
Soylent Subterfuge: When a Bad Joke Turns into a Business - w1ntermute
http://www.priceplow.com/blog/soylent-subterfuge
======
autarch
Soylent is definitely suspect. The idea that human nutrition can be boiled
down to a minimal list of ingredients _that are the only things you should
eat_ is nonsense.

That said, there's no reason to think this article is any better. Honestly, I
didn't finish it, because as soon as it said that you might crave animal
protein heavy products because of a protein deficiency I knew that the author
was as full of it as what he or she is criticizing.

The citations look good until you start digging. One of them cites a
naturalnews.com article (not a peer-reviewed journal) that in turn cites the
Weston A. Price Foundation site, a towering bastion of pseudoscientific
nonsense. I wonder how many of actual scientific articles cited even support
the points the author cites them for.

In summary, the nutrition science in this article is about as poor as the
nutrition science behind Soylent.

~~~
jowiar
> The idea that human nutrition can be boiled down to a minimal list of
> ingredients that are the only things you should eat is nonsense.

It's perfectly sensible that there is a mathematically minimum sufficient
diet, or mathematically optimal diet, with the caveat that:

1\. There's a high probability that this varies for each definition of "you",
and for different times of day / month / year / within a lifetime

2\. Soylent is, with almost perfect certainty, not it. But there is a nonzero
chance that a purely soylent diet is healthier than the current median human
diet.

Will we get there someday? Probably. I"d say there's a better than 50% chance
it happens within the next century. Whether we want to get there is another
story. FWIW, our bodies aren't really a whole lot more complex than feline or
canine bodies, and we've managed to come up with a sufficiently nutritious
kitty kibble (or at least, we think we have).

Remember, deciding what to eat is a decidedly modern problem, as is looking at
food as a combination of nutrients. For the vast majority of human existence,
nutrition consisted of avoiding starvation. When deciding between options, the
proper answer was "all of the above".

~~~
DanBC
> Whether we want to get there is another story.

NASA could probably have come up with a Soylent-like product by now, but they
haven't. I guess that being stuck in a small can in space means that nice food
becomes important.

So, on the ground, there are two hurdles. i) Portion control, ii) Choice.

Some people will not eat two scoops of ice cream. They will eat a pint of ice
cream. They won't eat 2 cookies, they'll eat the packet of cookies. Some
people will smear the cookies with peanut butter, and crumble them over the
pint of ice cream.

Will Soylent help these people? What happens if someone eats double the
recommended daily amount of Soylent? Or triple? Or quadruple?

Some people will walk into a supermarket, walk past all the fruit and
vegetables, and into the doughnut aisle. Then they'll walk past the meat and
fish and into the crisp / chip aisle. Then they'll go to the weird salt /
sugar / fat / slop instant meal aisle and buy bizarre "food".

I have no idea how Soylent will help them.

~~~
jowiar
As far as I can figure out NASA's original solution to space food WAS a
Soylent-like product. Astronauts responded by smuggling a corned beef sandwich
into space. [1]

The point of Soylent is to separate the pleasure from eating. Rather than
being a emotional, sensory activity, treat eating with has all the excitement
of popping a pill - insert nutrients into body. What do I eat? Soylent. How
much? The amount it tells me to. The questions of "Do I eat the broccoli or
the ice cream?" or "Do I have seconds?" are taken off the table.

I wss in the hospital for the better part of a week a year ago. They had me on
the "nothing by mouth" diet for a couple days - simply an IV drip for
nutrition, then a liquid diet for two more. When my friends came to visit, the
first thing I said was something along the lines of "As soon as I get out of
here we're getting the best cheeseburger in this city." Could that desire be
trained away? I'm not sure.

[1]:
[http://history.nasa.gov/Apollo204/zorn/grissom.htm](http://history.nasa.gov/Apollo204/zorn/grissom.htm)

------
GhotiFish

       In short, knocking your body out of its natural
       equilibrium state of ingesting/digesting/synthesizing
       /excreting cholesterol may swing the pendulum too far in 
       the opposite direction.
    
       End of story: while your body might get along with 
       cholesterol-free Soylent, the “gut decision” to 
       disinclude a vital compound may prove to be short-
       sighted sometime down the road.
    

The words "End of story" and "may prove to be" do not belong in the same
sentence, paragraph, thought, or visible on the same screen.

This is a hyper aggressive article that fails to impress.

------
Guvante
To be fair to Soylent, a lot of the subterfuge against this is "We don't
understand the human body enough to do that yet", wouldn't the best way to
find out is to try?

My biggest complaint about Soylent is that they turned their marketing to 11
and failed to mention the fact that long term studies haven't been done so be
extra careful, however if people are willing to experiment then power to them.

As a final note while complete meal replacement is possibly out of our reach,
partial replacement is already done extensively.

~~~
notatoad
No, the best way to find out is not to try. The best way to find out is to
study, on a meaningful sample size and with a well documented process and at
least a modicum of scientific rigour.

~~~
dreen
This. FFS your body is not a car and you can't (well, not yet) replace parts
of it if you fuck it up. You can't stop people from trying but I don't think
most of them fully realise the danger they're putting themselves in.

~~~
IgorPartola
Seconded. Playing with nutrition is the same as playing with any other
chemical you do not understand very well. You can certainly do it, but chances
are you will do the wrong thing and mess up.

The way I see the "we do not understand nutrition" argument is that we can
tell some types of very bad nutrition: lack of vitamin C, lack of amino acids,
etc. but we cannot design good nutrition. Soylent is bad. We can see that.
However, if it was better, if it included all the known macro- and
micronutrients int the ideal proportions, from some wholesome looking sources
we could not tell whether it was actually good.

I am starting to come to the realization that all good kills us eventually,
and all we are really trying to do is to find a diet that kills us the
slowest.

~~~
yinyinwu
I think most people are unlikely to exclusively drink Soylent. I tried
Soylent, and rather enjoy the taste. I could see myself drinking it for
breakfast instead of eating sugary cereal. If you're starting from the point
of having perfect nutrition, you don't need Soylent. Most people, however, eat
junk food and it's hard to eat well when you're busy. For the average person
in a rush, replacing a meal with Soylent may be an improvement.

~~~
IgorPartola
I will take a sugary cereal over Soylent for at least the reason that cereal
typically has some fiber and iron in it. Also, just eat oatmeal. Less sugar,
whole grain, more nutrition.

Or, if you insist on Soylent-like stuff, go with something that has been
around for a bit longer: Ensure.

------
mitchi
It really comes down to this :

\- The guy is not a career nutritionist.

\- He's basically recreating the food they eat in Matrix (the second movie I
believe)

\- He's making money off it.

#1 and #3 are pissing people off. I'm actually glad many people are offering
to be guinea pigs for this because all-in-one fast food is a good tech to
unlock.

~~~
chasing
Doesn't Ensure already exist?

~~~
PhantomGremlin
Yes it does.

And it's made by Abbott Labs. I don't know how popular Ensure is, but Abbott's
baby formulas are _literally_ the only source of nutrition for millions of
growing and thriving babies every year.

I would rather buy a product from a real company than from some egotistical
young hipsters who (most likely) are nothing more than a recent example of the
Dunning-Kruger effect.

And if Soylent goes horribly wrong for them, perhaps the most apropos comment
would be: "think of it as evolution in action".

~~~
kumarski
If you have something specific to say about their science or tips and
suggestions then please say it. Ad hominem is somewhat counter productive to
the spirit of HN.

------
yareally
Perhaps I assume too much, but if nutrition and what one should eat were
really as simple as what Soylent is trying to do, wouldn't NASA or the Soviet
Space Program devised a solution like this for the Astronauts and Cosmonauts?
Each program spent tons on researching anything and everything needed to go
into space and at some point, I would presume their scientists would have
proposed or tested an idea like this.

Edit: I mean that more as a statement of curiosity as to if they did any
research and the results of it than as an argument (since there's flaws to it
like the argument of variety and morale in long missions). I would guess the
Soviets if not NASA would at least be interested in it due to the tight budget
of their space program and the ideology of the government (perception of
avoiding extravagance).

~~~
Moto7451
In the Mercury program, food looked like this (mmm Soylent-y) :
[http://airandspace.si.edu/exhibitions/apollo-to-the-
moon/onl...](http://airandspace.si.edu/exhibitions/apollo-to-the-
moon/online/food.1.html)

Problem was that it wasn't particularly enjoyable.

During Gemini/Apollo food looked like this:
[http://www.space1.com/Artifacts/Apollo_Artifacts/Apollo_Food...](http://www.space1.com/Artifacts/Apollo_Artifacts/Apollo_Food/apollo_food.html)

Anyone up for Catfood? Probably tasted a lot better than Mercury Tube food but
not quite the same as mom's.

Today food looks like this:
[http://www.nasa.gov/audience/formedia/presskits/spacefood/ga...](http://www.nasa.gov/audience/formedia/presskits/spacefood/gallery_jsc2003e63872.html)

And well..

[http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/70/Ast...](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/70/AstronautsEatingBurgers.jpg/800px-
AstronautsEatingBurgers.jpg)

Kinds like it does on Earth.

Some other fun tidbits:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_food#Apollo_program_.2819...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_food#Apollo_program_.281968-1975.29)

I think NASA and other space entities could come up with a super Soylent like
substance for sustenance in space, but the trend towards normal food is
apparent. I think it's safe to say that Astronauts are well disciplined and
dedicated... and if they're not willing to put up with eating goop in a
tube... Well I think it goes to show that people by large, even under extreme
and alien circumstances, enjoy presentation and variety more than Mr.
Rhinehart may believe (or like to suggest to us).

------
IgorPartola
The first time I heard of Soylent and this guy I thought "here is a guy who is
literally being killed by his own stupidity and does not know it". I can see
people buying into this scam and it sucks. The problem is that Rob is a
skinny, healthy looking guy. This diet, if it really is his full time source
of nutrition, is going to have its effect on him sooner or later, but chances
are that one of his clients, perhaps someone twice his age and weight, will
suffer the consequences first.

~~~
jackmoore
When his story was originally shared on HN, I believe it made a point that his
diet wasn't entirely Soylent and that he consumed normal meals once a week. I
wouldn't be surprised if that combination could carry him for a long time.

------
defen
From reading the comments here and on other articles about Soylent, the
argument seems to break down into two camps: Harmful until proven safe, or
safe until proven harmful. And I really don't understand the mindset of the
"safe until proven harmful" people.

------
microcolonel
The immaturity and uselessness of this article(written by somebody in a
competing market) doesn't support any fear, uncertainty, or doubt for me.

I vouch that if there continues to be market interest, and a lack of forceful
interference(from say, a government); Soylent will become what it needs to be
in order to succeed(safe, complete, and vetted).

------
monkeypizza
Why is everybody so negative about this? He's doing something weird, but he is
still leaving himself open to scientific evidence, which is better than the
average mystical / religious diet recommendation (chinese medicine, hinduism,
vegetarianism) which mostly do not accept scientific evidence, and instead do
their diets for unassailable moral/mystical reasons (balancing "qi", balancing
hot/cold foods, purity obsessions, etc.)

People survive on life rafts eating flying fish and drinking rain water, for
months at a time. Most people using soylent will not eat it for all their
meals, and they will almost always be surrounded by other food they can eat if
they start feeling bad. So I don't think it's a big deal, let him do what he
wants!

~~~
callinyouin
So, a vegetarian diet is without science on its side despite plenty of
evidence to the contrary (not listing any sources, there's plenty of
information available on the subject), yet someone marketing a nutrient goo
with obvious nutritional deficiencies as a complete food replacement is
totally okay. That's some odd logic, pal.

------
deftnerd
To me, the appeal of soylent is that it's such a compact food delivery system.
I eat healthy food, but my portion control is all out of whack.

My hope is that a month of Soylent will help my stomach shrink and learn the
proper signals telling me that I've had enough to eat.

~~~
IgorPartola
Have you tried drinking lots of water with your meals? Especially carbonated
water/Seltzer water? That tends to curb appetite very effectively for some
people.

------
whiddershins
Interesting the assertion that 80g of protein is paltry. I happen to agree, as
do many people I respect.

But many, many people (esp vegans) argue the opposite. The FDA, after years of
avoiding an opinion, finally settled on 34-56g/day RDA for protein.

~~~
theboss
As a powerlifter I consume 200g of protein per day.

One thing you won't see is any IFBB pros or ANYONE with muscles drinking
soylent...

Here's a good URL to read with lots of science. [http://examine.com/faq/how-
much-protein-do-i-need-every-day....](http://examine.com/faq/how-much-protein-
do-i-need-every-day.html)

------
Causalien
I am all for this since I rarely have time to enjoy food. However, I also
understand that some of the nutrients probably can't be absorbed by the human
body in that form, so for me, it'll be treated as a supplement. If they can do
one thing that'll make me buy this. It'll be to change it into a cookie.

I mean c'mon, that gruel looks disgusting and the thing already tasts
disgusting.

------
Meai
The appeal of Soylent is cost and convenience. This advice to do bulk cooking
instead is not helping in that regard.

~~~
aimatt
Buying food in bulk = cheap Cooking food in bulk = convenient

~~~
count
Cooking food in bulk is anything but convenient. Where the hell do I put all
of it? How do I track if it's still good to eat, etc.

~~~
rdouble
In the fridge?

~~~
count
My fridge isn't that big.

~~~
grogenaut
Get a bigger fridge. It'll be less than a year on soylent and you get to eat
actual real healthy food.

~~~
count
My fridge is exactly as large as the hole in my kitchen allows for it to be,
and I have no place to put a second one.

Small condo is small :(

------
adrusi
I agree with the article on the "If food is too hard… you’re doing it wrong"
section. I don't think that this means Soylent is worthless though, on the
contrary, I think it's what makes it viable.

While I would never choose to live on just (or mostly) Soylent, as I enjoy
food too much, I think it would be very useful to keep around.

Instead of something to replace food entirely, it could be reserved for when
you're in a rush. I'm sure that Soylent for breakfast Mon-Fri is much better
than nothing. If you're out of the house and need to grab lunch, I'm sure
Soylent is healthier than McDonalds.

All the criticism of soylent I've seen is the completely reasonable (and
almost certainly correct) assertion that it's not sustainable as the exclusive
food source in the very long term. Like everything it should be done in
moderation.

------
aimatt
I wouldn't eat the tasteless crap and this guy is spot on. However, some of
these comments stating eating only this stuff vs eating all processed food
isn't too far off.

At the very least, I would not use a fast carb like dextrose/glucose, I would
say use a longer burning carb to reduce energy spikes and dips.

------
namlem
While I am highly dubious of Soylent as a product, Rinehart's approach seem
solid enough. The problem with Soylent, as I see it, is that no one formula is
applicable to very many people. RR himself had regular blood work done and
tweaked the formula heavily based on his body's response. Given that it's been
several months and he is alive and seemingly healthy, I see no reason why this
approach couldn't work for anyone else. As long as you throw in a couple meals
of varied real food in every week for good measure, this really seems pretty
safe.

------
chebert
What do people think about soylent just replacing like 1-2 meals a day? And
then you have your full course chicken breast and brown rice meal for dinner
or something.

It seems like that might be a good compromise for people who are scared of
their bones deteriorating, their kidneys waning, or their tissues slowly
inflaming.

No one says you _must_ eat only soylent day-in and day-out. But it sure seems
like a nice way to save time and money on, say, a dozen meals per week.

------
hamsternipples
when I was younger and lived in the USA, I had a diet of virtually only
mcdonalds (and burritos). I survived.

this has got to be, at least slightly more nutritious. LOL, what's the big
deal? I'm also like 100% sure this is better than what the starving africans
are eating.

why doesn't he just provide some constructive improvements instead of a
graphically enhanced rant, with the assumption that the entire world eats a
balanced nutritional diet?

oh yea, the various arguments against the man (and other fallacies), are nice
touches too... seriously, who cares dude? if he's such a super experienced
nutritionist, why doesn't he make his own soylent v2.0?

disclaimer: never tried soylent, nor care to try it, but soylent did inspire
me to make my own version of easily reproduced "food". it's still in
experimentation, but ironically this article was informative. it's given me a
few new ideas to improve my own blend (which uses almond butter instead of soy
as a base). thanks!

~~~
healsdata
McDonald's food contains a larger variety of foods and nutrients than Soylent.
For example, a Big Mac has all of the following:

Beef, Salt, Black Pepper, Bleached Wheat Flour, Malted Barley Flour, Canola
Oil, Soybean Oil, Pickles, Egg Yolks, Onion Powder, Mustard Seed, Vegetable
Protein, Turmeric, Lettuce, Onions

It's also loaded with HFCS and a laundry list of preservatives and additives.
I'm not saying it's the healthiest food, but given a choice between the two,
I'd choose the one that at least has a few real food components.

And before you mention Supersize Me and the effects it had on his health,
remember that it was an n=1 study and The Fathead Movie did the same
experiment and his health improved.

~~~
hamsternipples
I would never mention that awful film. I only mentioned mcdonalds, because I
grew up on "fast-food" and not healthy balanced diet food... actually I didn't
know anything about nutrition until the soylent thing came out, and I decided
I wanted to make my own version, so I started researching.

I have my own criticisms of soylent but that's not my point. (I don't think
soy to be the best form of protein. I'm experimenting with a combination of
almonds and chicken breast right now) so if, and when I become as well
knowledgeable as that guy, and perfect my recipe I may post it for others to
see -- but I don't know enough yet. I think he could have been more
constructive though. I think maybe that actually soylent (or any other one-
size-fits-all solution) is not universally good for everyone. maybe we should
all be experimenting and trying to create a variety of different recipes.

------
SCAQTony
I think the most minimalistic, food, product execution that has proven to
sustain life, pass on immunities and provide superior nutrition is breast
milk.

Of course we can't attach "vacuum suckers" to lactating women but the "old"
'soylent green' "....is made [by] people" and cow milk is probably a close
second.

------
bradleyjoyce
I appreciate the vocal skepticism as I feel it's important, especially when it
comes to this topic. Proper studies should be done, but if people want to take
on the risk themselves to consume soylent then more power too them, so long as
they know the risks.

~~~
ekianjo
I hope they don't start asking for the Healthcare insurance to pay for all the
long term effects they may get from this. Wanna live off Soylent? Good. You're
on your own.

~~~
namlem
You could say that about almost anything though. A Soylent diet is
significantly better for you than what many people currently eat. Should we
deny people healthcare because they eat too much fast food as well? The chance
of soylent incurring any meaningful healthcare cost is basically nil.

~~~
ekianjo
> A Soylent diet is significantly better for you than what many people
> currently eat.

Zero evidence. Good job on the comment.

------
ericcumbee
I am still waiting to learn that they are just trolling with the name Soylent
and have another name picked out for it.

------
qq66
Regardless of the health aspects, do that many people WANt to drink liquefied
meals? I _like_ eating food.

------
mrtimo
Excellent write-up! I'd love to see a similar write up for the popular medi-
fast diet!

