Glycemic Index/Load of 2.0

The FAQ Glycemic Data page has been updated to now include 2.0. Those unhappy with the glycemic index/load of 1.5 should be happier with the new numbers.

Soylent 1.5 Glycemic Index: 65

Soylent 1.5 Glycemic Load: 35

Soylent 2.0 Glycemic Index: 49

Soylent 2.0 Glycemic Load: 16.7

Presumably, future powder versions will be closer to those levels as well.


I don’t normally complain about the company but as far as announcements go, they tend to leave out a lot of relevant info. GI for one, but also the fact that 2.0 was a standalone product and not a continuation of 1.5. And the ingredient list. And rudimentary price comparisons.

Maybe it’s a frivolous complaint, something I usually laugh off myself on the forum, but I can’t be the only one a little annoyed having to go on a scavenger hunt with every new product/release.


It did seem a little spread out, but at least it is all available.


I can’t be the only one a little annoyed having to go on a scavenger hunt with every new product/release.

Totally agree, I wish they’d link all the relevant pages together. I still have no idea where the ingredient list actually comes from on the Soylent website, I’ve only seen it because people have linked to it here in the forums.


I haven’t seen the full ingredient Excel file yet, like for past versions, but the nutrition facts and release notes are posted in the nutrition info for drink section on the front page and the drink specific page.

1 Like

The implied comparison—by the way it’s listed on the FAQ—is a bit disingenuous; Soylent 2.0 has a smaller serving size: 400 kcal vs 500 kcal for 1.5. That partially accounts for the much lower glycemic load.

A truer comparison would be looking at amounts of equal calories. So a 500 kcal serving of 2.0 has a serving-adjusted load of 20.7*

The rest of the difference is probably due to increased macro percentages of protein and fat in 2.0:

  • 20% protein (from 15%)
  • 47% fat ( !!!..yeah, it’s almost half fat now)

If you added a tablespoon of olive oilª and a scoop of protein to a coke, you mightn’t end up far off from these new GI and GL numbers.

*Per 500 kcal serving of 2.0: ( 46g carbohydrate - 3.75g fiber ) * glycemic index of 49 = 20.7
ÂŞ One tablespoon of oil is the equivalent amount in a 2.0 bottle


GL is just a formula: it could only mislead someone who doesn’t know what GL means. Rosa Labs should more explicitly define GL on the page; it seems silly not to.

I actually get 20.9 (16.728*1.25, or (46.25-3.75)*49.2/100 if you want to be fancy), but a GL of 20.9 is still much smaller than 35. I don’t know how common it will be for someone to consistently drink one bottle, then immediately open and drink 1/4 of another bottle in order to hit 500 calories per meal. Probably not common enough to make note of on the FAQ page.

That might be true (I’m not doing the math). Are you implying that Soylent is as bad as coke + oil + protein? If not, I’m confused as to what the comparison was made to illustrate.

You can adjust any food’s GL by adjusting portion size and adding other foods to it: what does that tell us about the original food?

Did you know you could prepare/consume the powdered version in 400 calorie meals too? I hope this means they’ll switch the 1.6 powder to 400 calories meals to make the GL comparison valid. Comparing 400 calorie GL to 500 calorie GL is deceitful.


I’d also like the 400kcal serving size. I mean on the label, obviously you can’t enforce that.

More meals in smaller portions over the day keep the metabolism active.

Ha… Does that mean they need to produce yet a 3rd scoop size?

1 Like

That’s my point. Practically no one knows how glycemic load is calculated. And the way RA lists the two, with differing but un-noted calories per serving, means practically no one will understand the numbers aren’t comparable.

In terms of glycemic index and load, perhaps. (Or, Soylent is as good as coke + oil + protein. I don’t think there’s enough evidence that GL or GI means all that much.)

The point was there’s a hell of a lot of fat in Soylent 2.0. And that amount can potentially account for much, or all, of the GI reduction…to the extent that even a recognized high-sugar drink like soda will be “positively” affected by it.

For what it’s worth, I believe that’s and older idea that’s now largely understood to be false, or at least there’s research suggesting so. I don’t have any sources to cite, though.

If anything, daily 10-16 hour fasts–sundown to lunch, for example–are “better” for insulin sensitivity, blood sugar, and possibly metabolism.


I was completely wrong. Damn…

I’ve never fasted but it sounds miserable :confused: I might try it someday, I know @MentalNomad does it to try to activate stem cell activity (right?)


You might be surprised how easy it can be to do moderate intermittent fasting, like sundown to lunch. Some days I barely notice I’ve not eaten and have to remind myself to eat lunch.

Regardless of the metabolism and other potential benefits, I find simply skipping breakfast several days a week helps with weight control. I don’t seem to eat much more than I normally would later in those days, making for a net reduction in daily calories. And I’ve seen studies that have those same conclusions. But then some days I just have to eat and I don’t figt it.


Among other things, yeah. Your body (and you) do get used to it. I have a rough patch in the first day, sometime between lunch and dinner, but after that I’ve adapted and otherwise I’m fine until the second night. Second night, it’s generally hard to fall asleep and I wake easily and often. Third day I’m not really hungry, but I start fixating on thoughts of food. Third night, sleeping is very difficult. I’ve taken to breaking fast with a small meal on third night at 72 hours because two nights of bad sleep are killer; I’m just not recovering from anything with no food or sleep.


Can you write a blog or something detailing the studied benefits of 1-day to 3-day fasting, and your experience doing 3-day monthlies? I do 24-hour fasts effortlessly, so I want you to convince me I should :smile:

I still don’t understand why someone would be interested in glycemic load if they have no idea what it means. I could imagine someone’s doctor telling them to keep their daily GL under a particular number (which implies that calories matter) or to “look for low-GI foods” to eat. In that scenario, I would have immediately asked my doctor to explain GI/GL if he didn’t (why wouldn’t he?), and if that wasn’t possible for some reason I imagine I would Google it before driving home.

If I wasn’t told by my doctor to keep my GL under X or eat low-GI foods, presumably I’ve made that decision for myself, which means I already know what GI/GL mean.

And the numbers are comparable, if you know what GL represents. Maybe that’s the true misunderstanding? (To be clear: GL is always dependent on serving size, by definition.)

Well, yes. I must be daft because I still don’t see the consequence of your observation, though. It sounds silly, like, imagine we’re comparing a hamburger to a cheeseburger and someone says “the additional fats and protein in that cheeseburger can be totally explained by the slice of cheese.” I can nod and agree, but it seems like stating an obvious fact to no further end.

Through the lens of GI/GL, you can adjust any food to any number by adding other foods with higher or lower numbers and adjusting portion size, etc. That doesn’t say anything about the food’s nutrition because GI/GL don’t either; that’s not their purpose.

So, taking a step back: Soylent 2.0 has a lower GI/GL because of the normal reasons that foods have a lower GI/GL. …And? Maybe I’m lacking imagination here.


20 characters

Glad to see they are focusing on improvements to GI.

1 Like