
Soylent halts sales of its powder as customers keep getting sick - whitepoplar
http://www.latimes.com/business/technology/la-fi-tn-soylent-recall-20161027-story.html
======
Animats
Soylent made such a big deal of being a "tech company", and boasted about
their overdesigned web infrastructure for a business that did two transactions
a minute.

What they didn't have is advanced technology on the production side. They
write about "sending samples out" to external labs. It's not like they had an
automated lab constantly sampling their production line and posting the
results to the web. There are production line testing machines for biological
contamination and for elemental analysis. About 80% of food plants have in-
house testing facilities. What's Soylent got?

~~~
slg
One of the biggest flaws of the tech industry is the belief that being a tech
expert is enough to disrupt other industries in which they don't have any
expertise. Sometimes they get lucky and it works despite something like Uber's
or Airbnb's total ignorance of the law. Sometimes it fails like with numerous
cryptocurrency companies relearning why the finance industry has so many dang
regulations. Seems like Soylent is falling in the latter camp.

~~~
n72
The founder of Soylent clearly believes he's an expert in many, many fields:
[http://robrhinehart.com/?p=1331](http://robrhinehart.com/?p=1331)

BTW, anyone know a good word for this attitude? I wouldn't call it hybris,
though it's closely related. It's a mix of arrogance, over confidence,
ignorance, plus more and very prevalent in SV.

~~~
arvinjoar
It's not a bad attitude though.

Experts with authority granted to them in the form of titles have failed us,
and keep failing us in so many areas. Ranging from nutrition to psychology, we
really shouldn't put their work on a pedestal. Techies are a smart bunch on
average and can stomach a lot more complexity than the average joe. It makes
sense for them to try to pick up stuff outside of their line of work.

Take Elon Musk as the most successful example. Deferring to experts is a poor
substitute for thinking for yourself.

~~~
mtberatwork
> Deferring to experts is a poor substitute for thinking for yourself.

 _Not_ deferring to experts when you posses surface level knowledge (or less)
of a subject is a sure-fire way to shoot yourself in the foot.

~~~
daxorid
In this particular case, the experts have not only been wrong, but been
_deadly_ wrong for the last thirty years. Nutrition has been revealed to be
woo-woo pseudoscience after mountains of recent research has debunked the
lipid hypothesis for heart disease.

Reinhart has NO obligation to heed the "wisdom" of people who have been
killing us with sugar for decades now. We should have nothing but contempt for
these charlatans.

~~~
__jal
Great, so you've discounted one tradition of food advice, although it is far
from clear whom, exactly, you're discounting - you start talking about what
sounds like dietitians, but end talking about what sounds like processed food
manufacturers. But never mind.

Now you have a search problem. Which dilettante do you want to listen to? A
techie making a protein shake that makes people sick is far from your only
option. As best I can tell, most folks tend to choose diet fads based on a
messy set of priors and an aesthetic judgement about the surrounding
marketing.

It makes market sense to me that something like Soylent would find a niche;
there is a segment that finds eating a hassle, and so an anti-food with hints
of Jetsons-food-capsule, from-the-future marketing has a place alongside all
the other goofy food fads.

I just don't see any reason to rank Soylent any higher than macrobiotic
hyperlocal kale wonder-juice, either. (I do rank both higher than the
colloidal silver thing; as far as I know, neither turns you blue.)

------
resfirestar
I guess one great thing about Soylent threads is bringing all the urban myths
around nutrition out into the open. People in this thread believe everything
from "people on liquid diets don't poop!" to "if you put some berries in a
blender and drink it, you're getting entirely different nutrition from eating
the berries raw!" That second one is a bit of a strawman, but it shows how
absurd claims that crushing or grinding foods ruins the nutrition sound.

But the main one I want to call out is "Ensure is well-researched", which
seems to have reached self-perpetuating status. Go ahead, type terms related
to Ensure into PubMed or Google Scholar. I would cite a particular one if any
of them turned up anything. The most prominent independent examination of
Ensure's nutritional value (that I've found) came when Abbott was forced to
settle with the FTC in the late 90s for falsely advertising Ensure as doctor-
recommended and useful to drink with an already healthy diet.[0] If you're not
interested in reading it, the FTC's main complaints were over false claims
about doctor recommendations and the fact that Ensure's advertising compared a
single can to a multivitamin.

[0]
[https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/cases/1997...](https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/cases/1997/06/c3745cmp.pdf)

~~~
joeyspn
_> "if you put some berries in a blender and drink it, you're getting entirely
different nutrition from eating the berries raw!" That second one is a bit of
a strawman, but it shows how absurd claims that crushing or grinding foods
ruins the nutrition sound._

Well, for many foods this is 100% true. For instance, it's not the same eating
raw garlic, than freshly smashed garlic (<10mins), than garlic smashed 20
minutes ago... because allicin (main active compound of garlic) is unstable
and quickly degrades into another compounds...

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allicin](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allicin)

~~~
tomp
But does that change the _nutritional_ value of garlic (as opposed to changing
just the taste)?

~~~
joeyspn
If you lose allicin you lose some nice properties (antimicrobial,
antiinflammatory, etc):

[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10594976](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10594976)

~~~
espadrine
Aren't you severely grinding it with your teeth, saliva, and gastric acids
anyway?

(Honestly asking, I have no idea.)

~~~
kuschku
Correct. Freshly blended food is also no issue.

The first issue is that you don’t immediately consume it after blending, but
wait a few minutes or hours.

The second issue is that the grinding with teeth requires you to spend energy,
which reduces the energy you gain from the food.

------
djsumdog
I'm really amazed by all the supporters on here. When I first heard about
Soylent, I thought it was a terrible terrible idea. I mean, there's so much to
food. It's not just eating it, it's all the flavours and ingredients and
cooking with friends and loved ones and parties and such. I'm guessing most
people on here use it as a supplement + regular food, but when I saw it
originally, it seemed like it was intended to be someone's only source of
food.

I think I'll just stick to Quest bars when I'm too busy to eat right. :-P

~~~
Matachines
Every time Soylent is on HN people say this.

Why don't people understand? It's so simple: Soylent is for meals you don't
care about but need. It's not a) the ONLY food you can eat or b) supposed to
replace all meals.

I order a box of Soylent bottles every few weeks—they come in handy while
working or for a quick breakfast or if I have little time and am hungry. I
also cook meals with my girlfriend a few times a week and go out to dinner
every weekend. Both things can exist at the same time.

It's just a nutritious drink you can drink at any time if you need to. If you
want to make it most of our meals, sure go ahead. But no one says you must.

~~~
ng12
> Soylent is for meals you don't care about but need

This is the problem. That concept is completely foreign to a lot of people (me
included). The combination of my body's needs and the way I was raised lead me
to view each meal as an opportunity to be enjoyed, never a chore.

Something I observed in the weightlifting community: there are people who need
to worry about dieting (cutting) and people who worry about eating enough
(bulking). Serious weightlifters go through cycles of both but most people
struggle more with one side or another.

Bulking isn't a struggle for me -- I can clear 5,000 kcal/day without a sweat.
I've trained myself to eat pretty healthy but I'd always prefer steak and eggs
for breakfast. On the other hand, a friend of mine complains about all the
pizza he has to eat to meet his targets. Soylent makes a lot of sense for him
(quick calories) but I'll never understand that feeling of "ugh, I need to
eat, guess I'll have a Soylent".

~~~
Taek
Eating a meal takes a lot of time. You've got to prepare it, clean up
afterwards, and take your mind off of whatever you are doing. Or you have to
order it, and then still usually there's some cleanup and interaction.

The liquid Soylent is about as disruptive as drinking water. That's really
useful to me when I'm sucked into a programming challenge or research task.
Sometimes I'll go 3-4 days doing nothing but work and sleep. A meal is really
disruptive during those times, because I just want my head fully integrated
into the problems I'm working on.

~~~
summarite
If that's a regular schedule for you - Don't you feel you're missing out on
living life?

~~~
Taek
When I'm really sucked into a problem is one of the few times that I feel
fully alive. It's like being in a flow state for multiple days, pushing every
cognitive resource I have to reach a solution.

I think it happens less than once a month, and almost always lasts less than a
week.

I do wish that I went hiking more often, camping more often, and I wish that I
had more social interactions that were free of social and business undertones.

~~~
cyberferret
You sound like me 25 years ago. I assume you are still young (20-30?) but I
would urge you to take a look at your lifestyle and habits now, with a view to
changing it to incorporate more of your hiking and camping and social
interactions that you mention.

I once felt that living like you currently are was sustainable and that I
would be impervious to the long term effects, but now that I have hit the half
century mark, I am finding I suffer from all sorts of back and shoulder pain
from sitting for extended programming sessions lasting days. I also have
rapidly degrading eyesight, and high risk of glaucoma from staring at screens
all day every day, and I have other health and digestive issues from not
eating regular healthy meals, or drinking enough water back in the day.

It is highly likely that the lifestyle you are accustomed to will turn around
and bite you one day. Make changes now so that you don't end up the same as
this old programmer. :)

------
rl12345
Soylent’s product itself has zero novelty in it. Meal Replacement Powders
(MRPs) have been around for decades and are popular among the bodybuilding
crowd. The only “innovation” Soylent has brought to the table was being the
first company to market MRPs to geeks and hipsters -- and that's it.
Personally, I've never tried their product because the ingredients they use
seemed average/fudged at best (and I tend to avoid brands that pop out of
nowhere with a lot of hype). Tip: if you care about maximizing the quality of
your dietary supplement, research and buy each ingredient individually, and
then mix it all up yourself.

~~~
anExcitedBeast
> Tip: if you care about maximizing the quality of your dietary supplement,
> research and buy each ingredient individually, and then mix it all up
> yourself.

That defeats my primary use case for MRP: not needing to think about
nutrition. I hate cooking, I hate cleaning, and eating out all the time feels
wasteful. I just want quick, healthy meals with a decent shelf life.

~~~
dave_sullivan
> not needing to think about nutrition. I hate cooking, I hate cleaning, and
> eating out all the time feels wasteful. I just want quick, healthy meals
> with a decent shelf life.

As I've come around to thinking of the human body as more of a system than a
binary switch (sick/not sick), I've come to appreciate that natural food
sources have a lot of nutrients in them that are hard to get with manufactured
foods.

There's a lot of debate about studies proving this one way or another, but
_for me_ looking at it intuitively from a co-evolution standpoint (foods we
eat evolved in conjunction with humans) is proof enough to pay attention to
the quality of my food. The intuition is basically: food we've been
cultivating and bringing around with us for millions of years is going to be
more beneficial to our internal chemistry than a substitute we recently made
up to save money on production costs.

I also view eating as a chore (except when it's not), so I often end up eating
this: black beans, chicken, guac, milk

PS: for the "naturalistic fallacy" group, how do you account for the role of
evolution as an optimizer for health vs evolution as optimizer for 20th
century economic cost? Optimization targets make a difference.

~~~
SippinLean
naturalistic fallacy

~~~
soundwave106
In my opinion, no. We can't even completely understand all of the chemical
reactions (the Maillard reaction) involved in making toast at this point.

Sure, we do have a fair bit of nutrition knowledge right now, of course, and
not everything natural is good for you, of course. However, current popular
"natural food" at this point has been vetted through centuries of sampling and
cross breeding. At this point I would consider it "more reliable" than
processed MRPs (soylent powder is made of natural ingredients too but has been
very heavily processed to get where it is) for that reason alone.

MRPs are okay every now and then, sure. Personally I would bet against using
them all the time. Even in the bodybuilding community where whey protein
supplements are popular, the consensus seems to be its much better to get your
protein from a chicken breast if possible.

------
rgrove
I bought a box of Soylent bars to use as occasional between-meal backups,
since I sometimes miss a meal while traveling or because I forget to eat
lunch.

Over the course of a few weeks I ate two or three bars and was fine. Then one
day I missed lunch, ate a bar, and about four hours later started feeling
nauseous and experienced the worst diarrhea of my life.

Let's just say I'm glad it hit me when I was at home, within tightly clenched
shuffling distance of a good sturdy toilet.

By the next morning I felt fine.

I have no known food allergies or sensitivities. On no occasion did I eat more
than one bar in a single day, and I don't think I ever even ate bars on two
consecutive days.

I do remember thinking, while eating that last bar, that it didn't taste quite
as good as I remembered the other bars tasting. It seems possible that the
bars contained inconsistent amounts of an ingredient and the last one just
happened to have a larger amount of whatever did me in.

I sure would like to know what it was so I can avoid it in the future.

------
throwaway898908
Not putting solid food into your system for long periods of time (months,
years) will destroy your ability to digest solid food when you start
refeeding. I've seen people in eating disorder facilities who have lived on
diets of liquid food (historically Ensure, basically the same thing) who have
not defecated for months, and when they start eating again suffer for weeks
and weeks from horrendous constipation, often requiring further
hospitalization. This has happened to me.

Your ability to digest basically shuts down, your intestines stop moving what
little solids there are through you.

Not eating solid food is not good for you. Don't do it.

~~~
nkozyra
I don't advocate for or against liquid diets necessarily - and I realize this
is overtly a throwaway account - but this sounds pretty pseudo-sciency to me,
anecdote notwithstanding.

At bare minimum, include some citation here.

~~~
beedogs
He just told you what he lived through, and you're asking for a citation?

Never change, HN.

~~~
mulletbum
"Not putting solid food into your system for long periods of time will destroy
your ability to digest solid food when you start refeeding"

That is an unscientific statement based on no citation.

Top it off, I have personally lived of Soylent for a year. I go out to eat
only a couple times a month and I do not die from horrendous suffering
everytime. In fact, nothing changes.

~~~
benlambert
"Your statement is unscientific because anecdotally I've had no problems with
it"

Where's your citation backing up your suggestion that it's safe?

~~~
lmm
One counterexample is enough to contradict the "will destroy" claim in the
grandparent.

~~~
benlambert
"Smoking will destroy your lungs"

Gonna give me a counterexample there too?

~~~
benlambert
Dear down voters: it should be obvious that just because smoking is not
literally guaranteed to destroy your lungs, and you can find plenty of counter
examples, it's still a very good idea to warn people that "smoking will
destroy your lungs".

And it would have been a good idea to do that back in the 50s when doctors
were calling it safe without the science to back up their claims. "You have no
evidence" is what you say to justify avoiding something suspect, not what you
say to justify consuming it!

~~~
FeepingCreature
Pretty sure smoking is literally guaranteed to destroy your lungs.

If you find a long-term consistent cigarette smoker with no lung damage, I
believe you have a medical miracle on your hands.

~~~
benlambert
"Destroy" does not mean the same thing as "damage".

Destroy = something big enough ruin your quality of life.

------
dankohn1
Just a quick counterargument from a regular Soylent consumer: I drink a
coffiest for breakfast every morning and drink two liquid Soylents on days
when I don't have time for a nice lunch or dinner. It's convenient, healthy
and tastes good. I've never had any intestinal troubles. I use it as a meal
replacement, not a complete food replacement.

It sucks that they included this ingredient in their powder and bars that has
caused people problems. But HN folks should know that doing startups is hard,
and we all make mistakes along the way. Food is obviously a much more
sensitive and important application than most mobile apps.

But I expect Soylent to figure out what went wrong, correct it, and keep
iterating and improving.

~~~
ajamesm
"doing startups is hard, and we all make mistakes along the way"

I'd love to see a restaurant use that line. Food safety is hard!

~~~
efvxcgci
Go look into health inspection reports. Restaurants of all kinds routinely
violate health codes.

~~~
potatolicious
Yes, and we don't accept "hygiene is hard!" as an excuse when they violate
health codes.

~~~
namlem
Restaurants don't get shut down for every little violation.

------
jonathanjaeger
The latest version of Soylent powder is the best-tasting version to date and I
get no uneasy feeling from it. The original powder versions I could more
easily believe gastro issues, so I'm surprised this is cropping up now rather
than before, but I guess it could be ingredient/allergy-specific.

I tend to eat 3000 calories to maintain my weight so Soylent is great for my
busy schedule. I'm still eating 1500-2000 calories of regular food per day,
which is certainly enough. I don't get why people keep harping on the all-or-
nothing idea behind Soylent. Most people advocate this as part of a balanced
diet.

Even if Soylent isn't perfect, I'd rather down something the FDA considers a
food than an excess of weight gainers/protein bars/protein powder supplements
filled with ingredients I don't want. That being said, I could throw oats,
protein powder, peanut butter, milk, and a banana in a blender.. but that's
not necessarily something I want to do consistently.

I also consider Soylent a bang for the buck when looking at things at price
per 100 calories. Soylent 2.0 is far tastier, but I find it annoying that you
have to get a ton of heavy bottles shipped to you and it's more expensive.

~~~
lmm
> I don't get why people keep harping on the all-or-nothing idea behind
> Soylent.

Because that's what all Soylent's advertising and messaging has focused on?

~~~
aRationalMoose
No it isn't. Their slogan is something like: Not meant to replace every meal,
but it can replace any meal.

~~~
kuschku
The original launch page suggested to only eat it, though, and the founder
does exactly that, too prove its viability.

------
nether
Move fast and break things, including people's GI tracts. The fact that
Soylent powder is at "version 1.6" and causing these problems points to gross
version number inflation. This is a showstopper. Rob Rhinehart asserts that
the human body is "just chemicals," yet a vat of elemental hydrogen, oxygen,
carbon etc. would seem to behave a little differently from a human body
composed of reproducing cells and structured organs. His CS background has
made him consider the body a narrowly deterministic system that requires a
minimum of sanity-check testing before releasing it upon the world. We're the
beta testers here. Real world, physical systems have vast amounts of
variability that techies don't seem to appreciate. I won't be surprised to see
VC funds starting to require deep involvement of health professionals for
companies in the diet/medical space, especially in light of Theranos and now
this.

~~~
ohitsdom
"Beta testers" is generous. More like alpha, or even nightly builds.

------
throwaway101416
I had hemorrhoids that would flair up from soy/almond milk or large quantities
of corn chips. However, I never had blood loss and it was mostly gone by the
time I tried Soylent.

After having one drink made with powder version 1.2 or 1.3, I lost about a
liter of blood and couldn't move or work on anything that week. Had to switch
to yogurt for a month to eat normally again. I think it has to do with jagged
precipitates that remain after going through the large intestine.

I love the idea of the product, but unnatural food like this has potential to
cause unforeseen side effects.

~~~
Meegul
What do you mean by unnatural? What is in Soylent that isn't _natural_? Food
in and of itself is just a mix of different chemicals - be they from plants,
animals, or other sources. But at the end of the day, a molecule of glucose
from a plant is identical to a molecule of glucose created synthetically.

~~~
dasil003
This attitude is exactly bothered me about the CEO of Soylent when he was
first doing PR about the product years ago. It's not a question of being
"natural" per se, it's the question of trace elements and how our body
metabolizes food. Food is not just a pile of molecules, it's a particular
organization of molecules. How your body digests it matters. A bunch of milled
and refined powders of macronutrients is simply not the same as anything we've
evolved to eat over the last X million years. How different is it? That's hard
to say, but when the CEO is so dismissive of the fact that there are real
subtleties here and nutrition science still has a long way to go, it's not
confidence inspiring.

The reason that oft-derided-as-woo-woo granola crowd is actually making the
logicallly sound choice here is because given the lack of conclusive science,
the default assumption should be that a diet closer to what our ancestors ate
is a safer bet than a brand new diet that we fabricate based on incomplete and
presumptive knowledge.

~~~
enraged_camel
>>It's not a question of being "natural" per se, it's the question of trace
elements and how our body metabolizes food. Food is not just a pile of
molecules, it's a particular organization of molecules. How your body digests
it matters. A bunch of milled and refined powders of macronutrients is simply
not the same as anything we've evolved to eat over the last X million years.
How different is it? That's hard to say, but when the CEO is so dismissive of
the fact that there are real subtleties here and nutrition science still has a
long way to go, it's not confidence inspiring.

On the other hand, what you are saying here sounds extremely pseudo-science-y
and hand-wavy. You're basically saying "well, 'real' food is different because
something something molecules, it's hard to say exactly how but..."

Soylent CEO on the other hand is arguing from first principles:

\- Our bodies need macro- and micro-nutrients \- We have a pretty good
(although imperfect) understanding of how much of each we need to consume \-
Therefore, we can probably get rid of all the extraneous stuff associated with
nutrient consumption (prep, cooking, clean-up, etc.) and still achieve the
same results

~~~
dasil003
This is science-worship attitude that is prevalent among a certain type of
personality, usually a person who prizes their own logical thinking and
objectivity, and thus more easily misses their own biases. Essentially you're
using "natural" as a dog whistle that says my argument is wrong and the
Soylent CEO is right. But the only reason you feel that way is because he fits
the sort of engineer-type logical thinker which you trust. It's all emotions.

Here is the hard truth: there is no science here on either side. There's a
subjective judgement about how complete our knowledge is. I say nutritional
science is still in the dark ages and therefore we don't have evidence to
conclude a pile of molecules is the same as traditional food, Soylent CEO says
nutritional science is "pretty good" and the only thing that matters about
food are its measured consituents and there in the absence of evidence we
should just assume that eating the exact same thing in liquid form at metered
intervals should be perfectly healthy.

For you to suggest he is arguing from first principles is absolutely
ridiculous, his argument is chock full of hubris and assumptions. It's very
very wrong to hold that up as an example of sound scientific thinking.

~~~
enraged_camel
>>I say nutritional science is still in the dark ages and therefore we don't
have evidence to conclude a pile of molecules is the same as traditional food

What you say is wrong, though. We have a pretty good understanding of how food
works and what our bodies need. How do you think hospitals feed comatose
patients? They do it either via a feeding tube (liquid food), or through an IV
(fluids containing glucose, salts, amino acids, lipids and micronutrients).

~~~
dasil003
Everything is relative. What you need to survive short-term is much easier to
understand then the long-term effects of subtle dietary differences. The core
of my point is that treating a pile of molecules as the same as food is not
scientifically sound reasoning "from first principles".

~~~
enraged_camel
>>The core of my point is that treating a pile of molecules as the same as
food is not scientifically sound reasoning "from first principles"

Here is what Elon Musk said about batteries when asked to give an example of
his first-principles thinking:

 _Somebody could say, “Battery packs are really expensive and that’s just the
way they will always be… Historically, it has cost $600 per kilowatt hour.
It’s not going to be much better than that in the future.”

With first principles, you say, “What are the material constituents of the
batteries? What is the stock market value of the material constituents?”

It’s got cobalt, nickel, aluminum, carbon, some polymers for separation and a
seal can. Break that down on a material basis and say, “If we bought that on
the London Metal Exchange what would each of those things cost?”

It’s like $80 per kilowatt hour. So clearly you just need to think of clever
ways to take those materials and combine them into the shape of a battery cell
and you can have batteries that are much, much cheaper than anyone realizes.”_

\--

Thinking of batteries as being made of cobalt, nickel, aluminum etc. is
EXACTLY THE SAME THING as thinking of food as being made of proteins, fats,
carbs, etc. There isn't anything special about a piece of chicken - it's a
combination of molecules, some of which are digestible by the human body, i.e.
nutrients. Therefore, taking those nutrients and putting them into a meal
replacement shake is perfectly fine. And incidentally, just like in Musk's
example, treating the nutrients individually and assembling them into a shake
results in much cheaper food.

~~~
mark_edward
Cheaper food? Are you serious? Soylent is not cheap, not at all. It's much
more expensive than the average diet, let alone low-cost options.

~~~
enraged_camel
Soylent costs $1.93 per meal:

[https://www.soylent.com/product/powder/](https://www.soylent.com/product/powder/)

That's pretty damn cheap, especially compared to the "average diet", which
consists of eating out on a regular basis.

~~~
kuschku
The average person eats out for birthdays and anniversaries, not more.

And Soylent is at least 40% more expensive than even buying freerange organic
food to make your own meals.

Which is insane for the horrible quality it has.

~~~
enraged_camel
Average American spends $150 per week on food. Among young adults, this number
is $173. That comes down to $21-24 per day.

[http://www.gallup.com/poll/156416/americans-
spend-151-week-f...](http://www.gallup.com/poll/156416/americans-
spend-151-week-food-high-income-180.aspx)

Soylent costs $1.93 per meal, which comes down to $5.79 per day. In other
words, about a quarter of the average daily spend.

I'm also not sure where you came up with "horrible quality." Care to qualify -
or better yet, quantify - that claim?

As for eating out, another survey in 2013 showed that 58% of Americans eat out
at least once a week. That's way higher than you claim.

[http://m.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/lifestyle/gener...](http://m.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/lifestyle/general_lifestyle/july_2013/58_eat_at_a_restaurant_at_least_once_a_week)

~~~
kuschku
I didn’t talk about americans, I talked about the average German. (as Soylent
is a product with a global market, but I can only speak from my experience as
German, not having experienced how life is like in the US – such simple things
as longer working hours can affect such things a lot)

Which spends on average 225 bucks _a month_ [1] on food. That comes down to
7.50€ a day.

Soylent, including shipping, is actually more expensive than this.

> As for eating out, another survey in 2013 showed that 58% of Americans eat
> out at least once a week. That's way higher than you claim.

The German statistics for that are below 13%.

> I'm also not sure where you came up with "horrible quality." Care to qualify
> - or better yet, quantify - that claim?

I’m comparing Soylent, a product with no taste, no texture, which is basically
torture, with cheaper, higher quality meals, handmade, with organic
ingredients.

Soylent can’t measure up in taste or variety even to public cafeteria food.

    
    
        ________________________
    

[1] German Federal Agency for Statistics:
[https://www.destatis.de/DE/ZahlenFakten/GesellschaftStaat/Ei...](https://www.destatis.de/DE/ZahlenFakten/GesellschaftStaat/EinkommenKonsumLebensbedingungen/Konsumausgaben/Konsumausgaben.html)

------
ag56
> Soylent said there shouldn’t be any issues with its premade drinks, which
> cost slightly more than just the powder.

Interesting. I tried the premade drinks (Soylent 2.0) a couple of months ago
and within an hour had stomach cramps and was forced to retreat to the
bathroom.

Unlike a software bug it's mentally very hard to forgive -- I love the idea of
Soylent but doubt I will ever try it again, in any form.

Serious question: why is it so hard for them to find the root cause of these
issues? There are a limited number of ingredients, all of which are surely
well documented and tested.

~~~
ekimekim
> Serious question: why is it so hard for them to find the root cause of these
> issues?

Biology is hard. Humans are really, really variable. Look through the comments
on this page - you'll find people who couldn't keep down one bottle, or who
love the bottles but can't stand the powder, or who have had zero issues, or
who find the entire idea disgusting.

And these reactions may also change over time. Medical science can only really
draw firm results from large-scale tests involving highly-controlled groups -
and even if Soylent were able to run those kinds of tests and optimized for
the most universal solution, the end result would probably still disagree with
someone.

~~~
DashRattlesnake
> Biology is hard. Humans are really, really variable.

Plus Soylent has been presented as a replacement for all other food, and some
people use it as such. I would think that would make it more likely that their
users would experience problems, since it would mean greater and constant
exposure to ingredients that might not cause issues if consumed less
frequently.

------
alphanumeric0
There is also the question of bioavailability, which applies to drug as well
as vitamin intake.

Just because Soylent claims to give you all of these vitamins at once, that
does not mean your body is actually _adsorbing_ them all at once. You need a
varied diet. You can't just eat one thing.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bioavailability#Factors_influe...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bioavailability#Factors_influencing_bioavailability)

~~~
bertiewhykovich
Soylent also uses the cheapest vitamers available. While the jury is still out
on the difference between some of these compounds and their natural (read:
biochemically native) analogues, it's cause for consideration, and possibly
concern. The choice of dl-alpha-tocopherol acetate as a vitamin E seems
particularly concerning to me -- there's a discussion thread on that here:
[https://discourse.soylent.com/t/why-does-soylent-not-
contain...](https://discourse.soylent.com/t/why-does-soylent-not-contain-
gamma-tocopherol-in-addition-to-alpha-tocopherol/24757)

While a lot of questionable notions about nutrition circulate in the tech
community, this concern doesn't seem without grounds.

------
gerbilly
Fun fact: Do you know how vitamins got their name?

When the first scientists to study food tried reducing it to its basic
components, they concluded that it contained: carbohydrates, fats, protein and
minerals.

Then, based on this knowledge, they started to feed animals a mixture of these
four macronutrients, but they wasted away.

Afterwards they began to discover the 'vitamins', so named because they were
vital for life.

Today we know even more, and have discovered that we don't just eat to feed
ourselves, but to feed our microbiome.

I can't imagine though that we've discovered everything that is necessary in
food for humans to thrive, and we may never do so.

~~~
agentgt
Futhermore there is also the epigenome with methyl groups complicating things.

------
themodelplumber
Is it possible they are getting reports based on allergies? I once (cringe)
alerted a local bakery to their tainted ingredients that were causing illness,
only to discover years later that it was a food intolerance issue on my side.
And--same symptoms as reported in this LA Times article.

I've also heard that if you eat a lot of something, you can develop an
intolerance to it, but am not sure if that's really true, or under what
circumstances.

------
nemo44x
A well cooked meal and wine - my greatest joys in life. Simple, romantic and
fulfilling. Add butter. Add cream. A beautiful pan sauce from a well timed
reduction. A cool glass of white wine in the hot kitchen as all the flavors
come together. The scent of fresh cut shallots still lingering as the garlic
in the pan sweats.

I don't judge anyone for making food and drink a footnote in their life. I
enjoy cooking as much as eating but I don't expect anyone else to enjoy either
of those, much less both. But I must admit, I sure don't understand the
sacrifices of taste, scent, sight, texture and accomplishment for productivity
or convenience.

Perhaps this is a reduction of the "Chicken McNugget"?

~~~
dahart
> I don't judge anyone for making food and drink a footnote in their life.

I believe you that you're trying not to be judgemental, but FWIW, your
statement equating eating soylent to making food and drink a footnote in life
sounds at least presumptuous if not judgemental. I love cooked meals too, but
I can easily see the value in a quick, controlled meal with a proper balance
of macros, it's not a stretch to understand at all.

If you can't understand trading any experience for convenience, then do I
assume you cook 3 meals a day and never eat fast food? Running a startup, I'm
jealous if you have time for that, I simply don't. I cook once in a while, but
no way every meal. (And I hope you're not drinking wine with every meal you
eat, morning noon and night! ;) )

I can extra understand people controlling for calories by having a soylent or
something like it for lunch. Controlling for calories is really hard to do,
and products like soylent help with self-control on multiple levels by making
it easy to measure macros, as well as having a meal with no peer pressure to
overeat or snarf on fries or beer. If you're controlling for calories or for
macros, the lack of a butter cream reduction wine dinner texture experience
for lunch is a distinct advantage that leaves room in the budget to splurge on
a well cooked dinner in the evenings or weekends.

~~~
timv
[ I'm not the parent poster ]

> * your statement equating eating soylent to making food and drink a footnote
> in life sounds at least presumptuous if not judgemental.*

But that was a core part Rob Rhinehart's original proposition.

I totally get that it's not why or how everyone consumes Soylent, but these
were the words used to introduce it to the world:

 _In my own life I resented the time, money, and effort the purchase,
preparation, consumption, and clean-up of food was consuming_

 _I used to spend about 2 hours per day on food. ... Now I spend about 5
minutes in the evening preparing for the next day, and every meal takes a few
seconds._

 _Food can be art, comfort, science, celebration, romance, or a reason to meet
with friends. Most of the time it’s just a hassle, though._

 _The food is eating us. I don’t know how to change peoples’ behavior, but now
that I’ve discovered Soylent, I’m healthier than I’ve ever been, have more
freedom with my time and money, and never have to worry about the stuff._

[http://robrhinehart.com/?p=298](http://robrhinehart.com/?p=298)

I don't see how equating statements like _" I resented the time"_, _" it's
just a hassle"_ and _" never have to worry about the stuff"_ with "a footnote
in life" can be called _presumptuous_.

~~~
dahart
> I don't see how equating statements like "I resented the time", "it's just a
> hassle" and "never have to worry about the stuff" with "a footnote in life"
> can be called presumptuous.

If either the article this thread is commenting on, or the person I replied
to, had quoted any of those things, I'd be inclined to agree.

------
blondie9x
I unfortunately gave up Soylent when it was found to contain high levels of
carcinogenic heavy metals. I believe they found it had 10-25x the minimum
amount to be considered carcinogenic for arsenic, cadmium, and lead.

It's a good idea to make a product that could reduce meat consumption and food
waste while helping the environment but maybe this isn't the best way? Maybe
helping people and corporations better manage and track food would be a better
alternative. Also all the new types of meat alternatives like new veggie
burgers, such as those from beyond meat etc are looking really promising and
we should support those efforts globally.

~~~
jly
I highly question the claims that soylent is better for the environment. This
product's primary ingredient is soy. Imagine we replaced a good chunk of the
currently consumed food with this. That would require field after field of
soybean crops. The lack of diversity in this kind of growing would result in
an unprecedented level of industrial agriculture, which is one of the great
issues we face as a world population.

We should be encouraging less monoculture, with larger and more diverse crop
variety. It is also possible to do in a sustainable way while still consuming
some meat. Large-scale production of products like soylent is exactly the
opposite of the direction we need to be going to help the environment.

This has some further background material:
[http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/12/magazine/12policy-t.html](http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/12/magazine/12policy-t.html)

~~~
erikpukinskis
If we replaced a good chunk of meat and dairy with soy, we'd save quite a lot
of carbon. That's a good thing.

I agree we should promote crop diversity. But I don't understand why you think
this one specific ingredient is a problem. When someone eats bread, do you get
upset because it's promoting wheat? Bread is pretty much 100% wheat, and
people eat a LOT of it.

If Soylent were the only food people consume, I would understand your concern.
But most people don't eat Soylent and most Soylent eaters don't eat only
Soylent. So I don't really understand your concern.

------
IgorPartola
Is anyone really surprised that this is happening? Nutrition is hard.
Nutritionists don't get it. Would you trust a nutritionist by trade to program
your pacemaker? If not, then why do you trust an engineer to formulate your
food?

~~~
greglindahl
Ensure and related products in this space have a lot of research behind them,
which Soylent appears to have completely ignored. However, this particular
problem appears to be a basic processed food production screwup.

~~~
nilkn
Where's this research, out of curiosity? Ensure also has a very different
nutritional profile than Soylent. Just because it's a liquid food doesn't mean
it was designed with the same goals in mind, and all the details suggest it
wasn't.

------
yladiz
> “Our tests all came back negative for food pathogens, toxins or outside
> contamination,” the company wrote.

If that's true, then it could be part of the formulation that causes a small
percentage of people to get sick. Maybe it's akin to how cilantro causes some
people to have a very alkaline taste when they eat it.

~~~
joshschreuder
Ah yes, the cilantro / coriander tastes like soap thing... completely ruins a
whole bunch of delicious foods for me :(

~~~
yladiz
Maybe one day they will fix that in the womb before the baby is born, haha! Or
there can be some kind of gene therapy that can fix it/subdue it.

------
ericdykstra
I personally avoid "new" food and "meal replacements" in general, because they
look like garbage in a bar/mix sold by a profit-seeking company with their own
best interests at heart. The only difference between Soylent and Coca Cola or
other junk food is that Soylent promises time/convenience, Coca Cola promises
happiness, and most other junk food relies on appealing to its taste or
popularity.

I'd be happy to be wrong if it turns out Soylent is the first manufactured
food that ends up beating nature, but I would never bet my health on it.

~~~
WalterBright
> sold by a profit-seeking company with their own best interests at heart.

All the food you eat is sold by profit-seeking companies.

~~~
ericdykstra
I'm just making the point that they're not manufacturing garbage in a factory
for altruistic reasons. They're just like Coca-Cola, or Kraft, or Nabisco, or
any other trash-compacting company that sells their waste on grocery store
shelves.

All the food I eat is sold by profit-seeking companies, but at least it's
_food_.

~~~
SquareWheel
>All the food I eat is sold by profit-seeking companies, but at least it's
food.

Why exactly are meal replacements not "food"?

------
LordHumungous
I'm a big fan of Michael Pollan's manifesto: Eat _food_. Not too much. Mostly
plants. The idea being that processed foods cannot hope to match the
nutritional profile found in whole foods, particularly plants. This soylent
stuff is about as processed as food comes, so I'm inclined to be very
skeptical of it's healthfulness.

~~~
Meegul
Do you believe that there is some chemical (or other) difference between two
molecules of, for instance, glucose, solely due to their origin?

~~~
webscaleizfun
We can't actually quantify nor do we fully understand all the vitamins,
chemicals & molecules in your average vegetable, or how they are digested and
used in your body. It might be bad to peel a carrot prior to eating it, since
you lose the nutrients in the skin (that may only exist there) and oxidize the
rest of the carrot breaking down other potentially good nutrients, similar to
how garlic loses certain multi-drug resistant infection killing abilities when
chopped or crushed[1].

If we did have a good grasp of the nutrients that the human body needs, and in
what form (particularly to prevent your bowels from shutting down or having
mass dieoffs), then something like Ensure, Soylent, etc might be practical
with a group of people who were well versed in the science of nutrition
designing it, but I do not have that kind of faith with our abject lack of
understanding & the present lack of nutritional skills Soylent, and many other
processed food companies have shown.

1 -
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allicin](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allicin)

~~~
pas
Yeah well, there are millions living on processed food. They are pretty much
a-okay.

Yes, sure, there is probably some difference, but it's marginal. Translated to
QALY (quality adjusted life year) I guess it's probably somewhere under 1.

Differences in individual biology are much more influential, and matching our
own needs contributes a lot more QALYs than eating it as raw as possible or as
processed as possible.

------
musesum
Have gone through a few cases of Soylent 2.0 with no issues. I use to drink a
few a week as a sporadic meal replacement. Now, I mix my own variation with
casein protein and trehalose.

Intestinal flora tweak?

When I switched to a modified ketogenic diet, it took a few days to adjust. I
now start the morning with coffee mixed with butter and caprylic acid (refined
MCT oil).

Advice was: ease into it; too much, too soon, can lead to disaster pants.

[EDIT] switched order

~~~
dahart
OMG "disaster pants" is from here out going to be in my lexicon.

------
antisthenes
I understand why people get Soylent, but I'm also wondering why people choose
to trust a company to provide the powder for them instead of making it
themselves.

Not only would that save you quite a bit of money (Soylent is a pretty poor
value proposition if you need to consume more than 2000 calories), but you
would then personally control the freshness of the ingredients.

There are so many recipes at diy.soylent.com/recipes and many of them are made
from ingredients that combat the main problem of buying food at the
supermarket - spoilage and waste, by letting you pre-mix months worth of food
that doesn't go bad. And with the money saved compared to actual Soylent you
can supplement with whatever fresh foods from time to time.

It's not like the nutritional profile of Soylent is hard to achieve - all you
have to do is solve a system of equations for the necessary macros and
vitamins.

~~~
iLoch
> I'm also wondering why people choose to trust a company to provide the
> powder for them instead of making it themselves.

Are you really wondering that? The people that buy this stuff are the ones
that won't even make themselves a meal. You think they're gonna make the
powder themselves?

~~~
antisthenes
Making the powder yourself is still a time savings of about 80-90% over
preparing a complete meal.

You can prep a month's worth of powder in the time it takes to prepare 1 meal.
So yes, I'm wondering that in addition to wondering whether you read my post.

------
lando2319
I've been on soylent for almost 2 years and I love it. It used to be such a
pain working from home and dealing with breakfast, which I usually would skip
and lunch which I would be reheating leftovers or whatever I could put
together. It's so much better to just crack open a soylent, chug it and move
on. It's always consistent I don't have to think about it. I do one 'normal
food' meal a day, Mon - Fri.

------
tommynicholas
Soylent absolutely doing the right thing, but I'll be upset if I can't get my
Soylent as a result of this.

------
tunesmith
I tried this off and on for over a year - huge supporter of the idea to have a
basic "fallback" healthy meal option better than the kind of crap we might eat
when we're low on ingredients.

But I had to stop. No matter what kind of soylent I had, even the liquid, I'd
just get horrible indigestion from it - heartburn, even acid reflux. I read
all the theories about "oh, you're just not used to the fiber" but I eat
plenty of beans and psyllium husk and that's not it. Thought it was the oat
protein, but the liquid uses more soy protein instead - no change. And no
other foods seem to trigger that consistently for me. I stopped drinking it
and the problem went away.

~~~
chillacy
Same with me. Lots of heartburn from soylent, especially if I ate it as
breakfast. I can handle it with solid food or in the middle of the day, but
not on an empty stomach.

------
ainiriand
Isn't the title a bit misleading? I mean, it is not the powder, it is only the
bars. And is not like customers keep getting sick because of the powder, it is
the case of some customers who got sick because of a bad ingredient in the
bars... Opinions?

------
AimHere
Well actual food value was only a secondary feature of Soylent's product
anyways, as witnessed by customers still happily supporting a food company
that makes tasteless gunk that makes people ill.

The primary selling point was that it allowed the customers to pretend (at
least to themselves, if not to anyone else) that they were too busy even to
eat food. If you're THAT busy, you must be an important, happening guy, or
gal, right?

It's one fun facet of the bizarre, upside-down culture in certain parts of the
developed world, where work, followed by perhaps housing, are people's primary
status symbols. The 21st century really needs an update of 'Theory of the
Leisure Class'.

~~~
rubber_duck
I don't use soylent, but I eat something similar (whey + powdered oats +
flavoring + milk).

I don't know how to cook well, preparing food and cleaning afterwards is a
pure waste of time. Buying this stuff in bulk (for like 2-3 months in one
order) lets me mix up a batch that lasts me whole week in one day, lets me
accurately track my macros and helps me with having eating discipline (I tend
to get overweight if I just eat when I feel like it).

It's not that I'm too busy to eat real food - it's that this lets me eat
better (I'm quite lean on this diet, feel excellent) and I spend 15 minutes a
day on food in total including prep/cleaning and consumption.

So I can understand how some people would like Soylent for similar properties.

~~~
TillE
Joylent and Queal (and others) seem far less weird because they're basically
thin instant oatmeal with a multivitamin. It even has real fruit! Fewer weird
ingredients, and a fairly nice flavor.

It is extremely strange that Soylent has never attempted flavoring. That's a
good way of keeping it a niche product for nerds.

~~~
hobo_mark
I have tried many of them (except Soylent!), and have settled for Joylent,
taste and variety were certainly two factors. I've been on it for a month now
(it's literally all I "eat", except on weekends) and rotating through
different flavours helps the routine.

------
foobarextreme
As someone who used to body build and experiment with different stacks and
stuff being pushed at the "health" food store, it doesn't need an FDA pass to
make you explode for every output channel. Once ate two chef jays bars and
then a 4 pack of red line, it was an intense experience of extreme fluid
projectiles from all corners.

------
samdung
One of our rules in our gym is 'Don't trust anyone that tries to sell you any
powder.'

I always wondered why my fellow Hacker News readers went ballistic against
Theranos but remained coy about Soylent. I guess we are just as much 'sheeple'
as anyone else.

------
neilsharma
I always have a bottle of soylent in my backpack for emergencies, or if I'm in
SF for half a day and don't want to waste $10 on a sandwich I can finish in 3
bites.

That said, I'm not a big fan of its macros. I don't really care about
following food pyramid guidelines and would prefer something with less sugar,
fewer starches, and a different oil blend. I make "life-changing bread" [0] on
occasion, and its basically my all-natural soylent alternative (I substitute
out most of the oats for more seeds + bran and add protein powder). It doesn't
taste great, but that's not the point here.

Was looking into getting the powder when my current batch of drinks finish,
but I suppose I'll revisit this decision after soylent addresses these issues.

Still not sure if soylent actually replaces meals -- I end up chugging a
bottle and then buying food most of the time. 400kcals makes for a nice snack,
but simply isn't enough food to replace a meal.

[0]
[https://www.google.com/search?q=lifechanging+bread&oq=lifech...](https://www.google.com/search?q=lifechanging+bread&oq=lifechanging+bread&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l5.1709j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8)

~~~
babaganoosh223
Maybe checkout [http://diy.soylent.com](http://diy.soylent.com), some guy made
a webapp for you to come up with custom soylent recipes. I made a variant
based on Keto chow and it's pretty good.

~~~
neilsharma
Thanks for the link -- I remember spending a good 10-15 minutes before giving
up on the DIY suggestions. There were a few recipes that piqued my interest,
but most seemed like a chemical sludge. And since I don't live off soylent, I
figured it was too much effort to invest the time/energy in a drink that I
consume maybe once a week.

~~~
thaeli
Check out superbodyfuel.com - they make several formulas of Soylent-style
recipes, and cover different macros and allergen avoidance.

------
vesinisa
Maybe the rats finally got in:
[https://youtu.be/t8NCigh54jg?t=5m45s](https://youtu.be/t8NCigh54jg?t=5m45s)

Explanation: at least in 2013 they were producing the "food" in an abandoned
old factory with disgustingly little care for hygiene. A TV crew caught on
film a rat sneaking around in their "production facility".

~~~
ckdarby
That was 2013 when they were still in prototyping phase. Do the research
please.

------
thejacenxpress
LA Times did a bad job of reporting this.

> warning that a handful of customers reported stomach sickness after
> consuming it.

It's actually less than 0.1%

The blog article is clearer:
[http://blog.soylent.com/post/152400464282/soylent-bar-
powder...](http://blog.soylent.com/post/152400464282/soylent-bar-powder-
update)

~~~
greglindahl
The blog uses the same "handful of customers" language.

~~~
thejacenxpress
> During our review, we noticed that a handful of consumers (less than 0.1%)
> who consumed Powder 1.6...

Very much acknowledge the blog uses the same 'handful' terminology but they
also put a % to it. As much as I hate to think about it, I feel 'handful'
sounds like more out of context and a news article would be less dramatic if
they reported 0.1% of people were affected.

------
nsxwolf
I ate bad chicken once and it made me really sick. Once!

Here's a product that one should be skeptical of from the get go - it needs to
prove itself as being "real food", and now it's made multiple people sick.

It's like Chipotle, but I think worse.

Doesn't help they named it after a horrifying product from a dystopian science
fiction movie either.

~~~
Roboprog
Seriously: "Soylent"??? Somebody thought that would be a good name to market
mystery food sludge?

Just the link title made my WTF-ometer peg when I saw it.

As Bullwinkle used to say: "I think I shall now be sick."

~~~
elmigranto
I never saw any official explanation, and in my perception it's a joke
reference. Anyways, that surely is a talking point in some related
conversations, and I guess they went for it for this very reason.

~~~
skuhn
The name is derived [1] from the science fiction novel that the movie _Soylent
Green_ was loosely based on [2].

The book doesn't include the cannibalism aspect of the movie at all. However,
one wonders how you could be familiar with the book and wholly ignorant of its
much more culturally significant film adaptation. Especially when it makes
your product's name totally unappetizing.

[1] [https://faq.soylent.com/hc/en-us/articles/201541809-Why-
is-i...](https://faq.soylent.com/hc/en-us/articles/201541809-Why-is-it-named-
Soylent-)

[2]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Make_Room!_Make_Room](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Make_Room!_Make_Room)!

~~~
teddyh
If I recall correctly, that book was also used as a loose basis for a Star
Trek (the original series) episode: Season 3, Episode 17: _The Mark of Gideon_
:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mark_of_Gideon](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mark_of_Gideon)

------
gaoshan
I've been drinking the pre-made drink (2.0) for about 6 months now. I use it
for a quick breakfast (3 or 4 days a week) that I can have during my commute.
Never had any issues, tastes great and saves me time in the morning. Not the
powder, I know, but I want to chip in with my experience using the bottled
liquid.

------
ykm
Halt production? It seems these soylent formulations are versioned. So can't
they revert back to an older version till they fix the issue? Or its not as
simple as this?

~~~
nkozyra
Is it the version or the process? This isn't software, you have a lot of
mechanisms & parties in play.

The biggest thing at risk here is reputation. Let me draw a comparison: how
much worse would it have been for Samsung to just halt production of the
Galaxy S7 then to race forward and produce a new, still-exploding version?

~~~
catshirt
rollback both to a working combination?

in your analogy, it would be equivalent to Samsung putting its previous phone
back into production.

~~~
nkozyra
Could be; in both situations there's enough external impact on the entire
production process that reverting everything back to normal* still means
people get sick.

* even normal could be in doubt. it's entirely possible this happened before and there weren't enough reports to warrant any concern.

------
da23a
I take ADHD medication and as a side-effect, my appetite is suppressed for
most of the day (I can eat supper but I am physically incapable of eating
lunch)

Soylent has been a lifesaver

------
todd8
Soylent isn't the only product available to easily replace meals. Besides the
products marketed to bodybuilders and those wanting to lose weight there are
meal replacement products from serious pharmaceutical companies. They are
readily available; Abbot Laboratories meal replacement drinks, in several
varieties, are stocked in my local supermarkets.

Abbot Laboratories ($20 Billon in revenue per year, 74,000 employees) has a
large list of products, including powered versions, listed on its web site.
See [http://abbottnutrition.com/brands/products/nutritional-
produ...](http://abbottnutrition.com/brands/products/nutritional-products)

------
middleclick
Shouldn't they be offering a refund option? Just saying "stop eating it and
let us know" doesn't inspire much confidence.

------
pizza
What %? What % of people normally get sick from food?

Just curious, not defensive..

~~~
intopieces
"During our review, we noticed that a handful of consumers (less than 0.1%)
who consumed Powder 1.6 over the past several months reported stomach-related
symptoms that are consistent with what our Bar customers described."

------
knodi
I love Soylent 2.0 I have it for breakfast everyday for a last 4 months.
Haven't had a single issue.

------
pmyjavec
"Meant to be mixed with water or other liquids, the powder has enough fats,
carbohydrates and other nutrients to replace a traditional meal, according to
the company. People looking for a quick fix, such as software programmers in
Silicon Valley, have become devotees."

This is one of the saddest things I've read in a long time, I'm not sure if
people actually do this but it sounds really sad. If you don't have energy to
prepare some food, or find a healthy meal, you're burned out, broke or just
lazy, probably burned out. I know this because I've been there.

I've read from multiple sources that ~45 million Americans go hungry [1],
there is no reason to believe Silicon Valley is exempt from these figures. Are
people just substituting Soylent for real meals because they can't afford
proper food?

America sounds like a really lousy place lately and for the most part, the
tech industry doesn't sound like it's helping.

1\. [http://www.feedingamerica.org/hunger-in-america/impact-of-
hu...](http://www.feedingamerica.org/hunger-in-america/impact-of-
hunger/hunger-and-poverty/hunger-and-poverty-fact-sheet.html)

------
hasenj
Might it be soy allergy?

I honestly see no reason to halt production entirely just because a small
percentage of people are having allergic reaction.

Can they not just add an allergy warning?

~~~
mulletbum
No, because they don't actually know exactly what it is.

I drink soylent 2.0 every day of the week. I ate a bunch of bars and boxes of
1.6 without issue.

I also got violently ill off 2 separate bars on completely different days.

If I had a soy allergy I would not be able to eat 2.0 either.

------
victorhooi
I found Soylent incredibly useful recently when I went through a bout of
gastro.

It was easy to keep down, and this way I knew I was at least getting some
nutrients in.

I don't use Soylent as a day-to-day meal. I use it when I am rushing around,
and the alternative is McDonalds. The way I see it.

1\. It's a fixed 500 calorie intake 2\. It's reasonably balanced nutritionally
3\. It doesn't have useless junk I don't need (extra oil/fat, preservatives,
extra sugar/flavouring etc.).

A lot of people seem to say, oh, but what if you miss XYZ nutrient, or, what
if there is this other secret nutrient in fresh food you don't have.

My question to you is - do you think KFC or McDonalds would have these secret
nutrients? Or that the fried-chicken and chips meal you get at the local
takeout, or the oily chinese takeout you buy on lazy nights if somehow better
for you?

If the alternative is other sorts of so-called fast foods - then yeah, I'm
going to take the Soylent.

Also, people talk about how preparing wholesome, healthy fresh food takes no
time...bollocks.

When you have a one-year old in your hands crying, you're rushing to pack her
bags for daycare, you have another scamp running around chasing the cat (whom
you still need to feed, by the way) - the last think you want to do is warm up
the stove, cut some veggies, and make up a stir-fry. You want to shove two
scoops of powder, shake it with some water and glug it down.

Not to mention shopping for groceries.

Yes, I love cooking - but I'd like to do it as a _enjoyable_ thing, when I
have time/energy. Not something I need to do, even when I'm exhausted, because
the alternative is starving, or greasy takeout.

~~~
kafkaesq
_My question to you is - do you think KFC or McDonalds would have these secret
nutrients?_

Beats me. But at least you're placing Soylent alongside its actual
competitors.

------
mike_ivanov
My impression was that the Soylent products are based on certain assumptions:
1) every human body is about the same, differences don't matter 2) a human
body doesn't change much during its lifetime and 3) it's only the average that
matters in nutrition, within-diet variance doesn't matter at all.

Is that correct? If so, aren't those assumptions.. uhmm.. sort of delusional?

~~~
MildlySerious
What I would do in their shoes is to focus on being "good enough" for now, and
building out the manufacturing and everything required until in a couple years
technology is advanced enough to prepare their solution for the individual
based on AI, factoring in the things you just mentioned.

So my bet is that right now their "one size fits all" solution (when I last
checked you could individualize it to some degree) is good enough.

------
datashovel
These stories are getting enough press I figure I'll chime in.

I've been drinking Soylent since the early days. At times I've almost
exclusively drank soylent. Since the first early adopters received their first
shipments almost 1 year later than originally anticipated.

The one thing that has caused mild indigestion for me was when I was drinking
Soylent almost exclusively in combination with energy drinks. Specifically
Monster Lo-Carb (1 each morning on weekdays). Once I eliminated energy drinks
from my diet the indigestion stopped.

Otherwise my personal impression (given my mostly eventless but extensive
history with soylent, along with an inability of the company to precisely
define the source of the issue) is that a lot of the bad press is a smear
campaign.

EDIT: Another thing that has crossed my mind is that the American diet is
notoriously bad. When switching diet from mostly bad to mostly good a person
should expect a change of the composition of the bacteria in their stomach.
Which could lead to the sensation / symptoms of indigestion.

------
cyphar
Am I the only person who is more than a little freaked out by the name choice
for Soylent? Sure, I get the nerdy reference but the main point of the movie
is that the products Soylent made _are made from people_. Why someone would
name a company after that is beyond me, not to mention that the founder
appears to have a cult-leader-vibe.

/shrug

~~~
FeepingCreature
It's pretty much all about the nerdy reference.

------
Mikho
Lately growth hackers and marketers for some reason consider themself tech
companies and disruptors while what they do is just repackage old things that
were out there for decades into attractive offering for millennials.

Soylent is a mere marketing company having not real innovation on the product
side, not to mention questionable ingredients quality.

------
shas3
I suffered very unpleasant nausea after eating bars from a particular shipment
of Soylent food bars. Soylent is now forever (or at least in the near future)
associated for me with those bouts of nausea. That's the unfortunate thing
about nausea, one episode related to a particular food can ruin that food
forever for you.

~~~
kbutler
It does tend to fade with time - I was violently ill on a long car ride after
eating at a fast food restaurant. I couldn't eat there for about a year
afterward (but I still won't touch bacon there, a decade later...)

~~~
catshirt
sounds like it has not faded at all...

------
athenot
I understand the time-saving aspect of this product. I understand that one's
schedule can be _so_ intense that taking the time to cook & eat is impossible,
though I posit that the mental down-time offered by meals is beneficial to
better process what we're thinking about throughout the day (disclaimer1: I
can't back this up with data as I only have anectodal evidence).

But the real issue I have is diet monotony. We live in an era of convenience
and have forgotten about how fruits and vegetables yield their harvest in
seasons. When most fruits/vegetables are in season, you might eat volumes of
them, then never eat any for the rest of the year. Some indeed can be kept for
a few weeks/months.

The same is true with meats: larger animals would be consumed on a less
frequent basis than smaller ones.

Disclaimer2: I'm not a nutritionist, I just enjoy traditional foods.

~~~
widdma
As an aside "nutritionist" is not a legally defined term. Any quack can call
themselves a nutritionist. Some may have had some training, but it's not
necessary science based or complete.

On the other hand, "dietitian" is a registered and regulated profession of
which practitioners have a recognized university qualification.

TLDR: be skeptical of nutritionist.

------
intrasight
I get why some people want to "let someone else decide what I eat" \- life has
too many decisions already after all. But I've gone the smoothy route, where I
have the main ingredients of Soylent but with the added benefit of fresh fruit
and veggies. I have one or two smoothies each day, so it's at least half of my
caloric intake.

However, this time of year I just love the fresh vegetables available at the
farmers market at great prices. Some go into smoothies but most I bake or
stirfry. I eat with rice or beans and that's my dinner most every day.

------
415Kathleem
Does anyone else think that Soylent in and of itself is kind of ridiculous? I
mean, I'm sorry that people are getting sick, and I'm thankful no one has
gotten gravely ill- but come ON. You're seriously too busy to eat your meals
now? The only people who would truly be _too busy to eat_ are not the people
who work in tech. And I say this as someone who works in tech. The people who
would actually need Soylent couldn't afford it. /End rant

------
Apreche
How come the FDA hasn't taken any action against them?

~~~
bertiewhykovich
because the FDA can only regulate food

~~~
refurb
The FDA regulates more than just food: drugs, cosmetics, vitamins,
supplements.

How are the getting around it? Is it classified as a supplement? "Not for
human consumption"?

~~~
aianus
> How are the getting around it?

Soylent is just a bunch of FDA-approved (actually, "Generally Recognized As
Safe") ingredients mixed together in an industrial vat.

How would you even propose regulating something like that? You'd have to have
every restaurant in the country submit every menu item for 'approval'.

------
yanjuk
I would guess the nausea is a learned response due to people forcing the
powder on themselves. Perhaps it needs to be introduced gradually with small
amounts?

~~~
FLUX-YOU
I wouldn't be surprised. I can't drink 2 cups of soylent 1.6 by itself. Mixing
with bananas, stevia, coconut/vanilla extract lends to a much better taste.

------
kartD
Still waiting for the facts, but I'm pleasantly surprised and impressed by
Soylent's response. I think they're doing the right thing.

~~~
untog
Why would you be pleasantly surprised? They have a product that's making
people sick - telling you not to eat it is literally the bare minimum they
could do. They haven't even issued a recall, given refunds...

~~~
thejacenxpress
It's 0.1% of customers, not a samsung s7.

If they are willing to pull their product for 0.1% of customers they will
probably announce a refund, give it a week .

~~~
yread
S7 note sold about 2M phones and less than 200 went poof. So, it's actually 10
times worse

------
givinguflac
Bummer to see this happen, but good on them for taking action. I've been using
the premixed liquid bottles for over a year now and love it.

------
deepGem
Man, this is a bummer. As much as I hate the concept of Soylent as food, I see
it as the only way to scale food production for the growing population,
without killing our planet. The other options are still in the labs.
Artificial tissues for instance. Vertical farming is one alternative, but that
is again fraught with massive energy consumption. I hope Soylent gets to solve
this.

~~~
contingencies
It's a fair concern, though many people forget that reducing food wastage is a
great way to scale too: _Roughly one-third of food produced for human
consumption is lost or wasted globally, which amounts to about 1.3 billion
tons per year._
[http://www.fao.org/docrep/014/mb060e/mb060e00.htm](http://www.fao.org/docrep/014/mb060e/mb060e00.htm)

At Infinite Food we are working to offer a broader, home kitchen-like degree
of choice in personalized hot meal preparation, but using technology to reduce
waste in areas like transport, processing and storage through features such as
seasonal ingredient discounts, shared transport infrastructure, electronic
monitoring, personalized servings and discounts on reduced
packaging/cutlery/napkins. [http://8-food.com/](http://8-food.com/)

~~~
mapt
Actually, one-third is a pretty small number in the grand scheme of things.
Drop it down to zero (asymptotically difficult) and carrying capacity rises by
50%.

Switch the meat eaters over to grain & legumes (with minimal fresh
vegetables), and it rises by something in the 200-1000% range.

~~~
Ygg2
I don't think it does. Land used for feeding cattle != Land used for farming
grains/legumes/vegetables. Plants that we eat require higher quality of land,
than ordinary grass.

Also it's not an easy transition. Essentially it's like saying if everyone
keeps same distance between car behind and front of them, then there would be
little to no traffic jam. I mean sure, that's true, but requires a tectonic
change in human behavior.

~~~
saalweachter
Yeah, my personal guess is that animals have a place in even the ideal, most
efficient agricultural system, even if it is at a lower intensity than in
modern American agriculture.

Sheep and cattle can graze on land that is not useful for crops. Pigs can eat
food waste and reclaim those calories. Chickens can forage in suburban spaces
and convert corn quite efficiently.

We might be better off feeding less corn to livestock, but keep in mind field
corn is one of the most productive crops in modern agriculture -- either we
need to start feeding humans a lot more corn meal, or you're stuck planting a
less efficient crop in place of corn. Growing corn to feed to pigs and
chickens, while supplementing their diet with foraging and food waste, is not
that crazy of a prospect, from a land use perspective.

------
keerthiko
There's a lot of anti-soylent in this thread, purporting it as a "holier-than-
thou" attitude by tech-bros who are too good to eat "normal food". How ironic.

Everyone here has had moments where they need to eat something because they're
hungry, but are in the middle of something, a team meeting, in the zone fixing
a bug, or just up late at night. The standard solutions are to either be
distracted by hunger and keep working, or go eat something junk-like real
fast, or prepare super well in advance a series of healthy snacks meant for
times like this.

Well, not everyone prioritizes organizing emergency meals, or enjoys cooking,
or wants to spend time on it. But they still value eating something cost-
effective, and at least moderately healthy. For all the people whose default
choice is ordering pizza or ringing up Postmates for some junk food, Soylent
(while not making people sick) is several orders of magnitude better in terms
of cost, convenience AND nutrition.

What's wrong with that? Why would you diss that choice so much? Surely you
can't believe ordering a Domino's cheese pizza is better than consuming a
bottle of Soylent? If your only suggestion is "they should learn to cook/mix
their own/pay attention to food" you're missing the point and refusing to
empathize. Different people have different priorities and inclinations, and it
makes sense for products to be marketed for some set of those without
demanding behaviour change.

~~~
smcdow
What's wrong with that? Soylent is _disgusting_, that's what's wrong with it.
It would be hard not to question the judgement of anyone who eats that stuff.

~~~
michaelborromeo
I'm not a big fan of drinking milk -- it causes digestive issues for me and a
lot of other people and doesn't taste great by itself. It would be hard not to
question the judgement of anyone who drinks that stuff.

------
skankhunt42
...no "Soylent makes you soil yourself" joke yet?

Maybe it's actually made from something else than what's written on the label,
ya know, just as in the cult classic they probably got the name from:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soylent_Green](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soylent_Green)
;)

------
heheocoenev
I just started on 1.6 2 weeks ago and enjoying the freedom of this, as well as
the ability to control my intake.

I need a vegan alternative.

------
rubyfan
Anyone know where one could find the symptoms/issues people are reporting?

------
tudorw
chewing is what stimulates the bile gland, bile is what you need to help with
toxins removal, you need to chew, no short cut!

[http://www.spinelab.co.uk/chewing-is-foreplay-for-
digestion-...](http://www.spinelab.co.uk/chewing-is-foreplay-for-digestion-it-
gets-the-juices-flowing)

[http://www.vivo.colostate.edu/hbooks/pathphys/digestion/live...](http://www.vivo.colostate.edu/hbooks/pathphys/digestion/liver/bile.html)

~~~
jpindar
Can you name any of these "toxins"?

~~~
tudorw
are you disputing that bile plays a role in the metabolic process that removes
toxins ? or are you seeking clarification of what I mean by toxins ?

~~~
jpindar
It seems that nowadays "toxins" are what used to be called "evil spirits".

If they were physical substances, they'd have names.

~~~
tudorw
What, you want me to list all substances that are toxins? I don't get this
comment, clearly toxins exist.
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toxin](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toxin)

~~~
tudorw
[http://news.berkeley.edu/2016/11/01/study-finds-wide-
exposur...](http://news.berkeley.edu/2016/11/01/study-finds-wide-exposure-to-
environmental-toxics-in-cohort-of-pregnant-women/)

------
010a
I was really sad to see the new bars get pulled. Hopefully they get the issues
sorted out and get those back on the market; I'll happily be the first to
renew my subscription plan.

------
GunlogAlm
I wonder if this applies to Huel ([https://huel.com](https://huel.com)),
essentially the British version of Soylent.

~~~
ck425
I've been drinking that breakfast and lunch for a few months and have felt
great. Only downside is occasional dehydration if I don't keep my water inkeep
up, but that's easy to fix fast and self inflicted.

~~~
GunlogAlm
Out of interest, if I may ask, did you start using Huel to fix a nutritional
deficiency of some sort, or did you simply like the appeal? I've heard a fair
few people say they feel generally healthier or 'better' after beginning it,
which I find interesting.

I've been using Huel on-and-off for a few months — to replace my lunches for a
few days each week, or when I don't fancy breakfast, or if I realise I haven't
eaten enough calories in a day. I might start regularly replacing my breakfast
with it, now.

~~~
ck425
I tried it out of curiosity, and to see if I could improve my diet. It gives
me a lot more energy, especially at work, and my productivity and sleep
quality have improved drastically. that said after almost two weeks on Holiday
where I didn't drink it much I am struggling to get back into it.

The best effect is re-examining my relationship with food. If I over eat or
eat rubbish I really notice it now and just that awareness has naturally
improved the rest of my diet.

------
debt
i like that soylent is attempting to hack nutrition itself. i think something
like soylent could have a huge image on global public health.

hopefully they can figure this out.

------
draw_down
Food -- who needs it! But don't take away my Esc key.

------
owly
Please please go bankrupt and disappear. Soylent's whole concept is against
reality, social eating and a whole food diet.

------
SCAQTony
Scientifically, will 'Soylent' ever be as good as milk, yogurt, fruit or soup?
I don't think so.

~~~
allemagne
Well, you can survive on Soylent alone, but I'm fairly certain you couldn't
survive on milk alone.

~~~
beagle3
Actually .... babies survive on milk alone, in rare cases for 3 or 4 years.
Cow babies survive on cow milk. While it isn't clear (to me) that humans can
survive solely on cow milk (pasteurized milk at that, which means many
vitamins, minerals and immune related ingredients are gone), but it is not
unthinkable.

There is another class of food, in addition to milk, that is able to
completely support life: eggs. Proof: Live thing comes out of egg without any
additional nutrition. Whether it is enough to completely support human life,
is, again, unclear - but the answer might very well be "yes".

------
nemo44x
Soylent is to food as Theranos is to blood tests. A place the Valley Way has
no business in.

------
jlebrech
Maybe the RDAs of certain nutrients are different from person to person.

------
GarrisonPrime
Well shit. I'm almost out and was about to order a new batch. :(

------
ivv
Could one think of Soylent as a baby formula for adults?

------
7yagi
Inability to accept limitations of your intellect.

------
Mc_Big_G
Too bad you can't short startups.

------
piyushpr134
Seems like a e-coli contamination!

------
justinzollars
Soylent is a weird cult.

------
facorreia
The got some very trusting guinea pigs, I'll give them that.

------
enjoyitasus
I had some the other day!!!

------
soyiuz
The name "soylent" comes from Soylent Green, a 1973 sci fi film about
overpopulation, where people survive by eating mass-produced plankton, which
later turns out to be made out of old people.

Naming a product "soylent" has always struck me as borderline sociopath. In
this light, the company’s slogan "healthy, convenient, affordable food" is an
outright mockery of its costumers.

~~~
thejacenxpress
Wrong, it came from the book Make Room! Make Room! by Harry Harrison in which
"Soylent Green" is based off of.

However, in the book the soylent is not made from people. The movie added that
for....drama

~~~
soyiuz
I'm aware of the novel. You are missing the point a bit, aren’t you? It wasn't
about the origin of the word. What does one make of a company which chooses to
name its product after a darkly dystopian piece of fiction?

~~~
jcheng
No, the company/product name is inspired by the book, not the movie. Which
means they're not sinister, just oblivious.

[https://faq.soylent.com/hc/en-us/articles/201541809-Why-
is-i...](https://faq.soylent.com/hc/en-us/articles/201541809-Why-is-it-named-
Soylent-)

~~~
soyiuz
Fair enough, but they must have known about the film. A huge chunk of my
family perished in the Holocaust. I therefore don't find "dark humor" about
forceful mass euthanasia terribly funny.

At the very least, using that name shows a measure of immaturity on the part
of company's leadership and makes me frankly question their judgment in other
matters. Recall for example their early struggles with health and safety
inspections.

I am hoping to be constructive here, in case someone from Soylent is reading.
The name is offensive to some people: why lose even one customer over a clever
cultural reference? Why willfully associate your product with population
control and cannibalism?

------
md2be
I'd bet 90% of coders are within 10 minutes of a whole Foods and btw you might
actually find a date there and not the kind that grows on trees.

~~~
gwern
Possibly you might find a date there. But do you really want to date the sort
of person who voluntarily shops at the sort of grocery store which prominently
and proudly displays whole shelving units of homeopathic remedies?

~~~
chris_7
Yes, who cares? No one is making you buy them.

------
ommunist
The idea behind this powder is uberidiotic, because we receive most of
nutrients from our intestine microflora, and not from food per se. Diet like
this destroys microflora, and here it is - diarrhea! But microfloras are
unique to their bearers, there are some general types, of course. You cannot
standardize food and not harm your microflora at the same time. So on place of
Soylent, I'd run tests on volunteers for microflora replacement first, and
then feed them powder. Could be like that: Stage one - 3 days on amoxiclav, 3
days fasting and water. This is cleaning fase. You will be sick, and have
diarrhea. Stage 2 - 2 weeks on growing Soylent-compatible microflora,
something like genetically modified bifiform. Stage3 - You became happy
Soylent eater. But remember - from this time further any normal food except
Soylent will make you sick.

------
booleanbetrayal
"Soylent: Only the finest, bulk-rate Chinese "proteins and lipids" VC money
can buy!"

~~~
owly
What could go wrong????

------
eva1984
Disrupt at its finest.

------
cerved
SOYLENT GREEN IS PEOPLE!

------
matthewhall
Because Soylent is PEOPLE!

------
senthilnayagam
suddenly Soylent starts sounding like Theranos

------
robertcorey
They should pivot to poisoning as a service.

------
LunaSea
I see that the race for the next Darwin award is tight this year!

------
frrp
If you don't have the time to eat properly, the best choice is not to eat.

~~~
rahrahrah
If you can't make relevant comments, the best choice is not to make comments.

------
nickbauman
We understand so little about nutrition. Yet the same people that code for a
living also run around saying "don't roll your own _crypto_ " are the people
replacing their diets with things like Soylent. It's madness.

------
rjurney
Soylent is a bad idea. Your body needs unidentified parts of plants that make
you live a decade or more longer if you eat them every day, called
phytonutrients. You're just killing yourself by eating shit, may as well eat
fast food it has as many nutrients. Fuck soylent, eat a mcburger. Tastes
better, same effect.

~~~
logicallee
Could you kindly expand on your a comment a bit to be more substantive,
especially near the end (write more clearly the point you are making) and then
I would like to respond to the points you raised. Realize you feel strongly
about it. :)

~~~
UnoriginalGuy
I'm not them; HN's comment policies on civil discourse are largely about what
can say (and call) other users, that doesn't apply to the person above as
they're top of their own thread (i.e. it impossible for them to be targeting
another user of HN). Swearing in and of itself isn't against the site's
policies.

Only thing in the comment policy you could even call up is "gratuitous
negativity" but I'd argue their comment provides enough value (e.g.
phytonutrients) to just call it negative rather than gratuitously negative.

I'd recommend you yourself review the policy before calling out others:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)

------
botexpert
Ate about 50 bars and 10kg of Soylent, didn't feel a thing.

Five of my family members ate some amount too, and seemed fine.

How are they sure people aren't misattributing this to something else, or just
being _nocebo_ about it after the first news reports came?

I did have diarrhea a couple of times during last 5 months but why should I
attribute it to Soylent?

edit: downvoters, if you have any information I don't know, please reply so I
don't look like an idiot.

------
zxcvvcxz
Coming from the weightlifting world, I saw this as exactly what it is: re-
packaged "mass gainer" with some vitamin, flavor, and ingredient tweaks. So
revolutionary...

Yeah, a bunch of nerds trying to live off of what is essentially mass
gainer/meal replacement - who probably don't even exercise - will probably get
sick. Especially when the makers try so hard to be "differentiated" and mess
around with the formula.

Y'all fell for this.

------
dmalvarado
I really wish they didn't name their company 'Soylent'. Soylent Green was a
gross concept for a movie, and, unrelated, I really can't stand the sound of
the word.

