Speaking as a biochemist who works in the biotech industry, this looks to be like a gigantic train wreck just waiting to happen.
At first glance, I would be convinced these individuals know very little about the science behind their product. They all have a bunch of fancy business acronyms next to their name, yet the majority of this group appears to have little scientific background.
Website annoyances:
- Why is a benzene ring in the background of their logo? Sure, the benzene moiety is prolific and crucial throughout biological systems, but plain benzene is a toxic carcinogen.
- Why is their favicon cyclohexane instead of benzene, if that was why they're going for?
I admit they need a warning of some sort on the campaign, and they should probably link to his blog posts about everything that goes into this, but the "life and death" argument is a bit extreme.
It's not what's in this product, it's what this product is purported to replace. I don't see anything inherently harmful in a wooden frame until it's marketed as a drop-in replacement for reinforced steel construction.
This product is being marketed as an alternative to food.
Please, stop commenting on things you clearly do not understand. Human biology and nutrition is a tad more complicated than creating an iPhone fart app. There's a lot more to nutrition than examining a list of ingredients.
The reason I even bother pointing this out is because you seem like the kind of person who might actually be able to present a specific reason.
Obviously, it's not safe to assume that it can replace all food, period, but I don't see/haven't heard any specific reason to suspect that it would be dangerous to consume it in large portions on a regular basis.
edit: I will probably try it myself as a replacement for some meals, so I hate to simply sound like another voice piling on, but it seems pretty clear to me (whether it was intentional or not) that the "FDA-approved" comment is misleading.
Risk vs reward. Very little risk in tech companies, quite a few in biotech.
That's because the FDA regulates food. Read The Jungle[0] if you want to know how things were before the FDA existed. These guys need to understand that biotech is nothing like tech and shut this shit down before they kill someone.
There's a good reason why you don't see uneducated teenagers "disrupting" the food and drug industries. This isn't like creating Tumblr.
Unless you are claiming that these guys are likely to put dangerous, non-FDA approved substances in their product?
The comment you respond to makes the point that while there's plenty of possibilities for dangerously deficient diets at any grocery store, and lot of people do choose diets - from regular grocery stores - that are extremely limited, most of us do ok.
And that is what Soylent needs to match or beat in order to avoid doing harm. The bar is extremely low considering some of the stuff I've survived on for extensive periods of time, and the type of diets I see others manage on.
That's not to say that they shouldn't aim higher, but there are a lot of people here that seems to be completely oblivious to just how shitty diets a lot of people live on.
That said, I think their marketing claims are well in excess of what they have evidence for, and it saddens me a bit that they feel that hyperbole is necessary. I also hope they put a lot more effort into testing.
Yeah, because before 1906, people were constantly dying from bad food. There wasn't any safe food to eat. In the whole world. For all of history. Until the FDA came along to save us in 1906.
I mean, it's demonstrably true that people aren't capable of caring for themselves. We need the government for force us to take care of ourselves.
P.S. The Jungle is a piece of left-wing propoganda.
Which is precisely the reason your fear-mongering is nonsense. The FDA isn't going to suddenly disappear because these guys are selling the same thing tons of other companies sell: meal replacement shake mix.
People who care to do better than burritos and ramen and freezer pizza already can do better than burritos and ramen and freezer pizza with minimal effort.
So, no, I don't think that the bar Soylent needs to pass to be offering an improvement over current options is quite that low.
That's a strawman. You're ignoring the fact that those frozen meals are made by companies who have more experience in the food industry than these 4 clowns combined a million times over. I am MUCH more afraid of the Soylent guys' sheer ignorance than I am of any profit-motivated negligence on the part of large frozen meal companies.
Edit: also read this thorough breakdown of Rob Rhinehart's claims regarding Soylent by a health expert and nutritionist: http://www.businessinsider.com/rob-rhinehart-food-substitute...
It should be taken into consideration that the article is a hit piece, and many of Stella's comments seem to miss the mark or are totally irrelevant. For example, it doesn't matter if he's not using "real" olive oil; many people live fine without ever tasting the stuff, but it does matter that olive oil is [almost] totally devoid of omega-3 fatty acids. Olive oil is not a complete source of fats! Living on fast food isn't cheap, but who cares?
It's as though Stella Matsovis decided to respond from the standpoint of a forum troll!
Also, iron deficiency won't show up in three days, obviously, but what's not addressed is that he claims the problem disappeared after he started taking an iron supplement -- the real surprise! ...come to think of it this latter point makes me want to doubt the veracity of Rob Rhinehart's claims in toto: he may not have even been eating Soylent, or he may have changed the recipe in a more obvious way, or... y'know. That's more concerning than the simple idea of a meal replacement powder. Ditto: his claimed caloric intake (1000 kcal/day?) should by all rights have killed him by now. Even calorie restriction true-believers usually aim for 1400.
I made an earlier post in this thread defending the general idea and possibility of Soylent. I hadn't looked into it with serious interest until just now.
My new concern: his claims about Soylent appear to be simply impossible: iron deficiency appearing in three days, ridiculously low calorie consumption, etc. They may, of course, be artistic license in the construction of a narrative. I would like to believe that his physician is already aware of this experiment.
>The author has no idea what he's talking about when it comes to protein digestion and assimilation.
Does it really matter? As long as he's not actually eating hydrolysate [isolated amino acids] (which would probably be rather painful!), most protein powders are, shall we say, mediocre at worst.
Addendum: the most obvious regulation he's breaking is false advertising. Soylent is [probably] fine (at least mediocre) despite everything, but billing it as the gateway to perfect health is, uh, silly.
From what I can tell, the Soylent team appears to be pursuing their goals in an admirably scientific fashion. Although there's quite a bit of work to do, I recall an article from a couple of days ago on HN that was talking about the wonderful work the big guys are doing. This quote from General Mills is priceless:
>In a public comment posted on the FTC website, our friends at General Mills pointed out that under the IWG guidelines, the most commonly consumed foods in the US would be considered unhealthy. Specifically, according to General Mills, “of the 100 most commonly consumed foods and beverages in America, 88 would fail the IWG’s proposed standards.” [1]
I understand your disagreement, I disagree with your ad hominem attack and think that there may be some merit to the Soylent team and their claims, especially when taken in light of the General Mills comments.
[1]http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/2013/05/19/de...
There is a world of difference between "unsafe" and "unhealthy." I am not claiming that frozen dinners are healthy. Far from it - I avoid them like the plague. However, they are not going to land you in the hospital in the short term.
> think that there may be some merit to the Soylent team and their claims
The fundamental issue is that statements like "there may be some merit" might be sufficient for trying an iPhone app. It is NOT sufficient for trying a radically new diet like this one.
To you. It's your opinion, not mine. You could say "The FDA would strongly condemn something like this" or "I think this is unsafe" but you can't say it is not sufficient for everyone just because you feel that way.
You can't make blanket claims that apply to all of humanity; being an absolutist only works if you're a Sith Lord.
Except Soylent are doing exactly that.
But I do appreciate your point and you did make me scratch my head when I first read it.
Let me point you to a randomly chosen scientific study: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20856266
Now you point me to something similar for this new wonder food.
I've seen this posted a few times and I'm having trouble seeing it as thorough. Her complaint on his caloric restriction claims contained a link to relevant research, that was adequate. Her other complaint, which was about his understanding of protein digestibility, contained little detail. These were the only claims she addressed with more than denial.
That, frankly, should be illegal, and it probably is.
Like here for example : http://robrhinehart.com/?p=424 ?
> I am reticent to provide exact brand names and instructions because I am not fully convinced of the diet's safety for a physiology different than mine. What if I missed something that's essential for someone of a different race or age group?
Why does he now think it's acceptable to market this to everyone?
Because he and a number of people have been "eating" it for a number of months?
----Edit: Also noticed this----
Soylent will be produced in an FDA-approved facility with strict regulatory controls ensuring safety.
"Soylent is perfectly balanced and optimized for your body and lifestyle, meaning it automatically puts you at an optimal weight, makes you feel full, and improves your focus and cognition."
After that, they don't offer any comprehensive list any ingredients, any recipe, any nutritional information (if you find any, I'd be glad to retract this point). Also, as far as I know from the guy's blog, the idea is to replace your diet with Soylent (and water, I guess). Surely that's false advertising, by saying your food can replace all other foods, while your food hasn't even been tested yet? I'm sure if it was just some fruit smoothie thing they could get away with saying that it's a healthy food. But as a complete, all-round food-replacement? I'd be careful with that.
HN has pessimism in its culture, and most of the best comments are the critical ones.
On one side, it is very sad that the majority of posts in this thread are very negative. But on the other side, I would give more credit to their enterprise if there was a nutriologist, chemist, or at leas tan MD in their team.
The fact that no one in the team is slightly related to food/nutrition or human well-being rings bells.
Anyway, I agree that it's advertised as a too good to be true product, and it was created by people without the needed background. In the last update they added sulfur!!! ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5609546 ). It's one of most common elements in the human body, not a very strange unexpected thing.
Most of the vitamins were discovered because some people aet a very restrictive diet. Usually because more diverse food were not available (in the middle of the sea), or because they didn't have money to buy more diverse food (semi slavery). A diverse diet of complex food protect you form not eating the thing that you don't know you should eat. Eat only this at your own risk.
If you look at something and find yourself salivating / very hungry, it's probably your bodies way of telling you it has some nutrient you're missing.
Like what?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_and_Drug_Administration#Fo...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_of_food_and_dietary_...
"The Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994 mandated that the FDA regulate dietary supplements as foods, rather than as drugs. Therefore, dietary supplements are not subject to safety and efficacy testing and there are no approval requirements. The FDA can take action against dietary supplements only after they are proven to be unsafe. Manufacturers of dietary supplements are permitted to make specific claims of health benefits, referred to as "structure or function claims" on the labels of these products."
However, false advertising claims are handled by the FTC. I suggest you talk to them before the FDA.
edit: For a court case to be effective the plaintiff has to prove that the product does not work; the burden of proof is not on the manufacturer, according to FDA regulations. Depending on wording this could require a long testing period with many people for a judge to take it seriously.
General Mills got the smack down from the FDA for claiming that Cheerios lowered your cholesterol. [1]
[1]http://www.fda.gov/iceci/enforcementactions/warningletters/u...
These claims indicate that Cheerios® is intended for use in lowering cholesterol, and therefore in preventing, mitigating, and treating the disease hypercholesterolemia. Additionally, the claims indicate that Cheerios® is intended for use in the treatment, mitigation, and prevention of coronary heart disease through, lowering total and "bad" (LDL) cholesterol. Elevated levels of total and LDL cholesterol are a risk factor for coronary heart disease and can be a sign of coronary heart disease. Because of these intended uses, the product is a drug within the meaning of section 201(g)(1)(B) of the Act [21 U.S.C. § 321 (g)P)(B)]. The product is also a new drug under section 201(p) of the Act [21 U.S.C. § 321(p)] because it is not generally recognized as safe and effective for use in preventing or treating hypercholesterolemia or coronary heart disease. Therefore,under section 505(a) of the Act [21 U.S.C. § 355(a)], it may not be legally marketed with the above claims in the United States without an approved new drug application.
Isn't that the intent? Rob Rhinehart (creator) lived for a period of one month eating Soylent and nothing else. My understanding is that Soylent is intended to be a meal replacement, not a supplement of some kind.
While I'd love for this to be a safe, reliable option, and might even try it as a replacement for some proportion of meals if/when it becomes more widely available, their marketing claims far exceeds what they have evidence for so far.
Regardless of legality, they are making some very bold claims that would benefit from some scientific study. Preferably, expert, peer-reviewed, published scientific study.
[1] http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfcfr/CFRs...
As of the product, I join vast majority that says stay away. My personal thing is that after reading one of their interview where they were inviting people to clinical study, I send them long detailed email covering my willingness to participate and even pay all the cost from my own pocket. My email got ignored and I never got response. For that reason alone, I would stay away from something you have to pay for, because their customer support sucks from the get go.
"For anyone that struggles with allergies, heartburn, acid reflux or digestion, has trouble controlling weight or cholesterol, or simply doesn't have the means to eat well, soylent is for you." is not carefully constructed. It has clear and specific meaning, but it is untested and not yet proved.
Have Soylent really thought about that sentence? What happens when someone with a digestive disorder eats Soylent, thinking they're getting the nutrition they need and then they get even more ill?
> Soylent is perfectly balanced and optimized for your body and lifestyle, meaning it automatically puts you at an optimal weight, makes you feel full, and improves your focus and cognition.
How can they say this? They have no idea what my body and lifestyle is! I could be a 78 year old bed-ridden patient riddled with cancer or a 17 year old who goes out clubbing 5 nights a week.
> By taking years to spoil,
They're claiming their nutrients are stable for years. I seriously doubt that.
I was having a hard time swallowing (ha) that sentence too. Many digestive problems have nothing to do with the lack of eating biologically correct nutrients. A good amount of acid reflux problems are caused by having a hiatal hernia for example.
That being said, health claims such as the ones you cite-- "it automatically puts you at an optimal weight, makes you feel full, and improves your focus and cognition"-- fall into the realm of regulated speech. You shouldn't be making claims like these without well-controlled clinical trials to back them up. The sellers of Soylent will need to hire legal counsel before long...
Its pretty hard to violate FDA rules when soliciting investment, they'd most likely only run that risk when they start actually marketing product. And even then, the incredibly lax FDA rules around supplements have enabled some of the biggest (and most dangerous) health related scams ever to operate within the rules, so they can probably be okay even then. Usually, this seems to involve placing a disclaimer that the product is not intended to prevent or treat any disease or condition on advertising touting its health benefits (often including explicit claims that the product prevents or treats various diagnosable diseases and/or conditions.)
> But I doubt you can say things like "it automatically puts you at an optimal weight, makes you feel full, and improves your focus and cognition" without having some actual data backing you up.
You'd probably be surprised.
I'll listen to what the kid has to say.
Word of advice to you, sir. If you care about avoiding rat feces, spoiled food, and contamination in general, buy whole foods. For example, buy apples rather than applesauce. Buy steak rather than soylent. When you can visually inspect the thing, you see a lot of defects that are hidden when you grind or mash it all up.
Obviously the guy has a background in chemistry or biology. As we all know, you don't have to go to school in a subject to become an "expert" in it.
Never heard of books and the internet?
If you don't like it, don't buy it.
Your original post's attitude seemed to imply it was almost risky to consume this as it's made by people aged "20 or so". Not only do I find your age discrimination shocking, I also take issue with your sarcastic tone.
If you want evidence, I can think of two sources:
[1] http://discourse.soylent.me/ -- Plenty of people on the discussion boards
[2] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8WpksPED_Q -- Week long study
As of now it hasn't existed for more than a few months so it's a little hard to give sources for trying it for "years".
Additionally, Rob strongly suggests NOT eating it every day.
As for problems arising months (or years), there's also a post about that too: http://robrhinehart.com/?p=570
But you still eat them right?
"Junk food is perfectly balanced and optimized for your body and lifestyle, meaning it automatically puts you at an optimal weight, makes you feel full, and improves your focus and cognition."
Ever see anyone say that about junk food?
Not to mention all the 'regular' non-fast preprocessed food people all over the world believe to be fitting for a regular diet.
Bull-fucking-shit.
This is a product made by four twenty-somethings, none of whom appears to have a background in nutrition or any kind of health studies. To trust your health to these people would be fucking stupid. Jesus.
Also: They've got to be violating some kind of FDA rules. So that'll be fun. When they get sued. Or accidentally harm someone.
Please. Do not back these people.
-----
Edit: What FDA rule do I think they're violating? I don't know, exactly. But I doubt you can say things like "it automatically puts you at an optimal weight, makes you feel full, and improves your focus and cognition" without having some actual data backing you up.