4 ms·

Do you have examples that are both not full of sugar and available to the general public at a reasonable cost?

by haliax 10y ago

crispyambulance 10y ago
Any snack that satisfies appetite and doesn't make you sick or fat too quickly would suffice. A bag of nuts, a power bar, fruit, vegetables, canned fish/meat, etc. One can always balance out nutritional intake on subsequent "real" meals. Somehow the marketing folks for Soylent have been able to convince a lot of people that they ACTUALLY NEED a fully balanced meal replacement consisting of synthetic food upon which someone may subsist indefinitely. That's a feat of marketing, but apparently little else.
- livingparadox 10y ago
  All those examples you've mentioned fill a very different niche than what Soylent is filling. Most people on Soylent aren't looking for something to keep them from getting hungry until they get a more balanced meal. They're looking for a quick, healthy, balanced meal. Soylent fills that desire, your examples do not.
  - crispyambulance 10y ago
    They actually DON'T NEED Soylent, that's simply the magic of marketing. I tip my hat to their marketing skills, however. I never would have thought they could get anywhere selling a bland sludge to affluent consumers as a replacement for food... who would've thought that could work? They did it and did it well for a while at least.
    - livingparadox 10y ago
      They also "DON'T NEED" any of the snacks you presented as alternatives. But regardless, I never claimed anyone needed it. There are few things in life that are truly "needed", but there are many that are wanted and/or provide a significant improvement in life quality. Soylent doesn't fill a separate need from normal food, it fills the desire for a more efficient vehicle of nutrition than normal food. For example, I use Soylent not as an "I'm too lazy too make food" but rather as an easily replicatable nutritional base that is easier to customize to my nutritional needs and preferences than any other option out there that I'm aware of (there may very well be something better out here). Their success is the result of "magical marketing", but of filling a niche desire of the market. In fact, Soylent didn't even do marketing for the first year or two of its existence. Rinehart just started experimenting, realized it hit a nerve with the hacker community, and created a product that appealed to the demographic that responded to his experiment.
jerrycruncher 10y ago
http://www.rayandterry.com/products/more-categories/weight-loss/shake-mix.html http://www.rayandterry.com/products/more-categories/weight-l... http://www.procapslabs.com/Products/Details/268447427/Secure-Soy-Complete-Meal-Replacement-Chocolate http://www.procapslabs.com/Products/Details/268447427/Secure... Both have 5g net carbs per serving, but are intended more as a single meal replacement than something a person could solely subsist on.
- squeaky-clean 10y ago
  > Both have 5g net carbs per serving Depends on what you consider a serving. The second link only has 67 calories per "serving", so really 30 scoops in a day. Using the 2000 calorie baseline, that would be about 150g of sugar, twice as much as Soylent. Also 200g protein vs 100g. The first link would still take 20 scoops in a day. There's no sugar in it, which is good (personally I hate things like Stevia, but others may not mind), but it's still clearly a protein drink with 372g of protein in one days worth of calories.
  - jerrycruncher 10y ago
    As I said, neither are intended to be one's sole source of calories or nutrients.
    - cbr 10y ago
      With most of these "meal replacement" products (soylent, meal squares, etc) the goal is to have 100% RDA per calorie. This means that you don't have to "make up" for them with other meals by adding some nutrient or cutting back on sugar.

Do you have examples that are both not full of sugar and available to the general public at a reasonable cost?

by haliax 10y ago

Do you have examples that are both not full of sugar and available to the general public at a reasonable cost?

Any snack that satisfies appetite and doesn't make you sick or fat too quickly would suffice. A bag of nuts, a power bar, fruit, vegetables, canned fish/meat, etc. One can always balance out nutritional intake on subsequent "real" meals. Somehow the marketing folks for Soylent have been able to convince a lot of people that they ACTUALLY NEED a fully balanced meal replacement consisting of synthetic food upon which someone may subsist indefinitely. That's a feat of marketing, but apparently little else.

livingparadox 10y ago
All those examples you've mentioned fill a very different niche than what Soylent is filling. Most people on Soylent aren't looking for something to keep them from getting hungry until they get a more balanced meal. They're looking for a quick, healthy, balanced meal. Soylent fills that desire, your examples do not.
- crispyambulance 10y ago
  They actually DON'T NEED Soylent, that's simply the magic of marketing. I tip my hat to their marketing skills, however. I never would have thought they could get anywhere selling a bland sludge to affluent consumers as a replacement for food... who would've thought that could work? They did it and did it well for a while at least.
  - livingparadox 10y ago
    They also "DON'T NEED" any of the snacks you presented as alternatives. But regardless, I never claimed anyone needed it. There are few things in life that are truly "needed", but there are many that are wanted and/or provide a significant improvement in life quality. Soylent doesn't fill a separate need from normal food, it fills the desire for a more efficient vehicle of nutrition than normal food. For example, I use Soylent not as an "I'm too lazy too make food" but rather as an easily replicatable nutritional base that is easier to customize to my nutritional needs and preferences than any other option out there that I'm aware of (there may very well be something better out here). Their success is the result of "magical marketing", but of filling a niche desire of the market. In fact, Soylent didn't even do marketing for the first year or two of its existence. Rinehart just started experimenting, realized it hit a nerve with the hacker community, and created a product that appealed to the demographic that responded to his experiment.

jerrycruncher 10y ago

http://www.rayandterry.com/products/more-categories/weight-loss/shake-mix.html http://www.rayandterry.com/products/more-categories/weight-l... http://www.procapslabs.com/Products/Details/268447427/Secure-Soy-Complete-Meal-Replacement-Chocolate http://www.procapslabs.com/Products/Details/268447427/Secure... Both have 5g net carbs per serving, but are intended more as a single meal replacement than something a person could solely subsist on.

squeaky-clean 10y ago
> Both have 5g net carbs per serving Depends on what you consider a serving. The second link only has 67 calories per "serving", so really 30 scoops in a day. Using the 2000 calorie baseline, that would be about 150g of sugar, twice as much as Soylent. Also 200g protein vs 100g. The first link would still take 20 scoops in a day. There's no sugar in it, which is good (personally I hate things like Stevia, but others may not mind), but it's still clearly a protein drink with 372g of protein in one days worth of calories.
- jerrycruncher 10y ago
  As I said, neither are intended to be one's sole source of calories or nutrients.
  - cbr 10y ago
    With most of these "meal replacement" products (soylent, meal squares, etc) the goal is to have 100% RDA per calorie. This means that you don't have to "make up" for them with other meals by adding some nutrient or cutting back on sugar.