10 ms·

This comment is kinda silly. Like, the problem here isn't Soylent, it's that you were depressed. And the problem with your friend using Soylent to watch her wei

This comment is kinda silly. Like, the problem here isn't Soylent, it's that you were depressed. And the problem with your friend using Soylent to watch her weight isn't Soylent, it's that she ate more of other crap when she drank Soylent as a meal replacement. I drink Soylent occasionally -- once every two or three weeks, maybe. Normally I use it if I know I'm going to eat a huge dinner, or if I ate a giant lunch and don't need to consume many more calories in the evening. It works great for me. Yes, if you misuse Soylent, it will not be a good thing for you. That goes for, like, everything.

giaour 9y ago
The founder of Soylent has repeatedly pushed his product as a solution for world hunger, unhealthy diets in the first world, and poor time management. I think critiquing the product on those terms is fair.
- deeth_starr_v 9y ago
  Agreed, while the intentions of Soylent are probably sincere, when I first heard about it my response was "nope nope nope". My parents were hippies and we grew/raised most of our food when I was a kid. But my grandparents had embraced the new space-age diet: margarine in place of butter, tang instead of orange juice, kraft instead of cheese, etc. I thought it tasted awful compared to real food. As we have found out, some food choices like trans fats have an impact on health. There's really too much noise in the nutrition related data to draw wide ranging conclusions. But buyer beware. For me I think the safest option is the "whole foods" (Polan) route. For me it would be "eat what your grand-grand parents ate". I was even a vegetarian and eating fake-meats and then realized I was just eating chemicals. So I started eating meat again. Edit: Changed wording on first sentence
  - chaostheory 9y ago
    I agree with you. For everyone else, I just want to add that there is a place for things like Soylent, beyond the marketing. We're most likely not going to be able to continue our current method producing food cheaply. I could be wrong but things like Soylent will probably be the future that mitigates this issue for a lot of people.
    - deeth_starr_v 9y ago
      Yeah, meat/food substitutes are likely central to our population growth rate, but let's be intellectually honest. I'm not sure it'll work. I'm really hopeful the meat substitutes will pan out. We haven't figured out cancer yet. You're betting on us figuring out food? Edit: because cancer is complex, the same a food and nutrition
      - chaostheory 9y ago
        > You're betting on us figuring out food? Things like Soylent are already here. It's not vaporware. Yes it's not perfect or ideal but it's an answer to really inefficient food production whose water and nutrient needs aren't sustainable for a growing population.
        deeth_starr_v 9y ago
        I'm not calling it vaporware. We don't understand clearly about our gut bio/digestion/food absorption. It'd be great to hear an expert on this chime in, but my guess they would say "we don't know yet". I'm not telling you to not eat Soylent or that it won't potentially be great for the human race. But again, we don't know. Edit: fixed wording Edit: What if they get something wrong like including trans fats? I know this a "playing to fear" argument, but there is a long history of industrial foods being not healthy. It just takes a new generation of suckers to come of age.
        derefr 9y ago
        People have been eating imperfectly for millenia and keeping on nevertheless. How many billion (trillion?) Chinese peasants, across history, do you think ate only rice their entire lives? Sure, said peasants probably had vitamin A deficiency—but they managed to live long, mostly-healthy lives despite that. Which is my point: we don't need to get "food" perfect in order to ensure that 10x as many people as today can live "long, mostly-healthy lives." It's not unethical to feed starving people food that's missing some micronutrient we aren't yet aware of, because they'll still be better off than if they were starving. The human body is hardy.
  - akgerber 9y ago
    Meat is chemicals too. Just more complex ones, usually.
    - deeth_starr_v 9y ago
      Yes. It's like comparing snow to climate.
  - refurb 9y ago
    and then realized I was just eating chemicals You do realize that everything you eat is chemicals, right?
    - hammock 9y ago
      I hate this argument. Usually people are talking about synthetic or non-naturally occurring compounds ancillary to the reason for eating the food. In other words, are you eating processed cheese for the protein, or for the potassium sorbate? Only one of these is a "chemical" is the vernacular.
      - humanrebar 9y ago
        > Only one of these is a "chemical" is the vernacular. The vernacular is wrong in this case and encourages ignorance. "Preservatives", "dyes", "perfumes", "thickeners", and "artificial sweeteners" are all words that everyone understands. We can say "artificial ingredients" instead if we want a catch all. The English language is really expressive. "Chemicals" is a buzzword used a lot by hucksters to push sales through pseudoscience. We must demand better and more specific reasoning than "chemicals" if we want the words "shown by science" to be meaningful as well.
        deeth_starr_v 9y ago
        Yes, I get that using the word "chemicals" is problematic. I understand that food is made up of the same proteins, fats, etc. When I hear hucksters marketing organic, GMO, or Soylent. I'm always cautious. Caveat emptor. Edit: I'm not anti-GMO. Nor the concept of Soylent. But I use a headset rather than hold my phone up to my head. Even though there's no definitive proof we can get cancer from smart phones. I just think there is additional risk here. Edit: Also, your "chemicals" point is like arguing that Global Warming doesn't exist because it's snowing today. It's true, but not relevant to the discussion.
        ajmurmann 9y ago
        To add to your point, many of these "chemicals" aren't even all that artificial. Some thickeners for example come from algae and gave been in use since centuries just in different countries. Looking at some traditional food like ham they are incredibly processed we just are used to it.
  - hammock 9y ago
    >"eat what your grand-grand parents ate" Not possible, unfortunately. Meat and vegetables are so totally different now. For example meats are raised on GM corn and antibiotics, altering their balance of omega 3's, impact on gut health, and other things. While today's vegetables are massively decremented in micronutrients- and may have less arsenic-based pesticide residue than your greatgrandparents', but more of other pesticides.
    - metamet 9y ago
      They still exist. Eat locally from farmers. All my beef is grass fed (which have higher omega 3's), for example. And if you can't because of where you live, there's a good chance neither could your grandparents had if they lived there as well.
      - leshow 9y ago
        Or you could take an omega-3 supplement and eat normal beef. There isn't much evidence to show that grass-fed beef has any measurable effect on health.
        cabinguy 9y ago
        There isn't much evidence to show that supplements do either.
        deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
        deeth_starr_v 9y ago
        Agreed, research here is that supplements don't have an impact. Edit: For pregnant women and others for sure. But in the general population no
        iopq 9y ago
        Well, fish oil does have SOME evidence behind it.
  - stale2002 9y ago
    Your grand grand parents probably died of polio or something, so I am not sure if taking their advice on health is a good idea.
    - aetherson 9y ago
      Polio is not a disease caused by malnutrition. Also, your ancestors probably did not die of it -- it mostly affected young people, so people who died from it usually didn't have descendants. Quibbling aside, health in general was certainly much worse in our great-grandparents' days, but for those who weren't straight up underfed, nutrition was probably not worse. I'm not sure it was as magically better as some would have you believe, but there is decent evidence that traditional diets were more-or-less fine, and that the modern diet has something wrong with it.
      - projektfu 9y ago
        Most of the impetus for Federal nutrition programs in the US was because of the large number of malnourished and unfit to serve draftees in WW1.
    - deeth_starr_v 9y ago
      No, a heart attack at 48 and cancer at 91. This data tells you little Edit: Sorry, misread. All I know is my great grandfather was a pony express rider and got colon cancer
    - tomc1985 9y ago
      It's only bad advice if they died of malnutrition
  - komali2 9y ago
    My great grandparents ate nothing but potatos, no thanks.
    - deeth_starr_v 9y ago
      What's your point? My great grandparents were Italian and Irish.
      - komali2 9y ago
        Eating only potatos isn't healthy, why would I emulate their diet?
  - sneak 9y ago
    Orange juice, from your example, is pretty bad for you, especially compared to the low glycemic index carbohydrates found in things like Soylent. File under "false dichotomy".
    - iopq 9y ago
      Glycemic index means nothing. Cake has a low glycemic index (someting like 30, depending on fat content). Oatmeal has a higher glycemic index (55). Does that mean we should stop eating oatmeal and substitute it with cake?
  - CaptainZapp 9y ago
    I would add: And refrain from "food" that comes with a version number. But that's just me.
- ng12 9y ago
  The Soylent of today doesn't claim that though. It says right on bottle that it can replace a meal but it should not replace every meal. In that respect it's not much different than Ensure or other meal supplements.
  - paulcole 9y ago
    Their website definitely claims that Soylent is a complete substitute for all food.
    - ng12 9y ago
      Where do you see that? It only claims it's a meal substitute, which it is. The only other recommendation I could find was this: > As a nutritionally complete food source, Soylent should be considered a food product just like any other. You can include Soylent in your diet for as long as you’d like, in any amount that suits your needs. There is no right or wrong amount of Soylent to eat - the whole idea is to find a balance that works for you.
- staticassertion 9y ago
  And Soylent can be fine for those things. It's simple to see that it's faster than cooking a meal. Does that mean you'll spend that time better? No. It's simple to see that your calories are measured out for you - does that mean you won't eat more than you should? No. Both examples had underlying issues that Soylent did not solve, because it never could. Doesn't mean it can't solve those same problems for others.
- Romanulus 9y ago
  Just because someone is too far gone to get help from a product that _CAN_ help doesn't mean it is the fault of the product. *edit: clarity.
GavinMcG 9y ago
Sure, the underlying problem is depression. We can still have a reasonable discussion about things that enable that depression, or extend it. That's not at all a silly concern.
- jklinger410 9y ago
  Convenience of any form enables unfavorable outcomes. Delivery pizza may have caused suicide, from this perspective.
  - GavinMcG 9y ago
    Yes! It may have! Why is that not something that can be discussed? I mean, I'd bet good money that delivery pizza is a net benefit, but I can still admit that some people probably rely on it in a way that's unhealthy.
- mojowo11 9y ago
  Meal replacement shakes have been around for, what, 2+ decades now? Saying that Soylent has come along and now somehow enables depressed people strikes me as insanity. Depressed people misuse all kinds of perfectly valid products and services. Being mad at Soylent, or pizza delivery, or the internet, or beds, or any other thing that depressed people might end up leaning on in an unhealthy way seems pretty silly to me.
  - brilliantcode 9y ago
    Except Soylent marketed itself as a replacement. All those shakes you talk about are aimed at supplementing. They weren't stupid enough to tell people to live on it because of the legal liability.
    - DanBC 9y ago
      I agree Soylent used irresponsible marketing. But many of those other products can be used as sole source of nutrition. EG fortisip: http://www.nutricia.ie/products/view/fortisip http://www.nutricia.ie/products/view/fortisip > Fortisip is a Food for Special Medical Purposes for use under medical supervision. Fortisip is a nutritionally complete, 1.5kcal/ml, ready to drink, milk shake style nutritional supplement, for the management of disease related malnutrition. Fortisip can be used to supplement the diet of patients unable to meet their nutritional requirements from other foods, or used as a sole source of nutrition. Fortisip is available in 200ml bottles, with a flexible straw attached, in 8 flavours: Neutral, Vanilla, Chocolate, Toffee, Banana, Orange, Strawberry and Tropical Fruits. Ensure original: https://abbottnutrition.com/ensure-original https://abbottnutrition.com/ensure-original > For interim sole-source nutrition.
Judgmentality 9y ago
Sure, but some things are more likely to be misused than others. For instance, Facebook. It's obviously a wildly popular and profitable product, but studies show that the more you use it the more likely you are to be depressed - but Facebook has a financial incentive to addict those users regardless. Anyway, I'm not really a fan of Soylent. I disagree with its health benefits. I think the company is pushing it as a far more miraculous product than it is (especially considering the recalls they received for their health bars which seemed like poor quality control). I also think it tastes awful, but obviously that is completely subjective.
- dmix 9y ago
  Facebook causing depression when used too much? What were the alternative groups doing? Correlation is a tricky thing to measure. I'm not sure how I feel about these types of studies or what utility they really provide. Other than maybe giving the reader some perspective on their life. Anything used in a poor context, for example not combined with the right attitude, environment, etc can cause issues. Often we just fall into negative cycles and need to be kicked in the butt to change them. We often fixate on one specific thing, like I quit smoking and suddenly became healthy (but I also worked out, started eating better, spent less time/money on a neutral/negative activity, etc, etc). There are always so many moving parts. At most you could critique Solyent if they advertised as the solution to your health problems. Rather than something to replace 1-2 daily meals when you're on a tight schedule. The former is a complicated multi-faceted lifestyle thing that no company could offer with a single product but that won't stop them from positioning the product that way. But we should be smart enough to know it will only ever (potentially) be a component of it.
  - Judgmentality 9y ago
    So I actually decided to look for the source and you're right - the results are a lot more complicated than I thought. I guess I'm a victim of confirmation bias. http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/09/07/492871024/facebook-and-mortality-why-your-incessant-joy-gives-me-the-blues http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/09/07/49287102...
brilliantcode 9y ago
Are you a soylent stakeholder? It's puzzling why you would invalidate someone's experience with such a condescending tone. Soylent is just another hyped up SV junk. The rest of the world does not give a shit about having to cook because they don't have much to eat. I personally wouldn't touch Soylent and leave it up to some 30 year old engineers with no understanding of the food industry. The CEO is super fucking annoying always pushing that shitjuice and looking at ppl confused "why are you still eating lol thats a waste of time". This is exactly what an engineer on the autism spectrum will tell you. Fuck Soylent.
- unethical_ban 9y ago
  >make shill accusation and berate someone for condescention >make general remarks about world demand for products and time management, accuse CEO of autism, vulgarly insult product
- thraway2016 9y ago
  The unfounded hostility that the mere existence of Soylent brings out of otherwise level-headed people is always a great source of amusement.
  - brilliantcode 9y ago
    http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/05/12/the-end-of-food http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/05/12/the-end-of-food

giaour 9y ago

The founder of Soylent has repeatedly pushed his product as a solution for world hunger, unhealthy diets in the first world, and poor time management. I think critiquing the product on those terms is fair.

deeth_starr_v 9y ago
Agreed, while the intentions of Soylent are probably sincere, when I first heard about it my response was "nope nope nope". My parents were hippies and we grew/raised most of our food when I was a kid. But my grandparents had embraced the new space-age diet: margarine in place of butter, tang instead of orange juice, kraft instead of cheese, etc. I thought it tasted awful compared to real food. As we have found out, some food choices like trans fats have an impact on health. There's really too much noise in the nutrition related data to draw wide ranging conclusions. But buyer beware. For me I think the safest option is the "whole foods" (Polan) route. For me it would be "eat what your grand-grand parents ate". I was even a vegetarian and eating fake-meats and then realized I was just eating chemicals. So I started eating meat again. Edit: Changed wording on first sentence
- chaostheory 9y ago
  I agree with you. For everyone else, I just want to add that there is a place for things like Soylent, beyond the marketing. We're most likely not going to be able to continue our current method producing food cheaply. I could be wrong but things like Soylent will probably be the future that mitigates this issue for a lot of people.
  - deeth_starr_v 9y ago
    Yeah, meat/food substitutes are likely central to our population growth rate, but let's be intellectually honest. I'm not sure it'll work. I'm really hopeful the meat substitutes will pan out. We haven't figured out cancer yet. You're betting on us figuring out food? Edit: because cancer is complex, the same a food and nutrition
    - chaostheory 9y ago
      > You're betting on us figuring out food? Things like Soylent are already here. It's not vaporware. Yes it's not perfect or ideal but it's an answer to really inefficient food production whose water and nutrient needs aren't sustainable for a growing population.
      - deeth_starr_v 9y ago
        I'm not calling it vaporware. We don't understand clearly about our gut bio/digestion/food absorption. It'd be great to hear an expert on this chime in, but my guess they would say "we don't know yet". I'm not telling you to not eat Soylent or that it won't potentially be great for the human race. But again, we don't know. Edit: fixed wording Edit: What if they get something wrong like including trans fats? I know this a "playing to fear" argument, but there is a long history of industrial foods being not healthy. It just takes a new generation of suckers to come of age.
        derefr 9y ago
        People have been eating imperfectly for millenia and keeping on nevertheless. How many billion (trillion?) Chinese peasants, across history, do you think ate only rice their entire lives? Sure, said peasants probably had vitamin A deficiency—but they managed to live long, mostly-healthy lives despite that. Which is my point: we don't need to get "food" perfect in order to ensure that 10x as many people as today can live "long, mostly-healthy lives." It's not unethical to feed starving people food that's missing some micronutrient we aren't yet aware of, because they'll still be better off than if they were starving. The human body is hardy.
- akgerber 9y ago
  Meat is chemicals too. Just more complex ones, usually.
  - deeth_starr_v 9y ago
    Yes. It's like comparing snow to climate.
- refurb 9y ago
  and then realized I was just eating chemicals You do realize that everything you eat is chemicals, right?
  - hammock 9y ago
    I hate this argument. Usually people are talking about synthetic or non-naturally occurring compounds ancillary to the reason for eating the food. In other words, are you eating processed cheese for the protein, or for the potassium sorbate? Only one of these is a "chemical" is the vernacular.
    - humanrebar 9y ago
      > Only one of these is a "chemical" is the vernacular. The vernacular is wrong in this case and encourages ignorance. "Preservatives", "dyes", "perfumes", "thickeners", and "artificial sweeteners" are all words that everyone understands. We can say "artificial ingredients" instead if we want a catch all. The English language is really expressive. "Chemicals" is a buzzword used a lot by hucksters to push sales through pseudoscience. We must demand better and more specific reasoning than "chemicals" if we want the words "shown by science" to be meaningful as well.
      - deeth_starr_v 9y ago
        Yes, I get that using the word "chemicals" is problematic. I understand that food is made up of the same proteins, fats, etc. When I hear hucksters marketing organic, GMO, or Soylent. I'm always cautious. Caveat emptor. Edit: I'm not anti-GMO. Nor the concept of Soylent. But I use a headset rather than hold my phone up to my head. Even though there's no definitive proof we can get cancer from smart phones. I just think there is additional risk here. Edit: Also, your "chemicals" point is like arguing that Global Warming doesn't exist because it's snowing today. It's true, but not relevant to the discussion.
      - ajmurmann 9y ago
        To add to your point, many of these "chemicals" aren't even all that artificial. Some thickeners for example come from algae and gave been in use since centuries just in different countries. Looking at some traditional food like ham they are incredibly processed we just are used to it.
- hammock 9y ago
  >"eat what your grand-grand parents ate" Not possible, unfortunately. Meat and vegetables are so totally different now. For example meats are raised on GM corn and antibiotics, altering their balance of omega 3's, impact on gut health, and other things. While today's vegetables are massively decremented in micronutrients- and may have less arsenic-based pesticide residue than your greatgrandparents', but more of other pesticides.
  - metamet 9y ago
    They still exist. Eat locally from farmers. All my beef is grass fed (which have higher omega 3's), for example. And if you can't because of where you live, there's a good chance neither could your grandparents had if they lived there as well.
    - leshow 9y ago
      Or you could take an omega-3 supplement and eat normal beef. There isn't much evidence to show that grass-fed beef has any measurable effect on health.
      - cabinguy 9y ago
        There isn't much evidence to show that supplements do either.
        deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
        deeth_starr_v 9y ago
        Agreed, research here is that supplements don't have an impact. Edit: For pregnant women and others for sure. But in the general population no
        iopq 9y ago
        Well, fish oil does have SOME evidence behind it.
- stale2002 9y ago
  Your grand grand parents probably died of polio or something, so I am not sure if taking their advice on health is a good idea.
  - aetherson 9y ago
    Polio is not a disease caused by malnutrition. Also, your ancestors probably did not die of it -- it mostly affected young people, so people who died from it usually didn't have descendants. Quibbling aside, health in general was certainly much worse in our great-grandparents' days, but for those who weren't straight up underfed, nutrition was probably not worse. I'm not sure it was as magically better as some would have you believe, but there is decent evidence that traditional diets were more-or-less fine, and that the modern diet has something wrong with it.
    - projektfu 9y ago
      Most of the impetus for Federal nutrition programs in the US was because of the large number of malnourished and unfit to serve draftees in WW1.
  - deeth_starr_v 9y ago
    No, a heart attack at 48 and cancer at 91. This data tells you little Edit: Sorry, misread. All I know is my great grandfather was a pony express rider and got colon cancer
  - tomc1985 9y ago
    It's only bad advice if they died of malnutrition
- komali2 9y ago
  My great grandparents ate nothing but potatos, no thanks.
  - deeth_starr_v 9y ago
    What's your point? My great grandparents were Italian and Irish.
    - komali2 9y ago
      Eating only potatos isn't healthy, why would I emulate their diet?
- sneak 9y ago
  Orange juice, from your example, is pretty bad for you, especially compared to the low glycemic index carbohydrates found in things like Soylent. File under "false dichotomy".
  - iopq 9y ago
    Glycemic index means nothing. Cake has a low glycemic index (someting like 30, depending on fat content). Oatmeal has a higher glycemic index (55). Does that mean we should stop eating oatmeal and substitute it with cake?
- CaptainZapp 9y ago
  I would add: And refrain from "food" that comes with a version number. But that's just me.
ng12 9y ago
The Soylent of today doesn't claim that though. It says right on bottle that it can replace a meal but it should not replace every meal. In that respect it's not much different than Ensure or other meal supplements.
- paulcole 9y ago
  Their website definitely claims that Soylent is a complete substitute for all food.
  - ng12 9y ago
    Where do you see that? It only claims it's a meal substitute, which it is. The only other recommendation I could find was this: > As a nutritionally complete food source, Soylent should be considered a food product just like any other. You can include Soylent in your diet for as long as you’d like, in any amount that suits your needs. There is no right or wrong amount of Soylent to eat - the whole idea is to find a balance that works for you.
staticassertion 9y ago
And Soylent can be fine for those things. It's simple to see that it's faster than cooking a meal. Does that mean you'll spend that time better? No. It's simple to see that your calories are measured out for you - does that mean you won't eat more than you should? No. Both examples had underlying issues that Soylent did not solve, because it never could. Doesn't mean it can't solve those same problems for others.
Romanulus 9y ago
Just because someone is too far gone to get help from a product that _CAN_ help doesn't mean it is the fault of the product. *edit: clarity.

GavinMcG 9y ago

Sure, the underlying problem is depression. We can still have a reasonable discussion about things that enable that depression, or extend it. That's not at all a silly concern.

jklinger410 9y ago
Convenience of any form enables unfavorable outcomes. Delivery pizza may have caused suicide, from this perspective.
- GavinMcG 9y ago
  Yes! It may have! Why is that not something that can be discussed? I mean, I'd bet good money that delivery pizza is a net benefit, but I can still admit that some people probably rely on it in a way that's unhealthy.
mojowo11 9y ago
Meal replacement shakes have been around for, what, 2+ decades now? Saying that Soylent has come along and now somehow enables depressed people strikes me as insanity. Depressed people misuse all kinds of perfectly valid products and services. Being mad at Soylent, or pizza delivery, or the internet, or beds, or any other thing that depressed people might end up leaning on in an unhealthy way seems pretty silly to me.
- brilliantcode 9y ago
  Except Soylent marketed itself as a replacement. All those shakes you talk about are aimed at supplementing. They weren't stupid enough to tell people to live on it because of the legal liability.
  - DanBC 9y ago
    I agree Soylent used irresponsible marketing. But many of those other products can be used as sole source of nutrition. EG fortisip: http://www.nutricia.ie/products/view/fortisip http://www.nutricia.ie/products/view/fortisip > Fortisip is a Food for Special Medical Purposes for use under medical supervision. Fortisip is a nutritionally complete, 1.5kcal/ml, ready to drink, milk shake style nutritional supplement, for the management of disease related malnutrition. Fortisip can be used to supplement the diet of patients unable to meet their nutritional requirements from other foods, or used as a sole source of nutrition. Fortisip is available in 200ml bottles, with a flexible straw attached, in 8 flavours: Neutral, Vanilla, Chocolate, Toffee, Banana, Orange, Strawberry and Tropical Fruits. Ensure original: https://abbottnutrition.com/ensure-original https://abbottnutrition.com/ensure-original > For interim sole-source nutrition.

Judgmentality 9y ago

Sure, but some things are more likely to be misused than others. For instance, Facebook. It's obviously a wildly popular and profitable product, but studies show that the more you use it the more likely you are to be depressed - but Facebook has a financial incentive to addict those users regardless. Anyway, I'm not really a fan of Soylent. I disagree with its health benefits. I think the company is pushing it as a far more miraculous product than it is (especially considering the recalls they received for their health bars which seemed like poor quality control). I also think it tastes awful, but obviously that is completely subjective.

dmix 9y ago
Facebook causing depression when used too much? What were the alternative groups doing? Correlation is a tricky thing to measure. I'm not sure how I feel about these types of studies or what utility they really provide. Other than maybe giving the reader some perspective on their life. Anything used in a poor context, for example not combined with the right attitude, environment, etc can cause issues. Often we just fall into negative cycles and need to be kicked in the butt to change them. We often fixate on one specific thing, like I quit smoking and suddenly became healthy (but I also worked out, started eating better, spent less time/money on a neutral/negative activity, etc, etc). There are always so many moving parts. At most you could critique Solyent if they advertised as the solution to your health problems. Rather than something to replace 1-2 daily meals when you're on a tight schedule. The former is a complicated multi-faceted lifestyle thing that no company could offer with a single product but that won't stop them from positioning the product that way. But we should be smart enough to know it will only ever (potentially) be a component of it.
- Judgmentality 9y ago
  So I actually decided to look for the source and you're right - the results are a lot more complicated than I thought. I guess I'm a victim of confirmation bias. http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/09/07/492871024/facebook-and-mortality-why-your-incessant-joy-gives-me-the-blues http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/09/07/49287102...

brilliantcode 9y ago

Are you a soylent stakeholder? It's puzzling why you would invalidate someone's experience with such a condescending tone. Soylent is just another hyped up SV junk. The rest of the world does not give a shit about having to cook because they don't have much to eat. I personally wouldn't touch Soylent and leave it up to some 30 year old engineers with no understanding of the food industry. The CEO is super fucking annoying always pushing that shitjuice and looking at ppl confused "why are you still eating lol thats a waste of time". This is exactly what an engineer on the autism spectrum will tell you. Fuck Soylent.

unethical_ban 9y ago
>make shill accusation and berate someone for condescention >make general remarks about world demand for products and time management, accuse CEO of autism, vulgarly insult product
thraway2016 9y ago
The unfounded hostility that the mere existence of Soylent brings out of otherwise level-headed people is always a great source of amusement.
- brilliantcode 9y ago
  http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/05/12/the-end-of-food http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/05/12/the-end-of-food