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

Soylent Month Three

robrhinehart.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 207 posts

Re: Soylent Month Three

#21

Post by huhtenberg »

Jacob4u2 wrote: post #8
huhtenberg wrote: post #2

At the risk of stating the obvious - this is all good and the experiment he's running is very interesting, but - no. I really like eating tasty food. Not for the nutrients, but for the experience. Similarly to how I really like sleeping in a comfortable bed and taking a hot shower daily even though, technically, I can rest as well on a bare floor and shower once a week. To each his own, but some things are just too u…

I don't think that's a fair comparison. What if sleeping on the floor and not showering made you think better and your body healthier? It's not simply a privation technique, he seems to be doing it to hack his body for better performance. Although kind of anecdotal evidence, the article mentions several mood and energy changes when not on the soylent diet (I think those things could just as likely be a change in envi…

What-if I'd exercise and drink less coffee? It would help me both feel and sleep better. Am I doing either? You bet I don't. Point being that people derive pleasure from things that aren't rational, so rationalizing a soylent diet ain't going do a thing to facilitate its adoption (which was iirc one of his stated goals). It's a truly interesting experiment, but it's from the same category as a polyphasic sleep.

Re: Soylent Month Three

#22

Post by TheCapn »

"surely we can make food that is tastier, cheaper, and more nutritious than anything that exists naturally."

This premise assumes we understand, with no uncertainty, how the human body functions and utilizes nutrients. Since this is still a huge mystery to science (and much of what we "know" currently is just guesswork) any 100% simulated food diet will only prove to be "better" by a stroke of luck.

We've seen his posts before and discussed it to great lengths, but the bottom line is if he's created something that is truly capable of sustaining health for the lifetime of a person he should be rewarded, but without scientific proof of longterm health this will never, and should never, be taken unquestionably.

Re: Soylent Month Three

#24

Post by huhtenberg »

aprescott wrote: post #11
huhtenberg wrote: post #2

At the risk of stating the obvious - this is all good and the experiment he's running is very interesting, but - no. I really like eating tasty food. Not for the nutrients, but for the experience. Similarly to how I really like sleeping in a comfortable bed and taking a hot shower daily even though, technically, I can rest as well on a bare floor and shower once a week. To each his own, but some things are just too u…

This seems to be a common complaint, and the response seems to frequently be: you don't need to replace all your food intake. 50% of the time you eat you might find it tedious and boring, so you can leave the other 50% for pleasurable eating and cooking or whatever else you enjoy about non-clinical cuisine!

> 50% of the time you eat you might find it tedious and boring

  - I hate cats. All that fur, the smell...
  - Oh, you just don't know a good recipe
Learn to cook, damn it :)

Re: Soylent Month Three

#25

Post by bsimpson »

I'd be concerned about the long-term side effects of having little diversity in one's diet. It's been alleged that diabetes is caused by overconsumption of processed sugar and heart disease is caused by overconsumption of red meat. Either of those things in moderation is fine.

Most people don't eat a consistent dose of for instance oat powder every day. It's likely that he's chosen at least one ingredient that is harmless in moderation, but is detrimental to your health over time.

It's also quite possible that there are other things he's underdosing on and hasn't discovered yet (like sulphur before batch #7).

Re: Soylent Month Three

#26

Post by tolmasky »

TheCapn wrote: post #22

"surely we can make food that is tastier, cheaper, and more nutritious than anything that exists naturally." This premise assumes we understand, with no uncertainty, how the human body functions and utilizes nutrients. Since this is still a huge mystery to science (and much of what we "know" currently is just guesswork) any 100% simulated food diet will only prove to be "better" by a stroke of luck. We've seen his po…

So the way I look at this critique is that most people in the US are running a parallel experiment with their bodies, only instead of the input being Soylent, it's garbage like fast food. It's true, we don't understand how the human body operates - whether you're eating McDonald's, or organic, or Soylent. So given that the baseline seems to be an equally untested and probably more detrimental food choice, this completely voluntary experiment doesn't seem so bad, it's not like the govt is teaching us to eat a certain way (which they have been known to do incorrectly). In other words, Soylent vs theoretically ideal diet (which we don't even know) - sure, bad choice. But the reality is for the target audience (such as myself) its Soylent vs pizza and burgers, which doesn't seem that bad.

Re: Soylent Month Three

#27

Post by Cthulhu_ »

thangalin wrote: post #4

"If people had more self-control obesity would take care of itself." Obesity might be partly genetic. http://www.cdc.gov/genomics/resources/diseases/obesity/

Partly in some people, but imho, ask a handful of people with obesity about their eating and exercise habits (and their psychological state etc) and do the maths.

Re: Soylent Month Three

#28

Post by Jacob4u2 »

corresation wrote: post #20
Jacob4u2 wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think that's a fair comparison. What if sleeping on the floor and not showering made you think better and your body healthier? It's not simply a privation technique, he seems to be doing it to hack his body for better performance. Although kind of anecdotal evidence, the article mentions several mood and energy changes when not on the soylent diet (I think those things could just as likely be a change in envi…

What if sleeping on the floor and not showering made you think better and your body healthier? There is almost certainly someone, somewhere, claiming that sleeping on the floor and/or not showering makes you think better and your body healthier ("The Cave Man Sleep Technique....we didn't evolve in cushy beds now did we?") 99% of these sorts of stories are outrageous pseudo-science looking for an easy fix. Mood/energy…

Like the GP, food is one of the glorious luxuries of life.

The great thing about having values is that each person can value what she/he wants. You and GP value food, soylent green dude seems to value experimenting and optimizing his body/brain with food (lack/substitution of food?). I'm not hating on either one of your values, but pretty much everyone thinks "food is good" (to put it simply) so that isn't really gonna pique everyones interest like soylent green guy over there.

Re: Soylent Month Three

#29

Post by grhino »

abstractbill wrote: post #15
rdouble wrote: post #12

I can't figure out if this is just an elaborate troll.

Well, he's making something people want; I'm an existence proof, as are a few other commenters on this thread.

Will this be any different from Ensure or other meal replacement shakes but marketed differently? Is what he's doing any different from what's been done before?

Re: Soylent Month Three

#30

Post by quannabe »

thangalin wrote: post #4

"If people had more self-control obesity would take care of itself." Obesity might be partly genetic. http://www.cdc.gov/genomics/resources/diseases/obesity/

Enough of this. We should fight the acceptance of obesity and externalizing blame.

You alone are responsible for your weight, health, and life.

Post reply on HN