I'm not sure if there's something I'm missing about soylent, but it seems to me like the most remarkable thing in the soylent story is that the company is a product of the tech startup culture.
The product itself fits (in my mind) in the nutritional supplements / meal replacements category and wouldn't have ordinarily gotten the attention of HN and startup investors.*
I wonder if this is an anomaly or first blood. Maybe startup culture is spreading to other areas. Startups haven't themselves been necessarily creators of technology (tricky to define). Many are just something that is enabled by mass adoption of some new technology or the cultural shifts that came with it (eg cloud based enterprise software). The whole world seems to be changing fairly rapidly now. That means there might be room for startup-culture to infiltrate even more areas. Tech savy, risk tolerant, big vision, funded, etc.
*I've got nothing to say about the product itself really. I like eating, personally.
I think this could successfully be marketed to developing countries as a food ration/field ration -- the cost per KG is quite high but it's far superior to other rations.
Imagine if naval explorers of yore had Soylent instead of cured/canned meats.
While I haven't been in the military, I do alot of backpacking. IMPs are quite tasty, and a welcome meal. Can't say I'd rather have a meal replacement shake after being in the wild for a week...
I think startup culture is breaking into a lot of other spaces, and that's where the press is coming from --
I think of YC alumns like FlightCar who, while sure there's a technology element in how they organize (but what company doesn't have this), are certainly not a "tech" startup -- they're just a good idea.
I think you may be confusing the term "tech startup" with "web development startup."
This isn't inspired by tech startups, it is a tech startup. It bothers me how people equate technology with the web. I guess the Saturn V was a useless piece of crap because it didn't use the latest web stack.
Technology is a tricky word (is twitter a new technology?) to define clearly, even for a limited context. We got used to lumping together companies creating technologies with those building on big new technologies like the internet. So, an online store could still be called a tech startup (or dotcom or web startup)
But, imagine this exact same product coming from a company similar to one of the existing nutritional supplement companies. Would you call it a tech startup?
We're dealing with subjective definitions obviously, but I think this is substantially different. One thing that stands out is that there is no good answer to the question "why now?"
How is a personal convenience meal replacement system comparable to a B2B catering service?
ZeroCater doesn't cater individual meals to individuals with the goal of improving meals of convenience, which we have a habit of relying on processed and fast foods for.
It's a tool for businesses to cater popular food to their employees.
I'm not comparing the products/services they offer, I am merely saying that from the two companies coming from the tech startup culture and focusing on food, I find one more interesting than the other.
Given the abundance of links about Soylent that get posted to HN, I can't believe this point hasn't been brought up yet:
Calcium.
Studies have shown it blocks the absorption of Iron and Zinc. At least one even indicates that the combination of all three taken together can be quite detrimental[1]
I'm not a nutritionist, and I'm not even arguing against the possibility that a Soylent diet may be much healthier than the average American diet. I don't have a wealth of other examples where nutrients being taken together at the same time could be less than ideal.
But I do believe that these are questions that the people involved in Soylent should have concerned themselves with before even entertaining the idea of an all-purpose one-size-fits-all meal replacement. I haven't seen this addressed, and it boggles my mind that so many seemingly intelligent people are eager to pay for the opportunity to be guinea pigs of a meal replacement powder that could very well be harmful in the long run.
They are aware that Calcium blocks the absorption of Iron[1], and that it blocks absorption of manganese, magnesium, zinc, fluoride, and phosphorus.[2] The people making Soylent are testing the mix on themselves first, and having blood tests done regularly to make sure they aren't harming themselves in the long run.
I'm glad to see I'm not the first person to consider the interaction, but (correct me if I'm wrong) none of the people addressing this are actually involved with the development of Soylent, right?
And yes, I realize there are people getting blood tests. The human body can be surprisingly resilient, and whether or not the deficiency is in iron or something else, it may take a long time to present. My main objection is to them marketing this essentially as a beta release of an end-user product already.
If the purpose behind all the testing were to explore whether a meal replacement like Soylent might be a viable method of maintaining peak human nutrition, with years of planned research before jumping to conclusions, I would be all for it. But it seems as if they've already presumed that an all-in-one formula CAN be engineered to provide for a healthy diet, and are focusing exclusively on arriving at the optimal balance of nutrients to deliver.
I think the person who is making soylent has been testing it for 6 years. There have been bumps along the way (ie: deficient on nutrients), but that is why it is still essentially in alpha/beta. They aren't saying it is perfect yet and so I don't see the reason to assume so
My greatest concern over the approach Soylent is taking is the "one size fits all" mentality.
If the company would put forth an application for biometrics/ some sort of personalized formula calculation, I would feel better about this.
People have different biochemistry, allergies, metabolisms, and nutrient deficiencies. Hell, even different climates and geography cause changes in the way the human body works. It just seems like a huge issue was overlooked in not taking into consideration these variables.
I have a friend whose SO and himself are working on a similar project, however she is a nutritionist and knows the pitfalls. They are trying to take into account the person to person variability and make personalized formulas based on individual needs. I would be much happier with this approach.
It's not going to be one size fits all. Right now it might just be a single product (and they're struggling to even get that together at large volume), but Rob's blog posts talk about customization as a key advantage of Soylent. Customization will surely come if they're able to get the ball rolling.
"One of the fundamental appeals of Soylent is its potential for individualized nutrition, and from the beginning we have envisioned a future where anyone can order a Soylent blend customized for their specific nutritional needs."
One of the ideas I want to find out by trying Soylent is: What happens when hunger is no longer an issue? Will I still crave juicy burgers and fries everday at 12pm? Will I really be satisfied by only eating small bites if I'm already full off Soylent? I definitely see myself using this on days where I'm just too busy to run out for lunch, early morning breakfasts, or as good healthy travel food. Not sure I'll replace my whole diet.
I reckon you'd be dreaming about food in the Homer Simpson style for a while, until you get utterly accustomed to the new diet. I call that the brainwashing of the stomach. (because stomach-washing sound weird)
According to a fiend of mine, Soylent doesn't change you hunger patterns. You still get hungry around lunchtime and then its just a matter of whether you choose to eat a regular meal or a prepare a Soylent shake.
You are defintely missing out. Food and it's preparation is without a doubt one of the things that lead us humans to develop the tool making abilities that make us what wwe are today. Food has always been the most primal and important cultural aspect of any epoch in our history. It can be hard to get into when you have not been properly introduced to food culture (e.g. your mother fed you a TV dinner and a passive cigarette every evening), but it is one of THE aspects of being human.
Didn't realise they existed until quite recently, variety of prices and use cases - research still ongoing as to what would actually work, and not eat into my purse too much, if taken as a significant part of the diet.
A lot of them seem to be a few hundred k-calories a serving, and even if you had three a day that's still not going to push you up to anywhere near the 2000 or so you need. I'm not sure what the effects of taking multiples of your recommended vitamin intakes for them would be either, since a fair few of them claim to provide 100% of your RDA per serving.
Basically, I don't know enough yet. (Google is fairly unhelpful, throwing out shakes to lose weight rather than as realistic meal substitutes.) But it's an area I'm looking into.
I've been to restaurants that are supposedly decent, and I don't think there's anything off about my cooking - others seem to find it palatable enough, (though whether they'd tell me or not if they didn't is questionable.) I've tried cooking with expensive ingredients and cheap ingredients - and there's a difference in texture but not really much in the taste.
It's not like I can't recognise tastes but the response is just, 'Meh. Oh, yeah it's food flavoured like [whatever]. That stuff you eat so you don't die.'
Take steak for example. Cheap steak needs sauce. Good steak on the other hand is spoilt by sauce, a good steak tastes amazing on its own.
Take standard supermarket vegetables: nothing special there. Know someone who grows them themselves? Try them. Taste the difference? Suddenly vegetables are worth eating again.
Take a bad dessert: it's got all the right ingredients, but it tastes meh. You've just ingested half your daily calories eating meh. Now try a good dessert: omg how did they do this.
I totally agree that cooking can take significantly longer then "a few minutes", but there is plenty to be had in terms of a quick meal. For me the most worrying part is when the creator of the supplement is stated to have no time for meal preparation due to his work. It is ok to just eat a quick sandwich or a joghurt/fruit combo every once in a while, but if you cant spend some time on proper meals your life is going in a very wrong direction.
What about shopping for groceries?
Salad and some vegetables lose taste and vitamin after a few days. Even if keep it in the fridge. If you want to eat fresh and healthy food you will have to go shopping more often.
Food spoilage can be an issue too. I can't imagine how how much food has been thrown into the garbage because it looked untasty.
This is all just part of food education on how to properly store your products. Some people living in remote areas are prefectly fine living on a diet of fresh produce going shopping every other month, while some buy their food every day. It is not really a limiting factor, more of an excuse.
The key thing that Soylent is going after is Ensure/Fortsip/Sustagen's margins. Full meal replacements are cost competitive with normal food at $5 a day. Medical suppliers currently charge a steep markup of $14 a day for their full meal replacements. At this price it is uneconomical for most people to adopt full meal replacements as a large part of their diets.
These margins must be destroyed. Soylent, and its competitors, are out to destroy them.
Full meal replacements will only hit critical mass if they cost less than the $7 a day an average American already spends on normal food, and if they are easier to prepare, eat and store. They need to taste nicer too.
The first part is the hardest bit. $6 a day is the current mean cost of full meal replacement production in small batch sizes. Large batch sizes and huge volumes can probably half this cost through economies of scale. Once we have at volume, non-regulated full meal replacements that cost $3 a day, with say a 20-50% gross margin, I expect the entire market to explode.
Are those real margins, or are those the costs of sensible operation in a safety critical regulated marketplace?
> It is currently not economical for most people to adopt at the steep mark up of $14 a day that medical suppliers currently charge.
You Americans and your weird healthcare. Just checking - how do you work out that price of $14 per day? I don't doubt it, these things are expensive and something to make it cheaper is a good thing.
> Are those real margins, or are those the costs of sensible operation in a safety critical regulated marketplace?
For late stage cancer patients it sure might be the case that the margins are deserved. But for healthy adults this might not be the case.
It really isn't that hard to measure basic powders and mix them together, nor is it that expensive to QA one's methods. Cost per day should approach cost of production per day in competitive commodity markets. The fact that this is not the case is due to some kind of market distortion, whether that is unserviced market need, human diet biases, oligopoly dynamics or regulatory barriers.
> how do you work out that price of $14 per day?
People need 2,000 kcal per day. Ensure nutritionally complete powder's serving size is 250 calories. Hence you need 8 servings per day to hit 2,000 kcal. A 7 serving can costs $13.71 on Amazon, which is $1.958 per serving, or $15.66 for a full day's needs. If you buy in bulk with a 6 can pack, cost per can is $10.83, giving $1.547 per serving, or $12.377 per day.
I'm not sure where you're getting your numbers - but a four pack of Ensure Complete can be had for ~$9 or less. It's not the cheapest thing in the world, but I can comfortably drink three for breakfast, lunch, and midday snack and have a regular, home cooked dinner and still keep daily food intake cost below $15.
Speaking as an Australian, I'm surprised that the average American spends as little as $7 per day on food. Do you know who compiled this statistic, and what a 'typical' $7 day's diet might look like?
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (which tracks household expenditures), the average "consumer unit" in 2012 spent $6,599/year on food for 2.5 people, of which $3,921 on groceries, and $2,678 on eating out. That works out to to about $7.25/person/day, of which $4.30 groceries and $2.95 eating out.
Cost of living varies greatly around the US. In Boston, $7 for a "good" lunch is pretty average, and can easily reach $10-12 if you aren't careful. If you shop anywhere except Whole Foods and cook everything yourself, $7 a day is a little more reasonable, if not limiting.
I imagine the poor sod who invented the shower just got blank stares for the first 5 years from people who wondered 'why would I ever give up taking baths?'.
> as an alternative to products like Boost and Ensure.
You specifically mention people with medical needs: What does Soylent do that isn't done by existing meal replacements? What extras does Soylent bring? Or is it just nice to see more products in that segment?
I guess with the investment Soylent could employ qualified dietitians or nutritionists to write information for medical professionals, and to answer questions from medical professionals.
Soylent is the Kim Kardashian of meal replacements: it is famous for being famous. There is literally nothing else to distinguish it from the dozens of other meal replacements that make extravagant health claims.
I don't know Boost / Ensure, but given how they seem to be (based on the parent) sold as a medical food replacement, I can imagine they're rather expensive.
I wouldn't call Soylent cheap, though - $65 a week for one person is quite a lot if you're on a tight budget, and it doesn't scale to family-size who can be cheaper off by buying and cooking food in bulk. Wouldn't feed my kids slop like this either tbh (and I'm pretty sure that they would rebel (if I had them and tried to feed them this for any duration of time)).
Tight budget? That's more than my grocery budget, and that includes everything like toothbrushes and binbags too. And I'm not being stingy with it, that includes wine and beer and fresh coffee delivered every week.
One person will pay almost $3400 per year for this. That to me is just insane, unless you really need this.
In recent history I've had multiple family members suffer from long, drawn out illnesses ending in death. In these cases they generally get tired of what they're drinking and don't want to drink it anymore.
It's nice to see more products in that segment for people in that state, so there's the possibility of more variety because I feel like people with medical needs have additional desires from their food/drink other than just being sustained.
But the existing meal replacements come in a variety of flavours, including sweet or savoury. They come in a variety of textures, thick yoghurty to milk-shake, to thin. They can be eaten hot or cold.
So, uh, what does Soylet add? Just one more extra bit of variety?
This is unfortunate. Food can be a cultural experience, it brings people together, and tasty, well-prepared food is one of life's great pleasures. Reducing food to merely taking care of physical needs (presumably so we can work more hours) is a shame...
Edit - missed some parts of the article - seems it's more in the quick meal-replacement shake category, not to outright replace easting. Either way, I'll take real food.
It isn't unfortunate at all because it is a choice. If you don't want it, don't buy it?
There are some people very un-interested in cooking and would just like to not die. Soylent seems like a solution for those people. A former coworker of mine was ready to immediately throw down his credit card for something like Soylent. Before Soylent, he often lamented that the "Bachelor Chow" from Futurama wasn't real.
The product itself fits (in my mind) in the nutritional supplements / meal replacements category and wouldn't have ordinarily gotten the attention of HN and startup investors.*
I wonder if this is an anomaly or first blood. Maybe startup culture is spreading to other areas. Startups haven't themselves been necessarily creators of technology (tricky to define). Many are just something that is enabled by mass adoption of some new technology or the cultural shifts that came with it (eg cloud based enterprise software). The whole world seems to be changing fairly rapidly now. That means there might be room for startup-culture to infiltrate even more areas. Tech savy, risk tolerant, big vision, funded, etc.
*I've got nothing to say about the product itself really. I like eating, personally.