The Soylent Revolution Will Not Be Pleasurable(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
The Soylent Revolution Will Not Be Pleasurable
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/29/technology/personaltech/the-soylent-revolution-will-not-be-pleasurable.html?hp
183 comments
Soylent launched with claims of being a total meal replacement.
People mentioned all of the existing similar products.
Soylent supporters said that those products are only supplements, and you could if you wanted live on mothing but Soylent. (Those people are wrong about the other products - you can live on some of them).
Now some Soylent supporters are saying "of course you wouldn't live on it. It's just for supplemental use." In which case, what advantages does Soylent have over all the other products?
Other products come in a range of flavours; you can get unflavoured versions; you can get savoury versions; you can get formulations designed for naso-gastric feeding and, importantly, they've got many dietitians and registered nutritionists working with them. (I realise that Soylent have nutritionists now.)
There are plenty of products available to you today that you could use tha do mot taste like pancake batter. They're not particularly pleasant.
People mentioned all of the existing similar products.
Soylent supporters said that those products are only supplements, and you could if you wanted live on mothing but Soylent. (Those people are wrong about the other products - you can live on some of them).
Now some Soylent supporters are saying "of course you wouldn't live on it. It's just for supplemental use." In which case, what advantages does Soylent have over all the other products?
Other products come in a range of flavours; you can get unflavoured versions; you can get savoury versions; you can get formulations designed for naso-gastric feeding and, importantly, they've got many dietitians and registered nutritionists working with them. (I realise that Soylent have nutritionists now.)
There are plenty of products available to you today that you could use tha do mot taste like pancake batter. They're not particularly pleasant.
I am another one who fails to see the need or novelty in this product.
I must agree with you on this one.
It's true, the market has an itch: people are health conscious and want to eat well but they are stretched for time (and money in most cases). But is a nutrient extract meal-replacement the answer?
After investigating the obstacles people in Toronto face with preparing healthy food, this is what we, at Meal Garden (http://www.mealgarden.com), have come to understand:
There's almost always a trade-off between TASTE, CONVENIENCE(time/money), and HEALTH. If the meal satisfies two out of three, most people will opt to eat that meal. But one of those three priorities is compromised - and that is the market itch that Soylent has not been able to scratch. But it doesn't have to be a "two-out-out-of-three" trade-off.
Food should (and can) be healthy, convenient and taste amazing all at the same time. But people need shortcuts and tools to connect them to food providers in their area. As well as a general health guide on what options are healthier than others.
All this can definitely be done given the right amount of time to build these marketplace tools (web and mobile applications to be more specific).
It's true, the market has an itch: people are health conscious and want to eat well but they are stretched for time (and money in most cases). But is a nutrient extract meal-replacement the answer?
After investigating the obstacles people in Toronto face with preparing healthy food, this is what we, at Meal Garden (http://www.mealgarden.com), have come to understand:
There's almost always a trade-off between TASTE, CONVENIENCE(time/money), and HEALTH. If the meal satisfies two out of three, most people will opt to eat that meal. But one of those three priorities is compromised - and that is the market itch that Soylent has not been able to scratch. But it doesn't have to be a "two-out-out-of-three" trade-off.
Food should (and can) be healthy, convenient and taste amazing all at the same time. But people need shortcuts and tools to connect them to food providers in their area. As well as a general health guide on what options are healthier than others.
All this can definitely be done given the right amount of time to build these marketplace tools (web and mobile applications to be more specific).
There are some people who loathe eating, and derive zero pleasure from their taste sense. They perceive meals as a chore. Those people are their very small target market for the complete-meal-replacement aspect of their product.
As the article mentions, there are also people who lack the money or time to eat healthy all the time. College students in particular are pretty famous for their ramen meals because they're cheap and easy. They're also not filled with nutrients you need.
Soylent proposes an alternative to cheap $0.50 noodles that is a lot healthier. I know if it was available when I was a college student, it would probably have been in my pantry. I haven't tried Soylent yet, but probably will give it a shot to fill in those meals I can't make due to time constraints.
Soylent proposes an alternative to cheap $0.50 noodles that is a lot healthier. I know if it was available when I was a college student, it would probably have been in my pantry. I haven't tried Soylent yet, but probably will give it a shot to fill in those meals I can't make due to time constraints.
Since I don't have the cred to edit a comment that's been replied to yet, I'll clarify in a reply:
You are absolutely correct, and I should have been more clear about the complete-meal-replacement aspect. I was referring to the small segment of people that would love to replace every meal with something like Soylent. So maybe "complete-food-replacement" would have conveyed my intended meaning a bit better.
I too ate lots of Ramen in college, but in order to prevent myself from wanting to slit my wrists, I'd usually seek out at least one meal a day with some nutiritional value, and, more importantly, flavor that wasn't just salt water.
You are absolutely correct, and I should have been more clear about the complete-meal-replacement aspect. I was referring to the small segment of people that would love to replace every meal with something like Soylent. So maybe "complete-food-replacement" would have conveyed my intended meaning a bit better.
I too ate lots of Ramen in college, but in order to prevent myself from wanting to slit my wrists, I'd usually seek out at least one meal a day with some nutiritional value, and, more importantly, flavor that wasn't just salt water.
Other than those you've heard about specifically in contrast to Soylent, can you name any alternatives intended for individual (not medical) use? (specifically those intended as meal replacement without ulterior motives, IE not Slim-fast which is intended for weight loss)
I certainly can't, and that's the niche Soylent fills. It markets itself to the mass market.
I certainly can't, and that's the niche Soylent fills. It markets itself to the mass market.
Don't confuse the product that's popular in hospital that it's for medical use exclusively. Hospitals in the U.S. have Boost and Ensure and those are available in grocery stores and pharmacies, but it's not like they say "For medical use only" Boost's box says "Complete Nutritional Drink" Boost is by Nestle, so of course there's chocolate/vanilla and sugar in it. You get about 12 servings for somewhere around 9-12 dollars. College students could easily buy these. Occasionally I've been known to buy a pack when I'm contracting where lunch options are too fastfoody and a better lunch is a boost and maybe a bag of mixed nuts.
My problem with these supplements is the amounts of vitamins for example contained in a product say nothing of absorption, I'm not even sure we have any good information on absorption. I guess you'd have to put people in a lab, control their eating and drinking for a several weeks and weigh and examine their BMs and fluids to know what's being absorbed.
My problem with these supplements is the amounts of vitamins for example contained in a product say nothing of absorption, I'm not even sure we have any good information on absorption. I guess you'd have to put people in a lab, control their eating and drinking for a several weeks and weigh and examine their BMs and fluids to know what's being absorbed.
I really don't get how they can't make the time to grab a sandwich .. you can eat it in about 3 minutes, and even a supermarket one will taste alright - the keyboard break will probably make even workaholics more productive.
When I lived in an apartment in a university town I'd have to grab my keys, go downstairs, drive to the store, decide what sandwich I want and what I want on it, wait for them to make it, eat it, drive back.
Costs $5, 45 - 60 minutes of my time, and is probably less nutritious than the $3 Soylent. And I have to do something similar at least twice a day every day. I don't understand how people don't see the improvement here.
Costs $5, 45 - 60 minutes of my time, and is probably less nutritious than the $3 Soylent. And I have to do something similar at least twice a day every day. I don't understand how people don't see the improvement here.
If all you are making is a sandwich then spend that hour once a week going to a grocery store to buy bread, mayo/mustard, lettuce, meat or meat substitute, etc. Then spend 3 minutes making a sandwich a day and 5 minutes eating it.
I don't understand how anyone can see a horribly tasteless, gastrointestinal disturbing, chalky goop could be an improvement on literally any other option.
But, I am excited to prepare and eat my meals every day. The taste of the food and the experience of eating is important to me (as is the forced time away from keyboard). Not everyone feels the same way, obviously (though they are wrong! ;) ).
I don't understand how anyone can see a horribly tasteless, gastrointestinal disturbing, chalky goop could be an improvement on literally any other option.
But, I am excited to prepare and eat my meals every day. The taste of the food and the experience of eating is important to me (as is the forced time away from keyboard). Not everyone feels the same way, obviously (though they are wrong! ;) ).
I would recommend against getting too many calories for too long from something like Soylent. One issue people are missing is Wolf's law: bone grows into stress. You want strong knees and ankles? Run. If you don't chew you will end up with a glass jaw and no teeth. This is a common problem in the elderly: they start loosing a couple teeth and they're quickly all gone because they modify their eating choices to avoid foods that have become difficult to chew.
A. Cheap.
B. Healthy.
C. Pleasurable.
D. Fast/Easy
Pick three.
ABC = Homecooked meals, ACD = fast food, BCD = eating out, ABD = Soylent. Not complicated. Soylent provides a specific set of design tradeoffs that suit certain situations better than the alternatives.
Pick three.
ABC = Homecooked meals, ACD = fast food, BCD = eating out, ABD = Soylent. Not complicated. Soylent provides a specific set of design tradeoffs that suit certain situations better than the alternatives.
At this point I'm skeptical that Soylent fulfills B, as healthy diets include a lot more than 30-40 ingredients in the form of enzymes and nutrients that aren't "essential" but aid metabolism. But I appreciate the fact that they're aiming for ABD and hope they can achieve it as the data rolls in over time.
If it tastes like gritty pancake batter, it can't be any worse than a diet of brussels sprouts, turnips, rutabagas, radicchio, eggplant, etc.
If it tastes like gritty pancake batter, it can't be any worse than a diet of brussels sprouts, turnips, rutabagas, radicchio, eggplant, etc.
I don't know what you are talking about, but all of those vegetables are delicious if cooked properly.
Not necessarily. Individual expression of TAS2Rs is genetically determined and varies considerably[1]; and so the perceived bitterness of sinigrin-containing vegetables like cabbage (B. oleracea) differs from person to person [2,3].
[1] http://chemse.oxfordjournals.org/content/35/2/157.full
[2] http://www.nature.com/news/2006/060918/full/news060918-1.htm...
[3] http://tools.lifetechnologies.com/content/sfs/manuals/qPCR_l...
[1] http://chemse.oxfordjournals.org/content/35/2/157.full
[2] http://www.nature.com/news/2006/060918/full/news060918-1.htm...
[3] http://tools.lifetechnologies.com/content/sfs/manuals/qPCR_l...
Apparently I've never cooked any of those properly! Anyway, I'm sure everyone has a few least-favorite veggies that would clear up that sentence (unless they really dislike pancake batter).
Almost any vegetable tastes amazing sautéed in butter with shallots and garlic. You can also add plain breadcrumbs once done. I say this having just made brussel sprouts that way for dinner. Very simple and very delicious. And I used to hate brussel sprouts.
Brussel sprouts used to be more bitter than they are; farmers have actively been breeding better tasting brussels sprouts. Lots of people who used to hate them and didn't eat them for a number of years find them more pleasant when trying them now.
I'm skeptical too, but the point I'm making here isn't about if Soylent meets these criteria but what the intent behind the design is. I think laying out these criteria show why Soylent's use-cases, at least in theory, are orthogonal to those of other ways of consuming food. (Hence arguments about how Soylent can never replace those things is a just tautology and not a real argument.)
I'm Steve, and I'm a healthy eater and cheapskate.
From 2002 to 2005 I researched nutrition and supplements _a lot_. Long story short, what's cheap, healthy, "pleasurable" (non-sexually), and fast/easy to make? Vegetables, whole-wheat bread or brown rice (pasta), an assortment of nuts, a protein shake (protein powder, milk, flax seed powder, spinach, and blueberries), and vitamins/supplements (multivitamin, fish oil, others I take for brain health/performance).
Works great! And when I eat out (again non-sexually) I have chicken breast, turkey, or fish.
From 2002 to 2005 I researched nutrition and supplements _a lot_. Long story short, what's cheap, healthy, "pleasurable" (non-sexually), and fast/easy to make? Vegetables, whole-wheat bread or brown rice (pasta), an assortment of nuts, a protein shake (protein powder, milk, flax seed powder, spinach, and blueberries), and vitamins/supplements (multivitamin, fish oil, others I take for brain health/performance).
Works great! And when I eat out (again non-sexually) I have chicken breast, turkey, or fish.
disagree- home cooked meals can be all four. it certainly takes practice, cooking infrastructure and foresight, but I think cooking at home can significantly beat all other options as the main source of food.
I like that you mentioned foresight and cooking infrastructure. Many people don't realize that making home cooked meals consistently throughout the week actually takes quite a bit of planning and not everyone has mastered this art... probably why the creators of Soylent felt there was a market niche for this product (easy, affordable, and "healthy?").
These are exactly the shortcuts and "cooking infrastructures" we're designing for busy people and families at Meal Garden (http://www.mealgarden.com). If healthy rated meals can easily be procured or prepared we wouldn't need bandaid solutions like Soylent.
These are exactly the shortcuts and "cooking infrastructures" we're designing for busy people and families at Meal Garden (http://www.mealgarden.com). If healthy rated meals can easily be procured or prepared we wouldn't need bandaid solutions like Soylent.
I've found that people who don't cook regularly often overestimate how difficult it is to cook at home. Sure you can go big and cook extravagant meals that take loads of prep time and cook time, but you can also saute some fish filets and some vegetables in 20 minutes start to finish - and most of that time you're still free to do other things around the house.
Of course this advice might not apply in a 400 sq. ft. NYC studio without two burners and room for two pans, but for most people that's not the issue.
Of course this advice might not apply in a 400 sq. ft. NYC studio without two burners and room for two pans, but for most people that's not the issue.
Very true. About 2 years ago I forced myself to learn to cook and it has paid off immensely. I know enjoy it very much, and find cooking a healthy delicious meal to be a quick and painless affair.
I cooked for myself for a while in college. I'm not sure if a mash up of pasta, tomato sauce, frozen veggies, and boiled chicken thighs counts as "healthy", but that's pretty much what I had every day.
I know how to pan sear a fish and stir fry vegetables, but what I didn't know was how to do grocery shopping for 1 without ending up with wasted/spoiled food. For me, it's not the cooking that's hard, it's the grocery shopping/meal planning.
I know how to pan sear a fish and stir fry vegetables, but what I didn't know was how to do grocery shopping for 1 without ending up with wasted/spoiled food. For me, it's not the cooking that's hard, it's the grocery shopping/meal planning.
I agree that cooking at home is often easier than you might expect, but when comparing cooking at home vs. mixing a drink or ordering from a waiter there's a clear difference on the "effort and time" scales we are talking about.
You need to be a bit more stingy with your 'B' designation. Jury's still out on Soylent. And eating out, restaurants (in general) optimize for taste, not nutrition.
E. Scalable supply. You can do all 4 at a point on the supply curve for blueberries for instance... But there's not enough production to feed a significant percent of the population.
Why is soylent not having a billion dollar DoD contract at this time?
Because troops want more variety not less, and because meal replacement drinks have existed for years. The only major difference with Soylent is their target market.
IIRC one of the big things they had to change with the MREs was to add more variety. Troops get low morale eating the same thing over and over.
My grandfather fought on the front lines in the Pacific Theater during the War.
Being at the very end of the supply chain, they got the worse, least desirable MREs after the variety had been cherry-picked by everyone else upstream. I forget exactly which ones they were but it was pretty grim.
Being at the very end of the supply chain, they got the worse, least desirable MREs after the variety had been cherry-picked by everyone else upstream. I forget exactly which ones they were but it was pretty grim.
Luckily, it led to the creation of the MRE pizza. Apparently pizza was the #1 most desired MRE.
When I did the service one of the benefits working weekends was extra good food. It is good for moral. Soylent on the otherhand...
[For a purported breakthrough with such grand plans for reshaping the food industry, I found Soylent to be a punishingly boring, joyless product. From the plain white packaging to the purposefully bland, barely sweet flavor to the motel-carpet beige hue of the drink itself, everything about Soylent screams function, not fun. It may offer complete nourishment, but only at the expense of the aesthetic and emotional pleasures many of us crave in food.]
[It suggests that Soylent’s creators have forgotten a basic ingredient found in successful tech products, not to mention in most good foods. That ingredient is delight.]
Christ, it's as if he's willfully ignored everything; that's the POINT of Soylent, to give the option of a functional meal not for pleasure, so that you actually have a choice whether. Right now you don't, you have non-nutritious meals that don't take preparation time and are cheap, and nutritious meals that take vast amounts of time to prepare and/or are generally more expensive to acquire/prepare.
Now you have a third choice, complete nutrition at cost, minus the pleasure associated with the above two choices.
Christ, it's as if he's willfully ignored everything; that's the POINT of Soylent, to give the option of a functional meal not for pleasure, so that you actually have a choice whether. Right now you don't, you have non-nutritious meals that don't take preparation time and are cheap, and nutritious meals that take vast amounts of time to prepare and/or are generally more expensive to acquire/prepare.
Now you have a third choice, complete nutrition at cost, minus the pleasure associated with the above two choices.
Right - Soylent will be successful based on how it defines its mission, not as a replacement for traditional food but as a better second choice. However, if I remember correctly some of the first publicity I saw about Soylent pitched it like it was somehow a replacement for food - and that's what I think this writer was reacting to. I agree with the author that I still would be reluctant to sacrifice the pleasures of eating even a non-nutritious meal for complete, ready-to-go nutrition (if that's even what Soylent is) more than a few times.
Soylent strikes me as a food not unlike MREs for the military or some of the dehydrated food that astronauts take up to space. That is, it could be the kind of nutrition that targets people in extreme circumstances, who might desperately need nutrition and energy but, because they're in the middle of a war zone, or in a space suit hovering above Earth, cannot get to it.
Soylent strikes me as a food not unlike MREs for the military or some of the dehydrated food that astronauts take up to space. That is, it could be the kind of nutrition that targets people in extreme circumstances, who might desperately need nutrition and energy but, because they're in the middle of a war zone, or in a space suit hovering above Earth, cannot get to it.
"I just had a 1 hour lecture and have a 2 hour lab class coming up. By hour 1 of that lab I'm going to be lightheaded. What do I eat?"
Currently the answer for me is subway on campus. It's not a good answer. The dilemma of "I need food right now" is severely understated in our current society, and probably a not insignificant causative of obesity (just about everything you can get quickly is terrible for you).
Currently the answer for me is subway on campus. It's not a good answer. The dilemma of "I need food right now" is severely understated in our current society, and probably a not insignificant causative of obesity (just about everything you can get quickly is terrible for you).
There's also this thing that people are accustomed to eating 3 times a day, on schedule. And if you miss a scheduled meal, bad things happen to your blood sugar. But is this just an artifact of our current abundance? If you look at nature, many carnivores may go several days or more without a meal. Is this also the natural state for humans, and we are just spoiled? Or are humans really in need of getting nutrition every 4 - 6 hours?
I find that my need to eat frequently is very well correlated with the percentage of calories that I receive from carbohydrates. I used to eat 4-5 times a day to avoid that low blood sugar feeling (light headed and weak). I have switched to a ketogenic diet and get most of my calories from fat. This has had an enormous impact on when I have to eat. I can now, if I have to, skip a meal and not feel like I might pass out.
We, like the other primates, aren't carnivores. Herbivores have to spend tremendous amounts of time grazing. We omnivores land somewhere in the middle.
What's wrong with Subway? Get a salad.
seriously, Soylent could really market itself as the Subway replacement. If you find yourself eating Subway, you probably give somewhat of a damn about eating healthy, but are pressed for time.
Bring a sandwich, eat it during the lab.
Is Soylent even proven or has any indication to provide sufficient nutrition and energy for extreme circumstances? Almost everyone I see drinking Soylent are individuals who in all likelihood sit in front of a computer hours at a time.
It could also be useful in developing nations where access to food isn't as prevalent as it is in first-world countries.
Pleasurable or not, Soylent does offer huge value in these situations simply in that it's a way to not die.
Pleasurable or not, Soylent does offer huge value in these situations simply in that it's a way to not die.
I have serious doubts that soylent will ever be a viable tool for this. It keeps getting brought up, but soylent is actually an extremely expensive way to feed poor people, and if they don't have access to clean water it's probably actually an expensive way to poison them, a-la baby formula [1].
Just because it's cheap for people in the first world doesn't mean it's cheap for people in the third world. It's really important to remember that.
[1] http://www.businessinsider.com/nestles-infant-formula-scanda...
Just because it's cheap for people in the first world doesn't mean it's cheap for people in the third world. It's really important to remember that.
[1] http://www.businessinsider.com/nestles-infant-formula-scanda...
Prices change. Economies of scale.
Also if they don't have access to clean water they have bigger problems than access to food.
Also if they don't have access to clean water they have bigger problems than access to food.
I replied to you on economies of scale elsewhere. I don't see how they could ever be in favour of soylent vs. soy or rice.
And yes, they do have bigger problems. And yet access to food is still one of their problems. And giving them food that needs water added doesn't help them.
And yes, they do have bigger problems. And yet access to food is still one of their problems. And giving them food that needs water added doesn't help them.
They must be getting water (dirty or otherwise) from somewhere or they'd already be dead. I fail to see how mixing that water with Soylent leaves them worse off.
Furthermore, there's no reason Soylent can't be baked into a solid form and distributed/eaten that way.
Furthermore, there's no reason Soylent can't be baked into a solid form and distributed/eaten that way.
if there's no reason, then why isn't that already an option?
People in developing nations can eat for an entire week or more on $3. Soylent's got a long way to go before it's anything more than an overpriced meal replacement shake.
It's not even a disruptive product--there have been similar meal replacement shakes available at Whole Foods for many years now, at similarly outrageous prices. Soylent's innovation is its marketing--especially in identifying and chasing its target market.
It's not even a disruptive product--there have been similar meal replacement shakes available at Whole Foods for many years now, at similarly outrageous prices. Soylent's innovation is its marketing--especially in identifying and chasing its target market.
>People in developing nations can eat for an entire week or more on $3.
I live in a third world country and I buy from the market at really low prices. At first this $3 figure seemed off the mark, but upon further consideration it's true, you could live on that much for a while at market prices.
But it means a couple of bowls of rice and a small quantity of nutrient-unknown vegetables, with a few bites of some D-grade, fatty bony meat to live on less than $0.50 a day of food. Obviously, this is going to lead to malnourishment and an early death if they can't supplement with something else.
Lots of people keep small farm animals for an easy boost. A neighbor of mine had a 2-year old dog that started to eat her own chickens. After trying to correct the dog's behavior, it didn't work, so they killed the dog, cooked it and offered me some (I didn't bite, but it was considerate of them.)
Perspective.
I live in a third world country and I buy from the market at really low prices. At first this $3 figure seemed off the mark, but upon further consideration it's true, you could live on that much for a while at market prices.
But it means a couple of bowls of rice and a small quantity of nutrient-unknown vegetables, with a few bites of some D-grade, fatty bony meat to live on less than $0.50 a day of food. Obviously, this is going to lead to malnourishment and an early death if they can't supplement with something else.
Lots of people keep small farm animals for an easy boost. A neighbor of mine had a 2-year old dog that started to eat her own chickens. After trying to correct the dog's behavior, it didn't work, so they killed the dog, cooked it and offered me some (I didn't bite, but it was considerate of them.)
Perspective.
What other meal replacement products? There are plenty of supplements but are there other products that claim to give you 100% of your necessary nutrition with 3 daily servings?
Garden of Life and Shakeology are the two big ones I remember off the top of my head. There are more. Google is your friend. (https://www.google.com/search?q=vegan+meal+replacement+shake)
[deleted]
Yes, there are. My daughter required a nasal feeding tube for about a year and subsisted primarily on Pediasure. Plenty of sick adults receive nutrition in a similar manner.
This question has been asked, and answered, in every Soylent thread.
Here is one manufacturer. http://abbottnutrition.com/brands/abbott-brands
Here is one manufacturer. http://abbottnutrition.com/brands/abbott-brands
Someone always mentions developing world.
Soylent needs clean water and currently costs a couple of hundred dollars per month.
20% of the world's population live on less than $1.25 per day. About one billion people lack access to clean water.
http://povertydata.worldbank.org/poverty/home
http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/mdg1/en/index.htm...
The World Food Programme already has a range of products to use for develping nations. See their information, especially the pricing, here.
https://www.wfp.org/nutrition/how-wfp-fights-malnutrition
http://documents.wfp.org/stellent/groups/public/documents/co...
https://www.wfp.org/nutrition/special-nutritional-products
"Fights world hunger" is just another claim made by Soylent in apparent ignorance of what already exists.
Soylent needs clean water and currently costs a couple of hundred dollars per month.
20% of the world's population live on less than $1.25 per day. About one billion people lack access to clean water.
http://povertydata.worldbank.org/poverty/home
http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/mdg1/en/index.htm...
The World Food Programme already has a range of products to use for develping nations. See their information, especially the pricing, here.
https://www.wfp.org/nutrition/how-wfp-fights-malnutrition
http://documents.wfp.org/stellent/groups/public/documents/co...
https://www.wfp.org/nutrition/special-nutritional-products
"Fights world hunger" is just another claim made by Soylent in apparent ignorance of what already exists.
No, it doesn't. Soylent doesn't solve the social problems of distribution, which are the real problems in developing nations.
People in developing nations can not-die for a lot less than $3/serving.
Oh, come on. Mass starvation is really something of the past. And developing nations are not going to want something like that, the more traditional the culture, the more they value real food. Plus, with real food you actually force people to spend time on making vegetables and growing them, Soylent just makes you a consumer and nothing else.
Hunger and malnutrition are not in the past. Soylent won't help those, but the World Food Programme has extensive schemes to supply fortified foods.
http://wfp.org/our-work
http://wfp.org/hunger
http://wfp.org/our-work
http://wfp.org/hunger
I was not talking about hunger. I specifically said "mass starvation". Don't tell me there has not been any progress since the 80s, because there certainly was a lot happening since then and it's very rare to hear about mass starvation these days (except when they are created by conflicts).
Mass starvation is nearly always the result of conflict or political issues that prevent food being routed to the area of starvation (see Amartya Sen on the subject).
The famous Ethiopian famine was the direct result of a war.
The famous Ethiopian famine was the direct result of a war.
No I think you missed the point, or at least, the rest of the article where he goes on to state what you just offered up as a defense, and then disagree with it.
> It’s true that people sometimes eat meals that are mainly for sustenance (cheap frozen dinners, dried ramen, corn dogs) and other times we’re looking mostly for pleasure (72-hour short ribs). But I suspect that most of the time, for most meals, we want both sustenance and pleasure.
There you go. By the way, there are plenty of "third choices" as you state it, and have been for years. Soylent is nothing new, just YC startup noise.
> It’s true that people sometimes eat meals that are mainly for sustenance (cheap frozen dinners, dried ramen, corn dogs) and other times we’re looking mostly for pleasure (72-hour short ribs). But I suspect that most of the time, for most meals, we want both sustenance and pleasure.
There you go. By the way, there are plenty of "third choices" as you state it, and have been for years. Soylent is nothing new, just YC startup noise.
[deleted]
Let's say we take every possible food (restaurant, home cooked, Soylent, etc.) and plot cost against benefit, where both of these data are an overall quantification of disutility and utility, so cost includes money and time spent, benefit includes health and pleasure, etc.
It's possible that, for some people, Soylent (and similar products) is the only place where benefit exceeds cost. Perhaps the only foods you enjoy are extremely unhealthy. Or perhaps you don't have the time or money to buy and prepare fresh food for yourself.
It's possible that, for some people, Soylent (and similar products) is the only place where benefit exceeds cost. Perhaps the only foods you enjoy are extremely unhealthy. Or perhaps you don't have the time or money to buy and prepare fresh food for yourself.
Doesn't Ensure provide these same options? If so, is it fair to really call it a revolution, or it is just providing something like Ensure at a lower price point?
From what I can tell, Ensure is pretty much the same thing. I certainly don't consider Soylent to be a revolution, beyond perhaps a marketing revolution in the tech community.
Ensure does provide an option, but it's relatively expensive, lacking the full range of nutrients found in Soylent, and pretty high in sugar (though I think they have just reduced sugar slightly).
Ensure is cheaper, but it's not a full-fledged meal replacement product. It's intended to be a supplemental product to an otherwise normal diet.
"Ensure" is a whole line of different products with different roles. Ensure Complete seems to be at least as much of a meal replacement as Soylent.
I fed my brother Ensure through a tube in his nose for 2 months before an intestinal surgery. The doctors considered it as good of a meal replacement as any for that amount of time.
[deleted]
From the related video on that page: "if this was all we had to survive, then what would be the point of living"? That basically sums it up. I've ate field meals before in the Army and although they are okay too, I take the preparation of good food seriously. It's one of the relatively inexpensive luxuries of modern first world society. Taking the time to enjoy a meal gives my spirit a rise.
And honestly, when the world seems to be moving towards whole foods, organic meals, and avoiding processed foods, this seems to be going in the opposite direction. Not saying it has bad ingredients, but that the appearance of being processed will dissuade people.
And honestly, when the world seems to be moving towards whole foods, organic meals, and avoiding processed foods, this seems to be going in the opposite direction. Not saying it has bad ingredients, but that the appearance of being processed will dissuade people.
I wrote this comment on an earlier soylent thread that got buried, but I think it could find a big market in people who care A LOT about eating specific nutrient proportions.
I'm working on the website Eat This Much (http://www.eatthismuch.com) and a huge portion of our audience are people that want to eat EXACTLY 40% of their calories from carbs, 30% from fat, and 30% from protein (that's part of the zone diet, as an example). Our meal plan generator allows you to request those proportions, but sometimes it can't meet the exact targets due to any number of other constraints, and it's a huge source of complaints from our users. It's a pretty complicated problem to solve while trying to give people a varied and interesting diet with real food, but Soylent makes it very simple. I use my own site as much as possible, and I'm excited to have it give me half of my calories from Soylent (probably my breakfast and lunch).
I'm working on the website Eat This Much (http://www.eatthismuch.com) and a huge portion of our audience are people that want to eat EXACTLY 40% of their calories from carbs, 30% from fat, and 30% from protein (that's part of the zone diet, as an example). Our meal plan generator allows you to request those proportions, but sometimes it can't meet the exact targets due to any number of other constraints, and it's a huge source of complaints from our users. It's a pretty complicated problem to solve while trying to give people a varied and interesting diet with real food, but Soylent makes it very simple. I use my own site as much as possible, and I'm excited to have it give me half of my calories from Soylent (probably my breakfast and lunch).
this site is pretty cool. i'd do it if it didn't cost almost 3x as much as pandora per year.
The main appeal of Soylent for me (I've been taking somewhere between 50%-75% of my calories from a DIY Soylent recipe for about three months now) is the ability to very precisely control how many calories I am consuming on a daily/weekly basis. I had been trying to lose weight for a while before switching to Soylent, but found it difficult to always know exactly how many calories were in something (especially when eating out or cooking something using a wide variety of ingredients). The frustrations stemming from this made progress difficult.
With Soylent, I know exactly how many calories I'm eating. I can increase or decrease very easily to make room for "cheat meals" on evenings and weekends which I enjoy much more frequently and with less guilt than I did when I was trying to control my calorie intake with regular food. My weight loss progress has resumed to exactly the rate it should based on the number of calories I'm eating, which is possibly further proof that my estimation skills on a non-Soylent diet were not very good.
Soylent is a preferable solution to this problem over something like Slim-fast or Ensure mainly due to cost, but also taste. The meal replacement shakes marketed for calorie-control/weight loss are generally very sugary or sweet tasting which is not something I could do for 2-3 meals a day for 5 days a week. Something more bland and flavorless like Soylent is much easier to handle as a staple meal long-term.
With Soylent, I know exactly how many calories I'm eating. I can increase or decrease very easily to make room for "cheat meals" on evenings and weekends which I enjoy much more frequently and with less guilt than I did when I was trying to control my calorie intake with regular food. My weight loss progress has resumed to exactly the rate it should based on the number of calories I'm eating, which is possibly further proof that my estimation skills on a non-Soylent diet were not very good.
Soylent is a preferable solution to this problem over something like Slim-fast or Ensure mainly due to cost, but also taste. The meal replacement shakes marketed for calorie-control/weight loss are generally very sugary or sweet tasting which is not something I could do for 2-3 meals a day for 5 days a week. Something more bland and flavorless like Soylent is much easier to handle as a staple meal long-term.
Here's what my on-the-street perspective is telling me: Over time the shelf space for ready-to-go protein shakes at the local convenience store chains(Walgreens, CVS, etc.) has gradually crept up. Some of these shakes still do the "joke's on you, this 'healthy' shake has as much sugar as Coca-Cola" thing. But there is a generation of them, led primarily by the Muscle Milk brand, which has stuck pretty strictly to pulling in good nutritional-facts numbers and working on taste second.
I'm a buyer of these shakes because for me, the consumption experience is mediated by before-and-after aspects as well as what the product tastes like. "Will I feel good an hour after I have this?" I tell myself. And while I have to pay a little more for the privilege of that, it's worth it for me.
Will it be a fad? I don't know. The trend has been upward so far and I think Soylent could easily ride it.
I'm a buyer of these shakes because for me, the consumption experience is mediated by before-and-after aspects as well as what the product tastes like. "Will I feel good an hour after I have this?" I tell myself. And while I have to pay a little more for the privilege of that, it's worth it for me.
Will it be a fad? I don't know. The trend has been upward so far and I think Soylent could easily ride it.
That's actually one of the fairer reviews I've seen. I think the author misses the appeal of Soylent for a lot of people, which is that for these people, food itself is primarily a hassle rather than a source of joy. These people would rather just scarf down a boring drink for a few seconds per day to keep themselves alive than deal with the problem of deciding on, buying, and preparing traditional food.
I think it speaks to some other problem if people think eating is a hassle. Eating is super important to live, determines a lot of your health and most people here have missed that it is also a very important social interaction. Maybe this is the HN bubble but eating is not just about sustenance. Could you get someone who is not a workaholic tech employee to eat this willingly? Somehow I doubt it.
> Maybe this is the HN bubble but eating is not just about sustenance.
It is only about sustenance for some people. Many (probably most) people enjoy a lot of the food preparation and eating process. Others, myself included, do not. Maybe it's because my sense of taste or smell is stunted. Maybe it's because I'm socially underdeveloped. So be it. It's certainly not because I'm a workaholic tech employee, even if I currently am, because it has been the case as long as I can remember. Whatever the reason, I really don't enjoy the experience of preparing or eating food.
It is only about sustenance for some people. Many (probably most) people enjoy a lot of the food preparation and eating process. Others, myself included, do not. Maybe it's because my sense of taste or smell is stunted. Maybe it's because I'm socially underdeveloped. So be it. It's certainly not because I'm a workaholic tech employee, even if I currently am, because it has been the case as long as I can remember. Whatever the reason, I really don't enjoy the experience of preparing or eating food.
I think you are correct... this is for a niche market.
Tons of people grab breakfast or lunch "on the go". It's not just workaholics. And for the 20 minutes some people get to talk over lunch, soylent would work just as well as a tub of yogurt and an apple.
Speaking of the tech bubble, how come no one has mentioned products like this [0] which have been around for decades?
[0] http://www.amazon.com/Carnation-Breakfast-Essentials-Chocola...
[0] http://www.amazon.com/Carnation-Breakfast-Essentials-Chocola...
I have a gastrointestinal condition and had to eat exactly that for a while. The main problem is the taste is not so good, it has no texture, it's boring and there is no variety. It doesn't feel like eating. After a month of drinking that stuff for meals I almost wanted to break down and cry.
It doesn't sound much different from Solyent. I doubt it will solve any of those problems long term.
It isn't just tech employees who are workaholics. Think about single moms working two jobs to stay afloat.
I don't think he misses the appeal. In fact, he is quite clear in stating his understanding that one shouldn't necessarily consume Soylent for every single meal (or even more often than one would prefer). Unfortunately, he then immediately forgets that maxim and devotes the last 75% of the article to how unpleasant it would be to eat it for almost every meal. Asinine.
I personally just don't like this concept that food is a "nuisance". Or healthy food rather. Food and meals are the one thing that brings people together and offers up conversation, laughter, and emotion. Food is something that a lot of people enjoy and look forward too.
Are we really supposed to just take soylent as a healthy alternative for sustenance so we can continue to work? Just buy a juicer and keep it natural then. But really, take the break and eat a meal with a human being. You've got one life. Live it.
Are we really supposed to just take soylent as a healthy alternative for sustenance so we can continue to work? Just buy a juicer and keep it natural then. But really, take the break and eat a meal with a human being. You've got one life. Live it.
> Are we really supposed to just take soylent as a healthy alternative for sustenance so we can continue to work? Just buy a juicer and keep it natural then. But really, take the break and eat a meal with a human being. You've got one life. Live it.
I didn't see any stipulations on the soylent website requiring you to avoid socializing and stay chained to your desk while drinking it. Maybe I missed some small print?
I didn't see any stipulations on the soylent website requiring you to avoid socializing and stay chained to your desk while drinking it. Maybe I missed some small print?
No not at all. But I don't see eating as a problem that needs a solution. I didn't mean for my comment to mean that soylent is anti social.
Does that mean the evening meal I eat with my family every night isn't enough to make me human? There are literally 0 other people in the house when I grab breakfast on the way out the door to work. Health-wise, I'd rather get extra sleep than spend the time eating, so I take something I can eat in my car. Do I have to atone for not "taking a break" by sleeping 20 minutes less in the morning? Ridiculous.
Never said you weren't human or that champions of soylent aren't human. Simply that eating doesn't seem like a problem that needs a solution to me. I imagine soylent being used when you are too busy to eat. The problem is that you are too busy, not the eating part.
Walking doesn't seem like a problem that needs a solution to me. I imagine cars being used when you are too pressed for time to walk. The problem is that you are making too many commitments for yourself, not the walking part.
A bit hyperbolic, but this type of argument can be made for pretty much any disruptive technology that allows humans to overcome physical limits in order to make more choices about how they spend their time.
A bit hyperbolic, but this type of argument can be made for pretty much any disruptive technology that allows humans to overcome physical limits in order to make more choices about how they spend their time.
I like to think of it as flying versus taking the train. I don't think anyone prefers the experience of flying economy to a romantic first-class cabin on a train, but they do it anyways because it saves time and money that they can spend on things they consider more important.
I'm not too busy. There are things I would rather do than eat. Sure food is important, but it's not always my #1 priority.
Couldn't have said this better.
Juice is about one of the most unhealthy things you can have.
It's essentially pure sugar.
It's essentially pure sugar.
Not if you do it yourself. If you buy it yes.
If you juice, you'll still end up with something that has most of the fiber removed, is mostly sugar, and spikes your blood glucose just as severely as store-bought juice. Sure it'll have a lot of vitamins and minerals, but straight up blending is generally better, or just eating the fruit/veggies whole.
Depends. I juice up 1.5lb spinach, chard, kale, 1 carrot, and a lemon. I rarely add high glucose/fructose fruits. Carrot juice is pretty sweet. I like green veggie juices over fruit juices.
A real good juicer goes a long way. It changed my perspective the first time I tasted a fresh cup of what I describe above. Invigorating and healthy.
A real good juicer goes a long way. It changed my perspective the first time I tasted a fresh cup of what I describe above. Invigorating and healthy.
Who says you can't take a break just because you don't have to eat? If an employer wants to take your breaks away by making you drink soylent instead, that's just an example of how terrible employers can be, not how awesome food is.
I enjoy eating food, but having the option to speed up my meal by a large factor and bond with friends over a different activity is pretty much entirely positive.
I enjoy eating food, but having the option to speed up my meal by a large factor and bond with friends over a different activity is pretty much entirely positive.
I'll buy that argument. Drink soylent horse around.
Still, I don't see how this is different than a bag of nuts and some veggies... Maybe cheaper and easier, but I'd rather put veggies in my body over powdered supplements...
Still, I don't see how this is different than a bag of nuts and some veggies... Maybe cheaper and easier, but I'd rather put veggies in my body over powdered supplements...
First of all, juiced fruits and vegetables don't provide most of the nutrients Soylent does.
Additionally, no one is saying that if I buy a bag of Soylent then I can never eat a pleasurable meal again. Why do people continue to use this "argument"? It doesn't logically follow from anything.
Additionally, no one is saying that if I buy a bag of Soylent then I can never eat a pleasurable meal again. Why do people continue to use this "argument"? It doesn't logically follow from anything.
If you get a juicer and juice up greens, and other vegetables you have a powerful concoction loaded with nutrients. You feel a buzz from the rush of nutrients.
You know what literally has more nutrients than that? Soylent.
I would actually LOVE to see that challenged. It would be interesting reading and provide some baseline for how good this stuff is supposed to be.
It really didn't take me very long to find the ingredients [1]. It's quite clear that there exists no combination of fruits and vegetables that could match the list of ingredients.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soylent_(food_substitute)#Ingre...
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soylent_(food_substitute)#Ingre...
Kale by itself exceeds that list of nutrients for almost every nutrient that I could find data for. For many nutrients it blows it out of the water. It also likely includes many unknown beneficial phytonutrients that are not included in Soylent.
Also, from what I understand many of the benefits of these nutrients are diminished or not observed when they are injested from industrial refined supplements like those used in Soylent as when they are eaten in whole plant foods like Kale.
The five nutrients where Kale had less were Sodium, Selenium, Pantothenic acid, Vitamin D, and Vitamin B12. Kale's Sodium was still 127% of the RDA, Selenium was 82% of the RDA, and Pantothenic acid was 91% of the RDA. Not bad for a single plant. I suspect that in a well-rounded whole plant diet these deficiencies would be resolved. If you grow your own Kale then you will make plenty of Vitamin D :) If you don't make enough then you can supplement Vitamin D like millions of animal-eating humans do. B12 is not included in plants, so obviously if you eat only plants you need to supplement it. It costs less than US$0.01/day so I don't see that as a major problem.
I'm highly suspicious that you will find many nutritionists who would say that Soylent is more nutritious than a diet of whole plant foods.
Notes: the USDA data for nutrient amounts in foods are not always very accurate. I believe the nutrient amounts linked by the parent represent an old Soylent recipe, since they have only 5g of fiber which is less than RDA of 25g (female) and 38g (male). "-" in the table indicates I don't have data for this. (+ (* 4.1 400) (* 50 4.1) (* 65 9.3)) => 2449.5 calories for the Soylent data you linked [edit: I'm not sure if carbs included fiber so it's possible that the Kale diet has 1% more calories than the Soylent diet]
Obviously I'm not recommending people eat 74.6 cups of Kale each day, but you can get all you need of these nutrients from a much more tasty diet of a variety of whole plant foods.
Also, from what I understand many of the benefits of these nutrients are diminished or not observed when they are injested from industrial refined supplements like those used in Soylent as when they are eaten in whole plant foods like Kale.
The five nutrients where Kale had less were Sodium, Selenium, Pantothenic acid, Vitamin D, and Vitamin B12. Kale's Sodium was still 127% of the RDA, Selenium was 82% of the RDA, and Pantothenic acid was 91% of the RDA. Not bad for a single plant. I suspect that in a well-rounded whole plant diet these deficiencies would be resolved. If you grow your own Kale then you will make plenty of Vitamin D :) If you don't make enough then you can supplement Vitamin D like millions of animal-eating humans do. B12 is not included in plants, so obviously if you eat only plants you need to supplement it. It costs less than US$0.01/day so I don't see that as a major problem.
I'm highly suspicious that you will find many nutritionists who would say that Soylent is more nutritious than a diet of whole plant foods.
Notes: the USDA data for nutrient amounts in foods are not always very accurate. I believe the nutrient amounts linked by the parent represent an old Soylent recipe, since they have only 5g of fiber which is less than RDA of 25g (female) and 38g (male). "-" in the table indicates I don't have data for this. (+ (* 4.1 400) (* 50 4.1) (* 65 9.3)) => 2449.5 calories for the Soylent data you linked [edit: I'm not sure if carbs included fiber so it's possible that the Kale diet has 1% more calories than the Soylent diet]
Obviously I'm not recommending people eat 74.6 cups of Kale each day, but you can get all you need of these nutrients from a much more tasty diet of a variety of whole plant foods.
| | Soylent | Kale |
|---------------------+---------+----------|
| Calories | 2449.5 | 2449.1 |
| Carbohydrates | 400 g | 437 g |
| Protein | 50 g | 213 g |
| Fat | 65 g | 46 g |
| Sodium | 2.4 g | 1.9 g |
| Potassium | 3.5 g | 24.5g |
| Chloride | 3.4 g | - |
| Fiber | 5 g | 179 g |
| Calcium | 1 g | 7.4 g |
| Iron | 18 mg | 73 mg |
| Phosphorus | 1 g | 4.5 g |
| Iodine | 150 μg | - |
| Magnesium | 400 mg | 2349 mg |
| Zinc | 15 mg | 28 mg |
| Selenium | 70 μg | 45 μg |
| Copper | 2 mg | 74 mg |
| Manganese | 2 mg | 32 mg |
| Chromium | 120 μg | - |
| Molybdenum | 75 μg | - |
| Vitamin A | 5000 IU | 83220 IU |
| Vitamin B6 | 6 μg | 13.5 mg |
| Vitamin C | 60 mg | 5997 mg |
| Vitamin D | 400 IU | 0 |
| Vitamin E | 30 IU | 77 mg |
| Vitamin K | 80 μg | 35227 μg |
| Thiamin | 1.5 mg | 5.5 mg |
| Riboflavin | 1.7 mg | 6.5 mg |
| Niacin | 20 mg | 50 mg |
| Folate | 400 μg | 7047 μg |
| Biotin | 300 μg | - |
| Pantothenic acid | 10 mg | 4.5 mg |
| Lycopene | 500 μg | - |
| Omega-3 fatty acids | 750 mg | 9000 mg |
| Ginseng | 50 μg | - |
| Ginkgo biloba | 100 μg | - |
| Lutein | 500 μg | - |
| alpha-Carotene | 140 μg | - |
| Vanadium | 100 μg | |You'd need to eat 20 lbs of kale to get the nutrients you've outlined.
(Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kale , 28 calories per 100g, 2500 calories would be 8,928g or 19.6829 lbs.)
(Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kale , 28 calories per 100g, 2500 calories would be 8,928g or 19.6829 lbs.)
Yeah, eating that much Kale would make Soylent very pleasurable in comparison :)
I mention that it's a lot of Kale and allude that it's not practical to eat that much ("Obviously I'm not recommending people eat 74.6 cups of Kale each day"). The parent said there exists no combination of plants that could match the Soylent nutrients, and I showed that just using a single plant and a single supplement you could get almost there on all the nutrients for which I had data, so it's plausible there does exist some combination that gets there (except for B12, and possibly some of the other nutrients for which I don't have data if they do not exist in any plants).
I mention that it's a lot of Kale and allude that it's not practical to eat that much ("Obviously I'm not recommending people eat 74.6 cups of Kale each day"). The parent said there exists no combination of plants that could match the Soylent nutrients, and I showed that just using a single plant and a single supplement you could get almost there on all the nutrients for which I had data, so it's plausible there does exist some combination that gets there (except for B12, and possibly some of the other nutrients for which I don't have data if they do not exist in any plants).
[deleted]
Your comment is confusing. How could there be literally no combination of fruits and vegetables that would match Soylent? Is Soylent using nutrients found only in beef and mineral water? I'm ignoring ginseng and ginko biloba. And despite my playful question, I am seriously asking.
Fish oil, rice protein, gum arabic, and other things I've noticed just from scanning their blog, which has a bit more information on sources: http://blog.soylent.me/
Fair enough, but fish oil is just for omega 3, right? Which is prevalent in many veggies; rice protein will obviously only be in rice, but it's probably equivalent to protein in other veggies; I'd be surprised if Gum Arabic is used for more than texture.
Not that I'm not excited about soylent - I most definitely am, and hope to make it my lunch at work. At ~$4 a meal it's still a little too expensive for just a healthy filler until I get home (my current meal: beans/lentils and mixed veggies), but when it comes down a bit it will be great for me. Yet I feel some around here are anointing it as the end-all-be-all of healthy consumption, superior to natural options, which I'd argue is a bit premature. And I'm not educated enough to speculate on benefits of nutrients in plants vs. those industrially derived.
Not that I'm not excited about soylent - I most definitely am, and hope to make it my lunch at work. At ~$4 a meal it's still a little too expensive for just a healthy filler until I get home (my current meal: beans/lentils and mixed veggies), but when it comes down a bit it will be great for me. Yet I feel some around here are anointing it as the end-all-be-all of healthy consumption, superior to natural options, which I'd argue is a bit premature. And I'm not educated enough to speculate on benefits of nutrients in plants vs. those industrially derived.
We don't even know the truth about something as engrained in the health-conscious public as omega-3 fats.
http://www.nutraingredients.com/Research/Omega-3s-have-no-be...
http://www.nutraingredients.com/Research/Omega-3s-have-no-be...
Completely agreed. A lot of commenters on HN are completely missing the social function of eating.
So you eat 3 communal meals/day 365 days/year? I doubt that. We're talking about replacing the meals people eat alone when they only care about eating something and minimizing the hassle of cooking.
I don't know why there is so much hype about this product still. Maybe there's a niche market for people who are so busy they forget to eat (another problem in and of itself) but for everyone else it completely misses all that is good about eating: taste, social interaction, texture, experience, temperature, variety. Be right back, asking my girlfriend if she wants to sit and chug Soylent tonight instead of going out for Thai.
false dilemma.
nobody says you can't go out for Thai. but if you find yourself regularly scarfing down a Subway sandwich for lunch and losing an hour of time in the process, Soylent might be a healthier, more efficient alternative.
nobody says you can't go out for Thai. but if you find yourself regularly scarfing down a Subway sandwich for lunch and losing an hour of time in the process, Soylent might be a healthier, more efficient alternative.
Except I'm never doing that, so I will never buy this product. I want to lose an hour eating because I can spend time with my friends or take a break or talk to people. Subway isn't that bad either, and is certainly more enjoyable to eat than Soylent.
There are literally millions upon millions of people who spend at least one meal a day just consuming food and not socializing. If you've ever worked in a traditional office environment people regularly take lunch at their desk if they are too busy to socialize. It's not hard to understand the appeal of Soylent if you step just slightly outside your own personal experience.
I do work in a traditional office environment. The problem is being too busy, not eating. Eating is not a problem that needs to be solved. Being too busy is the problem that needs to be solved.
> Eating is not a problem that needs to be solved.
Obesity in America would like to have a word with you.
Obesity in America would like to have a word with you.
So because you're not interested in this product, it's a bad idea? Have you ever considered that other people might have different lifestyles and priorities than you? Or that different products might appeal to different audiences?
Yeah this. Hype about an instant food product. Finally!
If this is truly all the body needs, then how do they deal with uptake issues? There are several things that compete for uptake in the body in the same way that oxygen and carbon monoxide compete when binding to the hemoglobin in your blood.
E.g.:
- Omega-6 fatty acids will push out the much better Omega-3 fatty acids. IIRC, the recommended ratio is 2:1 (Omega-3 to Omega-6)[1].
- Absorption of iron is inhibited by calcium.
[1] FYI, most oils have a ton of Omega-6, and not much Omega-3. One exception here is coconut oil, which has little of either.
E.g.:
- Omega-6 fatty acids will push out the much better Omega-3 fatty acids. IIRC, the recommended ratio is 2:1 (Omega-3 to Omega-6)[1].
- Absorption of iron is inhibited by calcium.
[1] FYI, most oils have a ton of Omega-6, and not much Omega-3. One exception here is coconut oil, which has little of either.
costs about $3 per serving
But probably considerably cheaper than what every person who has ordered Soylent was previously paying per serving.
No way. I can scrape by on ramen, potato chips, soda, hot dogs, orange juice concentrate, cereal and milk, and come out ahead (YMMV).
GNC quality protein shakes be damned. This stuff has to hit the 25 cent mark, per glass, to qualify for it's target market: the unwed and unloved who have no one to cook them decent meals while toiling away at shit jobs.
GNC quality protein shakes be damned. This stuff has to hit the 25 cent mark, per glass, to qualify for it's target market: the unwed and unloved who have no one to cook them decent meals while toiling away at shit jobs.
[deleted]
The price will almost surely go down as the company streamlines processing and improves its supply chain. Economies of scale and the likelihood of future competition will make it even cheaper.
Unless Soylent's changed its mind about using organic ingredients, it's costs will increase as it scales. Organic foodstuffs are subject to significant demand right now and prices have been going up consistently for years. As a niche player Soylent simply will not have the leverage to negotiate favorable prices in sufficient quantities.
So some of their ingredients might increase in price. That doesn't mean that they won't find significant savings elsewhere, for instance all the other possible improvements I mentioned that you ignored.
Also, they might be a niche player now, but could grow and negotiate better deals with suppliers.
Also, they might be a niche player now, but could grow and negotiate better deals with suppliers.
I'd pay a bit more per serving if I could order just one bag to try it. Right now the smallest order on their website is $85. I'd never spend that on food that I may hate.
i have to imagine that if Soylent manages to scale up their business this is going to get much, much cheaper.
I don't think it can get any cheaper than any practical cheap-food alternatives. It's using basically the same things as source material, often with much more processing done to them to get them into this powdered form. Less work (economically) goes into making Kraft Dinner than Soylent could ever hope to get to, I would think.
Never mind stuff like soy and rice, which are probably (well, obviously in soy's case) the basic inputs that end up in soylent, and already have massive economies of scale working in their favour.
Never mind stuff like soy and rice, which are probably (well, obviously in soy's case) the basic inputs that end up in soylent, and already have massive economies of scale working in their favour.
I have to imagine that Soylent's long term vision is to control the entire supply chain.
Vertical integration means owning the farms, production facilities, shipping and distribution, retail fronts, and maybe even operating some form of fast food franchise.
The only thing that could possibly make soylent faster than fast would be drive-thru. If I could order a 24 oz. soylent for $1, instead of a strawberry shake, I could envision a future where I might actually eat soylent more than once a week and across a cumulative duration of longer than 4 weeks per any given year.
The only thing that could possibly make soylent faster than fast would be drive-thru. If I could order a 24 oz. soylent for $1, instead of a strawberry shake, I could envision a future where I might actually eat soylent more than once a week and across a cumulative duration of longer than 4 weeks per any given year.
It sounds like the Soylent Revolution will be pleasurable.
If you have Soylent for one or two meals a day, then you'll really enjoy everything else. The mechanics of pleasure are well understood - you enjoy things more when you don't get them so often.
And it's cheap(ish), and apparently not too unhealthy.
If you have Soylent for one or two meals a day, then you'll really enjoy everything else. The mechanics of pleasure are well understood - you enjoy things more when you don't get them so often.
And it's cheap(ish), and apparently not too unhealthy.
> And it's cheap(ish), and apparently not too unhealthy.
That's really too early to say.
That's really too early to say.
I have nothing constructive to add. Just as a Chinese who frequently hosts dinner party for friends and coworkers, the idea of someone voluntarily using soylent as meal substitute is utter crazy and I feel personally insulted by the mere existence of such horrific product.
Still waiting for someone to invent Soylent Ramen...
I bought all the ingredients and made DIY soylent from one of the hacks someone posted... The taste was a serious problem. I wanted to drink it for a week, but there was a 0% chance of that happening the way it tasted.
Then I tried making Soylent Pasta, but boiled out all the nutrients and the water turned piss yellow (http://juliansarokin.com/soylent-for-science-pasta-bad-decis...)... But if there was a way to not mess that up, I think that could be really interesting.
Still waiting on my official Soylent, hopefully it tastes better than my catastrophe.
I bought all the ingredients and made DIY soylent from one of the hacks someone posted... The taste was a serious problem. I wanted to drink it for a week, but there was a 0% chance of that happening the way it tasted.
Then I tried making Soylent Pasta, but boiled out all the nutrients and the water turned piss yellow (http://juliansarokin.com/soylent-for-science-pasta-bad-decis...)... But if there was a way to not mess that up, I think that could be really interesting.
Still waiting on my official Soylent, hopefully it tastes better than my catastrophe.
Wouldn't Soylent eventually add some flavouring to make it less utilitarian/boring? It's still the first version of the product and it seems that the author doesn't even consider the possibility that there would be variations of the powder for variety and different taste preferences in the future. Does anyone know if they ever stated anywhere that the taste won't change?
Does the author not understand that significant numbers of people already don't often get the opportunity to eat food that could be described as enjoyable? He seems to dismiss the idea without justification.
Given the choice between unhealthy almost-but-not-quite zero-variety food and healthy actually zero-variety food, the latter strikes me as the better option - and if you don't happen to live near a source of good food (no bakeries, butchers, delis, fresh fruit vendors, etc . . .), being low on time or money means making that choice (or not having one to make).
Speaking for myself, the cheap and ultra-quick food I usually ate during my years at school was just the same thing over and over - it didn't taste very good to begin with and certainly didn't improve with time. I couldn't fix something myself, or wait for someone else to fix something, or spend time socializing (that's what weekends were for!), or go somewhere else. I can say that I honestly would have preferred something like Soylent on grounds of both convenience and taste.
Given the choice between unhealthy almost-but-not-quite zero-variety food and healthy actually zero-variety food, the latter strikes me as the better option - and if you don't happen to live near a source of good food (no bakeries, butchers, delis, fresh fruit vendors, etc . . .), being low on time or money means making that choice (or not having one to make).
Speaking for myself, the cheap and ultra-quick food I usually ate during my years at school was just the same thing over and over - it didn't taste very good to begin with and certainly didn't improve with time. I couldn't fix something myself, or wait for someone else to fix something, or spend time socializing (that's what weekends were for!), or go somewhere else. I can say that I honestly would have preferred something like Soylent on grounds of both convenience and taste.
Soylent strikes me as too similar to multivitamins, which haven't fared well in many studies, even though they contain a bunch of the stuff your body needs.
There is a lot we don't understand about how food and human nutrition works, and I'd be nervous about relying on a heavily engineered food as more than an occasional addition to my diet.
There is a lot we don't understand about how food and human nutrition works, and I'd be nervous about relying on a heavily engineered food as more than an occasional addition to my diet.
Yes, 'There is a lot we don't understand about how food and human nutrition works' pretty much sums it up.
Worth noting that in some reports, multivitamin preparations have been associated with adverse health outcomes. Popping pills of whatever kind can be dicey.
Worth noting that in some reports, multivitamin preparations have been associated with adverse health outcomes. Popping pills of whatever kind can be dicey.
Obesity and diabetes imply that a lot of Americans have an absolutely crap diet that probably isn't delivering much pleasure, either. If Soylent becomes a popular alternative for people who can't feed themselves properly, it could shave billions off health care costs.
I'd be interssted to see how many people will chose Soylent over fast food. Many people on HN have said they would. I suspect most people wouldn't.
"actually Farthard was in my original lede, was wisely cut" - Farhad Manjoo, the author of the piece [1]
[1] https://twitter.com/fmanjoo/status/471825996174217216
[1] https://twitter.com/fmanjoo/status/471825996174217216
The only thing missing that will stop Soylent making heaps of money is salt and msg. People will eat anything if you add salt and msg even some oatmeal goop with added vitamins.
People who think nobody will eat Soylent because it isn't a pleasurable home cooked product have missed the mountain of products on sale that are nothing much more more than starch and oil with salt and msg added. Take something soylent-like and add a flavour pouch that will make it taste like instant ramen. Then you just have to work out how to make it 99c a meal and you will clean up.
People who think nobody will eat Soylent because it isn't a pleasurable home cooked product have missed the mountain of products on sale that are nothing much more more than starch and oil with salt and msg added. Take something soylent-like and add a flavour pouch that will make it taste like instant ramen. Then you just have to work out how to make it 99c a meal and you will clean up.
[deleted]
Compared to what, the TV-dinner and fast-food revolution?
This reads like the opinion of one who is scared of the future.
Given that Rhinehart has thus far forgotten iron and sulfur in various versions of the formula, I'd be scared of this particular future too.
Because dystopic ideas are the new cool, with self driving cars and astronaut food... seems that the future is designed by startrek fans that did never read 1984.
As much as I like to shake my cane at those confounded kids and their self-driving automobiles, at least they can claim their revolutionary world-saving product would actually be revolutionary.
An 1984 wasn't really an accurate depiction of the future to start with:
http://www.thecitrusreport.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/Pa...
http://www.thecitrusreport.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/Pa...
I just don't think that saying Soylent lacks soul is constructive enough when Rhinehart says that it elevates the status of real food to leisure. If the future involves making life more "functional" then bring it on... its only dystopic once the soul gets eradicated.
It's telling that even though this individual claims to dislike Soylent, he continued to drink it for 90% of his meals on some days. Unless artificially forcing himself to drink Soylent was part of the experiment, his actions say he prefers convenience over taste. The fact that so many commentators seem terrified of the addition of another option for food, without removing the ones we have today, tells me Soylent is going to be truly disruptive. The skepticism of Soylent in the mainstream media has been very much "I don't know why, but it just seems wrong to me." Appeal to tradition 101.
I think he was on assignment - that's why he consumed only Soylent for a week. It's just like the Forbes writer who forced herself to live only on BitCoin for a week. In her case, even though her first experience was uneven and a huge hassle, she eventually repeated her experiment, and found her experience was vastly improved. Unfortunately for Soylent, I think it's going to taste exactly the same in a year.
But he says that he didn't only consume Soylent for a week, that he still ate regular meals. And then went on to say that there were times when he drank Soylent he would have preferred a regular meal. It makes no sense, why not just drink Soylent when the lack of taste was less important than the efficiency? This would have been a fairer test. If by the end of the week the guy was no longer drinking Soylent for any meals, then I'd buy that Soylent was doomed, but that's not what the experiment was.
[deleted]
It was his job to do that for the trial period... he didn't choose to.
[deleted]
I'm a foodie. I delight in trying new dishes, restaurants and cuisines. I'm also a marked extrovert. I constantly seek out social settings and experiences. Combined with my ineptitude at cooking and address in Manhattan, we have why I eat one to three meals out a day. I manage the healthfulness of my diet with simple rules. Salads for lunch, finish all the greens on your plate before moving to other things, defaulting to seafood over red meat, etc.
But this comes at a cost, both in dollars and in time. Many times, a meal will go half eaten, because I have to rush out for a call. Other times, dinner gets pushed out so late that the only options aren't healthy. Yes, I could schedule meals into the day, but sometimes I prefer doing other things. And it's not just work! I feel starved during film festivals, too, between full schedules and my refusal to feed on solely popcorn and tapas for two weeks.
I don't think too many people will ever seriously replace a majority of their meals with something like Soylent. But even shifting my weekday lunches and late-night snacks from salads, paninis and starving to something cheap, healthy, and available would be welcome. A prerequisite to this would be Soylent not tasting like pancake batter. Utility doesn't have to be unpleasant. But there is a place for this amongst people who love food, love people, and aren't necessarily workaholics.