9 ms·

This kind of article seems to ignore the fact that almost everyone eats poorly. In other words, the proposition "Soylent will not provide close to optimum nutr

This kind of article seems to ignore the fact that almost everyone eats poorly. In other words, the proposition "Soylent will not provide close to optimum nutrition for everyone" is extremely different from the proposition "Switching to Soylent will improve the diet of most people". Most people get most of their calories from sugar, refined starches, and refined vegetable oils. They do not finely-tune their nutritional intake based on their gender, weight, age, activity level, stress level or time of year. I'm interested in the pros and cons of Soylent for this type of typical person. I'm extremely skeptical of Soylent, but this vector of attack seems incorrect to me, applicable only to people who already have extremely health diets.

weego 13y ago
Shouldn't a nutrition/meal replacement startup strive for more than "well, you're eating shit anyway, why not buy our almost entirely untested and unregulated shit!"
- gabemart 13y ago
  >Shouldn't a nutrition/meal replacement startup strive for more than "well, you're eating shit anyway, why not buy our almost entirely untested and unregulated shit!" Sure, but I think the size of its success or failure for each person should be measured against their health if they were to go on eating their regular diet, not some hypothesized perfect diet. The alternative to me seems a little like saying condoms will always be a terrible method of STI prevention because their prevention rate is less than 100%, and you can achieve 100% prevention with strict abstinence. For people who can't or won't practice strict abstinence, that comparison doesn't seem very useful.
cliveowen 13y ago
You might be right but the solution is to educate people, not to feed them a powdery substance of dubious nutritional value.
- oblique63 13y ago
  This is true, but the problem is that the education out there is highly fragmented, polarizing, hand-wavy, and/or impractical most of the time. If you have an idea for what this education might look like, I guarantee you there will be no shortage of "experts" to counter-act your ideas from numerous different viewpoints, each with surprisingly valid points of their own. The fact that nobody likes to admit is that nutrition is still a large 'black box' in the human system, and we only know a handful of basic correlations that involve it. Macro nutrients aren't nearly as important as 'low carb' dieters like to think they are; glycemic index and blood sugar levels aren't nearly as important as some others like to think they are; similar story for acidity and all kinds of other theories. Then for caloric intake, most arguments stand on top of the high-horse of having the most scientific backup and leave it at that, without ever giving much practical information. No, exercise is not an efficient way to burn calories; and No, just because a diet is backed by some misguided theory does not mean it's not a significantly more practical approach to take. However, because there is such polarization, nobody ever reaches a consensus for what's a good practical (!) approach to eating healthy that's actually backed up by significant data. Personally, I don't see this happening anytime soon either, at least not until we discover everything there is to know about human digestion (and that includes developing the understanding of the relatively 'new' microbiome as well).
  - jacques_chester 13y ago
    So let me see if I have you right. 1. Nutrition is an ongoing research project. 2. Therefore wilful ignorance is better than being versed in what is currently understood.
    - oblique63 13y ago
      That's distorting my words and ignoring the effects of polarization. I said I agreed with education. What I have a problem with is the black/white attitude almost every nutrition course has. It was more of a plea for people to cooperate and work together rather than the appeal to ignorance that you seem to be accusing me of. I only wrote the comment so that other learners can be a bit more open minded about the current state of understanding before taking everything they learn in nutrition books/courses at face value. Trying to paint my nuanced argument in such a bleak light is exactly the type of needless polarization I'm frustrated with.
kevingadd 13y ago
You say people don't tune their nutritional intake, but the human body does have ways of telling you if you're missing essential nutrients. There are lots of various cues caused by people's diets that they adapt to, either by going out and eating something different, taking supplements, etc. I don't think the OP is arguing that everyone needs a nutritionist to regulate their diet; rather, he's arguing that a drink like Soylent is inferior to even the basic amount of dietary adjustment that normally happens in a person's life. If all you care about is calories, sure, Soylent is probably fine. I'd be concerned that if you get used to how it feels to mostly subsist on Soylent, you might be intentionally tuning out important cues from your body.
- marknutter 13y ago
  This bears repeating, over and over and over again if necessary, in every HN thread related to Soylent: most people who purchase Soylent will not exclusively eat Soylent. They will instead supplement their diet with it for times when they don't want to be bothered to make a meal.
  - freehunter 13y ago
    Jaime from the Mythbusters does this; he explains it in an episode where they are testing fuel consumption of cars over a long distance and can't stop to eat. Adam brought snack foods, Jaime brought what he calls "444". 4 fruits, 4 vegetables, and 4 beans ground up in a blender for him to drink. He put his recipe in an email that someone posted to reddit at one point. Jaime claims it's healthy and full nutrition, but he only eats/drinks it when he can't be bothered to actually eat something.
  - jacques_chester 13y ago
    It bears repeating, over and over, that this is not how it was originally pitched. That is not the marketing at all. It is being marketed as a total meal replacement. There is a thin bit of legalese to cover them in case some poor bastard will die of malnutrition.
- auganov 13y ago
danparsonson 13y ago
> Most people get most of their calories from sugar, refined starches, and refined vegetable oils. They do not finely-tune their nutritional intake based on their gender, weight, age, activity level, stress level or time of year. Do you know this or believe this?
- bluedino 13y ago
  Have you been to a supermarket or restaurant in the last 20 years?
  - danparsonson 13y ago
    Several! They sell all sorts of different things and I'm not a food scientist (or anything remotely like that) so I find it difficult to draw any general conclusions about eating habits from my own experiences. Unfortunately I also haven't surveyed 'most people' during that time so I don't know whether the statement I originally quoted is an opinion, or in-depth knowledge. Which is why I asked.
bluedino 13y ago
>> This kind of article seems to ignore the fact that almost everyone eats poorly. An argument could be made that most people don't eat poorly, they simply eat too much. Over half of the US population is fat. It's insane.
corresation 13y ago
This kind of article seems to ignore the fact that almost everyone eats poorly. "Poorly" is relative. Most Westerners suffer no deficiencies, and are unhealthy more from a lack of activity and excess intake. This turns people mystical about their food, as if finding the magic elixir will cure lifestyle issues (such as the current hysterics about carbs: The Japanese get 70%+ of their calories from very simple carbs -- white rice, which is of a nutrition profile closely related to table sugar -- and they have marginal obesity and excellent health profiles. They just eat less of it and maintain active lives). There is the paradox that the US is one of the least healthy people's, yet one of the most absolutely obsessed about their food. A Big Mac has an enormously complex nutritional profile, as hard as that may be to imagine. An egg and a slice of bread is a superfood. Both have been maligned because of excess or sedentary lifestyles, but either in moderation can be an ideal part of your diet. Nonetheless, I dislike the linked article: It attacks Soylent mostly from a defensive, elitist attitude that tries to hold information freedom as some sort of anti-intellectualism. While there are legitimate complaints about Soylent (and I don't think "everyone is different!" is a good approach), it seems like the creator(s) are trying to find the relevant information, and trying to use the accumulated knowledge of nutritionist. Just because they didn't classically train as a nutritionist does not invalidate their work.
- magnusson 13y ago
  White rice is a starch, which is a complex carb, and does not have "a nutrition profile closely related to table sugar." Other than that, this is on-target. All of longest-lived populations eat primarily carb-based diets.
  - corresation 13y ago
    White rice has a GI of 64 and is essentially a pure carbohydrate. Table sugar has a GI of 68 and is a pure carbohydrate. The two have very similar behavior in the body, so while they may be compositionally very different, as an energy source and insulin response source they are almost interchangeable, no?
    - 13y ago
mcv 13y ago
Exactly. I have some doubts about Soylent, but the only real argument this article provides is: different people have different nutritional needs. Fine. So how well does normal food adjust to those needs? Who the hell tunes their food intake exactly to their needs? Do we even have the science to determine what your personal needs are? The vast, vast majority of people simply eat what tastes good. Or even just what's available. Some people try to stick what they think is healthy, but they often do that on a much narrower scientific basis than Rhinehart uses. Lots of people follow thoroughly unhealthy diets hoping to lose weight for a few months become they gain it again. Soylent, in contrast, is pretty easy to tune to your needs, once you're aware of them. You're not stuck with whatever the nutritional value in your favourite food is, you can actually tweak it (or let a qualified nutritionist do it for you). In the future, I can imagine Soylent dispensers that dispense your perfect mix when you insert your chipcard with your nutritional needs. So despite the author's dislike for amateurs, his only argument sounds to me like it's in favour of the direction Soylent is taking.
jacques_chester 13y ago
It's worse than that. The Soylent guy is so ignorant of basic nutrition that he had iron-deficiency arrythmia, for crikey's sake[1]. Even a diet composed entirely of Big Macs would have been better. Ignorance of such a broad field should not be seen as heroic when you are potentially placing people's health at risk. Placing a legalistic figleaf over the top does not make the ethical problem go away. I advise all to read the comment through to the conclusion. [1] http://www.reddit.com/r/TrueReddit/comments/1jvsie/the_man_who_thinks_he_never_has_to_eat_again_is/cbj5jw9?context=2 http://www.reddit.com/r/TrueReddit/comments/1jvsie/the_man_w...
- fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
  >The Soylent guy is so ignorant of basic nutrition that he had iron-deficiency arrythmia, So? Once you add feedback (blood tests, medical supervision) to your dietary "loop", these mistakes have the potential to sort themselves out. >Ignorance of such a broad field should not be seen as heroic when you are potentially placing people's health at risk. Some people's health is at risk simply by maintaining their normal eating habits. >Placing a legalistic figleaf over the top does not make the ethical problem go away. What ethical problem? Don't participate if you don't like the terms. It is not as though the stuff is being tested on schoolchildren, or anyone who is unwilling.
  - jacques_chester 13y ago
    > What ethical problem? That he is wilfully avoiding the advice of the experts who study this full time, has demonstrably already made dangerous errors and could reasonably do so again. He continues to hint that Soylent will be a total meal replacement while using paper-thin disclaimers to try to excuse himself from wrongful death and preventable illness lawsuits by relatives and insurance companies. He is aware, because numerous nutritionists have now explained these facts to him, that a total meal replacement is not possible in the long run. Actual food contains a wide variety of nutrients, only some of which are known about, some of which are essential to life in differing degrees for different people. At the point where your product + blood panels is only breaking parity with the standard western diet, then you need to rethink the development and plausibility of such a product. If I was selling flying cars right now that did no more than eventually catch fire, I would be dragged into prison for fraud and being a danger to the public. But because this bloke is selling it as a "supplement" while all the press is about total meal replacement, it's A-OK. Hunky freaking dory. It's unethical. But people want to believe. That's the basis of marketing: a person willing to believe an impossible claim and another person willing to lie.

weego 13y ago

Shouldn't a nutrition/meal replacement startup strive for more than "well, you're eating shit anyway, why not buy our almost entirely untested and unregulated shit!"

gabemart 13y ago
>Shouldn't a nutrition/meal replacement startup strive for more than "well, you're eating shit anyway, why not buy our almost entirely untested and unregulated shit!" Sure, but I think the size of its success or failure for each person should be measured against their health if they were to go on eating their regular diet, not some hypothesized perfect diet. The alternative to me seems a little like saying condoms will always be a terrible method of STI prevention because their prevention rate is less than 100%, and you can achieve 100% prevention with strict abstinence. For people who can't or won't practice strict abstinence, that comparison doesn't seem very useful.

cliveowen 13y ago

You might be right but the solution is to educate people, not to feed them a powdery substance of dubious nutritional value.

oblique63 13y ago
This is true, but the problem is that the education out there is highly fragmented, polarizing, hand-wavy, and/or impractical most of the time. If you have an idea for what this education might look like, I guarantee you there will be no shortage of "experts" to counter-act your ideas from numerous different viewpoints, each with surprisingly valid points of their own. The fact that nobody likes to admit is that nutrition is still a large 'black box' in the human system, and we only know a handful of basic correlations that involve it. Macro nutrients aren't nearly as important as 'low carb' dieters like to think they are; glycemic index and blood sugar levels aren't nearly as important as some others like to think they are; similar story for acidity and all kinds of other theories. Then for caloric intake, most arguments stand on top of the high-horse of having the most scientific backup and leave it at that, without ever giving much practical information. No, exercise is not an efficient way to burn calories; and No, just because a diet is backed by some misguided theory does not mean it's not a significantly more practical approach to take. However, because there is such polarization, nobody ever reaches a consensus for what's a good practical (!) approach to eating healthy that's actually backed up by significant data. Personally, I don't see this happening anytime soon either, at least not until we discover everything there is to know about human digestion (and that includes developing the understanding of the relatively 'new' microbiome as well).
- jacques_chester 13y ago
  So let me see if I have you right. 1. Nutrition is an ongoing research project. 2. Therefore wilful ignorance is better than being versed in what is currently understood.
  - oblique63 13y ago
    That's distorting my words and ignoring the effects of polarization. I said I agreed with education. What I have a problem with is the black/white attitude almost every nutrition course has. It was more of a plea for people to cooperate and work together rather than the appeal to ignorance that you seem to be accusing me of. I only wrote the comment so that other learners can be a bit more open minded about the current state of understanding before taking everything they learn in nutrition books/courses at face value. Trying to paint my nuanced argument in such a bleak light is exactly the type of needless polarization I'm frustrated with.

kevingadd 13y ago

You say people don't tune their nutritional intake, but the human body does have ways of telling you if you're missing essential nutrients. There are lots of various cues caused by people's diets that they adapt to, either by going out and eating something different, taking supplements, etc. I don't think the OP is arguing that everyone needs a nutritionist to regulate their diet; rather, he's arguing that a drink like Soylent is inferior to even the basic amount of dietary adjustment that normally happens in a person's life. If all you care about is calories, sure, Soylent is probably fine. I'd be concerned that if you get used to how it feels to mostly subsist on Soylent, you might be intentionally tuning out important cues from your body.

marknutter 13y ago
This bears repeating, over and over and over again if necessary, in every HN thread related to Soylent: most people who purchase Soylent will not exclusively eat Soylent. They will instead supplement their diet with it for times when they don't want to be bothered to make a meal.
- freehunter 13y ago
  Jaime from the Mythbusters does this; he explains it in an episode where they are testing fuel consumption of cars over a long distance and can't stop to eat. Adam brought snack foods, Jaime brought what he calls "444". 4 fruits, 4 vegetables, and 4 beans ground up in a blender for him to drink. He put his recipe in an email that someone posted to reddit at one point. Jaime claims it's healthy and full nutrition, but he only eats/drinks it when he can't be bothered to actually eat something.
- jacques_chester 13y ago
  It bears repeating, over and over, that this is not how it was originally pitched. That is not the marketing at all. It is being marketed as a total meal replacement. There is a thin bit of legalese to cover them in case some poor bastard will die of malnutrition.
auganov 13y ago

danparsonson 13y ago

> Most people get most of their calories from sugar, refined starches, and refined vegetable oils. They do not finely-tune their nutritional intake based on their gender, weight, age, activity level, stress level or time of year. Do you know this or believe this?

bluedino 13y ago
Have you been to a supermarket or restaurant in the last 20 years?
- danparsonson 13y ago
  Several! They sell all sorts of different things and I'm not a food scientist (or anything remotely like that) so I find it difficult to draw any general conclusions about eating habits from my own experiences. Unfortunately I also haven't surveyed 'most people' during that time so I don't know whether the statement I originally quoted is an opinion, or in-depth knowledge. Which is why I asked.

bluedino 13y ago

>> This kind of article seems to ignore the fact that almost everyone eats poorly. An argument could be made that most people don't eat poorly, they simply eat too much. Over half of the US population is fat. It's insane.

corresation 13y ago

This kind of article seems to ignore the fact that almost everyone eats poorly. "Poorly" is relative. Most Westerners suffer no deficiencies, and are unhealthy more from a lack of activity and excess intake. This turns people mystical about their food, as if finding the magic elixir will cure lifestyle issues (such as the current hysterics about carbs: The Japanese get 70%+ of their calories from very simple carbs -- white rice, which is of a nutrition profile closely related to table sugar -- and they have marginal obesity and excellent health profiles. They just eat less of it and maintain active lives). There is the paradox that the US is one of the least healthy people's, yet one of the most absolutely obsessed about their food. A Big Mac has an enormously complex nutritional profile, as hard as that may be to imagine. An egg and a slice of bread is a superfood. Both have been maligned because of excess or sedentary lifestyles, but either in moderation can be an ideal part of your diet. Nonetheless, I dislike the linked article: It attacks Soylent mostly from a defensive, elitist attitude that tries to hold information freedom as some sort of anti-intellectualism. While there are legitimate complaints about Soylent (and I don't think "everyone is different!" is a good approach), it seems like the creator(s) are trying to find the relevant information, and trying to use the accumulated knowledge of nutritionist. Just because they didn't classically train as a nutritionist does not invalidate their work.

magnusson 13y ago
White rice is a starch, which is a complex carb, and does not have "a nutrition profile closely related to table sugar." Other than that, this is on-target. All of longest-lived populations eat primarily carb-based diets.
- corresation 13y ago
  White rice has a GI of 64 and is essentially a pure carbohydrate. Table sugar has a GI of 68 and is a pure carbohydrate. The two have very similar behavior in the body, so while they may be compositionally very different, as an energy source and insulin response source they are almost interchangeable, no?
  - 13y ago

mcv 13y ago

Exactly. I have some doubts about Soylent, but the only real argument this article provides is: different people have different nutritional needs. Fine. So how well does normal food adjust to those needs? Who the hell tunes their food intake exactly to their needs? Do we even have the science to determine what your personal needs are? The vast, vast majority of people simply eat what tastes good. Or even just what's available. Some people try to stick what they think is healthy, but they often do that on a much narrower scientific basis than Rhinehart uses. Lots of people follow thoroughly unhealthy diets hoping to lose weight for a few months become they gain it again. Soylent, in contrast, is pretty easy to tune to your needs, once you're aware of them. You're not stuck with whatever the nutritional value in your favourite food is, you can actually tweak it (or let a qualified nutritionist do it for you). In the future, I can imagine Soylent dispensers that dispense your perfect mix when you insert your chipcard with your nutritional needs. So despite the author's dislike for amateurs, his only argument sounds to me like it's in favour of the direction Soylent is taking.

jacques_chester 13y ago

It's worse than that. The Soylent guy is so ignorant of basic nutrition that he had iron-deficiency arrythmia, for crikey's sake[1]. Even a diet composed entirely of Big Macs would have been better. Ignorance of such a broad field should not be seen as heroic when you are potentially placing people's health at risk. Placing a legalistic figleaf over the top does not make the ethical problem go away. I advise all to read the comment through to the conclusion. [1] http://www.reddit.com/r/TrueReddit/comments/1jvsie/the_man_who_thinks_he_never_has_to_eat_again_is/cbj5jw9?context=2 http://www.reddit.com/r/TrueReddit/comments/1jvsie/the_man_w...

fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
>The Soylent guy is so ignorant of basic nutrition that he had iron-deficiency arrythmia, So? Once you add feedback (blood tests, medical supervision) to your dietary "loop", these mistakes have the potential to sort themselves out. >Ignorance of such a broad field should not be seen as heroic when you are potentially placing people's health at risk. Some people's health is at risk simply by maintaining their normal eating habits. >Placing a legalistic figleaf over the top does not make the ethical problem go away. What ethical problem? Don't participate if you don't like the terms. It is not as though the stuff is being tested on schoolchildren, or anyone who is unwilling.
- jacques_chester 13y ago
  > What ethical problem? That he is wilfully avoiding the advice of the experts who study this full time, has demonstrably already made dangerous errors and could reasonably do so again. He continues to hint that Soylent will be a total meal replacement while using paper-thin disclaimers to try to excuse himself from wrongful death and preventable illness lawsuits by relatives and insurance companies. He is aware, because numerous nutritionists have now explained these facts to him, that a total meal replacement is not possible in the long run. Actual food contains a wide variety of nutrients, only some of which are known about, some of which are essential to life in differing degrees for different people. At the point where your product + blood panels is only breaking parity with the standard western diet, then you need to rethink the development and plausibility of such a product. If I was selling flying cars right now that did no more than eventually catch fire, I would be dragged into prison for fraud and being a danger to the public. But because this bloke is selling it as a "supplement" while all the press is about total meal replacement, it's A-OK. Hunky freaking dory. It's unethical. But people want to believe. That's the basis of marketing: a person willing to believe an impossible claim and another person willing to lie.