5 ms·

I'm sitting this one out for a year. I expected Rob to run longer and more detailed trails than it appears he has. As in a few hundred people eating nothing bu

by shubb 13y ago

I'm sitting this one out for a year. I expected Rob to run longer and more detailed trails than it appears he has. As in a few hundred people eating nothing but Soylent for a year. There will be problems with the initial manufacture, and he highlights them in the risks section. But I notice the lack of anyone from say a pharma QC background who would be able to control the risk of overdosing on an ingredient by properly testing the batches during production. Maybe the production facility have the skills to do that? Within a year, whatever can go wrong probably will have. Either they will be in a lot of trouble, or it will be pretty safe to buy (and a huge achievement). I guess you could say the same for coinbase. NOTE: The OP was behaving badly, but was desperately well motivated. He provided a useful link where a food scientist rubbishes Soylent - http://www.businessinsider.com/rob-rhinehart-food-substitute-eating-disorder-2013-3 http://www.businessinsider.com/rob-rhinehart-food-substitute...

DanBC 13y ago
> and a huge achievement Why will it be a huge achievement?
- shubb 13y ago
  Well, if in a year, it hasn't gone horribly wrong, then he's produced something people can eat for a year without great ill effect. Someone will eat this for a year, so we will find out. Most of it's demo will eat it about 50% of the time, eating conventional instant meals and restaurant foods the rest. If it's healthier, or at least different from 'mostly eating microwave lasagne', it should improve their health. Also, I see it as a great way to control calories. I don't have a weight problem, but most people I do just eat huge portions and snacks. Measuring out powder will help them. But that's if the guy who eats it all year doesn't lose a kidney month number 9 because they added too much Vitamin A and call his lawyer.
  - munificent 13y ago
    > Well, if in a year, it hasn't gone horribly wrong, then he's produced something people can eat for a year without great ill effect. No, he's produced something people can eat for a year without great ill effect in that year. You can very likely smoke cigarettes for a year without ill effect. That tells you next to nothing about its long-term effects.
    - javert 13y ago
      Sorry, are there any carcinogens in Soylent? Ah, didn't think so.
  - Kurtz79 13y ago
    "Also, I see it as a great way to control calories. I don't have a weight problem, but most people I do just eat huge portions and snasck. Measuring out powder will help them." Most people eat huge portions and snacks for the physical pleasure the underlying food brings, not because they rationally think "I need huge portions to get my minimum daily intake of carbs/fats/vitamins". Thinking that people with a weight problem will switch to a flavorless white goop it's just not realistic.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
- shubb 13y ago
  Actually, reading this, I can see your point. It's all very well to say 'other people can test this out', but the possible consequences are pretty bad. Thanks. As I say, I'm waiting a year before having anything to do with this. But I hope it is okay. Because I'd like the product, but also because someone will eat it for a year now.
  - zobzu 13y ago
    Not sure if its much worse than genetically modified food tbh. Certainly the testing isn't all that different.
AJ007 13y ago
You can do a lot of really bad stuff to your body for a year with few noticeable external affects, especially in your 20s. A good decade of testing sounds about on target.
zarify 13y ago
As far as debunks go the Business Insider article wasn't much of one sadly. Also calling this a diet doesn't seem that accurate to me in the way that most people think of diets (something transitory); it feels like they're using the term as a pejorative. One of the things which has interested me about this whole affair since it was first posted was the reactions of people who put timeframes on their interest "I'll be interested to see what happens after a month", "...after three months", "...after a year", "...after a decade". I wonder at what point people are going to say "well ok, that's long enough, I've seen enough". I think this is interesting from the point of view of someone who doesn't enjoy cooking most of the time and most of the stuff I cook when I'm in work mode is probably deficient nutritionally. I also think as a portable, storable and efficient food source the potential is pretty amazing, and I don't think the fact he's not a biochem or nutrition guy is an excuse to ignore the principle of what he's trying to do here. I would definitely like to see some more critical appraisal (and there certainly seems to be some in some of the comments here).

by shubb 13y ago

DanBC 13y ago

> and a huge achievement Why will it be a huge achievement?

shubb 13y ago
Well, if in a year, it hasn't gone horribly wrong, then he's produced something people can eat for a year without great ill effect. Someone will eat this for a year, so we will find out. Most of it's demo will eat it about 50% of the time, eating conventional instant meals and restaurant foods the rest. If it's healthier, or at least different from 'mostly eating microwave lasagne', it should improve their health. Also, I see it as a great way to control calories. I don't have a weight problem, but most people I do just eat huge portions and snacks. Measuring out powder will help them. But that's if the guy who eats it all year doesn't lose a kidney month number 9 because they added too much Vitamin A and call his lawyer.
- munificent 13y ago
  > Well, if in a year, it hasn't gone horribly wrong, then he's produced something people can eat for a year without great ill effect. No, he's produced something people can eat for a year without great ill effect in that year. You can very likely smoke cigarettes for a year without ill effect. That tells you next to nothing about its long-term effects.
  - javert 13y ago
    Sorry, are there any carcinogens in Soylent? Ah, didn't think so.
- Kurtz79 13y ago
  "Also, I see it as a great way to control calories. I don't have a weight problem, but most people I do just eat huge portions and snasck. Measuring out powder will help them." Most people eat huge portions and snacks for the physical pleasure the underlying food brings, not because they rationally think "I need huge portions to get my minimum daily intake of carbs/fats/vitamins". Thinking that people with a weight problem will switch to a flavorless white goop it's just not realistic.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

shubb 13y ago
Actually, reading this, I can see your point. It's all very well to say 'other people can test this out', but the possible consequences are pretty bad. Thanks. As I say, I'm waiting a year before having anything to do with this. But I hope it is okay. Because I'd like the product, but also because someone will eat it for a year now.
- zobzu 13y ago
  Not sure if its much worse than genetically modified food tbh. Certainly the testing isn't all that different.

AJ007 13y ago

You can do a lot of really bad stuff to your body for a year with few noticeable external affects, especially in your 20s. A good decade of testing sounds about on target.

zarify 13y ago

As far as debunks go the Business Insider article wasn't much of one sadly. Also calling this a diet doesn't seem that accurate to me in the way that most people think of diets (something transitory); it feels like they're using the term as a pejorative. One of the things which has interested me about this whole affair since it was first posted was the reactions of people who put timeframes on their interest "I'll be interested to see what happens after a month", "...after three months", "...after a year", "...after a decade". I wonder at what point people are going to say "well ok, that's long enough, I've seen enough". I think this is interesting from the point of view of someone who doesn't enjoy cooking most of the time and most of the stuff I cook when I'm in work mode is probably deficient nutritionally. I also think as a portable, storable and efficient food source the potential is pretty amazing, and I don't think the fact he's not a biochem or nutrition guy is an excuse to ignore the principle of what he's trying to do here. I would definitely like to see some more critical appraisal (and there certainly seems to be some in some of the comments here).