Soylent seems to have disturbing contamination issues that haven't been experienced even by companies like the lovely weirdos at Joylent - who contracted with an actual food bar manufacturer to make their Twennybar.
I dont think our paleo ancestors would understand the proposition, but I agree with the sentiment. Im having a hard time not having a cynical view on soylent.
Better to take the gamble that your environment provides that nutrition! It's a good thing the gods made this world just-so for us, so we can leave in their hands the meeting of our basic needs. Better that half your community devotes half their time to procuring food. To dream of greater things is a sin anyway.
Who's the market for Soylent bars? Is it people who don't have time to eat/prepare complete meals and need a fast alternative? I find it hard to believe Soylent can provide all the nutrition you need.
Is it to satisfy your hunger in the afternoon of midday as a snack? If so why not just buy granola or protein bars that at least have some flavor?
We have no idea what all the important components of a balanced diet are on a chemical level, it is incredibly naive to think that soylent can mix up a cocktail that would be optimal.
Soylent bars are made out of food, specifically a variety of foods we know that people need all mixed together. It's not like they're mining rocks from the Earth and using complicated chemical reactions to turn raw inorganic materials into food.
Also, what does "optimal" even mean? You're setting the bar too high; as long as they're healthier than typical alternatives of eating lots of fast food and processed packaged foods then their addressable market is huge.
> Also, what does "optimal" even mean? You're setting the bar too high; as long as they're healthier than typical alternatives of eating lots of fast food and processed packaged foods then their addressable market is huge.
this is exactly the kind of research soylent doesnt have on their products. we have no idea if they are 'healthier' or not.
You call that food? Suddenly the 'balanced diet' everyone seems to be pushing is not applicable? Yeah ok, I agree that if you are coming from a mcdonalds-only diet, you might do better, but they are positioning themselves as a healthy meal replacement.
I've seen several blood test results posted to the Soylent subreddit, and those generally are very positive.
I know that's not a scientific study by any means, and people should be skeptical, but there really is a lot of (anecdotal) evidence out there of Soylent having a positive impact on people's diets. On the other hand, I've hardly seen any evidence of Soylent having a negative impact on someone's health.
Because they don't have any research using their bars or their drink mixture to back up any of their claims. All they are doing is looking at the recommended levels of vitamins/minerals and macronutrients and mixing some shit together, and hoping for the best.
Convenience. It's the same with regular Soylent, Mana, and anything DIY in between. I make my own version of Soylent, both in liquid and baked form and use it whenever it suits me, mostly 1 meal a day.
Yeah, I've wanted to look into something like this for a long time. For me, eating is a chore most of the time. I just want something cheap and quick that will allow me to not die.
I doubt you really want just "to not die" from your food.
Your mental health, ability to work, and happiness are all impacted pretty heavily by your diet. Lacking some nutrients can increase depression, lacking others can result in always feeling tired and sluggish, etc.
The reason I'm wary of soylent is not because I doubt that I could live on it (many people have lived for fairly significant durations on basically only soylent), but because I worry it would overall decrease my quality of life. Saving time eating is great, but it's not worth feeling like shit the rest of the time.
That is a bit of hyperbole, but the sentiment is there.
I'm not looking for a "food replacement" though. I just want something that I can eat for lunch because I often forget to eat anything at all (also with breakfast, but that's more of not wanting to waste the time on making a good breakfast).
Soylent seems like a great choice vs nothing half of the time. It's also better than me just eating rasin bran for the 20th morning in a row.
Breakfast is actually pretty easy to make 1) cheap and 2) easy to prepare.
It takes about 5 minutes to grill an egg or boil one. If you soak oatmeal overnight, it takes about 10 minutes to fully cook. You can make toast or hashbrowns in about that amount of time as well.
My routine is often start heating some food, then go brush my teeth while it's heating, so no time wasted.
Small condiments can add a lot of variety -- buy a tub of yogurt, cream, cheese, salmon slices, sausage, etc., then just mix and match. You won't have to have the same meal twice in a week.
And if cooking is simply too much of a hassle, why not just buy some apples, oranges, or whatever fruit suits your fancy, and just eat it whole? Pretty sure everyone agrees that fruit is healthy, and they're cheap.
But I'm looking for consistency, not variation. I want the same thing every morning, I dont want to have to prepare by going to the store, checking experiation dates and timing usage before stuff goes bad, etc.
It seems funny that people are coming out of the woodwork to tell me alternatives to Soylent like its some kind of toxic waste. I might be horribly wrong, but I'm pretty sure that a soylent shake is going to be nutritionally better for me than an orange in the mornings...
To be clear, I wouldn't suggest that Soylent is some kind of toxic waste (though I think it tastes like shit, personally). It's certainly better than an orange. But I would suggest that there is a human good in being willing and able to do things for yourself that is worth reflecting on and exploring. Like, there's an Aristotelian "are we really attempting to achieve the good?" question that I would put to people who neglect--and this word is chosen very carefully--themselves in lieu of other pursuits.
I don't claim to have any answers on this, mind! And I'm certainly not perfect about any of this (said my waistline, peevishly), but actually thinking about this stuff has made me spend more time taking care of myself. And I actively wonder if attempted solve-everythings like Soylent are not a step backwards for us as people, instead of mere consumers. The stuff you don't want to do with regard to going to the store and so on is so very, very trivial, and yet actually engages you with the ephemera of your world in a way that I would suggest meditating on before discarding.
There are all sorts of compounds in natural foods that science hasn't even begun to analyze in depth, but which humans have been eating and coevolved with for millions of years. What's the effect if you take them all out of your diet completely?
Soylent's strategy, understandably, is to put in all the things that we think we already understand and know we need, but what if that's only 10% of what the body needs long term? How do you quantify the risk from unknown unknowns?
Also, the comparison isn't really between Soylent and oranges alone, but Soylent and a normal balanced diet, of which fruit is one component.
My hunch is that it is, because of the lack of sugar bomb involved in fruit. But as mentioned in the other thread, fruit makes me feel like complete shit.
You did suggest a piece of fruit as a replacement breakfast, though. I agree with you in the large, but I think you left this barn door open a bit. =)
I too always find it really curious that people find breakfast so time-consuming. My breakfasts are three scrambled eggs and a tablespoon of light cream; I grab whatever I've got handy--sliced mushrooms, cubed ham, whatever--toss it in a skillet, once it's browned and happy I pour in the eggs and it's only a couple minutes from there on high heat. Couple dashes of hot sauce when I dish it onto a plate, and I'm done. It takes ten minutes, cleanup is "toss the plate in the dishwasher and run a paper towel inside the skillet", and I'm not hungry until well after lunch. If I'm going to be really time-crunched I'll hard-boil a few couple eggs the night before in a steamer--fifteen minutes and out. (If I screwed up--well, I'm going to be hungry until I can scrounge up something reasonably healthful, and I will do better next time. Discipline is weird, huh?)
Many people don't really agree that fruit is healthy, though, given how much sugar is in it; I personally avoid it, because I feel like hell when I have it.
YMMV, but usually fruit sugar is ok because you're eating a bunch of fiber at the same, so the impact on blood sugar is smoothed out. Eating fruit after your meal also helps.
It would take me 10 minutes to prepare what you just described, 20 minutes to eat, and at least 20 minutes to clean up.
Some people don't afford to spend one hour for this, especially in the morning, and some people find 20 minutes of mandatory cleanup exhausting; both physically and mentally.
I love to cook and to eat good food. I cook real, elaborate, dinner at least 3-4 times a week. However, I can't affort to spend one hour every day for breakfast. That being said, Soylent is... awful. For me the alternative is not to eat soylent for breakfast, but to skip breakfast.
20 minutes to clean up? Huh. I just wipe down the stove with a rag and wipe down the skillet and I'm done. (If I'm feeling very lazy, I'll use a paper plate and just chuck it, but I'd rather not so in the dishwasher it goes.)
Eating time...well, that's a personal thing. =) I do WFH, so I am more relaxed on that, but I tend to scarf food down, so, eh.
Yesterday I made roast beef for dinner (http://i.imgur.com/b2ZBblD.jpg), and after I finished eating cleanup took 70 minutes (I measure these things), more than the actual hands-on time I spent preparing the food, plus the time I spent eating!
It's just that I am really thorough when it comes to cleanliness in the kitchen.
Oatmeal and milk in a thermos, add some flavored protein powder. Shake. Drink on the way to work. Healthy, tasty, satiating and does not get any easier.
Honest question: where's the 20 minutes of cleaning?
I don't use a dishwasher, so every bowl, dish, cup, plate, and utensil I use gets handwashed.
Even so, boiling an egg, making a slice of toast, and then having a piece of fruit costs me <3 minutes of cleanup time: rinsing 1 plate, 1 pot, and a spoon.
To be fair, I do this more or less every day, so I have plenty of practice.
Boiling an egg, sure. Fried eggs or making an omelette? That requires me to wait for the stove to cool enough, then wash it (and the controls too). Plus I most likely won't want to eat a plain egg. I will add some stuff, bacon, onion, etc. That means I will have to clean up the cutting board too. And there's always some stuff like bits of onion that fall off the cutting board to the counter, so I will have to clean up the counter too. Plus, while I eat, I will put the used fork on the table, so I will have to clean the table too.
The 20 minute number is not arbitrary. I deeply care about optimising time spent cooking and eating, and I have measured this stuff for myself. Sure I can make something that takes two minutes to clean, but I want to eat something more satisfying that requires me to fry something. And cleanup after that, takes 20 minutes (more or less) if you are insane about the cleanup standards like I am.
Sounds like you are a lot more fastidious than the average person.
I don't really see any need to clean my stove (or even the controls) more often than 1x / week (I cook daily), and the cutting board always occupies the same space on the counter, so the counter also gets thoroughly wiped once a week. The table gets wiped 1x a day, not after every single meal. Dishes, plates, and utensils just go soak in the sink so I only batch wash everything once a day.
Note that I'm still following all the usual food safety protocols, e.g. separating raw from cooked and washing my hands at appropriate times, etc.
I guess what I'm saying is that it probably does take you 20 minutes to clean after every meal, but that's probably much higher than average, and shouldn't be what keeps the average person from cooking.
> It's my opinion from having tried it and talking with those who have tried it. I don't need a scientific study to tell me how to form an opinion based on observation. I also don't need people stating their opinion without ever having tried something. They're just spewing bs to stroke their own ego at the expense of honest discussion.
So you've talked to a statistically valid sample of Soylent users to conclude "most people" believe as you do? Interesting. How about you provide that data?
Oh, wait. You haven't talked to a statistically valid sample, you're just doing exactly the same thing you're accusing him of. I get that you might be a fan of Tech-Branded Slim-Fast, but come on. Be better than this.
(And I have tried it. I disagree with you. Oh no! Countering anecdotes with anecdotes!)
The problem is that many "healthy" things either cost time to prepare and make, or they cost money to buy.
I don't want to spend either of those, and based on my past experience, I'll just end up not eating, or just drinking milk if the barrier is too high. I know it's not healthy, but its what ends up happening.
You could also modify your behavior instead of attempting to build crutches for unhealthy behaviors. Food preparation can be a pleasant experience, curiosity-satisfying experience and need not take much time. I spend maybe two and a half hours across an entire week preparing healthy food--and it tastes a hell of a lot better, too.
(I have tried Soylent, and I think it's foul and unsatisfying. Tech bros apparently can't make Ensure or Slim-Fast better than Ensure or Slim-Fast is. Which isn't very good.)
I've actually tried the soylent powder from a friend and found it was great.
And while you can find food prep to be a satisfying experience, i can't. I've tried, many times, and it just feels like pulling teeth. From going to the market to buy ingredients, to planning out the meals and portions, to actually prepping and cooking the food. It's boring, tedious, and not something I enjoy at all.
The "better taste" can actually be an issue as well, because I tend to need to force myself to eat even when I'm not hungry, and eating something that was prepared hours ago that doesn't sound that appealing any more while not really hungry isn't a pleasant experience.
I'd rather have a shake, or eat a bar, and go on with my life.
I don't know what your living arrangements are, but I've found that if you're living with others, sharing food prep responsibilities can be efficient in both time and money. Obviously, that does require some time investment in learning to cook.
I hope Soylent works out for you, I'm just really doubtful that it's a reliable long term solution. It's our hubris in thinking we understood nutrition that led to stuff like trans fats being added to everything. Hope this isn't just repeating the same mistake.
I personally think soylent is putting a lot more research into their shakes or bars in terms of nutrition than the yogurt company is for my wife's morning breakfast...
> Why does one meal made by a tech company need to have literally everything you need to live when the alternatives don't?
Mostly because of their marketing claims: 'We engineered Soylent to provide all the protein, carbohydrates, lipids, and micronutrients that a body needs to thrive.'
Particularly the 'micronutrient' claim I think is totally unproven.
Nobody seriously expects to survive and be healthy eating nothing but breakfast cereal (admittedly, a lot of cereal is crap), but that's Soylent's claim at face value.
One thing that traditional foods have going for them is that there is a lot of empirical cultural experience with them. You know yogurt, or curry, or broccoli is probably ok to eat, because humans have eaten them for some thousands of years and tinkered with them nonstop during that time. The same can't be said for 'engineered' foods, whether Soylent or any other modern processed food.
Worked with a guy who ate it. Said he felt better and was healthier when taking it and grew to despise having to fuck with eating a sandwhich at lunch. Apparently the taste is satiating.
The guy who developed the Soylent product was/is a programmer who had a diet of mostly junk food. This he realised was no good for him hence the product. The market is programmers like himself plus others.
You might want to check how much sugar is in those "protein" and "granola" bars. Side note: nice if Soylent produced a version with less sugar (less or no fructose specifically).
The secret is just... freeze them. I find the best results come by sandwiching each layer of them between wax paper, and then wrapping the whole thing up and storing in the freezer, separated out by 1 weeks. Just take your 1 week batch out at a time, pop in the fridge, and you're set.
EDIT: I just want to add, it's a real GIGO thing; the better and tastier your base ingredients, the better the result... especially with nuts and chocolate.
I have on average two bottles per day. Easy breakfast, and lunch at work. Or last night for example, I was tired from a long week at work, and didn't feel like cooking nor going to get take out. Had a bottle of soylent, and it hit the spot perfectly.
Note that Soylent bars aren't unflavoured -- they're caramel. Liquid soylent has a strong flavour of soy and flour, and tastes quite a bit like drinking pancake batter.
As for other bars, I suspect you will find that most energy bars are not healthy at all. Granola bars are mostly sugar/carbs. The only bar that I know that competes with Soylent in terms of being low-carb, high-fiber, high-protein is Quest. Like Soylent, they use isomalto-oligosaccharides (a whole lot of fiber), just more of it. Quest uses mostly natural sweeteners such as stevia and erythritol, though some contain sucralose. The average Quest bar (60g) has just around 5g carbohydrates.
This sort of thing is premature fear mongering to sell clicks.
A useful summary:
- Some people have gotten sick. There is no indication as to why or how. Likely possibilities include:
- circumstantial/no causation
- contamination of the batch (biological or chemical)
- allergic reaction to an ingredient (happening 'now' could be a result of accumulation)
- This was all from the same batch (per current evidence)
- This batch has been recalled and they are trying to figure out what went wrong. (the thing we expect any food manufacturer to do when something like this happens)
I expect Soylent is an interesting exercise in people finding out they have allergies they did not know about, but I am going to wait and see before I hunting for spare pitchforks.
if splenda caused a subset of people to be violently ill (like they are claiming) it would be off the market so fast. i find it hard to believe it's because of 'allergy/sensitivity'.
Splenda/sucralose is an artificial sugar substitute. It's regulated far differently from peanuts.
Additionally, everything I've read regarding it shows that it doesn't cause people to be ill like this. The only sugar substitute I know to have an effect like that is stuff like sorbitol, and it doesn't cause people to vomit. It can cause diarrhea if consumed in significant quantities though.
> I expect Soylent is an interesting exercise in people finding out they have allergies they did not know about, but I am going to wait and see before I hunting for spare pitchforks.
Bit frustrating for those people when one of the selling points from the kickstarter was
> > "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."
Writing that is totally irresponsible and betrays how little knowledge the creators have about general nutrition and allergen health. Nearly very single item in their product is a well-known allergen, which includes soy, oat, canoloa, chocolate, etc.
Well, they are ALL on the label. So if you have a known allergy not on the label I can see the viability of using soylent to have a ready food supply known to be safe.
They've narrowed it down to a batch of bars that are good thru 2017. They got some sent back and tested and didn't find anything. So they're saying it's allergic reactions.
So what does a huge food company do when it releases a new product?
Say Quaker Oats rolled out a flavorless Granola Bar, do they just expect a certain number of ER visits?
I'm disappointed with Gizmodo, and started unsubscribing to them. Has anyone else notice a decline in their articles? No one reports up-to-date facts or investigations any more. This article seems more of a bash-piece then a real fact based piece. I want to see some real investigating and not references to a subreddit. I don't care if Soylent is making people sick, tell me why and what's being done about it.
Gizmodo is/was part of Gawker Media (yes, _that_ Gawker Media). As their whole business model was sensationalist, click-baity articles all along, expecting serious journalism from them is more an unrealistic expectation on your part than anything else.
Food products suspected of food poisoning should be reported to the FDA.[1] If it involved an emergency room visit or a serious health event, call the FDA's emergency line: 866-300-4374 or 301-796-8240. Even if it's a false alarm, they want to know. If they get multiple reports, it's clear there's a problem.
There's no recall for a Soylent product listed on the FDA's recall page.[2] So this hasn't been properly recalled.
"After these reports, we have retrieved remaining bars from our consumers and have personally consumed many of the remaining bars without adverse effects.”
Lol, did they just admitted 135 PC - Destroying or Concealing Evidence ? ;)
I truly appreciate the idea behind Soylent. Long before they sold the product I was already making something similar on my own using the nutrient/vitamin/mineral quantities that the body supposedly requires.
Problem is, many of those quantities (specially vitamins) are a wild guess to medical science. If you go check the literature about certain minerals/vitamins you should consume, the values vary a lot, the effects on the organism from too much or too little aren't well understood, and worst, you can't be sure you are actually ingesting all the necessary types of vitamins/minerals/??? you need to have a healthy life... there are still too many unknowns.
I did that for about 3-4 months (every other weekend I would go to my parents home and had "real" food), and in the beginning I felt good, but after about 2.5-3 months I didn't feel so good anymore.
TL;DR: I really think that something like Soylent (this one, not the one from the novel) will be the future for a good part of mankind, but that will happen a long time from now when medical science and biology advance quite a bit.
> "What does this all mean? It means if you have a Food Bar with the expiration date July 14, 2017, it might benefit you to throw it away."
That seems a bit reactionary. A large number of the bars will have the same expiration date even if they were produced in different batches or facilities.
This whole piece seems to be designed to stir up emotions rather than provide real analysis. It is fine to express concern when people are getting sick, but this seems more like a attack. The default assumption seems to be that the Soylent team is hiding something, which does not seem consistent with Rosa Labs' previous disclosures about production issues.
Anyway I have been eating bars from a box with the same labeling (B1-00CAR BEST BY 1966 14JUL17 0716) for weeks with no ill effects. Rather than throwing all their product away if someone is worried they can try consuming a small portion of a bar first and then wait to see if there are any ill effects.
If you want food bars with a better reputation, there's Calorie Mate Balanced Food Block, the lunch bar of Japanese salarymen. Manufactured by Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co., Toyko. Amazon sells them. The bars taste like shortbread, and their biggest component is wheat flour.
89 comments
[ 4.4 ms ] story [ 165 ms ] threadIs it to satisfy your hunger in the afternoon of midday as a snack? If so why not just buy granola or protein bars that at least have some flavor?
Why?
Also, what does "optimal" even mean? You're setting the bar too high; as long as they're healthier than typical alternatives of eating lots of fast food and processed packaged foods then their addressable market is huge.
this is exactly the kind of research soylent doesnt have on their products. we have no idea if they are 'healthier' or not.
You call that food? Suddenly the 'balanced diet' everyone seems to be pushing is not applicable? Yeah ok, I agree that if you are coming from a mcdonalds-only diet, you might do better, but they are positioning themselves as a healthy meal replacement.
Soylent set the bar that high during their kickstarter by saying it would put you in perfect health, and was suitable for everyone.
I know that's not a scientific study by any means, and people should be skeptical, but there really is a lot of (anecdotal) evidence out there of Soylent having a positive impact on people's diets. On the other hand, I've hardly seen any evidence of Soylent having a negative impact on someone's health.
Your mental health, ability to work, and happiness are all impacted pretty heavily by your diet. Lacking some nutrients can increase depression, lacking others can result in always feeling tired and sluggish, etc.
The reason I'm wary of soylent is not because I doubt that I could live on it (many people have lived for fairly significant durations on basically only soylent), but because I worry it would overall decrease my quality of life. Saving time eating is great, but it's not worth feeling like shit the rest of the time.
I'm not looking for a "food replacement" though. I just want something that I can eat for lunch because I often forget to eat anything at all (also with breakfast, but that's more of not wanting to waste the time on making a good breakfast).
Soylent seems like a great choice vs nothing half of the time. It's also better than me just eating rasin bran for the 20th morning in a row.
It takes about 5 minutes to grill an egg or boil one. If you soak oatmeal overnight, it takes about 10 minutes to fully cook. You can make toast or hashbrowns in about that amount of time as well.
My routine is often start heating some food, then go brush my teeth while it's heating, so no time wasted.
Small condiments can add a lot of variety -- buy a tub of yogurt, cream, cheese, salmon slices, sausage, etc., then just mix and match. You won't have to have the same meal twice in a week.
And if cooking is simply too much of a hassle, why not just buy some apples, oranges, or whatever fruit suits your fancy, and just eat it whole? Pretty sure everyone agrees that fruit is healthy, and they're cheap.
It seems funny that people are coming out of the woodwork to tell me alternatives to Soylent like its some kind of toxic waste. I might be horribly wrong, but I'm pretty sure that a soylent shake is going to be nutritionally better for me than an orange in the mornings...
I don't claim to have any answers on this, mind! And I'm certainly not perfect about any of this (said my waistline, peevishly), but actually thinking about this stuff has made me spend more time taking care of myself. And I actively wonder if attempted solve-everythings like Soylent are not a step backwards for us as people, instead of mere consumers. The stuff you don't want to do with regard to going to the store and so on is so very, very trivial, and yet actually engages you with the ephemera of your world in a way that I would suggest meditating on before discarding.
For example:
https://discourse.soylent.com/t/phytonutrients-and-all-the-o...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resistant_starch
http://www.webmd.com/diet/guide/phytonutrients-faq#1
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4287321/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26757793
There are all sorts of compounds in natural foods that science hasn't even begun to analyze in depth, but which humans have been eating and coevolved with for millions of years. What's the effect if you take them all out of your diet completely?
Soylent's strategy, understandably, is to put in all the things that we think we already understand and know we need, but what if that's only 10% of what the body needs long term? How do you quantify the risk from unknown unknowns?
Also, the comparison isn't really between Soylent and oranges alone, but Soylent and a normal balanced diet, of which fruit is one component.
You did suggest a piece of fruit as a replacement breakfast, though. I agree with you in the large, but I think you left this barn door open a bit. =)
https://faq.soylent.com/hc/en-us/articles/212769503-Glycemic...
http://www.health.harvard.edu/diseases-and-conditions/glycem...
Many people don't really agree that fruit is healthy, though, given how much sugar is in it; I personally avoid it, because I feel like hell when I have it.
Some people don't afford to spend one hour for this, especially in the morning, and some people find 20 minutes of mandatory cleanup exhausting; both physically and mentally.
I love to cook and to eat good food. I cook real, elaborate, dinner at least 3-4 times a week. However, I can't affort to spend one hour every day for breakfast. That being said, Soylent is... awful. For me the alternative is not to eat soylent for breakfast, but to skip breakfast.
Eating time...well, that's a personal thing. =) I do WFH, so I am more relaxed on that, but I tend to scarf food down, so, eh.
Well, I can't just do that. See my response to smallnamespace: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12670789
Yesterday I made roast beef for dinner (http://i.imgur.com/b2ZBblD.jpg), and after I finished eating cleanup took 70 minutes (I measure these things), more than the actual hands-on time I spent preparing the food, plus the time I spent eating!
It's just that I am really thorough when it comes to cleanliness in the kitchen.
Yeah, 5 minutes of cooking and 20 minutes of cleaning.
I don't use a dishwasher, so every bowl, dish, cup, plate, and utensil I use gets handwashed.
Even so, boiling an egg, making a slice of toast, and then having a piece of fruit costs me <3 minutes of cleanup time: rinsing 1 plate, 1 pot, and a spoon.
To be fair, I do this more or less every day, so I have plenty of practice.
The 20 minute number is not arbitrary. I deeply care about optimising time spent cooking and eating, and I have measured this stuff for myself. Sure I can make something that takes two minutes to clean, but I want to eat something more satisfying that requires me to fry something. And cleanup after that, takes 20 minutes (more or less) if you are insane about the cleanup standards like I am.
I don't really see any need to clean my stove (or even the controls) more often than 1x / week (I cook daily), and the cutting board always occupies the same space on the counter, so the counter also gets thoroughly wiped once a week. The table gets wiped 1x a day, not after every single meal. Dishes, plates, and utensils just go soak in the sink so I only batch wash everything once a day.
Note that I'm still following all the usual food safety protocols, e.g. separating raw from cooked and washing my hands at appropriate times, etc.
I guess what I'm saying is that it probably does take you 20 minutes to clean after every meal, but that's probably much higher than average, and shouldn't be what keeps the average person from cooking.
"Most people", huh? How about some scientific studies to this effect instead of green-texter assertions that another poster's hesitance means nothing?
So you've talked to a statistically valid sample of Soylent users to conclude "most people" believe as you do? Interesting. How about you provide that data?
Oh, wait. You haven't talked to a statistically valid sample, you're just doing exactly the same thing you're accusing him of. I get that you might be a fan of Tech-Branded Slim-Fast, but come on. Be better than this.
(And I have tried it. I disagree with you. Oh no! Countering anecdotes with anecdotes!)
The problem is that many "healthy" things either cost time to prepare and make, or they cost money to buy.
I don't want to spend either of those, and based on my past experience, I'll just end up not eating, or just drinking milk if the barrier is too high. I know it's not healthy, but its what ends up happening.
(I have tried Soylent, and I think it's foul and unsatisfying. Tech bros apparently can't make Ensure or Slim-Fast better than Ensure or Slim-Fast is. Which isn't very good.)
And while you can find food prep to be a satisfying experience, i can't. I've tried, many times, and it just feels like pulling teeth. From going to the market to buy ingredients, to planning out the meals and portions, to actually prepping and cooking the food. It's boring, tedious, and not something I enjoy at all.
The "better taste" can actually be an issue as well, because I tend to need to force myself to eat even when I'm not hungry, and eating something that was prepared hours ago that doesn't sound that appealing any more while not really hungry isn't a pleasant experience.
I'd rather have a shake, or eat a bar, and go on with my life.
I hope Soylent works out for you, I'm just really doubtful that it's a reliable long term solution. It's our hubris in thinking we understood nutrition that led to stuff like trans fats being added to everything. Hope this isn't just repeating the same mistake.
But they're certainly not funding a lab that is doing new nutritional science research, because that would cost tens of millions of dollars a year.
I think the risk is that they'll be missing ingredients that are rather important to the human body that we don't know about yet.
Even the idea a 'vitamin' didn't exist until about ~100 years ago.
Why does one meal made by a tech company need to have literally everything you need to live when the alternatives don't?
I'm not saying soylent is all you need to live, and I'm pretty sure they aren't either, just that it's a healthy meal replacement.
Mostly because of their marketing claims: 'We engineered Soylent to provide all the protein, carbohydrates, lipids, and micronutrients that a body needs to thrive.'
Particularly the 'micronutrient' claim I think is totally unproven.
Nobody seriously expects to survive and be healthy eating nothing but breakfast cereal (admittedly, a lot of cereal is crap), but that's Soylent's claim at face value.
One thing that traditional foods have going for them is that there is a lot of empirical cultural experience with them. You know yogurt, or curry, or broccoli is probably ok to eat, because humans have eaten them for some thousands of years and tinkered with them nonstop during that time. The same can't be said for 'engineered' foods, whether Soylent or any other modern processed food.
that's the whole thing that Soylent is selling, convenience.
Do it once a quarter, and you'll spend less time on that than opening Soylent bars.
The secret is just... freeze them. I find the best results come by sandwiching each layer of them between wax paper, and then wrapping the whole thing up and storing in the freezer, separated out by 1 weeks. Just take your 1 week batch out at a time, pop in the fridge, and you're set.
EDIT: I just want to add, it's a real GIGO thing; the better and tastier your base ingredients, the better the result... especially with nuts and chocolate.
As for other bars, I suspect you will find that most energy bars are not healthy at all. Granola bars are mostly sugar/carbs. The only bar that I know that competes with Soylent in terms of being low-carb, high-fiber, high-protein is Quest. Like Soylent, they use isomalto-oligosaccharides (a whole lot of fiber), just more of it. Quest uses mostly natural sweeteners such as stevia and erythritol, though some contain sucralose. The average Quest bar (60g) has just around 5g carbohydrates.
A useful summary:
- Some people have gotten sick. There is no indication as to why or how. Likely possibilities include:
- This was all from the same batch (per current evidence)- This batch has been recalled and they are trying to figure out what went wrong. (the thing we expect any food manufacturer to do when something like this happens)
I expect Soylent is an interesting exercise in people finding out they have allergies they did not know about, but I am going to wait and see before I hunting for spare pitchforks.
Additionally, everything I've read regarding it shows that it doesn't cause people to be ill like this. The only sugar substitute I know to have an effect like that is stuff like sorbitol, and it doesn't cause people to vomit. It can cause diarrhea if consumed in significant quantities though.
Bit frustrating for those people when one of the selling points from the kickstarter was
> > "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."
So what does a huge food company do when it releases a new product?
Say Quaker Oats rolled out a flavorless Granola Bar, do they just expect a certain number of ER visits?
They also list whether the production line is shared with other products that might contain allergens.
This is pretty important, since food allergies can kill. (Not many, only about 150 - 200 per year die form peanut allergies in the US.)
There's no recall for a Soylent product listed on the FDA's recall page.[2] So this hasn't been properly recalled.
[1] https://www.foodsafety.gov/report/problem/index.html [2] http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/default.htm
Lol, did they just admitted 135 PC - Destroying or Concealing Evidence ? ;)
Problem is, many of those quantities (specially vitamins) are a wild guess to medical science. If you go check the literature about certain minerals/vitamins you should consume, the values vary a lot, the effects on the organism from too much or too little aren't well understood, and worst, you can't be sure you are actually ingesting all the necessary types of vitamins/minerals/??? you need to have a healthy life... there are still too many unknowns.
I did that for about 3-4 months (every other weekend I would go to my parents home and had "real" food), and in the beginning I felt good, but after about 2.5-3 months I didn't feel so good anymore.
TL;DR: I really think that something like Soylent (this one, not the one from the novel) will be the future for a good part of mankind, but that will happen a long time from now when medical science and biology advance quite a bit.
That seems a bit reactionary. A large number of the bars will have the same expiration date even if they were produced in different batches or facilities.
This whole piece seems to be designed to stir up emotions rather than provide real analysis. It is fine to express concern when people are getting sick, but this seems more like a attack. The default assumption seems to be that the Soylent team is hiding something, which does not seem consistent with Rosa Labs' previous disclosures about production issues.
Anyway I have been eating bars from a box with the same labeling (B1-00CAR BEST BY 1966 14JUL17 0716) for weeks with no ill effects. Rather than throwing all their product away if someone is worried they can try consuming a small portion of a bar first and then wait to see if there are any ill effects.