I understand Rob Rhinehart just playing around, some initial self-experimentation, that kinda thing. There's no reason to get the experts from the get-go. But when he got serious and made started his crowdfunding, and hired a bunch of marketers and finance people, a customer relations guy and only one scientist that isn't even a food scientist, you wonder -- is he really serious about the nutrition thing? His team might as well have been hand-picked for a social-networking startup.

Not saying that it's impossible for people outside the relevant field can't make breakthroughs, but to assume that such a result were a much more than improbable possibility, such that you didn't even need to hire one guy with the relevant credentials? That's chutzpah.

Good luck with the 300k. Hopefully they hire a few food scientists/nutritionists.

> is he really serious about the nutrition thing? His team might as well have been hand-picked for a social-networking startup

They were a traditional tech startup. They pivoted when that market collapsed.

http://blog.soylent.me/

> YC accepted our original idea, to build affordable wireless networks for developing countries, for the summer 2012 batch. We spent the entire summer prototyping our technology and looking for a customer. By demo day, we had a white space radio with a Bill of Materials (BOM) of $70 operating around Silicon Valley. We didn’t have customers and were facing an intimidating set of regulatory hurdles. We spoke with some of the valley’s top VC’s but failed to raise. Instead of pushing for investment that wasn’t there, we went back to focusing on acquiring customers and finishing our product as soon as possible. We never found a customer.

It is irresponsible for them to launch a product, with massive publicity, and claim the product is safe for everyone (diabetics? pregnant women? People with Crohn's? Anorexics?) and to claim there is much evidence to support safety.

Wow, I never knew that (not much of a start-up guy myself, admittedly).

This is really interesting (from their blog):

"By the start of 2013, we were working on a handful of projects. Sometimes collectively, sometimes independently. One day, Rob said, “There must be a more efficient way to eat.” He researched the human nutritional needs and was frustrated to find that nutrition is not quite a hard science right now. Regardless, he identified the essential ingredients the body needs to thrive and, a few days later, began constructing his alternative diet using supplements purchased on Amazon. Pleased with initial testing, he committed to his newly invented diet for 30 days."

So, despite food science lacking foundations and rigour (in the most neutral way) right now, he still figured out (well, almost, just needed a month of testing and we're good to go!) an unsolved question, without any formal training, in a few days.

In the context of their previous failure it just makes me even more inclined to wonder what they're really planning -- their noble goals seem smell much more like marketing bullshit now.

I hope I'm wrong.

You don't get it. He read some freshmen textbooks and noodled around on pubmed, that makes him the expert. /s

Thanks for the link. This article appears to be the most positive, least biased article criticizing Rob and Soylent I've come across. That's something I like to see, although the title is a bit link-baitey.

I'm in support of what Soylent aims to become, and if I'm not mistaken, so is the author of this article. All I'm seeing here are very direct suggestions for the next formulation of Soylent, nothing that lambastes Rob for his recklessness and ignorance.

What's more, this article, seemingly written by a nutrition expert, doesn't spread FUD over the potential dangers of exclusively consuming Soylent. Even in its infancy, if all I have to do is take a multivitamin for my psuedovitamin quotas, some extra whey and creatine for my gainz, and maybe a salad and a steak every few days in addition to Soylent, I'm still sold. It would still save plenty of time and effort to get the benefits of optimal nutrition. That is, if what's claimed about consuming Soylent is actually true.

The tricky part is that there are:

1. Macronutrients, two of which are essential to life.

2. Micronutrients, of which

a. Vitamins are essential to life, and

b. Pseudo-vitamins are critical for health.

c. Other micronutrients with positive effects of various degrees and kinds.

You can absolutely survive for a long time on a reductionist soup. That's what's given to lots of very obese patients in protein-sparing modified fasts. The problem is that there are a metric buttload of micronutrients that improve health in the long term. And new ones are being discovered all the time. The easiest way to get the benefits is ... eat a varied diet. Just like they told you at primary school.

But most of the arguments in favour of soylent are daft. Really, just silly. Save time cooking? Cook something easier. Prevents eating the "wrong thing"? Why is the "wrong thing" even in your house? And so on.

HN is full of people who like to be hyper-rational and so this appeals. But I think it's an example of where myopically optimising one or two parameters leads to foolish outcomes.

And I do feel the same about many of the counter arguments I'm seeing about why Soylent is preferable over a healthy, well balanced diet. I really don't even see cooking vs. not cooking as the most salient topic relative to the potential benefits of Soylent.

To me, what's most interesting is Soylent as a marketing challenge. If people can indeed by optimally nourished by something that is more convenient and cheaper than fast food, then it's bound to become more successful and ubiquitous in the long run. It is, at the very least, the same premise of Chipotle's business: offering something conventionally agreed to as healthy food in a convenient manner at roughly the same cost as other fast food franchises. The ideal outcomes are similar too: healthier people are in a much better position to positively contribute to society.

Do you think that, given the buttload of nutrients we'll need to be prosperously healthy, a complete food product can be engineered? Perhaps the real question is can it be complete and cheap at the same time...

I'm not knowledgeable about nutrition, but if I can directly fund an effort to develop the perfect food, I will. (And have)

Food is generally sold on taste. The old basics of salt, fat and sugar are still going to be what keeps peopl coming back.

But marketing-wise, soylent has already proved itself very successful. It's invented a niche that didn't exist and converted consumers to having a "need" of which they were previously unaware.

That said, I suspect it'll be a niche market. What's more likely is that soylent will be added to other products. Milkshakes ... with soylent! Steak diane ... with soylent!

The classic example is how many obese people discount the calories of "healthy" foods. "Those fruit smoothies don't count, they're healthy". It's a substitution heuristic.

Are these daft? "Cognition was the first to go [after going off soylent]. Patience shortened, attention dulled, curiosity waned. Socializing was more taxing, my inbox more foreboding. The physical effects took another few days. It was harder to wake up, the gym seemed much less inviting, and I gained a few pounds."

The efficiency is just one benefit of quite a few, many significant.

Subject-reported mood on (n=1) trials were last considered scientific circa Sigmund Freud. And we don't know what his regular diet was.

Different people react differently to different foods, even the same food at different times or under different conditions. His remarks there read a bit like some stuff I've read by the proponents of, variously, vegetarian, paleo and keto diets.

I don't eat breakfast, as a rule. I used to get peckish in the mid-morning, now I don't get hungry until lunchtime. Not being hungry helps me concentrate. I hardly see this as the basis of a new way of life.

So, are those reasons daft?

In my case I have a specific purpose for that meal: maximal protein per total calories. And I'm not replacing all meals with it. I tried once, out of curiosity. I lasted a day.

I hear you and indeed, if we're to believe his claim, the benefit would be substantial. Yet, I don't think this detail is what jacques_chester was referencing in his comment. It's difficult to dispute Rob's claim without either having experienced the benefits ourselves or having an authority back him up.

We're left to wonder exactly what Rob was cooking for himself when he got off the juice. I support Soylent, but I don't believe you necessarily have to feel this way with only access to mostly whole foods.

Whether or not you enjoy cooking is irrelevant, especially if we stand to gain all that Soylent promises. Soylent won't deprive anyone of the option to cook a meal. If anything it may simply add more value to the act of cooking.

Many are suggesting that the only reasons being given have to do with saving time but that is far from the case. I spent 2 minutes finding one passage (of many) that discusses 8 or 10 non-efficiency reasons. Yes, they are self-reported. Yes, they need to be verified. Yes, there could be other ways to get there or other factors involved. But these are other, very good reasons being supplied for the exercise.

I think it is rarely, if ever, wise to "leave" things to the experts. Amateurs can make (and have made) valuable contributions in just about every subject.

I think it's wise to leave things to experts most of the time, especially if you can be conversant with the experts.

Unfortunately amateurs have a lousy track record with nutrition.

Uh...pretty much all of nutrition has been figured out by amateurs.