= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
adamzerner comments on Is it a good idea to use Soylent once/twice a day? - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (57)
I'm not proposing to use it as a complete food replacement, just as something to have once or twice a day. Because 1) it saves time, 2) it saves money, 3) it's more nutritious than the alternative and 4) it's less caloric/fattening/sugary/salty than the alternative.
I'm with you, food is great! But a lot of times I find myself scrambling to "get my meal out of the way" because I'm in a rush. I throw something together quickly or find something to eat on the go, and this doesn't give me that satisfaction you describe. I sense I'm not alone here. Aren't there times when you don't get to eat a satisfying meal, and you'd prefer something like Soylent instead because of the time, cost and nutritional benefits? You could still eat a nice dinner each day and real meals on the weekends when you have more time.
Maybe you aren't, but Soylent is marketed as such.
What is that "alternative" you're talking about? It's not made of straw, is it? :-)
Definitely not. Why would I drink goop when I can have real food instead? I don't find any of the time, cost, or nutrition arguments persuasive.
I don't understand all these people saying that $3 a meal is cheap. Maybe their alternative is going out to a restaurant?
I'm not one of these people, but I've heard that some people find almost all forms of cooking stressful, difficult and unsatisfying. These people suffer from increased food preparation costs that make $3/meal cheap by comparison.
I don't think it's correct to describe these mental costs in dollar terms. It's more convenient, sure, but that's not the same thing as cheaper. But yeah, now that I think of it cereal is probably $0.50/meal (skip the milk, goes bad too fast) but you don't want that more than once a day, and it's reasonably plausible that it would be hard to get two decently proteiny frozen meals for under $8.50 if grocery store selection is poor in your area.
Labor costs.
It's not that easy to convert marginal labor into money. Getting a second job is a high transaction cost, and alternatives like online surveys don't pay well. I just don't buy this type of argument except for certain very far from universal situations, e.g. hourly workers who have some leeway to set their own schedules.
It really depends on your base income. A programmer who makes 100k a year is in a very different situation then a college student.
Commercial soylent is overpriced. However, you can DIY for <$5/day, even if you need unusual amounts of food. Compare that to these numbers, which were the first thing I found. My $35/week is about 19% less than thriftiest food budget using conventional food for my gender/age. Plus I'm fairly large (but lean), active, and trying to add muscle/not lose weight, all of which should increase how much food I need relative to average.
I am guessing that no Soylent aficionados cook :-)
And of course $3/meal is cheap compared to Starbucks lattes X-D
I'm not sure I count as an "aficionado", but I am a regular consumer of soylent, and not only cook but enjoy doing so. (Just not first thing in the morning, or when I have places to be.)
Cheaper alternatives are either not-so-great nutritionally or take a decent amount of planning (especially if you're cooking for yourself alone).