241–250 of 341 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Which have very little data supporting them as safe/effective sources of O3. Someone has to be the first to gather the data.
That shouldn't be paying customers.
How else are you going to find 1:10000+ problems?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can say the same thing about the food in any restaurant. I really don't understand the hate that's directed towards this product. Nobody was seriously injured, it was a relatively small number of people that got sick. Soylent is trying to do something more ambitious than other packaged food manufacturers. It's not unreasonable to expect there to be some small hiccups. If you can't tolerate that, then don't buy it…
> You can say the same thing about the food in any restaurant. But Soylent is supposed to be consumable on a daily basis, so long-term effects are important. Remember the documentary Super Size Me, which tested long term effects of food from a certain fast-food restaurant? [1] [1] http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0390521
I have to agree with the above poster. I don't understand the hate directed at Soylent, and I don't understand what folks expect them to do. The company is very transparent as well, which is exactly what you'd hope for a company trying to develop a product like this. In many cases, the folks who say the problem Soylent is tackling is borderline impossible are the same ones who expect them to find a perfect formula right out of the gate and see any stumbling blocks as vindication that the whole effort is doomed. These expectations seem grossly at odds to me.
For what it's worth, many people absolutely do eat restaurant food on a daily or nearly daily basis. In the past year of eating a mixture of food from restaurants, home-cooked meals, and Soylent, I've only ever gotten sick (severely so, at that) from restaurant food.
Also, as for that documentary, he just lived off fast food for a month, right? That's hardly long-term. Plenty of folks have effectively repeated exactly the same experiment with Soylent many times over at this point. He also didn't just eat fast food, but intentionally overconsumed (hence the title of the documentary), which is quite contrary to the purpose of Soylent (given that each bottle is just 400 kcal).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yep, it was called "Fat Head." The exercise regime wasn't even that strict, it was basically continuing the regular walking the documentarian already did. However, the food intake was strictly limited to 1800 calories and less then 100g of carbs per day. The goal being to show fast food isn't inherently unhealthy, it was the quantity (as already noted above) being eaten in Super Size Me that was unhealthy. In that re…
Note that the premise of "Super Size Me" was to get the "Super Size" menu whenever asked by the Mc Donald's counter clerk, leading to overconsumption.
You can actually get a balanced daily diet out of mcdonalds if you ask for unsalted fries and get one of their salads once in a while.
Honestly sodium aside the only thing you need to do not to over eat at MC is to get water instead of soda and just regular sized burger.
It will be around 600-700 cals per meal with fries which means you can eat 3 of those a day and maintain weight or even lose some depending on your age, sex, bodymass and daily regiment.
Inexcusable. The only reason Soylent have gotten away with it for so long is that the FDA rules for this category of product haven't been written yet. A product shouldn't make people sick when used as intended. So if a product is intended to be consumed as 100% of your diet, it MUST: - contain all known macro- and micro-nutrients necessary for human health - contain nothing that makes you sick when you eat it all the…
Good lord. The percentage of people who 'got sick' by Soylent was less 0.1% of all consumers. If we went into panic-mode for that kind of result for every product, we wouldn't have any products. The variation in humans is too great to test for everything. "The Lawyers" aren't going to shut anyone down because no one is suing, and if they tried I doubt any judge would allow a class-action lawsuit for a few tummyaches.…
I also take your point about human choice, as far as it goes, but I still think Soylent is a special case.
If I eat ridiculous amounts of pesto and rupture my duodenum, nobody would hold the pesto producer responsible, because that's not the way people eat pesto.
But if eating lots of Soylent made me ill, Soylent's makers should, in principle, bear some responsibility, because they know that this is how people eat Soylent. Indeed, Soylent was heavily hyped as something that could be 100% of your diet, and they can't pretend that never happened.
The FDA actually DOES require that novel ingredients are tested to the point where 0.1% problems are detectable. I know that the algae isn't a novel ingredient, but if Soylent add it to their formula, it will suddenly comprise a large part of the diet of a large number of people. That is a novel thing in itself, so I would argue that Soylent has some responsibility to make sure what they're doing is safe. If FDA rules say its okay not to, the FDA rules need to catch up.
I might be inclined to give Soylent the benefit of the doubt if I thought they had a better attitude. But when they made themselves sick because they forgot humans need selenium in their diet, they didn't say, "Wow! How could we have been so dumb? We need to take more care with people's bodies." It was more like, "Hey, no problem. Nobody died and we fixed it now. Let's move on."
These are just the screw ups we know about. What are the odds there are plenty more they managed to hush up? Nobody has been killed or injured so far, but if they don't change their attitude and people continue to live off their swill...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You could also say some people like Trump and other people like Clinton, and it's just an opinion. However, one opinion is highly correlated with being more educated. I suspect that the same is true here. The population at large has a very poor level of education about food, and Soylent seeks to exploit that very large business opportunity. I would prefer to see more people with an understanding of healthy eating and…
> The population at large has a very poor level of education about food, and Soylent seeks to exploit that very large business opportunity. Conceptually, the advantages of a product such as Soylent includes long shelf-life, reducing the frequency and time needed to shop food, offering healthy fast-food meals, having a lower carbon footprint and being more sustainable than regular food, reducing the time spent prepari…
Just as trends in the computer industry have been largely led by power users, there are also food "power users". These are people who save time cooking with new equipment (powerful blenders, sous vide, etc), have high quality, freshly-picked food delivered in weekly boxes, have convenient herb gardens, etc. There are more innovations on the horizon (Farmbot, Cinder, etc).
Of course, Soylent is still much faster, but I think these "power users" will close the gap in convenience faster than Soylent can close the gap in quality.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> That's why they shouldn't be cut any more slack than any other manufacturer. I think it's the opposite, people are unnecessarily critical of Soylent. The problem is consumers weren't aware they were allergic to algae flour. It has nothing to do with Soylent's hygiene or formulation practices.
I think the attention received is relative to the attention solicited. Soylent has been everywhere in the news talking up their revolutionary product. It's not unlike Apple's Macbook debacle. They launched a product and made a big deal about it, it had a flaw and everyone latched onto it to complain.
Something about the very idea of Soylent causes people on lots of internet forums to pop out of the woodwork and discuss it quite passionately, from both directions. The basic concept seems to engender a lot of excitement from some and a lot of disgust from others, and when those folks clash online you immediately get 200+ comment threads like the one we're in. This phenomenon has been going on for years at this point, over and over, both here and elsewhere.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can say the same thing about the food in any restaurant. I really don't understand the hate that's directed towards this product. Nobody was seriously injured, it was a relatively small number of people that got sick. Soylent is trying to do something more ambitious than other packaged food manufacturers. It's not unreasonable to expect there to be some small hiccups. If you can't tolerate that, then don't buy it…
Sorry for the strong language but bullshit. I am sure it has changed over the years but I still have vivid memories of the rodents that ran around the original warehouse they mixed soylent in. It was a joke. They had a bunch of randos mixing powders haphazardly and no sense of proper food prep/sanitation. It was scarier than some of the operations that supplement manufacturers run. I am sure its changed but it blows…
Inexcusable. The only reason Soylent have gotten away with it for so long is that the FDA rules for this category of product haven't been written yet. A product shouldn't make people sick when used as intended. So if a product is intended to be consumed as 100% of your diet, it MUST: - contain all known macro- and micro-nutrients necessary for human health - contain nothing that makes you sick when you eat it all the…
Good lord. The percentage of people who 'got sick' by Soylent was less 0.1% of all consumers. If we went into panic-mode for that kind of result for every product, we wouldn't have any products. The variation in humans is too great to test for everything. "The Lawyers" aren't going to shut anyone down because no one is suing, and if they tried I doubt any judge would allow a class-action lawsuit for a few tummyaches.…
If that happened to any other manufacturer's food product, there would be an immediate recall and a long intense search for the culprit before a single unit is sold to consumers again. This is people's health you're talking about, not some tech product with a dead pixel.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Both have 5g net carbs per serving Depends on what you consider a serving. The second link only has 67 calories per "serving", so really 30 scoops in a day. Using the 2000 calorie baseline, that would be about 150g of sugar, twice as much as Soylent. Also 200g protein vs 100g. The first link would still take 20 scoops in a day. There's no sugar in it, which is good (personally I hate things like Stevia, but others…
As I said, neither are intended to be one's sole source of calories or nutrients.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> What a silly game to play when people's health is at stake. There always is residual risk. Some new ingredient tested at small scale might work for 99.9% of people, 0.1% has some intolerance, allergy, negative interactions with drugs or whatever. That's far better than lactose tolerance levels for example and yet we're not panicking over the presence of lactose in food. We just learn from problems and label appropr…
As someone who is pretty badly lactose intolerant, the idea that you are using frequency to make my plight somehow sound worse than that of my friend whom I had to drive to the ER to get a shot of epinephrine while his throat closed up and he started to have a hard to breathing, or of the aunt of someone else I know who has Celiac disease, or to someone whose heart medication will become less effective... the reason…
I don't see how one can avoid these issues while testing new ingredients. And if we want to explore sustainable food sources then testing new ingredients should be an option.