #158

mrb wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

20 minutes/day? 6.7 minutes per meal? I doubt it. Plus you forgot the time to buy groceries, wash dishes, eat (drinking something like soylent is 5x faster than chewing food), etc. The average adult probably spends 45min-1h per day doing something necessary for preparing food. The guy has a point: Soylent does save time: "I used to spend about 2 hours per day on food. Typically I would cook eggs for breakfast, eat ou…

I used to spend about 2 hours per day on food. Typically I would cook eggs for breakfast, eat out for lunch, and cook a quesadilla, pasta, or a burger for dinner It seems strange that it would take him 2 hours to cook a combination of eggs, a quesadilla, pasta, or a burger. These are foods that only take a few minutes to cook. Cooking either eggs or a quesadilla takes less than 1 minute. If cooked longer, they are ru…

His "2 hours" does include "eat out for lunch". He is probably right. Sitting down at a restaurant = 20-40 min minimum.

Re: Soylent Month Three

#200

Post by mrb » Sat, Apr 27, 2013, 8:34 AM UTC

6d0debc071 wrote: post #179

oneandoneis2 wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

..how are you cooking eggs that they're done in under a minute? The only way I can think of that stands any chance is by frying, which is hardly the healthiest option. Soft-boiling an egg takes me six minutes, plus the time to heat the water. About quarter of an hour all in, at a guess. As for a burger, when I cook one of those it's an absolute minimum of half an hour start to finish - peeling & chopping the onions &…

> ..how are you cooking eggs that they're done in under a minute? The only way I can think of that stands any chance is by frying, which is hardly the healthiest option. Soft-boiling an egg takes me six minutes, plus the time to heat I've got ~5 minutes here: Boil water in kettle ~2 minutes Place in pan on hot ring on hob with eggs, comes to boil ~.5 minutes Boil until cooked ~3 minutes - add a minute or two if you p…

A hard boiled egg is 10min in boiling water. None of your times include: time to clean dishes, time to eat and chew solid food, time to go out to a restaurant to eat, etc.

You guys quoting "X minutes to cook food" really don't look at the big picture of all the steps that are saved by just having to drink a pre-made substance.