Concerned about the sugar contents in 100%FOOD


Hello @Spaceman,

I want to ask about the sugar contents in 100%FOOD

2000cal 100%FOOD Organic contains 42g of sugar per bottle and the chocolate one contains 45g.

If we assume you’re supposed to have 3 bottles per day, that’d be 126g of sugar per day.

According to the WHO, the “Sugars should be less than 10% of total energy intake per day. It further suggests that a reduction to below 5% of total energy intake per day would have additional benefits. Five per cent of total energy intake is equivalent to around 25 grams (around 6 teaspoons) of sugar per day for an adult of normal Body Mass Index (BMI)”.

100%FOOD is almost 3 times the recommended intake of sugar.

How can this be healthy?



The picture regarding sugar is more complex than you might believe. The WHO guidelines mainly apply to extra sugar that is added. It places no restrictions on sugars that occur naturally in grains, fruits and vegetables. Packaging, however, is required to list the entire chemical content of sugar. So, for instance, cereal with fruit comes off as high sugar though the fruit doesn’t necessarily count (unless it is processed in a way to increase sugar content). Similarly some of the sugar comes from the whole grain.

To quote from the article you are citing, this is the definition of sugar:

The suggested limits on intake of sugars in the draft guideline apply to all monosaccharides (such as glucose, fructose) and disaccharides (such as sucrose or table sugar) that are added to food by the manufacturer, the cook or the consumer, as well as sugars that are naturally present in honey, syrups, fruit juices and fruit concentrates.

There are moves that suggest that the package labelling should be brought into line with the WHO definition. Otherwise, you are blowing your sugar quota if you have a couple of apples in your lunch box.



Does 100% food claim to be healthy or just nutritionally complete? One is not a synonym of the other.


Thanks, that makes sense. I had a look at what soylent uses, and see that 100% food uses 2.86x as much sugar per day serving. Can this be healthy?


From what I understand, 100% Food has undergone none of the rigorous standards, testing, or iterations that Soylent has gone through, Why are you trusting the singular experimentation of one person over the rigorous scientific testing and iterations of Soylent?


I don’t see anyone trusting a single experimentation. If you mean my post, I wasn’t defending 100%, just saying that I had tried it. And I was clarifying the difference between the WHO recommendations on sugar and the regulations for package labelling which they are required to fulfill. As you can see from the discussions regarding sugar content of 1.4 there is a bit of a disconnect.

But I’m curious about the rigorous testing that Soylent has undergone. I’ve been told that it’s gone through this testing. So far, though, nobody has actually been able to point to a publication or even a posted methodology and results of this testing. Until then, it’s just a nutritionist with a respectable CV.

And I’m a Soylent customer on pause until the next version.



Thank you @EveB for help with explanation.

We have no studies as Soylent does, but we have a feedback from our customers, that shows that sugar as a part of the complex carb (simple + medlium + long) behaves absolutely different, rather being alone (like in Cola). For instance some our regular customers with diabetes report that they have no insulin spikes in the blood. I guess, we need to wrap this feedback into blog post like this one: 16 Weeks of 100%FOOD Low Carb Results.

Regarding being healthy - we use natural ingredients (our beloved seeds) and make them nutritionally complete.

By the way, @EveB - if you paused 1.4 - what do you eat now?


Actually I have a couple of boxes of 1.3 which I alternate with Axcho’s Schmilk. And regular food.

I have been looking at your low-carb bottles though. We’ll see.