6 ms·

Yeah, I'm pretty sure that you don't actually know where this guy learned his science and medicine. Let people experiment on themselves. IMO there are enough hu

Yeah, I'm pretty sure that you don't actually know where this guy learned his science and medicine. Let people experiment on themselves. IMO there are enough humans that if a few get slightly ill from this, it is worth it for the chance that it does work (which seems significant given the experimentation he did on himself, the presence of similar, competing products, etc.).

jessedhillon 13y ago
I agree with the first part of your comment. But let's not play up his self-experimentation as anything more than whimsical. His result are not significant in any way. Ffs he has been on it for how long? Months? Maybe a year? And n=1 as well.
- jamesaguilar 13y ago
  Right, for me "chance that this does work" is valued somewhere around 5-25% right now. It is worth that chance for more people to try it and really see.
  - MDS100 13y ago
    His research is terrible. He is missing several key ingredients.
chasing 13y ago
Rob Rhinehart's bio starts: "Rob is a Y Combinator alumnus with professional experience in electrical engineering, computer science and entrepreneurship." If he had some powerful degree in nutrition or a medical degree, it would be mentioned in this sentence. It's not. He doesn't. And he's not experimenting on himself. He's selling a product that he's advertising as a food replacement with all sorts of health benefits. As far as "it's cool if a few people get sick..." Are you insane?
- jamesaguilar 13y ago
  The person I'm responding to claimed that he learned the science from Reddit. I am not claiming he learned it in medical school. I'm claiming that there's no evidence he got it from Reddit. > As far as "it's cool if a few people get sick..." Are you insane? They know what they are getting themselves into. I don't have any problem with people who choose to binge drink or the alcohol manufacturers that sell that product. If people know what they are getting themselves into -- and they'd have to go out of their way to not know with this product -- I'm normally OK with the outcome. Especially if the probable worst-case outcome is a few months of suboptimal nutrition followed by a return to a normal diet. Nope, not insane.
  - chasing 13y ago
    Really? I've got to explain the difference between something touted as a health supplement / meal replacement and booze? (Which, if you'll notice, is covered in warnings and regulated out the wazoo.)
    - jamesaguilar 13y ago
      > I've got to explain the difference between . . . My point is merely that I'm fine with people choosing to do risky things as long as the risk involved is obvious. I'd be a little more comfortable with this campaign page if they made slightly less grandiose promises, but for the most part I think the people ordering it will be aware of the shallowness of the testing so far and can decide for themselves if that is a risk they are willing to accept.
      - chasing 13y ago
        Despite my snark, I do understand what you're saying. It's the "as long as the risk involved is obvious" part that bothers me. Soylent has had a presence on sites like Hacker News, so we kind of know what it's about. But not everyone does. And I really do believe that honest food labeling is very, very important. They're passing this off as a cure. That's what really irks me. None of the presentation I've seen so far communicates "participate in our experiment!" It's all stuff like "For anyone who 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." That's a health claim they simple can't back up in any reasonable way. And it's a claim that many people are likely to assume is true! Not everyone will dig into the site and see that Rhinehart has a background in engineering, not nutrition, and that these claims haven't actually been backed up at all. You and I might know to do that, but many people won't. Which is why we have food labeling laws in the first place.
Avshalom 13y ago
>it is worth it for the chance that Whats the value here? This is just another proprietary nutrient slurry. We already have those.
jljljl 13y ago
One of the reasons we have consumer protection laws and the FDA is so that people _don't_ have to experiment on themselves in order to verify the more extravagant claims made by products. People should have a reasonable expectation that when they buy a product, it will work as expected and as advertised. And they should have recourse if this turns out not to be the case.
- jamesaguilar 13y ago
  I'd totally have a problem with this if it were being advertised as a highly tested, rock solid product rather than a nutritional experiment. Since that's not the case, I'm fine with it.
  - DanBC 13y ago
    From the crowd funding page: > For anyone who 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. > Soylent frees you from the time and money spent shopping, cooking and cleaning, puts you in excellent health, > By taking years to spoil > The founders and scores of DIYers have been living on Soylent for months and there is much evidence that is considerably healthier than a typical diet. There's no mention on the crowd-funding page that this is an experiment. I tend to agree with you - people can do what they like with their bodies and this product would fit a lot better if it was sold as an experiment, with access to discussion forums and etc. I notice they now have a disclaimer on that page.
  - jljljl 13y ago
    I think we are more aware of the product's experimental nature due to having read and discussed his blogs. I'm not sure that reading the sales page discloses this as much. It definitely doesn't look like an experiment. There is no data collection, no controls, no clear or explicit warning that the product is untested.
DanBC 13y ago
They're not selling it as an untested, risky, experiment. They're selling it as tested, as safe, as suitable for anyone, and as something that will put you in optimum health. It's sleazy and scummy.

jessedhillon 13y ago

I agree with the first part of your comment. But let's not play up his self-experimentation as anything more than whimsical. His result are not significant in any way. Ffs he has been on it for how long? Months? Maybe a year? And n=1 as well.

jamesaguilar 13y ago
Right, for me "chance that this does work" is valued somewhere around 5-25% right now. It is worth that chance for more people to try it and really see.
- MDS100 13y ago
  His research is terrible. He is missing several key ingredients.

chasing 13y ago

Rob Rhinehart's bio starts: "Rob is a Y Combinator alumnus with professional experience in electrical engineering, computer science and entrepreneurship." If he had some powerful degree in nutrition or a medical degree, it would be mentioned in this sentence. It's not. He doesn't. And he's not experimenting on himself. He's selling a product that he's advertising as a food replacement with all sorts of health benefits. As far as "it's cool if a few people get sick..." Are you insane?

jamesaguilar 13y ago
The person I'm responding to claimed that he learned the science from Reddit. I am not claiming he learned it in medical school. I'm claiming that there's no evidence he got it from Reddit. > As far as "it's cool if a few people get sick..." Are you insane? They know what they are getting themselves into. I don't have any problem with people who choose to binge drink or the alcohol manufacturers that sell that product. If people know what they are getting themselves into -- and they'd have to go out of their way to not know with this product -- I'm normally OK with the outcome. Especially if the probable worst-case outcome is a few months of suboptimal nutrition followed by a return to a normal diet. Nope, not insane.
- chasing 13y ago
  Really? I've got to explain the difference between something touted as a health supplement / meal replacement and booze? (Which, if you'll notice, is covered in warnings and regulated out the wazoo.)
  - jamesaguilar 13y ago
    > I've got to explain the difference between . . . My point is merely that I'm fine with people choosing to do risky things as long as the risk involved is obvious. I'd be a little more comfortable with this campaign page if they made slightly less grandiose promises, but for the most part I think the people ordering it will be aware of the shallowness of the testing so far and can decide for themselves if that is a risk they are willing to accept.
    - chasing 13y ago
      Despite my snark, I do understand what you're saying. It's the "as long as the risk involved is obvious" part that bothers me. Soylent has had a presence on sites like Hacker News, so we kind of know what it's about. But not everyone does. And I really do believe that honest food labeling is very, very important. They're passing this off as a cure. That's what really irks me. None of the presentation I've seen so far communicates "participate in our experiment!" It's all stuff like "For anyone who 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." That's a health claim they simple can't back up in any reasonable way. And it's a claim that many people are likely to assume is true! Not everyone will dig into the site and see that Rhinehart has a background in engineering, not nutrition, and that these claims haven't actually been backed up at all. You and I might know to do that, but many people won't. Which is why we have food labeling laws in the first place.

Avshalom 13y ago

>it is worth it for the chance that Whats the value here? This is just another proprietary nutrient slurry. We already have those.

jljljl 13y ago

One of the reasons we have consumer protection laws and the FDA is so that people _don't_ have to experiment on themselves in order to verify the more extravagant claims made by products. People should have a reasonable expectation that when they buy a product, it will work as expected and as advertised. And they should have recourse if this turns out not to be the case.

jamesaguilar 13y ago
I'd totally have a problem with this if it were being advertised as a highly tested, rock solid product rather than a nutritional experiment. Since that's not the case, I'm fine with it.
- DanBC 13y ago
  From the crowd funding page: > For anyone who 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. > Soylent frees you from the time and money spent shopping, cooking and cleaning, puts you in excellent health, > By taking years to spoil > The founders and scores of DIYers have been living on Soylent for months and there is much evidence that is considerably healthier than a typical diet. There's no mention on the crowd-funding page that this is an experiment. I tend to agree with you - people can do what they like with their bodies and this product would fit a lot better if it was sold as an experiment, with access to discussion forums and etc. I notice they now have a disclaimer on that page.
- jljljl 13y ago
  I think we are more aware of the product's experimental nature due to having read and discussed his blogs. I'm not sure that reading the sales page discloses this as much. It definitely doesn't look like an experiment. There is no data collection, no controls, no clear or explicit warning that the product is untested.

DanBC 13y ago

They're not selling it as an untested, risky, experiment. They're selling it as tested, as safe, as suitable for anyone, and as something that will put you in optimum health. It's sleazy and scummy.