4 ms·

That's how you dismiss a food as a toy.

by pg 13y ago

llamataboot 13y ago
The Soylent folks brought it on themselves by making completely unverified claims on their Kickstarter (and other) pages. Had they presented themselves and what they were doing in a more honest fashion, there wouldn't be near as much criticism. As it is they have presented themselves as having far more research behind them than they do. Frankly, if they were doing something other than food, it probably wouldn't be an issue either. They are playing with people's health and wellbeing.
a-priori 13y ago
Perhaps, but my fear is that Soylent's cavalier attitude is how you cause the next asbestos or thalidomide: things that seemed great, were rolled out extensively, and ended up being huge health disasters.
DanBC 13y ago
I have vigorously criticised Soylent in the past. I've tried hard to turn that down. The reason I hate Soylent is, as several other people mention in this thread, the over-blown claims made in their crowd-funding drive. Before any work with nutritionists or dietitians the Soylent team were claiming: > "You can finally join the easy, healthy, and affordable future of nutrition." > "What if you never had to worry about food again?" > "For anyone that 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" > "there is much evidence that it is considerably healthier than a typical diet." Some of these are just enthusiastic US marketing. I'm in the UK where we have stricter rules for advertising, so there's some cultural clash there. But some of them are sleazy and not truthy. That bad-feeling is retained by many people, even though the Soylent team are now working with real food scientists and being more careful with the claims.
- stcredzero 13y ago
  > But some of them are sleazy and not truthy. As the word is used on The Colbert Report, "truthy" is somewhat sleazy. It means something that sounds like it's true, but which isn't necessarily based on facts.
- jere 13y ago
  You have some choice quotes, but here's the smoking gun: >Soylent is perfectly balanced and optimized for your body and lifestyle, meaning it automatically puts you at an optimal weight, makes you feel full, and improves your focus and cognition. Not just easy and healthy. No. Perfectly optimized... Automatically puts you at an optimal weight They've toned down the language since saying this, but I think anyone has good reason to be upset over such claims. Tim Ferriss gave a platform to Soylent on his blog recently, which is one of the best things you can have happen for your product: http://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelellsberg/2012/01/11/the-tim-ferriss-effect/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelellsberg/2012/01/11/the-t... Rhinehart wasn't very grateful, simply because Ferriss showed some healthy skepticism. Here's the whole event: http://www.fourhourworkweek.com/blog/2013/08/20/soylent/ http://www.fourhourworkweek.com/blog/2013/08/20/soylent/ http://robrhinehart.com/?p=874 http://robrhinehart.com/?p=874 http://www.flickr.com/photos/timferriss/9684046788/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/timferriss/9684046788/ One of the last things Ferriss says? I don't want you to fail and explicitly stated otherwise in my piece... That mimics the same attitude a lot of us here have. Being skeptical of bogus claims isn't the same thing as dismissing something. Or calling it a toy. That accusation is a dismissal of reasonable skepticism.
  - Volpe 13y ago
    I hadn't seen that. What a horrible response from Rhinehart. His whole tone is of "I know better than you, and am more rational than you"... It made me wonder if he didn't know who Tim Ferriss was nor what experience he's had. I'm neither For/Against Soylent, but after reading that I have a fairly negative view on Rhinehart. As an extra: His response to 1-size-fits-all is laughable, is he forgetting about the 1000s of eating issues people have (gluten, lactose, allergies, diabetes)... Sorry ranting now.
amitutk 13y ago
A toy food would be something that tastes excellent or fun to consume but no real health benefit, e.g., you could run a toy car in your basement but not use for commuting. The worry with soylent or other food replacement is that it could outright harm you. Pfizer was developing Torcetrapib as a successor to multi-billion dollar Lipitor and it was on in Phase III that it was found to have adverse effect. It took 16 years of development, and close to $1B expense before the side-effects were discovered. The soylent effort is great but if there are any health issues, they may come to the surface much later.
011011100 13y ago
Precautionary methods of reasoning are absurd methods of reasoning. Got it.
chasing 13y ago
No, it's how you take food very seriously. I'm fine with the idea of meal replacements, but: 1) I think they already exist. They just aren't marketed to trendy 20-somethings. (This is what Soylent does well and why, I assume, they're getting investment. The actual product can be completely reformulated until it comes reasonably close to being a good meal replacement: It's the brand that's become valuable.) 2) The Soylent team sounded like such snake-oil salesmen out of the gate that they simply don't have much credibility, as far as I'm concerned. With all of the made-up benefits they touted at the start, now they have to dig themselves out a deep pit of bullshit to actually demonstrate the value of their product. It's important that we don't treat this kind of food product like a toy. Which is why it's important to be critical of unsupported claims. (And critical of supported claims, as well.) Especially those made by young people with no particular background in the field they're purporting to be experts in. Food is not a toy. It's not Tumblr. It's not Zynga. It's something we require to survive.
- Volpe 13y ago
  Do you ask for the same level of rigorousness when McDonalds release a new item on their menu? I'd hazard a guess that more people consume that new item than anyone will ever consume in Soylent. Remember supersize me, that guy started having liver problems from eating McDonalds... Yet nothing changes and McDonalds keeps selling crap. Food is a toy, and Soylent are very far down the scale of "bad food products I can buy"
  - jlgreco 13y ago
    If McDonald actually advocated the diet the Supersize Me guy had, then I suspect far more people would be concerned. I don't think the food substance is what has people concerned here; rather the hype and claims surrounding it are concerning. On the other hand... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fat_Head http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fat_Head
    - Volpe 13y ago
      People are concerned about the hype? Not the product? So does it concern you that in McDonalds ads there are always attractive slim people, when in fact at most stores you see average looking obese people? Are we arguing truth in advertising? Or Danger in food products?

That's how you dismiss a food as a toy.

by pg 13y ago

That's how you dismiss a food as a toy.

The Soylent folks brought it on themselves by making completely unverified claims on their Kickstarter (and other) pages. Had they presented themselves and what they were doing in a more honest fashion, there wouldn't be near as much criticism. As it is they have presented themselves as having far more research behind them than they do. Frankly, if they were doing something other than food, it probably wouldn't be an issue either. They are playing with people's health and wellbeing.

a-priori 13y ago

Perhaps, but my fear is that Soylent's cavalier attitude is how you cause the next asbestos or thalidomide: things that seemed great, were rolled out extensively, and ended up being huge health disasters.

DanBC 13y ago

I have vigorously criticised Soylent in the past. I've tried hard to turn that down. The reason I hate Soylent is, as several other people mention in this thread, the over-blown claims made in their crowd-funding drive. Before any work with nutritionists or dietitians the Soylent team were claiming: > "You can finally join the easy, healthy, and affordable future of nutrition." > "What if you never had to worry about food again?" > "For anyone that 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" > "there is much evidence that it is considerably healthier than a typical diet." Some of these are just enthusiastic US marketing. I'm in the UK where we have stricter rules for advertising, so there's some cultural clash there. But some of them are sleazy and not truthy. That bad-feeling is retained by many people, even though the Soylent team are now working with real food scientists and being more careful with the claims.

stcredzero 13y ago
> But some of them are sleazy and not truthy. As the word is used on The Colbert Report, "truthy" is somewhat sleazy. It means something that sounds like it's true, but which isn't necessarily based on facts.
jere 13y ago
You have some choice quotes, but here's the smoking gun: >Soylent is perfectly balanced and optimized for your body and lifestyle, meaning it automatically puts you at an optimal weight, makes you feel full, and improves your focus and cognition. Not just easy and healthy. No. Perfectly optimized... Automatically puts you at an optimal weight They've toned down the language since saying this, but I think anyone has good reason to be upset over such claims. Tim Ferriss gave a platform to Soylent on his blog recently, which is one of the best things you can have happen for your product: http://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelellsberg/2012/01/11/the-tim-ferriss-effect/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelellsberg/2012/01/11/the-t... Rhinehart wasn't very grateful, simply because Ferriss showed some healthy skepticism. Here's the whole event: http://www.fourhourworkweek.com/blog/2013/08/20/soylent/ http://www.fourhourworkweek.com/blog/2013/08/20/soylent/ http://robrhinehart.com/?p=874 http://robrhinehart.com/?p=874 http://www.flickr.com/photos/timferriss/9684046788/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/timferriss/9684046788/ One of the last things Ferriss says? I don't want you to fail and explicitly stated otherwise in my piece... That mimics the same attitude a lot of us here have. Being skeptical of bogus claims isn't the same thing as dismissing something. Or calling it a toy. That accusation is a dismissal of reasonable skepticism.
- Volpe 13y ago
  I hadn't seen that. What a horrible response from Rhinehart. His whole tone is of "I know better than you, and am more rational than you"... It made me wonder if he didn't know who Tim Ferriss was nor what experience he's had. I'm neither For/Against Soylent, but after reading that I have a fairly negative view on Rhinehart. As an extra: His response to 1-size-fits-all is laughable, is he forgetting about the 1000s of eating issues people have (gluten, lactose, allergies, diabetes)... Sorry ranting now.

amitutk 13y ago

A toy food would be something that tastes excellent or fun to consume but no real health benefit, e.g., you could run a toy car in your basement but not use for commuting. The worry with soylent or other food replacement is that it could outright harm you. Pfizer was developing Torcetrapib as a successor to multi-billion dollar Lipitor and it was on in Phase III that it was found to have adverse effect. It took 16 years of development, and close to $1B expense before the side-effects were discovered. The soylent effort is great but if there are any health issues, they may come to the surface much later.

011011100 13y ago

Precautionary methods of reasoning are absurd methods of reasoning. Got it.

chasing 13y ago

No, it's how you take food very seriously. I'm fine with the idea of meal replacements, but: 1) I think they already exist. They just aren't marketed to trendy 20-somethings. (This is what Soylent does well and why, I assume, they're getting investment. The actual product can be completely reformulated until it comes reasonably close to being a good meal replacement: It's the brand that's become valuable.) 2) The Soylent team sounded like such snake-oil salesmen out of the gate that they simply don't have much credibility, as far as I'm concerned. With all of the made-up benefits they touted at the start, now they have to dig themselves out a deep pit of bullshit to actually demonstrate the value of their product. It's important that we don't treat this kind of food product like a toy. Which is why it's important to be critical of unsupported claims. (And critical of supported claims, as well.) Especially those made by young people with no particular background in the field they're purporting to be experts in. Food is not a toy. It's not Tumblr. It's not Zynga. It's something we require to survive.

Volpe 13y ago
Do you ask for the same level of rigorousness when McDonalds release a new item on their menu? I'd hazard a guess that more people consume that new item than anyone will ever consume in Soylent. Remember supersize me, that guy started having liver problems from eating McDonalds... Yet nothing changes and McDonalds keeps selling crap. Food is a toy, and Soylent are very far down the scale of "bad food products I can buy"
- jlgreco 13y ago
  If McDonald actually advocated the diet the Supersize Me guy had, then I suspect far more people would be concerned. I don't think the food substance is what has people concerned here; rather the hype and claims surrounding it are concerning. On the other hand... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fat_Head http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fat_Head
  - Volpe 13y ago
    People are concerned about the hype? Not the product? So does it concern you that in McDonalds ads there are always attractive slim people, when in fact at most stores you see average looking obese people? Are we arguing truth in advertising? Or Danger in food products?