I'm still curious why the soylent thing has hit it off in the HN crowd and not, say, Slimfast. Which is basically the same thing but with more production hardening.
I certainly think that it's a marketing thing; while gender identity I'm sure plays a role as it does in most marketing, it's not the whole story. There are already meal replacement drinks targeted at manly men; muscle milk is one of the more well known brands.
I think that the difference is that this stuff was uniquely (and probably irresponsibly[1]) marketed towards nerds. - It's not advertised, as the shakes I mention before this, to make you bigger or smaller; it's advertised to save you effort on eating; I think that is the primary difference.
[1]My impression is that they have implied that soylent can completely replace normal food for long periods of time, and I personally think that is dangerous, just because of how much we don't know about micros and about the GI tract in general. I'm sure it's fine if you do the slim-fast thing and have 'a delicious shake for breakfast, another for lunch, then a sensible dinner' - but that's not how soylint seems to be advertised.
"There are already meal replacement drinks targeted at manly men; muscle milk is one of the more well known brands."
Huh. I've always gotten the impression that Muscle Milk is a protein supplement (though it's got carbs, too), not really a (full nutritional) meal replacement.
that how it is marketed. My assertion is that the difference is largely marketing; that we don't know enough about nutrition to make a realistically complete long-term meal replacement, making them both "something you might drink sometimes instead of eating something, but something you wouldn't want to live off of long-term"
Of course, I'm no doctor (but then, neither is Rob Rhinehart,) and it is possible research has progressed further than I know; but personally? I wouldn't take the word of a software engineer on this.
>>that how it is marketed. My assertion is that the difference is largely marketing
Nope. Here is what the Muscle Milk website says in their FAQ - note the last sentence:
Many people use MUSCLE MILK® Ready to Drink Shakes and Powders as a meal replacement or snack between meals. The ready-to-drink products are especially convenient to use as a meal replacement or snack when you are on-the-go. MUSCLE MILK® Ready to Drink Shakes should always be used in conjunction with whole foods and adequate hydration, and never as a sole source of nutrition.
That's exactly what lsc was saying - that Soylent in actuality fits those last two sentences, and that the only real difference between the two is the different emphases (and reckless overselling for Soylent).
>It's not that I disagree with you because I think this is probably correct but... I mean do we know that? As a sure thing?
My understanding is that we don't know either way, really. Hell, there's still a lot of legitimate controversy about the RDA - and that is just a very short, and certainly incomplete list of micros.
(personally, I'd be more concerned about the missing micros (or that they put in the wrong chemical form of the micros) than I would be about the structure of the food; but I'm no doctor, and certainly chewing is a part of digestion, so maybe that is important, too? I bet you could actually find good studies on that part, though; figuring out if a liquid diet is ok should be easier than figuring out if you have all the micronutrients you need; there are plenty of cases where people are medically tube-fed over the medium to long term.. but I think that even that involves pulped fresh food, and how is that different from food that wasn't recently living? the obvious starting place is the bacteria, but I'm sure there are other differences, too.)
That's the thing, it seems like this would make for interesting medical research but it's instead advertised as a time-saver, without a lot of actual medical supervision.
Again, the 'extraordinary claim' here is just that you can live solely off of the stuff... if they marketed it the way the other meal replacements are marketed, e.g. we tried to make this good for you, but don't let this be the only thing you eat, I think it would be a fine product.
Ha this is on my mind every single time someone brings up Soylent. Seriously, it's a joke. Some kid makes a knock off slimfast meal supplement and HN is all "Goddamn genius is disrupting meals. This is the future man!"
A 400 calorie bottle of Soylent has 9g of sugar, a 181 calorie bottle of Slimfast has 18g of sugar. That's 4 times as much sugar per calorie. Similarly, a 220 calorie bottle of Ensure has 15g of sugar, about 3 times as much per calorie. Cynically, Slimfast is for people trying to convince themselves that they're being healthy and losing weight, and Ensure is for people who have to stay hydrated while suffering from diarrhea. It's hardly a surprise why they hasn't caught on with the HN crowd as meal replacements like Soylent has: they're not made for it.
The spin of the marketing is almost certainly part of it, Soylent being marketed as "don't bother stepping away from that super important coding problem, just have some soylent," but it's also the first marketed (non-medical) product that really aims to be nutritionally complete and balanced. There are certainly criticisms you could levy at Soylent WRT whether they've succeeded at that goal, but at least it's their goal.
I've never heard of slimfast, and if I had I would immediately discount it because I'm not overweight, nor do I eat badly.
Soylent was simply the first product I heard of that did the meal replacement "with everything you need nutritionally" thing.
Not saying it was the first, just that it was the first I'd heard of it.
Never actually went out and got it, but was close because I was at a time in my life where I was too busy to prepare good meals, (between sports, work and my own side projects).
> Not saying it was the first, just that it was the first I'd heard of it.
There are a wide variety of sole-source of nutrition liquid feeds.
The reason you haven't heard of them is because they've been marketed to medical professionals, for use with ill people, and not to the general public.
The lack of caution in the promotion of Soylent is a worrying sign.
Branding? I think it's basically an Ensure for geeks. "Soylent Green" is from an old science fiction. I seem to recall Soylent being started on Reddit years ago. They call a recipe "open source", and it grew inside a group of internet culture.
It's like how "Gatorade" was neon colored and marketed for athletes, when the same kind of formula was also used for less glamorous rehydration.
Instead of being packaged like Slimfast is, where it becomes part of weight loss culture, Soylent is targeted at hacker types. It fits. They're supposed to always be working and have no time for cooking, and it has a futuristic image, so they integrate with it.
When really, you're right, it's basically the same thing as Slimfast.
I didn't read those, but I think there's a slight difference between Soylent and other meal replacement drinks, mainly in the purpose. Slimfast is for people who only use them to lose weight. Ensure is for people who only use them because of illness. Soylent is for people who want to transcend humanity to sustain life without the hassle of ingestion.
I get it. I'd love to bypass eating. But I think it's naive. When I saw the people getting excited over it on Reddit many years ago, I rolled my eyes. Nutrition is not so simple and understood where you can mix some ingredients in batch, then drink your meals quickly without thought. You can get away with it for a while, especially if you're young. But it's really a science fiction fantasy, and I thought the people buying into it were naive at best, and being scammed at worst.
Just like I think believing you need Slimfast to lose weight, or that it's a smart approach is equally naive. People want simple programs to follow though, and it's opportunity for businessmen to capitalize on the desire.
I wouldn't attribute it to some kind of nefarious gender issue.
It's as simple as marketing, which does matter. Slimfast in it's name implies a diet drink, not food replacement. Most people would never even consider them in the same arena and that's due to simple marketing by the very companies that produce them.
The commercials very prominently suggested replacing breakfast and lunch with Slim-Fast shakes, so much so that "a shake for breakfast, one for lunch, and a sensible dinner" was basically their unofficial slogan. Obviously it was still marketed for weight loss, but the suggested use is strikingly similar to what a lot Soylent advocates suggest.
Yes, I can see that in the case of Soylent vs Slimfast, customer choice is driven by what marketing says is the intended use.
But don't be too quick to dismiss masculinity or coolness factors in product selection. Diet Coke and Coke Zero are essentially the same thing made by the same company (the latter having a slightly different "flavor profile"). Coke Zero exists because some men or many men will not order a Diet Coke: it's sissy or uncool. Coke Zero was introduced solely for that reason.
Coke Zero exists because they decided to try to make a diet version of Coke that actually tastes closer to regular Coke. Diet Coke does not use the regular Coca Cola recipe with sugar replaced, but a tweaked one, on purpose.
Compare to e.g. Diet Pepsi, which is to Pepsi what Coke Zero is to Coke, Coca Cola was for decades worried about making something that was too close to the original (hence Tab being their first diet cola)
Or Diet RC Cola, which is the only diet cola product I've ever been close to confuse with the real thing (my parents insisted I "wouldn't notice the difference" with diet colas as a child in an attempt to get me to accept them, and utterly failed).
If you want a diet cola that tastes like a regular cola, Diet Coke will never be it, and it left Coca Cola with a gap in their lineup for people who weren't as concerned about picking a diet product, but would pick one if there's a diet cola available that is "close enough".
Coca Cola definitely tried to market Coke Zero to a male audience (it was described as 'Bloke Coke' in UK newspapers [1] around launch), but I think it's popular today not because of the marketing, but because it's a good product. To me, Diet Coke tastes artificial and... bland. Coke Zero tastes similar to regular Coca Cola, but has a distinct enough character to be appealing in its own right. In my experience, this is what most Coke Zero drinkers will say.
I can taste the difference between Diet Coke, Coke Zero and the new Coke Zero - Zero Sugar. Diet Coke has the most artificial sweetener taste, while Coke Zero Zero sugar almost has none.
Your basic premise is wrong they are not the same thing at all. Soylent doesn't replace a meal, it is a meal with all the nutrients. Slimfast was designed to supplement food to lose weight. The nutritional aspects of each are totally different.
SlimFast is designed to "supplement" food in that they suggest you replace two meals a day with it. The difference is that SlimFast doesn't suggest replacing three meals.
I used to drink SlimFast for lunch everyday, until I became lactose intolerant. Years later, Soylent came out, and I was tired of eating fast food all the time for lunch. Now I drink Soylent for lunch, which is healthier, cheaper, and faster.
Is Slimfast the same thing? It sounds like it's specifically meant to lose weight, which suggests it has a different purpose, and possibly a different composition, than Soylent does.
When Soylent was first announced but wasn't available yet, it struck me as something I'd like so I tried Slimfast (and Ensure).
Had to drink a lot to get enough energy and it was way too sugary and sweet – it gave me the sick feeling I get when I have only donuts or something for breakfast. The sugar free version tasted too much of aspartame.
I'd be happy to try something else with the same sweetness balance of Soylent if you have a suggestion.
The one thing that makes all the recent food alternatives like Soylent interesting is that they are nutritionally complete, or at least aim to be. Especially if you are eating vegetarian, it's easy to miss something vital without being very careful what you consume.
I use a Soylent-like products occasionally just to increase my chances of my body getting all the specific nutrients it can use.
Considering the fact that the Slimfast website has learning resources for cooking regular healthy meals, I would posit that their products aren't designed or intended to replace all meals.
If you mean "decide" as in force them to take it, then yes I would be surprised. In my experience, even the high achieving parents didn't force them to take specific classes. They put pressure on their kids (both genders equally, tiger mom does not care about gender roles) to take STEM AP classes in general instead of specific ones. Those students decide which STEM AP classes to take (except for Calc which parents stressed more).
This was before knowledge of comp sci salaries have gone mainstream (before 2012), although it's still a relevant, anecdotal reflection on the backgrounds of current software engineers.
My AP comp sci class was actually composed of non-high achieving people. AP comp sci was the only AP class many of the students took. The high achieving students didn't take AP comp sci for whatever reason.
I think AP comp sci was actually considered lower status/prestige compared to the sciences Physics/Chem/Bio among the high achieving students.
> “The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I’m saying? We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did.”
John Ehrlichman, Assistant to the President for Domestic Affairs under Nixon.
Maybe fragile masculinity? IDK.