5 ms·

I love to cook, but it can be extremely time consuming, especially when paired with the time to cleanup. A lot of dishes also require an amount of inactive time

by geetee 13y ago

I love to cook, but it can be extremely time consuming, especially when paired with the time to cleanup. A lot of dishes also require an amount of inactive time that is simply impossible for a weekday meal that you need to squeeze between coming home from work and going to sleep. In a perfect world, I have time to shop for and prepare elaborate meals. I'd be able to sit down and enjoy these meals with loved ones. Reality is a bit different for many of us. I'm fortunate enough to have the financial means to eat or take out every day if I wanted, but that's not a terribly healthy solution. The fact is, most of my meals are "utility" meals where I am eating to live. That said, it does not preclude me from living to eat. Food would never cease to be one of life's joys, for me at least. I am pro-Soylent, but I won't participate any time soon. I want to see how it plays out, because putting my body on the line is not in the cards. I hope it works out, because getting back an hour or two every day sounds fantastic.

jacques_chester 13y ago
You're creating a false dichotomy between Perfect Cooking and No Cooking. Many tasty meals can be prepared quickly. Many can be prepared without supervision. You can also prepare meals in bulk and reheat them when you need them. Are some meals elaborate and time-consuming? Yes. Just don't make those ones.
- genwin 13y ago
  Yep. Frozen veggies with pesto is under 1 minute to get into the microwave. After heating, sprinkle on some cashews.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
- geetee 13y ago
  It's true that many tasty meals can be rather quick. I used phrases like "it can be" and "a lot of dishes" specifically to avoid creating a false dichotomy. Sometimes I get bored of pan-seared salmon filet with sauce-of-the-week and microwave-steamed fresh broccoli. After the umpteenth time, I'm not deriving pleasure from the cooking process. The cook in bulk recommendation is front-loading a time commitment for the kind of freedom something like Soylent would permit without sacrificing part of your weekend. I cook in bulk every so often, but blow half my weekend every week? Not a chance.
  - rosser 13y ago
    I cook in bulk every so often, but blow half my weekend every week? And now you're straw-manning. Cooking in bulk generally takes only marginally more time than cooking the same thing for a single meal.
    - geetee 13y ago
      If you're talking about filling up a slow cooker to the brim and letting it roll, sure, you can do that. I personally rather drink Soylent if that's the meal we're shooting for. For example: If you want to do a stew or chili right, you need to brown the meat. You need to do it in batches to avoid crowding the pan. Batches take time.
  - jacques_chester 13y ago
    > After the umpteenth time, I'm not deriving pleasure from the cooking process. Learn a new dish. "After watching Batman Begins every night for 4 months straight, I got a bit bored with it". Watch a new movie. > blow half my weekend every week? Yet another false dichotomy. As I said above, many dishes can be cooked without supervision. Cook one or two of those. On nights when you feel like cooking fresh, cook fresh. Otherwise pull the stew, curry, chilli, ragu etc etc etc out of the freezer and heat it up. It's just not that hard. And cost:reward vs drinking sour white water seems pretty good to me.
    - Cushman 13y ago
      > Watch a new movie. What? Why do I have to watch a movie?
      - jacques_chester 13y ago
        You're right. I could just watch the static instead. It contains about as much intellectual content, is quite soothing and has a much lower environmental footprint.
        13y ago
- pbreit 13y ago
  The OP created a false dichotomy. No one is requiring soylent 21 times per week. Save up your enthusiasm and make 4 or 5 excellent meals per week. You'll even enjoy them more than you would have.
  - meowface 13y ago
    Agreed. I think it could be a useful product, even if the majority of people probably would not want to replace all of their meals with it.
  - jckt 13y ago
    That was the main selling point, though, as I understand -- that you can eat Soylent 100% or hell, 95% of the time, and you'd be healthy and not die. And most people were actually complaining about that, that everything's been so rushed. Soylent in its current form is nothing new. I am no authority, but it probably isn't the best either, with only a few mere months' worth of research. I'm sure this product isn't going to be an impending health disaster -- I doubt anyone would be dumb enough to eat Soylent till they die. But there are alternatives out there (the OP mentions a few) that are likely better-tested. Soylent's one claim to fame may as well be its better marketing (pretty much everyone in that company's a marketer).

by geetee 13y ago

jacques_chester 13y ago

You're creating a false dichotomy between Perfect Cooking and No Cooking. Many tasty meals can be prepared quickly. Many can be prepared without supervision. You can also prepare meals in bulk and reheat them when you need them. Are some meals elaborate and time-consuming? Yes. Just don't make those ones.

genwin 13y ago
Yep. Frozen veggies with pesto is under 1 minute to get into the microwave. After heating, sprinkle on some cashews.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
geetee 13y ago
It's true that many tasty meals can be rather quick. I used phrases like "it can be" and "a lot of dishes" specifically to avoid creating a false dichotomy. Sometimes I get bored of pan-seared salmon filet with sauce-of-the-week and microwave-steamed fresh broccoli. After the umpteenth time, I'm not deriving pleasure from the cooking process. The cook in bulk recommendation is front-loading a time commitment for the kind of freedom something like Soylent would permit without sacrificing part of your weekend. I cook in bulk every so often, but blow half my weekend every week? Not a chance.
- rosser 13y ago
  I cook in bulk every so often, but blow half my weekend every week? And now you're straw-manning. Cooking in bulk generally takes only marginally more time than cooking the same thing for a single meal.
  - geetee 13y ago
    If you're talking about filling up a slow cooker to the brim and letting it roll, sure, you can do that. I personally rather drink Soylent if that's the meal we're shooting for. For example: If you want to do a stew or chili right, you need to brown the meat. You need to do it in batches to avoid crowding the pan. Batches take time.
- jacques_chester 13y ago
  > After the umpteenth time, I'm not deriving pleasure from the cooking process. Learn a new dish. "After watching Batman Begins every night for 4 months straight, I got a bit bored with it". Watch a new movie. > blow half my weekend every week? Yet another false dichotomy. As I said above, many dishes can be cooked without supervision. Cook one or two of those. On nights when you feel like cooking fresh, cook fresh. Otherwise pull the stew, curry, chilli, ragu etc etc etc out of the freezer and heat it up. It's just not that hard. And cost:reward vs drinking sour white water seems pretty good to me.
  - Cushman 13y ago
    > Watch a new movie. What? Why do I have to watch a movie?
    - jacques_chester 13y ago
      You're right. I could just watch the static instead. It contains about as much intellectual content, is quite soothing and has a much lower environmental footprint.
      - 13y ago
pbreit 13y ago
The OP created a false dichotomy. No one is requiring soylent 21 times per week. Save up your enthusiasm and make 4 or 5 excellent meals per week. You'll even enjoy them more than you would have.
- meowface 13y ago
  Agreed. I think it could be a useful product, even if the majority of people probably would not want to replace all of their meals with it.
- jckt 13y ago
  That was the main selling point, though, as I understand -- that you can eat Soylent 100% or hell, 95% of the time, and you'd be healthy and not die. And most people were actually complaining about that, that everything's been so rushed. Soylent in its current form is nothing new. I am no authority, but it probably isn't the best either, with only a few mere months' worth of research. I'm sure this product isn't going to be an impending health disaster -- I doubt anyone would be dumb enough to eat Soylent till they die. But there are alternatives out there (the OP mentions a few) that are likely better-tested. Soylent's one claim to fame may as well be its better marketing (pretty much everyone in that company's a marketer).