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

291–300 of 608 posts

Re: Soylent Campaign

#291

Post by DanBC »

garry wrote: post #203
vecinu wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a very good point and very observant. I too am highly skeptical of ALL of these claims. My main gripe with Soylent (ever since I first saw it here on HN a month ago) is that they are making cooking seem like a horrible chore that nobody wants to do. Shopping is convenient because I go whenever I have time and only buy exactly what I need. At the same time, I also ensure I only buy the best ingredients I can at…

Most people would regard riding a horse as a pleasant thing to do in leisure time, but most today would also balk at the idea of having to care, feed, and maintain a horse to get to work every single day. I realize this is anathema (I love food as much as anyone else) but there are moments in my life where I'd like to code or create things rather than worry too much about my next meal.

What do you find appealing about Soylent compared to a bag of salad and a ready meal?

Is it just the "nutritionally complete" bit?

Re: Soylent Campaign

#292

Post by ellyagg »

alex_c wrote: post #224

I read this initially assuming it to be a clever spoof on the whole startup / crowdsourcing scene, because of the name: pick something that is obviously a joke product ("Soylent Green is people!") and run with it - start piling on impressive claims, include startup-y backgrounds for the founders, and be really vague about what the product actually is. Given my initial interpretation, I thought the "Is soylent vegan a…

Yep, I thought it was a joke at first, too.

Since the term soylent is widely understood to mean human remains masquerading as food, the name suggests pretense.

He wrote:

    Before I rarely had enough energy to go to
    the gym, but this day I had plenty so I 
    decided to put the diet to the test. I'd been
    running off and on for several months, never 
    able to do more than a mile straight, but
    this day I ran 3.14 miles non-stop. This is an
    irrational improvement.
!! Indeed, it does sound irrational, doesn't it? In fact, whether this is a hint or he's just being cute, I literally don't believe that Soylent caused this uptick in performance. Want to bet on the results of a double blind study?

Elsewhere, he said he only needs 1/3 the calories on Soylent, which was explained away by an apologist in the comments as a figure of speech, or perhaps art of rhetoric, but that explanation is contradicted by his precise descriptions elsewhere and worrisome in this context regardless.

There were more jokes like that, conveniently allowing its author to laugh at people no matter whether he's being truthful or not. Parts of the campaign are patronizing and condescending and they've shown no desire to fix that aspect, making me more leery due to the immaturity. Should I trust my health to such a cavalier attitude?

I lean toward it being legit, but they've got a long ways to go to catch up with the cutting edge of understanding in nutrition science and it's not clear what advantage they'll be able to offer over established meal replacement drinks like Ensure, which most people don't want to drink today. Improved taste? You can get rats to overfeed to fatness on chocolate Ensure. Expertise? No. For personal use, Soylent Orange is more convenient, available today, and safer, IMO:

http://lesswrong.com/lw/h2h/i_hate_preparing_food_my_solutio...

Re: Soylent Campaign

#293

Post by usefulcat »

tokenizer wrote: post #208
w1ntermute wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In your boundless zeal for "innovation," you have completely failed to comprehend what I was saying. Putting someone in the hospital is no laughing matter. You can't just "iterate" and "learn from your mistakes" in biotech. We're talking about life and death here, not some filtered hipster cat photos.

Not get caught up in the hate/arguing, but if they're raising money for this, and will be apparently working within the FDA guidelines, wouldn't they have strenuous testing before they release this to market?

Depends on exactly what they mean by "produced in an FDA-approved facility with strict regulatory controls ensuring safety". To me, that sounds like it could mean as little as "we're going to produce it in a commercial kitchen".

Re: Soylent Campaign

#296

Post by DanBC »

Harj wrote: post #289
[deleted] wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[deleted]

Change your diet to anything different for that amount of time and your body will feel better. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Size_Me I thought we were lovers of Science on this site? I thought we believed in testing claims through evidence, not some slick marketing video. The founder has blogged in detail about the evolution of the recipe and effects on his body, http://robrhinehart.com/ (site currently appears…

Blogging in detail is fun.

It's not science.

I'm disappointed to see that blog -which mean people correctly pointed out is not scientifically useful- is being used to sell this product.

Re: Soylent Campaign

#297

Post by ars »

[deleted] wrote: post #281
tinco wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's just _food_, it's not like any other food product in modern history was ever extensively tested before it was put in the market as a part of our daily diet.

[deleted]

> No it not! It's pure chemicals mixed together.

Um, so is food. All food.

Do you have any idea how many chemical reactions happen when you make and cook food? Have you studied each and every chemical reaction?

PS. I'm not trying to say this is a good idea. But complaining it's bad because it's "chemicals" is ridiculous. Read this thread - there are plenty of well reasoned arguments against it.

Re: Soylent Campaign

#298

Post by vagarwa »

milesf wrote: post #272
vagarwa wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It may yet not be there for most (not necessarily because of inherent nutrient-biology issues but because of lack of long term testing) but it will be a damn good alternative for a few hundred million across the world: http://southasia.oneworld.net/news/food-shortage-forcing-chi...

Do you really think this is some revolutionary, new idea? Do you?! Do you think of all the thousands of students who go to University for 4-7 years to learn about one subject - Food - haven't thought "hey? why don't we just mix the basic chemicals together and solve the world's food crisis?". This is pure hubris! This idea has been pursued for decades by people who have dedicated themselves to scientific rigour. I'll…

nope not revolutionary or new at all. Just that they are actually going through with it. With the free marketing they are getting, they have a shot at making mixing-chemicals-into-food a profitable business! And unless they are profitable, they can't afford to be charitable.

Re: Soylent Campaign

#299

Post by zeroexzeroone »

scottjad wrote: post #186
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.

Damn that sounds good - completely natural - save for possibly the emulsifiers in the almond milk.

Re: Soylent Campaign

#300

Post by DanBC »

shubb wrote: post #288
[deleted] wrote: post #239

[deleted]

I'm sitting this one out for a year. I expected Rob to run longer and more detailed trails than it appears he has. As in a few hundred people eating nothing but Soylent for a year. There will be problems with the initial manufacture, and he highlights them in the risks section. But I notice the lack of anyone from say a pharma QC background who would be able to control the risk of overdosing on an ingredient by prope…

> and a huge achievement

Why will it be a huge achievement?

Post reply on HN