DIY Soylent: Never Worry About Food Again

[blackburry]

Meh, maybe for a day or two when I really just do not feel like eating.

However, they need to adjust the levels of macro and micronutrients.

far to many grams of fat, way too much sodium, not nearly enough fiber, too much of fat-soluable vitamins.....etc.


..I wonder if any health issues will arise from using soylent long term. silly humans, bodies love food> popping nutrient pills or shakes.

but it is a way to save money on food...and much better for you than living off ramen noodles and 99 cent burgers.

[some chair]

Diet reductionism seems unsound to me. It's based on the assumption that we exhaustively understand food and nutrition. I'd rather approach food and nutrition with an attitude of doubt than of certainty, and so I'd rather eat complex organisms and their products than possibly false reductionisms of those things.

Soylent may also only be economical in America. My current diet is ~$80/week in fresh fruit, botanicals, and tinned fish & vegetables. I could increase it to ~$130/week if I was making seasonal, fresh vegetarian dishes, but throwing tinned things in a bowl also meets the soylent spirit of not wasting time or effort on your food.

[blackburry]

Yeah, that's what I'd use it for. Don't know that I'd want to live on it indefinitely.



The nutrient looks to be in accord w/ established RDIs, so it should be alright in that respect.

No it isn't. I just stated how it wasn't- using USDA guidelines. Plus ~2600 calories per day is way too much for the average, sedentary American lifestyle.

[marooned]

Soylent was designed by software engineer Rob Rhinehart to be a low cost alternative to traditional food that can be prepared and consumed with less time and activity.[3] Lacking background in chemistry or nutrition, Rhinehart developed the formula through research and self-experimentation.[4][5]

Err.

Soylent in its present form may lack some nutrients essential for normal body functioning and/or may fail to provide nutrients in appropriate proportions, potentially causing medical problems if used long-term.[4] The fundamental basis of the assumptions made by Soylent are disputed; with focus on the fact that, because digestion is a complex phenomenon and there is not a simple linear relationship between nutrient ingestion and nutrient absorption, many factors contribute to nutrient absorption in the human body.[12]

Thank you. (to the bolded statement)

Suspicion: Rob Rhinehart = moron.

Oh, and agree:

Rob’s problem is he is a software engineer, not a nutritionist or dietitian. While he is well-informed and educated enough to know the body needs certain nutrients, he’s applying the software development beta test phase to a product that is supposed to be a food substitute.

[xerx]

needs some Irishing up, but yeah i'd try it

[blackburry]

The ~2600kcal figure was just for his own personal use; what's listed on that Wiki page is just a rough prototype. Supposedly once they've finalized the composition, they're going to have formulations available for different genders/ages/lifestyles/etc.

Erm. Ok... That kind of addresses what I said....sort of..

[nigh]

Quite useful for an occasional substitute, I think. I'll try it if it's easy to get. I know it's not 'real food', but nutrition-wise there's just no way what most people are usually eating to pass the day is better. Just saying. Most people are not eating extremely healthy unless they're being a bit of fitness freak. So yeah, good for an occasional 'effort'.

[lagerdemon]

I eat on about 5-10 dollars per day, so it wouldn't be economical for me. If it had a long shelf life I'd keep it around for hurricane season or camping or something. I can certainly see the value of it for feeding certain populations, like those affected by disasters or tent cities of malnourished hobos. according to the nutritional information I saw it's the basic, bare minimum nutrients for short-term survival, health problems will arise if this is the only thing you consume for any length of time. Also, it has ginseng in it..... with so many people on anti-depressants, I hardly think that was a prudent addition.

[Scapegrace]

I prefer TPN.


$5 a day seems quite expensive. One could eat quite nice real food for that.

[Capitalist Pig]

$5 a day seems quite expensive. One could eat quite nice real food for that.

Uh, maybe in Mexico.

[Scapegrace]

It's true that here in Mexico I could be in the fresh meat and fruits/veg for $5 a day quite easily, but one could eat *fairly* well in the states for $35 a week too.

[Absurd]

I would rather stick to traditional foods.

[marooned]

I'm just curious what it tastes like. Aside from all the practical benefits, possible time-savings, etc., does it taste really bad or surprisingly good?

go to this page: http://robrhinehart.com/?paged=2 and search for "taste"

perhaps the flavor is bland but not boring vanilla.

[marooned]

I don't think insulting him or niggling about credentials makes for a terribly valid argument.

Either the stuff works or it doesn't, regardless of who made it.

I think you're actually being more insulting than I was by using terms like "niggling" when I questioned his qualifications and then calling my post an "argument" when I was stating mainly my suspicion. Beyond this, I would emphasize that I think questioning his qualifications is actually perfectly valid. He is experimenting basically, and doing so with no apparent background in nutrition or biological science (and no one on his team has such background either). That doesn't mean he can't "pull it off" where "it" is at least a safe substance. But to me (especially after reading through his blog and through articles on him/Soylent) it gives a sense of caution and skepticism.

From my reading on this (and this still is not some kind of pro/anti argument but is more my evaluation), Rhinehart made medical food but is interested in "improving" and customizing formulas over time. The reason why this is more compelling than actual medical food is that it is less expensive and so it's actually economical, aside from being probably more accessible to consumers (?). It could I think make life much easier in the sense of not having to spend so much time/$ on food. It seems easy and convenient. Also, it seems like it may potentially end up being more diverse than medical food with more options for different "kinds" of people or diets.

It is less compelling than medical food though because I'm not really sure if it's safe. You can say that each ingredient is FDA approved, but as his own blog of trial and error shows, that does not make it safe. Also, beyond the formula, there's the matter of production and if that process is safe and largely free of potential contamination (if such a thing is possible). In short, even if he has found a formula that doesn't seem to have any short-term ill effects, I would really feel better if this substance (the male version and female version) were FDA approved. My aunt works in medicine and you'd be surprised how many people screw up their liver permanently because they took some stupid dietary supplement. I'm not saying Soylent would do that, I'm just saying it is wise to be cautious of experimental and unregulated substances.

Another matter is the long-term use of the substance, which is much more difficult to evaluate. I wouldn't call this really a food replacement, if that implies that you could live off it for the majority of your life and remain at optimal health. That is simply not known, not even for medical food as far as I can tell. Living on medical food bed ridden for 5 years or something doesn't really answer the question. I would be okay calling it a "food substitute" (maybe) or a "dietary supplement." But the slogan that you'll never have to worry about food again I think goes a bit far. From Rhinehart's blog, he doesn't seem to be making the claim that this can just replace all food for your whole life or something, which is fair. The marketing though kind of does imply this. I do think that Rhinehart may have a point in the sense that even if eating this (for say most meals) isn't the most healthy thing you could do it will still end up being more healthy than the average American diet (while also being cheaper).

In terms of whether or not I would try something like this... For one, I would love a convenient substance that I could just drink that would essentially be a meal and that also didn't cost an arm and a leg. It really would save time and make it easier to eat healthy. Part of me is interested in Soylent for this reason, although I would rather just watch a lot of other people try it first and then wait and see if anything happens to them or if anything new arises that could speak to its overall safety. I mean supposedly the price will only go down over time, right? (I'm really skeptical of that claim, but I also have practically no economic or business knowledge.)

If safe, my other concern is the overall balance of things like protein and carbs and the inclusion of processed grains. I've been very interested in the diets like the paleo or primal blueprint. One of the ideas behind the primal diet is that the eating/metabolizing of grains (like rice, wheat, oat, basically all of them) is not good for the human body and is actually rather toxic; and that overall we consume far too many carbohydrates in grains and sugars and often get stuck on this vicious carb cycle as a result. I don't know how much truth there is to these "ideas" but it does make sense to me that our pre-agriculture ancestors lived on meat, fruit, nuts, and vegetables and not some kind of staple of grains. They were still getting carbs (from fruits and vegetables) but obviously you'd have to eat a shitload of veggies to get the amount of carbs we're supposedly supposed to consume per day. I think that ideally I'd like to stay under 100 carbs per day, but I am not good at actually matching my diet to my ideals and have lots of problems regarding not cooking, buying things other people made for convenience, and thereby spending too much money on food.

On the bright side, Rhinehart's blog does seem to show concern about things like the glycemic index and he seems interested in maintaining optimal energy at all times rather than crashing and then having to scramble for more carbs to correct the low blood sugar. Overall though I'd be interested in what the glycemic index is for Soylent because as someone who's been pre-diabetic before I'm wary of carbs and of blood sugar spikes (and really glucose metabolism problems have been linked to all sorts of problems like heart disease and Alzheimer's disease).

Ideally, what I would love is like a can of say the nutritional equivalent of two strips of bacon and three eggs with vegetables. That could be "breakfast." And then dinner could be chicken and vegetables. You know, that kind of thing. But it's all in a can for like $3 a meal. Even that though would end up being like $300 a month. Ugh.

I also want stem food, or better yet, a replicator. So I like the ideal of making food just less of an expensive chore, but I don't know that I'm going to be an ardent follower of Rhinehart's way.

At this point I'm not sure if I think he's a moron or not. I think my impression (or bias) is that he likes to reduce things to simple logical pictures and so may not account for the vast amount of complexity in things (this is my other bias as I simply perceive things as usually more complex than they appear on the surface).

[MisterNi]

I think you're actually being more insulting than I was by using terms like "niggling" when I questioned his qualifications and then calling my post an "argument" when I was stating mainly my suspicion. Beyond this, I would emphasize that I think questioning his qualifications is actually perfectly valid. He is experimenting basically, and doing so with no apparent background in nutrition or biological science (and no one on his team has such background either). That doesn't mean he can't "pull it off" where "it" is at least a safe substance. But to me (especially after reading through his blog and through articles on him/Soylent) it gives a sense of caution and skepticism.

That's a valid argument, which is why Soylent is an experiment. The truth is, current diets high in meat and highly processed foods isn't sustainable so shifting to a more vegetarian/vegan diet is going to be necessary within a generation or two.

From my reading on this (and this still is not some kind of pro/anti argument but is more my evaluation), Rhinehart made medical food but is interested in "improving" and customizing formulas over time. The reason why this is more compelling than actual medical food is that it is less expensive and so it's actually economical, aside from being probably more accessible to consumers (?). It could I think make life much easier in the sense of not having to spend so much time/$ on food. It seems easy and convenient. Also, it seems like it may potentially end up being more diverse than medical food with more options for different "kinds" of people or diets.

Right, this is "medical food". It's a new dietary schema, not something for the sick.

It is less compelling than medical food though because I'm not really sure if it's safe. You can say that each ingredient is FDA approved, but as his own blog of trial and error shows, that does not make it safe. Also, beyond the formula, there's the matter of production and if that process is safe and largely free of potential contamination (if such a thing is possible). In short, even if he has found a formula that doesn't seem to have any short-term ill effects, I would really feel better if this substance (the male version and female version) were FDA approved. My aunt works in medicine and you'd be surprised how many people screw up their liver permanently because they took some stupid dietary supplement. I'm not saying Soylent would do that, I'm just saying it is wise to be cautious of experimental and unregulated substances.

Okay, now this is just ridiculous. Is your breakfast, lunch and dinner also FDA regulated? The individual ingredients are likely already regulated by the FDA, so there's no need to regulate the products derived from the ingredients.

Another matter is the long-term use of the substance, which is much more difficult to evaluate. I wouldn't call this really a food replacement, if that implies that you could live off it for the majority of your life and remain at optimal health. That is simply not known, not even for medical food as far as I can tell. Living on medical food bed ridden for 5 years or something doesn't really answer the question. I would be okay calling it a "food substitute" (maybe) or a "dietary supplement." But the slogan that you'll never have to worry about food again I think goes a bit far. From Rhinehart's blog, he doesn't seem to be making the claim that this can just replace all food for your whole life or something, which is fair. The marketing though kind of does imply this. I do think that Rhinehart may have a point in the sense that even if eating this (for say most meals) isn't the most healthy thing you could do it will still end up being more healthy than the average American diet (while also being cheaper).

Are you a dietician or nutritionist?

In terms of whether or not I would try something like this... For one, I would love a convenient substance that I could just drink that would essentially be a meal and that also didn't cost an arm and a leg. It really would save time and make it easier to eat healthy. Part of me is interested in Soylent for this reason, although I would rather just watch a lot of other people try it first and then wait and see if anything happens to them or if anything new arises that could speak to its overall safety. I mean supposedly the price will only go down over time, right? (I'm really skeptical of that claim, but I also have practically no economic or business knowledge.)

$5-$10/serving is not that expensive. Plus proper nutrition is surprisingly difficult due to the variety of nutrients required.

If safe, my other concern is the overall balance of things like protein and carbs and the inclusion of processed grains. I've been very interested in the diets like the paleo or primal blueprint. One of the ideas behind the primal diet is that the eating/metabolizing of grains (like rice, wheat, oat, basically all of them) is not good for the human body and is actually rather toxic; and that overall we consume far too many carbohydrates in grains and sugars and often get stuck on this vicious carb cycle as a result. I don't know how much truth there is to these "ideas" but it does make sense to me that our pre-agriculture ancestors lived on meat, fruit, nuts, and vegetables and not some kind of staple of grains. They were still getting carbs (from fruits and vegetables) but obviously you'd have to eat a shitload of veggies to get the amount of carbs we're supposedly supposed to consume per day. I think that ideally I'd like to stay under 100 carbs per day, but I am not good at actually matching my diet to my ideals and have lots of problems regarding not cooking, buying things other people made for convenience, and thereby spending too much money on food.

Soylent, Paleo, Atkins, etc these are all ultimately just dietary plans. Soylent is just a more sophisticated plan. It's just unfortunately named.

[marooned]

Right, this is "medical food". It's a new dietary schema, not something for the sick.

this was where i got the medical food idea: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...st-might-work/

is it literally medical food in that it is developed for a particular condition (e.g. diabetes), regulated as such, and must be taken under a physician's care? no. but you've got to admit it's kind of similar. it's a substance that is meant to meet the nutritional needs of a person that is entirely synthetic and taken in liquid form. so the question is can something like that meet all of your nutritional needs and allow you to maintain optimal health for say your entire life? can you find something that proves it can? from what i've read some so-called experts think "yes" or "probably" while others are skeptical or just don't think it can. this doesn't seem like a question that has already been answered in a satisfying way.

i like the medical food example because if you can live off medical food life long and maintain "optimal" health then you should be able to do the same with soylent, assuming it isn't poorly made in comparison.

Okay, now this is just ridiculous. Is your breakfast, lunch and dinner also FDA regulated? The individual ingredients are likely already regulated by the FDA, so there's no need to regulate the products derived from the ingredients.

did you read his blog? there were two issues that i recall. #1 he forgot to put iron in the soylent. #2 sulfur deficiency. he was using FDA approved ingredients, sure. the result was not safe if it was the sole source of nourishment. i think what you're saying is way more ridiculous than what i have said. obviously you can mix things that are otherwise safe in the wrong quantities or combinations and get a product that is not safe; or you could as in this case simply leave something out that would be essential for the intended purpose of your product.

$5-$10/serving is not that expensive.

obviously everyone is going to have a different response to that. how "expensive" something is to someone largely depends on how much money s/he has and is willing to spend on food.

Soylent, Paleo, Atkins, etc these are all ultimately just dietary plans. Soylent is just a more sophisticated plan. It's just unfortunately named.

you can make soylent's formula compatible with any of those plans i'm sure. i don't really know what your point is here.

furthermore, i don't even know for sure why you're responding to me as though i have it in for your precious or something. if you're not, great, mush on.

[MisterNi]

is it literally medical food in that it is developed for a particular condition (e.g. diabetes), regulated as such, and must be taken under a physician's care? no. but you've got to admit it's kind of similar. it's a substance that is meant to meet the nutritional needs of a person that is entirely synthetic and taken in liquid form. so the question is can something like that meet all of your nutritional needs and allow you to maintain optimal health for say your entire life? can you find something that proves it can? from what i've read some so-called experts think "yes" or "probably" while others are skeptical or just don't think it can. this doesn't seem like a question that has already been answered in a satisfying way.

You could say the same for regular foods. Baked goods, processed foods, synthetic foods have all been consumed for quite a while now Criticizing a dietary plan because it's scientific and not organic and natural is just asinine.

i like the medical food example because if you can live off medical food life long and maintain "optimal" health then you should be able to do the same with soylent, assuming it isn't poorly made in comparison.

Or you could call it health food as it's use is to be an inexpensive way to eat food that's good for one's health, not to repair deficiencies in health.

did you read his blog? there were two issues that i recall. #1 he forgot to put iron in the soylent. #2 sulfur deficiency. he was using FDA approved ingredients, sure. the result was not safe if it was the sole source of nourishment. i think what you're saying is way more ridiculous than what i have said. obviously you can mix things that are otherwise safe in the wrong quantities or combinations and get a product that is not safe; or you could as in this case simply leave something out that would be essential for the intended purpose of your product.

I haven't read his blog. I have taken a look at some recipes on http://diy.soylent.me/ and aside from seeming like bland food doesn't seem to be anything improper in terms of nutrition.

furthermore, i don't even know for sure why you're responding to me as though i have it in for your precious or something. if you're not, great, mush on.

I'm just saying give it a fair chance. If you take a look at the recipes, Soylent doesn't seem half bad. I mean, if you think about it it could be a total time saver too. Making and selling something like say soylent chips, you could get a full meal with all the nutrition of a balanced meal in something as convenient and easy as munching on a bag of chips.

[marooned]

I'm just saying give it a fair chance. If you take a look at the recipes, Soylent doesn't seem half bad.

i now suspect you don't understand my attitude towards this from my previous two posts. i'm skeptical you even understand what i said.

about the recipes, you mean like this: http://diy.soylent.me/recipes/panzuurs-bachelor-chow-20? i know this thread is "DIY soylent" but i don't wish to bother with recipes. like the entire point is to not have to bother with groceries (i can just order a case of soylent), recipes, or food prep of any kind (other than perhaps adding water). btw you can take this very remark as "not giving the recipes a fair chance." this is definitely a negative remark. it's an anti-soylentish-recipes remark.

[Saberstorm]

This is like Socionics for your stomach!

Anyway, I really wonder of this is an Si PoLR thing with LIEs. Who would not want to eat? Food is good. Tasty. Yummy food.

[MisterNi]

@inumbra

No, I understand your position just fine and your criticisms are valid for Soylent, they're valid for any dietary plans based on underlying nutritional principles, so maybe it just isn't for you. For me personally, if I'm busy with work, life and family, worrying about nutrition as well is a bothersome nuisance. Having a scientifically formulated food that is ready made for consumption is an excellent idea! It addresses an issue with a hassle I would rather not bother with.

[marooned]

@inumbra

No, I understand your position just fine and your criticisms are valid for Soylent,

i kind of doubt that. and i think part of the problem is that you want to narrow it all down to a "position." so you respond to it as though it is the position in your mind that you think i have. you seem to take criticism as some kind of firm "anti-position." you also seem to view such positions as fixed. my first post was the most anti one in this thread. it was looking at something on the surface and taking issue with reducing what i perceived to be probably something that was very complex down to a bunch of dietary values. i suspected this was an over-simplification. since then and since my reading of various things online that suspicion has been set in stasis in the sense that it can't now seem to tip in either direction (yes or no). and i'm still interested in the question of if there is a "linear relationship between nutrition ingestion and absorption."

this is probably how i feel about it: not sure if it's safe (just in terms of its manufacturing/formula, not even addressing the question of if it's a "food replacement"), not sure about the carbs, not sure about imagining myself ordering this, don't know about these people. so there's my "position" in terms of where the rubber hits the road.

[MisterNi]

i kind of doubt that. and i think part of the problem is that you want to narrow it all down to a "position." so you respond to it as though it is the position in your mind that you think i have. you seem to take criticism as some kind of firm "anti-position."

btw you can take this very remark as "not giving the recipes a fair chance." this is definitely a negative remark. it's an anti-soylentish-recipes remark.

Ahem.

it was looking at something on the surface and taking issue with reducing what i perceived to be probably something that was very complex down to a bunch of dietary values. i suspected this was an over-simplification.

You're looking at this too narrowly. You could easily tailor such a meal plan or even hybridize it. Say, set aside 1000 calories for soylent and 500 to 1000 calories for "real food". There's a lot of flexibility if you're not just immediately shut off to the idea which is the main point of contention.

and i'm still interested in the question of if there is a "linear relationship between nutrition ingestion and absorption."

It's a non-linear relationship considering that it's the biological equivalent of a static plate fluids problem, absorption is time based and speed in this instance is constant. Eww.

this is probably how i feel about it: not sure if it's safe, not sure about the carbs, not sure about imagining myself ordering this, don't know about these people. so there's my "position" in terms of where the rubber hits the road.

How is this any different than Weight Watchers or Nutrisystem? Everything is just more formulaic as opposed to resembling foods you're familiar with.

[Galen]

Has this thing actually been through exhaustive testing yet? I remember reading about it several months ago when he said he wanted to run clinical trials, don't know if he's actually followed through yet. If it's linked in the OP then I didn't read it ololol

That said, the problem with Soylent is that it already exists. Making it yourself from scratch and not having to deal with packaging etc probably makes it cheaper though.

[Reficulris]

This would be awesome to have around for those days i can't even be bothered to bake an egg. Those days are relatively frequent and the fact that i've been underweight most of my adult life suggest that either lazy food or a permanent cook might be life extending things for me

[some chair]

This would be awesome to have around for those days i can't even be bothered to bake an egg. Those days are relatively frequent and the fact that i've been underweight most of my adult life suggest that either lazy food or a permanent cook might be life extending things for me

Get ye some candied ginger.

[Kalinoche buenanoche]

this must taste like shizzle.but anyway, since it is in liquid form,it kinda makes the stomach lose its purpose. does just drinking everything you need keeps you full?
maybe it would be more sensible to split it in 3 portions per day and drink it with bread or sth. but maybe we are not that far from replacing food with that stuff. his research seems kind of primitive for this purpose..chances are that other labs have taken it to a whole new level.

also,he tested it himself and got burning sensations and cramps. alpha NT .
can't be delta because Fi+ is beauty

[some chair]

On a serious note, green tea is great for suppressing appetite. There's nothing not filling about liquids.

[mu4]

I actually enjoy eating so no thanks.

[Galen]

this must taste like shizzle.

According to people who've tried it, it tastes like cake batter.

but anyway, since it is in liquid form,it kinda makes the stomach lose its purpose. does just drinking everything you need keeps you full?

It's enough to keep you healthy, sure. Tia McCarthy got all of her nutrients through a tube in her stomach up until the age of ten.

maybe it would be more sensible to split it in 3 portions per day and drink it with bread or sth. but maybe we are not that far from replacing food with that stuff. his research seems kind of primitive for this purpose..chances are that other labs have taken it to a whole new level.

The supposed purpose of Soylent isn't to replace food altogether, but rather to eliminate the necessity. Being cheap to manufacture and easy to store/transport means that people living in really shitty conditions where they have virtually no money can still afford to survive.

But from what I've read, apparently it's damn near impossible to stay on this stuff for more than a couple weeks without starting to go insane. There's supposedly an innate human need to chew and crunch things, without which people get antsy (the scientific backings of this I haven't found anywhere, only from testimonies of people who work in hospitals). Take a look at how many major food manufacturers advertise products as "crunchy" as a major selling point. Besides, how long can anyone eat cake batter before you need to change it up with a head of lettuce or a handful of almonds?

[Kalinoche buenanoche]

YEAH BUT BUT

[Absurd]

Knew all the time that Si polrs drink solvent.