The characteristic of this kind of marketing that I enjoy the most is the presence of what I call 'linguistic asymptotes.'
These are words that imply a product has unparalleled or infinite properties.
On the soylent page we have "ubiquitous", "perfectly", "optimized", "automatically", and "optimal" all in the first paragraph.
On a sample of snake oil labels we have 'instantaneously', 'cures all aches and pains', 'always', 'strongest', and 'immediate.'
It's very difficult for a claim that contains a linguistic asymptote to be true, but it's cognitively very easy to understand and process. You don't have to consider your personal medical history, or cost, or anything else really, because the product is 'always' right for you!
Fun stuff.
I too am highly skeptical of ALL of these claims.
My main gripe with Soylent (ever since I first saw it here on HN a month ago) is that they are making cooking seem like a horrible chore that nobody wants to do.
Shopping is convenient because I go whenever I have time and only buy exactly what I need. At the same time, I also ensure I only buy the best ingredients I can at the moment (Assuming labeling is correct).
A lot of people I know and myself included, LOVE to cook. I love cutting a bell pepper and catching a whiff of its fresh smell in my nostrils. I love sometimes adding different sauces, spices or ingredients in my meals to give them a distinct and unique taste.
And cleaning up is also fun because I recognize I am a responsible adult, able to revert something back to the state I received it in. Just like my bed, or a rental car or my home.
A lot of the arguments here seem to boil down to "Much smarter people are working on this and they haven't solved it, who the hell does this KID think he is?!?"
That's pretty depressing for a website that, at least originally, was to help startups talk to one another. Shame on you, hacker news. You're smarter than this. By this logic, never ever trust your data to anybody other than IBM because those dumb hacker kids don't know what they're doing!
Second: "He's violating ALL KINDS of FDA regulations! [none of which I can name]"
Oh is he? Because if you actually look at what he's doing, it appears that he is taking things are already approved from human consumption, and mixing them together. This would be akin to a baker taking eggs and flour and mixing them.
What he's selling (although selling is a bit of an incorrect word here) is effectively a big power bar, except his comes in powerdered form. There are some hippies that sell power bars at my local coffee shop. They are terrible. What sort of advanced degrees do you suppose the hippies have? None? Possibly some experience in "baking"?
Finally: this is being presented within the context of "an experiment". If you start eating soylent, and you get sick, STOP EATING IT!
I'd imagine that I might have similar results if I ate nothing but the hippie vegan power bars at the coffee shop.
Personally, I'll be in for whatever the $65 level is.
1) Because I think this is neat
2) I want to encourage people to experiment with the world around them.
3) I'm not an idiot, and if I start feeling sick as a result of not eating any "real" food, I'll stop eating soylent.
Geesh.
"Soylent is perfectly balanced and optimized for your body and lifestyle, meaning it automatically puts you at an optimal weight, makes you feel full, and improves your focus and cognition"
The techniques and the wording seem snake oilish.
Also, if anything those dumb hacker kids build breaks (email, web app, game) etc, they won't hurt you physically.
The body is a weird mechanism: it can put up with lots of abuse and experimentation. It is also fragile at the same time.
Also, where are the ingredients listed? The FAQ is hilarious. I can't believe that people are so gullible. There are mountains of research on nutrition in modern science and thousands of years of accumulated evidence from traditional practices (Indian, Chinese) etc.
"But, hey, there is this magic potion which I can buy. Don't care about the ingredients. Can't be bothered to read up on the manuals for the greatest mechanism I will ever own. "
Whatever happened to extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence? In this case, there is a huge chance that a bunch of guys will get rich and some person will get hurt badly.
...and then saying that the nutrients are stable for years.
> A lot of the arguments here seem to boil down to "Much smarter people are working on this and they haven't solved it, who the hell does this KID think he is?!?"
Mavericks can solve big problems. They show their working; they provide a demonstration; they give a proof. Other people then pick at the work to see if there are any problems. That's how science works. We check the sample sizes, we check the stats, we check the confounding factors, we proceed cautiously.
This guy has gone from self-experimentation (and caution about letting other people try it) to a full blown sales pitch full of errors and over-blown claims.
The actual product might not be the TimeCube of nutrition, but the documentation so far is hopeless.
"Finally: this is being presented within the context of "an experiment". If you start eating soylent, and you get sick, STOP EATING IT!"
Really? So if a mega corp drugs company just handed out experimental products to who ever wanted it with out and controls what so ever, you'd not be worried by that? It would be a national, perhaps international scandal. But that doesn't bother you because it is "neat"?
Yeah, sure entourage people to experiment, I agree. Make your own goo, and eat it yourself, fine. But encouraging people to participate in unregulated medical experiments is reckless and negligent.
If you ate a McDonald's said their food was nutritionally complete, and you ate it everyday for a week, and then got sick, who is to be blamed? Of course, given McD's reputation I'd say you're to be blamed. But in this case Soylent is untested, and so far doesn't even substantiate its claims very well. And even McD's doesn't go so far as saying that their food can replace your meals (or maybe they have? I do not get that vibe though), while Soylent here is supposed to do that (the vibe I got from his blogs, at least -- this is supposedly revolutionary, no?).
Although I love cooking to bits I do find Soylent interesting as a concept, but the way they've gone about doing things isn't what I'd approve of myself.
And as I see it, a majority of the arguments here do not boil down to "Much smarter people are working on this and they haven't solved it, who the hell does this KID think he is?!?" or "He's violating ALL KINDS of FDA regulations! [none of which I can name]". For the former, Soylent is simply making unsubstantiated claims, to which much smarter people have not even come up yet. If Soylent is indeed that smart, then they better have good claims to back it up. For the latter, I only saw one commenter talk about breaking FDA rules, and he was only speculating about them, and to be honest it's very likely that there's something about false advertising that they broke.
But then again the FDA probably didn't expect some company claiming that they'd come up with a food to end all foods...
This isn't a cheap or quick process.
The body is complicated and stopping eating this diet if you feel sick doesn't necessarily mean that you won't have ongoing health problems even when you go back to a normal diet.
If he tempers his claims and recommends it as a time-saving meal, the danger to consumers should be mitigated and the reactions here would likely be a lot less violent. Say,
"Use well-balanced Soylent for 1 to 2 meals a day to save yourself a great deal of time. You should have varied diet in other meals to ensure even more complete nutritional composition for your body."
I am genuinely surprised that the people of HN can not see that. I expected the conversation to at least be about whether it was parody vs. not, not about whether it was healthy or not.
do these hippies claim you can replace your entire diet with just those power bars?
hey I'm all for this project btw, and really not having to deal with preparing food a few times a day sounds ideal (I do love cooking, but I have a lot of other things on my plate (haha) recently).
one thing I simply do not understand is how this guy went from being a single dude experimenting with food replacements on himself, to expanding his team with five other people, and NONE of them has a background in nutrition, medicine or even biology. why?
sure you can figure out this stuff by reading up on it, looking things up, but someone who has studied even slightly related subjects for 6 years knows things that you don't even know you didn't know, or know you might want to look up something on a particular subject that you would never have considered. that's what education is useful for, crazy idea I know.
I'm not saying doing this with only technical computer and marketing people on your team is going to make you fail automatically, but he is definitely cutting himself short on some valuable knowledge and ideas.
Soylent is definitely not "perfectly tailored to your body" and it probably isn't "everything the body needs", for the simple reason that nobody has any idea what the body needs, let alone how to tailor a perfect diet. Nutrition research is extremely complex and fraught with false findings. When John Ioannidis said that most medical research findings are false he singled out nutrition and genetics as the most problematic fields.
False advertising this particular product can be dangerous because a lot of people get obsessed about diet and health, and tend to cling to whatever subset of findings they happen to have heard, and then treat the whole thing religiously.
Some nutritional deficiencies become apparent only after years and then possibly only in people with a certain genetic makeup.
You are targeting a population that adopts health fads like they were the ten commandments, and are trying to sell a product that has properties you can't possibly know. Please stop because you may inadvertently hurt people.
Soylent is the sort of thing that could seriously damage your health. I know that several people have trialled it over the course of a few months, but nutritional deficiencies can take much longer to develop. For example I don't recall ever reading that oral health was being monitored during the trials - when you're not chewing anything, your teeth will fall out.
I'm sorry but I truly do believe that selling Soylent would be dangerous and irresponsible. Please, don't sell Soylent to anybody until you've done some proper clinical trials.
Bull-fucking-shit.
This is a product made by four twenty-somethings, none of whom appears to have a background in nutrition or any kind of health studies. To trust your health to these people would be fucking stupid. Jesus.
Also: They've got to be violating some kind of FDA rules. So that'll be fun. When they get sued. Or accidentally harm someone.
Please. Do not back these people.
-----
Edit: What FDA rule do I think they're violating? I don't know, exactly. But I doubt you can say things like "it automatically puts you at an optimal weight, makes you feel full, and improves your focus and cognition" without having some actual data backing you up.
Speaking as a biochemist who works in the biotech industry, this looks to be like a gigantic train wreck just waiting to happen.
At first glance, I would be convinced these individuals know very little about the science behind their product. They all have a bunch of fancy business acronyms next to their name, yet the majority of this group appears to have little scientific background.
Website annoyances:
- Why is a benzene ring in the background of their logo? Sure, the benzene moiety is prolific and crucial throughout biological systems, but plain benzene is a toxic carcinogen.
- Why is their favicon cyclohexane instead of benzene, if that was why they're going for?
Like what?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_and_Drug_Administration#Fo...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_of_food_and_dietary_...
"The Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994 mandated that the FDA regulate dietary supplements as foods, rather than as drugs. Therefore, dietary supplements are not subject to safety and efficacy testing and there are no approval requirements. The FDA can take action against dietary supplements only after they are proven to be unsafe. Manufacturers of dietary supplements are permitted to make specific claims of health benefits, referred to as "structure or function claims" on the labels of these products."
That being said, health claims such as the ones you cite-- "it automatically puts you at an optimal weight, makes you feel full, and improves your focus and cognition"-- fall into the realm of regulated speech. You shouldn't be making claims like these without well-controlled clinical trials to back them up. The sellers of Soylent will need to hire legal counsel before long...
Its pretty hard to violate FDA rules when soliciting investment, they'd most likely only run that risk when they start actually marketing product. And even then, the incredibly lax FDA rules around supplements have enabled some of the biggest (and most dangerous) health related scams ever to operate within the rules, so they can probably be okay even then. Usually, this seems to involve placing a disclaimer that the product is not intended to prevent or treat any disease or condition on advertising touting its health benefits (often including explicit claims that the product prevents or treats various diagnosable diseases and/or conditions.)
> But I doubt you can say things like "it automatically puts you at an optimal weight, makes you feel full, and improves your focus and cognition" without having some actual data backing you up.
You'd probably be surprised.
I'll listen to what the kid has to say.
Obviously the guy has a background in chemistry or biology. As we all know, you don't have to go to school in a subject to become an "expert" in it.
Never heard of books and the internet?
If you don't like it, don't buy it.
But you still eat them right?
Then I started reading the HN comments, and initially assumed them to be tongue-in-cheek replies running with the joke: the typical "this is why it won't work", the usual "this is why it's a bad idea", the inevitable "it's actually amazing, stop being so negative". But that gradually stopped making sense the further I read, with people appearing to take it way too seriously for a simple spoof.
So thanks HN, you've managed to confuse me completely. This might be a sign I've been spending too much time here lately.
Since the term soylent is widely understood to mean human remains masquerading as food, the name suggests pretense.
He wrote:
Before I rarely had enough energy to go to
the gym, but this day I had plenty so I
decided to put the diet to the test. I'd been
running off and on for several months, never
able to do more than a mile straight, but
this day I ran 3.14 miles non-stop. This is an
irrational improvement.
Elsewhere, he said he only needs 1/3 the calories on Soylent, which was explained away by an apologist in the comments as a figure of speech, or perhaps art of rhetoric, but that explanation is contradicted by his precise descriptions elsewhere and worrisome in this context regardless.
There were more jokes like that, conveniently allowing its author to laugh at people no matter whether he's being truthful or not. Parts of the campaign are patronizing and condescending and they've shown no desire to fix that aspect, making me more leery due to the immaturity. Should I trust my health to such a cavalier attitude?
I lean toward it being legit, but they've got a long ways to go to catch up with the cutting edge of understanding in nutrition science and it's not clear what advantage they'll be able to offer over established meal replacement drinks like Ensure, which most people don't want to drink today. Improved taste? You can get rats to overfeed to fatness on chocolate Ensure. Expertise? No. For personal use, Soylent Orange is more convenient, available today, and safer, IMO:
http://lesswrong.com/lw/h2h/i_hate_preparing_food_my_solutio...
I'm just dumbfounded. I can't comprehend what is going on in this comment section. It seems quite clear to me that the HN community is being parodied, and yet either everyone here is so gullible they have never been on the Internet before, or they are dutifully playing their part in the parody.
I mean, in Soylent Green it's all about "freeing your body" as well.
if this turns out to have been an incredibly elaborate hoax, I'm gonna laugh, tip my hat and buy the guy a beer if I ever meet him
http://www.shaman-australis.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=35...
That's the next alternative if Soylent doesn't work. Now either offer a design for a better food replacement, or shut up and get out of the way.
What's "metabolically disadvantaged"? Are you suffering from a medical condition for which no satisfactory diet (in the proper sense of the term) has been developed?
I'm not sure I have all the background information necessary to properly understand all the intricacies of what the OP in the link you posted is describing; but it sounds like what he's going through is complex enough that it probably won't solved by something as straightforward as Soylent (which is basically "let's take everything current science says your body needs, and mash it all together in one solution").
Any light you can shed on this for the non-initiated would be appreciated :)
I resent having to frequently stop what I'm doing - what I'm really excited about - to spend time attending to the endless whining of my body. And I resent even more the things my body does if I don't give in and feed it perfectly every damn time (so far, gastric ulcers and frequent heartburn). Food currently sucks. It could be so much better. It could "just work".
I'm also in for $65.
As a type one diabetic if 80% of meals were the exact same, my long term health prospects would be brighter.
Here's to hoping!
I did try to solve the same problem the Soylent guy is solving, it's on LW under "I hate preparing food". I think I did a better job.
He's making a number of health claims on that page. I'm curious about the legality of doing so; it's not legal in the UK unless he meets some pretty strict criteria.
> If not for this waste there would be plenty of food to adequately nourish everyone alive.
Waste food is a serious problem and something needs to be done. I'm not sure there's a connection between food waste and world hunger.
> 2 million people are killed annually by smoke inhalation from indoor cooking stoves alone
This could be an interesting problem. Why do people use really inefficient dirty open fires to cook? Why aren't they using better stoves? It's not as if a stove requires huge amounts of resources.
"Unfortunately due to regulatory constraints, our initial runs of Soylent will be available within the United States only. We are diligently working to provide it worldwide as soon as possible."
So indeed the UK won't be seeing this sold (legally) anytime soon.
That said, I don't think it's really a case of whether or not Soylent is safe. Even if they have FDA approval, and produce Soylent under the strictest conditions of food safety, the real problem is their idea behind Soylent's use -- that it can replace a balanced diet. I'm sure it's safe to have it occasionally, if even a few portions of it everyday. But to virtually replace your diet? That's a bold claim, and with dangerous consequences at that.
Or better still, why not just let them eat cake? Then they won't need stoves or fires at all! Those poor people out in third-world countries sure are silly....
Sarcasm aside, if someone can't afford a better stove they're not going to be able to afford Soylent, so it's a pretty ridiculous benefit to cite in the first place.
Rather more worthwhile than some bullshit diet for Americans who can't cook.
Like he explicitly said he was going to do from the start? Man, those people must be clairvoyant.
Citation needed. I'm a big fan of n=1, but making these kinds of claims supported by anecdote and then asking for money based on those claims is ridiculous.
So in that way it is simply another "look, eating this probably won't kill you, at least not quickly." product. There are many of these introduced and produced every year.
That said, to the extent that this guy can get traction for his effectively artificial food, the big food companies will watch it and talk about it. If there is something to it they might add their own toe in the water, or not. Most recently they have been hammered pretty publicly about how their manufactured food products aren't really much food (see "In Defense of Food" as an example of the narrative)
If that's how it was marketed most people would have much less problem with it.
But when it's claiming to regulate cholesterol and etc, well, that's just sleazy.
Are we that rare?
There's this idea that because we have such stringent laws governing our medicine, we probably have such laws governing food too. But the reality of it is that if you take a bunch of ingredients that have already been established in the market and you throw them together you're allowed to call it food and sell it in the supermarkets.
In a macabre way, if this drink _does_ seriously harm someone, and they sue these guys that would actually be a good thing, because these guys are doing nothing different from what the preprocessed food industry is doing. Except that the preprocessed food industry optimizes for minimal ingredient costs and maximal consumability, where Rob is optimizing Soylent for maximal ingredient coverage and minimal consumation need, the exact opposite! We might actually get some sane laws (like the rejected one that said food marketed for children should consist of at least 50% nutrients)
Before you question the integrity of this project, please consider that Rob himself has already been living almost exclusively for 4 months. No that does not mean this product is by all means safe or that you should replicate him without doubt, but it does mean he already put his life on the line for the idea of this product.
That being said, I do find it a bit disconcerting to see that all the cautionary language of his blog is gone in this marketing site. It wasn't a good idea to hire a sales person for this kind of project, he already has more initial backing than he should need in my opinion.
Maybe by "nootropics" they just mean everyday vitamins that have been shown to benefit your brain, but that's certainly not what I think of when I hear that term. Then again, maybe there's somewhere online where they actually list what they're using, but I couldn't find any details on the campaign page.
[1] http://www.globalissues.org/article/26/poverty-facts-and-sta...
To those people, I highly recommend green protein smoothies.
They aren't cheap, really, but they are fast and done right they taste good and will take an otherwise mediocre diet to better than 99% of people without much other change (I am not a doctor, just an observer).
Some fruit, some leafy greens, some nuts, optionally some protein powder (my favorite had been pea protein, but my nutritionist recommended alternating protein sources every few weeks of doing it regularly).
Adding in some thing like vitamineral green and you are really doing alright. Spending about 3-400 USD on a good blender and you can have an über healthy, delicious meal replacement in minutes with about 30 seconds of clean up.
A mediocre blender still make the experience less enjoyable when using nuts and tough greens like kale.
Expect an 800 calorie shake to cost maybe 3-5 bucks to put together depending on your tastes, whether you go organic, and access to produce.
2 large handfuls of fresh spinach or kale, 1 apple or 6 strawberries, 1 banana, 1 tbsp ground flaxseed, 1 large handful of ice, 1-2 cups of water, 1/4 cup unsweetened almond milk
I prefer to drink it with a straw.
I'm really on board with the idea, but what got me interested was the notion that it would be easy to adjust the formula to my needs, e.g. choose a different ratio of various powders if I want to gain weight, lose weight, or compensate for some genetic difference.
It may not be the perfect product, but at least it's pushing some boundaries. I, for one, am excited to get my hands on a batch and let the results speak for themselves.
I wouldn't even consider ingesting this mystery powder, even if they paid me.
No shit. Seriously, who is going to try this powder made by this twenty-somethings guys with no background in any kind of health nor nutrition studies.
It reminds me to the Power Balance scam http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_Balance
(a) Both the 1973 Charlton Heston movie and mixed, some-negative health connotations of the word 'soy' make the chosen name for the product problematic.
(b) The argument for its safety – "We have been testing Soylent on ourselves for several months and the data shows it to have a positive nutritional benefit" – creates little confidence compared to thousands of years of alternate practice, and strong evidence the human system needs some variety/chaos for optimal health/resilience.
If you decide you don't like soylent there are a bunch of other products from other more mainstream manufacturers.
Fortisip and Ensure are the two brands I'm most familiar with, but there are others. Fortisip do wide range of different style products (shake, juice, yoghurt, and 'savory'.) But it's an acquired taste.
I'm not sure why they have two trailing slashes. (https://www.nutricia.co.uk/fortisip//)
The macronutrient breakdown based on calories per gram is 50% carbs, 13% protein, 37% fat, if I'm not mistaken. I'd rather have a bit more protein and a bit less fat, personally.
http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Food/GuidanceRegulation/UCM2654...
With me being a college student with a VERY limited budget I get very little nutrition that's needed for my body to operate normally. I was so turned on to this product because it was initially advertised to cost the creator between $50 and $100 per month. Now, all of a sudden it's going to cost me $230 just to get started.
It's starting to sound more and more like a scam; I'm pretty livid.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjA38cUd4BZBdGZ...
The ingredients list is published and available, there's even a spreadsheet up with online locations where you can buy everything.
I can understand being dissatisfied about cost - but it was never claimed that you could receive this delivered to your door for $100/mo.
I think I remember him saying that the recipe was "open source", maybe you could just make it yourself to save.
I can see his saving time argument though. Although there are days I gladly spent an hour or more in my kitchen, some days when I'm busy or lazy I would consider it.
Sidenote - calling this "corporation", I don't know if it's a joke or just poor marketing.
I remember when I first read the creator's blog post and how little it costs to make. Now I come and see it costs about the same amount it costs me to purchase food for a week.
1) All foods are broken down into their respective molecular constituents (free fatty acids, glucose, amino acids, etc) through a series of enzymatic reactions. These nutrients are ultimately absorbed through the wall of the bowel or what remains passes as feces. This is true whether you are eating lettuce, ribs, a slice of bread, or this soylent product.
2) Frankly, I see no difference in this product from any other meal replacement powder available in bulk at any nutrition store. If we ever see a nutrition label, I suspect it will look strikingly similar to Slim Fast.
I really like the idea, but until they apply some real science to it, I'll pass.
[1] http://summaries.cochrane.org/CD007176/antioxidant-supplemen...
"Plumpy'nut is a peanut-based paste in a plastic wrapper for treatment of severe acute malnutrition... They are also relatively high in calories, which means that a patient receives a lot of nutrition from small amounts, important because malnutrition shrinks the stomach."
Now, in hindsight, we know what a mistake that was, as natural breast milk contained compounds which decreased various cancer and health risks.
I cannot help but think they are going down the same road.
Not good.
Here is a hint, folks: it is called a random controlled trial. Until these Soylent guys conduct a few of those and show that their product is not only just better, but also safe for consumption, it needs to be dismissed and ignored.
According to the popular science/history book 1493, it is more-or-less a complete diet in itself. The two datapoints it uses to back this up are a story about two Polish scientists who ate nothing but potatoes and milk (or milk products, like cheese and butter) for a year, and remained in perfect heath for the duration, and the claim that prior to the Potato Famine, 25% of the Irish population was already surviving on nothing but milk and potatoes indefinitely, and they were regarded as a healthy and hale race.
A 2000 calorie diet of milk and potatoes (4 cups 2% milk, 5.5 300g potatoes) costs around $65 / day. Preparation time involves as little as microwaving a potato and pouring a glass of milk.
On the other hand, selling this stuff with claims like, "Soylent is perfectly balanced and optimized for your body and lifestyle, meaning it automatically puts you at an optimal weight, makes you feel full, and improves your focus and cognition," is another thing completely. It sounds like a total scam, especially since they don't even say what's in it.
There's a pretty big difference between "I'm trying this new nutritional approach out for myself" and "without any serious testing, I am trying to get investors to sell this nutritional approach to the public".
I suspect the difference you observe in responses is tied to the that difference.
Which is nothing more than a failure of my imagination, of course, and I'm not seriously suggesting that anyone who does is defective in any way, but I feel like most of life's greatest pleasures come directly from the preparation and consumption of food. To want to get rid of these pleasures in the name of efficiency is a strange argument to my mind.
I'm 100% behind the vat grown meat brigade on this one.
It sounds like the guys behind this are impatient, overconfident and reckless. Worse than that, they're preying on those caught up in how fashionable crowd-funding is these days. I doubt very much that a website like Kickstarter would actually get behind a project like this, which is why they've had to roll their own website.
If these guys had a background in Bromatology and did their due diligence before launching this campaign, I'd be skeptical. Just imagine how confident I am, given the reality.
Edit: specifically, these two guidelines:
- Projects cannot offer financial, medical, or health advice.
- No tobacco, drugs, and drug paraphernalia; energy food and drinks; or nutritional supplements.
That's pretty scary to me. Who is the person who is certifying this as safe for meal replacement?
Where is the clinical study that was done before this was released to people?
What irks me though, is the lack of a true clinical trial.
This fundraising effort is for the supplement itself when it really should be for clinical trials to prove the stuff is safe and works.
Perhaps they are scared of the results, or perhaps they really believe in their product, either way this is in the wrong direction and people COULD get hurt.
In all seriousness, kudos to these kids and their ambitions. However, the software model of iterating fast doesn't always translate to the physical world, especially when it comes to items ingested by human beings.
It's one thing to "pivot" on your Instagram clone, but taking some experimental goop that hasn't been rigorously tested with good unbiased science (not to mention with a sample size larger than one 24-year old) and deciding to market it is another thing--especially when none of your "team" are nutritionists by trade. There's a reason we have the FDA. I get that this is the "startup culture", but let's take a moment to realize the physical world doesn't allow us to recompile and try again very easily.
it seems to just be a implementation of Selfstarter with a backend to process payments, but at the same time they boast "Free to use"... how can a payment processing be free?
But for someone trying to hack nutrition this way, you would think they would open the ingredients, or at least offer research sources.
Knowing the contents of Soylent isn't going to stop anyone from buying it (convenience), but it would allow people to understand some of these bold claims.
Also, it's a little disconcerting when the only founder with any food or biotech background is the sales guy.
My reasoning is if every nutrient is absorbed and used, there is no physical waste left, and all toxins and byproducts would be expelled through urine.
That said, I am missing a significant length of digestive tract, so my experience may be atypical. I would also note that that as calories increase, to or above your metabolic needs, that this effect would likely diminish.
In fact, an extremely common request of clinical nutritionists is for a non-diary product, especially for ones aimed at children.
I strongly urge Soylent to try and gain the help of someone with experience within the established industry and get their assistance. Whilst us hackers might be happy to take the risk at this stage, someone with industry experience and knowledge of product development and production would bring invaluable skill. Plus, they'd be best placed to answer any questions about FDA issues, etc
Disclaimer: I have a family member who works in this field
Clearly this is a very controversial topic, but the general attitude for most of the supporters (myself included) appears to be that if no serious negative effects have been exposed from consuming Soylent in three months, it must be safe to try.
Is there any possibility that consuming Soylent for a while (say, a week to a month) and then stopping cold-turkey could be significantly harmful to one's digestion? Maybe? I guess we'll find out when the first round of supplies is consumed.
Another thing, props on the campaign and having already been funded, but let's hope the next promo video does less to seem like a run-of-the-mill infomercial... :\
1. Record your current height
2. Record daily: weight + timestamp, sleep start time, sleep stop time,
food consumption (http://www.livestrong.com/thedailyplate/ perhaps to help
or alternatives), exercise,
and how you feel physically (tired, energetic, sleepy...).
3. Blog about your experience and contribute the data to science.
Disclaimer: I will not be participating in this experiment, but am interested in the results. =D
Not yet. This first run will be the regular vegetarian soylent, but it is lactose free, kosher, halal, and absent of all known allergens
I believe soy is an allergy to some people. What does "absent of all known allergens" mean then?
I guess that a few months from now we'll see a New York Times article explaining how a fake startup with a fake product managed to raise seed capital.
I feel pretty confident that this is the case right now. A lot of people here are shitting on these guys for creating something that completely contradicts our notion of nutrition. I for one, support this new venture and wish them the best of luck.
I don't even really believe soylent is legit, but it's interesting enough to plunk down money for. However, this is kinda a deal-breaker.
How exactly is Soylent currently not vegan?
EDIT: Re-reading http://robrhinehart.com/?p=424 , it's implied that this uses whey protein. I've used hemp protein rather than whey before.
Also, it'd be green then. ;)
It is extremely inexpensive, delicious, vegetarian/vegan-if-eggs-are-omitted, flexible, nutrient rich, high in fiber, high in good fats, relatively "slow-cal"/low glycemic index, wheat gluten-free, protein rich, easy to digest, and very quick to prepare.
Pre-cooked in large quantity weekly/every-two-weeks:
- quinoa (2 minutes total prep time, in a large cheap rice cooker) - sweet potatoes (4 minutes total prep time -- simply baked in foil 30 mins to a side at 425 F) - beans (I do black beans, Mexican style -- this can take a fair bit longer, but they're super tasty, and can last 2-3 weeks if portions are frozen)
In the morning ...
Ingredients - olive oil (1/4 to 1/2 a cup) - pre-cooked quinoa (3/4 - 1.5 cups) - pre-cooked sweet potato (1/2 - 1 cup) - pre-cooked beans (1/2 - 1 cup) - eggs (1-4) - greens (kale/spinach/chard/whatever) - salt and peper - hot sauce!!
I pour the olive oil in a large cast iron skillet (cast iron is the best!). I then add the cooked quinoa and fry at high heat for maybe five minutes -- the quinoa should absorb most of the oil (there should be no smoking or anything!).
Then I add some beans and some sweet potato (skins on! and, for the last few mornings I haven't had beans so it's been sweet potato only) and mix it all up. Then comes some chopped up vegetables (kale/spinach/chard). When the vegetables are 70% cooked or so I add one to four eggs (this morning it was four). I mix the eggs in with the rest of the hot conglomeration and cook them very briefly, being careful to avoid having them spend too much time on the hot skillet (which makes them rubbery).
I then put the hot mess into a bowl. If I have avocados (as I do now) I chop one up and mix it with some salt and lemon juice and put it on top of everything. I usually douse it all with hot sauce, repeatedly.
I estimate that my breakfasts are typically between 1800 and 2800 calories, though some days (like today) I only get through a part of it, in which case I save it for later. If I get through it all, it usually means I don't have to worry about eating anything more than a snack at dinner time. This has the benefit of avoiding the afternoon food-coma caused by lunch.
I wash the meal down with some homemade carrot-ginger-apple-greens-beet juice (mixed in with a bit of creatine).
I believe in the general cause so much, that even if there's only 1% something good will come out of this particular project, I'll happily take that chance.
"It's a single cell protein combined with synthetic aminos, vitamins, and minerals. Everything the body needs." - from The Matrix
They also have a poor understanding of what constitutes an allergen.
Please help me flesh it out so it can help people come to their own conclusion about Soylent's safety: http://www.slant.co/topics/695/~is-it-safe-to-replace-my-die...
How about a sleeping pill named Quietus[1]?
[1] Children of Men reference, film version
I've found it's surprisingly hard to make something healthy that doesn't make me gag. So far I tried egg protein powder mixed with chia seeds, olive oil, plain yogurt and a banana.
I'm now thinking I'd be better off with something solid that I could eat on the go. I haven't seen a good recipe though.
Why would you alienate potential customers with a product name that beings with "Soy"?
1. I can make a Hot Pocket in about 3 minutes. While the microwave is running I can browse my email on my cellphone etc...
2. Some instant food is unhealthy, perhaps healthy instant food is market for disruption?
3. Are we living in a society where people can't stop for 3 minutes to grab a bite to eat!?
2. Healthy instant food tastes bland or like garbage.
3. Yes. I don't like it, but most of us don't have choices.
Either way that and the snake-oil type sales pitch has really turned me off. Through all the hoopla this generated on HN I mostly sat on the fence. Now I feel distinctly like I don't trust them. But they've got backers, so we'll see the results eventually.
This gif pretty much sums up my feelings on the matter: http://i.imgur.com/twkp3So.gif
Only one item on the menu. No need for a kitchen or trained chefs. I'll be rich!
Eat till you are full. Normalise your weight.
- I don't care what they do to their own bodies
- I do care that they don't have any rigorous testing done before offering this to the public without disclaimers.
Does it taste good?
If only this genius and effort behind 'soylent' were put to good use.
[checks date]. Late for April Fools.
"It's made of people."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Sp-VFBbjpE
This is marketing genius
person #1: But he hasn't proven it's safe!
person #2: But you haven't proven that it isn't!
person #1: But he doesn't have a PhD or any qualifications in food science!
person #2: But you don't either! And anyway the real experts admit they don't know what they're doing anyway. The fake experts are busy pushing colon cleanse products and miracle diets.
person #1: But he's playing with people's lives! Think of the children!
person #2: But so are the guys who invented the Doritos taco shell, the twinkie, and the super-sized french fries. Why the double standard?
How about injecting some reality into this debate and admitting that nobody is going to actually eat nothing but soylent every day. OK, maybe possibly the original inventor will stick to it for a while, but I can't imagine anyone else possibly doing this. Most Americans can barely make it between meals without grabbing a snack. Do you really think someone is going to eat nothing but green snot for a year? All these arguments are irrelevant, really.
