[rlwolfcastle]

Defined Human Minimal Media.

It's an interesting question, just what nutrients does the human body need in order to sustain itself? We have a good definition of what individual cells need but not a lot of data for how the body copes long term with just those nutrients. My guess is that will power will lose out in the end.

[Pitarou]

Thank you for answer. I swear I'm not just trolling, but I'd really like to push you a little further on that point. First, I should be clear that I'm not trying to argue with you or convince you of anything. I just want to understand what people are thinking.

Bearing that in mind, would you be so kind as to read on while I make the "Dr. Spock" case against Soylent?

Scientifically, the questions about human nutritional requirements you alluded to were largely answered 70 years ago by British government researchers. They put volunteers on controlled diets, with varying quantities of different micro-nutrients, and studied the effects carefully. It's thanks to their work that Britain avoided mass malnutrition during the war.

As a nutritionist, Rob Rhinehart isn't fit to hold a clipboard for those pioneers. What kind of incompetent neglects to add iron to his initial formulation?

And there's plenty of precedent for these kinds of nutritionally balanced rations, usually developed for military or medical purposes. E.g. check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plumpy'nut. If I were to make my own Soylent, I'd probably use that as my starting point: it's cheaper and better tasting that Rhinehart's formulation. I don't see anyone getting excited over those.

So ... that's the "Dr. Spock" argument. But Dr. Spock wouldn't buy a Rolex, or get a tattoo either, and yet people do.

Whatever the case is for investing in Soylent, it's not rational. It's about your emotions, or it's a status symbol, or a it's statement of identity. Something fuzzy and humanistic.

But what? What is it? I truly don't get it. Can you enlighten me?

[Pitarou]

Thanks for your answers, guys. I get it now. In hindsight, it's obvious.

It's marketed at people who want to solve two problems:

1. How can I be sure that my diet is healthy?

2. How can I avoid expending so much time, effort and money on food?

And given some of the weird diets I've seen some geeks subsist on ("Only ham and pineapple pizza."), I guess it's not so surprising that some would like the idea.

It's also about safety in numbers. If 10,000 other guys are eating the same formula, you can be pretty confident that any "bugs" are likely to be found and fixed pretty quickly.

In a sense, this is a giant nutritionist experiment. If it's a success, there will probably be a few people who eat almost nothing but Soylent for years on end. Let's see if it keeps them healthy.

[rlwolfcastle]

Personally, I think soylent, as a daily meal replacement, is a horrible idea but, like a lot of things, it will find it's place.

I'm not sure I understand what point you are trying to make above. The argument (as I read it) is that we studied nutrition 70 years ago, Rob isn't a nutritionist, and there is something else you prefer to soylent so it's irrational and no one should use it? That may be an esoteric argument against soylent and Rob but not the idea of soylent.

If you could theoretically develop a solution that you only needed to drink once a day to get all of the nutrients your body needs and feel satiated, why wouldn't you drink that? You could then spend your time doing other things that are more important to you. While for some people they may prefer preparing and cooking food, which is fine, it's not a substantive argument against soylent for those who view eating differently.

The value people get from eating seems a lot fuzzier and humanistic than soylent, which, to me, seems incredibly robotic and rational.

[dack]

If it's the case that there are other existing solutions that are simultaneously as {cheap, nutritious, tasty, storable} as Soylent, then the problem is marketing. I don't know about them.

If, however, the existing solutions have a major downside (I would assume cost or taste, but could be wrong), then that's the reason. I wouldn't be surprised if there were existing solutions that just aren't catering to the audience of "silicon valley hipster" and therefore simply getting ignored.

According to your link on Plumpy nut, it's only $60 for 2 months for a child. Even though a 280lb. man certainly needs much more than whatever the amount is for starving children, it still sounds like it would be cheaper than I would normally spend on food even if I just bought groceries and never ate out. So... could I eat that food for 2 months straight and be perfectly healthy (assuming I have the willpower)? Could I reasonably use it as a meal replacement whenever I wanted and not have any negative consequences?

[Pitarou]

No. Of course not. Plumpy'nut is just an example. But there are formulations for people with digestive ailments, military rations, and so on.

Alternatively, it's perfectly possible to design your own "Soylent style" diet, optimising for cost and convenience. I knew of someone (friend of a friend -- a rather eccentric math teacher) who did that many years ago. A large part of his diet was spaghetti and vitamin pills ... not so different from Soylent, really.