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

591–600 of 608 posts

Re: Soylent Campaign

#591

Post by infinitone »

scott_s wrote: post #563
dntrkv wrote: post #495

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From your link: “From a practical standpoint, this study does not change the fact that the majority of consumers could benefit from taking an affordable multivitamin,” said Andrew Shao, vice president of scientific and regulatory affairs with the council. “It is better to meet these recommendations than not, and consistently taking a multivitamin over the long term could help fill these nutrient gaps and may help con…

Yes, I saw that. But that was from the vice president of scientific and regulatory affairs for the Council of for Responsible Nutrition, which is a vitamin industry trade group. The article ended with a conclusion from the study's author: Dr. Neuhouser said she realizes that many people who are devoted vitamin users will be skeptical of the finding that they are receiving no benefit from a daily multivitamin. “I don’…

Thanks for this mate... didn't know.

Re: Soylent Campaign

#592

Post by cbr »

aclevernickname wrote: post #590
cscurmudgeon wrote: post #490

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, a fool and his money are easily parted. We have enough knowledge and resources to lead healthy lives without believing in possible snake oil. There is a whole bunch of physiological feedback that they are glossing over. E.g. the act of eating a meal mindfully. I don't wish them ill. If they have a product which is better than the best thing out there for us, I wish they succeed. I would not have stopped you if…

Conversely, fittingly enough for YC, a fool and his party are soon moneyed.

monetized?

Re: Soylent Campaign

#593

Post by aclevernickname »

cmccabe wrote: post #518
javert wrote: post #470

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Wow, the depths of ignorance in this post are truly shocking. Even holocaust deniers or creationists have more of a leg to stand on than you do. Grow up a little, read some history, and learn what people used to put in food back when they could. And in some parts of the world, still do... melamine in baby formula is nothing compared to what used to go on.

In light of the parent post, I propose that Godwin's Law be extended to all mentions of the Holocaust. we have maybe 5 years before the last of the survivors die of old age, so I think it's safe that anyone bringing up 70+ spectres are not contributing much to a conversation.

Re: Soylent Campaign

#594

Post by zappbrannigan »

papsosouid wrote: post #566
cscurmudgeon wrote: post #450

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except that those hippies don't raise $100k+ on the web. "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" The techniques and the wording seem snake oilish. Also, if anything those dumb hacker kids build breaks (email, web app, game) etc, they won't hurt you physically. The body…

The big flaw with this line of reasoning is that 90% of people are already eating diets that we know, 100% for certain, are worse than soylent. Yes, it could be missing something. You are almost certainly already missing or short on several things. For the vast majority of people, this is going to be a significant improvement.

No we don't know if it is worse than soylent. Because we do not know what is in soylent.

Re: Soylent Campaign

#598

Post by SoftwareMaven »

nitrogen wrote: post #536
SoftwareMaven wrote: post #425

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My concern is that they are billing this as healthy with zero evidence that it actually is. The last few years of nutrition research has begun to show us that we know nothing about it. Pretending you can come up with an optimal solution when nobbody knows what healthy is, is just that, pretending. I fear for the people who see this as a great "life hack" who wind up doing long-lasting damage to themselves. There are…

How can eating Soylent do more long-lasting damage to oneself than eating any other food?

Missing nutrients is probably the most obvious, but bad combinations of nutrients having strange effects is certainly possible.

A person's vitamin C needs are different if they are eating a diet that is predominately meat than if they are eating a lot of grains (the reason why Inuits didn't suffer from scurvy). Maybe there is a combination in Soylent that makes calcium very difficult to absorb or alters the body's ph so calcium has to be leached from the bones to proper ph. After 10 years, your bones become exceedingly brittle, and there isn't much you can do about it.

I'm not saying this is less healthy than eating Ensure for every meal, but I would say the exact same thing about Ensure, and I trust a little more science has gone into it (maybe 10% valid nutrition and 90% "how do we get this to taste/sell better" food "science").

The worst part for me is that we have no idea. At best, we have a few anecdotes. But I feel this way about every "miracle food" that comes on the market.

Re: Soylent Campaign

#599

Post by leot »

papsosouid wrote: post #583
leot wrote: post #430

I have a soylent-like thing that I've started eating, and I've personally found the impact to be wonderful. It's arguably easier, and it's potentially healthier. It is extremely inexpensive, delicious, vegetarian/vegan-if-eggs-are-omitted, flexible, nutrient rich, high in fiber, high in good fats, relatively "slow-cal"/low glycemic index, wheat gluten-free, protein rich, easy to digest, and very quick to prepare. Pre…

What you described is absolutely not healthier. You are clearly not meeting 100% RDI on many vitamins and minerals. Where is your vitamin E? Why is the quinoa even there? That is only "protein rich" if you are eating 4 eggs, and are very generous with your definition of "protein rich".

That wasn't a very helpful criticism. The basic principle of pre-cooking quinoa, beans, and sweet-potatoes is a good one for many people who want ease of preparation, tastiness, "real food", and something much healthier than what they're currently eating.

Also, the nutrition data site says that it's got ~124% of the recommended vitamin E (http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/recipe/2832909/2)

What would you add to this to make it better?

Re: Soylent Campaign

#600

Post by papsosouid »

leot wrote: post #599
papsosouid wrote: post #583

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What you described is absolutely not healthier. You are clearly not meeting 100% RDI on many vitamins and minerals. Where is your vitamin E? Why is the quinoa even there? That is only "protein rich" if you are eating 4 eggs, and are very generous with your definition of "protein rich".

That wasn't a very helpful criticism. The basic principle of pre-cooking quinoa, beans, and sweet-potatoes is a good one for many people who want ease of preparation, tastiness, "real food", and something much healthier than what they're currently eating. Also, the nutrition data site says that it's got ~124% of the recommended vitamin E ( http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/recipe/2832909/2 ) What would you add to t…

I don't understand why you think it isn't helpful. You are suggesting that as an alternative to soylent. It is a very poor alternative, and I explained why. I wouldn't add anything, I'd toss it away and start over. You don't try to build on a base of high calorie, low nutrient food like quinoa and olive oil. You had to max out everything in that recipe, which puts you at 2400 kcal, way over what most people need. And you are still seriously lacking in half a dozen essential nutrients, and are low on omega3s. Those percentages listed are based on someone who needs to consume 2000 kcal, so you want to aim for 100% at 2000 kcal.
Post reply on HN