These top comments are really the worst of HN. Thoughtless, emotional vitriol.
Until Soylent is proved unsafe, there is no basis for calling it unsafe.
How I Ate No Food for 30 Days
91–100 of 297 posts
Re: How I Ate No Food for 30 Days
#92Soylent might, technically, work. It might be safe and healthy, it definitely looks simple and allows you to forget anything related to grocery shopping, cooking and cleaning up afterwards. But thinking about the prospect of the future makes me sick to my stomach. Soylent paints a disgustingly frightening dystopia where humans are fed 100% "correct" food to allow them to continue being cogs in the business machine, n…
Yes, the whole problem with the marketing hype is thinking about this product in terms of this all or nothing "disrupt the food industry" mentality. It might turn out to be a company producing a slightly more economical meal replacement shake that you can down a couple days in place of breakfast, but at the end of the day thats really all. There's nothing new to see here.
Re: How I Ate No Food for 30 Days
#93Earlier quoted context omitted.
> For me however it does not discount the product in the least You can get better products from reputable companies. Or you can buy this gloop, from a bunch of people who clearly have little clue about what they're doing.
> You can get better products from reputable companies. What products specifically?
Ensure / fortisip / Optifast (as seen in the video in the submutted link, where the doctor tells him that liquid total food replacements have been available for decades) / etc etc etc.
Here's Abbott Nutrition http://abbottnutrition.com/
Here's Nutricia https://www.nutricia.co.uk/fortisip//
It's frustrating that this question is asked, and answered, every single time Soylent is mentioned, and people then dishonestly say that these products are somehow not meant to be used as a sole source of nutrition, even though that's how they're regulated and sold.
Re: How I Ate No Food for 30 Days
#94Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wouldn't consider the 30 day test to be remotely significant. Maybe when we're talking about years Soylent can be considered safe...
What about all of the foods in the grocery store than can kill you over years if eaten as a primary source of a diet? Are those considered "safe"? * Not trying to advocate Soylent. Just trying to point out that there are a lot of foods in the grocery store that can kill over time (and many are marketed as full meals intended to be eaten regularly).
> What about all of the foods in the grocery store than can kill you over years if eaten as a primary source of a diet? Are those considered "safe"
This is very disengenous. The makers of Soylent have come out and said Soylent is the only thing you need to eat to have a full and balanced diet.
I can't think of a single other food at a grocery store that has made a similar promise as I dont' believe any food can do this.
Re: How I Ate No Food for 30 Days
#95Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why not? The human body is a machine, and we can examine and alter that machine. We've been doing that throughout history. I don't like the early claims of Soylent being "perfectly optimized" and the like.
When a lawnmower breaks, you hit it really hard with a hefty wrench until it starts working again. Maybe even take it apart, clean it, and put it back together again. Worse case, you buy a new one and find yourself out a few thousand dollars. Percussive maintenance doesn't work on humans. When humans break, they die.
That's a poor analogy. 1) We're starting from a functional state, 2) Changing diet is nowhere near as violent as hitting something with a wrench.
Humans are very adaptable wrt. food, generally speaking. Look at the different diets all around the world, or even in one person's lifetime.
The only issue I take with Soylent is their claim that it's perfect. I think we need MUCH more time to gather data.
Re: How I Ate No Food for 30 Days
#96Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wouldn't consider the 30 day test to be remotely significant. Maybe when we're talking about years Soylent can be considered safe...
You must be the dude still holding out on cell phones because of the microwaves?
Considering the earliest signs of scurvy start at the one month mark, I don't consider suspicion of a 30 day trial to be overly cautious.
Re: How I Ate No Food for 30 Days
#97Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is not "unfortunate" it is incompetent. They basically do not know what they are doing. Why did they start manufacture when they were not set up properly?
I think a lot of software startups do extremely similar things with customer privacy. In fact there are probably places where the security flaws are worse than anything Soylent is doing. That is not to excuse it, more to shed light on the fact that it is much more apparent when they are failing in the food industry.
> In fact there are probably places where the security flaws are worse than anything Soylent is doing.
As an experiment, ask people whether they'd rather risk having their credit card number compromised or risk becoming violently ill from a foodborne illness.
I bet they won't even ask the odds when they give their answer.
Re: How I Ate No Food for 30 Days
#98Re: How I Ate No Food for 30 Days
#99Soylent might, technically, work. It might be safe and healthy, it definitely looks simple and allows you to forget anything related to grocery shopping, cooking and cleaning up afterwards. But thinking about the prospect of the future makes me sick to my stomach. Soylent paints a disgustingly frightening dystopia where humans are fed 100% "correct" food to allow them to continue being cogs in the business machine, n…
Or... it could put humanity in a position to provide a balanced nutrition as a fundamental human right, delivered right to your doorstep by USPS. If the economics worked out it could be provided everywhere worldwide, and then other food consumption could be purely for enjoyment. There are always people who scream "dystopia!" every time a new technology arrives. That seems very pessimistic.
>it could put humanity in a position to provide a balanced nutrition as a fundamental human right, delivered right to your doorstep by USPS. If the economics worked out it could be provided everywhere worldwide, and then other food consumption could be purely for enjoyment.
So... why not just do that with the food we've got? Drop a few packages of surplus food on the doorsteps of some African countries and call it good?
The thing is, there is enough food to feed the world. The Western world has way too much of it and lots of the rest of the world has too little of it. Hell, even within the western world there's too much and too little at the same time within the same square mile.
The issue is not balanced nutrition, it's making the economics work out, which they do not and never have.
What this may solve is a distribution problem. Some of the food problem in major US cities is lack of access to grocery stores that sell real food. Soylent could be stocked in the convenience stores those areas have access to.
Re: How I Ate No Food for 30 Days
#100Earlier quoted context omitted.
Shush, they have plenty of testimonials from real customers saying it works. Soylent is a true superfood unlike scams like acai berry juice. Solves long standing dietary issues that have gone unsolved by modern medicine? Check. Helps you lose weight? Check. Saves time and money? Check. Testimonials? Check. Even people with sciency sounding backgrounds think it's good! Let me just get out my credit card and sign up fo…
OK, so I like cooking and eating food. I think soylent is a scam, or at the very least just another in a long line of unappetizing "diet replacement shakes". But just allow me a moment to conduct a thought experiment, or at least play devil's advocate. For years you've been walking to get where you are going and you've been plowing your fields with a couple of very high maintenance animals that are costly and risky.…
You are not forced to do anything.