If I work out some days and need extra calories and therefore decide to consume an extra 1/4 bag of Soylent in one day (i.e. 2200 calories) - am I in danger of ingesting too many of certain micronutrients, since one bag has 100% of recommended nutrients for only 1 day? What about if I consume 1.5 bags in one day?
For one day, I think you could get away with practically anything, but since you don’t need more micronutrients, I think you’d be better off adding protein or something else.
I am under the impression that unless you are reaching abnormally high macronutrient intakes, your micronutrients actually should increase alongside them.
I have seen no evidence that micronutrient needs scale with macronutrients. They change with gender and age not activity level or calorie intake.
Ok, then let me put it the other way - if you’re not hungry enough to eat a complete bag of soylent in one day, won’t you be lacking certain micronutrients (assuming you’re eating exclusively soylent)?
I.e., the idea of Soylent seems to work perfectly only if you’re at almost exactly a 2000 cal diet.
You don’t need exactly 100%. The micros are really a target range.
For that day yes. Thankfully the human body is resilient enough to handle that.
you’re not telling us anything we don’t already know.
Short term it would be fine. Many of the micros you could get many times the current amount without any adverse effects… Some of them, not so much. You wont die from eating 2 bags of Soylent, but odds are you may end up feeling uncomfortable
@horsfield - I’m not trolling here, just trying to figure out whether Soylent is a good product for me.
@Tordenskjold - are you sure about that? Is it definitely safe to eat 125% of a day’s supply of soylent on a regular basis?
The point of Soylent seems to be making it easier to get proper nutrition, but if you end up eating food alongside your Soylent (either because you’re still hungry, or because you feel like eating real food) or eating extra Soylent, it seems complicated to me to sort out whether you’re overdoing/getting enough nutrients. You start having to calculate things and then it becomes complicated.
I guess as a single meal substitute it’s a good solution because there’s no danger of overdoing nutrients through it, but is it a good solution as your primary diet? It’s possible that I’m overreacting, and that the RDI supplied by Soylent is well below the tolerable upper limit so that if you ate 120% soylent in a single day or 75% soylent and a regular meal in one day you’d still be completely safe in terms of hypervitaminosis, but I just don’t know. Wish I did.
Would be glad to receive assistance from the company in terms of how to use their product safely.
Why is this not an issue with muggle food? If a very active person simply increased their helpings of the same food a less active person eats, it seems the same issue would present itself.
I suppose one possibility is that the body may change what it is hungry for based on what it needs nutritionally. If so, then perhaps a person isn’t likely to simply increase the helpings across the board.
We stand behind the product but if you have concerns about increased nutrient intake it’s best to consult your doctor.
Sorry for being curt with you. We do get a fair number of people on here who like to point out the obvious as if it is some sort of fatal flaw, both figuratively and literally.
Soylent, like all packaged foods, uses the Daily Value (DV) standard for determining its completeness. It is true that a number of micronutrients have an Upper Limit (UL).
tolerable upper intake level. Established by the Food and Nutrition Board of the US Institute of Medicine, the UL is the highest level of daily intake of a specific nutrient likely to pose no risk of adverse health effects in almost all individuals of a specified age.
Note that the UL doesn’t mean that going beyond that amount is necessarily toxic it just means you start seeing symptoms of adverse affects.
Vitamin A (10,000 IU)
Vitamin C (2,000 mg)
Vitamin D (4,000 IU)
Vitamin E (1,500 IU)
Niacin (35 mg)
Vitamin B6 (100 mg)
Folate (1,000 mcg)
Choline (3,500 mg)
Calcium (2,500 mg)
Chloride (3.6 g)
Copper (10,000 mcg)
Iodine (1,100 mcg)
Iron (45 mg)
Magnesium (350 mg)
Manganese (11 mg)
Molybdenum (2,000 mcg)
Phosphorus (4,000 mg)
Selenium (400 mcg)
Sodium (2.3 g)
Zinc (40 mg)
If such things were a hazard, I think most multi-vitamins would be looked at very very differently.
@Uueerdo brings up a good point. People, my pre-soylent self included, take a multivitamin in addition to eating a normal day’s worth of food. I have yet to hear of anyone suffering from vitamin poisoning as a result.
You may want to think again.
I especially draw your attention to the following excerpt from the abstract: “Osteoporosis and hip fracture are associated with preformed vitamin A intakes that are only twice the current RDA.”
A daily dose of Soylent 1.5 contains 5500 IU of vitamin A. It is retinyl palmitate, which is preformed. The RDA for preformed vitamin A is 3000 IU. According to my calculations, you will ingest twice the RDA of preformed vitamin A with only 1.1 bags of Soylent 1.5. On the other hand, Conor states above that “we stand behind the product”. I’m not sure what that’s supposed to mean. Insufficient data at this time.
What is slightly annoying about your extremely good point is the RA, which is the standard all packaged foods with a nutrition label are held to by law, says we need 5000IU of vitamin A. It seems like the FDA needs to adjust the standard.
I’d say it’s still a huge improvement over normal food. Most people either follow a fad diet or eat whatever they want whenever they feel like. It’s really hard to get nutrition right; Soylent makes it easy.
The FDA standard is 5000 IU per day on a 2000 calorie diet. Also, from your article:
Acute toxicity, which occurs when adults and children ingest > 100× and > 20× the RDA, respectively, for vitamin A over a period of hours or a few days (2), is less of a problem than is chronic toxicity from preformed vitamin A. Chronic toxicity results from the ingestion of high amounts of preformed vitamin A for months or years. Daily intakes of > 25,000 IU for > 6 y and > 100,000 IU for > 6 mo are considered toxic, but there is wide interindividual variability for the lowest intake required to elicit toxicity (19, 20, 42). Children are particularly sensitive to vitamin A, with daily intakes of 1500 IU/kg body wt reportedly leading to toxicity (19, 20, 43).
[emphasis mine, and I added a missing comma]
5500 IU per day doesn’t seem so bad. Further references provided in the article you link seem to agree:
Consumption of 25 000-50 000 IU/d for periods of several months or more can produce multiple adverse effects. The lowest reported intakes causing toxicity have occurred in persons with liver function compromised by drugs, viral hepatitis, or protein-energy malnutrition.
[emphasis mine; reformatted slightly]
I didn’t feel the need to dig deeper than that. Many of these articles talk about vitamin A adequacy and toxicity being dependent on body weight, in contrast to earlier claims in this thread. For instance (from that same article):
Children and infants. Children can be intoxicated by total daily intakes of vitamin A lower than those necessary to cause adverse effects in adults. Part if not all of this difference seems to be due to the smaller body size of children. There is little or no scientific information available on age-related differences in sensitivity to elevated tissue concentrations of vitamin A. In terms of total intake per day per person, children are more susceptible than adults to vitamin A toxicity (Table 7 and Table 8).
[emphasis mine; reformatted]
There are better examples, but I’ve more than satisfied my curiosity at this point.
You’re absolutely right! Osteoporosis and hip fractures are a small price to pay for the privilege of drinking Soylent.
The findings in these 4 studies contradicted other studies (106, 109, 110) reviewed by Myhre et al (27), which did not link vitamin A intake to a risk of osteoporosis.
Doesn’t look so cut and dried.