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

461–470 of 608 posts

Re: Soylent Campaign

#461

Post by lholden »

nsxwolf wrote: post #449
cabalamat wrote: post #348

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I like cooking too. But sometimes it is a chore, or sometimes I'm busy and don't want to spend time cooking.

That's why there's restaurants and convenience foods. What a false dichotomy. The chore of an elaborate home cooked meal, or gulping down a cup of snot.

Many restaurants make lovely and delicious food... but their food is also expensive compared to preparing something yourself.

Convenience foods (microwave dinners, fast food) tend to sit somewhere in the middle. Cheaper then restaurant food but also both likely deficient nutritionally and not tasting good unless it's absolutely loaded with carbs, fats, salt, etc.

That cup of snot is most likely better for you then fast food and is a hell of a lot cheaper. Eating something like it could very well mean that you get to eat delicious restaurant food more often simply because you can afford to do so.

Re: Soylent Campaign

#462

Post by shurcooL »

stox wrote: post #434
ars wrote: post #366

Earlier quoted context omitted.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_hormesis

Wow! You telling me that working as a jumper at a Nuclear Plant might have been good for me? The mind boggles.

"Whatever doesn't kill you makes you stronger" has _some_ truth to it. The body adapts and learns from various harmful things, hence it's less likely to affect you as strongly in the future.

Re: Soylent Campaign

#463

Post by xtracto »

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.

It is funny that I agree with both you and GP's post:

On one side, it is very sad that the majority of posts in this thread are very negative. But on the other side, I would give more credit to their enterprise if there was a nutriologist, chemist, or at leas tan MD in their team.

The fact that no one in the team is slightly related to food/nutrition or human well-being rings bells.

Re: Soylent Campaign

#464

Post by javert »

w1ntermute wrote: post #264
cwilson wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We're talking about life and death now? That's quite the extreme you've just jumped to. After reading through the ingredients being used in Soylent none of them seem particularly life threatening (Cached version, site seems to be slammed: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:f487PaT... ). I admit they need a warning of some sort on the campaign, and they should probably link to his blog posts about ev…

> After reading through the ingredients being used in Soylent none of them seem particularly life threatening Please, stop commenting on things you clearly do not understand. Human biology and nutrition is a tad more complicated than creating an iPhone fart app. There's a lot more to nutrition than examining a list of ingredients.

Unless you present a specific reason to think that Soylent is unsafe, you're just blowing hot air.

The reason I even bother pointing this out is because you seem like the kind of person who might actually be able to present a specific reason.

Obviously, it's not safe to assume that it can replace all food, period, but I don't see/haven't heard any specific reason to suspect that it would be dangerous to consume it in large portions on a regular basis.

Re: Soylent Campaign

#465

Post by toomuchtodo »

salemh wrote: post #222
katbyte wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As much as i love cooking, there are times where i would love something that is quick and healthy. not to say soylent is that, just that it would be nice.

Not sure whats wrong with blending some protein powder (ON is tasty), a full avocado, spinach if your feeling frisky, whole-milk if your feeling more frisky (higher fats / a bit more protein) for a near-meal replacement (near, nothing compares to whole foods). ~400 cals or so. Or taking it further with blending/vitamixing (so you keep the fiber) veggies. I thought this was the most hilarious article I've read. And it…

What exactly does whole food offer that a meal replacement doesn't? Are we talking nutrients? Because those can be replaced. Are we talking about the form? Because form shouldn't matter much to a digestive track that is built to dissolve and pulverize food. So what makes "whole foods" so much better?

Re: Soylent Campaign

#466

Post by shurcooL »

nsxwolf wrote: post #451
bfioca wrote: post #301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So is baby formula not food?

Baby formula has rigorous research behind it.

And Soylent or whatever it evolves into (or alternatives it inspires) will have research and evidence behind it once it goes big. You gotta start somewhere.

Re: Soylent Campaign

#467

Post by rosser »

ars wrote: post #455
stox wrote: post #434

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow! You telling me that working as a jumper at a Nuclear Plant might have been good for me? The mind boggles.

It depends on how slowly you got the radiation. The same dose delivered fast does much more damage than the dose delivered slowly. At least that's the theory. The NRC works on the principle that the speed doesn't matter - it's just the cumulative that counts. It's not a settled matter, although the research does seem to point in that direction.

>= ~5 Sv in an acute dose is generally fatal, but a man named Albert Stevens was injected with a small dose of plutonium in a human radiation experiment, and suffered a net dose of 64 Sv over a 21 year period before dying of heart disease. [1]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Stevens

Re: Soylent Campaign

#468

Post by javert »

munificent wrote: post #428
shubb wrote: post #327

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, if in a year, it hasn't gone horribly wrong, then he's produced something people can eat for a year without great ill effect. Someone will eat this for a year, so we will find out. Most of it's demo will eat it about 50% of the time, eating conventional instant meals and restaurant foods the rest. If it's healthier, or at least different from 'mostly eating microwave lasagne', it should improve their health. Al…

> Well, if in a year, it hasn't gone horribly wrong, then he's produced something people can eat for a year without great ill effect. No, he's produced something people can eat for a year without great ill effect in that year . You can very likely smoke cigarettes for a year without ill effect. That tells you next to nothing about its long-term effects.

Sorry, are there any carcinogens in Soylent? Ah, didn't think so.

Re: Soylent Campaign

#469

Post by Game_Ender »

princess3000 wrote: post #359
ellyagg wrote: post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Also notable is that he ran exactly pi miles. e: AND called that an "irrational improvement." That must be a joke or something...

3.11 miles in 5km so maybe he was trying to run a 5k and went a little over?

Re: Soylent Campaign

#470

Post by javert »

w1ntermute wrote: post #171
pogden wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't have a scientific background but I still manage to do okay choosing my own food at the grocery store. Soylent doesn't have to be the pinnacle of human nutrition, it just has to be better than burritos and ramen and freezer pizza.

> I still manage to do okay choosing my own food at the grocery store That's because the FDA regulates food. Read The Jungle [0] if you want to know how things were before the FDA existed. These guys need to understand that biotech is nothing like tech and shut this shit down before they kill someone. There's a good reason why you don't see uneducated teenagers "disrupting" the food and drug industries. This isn't li…

> Read The Jungle[0] if you want to know how things were before the FDA existed.

Yeah, because before 1906, people were constantly dying from bad food. There wasn't any safe food to eat. In the whole world. For all of history. Until the FDA came along to save us in 1906.

I mean, it's demonstrably true that people aren't capable of caring for themselves. We need the government for force us to take care of ourselves.

P.S. The Jungle is a piece of left-wing propoganda.

Post reply on HN