Hacker News Reader

Comment by Analemma_ | Hacker News Reader

I don't think that's quite the same thing though, at least not for Slim-Fast (I haven't heard of the others). Soylent claims to be nutritionally complete-- as in, you could theoretically live off it alone-- and Slim-Fast does not. I was looking for a competing product along those lines.

View on HN

>Soylent claims to be nutritionally complete-- as in, you could theoretically live off it alone-- and Slim-Fast does not.

Soylent can claim what they wish. When it comes to my health, I think I'm going to hedge towards the side that doesn't purport to be everything your body needs for nutrition in powder form, crafted by people with little nutritional science background.

That's an interesting point of view. Sort of like, when it comes to wiring up my new house, I'm going to go with the guy who doesn't purport to be a licensed electrician.

...sarcasm?

purport: appear or claim to be or do something, especially falsely; profess.

Would you choose the guy who _purports_ to be an electrician, or the guy who _is_ a licensed electrician?

I would go with the guy who _purports_ to be an electrician, over the guy who specifically states that he is not an electrician. That is the comparison when you say "I am going to trust Slim Fast as a meal replacement over Soylent." I used purport because that was the word originally used, but the "falsely" part doesn't apply here, there is no evidence that Soylent isn't healthy, and lots of evidence that it is.

>I would go with the guy who _purports_ to be an electrician, over the guy who specifically states that he is not an electrician.

I wouldn't hire either without seeing some legitimate qualifications.

But it has what plants crave - electrolytes!

There are plenty of medical sole source of nutrition products available, catering to a range of different dietary needs.

That they don't advertise to the general public; or don't say "you can live off this and nothing else" says something about Soylent's unethical marketing.

The Ensure range is easiest to get hold of for the general public. (Ensure and Ensure Plus are sometimes used as sole source nutrition in forced NG tube feeding for hunger-striking prisoners or eating disordered patients.)

"Ensure and Ensure Plus are sometimes used as sole source nutrition in forced NG tube feeding for hunger-striking prisoners..."

Now there's a good brand differentiator...hang on, I have a Wikipedia page to improve.

"unethical marketing"? Please explain..

During the kickstarter they made a number of bullshit claims: "puts you in perfect health"; "perfectly safe for anyone"; they claimed rigorous testing which appeared to be one person living off it for a few months; they advertise it as a sole source of nutrition without any real testing.

This just seems to be a biased claim that Soylent hasn't done any "real testing". Do you have evidence of that? Soylent has been out for years and a lot of people have been drinking 100% Soylent for a long time now.

They hadn't done any testing during the kickstarter, and even if they had saying it was fine for anyone to use (the original recipe contained known allergens) and that it puts you into perfect health are clearly bullshit.

(EDIT: I don't know why you're being downvoted. I upvoted you to try to correct that.)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com