Soylent 1.0 arrives at Ars: We mix it up and slurp it down | Hacker News Reader

Soylent 1.0 arrives at Ars: We mix it up and slurp it down

arstechnica.com

141 pointssunsu176 comments

The gas comment and upsetting of irregularity might seem humorous to the author, but as a biologist and the child of two physicians (one being a gastroenterologist), this seems very disconcerting. Certain foods that contain disproportionate amounts of certain ingredients (e.g. spices, excessive starches, excessive dietary fiber) do upset bowel movement patterns, but a mix of vitamins and nutrients shouldn't do that. It would be interesting to analyze the effects of a protein shake on bowel regularity and the effects of Soylent on bowel regularity on a single subject, and then compare the two.

Also, foul-smelling gas is usually caused when the balance of the gut microbiome is disturbed in some significant way, and this factor combined with the effects described by the author make me very anxious about the probable proliferation of Soylent. It's one thing for short-term effects, but what about Soylent in the long term? A hampered gut microbiome is severely detrimental to the health of a person's immune system.

EDIT: Just saw the amount of sucralose in each serving. Makes the gut irregularity a lot clearer. Still concerning, though.

There is also a adjustment period for any new diet, especially one as radically different as this one. Many of the folks who have been going the DIY route (http://diy.soylent.me/) have had this kind of thing happen to them. However, it normally clears up after the first week.

The sucralose will certainly retain some of the irregularity, but I believe it will adjust to it over time as well.

Another explanation for the increase in gas and change in regularity might be that Soylent contains a fair amount of fibre, which is one thing that the typical American diet is lacking.

In that case a possible solution would be several drops of beano per can.

Interesting comment. I like the idea of Soylent but would never use it because of the malodextrin and sucralose. If it had some other (better) complex carbohydrate and stevia, then I might consider it.

I am still amazed that this product is attracting some much attention. This product is crap, born out of plain gross ignorance.

- Completely useless source of Vitamin D (D2 instead of D3).

- All K1, nothing of K2.

- Alpha-tocopherol as the only source of Vitamin E family (4 tocopherols and 4 tocotrienols)

- Retinol as the only source of Vitamin A (80% should come from mixed carotenoids)

- Iron ???? You should NEVER supplement with iron (probably the same for copper)

- Inferior form of Magnesium (oxide). Should use citrate, or some chelated form.

I would go on and on all day long with this but it is the missing ingredients what is really disturbing:

Macro (carbs,protein and fat) plus micro (vitamins, minerals and trace elements) are just the tip of the iceberg when we talk about healthy nutrition. Where are all the phytonutrients (flavonoids, glucosinolates, phytoestrogens, carotenoids, etc) ? They are a "non nutritive", bioactive little molecules that make the fine tuning (read anti-cancer, immune system potentiators, etc) within our body. They are not essential for life, but they are indeed essential for health and longevity. There are 20.000+ known phytonutrients and it is now clear that they work together in synergistic fashion to provide their health benefits. Macros are as a good as the phytonutrients that come with them.

Phytonutrients are those little resistors, condensers and little chips you see in the motherboard that doesn't really get into the spec sheets: They seem to do nothing, but try to remove them and see your CPU blow up.

I go shopping once per-week and I can make a rare steak with sea salt and a big fresh spinach+tomato+olive oil+vinegar salad in 3 minutes, chronometer in hand. Liver with onions - once per week - take 20 minutes to prepare but it pays off: A authentic nutrient powerhouse.

I do love supplements, but I use them the way they are meant to be used: as supplements.

> I can make a rare steak with sea salt and a big fresh spinach+tomato+olive oil+vinegar salad in 3 minutes

Not really. You spend additional time shopping for it, taking a break from other things, cleaning after, washing up, etc. That was one of the points of creating the product in the first place - dealing with food every day is boring for some people, so let's try to eliminate it.

True. In my case, I enjoy shopping at farmer´s market. It is a great time for my family and my kids really enjoy it.

Note that I am not against eliminating boredom from food. I am against a poorly designed product that cannot possibly replace a whole-food diet. Not even close, but close enough to keep you alive, and IMHO, that´s a great irresponsibility.

But most people don't eat a carefully balanced whole-food diet. It doesn't need to be perfect - it needs to be as good as what people would otherwise eat.

This is sadly true. Replacing equals things here: crap food replaced by a crap supplement (or meal replacement or whatever).

You are right here and I am out of arguments in this direction. I really mean it.

> You should NEVER supplement with iron (probably the same for copper)

One should also never take zero iron. While the high doses of iron that one gets when one takes supplementary iron as well as dietary iron are undesirable, in this case, this is the sole source of iron in the diet.

---

I do agree somewhat with the (very common, they've heard it all before) "missing substance" argument.

Personally I'm excited as to the results of this uncontrolled large scale experiment -- this is a unique opportunity with willing participants which has the opportunity to change our understanding of things the body needs.

I'll stick with my DIY whole foods variant, thank you very much.

I see you hold strong opinions (I am very critical of Soylent myself), but it might be wise to re-visit the evidence for some of your strongly-held assertions --otherwise you might end up misinforming others, and yourself.

For instance, what you say about 'NEVER supplement[ing] with iron' is quite wrong. Iron deficiency anemia is quite common, especially for young women; and it is routinely treated by iron supplementation [1], even over-the-counter: if anything, iron's bioavailability in adults is very low, and it is difficult to exceed safe levels (although it's the opposite for children) [2].

Also Vitamin D2 is not useless at all. Even though some recent studies have shown some limited evidence that D3 is stronger and longer-acting; decades of clinical practice have shown the safety and efficacy of high-dose D2 in treating severe vitamin D deficiency [3]. It's disingenuous to say otherwise.

And... what you say about Vitamin K1 vs K2 is also far from well-established. Putting aside the fact that actual clinical vitamin K deficiency is extremely rare in the first place, K1 is the most commonly used form for a reason: even though there has been some recent work indicating possible differences in bioavailability and function on the part of K2; current knowledge is still very limited, and there is not enough evidence to displace K1 as the main formulation approved for dietary supplements [1,2].

I could go on and on with other inaccuracies in what you said, but you get the idea.

Also be careful with overdoing that liver with onions habit. Even though animal river is very rich in iron and copper (which likely explains part of how you feel after eating it); it also happens to contain high amounts of vitamin A in retinoid (retinol) form, which as you correctly point out should be taken in moderation due to their much higher bioavailability vis a vis carotenoids, thus increasing its potential toxicity [7].

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_supplement

[2] http://www.webmd.com/vitamins-and-supplements/lifestyle-guid...

[3] http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/589256_4

[4] http://www.ilsi.org/Europe/Documents/Menaquinones%20and%20hu...

[5] http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/scdocs/doc/nda_op_ej822_vit_k2_...

[6] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liver_(food)

[7] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitamin_A#Equivalencies_of_reti...

Great review.

I should have pointed out that we are talking about healthy subjects here. People with anemia should take iron supplements. I am with you here. Same for people with severe vit D. deficiency. In this case, any form of vit. D will benefit them.

Thanks for the advice about the liver. I only take it once a week and a very limited amount (maybe 70-80 grams). In this case, my main course if basmatic rice with the liver for some fantastic flavoring.

Yeap, I love eating real food.

Oh ok, got you. Thank you for clarifying.

Sure! As long as that's not polar bear liver [1]; you be mindful of other unlikely dietary sources of unusually high retinol content like sweet potatoes, pumpkins or cod liver oil [2]; and keep up with regular check-ups; you'll surely avoid hypervitaminosis A.

[1] http://www.patient.co.uk/doctor/Hypervitaminosis.htm

[2] http://bestnaturalfoods.com/newsletter/vitamin-a-too-much.ht...

Case in point to show how I use supplements: My kids won´t take liver, no matter how hard I try to "hide" it. So, I give them 1/4 teaspoon per week of cod liver oil (green pastures, fermented).

Again, it´s not the supplements; it´s the product.

Regarding vitamin D, I would add that the only way to make sure your vitamin D level is sufficient is to get tested. Relying on the DRI alone will leave some people insufficient. I expect that many Soylent users will be insufficient and maybe deficient in vitamin D, not because of any failing on Soylent's part, but because this is already true for a random selection of the non-Soylent-using population. Dark-skinned individuals, obese individuals, and people with very little sun exposure (or living at a high latitude) are more likely to be deficient.

Practically speaking, this means: during your next annual physical, make sure your doctor tests your vitamin D along with your other bloodwork. The correct test is called 25(OH)D. Your insurance should cover it. (I am making an assumption about how privileged most HNers are.) Aim for a blood level of 30-40 ng/mL. <20 ng/mL is deficient, >=30 is sufficient, while >40 is probably pushing it, i.e. observational studies suggest that mortality starts to increase slightly around that point. A level greater than 50 ng/mL is almost certainly excessive, though still not close to toxicity. Some people argue for supplementing enough vitamin D to achieve higher blood levels (>40 ng/mL), but IMO the evidence doesn't support doing this and it might be harmful.

If you know how, it's surprising how deliciously and nutritiously you can eat for ~$10/day, which is what Soylent currently costs. Doing so does require cooking and a bit of planning. Obviously, filet mignon is off the menu, but you'd be surprised what still is. Also, (properly chosen) real food is proven while Soylent is not.

So, what is the niche for Soylent?

People who know about nutrition know that you probably shouldn't trust the claims Soylent makes until it's been on the market for a while. People who know how and are willing to cook economically probably don't want to risk their health on an unproven product that won't save them money (currently). People who are largely ignorant of nutrition and eat ramen and Kraft Dinner daily probably won't want to give up the taste they'd be missing out on, nor pay extra for it.

There are a few crazy people who will adopt Soylent as their primary staple, but the majority of business will likely be from people looking for novelty or an occasional time-saving meal replacement. Basically the meal-shake crowd. What's the best way to appeal to this segment? Claim that your product can be eaten daily without causing health-problems, just as Soylent is currently doing. Future variants might include calorically reduced versions for the diet crowd or a protein-boosted version for the (wannabe)body-builder crowd. There's plenty of commercial opportunity here.

Will Soylent actually change the world for the poor though? If they can bring the price down Soylent might make a difference with the educated poor, but that's a very small segment of the population. The uneducated poor will gravitate towards food that tastes better.

I find the "soylent is cheap and $10 a day" message very weird too.

$10 per person per day (in multi-month bulk, it $12.15 per day for a weekly supply) is on the expensive side for grocery shopping. If your goal is nutritious thriftiness, $2-5 per day is a very achievable goal. If you want cheap on a global "nutrition-crisis" level, $0.30-$2 is the goal. I've hear soylent mentioned in that context too.

It's only "cheap" when compared to eating out which seems like a very disingenuous comparison.

I'm not dismissing soylent. I'd be interested in trying it. But, calling it cheap is crazy.

I agree.

About 20% of the world lives on less than 1.25USD per day. About one billion people do not have access to clean drinking water.

Here's what the World Food Programme does. https://www.wfp.org/nutrition/how-wfp-fights-malnutrition

This page includes some pricing information for the products they use. https://www.wfp.org/nutrition/special-nutritional-products

I feel that Soylent making claims about World Hunger is just another claim they pulled from the air, with very little knowledge of the work needed, but which sounds good to supporters.

http://povertydata.worldbank.org/poverty/home

http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/mdg1/en/

I spend more than $10/day on lunch alone. Without eating out.

"Cheap" varies greatly by location, and expectation, and how much time you're willing to put into cutting cost. And if you're considering Soylent, presumably spending lots of time planning out your meal is probably not high on your list of desirable activities (I could probably easily cut my lunch cost, but I value the time it'd take at more than my potential savings)..

Sure.

$100 is a lot less than some other people spend on lunch. Bench pressing 100kg is easy for some people. I wouldn't call it light. When you say something is "cheap" it's always relative.

But, there is within the bounds of regular conversation there are some assumptions you make about things. If you say this jar of powdered chocolate beverage is cheap, I will assume you mean relative to coffee, tea or something else I'm likely to make at home and not relative to a barrister coffee or a martini in bar.

Here I think the logical comparison is other powdered foods (slim fast, protein shakes, weight gainers, etc) or grocery shopping.

> Here I think the logical comparison is other powdered foods (slim fast, protein shakes, weight gainers, etc) or grocery shopping.

Then, let me repeat myself: I spend $10/day on lunch based on grocery shopping. Easily.

There are certainly many parts of the world where $10/day for Soylent would not be competitive at all. And it certainly would be less competitive for people who value their time low enough to spend time keeping the cost down (I could probably cut 1/3 of my lunch bill by going to the cheaper grocery store 5-10 minutes away rather than the one downstairs from the office; and I could cut quite a bit off the bill by spending time finding the cheapest lunch meat, and the cheapest bread etc., but I won't).

But the point remains, that while $10/day may sound expensive, in many locations it is not, and even less so when comparing with "shopping as quickly as possible" vs. bargain hunting.

Where are you shopping?

I can't even buy the ingredients for one meal for $10 that'll serve two people.

I live in Ireland. Food is expensive here relative to most benchmarks.

At my local (small & expensive) €10 will get you a kg of potatoes (€1), A head of broccoli (€2), a kg of carrots (€1) and a delicious whole cooked chicken (€6) - that's euros, but it will feed 4. Cook you own chicken or drive to a proper supermarket and you can make it dollars or get some chocolate. Spaghetti with meatballs would feed the family for half that.

Seriously though I'm surprised at this thread. Most of the world eats for under $1 per day. I assume that the median family of 4 in the US isn't spending much more than $5 per homecooked meal (X 3 X 4 X 7 = $420 per week) because they don't have the income for it.

In order to have nutritious very cheap food the "make it yourself from cooked ingredients" way, you need:

- Large amounts of skill in planning, choosing, preparing, and cooking ingredients. The fact that you absorbed those household skills by watching your mom doesn't make them trivial. Many people have no such skill.

- Free time to do the work of sourcing, preparation, cooking and cleaning. (Not always available to people who work as many jobs as they can or have kids.)

- Predictability of demand and usable time (often not available to "casual" workers).

- Good project-management skills, to bring ingredients together in usable form at the right time.

- A location that conveniently offers the ingredients you need (rather than a food desert), at their optimal prices (rather than marked up).

- Enough knowledge of basic nutrition to balance the meals you make over the long term.

- Enough knowledge of food risks to not poison yourself (easily done with raw meat, undercooked beans, etc).

- As a nice-to-have, enough actual skill cooking to make it taste good.

My cooking skills are pretty much non-existent.

But anybody (and I really mean anybody except for people that can not take care of themselves at all) can learn how to cook a quick and healthy meal. The amount of skill required for healthy eating is almost nil, we're not talking 5 course meals here.

Worst case bail-out (still a lot more tasty than sludge, and a lot cheaper too) is that old bachelors stand-by, the omelet. Slightly more advanced, pastas and salads. You'll be doing fine like that if you combine that with fresh fruit, maybe some nuts, milk/yoghurt and the occasional piece of meat/chicken/fish (well done, if you're panicky about the risks involved in preparing those).

Ok, true, you probably need a fridge if you want to economize on the cost part and if you live in a place with lots of others there might be trouble from that angle. (student dormitories for instance, assuming they allow cooking).

AKA, the basic knowledge that at least one person in every household (but usually everyone) since the dawn of humanity has been expected to know.

Oh, expected is it? Is the mere expectation enough to make the knowledge jump into their head? Your privilege is showing.

Yes. I am drawing the line at feeding yourself. Everyone must be able to make a snack without poisoning themselves.

> Your privilege is showing.

Well, perhaps if the sort of folks who yap about privilege hadn't spent the last four decades doing their damnedest to destroy the system in which, yes, the vast majority of households had at least one member (but probably several) who had the appropriate skills, then we wouldn't have this kind of mess.

I would dearly love to be able to get the sort of job where I create problems, then make money by talking about them.

From the discussion I've seen here Soylent seems to have hit on a market for 'efficiency of prep and consumption'. I've seen a lot of people comment to the effect they don't want to think about food, they don't care to enjoy what they eat, they just want it to be a solved problem requiring no thought. Beside the health impact of single-source nutrition or the possible savings I would actually like to see if this feeling has any measurable truth to it. It 'feels' like I maybe spend time on food I could be spending on other things, but is this an opportunity to reclaim valuable time or would I just use the extra time to browse HN or some other browsing?

Does it necessarily have to be an all-or-nothing approach? I have time to cook and eat whole food on weekends. 5 days of the week I'd just like to slurp and go.

If you have time (and the will) to cook on the weekend why don't you cook food for the entire week and just reheat your meals?

That requires a great deal more planning and time.

I definitely think the workweek rush propagates the idea of 'I wish I could get my food-related time back', so I imagine it could see a lot of success as a work-lunch/home-from-work dinner type product alright.

> So, what is the niche for Soylent?

Not requiring cooking or planning. According to the article, the aim is also to lower the product's price to ~1/6 of the current:

> Rhinehart wants to drive the cost down even further so that it can eventually compete with "rice and beans" (the price of which of course varies across the world, but a target of about $1.50 per day per person wouldn’t be out of line).

I'm traveling via motorcycle this summer across the US and plan to eat Soylent for around 70% of my meals. I don't trust myself to plan, carry, take time to prepare and cook well balanced meals for ~60 days of traveling. Even freeze dried meals seem likely less balanced than this, and still take up more time/space.

I doubt I'm the target market, but it seems a perfect target for those traveling.

> Doing so does require cooking and a bit of planning.

That's the niche. Soylent solves that problem.

But there are already food replacement shakes - a couple days a week I usually drink an Ensure. Why should I consider Soylent instead?

I have no idea. I'd probably pick Ensure as well, I think it's cheaper per can and less hassle.

Actually, I have lived off of Ensure before. When I had my wisdom teeth yanked, they had to break my lower jaw to get them out (it was a big deal with a specialist and general anesthesia and everything). I could open my jaw for about 3 months and lived off of a diet of only Ensure for the entire time. I actually put on a few pounds believe it or not during this time.

Ensure has a lot more sugar than Soylent, doesn't it?

Yes, I think it might be cheaper for the 'poor' to buy the ingredients separately themselves and prepare the drink (or cook the food) themselves. Since Soylent must cost as much as it's raw materials plus preparation and transportation costs.

To be economical for the 'poor', not only must the Soylent company must be able to acquire the ingredients at a cheaper price than the 'poor' can, the difference must also be greater than the cost of Soylent's preparation and extra leg transportation between where the ingredients are bought and where Soylent is prepared.

Until Soylent can be prepared from raw industrial chemicals, of course!

The other problem that doesn't tend to get addressed in this sort of discussion of nutritional-supplements-for-the-poor-masses is that you still need to mix it with water. The poorest places have a lot of problems getting water that's safely drinkable and cases of supplement don't really help them (see also the issue of baby formula in the developing world).

Honestly, this idea that soylent is a solution to famine strikes me as a bit absurd.

Besides that, food and the process of eating is not just physical and chemical, it is also psychological and social. Could you meet the bare-bones nutritional requirements of the homeless by replacing soup kitchens with soylent kitchens? Probably. And I'm sure you could even serve them with hot bowls of soylent. But handing someone an actual meal, with food prepared by someone who wants to help them, will, without a doubt, provide much more emotional and and therapeutic benefit than will handing them a pouch of powder and a spoon. The whole concept of soylent smells like a halfassed answer to a barely understood problem from a cut-rate engineer.

Soylent should be able to get industrial quantity discounts. a poor person is paying retail. And urban retail is no-where near wholesale (rent/overheads).

Soylent is economic in the sense mentioned in the article--low time spent shopping and no waste.

The scalability limitation on soy-lent is that most people will not be able to eat "something that tastes like cake batter" for 90 meals in a row (one month). There is plenty of evidence for this.

So, until they find a way to deal with "palatability" (its more than just variety), the ultimate upside potential will be limited.

But there are plenty of people making money off off of niche and novelty consumption specialty retail.

The niche is for hipster-nerds who want to have something "cool" that defines their personality. It's kind of like kids who work so hard to look like they haven't brushed their hair: "I just don't care what society thinks about me." It's no different than "I just don' care what food tastes like. whips carefully combed bangs out of face Pshah, I just totally don't have time to make food, you know? Like, I'm totally building this rad web app, you know, for the modern generation. You just don't get it, man, food is like, totally mainstream."

> Doing so does require cooking and a bit of planning. ... So, what is the niche for Soylent?

Bam, there's the niche right there! At least for me, laziness is the reason. I want to eat decently, but sometimes I don't want to stop working, I usually don't want to cook, and I don't always want to go out and grab fast food or have something delivered. So if I can mix a decent-tasting, filling shake quickly, that's a great thing. Bonus points since that shake will probably be better for me than some frozen dinner or fatty sandwich from a drive-thru.

The problem with this sort of dismissal of Soylent is that it has already sold several million dollars worth of product (while openly marketing itself as a meal replacement tool, and not an occasional meal-shake). So there's a flaw somewhere in your reasoning.

  > So, what is the niche for Soylent?

Maybe as an alternative to medical meal substitutes (like jevity?)?

I'm bothered by the amount of maltodextrin. (Among other things. But this jumps out at me.) Assuming this is correct:

http://blog.soylent.me/post/68180382810/soylent-1-0-macronut...

That's a lot. As you can see it's the #1 ingredient in Soylent:

http://blog.soylent.me/post/74770956256/soylent-1-0-final-nu...

They claim that the overall glycemic index (with fiber, etc.) is "rather low", but I can't find fasting vs. postprandial glucose readings that would substantiate this. By itself, maltodextrin has a rather high GI. I do see that Rhinehart posted about this concern a while back:

http://discourse.soylent.me/t/effects-of-soylent-on-diabetic...

...but does anyone have more recent info? Without more data, diabetics and prediabetics should best avoid this for now.

edit: A clarification - blood glucose testing won't actually tell you the product's GI, of course. And the important number to look at is glycemic load, but that is easy to calculate given GI. The Soylent folks have not yet shared the GI afaik. (They would need to send it to a lab for testing.) Diabetics should already be monitoring their glucose levels anyway, so I assume they will figure out pretty quickly if this stuff spikes their blood sugar. It's not something you would want to replace all your meals with if that is the case!

Whether or not you are diabetic, it would be a good idea to go to your doctor and get complete bloodwork done before you start using this if you are planning to drink the stuff on a daily basis and especially if you replace the majority of your meals. Get tested for the sort of things they check when you get a physical, but within a few months leading up to the point you start Soylenting. Test again 6-12 months after you start and compare the numbers, then kindly make a spreadsheet or something and share your results.

I've heard that they had no nutritionists onboard...

Not that I think Soylent is a good idea, but a nutritionist is not a well defined profession or qualification in the way the a medical doctor is.

So if the people involved in this project consider themselves qualified in the field of nutrition, I don't see how that makes them different to anyone else speaking or giving advice on the subject.

A big organization with lots of money doesn't automatically make a group of people a legitimate authority on anything. After all, you can get all sorts of qualifications in things that are clearly quackery, e.g. homeopathy.

That's false a dietitian has several requirements and while less than a doctor it's on par with a RN. Initial collage level education + test + continuing education credits. http://www.eatright.org/Public/content.aspx?id=6442472286

http://education-portal.com/rn_requirements.html

This is not correct, they have been working with them for a while now:

http://blog.soylent.me/post/61556254347/9-15-weekly-recap

False: perhaps they had no accredited nutritionists. The founder has claimed to have read several texts.

Reading several texts makes one a nutritionist?

Sorry but non-accredited nutritionists don't count as nutritionists.

They do. It's like art. The protected term is dietitian.

This isn't the office, and it's not reddit either.

Please stop it with the Dwight references. I beg of you.

Your karma wallet does the same.

That's a great writeup.

I can't wait to try mine once it arrives!

I almost forgot about the project and basically just wrote it off as $65 down the drain when they surprisingly emailed me earlier this week saying it had been shipped out.

Funny how the $65 still ends up going down the drain one way or another when you spend it on edible products.

I am curious about their project from a legal standpoint.

I live in another country and basically just clicked through some acceptance forms and sent them the money what seems like over a year ago now.

What happens to the soylent company if I die after ingesting it for a week or a month straight? Even if it wasn't what actually killed me?

On another note... after having done some research into making my dog's food... isn't soylent basically just dog food for humans? They take all the right amounts of industrial grade vitamins, mix it together with a substrate, and bake it into kibble bits.

Is soylent just kibble without the baking?

It's more like a meal replacement shake than dog food. It's very much like Ensure or Jevity or whatever. All of those do the same basic thing of trying to cover basic nutritional requirements.

The big difference is the marketing. Most of those products assumed you were either unable to eat or trying to lose weight. Soylent is roughly the same product but marketed to people who aren't interested in eating.

I think there's a significant difference in that Ensure and Jevity aren't meant to be sustainable as a long term food source, and don't optimize for cost per meal.

There are very many products that are complete nutrition sources.

The fact that the manufacturers fear the regulators enough to slap disclaimers on the products and to carefully differentiate between over the counter product and specialist medical product should give Soylent users paise for thought.

Those companies, with dietitians and registered nutritionists and years of data from patients know that patients need careful monitoring.

There must be some long term solution that exists already.

Think about people in comas, people who have parts of their jaw removed due to various oral and throat cancers.

If they can get the price down I'd probably try it too. Can't be worse than a protein shake as a post-workout supplement.

people like that are often times under medical care, and have very little physical activity. Nutrition is an easier thing to balance with the aid of daily blood testing and a low caloric requirement.

As someone who experienced the reality of tube feeding, it's not so easy as a single product. I was given supplemental amino acids, fish oils and vitamin boosters which were powdered and mixed with sterile water before use, alongside whatever the meal supplementation was during that day (things similar to ensure)

http://www.amazon.com/s/?&field-keywords=tube+feeding+formul...

It's not exactly expensive, not that I'd recommend trying it.

Yea really, you want to live off of an IV drip and never move?

Go for it, you will probably survive. Just not experiencing a very fulfilling life.

Well, if you have an Oculus Rift, you can jack into the Matrix.

I realize that it's not literally dog food.

By "dog food", I was referring to kibble and how it's made (and demonized in our culture because of it). Nothing more.

   isn't soylent basically just dog food for humans?

Pretty much, but that doesn't turn me off to it - hopefully they make a spinoff breakfast cereal and call it Bachelor Chow.

Apparently that name is already used for a popular DIY variant of Soylent.[1][2]

[1] http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2014/05/12/140512fa_fact_...

[2] http://diy.soylent.me/recipes/basic-complete-soylent-bachelo...

It hasn't turned me off of the idea, either.

It's just that all of the "high grade dog food" vendors call bloody-murder over the fact that we're feeding our dogs industrial chemicals and that doing so just couldn't possibly be healthy for the dogs.

I'm actually curious to try out "dog food for humans" and if I feel as good or better... I'm stopping the extra time, money and work involved in making my own dog food and feeding her kibble with the occasional piece of meat now and then.

What a relief that would be!

> What happens to the soylent company if I die after ingesting it for a week or a month straight? Even if it wasn't what actually killed me?

What happens if you eat the same thing at the same restaurant for every meal and die after a week?

I'm not aware of any restaurant that claims to be a total replacement for other meals elsewhere.

1) It's a really silly claim, as a restaurant doesn't offer the convenience that people are willing to divide their flavor/food-enjoyment with that Soylent does if you must travel to it.

2) There is little benefit to making claims that can be used against an organization if the claims don't also offer a boost to some other aspect of that organization. "Eat here for every meal" offers little to a restaurant except for the chance to get sued by an unhappy/unhealthy patron.

Hmm, interesting, I ordered month supply (I guess their month consists of 28 days) later in the game and haven't got shipping notification.

Mini-survey: if you ordered, have you got yours already?

I have not, and I ordered more.

The vegans all got their orders first, so the gp could be vegan. Also, some people like Lee Hutchinson at Ars got their order more quickly because they are press and/or work for a business Rosa Labs (Soylent company) has or wants a relationship with. This is not supposition, but stated by their VP of Communication in their online forum.

What country do you live in? Are you using a reshipping service? I thought they weren't mailing out international orders until later in the year.

I live in Canada.

But when I realized there was going to be a delay (and added cost) I had them ship it to a friend in the states whom I regularly visit.

According to their facebook page, you are correct. There is a delay in shipping international orders.

> That's a great writeup.

Seriously ? This was more like one of the numerous rants from bloggers here and there trying solvent. I don't even know what this is doing on Ars, which has usually much better editorial work applied to their articles. This was poor in information and also felt like advertising.

How is Soylent any different than mass gainer products or protein+carbs supplements like muscle milk?

Yeah I know, it cost 5 times more, taste worse and gives you tons of gas.

So why should I buy it over well known products?

You can't live off those products alone, you would miss out on important nutrients. AFAIK Soylent is a food replacement.

You cant live HEALTHY on soylent alone also. Soylent have more ingridients but half of them are bad choices and low quality. I do not grasp why people are hooked on this. You do not need to know much aboit nutrition to see that this is a bad idea and bad execution.

People are "hooked" on this because it's something they want (a meal-replacement) or find interesting.

You say it's a bad idea, but don't explain why. I can believe it's a bad implementation, but that's exactly why people are interested in Soylent: they want to know if it works, if it's safe, etc.

> You can't live off those products alone, you would miss out on important nutrients.

As you would with Soylent, as others have pointed out in detailed analysis of how it provides, in many nutrient categories, only a single (and often the least useful) one of a broad group of related nutrients.

> AFAIK Soylent is a food replacement.

Well, its marketed that way. That doesn't mean its actually good for that.

Take vitamins, take fish oil and you'll be fine. You can't live on just Soylent either. (Unless you chained up in dark room with Soylent as the only food available)

How do you know you can't live on just Soylent? Their CEO has been doing it for months.

Correction: "Their CEO states that he has been doing it for months".

That´s why "metabolic wards" were invented for: Clinical trials with diets are extremely difficult to control.

All we know is that this one guy has survived on it for months. How will his health be after 5 years? 10 years? Both if he stops now and if he continues. Nobody knows.

And that assumes that everyone is the same as this guy.

Yes, nobody knows, that's why it's interesting to see instead of prematurely declare it impossible.

"Nobody knows" and "interesting to see" are very different to the claims made by Soylent:

"You can finally join the easy, healthy, and affordable future of nutrition."

"What if you never had to worry about food again?"

"For anyone that 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." (this one is clearly making medical claims and I am amazed that Soylent avoided regulators)

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

"there is much evidence that it is considerably healthier than a typical diet."

People can do what they like with their bodies but the Soylent founders were shady by making these nonsense claims during fundraising.

Sure, but ceasarby didn't raise issues about Soylent's claims, s/he wrote "You can't live on just Soylent either.", and that's the post being replied to.

I don't understand.

You claim that Soylent is a fun experiment. Soylent don't. Soylent claim that you can replace all your food with this forever.

When someone says "you can't live off Soylent" and someone replies that it's a fun experiment letting people know the lies and misrepresentations from the producers of Soylent is a valid response. Soylent is not being marketed as an experimental product woth some risk. Soylent is being marketed as a finished product that has health benefits.

I do understand. That just wasn't what was under discussion here. The back-and-forth was about the possibility of living on Soylent-the-product, not about the claims of the company.

I'm not declaring it impossible, but I think that saying "this is a meal replacement, its safe to replace all your meals with it" is premature and potentially dangerous.

You didn't, but ceasarby above did, and that's the post this thread is replying to.

I'm not saying it's not possible technically. You can. But it's just miserable. Soylent taste bad, it's pricy and you can do same (live on just protein shakes + vitamins) with the other products. It will save you money and supplements like Muscle Milk taste way better than Soylent.

But still I'd rather eat balanced diet than just Soylent or just protein shakes. Personal health is too important to turn myself in lab rat for Soylent CEO.

Seeing as you don't even know that fish oil is more like snake oil[0], I don't think you're in any position to give nutrition advice.

0: http://www.onlinecjc.ca/article/S0828-282X(14)00237-2/abstra...

> fish oil is more like snake oil[0]

Except it's not - http://examine.com/supplements/Fish+Oil/#main_clinical_resul...

All studies are cited at the very bottom (720+ in total)

You didn't even bother to read the review article I linked, did you? The whole point is that the data has been misinterpreted, just like the site you linked.

I'm waiting for you to send me the $31.50 to read the full-text.

Their conclusion is about a specific claim for fish oil, re CAD. Examine.com is looking at more than just CAD. If it has a health benefit outside of the CAD claims, then I don't see how you can call it snake oil. Particularly, a reduction in triglycerides. The abstract of what you linked (again, just let me know where you'd like to send the $31.50 so I can read this full-text that you are linking to) is discussing one effect of fish oil and Examine is looking at any possible effects (and many say it has negligible to no effect, but some do).

Obviously you did not either.

There is no centralized data from which all fish oil studies came from. It simply stated that the impetus was a study that had misinterpreted data. The rest is exclusive to it.

Not weighing in on either side just wanted to provide this [0] link posted to HN 5 days ago and the discussion [1].

[0] http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/popular-fish-oil-study-...

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7740561

I read the article, and your interpretation is wrong. Simply put, the Eskimo Diet != Fish Oil. There is simply no denying the efficacy of supplementing with EPA, DHA and Omega-3 fat, regardless of the source. If your concern is motivated by your ideological beliefs that you should not consume animal products then you should look into an algae based supplement.

Not giving any nutritional advice here, you just misinterpreted. If you don't need it, don't take it. It works for me though. I mentioned fish oil because it's technically not a vitamin, so the message was Vitamins + Protein/Carb Supplements > Soylent. Own it in any dimension (price, taste, variety, etc.)

> Not giving any nutritional advice here, you just misinterpreted.

There's no point in trying to backtrack after saying "Take vitamins, take fish oil and you'll be fine." Have the grace to just accept that you're wrong and admit that you have no fucking clue what you're talking about.

> Have the grace to just accept that you're wrong and admit that you have no fucking clue what you're talking about

Why are you being a jackass to him? What is your justification for saying he has "no fucking clue" ?

Flagged for being inflammatory

I'm not "being a jackass to him," I'm calling him out on his bullshit claims that fish oil is nutrionally beneficial. My justification is the journal article linked in my first post.

"Take vitamins, take fish oil and you'll be fine." <-- this was an answer for that: "You can't live off those products alone, you would miss out on important nutrients."

Again if you have a problem with fish oil it doesn't mean that it's useless and everyone else is wrong about.

I don't have a "problem" with fish oil, I have a problem with people going around claiming that it is nutrionally beneficial. According to your standards for proof of nutrional value, you should also be going around telling everyone to drink donkey semen.

You could also say : "AFAIK Soylent is a fun replacement" for many people all around the world consider eating and preparing fun. And rewarding.

There is nothing stopping you from eating food for enjoyment. Soylent replaces food for fuel. If I were to live on Soylent, I'd still go to restaurants with family and friends, and they'd probably be more enjoyable as I'd be used to the taste of Soylent.

Maybe, but then why do people using Soylent seem to be making a full switch and only eating that full time instead of mixing food intakes? Every blog post about Soylent is about people who stopped eating real food for good for x weeks.

They probably want to know what it's like to live on Soylent for an extended period of time. I did see a video by Motherboard/Vice where he drank it at a restaurant which I think misses the main point of Soylent.

Eating the same food every day for a month will make you crave different foods, even if it's Soylent.

I'm into reef tanks. Its incredible difficult to mimic sea water conditions. A lot of people have great results for years but there system can still collapse within days. A synthetic alternative was started called the DSR method improving a lot but is still fragile.

To me this shows that nature is ofter more complex than we think. Soylent might include all product a body needs but what about chewing for example.

That's a good point, but I think you should take the "only soylent" idea with a grain of salt. I think it's more of a mechanical rabbit goal than a real one. Something to focus the product developers and the marketing. In real use, I expect this will replace some portion of what people eat.

That would be fine as an internal or pie-in-the-sky goal, but by making these claims they are exposing their customers to health risk and themselves to legal risk. There are hundreds of MRPs on the market, and many of them have more thought put into their formulations than Soylent, but none of them make the claim that you should or could live soley off the one product for any extended period of time.

Chew some gum?

This is a well known issue with canine dentition. The issue might be lack of textural variety, lack of hardness in partciular, but with humans the lack of variety is likely to be as disturbing as anything. The military I'm sure has plenty of data on this--and MREs are duly variegated.

Cooking is enjoyable (even if I suck at it) and eating together with others is an important social ritual.

Soylent takes all the enjoyment and the little bits of social interaction still present in our lives out and replaces them with 'fueling up', a hyper-optimized model for an already stressed to the hilt working life.

But that's why slowing down a bit is actually good. Take your time to cook, chew your food and talk with your fellow human beings. Share your meals, every day.

Sure, preparing and cooking food takes time. But you know, that's actually a good thing and I'm saying that as someone that would probably spend a lot more time still on the computer if cooking and sharing the cooked food would not be an important part of my daily schedule. And I'll never give that up. So I guess soylent isn't for me. I prefer my foods to be fresh and tasty, and I think I can do that for roughly the same amount of money that this goop costs.

Variation is good, social interaction is good, I can't see the point in soylent, not to mention the interesting question of what will happen long term healthwise if you switch to a mono-cultural product like this for any significant fraction of your diet.

Best of luck to those that are going down this route, meanwhile I'll spend some time with my friends and family with salads, sandwiches, pastas and other foods over here.

HN takes away all the enjoyment and the little bits of direct social interaction still present in our lives and replaces them with text-only messages, which lacks the fundamental attributes of physical presence, and I'll never give that up, so I guess HN isn't for me.

Best of luck to those that are going down the route of online discussions, meanwhile I'll spend some time with real people and not just bits.

That analogy really does not hold water.

HN allows you to interact with hundreds of people from all over the globe, something that you could not do in real life, it would be a physical impossibility.

On top of that it does not replace you normal day-to-day interaction with others, nor does it aim to do so, it simply complements it.

Soylent does not do anything regular food does not already do except (probably) save some time, replaces enjoyment of food (taste, smell) and good company with slurping sludge and aims to replace.

Nice try though.

The company may aim to replace all their users' meals with Soylent, but the user can have different aims, which can just be to replace the occasional meal that you had to rush, even if that's just once a month. Even the creator still eats normal meals with friends and family.

Besides, it only replaces company if the only thing you can do accompanied is eat. Otherwise, it might actually save you time to do other social activities, instead of having to drive home and spend 90 minutes preparing and eating a meal.

It's perfectly reasonable to have reservations about Soylent, but your comment just sounds like a "damn kids with your video games, get off my lawn".

> It's perfectly reasonable to have reservations about Soylent, but your comment just sounds like a "damn kids with your video games, get off my lawn".

Actually, your commented tried to ridicule, whereas mine was made in good faith and would have likely been exactly identical if I'd written it at 25 instead of nearly 50. In fact, back then I probably needed the health and social aspects of food and company more than I do today (and I was well aware of it).

I simply laid out my reasons for definitely not jumping on this bandwagon, and I don't have any dog in the race financially or otherwise.

So, what's your motivation for attacking anybody that dares to raise doubt about the product, or that maybe simply disagrees with their philosophy with such energy?

9 comments in one thread is a bit much.

I don't know your age, nor do I care. Your comment (and others here) just strikes me as unimaginative and slightly self-aggrandizing; pontification on the value of shared meals and slowing down makes for boring reading. It's fine that you (and I don't mean just you) don't have an interest in Soylent, but I don't have an interest in getting a car, and yet I don't go around posting on Tesla threads about the value of walking and the dangers of cars.

Do you know the Onion's story of the man who mentions he has no TV[1]? That's how those posts sound to me.

I don't have a horse in this race, I'm not in any way associated with Soylent, nor do I even plan to buy a pack. I don't trust it as a meal replacement, and I think their claims are overreaching. I have no problem with concrete criticism, and you don't see me replying to ("attacking", as you put it) people raising valid questions, just those posting just to tell us how much they don't need it and those writing unprovable claims.

And they may be 9 posts (although they were only 8 before this post), but most are back-and-forth with people that replied to me.

[1] http://www.theonion.com/articles/area-man-constantly-mention...

>Take your time to cook, chew your food and talk with your fellow human beings. Share your meals, every day.

Some people live alone, just don't eat with other people or do things while they eat which prevents socializing.

And, you could still socialize while you (or your friends included) eat Soylent. You don't have to have food in front of you to sit at a dinner table.

>Sure, preparing and cooking food takes time. But you know, that's actually a good thing

Not for me. Sure, cooking can be fun enough, but I share my kitchen with 12 other people (live in a dorm), and the kitchen is what would be in a normal household. You now have to plan when to cook since the utilities can easily get taken.

Also, my time can be spent on other things, like relaxing instead of reading etc etc.

>Variation is good, social interaction is good, I can't see the point in soylent, not to mention the interesting question of what will happen long term healthwise if you switch to a mono-cultural product like this for any significant fraction of your diet.

Sure, social interaction is good. You don't have to replace every meal with Soylent, but the meals that are a hassle and you eat alone anyways can now be replaced by something that's probably healthier than a frozen pizza or a microwave dish.

I, for one, wouldn't mind replacing some of my meals with Soylent, since it will give me more flexibility than buying salad and having to eat home the next couple of days or else the salad will spoil (and similar circumstances).

In short Soylent gives:

* Flexibility

* More time

* More than likely a healthier alternative to fast food

That said, it isn't for everyone. If you have time and enjoy cooking, then do so. You can also just supplement with Soylent, og supplement with cooking once in a while. Or lastly go full Soylent (which I probably wouldn't). But everyone doesn't fit into one box.

Yes, exactly this!

The best thing I could be doing is spending at least 8h per week less in front of the computer, not optimising the rest of my time so I can be on it even more!

The best thing I could be doing is spending at least 8h per week less in front of the computer, not optimising the rest of my time so I can be on it even more!

Because Soylent precludes using your time for anything besides being in front of the computer?

Soylent is a weird and interesting case.

I feel like 99 out of 100 times an identical product gets produced by a supplements company and no one notices. Somehow, this one seems to have really really interested (or really really pissed off) people.

One possible narrative is "blandness is a virtue". All the pictures are bland beige stuff in a plastic jug. The people drinking it look normal, not athletic or exceptionally pretty. Their expressions are neutral.

The 'water of food' is, I suppose, a compelling idea.

Soylent's rise in popularity reminds me a bit of Lifelock. The CEO comes out and makes very ambitious claims. In Lifelock's case, that was the whole, "here's my SSN." [0] For Soylent, it's the CEO living off just that for months on end [1]. These types of sales pitches continue for months until the claims prove false and then the product marketing is changed. Maybe Soylent is different, but I wouldn't hold my breath.

[0] http://www.wired.com/2010/05/lifelock-identity-theft/ [1] http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/food-and-drink/could...

I think there was a hope that an easy to eat mass produced product would finally allow for a simplification of diet without costing the same or more as a normal diet would cost.

That will always have my attention, but these products always seemed to be priced in a way that using them would cost just as much as normal food, I'm sure an economist would be pointing at a graph with two intersecting lines at this point. I get the argument, "well you were going to spend the money anyway, our product is more convenient, therefore it will be worth it to you."

I think most people would agree, I also think most people wouldn't valuate: risk, lock in, change, break of tradition, loss of a common comfort, ect. ect. ect.

They're never worth the value, and Soylent seemed like something that was just going to sell based on the components with margin for profit. I was excited.

bleeehh.

I have to admit that when I first heard of this product I thought it was ridiculous and would never take off.

Considering it's now been officially launched, I have to say "Impressive job Rob!" and will publicly eat my words.

I don't think the point is whether Soylent will replace food entirely (even though the creator thinks so) or it will 'undermine and erode the food traditions of developing cultures'. Rather to me it seems to be the commodification of (absolute) nutrition which has never been done before. Much like the japanese who have commodified sex and relationships (see cuddle cafes, boyfriends for hire), people can now pay just for complete nutrition without having to buy food, and would do so if the cost saving to them is more valuable to them than the enjoyment derived from the meal.

Obviously this is circumstantial but I can see it being a hit for entrepreneurs or the generic yuppie who has no time for a long lunch/needs to save for that mortgage.

Oh yeah, the Japanese invented prostitution.

Aren't they are weird?

Although I am not a huge fan of this, I believe that eventually we will end up using this. It might take 5 - 10 years but soylent-type will be used in our daily life. Today with our busy life's cooking something simple takes an hour to complete. Soylent is ready to go in an instant.

Although it will not completely eradicate normal food, as eating is as well a bonding. Here at least in Cyprus, we will have a weekly sit down on Sunday, of 10-20 if not more of family and relatives. This is very important time.

It will take years for population to actually adjust to the idea of drinking there food.

On the plus site, this will eventually be used by astronauts I believe and Mars colonization plans.

> Today with our busy life's cooking something simple takes an hour to complete. Soylent is ready to go in an instant.

How slow do you have to be at cooking for something simple to take you an hour of your time?

I can prepare a slow-cooked stew in well under 15 minutes, head out for the day and come back to a house that smells wonderful and 5-10 meals worth of food. It won't cost me 50-100 dollars either.

If you only eat the leftovers once or twice and factor in grocery shopping, cooking, cleaning, and eating time you're probably looking at around an hour a meal.

For people who don't enjoy cooking and/or eating it's as if you had to wash dishes or mow your lawn for 2-3 hours a day just to survive. It's a chore and I really hope Soylent works so I don't have to do it anymore.

You are right, one should consider preparation time per serving. In your example something like 2 to 3' per serving which is more than reasonable.

When our life became busier (young kids + work), we started to cook 2 hours or so every week end, several recipes at a time. We order vegetables from a local producer (no fancy app, just a excel sheet) on thursday, get them early on saturday, and then cook stews, soups, meals that will feed us for the rest of the week. This requires some planification and organization but makes the whole cooking time argument irrelevant.

The other thing that bothers me with soylent enthusiasts is that they seem to disregard how the ingredients are sourced and their environnemental costs. The website's FAQ "From what is it made" links to the nutrition facts.

So you can peel for 5-10 meals worth of vegetables AND cook it all in under 15 minutes (slow cook it at that)? Well, you must have found a way to bend spacetime or something. I understand one hour is very long, but no need to go overboard in the other direction either.

I think it was the preparation time, not the cooking time. You can prepare a vegetable soup from raw vegetables in less than 15 minutes. With some training you can do that in 5 minutes. You'll need an extra 30 minutes simmering though but no more work after preparation unless you want it mixed. You really can't overcook a vegetable soup. You can even keep it a couple of days in the pan without it getting sour. It's a hassle free meal.

But you are right, the truth lies between 15 minutes and an hour.

Yeah that's prep time, but it really is just 15 minutes. No simmering, just peel and chuck in some veg & spices and a joint of meat.

> So you can peel for 5-10 meals worth of vegetables AND cook it all in under 15 minutes (slow cook it at that)?

I can peel enough veg in that time, yes. That's pretty much it for preparation (which is what I said took 15 minutes) as I'll just drop a joint of meat in.

Beyond that cooking it is sticking it in a slowcooker and turning it on. It takes a long time, but that just means a bit of planning (but hardly much).

I am not that optimist for this kind of food. The biggest problem with right now according to the reviews is that it kills social life. And a lot of people does not like processed food and like to spend one hour to prepare their meal.

I think it would the most interesting for the army or missions like the ones performed by astronauts as you said.

> Today with our busy life's cooking something simple takes an hour to complete.

No, it doesn't. There's plenty of simple things that take a lot less time than that, including inactive cooking time.

As far as I can work out there have been solutions for the too busy problem since around the invention of the restaurant, and another set since the microwave (the "TV dinner" was a US invention).

You can see this as a kind of progression of the supplement industry, one where the delivery stands a better chance of matching the promise: For example, Coca-Cola and Milo both marketed themselves as a form of "medicine" or "health food" early on, and then only later reworked their image as they became more evidently unhealthful to the public. And bodybuilding supplements have their own extremely checkered history[0]. Over time the categories of supplements with actual nutritional value have stuck it out in the market as they've proven themselves.

So I see Soylent as another step forward - the necessary food processing to make these kinds of sophisticated supplement blends has gotten cheaper and more widely available with time, enabling more experiments.

So the news for the future looks promising. It'll probably get cheaper. The nutritional value is likely to go upwards in future versions as more data is uncovered. And if it shows signs of success then there will be competing alternatives, for sure.

[0] http://www.t-nation.com/free_online_article/sex_news_sports_...

Coca-cola was originally a medicine in the same way the medical marijuana is today though. The "Coca" in "Coca-cola" referred to the cocaine that was in it.

And so begins the biggest experiment in human nutrition since the Dutch Famine of 1944.

You must be unaware of the famines raging in 2014 and just about any year before that in other parts of the world. The Dutch certainly had a hard time of it in '44 (my grandmother's diary is amazing reading) but it does not in any way compare to some of the stuff going on TODAY and on a MUCH larger scale.

The interesting factor of the Dutch famine in 1944 was that it occurred in one region of a fairly isotropic 'developed' country, in a society where masses of scientific and psychological measurements could be conducted for decades afterwards. These could be compared with the same metrics for people in the unaffected regions.

That's not something that occurs after most famines, in which the survivors are generally anonymous.

Right, that's the relevant difference. Thank you for the explanation. The 'cohort' being that isolated in space and time must have helped. I can't see how soylent green users will be subjecting themselves to the same kind of analysis but that may be another example of my ignorance.

So I'm aware of a famine that took place 70 years ago, but unaware of the many that have taken place since then. You really think that, do you?

Do you see how, by habitually assuming the other guy knows less than you, you've made yourself look dumb?

Not sure what to answer to, this or the original comment you posted.

My mom was born in 1943 a little bit before the hunger winter hit, so I'm well aware of the effects of the hunger winter on the Dutch population.

As for making myself look dumb, you seem to want to make this a personal issue, I merely think it is strange to put soylent green in the context of the hunger winter of '44 when we have far more recent examples that are much higher impact.

And those have been studied extensively as well, and their aftermath is happening right now.

The remark "You must be unaware of..." was personally directed at me so, yes, I took it personally.

Ah I see, dumb assumption on my side. Apologies.

The two biggest experiments in human nutrition currently happening are in the /r/keto and /r/paleo subreddits. Well, not really, they are lots of people not in reddit who are also part of them.

Example of their influence: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwegian_butter_crisis

And you could argue that tulip bulbs are nicer to eat than Soylent.

Is there any concern over the use of rice protein vs whey or another complete protein?

My understanding is that rice protein comes up short with the amount of Lysine present. Not sure if Lysine shows up in other ingredients at high enough levels to compensate.

http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/cereal-grains-and-pasta/...

Maybe they are planning to make it Vegetarian/Vegan.

I myself am allergic to Milk Protein. So drinking anything with whey powder or similar is impossible for me.

There was an article a couple weeks back that mentioned they were looking into Spirulina as a protein source. It was mentioned as part of long term sustainability and bringing down the cost per meal. So providing a vegetarian/vegan formula may be part of their long term goal.

Though, still concerned about protein completeness in the current formula.

Looking at the nutritional facts, this looks like a great substitute for off the counter mass-gainer shakes. I'm really into weight lifting but sometimes struggle finding the time to eat meals while at work and still hit my daily caloric surplus.

To alleviate poverty, Governance must be decentralized for 1,350,000,000 people in India. Each state In India should have separate currency.

The first bite it with the eye, and Soylent looks like a cat vomit smoothie.

I wouldn't touch this with a 10 foot pole. Sad how we are so brainwashed to just do maths on nutritional intake. ever heard of vital energy in food?

I'd take mathematics over homeopathic nonsense.

well, its sad how people downvote things they don't understand.. but I'd expect that in hackernews.

Also, what I said as absolutely nothing to do with homeopathy.. shows how clueless that comment was.

Lots of people are comparing it to meal-replacement alternatives, but I'm unimpressed with how it compares to much more mundane foods, like a 7-11 burrito that has a very similar nutritional profile, retails for $1.69 in single quantities, and is much easier to prepare (2 minutes, no dish washing, no need to refrigerate for settling)

http://www.nutritionix.com/7-11/7-select-burritos-beef-bean-...

I'm very much not what you might call "pro-Soylent", but even I think that calling its nutritional profile "similar" to that a convenience store burrito is ludicrous.

Hardly. Increase the portion size to match 2k calories:

Per Serving Calories from Fat 760 Calories 2040 % Daily Value* 135%Total Fat 88g 140% Saturated Fat 28g Trans Fat 0g 33%Cholesterol 100mg 163%Sodium 3900mg 84%Total Carbohydrates 252g 92% Dietary Fiber 23g Sugars 6g Protein 59g

way way above in fat and sodium

India should buy this company or do something very similar. I mean the country India, the government. This could be a big step towards solving hunger. We should look for optimizing mass production. And it reduces cost of wood or gas, distribution and packaging wastage, spoilt food and the like.

To take my country's example, this should just be free. If people are hungry, get our desi version of solyent. Nobody is forced to have it, yet they have better nutrition than anyone else right now including the rich people eating unhealthy fried stuff.

If the government of Indian bought it and then managed it like the existing ration system that would not necessarily actually improve the lives of the intended beneficiaries.

Sure. I am not disagreeing that management needs to improve.

What I'm saying is that the future of rationing should be this, not the current system. The current system does not ensure nutritional value and there are other expenses involved in preparing a meal. As a country of 1.2B the basic meal (a packet of desi-solyent or whatever) should be free.

This of course applies to all countries and all such public distribution systems. I just used India for an example.

As the saying goes. Their isn't a food shortage, just a distribution problem. I am well aware my statement veers away from the original post.

I disagree.

As an Indian. I think what our government needs to do is stream line the food distribution network and get products directly to consumers. Just doing this alone can solve some thing like 50% of the problems. Secondly they can start by leasing out large parts of underutilized land to agriculture related companies so that they can produce grains/vegetables/fruits etc in mass. Thirdly, to increase automation they can start by implementing tax friendly policies for machinery import so that human effort in agriculture can be reduced by bringing in machinery. Fourthly, to lay down a long term policy for irrigation infrastructure.

The problems with Indian agriculture system currently is too much fragmentation, middle men, lack of a well managed structure and distribution network. Too many people manually doing jobs and no mass production.

And soylent is quite expensive. $70 for one person, for 21 days? That is 4200 rupees for one person for not even half a month. With a little extra money you can feed a family of 2-3 on a good vegetarian diet here.

Soylent is just fancy Bournvita/Horlics/Complan/Boost/etc.

Hunger is not a production problem.

You really think that some countries want to solve hunger? No one cares.

But what if they start making it out of people?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com