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.