Hacker News Reader

Comment by Eliezer | Hacker News Reader

I'm in for $65, because I've run out of patience with everyone wisely nodding caution and not trying to solve the problem themselves. Like a lot of metabolically disadvantaged people, I feel betrayed and tossed off a cliff by a society that doesn't understand and doesn't care. You want to know how desperate we are? Read this:

http://www.shaman-australis.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=35...

That's the next alternative if Soylent doesn't work. Now either offer a design for a better food replacement, or shut up and get out of the way.

View on HN

I appreciate what you're saying, but to be fair to those criticizing, this isn't the problem Solyent is advertised as solving. The stated problem that Soylent is advertised as solving is "food is a hassle", and it is also alleged to provide benefits for health and the environment. It's also being advertised as "perfectly balanced", "automatically [putting] you at an optimal weight", and "[improving] your focus and cognition". These are the claims that people are criticizing, not it's suitability as a last resort. If Soylent's message was "here's a better option for those who are desperate", I'm confident the responses would be less critical.

I'm more interested in seeing Soylent succeed as a benefit to people around the globe who literally cannot afford (or don't have access to) a proper healthy diet.

Then let the population double again. Make larger Soylent factories. Repeat until all joy in life is gone.

This post adds nothing to this conversation, and additionally makes some very controversial assumptions.

Pretty disappointing.

It makes an important point actually. Using joyless Soylent to alleviate lack of good diet leads to a larger population joylessly depending on Soylent. The situation is worsened.

How does this benefit people around the globe who can't afford or don't have access to a proper healthy diet?

Why don't we instead give money to the sensible things that the WHO does, like genetic engineering probiotic yogurts which produce all of the essential vitamines that humans need (which is something WHO has funded).

I'm confused by what you're trying to protest/demand.

What's "metabolically disadvantaged"? Are you suffering from a medical condition for which no satisfactory diet (in the proper sense of the term) has been developed?

I'm not sure I have all the background information necessary to properly understand all the intricacies of what the OP in the link you posted is describing; but it sounds like what he's going through is complex enough that it probably won't solved by something as straightforward as Soylent (which is basically "let's take everything current science says your body needs, and mash it all together in one solution").

Any light you can shed on this for the non-initiated would be appreciated :)

>>What's "metabolically disadvantaged"? Are you suffering from a medical condition for which no satisfactory diet (in the proper sense of the term) has been developed?

In the vast majority of cases, "metabolically disadvantaged" means "lazy and sedentary" without actually taking the responsibility for it. It's similar to blaming one's obesity on "genetics" or "body shape" or being "big-boned." (The last one is especially funny. Guess why your bones are big. It's because they have to carry all your fat!)

Do you mind explaining why Soylent is the solution for metabolically disadvantaged people as opposed to a "traditionally balanced diet"?

Because the idea of being being metabolically disadvantaged is that you can't eat a traditionally balanced diet.

Soylent has none of the complex/unnecessary/unhealthy chemical substances tradional diets (milk,bread,nuts,fish) have that are the frequent object of intolerances.

> Soylent has none of the complex/unnecessary/unhealthy chemical substances tradional diets (milk,bread,nuts,fish) have that are the frequent object of intolerances.

One of the key "milk" allergies is allergy to whey, which from what has been posted in this thread is the protein source for Soylent..

Oh I thought people were mostly lactose intolerant. I guess you're right, but the nice thing about Soylent is that you can actually replace ingredients rather easily.

In his blogs he mentioned that in his head this could ultimately be a drink tailormade for your specific needs, so someone with whey allergy could swap the whey proteins for meat or fish proteins (if those are readibly available at all)

> Oh I thought people were mostly lactose intolerant.

People (and, really, adult mammals that aren't humans of European descent) mostly are lactose intolerant, which is a non-immune issue (and thus not an allergy.) Milk allergies (allergies to one or more of whey, cassein, or other milk proteins) are a different issue, but also a real thing.

No, in this context "metabolically disadvantaged" means "fat and don't want to make an effort to fix it". There is no intolerance, it is just "I want to stop being fat, but pretending to half-follow a fad diet didn't work, so I will call it a medical problem".

Because we tried your traditionally balanced diet, the high-protein diet, the high-fat diet, the paleo diet, the improved paleo diet, the four-hour diet, and yes, exercise, and nothing worked. (Shangri-La resulted in 20 pounds of very easy weight loss then stopped working and never worked again.) Maybe Soylent won't work either, but the concept behind Soylent seems dissimilar to all of those diets along dimensions in which they are similar to each other, so I'm going to try it.

I'm very optimistic about Soylent and just paid for a month, but saying exercise did not work for you is worrisome. Moving around heavy objects and maintaining a healthy diet (which Soylent may make easier to do) are the key to health, plain and simple.

What kind of exercise did you do, at what intensity, and for how long?

The creator of Soylent will be the first to tell you this (he works out quite a bit).

The problem is that you're trying a bunch of fad diets.

Weight loss is deceptively simple. Take in less calories per day than you burn, and you will lose weight. That's it. "Types" of calories is important too but is focused on too much. Exercise is very important, but trying to lose weight via exercise is ridiculous. It's much easier to just not intake those calories in the first place.

There are calculators that will help you to figure your BMR (basal metabolic rate) which will allow you to figure out the corresponding amount of caloric intake you can have that will allow you to have a net caloric "loss".

Actually putting this into practice does involve meticulous calorie counting and very probably feeling hungry a lot of the time, as you are used to a higher caloric intake; that is where the "deceptive" bit comes in.

Hear hear.

I resent having to frequently stop what I'm doing - what I'm really excited about - to spend time attending to the endless whining of my body. And I resent even more the things my body does if I don't give in and feed it perfectly every damn time (so far, gastric ulcers and frequent heartburn). Food currently sucks. It could be so much better. It could "just work".

I'm also in for $65.

Same, in for $65.

As a type one diabetic if 80% of meals were the exact same, my long term health prospects would be brighter.

Here's to hoping!

Low satiety liquid calories will not help people control their weight. It's been tried a million times in various permutations (slim fast is a thing, so are medical nutrient replacements). I'd stake my life savings on it.

I did try to solve the same problem the Soylent guy is solving, it's on LW under "I hate preparing food". I think I did a better job.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com