mk, you might enjoy this if you haven't seen it already...
In that year did they even attempt Soylent Brûlée?
I've had the Soylent page favorited for a long while planning to pull the trigger and order a few months supply. Instead I've been supplementing with egg white shakes but after reading your success with it I might give it a shot this summer and see how things go.
She is worried that the synthesis and extraction processes to get the ingredients leave unhealthy residuals. It's tough to prove they aren't there. I am sure the ingredients aren't absolutely pure, but my argument is that it is likely negligible, and overall it's a healthy option a few meals a week for what I might otherwise eat. Her trump card was asking me if I'd feed it to our 3yo. Not cool. I had her read this, and she reluctantly agreed to let me get another batch. :)
I think I'm in the same camp as your wife. I'd like to see a rigorous, third-party study on not just what's in it but also how the ingredients interact with each other and what the long-term issues might be. I don't trust them enough. Might be because of the whole startup-image that still surrounds them.
Do you trust eating fast-food every day? What about random boxed cereal? Because that's the alternative that people /actually/ live off of. I fail to see how soylent would be any worse than that. To say Soylent is somehow unhealthy implies you have a better diet. When most people really don't even hit the recommended nutrition in the first place.
As I say in this post, the difference is that Soylent isn't created by manipulating existing food but 'from scratch'. While it's not the first food to be created in a lab, it is definitely the most ambitious. No, that doesn't make logical sense. I know McDonald's is unhealthy, but I might be eating worse than that for all you know. Besides, I don't say that. Unhealthy is not exactly what I was going for - I was thinking more about long-term dangers of mixing a really diverse set of nutrients and vitamins. Let me phrase it another way - that which makes Soylent unique and healthy (its all-encompassing set of ingredients) is also the thing I am cautious about with my limited knowledge of chemistry and food safety.To say Soylent is somehow unhealthy implies you have a better diet.
I don't see how that matters. There are already existing meal replacements used in the medical industry, albeit for niche cases (people being unable to eat). The nutritional value should be the same regardless of whether it's in a manufactured cereal or a manufactured shake. I can't see how so. It's literally made in a similar fashion. Hell, you can make your own soylent by buying various products from the grocery store and blending them up yourself. naturally you'll need a few extra supplements and such that you have to buy separately (which is difficult to obtain in store-bought foods while keeping the right amount of other nutrients). Here is one such example, called "Peoplechow": https://diy.soylent.me/recipes/people-chow-301-tortilla-perfection I don't see how any of that stuff is a problem. It's weird, but in reality you are getting the same list of nutrients whether it be in a hamburger or just extracted from such a thing. It's not new though. The 'new' bit about it is that it's marketed towards regular people, and the nutrition balance is adjusted according to the average ideal diet, rather than the specialized needs of a patient. You mean the mixture of exactly the recommended nutrients and vitamins that you eat in food anyway? You do realize that a hamburger doesn't stay as a hamburger in your stomach, right? Likewise, AFAIK, all of soylent's (official product) ingredients come from regular sources that provide food elsewhere. It can't be less healthy than donuts for dinner and coco-puffs for breakfast. And on top of that, many people (the developer included) have been living off the stuff for over a year now (the developer for even longer). And initial clinical results show that it's a healthier diet than what they were eating before (which have mostly been computer techies, so stuff like pizza, ramen, etc). Either way, it can't be any less healthy than other manufactured food products, which people live off of despite not even reaching close to the amount of recommended nutrients. So really, your only complaint is "it's made in a lab!" which isn't exactly true either. All of the ingredients are sourced from various legitimate plant/animal products (though I think animal sources are now out, after they replaced fish oil). So... all plant products. And IIRC the large bulk of it is literally wheat products. With many people describing the taste as "soggy cheerios" and similar flavors. I understand your concern, but it's fairly obvious that it's safe, and assuredly better than most people's diets. There were kinks in the beginning (problems with various deficiencies, flatulence, etc). And naturally some people have various dietary needs that aren't covered by soylent. But given the current state of things, it's hard to see any problems with it besides "it's scary because it's new!" It's an irrational fear, from what I can see. If you seriously think that living off twinkies, coca-cola, and ramen is better than soylent, there's something wrong with your picture of nutrition.As I say in this post, the difference is that Soylent isn't created by manipulating existing food but 'from scratch'. While it's not the first food to be created in a lab, it is definitely the most ambitious.
but the perceived safety of a Pop-Tart is definitely higher.
To put it bluntly, it's a bit scary because it's new.
I was thinking more about long-term dangers of mixing a really diverse set of nutrients and vitamins.
that which makes Soylent unique and healthy (its all-encompassing set of ingredients) is also the thing I am cautious about with my limited knowledge of chemistry and food safety.
While I do agree that Soylent uses mostly off-the-shelf ingredients, and I most likely won't die from eating Soylent, I still think that there is a danger that might be addressed by a clinical study. I think you conflate health and safety. There is a difference between something dangerous and something unhealthy. I've been arguing about the potential dangers of the substances, not about the healthiness of the ingredients. Of course it's healthy, that's the whole point of Soylent. But that doesn't mean it's necessarily safe. I don't think that. Where did I say that?I understand your concern, but it's fairly obvious that it's safe, and assuredly better than most people's diets.
If you seriously think that living off twinkies, coca-cola, and ramen is better than soylent, there's something wrong with your picture of nutrition
Sure, that would be great, but are you that careful with the things you eat now? The Soylent guy seems to be a bit of a salesman, but I think his response to fears of dietary harm is reasonable: I'm with mk though, one meal replacement a day is plenty, with some variety in the other meals to try and balance things out. I'd like to see a rigorous, third-party study on not just what's in it but also how the ingredients interact with each other...
I'm touched so many people are concerned about my intake of possible unknown essential nutrients. No one seemed to worry about me when I lived on burritos and ramen and actually was deficient of many known essential nutrients. The body is pretty robust. If you can survive on what most Americans or Somalians eat, you can surely survive on Soylent.
I was thinking more at the molecular level. In chemistry class, I vaguely recall learning about a kind of babyfood that had amino acids in them with the wrong enantiomer, which led to birth problems / deaths. Because of the way the food was processed, it produced the mirror image of the desired substance, which forms entirely different crystals and damaged cells. My problem with this is that you don't know what you don't know. When you blend such a large and diverse amount of minerals / proteins etcetera in one substance, the likelihood of one of them negatively reacting with another in the long term seems high to me.
Your concerns seem valid, I am just curious to know if you would apply this level of scrutiny to other foods. Many foods are made with "a large and diverse amount of minerals / proteins etcetera." Soylent contains eight or ten food ingredients plus about 24 vitamin and mineral additives. Pop-Tarts contain about thirty ingredients plus about eight vitamins and mineral additives. Probably you don't consider Pop-Tarts health food, but do you "trust" them? Pop-Tarts have been around for a while, and we should perhaps feel more comfortable with foods that don't have a "startup image" (though the "organic" movement does just the reverse, making us doubt the safety of the fruits and vegetables our parents ate). I think it's the idea that this stuff comes out of a laboratory, and doesn't have the familiar look of food, that makes us suspicious. But these days probably a lot of food comes from places just as sterile as a laboratory. The additional scrutiny a novel product like Soylent gets might work in favor of its safety. And our intuitions can work against us: the wholesome image of a grilled hamburger at a family picnic conceals significant risk of bacterial and carcinogenic pathogens.
Good points. The lab-grown aspect definitely colors my image of Soylent negatively. While I don't really mind whether my food comes from a lab or not, I do think food is inherently 'better' when it's created by combining and altering regular food (for Pop-Tarts, it's wheat / corn) versus starting from mostly boxes of powder. Whether it's actually safer, I don't know, but the perceived safety of a Pop-Tart is definitely higher. For me, it's also the diversity aspect: Soylent tries to include as much good and nutritional ingredients as possible, whereas most food does not (or not to such a degree as a Pop-Tart). The diverse combination of ingredients that Soylent has is likely not as understood as a combination of wheats, corns, vitamins, colorings, preservatives etcetera that most of my food consists of. To put it bluntly, it's a bit scary because it's new. I wouldn't want to test a new type of parachute for the same reason. Give me the tried and tested when my health is at stake.
Yes, but how many of those people have chronic diseases that could be eased or even altogether avoided because of poor nutrition. I'm sure anyone who looked into it would be shocked to find out the number of cardiovascular diseases that could be ameliorated by simply eating better. Soylent being an adequate replacement for ramen noodles and a Big Gulp doesn't make it healthy. Anyway, I doubt anyone gives a shit about this particular guy's health outside of his inner circle, but lots of people care about public health generally, and I don't know too many of them who would advocate a soylent-based lifestyle.If you can survive on what most Americans or Somalians eat, you can surely survive on Soylent.
This way of thinking informs our discussions in politics as well. Asking "Is it good?" or "Is it healthy?" means little if you do not first answer "Compared to what?" So I suggest we ask is "Is it better?" And I believe it is more useful to compare to what actually exists than to an idealized vision of what could be. If you are concerned about cardiovascular health, Soylent may well represent eating better for many people. The significant negative mentioned is the 350 grams of sodium. This does not look so bad compared to 908 mg in a Big Mac, 875 mg in ramen, 280 mg in a Caesar salad, or 2 grams in a Chipotle burrito.