Soylent: Gruel today, gruel tomorrow(economist.com)
economist.com
Soylent: Gruel today, gruel tomorrow
http://www.economist.com/blogs/babbage/2013/05/nutrition
72 comments
I love to cook, but it can be extremely time consuming, especially when paired with the time to cleanup. A lot of dishes also require an amount of inactive time that is simply impossible for a weekday meal that you need to squeeze between coming home from work and going to sleep.
In a perfect world, I have time to shop for and prepare elaborate meals. I'd be able to sit down and enjoy these meals with loved ones. Reality is a bit different for many of us. I'm fortunate enough to have the financial means to eat or take out every day if I wanted, but that's not a terribly healthy solution.
The fact is, most of my meals are "utility" meals where I am eating to live. That said, it does not preclude me from living to eat. Food would never cease to be one of life's joys, for me at least. I am pro-Soylent, but I won't participate any time soon. I want to see how it plays out, because putting my body on the line is not in the cards. I hope it works out, because getting back an hour or two every day sounds fantastic.
In a perfect world, I have time to shop for and prepare elaborate meals. I'd be able to sit down and enjoy these meals with loved ones. Reality is a bit different for many of us. I'm fortunate enough to have the financial means to eat or take out every day if I wanted, but that's not a terribly healthy solution.
The fact is, most of my meals are "utility" meals where I am eating to live. That said, it does not preclude me from living to eat. Food would never cease to be one of life's joys, for me at least. I am pro-Soylent, but I won't participate any time soon. I want to see how it plays out, because putting my body on the line is not in the cards. I hope it works out, because getting back an hour or two every day sounds fantastic.
You're creating a false dichotomy between Perfect Cooking and No Cooking.
Many tasty meals can be prepared quickly. Many can be prepared without supervision. You can also prepare meals in bulk and reheat them when you need them.
Are some meals elaborate and time-consuming? Yes. Just don't make those ones.
Many tasty meals can be prepared quickly. Many can be prepared without supervision. You can also prepare meals in bulk and reheat them when you need them.
Are some meals elaborate and time-consuming? Yes. Just don't make those ones.
It's true that many tasty meals can be rather quick. I used phrases like "it can be" and "a lot of dishes" specifically to avoid creating a false dichotomy.
Sometimes I get bored of pan-seared salmon filet with sauce-of-the-week and microwave-steamed fresh broccoli. After the umpteenth time, I'm not deriving pleasure from the cooking process.
The cook in bulk recommendation is front-loading a time commitment for the kind of freedom something like Soylent would permit without sacrificing part of your weekend. I cook in bulk every so often, but blow half my weekend every week? Not a chance.
Sometimes I get bored of pan-seared salmon filet with sauce-of-the-week and microwave-steamed fresh broccoli. After the umpteenth time, I'm not deriving pleasure from the cooking process.
The cook in bulk recommendation is front-loading a time commitment for the kind of freedom something like Soylent would permit without sacrificing part of your weekend. I cook in bulk every so often, but blow half my weekend every week? Not a chance.
> After the umpteenth time, I'm not deriving pleasure from the cooking process.
Learn a new dish.
"After watching Batman Begins every night for 4 months straight, I got a bit bored with it".
Watch a new movie.
> blow half my weekend every week?
Yet another false dichotomy. As I said above, many dishes can be cooked without supervision. Cook one or two of those. On nights when you feel like cooking fresh, cook fresh. Otherwise pull the stew, curry, chilli, ragu etc etc etc out of the freezer and heat it up.
It's just not that hard. And cost:reward vs drinking sour white water seems pretty good to me.
Learn a new dish.
"After watching Batman Begins every night for 4 months straight, I got a bit bored with it".
Watch a new movie.
> blow half my weekend every week?
Yet another false dichotomy. As I said above, many dishes can be cooked without supervision. Cook one or two of those. On nights when you feel like cooking fresh, cook fresh. Otherwise pull the stew, curry, chilli, ragu etc etc etc out of the freezer and heat it up.
It's just not that hard. And cost:reward vs drinking sour white water seems pretty good to me.
> Watch a new movie.
What? Why do I have to watch a movie?
What? Why do I have to watch a movie?
You're right. I could just watch the static instead. It contains about as much intellectual content, is quite soothing and has a much lower environmental footprint.
I don't understand this metaphor at all. I want do go do something else. Shoot, maybe I want to go cook an elaborate and delicious meal! Why are you forcing me to watch anything?
Repetitive food -> Repetitive Batman
Static -> Unfilling, sour tasting water
Static -> Unfilling, sour tasting water
But you understand that you don't have to sit there staring at the shake for as long as it would take you to cook a meal, right? You just drink it?
Look, however fast and easy it is to make your fast and easy meals, not having to do that is faster and easier. You've already granted the premise that it makes sense, sometimes, to sacrifice complexity of meals for reduced preparation time. Why shouldn't there be very simple options below "some preparation required", if someone wants them?
And why are you clinging to this metaphor that asserts that such an option is physically impossible?
Look, however fast and easy it is to make your fast and easy meals, not having to do that is faster and easier. You've already granted the premise that it makes sense, sometimes, to sacrifice complexity of meals for reduced preparation time. Why shouldn't there be very simple options below "some preparation required", if someone wants them?
And why are you clinging to this metaphor that asserts that such an option is physically impossible?
I've actually been drinking a meal replacement shake (flavoured casein, oats, psyllium, freeze dried fruit/vegetable powder) for lunch most days for the past year and a half. So yes, I understand the mechanics of making them. I would still prefer to cook and eat real food or -- this might surprise you -- pay someone else a small premium to cook for me.
This sub-sub-thread started over a repetitive meal. Replacing it with a bland soup is hardly going to be an improvement.
> And why are you clinging to this metaphor that asserts that such an option is physically impossible?
I don't follow you on this.
This sub-sub-thread started over a repetitive meal. Replacing it with a bland soup is hardly going to be an improvement.
> And why are you clinging to this metaphor that asserts that such an option is physically impossible?
I don't follow you on this.
I'm just going to quote your metaphor again.
>"After watching Batman Begins every night for 4 months straight, I got a bit bored with it".
> Watch a new movie.
But my problem isn't with Batman Begins. My problem is I don't want to watch a movie every night. I don't want to. Do you get that part? I understand you really like movies, and you enjoy setting up this whole system so you can watch a movie every night and not have it take up your whole day, but I don't like movies as much as you do. Most movies I find pretty dumb. It's boring to sit through the same movie over and over again, and picking out a new movie takes time I'd rather spend doing something I enjoy. I like a good film on the weekend if it's something that really engages me, or if I've got friends over, but otherwise it just seems like a needless time sink.
Why do I need to watch a movie? Why is my only other option to watch static? Why do I need to watch anything?
To dereference, if it is not necessary for my survival[0], why do I need to cook? I know that I can if I want to. And I do, sometimes. Why on earth should I when I don't want to?
[0] Disclaimed because I'm bearish on Soylent-- I don't have that much faith in the USDA. But I think something like it should exist, and I'd jump on it in a heartbeat if it worked.
>"After watching Batman Begins every night for 4 months straight, I got a bit bored with it".
> Watch a new movie.
But my problem isn't with Batman Begins. My problem is I don't want to watch a movie every night. I don't want to. Do you get that part? I understand you really like movies, and you enjoy setting up this whole system so you can watch a movie every night and not have it take up your whole day, but I don't like movies as much as you do. Most movies I find pretty dumb. It's boring to sit through the same movie over and over again, and picking out a new movie takes time I'd rather spend doing something I enjoy. I like a good film on the weekend if it's something that really engages me, or if I've got friends over, but otherwise it just seems like a needless time sink.
Why do I need to watch a movie? Why is my only other option to watch static? Why do I need to watch anything?
To dereference, if it is not necessary for my survival[0], why do I need to cook? I know that I can if I want to. And I do, sometimes. Why on earth should I when I don't want to?
[0] Disclaimed because I'm bearish on Soylent-- I don't have that much faith in the USDA. But I think something like it should exist, and I'd jump on it in a heartbeat if it worked.
> Why shouldn't there be very simple options below "some preparation required", if someone wants them?
That's not my problem with Soylent. My problem is that many people talking about this don't appear to have heard about other liquid feeds, and Soylent claim this is safe for everyone, with plenty of evidence of safety. There is no evidence of safety.
That's not my problem with Soylent. My problem is that many people talking about this don't appear to have heard about other liquid feeds, and Soylent claim this is safe for everyone, with plenty of evidence of safety. There is no evidence of safety.
[deleted]
I cook in bulk every so often, but blow half my weekend every week?
And now you're straw-manning. Cooking in bulk generally takes only marginally more time than cooking the same thing for a single meal.
And now you're straw-manning. Cooking in bulk generally takes only marginally more time than cooking the same thing for a single meal.
If you're talking about filling up a slow cooker to the brim and letting it roll, sure, you can do that. I personally rather drink Soylent if that's the meal we're shooting for.
For example: If you want to do a stew or chili right, you need to brown the meat. You need to do it in batches to avoid crowding the pan. Batches take time.
For example: If you want to do a stew or chili right, you need to brown the meat. You need to do it in batches to avoid crowding the pan. Batches take time.
[deleted]
I can just about understand that some people don't have any decent food options at the workplace. They work somewhere small, and there are no local food providers, and any food available is terrible junk.
You have the options of remember to buy nice food that you can take into work, or taking a liquid food. The liquid food might not be tasty, but ensures you're not eating trash and are getting some nutrients.
And, from there, I get that there's a link between Soylent and YC, and so people are really keen to see them do well.
But I can't understand why people seem to ignore the very many brands of liquid feed already being made, which have undergone serious testing.
You have the options of remember to buy nice food that you can take into work, or taking a liquid food. The liquid food might not be tasty, but ensures you're not eating trash and are getting some nutrients.
And, from there, I get that there's a link between Soylent and YC, and so people are really keen to see them do well.
But I can't understand why people seem to ignore the very many brands of liquid feed already being made, which have undergone serious testing.
The OP created a false dichotomy. No one is requiring soylent 21 times per week. Save up your enthusiasm and make 4 or 5 excellent meals per week. You'll even enjoy them more than you would have.
That was the main selling point, though, as I understand -- that you can eat Soylent 100% or hell, 95% of the time, and you'd be healthy and not die. And most people were actually complaining about that, that everything's been so rushed.
Soylent in its current form is nothing new. I am no authority, but it probably isn't the best either, with only a few mere months' worth of research. I'm sure this product isn't going to be an impending health disaster -- I doubt anyone would be dumb enough to eat Soylent till they die. But there are alternatives out there (the OP mentions a few) that are likely better-tested. Soylent's one claim to fame may as well be its better marketing (pretty much everyone in that company's a marketer).
Soylent in its current form is nothing new. I am no authority, but it probably isn't the best either, with only a few mere months' worth of research. I'm sure this product isn't going to be an impending health disaster -- I doubt anyone would be dumb enough to eat Soylent till they die. But there are alternatives out there (the OP mentions a few) that are likely better-tested. Soylent's one claim to fame may as well be its better marketing (pretty much everyone in that company's a marketer).
Agreed. I think it could be a useful product, even if the majority of people probably would not want to replace all of their meals with it.
Yep. Frozen veggies with pesto is under 1 minute to get into the microwave. After heating, sprinkle on some cashews.
[deleted]
Cooking being enjoyable/rewarding is subjective. I could find it neither.
Recipe for mental illness? One could argue the potential time-savings could prevent some illness(s).
Maybe soylent-enfused-polyphasic-sleep-pomodoro-lifestyles suit the Hacker of Tomorrow.
Devil's advocate aside, we need long term studies & regulation around these products. And, well, regulation should be up to your local government.
Recipe for mental illness? One could argue the potential time-savings could prevent some illness(s).
Maybe soylent-enfused-polyphasic-sleep-pomodoro-lifestyles suit the Hacker of Tomorrow.
Devil's advocate aside, we need long term studies & regulation around these products. And, well, regulation should be up to your local government.
The point of Soylent isn't to never think about food again. It's just a default so when you're not thinking about food, you don't start eating badly. The creator says he goes to get really good sushi a few times a week because he does enjoy it. But if you're preoccupied or pressed for time for some or most of your meals, you can just have Soylent instead of defaulting to fast food or whatever crap is laying around your apartment.
Paraphrasing from their pitch video: "If you can eat out with friends, you should. I love food. But I don't eat twenty-one good meals a week."
I've seen before this idea that people would lose the ability to enjoy cooking or eating if it weren't literally required to survive. It's utterly nonsensical to me. Where does that idea come from?
I've seen before this idea that people would lose the ability to enjoy cooking or eating if it weren't literally required to survive. It's utterly nonsensical to me. Where does that idea come from?
There are some people who just don't seem to enjoy food, and who go for repetitive and bland meals. It's sort of like people who don't enjoy music, or books, or films, or ... you get the idea. Generally they're perceived as a little odd.
Even here in Norway, where food is advertised as "mild" (euphemism for "bland" if there ever was one) people have some concepts of tasty food. You probably know some people who don't enjoy spicy food? Now imagine someone who thought plain bell peppers were too hot (there's no capsaicin in bell peppers).
As for the origin of this culinary anhedonia, Idunno. Maybe poor people who were able to live off gruel without grumbling had better reproductive fitness in the past?
Even here in Norway, where food is advertised as "mild" (euphemism for "bland" if there ever was one) people have some concepts of tasty food. You probably know some people who don't enjoy spicy food? Now imagine someone who thought plain bell peppers were too hot (there's no capsaicin in bell peppers).
As for the origin of this culinary anhedonia, Idunno. Maybe poor people who were able to live off gruel without grumbling had better reproductive fitness in the past?
It's a slippery slope argument. A logical fallacy, but identifying logical fallacies in casual argument is rude at best.
Not from anyone I've known.
In many places, people of a minimum level of affluence hire maids, cooks, and butlers to handle the day-to-day tasks involved in running a household. Finding alternative means to offload tasks you're not interested in doing is not a bad thing if it allows you to employ your time and resources more productively.
Mental illness? Give me a break! Just because YOU don't like it doesn't mean that everyone else must meet your arbitrary standards.
Mental illness? Give me a break! Just because YOU don't like it doesn't mean that everyone else must meet your arbitrary standards.
> This trend towards saving time by sacrificing basic requirements like eating and sleeping is increasingly absurd. In a year or two, I'll open Hacker News and there'll be an article in the top ten that describes how you, too, can Avoid Wasting Time Due To Lengthy Bowel Movements. Don't believe the hype. Have a good night's rest, followed by a leisurely shit and a tasty, gruel-free breakfast you made yourself, and you'll be a better person for it.
As it happens, it's much healthier for your colon to squat and have a nice quick shit rather than sitting on the toilet and taking your time. Unfortunately, no one does this in some places because they don't really have squatting toilets.
As it happens, it's much healthier for your colon to squat and have a nice quick shit rather than sitting on the toilet and taking your time. Unfortunately, no one does this in some places because they don't really have squatting toilets.
It's a long time back (1023 days, actually), and I can't find a reference to the article itself, but I do believe we had an article about how to take a poo by none other than Zed Shaw. At least I felt moved to comment thusly:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1596830
I don't recall whether Zed was optimizing for speed or comfort.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1596830
I don't recall whether Zed was optimizing for speed or comfort.
[deleted]
You could say this about anything and everything. Walking 8 miles to work instead of driving, washing clothes by hand instead of using the washer, buying meat from the store instead of hunting etc.
Youre bias is substantially more harmful and ignorant than anything in soylent. This may be snake oil with protein, but the idea that someone is challenging a very deeply ingrained accepted truth (humans need food) creates a process that leads scientific progress and promotes at least an opportunity for innovation.
Not to be harsh, but your diatribe is exactly the opposite of what HackerNews stands for. Your armchair quarterback position offers nothing
That said I am passing on this until there is way more information.
Not to be harsh, but your diatribe is exactly the opposite of what HackerNews stands for. Your armchair quarterback position offers nothing
That said I am passing on this until there is way more information.
>Not to be harsh, but your diatribe is exactly the opposite of what HackerNews stands for.
Says who?
Says who?
The idea is not to "sacrifice" food as you put it. Soylent is food and is probably fairly healthy. Eating traditional healthy food can be very expensive as fresh fruit and vegetables are usually expensive and also go bad quickly. If you dont feel like cooking dinner I believe soylent would be a much healthier and cheaper alternative to a take away pizza or frozen lasagna or somesuch.
I disagree pretty emphatically. Not having to cook every meal is just one benefit of the product. Other benefits include cost, weight level, mental acuity, stamina, skin. You could eat soylent 14 times a week and still make a nice meal every day. And in fact, the creator suggested that he enjoyed regular food meals even more after being on soylent.
> ...and a tasty, gruel-free breakfast
Hey, I love gruel!
I just wish I had more time to make it...
Hey, I love gruel!
I just wish I had more time to make it...
Totally man, we should go back to traveling by horse while we are at it.
I feel like people probably said this same sort of thing about making fires or washing clothes by hand.
Cutting on sleep is bad I agree, but cooking doesn't feel like something worth thinking about on a regular basis.
Cutting on sleep is bad I agree, but cooking doesn't feel like something worth thinking about on a regular basis.
I'm curious why no one mentions Unimix, memorably described by Roy Blount Jr as "Purina Famine Chow", made and distributed by disaster relief organizations. This stuff has been done before.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unimix
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unimix
It gets mentioned most times that soylent is raised.
The thing is that soylent is a perfect storm of PR.
Lone genius has brilliant insight, develops perfect food. Just like those 60s pulp SF novels where people eat food in pill form! Why did nobody think of this before?
Lots of things that become popular or widespread do so because of the narrative they fit into.
For example, which story will get published:
"22 year old PhD student corrects famous scientist"
or
"14 year old student corrects famous scientist".
People correct famous scientists all the time, that's how science works. But it is the narrative (brilliant youngster vs establishment) that makes it a story worth printing.
And if a story is good enough, journalists won't look too hard at it. They're called "Too Good to Check" stories.
The thing is that soylent is a perfect storm of PR.
Lone genius has brilliant insight, develops perfect food. Just like those 60s pulp SF novels where people eat food in pill form! Why did nobody think of this before?
Lots of things that become popular or widespread do so because of the narrative they fit into.
For example, which story will get published:
"22 year old PhD student corrects famous scientist"
or
"14 year old student corrects famous scientist".
People correct famous scientists all the time, that's how science works. But it is the narrative (brilliant youngster vs establishment) that makes it a story worth printing.
And if a story is good enough, journalists won't look too hard at it. They're called "Too Good to Check" stories.
Sometimes, leaving stuff to experts is wise.
http://examine.com/blog/soylent-is-made-from-hype/
We complain when non-programmers tell us how to do our jobs because it takes a lot of study and experience to do it properly.
http://examine.com/blog/soylent-is-made-from-hype/
We complain when non-programmers tell us how to do our jobs because it takes a lot of study and experience to do it properly.
I understand Rob Rhinehart just playing around, some initial self-experimentation, that kinda thing. There's no reason to get the experts from the get-go. But when he got serious and made started his crowdfunding, and hired a bunch of marketers and finance people, a customer relations guy and only one scientist that isn't even a food scientist, you wonder -- is he really serious about the nutrition thing? His team might as well have been hand-picked for a social-networking startup.
Not saying that it's impossible for people outside the relevant field can't make breakthroughs, but to assume that such a result were a much more than improbable possibility, such that you didn't even need to hire one guy with the relevant credentials? That's chutzpah.
Good luck with the 300k. Hopefully they hire a few food scientists/nutritionists.
Not saying that it's impossible for people outside the relevant field can't make breakthroughs, but to assume that such a result were a much more than improbable possibility, such that you didn't even need to hire one guy with the relevant credentials? That's chutzpah.
Good luck with the 300k. Hopefully they hire a few food scientists/nutritionists.
> is he really serious about the nutrition thing? His team might as well have been hand-picked for a social-networking startup
They were a traditional tech startup. They pivoted when that market collapsed.
http://blog.soylent.me/
> YC accepted our original idea, to build affordable wireless networks for developing countries, for the summer 2012 batch. We spent the entire summer prototyping our technology and looking for a customer. By demo day, we had a white space radio with a Bill of Materials (BOM) of $70 operating around Silicon Valley. We didn’t have customers and were facing an intimidating set of regulatory hurdles. We spoke with some of the valley’s top VC’s but failed to raise. Instead of pushing for investment that wasn’t there, we went back to focusing on acquiring customers and finishing our product as soon as possible. We never found a customer.
It is irresponsible for them to launch a product, with massive publicity, and claim the product is safe for everyone (diabetics? pregnant women? People with Crohn's? Anorexics?) and to claim there is much evidence to support safety.
They were a traditional tech startup. They pivoted when that market collapsed.
http://blog.soylent.me/
> YC accepted our original idea, to build affordable wireless networks for developing countries, for the summer 2012 batch. We spent the entire summer prototyping our technology and looking for a customer. By demo day, we had a white space radio with a Bill of Materials (BOM) of $70 operating around Silicon Valley. We didn’t have customers and were facing an intimidating set of regulatory hurdles. We spoke with some of the valley’s top VC’s but failed to raise. Instead of pushing for investment that wasn’t there, we went back to focusing on acquiring customers and finishing our product as soon as possible. We never found a customer.
It is irresponsible for them to launch a product, with massive publicity, and claim the product is safe for everyone (diabetics? pregnant women? People with Crohn's? Anorexics?) and to claim there is much evidence to support safety.
Wow, I never knew that (not much of a start-up guy myself, admittedly).
This is really interesting (from their blog):
"By the start of 2013, we were working on a handful of projects. Sometimes collectively, sometimes independently. One day, Rob said, “There must be a more efficient way to eat.” He researched the human nutritional needs and was frustrated to find that nutrition is not quite a hard science right now. Regardless, he identified the essential ingredients the body needs to thrive and, a few days later, began constructing his alternative diet using supplements purchased on Amazon. Pleased with initial testing, he committed to his newly invented diet for 30 days."
So, despite food science lacking foundations and rigour (in the most neutral way) right now, he still figured out (well, almost, just needed a month of testing and we're good to go!) an unsolved question, without any formal training, in a few days.
In the context of their previous failure it just makes me even more inclined to wonder what they're really planning -- their noble goals seem smell much more like marketing bullshit now.
I hope I'm wrong.
This is really interesting (from their blog):
"By the start of 2013, we were working on a handful of projects. Sometimes collectively, sometimes independently. One day, Rob said, “There must be a more efficient way to eat.” He researched the human nutritional needs and was frustrated to find that nutrition is not quite a hard science right now. Regardless, he identified the essential ingredients the body needs to thrive and, a few days later, began constructing his alternative diet using supplements purchased on Amazon. Pleased with initial testing, he committed to his newly invented diet for 30 days."
So, despite food science lacking foundations and rigour (in the most neutral way) right now, he still figured out (well, almost, just needed a month of testing and we're good to go!) an unsolved question, without any formal training, in a few days.
In the context of their previous failure it just makes me even more inclined to wonder what they're really planning -- their noble goals seem smell much more like marketing bullshit now.
I hope I'm wrong.
You don't get it. He read some freshmen textbooks and noodled around on pubmed, that makes him the expert. /s
Thanks for the link. This article appears to be the most positive, least biased article criticizing Rob and Soylent I've come across. That's something I like to see, although the title is a bit link-baitey.
I'm in support of what Soylent aims to become, and if I'm not mistaken, so is the author of this article. All I'm seeing here are very direct suggestions for the next formulation of Soylent, nothing that lambastes Rob for his recklessness and ignorance.
What's more, this article, seemingly written by a nutrition expert, doesn't spread FUD over the potential dangers of exclusively consuming Soylent. Even in its infancy, if all I have to do is take a multivitamin for my psuedovitamin quotas, some extra whey and creatine for my gainz, and maybe a salad and a steak every few days in addition to Soylent, I'm still sold. It would still save plenty of time and effort to get the benefits of optimal nutrition. That is, if what's claimed about consuming Soylent is actually true.
I'm in support of what Soylent aims to become, and if I'm not mistaken, so is the author of this article. All I'm seeing here are very direct suggestions for the next formulation of Soylent, nothing that lambastes Rob for his recklessness and ignorance.
What's more, this article, seemingly written by a nutrition expert, doesn't spread FUD over the potential dangers of exclusively consuming Soylent. Even in its infancy, if all I have to do is take a multivitamin for my psuedovitamin quotas, some extra whey and creatine for my gainz, and maybe a salad and a steak every few days in addition to Soylent, I'm still sold. It would still save plenty of time and effort to get the benefits of optimal nutrition. That is, if what's claimed about consuming Soylent is actually true.
The tricky part is that there are:
1. Macronutrients, two of which are essential to life.
2. Micronutrients, of which
a. Vitamins are essential to life, and
b. Pseudo-vitamins are critical for health.
c. Other micronutrients with positive effects of various degrees and kinds.
You can absolutely survive for a long time on a reductionist soup. That's what's given to lots of very obese patients in protein-sparing modified fasts. The problem is that there are a metric buttload of micronutrients that improve health in the long term. And new ones are being discovered all the time. The easiest way to get the benefits is ... eat a varied diet. Just like they told you at primary school.
But most of the arguments in favour of soylent are daft. Really, just silly. Save time cooking? Cook something easier. Prevents eating the "wrong thing"? Why is the "wrong thing" even in your house? And so on.
HN is full of people who like to be hyper-rational and so this appeals. But I think it's an example of where myopically optimising one or two parameters leads to foolish outcomes.
1. Macronutrients, two of which are essential to life.
2. Micronutrients, of which
a. Vitamins are essential to life, and
b. Pseudo-vitamins are critical for health.
c. Other micronutrients with positive effects of various degrees and kinds.
You can absolutely survive for a long time on a reductionist soup. That's what's given to lots of very obese patients in protein-sparing modified fasts. The problem is that there are a metric buttload of micronutrients that improve health in the long term. And new ones are being discovered all the time. The easiest way to get the benefits is ... eat a varied diet. Just like they told you at primary school.
But most of the arguments in favour of soylent are daft. Really, just silly. Save time cooking? Cook something easier. Prevents eating the "wrong thing"? Why is the "wrong thing" even in your house? And so on.
HN is full of people who like to be hyper-rational and so this appeals. But I think it's an example of where myopically optimising one or two parameters leads to foolish outcomes.
And I do feel the same about many of the counter arguments I'm seeing about why Soylent is preferable over a healthy, well balanced diet. I really don't even see cooking vs. not cooking as the most salient topic relative to the potential benefits of Soylent.
To me, what's most interesting is Soylent as a marketing challenge. If people can indeed by optimally nourished by something that is more convenient and cheaper than fast food, then it's bound to become more successful and ubiquitous in the long run. It is, at the very least, the same premise of Chipotle's business: offering something conventionally agreed to as healthy food in a convenient manner at roughly the same cost as other fast food franchises. The ideal outcomes are similar too: healthier people are in a much better position to positively contribute to society.
Do you think that, given the buttload of nutrients we'll need to be prosperously healthy, a complete food product can be engineered? Perhaps the real question is can it be complete and cheap at the same time...
I'm not knowledgeable about nutrition, but if I can directly fund an effort to develop the perfect food, I will. (And have)
To me, what's most interesting is Soylent as a marketing challenge. If people can indeed by optimally nourished by something that is more convenient and cheaper than fast food, then it's bound to become more successful and ubiquitous in the long run. It is, at the very least, the same premise of Chipotle's business: offering something conventionally agreed to as healthy food in a convenient manner at roughly the same cost as other fast food franchises. The ideal outcomes are similar too: healthier people are in a much better position to positively contribute to society.
Do you think that, given the buttload of nutrients we'll need to be prosperously healthy, a complete food product can be engineered? Perhaps the real question is can it be complete and cheap at the same time...
I'm not knowledgeable about nutrition, but if I can directly fund an effort to develop the perfect food, I will. (And have)
Food is generally sold on taste. The old basics of salt, fat and sugar are still going to be what keeps peopl coming back.
But marketing-wise, soylent has already proved itself very successful. It's invented a niche that didn't exist and converted consumers to having a "need" of which they were previously unaware.
That said, I suspect it'll be a niche market. What's more likely is that soylent will be added to other products. Milkshakes ... with soylent! Steak diane ... with soylent!
The classic example is how many obese people discount the calories of "healthy" foods. "Those fruit smoothies don't count, they're healthy". It's a substitution heuristic.
But marketing-wise, soylent has already proved itself very successful. It's invented a niche that didn't exist and converted consumers to having a "need" of which they were previously unaware.
That said, I suspect it'll be a niche market. What's more likely is that soylent will be added to other products. Milkshakes ... with soylent! Steak diane ... with soylent!
The classic example is how many obese people discount the calories of "healthy" foods. "Those fruit smoothies don't count, they're healthy". It's a substitution heuristic.
Are these daft? "Cognition was the first to go [after going off soylent]. Patience shortened, attention dulled, curiosity waned. Socializing was more taxing, my inbox more foreboding. The physical effects took another few days. It was harder to wake up, the gym seemed much less inviting, and I gained a few pounds."
The efficiency is just one benefit of quite a few, many significant.
The efficiency is just one benefit of quite a few, many significant.
Subject-reported mood on (n=1) trials were last considered scientific circa Sigmund Freud. And we don't know what his regular diet was.
Different people react differently to different foods, even the same food at different times or under different conditions. His remarks there read a bit like some stuff I've read by the proponents of, variously, vegetarian, paleo and keto diets.
I don't eat breakfast, as a rule. I used to get peckish in the mid-morning, now I don't get hungry until lunchtime. Not being hungry helps me concentrate. I hardly see this as the basis of a new way of life.
Different people react differently to different foods, even the same food at different times or under different conditions. His remarks there read a bit like some stuff I've read by the proponents of, variously, vegetarian, paleo and keto diets.
I don't eat breakfast, as a rule. I used to get peckish in the mid-morning, now I don't get hungry until lunchtime. Not being hungry helps me concentrate. I hardly see this as the basis of a new way of life.
So, are those reasons daft?
In my case I have a specific purpose for that meal: maximal protein per total calories. And I'm not replacing all meals with it. I tried once, out of curiosity. I lasted a day.
I hear you and indeed, if we're to believe his claim, the benefit would be substantial. Yet, I don't think this detail is what jacques_chester was referencing in his comment. It's difficult to dispute Rob's claim without either having experienced the benefits ourselves or having an authority back him up.
We're left to wonder exactly what Rob was cooking for himself when he got off the juice. I support Soylent, but I don't believe you necessarily have to feel this way with only access to mostly whole foods.
Whether or not you enjoy cooking is irrelevant, especially if we stand to gain all that Soylent promises. Soylent won't deprive anyone of the option to cook a meal. If anything it may simply add more value to the act of cooking.
We're left to wonder exactly what Rob was cooking for himself when he got off the juice. I support Soylent, but I don't believe you necessarily have to feel this way with only access to mostly whole foods.
Whether or not you enjoy cooking is irrelevant, especially if we stand to gain all that Soylent promises. Soylent won't deprive anyone of the option to cook a meal. If anything it may simply add more value to the act of cooking.
Many are suggesting that the only reasons being given have to do with saving time but that is far from the case. I spent 2 minutes finding one passage (of many) that discusses 8 or 10 non-efficiency reasons. Yes, they are self-reported. Yes, they need to be verified. Yes, there could be other ways to get there or other factors involved. But these are other, very good reasons being supplied for the exercise.
I think it is rarely, if ever, wise to "leave" things to the experts. Amateurs can make (and have made) valuable contributions in just about every subject.
I think it's wise to leave things to experts most of the time, especially if you can be conversant with the experts.
I do wonder what the long term effects of eating this would be. Ive read some of the creators blog posts and I get the impression he doesn't know what hes doing. He has no education or experience in nutrition.
He seems to have this reductionist view of the human body and eating.
For instance he will say I was feeling a little X today so I added a few grams more Y and today I'm fine! Basically he is being incredibly unscientific about it.
There's a ton of maltodextrin in this according to the nutrition facts. Can we really say it's a good idea to have that much maltodextrin for carbs compared to whole wheat breads, whole grain/whole wheat pastas, or other "cleaner" carb sources? I'm no nutritionist, but all those bodybuilding supplements and nutritional drinks that are full of maltodextrin don't get a good rep from the health community. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Maltodextrin is used in bodybuilding supplements because it's quickly digested. It causes an insulin spike which might help shuttle protein into muscle tissue.
Right exactly. It's used as a postworkout supplement often (possibly with dextrose) and it's pretty cheap. I wouldn't want a quickly digested carb as my main carb source in Soylent.
I think the most interesting thing about this whole experiment is that it took this long for someone to do it. You would assume there'd be a wealth of information from military studies of battle-ready rations, or something.
Haters gonna hate, builders gonna build. When's the last time the economist was correct with a prediction of the future?
Some people want to try liquid feed. Here are some already existing companies making liquid feeds:
http://ensure.com/ Ensure
https://www.nutricia.co.uk/fortisip// Fortisip
http://www.complan.com/ Complan
http://abbottnutrition.com/brands/abbott-brands Abbott Nutrition Brands
http://www.medifast1.com/index.jsp Medifast
http://www.optifast.com/Pages/index.aspx Optifast
http://www.slim-fast.com/products/ Slimfast
Soylent make some claims about world hunger. As the article mentions Soylent is currently expensive. Their crowdfunding level was food replacement at about $7 per day. That's way outside the range of the 20% of the world population living on less than $1.25 per day. The main ingredient of Soylent is water. Unfortunately, about a billion people do not have access to clean drinking water.
Hopefully with mass manufacturing they can get the cost down. And they could plow back some of the profits into providing clean water.
There are other worrying things about Soylent.
> For anyone who struggles with allergies, heartburn, acid reflux or digestion, has trouble controlling weight or cholesterol, or simply doesn't have the means to eat well, soylent is for you.
> Soylent frees you from the time and money spent shopping, cooking and cleaning, puts you in excellent health, and vastly reduces your environmental impact by eliminating much of the waste and harm coming from agriculture, livestock, and food-related trash.
From (https://campaign.soylent.me/soylent-free-your-body)
Lots of 'problems with digestion' are going to be serious illness for which liquid feeds are used. It is irresponsible for Soylent to claim to be safe for those people without extensive testing.
There's no evidence that a liquid feed replacing all meals will put anyone in excellent health.
The product uses agricultural products. As the article mentions, milk proteins are significant impact.
Soylent also claims to have a shelf life of years. I'm still very curious about this. Many micronutrients will not have a shelflife of years. vitamin C needs to be kept in the dark, in an airtight container, away from heat and moisture.
It was a mild irritant when it was one guy experimenting on himself (but giving out the recipe for other people to follow along). Launching a product from that with these claims, especially that there's "much evidence", is irresponsible.
http://ensure.com/ Ensure
https://www.nutricia.co.uk/fortisip// Fortisip
http://www.complan.com/ Complan
http://abbottnutrition.com/brands/abbott-brands Abbott Nutrition Brands
http://www.medifast1.com/index.jsp Medifast
http://www.optifast.com/Pages/index.aspx Optifast
http://www.slim-fast.com/products/ Slimfast
Soylent make some claims about world hunger. As the article mentions Soylent is currently expensive. Their crowdfunding level was food replacement at about $7 per day. That's way outside the range of the 20% of the world population living on less than $1.25 per day. The main ingredient of Soylent is water. Unfortunately, about a billion people do not have access to clean drinking water.
Hopefully with mass manufacturing they can get the cost down. And they could plow back some of the profits into providing clean water.
There are other worrying things about Soylent.
> For anyone who struggles with allergies, heartburn, acid reflux or digestion, has trouble controlling weight or cholesterol, or simply doesn't have the means to eat well, soylent is for you.
> Soylent frees you from the time and money spent shopping, cooking and cleaning, puts you in excellent health, and vastly reduces your environmental impact by eliminating much of the waste and harm coming from agriculture, livestock, and food-related trash.
From (https://campaign.soylent.me/soylent-free-your-body)
Lots of 'problems with digestion' are going to be serious illness for which liquid feeds are used. It is irresponsible for Soylent to claim to be safe for those people without extensive testing.
There's no evidence that a liquid feed replacing all meals will put anyone in excellent health.
The product uses agricultural products. As the article mentions, milk proteins are significant impact.
Soylent also claims to have a shelf life of years. I'm still very curious about this. Many micronutrients will not have a shelflife of years. vitamin C needs to be kept in the dark, in an airtight container, away from heat and moisture.
It was a mild irritant when it was one guy experimenting on himself (but giving out the recipe for other people to follow along). Launching a product from that with these claims, especially that there's "much evidence", is irresponsible.
Wait, wait, wait. Are you saying that the kid that came up with this stuff only eats it five days a week? I feel cheated.
Yes, that's what he does now. For the first two months he ate it 7 days a week. Eventually, doing stuff like hanging out with friends at restaurants, etc, winds up being important in your life, and you do want to try other flavors and textures from time to time.
If I recall correctly he did mention that somewhere in a post blog.
The constant focus on saving time and increasing personal productivity is a recipe for mental illness, in my opinion. Most people would do well to slow down, tune out, and make themselves a decent meal. I suspect that some and perhaps many of the people obsessed with personal productivity and life hacking will at some point suffer from a stress or anxiety disorder and will realize that life is short and there's no point in trying to hurry through it.
This trend towards saving time by sacrificing basic requirements like eating and sleeping is increasingly absurd. In a year or two, I'll open Hacker News and there'll be an article in the top ten that describes how you, too, can Avoid Wasting Time Due To Lengthy Bowel Movements. Don't believe the hype. Have a good night's rest, followed by a leisurely shit and a tasty, gruel-free breakfast you made yourself, and you'll be a better person for it.