Hacker News Reader

Comment by tokenadult | Hacker News Reader

This is perhaps the worst example of people who learn their science and medicine from reading Reddit that I have yet seen in the Hacker News community. It illustrates the fallibility of human nature behind every new business scheme, and shows that a business doesn't have to be a big, multinational publicly traded corporation to engage in business with little regard for customer safety or public benefit.

AFTER EDIT: I have read the numerous stories submitted here about this YC-affiliated company before, and, yes, I am painfully aware of the company founder's appalling lack of background in nutrition and medicine.

http://blog.soylent.me/post/51007573199/the-biggest-pivot-in...

View on HN

I find the HN hate for this guy incredible. The NSA is less loathed. Do you need to be a nutritionist with a PhD to open a restaurant? Why does he need to be one?

You don't need a nutrition Ph.D to open a restaurant, but if you are going to claim that your restaurant provides certain health benefits, or that it is specifically tailored to certain body types and lifestyles, being a trained nutritionist who can support your claims with data makes you much more credible.

Because this guy is making a fortune on a very simple and ancient idea brought into practice after some self studying.

If Soylent delivers and can be capitalized on, this guy saves the world. On an ancient idea, simplest of them all, which everyone said was impossible.

Saves the world?

Saves the fucking world?

How? People in this world suffer malnutrition because of socio-political and logistical problems. A maybe shelf stable maybe meal-replacement isn't going to solve any problems, because as is kind of a theme in this version of the soylent thread WE ALREADY HAVE THIS.

Saving the world is obviously(yes it is, lets not even argue) an extreme case formulation in this case.

My point stands, the man came up with something as ancient and as simple as "generic stuff you can just eat and get all you need without preparation or other stuff you need to ever care about", and people go absolutely nuts over it.

It is my belief that the problem is not the product, but the idea. I do not hold any qualified education to argue for or against whether or not something like that is ever possible, but considering the heated debate back and forth, to me it seems as if it's not about Soylent itself or anything, but rather about the whole principal idea.

I enjoy cooking and good food, and put some effort in what I eat and what I don't eat, so I am not even personally interested let alone invested in this. Also the marketing speeches of Soylent fixing everything are outright laughable, but I can't stop wondering the knee jerk reaction against the idea behind Soylent itself even.

Making a fortune? 500k is crowdfunding for enhancing the product and paying for clinical trials. I guess crowdfunding isn't cool anymore?

So you fail to see the market for this?

500k in croudfunding for a guy with absolutely no academic education behind the subject which by it's idea is as simple as Soylent is must surely rub the fur of a few the wrong way. "It just can't work!".

Yeah, I'm pretty sure that you don't actually know where this guy learned his science and medicine. Let people experiment on themselves. IMO there are enough humans that if a few get slightly ill from this, it is worth it for the chance that it does work (which seems significant given the experimentation he did on himself, the presence of similar, competing products, etc.).

One of the reasons we have consumer protection laws and the FDA is so that people _don't_ have to experiment on themselves in order to verify the more extravagant claims made by products.

People should have a reasonable expectation that when they buy a product, it will work as expected and as advertised. And they should have recourse if this turns out not to be the case.

I'd totally have a problem with this if it were being advertised as a highly tested, rock solid product rather than a nutritional experiment. Since that's not the case, I'm fine with it.

From the crowd funding page:

> For anyone who struggles with allergies, heartburn, acid reflux or digestion, has trouble controlling weight or cholesterol, or simply doesn't have the means to eat well, soylent is for you.

> Soylent frees you from the time and money spent shopping, cooking and cleaning, puts you in excellent health,

> By taking years to spoil

> The founders and scores of DIYers have been living on Soylent for months and there is much evidence that is considerably healthier than a typical diet.

There's no mention on the crowd-funding page that this is an experiment.

I tend to agree with you - people can do what they like with their bodies and this product would fit a lot better if it was sold as an experiment, with access to discussion forums and etc.

I notice they now have a disclaimer on that page.

I think we are more aware of the product's experimental nature due to having read and discussed his blogs. I'm not sure that reading the sales page discloses this as much.

It definitely doesn't look like an experiment. There is no data collection, no controls, no clear or explicit warning that the product is untested.

They're not selling it as an untested, risky, experiment.

They're selling it as tested, as safe, as suitable for anyone, and as something that will put you in optimum health. It's sleazy and scummy.

Rob Rhinehart's bio starts: "Rob is a Y Combinator alumnus with professional experience in electrical engineering, computer science and entrepreneurship."

If he had some powerful degree in nutrition or a medical degree, it would be mentioned in this sentence. It's not. He doesn't.

And he's not experimenting on himself. He's selling a product that he's advertising as a food replacement with all sorts of health benefits.

As far as "it's cool if a few people get sick..." Are you insane?

The person I'm responding to claimed that he learned the science from Reddit. I am not claiming he learned it in medical school. I'm claiming that there's no evidence he got it from Reddit.

> As far as "it's cool if a few people get sick..." Are you insane?

They know what they are getting themselves into. I don't have any problem with people who choose to binge drink or the alcohol manufacturers that sell that product. If people know what they are getting themselves into -- and they'd have to go out of their way to not know with this product -- I'm normally OK with the outcome. Especially if the probable worst-case outcome is a few months of suboptimal nutrition followed by a return to a normal diet. Nope, not insane.

Really? I've got to explain the difference between something touted as a health supplement / meal replacement and booze? (Which, if you'll notice, is covered in warnings and regulated out the wazoo.)

> I've got to explain the difference between . . .

My point is merely that I'm fine with people choosing to do risky things as long as the risk involved is obvious. I'd be a little more comfortable with this campaign page if they made slightly less grandiose promises, but for the most part I think the people ordering it will be aware of the shallowness of the testing so far and can decide for themselves if that is a risk they are willing to accept.

Despite my snark, I do understand what you're saying. It's the "as long as the risk involved is obvious" part that bothers me. Soylent has had a presence on sites like Hacker News, so we kind of know what it's about. But not everyone does. And I really do believe that honest food labeling is very, very important.

They're passing this off as a cure. That's what really irks me. None of the presentation I've seen so far communicates "participate in our experiment!" It's all stuff like "For anyone who struggles with allergies, heartburn, acid reflux or digestion, has trouble controlling weight or cholesterol, or simply doesn't have the means to eat well, soylent is for you." That's a health claim they simple can't back up in any reasonable way. And it's a claim that many people are likely to assume is true! Not everyone will dig into the site and see that Rhinehart has a background in engineering, not nutrition, and that these claims haven't actually been backed up at all. You and I might know to do that, but many people won't. Which is why we have food labeling laws in the first place.

I agree that that sentence is very unfortunate. It's in total contradiction to what they say below, which is that Soylent has not been evaluated by the FDA to treat any disease.

> and they'd have to go out of their way to not know with this product

Can you show me where "experimental" is used on the crowd-funding page? (https://campaign.soylent.me/soylent-free-your-body)

>it is worth it for the chance that

Whats the value here? This is just another proprietary nutrient slurry. We already have those.

I agree with the first part of your comment. But let's not play up his self-experimentation as anything more than whimsical. His result are not significant in any way. Ffs he has been on it for how long? Months? Maybe a year? And n=1 as well.

Right, for me "chance that this does work" is valued somewhere around 5-25% right now. It is worth that chance for more people to try it and really see.

His research is terrible. He is missing several key ingredients.

Absolutely. It's one thing to experiment with your own body, it something else entirely to sell a product with no scientific backing as a cure-all for all variety of ailments.

I'm really interested in learning more. I like the concept but am also wary of the science behind it. Is there a legitimate/credible scientific review of it out there?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com