Hacker News Reader

Comment by DanBC | Hacker News Reader

> Ever since an American electrical engineer invented a food that abolishes the inconveniences of foraging and cooking, and contains all the nutrition a human body is known to require but is devoid of the substances that harm, there has been talk that it can end not only the problems of the overfed but also the underfed. After all, it is in the tradition of Silicon Valley-blessed projects to invent a solution for the rich that eventually “makes the world a better place,” to borrow an expression used by tech billionaires and comedians.

Jesus fucking christ.

1) Soylent didn't invent anything. Complete liquid meals have been around for many years.

2) No one credible suggest soylent is useful to end world hunger. It's too expensive; it has the wrong nutrient balance; it's made in the wrong place; it requires too much clean water; it's worse than the existing emergency food products in many different ways.

View on HN

I think any Soylent thread would benefit from a summary of typical comments, to make way for new ideas. Pick yours.

1. Liquid diets aren't new

2. Cooking is easy and enjoyable, I don't see why people avoid it

3. Soylent is healthier than fast food even if it's inferior to well-made natural meals

4. It hasn't undergone rigorous, clinical testing

5. It's dystopic, dehumanizing

6. It's a dietary choice of others that makes me inexplicably angry

7. I've been trying it for 50-100% of my calories for X weeks and it's been great/terrible

8. It's based on outdated FDA recommended allowances

9. It ignores the social, cultural aspects of food

I pick #1. My biggest problem with Soylent is not what they are doing, but that they have an attitude that they invented the idea.

Like how Apple "invented" the GUI? The results speak for themselves.

> "Apple is successful, therefore your criticism of [unrelated company and their unrelated product] is irrelevant.

I see this a lot. It is ridiculous.

It's usually put against the class of arguments that being derivative or being recombinant is in itself a valid criticism of a product. The company isn't going to give up any revenue just because it found a better target market for a similar good; and neither will accepting the existence of predecessors help the predecessors any. Not to falsely represent your point, but do you believe that changing industries makes this any less the case?

Plus the extent that Soylent is a substitute for Ensure or Boost or those peanut bars they give to starving earthquake victims isn't total: Soylent is based in consumer feedback while Ensure/Boost have stopped innovating; Soylent is aiming for use in perpetuity while Ensure/Boost are meant to be stopgap measures, etc.

I like the product a lot so I'm going to be speaking vehemently about it, but that doesn't mean I'm not open for criticism. I'm wondering what your thoughts are.

> Ensure/Boost have stopped innovating;

Untrue. Ensure keep bringing new flavours and slight changes to formulation. That's tricky to do because regulation - the fact that Soylent appear to ignore all regulation is a bug not a feature.

> Soylent is aiming for use in perpetuity while Ensure/Boost are meant to be stopgap measures,

Soylent supporters need to stop spreading this lie. It's been debunked in every single Soylent thread. It's purely dishonest FUD by now.

There are a many meal replacements out there that are meant to supplement a diet. Ensure for example is easy to find, but it's not designed to be the only thing you eat.

There are some medical products that fit the goal, but I don't know of any that are marketed to the general public. Though, if you actually have a better alternative in mind I think a lot of people here would be interested.

> Ensure for example is easy to find, but it's not designed to be the only thing you eat.

Untrue. Ensure has many different products, and many of them are complete meal replacements.

Link?

From there site: https://ensure.com/nutrition-facts-questions-answers

"Can Ensure products be used as a meal replacement or a snack? Yes, Ensure ready-to-drink shakes and drinks can be used as a snack and as an occasional meal replacement."

The fact they don't market themselves to the general public as a complete meal replacement just means they're a) aware that they're operating in a litigious market segment and b) not fucking arseholes who recognise that they have a duty of care to people who use their products.

It's telling that Soylent kickstarted with a bunch of bullshit medical claims, and that while they've dropped those claims they continue to make borderline dishonest claims.

Ensure is used as a total meal replacement for people with severe illness and for people being fed through a naso-gastric tube (sometimes against their will).

But if you're a doctor you probably one of the other Abbott brands, which have licencing and testing to support them.

http://abbottnutrition.com/brands/abbott-brands

EG: http://abbottnutrition.com/brands/products/ensure-plus-thera...

> For interim sole-source nutrition.

Jevity one of the abbot brands you mention is clearly designed for long term use as 'sole-source nutrition'. And, I am sure someone has lived off of Ensure, but just because they also sell total nutrition products does not mean Ensure was designed for that role.

Design goals matter, Jevity/Oxepa/etc being designed for feeding tube use has little focus on taste.

Another example, Osmolite is sole-source nutrition but it's low-residue which is not good for healthy people who need more fiber.

PS: You can look through there brands, but there is a reason they sell so many different kinds as they each have different trade offs.

ED: I have had significant digestive issues in the past so I have done some research into this. And, talk to a nutritionist before going on any unusual diet, it's easy to mess things up long term.

The most significant departure that Soylent takes from, say, Ensure, is that it's designed to be healthy, not simply keep you alive. e.g. Its primary fuel source is not sucrose.

Other than this, yes, it's just another liquid meal replacement.

Maybe related to 6, inexplicable anger, but 10, bad marketing.

The product's namesake reminds me too much of cannibalism, coercive social engineering, industrial meat-processing with lax oversight, and neo-Malthusianism to produce any feeling other than nausea, regardless of whether or not the name was chosen ironically.

  2. Cooking is easy and enjoyable

Okay, but what about washing dishes, and waiting in line at the grocery store, and taking out the garbage, and cleaning the refrigerator, and wasting food when you accidentally burn dinner, and when the recipe is bad, and when you botch the ingredients. And so on, and so on, and so on.

god, thank you! as an entrepreneur who has been bodybuilding for more than a decade, i have a really weird love-hate relationship with soylent. i really love the idea because its actually something i've done for myself (custom mixing meal replacement powder formulas) and considered marketing and selling, and i really hate that the soylent guy went ahead and just did it. the worst part for me is that this guy started way way behind myself (and many others who are obsessed with bodybuilding and fitness and nutrition) in terms of nutritional and dietary knowledge, which is evident from his early formulas, and yet he managed to drum up enouogh media attention that he is widely considered a pioneer in the space. i mean, meal replacement powders have existed in supplement shops for decades!

Soylent is a mediocre product with great marketing. That is unfortunately the curse of capitalism - it isn't the best product that wins, rather the best _promoted_ product that is at least barely acceptable.

On the plus side, given Soylent is mediocre, I suspect that it can only expand the market for functional foods.

"the curse of capitalism" - I guess it's the curse of the media-driven society.

There's another thing people forget, too: you're made to chew things. Chewing helps break down food for digestion, and probably more importantly generates saliva, which is also very important for initial digestion as well as oral health.

Not to mention the gut is a muscle, and muscles need exercise. Eating liquid food is probably not good in the long run for your digestive system and probably causes other problems that will be evident 5-10 years down the line or more. People were not meant to eat liquid supplement.

If this is the only problem maybe it has a solution too? It shouldn't be too hard to make a nutrient-poor spongy substrate to carry Soylent.

Or, you know, just spit into the soylent as you're constituting it?

Doesn't provide chewing or gut muscle activity.

> It's too expensive; it has the wrong nutrient balance; it's made in the wrong place

These don't sound like dealbreakers. One assumes that it can be made more cheaply with scale; with adjusted nutrient profiles; and in places where it is not currently being made.

If existing products are better, then Soylent will presumably face some problems on this stage, given that world hunger is in fact still a problem. But I don't think they'll be those ones.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com