Good for him. Whatever floats your boat. Personally for me it sounds horrible. Cooking isn't that bad - in fact it gives me some pleasure. And I enjoy different flavours, textures, in fact I enjoy eating.
So I don't really understand, but I'm not going to force my tastes on others.
It plays into a relatively new desire for all things quantified and automated. It does this - it allows for granular control over input, but it removes all of the inherent joy of eating. It's not a good trade-off for most people, but appeals to experimenters.
The only appeal for me would be removing the time constraints of cooking or dining out. To be honest, cooking is a huge time sink and dining out isn't a whole lot better.
Considering many people on this HN are, well, hackers, and can spend a ton of time coding, optimizing, etc... often even evangelizing coding for everyday people, I feel like this is the lazy answer.
Which is fine; there's nothing inherently wrong with being lazy or ignorant about cooking. But evangelism about Soylent freeing up ones time is silly, all things considered. It's not for everyone, it's not for families, it's not even formulated for women, the elderly, children, or generally for people with nutritional needs that deviate from those of a 30 year old male. It's for the lazy dude who doesn't want to cook.
Pretty much everyone enjoys eating. That's not why you do something like this.
Enjoyment of food can be a social, entertaining, and ceremonial activity. But eating as in 'consuming food for nutrients' is a biological necessity. Thus they are completely separate goals. There's no reason a singular activity should be forced to perform two completely unrelated goals.
If you want nutrients flavor doesn't matter. If you want flavor nutrients don't matter. You could choose what you want, when you want, and do it as efficiently and cheaply as possible.
I usually eat one "normal" meal a day for lunch, and obtain the rest of my kilojoules from drinking 1L tub of yoghurt for dinner. Perhaps I could improve my diet going over to soylent...
Years before Soylent was created, I tried the old Slim-Fast diet shake plan (a shake for breakfast, a shake for lunch, and a healthy dinner). It was basically vitamin/mineral laced chocolate or vanilla milk, and while it tasted decent at first, I couldn't get over the monotony of it. I tried it for a month and I did lose about 15 pounds during that time, but the utter blandness of it drove me back to standard food and the weight came right back.
I love to cook, and there's just something about the crunch of roasted veggies, the savory taste of grilled meats, and the warmth of a good stew or soup that I had to have. Call it a "first world problem", but living on sludge, even good tasting sludge, isn't truly living for me.
Of course, at 37 years old I'm overweight, diabetic, and at risk of heart disease so I have to do something. I've already started on my goal to be a healthy weight and have my blood sugar, blood pressure, and cholesterol under control without medication by the end of the year. First step: Halve my caloric intake, not by starving myself but simply by reducing portion sizes. I don't have to fill my plate to get enough calories for the day; half a plate gives me enough energy and nutrients in a meal. Step two is walking at least a mile a day, gradually upgrading that to 2 miles, then jogging 2 miles a day once I've dropped enough weight that my knees won't suffer.
If I make it to my weight and health goals by the end of the year, I'll start working on building up some muscle to help keep the fat at bay at my sedentary job. It sucks being not quite 40 and feeling a bit over 60. Hell, my dad is in far better shape than I am!
I don't intend to pass judgement on this person but from all the scientific research I have read the ratio of carbs to fat/protein in soylent is not healthy. This individual may not have any visibly negative health effects but I doubt this diet will work for a majority of people for an extended time frame.
Would you mind sharing a reference to some of this research? I haven't heard this and am currently considering working soylent back into my regular diet.
I've never tried the "official" soylent but have toyed around with a few recipes on http://diy.soylent.me/ . You can adjust it how you please and set your own nutrient profile to get as close as you can to what you want. (...I am not a health expert)
The problem I have with statements like this is that it gives no context for what 'not healthy' actually means (and, by extension, what a 'perfectly healthy' diet is).
For example, I often don't hit 3 of the 5 recommended fruit/veg in a day and I consume far too many fatty foods. Over an extended time frame this will probably cause me to become overweight and deficient in vitamins. Given this, it'd be useful to know what the advantages and disadvantages of soylent would be in my current situation.
Do you have a link to the studies? They presumably give more information about their benchmarking.
Source? I know they recently changed it for digestibility purposes, but most of the DIY projects and the older versions of Soylent were an exact match to what the health authority recommends if I recall correctly.
I don't understand all the reactions to Soylent where people are weirded out. Didn't we all grow up watching Slimfast commercials? "A shake for breakfast, a shake for lunch, then a sensible dinner."
I think many of them just don't "believe" in chemistry. So a process where the body excretes various things that break food down into smaller molecules and then those smaller molecules are selectively absorbed sounds like overly reductive magic.
I look at cooking like I do coding, there is always something new to learn and it's not always going to be an easy process. In fact, since I work at home most times, if I get stuck on a particularly gnarly problem and don't have another outlet, I might distract myself with cooking (gardening, a time outside, or a nap are other options).
I've made things I've had to throw out, I've made things I've been able to tweak into other dishes, and I've made things that were quite outstanding.
As a poster above pointed out -- "whatever floats your boat". That said, there is more to the outside world than things like living like a hermit, avoiding food, spending every waking moment in front of the computer, etc. At some point, one wakes up and realizes there is more out there. And, if you are lucky to find someone who you want to share your life with, habits like those listed above (they seem to pop up frequently in posts here) are going to likely change.
Same! I love cooking and I absolutely love food. It feels like a disgrace to me that some people would exchange actual food for some gray mud, but I guess that to each his own.
Oh, I think we all embrace some form of "gray mud" at times. Sometimes a smoothie, sometimes a diet coke and some peanut butter and jelly on toast, things that are quick and get me going in the day. Or people that do fasts, or weight loss mixes, or some of the crud I eat while on long bike rides (power bars, cliff bars, supplements in water bottles, etc).
I think giving up all food for something like Soylent is a bit silly, but at the same time, we do all make different sacrifices at times.
I wonder how Soylent's uptake would differ if they were pitching it as a quick occasional meal alternative.
Everything I've ever seen about Soylent is along the lines of "now you can eat nothing but Soylent!", which, for how much of the world enjoys both cooking and eating, seems like a tough pitch, except for a very, very small niche that, I guess, doesn't actually get any visceral pleasure from food.
As someone posted, it seems like it is catering to those interested in the "quantified day to day life". I can see the appeal, but I'd rather get out and bike, enjoy food, and do what has worked for me.
But as you point out, it would be interesting to see what the take would be as the occasional meal alternative. I wonder if it would be seen as things from GNC, etc. where there would be a small but interested market, but nothing larger.
They are still relatively young and will likely evolve into markets beyond the one they are targeting now.
That's how I use it tbh. I don't eat breakfast and I rarely eat lunch, often from the work cafe so not necessarily the healthiest. something like this ensures more consistency in my diet, and I can do the planning/prepping bit for dinner.
Why is the message that it is build that you can do that a problem? (If I were to use it as a temporary replacement food I still would like to know that I don't have to take particular care to fix specific things it is missing. One less thing to worry about.)
That said, I think the customer base they are aiming for (and getting) right now is the right one for the moment (somewhat reliable demand from those that stick with it, willingness to tolerate hiccups, willingness to talk about it, ...)
The problem I see is not that it can function as a temporary meal replacement, it's that the PR pieces never seem to describe anyone using it that way. It's always the "Joe hasn't eaten another food in X weeks!"
Which, frankly, is going to turn a lot of people off.
One other remark--if you're skipping a meal on occasion, and supplementing it with some easy foodstuff, you don't really need to worry about it being nutritionally balanced. Virtually any western diet will get you enough nutrients on a regular basis that you don't need to supplement with vitamins or worry about the diseases caused by a lack of some nutrient, even if your diet is restricted for a while.
Just skipping a meal every now and then isn't even a problem. Fasting through a mealtime or three isn't going to hurt anyone who is otherwise healthy and well fed for most other meals. It may be uncomfortable, but you don't need to eat every day, the body stores fat for good reason. (and as you said, a less balanced Clif bar or a handful of almonds would carry you through single-instances of missed meals pretty well too).
To me, Soylent is only interesting because they're wanting to replace every meal for normal adults living normal lives. Anything less is just better marketing of an Ensure clone.
I like cooking too. But a lot of the times for lunch I don't feel like making something. Then I have to bring it with me to class and that means there's an extra container to clean at the end of the day. Also, I don't usually have time to make much in the mornings.
Soylent works as a perfect meal substitute for when I'm lazy or short on time, and that means I have more time and money for when I want to have a nice meal.
I tried ketosoy for a week, and will likely continue... but I only replaced about half my intake each day with it. I have trouble getting 20oz of it down at once, so tend to break into 4-16oz portions... doing roughly half a pack a day combined with a real lunch or dinner and one snack (nuts, apple, etc) through the day. It actually worked out pretty well.
While I try to eat relatively nutritionally balanced, I'm not perfect. I have a broken metabolism, and chronically bad knees. This makes exercise difficult to say the least, and whatever I eat will have an effect. What it did allow me to do was consistently stay under 2000-2400 calories a day, and actually drop a little bit of weight.
I'm planning on getting a gastric sleeve later in the year, which will make something like soylent ideal for me.
That said, I love to cook and usually do at least one longer prep meal a week (friday, saturday and/or sunday)... This past saturday I made mushroom broth, followed by an asian-style soba (buckwheat) noodle soup using some of said broth with thinly sliced sirloin and veggies.
So, I can really see both sides of this. On the one hand, I love food. I try 2-3 new to me restaurants a month, and like to take lunch away from my desk. On the other, sometimes just drinking something down is far easier than taking the time to prepare a meal. I've been making several gallons of stock/broth every other week for soup for most of the past year. It takes quite a bit of time and even only doing it a day or two a week, not doing it for half my meals appeals to me. And will often cost less.
I used to like the idea of Soylent, but after subscribing to one of those weekly boxes where they deliver all the fresh ingredients and recipes to you, I've found a lot of enjoyment in cooking.
I love to cook. I tend to shop for meats / primary ingredients in bulk at costco, and freeze/thaw as needed. However, the individual dishes I almost never plan out, other than maybe a few days ahead of time. Almost nightly I go for a walk to the local food store(s) and build our meals there. Sometimes I have a mission and some times I tool around. It's about an hour's time total, and what I do to kind of separate work time to home time (aside from a short bike ride home). It's as much a part of my cooking process as anything else, and for that reason something about these subscription things doesn't feel right for me.
Having those boxes delivered really saves a lot of time for me. The next step in time-saving should be automating the cooking with robots, not accepting that because we have no time we should take the pleasure and variety out of food.
In a utopian robotic future we'd all have robots cook our meals with the expert quality of a high-end chef.
In a dystopian robotic future, the robots would give us the most basic sustenance to keep us alive if they deemed us useful... and I'd imagine what they'd give us would be something like Soylent. If some people are happy with that, then I'm not going to judge, but personally I think we could do better.
I don't necessarily disagree, but I take a lot of pleasure in the actual act of cooking, especially when I have friends over for dinner. It's not something that I'd want to save time on by having someone else (or a robot) do it for me, because I enjoy it.
I love eating and the social aspect of sharing a meal with others, so I can't see myself having Soylent in this capacity whatsoever, but I would definitely like to try it as a breakfast and quick lunch alternative. I have the bad habit of rushing in the morning and rarely eating, so Soylent seems like a great fit.
It's also interesting to realize that the food most people eat really is not very healthy, even when it consists of mostly healthy ingredients. It seems like most of the people I know probably don't get nearly as much fibre as they should, so a product like Soylent could be a beneficial addition to many people's daily nutrient intake.
I, too, sometimes dislike cooking, so here's what I do:
I take 1 cup of raw oatmeal, ice, and 2 cups of lactose free whole milk and put it in a blender. Thirty seconds later I have a meal of 600Cal with 26g protein. I have this at least once a day. Sometimes three times a day.
I heard somewhere that we need to actually use our teeth once in a while, so I microwave frozen broccoli florets. I soft-boil 2-4 eggs with an egg steamer and combine all of that in sesame oil + soy sauce.
Makes sense - but I guess I would have to ask why not try Soylent then? Soylent is basically the the oatmeal smoothie you're describing except nutritionally complete, so why not just do that? Why make your own that is less healthy and complete? It almost certainly can't be cheaper.
What makes you think the parent post's recipe is "less healthy". Is there any 3rd-party scientific study proving Soylent is healthier or its long term effects?
Also, raw oats bought in bulk are cheaper and more eco-friendly than buying pricey Soylent drinks and having them shipped across the country regularly.
Good point, bought in bulk that is probably a cheaper meal.
And no I don't have any 3rd-party scientific study proving the long term effects of something that has only been out for 2 years, but thank you for asking. There's an absolute ton of 3rd party, peer reviewed science around nutritional completeness and what that entails, and Soylent adheres to the best practices of that research extremely well. Oats and milk is actually a pretty darn good approximation from what I understand about the nutritional content of oats (super strong), but my point is why not at least try Soylent if that's what you're going to do? Soylent is basically by design a super optimized version of that meal.
You're assuming that combining whatever has been labelled as good for you and whipping it up in a bottle is a perfect replacement for all/most meals. If I'm going to drastically change my diet to something processed like that I'd better know for sure whats in it, how its made and its long term effects. I'm not willing to be a guinea pig with my food intake.
Also things like the numerous shipping delays, recipe changes and some other complaints[1] [2] make me cautious about Soylent.
It would be interesting to see some more detailed N=1 studies posted regarding Soylent. In particular, I'd be very interested in seeing a blood lipid profile, blood pressure readings, and blood glucose readings before and after to see its effects on key markers for metabolic syndrome.
I'm not opposed to the idea of engineered food (it would certainly be convenient), but I'm not convinced that the same macronutrient profile is ideal for everyone. My other big concern is that there's potential harm in the lack of diversity - e.g. "unknown unknowns" so to speak.
Unfortunately, the field of nutrition is not very WELL studied despite the high NUMBER of studies published, so I won't pretend that I have a better answer than Soylent to the problem with nutrition in society. It's good to see that people are at least working on the problem in creative ways, so long as they aren't harming anyone.
"I'm not convinced that the same macronutrient profile is ideal for everyone. "
Yeah, this is my big problem with all of this. In fact, given the known differences in gut fauna that localized cultures/diets have, it's pretty much a fact. Different people process different foods differently.
I agree with your assertion that quantity of nutrition "studies" doesn't provide quality. Most nutrition studies seem to be done with the goal of proving X diet is better than Y, sponsored and paid for by X.
if People can take a massive range of macronutrients. Seriously, if soylent was going to be a problem, then people would have to be FAR more careful about what they eat then they are now.
It all reminds me of the perfect is the enemy of good arguments.
Is soylent perfect? Most likely not, is it better then the vast majority of people are eating? that wouldn't be a high bar to jump, and I think it jumps it easily.
More recent studies seam to lean towards once you get a minimum level of protein in your diet, the rest of it is just calories... though ketosis vs carb burning is another difference. That said, most people are not on a keto based diet. So, get your protein in (1/3 to 1/2 your lean weight in pounds as grams of protein), and from there have whatever you want to hit your caloric needs.
Even when trying to lose wieght, making sure you hit your minimum protein requirements is important... my only suggestion to someone taking a reduced amount of soylent is that they really should supplement extra protein into their diet. Especially if exercising as they are likely losing a lot of muscle with the fat loss, which is probably not the desired result.
I have an interesting anecdote related to ketosis: I was in nutritional ketosis for three months to test its effects on my body. My ketones were consistent with being in the ketotic state, but my LDL-P and triglycerides skyrocketed with no meaningful improvement in HDL. It's debatable whether this is "bad" for you without inflammation (atherosclerosis relies on both), but I certainly wasn't comfortable with the elevated levels and went out of ketosis.
Saturated fat sensitivity seems to have been my issue (VERY difficult to be on that diet without high levels of saturated fat) and I'm now on a low-carb monounsaturated fat diet that has dramatically improved my blood lipids.
So, for me at least, I would have to disagree with "the rest is just calories" statement. I think too many people are trying to simplify nutrition with a single book, diet, or pill, when in reality, it's a complex system that might very well be impossible to predict.
Aligns reasonably well with my (short) experience. I got a bag from a friend and ate a jar of Soylent every morning for breakfast for about a week. It was in fact pretty great: I'd pour out N calories, where N was how much I figured I'd need to eat to get to $nextmeal, and then I'd drink it and be on my way. The stuff has really nice properties as far as hunger goes, too; it has neither the lead-brick problem that I get from things like chicken and dumplings nor the gone-in-fifteen-minutes problem that I have with fried rice. I generally ate as much as I wanted and felt perfectly full until right when I'd expected to be having lunch or dinner.
To answer the people who think it can't possibly be healthy, honestly, I don't have time to fix most of my diet. I can put in all the time I want to make sure my dinners are perfect, and I generally do, but I'm too rushed in the morning to have anything other than cereal. And I have to have lunch out so that's impossible to get right. Even if Soylent doesn't have "the proper carb-fat ratio" or something, it's better than what I have right now.
So, summary, I have some on order and the rest of you can say "I told you so" if I get cancer in thirty years. Given what some other people survive on I doubt you'll get the opportunity.
I couldn't find the ingredients list -- but because it is not fully understood what food contains there may be missing nutrients in soylent that a well-balanced diet would have.
Disagree; we've had the tech for a while to keep coma and locked-in patients healthy (or healthy modulo extremely sedentary lifestyles). Same thing with cat food and dog food. Soylent is a trivial extension.
Disagree; change "healthy" for "alive" and we could agree.
This is somehow the same distinction between mortality and morbidity. IMHO, mortality stats are pretty useless and we should always look at morbidity stats.
That depends entirely on what we're using the stats for, for pension valuation I'll stick to mortality!
Glib/nitpicky I know, but all stats are useless in some context - the trick is to get the right tool for the job. Dismissing an entire dataset as useless is just missing the point.
Maybe "college level athlete" means something different than what I think, but I have a hard time squaring that with 1200 calories a day. I might be overestimating, but when I think "hard exercise", I think of Royal Marines etc, that generally target at least 3000 calories a day. I get that you need to eat less if your goal is to loose weight -- but I can't understand how anyone can be active on that few calories. Good for him it works, though.
Seriously. I was only ever a high school athlete but even then I was eating ~3500 calories a day and maintaining weight. At 1200 calories a day you could be mostly sedentary and still likely lose several pounds a week.
No, 1200 is a pretty reasonable diet for weight loss if you're not getting a lot of exercise. For example, I (an early 20s dude) naturally burn about 1800 calories a day, and another 200 from walking to and from work. 2000 - 1200 = 800 calorie deficit, or a week to reach a deficit of 3500 and lose a pound.
I am a 34 year old designer. It was an illustrative point of seeing what 3 days a week of HIIT and 3 other days of weights/cardio will do. Obviously at 34 year old guy who works at a software company won't be trying out for college basketball... or maybe I will! Is Stanford doing open enrollment? Do they have a basketball team?
Yes. It's a long term plan, and an illustrative exaggeration. I don't expect a 34 year old designer at a software company to actually enter the NFL combine. But I want to reach for my max potential over the next few years. I'm 34.
"Max potential" will not happen in a few years. It will take a decade or longer. But yes, you will make astounding progress in the first couple of years assuming you stick to a proper meal plan (even if that's Soylent and hitting the right macros) and train appropriately (progressive overload).
I just want to reach for it. I don't need to hit it. I have a personal trainer 3 times a week who does HIIT and conditioning, with some weights mixed in but not as the focus. And then the endurance cardio I do on my own. I'll probably stick with the trainer for quite a while, I learn a lot and it's so convenient as the gym and trainer are at my workplace, it's a real sweet setup.
It was a slight exaggeration to make a point. I have what, 8.5 months left to work on it.
Regarding 3000 calories a day etc, I am purposefully eating the 1200 range to lose fat first, that's my first goal. I do HIIT 3 times a week, and cardio 3 times. 6 days total.
I am not trying to build muscle mass at this point. I will be soon, but for now I just need to drop the fat from years of sedentary computer jobs, and condition my heart and lungs. So far, I am very happy with the improvements. I don't know how this activity level would feel at 3000 calories, but at 1200 for the short term, I feel really good.
Not to disagree with the poster, but I do want to point out the obvious fact that there are many different ways to consume Soylent. Most days, I skip breakfast, have a relatively healthy lunch (often socially with colleagues), and then drink Soylent as a filling and healthy (and relatively low-calorie) dinner, while my wife and kids eat normal food. I also love adding cinnamon, cocoa powder, or (as a special treat) PB2.
I never liked cooking, so when I moved out I ate a lot on restaurants or ordered to deliver, then I re-discovered fruits.
I don't like the idea of processed foo because I think we need the bacterias and all the life on the food. Those kids who could not play on dirt or weren't feed on mother's milk are more likely to have allergies. Bacterias bring us health, when we cook food we kill most of it's life and lower it's nutritional value to our body.
Today I'm living on 90% fruits, fruits are the perfect food to me, seems like most people don't see what fruits can bring to their health. You don't have to cook, just grab and eat and I can grow my own which means that is not that difficult to be auto-sufficient, they're like the best fast food ever.
On first month I noticed I could smell things better, I could breath through my nose much more easily, my taste is better, it's much easier to poop too and the smell is also different, less 'harmful' to the nose. When I eat dairy or something cooked my poop goes bad on the next day, it's like our body is the best doctor around.
I don't like the idea of processed foo because I think we need the bacterias and all the life on the food. Those kids who could not play on dirt or weren't feed on mother's milk are more likely to have allergies. Bacterias bring us health, when we cook food we kill most of it's life and lower it's nutritional value to our body.
You know cooking actually increases the nutritional value accessible in our food we eat, right?
If it's pointless to cook food, we would just eat food raw.
Yes, this. So much. And because I'm a biologist by training and can't resist:
> Bacterias bring us health
Unless it is e. coli, salmonella, listeria, botulism, etc etc. Some bacteria is helpful, most is neutral and some will make you very sick or kill you.
> I think we need the bacterias and all the life on the food
There is just as much bacteria on your skin, on the doorknob and on the basket holding you bananas to service your "daily dose of bacteria". Seriously, bacteria is everywhere. There is good evidence that ultra-clean lifestyles can increase allergies as you mentioned, but that is where you try to sterilize everything. It isn't where you simply cook food.
> Today I'm living on 90% fruits
Please make sure you are getting enough iron, or you could be on the road to anemia and serious health complications. :)
> When I eat dairy or something cooked my poop goes bad on the next day, it's like our body is the best doctor around.
Or, different foods have different molecular structure, which is digested and metabolized by different pathways in your stomach and intestines, leading to different aromatic by-products. Just because you don't like the smell doesn't mean there is something "wrong". I don't like the smell of manure all that much, but it is a very "good" by-product, if you want to label things good or bad.
There's tons of non-virulent e. coli living in your small intestine right now... E. coli is a specific species under the Salmonella genus.
And neutral bacteria are great when they help the good bacteria out-compete any virulent strains.
I remember being told that only 1% of bacteria are virulent in bacterial phys & metabolism, NIH seems to agree[1]. And that you have 10x as many bacteria on/in your body than you have cells.
I'm not expert at all, but I can't understand how cooking could increase since we destroy/kill/change most things on the process, maybe something are better digestible when cooked but maybe we shouldn't be eating it in the first place, we have the habit of making things eatable, or digestible, my idea is that nature already has everything we need, just like any other life form here on earth have, why we should be exception?
I couldn't find any good source of information on it, I found this article [1] that couldn't get a clear conclusion because seems like there's a lot to be understood yet.
One possibility is that cooking the food destroys compounds we can digest(like a plant's cell wall) which ends up releasing compounds otherwise inaccessible(minerals & proteins sequestered inside the plant cell).
Mastication also does this, but I doubt it is as effective as cooking unless you chew your food very well(which I would recommend doing). The downside to cooking is that high temperatures may destroy some more fragile compounds.
I guess if you are going to cook, the best way is to steam or boil/soupify your veggies. That way any released compounds are retained in solution & the heat is limited vs cooking with lipids.
Consider an egg. When raw, the white is clear and runny. When cooked, the white is white, firm, and springy. That's an example of how cooking can restructure foods. The egg has not been destroyed (it has just as many calories and protein) but the proteins have denatured (become unfolded).
In the case of starchy foods, cooking changes the starches. It breaks down long complicated starch molecules into smaller molecules, making them easier for your body to digest. This is similar to the pre-digestion roles played by chewing and saliva, both of which break things down into smaller pieces for easier digestion.
Cooking food isn't necessary, but there are distinct advantages to doing so, namely, it improves digestion. This may not seem like a big thing but it ends up significantly increasing the amount of calories one can absorb, massively expands the types of food one can eat, and greatly decreases the amount of effort one has to spend to process those foods.
Comparisons to other primates are illustrative: non-humans basically spend most of their life acquiring food, chewing it, and digesting it, at something like 85% of their entire waking lives. Cooking reduces that to roughly 10%, freeing up evolution to take advantage of that calorie and time surplus by, say, growing larger brains. In fact, studies of chimps suggest that almost their entire social structure is built around the tradeoff between eating, calories, and digestion---even a small change in habit (say, by doing something other than eating with a mere hour per day) significantly reduces calorie intake to a net deficit. Without cooking there is literally no time to do much else.
In fact, the most scientifically dependable and reproducible form of dieting is just to eat raw food.
It is becoming common now among anthropologists to hold the view that cooking food has had the single greatest impact on human evolution, even over hunter/gather, agriculture, meat, or any of the traditional attributed causes. We would literally not be human if it were not for cooked food.
I try to very a lot, bananas, mangos and papayas are the most frequent ones, also apples, pears, melons, oranges, lime and pineapple, or anything else I can find. Well seems like most fruits have protein, bananas seems like a good source, I'm no expert. I don't fell hungry at all, I fell a desire to satisfy my taste only, sugar and salt are kind of addictive I think
A banana has 1.3g of protein. You would need to eat 50 bananas a day to hit the recommended DV for protein.
It might behoove you to sit down and review the nutrient profiles of your fruit diet. Just because they are uncooked and satisfy your palate doesn't mean you are getting everything you need.
Quite honestly, I find Soylent to be quite overrated. Existing protein powders/meal replacement/mass gainers are tastier and more affordable. I get the point of 'eventually scientifically managing your diet', but that's far from reality.
That line stuck out to me as well. But leading by example is one of the best ways to parent. (not suggesting that kids switch to soylent--just that you can't really go wrong with fruits and veggies)
Totally. Sit and eat with your kids. Make food with them, clean up with them. Make them seriously good times. Teach them good food habits, good life skills (chill out from the rat race and sit down for a decent meal), and improve both their and your own social skills. I doubt that particular meal substitute stuff is truly complete, and I do believe that variety is a good thing. Eating good food is good for the soul, as it can be one of the different types of beauty we can have on our lives.
I posted above, but my wife and I are very conscious of how our kids eat, and they aren't ignored or sitting at the table, sad and alone. They enjoy a variety of meals, meal time, "social skill building at the kitchen table". We're even starting to make our 5 year old sushi (rice and seaweed) at his request after eating some from the store.
It's a blog post, that was an illustration to say my kids don't eat Soylent. My kids eat normal, healthy kid food. I sit with them when it's meal time. My wife and I are very conscious of their diet and do our best to be way above the norm for monitoring and providing kids great nutrition.
I'm a big fan of personal experimentation but it's important to always be skeptical of your own n=1 conclusions.
In this particular case, coinciding the interventions of your diet change and exercise regiment make it very difficult to know the respective contribution of each to your results.
They prioritized previous customers first if you read their website. They will supply people who have gotten a soylent shipment before or are on a regular subscription reliably. It's just that first order as they scale up production.
But they got a bunch of funding recently and said that the delays should be going away soon for new customers.
I signed up a week ago out of curiosity and got my first delivery in less than a week. I'm guessing their estimate is quite conservative to cover variability.
I tried soylent recently on a whim and found it to be too disgusting in taste to continue after the first sip. A lot of people here seem to have tried it and I don't see a single confirmation of this problem. Has the been a problem for anyone?
By most people's standard I certainly am. I'm a very picky eater and am working on it, but certain things simply cause me to gag and that's all there is to it. And unfortunately soylent is one of them.
It's quite neutral. I find people who haven't taken protein shakes or the sort usually have the biggest issue with the taste when it's really not that bad.
I consume my Soylent warm so it breaks down easier in a shaker bottle and it works well for me. Been using it for six months now to replace my meal while at work.
I didn't like early versions soylent, joylent (the UK variant) is ok (the strawberry one is pretty good), I'm not sure what later versions of soylent are like.
Yes, we took soylent backpacking. I would summarize it as 'mediocre'. You needed water to make it and wash it down, it was kind of gritty, the bottle we had it in reeked of soylent and pretty much couldn't be used for anything else.
I don't know what exactly was the issue but it felt cumbersome. On later trips we opted not to take soylent.
There are no major problems or things to warn you about. It just felt like it was in the way.
As a strict vegan who felt very drained mentally from Soylent, with no expectations going into it, I much prefer the meal replacements from the Garden of Life brand (no affiliation), and for me I felt much more awake and alert afterward with their stuff. http://www.gardenoflife.com/Products-for-Life/Foundational-N...
Soylent was a downer for me but I did not stay with it past the first 3 bags to see if the feeling would pass. The most productive I ever feel (mentally) is generally after eating a very large salad, usually with lots of kale, tempeh, and tahini (no sugar) for dressing. Takes awhile to prepare that so I find meal replacements are still really nice to have around. Still, if you haven't tried that kind of meal before, you might not realize what you are missing.
That salad sounds great. I usually have salad dry. For my whole life, I've always hated how people cover perfectly fine vegetables with gross sweet or excessively oily dressings. Ugh.
Incidentally, I really like Soylent 1.4 (the only I've tried), and I tried Garden of Life's Raw Meal and couldn't stand it. I've tried their Raw Fit protien supplement though and enjoy that. I might try other options too. I like Soylent though actually. I hope it ends up taking a direction that truly cares about sustainability, health, and ethics in their sourcing of things. I have the impression that Garden of Life is a little more conscientious, but I dunno.
I've tried a variety of dressings but have found that simply ground up seeds satisfy me the most.
I had only tried Solent version 1.1, the vegan version that came with no oil packets. I can see how v1.4, with added fats and no artificial flavoring, would be superior. I found that if I added plenty of (unrefined) salt to either brand of meal replacement, that also significantly helped the flavor. I suspect that extra salt is more healthy and important than either of these brands give credit for
http://www.amazon.com/Salt-Your-Way-Health-Edition/dp/B000R8...
I've always thought that was interesting in regard to my dogs. The same (expensive) kibble day after day yet they seem to thrive on it!
.. whereas I'm fretting over finding the right "balanced" combo of foods to eat every day and trying to gauge whether or not I'm making the right choices by how much energy I have and what the consistency of my bowel movements are. Oy!
I don't find soylent appealing, and I think ultimately you're probably mostly right, but there isn't a lot of good science supporting your position. You touch on two really big debates in nutritional scientific community:
> people who eat diets very high in plant content tend to have extremely good health
Key word tend, causation has been so hard to prove here because they tend to do a lot of other things as well.
> I myself recovered from heart disease by eating only plant foods, plus legumes and mushrooms. I lost 70 pounds in six months.
A ton of health problems also seem to resolve by simply losing weight. It's, again, really difficult pull apart the effects caused by diet content vs. diet amount.
Also:
> another is the greater quantity of fiber, compared to the average American diet. but Soylent is a drink. you'd get more fiber eating a hamburger.
This part is actually just incorrect. Soylent has 38g of fiber per serving. I'd also add fiber can be a big negative for some people's guts. The jury is very out on fiber. It tends to be a modulator either way: having gut issues? Add some fiber! Still having gut issues? Cut out the fiber!
Again, I mostly agree with what you are saying, and I think it's probably the truth. But it's important to know that the science is really conflicting, and that nutrition is really really difficult to study in a meaningful way. It's easy to look at the last 50 years of nutritional science and say "wow those guys got it so wrong," that I have to imagine we'll be continuing to do that 50 years from now as well.
What is supported by the current science is calorie counting and macronutrient composition as far as energy + protein ratio. Beyond that (meal timing, micronutrient composition, carbohydrate source, carbohydrates vs. fat etc.), there is really very little concrete science. It would be great if we could fund some more studies. Regardless of what you think of Taube's theories, I think his work at NuSI is going to be some of the first good science to really look at this stuff. We'll see though.
I'm always perplexed by the tendency to overcomplicate nutrition. With all due respect to your anecdotal experience, I find that food and its apparent effects on the body is the biggest source of pseudoscience and modern day wives tales.
Look: we're the most evolved, advanced creatures on the planet. People around the world live off of meals as simple as a bowl of rice. You can eat anything, and as long as it provides you some calories for energy and meets some basic macro-nutrient requirements your amazingly efficient human body will process it and you'll continue chugging along.
> your amazingly efficient human body will process it and you'll continue chugging along
Yep! You know how you occasionally read some science-fiction story that spends a paragraph rhapsodizing about some monstrosity that evolved on a death world and can eat anything under the sun? Well, that's us. We live everywhere, we can eat anything. Nothing stops us except hard radiation (and we've even mostly figured that out), hard vacuum (ditto, it's really gravity that keeps us down), and the bottom of the ocean (...getting there). Humanity, fuck yeah.
> the Soylent project's based on a very flawed assumption, that you can isolate the number of nutrients necessary for sustenance.
Sorry, we certainly can. Ask anybody who's been in a coma for a while. We've had that technology since about the sixties.
The rest of your post contains so much wrongness that I don't have time to elaborate my arguments against it.
> 60,000 unique nutrients
None of those are relevant. They aren't sufficiently electrochemically stable to resist your stomach acid and turn into vastly simpler things. They also aren't really used by anything; we understand the vast majority of our body's major biochemical pathways and they don't use particularly complicated stuff.
> plant foods, plus legumes and mushrooms
Which is, hilariously enough, not at all what we evolved to eat. I can believe that you had a major disorder that made meat not particularly good for you, but generally speaking we're omnivorous hunter-gatherers.
> Soylent contains a much smaller number of nutrients.
One reason why I trust it more. I bet you that some of those 60k are downright poisonous. Remember: organic just means you get randomly diseased insects in your food rather than carefully-chosen, relatively harmless, and easily-washable pesticides.
> you'd get more fiber eating a hamburger.
... Stop peddling trash. Berry smoothie. There, fiber in a drink.
I have every reason to think the deleted post you are responding to was misguided, wrong, and largely nonsense. That said, I really think it's absurd to be so flippant about concerns over pesticides. We do not at all have clarity and overwhelming evidence that pesticides on food are just no problem and can be ignored as an issue.
I can very easily believe that pesticides exist which are completely neutral to humans. I eat chocolate and garlic perfectly fine, but my pets certainly wouldn't enjoy them. Worst-case they're like acetaminophen and require liver pathways that humans evolved recently so they're inefficient but unique. The big issue with pesticides is that the manufacturers are messing with the science that would let us figure out how safe they are.
As for the flippancy, I see it as a reasonable response to the fearmongering about modern agricultural methods. Anti-GMO and Anti-Chemistry beliefs are harmful enough that I'm not going to try to keep my arguments kosher. I'm just going to try to convince the believers in whatever way I can. Arguments to emotion seem to work for them, so I figure that they'll work on them just as well.
Snap-dried frozen dinners can be healthy, taste like real food* and you also know exactly how many calories you are eating. Food science has come a long way and quality frozen meals are not the salt-drenched, fat/sugar bombs of the "TV-dinners" of past.
146 comments
[ 6.2 ms ] story [ 248 ms ] threadSo I don't really understand, but I'm not going to force my tastes on others.
The only appeal for me would be removing the time constraints of cooking or dining out. To be honest, cooking is a huge time sink and dining out isn't a whole lot better.
Which is fine; there's nothing inherently wrong with being lazy or ignorant about cooking. But evangelism about Soylent freeing up ones time is silly, all things considered. It's not for everyone, it's not for families, it's not even formulated for women, the elderly, children, or generally for people with nutritional needs that deviate from those of a 30 year old male. It's for the lazy dude who doesn't want to cook.
Enjoyment of food can be a social, entertaining, and ceremonial activity. But eating as in 'consuming food for nutrients' is a biological necessity. Thus they are completely separate goals. There's no reason a singular activity should be forced to perform two completely unrelated goals.
If you want nutrients flavor doesn't matter. If you want flavor nutrients don't matter. You could choose what you want, when you want, and do it as efficiently and cheaply as possible.
I love to cook, and there's just something about the crunch of roasted veggies, the savory taste of grilled meats, and the warmth of a good stew or soup that I had to have. Call it a "first world problem", but living on sludge, even good tasting sludge, isn't truly living for me.
Of course, at 37 years old I'm overweight, diabetic, and at risk of heart disease so I have to do something. I've already started on my goal to be a healthy weight and have my blood sugar, blood pressure, and cholesterol under control without medication by the end of the year. First step: Halve my caloric intake, not by starving myself but simply by reducing portion sizes. I don't have to fill my plate to get enough calories for the day; half a plate gives me enough energy and nutrients in a meal. Step two is walking at least a mile a day, gradually upgrading that to 2 miles, then jogging 2 miles a day once I've dropped enough weight that my knees won't suffer.
If I make it to my weight and health goals by the end of the year, I'll start working on building up some muscle to help keep the fat at bay at my sedentary job. It sucks being not quite 40 and feeling a bit over 60. Hell, my dad is in far better shape than I am!
For example, I often don't hit 3 of the 5 recommended fruit/veg in a day and I consume far too many fatty foods. Over an extended time frame this will probably cause me to become overweight and deficient in vitamins. Given this, it'd be useful to know what the advantages and disadvantages of soylent would be in my current situation.
Do you have a link to the studies? They presumably give more information about their benchmarking.
How many of us have seen ads for penis enlargement pills?
http://www.niddk.nih.gov/health-information/health-topics/an...
I've made things I've had to throw out, I've made things I've been able to tweak into other dishes, and I've made things that were quite outstanding.
As a poster above pointed out -- "whatever floats your boat". That said, there is more to the outside world than things like living like a hermit, avoiding food, spending every waking moment in front of the computer, etc. At some point, one wakes up and realizes there is more out there. And, if you are lucky to find someone who you want to share your life with, habits like those listed above (they seem to pop up frequently in posts here) are going to likely change.
I think giving up all food for something like Soylent is a bit silly, but at the same time, we do all make different sacrifices at times.
Everything I've ever seen about Soylent is along the lines of "now you can eat nothing but Soylent!", which, for how much of the world enjoys both cooking and eating, seems like a tough pitch, except for a very, very small niche that, I guess, doesn't actually get any visceral pleasure from food.
But as you point out, it would be interesting to see what the take would be as the occasional meal alternative. I wonder if it would be seen as things from GNC, etc. where there would be a small but interested market, but nothing larger.
They are still relatively young and will likely evolve into markets beyond the one they are targeting now.
Why is the message that it is build that you can do that a problem? (If I were to use it as a temporary replacement food I still would like to know that I don't have to take particular care to fix specific things it is missing. One less thing to worry about.)
That said, I think the customer base they are aiming for (and getting) right now is the right one for the moment (somewhat reliable demand from those that stick with it, willingness to tolerate hiccups, willingness to talk about it, ...)
Which, frankly, is going to turn a lot of people off.
One other remark--if you're skipping a meal on occasion, and supplementing it with some easy foodstuff, you don't really need to worry about it being nutritionally balanced. Virtually any western diet will get you enough nutrients on a regular basis that you don't need to supplement with vitamins or worry about the diseases caused by a lack of some nutrient, even if your diet is restricted for a while.
To me, Soylent is only interesting because they're wanting to replace every meal for normal adults living normal lives. Anything less is just better marketing of an Ensure clone.
Soylent works as a perfect meal substitute for when I'm lazy or short on time, and that means I have more time and money for when I want to have a nice meal.
While I try to eat relatively nutritionally balanced, I'm not perfect. I have a broken metabolism, and chronically bad knees. This makes exercise difficult to say the least, and whatever I eat will have an effect. What it did allow me to do was consistently stay under 2000-2400 calories a day, and actually drop a little bit of weight.
I'm planning on getting a gastric sleeve later in the year, which will make something like soylent ideal for me.
That said, I love to cook and usually do at least one longer prep meal a week (friday, saturday and/or sunday)... This past saturday I made mushroom broth, followed by an asian-style soba (buckwheat) noodle soup using some of said broth with thinly sliced sirloin and veggies.
So, I can really see both sides of this. On the one hand, I love food. I try 2-3 new to me restaurants a month, and like to take lunch away from my desk. On the other, sometimes just drinking something down is far easier than taking the time to prepare a meal. I've been making several gallons of stock/broth every other week for soup for most of the past year. It takes quite a bit of time and even only doing it a day or two a week, not doing it for half my meals appeals to me. And will often cost less.
In a utopian robotic future we'd all have robots cook our meals with the expert quality of a high-end chef.
In a dystopian robotic future, the robots would give us the most basic sustenance to keep us alive if they deemed us useful... and I'd imagine what they'd give us would be something like Soylent. If some people are happy with that, then I'm not going to judge, but personally I think we could do better.
It's also interesting to realize that the food most people eat really is not very healthy, even when it consists of mostly healthy ingredients. It seems like most of the people I know probably don't get nearly as much fibre as they should, so a product like Soylent could be a beneficial addition to many people's daily nutrient intake.
I take 1 cup of raw oatmeal, ice, and 2 cups of lactose free whole milk and put it in a blender. Thirty seconds later I have a meal of 600Cal with 26g protein. I have this at least once a day. Sometimes three times a day.
I heard somewhere that we need to actually use our teeth once in a while, so I microwave frozen broccoli florets. I soft-boil 2-4 eggs with an egg steamer and combine all of that in sesame oil + soy sauce.
Also, raw oats bought in bulk are cheaper and more eco-friendly than buying pricey Soylent drinks and having them shipped across the country regularly.
And no I don't have any 3rd-party scientific study proving the long term effects of something that has only been out for 2 years, but thank you for asking. There's an absolute ton of 3rd party, peer reviewed science around nutritional completeness and what that entails, and Soylent adheres to the best practices of that research extremely well. Oats and milk is actually a pretty darn good approximation from what I understand about the nutritional content of oats (super strong), but my point is why not at least try Soylent if that's what you're going to do? Soylent is basically by design a super optimized version of that meal.
Also things like the numerous shipping delays, recipe changes and some other complaints[1] [2] make me cautious about Soylent.
[1]: http://pando.com/2013/11/12/vice-investigates-soylent-finds-...
[2]: http://www.meghantelpner.com/blog/the-soylent-killer/
It would be interesting to see some more detailed N=1 studies posted regarding Soylent. In particular, I'd be very interested in seeing a blood lipid profile, blood pressure readings, and blood glucose readings before and after to see its effects on key markers for metabolic syndrome.
I'm not opposed to the idea of engineered food (it would certainly be convenient), but I'm not convinced that the same macronutrient profile is ideal for everyone. My other big concern is that there's potential harm in the lack of diversity - e.g. "unknown unknowns" so to speak.
Unfortunately, the field of nutrition is not very WELL studied despite the high NUMBER of studies published, so I won't pretend that I have a better answer than Soylent to the problem with nutrition in society. It's good to see that people are at least working on the problem in creative ways, so long as they aren't harming anyone.
Yeah, this is my big problem with all of this. In fact, given the known differences in gut fauna that localized cultures/diets have, it's pretty much a fact. Different people process different foods differently.
I agree with your assertion that quantity of nutrition "studies" doesn't provide quality. Most nutrition studies seem to be done with the goal of proving X diet is better than Y, sponsored and paid for by X.
It all reminds me of the perfect is the enemy of good arguments.
Is soylent perfect? Most likely not, is it better then the vast majority of people are eating? that wouldn't be a high bar to jump, and I think it jumps it easily.
Even when trying to lose wieght, making sure you hit your minimum protein requirements is important... my only suggestion to someone taking a reduced amount of soylent is that they really should supplement extra protein into their diet. Especially if exercising as they are likely losing a lot of muscle with the fat loss, which is probably not the desired result.
Saturated fat sensitivity seems to have been my issue (VERY difficult to be on that diet without high levels of saturated fat) and I'm now on a low-carb monounsaturated fat diet that has dramatically improved my blood lipids.
So, for me at least, I would have to disagree with "the rest is just calories" statement. I think too many people are trying to simplify nutrition with a single book, diet, or pill, when in reality, it's a complex system that might very well be impossible to predict.
To answer the people who think it can't possibly be healthy, honestly, I don't have time to fix most of my diet. I can put in all the time I want to make sure my dinners are perfect, and I generally do, but I'm too rushed in the morning to have anything other than cereal. And I have to have lunch out so that's impossible to get right. Even if Soylent doesn't have "the proper carb-fat ratio" or something, it's better than what I have right now.
So, summary, I have some on order and the rest of you can say "I told you so" if I get cancer in thirty years. Given what some other people survive on I doubt you'll get the opportunity.
This is somehow the same distinction between mortality and morbidity. IMHO, mortality stats are pretty useless and we should always look at morbidity stats.
Glib/nitpicky I know, but all stats are useless in some context - the trick is to get the right tool for the job. Dismissing an entire dataset as useless is just missing the point.
On an individual basis, I will rather be dead than unable to have an autonomous life, but this is completely a personal preference.
http://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0421/5993/t/14/assets/files...
Regarding 3000 calories a day etc, I am purposefully eating the 1200 range to lose fat first, that's my first goal. I do HIIT 3 times a week, and cardio 3 times. 6 days total.
I am not trying to build muscle mass at this point. I will be soon, but for now I just need to drop the fat from years of sedentary computer jobs, and condition my heart and lungs. So far, I am very happy with the improvements. I don't know how this activity level would feel at 3000 calories, but at 1200 for the short term, I feel really good.
To each their own.
I don't like the idea of processed foo because I think we need the bacterias and all the life on the food. Those kids who could not play on dirt or weren't feed on mother's milk are more likely to have allergies. Bacterias bring us health, when we cook food we kill most of it's life and lower it's nutritional value to our body.
Today I'm living on 90% fruits, fruits are the perfect food to me, seems like most people don't see what fruits can bring to their health. You don't have to cook, just grab and eat and I can grow my own which means that is not that difficult to be auto-sufficient, they're like the best fast food ever.
On first month I noticed I could smell things better, I could breath through my nose much more easily, my taste is better, it's much easier to poop too and the smell is also different, less 'harmful' to the nose. When I eat dairy or something cooked my poop goes bad on the next day, it's like our body is the best doctor around.
You know cooking actually increases the nutritional value accessible in our food we eat, right?
If it's pointless to cook food, we would just eat food raw.
> Bacterias bring us health
Unless it is e. coli, salmonella, listeria, botulism, etc etc. Some bacteria is helpful, most is neutral and some will make you very sick or kill you.
> I think we need the bacterias and all the life on the food
There is just as much bacteria on your skin, on the doorknob and on the basket holding you bananas to service your "daily dose of bacteria". Seriously, bacteria is everywhere. There is good evidence that ultra-clean lifestyles can increase allergies as you mentioned, but that is where you try to sterilize everything. It isn't where you simply cook food.
> Today I'm living on 90% fruits
Please make sure you are getting enough iron, or you could be on the road to anemia and serious health complications. :)
> When I eat dairy or something cooked my poop goes bad on the next day, it's like our body is the best doctor around.
Or, different foods have different molecular structure, which is digested and metabolized by different pathways in your stomach and intestines, leading to different aromatic by-products. Just because you don't like the smell doesn't mean there is something "wrong". I don't like the smell of manure all that much, but it is a very "good" by-product, if you want to label things good or bad.
And neutral bacteria are great when they help the good bacteria out-compete any virulent strains.
I remember being told that only 1% of bacteria are virulent in bacterial phys & metabolism, NIH seems to agree[1]. And that you have 10x as many bacteria on/in your body than you have cells.
[1] http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/bacterialinfections.html
I couldn't find any good source of information on it, I found this article [1] that couldn't get a clear conclusion because seems like there's a lot to be understood yet.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/raw-veggies-are-he...
Mastication also does this, but I doubt it is as effective as cooking unless you chew your food very well(which I would recommend doing). The downside to cooking is that high temperatures may destroy some more fragile compounds.
I guess if you are going to cook, the best way is to steam or boil/soupify your veggies. That way any released compounds are retained in solution & the heat is limited vs cooking with lipids.
In the case of starchy foods, cooking changes the starches. It breaks down long complicated starch molecules into smaller molecules, making them easier for your body to digest. This is similar to the pre-digestion roles played by chewing and saliva, both of which break things down into smaller pieces for easier digestion.
You might be interested to read this:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3228431/pdf/pnas...
Comparisons to other primates are illustrative: non-humans basically spend most of their life acquiring food, chewing it, and digesting it, at something like 85% of their entire waking lives. Cooking reduces that to roughly 10%, freeing up evolution to take advantage of that calorie and time surplus by, say, growing larger brains. In fact, studies of chimps suggest that almost their entire social structure is built around the tradeoff between eating, calories, and digestion---even a small change in habit (say, by doing something other than eating with a mere hour per day) significantly reduces calorie intake to a net deficit. Without cooking there is literally no time to do much else.
In fact, the most scientifically dependable and reproducible form of dieting is just to eat raw food.
It is becoming common now among anthropologists to hold the view that cooking food has had the single greatest impact on human evolution, even over hunter/gather, agriculture, meat, or any of the traditional attributed causes. We would literally not be human if it were not for cooked food.
There could be other reasons beside nutrition to cook food: more palatable, kills pathogens, etc.
It might behoove you to sit down and review the nutrient profiles of your fruit diet. Just because they are uncooked and satisfy your palate doesn't mean you are getting everything you need.
In this particular case, coinciding the interventions of your diet change and exercise regiment make it very difficult to know the respective contribution of each to your results.
Interesting anecdotes nonetheless.
But they got a bunch of funding recently and said that the delays should be going away soon for new customers.
I consume my Soylent warm so it breaks down easier in a shaker bottle and it works well for me. Been using it for six months now to replace my meal while at work.
The first time I had it, it wasn't mixed well and was warm (didn't taste that great). When it was mixed well and cold I liked it.
I don't know what exactly was the issue but it felt cumbersome. On later trips we opted not to take soylent.
There are no major problems or things to warn you about. It just felt like it was in the way.
Soylent was a downer for me but I did not stay with it past the first 3 bags to see if the feeling would pass. The most productive I ever feel (mentally) is generally after eating a very large salad, usually with lots of kale, tempeh, and tahini (no sugar) for dressing. Takes awhile to prepare that so I find meal replacements are still really nice to have around. Still, if you haven't tried that kind of meal before, you might not realize what you are missing.
Incidentally, I really like Soylent 1.4 (the only I've tried), and I tried Garden of Life's Raw Meal and couldn't stand it. I've tried their Raw Fit protien supplement though and enjoy that. I might try other options too. I like Soylent though actually. I hope it ends up taking a direction that truly cares about sustainability, health, and ethics in their sourcing of things. I have the impression that Garden of Life is a little more conscientious, but I dunno.
I had only tried Solent version 1.1, the vegan version that came with no oil packets. I can see how v1.4, with added fats and no artificial flavoring, would be superior. I found that if I added plenty of (unrefined) salt to either brand of meal replacement, that also significantly helped the flavor. I suspect that extra salt is more healthy and important than either of these brands give credit for http://www.amazon.com/Salt-Your-Way-Health-Edition/dp/B000R8...
.. whereas I'm fretting over finding the right "balanced" combo of foods to eat every day and trying to gauge whether or not I'm making the right choices by how much energy I have and what the consistency of my bowel movements are. Oy!
> people who eat diets very high in plant content tend to have extremely good health
Key word tend, causation has been so hard to prove here because they tend to do a lot of other things as well.
> I myself recovered from heart disease by eating only plant foods, plus legumes and mushrooms. I lost 70 pounds in six months.
A ton of health problems also seem to resolve by simply losing weight. It's, again, really difficult pull apart the effects caused by diet content vs. diet amount.
Also:
> another is the greater quantity of fiber, compared to the average American diet. but Soylent is a drink. you'd get more fiber eating a hamburger.
This part is actually just incorrect. Soylent has 38g of fiber per serving. I'd also add fiber can be a big negative for some people's guts. The jury is very out on fiber. It tends to be a modulator either way: having gut issues? Add some fiber! Still having gut issues? Cut out the fiber!
Again, I mostly agree with what you are saying, and I think it's probably the truth. But it's important to know that the science is really conflicting, and that nutrition is really really difficult to study in a meaningful way. It's easy to look at the last 50 years of nutritional science and say "wow those guys got it so wrong," that I have to imagine we'll be continuing to do that 50 years from now as well.
What is supported by the current science is calorie counting and macronutrient composition as far as energy + protein ratio. Beyond that (meal timing, micronutrient composition, carbohydrate source, carbohydrates vs. fat etc.), there is really very little concrete science. It would be great if we could fund some more studies. Regardless of what you think of Taube's theories, I think his work at NuSI is going to be some of the first good science to really look at this stuff. We'll see though.
Look: we're the most evolved, advanced creatures on the planet. People around the world live off of meals as simple as a bowl of rice. You can eat anything, and as long as it provides you some calories for energy and meets some basic macro-nutrient requirements your amazingly efficient human body will process it and you'll continue chugging along.
Yep! You know how you occasionally read some science-fiction story that spends a paragraph rhapsodizing about some monstrosity that evolved on a death world and can eat anything under the sun? Well, that's us. We live everywhere, we can eat anything. Nothing stops us except hard radiation (and we've even mostly figured that out), hard vacuum (ditto, it's really gravity that keeps us down), and the bottom of the ocean (...getting there). Humanity, fuck yeah.
Sorry, we certainly can. Ask anybody who's been in a coma for a while. We've had that technology since about the sixties.
The rest of your post contains so much wrongness that I don't have time to elaborate my arguments against it.
> 60,000 unique nutrients
None of those are relevant. They aren't sufficiently electrochemically stable to resist your stomach acid and turn into vastly simpler things. They also aren't really used by anything; we understand the vast majority of our body's major biochemical pathways and they don't use particularly complicated stuff.
> plant foods, plus legumes and mushrooms
Which is, hilariously enough, not at all what we evolved to eat. I can believe that you had a major disorder that made meat not particularly good for you, but generally speaking we're omnivorous hunter-gatherers.
> Soylent contains a much smaller number of nutrients.
One reason why I trust it more. I bet you that some of those 60k are downright poisonous. Remember: organic just means you get randomly diseased insects in your food rather than carefully-chosen, relatively harmless, and easily-washable pesticides.
> you'd get more fiber eating a hamburger.
... Stop peddling trash. Berry smoothie. There, fiber in a drink.
As for the flippancy, I see it as a reasonable response to the fearmongering about modern agricultural methods. Anti-GMO and Anti-Chemistry beliefs are harmful enough that I'm not going to try to keep my arguments kosher. I'm just going to try to convince the believers in whatever way I can. Arguments to emotion seem to work for them, so I figure that they'll work on them just as well.
Snap-dried frozen dinners can be healthy, taste like real food* and you also know exactly how many calories you are eating. Food science has come a long way and quality frozen meals are not the salt-drenched, fat/sugar bombs of the "TV-dinners" of past.
* (edit) are real food